How has the Bible come to me from God? This is the third post in a series that looks at the background and history of translating the biblical text into English. This builds on my first two posts in the series, Where Did My Bible Come From?, which examined the flow of the text from manuscripts into today’s printed form, and How Did My English Bible Translation Come Into Existence? which explored the history of Bible translations.
I am blessed with ready access to dozens of English Bible translations. Biblegateway.com includes 64 English translations, and Bible.com and the Bible App offer 166 English translations. My preferred translation has evolved over the last few years, generally aligning with the church that I was attending.
- What Bibles Do I Own?
- My Preferences and Why
- An Example from My Dissertation
- Digital Resources
- Which Bible Is Best?
What Bibles Do I Own?
I found fifteen Bibles in our house in seven translations. I review them below by age.
King James Version (KJV)
The oldest Bible that we have belonged to my father’s mother, Florence Williams. It was presented to her in 1912 as “First Prize for Regular Attendance” at Holy Trinity Sunday School in Richmond Upon Thames when she was thirteen years old. It does not state its version, but the phrase, “Appointed to be read in churches,” on its front page, indicates it is KJV. Cambridge University Press printed it, though there is no date.
I also have a Bible presented to my mother’s father, Frederick York Blanksby, at Easter on April 3rd, 1915, from his mother when he was eighteen years old. This was printed in 1914 by Cambridge University Press.
We also have a Bible that belonged to Nellie Lengefeld, Janet’s grandmother. It is a New Scofield Reference Bible, printed in 1967 by Oxford University Press in New York. The title page includes the comment, “Authorized King James Version. With introductions, annotations, subject chain references, and such word changes in the text as will help the reader.” It is a study Bible, created by Cyrus Scofield in 1907. As well as interpretive notes, it modernized some of the KJV text, and used the American spelling of words, for example, Joseph’s “coat of many colors” in Genesis 37:3.
Janet’s first Bible was a KJV and was given to her by her grandparents on her fourth birthday in 1970. It was printed by the World Publishing Company in Cleveland, Ohio. It uses Anglicized spelling (e.g., colours in Gen 37:3). It is a “self-pronouncing edition,” meaning that it included pronunciation guides for difficult words.
These KJV Bibles reflect the translation’s popularity, even after the publication of the English Revised Version in 1885, the American Standard Version in 1901, and the Revised Standard Version in 1952. The KJV is a word-for-word rather than thought-for-thought translation. Today, I generally don’t read the KJV because its New Testament’s textual basis was the Byzantine text-type, and the manuscripts based on the Alexandrian text-type, which most other translations use, are seen as closer to what the biblical authors wrote. Also, other translations are easier to read. However, the differences between the KJV and these other translations are not doctrinally significant.
Also, until about 1980, the KJV was the English translation used by the vast majority. Anyone who learned Bible verses “back then” most certainly would have learned from the KJV. Recently, our church used the KJV version of the Lord’s Prayer. There is nothing wrong with using the KJV! I strongly disagree with anyone who insists that the KJV is the only acceptable translation, as such a conclusion is flawed.
New King James Bible (NKJV)
In 1995, Janet was given an 1985 edition of this translation, and it included Precious Moments artwork by Samuel J. Butcher. It is in a lot better condition than the KJV Bible that was given to her on her fourth birthday in 1970. Janet avoided using it to keep it in good condition.
Over one hundred scholars worked on the NKJV. They updated the archaic language of the KJV while retaining its purity and stylistic beauty. It is less literal than the KJV. It also adds scholarly footnotes to highlight disputed verses from the KJV, for example, those found in the Byzantine manuscripts but not in the Alexandrian ones. I generally don’t use the NKJV.
New International Version (NIV)
I found five NIV Bibles. The oldest is the first Bible that I bought, which is a 1987 edition by Hodder and Stoughton in London. While it does not state that it is the Anglicized version, I can tell that it is because Genesis 30:32 says, “every dark-coloured lamb.” Genesis 37:3 was not useful as it describes Joseph’s coat as “a richly ornamented robe.”
In 1996, I purchased a chronological Bible based on the NIV, published in 1994. A chronological Bible presents all of the biblical text in its order of occurrence to assist with understanding the overall narrative.
Janet and I gave each other Bibles at our wedding in 1998. These were published by Broadman and Holman from Nashville, Tennessee, in 1986. These use the standard, Americanized text of the NIV, as shown by Genesis 30:32, which says, “every dark-colored lamb.”
For Christmas in 1999, I gave Janet the Two-Year Daily Reading & Prayer Bible, published in 1997. This Bible rearranged the NIV text into daily readings to guide reading through the whole Bible.
Finally, Janet gave me The Leadership Bible for Easter in 2002. This study Bible leverages the biblical text to examine leadership principles and to help the reader develop biblical leadership principles.
These five Bibles use the 1984 NIV translation, which is a small modification of the 1978 translation. Over one hundred scholars from five countries and over fifteen denominations worked on the translation from the best available Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. It is more of a thought-for-thought translation than a word-for-word one. Five hundred million copies of the NIV have been sold, and it has been the best-selling English-language Bible, but that is changing for multiple reasons. Mark Strauss discusses it here.
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Janet and I switched to this Bible in 2012 when we moved back to the US and joined a church that predominantly used this translation. We each used a 1995 edition, published in a “take note” format with wide margins.
The NASB built upon the KJV and its revised American Standard Version, and incorporated recent discoveries of Hebrew and Greek textual sources in this translation using modern English. It is a word-for-word translation and complements those that are more thought-for-thought.
The Message Bible (MSG)
Janet purchased The Daily Message: Through the Bible in One Year to help her read through the whole Bible. Each day, the book presents a section of biblical text followed by a section from Psalms, Proverbs, or Isaiah and a couple of thought-provoking questions. Eugene Peterson, a pastor, translated the Message Bible from the original languages to create a highly-readable version.
I view the Message as a paraphrase rather than a translation. This, coupled with the fact that a single person did the translating, makes me consider this a commentary. It is unclear which original language texts Peterson used. The target language was idiomatic American English. For instance, his paraphrase of Romans 8:3—4 includes the phrase “The law always ended up being used as a Band-Aid on sin instead of a deep healing of it.” Band-Aid is a North American brand that I was not familiar with when growing up in the UK, knowing them as plasters. I have rarely used The Message.
English Standard Version (ESV)
Both Janet and I use an ESV Bible for daily reading and church. We each have a 2016 edition, published by Crossway, with wide margins for taking notes. We find that people often preach or teach using this version, and both of us have followed read-through-the-Bible plans that reference the ESV.
Over one hundred international scholars from multiple denominations worked on the ESV, which aims to be a literal, word-for-word translation. It built upon the legacy of the KJV, Tyndale’s original translation, and subsequent revisions, including the Revised Standard Version (RSV). The translators used the best available copies of the Scriptures in their original languages as input. This video provides fascinating insight into a debate in the translation process.
My Preferences and Why
I do not have a strong preference for a particular translation. I like to use the same translation as those around me, so that we can be on the same page. When someone else is reading a passage out loud, I dislike reading a different translation and trying to align what I hear with what I read. I find the Bible App on my phone invaluable as I can quickly bring up the version that someone else is reading from. It bugs me a little when people do not identify which version they are using because I then struggle to work out which one to follow along with! In my circles, I find people typically read from ESV, CSB, NIV, or NASB.
For personal Bible reading, I currently use the ESV, having previously read the NIV and NASB, and they are all good. For deeper study, I have learned that comparing multiple translations is key. When doing such a comparison, it is important to understand the version’s textual basis and translation philosophy.
Translation Textual Basis
The textual basis of a translation is the collection of manuscripts in ancient languages that were used to base the translation on. Below is a summary chart for the New Testament.
From https://usefulcharts.com/blogs/charts/english-bible-translations-family-tree.
As the chart shows, the Western text has not been used for centuries. The Byzantine text-type was used for the KJV. The Alexandrian text-type includes manuscripts that scholars have determined are older than the Byzantine and are closer to the original documents. With this in mind, I prefer those translations based on the critical text, which prioritizes the Alexandrian text.
For the Old Testament, there is less variation. Most translations are based on the Masoretic Text, found in the Leningrad Codex. Other texts, including the Dead Sea Scrolls, introduce possible variants. Translations that use the Critical Text for the New Testament take a similar approach to the Old Testament, using the best representation of the original documents.
Translation Philosophy
When converting text from one language to a receptor language, the translator must find a balance between a word-for-word translation, sometimes referred to as formally equivalent or literal, and a thought-for-thought approach, often referred to as dynamically equivalent. Word-for-word is considered more accurate, while thought-for-thought is more understandable. An extreme thought-for-thought is a paraphrase. Below is an example of an assessment of where each translation lies on this spectrum. The translator’s interpretation of the text has a greater input as one moves to the right of this spectrum.
Thus, it helps to compare multiple translations when looking at a passage. My primary comparison would be between NASB, ESV, CSB, and NIV. Numerous scholars have been involved in each one. Examining a KJV/NKJV or NRSV text might apply in certain circumstances. Looking at text from a more dynamic translation would provide insight into the interpretation of its translator(s). Biblegateway.com readily enables comparing up to four translations.
The 2017 Christian Standard Bible argues that it has found the best balance between literalness and readability, describing its translation philosophy as “Optimal Equivalence.”
God’s Word translation is another that claims to find the best balance.
Capitalizing Pronouns That Reference God or Jesus
Many people in my circle believe that it is appropriate to capitalize pronouns that refer to God or Jesus. This was the practice that I followed until I started my studies at Liberty University, which did not capitalize. NASB and NKJV are examples of the few Bibles that follow the practice of capitalization, while the old English translations (from Wycliffe to KJV), and modern translations such as ESV and CSB, do not capitalize.
There was no capitalization in the original manuscripts. Pronoun capitalization was introduced in the late 19th-century to show respect. Choosing to capitalize is itself an interpretation of what the pronoun refers to. Through my studies, I got into the habit of not capitalizing such pronouns. I think this is the correct approach, but I have no issue if people wish to capitalize as their show of respect. I liked this blog on the topic.
Gender-Neutrality
Starting in the 1970s, feminist movements petitioned for language to be gender neutral, removing an implied gender when such a meaning is not intended. In translation, mapping words often involves such challenges. I remember my confusion when I first learned that a French table was feminine! Bible translators faced this challenge with words that were literally “man” but meant human beings, or that literally meant “brothers,” but their meaning was not singling out males.
Some translations are more gender-neutral than others, and this has led to criticism and controversy. For example, the NRSV is one of the most gender-neutral translations and includes other liberal positions in the English words it chooses. Updated NIV translations have been embroiled in similar criticism, which Mark Strauss discusses here. However, even the conservative CSB translation uses some gender-neutral language when the translators believed that was the author’s intent.
Gender-neutrality in the Bible has not bothered me, but perhaps I have not been significantly exposed to it. I remember one time, when Janet and I were visiting a church, that the opening prayer was “to God, our father and mother,” which made us quite uncomfortable. However, the way certain terms are translated, for example, by the NRSV, is central to doctrinal positions supporting homosexuality. My men’s Bible study group has spent many weeks examining both sides of this argument, and I remain convinced the Bible identifies homosexuality as a sin, along with many other sins.
Bibles With Notes
I see the value of study Bibles that include notes about the text. By their nature, these will tend to involve an interpretation by the author, which can add clarity to the text. I have little experience with study Bibles.
Each Bible has footnotes that provide additional information, with the New English Translation (NET) Bible standing out with over 60,000 translation footnotes. The NET started from the original languages, and its translation philosophy is similar to the NIV. I often use the NET’s footnotes as my initial investigation into a text.
An Example from My Dissertation
For my dissertation, I examined what the Old Testament said about non-Jews. In ancient times, countries were less defined so concepts such as “foreign” were less clear. The term “gentile” did not take hold until after the Old Testament. The Old Testament authors used many different words to depict non-Jews, and each with different meaning. For example, in Exodus, the Hebrew word “ger” refers to a foreigner who was interested in Judaism, “nokri” or “nekar” was a foreign enemy, and “tosab” was neutral. The table below compares these three words used in Exodus 12 for non-Israelites, and how different translations handle them.
The standard resources for detailed examination of biblical words are a couple of lexicons. For the Old Testament, it is The Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, published in 1977, and known as BDB. For the New Testament, it is Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, whose third edition was published in 2000, and is known as BDAG. However, comparing multiple translations is a revealing first step, accessible to all.
One section of the second chapter of my dissertation is titled “Terminology for Foreigners in the Hebrew Bible” (pages 36—45). Below is my summary.
Summary of Hebrew Bible Terminology for Foreigners
The words above refer either to groups of people (ʿam and gôy) or individuals (nokrî, zār, gēr, tôšāb, and ʿārēl). One must be careful when using the word “foreign,” which we associate with coming from a different nation today. Nationhood during biblical times differed from today. The common thread among the terms for “foreign” is that they describe those outside of the ingroup (i.e., Israel) defined ethnically and religiously. It also appears that a non-Israelite individual could choose whether they were a nokrî, zār, gēr, tôšāb, or ʿārēl, with Israel differing their approaches to each category.
This study highlighted the challenges of translating between languages that were used in such different cultures. This emphasized the challenges that this video shows that the ESV translators had in translating words around slavery.
Digital Resources
With the Bible App on my phone, I have access to more Bibles than I can think of. Listening to their audio Bibles adds a new dimension to Bible study. On a computer, I find biblegateway.com a valuable resource with lots of Bibles and comparison functionality. The blueletterbible.org and biblehub.com sites have useful tools for digging deeper.
For my academic studies, I initially used a free version of Logos Bible Software, including its app. After a few semesters, I upgraded to a paid package, but the free version has some useful features, including an interlinear. There is an online interlinear at https://biblehub.com/interlinear/. However, I must share the warning I was given about delving into the original biblical languages. A little knowledge about languages can be quite dangerous, as it can lead to incorrect conclusions. Humility is key, and my little knowledge has made me appreciate the tremendous value added by the scores of scholars who provide input into mainstream Bible translations. However, structured learning of ancient Hebrew or Greek is eye-opening while exhausting.
I do not have much experience with whole-Bible commentaries though Matthew Henry and Enduring Word look like good places to start, complementing the websites mentioned above. I would advise looking at more than one commentary so that you get multiple perspectives. I have found the overview-videos by The Bible Project to be valuable in explaining each book’s bigger picture and highly recommend these.
For deeper study, I always consult the Best Commentaries website. It uses an objective measure, and I recommend that you scroll past their “top three” to see more choices and determine whether you prefer an older or newer commentary, how technical you want it, and whether it is from a series you have liked, though not all commentaries in the same series are necessarily similar. Having found a book’s title, archive.org is an excellent online resource to check it out, though it only has older books, which might be earlier editions of current books. When purchasing, I have saved significant amounts by buying used copies of books from online retailers.
To help read through the Bible in a year, two resources are recommended by family members. They are The Bible Recap by Tara Leigh Cobble and The Bible with Nicky and Pippa Gumbel. check them out!
Which Bible Is Best?
I don’t believe there is one best English translation of the Bible. The best Bible depends on the individual, their circumstances, and their application, and, in practice, is the one that is read the most.
My experience above showed that the KJV was still the prevalent translation until the late twentieth century, and many might have memorized Scripture from this version. For centuries, the KJV was the foundation of many Christians’ faith. At church this morning, our Bible study teacher played this clip from A Charlie Brown Christmas, where Linus recites Luke 2:8—14. This was made in 1965 using the KJV and remains a classic.
My daughter explained she used an NASB in Middle School, an NIV in High School, and currently uses an ESV. She found the NASB easier to read than the NIV, which is opposite to what the readability chart above suggests. She chose her ESV Bible because it had a pretty cover, but acknowledged it worked well because her church used it.
I have seen people using multiple translations in their argument, sometimes choosing one translation over another, but another translation elsewhere. I treat such positions with caution, as the preference might be to help support their argument, rather than a better reflection of the Scripture’s meaning. However, such a position can also be valid with the complex nuances of translation and source texts. For example, in Romans 1:3, translations such as ESV use the phrase, “according to the flesh.” Elsewhere in Romans, Paul uses the Greek sarx, for flesh, to describe humanity’s sinful ways. However, in Romans 1:3, Paul uses it to describe Jesus. The NIV translates this verse as “earthly life,” which I believe is a good interpretation, and illustrates a translation nuance.
My research for this article has identified the New Living Translation (NLT) as a responsible thought-for-thought translation by ninety scholars, avoiding paraphrase, and appropriate for children.
My default choice for the best Bible would be the one my church or Bible study teacher uses. Beyond that, I’d choose ESV, CSB, or NIV. For those who wanted to dig into English Bible translations, I hope that this discussion has shed some light on the differences between English Bibles.
Leave a Reply