All URLs related to the SKJVB project, but not limited to: BIBELN.ONLINE - THEBIBLELIBRARY.SE, use cookies to ensure that you get the best possible experience when you visit the site. See our privacy policy for more information on this. To consent to the use of non-essential cookies, please click "I agree"
The preface provides insight into the translators' work and vision, their aim to make God's Word accessible and their response to criticism. It highlights their dedication and the centrality of the Bible to faith. Reading the preface provides a deeper understanding of the historical and theological context behind this influential translation.
Expand the tab below to see this overview;
Overview of KJV 1611 Preface
Overview of the Preface to the 1611 King James Version
The Preface to the 1611 King James Bible is a rich and thought-provoking text that provides insight into the vision, work and theological convictions of the translators. It explains why the translation was made, its aim to make God's word accessible to more people, and their pursuit of accuracy and fidelity to the original texts. The preface also responds to criticisms from contemporary opponents and highlights the challenges that come with undertaking a work of such importance.
By reading the preface, one gains a deeper understanding of the translators' dedication, their view of the centrality of Scripture to faith, and the historical context that made this translation so influential. It is a powerful reminder of the importance of the Bible and the people who worked to bring it closer to the people.
This detailed overview offers an in-depth structure and a clear understanding of the various parts and themes covered in the preface to the 1611 King James Bible.
1. Introduction
Opening
The authors begin by explaining why they are writing the preface.
Emphasise the importance of spreading God's word in the English language.
2. Historical Context
Previous translations
Close description of previous translations and their contribution to the spread of the Bible.
Criticism and limitations of these previous translations.
The Need for a New Translation
Arguments that the English Bible needed a new and more accurate translation.
The need to reflect the evolution of the language and provide a clearer understanding of the scriptures.
3. Translation Process
Composition of the Committee
Description of the scholars involved in the translation, including their qualifications and expertise.
Structure and organisation of the translation work, including the different groups and their specific roles.
Methodology
Detailed description of the methods and principles used.
Emphasis on accuracy and a comparison of different manuscripts.
Use of previous translations as reference material.
Consultation with scholars from other countries and traditions to ensure the quality of the translation.
4. The Importance of the Bible
The Word of God
Emphasise the authority of the Bible as the Word of God.
Discuss the importance of having an accurate and understandable translation to understand God's will.
Spiritual Guidance
How the Bible serves as a source of moral and spiritual guidance.
Examples of how the Bible can influence individual lives and society at large.
5. Defense of the Translation
Criticism and Expectations
Responding to potential criticism of the translation.
Expectations of what the new translation should achieve.
Discussing possible mistakes and human limitations in the translation process.
Dedication of the translators
Presentation of the translators' dedication and accuracy in their work.
Use of many resources and expertise to ensure the quality of the translation.
6. Conclusion
The Prayer for Success
A prayer that the translation will be well received and beneficial to all believers.
Hope that the translation will lead to greater understanding and faith.
Gratitude
Expression of gratitude to all who have contributed to the project.
Recognising the support of church and secular leaders.
1611 PREFACE
Part 2
From the translators to the readers
The best things have been calumniated
This section discusses how even the most
valuable and well-intentioned acts often face criticism and opposition. The
translators recognise that their work may be attacked by both Catholics and
some Protestant groups, but they assure us that they have worked with integrity
and a sincere desire to serve God.
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. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emulation
instead of thanks: and if there be any hole left for cavil 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.
This will easily be granted by as many as know story, or have any
experience. For, was there ever anything projected, that savoured any way of
newness or renewing, but the same endured many a storm of gainsaying, or
opposition? A man would think that civility, wholesome laws, learning and
eloquence, synods, and church maintenance (that we speak of no more things of
this kind) should be as safe as a sanctuary, and out of shot (ἐκτὸς βέλους,
"exw belouV"), as they say, that no man would lift up the heel; no,
nor dog move his tongue against the motioners of them.
For by the first, we are distinguished from brute beasts led with
sensuality; by the second, we are bridled and restrained from outrageous
behaviour, and from doing of injuries, whether by fraud or by violence; by the
third, we are enabled to inform and reform others, by the light and feeling
that we have attained unto ourselves; briefly, by the fourth being brought
together to a parle face to face, we sooner compose our differences than by
writings, which are endless; and lastly, that the church be sufficiently
provided for, is so agreeable to good reason and conscience, that those mothers
are holden to be less cruel, that kill their children as soon as they are born,
than those nursing fathers and mothers (wheresoever they be) that withdraw from
them who hang upon their breasts (and upon whose breasts again themselves do
hang to receive the spiritual and sincere milk of the word) livelihood and
support fit for their estates.
Thus it is apparent, that these things which we speak of, are of most
necessary use, and therefore, that none, either without absurdity can speak
against them, or without note of wickedness can spurn against them.
Yet for all that, the learned know that certain worthy men [Anacharsis with
others] have been brought to untimely death for none other fault, but for
seeking to reduce their countrymen to good order and discipline; and that in
some commonweals [e.g. Locri] it was made a capital crime, once to motion the
making of a new law for the abrogating of an old, though the same were most
pernicious; and that certain [Cato the elder], which would be counted pillars
of the state, and patterns of virtue and prudence, could not be brought for a
long time to give way to good letters and refined speech, but bare themselves
as averse from them, as from rocks or boxes of poison.*
[*Note: Anacharsis and others: Anacharsis was a famous Scythian philosopher
who lived in antiquity. He became an example of how people who advocated reform
and order could face opposition or persecution - Locri: A Greek city-state (in
what is now southern Italy) that had a very strict legal system. There, even
proposing new laws could be forbidden if the old ones were to be abolished,
even if the old ones were harmful. This illustrates how conservative societies
could value stability over necessary improvement - Cato the Elder: A
Roman politician and moralist who was known for his conservative approach. He
was sceptical of change, especially in terms of ‘good studies’ and refined
language (e.g. Greek culture and learning), which he saw as threatening to
traditional Roman values - A capital crime is an offence that is so
serious in law that it is punishable by death. In Locri, for example, it was so
severe that you could be sentenced to death for proposing a new law that
repealed an existing one, no matter how harmful the old law was].
And fourthly, that he was no babe, but a great clerk [Gregory the Divine],
that gave forth (and in writing to remain to posterity) in passion
peradventure, but yet he gave forth, that he had not seen any profit to come by
any synod, or meeting of the clergy, but rather the contrary. And lastly,
against church maintenance and allowance, in such sort, as the ambassadors and
messengers of the great King of Kings should be furnished, it is not unknown
what a fiction or fable (so it is esteemed, and for no better by the reporter
himself [Nauclerus], though superstitious) was devised--namely, that at such a
time as the professors and teachers of Christianity in the Church of Rome, then
a true church, were liberally endowed, a voice forsooth was heard from heaven,
saying, "Now is poison poured down into the church," etc.*
[*Note: Gregory the Theologian (also known as Gregory of Nazianzus,
c. 329-390 AD) was one of the most prominent Church Fathers and a major
theologian of early Christianity. He is known for his profound writings and his
defence of the Nicene Creed, especially on issues of the Trinity and the deity
of Christ. He was a close friend of Basil the Great and John Chrysostom, and
together they are considered important figures in the patristic tradition of
the Greek Church. Gregory was nicknamed The Theologian because of his
outstanding theological work, especially his five speeches on the Trinity,
known as the ‘Theological Speeches’. These are considered masterpieces of
Christian theology. - Nauclerus (Johannes Nauclerus, c. 1425-1510) was a
German historian and theologian, best known for his work ‘Memorabilium omnis
aetatis et omnium gentium chronici commentaria’, a comprehensive historical
chronicle from the creation of the world to his own time. He had an interest in
church history and often commented on church phenomena and doctrines.]
Thus not only as oft as we speak, as one saith, but also as oft as we do
anything of note or consequence, we subject ourselves to everyone's censure,
and happy is he that is least tossed upon tongues; for utterly to escape the
snatch of them it is impossible. If any man conceit, that this is the lot and
portion of the meaner sort only, and that princes are privileged by their high
estate, he is deceived. "As the sword devoureth as well one as the
other," as it is in Samuel [2 Sam. 11:25]; nay, as the great commander
charged his soldiers in a certain battle, to strike at no part of the enemy,
but at the face; and as the king of Syria commanded his chief captains to
"fight neither with small nor great, save only against the king of
Israel" [1 Ki. 22:31]; so it is too true, that Envy striketh most
spitefully at the fairest, and at the chiefest.
David was a worthy prince, and no man to be compared to him for his first
deeds, and yet for as worthy as act as ever he did (even for bringing back the
Ark of God in solemnity), he was scorned and scoffed at by his own wife [2 Sam.
6:16]. Solomon was greater than David--though not in virtue, yet in power--and
by his power and wisdom he built a temple to the LORD, such a one as was the
glory of the land of Israel, and the wonder of the whole world. But was that
his magnificence liked of by all? We doubt of it. Otherwise, why do they lay it
in his son's dish, and call unto him for easing of the burden [σεισαχθείαν]:
"Make," say they, "the grievous servitude of thy father, and his
sore yoke, lighter"? [1 Ki. 12:4] Belike he had charged them with some
levies, and troubled them with some carriages. Hereupon they raise up a
tragedy, and wish in their heart the temple had never been built. So hard a
thing it is to please all, even when we please God best, and do seek to approve
ourselves to every one's conscience.
The highest personages have been calumniated
The translators show that even prominent leaders like
King David and Solomon faced criticism despite their great deeds. This is used
as a parallel to explain that even a sacred project like Bible translation can
be unfairly criticised. They ask for understanding and support for their work,
recognising that opposition often accompanies significant efforts.
If we will descend to later times, we shall find many the like examples of
such kind, or rather unkind, acceptance. The first Roman emperor [C. Caesar, according
to Plutarch] did never do a more pleasing deed to the learned, nor more
profitable to posterity, for conserving the record of times in true
supputation, than when he corrected the calendar and ordered the year according
to the course of the sun; and yet this was imputed to him for novelty and
arrogance, and procured to him great obloquy.
So the first christened emperor [Constantine] (at the leastwise, that
openly professed the faith himself, and allowed others to do the like), for
strengthening the empire at his great charges, and providing for the church as
he did, got for his labour the name Pupillus, as who would say, a
wasteful prince, that had need of a guardian or overseer [Aurel. Victor]. So
the best christened emperor [Theodosius], for the love that he bare unto peace,
thereby to enrich both himself and his subjects, and because he did not see war
but find it, was judged to be no man at arms [Zosimus] (though indeed he
excelled in feats of chivalry, and showed so much when he was provoked), and
condemned for giving himself to his ease and to his pleasure.
To be short, the most learned emperor of former times [Justinian] (at the
least, the greatest politician), what thanks had he for cutting off the
superfluities of the laws, and digesting them into some order and method? This,
that he hath been blotted by some to be an epitomist—that is, one that
extinguished worthy whole volumes, to bring his abridgments into request. This
is the measure that hath been rendered to excellent princes in former times,
even, Cum bene facerent, male audire—"for their good deeds to
be evil spoken of."
Neither is there any likelihood that envy and malignity died and were
buried with the ancient. No, no, the reproof of Moses taketh hold of most ages:
"You are risen up in your fathers' stead, an increase of sinful men"
[Num. 32:14]. "What is that that hath been done? that which shall be done,
and there is no new thing under the sun," saith the wise man [Eccl. 1:9];
and St. Stephen, "As your fathers did, so do you" [Acts 7:51].
His Majesty's constancy, notwithstanding calumniation, for the survey of the English translations
In this section, the translators highlight the role of
King James I as a driving force behind the translation of the Bible, despite
facing criticism and opposition. They emphasise his determination and wisdom in
recognising the need for a more accurate and reliable English-language Bible,
based on the original sacred texts and taking into account previous
translations.
This, and more to this purpose, His Majesty that now reigneth (and long,
and long may he reign, and his offspring forever, "Himself and children,
and children's children always" [Αὐτὸς, καὶ παῖδες, καὶ παίδων παντότε
παῖδες]) knew full well, according to the singular wisdom given unto him by
God, and the rare learning and experience that he hath attained unto; namely,
that whosoever attempteth anything for the public (especially if it pertain to
religion, and to the opening and clearing of the word of God), the same setteth
himself upon a stage to be glouted upon by every evil eye; yea, he casteth
himself headlong upon pikes, to be gored by every sharp tongue.
For he that meddleth with men's religion in any part, meddleth with their
custom, nay, with their freehold; and though they find no content in that which
they have, yet they cannot abide to hear of altering. Notwithstanding, his
royal heart was not daunted or discouraged for this that colour, but stood
resolute, "as a statue immovable, and an anvil not easy to be beaten into
plates" [ὡς πέρ τις ἀνδρίας ἀπερίτρεπτος καὶ ἀκμὼν ἀνὴλάτος], as
one [Suidas] saith.
He knew who had chosen him to be a soldier, or rather a captain, and being
assured that the course which he intended made much for the glory of God, and
the building up of his church, he would not suffer it to be broken off for
whatsoever speeches or practices. It doth certainly belong unto kings, yea, it
doth specially belong unto them, to have care of religion; yea, to know it
aright; yea, to profess it zealously; yea, to promote it to the uttermost of
their power. This is their glory before all nations which mean well, and this
will bring unto them a far most excellent weight of glory in the day of the
Lord Jesus.
For the Scripture saith not in vain, "Them that honor me, I will
honor" [1 Sam. 2:30]; neither was it a vain word that Eusebius delivered
long ago, that piety towards God [θεοσέβεια] was the weapon, and the
only weapon, that both preserved Constantine's person, and avenged him of his
enemies [Eusebius lib. 10 cap. 8].
The praise of the Holy Scriptures
The Bible is held up by the translators as
a priceless treasure, greater than all worldly riches, because it leads to
eternal bliss. It is described as the light in the darkness, the comfort in
difficulties, and the guide that leads man to righteousness and salvation. The
Scriptures are the direct revelation of God, eternal and indispensable to the
Christian faith, and their translation into English aims to make this
life-giving Word accessible to all.
But now, what piety without truth? What truth (what saving truth) without
the word of God? What word of God (whereof we may be sure) without the
Scripture? The Scriptures we are commanded to search (John 5:39, Isa. 8:20).
They are commended to those that searched and studied them (Acts 17:11;
8:28–29). They are reproved to those that were unskillful in them, or slow to
believe them (Matt. 22:29; Luke 24:25). They can make us wise unto salvation (2
Tim. 3:15). If we be ignorant, they will instruct us; if out of the way, they
will bring us home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness,
comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold, inflame us.
"Tolle, lege; tolle, lege" ("Take up
and read, take up and read") the Scriptures. For unto them was the
direction, it was said unto St. Augustine by a supernatural voice [S. August. Confess.,
lib. 8, cap. 12]. “Whatsoever is in the Scriptures, believe me,” saith the same
St. Augustine, “is high and divine; there is verily truth, and a doctrine most
fit for the refreshing of men’s minds, and truly so tempered, that everyone may
draw from thence that which is sufficient for him, if he come to draw with a
devout and pious mind, as true religion requireth” [S. August. De
Utilit. Credendi, cap. 6].
Thus St. Augustine. And St. Jerome: Ama scripturas, et amabit te
sapientia [S. Hieronym. Ad Demetriad.], "Love the
Scriptures, and wisdom will love thee." And St. Cyril against Julian:
“Even boys that are bred up in the Scriptures, become most religious, etc.” [S.
Cyril. Contra Julianum, lib. 7].
But why mention only three or four uses of the Scriptures, when whatsoever
is to be believed, practiced, or hoped for, is contained in them? Why only
three or four sentences of the Fathers, when whosoever is worthy the name of a
Father, from Christ’s time onward, hath likewise written not only of the riches
but also of the perfection of the Scripture? “I adore the fulness of the
Scripture,” saith Tertullian against Hermogenes [Tertul. Adversus
Hermogenem]. And again, to Apelles, a heretic of the like stamp, he saith,
“I do not admit that which thou bringest in (or concludest) of thine own (head
or store, de tuo) without Scripture” [Tertul. De Carne
Christi].
So St. Justin Martyr before him: “We must know by all means,” saith he,
“that it is not lawful (or possible) to learn (anything) of God or of right
piety, save only out of the prophets, who teach us by divine inspiration”
[Justin, Protrepticus]. So Saint Basil after Tertullian: “It is a
manifest falling away from the faith, and a fault of presumption, either to
reject any of those things that are written, or to bring in (upon the head of
them, ἐπεισάγειν) any of those things that are not written” [S. Basil, Περὶ
Πίστεως, ὑπερηφανίας κατηγορία].
We omit to cite to the same effect, St. Cyril, Bishop of Jerusalem, in his
Fourth Catechesis, St. Jerome against Helvidius, St. Augustine in his third
book against the letters of Petilian, and in very many other places of his
works. We also forebear to descend to later Fathers, because we will not weary
the reader.
The Scriptures, then, being acknowledged to be so full and so perfect, how
can we excuse ourselves of negligence if we do not study them? Of curiosity if
we be not content with them?
Men talk much of εἰρεσιώνη ("Εἰρεσιώνη σύκα φέρει, καὶ
πίονας ἄρτους, καὶ μέλι ἐν κοτύλῃ, καὶ ἔλαιον", etc.), an olive bough
wrapped about with wood, whereupon did hang figs, bread, honey in a pot, and
oil—how many sweet and goodly things it had hanging on it; of the Philosopher’s
Stone, that it turneth copper into gold; of cornucopia, that it had
all things necessary for food in it; of Panaces, the herb, that it
was good for diseases; of Catholicon, the drug, that it is in stead
of all purges; of Vulcan’s armor, that it was an armor of proof against all
thrusts and all blows, etc. Well, that which they falsely or vainly attributed
to these things for bodily good, we may justly and with full measure ascribe
unto the Scripture for spiritual.*
[*Note: The translators use symbols and myths from antiquity to
compare their alleged abilities with the real spiritual value of the Bible. Εἰρεσιώνη,
an olive branch that represented abundance and prosperity in Greek tradition,
along with other mythical objects such as the philosopher's stone and the horn
of plenty, was attributed with the ability to bring material and bodily
benefits. The translators thus emphasise the superiority of the Bible as a
source of spiritual nourishment, guidance and consolation, and criticise the
vain belief in mythological and worldly things. – ‘Εἰρεσιώνη’ (transliterated as eiresiōnē) refers to a traditional
Greek symbol used in ancient Greece during festivities and rites, especially
during harvest festivals associated with the gods Apollo and Demeter. It is an
olive branch bundle, decorated with ribbons, wool and gifts such as dried figs,
bread, honey and oil, and was worn or hung in ceremonies to symbolise
prosperity and abundance. The name itself comes from the Greek εἰρήνη
(‘eirēnē’), meaning ‘peace’, and εἰρεῖν (‘eirein’), ‘to speak’. Traditionally,
εἰρεσιώνη was also associated with asking for blessing and prosperity from the
gods. But Scripture is the only source that can truly fulfil man's spiritual
needs and offer eternal prosperity – The
Philosopher's Stone is a legendary alchemical substance that, according to
tradition, could turn base metals, such as lead or copper, into gold or silver.
It was also said to have the power to give eternal life and health through the
‘elixir of eternal life. The philosopher's stone is a metaphor for something
that has an exaggerated reputation for being able to achieve the impossible, in
this case for bodily benefits, in contrast to Scripture which offers true
spiritual renewal and salvation. – The cornucopia, or cornucopia in Latin, is a mythological symbol that often represents
wealth, abundance and access to all the necessities of life. It is usually
depicted as a horn filled with fruits, flowers and other riches. - Catholicon
refers to a historical medicinal compound that in medieval and early modern
times was considered a panacea or a ‘general remedy.’ The name comes from the
Greek katholikos, meaning ‘all-embracing’ or ‘universal.’ It was a mixture that
was claimed to be able to cure many different types of diseases, especially in
the gastrointestinal area, such as constipation and digestive problems. Catholicon
was mainly used as a laxative and consisted of various ingredients, including
medicinal plants and spices. – Vulcan's armour refers to the mythical armour that Vulcan (or Hephaestus in Greek
mythology), the god of blacksmiths and fire, forged for various gods and heroes
in ancient stories. This armour was known for its perfection, strength and
invulnerability. One of the most famous examples is the armour forged by Vulcan
for the hero Achilles in Homer's Iliad.]
It is not only an armor but also a whole armory of weapons, both offensive
and defensive, whereby we may save ourselves and put the enemy to flight. It is
not an herb, but a tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which
bring forth fruit every month, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the
leaves for medicine. It is not a pot of manna or a cruse of oil, which were for
memory only, or for a meal’s meat or two, but as it were a shower of heavenly
bread sufficient for a whole host, be it never so great; and as it were a whole
cellar full of oil vessels; whereby all our necessities may be provided for,
and our debts discharged.
In a word, it is a panary of wholesome food against finewed traditions;
a physician’s shop (as St. Basil calleth it) [S. Basil, In Psalmum
Primum] of preservatives against poisoned heresies; a pandect of
profitable laws against rebellious spirits; a treasury of most costly jewels
against beggarly rudiments; finally, a fountain of most pure water springing up
unto everlasting life.
And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth;
the Author being God, not man; the Inditer, the Holy Spirit, not the wit of the
apostles or prophets; the penmen such as were sanctified from the womb, and
endued with a principal portion of God’s Spirit; the matter, verity, piety,
purity, uprightness; the form, God’s word, God’s testimony, God’s oracles, the
word of truth, the word of salvation, etc.; the effects, light of
understanding, stability of persuasion, repentance from dead works, newness of
life, holiness, peace, joy in the Holy Ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the
study thereof, fellowship with the saints, participation of the heavenly
nature, fruition of an inheritance immortal, undefiled, and that never shall
fade away.
Happy is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrice happy that
meditateth in it day and night.
Translation necessary
The
translators emphasise the importance of making the Bible available in English,
as it is impossible for people to meditate on or understand what they cannot
read in their own language. They argue that without translation, the Word of
God remains hidden and unusable to the majority, like a closed book or a source
without access. Therefore, translation is a necessity to spread God's truth to
all people.
But how shall men meditate in that which they cannot understand? How shall
they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? As it is
written, "Except I know the power of the voice, I shall be to him
that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian to
me" [1 Cor. 14:11]. The apostle excepteth no tongue; not Hebrew
the ancientest, not Greek the most copious, not Latin the finest. Nature taught
a natural man to confess that all of us in those tongues which we do not
understand are plainly deaf; we may turn the deaf ear unto them.
The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not understand, barbarous
[Clem. Alex. Stromata, lib. 1]; so the Roman did the Syrian and the
Jew (even St. Jerome himself called the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike because
it was strange to so many) [S. Hieronym. Ad Damasum]; so the
Emperor of Constantinople [Michael, son of Theophilus] calleth the Latin tongue
barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do storm at it [2 Tom. Concil., ex edit. Petri
Crab.]; so the Jews long before Christ called all other nations Lognazim,
which is little better than barbarous.
Therefore, as one complaineth that always in the senate of Rome there was
one or other that called for an interpreter [Cicero, De Finibus,
lib. 5], so, lest the church be driven to the like exigent, it is necessary to
have translations in a readiness.
Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that
breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain,
that we may look into the most holy place; that removeth the cover of the well,
that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the
mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered [Gen.
29:10].
Indeed, without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but
like children at Jacob's well (which was deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or
something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a
sealed book was delivered, with this motion, "Read this, I pray
thee," he was fain to make this answer: "I cannot,
for it is sealed" [Isa. 29:11].
The translation of the Old Testament out of the Hebrew into Greek
The
Seventy Interpreters' Translation (often called the Septuagint) refers to the
Greek translation of the Old Testament, The name “Septuagint” comes from the
Latin word for “seventy” and reflects the legend that the work was done by 70
people in 70 days by Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt. The KJV translators
refer to the fact that this translation was not complete and perfect, but that
it needed to be corrected in many places and that the translators of the
Septuagint have been noted adding to the original, and sometimes taking away
from it, but it contributed to the spread of God's word throughout the world.
While God would be known only in Jacob, and have His name great in Israel,
and in none other place; while the dew lay on Gideon's fleece only, and all the
earth besides was dry; then for one and the same people, which spake all of
them the language of Canaan—that is, Hebrew—one and the same original in Hebrew
was sufficient [S. August. lib. 12 contra Faust., c. 32].
But when the fulness of time drew near that the Sun of righteousness, the
Son of God, should come into the world, whom God ordained to be a
reconciliation through faith in His blood, not of the Jew only, but also of the
Greek, yea, of all them that were scattered abroad; then lo, it pleased the
Lord to stir up the spirit of a Greek prince (Greek for descent and language),
even of Ptolemy Philadelph, king of Egypt, to procure the translating of the
book of God out of Hebrew into Greek.*
[*Note: ‘Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith
in his blood’. Here the translators show their understanding of salvation, that
it is by faith in his blood (Romans 3:25). This is especially important to keep
in mind as many so-called modern Bibles remove the text about the blood of
Jesus as e.g. in Colossians 1:14 ‘In him we have redemption through his blood,
the forgiveness of sins:’.]
This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called,
which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching,
as St. John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal. For the Grecians, being
desirous of learning, were not wont to suffer books of worth to lie mouldering
in kings' libraries, but had many of their servants, ready scribes, to copy
them out, and so they were dispersed and made common.
Again, the Greek tongue was well known and made familiar to most
inhabitants in Asia, by reason of the conquest that there the Grecians had
made, as also by the Colonies which thither they had sent. For the same causes
also it was well understood in many places of Europe, yea, and of Africa too.
Therefore, the word of God, being set forth in Greek, becometh hereby like a
candle set upon a candlestick, which giveth light to all that are in the house;
or like a proclamation sounded forth in the marketplace, which most men
presently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fittest to contain
the Scriptures, both for the first preachers of the gospel to appeal unto for
witness, and for the learners also of those times to make search and trial by.
It is certain that that translation was not so sound and so perfect, but it
needed in many places correction; and who had been so sufficient for this work
as the apostles or apostolic men? Yet it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to
them, to take that which they found (the same being for the greatest part true
and sufficient), rather than making a new, in that new world and green age of
the church—to expose themselves to many exceptions and cavillations, as though
they made a translation to serve their own turn, and therefore bearing a
witness to themselves, their witness not to be regarded.
This may be supposed to be some cause why the translation of the Seventy
was allowed to pass for current. Notwithstanding, though it was commended
generally, yet it did not fully content the learned—no, not of the Jews. For
not long after Christ, Aquila fell in hand with a new translation, and after
him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus; yea, there was a fifth and a sixth
edition, the authors whereof were not known. These with the Seventy made up the
Hexapla and were worthily and to great purpose compiled together by Origen.
Howbeit, the edition of the Seventy went away with the credit, and
therefore not only was placed in the midst by Origen (for the worth and
excellency thereof above the rest, as Epiphanius gathereth [Epiphan. de
mensur. et ponderibus.]), but also was used by the Greek Fathers for the
ground and foundation of their commentaries. Yea, Epiphanius above-named doth
attribute so much unto it, that he holdeth the authors thereof not only for
interpreters, but also for prophets in some respect; and Justinian the Emperor,
enjoining the Jews his subjects to use specially the translation of the
Seventy, rendereth this reason thereof: because they were as it were
enlightened with prophetical grace [S. August. 2o de doctrin.
Christian. c. 15o. Novell. diatax. 146].
Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are said of the prophet to be men and
not God, and their horses flesh and not spirit [προφητικὴς ὡςπερ χάριτος
περιλαμβύσας αὐτοὺς, Isa. 31:3]; so it is evident (and St. Jerome affirmeth as
much) [S. Hieron. de optimo genere interpret.] that the Seventy
were interpreters; they were not prophets. They did many things well, as
learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through
oversight, another while through ignorance; yea, sometimes they may be noted to
add to the original, and sometimes to take from it, which made the apostles to
leave them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliver the sense
thereof according to the truth of the word, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
This
may suffice touching the Greek translations of the Old Testament.
Translation out of Hebrew and Greek into Latin
The
Vulgate, translated by Jerome in the 3rd century AD, became the official Latin
Bible. It corrected errors in earlier translations and was based directly on
Hebrew and Greek originals. The Vulgate made the Scriptures accessible to the
Latin-speaking world and became a mainstay of Western Christianity for
centuries.
There were also, within a few hundred years after Christ, many translations
into the Latin tongue; for this tongue also was very fit to convey the law and
the gospel, because in those times very many countries of the West, yea, of the
South, East, and North, spake or understood Latin, being made provinces to the
Romans.
But now the Latin translations were too many to be all good, for they were
infinite (Latini interpretes nullo modo numerari possunt, saith St.
Augustine) [S. Augustin. de doctr. Christ. lib. 2 cap. 11].
Again, they were not out of the Hebrew fountain (we speak of the Latin
translations of the Old Testament) but out of the Greek stream; therefore, the
Greek being not altogether clear, the Latin derived from it must needs be
muddy.
This moved St. Jerome—a most learned Father, and the best linguist without
controversy of his age or of any that went before him—to undertake the
translating of the Old Testament, out of the very fountains themselves; which
he performed with that evidence of great learning, judgment, industry, and
faithfulness, that he hath forever bound the church unto him in a debt of
special remembrance and thankfulness.
The translating of the Scripture into the vulgar tongues
The
Bible was translated early on into vernacular languages such as Syriac, Gothic
and Slavonic to make God's word accessible to all. These translations spread
Christianity and laid the foundation for future works like the King James
Bible.
Now though the Church were thus furnished with Greek and Latin
translations, even before the faith of Christ was generally embraced in the
empire (for the learned know that even in St. Jerome's time, the consul of Rome
and his wife were both Ethnics, and about the same time the greatest part of
the senate also) [S. Hieronym. Marcell.Zosim.]; yet
for all that the godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the
language which they themselves understood, Greek and Latin (as the good lepers
were not content to fare well themselves, but acquainted their neighbors with
the store that God had sent, that they also might provide for themselves) [2
Ki. 7:9]; but also for the behoof and edifying of the unlearned, which hungered
and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they,
they provided translations into the vulgar for 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.
If any doubt hereof, he may be satisfied by examples enough, if enough will
serve the turn. First, St. Jerome saith, Multarum gentium linguis
Scriptura ante translata, docet falsa esse quae addita sunt, etc.; i.e.,
"The Scripture being translated before in the languages of many nations,
doth show that those things that were added (by Lucian and Hesychius) are
false" [S. Hieron. praef. in 4. Evangel.]. So
St. Jerome in that place. The same Jerome elsewhere affirmeth that he, the time
was, had set forth the translation of the Seventy suae linguae
hominibus, i.e., for his countrymen of Dalmatia [S. Hieron. Sophronio.].
Which words not only Erasmus doth understand to purport, that St. Jerome
translated the Scripture into the Dalmatian tongue, but also Sixtus Senensis
[Six. Sen. lib. 4], and Alphonsus a' Castro [Alphon. a' Castro lib. 1 ca. 23]
(that we speak of no more), men not to be excepted against by them of Rome, do
ingenuously confess as much.
So St. Chrysostom, that lived in St. Jerome's time, giveth evidence with
him: "The doctrine of St. John," saith he, "did not in such
sort"—as the philosophers' did—"vanish away; but the Syrians,
Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Ethiopians, and infinite other nations, being
barbarous people, translated it into their (mother) tongue, and have learned to
be (true) philosophers"—he meaneth "Christians" [S. Chrysost. in
Johan. cap. hom. 1].
To this may be added Theodoret, as next unto him, both for antiquity and
for learning. His words be these: "Every country that is under the sun, is
full of these words (of the apostles and prophets) and the Hebrew tongue (he
meaneth the Scriptures in the Hebrew tongue) is turned not only into the
language of the Grecians, but also of the Romans, and Egyptians, and Persians,
and Indians, and Armenians, and Scythians, and Sauromatians, and briefly into
all the languages that any nation useth" [Theodor. 5. Therapeut.].
So he.
In like manner, Ulphilas is reported by Paulus Diaconus and Isidore (and
before them by Sozomen) to have translated the Scriptures into the Gothic
tongue [P. Diacon. lib. 12, Isidor in Chron. Goth, Sozom. lib. 6
cap. 37]. John, bishop of Seville, by Vasseus, to have turned them into Arabic,
about the year of our Lord 717 [Vaseus in Chron. Hispan.]; Bede by
Cistertiensis, to have turned a great part of them into Saxon; Efnard by
Trithemius, to have abridged the French psalter, as Bede had done the Hebrew,
about the year 800; King Alfred by the said Cistertiensis, to have turned the
psalter into Saxon [Polydor Virg. 5 histor. Anglorum testatur idem de
Alvredo nostro]; Methodius by Aventinus (printed at Ingolstadt) to have
turned the Scriptures into Slavonian [Aventin. lib. 4.];
Valdo, bishop of Frising, by Beatus Rhenanus, to have caused about that
time the gospels to be translated into Dutch rhythm, yet extant in the Library
of Corbinian [Circa annum 900. B. Rhenan. rerum German. lib. 2.]; Valdus, by
divers to have turned them himself or to have gotten them turned into French,
about the year 1160; Charles the Fifth of that name, surnamed the Wise, to have
caused them to be turned into French, about 200 years after Valdus's time, of
which translation there be many copies yet extant, as witnesseth Beroaldus.
Much about that time, even in our King Richard the Second's days, John
Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand
are yet to be seen with divers, translated, as it is very probable, in that
age. So the Syrian translation of the New Testament is in most learned men's
libraries of Widminstadius's setting forth, and the psalter in Arabic is with
many of Augustinus Nebiensis's setting forth. So Postel affirmeth, that in his
travel he saw the gospels in the Ethiopian tongue; and Ambrose Thesius allegeth
the psalter of the Indians, which he testifieth to have been set forth by
Potken in Syrian characters.
So that to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit
lately taken up, either by the Lord Cromwell in England, or by the Lord
Radevile in Polony [Thuan.], or by the Lord Ungnadius in the emperor's
dominion, but hath been thought upon and put in practice of old, even from the
first times of the conversion of any nation; no doubt because it was esteemed
most profitable to cause faith to grow in men's hearts the sooner, and to make
them to be able to say with the words of the Psalms, "As we have
heard, so we have seen" [Ps. 48:8].
The unwillingness of our chief adversaries that the Scriptures should be divulged in the mother tongue, etc.
The
Catholic Church long opposed translating the Bible into vernacular languages,
fearing misinterpretation and loss of Church authority. They wanted to keep the
Bible in Latin and demanded permission to read it in native languages. The
translators of the King James Bible criticised this as an attempt to keep
people in spiritual ignorance and darkness.
Now the Church of Rome would seem at length to bear a motherly affection
towards her children, and to allow them the Scriptures in their mother tongue.
But indeed, it is a gift not deserving to be called a gift—an unprofitable gift
(δῶρον ἄδωρον, κοὐκ ὀνήσιμον, Sophocles); they must first get a
license in writing before they may use them, and to get that, they must approve
themselves to their confessor—that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the
dregs, yet soured with the leaven of their superstition.
Howbeit, it seemed too much to Clement the Eighth that there should be any
license granted to have them in the vulgar tongue, and therefore he overruleth
and frustrateth the grant of Pius the Fourth. [See the observation (set forth
by Clement's authority) upon the fourth rule of Pius the Fourth's making in the Index, lib.
prohib., pag. 15. ver. 5.] So much are they afraid of the light
of the Scripture (Lucifugae Scripturarum, as Tertullian speaketh
[Tertul. de resur. carnis]) that they will not trust the people
with it—no, not as it is set forth by their own sworn men; no, not with the
license of their own bishops and inquisitors.
Yea, so unwilling are they to communicate the Scriptures to the people's
understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confess that we forced
them to translate it into English against their wills. This seemeth to argue a
bad cause, or a bad conscience, or both.
Sure we are, that it is not he that hath good gold, that is afraid to bring
it to the touchstone, but he that hath the counterfeit; neither is it the true
man that shunneth the light, but the malefactor, lest his deeds should be
reproved [John 3:20]; neither is it the plain-dealing merchant that is
unwilling to have the weights, or the meteyard brought in place, but he that
useth deceit.
But we will let them alone for this fault, and return to translation.
The speeches and reasons, both of our brethren and of our adversaries, against this work
Protestant brethren questioned the need
for a new translation, while Catholic opponents rejected the work as
threatening the authority of the Church. The translators defended the project
as an improvement to make God's word clearer and more accessible.
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. 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? (Lacte gypsum male
miscetur, saith St. Irenaeus [S. Iren. 3. lib. cap. 19.].) 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. Hath the nurse holden out the breast, and
nothing but wind in it? Hath the bread been delivered by the Fathers of the
Church, and the same proved to be lapidosus, as Seneca speaketh? What
is it to handle the word of God deceitfully, if this be not? Thus
certain brethren.
Also, the adversaries of Judah and Jerusalem, like Sanballat in Nehemiah,
mock, as we hear, both the work and the 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]. "Was their
translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was
it obtruded to the people? Yea, why did the Catholics (meaning popish
Romanists) always go in jeopardy, for refusing to go to hear it? Nay, if it
must be translated into English, Catholics are fittest to do it. They have
learning, and they know when a thing is well; they can manum de tabula."
We will answer them both briefly; and the former, being brethren, thus,
with St. Jerome: Damnamus veteres? Minime, sed post priorum studia in
domo Domini quod possums laboramus [S. Hieron. Apolog. advers.
Ruffin.]. That is, "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."
As if he said, "Being provoked by the example of the learned
men that lived before my time, I have thought it my duty to assay whether my
talent in the knowledge of the tongues may be profitable in any measure to
God's church, lest I should seem to have labored in them in vain, and lest I
should be thought to glory in men (although ancient) above that which was in
them." Thus St. Jerome may be thought to speak.
A satisfaction to our brethren
The
translators explained that their work did not reject previous translations but
built on them to improve accuracy and clarity. They emphasised that they were
following the example of their predecessors and working to make the Word of God
even more accessible and understandable to all believers.
And to the same effect say we, that we are so far off from condemning any
of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or
beyond sea, either in King Henry's time or King Edward's (if there were any
translation or correction of a translation in his time), or Queen Elizabeth's
of ever-renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of
God, for the building and furnishing of His church, and that they deserve to be
had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance. The judgment of
Aristotle is worthy and well known: "If Timotheus had not been, we
had not had much sweet music; but if Phrynis (Timotheus's master) had not been,
we had not had Timotheus" [Arist. 2 Metaphys. cap.
1].
Therefore blessed be they, and most honored be their name, that break the
ice and give the onset upon that which helpeth forward the saving of souls.
Now, what can be more available thereto than to deliver God's book unto God's
people in a tongue which they understand? Since of a hidden treasure and of a
fountain that is sealed there is no profit, as Ptolemy Philadelph wrote to the
rabbins or masters of the Jews, as witnesseth Epiphanius [S. Epiphan. loco
ante citato]; and as St. Augustine saith, "A man had rather be
with his dog than with a stranger (whose tongue is strange unto him)" [S.
Augustin. *lib. 19. de civit. Dei. cap. 7].
Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and
the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser; so, if we, building upon their
foundation that went before us, and being helped by their labors, do endeavor
to make that better which they left so good, no man, we are sure, hath cause to
mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.
The vintage of Abiezer that struck the stroke, yet the gleaning of grapes of
Ephraim was not to be despised (see Judges 8:2). Joash, the king of Israel, did
not satisfy himself till he had smitten the ground three times; and yet he
offended the prophet for giving over then [2 Ki. 13:18-19]. Aquila, of whom we
spoke before, translated the Bible as carefully and as skillfully as he could;
and yet he thought good to go over it again, and then it got the credit with
the Jews, to be called kata akribeian, that is, "accurately
done," as St. Jerome witnesseth [S. Jerome. in Ezech. cap. 3].
How many books of profane learning have been gone over again and again by
the same translators or by others? Of one and the same book of Aristotle's Ethics,
there are extant not so few as six or seven several translations. Now if this
cost may be bestowed upon the gourd, which affordeth us a little shade, and
which today flourisheth but tomorrow is cut down, what may we bestow—nay, what
ought we not to bestow—upon the vine, the fruit whereof maketh glad the
conscience of man, and the stem whereof abideth forever? And this is the word
of God, which we translate. "What is the chaff to the wheat?"
saith the Lord [Jer. 23:28]. Tanti vitreum, quanti verum
margaritum, saith Tertullian [Tertul. ad Martyr.]—"If
a toy of glass be of that reckoning with us, how ought we to value the true
pearl?" [Si tanti vilissimum vitrium, quanti pretiosissimum
margaritum, Hieron. ad Salvin.].
Therefore let no man's eye be evil, because His Majesty's is good; neither
let any be grieved, that we have a prince that seeketh the increase of the
spiritual wealth of Israel. (Let Sanballats and Tobiahs do so, which therefore
do bear their just reproof.) But let us rather bless God from the ground of our
heart, for working this religious care in him, to have the translations of the
Bible maturely considered and examined. For by this means it cometh to pass,
that whatsoever is sound already (and all is sound for substance, in one or
other of our editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentic
vulgar), the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished;
also, if anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the
original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.
And what can the king command to be done, that will bring him more true
honor than this? And wherein could they that have been set at work, approve
their duty to the king—yea, their obedience to God and love to His saints—more
than by yielding their service, and all that is within them, for the furnishing
of the work? But besides all this, they were the principal motives of it, and
therefore ought least to quarrel it.
For the very historical truth is, that upon the importunate petitions of
the Puritans, at His Majesty's coming to this crown, the conference at Hampton
Court having been appointed for hearing their complaints, when by force of
reason they were put from all other grounds, they had recourse at the last, to
this shift: that they could not with good conscience subscribe to the communion
book, since it maintained the Bible as it was there translated, which was (as
they said) a most corrupted translation. And although this was judged to be but
a very poor and empty shift, yet even hereupon did His Majesty begin to bethink
himself of the good that might ensue by a new translation, and presently after
gave order for this translation which is now presented unto thee. Thus much to
satisfy our scrupulous brethren.
An answer to the imputations of our adversaries
The
translators responded to criticism from Catholic opponents who rejected the
translation as heretical. They defended their work as a faithful improvement on
previous translations, done with care and integrity. They emphasised that the
aim was to spread God's truth, despite opposition from those who wanted to keep
Scripture inaccessible to the people.
Now to the latter we answer that we do not deny—nay, we affirm and
avow—that the very meanest 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. As the king's
speech, which he uttered 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. 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. [Horace]—"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 whatever 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? 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.
Judge by an example or two. Plutarch writeth that after that Rome had been
burnt by the Gauls, they fell soon to build it again; but doing it in haste,
they did not cast the streets, nor proportion the houses in such comely
fashion, as had been most sightly and convenient [Plutarch in Camillo.].
Was Catiline therefore an honest man, or a good patriot, that sought to bring
it to a combustion? or Nero a good prince, that did indeed set it on fire? So
by the story of Ezra and the prophecy of Haggai it may be gathered, that the
temple built by Zerubbabel after the return from Babylon was by no means to be
compared to the former built by Solomon (for they that remembered the former
wept when they considered the latter) [Ezr. 3:12]; notwithstanding, might this
latter either have been abhorred and forsaken by the Jews, or profaned by the
Greeks?
The like we are to think of translations. The translation of the Seventy
dissenteth from the original in many places; neither doth it come near it, for
perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the apostles did condemn it?
Condemn it? Nay, they used it (as it is apparent, and as St. Jerome and most
learned men do confess), which they would not have done, nor by their example
of using it so grace and commend it to the church, if it had been unworthy the
appellation and name of the word of God.
And whereas they urge for their second defense of their vilifying and
abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof which they meet with, for
that "heretics," forsooth, were the authors of the translations
("heretics" they call us by the same right that they call themselves
"Catholics," both being wrong), we marvel what divinity taught them
so. We are sure Tertullian was of another mind: Ex personis probamus
fidem, an ex fide personas? [Tertul. de praescript. contra
haereses.]—"Do we try men's faith by their persons? We should try
their persons by their faith."
Also St. Augustine was of another mind, for he, lighting upon certain rules
made by Tychonius, a Donatist, for the better understanding of the word, was
not ashamed to make use of them—yea, to insert them into his own book, with
giving commendation to them so far forth as they were worthy to be commended,
as is to be seen in St. Augustine's third book De doctrina Christiana [S.
August. 3. de doct. Christ. cap. 30.].
To be short, Origen and the whole church of God for certain hundred years
were of another mind, for they were so far from treading under foot (much more
from burning) the translation of Aquila, a proselyte (that is, one that had
turned Jew)—of Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites (that is, most vile
heretics)—that they joined them together with the Hebrew original, and the
translation of the Seventy (as hath been before signified out of Epiphanius)
and set them forth openly to be considered of and perused by all.
But we weary the unlearned, who need not know so much, and trouble the
learned, who know it already.
Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs
against us, for altering and amending our translations so often; wherein truly
they deal hardly and strangely with us. For to whom ever was it imputed as a
fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it
where he saw cause? St. Augustine was not afraid to exhort St. Jerome to a palinodia or
recantation, and doth even glory that he seeth his infirmities [S. Aug. Epist.
9; S. Aug. lib. Retractat.; Video interdum vitia mea, S. Aug.
Epist. 8.]. If we be sons of the truth, we must consider what it speaketh, and
trample upon our own credit, yea, and upon other men's too, if either be any
way a hindrance to it.
This to the cause. Then to the persons we say, that of all men they ought
to be most silent in this case. For what varieties have they, and what
alterations have they made, not only of their service books, portasses, and
breviaries, but also of their Latin translation? The service book supposed to
be made by St. Ambrose (Officium Ambrosianum) was a great while in
special use and request, but Pope Hadrian, calling a council with the aid of
Charles the Emperor, abolished it—yea, burned it—and commanded the service book
of St. Gregory universally to be used [Durand. lib. 5. cap. 2.]. Well, Officium
Gregorianum gets by this means to be in credit, but doth it continue
without change or altering? No, the very Roman service was of two fashions, the
"new" fashion and the "old"—the one used in one church, the
other in another—as is to be seen in Pamelius, a Romanist, his preface before Micrologus.
The same Pamelius reporteth out of Radulphus de Rivo that about the year of
our Lord 1277, Pope Nicolas the Third removed out of the churches of Rome the
more ancient books (of service), and brought into use the missals of the Friars
Minorites, and commanded them to be observed there; insomuch that about a
hundred years after, when the above-named Radulphus happened to be at Rome, he
found all the books to be new (of the new stamp). Neither were there these
choppings and changings in the more ancient times only, but also of late: Pius
Quintus himself confesseth, that every bishopric almost had a peculiar kind of
service, most unlike to that which others had; which moved him to abolish all
other breviaries, though never so ancient, and privileged and published by
bishops in their dioceses, and to establish and ratify that only which was of
his own setting forth, in the year 1568.*
[*Note: Pope Pius V (who reigned 1566-1572) addressed the wide
variety of liturgical texts and rites within the Catholic Church. At that time,
almost every diocese or region had its own liturgical traditions and books,
which could differ significantly from each other. This created a lack of
uniformity in the Church's services. To solve this problem, Pius V decided to
standardise the liturgy. He abolished all local breviaries (liturgical books
used for prayer and services) that did not have a long tradition (at least 200
years) and introduced a new standardised breviary, which became known as the
Breviarium Romanum. This took place in 1568 as part of the aftermath of the
Council of Trent (1545-1563), whose aim was to reform and strengthen the unity
of the Catholic Church, especially in the face of the Reformation - A breviary
(Latin: breviarium, ‘summary’ or ‘brief outline’) is a liturgical book
containing the daily prayer times and order of worship for priests and monks in
the Catholic Church.]
Now when the father of their church, who gladly would heal the sore of the
daughter of his people softly and slightly, and make the best of it, findeth so
great fault with them for their odds and jarring, we hope the children have no
great cause to vaunt of their uniformity. But the difference that appeareth
between our translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that
we are specially charged with. Let us see therefore whether they themselves be
without fault this way (if it be to be counted a fault, to correct), and
whether they be fit men to throw stones at us. O tandem major parcas
insane minori—"They that are less sound themselves, ought not to
object infirmities to others" [Horat.].
If we should tell them that Valla, Stapulensis, Erasmus, and Vives found
fault with their vulgar translation, and consequently wished the same to be
mended, or a new one to be made, they would answer peradventure, that we
produced their enemies for witnesses against them; albeit, they were in no
other sort enemies than as St. Paul was to the Galatians, for telling them the
truth [Gal. 4:16]; and it were to be wished that they had dared to tell it them
plainer and oftener. But what will they say to this, that Pope Leo the Tenth
allowed Erasmus' translation of the New Testament, so much different from the
vulgar, by his apostolic letter and bull; that the same Leo exhorted Pagnin to
translate the whole Bible, and bore whatsoever charges were necessary for the
work [Sixtus Senens.]? Surely, as the apostle reasoneth to the Hebrews, that
"if the former law and testament had been sufficient, there had been no
need of the latter" [Heb. 7:11, 8:7], so we may say, that if the old
vulgar had been at all points allowable, to small purpose had labour and
charges been undergone about framing of a new.
If they say, it was one pope's private opinion, and that he consulted only
himself, then we are able to go further with them, and to aver that more of
their chief men of all sorts, even their own Trent champions Paiva and Vega,
and their own inquisitors, Hieronymus ab Oleastro, and their own Bishop
Isidorus Clarius, and their own Cardinal Thomas a Vio Caietan, do either make
new translations themselves, or follow new ones of other men's making, or note
the vulgar interpreter for halting; none of them fear to dissent from him, nor
yet to except against him. And call they this an uniform tenor of text and
judgment about the text, so many of their worthies disclaiming the now received
conceit?
Nay, we will yet come nearer the quick: doth not their Paris edition differ
from the Louvain, and Hentenius his from them both, and yet all of them allowed
by authority? Nay, doth not Sixtus Quintus confess, that certain Catholics (he
meaneth certain of his own side) were in such a humour of translating the
Scriptures into Latin, that Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought
of no such matter, did strive what he could, out of so uncertain and manifold a
variety of translations, so to mingle all things that nothing might seem to be
left certain and firm in them, etc. [Sixtus 5. praefat. fixa Bibliis.]?
Nay, further, did not the same Sixtus ordain by an inviolable decree, and that
with the counsel and consent of his cardinals, that the Latin edition of the
Old and New Testament, which the Council of Trent would have to be authentic,
is the same without controversy which he then set forth, being diligently
corrected and printed in the printing house of Vatican? Thus Sixtus in his
preface before his Bible.
And yet Clement the Eighth, his immediate successor, published another
edition of the Bible, containing in it infinite differences from that of Sixtus
(and many of them weighty and material), and yet this must be authentic by all
means. What is to have the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with
"yea and nay," if this be not? Again, what is sweet harmony and
consent, if this be? Therefore, as Demaratus of Corinth advised a great king,
before he talked of the dissensions among the Grecians, to compose his domestic
broils (for at that time his queen and his son and heir were at deadly feud
with him), so all the while that our adversaries do make so many and so various
editions themselves, and do jar so much about the worth and authority of them,
they can with no show of equity challenge us for changing and correcting.
The purpose of the translators with their number, furniture, care, etc.
The
translators' goal was to create the most accurate and clear Bible translation
possible, based on the original Hebrew and Greek texts. The team consisted of
many learned men, chosen for their knowledge and experience. They worked with
great care, using available resources, including previous translations and
commentaries, to ensure quality and fidelity to the originals. The work was
done prayerfully and with a deep sense of responsibility before God and the
Church.
But it is high time to leave them, and to show in brief what we proposed to
ourselves, and what course we held in this our perusal and survey of the Bible.
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
(for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people
had been fed with gall of dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk);
but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good
one, not justly to be excepted against. That hath been our endeavor, that our
mark.
To that purpose, there were many chosen that were greater in other men's
eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise.
Again, they came, or were thought to come, to the work, not exercendi
causa (as one saith) but exercitati, that is,
"learned, not to learn." For the chief overseer and ἐργοδιώκτης under
his Majesty, to whom not only we, but also our whole church was much bound,
knew by his wisdom--which thing also Nazianzen taught so long ago--that it is a
preposterous order to teach first and to learn after, yea that to ἐν
πίθῳ κεραμίαν μανθάνειν, "to learn and practice together,"
is neither commendable for the workman, nor safe for the work [Nazianzen, Εἰς
Ῥην.ἐπισκ. παροῦσ., Idem in Apologet.].
Therefore such were thought upon as could say modestly with St. Jerome, Et
Hebraeum sermonem ex parte didicimus, et in Latino pene ab ipsis incunabulis,
etc., detriti sumus--"Both we have learned the Hebrew tongue in part,
and in the Latin we have been exercised almost from our very cradle." (St.
Jerome maketh no mention of the Greek tongue, wherein yet he did excel, because
he translated not the Old Testament out of Greek, but out of Hebrew.)
And in what sort did these 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 prayed to the Lord, the Father of our Lord, to the effect
that St. Augustine did: "O let thy Scriptures be my pure delight; let me
not be deceived in them, neither let me deceive by them" [S. Aug. lib. 11. Confess. cap.
2.]. In this confidence and with this devotion did they assemble together; not
too many, lest one should trouble another, and yet many, lest many things haply
might escape them.
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. St.
Augustine calleth them precedent, or original tongues [S. August. 3. de
doctr. c. 3. etc.]; St. Jerome, fountains [S. Hieron. ad
Suniam et Fretel.]. The same St. Jerome affirmeth, and Gratian hath not
spared to put it into his decree, that "as the credit of the old books (he
meaneth of the Old Testament) is to be tried by the Hebrew volumes, so of the
New by the Greek tongue (he meaneth by the original Greek) [S. Hieron. ad
Lucinium, Dist. 9 ut veterum.].
If truth be tried by these tongues, then whence should a translation be
made, but out of them? These tongues therefore--the Scriptures, we say, in
those tongues--we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was
pleased to speak to His church by His prophets and apostles. Neither did we run
over the work with that posting haste that the Septuagint did, if that be true
which is reported of them, that they finished it in seventy-two days [Joseph. Antiq. lib.
12.]; neither were we barred or hindered from going over it again, having once
done it, like St. Jerome--if that be true which himself reporteth, that he
could no sooner write anything but presently it was caught from him and
published, and he could not have leave to mend it [S. Hieron. ad
Pammac. pro libr. advers. Iovinian.].
Neither, to be short, were we the first that fell in hand with translating
the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps, as it
is written of Origen, that he was the first (πρωτοπείροι) in a manner
that put his hand to write commentaries upon the Scriptures, and therefore no
marvel if he overshot himself many times. None of these things; the work hath
not been huddled up in seventy-two days, but hath cost the workmen, as light as
it seemeth, the pains of twice seven times seventy-two days and more.
Matters of such weight and consequence are to be speeded with maturity, for
in a business of moment a man feareth not the blame of convenient slackness (φιλεῖ
γὰρ ὀκνεῖν πράγματ' ἀνὴρ πράσσων μεγά, Sophoc. in Elect.).
Neither did we think much to consult the translators or commentators, Chaldee,
Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin--no, nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or
Dutch. Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring
back to the anvil that which we had hammered; but having and using as great
helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting
praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord
upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.
Reasons moving us to set diversity of senses in the margin, where there is great probability for each
The
translators included alternative interpretations in the margin where the text
could be understood in different ways. This was done to help the reader
understand difficult passages and avoid presenting a single interpretation as
absolute. They believed that this approach encouraged accuracy, humility and
deeper study of Scripture.
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. For though "whatsoever things are
necessary are manifest," as St. Chrysostom saith (πάντα τὰ ἀναγκαῖα
δῆλα, S. Chrysost. in 2 Thess. cap. 2.), and as St. Augustine, "In
those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are
found that concern faith, hope, and charity" (S. Aug. 2. De
doctr. Christ. cap. 9.); yet for all that it cannot be dissembled,
that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from the
loathing of them for their everywhere 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, that
fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon
modesty with St. Augustine (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon
the same ground), Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de
incertis (S. Aug. lib. 8. De Genes. ad liter. cap.
5.)--"it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than
to strive about those things that are uncertain."
There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once
(having neither brother nor neighbor (ἅπαξ λεγόμενα), as the
Hebrews speak), so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. 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 St.
Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint.
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?
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.
Therefore as St. Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable
for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures (S. Aug. 2. De
doctr. Christ. cap. 14.), so diversity of signification and sense in
the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good--yea, is
necessary, as we are persuaded.
We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth that any variety of
readings of their vulgar edition should be put in the margin (Sixtus 5. praef. Bibliae.)--which
though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it
looketh that way--, but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers
for this conceit. They that are wise had rather have their judgments at liberty
in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the
other.
If they were sure that their high priest had all laws shut up in his
breast, as Paul the Second bragged [Plat. in Paulo secundo.], and
that he were as free from error by special privilege as the dictators of Rome
were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an
oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be
thanked, and have been a great while. (ὁμοιοπαθὴς τρόπος γὰρ οἱ χρός ἐστι.)
They find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others
be, that his skin is penetrable; and therefore so much as he proveth, not as
much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.
Reasons inducing us not to stand curiously upon an identity of phrasing
The
translators chose to use different expressions for the same concept to reflect
the richness of the language and avoid rigidity. They believed that variation
in wording makes the text more lively and accessible without losing its
meaning. They strived for freedom of language rather than the constraint of
strict uniformity.
Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle reader: that we
have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of
words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe
that some learned men somewhere have been as exact as they could that way.
Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated
before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there be some
words that be not of the same sense everywhere (πολύσημα)), we were
especially careful, and made a conscience according to our duty.
But that we should express the same notion in the same particular word, as
for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by purpose,
never to call it intent; if one where journeying, never travelling;
if one where think, never suppose; if one where pain,
never ache; if one where joy, never gladness,
etc.—thus, to mince the matter, we thought to savor more of curiosity than
wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist than bring profit
to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why
should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we
may use another no less fit, as commodiously?
A godly Father in the Primitive time showed himself greatly moved, that one
of newfangleness called κράββατον, "σκίμπους" ("a
bed"; Niceph. Calist. lib. 8. cap. 42.), though the difference be little
or none; and another reporteth that he was much abused for turning κύκιον (to
which reading the people had been used) into ἕδρα [S. Hieron.
in 4. Ionae. See S. Aug. epist. 10.].
Now if this happen in better times, and upon so small occasions, we might
justly fear hard censure, if generally we should make verbal and unnecessary
changings. We might also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing
towards a great number of good English words. For as it is written of a certain
great philosopher, that he should say, that those logs were happy that were
made images to be worshipped, for their fellows, as good as they, lay for
blocks behind the fire; so if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, "Stand
up higher; have a place in the Bible always," and to others of
like quality, "Get ye hence; be banished forever," we
might be taxed peradventure with St. James his words, namely, "To
be partial in ourselves, and judges of evil thoughts."
Add hereunto, that niceness in words was always counted the next step to
trifling, and so was to be curious about names, too; also, that we cannot
follow a better pattern for elocution than God Himself; therefore, He using
divers words, in His holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature (λεπτολογία;
ἀδολεσχία; το σπουδάζειν ἐπί ὀνόμασιν; see Euseb. προπαρασκευή.
λίβ. 12. ex Platon.), we, if we will not be superstitious, may use the
same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or
store that He hath given us.
Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans,
who leave the old ecclesiastical words and betake them to other, as when they
put washing for baptism, and congregation instead
of church; as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity
of the Papists, in their azimes, tunic, rational, holocausts, praepuce, pasche,
and a number of such like, whereof their late translation is full—and that of
purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible,
yet by the language thereof, it may be kept from being understood.*
[*Note: The criticism concerns the choice of specific words and
expressions in translations of the Bible, where some translators, especially in
the Catholic tradition, have used terms borrowed directly from Latin or Greek
without translating them into everyday language. - ‘Unleavened bread’
(azimes): ‘Azimes’ is a transliteration of the Latin azymum, which means
‘unleavened bread.’ Instead of
translating it into an understandable phrase like ‘unleavened bread’ for the
reader, some translations leave the Latin word in. - ‘Tunic’: A garment
from biblical times called tunica in Latin. The word is sometimes used
straightforwardly without explaining that it is a simple garment covering the
body - ‘Rational’: A transliteration of rationale from Latin, referring
to the high priest's breastplate (with twelve precious stones) in the Old
Testament. It is a specific religious artefact that may not be immediately
understandable to an ordinary reader. - ‘Burnt offering’: This is a
correct and established Swedish word (”Brännoffer”), but it can sometimes be rendered with Latin terms such as holocaustum in
older Catholic translations, making it less accessible. - ‘Foreskin’
(praepuce): This uses the Latin praeputium, which literally means foreskin.
Using a Latin term may seem unfamiliar and unnecessarily complicated to a
casual reader. - ‘Passover meal’ (pasche): A transliteration of the
Greek πάσχα (pascha) or Latin pascha, referring to the Jewish Passover meal.
The translation sometimes chooses not to explain it or use a more
understandable phrase like ‘Passover meal.’]
But we
desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan,
that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.
Many other things we might give thee warning of, gentle reader, if we had
not exceeded the measure of a preface already. It remaineth that we commend
thee to God, and to the Spirit of His grace, which is able to build further
than we can ask or think. He removeth the scales from our eyes, the veil from
our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand His word, enlarging our
hearts; yea, correcting our affections, that we may love it to the end.
Ye are brought unto fountains of living water which ye digged not; do not
cast earth into them with the Philistines [Gen. 26:15], neither prefer broken
pits before them with the wicked Jews [Jer. 2:13]. Others have laboured, and
you may enter into their labours. O receive not so great things in vain, O
despise not so great salvation! Be not like swine to tread under foot so
precious things, neither yet like dogs to tear and abuse holy things. Say not
to our Saviour with the Gergesites, "Depart out of our coasts" [Matt.
8:34]; neither yet with Esau sell your birthright for a mess of pottage [Heb.
12:16]. If light be come into the world, love not darkness more than light; if
food, if clothing be offered, go not naked, starve not yourselves.
Remember the advice of Nazianzene, "It is a grievous thing (or
dangerous) to neglect a great fair, and to seek to make markets
afterwards" [Ναζιανζ. περὶ ἀγ. βαπτ. δεινὸν πανήγυριν παρελθεῖν
καὶ τὴν ἡνίκαυτα πραγματείαν ἐπιζητεῖν]; also the encouragement of St.
Chrysostom, "It is altogether impossible, that he that is sober
(and watchful) should at any time be neglected" [S. Chrysost. in
epist. ad Rom. cap. 14. orat. 26. in ἠθικ. ἀμηχάνων σφόδρα ἀμηχάνων]; lastly,
the admonition and menacing of St. Augustine, "They that despise
God's will inviting them, shall feel God's will taking vengeance of them" [S.
August. ad artic. sibi falso object. Artic. 16.].
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God [Heb.
10:31]; but a blessed thing it is, and will bring us to everlasting blessedness
in the end, when God speaketh unto us, to hearken; when He setteth His word
before us, to read it; when He stretcheth out His hand and calleth, to answer, "Here
am I! here we are to do thy will, O God."
The Lord work a care and conscience in us to know Him and serve Him, that
we may be acknowledged of Him at the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ, to
whom, with the Holy Ghost, be all praise and thanksgiving. Amen.
(The summary under the headings and the Notes are added by the Bible Library and are not part of the KJV 1611 Preface.)
KJV
Miles Smith: Author of the ‘Preface to Readers’ 1611
Miles Smith (1554-1624) was an English bishop, theologian and one of the prominent translators of the King James Bible. He played a central role in the translation process and is best known as the author of the famous ‘Translators to the Reader’ in the 1611 edition.
Smith had a deep knowledge of Hebrew, Greek and Latin, and served on the sixth translation committee, which reviewed and compiled the final version of the text. His foreword reflects his dedication to both the Bible and the translation project. The text is full of eloquence and wisdom, describing the aims, methods and challenges of the translators.
As Bishop of Gloucester from 1612 until his death on 20 October 1624, Smith also contributed to theological and academic life in England. His work and his prefaces have continued to inspire readers and scholars for centuries.