In 2011 we observe the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible. The story of how and why King James authorized this version as head of the English Church is beautifully told by Adam Nicolson in God's Secretaries (2003). The work began in 1604 when a small group of Puritans approached the king and pleaded for a common Bible that would unify England after a century of religious conflict that was punctuated by torture, beheadings, and the burning of dissidents. Because James, son of the Catholic Queen Mary, had been raised in Scotland by a household governor who was Presbyterian, these particular Calvinists hoped that the Geneva Bible would become the preferred translation.  However, the Geneva Bible in English, which was the first "study Bible," contained numerous marginal notes and translation decisions that diminished the power of the bishops and the king. So the Anglican bishops outmaneuvered the Puritans and persuaded the King to back a revision of the Bishop's Bible, which was based mostly on the work of William Tyndale, who had been burned alive for translating the Bible into English. The revision work took seven years, completed in 1611, and was complicated by the continued religious oppression of Puritans. The Puritans began fleeing execution (including inquisitions led by the head of the King James translation committee) and boarded ships for a new world.

For two centuries in America the Geneva Bible competed with the King James Bible as the preferred Bible translation for Christian people. By the mid 1800s the Methodists and Baptists were spreading west across the land on horseback with the King James Bible, and they were planting thousands of churches that emerged out of massive revivals. They taught people how to read, by using the King James Bible as a core textbook. By the twentieth century, they were building universities and hospitals, as well as starting thousands of Sunday schools.

Even as the language of the King James Version (KJV) was thoroughly embedded in the American Protestant culture by the twentieth century, many words no longer held the same meaning that they did in the 1500s, when Tyndale coined hundreds of the terms. So the KJV underwent modest revisions to update some of the archaic language. However, a revision process with the Bible apparently preserves more than 95 percent of the prior edition. As a result a "woodenness" in the language is more apparent over time. It gets harder to read and takes more explanation to understand. It requires a college degree to feel comfortable with the complex sentences. It does not sound natural. The root cause of awkwardness is the use of English idioms and images that typical people do not actually use in everyday communication. This happens when the translator tries to produce a word order in English that is driven by the word order in Hebrew or Greek. Therefore, instead of reading English in Sunday morning worship, or in the Sunday school, we are reading "Biblish," which sounds like a foreign language. It's no surprise that most minds wander.

To get a truly fresh and accurate rendering in the common English of our era, the best available biblical scholars and writers started fresh with the ancient languages. We questioned words and images and idioms that no longer mean what the Hebrew and Greek meant.  Here are examples of change that readers will see in the summer of 2011 when the Common English Bible is fully published:

~ Instead of nobles (a term based in English feudalism), we often translate officials.
~ Instead of referring to a noble person, we often refer to an honorable person.
~ Instead of atonement (a word that Tyndale made up, at-one-ment) we prefer forms of reconcile or reconciliation.
~ Instead of "ark of the covenant" we prefer "chest containing the covenant."
~ Instead of "vessels of the temple," we prefer "temple equipment."
~ Instead of beginning thousands of sentences with the connective particle "For," we prefer to let modern English syntax convey these  connections.
~ Instead of "repent" we prefer "change your heart and life."
~ Instead of using a vocative "O" thousands of times before Lord (O Lord) or God, we removed O, because it's not present in Hebrew or Greek, and we do not speak with it in natural discourse or sing with it in our contemporary musical expression. Check out the Psalms, which read beautifully without the "O" when Lord or God are well placed in the poetic syntax.
~ We use contractions because that's how we talk to each other.

Some Bible readers find change jarring. They think that archaic language is dignified language or that Biblish has gravitas that ordinary people must accept for an hour on Sunday. Yet when we come to the words of the Bible through fresh eyes, the stories and expectations come alive as if for the first time. Our passion is restored for reading and understanding God's instruction or teaching. The Word then draws more people to know and love God. You and I are sent out:

"to do justice,
embrace faithful love,
and walk carefully with your God." (Micah 6:8 CEB)

~~Paul Franklyn
Associate Publisher

Comments A translator's reaction Created by Benedictus Quebecensis in 7/12/2011 6:44:32 PM First, some praise: The rendering of John 1 (the logos passage) is very good (although I am not sure it adds to anyone's understanding. And now, some criticism: The replacement of Son of Man by Human One is very troubling. If it had to be replaced, the straightforward, dynamic term would be I/me. In Aramaic, "son of man" was a euphemism used by a speaker to avoid the use of "I" or "me". It would have been better to simply say "I" or "me" or to continue using "Son of man" and add a footnote to explain. The term "the human one" is very peculiar and not at all idiomatic in English. It reminds one of the Ferengi on Star Trek, who always called an Earthling a "human", with misplaced stress on "-man". We can wonder what Eugene Nida would think of the CEB. He warned us that all translations suffer from some combination of addition of meaning, substraction of meaning and distortion (skewing) of meaning. I suspect the CEB contains a great deal of distortion--perhaps not for the translators or some specialists, who will read around the problems, but for ordinary readers, who will be confused by some of the changes, not knowing whether they are simply new, clearer, ways of saying the same thing or corrections of earlier translation errors and therefore new meanings. Banner year response Created by James in 3/26/2011 7:18:32 PM While it is certain KJV translators and Reformers like Tyndale desired a Bible for the common man, there is still a debate over the text that is used. That is where the tension lies. Received Text and Alexandrian are very different and would not have been accepted by KJV translators. It is not simply an issue of readability but the credibilty of the source documents. The Bible is not simply stories and ideas to be read and understood but the very words were inspired and must be contended for; the thousands of missing words in the source documents area a problem no matter how faithful and accurate the translation of those documents. You cannot accurately translate what is not there. Em-dash usage & Rev 13.8 Created by Andy Edwards in 3/1/2011 10:16:14 AM I find your use of em-dashes helpful, especially in Rev 13.8, where a tricky arrangement of clauses has--in the Wycliffe, Tyndale, Geneva, KJV, NIV, and REB--either endorsed or implied an eternal preordaining of the cross. I suspect this may be a text-critical issue, but Metzger doesn't mention it in his commentary, which usually flags the big issues like this. But back to the em-dashes: they are quite helpful in contemporary English, so I welcome them here. Rom 1:1 Created by Paul Franklyn in 2/22/2011 3:23:06 PM Thanks for the comment on Romans 1:1. For the full CEB (NT&OT) that soon goes to press, we are making a change that will ameliorate this issue. Romans 1.1 Argument Created by Adam Janes in 2/22/2011 3:10:55 PM While I agree with Arch that the "who is" clause is unnecessary, I hardly find it to be an egregious grammatical error. Neither would I associate the word erroneous with what is largely a matter of preference. The "who is" clause does not automatically refer to the immediate antecedent as Paul is clearly the subject of the sentence whereas Jesus Christ is the object of the preposition "of." While I would have left out the "who is" clause personally, it is a matter of preference and the translators held a different opinion from us. Micah 6:8 Created by Anonymous in 2/10/2011 3:11:34 PM "walk carefully": this creates an image in my mind of walking on tiptoes; am I alone in this? Grammatical nitpicking refuted Created by Cory Howell in 2/4/2011 9:18:23 AM While I see where Arch is coming from in his comment below, I have to disagree. Yes, it's possible to read the two clauses beginning with "who is" as referring to Christ, but I don't believe anyone would read it in such a way. English grammar is not identical to Greek grammar; in English, the prepositional phrase "of Christ Jesus" would clearly be attached to slave, as would the two "who is" clauses. Perhaps a comma before the two clauses would have clarified things a bit, but I would be curious to know of any other way the translators could have demonstrated the Greek cases to which you refer. "Of Christ Jesus" has to immediately follow "slave," so where else could one put the "who is" clauses? In an English reading, the addition of "who is" merely clarifies, rather than distorting, as you accused it of doing. Common English Created by Cory Howell in 1/24/2011 1:49:40 PM This truly is a banner year for Bible translations: the 400th birthday of the KJV, the debut of the updated NIV, and the upcoming debut of the complete CEB! Despite what the KJV-Only types believe, the KJV translators had a great deal in common with modern translators, including the CEB translators. They wanted to put the Bible into the hands of the common people, they wanted everyone to be able to understand God's Word, and they wanted to make the best possible translation they could in the English language. I believe the KJV translators would support the mission of the CEB 100%. Romans 1.1 grammatical error Created by Arch B. Taylor, Jr. in 1/22/2011 9:55:44 PM Romans 1.1 contains an egregious English grammatical error that distorts the meaning. The verse is Paul’s self-introduction, therefore he writes as Paulos (first person, mascukline nominative singular) and describes himself as a slave of Christ Jesus (possessive case). Paul continues his self-introduction (still in the first person) as “called” (Gr klētos present passive participle, nominative case, agreeing with Paulos) “to be an apostle.” CEB translation unnecessarily and erroneously, places the relative clause “who is” (third person singular), which grammatically in English refers to Christ Jesus, the immediate and logical antecedent. That destroys Paul’s statement and makes Christ Jesus the one who is called to be an apostle. If that were the intention of the Greek, the participle would be klētou to agree with genitive Xristou Iēsou. CEB repeats the same English error in the following phrase in which Paul describes himself as set apart, nominative masculine singular, but again the “who is” insertion grammatically refers to Christ Jesus. Common English Bible Created by Peter Walsh in 1/17/2011 3:35:53 PM I welcome the Common English Bible after reading few pages from the New Testament online via the Bible Gateway. I found it very ‘readable’ as I am deaf I sometime misunderstood the meaning of it from any passages in the bible. I know it is the same for the hearing people too but it is worse for the deaf people due to the poor education received in the school or college. I look forward to buy a full bible (old and new testament) when it is available, hopeful in due course? Your Name Title Comment New Comment Enter the code