Major Shift in the Top Ten Best-Selling Bible Translations the Past Year

by Thom S. Rainer

There has been an amazing shift in the sales of Bible translations in less than a year. After years of relative stability, the King James Version (KJV) lost its number two ranking. In fact, the KJV dropped two spots to number four. The modern language translation of the KJV, the New King James Version (NKJV), fell one spot.

While the New International Version (NIV) is still ranked as number one, the New Living Translation (NLT) has moved to the number two spot, followed by the English Standard Version at number three. We realize that The Message is a paraphrase, not a translation.

Let’s look at the rankings, followed by a few of my observations.

Rankings as of March 2022 (numbers in parentheses are June 2021 rankings). 

1. New International Version (NIV) (1)
2. New Living Translation (4)
3. English Standard Version (ESV) (3)
4. King James Version (KJV) (2)
5. Christian Standard Bible (CSB) (5)
6. New King James Version (NKJV) (6)
7. Reina Valera (RV) (7)
8. New International Reader’s Version (NIrV) (8)
9. The Message (Message) (9)
10. New American Standard (NASB) (not ranked)

 Observations and Notes:

• If the King James Version remains at this level, it will signal a major shake-up in Bible translation preferences. It has held the number two spot for many years. Is it a reflection of the decline or closings of smaller KJV-only churches? Or perhaps, it reflects cultural shifts. If a family wanted a Bible for the coffee table, they typically would pick a KJV. Families may not want a Bible at all in their homes.

• Is the New Living Translation (NLT) headed toward replacing the NIV as the number one preferred translation? While we don’t have market share data, we hear anecdotally that many pastors have moved to the NLT. Their congregations are likely following.

• The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is back in the top ten after a year’s absence.

• The New King James Version (NKJV) was number three ten years ago. It has gradually lost its ranking over the years to number 6 today.

• Here is the link to the rankings: https://christianbookexpo.com/bestseller/translations.php?id=0322

 

Meaning over mechanical replication

1. The Apostolic Precedent: Functional Equivalence

The most significant influence the disciples have on modern translation is the validation of Functional (or Dynamic) Equivalence. This is the theory that a translation should convey the thought and impact of the original text, even if it requires changing grammatical structures or specific words.

• Contextual Adaptation: Just as Matthew 12 smoothed out Isaiah’s "Servant Song" to make it cleaner and more idiomatic for Greek readers, modern translators are justified in smoothing out Hebrew or Greek syntax to make it readable for English (or Spanish, Chinese, etc.) speakers.

• Clarification of Meaning: Mark 5:41 provides a literal sound ("Talitha koum") but immediately follows it with a meaningful translation. This influences modern Bibles to use footnotes or inline explanations to ensure the reader understands cultural context, rather than leaving them confused by a literalism.

2. Theology Over Rigid Syntax

Paul in (Ephesians 4:8) changed a verb from "received" (in Psalm 68) to "gave" to make a theological point about Christ.¹

• Influence on Modern Translation: This teaches modern translators that the theological intent of a passage is paramount. A "word-for-word" translation that obscures the theology is actually a worse translation than a paraphrase that clarifies the theology. The Apostles demonstrated that Scripture is a living revelation, not a static artifact.

3. The Rejection of "Verbal Plenary Preservation" as Rigidity

Strict adherence to exact wording (as demanded by some strict "King James Only" or VPP proponents) is historically inconsistent with how the Bible was written.

• Influence on Modern Translation: This liberates modern translators from the pressure of maintaining the sentence structure of the King James Version (the "17th-century English committee" mentioned). It suggests that "faithfulness" to the text means being faithful to the message the Holy Spirit intended, just as Matthew applied Hosea’s "Out of Egypt" text to Jesus rather than historical Israel.

Conclusion 

The New Testament writers were the first "Dynamic Equivalent" translators.

The Apostles and Evangelists did not view Scripture as a fragile list of words that would break if rearranged. Instead, they viewed it as a robust source of truth that could be reshaped, remixed, and paraphrased to reveal Christ.

• When Matthew compressed Hosea to apply it to Jesus, he prioritized typology over chronology.

• When Paul fused two Isaiah passages in Romans, he prioritized theological impact over textual preservation.

• When Mark translated Aramaic, he prioritized audience comprehension over linguistic purity.

Therefore, modern translation methodologies which prioritize "meaning-driven" renderings are not liberal deviations; they are, in fact, apostolic.

If the very authors of the New Testament—under divine inspiration—felt free to modify the wording of the Old Testament to ensure the sense was clear and the Christology was accurate, then modern translators are standing on firm biblical ground when they do the same. To demand a strict, word-for-word freezing of the text is to hold the Bible to a standard that the Apostles themselves never practiced. The disciples proved that the power of Scripture lies not in the "exact syllables of a previous manuscript," but in the living, communicative message of God.