What do you think?
Rate this book
The Holy Bible in the Language of Today: An American Translation
As new, has Greek Word for Chross on front of black boards, easy to read version.
364 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1963
1 person is currently reading
13 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 11, 2025
William Beck's "An American Translation" of the Holy Bible is an early pioneer of the dynamic equivalence ("thought-for-thought") translation philosophy, but it is inconsistent and dated.
After World War II, most American Christians were using either the King James Version (KJV, 1611) or the American Standard Version (ASV, 1901). It was known that a team of scholars were working on a modernized, updated translation and it was very much anticipated. However, when the Revised Standard Version (RSV, 1952) was released, it was a great disappointment to conservative Christians. The translators of the RSV continued the practice of "formal equivalence" (word-for-word) in the translation, making the text sound wooden; people just didn't talk that way. Further, the translators' choices obscured certain doctrines of the Church. Infamously, they chose to translate the Hebrew word "alma" as "young woman" instead of the KJV and ASV "virgin". So Isaiah 7:14 prophesied that a young woman would have a child instead of the prophesy of the Christ being born of a virgin.
Many churches rejected the RSV including some even publicly burning stacks of them. American Christians wanted a translation that was theologically conservative and read the way people spoke. William Beck, a professor at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, responded by translating the Bible from the Greek and Hebrew interpreting the thoughts of the original author but translating the thought in the ways people would talk in their living room.
The result is one of the first dynamic equivalence translations in the AAT (NT 1964, OT 1976). It was far superior to The Living Bible (1952), which didn't consult the original languages; the New International Version (NIV) would be published a few years later in 1978.
The AAT is an interesting read that brings out the conservative theological doctrine of the Holy Scripture, but it didn't age well. The English is too informal for reading in Church - it would sound silly with the contractions and casual wording. Further, it was inconsistent: Beck was much better with the Greek (and Paul's letters in particular) than with the Hebrew. The Hebrew poetry was especially poor. When our youth group read Psalm 1 from different translations, some insisted Beck translated the wrong psalm because it was so unlike the others read.
I am glad I read William Beck's AAT. It's undervalued in its translation technique and gives new insights into familiar passages. Paul can be hard to read, but Beck makes it easy and enjoyable. I, however, don't see myself turning to it very often in the future.
After World War II, most American Christians were using either the King James Version (KJV, 1611) or the American Standard Version (ASV, 1901). It was known that a team of scholars were working on a modernized, updated translation and it was very much anticipated. However, when the Revised Standard Version (RSV, 1952) was released, it was a great disappointment to conservative Christians. The translators of the RSV continued the practice of "formal equivalence" (word-for-word) in the translation, making the text sound wooden; people just didn't talk that way. Further, the translators' choices obscured certain doctrines of the Church. Infamously, they chose to translate the Hebrew word "alma" as "young woman" instead of the KJV and ASV "virgin". So Isaiah 7:14 prophesied that a young woman would have a child instead of the prophesy of the Christ being born of a virgin.
Many churches rejected the RSV including some even publicly burning stacks of them. American Christians wanted a translation that was theologically conservative and read the way people spoke. William Beck, a professor at Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, responded by translating the Bible from the Greek and Hebrew interpreting the thoughts of the original author but translating the thought in the ways people would talk in their living room.
The result is one of the first dynamic equivalence translations in the AAT (NT 1964, OT 1976). It was far superior to The Living Bible (1952), which didn't consult the original languages; the New International Version (NIV) would be published a few years later in 1978.
The AAT is an interesting read that brings out the conservative theological doctrine of the Holy Scripture, but it didn't age well. The English is too informal for reading in Church - it would sound silly with the contractions and casual wording. Further, it was inconsistent: Beck was much better with the Greek (and Paul's letters in particular) than with the Hebrew. The Hebrew poetry was especially poor. When our youth group read Psalm 1 from different translations, some insisted Beck translated the wrong psalm because it was so unlike the others read.
I am glad I read William Beck's AAT. It's undervalued in its translation technique and gives new insights into familiar passages. Paul can be hard to read, but Beck makes it easy and enjoyable. I, however, don't see myself turning to it very often in the future.
December 26, 2023
The type-setting and spacing on this edition is wonky in certain places.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews