WHICH TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE IS FOR ME?

 INTRODUCTION 

Which translation of the Bible is best? That is a difficult question. Some people like a very readable translation while others like the Authorized Version (1611), commonly called the King James.

The whole area of translation is full of difficulties. The translation you choose has much to do with the interpretation of the Scriptures. Translators interpret as they translate. A translation of 1611 A.D. is not necessarily the best just because it is older.

Have you ever wondered what English speaking people read before King James ordered the authorized version in 1611 A.D.? For sixteen hundred years after the death of Christ, the Scriptures were available in various languages. If we feel one version is superior to others, what do we do with those who don't speak English? What is their authoritative version?

The Bible has been translated into English in more versions than any other language. Therefore our choices are many. The one thing I would point out is this: Regardless which translation you choose, it will do you no good unless you read it. So the best thing is to choose one and read it. I hope the next few pages will help you understand translations better. 

THE PHILOSOPHIES OF TRANSLATION 

When you search for the answer to the question concerning which version of the Scriptures to choose, it's necessary to first understand in some detail the features and philosophies of translation. One philosophy focuses more attention on the original text or the source of the translation. We call this a literal or formal equivalence translation. The other way is more given to the audience. The translator looks at the target audience and then translates it for that audience. This is referred to as a free or dynamic equivalence method of translation. A literal translation attempts a word‑for‑word equivalency trying to retain the grammatical structure of the original as much as can be done in the language into which it is being translated. A free translation will aim for communication effectiveness or an effect upon the reader. Sometimes people forget that this effect on the reader may lose some of the authenticity in the translation.

Literal translations, according to many, are the traditional and older ones. Those have not always allowed for cultural and social factors. Therefore, many would opt more for a free translation because it is often more in touch with the current culture. Free translation is not a new idea. Jerome produced the Latin vulgate at the end of the 4th century. He proposed to translate the sense and not the words of the original whenever translating anything other than Scripture. John Purvian's associate, John Wycliff, expressed much the same sentiment in the late 14th century when he said that the unit in translation cannot be the word but, at the very least, the clause or sentence. This degree of freedom of these scholars may be inapplicable sometimes to English versions and not always maintained in their translating events. Many people have opted to categorize various translations one way or the other. There are many more readable texts that have been translated by people such as Weymouth, Moffet, Goodspeed, Knox, as well as the New English Bible and Good News Bible. Many people enjoy reading those. The Philips translation is loved by many. The literal translations are many: the King James Version, the Revised Standard Version, the Modem Language Bible, the New American Standard Bible, the New American Bible, and the New King James Version.

Among the English translations, the roots of the philosophy are deep. Our first English translation done by the associates of John Wycliffe was a very literal translation, corresponding word for word whenever possible. That principle was also observed in the DOUAI‑RHEIMS version, but the English product is unintelligible in some places. The goal of the King James version translators was to be "as consonant as possible to the original Hebrew and Greek."

Therefore, we have a wide range of translations even though there are two relatively major philosophies of translation. 

DIFFICULTIES IN TRANSLATION 

Evaluation of translations is difficult to perform for a multitude of reasons. Obviously one of the reasons is our own biases. I have people who come to me and will not attend our church unless I assure them that the only Bible that will ever be used is the King James Version. They feel that the King James version is the only authoritative Word of God. However, after study, I recognize there are many differences in the way the King James translators translated the Bible that require explanation. One of the difficulties besides our cultural bias is the way we look at the words. Some people literally look at the words, choose a word and pick on it. They will argue that word over and over again, not realizing that the translators may have had other words they could choose just as easily as the one they chose. This fact alone causes difficulties in interpretation. For instance, the Lord's Prayer ends "for thine is the kingdom, the power and the glory forever. Amen." We enjoy that part of the Scripture. But we're pretty sure that ending was never in the original text. It was added somewhere along the way and it's in the King James version. Another is the translation for the qualifications of the deacon. Our King James translates the husband of one wife. But there are other translations that in the past have said the husband only married once. Now there is quite a difference between only being married once and being the husband of one wife. Interpretations are made in translation.

A third difficulty we have is the choice of words based upon our understanding. When the King James was given to us, the Elizabethan English was in the vogue. No longer is it. Words such as behold are used still today. Therefore, words such as behold are still used in the New King James version. But words such as thee and thou and didst are not used today. We do not talk that way. Does that then mean that that version is outdated? Not necessarily. But, it is difficult. I challenge you to read Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. If you want a wonderful opportunity to test your understanding, read it without going back and trying to figure out each word and what it meant. It's almost impossible to so do.

Another difficulty we have is in the helps that have been formed and made available to us. There is a wide range of material that is based upon the King James version. When you have another version, many of those helps are not available. Therefore, many of those helps are not very good for you. For instance, if you are using a concordance for the King James, you may not find those verses even meaning half the same thing if you turn to the NIV. On the other hand, if you use a concordance for the NIV, you may not find those verses to be what you thought they would be in the New American Standard version. Now, does that mean that none of these versions are any good? No, not at all. Quite the contrary is true. Which leads to the next difficulty.

The words in Hebrew and Greek mean many things. Let me illustrate. We use the word "love" to mean love. Then we go on sometimes to define love. But, in the Greek, they use different words to connotate different types of love. For instance, a self-centered erotic love, they would use a word that would be for themselves or "eros." If they wanted to have a connotation of an outgoing love then they would use the word "agape." If they wanted to have a word which meant a love such as a brother or sister would have one for the other, they would use "phileo." When those words are then translated into English, the translator must make a judgement call on every one of those as to how he's going to translate them.

In the Hebrew, many of the words really are phrases. It is difficult to translate them exactly from one language to another. This is the reason why true Bible scholars are trained in both Greek and Hebrew and are able to read exactly from the original text so that they can get the nuances in those texts. For instance, when I am in deep study, I use texts that are totally based upon Greek or Hebrew. They don't match any of the translations we have now although some are quite close. 

INTERPRETATION IS A FACTOR IN TRANSLATIONS 

The largest single distinction between methods and philosophies of translation is in the area of interpretation. Some type of interpretation must accompany any translation effort. Some would say that you cannot do that and they must be kept very separate. But, you still will have to do that. For instance, it is difficult to translate 1 Corinthians 7:36‑38 without adopting a view as to whether the passage is referring to the person's father or to her male companion. The largest difference between translations of relatively low deviation value between the other and those of high really lies in the quantity of interpretation behind it. The translator must choose one interpretation from the possible alternatives. That leaves you at the mercy of their choice.

Let's look at Galatians 5:12 in the New King James version. You will need a commentary to help understand the verse. What does it mean, "I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off"? If you have a free translation you won't need to have a commentary because the translators have already interpreted it for you. The Good News Bible, the NIV, JB and the New English Bible, treat cutting off as referring to the deprivation of the male reproductive glands. In the Living Bible, a different interpretation is given to you meaning separation from the Christian assembly. Let's look at another one. Which translation is correct of 1 Thessalonians 4:4? Here Paul speaks of control over one's body as is in the Jerusalem Bible, the New English Bible, the New International Version, or the one that says he speaks of taking a wife in marriage as it says in the Living Bible, the Revised Standard Version, and the Good News Bible. Or, does the translator shun the responsibility of making a choice as does the King James Version, the New King James version, and the New American Standard Bible?

Let's look at 1 Timothy 3:2. Does this verse prohibit an overseer who is a bigamist as is pretty strongly given to us in the New English version, the Living Bible, and the Good News Bible through the addition of the word "only"? Or, does it forbid the appointment of a person who is a divorcee, as the Jerusalem Bible indicates? Or, perhaps the person speaks of the quality of faithfulness without dealing with marital history as is given to you in the New English Bible. But, maybe the decision in this matter should be left to the expositor or the English reader as indicated by the noncommittal rendering of the King James version, the New King James version, the Revised Standard version, and the New American Standard version.

Let's take another case in John 1:1. Here, Moffit says the logos was divine and the Good News Bible says he was the same as God. But both miss the point the verse intends to teach ‑ the deity of the Word.

Remember a while ago when I mentioned the husband of one wife. Let's go back to that for a moment. Early editions of the Revised Standard version gave married only once in 1 Timothy 3:2, but in 1959 it was changed back to the husband of one wife. Philips has also removed some of the extreme interpretive elements in a more recent edition of the Philips Modern English Bible. The 1978 edition of the New International is more literal and less interpretive than the 1973 model. 

A LOOK AT THE VERSIONS 

When we look at all the versions, we must have a test of where they stand between free and literal translations. Scholars have attempted to do this by taking the length of the translation and linking it to a formula to describe how that translation fares on a one‑to‑one basis with the original. Their methods have been pretty good. They have shown that they can give a fairly accurate rendition of those that are more accurate and more literal. Again, remember the word accurate may be a misnomer because accuracy is only in the way you receive it. If a free translation is done in the right idiom and culture it too can be accurate for that particular audience although its words may be somewhat changed. Let's look at some of the results of some of these studies and how they deviate. For instance, if we take the book of Romans, we find that the most literal translation of the book of Romans is the American Standard version. After that, the King James version and the New King James version are next in line. Right close by is the New American Standard Version, then the New American Bible, then the Revised Standard Version and the Modern Language Bible. On the border line between the literal and the free translation is the New International Version. In the middle of the free translations is the Good News Bible. Then to the right of that and close to paraphrasing is the New English Bible and the Jerusalem Bible is on the line between the free translation and a paraphrase. Both the Philips Modem English Bible and the Living Bible are definitely high in deviation value from literal translations and they must be considered to be truly a paraphrase.

Let's take a look at some other categories and see how they stand up in other translations looking for the deviation in 1 Corinthians. Again, we find that the American Standard Version is the most literal. So if you really want the most literal translation the American Standard is the most literal. That is followed by the King James and the New King James, followed very closely by the New American Standard, then the New American Bible, then the Revised Standard Bible. The NIV again is right on the line between literal and free, while the Modern Language Bible is in the middle of free translations as is the Good News Bible. The New

English Bible is closer to a paraphrase, but in 1 Corinthians the Jerusalem Bible is right on the line between literal and free. Once again, Philips' Modern English and the Living Bible are paraphrases.

Now that's interesting. Let's go back to some of the great old translations that you have probably never looked at. Let's compare them. Let's go back to the Romans and do our study on Romans. Here we have the Tindale version of 1526. It is a literal translation. Then we have the Great Bible of 1539. It's even more literal. And the Bishop's Bible of 1568, about the same as the Great Bible. And then in 1611, the King James Version, a little bit more literal than the Bishop's Bible, and then the English Revised Version and the American Standard, one in 1881, the other in 1901, again being the most literal translation. Then the Revised Standard Version of 1946 as literal as most of the others. The New American Standard which is almost as literal as the King James, came in 1963 and the New King James is the equivalent of the King James in 1979. 

WHICH ONE? 

As you can see from the forgoing, there are many things involved in translation. I know many who love one version and are totally committed to it. I know others who will go out and buy every new one that is published.

Based upon the last section, we can see there are differences in the way each translation was approached. Certainly, serious study of the Bible would not be able to be done in a paraphrase. I enjoy reading the Philips Modem English Bible. But, it is not a translation for study. Neither is the Living Bible.

Remember that Ken Taylor translated the Living Bible for his children. It is a paraphrase. I know many people think that it is easy to understand. It may be easy to understand because many of the things that we might need to know have been somewhat left out. The New Living Translation is a much better translation. It is called a “dynamic equivalence” translation. It is good for devotions and general study, but a more literal may help in deeper Biblical studies.

All in all, the King James translators did a good job in 1611. They were under a great deal of pressure from the king. These people had amassed a great deal of information and they pursued their work with vigor and with clarity. Their manuscripts were pretty reliable and accurate. Later findings have shown some differences in the texts at different places. These have led to some changes in translations. That is why the New King James Bible is considered to be a much better translation because it has brought in this new scholarship but still retains some of the beauty and majesty of the King James and the reading of it' is similar. Therefore, a person with a New King James version can be reading in their King James version and still follow the reading. The New King James is a good translation for those who like a literal translation in keeping with the King James history..

I have found over my lifetime that both the RSV and the Revised American Standard version are excellent for study. Does this make them any better? Not necessarily. A friend of mine who teaches in the seminary says that had the RSV translators done as good a job of scholarship as the King James people had done, the RSV would be far and away the greatest translation. Now that doesn't mean that the RSV does not have some things that are better, it only means that had the quality been as high as in 1611, it would have been a meteoric type of translation.

Putting it all in perspective, the New Testament in the King James is an excellent translation. The RSV is probably better in the Old Testament. The NIV is probably a good choice for a person who doesn't want a paraphrase but would like something a little bit more free in translation but a literal translation. Remember. The NIV makes judgments which change the outcome sometimes.

Many serious Bible students use Greek and Hebrew texts and various translations. They compare as they study. If you really want to be serious about your Bible study, that is the best method.

I would like to leave you with this thought. The Iliad and the Odyssey by Homer has been adjudged by the secular world to be one of the most proven books from the standpoint of textual accuracy down through the years. But even the Iliad and the Odyssey doesn't come nearly as close to accuracy and preserved text as does the Old and New Testament. The Iliad and the Odyssey is somewhere around 80% remembering that it was written somewhere around 1000 B.C. We have a 98+% accuracy of our text the Old Testament and almost 100% in the New Testament. There are no differences that affect the doctrine of the Bible. 

CONCLUSION

It is difficult to recommend one particular version. Certainly the pastor is in no position to require any type of translation. I can only set the example. I generally use the NIV in the pulpit because so many people now use it and it is written at the 8^th grade level. Most understand its language. For my own personal study, I augment  with other versions.

Remember when you are studying the Scriptures with others, such as in a small group as we have in Sunday school or our small group studies, it's difficult to follow when some are in a Living Bible or paraphrase. It might be well in such cases if people were to use more literal translations that are easier to follow as one is reading. For instance, the New American Standard Version, the Revised Standard Version, the King James, and the New King James are more interchangeable than the other versions we have discussed. 

David T. Hottel