Listing Bibles in order of translation philosophy

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.

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.

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.

Michael Childs said:

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 - 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

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

MJ. Smith said:

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.

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.

" rel="nofollow">Keep Smiling 4 Jesus said:

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?

David Ames said:

[ 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.