Introduction

Every year, our congregation gives free bibles to all of our third-grade students. Until this point, we have given them the Faith Alive Study Bible, but CPH just changed the translation for that to the ESV, which has a 10th grade reading level. We don’t want the reading level to be an obstacle so students think, “This is too difficult for me to read. I guess I am not a Bible reader.” That led us on a quest for a new Bible to distribute.

Translations Included in Study

Based on reading level, we narrowed our search to the GWV, HCSB, and NLT translations, but the GWV has no options available for a good study Bible, so we removed that translation from the list of options, even though it is a favorite among us. The CEV also received consideration but was removed for lack of viable options. Just for the sake of comparison, we also included the ESV in this study.

Rating System

To rate the translations, we used the same guidelines that were used in the Comparative Study of Bible Translations and Paraphrases distributed by the Commission on Theology and Church Relations of The Lutheran Church — Missouri Synod from September 1975.

Ratings

Using the same sampling of verses, taken from the “Explanation of the Second Article” from A Short Explanation of Dr Martin Luther’s Small Catechism, questions 121–159, passages are rated with a score of 0–2:

• If it was found acceptable, it was given no notation (0).
• If judged usable but in need of more accurately reflecting the original, it was marked with the numeral 1.
• If it was judged as being not usable, it was marked with the numeral 2.

Scores were then totalled to rate the translations. Low numbers are better. See the original spreadsheet for additional notes.

Conclusions

First, note that this study only examines which passages had problems, not which had the preferable translation for clarity, conveying the original intent of the idioms, or readability by a modern audience. The purpose was to separate wheat from chaff, not find the choicest kernels. Even such subtleties as word order, article, interpretation of the Greek imperfect verb tense, or preposition choice, and punctuation can have a significant impact on the passage, and at times, while a translation may be not inaccurate, another’s emphasis makes it a preferred translation. And the difference in rating any given passage between 0–1 or 1–2 was often a fine line, so when in doubt, I rounded down, as seems to have been the practice of the 1975 study. Even these ratings have the disadvantage of not being weighted by importance, so a glaring Christological error that makes a passage unusable and could lead to heresy would have the same impact on the final score as a reversal of pronouns that reverses the intent of the passage but, while causing confusion to the reader, has no significant doctrinal impact. In the same way, two minor 1’s may not be collectively as important as a major 2. Given more time and input, a rating of 1–10 for each passage based on a number of factors, both positive and negative, would be preferable, but that would require a significant investment of time with an inordinately small return. These judgment calls might also change based on others’ theological emphases, thus a blind study by a committee with averaged scores and discussion over each passage would be preferable, but we didn’t have the man hours available for that, so feedback from others is welcome. Among these three translations, none were perfect, but pastors, parents, and others making these decisions will have to decide what is “good enough” for the reader in question. Considerations should also be made for which translation is easier to read aloud (some roll off the tongue easier), poetic form both verbally and visibly, and ease of memorization (easier to understand translations tend to be more verbose, thus more words to memorize).

Also note that this study examined 101 important passages, but arguments could be made to include 1001 more. These focused on Christology, but a study of the passages on the Sacraments, eschatology, gender roles, or any number of other doctrines, especially those debated among various theological traditions, could affect the outcome of this study. This study examined English translations against doctrine, not spending significant amounts of time re-translating the original languages or examining manuscript variants for comparison, which might be considered a backwards approach, but the principle of Scripture interprets Scripture was used as the criteria. This study also ignored footnotes, which can significantly impact the perceptions of the reader and often have glaring discrepancies with the actual text, any study notes from any study Bible that comes from a different theological tradition than ours will raise even greater concerns, so readers must be taught to think critically about anything added to the text by the editor or publisher.

Recommendation

The NLT is definitely more readable and often carries nuances of the original languages better by explaining them in the text and thus more clearly expressing the intent of the text, thus making it a viable translation for those new to Christianity or anyone looking for a translation for daily devotional use. Its roots as a paraphrase that was reworked into a translation are evident, as it often varies significantly from most English translations in sentence structure, which has pros and cons.

The HCSB has a slightly higher reading level than the NLT but rated a lower score in the above study, making it arguably doctrinally safer for young readers, above caveats notwithstanding. Since it more closely mirrors more formal equivalent translations, it provides a bridge for the readers as they grow until they’re ready for a more in depth study Bible like The Lutheran Study Bible, as well as aiding teachers more familiar with those translations in a Sunday school setting. Since we currently use the ESV in worship, the Small Catechism, and elsewhere, the similarities with the HCSB will also aid in familiarity with the texts and not bear such a stark contrast. Less verbose wording will aid memorization.

So pending finding a viable Study Bible with minimal confusion and error that wouldn’t undo the translation advantages, I recommend the HCSB for use as a general purpose student Bible. Given that the WELS seems to be leaning toward adopting the HCSB the way the LCMS has the ESV, I hope they will produce a HCSB student Bible, or a number of churches work together to produce a crowdfunded HCSB student Bible with confessional Lutheran study aids and explanations.