This page was migrated in July 2022 from my older website, biblicalambiguities.net.
28 July 2022 index-topical-hb
The World English Bible is one of a handful of attempts to place an English translation of the Bible into the public domain in the last few decades. It is a start, but still needs work.
Works from 1923 or earlier are automatically in the public domain under United States copyright law, but newer works are often under copyright. Generally speaking, this means that Bibles in contemporary English are free for use in the public domain, while more recent versions, such as the NRSV or NJPS, are protected by copyright law. This means, for example, that someone wishing to write material containing large passages of the Bible will need either to navigate the strictures of copyright law or use outdated translations.
This leaves a void for a scholarly, up-to-date translation of the Bible into English. One attempt to partially fill this void has been the World English Bible. It is a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901, and is the work of a single editor. Its virtue is that it is probably the most significant step in the direction of filling the gap yet.
However, there are a couple of features that limit its potential influence. For one thing, it is translated not in terms of the mainstream scholarly understanding, but in terms of the theological bent of its editor, who believes God has lead him through its production to make decisions like choosing what he calls the Greek "majority text" over the standard critical editions that underly most modern translations.
For example, from the FAQ of the translation:
In those few sections where the M-Text and UBS text differ significantly, I have taken my question of textual choice directly to God, and God chose to answer me by confirming in several different ways that reading which the M-Text rendered. The main passage in question is in Mark 16, but there are others, too. While I certainly don’t claim to be infallible, I do know when to say, “Yes, Sir” and follow the direction I see the Lord pointing me in. For you, this last reason is entirely subjective. For me, it is more real than the computer I'm typing on.
For some readers, it will perhaps be sufficient to rely on the word of the editor Michael Johnson as to how God told him that the scholars have it wrong. For those interested in the academic study of the Bible, this will not be sufficient.
The translation, in a variety of ways, attempts to stick close to a particular theological bent: that of conservative evangelical Protestantism. And so, for example, a particular word is translated as "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14, where most scholars would read "young woman". In other words, the New Testament is read back into the Hebrew Bible, resulting in some passages where translation tells us more about how evangelicals traditionally read the passage than about what is in the Hebrew text itself.
The WEB reflects an attempt to move from the ASV's archaic English to contemporary English. Consider the following from the FAQ:
Why do you use contractions?
Because the Greek New Testament was written not in the formal written register of the language, but in the informal register of the language used by common people, we have decided to use the less formal spoken register of the English language. This sounds much more natural when read aloud. The primary difference noticeable between spoken or informal written English and formal written English is the greater use of contractions.
Perhaps there is some truth to this when it comes to Greek, although it is difficult to read the letters of Paul and imagine that everyday folks in Asia Minor used sentence structures like those when chatting in the kitchen.
But it's interesting that, when explaining why he translated a book mostly written in Hebrew with contractions, Michael Johnson gives an explanation that only discusses the literary style of the Greek portions. And in many cases, rather than attempting to shoot for some kind of coherent register, the World English Bible simply sprinkles contractions into highly elevated or archaic English prose, producing things like this (Genesis 42:4):
But Jacob didn't send Benjamin, Joseph's brother, with his brothers; for he said, "Lest perhaps harm happen to him."
All in one verse, there's abnormal word order "Benjamin, Joseph's brother, with his brothers"; the use of "for" for "because"; a "lest"; an instance of the now all-but-dead English subjunctive; and a "didn't". So considerable work is still needed to get the register somewhere reasonable. And I'm personally inclined to think we shouldn't go with contractions unless we're willing to go full casual-paraphrase:
But Jacob didn't send Joseph's brother Benjamin with his other brothers, because he thought he might be in danger.
For my part, I'm inclined to think the Hebrew Bible is generally closer to literature than to casual speech, and that a translation like Robert Alter's is perfectly reasonable here:
But Benjamin, Joseph's brother, Jacob did not send with his brothers, for he thought, Lest harm befall him.
Notice that Benjamin is drawn to the front of the text, just as the Hebrew has it. The text is noticeably not like casual speech, but it's understandable. And I don't think that there's any reason to believe that Alter is "more formal" than the Hebrew Bible itself, here or in general.
However, despite any shortcomings, the WEB need not be a "dead end" translation as so many copyrighted translations are, because anyone with the ability can simply take its wording and correct whatever deficiencies remain. An ideal revision from the World English Bible would carefully examine each verse for English style, review all the text-critical decisions made in producing it, and carefully review all Hebrew Bible passages that are quoted or referenced in the New Testament to detect any theological manipulation.
This revision I speak of has not been made yet, but perhaps a step in that direction is the New Heart English Bible, but as the author has self-published his own text-critical editions of the Hebrew Bible and Greek New Testament, I am not certain how closely his findings accord with the consensus of modern scholarship.
I would tentatively suggest that perhaps it would be best to use the ASV as a base text, rather than starting straight with the WEB, and then to compare each verse with the WEB while smoothing off some of the ASV's most archaic and unnatural renderings, and incorporating whatever new knowledge has come along over the last hundred years in the process. That's what I've attempted at the Genesis 41 page, for example. I've also documented as many of my decisions as possible, so that the translation process is as transparent as it can be.
This page is released under the CC0 1.0 license.