Why We Worry When Choosing a Bible Translation

By far the most common question I get asked about Bible translation is What’s the best one? What I’ve noticed is that, very often, the question comes with a hint of worry—worry that, depending on my answer, the person may discover they’ve been using a second-best translation. And when it’s God’s word we’re reading, no one wants to settle for second best! The anxiety is understandable.

But can anything be done about it? Are those without knowledge of Greek and Hebrew simply doomed to always second-guess their translation choice? How much should we worry that we’ve picked the wrong translation?

How much should we worry that we’ve picked the wrong translation?

So many options

Before we go further, we need to consider the historical conditions that lead to our question. For much of history, the ordinary Christian couldn’t ask it at all since he either had no direct access to the Bible, couldn’t read it, or couldn’t afford to own one. One further reason is that for many, in the past and still for some today, their native language only has a single Bible translation.

Of course, for those of us living in the modern West, things are quite different. We can download Bible apps at no cost and then choose between any number of translations.

At Biblegateway.com you can right now choose among over 60 English translations. There are twenty for Spanish, five for German, and four for French. Given the size of the Bible and the amount of work required to make a translation, this is a huge abundance and a remarkable testament to our Christian heritage.

The reign of the King

There was a time when each of these languages was dominated by a single Bible translation. In English, there was a period of over 250 years when the King James Bible reigned as the Bible of the English-speaking world. In Spanish, the Reina-Valera had an even longer run and, in German, the Luther Bible had an equal or greater effect in German than the King James had in English.

Related

• 
  Decoration from the title page to the New Testament. Illustration by Peter Gurry.
  Seven Common Misconceptions about the King James Bible

  The most widely read English Bible translation has sprouted a series of fictions about it. It’s time to prune them.

  Timothy Berg

The long reign of these translations makes us wonder: is it good to have so many? Were we better off when we all read the same Bible? There can be little doubt that having a single, shared translation comes with significant benefits. In his book Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible, Mark Ward discusses five of them, and I’m sure his list could be expanded.

He notes how even the late atheist Christopher Hitchens saw the problem. Writing in Vanity Fair for the four-hundredth anniversary of the King James Bible, Hitchens complained that the proliferation of Bibles means “there will no longer be a culture of the kind which instantly recognized what Lincoln meant when he spoke of ‘a house divided.’ The gradual eclipse of a single structure has led, not to a new clarity, but to a new Babel.”

One of the biggest losses when translations proliferate is the loss of a shared reference point.

He’s not wrong. One of the biggest losses when translations proliferate is the loss of a shared reference point across an entire language. When we all share the same Bible all our theological debates have to be hammered out on the same anvil. There’s simply no option to object, “But my Bible says…” Sectarianism isn’t impossible, but it is harder when we all use the same Bible.

The blessing of abundance

But for all the benefits of a single translation, there are also drawbacks. Without anything else to compare it to, readers of a single translation are left in the dark about difficult translation decisions where differing interpretations of the original are possible. Marginal notes can alleviate some of this, and the King James translators certainly used them. But notes are a limited tool, and most readers in my experience blissfully ignore them.

One of the benefits of multiple translations is that it makes Bible readers more aware that what they are reading is a translation.

For all the problems that come with “but my Bible says,” one of the benefits of multiple translations is that it makes Bible readers more aware that what they are reading is a translation and not the original. They may then be further inclined to compare translations and become more discerning readers.

The fourth-century church father Augustine (354–430 AD), whose own ability in the original languages was limited, realized some of the benefits of using multiple Bible translations. In his classic book on Christian interpretation he wrote this:

In this matter [of learning unknown idioms], too, the great number of the translators proves a very great assistance, if they are examined and discussed with a careful comparison of their texts.

Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 2.14 [21]

Augustine is saying that having multiple translations can help the reader who’s tripping over an unknown idiom. That’s still the case today. Where one translation is opaque another may come to the rescue with clarity. This is especially true for first-time Bible readers who may stumble over any number of unfamiliar terms in a verse like Romans 3:21. In the NASB it reads:

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets.

A turn to the NLT offers clear interpretations—and they are interpretations—for each of the key terms:

But now God has shown us a way to be made right with him without keeping the requirements of the law, as was promised in the writings of Moses and the prophets long ago.

For some readers, the NLT will prove to be, as Augustine said, “a very great assistance” in understanding these biblical idioms.

The precedent for plurality

Besides noting the benefits and drawbacks of multiple translations, there is also the importance of precedent. This is especially the case in English where Christians sometimes think that our modern proliferation of translations is completely new. It isn’t. English has had multiple translations before. Miles Coverdale (1488–1569) was one of the great heroes of the English Bible and he knew this well.

His most famous Bible was his first. Finished in 1535, it has the distinction of being the first complete, printed English Bible. Given that he based it on the work of William Tyndale and made use of other Bibles in German and Latin, it’s not surprising that he felt the need to defend the value of multiple translations in his preface. In doing so, he appealed to precedent. And he had plenty of it to appeal to. He wrote:

Whereas some men think now that many translations make division in the faith and in the people of God, that is not so: for it was never better with the congregation of God, than when every church almost had the Bible of a sundry [= different] translation.¹Taken from Alfred W. Pollard, Records of the English Bible (Oxford: Henry Frowde, 1902), 203 (spelling updated). Also available in updated spelling in Gerald Bray, Translating the Bible from William Tyndale to King James (London: Latimer Trust, 2010), 69.

Coverdale goes on to cite examples from both Greek and Latin, drawing special attention to the case of the Greek Septuagint, which was revised three separate times.

For Coverdale, the existence of multiple translations was a blessing. It was evidence that God “hath opened unto his church the gift of interpretation [= translation] and of printing.” He praises God that there are so many capable of doing the work of translation. If only such eagerness for new translation hadn’t died with Augustine, Coverdale says, the church in his day might not be in such need of reform.

In all this, Coverdale was frank about his own limits as a translator (he did not know Greek and Hebrew). As a result, he offers a refreshing call for teamwork in the task of translating. Not every translator will hit the bullseye every time, he says, but we shoot better when we shoot together. Where one misses, the others should encourage rather than criticize out of envy or spite.

Get new articles and updates in your inbox.

Leave this field empty if you're human:

Coverdale has hit on an important point. Today, the proliferation of English Bible translation can, at times, encourage competition rather than collaboration. This can happen whenever Bible readers—or Bible publishers—exaggerate the differences between translations in their effort to identify “the best” one. This can also lead us to needlessly denigrate other translations.

This hardly means endorsing every crackpot translation. There really are bad translations. But our mainstream, evangelical translations are good. Where they differ, it is usually a matter of legitimate difference in how to interpret the original or in the audience they are trying to reach or in their translation philosophy. To be sure, not every difference in translation is inconsequential. Some really do matter. But, on the whole, we benefit from having multiple archers shooting at the same target.

The paradox of choice

But, if Coverdale is right about the benefits of multiple translations, why do many of us feel so much angst when choosing a translation? Why is there so much pressure to have the best one?

One reason is what psychologist Barry Schwartz calls the paradox of choice, and it’s one that Coverdale did not anticipate. The paradox, as Schwartz explains it, is simple: “Though modern Americans have more choice than any group of people ever has had before, and thus, presumably, more freedom and autonomy, we don’t seem to be benefiting from it psychologically.”²Barry Schwartz, The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less, rev. ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 2016), 103. Instead, the explosion of choice, he argues, often leads to dissatisfaction, regret, and paralysis. More becomes less.

Every car shopper has felt the problem. When you leave the house, you are content to find a good, reliable car to get you to and from work. But when you arrive at the lot and look out across the sea of endless options, you quickly begin to feel that you absolutely must get THE BEST car. Details you weren’t even thinking about before—color, trim, electronics—suddenly become deciding factors.

The smaller the differences are between options, the more anxiety we feel in choosing between them.

What’s true of cars is true of translations. The more choices we have, the more we feel compelled to get the absolute best one. And just like with cars, it’s sometimes the case that the smaller the differences are between options, the more anxiety we feel in choosing between them. It’s no longer enough to have a literal translation; we must have the most literal. But then we wonder if what we really need is the most accurate. Or, should we get the most accurate and most readable? As the options grow, so does the fear of picking the wrong one.

To solve the problem, we might even exaggerate the differences in order to help make the decision easier. After all, a choice between good and bad is much easier to make than one between good and good-in-a-slightly-different-way. It certainly doesn’t help that publishers sometimes leverage this anxiety in their marketing. The website for the recent NRSVue, for example, calls it “the most meticulously researched, rigorously reviewed, and faithfully accurate translation on the market.” (I’ve yet to see a new translation marketed as “accurate enough” or “pretty readable”!)

How to avoid paralysis

So, what can we do? Of the suggestions that Schwartz offers, I think the ones that apply most readily to choosing a Bible translation are these: reduce your options, be content with “good enough,” and be grateful.

1. Reduce your options

When you reduce your options, it makes the decision feel less momentous. There are any number of ways to do this with translations. The simplest is to simply adopt the translation your church or denomination uses. If you trust your church or denomination enough to be a member, it makes sense that you would also trust their choice in translation. So, pick theirs and be done.

Another way to narrow your choices is to pick a translation that descends from a trusted tradition—that of the KJV, for instance. These include the NKJV, ESV, NASB, and NRSV. If readability is most important to you, then pick one with a focus on that like the NLT, NIV, or maybe the CSB. If you preach regularly, you probably want something more literal like the ESV or NASB that lets you, as the preacher, explain the text.

2. Be content with good enough

If this still leaves too many options, ask yourself if you’re making perfection the enemy of the good. I think many Christians who are worried about choosing the “wrong” translation need to hear that any mainstream, evangelical translation is going to serve them very well. They are all very good—even if they are good in different ways.

If you already use the NIV or the NASB, ask yourself why you feel the need to switch. Is there really something wrong with your current translation? Or, have you fallen prey to the comparison trap? If so, it may help to remember that you can always supplement your main translation with others by using any number of free online resources. I highly recommend it.

3. Be grateful

Finally, I think the best way to overcome the paradox of choice is to turn angst into gratitude. Behind the angst is a blessing: we have so many good English translations to choose from! Most Christians in history, and many Christians around the world still today, do not have the rich legacy of Bible translation we have in English. We should be enormously grateful for this rich heritage. Instead of worrying about choosing the wrong translation, most of us should just be grateful we have a choice at all.

As Coverdale realized, we should not take it for granted when those with gifts in the biblical languages use them to produce good translations. “Ye ought rather,” he writes, “to give God high thanks therefore, who through his Spirit stirreth up men’s minds, so to exercise themselves therein.” Today, we have more reason than ever to give God such “high thanks.”

Notes

• 1
  Taken from Alfred W. Pollard, Records of the English Bible (Oxford: Henry Frowde, 1902), 203 (spelling updated). Also available in updated spelling in Gerald Bray, Translating the Bible from William Tyndale to King James (London: Latimer Trust, 2010), 69.
• 2
  Barry Schwartz, The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less, rev. ed. (New York: HarperCollins, 2016), 103.