New Bible Translations - a fascinating variety
I BY DR. JOH N H. SK ILTON Professor of New Testament Languages and Literature Westminster Theological Seminary Philadelphia
I n t h e p e r i o d s i n c e 1881, the year in which the Eng lish Revised Version of the New Testament and the Greek New Testament of Westcott and Hort appeared, an enormous amount of work has been done in preparing new or revised English versions of the New Testament. Probably many persons have thought that the English versions made in this modem period are limited to a dozen or so well-known works such as the translation of Moffatt, Weymouth, Goodspeed, Montgomery, Ballantine, Spencer, Knox, Verkuyl, and Phillips, the Revised Stand ard Version, the Confraternity Version, and the New English Bible. Actually, however, since 1881 new Eng lish versions or revisions of translations of the whole Bible, or of the entire or almost the entire New Testa ment, have appeared on the average of more than one a year. New English translations or revisions of transla tions of parts of the New Testament which have been published in this period number more than 400. Even a slight acquaintance with this large group of new versions and revisions will indicate that much variety exists among them. From every point of view from which translations may be judged, there is a chal lenging diversity. In the matter of basic text, for one thing, translations will be found using a Greek text, or a secondary text such as Latin, Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Anglo-Saxon, and German. In the case of the Greek texts used, the influence of Westcott and Hort is very promi nent, but the Greek base will nevertheless be observed to vary all the way from a form of the textus receptus to the Greek text which underlies the English Revised Version, the Resultant Greek text of Weymouth, the texts found in particular manuscripts, and the texts of Tischen- dorf, Tragelles, von Soden, Nestle, and Bover. There has also been variety of opinion among trans lators and revisers in the modem period (as at other times) as to what accuracy and faithfulness in a version require. Some of them, for instance, have favored a thought-for-thought, meaning-for-meaning rendering — one which is not confined closely to the actual words of the original. The New Testament of the New English Bible has followed this method to a very whimsical ex tent. In the Greek text of Galatians 1:1, to cite an ex ample, the prepositional usage is very significant, and must be exactly expressed by the translator. The King James Version and the American Revised Version follow
the text closely here and succeed in conveying to the reader the true force o f the original. The New English Bible, however, offers a translation which in its unneces sary freedom regrettably fails to acquaint the reader with the precise nature of the Greek text. Phillips’ translation is so free at times as to seem paraphrastic. It is not content simply to use modem English. By substituting cultural equivalents on occasion, it also modernizes some of the content of the New Testament. At I Peter 5:14 the King James Version, following the Greek, renders it: “ Greet ye one another with a kiss of charity.” The American Revised Version reads: “ Salute one another with a kiss of love.” Phillips substitutes a “handshake” for the “ kiss” of the original: “ Give one another a handshake all round as a sign of love.” Very modem also in its sound is his rendering of Romans 9:21, where he introduces reference to a “ pipe for sewage.” Not all modem translators, of course, have taken undue liberties with their text. In fact, at times smooth ness of style has been sacrificed in the interest of close rendering of the text or precise rendering of elements in the text (as in the case of Charles B. Williams’ at tempt to convey the exact force of Greek verbal forms). It might be commented that the translator who wishes to avoid excessive freedom need not resort to a non- idiomatic type of word-for-word rendering. The King James Version and some of its revisions provide good examples of how a translation may keep close to its text and yet not ignore the thought movement of a passage and not do violence to English usage. Translators and revisers in the period since 1881 have given much attention to matters of language and style. They have often advocated making use of clear contemporary English. Their aims indeed have not al ways been realized, and it is not difficult to find serious infelicities of style in some of their versions; but very often they have achieved simplicity of expression and have avoided archaic and obsolete words and forms. Despite, however, rather widespread agreement among them about what is to be desired in language and style, their versions do not lack stylistic individuality. There is a vast difference, for example, between one of the pioneer versions of the modern period, Ferrar Fenton’s translation of the New Testament into current English, with its roughness of style, and the beautifully cadenced
14
THE KING'S BUSINESS
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker