I have been conducting seminars on the history of the English Bible for the past dozen years. Inevitably, I get questions like, “What’s the most literal translation out there?” “What’s a good study Bible?” “Which Bible is the most accurate?” “What’s a good Bible for a new Christian to get?”
These are excellent questions. I will try to offer some guidelines here for the general English-speaking reader of the Bible, though it will be necessarily brief.
Let me start with two assumptions. First, your native tongue is English. Second, you live in a country whose native tongue—or one of them—is English (e.g., United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand). Obviously, not everyone reading this blog post will qualify, but these are the folks that I am addressing.
There are far more translations of the Bible into English than any other language on the planet. There are historical reasons for this, but we won’t go into them—except to say this: English-speaking countries for the most part have a broadly Christian culture as part of their heritage. To be sure, all are living in a post-Christian age now, but a large part of the heritage of that culture involves the Bible and Christianity. The influence of the Bible on the English-speaking world is absolutely stunning. It permeates almost every nook and cranny of our society, even if not intentionally so. E. D. Hirsch’s Cultural Literacy (1988) has a 60+ page appendix of words and phrases that every literate American ought to know. It’s amazing how many words and phrases are right out of the Bible and Christian thought.
Or consider the other end of the cultural continuum, pop music. Some of the best known rock songs, especially from the 60s and 70s, have allusions to the Bible and Christianity. Led Zeppelin’s Stairway to Heaven, for example, speaks of “stairway to heaven” (of course!), “there are two paths you can go,” “our soul… the truth will come to you”; Don McLean’s American Pie: “do you have faith in God?”, “can music save your mortal soul?”, “If the Bible tells you so…,” “while the King was looking down the Jester stole his thorny crown,” “Fire is the devil’s only friend,” “no angel born in hell could break that satan’s spell,” “the three men I admire most: the Father, Son, and the Holy Ghost…”; Steppenwolf’s The Pusher: “God damn the Pusher,” “I’d declare total war on the Pusher man…I’d kill him with my Bible…”
Whether one is a Christian, non-Christian, or anti-Christian, the Bible is a book that has infected our culture and the way we communicate.
So, what’s the best Bible to get? There’s no simple answer to this question. I will instead offer three or four categories of Bibles that every English-speaking Christian should own.
First, I think everyone should own a King James Bible. It has been hailed as one of the greatest literary monuments to the English language, and the greatest literary monument every produced by a committee. Regardless of what you think of the KJV’s accuracy, it is a must for all English-speaking Christians. I would add that I think it’s a must for all English-speaking people, regardless of their faith commitments. The KJV will celebrate its 400th anniversary next year. I would recommend that folks get a hold of Donald Brake’s A Visual History of the King James Bible, which will be released next year. Fascinating study of this incredible literary achievement. The only modern translation to come close to the KJV’s lyrical quality is the REB.
Second, I would propose that every English-speaking Christian own a good study Bible. It should be accurate and readable, and have plenty of helpful notes. There are several excellent study Bibles available, but the one I like the best is the NET Bible (available at www.bible.org). Why the NET? In part, because I worked on it—both as a translator and editor. But I was also a consultant for three or four other translations. What makes the NET Bible unique are three things: its philosophy of translation, how it was produced, and its extensive footnotes. The translation philosophy was to combine three different approaches: accuracy, readability, and literacy. The history of the Bible in English actually breaks down into three periods: the KJV was a literary production (following in the footsteps of Tyndale); beginning with the Revised Version of 1885, accuracy was king; beginning with the NIV, readability was of primary importance. The NET Bible’s philosophy of translation was to combine the three periods of English Bible translation. Often these three objectives are opposed to each other. In such cases, the footnotes in the NET give an alternative, usually the more accurate translation (which is also less elegant and readable).
The NET’s method of production was to put provisional translations of each of the books up on the Internet for the whole world to see. Over 100,000 comments and suggestions were made by reviewers, many of which were incorporated into the final translation. This was the first Bible ever beta-tested on the Internet.
Finally, it has more footnotes than any other Bible in history—over 60,000 of them! They are of three types: tn, which are translator’s notes; sn, which are study notes, often giving the various interpretations of the text; and tc, which are text-critical notes, giving the data from ancient manuscripts for competing readings.
But there are other good study Bibles, too. The ESV is an excellent, literary translation with understated elegance, in keeping with the KJV and RSV. And its study Bible, with articles and notes, is excellent. The NIV Study Bible has very good notes and a very readable translation, but it interprets a bit too much for my tastes. The NRSV is a very good translation, though its stance on gender inclusivism sometimes mars the beauty of the translation and is even, at times, misleading (cf. Matt 18.15; 1 Tim 3.2). The REB is a gender-inclusive translation but it has sidestepped the problems of the NRSV by giving literary power a higher priority.
One of the myths of a good translation is that to be accurate it must be a word-for-word translation. Languages don’t work that way. A word in one language cannot always be translated by one word in another language. For example, Greek has four different words for love, six different words for mind. Sometimes a paraphrase is necessary to bring out the nuances of the Greek into English. Further, idioms in one language are often, if not usually, unique to that language. In Matthew 1.18, the KJV says that Mary was ‘with child’; the NET says she was ‘pregnant.’ But the Greek idiom says, literally, that she was ‘having [it] in the belly’! Every woman who has ever been pregnant knows what that is like! Very graphic, but not particularly appropriate for a translation. Ironically, the most literal translation is probably the worst translation because it fails to communicate the Greek or Hebrew into acceptable English, misleading the reader.
Finally, I suggest that every English-speaking Christian get a Bible that is readable, lively, and captures the ‘feel’ of the original. The more accurate Bibles usually don’t do this (including the NET and ESV). The NIV comes close, but Eugene Peterson’s The Message, the Living Bible, and J. B. Phillips’ The New Testament in Modern English do well in this regard. These are Bibles that are meant to be read one chapter (or passage) at a time, not verse by verse. In fact, Phillips stripped out the verse numbers and only had chapters so that the reader would not get bogged down when reading the text.
So, what Bible should you own? At least three, and one of them needs to be the King James Bible. But whatever you get, make sure to read it!
141 replies to "What Bible Should I Own (Dan Wallace)"
Nazaroo,
1. Jeremiah dictated a letter to the king which the king burned so Jeremiah at the Lord’s direction dictated another one. What is you’re point?? Are you saying the scribes throughout history were prophets or inspired in some sort of way that their transcriptions were free from error? The evidence seems to be against this.
2. As to Esther if you’re trying to say that God will accomplish His purposes regardless of what we do then there is no disagreement from me. However, it seems presumptuous of you to think that God hasn’t chosen Bible scholarship and translation as one of the means to make Himself known. Most Evangelical scholars and theologians I know of consider their studies to be a calling. Those involved in translation are trying to discern the most authentic MSS, and the most accurate translations of those MSS so that the layperson and scholar alike will have the best possible idea of what the Bible teaches. This seems to me to be a noble task.
3. I don’t know any Evangelical scholars who would consider themselves personally worthy of the task before them (maybe the secular scholars in the likes of Bart Erhman do, but no Evangelical scholar I have met does). That is why most of them study for so long and such diligence. However, this fact doesn’t negate the importance of their work, their level of relative expertise in that work, or the validity of the work.
46. cherylu on 07 Sep 2010 at 4:29 pm #
Nazaroo,
…
I simply don’t get what you are trying to say here at all.
cherylu:
Just go to nazaroo’s Webpage via the link from his name. I’m sure after you read all he has written and all the articles he has posted there that what he is trying to say here will be crystal clear to you.
But first brew a LARGE pot of coffee, ’cause you’ll be there for a long while. 🙂
He even dedicates an entire page to Dr. Wallace: http://adultera.awardspace.com/AE/Wallace-Conspiracy.html
Oooo…the ‘Daniel Wallace conspiracy’! The plot thickens.
“printable gold”???
Of one thing we can be sure: Jesus commanded us to go into all the earth and make disciples. Lets do that instead of arguing over such small issues. The Bible is God’s Word; Go preach it to someone.
Eric W,
Wait a second wouldn’t all the stuff on nazaroo’s site be broadly considered “scholarship”?? And isn’t it of an academic nature?? Seems Nazaroo has no problem using scholarship and the academia when it suits him. He just makes ridiculous assertions and accuses those who disagree with him as being “academics”. How convenient!!
Michael T.:
Evidently Nazaroo is famous*, or at least legendary. He even has his own page at Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nazaroo
* Or maybe he’s just “sworned.”
J.P. Holding considers him to be a “nutcase,” though:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=98825
(The bottom/final post on the above page is from Holding.)
Friends, I appreciate the lively discourse, even if it ends up in rabbit trails at times. I’d like to address two things: a translation to give to a new believer and the notion that inerrancy is irrelevant since only the autographs are inerrant.
First, for new believers: I would definitely NOT recommend the NET Bible as the translation to cut one’s spiritual teeth on! The notes are excellent, as even scholars involved in other translations will tell you, but they are too much in the way for a new believer, who simply needs to read scripture.
Among the translations that I would recommend to a new believer are the following: NIV, REB, and NLT. These are all fluid translations, easy to read, and to some degree lively. The NIV is probably the most accurate but least lively of them. The REB is the most elegant but may not be for everyone. The NLT is fairly accurate and fairly lively. Depending on a number of factors (education, age, previous acquaintance with the Bible, etc.), one of these would emerge as the best translation to give a new believer.
As for inerrancy of the originals, I dealt with this issue in a chapter now published in a book: “Inerrancy and the Text of the New Testament: Assessing the Logic of the Agnostic View,” in _Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Faith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science_, edited by William A. Dembsky and Michael L. Licona (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2010). I believe that inerrancy is not at all an irrelevancy since the assumptions about not knowing what the original might say are themselves incorrect. You’ll have to read the chapter to see my point.
Dr. Wallace,
Thank you for the information. There is one clarification I would like to make. I affirm inerrancy as articulated by CMP elsewhere on this site. I think the big problem with it is ultimately not it’s relevance, rather it’s lack of clarity. The problem remains that what those in the pews think is meant by inerrancy is not what scholars mean when they use the term and educating them on this is generally hopeless. I know far too many well meaning Christians who hear the term “inerrant” and think that this means that the translation sitting in front of them is inerrant and no serious study is needed other than to simply memorize the Bible.
Now I don’t want to knock Bible memorization either, but again I know far too many well meaning Christians who rather than examining the whole of Scripture instantly whip out their favorite memorized proof texts when an issue comes up. My grandma (who I love dearly) is an expert at this. Ask her why drinking alcohol is a sin and she’ll give you 20 different verses, never mind those verse which indicate otherwise.
Ultimately there is a huge disconnect between inerrancy in the scholarly realm and inerrancy among the lay people.
I don’t know who is moderating here, but it seems utterly inappropriate and petty that Eric W. (comment #58) should be allowed to post this:
“J.P. Holding considers [Nazaroo] to be a “nutcase,” though:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=98825
(The bottom/final post on the above page is from Holding.)”
Here Eric has had to dig up a comment from JPH made over seven years ago (2003) as a result of a debate he lost in which he tried to sell the PA as a “loose leaf” from St. Luke which somehow was never included in his Gospel.
Since most scholars don’t hold JPH’s theory as credible (zero evidence), who is the real “nutcase”?
In any case, Eric W.’s mean-spirited comment has no other purpose than to insult and dismiss me as a person rather than address or engage with any of the comments I made.
What is your policy regarding gratuitous ad hominen attacks?
peace
Nazaroo
Michael T., I agree with most of what you have to say. The one area where we might disagree is this: “educating them on this is generally hopeless.” I hope that this is not the case, and I have tried to educate lay people on the meaning of inerrancy. I think, rather, that there is a general unwillingness to engage lay people with the evidence for fear that they can’t handle the truth. I have always been more optimistic about what the person in the pew can handle.
Dr. Wallace,
I guess my statement that education is generally hopeless has to do with my own experience and is perhaps an over generalization. Suffice to say in my experience a good number of people in the pews consider the true meaning of inerrancy to be heresy. Unfortunately far too many pastors perpetuate the misinformation rather than correcting it.
Naz,
Since we’re running off on rabbit trails, I just have to say this. The PA is not original to John for one simple SCHOLARLY reason: It has nothing to do with the theology of the Gospel of John. It has no contribution to it whatsoever. If you understood John’s theology, you wouldn’t need to quibble over the ms evidence. I would consider it an interpolation even if the entire textual corpus contained it. To hold otherwise is to be oblivious to John’s theology within his Gospel. That doesn’t mean I don’t think it is true and inerrant. It just doesn’t belong there and whether we put it in a Bible or not is simply irrelevant, as what it teaches is found elsewhere (although with greater qualification concerning sin and repentance).
Just to show how fair indeed we are at the PA website (its not my site by the way; mr.scrivener is the administrator), we have posted J.P. Holding’s complete statement on the PA here, without any comment:
http://adultera.awardspace.com/AF/Holding-PA.html
Far be it from us to exaggerate or misrepresent Mr. Holding’s position. Although this statement is old (predating 2003), he allows it to be maintained (posted 2009) at his friend’s apologetics site (Tektonics).
In 2003 Holding showed no interest in expanding, updating, or defending his statements, or correcting any errors.
Perhaps Dr. Wallace would like to comment on the probability that the PA was a ‘rough note’ or ‘loose-leaf’ by Luke that never made it into his Gospel, and/or any supporting evidence.
——————————
Dr. Mr Hodge: I find your statement here remarkable:
Hodge: “I would consider it an interpolation even if the entire textual corpus contained it.”
Clearly you hold internal or literary criticism (form/source?) in much higher esteem than textual critical evidence. But I think most textual experts would have to reject your position. I can’t think of a single skeptic, not even Tregelles, who would agree with your stance.
Tregelles, who rejected the PA, took the exact opposite view to yours. He thought that if the textual evidence weren’t weighted against it, there was no serious internal grounds at all that would be significantly troublesome:
“I do not rest at all on the internal difficulties connected with this passage, on the supposition that it is genuine Scripture; because, if it had been sufficiently attested, they would not present anything insurmountable. ” – Tregelles, Printed Text, (London, 1854), pages 236-243.
peace
Nazaroo
*sigh*
Where’s Dr. Mike when we need him?
Tregelles? In a time that literary and the whole of the theology of a text was not considered? That’s the best you’ve got? There is no way this text belongs to John. It has zero to do with what John is arguing. Maybe Luke, but not John.
Aside from this, however, these textual quibbles are worthless for the most part, as most textual variants give us a Bible that teaches the same inerrant theology, regardless of what one adds, deletes, or misspells. The Byz/Alex debate is one that doesn’t need to exist in most cases. If one were to drop or retain the PA, it has absolutely no bearing on the teaching of Scripture that contains the concept of PA (although, as stated before, more clearly than the PA) elsewhere.
Nice article.
I think Peterson’s phrasing of “green hope” is quite beautiful and adds a great deal to advancing the meaning of the verse. Wish I had thought of it.
Dear Hodge: The point is, you have openly stated that you will ignore any and all textual evidence, because you have already made up your mind on the basis of your own personal “intuition” or notion of Scripture.
You have a preset idea of what you think John is like and what he would have written, and you have made it clear that nothing is going to budge you or influence you. This is exactly the kind of close-mindedness that I face everyday when trying to have people examine fresh evidence, and more scientific methodology. It makes scientific investigation impossible.
Yours is a 19th cent. approach, where individual critics gave their ‘intuition’ reign. Hort claimed he could detect the “ring of truth” in a variant with an almost clairvoyant manner. Burgon ridiculed this and preferred hard data in the form of text collations:
“Readings which ‘look suspicious’ to one expert, may easily not ‘look’ so to another. A man’s inner conscience cannot possibly furnish trustworthy guidance.” (Rev.Rev. p.308)
Those days are gone. Today we rely on statistical methods for the characterization of style and grammar, not personal subjective impressions, which have failed repeatedly.
Real scientists prefer evidence, and strain to avoid potential personal bias.
Today we rely upon what authors actually did do in terms of using sources, incorporating and modifying previous material. We don’t evaluate pericopes based on their apparent stylistic or theological features, which begs the issue and is a scientifically indefensible methodology. We investigate the features (structural and literary too) of the whole work.
Then we find that the stylistic and grammatical case against the PA falls apart, and other more important literary features kick in:
http://adultera.awardspace.com/INT-EV/CHIASM.html
http://adultera.awardspace.com/INT-EV/MosesAndJohn.html#s03
“you have already made up your mind on the basis of your own personal “intuition” or notion of Scripture.”
I think it’s convenient for you to present my position this way, so you don’t have to grapple with the fact that this pericope is out of place in John’s Gospel. My observation of what John teaches is not according to my personal intuition, but according to what is plainly there for anyone to read.
“You have a preset idea of what you think John is like”
No, I got my idea of what the Gospel teaches from studying the book. Exegesis is a science too. I could simply say the same of you, and then go on about how your presupps make a scientific analysis of the text impossible.
“Yours is a 19th cent. approach”
I’m afraid you’re confusing “literary” (i.e., the scientific observation of an author’s line of reasoning, motifs and subject material through the use of similar words and themes) with “literary” (i.e., the source and form criticism, the latter being 20th cent btw, of higher critics). The line of thought is traceable in John to anyone who wants to study it.
“We don’t evaluate pericopes based on their apparent stylistic or theological features, which begs the issue and is a scientifically indefensible methodology,”
I’m afraid this is just plain false. It may be true that stylistic features are awash, but every scholar I know still evaluates texts according to their theological consistency. If I took your last post as relating to our discussion and then there was a paragraph concerning whether cheerios are good with honey or sugar, there would be good cause for me to suppose that something is awry. So please enlighten us as to how the PA contributes to the larger argument of the book, that is, if you know what the larger argument is.
Re: comment #69 and “the God of green hope” in The Message.
In all fairness, as I look back and read that verse in the context, I can see where he came up with the phrase. He had just referred to what the NASB translates as, “Again Isaiah says, “THERE SHALL COME THE ROOT OF JESSE, AND HE WHO ARISES TO RULE OVER THE GENTILES, IN HIM SHALL THE GENTILES HOPE. Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Romans 15:1213
Petersen translates those verses like this: And Isaiah’s word: There’s the root of our ancestor Jesse, breaking through the earth and growing tree tall, Tall enough for everyone everywhere to see and take hope! Oh! May the God of green hope fill you up with joy, fill you up with peace, so that your believing lives, filled with the life-giving energy of the Holy Spirit, will brim over with hope!”
The Message
So he uses his “root” to be “growing tree tall” and giving hope and therefore speaks of “the God of green hope.”
But again, that creates another problem because Petersen’s translation completely leaves out the phrase about the root of Jesse “ruling over the Gentiles”!
Why would he just decide to leave it out I wonder? The only thing I can think of is that the way it appears in all other translations is not the way it appears in the book of Isaiah where it is quoted from. But that is often the case in the New Testament it seems to me. OT quotes are not always exact. So if this is the way it was written by Paul as it appear in the manuscripts, there must of been a reason for it, right? And why should anyone that is trying to be true to the Bible decide to change what Paul has written?
[…] post on the CEB; Robert’s post about the HCSB having gone digital; Dan Wallace’s “What Bible Should I own?” followed up by TC’s comment, and Suzanne’s […]
I recently gave a group of new believers the NIV. I had considered other translations, but ultimately felt the NIV was both readable and accurate (only to my best lay opinion…I don’t understand the rest of the comments on this post, so don’t comment to me nazaroo).
Also, since our congregation mostly uses NIV I thought the newcomers would be more comfortable with a translation they could follow along with without getting distracted by inconsistent wording.
Grace all,
~G
I wish that Nazaroo wouldn’t get caught up with the minutia that he (apparently) feels he must argue about because I think he makes a good point or two. Ideas can and do get lost in the senseless attacks that go back and forth… and merely ending a post with “peace” is not the same as maintaining peace through theological dialog.
Naz, I am sure that you wouldn’t consider everything you brought up “minutia” but, I fear that your demeanor detracts from some solid points that I would like to see discussed.
That said, I think that one point that often gets shuffled aside in the discussion of textual matters is the fact that oldest texts are considered “the best Mss.” Now, that doesn’t make me a TR proponent or a Majority Text fan; it is simply an observation. Why assume what should be proven. Why not simply say, “the oldest Mss. read,” instead of saying, “the best manuscripts read.”
Oh, to be sure, the mountain of evidence seems to support those earliest manuscripts. And those that chose those readings are probably as convinced of their superiority as much as a KJV Only person is convinced. Still, it seems an unneeded slight.
Those that hold to a Majority Text view use statistical evidence to determine the “best reading.” It is not based only on TR. Mr. Nazaroo, whatever one thinks of his demeanor, asks valid questions, what is the scientific methodology in place? Why is it that the Alexandrian text type is given preferential treatment? And I suppose, “why couldn’t the Alexandrian manuscripts be erred early on?”
Do those questions belong in this blog? Perhaps not. Nazaroo apparently already disagreed with Dr. Wallace. And Dr. Wallace’s objective was NOT to discuss these issues, as he has done that in other places. But still, the question is valid… could it be discussed peacefully??? Perhaps not. 🙁
Thank you, Dr. Wallace for a very helpful post and for some interesting reading.
Greetings! For years I was on a huge quest to find the perfect Bible. And I successfully made myself a bit crazy and obsessed. But then I began to read more about the history of the Bible. And then I started asking, instead of which Bible, WHY THE CHANGE?
If it exalted Jesus, I was for it. For I started to piece together that omissions by folks in the past caused flows of manuscripts to not have this or that, but they existed elsewhere, in other manuscripts elsewhere. However, I do find that those manuscripts while missing or less exalting, have quite a few hidden treasures also.
So, today, I am just glad for it all.
When I see verses like in the old Wycliffe– Phil 2:11, and various other verses that amaze me with clear evidences in Greek software that it is correct, I rejoice for all the privileges I have to see it all. So lately, I also love looking at older translations, pre KJV, as well.
Another example to express my point, take for example 1 Tim 3:16.
KJV and NKJV has God, while most modern translations put He or something else.
Is this a deliberate change that took place sometime ago? I do believe it. And many other cases.
I had purchased a NET Bible a while ago, but while it has the most awesome leather and the most wonderful maps, I started reading in Matthew, and I noticed something that had me running to my Greek software…it was the downplay of Jesus “knowing their thoughts”. It made me so sad.
So, as you can see, I look for Bibles that exalt Jesus as God for I believe that is True.
Even so, I find that all the Bibles I have, are Treasures and are Priceless.
Karen wrote:
Another example to express my point, take for example 1 Tim 3:16.
KJV and NKJV has God, while most modern translations put He or something else.
Per Metzger’s Textual Commentary:
3:16 ὅς {A}
The reading which, on the basis of external evidence and transcriptional probability, best explains the rise of the others is ὅς. It is supported by the earliest and best uncials (א* A*vid C* Ggr) as well as by 33 365 442 2127 syrhmg, pal goth ethpp Origenlat Epiphanius Jerome Theodore Eutheriusacc. to Theodoret Cyril Cyrilacc. to Ps-Oecumenius Liberatus. Furthermore, since the neuter relative pronoun ὅ must have arisen as a scribal correction of ὅς (to bring the relative into concord with μυστήριον), the witnesses that read ὅ (D* itd, g, 61, 86 vg Ambrosiaster Marius Victorinus Hilary Pelagius Augustine) also indirectly presuppose ὅς as the earlier reading. The Textus Receptus reads θεός, with אe (this corrector is of the twelfth century) A2 C2 Dc K L P Ψ 81 330 614 1739 Byz Lect Gregory-Nyssa Didymus Chrysostom Theodoret Euthalius and later Fathers. Thus, no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports θεός; all ancient versions presuppose ὅς or ὅ; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading θεός. The reading θεός arose either (a) accidentally, through the misreading of ος as ΘΣ, or (b) deliberately, either to supply a substantive for the following six verbs, or, with less probability, to provide greater dogmatic precision.
– – –
a) I.e., probably the Greek OC (“who”) was mistaken for ΘC (“God”) (assuming a lunate Sigma – i.e., “C”)
I’m sure your NET Bible (if you have the Diglot NT) has a similar explanation in the back appendix or in the footnotes.
[…] Sound advice here from Dan Wallace. He provides recommendations in a few categories. The first one may surprise some readers, but I would agree with it: First, I think everyone should own a King James Bible. It has been hailed as one of the greatest literary monuments to the English language, and the greatest literary monument every produced by a committee. Regardless of what you think of the KJV’s accuracy, it is a must for all English-speaking Christians. I would add that I think it’s a must for all English-speaking people, regardless of their faith commitments. […]
Dear ErikW, Greetings to you, and thank you for your reply.
I am certainly not disagreeing with you on the fine information you gave. But here are the questions I ask myself: Any persecution in the early Christian church? Any lost texts? Lots of burning books? When the Lord dispersed various manuscripts to various lands in early Christianity, did HE indeed preserve His Word by doing so? Were these errors and accidentals that occurred? Or would anyone add to the Bible? Today, I would venture to guess we see more omissions than add-ins. But I am sure it could happen!
For a while, I used to accept the terms, Parallel copying.
But today, for another example, take that verse that is most always put into footnotes…Matthew 18:11. But for me, put that entire passage from Matthew 18:10 to 18:20 together, and I find that Matthew 18:10-11, fits most definitely with 18:19-20.
Parallel copying? I don’t think so. But I know that others would not agree. It would be like asking, why or why does not any new modern translation even make a footnote of that big Greek word that is rarely translated “emprosthen” in Matt 18:14…
I say that because I noticed that traditionally it is avoided. If modern translation make certain claims of accuracy, why is it avoided, even if it might not be so important? Is that accuracy? Or not?
Why not? And I am sure there is a modern excuse for its unnecessary omission.
I know I can go on and on, on my discoveries, but I am not arguing, just watching. I guess I am just a watcher of all these things. Thankful, oh yes, for what the Lord has given me.
God bless you in Jesus’ Name.
Dr. Wallace,
I love the NET Bible! I try to promote it, but I can’t preach from it since so few people use it (my congregation has trouble following me when I preach from it). Spread the word. I like the ESV a lot, but the NET is still may favorite! Excellent work!
I hope things are going well in Dallas!
@Gord (comment 74)
I agree – any new believer adult who is attending my church I would give an NIV to as it is also our Pew Bible.
[…] September 9, 2010 by T.C. R A few days ago I did a piece on Professor Daniel B. Wallace’s What Bible Should I Own? Well, over at Between Two Worlds, Justin Taylor thinks prof. Wallace offers sound advice and then […]
I’m a little late getting here. Thank you for the post Dr. Wallace and of course the running meta here, it was kinda fun and kinda annoying to read through all the comments.
I affirm the statement that there is no perfect English translation but they are getting more accurate, the NET is wonderful, I like the NASB and use it for preaching/teaching and am thinking about moving to the ESV but I don’t want to do it just because everyone else is, I need to study it for myself. I love the NIV, especially in the OT prophets. The KJV is a great one too, for many it is the only English bible they know and it was the best in it’s time, definitely a landmark accomplishment for translators.
One thing that is key is that with several verses, the last word has not been said, e.g., Ecc 3.11 “darkness/world” ? As difficult as it may be we need to keep an open mind regarding translating Scripture. Some meanings of words are all but lost (esp. in the OT). There are many hapax legomenon in the OT and for several words all we have is a meaning in a cognate language, which is helpful but doesn’t always lock in a perfect meaning for us. The best approach is to dig, study and wait, I wait for new findings to come out, I anxiously await for the work of scholars, a good example is Dr. McCabe’s articles on Ecclesiastes, he translates hevel (beginning in Ecc 1.1) as “frustrating enigma” instead of “vanity” or “meaningless” and he has the evidence to back it up. Bible versions are funny, they fail to make needed changes because of tradition, e.g., “Rose of Sharon” which really is “Crocus of Sharon” or perhaps for lack of evidence.
Our English versions must to continually change to reflect not only our English language but to reflect accurate lexical, grammatical, textual (etc.) information rooted in our ancient mss. There is no perfect and inerrant canon.
I’m not saying anything new here and I do believe that this is part of the idea behind the NET Bible.
[…] Lees bietjie meer van wat hy kwyt raak hier. […]
[…] I get asked quite often about which translation of the English Bible is best. Dan Wallace provides a very helpful answer in “What English Bible Should I Own?” […]
[…] Dan Wallace tells you what kind of Bible you should own. T.C. Robinson […]
Friends, thank you again for the fascinating interaction. I would like to respond to Karen (#76, 79) and to the linked blogpost by T. C. Robinson (#82). Karen, I fully agree with you that the way to interpret scripture is christocentrically. Christ should be at the center of all our understanding of the Bible. One thing I think you’re neglecting in your preference for various translations (e.g., the KJV in 1 Timothy 3.16), though, is the methodological fact that the Incarnation requires of us. In brief, since God became man in time-space history, we simply do not have the right to brush aside history and evidence and make our choices on the basis of our own feelings. The Christian faith is inextricably linked to history and it can only stand if believers are rigorous about maintaining that link, rather than trying to separate it by appealing to a viewpoint that is weakly attested as far as evidence is concerned. Thus, as ironic as this may sound at first blush, the methodological motivation for me not to see ‘God’ mentioned in 1 Tim 3.16 is precisely that I do believe that Jesus Christ is God. The Incarnation expects believers to honestly sift through the historical evidence.
And to T.C. Robinson (#82), your argument about not even owning a KJV is that it’s archaic and too hard to understand. I guess this means that you don’t own any of Shakespeare’s plays either. I feel sorry for you because you’ve cut out of your rich heritage some of the greatest literature in the English language.
[…] Posted on September 10, 2010 by Nick Norelli In response to Dan Wallace’s recommendation that all English speakers should own a KJV T. C. mentioned yesterday that he doesn’t have […]
Dear Daniel Wallace, Greetings to you. Thank you so much for your message. I really appreciated it.You are correct, my views should not be based on my feelings.I must admit I do do that in light of what I read about Bible history.I guess I am trusting that those who translated the King James had some sort of evidence for their translation.This brings to mind,a question, that you may be able to help with. I would like to know why Latin is so rejected as legitimate sources.I was wondering if you could help me weed out what this is all about. Kind of ignorant on this. It struck me so clearly recently when I revisited the reality that Latin was written on the cross of Jesus. No one seems to notice that it was also apparently a language of the day, to be written on the cross like that as well.I would love some scholars here to help me to understand why Latin manuscripts are considered so taboo today and please pardon my ignorance.Regarding your message about my feelings…what also came to mind is one of my obsessions is John 1:18. I have noticed that that verse is almost a verse that gives each Bible their own copyright as it varies in I think every single translation. I have not seen any that are word for word like another. But I have seen that some people declare this verse to be a idiom, which apparently gives it translation privileges. I do not go along with this course of reasoning. And I do think that this word “bosom” was defined as some sort of expression by Adam Clarke, which probably carried through to current times. That it was an expression of how they reclined in NT times, which meant that people were in close fellowship if they leaned into each others breast. Yet, when I see many modern translations, replacing Bosom with Side, I feel uneasy. For while some people stick to this concept as being an expression or idiom,I still think we should translate it accurately, and not by feeling change the doctrinal stand that it may have by changing it.
I am late to this discussion and feel that much of the discussion is a little odd to say the least. When this discussion comes up I wonder why the New American Bible is never mentioned it is also published in a study version and believe it is an excellent version. Any thoughts?
Karen, thank you for your positive response. As for Latin, you’ll need to be more specific about what scholars distance themselves from it and why. The New Testament was translated into Latin in the second century, and anyone who works in textual criticism knows that it is not safe to ignore the Latin manuscripts. As far as a language in the first century world, yes, it was the official language of the Roman government. But the lingua franca of the known world was Greek. There were some regions in Europe that did not know any Greek (Spain, for example), but overall it was far better known than Latin. Latin is especially important in biblical studies when examining Patristic writings, since many church fathers wrote in Latin.
As for John 1.18, the situation about ‘bosom’ is this: yes, the word κόλπος means ‘bosom, breast, chest.’ Many commentators have pointed out that Jesus’ position in relation to the Father is one of closest fellowship. But the standard dictionary of the Greek New Testament notes that “our lit. contains no application of the term to anatomical parts uniquely female.” This note is necessary so that readers will not conjure up sexual connotations. I found that in working on the NET Bible, one of the most sensitive issues we faced was making sure that the translation was not liable to sexual innuendoes or bathroom humor. ‘Bosom’ is one of those words that is not used in common discourse except to describe a part of a woman’s anatomy. That is the reason that modern translations have altered the text. It is actually out of reverence for the scriptures and out of a desire that they be clearly understood that translations have done this, not out of any theologically deviant motives.
The NET Bible has here “who is in closest fellowship with the Father” for “which is in the bosom of the Father” (KJV). The NET thus interprets this idiom for the modern reader–accurately and reverently. Others do something similar.
Andrew, there are literally hundreds of Bibles that we have not discussed. The New American Bible is a decent Roman Catholic translation. But perhaps because it was done by Roman Catholics, most Protestants either haven’t heard of it or don’t want it because it includes the Apocrypha.
On the other hand, there are those who would always a prefer a Bible with the Apocrypha in it, even those who don’t regard it as scripture. I share this view. Given a choice between, say, an RSV without the Apocrypha and one with it, I will take the latter.
[…] did I discern disrespect in his use of “Mr.” But someone named Susan jumped in and said, “And that’s ‘Dr.’ Wallace to you, Mr. nazaroo.” A few comments later […]
Dr. Wallace,
Is there a reason why the apocrypha is not available for the NET Bible other than it is not considered Scripture? It seems to me that for someone who is reading a more advanced Bible such as the NET Bible with all it’s notes, there are elements of the apocrypha which could be valuable.
The Apocrypha are not available in the printed version yet, but some of them have been posted online at bible.org. They translations were not done in time for the first edition of the NET. We are currently working on the second edition.
When will the second addition of the NET go to print?
Great question. And I’m afraid I can’t answer it. But it won’t be next year; of that I’m sure.
Dear Daniel Wallace, thank you so much for your kind message. I really appreciate it. May I ask a question. Pertaining to John 1:18, I have read so many translations of this verse, and I would like to ask, based on the NET translation and many others…could one actually translate this verse (being polite as well)…
“Who is in the heart of the Father”???
God bless you in Jesus’ Name, Karen
Karen, on the ‘feel’ level of what John is communicating, that’s absolutely appropriate. But it’s not as accurate as the other translations. Hence, the problems between paraphrases and more accurate translations. ‘in the heart of the Father’ captures well what ‘in the bosom of the Father’ was saying in that culture. But ‘in the heart of the Father’ also goes a bit beyond that level of intimacy. John doesn’t say it yet, but he will speak in no uncertain terms about the dearness and nearness of Jesus to God.
Dear Daniel Wallace, Again, I really appreciate your message, and thank you so very kindly. I have been thinking about this verse all over again, and it brings me to ask you for your clarification on the NET translation of John 1:18. When I consider “closest fellowship”, does it not make one immediately feel that there is a competition here for “closest” that is not really indicated in the Greek? Also, the word fellowship makes me conclude that it is an intimate fellowship, but perhaps falls short of a higher calling than just closest fellowship?
My question is, how did this become the translation for these words in the Greek. What is making these Greek words become, words like, near His Side, near His Heart, and a host of variations often involving Side or and Near. And of course some exceptions, like closest fellowship and so forth.
I think I’ve been cracking my skull open on this one, can you tell?
I am missing something here, and hoping you can help me on this passage. Thanks so very kindly. God bless you in Jesus’ Name, Karen