Listing Bibles in order of translation philosophy

I have an incurable propensity to categorize things.

I have started creating layouts for every book in the Bible where on the left-hand side I have commentaries in the order that they are ranked on the Best Commentary website. On the right-hand side I have my favourite Bible translations. I'd like to list them in order starting with the most literal (i.e. word-for-word) translation to the most paraphrasic translation. Would the following order be appropriate?

1. NASB95

2. ESV

3. Lexham

4. NET

5. Holman

6. NIV

7. The Message

Also, do you know of any Logos or online resources that categorize Bibles in this way?

Finally, are there any translations that fall between NIV and The Message?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Graham Criddle

Hi Simon

You might want to look at How to Read the Bible for all its worth - http://www.logos.com/product/5421/how-to-read-the-bible-for-all-its-worth. It doesn't have all the translations you mention but it does have the sort of table you are looking for on page 42.

It suggests - for example - that the NAB, GNB/REB and NLT fall between the NIV and the Message.

How to Choose a Bible Version - http://www.logos.com/product/2962/how-to-choose-a-bible-version - has a comprehensive treatment of this area

Hope this helps

Graham

Mitchell

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/340533#Comment_340533

Besides Graham's additions, I would characterize Lexham as more literal than the ESV. I would also add the NRSV to the list, probably just above the ESV (but definitely below NASB and LEB). Keep in mind, of course, that word-for-word doesn't necessarily correspond to accuracy in transmitting meaning.

Josh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/340557#Comment_340557

EDIT: I don't know why this image is so large, but right click on it and click "view image" to see the whole thing.

Brother Mark

Simon, here are a couple of charts from http://www.apbrown2.net/web/TranslationComparisonChart.htm

and:

I encourage you to scroll through the web page above, have a look at the Translation Comparison Chart from Zondervan toward the bottom of the page.

Ted Hans

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/340533#Comment_340533

How to Choose a Bible Version - http://www.logos.com/product/2962/how-to-choose-a-bible-version - has a comprehensive treatment of this area

[Y]

How to Choose a Bible Version

Mike Childs

I would distinguish between any translation (even a rather free translation like NLT) and any paraphrase like The Message or the old Living Bible. Not to say that there is not a place for a good paraphrase, but it is a different animal from any translation, in my opinion.

Another thing to consider (for lack of a better description) is how evangelical or liberal a translation is. The fact is there are theologoical choices in translation - no matter how word for word a translation is - that impact what the final result is. The RSV for example gives the benefit of the doubt to a more liberal position, but it is still a fine and accurate translation. Other translations (say the NIV 1984) give the benefit of the doubt to a more evangelical position - though it is less word for word than the RSV. Just something to consider in selecting a translation.

Brother Mark

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/340616#Comment_340616

Not to say that there is not a place for a good paraphrase, but it is a different animal from any translation, in my opinion.

[Y] [Y]

Another thing to consider (for lack of a better description) is how evangelical or liberal a translation is.

[Y]

Excellent advice Michael.

Simon Pleasants

Thanks everyone for all the advice. That's been really helpful.

NetworkGeek

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/340613#Comment_340613

How to Choose a Bible Version

I guess opinions are in the eye of the beholder, but I am pretty familiar with the ESV and NAB, and no way would I consider the NAB a literal translation, and as close to the ESV as this chart says. I find translation issues all the time where the Greek and ESV say one thing, and it has been paraphrased in the NAB.

Just sayin'.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/340616#Comment_340616

Another thing to consider (for lack of a better description) is how evangelical or liberal a translation is. The fact is there are theologoical choices in translation - no matter how word for word a translation is - that impact what the final result is.

OK, So lets post that graph also within this thread - then we can build a three dimensional visualization of all of the ""Bibles"" in Logos - then maybe we will be able to see if moving to a liberal or evangelical stand moves the 'Bible' toward or away from being word for word [[And what are we going to say when it get shown that both 'slants' need to move away from word for word to get the 'Bible' to read their way?? - and who gets to define 'neutral'??]]

[[I also have problems with paraphrase 'Bibles' being used as if they were 'real Bibles' - especially in Church for what was 'supposed' to be the 'Scripture reading']]

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/340853#Comment_340853

from Elements of Biblical Exegesis by Michael Gorman:

With apologies to Michael because I clearly don't understand what he means, I find the whole notion of a translation being liberal or conservative bizarre - the notes may be liberal or conservative but the text itself is accurate/inaccurate, archaic/modern, literal/thought equivalence, smooth/awkward ...but if I found a translation that I could tag conservative or liberal I would also label it paraphrase or ****

Ken McGuire

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/341030#Comment_341030

MJ - I find it interesting what are "preferred for exegesis". My official learning was back in the 1990's at a mainline school where the Old Testament faculty were generally ecstatic about the new NRSV because it RSV was quite dated (although good at its time) with regard to the Dead Sea Scrolls and how that has drastically changed text criticism, as well as being drastically more readable. The New Testament faculty was not as excited. As I found in Greek class, the RSV was better for checking my work. Not that the NRSV got it "wrong", but it was less literal, often because English dumped the concept of "Gramatical Gender" about a thousand years ago, and the NRSV takes pains to make it clear that gramatically male terms in the original languages are not just talking about things we would view as "male".

Personally, I find the NKJV to be quite useful to quickly check for Alexandrian/Byzantine textual issues in the NT, and so useful for seeing how the text was read for most of Christian history. I admittedly would not use it as my main text, however.

With regards to "conservative/liberal" slants, I think most of us understand that this is not a good term. There are significant issues with regards to how they treat the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. All of them view it as the Old Testament with regards to book order, (leaving aside canonical issues) which is a significant "Christian Bias", but besides that, many translations make great pains to try to translate the books without regard to how the text is referenced in the New. Biggest fight is over Is 7.14, but there are other passages as well. This is an argument that goes back at least as long as Justin Martyr's Dialogue with Trypho. While there are few who would join Justin in arguing that the Jews have corrupted their own books to avoid Christian Exegesis, there are many who would argue that the Old Testament should not be read as if we were pretending to be Jews and that Jesus interpreting the the scriptures to the church has cleared up some ambiguous passages. For study purposes I am quite comfortable with translations that try to retain the ambiguity. On the other hand, I fully understand that for worship use this would be unacceptable for many. Add to this the frustration that many "Evangelicals" feel in that the NCCUSA let Rome make corrections to the RSV for their own edition but refused to let them do so - at least until the ESV was released as a derived translation.

On a different note, it is interesting to see how the different charts rate the Living Bible vs. the Message. On the one hand, The Message is probably a freer work. On the other hand, the Message is actually based on the original languages.[6]

As useful as the graphs are at visually showing things, the devil is in the details, and comparing the various charts shows that the details are quite debated.

Personally I would not mind if a family tree of the Tyndale/King James tradition was available for showing dependencies. If this could be integrated into the Bible Comparison tool, it could be quite interesting from a historical perspective - admittedly much less for exegesis.

SDG

Ken

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/341030#Comment_341030

With apologies to Michael because I clearly don't understand what he means, I find the whole notion of a translation being liberal or conservative bizarre - the notes may be liberal or conservative but the text itself is accurate/inaccurate, archaic/modern, literal/thought equivalence, smooth/awkward

Translation is not an exact science. Anyone who thinks it is hasn't done much of it.

I did say "for lack of a better description". I am not so comfortable with the terms "conservative" and "liberal" ether. But theology always impacts translation, and there is usually more than one accurate way of translating a passage.

For example, in Isaiah 7:14 one can make a strong case for translating a word either as "young woman" or "virgin". Proponents of one position or the other will insist their position is the correct one, but there are arguments for both. Theology will make a difference in the choice.

There are many, many other such choices. In 1 John 2:2 whether a word is translated as "propitiation" or "expiation" or just plain vanilla "atoning sacrifice", is also a matter of theology. (Compare NRSV and NASV. Do you really think theology played no role in the translator's choice? Oh, yes, but only in the version that I disagree with, right?)

I could go on and on. But it is so. Theology will impact translation. Every time. Of course, unless I am doing the translation. Then it is exact science. [;)]

Some would even see theological bias in chart above, especially under the "Preferred for Exegesis". Not saying I agree or disagree, but scholars just as educated and good would come up with a different list, depending on their theological position.

However, I definately plead guilty to being bizarre.

Rosie Perera

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/341030#Comment_341030

Wondering, speculating, smiling at what your censored word must have been. [:)]

With apologies to Michael because I clearly don't understand what he means, I find the whole notion of a translation being liberal or conservative bizarre - the notes may be liberal or conservative but the text itself is accurate/inaccurate, archaic/modern, literal/thought equivalence, smooth/awkward ...but if I found a translation that I could tag conservative or liberal I would also label it paraphrase or ****

I'm guessing he's talking about a translation philosophy being liberal or conservative. The terms liberal and conservative are slippery and relative, but some people towards the more "conservative" end of the spectrum might label the attempt at gender neutrality a "liberal" bias in translation, for example; some might say that certain decisions about what to do with certain texts (such as the "virgin" vs. "young woman" in Isa 7:14) are based on "liberal" or "conservative" presuppositions (e.g., "it has to be 'virgin' because of what we believe about ..."); on the other hand, a "conservative" translation philosophy could simply equate to "the way we've always done it"; i.e., "let's not change it from such-and-such esteemed translation's wording unless there's some really good reason that doesn't violate our theological framework." In most Protestant Christian traditions, theology is ostensibly derived from the Bible, but often people are unaware of how their prior theology (taught through their own church tradition) impacts the way they interpret the Bible. And most translation work does at times involve some level of interpretation. So yes, one's liberal or conservative leanings might impact how one translates the Bible.

EDIT: I see two others had posted while I was composing my reply, and all three of us came up with Isaiah 7:14 as a verse whose translation could be influenced by one's theology.

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/341030#Comment_341030

from Elements of Biblical Exegesis by Michael Gorman: <chart>

but if I found a translation that I could tag conservative or liberal I would also label it paraphrase or ****

Thank you for reminding us of that chart - and I agree - if there is bias in a translation it should be labeled a paraphrase

Pam Larson

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/341071#Comment_341071

Try to figure out Jesus' use of the self-identifier "son of man" using the NRSV. The phrase is used consistently in the NT and not once in the OT.

Jerry M

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/341094#Comment_341094

Try to figure out Jesus' use of the self-identifier "son of man" using the NRSV. The phrase is used consistently in the NT and not once in the OT.

That is why I prefer as literal a translation as possible, I would rather derive the meaning of the words than have the translator do it for me. (It is in the footnotes in Daniel 7:11.)

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/341104#Comment_341104

That is why I prefer as literal a translation as possible, I would rather derive the meaning of the words than have the translator do it for me.

Caveat: English is not Greek and both are not Hebrew. Proper names tend to have one to one correspondence across languages. Other words can have a vast range of meanings and nuances. Greek verbal expression range is greater than English. Thankful for Logos Greek Morphology visual filters that can be used in Greek and English to highlight verbal range in a New Testament passage. Personally dreaming of reverse interlinear tagging for 1901 ASV plus looking forward to LEB Old Testament reverse interlinear later this year.

Apologies: I do not know enough Hebrew (yet) to comment about verbal range compared to English. Already appreciate Hebrew word formation being Greek to me. Also appreciate Greek lexicons keeping preposition with lemma for entries since preposition can affect range of word meaning. However, Hebrew lexicons have prepositions segregated from root stem.

Keep Smiling [:)]

David Ames

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/341104#Comment_341104

That is why I prefer as literal a translation as possible, I would rather derive the meaning of the words than have the translator do it for me. (It is in the footnotes in Daniel 7:11.)

As George has not yet found this thread I remind us of his words - Learn Greek and Hebrew and do your own translation

Jerry M

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/341110#Comment_341110

Keep Smiling

The passage in Daniel is in Aramaic. What you are saying is true, however Jesus is making IMO a clear reference of His identity to this passage. Why would you obscure that, by giving it a different translation into English when the essence of both the words in Aramaic and in Greek are essentially equal?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/341110#Comment_341110

There are significant issues with regards to how they treat the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. All of them view it as the Old Testament with regards to book order,

I'm glad to see this issue raised as my go-to Bibles each uses a different order: NRSV, NAB, Community Bible, JPS. As wouls be expected, I have a little problem with some observations based on the order of the entir Bible.

many translations make great pains to try to translate the books without regard to how the text is referenced in the New.

Another good point ... one also behind some of the Masorectic/LXX debates. I've been delighted with some of the newer scholarship on the issue that takes the issue out of Reformation rhetoric and into serious discussion - there are legitimate points for each choice.

I actually make an odd distinction: Old Testament meaning the books when read and interpreted through the Christian lens; Tanakh or Hebrew Scripture when interpreted through the Jewish lens.I know no commonly accepted terminology for this distinction.

that try to retain the ambiguity. On the other hand, I fully understand that for worship use

This is an important consideration I hear more rarely than I'd expect.

Personally I would not mind if a family tree of the Tyndale/King James tradition was available for showing dependencies.

or from a source that clearly states their bias[:P]

But you were thinking of something a little safer like: [;)]

Theology will impact translation. Every time. Of course, unless I am doing the translation. Then it is exact science. Wink

I'm more familiar with translating Buddhist, Hindu and Parsi scriptures where one rarely sees an English translation showing sectarian bias except in the notes. But I do rknow a few verses and pericope divisions that will normally tell me if I am reading a Jewish or Christian translation. But for Christian translations I more often notice the use of the same word to mean different things in different theologies rather than differences in the translation itself. And I see differences in theory of language leading to very different theories of interpretation. I'll need to go back through a variety of translations to see if I've just not seen it because I wasn't looking for it.

certain decisions about what to do with certain texts (such as the "virgin" vs. "young woman" in Isa 7:14) are based on "liberal" or "conservative" presuppositions

Okay, I see the point. I'd just never think of this as liberal/conservative. I see it more as translator integrity - being able to defend your choice on denotation/connotation mapping between the languages. to greatly simply here the Hebrew has a cultural young woman=virgin or dead (honor killing, adultery stoning etc.) which is rather hard to retain the connotations in English.

Already appreciate Hebrew word formation being Greek to me

As an historical linguist would tell you, if you know Sanskrit, Greek is easy by comparison. If you know Greek, Latin is easy by comparison. If you know English, you're up the proverbial tree.

Keep Smiling 4 Jesus :)

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/341115#Comment_341115

Keep Smiling

The passage in Daniel is in Aramaic. What you are saying is true, however Jesus is making IMO a clear reference of His identity to this passage. Why would you obscure that, by giving it a different translation into English when the essence of both the words in Aramaic and in Greek are essentially equal?

Mea culpa [:P] Both Hebrew and Aramaic word formation are Greek to me; have much to learn about Old Testament original languages (e.g. Aramaic occurs in 200 Old Testament verses).

Likewise concur about Daniel 7:9-10 image about the Holy One, who is worthy to be worshiped:

In commenting about Daniel 7:9, UBS Handbook has several verses to compare where “snow” is used as a figure to describe whiteness: Exo 4:6; Num 12:10; 2 Kgs 5:27; Psa 51:7; Isa 1:18. In the New Testament compare Matt 28:3 and Rev 1:14. Thankful for Logos Bible Software so can hover for verse pop-up, and click to read context.

Note: English Bible is a Personal Book, thread has docx files => American Standard Version 1901 - Personal Bible without Chapter and Verse #'s

Wiki has => UBS Old Testament Handbook Series

Keep Smiling [:)]

Jerry M

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/341125#Comment_341125

have much to learn about Old Testament original languages

So do I! I am but a beginner. I always appreciate your helpful comments. Sorry if I sounded harsh or know it all.

Here is yet another persons views on the various translations.

Bible Translation Guide

Mark Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/341126#Comment_341126

I can't help but note that the chart that puts the NIV right in the middle is from Zondervan, the publisher. We all have an opinion, I suppose, but I wonder what the NASB and ESV folks chart would look like?

Then there's the NET Bible which claims to have finally solved the problems others have not been able to avoid:

"[T]he translators and editors used the notes to give a translation that was formally equivalent, while placing a somewhat more functionally equivalent translation in the text itself to promote better readability and understandability. The longstanding tension between these two different approaches to Bible translation has thus been fundamentally solved. "

(Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2006; 2006).)

Ah, well. All would agree that the Message and the NASB95 have fundamentally different translation approaches.

Simon Pleasants

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/341130#Comment_341130

I'm enjoying the debate about the various philosphosies and biases behind different translations. It's a good reminder that no translation will ever be perfect and in the end there's no substitute for studying the Bible in its original languages.

However, it is a real blessing to have an overabundance of translation available to us in English, especially to those like me who don't know Hebrew or Greek. It's great to use a wide range of translations when studying the Bible as that will counteract the shortcomings of a particular translation. Even paraphrases can be helpful in this respect. I personally use the ESV as my translation of choice because it adopts a more literal approach than many other translations. But it's good to compare what it says with other translations.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/341130#Comment_341130

Then there's the NET Bible which claims to have finally solved the problems others have not been able to avoid:

Re: the position of the NET

From www.gcfweb.org/institute/biblestudymethods/transmission.php

from http://www.enjoymore.net/2010/10/translation-continuum/

from http://www.tillhecomes.org/best-bible-translation/

All of which shows that some sites use blurry graphics - and my personal favorite:

from ntresources.com/documents/transl.ppt

Brother Mark

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/341157#Comment_341157

In years to come when, inevitably, many of us teach/preach on the topic of Bible translations, or how to study the Bible, etc.; I'll be grateful for this forum thread [:)]. I mean the accessibility of the charts alone (Yes, even in all their glorious disagreement) is worth the price of admission.

Mike Childs

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/341112#Comment_341112

[ As George has not yet found this thread I remind us of his words - Learn Greek and Hebrew and do your own translation

And George is a wise man.