How Often Should A Good Translation be revised/Updated?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by JesusFan, Apr 8, 2011.

  1. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    Any rule of thumb how long between the edition getting revised/updated?
    10/20/50 yrs ?
     
  2. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. JesusFan

    JesusFan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    6,356
    Likes Received:
    0
    So there would be 2 main reasons to update version?
    One would be to update language, such as 1995 nasb and 2011 niv
    another would be due to better texts/resources since time first translated
    such as asv of 1901/rv of 1881?
     
  4. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    I believe a given translation should be left "as is" unless its makers find a goof or goofs in it, & then it should be revised only to correct the goofs.

    If the language leaves it behind, it's timeta make a new translation.
     
  5. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    29,402
    Likes Received:
    12
    Agreed. The revisions of the 1611 were massive as rules of grammar, spelling, et al were developed. And 150 major errors corrected by 1769 Oxford revision. But no real revision of the evolution of language.

    So some words we THINK we know (like we know "let" means to "allow"; in 1611 it meant 100% the opposite, to "hinder") lead many to errors in understanding God's message.

    The NKJV (sadly using the same inferior texts) at least corrected the evolving language, while keeping the lilt and beauty of the 1769 KJV. But it is almost a "new" translation, not a revision.

    So make a new translation. Like the ESV.
     
  6. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,500
    Likes Received:
    454
    With respect, the ESV is not a new translation; it is a revision of the RSV.
    Whether it is based on better texts than the KJV/NKJV is, shall we say, unproven.

    To answer the OP, I believe that if the KJV had been carefully and respectfully revised about every 50 years, we would not have had this profusion of translations appearing every five minutes to confuse us. The Spaninsh version, the Reina Valera, was revised in 1909, again in 1960 and is being revised again as we speak, by the T.B.S.

    Steve
     
    #6 Martin Marprelate, Apr 10, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 10, 2011
  7. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is a new translation. If you went by that, there are no new translations. Even the KJV is a revision of another translation, but we still consider the ESV to be a "new" translation. The NASB is the ASV. The KJV is the bishops.
     
  8. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    *sigh* Why do people ALWAYS gotta go there? You have no idea whether those texts are "inferior" or not. Do you have the originals to compare them to? If not, then you don't know, so statements like that are.........well........ridiculous.
     
  9. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,500
    Likes Received:
    454
    :BangHead: The copyright of the ESV reads, "The Holy Bible, English Standard Version (ESV) 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." The publishers of the ESV acknowledge that it is 91% the same as the RSV. They wrote, "Our purpose is not to make a new translation, but to change the wording only where there is a significant problem."

    The NIV was an entirely new translation.

    Steve
     
  10. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,615
    Likes Received:
    44
    From Theopedia, s.v. English Standard Version:

    Why wouldn't they refer to the Hebrew and Greek for ALL passages?

    If the Hebrew and Greek isn't the starting point for the ESV, then what is?
     
  11. Jerome

    Jerome
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2006
    Messages:
    5,615
    Likes Received:
    44
    How about a third?
    Deficiency in the initial translation work. A superior translation is not going to require all the tinkering that some of these versions do even before the ink is dry.
     
  12. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Did that hit a sensitive spot B4L? Most textual scholars deem the TR to be inferior on the basis of good tests. You're not going to find many conservative New Tesament textual scholars who consider the the so-called Received Text as being a superior work. (Besides, the TR comes in many flavors.)
     
  13. Baptist4life

    Baptist4life
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Listen, Mr. NIV, no one has the ORIGINAL manuscripts, so making any kind of statement about "superior" or "inferior" is ridiculous.
     
  14. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regardless, those on all sides of the issue make those judgments. It's all part of textual criticism.
     
  15. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    The following is taken from : New Testament Text And Translation Commentary by Philip W. Comfort.

    Most contemporary
    scholars contend that a minority of manuscripts --primarily the earliest ones --preserve the most authentic wording of the text. Those who defend the Majority Text (and its well-known incarnations,TR and KJV) would have to prove that these manuscripts,usually having a slimmer text than what appears in later manuscripts,were purposefully trimmed at an early stage in the textual transmission. In other words,they would have to present good arguments as to why early scribes would have purposely excised the following passages :Matthew 5:44b;6:13b;16:2b-3;17:21;18:11:20:16b,22,23;23:14;27:35b;Mark 7:16;9:44,46;11:26;15:28;16:8-20;Luke 4:4b;9:54c-56;11:3;17:36;22:43-44;23:17,34;John 5:3b-4;7:53-8:11;Acts 8:37;15:34;24:6b-8a;28:16b,29;Romans 16:24; 1 John 5:6b-8a. Had these portions originally been in the text,there are no good explanations why they would have been eliminated. On the other hand, there are several good explanations why they were added,such as gospel harmonization,the insertion of oral tradtions,and theological enhancements... It is true that some of the earliest scribes were prone to shorten their texts in the interest of readability,but these deletions usually involved only a few words. Thus most scholars see TR as being the culminationof textual accretions. (p.xxiv)
     
  16. jbh28

    jbh28
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2008
    Messages:
    3,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    No it's not, it's a revision of the NIV 1984. :laugh:;)
     
  17. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I think he meant the original NIV.​
     
  18. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    The following is taken from D.A.Carson's :The King James Version Debate : A Plea For Realism.

    The TR is not the "received text" in the sense that it was the standard one at the time of the Elzevirs [the Elzevir brothers who published it in 1633 --Rip]. Neverthless the textual basis of the TR is a small number of haphazardly collected and relatively late minuscripts. In about a dozen places its reading is attested by no known Greek manuscript witness. (p.36)

    In fact,I cannot think of a single grat theological writer who has given his energies to defend a high view of Scripture and who has adopted the TR,since the discovery of the great unicals and,later,the papyri and other finds. (p.71)
     

Share This Page

Loading...