Talk:Statenvertaling

Dialect

Did the translators use a standard version of Dutch? Jim.henderson (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

They did as far as possible. A standard literary form of Dutch had already started to develop at the end of the 16th century, but the translation itself was also instrumental in setting a standard for the future. The translators (who were from different parts of the country) discussed different grammatical constructions and spelling patterns from various dialects and voted on what they should use before they started the translation, which shows that not everything was considered settled at that time. - Lindert (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

This would be a useful addition, I think, with appropriate links to and from linguistic articles. Jim.henderson (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Mistake

The website linked as leading to the Statenvertaling isn't actually it. ~2026-66671-2 (talk) 23:25, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It's to the revised edition; however that site also has the Statenvertaling and you can even read it and the revised edition (or the Hebrew/Greek sources) side-by-side. ~2026-32679-12 (talk) 22:06, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

Deficiencies

I think the article as it is has these major deficiencies:

• It probably isn't clear to non-Christians that the policy to translate the Tetragrammaton with HEERE essentially formalises the Jewish practice of reading Adōnāi instead; it's a bit like if you'd publish a Tanakh where every יהוה‎ has been replaced by אדוני.
• Under ‘Influence’ it doesn't really make it clear that probably the biggest influence it had was the standardisation of the Dutch language.
• Nowhere is anything mentioned about the actual accuracy of the translation, only the intent to provide an accurate translation. Is any research available on mistranslations, or lack thereof?
• There's no comparison to other Bible translations, especially Dutch ones.
• The revisions are only mentioned in the infobox, but they deserve a section. Some changes were necessitated by Dutch language evolution, perhaps others by mistakes? And how do the revisions differ from the Nieuwe Bijbelvertaling?
• Even the revised edition doesn't seem to warn the reader about those books that purport to be something they are not, such as the ones that pretend to be Pauline epistles but were in reality written after his death.
• Perhaps this feels superfluous as it has this in common with most Bible translations, but it used the traditional order (at least for the canon) and that order is achronological and weird. Does an article about cats need to mention that they have eyes? After all, most mammals do, so perhaps not?

~2026-32679-12 (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)