Which Biblical Translation is considered the most scholarly?

[usregimechange]

I know it is more complicated than that but I was just wondering.

[thecai]

1. King James Version...

IMHO.
My favorite Bible is a Precious Moments Children's Bible I bought for my ex husband (so it would be easier to understand).

[Deja Q]

2. None of them.

We don't know who translated them. Or when. Or if they translators had political agendas of their own.

Well, it's safe to say some of them at some specific re-writes had. Otherwise Sodom and Gommorah would remain destroyed by selfish and greed (and not by horny homosexual men :eyes: ) AND that greed would remain a big no-no.

[thecai]

3. That's What The KJV States...

They were destroyed because of the way they ignored the poor, the needy, the prisoners... NOT because of homosexuality.
Ezekiel 16:49-50

[ChoralScholar]

8. I always said

that to say that any translation was the inerrant (or even mostly accurate) word of God puts a lot of people on pedestals they don't deserve to be on:

1.) The men who supposedly wrote the original books with divine inspiration
2.) Those who translated into the Greek and Hebrew of the day
3.) Those who decided which books to include in the canon
4.) Those who translated the Greek/Hebrew into English
5.) The corporations (and yes, their backing denominations) who publish these translations.

And ALL of these people are 100% pure and honest, providing us with the infallible word of God?


That being said, I'm not really sure what the most scholarly is. I see too much agenda in all of them, and too much difference to be able to trust very much.

[usregimechange]

13. Well some of them take a more scientific attitude

[Rabrrrrrr]

16. Don't know who translated them?

Sure we do. Many translations - the legitimately scholarly ones, anyway - list the people who did the translating. I would think any translation done in the last 30-50 years you would have no problem finding the names of the ones who translated them, unless you're using something idiotic like a Jevah's Witness bible or something, but even those might have names.

My seminary still has the table that the RSV translators sat around, with their names engraved in little plaques where they sat. I know some of the people who did the NRSV translation, and my copy of the NRSV lists all the translators.

Do we know who did the KJV? No.

[Tsiyu]

4. None you can get your hands on

But it would be safe to say that the latest translation - given new research and discovery in the areas of linguistics and translation and historical documentation - would be far superior to the decrepit King James, which IMHO was written with a certain, *ahem* agenda.

[thecai]

5. It's Only TWISTED By Those With A Certain

*ahem* agenda. They seem to follow the Hitler version, not actually the KJV.

[Zomby Woof]

11. Agreed

Although much of the KJV is the most poetic, the most literary, of all the English translations. But things *did* get um, lost in translation.

:hi: BHG!

[BrklynLiberal]

6. To know the original intent you have to first become a scholar in Ancient

Aramaic and then spend decades studying samples such as the Lost Sea Scrolls.Then maybe one could begin to try to understand what the original meaning of some of the writings were that were ultimately translated, transmuted, and redacted to come up with what is now called "The Bible".

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

18. Well, that leaves Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell out.

I always suspected....

[wyldwolf]

7. Thomas Jefferson's

[usregimechange]

14. Amen to that! I have that one!

[GreenPartyVoter]

9. Here...try this

http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/liberalchristians.htm#bibles

[gmoney]

10. The PhotoShop Bible

[Rabrrrrrr]

12. The RSV and NRSV are good, scholarly translations

and try to be more literal translations, maintaining some of the form of the original languages.

The one I really like is the Oxford Annotated NRSV, which has copious notes about translations and possible other ways of translating, as well a lot of helpful historical information and cross-references to other passages.

The RSV and NRSV were both done by legitimate, mainstream, scholars who hold to legitimate, mainstream scholarly and academic standards with the only agenda being toward accuracy and a painstaking adherence to letting the text speak for itself, with a lot of looking at as many versions of the "original" texts as possible (and these were done after Nag Hammadi, so they used as many of those texts as possible). The NRSV has taken some liberties with inclusive language (using "humanity" when intended, instead of the word "man" or "mankind"; using "brothers and sisters" when the text says only "brothers" (in a non-relation way, in a friendly way), etc., but does not replace masculine pronouns for God).



Another translation that is quite helpful, but isn't really a translation at all - it's something else, and I can't remember the name - is The Message. It adds A LOT of extra words to try to make things much more understandable, but, of course, takes out some of the ambiguity and also very much loses the feel of the original text. But for real nasty passages, I've found The Message to be a good place to go to try to sort it out. But, never consider it scholarly (and the guy who did that one had no intentions of all of anyone ever considering it authoritative OR a translation, so it's not like he's trying to screw people or dupe them).

[usregimechange]

15. Is there a particular scholar you like to read?

Help me please I live where there are no unitarian churches and all the others plain scare me. I have no one to ask such a question.

[Rabrrrrrr]

19. Brueggeman. That's the easy answer. Walt Brueggeman.

He writes a book, it seems, about every 30 minutes. And not shit books, either - books of incredible scholarly insight. Commentaries, devotionals, scholarly books... the man is a frickin' genius. And if you ever get to hear him speak, it's worth an 8 hour drive for it.

Gerhard von Rad (OT) is excellent. Phyllis Trible (OT), Robin Scroggs (NT, and one of the first scholars to start looking into homosexuality and the new testament - he's pro-gay, by the way), Vincent Wimbush (NT). Trible's "Texts of Terror" is an AMAZING book. Von Rad's "Holy War In Ancient Israel" is a fantastic book, but the chances of you finding it are pretty slim. Also check out his "Theology of the Old Testament".

These are all solid, legitimate scholars, tending toward the "liberal" side - but by liberal I mean they are legitimate scholars, not people who come to the texts with their own agenda in place and then find the texts to support that agenda - they let the text speak for itself.

For some more pretty solid academics, but definitely pushing the envelope, there's the Jesus Seminar people. Marcus Borg being the only name I can remember right now, sadly.

Elaine Pagels is wonderful, but she, like the Jesus Seminar people, is coming from a slightly skewed agenda angle. But she's still pretty solid.

I wish I could think of more, but my brain isn't working in gear very well.

But, if you were to go around at, say, a theological or biblical scholars conference done by legitimate academicians, and asked that question, probably 90% of them would have "Brueggeman" in their top 5.

[usregimechange]

20. Ok, I am printing that off, thank you!

[usregimechange]

17. Oxford Annotated NRSV do fundamentalists hate it?

If so I will buy it.

[Rabrrrrrr]

21. Yeah, for the most part they do

Cuz a lot of fundies consider the KJV the only legitimate translation. God only knows why. Though the NIV (I think) is also quite popular amongst the fundy crowd (and that one is actually not a bad translation - I have one that I often use as well).

But they really hate the NRSV because it had the audacity to use inclusive language (and it only uses it when it makes sense, so I don't know why the fundies would have a shitfit) and because the translation is also done without the agenda that everything is the literally true word of God, and so the textual notes and annotations actually have helpful information, as opposed to everything having to be somehow devotional.

For instance, the use of "Leviathan" in a Psalm might have a nice textual annotation about the history of Leviathan in semitic cultures, and it's use elsewhere in the Bible, and other variants of that word. Whereas a fundy Bible, if it annotated Leviathan, would likely be like this: "Leviathan - that is, Satan."

[Rabrrrrrr]

24. And one warning on the annotated version - it's a bit pricey

Not ungodly - I paid $45 for mine.

But wanted to give you a warning so your heart won't explode. And you likely won't find it at a bookstore, either.

While I was rambling there, I figured I might as well check amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/019528478X/qid=1116986715/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-3073269-7167130?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

30.66 for the hardcover. Oddly, the paperback is more expensive, which is good, because you want the hardcover.

The Oxford Annotated also comes with the Apocrypha.

[RevCheesehead]

22. NRSV=Translation; The Message=paraphrase

The NRSV is an updated version of the RSV, which went back to the earliest texts available (in Hebrew and Greek), in order to get the most accurate translation possible (within certain parameters of agreement).

The problem with the KJV (the "Good King Jimmy") is that it was an English translation of the Vulgate, which was a Latin translation from the Hebrew and Greek texts. The Vulgate contained inaccuracies and mistranslations - the KJV simply translated the Latin, therefore the mistakes were retained.

The Message is IMO, the best paraphrase available in ascertaining intent and theology. The New Testament is Peterson's best work - the OT is a bit pedantic, and, I think, misses some of the imagery in the poetry and wisdom writings.

Just a note: the texts were written in Hebrew (OT), and in Greek (NT), which was the scholarly language of the day. However, Jesus spoke in Aramaic - so even his words were "translated" by the authors of the Gospels (and the enigmatic "Q"). The earliest NT texts are the early letters of Paul: to the Romans, Corinthians, Galations, Ephesians, Philippians, and Colossians.

This has been a public service message brought to you by biblical interpretation, 101. O8)

[Rabrrrrrr]

23. Thanks! That's the word I was looking for.

But the OT is not all Hebrew - parts of Hosea and Daniel are in Aramaic.

And Hebrew was not a scholarly language of the day.

[RevCheesehead]

25. True, that -

However, Hebrew is the accepted language of the Jews, and as such, Jesus used "his" scripture. But one would have to claim that the overall language used in the Hebrew bible is Hebrew, right? ;)

[Rabrrrrrr]

26. Sure, the majority language of the OT is Hebrew

That would be an acceptably true statement. I wouldn't use the word "overall", though.

:P

/me is picky

[Schema Thing]

29. er.... Jesus didn't see fit to pen a single word

Coulda saved a world of confusion, it seems to me :P

[bridgit]

27. jps ~

http://www.breslov.com/bible

unless you're talk'n 'new test' then :shrug: go for it

[Schema Thing]

28. I'll leave you the comment of a friend from another forum

He is involved in translating the bible, and probably knows more about the bible than any other human I've ever known.

My knowledge of English translations is very limited. I generally use the NRSV because I have it on my computer and I found it very good thus far. The French Bible de Jérusalem is one of the best recent translations available (perhaps only lacking of consistency sometimes), so I guess its English adaptation (Jerusalem Bible) must be OK.


If he sounds a bit droll about it, he's really just kind of beyond "translations" of the bible per se; he's already contemplated all the shades of nuance as to why the writers and translators chose the words they did in just about any given passage. The fascinating thing at that point are the oh-so-human reasons for the words chosen.