Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament

by Jason David BeDuhn

Written with the student and interested public in mind, Truth in Translation aims to explain what is involved and what is at stake in Bible translation. It begins with brief treatments of the background to the Bible and its translation, the various approaches to translation, and the specific origins of nine translation versions in wide use in the English-speaking world today. It then proceeds to compare those versions on nine points of translation, ranging from individual terms, to difficult passages, to whole categories of grammar. The book serves to inform readers of the forces at work shaping the meaning of the Bible, to help in their selection of Bible translations, and to act as a critical catalyst for the improvement of Bible translations through more careful attention to the risk of bias in the translation process.

Genres: Religion, Nonfiction, Christianity

222 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2003

Reviews

[Fred Kohn · Rating 2 out of 5]

When a friend highly recommended this book I was delighted to have learned of it, because I have read Jason BeDuhn's book on Marcion and thought it was excellent. So I was expecting the same high quality from this book.

It started off well enough, more or less describing accurately the issues translators of the New Testament face in their daunting task. But it quickly went off the rails. It seems that BeDuhn wants to highlight the biases found in Protestant translations of the Bible while for some reason defending the New World translation (NWT) produced by the Jehovah's witnesses.

I can neither attack or defend the NWT as I have read only bits and pieces of it, but I was appalled by BeDuhn's defense of its translation of John 1:1: ". . . and the word was a god." Not because I think that this is an impossible translation (i don't) but because of DeBuhn's insistence that this or something like it is the only correct rendering and that the traditional translation (". . . and the word was God") cannot be correct.

In his attack on the traditional translation, DeBuhn states that Colwell's rule, a rule often invoked in defense of the traditional translation of John 1:1, isn't a real rule of Greek grammar. It is true that when stated as requiring that John 1:1 be translated in the traditional way, the rule is wrong. But when the rule is accurately stated, it is perfectly correct. The way Colwell actually stated the rule was:

"Definite predicate nouns which precede the verb usually lack the article ... a predicate nominative which precedes the verb cannot be translated as an indefinite or a 'qualitative' noun solely because of the absence of the article; if the context suggests that the predicate is definite, it should be translated as a definite noun ..." E. C. Colwell 1933.

So what we see is that Colwell actually said was that we should use context to determine whether a noun is either definite or indefinite in this construction. Context? What a notion!

So although BeDuhn thinks he is refuting Colwell's rule by finding instances of indefinite predicate nominatives in John, he is really just refuting a distortion of the rule, not the rule itself.

So if you know nothing about Greek, the following seems rather impressive:

Harner states that the anarthrous predicate noun cannot be definite in John 1:14, 2:9, 3:4, 3:6 twice, 4:9, 6:63, 7:12, 8:31, 8:44 twice, 8:48, 9:8, 9:24-31 five times, 10:1, 10:8, 10:33-34 twice, 12:6, 12:36, 18:26, 18:35. p. 122

Wow, what a list! That's 26 times the predicate nominative cannot be definite! But even if you don't know Greek you can figure out that something is screwy when BeDuhn states that this construction occurs in John 53 times (presumably he gets this from Harner.) So if you subtract 26 from 53 you get 27 instances where Garner apparently feels that the anarthrous predicate nominative might be able to be translated as definite.

As it turns out, in studying Colwell's rule I made my own list of occurrences of this construction in John, and came up with 58 (and I missed many that Harner caught). I offer up this list of such occurrences that Harner did not list as not being translatable as definite, and let the reader decide for him/herself: John 1:4, 1:49, 3:29, 4:24 (widely recognized as ambiguous despite BeDuhn's protestations), 4:35 (twice), 5:10, 5:27, 6:55, 8:34, 8:37, 8:39, 8:42, 9:4, 9:5, 10:2, 11:9, 12:50, 14:2, 15:14, 17:17, 19:21 (almost certainly definite despite BeDuhn's protestations), and 19:31.

This is quite enough to settle the issue, but it is necessary, I think, to say something about this fantasy of BeDuhn's:

There are several other examples skipped by Harner. In John 6:20 [sic, actually John 6:60] we see a sentence set up exactly like John 1:1c which even has ho logos as the subject: sklēros estin ho logos houtos, "This word is a hard one (word-for-word: a hard one is the word this)." Notice how closely this resembles John 1:1c. p. 122

Well, no, it doesn't resemble John 1:1 because there is no predicate noun. Sklēros is an adjective meaning "hard" or "difficult". Shouldn't one be suspicious that seven words have been use to render "word-for-word" what is five words in the Greek? No translation reads "This word is a hard one." The two acceptable ways of rendering this are the more literal "This word is hard" or more dynamically, "This is a hard word."

So although the book makes many good points these are outweighed by its many flaws and obvious bias against evangelical translations and towards the NWT. I wouldn't recommend anyone read this book unless they have enough training in Greek not to be taken in by the author's obvious bias.

[Steve · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a fantastically important book for all those seriously interested in what the Bible actually says. BeDuhn demonstrates theological bias in every major translation he reviews, and with some surprising results. Mostly very accessible to the non-scholarly aside from a couple later chapters that get a bit bogged down in (probably necessary) Greek syntax. Either skip or slog through them and read the final chapter. I am hoping for something similar to come out that will address many of the newer translations in the past decade or so.

[Valerie Nicgorski · Rating 5 out of 5]

Analysis of Bible Translations Accuracy very Enlightening! *Must Read*

[Jason Harris · Rating 3 out of 5]

This review was originally posted over at my website.

I recently read Jason David BeDuhn's Truth in Translation and found it deeply intriguing and at times disturbing. I'll give some positive points and then I'll list my concerns.

1. Truth in Translation is a carefully crafted and scholarly work. BeDuhn brings a wealth of research and knowledge to the table.

2. The subtitle is "accuracy and bias in English translations of the New Testament." BeDuhn's work is a provocative challenge to mainstream evangelicalism's assumption that just about any Bible translation will do. He argues that too often, even in mainstream translations, the translators make the subtle journey from translation to interpretation.

3. BeDuhn's chapter The Work of Translation was very helpful. In it, he lays out the spectrum of translation philosophies from a) Interlinear to b) Formal Equivalence to c) Dynamic Equivalence to d) Paraphrase.

The most controversial aspect of this book is not just BeDuhn's decision to include the JW New World Bible in his analysis, but his conclusion that in many passages the NW translation is less biased than mainstream translations such as the NIV or NASB.

Here are some of my concerns with the book:

1. I felt that BeDuhn's understanding and awareness of the modern debate on translations, at least within Christian Fundamentalism, was lacking. This revealed itself in a lot of ways, but once in particular where he made a statement which seemed to indicate that he hadn't studied the preface of the 1611 publication of the Authorised Version though trying to make a point about that edition.

2. BeDuhn seems to operate under the impression that he has avoided all bias in his analysis. At no point in the book does he reveal his own personal theological biases (not even to the point where you could confidently nail him as an evangelical). Yet I would argue that it is impossible for him not to have theological biases. He could have engendered a much higher level of trust with his readership had he admitted his position and biases early on in the book. If I had to peg him based on what little he gives away about himself, I would suspect he is a theological Liberal.

3. BeDuhn seems to work from a basis of absolute neutrality on basic fundamentals of the faith such as the deity of Jesus Christ. While he seems to view this as a virtue, particularly in the context of translation work, one has to question what kind of epistemology allows this type of writing. Isn't failing to presuppose the deity of Christ in translation (which is inherently interpretive... see #4 and 5 below) the same as presupposing the non-deity of Christ? Can we really accurately translate the Scripture under the belief that we must not presuppose any theological conclusions?

4. BeDuhn readily recognised the necessity of understanding the a) linguistic context, b) literary context, and c) historical and cultural environment in translation. But is it not also necessary to understand the overall interpretive/theological context as well? Would we attempt a translation in any other setting which ignored interpretive context?

5. BeDuhn fails to recognise that all translation necessarily involves an element of interpretation. It is simply impossible to translate the entire NT with no interpretive bias. There are often many English words which can be used. Each time we choose one of those words, we have a whole range of linguistic, literary, cultural, historical, and interpretative (or contextual) arguments for why we feel that is the best English word to communicate the meaning and nuance of the Greek word.

6. BeDuhn's selection of passages to consider demonstrates a certain bias. In chapter thirteen, BeDuhn says "The selection of passages has not been arbitrary. It has been driven mostly by an idea of where one is most likely to find bias, namely, those passages which are frequently cited as having great theological importance." However, he deals almost exclusively (seven out of nine chapters) with passages surrounding the deity of Jesus Christ. Is this the only doctrine which might be subject to bias in Scripture? Further, several of the passages he cites are passages which are consistent with the deity of Christ, but would not be used to prove the deity of Christ.

7. BeDuhn fails to make a distinction between a passage which proves a particular point, and a passage which is merely consistent with a particular point. It is one thing to translate something interpretively in a way which is consistent with a particular theological bias (such as translating proskuneo as "worship" instead of "homage." But it is another thing entirely to translate interpretively in a context which would then be used to prove a particular theological point. I feel that to treat these two on the same level obscures the complexities involved in translation.

8. BeDuhn develops a serious credibility leak in his dealing with several established Greek grammar rules. Particularly, he addresses Colwell's Rule and the Granville Sharp rule. Instead of merely critiquing them and offering adjustments or developments to them, in both cases he simply says they are wrong and should be ignored. In one case, he actually argues that exceptions to the rule prove that it is not a rule at all. The folly of such a statement is obvious.

Conclusion

I wouldn't claim to have done significant in-depth consideration of this book, but I did want to record my impressions after a quick perusal. Overall, I think the book has helped me to look at translation work more critically.

I would recommend the book to those who have already read fairly widely on the subject of texts and translations and who are very discerning. Otherwise, I would recommend reading at a more basic level first so that you can read this material more critically and knowledgeably. That said, this book is written at a level which would be accessible to a fairly broad range of believers.

[Killer of Dreams · Rating 1 out of 5]

I have never considered any of the books I have rated on Goodreads susceptible to achieving only one star but this book does it. This book is great for readers in explaining the way translation is done but fails at everything else. Only a reader with considerable amount of knowledge on the subjects should read this unless an uneducated one wishes to follow this hogwash.

There’s a myriad amount of things I found incredibly short-sighted and false. Among these are his constant lapsing into his own bias interpretation, incorrect handling of John 1:1, and comparison of Jehovah in the New Testament as comparable to the use of Lord in the Old Testament, which is obviously his way of sugar coating the New World Translation. Even his selection of passages, which coincidentally mostly deal with the divinity of Jesus, are a very small collection to assess the accuracy of all the translations.

This book has no academic support and is incredibly false. Please read academic papers and books that critique this book. This book should be listed as Jehovah Witness Apologetic book instead of the author's claim to an unbiased academic report.

August 23, 2019
Update
With the adoption of my new rating system, a one star rating is befitting. The original review and original rating conform to the new rating system. Although I do not have the same fervor in supporting the rating as I had when I had finished reading the book, I must remind myself that this book is full of malicious, false information.

February 15, 2020
Update
I have changed the rating type from 1B to 1A. I am not sure why it previously was listed as a 1B type rating. I have also changed the color of the rating from green to green with a grey outline, since I do not recall the contents of this book and the review is sparse. That is not to say that I do not agree with the one star-rating.

[Nelson · Rating 5 out of 5]

I thoroughly enjoyed this book. The author did a great job of surveying various controversial verses to see how they are rendered in various translations. Analysing particular verses is a great way to see how dispassionate the translators were in approaching the Biblical text. However pretty much all modern translations failed the test and let their own biases affect their translation of the text. The two translations that came out to be, on balance, the best were the NWT and the NAB. I agree with his assessment myself. I own the NWT, NAB, NIV, NASB, KJV, HCSB, & ESV and find that the NWT & NAB are superior. Although I think overall the NWT is head and shoulders above the rest. I am thoroughly disappointed with the others however, how they so clearly distort the text and remove God's name is appalling. I appreciated Beduhn's critique of the NWT as well, he brought up some good points worth pondering. In all, this has been a great and enlightening read.

[Joshua · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a great book for serious Bible students / readers. I've now read it twice, and found the explanation of Biblical Greek very helpful and interesting. To be clear, this is not a simple read. There is a good amount of detail about how Biblical Greek works on a fairly low level ... but it is necessary to bring the reader to a clear understanding of why a translation is or is not accurate.

What I appreciated about the book was the idea that just because most translations handle a passage in a certain way doesn't mean that that is the most accurate way to handle it. Just like in life, being in the majority doesn't equal being in the right.

I definitely recommend this book to anyone interested in finding the best possible English translation of the Bible.

[Oliver Samuels · Rating 3 out of 5]

As a student of languages and translation, I found this book to be interesting, but couldn't escape the feeling that I'd stepped into a very old and bitter dispute without enough backstory to fully grasp it.

Accuracy in translation is a tantalizing, but surprisingly elusive idea. Even in closely related modern languages that share many cognates, it's just not possible to translate without paraphrasing a bit.

I understand that with Bible translation, there are theological implications to that reality, but why Dr. BeDuhn chose the passages he did, what his personal perspective and interest in the New World Translation actually is and why he decided to write a book for laypeople as opposed to his peers are all parts of a larger picture that I feel is missing from this book.

[Daryl Foster · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've known about this book for many years, and I was happy to finally read it. I wish that I had read it sooner. Jason BeDuhn makes a commendable effort to take a clear-eyed view of the work of Bible translation that I find very enlightening. It has helped me to more deeply evaluate the basis of my own faith.

[Cornelius Heinrichs]

Excellent book. I totally want to read it again. Surely he did not make many friends with his findings, so his braveness of going against the popular belief and opinion has to be admired.

[Joe Cummings · Rating 5 out of 5]

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness," 2 Timothy 3:16, RSV.

Of course when Paul was writing to Timothy, he was referring to the Septuagint Bible. That is to say, scripture for Paul and Timothy was the Hebrew Bible (what Christians call the Old Testament) which was written in Koine Greek several centuries before the birth of Jesus,Paul, and Timothy. It this was the only "Scripture" that they read and knew.

At the time, the books of what became the New Testament, except for Paul's letters, had not been written. Nevertheless, for many Christians this passage applies to the New Testament, too, inasmuch as it is considered as the fulfillment of the Hebrew Bible. Unfortunately, not many of us can read or understand the subtleties of 2000 year-old Greek grammar or are that familiar with the history and culture of those times. So we learn about the Scriptures, both new and old, by reading translations-specifically for me, English translations.

When you see how different some of the English translations are, the very reasonable question arises "Which version of the New Testament translations is the most accurate and least bias?" In his 2003 book Truth in Translation , Jason David BeDuhn tells his readers that the answer is found by reading the original Greek.

In this book, the associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University, examines key areas of translation in nine popular English language New Testaments that represent a cross-section of different denominational efforts. Although he considers two of them to be more of an interpretation than translation and one to be a dubious paraphrase. Nevertheless, they are all best sellers.The results were surprising and impressed me.

No translation is unflawed, but the success of a translation should be based on how closely and accurately it matches the original source, and not the number of copies it sells. Interpretation, commentary and paraphrase are not translation. BeDuhn shows in his experiment that main stream Protestant Bibles are overly-influenced by the flawed King James Bible and the desire to find their own doctrines within the pages of the Bible. As a result, among the popular-selling Bibles, it is the other translations that are the least flawed and bias. That is not to say they do not have flaws themselves. They are just the two least flawed of the nine; they are not flaw-free.

This book was a delight to read. It was not too burden by professional jargon and argot . Beduhn does, however, seems to rely too much on the modifiers "wooden" and "tendentious" in his critiques of the nine translations of New Testament. Those people who are interested in studying the Bible, especially the New Testament, should read this book. It made me want to start taking classes in Koine Greek.

[Paul · Rating 4 out of 5]

What Bible translation should one consider the accurate one?

In the words of Jason David BeDuhn, there are none .

This is the first fact that BeDuhn’s book, Truth in Translation: Accuracy and Bias in English Translations of the New Testament, would tell you; and it is only understandable to feel offended if you are a pious person with fervent devotion to your religious beliefs. It especially highlights several cases of theological bias in the translation process. Consequently, BeDuhn points out, contemporary Christian views are improperly introduced in the Bible versions upon which most modern English-speaking Christians rely. This is a quite controversial piece of literature, and BeDuhn makes it a point that he raises the ire of those not ready to set their biases aside in exchange of the evidence-based truths.

Personally, I disagree with some of the arguments that BeDuhn raises, mainly with regard to the main discrepancy among all Biblical translations: the occurrences of the divine name in the Bible. However, he presents his evidences in a constructive and objective way, such that the readers know they are reading the work of someone who merely states what he believes and sees as facts.

In this book, BeDuhn takes into account the nine bible translations that are most widely in use in the English-speaking world, and compares the biases present in each of the translations. He, however, elected to concentrate on the New Testament, as he believes that the New Testament has several passages which contain biases that evidently interfere with the translation.

Among the widely used Bible translations that include the New American Bible, The King James Bible, and The New International Version; BeDuhn selects a particular Bible translation that would definitely be very controversial. He points out this one, saying that while it was not bias-free, it could be considered as the most accurate of the translations compared. Comparing the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation and looking for biased attempts to change the meaning, BeDuhn concludes that one of the nine is a remarkably good translation. Which translation that is depends on the readers whether or not to accept.

BeDuhn, who holds a B.A. in Religious Studies; an M.T.S. in New Testament and Christian Origins; and a Ph.D. in the Comparative Study of Religions (yep, I did my research) knows what he’s talking about, and this otherwise controversial book gives further credence to this audacious historian of religion. You might disagree with him, even find his points outrageous, but there’s no denying that this is a surprisingly readable book that centers mainly on argumentative evidences and nothing else.

[Deborah aka Reading Mom · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books I've read in a long time.Jason David BeDuhn, Ph.D. is an historian of religion and culture, currently Professor of Religious Studies at Northern Arizona University. Dr BeDuhn neither represents nor endorses any particular denomination of Christianity. The author's intent is to make use of his credentials to help any Bible reader determine whether the translation he or she is reading/studying is as accurate as possible and as free of bias as possible. Nine translations were chosen (actually 7, the other 2 are paraphrases and therefore not true translations) and comparisons were made as to strict adherence to the original intent of the language of the New Testament, or more correctly, the Greek Scriptures (the books from Matthew through Revelation).

We usually use the term "page-turner" for novels or lighter material, but this was truly a page turner and hard to put down. I think most serious readers want *any* book they choose to read to be accurate and free of mistakes; this would be especially true when reading books translated from one language to another. We want to know what the author intended to say, how the culture and language of the day made the book what it is. If the Bible is one of the books you are interested in studying and understanding, this is a very valuable aid.

[Nicholas · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this awhile ago, but let me share what I remember about it. It lays out it’s criteria for Bible translation comparison clearly and directly compares several according to that criteria. It lets it’s opinion be known which translations are best to worst according to their criteria.

It is useful for translation comparison, especially when it comes to the authors particular pet issues like unitarianism over trinitarianism. They prefer translations that are more ambiguous rather than directly supporting a trinitarian perspective in the text. It’s interesting to note they gave a Catholic translation high accuracy in that regard. The trinity is catholic doctrine, but the author praises the translators for not inserting doctrine into the text.

My particular issue with this book is not that I disagree with it. I don’t know any better, as I am not versed in ancient languages. My issue is that though the criteria of the author is clear, it is narrow. This might lead one to think their particular pet issues they use for comparison are the end all be all.

I have issues with trying to show the best translations according to such narrow criteria as the author does. It’s a useful text but can be misleading to readers who believe the author and take their word as “gospel truth”. I rated it a 3 which is above average but nothing to write home about or anything.

[Amber · Rating 4 out of 5]

If nothing else, every Christian should read this in order to learn the process of translation. Even if I didn't agree with the author on all his insistences (other than the Catholic Bible being one of the better translations of the original Greek), I think it was important to be aware of how the original Greek could be translated- and more importantly, how easily translations can be manipulated even for the best of reasons.

[Joomi Lee · Rating 3 out of 5]

He makes an astonishing claim regarding the scripture which mentions the name Junia (Junius in most other English Bibles except the KJV) and I wonder how accurate the author is.

[Casey · Rating 5 out of 5]

Loved this book.

[Marnetta · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the most fascinating books I've read in a long time!

[Ilynca Fiedler · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting. Mostly accurate. Got a little technical at parts. Glad I read it. Confirms I'm using the best translation: New World.

[Ruach Hakodesh · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good book