As part of the agreement when the British scholars incorporated Americans in the effort to translate the English Revised Version, the Americans were to wait forty years before initiating a version or revision of their own.

The waiting period expired in 1901 and a new effort was started with some of the members of the original British work.

Some of the suggestions made by the Americans who were part of the translating work for the English Revised Version were rejected at the time, but were available for use when the forty-year waiting period was up and the surviving Americans could employ them in the 1901 American Standard Version.

The Americans used shorter paragraphs and put blank spaces between major divisions. Verse divisions were now placed in the text, whereas they'd previously been in the margin. Terminology, too changed: "Holy Ghost" universally became "Holy Spirit," no plural "devils" was used, "demons" replacing them; "testament" was replaced by "covenant," and archaic forms were replaced, e.g., "holpen" gave way to the familiar "helped," "know" took the place of "wot" or "wist." Likewise, it would be confusing to use the universal "corn" of the English (any kind of grain) when maize is "corn" to Americans. And Americans stumble on "charger" when used for a plate when it means a horse in the New World!

The American Standard Version became very popular in the United States as a quite literal, accurate rendering -- quite acceptable to seminaries and most churches. Meanwhile, the English preferred their English Standard Version over the ASV.

The New American Standard Version

Revised Standard Version (1952) and the New American Standard Version (1971) were based on the 1901 version. It was felt by the publishers (Lockman Foundation) that the American Standard Version, which had been popular early on, and which was a very accurate Bible, was now disappearing from the sales charts. In order to provide a fresh look to this monumental work, a re-work was needed.

Thirty-two scholars, all committed to the inspiration of scripture, were instructed to adhere as closely as possible to the original languages and to provide as literal a translation as possible while working toward a text that read with fluidity and modern tone. It didn't quite hit the mark -- some critics felt it was too literal while others felt it not quite current in wording. In addition, the New Testament was supposed to follow the Nestle Greek, but actually tended more toward the Textus Receptus and it makes a fair study Bible but not a good one for public or casual reading.