English translations

The first known whole translation of the Bible made in English was the Wycliffe Bible, which was made in the 1380s. John Wycliffe’s idea was that everyone should study the book. He was convinced that it was biblical to translate the Bible into a language the people know, because Jesus and the disciples also used a language people knew.

Since Wycliffe’s Bible, there have been a great number of versions published in English in several English-speaking countries by various denominations.³⁸

King James Version (KJV)

The main reason for choosing this translation for my research is that it is a fairly formal one, and it is still in use in many churches around the world. Another reason to choose this version is that it is an influential one in the English-speaking world, which makes it necessary to choose it for this research.

There were two opposing parties in the Church of England in the early 1600s:

Puritans, who wanted to see reforms in the church, and Conformists, who were happy with the present situation. At the same time, there was also a need for a new Bible translation. There were several versions in use at that time, but none of them was an official translation of the Church.³⁹

The new version of the Bible was a kind of side product of a settlement between two opposing groups inside the church. There was no direct acceptance of the translation process due to the fear of the Conformists that Puritans could use the new Bible version to promote their cause. In the end, it took a generation to be accepted by everyone.

It has had an enormous influence on the English language and Bible translation ever since.⁴⁰

The translation process was started by King James I, who also gave instructions for the translators, who were leading Bible scholars, theologians, and orientalists at that time. The aim was that it should not be a new translation but rather a revision of older versions. The names of biblical authors and characters, the division into chapters, and familiar terms used in older translations, such as the word ‘church’, should remain the same. The king was also concerned about the process of translation.

The work should be overseen by senior scholars who were not taking part in the actual translation.⁴¹ There are several versions of KJV available; I use the standard version that was published in 1796 in this research.

New International Version (NIV)

The reason for choosing this translation is that it is a middle-version, that is to say, the theory of dynamic equivalence is used in a moderate way. The first version of the NT was published in 1973, and after that there were some suggestions for revisions,

38 Marlowe 1996.

39 D. Wilson 2011, 37; Goodman 2013, 76.

40 D. Wilson 2011, 41.

41 Goodman 2013, 76‒78.

and the next version was published in 1978. The whole Bible was published at the same time. This version was further revised in 1984, and then the latest version was published in 2011.⁴² Various evangelical churches took part in the translation work of NIV. The committee defined its aim this way:

The purpose of the committee shall be to prepare a contemporary English translation of the Bible as a collegiate endeavour of evangelical scholars.⁴³

The translation committee stated three goals for the translation: 1) It should be accurate; 2) It should have clarity and literary quality and so be suitable for public and private reading, teaching and preaching, memorising, and liturgical use; 3) It should also continue the long tradition of translating Scriptures into English at least in some measure.⁴⁴

It was also stated by the committee that the language of the translation should be idiomatic but not idiosyncratic, and it should be natural and clear, as well. The translators also attempted to reflect the different styles of biblical writers. They tried to avoid Americanisms and Anglicisms, since the version should be international.⁴⁵ They followed this principle, and that is why it does not contain old and traditional pronouns such as ‘thou’ and ‘thee’, or old verb forms such as ‘doest’ or ‘wouldest’.

This was because Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts do not use specific pronouns or verbs for God.⁴⁶

There has been some criticism directed towards NIV. Firstly, the theology of the translators has been criticised. According to Nicholas Thomas Wright, the Protestant theology of the translators is apparent from the translation. He gives examples from Romans and Galatians. According to him, the translators had a higher principle than dynamic equivalence, that is, they wanted to make sure that Paul should say what Protestant and evangelical tradition teaches. He states it even in stronger terms by saying that if the church uses only NIV, it will not understand what Paul was talking about.⁴⁷ Secondly, the translation principles have been criticized, or, as Marlowe puts it: Occasionally one finds a rendering that expresses the meaning better than the more literal versions do, but more often one finds that accuracy suffers for the sake of a contemporary and casual style. It is a very useful version for teaching novices, as a first exposure to the biblical text; but it is not to be relied upon for detailed study. Teachers are too often faced with the need to correct the version when commenting upon details of the text.⁴⁸

42 Marlowe 2011. http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.html. Accessed on 6. May 2014. In this research, I will use the revised version that was published in 2011, which is found on the Bible Study Tools website, so the NIV text that is in the examples is from the most recent version.

43 The Holy Bible, NIV 1992, 20; Marlowe 2011. http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.html. Accessed on 6.

May 2014.

44 The Holy Bible, NIV 1992, 20.

45 There are some differences between the American and British versions, mainly in spelling. (The Holy Bible, NIV 1992, 20.).

46 The Holy Bible, NIV 1992, 20‒21.

47 Marlowe 2011. http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.html. Accessed on 6. May 2014.

48 Marlowe 2011. http://www.bible-researcher.com/niv.html. Accessed on 6. May 2014.

Good News Translation (GNT)⁴⁹

My reasons for choosing this translation are that this is a thoroughly dynamic version, and it serves as a contrast to the fairly formal translations. The main translator and the chairman of the committee was Dr. Robert Bratcher. The version was made according to the following principles: Firstly, the aim was to make a common language translation that everyone could understand.⁵⁰ Secondly, the main theory behind it is dynamic equivalence. Thirdly, the Greek texts used as the source text should be the most ancient ones available. Fourthly, the exegesis and interpretation have a key role in making a translation. There are multiple ways to interpret a text, and that is why this version may differ from others. Fifthly, contextual consistency in the translation means that the precise meaning of a particular word is determined by the context in which it is used. According to Bratcher, it would be worse than folly to translate a given Greek word with the same word each time. Interestingly for this research, he gives an example of dikaiosu/nh, which means, according to him, a different matter for Matthew and Paul.⁵¹

GNT has been criticised for being too liberal in its translation method. One example of this is the translation of the Immanuel prophecy in Isa 7:14. Most translations have followed the LXX and translated the word alma as ‘virgin’, but GNT translates it as

‘young woman’. Another example is the translation of the expression ‘the blood of Christ’ as ‘death of Christ’. One reason for this is that, according to the critics, the version is based on poor exegesis, which has led to a misleading interpretation and translation of the original text.⁵²

In conclusion, it can be said that there is a great diversity of Bible translations in the English-speaking world, and these ones represent several theological backgrounds and translation theories. The dynamic equivalence theory is emphasised in this research, and that is why I will concentrate on the aforementioned translations. The influence of English Bible translations is wider than the versions in some other languages. They are not translated just for native English speakers, but they are sometimes used as one of the source texts in missional Bible translation work, when the translators do not know Greek and Hebrew.⁵³

49 This translation was previously called the Good News Bible and Today’s English Version. It is now called the Good News Translation.

50 This version has been used in Sunday Schools as the children’s Bible. Bratcher 1971; Marlowe 2012. http://

www.bible-researcher.com/dynamic-equivalence.html. Accessed on 6. May 2014.

51 Bratcher 1971; Marlowe 2012. http://www.bible-researcher.com/dynamic-equivalence.html. Accessed on 6. May 2014.

52 Marlowe 2001‒2012. http://www.bible-researcher.com/tev.html. Accessed on 6. May 2014.

53 Marlowe 2012. http://www.bible-researcher.com/dynamic-equivalence.html. Accessed on 6. May 2014.