Best Bible translation?

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is no good "rendering" of the texts behind the bible. The best method, apart from learning the languages, is to read several translations.

The best method, irrespective of learning the languages, is to read several translations and to recognize that our understanding of Biblical Hebrew is a work in progress. I suggest that people read the following carefully ...

Translations, particularly those adopted by ecclesiastical hierarchies, tend to wield potent influence, frequently deleterious, over the hearts and minds of their devotees. They often receive virtual, if not official, canonicity. Either way, the phenomenon engenders an attitude that encourages a fundamentalist, monolithic approach to the Scriptures, one that is subversive of intellectual freedom, corrosive of tolerance, and productive of doctrinal tyranny. Moreover, a translation of the Holy Scriptures, however felicitously and elegantly executed, must perforce, in the long run, be the enemy of truth. It is surely difficult enough to transplant a piece of literature from its native cultural soil into another milieu of quite a different character and composition. Can the fine nuances of language, the deliberately introduced ambiguities, the instinctive elements and distinctive qualities of style of a great national opus of consummate artistry really be accurately conveyed and truthfully reproduced in another language? Can the cultural, linguistic, and spiritual barriers really be overcome? These difficulties are compounded immeasurably by the large number of obscure Hebrew words, phrases and grammatical forms that are scattered over the texts. The truth is that despite the vast strides in our knowledge of the ancient Semitic languages made over the past century, many passages in the Hebrew Bible still remain imperfectly understood. They substitute simplicities or speculative emendations for the obscurities, either of which can be quite misleading.

No wonder the second century C.E. Palestinian sage Rabbi Judah declares that "He who translates a [biblical] verse literally is a falsifier, and he who amplifies it blasphemes and defames."

-Studies in Biblical Interpretation - Nahum Sarna, pg.254

Translation is a necessary evil. Some are better than others. To say much beyond that is poorly informed pretense.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

What I like about the NRSV (anglicised edition) is that it acknowledges at the start that it is a work in progress, and incorporates new understandings, knowledge and discoveries as each new edition is edited. It is the work of all denominations and includes Jewish scholars on the OT panel.

The JW's, NWT Backs up their religious beliefs very closely. Not surprisings when you remember the group started out as "Biblical revisionists and scholars" who incorporated their "Findings" in their faith. However it does set the NWT apart from other works.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

What I like about the NRSV (anglicised edition) is that it acknowledges at the start that it is a work in progress, and incorporates new understandings, knowledge and discoveries as each new edition is edited. It is the work of all denominations and includes Jewish scholars on the OT panel.

I like it and own it as well.

 

[fallingblood]

What about the "Complete Jewish Bible"? Looking in Job 1:6 (just as a random test run) I like so far how it translates (puts Adversary instead of Satan, mentions Adonai).

...Actually when I think of it I might benefit from looking at translations that are not strictly marketed at Christians.

I have only had brief exposure to the Complete Jewish Bible, but I would be leery of it. It does have a clear bias, and it should be mentioned that it is a Messianic Jewish Bible (not that there is anything wrong with that, but there are certain biases that come with that).

The nice thing about the NRSV is that it is not marketed to just a specific group. Instead, it was compiled by a variety of scholars, of various denominations, as well as Jewish scholars for the OT.

If you look for a Bible that is not marketed towards Christians though, you probably will end up with a translation that simply is not very good. The main reasons being that it probably will not be done by a committee, and that actually is part of the second reason. Most who spend the time to actually translate the Bible are usually religious, or at least interested in that religion. There are of course some exceptions, and they are some very good scholars who do such. But to find a committee of non-Christians, marketing a Bible for non-Christians just isn't likely.

 

[Levite]

What about the "Complete Jewish Bible"? Looking in Job 1:6 (just as a random test run) I like so far how it translates (puts Adversary instead of Satan, mentions Adonai).

...Actually when I think of it I might benefit from looking at translations that are not strictly marketed at Christians.

Definitely not that one. It's by David Stern, the Jews For Jesus guru. He "translates" everything with massive Christological retrojection. I would avoid it like the plague.

BTW, since Jay brought it up earlier, Alter also has excellent translations of Psalms, Samuel, and the Wisdom Books. Truly worthwhile. And Chana and Ariel Bloch's translation of "Song of Songs" is also the best such I have ever seen.

On further reflection, though I wouldn't call it a "best translation," the complete Tanach that is probably the most serviceable is the Oxford Jewish Study Bible, which offers the New JPS translation accompanied by very good notes and marginalia by editors Marc Zvi Brettler, Michael Fishbane, and Adele Berlin. A little on the academic side, but very useful and clear.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

On further reflection, though I wouldn't call it a "best translation," the complete Tanach that is probably the most serviceable is the Oxford Jewish Study Bible, which offers the New JPS translation accompanied by very good notes and marginalia by editors Marc Zvi Brettler, Michael Fishbane, and Adele Berlin. A little on the academic side, but very useful and clear.

Two quick points:

1. My copy reads: "The Jewish Study Bible; Adele Berlin and Marc Zvi Brettler editors, Michael Fishbane consulting editor" and contains introductions, commentary, and essays from a host of scholars.
2. I'm not sure what is meant by "a little on the academic side." While useful, the inline commentary is, in fact, rather sparse, particularly when compared to something like the JPS Torah Commentary series or, for that matter, Plautt.

(BTW, as I think I've mentioned elsewhere, Berlin'e commentary on Esther is, in my opinion, exceptional.)

 

[jasonwill2]

Thanks for the suggestions guys.

 

[Levite]

I'm not sure what is meant by "a little on the academic side." While useful, the inline commentary is, in fact, rather sparse, particularly when compared to something like the JPS Torah Commentary series or, for that matter, Plautt.

I just meant that the commentary was mostly critical literary, historical, and anthropological, and not particularly heavy on traditional Jewish theological or halachic understandings. Not that the latter are absent, just not the primary focus.

And yeah, Brettler and Berlin did the heavy lifting on the inline commentary, and the additional essays by other scholars at the end are fantastic, no question.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

And yeah, Brettler and Berlin did the heavy lifting on the inline commentary, and the additional essays by other scholars at the end are fantastic, no question.

(Why does Berlin always bring up the rear? )

 

[EvolutionofThought]

yeah quite right.. I would not trust myself to look up a word and choose a meaning for it. But I do use the research tools provided by the WT society. One of our study tools is 'Insight on the Scriptures' volumes. In there we can lookup all sorts of words and their meanings... one example is 'logos' :

I have read somewhere the word in John was memra ( I think) The whole realm of thought.... ?

Jen

 

[mickeyaarthur002]

yes I agree with you.

 

[Xian Pugilist]

Which texts are the original texts? That's the dilemma.
Example< KJV has verses in it that don't appear in other texts. The earliest history of them in a document was hundreds and hundreds of years after Christ and canonization of scripture. The early church fathers never quoted those extra verses even though they would have greatly helped some of their arguments, so we can assume they didn't know about them.

Other translations are based on earlier manuscripts the KJV people didn't have access to yet as they weren't defined/discovered/announced/ready/etc...

So, if you think the KJV uses the right documents, that will change your views.

Generally speaking the NASB is the most word for word translation.

None of them are absoultely right.....

One that is most true to the original texts, which is the best? I don't trust say NIV or KJV, I want something that is better for analyzing the books in a less Theological orientation and in a more literary one.

Any suggestions?

 

[arthra]

There's no one translation of the Bible that I'm aware of that we as Baha'is use.. We of course have our own Writings of Baha'u'llah and the Bab and Abdul-Baha translated from farsi and Arabic. Some of the citations from the Bible made by Baha'u'llah come from Persian translations... Some used by Abdul-Baha were from the King James version because it was widely in use early in the twentieth century.

Personally I like the translations of George Lamsa as they give deference to the Aramaic Pe****ta and Aramaic was the native language of Lamsa and Syriac was a translation widely used in early times. Also see this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe****ta

 

[chlotilde]

Personally I like the translations of George Lamsa as they give deference to the Aramaic Pe****ta and Aramaic was the native language of Lamsa and Syriac was a translation widely used in early times. Also see this:

Pe****ta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The (very literal) Pe****ta NT is online here: Pe****ta Aramaic/English Interlinear New Testament