What They Teach Us in the Preface to the 1611 King James Bible
Noel Smith, writing for the Baptist Bible Tribune, recommends a book entitled God’s Word into English by Dewey M. Beegle. Informing the reader of what this book contains, Smith states that Beegle’s book contains “the complete text (24 pages) of the preface to the King James Version (which most Bible readers have never read and which all should read).”
The original King James Bible was translated with a Preface entitled “The Translators to the Reader.” For a preface, it is quite lengthy, but it is worthwhile read. It should be read by everyone who reads the Bible, but especially by those who recognize only the King James Version as God’s word in the English language. Although I love and use the King James Bible, honesty compels me to report that the King James translators, were they alive today, would not see the King James Version as the only valid translation of God’s word into the English language. I would like to emphasize six facts concerning the King James translators using their own words in the preface to the King James Bible. I will supply direct quotes from the preface, and I encourage the reader to download a copy of the preface here. Any unbiased reader will see that the beliefs of the translators articulated in this article will be factual.
The Translators Sought to Make One Good Principal Translation
It is true that the King James translators revered the previous English translations that existed before the translation they produced. As a matter of fact, they used the previous English translations to aid them in their most noble work. They referred to previous translations as “good,” believing them to be valuable English translations. In the words of the translators themselves:
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.
The idea that the King James Version is the only good translation in the English language did not originate with the King James translators. They counted the translations before them as good translations.
When, however, the translators spoke of making one “principal” translation, what did they mean? Did they mean that their translation would be the only valuable translation in the English language upon its completion? I believe that the translators’ words in the preface will refute this notion in a solid manner, as we will see later.
By a “principal” translation, I believe it is clear that the translators strove for a translation that would be acceptable for public reading as well as private; for family devotions as well as religious services; for the president as well as the miner; for the rich as well as the poor; for the clergy as well as the layman. It is certain that the translators did not disregard the translations before them, and I am convinced that they would not have derided every translation after them.
The Translators Regarded Nearly Every English Translation as God’s Word
By stating that they desired to make “one principal” translation, the King James translators were not knocking the translations either before or after them. This becomes clear when the translators declare that even the “meanest” (i.e. the most average, the most despicable, the lowest in rank) English translations were to be regarded as God’s word:
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… containeth the word of God, nay, IS the word of God.
You may ask whether the translators would accept a translation as God’s word if it differed from the original Greek and Hebrew. The translators answer this question clearly. They refer to the fact that the apostles quoted from the Septuagint (which they call “the Translation of the Seventy”) although it differed from the original Hebrew writings, referring to it as God’s Word:
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 (which it is apparent, and as Saint 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 of the appellation and name of the word of God.
The Translators Referred to Their Work as a Revision
Although I have mentioned this in a previous post, I must again mention that the King James Bible was identified by its own translators as a revision! On the cover page of the 1611 edition of the King James Bible (as in many King James Bibles today) it reads:
Newly Translated out of the Original Tongues, and with the Former Translations Diligently Compared and Revised
This would be a good place to insert the fact that the King James Version was not the first English version of the Bible. When the King James translators set out to revise the previous English translations, they met much opposition. Would you like to guess what crime with which the King James translators were charged? They were changing God’s word! The English-speaking people already had the Bishop’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Coverdale Bible, and of course the translations of Tyndale and Wycliffe. Now, the King James translators had set out to revise the English Bible once again – and it was not welcomed.
Listen to the words of the translators as they acknowledge that their work of revising the word of God was not received with a warm greeting:
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.
In defending their work of revising the English Bible, the King James translators further added that, if the translators of the previous English versions were yet alive, they would thank the King James translators for revising their works:
So, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, 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.
When one opposes the works of modern versions upon the grounds that “God’s word does not need to be revised,” that opponent, if he or she were alive in 1611, would have opposed the King James Version itself.
The Translators Did Not Regard the King James Text as the Only Correct Rendering of the Original Languages
King James Bibles today do not have the marginal notes that were present in the original King James Bible. I am not speaking of “center column references;” I am rather speaking of notes that the translators made themselves. In the margin of the original King James Bible, the translators provided alternate translations. Those alternate translations were preceded by the word “Or,” and were regarded as equivalent to the text itself. In essence, the translators were saying, “We have translated a Greek or Hebrew word this way, but it can read that way as well.” Thus, the translators were admitting that a Greek or Hebrew word could be translated more than one way.
As you can guess, the translators were criticized for this. Their critics claimed that, by placing alternate translations in the margin, they were tampering with the authority of God’s word. God’s word can only be translated one way, their critics argued. This is the argument of many today who claim that the King James rendering of a certain passage is the only way that passage can be translated. The King James translators, however, did not believe this. In the preface to the King James Bible, they defended first, their belief that some of their renderings were questionable; and second, their use of marginal readings:
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… So diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.
The Translators Encouraged Using a Variety of Translations
Would the translators, if they were alive today, use the King James Version exclusively, or would they use a variety of translations? The answer is found in the preface to the King James Bible, where they quote St. Augustine in a positive light:
Therefore as St. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.
The Translators Were Accused of Heresy
One reason for the widespread rejection of the King James Version in 1611 was due the opinion that some of the translators held to heretical beliefs. Because the translators are heretics, the argument went, their translation should be rejected. The translators responded to this:
And whereas they urge for their second defence of their vilifying and abusing of the English Bibles, or some pieces thereof, which they meet with, for that heretics (forsooth) were Authors of the translations (heretics they call us by the same right that they call themselves Catholics, both being wrong).
It is common for some to reject a version because of a heretical translator. Or, how many times have we been advised to reject modern versions because of the beliefs of Westcott and Hort? Opponents of the King James Version in 1611 called for its rejection on the same grounds. I am convinced that the King James translators would not reject a Bible translation on the basis of the beliefs of its translators, as they had received the same treatment.
