Why So Many Bibles?

Posted by Lisa Laree to Beer Lahai Roi

A few years back, I taught the Book of James three or four times for the local Christian Women's Job Corps site, and one of the questions that came up in class was 'How do you pick a Bible? There're so many...which one is right?'

So I kinda came up with an explanation of why there seems to be a bazillion different Bibles, when there's only one Word of God, and I thought I'd share it here.

When you walk into the local Christian Family Bookstore or Lifeway store, or whatever the local equivalent is for you, most of the different Bibles you'll see are basically different packages of the text. That is, it's a basic Bible translation that has been published with commentary and/or study guides/helps. Things like 'The Women of Faith Bible' or 'The Spirit Filled Bible' or 'The New Scofield Bible' are the same word, but different helps/notes/etc. These aren't purchased necessarily for the Biblical text but for the additional material included. And there are different *physical* packages: paperback, imitation leather, hardback, full-grain leather. You can spend a lot or a little on a Bible, depending upon how it's packaged.

But the other big difference in Bibles is the translation. King James Version, Revised Standard Version, Amplified Version, The Message...there's a bunch of them out there. What's the difference?

The church I grew up in was very mistrustful of any translations other than the good ol' King James. And the King James translation was a very good one...in the early 1600's, when *everyone* actually spoketh like thateth. And it was very controversial in its day. In fact, in the 1500's, in England, possessing a common English translation of the Bible could land you in jail...or burning at the stake. The argument against it was that the religious folk of the day believed it would be 1) sacrilegious to publish the Word of God in the crude and common language of the streets and 2)dangerous to make the Word of God available to the uneducated, common folk. They feared that the people were too ignorant to rightly interpret what they read, and they didn't want heresy to start (of course, this would have the advantage of keeping the power in the hands of the religious leaders, but there were some folk who really believed that the only trustworthy scripture was the Latin translation). So the Religious Establishment fought the translation of the Bible into English. But the translations were done...sometimes at the expense of the lives of the translators (If you haven't read Foxes' Book of Martyrs or the updated version of it that DC Talk published, Jesus Freaks, check it out. You'll be astonished at the persecution English believers suffered at the hands of the English church in the 1500's for the sake of an English translation of the Bible). It took the edict of King James to make an English translation authorized and a number of Biblical scholars representing different factions of English faith united to make the translation, which was largely based on the work of the earlier, persecuted translators.

The word of God does not change...but the English language changed. Now, the old standard is the KJV...and the new translations are sometimes suspected of being irreverent or incorrect. But if the translating is done from original language, free from denominational bias, using all the available resources and fully annotated, there's no reason for it to be any less valid than the KJV. And it will be understandable by folks who don't have the patience to wade through Shakesperian English.

Anyway, here's a sketchy view of translations:

There are basically four levels of translating: Word-for-word, literal, idiomatic (sometimes called 'dynamic equivalency') and paraphrase.

Word-for-word translations of the Bible are usually interlinear versions in which the Greek or Hebrew text is written with the English word directly above the word it translates. You'd think this would be popular, but the plain truth is that English is different from most other languages in its sentence structure; A word-for-word translation of John 3:16 reads "For thus loved God the world, so as the Son the only begotten he gave, that everyone believing in him may not perish but may have life eternal." And, um, that's pretty awkward. Plus, often there is not a one-to-one correspondence between languages; for instance, in Greek, there are at least 4 different words for love: agape, storge, phileo, and eros, all of which refer to different types of love (unconditional, familial, brotherly, physical). But in English, we just have one word -- love. We love our spouses, love our children, love our country, love pizza, love that new dress, love that movie...etc...all the same word. So to get the distinction between the different words as written in the original, there have to be some more descriptive terms added.

Literal translations try to stay as close as possible to word-for-word, but with reasonable sentence structure and include: New American Standard (NASB) and, to a certain extent, the King James or Authorized Version (KJV or AV) and the New King James Version (NKJV). The Amplified Version is an especially useful literal translation, using words in parentheses to clarify the meaning of the original language. However, the many parenthetic phrases do make it a bit tedious to read.

Dynamic equivalence (idiomatic) translations strive to reproduce not only the content but the emotion of the text; reflecting the fact that the writers of the Bible used the language of the common people of their day. Idioms, translated literally, do not always convey the real meaning (consider the phrase, “I’m hooked on chocolate,” for instance). The New International Version (NIV) is a dynamic equivalence translation, as is the New Living Translation and the Message.

Paraphrases focus more on the general meaning of the text and not the details. These are works intended to introduce the reader to the concepts and characters of the Bible but do not support development of doctrine. Paraphrases include the Phillips Bible, the Living Bible and the Contemporary English Version (CEV). These volumes emphasize ‘readability’; for instance, the CEV is written so that people who read at a third-grade reading level will not encounter difficulties with grammar or vocabulary.

Something to keep in mind, though is that a literal translation, while being technically accurate, may not quite render the original scene. Case in point: In 1 Samuel 20, Saul is angry with Jonathan for releasing David from a feast. The literal KJV, Amplified and NASB, as well as the idiomatic NIV translate Saul's outburst in verse 30 as 'You ['thou' in KJ) son of a perverse and rebellious woman!' But the paraphrase Living Bible renders that 'You son of a b----!' Now, I'm quite sure that the literal translation of the Hebrew is what is in the first four translations. But which one do you think really reflects Saul's state of heart and mind most accurately to today's audience?


Here's a just-for-fun example of the various levels of translation, hopefully making correct use of my long-dormant high school French:
Consider the French phrase: "Oui, nous n’avons pas des bananes."
Word-for-Word translation: Yes, we have not of the bananas.
Literal Translation: Yes, we do not have any bananas. (verb still negated but more readable; quantity clarified)
Idiomatic Translation: Yes, we have no bananas. (verb positive but quantity negated)
Paraphrase: Yeah, we’re plumb outta bananas. (nothing negated but conveys same meaning)

They read differently, but they all convey the same meaning. So start where you are, with a translation that's readable; God will meet you there.