At the beginning of many translations, a preface is included from the translators which discusses the method of translation, the texts used, and general comments about the translation. The following article highlights the thoughts of various translators about the Authorised Version. Most of the translations spoken of are now no longer in circulation. 

Since the English Bible of 1611 was published there have been numerous attempts to improve it, to modernise it, and to replace it, and the editors of the ‘improved’ or new versions have accompanied their work with remarks on the old version and explanations of their own aims and methods. In many respects their remarks have much in common with the opinions expressed by the translators and revisers of the last twenty years.

In 1840 Samuel Sharpe published his translation of the New Testament based on Griesbach’s Greek text of 1805. Inevitably there were many textual changes, but Sharpe endeavoured to be cautious and conservative in his English renderings—‘Being well aware of how much every new word grates upon the ear that is accustomed to the beautiful simplicity of the Authorised Version ... His aim has been to give the meaning and idiom of the corrected Greek text as far as possible in the well-known words: and to lay before the English reader those fruits of the labours of our numerous biblical critics which are already well known to the learned.’

In a separate volume of ‘Critical Notes’ published in 1867 he wrote, ‘The author’s aim in his translation was to be as literal as the differences between the two languages allowed; not to put the writings of the Apostles into a modern dress, but to show the peculiarities of thought and expression which belonged to the times in which they wrote. His aim was to show, not what the writers might have written for our instruction, but what they did write for the instruction of those who were then living, and who understood the circumstances by which they were surrounded.’

Dean Henry Alford published his revision of the New Testament in 1869, stating in his preface that ‘the time was ripe for an effort to be made to publish the English New Testament in a form more consonant to the now ascertained ancient Greek text, and with corrections of inadequate renderings’. The reviser ‘utterly repudiates for his revision any aim to be adopted in any place as a substitute for the Authorised Version. It is impossible, to say nothing more, that one man’s work can ever fulfil the requisites for an accepted version of the Scriptures ... No new rendering is safe until it has gone through many brains, and been thoroughly sifted by differing perceptions and tastes ... His wish mainly is to keep open the great question of authoritative revision, and to disabuse men’s minds of the fallacies by which the Authorised Version is commonly defended. At the same time he is not without hope that the revision may serve the cause of God and His Word by presenting to the English reader the sacred text in a form which, however far from perfection, yet more nearly approaches that in which the faith was once for all delivered to the saints.’

A few years later J. N. Darby wrote in the preface to his New Translation ‘The reader has not a revision of the Authorised Version, but a translation from the best Greek text I could attain to any certain knowledge of. I do not doubt a moment that numbers of phrases of the Authorised Version will be found in the translation. Filled as the mind is with it from constant use, it suggested itself naturally to the mind. I had no wish to reject it. But a revision of the Authorised Version, if desirable for ecclesiastical use, is not I think in itself a wise attempt. I rather doubt the justness of the taste which attempts to revise the Authorised Version. The new bit does not suit the old, and is the more distasteful from its juxtaposition. Imitation is seldom good taste, seldom undetected; it wants nature, and in these things nature is good taste, and attracts.’

The Twentieth Century New Testament of 1904 was introduced as ‘an endeavour to do for the English nation what has been done already for the people of almost all other countries—to enable Englishmen to read the most important part of their Bible in that form of their own language which they themselves use. It had its origin in the recognition of the fact that the English of the Authorised Version, though widely valued for its antique charm, is in many passages difficult, or even quite unintelligible to the modern reader ... Our constant effort has been to exclude all words and phrases not used in current English. We have, however, followed the modern practice of using an older phraseology in the rendering of poetical passages, and of quotations from the Old Testament, and in the language of prayer.’

Dr. J. Moffatt’s approach to the task was characteristic of the ‘liberal’ school to which he belonged. In his 1913 Preface he wrote—‘Once the translation of the New Testament is freed from the influence of the theory of verbal inspiration, these difficulties cease to be so formidable ... I have attempted to translate the New Testament exactly as one would render any piece of contemporary Hellenistic prose ... Any new translation starts under a special handicap. It appears to challenge in every line the rhythm and diction of an English classic, and this irritates many who have no knowledge of the original. The old, they say, is better … I have endeavoured to make the New Testament, especially St. Paul’s epistles, as intelligible to a modern English reader as any version that is not a paraphrase can hope to make them.’

In 1923 Edgar Goodspeed published his translation of the New Testament, one of the forerunners of the Revised Standard Version. In the preface he explains that ‘the New Testament was written, not in classical Greek, but in the common language of everyday life ... It follows that the most appropriate English form of the New Testament is the simple, straightforward English of everyday expression ... The translation of such a book demands first, the understanding of what the several writers meant to say, and second, the casting of their thought in the simplest and clearest of present-day English. It is the meaning, not the dress, of the New Testament that is of principal importance. For many of us the familiar expressions of the Authorised Version are richly freighted with memories and associations. But few sit down and read the New Testament in that version continuously and understandingly, a book at a time, as it was written to be read. The antique diction, the mechanical method of translation, and the disturbing verse division retard and discourage the reader. 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.’

E. E. Cunnington made his contribution in 1935, informing his readers that his version ‘aims to supply the general reader with a rendering which, while faithful to the original and abreast with the knowledge of the day, shall present the words of the evangelists and apostles in English as correct and clear as may be attained. No one acquainted with the subject will dispute that the Authorised Version can no longer be accepted as an adequate rendering … The aim has been to produce without bias of any kind, in the interests of the general reader, a book which, while giving accurately and intelligibly the meaning of the original, may be read with the pleasure that good doctrine set out in correct English may be expected to give.’

E. V. Rieu published a translation of the Gospels in 1952 and paid tribute to the Authorised Version in his preface—‘It is sometimes urged that time has staled the beauty of the Authorised Version and robbed it of its force. I do not think that this is true. It is just as beautiful and intelligible to us as it was to those who first heard it, though perhaps it has become a little too familiar ... Before leaving King James’s translators I must refer to one great advantage that they had over us. They wrote at a time when the discussion of spiritual matters in ordinary conversation was far more usual than it is today. Consequently they had at their disposal a religious vocabulary which was sure of ready acceptance. Nowadays it is less natural to talk of God; it is embarrassing to mention sin; and no one, when discussing his neighbour, assesses him in terms of righteousness. We have for long been preoccupied with subjects other than religion, and our daily concerns are reflected in our daily speech. It is this fact more than any other that makes it impossible to translate everything in the Gospels into the normal idiom of 1952. However, the translator must accept this limitation as a challenge rather than a handicap, blending the old wine with the new in such a manner that the skins hold both.’

C. H. Rieu did not agree with his father’s assessment of the old version. In his preface to his translation of the Acts of the Apostles in 1957 he wrote—‘The virtues of the Authorised Version of the Bible are well known. It is unfortunate that most of it is no longer intelligible, even to church-goers. A modern congregation often listens to a reading of the Old Testament prophets, or of an epistle of Paul, with almost no comprehension, and it is possible that the parson is sometimes as mystified as his hearers. What hope can evangelists have with such a translation, of conveying the truths of the Bible to the pagan or to the half-educated outside the church doors?’

C. H. Rieu continues—‘The task of the modern translator is to get into the mind of the author and try to find out the words he would have used had he been living today … One of the great dangers in the attempt to use modern words is that of the slang phrase and the chatty style. Anyone who has had experience of reading one of the more colloquial modern translations of the Bible aloud to congregations or groups will vouch for the embarrassment they can cause ... There is a deep instinct in us which demands that the language with which we treat or discuss religious matters should not be undignified or too informal.’

Readers of this magazine will not agree with all the views expressed by the translators of these versions, but they will observe that many of the things which have been said by the sponsors of modern versions during the past twenty years had already been said a number of times in the previous one hundred and twenty years. These translations represent a very small proportion of the total number of English versions of the Bible or New Testament produced during the period. Most of them have fallen into complete disuse, their existence is now known to comparatively few people, and in most instances copies are now rare and difficult to obtain. The translations referred to were based upon various critical editions of the Greek text, including those of Griesbach, Westcott and Hart, Nestle, and Von Soden. Both in their underlying text and in their English renderings they differed quite extensively from each other. The Authorised Version, notwithstanding the sustained, vigorous, scholarly, detailed criticisms directed against it, outlived them all, and continues to occupy a large place in the spiritual affections of many English-speaking Christian people.

First published in Quarterly Record 470. Lightly edited for online publication 25 September 2023.