There are blogs and articles all over the internet comparing Bible translations. I should know. I search them out and read them...regularly. I have already shared on this blog my journey through different translations or versions through the years. Having been accused of being "wishy-washy" by some people, it does seem that description fits me due to my inability to settle on one Bible version for every day use.
As of this writing I have been bouncing among the New American Standard, English Standard, and Holman Christian Standard versions of the Word. Eventually, however, a person needs to make a stand. I have in the past thought I had made that stand, only to discover another version previously unknown to me or hear a new fact or opinion which tended to influence my thoughts at the time. Now I want to lay out my thoughts on each Bible version and then attempt to make a decision or choice in the matter (notice I did not say "final").
Beginning chronologically with the New American Standard Bible (the 1995 updated edition), I purchased a burgundy, genuine leather copy not long after the 1995 release. It is single-column, with references and a nice 11-point bold font. The NASB is generally considered to be the most "literal, word-for-word" translation...closest to the original Hebrew and Greek texts. This version of the Word has never been hugely popular with the masses like the KJV and NIV and has been labeled by many as a study Bible to be used more for reference purposes. The most consistent negative criticism I have seen is that the language is too "wooden" or "stilted". Those holding this view say this makes the NASB difficult to read because it does not "flow". I disagree with this charge. For my daily Bible reading I have recently been listening to the ESV as I read along in the NASB. To those who believe the ESV "flows" better than the NASB, I must say the New American seems to flow quite well, thank you. The NASB capitalizes personal pronouns for deity and verses such as Acts 8:37 are included in the text with brackets, instead of being relegated to a "footnote only" status as it is in the ESV and NIV. John MacArthur, Charles Stanley, and Kay Arthur would be among those who use the NASB in their ministries.
The English Standard Version was first released in 2001 with a significant revision taking place in 2007. When I embraced reformed theology and joined the Presbyterian Church in America in 2007, the ESV seemed to be the perfect fit. My pastor preached from it and many fellow church members carried it as well. I bought several copies trying to find the perfect binding, font size, etc. The ESV publishers have waged a tremendous marketing campaign and in a few short years the ESV has become very popular. The ESV, like the NASB, is a literal, word-for-word translation, but not quite as much as the NASB. It does read well which apparently is one of the greatest reasons for its popularity. I really thought I had found "my" Bible version with the ESV. Upon further reading and studying I discovered the ESV is over 90 percent the Revised Standard Version re-packaged with changes made to satisfy conservative evangelicals. That is not a bad thing. What has been most enlightening to me is how there is not much difference between the ESV and NASB when it is all said and done. The question that comes to my mind: "Why is the ESV needed?" The issue of "ease of reading" between these two versions is a non-issue for me. The translation committee for the ESV was made up mostly of persons of the reformed persuasion, which has been a problem for some, but not for me. Also, to be a 21st century translation, the ESV does seem to contain more archaic language or "Biblese" as some call it, than it should. Those known to endorse and/or use the ESV include John Piper, Harry Reeder, Francis Chan and a large number of persons in the conservative Presbyterian denominations.
The late comer to this "competition"...the new kid on the block, as it were, is the Holman Christian Standard Bible. The HCSB was first released in 2004 with a revision in 2010 by the publishing arm of the Southern Baptist Convention. When I first heard of the HCSB I did not bother to investigate, writing it off for obvious reasons. This is unfair, because the HCSB really is an excellent translation. The Holman Christian Standard Bible strikes a very nice balance between the word-for-word NASB and the thought-for-thought New International Version. Unlike the NASB and ESV which were based on previous versions, the HCSB is the first "from scratch" translation since the NIV over 30 years ago. It has very readable, current English without any slang thrown in which would probably be soon outdated. With its lack of marketing, unfortunately, in history the HCSB may well find itself being known as nothing more than the "Southern Baptist Bible".
All three of these excellent Bible versions have their strengths and weaknesses. I could go into more detail, but maybe I will address the subject again at a later date. For today I cast my lot with my old friend the New American Standard Bible. It's currently my daily Bible reading companion and will be the Bible I carry to church this Sunday.
Next week.....who knows?
5 comments:
"The NASB capitalizes personal pronouns for deity"
My one real complaint. This interrupts the reading flow for me.
I was raised on the KJV, switched to the NKJV in my late teens/early 20s. But I went back to the KJV. I found the gain in readability in the NKJV wasn't so great after all. I tried the NASB for a while, but didn't really like it that much.
I'm re-evaluating the NASB now because the preacher at my current church uses it as his main translation. The ESV is out of the questions. Supposedly its a revision of the RSV, but that's not true from what I see. It looks like to me they took the NRSV (not RSV) and NASB, and KJV, and made a mash-up of them. Its too unpredictable whether you'll get KJV syntax or NASB syntax, or the exact text of the NRSV.
So for me, the translation choice is between the NASB, the NRSV, and the HCSB. Of course I'll always continue using the KJV anyway for study, but this is a competition for a reading Bible.
Actually after more reading, I can't stand the HCSB especially the use of "Yahweh" in the Old Testament. But also its language is so wooden. And the NASB grows more annoying on me over time. NRSV totall botched a certain verse in Psalm 22, the one where Christians translations say "they pierced my hands and feet" but Jews say it ought to be "like a lion my hands and feet." NRSV says "my hands and feet shrivelled" despite that being an impossible translation. So NRSV is out. I just use the KJV and NKJV now. And my usage of the KJV over the NKJV is increasing as I've started to use the site http://www.commonprayer.org/ and read the daily readings from the BCP1928 there, which uses the KJV.
Since my original post over four years ago I still haven't settled on one translation. I guess I'm destined to read from the "flavor of the week", whatever that may be.
David, great to see you are using the common prayer website. I do as well. If you haven't found it already, you might try cradleofprayer.org to provide the audio to enhance the use of the 1928 BCP online.
Thanks for the suggestion. I'll check it out.
That site is a great find. I like how they did the Magnificat and Venite as Anglican chant. Don't you think the priest sounds a little like JFK?
Post a Comment