Old Testament Survey
Part 5F-G, English Bible – 20th Century to Present

The History of the  

written 

Word of God

V.F-G. English Bible – 20th Century to present

 

Ronald J. Frasco


I.  Introduction

II.  Revelation

III.  Canon

IV.  Original Languages

V.  English Translations

  1. Latin Branch

John Wycliffe – 1388

John Purvey’s Bible – 1395

  1. 16-17th century Branch

William Tyndale – 1526

Coverdale Bible – 1535

Matthew’s Bible – 1537

Great Bible – 1538

Taverner’s Bible – 1539

Jugge’s Bible – 1552

Geneva Bible – 1560

Bishop’s Bible – 1568

  1. 17th century Translations

King James Version – 1611

  1. 18th century Translations and Revisions

Cotton Mather’s ‘Biblia Americana: Sacred Scripture’ – 1710

Daniel Mace’s ‘NT in Greek and English – 1724

John Wesley’s – 1755

Anthony Purver’s ‘A New and Literal Translation’ – 1764

Edward Harwood’s ‘Liberal Translation of the Bible’ – 1768

Phillip Doddridge’s ‘Paraphrase and Version of the NT’ – 1788

Gilbert Wakefield’s ‘Translation of the NT’  – 1791

Nathaniel Scarlett’s — 1798

E. 19th century Translations

Noah Webster’s ‘The Holy Bible’ – 1833

R. Dickenson’s ‘New and Corrected Version’ – 1833

L.A. Sawyer’s ‘The New Testament – 1858

Robert Young’s ‘Literal Translation of the Bible’ – 1863

Henry Alford – 1869

Coneybeare & Howson Epistles of Paul – 1864, 1877

Darby, JN, Holy Scriptures  — 1871, 1890

J.B. Rotherham’s ‘Emphasized Bible’ – 1872, 1902

English Revised Version  – 1881

F. 20-21st century Translations

American Standard Version – 1901

American scholars agreed to wait fourteen years after the ERV to produce this American revision of the KJV.  The purpose of the work is clearly stated in the preface,

‘The present volume, it is believed, will on the one hand bring a plain reader more closely into contact with the exact thought of the sacred writers than any version now current in Christendom, and on the other hand prove itself especially serviceable to students of the Word.’ (Preface, p.v)

One scholar notes of the ASV,

‘… antiquated terms were replaced’ … ‘Although the ASV lacks the beauty of the KJV, its more accurate readings make it acceptable for teachers and students alike.’ … ‘The ASV, based on ERV of 1881, 1885, ‘was the work of many hands and of several generations. The foundation was laid by William Tyndale.’ (G&N, p.571)

A.S. Way’s ’20th Century New Testament’ – 1902

Way’s excellent translation was also based on Westcott & Hort’s Greek Text.  From his preface, he declares the purpose behind his work,

‘Few English-speaking people of today have the opportunity of reading the Bible in the English of their own time.  In the course of the last hundred years the Bible has been translated into the every-day language of the natives in most countries, but the language of our Bible is still the English of three hundred years ago … The English of the Authorized Version … is in many passages difficult for those who are less educated, or is even unintelligible to them … gives the impression that the contents of the Bible have little to do with the life of our own day … We believe that the New Testament will be better understood by modern readers if presented to them in a modern form … Our constant effort … has been to exclude all words and phrases not used in current English…. The present translation is not a revision of any previous one but is made directly from the Greek.  Nor is it a paraphrase.  A paraphrase might be useful as a help to the interpretation of the New Testament, but it would not be the New Testament itself…. Our work is more than a literal interpretation … not only every word, but also the emphasis placed upon every word, has been carefully weighed, and an effort made to give the exact force and meaning in idiomatic modern English.’ (Preface, p.iii-iv)

R.F. Weymouth’s ‘New Testament in Modern Speech’ – 1903

This conservative Greek scholar produced his own translation ‘based on his own critical Greek text.’  In his preface he describes his work,

‘The translation of the New Testament here offered … is a bona fide translation made directly from the Greek, and is in no sense a revision … An earnest endeavor has been made (based upon more than sixty years’ study of both the Greek and English languages, besides much further familiarity gained by continual teaching) to ascertain the exact meaning of every passage … aid being sought too from Versions and Commentators ancient and modern … the next step has been to consider how it could be most accurately and naturally exhibited in the English of the present day … how we can … suppose that the inspired writer himself would have expressed his thoughts, had he been writing in our age and country.’ (Preface, p. ix)

Note the humble limitation Weymouth places on his work,

It is not the present Translator’s ambition to supplant the Versions already in general use … His desire has rather been to furnish a succinct and compressed running commentary … to be used side by side with its elder compeers … It can scarcely be doubted that some day the attempt will be renewed to produce a satisfactory English Bible … and it may be that the Translation here offered will contribute some materials that may be built into that far grander edifice.’ (ibid, p. xi)

Farrar Fenton’s Bible in Modern English – 1903

‘A London businessman, made the translation into modern English a lifetime avocation’ ‘pretentious … ‘I contend that I am the only man who has ever applied real mental and literary criticism to the Sacred Scriptures’ ‘forceful and unique but not too significant’ (G&N)  Again, from his the preface to the translation that bears his name,

‘The translator believes he can claim for his Version of the Scriptures … that it is the only one ever made into our language absolutely direct from the original Hebrew and Greek … without an intermediate translation …’ (Fenton, Preface)

If his claim sounds overstated, consider the method he applied in translating:

‘To attain this end, for nearly forty years he neither read the New Testament except in the Greek, and for several years the Old in the Hebrew and Chaldee, so as to arrive at their meaning from the ancient writers themselves alone.  He also has had before him no theological or historic theories to assail or support; his one aim having been to show the import of the Scriptures.’ (Fenton, Preface)

Another scholar notes that Fenton ‘had no real knowledge of Hebrew and Greek.  His version contained many amateurish errors.  Despite this, it became popular for a while, because it was easy to understand.’ (Marlowe)

James Moffat’s ‘A New Translation’ – 1913 (NT), 1928 (Whole Bible)

Oxford scholar, James Moffatt describes the nature of his translation,

‘I have tried not to sacrifice the spirit to the letter … My intention, therefore, has been to produce a version which will to some degree represent the gains of recent lexical research and also prove readable.’ (Preface, p.vii)

Moffat adds this humble admission,

‘A translator appears to be more dogmatic than he really is.  He must come down on one side of the fence or the other.  He has often to decide on a rendering, or even on the text of a passage, when his own mind is by no means clear and certain.’ (Preface, p.viii)

Moffat’s translation was ‘based on von Soden’s Greek text.’  The English ‘reflects a Scottish tone, which was characterized by freedom of style and idiom.’ (G&N, p.586)

One historian acknowledges the translation’s popularity,

‘Moffat produced his translation of the New Testament while he was serving as Professor of Greek and New Testament Exegesis at Oxford, and its reception was so favorable (in the more liberal churches) that he undertook the Old Testament in order to produce a complete Bible. The version is highly colloquial, and allows the reader to quickly follow the progress of thought in many passages … But Moffatt’s version was controversial in several respects … frequently rearranged passages according to his idea of how they might have originally stood. For the New Testament he used the Greek text of Hermann von Soden, which was generally regarded as an eccentric text, … The translation throughout was highly readable, but often embodied interpretations that were objectionable to some.’ (Marlowe)

E.J. Goodspeed’s ‘An American Translation’ – 1923, 1927

Goodspeed translated from Westcott & Hort’s Greek Text ‘for American readers’ in decidedly ‘American everyday language.’ (G&N, p.586)

In his preface, Goodspeed describes the need,

‘The New Testament was written not in classical Greek, nor in the ‘biblical’ Greek of the Greek version of the Old Testament, nor even in the literary Greek of its own day, but in the common language of everyday life…. It follows that the most appropriate English form for the New Testament is the simple, straightforward English of everyday expression…. The hope [is] that it might result in a version with something of the ease, boldness, and unpretending vigor which mark the original Greek  The writers of the New Testament had for the most part little use for literary art.  The principal figure among them, the apostle Paul, said this in so many words.  They put their message in the simplest and most direct terms they could command, so that it spoke directly to the common life of their day.’ (Preface p. v)

And further,

‘… few indeed sit down and read the New Testament in [the Authorized Version] continuously and understandingly … The antique diction, the mechanical method of translation, and the disturbing verse division retard and discourage the reader.

Thus, his purpose,

‘The aim of the present translation has been to present the meaning of the different books as faithfully as possible, without bias or prejudice, in English of the same kind as the Greek of the original, so that they may be continuously and understandingly read.’

G.W. Wade’s ‘Documents of the New Testament’ – 1934

‘A fresh translation … arranged in what the translator believed to be their chronological order’ (G&N, p. 587)

William Ballantine’s ‘Riverside NT’ — 1934

As one historian declared, Ballantine’s translation ‘stands next to Weymouth as thoroughly modern yet conservative in literary quality.’ (Cambridge, p. 376)

Charles B. Williams’ ‘A Private Translation in the Language of the People’ – 1937

Williams describes his goals for the translation in his foreword,

Our aim is to make this greatest book in the world readable and understandable by the plain people … we have tried to use good, smooth English … simple everyday English which reproduces the everyday Greek … practical everyday words to replace many technical religious and theological terms … this is not a word-for-word translation … , it is rather a translation of the thought of the writers with a reproduction of their diction and style.  Greek idioms … are expressed in corresponding English idioms.  It is the thoughts of our New Testament, not its single words, that we have tried to translate.

The publisher was glowing with praise for the work:

In the minds of many exacting Greek scholars this is the best translation of the New Testament existing in the English language today.

Another scholar notes:

‘It is a modern translation by a competent scholar, which happily is trusted by folk of conservative theological views.’ (Cambridge, p. 376)

Others were not as enthusiastic:

‘His renderings were sometimes unique.’ (G&N, p.587)

S.H. Hooke’s (Ogden) ‘The New Testament in Basic English’ – 1941, 1949 (Whole Bible)

‘The language used is Basic English … a simple form of the English language which, with 850 words [plus an additional 50 ‘Special Bible words’ and 100 help words = 1000 words], is able to give the sense of anything which may be said in English.’ (G&N, p.587)

As might be expected the editor is forced to admit,

Frequently, the narrow limits of the word-list make it hard to keep the Basic [Basic English] completely parallel with the Greek …’ (Note, p.v)

C.K. Williams’ ‘A New Translation in Plain English’– 1952

Similar to the ‘Basic English’ but with an additional 170 words.

Revised Standard Bible – 1946 (NT), 1952 (Whole Bible)

From the beginning of this work, the RSV was purposed to be ‘an up-to-date revision of the Scripture text based on the ‘critical text.’

Of it, one prominent scholar noted,

‘The Revised Standard Version of the New Testament purported to be a revision of the American Standard Version, although very little of the ASV remains in the RSV. The Greek text usually followed was the 17th edition (1941) of the Nestle text (see Nestle 1927). The American Standard Version excelled in literal accuracy, but the RSV tended to be more free in its renderings.… The New Testament was well received by American churches, including the evangelical ones; but the Old Testament (1952) provoked a storm of controversy, and killed the version’s chances of becoming a generally accepted standard Bible in America.’ (Marlowe)

“The RSV is, next to the KJV, the most literary English translation … the first ecumenical Bible translation, enjoying the approval of Protestants, Catholics, and Eastern Orthodox … jettisoned by evangelicals because of alleged theological liberalism …” (Ryken, GWE, p.52)

‘Amplified Bible’ – 1958

This interesting ‘translation’ served as this translation committee’s precursor to the New American Standard.  It was intended this work to be ‘a revision of the ASV in clear, contemporary language.’  Their approach was to explain words by adding statements in brackets or parentheses, as the example from John 1:1-4 shows …

:1 In the beginning [before all time] was the Word ([a]Christ), and the Word was with God, and [b]the Word was God Himself. :2 He was [continually existing] in the beginning [co-eternally] with God. :3 All things were made and came into existence through Him; and without Him not even one thing was made that has come into being. :4 In Him was life [and the power to bestow life], and the life was the Light of men.

It is ‘amplified’ in the sense that it ‘incorporates, as part of the text itself, words and phrases taken from 27 other translations, several Greek lexicons, word study books, and even commentaries.’ (W.E. Paul)  Unfortunately, this paraphrase exhibits a ‘marked tendency to ‘add to’ the biblical text’ (G&N, p.595)

J.B. Phillips’ ‘New Testament in Modern English’ – 1958

Phillips was a pastor who found the KJV frustrating when teaching his church youth.  His work is ‘a paraphrase, a ‘meaning-for-meaning’ translation rather than a ‘word-for-word’ translation.’  (G&N, p. 588)  Phillips sets forth the goal of his efforts in his preface,

I have found imaginative sympathy, not so much with words as with people, to be essential … I attempted, as far as I could, to think myself into the heart and mind of Paul … then I tried further to imagine myself as each of the New Testament authors writing his particular message for people of today … this has been my ideal, and that is why consistency and meticulous accuracy have sometimes both been sacrificed in the attempt to transmit freshness and life across the centuries.

One noted glowingly that its ‘strength and freshness … have recaptured in a unique manner the spirit and heart of the first century writers.’ (G&N, p. 588)

G. Verkuyl’s ‘Berkeley Version of the New Testament’ – 1959

Verkuyl describes the need for still another version, ‘At least two valid reasons for fresh translations are clear to the thoughtful reader: First, the discovery of earlier and more reliable Greek manuscripts than those from which our Authorized Version was translated more than three centuries ago.  Second, the need of employing current words and phrases rather than those that have become obsolete.… In consulting the Versions that have come out during the last half century we grew aware of certain lacks which we hope in a measure to supply.’ (Preface, p.iii)

One scholar positively evaluates this version as,

‘A more conservative counterpart to the RSV‘ … ‘less interpretive than Moffatt, more cultured in language than Goodspeed, more American than Weymouth, and freer from the KJV than the RSV’ … ‘praiseworthy.’ (G&N, p. 588)

‘Good News for Modern Man: NT in Today’s English’ – 1966

A translation / paraphrase, or ‘dynamic equivalent’ translation, based on the solid UBS Greek Text.  The purpose of the work, as described in its preface:

‘… does not conform to traditional vocabulary or style but seeks to express the meaning of the Greek text in words and forms accepted as standard by people everywhere who employ English as a means of communication.’

As Ryken describes it, it is a ‘colloquial translation that strives to sound like contemporary [1976] speech … it pushed the new [dynamic theory of interpretation] translation philosophy to its limits.’  (GWE, p.53)

William Barclay’s ‘A New Translation’ – 1968

Barclay’s goals were noble and simple:

In making this translation I have had two aims in view … to try to make the New Testament intelligible to the man who is not a technical scholar … [and] to try to make a translation which did not need a commentary to explain it.

One scholar panned this translation as ‘highly personal and sometimes even idiosyncratic translation’ and, ‘a perplexing mixture of the new with the traditional, the technical with the non-technical’ (G&N, p.594)

‘New English Bible’ – 1970

Proposed by the Church of Scotland as follows,

‘It is to be in genuinely English idiom, such as will not awaken a sense of strangeness or remoteness … we aim at ‘timeless’ English, avoiding equally both archaisms and transient modernisms … plain enough to convey its meaning to any reasonably intelligent person.’ (G&N, p. 573)

One historian details its troubled history,

‘This controversial version was sponsored by several denominations in Great Britain … The translators used great freedom with the underlying texts … they aimed to represent the Bible in a definitely colloquial and modern English style, and they were bold to adopt interpretations which … were quite new to the public … it never gained an enduring popularity. Its novelties and its style made it unsuitable for use in church services … the underlying Greek text was published in Tasker 1964.’ (Marlowe)

‘Living Bible’ – 1971

A Paraphrase intended ‘to say exactly as possible what [writers] meant … simply.’ (G&N, p.589)  Used ASV, critical text.

Note this honest admission:

‘… whenever the author’s exact words are not translated from the Greek there is the possibility that the translator, however honest, may be giving the English reader something that the original writer did not mean to say.’ (G&N, p. 589)

‘New American Standard Bible’ – 1971

The purpose of this work was to be a ‘revising the ASV in clear, contemporary language’ … ‘goals: accuracy, clarity, adequacy of notes’ for which Nestle’s Greek Text was used.

A noted historian describes the work,

‘As its name implies, the New American Standard Bible is a revision of the American Standard Version (1901). It was produced by a company of conservative scholars who wished to provide a literal and conservative revision of the ASV, as an alternative to the Revised Standard Version (1952), which had proven to be unacceptable to conservative churches … more literal than the RSV … preserves the highly literal character that had made the American Standard Version so useful as a translation for close study … The NASB was widely accepted by conservative churches in the years following its publication, but it was often criticized for its awkward and unnatural English. This was a consequence of the version’s strict adherence to the idioms of the original languages, whether or not they were natural in English. In general, the words of Charles Spurgeon regarding the English Revised Version (the British counterpart of the ASV) might also be said of the NASB — “Strong in Greek, but weak in English.”‘ (Marlowe)

From the NAS preface, the distinctives are set forth,

“…Ultimately, what separates the New American Standard Bible from the various available versions is that the NASB is a literal word-for-word translation from the original languages. In contrast, the others stress either a loose, personalized paraphrase, or a free-style, thought-for-thought translation known as a dynamic equivalent. Both of these place the highest priority on ease of reading and a lower priority on word-for-word preciseness. While such versions may produce smooth English, the literalness of the Word of God is sacrificed. This has never been an option for the New American Standard Bible.” (Preface)

‘New International Version’ – 1978

More than one hundred international scholars, from a wide range of denominations, used an ‘eclectic Greek text … follows the modern critical Greek texts … but not always … not consistent in its rendition of ambiguous passages in the Greek text, and has resulted in some awkward expressions.’ (G&N, p.596)  These scholars further criticize, ‘Unfortunately, the long-standing tradition of using italics for words not found in the Hebrew and Greek texts has been discontinued in the NIV.’ (G&N, p.597)  Another scholar noted its strengths:

While striving for accuracy, dignity and clarity, the NIV has moved beyond the RSV, the NEB and the NASB in attaining a contemporary style for the English reader. (Lewis, p. 314)

“Claiming to be eclectic, the NIV is in fact on the dynamic equivalence side of the continuum … It regularly moves beyond what the original text says to the interpretation preferred by the translators.” (Ryken, GWE, p.53)

“Within a few years after its appearance, the NIV became the most widely used English translation among American evangelicals.” (Ryken, GWE, p.53)

New King James Version – 1979

‘The New King James Version is a revision of the King James version that does not make any alterations on the basis of a revised Greek or Hebrew text but adheres to the readings presumed to underlie the King James version.’ (Marlowe)

E.H. Peterson’s ‘The Message: The N.T. in Contemporary Language’ – 1993

‘This version of the New Testament in a contemporary idiom keeps the language of the Message current and fresh and understandable in the same language in which we do our shopping, talk with our friends, worry about world affairs, and teach our children their table manners.  The goal is not to render a word-for-word conversion of Greek into English, but rather to convert the tone, the rhythm, the events, the ideas, into the way we actually think and speak.’ (Introduction, p.7)

‘God’s Word’ – 1995

‘… the full, accurate meaning of the original Bible writers … in natural English … the way you hear it and use it in your everyday life.’ (Introduction p. vii)

New Living Translation – 1996

‘The Holy Bible, New Living Translation provides a wonderful balance of readability and authority. The NLT Bible is easy to understand, poetically beautiful, and emotive. Ninety leading Bible scholars collaborated to ensure it is accurate to the original Greek and Hebrew text.

The New Living Translation aims to make Bible-reading accessible and enjoyable in private or in fellowship with others. The easy-to-read, clear text is especially useful for comparative studies of challenging passages.’ (Preface)

English Standard Version – 2001 

“The English Standard Version began with discontent over both the content and the style of modern English Bible translations in the dynamic equivalent tradition.  In particular, the Translation Committee wanted a more literal translation than most of the translations produced during the twentieth century, combined with greater stylistic flair than the essentially literal NASB provided, as well as more accuracy than the New King James Version provided.” (Ryken, GWE, p.54-55)

“The committee took the RSV … as the starting point … [along with] comparison with the original text …” (Ryken, GWE, p.55)

Contemporary English Version – 1995

A revision of the Good News Bible (1966).

Third Millenium Bible – 1998

Holy Scriptures in English – 2001

Christian Standard Bible – 2017

Legacy Standard Bible – 2021

The rights to the NASB 1995 edition were purchased by The Master’s Seminary.  That translation was updated and published in 2021.  The goal was to examine every verse in light of the prominent Hebrew (BHS), Greek (Nestle’s 27th edition), and Aramaic texts.  Perhaps the most distinctive feature of the LSB is the rendering of the Hebrew tetragrammaton* Testament as ‘Yahweh.’ 

* The tetragrammaton (a Greek word for four letters refers to the four Hebrew consonants, יהוה, (basically, YHWH) used to render the ‘Name’ of God in the Hebrew Old Testament.  The ‘Name’ was considered so sacred by the Jewish people that they believed that it should not be pronounced.  They therefore rendered it by four letters.  Depending on the vowels inserted, those letters could be used to spell Jehovah or Yahweh.

The  proper way of rendering of the name of God is an ongoing debate among translators.  The first English translation to render the tetragrammaton as Yahweh was Rotherham’s ‘Emphasized Bible’ in 1902.  Since then, no fewer than thirteen – lesser known – translations have rendered it as such.

G. Conclusion

Our original Question: Why are there so many different Bible Versions?

The reason that the Old Testament was written in Hebrew …

… and that the Old Testament was translated into Greek

… and that the New Testament was written in Greek and Aramaic …

… and that the entire Bible was translated into Latin

… and that Wycliffe translated the Bible from Latin to ‘plain language’ – ‘the common tongue of English people’

… and that Tyndale sought to put the ‘Scriptures … in their mother tongue’ ‘vulgar speech’ …

… and that Coverdale, the Puritan’s Geneva and King James Bibles were all produced …

… and that the ASV, NAS, NIV, Phillips, Living, etc., etc., etc. were translated …

… to have the most accurate version of God’s Word translated into the common language of the people of the day!

 

So … which Version is best? 

If I could have …

One English Bible … The New American Standard

Two English Bibles … NAS, ESV

Three English Bibles … NAS, ESV, KJV

Four English Bibles … NAS, ESV, KJV, NIV

Five English Bibles … NAS, ESV, KJV, ASV, Phillips

Six … NAS, ESV, KJV, ASV, Phillips, Berkeley

Seven … NAS, ESV, KJV, ASV, Phillips, NIV, Doddridge

Eight … Williams

Nine … Amplified

Ten … ? … seek to add Way’s, ASV, NIV, Rotherham

A better question is …

Are we as faithful with the Word of God as others have been in seeing to it that we had a Bible in our language?