How to Choose an English Translation of the Bible

Someone once attended a university level New Testament Greek class and quickly found out that it wasn’t for him. When he told his teacher about his plans to drop the course from his schedule, he added, “I’m just thankful you don’t have to know Greek and Hebrew to get to Heaven!” The teacher then quickly responded, “Well, someone had to know Greek and Hebrew for you to get to Heaven!” Though the teacher was absolutely right, the student was too (and, as someone who struggled mightily with my Hebrew classes, I’m thankful he was!). In His wisdom, God foreknew that humanity would be equipped to receive His inspired words in one language and then, through gifted individuals, translate those words into other languages.

The Bible itself seems to uphold both the process and product of translation. Luke records a time in Jesus’ life when, “as His custom was, He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and stood up to read” (Luke 4:16). Luke then records the quotation that Jesus’ read from the scroll of the prophet Isaiah (Luke 4:17–19). Jesus concluded His reading by saying, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing” (Luke 4:21). Students of language and its translation know that translation always involves making choices about which words to use and what order to put them in. Many have concluded that the reading of Isaiah here in Luke 4 reflects the type of reading found in Greek translations of the Old Testament that existed during the time of Jesus^[1] rather than a more literal translation of the Hebrew text.^[2] If these individuals are right, either Jesus read from or Luke quotes from a translation rather than the Hebrew text, and then Jesus is recorded as calling it Scripture, i.e., holy writing (Luke 4:21). This means that a good translation is not inferior to the true Bible; it is the true Bible.

Having said that, you might have noticed that for us English speakers, there are a lot of translations out there. It is one thing to say that a good translation is the true Bible, but it is another thing entirely to say that all translations are good. The Bible actually seems to disagree with that second thought. Though there are times when readers of the Greek New Testament genuinely believe that the inspired authors are quoting Old Testament passages from the Greek translations of their time, there are other times when they appear to be giving us a more literal translation of the Hebrew text itself.^[3] Again, if this is true, there are two conclusions we should draw: 1) not every translation is a good translation; 2) it is OK to be eclectic when considering the subject of translation, recognizing that there isn’t always a “one size fits all” approach.

Though it is OK, even good, to be eclectic when making use of English translations, it is also good, even wise, to have just one translation serve as your main Bible for study. How do you go about picking that Bible?

The subject of which English translation one ought to use is one that often stirs up a lot of emotion. I’ve seen denominational church signs before that proudly proclaim, “KING JAMES (1611) ONLY.” These signs trouble me in a few different ways. First, the people in these churches almost certainly do not use a 1611 edition of the King James Version (bring up a copy online and you’ll see why!). Instead, they likely use a late 18th century revision of the King James. Second, by insisting that people absolutely must use one English translation, they are creating an undue amount of reliance on a single set of uninspired translators, and in this case ones who lived over four hundred years ago! Third, they are employing a philosophy regarding Bible translation that differs from the one the Holy Spirit seems to employ. And finally, they are potentially creating barriers between modern audiences and the Word of God. As I will say later, it is perfectly OK to use the King James translation as your main Bible, but, as this sentence composed by Jack Lewis using King James vocabulary demonstrates, it almost requires learning another language:
While “King James (1611) Only” represents one extreme as relates to English translations, it is not the only one. Another extreme would see people reject the King James altogether and unwittingly adopt a modern approach to translation that is not without its problems. Yet another extreme would see people uncritically accept all translations, versions, and paraphrases as though they were the Word of God.

If you’ve gotten this far in this article, I’m going to assume you are not interested in extremes but are interested in choosing a reliable English translation. If that’s true, let me give you two things to think about: 1) the difference in source material (i.e., what to translate) and 2) the different philosophies regarding translation (i.e., how to translate).

A discussion about source material is necessary when you think about translation because we do not have the original, hand-written copies of the text penned by Biblical authors. Instead, in the case of the New Testament, we have literally thousands of copies in whole or part of the New Testament as well as a large number of ancient translations. In the case of the Old Testament, though the manuscript evidence isn’t as numerous and varied, we still have the Masoretic Text (our oldest complete witness to the Hebrew text), the Dead Sea Scrolls (containing portions of the Old Testament), and then a number of ancient translations to consider (including the Greek translations New Testament authors themselves appear to have used).

Usually, when people talk about source material, they are talking more about the New Testament than the Old (though the approach one has regarding source material does have implications for how one translates the Old). And, as relates to New Testament source material, since there are literally thousands of copies in whole or in part of the Greek text (let alone the many ancient translations!) and since these copies do sometimes feature minor variations, some compilation and culling is necessary to form something that can serve as the basis of a translation. The fruit of a compilation and culling effort in this case is an edited edition of the Greek text. Without wading too deep in the water here, there are basically three kinds of edited editions of the Greek text used for translation:
 

• Textus Receptus – A small family of Greek manuscripts passed down in the western world form the foundation of this text. The KJV’s translators worked out of an edition of this text, and the NKJV’s translation committee prioritized a later edition of it when making their translation
• Critical Text – Beginning with Westcott and Hort (two scholars from Britain and Ireland respectively), an effort was made to produce a Greek text that included Greek manuscripts preserved outside of the western world. After they produced their edited text, two other scholars (Nestle and Aland) and one society (the United Bible Society) carried forward their work. To create a critical text, priority is typically given to the older, to the shorter, and then to the more common readings found among Greek manuscripts. Most English translations besides the KJV and NKJV prioritize a critical text edition of the Greek text. 
• Majority Text – Recognizing the danger in simply adopting the older and shorter readings, some scholars began to work to create an edited text that honored what was found in the majority of Greek manuscripts. No major English translation relies on a Majority Text edition of the Greek text, but some Bibles will reference a majority text reading in the margin.^[4] 

There are strengths and weaknesses behind each of the methods employed to form these texts. For example, there are times when the textus receptus almost certainly records something not in the original Greek text, such as the record found in John 5:3 of the angel that stirred the water, allowing the quickest person to the pool to get healed. However, there are other times when a critical text is likely wrong, such as the tendency to reduce to a footnote or bracket the longer ending of Mark. They do this because a couple of older Greek manuscripts don’t have this longer ending, but without this ending, Mark ends with the ominous words, “And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid” (Mark 16:8). That doesn’t sound like good news, does it?

Though I believe its helpful to know all of this (people regularly share “missing verses” articles online that stem from this reality), I wouldn’t advise picking an English translation based on the translators’ preference for the Textus Receptus or a Critical Text. At the end of the day, the Textus Receptus and the various Critical Text editions of the Greek text differ remarkably little from each other and in no ways that are eternally significant.^[5] Instead, I would pay close attention to how a translations’ creators answered the “how” question of translation.

The various “how’s” of translation can be thought of as a spectrum. On one end, there is word-for-word translation. Word-for-word represents an attempt to form as close of a bridge as possible between a word in one language and a corresponding word in another; translation happens at the word level. Thought-for thought translation exists in the middle of the spectrum; it represents an attempt to find a “dynamic equivalent” (a phrase translating committees sometimes use) between a thought in one language and a thought in another. On the far opposite side of the spectrum from word-for-word is paraphrase, a method of translation (if it actually is a translation^[6]) that involves just getting across the gist of what’s being said without careful attention to intended words or thoughts.

I sometimes illustrate this through a greeting I often heard when I lived in Singapore from those with a Chinese background: “Have you eaten?” This greeting is a translation of a Chinese greeting. If the greeting were rendered in a truly word for word fashion, it would be, “eat full already?” This is the kind of translation you would find in an interlinear version of the Bible. Even though it is “word for word” in the truest sense, no major translation reads like this. “Have you eaten?” honors the differences in grammar and syntax between Chinese and English.

When my wife and I were first asked, “Have you eaten?”, it confused us. Did people really want to know about our last meal when they first saw us? It became clear after some time that this was actually just a greeting, the dynamic equivalent of which would be, “How are you doing?” in American English. The rationale of the Chinese greeting as I understand it goes something like this: if you have eaten, you are doing well!

When I responded to, “Have you eaten?”, with a rundown of what I had in fact eaten that day, it typically confused people in return. We sometimes experience something similar in the United States when we ask, “How are you doing?”, and we get a detailed rundown of a person’s physical, emotional, and spiritual health. If I were to paraphrase both greetings in American English, both greetings are really only meant to say, “Hey,” or “Hello.” It’s just a way of acknowledging someone.

Having said all of this, you might think to yourself, “Well, I guess a paraphrase is what I really want in an English Bible, or at least a thought-for-thought translation.” I would really caution against drawing that conclusion though, especially as relates to God’s word. The problem with both thought-for-thought and paraphrase translations is that they really depend on the translator getting the initial message right. Sometimes, translations definitely do not do so! Further, there are times when “How are you doing?” really is a question asking how one is doing, and there are other times when something foreign sounding to our ears really is what the speaker or writer in his context meant to say. While thought-for-thought translations sometimes make good reference tools and paraphrases sometimes express things in a very pithy way, diligent Bible students should try if it all possible to utilize a word-for-word translation. Word-for-word translations force you to see Biblical texts through the eyes of their first audiences, an absolutely vital step in properly understanding them. It is better to pursue understanding as we are each commanded (Ephesians 5:17) than to be totally reliant upon someone else’s understanding.

So, knowing all of that, how should I choose an English Bible? Here are a few things to think about in closing:

• There is wisdom in selecting a commonly used translation, particularly when we are attempting to read Scripture publicly or to study the Bible with others.
• Of the commonly used translations, there are five primary “word-for-word” translations that I recommend: two archaic ones (King James Version [KJV] and American Standard Version [ASV]) and three modern ones (New King James Version [NKJV], English Standard Version [ESV], New American Standard Version [NASB]).^[7] Each of these translations has their strengths and weaknesses. I make no secret of personally using the NKJV, but I value the contributions of each of these Bibles.
• It is wise when picking a Bible to spend some time with it. You can do this through an app, website, church library, or a Christian brother or sister (many mature Christians have multiple copies of their preferred Bible). Once you find a Bible that you understand well, get a paper copy and use it. It is much harder to learn the Bible when you are bouncing around on different translations on an app or website.
• When you pick your Bible, keep in mind the Greek text its based upon and the strengths and weaknesses of that text’s approach. Don’t get embroiled in the “best Bible” debate on the basis of inclusions or exclusions. Instead, study each situation of major textual difference openly and honestly, remembering that no major point of doctrine hinges on these differences (e.g., even in the case of Mark 16:9-20, all of the truths contained in it can be found elsewhere).
• Don’t be afraid to check other translations as you study, especially thought-for-thought ones. As a parent, I have truly enjoyed making use of the International Children’s Bible with my kids and have been very pleased with how it renders most passages. There are likewise some good renderings in the CSB, NIV, and even Bibles more in the realm of paraphrases. While I would not make these my main study Bible for reasons previously discussed, I have found some gems of translation simply by having a look.

 
May God bless you as you pick and ultimately study an English translation!

-Patrick Swayne  
patrick@tftw.org

_{[1] These translations are often described by the blanket term “Septuagint” (often written shorthand as LXX). The original Septuagint was the product of an effort undertaken over 300 years before Jesus to translate the Law of Moses (Genesis-Deuteronomy) from Hebrew to Greek. In the years between that effort and the life of Jesus, the entirety of the Old Testament was translated and compiled.  
[2] Whenever the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, scholars compare its quote with both the Septuagint and the Hebrew text. The Septuagint’s translators sometimes appear to have made interpretive choices with various Hebrew phrases that differ from the Hebrew text, so when the New Testament mirrors the Septuagint, it appears that the Holy Spirit both quoted from the Septuagint and upheld the translation choice that was made. An example of this might be 1 Peter 4:18 (Compare it with Proverbs 11:31 which most versions translate from the Hebrew text and also with that same passage in the Septuagint [English translations of which can be found on the internet]).  
[3] An example of this might be 1 Peter 4:8.
[4] If you are a New King James Version reader, “N” in the margin refers to “Nestle-Aland,” “U” refers to “United Bible Society,” and “M” refers to the “Majority Text.” You’ll often see “NU” because the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Society editions often read the same way.
[5] Too much is made sometimes of variations between Greek manuscripts. Most variations are totally inconsequential (word order, word spelling, whether a name in one of Paul’s closing salutations is masculine or feminine, etc.). While there are a few more substantial differences in the many copies of the Bible, no major point of New Testament doctrine hinges on a disputed reading. For example, even if Luke didn’t record the Ethiopian’s confession as some copies of Acts 8:37 read, the realities considered in that confession are all recorded elsewhere.
[6] Some paraphrases are actually based on another English text rather than a Greek or Hebrew text.
[7] The NASB has several editions that differ substantially from others in a few places. Many Bible students that I know prefer the 1995 edition, which was updated and rebranded as the LSB (Legacy Standard Bible).}