Which Bible translation should you read in 2025? A guide for curious readers
A comparison of the most recommended translations: Jerusalem Bible, Nácar-Colunga and Reina Valera. Which one has notes? Which one has 73 books? A guide for readers.
English · Original discussion in Spanish · Published
Which Bible should you read if you're not a believer? The translation wars have an unexpected winner
Let's be honest: wanting to read the Bible without religious fervor is more common than it seems. But when you open Google you hit a wall of options: Jerusalem Bible, Reina Valera, Nácar-Colunga, Torres-Amat… each with its defenders and its heretics. The fact that sums it up: the Jerusalem Bible (1967 edition, predating Vatican II) is the most cited by scholars for its philological notes, but also the most criticized by those who accuse it of "annotations with liberal theology." On the other side, the 1960 Reina Valera, the favorite of Protestantism, drags along a canon problem: 66 books versus the 73 of Catholic Bibles. So which one to choose?
The scholars' favorite: the Jerusalem Bible
The Jerusalem Bible, in its first Spanish edition of 1967 (based on the French 1956 edition), has earned respect for its critical apparatus. Its footnotes explain translation decisions, offer alternatives and refer to parallel passages. It is, as some define it, "the scholarly edition of the Bible": ideal for anyone who wants to understand the historical and literary context without indoctrination. However, for the average reader it is bulky, and its notes can tilt the theological balance. Still, when several artificial intelligences were consulted about the best academic translation, they all agreed: the Jerusalem Bible.
The traditionalist option: Nácar-Colunga and Torres-Amat
For those who prefer a literal translation from before Vatican II, the Sagrada Biblia by Eloíno Nácar Fuster and Alberto Colunga (1951) is the reference. A direct translation from the Greek (and from Hebrew for the Old Testament) in classical Spanish. The Torres-Amat Bible, which trinc the Vulgate almost literally, is another option for those who want to avoid the "contaminations" of post-conciliar editions. Both predate the Second Vatican Council, which for some is a guarantee of orthodoxy.
The Protestant one: Reina Valera 1960 and the canon problem
The Reina Valera 1960 is, without a doubt, the most widespread in the Spanish-speaking world. Its Golden Age language and its basis in the Textus Receptus make it attractive. But there's a catch: it is a 66-book Bible. The seven deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, plus additions to Daniel and Esther) were excluded by Luther and Calvin, and although the first translation by Reina (the Biblia del Oso, 1569) included them, modern editions purged them. This makes it incomplete for Catholics and Orthodox Christians. However, for a secular reader, the loss is literary: the book of Wisdom or the Maccabees contain fascinating stories.
The textual debate: Hebrew, Greek or Latin?
The underlying question is which original text is being translated. Most modern Catholic Bibles (Jerusalem Bible, Nácar-Colunga) use the Septuagint for the Old Testament, the Greek translation of the third century BC used by the early Christians. Protestant ones, like the Reina Valera, are based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text, compiled between the 6th and 10th centuries AD. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Septuagint is often older. And the Codex Vaticanus (4th century) is the oldest and most reliable copy of the New Testament. For the rigorous reader, the Jerusalem Bible or an edition trinc the Septuagint (like the Nácar-Colunga) offer a textual basis closer to the original texts.
So what then? There is no single answer. If you're looking for notes and context, the Jerusalem Bible. If you want a literal translation from before Vatican II, the Nácar-Colunga. If classic Spanish appeals to you and you don't mind the reduced canon, the Reina Valera 1960. But if you really want to soak up the stories, characters and sarracena lessons, perhaps the best thing is… to start with one that captivates you, and complement it with a good commentary channel. Because, as is said in a discussion that has run to 91 replies, "reading the Bible is complicated, but it's worth it."
Let's be honest: wanting to read the Bible without religious fervor is more common than it seems. But when you open Google you hit a wall of options: Jerusalem Bible, Reina Valera, Nácar-Colunga, Torres-Amat… each with its defenders and its heretics. The fact that sums it up: the Jerusalem Bible (1967 edition, predating Vatican II) is the most cited by scholars for its philological notes, but also the most criticized by those who accuse it of "annotations with liberal theology." On the other side, the 1960 Reina Valera, the favorite of Protestantism, drags along a canon problem: 66 books versus the 73 of Catholic Bibles. So which one to choose?
The scholars' favorite: the Jerusalem Bible
The Jerusalem Bible, in its first Spanish edition of 1967 (based on the French 1956 edition), has earned respect for its critical apparatus. Its footnotes explain translation decisions, offer alternatives and refer to parallel passages. It is, as some define it, "the scholarly edition of the Bible": ideal for anyone who wants to understand the historical and literary context without indoctrination. However, for the average reader it is bulky, and its notes can tilt the theological balance. Still, when several artificial intelligences were consulted about the best academic translation, they all agreed: the Jerusalem Bible.
The traditionalist option: Nácar-Colunga and Torres-Amat
For those who prefer a literal translation from before Vatican II, the Sagrada Biblia by Eloíno Nácar Fuster and Alberto Colunga (1951) is the reference. A direct translation from the Greek (and from Hebrew for the Old Testament) in classical Spanish. The Torres-Amat Bible, which trinc the Vulgate almost literally, is another option for those who want to avoid the "contaminations" of post-conciliar editions. Both predate the Second Vatican Council, which for some is a guarantee of orthodoxy.
The Protestant one: Reina Valera 1960 and the canon problem
The Reina Valera 1960 is, without a doubt, the most widespread in the Spanish-speaking world. Its Golden Age language and its basis in the Textus Receptus make it attractive. But there's a catch: it is a 66-book Bible. The seven deuterocanonical books (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 and 2 Maccabees, plus additions to Daniel and Esther) were excluded by Luther and Calvin, and although the first translation by Reina (the Biblia del Oso, 1569) included them, modern editions purged them. This makes it incomplete for Catholics and Orthodox Christians. However, for a secular reader, the loss is literary: the book of Wisdom or the Maccabees contain fascinating stories.
The textual debate: Hebrew, Greek or Latin?
The underlying question is which original text is being translated. Most modern Catholic Bibles (Jerusalem Bible, Nácar-Colunga) use the Septuagint for the Old Testament, the Greek translation of the third century BC used by the early Christians. Protestant ones, like the Reina Valera, are based on the Hebrew Masoretic Text, compiled between the 6th and 10th centuries AD. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Septuagint is often older. And the Codex Vaticanus (4th century) is the oldest and most reliable copy of the New Testament. For the rigorous reader, the Jerusalem Bible or an edition trinc the Septuagint (like the Nácar-Colunga) offer a textual basis closer to the original texts.
So what then? There is no single answer. If you're looking for notes and context, the Jerusalem Bible. If you want a literal translation from before Vatican II, the Nácar-Colunga. If classic Spanish appeals to you and you don't mind the reduced canon, the Reina Valera 1960. But if you really want to soak up the stories, characters and sarracena lessons, perhaps the best thing is… to start with one that captivates you, and complement it with a good commentary channel. Because, as is said in a discussion that has run to 91 replies, "reading the Bible is complicated, but it's worth it."
Also available in: Deutsch
Summary of a discussion on Burbuja.info - Foro de economía, actualidad y política., translated from Spanish and reviewed before publication. Read the full discussion (94 replies).
More summaries
-
The Tophet: Child Sacrifices Mentioned in the Bible
The Bible mentions kings of Israel and Judah who burned their children in the Tophet of Ben-Hinnom. Archaeology searches in vain for material evidence of the rite.
-
ETA and GAL: two arms of the same Gladio network in Spain
Investigation linking ETA and GAL as arms of the same NATO Gladio network, with drug trafficking funding and CIA control.
-
Buffel: South Africa's mine-protected answer, built under embargo
South Africa's Buffel lost only 19 soldiers to mines. Its design, developed under embargo, anticipated the MRAPs the US would later use in Afghanistan.
-
Timothy Treadwell and the grizzly that killed him
On October 5, 2003, Timothy Treadwell and his girlfriend were killed by a grizzly in Katmai. The actual recording of the attack remains sealed.
-
The Guanche enigma: Romans, slaves and Berbers in the Canary Islands
DNA confirms the Berber origin of the Guanches, but not how they reached the Canary Islands. Romans, slaves and a purple dye factory on the Lobos islet are at the heart of the debate.
-
Why Argentina lost the Falklands: political miscalculation and a naval blockade
649 dead and a defeat that was written from the start: political planning, a naval blockade, conscripts facing professionals and the nuclear factor shaped the 1982 conflict.