One of the most frequently asked questions I get about the Bible is, “What’s the best translation?” With dozens of English Bible translations on the market, it’s a fair question. After all, if we can’t read Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, aren’t we at the mercy of the translators?
Even though very few people are able to read the biblical languages, Bible readers can be more confident than ever that their Bible accurately represents the earliest manuscripts. Today’s translators have more data from linguistics, archaeology and cognate literature than the translations from a century ago. They also have access to older and more reliable manuscripts to work with.[1] But, as you may well know, not all translations are the same.
Whenever someone translates from a source language to the receptor language, the translator is faced with many decisions. It’s not just a matter of capturing the right words, but also the right sense.
A French-English translation app will tell you that merci means “thank you” and c’est la vie means “that’s life.” However, most of the time making a translation isn’t simply swapping words from one language to the next, but rather interpreting their best meaning from their context.
The phrase Allez les Bleus! gives us a perfect example of different translation philosophies. Although Google Translate rightly renders the phrase “Go, Blues!,” it requires further interpretation to correctly arrive at the intended meaning. In France, les Bleus could refer to any of the French national athletic teams, due to the traditional color of their uniforms. But context matters. In the pool, les Bleus would refer to the French water polo or swim team. On the pitch, however, les Bleus would refer to the French football team. And what about the verb allez, the plural imperative of aller, “to go”? Where do we want les Bleus to go, à la piscine (“to the swimming pool”) or au stade (“to the stadium”)? For a sports fan, allez is an exhortation of encouragement.
If Allez les Bleus! were sung at the World Cup, a translator would have several options:
- “Go Blues!” (formal equivalent translation)
- “Go France!” (dynamic equivalent translation)
- “Go French national football team!” (functional equivalent translation)
- “French national football team, we implore you to victory!” (free translation)
How one translates Allez les Bleus! depends on one’s translation philosophy, which ranges from formal equivalent to free. As best as possible given the restraints of cross-cultural communication, formal equivalent translations attempt to maintain the word order of the source language and to employ a consistent pool of vocabulary. Moreover, a formal equivalent translation will tend to leave idioms intact, leaving it up to the audience to determine how to interpret them. A free translation is less interested in maintaining the form of the source language. Instead, it is most interested in conveying the sense of the message.
Take, for example, the French phrase, “Il a un bleu au front.” A formal equivalent philosophy would translate this as “He has a blue on the front,” whereas a free translation philosophy might render it, “He’s got a bruise on his forehead.” Both translations are accurate and both are acceptable. However, the formal equivalent translation makes some assumptions on the ability of the audience to understand the meaning of both bleus and front in its context. Conversely, the audience in the free translation trusts that the translator properly understood the sentence as a facial wound, rather than the hue of a building façade.
Returning to the phrase Allez les Bleus!, you can probably see that there are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. A free translation provides the most clarity to the expression. However, if Allez les Bleus was heard outside a swimming stadium, the translator would be forced to decide whether les Bleus was the swim team or the water polo team. If it was shouted in Olympic Village, the translator’s task is even more daunting; les Bleus could refer to any of the French teams. A free translation philosophy would force the translators to decide which team—and they might decide wrongly. So, while free translations are generally easier to understand, they require the translator to provide some level of interpretation, informed by their understanding of the context.
The formal equivalent translation provides little or no interpretation, allowing the hearer to investigate possible meanings of les Bleus, uninhibited by a translator’s bias. The disadvantage to this, though, is that it requires that the target audience have some knowledge of French history and culture, or at least the means and willpower to investigate it. Since the hearer often doesn’t know what they don’t know, the tendency is to interpret it according to his or her own context. Without the help of experts, the novice might interpret les Bleus as a reference to the St. Louis Blues of the National Hockey League!
Bible translators are faced with the same unavoidable types of decisions, and each translation approaches those decisions differently. As a result, each Bible translation fits somewhere along this continuum from formal equivalent to free.[2]
In addition to the translation philosophy, it’s also helpful to know something about the composition of the translation committee, especially with respect to its theological commitments. This will give you an idea of how interpretive decisions are made within a particular translation. Here’s a brief sampling of some of the most commonly used Bibles:
- CEB: ecumenical Protestant; 16% female
- ESV: conservative evangelical (Reformed); 0% female
- HCSB: conservative evangelical (Southern Baptist): 3% female
- NET: conservative evangelical: 0% female
- NIV: conservative evangelical; 13% female
- NLT: conservative evangelical (Wesleyan); 3% female
- NRSV: ecumenical Christian; 13% female
Because of this diversity among translations, it’s always a good idea to read translations from across the spectrum. This will help you see where translators have broad agreement and help you become more aware of the interpretive possibilities. Note how each of these translations handle the Greek text of James 3:2.
The text above is from a page of the Codex Sinaiticus, one of the oldest copies of the New Testament in existence, from around 330-360 AD. The box highlights James 3:2.
πολλὰ γὰρ πταίομεν ἅπαντες. εἴ τις ἐν λόγῳ οὐ πταίει, οὗτος τέλειος ἀνὴρ δυνατὸς χαλιναγωγῆσαι καὶ ὅλον τὸ σῶμα.
NASB: For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect individual, able to rein in the whole body as well.
NET: For we all stumble in many ways. If anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able to control the entire body as well.
NIV: We all stumble in many ways. Anyone who is never at fault in what they say is perfect, able to keep their whole body in check.
The Message: And none of us is perfectly qualified. We get it wrong nearly every time we open our mouths. If you could find someone whose speech was perfectly true, you’d have a perfect person, in perfect control of life.
Did you notice how these different translations inform our understanding of the passage? First, we see that the word translated as “stumble” probably refers to missteps in speech, rather than in walking. Next, just as a bridle is used to control a horse, James uses it to show how the tongue can be controlled. Finally, even though the Greek anēr (ἀνὴρ) often refers to a male person, it can simply refer to a human. Although translating anēr in the generic sense is an interpretation, it is an interpretation grounded in the context of the letter.
However, comparing translations does come with a word of caution. After reading various translations, we don’t get to decide on the “best” translation based on our own personal preferences. Instead, we should use that information to help us recognize where there is consensus and where there still may be questions of interpretation.
What, then, is the “best” Bible translation? The best Bible translation is the one that is read often and carefully and guides you in your quest to become more like Jesus.
Resources: Online Translations
Resources: Bible Apps
These can be found in your preferred app store:
Faithlife
Logos
Olive Tree
YouVersion
Notes:
[1] As a result, we are now certain that the beloved King James Version is based on less reliable manuscripts than modern translations. See, for example, Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11. Most modern Bible translations provide a footnote on these passages (and others) noting that the oldest known manuscripts do not contain these portions. However, since these passages are well known to readers, translators have decided to keep them in the text with a footnote, rather than leave them out.
[2] For a list of the top-10 best-selling Bibles in 2020, see https://www.christianpost.com/voices/top-10-bestselling-bible-translations-compared-to-10-years-ago.html.
