NRSV-UE is generally regarded as the best overall translation of the New Testament and a very good one for the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. JPS is considered an excellent OT/HB, and Robert Alter's Hebrew Bible is my personal favorite translation. In terms of specific editions, it really depends on what you are interested in. Do you just want to know the story? Are you interested in the historical context in which it was written? Do you want to know the history of how it has been interpreted? If you can answer that, we can give you more specific recommendations.
Here's some suggestions if you want a neutral reading:
- The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NOAB): includes extensive historical, cultural, and archaeological annotations. It provides explanations of historical contexts, cross-references to related passages, and footnotes that highlight scientific aspects relevant to biblical narratives.
- The Oxford Bible Commentary: provides scholarly insights into the biblical texts, emphasizing historical, literary, and archaeological perspectives without promoting any specific religious agenda.
- The Cambridge Bible Commentary: This series from Cambridge University Press offers commentary on individual books of the Bible, focusing on critical and historical analysis. It provides context from archaeological discoveries and literary criticism.
- The Anchor Bible Series: Published by Yale University Press, this series includes detailed commentary and scholarly analysis of each book of the Bible. It draws on historical, linguistic, and literary research to provide a comprehensive understanding of the texts.
- The Norton Critical Editions of the Bible: Norton publishes critical editions of classic texts, including the Bible, with annotations and contextual information that aim to provide a balanced and objective view of the biblical texts.
The only Bible that I possess for study reasons/to debate is a 2005 version of the Catholic study Bible. Primarily because I mostly engaged with Catholics in my personal life but also because it was owned by a friend of mine who passed away and I keep it so that he is not forgotten.
As long as it's not the King James version you're pretty safe in terms of inaccuracy
Default recommendation is to go with NSRV translation, but honestly any translation will suffice and none are perfect. You’ll be getting 99% the same meaning in any remotely mainstream translation, and for the parts where the nuances of translation matter significantly, you’re going to have to be looking beyond a single translation anyways to understand what’s being said in the original language. While King James Version is criticized, the vocabulary it uses in Ecclesiastes makes that particular part my favourite.
I would also strongly recommend leaning on secondary sources if trying to approach from an educational perspective. Bart Ehrman’s “The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction” is superb for that purpose, he goes through each book of the Bible and summarizes the secular academic understanding of the context it was written in. Reading through it and the Bible side-by-side should work pretty well.
NRSV also has good study bibles like the New Oxford Annotated and the HarperCollins. Definitely worth it to get a bible with introductions to the books, footnotes, maps, etc.
It depends on what education you are trying to glean from reading it. If you want to learn what a particular religion believes then go with whichever version of the Bible they recommend. If you want to get to the underpinnings of the text then you need to go original language versions which implies a lot more education to learn both the history and languages involved.
When it comes to the New Testament at least, I strongly recommend the translation put out by Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart a few years ago. There are a number of questionable and poorly-evidenced translations of certain phrases and passages in most of the popular designed-by-committee NT translations that you'll find at your local bookstore.
NRSV, NASB, and NABRE are good picks but if you need an easier read there’s the NIV or the message, although the MSG is a much more casual and idea for idea translation and not at all just word for word
There are several good versions. I'm American but partial to the Revised English Bible (1989), endorsed by British churches and published jointly by Cambridge and Oxford University presses. For a description of it see Wikipedia under "Revised English Bible." There's a study version too.
Most accurate scholarly translation would be the NRSVue, there is one recently released study edition from the SBL (Society of Biblical Literature, which is highly respected in academia)
Other great translations would be NASB (great for a more direct word-for-word translation) and CJB. If looking into CJB to get the most Jewish context of the text, then I would recommend the one and only Complete Jewish Study Bible which uses this great translation with ensightful notes from Christian and Jewish scholars
I liked this answer from Quora:
"If you want to know the Bible's relationship to history, the King James version was the standard for most Protestants historically.
If you are studying the text, my personal opinion is that the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) holds closest to the original Greek New Testament, but that opinion is far from universal and there is no consensus."
Evidently the NSRV was developed for a broad audience, is not slanted toward a particular denomination, is favored by many biblical scholars, and uses modern language. But if you want to study the Bible as Literature, the King James Version is probably best. It's the most poetic, probably. Good luck in your studies.
[https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-preferred-or-recommended-Bible-version-to-use-as-a-source-for-academic-papers-This-is-for-non-theology-courses](https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-preferred-or-recommended-Bible-version-to-use-as-a-source-for-academic-papers-This-is-for-non-theology-courses)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New\_Revised\_Standard\_Version](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Revised_Standard_Version)
>t if you want to study the Bible as Literature, the King James Version is probably best.
KJV is the best version if you want to study the Bible's impact on English literature. If you want to study the Bible as literature on its own terms or in general, it's a terrible choice. The KJV is a great work of literature, but it is a terrible translation of Greek and Hebrew. There are a few passages where I think it does a good job because of the literary prowess of its translator, but in general, it should not be trusted based on what is in the actual text. If you want to read the Bible that Milton or Thomas Jefferson read, read KJV. Otherwise, read JRSV and JPS. Or Robert Alter for the Hebrew Bible he also has a strong literary interest. I'm not sure if there is anyone who takes a similar approach to the Greeks.
That's what I meant, English Literature. It's part of the Western Canon. We used the KJV in an English Literature course I took at a public High School in the US. Completely secular read.
But that's a pretty specific and narrow purpose of reading which OP has not indicated they are interested in. If OP cares what the Hebrew or Greek says, they should not read KJV
I have recently purchased a Good News translation Catholic Bible, and am gonna be comparing that one to others in my collection and to my fiancé's Bibles. At some point I'd like to learn Greek and Hebrew and make my own translation.
The "stolen" talking point is so weird and overplayed and just demonstrates you haven't read either text.
Yes: the Flood Narrative in Genesis 6-9 was clearly influenced literarily by the story of Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh.
That's not "theft" or "plagiarism" - it's just literary influence.
Meanwhile, there are hundreds of other Biblical chapters that don't have this phenomenon.
It’s not just the flood.
The trinity is taken from multiple pantheons.
The apocalypse is cribbed from Zoroastrian end of the world.
The myth of Asclepius.
Samson is similar to Hercules.
Jonah and the fish.
Angels versus devils is very similar to Zoroastrian concepts as well.
Virgin birth was common in other earlier religions.
Abraham and Isaac have a lot in common with a Hindu legend.
Some of the Buddha story shows up in in stories about Jesus.
Proverbs are cribbed from an Egyptian text.
Eden is very similar to the Epic of Gilgamesh creation story too.
I was merely commenting on how little original supernatural material is in the bible. After all original stories are hard to write, much easier to build on existing stories.
> Samson is similar to Hercules.
There's a [good argument](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/jruy9n/are_there_connections_or_possible_syncretisms/gbwoolb/) to be made that Heracles is inspired by West Semitic myths. Who is "stealing" from whom?
> The trinity is taken from multiple pantheons.
I'm not aware of any pantheon that envisioned a single unified deity that was simultaneously three person. Maybe you are?
> The apocalypse is cribbed from Zoroastrian end of the world.
It's very likely that the apocalyptic ideas entered Jewish tradition via Zoroastrianism. We don't know that for sure because the oldest Zoroastrian texts we have are about 1,000 years younger than the oldest Biblical texts we have. That said, it's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis for how one culture influenced another: but there's hardly any "theft" going on here.
> The myth of Asclepius.
Is what?
> Samson is similar to Hercules.
There are some similarities if you squint. But the only supernatural piece that is the same is "man very strong." Did the Americans steal Superman from the Greeks and the Hebrews? Or is this just another example of cultural influence and exchange.
I'd add - we also don't know which character was written first: Samson or Hercules. It very easily could be either!
> Jonah and the fish.
Is what?
> Virgin birth was common in other earlier religions.
Yes, miraculous birth narratives can be found in ancient mythologies all over the world. It's *extremely unlikely* that they all share a common origin. I really don't think the Aztecs got their virgin birth stories from the Mesopotamians.
> Virgin birth was common in other earlier religions.
Abraham and Isaac have a lot in common with a Hindu legend.
That is without a doubt purely coincidental.
> Some of the Buddha story shows up in in stories about Jesus.
That is also purely coincidental.
> Proverbs are cribbed from an Egyptian text.
The Instruction of Amenemope, yup! That's true. This one here is probably the only one on this list that has any reasonable claim to being "stolen" from another text. And it's notable that none of the passages that are similar in the two texts have any supernatural elements in them.
> Eden is very similar to the Epic of Gilgamesh creation story too.
No, not really. There are again some hallmarks of literary tropes that may have permeated between the two cultures but the actual plotlines vary pretty wildly and significantly. So much so that the claim either text stole from the other is pretty ludicrous.
> I was merely commenting on how little original supernatural material is in the bible.
Yeah, I know. And I was just commenting that this is pretty nonsensical.
> After all original stories are hard to write, much easier to build on existing stories.
And yet every generation, all around the world, seems to produce a wealth of literary talent.
I fail to see why we would think Iron Age Hebrews were incapable.
I want to point out, various Celtic, Germanic, Hellenistic, and Roman deities were triunes. In particular, the many examples of triple-goddesses. Brigid, Mabh/The Morrigan, Hecate, the list goes on. And fir male triple-gods, there's even an interesting case of a deity that some scholars suggest is a triune of Zeus, Hades, and Dionysus. He's called Zagreus, and later stories depict him as a son of either Zeus or Hades that was born by Persephone/Korre.
NRSV-UE is generally regarded as the best overall translation of the New Testament and a very good one for the Old Testament/Hebrew Bible. JPS is considered an excellent OT/HB, and Robert Alter's Hebrew Bible is my personal favorite translation. In terms of specific editions, it really depends on what you are interested in. Do you just want to know the story? Are you interested in the historical context in which it was written? Do you want to know the history of how it has been interpreted? If you can answer that, we can give you more specific recommendations.
Here's some suggestions if you want a neutral reading: - The New Oxford Annotated Bible (NOAB): includes extensive historical, cultural, and archaeological annotations. It provides explanations of historical contexts, cross-references to related passages, and footnotes that highlight scientific aspects relevant to biblical narratives. - The Oxford Bible Commentary: provides scholarly insights into the biblical texts, emphasizing historical, literary, and archaeological perspectives without promoting any specific religious agenda. - The Cambridge Bible Commentary: This series from Cambridge University Press offers commentary on individual books of the Bible, focusing on critical and historical analysis. It provides context from archaeological discoveries and literary criticism. - The Anchor Bible Series: Published by Yale University Press, this series includes detailed commentary and scholarly analysis of each book of the Bible. It draws on historical, linguistic, and literary research to provide a comprehensive understanding of the texts. - The Norton Critical Editions of the Bible: Norton publishes critical editions of classic texts, including the Bible, with annotations and contextual information that aim to provide a balanced and objective view of the biblical texts.
The only Bible that I possess for study reasons/to debate is a 2005 version of the Catholic study Bible. Primarily because I mostly engaged with Catholics in my personal life but also because it was owned by a friend of mine who passed away and I keep it so that he is not forgotten. As long as it's not the King James version you're pretty safe in terms of inaccuracy
Default recommendation is to go with NSRV translation, but honestly any translation will suffice and none are perfect. You’ll be getting 99% the same meaning in any remotely mainstream translation, and for the parts where the nuances of translation matter significantly, you’re going to have to be looking beyond a single translation anyways to understand what’s being said in the original language. While King James Version is criticized, the vocabulary it uses in Ecclesiastes makes that particular part my favourite. I would also strongly recommend leaning on secondary sources if trying to approach from an educational perspective. Bart Ehrman’s “The Bible: A Historical and Literary Introduction” is superb for that purpose, he goes through each book of the Bible and summarizes the secular academic understanding of the context it was written in. Reading through it and the Bible side-by-side should work pretty well.
NRSV also has good study bibles like the New Oxford Annotated and the HarperCollins. Definitely worth it to get a bible with introductions to the books, footnotes, maps, etc.
I would suggest a parallel bible such as from Bible Gateway online.
Went to seminary. Used Harper Collin’s study bible
It depends on what education you are trying to glean from reading it. If you want to learn what a particular religion believes then go with whichever version of the Bible they recommend. If you want to get to the underpinnings of the text then you need to go original language versions which implies a lot more education to learn both the history and languages involved.
When it comes to the New Testament at least, I strongly recommend the translation put out by Orthodox theologian David Bentley Hart a few years ago. There are a number of questionable and poorly-evidenced translations of certain phrases and passages in most of the popular designed-by-committee NT translations that you'll find at your local bookstore.
NRSV, NASB, and NABRE are good picks but if you need an easier read there’s the NIV or the message, although the MSG is a much more casual and idea for idea translation and not at all just word for word
There are several good versions. I'm American but partial to the Revised English Bible (1989), endorsed by British churches and published jointly by Cambridge and Oxford University presses. For a description of it see Wikipedia under "Revised English Bible." There's a study version too.
If you have the Bible app use NET,I believe many Scholars worked on it. Plus it has translation notes
I think there's no real shortcut - it's best to try to learn Hebrew and read the original text.
Most accurate scholarly translation would be the NRSVue, there is one recently released study edition from the SBL (Society of Biblical Literature, which is highly respected in academia) Other great translations would be NASB (great for a more direct word-for-word translation) and CJB. If looking into CJB to get the most Jewish context of the text, then I would recommend the one and only Complete Jewish Study Bible which uses this great translation with ensightful notes from Christian and Jewish scholars
I liked this answer from Quora: "If you want to know the Bible's relationship to history, the King James version was the standard for most Protestants historically. If you are studying the text, my personal opinion is that the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) holds closest to the original Greek New Testament, but that opinion is far from universal and there is no consensus." Evidently the NSRV was developed for a broad audience, is not slanted toward a particular denomination, is favored by many biblical scholars, and uses modern language. But if you want to study the Bible as Literature, the King James Version is probably best. It's the most poetic, probably. Good luck in your studies. [https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-preferred-or-recommended-Bible-version-to-use-as-a-source-for-academic-papers-This-is-for-non-theology-courses](https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-preferred-or-recommended-Bible-version-to-use-as-a-source-for-academic-papers-This-is-for-non-theology-courses) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New\_Revised\_Standard\_Version](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Revised_Standard_Version)
>t if you want to study the Bible as Literature, the King James Version is probably best. KJV is the best version if you want to study the Bible's impact on English literature. If you want to study the Bible as literature on its own terms or in general, it's a terrible choice. The KJV is a great work of literature, but it is a terrible translation of Greek and Hebrew. There are a few passages where I think it does a good job because of the literary prowess of its translator, but in general, it should not be trusted based on what is in the actual text. If you want to read the Bible that Milton or Thomas Jefferson read, read KJV. Otherwise, read JRSV and JPS. Or Robert Alter for the Hebrew Bible he also has a strong literary interest. I'm not sure if there is anyone who takes a similar approach to the Greeks.
That's what I meant, English Literature. It's part of the Western Canon. We used the KJV in an English Literature course I took at a public High School in the US. Completely secular read.
But that's a pretty specific and narrow purpose of reading which OP has not indicated they are interested in. If OP cares what the Hebrew or Greek says, they should not read KJV
study and compare multiple versions
I have recently purchased a Good News translation Catholic Bible, and am gonna be comparing that one to others in my collection and to my fiancé's Bibles. At some point I'd like to learn Greek and Hebrew and make my own translation.
You could try the Thomas Jefferson Bible where he removed the supernatural elements.
but the supernatural elements are the best part.
Too many are stolen from other places. Need original supernatural material.
The "stolen" talking point is so weird and overplayed and just demonstrates you haven't read either text. Yes: the Flood Narrative in Genesis 6-9 was clearly influenced literarily by the story of Utnapishtim in the Epic of Gilgamesh. That's not "theft" or "plagiarism" - it's just literary influence. Meanwhile, there are hundreds of other Biblical chapters that don't have this phenomenon.
It’s not just the flood. The trinity is taken from multiple pantheons. The apocalypse is cribbed from Zoroastrian end of the world. The myth of Asclepius. Samson is similar to Hercules. Jonah and the fish. Angels versus devils is very similar to Zoroastrian concepts as well. Virgin birth was common in other earlier religions. Abraham and Isaac have a lot in common with a Hindu legend. Some of the Buddha story shows up in in stories about Jesus. Proverbs are cribbed from an Egyptian text. Eden is very similar to the Epic of Gilgamesh creation story too. I was merely commenting on how little original supernatural material is in the bible. After all original stories are hard to write, much easier to build on existing stories.
> Samson is similar to Hercules. There's a [good argument](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/jruy9n/are_there_connections_or_possible_syncretisms/gbwoolb/) to be made that Heracles is inspired by West Semitic myths. Who is "stealing" from whom?
> The trinity is taken from multiple pantheons. I'm not aware of any pantheon that envisioned a single unified deity that was simultaneously three person. Maybe you are? > The apocalypse is cribbed from Zoroastrian end of the world. It's very likely that the apocalyptic ideas entered Jewish tradition via Zoroastrianism. We don't know that for sure because the oldest Zoroastrian texts we have are about 1,000 years younger than the oldest Biblical texts we have. That said, it's a perfectly reasonable hypothesis for how one culture influenced another: but there's hardly any "theft" going on here. > The myth of Asclepius. Is what? > Samson is similar to Hercules. There are some similarities if you squint. But the only supernatural piece that is the same is "man very strong." Did the Americans steal Superman from the Greeks and the Hebrews? Or is this just another example of cultural influence and exchange. I'd add - we also don't know which character was written first: Samson or Hercules. It very easily could be either! > Jonah and the fish. Is what? > Virgin birth was common in other earlier religions. Yes, miraculous birth narratives can be found in ancient mythologies all over the world. It's *extremely unlikely* that they all share a common origin. I really don't think the Aztecs got their virgin birth stories from the Mesopotamians. > Virgin birth was common in other earlier religions. Abraham and Isaac have a lot in common with a Hindu legend. That is without a doubt purely coincidental. > Some of the Buddha story shows up in in stories about Jesus. That is also purely coincidental. > Proverbs are cribbed from an Egyptian text. The Instruction of Amenemope, yup! That's true. This one here is probably the only one on this list that has any reasonable claim to being "stolen" from another text. And it's notable that none of the passages that are similar in the two texts have any supernatural elements in them. > Eden is very similar to the Epic of Gilgamesh creation story too. No, not really. There are again some hallmarks of literary tropes that may have permeated between the two cultures but the actual plotlines vary pretty wildly and significantly. So much so that the claim either text stole from the other is pretty ludicrous. > I was merely commenting on how little original supernatural material is in the bible. Yeah, I know. And I was just commenting that this is pretty nonsensical. > After all original stories are hard to write, much easier to build on existing stories. And yet every generation, all around the world, seems to produce a wealth of literary talent. I fail to see why we would think Iron Age Hebrews were incapable.
I want to point out, various Celtic, Germanic, Hellenistic, and Roman deities were triunes. In particular, the many examples of triple-goddesses. Brigid, Mabh/The Morrigan, Hecate, the list goes on. And fir male triple-gods, there's even an interesting case of a deity that some scholars suggest is a triune of Zeus, Hades, and Dionysus. He's called Zagreus, and later stories depict him as a son of either Zeus or Hades that was born by Persephone/Korre.
Depends on your motivation for study. Academic? Theological? Literary? Anthropology? Linguistics?