The Word Increased and Multiplied: Grasping the Complexities of Bible Translation

ABSTRACT: The English language has the most Bible translations available of any language in history. Such variety is due to a number of factors, including differences in theological convictions and translation philosophy, new manuscript discoveries, a desire to reach broader audiences, and the financial needs of publishers. The abundance of translations should primarily make English speakers grateful for such a vast wealth of resources to study God’s word.

For most Christians, reading the Bible means reading it in translation. That is true today and has been true for most of church history. Most readers are not competent in the Bible’s original languages of Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. As a result, everywhere the Bible has gone, it has needed to be translated. It is safe to say that no single book has been translated into more languages than the Bible.

While far from the first language to have the Bible, English can boast the most translations. I suspect that no one knows the exact number, but one scholar writing in 1925 catalogued over one hundred English Bible translations in whole or in part up to his time.¹ Fast forward to today and one prominent Bible website offers more than sixty choices. This bewildering array of options stems from the wide reach of English, of course, but also from widespread literacy, affluence, and Christian influence found across the Anglophone world.

But if these are the conditions, what are the motivating factors for new translations? Why do translators undertake such a big task? Why do publishers take on the risk of new translations? Why do readers buy new ones?

Complexities of Translation

To understand why there are so many English translations, we need to think first about translation itself. For many, especially those who know only one language, the work of translation may seem like a simple matter of finding the right English word to put in place of a given Hebrew or Greek word. If only things were so simple! In fact, translation can be quite complex.

This complexity is not incidental but essential to the nature of translation. A translator’s work always places him between two authorities, neither of which can talk to the other. The biblical authors cannot write to us in English, and those of us who need translations cannot read them in Hebrew and Greek. Thus, the translator becomes the proverbial servant with two masters. Matthew Reynolds describes translation as an act of mediation and even diplomacy.² The translator is constantly playing the role of a go-between. When it comes to the Bible, given that one party is God, the stakes are especially high. As a result, Bible readers are naturally interested in having the best Bible translation and can often feel paralyzed by the ever-expanding choices.

But in order to answer the question “Which translation is best?” it’s necessary to understand some of the reasons why we have so many. When we understand the factors that lead to multiple translations, we are in a better position to judge between them. Here I describe five forces that stimulate new translations.

1. Theology

Theology has always been central to Bible translation. Beliefs about what the Bible is, whom it’s for, and how it conveys meaning were central in debates about English Bible translation in the fourteenth century, when John Wycliffe (c. 1328–1384) inspired the translation of the first complete English Bible. At the time, English was viewed by some as an inferior language, one not up to the task. Besides that, giving the Bible to the people was viewed as a gateway to heresies of all kinds. By William Tyndale’s (c. 1494–1536) day, restrictions on Bible translation enacted in response to the Wycliffe Bible were still in force.

The theology of the Reformers supercharged efforts to put the Bible into the vernacular. They found proof in the Bible itself. They noted that God switched languages between the Bible’s two testaments to ensure his word could be understood. It follows that God wants his people to have his word in the language they understand. Tyndale’s work opened the floodgates for a spate of new English Bibles so that, by the time of the King James Version in 1611, there were some half a dozen English translations. We might think we are the first to have a choice, but we are not.

Theological concerns were behind many of these early English Bibles, just as they had been behind the revisions of the very first Bible translation. In the first and second centuries AD, three Jews revised the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint. One reason they did so was theological: they wanted to bring the Greek translation into closer alignment with their interpretation of the Hebrew text.

This motive may explain a change they made to a text that has been a perennial site of translation debate. In Isaiah 7:14, the prophet offers a sign to king Ahaz in the form of an ‘almah who gives birth. But what is an ‘almah? The earliest Greek translation (followed famously by Matthew’s Gospel) uses the Greek term for “virgin” (Parthenos). By the second century, this prophecy was a key argument for Christian apologists in their debates with Jews. The Jewish revisers, however, foreclosed this interpretation by using a Greek term that simply means “young woman” (neanis). The Christian response, not surprisingly, was to accuse these early translators of changing the translation to suit their interpretation.³ That may be the first such accusation recorded against a Bible translator; it would not be the last.

Almost two thousand years later, Isaiah 7:14 continues to inspire new translations. Both the NASB and ESV attempted to fix what were viewed as theological problems with the RSV. Prime among them was Isaiah 7:14. The RSV made waves when it was published in 1952 for printing “young woman” and relegating “virgin” to a footnote. This choice (among others) made conservative Christians unhappy, and they panned it. The NASB fixed the problem by revising the older ASV, while the ESV came later and directly revised the RSV.

Thus, from the very beginning, Bible translations have depended on theology — not only to justify Bible translation itself, but also to spur new translations from older ones.

2. Translation Philosophy

This leads to the larger question of a translator’s approach to the task, or what is called translation philosophy. Usually, translation philosophies are placed on a spectrum between word-for-word translations on one end and paraphrases on the other. Translations today use terms like “essentially literal” (ESV) or “dynamic equivalence” (NIV) or “optimal equivalence” (CSB) to explain their translation philosophy. These terms have their uses, and the concepts behind them have a long pedigree,⁴ but their value is limited. The reason is that meaning (and hence translation) involves much more than just words. It involves features of language like style, register, idioms, wordplays, jokes, and so on.

In English, the words inebriated, drunk, and trashed all can refer to being intoxicated, but their register is different. You would not expect a lawyer in a courtroom to use the word trashed when referring to a client charged with a DUI. For a translator, issues of register, style, and the like require careful attention. As an example, some translations like the CSB and NLT now use contractions like “didn’t” and “won’t” but restrict them to direct speech. I suspect they want the Bible’s characters to use colloquial English but want its narrators to sound more formal.

Terms that are culturally specific present additional challenges. Bible readers today have never seen a leviathan at the zoo; we don’t know who the kinsman redeemer is in our family; we have no idea how much food a shekel can buy or how high 1,600 stadia are. On the other hand, some terms that are easy for us were once difficult for others. We have no problem with the word sandal in the Bible, but William Tyndale’s sixteenth-century readers did because he provides a footnote to explain its meaning at Acts 12:8. Translators face further difficulties with proper names and terms for animals, plants, and diseases since these are often culturally specific. Many scholars believe that leprosy or Hansen’s Disease was not actually known in Bible times, but translators today find it hard to avoid the term leprosy because Bible readers expect it.

These difficulties illustrate why we need more than just the word-for-word/paraphrase spectrum to think of Bible translation. I prefer instead to think in terms of how much a translation tries to bring the Bible’s world into ours. For example, when the NASB capitalizes the pronoun in Isaiah 7:14b as “and she will call His name Immanuel,” it is bringing the Bible into our world since the original Hebrew has no equivalent to capitalization. The NLT does not capitalize pronouns, but it too brings the Bible into our world when it renders the same clause as “She will give birth to a son and will call him Immanuel (which means ‘God is with us’).” The words in parentheses are not in the original since the name’s meaning is obvious to Hebrew speakers. But the NLT brings the Bible’s world into ours by explaining the name — just as Matthew did (Matthew 1:23).

Different translations bring the Bible’s world into ours in different ways and to different degrees, and it is another reason translations multiply. Translators are constantly trying to improve on what’s available in one way or another. That was true of the Jewish revisers, it was true of the King James translators, and it is true today.

3. Manuscript Discoveries

Behind the issue of how to translate is a more fundamental one: what to translate. Scholars today work from thousands of manuscripts of both the Old and New Testament, many of which have been discovered and studied only since Tyndale’s time. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is the best-known example, but many other manuscripts have been brought to light besides these. As a result, translators sometimes need to update the English Bible to reflect new manuscript knowledge.

This desire to produce a Bible with a better text goes as far back as Origen of Alexandria in the second century AD and is reflected in numerous translation efforts. The Revised Version, published between 1881 and 1885, is known as the first major revision of the KJV, and new manuscript discoveries were a major motivation for it. This resulted in over five thousand textual changes in the New Testament. Today, the results are usually less dramatic, but manuscript discoveries still motivate new translations. The recent revision to the NRSV known as the NRSV Updated Edition (NRSVue) was undertaken partly in order to update its textual decisions.⁵

Most Bible readers will encounter these changes through footnotes. Such notes were used by many early English Bibles, including the KJV. At James 2:18, for example, the KJV translators note that instead of a person saying, “Shew me thy faith without thy works,” some copies read “by thy works.” Today, English translations follow the first option without any note thanks to the evidence of earlier and better manuscripts. In other places, words have been included or removed or newly marked as uncertain since the time of the KJV.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have been a crucial source of evidence for translators. A striking example comes at the end of 1 Samuel 10, where translators have a major choice to make in whether they follow evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls or from the later Hebrew Masoretic Text. The ESV follows the Masoretic Text, whereas the NRSVue follows 4QSam^a — the much earlier copy of 1 Samuel from the Dead Sea Scrolls.

ESV:

²⁶ Saul also went to his home at Gibeah, and with him went men of valor whose hearts God had touched. ²⁷ But some worthless fellows said, “How can this man save us?” And they despised him and brought him no present. But he held his peace.

NRSVue:

²⁶ Saul also went to his home at Gibeah, and with him went warriors whose hearts God had touched. ²⁷ But some worthless fellows said, “How can this man save us?” They despised him and brought him no present. But he held his peace.

Now Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had been grievously oppressing the Gadites and the Reubenites. He would gouge out the right eye of each of them and would not grant Israel a deliverer. No one was left of the Israelites across the Jordan whose right eye Nahash, king of the Ammonites, had not gouged out. But there were seven thousand men who had escaped from the Ammonites and had entered Jabesh-gilead.

Manuscript discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls present translators with a choice that goes deeper than translation philosophy. Most textual choices are not nearly this significant, of course.⁶ But because different translation committees weigh such textual evidence differently, our English Bibles differ, and these differences are yet another reason we have multiple English translations.

4. New Audiences

A fourth reason we have so many English translations today is because they are aimed at different audiences. There is some precedent for this, but the advent of a larger, more affluent reading public means this reason has been supercharged over the last century. Recently, the Wall St. Journal reported a 22 percent surge in Bible sales in 2024 that is partly due to a “proliferation of new editions and innovative designs.”⁷ Though this refers to new Bible formats and not translations, the same principle applies. Publishers try to reach new audiences with new translations.

The best example is the NIV and the lesser-known NIrV. When the NIV was first published in the 1970s, it was aimed at a seventh-grade reading level. Following its enormous success (it has been, at various times, the bestselling English Bible), the publisher decided to extend its benefits. This led to the New International Readers Version (or NIrV), published in 1996 and aimed at a third-grade reading level. Wherever possible, the sentences in the NIV were shortened and simpler words were used. We can illustrate with Isaiah 7:14 again.

NIV (2011):

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.

NIrV (2014):

The Lord himself will give you a sign. The virgin is going to have a baby. She will give birth to a son. And he will be called Immanuel.

The opening verses of Psalm 23 show a similar concern for simplicity and ease.

NIV (2011):

¹ The Lord is my shepherd, I lack nothing.
     ² He makes me lie down in green pastures,
he leads me beside quiet waters,
     ³ He refreshes my soul.
He guides me along the right paths
     for his name’s sake.

NIrV (2014):

¹ The Lord is my shepherd. He gives me everything I need.
     ² He lets me lie down in fields of green grass.
He leads me beside quiet waters.
     ³ He gives me new strength.
He guides me in the right paths
     for the honor of his name.

These changes are not meant to dumb down the Bible. Rather, as the website explains, they are designed to make the translation especially helpful to young readers, adults learning to read for the first time, those learning English as a second language, and readers with learning disabilities.

5. Money

One final motivation for new translations is financial. Publishing is a fickle business. Major publishers survive the risks in large part thanks to their backlist. These are books that have already come out and that keep selling. They can include everything from coloring books to classic bestsellers like Lord of the Rings. They also include the Bible. In a recent court case, the CEO of HarperCollins, one of the five big US publishing houses, which owns Thomas Nelson and Zondervan, revealed that Bible sales account for $80 million of their business.⁸ So there is significant potential to be gained if a publisher owns the rights to a popular Bible translation. But there are also no guarantees, and new translations do flop (as the TNIV did). Like other books, a Bible translation is a gamble — sometimes a very expensive one. By the time the NIV was finally released in the 1970s, its editorial costs were estimated to be around $8 million ($40 million in today’s dollars).⁹

Translations can make money, but they can also save it. Very few of us notice an important page in our Bibles that precedes Genesis 1:1 because it’s tucked away between the title page and the table of contents. It’s the copyright page. The copyright page says who owns the translation, but it also specifies how much of the translation can be quoted before permission must be sought. My NIV puts the number at 500 verses, whereas my ESV puts it at 250. For most of us, these restrictions never apply and do not matter. But for publishers that sell Bible-study curricula, VBS material, commentaries, and the like, these limits matter a lot. Even when permission is granted, it may come with the need to pay royalties, and these cut into a publisher’s bottom line. So, it is often in a publisher’s own interest to have the rights to their own translation, and many do. Crossway owns the ESV, Zondervan owns exclusive rights to publish the NIV, Broadman and Holman owns the CSB, and Tyndale House Publishers owns the NLT. Each of these has their own set of Bible-study resources that use their own translation. It saves money.

Keep in mind that most publishing is a low-margin enterprise, especially at smaller scale. Aside from the initial cost of producing a translation, several Bible translations have committees that continue to meet after publication. So, the expenses can be ongoing. Some Bible publishers also put a portion of their translation profits into sending Bibles overseas or to translation work in other languages. In any case, financial incentives certainly explain the increase in translation options. As long as people buy new translations, publishers will supply them.

What Version Is Best?

This brings us back to the question of which translation is best. I believe the task of translation shows that this question needs to be qualified: What’s the best translation for whom? Different translations serve different readers. Those new to the Bible can be especially helped by a modern translation that does a lot to bring the Bible’s world into ours. Likewise, those who are new to English will have different needs from those who are not. Churches have additional needs that a translation must satisfy. Those translations with a good literary pedigree are often ideal for public reading. Preachers have special needs given their unique task of expositing the Bible to their parishioners. A translation that constantly brings the Bible’s world into ours can end up getting in the way of good exposition and so neuter the preaching of the word. Likewise, there is an important place for preserving theological terms that have been crucial to the history of Christian doctrine.

These are just some of the considerations that have to be taken into account when choosing a Bible. Thankfully, none of us in the English-speaking world has to limit ourselves to just one translation today, and even longtime Bible readers may find that a second translation injects new life into their Bible reading.

Above all, our response to the many choices in translation should be gratitude. This is the real value of a survey such as this one. It helps us understand the difficulty translators face — and that, in turn, helps us appreciate the fact that we have so many translators and publishers who are so capable and so willing to bring the word of God into words we can understand. We English speakers are in an enormously privileged position, for which we should be grateful.