In 1611 the Authorized Version of the Scriptures was published by order of the English monarch, James I. It came to be known as the King James Version (KJV). This was not the first Bible to appear in English. We can trace the beginnings of the translation of the Bible into English to John Wycliffe and his followers, the Lollards, in 1380. Wycliffe, however, did not translate from Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, but from the Latin Vulgate. The first to produce an English translation from the original languages was William Tyndale. In 1525 Tyndale translated the New Testament; for this, he was burned at the stake ten years later. Other English translations would follow, including Coverdale's Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1537), The Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishop's Bible (1580). The KJV of 1611, however, has proved to be the most beautiful, long-lasting and influential.
In modern days, there has been an explosion of Bible translations. The movement began in England with the appearance of the English Revised Version in 1881 (New Testament) and 1885 (Old Testament). Its American counterpart, the American Standard Version, appeared in 1901. In 1952 a group of scholars produced the Revised Standard Version that came to be used in many mainline churches. The New Testament of the RSV was revised in 1971. Conservative, evangelical Christians were not pleased with some of the choices made by the translators of the RSV. A notorious example is the translation of Isaiah 7:14: "Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold a young woman shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." The dispute here involves the translation of the Hebrew noun almah as "young woman" rather that "virgin," which some saw as a subtle undermining of the doctrine of Jesus' Virgin Birth.
In response to what many considered inadequate translations, evangelicals responded by drafting conservative scholars to create their own modern versions of the Bible. More than an apologetic response, these new tranlations were also driven by an evangelistic desire to put the Word of God in a form that modern readers could more readily understand. I will sketch breifly below what I consider to be four of the best mdoern, evangelical translations: the NASB, NIV, the NKJV, and the ESV.
In 1971 the Lockman Foundation published the New American Standard Bible (NASB). It has since been through several updates and revisions, the most recent being in 1995. The Forward to the NASB notes that it was produced "with the conviction that the words of Scripture as originally penned in the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were inspired by God. since they are the eternal Word of God, the Holy Scriptures speak with fresh power to each generation, to give wisdom that leads to salvation, that men may serve Christ to the glory of God."
In 1978 a group of conservative scholars commissioned by the United Bible Society completed a new translation of teh Bible known as the New International Version (NIV). The Preface to the NIV notes that the translators who worked on this translation came "from many denominations - including Anglican, Assemblies of God, Baptist, Brethern, Christian Reformed, Church of Christ, Evangelical Free, Lutheran, Mennonite, Methodist, Nazarene, Presbyterian, Wesleyan and other churches" in an effort "to safegaurd the translation from sectarian bias." The Preface also notes that "the translators were united in their commitment to the authority and infallibility of the Bible as God's Word in written form." The NIV gained wide use and acceptance in evangelical circles and has become perhaps the most widely read version of the Biuble in modern times.
In 1982 the New King James Version (NKJV) was published. This translation was sponsored by the Thomas Nelson publishing company. The NKJV was an attempt to retain the best of the revered KJV (e.g, literal translation, majestic style) while also improving the translation at points where textual and linguistic ground has been gained since 1611 and updating archaic language. The NKJV Preface notes: "A special feature of the New King James is its conformity to the thought flow of the 1611 Bible. The reader discovers that the sequence and selection of words, phrases, and clauses of the new edition, while much clearer, are so close to the traditional that there is remarkable ease in listening to the reading of either edition while following the other." It too was done by a team of translators representing various evangelical denominations. The Preface notes: "In faithfulness to God and to our readers, it was deemed appropriate that all participating scholars sign a statement affirming their belief in the verbal and plenary inspiration of the Scripture, and the inerrancy of the orignal autographs."
In 2001 Good News Publishers offered the English Standard Version (ESV). The Preface to this translation notes that it comes from "the Tyndale-King James legacy...witht he 1971 RSV text providing the starting point" for its work. Likewise, it declares that the ESV translation team "share a common commitment to the truth of God's Word and to historic Christian orthodoxy."
This is far from the end of English Bible translations. In fact, LIfeway, the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention, will soon complete the Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). No doubt, there will be more faithful translations to follow. How do we distinguish the difference between these various translations?
Translation Style
What makes one translation different from another? One major difference is the translation philosophy or style that is used. There are two basic translation styles: "formal correspondence" and "dymanic equivalence."
Formal correspondence is more literal method of translation where the translator attempts to provide a "word for word" interpretation. The danger of this approach is that it sometimes yields a wooden reading. Ancient languages are different from modern languages in more than just vocabulary.
Dynamic equivalence is a less literal method of translation where the translator attempts to provide a "thought for thought" interpretation. The danger of this approach is that it allows the translator to provide an interpretation of the original author's text that goes beyond an exact conveyance of his words. The "translation" can even become more akin to the translator's commentary on the text.
It has been my growing conviction that a literal ( "formal correspondence" ) method is best. The vernerable KJV, for example, is a translation that essentially attempts "word for word" accuracy. many modern versions of the Bible (that I would not highly recommend) rely too heavily on the "dynamic equivalent" method and end up taking wide latitude with the original text. These include the New English Bible (NEB), the Today's English Version (TEV, also known as the Good News Bible), and the Contemporary English Version(CEV).
What about the four translations I recommended in the section above? Where do they stand?
The NASB is perhaps the most rigidly literal of all the recommended translations. This translation has become the favorite of many seminary students learning Hebrew and Greek, since it offers such faithful word-for-word renderings. What the translation gains in literal accuracy, however, it sometimes loses in English literary style. This is especially true of its sometimes repetitive renderings of the frequent Biblical connectives (shewa in the Hebrew Old Testament and kai in the Greek New Testament). Editorially, it also chooses to block off each verse as a distinct unit (like the KJV) rather than grouping verses in paragraph thought units. This too sometimes makes the reading less fluid. In addition, despite the general commitment to literal rendering, the NASB also sometimes adds distinct interpretation. An example of this would be the NASB's translation of Acts 21:9: "Now this man had four virgin daughters who were prophetesses." Here it chooses to translate a form of the Greek verb "to prophesy," which appears in the text, with the noun "prophetesses," which does not appear in the text. Most other translations render the phrase with a verb, "who prophesied" (cf. NIV, NKJV, ESV), rather than with a noun, "who were prophetesses."
The NIV, by and large, provides a literal rendering of the Biblical languages. However, it also takes some liberties at points to provide a "dynamic equivalent." Again the NIV Preface addresses the translation philosophy: "The first concern of the translators has been the accuracy of the translation and its fidelity to the thought of the Biblical writers. They have weighed the significance of the lexical and grammatical details of the Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. At the same time, they have striven for more than word-for-word translation. Because thought patterns and syntax differ from language to language, faithful communication of the meaning of the writers of the Bible demand frequent modification in sentence structure and constant regard for the contexutal meaning of words." Though often using a "thought for thought" method, the NIV remains of the conservative end of dynamic equivalent translations.
Since I am able to consult the Biblical languages, I most often preach and teach from my reading of the original text in consultation with the English translation(s). This is especially true of my preaching and teaching from the New Testament, since I know Greek better than I do Hebrew! As I have carefully read the NIV over the years I have found that I am sometimes in agreement witht he translation choices of the NIV and sometimes not.
Let me cite a recent example of a translation that I did not prefer in the NIV. While preaching on John 5, I was struck by the NIV's rendering of v. 29: "and come out - those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned." The NIV obscures the literal Greek text that sets up two parallel and contrasting constructions that begin with the Greek preposition eis (in or into). A super-literal rendering would be: "and they will come out, the ones having done good things into the resurrection of life [Greek: eis anastasin zoes], and the ones having practiced evil things into the resurrection of judgement [Greek: eis anastasin kriseos]." Compare what I consider to be the more accurate, literal renderings of other English versions:
KJV John 5:29: And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
NASB John 5:29: and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to the resurrection of live, those who committed the evil deeds to the resurrection of judgement.
NKJV John 5:29: and come forth - those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.
The NIV's renderings of these parallel phrases as "will rise to live" and "will rise to be condemned," though providing an equivalent, may actually obscure Jesus' teaching of the future resurrection of both believers (to life) and unbelievers (to judgement). Indeed, the NIV twice does not clearly translate an important Biblical word, resurrection (anastasis). A key theological point about the resurrection is thus obscured by the NIV translation.
The NKJV, again following the KJV, is primarily a literal translation. From its Preface we read that the NKJV "follows the historic precedent of the Authorized Version in maintaining a literal approach to translation, except where the idiom of the original language cannot be translated directly into our tongue." The translators describe their philosophy as that of "complete equivalence." The Preface notes: "This principle of complete equivalence seeks to preserve all of the information in the text, while presenting it in good literary form." It self-consciously rejects the "dynamic equivalence" method.
The ESV is also committed to a literal approach. The Preface notes: "The ESV is an 'essentially literal' translation that seeks as far as possible to capture the precise wording of the original text and the personal style of each Bible writer. A such, its emphasis is on 'word-for-word' correspondence, at the same time taking into account differences of grammar, syntax, and idiom between current literary English and the oringinal languages. Thus is seeks to be transparent ot the original text, letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original."
Text Types
In addition to translation philosophy, a second major consideration in understanding the differences among modern versions is the underlying text that is being translated into English. Again, the Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. There is some variety, however, in the texts upon which the various English translations are based.
We begin with the Old Testament where there is acutlaly much less variety than in the New Testament. The text of the Hebrew Bible was faithfully preserved by a group of Jewish scholars known as the Masoretic Text (MT). The translators of the KJV used basically the same Hebrew text as that used by modern translators.. in a few places, scholars can now draw on new information for their translations based on texts discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the Samaritan Pentateuch, and in the Septuagint (a translation of the Old Testament into Greek).
More significant questions, however, can be raised as to the appropriate text for the New Testament. The KJV was based on a text much like the Greek New Testament published in 1516 by the humanist scholar Erasmus. It became known as the Textus Receptus (TR) or "received text." It was largely based on manuscripts that circulated in Europe originating from the area around ancient Byzantium. It is sometimes called the "Bzantine text." Since 1611 many new manuscripts of the New Testament have been discovered. Some ancient manuscripts "notably Codex Siaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) that originated in Egypt were discovered in the late 19th century. These texts were largely identical with TR, but they omit some verses and change others. Many scholars came to believe that these manuscripts were closer to the original autographs of scripture. There are two modern critical editions of the Greek New Testament. One is published by the United Bible Society (called the UBS text), and one is published by the Deutche Bibelgesellschafte (called the Nestle-Aland text). These texts are nearly identical and are largely based on the assumption that the Egyptian texts are superior. They serve as the basis for most modern English translations. Not all modern scholars, however, have accepted the authority of the manuscripts on which the modern critical Greek texts are based. They argue that the "majority" text (that represented in the vast majority of exact manuscripts and very close to the Textus Receptus) is, in fact, to be prefered.
I realize that this is probably a complicated idea for most and perhaps introduces notions that many who have faithfully read the Bible through the years have never considered. I also realize that my presentation here is an oversimplification of many complex issues. In a moment, we will look at some examples to illustrate the practical difference that the choice of text type makes in creating a translation.
First, what text do the four translations I recommended above use as the basis for their translation? The NASB, the NIV, and the ESV all make use of the modern critical Greek text. The NKJV, however, since it follows the KJV tradition more closely, works from the most full and complete Greek text possible, taking into consideration readings from both the TR and the "majority" text traditions, as well as the modern critical texts.
The Preface makes note that "the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate the major Critical and Majority text variant readings in the center reference column." The NKJV, therefore, provides the most extensive textual notes and commentaries of any existing English translation. This was one of the overriding factors in my decision to choose this version for preaching and teaching.
How does this distinction show up in the translations? Let me cite two recent examples, among many, that I have encounterd in my preaching and teaching.
First, I recently preached from John 5:2-28. As I read fromt he NIV, you many have noticed that the text omits verse 4. It skps from v.3 to v.5. At the end of v.3 a note sends you to the bottom of the page where a footnote informs you that "soe less important manuscripts" include anotherr phrase at the end of v.3 and v.4 are placed in brackets to indicate questions about their autenticity. The ESV treats these verses much like the NIV, relegating them to a footnote that begins, "Some manuscripts insert, wholly or in part..." On the other hand, if you were to look at this passage in the NKJV you would find that the end of v.3 and v.4 are not omitted but included as a natural part of the text, although a center column note informs the reader that "NU [the modern Nestle-Aland/United Bible Society Greek text] omits the rest of v.3 and all of v.4]. As I read this text aloud that Sunday before preaching, I went down into the NIV footnote and included the omitted verses in my reading. Why? Because I believe they deserve to be considered as part of the inspired text.
Second, in a recent Thrusday Men's Bible study we read I Peter 4:14. Let me provide the translation as it appears in serveral versions (with the disputed sentence in bold):
KJV 1 Peter 4:14: If ye be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are ye; for the spirit of glory and of God resteth upon you: on their part he is evil spoken of, but on your part he is glorified.
NIV 1 Peter 4:14: If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.
NKJV 1 Peter 4:14: If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you, for the Spirit of glory and of God rest upon you. On their part He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified.
NASB 1 Peter 4:14: If you are reviled for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.
ESV 1 Peter 4:14: If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory and of Gode rest upon you.
What stands out as you read this passage is that the final sentence (in bold) that appears in the KJV and the NKJV is omitted entirely in the other modern translations. In addition, unlike the example from John 5:3-4, this omission is not even mentioned in the footnotes. In order to understand better the NKJV's commitment to following the traditional text I would encourage you to read carefully the NKJV Preface, especially the section titled "The New Testament Text." Arthur Farstad, the general editor of the NKJV, has ably argued for the NKJV's decision "to retain the traditional text rather than delete or change material that lay claimj to being part of the inspired Word.
Concluding Observations
In our day of constant novelty relative to English Bible translations, the text of Scripture can appear to be a "moving target" to the average layman. With Bible production in the hands of commercial publishing houses with a vested interest in economic success, innovations in textual readings (e.g., the Holman Christian Standard's rendering of Matthew 5:22) are being introduced for the sole purpose of gaining the attention (and the disposable income) of the Christian consumer. In order to once again established a common biblical and theological vocabulary, the Church needs to embrace a standard text. Many English translations based on the Alexandrian textual tradition may claim to be the standard (e.g., RSV, NRSV, ASV, NASB, ESV), but the plain truth is the the Byzantine textual tradition is the basis for the standard ecclesiastical text. In the English language, the KJV and the NKJV are the faithful stewards of that textual tradition. If the Church is determined to embrace a "New" standard English version, then the New King James is the best candidate for unifying the Body of Christ around a single translation.
