My Ideal Bible Translation

It is something of an understatement to say that there is no shortage of Bible translations in the English language. The popular website Bible Gateway lists over 50 English translations either of the whole Bible or of the New Testament and there are probably at least as many other English translatons not included on that site. New translations or revisions of existing translations seem to come out every other year or two.

It is true that not all translations you can find online are readily available as printed bibles or are widely used in churches, but even so there are a lot of translations out there, and there are also a few translations that are not available online but only in print.

Even so there are around twenty widely available translations in common use in English speaking churches.

With all this choice, you would think there would be a Bible out there to suit every English reader.

I had a think about what I look for in my ideal translation and came up with 10 items on my "shopping list."

1. The most fundamental requirement is that it would be more at the formal equivalence end of the translation spectrum, with text as close to the form and content of the original Hebrew and Greek as possible and as free as necessary to be intelligible in English. The NIV is about as far as I would go on the spectrum. The NASB and KJV are the most literal (formal equivalent) translations in general use and the ESV and NRSV are not too far behind them, though much more readable.

2. Though I love the Authorised Version, my ideal bible would be a translation in modern English. I don't want to have to translate my into the language we actually speak in the 21st century.

3. The translation should be based on the best available Hebrew and Greek texts. For me, this would probably be the standard NA/USB text, which is supported by the best textual evidence. All modern translations—except the KJV and the NKJV)—are based on the critical NA/UBS texts.These include conservative evangelical versions such as the NASB, ESV and NIV and I have to accept that the people who produced these bibles know what they are doing.

4. The translation should be free of theological bias and probably be the work of a committee rather than an individual translator. Most versions show some bias in places. The ESV and NIV are sometimes accused of biased in favour of Calvinism and evangelical positions. The NRSV and REB are sometimes accused biased in favour of liberal positions, though I think bias is often exaggerated both ways. There is less room for bias the more literal or formal equivalent a translation is as they are less interpretative than functional equivalent translations tend to be.

5. A translation should be gender accurate, in line with the original languages, but need not be "gender neutral." Some older translations show gender bias in favour of the male gender.

6. The ideal translation will be readable and quotable and be widely enough known to carry weight when discussing what the Bible says with others.

7. My ideal translation will be available in British English. It is sad that so many excellent modern translations such as the NASB, NKJV, CSB and NET are only available in American English, which though not a massive issue is a visual distraction every time you come across words like honour and Saviour. The KJV, NRSV, ESV and NIV are all available in British English editions.

8. A personal preference is for pronouns and other nouns referring to deity not being capitalised. It is done out of respect and honour for God and I acknowledge that, but it is not something that comes from the original languages or the historic English bibles such as the KJV. It is a later addition. I think it looks cluttered on the page and sometimes imposes an interpretation onto the text about who is being referred to in the text. This affects the NASB and most editions of the NKJV. Interestingly, although the HCSB used capitals in its earlier editions, its new revision the CSB has stopped capitalising the pronouns and it reads much better for it in my view.

9. On a similar note of preference, I don't really like red-letter editions either, though I can undertsand why some people like to be able to identify Jesus' actual words in the text. Here there is also an issue because it is not always clear which verses are Jesus' words. The best known example is probably John 3. Does Jesus' speech to Nicodemus end in verse 15 or carry on through the well-known words of verses 3:16-18 as well? Interestingly, there is now available a Blue-Red-Gold Bible which has the words of Christ in red, the direct speech of God (the Father?) in blue and references to the Holy Spirit in gold/dark yellow! You can see the BRG Bible online at Bible Gateway: look up Exodus 3 and John 3 in this version to get an idea of how it looks. In my view, black letter bibles are to be preferred, not least because "all Scipture is God-breathed" (2 Tim 3:16) not just the direct speech parts!

10. Good textual notes are another personal preference. I am not talking about study bible type notes or even cross-references. I mean notes on where the text is difficult, where the evidence for the correct text is divided, where more than one translation is possible. These notes I view as integral to how a good translation works. Two translations stand out in this regard. The NKJV has the best notes on textual variants, especially in the New Testament as it lists every occasion where the Textus Receptus, Majority Text and Critical Text (NA/UBS) differ from each other and offers translations of the other texts. The NET Bible includes over 60,000 translators notes which discuss translational and interpretative issues in some depth. It is closer to a study bible feel because some pages have more notes than biblical text, but the notes are a great help, which is one reason I really like the NET Bible.

If you compare these ten criteria against the main English versions, none of them perfectly meets all of them. But then no translation is ever perfect. I wish the NASB, CSB and NET were available in British editions—and indeed were better known in the UK—and I wish the NASB did not use capitals for pronouns. I wish more translations had notes as good as the NKJV and NET. I refer to many versions when doing studies, but my main Bibles are currently the NIV, the ESV. the NKJV and the venerable KJV itself.