Why do Bible translations differ?

The same verse reads differently in different Bibles for five separable reasons — and none of them is that somebody is hiding something. What is actually going on, set out without taking sides.

Put two Bibles side by side at the same verse and the differences arrive in a range of sizes. Sometimes it is a synonym. Sometimes a sentence has been reorganised. Occasionally a whole verse is present in one and footnoted in the other, and that is the one that alarms people.

The alarm is understandable and mostly misplaced. There are five distinct reasons two translations disagree, they operate independently, and every one of them is discussed openly in the prefaces and footnotes of the Bibles themselves. Being able to tell which reason is in play at a given verse is a genuinely useful skill, and it takes about an hour to learn.

Reason one: they are translating different source texts

No original manuscript of any biblical book survives. What survives is copies — thousands of them for the New Testament, in Greek and in early translations, ranging from scraps of a few verses to complete codices, and disagreeing with each other in countless small ways and a few large ones. Producing a Greek text to translate from means deciding, verse by verse, which reading is most likely to be what was written. That discipline is called textual criticism, and translations differ because their editors made different decisions in it.

The New Testament: the Textus Receptus and the critical editions

The King James translators worked from the printed Greek text that had descended from Erasmus’s editions of the 1510s and 1520s, later nicknamed the Textus Receptus. It was assembled from the manuscripts available in western Europe at the time, most of them relatively late medieval copies of the Byzantine tradition.

From the nineteenth century onwards, editors had access to much older manuscripts — fourth-century codices, and later papyri older still — and built critical editions that weigh those witnesses heavily. Where the older manuscripts lack material the later ones contain, modern translations generally move it to a footnote. The ending of Mark, the passage about the woman taken in adultery in John, Acts 8:37 and the trinitarian wording in 1 John 5:7 are the standard cases.

It is worth being even-handed here, because this is a live scholarly argument rather than a settled one. The majority position favours the critical editions on the reasoning that older witnesses are closer to the source and that scribes were more likely to add clarifying material than to delete it. A minority defends the Byzantine tradition or the Textus Receptus, arguing that the sheer number of agreeing later manuscripts represents a continuous tradition of use, and that age alone does not establish quality. Both positions are published, argued in detail, and held by people who read the manuscripts. What is not in dispute is what the manuscripts say — the evidence is printed in the apparatus of every critical edition for anyone to check.

The Old Testament: the Masoretic Text, the Scrolls and the Septuagint

The standard Hebrew text is the Masoretic Text, transmitted with extraordinary care by Jewish scribes and fixed in the form we have by the early medieval period. Nearly every Old Testament translation uses it as its base.

Two other witnesses complicate the picture usefully. The Dead Sea Scrolls, found from 1947 onwards, gave scholars Hebrew manuscripts roughly a thousand years older than the oldest complete Masoretic copies. The broad result was reassuring — the text had been transmitted remarkably faithfully — but the scrolls also preserve variant readings, and some translations adopt one where the Masoretic reading is difficult. And the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures made from the third century BC onwards, sometimes reflects a Hebrew text that differed from the Masoretic one, most visibly in Jeremiah, which is substantially shorter in Greek. Where a translation departs from the Masoretic Text it normally says so in a footnote naming the witness it followed.

Reason two: formal versus dynamic equivalence

Given an identical source text, translators still have to choose how tightly to follow its words. The two poles are usually called formal equivalence — reproduce the words and structures of the original as far as the receiving language allows — and dynamic or functional equivalence — reproduce the effect on the reader, restructuring sentences where necessary.

Neither is the honest option and the other the loose one. A formal translation preserves the ambiguity of the original, which is a real virtue, and hands you Hebrew idioms rendered word for word that mean nothing in English. A dynamic translation gives you a sentence you understand at first reading, at the price that some of the interpretation has been done for you before you saw it. Every translation sits somewhere on the line, and no translation escapes it, because the languages do not map onto each other.

A concrete case: Hebrew often says a person’s "bowels" or "kidneys" where an English speaker would say heart or conscience, since Hebrew located feeling in different organs. Render it literally and modern readers laugh; render it as "heart" and you have quietly translated a physiology as well as a word.

Reason three: the words themselves are ambiguous

Some differences are not method at all. They are a genuinely undecided question about what a word meant.

• Hebrew words that occur only once in the Bible — hapax legomena — have to be guessed from context, from cognate languages, and from how ancient translators understood them. Several appear in the list of unclean animals and in Job.
• The Greek word in the Lord’s Prayer usually rendered "daily bread" is almost unattested outside it, and its meaning has been argued over since antiquity.
• Hebrew was written without vowels for most of its history, so a sequence of consonants can often be read as more than one word. The Masoretes recorded one reading; translators occasionally prefer another.
• Hebrew verb forms do not map onto English tenses. Deciding whether a prophet is describing what will happen or what has already happened is frequently a judgement call.
• The Greek genitive can express several relations at once — "the faith of Christ" may mean faith in him or his own faithfulness, and that particular ambiguity carries real theological weight.

When two translations differ at such a point, neither is wrong. The English is being asked to be more definite than the Hebrew or Greek was.

Reason four: punctuation, paragraphs and quotation marks

The original manuscripts had none of these. Greek was written continuously, often without spaces between words, and certainly without commas, full stops or quotation marks. Every punctuation mark in your Bible is an editorial decision.

Most of the time this is invisible. Occasionally it decides the meaning. In Luke 23:43 the King James Version reads "Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise" — but move the comma one word later and the sentence says something noticeably different about when. The Greek does not settle it, and a few translations punctuate it the other way.

Quotation marks raise the same problem at greater length. Where a speech in the gospel of John ends, and the narrator’s comment begins, is not marked in the Greek at all. Different modern editions close the quotation in different places, and paragraph breaks similarly group an argument in ways the reader absorbs without noticing that a choice was made.

Reason five: the translator’s frame

Translators are people with training, a tradition and a set of expectations, and at ambiguous points those things influence which of several defensible renderings sounds right. This happens whether or not anyone intends it, which is precisely why translation committees are usually assembled from several denominations and why their work is reviewed at length.

The place it shows most is in words with a long theological history — how to render the term behind "atonement" or "propitiation", whether an Old Testament passage is translated in a way that anticipates its New Testament use, how gendered language in the source is handled where the original may be generic. These are the differences that get argued about publicly, and reasonable translators reach different answers.

It is worth resisting the two easy conclusions. Committee translations are not neutral machines; nor are the differences between mainstream translations evidence of anyone tampering. The prefaces state the principles, the footnotes flag the alternatives, and the source texts are printed and available for anyone who wants to check the work.

What to do with all this as a reader

1. When a verse reads differently in two Bibles, look at the footnotes first. They usually name the reason — a manuscript variant, an alternative rendering, a departure from the Masoretic Text.
2. Read the preface of your Bible once. Every translation states its source text and its philosophy in the first few pages, and almost nobody reads them.
3. For close study, keep a more literal translation beside a more readable one. The places where they diverge mark the places where the underlying text is doing something difficult.
4. Do not build an argument on a single English word without checking how another translation renders it.
5. Treat a missing verse number as a footnote to read, not as something removed.

Comparing translations in this app

Verses carries two translations from different centuries and different languages: the King James Version of 1611, made from the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus, and the Chinese Union Version of 1919, in simplified and traditional characters. Both are public domain. There is no modern English translation in it, so it will not show you a KJV reading against an ESV or NIV one.

What it does support is the cross-language comparison, and it does it without friction. Each verse is stored as a single record holding all three texts side by side, so the scripture language is one setting and switching it keeps your place exactly — the same verse, in the other text, on the same screen. For a reader with both English and Chinese, that is a quick way to see where a translation made three hundred years apart, from a different source text and into a very different language, arrived somewhere different.

The limits are worth stating. There is no parallel view showing two translations at once, and there is no Hebrew or Greek text in the app, so it will not settle a question about the underlying words. For textual questions you need an apparatus and a lexicon, which is a different kind of tool than this one.

Frequently asked questions

Related guides

• Which Bible translations are in the public domain
• What languages was the Bible written in

All guides