Top Ten Bible Versions: Revisited (2010)
Tuesday, August 10, 2010 at 3:11PM In 2006, I created a top ten list of my favorite versions of the Bible. It was partly based on preference and partly categorical. Then, over the next year, I attempted to write meaningful reviews as to why these selections were chosen. Some liked my selections and some didn’t, but they were mine. See “Top Ten Bible Versions: The Complete Boxed Set” at my old site.
As I’ve written many times before, collecting English versions of the Bible has always been a bit of a hobby for me—going back to my teenage years. I was fascinated by even the minute choices that translators could make. Studying Greek and Hebrew in seminary, and incorporating original languages into my own personal study of the Bible gave me even greater insight into my fascination. In other words, one might think that learning biblical languages would negate any need for translations, but rather it made my interest deepen.
Further, I still use English translations in front of an audience. It takes a lot of time to create good translation that is better than what a committee has spent a few years on. And this is made even more clear when I attempt to translate a passage from Greek on the fly (previously unprepared), so I usually have both original languages and translation with me.
When not in the classroom or not in church, my study of the Bible comes mostly from electronic platforms such as Accordance on my Mac and Olive Tree’s BibleReader on my iPad. Electronic platforms especially accommodate the use of comparative readings of the Bible, much easier than laying out multiple physical copies side-by-side.
I occasionally get asked if I would update my top ten list now that a few years have gone by. Well, these kinds of preferences are always open to change. So, in light of that, here’s my list for 2010. The first five or so are actually ranked more or less. The latter five are more categorical in nature.
1. Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)
See original review here. I still find this translation to be the most significant version of the Bible to arrive in decades. I chose it in the first place because of what I called “technical accuracy” in translation and the willingness to break with traditional renderings for the sake of correct meaning. The HCSB is essentially a median translation (the best kind in my opinion), sometimes more literal and sometimes more dynamic according to the need.
Since I placed the HCSB at the top of my list in 2006, I drifted from it a while, but last year while teaching a series on the Psalms I came back to it, and I haven’t left since. Yes, there are some renderings I don’t always agree with, but I reserve the right to “correct” on the fly if necessary.
This is the primary translation I’m currently using in public, and having just recently bought a new edition with the revised text, I don’t expect that will change for a long time.
If you’ve dismissed the HCSB because you think it’s a “Baptist” Bible, you’re selling it short (half the translation committee, including the general editor, are not Baptist) and both you and your audience are missing out.
2. New Living Translation (NLT)
See original review here. Continually improved since its debut as an actual translation (as opposed to its predecessor’s status as a paraphrase) in 1996, the NLT remains the best example of contemporary, conversational English language of any translation. It’s a great choice for both new believers as well as seasoned Christians who might have heard the Bible so many times in traditional terms that they no longer hear it so clearly.
The narrative portions are the best. If you’re preaching through the gospels, I don’t have a better recommendation than the NLT. However, by the same token, I don’t find it as helpful in poetic sections as metaphors are often flattened out a bit more than I’d prefer. Nevertheless, even this has been improved in recent years.
I still haven’t found a good “carry with me” copy of the second edition text, although I had a couple of favorites in the first edition.
3. NET Bible (New English Translation)
See original review here. Note that I switched title and abbreviation order for this version because it’s known better by its acronym which also makes a play on the word internet, where the NET Bible was first released. This version didn’t even make my original list because I was still in the process of familiarizing myself with it. But a few years later, after using it extensively in personal study, in the classroom, and from behind the pulpit, I can recommend it without hesitation.
As I said in my long-delayed review, “I recommend the NET Bible–especially the standard edition with 60,932 notes–to all believers.” Hands down, the complete NET Bible has the best set of notes I’ve ever seen in any study Bible. The translation, while still having a few rough places, is solid, too. Ultimately, this is simply a translation of the Bible in need of better exposure.
4. New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
No official review, but see NRSV tags on both the classic and current This Lamp site. This is another translation that didn’t make my original list. While I had used the NRSV a good bit in the early nineties, I’d neglected it afterwards. But in recent years, I find myself referencing it more often and have come to appreciate it again.
The NRSV often gets a bad rap as a “liberal” Bible in some conservative circles. And while there are certain renderings that I would translate differently, I find the NRSV to be quite reliable. Its senior editor was the late, great Bruce Metzger, and because I trust him, I trust the NRSV. It’s the current de facto standard translation in academic circles, and the NRSV contains the widest selection of apocryphal/deuterocanonical literature of any English translation.
5. New American Standard Bible (NASB)
See official review here. For better or worse, I doubt I’ll ever escape the NASB (and don’t necessarily want to). This was the first Bible as a teenager that I could understand (claims of woodenness be hanged!). The NASB was the first translation I read from cover to cover. I taught from this translation for almost two decades. Most scripture I have memorized is in the NASB. In many ways it is still standard for me, even if it is a bit dated these days. If someone wants a formal equivalent translation in the Tyndale tradition ,this is still the version I recommend.
6. Good News Translation (AKA Today’s English Version; GNT/TEV)
See original review here. I can remember looking at Annie Vallotton’s simple, but profound line drawings, even before I could read, in my parents’ paperback copy of Good News for Modern Man. I’m very thankful to have access to this translation in Accordance, but I wish I had the pictures, too!
After reading Eugene A. Nida’s book, Good News for Everyone: How to Use the Good News Bible, I gained new respect, not only for this translation but also for the method of translation. While somewhat dated, the GNT remains the best pure dynamic equivalent (DE) Bible in my opinion, perhaps closely challenged by the Contemporary English Version. However, the CEV removes most parallelism in poetic passages (making them quite unpoetic), so I still give favor to the GNT. Plus, I still like the pictures; I don’t care what you think.
7. The Message
See original review here. While I would never recommend it as a primary Bible, the Message is easily the best pure paraphrase of the entire Bible ever produced. Those who detest it don’t “get” it, in my estimation. Eugene Peterson essentially redefined the word paraphrase, which had previously been applied to works reworded from existing translations, since Peterson created his paraphrase directly from the Hebrew and Greek texts.
Some parts of the Message are admittedly troublesome and some parts are genius. I particularly like the Old Testament wisdom literature (especially Proverbs) in the Message.
8. New Jerusalem Bible (NJB)
See original review here. Essentially, a Catholic Bible, this translation is far superior to the “official” Catholic New American Bible. I like to say that if I were Catholic, this would be the Bible I would use. I don’t keep up with the NJB’s wider use much these days, but I’ve heard for a long time that a third edition was in the works. I wouldn’t doubt with the Catholic Church’s recent disallowance of the use of the Divine Name in worship services (which the NJB uses almost exclusively over the traditional LORD), the NJB may have fallen on even harder times than before. This is another translation I’m fortunate to have access to in Accordance.
9. Revised English Bible (REB)
See original review here. While not as risky or quite as dynamic as its predecessor, the New English Bible, the REB is still the best literary translation of the entire Bible since perhaps the King James Version. It never quite caught hold in the United States but had a small following in Great Britain. I continue to read it for my own enjoyment. It still surprises and delights me at times. And this might still be the only Bible I’d take to the desert island. As far as I know, Accordance is the only software to offer the REB in electronic form.
10. Today’s New International Version (TNIV)
See original review here. There’s not much more I can say about the TNIV that I haven’t already said. I’ve called it “the best translation no one ever read.” While it received the worst (and often mean-spirited) attacks of any modern translation since the RSV, I blame the real demise of the translation on its handlers: Biblica (formerly the International Bible Society) and Zondervan. There was too much money to be made on the NIV, and the TNIV was never fully backed or promoted as it should have been. I used it for quite a while as a primary public translation. The folks at Zondervan used to keep in pretty good contact with me while I was writing about the TNIV. They even flew me up to Grand Rapids for a day once for meetings and conversation. Funny that I don’t hear from them anymore. Well, the NIV 2011 is coming. Knowing who is on the translation committee, I assume it will be a solid translation, but the real test of the NIV 2011′s endurance will come down to whether or not Zondervan and Biblica can finally let go of the NIV 1978.
HONORABLE MENTIONS
The King James Version. No one is fully culturally literate without reading the entire KJV Bible at least once. And you should probably read it twice.
The English Standard Version. Some will be surprised that I put this here. But I’ve mellowed, and I also realize that quite a few folks really hear God speak to them through this version. I’ve privately used it a little bit myself now and then over the last couple of years, and I do admit the ESV can start to grow on a person.
The Modern Language Bible. See original review here. This is the Bible that “could have been.” If you read my review, you’ll see why it almost could have been what the NIV is/was. I’m not certain that it couldn’t be updated and regain its voice, but we do have enough English translations, don’t we? I do wish I had the MLB electronically, though.
God’s Word. I’ve received two review copies of this Bible and what I’ve had time to read, I like; but reviewing an entire translation takes time. Nevertheless, this will be my next major translation review.
So there it is. Perhaps I’ll update the list again in 2013 or 14. Feel free to discuss the particulars in the comments below. And consider offering your own top ten (or even top five, maybe) list yourself.
Accordance, BibleReader, ESV, GNT, GWT, HCSB, KJV, MLB, Message, NASB, NET, NJB in Faith & Reason
Reader Comments (65)
[...] out his reasonings for each translation HERE Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Holman Christian Standard BibleThe NET [...]
Good post, Rick. I don't know that I have the inclination to put a "top 10" list together these days, but the two that I consult the most are the HCSB and REB. For a third, I'll add the NLT or something suitably funky in its approach, e.g. The Message or The Voice...
One more I often consult for OT/HB is JPS.
I am no fan of the ESV, but I feel compelled to mention the following for the sake of fairness:
1) While it is true that none of the three revisers of the ESV "Apocrypha" belongs to a faith community that accepts these books as part of its canon, I was favorably impressed by the following http://catholicbibles.blogspot.com/2009/01/another-post-from-dr-desilva-on-esv.html" rel="nofollow">statement by David deSilva: "I know that I approached my task with the attitude that I was translating the Church's scripture (even if it is not part of MY church's Scripture)."
2) As I have recently http://voxstefani.wordpress.com/2010/07/22/coming-soon-a-study-edition-of-the-esv-apocrypha/" rel="nofollow">noted, Concordia has an ESV Study Apocrypha in the works as a companion volume to their recently published Lutheran Study Bible. However, while it will print all of the books of the Anaginoskomena, it will only include introductions and notes for those book included in Luther's Bible.
That said, the decision to print these books at the end after the New Testament (which, incidentally, http://catholicbibles.blogspot.com/2009/01/comments-by-esv-apocrypha-translator.html" rel="nofollow">was not OUP's decision) seems to me as little more than a childish tantrum by a publisher driven by the force of the market to do something they didn't want to do. "Oh yeah? Well, FINE, we'll do an ESV Apocrypha, but we won't publish it! And, it will have your precious little books in the back! Nener, nener."
For casual reading, I find that I gravitate almost exclusively to NLT these days, with HCSB a distant second (and most often for doing a "second reading" of a particular text for a different perspective). For more studied reading, such as preparing for worship reading or Bible study, I most often break out TNIV. For whatever reason, the first two, particularly NLT, let me get "into the flow" of reading longer passages, whereas TNIV causes me to think about the text as text in a way that's at once harder to read for long stretches but more productive for contemplation of shorter bits of text. Although my congregationalist church uses NRSV in most liturgical situations, I find that reading TNIV prepares me better to engage with NRSV text.
If I could offer up an analogy to explain what I mean, I'd say that NLT or HCSB for me are like viewing a large Rembrandt painting from across the gallery; I can take in elements of composition and the "whole picture" almost as if the canvass were a window into another room. TNIV is like seeing a Van Gogh painting up close; the individual brush strokes are visible, and even as you take in the whole scene, the artist's work and methods are always foremost in one's vision.
A new translation was released last month - the Common English Bible. Only the New Testament is available. The full Bible will be coming out next fall. It has impressive and diverse scholarship and is written in language used commonly today. It's worth checking out: http://www.commonenglishbible.com // and a Twitter page: http://twitter.com/commonengbible - Free downloads of Genesis, Matthew and Luke are on the site as well as a passage lookup tool.
[...] Desert Island Bibles by Rhett on August 17, 2010 Rick Mansfield chooses his 10 favourite translations here. [...]
[...] his Bibles blog, Rick Mansfield revised his top-ten list of Bible versions. He’s gung-ho for the Holman Christian Standard Bible. I’ve always [...]
Rick,
You mirror my preferences as if you interviewed me; for the top two at least. In my estimation, there's no better translation in modern English than the HCSB. I thought my wife would never switch from her ESV thinline to the Holman but she not only loves it, she carts a giant print version to a church that uses the ESV almost exclusively! Insert smile here.
If the HCSB never was, then the NLT would win the contest, hands down. What a smooth translation! I, too, miss some of the formal language found in FE translations while reading the poetic sections in the NLT so having the HCSB around helps. Here's an idea: Why don't you act as a matchmaker and convince B & H along with Tyndale to produce a parallel bible featuring both these wonderful translations? It would give each publisher a chance to get their flagship translation in front of audiences that might not otherwise take a glance.
You'd have to volunteer to take on this mission. Sorry, I can't pay you. What do you think?
Ted, I'm in full agreement with you about the REB - I'd far rather have it in a single-column format! I love the old NEB for that.
Hi Rick! Love the site.
I was curious if you would consider the HCSB elegant? I ask because i am used the KJV tradition and the renderings in the HCSB psalms seem especially minimalist in places.
Would you still recommend the REB as a primary bible?
Hi Matt. Good questions.
Obviously, elegance is relative to a certain degree. Nothing is going to match the KJV for elegance in my opinion. Nothing.
The NEB/REB will be the next closest contenders. The REB can make a fine primary Bible as long as you don't mind being the only one using it. On a literary level, I believe there's even a level of elegance in Peterson's paraphrase, The Message, but I wouldn't recommend it as a primary Bible.
As for more mainstream Bibles, including the HCSB, you're probably familiar the process. The text is produced by translators who then pass it on to stylists, who make it more readable, and then pass it back to the translators to make certain meaning hasn't been changed in the process of making it more readable. And it usually goes back and forth. The HCSB is not going to rank near the REB or the KJV in terms of elegance, but I believe it's better than some. I believe it's better than the NIV family and especially the NET Bible (which needs more attention given to style, in spite of the fact that they've even claimed the NET is elegant!), but obviously it's on a sliding scale.
The bigger question to ask is whether the original texts were elegant. And the answer to that is mixed. Some part of the Bible certainly were elegant--especially Old Testament poetic passages. But doe the Gospels stack up in terms of elegance against the Illiad? Not really. Do Paul's writings have the same polish as Plato's? Well, I suppose that's debatable. But at the same time, I don't see many of the biblical writers--especially in the NT trying to make elegant documents. Certainly Mark was not, but Luke's gospel is a bit more polished and certainly elegant in places. Paul's letters are usually written with a specific purpose in mind, reacting to particular situations or questions. There are certainly impressive amounts of logos and pathos both in his writings, but I doubt he was trying to be elegant. Is Hebrews elegant? Yes, it probably is--both in argument and its careful, precise wording. But that's not always easy to get across in a translation.
That's a long way to answer your question, I suppose. The reality is there's always something lost in translation, and often it's the literary styling of the original.
[...] list based more on my print collection than what I have access to electronically. Recently, I updated that list to better reflect where I am now. Yes, there are more Protestant Bibles on that list, but not exclusively so. And yes, about half [...]
I agree with the single column format. I still use my 1946 printing of the RSV NT becaouse it is in single column. I also use a 1952 printing of the RSV OT that is single column in 2 volumes. I recently purchased a copy of the 2010 Common English Bible NT (OT and Apocrypha due out next year) because it was single column, but I found the translation itself very disappointing.
Whoa, Doug! Easy there! A person who chastens the person who "has clearly not bothered to look" should probably bother to look more closely. The ESV Apocrypha provides a fresh translation of the complete Greek version of Esther. We discussed this at length, in fact, and concluded that (1) it was pointless to just print the additions; (2) it was misleading to print the additions interspersed with the extant ESV translation of Hebrew Esther.
Second, I take special umbrage at your fourth point. Yes, the ESV works from the RSV as its base, but Bernard Taylor, Dan McCartney, and I proceeded in our work based on the best available Greek text (usually the Goettingen Septuagint) or other principal text (I had to use the Latin for 2 Esdras, for which Greek is not extant). You would be surprised at how many errors are to be found in both the RSV in regard to, for example, 3 and 4 Maccabees -- errors not caught by the people revising the RSV for the NRSV. An "individual translator" can catch and correct a lot of things. (By the way, how much do you actually know about how the RSV and NRSV committees proceeded?)
As for point 5, fair enough -- but you would be hard pressed to find a Protestant with a higher regard for the Apocrypha than yours truly. Raised Episcopalian, I've preached on texts from the Apocrypha, and, of course, written a well-received Introduction to the corpus. I'm presently completing my work as Apocrypha Editor for the Common English Bible (now HERE's a joint-translation project whose procedure is worth a close investigation and imitation in future projects) out of a personal commitment to these texts that most of my sisters and brothers in Christ consider Scripture. Just because I do not, it does not follow that I will treat them with any less respect or care than translators who do (and, what matters more, with any less accuracy).
As for an ESV Study Bible including the Apocrypha, you have no idea of what may be in the works.... (How's that for a teaser?)
What about the Orthodox Study Bible and the New Jewish Publication Society Tanakh? Or are we liniting ourseves to Protestant and Catholic translations.
Why are there not more text-only single-column Bibles printed?
Huey, are you asking me this?
I don't have a copy of the Orthodox Study Bible yet, so I am not able to evaluate it currently. Therefore it's not in the list. The NETS, however, ought to be in this list. I actually use it fairly regularly. It was an oversight not to include it.
I have a copy of the JPS Tanakh both in print and in Accordance, but haven't spent enough time with it yet to give it a thorough evaluation.
[...] was re-reading Rick Mansfield’s blog post on his favorite translations and read this about The Message: While I would never recommend it as a primary Bible, the Message [...]
While not as risky or quite as dynamic as its predecessor, the New English Bible, the REB is still the best literary translation of the entire Bible since perhaps the King James Version.
Rick, out of personal interest I've just started rereading what is now the 'old' New English Bible (1970) and am surprised at how thoroughly I am enjoying it. Part of it is the pleasure of reading such an attractive single-column page format, but part of it is the wonderful fluency and elegance of the translation. It may not be as technically accurate (in the literal sense) as its successor the REB, but at the moment I'm finding a very enjoyable read.
The NEB is quite good. I can say nothing negative about it.
Rick, I'm one of those folk who loved (absolutely loved) your series back in 06. So much so that I was afraid the stuff would be lost if the mac domain name ever went down so I made a pdf of the stuff and it is sitting in my hd.
Nice blog here :)
The REB would be my desert island bible as well. Besides Accordance, I would add that it's available for eSword now, and apparently coming to Logos (hopefully other Cambridge materials make it too, like David Norton's KJV books). As of now, I just use the plain hardback Cambridge edition of the REB, but at one point in time, I had a nice calfskin Oxford Study edition. I don't know why, but I sold it for a penny at a used bookstore. The same edition can only be found now on Amazon, used for around $500 ("DOH!").
Leaving the NIV, don't like the NIV 2011 very much. The NIV'84 is the best balance of thought and word style.
I like the NLT, I like the HCSB, there on my list for possible number ones. Increasingly I like the NET, its a little less formal than the NIV'84, but a little more formal than the NLT. We'll see, I am looking for one my family can all read together as well.
Rick:
Have you begun using the NIV 2011? If so, what are your findings...
like and dislikes to date?
Now that the NIV2011 has been out for a while, would it make this list? I've seen Wayne at Better Bible Blogs has updated that list to include it and was wondering if you feel the same way.