The Embarrassing Preface to the King James Version

Republished with permission from Theologically Driven.

When the King James Version of the Bible came off the press of Robert Barker in 1611, it contained an eleven-page preface titled “The Translators to the Reader.” This preface is primarily a defense of the new translation, but it also provides important information about the translators’ views on the subject of Bible translation. It is an embarrassment (or should be) to King James-only advocates because it contains statements from the translators that are in direct opposition to the KJV-only position. It is most unfortunate that this pref­ace is no longer included in modern copies of the KJV. This post is the beginning of a series that will examine the actual words of the preface in order to refute the erroneous ideas of KJV-only movement with the words of the translators themselves. But before beginning that examination, I will summarize the contents of the preface.

The preface begins by noting, along with examples, that all new en­deavors of whatever kind will commonly face opposition. This is also true for persons who attempt to change and improve anything, even if they are important people like kings. However, the greatest opposition and severest vilification is reserved for those who modify or change the current translation of the Bible, even if that translation is known to have defects.

Next there follows a long section praising Scripture, noting its great value and divine origin. But the perfections of Scripture can never be appreciated unless it is understood, and it cannot be understood until it is translated into the common tongue. Translation is therefore a good thing. Thus, God in his providence raised up individuals to translate the Old Testament into Greek. The Septuagint, though far from perfect, was still sufficient as the Word of God, such that the apostles quoted it in the NT. And even thought the Septuagint was the Word of God, scholars believed it could be improved, which led to the Greek versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, as well as the Hexapla of Origen. Both testaments were then translated into Latin, culminating in Jerome’s Vulgate. Finally, the Scriptures were translated into many tongues, in­cluding English. However, the preface observes, the Roman Catholic Church has generally not allowed the Scriptures to be rendered into the common tongues. Recently, they have produced their own translation of the Bible into English though they seem to have been forced to do it against their better judgment due to the number of Protestant English Bibles available.

The preface then returns to the problem of opposition to the new translation, and translations in general, by answering several objections. The main argument against the new translation questions the need for it, that is, since there had already been a number of English translation of the Bible, why is there need for another? If previous translations were good, there should be no need for another; if they were defective, why were they ever offered in the first place? The answer is, of course, that “nothing is begun and perfected at the same time.” While the efforts of previous English translators are to be commended, nevertheless, they themselves, if they were alive, would thank the translators of this new translation. The previous English Bibles were basically sound, but this new translation affords an opportunity to make improvements and cor­rections.

The translators argue that all previous English translations can rightly be called the Word of God, even though they may contain some “imperfections and blemishes.” Just as the King’s speech which he utters in Parliament is still the King’s speech, though it may be imperfectly trans­lated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin; so also in the case of the translation of the Word of God. For translations will never be infal­lible since they are not like the original manuscripts, which were pro­duced by the apostles and their associates under the influence of inspira­tion. However, even an imperfect translation like the Septuagint can surely be called the Word of God since it was approved and used by the apostles themselves. But since all translations are imperfect, the Church of Rome should not object to the continual process of correcting and improving English translations of the Bible. Even their own Vulgate has gone through many revisions since the day of Jerome.

Finally, the translators state the purpose and plan of the present translation. They have not intended to make a new translation, but to make the best possible translation by improving upon previous ones. To do so they have, of course, carefully examined the original Hebrew and Greek since translation should only be done from the original tongues. Also, they did not work hastily, as did the translators of the Septuagint, who, according to legend, finished their work in only seventy-two days. The translators also availed themselves of commentaries and translations of the Scriptures in other languages. In their work they felt it was essen­tial to include marginal notes, despite the fact that some might feel such notes tend to undermine the authority of the Scriptures. These notes are essential since the translators confess that oftentimes they were unsure how a word or phrase should be translated. This is especially true in Hebrew, where there are a number of words which only occur once in Scripture, and even the Jews themselves are uncertain about their trans­lation. And so, as Augustine notes, a “variety of translations is profitable for finding out of the sense of the Scriptures.” Lastly, the translators ob­serve that, in spite of criticism from some quarters, they decided not to always translate the same Hebrew or Greek word with the same English word and have retained, over the objections of the Puritans, the old ec­clesiastical words like “baptism” instead of “washings.”

Part 2 in this series posts later this week —Ed.

wcombs Bio

Bill Combs serves as Academic Dean as well as Professor of New Testament at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, where he has been teaching since 1983. He earned his BA at Tennessee Temple University, and his MDiv and ThM degrees at Temple Baptist Theological Seminary. He holds a ThD from Grace Theological Seminary. Dr. Combs has also served in pastoral ministry. He and his wife Pansy are members of Inter-City Baptist Church in Allen Park, MI.

Discussion

The KJV preface is absolutely devastating to the KJVO position, because the KJV translators argue against the key tenants of the position, whether KJVO proponents acknowledge it or not.

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

His refusal to eat with Gentiles destroys the unified church view, because he was the one who first took the Gospel to the Gentiles in Acts 10, and he clearly rejected the key tenets of the unified church position.

David, I wasn’t trying to cover every permutation. The people you describe hold to what I said — the KJV is the only acceptable translation of the only acceptable text. Right? If they don’t hold that, they aren’t KJVO….

[JG] His refusal to eat with Gentiles destroys the unified church view, because he was the one who first took the Gospel to the Gentiles in Acts 10, and he clearly rejected the key tenets of the unified church position.
Huh?

-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)

Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA

Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University

Dr Combs set out to prove his assertion that the KJV preface “contains statements from the translators that are in direct opposition to the KJV-only position.” He claims that this would be an “embarrassment” to the KJV only position.

I have read through his attempt so far and frankly am underwhelmed by his logic. Where is the embarrassment? That the KJV translators believed that their translation could have alternative renderings? That the KJV translators believed that even the Septuagint reflected the word of God albeit imperfectly in places? This Emperor has no clothes!

Like all “Multiple Bible Only” advocates, Combs does not actually recognise the diversity of the KJV-only movement. He paints with a broad brush smearing the whole with the least desirable views of a minority. That is the tactics of the modern evolutionary movements of men like Dawkins. Christians should be able to rise above that, especially Bible-believing ones. The vast majority of KJV advocates historically base their position on this issue by rooting it to a textual conviction. We do not say there are not alternative ways of rendering the English translation. Indeed, the KJV marginal notes in the 1611 put in these alternative renderings, which would be equally valid ways of translating the word in English.

The position of Masoretic/TR advocates that lead us to embrace the KJV as the best translation in the English tongue is based on a theological paradigm from biblical presuppositions that was embraced by the Reformers. That is why the Westminster Confession and Baptist Confession documents explicitly include 1 John 5:7 and the longer ending of the Lord’s Prayer etc in their documents. It is not a Ruckmanite or Baptist conspiracy. I wish places like Detroit Baptist would recognise that church history actually extends beyond BJU and the founding of the FBF. I did my own research on this subject. The results of the views of Baptist and Presbyterian churches are presented there. I wish Dr Combs would actually deal with that evidence:

http://oldfaith.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/historic-views-of-the-preserva… Historic Views of Text

If part two does not radically improve from part one, the only embarrassment will be to the reputation of the academic dean of Detroit Baptist!

is IMHO too strong of a word. However, the Preface does represent a philosophy which is at variance with some of the more vehement and vociferous KJVO proponents. They must deal with the fact that the Translators did not support their position.

Hoping to shed more light than heat..

PSFerguson,

3 questions.

1. Which TR is perfectly preserved?

2. Which KJV is the one that is most accurate?

3. Why did God only see fit to perfectly preserve His word for the English speaking people of the world and not anyone else?

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

[Greg Long]
[JG] His refusal to eat with Gentiles destroys the unified church view, because he was the one who first took the Gospel to the Gentiles in Acts 10, and he clearly rejected the key tenets of the unified church position.
Huh?
Well said. What I wrote there doesn’t make any sense, does it, Greg? :)

But I was using the same logic used in this “preface” argument, just applying it to a different person (Peter rather than the translators) and a different doctrine (unity of the church rather than Ruckman KJVO).

***

Ruckman would say, “The KJV is an act of God, not an act of men. The men used to do it were fallible people who make mistakes. This is one of those mistakes.”

Ruckman’s error is in effectively rejecting the sufficiency of the Scripture. He has created a continuationist doctrine of a 1611 gift of prophecy or gift of miraculous tongues-interpreting. That doctrine is not found in Scripture. Sola Scriptura. Any extra-Biblical arguments are much weaker and only divert from the Biblical problem with his view.

[James K] PSFerguson,

3. Why did God only see fit to perfectly preserve His word for the English speaking people of the world and not anyone else?
How convenient for English-speakers to insist that the Bible that happens to be in their own language be the final authority for all other languages! It’s worth remembering that, according to the original 1611 preface, the translators consulted foreign language translations.

“Neither did wee thinke much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, or Latine, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch…”

There are few issues that could challenge the KJVO movement as to who is in complete denial. See some of the above.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

Obviously, the way to receive comments on SI is to promote the KJV.

As to the specific issue at hand of the preface: The issue of the preface might be of help to a Ruckmanite. But to the many others who hold to the KJV for textual reasons, it makes no difference. It is a non-starter. Many who claim to “have the know” about those wacko KJVO-types simply put up a simple solution to a Ruckmanite straw-man and believe every KJVOer should be convinced. (By the way…not too many Ruckmanites read SI.)

Italics: I John 2:23 is admittedly an anomaly. Nowhere else does anything like this occur in the KJV. Evidently they had some reason to include it. They did not consider it to be authentic, or else it would not be in italics. (This is another reason I love the KJV. They communicate the Greek words in regular font, the implications and possibilities in italics.) It is an inconsistency to be noted, but I’m not going to strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.

Capitalization of Pronouns: This is a tricky topic. If no capitals are used, there are many places where the reader must wonder when the Greek is already clear who the antecedant is. There are a few places where the antecedant has two possibilities. Therefore, I believe the weight of the balance is tipped in favor of Capitalizing. You are correct though that some places will require (and communicate) an interpretation.

To the over all issue: I believe that God has preserved his words within the family of the T.R. manuscripts. I can even understand (Biblically) how someone could embrace a Majority Text position. I cannot understand those who hold to a Critical Text position. DavidO provides my reasoning.
This position can be toppled without addressing textual and translation issues since its foundation is theological rather than critical.
Should not all of our beliefs begin with Scripture? Should we not investigate, exegete, ponder, study, and devour the Scriptures before moving to other aspects of a topic? (i.e. history, logic, scholarship, etc.) The only reason I came to the conclusion I did (and believe me, I have studied and pondered the other) is because God promised to preserve His Word. I know he didn’t promise to preserve it in English. I know he didn’t promise to make translators do an unimproveable job. I’m not promoting that.

I cannot see into each C.T. proponents history and heart. But it appears to me they have interpreted Scripture based on fact and history, rather than on its own merit. The foundation for me was the following verses. Psalm 33:11; 100:5; 111:7-8; 117:2; 119:89-90, 144, 152, 160; Isaiah 40:8; 59:21; Matthew 5:18; 24:35; Luke 21:33; John 10:35; Acts 7:38; and I Peter 1:25. Especially exegete Isaiah 59:21. I do see a clear promise from God to preserve His words. It doesn’t give all the details of how, but the promise is clear. Once that is established, I can begin to interpret the little truth of history based upon the big truth of God’s Words. To reverse the order is faulty.

Everyone believes the Bible has been corrupted somewhere, somehow. To not believe that Satan has corrupted the Bible in some way is crazy—Satan seeks to corrupt everything good. C.T. advocates believe the Traditional Text (and KJV and its derivatives in other languages) have been corrupted. I believe the C.T. is the corrupted stream. I challenge anyone to show me a “born-again” or even orthodox church using the C.T. from the years A.D. 600-1800. C.T. advocates believe the accurate Bible God gave was absent from use during these years. Their “pure” Bible was not in use to edify, convict, and minister. In fact, this “pure” Bible of the C.T. folks is continually changing. Every new manuscript, each new tweeking of critical methods yields a different result. Meanwhile, C.T. brethren propose that the corrupted Word (Traditional Text) was used for the Reformation, Inquisition-period, Great Awakening, Billy Sunday etc. If I may be a bit sarcastic for a moment…have you noticed how the state of Christianity has been strengthened from 1881 until now? Have you seen the multitudes being saved and called into service? My belief is founded upon doctrine but is proven by pragmatism (does it work?).

Aaron pointed out the very few variants among certain TR’s. They exist. I’m not hiding from it. But don’t throw out the baby with bath water. Don’t run to the C.T. where there are way more variants! Dean Burgon defended the T.R. and he was open to some revising of the T.R., but he was totally opposed to the 1881 text (As nearly all conservatives were!)

I’m open to a KJV update. There are older words. There some improvements that could be made. Maybe to you that means I’m not KJVO.

If you are interested in reading some serious works regarding this topic, read Which Greek Text, The Traditional Text of the New Testament, The Causes of Corruption, The Text of the New Testament. You don’t have to run from Ruckman straight to any Bible goes. There is a better place-historically, logically, and most important Biblically. Can I explain every detail-no. But again, I don’t have to. All I have to do is 1. Know what God said about preservation and 2. Find the Bible that fits with what God said.

Personally, I’d enjoy responding to each and every detail, but the young church and young family calls me to their attention. Hope this “sharpens” more than “dulls”!

John Uit de Flesch