Scholars and language students often tend to judge translations based solely on Issues 2, 3, and 4. By their reasoning, a conservative, literal translation from the best manuscripts must necessarily be the right Bible for everyone. But in reality, Issue #5 is the one most present in the minds of most English-only readers. One need only look at the sales figures to see this principle at work: for all the tradition behind the KJV, the NIV has been the best seller for years because of its readability, and the even smoother NLT is a close third. The Living Bible, while a paraphrase, outsold the KJV when it was first released. The message for translators is that readers want a Bible they can understand, and even the most accurate Bible does little good for those who will not read it.
Is the language contemporary, older, or a combination?
For the past century, Bibles have been translated into contemporary English, but before that time, the Bible and other ancient texts were routinely translated using Elizabethan English. Thus, Tyndale, GEN, KJV, RV, Young, Darby, and ASV have the style of the 16th and 17th centuries. For some time after, churches continued to pray in "King-James" English, and so some translators retained Elizabethan grammar in psalms and prayers (e.g., John 17:2): Weymouth, Moffatt, Montgomery, Lamsa, NEB, MLB, RSV, NASB (pre-95), and KJ21. The KJ21 is noteworthy here in that it seeks to update the KJV's general grammar and vocabulary, but seems to do so only half-heartedly.
Understanding Elizabethan grammar is only moderately difficult, but it can be a challenge to master the vocabulary, especially when it continues into modern-English translations. Words from Tyndale such as liefer, despitions, and noosell were already passing out of use when the KJV was produced. In 1 Samuel 17:6 (KJV), Goliath has greaves on his legs and a target between his shoulders. Greaves must be more common than I was aware, for the word also appears in RV, Darby, ASV, AAT, Lamsa, NWT, JB, RSV, NEB, NIV, NJB, NAB, NRSV, REB, KJ21, and NASB. They are a kind of leg armor, as indicated by the other versions. (GEN reads bootes.) The target is called a collar in KJ21 and a ƒhilde (shield) in GEN, but is really a kind of weapon. It may be a dagger (NEB, REB), a scimitar (NJB, NAB), or a spear (NCV), but the majority opinion is that it is a javelin (RV, Young, Darby, ASV, NWT, AMP, JB, MLB, RSV, LB, NKJV, NIV, NRSV, GNT, LITV, NASB, NLT, NIrV, ESV, CW). Another archaism that also appears in later versions is the girdle that Jonathan wears and gives to David in 1 Samuel 18:4 (GEN, KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, AAT, Lamsa, RSV, KJ21). Today we would call it a belt, as all other versions have it.
As with girdle, many words have changed their meaning over time. Thus, Bibles no longer call the Spirit the Holy Ghost because of the negative connotations the word ghost has taken on. We are amused to see Jesus' command, Suffer little children in Tyndale, GEN, KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, and KJ21 (Matt. 19:14). It has often been said that in the old style, suffer means to let, let means to prevent (1 Thes. 2:7, KJV only), and prevent means to precede (Amos 9:10, KJV only). The contradiction Jesus endured in KJV, Darby, and KJ21 (Heb. 12:3) is more properly rendered speaking against (Tyndale). And the honest conversation of Tyndale, GEN, KJV, and Darby (1 Pet. 2:12) is actually an honorable way of life. My personal favorites are the superfluity of naughtiness in James 1:21 and the certain lewd fellows of the baser sort in Acts 17:5 (both KJV only).
Since the GEN was not revised after 1644, it retains the spelling of the time, which makes reading it today doubly difficult. Consider for example forgiue vs our dettes; lead vs not into tentation, but deliuer vs fró euil; Dauid went out whetherƒoeuer Saul ƒent him & behaued him ƒelƒe wiƒely (1 Sam. 18:3); and he hathe laied ƒiege against vs: they ƒhal ƒmite the iudge of Iƒrael with a rodde vpon the cheke (Mic. 5:1). Editions of the KJV from 1611 and shortly afterward read similarly, as do its predecessors, the Tyndale, Coverdale, Great, and Bishop's Bibles. Wycliffe's Bible (earlier than Tyndale's) is most difficult because several letters in Wycliffe's alphabet have disappeared from our language altogether.
Does the translation contain regionalisms, slang, or considerable informalities?
In Tyndale's day, it was common to mix English with Latin or even Latinized English within the same sentence. Tyndale stuck closely to common English words, usually preferring Anglo-Saxon words over Latin derivatives. Such was natural for his work, produced for the common people in defiance of the church's prohibitions. As the church adapted Tyndale's Bible for its own use, they added more elevated style and refined vocabulary with each revision until the KJV reached its stately form. Comparing the KJV with Tyndale reveals just how informal Tyndale's work is, even if it seems stylized to us today.
When the RV was produced in England, an American committee offered alternative renderings for spelling and vocabulary that were less common in the US. Most printed copies of the RV contain an appendix listing these proposed changes. Among the Britishisms the committee noted are chapiter, astonied, minish, defenced, wist, and froward.
The NEB also drew harsh criticism upon its release for being too "British." This includes references to possessions as chattels (Gen. 36:6), Pentecost as Whitsuntide (1 Cor. 16:8), and reports that the people fell foul of Jesus (Matt. 13:57) and that the Lord is coming to hold assize (1 Pet. 2:12). Both NEB and REB refer to the gnat of Matthew 23:24 as a midge. Nearly all of these regionalisms were corrected by the REB. Likewise, Moffatt's translation has a strong Scottish feel to it that may make reading difficult for American readers.
The MSG exchanges original-language idioms for American ones. Expressions that are anachronistic or otherwise obviously not drawn from the text include Smart-mouth College (Psa. 1:1), in the driver's seat (Matt. 16:24), in plain English (Acts 13:8), minimum wage (1 Cor. 3:7), blueprints (1 Cor. 3:10), put your mind into gear (1 Pet. 1:13), slip back into those old grooves (1 Pet. 1:14). This becomes most problematic when components of meaning (such as sacrifice) are lost, as in Romans 8:36, where the sheep to be slaughtered are changed into sitting ducks. Norlie sometimes gets a little too contemporary with expressions such as wicked rowdies in Acts 17:5 (compare AAT's loafers in the same verse).
The CPV is deliberately filled with the slang of the American South. In Luke, Jesus is thought to be old Joe's boy (4:22), the children of God are the spittin' image of the Almighty (6:35), and the white supremacists accuse Jesus of being a gadfly and a jitter-bug, a friend of Yankees and a nigger-lover. In comparison with the CPV, the LB is positively restrained, despite its strong Americanisms and occasional extremes. The LB's most infamous vocabulary is Saul's outburst in 1 Samuel 20:30, You son of a bitch!, which the NLT moderates to stupid son of a whore. The NJB and MSG approach the coarseness with son of a rebellious slut, which is not entirely out of keeping with the intensity of the Hebrew, whereas the NWT's son of a rebellious maid is far too cautious and actually contradicts the meaning of the Hebrew.
What is the reading level and range of vocabulary for the translation?
I have not seen a satisfactory way of assessing reading level. Many computer programs simply consider vocabulary totals, number of syllables, and average sentence length, and so versions like the GNT and NLT1 which multiply sentences may have an artificially low score. Some minor versions, such as the Bible in Basic English, work from a vocabulary of only 800 to 3,000 words. The NCV and NIrV, both claiming third-grade reading levels, are designed for reading by 6- to 10-year olds, though the NCV is also popular for adults who read little serious literature. The most difficult for children would be the older versions and those that most retain Hebrew and Greek grammatical structure (Tyndale, GEN, KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, and LITV; though Tyndale's shorter sentences and simpler vocabulary help once its alphabet is modernized). These are generally said to have a 12th-grade or college reading level.
Conventional reading levels reported for other fairly literal versions are 11th grade for NASB and NAB, 10th grade for Weymouth and NRSV, and 9th grade for the NJB. The PME, while a paraphrase, is sophisticated enough to score at the high-school level as well. Most free translations aim at a middle-school level (6th to 8th grade), which is the level of most newspapers and popular literature. The NKJV and the contemporized portions of KJ21 also have 8th-grade reading levels by most methods.
Is the translation pleasant to read?
This is by far the most subjective criterion, though it is one of the most important. Young readers, those new to Christianity, and many evangelists prefer a light, conversational style, somewhat like a personal letter. They certainly don't want to feel like they are reading a translation. This is the goal of paraphrases such as the PME, LB, and MSG, though the PME is a bit on the formal side. The MSG has received extremely high praise from many circles, but some critics see it as downright silly in places. The NLT, CEV, NCV, and NIrV also have this as a priority–translating the Scriptures as if they were written today, to our culture. Additionally, the CEV was specially designed to sound like original contemporary speech when read aloud. On the other hand, many in-depth Bible students want to feel as if they are transported back to the Bible's original culture, hearing it along with the original audience. This is more the feel of the RSV, NASB, and ESV, and also of the KJV, RV, and ASV for those who prefer older English. Others like a smooth-reading but somewhat formal style, as found in the MLB, NIV, ISV, NET, and HCSB, and to a lesser extent in the GNC and TNIV. And what has kept the KJV afloat is that millions of readers see it as the most "Biblical," with its stately, rich English, elevated, poetic, and easy to memorize. No modern translation has matched the KJV as a literary masterpiece. The GEN and RV are also quite elegant, and not nearly as wooden as the ASV. Tyndale may be the best example of making a Bible simple to read without departing from a literal translation philosophy. It doesn't "feel" like a 500-year-old document, except for the occasional obsolete words. The most difficult translations to enjoy at length are the Young (esp. OT) and AMP versions.
Does the translator capitalize pronouns referring to deity?
When the Bible was originally written, there was no distinction between capital and lower-case letters. But in English, it is common to capitalize personal pronouns referring to God, and for Christians, those referring to Jesus and the Holy Spirit. This has become so commonplace that it is surprising how many versions do not do so. Of the forty-nine versions surveyed, the nine that use capitals are Weymouth, William, MLB, NKJV, KJ21, LITV, NASB, CW, and HCSB. (This was not always the case. In the days of Tyndale, GEN, and KJV, divine pronouns were not capitalized, and even Father, Son, and Holy Ghost sometimes lacked capitalization.)
What does the translator do with the name of God?
God has a name. When the Israelites said, "The LORD is God," it was not merely a tautology. Scholars are unanimous that God's name was pronounced Yahweh or Yahveh, with the accent most likely on the first syllable; so they would say, "Yahweh is God.". Some time after the Old Testament was completed, Jews stopped pronouncing the name out of reverence, and later Hebrew texts replaced the vowels of Yahweh with those of the word Lord ('adonai). This is where the transliteration Jehovah comes from. (Y-names usually become J-names in Bible translation.) Likewise, Greek Old Testaments translated Yahweh as kyrios (Lord).
In consideration of the traditional Jewish reticence, most versions translate Yahweh as Lord (GEN, AMP, LB, NCV)–or more commonly LORD to distinguish from 'adonai (KJV, RV, AAT, Lasma, MLB, RSV, NEB, NKJV, NIV, NAB, NRSV, REB, GNT, KJ21, NASB, GW, NLT1, NIrV, NET, ESV, HCSB, NTL2). Since the MSG avoids the word Lord altogether, it uses GOD in all capitals. A few translations use Jehovah: Young, Darby, ASV, NWT, and LITV. Only the JB and NJB use Yahweh. The NWT also translates the Greek kyrios as Jehovah in the New Testament when the translators judge it to refer to the Father. (But never when it refers to Jesus.)
Does the translator show an effort to translate the same word consistently where appropriate?
This is called the principle of concordance. Pastors and Bible students like it because they can tell by looking at the English which Hebrew or Greek word lies behind it. This is helpful when certain words occur an unusual number of times in a passage, or when they are laden with theological meaning. Translators are limited in their ability to do this, however, because words have different meanings in different contexts, and the English near-equivalent may not have the same range of meaning.
An example of a word that requires caution is the Greek dikaios, commonly translated righteous or just. In Luke 5:32 and 14:14, the meaning is the same–those whose lives are characterized by righteousness. But in 12:57, Jesus uses the word to describe a correct judgment, which requires a different word. Young, NWT, TBV, NJB, INC, and NIrV manage to translate the same all three times, but with a resultant loss of precision. This would be an overcommitment to concordance. Many translations translate the first two references the same (e.g., righteous), and the third differently (e.g., right): Tyndale, Weymouth, Moffatt, William, Lamsa, JB, NIV, NAB, NRSV, NCV, NASB, ISV, NET, HCSB. The other translations have a different rendering each time: GEN, KJV, RV, Darby, ASV, Montgomery, AAT, PME, Norlie, AMP, MLB, CPV, RSV, LB, NEB, NKJV, GNC, REB, CEV, GNT, KJ21, LITV, GW, NLT1, ESV, MSG, CW, and NLT2. The reasons for this vary. Some translations do not make concordance a priority. Others lack coordination between the different translators. But some, most notably the KJV, NEB, and CEV, have deliberately sought to include as much variation as possible for stylistic reasons.
A more difficult case has to do with one of John's favorite words: abide. It has the general sense of remaining. The Spirit can abide with someone, people abide in houses, and eternal things abide forever. Since abide is an uncommon word, and no common English word covers the entire range of meaning, the translator is forced into some variation. The difficulty here is that John deliberately pairs different meanings of the word together, and as his Gospel progresses, the word takes on more theological implications. Selecting just a few of the occurrences (John 1:32-33, 38-39; 3:36; 6:27; 14:10, 16) reveals the habits of different translations. The RV, being a concordant translation, always translates the word abide. Young, Darby, and ASV manage to translate seven of the nine occurrences the same (using remain or abide). Weymouth, William, NWT, MLB, and NET each use remain five times. But Tyndale, Moffatt, Montgomery, AAT, Lamsa, Norlie, RSV, LB, NRSV, NASB, NLT1, HCSB, MSG, CW, and NLT2 never use the same word more than twice to render the term in these verses.
There are pairs of abide in which concordance is important. In verses 32 and 33, God has promised John that the one on whom the Spirit abides is the Messiah. John then testifies to having seen the Spirit abide on Jesus. The word is translated the same in all versions except Tyndale, GEN, KJV, Norlie, AMP, TBV, KJ21, and MSG. The occurrence in 1:32 should also match 14:16, when Jesus tells the disciples the Spirit will abide with them forever. But only GEN, KJV, RV, Young, William, AMP, GNT, and KJ21 make this connection. And it would also be helpful to see that after some disciples asked Jesus where He was abiding, they abode with him for the rest of the day. The versions that convey this are RV, Young, Darby, ASV, NWT, RSV, NAB, GNC, NRSV, NCV, GNT, INC, NASB, NLT1, ISV, NET, HCSB, ESV, MSG, and NLT2.
A second bit of clever word choice occurs in 1:38-39. Jesus tells these disciples, "Come and see," so they came and saw. All versions except LB, CEV, GW, NLT1, CW, and NLT2 maintain the reiteration here.
A much easier example to show the value of concordance is the word agape, which most translations regularly render love. When the KJV's Apocrypha was completed, Andrew Downes was transferred from that committee to one that was in the middle of Paul's epistles. With his aggressive and abrasive personality, he managed to get the word agape translated as charity in most of the remaining texts, whereas love was the translation everywhere else (and also throughout the Tyndale-based version they were revising). Thus charity appears 9 times in 1 Corinthians 8-16, and alternates roughly with love from Colossians through Revelation. The KJ21 follows the KJV's word choice here, and the NWT uses charity in 1 Corinthians 13, which is nevertheless famous as "the love chapter."
Has the King James Version influenced word order and word choice in familiar passages?
The influence of word order is hard to discern since the KJV follows the original languages so closely. But owing to the differences in English usage, the influence of word choice is easy to detect (see the above discussion on greaves). Five examples suffice to show the dramatic influence of the King James. (Technically, Tyndale and GEN cannot be said to be influenced by the KJV (which came later). The KJV is instead influenced by them.)
hallowed be Your name in Matthew 6:9: Tyndale, GEN, KJV, RV, Young, ASV, Montgomery, Lamsa, Norlie, AMP, RSV, NEB, TBV, NKJV, NIV, NAB, NRSV, REB, INC, KJ21, NASB, ESV, TNIV.
Other translations have honored, kept or treated asheld holy, revered, or sanctified.
babe in Luke 2:12: KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, Weymouth, Montgomery, Lamsa, RSV, TBV, NKJV, KJ21, LITV
Most other translations have baby; a few have infant or child.
wrapped in swaddling clothes in Luke 2:12: KJV, RV, Darby, ASV, Weymouth, Montgomery, Lamsa, Norlie, AMP, JB, MLB, NEB, TBV, NKJV, NJB, NAB, REB, KJ21, ESV
Other translations have dressed in baby clothes, wrapped up, wrapped in cloths or bands or a blanket. A few such as Tyndale have swaddled.
multitude of the heavenly host in Luke 2:13: KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, Norlie, NWT, MLB, RSV, TBV, NKJV, NAB, NRSV, INC, KJ21, LITV, NASB, NET, HCSB, ESV
Other translations vary widely. Tyndale (the KJV's predecessor) has multitude of heavenly soldiers.
have not love/charity in 1 Corinthians 13:1: KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, Lamsa, Norlie, AMP, RSV, NKJV, NIV, KJ21, ESV
Other translations, including Tyndale, use the modern word order do not have love, don't love, have no love or am without love.
Are words supplied by the translator differentiated from the text itself?
Words that are implied in the Greek text but necessary for smooth English are sometimes placed in italics, a practice begun with the GEN. Italics also appear in the KJV, RV, ASV, NKJV, and NASB. The NWT, AMP, and LITV place added words in brackets, and the NIV and TNIV use half-brackets on rare occasions (about eight times in the whole New Testament). The HCSB has few brackets in the New Testament but many in the Old Testament, perhaps suggesting a change in policy during the latter portion of the translation project. Most modern translators do not see a need to distinguish the added words since they are definitely implied in the text, and the use of italics is sometimes confusing for those who are used to associating italics with emphasis. The MSG complicates the problem for those comparing translations: it does use italics for emphasis.
Is prose text presented in paragraph format, or does each verse begin on a new line?
Traditionally in Bibles, each verse begins on a new line for ease of reference. More modern versions tend to prefer paragraphs, since this better represents the author's structure and flow of thought. Those using paragraphs are Tyndale (whose work predated verse divisions), Moffatt, Norlie, JB, MLB, CPV, RSV, LB, NEB, NIV, NJB, NAB, GNC, NRSV, REB, CEV, NCV, GNT, INC, KJ21, GW, NLT1, NIrV, ISV, HCSB, ESV, TNIV, CW, and NLT2. There are also a few editions of the NKJV available in paragraph format. The MSG not only uses paragraphs but omits verse numbers altogether. Those preferring a verse-by-verse format are GEN (the first English Bible to have verses), KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, Weymouth, Montgomery, William, PME, NWT, AMP, TBV, NKJV, LITV, and NASB. NASB Bibles usually indicate the beginnings of paragraphs by placing a verse number in bold face. Some recent editions of the NASB are available in paragraph format.
Are prose, poetry, and other forms rendered as such in the format of the text?
Much of the Bible is poetry, and most versions (all but Tyndale, GEN, KJV, AAT, AMP, LB, LITV, and CW) mark poetic passages with an indented, line-by-line format. A good test verse is one of the first songs in the Bible, Genesis 4:23-24 (though NLT1 has it as prose). A debated occurrence of poetry is Daniel 7:10-14. RV, Young, Darby, ASV, NWT, MLB, GNT, KJ21, and NLT1 have the entire passage in prose. Verses 9-10 are set off as poetry in NEB, NIV, REB, NCV, GW, and NIrV. And verses 9-10 and 13-14 are poetry in Lamsa, JB, RSV, NKJV, NJB, NAB, NRSV, NASB, NET, ESV, MSG, and HCSB. One particularly interesting passage is 1 Peter 2:21-25, which is prose according to the UBS Greek text, but poetry in its companion, the Nestle-Aland text. The only versions that have the section as poetry are CEV and HCSB. The versions most attentive to poetry are JB, NJB, CEV, and HCSB; while the two least attentive are the LB and CW, which even paraphrase Psalms and Proverbs into prose paragraphs.
The GEN and KJV began the tradition of placing inscriptions in all capitals (e.g., Matt. 27:37), and are followed by RV, ASV, Weymouth, Montgomery, William, MLB, NIV, GNC, NCV, LITV, NASB, NIrV, TNIV, and MSG (with some using small caps). Moffatt, Lamsa, PME, and NKJV go further by centering the capitalized inscription, and HCSB additionally draws a box around it.
Lists such as genealogies and censuses can be confusing, especially in paragraph form. As a result, a number of versions give such lists an easy-to-read format. For the list of tribes in the 144,000, Revelation 7:5-8 is specially formatted in RV, ASV, Weymouth, Montgomery, LB, NKJV, NIV, NRSV, NCV, NASB, GW, NLT1, NIrV, NET, ESV, TNIV, and NLT2. The GNT condenses this particular list but renders others almost like spreadsheets, as does the MSG (which has this example in regular prose).
The KJ21 contains a novel feature. In addition to the now-standard prose paragraphs and set-off poetry, the updaters have placed familiar texts in bold print, and have italicized Jesus' words.
Does the translation provide footnotes for explanations and alternate readings or renderings?
Nearly all translations provide this feature to give the reader any information that cannot properly be placed in the text. Even the KJV had such footnotes when first published. Often, as with the JB and NASB, these footnotes are mixed in with cross-references. Extensive translator's notes are the hallmark of the NET Bible, which boasts nearly 60,000. The PME contains endnotes rather than footnotes, and they come only rarely. As helpful and necessary as these notes are, there are two factors that diminish their usefulness. The first is that readers rarely read footnotes, especially if they are in tiny print, squashed into a margin or center column, or seldom relevant. The second is that software and compact Bibles often omit footnotes, so there is no guarantee that every reader will have access to the information. For these reasons, it may be wise for translators to use footnotes only sparingly (the NIV, GNC, ESV, HCSB, and NLT2 have a good balance). They should also be intelligible, since most readers will balk at excessive abbreviation or the unfamiliar lingo of linguistic scholarship. This hurt the popularity of Moffatt's version, whose footnotes include a great deal of untranslated Greek. The MSG omits all footnotes, cross-references, verse-numbers, double-column formats, and anything else that would take away the feel of reading a normal book. It may also be important to note whether the footnotes contain objective translation notes or interpretive commentary, and whether the difference between the two is marked in some way.
Special comment should be made regarding alternate readings. Should the reader be informed of the presence of textual readings that are traditional but obviously not original? I think, with regard to longer readings (e.g., whole verses), the reader should be advised so as not to suspect that the version accidentally omitted the longer text. But a poorly worded footnote may give the reader the impression that he can simply choose whichever reading he likes best (which will rarely be the shorter or more difficult reading). An impressive solution appears in the NIrV, which deals with these verses in its introduction. Ideally, however, pastors should make their congregations aware of the textual differences between the KJV/NKJV and other versions, and the reasons behind them.
Does the translation mark Old Testament citations in the New Testament?
Reference Bibles of any translation do this, but the translators themselves provide these helps in a number of versions. The AMP, LITV, and NIrV place OT addresses in the text. In GEN, RV, JB, MLB, RSV, LB, NKJV, NAB, GNC, NCV, NASB, NLT1, ISV, NET, ESV, TNIV, and NLT2 they are in the footnotes or the margin. The NASB and HCSB capitalize OT quotations, while in Moffatt and NET they are in italics. The LITV has the added feature of marking Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament with the letter M. As with footnotes, these references may be omitted in certain compact editions and software, and the MSG avoids them for the reason given above.
