# What do you think of this translation chart? Biased?



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 9, 2014)

This is a Bible translation chart that was posted on Facebook by Evangelical Bible. It seems to me that it is a bit biased. What do you think? Gliffy Public Diagram - English Bible History


----------



## Eoghan (Jan 9, 2014)

well I don't get the thought for thought bit, in my vocabulary that is dynamic equivalence and totally discredited.


...that aside it seems kosher ;-)


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 9, 2014)

I was referring more to the part about modern translations being based on 5500+ manuscripts, while the KJV was based on only 5 or 6.


----------



## OttoNeubauer (Jan 9, 2014)

NRSV is much more word-for-word than the HCSB, so they should be swapped. (Not that I know Greek/Hebrew, but since the ESV and NRSV are almost identical with the NRSV being ever-so-slightly more dynamic, they should be next to each other wherever they land.) Also the ESV is described as being in the Tyndale/KJV tradition while the NRSV is not, when they are both derived from the RSV and share the same lineage.

So I would agree, a bit biased. I am not sure about the question of Erasmus's manuscripts, don't know much about textual criticism. Can you explain why you think that part is biased?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 9, 2014)

OttoNeubauer said:


> I am not sure about the question of Erasmus's manuscripts, don't know much about textual criticism. Can you explain why you think that part is biased?



While it is true that there are over 5000 manuscripts of the NT, and while it is true that many of these will be consulted during the process of translation, it is false to say that modern translation are actually based on over 5000 manuscripts. In truth, those who produced the CT, while consulting other manuscripts, relied almost exclusively on two manuscripts, just as Erasmus consulted all of the available manuscripts, but ultimately relied mostly on the five or six he considered to be the best in producing the TR. The problem with this chart, and why it is biased, is that its creator has chosen to focus on one aspect of the translation process in regards to the CT, that is the consultation of the entire range of manuscripts, while focusing on a completely different aspect in regards to the TR, which gives off the impression that modern versions are in fact based on thousands of manuscripts while the KJV was based on just a few.


----------



## MusicMan (Jan 9, 2014)

Bill..... exactly. There are many more texts they reflect the TV reading them there ever have been for CT.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## MusicMan (Jan 9, 2014)

TR. Auto correct. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 9, 2014)

I would prefer the word "simplified" as in over simplified chart with some confusing choices.

Putting the ESV, RSV, and NRSV in such different places is just tendentious.

Insofar as the CT takes into account (theoretically anyhow) the full panoply of variants extant today, you could say that it is "based on" (although it might be more accurate to say "takes cognizance of" the full range of variants. Erasmus had a far more restricted pool of mss. from which to choose. However, the more I learn about Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, the less impressed I am with their accuracy, despite their evident antiquity.


----------



## psycheives (Jan 9, 2014)

Great point and detailed explaination, Bill. I also find the chart misleading in listing these bibles on a continuum of "Word for Word" to "Thought for Thought" when almost all the "Thought for Thought" bibles that are most criticized as "paraphrases" are left off the list: Message Bible, Voice etc. This gives the impression that the continuum starts at NASB etc as "word for word" and gives the impression that NRSV, NAB, NIV are much further down the "Thought for Thought" continuum than they actually are. Really, they are more in the middle of the continuum and are considered my many to be the "best" of the "Thought for Thought" bibles (if even not a bit more towards the "Word for Word" side) but by not including the paraphrased bibles, it gives the impression these are paraphrased bibles, when they are not. This is definitely not a reliable chart.



Bill The Baptist said:


> OttoNeubauer said:
> 
> 
> > I am not sure about the question of Erasmus's manuscripts, don't know much about textual criticism. Can you explain why you think that part is biased?
> ...


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 9, 2014)

"of making many [translation charts] [there is] no end; and much study [is] a weariness of the flesh."

Consider . . .


----------



## DMcFadden (Jan 9, 2014)

Consider also . . .


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 9, 2014)

DMcFadden said:


> "of making many [translation charts] [there is] no end; and much study [is] a weariness of the flesh."



As my Grandpa might have said, "Boy, you got more charts than a dispensationalist optometrist."


----------



## Logan (Jan 9, 2014)

Bill The Baptist said:


> In truth, those who produced the CT, while consulting other manuscripts, relied almost exclusively on two manuscripts, just as Erasmus consulted all of the available manuscripts, but ultimately relied mostly on the five or six he considered to be the best in producing the TR.



I would question both of these statements.

That the editors of the CT give a lot of weight to these two is true, but it appears far more nuanced than saying "if these two have it, nothing else matters" and many times the CT chooses a reading with far more witnesses than something that appears in these two. Scrivener's notes were very helpful to me in how and why weight is given to certain readings and it certainly is not just because Aleph and B have it.

Scrivener also says that Erasmus can scarcely be imagined to have used more than five or six manuscripts (I believe he even named each of them in one of his articles). It is conceivable that Erasmus consulted many more in his travels and perhaps made notes but that is speculation. And seeing that Erasmus left in his annotations a note saying that he had "supplied from the Latin what is lacking in the Greek", I wonder whether it was because he felt these five or six were the best, or simply that he used all he had access to (remember he completed this project, with his own Latin, at the printer's request in a short 10 months' time!). He did a remarkable job but I'm skeptical of making conjectures in what we don't know.

As for the chart, it looks reasonable to me but I'm not familiar with all the translations.


----------



## MW (Jan 9, 2014)

Bill The Baptist said:


> What do you think?



It graphically captures the nonsense which is often involved in this subject. In that respect it would have to be deemed a good chart.


----------



## Galatians220 (Jan 9, 2014)

Bill The Baptist said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> > "of making many [translation charts] [there is] no end; and much study [is] a weariness of the flesh."
> ...






Margaret


----------



## Free Christian (Jan 14, 2014)

I found some of the comments on the side of the chart about some of the versions quite amusing, sort of.


----------



## Tirian (Jan 14, 2014)

If this chart is deficient, for those of us who would like a graphical overview of the pedigree of translations, could anyone please recommend an alternative? I note the alternatives already posted focus more on the mode of translation rather than the pedigree.

Cheers.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Jan 14, 2014)

Logan, is it "just speculation" that Erasmus had notes on mss?

Even William Combs, a sharp critic of the TR, AV, and Erasmus, relates,
“Beatus Rhenanus, an employee of Froben, wrote a letter to a friend in September in which he reported: ‘Erasmus of Rotterdam, a great scholar, has arrived in Basel most recently, weighed down with good books, among which are the following: Jerome revised, the complete works of Seneca revised, *copious notes on the New Testament....*’ ” (Erasmus and the Textus Receptus, p 7.) [emphasis added]​


----------



## Logan (Jan 15, 2014)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Logan, is it "just speculation" that Erasmus had notes on mss?



If Beatus Rhenanus is correct, no. But what these "copious notes" contained is. Presumably they were for the Greek but it's possible they were for the Latin since he aimed as his own Latin translation as well. If they were for the Greek, were they enough to to capture all the variants? Were they detailed enough to make decisions between the broader textual variants? That is the speculative part.

My statement was in response to the statement that Erasmus "ultimately relied mostly on the five or six he considered to be the *best* in producing the TR". If Scrivener's analysis is correct (and it seems reasonably certain), the five or six manuscripts Erasmus used in the 10 months he had, were all residing in Basel. It is _possible_ that he considered those in his city of residence to be the best, but it seems much more likely to me that Erasmus simply made use of what he had on hand: three of the manuscripts contained the gospels and Acts, four of manuscripts contained the Pauline epistles, and one contained Revelation. This seems to be borne out by Erasmus' own note that he supplied from the Latin what he didn't have in the Greek, something surprising if he really had extremely complete and precise notes on textual variants and passages.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 15, 2014)

The placement of the ESV and the RSV (especially) is ludicrous. (Likewise the NKJV being only slightly to the left of the HCSB.) Both the KJV and the NKJV are unquestionably more literal, even taking textual issues into account, I think. The ASV and RV are more literal than the NASB too. Among modern translations, I'm not sure if the 1995 NASB is any more literal than the NKJV. It is is obviously less literal in a good many cases. 

Why an organization with evangelical in its name would put forth inaccurate information about the RSV is beyond me. It was widely condemned by conservative evangelicals. Perhaps the ESV being based on the RSV has led to a more positive appraisal of the latter among ESV fans?


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 15, 2014)

Pilgrim said:


> Perhaps the ESV being based on the RSV has led to a more positive appraisal of the latter among ESV fans?



Perhaps, but one thing is certain: The popularity of the ESV has certainly added quite a bit to the coffers of the National Council of Churches.


----------



## Logan (Jan 15, 2014)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Perhaps, but one thing is certain: The popularity of the ESV has certainly added quite a bit to the coffers of the National Council of Churches.



Wayne Grudem (involved with the ESV) said 


> "We bought the rights to the old RSV from the NCC in a one-time payment several years ago. The funding for that came from private sources, not from any ESV sales…Not one cent goes to the NCC from ESV sales, and it never will."


----------



## hammondjones (Jan 15, 2014)

DMcFadden said:


> [there is] no end;



And this:
Adam4d.com - Get to know your Bible translations


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 15, 2014)

Logan said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps, but one thing is certain: The popularity of the ESV has certainly added quite a bit to the coffers of the National Council of Churches.
> ...



If this is true, why then does the inside cover of the ESV indicate that the copyright still belongs to the NCC? "The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, *copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA. All Rights Reserved."*

And even if this were the case, are we to suppose that this "one time payment" did not enrich the NCC? One way or the other, the existence of the ESV has benefited the NCC.


----------



## Phil D. (Jan 15, 2014)

Bill The Baptist said:


> One way or the other, the existence of the ESV has benefited the NCC.



Regrettable, but hardly relevant to the actual veracity and worth of the translation itself.


----------



## Logan (Jan 15, 2014)

Bill The Baptist said:


> If this is true, why then does the inside cover of the ESV indicate that the copyright still belongs to the NCC? "The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA. All Rights Reserved."



Is it not conceivable that NCC could sell the right to use and modify, yet still hold the copyright on the original? Sort of how a movie producer could make a one-time purchase to the rights to a story but the original is still owned by the author? 

Sure, one can bemoan the fact that any money at all went to NCC, though I'm sure there are things that you and I have purchased that have supported them indirectly. However, it is one thing to bemoan any money at all going to them and another to make the implication that every copy of the ESV sold directly benefits NCC.


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 15, 2014)

I wonder how many of the critics of CT versions on the PB read them ? Do they compare the ESV to the AV, or simply have contempt without investigation ? In another thread I pointed out that I am reading a Cambridge KJV/RV interlinear. It is very instructive in giving perspective on how innocuous many of the purported thousands of changes are. I also regularly read the ESV, NASB and NKJV for comparison. Not so much seeking for more accuracy in translation, as to have a better understanding in todays vernacular as opposed to the archaic language of the AV. I find the comparison very beneficial in improving my comprehension. your mileage may vary.

Taken from the Ligonier Ministries website, here is a statement by R.C. Sproul giving his reasons for choosing the ESV translation as the basis for his study Bible :

Why We Use the ESV



> Why We Use the ESV
> Introduction by R.C. Sproul
> 
> We chose the English Standard Version (ESV) as the text of the study bible because of the combination of its accuracy and its literary qualities. The ESV stands in the tradition of translation begun by William Tyndale in 1526 and continued by the King James Version (1611), the Revised Version (1885), the American Standard Version (1901), the Revised Standard Version (1952, 1971), and the New King James Version (1983). The goal of translations in this tradition has been faithfulness to the language of the original texts as well as dignified beauty in the English translation.
> ...


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 15, 2014)

Logan said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > If this is true, why then does the inside cover of the ESV indicate that the copyright still belongs to the NCC? "The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA. All Rights Reserved."
> ...



Certainly this is conceivable, and based on Wayne Grudem's statement, I am sure that this was the case. I would also agree that we all probably do things that indirectly benefit things that we would otherwise be against. I guess my objection is that I cannot conceive of why anyone would want to revive such a translation. Why not just create a new translation?


----------



## Logan (Jan 15, 2014)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I guess my objection is that I cannot conceive of why anyone would want to revive such a translation. Why not just create a new translation?



I am not very familiar with the RSV but this is how I understand it:

The AV was of course done in 1611, a masterpiece of translation, possibly the best work done by any group in any language.
The RV was a more literal translation, supposedly to revise the AV, but quite wooden and of course based on some kind of CT. Most of the criticisms I'd seen were for it's rather bland use of language.
The ASV was the Americanized version of the RV (spelling mainly).
The RSV was an update of the ASV with the biggest improvement being in the woodeness of the language. Some have called it the best (in terms of eloquence) translation of the 20th century and supposedly it sought to follow in the same beauty of language in the AV. It suffered from apparent liberal influence though, with "virgin" being "young woman" and gender issues and such.

The ESV is supposed to be the RSV with the liberal tendencies removed, thus trying to reclaim the beauty of (supposedly) one of the most beautiful modern translations while still striving for accuracy.

So AV -> RV == ASV -> RSV -> ESV

Whether that was a good goal or not could be debated but if I understand the purpose correctly, it makes sense to me why they would recognize the gold under the dross and try to polish it rather than create something entirely new (theologians recognize your limitations!). Personally I appreciate the continuity with the KJV, as many of the phrases from both are firmly in my memory.


----------



## Edward (Jan 15, 2014)

Bill The Baptist said:


> And even if this were the case, are we to suppose that this "one time payment" did not enrich the NCC?



Sorry, but that doesn't support your proposition. 



Bill The Baptist said:


> The popularity of the ESV has certainly added quite a bit to the coffers of the National Council of Churches.



The one time payment was not contingent upon nor affected by the popularity of the ESV. 



Bill The Baptist said:


> If this is true, why then does the inside cover of the ESV indicate that the copyright still belongs to the NCC?



There is a difference between a licensing fee and the purchase of a copyright. 

I would invite you to acknowledge that your original statement was based upon a misunderstanding and to limit attacks on the ESV to the merits.


----------



## MW (Jan 15, 2014)

Edward said:


> I would invite you to acknowledge that your original statement was based upon a misunderstanding and to limit attacks on the ESV to the merits.



I agree. Every business transaction has the potential to profit someone. Business-minded people have gained and lost from the production of the Bible through the centuries. Whoever profits from the thing is irrelevant to the merit of the product. At the same time, the fact it is the Bible means it meets with a pietistic sympathy which sees the distributors as somehow doing the work of God. It is important to separate business and piety at that point.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 15, 2014)

Edward said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > And even if this were the case, are we to suppose that this "one time payment" did not enrich the NCC?
> ...



I will submit that my original statement was an exaggeration, however I would still argue that the NCC has benefited, even if in a very small and limited way, from the existence of the ESV. That being said, my intention was not necessarily to impugn the ESV as a translation. It is certainly one of the best of those based on the CT and far superior to many others.


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 15, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Edward said:
> 
> 
> > I would invite you to acknowledge that your original statement was based upon a misunderstanding and to limit attacks on the ESV to the merits.
> ...


Brings to mind ....... ; 

Philippians 1:15-18

Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)

15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: 16 the one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: 17 but the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. 18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice. 

Philippians 1:15-18

English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK)

15 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. 16 The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defence of the gospel. 17 The former proclaim Christ out of rivalry, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretence or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.


----------



## jandrusk (Jan 15, 2014)

I have found this sermon to be most enlightening concerning this subject. That and watch A Lamp in the Dark along with Tares Among the Wheat by Christian Pinto.

The Pretensions Of The English Standard Version - SermonAudio.com


----------



## JM (Jan 15, 2014)

Due to the witness of the Church... I read the AV.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MusicMan (Jan 15, 2014)

I always end up back with the NASB anyway. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## psycheives (Jan 16, 2014)

Excellent eye. Yes, the NASB was an attempt to be less literal/wooden and easier to read than the ASV. The NASB is a revision of the ASV and is clearly less literal. This would be like claiming the NKJB is more literal than the KJB. 



Pilgrim said:


> The placement of the ESV and the RSV (especially) is ludicrous. (Likewise the NKJV being only slightly to the left of the HCSB.) Both the KJV and the NKJV are unquestionably more literal, even taking textual issues into account, I think. The ASV and RV are more literal than the NASB too. Among modern translations, I'm not sure if the 1995 NASB is any more literal than the NKJV. It is is obviously less literal in a good many cases.
> 
> Why an organization with evangelical in its name would put forth inaccurate information about the RSV is beyond me. It was widely condemned by conservative evangelicals. Perhaps the ESV being based on the RSV has led to a more positive appraisal of the latter among ESV fans?


----------



## Gesetveemet (Jan 16, 2014)

Charts don't matter to me I read my Bible every day, all 49 of them.


----------



## sevenzedek (Jan 16, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > What do you think?
> ...


----------



## One Little Nail (Jan 16, 2014)

Phil D. said:


> Bill The Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > One way or the other, the existence of the ESV has benefited the NCC.
> ...



can anyone point to a link that has a comparison of the 2 Translations to show the true difference between them, as the RSV was considered quite a liberal translation at the time a lot of work would have had to go into the ESV, it may have been better to start a new translation from scratch.


----------



## One Little Nail (Jan 16, 2014)

JimmyH said:


> I wonder how many of the critics of CT versions on the PB read them ? Do they compare the ESV to the AV, or simply have contempt without investigation ? In another thread I pointed out that I am reading a Cambridge KJV/RV interlinear. It is very instructive in giving perspective on how innocuous many of the purported thousands of changes are. I also regularly read the ESV, NASB and NKJV for comparison. Not so much seeking for more accuracy in translation, as to have a better understanding in todays vernacular as opposed to the archaic language of the AV. I find the comparison very beneficial in improving my comprehension. your mileage may vary.



Well thats one of the things we have to way up when choosing a Translation to read, apart from the textual issues, if you find you don't struggle to read some of the older english words or get lost by the pronouns then you would go with The KJB,otherwise if still prefer the readings of The KJB but prefer a more modern Bible you may choose the NKJV, otherwise if you prefer the C.T. Translations you can go with the NASV for its more literalness through the ESV to the HCSV to less accurate NIV, which really should be called a word to thought translation as opposed to a thought to thought one as it goes from text to reading via dynamic equivalence. 
If we want God's Word than we should use a Translation that is essentially Literal, as its words, God's Words we want to read, not the thoughts of a translator.


----------



## sevenzedek (Jan 16, 2014)

Are they saying the NKJV is not as word-for-word as the ESV?


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 16, 2014)

One Little Nail said:


> JimmyH said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder how many of the critics of CT versions on the PB read them ? Do they compare the ESV to the AV, or simply have contempt without investigation ? In another thread I pointed out that I am reading a Cambridge KJV/RV interlinear. It is very instructive in giving perspective on how innocuous many of the purported thousands of changes are. I also regularly read the ESV, NASB and NKJV for comparison. Not so much seeking for more accuracy in translation, as to have a better understanding in todays vernacular as opposed to the archaic language of the AV. I find the comparison very beneficial in improving my comprehension. your mileage may vary.
> ...


I'm 'well struck in years', being 65 and began reading Shakespeare in my 20s. I did not come to the Bible until my 30s, the KJV, and had the advantage of being somewhat familiar with Elizabethan English through the reading of the bard. So it wasn't as difficult for me as it might have been to read and appreciate the KJV. Still, even after years of reading it, I like to go to the translations you've mentioned to cross reference what I've read, and perhaps understand it better. The congregation I attend (OPC) now, and those I've attended in the past, (SBC) all used NKJV or ESV in the pulpit and NIV in the pews. Despite the ongoing controversy I like to think they are all the Word of God.


----------



## au5t1n (Jan 16, 2014)

Shakespeare and the AV are worlds apart in terms of difficulty of comprehension. I started reading my dad's old AV when I was 10 -- not having been raised in church -- and I understood it pretty well, but I struggled with Shakespeare as a teenager. The language of the AV is much simpler than Shakespeare.


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 16, 2014)

au5t1n said:


> Shakespeare and the AV are worlds apart in terms of difficulty of comprehension. I started reading my dad's old AV when I was 10 -- not having been raised in church -- and I understood it pretty well, but I struggled with Shakespeare as a teenager. The language of the AV is much simpler than Shakespeare.


Certainly is, nonetheless, that is my story and I'm sticking to it ........


----------



## Free Christian (Jan 16, 2014)

Hi Robert. I often use (put this in your search engine, "biblestudytools.com compare translations") then go to the comparison section. Its a real eye opener when you start using it to compare translations. Some are quite bizarre!


----------



## jandrusk (Jan 16, 2014)

I have found this site to be most helpful when reading the AV.

:: Search the 1828 Noah Webster's Dictionary of the English Language (FREE) :: 1828.mshaffer.com


----------



## Free Christian (Jan 16, 2014)

Hi Jandrusk. I have that one in my E Sword. Can get a heap of good things there for free too.


----------



## One Little Nail (Jan 17, 2014)

Free Christian said:


> Hi Robert. I often use (put this in your search engine, "biblestudytools.com compare translations")Bible Verses by Comparison, Read Verses Using All Translations Side by Side then go to the comparison section. Its a real eye opener when you start using it to compare translations. Some are quite bizarre!



Thanks Brett, ye Ive been to Bible Studies were you lose you place in The KJ Bible following the new translations as whole
verses are missing! thanks for the Link, by the way there is an add link button in the Quick Reply toolbar, its the globe with what looks like an 8 on its side, the first one on the right of the smiley face icon, just copy & past the link thats in the address bar into the dialog box which appears.
be sure to visit my http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/chick-tracts-contribution-textual-issues-81918/ thread & add your thoughts.


----------

