Why Bible Translations Differ: An Exploration of Text, Language, and Interpretation

Why Bible Translations Differ: An Exploration of Text, Language, and Interpretation

Introduction: The Landscape of Biblical Translation

The Bible is the most translated and widely distributed book in human history, available in over 3,000 languages. Yet even within a single language like English, readers encounter a remarkable diversity of translations—from the majestic prose of the King James Version to the contemporary clarity of the New International Version, and from the literal precision of the New American Standard Bible to the dynamic paraphrasing of The Message.

This plurality often raises questions: Why do translations differ so much? Which one is “most accurate”? The answers lie in a complex interplay of ancient manuscripts, linguistic challenges, theological perspectives, and translation philosophies. These differences are not necessarily flaws but often reflect legitimate scholarly choices made to address the inherent difficulties of translating ancient texts for modern audiences.

I. The Foundational Challenge: Source Texts and Manuscript Variations

No original autographs of any biblical book exist today. What translators work from are copies of copies, transmitted over centuries.

A. The Old Testament Textual Tradition

• Masoretic Text (MT): The standard Hebrew text, meticulously preserved by Jewish scribes (Masoretes) between the 6th and 10th centuries CE. Most modern translations primarily rely on this.
• Dead Sea Scrolls: Discovered in 1947, these 2,000-year-old manuscripts confirmed the remarkable reliability of the Masoretic tradition but also revealed some variations in wording, spelling, and occasional content.
• Septuagint (LXX): The Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures begun in the 3rd century BCE. It sometimes reflects a Hebrew source text that differed from the Masoretic Text. The New Testament writers often quote from the Septuagint.
• Samaritan Pentateuch: Another ancient version of the first five books, with its own variations.

When translators encounter places where these ancient witnesses disagree, they must make textual critical decisions about which reading likely represents the original. These choices directly affect translation.

B. The New Testament Textual Landscape
Over 5,800 Greek manuscripts exist, none identical, ranging from small fragments to complete codices. Scholars categorize these into text types:

• Alexandrian: Generally considered the most reliable (e.g., Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus). Favored by most modern critical translations (NRSV, NIV, ESV).
• Western: Contains expansions and paraphrasing.
• Byzantine: The basis for the Textus Receptus used by the KJV. It is fuller and smoother but generally considered later.

A famous example is the ending of Mark’s Gospel. The earliest manuscripts end abruptly at Mark 16:8. Later manuscripts add a “Long Ending” (verses 9-20). Most modern translations note this variation; the KJV includes the longer ending without note, reflecting its textual base.

II. Linguistic and Cultural Gaps: The Problem of Distance

The Bible was written in ancient languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Koine Greek) across cultures vastly different from our own.

A. Untranslatable Concepts and Words
Some words have no direct English equivalent. The Hebrew word hesed, for instance, encompasses loving-kindness, mercy, loyalty, and covenant faithfulness. Translations must choose an emphasis: “mercy” (KJV), “lovingkindness” (NASB), “steadfast love” (ESV), or “unfailing love” (NIV).

B. Idioms and Figures of Speech
Literal translation of idioms often obscures meaning. “Greet one another with a holy kiss” (Romans 16:16) is rendered in some contemporary translations as “Greet one another warmly” (CEV) to convey the intent (a sacred form of greeting) without the cultural specificity that might confuse modern readers.

C. Syntax and Grammar
Hebrew and Greek grammar function differently than English. Greek often uses long, complex sentences (e.g., Ephesians 1:3-14 is one sentence in Greek). The KJV retains this complexity; modern translations often break such passages into multiple sentences for readability.

III. Translation Philosophy: The Spectrum from Formal to Functional

The most significant factor in translation differences is the underlying philosophy. Scholars often describe this as a continuum.

A. Formal Equivalence (Word-for-Word)
Seeks to preserve the original language’s form and structure as much as possible.

• Examples: New American Standard Bible (NASB), English Standard Version (ESV), King James Version (KJV).
• Advantages: Allows closer study of the original phrasing; useful for detailed exegesis.
• Disadvantages: Can sound stilted or obscure meaning when the receptor language works differently. For example, the Greek σπλαγχνίζομαι (splanchnizomai) literally means “to be moved in one’s bowels.” Formal translations often render it “moved with compassion,” while functional translations might say “his heart went out to him.”

B. Functional (Dynamic) Equivalence (Thought-for-Thought)
Aims to translate the meaning of whole thoughts or concepts into natural, contemporary language.

• Examples: New International Version (NIV), New Living Translation (NLT), Good News Translation (GNT).
• Advantages: Highly readable and clear; communicates the original impact to a modern audience.
• Disadvantages: Involves more interpretive decisions by translators, potentially importing their understanding into the text.

C. Paraphrase (Free Translation)
Prioritizes accessibility and thematic impact over strict correspondence to words or structure.

• Examples: The Message, The Living Bible.
• Advantages: Vibrant, immediate, and often powerful in conveying overarching themes.
• Disadvantages: Heavily interpretive; can reflect the translator’s theology strongly; less suitable for study.

This philosophical choice explains dramatic differences. Compare Proverbs 18:24:

• ESV (Formal): “A man of many companions may come to ruin, but there is a friend who sticks closer than a brother.”
• The Message (Paraphrase): “Friends come and friends go, but a true friend sticks by you like family.”

IV. Theological and Ecclesiastical Influences

A. Doctrinal Traditions
Translations are sometimes influenced by the theological traditions of their translators. A classic example is Romans 8:28. The Greek τοῖς ἀγαπῶσι τὸν θεόν means “to those who love God.” The KJV adds “all things work together for good to them that love God,” following earlier Latin manuscripts. The NIV says “in all things God works for the good of those who love him,” which subtly emphasizes God’s agency. The NRSV keeps it more open: “all things work together for good for those who love God.”

B. Sectarian Translations
Some translations serve specific faith communities. The New World Translation (Jehovah’s Witnesses) translates John 1:1 as “the Word was a god,” reflecting their Christology. Most others translate it “the Word was God.”

C. Inclusive Language Debates
A major point of divergence in recent decades concerns gender-inclusive language. The Greek adelphoi can mean “brothers” or “brothers and sisters” depending on context. The NIV (1984) often used “brothers”; the NIV (2011) and NRSV use “brothers and sisters” where the context is clearly mixed. Critics of such changes argue they impose modern sensibilities on the text; proponents argue they accurately convey the inclusive intent to a modern audience.

V. The Evolution of Language and Scholarship

A. Archaic vs. Contemporary Language
The KJV (1611) used the formal English of its day, including “thee,” “thou,” and verb endings like “-est.” Modern translations use contemporary language. This is not just about style but comprehension: the KJV’s “charity” meant self-sacrificial love (Greek agape); today “charity” primarily means giving to the needy. Modern translations use “love.”

B. Advances in Linguistic and Historical Knowledge
Our understanding of biblical languages has grown immensely since 1611. The discovery of Ugaritic texts in 1929 shed light on obscure Hebrew words. For example, the KJV’s “coney” (Leviticus 11:5) is now known to be the “hyrax” (NIV), a small mammal.

Conclusion: Embracing the Mosaic of Meaning

The diversity of Bible translations is not a scandal but a testament to the richness of the text and the ongoing effort of communities of faith to understand and live by it. Different translations serve different purposes: a formal equivalence version for close study, a dynamic equivalence version for devotional reading and teaching, a paraphrase for fresh perspective. The variations remind us that translation is both a science and an art, requiring rigorous scholarship and nuanced judgment.

Rather than seeking a single “perfect” translation, informed readers benefit from comparing multiple versions, consulting scholarly notes, and understanding the choices behind each. In doing so, they participate in the ancient and ongoing conversation about these sacred texts, discovering that the plurality of voices can lead to a deeper, more nuanced understanding of the Bible’s transformative message. The differences in translation ultimately invite us into a more engaged and thoughtful relationship with scripture, where the quest for meaning across time and culture becomes a dynamic part of the spiritual journey itself.