“The Levites caused the people to understand the law: and the people
stood in their place. So they read in
the book in the law distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to
understand the reading.”
(Nehemiah 8:7-8)
 |
| Dr. Rick Flanders |
Something was missed by the
church-going public when ecclesiastical authorities, biblical scholars, and
religious publishing houses began producing new English versions of the Bible
more than a century ago. That important
factor was the change in the text of the scripture from the traditional wording
that has been followed for centuries.
The new Bibles did not just give us updated language; they gave us
(beginning with the Revised Version of 1886) significantly altered readings,
re-wording passages in the original, as well as re-translating them into more
current English. So the Lord’s Prayer,
both in Matthew 6 and Luke 11, was shortened.
The end of the book of Mark, which includes one statement of the Great
Commission (Mark 16:15), is removed from credibility. The classic story of the woman taken in
adultery (John 7:53 through 8:11) is questioned as to its validity. And hundreds of other verses are omitted or
radically altered. So the new Bibles
were significantly different from the old Bible.
It wasn’t surprising then when a
grassroots challenge to the new Bibles rose up about fifty years ago. The surprise was that there had not been a
significant protest over the text issue from the Bible-reading public much
sooner. But thousands of books,
pamphlets, and articles have been published in the past half-century in defense
of the King James Bible and in protest against the textual changes in the new
Bibles. It has been proven that the new
texts are considerably different from the traditional text, that the changes
are not justified by the evidence, that the Bible promises that its wording
will be preserved providentially, and that a Christian’s approach to the
Biblical text will have important affects upon his life. The defense of the old Bible has been a good
thing overall.
The “King James Version” issue is
valid. There is good reason for churches
to keep the old Bible for preaching, teaching, memorization, and
quotation. There are also valid reasons
for individual Christians and families to maintain the King James Version as
their standard English Bible. However,
in the conflict, many foolish and harmful things have been said on the right
side. This development has complicated
the discussion and done some damage to the Cause. The false impression has been given by some
unwise statements that the exact English wording of the Authorized (King James)
Version was dictated from heaven during production of the translation in the
early seventeenth century.
We know that God has promised to
preserve the very wording of the Bible books, which He gave to the prophets in
the original languages. Every Christian
should remember the New Testament’s teaching about how the scripture was
inspired. Read again Matthew 4:3-4,
First Corinthians 7-13, Second Timothy 3:15-17; and Second Peter 1:20-21. The Bible came from God, word for word,
through human writers, and is the infallible Word of God. In the languages of the prophets it is
divinely inspired, and in any accurate rendering into another language it is
also inspired. Certainly He
providentially assisted the good men who worked at translating these words into
English, but the promises of exact and direct inspiration cannot reasonably be
applied to every translation choice and word spelling of the English version. Jesus said, “Till heaven and earth pass, one
jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”
(Matthew 5:18). That, of course, is one
of the great promises of the divine preservation of scripture, and it applies
obviously to the words in the original languages. English does not have jots and tittles
(although Hebrew does), and so the promise of Jesus is for the original
languages.
Saying unwarranted things about
the English translation can be the source of many problems. Our overstatement
of the case can actually provoke reaction against the truth. Missionaries from the church will struggle
with requirements that the English be the final authority in countries where
the people speak other languages. What
if the Spanish translation is not exactly the same as the English in every
place? The truth is that whole books put
into two different languages cannot be precisely alike in every definition,
every implication, and every possibility on every page. Words in another tongue are not always capable
of exact duplication of meaning. Isn’t
it better to compare both translations with the traditional Hebrew and
Greek? Young people from the church will
have problems with double-inspiration when they figure out in college that
people they love have been saying without scriptural warrant that both the
original scriptures and the English translation were dictated by God
Himself. The truth is that the
translators of the King James Version had the correct a balanced view of their
own work and the product of their work. They
never claimed that they produced our English Bible by having the words given to
them as they were given to the prophets in the original tongues. We create problems when we make claims for
the English Bible that the 1611 translators did not make.
Fortunately the translators wrote
a preface to the Authorized Version for the first edition in 1611. It is titled “The Translators to the Reader,”
and is available for us today. The translators
of the King James Bible were good men, dedicated churchmen, and genuine
scholars. They took the responsibility
of putting the Bible into English seriously.
The king of England chose highly qualified men to do the job of
producing a standard Bible for English-speaking people through the translation
of the Hebrew and Greek scriptures and the revision of older popular English
versions. Their work became the most
revered book in the language, as well as the standard English Bible without any
serious completion for more than three centuries. In their lengthy preface, the translators defended
their work and its product, and made many things clear about their views in
regard to the Authorized Version and how it came to be. We need to be reminded of at least five
points they made.
1.
THE
BIBLE IS PERFECT
The translators
saw their task as a great privilege as well as a monumental
responsibility. As they wrote the
preface and defended their work, they emphasized the importance of the work
because of how important the writings are which they were putting into the
language of the people. The scriptures
comprise the written Word of God, which is the source of everything good in
society. “What piety without truth?”
they asked rhetorically. “What truth,
what saving truth, without the word of God?
What word of God, whereof we may be sure, without the Scripture?” The Bible is the collection of sacred
writings which have been penned under divine inspiration and preserved in
purity for all generations. The translators
of the King James Bible, it is clear from the Preface, had no doubt about the
truth, the divine origin, and the purity of the scriptures. It is the “sure” Word of God. Unlike many Bible translators in modern
times, these men had no doubts about the divine origin and accurate
preservation of the Bible. This is why
it was vital that the translation into English be faithful and accurate.
2.
TRANSLATIONS
OF THE BIBLE ARE GOOD
God gave His
Word in three ancient languages, Hebrew, Syriac (Aramaic or Chaldean), and
Greek. However the translators were
convinced that translating it into the common tongues of the people of the
world was not only a good thing but also something critical to man’s wellbeing. “Happy is the man that delighteth in the
Scripture, and thrice happy that meditateth in it day and night. But how shall men meditate in that which they
cannot understand? How shall they
understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue?...the godly learned
were not content to have the Scriptures in the language which themselves
understood, Greek and Latin… but also for the behoof and edifying of the
unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and their
countrymen, insomuch that most nations under heaven did shortly after their conversion
hear Christ speaking unto them in their mother tongue, not by the voice of
their minister only, but also by the written word translated.” It is foolish to say (although some who ought
to know better do) that we would be better off if the scriptures had been left
in the original tongues, and men had to learn Hebrew and Greek to read
them. As far as the meaning of the words
is conveyed from the original through the language into which it was
translated, a translation is the Word of God.
It is also foolish to say that translations are precisely identical to
the writings in the original languages.
Translation is a wonderfully good thing for the purpose of getting the
Word to the world, but it is not the same as inspiration, the process by which
the Holy Spirit moved the prophets to write down the very words of God. It is the duty of those gifted, trained, and
called to put the Bible into the tongues of the people.
3.
TRANSLATION
FROM THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES IS BEST
Of course, the
translation of the scriptures from the original languages into the other
tongues of the world went on long before the King James Version was
produced. Some of the translations were
made directly from the original languages, and some were made from other
translations. The so-called “Latin
Vulgate” produced by Jerome, for example, was translated from the Hebrew Old
Testament and from the Greek New Testament, rather than from the Greek
translation of the Old Testament or one of the previous Latin versions of the
New Testament scriptures. The translators remark, “S. Hierome [St. Jerome]
maketh no mention of the Greek tongue, wherein he did excel; because he
translated not the Old Testament out of Greek, but out of Hebrew. And in what sort did these [translators of
older versions] assemble? In the trust
of their own knowledge, or of their sharpness of wit, or deepness of judgment,
as it were in an arm of flesh? At no
hand. They trusted in him that hath the
key of David, opening, and no man shutting; they trusted to the Lord…If you ask
what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament,
the Greek of the New. These are the two
golden pipes, or rather conduits, wherethrough the olive branches empty
themselves into the gold. Saint
Augustine calleth them precedent, or original, tongues; Saint Hierome,
fountains.” The best translations will
come from the original texts, our translators insisted. This is why they announced on the title page
that their work had been “Translated Out of the Original Sacred Tongues.” The King James translators would not have
insisted that Bibles put into new languages on the mission field be translated
from their English text. They would have
recommended (if possible) translation from Hebrew and Greek. And I agree with them!
4.
ALTERNATE
TRANSLATIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE
The 1611 King
James Bible included alternative translations of some words in the margins,
giving the reader the opportunity to consider other ways certain words in the
original might have been correctly put into English. The marginal notes were not suggesting
textual revisions, but rather translation alternatives. And changing a sentence or a word from one
language into another always involves making choices. There is not always only one right word in
the second language for the word in the original. Also some words are particularly difficult to
translate. The Preface states, “It hath
pleased God in his Divine Providence here and there to scatter words 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, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if
we resolve upon modesty…There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found
there but once…so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places…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?” They were giving us their honest opinion,
along with alternative views, of how the text can best be rendered. So other choices put in the margins were
appropriate. It was their honesty and
humility that motivated them to do this, and also to put the words into italics
which they had inserted for continuity in English although they did not appear
in the original. They were being honest
with us and giving us the opportunity to make the best interpretation. We must remember that the supreme issue in
the modern version controversy is the text.
We fight for the purity of the traditional text, and not always for the
validity of a particular way of translating it in a certain place.
5.
GOD
HELPED US IN OUR WORK
“Truly, good
Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to
make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one…but to make a
good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to
be excepted; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.” The translators assured us that they had done
their very best to put the Bible into English, using the minds and the training
God had given them, and asking the Lord to help them. They described their work in terms of “honest
and Christian endeavors.” God helped
them as He helps us do our service for Him.
They did not claim that God had dictated the words of the English
version, as the prophets “were moved by the Holy Ghost” (Second Peter
1:2). The miracle of divine inspiration
was reserved to the prophets. Certainly
Providence gave the King James translators remarkable success in their
work. Albert Barnes, the remarkable
commentator of the early nineteenth century, said of the King James Version,
“No translation
of the Bible was ever made under more happy auspices; and it would now be
impossible to furnish another translation in our language under circumstances
so propitious. Whether we contemplate
the number, the learning, or the piety of the men employed in it; the cool
deliberation with which it was executed; the care taken that it should secure
the approbation of the most learned men, in a country that embosomed a vast
amount of literature; the harmony with which they conducted their work, or the
comparative perfection of the translation, we see equal cause of gratitude to the
great Author of the Bible that we have so pure a translation of his word.”
But to talk as if
the precise translation choices and even the spelling of the words (which, by
the way, has been improved, updated, and revised several times over the years)
were divinely inspired is to go beyond what the godly translators claimed for
themselves.
When Ezra the priest brought a
copy of the Law of Moses to be read before the congregation of pilgrims that
had gathered before the water gate of the restored city of Jerusalem, he had
the reading in Hebrew translated and explained in the common tongue of the
empire by certain godly Levites who “caused them to understand the reading”
(Nehemiah 8). This reading and
interpreting of the Word of God had a powerful effect on the people. When the holy scriptures were put into
English, first by Wycliffe, then by Tyndale, then by later revisers, and then
by those who gave us the King James Version, the world was powerfully effected
as the learning of truth made men free.
There are many reasons for Christians in our turbulent times to keep the
treasure they gave us, but also to regard their work of translation with them
same reserve and humility as they did.
Dr. Rick Flanders
