Bible Versions: What is the Best Bible Translation? by David Malcolm Bennett
For example, the Good News Bible (GNB) or, better, the Contemporary English Version (CEV) may be the best translation for those whose English is poor or whose understanding is limited, perhaps people with English as a second language or the poorly educated. In fact, the GNB was originally intended for those who had English as a second language. But for those with a better command of English and who have been fortunate to have had a reasonable education there are better options than the GNB and the CEV. These include the NIV, the English Standard Version (ESV) and the RSV.
The main criteria for determining the “best” or even a “good” version are the accuracy of translation and the readability and understandability of the final form. A translation must be accurate, but this does not mean it must be literal. A highly literal translation of any passage can quite easily miss the real meaning. The “best” translation also needs to be easily read and understood by the people it is intended for.
The New International Version
My favorite is the NIV. It has been my main translation for about thirty years. This version has been translated by a team of evangelical scholars from a host of different denominations, including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Church of Christ, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian. This cooperative effort goes a long way to eliminating doctrinal bias. These scholars also come from different English-speaking countries, such as America, Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand.
When it comes to considering translations of specific verses in the NIV, my favorite is 2 Tim. 3:16. It begins: “All scripture is God-breathed”. “God-breathed!” That is a literal translation of the Greek. Strict literal translations don’t usually work. They often sound rigid and unnatural. However, this one works beautifully and expresses the meaning perfectly. Most other translations of this verse use the word “inspired”, which is fair enough, but it leaves open the question what do you mean by “inspired”? A piece of music can be inspired. A sporting idol might be inspired when they play a brilliant game. But that word in this context means more than that. While a dictation concept of the writing of Scripture is flawed, in breathing out the Scriptures through His human messengers God has still given us His word in a form that is totally trustworthy and dependable. It is, indeed, God-breathed, and for that matter, a breath of fresh air.
Another of my specific favorites is Is. 26:12. The second part of which reads, “all that we have accomplished you have done for us.” Did you get that? “All that we have accomplished you have done for us.” I remember reading through Isaiah in my morning devotions one day many years ago and this verse struck me like a lightning bolt.
All that I do in the service of God I can only do because His Spirit works in me. It is an echo, if one can put it that way, of Phil. 2:12-13, which reads, “work out your salvation in fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.” In other words, “all that we have accomplished” in God’s service His Spirit has “done for us” and in us.
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.