Hello and welcome to Word Magazine. This is Jeff Riddle, pastor of Christ Reformed Baptist Church in Louisa, Virginia. And in this episode of Word Magazine, episode 108, I'm going to be sharing with you the draft of a book review that I've written for a newer English translation of the Bible, which is known as the Modern English Version, the MEV. And I've written this review, hopefully it's going to be published in a theological journal soon, but I thought I would just share this as a Word magazine. The Modern English version came out in 2014. The general editor for this project was James F. Lindsay. And the modern English version is published by Charisma Media and Charisma House Book Group out of Lake Mary, Florida. And the fact that it comes from that publisher tells you something about the theological orientation of the persons who at least are publishing it and distributing it in the US. So it's in basically the charismatic continuationist orb. Although, as I look through it, and I just read through this morning the 1 Corinthians 14, I don't see necessarily a lot of overt influence necessarily of continuationism. from what I've picked up on, maybe other people have picked up on that. But anyways, like I said, I've written a draft of review and I thought I would read this and I may just add in some extra comments along the way as well. So, without any further ado, let me just turn to offering this review. So, the modern English version is yet another contemporary English translation of the Bible, so it's getting to be a crowded field. There are a lot of English translations of the Bible. This version, however, is distinct for several reasons. First, and most importantly, it is a translation based on the traditional, original language texts of the Christian scriptures. That is, in the Old Testament it's based on the Hebrew Masoretic text, and in the New Testament it's based on the Greek Textus Receptus of the New Testament. And it is based on these traditional texts rather than the modern critical texts, which form the basis for most modern English translations. Second, it also aims to be an updating, as they call it, of the King James Version of the Bible, that venerable English translation that was based on those same traditional original language texts, the Hebrew Masoretic text for the Old Testament and the Greek-Texas Receptus for the New Testament. So let me just share a little bit about the history and some of the theological perspective of the modern English version, as far as I can ascertain it. The modern English version does have a nice little preface to the reader, and I often tell students that I teach on the college level that when you pick up a Bible, the first thing that you should do is not skip over the front matter, but you should read the introduction, usually just a couple of pages, but it'll tell you a lot about whatever translation you might be using. And so this has a nice little preface to the reader. And in that preface, it notes that the modern English version has been produced by the Committee of Bible Translation, as they call it. And this is under, again, the chief editorial leadership of James F. Lindsay. And then it has an Old Testament editor-in-chief, who was in Blake Hearson of Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, so a Southern Baptist, was editor for the Old Testament. And then the New Testament editor-in-chief was Edward W. Watson, of Oral Roberts University out in Oklahoma, which obviously is a continuationist school, and so that would be the perspective, I'm supposing, of Dr. Watson. The preface explains that this project began among military chaplains in the United Kingdom and then later those from the United States who formed this Bible translation committee, and in the preface it says they were motivated by a desire, quote, to provide an update by military chaplains for the troops so they could understand the King James Version better, end quote. And then it notes that as the project progressed, the chaplains who were working on this recruited qualified academic scholars, and eventually, as they put it in the preface, quote, the target audience grew from the military to the entire English-speaking world, end quote. In the end, again according to the preface, there were some 47 translators, scholars, and chaplains who came from a variety of Protestant denominations who participated in this project. And the translation work began on June 2nd of 2005. The New Testament was completed on October 25th of 2011. And then the Old Testament was completed May 28 of 2014. So as of this review, this translation has been out for about four years. So my review really is coming a little bit late, and I'm sure there were several reviews that came out early on. But anyway, I think it would be worthwhile to review this work. The modern English version represents definitely an evangelical theological perspective, and I was just looking back at the preface again, and in the preface, this is, I've got the little kind of cheap paperback economy version, I think they call it, but this is Roman numeral nine. It says, the 47 American and English translators being in great Christian unity and cooperation, who have a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ, and who have formed an interdenominational translation committee represent churches such as the Baptist Union of Great Britain, the Charismatic Episcopal Church, the Central Church of the Nazarene, the Church of Christ, the Church of England, the Church of God, the Elam Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Free Methodist Church of North America, General Council of the Assemblies of God, International Church of the Four Square Gospel, Methodist Church of Great Britain, Methodist Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church of America, Reformed Presbyterian Church of North America, Southern Baptist Convention, United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, and the United Reformed Church. It says the translators represent a cross-section of the English-speaking church, so it is their prayer that the modern English version will please the entire English-speaking world. And so, again, it represents kind of a smorgasbord of evangelical denominations from continuationist ones, like Assemblies of God, Four Square Gospel, to even ones that would be reformed, like PCA, ones that would be evangelical, like Southern Baptists, and, well, I don't know if you'd call Southern Baptists non-continuations. I guess it depends church to church and sometimes minister to minister. But at any rate, so that's the kind of broad perspective that it comes from. The preface also notes that the quote, the translators are devoted to making a good translation better, ensuring the modern English version is an accurate and responsible update of the King James Version." And there they're borrowing some of the language from the original preface to the King James Version, making a good translation better. And then there's also a note in the front matter, this is outside of the preface but with the sort of material, copyright and introductory material, it says, like all translations of the Bible, this translation of the scriptures is subject to human limitations and imperfections. Recognizing these limitations, the publisher sought God's guidance and wisdom throughout the project. Our prayer is that he will use this translation for the benefit of the church and his kingdom. And that's the end of that publisher's note. One thing that's interesting, again the roots of this were apparently in the United Kingdom and then they incorporated people from the US on the project. And in this, again, this economy version, I'm not sure if this appears in all published editions of it, but there is a dedication to the Queen of England. And this is the dedication, it says, to Her Majesty Elizabeth II, and by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and for other realms and territories. Queen, head of the commonwealth, defender of the faith, the translators of the Bible wish grace, mercy, and peace through Jesus Christ our Lord. So, interesting dedication to the queen as the defender of the faith. And I think I heard sometime back that when and if Elizabeth is gone and her son takes over, as King, that he has said he may take the title Defender of the Faiths, rather than Defender of the Faith. But anyways, at this rate, the MEV is for Queen Elizabeth, the Defender of the Faith. So that tells you a little bit again about the history, how the translation came about, and its theological perspective. So, next let me discuss the layout, design, and the formatting of the modern English version. The text of the modern English version is divided into paragraph units. The editors have included editorial section headings throughout the text. So, for example, at Genesis 1-1, the opening section is headed, The Creation. And then a new section begins at Genesis 2-4 with the heading Adam and Eve. And there are these, again, editorial headings throughout the text of the Bible. And there are occasional notes, it seems, that also provide headings for larger units. So for example, at Matthew 5-1, there's a heading that reads the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5 through 7. So there's a heading for Matthew 5 through 7 for three chapters, and then within that there are subheadings. Some of the individual chapters have multiple headings. I gave you an example, Genesis 1, the creation, that was just one section, but if you look For example, at Matthew 5, from the Sermon on the Mount, it's divided into no less than 10 subunits, beginning with the Beatitudes, which is the heading for Matthew 5, verses 2 through 11, and all the way to the very end of the chapter, Matthew 5, 43 through 48, which has the heading, Love for Enemies. Many of these headings, especially in the Synoptic Gospels, provide cross-references to parallel material. Although these divisions of the text into subunits and the provision of editorial headings may well serve to promote ease of reading, such insertions also run the risk of confusing the beginning reader as to what is part of the inspired text and what is not. And I found this, particularly in having the experience of teaching at a college level, survey of the New Testament, survey of the Old Testament, I find that I have many students who take these classes who've really not read the Bible very much, if at all, and a lot of times they're generally confused about What is actually the text of the Bible and what are the editorial headings that may have been added by modern editors? And I think those of us who are very familiar with the Bible, we think less about that because we sort of intuitively, through our education, we've received and experienced, we know the difference between the editorial headings and the text. And you might say, well, it's good that they added this for ease of reading. And I can understand if someone is looking at just blocks of text with no paragraph divisions and no headings, it might be a little bit daunting. But adding those headings necessarily adds a level of interpretation. And again, the reader might be confused as to what is part of the Word of God and what is an editorial edition. I will add, though, to the MEV's credit. I looked in the Psalms, and in the Psalms they do not use editorial headings, but they stick just with the traditional titles that are found in the Hebrew text when there are titles given for the Psalms. Of course, some of the Psalms don't have titles in the so-called orphan Psalms. The MEV also chooses to set apart portions of the text in a poetic layout to distinguish it from other portions that are assumed to be prose. And this is true not only in what we might think of as clearly poetic sections like the Psalms, but it's also true in numerous other sections throughout the text. So, for example, in Luke 2, 46-55, the so-called Song of Mary, it's set out in poetic stanzas. Paul's description of Christ as a servant in Philippians 2, 5-11, is also set out in poetic stanza format. it even includes in the MEV a footnote explaining, quote, 6 through 11, meaning verses 6 through 11, a hymn about Jesus's attitude of servanthood, end quote. Many such decisions may well be appropriate, but these are again editorial interpretations and they reflect choices of with which all may not agree. While many have assumed, for example, that Philippians 2, 5-11 is a poetic portion of an early so-called hymn that may even predate Paul, this remains a hypothesis that has not been definitively proven. And you'll often read in commentaries, even hear preachers preaching on this text, and they'll say, well, this was an early hymn in the church, and Paul just simply incorporated this. Well, that's possible, but Paul doesn't say that in the text. It may be an original composition by Paul as part of the letter to the Philippians. We don't know. And it might not even be poetic. It may just be prose. And if you set it apart in poetic form, first of all, you're saying something about genre. You're saying it's poetry. And I guess we might say all translations are interpretations. But once you offer those interpretations, we have to recognize them for what they are. As for the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament, the MEV does not use italic, it doesn't set them off in italic or a different type, but it indicates direct quotations by use of quotation marks and includes footnote references to the source of the citations. Quotation marks are also liberally used throughout the MEV to designate, indicate direct speech. So, for example, in John chapter 4 verse 26, it reads, Jesus said to her, comma, and then quotation mark, I who speak to you am he, period, and then closing quotation mark. In cases like this, the quotation is indeed rather obvious. Jesus said to her. What did Jesus say? I who speak to you am he. But in other places in the text, sometimes it's less clear as to whether something is written, whether it is actually direct speech or a direct quotation from someone, or where the quotation ends. And for one example, you can look in the Modern English Version texts of John 3, 27 through 30, which is a citation from John the Baptist, and it's enclosed in quotation marks. while the verses that follow, verses 31 through 36, are not in quotation marks. Now it's possible that perhaps that these verses, verses 31 through 36, could also possibly be attributed to John the Baptist. I'm not saying that's the case, I don't know. But the MEV apparently assumes by its punctuation that the final verses not the voice of John the Baptist, but they are the voice of John the Apostle, if that makes sense. And I think just this example, there are multiple other ones that could be called forward, and these illustrate some of the interpretive challenges even of using punctuation when we make a translation. And reflecting on this and comparing it say to the King James Version I think one of the strengths of the King James Version is the fact that it doesn't use quotation marks for direct speech and by not using quotation marks it leaves the interpretation of where a quotation begins and ends with the reader and by the way I think that actually more accurately relays what's there in the original text. If you read the original Greek, there are no quotation marks in the original Greek text. And there's no way of setting off a citation in that way. And in some ways, we might say the translation of that King James Version may be superior in that it doesn't attempt to sort of add that interpretive level to define what a quotation is. So let me turn, having talked, as we have, a little bit about the issues of layout and such and design formatting. Let's turn now and talk about the modern English version and the text of scripture, some of the issues that arise relating to the text that is used in the MEV. As already noted, the MEV is distinct among modern translations in that it follows the original language texts of the traditional texts that were the basis of the King James Version and not the modern critical texts. With regard to the Old Testament, the MEV generally follows the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text and the Protestant translation tradition based on this text as reflected in the King James Version. Here are some examples of how this commitment shapes the MEV translation. So the first example we could look at is how 1 Samuel chapter 6 verse 19 is rendered in the modern English version. In the MEV it reads as follows, Then he struck down the men of Beth Shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the Lord. He struck 50,070 men, and the people lamented, because the Lord had struck the people with a great slaughter." Now, if you look at this translation, you'll see and notice that the modern English version sticks with a rendering that is closely based on the Hebrew text, And for one thing, it does not add an expansion. that is found in this verse in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. And if you were to look at the Septuagint of 1 Samuel 6, 19, you would find it adds a line, and the sons of Jeconiah were not pleased with the men of Beth-shemesh when they looked at the ark of the Lord. And there have been some modern translations, like the Jerusalem Bible and the New English Bible, which have incorporated in this case, this Septuagintal reading into their translations. So the MEV, of course, doesn't do that. In addition, the MEV of 1st Samuel 619 follows a more literal understanding of the Hebrew text in recording the number of persons who were struck down. It reads 50,070 men, whereas some modern translations, like the New International Version, the English Standard Version read that only 70 men were struck down, and so the MEV sticks more closely with the Hebrew, the Masoretic text. As another example, let's look at Psalm 145, verse 13. In the Modern English Version it reads, Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures throughout all generations. We can contrast the MEV with the English Standard Version, which is an evangelical version of the Revised Standard Version, and if you look at the ESV of Psalm 145.13, you'll find that it begins, your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures throughout all generations, but then it adds in brackets another half verse, the Lord is faithful in all his words, and kind in all his works." The MEV sticks with the traditional Hebrew text, which does not include that half verse at Psalm 145.13, which is added in the ESV. Why is it added in the ESV? Well, it is an attempt to correct, and I put correct in square quotes, to correct what the translators believe was a broken acrostic in the Hebrew, so Psalm 145 is an acrostic poem. Each line begins with a different letter of the Hebrew alphabet, but one of those letters is excluded, and so the editors of the ESV, translators of the ESV, believe that was a mistake, and so they add this half verse to restore or correct what they believe to be a broken acrostic. And indeed there are ancient efforts that, like the ESV, that attempt to correct this. It's there in the Septuagint, it's there in the Syriac, but there is only one Hebrew manuscript that includes this correction, whereas all the other Hebrew manuscripts do not include that correction. And so here's a case where the MEV has stuck with the traditional Hebrew text opposed to going with, I think, an eccentric reading as reflected in the ESV. Finally, however, it might be noted that the Modern English Version does not always strictly follow the Protestant Old Testament translation tradition as reflected in the King James Version. An example of this may be found in the Modern English Version rendering of 1 Samuel 13 1. which reads, Saul was 30 years old when he began to reign, and he reigned 42 years over Israel. And if you look at the MEV, the 30 and the 40 are in italic, and that tells you that they are, the translators are adding something that's not there, they're acknowledging something that's not there in the original. So again, it reads, Saul was 30 in italic, years old, when he began to reign, and he reigned 40 in italic, two years over Israel. And then there's a footnote in the modern English version which offers this explanation. Quote, lit or literally, the son of a year was Saul in his ruling, and two years he ruled over Israel. And then it continues, most translations read in Saul's age and length of reign from external evidence, Josephus, or from the New Testament, Paul, who mentions a 42-year reign for Saul in Acts 13.21. And that's the end of the footnote explanation. So they're saying, yeah, the Hebrew, the original Hebrew only says here that Saul was was the son of a year in his ruling and two years ruling over Israel. And they say based on Josephus and based on Acts 1321, we fill this out to say Saul was 30 years old and he was 42 years old. He reigned for 42 years over Israel. Though this footnote explains, again, the literal rendering of the Hebrew, and the text does put the numbers 30 and 40 in italic. Here, the modern English version does not follow the King James Version. In the King James Version of this verse, if you were to look up 1 Samuel 13, 1, the King James Version, it reads, Saul reigned one year and when he had reigned two years over Israel. And that is, I think, a closer approximation of the Hebrew in the Masoretic text. This is also the reading not just found in the King James Version, it's the standard Protestant rendering, it's in the Geneva Bible, for example, and this would be a case where I would wonder why the Modern English Version didn't simply follow more closely the traditional Protestant Old Testament interpretation track and try to follow more closely the original Hebrew. So that's a little bit about the Old Testament. Let's turn and speak a little bit about the MEV with regard to the text of the New Testament. Again, the MEV follows the Greek Texas Receptus. This means, among other things, that it includes many traditional passages. which are relegated to the footnotes in most modern translations, including the doxology of the Lord's Prayer in Matthew 6.13b, the account of the angel troubling the water at Bethesda in John 5.3b and John 5.4, the confession of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8.37, and the Three Heavenly Witnesses passage or the Koma Yohaneum in 1 John 5.7b through 8a. With regard to the Koma Yohaneum, one of the most contested verses in the TR, the MEV adds a footnote. And again, I might just observe that the footnotes are rather sparse in the MEV, so we pay attention when we see one. And if you look up the footnote at 1 John 5, 7, 8, it reads, the earliest Greek manuscripts lack in heaven the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. And the three are one. There are three that testify on earth. So again, it says the earliest Greek manuscripts lack this. The MEV likewise generally follows the distinctive readings taken from the Texas Receptus and reflected in the King James Version. So in the opening to 1 Timothy 3.16, the modern English version reads, God was revealed in the flesh. In Revelation 16.5 it reads, who is and who was and who is to be, and in Revelation 22.19 it reads, book of life. In other places, however, the modern English version departs from some of the classic King James Version renderings of the Texas Receptus. In John 1.18, for example, whereas the King James Version reads, The Only Begotten Son, the modern English version simply reads, The Only Son. With regard to longer disputed passages in the New Testament, longer verses, more verses involved, the modern English version does not place the traditional ending of Mark, Mark 16, 9 through 20, in brackets. Nor does it insert this so-called shorter ending of Mark, which is now included in the footnotes of the English Standard Version and in the main text of the New Living Translation. No footnote appears in the MEV to interpret the text of the ending of Mark. It simply accepts it as part of the text, and so I appreciate that. It also does not place in brackets the woman taken in adultery passage, the so-called pericope adultery of John 7.53-8.11. has become common in most modern translations that are based on the modern critical text, so it's typical to have that passage now put in brackets, and the MEV does not do that. It does, however, add a footnote at John 7.53 which reads, quote, the earliest Greek manuscripts lack 7.53 through 8.11, end quote. This is a place where defenders of the TR might contest whether that description, the earliest, is appropriate here. I mean, the text note could have read, the majority of manuscripts include. So it's kind of a negative, and we could argue, for the antiquity and authenticity of the Priccipe Adulteri. But anyway, so let's move on now, having talked about text, let's talk a little bit about the MEV and some of the choices that are made simply in the translation into English of the text of Scripture. So how do we evaluate the modern English version as a translation? Again, this translation aims to be an update of the King James Version. So it says from the beginning, we want to update, faithfully update the KJV language. This means that it follows most of the familiar readings found in the Tyndale KJV tradition. And of course, I think something, it's estimated like 90% of the New Testament of the King James Version is taken from Tyndale's English translation of 1525. Of course he did not complete a translation of the Old Testament, but the Tyndale language, and we could talk about the Tyndale KJV sort of translation tradition. So it generally, I think, follows, and so for someone who knows the King James Version, the MEV will sound quite familiar, but at the same time it also attempts to update various elements of vocabulary and style. So in the modern English version, the and thou of the KJV becomes you. Then there are numerous other examples, the word penny the KJV becomes denarius. So just to cite one example, Matthew chapter 20 verse 2. Twain in the KJV becomes two in the MEV. Look at Matthew 5 41. In 1 Thessalonians 4 15, the KJV's prevent becomes precede. And in 1 Corinthians 13, one and following in the love chapter, rather than using the word charity as in the KJV, it uses the more contemporary word love to render the Greek word agape. Likewise, in the modern English version, the double amen that is often cited by our Lord in the Gospels is rendered in the MEV as truly, truly, as opposed to the King James version's familiar verily, verily. Look, for example, and compare the MEV and the KJV at John 151. Other clarifying updates were also made to the MEV to some noteworthy KJV renderings, including the use in the MEV of the skull for the KJV's calvary at Luke 23, 33. And it's thought that the KJV translators were leaning on the Latin Vulgate, Calvaria, with their rendering of Calvary at Luke 23-33. Also at Acts 1-20, whereas in the KJV it reads bishopric, in the MEV it reads office, talking about the office that Judas had abandoned. And then at Acts 12.4, whereas the KJV reads Easter, the MEV changes that to Passover. The MEV does retain, however, the memorable King James Version rendering of Paul's stock phrase, God forbid, for the Greek me genoito. So you can look, for example, at Romans 6.2 and other places. In addition, The modern English version uses more discrete terms for some words and phrases in the King James Version that contemporary readers might see as, scare quotes, blue language. So in the modern English version, ass becomes donkey. See, for example, Zechariah 9.9, a notorious phrase in the King James Version found at 1 Kings 14.10 and similarly at 2 Kings 9.8 to describe men as he that pisseth against a wall becomes, in the MEV, all males. The word in Revelation 17, 1, whore, in the King James Version, becomes in the MEV prostitute. At Hebrews 12, 8, in the King James Version, the word bastards becomes in the MEV illegitimate children. In this regard, one might also note that in the passage 1 Corinthians 6, 9, whereas the King James Version renders a description there of practitioners of homosexual behavior as nor effeminate nor abusers of themselves with mankind, in the modern English version it is rendered as nor male prostitutes nor homosexuals. So Some of the, again, blue language is alternatively rendered, and there's been an attempt to contemporize many of these sort of wordings and phrasings. In general, again, I think the reader will find the modern English version translators have provided a translation that attempts to retain the memorable phrasings and grandeur of the venerable King James Version. And in my review, I have a table here with several passages from the King James Version and then the MEV renderings. And let me just cite some of these. Genesis 1.1. King James Version, in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Modern English Version, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Psalm 23.1, KJV, the Lord is my shepherd I shall not want. MEV, the Lord is my shepherd I shall not want. John 1.1, King James Version, in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. MEV, in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. John 3.16, King James Version, for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. MEV, for God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. Romans 8.28, and we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. MEV renders that as we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to his purpose. Philippians 4.13, King James Version, I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me. MEV, I can do all things because of Christ. who strengthens me. So again, many of the traditional KJV renderings are essentially preserved in the MEV. And so for someone who reads the King James Version, they will find a lot that is familiar in the MEV with regard to the various phrasings. One more distinctive of the modern English version that should be noted is the decision by the translators to render the divine pronouns with initial capital letters. So I cited John 3.16. in the MEV it reads, for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son. And the he there is a capital H, capital H-E. And his only begotten son, the his is a capital H. And so it capitalized the pronouns when the translator is saying it's a reference to the divine, to God. In this stylistic note, it follows the practice that is used in the New King James Version. If you use the New King James Version, you know that it does the same thing. It capitalizes the divine pronoun. Now, on one hand, one might say that we can respect the piety of this sentiment, and I have Christian friends who, when they write me letters or write me notes, you know, they do the same thing. They capitalize the divine pronoun, and I even do that sometimes myself. writing. So there's something about that that I respect, the piety, the sentiment. Although we must acknowledge that that practice is not reflected in the biblical manuscripts. So if you looked at some of the biblical manuscripts, the Gospels, they don't capitalize the pronouns in reference to Jesus or to God the Father. And so this is another place where the MEV and the New King James Version are introducing interpretive decisions that I think might be better left to the reader. And I think the King James Version wisely does not attempt to capitalize pronouns in this manner. And so what's an example of a place where you can have confusion? If you look at the MEV rendering of 2 Thessalonians 2.7, This would be an example of a place where the capitalization of the divine pronoun is a matter of interpretation, and in fact this example, 2 Thessalonians 2.7, is sort of a notorious one because the capitalization can reflect a dispensational theological outlook. The New King James Version has the same problem with this verse. The MEV of 2 Thessalonians 2.7 reads, only he, capital H, who is now restraining him will do so until he, capital H, is taken out of the way. By capitalizing the pronoun he, the translators assume that the restrainer, the one restraining, is the deity, is God. This might be so. But it is not explicitly made clear in the text. And so the King James Version, for example, which doesn't capitalize pronouns, simply reads, only he, not capitalized, who now letteth, will let, until he, not capitalized, be taken out of the way. And so it leaves it open. It could be referring to a human instrument. as opposed to God. And I think in the end, I think that is a superior decision with regard to translation. I'm not a fan of the attempt to capitalize the divine pronoun. So some concluding observations. Although the modern English version is, as I described it earlier, yet another contemporary English translation of the Bible, Its differences from other modern translations are significant. This is the first, as I understand it, widely available modern translation of the Bible which aims to follow the traditional original language text and to emulate the translation style and wording of the King James Version since the New King James Version appeared in 1982. So again, it's the first widely available modern translation based on the traditional texts and trying to follow the Tendale KJV tradition since 1982. I think it does share some of the strengths and weaknesses of the New King James Version. I already gave you the example of the capitalized pronouns, and so it shares, again, some of the weaknesses of the New King James Version. I think it does, the Modern English Version does reflect the ongoing popularity of the King James Version in the English-speaking world, and the respect that it continues to enjoy among evangelical Christians. And this despite decades of marketing of so-called new and improved translations of the Bible based on the modern critical text. I mean, despite all the years we've had of marketing and denigrating the King James Version, people still like it. They still admire the majestic phrasings of it. And so here's an attempt to have a contemporary Bible that holds more closely, and I think not only to the renderings and phrasings, but also to the text, underlying text of the King James Version. The modern English version could easily be read. and used in the pew in churches that ordinarily use the King James Version or New King James Version. If you're in a Bible study and somebody's using the King James Version or the New King James Version, and you had the MEV, you could follow along very nicely, very easily with it. And although it is a modern translation, I think it actually could serve to enhance further the appreciation of the Tyndale King James Version tradition in which it lies. Of course, for the purists and those who, you know, adamantly prefer the King James Version to the exclusion of all other translations, they're not going to appreciate the MEV because it does depart in some of the ways both textually and translationally. from the decisions that were made in the King James Version. Despite whatever problems the MEV has, we must say that it is very distinctive And we might even call it a very refreshing addition to what is a crowded English Bible market. And so I think there can be some positive uses for the modern English version, and I think it would be worth having on your shelf. to compare, and when you do study, to compare it with other translations. And so anyways, that concludes my review of the modern English version. Again, I was reading primarily a draft of a review that I've written, and I hope it will be in print soon. And if it ever gets in print, I will most likely put the written version of it up on my academia.edu site. For now, though, we just have this spoken version of it, and so I hope that this will prove useful. I will put a post at jeffriddle.net for Word Magazine 108, and I may put just the section headings the review and like I said at a future time hopefully I'll be able to put up a revised final written edition of this review. I hope you found this helpful and look forward to speaking with you in the next edition of Word Magazine. Till then, take care and God bless.