Four English Translations of the New Testament

The multiplication of translations of the Bible has doubtless prompted more than one bewildered reader to rephrase the Preacher’s melancholy observation, “Of the making of many Bible versions there is no end!” (Eccles. 12:12). During the past twenty years—to go no further back—at least eighteen new English renderings of the entire New Testament were issued, in addition to reprinted editions of at least eighteen earlier translations. The latter are the versions made by Alexander Campbell, E. J. Goodspeed, George Lamsa, James Moffatt, Helen E. Montgomery, James M. Pryse, Joseph Smith, Jr., Father F. A. Spencer, John Wesley, Richard F. Weymouth, and Robert Young, and a slightly modified form of The Twentieth Century New Testament, as well as the King James, the Revised Version of 1881, the American Standard Version of 1901, and several Roman Catholic versions, such as the Challoner-Rheims, the Westminster, and the Confraternity versions.

The new translations of the New Testament published since 1944 include three widely used versions, namely the Revised Standard Version (1946), that by J. B. Phillips (1947–1958), and the New Testament portion of the New English Bible (1961). The other fifteen versions, which are less widely circulated, are the following: Msgr. (later Bp.) Ronald Knox’s translation of the Latin Vulgate (1944); the Berkeley Version by Gerrit Verkuyl, based chiefly on Tischendorf’s Greek text (1945); Erwin E. Stringfellow’s translation of the Westcott-Hort Greek text (two volumes, 1943–1945); George Swann’s translation o£ Westcott-Hort (1947); the Letchworth Version in Modern English translation by Thomas F. Ford and R. E. Ford (1948); the New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses (1950); the Sacred Name Version of the New Testament of our Messiah and Saviour Yashua, attributed to A. B. Traina (1950); the Authentic Version prepared by an anonymous translator (1951); the Plain English rendering of C. K. Williams (1952); the translation from Souter’s Oxford Greek text by George Albert Moore (Col., USA, Retired), described as “new, independent, individual” and limited to 250 copies (1953–1954); the Roman Catholic rendering by J. A. Kleist and J. L. Lilly from Bover’s Greek text (1954); the Authentic New Testament translated by Hugh J. Schonfield (1955); Kenneth E. Wuest’s Expanded Translation (three volumes, 1956–1959); Frances E. Siewart’s Amplified New Testament (1958); and the New Testament in the Language of Today translated by William F. Beck of the Missouri-Lutheran Church (1963).

It is appropriate that, on the eve of Bible Sunday, the relative merits of several of the more widely circulated English versions of the New Testament be compared and evaluated. But first it will be necessary to consider why new translations are needed.

The Need For Revisions

The recurring need for new translations of the Bible arises from several circumstances, the three most compelling being (a) advances made in lower (or textual) criticism of the New Testament manuscripts, (b) the acquisition of more precise information about Greek lexicography and syntax, and (c) changes in the use of the English language. Of these the first is obviously the most basic, for without applying textual criticism one does not know which of several divergent manuscript readings of a given passage deserves to be regarded as the original text.

In 1611 the only Greek text available to the King James translators was the so-called Textus Receptus. This was the corrupt form which the Greek Testament had taken after having been copied and recopied for a thousand or more years, with the accumulated modifications introduced by scribes over the centuries. Fortunately for the Bible translator today, during the past one hundred years literally scores of ancient manuscripts of the New Testament (in Greek, Syriac, Coptic, and other languages) have come to light; these texts are much older than the Textus Receptus and therefore are usually more reliable, being much less contaminated through repeated recopying.

Notable advances have also been made in knowledge of the meaning of the Koine dialect of the Greek language, in which the books of the New Testament were written. The discovery during the past half century of tens of thousands of Greek papyri preserving everyday documents in the language of the common people has enabled scholars to enrich our lexicons of New Testament Greek and to clarify many puzzling points of New Testament grammar.

Besides the significant gains in these two areas, another consideration is that the English language itself is changing, as to both the meaning of words and their usage. For example, though the word “let” meant “to hinder” in Shakespeare’s day, it has an entirely different meaning in twentieth-century parlance; therefore the King James rendering of Second Thessalonians 2:7 now conveys precisely the opposite of Paul’s meaning. Again, in older English “prevent” meant “to precede,” and thus the 1611 version could properly translate Psalm 119:11, “I prevented the dawning of the morning.” Today this rendering makes the Psalmist appear somewhat ridiculous.

For these reasons, therefore, it is necessary that new English translations of the Bible be made in the interest of accurately presenting the Word of God in the words of man. In response to the invitation of the editors of CHRISTIANITY TODAY, the following paragraphs attempt to assess the strengths and weaknesses of four widely used English versions of the New Testament.

The King James Version

In Great Britain it is customary to refer to the 1611 version of the Bible as the Authorized Version. There is no evidence, however, that the version was ever officially authorized by the Crown or by Convocation. If, on the other hand, its authorization could be proved, it still could not properly lay claim to being the Authorized Version, for several other English versions of the Bible have also been authorized. For this reason it is more appropriate to refer to the 1611 version as the King James Version, for it was James VI of Scotland (who as the successor to Queen Elizabeth in 1603 became James I of England) who appointed a committee of nearly fifty of the best biblical scholars of the day to revise the then current edition of the Bishop’s Bible, first issued in 1568.

In the amazingly short time of two years and nine months this committee of revisers produced what is generally acknowledged to be “a well of purest English undefiled.” Published at a time when the English language was still young, vigorous, and malleable, the version is characterized by majestic rhythm and splendid cadences that are unmatched. Such an opportunity comes perhaps only once in a nation’s annals, and the translators’ performance matched the times. In short, they created what is certainly a literary masterpiece.

Curiously enough, the King James Version at first had to overcome opposition in certain quarters. Hugh Broughton, one of the most learned as well as most disputatious scholars of his day, had not been appointed to the committee of translators. At the appearance of the revision, therefore, it is not surprising that Broughton published a book denouncing it as an incompetent and heretical work. “I had rather be rent in peces with wild horses,” he declared, “than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poore Churches.” When the Pilgrims came over to the shores of New England in 1620, they brought with them copies of the Geneva version of 1560, for the 1611 version was too modern for their liking. In fact, the popularity of the Geneva version was so great that it continued to be printed until 1644 and was the version used by William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, and other prominent literary men of the period. Eventually, however, the intrinsic merits of the King James Version became more and more widely appreciated, and quite apart from any official authorization it came to be popularly regarded as the English Bible.

The Revised Standard Version

For the reasons mentioned earlier, the need for a new English version of the Bible began to be more and more apparent. The Revised Version of 1881–1884, issued in this country as the American Standard Version of 1901, was altogether too wooden and literalistic a rendering to be commended to general use. In the words of Charles H. Spurgeon, it was “strong in Greek, and weak in English.” In order, therefore, to conserve more of the melody of the English of the King James Version, while at the same time taking into account the advances made in biblical scholarship, the International Council of Religious Education voted in 1937 to authorize a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901. Two panels of translators, representing a variety of denominations, were appointed, with Dr. Luther A. Weigle, dean of Yale Divinity School, as chairman. The New Testament panel completed its work first, and the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament appeared in 1946. When the Old Testament was added in 1952, about eighty changes were made in the text of the New Testament.

The work of the revisers has been both praised and denounced, depending on the point of view of the one passing judgment. Some complained that the committee had gone too far in altering the language of the King James Version, while others thought it was too conservative and timid in introducing changes. Charges of modernism were leveled against the revisers because, for example, the phrase “through his blood” was no longer included in Colossians 1:14. In this case it was overlooked that the words are not present in the oldest and best manuscripts, that they got into the Textus Receptus by scribal conflation with the parallel passage in Ephesians 1:7, and that already in 1901, the American Standard Version had eliminated the spurious words.

Since the RSV has been widely available for a good number of years and has been adopted by many denominations in the United States and Canada, space need not be taken here to quote sample passages. Today many would agree with the evaluation given by a reviewer of the RSV writing in The Scotsman of Edinburgh: the review concluded, “In general it may be claimed, whatever criticism may be directed to this or that minor detail of text or diction, that here we have the most significant and adequate of existing revisions, the one most tenacious in its style and form of the tradition of the English Bible.”

The Phillips Version

It was during the Second World War amid the London blitz that an Anglican parish minister of scholarly bent began a new translation of the New Testament. The first section, entitled Letters to Young Churches, appeared in 1947 and instantly became a best seller. It was dedicated to the task of conveying to the modern reader the full import of the original in an “easy-to-read” style. To attain this end the translator, according to Phillips, must be “free to expand or explain” the text. By following this policy, Phillips has produced what is better described as a paraphrase than a strict translation. At the same time, however, his vivid style and imaginative use of modern idiom have helped to transform the New Testament for many readers from a “foreign” and rather tedious book into a vibrant, contemporary document. Breaking through the thick crust of traditional terminology, Phillips’ rendering has enabled many a modern pagan to hear afresh the living oracles of God.

The chief criticisms to be leveled against Phillips relate to the Greek text underlying his rendering, and his tendency to over-modernize the language of the New Testament. Though he does not specify which edition of the Greek text he followed, it appears that in numerous passages he used the medieval Textus Receptus rather than a critically established text, such as that of Nestle or Westcott and Hort. Such deliberate obscurantism in textual criticism is hard to defend.

The other criticism, that of over-modernization, will be differently evaluated by various readers. Some will not be offended that in the American edition of Phillips Mark is made to refer to a “nickle” (12:42) and John to a “quarter” (Rev. 6:6), or that Jesus speaks of “ten dollars” and “a hundred dollars” and “fifty dollars” (Luke 19:13, 16, 18). One must ask, however, whether it is legitimate to transform the “holy kiss” into a “handshake,” usually a “handshake all round” (Rom. 16:16; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Pet. 5:14). The statement, “whom I delivered to Satan” (1 Tim. 1:20) becomes in Phillips’ words, “I had to expel them from the Church.”

Here and there Phillips’ paraphrastic rendering alters the theology of the original. For example, the Johannine doctrine of the Incarnation is modified by inserting the word “Man” in such passages as “Somewhere among you stands a Man you do not know” (John 1:26) and “This is really the Man Who will save the world” (John 4:42). (In the 1958 edition the latter reads, “This must be the man who will save the world.”) In neither passage does the Greek contain the word for “man.” The divine predestination involved in the last phrase of First Peter 2:8 (King James, “Whereunto also they were appointed,” RSV, “as they were destined to do”) becomes merely “a foregone conclusion.” The present writer does not suggest that Phillips deliberately set out to modify the doctrinal implications of these passages. At the same time, it is obvious that, whether intentionally or not, the theological point of view of the original has been altered.

The New English Bible

It was in 1946, the same year that the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament was published, that plans were initiated for making a British rendering of the Bible “in the language of the present day.” (It may be mentioned that participation of British scholars in the making of the RSV was invited, but owing to the war and other circumstances this proved impracticable.) Unlike the RSV, which preserves cadences of “Biblical English” from the Tyndale and King James tradition, the new rendering was to be not a revision but a totally fresh translation into “timeless English.”

The philosophy of translation that underlies the New English Bible differs from that of both the King James and the Revised Version of 1881. The translators of the latter two sought to render each word in the original with an equivalent word in English, and to distinguish words added for the sake of English idiom by printing them in italics. In contrast, the committee under the leadership of Professor C. H. Dodd undertook to translate concepts and whole clauses, rather than individual words, by English equivalents. Instead of a literal translation, this procedure results in what may be called a literary or, at times, paraphrastic rendering. The point may be illustrated by comparing Matthew 25:26 in several versions. The King James reads, “Thou wicked and slothful servant.” Phillips also keeps the two adjectives and a literal rendering of the Greek noun: “You’re a wicked, lazy servant!” The New English Bible, however, makes no attempt to render word for word, but conveys the idea with the pungent, “You lazy rascal!”

Judging from what the British translators produced, the style which they followed seems to involve a preference for (1) short sentences, (2) simple rather than complex sentence structure, (3) variety rather than repetition, and (4) contemporaneity of diction. It will probably be agreed among English stylists (despite the adverse criticisms of such notable literary figures as T. S. Eliot and Robert Graves) that the over-all impression made by the new version is good. Its sentences are clean and vigorous; there is a directness and a virility in both language and style, particularly apparent in the narrative sections of the Gospels.

On the other hand, the manifest intention of avoiding anything that might smack of repetition or of consistency in rendering a Greek word or phrase by the same English each time it appears means that in parallel passages the reader cannot trust the English text to indicate faithfully the degree of likeness and difference. For example, in Matthew’s Gospel Bar-Abbas appears, whereas in the other Gospels he is called Barabbas. In two Gospels “a cock crew,” in two “the cock crew.” In John’s Gospel the NEB has four ways of rendering the characteristic phrase of Jesus, “Amen, amen, I say to you” (KJV, “Verily, verily …”).

It is regrettable that occasionally a preconceived idea seems to be imposed on the text. For example, the Greek word ekklesia means “church” or “congregation.” It is not by accident that in Acts the NEB reserves the translation “church” for the Jerusalem ekklesia, whereas every ekklesia outside Jerusalem is a “congregation.” As a result there are no “churches” in Acts, only congregations. The same kind of stereotyping appears in the Epistles, where likewise there are no “churches,” only “the church,” and where the plural ekklesiai is translated “congregations” or by a variety of other renderings.

The translators of the new version have not hesitated to encroach upon the domain of the commentator by employing paraphrastic expansions when they believed that a literal rendering would be less satisfactory. Thus, in First John 2:15–17 the word kosmos, which means literally “world,” is rendered “godless world.” “In Asia” (Rev. 1:4) becomes “in the province of Asia.” “Tongues” (1 Cor. 13:8) is interpreted as “tongues of ecstasy.” “Angel” becomes “guardian angel” in Matthew 18:10 and Acts 12:15.

The net result of having aimed for a literary rather than a literal translation is summed up by the principal reviewer of the NEB in The Times Literary Supplement (London; March 24, 1961), who concludes with the judgment: “If one’s sole concern is with what the New Testament writers mean, it [the new version] is excellent. It is otherwise if one wants to find out what the documents really say.”

So far, only the New Testament of the NEB has been published, and it is obviously premature to attempt anything more than a provisional assessment of the version’s worth as whole. The phenomenal sales of the first printings suggest that a great many more people in Great Britain and America are reading the Word of God because of the appearance of the NEB than otherwise would, and for this one must be profoundly grateful. At the same time, it is surely not being unmindful of the honest and diligent labors of the NEB panel of translators to observe, with Professor H. F. D. Sparks of Oriel College, Oxford, that “whatever its merits as literature may be, not only its declared aim to be ‘contemporary’ in its English, but also its manifest concern to avoid at all costs any trace of literalism in its renderings, make it a far less satisfactory basis for serious study of the Bible than either the RV or the RSV” (Hastings’ one-volume Dictionary of the Bible, revised edition, 1963, p. 259).

Conclusion

What should be the attitude of the average church member toward these and other English versions of the Bible? Doubtless the multiplicity of translations causes a certain confusion in the minds of many as to what the true Word of God is in any given passage. But this uncertainty is unavoidable, for to provide a translation that is absolutely satisfactory in every detail is impossible. Even if such a translation could be produced for one generation, it would cease to satisfy the next generation because of inevitable change in the English language.

Certainly it is advantageous to use, along with the version on which one was nurtured, several others that can serve as guides in passages that either are perplexing or have become stale through one’s familiarity with traditional phraseology.

As indicated in the opening paragraphs above, numerous versions of the Bible are available today. Some are definitely partisan or eccentric. One example of each may be cited. The New World Translation of the Jehovah’s Witnesses introduces anti-Trinitarian theology at crucial points (for example, “the Word was a god” [John 1:1] and “by means of him [Christ] all other things were created” [Col. 1:16], where the word “other” is an indefensible addition unsupported by the Greek). The Amplified New Testament seems to many readers to be a strange way in which to handle a piece of literature. At frequent intervals the “translator” inserts in brackets a variety of English synonyms and comments, from which the reader is to choose.

What of the future? Obviously no one in his senses would desire to stifle the work of honest scholarship, inspired by a sincere desire to put the living oracles of God in still clearer and more adequate English form. At the same time, the multiplication of new versions sponsored by rival publishers with an eye solely on economic profit is far from being desirable.

The wide variety of renderings already on the market rightly leads many persons to conclude that the need for additional translations is diminishing. What is needed, rather, is the “translation” of the Word of God into the daily lives of those who profess to be followers of the living Word!

Bruce M. Metzger is professor of New Testament language and literature at Princeton Theological Seminary. His most recent book, entitled Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism, was awarded a $1,000 prize by the Christian Research Foundation.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.