The WatchWORD Bible - Holy Bible On DVD

The Contemporary English Version (CEV)
of the Holy Bible

Below is a document prepared by the American Bible Society’s Nida Institute for Biblical Scholarship that helps answer questions about the Contemporary English Version (CEV) translation of the Holy Bible.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction: A Translation in the
Spirit of the King James Version

"Translation it is that opens the window, to let in the light; that breaks the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that puts aside the curtain, that we may look into the most holy place; that removes the cover of the well, that we may come by the water."

from "The Translators to the Reader"
King James Version, 1611

The Significance of the King James Version

It is widely agreed that the most important document in the history of the English language is the King James Version (KJV) of the Holy Bible. It would be impossible to measure its spiritual impact on the English speaking world. Historically, many Bible translators have attempted, in some measure, to retain the form and much of the familiar language of the King James Version. But the translators of the Contemporary English Version (CEV) of the Bible have diligently sought to capture the spirit of the King James Version by following certain principles set forth by its translators in the document "The Translators to the Reader."^[1]

The following discussion will show how the translators of the Contemporary English Version have attempted to do for the English-speaking world of 1995 what the translators of the KJV attempted almost four hundred years ago. In both cases the earnest desire of the translators was to provide God’s holy word in the language that people used as they went about their everyday business and conversed among themselves. Both groups of translators knew that the message of the Scriptures was important and worthy of communicating clearly. Later chapters will provide examples and show exactly how the CEV translators faced the many challenges of making the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts understandable to people who read, speak, and hear English today.

¹"The Translators to the Reader” was included as a preface in the earliest editions of the King James Version Bible. It clearly states the principles followed by the translators commissioned by King James. Over the course of time, most publishers of KJV Bibles have chosen not to print this essay. However, it is worthy of examination, and copies are available upon request from the American Bible Society

“This is the word of God, which we translate.”

Accuracy, beauty, clarity, and dignity — all of these can and must be achieved in the translation of the Bible. After all, as the translators of the King James Version stated, “This is the word of God, which we translate.”

In contemporary American English, the words “inspire” and “inspiration” are often used in the common or everyday sense of something that arouses feelings or emotions. For example, the title of a newspaper article: “The Inspiration of Alley Spring.” And a frequently used expression in reference to a powerful movie or a significant literary work is, “It’s inspiring!” Because the powerful imagery of the Greek word meaning “God-breathed” is not what most people think of when they hear the word “inspired,” the translators of the CEV preferred to express the meaning of 2 Timothy 3:16 in a way that could be easily understood by readers unfamiliar with traditional biblical language. Where traditional translations say “All Scripture is inspired by God,” the CEV says directly and clearly, “Everything in the Scriptures is God's Word.”

Since this is the word of God, the CEV translators always took their work seriously. Even so, they have been open to suggestions for improvement. In this regard, the CEV remains a “fluid” text, just as the KJV has been over the centuries. Making improvements in the text of a translation should not imply that it has been “erroneous.” Rather it shows that the translators were aware that as people read the text they felt that certain passages did not communicate the meaning of the Greek or Hebrew clearly enough. As the translators then wrestled to resolve this challenge, they appreciated even more fully the fact that when endeavoring to prepare a faithful translation, the options for expressing a thought or concept are virtually unlimited.

As a matter of fact, there were at least two separate printings of the 1611 KJV. Since these differ from one another in so many minute details, it is difficult to determine which was the original. Numerous changes were introduced into later editions of the KJV. Most of these were of minor importance, but they were, nevertheless, changes. The phrase “Thou art Christ” (Matthew 16:16) became “Thou art the Christ” (1762), the form that appears in most modern printings of the KJV. Similarly, “there is no man good, but one” (Mark 10.18) changed to “there is none good but one” (1638). These are just two examples.

Improvements have been made in the CEV as well. An interesting one is found in Galatians 2:9, where the first edition had “these men are supposed to be the pillars of the church,” which was based on the assumption that the architectural imagery of the Greek text should be maintained. However, “pillar” sounds too much like “pillow.” And so when the complete Bible was published, the text was altered to read “these men are supposed to be the backbone of the church.” This shift to an anatomical analogy seems to carry more impact for the intended audience of the translation, and there is less opportunity for misunderstanding on the part of the hearer (p. 72 ff.).

Another interesting change involved the Greek word that appears as “manger” (Luke 2.7, 12,16) in most English translations. It was translated “feedbox” in the first edition of the CEV New Testament, because (a) “manger” is a technical agricultural term that is not part of the everyday vocabulary of non-rural people; (b) there are too many different definitions for the English word “manger”; (c) “manger” is difficult to “sound out” by an inexperienced reader; and (d) for those who are familiar with the term, it tends to create in the reader's mind a somewhat idyllic “manger scene” that is quite contradictory to the real world into which our Lord was born. However, some users of the CEV were opposed to “feedbox.” “After all,” they argued, “who could sing ‘Away in a Feedbox’?” Finally, the dilemma was resolved by using “bed of hay” in place of “manger.”

As the KJV translators observed, the proper translation of a Hebrew or Greek word depends on the context in which the word is used, and so it should not always be translated by the same English word: “Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle reader, that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing or to an identity of words ... For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? Use one precisely when we may use another no less fit as commodiously?” Translating the Word of God in a contemporary style and format can never be a mechanical process of word for word substitution; it requires creative skills and artistry, an understanding and appreciation of current language usage, and absolute dedication to the task of communicating the meaning of the text as clearly as possible.

“We desire that the Scripture ... may be understood.”

That the Scripture may be understood by everyone was a primary goal of the translators of the King James Version. And they raised the question, “What can be more [effective toward this goal] than to deliver God's book unto God's people in a tongue which they understand?”

Martin Luther also did his German translation of the Bible for the common people, establishing the following guidelines:

We do not have to inquire of the literal Latin, how we are to speak German ... Rather we must inquire about this of the mother in the home, the children on the street, the common man in the marketplace. We must be guided by their language, the way they speak, and do our translating accordingly.

Martin Luther draws upon traditional renderings of Matthew 12.34 to demonstrate how common words, if used with uncommon meanings or in uncommon constructions, become obstructions to understanding:

... they will lay (the text) before me literally and translate thus: “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” Tell me, is that speaking German? What German could understand something like that? “What is “the abundance of the heart”? No German can say that...

The same judgment could be made concerning the modern English versions that have “For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of” or “For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.” The individual words themselves are simple enough. The problem is that no native speaker of English would ever talk that way. In the CEV the verse is rendered: “Your words show what is in your heart.”

The CEV translators knew well the basic translation principle that translators need to listen to what they are saying and to realize the possible implications, even of simple words, if placed in unusual order, as in the following where the CEV is in the B column:

A		B
Psalm 45:16
You will have sons to replace your fathers		Your sons and your grandsons will also be kings
Psalm 68.23
Then you can stick your feet in their blood, and your dogs can lick their share.		Then we could stomp on their blood, and our dogs could chew on their bones.
Psalm 78.34
Anytime he killed them, they would look to him for help; they would come back to God and follow him.		“After he killed some of them, the others turned to him with all their hearts.

When a modern reader lacks specific knowledge about some aspect of an ancient biblical culture, a literal translation of an idiom can have an undesired comic effect, as in Psalm 40.6:

"But you have made a hole in my ear
to show that my body and life are yours."

Piercing a slave's ear lobe to indicate ownership is a difficult concept to manage effectively in a poetic passage. And this is especially true today at the close of the twentieth century, where the practice of voluntary, cosmetic ear piercing for both men and women is common. So in this case the CEV substituted the meaning of the act for its form:

"But you made me willing
to listen and obey."

In order to attain the goals of clarity, beauty, and dignity, the translators of the CEV carefully studied every word, phrase, clause, and paragraph of the original. Then, with equal care, they struggled to discover the best way to translate the text, so that it would be suitable both for private and public reading, and for memorizing. The result they have aimed for is an English text that is enjoyable and easily understood by the majority of English speakers, whatever their religious or educational background.

In the CEV, economy of words and naturalness of word order combine with clear, direct sentences of comfortable length to facilitate memorization of biblical passages, as in following verses from Proverbs. At the same time, this pattern satisfies the needs for reading aloud to a congregation:

"When someone winks
or grins behind your back,
trouble is on the way." (16:30)

"Controlling your temper
is better than being a hero
who captures a city." (16:32)

"A good reputation and respect
are worth much more
than silver and gold." (22:1)

In poetry, the appearance of the text on the page is important, since in oral reading there is a tendency to stress the last word on a line and to pause momentarily before going to the next line, especially when the second line is indented. Compare the three following examples, where the lines of the same text have been broken differently ^a:

Lines Broken Arbitrarily		Lines Carefully Broken

(a) He brought me out into a broad place.		(a) He brought me out into a broad place.

(b) With the loyal you show yourself loyal.		(b) To the loyal you show yourself loyal.

(c) The Lord, my God, lights up my darkness.		(c) The Lord my God lights up my darkness.

No fault is to be found with the translation itself. Yet there is a significant difference in the appearance of the text on the page, because the lines on the right have been measured, in order to prevent awkward runovers. In this form, the text not only looks better on the page, but it is easier to read and memorize. And notice how both formats require exactly the same number of lines.

The first translation in the history of the English Bible to develop a text with measured poetry lines is the CEV, in which the translators have consciously created a text that will not suffer from awkward line breaks when published in the double-column format most commonly used for Bibles. Accuracy is the main concern of translators, but in the translation of biblical poetry, what the reader sees is often what will be said, and what others will hear. This means that lines improperly broken can easily lead to a misunderstanding of the text, especially for those who must depend upon hearing the Scriptures read aloud.

a On the left, the lines have been broken arbitrarily to fit as many words as possible on the first line; on the right, lines have been broken carefully in order to preserve the sense units.

Ancient Hebrew poetry had its own systems of sound, rhyme, and rhythm, as well as a form that involves much repetition. It is absolutely impossible in English to retain the sounds, rhymes, and rhythms of the Hebrew text, but traditional translations have attempted to reproduce the frequent repetition, known as parallelism, in which a second line will repeat or expand, either negatively or positively, the thoughts of the previous line. However, this kind of repetition is often ineffective for English speakers unaccustomed to the poetic style of the biblical authors ^b. It masks a Hebrew style in English words. And so, the translators of the CEV have followed the guidelines of Martin Luther in the translation of poetry:

"Whoever would speak German must not use Hebrew style. Rather he must see to it — once he understands the Hebrew author — that he concentrates on the sense of the text, asking himself, 'Pray tell, what do the Germans say in such a situation?' Once he has the German words to serve his purpose, let him drop the Hebrew words and express the meaning freely in the best German he knows."

Among the qualities that critics greatly value in modern English poetry are effortless economy and exactness of language. It is hoped that readers will discover similar features in the poetry of the CEV which strives for beauty and dignity, without sacrificing accuracy and clarity. In this translation, the poetry often requires fewer lines than is the case in traditional translations, but the integrity, intent, and impact of the original are consistently maintained. Note, for example, the rendering of Job 38:12-15:

Did you ever tell the sun to rise?
   And did it obey?
Did it take hold of the earth
and shake out the wicked
   like dust from a rug?
Early dawn outlines the hills
like stitches on clothing
   or sketches on clay.
But its light is too much
for those who are evil,
   and their power is broken.

b The use of appositional phrases will confuse English readers rather than bring clarity to the text. Simply put, (continues: it masks….)

The overall intent of the passage is obvious, but of special significance for this discussion is the marked verse: “Early dawn outlines the hills like stitches on clothing or sketches on clay.” A more literal rendering would be “The earth takes shape like clay under a seal; its features stand out like those of a garment.” In the CEV “early dawn” is introduced on the basis of the opening verse that alludes to the dawning of day, while “hills” represents the forms that take shape as the sun rises in the east. A basic problem in the literal rendering is one of word choice, since for most English speakers the first meaning of “seal” is an animal.

The CEV has both reversed the order of the imagery of a seal on clay and of the folds on a garment and slightly modified them in order to gain the desired effect. In place of the “imprint of a seal on clay” (as in one modern traditional translation) “sketches on clay” is used; in place of “folds of a garment” the imagery of sewing is substituted: “stitches on clothing.” The reason the two items are reversed in the CEV is because it was felt that “sewing” was easier to comprehend that “sketching”; moreover, the poetic effect of this order seems more powerful: “stitches on clothing or sketches on clay.” For a more detailed description of poetry in the CEV, see chapter 5, p. 47 ff., “Upholding the Standard: A new look at Ancient Poetry.”

In everyday speech, “gender generic” or “inclusive” language is used, because it sounds most natural to people today. This means that where the biblical languages require masculine nouns or pronouns when both men and women are intended, this intention must be reflected in translation, though the English form may be very different from that of the original. The Greek text of Matthew 16:24 is literally, “If anyone wants to follow me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.” The CEV shifts to a form which is still accurate, and at the same time more effective in English: “If any of you want to be my followers, you must forget about yourself. You must take up your cross and follow me.”

For a more detailed discussion of gender generic language in the CEV, see chapter 6, p. 56 ff., “Taking on Sensitive Issues: Careful Consideration of Cultural Concerns.”

“Variety of translations is profitable...”

The translators of the King James Version said, “... variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.” They also stated, “No cause therefore why the Word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.”

They went on to make this interesting observation:

"Of one and the same book of Aristotle's Ethics, there are extant, not so few as six or seven several translations. Now, if this cost be bestowed upon the gourd, which affords us a little shade, and which today flourishes but tomorrow is cut down, what may we bestow, nay, what ought we not to bestow, on the vine, the fruit whereof makes glad the conscience of man, and the stem thereof abides forever? And this is the Word of God, which we translate."

Each English translation is, in its own right, the Word of God, yet each translation serves to meet the needs of a different audience. In this regard, though it is effective and powerful when read on its own, the Contemporary English Version may also be considered a companion of traditional translations.

“Of such things that the Spirit of God has left questionable ...”

Translating the Bible may be compared to living the life of faith. God has not given us all the answers for our pilgrim journey, but we can trust God to guide us along the way. As the translators of the King James Version observed:

"...it has pleased God in his divine providence here and there to scatter those words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation (for in such it has been vouched that the Scriptures are plain), but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence...

"For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things that the Spirit of God has left (even in the mind of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption."

Bible translators do not have the privilege and luxury of working from the original manuscripts of either the Old or New Testament. Indeed, there are numerous difficult passages where decisions must be made concerning what word or words actually belong in the text, and what these words may, in fact, mean. At such places, the translators’ best option is to give what seems to be one possible meaning for the difficult text and to indicate this by a note. In fact, this is exactly what the KJV translators did: “... so diversity of signification and sense [placed] in the margin, where the text is not clear, must needs be good; yea, is necessary.” Fortunately, these “words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness” do not in any way leave unclear the central message of the Bible or any of its major doctrines.

Research has shown that the marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the KJV numbered 6637 in the Old Testament, of which at least 2156 provided alternative renderings. In the New Testament there were 767 marginal notes, with 582 of them representing alternative renderings. This means that in the two Testaments the translators found the text either “difficult” or “doubtful” in at least 2,738 places!

More recently, the Translations Subcommittee of the United Bible Societies has sponsored projects in which some five thousand textual variants in the ancient manuscripts were analyzed and discussed for the Old Testament, and some two thousand for the New Testament. The translators of the CEV benefited enormously from these studies done by specialists in their respective fields. The judgment of the KJV translators is still valid: None of these passages involve “doctrinal points that concern salvation.” However, decisions must be made in each difficult place, even if it involves merely the choice between “Rodanim” and “Dodanim” in the spelling of a man’s name at Genesis 10:4, which has resulted because in Hebrew the letters “R” (ø) and “D” look practically alike.

In difficult passages, the CEV translators worked on the assumption that originally the text must have made sense and that it was their responsibility to utilize the results of scholarly opinion to produce a text that also makes sense. For example, Psalm 110:3b is acknowledged by Old Testament scholars to be a difficult Hebrew text, but one which had some meaning within the context of the Psalm itself, and that is what the CEV translators attempted to accomplish. Compare the two translations of this verse provided below. The one on the left (A) makes no connection whatsoever between the two halves of the verse. And the “difficult” second half (marked “b”) of the verse neither satisfies the context nor makes any sense on its own. The CEV (column B) assumes that the two parts of the verse make sense, and it followed scholarly opinion in its restructuring of the total verse:

(a) Your troops will be willing on your day of battle.

(b) Arrayed in holy majesty, from the womb of the dawn you will receive the dew of your youth.

(a) Your glorious power will be seen on the day you begin to rule.

(b) You will wear the sacred robes and shine like the morning sun in all of your strength.

“Having and using as great helps as were needful ...”

The translators of the Contemporary English Version did not attempt to create new or novel understandings of the text. Rather, it was their goal to express accepted understandings of the text in current, everyday English. To do so required listening carefully to each word of the biblical text, to the way in which English is spoken today, to the remarks of their reviewers, and especially to the Spirit of God. Once again the comments of the translators of the King James Version are appropriate:

"Neither did we think much to consult the translators or commentators ... but neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring to the anvil that which we had hammered; but having and using as [many] helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought forth the work to that pass that you see."

Genesis 1:1,2 will serve to demonstrate how the CEV (B) is concerned with representing traditional understanding in a creative style and format:

A		B
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.		In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was barren with no form of life; it was under a roaring ocean covered with darkness. But the Spirit of God was moving over the water.

Several important points can be made about the way the translators chose to render these verses. First, the initial sentence (“In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”) represents a traditional, word for word, rendering of the Hebrew text. Such literal renderings are a rare occurrence in the CEV. However, in this particular instance, after a number of options were considered, the translators concluded that this was the most poetic and effective of them all. One translation has “the universe” in place of the more descriptive phrase “the heavens and the earth.” The CEV, on the other hand, retained the figurative expression and supplemented it with a note: “‘The heavens and the earth’ stood for the universe.”

Second, in keeping with contemporary biblical scholarship, the CEV provides a note indicating an alternative rendering of the opening words: “Or ‘When God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was barren with no form of life.’”

Third, the Hebrew phrase translated “Spirit of God” may also meant “a mighty wind,” which is indicated by a note as well.

Fourth, the Hebrew conjunction traditionally rendered “And” (“And the Spirit ... ”) is legitimately translated “But,” which more effectively draws the reader's attention to the events to follow.

Fifth, the parallel phrases traditionally rendered “the surface of the deep” and “the waters” are confusing to many people — so confusing, in fact, that at a translation seminar in Thailand a prospective translator said, “Draw me a picture, and I can translate this passage.” In the CEV the picture is drawn by “telescoping” the two phrases into one: “over the water,” which clearly refers back to “ocean.”

Finally, but of major importance, is the poetic format that allows the text to make an opening statement of supreme significance:

"In the beginning God
created the heavens
and the earth."

This poetic format consumes more lines than would a prose layout, but it was felt that for the opening verses of the Bible the few extra lines were a worthy investment. (For more about poetry in the CEV see chapter 5, p. 47 ff., “Upholding the Standard: A New Look at Ancient Poetry.”)

“Translation ... opens the window, to let in the light ...”

Because the CEV is a careful translation made directly from the ancient language texts and not a paraphrase or modernization of any existing traditional translation, it makes a perfect study companion to any other Bible.

Study Bibles are of many sorts, but a major function in some of them is that of explaining misleading or awkward translations, such as “Let's attack him with our tongues” (Jeremiah 18:18) or “Can consecrated meat avert your punishment?” (Jeremiah 11:15).

Consider the brief statement “in him was life” (John 1:4). First of all, this is not a natural English sentence. If it were, other nouns could be substituted for “life,” but they cannot without making the statement unintelligible. No matter how long a native speaker of English struggles to understand this rendering of the Greek text into English, the phrase will remain obscure, because its structure does not conform to normal English grammar. New Testament scholars agree that this text means “he is the source of all life,” which becomes immediately clear in the CEV. The question translators must repeatedly answer is: which is more important — replicating the order of the Greek text, or providing a word order which is not used in the Greek but which helps the reader grapple with the meaning of the text?

Consider also this line from Hosea 13:14. “Compassion is hidden from my eyes.” The Lord is the speaker, and the text means, “I will no longer show compassion” (though it could wrongly be taken to mean “I no longer see anyone showing compassion”). How are readers better assisted — by providing them with imagery so vague that it can be understood in more than one way, or by helping them grapple with the truth conveyed by the imagery?

Ronald Knox, an eloquent Bible translator, states the issue accurately:

"... We are sensible of [many] Hebraisms, and most of us would like to see the last of them. But there are hundreds and hundreds of other Hebraisms which we do not notice, because we have allowed ourselves to become accustomed to them. We should have thought it odd if we read in The Times ... 'Mr. Churchill then opened his mouth and spoke' – is that English? No, it is a Hebrew idiom clothed in English words."

It is the firm conviction of the CEV translators that a Study Bible should not spend major portions of its pages explaining Hebrew idioms that have been in unnatural English phrases. If expressed a so-called “literal” rendering is valuable in the understanding of a particular passage, that information can always be provided in a note. The less space Study Bible editors need to devote to explaining the translation, the more room they will have to explain the historical, cultural, and religious customs that readers need to fully appreciate the Bible’s message.

Further observations could be made, but these examples should be sufficient to demonstrate that the CEV can serve as an enlightening and insightful companion to other translations, including the time-honored King James Version of the Bible. There will certainly always be a place for highly literal translations, especially among scholars learning the ancient languages. But for most English-speaking persons who yearn to understand the meaning of the biblical texts, the CEV provides clarity and comprehension. This clears the road for a greater appreciation of the contemporary relevance of the text. As the translators of the KJV were quick to remind us, it is a good translation “that breaks the shell, that we may eat the kernel.”

This chapter has introduced some of the important features of the Contemporary English Version, many of which will be elaborated more fully in the chapters to follow. It is fitting that this chapter concludes with one final quotation from the translators of the King James Version: