| Bible Research > English Versions > 20th Century > Good News Bible |
New Testament. Robert G. Bratcher, Good News for Modern Man: The New Testament in Today’s English Version. New York: American Bible Society, 1966. Second edition, 1967. Third edition, 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.
A number of renderings in the Good News Bible suggest to this reviewer that the process outlined above was not followed very rigorously. The version does not seem to have been vetted by mature Christian scholars. For example, we find in Philippians 2:6 the following rendering:
He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God. Instead of this, of his own free will he gave up all he had …
Here we have the idea that before his incarnation the Son had the nature of God without being equal with the Father, and during that time he might have used force to “try to become equal with God,” but he didn’t think he “should” do that. But this is theologically puerile, and it practicaly demands a heterodox Christology. It is not what the Greek text says or implies about the Trinity. The rendering was noticed by critical reviewers early on, but even after it was pointed out, Bratcher could not see what was wrong with it. He defended the rendering in an article published in 1971 in The Bible Translator:
In Phil. 2:6 there is a Greek word (harpagmos) which occurs nowhere else in the Greek New Testament, or in the Greek translation of the Old Testament (known as the Septuagint). The text reads, “He was in the form of God, but did not think that equality with God was harpagmos.” The King James translated it “robbery,” but very few scholars and exegetes would agree that this is the correct meaning of the word in this context. From ancient times commentators and expositors have disagreed over whether the word means (1) something to be kept by force, or (2) something to be acquired by force. The idea of force is present in the word and its cognate verbal and substantival forms, but it is impossible to determine assuredly whether here it means something to be acquired or something to be retained. What did Paul mean? That Christ did not think that equality with God was something to be obtained, or something to be retained? A translator must decide, and make the meaning quite clear. The TEV (along with the American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, Weymouth, Knox, Goodspeed, and the New English Bible) gives the idea of acquiring: “but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God.” (6)
Bratcher does not seem to appreciate the difference between his rendering and those of the more respectable versions he names here. The ASV says, “who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself …” The word “grasped” may be taken in one of two senses here: grab or grip. But even if understood as grab the meaning intended is that he did not count it a thing to be grabbed because he already had it. The RSV says, “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself …” This is less satisfactory than the ASV, but again the ambiguity of “grasped” still allows the reader to see the same meaning. Knox paraphrases: “His nature is, from the first, divine, and yet he did not see, in the rank of Godhead, a prize to be coveted; he dispossessed himself …” Goodspeed has “Though he possessed the nature of God, he did not grasp at equality with God, but laid it aside …” Here by the use of “laid it aside” Goodspeed implies that it was in his possession, but he relinquished it administratively for the incarnation. The NEB rendering is, in its own way, as bad as Bratcher’s: “For the divine nature was his from the first; yet he did not think to snatch at equality with God, but made himself nothing …”; but it does give a better alternative in the margin (“yet he did not prize his equality with God”). The other versions do not imply what Bratcher’s rendering implies. And we observe that until 1976 the “Good News” version had no marginal notes. We note with interest that Bratcher thinks his rendering was necessary to “make the meaning quite clear.”
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 the phrase “the death of Christ.” This was done according to his principles of translation, which favored explanatory renderings, but he did not reckon with the symbolic importance of the phrase “blood of Christ” in conservative preaching. In the article already quoted above, he ventured to explain:
In the Bible, both in the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament, the word “blood” (dam in Hebrew, haima in Greek) is often used of the violent death of animals or men, a death caused by something or someone. In Matt. 27:24, 25, for example Pilate washes his hands before the crowd and says, “I am innocent of the haima of this man.” The crowd answers back, “May his haima be upon us and our children.” It is clear and obvious that the subject is the execution, the death, of Jesus, and in Greek it is natural and clear to speak of Jesus’ execution as his haima. In English, however, the word “blood” does not mean death: it means only the liquid that flows in tbe veins and arteries of men and animals.
Everything here depends upon the assertion that “In English … the word ‘blood’ does not mean death.” The assertion is somewhat misleading, because the question before us is whether or not the word has the sense “killing,” not merely “death.” But if dictionary definitions of the word are accepted as valid indications of its meaning, we would have to say that Bratcher’s assertion is not true, because English dictionaries do list “the taking of life” as one of the several senses of the word “blood.” Bratcher might well argue that this sense is not common outside of religious discourse, but his assertion that in English “blood” means “only the liquid that flows in tbe veins and arteries of men and animals” is patently false. He seems to avoid the real issue raised by conservative critics, who sense that by eliminating the “blood” Bratcher has muted the biblical teaching that Christ’s death on the cross was a vicarious and propitiatory sacrifice of atonement, comparable to the blood of victims slain on the altar in the Temple, and not merely an example of self-sacrificial devotion to others, as the modern liberal theology would have it. The term “blood” in this context means much more than “death” or “killing” because it links the death of Christ to the sacrifices offered on the altar of atonement (Leviticus 16). As one theologian puts it, “the shedding of the blood of Christ is the typical act which marks the offering up of His life as a propitiatory and redeeming sacrifice.” (7) Moreover, in Scripture the “Blood of Christ” signifies not only his redemptive death but also the power of his life, as Westcott observes: “while the thought of Christ’s Blood (as shed) includes all that is involved in Christ’s Death, the Death of Christ, on the other hand, expresses only a part, the initial part, of the whole conception of Christ’s Blood. The Blood always includes the thought of the life preserved and active beyond death.… The blood is not simply the price by which the redeemed were purchased, but the power by which they were quickened so as to be capable of belonging to God.” (8) Bratcher seems completely unaware of these dimensions of meaning for the term “blood of Christ” in the Bible and religious discourse.
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.
The ABS spent large sums in promoting the version, offering copies for a mere 25 cents for the first year. One indication of the success of their promotional campaign is the entry in the 1989 Guinness Book of Records, in which it is claimed that between 1976 and 1988 over 104 million copies of the version had been sold (counting New Testaments and complete Bibles). But 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.” (9)
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.
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.” (10)
Bibliography
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. For a full explanation of the concept see William L. Wonderly, Bible Translations for Popular Use. London: United Bible Societies, 1968. Eugene Nida explains, “This is the kind of language common to both the professor and the janitor, the business executive and the gardener, the socialite and the waiter. It may be described as ‘the overlap language’ because it is that level of language which constitutes the overlapping of the literary level and the ordinary, day-to-day usage. The overlap area is itself a very important level, for it probably constitutes the form of language used by fully 75% of the people more than 75% of the time. It is essentially the same level of language in which the New Testament was first written, the so-called Koine Greek. The term Koine itself means ‘common,’ and it was precisely this type of ‘common language’ which the Gospel writers employed to communicate their unique and priceless message.” (Good News for Everyone: How to Use the Good News Bible [Waco: Word, 1977], p. 12.)
4. R.G. Bratcher, “The Nature and Purpose of the New Testament in Today’s English Version,” The Bible Translator 22/3 (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. “The Nature and Purpose of the New Testament in Today’s English Version,” The Bible Translator 22/3 (July 1971), p. 102.
7. “Blood,” in Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology, edited by the Rev. John Henry Blunt (2nd ed. London: Rivingtons, 1872), p. 89.
8. Brooke Foss Westcott, The Epistles of St. John: The Greek Text with Notes and Essays (London: MacMillan and Co., 1883), 35-36.
9. 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.
10. “Good News Bible Gets New Name,” UBS World Report, no. 361 (July/August 2001).
First EditionBelow 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.) |
Second Edition (1992) |
FOREWORDThe 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. |
FOREWORDThe Good News 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 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 the standard, everyday, natural form of English. The aim of this Bible is to give today’s reader 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 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 the reading and study of this translation will result in a better understanding of the meaning of the Bible. We also earnestly pray that readers will discover the message of saving faith and hope for all people which the Bible contains. |
PREFACEIn 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. |
PREFACEIn 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, which was completed in 1976, was joined to the fourth edition New Testament, thus completing the first edition of the Good News Bible. |
|
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. |
The basic text for the Old Testament is the Masoretic Text made available through printed editions, published by the UBS, and since 1977 under the title of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 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. |
The basic text for the translation of 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. |
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 the translation. In addition, drafts were sent to major English-speaking Bible Societies throughout the world. Final approval of the translation on behalf of the United Bible Societies was given by the American Bible Society’s Board of Managers upon recommendation of its Translations 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. |
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. 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 conveys more meaning 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 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. |
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 has been 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.” |
Following an ancient tradition, begun by the first translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek (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. |
Since the appearance of the full Bible in Today’s English Version in 1976, some minor editorial changes and corrections of printing errors have been introduced into the text in connection with various printings. The New Testament was already in its fourth edition at the time the full Bible appeared, but for the Old Testament and the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha there has been no revised edition. The preparation and publication of this second edition of the full TEV Bible in two formats, with and without the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha, is the result of a broad international process of careful review and evaluation of the TEV translation by many scholars and experts over a period of several years. In December 1986, acting in response to a mounting perception of a need for TEV revisions, the ABS Board of Managers approved the undertaking of a revision of the TEV translation. The revision is restricted to two main areas of concern that have been raised and discussed over the years since the first appearance of Today’s English Version: (1) passages in which the English style has been unnecessarily exclusive and inattentive to gender concerns, and (2) passages in which the translation has been seen as problematic or insensitive from either a stylistic or an exegetical viewpoint. The process followed in preparing this revised edition was one of first inviting and collecting proposals for needed revisions from all English-language Bible Societies and English-speaking UBS translations consultants around the world, as well as numerous scholarly consultants in the USA and representatives of various American churches. The proposals received were then assembled for review and evaluation by the same broad array of experts whose specializations included translation, linguistics, English usage, literary and poetic style, biblical studies, and theology. In a series of four stages, consensus was sought on which proposals were necessary and valid, and at each of these review stages the number of proposals under consideration was reduced until widespread agreement was reached. On the recommendation of the program committee of the ABS Board of Trustees, and its Translations subcommittee, the ABS Board acted to approve the revisions for the TEV Second Edition in September, 1990. These revisions have also been adapted for use in British usage editions of the TEV. In the decade and a half since publication of the full TEV Bible, many Bible readers have become sensitive to the negative effects of exclusive language; that is, to the ways in which the built-in linguistic biases of the ancient languages and the English language toward the masculine gender has led some Bible readers to feel excluded from being addressed by the scriptural Word. This concern has led to the revision of most major English translations during the 1980s, and, increasingly, TEV readers have written to request that the Bible Society take this concern into consideration in preparing any revision. In practical terms what this means is that, where references in particular passages are to both men and women, the revision aims at language that is not exclusively masculine-oriented. At the same time, however, great care was taken not to distort the historical situation of the ancient patriarchal culture of Bible times. |
|
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). |
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! |
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 published the Bible in Today’s English Version. And to Christ be the glory forever and ever! |
| Bible Research > English Versions > 20th Century > Good News Bible |