Bible translations

God has given us his written word in Hebrew and Greek (plus a little bit of Aramaic in the book of Daniel). 

In order for God's word to be accessible to those who speak other languages, since Biblical times God's word has been translated into other languages. 

At the time of Nehemiah, the Levites "gave the meaning" of the Scriptures. This would probably have involved oral translation (interpreting) into the Aramaic language people used for everyday speech. Jesus himself, when quoted in the gospels, spoke Aramaic and quotes the Scripture in that language. Likewise, on the day of Pentecost, the Holy Spirit came upon the believers and enabled them to declare the wonders of God in the languages of those present. 

There is also a longstanding history of written translation (as opposed to oral translation). The best-known translation of the Old Testament is called the Septuagint, a translation into Greek commissioned by Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285–247 BCE). There were also what are called "Targums", translations into the Aramaic language (see above).

As for the New Testament, written in the widely spoken Greek language, this was first translated into Latin, Coptic and Syriac. In the 300s and 400s, other languages were added: Gothic, Ethiopic, Armenian and Georgian. In the case of these languages, the order of service for public worship was also translated, making the languages in question "liturgical languages". Somewhat later, Arabic and Slavonic were added to the list of languages with written Bible translations and translated liturgy. In the case of other languages, Greek was retained, or translation limited to oral interpreting during the course of the service. 

In the western church (the church west of a line running through Europe from Belarus to Albania), Latin was the sole permitted language for services and Bible translation. In the Holy Roman Empire, a ruling dating to 813 allowed for preaching in rusticam romanam linguam (what became French) or Theodiscam (German). Likewise, in the British isles, preaching would have been in the "vernacular". Written translation of the Bible into English was a relatively late development. As for written translation, in the Middle Ages, there were early translations of the Bible, dating back to the 600s, into older versions of English. In the 1300s, John Wycliffe translated the New Testament into English, and his followers later completed the entire Bible. This was forbidden by the Roman Catholic Church at the time. 

At the time of the Reformation, translation of the Bible into the language of the people was a bone of contention. William Tyndale famously produced a translation of the Bible into English, and was captured and burnt at the stake. His translation relied on the earlier translation by Wycliffe. Other English versions included: the Coverdale's Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1537), Taverner's Bible (1539), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), the Bishops' Bible (1568) and a Roman Catholic translation called the Douai-Rheims version (completed 1610). In the early 1600s, King James I of England commissioned his famous translation, completed in 1611.

Since 1611, a huge number of English translations have been undertaken. Some of these represent revisions of the King James Bible (AV or KJV). The text currently used for the KJV is actually the updated version of 1769 by Blayney. 

 

The current range of Bible translations includes the following: New International Version (NIV), New King James Version (NKJV), English Standard Version (ESV), New American Standard Bible (NASB), Christian Standard Bible (CSB), NET Bible (NET) and many others. 

Here are some things to consider in respect of Bible translations. In view of the current controversy over the King James Version (KJV), I will be making frequent reference to the KJV, as a point of comparison. 

1. The manuscript base

When the King James version was translated, the translation was based on the limited number of ancient manuscripts available at the time. This is known as the Textus Receptus, and boils down to 8 (eight) or so manuscripts, belonging to the Byzantine text family, all dating from the 1000s or later, and used by Erasmus to compile his Greek New Testament in 1516. Since 1881, more recent translations, such as the ESV or NIV, have been based on a far larger number of manuscripts (currently numbering 5700), including many far older than the ones available to Erasmus. For example, the Codex Sinaiticus, a complete manuscript of the whole New Testament, dating to the 300s, was only available to scholars from the late 1800s onwards. Likewise, the oldest fragment of the New Testament, Papyrus P52, dating to 125 AD, on display at Rylands Library in Manchester, was only discovered in 1920. This and thousands of other manuscripts were not available to the translators of the King James Bible. 

The differences between the KJV and other translations (e.g. words or verses included in the KJV, but omitted in other translations) are for this reason, not because of a desire to "cut out" important doctrines. Older manuscripts often demonstrate that phrases were added in by copyists at a later stage. For example, as they copied manuscripts, they harmonised verses such as Ephesians 1:7 and Colossians 1:14, whereas those verses appear slightly differently in older manuscripts. Another case is 1 John 5:7-8, where the KJV adds some words not included in more recent translations. The words in question, known as the Johannine comma, are absent from all Greek manuscripts dating to before the 1100s, and only appear in versions of the Latin Bible from the year 800 onwards. It seems clear that they do not belong in the original text of the New Testament. 

Surely, the authority of manuscripts in the original language dating to the 100s and 200s should outweigh the authority of a translation into English (the KJV) undertaken in the 1600s.

2. The philosophy of translation 

One of the dimensions of a philosophy of translation is around two basic approaches: literal translation versus "dynamic equivalence". Obviously, since we are dealing with the word of God, it is good to be as close as possible to the original, and in many cases the King James Bible does that. However, in some cases, a literal translation can obscure the meaning. For legitimate reasons, the King James Bible itself does not follow the original Greek in a wooden fashion, for example, the phrase "and it came to pass", frequently used in Old Testament, is a paraphrase which is more understandable to English speakers than "and it was" or "and it became".  

And there are other aspects to the philosophy of translation. In one sense, the King James Bible dealt with inaccuracies or poor renderings in earlier translations. However, it is also a well known fact that King James I, who persecuted non-Church of England Christians, insisted that "his" translation support the existence of "bishops" in the church, despite the fact that "bishop" and "elder" mean the same thing in the New Testament. Likewise, King James preferred translating ekklesia as "church", rather than "congregation"; the latter translation lined up more with the independent churches emerging at the time.

3. Contemporary English

The 1611 King James version of the Bible uses the language of its time. Since then, the English language has changed. For example, we no longer use "thees" and "thous", and many words, such as "conversation" have changed meaning: it used to mean "way of life" and now means "talking with people". It makes sense to use a translation which sounds like normal English, and isn't difficult to understand for that reason. 

At the end of the day, with some exceptions (such as The Message, which is a paraphrase rather than a translation), most if not all of the translations available today are accurate, and any variations in translation are not significant. A good idea is to have multiple translations available, if possible in different languages. In any case, the authoritative text is the original Hebrew and Greek. 

It is entirely legitimate to have a fondness for the King James Version, or indeed another version of the Bible we enjoy, however this should not spill over into considering it the only legitimate translation or overstating its merits. It should certainly not become a reason for breaking fellowship. 

Further reading

Carson, D A. The King James Version Debate. Baker Book House Co (1979)