Genesis of an Idea (No Pun Intended): "The Victorian King James Version" New Testament

Scottish Bible translator James Moffatt (1870-1944) 

I've often thought about (as an outgrowth of my great love for the Bible) a "fresh" version that combines the grandeur and majesty of the King James 17th century English (1611, though slightly revised in 1769; removing mostly outdated spelling) with the archaisms taken out. The general idea has basically been done in well-known and widely used translations (I myself always use RSV in my study and my books) and many other lesser-known translations (all revisions of the King James, or revisions of revisions: ASV----> NASB / RV----> RSV / KJV----> NKJV, etc.). Mine would be a similar "hybrid" -- but with my own stylistic taste the key distinctive or unifying factor.

I don't know Greek, and am therefore not qualified in the slightest to actually translate. But I know English and know the Bible well. This (accordingly) wouldn't technically be a new translation at all, but rather a "selection" or collection of what I personally felt were the best renderings that maintained the KJV style as much as possible without the archaisms. This can't escape being my "subjective project" in that sense. I'd be the editor, but not translator of even a single word.

I would select based on style and my own understanding (be what it may) of the meaning of Bible passages, but the point would be a selection of wording from among the chosen renderings of those who are legitimate translators.

The main complaint would probably be that it was presumptuous. It will be misunderstood by some, perhaps many, as to its vision and intent. I don't think it is presumptuous at all, though, if someone merely selects from among the many existing translations (all done by linguists and scholars) and comes up with a new hybrid entity with the goal stated upfront and made very clear: good English style (at least in my opinion!) and maintaining the KJV "feel" while also emphasizing literalness of translation and understandability. It is what it is, and folks may love it or hate it, but it's not presumptuous! I'm not claiming to be anything I am not: just a lover of the Bible and good, classic, beautiful English writing.

I'm a great fan, specifically, of 17th and 18th century English prose (e.g., Newman, Wesley, Chesterton: all folks I've massively read and from whom I've collected quotes for books [the links I just made] ), and those who continue this stylistic tradition, like Lewis, Tolkien, Knox, Thomas Howard and others. That sense of style in prose (insofar as I have been influenced by it) would be the leading motif or influence in modifying or "updating" the KJV language and style (mostly for individual words; occasionally whole sentences).

In fact, in mulling this over tonight and reflecting on feedback from a prior Facebook post (this paper is a revision of my initial posting), it all came together for me in a flash. If I were merely to update the KJV, it would be doing something scarcely different from what has been done a dozen times or more. But if I highlighted the "Victorian" style of 18th-19th century British literature, that would bring a uniqueness to the project that would, I believe, make it worthwhile spending the great deal of time it will require.

Such a New Testament would combine my love for the Bible (especially KJV style) and also my great love of the English writers from the 1700s and 1800s and those highly influenced by them (Newman, Chesterton, and Lewis are my three favorite writers). This is what would be the selling point: updating the KJV with a 19th century high Victorian style that would have some strong sense of stylistic similarity (or analogous excellence, if you will) to Elizabethan English. It would be, in a word, a Bible for lovers of great English literature: not for everyone, but for those who already have this love, as I do.

The overall goal would be "literal translation with [in revised passages] 19th century English style and flowing, readable quality". Passages that remain magnificent today in the KJV need not be changed, as long as they are still able to be sufficiently understood. Other phrases or words strange or altogether unknown to us now, will be modified by choosing from other translations from the "Victorian" time period or shortly after it: all from Englishmen or (in two cases) Scotsmen. No American translations will be consulted.

There are plenty of translations available that fit the bill for what I'm looking for, that are in the public domain (no copyright issues or conflicts). I have arrived at seven that I'll be utilizing for alternate renderings:

John Wesley translation (1755; by the great founder of Methodism)

Revised Version (1881; done by over 50 British scholars from various denominations)

Young's Literal Translation (rev. 1898) by Scotsman Robert Young: the same person who did the elaborate Bible concordance (1879).

Rotherham's Emphasized Bible (rev. 1902; by Joseph Robert Rotherham)

20th Century New Testament (1904; done by 20 British translators who weren't scholars in the field, but who knew koine Greek)

Weymouth New Testament (1912; by Richard Francis Weymouth)

James Moffatt New Testament (1922: the other Scotsman in the group)

The methodology, then, is to start with the KJV, determine passages that are archaic or changed in meaning due to the evolution of English (a fairly easy thing to do), and select alternate renderings from the seven scholarly translations above (not as easy but not all that difficult, either). By this method, only real, existing (and acclaimed) translations are utilized. Again; I won't be "translating" -- or claiming to translate -- a single word; I couldn't, since I don't know Greek.

The common thread throughout, therefore, is my selection of alternate renderings (i.e., being an editor as I have been in many of my books), so the final product will obviously reflect my taste in prose and stylistic tendencies: and it winds up being (hopefully) a beautiful blending of Elizabethan and Victorian prose. That's the goal: a rather high and ambitious one (I love challenges!). Beauty and style are in the forefront, while seeking literal translations as close as possible to the manuscripts. I aim to produce a New Testament equally accurate to the original language [thus, theologically orthodox] and beautiful: in the 19th-century English high Victorian style where it is not unchanged beautiful, majestic Elizabethan style.



* * * * *