For Christmas of 2004 my wife asked what I would like as a gift. The only thing I really wanted was a replacement for my Greek New Testament, published by the United Bible Societies. The copy I have now was partially chewed up by the family dog back in 1993; The front over is gone, the introductory pages are all torn, and, of greatest concern to me, chapters one through eleven and chapter sixteen of Matthew are incomplete. (I let the dog live.)
The local Bible bookstore did not stock this book, and so the wife decided to get me a gift certificate, and let me pick something out on my own. I settled on the Interlinear KJV-NIV Parallel New Testament in Greek and English. On the left page of every pair of facing pages, the left column contains the King James version (KJV) of the text, the right column contains the New International Version (NIV), and the right page contains the Nestle edition of the Greek, interlineated with the English equivalent (translated by Alfred Marshall). I could have placed an order through the store for something else, but being interested in instant gratification, I decided to take what was there. Another family dog has since chewed some of the spine of this book, too, but the pages are intact. (I also have a copy of Zondervan's interlinear of the entire Bible, and its cover was chewed by yet another family dog. I swear I am not making this up.)
Like many people who are familiar with both the KJV and the NIV, I was struck by the many passages which are rendered differently in the two versions. Being presented with such an excellent reference, I decided to make a verse-by-verse comparison of the two versions; where there was a significant difference in meaning, I had easy recourse to the original, and could see which was more faithful to the original.
By the time I was finished with the first chapter of Matthew, I had a fairly clear idea of the strengths and weaknesses of each version:
The KJV does contain a number of archaisms, and the most well-known of these—the second person singular forms—are an obstacle to some readers. While it does take getting used to, these forms do at times allow a greater precision than does modern English, which has no number in the second person (although the Southern American y'all, and similar constructions in other regions, do a fairly good job of addressing this difficulty). There are several passages where the number of the second person plays a vital role in properly understanding the text.
Less obvious, but at times more obstructive to a proper understanding of the text, are the changes of meaning that have taken place in the English language since the time of the KJV's development. For instance, prince did not originally connote a necessary blood descent from a reigning monarch, but since that time it has acquired that meaning (mainly due to the plethora of fairy tales in which the prince is the son of a king).
The trouble with the NIV is its greater tendency to paraphrase, and where the paraphrasing has led to insertions that have no direct basis in the original languages, the NIV, as often as not, gives no indication that this has taken place, whereas the KJV at least puts the additions in italicized text so that the reader can decide for himself what the better meaning is. The NIV's paraphrasings (and other departures from the literal meaning of the original) are the primary cause of the criticism the version has received, although it must be pointed out that many of the NIV's paraphrasings occur in passages which the KJV renders with a paraphrasing of its own, albeit a different one; it is hard to get through a single chapter of the New Testament without finding at least one passage which both the KJV and NIV needlessly paraphrase.
The case for paraphrasing is greatly weakened by the view, which this writer holds, that there is no substitute for first-hand knowledge of Scripture. The man who throws all trust on another for his Biblical knowledge is gambling with his eternal fate. The translator should tell us what the original writer wrote, and not what he thinks the original writer meant by what he wrote. It is better to read an idiom directly translated, and have knowledge of what that idiom means, than to be in the dark about the original. There is also the prospect of secondary translation, where a work is translated from its original into another language, and from that second into a third, the second translator having no access to the original. At times the Scriptures have been subject to a secondary translation (when someone having no access to the original languages undertakes to make a translation for a newly-evangelized people), and when this happens the intermediate source needs to be as faithful to the original as possible.
Further complicating the situation is the sectarian bias that tinctures verses here and there. While there is no pervasive bias, from time to time there is a phrasing that serves a doctrine not served by a more faithful rendering of the original. This is nowhere more apparent than in the rendering of the Greek verb baptizw; in both versions it is rendered as baptize. Although it is taught in some places that in the KJV this was a transliteration intended to blur the specific mode of baptism (the original means "dip" or "immerse"), the word baptize had been in the English language for over three centuries prior to the publication of the KJV, and at the time of the KJV it meant immersion and only immersion. But words change in meaning over time, and while the word immerse means what it always has, the word baptise has become generalized in meaning, and now stands for any religious application of water, just as virtually every denomination has departed from the baptismal practices of the First Century.
The KJV is favored by many for the greater beauty of its language. In part this is because what was originally the common language of the people in the early seventeenth century has now become a language that English-speaking people hear and read only in association with the Christian faith. As a result, the language of King James "sounds holy" to English-speaking ears. The other part of the beauty is its greater reliance on that portion of the English vocabulary that comes from the Anglo-Saxon; the use of Graeco-Latin derivations in science, technology and commerce has caused loan words from Greek and Latin to have a clinical dryness to English-speaking people. A final contribution to the KJV's greater beauty is its greater tendency to use a specific concrete term instead of a generic, more abstract term, such as bread instead of food; the former practice gives the reader a sensory picture that is more esthetically pleasing.
There are certain phrases which pop up so commonly and which are rendered consistently by each version, although not necessarily consistent with each other. I have listed them here, and reference will be made in the main body of the comparison as need be:
Where any one of these common phrases appears, reference to this section will be made.
One area in which both the KJV and the NIV frequently depart from the original language is in the rendering of Greek participles. Generally, if the subject is doing two related actions at once, one being done in the process of doing the other, the Greek habit is to put the subordinate action into a participial form, whereas the habit in English is to use a verb for both actions. In some cases rendering the original as an English participle would result in a very awkward phrasing, and at other times it wouldn't. A large portion of the non-literal renderings consist of rendering Greek participles as English verbs, and except where the meaning is substantially changed, I won't mention them.
The KJV and the NIV do not draw from the same original manuscripts. Discerning which manuscript should have been used is beyond the scope of this work. I have a copy of the Nestle Text (it is part of the KJV-NIV parallel), and the Received Text in my hundgefressen copy of Zondervan's Interlinear. These two differ in many particulars, and where that difference is reflected in a difference between the KJV and the NIV, I have attributed it to the source variance.
This is a work in progress. Although I did start with the beginning of Matthew and worked my way forward to the end of Matthew 6, I have since been going over the verses that are most frequently quoted by the pulpit minister at my congregation. If you look at the HTML source for this page, you will find a long list of META tags near the end, which contain the references for passages I intend to go over as time permits; they are simply a list of NT passages quoted during pulpit lessons at the church I attend.
Please don't attempt to enlist me into the KJV Uber Alles corps. I do prefer the KJV to the NIV, but I even more greatly prefer to resort to the original Greek.
The difference here is between book (KJV) and record (NIV). The original Greek here is biblioV which is literally a scroll; however, since scrolls back then served the same purpose as books do nowadays, the KJV's rendering is not substantively different; both biblioV and book refer to the physical form of a written work. The NIV, on the other hand, refers to the purpose of the written work.
The KJV adheres more closely to the original, and unlike in verse one, the difference here is significant. The original verb egennhsen is rendered as begat in the KJV and was the father of in the NIV. This is no small difference. The KJV rendering, as does the original, declares not only that David is the father of Solomon, but that he is Solomon's biological father as well. This emphasis is lost in the NIV.
This is important because this helps explain the differences between the lines of descent recorded here and in Luke. While it is commonly inferred that Luke gives the lineage of Jesus' earthly mother, the original does not necessitate this; it can also be argued that Luke does not specify biological descent, but legal descent (through Levirate marriage).
In verses three and five the NIV resorts to another paraphrase in order to mention the mothers of some of the men in the line of descent. The KJV renders in a manner more faithful to the original, in saying that the son in question was begotten on such-and-such a woman, whereas the NIV states that the woman "was the mother of" the person in the line. Again, the KJV emphasizes the biological relationship, whereas this precision is lost in the NIV.
It is appropriate here to emphasize that Bathsheba was Uriah's lawful wife, because David had not acquired her by lawful means. The best rendering would have been on her who was Uriah's. The NIV again brings in "whose mother was Uriah's wife," which commits the imprecision of meaning discussed above.
The original uses a Greek idiom to represent pregnancy (en gastri ecw, literally, "to have in stomach"), and the KJV uses a different idiom. The NIV uses a direct term.
The rendering of dikaioV as a just man (KJV) or a righteous man (NIV) inserts man without any particular need. While it is true that an adjective in the masculine can stand for a man having that attribute, this could have been rendered as righteous without taking away any meaning. In the same way, deigmatisai could have been rendered as shame or disgrace instead of the extensive paraphrasings used in both versions.
The original does not require the insertion of after (NIV) in the text. Neither does the Greek verb paralabein require that the thing taken be taken home; hence the NIV's insertion of home is not warranted by the original.
The note on verse 18 applies here, except that the NIV, instead of using the same direct term as it does in verse 18, uses the same phrasing as does the KJV.
The comment for verse 20 applies here as well.
Here an idiom referring to sexual relations in the original is translated literally in the KJV, but is rendered with a somewhat less indirect idiom in the NIV. The inclusion of firstborn in the KJV, and its absence from the NIV, is due to a difference between the manuscripts on which the different versions are based.
"[H]e called his name JESUS" (KJV) is a literal rendering of the original, whereas the NIV is a rephrasing.
The term magi in the original is rendered as wise men in the KJV and is transliterated Magi in the NIV with a footnote referring to the traditional rendering. The original term is the same that is used to denote Elymas' profession in verses six and eight of Acts 13.
The KJV rendering saying is literal, whereas the NIV rendering asking is a contextual reinterpretation.
The NIV has a footnote for Christ, giving Messiah as an alternate rendering. The original is cristoV, and there does not appear to be any original support for the footnote.
The note on the instrumental dia applies here. Additionally, the NIV rendering of this into the active voice is not appropriate for prophecies.
The same root is rendered as princes and Governor in the KJV, which words have modern connotations that are not inherent in the original; the NIV rendering of ruler is more precise. Furthermore, poimanei is rendered as rule in the KJV, whereas the NIV rendering of shepherd is more faithful to the original.
The original exetasate akriboV (lit. "question carefully") is rendered as "search diligently" in the KJV and "make a careful search" in the NIV. epan de eurhte is rendered as "and when ye have found him" in the KJV, which aside from adding the object, is a literal rendering; the NIV's "[a]s soon as you find him" is less literal. apaggeilate moi is rendered as "bring me word again" in the KJV, and by a more literal "report to me" in the NIV.
The NIV inserts the place when stating where the star stopped.
The KJV rendering "they rejoiced with exceeding great joy" is literal, while the NIV rendering is a blander rephrasing.
The original says that the Magi came "into" the house (orig. eiV), and not merely "to" the house as the NIV renders it.
The KJV inserts an unnecessary "own."
The NIV's rendering "until I tell you" is literal, whereas the KJV's rendering "until I bring thee word" is a rephrasing.
The Greek verb rendered as "mocked" in the KJV and "outwitted" in the NIV usually means the former, but can have the latter meaning as well. "[G]ave orders to kill" (NIV) is more literal than "sent forth, and slew" (KJV).
"[B]ecause they are not" (KJV) is literal, while "because they are no more" (NIV) is a rephrasing.
"[I]n the room of his father" (KJV) is a less literal rendering of the original (probably due to a shift in the meaning of room), whereas "in place of his father" (NIV) is literal.
The note on erhmoV applies here.
The original hggiken is rendered is at hand (KJV) and is near (NIV), when has come near would be a much better rendering.
The note on the instrumental dia applies here.
"[M]ake his paths straight" (KJV) is a more faithful rendering than "make straight paths for him."The note on "meat" vs. "food" applies here.
The KJV's "[t]hen went out to him all Jerusalem" is a direct rendering. The NIV rendering is less figurative, but surely this is a figure of speech that the reader can understand. Furthermore, the KJV rendering implies, as does the original, that John's work was attended by the bulk of the population from the three regions named, whereas the NIV rendering only affirms that his support was spread out all over the three regions.
Offspring is a more literal rendering of the original gennhmata than either generation (KJV) or brood (NIV). [T]he wrath to come (KJV) is a slight rephrasing of the original, whereas the coming wrath (NIV) is literal.
The original axion ths metanoiaV ("worthy of repentence") is rendered by the archaic, but accurate meet for repentance in the KJV, but by the less literal and wordier in keeping with repentance in the NIV.
The NIV rendering inserts can without particular need.
The Greek preposition en is consistently translated as with in both versions, although the NIV does contain a footnote stating that in, which is the usual meaning of the original preposition, is an acceptable alternative.
The NIV's for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness brings in a needlessly complex verb construction; for us to fulfill all righteousness this way is tighter. Then he suffered him (KJV) is an archaic but direct rendering of the original, whereas [t]hen John consented is a paraphrase.
The KJV's [t]his is my beloved Son is a more literal rendering than the NIV's [t]his is my Son, whom I love.
The note on the Greek verb piptw applies here.
[C]ast into prison and put in prison are paraphrases of the original paredoqh; arrested would have been a better rendering.
The note on the instrumental dia applies here.
Both versions insert an unnecessary their, when a literal the would have served perfectly well.
The KJV's repetition of all reflects the wording of the original.
The NIV's news, a more neutral term, is a more faithful rendering of akoh than the KJV's fame, which has a positive sound to modern ears.
The original selhniazomenouV (literally "moon-struck") is rendered as lunatic in the KJV and as having seizures in the KJV.
The original suggests that the disciples came to Jesus when He sat, or while He sat. This is somewhat emphasized in the KJV and not emphasized at all in the NIV.
The original makarioV, which means "fortunate," is rendered as blessed in both versions. Blessed has different senses in modern English, and in this case the meaning aligned with the original is of course the best interpretation. The other differences in wording reflect the changes in language.
The original agalliasqh, which is in the middle voice, is rendered as be exceeding glad in the KJV and as be glad in the NIV; the former rendering is closer to the meaning of the original.
The original mwranqe, which literally means "to become foolish," is rendered as have lost his savour (KJV) and loses its saltiness (NIV); "becomes weak" would have been a better rendering.
The KJV's set on a hill is more literal than the NIV's on a hill.
The original lucnoV is rendered by candle in the KJV and lamp in the NIV; the latter is the meaning of the original, and the word translated as candlestand in the KJV really means lampstand as well.
The original modioV represents a measuring bowl of about eight dry quarts; it can be either a basket or a bowl, so both renderings are equally precise.
The original doxaswsin is rendered glorify (KJV) and as praise (NIV); the former rendering is more precise.
The original katalusai is rendered destroy in the KJV and abolish in the NIV; the former is more precise. Additionally, the NIV needlessly inserts them as the objects of to abolish and to fulfill.
The original ewV an panta genhtai is rendered until all be fulfilled (KJV) and until everything is accomplished (NIV); until all has happened is the most literal rendering.
The original toiV arcaioiV is rendered by them of old time (KJV) and to the people long ago (NIV); to the ancients is simple enough and comes nearest to the original.
The note on the variant renderings of foneuw applies here.
The phrase without a cause is absent from the NIV because the latter is based on manuscripts for which the original term eikh is absent.
The KJV's in danger of and the NIV's subject to/answerable to are both to be understood in the same sense.[B]ring (KJV) and offering (NIV) are renderings of the original prosferhs, which literally means "bring to," although "offer" is an acceptable alternate interpretation.
[W]ho is taking you to court (NIV) is an insertion meant to be explanatory of the preceding adversary.
The comment on amhn legw applies here.
Additionally, the original uses a double negative for emphasis, which is rendered as by no means in the KJV, but which is not made in the NIV.
[B]y them of old time (KJV) has no basis in the original.
The note on skandalizw applies here.
The original en twn melwn sou is rendered more closely as one of thy members in the KJV and one part of your body in the NIV.
The original underlying hell in both versions is geenna.
The note on apolusai applies here.
The note on apolusai applies here.
The original parektos logou porneiaV is rendered as saving for the cause of fornication in the KJV and as except for marital unfaithfulness in the NIV. The KJV rendering directly represents the original meaning; the NIV rendering blurs the fact that sexual relations prior to the marriage were also grounds for divorce, and raises the potential for people wanting out of a marriage to claim that an act not falling within the definition of fornication (such as flirting) also constitutes marital unfaithfulness, and therefore also meets Jesus' terms here.
[F]orswear (KJV) is an old word which means "to break an oath."
The KJV rendering but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths reflects the word order in the original; the NIV ordering of but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord. The KJV rendering reflects a higher standard of behavior, because it holds the listener to all oaths, not just those made to the Lord. [P]erform and keep are the respective renderings of apodwseiV, which literally means "repay".
The phrase rendered his footstool in both versions literally means "his feet's footstool."
The original opoV yenhsqe uioi tou patroV umwn tou en ouranoiV (literally, "that you may become sons of your father in heaven") is rendered [t]hat ye may be children of your father in heaven (KJV) and that you may be sons of your father in heaven (NIV); the distinction of becoming something is lost in both versions.
The note on telwnhV applies here.
The note on teleioV applies here.
The original term dikaiosunhV is rendered as alms in the KJV, but the term means "righteousness," which in this context means an act of righteousness. Consequently the NIV rendering (although it needlessly puts the phrase in quotes) is more faithful to the original.
The original phrase ei de mh ge (lit: "if you do not") is rendered otherwisein the KJV and as if you do in the NIV, the latter of which is misinterpretable.
[S]ound a trumpet (KJV) is literal, but announce it with trumpets (NIV) is an elaboration of this.
[T]hat they may have glory of men (KJV) and to be honored by men (NIV) are renderings of opwV doxasqwsin upo twn anqrwpwn (lit., "so that they may be glorified by men").
They have their reward (KJV) and they have received their reward in full (NIV) are both renderings of apecousin ton misqon autwn, lit., "they are fully receiving their reward."
[O]penly (KJV), and its absence in the NIV, are the result of a difference in the source texts.
The third note on verse 2 applies here.
The note on verse 4 applies here as well.
[U]se not vain repetitions (KJV) and do not keep on babbling (NIV) are from the original mh battaloghshte, which literally means "do not repeat meaninglessly."
[M]any words (NIV) is a literal rendering of the original polulogia while the KJV rendering is not quite literal.
[T]hey shall/will be heard (both versions) is from the original eisakousqhsontai; they shall/will be listened to would have been more precise.
The original outwV oun proseucesqe umeiV (lit. "therefore, you pray this way") is a direct command, and is rendered as such in the KJV; the NIV rendering is merely suggestive.
If I were working on a simplified English version, I'd use rescue instead of deliver to render rusai.
[F]rom evil (KJV) and from the evil one (NIV) are equally plausible renderings of the original apo tou ponhrou (lit., "away from the evil"). This is one of those cases where it is best to meditate on both possible meanings...
The KJV's inclusion of for thine is the kingdom and the power, and the glory, forever, Amen and its absence in the NIV reflect a difference in the source texts.
[F]orgive men their trespasses (KJV) is a literal rendering of afhte toiV anqrwpoiV ta paraptwmata autwn, but the NIV's forgive men when they sin against you is a paraphrase.
[T]heir trespasses (KJV), and its absence in the NIV, reflect a difference in the source texts.
The note on upocrithV applies here.
[S]ad (KJV) and somber (NIV) are renderings of skuqrwpoV (lit., "gloomy").
The third note from verse 2 applies here.
The original phrase opwV mh fanhV toiV anqrwpoiV nhsteuwn (lit., "that you not appear fasting to men") is rendered by the essentially literal that thou appear not unto men to fast in the KJV and by the rather approximate so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting in the NIV.
[O]penly (KJV), and its absence in the NIV, reflect a difference in the source texts.
[C]orrupt (KJV) and destroy (NIV) are renderings of the original afanizw (lit. "to deface").
[S]ingle (KJV) is a literal rendering of the original aplouV, but in this context the term may mean honest (i.e., single-minded instead of double-minded). It is put in contrast with ponhroV in the next verse, so the NIV's rendering of good is acceptable.
The original skoteinon is translated "full of darkness" (both versions), but the more literal "dark" is sufficient.
The note on merimnw applies here.
The original ouc umeiV mallon diaferete autwn (lit. "don't you excel more than they") is rendered are ye not much better than they (KJV) and are you not much more valuable than they (NIV).
The note on merimnw applies here.
[A]dd one cubit unto his stature (KJV) is a literal rendering of the original prosqeinai epi thn hlikian autou phcun ena, whereas the NIV rendering add a single hour to his life has no basis in either the Nestle Text or the Received Text; however, the NIV does list the meaning of the KJV as an alternate reading.
The note on merimnw applies here.
The original ton corton tou argou shmeron onta kai aurion eiV klibanon ballomenon (lit., " the grass of the field, being today, and tomorrow into the oven is thrown"), is rendered as the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven (KJV) and as the grass of the field, which is here today and tomorrow is thrown into the fire (NIV).
The note on merimnw applies here.
The original prosteqhsetai is literally translated as will be added in the KJV, and by the contextual interpretation of will be given in the NIV.
The note on merimnw applies here.
The original kakia is rendered literally as evil in the KJV and as trouble in the NIV.
For with what judgement ye judge (KJV) and for in the same way you judge others (NIV) are differing renderings of the original en w gar krimati krinete; the KJV rendering is closer to the original.
[O]thers (NIV) is an insertion.
[A]gain (KJV) is an insertion.
The NIV inserts only in the text here, but it doesn't change the meaning.
Again (KJV), and its absence in the NIV, is based on a difference in the source texts.
The original kaqarizwn panta ta brwmata is rendered by the archaic (but, for the times, accurate) purging all meats in the KJV, but by the extensive paraphrase of In saying this, Jesus declared all foods "clean" in the NIV. While the rendering declaring all foods clean is an acceptable rendering of the original, the NIV's verbiage attributing this to Jesus has no necessary support in the original. Furthermore, this participial phrase is located where the KJV's rendering would make the better sense (at the very end of the verse), whereas to support the NIV rendering, the phrase needs to be in the previous verse.
The NIV rendering is probably driven by the perceived need to state that Christians are not subject to the dietary laws of the Mosaic covenant, but, for a couple of reasons, this is not the place to make that point.
First, the freedom of Christians from the Law of Moses is too clearly stated in the rest of the New Testament for it to require that such an indirect statement here be rendered as fully supportive.
Second, at the time Jesus spoke, the people to whom Jesus was speaking were still subject to the law of Moses, and would remain subject until Pentecost day; consequently, it would be premature to declare all foods clean.
Therefore, for reasons of both grammar and consistency, the KJV rendering, appropriately modernized, is the better one.
The KJV preserves the word order of the original in saying which of you (v. 28) and what king (v.31), and preserving them as questions, whereas the NIV makes a slight paraphrase, rendering them as [s]uppose one of you (v.28) and suppose a king, and turning them into commands.
The original on egrayen MwshV en tw nomw kai oi profhtai (lit., "of whom wrote Moses in the law, and the prophets") is a rather awkaward phrasing (although clearer in the original). The KJV's of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write attempts to maintain the word order, while the NIV rephrases it to a less awkward way with the one Moses wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote.
[C]ontinue in my word (KJV) is a literal rendering of the original, while hold to my teaching (NIV) is a paraphrase.
I pray thee (KJV) and tell me, please (NIV) are renderings of the original deomai sou (lit. "I ask you").
The phrase eterou tinoV has a meaning for which both another man (KJV) and someone else (NIV) are both acceptable renderings.
The original egkrateiaV is rendered as temperance in the KJV and as self-control in the NIV. The KJV rendering is archaic, and both are correct.
The original to vuv econ poreuou (lit. "for the now having, go") is rendered by the slight paraphrase go thy way for now in the KJV, and by the even less precise paraphrase that's enough for now! You may leave in the NIV.
The original ginesqe de poihtai logou (lit., "but become doers of the word") is rendered but be ye doers of the word in the KJV, and at the beginning of the verse as it is in the original. The NIV moves most of the passage to the end of the verse, rendering it [d]o what it says, with word in a separate clause, different from the original, at the beginning of the verse.
The original crusodaktulioV (literally, "gold-fingered") is rendered with a gold ring (KJV) and wearing a gold ring (NIV). The original suggests a man wearing much more than one ring, an idea that is lost in both translations; "with gold on his fingers" would have been much more faithful to the original.
The original planhqh (lit. "wander") is rendered err in the KJV and by the literal wander in the NIV.
The original thrwmen is rendered keep in the KJV and as obey in the NIV, but the KJV rendering is meant in the sense that means "obey."
The only real difference in meaning here is that the original ton stefanon thV zwhV is rendered as a crown of life in the KJV and as the crown of life in the NIV. The NIV rendering is more literal.
The difference saying unto me, "Write..." (KJV) and saying, "Write..." (NIV) appear to reflect source text differences.