Thinking Out Loud

August 28, 2014

MEV Bible Marketing is Confusing, Misleading

Another new Bible translation hits the bookstores next month. Yes, I know what you’re thinking; do we really need another translation? Personally, while I love the variety of options available and feel they bring much clarity and understanding, I would say there are dangers in over-saturating — or more accurately over-fragmenting — the market.

MEVThe MEV is the latest arrival. It stands for Modern English Version, but that name must somewhat frustrate the creators, who wish all the KJV-related names — NKJV, KJV21, etc — weren’t already taken; as this is the market they are going after. They describe it as “the most modern of the KJV.” What does that even mean?

There’s nothing wrong with seeking to present a new translation to people who have been stuck on a particular version for a long period. The CEB (Common English Bible) has been marketed to the same demographic that currently uses the NRSV. I have no problem with that. But the people stuck on the KJV are really, really stuck. I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

Anyway, amid the hype was six consecutive pages in the September, 2014 issue of Christian Retailing magazine, a book industry trade publication. The first two were really an advertisement, and the next four pages were an attempt to convince bookstore owners and managers to buy in, both literally and figuratively, to the MEV.

I should say here that Christian Retailing is owned by the same company producing the MEV, Strang Publishing. This conflict-of-interest is rather old news however, as the company’s books, most published under the Charisma House banner, always get inordinate space in the trade magazine. I suppose any of us would do the same.

Still, the four page article contains a number of assumptions that lead to a type of flawed logic as to where the MEV fits in and how retailers can expect it to perform in term of sales.

The MEV is a direct successor to the KJV

The marketing strategy here is clearly to target conservative Evangelicals and convince them it’s time for a change, so you can’t read much about the MEV without encountering the words “King James Version” in the advertising. The home page refers to the Committee on Bible Translation (CBT) as producing it, but that group’s website clearly indicates their association is with the NIV. The MEV landing page also says that the group used the KJV as its base manuscript. Does that mean it was not translated directly from original languages? If that’s the case, this is really no different a situation than Ken Taylor restating passages from the American Standard Version to read to his kids at night, and thereby creating The Living Bible which was roundly dismissed by many Evangelicals as a ‘paraphrase’ a term used derisively with no direct equivalent in linguistics.  (If you restate something written to make it understood by another group, you are in effect translating.) 

One writer took it this far:

This fall, the torch of the KJV tradition will be passed to a new version of the Bible: the Modern English Version (MEV). 

Obviously, it makes sense to him.

First, I would argue that each and every English translation since 1611 (or if you prefer, 1789) is a successor to the KJV.

Second, I think that, in the past 400 years, if anyone deserves the credit for having worked within the KJV tradition, that would belong to The Voice Bible. Think about it:

  • high respect for the KJV translation process (see The Story of The Voice, Thomas Nelson)
  • similar use of poets, playwriters and songwriters (i.e. stylists) working alongside theologians
  • use of italics to represent short phrases added to the text to bring about clarity of meaning

Appeal to the popularity of the KJV

Three times the article refers to an American Bible Society study that states that 34% of “church leaders” favor the KJV. Church leaders over age 60? Church leaders in rural churches in the deep south? (I am setting aside discussion of the references to “America” in the article; the publishers apparently had no vision for this reaching outside the 50 States.)

This also begs the question, if the KJV is that popular then what hope does anyone have in breaking into that market? Or to put it another way, if the KJV is adequately serving the needs of over a third of U.S. church leaders, for a 400-year-old publication, it’s doing really, really well. So why bother?

The enemy we face

Several times the article talked about the decline in morals, church attendance, etc., and the increase of skepticism. This is a common approach used mostly by televangelists. We identify a common enemy and then we stress the need to do something. If we can only get this particular Bible into the hands of the unsaved and unchurched, then we can reverse the trend toward agnosticism and atheism, right?

In a way, this is a form of checkbook evangelism. Social decay is all around us, therefore we need to print more Bibles. Wait; no, we need to print new Bibles. And maybe you personally don’t need this, but obviously you need to support what’s happening.

Recognition of the challenge faced in introducing the translation

The article stressed to booksellers that this isn’t a commodity that can simply be put on a shelf and expected to perform. It derided the “point and shoot” mentality that has taken over Bible departments, where if you want a particular version, you’re simply told, ‘Aisle three, left side, bottom shelf.’

The publishers are clearly looking for more engagement with customers on the part of the bookstore staff on the front lines. The industry term for this is hand-selling. It means basically, ‘This is going to take some extra effort on your part to get this product noticed and understood.’

But this comes at a time when stores face mammoth challenges to stay afloat. The trend is toward self-serve, and favors products which outline their purpose and features in the blurb on the back. Furthermore, I would argue that Charisma Media is asking retailers to do what every single book, Bible and music publisher would like to see. They all want their products to get more attention.

Show me the money

As you can expect, the article much hypes the MEV’s potential, but at the end of the day, I’m not sure much is gained. For example:

MEV passage comparison - John 3 16I really can’t judge the motivation of the creators of this project, but I do know it’s a matter of pride among Christian publishing conglomerates to have a Bible in their stable of products. Tyndale has the NLT, NavPress has The Message, Baker Books has God’s Word, Crossway has the ESV, Broadman has the HCSB, and HarperCollins Christian Publishing has the NIV, NKJV, NCV and The Voice

A reader comment at one article looked at this less in terms of publishing companies and more in terms of denominations:

…Now, after reading who is behind this particular translation I’m a little concerned. Are we getting to the point where every domination will now have their very own bible translation such as, HCSB for Baptists and now MEV for the Assemblies of God?

Either way, I guess that’s what you do.

Now we wait to see if the marketing works out the way Strang/Charisma is hoping.  Time will tell.

7 Comments »

  1. My personal translation of choice is the ESV (English Standard Version) but Paul already knows that. The ESV goes to great lengths – in the preface, on the box and at their website – to promote itself as the most modern translation in the KJV “tradition.” The dirty little secret of the ESV is that it at its heart it is an update of the RSV text. Crossway purchased the rights to the RSV text and the first ESV Bible published was 94% RSV. Only 6% of the verses had been changed.

    I believe the ESV to be the Bible translated into the English language we currently use. With little announcement and no change in designation (such as New ESV) an updated version began publication in 2011. I am mildly frustrated by a verse or two in the newest one and will keep using my 2004 copy for as long as it holds together. For instance Isaiah 53:5 reads “by his wounds we are healed” as opposed to “by his stripes we are healed.” Is the translation accurate and in the language we speak today? Yes. But it’s a little less KJV than it was before.

    Comment by Clark Bunch — August 28, 2014 @ 8:44 am

  2. I think the point your missing is that this modern version is not based off of the Alexandrian text like all the rest. With the exception of the NKJV , which is I presume the version it refers to as being 30 yrs old. I am interested in checking it out for that fact alone . Many use the KJV because they don’t like the Alexandrian versions, now they will have a more modern choice.

    Comment by J Gefroh — September 7, 2014 @ 1:11 pm

    • You nailed it! What is so often missing in reviews of modern translations is the source text for the NT. There have been tremendous efforts to sell the public on the Alexandrian text since Westcott & Hort that one has to wonder what the differences really are. It requires close reading to compare and see for yourself. The fruit of the versions, what they print in English, is where one will see the differences.

      Comment by Lee Fouts — October 18, 2014 @ 4:52 pm

  3. I’m typically KJV only because it is based on the Textus Receptus, I actually consider myself Textus Receptus and Masoretic Text partial. I don’t trust scripture that’s been toyed with in Egypt and when I compare the omissions and rewording coming out of Egypt with the Textus Receptus the differences are significant enough for me to stick with Textus Receptus based scriptures since they agree with my beliefs and perceptions of the nature and character of God. I like NKJV, but think that it misses a lot in nuances of words. I am very picky about English meanings and sentence structure. The MEV is really quite impressive to me. The one thing I really love is the honor and respect given to the trinity by capitalizing He, Him, etc. when referring to deity. There are some wordings in the MEV that make me scratch my head and ask why’d they go there? In Isaiah 24:3 the MEV chose to use the word despoiled while the KJV used spoiled. Despoiled might be more accurate although I don’t get that from the Hebrew word bazaz, but why muddy the waters by confusing your market KJV only folk by choosing haughtier words that don’t add to the meaning and force people to pull out a dictionary? Wasn’t the intention of all these modern versions to entice KJV users to a version where they could finally keep the dictionary on the shelf where it belongs? Now if they’d only market one in a Camouflage Waterproof Bible for my SHTF bug out bag then I’d have to buy it (I’d rather have something more readable when witnessing during the tribulation after Isaiah 24 happens).

    Comment by Willie — June 30, 2015 @ 11:32 pm

  4. Since the NKJV exists and has been around since 1982 and is easily available from a number of publishers, I am at a loss for any rational reason for the MEV, except of course the logic of money. The KJV is still an excellent translation and perhaps the most literal and is certainly the common English Bible.. The NKJV updates the language while staying very close to the KJV. Just who needs the MEV except its publisher? I will not stock it in my bookstore.
    Stephen Anderson
    His Place Christian Bookstore

    Comment by pastor Stephen Anderson — August 17, 2015 @ 11:24 am

    • I do not see any point for the existence of MEV? WHEN I go through MEV it is more or less the same as reading my NKJV?
      I cannot understand when someone says he prefer MEV above NKJV. That sounds a little weird to me. I think such people just hate the word KING JAMES (I may be wrong). To me by far the best of all modern translation of the ENGLISH BIBLE is the ONE AND ONLY- THE NEW KING JAMES BIBLE.

      Comment by Kamlalmuan Guite — October 29, 2015 @ 2:25 pm

  5. I prefer the Received text and use the NKJ for a variety of reasons. However I really like the MEV for easy reading and also the text it comes from. I personally give it an A+.
    I have many translation including those from the Alexandrian line and use them for study but prefer the TR. The MEV is another step forward.

    Comment by Stanley F. Fox (retired pastor) — September 22, 2016 @ 3:56 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Your Response (Value-Added Comments Only)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: