Why we use the ESV at Foundation Church.
Not all translations of the bible are equal, especially when it comes to accuracy, reliability, and faithfulness to the original texts. As we explore which translations are the most faithful, it's important to consider how each version handles the balance between preserving the authenticity of the original text, whilst also maintaining a modern readability, and accessibility.
In this short read, we’ll look at the ESV, NASB, and NRSV as the top three translations that strike this balance the best, and then dive into some other popular translations, including the NIV, The Message, and the problematic Passion Translation (TPT). Furthermore, we’ll examine why versions like the KJV, and NKJV aren’t as solid in some areas as other translations.
Top Three Faithful Translations
1. English Standard Version (ESV)
Translation Philosophy: The ESV is a formal equivalence (word-for-word) translation that aims to be as literal as possible while maintaining readability. It draws from the most reliable and up-to-date manuscripts available and strives to preserve the original sentence structures and vocabulary in the source texts.
Why It’s Faithful:
Textual Integrity: The ESV is based on the latest manuscript evidence, including earlier manuscripts not available to earlier translators (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus). This ensures that the ESV is highly faithful to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts.
Balance of Accuracy and Readability: While being literal, it’s still accessible for modern readers, making it a strong choice for study and devotion alike. It avoids overly complex language but keeps the original meaning intact.
Popular Among Scholars: The ESV is widely used in academic settings and by serious Bible students for its commitment to textual faithfulness.
2. New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Translation Philosophy: The NASB is a formal equivalence translation that seeks to remain as close to the literal wording of the original texts as possible. It is known for its precision, sometimes even opting for word-for-word translation that preserves the structure of the original languages.
Why It’s Faithful:
Literal Translation: The NASB is one of the most literal translations available, making it ideal for in-depth Bible study, particularly when precision is essential.
Focus on Accuracy: The NASB uses the best available Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and incorporates textual critical work that reflects the most accurate renderings of the original languages.
Great for Study: Due to its accuracy, many scholars and pastors prefer the NASB for textual analysis, even though it can be slightly more difficult to read than translations that prioritize readability.
3. New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
Translation Philosophy: The NRSV is an essentially literal translation with some dynamic equivalence for readability. It seeks to combine a scholarly, precise rendering of the text with an accessible, modern language style. It is particularly valued for its inclusivity and linguistic sensitivity.
Why It’s Faithful:
Scholarship and Inclusivity: The NRSV is a product of a wide range of scholars from various denominations, ensuring a broad consensus on the text. It also incorporates inclusive language where appropriate, reflecting modern understanding of gender and other social dynamics.
Balanced Approach: While it’s essentially literal, the NRSV does not shy away from adapting the text where necessary to ensure clarity for modern readers, without compromising on the original meaning.
Widely Accepted in Academia: The NRSV is frequently used in academic and liturgical settings, where precision and readability are paramount.
Other Popular Translations and Why They Can Fall Shorter Than Others.
1. New International Version (NIV)
Translation Philosophy: The NIV follows a dynamic equivalence or thought-for-thought philosophy, meaning it focuses on translating the ideas and meaning behind the original texts rather than a word-for-word translation.
Why It Can Fall Short:
Dynamic Equivalence: While the NIV is readable and accessible, its thought-for-thought approach can sometimes lead to more interpretive choices rather than strict adherence to the original wording. This opens up the potential for biases or theological interpretations to influence the translation.
Less Literal: While this makes the NIV easier to read for many, it sacrifices some of the nuances of the original languages. Sometimes key theological terms are simplified or lost in translation, which may cause confusion on important doctrinal issues.
Textual Criticism: The NIV is based on a solid manuscript tradition, but it does not always reflect the most up-to-date textual criticism available. For example, in some cases, the NIV relies on later manuscripts rather than the oldest available ones.
The 1984 Translation of the NIV was a great translation in many respects. I have personally found that the 2011 translation was too bent on imparting modern theolgical views into the tranaslation process.
2. The Message
Translation Philosophy: The Message is a paraphrase rather than a true translation. Eugene Peterson, the translator, sought to communicate the message of Scripture in modern, conversational language.
Why It Falls Short:
Not a Translation: The Message is not a literal translation but rather a paraphrase of the Bible. While it may offer insight into the feel or broader ideas of passages, it does not strive to preserve the exact wording or meaning of the original texts.
Over-Simplification: In an effort to make the Bible easier to understand, The Message can over-simplify the text, losing the richness and complexity of the original languages. This can result in distortions of the original meaning, making it unreliable for in-depth study or theological understanding.
Subjective Interpretation: Because it is a paraphrase, The Message often reflects the translator’s own interpretive choices rather than a faithful rendering of the text. While it’s useful for devotional reading or to get a general sense of a passage, it should not be used as the primary source for Bible study.
3. The Passion Translation (TPT)
Translation Philosophy: The Passion Translation is another paraphrase that leans heavily on dynamic equivalence and expressive language to capture the emotion and “heart” of the original text.
Not a Traslation But A Dangerous and Erroneous Devotional.
Theological Bias and Unfaithful Renderings: The Passion Translation has been widely criticized for introducing biased theological interpretations into the text. In some cases, the translation alters key biblical concepts, especially in relation to the nature of God, the Trinity, and salvation.
Excessive Paraphrasing: While some parts of the Passion Translation may appear emotionally stirring or poetic, it frequently departs from the original text, either adding words or changing the meaning altogether to fit a particular theological agenda.
Lack of Scholarly Support: The Passion Translation was created by Brian Simmons, whose credentials and expertise in biblical languages have been called into question. The translation has not undergone the rigorous scholarly review and critique that other major translations have, which raises concerns about its accuracy and reliability.
Not Recommended for Serious Study: Because of its significant liberties with the text and theological imbalances, the Passion Translation is not recommended for serious study or use in teaching. It should be regarded as a devotional or poetic paraphrase at best, rather than a faithful translation of Scripture.
The Passion Translation SHOULD NOT BE USED by Pastors or Leaders in Church Settings. It is NOT the Word of God.
The KJV and NKJV
While the King James Version (KJV) and the New King James Version (NKJV) are both highly revered and loved for their literary beauty and historical significance, they fall short in certain areas when compared to more recent translations. Here’s why:
King James Version (KJV)
Translation Philosophy: The KJV uses a formal equivalence approach but was translated in 1611, relying on a limited number of manuscripts (mainly the Textus Receptus for the New Testament and the Masoretic Text for the Old Testament). Since then, a significant amount of textual scholarship and manuscript discoveries (like the Dead Sea Scrolls and Codex Sinaiticus) have provided more reliable and older sources for translation.
Why It Falls Short:
Manuscript Limitations: The KJV was based on a smaller and older manuscript base, particularly for the New Testament. Newer translations benefit from much earlier manuscripts, some of which were not available to the KJV translators.
Language Archaicness: While the KJV is beautiful, its English is now considered archaic, making it difficult for many modern readers to understand. Phrases like “thee,” “thou,” and “ye” are no longer in common usage, leading to potential misunderstandings of the meaning of certain passages.
Textual Advancements: Later discoveries (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls) have uncovered variant readings that offer more accurate renderings of certain Bible passages. The KJV does not incorporate these newer manuscript discoveries.
New King James Version (NKJV)
Translation Philosophy: The NKJV was created to modernize the language of the KJV while maintaining its formal equivalence approach. It uses the same underlying texts as the KJV, namely the Textus Receptus for the New Testament. In other words, it’s still a translation of a latin translation and not a direction translation from the earlier Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic texts.
Why It Can Fall Short:
Reliance on the Textus Receptus: Like the KJV, the NKJV relies primarily on the Textus Receptus, which is a later compilation of manuscripts, not the oldest or most reliable ones available today. Modern translations, such as the ESV and NASB, use earlier and more diverse manuscript evidence, such as the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, which are older and considered more reliable.
Limited Updates to Language: While the NKJV updates some archaic language, many terms and phrases from the KJV remain unchanged. This can still make it difficult for modern readers to understand the text in its full clarity. Additionally, certain grammatical constructions are still preserved from the KJV, which can be confusing or misleading to contemporary audiences.
Theological Concerns: Some critics argue that the NKJV does not fully embrace the more recent scholarly consensus on translations, particularly in terms of text-critical choices.
This being said, we would still encourage people to hold the KJV and the NKJV in high esteem, as God has used this translation of the bible to impact the lives of countless believers through the centuries and has brought God’s Word to people who did not previously have it.
The KJV and the NKJV are still prefered options over other non equivalent translations.
Conclusion
When choosing a Bible translation, it's essential to consider the balance between faithfulness to the original texts and readability.
The ESV, NASB, and NRSV stand out as some of the most faithful translations available today, which is why we teach, preach, and study as a church from the ESV. They are based on the best available manuscripts and strive to communicate the original meaning with clarity while maintaining precision and accuracy. If you’re going to use the NIV, NLT, or the the
What I have always maintianed however, is that the best version of the bible is the one people actually read.
____________________________________________
(Some of this information has been sourced from ChatGBT)
