There is a lot of debate about translations these days. In particular, what translation should be used and how translation work should be done. There are many who hold exclusively to the use of the King James version. One of the things I find ironic is that often the views of the translators of the King James version are very different from the views of the people who strongly advocate for their translation.
Cards on the table, I’m not KJVO. I’m also not anti-KJV. I preach and teach from the King James every week at the church where I’m on pastoral staff. I’m simply not convinced it is the only English translation we can or should use. I say all this as a preface so that I can say this: I really like the philosophy of translation put forward by the translators of the KJV. In their lengthy introduction to the 1611 King James entitled “The Translators to the Readers,” they lay out their thinking on translating the Bible. What they have written there is good. And I mean, really, really good!
Ironically, many of the people who most ardently love the King James Version think about it in ways the translators themselves explicitly rejected. So I want to introduce everyone to this important document in a fresh way. I want to pick up several points they make that I think are spot on, and that we all would benefit from reading. To be clear, this is not the entirety of the preface, which I encourage everyone to read in its entirety. I’m not doing the whole document because it is honestly pretty long, but these snippets should give you an idea of what it says.
One of the first things you will realize as you read through the “Translators to the Readers” is that it’s very hard to understand. That is because most people do not actually read the 1611 KJV (some do, but again, most do not). Unless your Bible clearly says it is the 1611 KJV, it is probably actually a version of the King James that was revised in 1769. “The Translators to the Readers” has not been similarly updated, so some of the language will be challenging. I will be including glosses of words and brief explanations in brackets so that modern day readers can follow along, and then afterward I will give a modernized reading [think the Message] in italics and conclude each section by making some comments. The version of the preface that I am using was one of the top Google results I came across, and it does seem that the spelling has been updated.
The Translators Were Saddened that Those Revising Previous Translations Were Treated with Suspicion Rather than Gratitude
The preface to the Translators to the Readers begins with the following:
“Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything ourselves, or revising that which hath been laboured by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold entertainment in the world.”
When we set out to do a good thing by doing our own translation or updating an old one, people should be thankful for the work we do, but instead we get a cold shoulder.
“It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation [hatred] instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil [petty objection] to enter, (and cavil, if it do not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be misconstrued, and in danger to be condemned.”
People are suspicious and hateful toward the new thing, rather than being thankful and loving. If there is any opening for petty criticism at all (and if there isn’t an opening, people will just make one) then that mistake will be twisted so people can condemn us.
“This will easily be granted by as many as know story, or have any experience.”
Everybody knows this is true.
“For, was there ever any thing projected, that savoured any way of newness or renewing, but the same endured many a storm of gainsaying [harsh criticism], or opposition?”
People always hate new things and harshly criticize them.
Their defense goes on from here. Honestly, much of this language, if it wasn’t written in the king’s English, sounds like a defense that could be written for the NASB or the ESV yesterday. You don’t have to use a new translation just because it’s a new translation. But according to the translators of the KJV, showing hostility to people trying to do a good thing doesn’t really make sense, yet sadly that is the norm.
The Translators Honestly Acknowledged that There Were Some Areas of Their Translation Where They Weren’t Sure About
“Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point.”
Some people don’t think we should put in marginal notes where we are uncertain about what the translation should be, because that might shake the faith of some. We disagree.
“For though, whatsoever things are necessary are manifest, as S. Chrysostom saith, and as S. Augustine, In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity.”
Chrysostom and Augustine both rightly teach that the necessary and important things of Scripture are clear – things having to do with faith, hope, and love.
“Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled [hid under a pretense], that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God’s spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment,”
Yet at the same time we can’t pretend there aren’t challenging parts of our translation. We must admit that in order to sharpen our thinking, to humble arrogant people, to make us depend on God’s Spirit through prayer, and to make us depend on one another, God was pleased to leave difficult words and sentences on non-doctrinal matters in the text of Scripture.
“that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain.”
We agree with Augustine (although technically he was talking about something slightly different) that this means we should be honest and humble about areas that we have doubts rather than argue on the points we aren’t sure about.
“There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen [helped] by conference of places.”
Some of the Greek and Hebrew words we translate appear only once, so we can’t really look to other passages to give us an idea what they mean.
“Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint.”
When it comes to technical words, like animal names or jewels, even the Jews who translated different editions of the Greek Old Testament disagreed with one another. Jerome pointed out that sometimes it seems they translated something, not because they knew what it was, but because they had to write something!
“Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?”
So, if there’s so much debate and no one really knows for certain on these questionable issues, shouldn’t we as translators be honest about by putting a note in the margin that so that no one goes out on a limb and makes a big deal about something in the text we aren’t confident about?
“For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.”
Just as it is sinfully skeptical to doubt the things in Scripture that are clear, isn’t it presumptuously wrong to be dogmatic where God’s Spirit left things questionable?
“Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”
Augustine said that having many translations is helpful for learning what Scriptures mean. In the same way, we think having marginal notes is good and even necessary.
To be dogmatic about individual words and phrases in the KJV is ironic, since the translators themselves openly acknowledge that there were areas where they weren’t sure. Far from shaking their faith, though, these men viewed this as part of the plan of a sovereign God. God could have made everything easy and clear in translation. He didn’t, the translators believed, to teach them important lessons, especially humility. With that in mind, the translators sought to be humble in their translation by including marginal notes if they just weren’t sure one way or the other.
The Translators Saw Their Work as Building on What Went Before, Rather Than Upending It
“Many men’s mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the Translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of Translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment:”
A lot of people have been talking (and keeping talking) about our translation wondering why we are even doing this work in the first place:
“Hath the Church been deceived, say they, all this while? Hath her sweet bread been mingled with leaven, her silver with dross, her wine with water, her milk with lime? … We hoped that we had been in the right way, that we had had the Oracles of God delivered unto us, and that though all the world had cause to be offended and to complain, yet that we had none.”
[Quoting now their critics] Have Christians been deceived this whole time? Have they been reading their Bibles thinking it was the sincere Word of God when actually it was corrupted? And here this whole time we thought we had the Oracles of God…
“Also the adversaries of Judah and Jerusalem, like Sanballat in Nehemiah, mock, as we hear, both at the work and workmen, saying; What do these weak Jews, etc. will they make the stones whole again out of the heaps of dust which are burnt? although they build, yet if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stony wall. [Neh 4:3]”
The attacks we have been receiving for making this new translation feel a lot like the attacks that Nehemiah faced when trying to rebuild the walls.
“Was their Translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people?”
Why are they updating the translation if the previous ones were supposedly good enough? Doesn’t the fact you are updating the translation mean it wasn’t good enough?
“[Quoting Jerome] Do we condemn the ancient? In no case: but after the endeavors of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God.”
Are we saying those who went before were bad or are wrong? No, instead we see ourselves as carrying on in the same task that they were. We are seeking to be faithful just as they were faithful.
When the King James Version was translated, the translators knew they were going to take heat, especially from Catholics. These attacks asked why a new translation was needed. If previous translations were God’s Word, why make another translation? Didn’t that imply that previous translations were bad? “No,” the translators replied. Instead, they saw themselves as building on what came before, not as upending it. The KJV translators saw themselves as part of a chain of careful scholars throughout the ages, men like Jerome, Chrysostom, and Augustine, who studied and translated the Bible before them. They didn’t see themselves as rejecting that work, but continuing it.
The Translators Thought that Poorly Done Translations Were Still God’s Word
“Now to the latter [i.e., Roman Catholics] we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [poorest] translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.”
To the Catholics who say that anything we produce will be so low-quality we shouldn’t even begin, we respond that any translation of the Bible undertaken by careful scholars such as ourselves, no matter how bad it may be, contains the word of God. No, that doesn’t go far enough. It is the word of God.
“As the King’s speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere.”
If the King gives a speech, and it gets translated into several different languages, those translations are all the King’s speech, even if some of those translators do a better job than others.
“For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. [A Latin phrase that means “When many things shine in a poem, I am not offended by a few flaws”] A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For what ever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?”
If something is overall well done, a few flaws don’t ruin all of it. A virtuous person with a few personal flaws can still be thought of as virtuous. A handsome man might have warts, freckles, or scars, but that doesn’t suddenly make him ugly. If this is so, then there is no reason we should say that a translation isn’t really God’s Word. After all, nothing that man produces is perfect, other than that which came from the Spirit-inspired apostles.
“The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the Word translated, did no less than despite the spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express.”
Catholics therefore who burn translations of God’s Word because they think they are unworthy are really defying the Holy Spirit, from whom Scripture originally proceeded, and whose meaning was expressed in that translation, even if imperfectly.
The translators of the King James believed that any translation of God’s Word, even if it had mistakes, was still the Word of God. They believed this so strongly that they warned Catholics who were burning English translations, ostensibly because they were corruptions of God’s Word, that their behavior was actually an attack on the Holy Spirit Himself. Now, this doesn’t mean all translations are equally good, or that you can never disagree with a translation. But it does mean that there should be a respect for God’s Word, even in translation. Why? Because even problematic translations are still the Word of God.
Now, to be fair, none of this means that the translators of the KJV would have been fans of what is now called the critical text. We honestly don’t know what they would have thought of it. While a few of these manuscripts were kicking around by 1611, there were not many of them and they were not well-known. But I think I can say with confidence that they would not have looked at translations from those manuscripts as corrupted Bibles. I think if nothing else they would see new translations as “Zeal to promote the common good,” and I think they would give the “respect and esteem” they wished others had given them.
Discover more from Proclaim & Defend
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
