Battle of the Bible Forms?

In answer to some recent queries about translated versions of the Bible.

Commercial lawyers are familiar with the battle of the forms. Lord Dennings once wrote that "...where there is a battle of the forms, there is a contract as soon as the last of the forms is sent and received without taking objection to it. In some cases, the battle is won by the person who fires the last shot. He is the person who puts forward the latest terms and conditions and, if they are not objected to by the other party, he may be taken to have agreed with them." So what about the myriad of translated versions of our Bible? Is there a right or wrong version? Is there a version that is more correct, accurate or superior? Having worked as a professional accredited translator, I can understand why the answer is not nearly as simple as contract law where the last accepted version prevails.

As a generalisation, perhaps it is helpful to think of the different translations of the Bible along a spectrum from literal translation that is word-for-word to conceptually-based translation that is more meaning-for-meaning or thought-for-thought or a form of paraphrasing. As the literal accuracy of the translation increases, the readability decreases. As the literal accuracy of a translation decreases, the readability increases. Whilst there are many translated versions which seek to reflect a middle ground between accuracy and readability, there is much more merit in reading different versions of the Bible, whether it be to grapple with a challenging Bible passage or to understand how translation can differ in respect of certain concepts in the scripture. For example, the King James Version is good for the books of poetry on lyrical and poetic aspects (especially the Psalms being one of my favourite parts of the Bible), but always cross reference other translated versions that are more accurate in theological meaning. As Robert Alter criticises with a sense of humour in The Hebrew Bible: A Translation with Commentary that: "broadly speaking, one may say that in the case of the modern version, the problem is a shaky sense of English and in the case of the King James Version, a shaky sense of Hebrew." This is rightly so with possible extension of this statement to a shaky sense of Koine (common) Greek given the King James translators were scholars trained in classical Greek with perhaps questionable familiarity with Koine Greek, being the original language of the New Testament.

It is interesting to note that the King James translators commissioned to work on the project had no first-hand study of ancient manuscript sources discovered in recent centuries. These include better manuscripts of the entire New Testaments which are 600 to 900 years older than those available to the King James translators as well as the Dead Sea Scrolls being the Old Testament manuscripts discovered in 1947 dated 100BC-AD70 that are a thousand years older than those available to the King James translators. Furthermore, the King James translation was done by 6 panels of translators (47 men in total) where the New Testament was translated from Greek, the Old Testament from Hebrew and Aramaic as well as the Apocrypha from Greek and Latin (being a set of texts included in the Latin Vulgate and Septuagint but not in the Hebrew Bible) with influence from the Geneva Bible that is in turn influenced by Tyndale's 1562 Bible (which all had secondary reference to Latin Vulgate although translated primarily from Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts). So there is little doubt that meaning or nuance would be lost in translation after so much layering of language and historical circumstances.

As DA Carson points out that the degree of uncertainty raised by textual questions, being what is actually in the manuscripts, is a great deal less than the degree of uncertainty raised by how one interprets what the manuscripts say: "in other words, even when the text is certain, there is often an honest difference of opinion among interpreters as to the precise meaning of the passage. Few Evangelicals, I would like to think, will claim (in)fallibility for their interpretations of the Scriptures; they are prepared to live with the (relatively) small degree of uncertainty raised by such limitations. The doubt raised by textual uncertainties, I submit, is far, far smaller. " 

To help with all this, here are some personal tips. Download Bible Gateway to access different versions and use the below Bible Gateway infographic with facts and spectrum of the non-exhaustive list of translated versions to understand where each translated version is coming from and what differences you may find amongst them. If you are relatively new to Christianity or the Bible, my personal suggestion is to start with the NRSV, NIV or ISV to navigate the scripture for the first time.  Of couse, if you happen to have a KJV to study it academically as a literary classic before becoming a Christian, let me assure you that the experience is an enjoyable one especially if you have the right tools to cross refer other translations of the biblical (rather than canonical) text.

So unlike the battle of forms, this is a situation that speaks for options rather than choice.


This piece is more an aggregator of information to serve, hopefully, a useful purpose as a helpful tool for those with questions on translated versions of the Bible. All moral rights belong to the author except to the extent other works are quoted, extracted or otherwise referred to in this piece.