Translations and versions¶
You will probably be aware that the Bible exists in a large number of different translations. You'll find a bewildering range of versions, whether you're looking for a printed Bible or reading it online. There are also some bitter arguments between devotees of one or another version. Which one should you choose? By the way, you may notice that I'll probably use the terms 'translation' and 'version' inter-changeably. I'm not sure if there's supposed to be a difference, but I don't find there is one, at least not applied consistently. I do distinguish between the translation/version and the 'edition', which covers format and extra material like notes, essays or maps. A publisher may offer a large study edition as well as a more compact reading edition of the same 'version', i.e. the same translated text of the Bible.
Manuscripts¶
Before even thinking about translations we must first consider the question of the 'original'. A translation expresses in a 'target' language something written in a 'source' language, thereby pre-supposing a model text which is to be the subject of translation. However, calling this an original would imply a certain definiteness about its origin that we do not have. At some time there was original text that somebody composed which wasn't copied or translated from someone else's manuscript. There were authors. Unfortunately, we do not possess these 'autographs', as they are known. Sometimes a writer may have copied a previous manuscript and added newly composed text to it, resulting in a work that is the work of more than one author. Or been someone who has joined a sequence of fragments together, perhaps providing linking passages and making alterations. There were editors and censors, people who modified or abridged, or expanded by adding explanations. We can only speculate about most of these early stages.
However, what we do have are many hundreds of individual manuscripts from different sources that textual scholars use to determine what was the likely form of the text, as far back to the final autographs as they can reconstruct. This process is needed for every ancient work of literature. Those who study Roman or Greek authors, where often there are only a very small number of surviving manuscripts, look with envy on the amount of evidence that Biblical scholars have to work with. In addition to Christian complete Bibles from the 4th century there are fragments, and in some cases complete books, dating back a few centuries before that. In the modern era, critical editions have been produced comparing these 'witnesses' in minute detail. There is now a high degree of consensus about most of the source text.
Languages¶
The Bible, of course, was not written in English. Almost all of the Old Testament was originally in ancient Hebrew and the New Testament in ancient Greek (there are some minor exceptions to these statements, but we needn't worry about that for now). There's nothing new about translating it into other languages. Even by the last few centuries BCE there were already several translations of the Hebrew scriptures into Greek, because there were large Jewish communities in Greek-speaking cities like Alexandria (Greek was a widespread common language around the eastern Mediterranean).
The Bible’s Hebrew has been manipulated by generations of scribes; the recording of its consonants occurred much earlier than its vowels, resulting in a composite language that barely approximates how it originally sounded.
Jack M. Sasson, Comparative Observations on the Near Eastern Epic Traditions, in Foley (ed.) Companion to Ancient Epic (Blackwell, 2005), p. 215
Not one of the scripts used before the first millennium CE conveys accurately what was heard. Many of them give us consonants (not a complete set of phonemes at that) but not vowels — for example Egyptian, Ugaritic, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Phoenician. ... We know from the history of biblical interpretation that the limitations of such scripts generated interpretive problems in antiquity; the more so for us. Ugaritic narratives, for example, are not for the faint, and determining what they say is more of a scholarly convention than is admitted. Sumerian is still difficult to assess and there are almost as many grammars for it as there are Sumerologists. Akkadian and Hittite adapted the scripts of other languages; but in doing so they lost a capacity to fully deploy it phonologically.
ibid p. 217
In English, translation work goes as far back as Bede (8th century) and King Alfred (9th century), who were responsible for partial translations into Old English. French and German versions were available from the later 13th century. In the 14th century, a full translation into Middle English was made, associated with (although not necessarily the personal work of) the reformer John Wyclif. This was one among several late medieval translations used by heterodox movements, Hussites, Lollards, Waldensians and others, who wished to interpret the written word in their own manner, and in the languages spoken by the ordinary people whom they reached with their preaching. The Roman Church condemned these movements and adopted policies of oppression, in conjunction with civil authorities who found that the devout mobs could also take on the aspect of popular revolt.
The problem for the Church was not a matter of the translation as such, but the threat to political and social control which these 'heretic' movements represented. Eventually, one century's heretics gave way to another's Protestants, and the tides became too strong to maintain the unity of the western Church. For several centuries, the question of whether to permit open discussion of the Bible text and its meaning in vernacular tongues had been a weapon in a broader struggle about Church authority and doctrine. Most fundamentally, the authority to say what doctrine should be.
The irony of the Roman stance was that its own version, the Latin Vulgate, was itself a translation, part of the great effort in the early Christian centuries which quickly saw versions in all sorts of languages, including Aramaic, Ge'ez, Gothic, Slavonic and many more. With the Reformation and the age of printing in Europe, everything changed. Martin Luther's German version (NT 1522, OT 1534) was very influential, as was the work of William Tyndale (NT 1525). This translation was condemned by the English authorities and all copies were seized to be burned, so thoroughly that there are only three copies that survive. Tyndale was executed, not for translating the Bible, but for unwisely publishing a pamphlet opposing Henry VIII's divorce from Catherine of Aragon. The story of the English Bible continued with Myles Coverdale, who built on Tyndale's interrupted project to produce a complete edition in 1535. He published it first on the continent, but the rupture with Rome meant that Henry was now disposed to favour an English translation rather than prevent one. In 1537 the Coverdale Bible was printed in England under royal licence.
The Tyndale/Coverdale Bible was the basis for several more official versions in English through the 16th century, culminating early in the 17th with the famous King James version (KJV), which became known as the Authorised version (AV), It was far from the only English version available in its day, one of the main alternatives being the Geneva Bible favoured by many Puritans.
The Revised Version¶
Thus by the 17th century, various printed translations were being used in all the main languages of Europe (and elsewhere). Some, such as the KJV, were so much the standard in their particular cultural milieu that they became familiar as the Bible everybody grew up with. Three factors created pressure for revision. First, discoveries had been made throughout the 18th and 19th centuries of more early manuscripts of the Bible than were known when the Reformers carried out their work. Second, continued study of the text and scholarship in ancient languages had shown up many errors or mis-interpretations by the translators. Third, the forces of language change simply made the older version sound more and more archaic. By the late nineteenth century nobody would have said, as King David does in the KJV, "go not forth thence any whither" (1 Kings 2:36).
The Revised Version (NT 1881, OT 1885) was commissioned by the Church of England to address all these issues at once. However, it did not satisfy everybody. Some were concerned that doctrinal changes were introduced, reflecting the perceived liberal bias of those in charge. However, for some of those who preferred the KJV, it did seem sensible to update grammar and spelling, get rid of 'thou' and all that. In other words, address some of the factors in the revisers' list but not others. Thus today there is a stream of KJV-alike translations which address certain minor issues but base themselves firmly on the KJV as handed down. Equally, there is another family of translations which are in the line of revision started by the RV.
Mention should also be made of the Jewish Publication Society (JPS) translations into English, which went through many printings in the early 20th century, originally based on the RV (?). I'm aware of the 1917 version being available online (scanned), and a project to make more of this resource. See below regarding the newer JPS translation.
Versions for the read-through¶
As we read-through, I will be quoting consistently from the World English Bible (WEB), which is public domain. In particular I'm reading the WEB Classic, the name-of-god version, so that Yahweh and other names of God are printed in the text instead of made into Lord or whatever. Every so often I'll be quoting for comparison from other translations. I'll always indicate when I do this. So the WEB is the reference translation for the read-through.
Alongside the WEB, I'll be looking at some of the translations I'm familiar with, like NASB, NIV, ESV, NJB, plus trying to broaden my diet to include BSB, CSB, NJPS and Robert Alter.
See versions.md for some general comments and notes on earlier translations
What version should readers use?¶
It depends what your preferences are. You could follow in the WEB Classic, in which case the lines I quote in the guide articles should match what you are reading. But you could equally well not do this, if you're reading in any reasonably accurate modern translation. If you like a bit of the old-style language, you could read the Revised Version (RV, or ERV as it is sometimes shown), on which the WEB is based. There are also many options among modern translations, but I haven't undertaken a broad survey. I know the ones I've used for any length of time, but am certainly unfamiliar with very many more. I don't know why there have to be so many.
There is to some extent, a balance between readability and accuracy. The translations I've named above are mostly what you would think of as more 'literal' in their approach. There is a whole class of other translations, some of the leading ones being the GNB, CEV and NLT, which aim to make the text more readable, even at the expense of changing idioms into modern terms and expanding beyond what is written in the sentences, some of which are open to multiple readings. The issue with this is that they often flatten the ambiguities which are such a big part of the original. You're not sure if some choice of word, or turn of phrase, is the insertion of the modern writer, or if it reflects what is in the source text. But they can gain in readability, and are usually billed as "easier to read" or "designed to be read as literature". This approach has its merits, especially where the narrative is coherently story-like.
The degrees of literalness are captured using the idea of 'equivalence'. A translation aiming for 'formal equivalence' is the most literal, while other translations aim instead at other labels like 'dynamic equivalence' or 'functional equivalence'. These labels express degrees of compromise on literal word-level conversion, with the aim of expressing an equivalent thought or effect for a whole sentence. The NIV and NJB offer dynamic equivalence, while the more recent CSB describes itself as 'optimal equivalence', I notice. Generally I like to read those in the more medium camp, like the NJB, but check any doubtful points with the BSB, look at the source text and consult references.
So, you can follow along in your own chosen translation. I would recommend any of the ones I've said I'll also be consulting mentioned above, or any other mainstream translation into modern English. Generally I would recommend against selecting either (1) the KJV (or its successors like NKJV) or (2) any that increase readability by adding and paraphrasing, as your main reading Bible. By all means consult any that are of interest, but choose a solid daily read, whether on the more formal or dynamic equivalence end of the spectrum.
Modern Translations¶
There's a huge number of translations now, and although I've read the Bible a lot, and in different versions, I'm not in a position to assess the ups and downs of every one. I'll just explain some more about some of the main 20th century translations before (below) saying something about the main versions I work with or are familiar with, and what I think about them.
As far as I can see, the KJV is connected with the NKJV and then other similar modern projects which allow certain types of updating. They are a smaller 'fork' from the Reviser Tradition, which allows successive revision especially according to textual scholarship. The RV then led to the ASB, NRSV, to some extent the ESV, and the NASB although this did try to break away from being a slavish revision, addressing the text closely. Also in this group is the WEB, which is updated for language but follows the RV. There are various other versions which fall within one of the two lineages of descent from the KJV and from the RV.
However, many further translations were made through the course of the twentieth century and continue today that aim to be fresh ways to express the words of the ancient text in modern language. Again, I can only touch the surface. There are whole books on this topic, in fact the basis of what I'm saying here comes from the very useful Hugh Dunton, Bible Versions (1998). Some of the most influential new translations have been the ecumenical NIV in the 1970s, which besides its use as a standard Bible by many churches has been familiar for decades as the Gideons Bible, the new JPS Tanakh in English (1985) and finally the Holman CSB as an initiative of the Southern Baptist Convention.
In the internet age, the Berean Standard Bible (BSB) has made enormous strides. This is the default translation you get when you visit BibleHub, one of the most popular online bible portals. From there you can select many other versions, including most of those I'll be mentioning here. It seems to me that the BSB rests heavily on the NASB, which would make sense as that was previously regarded by many scholars as the most accurate in general. So maybe the BSB should be the new standard.
Bibles I use¶
I read online and generally will read passages in the BSB, or I might choose NIV, NASB, sometimes ESV, KJV. Increasingly I intend to include the CSB some more. I also use the NJPS on sefaria.org, and I consult the WEB in its own site (although it is available on BibleHub).
In print I possess the following, in order most used first, descending to less used versions or portions (some of these are not whole Bibles): ESV 200x, complete Bible hand-held hardback NIV 1981 Gideon, complete Bible hand-held hardback NJB 198x Jerusalem Bible, study edition, with extensive footnotes and prefatory essays RV fine-paged old Bible with small type, this specimen probably 1930s KJV fine-paged falling apart old Bible, but it has great marginal cross-refs and notes Strong's Concordance to the KJV
NT only Funk/Jesus Seminar, Scholars Version (gospels) E.V.Rieu, Penguin tr Gospels and Acts MIMEP Paul in the Acts of the Apostles
Translations¶
The next major point you have be aware of is that of translation. The Bible was written a long time ago in ancient languages (Hebrew and Greek), and you will presumably be reading it in a modern translation. There are very many modern translations available, so many that you may find the choice bewildering. I would advise you not to be too worried about it. There are certainly some people who have very definite views about which one is best (and I've got my own preferences too!) but the differences in most cases are relatively inconsequential.
My main advice is to use a translation into modern English, and not one which uses old-fashioned language. There's no need to be reading it in antiquated English in the twenty-first century. Language has moved on, and so have textual scholarship and translation studies. Any of the standard and best-selling versions used by major denominations are good. The quotations on this site will be from the World English Bible (WEB) for reasons explained here (int LINK), but I will also be referring to other translations from time to time when it becomes relevant.
You can and should use any translation which you feel comfortable with. Read the Bible you've got. However, if you are choosing, you might also take into account how literal the translation is. Some versions aim to paraphrase or adapt the text, usually bearing a description such as "easier to read" or "designed to be read as literature". Such an approach may have its merits, but if we're trying to get a proper understanding of the original it might not be so helpful. I go into this in more detail in my explanation about Bible versions (int LINK), where I recommend a few particular versions. If you're reading it online, it is nowadays very easy to select many different translations and compare them if you want. Or you might be happy just sticking with one.