Bad News for Modern Man

This is sad to hear because I remember as a child (probably 10 or 12 -- I'm 47 now.) I would devour the Good News New Testament during church, because for once, I could read it as a story and understand it.

Dr. Bob, what do you think the real agenda was? I guess I am asking if you think he was actually trying to destroy the diety of Christ, or just water it down, or something else?

We were just a small church and I don't remember any negative tracts, but I do remember plenty of these paper backs laying around in the church.

 

I agree with Dr. Bob. Here is an article from Bible Research:

Good News Bible
(Today's English Version)

New Testament. Robert G. Bratcher, Good News for Modern Man: The New Testament in Today's English Version. New York: American Bible Society, 1966. Revised 1971.
Bible. Robert G. Bratcher, ed., Good News Bible: The Bible in Today's English Version. New York: American Bible Society, 1976. Revised with inclusive language in 1992.
Apocrypha. Robert G. Bratcher, ed., Good News Bible: Today's English Version with Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha. New York: American Bible Society, 1979.

The New Testament of the Good News Bible was translated by Dr. Robert G. Bratcher in consultation with a committee appointed by the American Bible Society. (1) Bratcher had been on the staff of the American Bible Society since 1957, and he did his translation according to principles of translation set forth by Eugene Nida, who since 1946 had been the Executive Secretary of the ABS Translations Department. Nida called his theory of translation Dynamic Equivalence. (2)
In addition to being a Dynamic Equivalence version, the Good News Bible is also what some translation theorists call a "Common Language" version. "Common Language" is defined as the language which is "common to the usage of both educated and uneducated" in any given language, (3) or, to put it more bluntly, it is the level of language used by uneducated people and children. Bratcher says that the version was originally conceived as one which would be suitable for people who speak English as a second language. (4) But the main "market niche" of the Good News Bible was from the beginning the mainline Protestant churches in America and Great Britain, where copies were bought by the box for use in Sunday-school classes. The version was promoted as one which was suitable for children.
Others for whom the version was intended to be useful were the field translators employed by the American Bible Society in Asia and Africa, most of whom lacked proficiency in the original languages and relied upon English versions in their work. Because the Bible versions being done by these field translators were actually based upon English versions, the Good News Bible was to serve as a new resource for their use. (5)
The Old Testament was translated on the same principles by a committee comprised of Bratcher (chairman), Roger A. Bullard, Keith R. Crim, Herbert G. Grether, Barclay M. Newman, Heber F. Peacock, and John A. Thompson. The work began in 1967, and went through an extensive scholarly review process, occupying nine years.
Rejection of the Version by Evangelicals
The GNB was not well received by conservative churches, for a variety of reasons. Some dubbed it the "bloodless bible" because Bratcher had avoided using the phrase "blood of Christ" in the New Testament. Instead of the literal "blood of Christ" he used such explanatory paraphrases as "sacrificial death of Christ." This was done according to his principles of translation, which favored explanatory renderings, but he did not reckon with the importance of the phrase "blood of Christ" in conservative preaching.
The translation of the Immanuel prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 ("a young woman who is pregnant will have a son") seems to show that the editors were not much concerned about acceptance of the version in conservative churches. After the publication of the Revised Standard Version's Old Testament in 1952, in which this verse was first translated with "young woman" instead of "virgin," this had become a litmus test for conservatives in their evaluation of Bible versions, and Bratcher and his committee must have known this. Moreover, it is evident from Bratcher's statements in the years following the publication of the Old Testament that he personally had nothing but contempt for conservatives and their teachings.
Although the ABS spent large sums in promoting the version, offering copies for a mere 25 cents for the first year, Bratcher actually went out of his way to antagonize the very people who were most interested in reading, teaching and distributing the Bible. At a Dallas conference on the theme "Biblical Authority for the Church Today" sponsored by the Southern Baptist Convention in March 1981 he openly lambasted conservative evangelicals, calling them ignorant and dishonest, and scoffed at their contention that the words of the Bible were inspired and authoritative:
"Only willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty can account for the claim that the Bible is inerrant and infallible. To qualify this absurd claim by adding 'with respect to the autographs' is a bit of sophistry, a specious attempt to justify a patent error ... No thruth-loving, God-respecting, Christ-honoring believer should be guilty of such heresy. To invest the Bible with the qualities of inerrancy and infallibility is to idolatrize it, to transform it into a false God ... No one seriously claims that all the words of the Bible are the very words of God. If someone does so it is only because that person is not willing thoroughly to explore its implications ... Even words spoken by Jesus in Aramaic in the thirties of the first century and preserved in writing in Greek 35 to 50 years later do not necessarily wield compelling or authentic authority over us today. The locus of scriptural authority is not the words themselves. It is Jesus Christ as THE Word of God who is the authority for us to be and to do." (6)
These exasperating remarks moved many conservatives to stop giving to the American Bible Society, and this quickly led to a financial crisis for the organization. In June 1981 the ABS requested Bratcher's resignation. He went on to a position as "Translation Consultant" for the United Bible Societies, the international organization of which the ABS is a member.
In 1992 the ABS issued a revision of the Good News Bible with gender neutral language, and in 1995 it published the Contemporary English Version, a very similar version which is apparently meant to replace the Good News Bible.
Naming the Version
The official name of the version is Today's English Version, but nearly all editions have been published with alternate names having the phrase Good News in them. The New Testament originally appeared as Good News for Modern Man, the whole Bible was the Good News Bible, some early editions were called Good News for a New Age. In March of 2001 another such name was announced for the version. At that time the Zondervan corporation entered into a legal agreement with the American Bible Society under which Zondervan became the exclusive commercial publisher of the version in North America, and as part of this agreement the name of the version was changed from The Good News Bible to The Good News Translation, for marketing reasons. A publication of the United Bible Societies reported that the name was changed after a "request for the change came from Zondervan," and explained:
The request followed research of the US Bible market conducted last year by Zondervan. The findings showed that while the GNB ranked fourth highest in terms of awareness (42 per cent), it ranked only twelfth in terms of sales (3.1 per cent). Researchers concluded that one reason why high brand awareness translated into a low market share was the mistaken belief that GNB is a paraphrase -- a conclusion supported by the ABS's own research. Zondervan and the ABS have agreed that changing the name to the Good News Translation "will help build confidence in the translation because it addresses the misperception head-on." (7)

Bibliography
• Robert G. Bratcher, "Good News for Modern Man," The Bible Translator 17 (October 1966) pp. 159-72.
• Robert G. Bratcher, "Good News for Modern Man," The Bible Translator 18 (July 1967) pp. 127-28.
• Robert G. Bratcher, "The Nature and Purpose of the New Testament in Today's English Version," The Bible Translator 22 (July 1971) pp. 97-107.
• Robert G. Bratcher, "The TEV New Testament and the Greek Text," The Bible Translator 18 (October, 1967) pp. 167-74.
• Robert G. Bratcher, "Translating the TEV New Testament." In The New Testament Student and Bible Translation, ed. John H. Skilton (Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1978) pp. 146-52.
• Euan Fry, "The Good News Bible Translation Principles," The Bible Translator 28 (October 1977) pp. 408-12.
• Anthony Howard Nichols, Translating the Bible: A Critical Analysis of E.A. Nida's Theory of Dynamic Equivalence and its Impact upon Recent Bible Translations. Doctoral dissertation submitted to the Department of Biblical Studies of the University of Sheffield, November 1996.
• Eugene A. Nida, Good News for Everyone: How to Use the Good News Bible. Waco, Texas: Word Books, 1977.
• Dale Moody, "The Good News Bible." Review and Expositor 76 (Summer 1979) pp. 409-16.
• Eugene A. Nida, Good News for Everyone: How to Use the Good News Bible. Waco: Word Books, 1977.
• Stephen Prickett, "What Do the Translators Think They Are Up To?" Theology 80 (November 1977) pp. 403-10.
• Donald Schiemann, "Another Translation, Another Disaster." Concordia Theological Quarterly 42 (April 1978) pp. 167-69.
• W.F. Stinespring, "Today's English Version or The Good News Bible." The Duke Divinity School Review 44 (Spring 1979) pp. 142-63.

Notes
1. The ABS committee appointed to consult with Bratcher on his translation of the New Testament was composed of five members: the Rev. Howard Beardslee, of the Board of National Missions of the Presbyterian Church; Dr. Hugo Culpepper, Professor of Missions at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, Louisville, Ky.; the Rev. Harold Moulton, Deputy Translations Secretary of the British and Foreign Bible Society; Dr. Howard C. Kee, Professor of New Testament at Drew University, Madison, N.J.; and Dr. Frederick J. Rex, of the Committee on World Literacy and Christian Literature of the National Council of Churches.
2. Nida developed the rationale and method for "dynamic equivalence" in his books Message and Mission: The Communication of the Christian Faith (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1960) and Toward a Science of Translating (Leiden: Brill, 1964).
3. W.L. Wonderly, Bible Translation for Popular Use. London: United Bible Societies, 1968.
4. R.G. Bratcher, "The Nature and Purpose of the New Testament in Today's English Version," The Bible Translator 22 (1971), p. 106.
5. Although this is usually not openly acknowledged by the translators, it is no secret that missionary translators rarely have competence in the original languages and that they commonly use English versions instead of the original language texts. See H. Fehderau, "The role of Bases & Models in Bible Translations," The Bible Translator 30 (1980), pp. 401-19. For a discussion of the use of the GNB as a base text for Indonesian translations see the unpublished doctoral dissertation of Anthony Howard Nichols, Translating the Bible: A Critical Analysis of E.A. Nida's Theory of Dynamic Equivalence and its Impact upon Recent Bible Translations (University of Sheffield, November 1996).
6. Bratcher's words are here quoted from page 15 of Robert Martin's Accuracy of Translation (Banner of Truth, 1989). Martin cites "a printed formal press release from Baptist Press, the official news agency of the Southern Baptist Convention, dated 25 March 1981 (by-line by Dan Martin)." Along these lines also, much earlier the TEV had acquired some embarrassing liberal supporters in the Southern Baptist Convention. Dr. William Hull, who had served as a professor and Dean of the graduate school at Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, spoke the following words at a meeting of the Association of Baptist Professors of Religion (of which he was President) on February 23, 1968: "with the passing of the torch to younger hands, one notes a growing impatience to go beyond the tired cautions of an earlier era ... We cannot worry forever with the millenium, or verbal inspiration, or the Scofield Bible. For an increasing number of restless spirits, it is time to move on ... What are the implications of widespread SBC [Southern Baptist Convention] acceptance of the TEV [Today's English Version]? To begin with, we have here the employment of a much more daring translation theory than that adopted by the RSV ... Of course, Southern Baptists do not yet realize all of this ... Shout it not from the housetops, but the TEV is clearly incompatible with traditional notions of verbal inspiration, and the theologies built thereon. It could be that Southern Baptists will embrace the TEV with their hearts before they grasp the implications with their heads." These words are quoted from Harold Lindsell, The Bible in the Balance (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1979), pages 159-160. Lindsell gives as his source a typescript of Hull's address, entitled Southern Baptist Biblical Scholarship: Harbingers of Hope.
7. "Good News Bible Gets New Name," UBS World Report, no. 361 (July/August 2001).


Preface to the Good News Bible
Below is the Forward and Preface of the Good News Bible as it appeared in Good News Bible: Today's English Version with Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha (New York: American Bible Society, 1979.)

FOREWORD
The Bible in Today's English Version is a new translation which seeks to state clearly and accurately the meaning of the original texts in words and forms that are widely accepted by all people who use English as a means of communication. This translation does not follow the traditional vocabulary and style found in the historic English Bible versions. Rather it attempts in this century to set forth the Biblical content and message in standard, everyday, natural form of English.
The aim of this Bible is to give today's readers maximum understanding of the content of the original texts. The Preface explains the nature of special aids for readers which are included in the volume. It also sets forth the basic principles which the translators followed in their work.
The Bible in Today's English Version was translated and published by the United Bible Societies for use throughout the world. The Bible Societies trust that people everywhere will not only find increased understanding through the reading and study of this translation, but will also find a saving hope through faith in God, who made possible this message of Good News for all people.
PREFACE
In September 1966 the American Bible Society published The New Testament in Today's English Version, a translation intended for people everywhere for whom English is either their mother tongue or an acquired language. Shortly thereafter the United Bible Societies requested the American Bible Society to undertake on its behalf a translation of the Old Testament following the same principles. Accordingly the American Bible Society appointed a group of translators to prepare the translation. In 1971 this group added a British consultant recommended by the British and Foreign Bible Society. The translation of the Old Testament now appears together with the fourth edition of the New Testament.
In a section between the Old Testament and the New Testament this Bible contains two series of books: (1) Tobit, Judith, Esther (Greek text), Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, Baruch, Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, 1 Maccabees, and 2 Maccabees, and (2) 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, and the Prayer of Manasseh. With the exception of 2 Esdras, these books formed part of the Septuagint Greek text of the Old Testament which was in circulation at the time of Christ. The first series of books are accepted by Roman Catholics as part of the canon of the Old Testament; and both series are regarded by many Protestants (including especially Anglicans, Episcopalians, and Lutherans) as worthy of at least private reading, though they are not regarded as a basis for doctrine. For further information about these books, see the Introductions to the respective series.
The basic text for the Old Testament is the Masoretic Text printed in Biblia Hebraica (3rd edition, 1937), edited by Rudolf Kittel. In some instances the words of the printed consonantal text have been divided differently or have been read with a different set of vowels; at times a variant reading in the margin of the Hebrew text (qere) has been followed instead of the reading in the text (kethiv); and in other instances a variant reading supported by one or more Hebrew manuscripts has been adopted. Where no Hebrew source yields a satisfactory meaning in the context, the translation has either followed one or more of the ancient versions (e.g. Greek, Syriac, Latin) or has adopted a reconstructed text (technically referred to as a conjectural emendation) based on scholarly consensus; such departures from the Hebrew are indicated in footnotes.
With the exception of 2 Esdras, the basic text for the two sections of books occurring before the New Testament is the Greek text printed in the Septuagint (3rd edition, 1949), edited by Alfred Rahlfs. For 2 Esdras the text is the Latin text printed in Biblia Sacra (1st edition, 1969), edited by Robert Weber.
The basic text for the New Testament is The Greek New Testament published by the United Bible Societies (3rd edition, 1975), but in a few instances the translation is based on a variant reading supported by one or more Greek manuscripts.
Drafts of the translation in its early stages were sent for comments and suggestions to a Review Panel consisting of prominent theologians and Biblical scholars appointed by the American Bible Society Board of Managers in its capacity as trustee for this text. In addition, drafts were sent to major English-speaking Bible Societies. Final approval of the text on behalf of the United Bible Societies was given by the American Bible Society's Board of Managers upon recommendation of its Translations Department Committee.
The primary concern of the translators has been to provide a faithful translation of the meaning of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. Their first task was to understand correctly the meaning of the original. At times the original meaning cannot be precisely known, not only because the meaning of some words and phrases cannot be determined with a great degree of assurance but also because the underlying cultural and historical context is sometimes beyond recovery. All aids available were used in this task, including the ancient versions and the modern translations in English and other languages. After ascertaining as accurately as possible the meaning of the original, the translators' next task was to express that meaning in a manner and form easily understood by the readers. Since this translation is intended for all who use English as a means of communication, the translators have tried to avoid words and forms not in current or widespread use; but no artificial limit has been set to the range of the vocabulary employed. Every effort has been made to use language that is natural, clear, simple, and unambiguous. Consequently there has been no attempt to reproduce in English the parts of speech, sentence structure, word order, and grammatical devices of the original languages. Faithfulness in translation also includes a faithful representation of the cultural and historical features of the original, without any attempt to modernize the text. Certain features, however, such as the hours of the day and the measures of weight, capacity, distance, and area, are given their modern equivalents, since the information in those terms is of greater importance to the reader than the Biblical form of those terms.
In cases where a person or place is called by two or more different names in the original, this translation has normally used only the more familiar name in all places; e.g. King Jehoiachin of Judah (Jeremiah 52.31), also called Jeconiah (Jeremiah 24.1) and Coniah (Jeremiah 37.1). Where a proper name is spelled two or more different ways in the original text, this translation has used only one spelling; e.g. Nebuchadnezzar, also spelled Nebuchadrezzar (compare Jeremiah 29.3 and 29.21), and Priscilla, also spelled Prisca (compare Acts 18.26 and Romans 16.3).
In view of the differences in vocabulary and form which exist between the American and the British use of the English language, a British edition is being published, which incorporates changes that are in keeping with British usage.
Following an ancient tradition, begun by the first translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (the Septuagint) and followed by the vast majority of English translations, the distinctive Hebrew name for God (usually transliterated Jehovah or Yahweh), is in this translation represented by "LORD." When Adonai, normally translated "Lord," is followed by Yahweh, the combination is rendered by the phrase "Sovereign LORD."
In order to make the text easier to understand, various kinds of readers' helps are supplied. The text itself has been divided into sections, and headings are provided which indicate the contents of the section. Where there are parallel accounts elsewhere in the Bible, a reference to such a passage appears within parentheses below the heading. There are, in addition, several kinds of notes which appear at the bottom of the page. (1) Cultural or Historical Notes. These provide information required to enable the reader to understand the meaning of the text in terms of its original setting (e.g. the explanation of Rahab in Psalm 89.10; the explanation of Day of Atonement in Acts 27.9). (2) Textual Notes. In the Old Testament these indicate primarily those places where the translators were compelled for a variety of reasons to base the translation on some text other than the Hebrew. Where one or more of the ancient versions were followed, the note indicates this by One ancient translation (e.g. Genesis 1.26) or Some ancient translations (e.g. Genesis 4.8); where a conjectural emendation was adopted, the note reads Probable text (e.g. Genesis 10.14). In the New Testament, as well as in the Deuterocanonicals and other books of the Apocrypha, there are textual notes indicating some of the places where there are significant differences among the ancient manuscripts. These differences may consist of additions to the text (e.g. Matthew 21.43), deletions (e.g. Matthew 24.36), or substitutions (e.g. Mark 1.41). (3) Alternative Renderings. In many places the precise meaning of the original text is in dispute, and there are two or more different ways in which the text may be understood. In some of the more important of such instances an alternative rendering is given (e.g. Genesis 2.9; Matthew 6.11). (4) References to Other Passages. In addition to the notes there are references, by book, chapter, and verse, to other places in the Bible where identical or similar matters or ideas are dealt with.
There are several appendices at the end of the volume. A Word List identifies many objects or cultural features whose meaning may not be known to all readers. A Chronological Chart gives the approximate dates of the major events recorded in the Bible. An Index locates by page number some of the more important subjects, persons, places, and events in the Bible. A List of Passages from the ancient Greek translation (the Septuagint) of the Old Testament, which are quoted or paraphrased in the New Testament and which differ significantly in meaning from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, will help the reader understand some otherwise puzzling differences in quotations. The Maps are designed to help the reader to visualize the geographical setting of countries and localities mentioned in the Bible.
The line drawings which accompany the text were especially prepared for this translation.
The numbering of chapters and verses in this translation follows the traditional system of major English translations of the Bible. In some instances, however, where the order of thought or events in two or more verses is more clearly represented by a rearrangement of the material, two or more verse numbers are joined (e.g. Exodus 2.15-16; Acts 1.21-22).
No one knows better than the translators how difficult has been their task. But they have performed it gladly, conscious always of the presence of the Holy Spirit and of the tremendous debt which they owe to the dedication and scholarship of those who have preceded them. The Bible is not simply great literature to be admired and revered; it is Good News for all people everywhere - a message both to be understood and to be applied in daily life. It is with the prayer that the Lord of the Scriptures will be pleased to use this translation for his sovereign purpose that the United Bible Societies has now published The Bible in Today's English. And to Christ be the glory forever and ever!



Bible Research > English Versions > 20th Century > Good News Bible

 

I was never a big fan of the GNB, but as a kid I did like the line drawings in the original edition.

 

Me too.

 

From another thread, posted here per request from Dr Bob (“Zig - Please add this to the thread on the TEV as it gives first-hand evidence of the theology of the translator”):


Dr Bob: "TEV's translators went on public record that they opposed salvation by faith, were sickened by the "slaughterhouse theology" of the blood, and did not believe in inspiration. They went on to say they would try to translate/ paraphrase these offensive areas OUT of TEV."

gb: "Where have you read this or how did you gain this information? I have a TEV and have used in trying to explain scripture to kids. I never noticed this before. So I am curious."

I can't vouch for all that Dr Bob said, but the TEV NT translator was Robert Bratcher of the American Bible Society (who was later dismissed by them for a remark he made to the SBC Christian Life Commission that "anyone who believes in inerrancy is a heretic").

Anyway, I heard Bratcher speak directly to the issue of why he rendered the "blood of Christ" as "death of Christ" during a lecture at Southwestern Seminary in the 70s. Bratcher specifically said in relation to a question on that point, "I translated it that way because I don't believe in a slaughterhouse religion." I was there; I heard it.

Since Bratcher's dismissal from the American Bible Society, the rendering of that phrase has been changed to "sacrificial death", apparently in response to the multitude of criticisms that had been leveled on that point since the TEV NT appeared in 1966.

 

So which word would you use, propitiation or expiation? Personally I don't think either word adequately fits.

 

Did the ABS change the TEV later? I have a TEV that is about six years old.

 

gb: "Did the ABS change the TEV later? I have a TEV that is about six years old."

Yes, the TEV underwent several substantial changes after Bratcher's departure from the ABS.

On the "blood of Christ" issue, the original version (1966-1980-something) read in e.g., Eph 1:7, "For by the death of Christ we are set free, and our sins are forgiven."

Compare that with your current version, which *may* say "sacrificial death" or even "blood", depending on the revision date (the online version of GNB at crosswalk.com reads "blood", so I presume this is the latest revision?).

On the other hand, the "set free" phrase remains intact, so far as I can tell, and this phraseology seems insufficient to convey the meaning of APOLUTRWSIS, which means something "redeemed" or "set free for a price" (nothing to do in this context with the terms "propitiation" or "expiation").

 

The TEV has gone through several revisions. I have in my personal library the following editions:

1966 First Edition (New Testament)
1966 Second Edition (right on the heels of the First Edition) (New Testament)
1971 Third Edition (New Testament)
1976 Good News Bible (Old [1976]and New Testaments [1976 revision])
1976 Good News Bible, British usage edition (Old and New Testaments)
1979 Good News Bible with Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha [1976 Old and New Testaments]
1979 Good News Bible with Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha, British usage edition
1992 Good News Bible, Second Edition (This is the edition provided by E-Sword)

 

I understand what you mean about the TEV translators having an agenda. About the virgin birth, don't the translators who have no agenda also translate "almah" as "young woman" and not "virgin"? "Betulah" is virgin. They may have had an agenda but the result would be the same either way.

The blood part is disturbing, they shouldn't change God's Word.

 

manchester: "I understand what you mean about the TEV translators having an agenda. About the virgin birth, don't the translators who have no agenda also translate "almah" as "young woman" and not "virgin"? "Betulah" is virgin."

The rendering of Isa 7:14 in the TEV was not the issue; rather it was the rendering in the *NT* of the Greek PARTHENOS (= "virgin") as "young woman", e.g. in Lk 1:36 or thereabouts. In this case, it was a clear mistranslation of PARTHENOS that was the issue.

 

Ziggy, I see, thanks.