A common dilemma: Which Bible to use?

A common dilemma: Which Bible to use? August 26, 2015

DALE’S QUESTION:

I am no longer sure which Bible to use. I currently have the New American Standard Bible. How accurate is this? What are your thoughts on the New English Translation? [This is a direct response to our immediately preceding Religion Q and A for August 16, 2015, “Why were some verses removed from the New Testament?”]

THE RELIGION GUY’S ANSWER:

There are so many different English translations in today’s alphabet soup of a marketplace that Dale’s dilemma is common. Other responses to the August 16 Religion Q and A show there’s considerable anxiety out there, but the Religion Guy reassures readers they can rely upon any of the modern mainstream translations. That includes Dale’s NASB and NET. Not to say there aren’t important variations in wording that today’s Bible readers should know about and ponder, so it’s good to have a couple or three translations handy. And one blessing of our Internet age is that you can compare 52 English translations, verse by verse, at www.biblegateway.com.

Loose paraphrases like “The Living Bible,” “The Message,” or J.B. Phillips’ elegant “The New Testament in Modern English” are valuable for fresh thinking and enjoyable reading. But they aren’t Bibles. Then we have actual Bibles that are not paraphrases but lean toward “dynamic equivalence” translation that aims at clear comprehension and flow of thoughts. That’s an OK choice but serious students and seminarians, at least, should own a translation with more literal renderings of the original Greek and Hebrew such as Dale’s NASB (more on that version below).

Another example is the Revised Standard Version (1952, 2nd edition 1971). The RSV is often the Religion Guy’s preference for journalistic writing because of closeness to familiar phrasing from the ever-popular King James Version of 1611, wide ecumenical acceptance, and many years of usage. The RSV phrasing in turn underlies a current evangelical favorite, the English Standard Version (ESV) of 2001.

Many editions include study aids that explain the text. These can be very helpful and are usually interesting, but readers should be aware that any add-ons are interpretations, not Holy Writ as such. As mentioned, another consideration in choices is that a translation may lean toward thought-for-thought ease of understanding, or toward word-for-word literalness. Then there’s the lively debate over use of gender-inclusive language,  featured especially in the National Council of Churches’ New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) of 1989, a favorite of “mainline” Protestants.

Turning to Dale’s specific query, both versions he mentions were produced by non-denominational foundations with an Evangelical Protestant flavor that affirm the Bible’s “inerrancy” (error-free nature not only in spiritual but historical aspects). Details:

New American Standard Bible (NASB) http://www.lockman.org/nasb.  The Lockman Foundation of La Habra, California, sponsors this version that, like the RSV, can claim distinguished forebears going back to the old King James. The King was revised in 1901 to produce the American Standard Version. Working off the ASV, Lockman issued the NASB in 1971 (revised 1995) to combine King James phrasing with updated English usage, most notably dropping all those “thees” and “thous.” The NASB purports to be “the most accurate English Bible,” though of course competitors likewise boast about their accuracy.

New English Translation (NET) http://netbible.com. Unlike the NASB, this is a new start-from-scratch rendition from 2007. It’s the handiwork of 25 translators working for the Biblical Studies Press of Richardson, Texas, many from nearby Dallas Theological Seminary. The Religion Guy confesses he has not studied this version. The NET reports favorable reactions by leaders from two popular competitors, the ESV and New International Version (NIV). The NET defends its thought-for-thought translation because 61,000 footnotes from translators uniquely explain technical challenges in conveying the original Hebrew or Greek. Also intriguing, the NET calls itself “the first Bible ever to be beta-tested on the Internet.” Drafts were posted for public comment over years, but this is no wiki-bible; the scholars controlled this process and had the last word.

Following up: That August 16 Religion Q and A explained why modern New Testaments drop two familiar King James passages, Jesus’ rescue of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) and the disputed “long ending” of Mark (16:9-20). The NASB puts both into the text but marked off with brackets while footnotes report that they’re missing in the best early Greek manuscripts, meaning most likely they were not in the original writings. The NET does the same with elaborate explanatory footnotes.

Added note: Among other editions, readers should be aware of U.S. Catholicism’s official New American Bible (NAB). However, the preceding treats pretty much Bibles preferred by Protestants, and could have delved into others such as the New King James Version (NKJV), New Living Translation (NLT) developed out of that “Living Bible” paraphrase, or Southern Baptists’ Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB). Protestants continue to dominate the U.S. Bible-buying public, in line with the Reformation slogan “sola scriptura,” meaning “Scripture alone” is the source of authoritative teaching.


Browse Our Archives