Talk:Bible version debate

[Untitled]

The contributor(s) of the "Criteria for choosing a translation" section mentions some good points regarding translation yet fail to mention the most important aspect of translation. The translators knowledge of the languages being translated from and to. Additionally there are many well proven examples of translation bias done by teams of translators from diverse backgrounds.

One-sided?

Some of the arguments presented are one-sided, e.g., "There are others that realize that our knowledge of ancient Hebrew and Greek has improved over time and realize that a more accurate translation is possible.", implying that everyone else is misguided. I personally believe it has gotten worse with time since the older languages get lost with time, but that's just my belief. Point is I think this needs to be more balanced. Bourgeoisdude 14:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, I think I'll try to clean it up at little —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.18.67 (talk • contribs)

Christian Bias

Christians are not the only people reading Scripture. Bear in mind that the first half of the Bible is called the Hebrew Bible, and remains the sacred text of Judaism. I have removed what pieces of articles suggested that Christians were the only people concerned with Biblical scholarship. On the subject of languages. No, our grasp of Greek and Hebrew have improved, not diminished. Historical preservation and general archeology are such that we are finding new fragments in the Biblical languages all the time and these help us get a better perspective of the world at that time. Where you stand determines what you see, and we can see a great deal more these days. MerricMaker 13:14, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

From the look of the article even in its present state, one would need to delete most of it to eliminate Christian bias and make it more scholarly. Still, I think this topic deserves some attention. At present, I have not found a good article comparing the various translations objectively, or at least one that would give the translators' goal with their version.--JECompton 00:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that the implication of this article is that the "debates" in reference are related to which version of the English translation of the Christian canon would be the "best". Hebrew and Aramaic texts present less of a challenge in and of themselves as the consensus on the "best" source material is more widely accepted. However I think defining "the debate" with proper citations in the header would go a long way to appropriately narrow the focus of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.129.127 (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Ruth/feet claim

I removed the text that claimed that in Ruth 3 the "feet" were a euphamism for genetalia. This is by no means an agreed-on interpretation, e.g., http://bible.gen.nz/ruth/3/introduction.htm gives arguments against this claim. I can't find strong citable claims that argue FOR this interpretation. (There's a podiatrist on the web who thinks this is true, but there's no evidence that he knows anything about ancient Hebrew.) The example is a very poor one. If an example is used, it needs to be much more obvious/clearer. It's not clear an example is needed, anyway. -- 129.246.254.14 22:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I can think of three examples of exegetes who interpret the word to be "feet." Walter Brueggeman (the OT guy in his book Old Testament Theology), Mary Joan Winn Leith (the editor and footnotes author for Ruth, Esther, Greek Esther, and Jonah in the Oxford NRSV), and Harold Washington (the editor and author of the footnotes for Proverbs and Sirach in the Oxford NRSV). I'm putting the segment back in and finally learning how to make footnotes in WIKI. MerricMaker 03:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I found lots of folks who interpreted the text in Ruth 3 as meaning "feet". I take it you mean you found credible sources that interpret THIS passage as meaning "genitals", yes? (The issue isn't whether or not the word "feet" is sometimes a euphamism.. the question is, IN THIS PASSAGE is that a justifiable interpretation?). I'll add at least one counter-citation, since this is a debated interpretation. On the one hand, this is probably Wikipedia at its best - we each found a citable source, so we'll present both sides. Okay. But frankly, I think the debate means this is not a great example - surely we can find another example that's less debated! -- Dwheeler 03:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I placed the citation and it's there if you look in the edit, but I can't get it to work quite right. Anyway, Hooray! One Turabian-format citation. MerricMaker 03:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks okay to me. -- Dwheeler 04:09, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Here's the deal, you aren't going to find something that isn't debated. You pick a scholar or a set of scholars, but each side has an argument that's as well thought out as its opposite number. I like the compromise, thanks. MerricMaker 14:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[1] I was not able to use NRSV on the website but I used several dynamic translation along with NASB and the message (paraphrase). According to the statement in wikipedia

In Biblical Hebrew the word "feet" is sometimes used as a euphemism for "genitalia" (usually of the male sort).[1] So in Ruth 3:14 we have the quote "So she lay at his feet until morning." Formal equivalence makes it the reader's responsibility to determine what "feet" means in the context, risking the possibility that the reader completely misses a possible meaning of the passage. Dynamic Equivalence might render the passage "She made love to him until the morning."

could someone find a translation that actually translate the passage to mean genitalia or made love to him. Smith03 00:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Most modern translations with footnotes mention this feature, just not in body text. In any case, each interpretation is well-cited for this article, and this entry isn't about the book of Ruth. The Ruth passage was just a convenient example, related to modes of translation. MerricMaker 04:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

My point is that in the article it says a DE might render it as....., if one actually does we should cite it if none do perhaps that sentence needs to be re worded a bit Smith03 16:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we need an example of something that is ACTUALLY rendered differently by different translations. We could keep the Ruth example as an "extreme" example (to make the distinction more obvious), but one that causes a REAL difference would be better. Suggestions? -- Dwheeler 22:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that it is perfect. It is a well-known oddity of Hebrew, appears in most footnotes as a possible interpretation, but isn't used in body text because it's too salacious. Even very free intepretations like Living Bible avoid using it because (let's face it) most of the freer interpretations are produced by right of center groups of scholars who tend to minimize the sensual bits of the Bible. Hence, it's an ideal example of choices made in translation. MerricMaker 01:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a mistake, and not ideal. I can't even find ONE example where people have translated the main text differently! EVERYONE translates this as feet. No exceptions. As an example of "translation differences", quoting a text where there are NO real translation differences is not helpful. Even if "most" footnotes include this comment - and I actually doubt it - the fact remains that this is NOT an example where translators translate the text significantly differently. Its salaciousness is not the issue here; for whatever reason, translators do NOT translate the text differently, so it's a lousy example of translation differences. Let's find at least one case where there is an ACTUAL difference in text, and use that as an example. This page lists some ESV vs. NIV differences: http://www.matthiasmedia.com.au/briefing/webextra/march04_compare.htm In particular, John 17:6, where ESV: 'I have manifested your name' contrasts with NIV: 'I have revealed you'. They say: "'Revealed you' and 'manifested your name' could easily mean the same thing. But the NIV leaves out that what Jesus revealed was God's name, which is in the Greek text. This is a very important idea, for Jesus is soon to pray about God’s name (in the following verses). The glory of God is tied up with God’s name, and so we hear echoes of Exodus 34 and John 1. Jesus has revealed God’s name, which is his glory, his goodness, his grace and truth. To leave out the key word ‘name’ significantly changes the connections and logic in the passage. The simplification takes away a real opportunity to understand the text better and make connections to the rest of the Bible. The English is a little simpler and more understandable, but we have lost the text." With this, we have an example that actually occurs, instead of a speculative difference that at most causes the addition of footnotes. -- Dwheeler 22:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to merge

After making a start at creating a more balanced presentation of this topic, I realized that it is effectively a fork of the subject dynamic and formal equivalence, in other words a debate about the methods of Bible translation. Since debates generate more heat than light, I propose this article be merged into the existing article. Please debate discuss the merge on the other talk page.--Blainster 20:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's an interesting idea, but I disagree with it. Dynamic vs. formal equivalence is just ONE issue among many that THIS article should cover. I think most of the GENERAL dynamic vs. formal equivalence stuff should go in the "dynamic vs. formal equivalence" article, but specifics involving the Bible (such as which translation fits where), and other stuff including WHICH source document to translate, KJV-only movement, and the reasons WHY Bible translations matter, belong in this article. I'd rename this article - something like "Bible Translation Philosophy" or some such would be better. -- Dwheeler 16:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Rename article

I think this article is valuable, but that the name is not. It should be "Bible Translation Philosophy", "Bible Translation Issues", or some other title. That way we can concentrate on identifying the ISSUES that a translator, or a reader of a translation, must face. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dwheeler (talk • contribs) 10:49, October 17, 2006 (UTC)

This is a good suggestion. Either title you suggest would be an improvement, but the second two words should be lower case. --Blainster 07:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Disagree. The purpose of this Wikipedia article is to describe something that already exists out there in the world, namely the Bible version debate, which is the most common phrase used to refer to the matter. Wikipedia is not intended to prescribe translation philoshopy. DFH 19:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with DFH. It would appear that Wikipedia is is going to be more navigatable id one uses the most common title for any given issue. If another title is employed, I believe it is very likely that someone will add another article on wiki that would just mirror this one. --GodSpeed and God Bless! Devon Jones (talk) 18:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Publishers, marketing, copyright, and textual variants in English Bible versions

I observe that the article does not touch on what might be a not so subtle cause of many of the varations between modern American & English Bible translations. The aim of the publisher to have something different than his competitor to copyright protect, and to use as part of his marketing strategy. DFH 19:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Amplified Bible

There's no mention of the Amplified Bible. I think there should be some mention of it in this article, but I'm not sure where. Any ideas? peterl 20:28, 14 March 2007 (UTC) The Amplified Bible is not a translation, it is a paraphrase. It is the worst form of dynamic equivelance. --GodSpeed and God Bless! Devon Jones (talk) 18:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The Amplified Bible is an unusual translation. Is neither an example of dynamic equivalence nor paraphrase. The translator felt that it was better to use plural synonyms to try to convey the full meaning. Also, sometimes, when the original allowed two different interpretations, the translator included both of them, rather than making a choice. In all of this, the Amplified stands outside of the arguments discussed in the article. It is unique and nobody is trying to copy it, and few spend their time attacking or defending it. Pete unseth (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Removal of the 'Improtance to readers ' section

I think it is important to include some kind of introduction as to why there was / is a debate rather than reporting simply that there was a debate. I'm not sure that the old one was particularly good but to just jump into the 'what' without the 'why'. Any coments ? johnmark† 18:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

no citations

I just found this article today. It contains lots of interesting ideas, and some good material, and it is obvious that it has been worked on for some time. The more it amazes me that apart from the section on the Ruth-example (to which I agree that it is a poor one), there are no references whatsoever. Folks, there is tons of published material out there on Bible versions, and it would do the article good to point the readers to some of it. I am biased against any kind of literal and old-language translations, and I can try to improve the article (with time, of which I have not much) with adding some flesh from this side, but I'm sure that also the other perspectives can add to this with some citable sources. For now I have tagged the article as unreferenced, but I hope that this can be removed after some time. Landroving Linguist (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Section on "Unknown word meanings"

Though this subtopic is worthy of study, I do not think it fits into the main theme of this article. I strongly suggest removing the whole section, possibly to start another article. It does not contain any useful discussion of how different translations approach the problem. Pete unseth (talk) 15:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

unseth (15:16): "do not think it fits into the main theme of this article"

The current article title is Bible version debate. The section #Unknown word meanings inclusive of #Abrek currently contains 15 sentences.

• 47% of sentences refer to multiple "translations", "Biblical translators", "debate", or named Bible versions.
• 20% of sentences name specific Biblical versions (ESV, KJV, and NIV).

"does not contain any useful discussion of how different translations approach the problem"

The summarized comparison in the "Abrek" example gives the casual reader a useful snapshot of the detailed sources and methods of Bible version translations.

ESV and KJV are compared to NIV translations of "Abrek", and those compared in turn to an unchosen scholarly alternative. ESV's translation logic is briefly described to its roots, followed by the brief logic of a scholarly alternative rooted in ancient Assyrian culture with a further reference to one tradition of early rabbinical literature.

Of particular usefulness in helping the reader determine why there is a Bible versions debate, the NIV scholars all but admit to a unique translation of "Abrek" – seemingly based on their intuition, rather than being a choice from either long scholarly tradition of "Abrek" as a command versus a title.

Dwheeler (22:09, 6 November 2006): "we need an example of something that is ACTUALLY rendered differently by different translations"

"Abrek" is just such an example. Milo 21:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Can't believe no-one's thought to translate it 'Hail!' ...'render homage' - duh!14.200.158.233 (talk) 12:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Functional equivalence

I changed the section called "Paraphrase" to "Functional equivalence." Functional equivalence is a method of translation intended to clearly translate the thoughts of the original document. A paraphrase is a rewording in the same language, not a translation method. --Malkiyahu (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hard work needed

The current lead section bears little relationship to the body of the article and breaks one of the basic principles of Wikipedia: the lead-section does not define what the article is about. Before it can be rewritten to summarise the article, it needs to be clear whether this is basically a discussion of the "King James only" movement or a wider ranging overview of the problems that a translator faces today. Assuming that the second is intended, I suggest the lead section be rewrtten more or less as follows and the body of the article pulled into line with it.

Suggested lead-section

The Bible version debate started in the 1880's when the virtual supremacy of the King James' Version among English-speakers was challenged by the parallel publication of the Revised Version in England and its close relative the American Standard Version in the USA. Although there had been earlier translations into English, the KJV (first published in 1611) was the version that had "worked its way into every corner of the life of the English-speaking world"[Neill, Anglicanism (p.135)]. The revision was considered necessary for a number of reasons. The KJV was based on Greek and Hebrew texts which were accepted by scholars in the early 17th century, but more recent discoveries suggested that they were not satisfactory. Its language had been old-fashioned even at the time of writing and had become more so with the passage of time and the translation was inconsistent since, while avoiding uniform translation of Greek and Hebrew terms, the translators had allowed themselves unnecessary latitude in the matter.
These two revisions stayed as close to the KJV as possible and retained its formal language and its tendency to literal renderings. Experience showed that it was too difficult for many readers who failed to grasp its meaning and a number of private initiatives aimed at making the Scriptures "intelligible to the common man"[ODCC, art. Bible Versions] were produced in the first part of the twentieth century. These tended to follow what would later be termed "dynamic" or "functional" equivalence methods by trying to communicate the underlying thought or intention of the passage even if the words and phrases used in English did not follow the original closely. The twentieth century also saw an enormous increase in the quantity of background literature and other evidence as to the usage of Greek in the first century and the Hebrew and related languages of earlier ones with the consequent need to rethink the translation of certain terms.
Despite these discoveries, some fundamentalist and traditionalist Christians retain a strong attachment to the KJV and are vociferous critics of other translations.

By the way, I suggest that there is no real difference between "dynamic" and "functional" equivalence. (I suspect that Eugene Nida came to prefer "functional" for what he originally called "dynamic equivalence". Jpacobb (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I like where you're going with this, except that it implies that Bible versions were not debated prior to that. Obviously, there is a long history of debate about Bible versions (e.g. Thomas More vs. William Tyndale). I imagine there have been similar debates in non-English speaking countries too. Are we reducing the scope of the article? Should we name it to Modern Bible version debate? StAnselm (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Follow the predominant name in the majority of scholarly sources. If early Bible version debates possess a commonly used name in the scholarship, then I encourage you to write an article on those. If all such debates are called Bible version debates in the scholarship, but are clearly differentiated in the scholarship, assign the chief page to the most commonly known bible version debate and differentiate Bible version debate (Tyndale) etc. If in the preponderance of scholarship all such debates are dealt with together under one head, then use the appropriate name to cover all such debates. Get reading :) Fifelfoo (talk) 01:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. My immediate reaction is that when people talk about "the Bible version debate" they are thinking in terms of the modern debate(s). There was/is a similar one about the 1909 Reina-Valera translation among Spanish-speaking protestants. If my memory serves me rightly, the Moore-Tyndale debate was more about the wisdom of translating than the problem of competing versions. I doubt whether there has been sufficient scholarly debate to settle the question as to how the term should be used, I suspect that sociologists look at the modern situation, historians vary (as they vary about almost everything) and academic theologians tend to brush it on one side. Jpacobb (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

IIRC, More was happy with the idea of translation, but thought Tyndale's was biased - e.g. having "congregation" instead of "church", etc. StAnselm (talk) 11:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Having reread this section, I suggest that, at east for the moment, we retain the present title but include the whole field of candidates for inclusion as defined above. Once we have quality material and sources, we can decide whether to rename the article or to divide the contents up among different articles once a clearer overview has emerged. Jpacobb (talk) 02:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Off topic: Unknown word meanings

I have tagged this section because it seems to go far beyond the scope of the title which I understand to refer to the discussion of the merits of translations as a whole and the legitimacy of making them rather than a detailed analysis of specific debatable points about particular obscure words. (See also #Section on "Unknown word meanings" above.)

I have also added a suggestion to the previous subsection as to how the article as a whole could be improved. Jpacobb (talk) 02:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete article

I have been working with this page to improve, however all topics are covered at length in other article. This ends up being a summary and link page. Should it be deleted? And information migrated into primary articles. Just asking. I am fine either way. Basileias (talk) 21:38, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Other than English translations

Shouldn't there be mention of the status of translations other than English? The Greek churches tend to privilege the Septuagint as The Bible, the Roman Catholic Church uses the Vulgate as an official version, and for some Syriac Christians, the Pershitta; soetimes to the degree that these versions are considered above the Hebrew. I don't know whether there are other modern versions (for example, Luther's German translation) which have such a status as KJV Shouldn't there be some mention of this? TomS TDotO (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)