This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Translation studies High‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Translation Studies, a collaborative effort to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Translation Studies. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.Translation studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Translation studiesTemplate:WikiProject Translation studiesTranslation studies articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Bible Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 þ^e text of þ^e Geneua Bible as it ∫tood in my fac∫imile copy. I al∫o haue a copy of þ^e 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 þ^e "King Iames Bible" has been changed ∫ince it was originally publi∫hed. If wanted, þ^e ∫pelling and þ^e punctuation could be moderni∫ed --- þey are in my copy of Daniell's edition of þ^e Tyndale bible, which is þ^e 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)

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)

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

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)Reply[reply]

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

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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?

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I removed:

• "Meaning-Based" translation^{[citation needed]}

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)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

I have read about many mistranslations in many parts of the bible from many different sources, so I expected to find an article about it here in Wikipedia, but I can not. Could you please tell me where? ( I may be tempted to start an article on it, trying to find all the sources otherwise. In fact, I may feel tempted to make the article about all sorts of notable mis-translations.) DanielDemaret 19:45, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any body interested? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Hebrew versions of the New Testament that have the Tetragrammaton Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetragrammaton in the New Testament (2nd nomination) SV 19:22, 20 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, User:Dbachmann removed the link to Bible translations by language, pointing out that "this isn't so much a disambiguation notice but a "See also" one."

I respectfully disagree; it seems to me that not a few users would expect information on a sprectrum of translation languages in a "Bible translations" article, and that is where they would look for it first. In fact, until not long ago all the information the various languages appeared in this article (before it was moved to another location).

Bottom line, this is not black or white but a matter of personal judgement. Therefore, since the information was taken out of this article and the disambig notice has been there for a while with the agreement of those who did so, I have put it back for now. Depending on the consensus of editors who feel one way or the other, it can either be removed again or kept. I personally feel that it is useful as a disambig and therefore lean towards keeping it. Dovi 06:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

is it really, really necessary to have ((Collapsible Christ)) and ((Christianityfooter)) along with ((BibleRelated)) gracing this article? Sure, ((Collapsible Christ)) is collapsible and thus doesn't take much screen real estate. But is having two giant "Christian" templates that are collapsed really preferrable over a single reasonably-sized footer that is uncollapsed? I've learned to live with rather high levels of template clutter on Wikipedia, I guess, but I sometimes find it a bit sad that all the effort that goes into it isn't spent on improving articles. dab (𒁳) 18:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My current efforts have been to REMOVE the giant Christainity Nav Box wherever it is on an article not explicitly mentioned as part "of the series on Christianity" and replace it whevere possible with the small portal link.

Opinion is out on this as we speak. While I favor less, this article is one of the top priority articles for the Christianity project - hence collapsable Christ. Please comment at Template talk:Christianity as it sounds as if we are of like mind. -- SECisek (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed the following sentence: "William Tyndale was first jailed in 1535 for translating the Old Testament without permission, and a year later was strangled and burnt at the stake." as it is incorrect. Tyndale was not arrested and condemned for translating the Bible but on charges of heresy. From his prison he asked his jailor to return his Hebrew Bible and Hebrew dictionary to him so he could continue his translation (which would make no sense if he had been arrested for translating the Bible). Tradition says that his request was granted and he translated a good portion of the Bible while in prison in Vilvoorde. From the Confutiones (Confutation of Tyndale's position) of Jacobus Latomus (one of the theologians from Leuven who questioned Tyndale in his prison), it is clear that translating the Bible was not an issue. See: Gergely JUHÁSZ, & Paul ARBLASTER, "Can Translating the Bible Be Bad for Your Health? William Tyndale and the Falsification of Memory", in Johan LEEMANS, (ed.), More Than Memory. The Discours of Martyrdom and the Construction of Christian Identity in the History of Christianity, (Annua Nuntia Lovaniensia 51) Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 315-340. GJ1535 (talk) 08:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Several of the external links no longer work. I'm not sure what the protocol is for fixing this sort of thing.

English Bible Translations List

Quick List of Bible Versions

English Bible Translation Comparison Chart

Thanks very much

Exceptinsects (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The protocol is WP:BB... just do it. (Well, perhaps give it a couple of days, just in case the external link had a temporary Internet connectivity glitch when you first looked.) Simply be bold (but careful) in your edits; in this case, removing the links, giving your rationale in the 'Edit summary'. If you are still unsure or lack confidence, reply here; then one of the rest of us can do it, and point you to our edit so you can see what we did. Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can the bible be the most translated book with 2000+ translations when Agatha Christie's been translated in 4000+ languages? Ren ✉ 19:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As best as I can tell, whilst Agatha Christie's work has been translated into 56 languages, no single work has been translated into all 56 languages. By contrast, the OT, NT and deuterocanonical material of the Bible has been translated into 123 languages. Of the 2,393 languages that Wycliffe Bible translators estimate need a Bible translation, more than half do not yet have formal grammar and spelling rules. (Note in passing that those 2,393 languages represent a population of 200,000,000.) (WBTI 2008 stats) jonathon (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Douay-Rheims Bible influenced the King James Version, and it has been the most prominent English translation among Roman Catholics, especially during the Counter-Reformation and among Traditionalist Catholics today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Geremia (talk • contribs) 15:50, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Due to the nature of this article being Bible translations, I would propose adding bibleshark.com to the external link section. This is an online parallel bible and scripture lookup. It has the ability to have multiple translations of a bible verse or book on the screen at the same time. Heathdbrown (talk) 23:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sometimes a distinction is made between version and translation. Version being used for ancient translations, translation for mediaeval and modern ones. Now, this distinction seems more often than not ignored, and the two words are used interchangably. But I am surprised this distinction isn't mentinoed in the article. From a scholarly perspective, the study of ancient translations is a very different enterprise than the study of later ones, with different expectations. Scholars study ancient versions because they believe it can shed extra light on the original texts - they can record variants of the original language text which may no longer be extant, and can provide evidence for how the text was understood in a time much closer to its original authorship than our own. No one expects the study of modern translations to shed light on the ancient texts at a scholarly level - although certainly the history of e.g. English language translations is interesting for the light it sheds on the evolution of the English language, and the evolution of theological thought and translation philosophies in the English-speaking world. So, this is a very important distinction (versions v.s. translations), which this article in its current state fails to address. --121.220.103.165 (talk) 11:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could we also add to this - distinguishing between the Bible in different languages, and the Bible in different dialects of the same language? For example, the Bible has been translated into Cockney English. This would not be a different language to English - just a dialect of English. If one wants to know the number of languages and DIALECTS that the Bible or SECTIONS of the Bible have been translated into, it would be over 2, 000. However, this would not just be different languages - this figure would include different dialects of the same language. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Isn't a little vague to have this article begin with the statement that the Bible has been translated into "many languagues"? Elsewhere in Wikipedia we can read that the complete Bible has been translated into 457 languages as of May 2011 (although of course, portions of the Bible have been translated into many more languages) - could we have the reference to the figure of 457 at the start of this article? ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, so as no else did this, I have done it myself! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The statement "A Hungarian Hussite Bible appeared in the mid 15th century..." is probably false. As far as I know, hussite Bible was written in Czech.--Qasinka (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are the targums put in first if the LXX is the most ancient attested translation ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.164.231.128 (talk) 14:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have seen claims in a couple different places that the Bible was translated into Ancient Thracian. That translation probably doesn't exist anymore. But in any case should we include some of the more obscure ancient translation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.2.19 (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At this site: wordproject.org. 108.18.136.147 (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section is in dire need of revision as it fails to clearly point out the chronology, or in other words to distinguish the oldest Christian translations from the ones that are only "relatively old". The oldest translations, dated to the 2nd and 3rd centuries, are the Syriac Peshitta, the Vetus Latina, and the Coptic Bible, which latter isn't even mentioned. All other translations, to my best knowledge, are from the 4th century or later.

Someone appears to have copied extensively from Glen Butterfield's Bible Unity (2013) in the Wikipedia "article" on Bible Translations.

I have taken the liberty of inserting the few missing words that had been omitted from the passages copied from Butterfield, enclosed the copied text in inverted commas and provided clear references in preference to the rather bogus information in "ref" tags that might, to a cynical eye, appear not as "references" to the real source of the plagiarised text, but are intended to lead the reader to think the plagiarist has, in fact, paraphrased and summarised the quite different material in the reference provided.

82.30.20.170 (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That information was added in 2009 by ADM (talk · contribs). Unless there is an older version of that book published before 2013, Butterfield must have stolen it from Wikipedia, not the other way around. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki-editors,

I have moved, mistake of mine only, the article "New Revised Standard Version" to "Bíblia (Nova versão padrão revisada)", while I was proceeding translation for portuguese.

Please, can anyone undo this mistake move?

Forgive me. This was not vandalism.

Thanks.

Aainitio (talk) 19:02, 27 July 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have Bibles in several international translations (German, French, Iroquois, Hindi, Chinese, Spanish, Sinhalese, etc).

Would there be interest in a photo of said collection for this article?

--Jason Johnson913 (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jason, yes, we would be most interested in getting more photos not only for this page, but also for each of the Bible language pages that are linked from the List of Bible translations by language page. I recently volunteered to make that page and the major Bible language pages be translated into Japanese, and also have donated about ten photos to the Media Commons in the past. --- By Yoshi Canopus (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article reads, "Jerome based his Latin Vulgate translation on the Hebrew for those books of the Bible preserved in the Jewish canon (as reflected in the Masoretic text), and on the Greek text for the deuterocanonical books."

However, Christopher de Hamel in "The Book: A History of the Bible" [Phaidon Press] states that Jerome translated only the short books of Tobit and Judith from the Greek; the remaining books of Baruch, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, 3 and 4 Esdras and 1 and 2 Maccabees were "rejected by Jerome; supplied unchanged from the Old Latin." [Pg 22-24].

I lack the know how to properly correct this, but it certainly deserves correcting.

--Jason Johnson913 (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's explained a little bit better further below ("Jerome began by revising the earlier Latin translations, but ended by going back to the original Greek, bypassing all translations, and going back to the original Hebrew wherever he could instead of the Septuagint"). A better explanation is in the article about the earlier Latin translations, the Vetus Latina, or the "old Latin" Bible. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Versions of the Bible and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Versions of the Bible until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 14:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Version of the bible and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Version of the bible until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bible versions and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Bible versions until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bible version and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Bible version until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bible, Versions of the and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Bible, Versions of the until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Editions of the Bible and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Editions of the Bible until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 14:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Textual differences in the Bible and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 26#Textual differences in the Bible until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Veverve (talk) 14:29, 26 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]