Bible Versions: What is the Best Bible Translation? by David Malcolm Bennett
As part of my journey I also worked in the Bible Society Bookshop in Brisbane, Australia, for over twelve years. This exposed me to a host of different Bible translations and a wonderful variety of customers with all sorts of views on the subject.
The King James-Only Debate
Many people brought up on the KJV have been happy to let it go, as I did. That does not necessarily mean that any of them respect it less. The primarily reason for letting the KJV go is that language has changed so dramatically in the past four hundred years that in many places it is very hard to understand and, worse, easy to misunderstand. Many of us have therefore adopted more recent translations, written in modern English.
Different Methods of Translation
As necessary background to the various versions, we first need to examine the different methods of translation. There are two main approaches to translating the Bible: “formal equivalence” and “dynamic equivalence”, though these are not generally used exclusively. In its most extreme form the formal method translates very literally, attempting to translate each word accurately. The dynamic method does pay attention to the individual words but is more interested in the question what is this sentence or passage saying? It is more concerned with the translation of a whole portion, than it is about individual words. This means that the formal approach tends to give a generally literal, sometimes rather wooden, translation, while the dynamic method results in a less literal, though livelier version.
In reality no major English translation is totally formal or literal in its approach. Much of it would be unreadable if it was. Probably the New American Standard (NASB) is the most literal of the popular versions. Nor are any genuine translations totally dynamic. The Good News Bible (GNB) and the Contemporary English Version (CEV) are the best examples of the dynamic approach. Paraphrases such as the Living Bible and The Message are more extremely dynamic, and, frankly, are only to be used with great caution.
Translators generally use a mixture of the formal and dynamic methods. They note the specific words and try to understand them individually, but words appear in sentences, in contexts, and must be understood by the words, sentences and ideas that surround them. Sometimes a literal approach does not translate into good English, so a more dynamic approach is called for. Some translators lean towards one method, while others lean towards the other. Translators may favor the method that they consider best for a particular verse or passage.2
What is the Best Bible Translation?
Is there a “Best Bible Translation” in English? Well, yes, I am sure there is, but I suspect that the only one who knows its identity is God Himself. Fortunately, there are a number of quality English translations, for which we should be grateful. One of these may be best for one person, while a different version may be better for someone else.
First off, I would like to praise this author for giving such a balanced view of the majority of Bible translations. It is refreshing to see someone come at it from a fairly neutral angle.
However, I also have to voice some disappointment with it. First off, among the Translation and Interpreting Studies community (and amongst professionals), it is very rare to speak of any kinds of "equivalence". In fact, while Nida's work is foundational to most modern Western thought on translation, no analyst in a research or even professional settings would start looking for "dynamic" or "formal equivalence", mostly for the reasons the author gives. (I would like to congratulate the author on their handling of these terms). They simply do not make any scientific sense as terms. Language is much more complicated than can be covered by these terms – a point I go into in detail in my earlier Pneuma Review article here: https://www.academia.edu/1317676/Using_the_Right_Bible_Translation. (I would welcome it being republished alongside its companion piece.)
For this reason, even the term "paraphrase" is out of place, since, by definition, all translations are paraphrases. I therefore have to disagree with calling The Message a "paraphrase" that "must be used with caution". Actually, to a large extent the way Eugene Peterson describes his approach to translation is much closer to the way that most trained professionals would handle their work – deciding on strategies and choices based on translation purpose and intended audience. In this light, The Message has more right to the title of a "translation" than say, the NKJV, since the latter was a review of the KJV where the reviewers do not explicitly mention going back to the original manuscripts. The Living Bible is a very different case altogether.
In sum, therefore, this is a very good article but one with a few technical flaws. Please send my congratulations to the author. I would also suggest that he would find Exploring Translation Theories by Anthony Pym and Translation as a Purposeful Activity by Christiane Nord. I am sure they will aid his reflection on Bible translation even more.
First off, I would like to praise this author for giving such a balanced view of the majority of Bible translations. It is refreshing to see someone come at it from a fairly neutral angle.
However, I also have to voice some disappointment with it. First off, among the Translation and Interpreting Studies community (and amongst professionals), it is very rare to speak of any kinds of “equivalence”. In fact, while Nida’s work is foundational to most modern Western thought on translation, no analyst in a research or even professional settings would start looking for “dynamic” or “formal equivalence”, mostly for the reasons the author gives. (I would like to congratulate the author on their handling of these terms). They simply do not make any scientific sense as terms. Language is much more complicated than can be covered by these terms – a point I go into in detail in my earlier Pneuma Review article here: https://www.academia.edu/1317676/Using_the_Right_Bible_Translation. (I would welcome it being republished alongside its companion piece.)
For this reason, even the term “paraphrase” is out of place, since, by definition, all translations are paraphrases. I therefore have to disagree with calling The Message a “paraphrase” that “must be used with caution”. Actually, to a large extent the way Eugene Peterson describes his approach to translation is much closer to the way that most trained professionals would handle their work – deciding on strategies and choices based on translation purpose and intended audience. In this light, The Message has more right to the title of a “translation” than say, the NKJV, since the latter was a review of the KJV where the reviewers do not explicitly mention going back to the original manuscripts. The Living Bible is a very different case altogether.
In sum, therefore, this is a very good article but one with a few technical flaws. Please send my congratulations to the author. I would also suggest that he would find Exploring Translation Theories by Anthony Pym and Translation as a Purposeful Activity by Christiane Nord. I am sure they will aid his reflection on Bible translation even more.