Bibles Based on the Critical Text

In the centuries following the publication and popularization of the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible, biblical scholars discovered additional, older copies of the Greek texts. As they studied these new findings, and as further research brought new understanding to light, they compiled an updated version of the Greek text. This updated version is called the Critical Text, and it continues to be updated and revised as new evidence is gathered. Westcott and Hort's The New Testament in the Original Greek is an example of the Critical Text from the late nineteenth century. Nestle and Aland's Novum Testamentum Graece, currently in its 28th edition, is the most recent version.

Most modern English Bible translations rely on this Critical Text, and they are distinguished one from another on the basis of translation philosophies and the goals of the translator or translation committee. Some issues related to translation philosophies are discussed in How Translation Principles Affect Biblical Text: An Example.

Because of differences between languages (including sentence structure, verb tenses, semantic connotations, and cultural differences), it is never possible to simply take a text in one language and merely substitute the vocabulary of another. Furthermore, languages employ idiomatic expressions, where the literal words do not convey the meaning intended. For example, when people use the common English admonition, "Hold your horses!" native speakers of the language understand its meaning, "Wait, be patient." The literal meanings of the words hold and horses provide clues about the phrase's origins, but when the expression is used idiomatically, its literal meaning is unrelated to the speaker's thoughts. On the other hand, the words that do represent the intended meaning (wait, be patient) lack the connotations and cultural depth of the idiomatic phrase.

By linguistic necessity, translators must make compromises between literal word-for-word correspondence with the original text and the accurate representation of thoughts. A translation that is too literal can be hard to read, and it risks misrepresenting meaning. On the other hand, although a translation that is less literal can be easier to read, it risks interjecting the opinions and biases of the translator. Modern Bible translations can be arranged along a line representing a continuum with editions that strive to be as literal as is possible on one end and editions that seek the clear communication ideas on the other.

Which translation principles best serve your needs?

If you plan to study the Bible in a way that includes paying close attention to its vocabulary and grammar or that focuses on individual verses or words and their relationships to other verses or words, your goals may be best served with a Bible that falls near The Literal Side of the Continuum.

If you plan to read the Bible's larger cohesive units (such as its chapters and books) to learn about concepts and to experience the information with the impact its original hearers may have experienced, your goals may be best served with a Bible that falls near The Thought-for-Thought Side of the Continuum.

Some people are uncomfortable navigating translated texts. They prefer having someone re-tell the Biblical story in a natural, contemporary form. If this describes your preferences, you may favor one of the biblical Paraphrases rather than a translation.

If you haven't already done so, select your answer to continue exploring Bibles that use the Critical Text as their basis:

I'd like a Bible that falls primarily on The Literal Side of the Continuum.
I'd like a Bible that falls primarily on The Thought-for-Thought Side of the Continuum.
I'd prefer one of the biblical Paraphrases.

If you would like to explore other options, you can return to The Initial Question.

The Literal Side of the Continuum

Some Bible translations make it their goal to reproduce the vocabulary and sentence structure of the original as faithfully as is possible without misleading the reader. This type of translation practice is called literal, formal equivalence, or word-for-word.

The following Bible versions are translated using this method.

New American Standard Bible: This translation is often considered the most literal version accessible to today's general readers. An updated version is available that follows the same general translation principles, but some critics claim it is less literal.
Amplified Bible: This version is basically a literal translation but it includes added words in an attempt to clarify the fuller meaning of the original vocabulary.
English Standard Version: The translators of this version adopted a philosophy that was essentially literal, but they acknowledge the necessity of occasional tradeoffs between literal renderings and readability.

In addition to the above Bible versions, which are primarily for general readers, two specialty Bibles may be of interest to serious students seeking the most literal, word-for-word translation possible.

An Interlinear Bible includes the text of the Old Testament in Hebrew and the text of the New Testament in Greek. In both, English words are added below the lines. Text in the margins provides some guidance about how to order the words for comprehension in English.
Young's Literal Translation: This translation is from the late nineteenth century. It follows Textus Receptus. It is included here rather than with other Bibles that follow Textus Receptus because it differs from the King James-related tradition that is more commonly associated with Textus Receptus.

If you would like to explore other options, you can return to the discussion of Bibles Based on the Critical Text or to The Initial Question.

The Thought-for-Thought Side of the Continuum

Some translations make it their goal to reproduce the meaning of the original as faithfully as is possible, even when the practice means abandoning a direct, formal correspondence with the words in the original text. This type of translation practice is called dynamic equivalence or thought-for-thought. While this process often improves the readability of the final text and aids the reader's comprehension, it means making choices and interpretations that rely on the judgement of the translator or translation team.

In recent years, the list of translations prepared using the dynamic equivalence process can be divided into two broad categories: those that maintain the gender-based pronouns and terms of the original text (such as he and man) and those that prefer to use gender-neutral language (such as person).

What are your thoughts regarding gender-based language?

Some people believe that the practice of maintaining gender-based terms is more accurate because the original texts use gender-based terms. Furthermore, they believe the contexts of individual passages are sufficient for helping readers determine when words such as he, himself, and man refer specifically to a male and when they refer to any person of unspecified gender. If you agree, you may prefer a translation that relies on The Use of Traditional, Gendered Terms.

Other people think the use of gender-based terms reflects cultural patterns than no longer predominate. They believe readers will be confused, and possibly even offended, by a perceived male-based bias. If you agree, you may prefer a translation that relies on Gender-Neutral Language.

To continue, please select your preference:

If you would like to explore other options, you can return to the discussion of Bibles Based on the Critical Text or to The Initial Question.

The Use of Traditional, Gendered Terms

The following list includes translations prepared using the dynamic equivalence process (thought-for-thought), retaining traditional terms related to gender.

God's Word
Good News Translation
Holman Christian Standard Bible
New American Bible
New International Version (editions before 2011)
New Jerusalem Bible
New Life Version

In addition, the Revised English Bible maintains the use of traditional, gendered terms in some places, but uses non-gendered terms when its team of translators felt that doing so would not violate their principles of translation scholarship.

If you would like to explore other options, you can return to the discussion of The Thought-for-Thought Side of the Continuum, the discussion of Bibles Based on the Critical Text, or to The Initial Question.

Gender-Neutral Language

Gender-neutral translations typically limit adjustments in gender-related language to terms that refer to people and humanity. Examples include avoiding masculine pronouns (he, him, his) when referring to a person of unknown or either gender, using the phrases brothers and sisters or fellow believers instead of the exclusively masculine brothers, and favoring the word humankind over the male-oriented mankind. They generally retain traditional, gendered terms for God (such as the pronoun He and the familial term Father).

The following list includes translations prepared using the dynamic equivalence process (thought-for-thought) along with gender-neutral terms.

In addition, the Revised English Bible makes limited use of gender-neutral terms when its team of translators felt that doing so would not violate their principles of translation scholarship. In other places, its text retains gendered terms (such as masculine pronouns).

People who want a translation of the Bible that exclusively employs gender-neutral terms—even for God—may be interested in the Inclusive Bible. Its translators worked with the goal of avoiding any terms related to gender or class distinctions.

Paraphrases

Re-telling a story in our own words is called paraphrasing. Several popular paraphrases of the Bible were completed by people who undertook the challenge of re-telling the story of the entire Bible, from the beginning in Genesis all the way through to the end in Revelation.

The Living Bible, by Kenneth Taylor, was published in 1971 by Tyndale House Publishers. The text is based on the 1901 edition of the American Standard Version (ASV), which was an update of the King James Version (KJV).

The Message, by Eugene Peterson, first published in 2002 by NavPress (a division of The Navigators, USA) is another popular, and more recently published, option that re-tells the Bible's story using language intended to mimic contemporary, casual conversation.

The Voice, produced by Thomas Nelson, recasts the biblical text in a story-telling format.

If you would like to explore other options, you can return to the discussion of Bibles Based on the Critical Text or to The Initial Question.