What are the differences between versions of the Holy Bible?

[Caldazar]

I'm not religious, but I'd like to purchase a copy of the Bible just to read it. Looking around, I see there are different versions of the Bible available for sale (King James versions is the only one that pops into my mind right now). My question is, how many major different versions are there, and what are the differences?

[iampunha]

Good question, long answer. I don't have all of it.

There are, depending on the language and denomination, any number of Bibles. The Revised Standard Edition is a pretty common one, as is the KJV, as you mentioned. The Bible has been translated into several dozen (probably well over a hundred) languages, and sometimes more than once.

Unfortunately, I don't have my copy of the RSV with me, else I'd tell you the whole history of the translation. If you can hold on until this weekend I'll try to get that to you, or have phantomdiver (my mother) copy it, if she would be so kind.

While you're waiting, though, http://www.bibleontheweb.com has the entire Bible . . . several versions. Check it out.

[Maeglin]

Long answer. Very long answer. So I have to ask how deeply you want to pursue this. Are you only interested in differences in translation between Protestant versions (KJC, NSRV, etc)? Or are you more interested in the major sectarian differences, say, between the Douay and the KJV? Or do you want the straight dope on the Septuagint, the Vetus Latina, and the Vulgate?

MR

[iampunha]

Caldazar, just to give you an idea, the BRIEF history of the Bible that I have is about ten pages long, and I had to almost squint to read it. I have 20/10 vision. You do the math.

[panamajack]

Since there are so many versions around, your choice will mostly depend on what you want to read it for. This should help you narrow down the range.

This is by no means comprehensive, but here's some suggestions :

Do you want to read it simply as literature, i.e. to enjoy the words as well as the story. The favorite there would be the King James. It is 400 years old, so it would be a tough read unless you're familiar with it (if you're comfortable with Shakespeare, it'll be no problem. in fact, some believe that Shakespeare worked on the KJV.)

Are you reading it as a religious book, either to understand Christianity (and to some extent Judaism) or even with the possibility of believing?

In that case you'll probably want a translation more readable and/or accurate than King James.

If you want accuracy, the most recent one I can think of is the New International Version (NIV), and the Revised Standard is pretty good too (about 50 or more years old, though).

If readability is what you want, there's some that are written in a very contemporary style and with readability in mind. I think the Good News Bible is among these; some of them may not include the entire canon.

Then there's the sectarian differences, including what even constitutes the canon, RC v. Protestant being the main one (Douay is a R.C. version); there's probably Bibles with other less regarded texts included (various books attributed to St. Thomas, etc.) You might get help at a Christian bookstore, ask around.

[cmkeller]

I'll chime in here to say that if you're at all interested in the Jewish, rather than Christian translation of the Bible ("Old" Testament only, obviously), which is translated directly from the original Hebrew (the King James Version, for example is an English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of the original Hebrew). My personal favorite is the Artscroll Stone Edition Tanakh (as well as the Artscroll Stone Edition Chumash, which is the Five Books of Moses only, but in greater detail), but there are many others out there as well.

[Caldazar]

Honestly, I have no idea how deeply I want to pursue this thread. All I'm really looking for is a copy to read and digest so I imagine I'd want to read one of the more widely read versions. Yes, I know all major versions of the Bible are "widely read," but some must be more widely read or popular than others, I would think.

So I guess my question now becomes: What are the differences among the three (or four, or five...) American English translations that are most widely printed/read in the world?

[Arjuna34]

Originally posted by cmkeller
I'll chime in here to say that if you're at all interested in the Jewish, rather than Christian translation of the Bible ("Old" Testament only, obviously), which is translated directly from the original Hebrew (the King James Version, for example is an English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of the original Hebrew).

I don't think the KJV is that far removed- the Latin Vulgate was translated mostly from the Hebrew scripts of the time (I think Jerome started with Greek translations, but decided to use the Hebrew after becoming dissatisfied with the Greek). The KJV was also translated directly from Hebrew (and Greek for the NT), except for a few small areas, where there were no Hebrew texts available at the time (the latin vulgate was used instead).

That said, the NIV is probably one of the best modern translations. The latest Catholic (NAB?) is also pretty good, but contains extra stuff that isn't considered canon by most other people.

If you're reading for hard-core :) theological research, you'll find major differences in translations that wouldn't be an issue for everyday reading- for example, the same word might be translated as "virgin" in the Catholic bible, but "maiden" in another- which could have major theological implications (i.e. "virgin" Mary vs. "maiden" Mary), but doesn't really change much if you're just reading it for the story (or as literature).

There have been some excellent discussions on this board (including one just a week ago I think) about bible translations. There are also many websites with multiple versions on-line, with parallel reading possible.
Try these:
http://bible.gospelcom.net
http://www.awmach.org/library/parallel.htm
http://unbound.biola.edu/
These sites also have descriptions of the translations.

Arjuna34

[divemaster]

Be aware that the Living Bible (and the Good News Bible?) are paraphrases rather than translations.

[iampunha]

Hoo-boy, Cal.

I think the RSE is Protestant. I'm almost certain the KJV is. Others I don't know.

Are there any specific stories from the Bible you want retold? The link I gave you has several editions on it.

[Keeve]

Some of the differences are stylistic. One translator will prefer to make it more readable even at the expense of a bit of accuracy, and another will give a more exact translation even if it ends up difficult to read. Then again, what was easy to read in one century might be difficult to read in another century, or even worse, some English words change in meaning over time, making what was once a precise translation into one which is simply wrong.

Another difference between translations is what they do with unclear words or phrases. One will analyze it linguistically, by comparing this word to similar words in other languages. Others will compare it to similar words elsewhere in the Bible. Some will write their translation from scratch to give a fresh new look, while others will give careful consideration to how previous generations understood each passage, and in this last group there will be many different traditions of commentary to draw upon.

In my sophomore Hebrew Language class (at Yeshiva University) we were assigned a term paper, to translate a particular chapter of Deuteronomy on our own. But not merely to write our own translation, the assignment was to analyze the text, and explain why each word was translated this way or that way, and also critique several other published translations, indicating -- for each word of the original text! -- which translations we agreed with, and which we did not, and why.

I learned an awful lot from that project, it was quite an eye-opener. There's really no substitute for reading it in the original language, but I realize that that's not a practical option for many people. So my suggestion is to get at least TWO versions, one which is very readable, and another which is more technical. Go thru the readable one, and refer to the other occasionally, to keep yourself aware that the words have many meanings.

[Arjuna34]

Originally posted by divemaster
Be aware that the Living Bible (and the Good News Bible?) are paraphrases rather than translations.

That's a good point. I often read the KJV/NIV, and when I run across a sentence for which I can't figure out the real meaning, I look it up in a paraphrased bible- where someone more knowledgable than me has re-written it so I can undertand it :) After reading the paraphrased verse, the KJV/NIV/whatever usually makes sense. Since non-paraphrased translations can't deviate too much from the original, there's only so much they can do to make an unusual thought or sentence (which probably made perfect sense to the original writers, but requires you to know the original context, society, etc. to understand it) understandable to people today (footnotes help). A paraphrased bible writer is free to completely re-write something so it's not very close to the original words, but the meaning is the same (ideally) to a modern reader, and much more understandable.

So, maybe you should get two or three different bibles :)

Arjuna34

[Caldazar]

Thanks for all the reponses. I'm glad to see that at least there's a very good reason for my bewilderment regarding all the different versions.

This will be primarily a literary endeavor (read and enjoy), although learning a thing or two about Christianity certainly won't hurt. I'm looking for a translation that is as complete as possible; this is an absolute requirement for me. Beyond that, I think I'd probably value readability over accuracy (I don't read Shakespeare easily).

iampunha: thanks, but I think I'll pass on your brief history of the Bible this time around.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Originally posted by cmkeller
I'll chime in here to say that if you're at all interested in the Jewish, rather than Christian translation of the Bible ("Old" Testament only, obviously), which is translated directly from the original Hebrew (the King James Version, for example is an English translation of a Latin translation of a Greek translation of the original Hebrew).

I would just like to point out that some Bible translations by Christians are also based on the original texts. From the editor's forweword to my copy of the New Jerusalem Bible (a Catholic Bible):

"The translation follows the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts. For the Old Testament (OT) the 'Massoretic Text' (MT), established in the 8-9th centuries AD by Jewish scholars, is used. Only when this presents insuperable difficulties have emendations or other versions, such as the ancient Greek translation begun in 200 BC at Alexandria, the 'Septuagint' (abbreviated 'LXX'), been used. In certain OT books passages exist only in the LXX version; these passages have been printed in italics." etc...

That being said, I am sure that reading the translation suggested by cmkeller would be rewarding and instructive for christians and non-christians alike.

[lee]

There are versions online. You may also download the King James old and new testaments (http://promo.net/cgi-promo/pg/cat.cgi?&label=ID&ftpsite=ftp://metalab.unc.edu/pub/docs/books/gutenberg/&alpha=11) from Project Gutenburg. I like being able to search for specific words. It's better than having a concordance.

[Opus1]

If you don't mind the size and expense, your best bet is a parallel Bible. They usually will have either 4 or 8 different translations side by side, often with commentary as well, so you can read whichever you prefer, but look at the other ones if there is something that you don't understand, or if you just want to see someone else's perspective. I've seen a parallel Bible which has the NIV, KJV, NKJV (I think), and one other version in it. As the NIV and KJV are the two most popular translations, that would be a nice choice.

[sqweels]

Perhaps someone can give us a few more examples of a biblical passage that varies from version to version.

[Opus1]

Perhaps someone can give us a few more examples of a biblical passage that varies from version to version.

Check out Is. 7:14. Virtually every Bible on the market renders "almah" as virgin. The RSV and a few others (Good News Bible?) choose for the more accurate "maiden" or "young girl."

The Ten Commandments are another good example. Are we supposed to have no other Gods besides YHWH, or no other Gods before him? A major theological question which depends upon which version you read.

New Testament theology is affected by translation as well. Are we supposed to be baptized in water, or into water?

At the end of 1st Corinthians, does Paul give his thanks to Phoebe, a servant of the church, or Phoebe, a deaconess of the church? A major difference, as any church which has argued over women preachers can tell you.

In Rev. 1:11, does God conclude by saying that he is the Alpha and the Omega, or is this verse absent? Depends on which Bible you read.

Look at 1 Jn. 5:7. Does it have the Comma Johanneum or not? This single verse, which is a very clear encapsulation of the doctrine of the Trinity, is thought to be a late forgery. But some versions like the KJV still have it. Ask any Unitarian or Jehovah's Witness about the importance of that verse!

If you're looking for verses whose differences are purely literary, rather than theological, those are a bit rarer, but existent nonetheless. They mainly occur when the Hebrew phrase is unclear. For example, lets see how SofS 5:4 is rendered in six different translations:


My beloved put in his hand by the hole [of the door], and my bowels were moved for him.

My beloved sent his hand from the net-work, And my bowels were moved for him.

My beloved put in his hand by the hole [of the door]; And my bowels yearned for him.

My beloved put in his hand by the hole [of the door], And my heart was moved for him.

My beloved thrust his hand in through the latch opening. My heart pounded for him.

My beloved put his hand to the latch, and my heart was thrilled within me.

Or how about Job 21:24?

His breasts are full of milk, and his bones are moistened with marrow.

His breasts have been full of milk, And marrow his bones doth moisten.

His sides are full of fat, and the marrow of his bones is moistened;

His pails are full of milk, And the marrow of his bones is moistened.

His pails are full of milk. The marrow of his bones is moistened.

his body full of fat and the marrow of his bones moist.


There are many more. Just go to http://www.blueletterbible.com, pick any verse, hit the blue "V" on the left, and it will display for you six different translations which you can compare and contrast for yourself. Enjoy!

[Arjuna34]

Originally posted by sqweels
Perhaps someone can give us a few more examples of a biblical passage that varies from version to version.
How about Isaiah 48:10? I had never read this verse before, but saw it in a movie, carved into a door (I think it was Restoration, http://us.imdb.com/Title?0114272 ). I wondered where it was from in the bible, and looked it up. My KJV and NIV had different versions! Compare:

KJV: Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnance of affliction.

NIV: See, I have refined you, though not as silver; I have tested you in the furnace of affliction.

NAB: See, I have refined you like silver, tested you in the furnace of affliction.

Basic English: See, I have been testing you for myself like silver; I have put you through the fire of trouble.

Of course none of these (and none of the 5 or 6 other English versions I checked) exactly matched the quote on the door!
So, which is it? The KJV says "not with silver", the NAB says "like silver", the NIV says "not as silver". The NAB makes the most sense to me, assuming that you normally refine silver in a hot furnace. Or is silver NOT normally refined in a hot furnace?? Or does not using silver (KJV) mean that nothing fine/good was used during the testing??

I think my paraphrased bible had a good version, but I don't have it with me now. This is a minor point about one sentence, of course, but often a different phrasing or choice of words really changes the meaning.

Arjuna34

[Sake Samurai]

Genesis 1:1
KJV In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

YLT In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth - the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters.

Genesis 6:
KJV There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

NIV The Nephilim were on the earth in those days--and also afterward--when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

The King James is worthless, I threw mine into the fireplace years ago. The warmth of God filled mine heart!

[iampunha]

How about in the same friggin' translation, friend?

The four Gospels each give different accounts of, for example, the resurrection of Christ.

Any time you have a body of work being translated, there are always several ways to translate the same thing. Thus why someone like cmkeller has an advatange over me: he can probably read the original text (as in, it typed up and such) in Hebrew, whereas I'd have to rely on a translation from Greek or Hebrew or Latin or such. A translation is going to lose a lot of the nuances of the language.

[rackensack]

Originally posted by Caldazar
This will be primarily a literary endeavor (read and enjoy), although learning a thing or two about Christianity certainly won't hurt. I'm looking for a translation that is as complete as possible; this is an absolute requirement for me. Beyond that, I think I'd probably value readability over accuracy (I don't read Shakespeare easily).

One point to consider in favor of the King James Version is that it's been a touchstone of English literature for four hundred years now. It's quite an exceptional literary effort in its own right, it's the version read and used as a source by practically every English writer since it was originally published, and it's been an significant influence on style in both prose and verse for four centuries. Most subsequent translations have either sacrificed style to accuracy of translation (not a criticism, mind you), or have paraphrased freely in an attempt to convey the meaning better to a modern reader (without, IMHO, rising to anything like the level of excellence in style of the KJV).

Which is why I strongly disagree with this:
Originally posted by Sake Samurai
The King James is worthless


As for not reading Shakespeare easily, I wouldn't consider that an impediment to reading the King James Version. Despite earlier comments, the language and style of the KJV is much easier to read and understand for the average modern American reader than Shakespeare's plays. There's a variety of reasons for this; one is that readers today seem to have a mental block against understanding anything written in verse. Another is that there are far more topical allusions to contemporary events and personages in Shakespeare than in the Bible; there are Biblical passages for which some level of historical knowledge is useful, but nearly any edition of the KJV you pick up will have sufficient explanatory notes. Shakespeare, on the other hand, while writing for an audience that included the entire spectrum of society from the ignorant to the highly educated and knowledgeable, sprinkled in the Elizabethan/Jacobean equivalent of Monica Lewinsky jokes, jokes you'd almost automatically get if you lived where and when he did, but wouldn't otherwise. Finally, while the language of the KJV sometimes seems high-flown, formal, and old-fashioned to the modern reader, it's far more straightforward and direct than that of most of Shakespeare. After all, the whole point of the KJV was to produce an English translation that made use of the latest scholarship in presenting the word of God in a manner that anyone who could read (still a minority of the population at that time) could understand.

[capacitor]

There is another important difference: the frequency of The Lord's Name. There are 4 verses, including Ps. 83:18, that almost all bibles spell out the name 'Jehovah' (or Yahweh or however it is translated into your language). Some bible versions have a few more instances of Jehovah, while the New World Translation has something like over 7000 references to the name Jehovah.

[C K Dexter Haven]

'Way back up there, CMKeller said, << ). My personal favorite is the Artscroll Stone Edition Tanakh (as well as the Artscroll Stone Edition Chumash, which is the Five Books of Moses only, but in greater detail), but there are many others out there as well. >.

The Artscroll edition is certainly the one favored by Orthodox Jews. However, my friend (modern Orthodox rabbi) dislikes it, because the translation is sometimes skewed to make various points that support various midrash or orthodox interpretations.

If you're trying to get the flavor of the original Hebrew text, I suggest the recent Fox translation (unfortunately, only Torah -- first five books -- has been issued.) For instance, Hebrew repeats verbs for emphasis; most versions translate by adding "very" or "behold!" or somesuch: "He looked up and lo! he saw a camel." Fox keeps to the original almost literally: "He looked up and saw, yes, saw, a camel."

Otherwise, I'd suggest the best Jewish translation is from the Jewish Publication Society (JPS).

[Saint Zero]

One thing to note, is you might want to look at a "Study" bible. I have a Ryrie Study bible (New American Standard) and it is invaluable for explaining verses and notes.