175 Versions?

Yet one Gospel.

One Lord, one faith and one baptism.

 

The great tragedy is that we have all those English versions while vast numbers of the world have no solid translation

 

All 'Bible' lists seem to have problems, and this list is no exception. Enumerating follows. Here are just a few example problems --

First, this list is clearly incomplete. I had in 2009 introduced this forum to 4 or 5 new 'Bible' translation projects (the CEB, TKJB, SENT, The Voice, and the 'Seemless Bible'), none of which are listed here (although the CEB is not yet published). The 1941 Confraternity is a further revision of the D-R text, yet there is no KJV edition listed for the year 1769 (in fact, there are incorrectly only 2 entries in the list for the whole 1700's).

Second, an author's definition of 'Bible' makes a significant difference and this list compiler's criteria is very unclear: many translations of the New Testament (without any accompanying OT text) are counted while at the same time some Jewish texts (such as Brenton's, Artscroll and JPS) without accompanying NTs are also included. The Magna Bible is a graphic novel-style (comicbook) publication included right along with genuine scholarly translations. There seems to be almost no distiction as to what is considered a 'Bible' here (if only the word "Bible" in the title is necessary then a definitive hobbyist's manual or a sportsman's digest could ridiculously be listed).

Third, some of the entries are not unique translations but identical (or virtually the same) text published under a different title: the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible is essentially the KJV text; the 1992 Clear Word Bible and 1994 The Clear Word would be basically the same text. Are the 1898 Women's Bible, 1913 The Literary Man’s NT, and the 1931 Complete Bible really unique translations or just marketing ploys?

In truth, without very clear definitions no person should really attempt to state how many portions or the entire translations there are of the 'Bible' in English.

 

Nothing wrong with a sense of humor.

Hope there is some in heaven.

 

The Shorter Bible (NT actually released in 1918; OT in 1921) is a descriptive title; it is an abridged original translation by Charles Foster Kent (a well repected scholar of his time, I believe). It seems that condensed versions were popular in the early 20th century; I have a couple of specimens such as a Dartmouth Bible and the Olive Pell version. Apparently, the Distilled Bible (actually just the NT) is not a condensed version.

 

How about all the millions of people who do own a bible and never read it? That's a tragedy.

 

Yeah, my old mates even had theirs propping up a bed leg. How God is insulted.

 

Propping up a bed leg?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Sheesh.. I figure even a non-believer would think twice about that!

 

William Tyndale's first published New Testament was probably 1526 (1516 is the year in which Eramus' Greek NT was published). Tyndale's more famous edition was likely released late in 1534 (not in the above list). Coverdale is misspelled in the above list (Where did this list come from?). I also noticed right away the absence in this list of Wycliffe, Taverner's translation (1539) and Whittingham's New Testament (1557) which was used in the initial editions of the Geneva Bible. Of course, the Rheim's New Testament (1582) was available well before the complementary Old Testament was added at Douay.

Many people are unaware that an attempt to produce an English Bishop's version in 1534 lead by Thomas Cranmer (on Henry VIII's authority) failed to be completed.

 

Indeed, the Women's Bible (1895) is a revision of Julia Smith's translation. This agenda-driven version allows some passages (especially those referring to women) to become influenced by feminist theology. It is an early example of inclusive language.

The Literary Man's Bible (1909) is not a complete Bible, nor even a NT. It contains only sections of the OT scriptures as examples of Hebrew literature (poetry, etc.) with essays and commentary by W. L. Courtney. Perhaps this is not the same work as listed (but also there is no such entry at 1909).

The Complete Bible (1931 correct!) was the marketing title for Smith's OT (1927, not included in the OP list) combined with Goodspeed's NT translation (1923, which was included); better known as An American Translation.

 

I didn't recognize some of these older titles; no wonder, these are not their more common titles and many of the dates are incorrect (nor are the translator/editors names included). My sources are primarily the Bible Version Encylopedia by Bradford Taliaferro (First Edition) or Michale Marlowe's bible-researcher website.

For example, 1904 The Corrected English NT is likely Lloyd's (1905). The 1904 NT Revised and Translated listed above is clearly Worrell's (a minor revision of the ASV). The 1909 "University" edition is probably a referrence to the Scofield Referrence Bible (KJV text) produced at Oxford. The entry entitled The Bible in Modern English is probably actually supposed to be Fenton's translation (1903). The Restored NT (1914) is the work of James Morgan Pryse (although he did publish "Apocalyse Unsealed" in 1910).

 

One interesting "fact" that I noted from looking at that list (given that the list is anything like accurate) is that there were about the same number of new Bible versions in the 1990s as there were in all the years before 1900.

In the years before 1900 they were running an average of a new English Bible every 30 years, by the 1990s that figure was up to a new English Bible every six months.

I can't help but wonder if all of the time and study involved wouldn't be better spent translating Bibles into languages that don't have one (or don't have a very good one).

 

The list has some very serious omissions and errors. A couple of error examples: Lamsa published The Holy Bible from Ancient Eastern Manuscripts: Containing the Old and New Testaments in 1957 (not 1933, although that was the year he published his The Four Gospels According to the Eastern Version); Olaf M. Norlie's version (which I just finished reading) was published in 1951 (not 1961, although that was the year that Fan S. Noli published The New Testament of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, Translated into English from the Approved Greek Text of the Church of Constantinople and the Church of Greece. There are about a dozen omissions from the 1700s alone.

There were not nearly as many translations produced in the 1990s as the prior 8 decades, but you are essentially correct that the rate of new translations has accelerated. The translation activity has historically risen and fallen many times for various reasons: the later 1500s was very active due to printing improvements and advances in original language sources; activity wained in the 1700s; there was an increase near the turn of the 20th century following the discovery of many MSS; not much production in the 1940s (a world war period); interest returned in the '50s after the DSS discovery. The late 1980s was the beginning of the publishing revolution because of computer power. The decade of 2000-2009 was the most prolific yet (between 6 to 12 new versions per year, or about 100 total), with some 'major players': ALT, NET, & ESV (2001), The Message (2002), ISV (2003), HCSB (2004), TNIV (2005), and the NETS (2006). The next couple of years could produce even more.

 

Yes it would. But then the publishers wouldn't rake in all that $$$$$.


You would think also that with so many translations that supposedly make the Bible "easier" to understand that there wouldn't be so many who are biblically illiterate.

 

Now that's a version I'd read! Sign me up for an early copy! :smilewinkgrin:
Is it a paraphrase? :tongue3:

Translating the bible into another language is admirable and certainly needed ...
... but it requires a full complement of different language and cultural skills that is quite rare in American/English culture.

It appears that a good few of the versions were works of individuals.
The time spent translating represents numerous hours personally studying the scriptures.

The way missionary operations are established today often requires years of dedicated service --- collecting the funds needed to work overseas.
The people with these skills are often dry, introverted people.
They may be weeded out in the process.

It's sad, it's a tragedy, but it's true.
Today's missionary emphisis is upon recruiting natives in the culture to spread the gospel amoung their own people.
Perhaps with this approach we will begin to see a greater number of minor language texts.

Rob