# 2018 Market-Share of Bible Translations



## bookslover (Jan 25, 2019)

NIV - 28.9%

NLT - 15.3%

KJV - 14.7%

NKJV - 11.9%

ESV - 9.9%

CSB - 3.8%

NirV - 2.2%

NASB - 1.9%

The Message - 1.5%

Some thoughts: 

(1) The NIV continues as the best-selling translation in the US despite its gag-inducing ultra-paraphrastic nature, among other things. 

(2) The KJV is still in third place despite the plethora of recent new translations. 

(3) The KJV and the NKJV, combined, have a market-share of 26.6% - more than a quarter of the Bible market in the US. 

(4) The ESV, despite (or maybe because of?) Crossway's relentless marketing since 2001, still can't get higher than 3rd or 4th place in these surveys despite the excellence of the translation. 

(5) The NASB continues its slide into oblivion. 

(6) It's nice to see that few people buy "The Message" - showing that people still have good taste. 

(7) The gap between the first five and the last four is pretty steep - 6.1%. 

(8) The smallest gaps in market-share are between the NLT and the KJV (0.6%), the NASB and "The Message" (0.4%), and the NirV and the NASB (0.3%). Interesting.

The stats were posted on Twitter by a Christian organization a couple of days ago whose name I've forgotten (that happens when you're 66!). The thoughts are my own.

Opinions?


----------



## Taylor (Jan 25, 2019)

The NIV has issues, for sure, but “gag-inducing” and “ultra paraphrastic” are not words I would use to describe it. I know this was likely rhetorical overstatement, but still.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 1


----------



## Jack K (Jan 25, 2019)

Props for "ultra-paraphrastic," a ten-dollar word if ever there was one. But I too call that an overstatement, better suited for describing_ The Message_.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TheInquirer (Jan 25, 2019)

The popularity of the KJV/NKJV really surprises me. Are there large denominations or groups that tend to use these that would account for such a large market share?


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 25, 2019)

I'm in the top 1.9 percent! 

Market share suggests volume sold in 2018, right? (As opposed to number of churches using the translation or preferred reading among believers.)


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 25, 2019)

I unashamedly find the NIV, both 1984, and the 2011, are translations that I like. This year, in the M'Cheyne 1 year reading plan, I'm exclusively using the NKJV. My pastor used to preach from that the first few years I attended our congregation. I've always liked it since I 'cut my teeth' on the KJV.

I never could wrap my arms around the ESV. The fact that it is a revision of the RSV may have something to do with that. I've been blown to and fro by the winds of controversy surrounding the Received versus the Critical Text, but have finally come to be personally reconciled to accepting English translations from both sources.

One thing that the NKJV has helped me with, in coming to that reconciliation, is the footnotes demonstrating that, aside from the large controversies, over the Johannine Comma, and the Pericope Adulterae_, _most of the differences seem inconsequential to me.To the point where I'd be happy to stick with the Received Text if I could only have one.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jan 25, 2019)

jwithnell said:


> I'm in the top 1.9 percent!
> 
> Market share suggests volume sold in 2018, right? (As opposed to number of churches using the translation or preferred reading among believers.)


Me too Jean!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Southern Presbyterian (Jan 26, 2019)

jwithnell said:


> I'm in the top 1.9 percent!





JTB.SDG said:


> Me too Jean!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Jan 26, 2019)

jwithnell said:


> I'm in the top 1.9 percent!
> 
> Market share suggests volume sold in 2018, right? (As opposed to number of churches using the translation or preferred reading among believers.)



Correct.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jack K (Jan 26, 2019)

TheInquirer said:


> The popularity of the KJV/NKJV really surprises me. Are there large denominations or groups that tend to use these that would account for such a large market share?



I think the vast majority of Bibles placed by the Gideons are still those translations. That has to boost the market share.


----------



## hammondjones (Jan 26, 2019)

TheInquirer said:


> The popularity of the KJV/NKJV really surprises me. Are there large denominations or groups that tend to use these that would account for such a large market share?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Can't give you numbers, but many black churches continue to use KJV.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jan 26, 2019)

Jack K said:


> I think the vast majority of Bibles placed by the Gideons are still those translations. That has to boost the market share.



Gideons are switching to the ESV with a few modifications (they include the longer ending of Mark, and the woman caught in adultery with no footnotes).


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 26, 2019)

I have the NIV dramatized audio Bible. Honestly, I really love it. I know there are discrepancies over translations, but it's helped me love God's word moreso, and I can't ask for much more than that.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 26, 2019)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I have the NIV dramatized audio Bible. Honestly, I really love it. I know there are discrepancies over translations, but itsi helped me love God's word moreso, and I can't ask for much more than that.


In 1976, at 37 years old, I began reading the Bible for the first time, to prove to myself that it was mystical nonsense. It was a month or two later that I became a believer, through reading the Scriptures. 

I bought a New Schofield Reference Bible KJV. I shortly thereafter added an NIV to be better able to understand what I was having difficulty with in the KJV. Such as Romans 5:15 - 19 . I needed the BIble in plain English to translate the KJV in language I understood. 

The NIV is the Bible in the pew (1984 version) in the church I attend, and it still is a favorite of mine, though I read all of the main English translations to some extent.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jwithnell (Jan 26, 2019)

Jack K said:


> I think the vast majority of Bibles placed by the Gideons are still those translations. That has to


 Jack, I wondered if that might be the case. 



Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I have the NIV dramatized audio Bible. Honestly, I really love it.


 I can see why you might. My husband listens to something that's practically monotone and it is hard for me to tune my mind to what's being read.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 26, 2019)

TheInquirer said:


> The popularity of the KJV/NKJV really surprises me. Are there large denominations or groups that tend to use these that would account for such a large market share?



Some people still like a Bible that is translated into English that doesn’t sound like forced slang or a bad George Lucas screenplay.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2019)

JimmyH said:


> In 1976, at 37 years old, I began reading the Bible for the first time, to prove to myself that it was mystical nonsense. It was a month or two later that I became a believer, through reading the Scriptures.
> 
> I bought a New Schofield Reference Bible KJV. I shortly thereafter added an NIV to be better able to understand what I was having difficulty with in the KJV. Such as Romans 5:15 - 19 . I needed the BIble in plain English to translate the KJV in language I understood.
> 
> The NIV is the Bible in the pew (1984 version) in the church I attend, and it still is a favorite of mine, though I read all of the main English translations to some extent.


I still use and enjoy the 1984 edition of the Niv, but the 2011 revision went way overboard in its inclusive language renderings for my taste.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2019)

greenbaggins said:


> Gideons are switching to the ESV with a few modifications (they include the longer ending of Mark, and the woman caught in adultery with no footnotes).


I think that is due to Nelson wanting to overcharge them for rights to the NKJV once used.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2019)

bookslover said:


> NIV - 28.9%
> 
> NLT - 15.3%
> 
> ...


My favorite, the Nas, seems to getting to the point where only pastors and teachers will be using them, and seems like the Csb is gaining some traction.


----------



## ZackF (Jan 26, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> My favorite, the Nas, seems to getting to the point where only pastors and teachers will be using them, and seems like the Csb is gaining some traction.



I think the CSB is excellent. I’d think it could gain some traction with NIV fans.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 26, 2019)

ZackF said:


> I think the CSB is excellent. I’d think it could gain some traction with NIV fans.


I have been using part of the time now my Csb for reading, and would say that it does not seem to be as bad as the Niv is in making decisions regarding inclusive languages.


----------



## Jake (Jan 26, 2019)

I'm a fan of the NIV 84 for its readability while not sacrificing much accuracy. Very often it's not too different in terms of literalness than the ESV. That said, I'm surprised it has not suffered more in sales from the 2011 update, which has been reviewed badly and rejected by many churches. I have a 2011. In much of the OT, it is often quite similar to the 84 with small, good updates. The NT and some of the Psalms are bad, and the aim of being gender inclusive has really messed up an otherwise solid translation. The NIV will never be my study translation for many reasons, but it's my go to for reading large portions of Scripture, especially in the historical books; but I can no longer recommend it because of the 2011 updates.

I'm surprised the CSB hasn't made up more of that market. It seems a lot of people are going from the NIV84 to the ESV instead. I think the forthcoming EHV is the best replacement for the NIV84, but I worry about how well it will be marketed/received. http://wartburgproject.org/


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 26, 2019)

I was 'turned off' by the concept of inclusive language in the Bible. However, in the spirit of avoiding contempt prior to investigation I read D.A. Carson's "The Inclusive Language Debate, A Plea For Realism." This book brought me to see the issue in a different light, and I still don't like it, but it isn't a deal breaker as far as it has gone.

I'm a fan of the NKJV, and have been for some time, to the extent that I proposed our congregation replace our worn 1984 NIV pew Bibles with new NKJV copies. I looked into it and found that, while you can get case lots of ESV on sale reasonably priced, the NKJV pew Bibles are quite a bit more pricey. Take into account that we need the large print hardback version for whichever we choose.

The NKJV is rated to be as literal, and as accurate, as the NASB. According to Michael Marlow, Bible Research, it is more accurate in some places. The debate between those who hold to the Critical Text, versus the Received Text, probably has something to do with the NKJV being lower on the totem pole than it deserves to be.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## bookslover (Jan 26, 2019)

Jake said:


> I think the forthcoming EHV is the best replacement for the NIV84, but I worry about how well it will be marketed/received. http://wartburgproject.org/



I took a look at the site and read this: ". . .it introduces new terms in those places where the traditional terms no longer communicate clearly." Uh-oh. Possible red flag here.

Looks like it's going to be a translation primarily marketed to the Lutheran Church.


----------



## KMK (Jan 27, 2019)

bookslover said:


> The stats were posted on Twitter by a Christian organization a couple of days ago whose name I've forgotten



Ummmm.... Ok..... But......


----------



## BottleOfTears (Jan 27, 2019)

bookslover said:


> I took a look at the site and read this: ". . .it introduces new terms in those places where the traditional terms no longer communicate clearly." Uh-oh. Possible red flag here.


They said that after talking about how the translation compared to older ones, so I think that's more in the context of not just keeping older language from the KJV for sentimental reasons, for instance.

Later on when talking about formality vs informality, it looks like they intent to include biblical concepts and language, even if some study might be needed for full comprehension.

"The Evangelical Heritage Version is designed for learning and teaching. Our translators assume that their readers have the ability and the desire to learn new biblical words and to deepen their understanding of important biblical terms and concepts. Translators should not be condescending or patronizing toward their readers but should be dedicated to helping them grow. The Bible was written for ordinary people, but it is a literary work with many figures of speech and many rare words. The Bible is a book to be read, but it is also a book to be studied. Our footnotes are designed to assist in the process of learning and teaching. Our translation is in that sense a textbook."

So I'm doubting very much that they are going to take out words like "propitiation" or "justification".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Jan 27, 2019)

BottleOfTears said:


> So I'm doubting very much that they are going to take out words like "propitiation" or "justification".



They removed “propitiation” in 1 John 2:2.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jan 27, 2019)

TheInquirer said:


> The popularity of the KJV/NKJV really surprises me. Are there large denominations or groups that tend to use these that would account for such a large market share?



I was surprised when I moved to SW Virginia that the KJV and NKJV are immensely popular here. I, personally, prefer the KJV for textual reasons, but the region, outside of the urban areas is dominated by old "country Baptists", German Baptists, Holiness churches, and Church of Christ/Christian Church, all of which tend toward the KJV/NKJV. I think that they still have a lot of currency in traditional (especially rural) evangelicalism as opposed to the Rick Warren community church evangelicalism that tends to dominate the metropolitan suburbs.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Jake (Jan 27, 2019)

For those who missed it, I created a new thread to discuss the EHV so as not to send this thread too far off on a tangent: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/evangelical-heritage-version.97253/

I will note that propitiation is not used by most newer translations. The EHV follows the CSB, NIV, NRSV, etc. here. I personally think "atoning sacrifice" is an acceptable translation of ἱλασμός from what I've read and it or something very similar is used by a lot of translations: https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/1 John 2:2 I'm also not aware of any translations before the KJV that used propitiation (e.g., Tyndale, Geneva, etc. don't use it).


----------



## ZackF (Jan 27, 2019)

Maybe this is a specifically English only list, but I had thought a Spanish translation had made into the top ten in recent years. I remember finding it heartening that Protestant Spanish translation was making inroads.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Jan 28, 2019)

According to the Evangelical Christian Book Association, these are the bestselling Bible translations of 2018.

http://christianbookexpo.com/bestseller/translations.php?id=BO18

1 New International Version 
2 King James Version 
3 New Living Translation 
4 English Standard Version 
5 Christian Standard Bible 
6 New King James Version 
7 Reina Valera 
8 New International Reader's Version
9 The Message
10 New American Standard Bible


----------



## bookslover (Jan 28, 2019)

KMK said:


> According to the Evangelical Christian Book Association, these are the bestselling Bible translations of 2018.
> 
> http://christianbookexpo.com/bestseller/translations.php?id=BO18
> 
> ...



Pretty close to the list I found, except this one includes the Spanish translation from 1960. Also, the NASB gets even less love on this list.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 28, 2019)

bookslover said:


> Pretty close to the list I found, except this one includes the Spanish translation from 1960. Also, the NASB gets even less love on this list.


Both lists are interesting, as shows that the KJV and NKJV still get much love, and that the Esv and the Csb seem to be pretty much dead even, despite big marketing effort to make the Esv the standard Christian bible for today.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Jan 28, 2019)

It's amazing to see that less than 10 percent of Bibles sold in America are ESV, which is what most people I know use. I suppose this helps to show me that Christianity is so much bigger than I thought.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 28, 2019)

The NLT (2015 Translation) as _commentary_:

1 John 2:2 (*KJV*)
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.

1 John 2:2 (*NLT*)
2 He himself is the sacrifice that atones for our sins—and not only our sins but the sins of all the world.​
2 Kings 2:23-24 (*KJV*)
23 And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.

24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the Lord. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

2 Kings 2:23-24 (*NLT*)
23 Elisha left Jericho and went up to Bethel. As he was walking along the road, a group of boys from the town began mocking and making fun of him. “Go away, baldy!” they chanted. “Go away, baldy!”

24 Elisha turned around and looked at them, and he cursed them in the name of the Lord. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of them.

Deuteronomy 32:14-15 (*KJV*)
14 Butter of kine, and milk of sheep, with fat of lambs, and rams of the breed of Bashan, and goats, with the fat of kidneys of wheat; and thou didst drink the pure blood of the grape.

15 But Jeshurun waxed fat, and kicked: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered with fatness; then he forsook God which made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.

Deuteronomy 32:14-15 (*NLT*)
14 He fed them yogurt from the herd
and milk from the flock,
together with the fat of lambs.
He gave them choice rams from Bashan, and goats,
together with the choicest wheat.
You drank the finest wine,
made from the juice of grapes.

15 “But Israel[a] soon became fat and unruly;
the people grew heavy, plump, and stuffed!
Then they abandoned the God who had made them;
they made light of the Rock of their salvation.​
Next time someone asks about the availability of a poor man's single volume Bible _commentary_ point them here:
ps://www.amazon.com/Peoples-Parallel-Bible-KJV-NLT-ebook/dp/B01EB92P4E



AMR

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 28, 2019)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> It's amazing to see that less than 10 percent of Bibles sold in America are ESV, which is what most people I know use. I suppose this helps to show me that Christianity is so much bigger than I thought.


The Esv is said to be the Reformed/Calvinistic version, while the Nas is the one for Baptists...


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 28, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> The ESV is said to be the Reformed/Calvinistic version, while the Nas is the one for Baptists...


I'm only speculating, but I would think anyone who would say that the ESV is 'The' Calvinist's Bible is trying to sell ESVs. It is a very readable translation, but where the NKJV, and the NASB bracket verses, the ESV, much like the NIV, either places them in footnotes, or omits them entirely.


----------



## py3ak (Jan 29, 2019)

JimmyH said:


> I'm a fan of the NKJV, and have been for some time, to the extent that I proposed our congregation replace our worn 1984 NIV pew Bibles with new NKJV copies. I looked into it and found that, while you can get case lots of ESV on sale reasonably priced, the NKJV pew Bibles are quite a bit more pricey. Take into account that we need the large print hardback version for whichever we choose.



Did you check www.Biblesbythecase.com? We were in need of large print Bibles recently, and that proved to be the most economical way to acquire them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 29, 2019)

py3ak said:


> Did you check www.Biblesbythecase.com? We were in need of large print Bibles recently, and that proved to be the most economical way to acquire them.


Thanks Reuben, I'm reasonably sure that I did, but my memory of it must be faulty. Checking this morning I see the ESV large print pew Bible is more expensive per case, by a few dollars, than the NKJV. I remembered it as being the other way round.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JM (Jan 29, 2019)

this year I purchased three new Bibles. Two were King James and the third was New King James. I don't see the point of changing translations now after reading the King James for 20 years.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Jan 30, 2019)

Good to see the KJV still popular. Should be more popular.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 30, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Good to see the KJV still popular. Should be more popular.


The new American Standard should be listed much higher, at least in the top 3, but just shows that many people just have trouble reading a really literal Bible....


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jan 30, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> The Nas should be up near the top...



I think you mean, near the top should it be.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## JonathanHunt (Jan 30, 2019)

This is very interesting. My new employer publishes children's Sunday school materials and we support the NIV 1984 as our main version, and maintain compatability with the KJV. If you also count the NKJV, in supporting these two/three translations, we cover 70% of our customer base.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jan 30, 2019)

Dachaser said:


> The new American Standard should be listed much higher, at least in the top 3, but just shows that many people just have trouble reading a really literal Bible....



They appear to manage fine with the KJV.


----------



## KMK (Feb 1, 2019)

I ran across this interesting study by the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture. There was a review by the Gospel Coalition.

From the review:

"The Background: ”The Bible in American Life” is a national study by the Center for the Study of Religion and American Culture. The purpose of the study is to understand better how Americans use the Bible in their personal daily lives and how other influences, including religious communities and the Internet, shape individuals’ use of scripture."

"Some of the more interesting findings from the report include...

• *Despite the proliferation of Bible translations, the King James Version is the top choice—and by a wide margin—of Bible readers.

• Among Bible readers, 31% read it on the Internet and 22% use e-devices."
*
So, people buy more NIVs than KJVs, but they read more KJV than NIV by far, and many of them do it electronically.

Numbers of books sold is becoming less relevant as more of us read from our devices.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Feb 1, 2019)

TheOldCourse said:


> They appear to manage fine with the KJV.


And the NKJV also, it would appear.


----------

