There are many Bibles available, which should we be reading? There are numerous “popular” versions with which most evangelicals are familiar, like the Goodnews Bible and many others, which are not really translations from the original Hebrew and Greek, but are simply English paraphrases of more familiar versions. Here I shall offer a brief account of the history of the major reliable translations available to English language readers.
Prior to Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of the movable type printing press in 1449 CE, there were minimal copies of the Bible available, most of which were reserved for the clergy. Thus in Martin Luther’s day all Bibles were printed one page at a time. The first dominant version of the English Bible was produced in 1611 under the mandate of King James of England, known by all as the King James Version. This, of course, was the translation that completely dominated the English-speaking world well up into the 20th Century.
The main problem with the King James version is simply that there were only four copies of the Hebrew and Greek texts in existence at the time, and even these were often in dubious condition. This became the official version of the Bible for the protestant world until the late 19th century when a number of translations were offered by various scholarly individuals, both in England and America. None of these captured the fancy of many scholars or lay Christians.
The American Standard translation appeared early in the 20th century. In 1952 the Revised Standard Version, with very much updated English, appeared much to the delight of more liberal scholars and laity, but to the dismay of more conservatives. It remained the basic standard text of the Bible until the arrival of the New English Bible in 1970. These two seem to me to be by far the most reliable and readable translations of the various versions on the market. In addition I should enthusiastically mention the Catholic New Jerusalem Bible.
Not only do all of these modern translations do away with the archaic aspects of old English, but they even show sensitivity to modern idioms. Even more significantly, they have striven to incorporate the various best scholarship. The major factor behind this renovation has been the discovery of an unbelievable number of biblical manuscripts which help sort out the many differences and even errors among the few manuscripts available to previous scholars.
From this brief review of the history of the English Bible two considerations come to the fore. One pertains to the question of scholarship, the other to the question of readability. Obviously, one wants to read a Bible that is readable in modern, or contemporary English. The other pertains to scholarship. Almost all of the modern translations are up to date on the most important scholarly issues raised by the absolute plethora of discoveries of biblical manuscripts that have been discovered in recent decades. It is this factor that renders the King James version essentially obsolete.
I would also hesitate to recommend any of the more “modern” versions of the New Testament, most of which are mere paraphrases of the more traditional readings, and many of which contain doctrinal biases that are not found in the original text. At the same time, I must say that my favorites in this department are those of J.B. Philips, namely The New Testament in Modern English, and Eugene Peterson’s The Message. The latter does an excellent job of blending modern scholarship contemporary English.
In my view it is important to have a very healthy respect for the actual text of the most reliable manuscripts. Thus the translation one chooses to read and study should be modern and reflect solid scholarship. Also, of course, readability is important, and here there are many helpful options, as indicated above. It is, in fact, interesting and valuable to compare and contrast different translations. This, of course, requires having more than one version available for comparison.

In the opening chapter of his Gospel John identifies Jesus as the “logos” of God. This Greek word “logos” basically means “word”. It is being used here in a more symbolic way to refer to the rationale or basic principle behind all that transpires in the world based on the will of God. This term used as a way to refer to the rationale behind all that exists was notably used prior to New Testament times by a Greek philosopher named Heraclitus around 500 BCE. He used the term to designate driving principle, or “logic”, behind all that happens in the world. No other New Testament writer uses this term in this way.
This philosophical way of writing sets the author of John’s Gospel off from the other Gospel writers who seek to be more down-to-earth “historical” rather than in any way philosophical. Scholars agree that John’s Gospel was initially written several decades after the writing of the other three New Testament Gospels. It differs from them in certain historical details as well as in its specific interest in more abstract theological issues rather than historical ones, as its first chapter clearly indicates.
In addition, while the other Gospels, except for Mark, offer lengthy accounts of Jesus’ teachings and travels, John not only differs from them in historical detail, but in some theological emphases as well. Mark is shorter and leaves out many historical details that both Matthew and Luke include. John’s content tends to be generally much more theological than the others. It is clear that whereas both Mathew and Luke parallel each other almost exactly, they both differ from Mark in being much more detailed, as well as in many specific details.
In addition, and quite significantly, although both Matthew and Luke contain material that is unique to each, they are almost identical in many other passages. In addition, both Matthew and Luke share almost exactly a good many passages that seem to have been taken directly from some other source altogether. Scholars have designated this source “Q” after the first letter of the German word for source, namely “Quelle.” In none of these passages in the Gospels other than John is the term “Logos” used.
It is both interesting and significant that since scholars agree that the Gospel of John was written several decades after the other Gospels it remains unclear whether or not it’s author had any knowledge of the “Q” source. There seems to be no indication that this was the case, so it seems that in a sense we have five Gospels rather just four. Moreover, the “Gospel of Q” not only seems to contain a select amount of material but it clearly seems to have been written and read by many early Christian leaders.
What is especially significant about this “Gospel of Q” is that it contains primarily stories of Jesus’ teachings and healings without many specifically theological passages, especially those that contain conflict with the Jewish religious leaders. It’s almost as if someone had lifted certain types of material out of both Matthew and Luke and packaged them together in a separate Gospel. These passages focus on Jesus’ teachings rather on his interactions with the religious leaders of the day. The “Sermon on the Mount”, for instance, makes up a large part of Q. The book The Lost Gospel of Q, edited by Marcus Borg, is a small and inexpensive one.
This is especially interesting in light of John’s opening passage about Jesus as the Logos of God. Indeed, the first eighteen verses of John’s Gospel read much differently from what immediately follows them. They read like a prologue set off on its own and being used as a kind of “Introduction” to the following Gospel narrative. Right in the middle of the first chapter John interposes the verses 14 through 18 as a way of connecting up the notion of the Eternal Logos with the historical Jesus: “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth.” Clearly the author of John’s Gospel here connected up the notion of the eternal Logos with the historical person of Jesus.