Template talk:English Bible translations/Archive 1

First recommendations
I have thought of several issues concerning this template. The first is that it isn't really a Bible history template or even a History of the Bible template. It is very specifically a History of English language Bible translations. This probably requires that this be renamed. I don't have any idea how to do that.

Second do we want to include this template on the page of every English translation? So far it is one most that are mentioned in the box.

Third, which translations should go in the box. I think it is already getting pretty long. It could soon get quite long indeed if we add most modern versions. I suggest at least trimming it to the major versions and dropping out the derivatives in the modern section. So cut ones like New Revised Standard Version, Revised English Bible, New Jerusalem Bible which only represent an updating not a new translation and which should be linked in their parent translation's articles already. Also a complete list would be found in the Modern English Bible translations whenever that gets written. (I will work on it in the next couple of days.) Rmhermen 17:21, Jun 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the scope of the History of the Bible, or even the English Bible, is too big. I've counted at least 40 English translations, and I wouldn't be surprised if there were over 100 of at least sections .One suggestion is to note that there's a "stream" of revisions starting with the KJV (or earlier, I can't remember), progressing through the ASV, RV, RSV, ESV, NKJV, NRSV etc; maybe we should just include those in one box, because they are related. Versions like the NIV, NJB, GNV... etc are separate translations with no "ancestry" from the KJV and wouldn't be included. Whatever we do, though, the page certainly needs a rename. &mdash; Matt 14:07, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't think we want to limit to just KJV-derived translations, unless we rename the box to "KJV family of translations" or something. Versions like the NIV which do not derive directly from the KJV are significant.  It is, after all, the first translation to surpass the KJV in usage.  I don't know how we can find an objective standard as to what translations to include.  Seems like at a minimum I would have KJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NIV, NASB, and probably the NRSV.  Might also be significant to mention the American Bible Society translations like the TEV and its successor (CEV?). Jdavidb 14:13, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, so we have (at least) two alternatives: 1) A "major English translations" box; 2) A "KJV family of translations" box. My worry with (1) is that it would be hard to agree on what constitutes a "major" translation. I'd suggest a third: 3) A different shaped box listing the three letter abbreviations of all the translations, in the style of Template:Block_ciphers. &mdash; Matt 14:21, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Another idea would be to have two separate boxes one for the articles like Middle English Bible Translations, and a separate box for the list of translations. While three letter abbreviations are widely use in Protestant circles, I wonder how easily they would be understood in other Christian traditions, much less by non-Christian readers (I would like to point out here the complete lack of Orthodox versions on the list.) Rmhermen 16:02, Jul 1, 2004 (UTC)

List trimming
This list now outstrips in length several of the articles it is placed on. It really needs trimming. I removed 18th and 19th century category because it doesn't seem to be an accepted linguistic period. I removed the Quaker Bible (maybe it referred to Purver's 1764 translation?) Perhaps we should be so bold as to remove all translation from the box. Like this:

A separate bottom of the page box could be set up for each set of translations. For example:

Of course this would still get very long for the recent ones but perhaps still useful. Also we could set up categories for the translations although that system cannot track unwritten articles. Rmhermen 16:32, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

List untrimming
The reason I added the 18th and 19th century translations section is that, while it is not a distinct linguistic period, I don't really think it matters. First, many 18th and 19th century translations are linguistically closer to early modern English than they are modern translations--Joseph Smith's translation uses the same language as the King James Bible.

Second, what is distinctive of modern bible translations is not necessarily the language used (See New King James Bible). Rather, it is the scholarship that goes into the translations--the translation philosophy and the original texts being translated.

The translations of the 18th and 19th century, such as Young's Literal Translation, are distinct enough from both early modern English translations and modern translations that I think it makes more sense to include them in a separate category. If I don't hear a good reason why I am wrong, I will revert the change.

Also, in any case, at least keep the list alphabetized. I have arranged the Old English, Middle English, Early Modern English, and 18th and 19th century translations in chronological order, but the modern translation section is just too large to not alphabetize (also many modern translations have been published serially).
 * See my proposal above about removing all the translations. See Great Bible for an example of who ridiculous the current box looks on many pages. However about 18th and 19th century, the categories are not about translation scholarship; they are about types of English language. Rmhermen 17:14, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's get rid of the big box. But I still BibleHistory should be a historical, rather than linguistic list. It's "History of the English Bible", not "Linguistic History of the English Bible". After the King James Bible classification based on language makes little sense. The 18th and 19th century translations, for the most part, continued to use King James English, with only minor updates. Even the 21st Century King James Bible linguistically is closer to early modern English.


 * I propose to make this list more historically, rather than linguistically oriented. Hence:


 * Since the Old English and Middle English sections are small, they can be combined into medieval translations. Or not. All of the early modern translations would go into the reformation section. We could also combine the 18th and 19th centuries since there are so few translations from that period. My main concern is not making the ridiculous mistake of combining Joseph Smith's Translation with the New English Translation. It does not make sense from a scholarly, linguistic, or historical point of view.


 * Also, the Quaker Bible is going to go back. It was translated by Anthony Purver, a Quaker, in 1764, and its full official title is "A new and literal translation of all the books of the Old and New Testament; with notes critical and explanatory", but is better known as the Quaker Bible.
 * This doesn't make sense on several levels. First we already have articles on the several ages of English language and how the Bible was translated in those historical times. Say the historical era when we spoke Middle English. You propose writing a new article which lumps together too very different languages - Old English and Middle English. Then another new article which lumps together Catholic and Protestant translations under the title Reformation English which is a neologism of dubious usefulness. Who counts the Reformation as continuing into the 1790's? And what major difference do we find between 20th and 21st century translations to warrant separate articles? Joseph Smith's translation will never fit cleanly as it was intentionally written in an archaic style.
 * The first website I checked has 11 18th century translations. Not a small number and not counting the several major ones from the 19th century. Perhaps when/if the Modern English article gets too long we could make move out additional sections; however, while Early Modern English is an academically current definition, I am not away of any for more recent periods. But at present, the Modern translations article isn't more than a partial list so it isn't really a problem space-wise. Certainly the article could have sections and even the translation box if we go to that could. Something like (mockup only!):


 * The reason I removed the "Quaker Bible" is that without an article about it, it was not clear to me that it referred to a single translation. I still think the separate boxes is necessary. Rmhermen 23:59, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually I don't think this will work at all for modern ones especially as we probably have less than half the translations on the list so far. This is probably a case where Category is most useful while the Modern article could hold the names of those translations which don't have articles yet. That box is really awful. Rmhermen 00:03, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm curious how you will classify the NKJV--a 20th century revision of a 17th century translation. I just think it's silly classifying translations linguistically based on what century it was published in. For two hundred years translations continued to copy King James English.
 * But go ahead and do what ever you want. I don't think that what you are proposing is easy, but it's your project now, so get working!
 * Finally, if you would like I can write a stub for the Quaker Bible, but I can't find any information from Google than what I gave above. There are also (very real) translations which appear in the box that don't have write ups. One of the reason I included them in the box in the first place was to encourage write ups.
 * Also, I seem to remember the Amplified Bible having a lengthy write up, and now it seems gone. Any ideas where it went, or if it ever existed?


 * 30 minutes after I gave up, and now I'm back. Now to suggest leaving the stupid box as it is, only trimming it significantly. The changes I made are the following:
 * 1) Remove John Wyclif. Wyclif's Bible is already there. This makes the Middle English section a bit more pathetic, but if we are going to be listing translators, then you're going to be very unhappy.
 * 2) Inserted 18th and 19th century, and 20th and 21st century subsections under modern English. I don't know what the standard way of making such a subsection, so I just bolded the text. I still think this is silly for the above stated reasons, but I'm willing to make a deal.
 * 3) Remove "unimportant" translations. This is horribly subjective, but by no one's standards is Today's New International Version historically significant. Also, I got rid of all of the paraphrases, and many of the revisions (New/Revised ... Translation). This de-uglifies it a bit, and you no longer have to wade through CEV's and Living Bibles.
 * I really don't like ditching it all together and making it a category. The box isn't that ugly--after all there is a big box to the left of all the articles as well, and this box is helpful.
 * Actually trimming it like that was my original proposal at the top of the page but someone objected as it was too subjective. I really think that we could make a reasonable and shorter list. Especially since the major translations list the names of the updated versions in their articles. (Well the one I checked did. I think the all should.) I am sure it is inevitable that a category for translations gets set up as some users are very pro-category. I find them still pretty ugly and limited, myself. Rmhermen 04:13, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
 * Right now the list has every translation known to the creator and revisors of the list. That's one way to objectively make the list, although listing out hundreds of revisions will just make the list worse. The NAB has gone through enough revisions to make my head hurt. I think we need to put all of these minor translations in a category (and not just 'Bibles' (In fact, Bibles should probably be eliminated as a category--does the Satanic Bible count?)). The the box should appear on all English translations, but the box should only contain the major translations. To make this slightly less subjective I propose a few somewhat arbitrary rules:


 * 1) Only translations should be listed--no paraphrases. This boots out Good News, Living Bible, CEV, the Message, etc.
 * 2) Only finished translations are to be listed. This eliminates World English Bible and the ISV. It could also eliminate the New English Translation, but, while it is not finished, it has published leather editions of two betas, and is almost finished. But I would be fine with its removal.
 * 3) It must include the Old Testament. If it is a Jewish translation, it need not have the New Testament. There are just too many random translations of just the New Testament, and I don't know of anyone who accepts only the New Testament as cannon. Someone should do write-ups for the Old and New JPS translations.
 * 4) Only original translations (NIV, Jerusalem Bible), and significant revisions should be included. The 'significant' part is subjective, but I think we can all agree that the RSV is significant and Today's New International Version is not. Perhaps we can call all revisions which themselves have been revised would be a good definition of significant.


 * I've modified the list to the right to remove the English Standard Version, and include the Quaker Bible. I've gone ahead and written a stub for the Quaker Bible with all the information I can find. I do think that it should be included as it was the first major translation after the King James. I can write similar stubs for the other missing translations. I also eliminated the world "Bible" from the subject titles, but the links still point to the right pages. We know these are all Bible translations, and removing the word makes the list slimmer.


 * In the mean time, I think this list should replace the current BibleHistory, as it is better than what is there. I would also like to make it be known once again that I think it is silly classifying translations linguistically based on when they were published.
 * I read the link to the section of the Bible translations article - it is a much better article than the current mess at History of the English Bible. As a sidenote, I don't see how the Quaker Bible could be called the first major translation after the King James - unless you discount the Challoner Bible which was the standard Catholic Bible from 1752-1941. I also see versions or revisions by Mace, Whiston and John Wesley. Also not eligible if we use your criteria is the Orthodox Study Bible which is due for completion next year and which I have been told is the only Orthodox version in English. I would replace the box if no one complains in the next couple days. Rmhermen 14:17, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, I forgot about Challoner. His version is so different from the original Douay-Rheims it should probably have its own article. I do believe, though, that the Quaker Bible was the first complete and original translation after KJV. Mace, Whiston, and Wesley were all minor revisions of the New Testament. The Quaker Bible was a big deal, if an unpopular big deal.
 * Any set of rules for what is 'important' will have to be subjectively bent. I included the NET because of its importance as being the first essentially 'open source' translation, and the fact that it has already been published with all the books of the bible in solid form. I would be inclined against including the Orthodox Study Bible until it is published in its complete form next year, but this is your project now.
 * And once again I would like to voice my objection to classifying translations linguistically based on the year they were published.

The changes you all have made are all very wise and wonderful; I apologize for muddying the waters with some of my earlier edits. But did you have to remove the ESV from the box? It's a new translation but it's already soaring in popularity among many denominations. It fills a new niche in the world of translations. I think it belongs in the box. Fishal 05:11, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The reason it was removed appears to be that it is another update of the RSV, not a new translation in itself. Rmhermen 12:40, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hm. Is the ESV not significant enough a revision to the RSV for it to be included?  I'd say its significance is at least on the level of the Revised Version (from KJV) and definitely greater than the American Standard Version (from RV).  Those are both listed. What's the logic here?Raekwon 01 Nov, 2004

Someone (an anon) keeps removing the ESV from the list. The argument that it should be on the list is still unanswered from over a month ago. Yes, it's an update of the RSV, but that in itself was an update of the KJV. As I said, the ESV is rapidly becoming a very well-known version, and furthermore the article is more complete than that for many of the versions on the list. Fishal 03:10, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The only reason you give for putting it on there is that it is popular. So is the Holman Christian Standard Bible, which was recently replaced with the ESV. The HCSB was at least (as far as I can tell) an original translation. The RV is more important than the ESV because it was the first major translation after the KJV, and served as the basis for several translations. The ASV is more important than the ESV because it was the first major American translation, and also served as the basis for several translations. The ESV, while popular, is not in any way I can tell unique or original, nor has it exerted much influence. Besides, how popular is the ESV anyway?

I've put ESV back. There's no reason why if NASB is in with ASB, ESV can't be here with RSV. Furthermore it is very popular. Put HCSB back too as an original translation. Mandel 08:11, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

22 March 2005 Revert
I reverted the template because an anon added a section Questionable Translations and moved the New World Translation to it. --Silas Snider (talk) 20:37, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

10 June 2005 revert
24.124.48.150 removed several items from the template without explanation; I reverted to the previous template until such time as the user makes his/her case. KHM03 15:41, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The subject of this list is the History of the English Bible. It was agreed (like I said, see the discussion) that including every translation under the sun would quickly defeat the purpose of having such a list. It was determined that only original or major revisions of existing translations (RSV) would be listed. I've been pretty lenient on letting in ones such as the ESV, but many recent additions clearly don't belong here. First of all, the Interpreters Bible does not belong since it is not a translation, it is a study bible. If that goes in there are hundreds more with equal reason to be included. "Study Bibles" is not an ongoing an "Ongoing misc. projects" where it was listed, and is more of a concept than a translation. Are we to list links to "Reference Bibles" and "Large-Print Bibles"? And then there are the Message, Good News, and God's Word. These are not translations, but paraphrases (dispite GN's belated claim of being a translation). Again, if we include paraphrases, should we also include the "Cabbage Patch Bible"? If we do we are going too far away from the theme of History of the English Bible. Also, God's Word isn't even an original paraphrase.

This list, I can tell is doomed to be a list of every Wikipedia user's favorite version of the Bible, rather than a helpful reference to the historically important translations of the Bible.

I will be re-reverting my changes sometime soon if there are no objections.

Good News Translation Missing
Should the Good News Translation be on the list somewhere? Mathieumcguire 21:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That's already been considered - see above. It's regarded as a paraphrase rather than a translation. - RachelBrown 22:07, 26 November 2005 (UTC)