Bible Versions: What is the Best Bible Translation? by David Malcolm Bennett

Pneuma Review Spring 2013
So which is the best Bible translation? Well, we may never know in this life, though we will all have our preferences. But we are fortunate in having some very good ones. Make sure you regularly read at least one of them and encourage others to do so.

 

My Journey with the Bible

Like most of my generation (I was born in 1942), I was brought up on the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible. Its language, I thought, was old fashioned and at times difficult to understand. However, it was dealing with ancient times, so this did not seem inappropriate.

I began to take the Bible seriously in my late-teens and the archaic language became more of a problem. I was not yet a Christian, but I had a very strong suspicion that the Bible was, indeed, the word of God, and I desperately wanted to understand it. However, much of it I found impossible to understand. The Gospels I could generally grasp, and some of the historical parts of the Old Testament, but the OT prophets and the New Testament letters were for the most part a mystery to me. While this was, no doubt, because I lacked at that time the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the main reason was that I just did not understand King James English.

Early in 1961 I went to work for a Christian publisher in London that also ran a small Christian bookshop. That March the New Testament of the New English Bible (NEB) was published and we sold more than a thousand copies in a day. The NEB was the first completely new English translation by a committee since the KJV¹ and it was not without its flaws. Yet it was in good, modern English.

I bought one of the thousand and began to read it from the beginning of Matthew. It proved a blessing to me in that I understood the language, but at another level I still did not understand its message. It was when I launched out into Paul’s Letter to the Romans that things changed (I was converted at about this time, but the precise order of events I cannot remember). Suddenly, in that most difficult of books, the words seemed to leap from that page and I understood very well what they meant about sin, salvation and the Lord of that salvation. Suddenly, I found the Bible exciting and challenging.

It is, perhaps, ironic that as time progressed I became dissatisfied with the NEB. I became aware that it showed signs of liberal bias in its translation, which was a bit disturbing. Perhaps the most unfortunate example of this was in 2 Tim. 3:16, the first part of which read, “Every inspired scripture has its use for teaching the truth …” Thus this translation implied that some scriptures were not inspired, or at least might not be. The Revised Standard Version (RSV) by contrast, says, “All scripture is inspired by God”, which, all other translations I have consulted, though the precise wording may vary, make the same point: all Scripture is God-inspired, not just some of it.

I then went over to the RSV, which has also been the subject of charges of liberal influence. However, generally I found it acceptable. The RSV, though, has a none-too-successful compromise on the use of ancient pronouns (thee, thou, thy), as, in fact, does the NEB. For the most part it uses the modern forms (you, your and yours), but when someone is addressing God the old forms are suddenly introduced. A good example of this is Matt.6:8-9, which in the introduction to the Lord’s Prayer says, “before you ask” God (this was “before ye ask” in the KJV), but the prayer itself begins “Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name”, which is almost the same as the KJV.

As part of my journey I also worked in the Bible Society Bookshop in Brisbane, Australia, for over twelve years. This exposed me to a host of different Bible translations and a wonderful variety of customers with all sorts of views on the subject.

The King James-Only Debate

Many people brought up on the KJV have been happy to let it go, as I did. That does not necessarily mean that any of them respect it less. The primarily reason for letting the KJV go is that language has changed so dramatically in the past four hundred years that in many places it is very hard to understand and, worse, easy to misunderstand. Many of us have therefore adopted more recent translations, written in modern English.

However, there are many others who refuse to let the KJV go. To most of these people the KJV is the only translation. I have dealt with the King James-Only debate in the earlier article that appeared in the Winter 2013 issue of The Pneuma Review, and those wishing to follow this matter are referred to that. This article will deal with translations that have appeared since the Second World War.

Different Methods of Translation

As necessary background to the various versions, we first need to examine the different methods of translation. There are two main approaches to translating the Bible: “formal equivalence” and “dynamic equivalence”, though these are not generally used exclusively. In its most extreme form the formal method translates very literally, attempting to translate each word accurately. The dynamic method does pay attention to the individual words but is more interested in the question what is this sentence or passage saying? It is more concerned with the translation of a whole portion, than it is about individual words. This means that the formal approach tends to give a generally literal, sometimes rather wooden, translation, while the dynamic method results in a less literal, though livelier version.

In reality no major English translation is totally formal or literal in its approach. Much of it would be unreadable if it was. Probably the New American Standard (NASB) is the most literal of the popular versions. Nor are any genuine translations totally dynamic. The Good News Bible (GNB) and the Contemporary English Version (CEV) are the best examples of the dynamic approach. Paraphrases such as the Living Bible and The Message are more extremely dynamic, and, frankly, are only to be used with great caution.

Translators generally use a mixture of the formal and dynamic methods. They note the specific words and try to understand them individually, but words appear in sentences, in contexts, and must be understood by the words, sentences and ideas that surround them. Sometimes a literal approach does not translate into good English, so a more dynamic approach is called for. Some translators lean towards one method, while others lean towards the other. Translators may favor the method that they consider best for a particular verse or passage.²

What is the Best Bible Translation?

Is there a “Best Bible Translation” in English? Well, yes, I am sure there is, but I suspect that the only one who knows its identity is God Himself. Fortunately, there are a number of quality English translations, for which we should be grateful. One of these may be best for one person, while a different version may be better for someone else.

For example, the Good News Bible (GNB) or, better, the Contemporary English Version (CEV) may be the best translation for those whose English is poor or whose understanding is limited, perhaps people with English as a second language or the poorly educated. In fact, the GNB was originally intended for those who had English as a second language. But for those with a better command of English and who have been fortunate to have had a reasonable education there are better options than the GNB and the CEV. These include the NIV, the English Standard Version (ESV) and the RSV.

The main criteria for determining the “best” or even a “good” version are the accuracy of translation and the readability and understandability of the final form. A translation must be accurate, but this does not mean it must be literal. A highly literal translation of any passage can quite easily miss the real meaning. The “best” translation also needs to be easily read and understood by the people it is intended for.

The New International Version

My favorite is the NIV. It has been my main translation for about thirty years. This version has been translated by a team of evangelical scholars from a host of different denominations, including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Church of Christ, Lutheran, Methodist and Presbyterian. This cooperative effort goes a long way to eliminating doctrinal bias. These scholars also come from different English-speaking countries, such as America, Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand.

The result is a good translation which, in my opinion, blends the formal and the dynamic methods quite beautifully. This means the words often bounce off the page, but it is rarely fanciful in its translations. It is also generally fair to the Hebrew and Greek texts (as far as I understand them), from which they are translated. It is easy to read and understand, and a pleasure to read.

When it comes to considering translations of specific verses in the NIV, my favorite is 2 Tim. 3:16. It begins: “All scripture is God-breathed”. “God-breathed!” That is a literal translation of the Greek. Strict literal translations don’t usually work. They often sound rigid and unnatural. However, this one works beautifully and expresses the meaning perfectly. Most other translations of this verse use the word “inspired”, which is fair enough, but it leaves open the question what do you mean by “inspired”? A piece of music can be inspired. A sporting idol might be inspired when they play a brilliant game. But that word in this context means more than that. While a dictation concept of the writing of Scripture is flawed, in breathing out the Scriptures through His human messengers God has still given us His word in a form that is totally trustworthy and dependable. It is, indeed, God-breathed, and for that matter, a breath of fresh air.

Another of my specific favorites is Is. 26:12. The second part of which reads, “all that we have accomplished you have done for us.” Did you get that? “All that we have accomplished you have done for us.” I remember reading through Isaiah in my morning devotions one day many years ago and this verse struck me like a lightning bolt.

All that I do in the service of God I can only do because His Spirit works in me. It is an echo, if one can put it that way, of Phil. 2:12-13, which reads, “work out your salvation in fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you to will and to act according to his good purpose.” In other words, “all that we have accomplished” in God’s service His Spirit has “done for us” and in us.

Most of the other translations of Is. 26:12 are weak by comparison. Hear them: “thou has wrought for us all our works” (RSV); “Thou hast performed for us all our works” (NASB); “you have done for us all our works” (ESV); “all our works are thy doing” (NEB); “everything that we achieve is the result of what you do” (GNB). They say the same thing, but they don’t say it as well. However, the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is very close to the NIV. Interestingly, the CEV translates this as “everything we have done was by your power”, which is a good example of the dynamic approach in action.

The NIV’s rendering of the hymn of love in 1 Cor. 13 is accurate, clear and has excellent rhythm. It helps you to fall in love with such agape love. Listen to just part of it:

⁴Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. ⁵It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. ⁶Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. ⁷It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

⁸Love never fails.

That is very moving. It also avoids the trap of saying “believes all things” (v.7 see KJV and RSV). Are we really meant to believe “all things”? It says, instead, “always trusts”, which is a perfectly legitimate, and probably accurate, translation of the Greek. F.W. Grosheide sees the concept of trust in the Greek word pisteuei here. In addition, he says, “When we love somebody we trust him fully”.³ Gordon Fee also argues that Paul means here “love never ceases to have faith.”⁴ In other words, in part at least, love “always trusts”. It is not a case of believing all you hear.

A few years ago one of the ministers at my church was preaching through the book of Nahum. This was a very courageous thing to do, for many in the pews in any church do not like to hear about God’s judgment. One Sunday during that series I was privileged to take my turn in the public reading of the Scriptures. It was Nahum chapter 3. In one sense this is a terrible chapter. It declares the judgment of God upon the city of Nineveh. If you read it and it does not disturb you, then there must be something wrong with you. But this chapter, particularly the early verses, is a marvelous passage to read out loud, especially in the NIV.

Read these verses aloud.

¹Woe to the city of blood,

full of lies,

full of plunder,

never without victims!

²The crack of whips,

the clatter of wheels,

galloping horses

and jolting chariots!

³Charging cavalry,

flashing swords

and glittering spears!

Many casualties,

piles of dead,

bodies without number,

people stumbling over the corpses –

⁴all because of the wanton lust of a harlot,

alluring, the mistress of sorceries,

who enslaved nations by her prostitution

and peoples by her witchcraft.

⁵“I am against you,” declares the Lord Almighty.

In the powerful rhythm of the words you can hear “The crack of whips, the clatter of wheels” and the sound of “galloping horses”. In fact, you gallop along with them. You can see the “Charging cavalry” and the swords and spears doing their terrible damage. You slow down as you see the mournful piles of dead. And in these words one is brought face to face with God’s judgment on sin. It is an extremely powerful translation of a deeply disturbing passage. And sometimes we need to be disturbed!

None of the other Bible versions, in my view, present this as boldly or as clearly as the NIV. The NIV races through its horrors and carries you along with it. It is very dramatic. It is most terrible.

When we become very familiar with a book, however wonderful, we tend to discover that it is not perfect (and no Bible translation is perfect, only the original manuscripts). I have read numerous books about William Booth, the Founder of The Salvation Army. In my opinion, the best of them is St John Ervine’s God’s Soldier. I could tell you three significant things that are wrong with that book because I know it so well. But I still regard it as the best ever biography of General Booth.

In a similar way, I can find fault with some specific translations in the NIV, while still regarding the whole work as splendid. For example, what the translators have done with Eph. 5:21- 6:9 is either sloppy or biased. Here it is not the translation itself that is the problem, but it is how the passage has been divided up. It begins like this:

²¹Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

[Then comes the heading] Wives and Husbands [which is followed by]

²²Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. While it is fair to link verse 21 with what has gone before, there are good textual reasons to regard the connection between verse 21 and 22 as much stronger. Therefore, it is quite wrong to place a heading between these two verses. If there is to be a heading, it should be before verse 21. Indeed, verse 21 in its own right can be fairly considered a heading for what follows. In the 2011 revision of the NIV the heading has been wisely both altered and moved. It reads “Instructions for Christian Households” and is placed before verse 21.

Another problem I have with the NIV is its omission of the word “propitiation” from Rom. 3:25; 1 Jn. 2:2 and 4:10. (That word is used in the KJV in each of those verses.) The NIV uses instead “sacrifice of atonement” and “atoning sacrifice”, which it retains in the 2011 revision. The word “expiation” is also used in some translations. While this, no doubt, is partly because most readers would not have a clue what propitiation meant, or expiation for that matter, there is also a debate about the meaning of the Greek word hilasterion and its cognates, which lie behind this English translation. Some argue that it does not mean propitiation. The English word propitiation means “to prevent or reduce the anger of”⁵ God or “The removal of wrath by the offering of a gift”.⁶ But does hilasterion mean that? The issue is very complex and this is not the place to deal with it in detail.⁷ The most famous defense of the propitiation translation was by the Anglican scholar Leon Morris.⁸ Though written a long time ago, it is still well worth reading.

Propitiation, though, is a thoroughly biblical concept,⁹ and it fits well with the contexts of the verses in which the hilasterion word group appear. In Romans it follows Paul’s detailing of the universality of sin. In 1 Jn. 2:2 it comes in the context of the advocate, Jesus Christ, speaking in our defense because He has dealt with our sin. While the context of 1 Jn. 4:10 is love, propitiation still fits well. God’s love in action deflects His judgment from those who trust in Christ.

It has to be admitted that this issue is a complex one, but I favor “propitiation”. Amongst the more recent translations that use it are the NASB and the ESV.

The NIV has its faults, but it is still a great translation. I have been greatly blessed in using it over many years.

Are there too many English Bible Translations?

Simply put, there are too many English Bible translations. But they exist and we have to weave our way through the maze. Some of these versions are without question superfluous. Others, such as revisions of existing translations, are necessary. Even the KJV had revisions. The English language is changing all the time and translations need to keep up with that. Some expressions that seem good to one generation seem unintelligible, weird or just plain wrong to a later one.

I always find the KJV’s “superfluity of naughtiness” (James 1:21) decidedly odd, even, I am embarrassed to say, a little amusing. The NIV by comparison has “the evil that is so prevalent”. It says the same thing, but in a more modern way.

Then, according to the RSV New Testament, published in the 1940s, the Apostle Paul says the stunning, “once I was stoned” (2 Cor. 11:25). It meant, of course, that people threw rocks at him to try to kill him. Back in the forties you could have the Apostle Paul saying “once I was stoned”, but today that phrase means something very different to most people. The NRSV revises it to “Once I received a stoning”, which says the same thing but eliminates the problem. Revisions are necessary because language changes.

Inclusive Language

Leading from that is the thorny issue of inclusive language. That is, language that, for example, says “brothers and sisters” instead of just “brothers”, though the issue reaches much further than that.

Bible translators must be alert to how language is changing as they go about their work. They cannot ignore it. They are translating the Scriptures to be read and understood. They must do it in the language that people use.

Over the last thirty years or so inclusive language has become common. Most of us use at least a little of it, while some try to use it exclusively. I confess that I have always found such expressions as “chairperson” rather artificial, though other aspects of inclusive language seem perfectly reasonable to me. But whatever is our opinion, the fact remains that many people are speaking and writing in this way, therefore translators need to respond to that.

The NRSV has been translated with, what I think is fair to call, an “inclusive language agenda”.¹⁰ Translating the Greek adelphoi (brothers) in Paul’s letters as “brothers and sisters” is perfectly reasonable. For the most part Paul was not just speaking to men, he was writing to all the men and women who made up the congregations that he was addressing. Other forms of it I also regard as fine.

However, this agenda runs into great difficulty when it comes to the important phrase “Son of Man”, which was our Lord’s main way of referring to Himself. While it is clear that Jesus was a man, so “Son” is necessary, when trying to translate inclusively there is an obvious difficulty over “of Man”.

The NRSV has a multi-pronged approach to this problem, which, in my judgment, is most unsatisfactory. In Ezekiel the Hebrew ben ’adam, which is frequently used of the prophet, is translated in most versions as “son of man”. In the NRSV it is translated “mortal” or “O mortal”. Then in Dan. 7:13, the Aramaic phrase translated in the NIV as “one like a son of man” the NRSV translates as “one like a human being”, with a footnote stating that the Aramaic says, “one like a son of man”. The justification for the NRSV Daniel rendering is that the Aramaic phrase “clearly means just that” (that is, “one like a human being”). Yet the figure pictured in this verse is, presumably, male, as the footnote seems to concede. What is the point in hiding it? Then in the Gospels the NRSV translates the particular Greek expression as “Son of Man”, because there the term “often functions as a title.”¹¹

In other words, what the NRSV translators have done is to translate Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek phrases, traditionally all translated “son of man” (see, for example, both KJV and NIV),¹² in three different ways. This would seem to erect an unnecessary barrier to those seeking to understand our Lord’s meaning of the phrase in the light of its Old Testament background. This approach, frankly, is rather clumsy.

Now, it would be a mistake to condemn the use of inclusive language because of this.¹³ Other translations have adopted it in, shall we say, a more moderate way. The 2011 revision of the NIV has done so with, in my opinion, better results.¹⁴ For example, “But the man who loves God is known by God” (1 Cor. 8:13) has become “But whoever loves God is known by God.” Most regular readers of the NIV would read that revision without realizing that there had been a change, and few would raise an objection to it if it was pointed out. However, this revision still uses the words “man” or “mankind” for the whole human race, as the translators argue that these terms are still commonly used in that way. It has also kept the “son of man” quotations uniform.

Inclusive language? You may like it or you may not like it, but it has become part of today’s English, and Bible translators must respond to that.

Summary

So which is the best Bible translation? Well, we may never know in this life, though we will all have our preferences. But we are fortunate in having some very good ones. Make sure you regularly read at least one of them and encourage others to do so.

PR

 

Notes

¹ The New English Bible: New Testament (London: Oxford & Cambridge, 1961), vii-x; F.F. Bruce, The English Bible (London: Methuen, 1963), 224-30.

² For those wishing to study this further see, James D. Price, Complete Equivalence in Bible Translation (Nashville: Nelson 1987), for the literal side, and Barclay Newman, et al, Creating and Crafting the Contemporary English Version: A New Approach to Bible Translation (New York: American Bible Society, 1996) for the dynamic. D.A. Carson also has a chapter on translation in The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 85-102. The United Bible Societies and Wycliffe also have a number of books on the principles of Bible translation.

³ F.W. Grossheide, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), 307.

⁴ Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (NICNT., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 640.

⁵ The World Book Dictionary (2 vols. Chicago: Doubleday, 1969), 2:1654.

⁶ L. Morris, “Propitiate, Propitiation” in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (4 vols. Geoffrey W. Bromiley [ed.], Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 3:1004.

⁷ To investigate this matter, consult the major Greek Lexicons.

⁸ Leon Morris (1955), “The Meaning of ίλαστήριον in Romans iii 25”, New Testament Studies, 2, pp 33-43, doi:10.1017/S0028688500017197. See also Leon Morris, The Apostolic Preaching of the Cross (London: Tyndale, 1955), 125-85; and L. Morris, ISBE, 3:1004-1005.

⁹ See also John R.W. Stott’s note “The biblical concept of propitiation”, The Epistles of John (TNTC., Leicester: IVP, 1987), 84-88.

¹⁰ See Bruce M. Metzger, Robert C. Dentan and Walter Harrelson, The Making of the new Revised Version of the Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 73-84. It is noteworthy that the authors of this book are described as the “Chair” and the “Vice-Chair” of the NRSV translation Committee.

¹¹ Harrelson in Metzger, Making, 76-77.

¹² This appears as either “son of man”, “Son of man” or “Son of Man”.

¹³ The inclusive language issue is, of course, much more complex than I have portrayed it. Those wishing to examine it further should consult, D.A. Carson, The Inclusive Language Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998). This is a well-balanced consideration of the subject.

¹⁴ An earlier revision of the NIV with inclusive language ran into a storm of controversy.