So said Richard Bancroft, archbishop of Canterbury under King James I, when a new translation of the Bible was proposed in 1604. Even before the production of the KJV (a project which Bancroft would personally oversee) there were already several English translations enjoying wide circulation. When the KJV committee published their work in 1611, they graciously acknowledged the excellent work done by their predecessors, even though it is clear that the KJV enjoyed certain benefits which helped to set it apart from the field: dozens of the world's best scholars working with the full support of the crown and the resources of the finest learning institutions in England, including Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster. It is little wonder that this translation eventually earned such wide approval and held it for so long.
Until the mid 20'th century, no English translation ever came close to rivaling the KJV in popularity. Since then, however, readers have been looking for an acceptable replacement to the antiquated language that sounds so foreign to those who did not grow up hearing it. Although those of us familiar with the Jacobean English of the KJV might feel that it conveys a certain reverence, the fact is that the Bible was originally written in the language of the common man. The need for a translation that would better suit the needs of modern readers was felt long before the flood of new translations began to appear. Noah Webster (1758 - 1843), the famous statesman and lexicographer, was an early advocate for a new translation. He feared people were misunderstanding God's word because of the gap between the English spoken in 16th-17th century England versus that which was current in 19th century America. This concern eventually lead to the production of the Revised version (1885) in England, followed by the American Standard Version (1901).
Although the ASV held on to the archaic pronouns (thee, thou, etc.) and verbal inflections (e.g., sayest, worketh), it made use of a number of ancient Biblical manuscripts which had come to light since the KJV was published three centuries earlier. In spite of sharp criticism leveled against the ASV for it's departure from the text of the KJV, the superority of it's textual basis was quickly recognized by scholars in the church like J.W. McGarvey, and by the 1940s, it became the translation of choice at conservative colleges such as Freed-Hardeman. To this day, aside from interlinears and other reference works, the ASV remains (arguably) the most literal translation of the Bible ever to be produced. The ASV can be accessed easily online, but is now very difficult to find in print.
The multiplication of modern translations would not begin until the middle of the 20th century. Since 1950, literally dozens of versions have appeared. Some were produced by individuals, others by committees. They differ in style, vocabulary, and even in the books, chapters, and verses that are included. Why are there so many? Does this multiplicity of versions undermine the authority of the Scriptures? Which one(s) should we trust for our own study of God's word? This is where we will pick up our discussion of this subject next time.
