







































AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

123         Ifechelobi & Onuoha 

THE ENGLISH HOLY BIBLE: LANGUAGE AND MULTIPLICITY 

 

Prof. Jane Nkechi Ifechelobi 

English, Department of English Language and Literature,  

                      Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka 

                      jn.ifechelobi@unizik.edu.ng 

                                      & 

  Kelechi Ihendu Onuoha 

 Department of English Language and Literature, 

        Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka 

 

Abstract 

The English Bible has been known to have different versions, but before the first version was 

published, it existed in other languages. . It is not an overstatement that there is no other text 

that has enjoyed the number of translations as the Bible. These translations originate as a result 

of the fact that the translators had various perspectives to translations. There are, however, 

various processes it had passed through in order to be translated into English and other 

languages.In other words, it is these various forms of translations that culminated into what is 

now referred to as the versions of the English Bible. These versions are broadly classified 

according to the approaches of the translations- formal correspondence, functional evidence 

and paraphrase. Each of the approaches has specific characteristics that distinguish it from the 

other. Basically, the translations have led to the use of different words for the same message or 

content. This is plausible since some versions translate word-for-word, others translate 

meaning-for-meaning while some others paraphrase the whole text.Therefore, as a result of the 

existing varieties of the English language, approaches to translation and the intent of the 

translators, there has been a multiplicity of the different versions of the English Bible. 

Surprisingly also, the versions that share the same approach to translations still have various 

forms of discrepancies in both syntax and meanings. In other words, no two versions are exactly 

the same, the approach to the translation notwithstanding. 

Keywords: Translations, Text-type, formal approach, functional evidence, paraphrase 

 

Introduction 

Communication is the most relevant objective of language. Succinctly put, language is the 

principal means of communication among human beings. It is an invaluable possession that 

makes us human. Without language, it will be practically impossible for human beings to 

understand one another, live in harmony and make remarkable progress.Language performs 

different functions depending on the situations or discourse. In certain contexts, language is 

used to bridge the gap among different speech communities.  Over 2000 years ago, the English 

language and some  other languages that can be referred to as world languages today, were 

either not in existence or not as popular as they are today. The emergence of such languages 

could be attributed to a lot of factors which include conquests and advancements in technology. 

With the advent of the English language, many texts that were not originally written in the 

English language were translated and notable among them is the Bible. 

 

The Emergence of the English Bible 

The English language has a remarkable history. Algeo (49) has summarized the history of the 

English language in the following words: “English, as we know it, developed in Britain and 

more recently in America and elsewhere around the world. It did not begin in Britain but was 

an immigrant language, coming there with the invading Anglo-Saxons in the fifth century”. 

Algeo (13), however, states that the ultimate origin of language is “a matter of speculation since 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

124         Ifechelobi & Onuoha 

we have no real information about it. The earliest languages for which we have records are 

already in a high stage of development.” Today, the English language exists in so many 

countries, though with different varieties of the language being spoken and written. These 

varieties are as a result of geographical locations. Therefore, the language is far from being 

homogeneous. With the establishment of colonies, the English language has spread to almost 

every part of the globe and a lot of characteristics herald the emergence of the varieties.In his 

publication on ‘Writing the History of the English Bible: A Review of Recent Scholarship’, 

Bagley in 2011 has confirmed that the King James Bible (KJB) is the first Bible to be translated 

into English. The number of translations of the Bible suggests that it seems to be the most 

translated text in the world. There is obviously no text that has enjoyed the number of 

translations more than the Bible. In the words of Wendland and Noss (2), “the Bible is the most 

translated book in the world.”   

 

The stories that border on the development of the English Bible are from different perspectives. 

This is a clear indication that the interests of the Biblical scholars and historical theologians 

and linguists have increased tremendously in a bid to take the theological content of translation 

quite seriously. The struggle for translation from the original language(s) of the Bible (Hebrew, 

Greek and Aramaic languages) to other languages has become quite inundating in recent times. 

The primary objective of translation is also to communicate. In the words of Scorgie, Strauss 

and Voth (122), “translation is all about communication, and communication is by its very 

nature dialogical. It cares about its source and it cares about its audience.” This implies that 

translators take cognizance of the fact that in translating a text, it is important to consider 

essence, origin and the audience. So, the translators of the English Bible are expected to focus 

on the original language(s) of the Bible.  

 

Approaches to (Bible) Translation 

Metzger (35) has stated that “it is common knowledge that the Bible has been translated into 

more languages than any other piece of literature.” Some of the commonest versions of the 

English Bible include the Revised Standard Version, the Authorized King James Version, the 

American Standard Version, the English Standard Version, the New King James Version, the 

New International Version, The Living Bible. The Bible continues to be translated into new 

languages, largely by Christian organizations such as the famous Bible Society. According to 

Metzger (35), “by the opening of the year 2000, the entire Bible has been available in 371 

languages and dialects and portions of the Bible in 1,862 other languages and dialects”. 

 

Since most Christians do not understand the original language(s) of the Bible, and can’t access 

the original text(s), translators serve as intermediaries. There are, however, different forms of 

translations which translators choose from. The traditional approach to translation is the formal 

correspondence. This is the more literal word-for-word approach to translation. As Wonderly 

(19) succinctly puts it,“a translation that emphasizes formal correspondence is one that is 

oriented primarily toward the source message or the message in its original form.” This implies 

that there is little room for subjectivity with formal evidence and this translation process is the 

simplest form. However, the challenge with the formal evidence is that no two languages are 

exactly the same. In the words of Nida and Taber (1969), “each language is different from all 

other languages in the ways in which the sets of verbal symbols classify the various elements 

of experience.” This suggests that a literal word-for-word translation would be practically 

complex.  

 

Owing to the shortcomings of the formal correspondence, functional equivalence was 

introduced. The aim of functional evidence therefore, is not to reproduce the form of the 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

125         Ifechelobi & Onuoha 

original language, using the vocabulary of the receptor language. Instead, the aim is to 

communicate the meaning as clearly as possible using forms that are native to the receptor 

language. Hughes (190) vividly captures this as follows: 

Functional evidence is perhaps better known as “dynamic equivalence”, a term 

apparently coined by Eugene Nida, who wanted to emphasize how a translation 

should produce the same psychological effect upon the modern reader as it was 

intended to have upon the original reader. Since 1986, however, the term 

“dynamic equivalence” has been replaced by “functional equivalence”. 

 

There is a clear discrepancy between formal evidence and functional equivalence. While the 

formal evidence can be referred to as a direct transfer, the functional equivalence is simply an 

idiomatic translation. Hughes has also recognized the existence of another translation 

correspondence which he describes as paraphrased correspondence. He further identifies the 

Living Bible as a typical example of a paraphrased text. According to him, “the Living Bible 

Paraphrased was the work one man, Kenneth Taylor, who took the American Standard Version 

and rephrased it in his own words (1999)”. 

 

There are various reasons why translations remain a challenge. While manuscript resources 

continue to improve, the English language continues to change. In the words of Scorgie, et al 

(177-180):  

Translations of the Hebrew Scriptures became necessary by the third century 

B.C…. Translation of both OT and NT into Latin began very early in the 

Christian era…. The first extant independent Old English version of the gospels, 

known as the Wessex Gospels, comes from the tenth century…. But it was John 

Wycliffe 9c. 1330-1384) and his associates who first attempted to put an English 

Bible into the hands of laypeople. 

 

The advent of the English Bible has led to the influx of variegated versions. Each of these 

versions is written according to the translators’ competence and era. Daniell (xiii), specifically 

states that “there are over 350 published complete English Bible versions, most of which have 

appeared in the 20th century, while part translations of the Bible (mostly individual books have 

reached over twelve hundred since 1945 alone”. The implication of the statistics given by 

Daniel is that by the 21st century, the number must have become quite enormous since literacy 

and interests in linguistics and theology have maintained an upward trend.  

 

Translational Issues and Discrepancies 

Translations vary for multiple reasons. Some of the reasons, in the exact words of Spackman 

(55) are “…different underlying texts and influence of the versions, different understandings 

of the text on the grammatical and syntactic level, as well as on the semantic or word level, and 

differing philosophies of how best to express one’s understanding of these differences in the 

target language.” Therefore, every translation can be viewed as an interpretation. In the course 

of interpreting, the translators may understand the source language but since languages differ 

at all linguistic levels, they must devise means of conveying the message and in doing so, a lot 

of meanings and registers get thwarted. Additionally, the different approaches play a major role 

in the course of the translations. The three approaches, previously discussed, have peculiar 

features and a translator’s work tends to focus on the features of the approach which he intends 

to apply. 

 

Each version has its distinct diction which may create different meanings. Other versions 

definitely have variegated syntactic and semantic features. Some have been designed for easy 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

126         Ifechelobi & Onuoha 

reading in modern English, others strive to stick very closely to the original text but are more 

difficult to understand; some have more study helps available and so on. Also, some versions 

are produced by particular denominations. These tend to highlight certain doctrines that are 

held by such denominations, often at the expense of accuracy.  

 

One major reason why there are changes in the English used in these versions is the background 

of the translators. Another reason is the rationale behind the translations i.e. their essence. It is 

a widespread belief that one of the major reasons why there are discrepancies in the syntax and 

semantics of the expressions used in the versions of the English Holy Bible points to the 

changes that occur in the English language and the fact that each of the versions emanates at 

one point or the other in the historicity of the English language. Since one of the significant 

features of any language is dynamism, the English language, being one of the ‘world’ 

languages, changes (rapidly) over time. This explains why the first edition of the King James 

Version, which was translated from the original Hebrew and Greek in 1611 A.D., has a lot of 

‘very old English structures’ that can be today referred to as having syntactic and semantic 

errors. 

 

Theoretical Framework 

The theory on which this research work is based is the text-type theory. It is built on the idea 

of equivalence and the emphasis is that the text, rather than word or sentence is deemed the 

appropriate level at which communication is achieved and at which equivalence must be 

sought. Reiss (1977:108-109) summarizes the functional characteristics of text types to 

translation as follows: 

Informative: It is concerned with ‘plain communication of facts’: information, 

knowledge, opinions, etc. The language dimension used to transmit the 

information is logical or referential; the content or ‘topic’ is the main focus of 

the communication.  Expressive: It denotes the ‘creative composition’ wherein 

the author uses the aesthetic dimension of the language. Operative: The 

purpose is to induce behavioural responses, i.e., to appeal to or persuade the 

reader or ‘receiver’ of the text to act in a certain way. Audiomedial: It refers to 

films and visual or spoken advertisements which supplement the other three 

functions with visual images, music, etc. 

 

Reiss also proposes ‘specific translation methods according to text type’. These methods 

according to Munday (2001:76) are as follows: 

 1. The TT of an informative text should transmit the full referential or 

conceptual content of the ST. The translation should be ‘plain prose’ without 

redundancy, but with the use of explication when required. 2. The TT of an 

expressive text should transmit the aesthetic and artistic form of the ST. The 

translation should use the ‘identifying’ method, with the translator adopting the 

stand point of ST author. 3. The TT of an operative text should produce the 

desired response in the TT receiver. The translation should create an equivalent 

effect among TT readers. 4. Audiomedial texts require the ‘supplementary’ 

method, written words with visual images and music. The text type approach 

moves translation theory beyond a consideration of lower linguistic levels, the 

mere words beyond even the effect they create, towards a consideration of the 

communicative purpose of translation. 

 

In summary, the text-type functional theory concerns itself with the systematic process of 

translation which reveals the importance of functions of language in translation. It can therefore 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

127         Ifechelobi & Onuoha 

suffice to opine that text linguistics or the text-type theory deals with texts as communication 

systems. A text can perform the communicative function if the content is the main focus. In 

other words, the main intent of the text could be to communicate facts, information or 

knowledge. Also, the motive could be to focus on creative composition or aesthetics. Then, the 

text could intend to appeal to the readers in order to persuade, dissuade, request or cajole them.  

 

Methodology  

The data used to identify the diction, features of equivalence and functions of the versions of 

the English were derived from randomly selected verses of the synoptic gospels. Textual 

analysis was used vis-à-vis the tenets of the theoretical framework to analyze the selected 

clauses from each of the verses. 

Data Presentation and Analysis 

Analysis of Selected Verses in the Books of Psalms and the Synoptic Gospels for Specific 

Functions (from the King James Version- Formal Evidence, Good News Bible- Functional 

Evidence and The Living Bible (Paraphrase) 

S/N Function of the  

text-type 

                      Examples Approach to 

Translation/ 

equivalence 

1.   (Matthew 

13:1-3) 

Informative 

 

Expressive 

 

Operative 

KJV: The same day went Jesus out of the 

house, and sat by the seaside. 2. And great 

multitudes were gathered together unto him, 

so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the 

whole multitude stood on the shore. 3. And 

he spake many things unto them in parables, 

saying, ‘Behold a sower went forth to sow; 

 

GNB: That same day Jesus left the house and 

went to the lakeside, where he sat down to 

teach. 2. The crowd that gathered round him 

was so large that he got into a boat and sat in 

it while the crowd stood on the shore.3. He 

used parables to tell them many things 

 

LB: Later that same day Jesus left the house 

and went down to the shore, where an 

immense crowd soon gathered. He got into a 

boat and taught from it while the people 

listened on the beach. He used many 

illustrations such as this one in his sermon 

Formal 

 

 

Functional 

 

Paraphrase 

 (Mark 12: 10-

11) 

Informative 

 

Expressive 

Operative 

 

KJV: And have ye not read this scripture; 

the stone which the builders rejected is 

become the head of the corner. 11. This was 

the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our 

eyes? 

GNB: The stone which the builders rejected 

as worthless turned out to be the most 

important of all. 11. This was done by the 

Lord; what a wonderful sight it is! 

LB: Don’t you remember reading this verse 

in the Scriptures? “The Rock the builders 

Formal 

 

Functional 

Paraphrase 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

128         Ifechelobi & Onuoha 

threw away became the cornerstone, the 

most honoured stone in the building. 11. This 

is the Lord’s doing and it is an amazing thing 

to see. 

 (Luke 21: 32-

33) 

Informative 

 

 

Expressive 

 

Operative 

KJV: Verily I say unto you, This generation 

shall not pass away, till all will be fulfilled. 

33. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but 

my words shall not pass away. 

GNB: Remember that all these things will 

take place before the people now living have 

all died. 33. Heaven and earth will pass away, 

but my words will never pass away. 

LB: I solemnly declare to you that when 

these things happen, the end of this age has 

come. And though all heaven and earth shall 

pass away , yet my words remain forever 

true  

Formal 

 

Functional 

 

Paraphrase 

 

Discussion of Findings 

Since it is obvious that the formal correspondence in all the verses used makes use of the 

informative feature as propounded by the text-type theory, it can therefore be concluded that 

the reason for this is that the King James Version of the English Bible intends to translate the 

exact words of the original versions of the Bible, whose intent was to inform the readers. 

Additionally, subsequent versions that intended to avoid the word-for-word translations ended 

up with stylistic and more didactic features which resulted from the sentence-for-sentence 

translations and paraphrase. Thus, the expressive features and operative features of the 

functional and paraphrase correspondence or evidence became obvious. Also, a closer look at 

the Good News version, which is also in the same category with the NIV (as functional 

correspondences) indicates that, although they have a lot of similarities, there are still evidence 

of subtle disparities in both word arrangements and meanings of the excepts from the two 

versions. NIV (Psalm 23: 2-3) reads: “He makes me lie down in green pastures, he leads me 

besides quiet waters, he restores my soul. He guides me in paths of righteousness for his name’s 

sake.” The same excerpt in Good News Bible reads:“He lets me rest in fields of green grass 

and leads me to quiet pools of fresh water. He gives me new strength. He guides me in the right 

paths, as he has promised.” 

 

Conclusion 

In a bid to translate the Bible into English, various translations which are today known as 

versions have emerged in their numbers.The aim of a translation is usually to create a text in 

another language that is basically the same style as the original one. However, the different 

structures of languages make this a herculean task and almost impossible to produce the exact 

translations. This is evident in the discrepancies in the diction and features of the different 

versions of the English Bible. 

 

 

Works Cited 

Algeo, J. The Origins and Development of the English Language. Boston: Wadsworth  

Cengage Learning, 2010. 

Baclay, N.M. The Old Way and the New Way. Bible Translation. Retrieved from  

doi.org/10.1177/026009437702800201, 1977. 



AJELLS: Awka Journal of English Language and Literary Studies, Vol. 8 No. 2, 2021 
 
 

129         Ifechelobi & Onuoha 

Daniell. D. The Bible in English: Its history and Influence. New Haven: Yale University  

Press, 2003 

Hughes, B. Translation philosophies: How to Express God’s Word in Today’s Language. 

Notes on Translation. 8:2, 19-29., 1999 

Metzger, B. M. The Bible in Translation. Michigan: Baker Academic, 2001 

Munday, J.  Introducing Translational Studies: Theories and Applications. London:  

Routledge, 2001. 

New International Version. Zondervan Publishing House, 1985 

Reiss, K.   Text-types, Translation Types and Translation Assessment. In Chesterman,  

Andrew. (Ed). Readings in Translation Theory. Finland: Finn Lectura. Ab., 

1977 

Scorgie, G. G., Strauss, M. L. and Voth, S. M. The Challenge of Bible Translation.  

Michigan: Zondervan Publishers, 2003 

Spackman, B. Why Bible Translations Differ: A Guide for the Perplexed. In Religious 

Educator: 

Perspectives on the Restored Gospel. Volume 15 number 1, Article 5, 30-

65.https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/re/vol 15, 2014 

The Holy Bible: King James Version. Zondervan Publishing House, 1769 

The Living Bible. Tyndale House Publishers, Inc. Illinois, 1976 

The United Bible Societies. Good News Bible. American Bible Societies. 1994. 

Wendland, E.R. and Noss, P. Bible Translation. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2012. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


