CHOOSING A BIBLE

From the Christian Research Institute

There are several questions one should examine in selecting a

version of the Bible to use or give away. Here are a few of them:

1) How do I intend to use it?

For deeper study, fast reading, devotional reading or some

combination? A version for broader reading and certain memory work

should be in a vocabulary and style you are comfortable with and

understand easily. Using at least two translations (one for study, one

for other purposes) brings best growth and understanding for most

people. The study Bible should be more literal to the details and

actual form of the original, perhaps with notes and cross-references.

Consulting it AND a freer translation together is a helpful method.

This is because either type translation can lead to a wrong

understanding of the meaning of the original. Here is how.

ANY Bible version should be tested by the question "Is it

faithful to the original text?" However, the question of fidelity can

be divided into two parts - transfer of the meaning and of the

dynamics of the original. Experienced translators John Beekman and

John Callow in their classic work, Translating the Word of God,

explain that when a translation transfers the MEANING it "conveys to

the reader or hearer the information that the original conveyed to its

readers or hearers." When a translation conveys the DYNAMIC force of

the original, it "makes a natural use of the linguistic structures of

the RL (language of the translation) and...the recipients of the

translation understand the message with ease." (pages 33, 44) This

does not mean there will be no ambiguous or puzzling statements at

all. It does not mean that difficulty in understanding HOW something

is true or how to APPLY it will be removed. The original readers had

these problems as well. Translations that seek to maintain the meaning

closer to the word level have more difficulty in capturing the dynamic

force of the original or in using the natural expression of English

(which, of course differs with time and locale, especially U.S. to

Great Britain). Translations toward the idiomatic or paraphrase side

do better with the dynamics, as a rule, but diminish the readers'

ability to know "that's the way THEY said it (in Greek or Hebrew)," or

follow the nuances of the original writers.

Special care should be taken in use of Bible versions on either

extreme. Literal translations can mislead if one is unaware of the

significance of elements of form (grammar, style) or idiom (unique

expression) that are more like th original than English. Freer

translations introduce more interpretation (although all translation

demands interpretation) and sacrifice precision and consistency of

renderings. 2) What was the goal of the translator(s)?

To reach a specific audience? To communicate particularly the

force and impact of the original like J.B. Phillips, or to be clear

and vivid like Ken Taylor? Often the preface will give this and other

helpful information. 3) Who did the translating?

One man, a committee, or one man with a committee checking? A

committee translation is generally freer of biased theological

interpretations that can corrupt a translation but it will usually

sacrifice some in consistency and artistic, stylistic expression. 4)

What are the credentials and background of the translator(s)?

Did he (they) have expertise in the appropriate language(s)? If

done by a committee, were they from the same denomination, similar

ones, or widely differing ones?

One does not have to have complete answers to all of these

questions before using a Bible version. In fact, some of the less

dependable ones can have positive uses if one is aware of their

deficiencies. The subject of Bible translation is a complex one and

the previous questions far from exhaust all the considerations.The

following brief summaries evaluating specific versions are very

cursory, and not meant to be authoritative. The were produced by a

comparison and combination of the remarks of a number of evangelical

scholars, and in some cases, the personal observations of the author.

KING JAMES (AUTHORIZED) VERSION (1611)

Translated from the original languages by committee. Unexcelled in

literary quality, although now archaic. Does not reflect the best text

base on recent scholarship (some editions give explanatory notes on

the text).

NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE (1970)

From the original by interdenominational committee. Patterned

after American Standard Version of 1901. Excellent precision in

handling of verb-tenses but sometimes pedantic, awkward and lacking in

style - "wooden" say many. Literalness, careful work and good notes

make it one of the best study Bibles.

THE MODERN LANGUAGE BIBLE (1969)

Revision of the Berkeley Version (1945). Good balance of accuracy

of meaning with plain contemporary English. Helpful notes.

JERUSALEM BIBLE

Translated with reference to both the original and an earlier

French translation by Roman Catholic committee. Forceful but not

stylisticly consistent or fully idiomatic English. OT text not the

best. Notes are a substantial part of the work and are generally

non-sectarian but should be checked.

NEW AMERICAN BIBLE

From the original Greek (NT); revision of confraternity version

(based on Latin Vulgate) in the OT. Catholic Committee consulted with

Protestants in final stages. More conservative than JB but

introductions to sections and to individual books "moderately liberal

in tone" (Kubo and Specht, p. 164). Format differs with the publisher.

NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION

From the original, by a large interdenominational but

conservative committee. Well balanced - good for study, faster

reading, or public reading. Based on reliable Greek text. Somewhat

inconsistent in modernizing terminology. Pleasing, very readable

format (few footnotes). Many feel it will become the most used Bible

of the future, especially for evangelicals.

TODAY'S ENGLISH VERSION (Good News Bible)

From the original. NT by one man, approved by committee. Aimed

particularly at English - as - second - language audience and those

with little formal education. Achieves its goal well - very readable,

good format. Translates dynamics well but not dependable for deeper

study if used by itself.

NEW ENGLISH BIBLE

From the original by interdenominational British committee.

Exciting literary style, very readable but with distinct British

flavor and idiom. Excellent for non-churched. Departures from the

original text and too much liberty in certain renderings make it

undependable as a study Bible.

REVISED STANDARD VERSION (1946)

Debatable whether more a revision of KJV or a fresh translation

from the original (by committee). Probably more the latter in NT.

Preserves some of KJV sound of "Bible English", but is somewhat

modernized. Accused by ultra-conservatives of deliberate "liberal"

bias (along with TEV and others) but has weathered the storm and is

considered by some church leaders as the best all-purpose translation.

Adequate, though not the best for deeper study in author's opinion.

J.B. PHILLIPS' TRANSLATION

From the original but definitely a paraphrase by J.B. Phillips, a

competent Greek scholar. More than any other, makes the Bible "live"

for educated or literary people, although in British expression. Does

not read like a translation. Provokes new insight and understanding

which should, however, be checked with more literal translations and

by deeper study. Excellent for the educated, unchurched person as well

as the thinking Christian.

LIVING BIBLE

Paraphrased essentially from the 1901 ASV by Ken Taylor but

checked by Greek, Hebrew scholars. Serves similar purpose as Phillips'

but reaches also to the less educated. Encourages Bible reading and

helps older Christians express their faith in contemporary terms.

Definitely not to be relied on for interpretations or study. Changes,

sometimes significant, made between editions.

AMPLIFIED BIBLE

Amplified Bible done from the originals. Neither a true

translation nor a paraphrase. This type version offers readers

possible renderings or interpretations and can be helpful for study or

deepening understanding. However, users must realize the original

author had one meaning in mind, determined by context and usage in

that language, not our personal preference or whim. These versions

must not be substituted for responsible deeper study.

**** The following is an attempt to convey a chart from this article

you are reading. It looks a bit like a list, but the idea is to list

the different translations in the order of from the most literal to

the least literal (or paraphrase).

-Interlinears

--Word for Word

-American Standard

-King James

--Literal

-New American Standard

-New International Version

-Today's English Version

--Idiomatic

-New English Version

-Phillips'

--Paraphrase

-Living Bible

SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR FURTHER STUDY

--Bruce, F.F., THE ENGLISH BIBLE. New York: Oxford University Press,

1970.

--Dennett, Herbert, A GUIDE TO MODERN VERSIONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

Chicago:

Moody Press, 1965.

--Hawthorne, G.F., HOW TO CHOOSE A BIBLE. Christianity Today, Vol. 20,

December

5, 1975, pp.7-10.

--Kubo, Sakae and Walter Specht, SO MANY VERSIONS?. Grand Rapids:

Zondervan,

1975 (Paperback).

--WHICH BIBLE IS BEST FOR YOU?, Eternity. Vol. 25, April, 1974,

pp.27-31.

Contributed by The Manna System