Categorizing Translations

I have been playing around with the Bible Version Selection Tool and the translations on the personal book shelf in my study. Here are some results, ranked within each criteria from High Score (top of list) to Low Score (bottom of list).

Please take note: the following lists reflect only the translations in my personal collection, using just the scoring method of the Bible Version Selection Tool. Also, I have NOT included the Interlinear or Amplified Bible translations from my personal collection, as they are not included in the data base of the Bible Version Selection Tool. The criteria labels are borrowed from the Tool (How important...?); criteria definitions appear in the Tool when the Detailed Options box is checked. Let me say again, these results are based upon the scoring method built into the Tool at the above website.

Disclaimer: I am not the author of this tool, I have never met the author of this tool, nor am I affiliated or related to the author in any way.

Personal Note: I think I prefer either the Most Literal or Dynamic criteria (data base sort) more than the others. But I am not sure. I also find the Serious Study criteria to be of some benefit; however, the ranking of NIV as number one in this criteria could do with some explanation by the Tool's author--perhaps NIV receives a high score because of the number of lexical aids and commentaries available for this popular translation. The Easy Reading criteria appears to provide some guidance for translations used in devotions--particularly those of us who do our devotions early in the morning, before our second cup of coffee.

Here are the results.

Most Literal
Formality refers to how closely a translation follows the grammatical forms and wording of the source language. This is often known as literal translation.
KJV
NKJV
NRSV
NASB
NEB
TNIV
NIV
JB (NJB)
NLT
GNT (TEV)

Dynamic or Functional
Functionality refers to how well a translation transfers the function, or the meaning to the new language. A high score in this category indicates that idioms in the source languages are translated into idioms in the target language. This is often called dynamic or functional equivalence.
GNT (TEV)
NLT
NEB
JB (NJB)
NIV
NRSV
TNIV
NKJV
KJV
NASB

Serious Study
For serious study, often a more formal translation is required, even when a more functional translation is easier to understand. This is especially true if one wants to do word studies or make effective use of a concordance in other ways. This rating combines formality, good scholarly notes, and consistent translation practice.
NIV
NASB
NRSV
JB (NJB)
NKJV
NEB
NLT
TNIV
KJV
GNT (TEV)

Easy Reading
Easy reading refers to how easy a translation is to read. This should not be confused with reading grade level. A children's Bible would rate a 10 here, while a scholarly version using many theological terms would rate a 1.
GNT (TEV)
NLT
JB (NJB)
NIV
NEB
TNIV
NRSV
NASB
NKJV
KJV

Public Reading
If the translation is to be used in public reading, for example as a pew Bible, how well does it flow orally. A translation that lacks dignity or is clumsily worded will rate poorly here; one with dignified vocabulary but also smoothly designed will rate well.
JB (NJB)
NIV
NEB
TNIV
NLT
GNT (TEV)
NASB
NRSV
NJKV
KJV


...Bob :0)
Kentucky

 

Since a translator who is translating out of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic is handling the Word of God, yes I believe the words should be translated as literally as possible.

 

Today, I re-arranged the personal Bible shelf in my study. The translations marked with * are the translations I use in my daily devotions.

Previously, I had used something similar to the Most Literal placement criteria; most literal (left), least literal (right).

Most Literal
Formality refers to how closely a translation follows the grammatical forms and wording of the source language. This is often known as literal translation.

Interlinear OT/NT
Applied Bible
KJV
NASB
NRSV *
NEB
TNIV
NIV *
JB (NJB)
NLT *
GNT *​

However, since I use the Bibles on my personal Bible shelf primarily for daily devotions, not serious study, I decided to switch to the Easy Reading placement criteria; most easy to read (left), most difficult to read (right).

Easy Reading
Easy reading refers to how easy a translation is to read. This should not be confused with reading grade level. A children's Bible would rate a 10 here, while a scholarly version using many theological terms would rate a 1.

GNT *
NLT *
JB (NJB)
NIV *
NEB
TNIV
NRSV *
NASB
KJV
Applied Bible
Interlinear OT/NT​

I will give this a go for a few days. Already, I have noticed that I like the progression from easy to hard, more than the progression (or regression) from literal to dynamic.

It is tough being a linear thinker.


...Bob :0)
Kentucky

 

Bob, thanks for the info.

Most Literal : NASB followed by the NKJ. The NEB should not rank so high. You do know it's liberal,don't you? It had a significant update called the REB. Even that one should rank considerably less than the TNIV/NIV. The NLT should have scored higher.

Serious Study : Should be NASB,NRSV,TNIV,NIV,NLT etc.

Easy Reading : The TNIV and NIV should rank higher than the NEB and NJB.

Public Reading : NLT,TNIV,NIV,NRSV etc.

 

Precisely. So the Amplified is an actual translation with alternate renderings in parenthesis. I view it as an essentially literal translation with the helps in parentheses being a wide range of styles.
. . .

Thanks for the facts. Very interesting

I think that rather than these items, translators should be classified by theology. That is what will really make a difference in translation method or philosophy.

 

Your gramps disagreed. In his volume :Our God-Breathed Book --The Bible he denied your view. When speaking of Wuest's Expanded Translation and the Amplified New Testament :"Actually they amount to commentaries. They are not literal and exact translations.The Scriptures do not have all those words in them. Although one may enjoy reading them, they should never be quoted as Scripture, and they should not be studied as Scripture for they thus water down the Word of God and necessarily they interpret it instead of literally translating it." (p.390)
. . .

That will simply not do. I'm surprised after all your reading on the subject of Bible translation that you could come up with something so transparently false.

Aren't you aware of all the cross-pollination of Bible scholars involved in multiple versions -- the ESV,NASB,MLB,NIV,TNIV,HCSB,NLT etc.?

So, for instance, you have Dr.Doug Moo involved with the NLT and heading the TNIV team. Those two versions use different translation methods -- yet he was involved in both.

Bill Mounce is part of the TNIV team and also the ESV team.

Many more examples could be given.

I hope you aren't suggesting that the more functionally-equivalent versions are undertaken by less biblically-minded scholars.

 

Oh, this is rich! You, Rippon, are quoting my grandfather to me after all the nasty things you've said about him in the past.

And after all, why would I not disagree with my grandfather occasionally? And this is one of those occasions.

 

I think the Darby translation should be ranked as a most literal translation. I think it's more literal than the KJV and definitely more than the NRSV.

 

Correction -- after all the nasty quotes from him.

That's good to hear. But on this occasion I tend to agree with him somewhat regarding the Amplified translation.

 

So let me get this straight. You classify the NEB as a liberal translation, and liberalism is a theological position, but on the same page you object to me saying we can classify translators by their theology, thus:

Okey dokey. Inconsistancy, thy name is Rippon. :tongue3:

 

The NEB is liberal. You need to take it on a case-by-case basis instead of broadbrushing it.

The NRSV is considered liberal by some yet it is essentially literal. The same applies to its parent, the RSV.

As I said before, the translators of the NLTse are conservative Bible scholars. They employ functional equivalence. There is no inconsistency about that.

The NET is a mediating translation much like the TNIV -- but a bit more dynamic. Its scholars are conservative,godly men.

Therefore, you can't make sweeping generalizations as you have done and expect agreement from reasonable-minded folks.

 

I feel another comparison thread coming.

I see your tad and raise it to the TNIV being a smidgen more formal than the NET Bible. The actual NET text is more functionally-equivalent -- and the notes are in the formal category.

 

By all means, continue to teach me.

Take what, the NEB on a case-by-case basis? You're the only one who has commented on it. So.....

So then in the Rippon philosophy, the liberal readings in the NEB, NRSV, and RSV are not because some of the translators were liberal? So then....?

I have not said here that there was. It was Eugene Nida who said that. :smilewinkgrin:

So then we must never ever classify translators by their theology...or we can sometimes...or only if they are liberals...? Hey, I'm trying to be "reasonable-minded" here and avoid "sweeping generalizations" like, that we can classify translators by their theology. Teach me how!

 

New reader here... (and yes, I have studied the original languages)

I'm seeing a debate that seems to be centered around Bible preferences rather than the actual translation techniques employed in their creation. Advocates for a particular version bring their stuff to the fore and expect others to see things their way instead of just examining the evidence provided by the translators (or paraphrase as the case may be).

In a skim of the thread, I've not seen the ASV listed. It is perhaps THE most literal translation of all -- to the point where reading it in English is somewhat difficult because it follows too closely the Hebrew and Greek word order. In my Greek classes, possession of the ASV was considered "cheating" for exam purposes.

One thing I've failed to notice in the discussion is the concept of "concordance." Can a translation be concorded or not? Correspondence with the actual Greek or Hebrew (Aramaic) text seems to be the base requirement for a literal translation. In this case, the NIV does not qualify, though a great translation for its purpose, which is dynamic equivalence with an eye toward readability. There may be no true or complete correspondence with the underlying text, however.

Dynamic equivalence is not always a bad thing. It takes cultural idioms common in the first century and "translates" them into idioms current in our era. It also takes difficult theological concepts such as propitiation and renders them in a way that helps an American English reader with about a 6th grade education process the concept -- sometimes getting it right, sometimes not, depending on the theological bent of the translator or translation team.

In a sense, the KJV, and the translations that came before it did that thing, only in 1611 English, though an effort to remain as literal as possible was also a part of the work. Of note is the fact that even the KJV had to be re-worked to be understandable to 18th century readers. There is no surprise that we need to do so again for 21st century readers. The English language has not proven stable over 400+ years, and so a "modern" translation is almost always needed for the current level of readability in the language of the people, for whom the Word was given in the first place.

I'm also seeing some posts about the "Received Text," but simply want to note that since that text was used in Wycliffe's work, and later for the KJV, that we have discovered earlier and better manuscripts, all of which inform the modern student of the Word and the translation efforts that stem from their work. I'm not dismissing the RT -- far from it -- but simply noting that it is now part of a body of NT and OT original language texts that far exceed what was available at that point in history.

My divisions? Literal -- word-for-word and/or dynamic equivalent; Free -- dynamic equivalent and/or thought by thought; and paraphrase -- based on another existing translation.

My preference? Original languages... After that, I like the ESV or NASB for word study, the NIV or HSCB for group study, and the Message, NLT, and a host of other free or paraphrase translations for devotional use. I try to read another different translation in my reading each year and have worked through quite a number of different versions. Each has its points, and even a version that is radically departed from the NASB or KJV like The Message makes for a great devotional read. It can bring to light things that the continual reader of Scripture tends to pass right on by to light by the different phrasing.

Oh, and at the end of the day, the Bible one actually reads and uses is the best one. Sure beats the alternative!

 

All this flap about the NEB is quite amusing. Therefore, I am going to say a few words about why I have this English translation in my personal collection and why I continue to keep it and occasionally read it.

Brief History of NEB

First, The New English Bible (NEB) is one of the first modern Dynamic Equivalence English translations. That is, if you consider this translation modern. The NEB is a British translation, not an American translation. The Joint Committee first met in January, 1948 to begin the translation process. Prior to that, in May, 1946, The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland and the Presbytery of Stirling and Dunblane began discussions to develop a completely new translation that would include delegates from the Church of England, Church of Scotland, and Methodist, Baptist, and Congregational churches. When the translation work began at the initial meeting in January 1948, invitations were extended to and accepted by the Presbyterian Church of England, Society of Friends, Churches in Wales, Churches in Ireland, British and Foreign Bible Society, National Bible Society of Scotland, and Roman Catholic Church in England and Scotland. The publishing concerns selected were the University Presses of both Oxford and Cambridge. The products began to roll off the presses as follows: New Testament (1st ed., 1961; 2nd ed., 1970) and Old Testament (1970).

At some point in the 1980s, a revision began, which would be known as the Revised English Bible (REB).

Today, The NEB is not available for purchase, except as a used publication. Neither is the NEB available online (that I can locate), nor is the REB available online.

Why I Use the NEB

My ancestors come from Scotland (before that, short stay in Ireland, with older roots in France). I consider my DNA genes to be Celtic. My first ancestor left Edinburgh, Midlothian county, Scotland and arrived on the shores of the colonies in 1723 as an indentured servant. After working off his passage, he farmed and entered civil service, last working as a constable in Maryland prior to his death. His sons moved to eastern Kentucky (Appalachia) and lived and raised their families, speaking Scotch-Irish-English Elizabethan language (KJV-speak) for 7 generations. My father left Appalachia and I was born and raised in a section of Kentucky known as the Bluegrass. Today, I visit my roots in Appalachia as often as I can, where I can still detect a trace of the Elizabethan language.

I purchased my first copy of the NEB New Testament translation in the early 1960s. It was my first non-KJV English translation. Soon afterwards, I also purchased portions of the Good News Bible (Today's English Version, TEV; Good News Translation, GNT) and the original Jerusalem Bible (1966), which is actually an English translation of a French translation from the original languages.

As was the custom of the 1960s and 1970s, these translations presented scripture in a different tongue than the English speaking world had known at that time. The dynamic equivalence senses were fresh and sometimes shocking, even controversial. They did not follow theology-based restrictions, as the later New International Version (NIV) and NLT felt inclined to follow.

I have keep all three translations (NEB, JB, and NGT) in my personal library for the last 4-5 decades (40 to 50 years). I consulted them and read them, along with the KJV, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, TNIV, Living Bible, NLT (1996), and NLTse (2007--actually a 3rd edition). Sociologists say that we tend to listen to secular music all of our life that was popular on the radio when we were teenagers and and in our 20s. I have grown accustomed to the NEB, JB, and NGT, and continue to consult and read them.

When the REB came out, I purchased and compared it to the NEB. I am sorry, but the REB did not resonate with me like the NEB. When the New Jerusalem Bible (NJB) came out, I also purchased and compared it to the earlier JB. Again, the NJB did not resonate with me like the JB.

Yes, there were/are "liberal" renderings in the NEB, JB, and NGT, if you look for them and know what you are looking for. However, these same renderings resonated with the population at large. Today, the NLTse (2007) has risen, at least in the U.S., to the top of the Dynamic Equivalence heap. And the NIV/TNIV is somewhere between Dynamic Equivalence and Literal, preserving many of the theological words that have become part of the day-to-day vocabulary of most of the evangelical churches.

A Word about Me

I am 60 years old and I no longer engage in the "translation wars." There is one exception, however; I use the NRSV as my literal translation, as well as Interlinear texts, which I believe are NOT from the Textus Receptus collection. I also use several language aids, such as English concordances (KJV, NIV), Hebrew concordance, Greek concordance, Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Holladay's translation the lexical work of Koehler and Baumgartner), Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (2nd ed., BAGD) and Zondervan's New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (NIDOTTE, 5 vols) and New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology (NIDONTT, 4 vols). I also use a variety of commentaries from conservative (J. Vernon McGee) to liberal (International Critical Commentary series and Hermeneia Critical and Historical Commentary series) with bunches of volumes sprinkled along the continuum.

My demographic is I am white male, retired business man, married, father, grandfather, age 60 with gray hair. I tend to move around in my church fellowship. Again, I have fellowshipped with churches on the fundamental side of the continuum (independent Baptist, GARBC, and Africian American Pentecostal) to the liberal side of the continuum (Methodist, United Church of Christ, and Episcopal). Currently, I am transitioning from the Africian American Pentecostal fellowship to the Episcopal fellowship.

By all accounts, the Africian American Pentecostal fellowship was the most literal church I have ever attended. It was like being in a fellowship from the Book of Acts. They traced their theology and church history back to the Ethiopian tradition, which they believed preserved the New Testament texts and practices of the 1st century Acts churches. In some respects, I agree.

Another period in my life, I fellowshipped with an all-white congregation that also traced their theology and church history back to the 1st century Acts churches, but using an independent Baptist publication called The Trail of Blood.

Today

I try to avoid Christian theological labels like fundamental, conservative, mainline, and liberal. I read and study my bible, pray, and go to church to fellowship with a body, as well as sing hymns, take communion and occasional meals. I have a weaknesses for church bodies that serve fried fish.

Moderators, feel free to delete any portion of the text that you think is inappropriate for this board.

Thank you.

...Bob :0)
Kentucky

 

I like to categorize translations/paraphrases by functional purpose.

For exegetical bible study, I prefer the NASB and NRSV because they are two of the more scholarly translations and closely follow the original languages at word level.

For discussing scripture with evangelical Christians, I prefer the NIV and KJV since they are the most familiar translations.

For talking to new Christians and young people, I prefer NLT and the Message because they use language that they can identify with and assist with comprehension of difficult passages.

For personal devotion, I generally like a mix of translations to get a different feel for passages depending on what questions I have about the passage if it is at a word level or a concept level. I occasionally use most of the above as well as the ESV and NET bible.

 

Case-by-case means case-by-case. Each translation should be considered on its merits on demerits.

I had said that some have considered that the NRSV and its parent -- the RSV, as being liberal. However, both are in the formally-equivalent category.

Just look at what I said at the beginning of this post so that you will be less confused.

 

JoJ maintains that Eugene Nida said the above. I claim that I said it. JoJ is confused.