WHY AREN'T ALL ENGLISH BIBLE TRANSLATIONS THE SAME?

That is probably a question that has confused anyone who has compared how his own Bible has rendered a particular passage with the reading of the same passage by someone in the pulpit. The immediate question is, “Which one is correct?” Of course that wasn't a problem when I was growing up in church. Way back then, any translation other than the King James Version was automatically looked on with great suspicion. The short discussion below explains a few of the factors which give rise to the many diverse renderings in English one will encounter nowadays.

Textual Considerations

I have discussed these in great detail in earlier postings (see “Introduction to Textual Criticism”). But here is a quick overview. Most Christians do not realize that the many early Greek and Hebrew manuscripts of the whole Bible or portions of it do not all agree in their wording 100%. So that gives rise to two basic approaches, using the New Testament as an example:

The majority text approach, used in the formulation of the King James Bible, simply tabulated the readings found in the thousands of handwritten manuscripts available at the time and went with the readings that appeared the most number of times.

By contrast, almost all subsequent NT translations other than the NKJV attach much greater weight to the earliest manuscripts since it is well known that errors in copying, either purposeful or accidental, tend accumulate with repeated re-copying over time.

Audience

Depending upon the intended audience for a translation, it may be geared toward, for example, those with only a basic English vocabulary (Today's English Version), those whose theology is basically conservative / evangelical (ESV) or much more on the liberal side (Anchor Bible), those of a specific denomination (Jerusalem Bible, Douay Translation), or designed for pulpit readings in the more liturgical churches (NEB).

Literal vs. Paraphrase

There are the more strictly word-for-word renderings such as NASB on one end of the spectrum, those such as NIV which are slightly paraphrased for more easy reading for a modern audience, and on the other extreme are the various English paraphrases such as J.B. Phillips, The Message, and The Living Bible in which the thought of a verse is presented but not the exact wording as in the original. However, sometimes what one gains in comprehension by a paraphrase is offset by the particular slant the translators may wish to impose on the text (either in a liberal or conservative direction or perhaps to emphasize or de-emphasize a particular doctrinal point).

First-Hand vs. Second-Hand Translations

In the first category would be fresh translations such NIV or NEB which begin directly with the Greek or Hebrew text and translate it into English. By contrast, renderings such as NAB begin with the KJV and change the wording only enough to modernize the language in order to make it more understandable to a modern audience. Another set of examples of English translations would be the RSV and NRSV which start with the familiar KJV wording but correct it considerably, not only to bring it up to date, but also to utilize more recent scholarship which has shed new light on areas such as the range of meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek vocabulary as well as recent finds in the area of Middle Eastern history and culture.

The Jerusalem Bible, designed for a Roman Catholic readership, is another interesting example of a second-hand translation in that it began as a French translation which was in turn translated into English.

Additional Translation Options

As one examines the various Bible editions out today, another thing becomes clear. They often vary considerably in their basic formats or layouts, and this affects how translations are carried out. To clarify: If one has a Bible which contains only the translated text, with no accompanying study helps, it becomes necessary to convey as much information as possible in the text itself. And, unfortunately, that is rarely done adequately, often leaving the reader in the dark regarding certain confusing statements which he or she might come across as well as at the mercy, for better or worse, of a pastor, Sunday school teacher, or written commentary for further enlightenment.

Thus, just looking at the editions of a few English translations in my own library, the following can be noted:

KJV – No accompanying notes, but there is a built-in guide as to how the names of people and places should be pronounced.

Scofield Reference Bible – This is probably the first reference Bible published in English, and thus it became highly popular in 19^th Century America. The main problems with it are: (1) It is rather dated today and (2) the running commentary is strictly from a Premillennial Dispensational viewpoint. Therefore, unless that happens to be your preferred theological stance, you will probably find yourself arguing with most of the comments made from that perspective.

Oxford Annotated RSV Bible – Each page contains footnotes containing valuable information regarding the various alternative translations of ambiguous words and a guide as to which original manuscripts were utilized to arrive at the words translated for those occasions in which there are alternative readings in the Greek or Hebrew. Finally, at the bottom of each page is a brief explanatory commentary explaining any other non-obvious details which make the text more understandable. The problem with these latter helps is that they are written by individual commentators and editors who may have their own theological axe to grind. Such comments should therefore be only tentatively accepted as “Gospel truth.”

NASB Reference Edition – This edition contains, in addition to the text itself, only a series of footnotes in the margins which are almost exclusively Bible cross-references to some of the verses on that page, as well as an occasional brief explanatory note as to the meaning of a phrase or custom.

NEB – The footnotes mainly provide alternative translations for certain words and phrases, including those places where the editors felt that the best manuscript readings were probably in error.

NIV – The basic editions limit themselves to short notes indicating alternative readings suggested in ancient translations, hidden puns present in the original language, and brief explanations of technical terms.

Oxford Annotated NRSV Bible – The end of the edition contains over 200 pages of general Bible articles, sets of maps, short concordance and topical index. Associated directly with the text itself are (1) introductions to each book of the Bible, (2) textual variants, (3) alternative translations of certain words, (4) extensive cross-references when applicable, and (5) numerous explanatory notes on almost every page. The main caution is that those writing the notes and articles in this edition tend to be a little more liberal theologically than some people are accustomed to. Thus, as with the Scofield Bible on the other end of the theological spectrum, the reader should be aware of possible biases in presentation.