Translation & More

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by testallthings

I went through the fist 10 verses of Matthew, Mark, Luke, Romans, and Revelation (it is not much) and it seems to me that the RcV follows very closely the ASV rather than the KJV.

Correct.

The American Standard Version (1901) and the Revised English Version (1887) both followed the traditional Elizabethan English of the King James Version (1611.)

The Recovery Version (1985/1990) follows closely to the ASV, as you have said.

In his book The Complete Guide to Bible Versions, Dr. Philip Comfort (formerly my elder in the church in Columbus) said the following:

The New Testament scholars began to discover that most of the N.T. was written in Koine Greek -- the language of the people. As a result, there was a strong prompting to translate the N.T. into the language of the people. Various translators chose to divorce themselves from the traditional Elizabethan English as found in the King James Version (and even in the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version) and produce fresh renderings in the common idiom. (page 62)

It is interesting to note that LSMers ignorantly condemn other English translations simply for endeavoring to duplicate the vernacular of the common people, just as the writers of the N.T. used Koine Greek in their day.

In a footnote referenced in this paragraph of Comfort's book, he did note that 3 books of the N.T. were written in a style closer to classical Greek than Koine Greek. Luke wrote his Gospel and Acts in polished Greek; and the writer of Hebrews wrote in prosaic Greek.