American English Translations of the Bible:
A Guide
By The Rev. Ray D.E. McCalla
Introduction
I am a student of the Bible. I have read the Bible cover-to-cover several times—each time in a different translation—and I am constantly shaped, challenged, edified, and nourished by God’s Word. As Reformed Christians we claim that the Bible is our absolute rule for matters of faith and church practice and that it is the whole counsel of God—from "In the beginning" to "Amen." In reality, however, I have found that most Christians—even Presbyterians—don’t actually know that much about the Bible! So there is a disconnect about what we say we believe about the Bible and what we actually do with it in real life.
This disconnect comes not only from the sheer thickness of the Bible, but in part from the numerous translations available today. When you walk into a Christian bookstore, it is easy to be overwhelmed by the different choices of Bibles! So the purpose of this little booklet is to provide a brief, accessible introduction to current English translations of the Bible. After this overview, I offer some information and some personal evaluations of each translation.
Brief history of the Bible in English
Over the course of several centuries, God’s chosen servants, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote histories, prophecies, psalms, poetry, bits of wisdom, and letters in their own common languages. Later generations recognized the mark of the Holy Spirit in their writings and declared them to be our Holy Scriptures, given as a gift from God.
From the beginning, scribes faithfully copied the original writings and transmitted them through the ages. Although we do not have any original writings (called "autographs"), we do have some very ancient manuscripts that demonstrate the reliability of our contemporary Bibles. For example, the Isaiah scroll from the Dead Sea Scrolls (dated from 250-100 B.C.) is nearly identical to our best manuscripts from which we translate our Bibles! Likewise, archaeologists have discovered a piece of the Gospel of John that dates from about A.D. 130. And, surprisingly, it is nearly identical to our Greek New Testaments from which we translate! Only minor spelling and wording details vary a little. Textual scholars are blessed with copious numbers of ancient manuscripts of New Testament writings—more than 5,400, which far exceeds any other ancient writing.
The point is that we don’t need to worry about the accuracy of our Bibles today. Faithful scholars have compiled a Hebrew OT and a Greek NT that we believe is closest to the original writings. And from these works, all Bibles are translated today. And in almost all cases, trustworthy groups of translators who have a tremendous respect for God’s Word have worked diligently to communicate God’s Word to God’s people in a language they understand.
Prior to the Reformation, a few English-speaking scholars attempted to translate the Bible into their language, even as English itself was being formed. The Venerable Bede (A.D. 675-735), father of English history, translated the Gospels into Old English, even though we probably couldn’t make heads or tales of it today. Later, John Wycliffe (ca. 1329-1384), using the Latin Vulgate, translated the entire Bible into Middle English in 1382.
As the Renaissance awakened in Europe, many reformers began to translate the Bible into their own languages from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts (e.g., Martin Luther in German). William Tyndale (ca. 1494-1536) translated the New Testament into Modern English from the original Greek in 1526. He later translated some of the Old Testament from Hebrew and revised his New Testament (1534) before being condemned as a heretic and burned at the stake.
In the early 1600’s, King James I of England commissioned a new English translation of the Bible that would hopefully satisfy the competing political and ecclesial groups in the land. The best scholars of the day, building on the work of earlier translations (especially Tyndale), produced a translation that, in the long run, has influenced the English language more than any other work. This Authorized Version (usually called the King James Version) reigned in the English-speaking world for more than 300 years!
As is the case, however, languages evolve over time, and biblical scholarship has advanced greatly since the 17th century. By the dawning of the last century, it was clear that the venerated KJV needed some fine tuning. So scholars, using the best new language scholarship, began to create new translations of the Bible in contemporary English. The first major new translation in the United States was the American Standard Version (1901), a modest updating of the KJV’s antiquated language. It was followed by the groundbreaking (and sometimes controversial) Revised Standard Version in 1952.
The second half of the 20th century, especially the 80’s and 90’s, saw a burgeoning of new translations, some mimicking the KJV’s style (usually using the term "standard" in their titles) and others approaching the biblical texts with a novel approach.
Why so many translations?
At this point at the beginning of the 21st century, we are blessed with dozens of fine English translations of the Bible, something that was simply not an option just 60 years ago. But where do we start when we want to pick a Bible for reading or study? Which one is right for you? Is there a "best" translation?
It’s important to remember that the Scriptures were written down over hundreds of years primarily in two now-dead languages: Hebrew (OT) and Greek (NT). Since few people know how to read Greek and Hebrew, it is necessary for scholars to translate those ancient languages into something understandable for contemporary Christians. However, that task is easier said than done! As the old saying goes, "There is more than one way to skin a cat!"
How to Translate?
There are basically two general strategies for translating the Holy Scriptures from their original languages into our contemporary tongue: Form-driven and meaning-driven. Okay, I lied. There is actually a third strategy, but it is basically a hybrid of the other two—a via media for translation.
Form-Driven. Many Bibles are translated word-for-word, which is sometimes called "formal (i.e., corresponding to the form of the language) equivalence." When this kind of translator approaches the biblical text he or she attempts to translate words, phrases, and sentences exactly into their corresponding words, phrases, and sentences in English from the original languages. This is sometimes called "literal," because of its concern for word-for-word, or formal, correspondence. On its best day, this approach helps to preserve the actual meaning and structure of the original documents. On its worst day, it can actually miss some of the nuances that the Greek and Hebrew express. Sometimes a formal approach can end up sounding wooden and unnatural to our ears. The strength of form-driven translations is their suitability for serious Bible study (i.e., accuracy).
Meaning-Driven. Many Bibles are translated thought-for-thought, which is sometimes called "dynamic (i.e., moving from the original language) equivalence." When this kind of translator approaches the biblical text he or she attempts to translate phrases, ideas, and thoughts (rather than just words) from the original languages into their contemporary counterparts. Sometimes this process leans toward paraphrasing—loosely translating meaning, rather than exact words. On its best day, a meaning-driven translation helps to express the original thought of the biblical text in a way that is easily understandable in English. On its worst day, it can actually distort or obscure some of the original syntax and meaning. Sometimes a dynamic approach can sound too chatty or informal, distracting the readers from the majesty of God’s Word. The strength of meaning-driven translations is their clarity of meaning, especially for young people or non-native English speakers.
These two approaches, form-driven and meaning-driven, can be contrasted another, helpful way: form-driven translations seek to transport the reader back to the world of the ancient text, while meaning-driven translations seek to transport the Bible forward to our contemporary world of the reader. It is not that either approach is inherently better, it is simply that one or the other is usually more appropriate to the setting.
Hybrids. Many translations make use of both formal and dynamic equivalence when it suits the passage—kind of like the best of both worlds. This is what I call a hybrid.
Paraphrases. Some Bibles are not translations of the original languages at all. Instead, a paraphraser (sometimes a scholar, sometimes not) sits down with another translation and retells the Bible in his or her own words.
Translation Issues:
Gender language
Language for gender has become the issue in contemporary Bible translation. It is what made the NRSV radical in its day and has led to the condemnation of the TNIV in many evangelical circles. English is an extremely flexible language and is always evolving. When the KJV said, "Let your light so shine before men," (Matthew 5:14) the English speakers of the day understood "men" to refer to the human race (as led by and represented by males!). This is actually closer to the original Greek than our contemporary, postmodern English, which is very squeamish about gender preferences. Biblical Greek makes use of a full arsenal of gender terms: aner (male person or husband), gyne (female person or wife), anthropos/anthropoi (man/men in a generic sense; also as a collective "humankind"), laos (people, nation, crowd), pater (father, ancestor, or generic parent), meter (mother), huios (son), teknon (child), adelphos (brother) and adelphe (sister). This makes the translator’s job tricky as he or she seeks to decipher what is intended and to communicate that sensitively (and yet accurately!) into contemporary English. No problem, right?
For example, many Bibles translate Mark 1:17 along these lines: "Then Jesus said to them, "Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men." (NKJV) The Greek word translated as "men" is anthropoi, the usual Greek word for human beings (think anthropology, the study of humans, formerly called "men"), but not laos, the general word for people. Is there a difference between the two? Does it matter to us 21st century English speakers if it says men or people? That is up to the translators to prayerfully decide!
Likewise, many Bibles translate Galatians 3:26 as "You are all sons of God through faith in Jesus Christ." (NIV) The Greek is definitely huioi (sons), rather than tekna (children), which is how other Bibles translate it (see NRSV). There is a choice to be made here. Retaining the word "sons" says something important from a cultural and historical perspective: in Roman families sons were the treasured heirs in a household; underage "children," on the other hand, were seen as immature and sub-human. Does this passage say something about our adoption into God’s family through faith in Jesus? Do we use sons or children? This shows the tightrope that translators walk when using gender language!
Theological Terms
The original languages can use terms that are quite technical. Imagine thousands of years from now someone discovering a computer programming text book and trying to translate it into his or her own language. Some of the terms might need some explanation! Paul’s Letter to the Romans is replete with theological terms that may or may not register with contemporary English speakers. Does everyone know exactly what justification, atonement, expiation/propitiation, resurrection, grace, and sanctification mean?
For instance, a literal translation of Romans 3:28 would be, "For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law." (ESV) But what exactly does it mean to be "justified"? Other translations have tried to explain this term using a phrase: "A person is made right with God through faith, not through obeying the law." (NCV) The second, dynamic translation is helpful to young children or for people who are just learning English, but the first, formal translation retains some of the fullness of the underlying Greek term.
When speaking of leaders in the early church, the apostles used terms that may or may not have direct correlation in today’s churches. For instance, the Apostle Paul described the qualifications for a leader in the church in 1 Timothy 3:1-7. The Greek word he used was episkopos, literally meaning "over-seer." Traditionally, however, this word has been translated as "bishop." For most Christians the term bishop evokes the image of a man in flowing purple robes with a miter hat on his head—like the Bishop of Rome. But is that what Paul was talking about? Doubtfully. In fact, an episkopos was probably simply the governor or manager of a local congregation that met in a house—a far cry from the pomp of the later high-church tradition!
Likewise, the Greek word diakonos is tricky to render in English. In secular Greek usage a diakonos was a servant, somewhat like a waiter or waitress at a restaurant. In Christian usage, diakonos came to mean a servant of God, someone who ministered to people in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that "servant" and "minister" are fair translations of diakonos, depending on its context. In later times, diakonos was transliterated to refer to the office of "deacon," a distinct position of leadership in the church. Interestingly, Romans 16:1 calls Phoebe—a woman—a diakonos of the church at Cenchrae. Does this mean that she was an early minister, a deaconess, or simply a servant of God at that church?
Idioms and Figures of Speech
Ancient Greek and Hebrew used certain phrases or idioms that don’t always make sense in our contemporary language. For instance, 1 Samuel 9:2b, in describing Saul, literally says, "From his shoulders upward he was taller than any of the people." (RSV) Now, does this mean that Saul had a really long neck and head? This Hebrew idiom probably needs a little explanation in translation. So the Bible translator can decide to translate it directly, leaving the interpretation up to the reader, or translate its perceived meaning for the reader. The God’s Word translation reads like this: "He stood a head taller than everyone else." The question becomes, "Do I translate this as it reads and let people decipher it, or do I translate this as what it means?"
Likewise, Romans 6:4 uses a Jewish expression to talk about the believer’s new life in Jesus Christ. The NASB, a literal translation, reads, "so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life." If one is unfamiliar with Hebrew expression, one might wonder what walking has to do with living as a Christian. Other translations explain this a bit: "just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life" (NIV).
Ideology and Translation
It is inevitable that as we translate the Bible, we have to make certain decisions about the translation (as demonstrated above!). And inevitably, our values and faith traditions will shape those decisions for better or worse. The best approach for keeping in check the translators’ personal baggage is to work in a group of scholars from the various different traditions within Christianity. This helps to avoid denominational or traditional bias from finding its way into the Bible translation. For example, an ideal mix for a Protestant Bible might include Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and non-denominational Evangelicals.
But sometimes Bibles are produced that bear the clear marks of one tradition or another. The worst example of this is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, produced by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which was recklessly and inappropriately "translated" to bolster their already existing dogma.
On a more subtle scale, many Bibles are influenced by ideas about liturgy, church governance, biblical authority, prophecy, the End Times, and Christology. For example, the Holman Christian Standard Bible, a product of Southern Baptists, translates Matthew 26:56 like this: "But all this has happened so that the prophetic Scriptures would be fulfilled" (emphasis added). The term "prophetic Scriptures" probably ought to be translated more simply "writings of the prophets," referring to the Old Testament Scriptures. But their choice of the word "prophetic" is loaded, revealing their particular understanding of prophecy and the End Times in the larger scheme of dispensationalist thinking which has infiltrated many Baptist circles.
Likewise, many translators feel compelled to leave certain passages of the Bible alone—for instance, as they appear in the tried-and-true King James Version—for fear that the readers will reject their work for violating the way the Bible is supposed to sound. This is what I call the "23rd Psalm Effect," that is, the tendency not to mess with the supposed perfection of the KJV.
A great example of this 23rd Psalm Effect comes from Luke 2:7, the beloved account of Mary and Joseph traveling to Bethlehem where Jesus was born. Most translations read similar to the KJV: "And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." (KJV, emphasis added)
Although the KJV called the place where the holy family tried to stay an "inn," advances in lexical studies as well as archaeology have demonstrated that kataluma (the Greek word used by Luke) actually refers simply to the common sleeping area or a guest room in a family’s house! Joseph and Mary weren’t turned away from the Bethlehem Super 8! Instead, there were already too many people staying in the sleeping quarters of their cousins’ house (because of the census crowd), so they were relegated to the back of the house, usually a cave where the animals were kept.
But, nonetheless, Bible translators are afraid to disrupt people’s strongly held mental pictures of how the Christmas story supposedly happened. Most Americans, influenced by layers of extra-biblical Christmas traditions, visualize pregnant Mary and her husband desperately visiting many hotels throughout Bethlehem until one kind innkeeper lets them use his little barn out back (and, by the way, none of that is in the Bible). And so in most contemporary Bibles we still have Mary and Joseph trying to make reservations at the Bethlehem Super 8. (But, between you and me, it’s a guest room!)
The Translations
These translations are listed in order from the most literal to the most free (form-driven to meaning-driven and finally paraphrases). When a Bible is "revised" from an earlier translation (e.g., NRSV, NKJV, NASB, etc.), scholars almost always re-translate every word and phrase; however, when the earlier translation is still right, they leave it alone, thus preserving the literary connection between the versions.
I also have tried to label (however appropriately) the theological or traditional background from which these Bibles came. Here is a brief glossary
Conservative – Christians who hold traditional faith convictions;
Ecumenical – Christians who see themselves primarily as members of the universal church, rather than one particular tradition (synonym = interdenominational);
Evangelical – Christians who are gospel-centered in their faith;
Fundamentalist – Christians who have very fixed faith convictions, all of which are essential;
Mainline – Christians who are moderate to liberal in their faith convictions;
Millennialist – Christians who hold to a unique reading of the Bible and the descriptions of the End Times;
The Form-Driven Translations:
The Amplified Bible (AMP)
Copyright/Publisher Information: 1965, The Lockman Foundation, La Habra , CA; Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, MI (OT Part One, 1964; OT Part Two, 1962; NT, 1958; Gospel of John, 1954).
History and Goals: Dr. Frances Siewert, a biblical scholar, began with the American Standard Version (1901, the precursor of the RSV) and sought to make a translation that drew out more of the hidden (nuanced) meaning of the Hebrew and Greek language. After 20,000 woman hours, she produced a helpful study Bible whose primary feature is the [bracketed] phrases that "amplify" the meaning of the text.
Translation Strategy: Formal Equivalence with some additions
Reading Level (Grade): 11
Translators: Frances Siewert
Theological Perspective: Conservative
Gender Inclusive Language? None
Audience: This is primarily used for more serious personal and group Bible study
Evaluation: The AMP has made an important contribution among English translations. It gives ordinary English readers extraordinary insight into biblical terms, idioms, theological terms, etc. On the other hand, this Bible is nearly unintelligible if you want to read it aloud. It is a good resource to augment other translations.
New American Standard Bible (Updated) (NASB)
Copyright/Publisher Information: 1995; Lockman Foundation, La Habra, CA (1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1995).
History and Goals: Suspicious of the RSV, conservative scholars set about to make a truly formal (literal) evangelical translation in the style of the KJV. Beginning with the American Standard Version (1901), itself an update of the KJV, scholars updated language and usage to create a very literal translation.
Translation Strategy: Formal Equivalence
Reading Level (Grade): 11
Translators: 61 conservative scholars
Theological Perspective: Conservative (leaning towards Fundamentalist) with some Millennialist hints
Gender Inclusive Language? None
Audience: For people who demand an accurate, literal translation that is transparent to the original languages—who appreciate precision over accessibility or simplified language
Evaluation: The NASB is an anchor when it comes to literal accuracy of the biblical words and phrases. It is an excellent Bible for study and comparing to the original languages and enjoys great popularity among conservative Christians. However, in their attempt to keep it strictly word-for-word, the translators forgot to make it readable! Sometimes the NASB can be quite wooden, so it is inappropriate for public reading or for memorization.
King James Version (KJV); also known as the Authorized Version
Copyright/Publisher Information: 1611, authorized by King James I of England (now public domain)
History and Goals: After several attempts had been made to create an English translation of the Bible, King James I of England undertook the task of creating a new Bible in the language of the people. At the height of the Elizabethan Renaissance (at the same time as Shakespeare), scholars translated the original Greek and Hebrew languages into Modern English. Several innovations gave fuel to this endeavor, including a revival of classical learning, the invention of the printing press, and the Protestant Reformation. After it caught on in England and in the Colonies, the KJV reigned for more than 300 years as the standard English Bible. Even today, many consider it the "real" Bible.
Translation Strategy: Formal Equivalence
Reading Level (Grade): 12.0
Translators: 54 scholars
Theological Perspective: Church of England
Gender Inclusive Language? None
Audience: Anyone who insists that the Bible sound like it did back in the old days. If you want to buy a Bible for your kids or grandkids, look elsewhere.
Evaluation: Like Elvis, this is the king. This is the translation that has influenced the development of our English language more than anything else. If you want classic, Elizabethan literary beauty, then this is your translation. However, my friends, Elvis is dead. The KJV is a dinosaur of a translation! Talk about archaic and stilted! While it reflected the common language of 400 years ago, the KJV has lost some of its relevance (sorry, there is no such thing as "biblical English," as some insist, that requires the use of "thee" and "thou"). Does anybody really know what a sackbut is (Daniel 3:5), and did the Hebrews really use it while they were in exile in Babylon? The KJV was also based on an inferior text tradition (called the textus receptus), and therefore has some errors that have been corrected by newer translations (see 1 John 5:17).
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright/Publisher Information: 1982, Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, TN (NT, 1979; NT & Psalms 1980).
History and Goals: Scholars who had a deep respect for the KJV set about to make a good thing even better, much like the original KJV improved Tyndale’s work. The translators wished to revise and enhance the KJV primarily by removing archaic language ("thee" and "thou") and smoothing out some outdated grammar and usage. The NKJV has been very popular among conservative Christians who favor the KJV but are willing to allow modest updates in their Bibles.
Translation Strategy: Formal Equivalence
Reading Level (Grade): 9
Translators: 119 Bible scholars
Theological Perspective: Conservative
Gender Inclusive Language? None
Audience: For those who like the KJV but are realistic enough to know that English has changed since the Renaissance.
Evaluation: The NKJV sounds like the Bible should (like the KJV), yet it is more understandable. It is a good literal translation that is sometimes awkward because of its slavish dependence on the KJV. In fact, its reverence for the KJV—rather than the original Hebrew and Greek texts—is its major downfall. It is also inexcusable that the NKJV, a 20th-century translation, uses an inferior textual tradition for translation (the same textus receptus that the KJV used) rather than the superior texts available today that are used by every other modern translation. This modest updating of the KJV makes for a curious combination of the old and the new.
Revised Standard Version (RSV)
Copyright/Publisher Information: 1952; Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. (OT, 1952, 1973, 1980; NT, 1946, 1971, 1973).
History and Goals: Inspired by updates to the KJV at the dawning of the 20th century, several scholars set out to make a truly ecumenical Bible that would serve the whole church. While they succeeded in producing a Bible with wide appeal, especially among mainline Protestants, the RSV was held in deep suspicion by American evangelicals. They were disappointed by the perceived liberal slide away from the KJV. Number one on the list was replacing "virgin" with "young woman" in Isaiah 7:14, a major proof text for the virgin birth of Christ.
Translation Strategy: Formal Equivalence
Reading Level (Grade): 10
Translators: 32 mainline scholars
Theological Perspective: Mainline Protestant
Gender Inclusive Language? None
Audience: You can hardly find this in print anymore. Best chances are at church rummage sales or giveaways. This is primarily for those nostalgic for the good old days of the 1950s when things were as they should be.
Evaluation: This is the Bible that most Presbyterians today remember from their childhoods. It was the standard for 40 years in mainline churches, and used by scholars and Sunday schools alike. It retains the beauty of the KJV but improves on some of the translation errors in the KJV. The RSV has a curious translation philosophy of addressing God as "thee" and "thou," while referring to Jesus as simply "you" and "your." While the RSV has a unique place in history, there are newer revisions (NRSV and ESV) which are more appropriate for today’s readers.
English Standard Version (ESV)
Copyright/Publisher Information: 2000, 2001; Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers, Wheaton, IL.
History and Goals: Frustrated by the ideological bias perceived in other translations (e.g., NRSV), evangelical scholars set about to update the RSV and create a truly evangelical translation that stands in the KJV tradition—a middle ground between the NASB and the NIV. The ESV, while being a re-translation, retains as much as 94% of the original RSV; it is an evangelical do-over of a decent translation.
Translation Strategy: Formal Equivalence
Reading Level (Grade): 8
Translators: more than 100 from various Christian backgrounds; J.I. Packer, a noted Anglican scholar served as the general editor.
Theological Perspective: Conservative and Evangelical
Gender Inclusive Language? Occasional
Audience: Scholars, lay people, and anyone who appreciates a literal translation.
Evaluation: The ESV retains the literary beauty of the KJV and RSV, but it updates the language modestly to create a more reliable, more contemporary translation. It is faithful to the form of the original languages but is less awkward than the NASB, often choosing clear English over wooden literalness. The ESV is sometimes slavish in its reliance on the RSV and forsakes some of the advances in Bible translation that are used by other newer translations. Even though no translation is perfect, the ESV is probably the best literal translation available today—an excellent Bible for study, memorization, and public reading! Highly recommended!
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
Copyright/Publisher Information: 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.
History and Goals: In light of new discoveries (like the Dead Sea Scrolls), the National Council of Churches charged the RSV committee with making a new, thorough revision of the trusty RSV. Translators sought to improve its accuracy to the original languages, its clarity and English style, and to completely eliminate masculine language for humanity. In the end, they produced the "literal as possible, free as necessary" NRSV. Like its predecessor (the RSV), the NRSV is controversial in certain circles, but has become an ecumenically accepted translation and the choice for most mainline Bible scholars.
Translation Strategy: Formal Equivalence
Reading Level (Grade): 10
Translators: A broadly ecumenical group of scholars, led by Bruce Metzger, a Presbyterian scholar
Theological Perspective: Mainline
Gender Inclusive Language? Yes, completely
Audience: Those who want the Bible to sound like the Bible without all that awkward masculine language
Evaluation: This Bible has attained Vulgate status among mainline Christians and is used exclusively in mainline seminaries today. It is mostly literal but pluralizes passages that are singular in the original languages to avoid politically incorrect masculine language (e.g., Psalm 1:1, "Blessed are those" rather than "blessed is the man"). The NRSV is a fine contemporary translation in the KJV tradition and is useful for study; it capitalizes on many advances in biblical scholarship that the ESV passed on. But sometimes the NRSV goes to great contortions to avoid masculine language, and its sensitivity to gender language often obscures the original intent of the biblical authors (see Titus 1:5-6 as an example). Many conservative Christians reject the NRSV (just like they did with the RSV) for its choice of translations (for examples, see Genesis 1:2—"wind from God," rather than "Spirit of God"—and Isaiah 7:14—"young woman," rather than "virgin").
The Hybrids:
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
Copyright/Publisher Information: 2003; Holman Bible Publishers, Nashville, TN (1999, 2000, 2002, 2003).
History and Goals: Fretting over the proposed gender-neutral NIV (in 1996), leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) initiated a completely new translation that would be an alternative to the NIV. The HCSB’s goal is "optimal equivalence" and "precision with clarity." The SBC Sunday School Board hired Art Farstad (the man behind the NKJV) to lead this $10 million (yes, I said ten MILLION dollar!) project. It is more literal than the NIV, but less so than the ESV and the NASB. It has met with approval in conservative circles.
Translation Strategy: Hybrid
Reading Level (Grade): 8
Translators: 80 conservative scholars from a handful of denominations; primarily Southern Baptists
Theological Perspective: Conservative leaning Fundamentalist; Millennialist
Gender Inclusive Language? None
Audience: Anyone who wants a more literal alternative to the NIV
Evaluation: The HCSB, in its attempt to dethrone the NIV, has done admirably to balance formal and dynamic concerns. It is certainly a usable translation, even though it doesn’t seem to have a clear, consistent translation philosophy. In some places the HCSB is quite flexible, employing a meaning-driven approach. In other places, especially when it comes to gender language, the HCSB is very rigid, always preferring the masculine words "men" and "man," rather than choosing more accurate words. Some of the apocalyptic passages reflect a millennialist bent that is common among Baptists today (most editions even include an appendix highlighting the "Prophecies of Jesus’ Second Coming," which underscores the producers’ fixation with the End Times). Although generally balanced (accurate to the original languages and readable in English), the HCSB lacks a clear, memorable style that reads smoothly—like the NIV. Also, unfortunately, this translation is somewhat too reactionary against a perceived liberal tide in biblical scholarship. I am afraid that we are still waiting for a conservative body (like the SBC) to create a positive, constructive translation that is not "against" some other translation.
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright/Publisher Information: 1984; International Bible Society, New York, NY; Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI (1973, 1978, 1984).
History and Goals: Dissatisfied with the RSV, evangelicals set about to create a completely new translation that is balanced, accurate, clear, and dignified. After its introduction in the 1970s, the NIV exploded in popularity, becoming the standard Bible for American evangelicals. Since that time, the NIV has become the best-selling modern Bible, comprising as much as 45% of all English Bibles sold. There are more than 110 million NIV Bibles in print, and it has become the translation to emulate and conquer by other Bible translators.
Translation Strategy: hybrid
Reading Level (Grade): 7.8
Translators: 95 scholars from the U.S., the U.K., Canada, New Zealand, and Australia
Theological Perspective: Evangelical
Gender Inclusive Language? None
Audience: Just about anyone—scholars to Sunday schoolers
Evaluation: If the NRSV has attained Vulgate status among mainliners, then the NIV has achieved Super-Vulgate status among evangelicals! Its language is flexible, balanced, contemporary, and accessible, but it avoids some of the excesses of other, more dynamic translations. However, the NIV can be somewhat uneven (e.g., Isaiah 53:3 which mimics the KJV; in many places the NIV uses contractions and some accommodations to conversational English). On the whole, the NIV is by far the most popular English translation of the Bible, and for good reason, because it is an excellent, balanced, all-around translation. The NIV is probably the best hybrid translation and still the one to dethrone.
Today’s New International Version (TNIV)
Copyright/Publisher Information: 2005; International Bible Society, New York, NY; Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI (2001, 2005).
History and Goals: When the IBS’s plans failed to create a thoroughly gender-neutral NIV, they instead created a "gender-accurate" translation in the TNIV, designed to speak to a younger generation of seekers and believers. In addition to its gender-inclusive concerns, the TNIV seeks to tighten up some of the loose ends of the original NIV.
Translation Strategy: Hybrid
Reading Level (Grade): 7
Translators: Some of the original NIV team plus others
Theological Perspective: Evangelical
Gender Inclusive Language? Yes, completely
Audience: The TNIV has been marketed to the 20-something generation as a Bible in their own language
Evaluation: The TNIV has sparked heated debate, especially among evangelicals, probably because the IBS has tried to tinker with their cherished NIV, which has become the KJV of contemporary evangelicals. In actuality, the TNIV is a modest renovation of the NIV (which is already 25 years old, and our language continues to evolve!) and retains much of its style and text. Much of the criticism is unfounded, especially since most of the meaning-driven translations (below) are thoroughly gender-inclusive. The TNIV is more friendly to the younger population and reflects the language usage of most Americans today. It raises a good question, however: How much should the Bible reflect the vernacular, and how much should the Bible stick to grammatical English? One annoying feature of the TNIV’s style is using third person pronouns as singulars to avoid gender preference (See Luke 17:3, which reads: "If any brother or sister sins against you, rebuke the offender, and if they repent, forgive them.") The TNIV is nonetheless a very good translation.
The Meaning-Driven Translations:
New International Readers’ Version (NIrV)
Copyright/Publisher Information: 1996, International Bible Society, New York, NY; Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI.
History and Goals: The NIrV is a simplified revision of the tried-and-true NIV, featuring shorter sentences and easier vocabulary. It is a byproduct of another NIV project from the 1990s—the gender-inclusive NIV, which was scrapped and then later resuscitated as the TNIV. The NIrV has the lowest reading level of all major translations and is aimed at children and adults who have difficulty reading English.
Translation Strategy: Dynamic
Reading Level (Grade): 2.9
Translators: English stylists and translators from the NIV
Theological Perspective: Evangelical
Gender Inclusive Language? Mostly
Audience: Excellent first Bible for little kids.
Evaluation: The NIrV is an excellent update of the NIV, making the message of the Bible very accessible to everyone (especially for beginners!). The short sentences can, however, seem choppy to grown-ups. The modest use of gender-inclusive language can make the NIrV seem a little uneven (Contrast Galatians 3:26—"You are all children of God by believing in Christ Jesus."—with Matthew 5:9—"They will be called sons of God.") On the whole, the NIrV provides a helpful link in the chain of English translations.
New Century Version (NCV); also known as the International Children’s Bible (ICB)
Copyright/Publisher Information: 1991, Word Publishing, a division of Thomas Nelson, Inc., Nashville, TN (1987, 1988, 1991).
History: This translation, originally a Bible project for the deaf, grew into a full-blown children’s Bible (the ICB). The ICB was later updated to be marketed as a simple grown-up Bible. The translators sought to create a translation that expresses the Scriptures in familiar, everyday words that we use. Since the original Scriptures were written in everyday language, they have figured that our Bibles today should imitate that simple functionality.
Translation Strategy: Dynamic
Reading Level (Grade): 3.9
Translators: The World Bible Translation Center and fifty, additional, qualified and experienced Bible scholars; some translators worked previously on the NKJV, the NASB, and the NIV
Theological Perspective: Evangelical
Gender Inclusive Language? Yes, in the newest editions (1991); makes use of generic "he"
Audience: primarily for kids, but an excellent Bible for people unfamiliar with the Bible or English itself.
Evaluation: The NCV has done a great job of making the text plainly clear in itself without needing a running commentary to explain everything. This makes it a fine translation on which younger kids can cut their Bible teeth. It avoids gender-preferred language by making references to people plural (i.e., "those who" rather than "he who"), and it explains theological ideas, rather than using technical terms (e.g. "made right with God" vs. "justification"). Although clearly dynamic in its approach, the NCV is surprisingly faithful to the original languages; most of the changes have to do with syntax (shorter, simpler sentences) and vocabulary. The NCV is a very satisfying, simple Bible translation that avoids many of the excesses of the NLT and the paraphrases. It is probably the best dynamic translation available today.
God’s Word (GW)
Copyright/Publisher Information: 1995; God’s Word to the Nations Bible Society (an American Lutheran world mission organization).
History and Goals: Seeing a gap in the available English translations, the producers of GW hired full-time scholars and English editorial reviewers and sought to "communicate clearly to contemporary Americans without compromising the Bible’s message. This translation consciously combines scholarly fidelity with natural English." GW strives for "closest natural equivalence" without becoming too rigid (as with form-driven) or too loose (as with meaning-driven).
Translation Strategy: Dynamic
Reading Level (Grade): 5.8
Translators: a denominationally diverse team of 75 translators, linguists, English experts, and independent biblical-language scholars
Theological Perspective: Evangelical
Gender Inclusive Language? Yes, almost always; makes use of generic "he"
Audience: Younger kids or anyone who appreciates a well-balanced translation.
Evaluation: The GW does an excellent job of producing an accurate and readable translation. It is very clear and straightforward. To their credit, one of their goals is "to communicate the saving, life-changing Good News about Jesus," and they do a fine job of this. GW, like all the other meaning-driven translations, uses euphemisms for technical words like "justification" (rendered "has God’s approval") and "grace" (rendered as "kindness"). This is sometimes helpful, especially for young readers, but it can obscure the rich shades of meaning found in the original languages. GW and NCV are nearly equivalent, each with its own strengths and weaknesses. And even though it is not well known, GW is a gem among English translations.
Today’s English Version (TEV); also known as the Good News Bible (GNB)
Copyright/Publisher Information: 1976; American Bible Society, New York, New York (1966, NT in Today’s English Version); Updated in 1992.
History and Goals: In the 1960’s there wasn’t much choice for Bible translations, usually the KJV or the RSV. Wanting to create a simple and clear translation—one that would read like a newspaper—the ABS undertook this project. It was designed as a "translation intended for people everywhere for whom English is either their mother tongue or an acquired language." The TEV became extremely popular in the United States, especially as a children’s Sunday School Bible. A gender-inclusive version was released in 1992.
Translation Strategy: Dynamic
Reading Level (Grade): 7.29
Translators: Dr. Richard Bratcher and six others for the OT
Theological Perspective: Mainline-Evangelical
Gender Inclusive Language? Yes, in the 1992 revision; None in the original 1976
Audience: younger children or someone who wants an easy to understand translation
Evaluation: This translation, the first thoroughly dynamic translation into English, succeeds in being accessible and clear. This is a helpful addition to the spectrum of English Bibles, especially with its groovy line drawings, which are an integral part of the translation. It has a red flag, however: one person, Dr. Richard Bratcher, was the sole translator for the New Testament and worked with only 6 other scholars on the Old Testament. Translation teams always help reduce bias! While the TEV is a good translation, the CEV (its successor from the ABS, below) is probably better.
New Living Translation (NLT)
Copyright/Publisher Information: 1996, Tyndale House Publishers; Updated in 2004.
History and Goals: The NLT was conceived to be successor of the popular Living Bible, a paraphrase from the 1970s. The NLT, while maintaining the LB’s lively, conversational English, is truly a translation from the original languages. It, like the CEV, the TEV, and the NCV, is thoroughly meaning-driven in its approach. A revision was released in 2004.
Translation Strategy: Dynamic Equivalence
Reading Level (Grade): 6.3
Translators: 90 American and British scholars
Theological Perspective: Evangelical
Gender Inclusive Language? Yes, completely
Audience: Great for kids or new Christians.
Evaluation: Some consider the NLT to be the best meaning-driven translation available today, but this is probably due more to the extensive advertising done by the publishers rather than its actual merit as a translation. It is more flamboyant in its expression than most other translations, sometimes unjustifiably so. Occasionally the NLT uses chatty, colloquial English, and sometimes this deviation from the original intent and can actually obscure the intended meaning of the original text or at least distract the reader from the biblical meaning. The 2004 revision corrects many of its inaccuracies, and makes it a much more solid translation for personal reading. While the NLT has some use as a translation, there are other, better dynamic translations available today (e.g., NCV, GW).
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
Copyright/Publisher Information: 1995; American Bible Society, New York, NY
History and Goals: Since many Americans are ignorant of the Bible, the ABS set about to prepare a new translation—a successor to the TEV—that conveys scriptural meaning in a natural sense. The CEV is thoroughly meaning-driven, bordering on being a paraphrase. The translation overseers approached the CEV like a missionary project, bringing the gospel to an unchurched people, even here in the United States.
Translation Strategy: Dynamic
Reading Level (Grade): 5.4
Translators: a team of translators with review of several English-speaking Bible societies
Theological Perspective: Evangelical
Gender Inclusive Language? Yes, completely
Audience: suitable for children or for adults who do not read much literature or for whom English is a second language
Evaluation: The CEV does a good job of making the text sound clear ("euphony"), especially since most people hear the Bible rather than read it for themselves. It is exceedingly clear, especially in some of the repetitive structures of the Old Testament, although this may conceal some of the finer meanings in the original text. The CEV is truly a contemporary translation—thoroughly dynamic, seeking clarity above accuracy. The CEV also makes thorough use of gender-inclusive language for humanity. The CEV is best for kids or for people who don’t understand English very well, but (like most dynamic translations) it is inappropriate for serious Bible study.
The Paraphrases:
Living Bible (LB)
Copyright/Publisher Information: 1971, Tyndale Publishers, Nashville, TN.
History and Goals: Kenneth Taylor began to paraphrase the ASV so his ten children could understand what the Bible was actually saying. This family project grew into the Living Bible, an effort to open the Bible up to common people. By the mid 1970s, the LB accounted for half of all Bibles sold in the United States.
Translation Strategy: paraphrase of the ASV (1901)
Reading Level (Grade): 8.3
Paraphraser: Kenneth Taylor
Theological Perspective: Conservative and Evangelical
Gender Inclusive Language? Some
Audience: anyone
Evaluation: The LB was wildly popular in the 1970s, especially among conservative Christians who wanted to use it as a companion to their trusty KJV. While it served a useful purpose in its time—paving the way for future dynamic translations—it has largely run its course. More often than not, the LB reflects Dr. Taylor’s (who was not a language scholar) own take on Christianity more than what the languages actually mean. There are many more useful Bibles available today that are truly translations of the original texts and that are more accurate and more readable (e.g., its descendant, the NLT).
The Message (MSG)
Copyright/Publisher Information: 2002, NavPress Publishing Group, Colorado Springs, CO (1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000, 2001, 2002).
History and Goals: Over time, Dr. Eugene Peterson, a pastor and professor in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), began paraphrasing the Bible (using the original languages) into simple English, using contemporary expressions of thought. The Bible was originally written by people who used the ordinary language of their day, so Peterson’s goal was to communicate the message of the Bible in simple—even coarse—everyday language.
Translation Strategy: Paraphrase, relying on the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts
Reading Level (Grade): 4.8
Translators: Eugene Peterson
Theological Perspective: Evangelical
Gender Inclusive Language? Yes, completely
Audience: Targeted toward youth and young adults
Evaluation: The Message provides a vivid and insightful paraphrase of the Bible for a younger generation. It is useful for people who are not familiar with the Bible—who think the Bible is musty and stilted—or for those whose passion for the Bible has dimmed. Peterson is a master wordsmith, able to communicate the text in a passionate, interesting way (See Psalm 1:1, which reads: "How well God must like you—you don’t hang out at Sin Saloon, you don’t slink along Dead-End Road, you don’t go to Smart-Mouth College"). But, as with all paraphrases, it is no substitute for actual translations. It is a good companion for getting a feel for some of the Bible’s expression but not for serious study of the Bible.
