Fascinating Stories about the Bible

by William E. Paul

During the long course of translating, printing and distributing the Bible over the past five hundred years, many interesting, and even fascinating stories and incidents have transpired. Some are amusing, some even bizarre, and many tell of some unusual or intriguing circumstance connected with the Bible. In some cases there is a gripping story or strange twist behind a particular Bible, involving a famous person or an historical figure. The following accounts are only a few of the many that could be told. May they help us to better appreciate that wonderful book we call The Holy Bible.

DISTRIBUTING THE BIBLE A SIN?

The diligent work of William Tyndale, translator of the first printed English New Testament, was met with extreme opposition as he attempted to circulate his translation throughout England. By 1529, only a few years after its completion, Tyndale’s brother John, was actively engaged in distributing the banned New Testament, was arrested for his involvement in this concerted effort to disseminate the historical copy of the Scriptures. Upon being apprehended, John Tyndale was shamefully paraded through the streets of London, mounted on his horse, backwards, with copies of his brother’s New Testament translation draped around him and a sign hanging from his neck declaring, “I have sinned against the king.”1

SWEARING ON THE WRONG BIBLE

While the issuance of or preference for a particular Bible translation is hardly a factor in today’s political arena, that has not always been the case. More than once a Bible translation was burned by members of the establishment, out of disdain for what was regarded as an unauthorized endeavor. That all seems nothing short of amazing when compared with today’s general apathy toward the Bible by governmental authorities. But near the end of the sixteenth century the strife between Catholic and Protestant factions in England sparked a dramatic dialogue between English authorities and an heiress to the English throne. According to her “last words,” reported to have been spoken by Mary, Queen of Scots, as she was about to be executed, one historian records, “On the night before her execution at Fotheringay Castle in 1587 she swore her innocence, taking a solemn oath on a copy of the Rhemes New Testament (official Catholic Bible of the day). The Earl of Kent, who was present, declared the oath invalid because the Bible was not the proper translation. Her spirited reply is said to have been, ‘Does your lordship think my oath would be any better if I swore on your translation, in which I do not believe?’” 2

HE WANTED TO BURN THE KING JAMES VERSION?

In the seventeenth century the venerable King James Version, which was destined to become the universally accepted Bible for English speaking Protestants for the next three hundred years, met with bitter criticism immediately upon its completion. Just as other translations had faced their detractors, both before and after the King James Version, this renowned patriarch of Bible translations incurred vicious attacks from its very inception. Cries of heresy and accusations of a corrupt text arose, even from among scholarly church leaders. One such person, Dr. Hugh Broughton, a distinguished scholar himself, sent the following critique to an attendant of King James I, “The late Bible…was sent to me to censure (i.e., critique); which bred in me a sadness that will grieve me while I breathe, it is so ill done. Tell His Majesty that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses, than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor churches…the new edition crosseth me. I require it to be burnt.”3 Broughton even authored a book against it titled A Censure of the Late Translation for Our Churches. (In fairness, however, some historians point out that Broughton may have been a little disgruntled over not being appointed to the panel of translators).

FIRST BIBLES ON AMERICAN SOIL

The story of the English Bible coming to America is fascinating indeed to those interested in American religious history. It is reported by one researcher that the first English Bible to be used on the shores of the American continent was the Bishop’s Bible (translated in England in 1568). It is said that chaplains accompanying Sir Francis Drake used that version during Anglican Church services in California in 1579.4

But the Geneva Bible (translated in 1560, by a group of English scholars who had settled in Geneva, Switzerland) holds a special distinction in the annals of American history. It was this translation that was brought to America aboard the Mayflower in 1620 by the Puritans. The very copy which had belonged to Governor William Bradford is now housed in the museum of The Pilgrim Society of Plymouth, Massachusetts.5

The first Bible translation printed in America, however, was not even in the English language. It was printed in the Natick dialect of the Algonquin Indians of Massachusetts. John Eliot, celebrated missionary to the Northeast Indians, served as translator of this pioneer American Bible. It was printed at Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1663 with the able assistance of an Indian interpreter and printer named James Printer. The last person capable of reading this Bible, whose language is now extinct, was an elderly Indian named James Trumball, who died in 1897.6

REFORMERS WERE TRANSLATORS TOO

Some of the early Bible translators were also dedicated religious reformers, who used their translations to help promote the cause they so ardently advocated. Among the most notable were John Wycliffe, the first man to translate the Bible into an early form of the English language in 1380-1384. Martin Luther translated the Bible into German in 1522-1534, and it became a prominent factor in the Protestant Reformation in Europe. William Tyndale’s translation, the first printed English New Testament in 1526, was instrumental in stirring up religious fervor in England. While it never realized a very wide circulation, John Wesley, father of the Methodist movement, made a translation of the New Testament in 1745. And Alexander Campbell, an early preacher among churches of Christ in America, produced a new translation in 1826. It seems significant that each of these men, whose leadership had a profound effect upon the Christianity of their day, both in Europe and America, also found the time to produce a translation of the Scriptures.

BIBLES BY AMERICAN STATESMEN

In the early days of our nation great American statesmen displayed a remarkable interest in Bible translations. Benjamin Franklin, of Declaration of Independence fame, once felt the need for a revision of the King James Version Bible. He wrote to a printer suggesting that a modern speech translation in English be produced as an alternative to the Authorized Version, which even then was fast becoming obsolete in much of its terminology. He even submitted a sampling of his suggested translation of a few verses from the book of Job. Unfortunately, it is not known whether or not his suggestion was acted upon, or if it was, what translation resulted from it. 7

Another statesman of that era, the third President of the United States Thomas Jefferson, actually put together somewhat of a “Bible” of his own. He did none of the translating but rather took excerpts from the Four Gospels containing the life and teaching of Jesus, pasting them in a scrapbook. The excerpts were clipped from New Testaments in Greek, Latin, French and English (KJV), then mounted side by side and the entire volume bound in red leather with gold-stamped letters on the cover. The portions Jefferson selected omitted all references to the supernatural elements of Jesus’ life and miraculous ministry, apparently due to his belief that only the ethical teaching of Jesus was valid. The original copy is now located in the Library of Congress. Several reprint facsimile editions have been produced this century and may still be available today.8

THE LAST “IMMERSION” VERSION?

A major factor that has influenced the production of various translations has been the translators’ concern for accuracy in rendering the original language text into current terminology. A case in point is the rendering of the Greek word which most versions translate as “baptize.” Nathaniel Scarlett’s New Testament, published in London in 1798, is regarded as the first one to use the word “immerse” in place of “baptize.” Since that time a number of translations have followed the practice of translating the Greek verb (“immerse”) instead of merely transliterating it (“baptize”). Not realizing the persistence of Bible translators in such matters, Simms, after citing nine “immersionist” translations, commented on the 1928 edition of George LeFevre’s “immersion” New Testament, “We have possibly seen our last ‘immersion’ version.”9 A quick glance at the English translations of the past sixty years shows, however, that perhaps a dozen more have used “immerse” instead of “baptize” since then, and no doubt many more will do so in the future.

THE BIBLE AND THE U.S. CONGRESS

The first English Bible with, an American imprint, as far as can be conclusively determined, was the 1782 edition of the King James Version produced by Robert Aikten, a Philadelphia book publisher. Its most unique feature was that it was (and still is) the only Bible ever actually recommended to the American reading public by the United States government. In 1781, when Aitken announced his intention to publish this edition, he petitioned the United States Congress to give its support to the project. After investigating the matter, Congress responded to Aitken’s request by authorizing him to include in the Preface of the Bible the following words: “They (referring to Congress) recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States.”10 How governmental attitudes toward the Bible have changed over the past 200 + years!

Charles Thomson was elected secretary of the Continental Congress and later served as first secretary of the United States Congress. Upon his retirement in 1789 he devoted himself with fervor to extensive Biblical studies. The culmination of his exacting work was the first English translation ever made from a Greek Septuagint text of the Old Testament. This important translation, made in 1808, was begun through the motivating influence of one of Thomson’s esteemed friends, Thomas Jefferson, who wrote him urging that he undertake the task.11

THE JAILBIRD TRANSLATOR

Normally, you would think that the person who attempted to translate the Bible would have the highest moral character. Certainly, you would expect him or her to be above reproach in reputation as well as being a Biblical scholar of some rank. But such was not the case with one Abner Kneeland. It seems the American court system did not so regard him in 1836, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Kneeland on charges of blasphemy, growing out of his “unorthodox” views on religious matters. Even the fact the Kneeland had produced a translation of the New Testament (containing both Greek and English) in 1822 seemed to have had little bearing on the decision of the court. He was duly sentenced to serve three months in prison for his “crime.”12

DIDN’T REGRET PUBLISHING THE NEW TESTAMENT

The name of Nathan Hale is well known to Junior High students taking the required course in U.S. History. What is not generally known, however, is that the famous, oft-quoted (“I regret I have but one life to lose for my country”) American patriot once applied for a copyright on a New Testament translation (a KJV conformed to Griesbach’s text), which was published anonymously in 1828. Since the name of the translator appeared nowhere in the book, it was thought for some time that it was the work of Hale himself. It was not until considerably later, after further investigation had been made, that the true identity of the real translator was discovered. It turned out to be the work of a Harvard University professor (1831-1839), James G. Palfrey. Apparently he was a friend of Hale, in whose name the copyright papers had been filed.13

WEBSTER’S DICTIONARY AND BIBLE

The name Noah Webster stands out predominantly in the literary history of our nation. What person doesn’t say “according to Webster” when appealing to the correct definition or spelling of an English word? The reason is because of this man’s two principal books setting the standard for the English language in our early history. He authored The American Spelling Book (1783) and The American Dictionary (1806), making his name the authoritative “last word” for correct spelling and word meanings, and establishing the foundation for American grammar and lexicography. But, what is less known is that Webster’s painstaking study of spelling and word meaning led him to be very concerned over the numerous obsolete words and phrases he found in the King James Version Bible of his day. These, along with a number of grammatical and printer’s errors he had observed in the then current editions of the King James Version, led him to undertake a revision of that Bible in 1833. In removing or correcting some 150 such defects, Webster declared his translation to be “the most important enterprise of my life.” And this from the man whom most people know only for his dictionary! But surprisingly, Webster’s Bible translation (actually revision) met with discouraging indifference from the general public. This became a source of keen disappointment to the man whose name became synonymous with “dictionary” nearly 170 years later. In fact, his Bible was produced to sell for $3 when published in 1833, but because of such poor sales, Webster instructed the publisher to reduce the price to $2 in 1836 and eventually to $1.50.14 Of course, today a copy would bring as much as 100 times its original price!

FEMINIST WOMAN TRANSLATOR

To most people the realm of translating the Bible belongs exclusively to men. But, over a dozen women could be cited as either producing a translation, directing a translation project or serving on a translation committee, with most doing a very commendable job.

Julia E. Smith, however, holds the distinction of being the only woman ever to have translated the entire Bible from Hebrew and Greek into the English language by herself! After seven years of arduous labor she completed the task in the mid-1800s, only to see the manuscript remain stored in her house for twenty-four more years. It was finally published in 1876 by the American Book Company of Hartford, CT, with the cost being met by Smith herself, even though a banker had told her she was wasting her money. She replied to him, “I will receive more satisfaction using my money to produce a Bible than buying a dress with it.” (Either book publishing was very inexpensive or dresses were exorbitantly costly in her day!) Being an early advocate of “women’s rights,” Smith possessed the utmost confidence in her ability to produce a viable translation worthy of use by everyone. After stating “I have great confidence in myself,” she then boldly asserted about the language of Old Testament Hebrew, “I do not see how anybody can know more about it than I do.” Shortly after the Bible was published, it was examined by Harvard professor Edward James, who exclaimed, “I am astonished that you could get the translation so correct without consulting some learned man.” (We can only imagine how Julia took such a chauvinist remark). Less than a year before her Bible was published, a letter from Julia and her sister Abby, written to a friend July 20, 1875, summed up Smith’s suffragist motivation for accomplishing an achievement of such magnitude, “We thought it might help our cause to have known that a woman could do more than any man has ever done.” (She probably hadn’t known about Anthony Purver, 1764, Robert Young, 1863, and possibly a couple of others who antedated her work by producing complete Bibles from the original languages).15

NEW TESTAMENT TELEGRAPHED

The first major Bible translation to challenge the preeminent position of the King James Version was the English Revised Version (1881-1885). English speaking believers the world over seemed to be waiting eagerly for just such a revision. Two hundred and seventy years had passed since the KJV was produced. Finally, after years of careful work by noted scholars (some say there will never be another assemblage of such renowned Biblical scholars for any project) the New Testament portion was completed in England in 1881. Upon its reaching America the first 118,000 words of the text were telegraphed from New York to Chicago to initiate the project of publishing the entire New Testament. The balance of the text was sent by carrier, arriving in Chicago on the night of May 21, 1881. The next day the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Times newspapers carried the complete text of the New Testament in the English Revised Version, certainly the greatest single publication feat in Bible translation history.16

AND THE STORY GOES ON

Countless other stories of how the Bible was translated, printed and distributed and the often daring and courageous efforts of intelligent and dedicated men and women could be told. May we all appreciate and esteem those who have spent their time, money and their very lives in making the Scriptures accessible and understandable to the rest of us. May we not only acquire and cherish the Bible for what it has meant to countless millions, but read and study it for what it can do in the lives of people living today…yes, even to us!

Footnotes:

1. Wilson, Derek, The People and the Book (Barrie and Jenkins Publishers, London, England,
1976) page 50.

2. Dearden, Robert R., The Guiding Light on the Great Highway (John C. Winston Co., Philadelphia, PA, 1929) page 223.

3. Bruce, F. F., History of the English Bible (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 197 page 107.

4. An Outline of Christianity (New York, 1926, Vol. III) page 260, as quoted in Simms, P. Marion, The Bible in America (Wilson-Crickson, New York, NY, 1936) pages 72-73.

5. Simms, page 90.

6. Simms, pages 190-191; Dearden, page 262.

7. Simms, pages 230-231.

8. Simms, pages 264-265.

9. Simms, pages 247, 255.

10.  Simms, pages 125-127.

11.  Simms, pages 143-144.

12.  Simms. pages 116-119, 152-153.

13.  Simms, page 153.

14.  Simms, page 146; Pope, Hugh, English Versions of the Bible (B. Herder Book Company, St. Louis, MO, 1952) page 547; Hills, Margaret T., The English Bible in America (American Bible Society, New York, NY, 1962) page 123.

15. Simms, pages 149-150; Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, The Woman’s Bible (Coalition on Women and Religion, Seattle, WA, n.d.) pages 150-152.

16.  Simms, pages 212-213

The King James Translators

 

By Dr. Laurence M. Vance

(Bible Editions & Versions – July/Sept. 2004)

 

 

Pick up any promotional literature about the translators of a modern version of the Bible and you will read about the many degrees they hold and their scholarly credentials. Read the preface or introduction to a new translation and you will see that the critical attitude of the translators is rather unlike that of the translators of the King James Version.

 

In the “Epistle Dedicatory” to their work, which is still printed at the front of some editions, the translators of the Authorized Version stated: “We are poor instruments to make God’s holy Truth to be yet more and more known unto the people.”

 

Several volumes have been written over the years about the translators of the Authorized Version: A Vindication of our Authorized Translation and Translators of the Bible, by John Henry Todd (1819); An Authentic Account of Our Authorized Translation of the Holy Bible, and of the Translators: with Testimonies to the Excellence of the Translation, also by John Henry Todd (1834); The Translators Revived, by Alexander McClure (1858); The Learned Men, by Gustavus Paine (1959), reissued in 1977 as The Men Behind the King James Version; The King James Bible Translators, by Olga Opfell (1982); and most recently, God’s Secretaries, by Adam Nicolson (2003).

 

What makes this subject of particular relevance at this point is that July 2004 is the 400th anniversary of the letter written by King James to Richard Bancroft (1544-1610), Bishop of London, and soon to be Archbishop of Canterbury, in which the king mentions that he has “appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible.” July 1604 was also the month in which Bishop Bancroft wrote to the University of Cambridge regarding the translators: “The parties’ names, who are appointed to be employed therein, Mr. Lively [professor of Hebrew at Cambridge] can show you; of which number I desire you by him to take notice, and to write to such of them as are abroad in his Majesty’s name, (for so far my commission extendeth) that, all excuses set aside, they do presently come to Cambridge, there to address themselves forthwith to this business.”

 

It was on the second day of the Hampton Court Conference in January 1604 that the idea for the Authorized Version was born. The Puritan, Dr. Rainolds, proposed that a new translation of the Bible be undertaken. According to the “official” account: “After that he [Rainolds] moved his majesty that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reign of king Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original.”

 

The king liked the idea, and directed the bishops to form a committee regarding the new

translation he had “authorized.” He wanted it done by “the best learned in both the Universities, after them to he reviewed by the Bishops and the chief learned of the Church.” In “A Note of Such Things as Shall be Reformed in the Church,” written soon after the conference, the new translation is mentioned. Then, in a list of principal matters to be considered, which was also drawn up soon after the conference, the fourth says that “care be taken, that one uniform translation of the Bible be printed, and read in the church: and that without any notes.” A report of the bishops’ proceedings shows that by early March no arrangements for the translation had yet been made: “The fourth which toucheth the translation of the Bible hath not as yet been dealt with.”

 

By June, however, things changed. A list of names of potential translators had been submitted to the king, for on June 30, 1604, Bishop Bancroft wrote: “His Majesty being made acquainted with the choice of all them to be employed in the translating of the Bible, in such sort as Mr. Lively can inform you, doth greatly approve of the said choice. And for as much as his Highness is very desirous that the same so religious a work should admit of no delay, he has commanded me to signify unto you in his name that his pleasure is, you should with all possible speed meet together in your University and begin the same.”

 

Then on July 22, 1604, King James wrote to Bishop Bancroft: “Whereas we have appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible,…Furthermore, we require you to move all our bishops to inform themselves of all such learned men within their several dioceses as, having especial skill in the Hebrew and Greek tongues, have taken pains in their private studies of the Scriptures for the clearing of any obscurities either in the Hebrew or the Greek, or touching any difficulties or mistakings in the former English translation, which we have not commanded to be thoroughly viewed and amended, and thereupon to write unto them, earnestly charging them, and signifying our pleasure therein, that they send such their observations either to Mr. Lively, our Hebrew reader in Cambridge, or to Dr. Harding, our Hebrew reader in Oxford, or to Dr. Andrewes, Dean of Westminster, to be imparted to the rest of their several companies, that so our said intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all the principal learned men within this our kingdom.”

 

Enough has been written about the translators of the Authorized Version that their names, positions, and abilities need not be recounted here. However, there are several discrepancies in the accounts of the translators, as well as some often-overlooked details about them, that need to be noted.

 

First, as to the number of translators. The July 22 letter from King James states that there were fifty-four men appointed to translate the Bible. However, most lists name only forty-seven men. This can be explained by the fifteenth instruction given to the translators (sometimes omitted in the list of “rules”): “Besides the said Directors before mentioned [in rule thirteen], three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the Vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better Observation of the 4th Rule above specified.” The difference of seven between forty-seven and fifty-four can be accounted for if one university chose four men to act as overseers and the other chose three. In addition, the eleventh and twelfth rules given to the translators, as well as the above mentioned letter from King James, state that other learned men were also to be consulted.

 

And second, as to the identification of the translators. We know that they were assigned to six companies: two to meet at Oxford, two at Cambridge, and two at Westminster. Of the companies at Westminster, which translated Genesis to 2 Kings and Romans to Revelation, there are no discrepancies in any of the lists of translators. Likewise, of the companies at Cambridge, which translated I Chronicles to Ecclesiastes and the Apocrypha, there are no discrepancies. But in the lists of translators that served on the Oxford companies, and especially the second one, which translated the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation, there are some lingering discrepancies which will probably never be completely solved.

 

In every roster of translators, there is always listed for the first Oxford company, which translated Isaiah through Malachi, the same seven men: John Harding, John Rainolds, Thomas Holland, Richard Kilby, Miles Smith, Richard Brett, and Richard Fairclough. Sometimes there are some spelling variations in the names, but this is to he expected. But in a petition signed in 1606 by fourteen bishops, two of whom we know were translators, in behalf of one William Thorne, a noted Hebraist and Rcgius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, it is stated that Thorne is “now likewise very necessarily employed in the translation of that part of the Old Testament which is remitted to that university.” Yet, not even the oldest extant lists of translators mention Thorne.

 

The names of the men who served on the second Oxford company have been in dispute from the beginning. Of the eight men on the company, two are in dispute. This has been compounded because the original list apparently listed four of the men by office instead of by name. These four men are the deans of Christchurch, Winchester. Worcester, and Windsor. The dean of Worcester at the time of the Hampton Court Conference was Richard Edes. He died in November of 1604 and was apparently replaced on the second Oxford committee by John Aglionby. This is why some lists of the King James translators give the name of Aglionby in place of (or in addition to) that of Edes. The name of James Montague is sometimes given instead of (or in addition to) Edes because he succeeded Edes in the office of dean. But this does not necessarily mean that he took his place as a translator. The other name in question is that of Ralph Ravens. Some lists give the name of Leonard Hutten in place of (or in addition to) Ravens. But because Ravens did not die until 1616, it is a mystery as to why he was apparently replaced by Hutten.

 

Thomas Fuller (1608- 1661), in his Church History of Britain, lists both Edes and Ravens as the original translators. Bishop Burnet (1643-1715), in his History of the Reformation of the Church of England, lists the “Dean of Worcester” and “Dr. Ravens.” Burnet supposedly copied his list from the papers of Bishop Ravis, one of the original translators. Contrary to Fuller and Burnet, John Lewis, in his History of the English Bible, the first edition of which was published in 1731, says the “Dean of Worcester,” but identifies him as Montague, and “Dr. Ravens.”

 

The earliest known list of translators appears in a letter of some kind, apparently written before 1650, that contains information about the translators. The author of the document, who claims that the dean of Worcester is “not in my Copy at all,” goes on to mention Dr. Edes as being succeeded by Dr. Henry Parry and then Dr. Montague and then by a Dr. Anthony Lake (or Lakes). But since the one he is writing to has the dean of Worcester in his list (“but in yours it is as it seems”), the author posits that Parry was the dean in question, not Edes. But then he acknowledges that the one he is writing to has Dr. Lake as the dean of Worcester, which was true, but not at the time that the translators were selected. However, regarding Dr. Lake, an official document from May 1605 mentions him as “engaged on the translation of the New Testament at London.”

 

Then there is the case of George Ryves. In a letter written by Bishop Bilson in 1605, Dr. Ryves is referred to as “one of the overseers of that part of the New Testament that is being translated out of Greek.” It is therefore possible that the reason why the names of Thorne, Lake, and Ryves do not appear in any of the lists of translators is that they were all part of the group of seven men assigned “to he Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek.”

 

Although other translators besides Edes had died before the Bible was published in 1611 (Edward Lively in 1605, Ralph Hutchinson and William Dakins in 1606, John Rainolds in 1607, Thomas Ravis and John Aglionhy in 1609), it appears that once the work of translation was in progress, translators who died were not replaced.

 

The other thing about the translators that should he noted is that some had been at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604: William Barlow (d. 1613), Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626), John Overall (1560-1619), George Abbot (1562-1633), Thomas Ravis (1560-1609), Richard Edes (1555-1604), Cues Thomson (1553-1612), and James Montague (1568-1618), if indeed he was one of the translators.

 

No man who served as a translator of the Authorized Version could ever have imagined that he would he the subject of such intense historical scrutiny. But four hundred years after the fact, the role of these “learned men” in the history of the English Bible still captivates layman and scholar alike. But as interesting and intriguing a subject as the translators of the Authorized Version is, we should remember that it is their product that is the important thing.

King James Bible

King James Bibles

By William Paul
(Bible Editions & Versions – July/Sept. 2004)

Until the middle of the 20th Century, the most popular English language Bible translation in America was the Authorized Version, popularly known as the King James Version (1611). Since then, scores of new English translations have been produced, especially during the last half of the 20th Century.

While the King James Version has undergone a number of minor revisions since it was first published (while still being considered the King James Version), a number of new translations have appeared in recent years bearing the words “King James” in their titles. Of course, since the King James Version is in public domain, it is understandable why so many ‘‘altered” editions of this version are being made. Most all of them have sought to adhere, more or less, to the original King James Version in their wording, while incorporating some additional features, such as a form of the divine name, modernized spelling, etc. Below is a listing of most of the translations using the words “King James” in their titles.

King James Version (1611, 1638, 1762,1769)
Clarified King James Version (195
Children’s King James Bible (1960)
Modern King James Version (1962, 1990)
Teen-age King James Version (1962)
King James II Version (1970)
20th Century King James Version (1972)
New King James Version (1982)
King James Easy Reading Version (1987)
New Webster King James Version (1992)
21st Century King James Version (1994)
King James Version, Revised (1996)
King James Clarified New Testament (199
American King James Version (1999)
The Defined King James Bible (2000)
Updated King James Version (2000)
King James 2000 Bible (2000)
Sacred Name King James Version (2001)
Restored Name King James Version (2004)

The Bible in Living English

GW comments.

I have used the Byington version of the Bible for a number of years. The writing, phrasing and style have made it a joy to read and study. The following notes have been gleaned from various sources and placed here so as to give a background to the immense richness of his half century endeavor in preparing the text. I have it on good authority that the manuscripts have been printed as he wrote it with no alteration by the Publishers.

Steven Tracy Byington (birthname “Stephen”) (December 10, 1869 - October 12, 1957) was a noted intellectual, translator, and American individualist anarchist. He was born in Westford, Vermont, and later moved to Ballardvale, Massachusetts. A one-time proponent of Georgism, he converted to individualist anarchism after associating with Benjamin Tucker. He was a firm believer in the promotion of individualist anarchism through education. He said “Anarchism has undertaken to change men’s minds in one point by removing their faith in force” (Quasi-Invasion and the Boycott in Liberty, X, 2). He began a “Letter Writing Corps” in 1894 which targeted specific individuals, including newspapers, to familiarize others with the philosophical doctrine. He is known for translating Max Stirner’s The Ego and Its Own into English from German. Byington based his individualist anarchism (my belief) on egoism.

Byington was a cum laude graduate of the University of Vermont in 1891 and a member of the prestigious Phi Beta Kappa. He was considered a master of at least twelve languages. Over the course of sixty years he translated the Bible from original texts and entitled it The Bible in Living English. It was published posthumously in 1972 in New York by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.

Who Was STEVEN T. BYINGTON?

Steven Byington was a scholar who produced his own translation of Scripture. I have not seen his translation but am advised that it contains the name “Jehovah”, whether in the New Testament, I do not know. If anyone can enlighten me about this and related matters, I would be very appreciative.

The Watchtower Bible and Tract Society owns the rights to Byington’s translation. I do not know how this came about.

The Society first published its “Christian Greek Scriptures” (”New Testament”) in 1950. Shortly afterwards, Byington provided a periodical called “The Christian Century” with his review of their translation. His review appeared in the November 1, 1950 issue.

In a rare piece of public correspondence, the New World Translation Committee responded to Byington’s review. Their response appeared in the May 9, 1951 issue of “The Christian Century”, along with Byington’s comments. In their reponse, the Translation Committee shows the high regard it held for Byington.

When the Society began releasing its “Hebrew Scriptures”, Byington provided a review for “The Christian Century”, and it appeared in its October 7, 1953 issue.

I am not certain, but I believe Byington might have died some time during the mid-1950s.

The following text is from OCR scans of the articles in “The Christian Century”. I have provided this material since it is not commonly available and people might not know it exists.

Doug Mason

February 2000

dmason39@hotmail.com

MORE ON BYINGTON

(The following is from “The Christian Century”, November 1, 1950)

N. W. T.

New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. Rendered from the Original Language by the New World Bible Translation Committee. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn, $1.60.

JEHOVAH’S Witnesses have made their own translation of the book for which they consider “New Testament” an illegitimate name. It is well supplied with faults and merits.

In accordance with human nature, the reader will first notice faults. The first to catch his eye will be the unwise typographical trick of distinguishing the second person plural from the singular by printing the word in small capitals when the meaning is plural. Possibly he may notice next that instead of “cross” we have everywhere “torture stake,” in favor of which translation something can be said, and instead of “crucify” always “impale,” in favor of which nothing can be said, for “impale” has in English the settled meaning of thrusting the stake through the vitals, not of fastening the body to a stake outside the body. An appendix says very positively that Jesus was fastened to a simple upright pole, not to a pole with a crosspiece. This agrees with Fulda’s book Das Kreuz but is against the weight of evidence, though the appendix says there is no evidence at all for the crosspiece.

The specialty which the book itself most emphasizes is the use of the name Jehovah instead of “the lord” in 237 places, besides 72 more in the margin. Fifteen pages of the preface present the arguments to justify this. I think the justification insufficient; but the “Jehovah” does not shock a reader.

The version purports to be modern in idiom. Actually this is the most uneven thing about it. Archaic expressions like “minister” (usually as verb) and “tribulation” are not rare in it. Along with them we find homely current idiom which sometimes comes with a Moffatt-like vividness. Luke 14: 18, “. . . they all in common started to beg off.” Acts 16: 15, “And she just made us come.” Rev. 18: 16, “Too bad, too bad, as great a city as she was.” The verb “resurrect” is used freely.

Conjunctions are treated loosely; de in particular is commonly rendered as an adverb, and becomes a surprisingly wide variety of adverbs.

The main fault is overtranslation. I mean that, where a Greek word may he found to carry an implication in addition to its rough meaning, this implication is made explicit, frequently by an added word. This fault is common to various translators, who usually claim it as a merit, but the New World Translation goes rather far. The tenses of verbs are rendered not only by such forms as “would say” or “was saying” but also by inserting “begin to” or “continue to” where the tense is deemed to be inceptive or continuative. Other words have an extra word added to “bring out the meaning”; a bad case is the regular insertion of “undeserved” or the like before whatever translation is given for “grace.” Compound verbs suffer especially by overtranslation of the prefix, in which (as in other distinctions of synonyms) an imaginary meaning is sometimes brought in. The translators trusted their dictionary too much, not realizing that dictionaries are uninspired. What may happen to the words for “go” is seen in Luke 9:56-57, “So they traveled to a different village . . . I will follow you to wherever you may depart.” Yet a little work with the Greek concordance to examine the renderings elsewhere given to these same words for “go” will decidedly increase your respect for the skill and good taste of the translators.

Another aspect of “bringing out the meaning” is exemplified by the occasional substitution of “means” for “is.” This is commentary rather than translation.

Of course where there is controversy over the exegesis of a text the translators have used their own judgment, sometimes radical, sometimes conservative. And of course, where a traditional mistranslation is not customarily pointed out by commentators, the translators have not usually corrected it. Yet sometimes they have done so. They have inserted “is,” required by both Hebrew and Greek grammar, in the translation of “Immanuel.” They have recognized that birds lodge not in nests but on roosts, and that the Greek word is the conventional biblical Greek equivalent for the Hebrew word for roost. In the parable of the mustard seed they have recognized the importance of the definite article, “the seeds” (i.e., those that men plant), “the vegetables” (the botanists’ “herb” is, in the usage of Greek botanists, a different word).

“Bishop,” as the designation of a functionary not over the local church but within it, has become “overseer” (trusting to the uninspired dictionary again). Would not “church visitor” have corresponded better to the meaning of episkeptomai? Or is that a delusive argument?

The arrangement of verse numbers is that of the Revised Standard Version. But where the hasty eye confuses the R.S.V. verse numbers with quotation marks, the N.W.T. escapes this confusion by making its verse numbers much lighter. The use of a cheap quality of paper enables the publishers to cut the price below the already low price of the R.S.V.

The book does not give enjoyable continuous reading; but if you are digging for excellent or suggestive renderings, this is among the richer mines.

STEVEN T. BYINGTON.

(The following is from “The Christian Century”, May 9, 1951, pages 587 – 589)

How Bible Translators Work

Behind the Scenes in the Preparation of a New Version of the New Testament

A NEW VERSION of the New Testament in English was published last year by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society (Jehovah’s Witnesses).

This translation, prepared by the New World Bible Translation Committee with evident intent to achieve faithfulness to the precise meaning of the Greek text, contained a number of variations from the familiar translations of so striking a nature as to arouse the interest of scholars everywhere. It was reviewed for The Christian Century on November 1 by Steven T. Byington, himself a noted translator. Later, the New World Bible Translation Committee prepared an extended comment on points raised by Mr. Byington in his review, and at the request of The Christian Century Mr. Byington has written a reply to this comment. The exchange between the committee and Mr. Byington gives such an illuminating glimpse into the way in which translators of the Bible work that we are sure it will prove of great interest to the readers of this paper. -THE EDITORS

SIR: The Nov 1, 1950, issue of your magazine has come to our attention, as its Survey of Books takes under review the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures. The criticism on this translation which you published gives evidence of being made by a Greek scholar who has given the work no cursory examination but has delved into it deeply with an appreciation of values, being himself a Bible translator. We value his criticism and respect the standards of judgment by which he is guided.

Theories of Translation

When entering upon such a responsible task and exacting work as translating the Scriptures into modern English, the translator has to choose between two schools of thought, that which believes the koine Greek of apostolic times had lost much of its fine classical distinctions between words and hence only the rough meaning of the words should be used and rendered into the English; and that school which believes the Christian writers wrote with still a sense of the precise meaning and usage of words indicated by various prefixes to words which have a common root. Out of regard for Christian feelings toward the Holy Scriptures the New World Bible Translation Committee leaned toward the literal translation of the Greek text and this inclined it to the latter school of thought. The translation it produced was meant not merely for good, enjoyable reading but more particularly for use of searching students of God’s Word who do not have ready access to Greek dictionaries and exhaustive Bible concordances.

This accounts, for instance, between gnosis and epignosis, for the renderings “knowledge” and “accurate knowledge,” the prefix epi denoting a distinction between the two Greek words. (See Rom. 1:28; 2:20.) Turning to page 787 of the appendix of the translation you note the “Chain of Outstanding Bible Subjects and Proper Bible Names,” by use of which you can follow the same English word or the basic Greek word straight through its appearances from first to last. You note the list contains kindness, lovingkindness and undeserved kindness. These three English expressions represent three different unrelated Greek words, the last one being charis which many translators render grace. But the proper meaning of grace is not clear to readers in general. In Scripture it has many times the meaning the New World Translation gives it, undeserved kindness, so that using the qualifying adjective “undeserved” is not to be viewed as needless or an overtranslation of the Greek word charis. It differentiates charis from other forms of kindness represented by other Greek words. Correspondingly the verb charizomai contains the element of kindness and this is retained in translating it kindly or freely forgive, to distinguish it from merely forgive which renders the verb aphiemi, as in the Lord’s Prayer.

“YOU” is rendered in all capitals when it is in the plural, in the same way that in some other translations “LORD” is put in all capitals to indicate to the eye that it stands for “Jehovah,” in contrast with “Lord” which means merely “master” or “sir” or which applies to Jesus. How valuable this feature is can be appreciated, for instance, in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus swings back and forth between singular you meaning an individual there and plural YOU meaning the people. The plurality is sometimes pointed up by rendering it “YOU men” or “YOU people” (Luke 16:26; 22:31,32).

Why ‘Jehovah’?

The name “Jehovah” is not put in the English text arbitrarily or according to whim. Why it is authorized the foreword explains. Every time the name occurs the footnotes show which of the 19 Hebrew translations from the 14th century onward agree with the New World Translation. The foreword gives a brief history of each of these Hebrew translations, as well as a table of 38 different modern missionary translations which use 20 different vernacular forms of “Jehovah” in the Christian Greek Scriptures. This helps readers instantaneously to distinguish between the Father and the Son. Why “Jehovah” is preferred to “Yahweh” is explained in the foreword.

The Hebrew words Hosanna and Hallelujah are not transliterated as though they were some ritualistic formula but are translated, respectively, “Save, we pray,” and “Praise Jah, YOU people.” At Rom. 9:17 concerning Pharaoh the translation says “let you remain” to agree with the Hebrew text and Greek Septuagint, instead of “made you stand” according to the usual rendering.

Since “hell” is such a controversial subject, the three Greek words which the King James Version renders by this one old English word are transliterated “Hades” “Gehenna” and “Tartarus,” and the historical and scriptural explanation of each is given in the appendix. Psyche is rendered soul in each of its 102 occurrence; which serves to give the reader a revealing insight into what it is.

Was There a Cross?

Whether Jesus was suspended on an upright post or the traditional cross has long been a mooted question. When the Jews called out for him to he suspended, they properly cried “Impale him!” as they were not privileged to dictate to the Roman governor what form Jesus’ impalation should take. The textual and historical bases for rendering stauroo “impale” and stauros “torture stake” are supplied in the appendix.

The endeavor to show up the tense of the Greek verb and indicate the form and not merely the time of the action results in many clarifying idiomatic expressions that give vividness to the English verb.

All in all, the New World Translation shows nothing loose, careless or indifferent about it. It commends itself to those who want to attain a more precise understanding of the inspired writings of Christ’s disciples, and thereby to delight themselves more in God’s life-giving Word.

NEW WORLD BIBLE TRANSLATION COMMITTEE

Brooklyn, N.Y.

Mr. Byington Comments

SIR: I agree that precise meanings and fine discriminations existed in biblical Greek, and that the authors are to be credited with saying what they meant. I agree that it is a proper translator’s business to be conscious of the fine shades of meaning and, so far as the language he has to use permits, to make his readers conscious of them. Of course the historical changes of any language interfere with synonyms: a distinction may be lost, as in English the distinction between “enow” and “enough,” or a new distinction may be created, as in heathen Greek brucho and trizo are of identical meaning, “to set the teeth hard,” but in biblical Greek trizo keeps this meaning while brucho means “to grind the teeth” in anger or pain. And styles may depend on personal habit, as the evangelist Mark is continually saying euthus where another writer might more probably have said eutheos or sometimes parachrema or exautes; yet Mark means the same as the other man might have meant. And pedants may allege differences of meaning that never existed in actual use, as in English “each other” and “one another,” or “further” and “farther,” or may persistently echo each other in giving a false account of a difference, as in the statement that in English “between” is properly used only of two things and should be changed to “among” where more than two are in question. But a language does not lose its fineness of meaning by any of these phenomena.

More Accuracy Needed

So I do not object because the New World Translation wants to recognize distinctions. I would sometimes have had it go farther. For instance (just now my copy of the New World Translation is lent to the public library, but I think my memory is right) in Matt. 17:22 I would have had it recognize that the verb given by the best manuscripts carries the implication of assembling for an insurrectionary or riotous purpose, so we have here the record that a group tried to get up an insurrection to be headed by Jesus, and “took it very hard” when he squelched their plan by declaring that if it came to violence he would take a passive part. Correct translation at this point would be a useful wet blanket to those fiction-mongers who nowadays claim that Jesus’ movement was in fact a plan of armed insurrection.

But I did object that the New World Translation, usually following dictionaries (which, as I remarked, are not inspired), sometimes gives a false “special sense” and sometimes gives a false emphasis, which to my mind is as much a mistranslation as any other falsity.

A Mistake in Emphasis

The committee’s letter makes a point which well illustrates the first objection. It says, with support from dictionaries and from the revisers of 1881, that in epignosis the prefix has the force of “accurately” or “fully”. In other words, the prefix is a mere intensive. But it is not so; see the note on this word at the end of J. Armitage Robinson’s commentary on Ephesians. (I noticed the point for myself before I found it in Robinson, therefore it is obvious enough to strike different students working independently; but Robinson has collected much fuller evidence than I did.) Epiginosko, epignosis, are the ordinary scriptural words for “recognize” (Acts 4:13) and “recognition”; this carries the translator some distance, for instance over Rom. 1 :28, the committee’s citation. But apart from this, the compound word has the sense of knowledge by direct observation and not by intellectual process. I Cor. 13:12 is easier to understand when you know the sense of the verb than to translate; I felt driven to translate “I shall be aware in the same way as he was aware of me,” sacrificing the passive voice to avoid sacrificing the special meaning of the verb. It will be noted that this interpretation, based on evidence, gives a much more special sense than “know accurately,” which appears to be based on some past scholar’s hasty guess.

What the Apostle Meant

My second objection is illustrated by the committee’s next example, charis (on which see another note by the same Robinson in the same book). They talk as if undeservedness were part of the essential sense of the word. But it is not so; this is the regular word for our thanks to God, which are never undeserved. Paul uses the word frequently of cases where there is in fact no desert, but not because this word says so. In texts like Rom. 4:4; 11:6, the essential point is that this benefit comes from an act, attitude or quality of God, not from an act or status of the man; by making “undeserved” the emphatic word we are making the man’s status the prominent thought. James 1:5 says that God gives generously and does not keep throwing his gifts in our faces by ungenerously reminding us how much in his debt we are; to keep translating “undeserved kindness” with labored persistency makes on me the impression that the writer who writes on God’s behalf is in fact throwing up to us how generously we have been treated. I should feel that the proper meaning of “grace,” associated as it naturally is with “gracious,” “gratis,” “gratuitous,” was clear to readers in general. If in this respect I am not sufficiently conscious of the difference between past and present usage, I would sooner try either “favor” or “graciousness” than load a three-syllable adjective on the back of the noun.

Capitalisation Can Mislead

It is a notorious evil that the foremost languages of modern Europe do not distinguish singular from plural “you.” A leading Spanish grammarian-Salva, I think, devotes a subsection of his grammar to boasting of the superiority of his language in that its ordinary “you” has a distinctive plural form. The evil is felt especially in translation. So everybody will agree that the New World Translation’s capitalized plural YOU has a worthy purpose. My objections are, first, that to the ordinary reader it does not serve this purpose: unless he has given himself special training in the use of the New World Translation, the capitals will not suggest plurality to him, nor their absence singularity. And second, that the capitals inevitably do suggest emphasis, an emphasis which is not usually given by the original and which in many cases is inappropriate.

Consider the effect of these capitals in the 16th chapter of Matthew or the 2nd chapter of James, with their implication that every second person plural in these chapters is more emphatic than any second person singular. These capitals seem to combine two of the failures of the King James Version. One is that that version undertook to discriminate the plural imperative by arbitrarily adding a pronoun subject to the imperative when it was plural, at least very generally. The reader does indeed get the idea that “go ye,” “come ye,” “know ye” are plural; but he does not get the idea that the omission of “ye” makes imperatives presumptively singular. The other is that King James’ committee in their black-letter edition put words that are “not in the original” in smaller roman type, not very black, with a note in their preface explaining the purpose. Subsequent printers, often having available no distinctive type except italics, have put such words into italics, with the result that today the usual reader takes them to be emphasized words, commonly misemphasized. My father’s stock example of the consequence was 1 Kings 13:27. The New World Translation capitals, I charge, combine these two old-time failures.

If we need to argue the point of translating “the Lord” where the Greek says “the Lord,” my argument would be that when Jesus and the apostles and their friends spoke an Old Testament text aloud, they said “the Lord” for “Jehovah” even in so careful a quotation as Mark 12:29 (the newly found manuscript of Isaiah may be cited as fresh evidence that the custom of saying “the Lord” began before the time of Christ, for it has cases of wavering between the readings “Jehovah” and “the Lord,” and the explanation of such wavering is that the two were pronounced alike), and we cannot presume that the apostles wrote otherwise than they spoke. And it is a translator’s business to reproduce his original.

‘The Lord’ and ‘Jehovah’

This is the same principle that requires keeping the proper name in translating the Old Testament. I understand that among the Old Testament Revision Committee there is afloat a theory that their version will be more acceptable to the public by saying “the Lord.” The theory is erroneous. For there are on the American market two standard revised versions of the complete Bible, one published by Nelson with the name “Jehovah” and one published by the Oxford University Press with “the Lord”; and the one that everybody buys is the one from Nelson.

On some points, as “hell,” I agree with the committee so far as its position is made clear in its letter. “Soul” is a hard nut for the translator; but where the word designates the animal life and bodily appetite, as in Matt. 2:20; 6:25; 10:39; 20:28; Luke 12:19; 14:26; John 10:1!; 1 Cor 15:45, I am not sure that the translation “soul” gives best insight into what it is, For some of these texts I propose the noun “self.”

‘Impale’ Erroneous

All we know about the form of Jesus’ cross is the presumption that it was such a cross as the Romans most commonly used. The question whether to say “impale” for “crucify” is a question not of Greek nor of archaeology, but of English. The committee will hardly deny that in Jesus’ case the stake was outside his body; and I should like to see their evidence that “impale” can refer to a stake that does not go into or through the body.

I grant that vividness is sometimes profitably gained by marking the special force of a Greek tense, perhaps even when this is done with exaggerated specificness. But when one translates the Greek imperfect often by “began” and often by “continued,” it is hard to see how the fact that the tense is imperfect tells us which of these two exactly opposite meanings to take; and where the most natural English is a simple past, and the Greek is the best representation the Greek language could give for a simple English past, to carry the English beyond the simple past may be a gratuitous bother not only for the translator but for the reader.

STEVEN T. BYINGTON

Ballard Vale, Mass.

(The following is from “The Christian Century”, October 7, 1953, pages 1133 – 1134)

Jehovah’s Witnesses’ Version of O.T.

New World Translation of the Hebrew Scriptures,Rendered from the Original Languages by the New World Translation Committee. Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, $1.50.

The fact that this volume (from Genesis to Ruth) is the first of three volumes, the second to end with the Song of Solomon, is not indicated on the title page but only on the contents page. I presume the volumes will come at intervals of a year or two. The third volume is to contain certain helps to systematic study. If you want to buy a copy, I suggest that you consult the nearest available active member of Jehovah’s Witnesses. They do not seem to me to be especially eager to have their publications carried by ordinary booksellers; if I am wrong, let them correct me. But a bookstore can furnish it, perhaps at a slightly higher price.

It is a matter of course in any publication of Jehovah’s Witnesses that the name of Jehovah is used as a proper name. The translators also announce their intention of restoring this name in the passages where recorded Jewish tradition says that the scribes have removed it from the text. This is sound scholarship (at least so far as the tradition appears to be truthful), and will be accepted as such even by those who think it an unwise policy for practical translation into English. For my part I think it a wise policy for that purpose. If in their second volume the translators should in the second part of the book of Psalms (Pss. 42 to 83) restore the name of Jehovah where it was cut out by some scribe too ancient to be recognized by Jewish tradition, they would thereby restore to sundry texts, as commentators have remarked, a vigor and intelligibility of which the scribe’s unwisdom has robbed the words.

Those who speak to Jehovah use the pronoun “you” to him. This is undoubtedly faithful translation. The use of the religious “thou” in addressing God is an artificial element in 20th century language; and the founders of Israelite religion addressed God without artificiality. In some of the latest and most formal chapters, e.g. Psalm 119 and Daniel 9, “thou” might be appropriate translation; but Abraham and Moses, Elijah and Jeremiah, spoke to God as they spoke to men, and Psalm 119 and Daniel 9 may as well follow the analogy of the earlier texts.

The plural is typographically distinguished from the singular by using small capitals for “you” and “your” when they refer to more than one person, and for plural imperative verbs. I have not changed my opinion, already expressed (The Christian Century, May 9, 1951) on occasion of the New World translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, that the purpose is highly laudable but the method used to accomplish it atrociously unwise.

As to the diction of the translation, it reads more smoothly than did its predecessor the New Testament work of the same translators, but its characteristics are that it is padded and bookish. Even the street toughs in Genesis 19 and Judges 19 talk more bookishly than colloquially. A bit of colloquialism may be noticed in this passage:

Next he said: “Throw it on the earth.” So he threw it on the earth, and it became a serpent, and Moses began to flee from it. Jehovah now said to Moses: “Put your hand out and grab hold of it by the tail.” So he put his hand out and grabbed hold of it and it became a rod in his palm. “In order that,” to quote him, “they may believe,” etc.

But the colloquialism here is not a sample of what the book is like; not so much as is the padding which acute readers may have noted.

In their preface, the translators defend this padding on the ground that a literal rendering lacks the color implicit in the terse original Hebrew. “Hence auxiliary words that lengthen the expression are at times required to bring out the vividness, picturesqueness and dramatic action of the verb, and the point of view and the idea of time of the Bible writer.” Of these “auxiliary words,” those that most dominate the style are such verbs as “began,” “proceeded,” “continued,” “went,” “kept.” Examples: “And he put faith in Jehovah, and be proceeded to count it to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6); “The surging waters proceeded to cover them” (Ex. 15:5).

But there are other auxiliary words, as the preface says again:

To avoid such monotony we have resorted to various English conjunctions to show the transition of the thought and to indicate whether the verb shows an action or state that is beginning, becoming or still keeping on and hence not yet come to completion. So in many cases at or toward the beginning of the sentence or clause we have used the following conjunctions or phrases, (a) to indicate temporal sequence: after a while, after that, after which, afterward, at length, at once, eventually, finally, further, furthermore, gradually, immediately, in time, in turn, later, later on, meantime, meanwhile, moreover, next, now, once, promptly, subsequently, then, when; (b) to indicate logical result: accordingly, and so, at that, at this, at which, consequently, hence, so, thus, to this, to which, upon that, well, with that; (c) to indicate logical cause: because, for, since; and (d) to indicate logical contrast: but, however, nevertheless, still.

Bear in mind that the above is avowedly a list of translations used for the Hebrew word “and.”

Obviously this sort of translation leaves a great deal to the personal judgment of the translator, while it puts no trust in the personal judgment of the reader. This work is not really translation, making the text say to the English reader just what it had said to the Hebrew reader, but a concise running commentary. When the verb is given the auxiliary “began” in Exodus 14:10-11 and the auxiliary “continued” in Numbers 14:1, in each case supposedIy to show the force of the grammatical form of the Hebrew verb, but the grammatical form of the Hebrew verb is the same in Numbers as in Exodus, obviously this is not because the grammatical form (which was identical) told the translators to say “began” here and “continued” there, but because the translators, acting as rewriters at their own discretion, thought “began” would be a good word to use here and “continued” there. The committee is substituting itself for the author.

A striking passage will, besides having its own interest, be a peg to hang one or two more remarks on:

Nevertheless, Moses said to God: “Suppose I am now come to the sons of Israel and I do say to them, ‘The God of your forefathers has sent me to you,’ and they do say to me, ‘What is his name?’ What shall I say to them?” At this God said to Moses: “I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be.” And he added: “This is what you are to say to the sons of Israel, ‘I shall prove to be has sent me to you.’ “

There is much to be said for “I shall prove to be.” The only fault I would find with it is that the insertion of “prove to” sacrifices terseness where terseness is very necessary. And I think I would say “will” for “shall.”

But “your” and “you” are in small capitals because they are plural, without emphasis, while “I shall prove to be” in both sentences is in small capitals for the reverent emphasis of a most notable statement. The use of the same typographical device for two utterly different purposes side by side is always confusing. The “do say” stands in accordance with these words of the preface: “When we show the emphasis of the perfect verb in the present time, we prefix ‘do’ or ‘does’ to the English verb, as, ‘I do say,’ ‘I do make, ‘he does do.’ ” That is, the translators have read in a school grammar that “do” gives the “emphatic” form of the verb. But if they had looked in a grammar of higher grade they would have seen that this is true only when “do” is to be pronounced with a marked stress of voice. If “do” is spoken as an unstressed syllable, as in “Nor did she seem to be much displeased,” it does not make the verb emphatic. But I think the translators will agree with me that if “they do say” is read with a special emphasis of voice on “do,” it will pervert rather than express the meaning of the Hebrew. Consequently this “do” is an awkwardness that fails to accomplish its purpose. And so with “do” on many pages.

STEVEN T. BYINGTON

From the Andover Historical Society Newsletter, Spring 1988

Steven T. Byington, a tall man with a flowing beard, was a scholar who was also a translator and proofreader for Ginn and Company, a Boston publisher, for thirty-eight years. He was born in Westford, Vermont on December 10, 1869 the son of the Rev. and Mrs. George Phelps Byington.

In 1891 he graduated from the University of Vermont where he studied many languages. At the age of thirteen he had decided to translate the Bible into modern English so he attended Union Theological School for further study of Biblical languages. Speaking or reading twelve languages fluently, he studied Zulu and Arabic “for pleasure.” About 1898 he began translating in earnest. This took almost sixty years to complete with most of the work being done on the train commuting to Boston.

He held various church offices, serving as clerk of the Ballard Vale Congregational Church for thirty-two years. He would bring his Bible translations to the Bible Class so the members could read and comment on them.

He was well-known as the “Sage of Ballard Vale” to the many readers of the Boston Globe column “What People Talk About,” for he had contributed many letters. He covered various subjects from Social Security, Russia, legal rights to why an ostrich hides its head in the sand.

Mr. Byington climbed mountains for a hobby. In August 1954 he made his annual trip to Mt. Mansfield in Vermont with the Rev. Phillip Kelsey, a former pastor of the Ballard Vale Congregational Church, who said he “set a steady pace.” They took the Cliff Trail - quite a feat at the age of eighty-five.

Steven never married. He lived for many years with his mother and his sister, Martha, Ballard Vale librarian, in the stone house on High Street. The rooms were lined with shelves of books of many languages and games to entertain the children whom they loved to have visit them.

Mr. Byington died on October 12, 1957, his life’s work “The Bible in Living English” completed but not yet published. After his death the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania turned over the publication rights to the same society of New York for a first printing of 100,000 copies made in 1972.