Bible Translations

into the English language

(primarily the American idiom)

In the Middle Ages, there were numerous attempts to translate the Holy Bible into the English language. This was often met with resistance from the church institution; more than one person met with martyrdom for their efforts.

In the early 1600s, King James VI of Scotland (James I of England), empowered his leading Biblical scholars to make an Englsih translation from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts. The result is known as the "Authorised Version" in the United Kingdom, but in the United States is known as the "King James Version" or "KJV".

The KJV stood virtually alone for hundreds of years as the standard Bible for those who read and spoke English. Near the end of the nineteenth century, with the rise of comtemporary Biblical scholarship, other versions began to appear; today there are dozens.

Let me say first of all that I think this is a good thing. Most Americans are not fluent in ancient tongues, and so utilizing several versions of Scripture can help bring out the subtlties of these languages which are difficult to translate into English.

Nevertheless, not all translations are equal. Some are translated in a very literal fashion, others seek "dynamic equivalence", getting the meanings and thoughts right if not the actual words. Translators walk a fine line in this regard.

What follows are my thoughts, my opinions, and if they are helpful, then praise God. If not, then feel free to send me your comments.

King James Version (KJV) or Authorised Version
Originally put out in 1611, the KJV was (and is) a masterwork of scholarship. It is without question the dominant book of western civilization.With beautiful cadence and poetic sound, it is still wonderful.
It is not without its problems. Written in late medieval English, it is essentially written in a dead language, one that is no longer in use. Sometimes, it can be very hard to follow and has occasional readings which contemporary scholars doubt.
Still, one can hardly imagine Christmas Eve without hearing Luke 2 from the KJV. Every home should have one and every Christian should appreciate its beauty, grandeur, and indisputable place of honor in the tradition.
McIlRating: 8

Revised Standard Version (RSV)
This was a revision of a KJV revision, put out in 1952 and then reworked for a 1972 edition.
Considered for many years the most "scholarly" version of the Bible, it was widely in use in mainline Protestantism. This translation is fairly modern but keeps the "thees" and "thous" when referring to God.
I like this version. It sounds enough like the KJV to me that it really "sounds Biblical" (whatever that means) but is still written in a more modern idiom.
I prefer the 1971 update, as it restored some questioned passages and made some very positive revisions.
McIlRating: 1952 edition: 8; 1971 edition: 9

Today's English Version (TEV) or Good News for Modern Man
A work of the American Bible Society as (essentially) a missionary venture, the "Good News" Bible was released with some really neat stick figure drawings throughout the text, making for a nice illustrative effect.
This was in common use at one time in many Sunday Schools and is still very, very good, although it leans more in the direction of dynamic equivalence, and its translators seem not to have minded abandoning a more strict literalism.
McIlRating: 7

Jerusalem Bible (JB)
This was a Roman Catholic version which definitely leans in the Roman direction.
Nevertheless, it is excellent and has some creative renderings. It is definitely worth a look and is a great addition to any Biblical library.
McIlRating: 7

The Living Bible (TLB)
This is not a translation but a paraphrase done by fundamentalist Kenneth Taylor.
While I remember using this as a child, I can see now that it has many problems and raises many, many questions as to its legitimacy.
McIlRating: 4

New International Version (NIV)
This was a product of 1970s evangelical scholarship and since its complete publication in 1978 has gone on to replace the KJV as the primary "Bible of choice" in the American church.
This is an excellent translation, easy to read and understand and available in many, many different packages.
It does lean in the direction of conservative Calvinism and has some passages which are perhaps too paraphrastic and not as literal as they could have been, and does ignore the overall tradition in some ways ("episkopoi" has almost always been understood as "bishops", but in the NIV it becomes "overseers" for some reason...probably politically motivated), but it is still very fine.
McIlRating: 8

New King James Version (NKJV)
Released in 1982 as another "conservative" translation, it is largely a KJV with "you" and "yours" instead of "thy" and "thine".
It is very good and useful for those who don't want to give up the KJV but desire something a little easier to understand.
McIlRating: 8.5

New American Standard Bible (NASB)
A revision of an older KJV revision, this is a very literal translation. Literal, however, does not necessarily mean user-friendly.
Unfortunately, it reads quite strangely and has many awkward spots. A little more freedom in their procedures might have yielded better fruit. Instead, this one is, in my view, difficult to use.
McIlRating: 6

New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)
An update of the original Jerusalem Bible, it is not as good as its predecessor.
McIlRating: 6

New American Bible (NAB)
This is another Roman Catholic translation which is inferior to bothe the NJB and (especially) the JB, although it is not all bad. It just seems to lack "punch".
McIlRating: 6

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
This is a complete revision of the RSV, released in 1989 and is today considered perhaps the choice of most reputable scholars. It is also possibly the most "ecumenical" version to date.
The NRSV is wonderful in many ways. It is literal enough to be used as a faithful translation yet it has also done much to move toward "gender equity". Please note that the NRSV does not alter the pronouns used for God, but does change some other renderings when the context refers to both men and women.
Still, at times the translators seem to have gone overboard in their scholarly attempts, as in Genesis 1:1 and Daniel 7:13, where the tradition seems to have been ignored.
This is a good translation, though not nearly as good as its predecessor. It could have been better. A real shame.
McIlRating: 8

Contemporary English Version (CEV)
A well done revision/update of the Good News Bible; very good for the young.
McIlRating: 7

New International Reader's Version (NIrV)
A children's version of the NIV...I'm not sure if was necessary but it isn't bad.
McIlRating: 6

New Living Translation (NLT)
This is an attempt to validate the Living Bible. It is a legitimate (conservative) translation done in the flavor of the Living Bible.
It is a huge improvement from its parent and not a bad read.
McIlrating: 7

The Message
A good paraphrase by Eugene Peterson; some very thought provoking readings. Still, I don't recommend it for everyday use as it's not a translation, but a paraphrase (and Peterson makes no claims for it as a translation). It's good...pick up a copy...but don't use it exclusively.
McIlRating: 7

Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
A newer translation by the Southern Baptists, this feels to me like a cross between the NIV and the NKJV. It is very well done and, I have to admit, I'm very impressed! I can highly recommend this new addition to the English Bible family!
McIlRating: 8.5

English Standard Version (ESV)
This outstanding new revision of the RSV is the best English translation available today.
Serious in scholarship and faithful to the original texts without being too awkward, it goes a long way toward becoming "the" Bible translation for those who read and speak English.
Extraordinarily well done!
McIlRating: 9

Today's New International Version (TNIV)
This is a revision of the NIV which attempts include more gender-inclusive language. It seems to be OK, and although I agree with many of its critics, I think it still has some value.
Unfortunately, it is not really that much of an improvement on the NIV. This makes one wonder, as with the NRSV, why not just simply leave well enough alone rather than produce a translation which does little to improve on the original?
It's worth a look, but if inclusive language is extraordinarily important to you, I'd recommend the NRSV.
McIlRating: 7