What do you think?
Rate this book
Choosing a Bible Translation
Which Bible translation is the best to use or to buy?" "Which does the Church recommend?" In Choosing a Bible Translation , John Pilch discusses two kinds of Bible word-for-word (literal or formal correspondence), and meaning-for-meaning (literary or dynamic equivalence) and comments on the merits of each for the needs of Bible readers. Pilch also emphasizes some challenges that translators of the biblical texts face such as the use of inclusive language, social systems, textual variants, and sensitivity to cultural awareness. He provides readers with a host of resources for choosing Bibles on computer software, obtaining electronic copies of translations, and for locating translations on the Internet.
24 pages, Paperback
First published February 1, 2000
3 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
September 25, 2024
A CATHOLIC OVERVIEW OF A NUMBER OF CURRENT BIBLE TRANSLATIONS
Catholic biblical scholar and professor John Pilch begins this 2000 booklet, "When a person determines to read and study the Bible seriously, his or her first question usually is: 'Which Bible translation is the best one to use or to buy?' The Bible at home may be quite old... Many people who begin to read and study such a Bible soon discover that its language is 'old fashioned' ... What, then, should one look for in a Bible to be used for study purposes?" (Pg. 5)
He explains, "In general, there are two kinds of Bible translations: a word-for-word (literal)... translation and a meaning-for-meaning (literary, or dynamic equivalence) translation... Meaning-for-meaning (literary) translations produce a simplified text for easier reading. The major concern of this kind of translation is that the English text should produce in the reader the same effect as the original would...
"Generally speaking, the best kind of Bible for serious study is a word-for-word (literal) translation. A reader can clearly see what the original text seems to be saying, and the footnotes in study editions explain the difficulties. On the other hand, but best kind of Bible for reading... is a meaning-for-meaning or literary translations." (Pg. 5-6)
He says, "The Bible translation most often recommended for study purposes is the Revised Standard Version (RSV). It is very faithful to the original biblical languages, yet it combines accuracy and clarity with solemn formality and a certain adherence to traditional 'Bible English.' The King James Version (KJV) established 'Bible English' ... for more than 250 years.
"The discovery of some new biblical manuscripts and the recognition that some of the 'Bible English' was going stale prompted a revision of the King James Version between 1881 and 1885." (Pg. 7-8)
He comments on various translations: The New Revised Standard Version: "The translators ... were mandated to introduce ... improved accuracy, clarity, euphony, and current English-language use... The Translators also sought to be as inclusive as possible... as well as demonstrating sensitivity to gender inclusivity ... by introducing plural forms when this does not distort the meaning of the passage." (Pg. 9)
The Douay-Rheims was "The first English translation of the New Testament by Roman Catholics... This version translated from the Vulgate... [and] was the authoritative Bible in use among English-speaking Roman Catholics until recent times." (Pg. 9-10)
The New American Bible "served well for serious study as well as private reading, experience [has] demonstrated that it had not been entirely satisfactory for public worship. Therefore a revision of the New Testament was published in 1987. Special attention was given to the question of discriminatory language... that sounded to modern ears as anti-Semitic and ... appeared to discriminate against minorities. Efforts were made to incorporate inclusive language in passages directed to men and women alike." (Pg. 10-11)
The Jerusalem Bible was "One of the richest fruits of Catholic scholarship," and its revised version: "Anyone comparing the New Jerusalem Bible with its predecessor will immediately see the improvements. The introductions and footnotes... have been updated with scholarly insights gained since 1973... Even so, it has retained the impressive poetic character of the 1966 English translation." (Pg. 12-13)
The New International Version: "the translation is regarded ... as reflecting the Evangelical commitment of those involved in preparing it." (Pg. 11) The Revised English Bible "gives priority to spoken (or heard) language over the written language and the needs of the audience over the forms of the language... inclusion of the nonsense word "Jehovah' ... was puzzling." (Pg. 13-14)
The Good News Bible: "The language of this translation is natural, clear, simple, and unambiguous... There was no attempt to reproduce in English the parts of speech, sentence structure, word order, and grammatical devices of the original languages... [which] makes it less suitable for a serious study of the text." (Pg. 14-15)
The Contemporary English Version was "Originally intended ... for children ages five to nine... [but] was so appealing to adults that the translators ... decided to direct the translation to this wider readership... This translation attempts to make Scripture easily understandable to the modern listener and less subject to misinterpretation... [it] had to sacrifice some of the exegetical sensitivity that distinguished the Good News Bible... The CEV New Testament and Psalms have received the imprimatur. Catholics may use it with confidence." (Pg. 16)
He observes, "There is no 'official' or privileged English translation of the Bible... The Church urges that translations should be based on the best manuscripts available and reflect the best scholarship known. Catholics are free to choose whichever Bible meets these criteria and suits their specific interests and purposes." (Pg. 17)
He notes, "The issue of gender inclusive language... is indeed a serious and important consideration. The Bible, however... reflect[s] the fundamental gender-based division of all of reality and life... readers may have to learn increased tolerance for ancient peoples who are culturally different from them." (Pg. 21)
As far as 20-page booklets go, this one is an excellent one, packing a great deal of information into a compact space.
Catholic biblical scholar and professor John Pilch begins this 2000 booklet, "When a person determines to read and study the Bible seriously, his or her first question usually is: 'Which Bible translation is the best one to use or to buy?' The Bible at home may be quite old... Many people who begin to read and study such a Bible soon discover that its language is 'old fashioned' ... What, then, should one look for in a Bible to be used for study purposes?" (Pg. 5)
He explains, "In general, there are two kinds of Bible translations: a word-for-word (literal)... translation and a meaning-for-meaning (literary, or dynamic equivalence) translation... Meaning-for-meaning (literary) translations produce a simplified text for easier reading. The major concern of this kind of translation is that the English text should produce in the reader the same effect as the original would...
"Generally speaking, the best kind of Bible for serious study is a word-for-word (literal) translation. A reader can clearly see what the original text seems to be saying, and the footnotes in study editions explain the difficulties. On the other hand, but best kind of Bible for reading... is a meaning-for-meaning or literary translations." (Pg. 5-6)
He says, "The Bible translation most often recommended for study purposes is the Revised Standard Version (RSV). It is very faithful to the original biblical languages, yet it combines accuracy and clarity with solemn formality and a certain adherence to traditional 'Bible English.' The King James Version (KJV) established 'Bible English' ... for more than 250 years.
"The discovery of some new biblical manuscripts and the recognition that some of the 'Bible English' was going stale prompted a revision of the King James Version between 1881 and 1885." (Pg. 7-8)
He comments on various translations: The New Revised Standard Version: "The translators ... were mandated to introduce ... improved accuracy, clarity, euphony, and current English-language use... The Translators also sought to be as inclusive as possible... as well as demonstrating sensitivity to gender inclusivity ... by introducing plural forms when this does not distort the meaning of the passage." (Pg. 9)
The Douay-Rheims was "The first English translation of the New Testament by Roman Catholics... This version translated from the Vulgate... [and] was the authoritative Bible in use among English-speaking Roman Catholics until recent times." (Pg. 9-10)
The New American Bible "served well for serious study as well as private reading, experience [has] demonstrated that it had not been entirely satisfactory for public worship. Therefore a revision of the New Testament was published in 1987. Special attention was given to the question of discriminatory language... that sounded to modern ears as anti-Semitic and ... appeared to discriminate against minorities. Efforts were made to incorporate inclusive language in passages directed to men and women alike." (Pg. 10-11)
The Jerusalem Bible was "One of the richest fruits of Catholic scholarship," and its revised version: "Anyone comparing the New Jerusalem Bible with its predecessor will immediately see the improvements. The introductions and footnotes... have been updated with scholarly insights gained since 1973... Even so, it has retained the impressive poetic character of the 1966 English translation." (Pg. 12-13)
The New International Version: "the translation is regarded ... as reflecting the Evangelical commitment of those involved in preparing it." (Pg. 11) The Revised English Bible "gives priority to spoken (or heard) language over the written language and the needs of the audience over the forms of the language... inclusion of the nonsense word "Jehovah' ... was puzzling." (Pg. 13-14)
The Good News Bible: "The language of this translation is natural, clear, simple, and unambiguous... There was no attempt to reproduce in English the parts of speech, sentence structure, word order, and grammatical devices of the original languages... [which] makes it less suitable for a serious study of the text." (Pg. 14-15)
The Contemporary English Version was "Originally intended ... for children ages five to nine... [but] was so appealing to adults that the translators ... decided to direct the translation to this wider readership... This translation attempts to make Scripture easily understandable to the modern listener and less subject to misinterpretation... [it] had to sacrifice some of the exegetical sensitivity that distinguished the Good News Bible... The CEV New Testament and Psalms have received the imprimatur. Catholics may use it with confidence." (Pg. 16)
He observes, "There is no 'official' or privileged English translation of the Bible... The Church urges that translations should be based on the best manuscripts available and reflect the best scholarship known. Catholics are free to choose whichever Bible meets these criteria and suits their specific interests and purposes." (Pg. 17)
He notes, "The issue of gender inclusive language... is indeed a serious and important consideration. The Bible, however... reflect[s] the fundamental gender-based division of all of reality and life... readers may have to learn increased tolerance for ancient peoples who are culturally different from them." (Pg. 21)
As far as 20-page booklets go, this one is an excellent one, packing a great deal of information into a compact space.
Displaying 1 of 1 review