Author: Peter Ireland

Obviously, the Bible has been translated into languages other than English. Jesus told his disciples to make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:18—20) and to be his witnesses to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). As contemporary missionaries continue those efforts, they need to be able to communicate with people in their language. What is the status of that translation effort? I’ve witnessed a few examples of that effort that I share below.

Overview

The Wycliffe Global Alliance coordinates the activities of over one hundred Bible translation organizations. They identify 7,396 living languages, of which 544 have no Bible translation at all. In 1999, there were 4,600 languages with no Scripture, so tremendous progress has been made in the last 25 years. There are 776 languages with a full Bible, with work in progress on 4,447 languages.

The Museum of the Bible in Washington DC has an “illumiNations” exhibit illustrating the progress being made to translate the Bible into all living languages.

Believers have translated Scriptures continuously since ancient times. Some translations of the Old Testament predate Christ. Translations continue today. Below is a snapshot of translations that have impacted me, presented in chronological order.

Aramaic

Translations date back to before the New Testament. The earliest known translations were of Hebrew into Aramaic and are known as Targums. These were spoken translations in the 6th Century BC, around the time of the Babylonian Exile, with written forms appearing by the 1st Century BC. To the untrained eye, Hebrew and Aramaic look similar.

Greek

Around 300 BC, Ptolemy II, a Greek king of Egypt, commissioned seventy-two Jewish scholars to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Koine Greek for Alexandria’s library. This became known as the Septuagint, after the seventy, or “LXX,” which is seventy in Latin. The dispersed, Hellenized Jews embraced this translation. Many of the quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament use the Septuagint translation. Koine Greek was the common Greek spoken around the Mediterranean at this time and is the language of the New Testament. Koine Greek, Attic Greek (used in Classical Greek literature), and modern Greek are related but distinct. Some early translations used the Septuagint as their source text, and it continues to be used as a critical source for the Old Testament.

Latin

Evidence suggests that there were various “Old Latin” (Vetus Latina) translations of parts of the Bible in the 2nd Century AD, with the Septuagint used as the source for the Old Testament. In the fourth century AD, the Roman Catholic Church commissioned Jerome to translate the Bible into Latin. His work translated directly from Hebrew texts while building upon previous work using the Septuagint, and resulted in the Vulgate, the Roman Catholic Church’s official Bible for centuries.

Other Languages Including Ethiopic

In the first few centuries AD, the Bible was translated into a few other ancient languages. One notable example is Ethiopian, also known as Ge’ez. One of the three oldest Bibles in existence is the Ethiopian Bible from 330—350 AD. This Bible includes texts not found in other Christian Bibles, illustrating the tradition’s early divergence. It includes translations of some ancient Jewish literature, including the book of Enoch, which was written in Hebrew, but no complete Hebrew copy exists.

Czech

I was surprised to learn that one of the earliest Bible translations was Czech. In 865 AD, Cyril and Methodius brought Christianity to Prague from Thessaloniki. The Czechs had no written language, so Cyril created an alphabet to enable a written Bible in their language. Such a need to create a written form of a language to enable Bible translation continues today.

Cyril’s disciples evolved this language into a script that is used in over fifty languages throughout Eurasia, and was named the Cyrillic script to honor Cyril.

English

While there is evidence of translations into Old English dating back to Bede in 735 AD, Wycliffe created the first English translation of the whole Bible in 1388 from the Vulgate, with the first translation into English from the original languages performed by Tyndale around 1530. Tyndale used Erasmus’s printed Greek New Testament (see below), which led to the King James Version in 1611. On a side note, one of the earliest Bible translations was into Welsh in 1588, and it is credited with helping to save the language from dying.

Gutenberg’s Printing Press and the Fall of Constantinople

Two events in the 15th century significantly impacted Bible translation. First, in 1440, Johannes Gutenberg invented the printing press. The first book that he printed was the Vulgate.

Second, in 1453, the final major city in the Byzantine Holy Roman Empire, Constantinople (today’s Istanbul), was defeated by the Ottoman Empire. Christian scholars, with many ancient biblical texts, headed west to avoid the invading Islamists. The West’s focus on the Latin Vulgate had reduced its focus on biblical manuscripts in the original languages.

The renewed interest in the Bible in its original languages and the information revolution that the Gutenberg press enabled led to Erasmus creating the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament in 1516, the Novum Instrumentum Omne. He primarily used Byzantine texts, and his Greek New Testament complemented Hebrew Bibles that had been printed since the late 15th century. These books and the printing process gave access to the Bible in its original languages to many more translators.

German

Martin Luther completed his influential translation into German in 1534, leveraging other scholars to help with his translation from the original languages. Luther also used Erasmus’s Greek New Testament.

From Swahili to Spanish

I first saw a Bible in a non-English language during a visit to Kenya in 1992, when a market trader showed me her Swahili Bible. Since then, I have always been fascinated by how the biblical text looks in languages that use a different script from English, like Chinese or Korean. Sometimes I have been assisted by what is called a polyglot, which prints the text from two languages alongside each other. I helped a Christmas ministry distribute Bibles in English and Spanish, with the Spanish Bibles primarily for older Hispanic people who did not pick up English as easily as the youth.

Munukutuba

I was blessed to witness some pioneering Bible translation when I worked in Africa in 1997. While living in Pointe Noire, Congo, I attended a church that had been established by some missionaries from North America. While Pastor Gary would preach in French, a visiting pastor might preach in Munukutuba, the local language, also known as Kituba. I must add that I barely understood French, let alone Munukutuba, so I read my English Bible! Another Belgian missionary in town, Jean-Pierre, was working on translating the Bible into Munukutuba. A written form of the language had been created, and Jean-Pierre was working on his second New Testament book.

In 2006, the Bible Society published Ngwisani Ya Malu-Malu, which means The New Testament in Munukutuba, and it is available here. The translation, called BNT or Kituba, is available on bible.com

Kechin

Last month, our church announced that it was financially supporting the translation of the Bible into a South Asian language. The language was identified as Kechin, though this is a pseudonym to protect the translators involved, as there can be strong local resistance to such initiatives.

Arabic

Decades of study in the Middle East led Kenneth Bailey to write The Cross & the Prodigal: Luke 15 Through the Eyes of Middle Eastern Peasants. It is a fascinating insight into cultural symbolism in the narrative of the Prodigal Son, which is lost when read with Western eyes. Bailey argues that much of the first-century culture has been preserved in the Arabic way of life. In the book’s introduction, he points out that “There are more Arabic-speaking Christians in the Middle East than Jews in the entire world.” While Arabic speakers were present at Pentecost (Acts 2:11), Arabs are assumed to be Muslims, and little attention is given to Arabic translations of the Bible.

One example Bailey provides in Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes is the mistranslation of “inn” in Luke 2:7. Bailey explains that the word in the Arabic translation would definitely be a guest space, typically the upper room of a common village home, rather than a commercial establishment. However, I note that Bailey uses the RSV, which preserves the KJV’s usage of “inn,” while translations that started from the original languages, such as CSB and NIV, use “guest room.” The NET Bible, while using “inn,” provides detailed notes on the translation debate about this word.

Other Non-Foreign Languages

The Bible Museum’s exhibits included a Bible in Braille. Wow! I have since learned that there are different forms of Braille for over 130 languages, with about 40 having a Bible in Braille. There are also over 300 distinct sign languages, with the complete Bible only in American Sign Language, and the BSL Bible Translation Project actively translating the Bible into British Sign Language. You can watch Mark’s Gospel below. I wish there were subtitles!

Other Translations

My research revealed that there are over one hundred translations of the Jehovah’s Witnesses’ English Bible, the New World Translation. This includes the first translation in American Sign Language. However, there is significant criticism about the New World Translation, with English words being chosen to reflect the denomination’s theological position rather than the original language. Also, there are concerns about the credentials of the translators, who have remained anonymous.

Reflection

The illumiNations alliance has the goal, “It’s fully expected that, in our lifetime, 100% of the world’s population will have access to a key portion of Scripture.” They aim to have some Scripture translated into all languages by 2033.

I introduced this post with Jesus’s instructions to make disciples of all nations (Matt 28:18—20) and to be his witnesses to the ends of the earth (Acts 1:8). Some translators are also motivated by Matthew 24:14, which states that the end will come after the Gospel has been proclaimed throughout the whole world. I do not have an opinion on whether translating the Bible into all languages will accelerate Jesus’s return. Nevertheless, I see the work as valuable, and I hope that you found this interesting!

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
  • Translation Textual Basis
  • Translation Philosophy
  • Capitalizing Pronouns That Reference God or Jesus
  • Gender-Neutrality
  • Bibles With Notes
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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.

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.

I believe that the Bible is God’s word. How has it come to me from God? In short, God inspired biblical authors in ancient times to write his message. Scholars, having collated many manuscripts in ancient languages, translated the text for modern English Bibles, an example of which is the English Standard Version or ESV.

This is the first post in a series that provides the more complete answer, tracking the words through history. Read on to learn more.

– The Word of God
– How Were the Bible’s Contents Determined?
– Representation of the Original Old Testament
– Representation of the Original New Testament
– Translation
– Reflection

The Word of God

I believe that God inspired the biblical authors to write Scriptures that are his infallible message to humankind. The earliest biblical author is Moses, who wrote the first five books of the Old Testament over three thousand years ago. The latest Old Testament books are some of the minor prophets written as late as 400 BC. The New Testament authors wrote their texts between AD 50 and 95, with Revelation being the last, written by John.

Biblical authors wrote in ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. None of the original documents, known as autographs, exists today. To preserve and distribute the word of God, scribes copied the original autographs, or copies of them, and translators prepared versions of the Scriptures in other ancient languages. Scribes made further copies of the copies and translations, and many of these copies have been found and continue to be found.

How Were the Bible’s Contents Determined?

The biblical texts were not the only things written during ancient times, nor are they the only ones whose copies exist today. A long time ago, authoritative groups decided which texts should be included in the Bible, and which should not.

The Old Testament Canon

The contents of the Old Testament are aligned with the Hebrew Bible. Evidence from the New Testament indicates that there was a definitive list of Scriptures at the time of Jesus. First-century writings describe twenty-two books of the Hebrew Bible. Each book was written in its original language of Hebrew or Aramaic on a scroll. The text did not include vowels, chapter or verse numbers, or section headings. It is unclear whether there was an authoritative sequence of these scrolls, though they were placed in groups like the torah, which includes the first five books from Genesis to Deuteronomy. It is also unknown why the text associated with these scrolls was identified as divinely inspired.

A pivotal step in the Old Testament’s life was the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. The exile of Israel and Judah had displaced the Israelites to foreign lands. The Hellenization of the region after Alexander the Great’s victories in the fourth century BC led to ancient Greek being the common language. In the third century BC, Ptolemy II, a Greek king of Egypt, commissioned seventy-two Jewish scholars to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek for Alexandria’s library. This became known as the Septuagint, after the seventy, or “LXX,” which is seventy in Latin. The dispersed, Hellenized Jews embraced this translation. Many of the quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament use the Septuagint translation.

The transition from Hebrew to Greek lengthened the words due to the addition of vowels. This meant that the translated text of some of the Hebrew scrolls, which correlated with “books,” lengthened such that it could no longer fit onto one scroll, which led to the splitting of some books. For instance, the Hebrew scrolls Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, and Ezra-Nehemiah were split into 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah. Also, the Book of the Twelve, which was a single Hebrew scroll, became twelve separate books in the Septuagint, known as the twelve Minor Prophets. This splitting of books resulted in the thirty-nine books that comprise the Old Testament. Even today’s Hebrew Bible is divided differently into twenty-four books.

In the fourth century AD, the Roman Catholic Church commissioned Jerome to translate the Bible into Latin. His work translated directly from Hebrew texts while building upon previous work using the Septuagint. He retained the Septuagint’s book structure and sequence, which is what we find in today’s Old Testament. The Septuagint also included the translation of other books, known as the Apocrypha or Deutero-Canonical books. These books are included in the Bible of other traditions, such as the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches, but are rejected by the Protestant Church and Judaism.

The New Testament Canon

Around the end of the first century AD, the young Christian church identified some new writings as divinely inspired texts. There is written evidence that, from about AD 150 to AD 350, there was debate about which new texts should be treated as Scripture. The Councils of Hippo (AD 393) and Carthage (AD 397) affirmed twenty-seven books as Scripture, defining what we now know as the New Testament.

Evidence suggests that there were three criteria that the early church used to determine a text’s canonicity. The first criterion was whether the writing had an apostolic connection, i.e., either an apostolic author, such as Matthew, Peter, John, or Paul, or a strong connection to an apostle, such as Mark and Luke. The second criterion was whether a writing aligned with the theology and ethics of the young church. The final criterion was whether the writing had been useful to a large number of churches, which thus regarded the writing with authority. The use of these criteria and the process of canonization recognized the books as authoritative rather than giving the books authority. Conversely, this process and these criteria rejected other works as not divinely inspired.

Representation of the Original Old Testament

When Jerome sought to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Latin in the fourth century, there was no standard reference. He worked with Rabbis, Jewish scholars, and scribes to determine the best input to his translation. In the sixth century, a group of Jewish scholars called the Masoretes started to create a written form of the Hebrew Bible with annotations to guide the pronunciation.

The oldest, complete copy of the Hebrew Scriptures is the Leningrad Codex. Its introduction suggests that it was written around AD 1010 in Cairo. A “codex” is an ancient manuscript book that replaced scrolls. In the early nineteenth century, Abraham Firkovich, a Jewish businessman, collected many Hebrew manuscripts, including what became known as the Leningrad Codex. In the latter half of the nineteenth century, he sold his collection to the Leningrad Library (now the National Library of Russia). Rudolf Kittel’s Biblia Hebraica, published in various volumes between 1906 to 1937, aimed to reproduce the Leningrad Codex. Kittel’s work evolved into Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), first published by the German Bible Society in 1977, with the fifth edition published in 1997. The preface to my ESV Bible states, “The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (5th ed., 1997).”

Many other ancient manuscripts with copies of the Hebrew Scriptures exist. The Aleppo Codex is a prominent example, which was written in Tiberias around AD 920. It was a complete copy of the Hebrew Bible and was kept in Aleppo’s central synagogue, which was destroyed by fire in anti-Jewish riots in 1947. The codex resurfaced in Jerusalem in 1958 with 40% of it missing, potentially lost in the fire. It is kept at the Shrine of the Book at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem. Another example is the collection of material from the Cairo Genizah, a synagogue’s storeroom in Egypt, which contained thousands of old manuscripts. Its significance did not become apparent until the end of the nineteenth century, and its manuscripts are now in several libraries, with the most in Cambridge University Library. The collection includes manuscripts of many types of documents, including the Hebrew Scriptures. While some of the biblical texts date to the fifth century AD, the majority are from the tenth to twelfth centuries. The similarity between the text found in these documents and the Leningrad Codex illustrates how well the documents were copied.

In 1946, a shepherd discovered some ancient manuscripts in a cave overlooking the Dead Sea above the abandoned settlement of Qumran. This discovery led to the finding of many scrolls and fragments that date from the first century BC to the third century AD, and include a complete scroll of Isaiah. These Dead Sea Scrolls were created hundreds of years earlier than the Leningrad Codex, before the Masoretes added pronunciation marks. However, the differences in the underlying text were minor, supporting the accuracy of the Leningrad Codex’s representation of the original scriptures. Most of the Dead Sea Scrolls are kept at the Shrine of the Book at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem.

There are many other manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible or ancient translations. The preface to my ESV explains its textual basis for the Old Testament as follows:

The ESV is based on the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible as found in Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (5th ed., 1997)…. The currently renewed respect among Old Testament scholars for the Masoretic text is reflected in the ESV’s attempt, wherever possible, to translate difficult Hebrew passages as they stand in the Masoretic text rather than resorting to emendations or to finding an alternative reading in the ancient versions. In exceptional, difficult cases, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Septuagint, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate, and other sources were consulted to shed possible light on the text, or, if necessary, to support a divergence from the Masoretic text.

Representation of the Original New Testament

Jerome’s translation of the Bible into Latin, known as the Vulgate, was the Roman Catholic Church’s official Bible until the twentieth century. This stance subdued interest in the original Greek text until the early sixteenth century. The year before Martin Luther triggered the Reformation with his ninety-five theses, Erasmus of Rotterdam created the first print version of the New Testament in Greek. The basis for Erasmus’s work was a few manuscripts from the twelfth and thirteenth centuries that were kept in European Catholic institutions. Erasmus’s work was republished with corrections and described itself as Textus Receptus, meaning Received Text. This was the primary Greek text used in the earliest English translations of the Bible, including the King James Version in 1611.

Since the printing of the Textus Receptus, many other manuscripts have been uncovered, which are generally seen as superior to the manuscripts used by Erasmus. While there are over five thousand such manuscripts, three are considered the most significant.

The Vatican Manuscript from the fourth century has been kept in the Vatican Library since at least 1481. It is a near-complete copy of the Old and New Testaments in Greek and is considered the oldest and most complete copy. This text was not available to Erasmus, though someone sent him some samples of it to illustrate its superiority over Erasmus’s work.

The Sinaitic Manuscript includes a complete New Testament but an incomplete Old Testament and is also from the fourth century. In 1841, a Bible scholar called Constantin von Tischendorf started his life’s endeavor of reconstructing the New Testament as close as possible to the original autographs. His quest to see as many manuscripts as he could took him to St Catherine’s Monastery on Mount Sinai in Egypt. After multiple visits by Tischendorf over a couple of decades, the monastery donated the Sinaitic Manuscript to the Czar of Russia in 1869. In 1933, the British Museum purchased it from Russia for £100,000.

The third significant manuscript is the Alexandrian Codex. Created in Egypt’s Alexandria in the fifth century, it was brought to Constantinople in 1621 and gifted to the King of England in 1627. It contains most of the Old and New Testaments and is kept in the British Library.

When scholars rationalize differences between ancient manuscripts, they consider how the copyists introduced such differences. Some were unintentional mistakes, such as omissions or duplications. Others were intentional changes, such as an attempt to improve the text or adding some notes that had been written in a margin. Scholars use the text’s context to clean up unintentional mistakes. It is more complicated to work out intentional mistakes, and basic principles have been defined. Generally, priority is given to the shorter version (removing additions), a more complex version (undoing a simplification by a copyist), or different text in parallel passages like the Gospels (believing the copyist used the parallel passage). The need for such rationalization between the manuscripts suggests significant differences. However, the vast majority of differences are very small, and none impact doctrine.

The German Bible Society publishes a copy of the Greek New Testament that scholars have determined is the best representation of the original autographs. The two versions of this are the Nestle-Aland 28th edition, known as NA28, targeting scholars and researchers, and the United Bible Societies 5th edition, known as UBS5, for translators and students.

My ESV Bible’s preface states:

The ESV is based on…the Greek text in the 2014 editions of the Greek New Testament (5th corrected ed.), published by the United Bible Societies (UBS), and Novum Testamentum Graece (28th ed., 2012), edited by Nestle and Aland…. In a few difficult cases in the New Testament, the ESV has followed a Greek text different from the text given preference in the UBS/Nestle-Aland 28th edition. Throughout, the translation team has benefited greatly from the massive textual resources that have become readily available recently, from new insights into biblical laws and culture, and from current advances in Hebrew and Greek lexicography and grammatical understanding.

Finally, it should be noted that the original autographs contained neither chapter nor verse numbers. Chapter numbers were added to the Vulgate in 1227 by Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury. Verse numbers were added in 1551 by a French printer named Robert Estienne, also known as Stephanus. Most modern Bibles, including the ESV, use the same numbering system without changes.

Translation

It seems like the hardest work was compiling the representations of the Scriptures in their original ancient languages. However, the vast majority of people need the Bible in their own language, which is where translation comes in.

No two languages have the same number of words, and there are often many differences between languages, including tenses, structure, and style. Words often change their meaning based on context, and those meanings can change over time. There are many variables when translating from one language to another.

My ESV Bible’s preface explains its translation philosophy:

“The ESV is an “essentially literal” translation that seeks as far as possible to reproduce the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. As such, its emphasis is on “word-for-word” correspondence, at the same time taking full account of differences in grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the original languages. Thus it seeks to be transparent to the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and exact force of the original.”

Other Bibles that I read, such as NASB and CSB, use a similar translation approach. Sometimes, I read the NIV Bible, which is more of a “thought-for-thought” translation compared to ESV’s “word-for-word” approach. The 2011 NIV’s preface explains it as follows:

“The first concern of the translators has continued to be the accuracy of the translation and its faithfulness to the intended meaning of the biblical writers. This has moved the translators to go beyond a formal word-for-word rendering of the original texts. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, accurate communication of the meaning of the biblical authors demands constant regard for varied contextual uses of words and idioms and for frequent modifications in sentence structures.”

Therefore, while the NIV risks deviating from the meaning of the original language’s text due to the interpretive views of the translator, it increases the chance that I will understand the text as it aims to portray the text’s meaning, rather than just the words. This difference is why I find it valuable to use multiple translations when I am studying a passage. The NET Bible provides special insight with many translators’ notes captured as footnotes.

My ESV’s preface includes additional notes about the challenges of translating specialized terms, including an explanation of its approach to words associated with “slave.” A four-minute video, linked below, representing two and a half hours of discussion, provides some insight into the effort that went into translation decisions made by the ESV’s English-speaking translators:

Reflection

For many years, I have read my Bible with faith that it was the word of God. As I have aged, my recent formal Bible education enabled my increasing cynicism and skepticism to be satisfied by researching where my Bible came from. Have you read your Bible’s preface to understand where your Bible came from? For further reading on the topic, I recommend a couple of books titled How We Got the Bible. Neil Lightfoot’s 2010 book of 224 pages is a well-written description. Clinton Arnold’s 96-page book, published in 2008 uses many photographs in his explanation. While the need for faith remains, understanding the Bible’s provenance reassures me that such faith is well placed.

The image above shows a flowchart of the timeline from the original autographs to the modern Bible. Click it to enlarge.

The second post blog in this series examines the background and history of translating the Bible into English.

Further reading

– Creating the Canon: Composition, Controversy, and the Authority of the New Testament by Benjamin P. Laird
– Grasping God’s Word by J. Scott Duvall and J. Daniel Hays
– The Hermeneutical Spiral by Grant R. Osborne