Understanding the English Bible: A Comparative Analysis of Four Bible Versions

The University of Southern Mississippi The University of Southern Mississippi

The Aquila Digital Community The Aquila Digital Community

Honors Theses Honors College

Fall 12-2017

Understanding the English Bible: A Comparative Analysis of Four Understanding the English Bible: A Comparative Analysis of Four

Bible Versions Bible Versions

Michael R. Coats

University of Southern Mississippi

Follow this and additional works at: https://aquila.usm.edu/honors_theses

Part of the English Language and Literature Commons, and the Translation Studies Commons

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation

Coats, Michael R., "Understanding the English Bible: A Comparative Analysis of Four Bible Versions"

(2017).

Honors Theses

. 547.

https://aquila.usm.edu/honors_theses/547

This Honors College Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors College at The Aquila Digital

Community. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of The Aquila

Digital Community. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected].

The University of Southern Mississippi

Understanding the

English Bible: A Comparative

Analysis of Four Bible Versions

Michael Coats

A Thesis

Submitted to the Honors College of

The University of Southern Mississippi

in Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree of

Bachelor of Arts

in the Department of English

December 2017

iii

Approved by

________________________________

Jameela Lares, Ph.D., Thesis Advisor

Professor of English

_________________________________

Luis Iglesias, Chair

Department of English

_________________________________

Ellen Weinauer, Ph.D., Dean

Honors College

Dedication

This thesis is dedicated to my father, who instead of telling me what a word means would

point me to a dictionary and tell me to look it up and learn for myself.

Acknowledgments

I would like to offer my utmost thanks to Dr. Jameela Lares for advising this

thesis. Without her helpful comments on my often late and poorly written drafts, as well

as her recommendations for research, I would never have gotten this far.

Table of Contents

List of Abbreviations…………………………………………………………………...vii

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………1

Literature Review…………………………………………………………………………4

About the Bible……………………………………………………………………………8

Translation History………………………………………………………………………11

Translation Philosophy…..………………………………………………………………14

Translation Styles………………………………………………………………………...19

Analysis of Genesis 1:1, 2, and 7………………………………………………………...23

Analysis of the Lord’s Prayer…...……………………………………………………….28

Analysis of I Corinthians 13:1-3……………………………………………………....…31

Appendix…………………………………………………….………………………...…35

Works Cited………...……………………………………………………………………40

vii

List of Abbreviations

CEB Contemporary English Bible

ESV English Standard Version

HCSB Holman Christian Standard Bible

KJV King James Version

MSG Message Bible

NASB New American Standard Bible

NKJV New King James Version

TLB The Living Bible

TND Tyndale’s Bible

Introduction

Scholarship pertaining to the Bible accounts for a great deal of research. A search

for “the Bible” on just the University of Southern Mississippi Libraries website archive

results in 549,075 hits, and specifying “English Bible versions” only reduces those results

to 70,000. My largest difficulty in discussing the Bible lies not in finding a conversation

but in finding which part of the conversation to enter. In the past fifty years, one of the

largest emphases has been on using the best translation style for the Bible, a topic that has

dominated the field of biblical scholarship (Ryken, Understanding 15). I believe,

however, that translation preference is likely the result of a greater issue that has been a

constant motivation working in the background. For example, Eugene Nida, father of the

dynamic equivalence theory to be further discussed below, argues that “This underlying

issue is the desire to understand the Bible. When there are inadequate equivalents in the

formal patterning of sentences (i.e., mistakes in syntax), we generally recognize such

faults as once and either excuse them, or at least are able to discount them in trying to

ascertain the meaning” (31). F. F. Bruce also advocates Nida’s position on translation,

reasoning that “the needs of the present day . . . require . . . a completely new translation

based on the most accurate and up-to-date findings” in translation theory (235). Leland

Ryken, however, argues that any accurate understanding of the Bible is only possible

through literal translations. His view is that dynamic equivalence fails to “render the

Bible understandable to modern readers” and becomes a hindrance that “shields them [the

readers] from encountering what the original text says.” Advocates for both sides of this

translation debate desire a clear understanding of the Bible, but they disagree about the

means for finding it. And this desire to understand is not limited to these biblical

scholars. Publishers often laud their translations by claiming they have been written for

the clearest understanding. The preface of the New Oxford Annotated Bible praises the

Revised Standard Version’s translation for its “contribution to the understanding of the

Bible” (i). The introduction to the New International Readers Version

concludes that

much difficulty pervades other Bibles, so its translators have intentionally employed a

smaller vocabulary so as to “use words that are easy to understand” (vii), while the

foreword to New American Standard Bible justifies varying translation styles between

dynamic and formal equivalence throughout because that strategy functions better for

“assisting the reader’s comprehension” (v). Each and every one of these assertions

concerns the reader’s being able to better understand the Bible, and that is where I come

into the conversation. I follow one particular Bible tradition from its source to its most

recent version, I analyze parallel portions, and I offer my understanding of each text in

relation to the others. The practical result of this exercise shows that gaining a true and

well-rounded understanding of the Bible will not be as easy as merely buying the newest

version and reading it. By comparing the versions I chose according to my method, I

present a practical and replicable template for any Bible reader to use in comparing

English Bibles in order to gather the best understanding of the text in question.

Though it is affiliated with the NIV, the NIRV preface states that “The NIV Committee

on Bible Translation didn’t produce the NIRV” (vii). This Bible is not so much a

translation as it is a remodeling of the translated text of the NIV. The NIRV was designed

for easy readability with less effort on accuracy. This goal is why the design committee

used the smallest and most repetitious vocabulary possible.

One problem with finding sources to quote in the comparison of Bible versions

section is that the authorities tend to prefer one version or style of translation that they

subsequently present as better as or more accurate than others. Eugene Nida is famous for

theorizing dynamic equivalence and also advocating the use of Bibles translated in this

style. Leland Ryken even began writing The Word of God in English as merely a literary

comparison of Bible versions before making it a defense of what is termed “essentially

literal translation.” Rather than make my study of English Bibles into a competition as

well, I compare the results of close readings of select verses in four versions. These

results are for the purpose of discovering differences in the texts and better understanding

through a comparison of other versions. In order to compare versions as impartially as

possible, I look for sources that will shed light on the method of translation or to provide

historical background on the Bible. Every author has a bias, myself included, but to

reduce its effect, I work to keep my perspective unhindered by avoiding others’ opinions

on the Bibles and only use the text of the Bibles. Lest I appear to be thereby uninformed,

let me clarify my method by explaining that I have certainly read and considered several

arguments about the theological and literary implications of different word choice or

missing/added text, from which I have learned the significance of small details, but the

specific examples, details, and understanding of the results in this paper are only my own

understanding. For example, in results linked to comparing Bible versions I often came

across John 7:8, 10, an apparently controversial passage for some. Some Bibles, like the

English Revised Version, include a translation of verse eight as Jesus saying “Go ye up

unto the feast: I go not up yet unto this feast; because my time is not yet fulfilled,” and

then after verse nine explains that Jesus stayed behind, the translation in verse ten has,

“But when his brethren were gone up unto the feast, then went he also up, not publicly,

but as it were in secret.” The key word in verse eight is the first yet, but some other

translations, such as the New International Version, read, “You go to the festival. I am

not going up to this festival, because my time has not yet fully come,” and for verse 10

read, “However, after his brothers had left for the festival, he went also, not publicly, but

in secret.” From a certain theological standpoint, translations of John 7:8 such as that of

the New International Version indicate that Jesus told a lie and therefore committed sin.

From that standpoint of translation types, this passage would also be a prime example for

Leland Ryken’s argument that essentially literal versions like the English Revised

Version are more accurate and reliable than other versions like the New International

Version. While I understand the importance in including yet rather than excluding it in

John 7:8, my aim is alternatively focused on how contrasting examples like these would

affect how one understands the Bible as a whole.

Literature Review

My most helpful source has been the aforementioned Leland Ryken, a professor

of English whose publications include The Word of God in English, Understanding

English Bible Translation, and Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible.

Ryken’s approach to defining, comparing, and advocating translations in The Word of

God in English responds to a relatively recent change in public opinion toward Bible

translation methods. While translators somehow managed to translate texts into English

for centuries with little worry about conflicting philosophies of translation, a trend in the

past fifty years that began with Eugene Nida’s theories of translation has led to the idea

that a good translation has to follow a certain style and be amenable to categorization as

either a literal translation or a paraphrase. By explaining the history of these translation

styles, Ryken’s argument in The Word of God in English for essentially literal style helps

me understand the intended and actual purposes of each different translation style.

Ryken’s Understanding English Bible Translation is somewhat similar to my thesis in

that he also compares Bible versions by the English text only and conveys how some

verses read differently and provide different understandings; however, his purpose in

comparison is to show that a better understanding comes through a Bible’s translation

method. Ryken compares Bible verses in different styles of translations and concludes

that dynamic equivalence is inaccurate in comparison to essentially literal translations.

And in fact, I agree with his conclusions. Essentially literal Bibles do provide the most

straightforward information. That being said, even Bibles translated in the same style

differ in areas, and to best understand these differences, I take the process of comparing

Bible passages a step further by comparing my verses in four versions that are all from

essentially literal translations. Ryken’s Words of Delight spends little time on Bible

versions and focuses on the Bible as literature. His discussion of the translated Bible as a

work of English literature has helped me to see that comparing English Bible versions is

possible without knowing the original languages of the manuscripts and also to see that

one can look past the purely theological aspects of the text in order to focus on

understanding and analyzing the Bible as literature. One of Ryken’s highest honors is

having served on the English Standard Version translation committee; however, he also

highly favors the English Standard Version when he compares Bibles, and

understandably so. My purpose in comparing different versions is to gain a better

understanding of the Bible. Rather than looking at which types of Bibles give the best

understanding or noting his arguments for the ESV’s superiority, I use Ryken’s material

that pertains directly to Bible versions and translations.

In addition to researching types of Bible translations, I learned much about the

history of Bible translations. F. F. Bruce’s report in the History of the Bible in English

encompasses close to five hundred years of Bible translations into Modern English. His

book has provided me with excellent historical context in which to understand the

English behind Bible versions. The author, F. F. Bruce (1910-1990), published over forty

books and was Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism and Exegesis at Manchester

University, the home to the John Rylands Library, one of the top collections of Bibles in

the world. Bruce is more than qualified to offer an accurate, relevant understanding of the

Bible’s journey through English. This book details Bible translations from excerpts of the

Bible in Old English to a survey of translations from the seventies.

David Norton’s The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndale to Today is

also an excellent historical reference that aids and supplements my overall understanding

of the Bible’s path through English. As the title indicates, the primary focus is on the

King James Version, which is helpful since no other English Bible made a significant

impact on the public for nearly three hundred years. Because of his outstanding

knowledge on and publication of works about the King James Bible, Norton was given

the prestigious honor of reediting the Cambridge King James Version.

As with Ryken’s

connection to the English Standard Version, Norton’s specialty in the area of the King

Gordon Campbell holds a similar honor. Having written a catalogued history of

misprints in KJV editions 1611-2011, he was rightly chosen to organize the Oxford 400

anniversary reprint of King James Bible.

James Version makes his work seem somewhat unbalanced in favor of the King James

Version when talking about it in comparison with any other version, but as with Ryken’s

text, I am using all that I can from the background information of the Bible and using

little of the commentary about the value of that translation.

The Oxford Companion to the Bible, written by over two hundred and fifty

scholars under the editorship of Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogan, has been a

tremendous help in explaining and defining concepts of biblical criticism heretofore

unfamiliar to me. Without it, I would not have been able to quickly cross-reference and

understand all of the related terms in other materials I had to research. With reliable

explanations of such varied topics as people and places in the Bible and explanations of

source texts and translation styles, the Oxford Companion has been invaluable to me. It is

probably impossible to do any serious research on the Bible without coming across this

book or someone who quotes from it.

While I do not quote from yet another source, Baugh and Cable’s A History of the

English Language is an influential textbook that has helped me better understand the

development of and changes in English through time. From this book I know that current

linguistic changes in English occur slowly and are not significant enough to affect the

understanding of the language in any short amount of time. Too often, misinformed or

generic claims arise on the matter of language change impacting Bible translations.

Accurately understanding how English has developed and continues to progress allows

me to be better suited for discussing differences in Bible versions.

Any definition or etymology of a word that I use comes from the Oxford English

Dictionary. As the most authoritative dictionary in English, one that lists every known

word in the language in use since 1150 CE, the OED needs little introduction or defense.

With few exceptions, this dictionary presents the most thoroughly detailed information on

any word, including its earliest mention in writing, all known usages and definitions, and

an etymology to trace that word’s entry into English.

While I do reference a few other secondary sources, such as Nida’s book of

translation theory or the Tyndale website that lists Bible versions, I only incorporate

some of their material for statistics and brief comments. The texts I have identified above

are the most significant sources for my research.

About the Bible

As one of the most influential works in English, the Bible is the subject of much

scholarship. One reason biblical scholarship can become confusing at times is because

the English Bible does not appear in one form or translation but has a different style and

vocabulary in each version. The Oxford World’s Classics’ Bible even begins by stating

“Bibles are, by their very nature, partisan. As that plural suggests, there are many bibles,

even in English, and each is the product of a particular interest group—whether religious,

commercial, or, increasingly nowadays, both” (v). The etymology behind the word for

Bible comes from the Greek βίβλος and originally meant paper or scroll before becoming

associated with “book” (OED). The “Bible” is an abstract term that does not necessarily

refer to a specific and tangible item but to an idea that can be manifest in quite a range of

translations, from Young’s Literal Translation to the paraphrased Good News Bible.

The

I have even come across a few passages in what is called the Emoji Bible (though I

hesitantly use “translation” when referring to it, especially since I am unable to find more

Tyndale Archives website lists over one hundred known versions of the Bible in English

alone, and only fifteen of them were published before the twentieth century ("Index of

100+” n.p.). Furthermore, these translations are predominantly produced by American

committees and not aimed toward different dialects of World English. Regardless of the

different styles of content inside Bibles, many perceive each version to be “The Bible,”

on the basis that the Bible is the word of God.

Naturally, with so many versions of the

Bible, overemphasizing the full scope of their differences is easy, but the opposite

extreme, believing that all English Bibles say the same thing in slightly altered ways, is

not completely true. If all versions truly say the same thing, then sensible questions arise

as to why on earth so many have been published, and why even more continue to be.

Clearly some factor in language or culture must be prevalent and influential enough for

committees, predominantly American, to justify making new translations and updated

revisions despite those already in existence.

One issue to remember is that no Bible that is under copyright can legally say the

same thing as any other Bible, with or without a copyright. According to US Code title

17,"To be copyrightable, a derivative work [in this case, a Bible translation] must be

than three verses) that connects a few words with Emojis. For Genesis 1:3, it reads “God

🗣 said, ‘Let there be🐝 light💡,’ and there was💡light.”

One notable exception to this belief that different versions of the Bible are still

technically the Bible is a movement known as the King James Only-ism. King James

Only-ism is the belief that the King James Bible is the only perfect English translation of

the Bible and that any other versions are counterfeit translations. (See Campbell, chapter

13 for in depth discussion of this movement).

different enough from the original to be regarded as a 'new work' or must contain a

substantial amount of new material. Making minor changes or additions of little

substance to a pre-existing work will not qualify the work as a new version for copyright

purposes” (U.S. Copyright Office). Because of such a large and ever increasing number

of English versions, the Bible, in relation to Christian writings, is a generic term that

applies to any translation of a more or less agreed upon source text of sacred writings.

Some linguists, such as Nida, believe that updated terminology is indispensable in

understanding the Bible, and the claims made by some modern Bibles perpetuates this

idea that as language changes with each generation (or so it is claimed), the Bible must

change with it for each generation. The Holman Christian Standard Bible offers a

specific, numbered list of reasons for why its translation was necessary. The very first

point of this list claims that “each generation needs a fresh translation of the Bible in its

own language” (iv). The English Standard Version’s intent is to make sure that “archaic

language has been brought to current usage” (xv). The New American Standard Bible

relates that their updating of the American Standard Version from fifty-eight years earlier

is to “render [the Hebrew and Greek] into more current English” (iv). The New King

James Version mentions that its translation is necessary since English, “like all living

languages, has undergone profound changes” (vi). This idea that the English language has

become outdated and requires constant updating for modern audiences appears to be a

common justification for publishing a new Bible translation or version. If, however,

Even the source texts of translations become the subject of debate when dealing with the

Majority Text’s inconsistencies with two influential codices, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus,

which also differ significantly with each other (Burgon 14).

constant change is truly the reason, then the English language has changed so drastically

that no fewer than fifty different Bibles (not counting revisions) have been published in

the last century to keep up. The truth is that aside from pronunciation, spelling, and a few

new words, English today is almost identical to English from a hundred years ago. Bibles

that are rapidly updated and revised for a slowly shifting language raise the question of

what the differences are among them. Attempting to determine if the textual changes are

necessary is a moot point, since the discovery will not affect the Bible publishers’

decisions to continue producing updated Bible versions. Answering where the changes

are, however, and how those variations affect the understanding of text itself is a more

practical question, the answer to which will help Bible readers who would otherwise just

take any Bible from the shelf.

The English versions of the Bible are more significant versions of the Scripture

than many might think. Realistically, only seven million living people are currently fluent

in Hebrew: five million in Israel plus two million over elsewhere in the world (UCLA).

Many others are doubtless familiar with ancient Greek, but only a small number of

people outside of the scholarly community even know the alphabet in order, and that is

only because they belong to a fraternity or sorority. Since the vast majority of modern

English-speaking Bible readers do not know ancient Greek or Hebrew, their most

relevant issue is not what the Greek might say, but what the English does say. I am

unable to say much at all about the underlying languages (Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, or

Aramaic) of the translated manuscripts because that field of study and research requires

far more information to even introduce the complexity in each of the languages than any

one paper could hold. Additionally, I am linguistically unqualified to comment on how

accurately any text is translated. Fortunately, I and other native English speakers have the

capability and resources to read and compare as many English Bibles as time allows--

even ones from over fifty years ago in that horrid, “outdated” language.

Current scholarship has already found, argued, and written about the differences

in ancient manuscripts, but a more practical exercise for everyday English-speaking Bible

readers is to compare English Bible versions. Commentaries, dictionaries, atlases, and the

like each have value; however, an understanding of the Bible is primarily limited by the

amount of effort put into comparing the different versions of it. Since all English Bible

copyrighted versions must by law “be different” to an extent, then certain questions

should arise in the mind of the careful reader, namely, what type of differences appear,

where these differences are appearing, and to what extent these differences affect the

meaning of the text. I will compare and contrast well-known scripture passages from four

notable Bible versions in order to display and better explain the existence and importance

of their differences, all in an effort to demonstrate ways to understand the results. My

comparison is oriented to finding variations, no matter how seemingly insignificant,

identifying them, and analyzing how those differences affect an understanding of the text.

As I explained earlier, this process is not for the purpose of ranking some English

translations as better or worse than others, nor is the intent to argue as to which

translation is more or less literal than others. This comparison is rather to explore

variations in Bible versions and explain their significance. My results should help support

my contention that despite the over-abundance of Bible versions, each one provides a

specific understanding that allows for a larger overall understanding of the Bible.

Given that there are 1,189 chapters in most Protestant Bibles,

comparing every

single verse in even two translations would be an impossible task. And with the large list

of translation options to choose from, intentionally picking a handful of Bible translations

that all record conflicting accounts in one or two verses could be easily found. For

example, the last twelve verses of Mark are not found in the Greek texts of Codex

Sinaiticus or Codex Vaticanus, and Bibles that rely heavily on these source manuscripts

typically do not include verses nine through twenty.

Often, even when manuscripts are

the same, translation philosophy can affect how a text is translated. In the text of Acts

26:14 in the ESV, Paul recounts hearing the voice of God in Hebrew, but in the NIV, the

language he hears is Aramaic. The word being translated, Ἑβραΐδι (Hebraioi), is the

same in both, but the more literal ESV faithfully translates what is in the text while the

dynamic-oriented NIV takes the liberty of ignoring the word that means “Hebrew” and

substitutes “Aramaic” as the language, because they presume that choice to be more

historically accurate—it was the language spoken commonly by Jews at the time—

though not translationally accurate. For the sake of saving time and avoiding confusion

with too much translation philosophy, I limit my study to examining differences in four

Protestant Bibles differ from Catholic Bibles in that they do not include some material

that the Catholic versions do. Protestants believe that only sixty-six books are part of the

biblical cannon, and that anything else is apocryphal. Since Protestantism has dominated

English-speaking Christianity since the Reformation, I am using Protestant Bibles as the

model.

Some versions add the section in brackets or in a footnote, clearly noting that the

passage is not part of the biblical text, but is included for tradition’s sake.

Bibles related through the same line of manuscripts and translated in an essentially literal

style (further discussed in the translation philosophy section). These four versions are

Tyndale’s Bible (1535), the King James Version (1611), the Revised Version (1885), and

the English Standard Version (2016). The history of these versions and their relation to

each other is integral to appreciating the full significance of their differences. While

separated by gaps of time, the Bibles on this list are closely related in that they are based

on previous one(s), making each later version dependent on its line of predecessors. My

reason for choosing these similar, related Bibles is to emphasize how important changes

among them can be. If four Bibles from the same stream and translation style appear

nearly identical yet differ significantly in some places, then certainly any Bibles from

other sources and translation styles that already noticeably read far from the same should

also provide a difference in understanding.

Translation History

The first complete English translation is the Wycliffe Bible from the fourteenth

century; however, this Bible was translated into Middle English from the Latin Vulgate

(itself a translation), whereas later Bibles went back to the original languages. Since the

Wycliffe Bible comes from a different base text and was translated into a pre-modern

variety of English, its comparison would be out of place in the context of this particular

study. Modern English Bible translations begins with William Tyndale (1492-1536).

After publishing his finished New Testament in 1526, at a time when translating the

Bible into a modern language was a crime punishable by death, Tyndale attempted to

complete his Bible, but was martyred in 1536 before he could finish translating the Old

Testament. Tyndale died at the stake within a few years of revising his New Testament

and translating the Pentateuch or five books of Moses (i.e., Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus,

Numbers, and Deuteronomy), Joshua through Chronicles, and Jonah (Norton 8). As

Tyndale’s Bible is the first in Modern English, it is unaffected by earlier translations and

even sets a standard for later Bibles, though not always for the best. Tyndale’s New

Testament had hardly been published before his “former associate” George Joye began

changing parts of the New Testament

while still passing it off as Tyndale’s (Bruce 42).

Tyndale was not opposed to alterations of his Bible; however, he was adamant that his

name only be attached to his own version. In the preface of his revised New Testament of

1534, he expresses his wish for any readers to “Take my translations and labours, and

change and alter, and correct and corrupt at their pleasures, and call it their own

translation, and put their own names, and not play bo-peep after George Joye’s manner”

(Bruce 43).

Tyndale invites other scholars to compare his Bible to the originals and alter

it accordingly on the condition that they put their name on it and not his, as did Joye.

These instructions are indeed what the King James, Revised, and English Standard

Versions follow. Each later version uses the completed labors of former translations as

references to build from. Other Bibles, such as the Living Translation or the Message, are

doubtless influenced by Tyndale’s Bible, but they are new translations directly into

English with no reference to the renderings of previous versions.

One significant change Joye makes is his New Testament is using “life after life”

instead of “resurrection” (Bruce 44).

The OED cites this passage as the first recorded usage of bo-peep. To “play bo-peep” in

modern terms is to “play peek-a-boo.” Since the game is for infants, the term connotes

childishness.

Several Bibles of importance came out after Tyndale’s, the most historically

significant being the Authorized or King James Version (1611). In 1604, the political

conditions under a new monarch and the divided religious atmosphere between Anglicans

and Puritans created the perfect environment for a new Bible. This version united the

kingdom, so to speak, which was split between the people’s Geneva Bible (1560) and the

church’s Bishop’s Bible (1568) (Norton 81). Forty-seven scholars

were separated into

six committees for the purpose of having each team translate a section of the Bible. After

a group translated its designated portions, they would review and correct the translated

sections from the other groups until an agreement could be reached. These men, however,

were not tasked with merely translating a new Bible. The preface to the King James

Version includes the following statement from the translators: “we never thought from

the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad

one a good one . . . but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one

principal good one.” The translators of the King James Version were in the process of

translating a Bible from Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and then comparing that Bible to

other English versions. Tyndale’s Bible influences a large portion of the finished

Authorized Version, both directly from his version and indirectly through other English

versions that were partially based on Tyndale’s (Norton 86). Thus, the King James

Version is not solely a new translation but also an update and revision of Tyndale’s Bible.

This version became so popular and influential, that despite the arrivals of a few other

Fifty-four “learned men” of different backgrounds were supposed to have been

involved, but conflicts in timing and death prevented some from taking part (Norton 54,

60).

translations, such as Thomson's Translation, the Quaker’s Bible, or Noah Webster’s

revision of the King James Bible, it remained unopposed as the authoritative version until

the late nineteenth century (Norton 138).

Then, in 1870, the English bishop Samuel Wilberforce (1805-1873) requested that

a revision committee be appointed to update the King James Version. This was not a

revision of the King James Version to correct printing errors or spelling updates like

those that had been done before.

Like the goals of its original, the goal of this version

was not to make a completely new translation. The translators of the Revised Version

were to “limit, as far as possible, the expression of such alterations to the language of the

Authorized and earlier English versions” (Bruce 137). This Revised Version was to try to

retain the text of the King James Version as much as possible unless a phrasing from an

earlier English version would be more accurate. The New Testament was finished and

published in 1881, with the complete Revised Version of the Bible coming out in 1885.

The first edition of this version was not much of a success with the general public, but its

creation served as an important milestone, ending the period of translational silence that

followed the King James Version and leading ultimately to the number of Bible versions

today. The Revised Version follows in the Tyndale legacy by producing another revision-

based translation, and it serves to bridge the gap between more modern Bible versions

and older ones.

The English Standard Version traces its roots though the Revised and King James

Versions all the way back to Tyndale’s, making it the most recent branch to this

particular tree. In fact, the English Standard Version is the current update and revision of

For information about such revisions, see Norton 161-184.

the RV from 1885. The Revised Version became the Revised Standard Version, which

later became the New Revised Standard Version. Its American edition, the American

Standard Version, became the New American Standard Version, now called the English

Standard Version. As a derivative of the Revised Version, the English Standard Version

functions as an updated revision of a revision of an updated translation. The English

Standard Version under its current name has gone through three editions, the latest one

from 2016 making this version the most recent link to Tyndale’s Bible. The preface

maintains that despite these numerous editions and versions, “The words and phrases

themselves grow out of the Tyndale-King James legacy” (xv). In a way, the English

Standard Version is a sort of great-great-great-[etc.]- grand-version of Tyndale’s Bible,

functioning as a derivative revised translation instead of as a completely new one.

Translation Styles

Any number of Bible versions, of course, could claim to stem from Tyndale’s or

the King James Bible. What truly separates these four Bible versions from the rest is their

combination of translation style and base text. Formal equivalence and dynamic

equivalence, terms I began to introduce above, are the names for two primary goals of

Bible translation. Dynamic equivalence does not worry about translating individual

words or idioms into English but instead focuses on imparting to the reader the same

thought or effect that the source material would convey to a native speaker of that

language. Formal equivalence involves keeping the translated text as faithful as

coherently possible to the precise word choice and order of the base text in order to give

an accurate understanding of what the original source meant. Other translation styles fall

somewhere between these two methods, incorporating some expressions word for word

and other expressions as words or idioms assumed to be equivalent. A formal translation

renders Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (ESV). A

dynamic equivalent version displays “First this: God created the Heavens and Earth—all

you see, all you don’t see” (MSG). A bible that combines both styles reads “When God

began creating the heavens and the earth” (TLB).

The four Bibles in this study are all translated in a method that Ryken calls

“essentially literal,” a process that leans toward formal equivalence. He defines this term

as “a translation that strives to translate the exact words of the original-language text but

not in such a way as to violate the normal rules of language and syntax in the receptor

language” (Ryken, Understanding 19-20). While translation style is an issue today, Bible

translation had worked in a uniform method of preserving as much as possible the word

order and exact meaning of each word until Eugene Nida introduced new concepts in the

mid-twentieth century, one being the theory of dynamic equivalence (Ryken,

Understanding 20-21). Translation philosophy is even the primary cause of most

differences between translated Bible texts (Ryken, Understanding 76). The reason that

The New Living Translation reports Psalm 73:7 as “These fat cats have everything,”

while the English Standard Version translates it as “Their eyes swell out through fatness,”

is not because the two use different base texts, but because the New Living Translation is

in dynamic equivalence, and the English Standard Version is in the essentially literal

formal equivalence.

While translational style makes up the most significant changes between versions,

the underlying text also has an effect on the understanding in its final product. Footnotes

in any given Bible may be misleading by their speaking of the original manuscripts as if

they still exist. Scholars can only speculate on what the autographs might have said

because of the various readings that disagree among surviving manuscript copies. The

standard source material for the Old Testament is usually the Masoretic text (in

Hebrew)

or the Septuagint (in Greek),

while the textual base for the New Testament

comes for the most part from either the Received Text

or the Alexandrian Text.

The

The Masoretic texts are collections of the Hebrew Old Testament “endorsed by and

copied by the central stream of Judaism” in response to the decentralized religious

structure that followed from the destruction of the second temple in AD 70 (Sanders,

“Masoretic Text”). These texts were transcribed and passed down through the

generations, eventually reaching the Masoretes in the Middle Ages who added the

standardized vocal marks for vowels.

The Septuagint is a Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament dated to 245 BC.

According to legend, seventy-two Hebrew scholars translated this text into Greek in

seventy-two days in Alexandria, Egypt, at the request of Ptolemy II (Coogan,

“Septuagint”).

The Received Text, often called by its Latin title of Textus Receptus, is the end result

of a group of manuscripts compared to each other and put together into a uniform text.

The Received Text is the base text of a large number of Bibles translated during the

Protestant Reformation.

The Alexandrian Text is another name for the Westcott-Hort Text compiled in the late

nineteenth century by English bishop, biblical scholar, and theologian Brooke Foss

Westcott (1825-1901) and Irish theologian and editor Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-

editors of the NKJV (New King James Version) say that despite any English differences,

“85 percent of the New Testament text [from both sources] is the same” (ix). Many

modern Bibles do not use one text source exclusively but instead use certain readings

from different sources based on the translation committee’s preference. These multiple

sources are the reason why some Bibles will use a verse with a footnote that adds “some

manuscripts add [or are missing] this verse.” While fifteen percent may seem a large

percentage of error, the same NKJV preface also confirms that “the most important

differences . . . are due, not to manuscript divergence, but to the way the translators view

the task of translation” (viii). The four Bibles I have chosen fall into the same

translational method, with the Revised Version and English Standard Version both

adding the Westcott-Hort Text to their collection of sources.

For an English speaker to consult concordances or lexicons to justify one

rendering over another is only practical to a certain extent. Anyone unfamiliar with the

biblical languages must take one concordance’s word against another as to which

meaning a word should actually have in English. That process of textual criticism may

work for translating and revising, but the entire ordeal is unnecessary in the process I

propose for understanding, not evaluating, English Bibles though comparisons. The issue

here is not the accuracy of the translations from their source texts. Rather, the key issue is

understanding the Bible better through a comparison of English translations. Thus,

instead of my debating the textual or translational foundations of these Bibles, I just take

them as they are.

1892), both translators of the Revised Version. They drew on older manuscripts thought

to come from Alexandria, Egypt.

While reading a certain passage in one version of the Bible will doubtless lend to

a level of understanding for that passage, an even better sense of that passage will result

from examining that passage in several translations. While I cannot compare long

passages, or compare even a tenth of the total number of English Bible versions, I can

provide a template which can be used to compare other areas of scripture.

Genesis 1:1, 2, and 7.

In order to best show how comparing just a few similar versions aids in

understanding the Bible, I have chosen a few well-known Bible passages that most

English readers are already familiar with. My reasoning for this decision is to show that

even the most common Bible stories can be understood better when compared in multiple

versions. In fact, with accounts so familiar, any details that differ among the texts will

stand out more than they would with an unfamiliar passage, like one of the visions of

Zechariah. My first area of comparison analyzes three of the early verses from the

familiar creation account in the Old Testament book Genesis.

All four versions begin exactly the same way in 1:1 with “In the beginning;”

however, this harmony is short lived. In TND

(Tyndale’s Version) heaven and earth

have no definite article to precede them, whereas the KJV (King James Version) and RV

(Revised Version) produce them as the heaven and the earth. The ESV (English Standard

All portions of cross analyzed scriptures are listed in the appendix.

Most Bible versions are acronymized for brevity, and Tyndale’s Version is often

shortened to just Tyndale or TV. In order to use only acronyms but to avoid an acronym

that most commonly means television, I use TND in this thesis.

Version) also uses the definite article; however, it alters heaven, reading in the plural:

heavens.

While the lack of a definite article in TND barely affects earth, the word heaven

by itself is thereby ambiguous because it can be plural or singular depending on its

context. According to the Bible, three heavens exist: the earth’s atmosphere, outer space,

and the abode of God.

If heaven in TND is a collective use of the three heavens, then all

levels of heaven are created during the beginning in verse one and then shaped and

designed (and separated by water) later in the week just like earth. If heaven in TND is

singular, then it likely refers to only the third heaven, leaving outer space and the earth’s

atmosphere to be created in verse six.

While the KJV, RV, and ESV each use the before heaven(s) and earth, it sounds

unnatural to put two the’s, one in front of heaven and one in front of earth, since placing

only one definite article at the beginning would work just as well. The added emphasis

here on earth provides an image of heaven and earth as two separate realms rather than

nearby or connected creations. This separation also serves to foreshadow the fall in Eden

(Gen. 3) that separates God, a heavenly being, from man, an earthly being.

The ESV’s heavens creates its own understanding of the reading. A plural here

can indicate, as does TND, a possibility that God created all three heavens at the same

time to further shape them later, but a plural combined with a definite article makes this

verse a summary of creation rather than its first step, similarly to Genesis 2:1, which

concludes all of creation. The KJV and ESV in 2:1 read, “Thus the heavens and the earth

“I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago . . . such an one caught up to the

third heaven” (II Corinthians 12:2 KJV, emphasis added).

were finished, and all the host of them.” While the KJV uses the singular in 1:1 and

plural in 2:1, ESV uses plural for both, indicating that both verses act as an introduction

and conclusion that summarize creation. Since God makes a firmament or expanse in 1:6,

five verses after already making the heavens, the most likely scenario for ESV is that 1:1

functions as a brief introductory summary of creation that is elaborated on in the verses

that follow, just as 2:1 is a closing summary of the creation account.

The TND mentions in 1:2 that the earth “was void and empty,” the KJV reads that

it “was without form, and void,” the RV refers to it as “waste and void,” and the ESV has

the earth “without form and void,” reading the same, but using no comma where the KJV

does. Darkness was upon in TND and the KJV while it was covering in the RV and ESV.

The deep and water is just so in TND, while the KJV, RV, and ESV use the face of the

deep and the face of the water. The spirit of God moved in TND, KJV, and RV, and it

was hovering in the ESV.

Clearly the earth was understood to be void, a term that usually refers to an

unfilled position, but the versions disagree on what else the earth was at this point. The

OED defines empty in this case as a place having “very few inhabitants; deserted,

desolate.” The OED also defines form as “shape, arrangement of parts,” and waste as

“uninhabited (or sparsely inhabited) and uncultivated country; a wild and desolate region,

a desert, wilderness.” TND’s usage of empty reads interestingly because the word itself

suggests not shape, but rather the state of having been full before being emptied or of

being inhabited before being deserted. This wording supports any number of gap theory

readings as possible interpretations. The Earth without form, as in the KJV and ESV,

promotes a bizarre image of a liquid shapelessness to the planet rather than its being a

solid sphere. The KJV’s use of a comma signifies a vocal pause and separates two

distinct aspects of earth as “without form” as well as “void.” The ESV’s lack of a comma

could suggest that without has double object, with an understood “without form and

without void.” Is it rather likely, however, as Dr. Lares has pointed out to me, that the

modern comma marks grammatical units rather than pauses, whereas the commas in the

KJV are to aid its being “read in churches,” as the note just after its title page tells us.

Rephrasing ESV to remove ambiguity, void and without form, would on the other hand

destroy its poetic effect. The RV’s waste promotes an image of a dry wilderness, which is

strange since according to later verses, dry land has yet to appeal, leaving only the water

to be desolate.

Upon primarily means “on the surface,” whereas covered mostly refers to “putting

something over . . . enclosing” (OED). In TND, upon adds little to the text since the

shape of the earth is not mentioned. In the KJV, the earth is referred to as without form,

providing a two-dimensional, and seemingly paradoxical, feel to the darkness’s being on

the surface of something without a shape. On the other hand, the ESV also speaks of

earth without form, but with darkness covering it. This wording displays a three-

dimensional shape to the formless blob of the earth. The RV makes no mention of the

Versions of this theory suppose that a large gap of time exists between The Beginning

and the First Day, during which any number of things could have happened, including

former inhabitants of earth before Adam or Eve.

shape of earth; its choice of waste shows the earth to have always been round with

darkness completely enclosing it.

Only TND uses deep and water, both terms adding a lifeless feel to the massy

ocean currently called earth. The KJV, RV, and ESV each personify the water by adding

to it the human feature of a face. In a sense, even before plant or animal life, the earth is

lifelike.

One final differentiation in 1:2 is between the actions of the Spirit of God on the

water. All but the ESV indicate that the Spirit of God moved upon the water. Spirit in

English comes from a word for breath, as in inspire, to breathe in; expire, to breathe out;

or conspire, to breathe with. This moving breath provides life to earth as it moves and

foreshadows the creation of Adam, into whose nostrils God breathes the breath of life.

The ESV mentions the Spirit was hovering, a verb that usually means floating in the same

spot rather than moving about. This sharp contrast sticks out especially in the verb types.

Moved is in the past perfect, showing that the spirit’s action happened and was completed

in the past. Was hovering is in the past progressive, meaning that the floating action

continued for an unspecified amount of time.

TND, the KJV, and the RV each include firmament three times in 1:7 in reference

to the sky/space, the ESV using expanse for each instance instead. Additionally, God

“parted” the waters in TND, “divided” the waters in the KJV and RV, and “separated”

the waters in the ESV.

“Expanse” and “firmament” offer a similar understanding, yet the usage of each

word implies its own understanding of the process of creation. According to the OED

etymology, firmament arrives in English from “classical Latin [where] the word means

‘something which strengthens or supports,’ but in . . . Syriac the verb means ‘to

condense, make firm or solid,’ whence the Greek and Latin renderings.” As the nominal

root indicates, firmament refers to something firm and compressed. In contrast, the

OED’s etymology of “expanse” reveals its origin to come from “Latin expandĕre, ex- +

pandĕre to spread. Compare Old French espandre, modern French épandre to diffuse,

scatter.” TND, the KJV, and the RV each imply by the use of expanse that God created

the full, truly infinite universe immediately and then somehow condensed it down into

what it now is. The ESV’s mention of an “expanse” takes a more evolutionistic/Big Bang

view that the universe began from a single point and then spread outward from there.

Clearly God did something to the waters, and each version supplies its own image

as to what that action might be. TND’s rendering of “parted” waters shows a supernatural

influence which is mimicked in Exodus when God “parts” the Red Sea. Within this

context of the Red Sea, parting the waters of heaven may be a temporary action, like a

cloud that forms and evaporates from other water. The KJV and RV’s use of “divided,”

as clearly seen in the di- prefix, reveals that the waters split into two separate spaces with

no implications of the reconnection that TND suggests. The ESV’s “separated” waters

include a more active, hands-on view of God in that the word etymologically means “to

pull apart” (OED).

Within only three verses of Genesis 1, these four Bible versions, all from the same

stream and translational method, offer several alternate details, though not necessarily

conflicting reports. In either case, the variations in these accounts provide plenty of

examples to emphasize how effective the process of comparing Bibles is to its

understanding.

Luke 11:2-4

Another well-known passage of scripture, even for those unfamiliar with most of

the Bible, is the Lord’s Prayer. The Lord’s Prayer is often taught to small children and

explicated by older theologians, and this prayer’s familiarity can lead to a desensitizing to

the passage. Comparing this prayer across these four Bible versions reveals many spots of

potential misunderstanding. The Lord’s Prayer—or Paternoster in the Latin, from the

first two words Our father in the earlier language—is recorded in two of the four gospels,

in Matthew 6 and in Luke 11. The version in Luke lacks the concluding reference to

God’s kingdom, power, and glory, so I have chosen the Lucan passage for analysis

because its shorter length allows for a more thorough investigation of textual differences.

The Lord’s preliminary instructions in verse two, “And he said (un)to them, when

you/ye pray, say,” only diverge as I have italicized, that is, in the non-meaning-bearing

function words of pronouns and prepositions. Only when the prayer actually begins do

these verses show significant discrepancies. TND and the KJV are both noticeably longer

by including a direct address to “Our father which art in heaven,” whereas the RV and

ESV merely have “Father.” All four temporarily line up again for “hallowed be thy/your

name. Thy/your kingdom come.” TND and the KJV again add more text, TND with “Thy

will be fulfilled even in erth [sic] as it is in heaven,” and the KJV with “Thy will be done,

as in heaven, so in earth.” The RV and ESV stop after “kingdom come.”

TND and the KJV both provide additional material in this case because the RV

and ESV depend on the Westcott-Hort Text, which does not include the “ο εν τοις

ουρανοις” phrase of the Received Text. Regardless of whether or not the longer version

of the direct address is supposed to be in the Bible, the presence of this material has

potentially significant effects for understanding the rest of the passage. “Our father which

art in heaven,” as opposed to just “father,” offers the details of whose father specifically

is being addressed and where he resides. “Father” by itself, from the RV and ESV, could

mean a number of things. The ESV in Luke 2:33 mentions, “His [Jesus’] father and his

mother marveled at what was said about him.” From that context, father could refer to

Joseph the earthly father of Jesus. This verse also functions as an exemplar prayer for the

disciples, and father could possibly refer to petitioning a saint or ancestor like “Father

Abraham” (Luke 16:24, KJV). Without the references to our father and to his being in

heaven, the identity of this father is not necessarily clear. Our shows that this father is not

just any father or just the father of Jesus; our shows that this father has many children,

and that he is in heaven listening.

TND’s ending to the verse makes a request that “thy will be fulfilled even in erth

as it is in heaven,” and the KJV’s ending to verse two similarly asks “Thy will be done,

as in heaven, so in earth.” Both of these imply that the will of God is different in earth

than it is in heaven. The wording in TND asks for the will of God to be the same in earth

and heaven. The wording in the KJV is a subjunctive request that the will be done, with

an added specification that the will to be done in earth should be modeled after the will to

be done in heaven. Both the RV and ESV are silent on this part of the verse, again

because of the difference in source text. However, they do offer a cross reference to

Matthew’s account, which does include the missing phrase.

Verse three is the shortest in this passage, yet is by far the most interesting in

terms of alternate readings. TND requests God to “Oure dayly bread geve vs evermore,”

the KJV and RV ask God to “Give us day by day our daily bread,”

and the ESV asks

God to “give us each day our daily bread.” The word order in TND is different from the

other versions in that it prominently displays bread at the beginning as the emphasis of

the thought. The rest of the verse almost seems contradictory, since the prayer is asking

for daily bread to be given for evermore. If the bread is daily bread, then the primary idea

would appear to be having faith for there to be enough bread for that very day. In

Matthew 6:34, in the same chapter that includes the other account of this prayer, Jesus

commands “take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought

for the things of itself.” This verse might suggest that asking for daily bread “evermore”

seems inconsistent. The RV and KJV emphasize the present aspect by using day or a

cognate three times in a sentence of only eight words. They ask to be given day by day

the daily bread. No concern for the future appears in this wording; the request is merely

to be given the amount of bread that is sufficient for each day. The wording of the RV

and KJV reflects Exodus’s account of an occasion when the Israelites ate the bread called

manna in the wilderness: “And they gathered it every morning, every man according to

his eating” (16:21). The ESV’s petition closely resembles that of the KJV and the RV,

asking to be given each day the daily bread.

1 Corinthians 13:1–3

Ideally for a study like this, after giving examples of Old and New Testament

comparisons, I could also explore a familiar psalm, such as the twenty-third. Since,

however, Tyndale died before completely translating his Old Testament, I am unable to

The more familiar “Give us this day our daily bread” is the wording of Matt. 6:11.

compare a psalm

or even proverb from TND with the other versions. Instead, I will

turn to what may be the next most well-known passage of the Bible aside from the Old

Testament creation and the Lord’s Prayer of the Gospels, and that is the “love chapter,”

the thirteenth chapter of Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthians.

In verse one the most noticeable difference is in the first sentence’s pattern. While

most of this study has been on individual words and phrases, that is to say, vocabulary,

morphology or word form and syntax or sentence structure help our understanding of the

Bible as well. With TND and the KJV, the passage is in the indicative mood, while the

RV and ESV are in the subjunctive. The difference between the two moods is that the

indicative demonstrates a matter-of-fact cause and effect scenario (though I speak, I am

become), while the subjunctive offers a conditional result (i.e., if . . . then). TND and

KJV read somewhat pessimistically, taking for granted that love is absent. From this

premise, they reach the conclusion that the speaker counts for nothing as a result. The RV

and ESV appear to voice a warning, showing what the consequences will be if there is no

love. The use of conjunctions in the first sentence also aids in setting a tone. While TND,

the RV, and the ESV use the contrasting “yet” or “but” conjunctions to specify the

performing of an action, but doing so without love, the KJV only uses “and,” as if to

nullify any good because the action was performed in the wrong way.

Another oddity in the KJV in comparison to the other three versions is the use of

“charity” instead of love. I will not attempt to define love because its semantic range is

too vast, but I can somewhat define charity. The word is not completely synonymous

I had contemplated using New Testament quotations of Psalms to get around this

problem, but the lengths of quotes are too short to provide an effective cross-analysis.

with love: it is a specific type of love. In modern usage, charity only refers to money,

goods, or aid given to the poor, either as the action itself of so giving or of an

organization that aims to do so. The reason for this association is because charity is a type

of love that prompts one to help his neighbor(s). From the number of people I hear who

reference it, many are doubtless aware that the Greek in the New Testament uses multiple

words for love, the highest or purest being agape. In much the same way, charity is the

English equivalent to this highest form of Christian love. The etymology of charity lends

little toward defining it, however the word comes from Latin cāritāt-em, and has “the

general Latin senses of dearness (high price), fondness, [and] affection” (OED).

Fortunately, the OED lists several definitions, the first three of which being “God's love

to man,” “Man's love of God and his neighbour, commanded as the fulfilling of the Law,

Matt. xxii. 37, 39,” and “The Christian love of one's fellow human beings; Christian

benignity of disposition expressing itself in Christ-like conduct.” The OED also gives

definitions of charity outside of a Christian context, beginning from the mid-thirteenth

century; however, the earliest recorded instances of charity date back to the twelfth

century and were all used in this religious sense. Given these authoritative, earlier

definitions, charity no longer looks out of place in the early modern KJV but, in my

understanding, works better than love does in describing what Paul speaks of.

Another significant difference between the versions is the treatment of prophecy

in verse two. According to TND, the writer “could prophesy.” The KJV and RV mention

him having “the gift of prophecy,” and the ESV simply references his having “prophetic

powers.” These different depictions of prophecy are quite varied. TND portrays prophecy

as a natural ability. The tone is fairly casual, “And though I could prophesy,” as if to

emphasize that without love something seemingly supernatural is diminished. The KJV

and RV emphasize its holy origin by calling it “the gift of prophecy,” because this gift

obviously had to be given. The wording indicates that God allows prophecy and, as such,

wants it to only be used with charity/love. The ESV’s emphasis on “prophetic powers”

implies that the prophet has a type of great power that goes beyond any ability or gift.

This magnification of prophecy effectively contrasts with the nothing it becomes when

used without love.

The account in verse three about giving to the poor remains mostly the same for

TND, the KJV, and the RV, but the phrasing changes in the ESV. The first three read “I

bestow all my goods to feed the poor,” whereas the ESV summarizes the thought by

hypothesizing if “I give away all that I have.” The process in the first three versions is

reminiscent of charity as it is known today: feeding the poor. Yet this passage clearly

shows that the action of selling everything and donating it does not show love; the inner

love that accompanies the action is what matters most. The ESV sheds a different light on

the passage. Nowhere does it mention the purpose of giving away everything. The poor,

the intended recipients of the given-away possessions, are not once referenced. This

apparent neglect of mentioning the poor actually shows a different aspect of the lesson.

Reasonably, the only sensible purpose for giving away everything is because of love. But

if love is not the reason, then the alternative motive seems to be pride. That is, a prideful

person is more likely to do something outwardly selfless if he thinks he can be on the

front page of the newspaper or interviewed on television for doing it. My understanding

here is that the focus of the verse is still the intention behind the action rather than the

outward expression of it.

These comparisons are more than a child’s “Spot the Five Differences” game. The

process of taking portions of scripture and cross analyzing them is about more than

finding differences in Bible versions. Finding differences is only the first step in this

process. Once the differences are noted, the real work begins with discovering what those

differences imply. If I had merely observed that one Bible mentions expanse and another

incorporates firmament, I would have no more understanding than before. I had to

contemplate both versions in order to better appreciate what the verse says. My examples

are not only meant to be comparisons, they are also meant to be templates to be used for

comparing other verses in other versions. For Example, the CEV (Contemporary English

Version) translates Genesis 1:2 as “The earth was barren, with no form of life; it was

under a roaring ocean covered with darkness. But the Spirit of God was moving over the

water.” This passage is obviously not essentially literal, but the process of understanding

by comparison still works. The word barren, etymologically “son-less,” or “unable to

produce a son,” personifies the earth as sterile and emphasizes the lifelessness mentioned

a few words later. Additionally, the conjunction but is used in the CEB instead of the and

in the versions previously discussed. The but here shows contrast between the two

statements, as if the first half of the verse presents the problem of barrenness and the

second half resolves the situation by showing the Spirit moving over the water.

By looking at only these brief and common scripture passages, the four Bible

versions that should be the closest to each other are noticeably worded differently and

thus potentially provide different types of understanding for those willing to look for it.

According to Ryken’s arguments for translation, these four versions of essentially literal

translation should each be as accurate as the other, and while that claim of mutual

accuracy may be true, it does not mean that each Bible provides the same type or level of

understanding. Comparing and analyzing the differences in Bible versions is helpful in

gathering a better understanding the Bible. Without comparing and contrasting portions

from multiple versions, missing details or aspects of the Bible is unavoidable. The best

way to read a Bible is not to find the latest version in the most current translation style;

the best way to read the Bible is to “prove/test all things” (I Thessalonians 5:21) by

comparing them to each other.

Appendix A

Genesis 1:1, 2, 7 (Tyndale’s Version, 1537)

(1) In the begynnynge God created heaven and erth.

(2) The erth was voyde and emptie ad darcknesse was vpon the depe and the

spirite of god moved vpon the water.

(7) Than God made the fyrmament and parted the waters which were vnder the

fyrmament from the waters that were above the fyrmament: And it was so.

Gen 1:1, 2, 7 (Authorized Version, 1611)

(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

(2) And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of

the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters

(7) And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the

firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Genesis 1:1, 2, 7 (Revised Version, 1885)

(1) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

(2) And the earth was waste and void; and darkness was upon the face of the

deep: and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

(7) And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the

firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

Genesis 1:1, 2, 7 (English Standard Version, 2016)

(1) In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

(2) The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the

deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering

over the face of the waters.

(7) And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the

expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so.

Luke 11:2-4 (Tyndale’s Version)

(2) And he sayd vnto the: When ye praye saye: O oure father which arte in heave

halowed be thy name. Thy kyngdome come. Thy will be fulfilled even in erth as it is in

heaven.

(3) Oure dayly breed geve vs evermore.

(4) And forgeve vs oure synnes: For eve we forgeve every man yt treaspaseth vs.

And ledde vs not into teptacio. But deliver vs fro evill.

Luke 11:2-4 (King James Version)

(2) And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Our Father which art in heaven,

Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.

(3) Give us day by day our daily bread.

(4) And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us.

And lead us not into temptation; but deliver us from evil.

Luke 11:2-4 (Revised Version)

(2) And he said unto them, When ye pray, say, Father, Hallowed be thy name.

Thy kingdom come.

(3) Give us day by day our daily bread.

(4) And forgive us our sins; for we ourselves also forgive every one that is

indebted to us. And bring us not into temptation.

Luke 11:2-4 (English Standard Version)

(2) And he said to them, “When you pray, say: “Father, hallowed be your name.

Your kingdom come.

(3) Give us each day our daily bread,

(4) and forgive us our sins, for we ourselves forgive everyone who is indebted to

us. And lead us not into temptation.”

I Corinthians 13:1-3 (Tyndale’s Version)

(1) Though I spake with the tonges of me and angels and yet had no love I were

eve as soundinge brasse: or as a tynklynge Cymball.

(2) And though I coulde prophesy and vnderstode all secretes and all knowledge:

yee yf I had all fayth so that I coulde move moutayns oute of ther places and yet had no

love I were nothynge.

(3) And though I bestowed all my gooddes to fede ye poore and though I gave my

body even that I burned and yet had no love it profeteth me nothinge.

1 Corinthians 13:1–3 (King James Version)

(1) Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I

am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.

(2) And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all

knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not

charity, I am nothing.

(3) And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my

body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

1 Corinthians 13:1–3 (Revised Version)

(1) If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am

become sounding brass, or a clanging cymbal.

(2) And if I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge;

and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing.

(3) And if I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and if I give my body to be

burned, but have not love, it profiteth me nothing.

1 Corinthians 13:1–3 (English Standard Version)

(1) If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am a noisy

gong or a clanging cymbal.

(2) And if I have prophetic powers, and understand all mysteries and all

knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am

nothing.

(3) If I give away all I have, and if I deliver up my body to be burned, but have

not love, I gain nothing.

Works Cited

"Barren, adj. and n." OED Online. Oxford UP, June 2017. Web. 1 November 2017.

Baugh, Albert C., and Thomas Cable. A History of the English Language. 5th ed.

Abingdon, Oxfordshire: Routledge, 2002. Print.

Bolton, W. F. A Living Language: The History and Structure of English. New York:

Random, 1982. Print.

"Bo-peep, n." OED Online. Oxford UP, June 2017. Web. 10 October 2017.

Bruce, F. F. History of the Bible in English 3

ed. New York: Oxford UP, 1978. Print.

Burgon, John William. Revision Revised: Three Articles, I. The New Greek Text, II. The

New English Version, III . . . Westcott and Hort’s New Textual Theory. New

York: Dover, 1971. Print.

Campbell, Gordon. Bible: The Story of the King James Version; 1611-2011. Oxford UP.

2011.

"Charity, n." OED Online. Oxford UP, June 2017. Web. 30 October 2017.

"Expand, v." OED Online, Oxford UP June 2017. Web 28 September 2017.

"Firmament, n." OED Online, Oxford UP, June 2017. Web. 28 September 2017.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version Containing the Old and New Testaments:

ESV. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007. Print.

The Holy Bible: Contemporary English Bible CEB. New York: American Bible Society,

1995. Print.

The Holy Bible: Emoji Bible. Bible Emoji, n.d. Web. 22 Nov 2017.

The Holy Bible: Holman Christian Standard Bible: HCSB. Nashville: Broadman, 2003.

Print.

The Holy Bible: King James Version: KJV. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2012.

The Holy Bible: Message Bible: Today’s New International Version. Zondervan, Grand

Rapids, MI, 2007. Print.

The Holy Bible: New American Standard Bible: NASB. Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1977.

The Holy Bible: New King James Version Containing the Old and New Testaments:

NKJV. Nashville: Nelson, 1991. Print.

The Holy Bible: The Living Bible: TLB. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale, 1971. Print.

The Holy Bible: The Tyndale New Testament. Trans. William Tyndale. Ed. W. R. Cooper

and the Tyndale Society. London: British Library, 2000. Print.

The Holy Bible: The [Tyndale] Old Testament: Being the Pentateuch of 1530, Joshua to

2 Chronicles of 1537, and Jonah. Trans. William Tyndale. Ed. David Daniell.

New Haven: Yale UP, 1992. Print.

“Index of 100+ Versions of the Scriptures.” tyndalearchive.com, n.d. Web. 9 Sept. 2016.

“Masoretic Text,” James Sanders. The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford UP, 1993.

Print.

Metzger, Bruce M., and Michael D. Coogan, eds. The Oxford Companion to the Bible.

Oxford UP, 1993. Print.

Nida, Eugene A. Bible Translating: An Analysis of Principles and Procedures, with

Special Reference to Aboriginal Languages. New York: American Bible

Society,1961. Print.

Norton, David. The King James Bible: A Short History from Tyndale to Today.

Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2010. Print.

Ryken, Leland. Understanding English Bible Translation: The Case for an Essentially

Literal Approach. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009. Print.

---. The Word of God in English: Criteria for Excellence in Bible Translation. Wheaton,

IL: Crossway, 2002. Print.

---. Words of Delight: A Literary Introduction to the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI, Baker,

2003. Print

"Separate, v." OED Online, Oxford UP, June 2017. Web. 28 September 2017.

“Septuagint,” Michael Coogan. The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Oxford UP, 1993.

Print.

UCLA Language Materials Project. UCLA International Institute Center for World

Languages. 31 May. 2014. Web. 27 Apr 2016.

http://www.lmp.ucla.edu/Profile.aspx?menu=004&LangID=59

U.S. Copyright Office. “Copyright Law of the United States." Library of Congress.