Arguments regarding which version of the Bible is considered the best translation have been occurring for centuries. However, students may not understand that legitimate reasons exist, which explain the differences between Bible translations. By understanding and appreciating why translations differ, students can increase observation skills, enhance interpretive decision making, and inform the use of Bible translations. Richard Fuhr and Andreas Köstenberger provide three major reasons why Bible translations may differ: exegetical decisions, translation theory, and textual criticism. This analysis explains each of the three reasons and provides a relevant example for each.
The first major reason that English Bible translations might differ is due to exegetical decision making. Translation work requires interpretive decisions. Whether it is a word’s semantic range, case flexibility, or uncertain contextual issues, the translator must make difficult exegetical decisions. For example, John 1:5 states, καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν, which may be translated as, “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.” [1] At issue is the word κατέλαβεν that some translations render “comprehend” (e.g., NASB, NKJV) and other translations render “overcome” (e.g., ESV, NIV). D. A. Carson explains that the verse is “a masterpiece of planned ambiguity.” [2] In other words, the context of the first few verses of the Gospel’s prologue clearly articulate a creation narrative; thus the light that John refers to could literally be the light of creation. If the interpreter determines that the creation context prevails, then it is logical that darkness cannot overcome light because, by definition, there can be no darkness where light exists. However, it is incoherent to suggest that literal light could not be intellectually understood by darkness.
An alternative rendering relies on the context of the subsequent verses in the prologue, which clearly communicate the figurative message that Jesus is the light. If the interpreter determines that the figurative context prevails, then it is logical that the spiritual darkness of the world cannot comprehend Jesus. Furthermore, a figurative context also supports the translation “overcome,” especially considering Jesus’ words in John 16:33, “But take heart; I have overcome the world.” Importantly, Carson notes that it is possible that “John, subtle writer that he is, wants his readers to see in the Word both the light of creation and the light of the redemption the Word brings in his incarnation.” [3] In sum, the translator must determine how various factors, including the contextual environment, inform exegesis, and how exegesis informs translation decisions.
The second major reason that English Bible translations might differ is due to translation theory. Formally equivalent translations adhere as close to the original languages as possible and attempt to provide a word-for-word translation. Formally equivalent translations include versions such as the NASB and ESV. Dynamically equivalent translations attempt to provide a functionally equivalent, thought-for-thought, translation. Translations that lean toward dynamic equivalence include the TNIV and NLT. Translation philosophy influences the translators work. For example, a phrase in Ephesians 2:11 states, τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί, which is often translated by formally equivalent translations as “Gentiles in the flesh” (e.g., ESV, NASB). Other more dynamically equivalent translations render the phrase “Gentiles by birth” (e.g., NIV). The broad semantic range of σάρξ allows for multiple translation options. Certainly, the phrase, Gentiles in the flesh, is a more literal translation of τὰ ἔθνη ἐν σαρκί, thus reasonable for formally equivalent translations. Alternatively, the phrase, Gentiles by birth, expresses the meaning of the thought more clearly than in the flesh, a phrase not common in the English language. Accordingly, the NIV’s translation, which highlights that Gentiles were not born Jews, is a reasonable translation considering its dynamically equivalent initiative. Interestingly, Harold Hoehner explains that in the immediate context, “Paul is stating that the Jews considered the Gentiles inferior just by what can be observed in the flesh.” [4] In other words, the meaning of the phrase, in the flesh, may have less to do with heritage and more to do with where circumcision
is performed, which suggests an overlap between translation theory and exegetical decision making. In sum, translation theory can cause significant differences between Bible translations that may require further attention by the interpreter.
The third major reason that English Bible translations might differ is due to text-based decision making. Textual criticism attempts to ascertain the original Greek and Hebrew texts used for translation purposes. Consensus regarding the original text does not exist due to the variant manuscript readings that text critics use as source material. For example, in the NASB, Deuteronomy 32:8 states, “When the Most High gave nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel [emphasis added].”
Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible: Revised and Expanded Fourth Edition
Alternatively, in the ESV Deuteronomy 32:8 states, “When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he divided mankind, he fixed the borders of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God [emphasis added].” Thus, at issue is whether the final phrase should be rendered “sons of Israel” or “sons of God.” According to the BHS, the final phrase in the MT is בני ישראל, “the sons of Israel.” Emanuel Tov explains that the final phrase in some LXX manuscripts is υἱῶν θεοῦ, sons of God, in most LXX manuscripts is ἀγγέλων θεοῦ, angels of God, and in the Dead Sea Scroll manuscript, 4QDeutj, is בני אלהים, sons of God. [5] Accordingly, the ESV follows the Qumran tradition and some LXX manuscripts, while the NASB follows the MT. Interestingly, finding an English translation that follows most of the LXX manuscripts that render the phrase “angels of God” is quite difficult.
The overlap between textual and exegetical decisions in Deuteronomy 32:8 is palpable. Granted, the MT is often preferred, but should not be uncritically accepted. Furthermore, the older manuscripts, such as the Qumran text, often take precedence, a betive process. but again, internal evidence must be considered. Michael Heiser explains that the assumption of Masoretic priority suggests either an intentional error in the Qumran and Septuagintal texts due to theological predispositions or an unintentional parablepsis, where the first three letters of the word Israel (ישראל) were omitted, which left the Hebrew word for God (אל). [6] Alternatively, Heiser concludes that Qumran’s theology was not misguided, but instead the theological predisposition of the MT altered the original “to eliminate a reference to heavenly beings in order to avoid allegedly polytheistic language.” [7] Accordingly, the exegetical decisions of Qumran and the Masoretes necessarily merge into translation decisions. In the case of Deuteronomy 32:8, it is reasonable that the ESV and NASB may consider both textual criticism and the exegetical implications of the textual decision to determine the translation. In sum, textual criticism is a significant factor in explaining certain differences between English Bible translations.
Richard Fuhr and Andreas Köstenberger suggest that three of the major reasons Bible translations differ is due to exegetical decisions, translation theory, and textual criticism. The examples provided assist in highlighting why understanding the differences between Bible translations is important. Ultimately, understanding the reason behind the translation enhances the interpr
Bibliography
. The Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 1991.
Heiser, Michael. “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God.” Bibliotheca Sacra 158, no. 629 (2001): 52–74.
Hoehner, Harold W. Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002.
Tov, Emanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.
References
[1]Unless otherwise noted, all biblical passages referenced are in the English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008).
[2] D.A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans, 1991), 119.
[3] Ibid., 120.
[4] Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 353–54.
[5] Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 2nd rev. ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001), 269.
[6] Michael Heiser, “Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God,” Bibliotheca Sacra 158, no. 629 (2001): 57–58.
[7] Ibid., 59.
