Which Translation of the Bible Should I Use?

For the new student of the Bible, finding the right English translation of the Bible can be a frustrating experience. The task is surprisingly difficult for even more seasoned students. There are a seemingly endless variety of translations.  Nearly every one of the different translations has a “new,” “updated” or “revised” version of it. Some even use the words “new” or “revised” as a part of their names.  One translation uses both “new” and “revised.” It does not help that the names are not especially descriptive.  What is a “standard” translation  among so many?  What makes a version an “international” version if it is in English like all the others?

Even after narrowing the choices down to a single translation, the frustration is still not over.  Each publisher or printed has another endless supply of formats of translations.  Bibles can be called “reference,” “study,” “chronological,” “topical” or a dozen other names.  What exactly is the difference between a “men’s” study Bible and a “women’s” study Bible? Shouldn’t the text of both be the same?  Walking into a Bible bookstore or searching Amazon for a Bible from which to learn God’s word shouldn’t be such a hardship on people.

This essay is going to help make the process of selecting a Bible to study more understandable. First, we are going to examine why so many different translation exist.  Second, we will explain the two different philosophies which guide the creation of Bible translations and how both of these philosophies can benefit us in our study of the Bible.  Third, we will give a summary of each of the major English translation.  Finally, we will touch briefly on the different Bible formats available and how each can be used.

Why Are There So Many Translations?

From the early days of the 17th century until almost the beginning of the 20th century, there was no reason for a document like this one to be written.  For those 300 years only one translation of the Bible into English had any following.  Translated in 1611, the King James Version was the only Bible for the English speaking world. Still in wide use today, its lasting impact on the world is unrivaled among books. However, in the late 1800’s the first rival to the King James was crafted (English Revised Version or American Standard Version).  In the 1950’s, a second alternative appeared (Revised Standard Version).  Over the next 60 years, dozens of additional translations of varying degrees of scholarship sprang onto the scene and into the marketplace.  What caused the explosion of interest in “re-translating” the English Bible after 300 years of contentment with one powerful and reliable choice?

Textual Discoveries

The most significant reason for the initial impulse to update the King James translation came from the work of archaeologists.  During the 1800’s there was a rebirth of archaeological efforts in the “Holy Lands” and other places where early Christian communities existed. As a result, a multitude of ancient documents were unearthed.  Contained in these discoveries were thousands of preserved portions of Scripture. These discoveries brought the discipline of textual criticism to prominence.

The King James family of translations is based on a text known as the “Textus Receptus” or the “Received Text.” As the name suggests, it purports to be the text that has been “received” down the ages. The idea created from the name is that there is an uninterrupted string of texts going back into antiquity from which the King James was translated. That seamless succession of textual evidence ensures the accuracy of the text and so the accuracy of the King James Bible. Part of that impression is true, and part needs more explanation.

It is true that the Christian community has always had a complete text of the Bible. It has become fashionable for critics of the Bible to speak of the “lost books of the Bible” or “books banned from the Bible.” While it is beyond the scope of this essay to examine those claims, it needs to be noted that we have those supposed “lost” books. If we have them, they were not lost. The Christian community knew of the existence of those writings and many more. The point is that early Christians were able to distinguish between those writings acknowledged to be inspired works and those that were not. Those that they recognized as inspired they took special care to preserve. That care ensured the Bible’s text has never been lost. No generation of Christians has had to live without access to the books of Romans or Revelation or any other book of the Bible. So the idea that each generation of Christians passed down the text to the next generation is perfectly sound. In that sense, the text that existed when the King James was translated was the “Received Text.”

However, there is another side to the thought.  While the text was transmitted down through the generations, we were lacking an important part of that tradition. We did not have the intermediary examples of the text. Norman Geisler and William Nix state about the Textus Receptus, “[T]he textual basis was actually very late, from only a handful of manuscripts . . . ” (Geisler and Nix, p. 452). What they mean by that is in the 1600’s the text available to Bible scholars could not be verified by comparing it against manuscripts that were created in the earliest days of Christianity. At the time the King James was translated very few examples of truly ancient manuscripts were in the possession of scholars. In that sense the text behind the King James Version is not the “received” text or, at least, there was no way to document the Textus Receptus’ fidelity to the original text of the Bible.

Starting in the 19th century and continuing even today, the work of archaeologists unearthed literally thousands of documents from the earliest days of Christianity. Many thousands of those documents are copies of the Bible that early Christians used. This gave Bible scholars sources that are independent from the Textus Receptus. With that newly discovered (but of more ancient origin) information in hand, scholars began a critical examination of the Bible’s text. They compared passages from many different textual examples. Largely, their work verified the soundness of the traditional text, but the work also helped to clarify the rendering and meaning of a few uncertain texts in the Textus Receptus.  Their efforts resulted in the rise of the discipline of “textual criticism” and the creation of a text commonly known as the “Critical Text.” The creation of this “new” text was largely behind the explosion of new Bible translations. A new family of translations was needed to reflect the impact the newly discovered textual evidence.

What the Christian community has then is two different textual traditions. One relies on the foundation of traditional transmission. The other relies on the accuracy of the critical work of scholarship. Which tradition is stronger and produces a more accurate Bible text? Answering that question can produce some amazingly heated discussions. Each side of the discussion has its vocal proponents and critics. The truth is that both texts are remarkably similar and either text can produce a Bible translation that is reliable and trustworthy. However, when selecting a Bible translation, knowing from which textual family it comes is a necessary part of the research you must do.

We will apply this discussion to individual translations as we come to them. The general principle is that more modern translations use the “Critical Text” and the King James family of translations uses the “Received Text.”  A simple point of recommendation is that any diligent student of the Bible will have and use a translation based on each textual family. Having more evidence and being comfortable with its use is always a better and more sure path than ignoring facts that are not within our comfort zone.

Language Styles

Another strong contributing factor in the trend for newer translations is that language styles evolve over time. No one doubts the accuracy and beauty of the King James translation. It has stood the test of time far longer and better than any of its successors are likely to do. However, it is clear its language is a style of English that is becoming unknown in the modern times. Archaic forms and unfamiliar usage of words can create a barrier to understanding the Bible. The newer translations seek to lessen this barrier. Even the older translations have newer editions which have the same goal in mind.

However, this trend also comes with its own issues to consider. The Bible is a book to be honored and treated with a great deal of respect. How far then, should its language be altered to fit temporary cultural trends? Just how informal should its language become? Nearly every translation of the Bible has detractors which argue that its language has either gone too far or not far enough to accommodate the needs of contemporary readers.

Your search for a proper translation has another area to consider. Where on the spectrum of formality/informality to you want the language in your Bible?

Market Forces

The Bible is the most popular book of all time. Publishers sell a lot of them every year. This simply means that it is not immune from the effects of a market-based economy. A new translation, or more commonly, a new edition or format of an existing translation can mean a boost in sales to a publisher. Every year new organizational or color-coding systems appear in Bibles. They are marketed for age, ethnicity, or gender specific groups. Translations get tweaked and re-badged too frequently for the average student to track. Much of the confusion surrounding which Bible to use can be placed at the feet of publishers who are trying to get noticed in the marketplace.

That is not to say the work of publishers is wrong. Many of the newer translations have been helpful. The discerning student can find great help in the Bible study aides that are now commonly placed within Bibles. The Bible’s popularity has sustained the efforts of many good publishers and given the Christian community more and better choices than it has ever had.

What would be bad is if someone were led to the impression that all of this change means there is uncertainty about the Bible’s text or that one needs a new translation every few years because his has become outdated. In reality, among the major translations of the Bible there is more flash than substance in the updates and new formats that are available each year. Even with all the discoveries scholars have made and all of the new and exciting options that are available to students today, a person can still pick up a King James Bible with its 400-year old origins and learn all that he needs to know about the God who loves him.

Again, a balanced approach can help guide the Bible study. You should not be resistant to the new options that become available. However, there is almost no chance that some can change is going to come along and invalidate the choice you end up making in a Bible.

Translation Philosophy

As we have seen, the first consideration that will determine the nature of a translation is which textual basis it uses.  The second consideration is how that text will be translated. Moving from one language to another is never an easy task. No two languages have exactly the same vocabulary. If they did, they would be the same language. That means that the thoughts expressed in one language may not be easily expressed in the same number of words in another language. When the challenge of expressing figures of speech and idioms unique to a language or culture is added on top of vocabulary differences, it is easy to begin to grasp the great challenge in front of translators.

The challenges present translators with a balancing act which would stress the ability of any tight-rope artist. Every translator has the goal of precisely communicating the original message he is charged to deliver. Yet, he also has a desire to ensure that his audience understands the message that is within his charge. To accomplish that first desire, the translator must seek to translate the message in as close to a word-for-word manner as possible. To accomplish the second of his goals, he must seek to speak in a manner which is as comfortable to his audience as possible. Often it will be the case that either the first goal must be compromised to accomplish the second or the first will be adhered to and the second will suffer.

That dilemma confronts the translators of every version of the Bible. The message contained in the Bible is of the utmost importance. At the same time, it is critical that translators remain faithful to the original words of a sacred message while ensuring that the readers can understand that message in their native language. Just as with any other translated document, a strict word-for-word translation is somewhere between cumbersome to read and impossible to create. Yet, if translators move too far away from that word-for-word effort, they risk losing the authority found in the Bible altogether in the name of readability.

Answering the challenges of this dilemma has led to the creation of two philosophies of translation. Those philosophies are called “formal equivalence” and “dynamic equivalence.”

Formal Equivalence

This philosophy emphasizes the first of the translator’s goals that we referenced above: preciseness to the original message. Bibles that adhere to this end of the translational spectrum are thought of as “literal” or “word-for-word translations.” In reality, because of the difficulties listed above, no major translation of the Bible is truly a word-for-word translation. Given the differences in Hebrew (the language of the Old Testament), Greek (the language of the New Testament), and English, even if you could create a truly literal, word-for-word translation, it would be unreadable in English.

However, Bible translations which use those phrases as they describe their own translation believe in the concept of formal equivalence. For example, the King James describes its method of translation this way in its preface,”. . . there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue. . . .” While the term “formal equivalence” had not been coined in their days, the translators of that version believed in the concept. Their goal was to create an “exact” translation of the Bible. A more modern way of expressing the thought is found in the preface of the English Standard Version, “The ESV is an ‘essentially literal’ translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text . . .” Again, the aim of the ESV’s translators was to remain as “literal” as possible in expressing the words of the original text.

What all of this means is the “formal equivalence” Bible emphasizes preciseness over readability.

Dynamic Equivalence

The other philosophy seeks to accomplish the second goal, that of readability. This kind of translation is called “dynamic.” While the description may not be entirely fair, it is often called “thought-for-thought” translation. This philosophy will take more liberties with words of the original text in the name of making sure the thought expressed in the original text makes it into the mind of the reader.

The first major translation to embrace this philosophy is also the most popular Bible in the marketplace today, the New International Version. In describing its style of translation it says, “. . . they [the translators – jj] have striven for more than a word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demands frequent modifications in sentence structure and constant regard for the contextual meanings of words.”

As dynamic equivalent translations go, the NIV is actually very formal. However, notice the change in emphasis. It seeks to be “more” than a word-for-word translation. Its focus is on making changes to ensure that “faithful communication” is maintained. When confronted with a translational challenge, the philosophy of the NIV’s translators (and that of all dynamic equivalence translations) was to err on the side of ensuring the reader would understand the passage.

Which – Formal or Dynamic?

Does formal or dynamic equivalence make a better translation? In your search for the right Bible for you, the answer to that question is the biggest question you will have to answer. In a perfect world, we could have both a translation that was perfectly formal and never had to make any accommodations to express the meaning of the original text and at the same time expressed itself in a dynamic way which powerfully communicated the message to us in our language. But that will never exist.

The challenge that exists in answering that question is that the answer is often based on the individual. For a young child, someone learning English as a second language, or someone with a more limited educational background, a translation leaning more toward the dynamic end of the spectrum would likely be of more benefit to them than a more formal translation. However, as one grows and becomes more skillful in his use of language a loose paraphrase of the Bible (which would fall at the far extreme of dynamic translations) would be of little use to his studies. The answer to which is better changes from person to person and even within a person’s life.

Additionally, the purpose of your studies can impact which Bible style of translation is better for your use. The general rule is that as your studies become more thorough  a more formal translation becomes more useful. For example, if you are following a year-long, daily Bible reading calendar, your intent is devotional. You are not likely looking to examine the intricacies of each verse on your schedule that day. You are simply wanting to focus your mind on some spiritual thoughts. Having a Bible which reads smoothly and expresses the general thought of a passage might fulfill your needs well. In that instance, a dynamic equivalent Bible, even one that borders on being a paraphrase, might be better for you.  However, because dynamic translations are free to take more liberties in their translation you cannot be certain that any given word in them is a true and precise rendering of the word in the original Greek or Hebrew text. That means that dynamic translations do have an inherent limitation. They become less useful and reliable the more deeply you dig into them. If you are engaged in a serious study of some Bible doctrine, you absolutely need a translation from those that follow a philosophy of formal equivalence. When your study is based on a “The Bible says . . .” kind of statement, only a formal equivalence translation will do.

Survey of Major Bible Translations

From the material above, you should be able to see that the answer about which translation you should use is not as simple as saying, “Here is the one you and everyone should use.” In the end, the answer to the question begins by understanding yourself and the needs the kind of study you are doing require in a translation. The good news about the great variety of Bible translations available to you is that no matter where you are in life and what kind of study you are doing, there is a Bible that will meet your needs. In this section, we are going to give some basic guidelines to use in selecting a Bible and survey the major Bible translations on the market today.

Points to Remember When Selecting a Bible

1. Do not be afraid to use more than one.

A good carpenter has more than one saw or one hammer. He knows what each one was intended to accomplish, and he knows how to use each one equally well. The same should be true of you as a Bible student. Every reliable translation has points where it is strong and where it is weak. Your Bible is a tool, just like a carpenter’s saw. You should learn how and when to use as many translations as needed to fulfill your spiritual needs.

2. Avoid translations created by one person or one church.

There is a multitude of translations on the market that have been crafted by a single translator or that are promoted by a single religious group. Be careful of relying on these works as a standard translation. In those cases, the trustworthiness of the translation is wholly dependent on a single person’s or group’s abilities or point of view. Before using a translation like these, ask yourself why that church or person needs a unique Bible. Bibles from these sources can be of use, but only as they are compared to translations which come from broader and more transparent scholarship.

3. Use one from each textual family.

You are likely not a Greek scholar or versed in the issues of textual criticism. Yet the issues and opportunities presented by those disciplines can be of great help to you as a Bible student. If you become comfortable using Bibles based on each of the textual traditions described earlier in this essay, you can get the benefit of the work of scholarship without having to become a scholar yourself.

4. Use one formal and one dynamic translation.

Some people have strong preferences about this choice.  Some even advocate the use of only one. However, even if you come to the conclusion that only one style works for you, it is important to remember that you are not alone. One of the major ideas of Bible study is that you will share what you have learned. Sooner or later, your efforts in learning will need to interact with others who are studying. A good Bible student will take the time to understand how to learn and teach from both styles of translation.

5. Don’t just follow the crowd.

Often people gravitate toward the Bible that their peer group uses.  Sometimes people find out what translation their preacher uses and select that one for their personal use. It may be convenient to be reading from the same translation as your preacher or friends in a study group; however, remember that your own personal needs come first. Don’t be afraid to be out of step with others. If you have needs that are met by using a different primary translation than those around you, go ahead. It is your Bible, not theirs.

6. Don’t overlook older translations.

It is likely that more people have been saved as a result of the King James Version than any other English Bible ever created. The American Standard Version from 1901 is still considered by many to be the most accurate translation ever created. Few of the new translations can match the scholarship behind Revised Standard Version from 1951. Each one of the older translations has already been vetted. They have been examined. Their strengths and weaknesses are known. Being known quantities, you know that they can be trusted. In spite of what that youthful “expert” in your study group thinks about these outdated and outmoded translations, they have been around longer than he has and will still be viable long after he is gone.

An Introduction to Bible Translations

King James Version

The KJV is the most widely read English Bible of all time. It was commissioned by King James I of England and completed in 1611. The edition that is in use today comes from a revision from 1769 (Geisler and Nix, p. 568).

Textual Basis: “The King James translators basically used a Greek text known as the Textus Receptus (or, the “Received Text”), which came from the work of Erasmus, who compiled the first Greek text to be produced on the printing press.  When Erasmus compiled this text, he used five or six very late manuscripts dating from the tenth to the thirteenth centuries.”  (The Origin of the Bible, Philip Comfort, ed., p. 282).

Translational Philosophy: Formal Equivalence – “. . . out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own, and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact translation [emp. mine – jj] of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue . . .”  (The Epistle Dedicatory of the KJV)

Strengths:

1. Scholarship of Translators – Whole books have been written about the credentials of the committee that was responsible for the translation work of the KJV. No translation since has surpassed it. They may have had less textual evidence within the scope of their commission, but their work was exemplary.
2. Timelessness of Language – The beauty of the KJV language is another standard that others have yet to approach. Does the Psalm 23 sound as “right” out of any other translation?
3. Fidelity to its Translational Philosophy – The goal of the translators was to create an “exact translation.” While there are some rough spots, it is widely acknowledged they were successful in their attempt.

Weaknesses:

1. Textual Basis – There is a vocal camp which vehemently defends the text from which the KJV was translated. However, the majority of scholarship today recognizes that the text from which the KJV was translated has correctable flaws in it.
2. Age of Language – For the average student, this is the biggest strike against the KJV. The “thee’s” and “thou’s” and “est’s” and “eth’s” in the text can make simple reading cumbersome.

Recommendation: The KJV is still one of the best translations available. It may not be the first choice in many settings today. Using it to approach someone who has never studied the Bible before can present difficulties. However, especially for the seasoned Bible student, critical study and even devotional reading can be very satisfying from this old standard.

New King James Version

In 1979 a major revision of the King James Version appeared simply called the “New King James Version.” In the words of the translators, the NKJV sought to build on and update the tradition of the KJV: “In harmony with the purpose and editors of the present work have not pursued a goal of innovation. They have perceived the Holy Bible, New King James Version, as a continuation of the labors of the earlier translators, thus unlocking for today’s readers the spiritual treasures found especially in the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures [meaning the KJV – jj]” (Preface to the New King James Version).

Textual Basis: The NKJV continues to follow the Textus Receptus as did the King James Version.  But notes are included for where the Majority Text (the consensus of existing Greek manuscripts – noted as M-Text in the NKJV) and the Critical Text (the Nestle Aland/United Bible Societies’ Text – noted as NU-Text).

Translational Philosophy: Formal Equivalence – “Where new translation has been necessary . . . the most complete representation of the original has been rendered by considering the history of usage and etymology of words in their contexts.  This principle of complete equivalence [emp.  mine – jj] seeks preserve all of the information in the text, while presenting it in good literary form.” (Preface to the New King James Version).

Strengths:

1. Connection to the King James Version – The foundation of the KJV is a solid starting point for any translation. If one could update the language of the KJV without destroying the integrity of its translation, a good translation would be the result.
2. Recognition of Textual Variants – The NKJV mostly follows the same textual basis as the KJV, but unlike the KJV it annotates where differences exists between that textual family and others. This transparency allows the student to know when there is an issue that needs attention.

Weaknesses:

1. Connection to the King James Version – Its connection to the KJV is also its greatest weakness. Updating the KJV is even worse than updating the formula of Coca-Cola®. The result is that the NKJV is a little bit of a “tweener.” It comes short of the refinement of the KJV, but it is not as comfortable or modern in its language as other newer translations are either.
2. Textual Basis – As it basically follows the same text as the KJV, it has the same basic challenges as does the KJV.

Recommendation: In the end, the NKJV is a solid all-around translation. It is more conservative in its approach than most other modern translations. It has a utilitarian feel to it. It does almost everything well, but is rarely exceptional or memorable. For those who grew up with the KJV, the NKJV is a logical progression. However, for those who have no Bible background, the NKJV is not usually the first translation they would select.

American Standard Version

The first of the “new” versions, the ASV started its life as the Revised Version or the English Revised Version which was completed in 1881. The American portion of the translation committee felt that some revisions were needed for the American audience. Their work was completed and published in 1901. Only a couple of small printers keep the ASV in print today, but it is freely available in most Bible software packages, and the New American Standard is keeping this translation alive in the market today.

Textual Basis: The ASV (along with its British counterpart) was created specifically because of the updates to the Greek text that had become available in its time. It was the first major effort to capture these efforts in a new translation.

Translational Philosophy: Formal Equivalence – “We are not insensible to the justly lauded beauty and vigor of the style of the Authorized Version [KJV- jj], nor do we forget that it has been no part of our task to modernize the diction of the Bible.  But we are aware that the rhetorical force and the antique flavor which we desire to retain do not consist in sporadic instances of uncouth, unidiomatic, or obscure phraseology. . . Again, the attempt to translate literally from the original [emp. jj] has not infrequently led to Hebraisms which had better be avoided” (Preface to the American Standard Version).

Strengths:

1. Scholarship of the Translators – The work of creating the first major revision of the English Bible in more than 300 years attracted the best scholarship of the 19th century. Few translations can match the ASV’s scholarly foundation.
2. “Most Literal” of “Usable” Bibles – Any translation recognized for being more nearly a “word-for-word” translation will likely have the word “literal” or the phrase “word-for-word” in the title. If your goal is to have the closest thing to a word-for-word translation from an updated textual basis, the ASV is widely regarded as the best choice.

Weaknesses:

1. Difficult to Read – Its greatest strength leads to its most glaring weakness. The language is not as “old” as the KJV, but the reading is still more difficult than most other modern translations.
2. Hard to Find – If you use a printed version of the ASV, you will likely be the only one in your study group that does.

Recommendation: Every Bible student needs to be familiar with the ASV. It is unfortunate that most younger students have never been exposed to it. In spite of it strong qualities, unless you are wanting to stand completely alone, the ASV is an awkward choice for daily use.

New American Standard Bible

Completed in 1971, the Lockman Foundation commissioned an update to the ASV.  In their own words they state the reason for the version’s creation, “The ASV. . . has been highly regarded for its scholarship and accuracy.  Recognizing the values of the American Standard Version, the Lockman Foundation felt an urgency to preserve these and other lasting values of the ASV by incorporating recent discoveries of Hebrew and Greek textual sources and by rendering it into more current English.” An update to the NASB was completed in 1995 to further modernize the language of the translation.

Textual Basis: The NASB used the 26th edition of Nestle’s Greek text. In other words, an up to date version of the Critical Text.

Translational Philosophy: Formal Equivalence – “[A] new translation project was launched, based on the time-honored principles of translation of the ASV and KJV. . . . The attempt has been made to render the grammar and terminology in contemporary English.  When it was felt that the word-for-word literalness was unacceptable to the modern reader, a change was made in the direction of a more current English idiom.  In the instances where this has been done, the more literal rendering has been indicated in the notes.” (“Preface to the New American Standard”, updated edition, p. vi).

Strengths:

1. Fidelity to the Translational Philosophy – While the NASB has been criticized by some for departing from the heritage of the ASV, when compared to other “modern speech” translations, the NASB still occupies the ground first claimed by its predecessor. If you want the most formal of the new formal equivalent translations, go with the NASB.

Weaknesses:

1. Fidelity to Textual Basis – Occasionally, the NASB is criticized for renderings that appear to follow the KJV textual basis more than the text which is behind the NASB
2. Like the NKJV, It’s a “Tweener” – THE NASB’s connection to the ASV hinders its ability to be fully modern in its speech, but its desire to be modern tends to pull it away from the biggest strength of the ASV.

Recommendation: Like the ASV, the NASB is a student’s Bible. It will never be the most pleasant to the ear for devotional reading, although it is not inept in that role. It excels when its precise rendering of words and tenses can be appreciated in thorough study.

Revised Standard Version

Arriving in 1952 (the New Testament was released in 1946), the RSV sought to update the work began in the ASV. Textual discoveries continued into the 20th century and the version of the critical text continued being updating. The RSV was welcomed with a mixed response. Many thought it went too far in modernizing the text to the point of undermining the power of some Messianic prophecies.

Textual Basis: The RSV is based on the 17th edition of the Nestle-Aland text as the primary source for the New Testament.

Translational Philosophy: Formal Equivalence – The RSV is regarded as being in the formal equivalence camp. However, notice the shift closer to a dynamic philosophy in the language of the translators, “[The RSV] which will stay as close to the Tyndale-King James tradition as it can in the light of our present knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek texts and their meaning on the one hand, and our present understanding of English on the other. . . the resulting version should ’embody the best results of modern scholarship as to the meaning of the Scriptures, and express this meaning in English dictation which is designed for use in the public and private worship'” (RSV Preface). Their desire was to balance the pull between the requirements of “formal” and “dynamic” philosophies. Compare that to the statements of the KJV and ASV translators. The RSV was a clear shift in translational philosophy and opened the door for many of the modern translations which followed.

Strengths:

1. Readability – The RSV was successful in its attempt to be a readable version. In comparison to the major translations on the market in the early 1950’s (KJV, ASV), the RSV was a considerable shift toward readability.

Weaknesses:

1. Textual Controversies Often Decided on the Modernist Side – The RSV seemed to steer away from traditional translation and understanding of passages to not only a modern reading, but also a more modernistic and liberal view of the biblical text. It removed the word “virgin” from Isaiah 7:14 and critics saw in that an attack on the doctrine of the virgin birth. It also removed the phrase “only begotten” from John 3:16 which was viewed as a minimizing of the true identity of Jesus. Along with some other criticisms in kind, to a degree, the RSV developed a reputation as being the Bible of the modernist.

Recommendation: The RSV has largely fallen out of use. It has been replaced by its updates in the New Revised Standard and the English Standard. Given its rather checkered past, it is hard to justify selecting it as an everyday Bible when other options are available.

New Revised Standard Version

In the 1980’s it was felt it was time to update the work of the RSV. The same justification was given that textual research has continued and its results needed to be incorporated into a new version.

Textual Basis: The NRSV used the 3rd edition of the United Bible Societies text.

Translational Philosophy: Formal Equivalence – ” Within the constraints set by the original texts and by the mandates of the Division, the Committee has followed the maxim, “As literal as possible, as free as necessary” [emp. – jj]. As a consequence, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) remains essentially a literal translation. Paraphrastic renderings have been adopted only sparingly, and then chiefly to compensate for a deficiency in the English language—the lack of a common gender third person singular pronoun.”

Strengths:

1. Readability – The NRSV continues the tradition of the RSV in this regard.

Weaknesses:

1. Much like the RSV over controversial passages – The NSRV did little to correct the issues conservatives had over the renderings of many controversial passages.
2. Introduction of Gender Neutral Language – The NSRV was among the first of major translation to begin to introduce gender neutral language to accommodate the sensitivities of a modern American audience. Gender sensitivity is a good thing in principle. However, it has no place in the mind of a translator.

Recommendation: The NSRV a bit of a Bible without a purpose. This is the case largely because of the introduction and popularity of the English Standard Version. The ESV is another update of the RSV and because it corrects some of the short-comings of the RSV that the NSRV left untouched, the ESV has surpassed the NRSV in most ways. If you are looking for a translation that seeks the blend of translational philosophy found in the RSV, but does so in a more modern form, choose the ESV.

English Standard Version

The RSV family had never been able to shake the “liberal” and “modernistic” label it had earned. With the release of the ESV in 2001 that appears to be changing. The ESV is the newest of the major translations, so time will be the judge of its success, but it is gaining acceptance rather quickly. It is based on the 1971 revision of the RSV (just as the NSRV is).  While often mimicking the rendering of the RSV, it made the significant changes necessary to gain the general acceptance of more conservative scholarship and churches.

Textual Basis: The ESV uses the 4th edition of the United Bible Society text and the 27th edition of the Nestle-Aland text.

Translational Philosophy: Formal Equivalence – The ESV’s stated philosophy still expresses a desire to balance formal and dynamic equivalence, but gives greater emphasis to formality than did the RSV: “The ESV is an ‘essentially literal’ translation that seeks as far as possible to capture 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 into account differences of 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 meaning of the original.”  (Preface of the ESV)

Strengths:

1. Good Blend of Readability and Literalness – Of the modern translations that claim a “literal” basis to their translation, ESV probably does the best job of remaining faithful to the original text while being accessible to the modern reader.

Weaknesses:

1. Some Gender-Neutral Language – Although to a lesser degree than the NSRV and far less than some modern speech translation, the ESV does give a nod in the direction of gender neutrality in its language.
2. Age of the Translation – Time is the friend of all good Bible translations. Gathering a following to a new translation is easier than holding an audience over the long years of people’s lives as Bible students.

Recommendation: The ESV appears to be a solid choice for those seeking a “literal” translation in a modern voice. Although it claims a more literal stance than the New International Version, the tone of ESV’s text makes the NIV its natural comparison. Given the popularity of the NIV the ESV is in a tough place in the market place. The relative youth of the ESV as a translation means it remains to be seen whether or not it will find long-term success. There is a danger that ESV users will end up in a small community much like ASV users of days gone by. However, on its merits, the ESV is worthy of consideration as an everyday Bible.

New International Version

The king of the hill among Bibles is the NIV. Finished in 1978, the NIV has been a sales success. Students and readers alike have been drawn to its comfortable style. Further, unlike most of its modern competitors (NKJV, NASB, NRSV, ESV), the NIV is a fresh translation. It faced none of the restraints that an existing translational heritage creates. It was the first translation since the KJV to be translated without consideration of the KJV (Even the ASV and RSV specifically stated they aimed to continue in the heritage of the KJV). Perhaps the most impactful part of the NIV’s creation was the emphasis of the “dynamic equivalence” philosophy of translation.

Textual Basis: The NIV makes full use of the Critical Text in translating the New Testament; in their words they used an “eclectic” assortment of texts to arrive at their translation.

Translational Philosophy: Formal/Dynamic – One thing is certain about the NIV. It is the dividing line between formal translations and dynamic ones.  Depending on the view of the author, it can be placed in either camp.  Although, if allowed to give their own testimony, the translators of the NIV would say their intent was to strive “for more than a word-for-word translation.” In the process of translation, text was submitted “to a number of stylistic consultants.”  They go on and say, “Samples of the translation were tested for clarity and ease of reading by various kinds of people.” Wherever one places the NIV on the scale of formality, it is clear that the NIV was crafted with a regard for readability that surpasses that of any other major translation.

Strengths:

1. Readability – With such an emphasis on being readable, one should expect that the NIV should be easy to read. Its style has resonated with millions of readers.
2. Sales Volume – This is a major benefit, especially for Bible teachers. You can use an NIV comfortably in almost every setting. It is accepted in public speaking and reading and readily found in private, devotional settings.

Weaknesses:

1. Its “Eclectic” Textual Basis – While many Bible students never think about the specific Greek text a translation comes from, it is a very important consideration to the serious student. The only way to check the work a translator has done is to know the source material he used to arrive at his translation. The NIV admittedly obscures that fact. Geisler and Nix make this statement about the NIV’s text, “”It is difficult to determine exactly what is meant by the term eclectic. In general it means that the New International Version follows the modern critical Greek texts. . . but not always. Sometimes the New International Version is not consistent in its rendition of ambiguous passages in the Greek text. . .” (A General Bible Introduction, p. 586). For the serious Bible student who would carry his studies this far, this ambiguity is a considerable weakness.
2. Dynamic Equivalence is Open to Doctrinal Prejudice – When a translator views his job as giving you “more than a word-for-word” translation, he is opening the door to allowing his personal doctrinal views in. One of the sharpest criticisms of the NIV is just in that area. The loudest voices are over a perceived slant toward Calvinistic theology. One of the tenants in that view is that man is inherently sinful. It is claimed that the translation committee of the NIV was, at least, sympathetic to that view. One example of the alleged basis is found in Romans 8. In that passage, Paul uses the Greek word “sarx.” The other translations we have examined in this essay render that word in the English, “flesh.” The NIV consistently in Romans 8 renders “sarx” with the phrase “sinful nature.” So where the KJV says in Romans 8:9, “But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit;” and the ESV reads, “You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit;” the NIV reads, “You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit.” The issue is not so much, “Is there a difference between being controlled by the flesh or by the sinful nature?” as it is, “Why did the NIV translators use the phrase ‘sinful nature’ and not the word ‘flesh’?” There is nothing hard or archaic about the word “flesh” and even if there were, there are ample synonyms to express the same idea in English. What the NIV translators did was to assign a theological meaning to “flesh.” In their view, the “flesh” is the same thing as the “sinful nature.” It is from that point that criticisms about doctrinal bias are leveled against the NIV. However, for the point of this document, it is not the doctrine and its rightness or wrongness that is significant. What you need to see is that the NIV and every translation as it moves toward “dynamic equivalence” will inevitably be prone to doctrinal changes (even if unintended) because the mind of the translator is freed from the constraints of literalness.

Recommendation: After reading all of that, you may expect this document to steer you away from the NIV. However, that will not be the advice. The NIV has been a successful translation because it does communicate to people. Having the most literal translation is of no benefit if no one wants to read it. The NIV’s greatest strength is that the evidence is clear that more people are willing to study from it than from any other translation.  However, popularity does not mean “best.” The NIV’s translational philosophy and ambiguous textual starting point means that it will never be the most reliable translation from which to study. If you find yourself needing to engage to deep, serious study of the Bible, it is time to move on from the NIV to a translation with a more sure foundation.

Modern Speech Versions and Paraphrases

Before moving on from this section a word needs to be added about the large number of modern speech versions available on the market. This class of Bible would include at least the following versions: The Message, The Living Bible, The Contemporary English Bible, The Easy to Read Bible, New Living Translation, and many others.

It seems that a new “version” along these lines appears every month. The truth is that most of these (with a few exceptions) are little more than marketing tools. There is little scholarship behind them. In many ways they are closer to commentaries on the Bible than true Bible translations. They often seek to be nothing more than readable paraphrases of the Bible’s basic thoughts. If you understand them for what they are, they can be useful tools to spark yours or another’s interest in Bible study. However, you must be careful not to rely on them for establishing the truth of any Bible doctrine.  You should think of these works as summaries of Bible truths, not the truths themselves.

Bible Formats – What to Look For

There is one last major consideration in your search for the “right” Bible to use. This choice has little to do with the translation itself. In the last couple of decades, publishers have begun to insert more and more content into their Bibles than just the biblical text. As this material has been added, Bibles have had the words “study” or “reference” inserted into their titles. So now when the Bible student begins his search, on the shelf he finds a “New International Version,” a “New International Study Bible,” and a “New International Reference Edition.” When that complexity is spread across all of the major translations, a student can find literally hundreds of choices in front of him. What should he be looking for among all those choices?

Tips on Choosing A “Study” Bible

1. Remember, It is the Bible that Matters, not the Study Aides.

Sometimes students get distracted by the notes and color-coded guides in a study Bible and forget the most important part of their choice. That choice is all that has been discussed in this essay. Getting the “right” translation for your personal needs is far more important than the notes, maps, and outlines a publisher squeezes into a Bible. Your number one task is to get the right translation. Only after that is done can you worry about choosing the right edition of that translation.

2.  Look for a Good Cross-Reference System

The most useful aide in Bibles is also one of the first that began appearing in them. Usually located in the center between the two columns on a page in traditional Bible formatting, there is a list of references of other Bible verses that relate to the verses appearing on the page. Most often, these references are labeled by verse number. Occasionally, a letter system will link a center-column reference to a superscripted letter appearing in the main text of the Bible. This system is nearly indispensible to Bible study.  This aide puts other useful verses right at your fingertips.  As they appear in nearly every Bible, make sure yours has one.

3.  Find a Bible with Room for Your Own Notes

The best study aides that will ever appear in your own Bible are the ones you create yourself.  While the Bible is holy,. your particular copy of it is a tool. It is meant to used, read, and hopefully, used up to the point that you need to get another one. The absolute best tool you have at your disposal is creating your own system for note taking in your Bible. You can highlight your favorite verses. You can use multi-colored pens and create your own system for marking thoughts and doctrines. You can even create your own “cross-reference” system by writing in appropriate references as you study along. In today’s market, every major translation has “wide-margin” or “journaling” editions available. There are even special highlighters and pens available made to write on the thin paper of Bible pages. 

Find a Bible with enough room in it for your notes so that its contents can grow along with you in your studies. It is choice you will never regret.

4.  Don’t Get too Trendy

Do you really need a study Bible specific for your gender, age, or ethnicity? Do you really want your study Bible to be the product of the latest and greatest author? Is a chronological Bible the best choice to use a an everyday Bible?

At some point, all of these options are just noise in the marketplace. Worse, study Bibles designed to highlight references for one age group or one gender tend can make students also have an unbalanced approach to the text.  Aides that draw your focus to one part of the text while distracting it from other portions can hinder your growth more than help it.

5. Look for Fact, not Commentary

Some study Bible have so many notes on each page, it is difficult to find the actual Bible text. Good study aides assist you in finding the truth or give background to the text not found in the Bible. For example, a detailed introduction about the date, author, and historical setting of a Bible book can greatly assist you in understanding the book you are about to read. However, a 1,000-word footnote about “grace” that dominates a Bible pages likely tells you more about an author’s or editor’s view of grace than it does to help you find other Bible verses so that you can do your own study.

Don’t accept being spoon-fed in your Bible study. Leave the commentaries on the Bible in the commentaries. In your Bible look for references, maps, and other aides that provide you facts and data that will help you make your own decision, not make the decision for you.

Conclusion

Choosing the right Bible can be a daunting task.  The most important thing to remember is to understand your needs first and then choose the translation that best fits what you are trying to accomplish in your studies. After that, the rest of the choices are much less critical. What you may find is that the “right” translation is actually several “right” translations. You may choose to use a “formal equivalence” translation for serious study, have a “dynamic equivalence” translation for devotions, and maybe even a paraphrase to use to teach new Bible students or children.

In the end, as long as you do your research and know why you are buying the Bible that you are, you will find a lifetime of learning and spiritual growth in its pages.