Too Many Bibles(?)
I just bought another one. It was so easy, too, given the point-and-click method of purchasing that has taken over my shopping habits for things I drive (cars, golf balls), give (gifts for any and all occasions), and read. Especially the latter, whether hard copy or e-book. What I just finished purchasing a few moments ago was yet another version of the New Testament.
One might well ask the why question here; don’t I already have enough versions to find one that says just what I want it to say, getting around those troubling passages that defy either explanation or a stubborn will? Perhaps some readers may be kind enough to give me a pass on the matter, reasoning that someone who teaches theology for a living ought to be aware of what is on the market. Thanks for that. And oh, what a market it is. For the record, the one just procured is the Kingdom New Testament, a new translation by British scholar N. T. Wright. As I went about making the purchase I decided to peruse for just a moment the variety of translations on offer. Most of them are ones with which I was already familiar, though additions to the list continue to be made. Here is a partial rendering of that list, most of which have the word “Version” at the end, which already sounds like an acknowledgement of other versions: King James, New King James, American Standard, New American Standard, Living Bible, New Living Translation, Revised Standard, New Revised Standard (do we detect a pattern here?), English Standard, Common English, New International, Today’s New International (rather clearly assigning the other one to yesterday), The Message, Jewish Annotated, and (my “favorite” newby on the list) the Restored New Testament, which includes the gnostic gospels of Thomas, Mary, and Judas. One may be forgiven if thinking that adding to the canon is not exactly the same as “restoring” the canon. And all of this is only the English language side of the multifaceted book we continue to refer to as The Bible, the Word of God.
What should we make of all this? Occasionally one may hear the complaint that the proliferation of translations has taken from the church a common language in which to memorize and recite God’s Word. That may be so; but it seems futile to turn things around and settle on a common version at this juncture. Other voices say it is more important that we understand the sense which the original authors conveyed to their readers, which may mean translating words differently to create the same sense in a contemporary audience. As language changes–and it does, and at a more rapid pace than ever before–perhaps our need for new translations continues.
Today’s post is not intended to make a point, but to solicit your experiences with various translations of the Bible. Which do you prefer, and why? What might you suggest regarding the way a congregation might handle the multiple versions that are in use? Is this a problem, or is it a boon to the church? What are your thoughts?
I buy a new Bible every time my old one gets so beat up that sections start falling out. (That took a lot less time in high school and college, when I would throw it in my backpack every day.) I’m in the market for a new one right now, so I’ll also like to hear why people like different translations.
I’ve been primarily using NASB since college. I picked NASB then because I hadn’t read it before and had heard convincing arguments for its accuracy. I have liked the language, but I’m really, really tired of the improper semicolon use. I know it’s superficial, but sometimes it is very distracting to me. No wonder kids don’t know how to use them! Bible translators don’t even use them properly!
I loved NLT in high school because the language sounded so fresh and new. It wasn’t anything I’d ever heard anyone recite, so I felt like I was reading everything for the first time. This helped me make the jump from picking and choosing passages to reading the whole Bible for myself. After I’d had it for a few years, though, I found some passages that I felt really had a different meaning in the NLT. I can’t recall them all, but I do remember that a few of the “rejoicing in our sufferings” passages are translated to “rejoicing in spite of our sufferings,” and that stood out to me as being really quite a lesser thing. So, I kept it around to use to show people who seemed burned out by other translations, but I didn’t use it much myself.
NIV seems to be the current evangelical standard, I think, among everyone except the “we use only the authorized version” churches. (Though I do still occasionally hear people call it the “nearly inspired version.”) The language is pretty natural modern English, less clunky than the NASB, but less hip than the NLT. Its main advantage for me is probably that it’s so well-known. Nobody asks, “what translation is that?”
I have noticed a trend of preachers using whichever translation they want for each passage of scripture used throughout a sermon, switching apparently just for verbal effect. Seems like a cheap trick somehow.
Having so many translations does give us the opportunity to fish around until we find one that says just what we want it to. As with that NLT difficulty I had… If I don’t want to rejoice IN my suffering, I’ll just rejoice in SPITE of it. We can cheapen God’s message if we flit around to find phrasing that fits our fancy. (Whoa – that was unintentionally awesome alliteration). It IS good to hear the same message in new phrasing sometimes, so the message doesn’t just become rote, but there is also blessing in knowing something so well that it becomes rote.
At my ordination I requested the Braille Bible, but that was denied. I wasn’t surprised, as it is about $500. Little did I know that the film The Book of Eli would feature it or I might have pushed a bit harder. I also requested The Roman Catholic Study Bible, but that too was denied. Perhaps you need to have a CRC talk about this. Just kidding, of course. Actually, I am surprised that you didn’t include Bible software in your discussion. I have benefitted immensely, both in seminary and in ministry, from Logos Bible Software. Even in a base package you get about 50 versions of the Bible, with loads of tools and other books.
I too look first to the NASB for much of the similar reasoning as my lil sister above…
But, Amy, please know that the semi-colon use, improper as they may often be, is not necessarily injected into the translation arbitrarily. But rather to carry out a traditional Hebraic or Greek concept that perhaps is not easily translated to our flamboyant, often times erratically fickle, English. Many times, a misplaced semicolon or comma can change the meaning of an entire passage.
I tend however to lean more toward understanding the original text and compare to the available English translations to get a fuller understanding, rather than “sticking” to one.
I have given many Bibles away over the years…
Chris, I am not saying it’s arbitrary. I’m just saying that it’s not proper English punctuation. An English teacher just wants to read proper English, both in words and in sentence structure.
I’m enjoying the New English Translation…I can be a bit….picky..about translation, the Message gives me the twitches, ect…and of course I use the NASB. I’ll even dig out the KJV if I’m feeling nostalgic for a certain passage. Alot depends on usage and audience. Olive Tree software on the iPad lets me carry several and parallel read, which is great, but I miss paper, ink and that wispy sound singular to Bible pages turning.
Joel, that might have been the best laugh I had all day.
I used to be a strict NASB’er but eventualliy found it clunky for reading. I appreciate the different word choices and rich language it offers but I’m back to NIV for everyday use. Our church uses NLT a lot, which is good for seeing familiar passages in a new way, I think. I’m intrigued by the Holman Christian Standard Bible but don’t knnow much about it. Phil is an ESV guy, which I also like. I think there are benefits to most translations, depending on the situation.
When Phil is ordained, perhaps he can have some ordination Bible fun too!
I still prefer the NIV and use is almost exclusively for personal use, though I have others and will check particular passages on occasion. I do not like “clunky” to quote someone from earlier. When I switch it almost seems like trying to communicate in a new language.
I am not a big fan of the KJV, but many people at my church feel the same way about using the language of the KJV that I do about the NIV. They have not said this, and they are fine with people using other versions. It’s just the sense I get by common phrases that are used in conversations and people’s prayers. I broke down and bought a NKJV. I think my vocabulary has increased slightly, and it is helpful to be using the same version at times.
Amy, I agree with you on feeling like sermons are somehow “cheapened” when pastors switch versions with every reference. I have also seen this in books. I do not mind an occasional switch if there is a reason, such as being more accurate. I prefer one version to be used, and if needed give another version in addition to, rather than instead of, the first.
I thought graduates of Evangelical Seminary were trained to read the original languages of the Bible. Poor Dave Dorsey and Doug Buckwalter; they teach class after class while knowing most students work with the languages only long enough to get the credit. Since my negativity is aroused, may I also say producing new English translations of the Bible is a lucrative business. The irony is most confessing Christians don’t study the Bible they have, whatever the translation.
well, I’m not a seminarian, so that’s my excuse. I am certain that I will never learn Hebrew, and I’m highly unlikely to learn Greek. Those crazy alphabets! Some of us just troll this blog because we know Dr. Miller and want to hear the wise things he has to say.
I commend you for reading Dr. Miller’s blog. I agree; you can learn a lot. He is a cornucopia of wisdom. If you have an opportunity to listen to Dr. Miller preach, I encourage you to take advantage of it. He is one of the premier preachers of the E.C. Church. My comment was intended for seminarians trained to read the orginal languages of the Bible. Evangelical Seminary graduates (depending on the degree) are trained in Old Testament and New Testament exegesis using the original languages. Yet we do not use the training in our preaching and teaching ministries.
Although I often check the NASB (and take a look at the original languages, Richard
) for class assignments, when I am reading for personal pleasure, devotion, or study, I rely on the NIV. It was the first Bible given to me, so I like it for posterity reasons. But I also find the language clear and smooth to read.
Part of my Spiritual Formation Engaged Learning Project involved reading Psalm 139 every night for about 12 weeks in a different translation. I can’t put into words how extraordinary that assignment was. By reading it every night in a different translation the meaning of the Psalm transcended the words.
I’m not a fan of changing every Scripture reference in a sermon to a different translation, but different translations do have their place. Even The Message (sorry) does on occasion help people with understanding a tricky passage. We have to remember that not everyone in our pews is college-, or even high school-educated.
And, of course you had to buy the new N. T. Wright New Testament, Dr. Miller. We know he’s your favorite
!
Goodness, Jen, you’re revealing some of my secrets to the world. I am curious to see what he does with certain passages, given his perspective on the kingdom. It is definitely in the “dynamic equivalence” category from the few snippets I have seen.