|
Seventeen
years of tweaking and additions proves this English
Bible Translation Comparison chart is an
unending work in progress. Due to much request, I added...
Version
5: NIV 2011 and NET (New English Translation) Bible
Version
6: CEB (Common English Bible) and The Voice
Version
7: ERV (Easy to Read Version) and ISV (International Standard Version)
Version
8: MEV (Modern English Version), LEB (Lexham English Bible), and KB
(The Roman Catholic Knox Bible)
Version
9: CSB (Christian Standard Bible)
Version
10: TPT (The Passion Translation), ICB (International Children's
Bible), CJB (Complete Jewish Bible), TLV (Tree of Life Version), NJT
(New Jewish Translation), and WEB (World English Bible).
Version
11: NAS20 (New American Standard Bible 2020), and LSV (Literal
Standard Version)
Version
12: LSB (Legacy Standard Bible)
Chart
versions sometimes reflect reanalysis of grade level rankings or
left-right positioning on the chart based on scholarly debate and
supplied information, even translation revisions. Later chart
versions separate the NASU (1995) and NASB (1977), as both are still
widely used and position quite differently. The NAS20 further
separates from both the NASU and NASB. Version 11 and greater have
an alphabetized Bible list. For better or worse, earlier chart
editions live forever on the internet. I highly recommend only using
the newest chart (version 12).
Analysis
is somewhat subjective as I cannot analyze 100% of each Bible.
I've always used key excerpts from the Old and New Testaments for my
primary evaluation. A version taking a radically different approach
to the Old and New Testament, such as the CJB (Complete Jewish
Bible), ends up being positioned based on the greater majority of the
text. (Their OT is a paraphrase, the NT a translation).
Scholarly and documented constructive criticism, along with specific
requests for additions, are welcome and help to make this chart
continuously better.
Click
on chart for higher resolution graphic
Purpose of the
English Bible Translation Comparison chart
-
This chart
visually shows the style of each English Bible translation, utilizing
a spectrum ranging from word-for-word to thought-for-thought (dynamic
equivalence) and paraphrase.
-
This chart
displays common abbreviations for many popular English Bible translations
-
Grade level of
readability appears in parenthesis following each translation name.
-
The chart shows
whether the apocrypha is included or available for each translation.
Note that some translations include the apocrypha as part of God's
Word (e.g. NAB), while others included it for historical significance
(e.g. KJV) or make it available for research purposes (e.g. ESV).
-
Makes note of
translations employing gender neutral language. (Consider this
article: What's
Wrong with Gender-Neutral Bible Translations? by Wayne Grudem)
-
Notes translations
entirely or primarily utilizing the old manuscript set known as the
Textus Receptus and Jacob ben Hayyim edition of the Masoretic
text. Also notes translations entirely or primarily based on
the 1592 Sixto-Celmentina Latin Vulgate, prepared by Pope Clement
VIII. Alternatively, a majority of modern translators now
utilize critical texts, featuring revisions and updates based on more
recent manuscripts finds including the Dead Sea Scrolls. The
most popular critical texts are: Nestle-Aland text (NA), currently in
its 28th revision, and the Greek New Testament published by the
United Bible Societies (UBS). Others include: The Hebrew text of
the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the The Greek New Testament:
SBL Edition (SBLGNT), a new edition produced by Michael W. Holmes in
conjunction with the Society of Biblical Literature and Logos Bible Software.
What the
English Bible Translation Comparison
chart doesn't do
-
This chart makes
no assessment as to the quality of each translation and, in fact,
includes some translations with strong Roman Catholic bias (e.g. NAB
and the Knox Bible) or Protestant sectarian bias (e.g. TPT).
-
It doesn't cover
every English translation, choosing to focus on a majority of modern
best sellers.
-
We're not the
final word on readability level or style. While tests exist to help
determine these, conflicting results often arise requiring a
subjective determination and subsequent designation. Publishers often
make claims regarding readability of their translations, some which
we have agreed with, others have required revision. Ongoing
reevaluation has prompted us to make changes in our assessments,
resulting in changes from earlier versions of this chart.
Specifically
Answered Questions
I am curious as to
where the Douay Rheims translation fits into the English Bible
Translation Comparison chart?
The Douay Rheims
translation doesn't have a good spot to appear on my chart.
Here's why...
Like the King
James translation, most today are not using the original Douay Rheims
version. By itself this wouldn't keep me from placing it on the
chart. (In fact, in putting the King James version on the chart I
assume the 1769 Oxford edition which is commonly the text still
provided under the original name). The Challoner revisions (by
Bishop Richard Challoner) of the mid 1700's are what most people are
referring to under the retained name of the Douay-Rheims (which was
originally created in 1582 NT/1609-1610 OT). Challoner used a
lot of renderings from the King James text of his day (pre-1769
Oxford edition, likely one of the 1629 or 1638 Cambridge editions),
so some of the ranking of the King James would certainly apply to
Challoner's revised Douay-Rheims.
The primary reason
the original Douay-Rheims doesn't fit well on the chart is that it's
not a translation (or paraphrase) from the original languages (Greek,
Aramaic and Hebrew). The original Douay-Rheims was a
word-for-word translation from another translation, namely the Latin
Vulgate. Even with the later version (or revision), Challoner
"corrected" the King James renderings he adopted by
referring to the Clementine edition of the Latin Vulgate (created
under Pope Clement VIII in 1592 and revised in 1593 & 1598).
In effect, Challoner was still emphasizing word-for-word with the
Latin Vulgate, especially in regards to key terms and concepts.
In summary,
understanding that the Douay-Rheims is primarily a Latin to English
secondary translation, it is strongly a word-for-word edition.
Due to archaic terms and phrasing, its reading level is, like the
King James, would also rate a 13 (meaning college or higher to understand).
I did include the
more recent Knox Bible (1949) which is a similar, yet more dynamic,
translation from the 1592 Sixto-Celmentina Latin Vulgate. The Knox
Bible was endorsed by Pope Pius XII.
Doesn't the ISV
(International Standard Version) claim to be much further towards the
word-for-word side of the thought-for-thought spectrum?
The ISV was very
difficult to place on this chart. Many specific passages would
have been ranked near the HCSB or even over to the ESV. On the
other hand, their goal of retaining poetical form for many passages
took some of those passages way over towards a paraphrase. Our
final positioning attempts to average this unique
disparity. We're open to input as to how others may
assess this and suggestions to any better way to show it on our chart.
Isn't the MEV
(Modern English Version) easier to read than the KJV (King James
Version), which both appear at the same high grade level (13)?
The MEV was
difficult to assess. While they did update many archaic terms
and phrases found in the KJV, they also embraced a more literal
rendering of the sentence structure found in the original
languages. In one sampled NT verse, this made it an excessively
long sentence comprised of numerous thoughts. Using standard
tools of evaluating grade level of readability such a verse exceeded
grade 23 (if such existed). Fortunately the reading level of
other verses is significantly better drawing the overall average
downward. Functionally, we have chosen to use grade 13 as the
upward limit of this chart. At grade 13 it means that at least
some (and perhaps a lot of) college education would be necessary to
read and understand the texts so designated.
Does the TPT (The
Passion Translation) claim to be a translation and not a paraphrase?
Yes. But
it's not really a translation. The goal of a good translation
is to accurately convey the ideas of the original languages, whether
using a word-for-word or thought-for-thought approach. The Passion
"Translation" inserts ideas, wording, and concepts
that aren't found in the original language texts. In many
instances these ideas aren't even hinted at in the originals, yet
this Bible occasionally footnotes some of them with "implied by
the context." This "translator" sometimes chose
to use wording based on later Aramaic translations, inserting ideas
nowhere found in the original Greek. Doing so, he overlays later
ideas onto their earlier text (including some modern charismatic
anachronisms). This Bible version would have been more honest to
present itself as a paraphrase, a targum, or a personal
interpretation. As such, it reflects the opinion or belief of
one man, Brian Simmons of Bethel Church, rather than a translation
committee. This isn't to say that one person can't do translating,
but the result should be similar to what other translators would
arrive at. This isn't close. Consider this review...
"Brian
Simmons has made a new translation of the Psalms (and now the whole
New Testament) which aims to ‘re-introduce the passion and fire
of the Bible to the English reader.’ He achieves this by
abandoning all interest in textual accuracy, playing fast and loose
with the original languages, and inserting so much new material into
the text that it is at least 50% longer than the original. The result
is a strongly sectarian translation that no longer counts as
Scripture; by masquerading as a Bible it threatens to bind entire
churches in thrall to a false god." (Review on Themelios by Dr.
Andrew G. Shead, April 2018)
|
