The Revised Standard Version (1952) and its revisions as a linear emergence of the Tyndale–King James Version tradition

tradition, it is demonstrated that they are a linear continuation of the emergence of the pre-20th century translation complex within this tradition without replicating the success of the King James Version.


Introduction
Although various fragmented accounts of the history of Bible translation in English have been attempted previously (e.g. Daniell 2003:734-744), no prior account has studied the English Bible translations within the social reality of the traditions from which they emerged. Naudé (2022) provides an exposition of the history of the Tyndale-King James Version tradition and its revisions through the first half of the 20th century. In this essay, we demonstrate that despite the remarkable number of new independent versions in contemporary, accessible English, there is a continuing tradition of revising and retranslation of the King James Version (or Authorized Version) of 1611 and its successors into the 21st century as literal or word-for-word translations. The goal of this essay is to typify the Revised Standard Version (1952) and its revisions as a trajectory in the linear emergence of the Tyndale-King James Version tradition.
The prehistory out of which the Tyndale-King James Version tradition emerged as a translation complex had its inception as hearing-dominant communication in the form of the oral-aural Bible in Old English (Naudé 2022). This is evident in the interpretive translations of Caedmon (ca. 680) into performative texts as songs as well as handwritten manuscript Bibles in Old English, which were mostly word-for-word translations in the format of interlinear Bible translations. Word-forword translations of Bible portions from Latin incipient texts eventually emerged as complete Bibles in Middle English during the 14th century, associated with the pre-Reformation theology of John Wyclif and intended for use by laypersons. The move to text-dominant communication is concomitant with the great age of Bible translation , initiated by book printing in the Revisions of the King James Version of 1611 continued into the 20th and 21st centuries as literal or word-for-word translations. This development corresponds with a new age in Bible translation that started in the second half of the 20th century, which involves at least six changes in the philosophy of Bible translation. Firstly, Bible translation is characterised by interconfessional cooperation. Secondly, the plain meaning intended in the incipient texts is made accessible to readers. Thirdly, new critical editions of the Hebrew and Greek incipient texts on the basis of new discoveries of texts are utilised. Fourthly, there is the tendency to remove archaic language to make versions intelligible. Fifthly, there is a tendency to use gendered and inclusive language. Sixthly, the move is from print communication, which can be typified as typographic interpretive culture, to electronic or media communication, which can be typified as digital-media interpretive culture, where sound and visuality become prominent as a contextual supplement to words. In the analysis it will be determined which of these aspects are reflected in the Revised Standard Version and its revisions as part of the linear emergence of the Tyndale-King James Version tradition. However, unlike the King James Version, the Revised Standard Version and its revisions failed to achieve widespread approval from satisfied readers, thus opening the door to alternative revisions.
Contribution: Instead of viewing the Revised Standard Version and its revisions as new and independent from the Tyndale-King James Version tradition, it is demonstrated that they are a linear continuation of the emergence of the pre-20th century translation complex within this tradition without replicating the success of the King James Version. Western world (Naudé 2005a;Naudé & Miller-Naudé 2016;Orlinsky & Bratcher 1991:29-154). This is the context for the emergence of the English Bible in modern English associated with William Tyndale (ca. 1494-1536). It emerged further by revisions and retranslations until the King James Version was eventually realised in 1611. After 1611, revisions followed in two phases. The first phase involved revisions for accuracy until 1769 with the King James Revised (Blayney) Edition. The second phase involved revisions for language modernisation since the 1800s. After the Second World War, new technology as well as new thinking in the fields of philosophy, religion and linguistics led to a next great age of Bible translation marked by the proliferation of Bible translations (Naudé 2005a;Orlinsky & Bratcher 1991:179-205).

Keywords
As described in Naudé (2022), the theoretical framework of our research assumes that a translation emerges from a complex interaction of texts and other systems (Marais 2014(Marais , 2019; see also Naudé & Miller-Naudé 2019a, 2019b. Translation is the entire process of meaning-making and meaning-taking, as signs are interpreted and reinterpreted beyond interlingual translation. In this way, translation plays a role in the emergence of social reality. Complex systems are adaptive, dynamic (constantly changing) and emergent (having the tendency to self-organise to reach a subsequently higher state) and follow particular trajectories because of the influence of attractors. Working within a complexity approach to translation, Marais (2019) proposed the terms 'incipient sign systems' and 'subsequent sign systems' in place of the traditional terminology of 'source text' and 'target text', respectively, in order to conceptualise translation as semiotic processes. Incipient sign systems, 'according to various conventions, act as initiating semiotic systems from which the subsequent sign systems are constructed' (2019:53, see also 72,[74][75][123][124][125]. We use 'incipient text(s)' to refer to all of the multifaceted, complex and emergent features that provide input into the translation process and 'subsequent text(s)' to include all of the texts that emerge out of the translation process. Critically, the use of these terms means that a particular biblical version may function within the semiotic meaning-making processes of translation both as an incipient text (for subsequent texts) and as a subsequent text. The term 'revision' in this essay refers to the process of editing, correcting or modernising an existing translation for republication (see also Mossop 2011). Revisions are complex processes involving a network approach that identifies historical and synchronic relations between agents and texts, institutions or contexts (Albachten & Gürçağlar 2019

Towards a next great age in Bible translation
The period after the Second World War introduced significant changes in the overall philosophy of Bible translation. We summarise these briefly under six rubrics.
Firstly, the ecumenical movement was an attempt on the part of the Jewish, Catholic and Protestant communities in the United States of America (USA) and the United Kingdom (UK) to cooperate interconfessionally across denominational borders. Ecumenism was also reflected in the process of Bible translation (Robertson 1996:57-62, 103-122).
Secondly, the mechanical, word-for-word reproduction of the Hebrew and Greek incipient texts was replaced with a focus on making the plain meaning of the incipient texts accessible to readers. Among those who played a pivotal role in the development of the theory and practice of Bible translation were Eugene A. Nida and his colleagues of the American Bible Society and the United Bible Societies (Naudé 2005b:77). Nida and Taber (1974:12) view translation as 'reproducing in the receptor language the closest natural equivalent of the source-language message, first in terms of meaning and secondly in terms of style'. A translation is a dynamic equivalent to the incipient text if the message of the incipient text has been transported into the receptor language in such a way that the response of the receptor is essentially that of the original receptors (Naudé 2005b:81 Fourthly, archaic and foreign language was removed and was replaced with inclusive language, contemporary speech, global speech and colloquial speech for accessibility and intelligibility (see Naudé 2021:101, 104-105, 110-112).
Fifthly, one of the most significant changes in English usage in the last 25 years of the 20th century concerned gendered and inclusive language (see Carson 1998;Naudé 2021:100-101;Poythress & Grudem 2000;Strauss 1998).
Sixthly, although Bible translation is still text-dominant communication, there was a move from print communication, which can be typified as typographic interpretive culture, to electronic or media communication, which can be typified as digital-media interpretive culture (Naudé & Miller-Naudé 2016). The development of digital technology has had dramatic effects on media culture with the increasing (and now widespread) use of the Internet (see the 2013 statistics for the USA with 98% Internet connectivity in Exploring the digital nation: America's emerging online experience 2013:1). The Internet has, on the one hand, promoted globalisation with its capacity for the rapid interchange of ideas. On the other hand, the globalisation of ideas has resulted in the search for local identities and their protection. Both of these tendencies can be observed in the analysis of the Bible translations that follows. Furthermore, the digital-media interpretive culture has fostered again the importance of sound (harkening back to the oral media culture) and visuality (harkening back to the manuscript Bible with its illuminated illustrations); in both sound and visuality, the digital-media culture differs from the printonly era of Bible translation. In the digital-media interpretive culture, sound and graphics have not supplanted words, but they have gained prominence as a contextual supplement to words.
In the analysis of the various revisions, it will be determined which of these aspects are reflected in a specific revision.

Initiator of the revision
The Revised Standard Version (RSV: New Testament 1946; whole Bible 1952) introduced the next epoch in Bible translation (Orlinsky & Bratcher 1991:155-177

Translation brief
In 1937, after two years of inquiry by a committee of scholars to determine whether further revision was necessary, the Council authorised a new revision with the brief to: [E]mbody 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 preserve those qualities which had given the King James Version a supreme place in English literature. (RSV, Preface:iv)

Translation team
The chairperson of the International Council was Luther A. Weigle of Yale Divinity School (Lewis 1981:108). Thirty-two scholars served on the revision committee and 50 representatives of the cooperating denominations served on the advisory board (RSV, Preface:iv; see the list of scholars and their academic and ecclesiastical affiliations in Thuesen 1999:74-75). The revision committee worked in two sections, one for each Testament. Each section submitted its revisions for scrutiny by the other section, while changes required a two-thirds majority of the entire committee (RSV, Preface:iv). Specialists of note (e.g. Prof. G.R. Driver of Oxford) were consulted on doubtful aspects of cultural-historical matters, English usage, etc. (Weigle 1952:92). To make this version truly international, the hope was expressed that the cooperation of British scholars might be obtained, but unfortunately, several Protestant churches in the UK favoured the idea of an entirely novel translation (Bruce 1978:187).

Incipient texts
The revision of the translation of the Old Testament was based upon the Hebrew Masoretic text, in the light of the ancient versions and Qumran texts. For example, 13 readings of the Isaiah scroll of Qumran are followed in the revision (Kubo & Specht 1983:50). Departures from it because of copying errors are indicated in footnotes specifying the version or versions from which the correction has been derived (RSV, Preface:iv). Concerning the New Testament, it is stated 'we now possess many more ancient manuscripts … and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text' (RSV, Preface:v). No single printed edition of Greek text was followed for the New Testament, although all the readings adopted are to be found in the text or the margin of the 17th edition of Nestle (1941) (Kubo & Specht 1983:50).

Features of the translation product
Words that had changed in meaning and were therefore misleading were replaced by contemporary language (RSV, Preface:vi; Weigle 1946:53-58). Archaic English secondperson pronouns, for example 'thou', 'thee' and 'thy', which are used for both God and humans in the American Standard Version, were used only for God in the Revised Standard Version (Bruce 1978:187-190

Roman Catholic edition
The New Testament, the Old Testament and the Apocrypha were produced in 1946, 1952 and 1957, respectively The 1952 edition has a footnote on 'homosexuals' which reads: 'Two Greek words are rendered by this expression'. The 1966 edition revised the footnote to read: 'Greek has, "effeminate nor sodomites." The apostle condemns not the inherent tendencies of such, but the indulgence of them'.
In 1971, a second edition of the New Testament was issued which incorporated several changes reflecting the Critical Text which is later adopted in the third edition of the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, which serves throughout the world as a standard text for translation and revisions made by Protestants and Roman Catholics alike (Metzger 2001:120). The ending of the gospel according to Mark and the pericope of the woman taken in adultery were moved from the footnotes into the text, although the passages continued to be separated from the context by a blank space, with explanatory notes to indicate that they were not part of the Greek incipient text (RSV, Preface:vii).

Ecumenical edition
In 1973 The ecumenical drive of the Revised Standard Version can be seen as an incipient instance of the inclusivity that is fostered by the digital-media culture, which was in its infancy when the translation was completed. At the same time, the objections of some conservative Christians to the interpretive stance of the Revised Standard Version also point to the desire to maintain and promote a particular theological identity in the translation.

The Reader's Digest Bible
The Reader's Digest Bible (1983) is a condensation of the Revised Standard Version (1971), chosen for its direct linkage with the King James Version (RDB, Foreword, xi). The brief was to provide an abbreviated, simplified and readable summary of the contents of the entire biblical text (like condensed versions of the classics), while the essence and flavour of the familiar biblical language was kept (RDB, Foreword, xi). It was intended for those who did not read the Bible or who read it occasionally.
Working for 3 years with a group of seven editors, Metzger as general editor wrote the Introductions to the Old Testament and New Testament and to each individual book (RDB, Foreword, xi). Although some well-known texts, for example, the Ten Commandments (Ex 20:2-17), Psalm 23 and John 3:16, were not modified, the final result was that the Old Testament was cut by about 50% and the New Testament by 25% to a volume of 767 pages with one column of text to a page (RDB, Foreword, xi).
The Reader's Digest Bible is thus one manifestation of digitalmedia culture, reflecting an abbreviated Bible that could be read by anyone. By producing a Bible that is formatted in a single column like an ordinary book, the Reader's Digest Bible is accessible to everyone, but the retention of the most familiar biblical texts means that it keeps its identity as a Bible.

New Revised Standard Version
The In style, the New Revised Standard Version remains essentially a literal translation; the Committee followed the maxim: 'As literal as possible, as free as necessary'. All archaic secondperson pronouns were modernised. It was also the first English version to introduce gender-inclusive language for masculine generic terms in Hebrew and Greek consistently and comprehensively. For example, 'brothers' was translated as 'brothers and sisters' and references to 'man' or 'mankind' were replaced with more inclusive terms such as 'human beings' when the reference was not intended to be gender specific. The New Revised Standard Version has at times been the third most-used English translation of the Bible, behind the King James Version and the New International Version. In terms of Bible use, the New Revised Standard Version was used by 7% of Americans in 2014 as compared to the King James Version (55%) and the New International Version (19%); its use is comparable to the New American Bible (6%) and the Living Bible (5%) (Goff et al. 2014:13).

English Standard Version
The The publishing team, under the auspices of Crossway Board of Directors, consisted of a 14-member Translation Oversight Committee, 50 biblical experts serving as translation review scholars and 50 members of the advisory council (ESV, Preface:ix-x).
The brief was to be 'as literal as possible', that is, 'word-forword correspondence', to capture in a transparent way the precise wording of the incipient texts and the personal style of each biblical writer, 'letting the reader see as directly as possible the structure and meaning of the original', 'rather than on terms of our present-day culture', but by 'maintaining clarity of expression and literary excellence' (ESV, Preface:viiviii).
In light of the translation brief to be 'as literal as possible', traditional theological terminology is retained (e.g. 'sanctification', 'regeneration', 'propitiation') (ESV, Preface:viii). However, in Isaiah 7:14 the translation 'virgin' (= the Septuagint reading) rather than 'young woman' (=Masoretic reading, RSV) was used. Concerning gendered language, 'man' and 'men' were retained where a male meaning was part of the incipient text (ESV, Preface:ix). The term 'brothers' was retained as a 'familial form of address between fellow-Jews and fellow-Christians' with a 'recurring note … to refer to both men and women…' (ESV, Preface:ix). The term 'sons' was kept 'in specific instances because of its meaning as a legal term in the adoption and inheritance laws' (ESV, Preface:ix). The generic 'he' was retained 'because an essentially literal translation would be impossible without it' (ESV, Preface:ix

Skopos and translation brief
The goal was to keep the New Revised Standard Version's ecumenical and interfaith character so that translation would be suitable in Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox and Jewish contexts. The skopos of the New Revised Standard Version was also retained -the translation should be 'as literal as possible, as free as necessary' (SBL 2021a:6, 7). The brief was to bring the translation into conformity with current critical editions and new textual evidence. In addition, new insights about the meanings of the biblical words would be incorporated; these clearly pertained mainly to language use to accommodate contemporary sensibilities (SBL 2021a:6). However, it was clearly stated that the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition 'goes back to the KJV and [was] an update of the NRSV' (SBL 2021a:6).

Translation team
The revision team consisted of seven general editors and 56 book editors (with some overlap as several general editors also served as book editors). These editors comprised three teams: Old Testament (or Hebrew scriptures), Apocrypha (or Deuterocanon) and New Testament (SBL 2022b:8-9). The National Council of Churches appointed two members (SBL 2022b:9). The Society of Biblical Literature provided administrative leadership of the project through the participation of three staff members in managerial roles (SBL 2022b:9).

Translation process
Each biblical book was assigned to one or more book editors at the beginning of 2017. During 2018 to 2019, the book editors submitted their proposed revisions to the general editors. During 2019 and 2020, the three teams of general editors met at least monthly to review and discuss the proposed revisions (SBL 2022b:9). During 2021, the proposed translation was submitted to the National Council of Churches for approval. The resulting translation reflects 20 000 changes, including grammar and punctuation, and 12 000 substantive editorial changes (SBL 2022b:9).

Incipient texts
For the Old Testament, the incipient text utilised by the team was Biblia Hebraica Quinta ( (2013,2017) for Acts and the Catholic Letters (SBL 2022b:10-11).

Translation product
The following are examples of revision taking contemporary sensibilities into account (see Banks 2021).
Some changes relate to issues of gender. The masculine reference to 'wise men' (Matthew 2:1) was replaced with the word 'magi' to reflect the Greek term used by the writer of the gospel, with the footnote 'astrologers', reflecting the previous reading of the New Revised Standard Version (Garrison 2021). 'Female servant' replaces 'servant girl' of the New Revised Standard Version in Mark 14:69, because 'using the word girl to refer to a young woman is today regarded as demeaning' (Banks 2021).
The language used to describe conditions as opposed to identity is also undergoing change. For example, the terms describing enslavement are undergoing change. In Galatians 4:22, the term 'a slave woman' was changed to 'an enslaved woman', to 'highlight the fact that it is an imposed condition, not an intrinsic aspect of a person's being' (Banks 2021). Similarly, there is a concern to avoid identifying persons in terms of a disability. In Matthew 4:24, the New Revised Standard Version's translation of 'demoniacs, epileptics and paralytics' was updated to 'people possessed by demons, having epilepsy, or afflicted with paralysis' (Banks 2021).
Finally, there is a concern to show sensitivity to religious traditions. The New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition capitalises the names of some Jewish holy days, such as Passover, Sabbath and the Festival of Unleavened Bread, in order to show respect to Judaism in the same way that the holy days of other religious communities are capitalised in contemporary practice.
In all of these changes to accommodate contemporary 'sensibilities', the New Revised Standard Version Updated seeks to protect and affirm various identities within the digital-media interpretive culture. This version also reflects the features of the digital-media interpretive culture in that it was published as an ebook in advance of its publication in print.

Conclusions
The Revised Standard Version and its revisions are part of the linear emergence of the Tyndale-King James Version tradition, which continued into the 20th and 21st centuries as literal or word-for-word translations.
The first generation of revisions in the great age of Bible translation after the Second World War was initiated by the Revised Standard Version , which was a revision of the American Standard Version of 1901. In addition to updating the translation in terms of new text-critical evidence as well as the removal of archaic language, the main feature of the Revised Standard Version is the ecumenical character which was introduced in the compilation of the translation team, the translation process, as well as the product to include deuterocanonical and related sources.
The Reader's Digest Bible (1983), as a condensation of the Revised Standard Version (1971), forms part of a following generation of revisions in the great age of Bible translation after the Second World War, with the purpose to fulfil special communication needs as its primary function, usually a simplified or abbreviated version or a rewriting of an existing translation in a modern vernacular.
A third generation of revisions in this age of Bible translation occurs more towards the end of the 20th century and involves revisions of the first and/or second generation of Bible translations of this age, mostly for gender-inclusive language.
Concerning the New Revised Standard Version (1989), all remaining archaic second-person pronouns of the Revised Standard Version were modernised, and it introduced genderinclusive language for masculine generic terms in Hebrew and Greek consistently. It has been widely accepted in scholarly circles and has replaced the Revised Standard Version in many denominations. The English Standard Version (2001) is a revision of the Revised Standard Version (1971) as a result of the critique on gender-neutral language use in Bible translations like the New Revised Standard Version (1989). Concerning gendered language, terms like 'man', 'men', 'brothers', 'sons' and the generic 'he' are retained with relevant footnotes where applicable to indicate the referent.
A fourth generation of revisions in this age of Bible translation has the aim to bring the translation into conformity with acceptable language use to accommodate contemporary sensibilities. In this regard, it implies, for example, the removal of the term 'slave' as in the 2011 and 2016 editions of the English Standard Version and 'servant girl', 'a slave woman' 'demoniacs, epileptics and paralytics' in the New Revised Standard Version Updated Edition (eBible 2021; hardcopy 2022) and their replacement with acceptable terms.
Unlike the King James Version, the Revised Standard Version and its revisions failed to achieve widespread approval from satisfied readers (Goff et al. 2014:13-14), thus opening the door to alternative revisions, as is evident from the English Standard Version and its revisions. Naudé and Miller-Naudé (2022) demonstrated that in addition to the Revised Standard Version and its revisions as part of the linear emergence of the Tyndale-King James Version tradition in the 20th and 21st centuries, there are also alternative revisions and retranslations of the King James Version of 1611 as literal or word-for-word translations which emerge as divergent branches of the tradition. This diversity reflects the dissatisfaction of reader expectations in an age of digitalmedia interpretive culture promoting universal values, with the result that new translations reflect the search for individual identity. Outside the Tyndale-King James Version tradition, the search for identity and the accompanying diversity of types of Bible translation in the 20th and 21st centuries is even greater (Naudé 2021).