Which Bible is Best?

By Jamie Gunn © 2007

I’m often asked, “Which Bible is best or most useful?” To answer that question properly, I must reply that there are two issues involved in the question. One issue is a more practical one and is concerned with simple and personal choices like size and weight, materials used, and methods of construction. It also is concerned with whether or not one needs or should like to have maps and diagrams, study notes, a concordance, a topical reference section and other such helps.

The other and arguably more important issue is that of translation. What method of translation is being considered: paraphrase, thought-for-thought (also called dynamic equivalence) or word-for-word? Of the three, paraphrase translations are the least accurate (and actually harmful for serious Bible study) while word-for-word is the most accurate. This issue is also concerned with the underlying text of the Bible but is really only important when considering the underlying Greek text of the New Testament. There is a high degree of accuracy and stability in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, but this is not the case for the New Testament, unfortunately. That being said however, there is no real cause for dismay.

It is my own belief that a word-for-word method of translation is best because of what’s called verbal plenary inspiration. Verbal plenary inspiration means that the very words of the Bible themselves were chosen by the writers of Scripture under the guiding influence of the Holy Spirit, who is the real author of the Bible. However, verbal plenary inspiration may appear problematic when we remember that there are several translations in common use today and which are based (for the most part) on two or three underlying Greek texts.

For instance, my favourite translations are the King James Version and the New American Standard Bible (NASB). Both are essentially word-for-word translations and are very accurate to their underlying Greek texts and so to that degree may be considered reliable. The problem is that each translation is based on a different underlying Greek text. The KJV is based on what has come to be known as the Textus Receptus (TR) or Received Text. It is also commonly referred to as the Byzantine text (BT) as it was the predominant text used in the Byzantine or Greek Orthodox tradition. The NASB on the other hand, is based on what has come to be known as the Critical Text (CT). The Critical text is derived from earlier surviving papyrus fragments than is the Byzantine; the two most important and complete examples of this type being the Sinaiticus and the Alexandrinus. The Byzantine text is considered by experts to be generally not as close to the surviving papyrus fragments of the Greek New Testament as is the Critical Text (which is based on several papyrus fragments, including the Sinaiticus and the Alexandrinus). The operative theory being that earlier manuscripts or papyrus fragments are more authentic since fewer errors would have been introduced by the manuscript copyists.

But many people still maintain that the Byzantine Text or the Textus Receptus is the correct and truthful version of the Bible, that it alone exhibits plenary verbal inspiration. Others believe this is true for translations based on the Critical Text, translations such as the NASB and the ESV (English Standard Version) at least in part because it can be proven that their copying was done closer in time to their original counterparts. But plenary verbal inspiration—like many other indicators of Scriptural authenticity—is really only supportable in relation to these originally and directly inspired writings of Scripture, also known as the autographa. The autographa are those papyrus books (actually scrolls) written by men such as the four evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke and John) as well as by Paul, Peter, and James among others. Those very first writings have never been discovered and in all probability never will be. All the papyrus fragments we now know of are copies of the original scrolls. In fact, they may be copies of copies of copies of copies, etc. This should cause us to pause before we condemn those who would choose a translation based on a different underlying text than the one on which our chosen translation is based. This is especially true when we consider that even the Textus Receptus is not based on a single, monolithic underlying papyrus scroll or fragment copy. However, we can take comfort in this: that of all the authenticated papyrus fragments and the translations based upon them, there is no Christian doctrine seriously or irreparably damaged by scholarly translations based on the main underlying text types, whether Byzantine or Critical. All the essential doctrines of the Church are to be found expressed in both.

However, there is something worth speaking about in regard to language and bible translation. Given a high degree of accuracy by both the NASB and the KJV (or the New King James Version, NKJV) it is also true that the language of the NASB (and the NKJV) is far more clear and understandable (perspicuous) than the language of the traditional KJV. This is so because the translators of the KJV purposefully chose to use a highly poetic form of English; a form of English that had not really been spoken for a few hundred years by the time of the KJV translation in the early 17th century. It is highly stylized, but also exceptionally beautiful and—perhaps more importantly—reverential. Nevertheless, the English language has progressed and changed over the course of time since 1611 when the first edition of the KJV was completed (there have been many editions of this translation, with extensive changes). The language of the KJV is now more difficult for average readers to understand than at any time in history. There are many reasons for this which space does not allow me to pursue. Suffice to say that when coming to read the KJV, we have a stratum of language which we really must learn to understand if we are going to understand the underlying message of the Bible in this translation. And it is with the underlying message that we must be concerned! From the perspective of understanding the message of the Bible, we are in no way required to also understand this other, imposed, stratum of language or word usage which acts as a barrier to many people who lack the time, interest, skill or fortitude to learn it. Nor should their refusal be used to prove an underlying lack of true Christian faith or piety on their part.

So those translations that are accurate, word-for-word versions of their underlying text types may be considered reliable and sufficient versions of God’s very words, it being God’s providential care to ensure that His word will be protected and that His word shall not come back to Him empty (Isaiah 55:11). I believe He has done this by allowing for multiple translations. The significant thing to remember in this regard is that the Bible, whatever version one may be using, will be an empty slate to the one who is not regenerated, born-again and Spirit led. It is the Spirit who enlightens our minds and hearts and gives us the plain sense of the words so we may understand the message of the Bible.

Unless you are a biblical scholar and can read and understand the manuscripts in the original Greek (in which case you would probably not be reading this article) I believe it is best to have at least two translations: one based on the Critical Text and one based on the Byzantine or Textus Receptus. You may also want to have two translations of the Textus Receptus: the KJV and the NKJV. This means you could have at least three versions: the KJV, the NKJV and probably the NASB. Using these, and doing comparative studies with them, you will be in a better position to truly understand the words of the Bible when guided to by the Holy Spirit.

Now, what about those other personal choices mentioned at the beginning of this article? Asking yourself a few basic questions should easily resolve these choices. But first: if you are contemplating the purchase of your first Bible, I would advise you to pick one that has as many helps and so on as possible. As your understanding of Scripture deepens over the course of your Christian walk, you will be able to dispense with these all together or will make use of more extensive aids through separate concordances, lexicons, maps, helps, study notes and commentaries. These are more than any single Bible can provide.