The Three-Translation System for Deeper Bible Study

How I approach my Bible study has come a long way. I know in the beginning it was a bit overwhelming to realize that there were so many English translations. Where should 

I begin? Which one was right? If I chose one over another, was I missing out on some deep truth that God wanted to reveal, but the translators covered up accidentally; or worst still, purposefully? That last line is the stuff that good historical fiction is made of.

Many times, when we walk into a bookstore in search of a Bible; wait, remember those? Actual brick-and-mortar bookstores? We often approach the shelves where the Bibles are stocked, and there is a sense of analysis paralysis. There are so many acronyms on covers, and it can be overwhelming. We often default to simply opening up a few, and the one that seems easiest to read, that’s the one that we grab.

Now, I’m not saying that’s a poor strategy, but I’d like to offer up a better way. I’d like to offer you a system that will help you get more out of your Bible study no matter where you are in your journey; from the beginner just embarking on their first read-through—to the most seasoned student of the scriptures.

 This three-translation system will not only ensure that you leave your study time with a clear understanding of what the Bible is teaching, but it will also give you a full representation of the major scholarly viewpoints on the underlying Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. It will  ensure that you have the tools for deeper Biblical study in a way that is approachable to everyone.

Before we get to the heart of the matter, I have to offer a disclaimer. In this post, we’re going to talk about the manuscript tradition that underlies our modern New Testament, as well as some English Bible translation philosophies. What I’m presenting here is a novice look at all of these areas. I’m not a scholar, and I don’t profess to be. I have spent countless hours listening to scholars on the subject though, so I think I have a pretty good understanding of the basics in the majority of the areas we’ll cover. 

Still, the good thing about this system is that you don’t have to be a scholar. You don’t have to know anything about the manuscript tradition if you don’t think it relevant. With this system, you’ll still gain the benefits of all the work in these areas. 

Without further delay, I want to give you the categories of the system, and then we can discuss why they’re important and which translations will fit in the category. 

In our three-system approach, I suggest you have the following:

1. A Formal-Equivalent Translation of the Critical Text (CT)
2. A Formal-Equivalent Translation of the Textus Receptus (TR) 
3. A Dynamic-Equivalent translation—of either text, but the majority of which will be of the CT. 

So, that’s our system. Now, if you don’t understand any of those terms—relax. We’ll discuss them, why they’re important, and how using them will complete the picture for your New Testament study. 

Differences on Two Levels

Now, before we begin defining the jargon, I’d like to make clear one foundational point. The differences between our English translations can be on either one or two levels. The first level is textual, as in there is a difference in the original language; a variance between manuscripts, for example. The second level is translational, as in there is debate about the best way to render a Greek word into English. As we continue this survey over Bible translation as a discipline and land on our 3-translation system, keep these two levels in mind. 

Formal versus Dynamic Equivalent Translation (Word for Word or Thought for Thought)

Language translation is an art as much as it’s a science. Languages rarely function in the same way, and there are often several ways to communicate a message from one language to another. Now, if you’re at least bilingual, you already know this, but if you’re one of my monolingual friends (no shade, I was one of you for the majority of my life), this may not occur to you. There are two main approaches that you can take to communicate a message across languages. You can translate the words, like the literal words, or you can listen to the message of the original language and convey that message in the second language. What I have just explained is the essence underlying Formal against Dynamic-Equivalent translation.

Formal Equivalent

A formal equivalent translation is attempting to convey the message while placing an emphasis on the actual words and/or the grammar. What a formal equivalent translation is trying to do is translate as close as possible directly from the original language to the target. So, it will follow the original text as closely as possible, translating noun for noun, verb for verb, adjective for adjective; hopefully, you get the picture.

Great, you must be thinking. Why would anyone want anything other than this? Well, the unfortunate pitfall to this is that translating directly word for word often renders the message in the target language as wooden or stale at best, and unintelligible at worst. Especially when you’re translating from Koine Greek (the language of the New Testament) to English. Why?

Well, there are a number of reasons, but for starters, English is incredibly dependent on word order. In English, the subject comes prior to the direct object in a sentence with very little variation at all. English needs this to happen. With Greek, the word order can vary greatly. I can give an example of this; hopefully, this will help.

The man caught his ball. 

In this example, the man is the subject (S), the ball is the direct object (DO) of the verb, and we have a possessive pronoun showing that the subject has possession of the direct object. Now, let’s continue on.

The ball caught his man.

In this example, all I did was switch the word order of the (S) and the (DO). Yet, you see, this takes what is a simple sentence and turns it into nonsense. 

Now, I don’t read Koine, although it is on my bucket list. I do, however, know a bit of Latin, and I hear the word order of Latin and Greek can be similar. Let’s give the sentence in that order.

The man his ball caught.

In case this isn’t clear, the order is (S,) (DO,) then verb. Now, this is a very simple sentence, and coincidentally, it sounds like “Yoda speak.” But imagine having this happen in much more complex sentences. Or throughout a paragraph. 

Dynamic-Equivalent

A dynamic-equivalent translation is attempting to bypass the pitfall of the previous strategy. Rather than translating every word, it is more focused on delivering the message of the text. These translations will often add or supplement words in order to make what was clear in the original language just as clear in the target language. This is where they shine. Most of the translations in this category are often incredibly clear in how they convey the meaning. 

The issue is that, at times, these translations can stray pretty far from what was in the original text. Not to insinuate that they are adding or subtracting anything, but in the language used itself. For instance, if you take an idiom or figure of speech. These translations will often render the idiom in the target language with an idiom from that language. In this case, it may not render any words from the original language because it’s prioritizing the understanding of the audience. I hope you see the problem with this, especially as it relates to deeper study, word studies, or overall original language study. 

How Our System Helps

So, what to do? Well, if you think back on our system above, there are two formal and one dynamic equivalent translations. Within this system, you’ll get the best of both worlds. You’ll be able to do your original language study in your formal translations, comparing them to one another. Also, if the message isn’t clear, you’ll be able to refer to your more thought-for-thought translation for clarification. This takes care of any fog that may come from level two. 

Now, let’s transition to the first level, but to make sense of this, we must dip our toes into a bit of the history of the New Testament and viewpoints on Greek manuscripts.

New Testament Manuscripts

The New Testament is an ancient document. Well, in honesty, it’s a collection of ancient documents compiled into the section of the Bible that we call the New Testament or New Covenant. It’s written by numerous authors, for a variety of reasons, and with a myriad of audiences in mind.

Like all other documents from antiquity, these documents were hand-copied. A natural component of the hand-copying process is human error. Now, this is not to say that the Bible contains errors, but that the manuscripts differ due to copyist mistakes, i.e. typos. (Before typing ever was a thing, of course.) There are a number of differences, the majority of which are in spelling or other benign areas. These differences, in the field of Textual Criticism, which I am not a part of, by the way, are called “Textual Variances.” A textual variance is any difference between two manuscript copies. Essentially, wherever they vary, a variance exists.  

Some of these variances are not benign though, and require more attention. While the vast majority of variants cannot be translated into English, some would say as many as 97-99 percent. There is an incredibly small percentage that does affect meaning. The nomenclature for these issues in the field is meaningful and viable. In other words, the variance has to change the meaning of a text, and it has to be plausible. The amount of these is extremely few, and scholarship has worked through them at great length. 

Now, I never want to discuss this information without giving this clarifying statement. 

THERE IS NO ESSENTIAL CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE THAT EVER HANGS ON A TEXTUAL VARIANT—None! 

Also, There has never been a point where any one person or group of people could ever make wholesale changes to the New Testament.

 Refer to the beginning of this section. These letters were circulated separately throughout the community of the early church almost immediately. Making wholesale changes to the text was just not a possibility in the ancient world, and archaeology has discovered manuscript copies from all over the ancient world. Some buried in Egypt, others in monasteries. If someone even attempted such a thing, there would be no way to ensure that all the copies were collected. It’s just not possible, despite what the atheists think. Now, back to the translations.

The Big Three

There are three main Greek texts that underlie the majority of our English New Testaments. There is one outlier that I can think of, but for the most part, this is true. Again, we’re going to take a surface-level look at them. For more in-depth information on all of these subjects, I highly recommend watching some of the lectures on the subject on YouTube by Dr. Daniel Wallace or Dr. James White. They both have very helpful lectures on the subject, but they, being in the field, are able to explain this in much better detail than I can. Still, the big three are as follows.

The Critical Text

The critical text is the preferred text for the majority of scholarship. This can be known as the UBS (United Bible Society) text or the Nestle-Aland (NA) text, also known as the Novum Testamentum Graece. Now, these are the same Greek text; I believe the differences are in the notes apparatus.

Now, this text is called the critical text because it looks “critically” at the known manuscripts and weighs evidence to attempt to discern which are the earliest and best among them. It will carbon-date them, weight out the evidence of the language, and attempt to discern what the earliest readings are based on the evidence. This is the underlying text for the majority of your English translations on the market. The ESV, NIV, NASB, LSB, NLT, NRSV, even the Message are all translated from this text. 

The Majority Text

The majority text differs from the critical text in how it weighs evidence. Where the Critical Text places emphasis upon the earliest and best manuscripts, the Majority text takes the “strength in numbers” approach. Where the Critical text may choose a minority reading, a reading that has very few manuscripts as support but is believed to be early, the Majority text will simply “count noses.” If there are 50 readings on one side and 49 on the other, the majority reading goes into the text. 

Textus Receptus (Received Text)

The Textus Receptus, (TR), is a historical text. This is the printed text that comes out of the time of the Protestant Reformation, and as such, is the textual basis for the King James and New King James translations. They are relevant here because the two aforementioned translations are widely available on the market and wildly popular. The KJV is still the favored translation for a large number of Christians today. I’m actually a volunteer with a non-prophet that creates study materials to be translated into other languages. They prefer these two (TR) based translations for the textual basis that we create study questions from. 

The (TR) is the traditional text for us in this day and age. It has been used for over 400 years in the English-speaking world and shows no signs of falling out of favor. As it relates to the other two, it mirrors the Majority text closely, although not identically, and there are a few major and a myriad of minor differences between this one and the Critical text. (Please remember the two clarifying statements above.) 

Our System

Hopefully now, you have more of an understanding of the importance of each component that makes up our categories above. Now, let’s identify the particular translations that I use.

Formal Equivalent, Critical Text Translation: Bible A

For our Formal Equivalent, Critical Text translation, I use the ESV. I love this translation and have used it for a number of years. It has fallen out of favor in some circles lately, but in my mind, it’s one of the best conservative, formal equivalent translations on the market. 

If you don’t like this one, I’m giving an honorable mention to the NASB, LSB, and the NET. All of which are great translations and will aid you in your deeper study. You can safely use them for your word studies, exegetical studies, and make application on particular words used. 

Formal Equivalent, (TR) Translation: Bible B

To fill this spot in our system, I recommend the New King James, but the King James and the Modern English version also will fit this criterion. As a matter of fact, the Geneva and the Bishop’s fit it as well, if you’re feeling more hipster these days. 

I believe that the NKJV is the clear choice for this section for one reason. Within the textual notes of the NKJV, there are readings from both of the other texts. When you read the NKJV, you see all of the “Big Three” Greek texts represented on the page; two in the notes, and one in the body. This is the clear winner here. Although, if you prefer the KJV out of habit, I guess you could use that as well. But, I’m tempted to say just get over that and switch to the NKJV. 

The Majority text doesn’t really have a true contender for a spot on the list. There are a few on the fringes that are translating this text directly, but they don’t have much support.

Dynamic Equivalent Translation: Bible C

For this category in our system, I recommend either the Christian Standard (CSB, formerly HCSB) or the NIV. I currently use the CSB, but just switched from the NIV due to the great resources that Holman is putting out in that translation. The NIV is great, but there are some resources that I don’t want to live without in this system—so, the CSB takes it. 

A word of caution, though. Bible translation lives on a spectrum, and this end of the spectrum seems to move into the extreme rather quickly. The most Dynamic translation is a paraphrase, and I’m not recommending that as your third Bible in the system. You can use paraphrases as commentaries, but I wouldn’t use them as a Bible. 

Examples of what I would consider to be a paraphrase, but is often sold as a “Bible,” are the NLT and the Message. There are a number of others, but these are the most popular. If you like them, use them, but do so with caution. I think that these translations stray too far from the original words of the text far too regularly to be considered translations, despite the fact that they are “translated” from the Greek. They’re just too far for me to be comfortable using on a regular basis. As a study help, like a commentary—yes. As a regular Bible for reading and devotions—no. Hard pass!

How to Use the System

I recommend that you choose one of the three for your regular reading. This is your main Bible.  This is the text that you use for your devotional reading, the main text for your personal Bible study, the one that you take to church. Which brings up a good point: if your church has a preference, that may make the decision for you. I enjoy it when I am reading the same text as my pastor and fellow brothers and sisters while in the house of God. 

The other two, you consult only during your study time, or for variety. So, your memory verses will more than likely come from your primary Bible, whether A, B, or C. The other two are reserved for that more in-depth study time. Employing this system, you will ensure that you walk away understanding not only the differences in the underlying Greek, but also in its English renderings. In other words, employing this system will avoid both of the levels listed above, where interpretive pitfalls may occur. 

For more information on my work, or some of the other content that I put out, please find me on YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram. There you will find videos on an array of topics relevant to the Christian life, as well as a devotional series that is updated almost daily.