The debate over which is the best version of the English Bible still rages (see The King James Only Controversy: Can you Trust the Modern Translations? by James R. White [Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1995]). My personal preferences, in order of priority, are:
The English Standard Version—Published by Crossway Bibles (Wheaton, IL). This is the finest English translation I know of. It maintains the accuracy of the NASB (see below) and the fluid and readable style of the NIV. I encourage you to visit www.desiringgod.org, the website of John Piper, for an excellent endorsement of the ESV.
The New American Standard Bible (NASB)—Published by the Lockman Foundation in 1971, this is a revision by evangelical scholars of the American Standard Version of 1901. It is the most literal of all English translations. Some people believe it reproduces too mechanically Greek word order and verb tenses.
The New International Version (NIV)—This freer translation was produced by over 100 evangelical scholars. In my opinion, whereas it is good for devotional reading (and preaching) it is too much of a paraphrase to be helpful in exegetical study.
The King James Version (KJV; also referred to as the Authorized Version or AV)—This version was released in 1611. It is prized because of its literary beauty, but is generally believed to be based on inferior Greek manuscripts. The New King James is much easier to read.
Revised Standard Version (RSV)—According to Black, “the Revised Standard Version … sought to combine the accuracy of the English and American revised versions of 1881 and 1901, the literary quality of the KJV, and the style and idiom of contemporary English” (39). Although some fundamentalists have criticized it for allegedly diminishing the deity of Christ (cf. Mk. 15:39 [“a son of God” rather than “the Son of God”]; but see Titus 2:13), it is generally quite good.
The New Living Bible (1996), The Living Bible (1971) and The Phillips Translation (1958) are both paraphrased rather than strictly translations.
Storms, Sam. 2016. Biblical Studies: How to Interpret the Bible. Edmond, OK: Sam Storms.
1.1.25
The English Bible
The Manuscripts Behind the Modern Translations
Modern translations are based on earlier and more numerous manuscripts than the KJV. The manuscripts that stand behind the KJV are not forgotten; rather, better and earlier witnesses have displaced them.
Komoszewski, J. Ed, M. James Sawyer, and Daniel B. Wallace. 2006. Reinventing Jesus: How Contemporary Skeptics Miss the Real Jesus and Mislead Popular Culture. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel Publications.
Decline of the Textus Receptus
Decline of the Textus Receptus
The prevalence of the Textus Receptus first began to wane when newer critical editions of the New Testament provided a means of evaluating variant readings of the text. Scholars began to question the Textus Receptus and began publishing editions of the Greek New Testament that broke from it: Karl Lachmann was the first (1831), followed by Lobegott Friedrich Constantin von Tischendorf (eight editions from 1841–1872) and Samuel Tregelles (1857–1872). These critical editions paved the way for the influential Greek critical edition The New Testament in the Original Greek, produced by Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort in 1881.
Westcott and Hort generally assumed the Alexandrian text-type to be more original than the Byzantine. Although Westcott and Hort’s theories sometimes went beyond the evidence, their edition left a permanent impression on the landscape of New Testament studies, the effects of which reverberate in the influential United Bible Societies’ critical Greek New Testaments. The editors of this publication tend to favor the Alexandrian witness, though it has nuanced Westcott and Hort’s position. The Greek New Testament is now in its fifth edition (called the UBS5), and the Novum Testamentum Graece is in its 28th edition (called the NA28)—both edited by Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo Martini, and Bruce Metzger. Many modern English translations of the New Testament (NASB, ESV, NIV) tend to follow the conclusions of these textual critics, thus breaking from the influence of the Textus Receptus and the KJV.[1]
[1] Ritzema, Elliot, and S. Michael Kraeger. 2016. “Textus Receptus.” In The Lexham Bible Dictionary, edited by John D. Barry, David Bomar, Derek R. Brown, Rachel Klippenstein, Douglas Mangum, Carrie Sinclair Wolcott, Lazarus Wentz, Elliot Ritzema, and Wendy Widder. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
How to Choose and Utilize Translations
How to Choose and Utilize Translations[1]
Evaluating available translations. How does one choose among the available translations in English? The book So Many Versions?, by Sakae Kubo and Walter Specht, has an excellent discussion of this question.53 There are many competing translations available. What are some of the criteria for choosing? We will suggest four factors that should be considered:
1. Accuracy—This criterion can be described in different ways. As discussed above, a translation should aim to have the same effect on new readers as the originals did on the first readers. Put another way, the goal should be communicate all that the author intended. Of course, it is virtually impossible to capture every feature. We are today historically, linguistically, and culturally removed from the situation of the writers. This is one reason why there will always be a need for further exegesis and new Bible translations.
There are several things a translator must do or possess as a minimum in order to achieve accuracy. First, he must have a high degree of exegetical, linguistic, and literary ability. This will help him in knowing how languages in general are structured.54 Second, it is imperative that the translator go to the original languages.55 The practices of the translators in regard to this are usually stated in the preface of each translation. Third, assessment of the needs of the audience must be consciously undertaken, since they are the all-important hearers of the message. Often a translator will have the goal of making a translation suitable for personal study, or for public reading. A translation that is limited to one particular readership or purpose will appear out of place when used for another. J.B. Phillips wrote his first translation for British youth. It received widespread acceptance because it was suited to his audience.56 On the other hand, the New English Bible, a British translation, often seems too British for many Americans (aside from spelling differences) as when it uses British monetary terms (two pence, Lk. 12:6, etc.), or weeds for “garments” (Gen. 38:14).57
2. Literary quality and style—Attention to these is important for several reasons. First, a translation that is not written smoothly will be tiring to read, and will eventually be neglected. Freshness, vigor, and quality are all required. But a danger in attempting to be too natural in translation is that of becoming slangy. If a translation is to be used for any type of public reading, it should have literary qualities that make it acceptable to a broad audience. In order to achieve the goal of literary coherence and quality, the NIV, for instance, was edited for style by literary experts after the translators had done their work.58
3. Theological neutrality—It is difficult to avoid presuppositions in any scholarly endeavor, even in biblical studies and Bible translating.59 It is not difficult to see such personal or philosophical factors in the history of interpretation. One cannot help having a starting point, a set of assumptions that give direction to study or translation. But, of course, the important thing in biblical studies or Bible translation is to test all assumptions by the light of Scripture, and avoid the situation described by one theologian: “Every exegesis that is guided by dogmatic prejudices does not hear what the text says, but only lets the latter say what it wants to hear.”60 Such non-neutrality can enter in at various levels, as when the Jerusalem Bible (a Roman Catholic translation) adopts a poorly attested Greek reading in Jn. 1:13 which allows the verse to read (in support of the virgin birth): “Jesus who was born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh,” versus “those … who were born …”61
One way to minimize the interference of presuppositions in translation work is to channel the process through a committee.62 Of course, whole committees can be biased in certain directions. Another problem with committees is the tendency toward variation in the quality of work from book to book. Many modern translations have been produced by committees whose composition has intentionally been broad-based. In any case, it is good to attempt to learn the theological positions of translators involved. Often this information is given in a preface, or can be determined in other ways.63 The student of Scripture has the responsibility, as with all other biblical material, of testing what is presented to him to see if it matches Scripture as best he can understand it from all the translations and helps he has available. This is merely the principle of 1 Cor. 14:29 and 1 Th. 5:21, where the believer is required to evaluate the teaching that comes from others to discern false from true, and then “hold fast” ’ to what is valid. Information given in the preface or material published ancillary to a translation will often state the goals or purposes of a translating group.64 Such information may be of help in evaluating literary or doctrinal positions, also, as when the NEB states in its introduction to the New Testament:
We have conceived our task to be that of understanding the original as precisely as we could (using all available aids), and then saying again in our own native idiom what we believed the author to be saying in his.… In doing our work, we have constantly striven to follow our instructions and render the Greek, as we understand it, into the English of the present day, that is, into the natural vocabulary, construction, and rhythms of contemporary speech.65
4. Original language editions utilized—The variation in editions used as the basis of translations, especially of the New Testament, has been mentioned above. In general, major doctrines will not be affected. More recent translations, such as the NIV, NASB, and RSV, have used editions of the New Testament supported by the general consensus of scholarship, editions that use manuscripts older than the Textus Receptus type of edition utilizes. However, the committees involved in making such translations have not followed those editions slavishly.66
Utilizing translations. At times you may feel, especially if you do not have access to the original languages, that you cannot be sure of anything in the biblical text, since there are so many translations available. Here are some guidelines for taking advantage of English translations of the Bible:
1. Compare renderings—It is often very helpful to study with more than one translation. In the turgid portions of Paul’s epistles, for example, translations such as those by Phillips or Way often clarify what is obscure.67 This comparative process can be even more effective if different types of translations are used, since sometimes quite different perspectives can be found and integrated into understanding of a passage.
2. Learn strengths and weaknesses—After repeated use of a translation, the Bible student can often notice where that translation shines or where it misses the mark. The NIV, for example, will break up long sentences that the AV or NASB leaves in correspondence with those in the original languages. A good example of this is found in Eph. 1:3–14. Such a practice enhances readability
3. Read widely—One of the greatest hindrances to progress in Bible study is the failure to read extensively and take in new information. Employing various Bible translations can help overcome that weakness. You may have a favorite study Bible, but you should keep other versions at hand for consultation.
4. Be open to new interpretations—As serious Bible students we must always walk a tightrope between two extremes: (1) not accepting new truth given by the illuminating ministry of the Spirit, but stubbornly clinging to the familiar, and (2) seeing, on our own, what is not there in the text. Openness is good if what we see is verifiable by other Scripture. It is destructive if we see, because of excessive prejudice or a hobby-horse mentality, what is not and never will be in the text. We all ought to be willing to be surprised by what we find in a new translation, and be ready to accept it as valid, if it accords with the rest of the Bible (see ch. 4, Interpreting the Bible).
5. Take advantage of study helps—While the features of study editions of the Bible, such as marginal references, a concordance, etc., are not part of the translation, they do in most instances shed light on the translation. Some notes may be the product of the translators themselves, who after wrestling with thorny problems suggest alternative readings or explanations. The NIV translators’ notes appear on each page of that translation.
[1] Karleen, Paul S. 1987. The Handbook to Bible Study: With a Guide to the Scofield Study System. New York: Oxford University Press.
53 Kubo and Specht, 336–44.
54 See Kubo and Specht, 18; Barr, 288–96.
55 It should be noted that The Living Bible was not done originally as a translation from the original languages; see Kubo and Specht, 340.
56 Kubo and Specht, 337–38;69.
57 Kubo and Specht, 207–9.
NIV New International Version
58 Kubo and Specht, 245. see also the section “Introduction” in the Oxford NIV Scofield Study Bible
59 Graham N. Stanton, “Presuppositions in New Testament Criticism,” in New Testament Interpretation, ed. I. Howard Marshall (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 60.
60 Stanton, 64.
61 Stanton, 65. This has been changed in The New Jerusalem Bible. (New York: Doubleday, 1985).
62 See Bruce, x.
63 See, for example, the description of Kenneth Taylor’s background in Kubo and Specht, 232; the names of the translators of the NASB and the NIV are available from the Lockman Foundation and the New York International Bible Society, respectively.
64 An example is About the New English Bible, compiled by Geoffrey Hunt (Cambridge: Oxford and Cambridge University Presses, 1970).
65 C. H. Dodd, Introduction to the New Testament, The New English Bible (Oxford and Cambridge University Presses, 1970), vii.
NIV New International Version
RSV Revised Standard Version
66 Kubo and Specht, 200–2, 223, 269–70.
67 J. B. Phillips, in The New Testament in Modern English (New York: Macmillan, 1973); Arthur S. Way, The Letters of Paul; Hebrews and Psalms (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1981).
NIV New International Version
AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)
NIV New International Version
Evaluating Translations
Evaluating Translations[1]
The history of the Bible in English is a fascinating and important story. There are many competent accounts available, and to cover the whole field would be beyond the scope of this book.47 There are, however, two particularly important issues on which the Bible student should be informed. The first is that of the evaluation and use of the AV in the present generation. There are few issues among Bible students that are as emotionally charged or as complex. To what degree does the AV correspond to the originals? Is it a specially blessed translation? Is it somehow more “the Word of God” than others? Does it produce more fruit or disclose more of the will of God? There are a number of factors that should be brought to bear on these questions in order to evaluate them fairly and objectively. Although the issue cannot be covered fully here, the main question is: does the AV communicate the meaning of the Bible, in terms of style, grammar, and theology, better than other translations? Is it, in short, more understandable and accurate? This is really the key to evaluating any translation.
It would be helpful at this point to recall some of what was said above concerning languages and language change. A language is a social phenomenon, shaped by members of a speech community to best accomplish according to their views the needs of communicating within that community. Languages change, slowly, subtly, but inevitably, and English is no exception. In the more than 350 years since the publication of the AV, English, has changed in vocabulary, syntax, and other features of grammar. Much of the 1611 AV is strange and foreign to the late-twentieth-century ear. This factor alone hinders readability. New versions of the AV, which update its seventeenth-century language, are improvements on an important translation.
One must be very careful to acknowledge the deep influence that the AV has had on Western literature and world society. It has been unquestionably the most accepted and widely read English translation. Since the early seventeenth century, phrases from the AV have found their way into all forms of literature in the English language. Its style and sonorous tones in many places are still considered to demonstrate some of the finest English ever written. Nevertheless, many of today’s readers find other translations easier to comprehend.
As to the issue of accuracy and fidelity to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, there are two things that need to be mentioned. First, large numbers of discoveries have been made since the seventeenth century that bear upon biblical studies and the process of translation. More is understood today about the original languages, about archaeology, geography, history, and culture, and newer translations have been able to take advantage of this vast body of knowledge. This does not mean that the reader can be seriously misled in using the AV. But there can be a greater quantity of helpful information in new translations.
A second important area of which the Bible student should be aware is the issue of the manuscript source of various translations. Most available English translations have been produced by translators who knew and consulted Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts, or, more typically, published editions. The variation among Hebrew editions of the Old Testament is not great. However, the Greek New Testament displays greater variation among editions. The AV is based in great part on the editions published by Theodore Beza in 1588 and 1598. These are similar to the 1516 edition compiled by Erasmus.48 An edition published by Beza in 1565 was the basis for one produced by the Elzevir brothers of Leiden in 1633, which came to be called (on the basis of its editors’ description of it) the Textus Receptus, or “received text.” All of these editions were based in general on manuscripts copied at a later date than many that are available today. All other things being equal, the nearer a manuscript is dated to the original, the more likely it is to reflect the text of the original. There are many qualifications to that kind of statement, and many other important factors (for example, the manuscripts of the Textus Receptus type of edition do contain some variant readings that many contemporary textual critics view as likely to correspond to the original, although some of these are found in older manuscripts, too). Nevertheless, many scholars today feel that the kind of Greek text underlying the AV reflects the original Greek New Testament less accurately than that underlying more recent editions, which make greater use of manuscripts copied within a few centuries of the apostolic period. This is not to say that the AV is therefore a bad or misleading translation. It can be safely asserted that no major doctrine is endangered by the type of manuscript variations found in the text used for the AV. It is especially important to realize that one should not argue for the superiority of one translation on the basis of the supposed superiority of a text, Greek or Hebrew.
The argument that asserts that the AV is the best English translation because it preserves key doctrines which all others tend to slight is not really valid.49 In fact the opposite is often true. This kind of argument is often used with more of an emotional basis than a scholarly one. One must be careful of becoming an instant scholar and expert in areas that take many years to master and in which there are complex issues.
Perhaps a helpful assessment would be to say that the AV is one among many important and helpful English translations. It is not “the Word of God” more than another theologically sound translation, for we do not possess the first manuscripts of any of the revealed Word. That is what we would need in order to have the exact “Word of God.”
Further, it must be remembered in evaluating or advocating the AV that languages other than English have and need translations. The AV is usable by only a portion of the world’s population. It would be fallacious to argue that no translation into another language could have the spiritual impact of the AV.
The original translators of the AV admitted the need for continual refinement and revision of any Bible translation.50 Changes in biblical scholarship (discovery of manuscripts, new knowledge concerning languages, etc.) and in language itself necessitate this.51 Bible translation is never finished. The most up-to-date (language-wise) translations today will not be entirely satisfactory for readers a generation or two hence.52
[1] Karleen, Paul S. 1987. The Handbook to Bible Study: With a Guide to the Scofield Study System. New York: Oxford University Press.
47 See, for example, Bruce, and also Kubo and Specht.
AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)
AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)
AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)
AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)
AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)
AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)
AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)
AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)
AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)
AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)
48 See Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament (New York: Oxford University Press, 1964), 102, 105–6.
AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)
AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)
AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)
AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)
49 See Donald A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 99; Marchant A. King, “Should Conservatives Abandon Textual Criticism?” Bibliotheca Sacra 130 (1973): 39; Douglas S. Chinn and Robert C. Newman, Demystifying the Controversy Over the Textus Receptus and the King James Version of the Bible (Hatfield, PA: Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute, 1979), 16–18.
AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)
AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)
AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)
AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)
AV Authorized Version (=King James Version)
50 Bruce, 101–3.
51 See Kubo and Specht, 19–20.
52 For further material on evaluating the AV, see Carson.