Articles
What English Translation of the Bible should I use?
The Bible was originally written in Hebrew and Greek. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew, with a tiny bit of it in Aramaic. The oldest complete copy of this part of the Bible, in the original Hebrew, is called the Masoretic Text and this is what bible translators usually use when translating the Old Testament.
However, the New Testament Greek manuscripts fall into 2 main categories: Alexandrian and Byzantine. The official cataloguing agency for New Testament manuscripts is in Münster, Germany and is called the Institute for New Testament Textual Research (https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/home). You can spend countless hours reviewing pictures of the almost 6,000 Greek manuscripts found of the New Testament.
Alexandrian: These manuscripts are thought to be the most accurate and best copied. They are typically older than other types of manuscripts and are thought to often preserve the original reading.
Byzantine: These manuscripts come from Constantinople and make up most existing Greek manuscripts. They are considered the least accurate because copyists may have expanded or smoothed out passages. The New Testament in the King James Version comes from this category.
The best would be for all of us to learn to read and speak Koine Greek (κοινὴ διάλεκτος) However, I don’t believe that for most of us, it is worth the countless hours to learn this specific dialect of Greek that was the common language of the day between 300BC and 600AD.
Most Christians today read versions of the Bible that are based on the Alexandrian family of Greek manuscripts. A few versions today like the KJV are based on the Byzantine family. However, the difference between these two families of manuscripts is very small. There is less than a 5% difference between the two families of texts, the main difference being that the Alexandrian family is smaller (for example: Mark 16:9-20 is not in the oldest manuscripts). Between the Alexandrian family and Byzantine family, there is no major teaching impacted or changed (the most significant doctrinal issue is that the importance of fasting is slightly weakened in the Alexandrian texts).
When comparing more recent English translations of the Bible (CSB, ESV, NASB, NIV) with the King James Version (KJV) and the New King James Version (NKJV), there are some verses seemingly “missing” in more recent translations. The truth is that most likely the extra words in the KJV and the NKJV were added. In 1611, the translators of the KJV used the best resources available to them at that time. For their day, the King James translation was a monumental achievement. However, one of its shortcomings is that the KJV translation committee of 50 scholars drew heavily on William Tyndale’s New Testament. As much as 80% of Tyndale’s translation is reused in the King James version. Tyndale used several sources in his translation of the Old and New Testaments. For the New Testament, he referred to the third edition (1522) of Desiderius Erasmus’s Greek New Testament, often referred to as the Textus Receptus (“Received Text”).
The following verses are believed to not be in the original manuscripts.
- Matthew 18:11 (most likely copied from Luke 19:10)
- Matthew 23:14 (most likely copied from Mark 12:40 and Luke 20:47)
- Mark 9:44;46 (Mark 9:48 is found in the earliest manuscripts)
- Mark 11:26 (most likely copied from Matthew 6:15)
- Mark 15:28 (most likely copied from Luke 22:37)
- Luke 17:36 (possible a repetition of the parallel passage in Matthew 24:40)
- John 5:3b-4 (most likely added for context but is not found in the earliest manuscripts)
- Acts 8:37 (this verse is not found in the earliest manuscripts)
- Acts 28:29 (this verse is not found in the earliest manuscripts)
- Romans 16:24 (this verse is not found in the earliest manuscripts)
- 1 John 5:7-8 (compare to NASB: 1 John 5:7-8)
In the years since 1611, many older manuscripts have been discovered and carefully evaluated by scholars. Their conclusion is that the older manuscripts are more reliable. This has given modern translators unprecedented access to manuscripts much closer in time to the original documents. Therefore, translations such as the CSB, ESV, NASB, NIV reflect better Bible scholarship than was available in 1611 when the KJV was published.
The verses or phrases that appeared in the KJV but have been “omitted” in most trusted translations today, are not found in the oldest and most reliable manuscripts. Modern translators often include or reference them in footnotes. These footnotes are intended to help the reader understand that certain perceived differences in the text are due to improved biblical scholarship. The treatment of these verses has not changed recently and reflects a consensus among most Bible scholars. This is not to say that the KJV and the NKJV are not great English translations, there is not a single teaching or belief that is affected between these older versions and the more modern versions.
Even English translation that are based on the Alexandrian family of Greek manuscripts vary greatly. Today’s English Bibles tend to fall into one of three categories. There are those that lean towards a word-for-word or essentially a literal (as close as possible) translation, those that lean more towards a thought-for-thought translation, and those that paraphrase the meaning. Some versions even blend into two or three types.
The Bibles that most closely follow the copies of the original manuscripts are word-for-word translations and essentially literal translations. This means they give the most accurate presentation of the original manuscripts. I believe that such versions are the best choice for all of us to use both individually and collectively.
Thought-for-thought translations move away from a word-for word or literal approach and aim to transfer the meaning of phrases or groups of words from the original to an English equivalent. This has some benefit as certain Greek idioms can be strange to a person living in the 21stCentury. For example, the Greek Word Splanchna (σπλάγχνα) literally means “bowels,” which were regarded by the Greeks as the seat of passions, the KJV translate this word as bowels in 2 Corinthians 6:12 but translates this word as “inward affection" in 2 Corinthians 7:15. Nowadays we prefer to leave our bowels out of it if we want to express tender affection. A young man would do well to avoid declaring his love to a young woman with, “I love you with all my bowels”.
The third type of Bible version today are paraphrases. Paraphrases are written to be easier to read and understand than word-for-word and thought-for-thought translations. While this may shed light on the meaning of the text, great care should be taken when using them. Paraphrase versions sometimes change the original meaning too much. If you do choose to use a paraphrase, I recommend using it as a commentary alongside a more literal translation of the Bible.
To be as close to the original Greek manuscripts, we ought to use many translations as we study and stay away from translations that paraphrase. I personally use the NASB and have for 10 years now after discussing the differences between Bible translations with my brother Seth Mauldin. In my opinion, any version beyond the NIV should be avoided.
