SCRIPTURE CANON & BIBLE VERSIONS (PART IV)

“Bible Translations That I Would/Wouldn’t Recommend”

By Akin Ojumu

In the last installment of this commentary series, we described the developmental evolution of Bible translations. We alluded to the universal agreement on the content of the Old Testament. This consensus is the result of the meticulous record keeping of Jewish Rabbis. The oldest complete copy of the Old Testament, in the original Hebrew, is called the Masoretic Text. Generally speaking, this is what Bible translators use when translating the Old Testament. 

Because of the many different Greek manuscripts available to scholars, the New Testament presented a more difficult challenge. Generally, the available manuscripts fall into three main categories, namely the Western, Byzantine, and Alexandrian manuscripts. These manuscripts have been used to produce several English translations of the Bible, some of which were discussed last time.

At the last installment of the commentary series, we indicated that the Bible translations family tree splits in a few different directions following the release of the American Standard Version. These include the RSV, NASB, and Living Bible, which were based directly on the American Standard Version.

THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION (c. 1952)

Produced in 1952, the Revised Standard Version (RSV) is unique in the sense that it was the first English Bible to get rid of most of the THEEs and THOUs. 

Also, the RSV was the first ecumenical translation, i.e., it was produced by scholars representing several different Christian denominations including Protestants, Catholics, Greek Orthodox Christians, and even a Jewish rabbi.

The RSV is, however, a rather controversial translation, mostly because of how it translated Isaiah 7:14. In the previous version, this verse read: 

“The Lord himself will give you a sign: behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son...” 

The Hebrew word for virgin is almah. But the RSV changed this verse to: 

“The Lord himself will give you a sign. Behold, a young woman shall conceive and bear a son...”

Christians understand this verse as being a direct reference to Jesus. So, the change from “virgin” to “young woman” in the RSV was met with a lot of righteous indignation because it was considered an attempt by liberal theologians to corrupt the Bible with woke ideology.

THE NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE (c. 1971)

The New American Standard Bible (NASB) was produced as a counter to the liberal direction the RSV took. The translation is the response of the more conservative theologians to the more liberal RSV.

Beyond the reputation of being a counter RSV translation, though, the NASB stands out in the sense that it is generally considered to be the most literal translation of the Bible available in English, i.e., it is basically a word-for-word translation, with just a little bit rearranging here and there so that the text is readable.

While all of the translations mentioned above would fall into the category of “literal” translations that attempt to stick as closely as possible to the Greek and Hebrew texts, while still being readable English, in recent years, more Bible versions have become available that are considered “dynamic” translations. 

The primary goal of the dynamic translations is to make the Bible understandable and readable in English, even if the wording and literary structures of the original languages have to be abandoned. 

Additionally, there are also translations that are paraphrases which are typically the work of single authors. The most well-known paraphrases are The Living Bible by Kenneth Taylor and The Message by Eugene Peterson.

THE LIVING BIBLE (c. 1971)

The Living Bible is an example of a paraphrase done by just one man, Kenneth Taylor. It is, technically, not considered a Bible translation at all. Howbeit, its easy readability makes it a Bible that appeals to a lot of people.

THE GOOD NEWS BIBLE (c. 1976, c. 1966 NT)

The Good News Bible, formerly known as Today's English Version (TEV), was released in 1966 (NT), and 1976 (the entire Bible). The goal of this new translation was to be simple and readable and avoid technical terms. The GNB was made available at low cost in inexpensive paperback editions, and it became very popular. Its strength is its simplicity, which is also a weakness, as some difficult concepts in Scripture can be minimized when the goal of the translation is simplicity.

THE NEW KING JAMES VERSION (c. 1982)

Like the old KJV, the New King James Version is based on the Textus Receptus, unlike all the other new translations which are based on the Critical Text of the New Testament. For this reason, the NKJV is often preferred by Eastern Christians. For example, it is the translation used for the Greek Orthodox Study Bible. 

THE NEW REVISED STANDARD VERSION (c. 1989)

In 1989, the liberal and controversial RSV was replaced by the even more liberal New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). Both of these are published by the National Council of Churches, which is an umbrella organization that represents most of the mainline denominations in the United States.

Now, at this point, we should probably explain the term mainline.

These days, churches can basically be divided into two main categories: mainline and evangelical. Generally speaking, mainline churches are the more liberal ones like the Methodists or Episcopalians. Whereas evangelicals are the more conservative ones like the Baptists or Pentecostals. To this day, the NRSV is the translation that is preferred by most mainline Christians as well as by academics. 

One of the main differences between the RSV and the NRSV is that the NRSV is gender neutral. So, for example, Matthew 19:23 in the RSV reads, “it will be hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven” whereas the NRSV reads, “it will be hard for a rich person...”

Now, the NRSV was actually updated very recently. The latest version, known as the NRSV Updated Edition, was released last year in an electronic format. So, for example, if you go to biblegateway.com, which lets you read the Bible in lots of different translations, you can already read the NRSV-UE.

Now, the updated version of the NRSV has once again created a bit of controversy. This time over 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

In the NASB, it says that “neither...effeminate, nor homosexuals... will inherit the kingdom of God.”

However, in the updated NRSV, it says, “[neither] male prostitutes...[nor] men who engage in illicit sex... will inherit the kingdom of God.”

Okay, let’s now switch from the NRSV, which is preferred by mainline Christians, to some of the translations preferred by evangelicals. The three most popular are the NIV, the ESV, and the NLT.

THE NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (c. 1978)

Since its publication in 1978, New International Version (NIV) has pretty much remained in the top spot as the best-selling Bible in America. Unlike everything we’ve looked at so far, the NIV translators started from scratch and didn’t rely on any previous translations. 

The NIV is one of the translations that use the dynamic equivalence method. What that means is that instead of going word-for-word, they went phrase-by-phrase, in an effort to create a more readable translation.

THE NEW ENGLISH TRANSLATION (c. 1995)

Like the New International Version (NIV), the method of translation adopted for the New English Translation is that of dynamic equivalence, or thought-for-thought, as opposed to strict word-for-word translation. The translation is most notable for its availability on the Internet, the immense number – nearly 61,000 – of lengthy footnotes, and its open copyright permitting free downloads and use for ministry purposes. The NET sometimes is a little too dynamic in its renderings, delving into interpretation rather than simple translation. At the same time, the NET is more formal than most of the other English Bible translations that are considered dynamic.

THE ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION (c. 2001)

The English Standard Version was released in 2001 as an “essentially literal” translation that attempts to be highly readable. It has become a favorite with Bible readers who want a translation more literal than the NIV and more readable than the NASB. Basically, the ESV is a conservative alternative to the more liberal NRSV.

THE NEW LIVING TRANSLATION (c. 2005)

Released 1996, the New Living Translation is also a dynamic translation worked on by over 90 scholars. While the goal of the translation was to keep the readability and clarity of The Living Bible written by Kenneth Taylor, it also endeavored to be an all-new translation based on the Greek and Hebrew. It became popular at first but has never rivaled the NIV as the dynamic translation of choice.

For those curious to know, my favorite Bible translations are the ESV and the NASB. These are the Bibles I would recommend to anyone who is serious about improving their proficiency and knowledge of Scripture. The ESV and NASB both use the word-for-word translation method which makes them the closest to the original manuscripts from which they were translated. Additionally, these are Bible translations that are quite easy to read.

Now, there are Bible translations that I would never recommend. One of these is The Passion Translation (TPT). The TPT is not a Bible translation. It is nothing but the imagination of a reprobate and unregenerate mind.

In an interview conducted by Sid Roth, Brian Simmons, the author of TPT, made the following claims about how he got the idea for the TPT.

How exactly did Brian Simmons get the idea behind the TPT? Well, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself visited him in his room in 2009, and He breathed on him, and commissioned him to write a new translation of the Bible. Simmons claims that, by blowing on him, Jesus gave him ‘the spirit of revelation’...” Specifically, Simmons said, “he breathed on me so that I would do the project, and I felt downloads coming, instantly. I received downloads. It was like, I got a chip put inside of me. I got a connection inside of me to hear him better, to understand the scriptures better and hopefully to translate.”

On a final note. The whole point of this commentary is to impress upon the readers the sufficiency of Scripture. As the sole divine revelation and final authoritative source of spiritual knowledge for the true believer, Scripture is the foundation upon which the Christian faith is built. 

A Christian life built on anything order than a contextual and historical understanding of the Bible is a life built on spiritual sinking sand. Very soon, such a life is going to fall into ruin. The Christian whose faith is built on myths and esoteric experiences will eventually crash and burn. Such a person will be exposed for the fraud that he is.

PS: This commentary was borrowed from Useful Charts and Got Questions.