Of The Making Of Many Bibles Will …. ?

Prof. G. van Groningen. Trowel & Sword. September 1974

Preamble: “Be warned, my son, of anything in addition to them. Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.” (Ecclesiastes 12:12). It has been said that one of the greatest inventions of the modern era is the printing press; although even that has now been surpassed by the digital age. Even so, it is hard for us to imagine that already 3000 years ago Solomon was lamenting the making of many books. In this article Prof V.G. has built on this theme by assessing the many versions of the Bible in existence in his time, 50 years ago; this in the light of the fact that the NIV was in the process of being the latest version to be published. It makes one wonder how many more versions have appeared since then. Why so many Bibles? Considering the Bible is still the No. 1 bestseller in the world today, we suspect that the making of much money may well be, in part at least, a motivator.

Of The Making Of Many Bibles Will… ?

The stack of Bibles before me on my desk is a high one. It could be even higher because the Hebrew Bible and the Greek Bible, (both Old and New Testament) are not included. Neither the latest Dutch Bible (De Nieuwe Vertaling). These are kept separate for specific usage. And let me add that the three cross reference Bibles (Thompson’s, Dickson’s and Monser’s) which are kept available as study aids, are not included either. Only a selected number of English translations of the Bible comprise the stack before me.

The venerated Authorised Version, The King James of 1611, is at the bottom. The English Revised Version and the American Revised Version, both having appeared at the turn of the past century to enable the readers of the first half of the twentieth century to read the Bible according to their own idiomatic style and choice, are on a nearby shelf, accessible for reference. On top of the Authorised version is the Revised Standard Version of the Bible which appeared in 1952. Then comes the Modern Language Bible, which is a revision (in part) of the Berkeley Bible. The original Berkeley appeared in 1959, the revision in 1969. The Jerusalem Bible is next; it was published as an English Bible in 1966. The New English Bible, the publication date of which is given as March 16, 1970 is next. The New American Standard Bible is next. And on top of the stack is the Holy Bible, New International Version, New Testament. The Old Testament of the N.I.V. will not be ready for publication for another three or four years.

Three of the professors of the Reformed Theological Seminary at which I work, are participating in the translation of the N.I.V., Old Testament. The question can quite legitimately be asked: Why do these professors spend time on this project, considering the fact that there is such a big stack of modern translations available already? A few words on the specific characteristics of each recent translation should place the above question in proper focus.

The Authorised Version based on the venerated ‘Textus Receptus’, (the Hebrew & Greek Bible of 1400) will not be replaced as the dearly loved Bible for many people. It need not be either, if readers prefer to read in the English style of 1611 and are not specifically concerned to have recently discovered factors (regarding ancient languages, literature, historical setting) aid them in their reading. However, the English and American Revisions appearing at the turn of the century indicate that there was a call for updating the translation of the Bible by previous generations.

The Revised Standard Version has not really met the need of the modern age. It is a revision of the Authorised Version; it is not a new translation. However, many changes have been included in the R.S.V. on the basis of what revisers found in the various manuscripts in the original languages. But the revisers worked with the dubious assumption that the Bible developed through various discernible stages. A few words on this problem will be included later in this article.

The Modern Language Bible has been hailed by some scholars as an outstanding achievement in evangelical Biblical scholarship. But many scholars have been critical. Added to this is the fact that this Bible has not been received with a great deal of general public enthusiasm. Among the assets of the “Berkeley”, one can mention its faithfulness to the original texts and its effort to employ the language of the average modern reader. The legitimate criticisms which are voiced include reference to its specific American (U.S.) terminology and the idiosyncrasies largely due to the original one-man effort on the New Testament, and the comparatively small team effort on the Old Testament as well as on the recent revision of the New Testament.

The Jerusalem Bible (J.B.) has been hailed as a scholars’ Bible. This is because of the extensive explanatory materials, both textual and theological, found in the notes. These notes present a definite problem for many readers because they were added, as the general editor states in the foreword, for the deepening of theological thought. He adds that these notes are not intended to be sectarian or superficial.  They are not superficial; but they do reflect the theological bias of the translators. The actual translation is intended to keep the readers “abreast of the times” so that what was “crystallised in antiquity” may be shown not to have been “fossilised” in time. The J.B. translation team, of Roman Catholic heritage, guided by French and Jerusalem scholarship, relying on English publication requirements, have not produced a translation which can be satisfactorily designated as international, interdenominational and of general public appeal.

The New English Bible is a strictly English production. It is also based on unwarranted textually critical assumptions. J.A. Sanders, concluded his comparison of the N.E.B. with the R.S.V. and J.B., in The Christian Century (March 18, ’70) by quoting Ps. 118:23 “This is the Lord’s doing, it is marvellous in our eyes; this is the day on which the Lord has acted: let us exult and rejoice in it.” He thus indicated his exuberance as well as his theological bias. The N.E.B. is said to expose the richness and the majesty of the English language. Very well! However, it also exposes the conjectures of critical scholarship much more than the R.S.V. does. At this point, it may be feasible to say a few words in explanation.

The translators of the N.E.B., the revisers of the R.S.V. by and large, and some authors of the notes in the J.B. reveal their critical conviction concerning the original texts. Let it be understood that these men seek to be men of integrity. However, they follow the assumptions of scholars who believe that the “Bible grew”, i.e., it developed through successive stages. The stages referred to are not those, e.g., of the Pentateuch, the pre-exilic prophets, the post exilic prophets, etc. Rather, they believe the actual text of the Bible was written, edited, rewritten and re-edited. J.A. Sanders points out that the translators of the N.E.B. believed that there are four or more, successive stages to be discerned in the transmission of the text. The last stages for the Old Testament are: 1) the Massoretic era, 1000 AD; the last stage;  2) the post Jerusalem era; after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, the text passed through its second to last stage;  3) the temple era of Jesus’ day represents the third to last stage, and  4) the Ezra to Maccabee period, 400-200 B.C., represents the fourth to the last stage. N.E.B. translators have tried to reflect what they believe to be the earlier stages, second or third to the last stage. Hence, e.g., a reader will find certain sections of the Bible in places other than the traditional place.

Back to the stack before me. The New American Standard Bible has been warmly received in various evangelical circles. It reflects a definite degree of scholarship. However, it does not communicate well.

In the interest of an exact translation of the Massoretic text, smoothness and beauty of expression were sacrificed. Some have referred to it quite correctly as the modern students’ proof text Bible and the “pony for the beginning Hebrew and Greek students”.

Some readers may wonder why The Living Bible is not included in the stack on my desk. The answer is threefold: 

1) The Living Bible is not really the Bible; it is a brief commentary on the Bible (the author readily acknowledges this by adding the term “paraphrased”).    

2) The author’s theological bias pervades throughout. Compare e.g., Acts 13:48; Rom. 8:28,29; 9:13; Eph. 2:1 as found in The Living Bible with that found in a reliable translation.

3) In the interest of simple language, many simplistic renditions are offered which do not convey the profundity of the truths revealed in God’s Word.

In view of the criticisms of the various recent translations, can one now expect the N.I.V., New International Version, to be acceptable? So far only the New Testament has been published.

It has been enthusiastically received. A few initial comments read as follows: “At last!  A worthy successor to the King James”, balanced scholarly, dedicated translation…  and “the breadth of evangelical scholarship is impressive. .”  “the sensitive word choices keep large truths from being watered down by over-simplicity.” It is fervently/ hoped and trusted that the Old Testament will be received in the same way. (see also Harry L. Hoving in earlier issues of T & S).

The editorial board and the translators of the N.I.V. have followed two specific patterns. The first pattern is in reference to the mechanics of translation. Briefly, the pattern followed is as follows: Step one: a portion is assigned to two translators who work together. Step two: the initial translation is sent to two consultants who, individually, provide suggested improvements in marginal notes. Step three: a committee of five (the Intermediate Editorial Committee), minutely, painstakingly reviews and revises the offered translation and notes. Step four: Another committee of five (The General Editorial Committee) reviews and revises the translation and marginal notes. Step five: the committee on Bible Translation, composed of 20 or more scholars, make a final review and prepare the text for publication. Literary stylists are on hand to advise all the committees working at steps three, four and five.

The second pattern is in reference to the actual work of translation. Three specific terms indicate what is expected of the translators. 1) integrity. 2) dignity, and 3) felicity. A few comments about each of these follows in reverse order as stated above.

Felicity refers especially to a combination of simplicity and beauty. Both of these are very necessary if one wishes to communicate effectively. One who has his readers in mind particularly, when translating, works to attain a high degree of felicity.

Dignity refers particularly to a combination of solemnity and profundity in a positive relationship with felicity. These aspects are very essential if a translator is to convey the reality of God speaking in the past and in the present. God’s voice must be heard, God’s character must be sensed, God’s intentions, will, desires must be discerned as one reads. The translators must so efface themselves that, in no manner whatsoever, a veil will be placed over God’s face.

Integrity has to do with faithfulness to the text and the honesty of the scholar-translator. The translator may not work, not even try or suppose he can, contrary to his convictions, his faith, his love for God and His Word. The translator may not deal with the text, the original Hebrew and Greek, other than what he believes to be true about that text. All the N.I.V. translation staff members have expressed their faith in and love for God according to what is known as the historic, evangelic Biblical confession. This confession includes the belief that the Bible books were written by men who were inspired by the Spirit of God. It also includes the belief that these books have been preserved, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, in such a manner that the original message, as given by God to the original authors, is at hand in the Hebrew and Greek texts.

Evangelical scholars firmly believe that it is not permissible to consider, or to deal with, the original text in the manner of the critical scholars referred to above. Rather, they have sought out the earliest reliable texts which are considered to be faithful copies of the original.

It is with a great deal of pleasure that the translators of the N.I.V.N.T. can read in the enthusiastic reviews such comments as these, “…. the latest in textual sources have been used,. . .’ and “fresh translation from the early Greek texts”. Discerning readers sense the facts of the matter.

It is the earnest desire and the fond hope of many that the N.I.V. will include all the combined assets of the Bibles stacked on my desk but avoid their weaknesses and errors.

GEORGE VAN GRONINGEN

We look forward to receiving feedback about any of our posts. We also encourage you to share our posts with family, friends and acquaintances; in fact anyone you think may appreciate and/or benefit from the knowledge and wisdom handed down to us from the past.   To view previous posts visit our website at www.tsrevisited.com