Revised Version - Wikipedia
Revised Version (RV) - Hundreds of versions in + different languages - the Bible that goes with you anywhere. Download now or read online. The New Testament was completed in , and the Revised Version of the Old. The Revised Version (RV) or English Revised Version (ERV) of the Bible is a late 19th-century The New Testament was published in , the Old Testament in , and the Apocrypha in As the Revised Version is out of copyright worldwide, it is widely available online and in digital formats although it is. —Brewster Kahle, Founder, Internet Archive . The New Testament, in the revised version of , with fuller Publication date
In some words of very frequent occurrence, the Authorised Version being either inadequate or inconsistent, and sometimes misleading, changes have been introduced with as much uniformity as appeared practicable or desirable.
For instance, 'the tabernacle of the congregation' has been everywhere changed to 'the tent of meeting', on account of Exodus xxv. The words 'tabernacle' and 'tent', as the renderings of two different Hebrew words, are in the Authorised Version frequently interchanged in such a manner as to lead to confusion; and the Revisers have endeavoured throughout the Pentateuch to preserve a consistent distinction between them.
Their practice in regard to the words 'assembly' and 'congregation' has been the same in principle, although they have contented themselves with introducing greater consistency of rendering without aiming at absolute uniformity. In consequence of the changes which have taken place in the English language, the term 'meat offering' has become inappropriate to describe an offering of which flesh was no part; and by the alteration to 'meal offering' a sufficiently accurate representation of the original has been obtained with the least possible change of form.
As regards the use of words, there are only a few cases in which it has been found needful to deviate from the language employed in the Authorised Version. One of these deviations occurs so frequently that it may be well to state briefly why it was adopted. The effect of this was to leave the rendering of numerous passages inadequate or obscure or even positively misleading. Thus in one of the best known Psalms Ps. And in Isaiah lv. Again, the Hebrew word goyim 'nations', which is applied to the nations of Canaan dispossessed by the Hebrews, and then also to the surrounding nations among whom the people of Israel were afterwards dispersed, acquired in later times a moral significance, which is represented in the Authorised Version by the rendering 'heathen' or 'Gentiles'.
While recognizing this moral sense of the word, the Revisers have employed it much more sparingly than their predecessors had done. Of these renderings 'hell', if it could be taken in its original sense as used in the Creeds, would be a fairly adequate equivalent for the Hebrew word; but it is so commonly understood of the place of torment that to employ it frequently would lead to inevitable misunderstanding.
The Revisers therefore in the historical narratives have left the rendering 'the grave' or 'the pit' in the text, with a marginal note 'Heb. Sheol' to indicate that it does not signify 'the place of burial'; while in the poetical writings they have put most commonly 'Sheol' in the text and 'the grave' in the margin.
In connexion with this it may be mentioned that 'Abaddon', which has hitherto been known to the English reader of the Bible only from the New Testament Rev. In regard to the language of the Authorised Version, the Revisers have thought it no part of their duty to reduce it to conformity with modern usage, and have therefore left untouched all archaisms, whether of language or construction, which though not in familiar use cause a reader no embarrassment and lead to no misunderstanding.
They are aware that in so doing they will disappoint the large English-speaking race on the other side of the Atlantic, and it is a question upon which they are prepared to agree to a friendly difference of opinion.
The principle by which they have been guided has been clear and consistent. Where an archaic word or expression was liable to be misunderstood or at least was not perfectly intelligible, they have substituted for it another, in equally good use at the time the Authorised Version was made, and expressing all that the archaism was intended to convey, but more familiar to the modern reader.
In such cases the gain was greater than the loss. But in other instances where the word or expression, although obsolete, was not unintelligible, it was thought that the change would involve greater loss than gain, and the old rendering was therefore allowed to stand.
More especially was this the case when the archaism was a perfectly correct rendering of the original and there was no exact modern equivalent for it. The principle adopted by the Company will be best illustrated by two typical examples. The verb 'to ear' in the sense of 'to plough' and the substantive 'earing' for 'ploughing' were very reluctantly abandoned, and only because it was ascertained that their meaning was unknown to many persons of good intelligence and education.
But it was easy to put in their place equivalents which had a pedigree of almost equal antiquity, and it would have been an excess of conservatism to refuse to substitute for an unintelligible archaism an expression to which no ambiguity could be attached.
On the other hand the word 'bolled' Ex. To have discarded it in favour of a less accurate or more paraphrastic expression would have been to impoverish the language; and it was therefore left, because it exactly expresses one wiew which is taken of the meaning of the original.
Revised Standard Version (RSV) - Version Information - okinawa-net.info
One of the few instances in which the language of the Authorised Version has been modified in accordance with later usage is the change of the neuter possessive pronoun from 'his' to 'its'.
It is well known that 'its' does not occur in the Bible ofand it does not appear to have been introduced into any edition before But it is found ten times in Shakespeare, and there is other evidence to shew that at the time of the Authorised Version it was coming into use. Yet Tyndale's work became the foundation of subsequent English versions, notably those of Coverdale, ; Thomas Matthew probably a pseudonym for John Rogers; the Great Bible, ; the Geneva Bible, ; and the Bishops' Bible, The translators who made the King James Version took into account all of these preceding versions; and comparison shows that it owes something to each of them.
It kept felicitous phrases and apt expressions, from whatever source, which had stood the test of public usage. It owed most, especially in the New Testament, to Tyndale. The King James Version had to compete with the Geneva Bible in popular use; but in the end it prevailed, and for more than two and a half centuries no other authorized translation of the Bible into English was made.
The King James Version has with good reason been termed "the noblest monument of English prose. We owe to it an incalculable debt. Yet the King James Version has grave defects.The Book of Isaiah - KJV Audio Holy Bible - High Quality and Best Speed - Book 23
By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for revision of the English translation. The task was undertaken, by authority of the Church of England, in The English Revised Version of the Bible was published in ; and the American Standard Version, its variant embodying the preferences of the American scholars associated in the work, was published in Because of unhappy experience with unauthorized publications in the two decades between andwhich tampered with the text of the English Revised Version in the supposed interest of the American public, the American Standard Version was copyrighted, to protect the text from unauthorized changes.
Inthis copyright was acquired by the International Council of Religious Education, and thus passed into the ownership of the churches of the United States and Canada which were associated in this Council through their boards of education and publication.
The Council appointed a committee of scholars to have charge of the text of the American Standard Version and to undertake inquiry as to whether further revision was necessary. For more than two years the Committee worked upon the problem of whether or not revision should be undertaken; and if so, what should be its nature and extent. In the end the decision was reached that there is need for a thorough revision of the version ofwhich will stay as close to the Tyndale-King James tradition as it can in the light of our present knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek texts and their meaning on the one hand, and our present understanding of English on the other.
Inthe revision was authorized by vote of the Council, which directed that the resulting version should "embody the best results of modern scholarship as to the meaning of the Scriptures, and express this meaning in English diction which is designed for use in public and private worship, and preserves those qualities which have given to the King James Version a supreme place in English literature.
The Committee has worked in two sections, one dealing with the Old Testament and one with the New Testament. Each section has submitted its work to the scrutiny of the members of the other section; and the charter of the Committee requires that all changes be agreed upon by a two-thirds vote of the total membership of the Committee.
The problem of establishing the correct Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Old Testament is very different from the corresponding problem in the New Testament. For the New Testament we have a large number of Greek manuscripts, preserving many variant forms of the text. Some of them were made only two or three centuries later than the original composition of the books. For the Old Testament, only late manuscripts survive, all with the exception of the Dead Sea texts of Isaiah and Habakkuk and some fragments of other books based on a standardized form of the text established many centuries after the books were written.
The present revision is based on the consonantal Hebrew and Aramaic text as fixed early in the Christian era and revised by Jewish scholars the "Masoretes" of the sixth to ninth centuries.
Bible (English Revised Version)/Preface
The vowel-signs, which were added by the Masoretes, are accepted also in the main, but where a more probable and convincing reading can be obtained by assuming different vowels, this has been done.
No notes are given in such cases, because the vowel points are less ancient and reliable than the consonants. Departures from the consonantal text of the best manuscripts have been made only where it seems clear that errors in copying had been made before the text was standardized.
Most of the corrections adopted are based on the ancient versions translations into Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, and Latinwhich were made before the time of the Masoretic revision and therefore reflect earlier forms of the text.
In every such instance, a footnote specifies the version or versions from which the correction has been derived, and also gives a translation of the Masoretic Text. Sometimes it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission, but none of the versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original text.
Such corrections are indicated in the footnotes by the abbreviation Cn, and a translation of the Masoretic Text is added. From first to last, the single object of the Revisers was to allow the written words to speak for themselves to Englishmen, without any admixture of gloss, or any suppression of roughness.
Faithfulness must, indeed, be the supreme aim of the Biblical translator. In the record of a historical Revelation no sharp line can be drawn between the form and the spirit. The form is the spirit. The Bible is, we believe, not only a collection of most precious literary monuments, but the original charter of our Faith. No one can presume to say that the least variation is unimportant. The translator, at any rate, is bound to place all the facts in evidence, as far as it is possible for him to do so.
He must feel that in such a case he has no right to obscure the least shade of expression which can be rendered; or to allow any prepossessions as to likelihood or fitness to outweigh direct evidence, and still less any attractiveness of a graceful phrase to hinder him from applying most strictly the ordinary laws of criticism to the determination and to the rendering of the original text.
Difficulties and differences of opinion necessarily arise in determining the relative claims of faithfulness and elegance of idiom when they come into conflict. But the example of the Authorised Version seems to show that it is better to incur the charge of harshness, than to sacrifice a peculiarity of language, which, if it does nothing else, arrests attention, and reminds the reader that there is something in the words which is held to be more precious than the music of a familiar rhythm.
The Bible, indeed, has most happily enriched our language with many turns of Hebrew idiom, and I believe that the Revision of the New Testament does not contain anything unusual either in expression or in order which is not justified by the Old Version.
William Burgon, in The Quarterly Review vol. The Sword and the Trowel,