Comparing Bible Translations: Analysis
Theological Orientation
For what stated theological purpose was the
translation or revision made, if any?
As stated earlier, most translations arise out of
methodological or practical concerns: someone perceives a deficiency in the
predominant translation philosophy (too rigid or loose), or else the
"best" translation is becoming outdated and needs revision. Others
are produced to appeal to certain "niche" groups such as Jewish
Christians or beginning readers. Some translators, however, are driven by a
theological concern.
The NASB, LITV, and ESV may be said to have come
about for doctrinal reasons. The NASB is a conservative revision of the ASV, in
response to the relatively liberal RSV. The ESV's
revision arose similarly: conservatives who preferred
the RSV to the NASB, but for its liberal tendencies, edited the ESV to remove
those tendencies. (Much of the ESV copies the RSV almost word-for-word, except
in a few key areas, cf. Psalm 45.) The LITV sought to recover literal
translation of the Textus Receptus in a fresh way, as opposed to the numerous
KJV revisions that had preceded it. Its editor saw free translation and use of
the Critical Text to be theologically driven corruptions of the Bible.
Evangelicals do not have a monopoly on
theologically motivated translations, however. Moffatt
and Phillips used a free style to counter the notion that the Bible's very
words were inspired (in Moffatt's words, to free the
reader from the theory of verbal inspiration). The Inclusive New Testament has
become known as a "politically correct" Bible for its changes to make
the text gender-neutral in its language about God, and the New Inclusive New
Testament extended this sensitivity toward racial minorities, the handicapped,
and even the left-handed. Watchtower produced the New World Translation for
Jehovah's Witnesses, and key texts were retranslated to conform roughly to
their theology. Much the same is said of the Seventh-Day
Adventist's Clear Word paraphrase, though I have yet to obtain a copy
to review first-hand.
With what denominations are the primary
translators affiliated?
Nearly all translations are produced by multidenominational groups. The translators' names and
positions are often listed in the introduction or available upon request, but
denominations may be difficult to pinpoint. (It is easiest if the translator is
employed at a denominational seminary.) The Geneva Bible was produced by
Puritans in exile from England during the reign of the Catholic Queen Mary. The National
Council of Churches that produced the RSV and NRSV is predominantly mainline in
its orientation, meaning that its convictions will tend to be more liberal than
conservative. The NIV (Zondervan), NKJV (Thomas
Nelson), and NLT (Tyndale) are associated with
conservative evangelical publishers. Kenneth Taylor, who produced the Living
Bible, was Baptist, but the NLT included translators from Baptist, conservative
Episcopal, Assembly of God, Presbyterian (PCA), Bible, and other evangelical
churches. The American Bible Society, which produced the GNT and CEV, has an
evangelical reputation but often produces liberally slanted materials. The NWT
was produced by Jehovah's Witnesses, and the JB, NJB, NAB, and INC are Roman
Catholic translations.
What theological statements appear in the
translation's introduction?
Nearly all recent conservative versions affirm in
their introduction the inerrancy of the Bible, or speak of it as the Word of
God: the LB, TBV, NKJV, NIV, CEV, NCV, LITV, NASB (Updated), GW, NLT, NIrV, HCSB, ESV, and MES (also the NWT). Few of the others
actually impugn the Bible or its authors, with the exceptions of Moffatt, PME and INC, but in some cases major translators
(such as Robert Bratcher of the GNT) have publicly denounced biblical inerrancy
as heresy or worse. The introductions to the NRSV and TNIV, and the original
introduction to the NLT (changed in the second printing) suggested that
patriarchal attitudes in the culture may have found their way into the Bible
and should be removed for the real message to come through. The INC goes
further and speaks of certain texts in Paul's letters and Revelation as
misogynistic and offensive. Aside from the gender issue, however, very few
translations seek to engage the reader on specific doctrinal questions. This is
left to study Bibles and commentaries.
Are nuances of gender and/or number frequently
muted or altered in the text?
Gender-neutral (also called gender-inclusive)
translation is a complicated issue but generally comes from a perceived change in
English usage. In Hebrew, Greek, and traditional English, it is common to use
the masculine gender to represent both masculine and feminine. This is most
easily seen in the "generic he," as in The
one who loves his life will lose it. This usage developed because of the
lack of a singular personal pronoun with no gender. Advocates of gender-neutral
translation contend that today's English-speakers prefer more inclusive
language, and may be confused so as to think women excluded from "generic he"
statements. Some advocates have even taken to referring to the new technique as
"gender-accurate". (No one would want a gender-inaccurate
version, would they?)
No major translation makes a concerted effort to
change singulars to plurals, or plurals to singulars in the Bible. This is
usually a byproduct either of paraphrase (as occasionally in the LB and
frequently in the MES) or of gender-neutral translation techniques. Changing
from singular to plural (he to them) is a common way in
writing to remove perceived gender bias.
Two things make gender-neutral translation
controversial. The first is that it is associated with liberal theological
movements. The practice began with less conservative translations (NJB, NAB,
REB, NRSV, CEV, GNT, INC) and was commended by feminist theologians. Now that
conservative translations, such as the NIrV, NLT,
NCV, and TNIV, are employing gender-neutral methods, conservative readers are
wondering whether such methods are trustworthy.
A second concern is that gender is a component of
meaning and not merely a grammatical structure. The biblical author chose to
use masculine language where neutral or balanced language was available.
Writers are free to write as they please, and be sensitive to gender issues if
they like, but muting or rewriting another author's choices may be
counter-productive to the translator's task of conveying authorial intent.
Critics of gender-neutral translation often cite examples where changing the
gender has unintended consequences for totally unrelated theological issues.
This controversy was at its height in 1997, when World
Magazine discovered plans to revise the NIV as gender-neutral; it was and
is the best-selling Bible among evangelicals. Earlier, in 1995, Zondervan had published the children's NIrV,
which was mostly gender-neutral, and Hodder had
published the NIVI (the NIV Inclusive) in Britain. (The British NIrV
would not be ready until 1996.) World believed the American NIV
was soon to be replaced with a gender-neutral Bible. As the controversy gained
momentum, Zondervan and the NIV's
copyright holder, the International Bible Society (IBS), announced that they
would continue selling the original NIV alongside the revision (which is now
the TNIV), but critics were not satisfied. IBS and the NIV's
Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) were defended in the controversy by Zondervan, Christianity Today, and Christians for
Biblical Equality, as well as a number of translation authorities. Their
critics included Jerry Falwell, Focus on the Family,
and the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW). That summer, the
three major evangelical denominations--Southern Baptist, Presbyterian (PCA),
and Congregationalist--made resolutions against gender-neutral translating. The
SBC even threatened to pull the NIV from use in its Sunday School
material and bookstores. In the end, James Dobson convened a meeting in Colorado Springs, where figures from both sides of the issue established a
set of translation guidelines, setting forth what was and was not appropriate
in translating gender.
In 1998, the NIrV was
re-released with its gender-neutral changes reduced by about half, but there
was a renewed mention of a gender-neutral NIV revision. The mention passed
quietly, but the SBC's Bible publishing house, Holman, had already begun work
on its own translation, the HCSB, in case the NIV became unusable in the
future. The announced release of the TNIV in 2002 added new fuel to the
smoldering debate: the CBT did not believe itself held to the Colorado Springs
Guidelines (CSG), since the CBT members who signed in affirmation were not
designated representatives and thus were speaking for themselves, not the
Committee. But the CBMW and other supporters of the CSG were under the
impression that the guidelines were being followed, and the TNIV announcement
caught them by surprise. A large portion of the evangelical community was
critical of the revision and the way it was produced and released. Conservative
denominations have again denounced the translation, but have taken no action
against other popular versions that are equally gender-neutral.
This debate is difficult because of accusations of
dishonesty on both sides, insinuations of linguistic ignorance and theological
agendas, and the fact that the two sides tend to talk past each other. I
recommend two resources for those who wish to explore the debate further. Both
are evangelical and well-written. Supporting gender-neutrality is D. A.
Carson's The Inclusive Language Debate by Baker and IVP. Against
gender-neutrality is a book by Wayne Grudem and Vern Poythress, The Gender-Neutral Bible Controversy by
Broadman. Grudem and Poythress were present at the crucial meeting where the
Colorado Springs Guidelines were produced.
- I had previously spoken
of Zondervan as a decision maker in the
gender-neutral controversy. I wish to clarify that the Committee on Bible
Translation is highly insistent on its autonomy, and that the copyrights
for the NIV, NIrV, NIVI, and TNIV are owned by
the International Bible Society. While Zondervan
has close ties with IBS and is outspoken in its defense of the TNIV and
related versions, it is not the source of the movement toward
gender-neutral translation.
- At the Colorado
Springs meeting, those affirming the guidelines
were Focus on the Family's James Dobson and Charles Jarvis; CBMW members
Timothy Bayly, Wayne Grudem,
Vern Poythress, and John Piper; CBT members Ken
Barker and Ron Youngblood; scholar R. C. Sproul;
and World Magazine's Joel Belz. Zondervan president Bruce Ryskamp
also participated in the meeting but only signed as a witness to the
document. I have yet to determine the intent behind IBS president Lars Dunberg's signature; however, it is clear that neither
IBS nor Zondervan currently have any qualms
about producing or publishing gender-neutral versions of the Bible.
- Because of linguistic
and theological differences between American and British evangelicals,
gender-neutrality is not much of an issue in the UK,
even in circles where the place of women in ministry is hotly debated.
This is largely an American debate.
The primary gender-neutral translations are the
NAB, NRSV, GNT, INC, NLT, NIrV, and TNIV. The NJB,
REB, NCV, GW, ISV, and MES are only partially gender-neutral. In the following
examples, other translations have made the same decisions due to paraphrase,
but the changes are occasional, not systematic or out of an intent to use
neutral gender. The changes that take place in gender-neutral translation are
in five major areas.
- The Hebrew word 'adam and the Greek word anthropos
are commonly translated man and are masculine in gender, but
often have the more general meaning person. This is a case in
which gender-neutral translation is not in question. However, the Hebrew 'ish and Greek aner
always designate a male, as indicated by their secondary meaning of husband.
Four examples of aner in the New
Testament illustrate its place in the controversy.
- In Acts 17:22, Paul
address the council of the Areopagus as Men
of Athens.
Here the Greek is aner. In those days,
the council was composed entirely of men, and women were not to be
present at public addresses. There are even stories of women disguising
themselves as men to hear certain eloquent speakers. Yet the Darby, NAB,
NRSV, CEV, GNT, INC, TNIV, and MES change the expression to Athenians,
People of Athens, or Citizens of Athens.
- When Paul addresses
the Ephesian church leaders in Acts 20:30, he
warns them that not only in the church, but even from their own circle men
will arise to corrupt the people. Again, he uses aner.
But the LB, NRSV, CEV, INC, NLT, and TNIV simply say that some will
arise. What is lost here is the original implication that all the Ephesian elders were male--an important fact in light
of the current controversy over women in authoritative ministry
positions.
- In 1 Corinthians
13:11, Paul speaks of his ways as a child, but when I became a man
childish ways became a thing of the past. Since Paul uses aner, and was himself obviously a man, it is
almost amusing that the NEB, NJB, NRSV, GNT, INC, GW, NLT, and MES change
the text to when I became an adult or when I grew up
(similar CEV). The REB, which in its introduction declares an intent toward gender-neutral translation where it
can be done responsibly, actually corrects the NEB
to retain the masculine reference here. (The TNIV has man here,
despite its usual tendencies.)
- James 1:12 contains a blessed man
saying--Blessed is the man who endures temptation. With 'ish or aner,
this depiction of the prototypical blessed man is sometimes seen
as a type of Christ; i.e., Jesus is the true blessed man. The William,
NCV, and ISV retain the generic he that comes later in the
sentence but change man to person or whoever.
Likewise, the NJB, NRSV, and MES have anyone, and the GNT, INC,
GW, NLT, and TNIV pluralize the blessing (e.g., blessed are those
who...), and CEV changes to the second person (God will bless
you).
- Gender-neutral
translators also have neutral ways of referring to mankind--humankind,
human beings, mortals, or people--but never man.
- Genesis 1:27 and 5:2 are important in determining
the Bible's attitudes toward gender. Both these verses state that man and
woman alike are created in God's image. They also stand together in
letting man represent both before the Lord, at least linguistically. In
5:2, we read, God created them...blessed them, and named them Man.
The Hebrew is 'adam, and the KJV,
Darby, ASV, AMP, KJ21, and LITV are not far off by translating Adam
here. But the NRSV, NCV, GNT, GW, NLT, and MES rename the race humankind
or the human race, effectively obliterating the theological
intent of 'adam. The NRSV, REB, NCV,
GNT, GW, NLT, and MES also have gender-neutral references in 1:27.
- The
segue from the cleansing of the temple to Jesus' talk with
Nicodemus is contained in John 2:24-3:1.
The link is the word man: Jesus did not need anyone to
testify concerning man, for He Himself knew what was in man.
Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus...
(NASB). We are to conclude from this that Jesus "knew"
Nicodemus before the conversation even started. The link is perceptible
in KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, NWT, AMP, RSV, TBV, NKJV, NIV, KJ21, LITV,
NASB, HCSB, and ESV. But man of the Pharisees is so easily
condensed to Pharisee that the connection is lost in Weymouth,
Montgomery, JB, LB, and NEB.
The William, CEV, NCV, TNIV, and MES retain man in 3:1 but not
in 2:25. Changing both
references are Moffatt, PME, and the standard
gender-neutral versions: NJB, NAB, NRSV, REB, GNT, INC, GW, NLT, NIrV. They will not speak of the obviously male
Nicodemus as a man, and thus miss one of John's clever word plays. (The
ISV goes gender-neutral but retains the link, using person in
both 2:25 and 3:1.)
- It is also worth
noting that MES has Peace to all men and women instead of Peace
on earth to men in Luke 2:14.
- Other examples of these
changes occur in Psalm 90:3 (NJB, NAB, NRSV, REB, NCV, GNT, Gw, NLT, NIrV, MES), Luke
4:4 (NJB, NAB, NRSV, CEV, NCV, GNT, INC, GW, NLT, ISV, TNIV, MES), Luke
9:44 (CPV, NRSV, CEV, GNT, INC, GW, ISV, TNIV; paraphrased out in LB,
NLT, MES), and John 1:4 (NAB, NRSV, CEV, NCV, GNT, INC, GW, NLT, NIrV, ISV, TNIV, MES).
- Fathers, sons, and
brothers often become parents, children, and "brothers and
sisters" in gender-neutral translations.
- Ironically, the word father
most often disappears when the reference is to specific male progenitors,
namely the patriarchs. Genesis 48:21 and Romans 9:5 both refer to
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Jacob's sons as the fathers. Yet NJB,
NRSV, GNT, and NLT ambiguously read ancestors in Genesis, even
though Jacob is speaking of his own father and grandfather. In Romans
9:5, the translation Patriarchs is certainly appropriate, and
appears in Weymouth, Moffatt, Montgomery,
William, PME, JB, AMP, RSV, NEB, NIV, NAB, NRSV, REB, ISV, ESV, and TNIV.
Yet the fact that the reference is to these men and not to others is lost
in GW (ancestors), NCV (great ancestors), CEV (famous
ancestors), GNT (famous Hebrew ancestors), and NLT (their
ancestors were great people of God). INC's
the ancestry is quite weird. The NIrV's
the founders of our nation is better but still questionable and verbose,
and MES's family misses the point.
Likewise, David is called father in Mark 11:10 and elsewhere, but ancestor in
NRSV, CEV, INC, GW, and NLT. This is awkward English since we Americans
may speak of George Washington as the "father of our country"
but never as our ancestor, which implies common descent.
- Translating sons
as children is sometimes appropriate due to the Hebrew idiom sons
of x as a gentilic; i.e., a phrase
designating persons of a certain race or sharing a common characteristic.
Thus, sons of Israel may be translated children of Israel
or better, Israelites, without any consequent loss of meaning
(as Exod. 19:6, KJV, RV, Darby, ASV, AMP, RSV,
NEB, NKJV, NIV, NJB, NASB, NRSV, REB, NCV, GNT, GW, NLT, NIrV; ESV and MES similar). It is also true that the
KJV sometimes translated the Greek word for children (tekna) as if it read sons, as in
John 1:13 and 1 John 3:1. But in the biblical context, sons and
daughters were treated differently, just as fathers and mothers had
different roles. This creates problems in verses such as Galatians 4:7,
in which we are no longer servants but sons, and therefore heirs of God.
NAB, NRSV, CEV, NCV, GNT, GW, NLT, NIrV, ISV,
TNIV, and MES have child here. INC gives a reverse emphasis by
saying daughters and sons. But daughters were not normally
heirs, and special legislation had to exist in the Mosaic law for a man with only daughters to leave an
inheritance (Num. 27). Similarly, the father-son relationship between God
and His people becomes a parent-child relationship in Hebrews 12:7 (NRSV,
CEV, INC, GW, NIrV, TNIV, MES), where the issue
is discipline, but fathers were the primary disciplinarians. (GNT and NLT
also change son to child here.)
- In plural address brothers
can often mean brothers and sisters--though only in the
plural--and brother was sometimes a generic reference to a
member of the church. But in Luke 17:3, it is probably anachronistic to
translate if your brother sins... as if another disciple
sins (NRSV, similar CEV) or if a believer sins (GW, NLT).
The INC's sister or brother is
unwarranted (similar TNIV); MES's friend
is certainly original but lacks any filial component. A striking error
appears in Hebrews 2:17, where Jesus' function as a priest required that
He be incarnated and experience temptation; that He be
made like His brothers in every way. Here, NRSV, INC, GW, NLT,
and TNIV make the drastic mistake of saying made like His brothers
and sisters in every way! (Similarly, GNT has like
His people and CEV like one of us, omitting the Jewish
context. Jesus did have to come as a Jew. MES paraphrases took on
flesh and blood, leaving out the reference to similarity.) This is a
case of the translators failing to think through the implications of
their choices.
- The generic he,
mentioned earlier, appears to be the primary linguistic concern of the
gender-neutral translators, and the most difficult to translate out
without causing other problems. The simplest solution is making the
reference plural, which may result in the loss of individuality with
reference to repentance, communion with God, etc., and certainly changes
the imagery from a single example to a group. An alternative is changing
from third-person to second-person, since you has
no gender in English. The difficulty here is a restriction of the
reference to the immediate audience rather than a general reference,
especially since generic you was never
used by the biblical writers. Related is a double standard in which short
parables referring to The man who...
are made gender neutral, but in those referring to women, the gender is
retained.
Pluralizing or the
"singular they" appear in the six test verses in these
versions: Matt. 16:24 (NRSV, GW, TNIV), John 14:23 (LB, NRSV, CEV, GNT, INC, GW, NLT, TNIV), Jam. 5:14 (NRSV,
GNT, INC, NLT), Rev. 3:20 (GNT, INC, TNIV, MES), and Rev. 22:19 (GNT). Changing
to you is also common: Matt. 16:24 (CEV,
GNT, INC, NLT), Gal. 6:7 (NRSV, CEV, GNT, INC, GW, NLT),
Jam. 5:14 (CEV, GW,
NIrV, TNIV, MES), Rev. 3:20 (NRSV, CEV, NLT, NIrV), and Rev. 22:19 (NIrV,
TNIV, MES). Occasionally the pronoun is simply dropped: Rev. 3:20 (GW). In each
of these six cases, the change results in a loss of meaning that the reader
cannot recover without reference to the original Greek or to another
translation.
- Whether it is deliberate
or a side effect of the other changes, there is a marked de-emphasis on
the masculinity of Jesus in gender-neutral translations. This is seen most
clearly in 1 Corinthians 15:21 and 1 Timothy 2:5, both of which
call Jesus a man in the Greek, but in the NJB, NAB, NRSV, CEV,
INC, TNIV, He is only called human. (The GW, ISV, and MES remove man
in 1 Tim. 2:5 also.) The primary "son of man" passages relevant
to Jesus' own favorite title Son of Man are Psalm 8:4 (see Heb. 2:6-9) and
Daniel 7:13 (see Matt. 26:64). But since the phrase was a Hebrew idiom for
a human as opposed to a divine being or an animal, gender-neutral versions
have human or mortal for the first passage (LB, NEB,
NJB, NAB, NLT, MES) or both (NRSV, REB, NCV, GNT). The LB, NEB,
and NLT needlessly replace son of man in Daniel 7:13 with man, and the TNIV removes the phrase in
Hebrews 2:6-9. The INC deletes Son of Man from the New Testament
altogether, replacing it with Promised One. It should be
mentioned that most of these versions at least give the literal
translation in a footnote. Also relevant to this category is Psalm 34:20 (He
keeps all his bones; not one of them is broken), which is applied to
Christ's crucifixion in John 19:36.
Since this blessed man passage is pluralized, only their
bones appears in NJB, NAB, NRSV, NCV, GNT, and NLT, destroying the
Messianic reference. The LB keeps the gender but also loses the prophetic
import with its unpoetic paraphrase, God
even protects him from accidents, and the MES similarly says Not
even a finger gets broken.
Are passages rewritten to support a particular
ideology or doctrine?
The version most known for its freedom in
deliberately altering the text is the NWT, which alters references to Jesus'
deity and occasions in which He is worshiped, in accord with the doctrines of
Jehovah's Witnesses. Also, the Holy Spirit's name is not capitalized and does
not receive personal pronouns. While it is otherwise a very good translation,
such liberties make it difficult for the reader to trust other doctrinal
passages. Christians adept with the Scriptures may still be able to refute JW
doctrines from the NWT by showing how passages about Jehovah in the Old
Testament are applied to Christ in the New.
More common among mainstream Christians
(particularly among British Catholics) is the Inclusive New Testament (INC),
produced by Priests for Equality. It goes beyond the standard gender-neutral
changes to "re-image" Scripture. Passages such as Ephesians 5:21-6:4
and Titus 2:1-8 are adjusted to eliminate distinctions between male and female
roles in the church and family. References to female prostitutes and
adulteresses are removed. The top priority stated in the introduction is
removing masculine language for God. Thus, Father becomes Abba,
Son becomes Only Begotten or God's Own, and the
Spirit always takes the pronoun she. Aside from the feminine
Sophia-Spirit, God is never referenced with a pronoun. Jesus' titles are also
altered. Lord becomes Savior or Sovereign, Son
of Man is Promised One, and Son of David is now Heir
of David. Some texts are left alone, having been deemed irredeemably
sexist, but the translators sought to "keep such offensive passages to an
absolute minimum."
The Message contains a considerable amount of
recasting, but this is done to capture the original "look and feel"
rather than for any theological purpose--although there is some evidence of
bias. For example, an apparent amillennial slant
appears in the paraphrasing of many "kingdom
of God" passages. Some might also question the MES's consistent rendering of euangellion
(gospel) as the Message. What reaction would there be if the NIV were
to read, How beautiful are the feet of those who proclaim the New
International Version? Finally, MES gives decidedly egalitarian renderings
of several passages on the family. Wives, submit to your husbands as to the
Lord becomes Wives, understand and support your husbands in ways that
show your support for Christ (Eph. 5:22). And
whereas the Greek of 1 Peter 3:6 has Sarah obeying Abraham and
calling him lord, the MES paraphrase has her taking care of
Abraham and addressing him as my dear husband. Other problematic
gender-related rewrites appear in 1 Corinthians 11:11-12 and 1 Timothy 2:11-15. The
TNIV also has a noticeable shift toward egalitarian translation choices, along
with its publicly defiant determination for gender neutrality; but it does not
go quite so far as the MES and usually avoids outright alteration of the text.
How does the translator treat texts relevant to
the identity of Christ?
The deity of Christ is one of the central
doctrines of Christianity, and if Jesus is the chief message of the Scriptures,
it is crucial that translations deal carefully with texts that indicate who He
is.
- Ten times in the Bible
Jesus is described as theos,
the Greek word for God. Unitarians and other critics have questioned the
meaning of these texts, but their objections are refuted easily enough.
For an in-depth examination of the textual and translational issues
involved, see Murray J. Harris, Jesus as God (Baker, 1992). The
critical verses are these (author's translation):
- Psalm 45:6: Your
throne, O God, [is] forever and ever.... (lit. forever and again)
- Other translators
have your divine throne, God is your throne, your
throne is from God, etc. (RSV, NEB,
NJB, REB, GNT, NIrV, MES)
- John 1:1: In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
- Moffatt
has the Logos was divine, and NWT has the Word was a god.
- John 1:18: No one
has ever seen God. The only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the
Father, he has revealed [Him].
- Non-Alexandrian
manuscripts read the only begotten Son. (GEN, KJV, RV, Young,
Darby, ASV, Weymouth, William, JB, RSV, LB, NEB, TBV, NKJV, NJB, REB,
INC, KJ21, LITV, GW, HCSB). MES reads This
one-of-a-kind God-Expression.
- John 20:28: Thomas
answered and said to Him, 'My Lord and My God!'
- Acts 20:28: to shepherd the church
of God,
which He bought with His own blood.
- Other translators
have the blood of His own [Son] (Darby, NWT, TBV, NJB, NRSV,
CEV, GNT). MES paraphrase refers to God dying.
- Romans 9:5: ...from
whom, according to the flesh, [is] Christ, who
is over all as God blessed forever, Amen!
- Other translators
have Christ, who is over all. May God be blessed forever, Amen!
(Moffatt, NWT, RSV, LB, NEB, TBV, NAB, REB,
GNT, INC)
- Titus 2:13: as we
wait for the blessed hope, even the appearing of the glory of our great
God and Savior, Jesus Christ.
- Other translators
have the great God, and our Savior Jesus Christ (GEN, KJV, ASV,
Moffatt, PME, NWT, TBV, NAB, CEV, INC, KJ21)
- Hebrews 1:8: Your
throne, O God, [is] forever and ever.... (quoting Psalm 45)
- Moffatt
and NWT have God is your throne.
- 2 Peter 1:1: ...by
the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
- Other translators
have our God and the Savior Jesus Christ. (KJV, ASV, Weymouth,
PME, NWT, TBV, INC, KJ21, LITV.
- 1 John 5:20: ...in
His Son Jesus Christ. This one is the true God, and eternal life.
Whether the reference in
1 John 5:20 is to the Father or the Son is ambiguous in almost any
translation (except GW and MES) and should probably be left to the interpreter.
Of the remaining nine verses, the following versions relate theos
to Jesus in every case, or else all but one: RV, Young, Montgomery, William,
AMP, JB, NKJV, NIV, NRSV, NCV, NASB, GW, NLT, NIrV,
ISV, HCSB, ESV, and TNIV. Two of the verses are missed by GEN, Darby, Weymouth, LB, NAB, CEV, LITV, and MES. The remaining versions give
relatively weak support to the deity of Christ from these passages. Only six
verses are correct in KJV, ASV, RSV, NEB, NJB, REB, GNT, and KJ21. The PME has five, Moffatt
four, and the TBV and INC only three. The NWT, as one might expect, avoids
asserting Christ's deity every time, employing god with a lower-case g
when necessary (John 1:1; 1:18). It is
noteworthy that the weaker translations are uniformly more liberal in
origin--with the exceptions of GEN, KJV, and KJ21, whose older translation
methods have since been refined. In defense of the otherwise conservative LB
and TBV, it may be said that translators are not always conscious of the
doctrinal implications of their renderings. But even the liberal versions that
usually translate well here (e.g., NAB, CEV) often give the alternative
translations in footnotes without regard for their illegitimacy, as if to let
the reader off the hook.
- A second issue related
to the identity of Christ is His place in Old Testament prophecy.
References to the Messianic kings (David and his descendants) are
fulfilled most truly in Christ, as the New Testament reveals. It is in
this sense that the king could be called God's son or His chosen one, and
even represent God (as Psa.
45:6-7). The rendering of these verses may reveal the translators'
opinions about Messianic prophecy.
- The word Messiah, or
Anointed One, appears in Psalm 2:2 and is capitalized in Young, AMP, JB,
LB, NKJV, NIV, NASB, KJ21, GW, and MES, suggesting a definite application
to Jesus. The GEN actually translates the word as Christ. The
connection is most obscured in the renderings his anointed king
(NEB, REB, NCV, NIrV) and the king he chose (GNT).
- Psalm 2:12 begins with the instruction, kiss
the Son, though higher-critical scholars reject this reading and
propose various, unsupported changes. Thus JB, RSV, NJB, and NRSV have kiss
his feet, NEB and REB have pay glad homage to the king, and
NAB and GNT have bow down.
- In Psalm 110:1, the
prophecy most cited in the New Testament, David begins, Yahweh said
to my Lord, which as Jesus pointed out (Matt. 22:45), must refer to
someone greater than David and not merely a descendant king. Most
versions (even NWT!) therefore capitalize Lord. Those that do
not are the more liberal RSV, NEB, NAB, NRSV, REB, and GNT, plus the
usually conservative RV, NCV, and KJ21.
- Jesus is given worship (proskuneo) several times: Matt. 2:11; 14:33;
28:9, 17; Luke 24:52; John 9:38; Heb. 1:6; possibly others. The etymology
of the word implies bending the knee to someone. While worship is the
normal translation of this word when applied to the Father, a number of translations
avoid the word, as revealed by checking Matt. 28:9 and John 9:38. Young,
Darby, Montgomery, and
probably Weymouth do so out of
their commitment to literal translation. Those avoiding worship
for doctrinal reasons include NAB (Matt. only), GNT (John only), NEB,
and REB. The ASV contains a footnote in John 9:38, probably written by the
Unitarian on the committee, that suggests the healed man's worship of
Jesus as an example of legitimate worship being given to a mere creature.
- A final test for doctrinal
commitments on Christ's identity is Philippians 2:6. Jesus was in the
form of God. Some versions make this an explicit statement of Jesus'
nature as God (Weymouth,
Montgomery, William, PME, AMP, LB, NIV, CEV, NCV, GNT, GW, NLT, NIrV, and TNIV). The rendering of the next line is
even more telling. Did Jesus rightly share equality with God (as
Montgomery, PME, ISV, MES), or did he deny or lay no claim to equality
with God (as REB, similar Moffatt,
NEB)?
How does the translator treat texts relevant to
the truthfulness of the Bible?
References to the perfection, divine origin, and
eternal relevance of the Bible are so numerous and so clear that no translation
could obscure them all. Verses such as Psalm 19:7 and Matthew 5:18 uphold the
truth of Scripture in every version. But the meaning of two key texts is in
dispute.
- Psalm 12:6 is clear
enough when translated literally: The utterances of Yahweh are pure
utterances, or, The words of
the LORD are pure words. Yet the RSV, LB, NJB, NAB, NRSV, GNT, and NLT
restrict the meaning of words to promises. It is
surprising to find the LB and NLT here amid the more liberal versions.
- 2 Timothy 3:16 is the most cited verse in the
debate over biblical inspiration. Few translators dare to translate
otherwise than that every scripture [is] inspired by God (or God-breathed)
and profitable.... Only NEB
and REB supply is later, so as to read, Every
inspired scripture [is] also profitable.... The NIrV's
paraphrase God has breathed life into all of Scripture follows
the conservative rendering but is ambiguous, and GW's
every Scripture passage is inspired... raises the question of
whether the words themselves are inspired. Versions such as RSV, NAB,
NRSV, and GNT give the more liberal translation in a footnote as a viable
alternative. But separating inspired from profitable
when they are joined by and is implausible and is only done to
reverse the implications of the verse.
How does the translator treat texts relevant to
salvation?
As with the Bible, the primary doctrines relating
to salvation are fairly clear in the Bible. A few texts, however, lend
themselves to interpretation as they are translated, or have been altered in
some versions.
- On occasion, doctrinal
biases or a desire for novelty have led to mistranslation of theological
terms. The word hilasmon and related
terms are traditionally (and correctly) translated propitiation
(KJV, RV, ASV, PME, NWT, NKJV, KJ21, LITV, NASB, HCSB, ESV), as in Romans 3:25; Hebrews 2:17; and 1 John 4:10. This word indicates the nature of Christ's
atonement: that His death paid the penalty for our sins by pacifying God's
wrath. This is called penal substitutionary
atonement, a doctrine that has fallen out of favor outside conservative
evangelical circles. Thus many translations translate the word more
generally as atonement or sacrifice. The GEN's rendering reconciliation was adequate
at the time but is insufficient today because of changes in our use of the
word. Particularly bland are versions that simply refer to forgiveness or taking
care of sin (CEV, MES). Moffatt, RSV, NEB,
NJB, NAB, and REB use the word expiation, which says merely that
Jesus' death (or life) covers over sins so that they are not punished, a
concept more in keeping with mainline and Catholic theology.
- Matthew 25:46 says that
those who are not saved will ultimately go off to everlasting
punishment. The NWT mistranslates the phrase as everlasting
cutting-off to support the idea that the wicked are simply
annihilated, and the same may be inferred from the MES's
eternal doom. Weymouth,
whose views on eternity were also unorthodox, routinely translates everlasting
as of the ages. Most emphatic is GEN's
translation euerlaƒting paine.
- In John 3:36, those who apeitho the Son will not see eternal life.
The meaning of apeitho has been
debated. It refers to unbelief in KJV, Young, William, PME, JB, NKJV, NJB,
KJ21, HCSB, and MES. But most versions translate it more accurately as disobedience:
GEN, RV, Darby, ASV, Weymouth,
Moffatt, Montgomery,
NWT, RSV, NEB, TBV, NAB,
NRSV, REB, NCV, GNT, LITV, NASB, NLT, ISV, ESV.
The AMP and LB translate both ways, and the meaning is ambiguous in NIV,
CEV, INC, GW, NIrV, and TNIV.
- Translators reveal their
attitude toward the Law and its relationship to salvation in Galatians
3:23-24. One group of versions has a positive view toward the law as
preparatory and instructive: GEN, KJV, RV, Young, NWT, AMP, JB, LB, TBV,
NKJV, KJ21, NASB, NLT, ISV, and MES. The majority, however, have Paul
present the law as a prison warden from whom Christ has set us free:
Weymouth, Moffatt, Montgomery, William, PME,
RSV, NEB, NIV, NJB, NAB, NRSV, REB, CEV, NCV, GNT, GW, INC, LITV, NIrV, HCSB, ESV, and TNIV. Both are syntactically
possible, but the context suggests the former rendering is correct.
- Ephesians 1:11-12 says
that God works all things according to the counsel of His will,
as is clear in all versions except the NEB, REB, CEV, and MES. How does
this relate to salvation? The most direct references to predestination
have given some translators problems. Acts 13:48
reports the response to Paul's sermon by saying that those who were
appointed for eternal life believed. Words such as ordained, appointed,
or destined appear in most versions, but a few reverse the clear
meaning of the text. NWT and TBV have disposed to eternal life,
and LB has as many as wanted eternal life.
NEB and REB's
marked out for and GW's prepared
can be argued both ways. The NCV is also ambiguous as to the order of
events when it says they were the ones chosen.
- The most difficult, even
for some Calvinists, are the suggestions of negative predestination--i.e.,
that certain unbelievers are destined not to be
saved. The verses in question are Romans 9:22 and 1 Peter 2:8. Most
versions leave the text as it is regardless of the translators' commitments,
but the meaning of Romans is altered in Weymouth,
Moffatt, William, PME, AMP, JB, NEB, REB, CEV,
NCV, INC, GW, and HCSB. Only the PME, JB, LB, NJB, GW, and MES change
1 Peter 2:8.
How does the translator treat other frequently
debated texts?
The task of translation calls for discernment as
to whether the meaning of certain verses is debatable enough to be left
ambiguous or is clear enough to be interpreted for the reader. The issues of cut
off versus emasculated in Galatians 5:12 and of unrighteous mammon in Luke 16:9 are
examples. The following is only a sampling of many verses where translational
decisions have a bearing on doctrinal issues.
- Throughout church
history scholars have debated whether the sons of God in Genesis 6:1-4 are
men or fallen angels. Most translations leave the text undecided as sons
of God, but LB reads beings from the spirit world, and GNT
has heavenly beings. Liberal scholars see the passage as a
holdover from ancient, polytheistic myths, and so NEB
and REB read sons of the gods, and the NAB says sons of
heaven, with a footnote that these are "the celestial beings of
mythology."
- Exodus 21:22 prescribes a fine as a penalty if
someone accidentally causes an unborn child to come out of a
pregnant woman. "Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, life
for life" applies if there is further injury. If a miscarriage is in
view, the "further injury" is to the mother, but if the
expression refers only to a premature birth, then causing a miscarriage
would carry the death penalty under Old Testament law. While the KJV, RV,
Young, ASV, NWT, KJ21, and LITV remain ambiguous, it seems clear from
other occurrences that the expression refers to a miscarriage, as in AMP,
RSV, LB, NEB, NAB, NRSV, REB, GNT, and MES. The premature birth
reading is followed in Darby, JB, NKJV, NIV, NJB, NCV, NASB, GW, NLT, and NIrV, though most of these admit the possibility of
the other interpretation.
- In Malachi 2:16, God
declares, "I hate divorce." Or does He? The Hebrew text can be
read two ways:
- Yahweh the God of
Israel says that He [i.e., God] hates divorcing, and the one who
covers his garment with violence."
- Yahweh the God of
Israel says, "He [i.e., the faithless husband] hates so as
to divorce, and he covers his garment with violence."
Only the NEB, REB, and ESV take the second reading, though the syntax would seem to
indicate it as more likely. Both readings express God's contempt for divorce.
The GEN takes a route that would be scandalous today: if thou hatest her, put her away--a reading perhaps influenced
by the then-recent behavior of Henry VIII.
- Who sought to take hold
of Jesus and claimed He had gone crazy? The Greek term in Mark 3:21 is hoi par' autou,
which most authorities say refers primarily to close family members but
possibly intimate friends. Since Jesus' mother and brothers
show up a few verses later, they are likely referred to here. However,
this raises concern with some people because of its possible negative
implications for Mary. The KJV, RV, Young, ASV, RSV, LB, TBV, NKJV, KJ21,
NASB, LITV, and MES use friends or other non-familial word. The
distant term relatives appears in Darby,
Weymouth, Montgomery,
PME, NWT, JB, NJB, NAB, and INC, while William and AMP use kinsmen.
(GEN has kinƒfolkes.) Using family
are Moffatt, NEB,
NIV, NRSV, REB, CEV, NCV, GNT, GW, NLT, NIrV,
ISV, HCSB, ESV, and TNIV.
- The Philippian
jailer's conversion resulted in the baptism of the whole household, but
did they all convert at that time? Supporters of infant baptism argue that
young children must have been present who were baptized then but only
later believed. In the Greek text of Acts 16:34,
the adjective whole-housedly could
refer either to celebration or to belief. The family celebrates over the
jailer's conversion alone in Young, Weymouth,
Moffatt, NWT, AMP, CPV, RSV, NEB,
NRSV, REB, LITV, and ESV. The whole family explicitly believes in GEN,
KJV, Montgomery, William, PME, JB, LB, NKJV, NIV, NJB, CEV, NCV, GNT, INC,
KJ21, NASB, GW, NLT, NIrV, ISV, HCSB, TNIV, and
MES. The RV, Darby, ASV, TBV, and NAB manage to remain ambiguous here.
- In Acts 19:2, Paul tests
the genuineness of some disciples' conversion by asking whether they had
received the Holy Spirit. While most versions render the participle
accurately--Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?--the
GEN and KJV have since you believed, which opens up the
possibility that the Spirit normally comes subsequent to salvation. (The
NIV/TNIV footnote suggesting after you believed is grammatically
unwarranted.) The MES adds the sentences Did
you take God into your mind only, or did you also embrace him with your
heart? Did he get inside you?, which is an entirely separate issue.
- 1 Corinthians 14
opens a discussion on one who speaks in a tongue (14:2) in
worship. Is this ecstatic utterance or the speaking of other (human)
languages? Almost half the translations stay literal without deciding the
question for the reader: RV, Darby, ASV, Moffatt,
Montgomery, PME, NWT, RSV, NKJV, NIV, NJB, NAB, NRSV, LITV, NASB, ISV,
ESV, TNIV. A few go one step further by saying in tongues: JB,
REB, INC, and NLT. Those supporting ecstatic utterance are William,
NEB, GNT, MES, and (as generally
understood), GEN, KJV, Young, Weymouth,
AMP, and KJ21. Those supporting foreign languages are LB, TBV, NCV, GW, NIrV, and HCSB.
- 1 Corinthians 14:2
also refers to this speaking as either by the Spirit or in
his spirit; the Greek is ambiguous, and versions are almost evenly
divided here. Spirit is capitalized in Weymouth,
Moffatt, Montgomery,
William, PME, AMP, RSV, LB, TBV, NRSV, REB, CEV, NCV, GNT, NLT, ISV, HCSB,
ESV, and TNIV. It is not capitalized in GEN, KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV,
PME, NKJV, NIV, NAB, LITV, NASB, GW, and NIrV.
The NEB paraphrases boldly
by saying he is no doubt inspired., and MES paraphrases with
the word private.
- Romans 16 mentions two
women who are important in the ongoing discussion of what ministry
positions are open to women. In verse 1, Phoebe is said to be a diakonon, a word that generally means minister
and as a technical term means deacon. Those taking Phoebe as a
deacon or deaconess are Moffatt, William, PME,
AMP, JB, RSV, NJB, NRSV, INC, GW, NLT, ISV, and TNIV. She is more
generally a servant or minister in most versions: GEN, KJV, RV, Young,
Darby, ASV, Weymouth, Montgomery,
NWT, LB, TBV, NKJV, NIV, NAB, REB, GNT, NCV, KJ21, LITV, NASB, NIrV, HCSB, ESV. The NEB
has the deliberately ambiguous paraphrase that Phoebe holds office in
the church, and MES says she is a key representative. CEV is
strongest, making her a leader. The second woman is Junia, in verse 7, but some manuscripts read the male
name Junias. Textual critics prefer Junia, but the versions are split (Junia:
GEN, KJV, Weymouth, Montgomery, NKJV, NAB, NRSV, REB, GNT, INC, KJ21, GW,
NLT, HCSB, ESV, TNIV, MES; Junias: RV, Young,
Darby, ASV, Moffatt, William, PME, NWT, AMP, JB,
RSV, LB, NEB, TBV, NIV, NJB, CEV, NCV, LITV, NASB, NIrV,
ISV). What Paul says of her and Andronicus could mean that they are
respected apostles, or that they are respected by the apostles. They are
apostles in RV, Montgomery, JB, NEB, NIV, NJB, NAB, NRSV, REB, INC, NASB,
GW, NIrV, ISV, and HCSB; not apostles in GEN,
William, LB, CEV, NCV, GNT, and ESV. PME understands the Greek apostoloi to be used in its non-technical
sense, and MES calls them outstanding leaders. Other versions
maintain the ambiguity of the Greek text. What is significant in all this
is that a woman is a full-fledged apostle in Montgomery, NAB, NRSV, REB,
INC, GW, and HCSB.
- One other verse
pertaining to women in the ministry is 1 Timothy
3:11, which gives the qualifications for women--either the wives
of the deacons just discussed, or for women deacons. They are wives in
GEN, KJV, Moffatt, PME, LB, NEB,
NKJV, NIV, GNT, KJ21, LITV, GW, NLT, NIrV, ISV,
and ESV. Only Weymouth, Montgomery,
William, and TNIV say deacon/deaconess here, and MES likewise
designates that women deacons are intended. Most of the rest retain the
word women, but INC uses spouses as part of its policy
of egalitarian renderings.
- Dispensationalists
believe that national Israel
remains a people of God even apart from the church, whereas other
evangelicals identify the church as the true Israel.
Galatians 6:16 is a key text
that can be translated one of two ways:
- And to as many as
order their lives by this principle, peace and mercy [be] on them, and on
the Israel
of God.
- And to as many as
order their lives by this principle, peace and mercy [be] on them; that
is, on the Israel
of God.
Grammatically and syntactically,
either is possible; the decision must be made on the basis of Paul's attitude
toward Israel in other passages. Those for whom the church is equal to
the Israel of God (the non-dispensationalist leaning) are Moffatt,
William, PME, NWT, AMP, JB, RSV, LB, NIV, REB, CEV, NCV, GW, NLT, TNIV, and
MES. (CEV omits reference to Israel, reading instead God's true people.) Other
versions have the first reading, with the GEN explicitly indicating the Jews in
a marginal note.
- A second verse important
to dispensationalists is Ephesians 3:5. In some versions, the uniting of
Jews and Gentiles into one church was unknown to previous generations--one
of dispensationalism's central beliefs (PME, JB,
LB, NEB, REB, CEV, NCV, GNT, INC, NLT, NIrV, MES). But most translations say it was not known as it
has been now--meaning there may have been some hint of it in the Old Testament
(GEN, KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, Weymouth, Moffatt,
Montgomery, William, NWT, AMP, RSV, TBV, NKJV, NIV, NJB, NAB, NRSV, KJ21,
LITV, NASB, GW, ISV, HCSB, ESV, TNIV). Here, the majority have it correct,
since as is in the Greek text, and even Darby, the founder of dispensationalism, chose the latter rendering. The
difference in how each version handles this and the previous example
demonstrate that very few translations have a deliberate bias here.
- When the NIV was
released, some amillennialists criticized its
translation of Revelation 20:4, which says that the souls of the martyrs came
to life. The Greek, they argue, could simply mean they lived,
but the NIV's reading necessarily places the
millennium after the resurrection. But the vast majority of versions read
with the NIV here: Weymouth, Moffatt, PME, NWT,
AMP, JB, RSV, LB, NEB, NIV, NJB, NAB, NRSV, REB, NCV, GNT, INC, NASB, NLT,
NIrV, ISV, HCSB, ESV, and TNIV. CEV even has they
will come to life, ensuring a millennial interpretation. Those reading
lived are mostly KJV-dependent: GEN, KJV, RV, Young, Darby, ASV, Montgomery,
William, TBV, NKJV, KJ21, LITV, GW, and MES.
Grades (this category only)
Top 5: ESV (highest), NASB, NIV, NKJV, HCSB
A: GEN, LITV, KJV, RV, AMP, ISV, TBV, Montgomery, Young, CPV, KJ21, Darby, William, NIrV,
NCV, LB
B: NLT, GW, ASV, Weymouth
C: TNIV, CEV, PME
D: MES, RSV, JB, NAB, NJB, NEB
F: REB
Bottom 5: GNT, NRSV, Moffatt,
NWT, INC (lowest)
- AMP - Amplified
Bible; NT 1958, OT 1965 by Frances E. Siewert,
assisted by the Lockman Foundation.
- ASV - American
Standard Version, 1901; revision of KJV
- CEV -
Contemporary English Version, 1991 by American Bible Society; revision of
TEV
- CPV - Cotton Patch
Version of Luke and Acts, 1969 by Clarence Jordan
- Darby - A New
Translation; NT 1871, OT 1890 by John Nelson Darby
- ESV - English
Standard Version; 2001 by Crossway Bibles; revision of RSV
- GEN - Geneva
Bible; 1560
- GNT - Good News
Translation (formerly Good News Bible: Today's English Version); NT 1966,
OT 1976 by American Bible Society; 1992 edition
- GW - God's Word;
1995 by God's Word to the Nations Bible Society
- HCSB - Holman
Christian Standard Bible; NT 2000, OT due 2004 by Holman Bible Publishers
- INC - Inclusive
New Testament; 1994 by Priests for Equality
- ISV -
International Standard Version; NT 1998 by the Learn Foundaiton
- JB - Jerusalem
Bible; 1966 by Dominican Biblical School
of Jerusalem
- KJV - King James
Version; orig. 1611; 1769 Cambridge Edition by Benjamin Blayney; revision of the Bishop's Bible
- KJ21 - 21st
Century King James Version; 1994 by Deuel Publishers; revision of KJV
- LB - Living
Bible, 1962-1971 by Kenneth N. Taylor; paraphrase of ASV
- LITV - Literal
Translation of the Holy Scriptures; 1995 by Jay P. Green; revision of The
Interlinear Bible
- MES - The
Message; 1993-2002 by Eugene H. Peterson
- Moffatt
- New Translation of the New Testament, 1913 by James Moffatt
- Montgomery
- Centenary Translation of the New Testament; 1924 by Helen Barrett
Montgomery; revision of ASV
- NAB - New
American Bible; trans. 1970 by Catholic Biblical Association of America;
1986 edition; revision of Douai-Rheims NT
- NASB - New
American Standard Bible; NT 1963, OT 1971 by the Lockman
Foundation; 1995 Updated Edition; revision of ASV
- NCV - New Century
Version; 1986 by Word Publishing Company; 1991 edition
- NEB
- New English Bible; NT 1961, OT 1970 by Joint Committee on the New
Translation of the Bible; 1972 edition
- NIrV
- New International Reader's Version; 1995 by International Bible Society;
1998 edition; revision of NIV
- NIV - New
International Version; NT 1973, OT 1978 by Committee on Bible Translation;
1984 edition
- NJB - New
Jerusalem Bible; 1985
- NKJV - New King
James Version; NT 1979, OT 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.
- NLT - New Living
Translation; 1996 by Tyndale House; second
printing; revision of LB
- NRSV - New
Revised Standard Version; 1989 by National Council of Churches of Christ;
revision of RSV
- NWT - New World
Translation; 1950-1960 by Watchtower Bible and Tract Society; 1961 edition
- PME - New
Testament in Modern English; 1947-1957 by John B. Phillips
- REB - Revised
English Bible; 1989 by Joint Committee on the New Translation of the
Bible; revision of REB
- RSV - Revised
Standard Version; NT 1946, OT 1952 by National Council of Churches of
Christ; 1970 edition; revision of ASV
- RV - Revised
Version; NT 1881, OT 1884; revision of KJV
- TBV - The Better
Version of the New Testament; 1973 by Chester
Estes
- TNIV - Today's
New International Version; NT 2002 by International Bible Society;
revision of NIV
- Weymouth
- New Testament in Modern Speech; 1903 by Richard Weymouth
- William -
William's New Testament (date unknown, included with the UltraBible software library).
- Young - Young's
Literal Translation; NT 1862, OT 1898 by Robert Young
See: http://faith.propadeutic.com/questions.html
for other topics.