Most Accurate Translation

[fisherman_carl]

What do you think is the most accurate translation?

Take a look at these translations of Luke 4:4. What do you think?

Douay-Rheims - ‘And Jesus answered him: It is written, that Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word of God.’

KJV - ‘And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’

RSV-CE - ‘And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”’

NAB - ‘Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone.’”’

NIV - 'Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone.’” ’

It seems like only the DR and KJV gets it right in this example.

 

[prodromos]

What do you think is the most accurate translation?

Take a look at these translations of Luke 4:4. What do you think?

Douay-Rheims - ‘And Jesus answered him: It is written, that Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word of God.’

KJV - ‘And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’

RSV-CE - ‘And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”’

NAB - ‘Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone.’”’

NIV - 'Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone.’” ’

It seems like only the DR and KJV gets it right in this example.

They are apparently translating from different Greek texts.

John

 

[bpbasilphx]

There are only two English versions of the NT that are based directly on the Received Text: the KJV and NKJV.

The D/R comes through the Vulgate.

 

[bpbasilphx]

I forgot to mention that the New American Standard Bible is a scrupulously accurate translation of the wrong–that is, Alexandrian–text of the NT.

 

[beeliner]

There are basically two possibilities, that the latter part of the quote was added spuriously, or that it was there originally but later dropped, probably accidentally.

Since most modern translations don’t have it, I would lean toward the first alternative.

 

[fisherman_carl]

I should add that Jesus is quoting Dt 8:3. To me only the DR and KJV seems to give a complete quote.

“He therefore let you be afflicted with hunger, and then fed you with manna, a food unknown to you and your fathers, in order to show you that not by bread alone does man live, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of the LORD.” (NAB)

“And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know; that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but that man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD.” (RSV-CE)

“And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live.” (KJV)

“He afflicted thee with want, and gave thee manna for thy food, which neither thou nor thy fathers knew: to shew that not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.” (DR)

 

[fisherman_carl]

There are only two English versions of the NT that are based directly on the Received Text: the KJV and NKJV.

The D/R comes through the Vulgate.

Not only does the DR come from the Latin Vulgate but I was reading that the DR was actually used as a reference for parts of the KJV.

 

[beeliner]

I should add that Jesus is quoting Dt 8:3. To me only the DR and KJV seems to give a complete quote.

But the criterion should be not what Jesus MIGHT have said or even PROBABLY said but rather what Luke actually wrote.

In His discourse, Jesus may indeed have completed the verse from Deuteronomy, but Luke might have abridged it in his original MS.

Then at some later date a copyist might have decided, as you apparently have, that Luke’s gospel should contain the entire quote.

A similar situation regarding the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer was recently discussed on another thread.

Interesting for discussion but not of much importance.

 

[patrick457]

What do you think is the most accurate translation?

Take a look at these translations of Luke 4:4. What do you think?

Douay-Rheims - ‘And Jesus answered him: It is written, that Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word of God.’

KJV - ‘And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’

RSV-CE - ‘And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”’

NAB - ‘Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone.’”’

NIV - 'Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone.’” ’

It seems like only the DR and KJV gets it right in this example.

The ever-trusty footnote of the NET (New English Translation, not to be confused with the New World Translation) for this verse says:

Most mss (A [D] Θ Ψ [0102] Ë1,13 33 Ï latt) complete the citation with ἀλλ᾿ ἐπὶ παντὶ ῥήματι θεοῦ (all’ epi panti rhmati theou, “but by every word from God”), an assimilation to Matt 4:4 (which is a quotation of Deut 8:3). The shorter reading is found in א B L W 1241 pc sa. There is no good reason why scribes would omit the rest of the quotation here. The shorter reading, on both internal and external grounds, should be considered the original wording in Luke.

To give an explication of the letters:

A - Codex Alexandrinus, 400-440 AD
D - Codex Bezae, circa 400 AD
Θ - Codex Koridethi, 9th century
Ψ - Codex Athous Lavrensis, 8th/9th century
[0102] - Uncial 0102, 7th century
1 - Minuscule 1, 12th century
13 - Minuscule 13, 13th century
33 - Minuscule 33, 9th century
latt - all Latin witnesses (including Vulgate)

א - Codex Sinaiticus, circa 330-360 AD
B - Codex Vaticanus, circa 325-350 AD
L - Codex Regius, 8th century
W - Codex Washingtonianus, circa 400 AD
1241 - Minuscule 1241, 12th century
pc sa - pauci (a few) Sahidic (a dialect of Coptic) witnesses

IMO one translation is not more ‘accurate’ than the other. The examples you give are all legitimate translations of their respective source texts.

 

[beeliner]

The ever-trusty footnote of the NET (New English Translation, not to be confused with the New World Translation) for this verse says:.

The NET is indeed a reliable source of etymology, though it does, unfortunately, betray some Fundamentalist Protestant bias in some of its footnotes.

 

[patrick457]

There are only two English versions of the NT that are based directly on the Received Text: the KJV and NKJV.

There are actually more than that; most of the translations of the Bible made before the 20th century (because of the KJV’s influence, there are only a handful of them, mostly made in the 18th to 19th century) use one of the various Texta Recepta floating around.

I forgot to mention that the New American Standard Bible is a scrupulously accurate translation of the wrong–that is, Alexandrian–text of the NT.

Close, but it’s more proper to say that the NASB, and pretty much most English versions today, use the Nestle-Aland critical editions - the Novum Testamentum Graece - of the Greek New Testament for their work (Nestle-Aland is currently in its 27th edition).

Yep, the Alexandrian text-type forms the base text for most critical editions today, but they are not just simple reproductions of it; rather, a critical edition draws from the entire plethora of Greek manuscripts and textual traditions to determine what variant is more closer to the original autographs. Each variant is examined as a single unit, with both external considerations (e.g., which manuscripts contain which readings) and internal considerations (e.g., context, determining which reading is most difficult, etc.) being used to determine which reading will be placed in the main text.

Thus, rather than saying that modern English translations are based on the Alexandrian, it is more correct to say that they are based on a hybrid text drawing from all known MSS, with the Alexandrian as its foundation.

 

[patrick457]

The NET is indeed a reliable source of etymology, though it does, unfortunately, betray some Fundamentalist Protestant bias in some of its footnotes.

Yep, it does unfortunately. But to its credit, some of the footnotes are quite refreshing and comprehensive, especially if you grew up with the NAB and its rather one-sided notes and prefaces (you’ve probably figured out that I detest, ahem, certain aspects of the NAB apparatuses). Here, for example, are the footnotes for Genesis 2:

NAB: This section is chiefly concerned with the creation of man. It is much older than the narrative of Genesis 1:1-2:4a. Here God is depicted as creating man before the rest of his creatures, which are made for man’s sake.

NET: Advocates of the so-called documentary hypothesis of pentateuchal authorship argue that the introduction of the name Yahweh (Lord) here indicates that a new source (designated J), a parallel account of creation, begins here. In this scheme Gen 1:1-2:3 is understood as the priestly source (designated P) of creation. Critics of this approach often respond that the names, rather than indicating separate sources, were chosen to reflect the subject matter (see U. Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis). Gen 1:1–2:3 is the grand prologue of the book, showing the sovereign God creating by decree. The narrative beginning in 2:4 is the account of what this God invested in his creation. Since it deals with the close, personal involvement of the covenant God, the narrative uses the covenantal name Yahweh (Lord) in combination with the name God. For a recent discussion of the documentary hypothesis from a theologically conservative perspective, see D. A. Garrett, Rethinking Genesis. For an attempt by source critics to demonstrate the legitimacy of the source critical method on the basis of ancient Near Eastern parallels, see J. H. Tigay, ed., Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism. For reaction to the source critical method by literary critics, see I. M. Kikawada and A. Quinn, Before Abraham Was; R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 131-54; and Adele Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative, 111-34.

 

[peary1]

What do you think is the most accurate translation?

Take a look at these translations of Luke 4:4. What do you think?

Douay-Rheims - ‘And Jesus answered him: It is written, that Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word of God.’

KJV - ‘And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’

RSV-CE - ‘And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”’

NAB - ‘Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone.’”’

NIV - 'Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone.’” ’

It seems like only the DR and KJV gets it right in this example.

Today, we do not speak in ‘thees’ and ‘thous’ so I think translations into that type of English are irrelevent. I don’t know - we still use these in the Lord’s Prayer or Hail Mary; I guess it’s supposed to make us feel more prayerful, but I find it irritating.

The passage of Luke 4:4 is acceptable as from either the DR or the KJV. Alot of times, translations have attempted to condense what was in the original manuscripts so that it doesn’t appear repetitive. Actually, I prefer the DR or the Catholic KJV-R.

 

[Ron_Conte]

{4:4} Et respondit ad illum Iesus: Scriptum est: Quia non in solo pane vivit homo, sed in omni verbo Dei.
{4:4} And Jesus answered him, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’ ”

 

[michaeldaniels]

DR is the most accurate English Translation

 

[Jerry-Jet]

I think that a bible that includes the Douay Rheims Challoner Old Testament–the Bea Psalms and the Confraternity New Testament is overall the least inaccurate total bible that one can buy.

 

[garysibio]

What do you think is the most accurate translation?

Take a look at these translations of Luke 4:4. What do you think?

Douay-Rheims - ‘And Jesus answered him: It is written, that Man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word of God.’

KJV - ‘And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.’

RSV-CE - ‘And Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man shall not live by bread alone.’”’

NAB - ‘Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘One does not live by bread alone.’”’

NIV - 'Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man does not live on bread alone.’” ’

It seems like only the DR and KJV gets it right in this example.

IMO, the most accurate English translation today is the English Standard Version (ESV). It is a Protestant translation but they have an edition with the deuterocanonical books as an appendix.

Besides being very accurate it is very readable. It being a Protestant translation can sometimes be a help when you are dealing with Protestants.

 

[Tyuiop411]

IMO, the most accurate English translation today is the English Standard Version (ESV). It is a Protestant translation but they have an edition with the deuterocanonical books as an appendix.

Besides being very accurate it is very readable. It being a Protestant translation can sometimes be a help when you are dealing with Protestants.

As far as English goes i would sadly have to agree that the ESV is the most accurate and readable translation into English. We desperately need a new Catholic translation from the Vulgate.

Oh well until then I’ll keep reading my Nova Vulgata.

 

[Rose_Commander]

Does anybody think that the Orthodox Study Bible is an accurate translation?

 

[Tyuiop411]

Does anybody think that the Orthodox Study Bible is an accurate translation?

It’s Old Testament is accurate as it is a new translation from the Greek Septuagint. It’s New Testament is from the NKJV which suffers from extreme protestant bias. All things considered it’s still fairly accurate as long as you can recognize the Protestant bias when you see it (Luke 1:28 for example).