Bible Translations
As noted, St. Jerome translated the Bible from Greek into Latin beginning in 382 AD. His version, known as the Latin Vulgate, was the standard text for the Bible in Europe for the next 1200 years.
There has always been a desire to read the Bible in one's own language, the language we all speak on a daily basis. This is known as the vernacular. Translations of parts of the Bible, mainly the Psalms, are known from as early as the tenth century.
There is a perception that the Church tried to keep laypeople from reading the Bible themselves. The church did resist attempts at translation into the vernacular. The concern seems to have been more a concern over possible errors of translation, which could lead to errors of understanding, rather than making the Bible inaccessible. Most educated people could at least read or understand Latin, which meant they could read the Vulgate. Individuals were allowed, even encouraged, to own prayerbooks that included the Psalms and other parts of the Bible. The church also permitted scholars and priests to add comments in the vernacular that helped explain a text. These are called glosses. Glosses would be added in the margins or between the lines of Latin. Bibles would be copied complete with gloss. 
But the drive to read the Bible in one's native tongue persisted. England has been notably tenacious in wanting a vernacular version of the Bible. The Venerable Bede, writing in the early 8th century, describes a ruler telling Bible stories in Anglo-Saxon. Bede himself translated the Gospel of John into Anglo-Saxon. The English Church copied Bibles with glosses regularly. One notable Psalter (book of Psalms) from 1160 contained three sets of text: the Roman Vulgate with an ordinary gloss in Latin, a Roman text with a gloss in Old English, and a Hebrew text with a gloss in Old French.
In the fourteenth century John Wycliffe translated the entire Bible into English and was executed for it. This was the only Bible in English for 150 years. Tyndale translated the New Testament from a Greek text in 1526, but had to have it published in Europe rather than England. A friend published the full text of Tyndale's translation after Tyndale returned to England and was executed. This became a popular English version.
During the reign of Queen mary, when England was Catholic, all translation of the Bible into English had to stop or move out of the country. Another English translation was made in Geneva. The Geneva Bible was very popular. The two verions competed for popularity and use for a number of years.
In the early seventeenth century, scholars and churchmen appealed to the King, James I, to help them create a new version of the Bible that would become a standard version, and stop the arguing over which version was better. Fifty four scholars took 5 years to work out the translation, including rewriting phrases to make it read better from the lectern (if such changes did not interfere with the sense of  the translation). The King James Version, or KJV, was published in 1611, and became the standard version of the Bible for centuries. It is still widely read for the beauty of its language if nothing else.
In the nineteenth century, scholars agreed that there was a need to revise the text to make it more modern and comprehensible. The revision began in 1870 and was completed by 1885. This is known as the Revised Standard Version. A newer revision in the twentieth century is the New Revised Standard.
The Catholic Church felt the need to create an English translation for Catholics, as an acceptable alternative to the King James Version. This was known as the Rheims-Douai Bible. A newer version of the Catholoic Bible (which includes the Apocrypha in the Old Testament) is the Jerusalem or New Jerusalem Bible. This has the distinction of being the last translation, so far, undertaken by a single individual.
Since 1611, there have been no less than 250 translations of the Bible into English.
The New International Version has won wide appeal because the text is so easy to read and understand. The NIV and the New Revised Standard are written in standard English and can be understood by most people with a grade-school education. There are a number of translations that put the Bible into specific types of contemporary English, but they often try too hard to be contemporary and thereby miss the deeper meaning.
The beauty of the language of the King James Version has never been duplicated. Even though many words are obsolete, and the phrasing is often old-fashioned, but the phrases ring in the ear. It was designed to be read, and it reads beautifully. It's also often easier to memorize, because of the rhythm of the phrasing.
So my personal recommendation, for what it's worth, is to read a good modern translation, like the NIV or New Revised Standard, for the sense. Personally, I prefer the Jerusalem Bible. But read the King James for the sheer beauty of the language. Compare the same verses from the KJV, and two contemporary translations: "yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me....Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life, and I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever." The Jerusalem Bible: "Though I pass through a gloomy valley, I fear no harm; beside me your rod and staff are there to hearten me......Ah, how goodness and kindness pursue me every day of my life; my home, the house of Yahweh, as long as I live!" The same two verses from a colloquial English version: "Even when the way goes through Death Valley, I'm not afraid when you walk at my side. Your trusty shepherd's crook makes me feel secure....Your beauty and love chase after me every day of my life. I'm back home in the house of God for the rest of my life." (The Message, Eugene H. Peterson) (Psalm 23, Verses 4 and 6)
I recently had the experience of typing out a Psalm that I've heard or read before, but certainly had never memorized or paid particular attention to. I used a modern text to copy, but consulted the King James Version just to see how it sounded. In spite of only looking it over quickly once, the KJV stuck with me, almost in its entirety, for several days. The modern version did not, even though I'd read it through several times and even copied it out. It's the difference between memorizing the lyrics of a song, which one can do almost effortlessly, and trying to remember a written paragraph.
However, it's also important to understand what the Bible passage really means in one's own language. This is probably more important in trying to decipher medieval symbolism, than hearing the beauty of the language. And it's important to recognize the fact that many of us unconcsciously beleive that the King James Version is THE Bible, when it's a relatively modern translation. When a medieval Christian heard Bible stories from the pulpit, they heard them in their own language, and probably translated into terms they understood very well relative to themselves and their own immediate experience. The Bible was either in Latin, a foreign but often-heard and familiar sounding language, or it was being explained verbally or glossed in one's everyday tongue. It was not couched in obsolete vernacular, as the KJV is to us today.
As a purely personal observation, I had a revelation in Wells Cathedral years ago. I was looking at a carved panel of strawberries, and was struck by both its charm and its awkwardness. It was recognizable, but almost cartoon-like, and not at all realistic. But for some reason, it struck me with great force that for the people who made it, and for the people it was made for, this art was REAL. It was more real to them than photographic realism is to us. That carving of strawberries contained the essence of strawberriness in a way a photograph of berries could never have. And, unknown to me at the time of my visit to Wells, the Gothic period saw the rise of a philosophy called neo-Platonism, that did indeed see material objects as mere reflections of a Ideal. A table is merely a dim reflection of the essential Ideal of tableness that exists in the universe, separate from all tables that exist.
So when we look at medieval art, we need to remember that for the artist and for the viewer at the time, art was not about self-expression or fashion or even social standing. Art was one way of depicting an ultimate reality. When Abbot Suger (who founded the Gothic style at St. Denis north of Paris) was challenged by another churchman about the use of gold and precious stones to decorate his church, he wrote that seeing these beautiful material objects put him in mind of immaterial things.  (Cited in Erwin Panofsky, Meaning in the Visual Arts)
Liturgy
History of the Bible
Bible Main Page
Symbolism Page
Olwen's Home Page
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1