Bibles

After cutting my teeth on the Living Bible, my parents gave me a New American Standard Bible (NASB’77) for my 13th birthday and, if for nothing other than sentimental reasons, it was “my Bible” for the next 20 years. Other translations appeared on my bookshelf from time to time, but I remained a “literal is best” advocate and stuck with the NASB, eventually “upgrading” to the 1995 update in a wide-margin edition from Foundation.

That said, I began a search for a modern Bible translation a few years ago to use for both devotional reading and general study. The impetus for my search was the result of many factors, but primarily the growing conviction that a functional translation philosophy (”Dynamic Equivalence”) is more appropriate than formal equivalence for the vast majority of Christians without exposure and learning in the original languages.

Whereas literal, formal translations like the NASB strive to get closer to the original Hebrew and Greek texts by following those languages’ syntactic details (words and phrases), sometimes down to the exact grammar, functional translations use natural and idiomatic English to try and get closer to the original texts’ semantic meaning. In my opinion, formal translation cannot be but a shadow of the original texts, while functional translations can be creative and vivid new expressions of Biblical truth. My reading and study of the Bible has benefited from not only traditional functional translations like the New Living Translation, but from non-traditional efforts like those by Calvin Seerveld.

In my search for a new translation, I picked up some additional sorting criteria as well, which helped focus my effort. These include:

  1. Idiomatic English grammar. I’m not cemented to the cadence of the KJV and related translations, so part of the appeal of functional translations is their use of modern English grammar to more naturally express the thought of a passage. Translations that deliberately create a “foreign sound” through archaic grammar constructions have little appeal for me.
  2. Preserving the context of the Hebrew Bible texts, without subjecting them to NT interpretations or understandings, e.g. “jumping to Jesus”. I want to understand the original context of God’s word, not just the result of Christian interpretation.
  3. Inclusion or availability of the deuterocanonical (Apocrypha) books. I grew up without these books, but have been increasingly of the opinion that translations that include them, either by default or in an alternate printing, are naturally ecumenical and support unity with the corporate Church.
  4. Consistency with the translation used as the pew and pastoral Bible in my local church. This is not a blanket statement for everyone to use the same Bible translation, but a suggestion that similar translation philosophies could be chosen to avoid spending more time translating translations than focusing on the readings or sermon.
  5. Translation by an independent committee. I am not interested in a Bible translation that was created to support a specific personal, theological, doctrinal or denominational bias or agenda.

There are other issues that people evaluate translations on, e.g. gender accuracy, but the issues above were top-of-mind for me in my search. Since there are relatively few translations that meet all these “requirements”, the ongoing question was whether my criteria could be satisfied in other ways. For example, could OT context be satisfied through a translation with appropriate footnotes or study notes? Should I have a “Sunday Bible” that matches my church’s pew Bibles, but use my own translation at home for personal use?

For some of my comments about the process of selecting a modern Bible translation, browse the following links:

Choosing a modern Bible translation: [part 1] [part 2] [part 3] [part 4] [part 5]

Primary Recommendation

0521509408.gifAt the end of my search, the Revised English Bible (REB) emerged as my primary Bible translation. Rick Mansfield has summarized this translation as “undoubtedly the best literary translation of the Bible since the KJV, but without the archaic baggage”, and I agree. It is the rare example of Dynamic Equivalence executed at a higher reading level (whereas most DE translations feature simplified language to appeal to a larger audience of readers).

As a dynamic median translation, it is generally close enough to the New International Version (NIV) used at my church to be used as a “Sunday Bible”, though I’m more likely to bring a copy of the TNIV. The REB is not an evangelical translation and makes an effort to preserve the original Jewish context of the OT. There are editions available with a basic set of Apocrypha books, making it a more ecumenical choice than most of the translations on my shelf. The REB uses moderate gender-neutral language, albeit somewhat inconsistently.

If you’re interested in reading a little more about this translation, check out some of the following links:

hcsb_about_bible1.jpgOther Recommendations (listed from functional to formal)

Each of these has strong points and drawbacks, but I find them useful for additional study and comparison. The HCSB is my regular alternative translation to the REB, falling as equally to the formal side of the median fence as the REB does to the functional side.

Study Bibles / Other Resources

While I have several REB text-only editions, the Oxford Study Bible is actually the Bible I use on a daily basis. It provides significant cultural and contextual insight into the world of the Bible in the tradition of Oxford’s annotated Study Bibles, augmenting an already context-sensitive translation with historical-critical articles and study notes.