In my previous post I mentioned a correlation between the lack of variety in available Bible translation approaches and the fact that most Bibles are intended to stand alone (as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ style, that is, as producing Bibles to be used for both study and liturgy, by a wide audience). This is especially true of large committee Bible translation projects where the goal tends to be the out-dated idea of providing a new ‘standard’ translation that would monopolize the market of readers.
This means a missed opportunity for new Bibles to pursue the variety of translation methods (since they are all competing for the ‘word group’ and ‘clause’ level translation method, see previous post).
Today I’m following up the discussion of the implied correlation between the lack of variety and the ever-increasing number of new Bible translations.
It is no secret that the number of Bible versions created in the English language is vast—the number is in the hundreds (or thousands if one counts different editions). So it is strange that new Bible translations appearing in English usually overlook the obvious fact that many of their intended readers will own and read more than one translation.
Many Bibles appearing in English are produced as though they were intended to be read in ignorance of other translations/versions. I suppose it is partly a consequence of marketing (compare how TV networks rarely like to acknowledge the existence of other TV networks in their broadcasts). Such ‘ignorance’ is obviously pretend.
In the real world many readers (especially Bible college students, pastors, religious educators, and Bible study groups) are not so ignorant and so they do not forego reading their Bibles in various English translations. Granted many readers do gravitate to one Bible to use as as their primary Bible for practical reasons, but this does not obviate comparative use of more than one version at various times.
So what difference does this ‘feigned ignorance’ make for Bible readers? I suggest that it not only reproduces an ignorant reading experience (leaving it to the more inquisitive readers to go search out for themselves alternative translations) but that it is partly responsible for the never-ending over-production of new Bible translations in English.
We have already noted that multiple translations are a necessary phenomenon due to the nature of translation. This should be clear from the previous blog post. Here’s how Julio Trebolle Barrera stated it (italics added):
The biblical text is loaded with such richness of meaning in its smallest details that any translation can offer no more that [sic] a few of the many aspects which philological, historical and theological study find in the text. In effect, it is really always necessary to provide several alternative translations. This is one of the reasons why the student of the Bible cannot forego study of the original languages.
The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible (Trans. Wilfred G. E. Watson; Leiden; New York; Koln: Brill, 1997), 126.
Here we will focus on the necessity for English readers of having access to multiple translations.
The point is widely acknowledged by those who study translations (and taken for granted by students of translation studies). For example, Tommy Wasserman concludes that
multiple translations that complement each other are necessary. There is certainly a great need for translations with different levels of language and with varying degree of interpretation, aimed at different addressees and purposes; the translation for the experienced reader should not necessarily be the same as for the first time reader; likewise, those who read the Bible to prepare sermons could need another kind of translation than those who read it as a book for culture. . . . The ideal would be a broad range of translations that could, so to speak, build a bridge into the world of the Biblical authors. . . . idiomatic translation . . . needs to be complemented with the literal translation, not least in order to enrich and amplify the target language and bridge the gaps between our modern world and the Biblical one.
“Theoretical Orientations In Bible Translation: AComparative Analysis of Two English-language Bible Versions” (2001)
Similarly, Philip Sumpter (in his article “English BibleTranslations: An Overview of Current Versions”) found that “None of the authors [translation theorists] cited in this article, each involved in translation projects themselves, claim that only one translation or translation type is sufficient.” (italics added)
So it is refreshing when a translation stops behaving like a TV network and acknowledges the mutual existence of other contemporary translations. This was a welcome feature of the NETBible when it appeared (online 1996; in print 2005) which does occasionally make reference to other versions in the footnotes when discussing an ambiguous passage. The most extreme endeavour in this vein would probably be the Comprehensive New Testament (2008) which provides references to twenty other commonly used English versions for every New Testament verse!
Whilst we should not expect that every new version can or should go to such extremes (and the CNT has its own agenda in doing so), we might at least expect that more Bibles are translated with the knowledge that their translations exist in mutual dialogue with other translations, and to make this fact more transparent to readers.
The myth that a newer Bible will be the version to end all versions (or the one and only Bible translation to be read by its faithful readers) in reality does little to reduce the outpouring number of new versions. In fact it would seem to hinder the proliferation of new Bibles because it fails to properly address the need for necessary complementary translation types that theorists have identified. This in turn is reflected in the production of Bible versions which inherently aim to supplant and compete with rather than supplement and complement.
Ultimately, there remains an ongoing need for newer Bible translations. What is needed, however, is for such translations to improve their awareness of what they are and how exactly they might be achieving what they are setting out to achieve in relation to other translation efforts, by paying attention to what translation theorists and other experts have known and studied about the translation enterprise.
I will follow up the matter with some examples soon.
I've been thinking lately about the names of my first eight Bibles, and I'd like to comment on what exactly is “New” about these versions.
My first Bible versions, beginning from when I first learned to read at age 7, were:
- New Berkley Version (age 7)
- New King James Version (age 9)
- New Century Version (age 14)
- New International Version (age 17)
- New Living Translation (age 21)
- New Revised Standard Version (age 22)
- English Standard Version (age 25)
- New English Translation (age 27)
I won't here talk about the relationship between my age and my Bible version. I want instead to discuss the fact that 7 out of the 8 versions contain the word “New” in their titles. What is meant to be “New” is not the same for each.
The “New” in the “New Berkley Version” (I think my edition back then did not have “New” in the name but my 1969 edition does) was meant to indicate that it was “not just another revision” but presented “a completely new translation” (i.e. not based on any previous English versions).
By contrast the “New” in the “New King James Version” indicates that it was simply a new edition of the KJV (replacing "thee, thou, and ye" with "you" etc.), that is, it is only a light revision of the KJV.
The “New” in “New Century Version” is apparently meant to indicate that it was (like the Berkley version) a new/fresh translation using contemporary language—however the NCV is actually one of two versions (along with the International Children’s Bible) published by Word Publishing Company that were developed together (the simpler version, the ICB was released a year earlier, in 1986) and it is not clear if the NCV was developed (revised) out of the ICB or whether the ICB was revised from the NCV. Both the ICB and NCV may have been revised from the earlier 1978 “English Version for the Deaf” which was also marketed as “A New Easy-to-Read-Version” (and the revision has recently continued with the “Expanded Bible”, 2011). So perhaps the “New” in “New Century Version” was actually meant to refer to the new century (20th century) and its use of modern (20th century) language.
The “New” in “New International Version” is more complex and represents a bit of a contradiction. The NIV was conceived and intended to supplant the apparently “liberal” Revised Standard Version as a replacement “Authorised” or “Standard Version” (before deciding on New International Version several other names were considered two of which were “Twentieth Century Authorized Version” and “Twentieth Century Standard Translation”) so in many ways it tried to position itself as standing in the same legacy (just like the RSV) of the Tyndale-KJV-RV tradition of Authorized English revisions (it sought to “preserve some measure of continuity with the long tradition”). But at the same time it intended to promote itself as “a completely new translation”. It may make sense then to see it as a version that was (somewhat) both “International” and “New” but not necessarily as (mutually) distinctively both (it was “new” because it was somewhat interdenominational and international). But it was not really “new” in the sense of being a (particularly) modern speech version. (Although “Contemporary English Version” was another name considered during the task of finding a name for the future NIV, the degree to which the NIV was not a truly modern speech version is partly due to its conflicting purpose of providing a “standard”/ “authorized” version and partly due to its being largely a product of translation done in the 1960s–early-1970s).
The “New” in the “New Living Translation” is also not very simple. It is meant to identify it as a version sailing on the fame of Kenneth Taylor’s “Living Bible” paraphrase but with little to no relationship to it other than in name (it was undertaken by Tyndale House Publishers which was founded by Taylor, and originally the NLT began as a project to revise Taylor's Living Bible). It is therefore entirely new and not a revision of a previous English version (the 2004 version of the same name is of course a revision of the 1996 NLT version).
The “New” in “New Revised Standard Version” is meant to indicate that it is a revision of the “Revised Standard Version” (but obviously they couldn’t call it the “Revised Revised Standard Version”! – the RSV had already to overcome the same issue when it revised the “Revised Version”. So both “New” and “Standard” here overcome the problem of a having a “revised revised revised version.” However, the NRSV is more than simply a revision, Metzger explains it as “another step in the long, continual process of making the Bible available in the form of the English language that is most widely current in our day” so the “New” is meant to represent the use of modern language (hence the inclusive use of “brothers and sisters” and gender neutral pronouns). Despite being a revision of a revision (of a revision etc.) the NRSV is actually in several ways a "new" (fresh) translation.
There is no “New” in “English Standard Version” for good reason (no accident). The ESV was by nature somewhat “anti-new” and “pro-old”. The ESV was a very light revision of the RSV made by (and for) those who still prefer the old RSV to the New RSV. I find it somewhat ironic that the NIV largely succeeded in ousting the RSV from the popular market (as the "new" standard version) for the very same reason that the ESV is likewise doing now (to capture the conservative market). So it seems that in the 1950s the RSV was too new for some churches but is just about right for those same churches (in the form of the ESV) (probably as it is not “new” anymore).
I will finish, for now, with my eighth Bible, the “NET” or NETBible. The “New” in “New English Translation” plays a double role. It indicates a “new translation” (not a revision) and it also helps create the abbreviation NET indicating that it began life on the Internet. It was the first (new) Bible translation to be published online (1996) before being published in print (2005).
Looking at the different kinds of “New” in the titles of my first Bibles has afforded an interesting way to begin thinking about how Bible versions are named and the translation philosophy to which such names belong.
Next post, I plan to try myth-busting the most widely held myth about translation philosophy...
