We Need Another Bible Translation

You might be forgiven for thinking that the last thing we need is ye t another Bible translation in English. There are already a plethora or committee and single-author translations of the whole Bible or the New Testament.

There are some 56 versions available on the Biblegateway website alone. There are estimated to be somewhere around 900 English translations in total of either the whole Bible or the New Testament.

There are translations of every stripe from the historical King James Version on the one hand to "The Message" paraphrase on the other.

There are MANY excellent mainstream translations widely available in print or online including the King James Version, Revised Standard Version, New Amercian Standard Bible, New King James Version, New International Version, New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, Christian Standard Bible, New Living Translation and others.

Why on earth would anyone claim we need another one?

I have one good reason why we could do with at least one more.

Of all the versions widely available today and produced by a translation committee as opposed to the work of a single individual, there are two based on the historic Textus Receptus Greek New Testament (this is the text published at the time of the Reformation and on which the King James Version is based - as well as similar translations in other languages such as Luther's Bible in German). These are the King James Version (1611) and the New King James Verion (1982). The Textus Receptus reflects the majority of Greek manuscripts most of the time, but also includes a number of "minority" readings, and a few with little or no Greek support at all.

All other modern committee translations are based on what is known as the "Critical text" of the New Testament. The critical text, in places where there are textual variants in the Greek, tends to follow a low number of the oldest manuscripts rather than vast majority of Greek manuscripts.

There are currently NO versions produced by a committee based entirely on what could be called either the Majority Text or the Byzantine Text. This Greek text reproduces the text which the great majority of Greek manuscripts contain. In most variants, the Byzantine Text represents 95% or more of the existing Greek manuscripts. The Critical Text tends to accept the evidence of a very small number of witnesses (sometimes as little as one or two manuscripts) and often under 5% of the manuscripts.

The difficulty is that the oldest manuscripts that tend to be given more weight by textual critics are few in number while the Byzantine Text has the support of the great majority of manuscripts, but these are later in date. Which one is favoured is a complex issue. The question is which text represents to original authentic text? Is the few earliest witnesses (1-5% of the Greek evidence) or the majority of later witness (frequently 95%+ of the Greek manuscripts)?

I have always found it difficult to accept that the correct original text lay largely undiscovered to the church at large for over a thousand years before being recovered in the 19th century and reconstructed over the course of 100 years from the 1880s onwards. Equally, I find it very difficult that when the manuscripts are examined, often 95-99% of manuscripts are deemed WRONG (even where they frequently agree with one another) and the correct text is deemed to be found in a small handful of early manuscripts. Yet all modern translations widely available are based on this Critical Text (except the NKJV as noted).

To give a couple of examples to show how the weight of the evidence is ignored in many modern translations, consider these examples from the Gospels:

Luke 2:14

NIV: "Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favour rests."

ESV: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased."

The NIV does not even footnote this, while the ESV footnote says that "some manuscripts" read "peace, good will among men."

The truth is that the ESV and NIV readings are based on around 0.4% of the manuscripts, and the "some manuscripts" represent 98.8% of the available evidence.

Here, the Textus Receptus underying the KJV follows the majority Byzantine text and reads in the familiar words:

"Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

Matthew 6:13

Most modern translations end the Lord's prayer at "deliver us from evil" (ESV) or "deliver us from the evil one" (NIV).

The NIV footnote says "Some late manuscripts" read "for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory for ever. Amen"

The ESV says "Some manuscripts add" before quoting the familiar ending.

Note the choice of words - "some", "late" and "add".

In fact, 92.6% of manuscripts have the extended ending to the prayer and only 1.2% lack it. 90% of anything is not "some". At the very least the footnotes should say "most" not "some".

John 3:13

Here the NIV reads: "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man."

ESV is similar: "No one has ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven, the Son of Man."

The footnotes here read in the NIV that "some manuscripts" read "the Son of Man, who is in heaven."

ESV footnote: "Some manuscripts add..."

Here only 1.1% of manuscripts omit the extra words and 97.6% of manuscripts support having the extra words.

The NKJV reads, following the Textus Receptus and by extension the Byzantine majority text:

"No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man, who is in heaven."

There are hundreds of such texts in the New Testament where we are told that "some" or "a few" manuscripts read something which really means the overwhelming majority of Greek manuscripts favour the footnoted text.

So beware the footnotes in most bibles, they can be misleading as to the balance of the evidence.

Yet my point is not really which Greek text is more likely to be the original. The point is that it would be very useful to have a good English translation of this Majority or Byzantine text that reflects what by far the most Greek manuscripts indicate.

There are some good one-man translations out there, but they have the limitations and biases of the translator, and are unlikely to have a large impact on the churches.

I think it would be good to have a formal equivalent translation of the Byzantine text produced by a qualified committee of translators and backed up with the resources needed to get the translation on the main bible websites as well as produce a range of hard copies such as we have from Crossway for the ESV or Zondervan for the NIV.

If you are interested in an English translation from the Byzantine text there is one I would recommend and that is the "The Text Critical English New Testament" translated by one man, Robert Adam Boyd. I am grateulf to Boyd's work which not only translates the Majority text but has extensive footnotes on how this compares to a number of other Greek texts including the Textus Receptus and the Critical Text. The percentages referred in my examples come from this NT edition.

I would recommend reading Boyd's version alongside either the New King James Version, which also has good textual notes though not fully comprehensive, and the NIV or ESV to see where the variations lie and the real percentages of evidence rather that the misleading notes too frequently used in our main translations.