Talk:Bible translations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Bible translations as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hebrew language Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Representative verses for sample texts

Would it run into copyright problems to try and put a representative verse (eg. Jn 3:16 or something) from different translations on here for comparison? Magnus 12:07 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent idea. Jn 3:16 would be an obvious choice, being such a widely known verse, and I'm sure it would fall within the permissions given within most Bibles (although it would be worth checking the introduction to each edition to be sure. --Basswulf 12:55 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)
Regardless of what the introduction might say, quoting one verse should fall well within the terms of fair use under copyright law; there should be no problem with this at all. Wesley 13:06 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

I've added a table at the end of the English Christian Translations section and filled it in with the some of the versions mentioned in the text and the renderings of the verse that I could find in a quick online search.

Obviously there are gaps that need to be filled in - as well as completing this table, I would like to see it extended to cover all the verses mentioned in the previous text (and for translations to be worked into the text before being added to the table) as well as a similar tables added for the other sections of the page.

If it's felt that all the tables should be joined together, perhaps we need to spin off another page?

--Basswulf 14:27 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

That's certainly a good start, though I had in mind including the translations in different languages too (I can dig out the Welsh ones, and probably a few other languages as well). In that case it would probably be better to have the table at a different place - perhaps at the end of the article or even on a subpage. Magnus 15:18 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)


I thought of having table at the end of the section for each language as that will keep them relatively small (although I can see 'English Christian' getting pretty large if someone decides to deal with it thoroughly!). How useful would it be to compare versions in different languages - especially bearing in mind that the more translations that are included in a single table, the harder it will be to compare between ones that are not next to each other?

Mind, being a functional monoglot, maybe I'm not best qualified to decided ;-)

Also, are there any external websites that might do the job for us?

--Basswulf 15:33 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

I suppose the practical advantages of having shorter tables might well outweigh the disadvantage of not being able to directly compare different languages. For languages with only one or two versions, a table is probably not necessary at all and the verse could be included within the text of the article.
I suspect there may well be websites with comparisons of different translations/languages available. I've certainly seen a similar thing in some Gideons' Bibles (in fact, that's where I got the idea from).
- Magnus 16:03 Apr 24, 2003 (UTC)

In the version of John 3:16 from the Geneva Bible, should 'u' be used in place of 'v' (eg. 'loued' rather than 'loved') or is this a result of the typesetting (like the medieval practise of using 'f' instead of 's' - fomewhat confufing if you try and reprefnt it in modern Englifh type!)? --Basswulf 14:51 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I gaue þe text of þe Geneua Bible as it ∫tood in my fac∫imile copy. I al∫o haue a copy of þe King Iames Version þæt I could v∫e to giue þæt ver∫ion ∫omeþing of its original appearance; people are generally vnaware of how much þe "King Iames Bible" has been changed ∫ince it was originally publi∫hed. If wanted, þe ∫pelling and þe punctuation could be moderni∫ed --- þey are in my copy of Daniell's edition of þe Tyndale bible, which is þe only one I haue. -- IHCOYC 01:52 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC)
I think modern English typography would be better. I don't think that simulating the old style typesetting adds to the comparison of how different translations render our selected verses. However, it might be worth noting the older notation somewhere on the page (or, even better, linking across to a separate article that can explain it in a wider context). --Basswulf 11:43 Apr 29, 2003 (UTC)
I went and modernised the spelling in the Geneva Bible sections. I kept the punctuation the same, though, since the King James Bible is still in print and it, too, uses rather different punctuation practices from current. -- IHCOYC 00:16 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Sample verses for Jewish translations

Um, did anyone notice that Jews don't accept the New Testament, and that it is not in the Hebrew (Jewish) Bible? There is no way that any Jewish translations of a verse can be included here, because there is no Jewish translation of the New Testament; its not in their Bible! So all Jewish translations are excluded from the current table. We should expand this table to include a few quotes from the Hebrew Bible as well. After all, even in Christianity the Hebrew Bible is most of their Bible. RK

Also, quoting just one sentence for comparison isn't nearly enough. For any given part of the Bible, I would suggest quoting at least two sentences. (And despire what any publisher claims inside the introduction to their Bible translation, such minimal quoting is well within fair-use doctrine. For our encyclopediac purposes, quoting full paragraphs is also within fair-use, even if a publisher claims otherwise.) I suggest quoting two consectuive sentences from Genesis, two consecutive sentences from one of the Prophetic works, as well as two consecutive sentences from the New Testament. RK

I can see us ending up with some pretty unwieldy tables - and if they're hard to use, how much use will they really be for any comparison. Maybe we should rely on external sites (found this one http://www.cob-net.org/compare_bibles.htm so far - only English Christian and very POV but quite comprehensive and with a well explained background)?
Which sections of Genesis and the Prophets would you suggest? --Basswulf 15:17 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)
Good points, RK and Basswulf. I'd suggest that for the NT ones we use Jn 3:16-17 since we're already halfway there with some of the translations, and v16 is probably one of the best-known verses. For Genesis, how about taking Gen 1:1-2. My favourite pair of verses from the prophets is probably Hab 3:17-18, but we could perhaps go for something a bit less obscure.
On the other hand, it may be better to stick with a more limited set of tables (eg. just Jn 3:16 and Gen 1:1) here and link to external sites for more details. I think it's worth keeping something onsite. Magnus 15:21 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with RK completely. As for verses to translate, Gen 1:1 is a good choice because it is virtually always mistranslated. Still, I'd nominate Leviticus 9:18 and Deuteronomy 6:5. Slrubenstein

I also think the two table should be labled "Hebrew Bible/Old Testament" and "New Testabent" and -- can you blame me? -- the "old" testament should come before the "new " one? Slrubenstein

Certainly the Old Testament (Hebrew Bible, if you prefer) should come first. I only suggested Jn 3:16 as that was the verse used in the bible I mentioned earlier where I saw the list of languages used. Magnus 16:09 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

I realize the article is currently organized by alphabetical order -- fair, but arbitrary and consequently, prone to some confusion. Thus, I think the Greek and Latin translations should come first, since many other translations refer to them (e.g. the vulgate or septuagint).

I know strict chronology would be a mess.

I would suggest three major divisions: translations prior to the Reformation; translations during the Reformation and COunter-Reformation, and Modern Translations. The first two sections can be organized chronologically, and the third section, alphabetically. Slrubenstein

Interesting but the Reformation is an arbitrary choice for the Jewish translations, isn't it? (Enlightenment, maybe?) Rmhermen 17:39 Apr 25, 2003 (UTC)

Yes, the Enlightenment is a better marker for Jewish translations, but in my opinion only marginally in this instance; the fact is that the Reformation is appropriate -- you know, it was a European upheaval that affected a lot of Jews. More importantly, it established a trend towards tranlations into the vernacular -- a trend that affected Jews too. Also, some of the first Jewish translations in the vernacular, in German, were responding to Luther's translation. So I think it is a reasonabvle NPOV marker (but if RK or others strenuously object, I defer -- my main point is that there is a history here, not only to specific translations but to why people would want to translate the Bible, and why translations would have status. Slrubenstein

I'm not keen on chronological organisation. You could go by date of first issue... but becomes a mess because some translations have a much longer span of influence than others, eg. the King James Version, which is still going strong for many readers ("If English was good enough for St Paul, it's good enough for me!" ;-)
I'm in favour of keeping the existing organisational schema. Relationships between editions can be discussed in the blocks of text but I see the lists as an easy way for someone to track down a link to a specific translation. Once we've broken the page into sections for each distinct language, I don't see what we gain by attempting to use chronological order. --Basswulf 09:25 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

Uh, I am not sure you understand me. I am not saying to "use chronological order" after breaking the page into sections for each distinct language; I said to do it before. I am also not talking about different "editions," but translations. In fact, you seem to support my point, as you point out that the King James version is still going strong. It has had a wide influcence. That is why it should come first. But the people who made the KJ translation consulted the Latin and Greek translations, so don't you see why those should go before King James? Similarly, Everett Fox conjsulted Buber and Rosenzweig's German translation, so shouldn't their German translation go before his English translation?

Finally, as I said, the point is not just to catalogue different translations but to see emerging issues in theories of translation. It isn't just that specific translations of the Bible have histories; the idea of translation has a history. Slrubenstein

Yes, it makes sense to discuss the translations in this sort of history. For people who want or need only a quick link to a particular translation, I think we should keep the Genesis and John comparisons in alphabetical order... would that satisfy both needs? Wesley

I agree that as far as the tables of translations, alphabetical order makes the most sense. My suggestions really had to do only with the narrative structure of the article, not the tables. Slrubenstein

I can see your point but are you suggesting breaking the language based divisions? The introductory section of the page could certainly be used to pick out key points in the history of translations but I still favour 'language' as the major method for subdividing the page. Note also the distinction between 'translations' and 'versions' on the Bible page. If you like, this is a subpage created because that was getting to large and I think we need to write with it's contents in mind. --Basswulf 22:08 Apr 30, 2003 (UTC)


[edit] Page reorganization

The site needs to be broken into subpages. When Bible is translated into a new language, it is a big news to those christians who speak that language. We can foresee that the site will keep on going.

Also, there is no link between Bible and history and Bible translations. It is kind of bizarre as they seems to be highly related.

BTW, I don't know much about history of Bible, so I just jot down my opinion but I will not do the rewriting. Wshun

[edit] Original language of the NT

From the very start of the article "The New Testament was originally written in Greek." This is history, or Christian myth, or combination thereof ? Jesus Blows Goats 06:32, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This is not myth. There are overwhelming facts that the NT was written in Gk. BTW, you username stinks big time! -- iHoshie 03:34, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Some of the Church Fathers say that Matthew's gospel was written in Hebrew and only a Greek translation survives. There's no hard evidence one way or another AFAIK. --Jim Henry | Talk 17:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tanakh vs. Hebrew Bible

I replaced "Hebrew Bible" with Tanakh since most Jewish people would find "Hebrew Bible" offensive. -- iHoshie 03:26, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] single table of English Bible translations

At the moment there are 2 tables of English translations on different pages. For all sorts of reasons, mainly keeping the two in sync, I think we should just have one. Maybe then we should just have one chatty paragraph about all the different versions explaining the progression through major versions like KJV -> GNT -> NIV with a link to a full reference table giving for each translation: - abbreviation (e.g. NIV) - name (e.g. New International Version) - date of publication (e.g. 1976) - type of translation (literal, dynamic-equiv, paraphrase) - number of copies sold (incl. date of info) => helps people see which are the major translations without being too subjective

I've transferred the table to History of the English Bible since it only refers to English translations. --J. J. 06:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beware of Greeks bearing Bibles. . .

In 1901 Alexandros Pallis translated the gospels in Modern Greek. The publishing of the translation in a newspaper caused riots in Athens, known as Evangelika (Ευαγγελικά).

Was the translation called "Evangelika?" Or were the riots? -- Smerdis of Tlön 17:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The riots were called "Evangelika". The translation was kalled "New Testament According to the Vatican Manuscript". [1] -- pvasiliadis  07:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prettytable

I changed the quotes for the Swedish Translations and converted the table with {{prettytable}}. Any thoughts on using it for the other tables? Peter Isotalo 20:07, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Place for link to article on various versions and translations in general?

With the way the page is organized at present, I'm not sure where to put a link to an article entitled Versions of the Bible. --Jim Henry | Talk 17:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It is odd that there wasn't a main External Links section. It's now been added, as well as your link. --J. J. 06:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Citing a phone interview

Articles should not point to User: stuff.

Most of the information in this section comes from a phone inquiry by Wikipedian Joshua Holman to Jacquelyn Sapiie, Supervisor of Library Services at the American Bible Society on January 14, 2004.

How should this be done?

[edit] list of languages

the list of languages is altogether too unwieldy, especially if we're going to aim at completeness (2,700 entries...). I suggest we reduce it to a simple list (one line per language), exporting details to sub-articles (Czech Bible, Croatian Bible, etc.). dab (ᛏ) 15:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Link Rust

Could someone fix this dead link and put the sentence back in its proper place? The sentence reads:

Zondervan, one of the many Bible publishers [2]has created this graphic showing where many popular English translations fall on the literal-to-paraphrase spectrum.

Thanx

--Dbabbitt 23:40, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Some links no more missing...

Finally, after Klingons and others, a brief history of Serbian translations. Names and number are accurate, style is bad. Feel free to improve.

Thanks!

Vikler 21:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western-Christianity Bias? Need for a separate article on the controversies of vernacular translations?

This article seems to me to touch rather too lightly on the immense controversy occasioned by various attempts at vernacular translations of the Bible in the west, and, inasmuch as it touches on it at all, reveals a western bias. The statement "During the Middle Ages, translation particularly of the Old Testament was discouraged" for instance applies only to the parts of Western and Central Europe that were part of Roman Christendom, while in the eastern churches the idea of vernacular translations of the bible appears not to have been controversial at all in the same period.

The article does skirt briefly upon the existence of early vernacular translations in the East (Armenian, Coptic, Georgian, Syriac, etc.), but then never mentions them again. Nor does it tie in the Slavonic translations of the Bible with what might be called a general eastern bias *towards* the local vernacular.

In fact, I think that the article gives a misleading impression of a more or less homogeneous attitude towards translations at any given time in history, suggesting that across Christendom in general, vernaculars were allowed in antiquity, then merely "discouraged" (as opposed to being considered gravely heretical?) in the middle ages, and then more violently condemned only later on due to Catharism and then Protestantism.

Might an alternative approach be more appropriate? -- i.e. one that makes explicit that the attitudes towards vernacular translations were, from an early date, different in different regions; that in particular, the Roman churches might even be reasonably considered the "odd men out" relative to Christianity as a whole in their adherence exclusively to the vulgate in the Bible and Latin in church services even in areas where Romance languages were not spoken; that the kind of controversies occasioned by Tyndale's or Luther's translations were alien to the culture of the Eastern Churches; and that the Slavonic translations were part of a norm in the east dating back to the Armenian, Syriac, Coptic, Georgian, and Greek churches. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JJMG (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 February 2007 (UTC). JJMG 17:57, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] theological translations

When I recently expanded the introduction to mention translations performed for theological as well as linguistic reasons, I provided two examples: classical (KJV) and modern (messianic). Jayjg, in part of a continuing effort to minimize any mention of Messianic Judaism in WP, removed the latter, citing WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOR. Regarding the former, this is a perfectly valid example of a bible translation made for theological concerns. The modernity of messianic bible translations provide a nice balance to the more historical KJV reference, informing the reader that these issues are relevant yet today. Regarding the latter, what original research is being done? The theological (vs linguistic) goal of messianic translations is self-evident—it's related to a messianic theology, not an XYZ language. What exactly requires references? ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

let's see, maybe we can do the gross cleanup work first, such as {{split}} the insane list of translations to list of Bible translations or something, and we'll see much clearer where we'll have room for a "theological translations" section. It doesn't have to be in the intro. But even within the topic of "modern theological Bible translations", I am afraid that messianic Judaism ones will play a comparatively minor role. dab (𒁳) 22:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's absurd to include a few minor translations for a tiny movement as a primary example of translations made for theological reasons. In addition, the claim that the MJ translations were done for theological reasons is hardly "self-evident"; find reliable sources which say they were. Finally, you forgot WP:SOAP; you've been promoting this Messianic stuff all over Wikipedia. Jayjg (talk) 02:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jayjg, the article has a cleanup tag. It is not 'ridiculous' to add material. Instead of removing, you should try to accommodate in the article body, in relation to notability. I agree the example isn't well-chosen, but it's at least an example, and if you think it is so terrible, you are free to add other, more notable ones. dab (𒁳) 09:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I "promote" it all over because you do such a good job at removing every trace of it. I'll agree with dab that it's probably not the best modern example for this illustration (it was the first modern example that came to my mind)...but the fact that you removed it without providing a better example tells me you are more interested in deleting MJ references than improving WP as a whole. ⇔ ChristTrekker 15:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
it is true that there is a recent fad for creating a Bible translation taylored to your specific theological or philosophical outlook. In German, there is a recent ""Bible in PC language". Such attempts that put political or theological bias above the authority of the text have little to do with a bona fide "translation" and are essentially tools of propaganda or "roll your own religion" syncretism. dab (𒁳) 15:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

ok, I branched out the "list of langauges". We have now breathing space to insert a well-balanced "theological approaches" section. dab (𒁳) 10:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup and correction

I removed:

Because that's what "dynamic equivalence" is supposed to do.

I removed:

The King James Version, for example, was a response to the Geneva Bible which was seen as divisive for rejecting terminology that was traditional within the Catholic church and for its controversial margin notes.

Because this is ill-conceived and incorrect: the KJV was a response to complaints in existing bibles, and commissioned since the King didn't want marginal notes since some of those in the Geneva questioned his authority--it wasn't because the Geneva was critical of Roman Catholicism. The Anglican Church did, however, complain that the Geneva didn't used traditional terms (though it was technically more correct and clear, (ex: "baptism" which is taken from Greek means "immersion"), and so in order to appease the various movements within England, as well as the Church of England, the traditional terms (found in the Bishops Bible)were to be retained, though ironically the KJV is more than 80% the Geneva, so it's technically a revision and less a translation. Infinitelink 20:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The article said that the translation by Jacques Lefavre was Catholic but he was condemned for his works, and he was led Reformed Churches, leaned toward the Calvinists, and was persecuted by Rome: his works were never endorsed by the Catholic Church and they were called heretical. His views also sharply diverged from Catholicism and wrote blunt denials of some of the teachinigs. The original sentence read like a tit for tat "this Catholic translation appeared before the Protestant translation"...tit-for-tat, not informative, but rather like an attack. The sentence also mischaracterized the man's work. : ( Infinitelink 21:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/i/b/Talk%7EBible_translations_75df.html"