1With formal equivalence each word of the original language is represented by a word in the receptor (target) language, and the word and clause order is kept as nearly identical to that of the original language as possible. Thus this approach translates word for word.

2With dynamic equivalence (sometimes called functional equivalence) the goal is to render the original language text in the closest natural equivalent in the receptor language, both in meaning and style. This approach translates phrase for phrase or thought for thought.

3Dates given in this abbreviations list generally represent the date on which the version is considered to have been published. In a number of cases where the NT was released before the completion of the OT (e.g., the RV: NT 1881; OT 1885) it should be assumed that the NT underwent some degree of revision when it was (re)published along with the OT. Also, the publication date for the Apocrypha (if translated at all) is not indicated above; in many cases it was considerably later (e.g., the RV Apocrypha appeared in 1895). Finally, many of the modern versions have undergone repeated updates and revisions; these cannot all be indicated in an abbreviations list like this one, which is not intended to be a comprehensive chart of all Bible translations since the 1611 KJV.

4Scripture references and certain definitions in BDAG are printed in bold type. This convention has not been retained in the NET Bible notes. Otherwise citations from BDAG are exact.

5 This transliteration scheme is based on the general-purpose style listed in Patrick H. Alexander et al., eds., The SBL Handbook of Style: For Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Early Christian Studies (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999), section 5.1.2, with a few modifications.