The Holy Bible: Young’s Literal Translation (YLT)

Annotated History & Bibliography

Read Young’s Literal Translation

Overview

Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) is a nineteenth-century English Bible created by the Scottish scholar-publisher Robert Young (1822–1888), compiler of Young’s Analytical Concordance. First published in 1862, and revised in 1887 and again posthumously in 1898, YLT aims to reproduce Hebrew and Greek forms as directly as English allows—so that readers who love the Scriptures can see the underlying grammar and idioms more plainly.1 In practice this means unusually close renderings, frequent use of the historical present in narrative, and deliberate consistency in vocabulary across contexts.2

Origins & Aims

Young conceived his Bible as a companion for serious study, not a replacement for common church Bibles. In his prefaces, he describes two basic approaches to translation: either make the ancient writer sound like a modern English author, or “transport” the reader toward the ancient world’s usage and idiom. YLT chooses the latter, favoring formal correspondence (word-for-word where feasible) and grammatical transparency so that, as far as possible, the reader may “think as [the inspired writer] does.”3 His revision policy was conservative: the 1887 and 1898 editions refine wording and uniformity, but do not alter the underlying principles.4

Textual Basis & Translation Character

For the Old Testament YLT follows the traditional Masoretic Text; for the New Testament Young states that he follows the Received Text (Textus Receptus), not as a claim of perfection but because textual criticism and translation are distinct tasks. Altering the base text without a full argument leaves the reader unsure what has been translated—so he largely keeps the base text stable and focuses on exact rendering.5

Distinctive Features

1) Historical present. YLT frequently uses present tense where many English Bibles use past (“God saith” rather than “God said”), reflecting Hebrew aspect and narrative style. Young argues that mishandling tense or articles in translation undermines the practical value of verbal inspiration, so he pursues a more exact correspondence.6

2) Consistent terminology. Young deliberately reduces the range of English equivalents for common words (e.g., Hebrew nathan, “to give/put/set”) so that readers can trace usage across passages without a lexicon. This yields a “study-friendly” surface even if the English sometimes feels stiff.7

3) Divine Name. The 1898 YLT consistently renders the Tetragrammaton as “Jehovah” in the Old Testament (e.g., Gen 2:4), departing from the conventional small-caps “LORD.”8

Reception—Strengths & Limitations

Students and pastors have long valued YLT as a tool for close study because it lets them see when the original text shifts tenses or repeats key words. Reviewers also note that this literalism can produce unnatural English in places. That is a trade-off Young accepts in order to keep the contours of the source languages visible for readers.9

Legacy & Modern Use

YLT remains widely reprinted and available online. The text is public domain in the United States, so digital projects and study tools often include it; some contemporary efforts have produced updated “literal” revisions in YLT’s spirit while modernizing diction.10 For devotion and teaching, many Christians today read YLT alongside their primary translation, where it can prompt fruitful questions about wording and structure.

Annotated Bibliography (Chicago style)

1) “Preface to the Revised Edition” (1898), in Young’s Literal Translation. Primary source explaining Young’s beliefs about inspiration and exact rendering (tenses, articles) and why he follows the Received Text; essential for grasping the translation’s aims.5

2) “Preface to the First Edition” (1862), in Young’s Literal Translation. Lays out the “transport the reader” philosophy and the drive for uniform vocabulary; invaluable for understanding YLT’s method and its intended use alongside common versions.3

3) Bible-Researcher.com, “Young’s Literal Translation.” Scholarly overview emphasizing YLT’s close reproduction of Hebrew/Greek idioms, its TR base for the NT, and an honest note about its sometimes “highly unnatural” English—useful for balanced evaluation.9

4) Internet Archive, 1898 Revised YLT. Digitized third edition with paratexts; confirms the posthumous 1898 revision and offers page-images of the prefaces and publisher’s note.4

5) Encyclopedic summaries (Robert Young bio; YLT entry). Useful for quick reference to dates (1862/1887/1898), Young’s role as concordance compiler, and broad impact in English Bible history.1

6) Public-domain status & modern access. Concise notes indicating U.S. public-domain status and common digital availability for study tools.10

Footnotes

  1. On Robert Young’s life and works (including the concordance) and YLT publication dates (1862; 1887; 1898), see concise encyclopedic entries and biographical notes. ↩
  2. YLT’s aim to reproduce Hebrew/Greek idioms and a very literal style is summarized in standard references on English Bible versions. ↩
  3. Preface to the First Edition explains the goal of “transporting” the reader to the writers’ idiom and the need for a strictly literal rendering to accomplish that aim. ↩
  4. The 1898 publisher’s note describes a “fresh revision” after the 1887 edition, maintaining the same principles while improving accuracy on the chosen lines. ↩
  5. In the 1898 preface Young states he follows the “Received Text” for the NT, distinguishing translation from textual criticism and arguing that changing the base text obscures what is actually translated. ↩
  6. The revised preface warns that mismatching tenses and articles in English weakens the practical value of verbal inspiration; hence YLT’s frequent historical present in narrative. ↩
  7. Young’s uniform-rendering principle (e.g., limiting the English equivalents for frequent verbs) is spelled out in the first edition preface. ↩
  8. The 1898 YLT renders the divine name as “Jehovah” throughout the OT (see, e.g., YLT at Gen 2:4); earlier editions vary. ↩
  9. Balanced assessments note the value of YLT for close study and also its sometimes “highly unnatural” English due to literalism. ↩
  10. On public-domain status and modern availability, see contemporary reference summaries and hosting platforms. ↩