COMPARATIVE STUDY OF

BIBLE TRANSLATIONS
Introduction
The corporate worship of the faithful is the primary setting for God's means of grace: the Gospel Word,
Absolution, Holy Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. Because the Word of God is spoken and sung in numerous
ways in the context of worship, it is essential that great care be given to the choice of Bible translation.
Not only must a translation of the Psalter be chosen for inclusion in the new hymnal itself, but also a suitable
translation must be provided for the many other Scripture passages that appear in the orders of service and in the
rites in the Agenda. While it is not mandatory to quote all Scripture passages from the same Bible translation, the
selection of one translation facilitates consistency of wording and style in the orders of service and the propers,
including the Scripture readings for the day. Such consistency enhances the clarity and integrity of the orders of
worship. Conversely, inconsistencies and poor translations of Scripture passages detract from the service and hin-
der the proclamation of the Gospel and its appropriation in faith by the members of the body of Christ.
Many aspects of the congregation's life radiate from the Divine Service. The materials used in those other
aspects may draw on the theology, language, style, and even the Bible translation(s) in the hymnal. In the past in
The Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Bible translation employed in the hymnal has also been selected for
many other publications. Those publications have included lectionaries, Bible studies, Christian day school cur-
ricula, and confirmation materials, including Luther's Small Catechism. Therefore the choice of translation for
the new hymnal may have a profound impact on numerous aspects of the church's life for many years to come.
The Word of God is the written revelation of Jesus Christ and is the source and norm for the entirety of the
Christian faith and life. The Scriptures have the power to make one wise unto salvation through faith in Christ
Jesus (2 Tim. 3:15). Therefore, theological precision is of the utmost importance in a translation of Holy
Scripture. Inaccurate translations can obscure doctrines that are vital to the Gospel or may cast doubt on the per-
son and work of Jesus Christ and thereby even cause some to forfeit eternal salvation.
For example, in the early church era, Arians argued that Prov. 8:22 should be translated "the Lord created me"
and that the verse proved that Christ was a created being. The orthodox Christians argued that the verse should
be translated "the Lord begot me" and that Christ is eternally begotten of the Father. The RSV substituted "young
woman" for "virgin" in Is. 7:14, thus calling into question the virgin birth of Christ. The Jehovah's Witnesses have
their own Bible translation that renders John 1:l as "the Word was a god" instead of "the Word was God," a trans-
lation they use to deny the deity of Christ.
The CTCR document, "Comparative Study of Bible Translations and Paraphrases" (September 1975), exam-
ined various translations of the biblical passages cited in reference to the Second Article of the Creed in A Short
Explanarion of Dr. Martin Luther's Small Catechism (St. Louis: Concordia, 1943). Those passages deal with the
doctrines of the two natures in Christ, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the understanding of Christ as Savior,
Christ's conception and birth of the virgin Mary, Christ's work of redemption, and his resurrection. The conclud-
ing tabulation in that CTCR document indicates that even the best translations occasionally may not convey the
meaning of the text as clearly as they should. Most translations err in at least some key soteriological passages to
the extent that their translations fail to communicate a doctrine that is essential for the Gospel. That conclusion
underlines the necessity for the church always to have pastors who know the original languages of Scripture, and
for church leaders to be judicious in the selection of a translation for use in the church's ministry of worship,
teaching, and evangelism.
Today the church may choose from a multiplicity of Bible translations. No translation is perfect in all
respects, but many are fine works of scholarship that accurately convey God's Word. An evaluation of translations
for inclusion in a hymnal must take into consideration not only their theological faithfulness and clarity, but also
their suitability for oral reading and listening, their level and style of English diction, their adaptability for musi-
cal settings, and their literary beauty, since all of these factors are relevant for use in worship.
Since the Psalms are so important for worship, a translation should remain faithfully close to established
liturgical traditions and not jar the ears of the parishioners with daring alternatives. Some of the psalms already
 Comparative Study of Bible Translations

have a well-established liturgical shape. This is especially true of Psalm 23, whose wording in many people's
minds is practically as fixed as that of the Lord's Prayer. Most parishes would prefer, even demand, something
very close to the KJV, eg., "The LORDis my Shepherd; I shall not want." But in Psalm 23 the church may prefer
modernized renditions of some phrases, like "he makes me lie down" instead of "maketh," and "You are with me;
.
Your rod and Your staff" instead of "Thou . . Thy."
There are established liturgical expectations for some other psalms, such as "the King of Glory" in Psalm 24
and the confession of sin in Psalm 51. In addition, there are many short phrases from the psalms that are firmly
embedded in the liturgy, e.g., "Give thanks to the LORD,for He is good, and His mercy endures forever." (NIV
most often blandly translates hesed as "love," but sometimes in poetry retains "mercy.")
Legitimate concerns about the English rendition of the Psalter for use in the liturgy would include readability,
suitability for public and corporate reading, ease of memorization, and conciseness (as opposed to verbosity,
which is easy to lapse into when trying to "unpack" terse Hebrew poetry). An ideal translation of the psalms
should also be suitable for chanting.

Summary of Translations
Nine versions of the Bible were examined for this comparative study. The following comments are a brief
summary of the strengths and weaknesses of each translation. The numbers in parentheses refer the reader to the
detailed examples which follow the summaries (available on the CD-ROM).

King JamesVersion (KJV)

New King JamesVersion (NKJV)
First published in 1611, the KJV served for over three centuries as the nearly universal English translation of
the Bible. Furthermore, it was very influential in shaping much of the cultural milieu in the United States, not to
mention the liturgical and hymnic language of the English-speaking church. It is still eminently elegant and in
most places quite accurate. Since it is a form-equivalent translation, it follows the original languages closely (see
below under "Language Issues").
The NKJV, published in 1982, was undertaken in order to update the archaic and obsolete language. For
example, "thee" and "thou" have been replaced with "you." It is largely successful in retaining the poetic elegance
of the KJV. The NKJV affirms the divinity of Christ and many other doctrines that appear to be called into ques-
tion in the RSV and NRSV.
The main objection to the KJV and NKJV is that for the New Testament they use the Textus Receptus, a
Byzantine form of the Greek text that is widely considered by modern scholars to be inferior to older Greek man-
uscripts (examples 43,44,45,46). In addition, the NKJV follows the meaning of the KJV in some places where
recent scholarship argues for a different understanding (examples 2, 16,20,41).

Revised Standard Version (RSV)

The RSV, first published in 1952 under the auspices of the National Council of Churches, replaced the KJV in
many English-speaking churches. Like the KJV, the RSV is primarily a form-equivalent translation (a translation
that follows closely the words and grammatical forms of the original text). The strength of the RSV is that it pre-
serves much of the classic language of the KJV and the beautifully memorable poetry, while updating most of the
archaic and obsolete language. However, it retains the archaic language when speaking to God, which is frequent
in the Psalms.
The most objectionable feature of the RSV is that it inaccurately renders many passages that refer to the
divinity of Christ (examples 22,29). Furthermore, its rendering of Old Testament prophecies often conflicts with
the New Testament fulfillment, e.g., using "created" instead of "begotten" in Prov. 8:22 (see also examples 23,24,
25,26,27). In places, other serious theological problems can be found (examples 18,30,32,35).
Comparative Study of Bible Translations

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

The NRSV, published in 1989 by the National Council of Churches, is an improvement over the RSV in that
it updates the archaic language addressed to God (as in the Psalms). However, it perpetuates the worst aspects of
the RSV faulty Christology and inaccurate translations of passages about the fulfillment of prophecy (examples
26,27, 30). It adds a few new problems that were not present in the RSV, such as changing many masculine sin-
gular forms into generic plural forms for the sake of inclusive language (examples 3,4,5,6; see also 28). Its ren-
dering of some verses raises questions about other important doctrinal issues, such as the inerrancy of Scripture
(example 35) and the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (examples 9, 10, 11, 12).

English Standard Version (ESV)

The ESV is the newest translation, published in September 2001. It is a conservative and evangelical revision
of the RSV, and like the RSV and KJV, it is a form-equivalent translation. While it has modernized some archaic
features of the RSV, such as the pronouns ("thee" and "thou" are replaced by "you") in language addressing God,
it remains accurate and fairly literal. The ESV retains most of the language of the KJV in well-loved passages such
as Psalm 23 ("I shall not want") and the Lord's Prayer. The translation of many passages is quite close to the
wording familiar to Lutherans in our liturgies, e.g., Psalm 51. The handling of Christology and prophecy-fulfdl-
ment generally is excellent and often uses uppercase letters to clarify the meaning (e.g., "King" in Ps. 2:6; "Son" in
Ps. 2:7, 12; "my Lord" in Ps. 110:l versus "my lord" in RSV). The ESV has corrected most of the theological prob-
lems evident in the RSV (examples 22,23,24,26,27,28,29,30,32). Its handling of some passages that involve
the Sacraments (example 38, also Eph. 5:26) is accurate and superior to the NIV. Because the ESV is so new, it has
not yet received as much scrutiny as other translations. (An initial examination has revealed, for example, an infe-
licity in the translation of Psalm 119 where the Hebrew term mishpatim is translated as God's "rules," rather than
the literal translation of God's "judgments" in the KJV or RSV's God's "ordinances.") Several LCMS exegetes par-
ticipated in the review process that shaped the final translation of the ESV.

New International Version (NIV)

The NIV, published in 1978, has much to recommend it. It is the translation that was used in Lutheran
Worship and Lutheran Worship Agenda. Generally, it is an accurate and faithful translation. It is a good translation
for Christology, the fulfillment of prophecy, and Christian doctrines such as the inerrancy of Scripture. It repre-
sents good, modern English without being trendy or dialectical. However, its rendition of poetry is inferior to the
literary beauty of the KJV and its descendants. When read aloud, it does not flow and captivate the hearers' atten-
tion as well as some others. It is a dynamic equivalent translation. Its modern idioms are not as close to the origi-
nal languages and sometimes lack eloquence ("Adam lay with his wife," Gen 4:1, instead of the literal and mean-
ingful "Adam knew his wife"). Some of the expressions in the NIV betray a reformed bias, like the use of
"Sovereign LORD"(example 12), and in some passages that concern Christology (example 211, the nature of faith
(example 13), conversion (example 15), and election (example 19). Allusions to the Sacraments are sometimes
translated inaccurately (example 38; also Eph. 5:26, where NIV has "washing with water through the word"
instead of "washing of water with the Word").
(The Translations Committee has received word that a revision of portions of the NIV featuring inclusive
language will soon be released into the American market. A complete revision of the NIV will not be available
until 2005.)

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

The NASB was first published in its entirety in 1971. It is a form-equivalent translation that succeeds in being
highly accurate (a few exceptions include examples 20,24,25,27,37). While its precision of translation is very
helpful for those who cannot work in the original languages, its literal style is rather wooden, and thus awkward
for reading in corporate worship. A revision was published in 1995 which has made some progress in smoothing
out the language. The revision also replaced archaic terms like "thee" and "thou."
 Comparative Study of Bible Translations

An American Translation (AAT)

In 1976, the translation of William Beck, professor at Concordia Seminary, was privately published. It was
followed by later revisions, most recently the fourth edition in 2000. Intended as a Lutheran translation of the
Bible, the AAT aims for a readable style in simple English. Unfortunately, easy readability comes at a price, name-
ly, a casual and colloquial style that may not be elegant enough for public reading. For example, it regularly uses
contractions (I'm, can't, etc.). In many respects the AAT is an accurate translation. Sometimes it offers the best
rendering (example 16). It is, however, also an idiosyncratic translation, and occasionally offers less accurate ren-
derings (examples 27,38,39,40).

God's Word (GW)

GW was published in 1995 by God's Word to the Nations Bible Society, It was preceded by the publication of
the New Testament, God's Word to the Nations, in 1988, GW represents a translation style that is the furthest out
of the mainstream of those considered in this study. It is certainly readable, which makes it especially useful for
private, devotional reading. However, to attain readability at times it sacrifices the accuracy that a literal rendering
would have provided. At other times it succeeds very well in its translation choices (example 16). However, it con-
tains problematic renderings, both linguistically (examples 17, 18,27,38,41) and theologically (examples 14, 15,
17, 19,31,36,37,40). Its decision to translate Greek terms for "justification" and "righteousness" with the expres-
sion "God's approval" (example 17) departs from the literal, accurate, and well-established biblical vocabulary for
justification, which is central to Lutheran theology. For that reason alone it is difficult to recommend it for use in
Lutheran worship settings.

The chart on the following page provides in summary fashion an overview of the
history of translations of the Bible into English. Not all translations are represented,
and no attempt has been made to indicate various editions of more recent transla-
tions. The chart is provided simply to give a general sense of the history of English
translations and the primary sources consulted for these translations.
Comparative Study of Bible Translations

Origins of English Bible Translations

(updated)

NASB
1971
! AAT 1976

1 American Standard 1901 -1

1 Revised Version 1885
----t
I I
I
Geneva 1560

1 Tyndale 1526
H
Wycliffe 1380 i
(based on Latin Vulgate)

Byzantine and Medieval

Copies of NT
(9th-15th centuries A.D.)
Greek Textus Receptus

1 Oldest Extant Copies of NT

Including Greek uncial manuscripts
(4th-9thcenturies A.D.) not discovered
until the 19th century, and Greek papyri
(2nd-7th centuries A.D.), not discovered Oldest Extant Copies of OT
until the 20th century. ESV, RSV, NIV, All English translations rely primarily on
NASB, AAT, and GW, rely primarily on the Masoretic Text (9th century A.D.).
these oldest manuscripts. NKJV relies pri- More modern translations also consult the
marily on the later Byzantine and Dead Sea Scrolls (250 6.C.-A.D. 70), dis-
medieval manuscripts. covered in 1947.
I
Original Manuscripts
Greek New Testament written ca. A.D. 30-100
Hebrew Old Testament written ca. 1500-400 B.C.
 Comparative Study of Bible Translations

Examples
The bulk of this study consists of a careful analysis of pertinent Bible passages organized under the following
categories. The numbers in parentheses indicate the example number. The complete study is available as a PDF
file on the accompanying CD-ROM. Go to the "Translations" folder and open the file named "Bible-comparison."

Language Issues
Formal/Dynamic Equivalence
Archaic/Obsolete Language (1,2)
Gender Inclusive Language (3,4,5,6)
Paraphrase (7)
Idiosyncratic Translations (8)

Doctrinal Issues
Trinitarian Issues (9, 10, 11, 12)
Name of God
The Nature of Faith (13, 14)
Conversion (15,16)
Justification ( 17)
"Adoption" (18)
Election (19)
Christology (20,2 1,221
Inspiration and Prophecy (23,24,25,26,27,2 8,29,30)
God's Involvement in Affliction (31,32)
Eschatology (33)
Creation (34)
Inerrancy of Scripture (35)
Sacramental Theology (36,37,38)

Miscellaneous Texts
Ten Commandments (39)
Aaronic Benediction (40)
Role of Women in the Church (41)

Textual Decisions (42,43,44,45)