I have a great interest in Bible translations. Although I know all too well that there is no perfect translation, every now and then a translation catches my attention. This time, it is the Modern English Version (MEV). My thoughts are below and organized by topic.
The Publisher: One of the concerns of this translation—and one of the reasons, I think, it hasn't gained much ground—is because of the publisher, Passio, which seems to be a subsidiary of Charisma House. However, as far as I can tell, Passio only published the translation; they did not produce it. The organization that produced the translation—the ones who actually did the work and compiled the translation team—is the Military Bible Association.
The Translation Team: While the senior editorial advisor was Stanley Horton, a charismatic systematic theologian, the actual translation chief editor was James Linzey. Furthermore,I looked up every major sectional editor (Pentateuch, Gospels, etc.), and they all seem quite credentialed, and all are active is pastoral and academic settings. There is even a 1689 Reformed Baptist and a RPCNA pastor on the editorial committee, both holding PhDs. While many of the names on the team seem unknown, the scholarship seems strong.
The Translation: I am actually surprised by how good this translation is. I have a few thoughts:
Overall Thoughts: I am actually very impressed with this translation. I like that it uses the Textus Receptus as a textual base, since I lean more toward that school of thought. I like that it is a solid and mostly bias-less translation. I like that it is easier to read than the NKJV while still maintaining a high degree of accuracy. I don't like that, because of the publisher, this is not a widely-used translation, and will probably never be mainstream. I have never met anyone who uses it. I also don't like that the MEV has very few textual footnotes. This is a glaring disadvantage when compared to the NKJV, which abounds with footnotes. But, overall, I think this is a translation I will be using quite a bit.
If I have any other thoughts, I will add them below.
The Publisher: One of the concerns of this translation—and one of the reasons, I think, it hasn't gained much ground—is because of the publisher, Passio, which seems to be a subsidiary of Charisma House. However, as far as I can tell, Passio only published the translation; they did not produce it. The organization that produced the translation—the ones who actually did the work and compiled the translation team—is the Military Bible Association.
The Translation Team: While the senior editorial advisor was Stanley Horton, a charismatic systematic theologian, the actual translation chief editor was James Linzey. Furthermore,I looked up every major sectional editor (Pentateuch, Gospels, etc.), and they all seem quite credentialed, and all are active is pastoral and academic settings. There is even a 1689 Reformed Baptist and a RPCNA pastor on the editorial committee, both holding PhDs. While many of the names on the team seem unknown, the scholarship seems strong.
The Translation: I am actually surprised by how good this translation is. I have a few thoughts:
Bias: I find absolutely no charismatic bias in the translation whatsoever. If I have found any bias, it is in the often-mentioned 2 Thess. 2:7 capitalization of "He," which also is found in the NKJV.
Quality of Translation: The translation is a formal equivalence translation. I have found that it is less literalistic (not less literal) than the NKJV. I think it improves on the language and clarity of the NKJV. For example, compare the two renderings of Romans 1:12:
NKJV: "...that is, that I may be encouraged together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me."
MEV: "This is so that I may be encouraged together with you by each other’s faith, both yours and mine."
In my opinion, the NKJV is clunky and unwieldy here. It just isn't pleasant to read at all. The MEV is a marked improvement. It is also noteworthy that the MEV is now one of only three major translations that does not use "gender accurate" language when it comes especially to words like ἀδελφοί ("brothers"). I know there are various opinions about this. And I am still unsure which "side" I fall on, but I appreciate this choice by the MEV.
Textual Basis: The translation team says in the preface, "The Modern English Version is a translation of the Textus Receptus and the Jacob ben Hayyim edition of the Masoretic Text, using the King James Version as the base manuscript."
Italics: Some have criticized this translation for not using italics. As a matter of fact, it does use italics. And I actually think it uses them better than any other translation. For example, anyone who studies Hebrew and Greek knows that "to be" verbs are often physically absent, but "to be" is still "there." These languages, unlike English, do not need explicit "to be" verbs to communicate predication. Historically, when a "to be" verb is missing, translations like the NKJV will put the verb in italics. But this is actually misleading because, again, the "to be," while not there in an actual word, is still there syntactically. So, no word is being added. The MEV only uses italics when it actually adds a word. Here is an example from Genesis 3:12:
The man said, "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate."
Here, the word "fruit" is actually added, so the translators indicate such. I did notice there was one weird instance of words being added in Esther 1:1:
Now in the days of Ahasuerus, also called Xerxes, who reigned from India to Ethiopia, over one hundred and twenty-seven provinces...
I found this choice to be odd. The good thing is, though, that with their sparing (and I think more accurate) use of italics, when words are in italics, I know they were actually added.
Overall Thoughts: I am actually very impressed with this translation. I like that it uses the Textus Receptus as a textual base, since I lean more toward that school of thought. I like that it is a solid and mostly bias-less translation. I like that it is easier to read than the NKJV while still maintaining a high degree of accuracy. I don't like that, because of the publisher, this is not a widely-used translation, and will probably never be mainstream. I have never met anyone who uses it. I also don't like that the MEV has very few textual footnotes. This is a glaring disadvantage when compared to the NKJV, which abounds with footnotes. But, overall, I think this is a translation I will be using quite a bit.
If I have any other thoughts, I will add them below.
Last edited: