Contents
Acknowledgements
I would like to give a special thanks to my dear Christian Brother
and eBook conversion mentor Illya Antonenko of osnova.com. When I mentioned to him that
I was going to do an eBook of the The Translators To The Readers
and was looking for a digital source of one of the non-modernized versions
(I wanted to avoid the labor of scanning it in from one of my printed editions
if possible) he graciously sent me the already prepared source code from
his 1611 KJV which includes all of the footnotes from the original already
created and coded in.
Thanks Illya, you saved me a lot of time.
Preface
When the forty-seven or so Translators, all members of the Church
of England, who actually worked on what was to become the 1611 King James
Version of the English Bible had completed their assigned tasks one of
those Translators, Miles Smith, wrote The Translators To The Reader.
In this insightful document he records for those who would read the culmination
of their seven years of labor some thoughts on the purposes of the Translators
and their justifications for the pursuit of those labors as well as their
thoughts on their own translation, other translations, margin notes, and
a host of other topics.
Regrettably many years ago most Bible publishers ceased including
The Translators To The Reader in their King James Bibles
(now generally the 1769 Benjamin Blayney edition / revision) and many who
highly esteem this wonderful English translation of the Bible have never
really read for themselves those thoughts of the ones who actually did the
translation. It is my hope that by making this eBook edition available some
of those who are unaware of a number of very important and pertinent thoughts
that those forty-seven Translators had concerning their translation processes
as well as the finished result of their efforts will be thereby enabled to
view those processes and the finished translation as those Translators did.
I have also included Edgar J. Goodspeed’s Theiss on The Translators
To The Reader in hopes that readers of the King James Bible may see
the importance of having this enlightening preface, The Translators
To The Reader, available to them, even if is not included in their
Bibles
There are a number of “modernized” editions of The Translators
To The Reader that can be found on the internet, which for some may
be easier to read, but as I mentioned in the Acknowledgements, it was my
desire to present an eBook edition as close to the original as I could produce.
The version here presented is with the actual words and spelling of the
original 1611 first edition with only the font being changed to make it far
easier to read. The only other variation is that the various sub headings
included in this edition are not in the “exact, page by page, digitally
remastered replica of the original 1611” [1] first edition I have or in
any other 1611 first edition I have ever seen. At what point they were added
I do not know and as it is such an inconsequential matter I did not take
time to research when they were included. If any reader can supply that
factual data I would be glad to include it in any future revision.
Perhaps a short note as to how these “somewhat modernized” (exact
wording and spelling but with a modern font) versions came into being is
in order.
In order to see what changes were made through the years an “exact
copy” of a 1611 first edition was reconstructed (using 8 point Roman type).
This is where the modernized (same words and spelling but with a different
font) editions currently marketed came from. They are copies of that text.
These editions are commonly referred to as The 1833 Oxford Edition
and are available from Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. – ISBN 978-1-56563-808-2
The following quote is from the book, A Textual History of the
King James Bible by David Norton.
The quote has to do with the selecting of Blayney’s text as the
“final” revision, edition, or whatever appropriate term a person may be comfortable
with, which became our current 1769 KJV.
“At this time Curtis’s involvement with Cambridge came to light,
leading, he supposes, both to the breakdown of the Cambridge project and,
very importantly, to renewed cooperation between the Universities. Curtis
meanwhile was left on the outside, still campaigning.
“There were two important consequences: greater uniformity in the
editions of both Universities and an exact reprint of the first edition,
published by Oxford in 1833 (H 1792), a truly remarkable piece of work that
reproduces all the quirks of the first edition, even inverted letters, with
scarcely an error. This was judged by the Delegates to be ‘the most effectual
method for enabling themselves and others to judge how far the complaints
were well-founded.’ [2]
“Scrivener comments that this edition ‘virtually settled the whole
debate, by shewing to the general reader the obvious impossibility of returning
to the Bible of 1611, with all the defects which those who superintended
the press had been engaged, for more than two centuries, in reducing to a
more consistent and presentable shape’ (p. 35; for a contrasting view, see
below, p. 120). One might add in qualification that many of Curtis’s complaints
had been justified, and that the studious general reader might still want
to see exactly what the translators and their printer produced.
“One quiet element rebutting Curtis is worth noting. Following the
title page, there is a collation of the first edition with the 1613 folio
(selected in preference to the other folios because no two exactly identical
copies of them could be found). Over 400 variations of words are recorded
so that ‘the Reader may learn how far it was thought necessary to correct
the Authorized Text in the time of the original Translators.’ In short, Curtis’s
claim that no substantive change to the original was permitted was shown
not to be the view held in the time of the translators, thus affirming that
there was precedent for the continuing work on the text.
“The necessity of standardisation having been brought home to the
Universities, the Oxford standard, essentially Blayney’s text, now ruled.”
With this final brief informational statement I will bring this Preface
to a conclusion. I have also included in this eBook The Epistle Dedicatory
(the Translators’ dedication of their translation to King James written by
Thomas Bilson) and The Fifteen Rules of Translation which were
given to all the original Translators as their guidelines (co-authored by
Richard Bancroft and King James).
[1] King James Version 1611 digital reproduction
- Zondervan Publishing.
[2] The Holy Bible, an Exact Reprint, statement
bound in at the beginning.
TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTIE
Prince, Iames
by the grace of God King of Great Britaine,
France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c.
THE TRANSLATORS OF THE BIBLE,
with Grace, Mercie, and Peace, through IESVS
CHRIST our LORD.
Great and manifold were the bleſſings (moſt dread Soueraigne) which
Almighty GOD, the Father of all Mercies, beſtowed
vpon vs the people of ENGLAND, when firſt he
ſent your Maieſties Royall perſon to rule and raigne ouer vs. For whereas
it was the expeƈtation of many, who wiſhed not well vnto our SION,
that vpon the ſetting of that bright Occidentall Starre Queene ELIZABETH
of moſt happy memory, ſome thicke and palpable cloudes of darkeneſſe would
ſo haue ouerſhadowed this land, that men ſhould haue bene in doubt which
way they were to walke, and that it ſhould hardly be knowen, who was to direƈt
the vnſetled State: the appearance of your MAIESTIE,
as of the Sunne in his ſtrength, inſtantly diſpelled thoſe ſuppoſed
and ſurmiſed miſts, and gaue vnto all that were well affeƈted, exceeding
cauſe of comfort; eſpecially when we beheld the gouernment eſtabliſhed in
your HIGHNESSE, and your hopefull Seed, by an
vndoubted Title, and this alſo accompanied with Peace and tranquillitie, at
home and abroad.
But amongſt all our Ioyes, there was no one that more filled our
hearts, then the bleſſed continuance of the Preaching of GODS
ſacred word amongſt vs, which is that ineſtimable treaſure, which excelleth
all the riches of the earth, becauſe the fruit thereof extendeth it ſelfe,
not onely to the time ſpent in this tranſitory world, but direƈteth and diſpoſeth
men vnto that Eternall happineſſe which is aboue in Heauen.
Then, not to ſuffer this to fall to the ground, but rather to take
it vp, and to continue it in that ſtate, wherein the famous predeceſſour
of your HIGHNESSE did leaue it; Nay, to goe
forward with the confidence and reſolution of a man in maintaining the trueth
of CHRIST, and propagating it farre and neere,
is that which hath ſo bound and firmely knit the hearts of all your MAIESTIES
loyall and Religious people vnto you, that your very Name is precious among
them, their eye doeth behold you with comfort, and they bleſſe you in their
hearts, as that ſanƈtified perſon, who vnder GOD,
is the immediate authour of their true happineſſe. And this their contentment
doeth not diminiſh or decay, but euery day increaſeth and taketh ſtrength,
when they obſerue that the zeale of your Maieſtie towards the houſe of GOD,
doth not ſlacke or goe backward, but is more and more kindled, manifeſting
it ſelfe abroad in the furtheſt parts of Chriſtendome, by writing
in defence of the Trueth, (which hath giuen ſuch a blow vnto that man of Sinne,
as will not be healed) and euery day at home, by Religious and learned diſcourſe,
by frequenting the houſe of GOD, by hearing
the word preached, by cheriſhing the teachers therof, by caring for the Church
as a moſt tender and louing nourcing Father.
There are infinite arguments of this right Chriſtian and Religious
affeƈtion in your MAIESTIE: but none is more
forcible to declare it to others, then the vehement and perpetuated deſire
of the accompliſhing and publiſhing of this Worke, which now with all humilitie
we preſent vnto your MAIESTIE. For when your
Highneſſe had once out of deepe iudgment apprehended, how conuenient it was,
That out of the Originall ſacred tongues, together with comparing of the
labours, both in our owne and other forreigne Languages, of many worthy men
who went before vs, there ſhould be one more exaƈt Tranſlation of the holy
Scriptures into the Engliſh tongue; your MAIESTIE
did neuer deſiſt, to vrge and to excite thoſe to whom it was commended,
that the worke might be haſtened, and that the buſineſſe might be expedited
in ſo decent a maner, as a matter of ſuch importance might iuſtly require.
And now at laſt, by the Mercy of GOD,
and the continuance of our Labours, it being brought vnto ſuch a concluſion,
as that we haue great hope that the Church of England ſhall reape
good fruit thereby; we hold it our duety to offer it to your MAIESTIE,
not onely as to our King and Soueraigne, but as to the principall moouer
and Author of the Worke. Humbly crauing of your moſt Sacred Maieſtie, that
ſince things of this quality haue euer bene ſubieƈt to the cenſures of ill
meaning and diſcontented perſons, it may receiue approbation and Patronage
from ſo learned and iudicious a Prince as your Highneſſe is, whoſe allowance
and acceptance of our Labours, ſhall more honour and incourage vs, then all
the calumniations and hard interpretations of other men ſhall diſmay vs.
So that, if on the one ſide we ſhall be traduced by Popiſh perſons at home
or abroad, who therefore will maligne vs, becauſe we are poore Inſtruments
to make GODS holy Trueth to be yet more and
more knowen vnto the people, whom they deſire ſtill to keepe in ignorance
and darkneſſe: or if on the other ſide, we ſhall be maligned by ſelfe-conceited
brethren, who runne their owne wayes, and giue liking vnto nothing but what
is framed by themſelues, and hammered on their Anuile; we may reſt ſecure,
ſupported within by the trueth and innocencie of a good conſcience, hauing
walked the wayes of ſimplicitie and integritie, as before the Lord; And ſuſtained
without, by the powerfull Proteƈtion of your Maieſties grace and fauour,
which will euer giue countenance to honeſt and Chriſtian endeuours, againſt
bitter cenſures, and vncharitable imputations.
The LORD of Heauen and earth bleſſe
your Maieſtie with many and happy dayes, that as his Heauenly hand hath
enriched your Highneſſe with many ſingular, and extraordinary Graces; ſo
you may be the wonder of the world in this later age, for happineſſe and
true felicitie, to the honour of that Great GOD,
and the good of his Church, through IESVS CHRIST
our Lord and onely Sauiour.
(∵)
Thomas Bilson 1547-1616
THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER.
The beſt things haue been calumniated.
Zeale to promote the common good, whether it be by deuiſing any
thing our ſelues, or reuiſing that which hath bene laboured by others, deſerueth
certainly much reſpeƈt and eſteeme, but yet findeth but cold intertainment
in the world. It is welcommed with ſuſpicion in ſtead of loue, and with emulation
in ſtead of thankes: and if there be any hole left for cauill to enter,
(and cauill if it doe not finde a hole, will make one) it is ſure to bee
miſconſtrued, and in danger to be condemned. This will eaſily be granted
by as many as know ſtory, or haue any experience. For, was there euer any
thing proieƈted, that ſauoured any way of newneffe or renewing, but the ſame
endured many a ſtorme of gaine-ſaying, or oppoſition? A man would thinke
that Ciuilitie, holeſome Lawes, learning and eloquence, Synods, and Church-maintenance,
(that we ſpeake of no more things of this kinde) ſhould be as ſafe as a Sanƈtuary,
and out of ſhot, 1
as they ſay, that no man would lift vp the heele, no, nor dogge mooue his
tongue againſt the motioners of them. For by the firſt, we are diſtinguiſhed
from bruit-beaſts led with ſenſualitie: By the ſecond, we are bridled and
reſtrained from outragious behauiour, and from doing of iniuries, whether
by fraud or by violence: By the third, we are enabled to informe and reforme
others, by the light and feeling that we haue attained vnto our ſelues: Briefly,
by the fourth being brought together to a parle face to face, we ſooner compoſe
our differences then by writings, which are endleſſe: And laſtly, that the
Church be ſufficiently prouided for, is ſo agreeable to good reaſon and
conſcience, that thoſe mothers are holden to be leſſe cruell, that kill
their children aſſoone as they are borne, then thoſe nourſing fathers and
mothers (whereſoeuer they be) that withdraw from them who hang vpon their
breaſts (and vpon whoſe breaſts againe themſelues doe hang to receiue the
Spirituall and ſincere milke of the word) liuelyhood and ſupport fit for
their eſtates. Thus it is apparent, that theſe things which we ſpeake of,
are of moſt neceſſary vſe, and therefore, that none, either without abſurditie
can ſpeake againſt them, or without note of wickedneſſe can ſpurne againſt
them.
Yet for all that, the learned know that certaine worthy men2 haue bene brought
to vntimely death for none other fault, but for ſeeking to reduce their Countrey-men
to good order and diſcipline: and that in ſome Common-weales3 it was made a
capitall crime, once to motion the making of a new Law for the abrogating
of an old, though the ſame were moſt pernicious: And that certaine, 4 which would be
counted pillars of the State, and paternes of Vertue and Prudence, could not
be brought for a long time to giue way to good Letters and refined ſpeech,
but bare themſelues as auerſe from them, as from rocks or boxes of poiſon:
And fourthly, that hee was no babe, but a great clearke, 5 that gaue foorth
(and in writing to remaine to poſteritie) in paſſion peraduenture, but yet
he gaue foorth, that hee had not ſeene any profit to come by any Synode,
or meeting of the Clergie, but rather the contrary: And laſtly, againſt Church-maintenance
and allowance, in ſuch ſort, as the Embaſſadors and meſſengers of the great
King of Kings ſhould be furniſhed, it is not vnknowen what a fiƈtion or fable
(ſo it is eſteemed, and for no better by the reporter6 himſelfe, though
ſuperſtitious) was deuiſed; Namely, that at ſuch time as the profeſſours
and teachers of Chriſtianitie in the Church of Rome, then a true Church, were
liberally endowed, a voyce forſooth was heard from heauen, ſaying; Now is
poiſon powred down into the Church, &c. Thus not only as oft as we ſpeake,
as one ſaith, but alſo as oft as we do anything of note or conſequence, we
ſubieƈt our ſelues to euery ones cenſure, and happy is he that is leaſt toſſed
vpon tongues; for vtterly to eſcape the ſnatch of them it is impoſſible. If
any man conceit, that this is the lot and portion of the meaner ſort onely,
and that Princes are priuiledged by their high eſtate, he is deceiued. As
the ſword deuoureth aſwell one as the other, as it is in Samuel
(2 Sam. 11: 25); nay as the great Commander charged his ſouldiers in a
certaine battell, to ſtrike at no part of the enemie, but at the face; And
as the King of Syria commanded his chiefe Captaines to fight neither
with ſmall nor great, ſaue onely againſt the King of Iſrael (1 Kings
22: 31): ſo it is too true, that Enuie ſtriketh moſt ſpitefully at the faireſt,
and at the chiefeſt. Dauid was a worthy Prince, and no man to be compared
to him for his firſt deedes, and yet for as worthy an aƈte as euer he did
(euen for bringing backe the Arke of God in ſolemnitie) he was ſcorned and
ſcoffed at by his owne wife (2 Sam. 6: 16). Solomon was greater then
Dauid, though not in vertue, yet in power: and by his power
and wiſdome 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 doe they lay it in his ſonnes diſh, and call vnto him for eaſing of
the burden, 7
Make, ſay they, the grieuous ſeruitude of thy father, and
his ſore yoke, lighter. (1 Kings 12: 4) Belike he had charged them with
ſome leuies, and troubled them with ſome cariages; Hereupon they raiſe vp
a tragedie, and wiſh in their heart the Temple had neuer bene built. So hard
a thing it is to pleaſe all, euen when we pleaſe God beſt, and doe ſeeke
to approue our ſelues to euery ones conſcience.
The higheſt perſonages haue been calumniated.
If wee will deſcend to later times, wee ſhall finde many the like
examples of ſuch kind, or rather vnkind acceptance. The firſt Romane Emperour8 did neuer doe
a more pleaſing deed to the learned, nor more profitable to poſteritie, for
conſeruing the record of times in true ſupputation; then when he correƈted
the Calender, and ordered the yeere according to the courſe of the Sunne:
and yet this was imputed to him for noueltie, and arrogancie, and procured
to him great obloquie. So the firſt Chriſtened Emperour9 (at the leaſtwiſe
that openly profeſſed the faith himſelfe, and allowed others to doe the like)
for ſtrengthening the Empire at his great charges, and prouiding for the
Church, as he did, got for his labour the name Pupillus, 10 as who would
ſay, a waſtefull Prince, that had neede of a Guardian, or ouerſeer. So the
beſt Chriſtened Emperour, 11 for the loue that he bare vnto peace, thereby
to enrich both himſelfe and his ſubieƈts, and becauſe he did not ſeeke warre
but find it, was iudged to be no man at armes, 12 (though in
deed he excelled in feates of chiualrie, and ſhewed ſo much when he was prouoked)
and condemned for giuing himſelfe to his eaſe, and to his pleaſure. To be
ſhort, the moſt learned Emperour13 of former times, (at the leaſt, the greateſt
politician) what thanks had he for cutting off the ſuperfluities of the
lawes, and digeſting them into ſome order and method? This, that he hath
been blotted by ſome to bee an Epitomiſt, that is, one that extinguiſhed
worthy whole volumes, to bring his abridgements into requeſt. This is the
meaſure that hath been rendred to excellent Princes in former times, euen,
Cum benè facerent, malè audire, For their good deedes to be
euill ſpoken of. Neither is there any likelihood, that enuie and malignitie
died, and were buried with the ancient. No, no, the reproofe of Moſes
taketh hold of moſt ages; You are riſen vp in your fathers ſtead,
an increaſe of ſinfull men. (Num. 32: 14) What is that that hath been
done? that which ſhall be done: and there is no new thing vnder the Sunne,
ſaith the wiſeman (Steuen, As your fathers
did, ſo doe you. (Acts 7: 51)
His Maiesties conſtancie, notwithſtanding
calumniation, for the ſurvey of the Engliſh translations.
This, and more to this purpoſe, His Maieſtie that now reigneth (and
long, and long may he reigne, and his offſpring for euer, Himſelfe and
children, and childrens children alwayes)14 knew full
well, according to the ſingular wiſedome giuen vnto him by God, and the rare
learning and experience that he hath attained vnto; namely that whoſoeuer
attempteth any thing for the publike (ſpecially if it pertaine to Religion,
and to the opening and clearing of the word of God) the ſame ſetteth himſelfe
vpon a ſtage to be glouted vpon by euery euil eye, yea, he caſteth himſelfe
headlong vpon pikes, to be gored by euery ſharpe tongue. For he that medleth
with mens Religion in any part, medleth with their cuſtome, nay, with their
freehold; and though they finde no content in that which they haue, yet they
cannot abide to heare of altering. Notwithſtanding his Royall heart was
not daunted or diſcouraged for this or that colour, but ſtood reſolute,
as a ſtatue immoueable, and an anuile not eaſie to be beaten into
plates, 15
as one ſayth; he knew who had choſen him to be a Souldier, or rather a Captaine,
and being aſſured that the courſe which he intended made much for the glory
of God, & the building vp of his Church, he would not ſuffer it to be
broken off for whatſoeuer ſpeaches or praƈtiſes. It doth certainely belong
vnto Kings, yea, it doth ſpecially belong vnto them, to haue care of Religion,
yea, to know it aright, yea, to profeſſe it zealouſly, yea to promote it
to the vttermoſt of their power. This is their glory before all nations which
meane well, and this will bring vnto them a farre moſt excellent weight of
glory in the day of the Lord Ieſus. For the Scripture ſaith not in vaine,
Them that honor me, I will honor, (1 Sam. 2: 30) neither was
it a vaine word that Euſebius deliuered long agoe, that pietie towards
God16 was
the weapon, and the onely weapon that both preſerued Conſtantines perſon,
and auenged him of his enemies.17
The praiſe of the holy Scriptures.
But now what pietie without trueth? what trueth (what ſauing trueth)
without the word of God? what word of God (whereof we may be ſure) without
the Scripture? The Scriptures we are commanded to ſearch. Ioh. 5.39. Eſa.
8.20. They are commended that ſearched & ſtudied them. Aƈt. 17.11. and
8.28, 29>. They are reproued that were vnſkilful in them, or ſlow to beleeue
them. Mat. 22.29. Luk. 24.25. They can make vs wiſe vnto ſaluation. 2. Tim.
3.15. If we be ignorant, they will inſtruƈt vs; if out of the way, they
will bring vs home; if out of order, they will reforme vs, if in heauines,
comfort vs; if dull, quicken vs; if colde, inflame vs. Tolle, lege; Tolle,
lege, Take vp and read, take vp and read the Scriptures, (for vnto them
was the direƈtion) it was ſaid vnto S. Auguſtine18 by a ſupernaturall
voyce. Whatſoeuar is in the Scriptures, beleeue me, ſaith the
ſame S. Auguſtine, 19 is high and diuine; there is verily trueth,
and a doƈtrine moſt fit for the refreſhing and renewing of mens mindes, and
truely ſo tempered, that euery one may draw from thence that which is ſufficient
for him, if hee come to draw with a deuout and pious minde, as true Religion
requireth. Thus S. Auguſtine. And S. Hierome: 20 Ama ſcripturas,
& amabit te ſapientia &c. Loue the Scriptures, and wiſedome
will loue thee. And S. Cyrill againſt Iulian;21 Euen boyes
that are bred vp in the Scriptures, become moſt religious, &c.
But what mention wee three or foure vſes of the Scripture, whereas whatſoeuer
is to be beleeued or praƈtiſed, or hoped for, is contained in them? or three
or foure ſentences of the Fathers, ſince whoſoeuer is worthy of the name
of a Father, from Chriſts time downeward, hath likewiſe written not onely
of the riches, but alſo of the perfeƈtion of the Scripture? I adore the
fulneſſe of the Scripture, ſaith Tertullian againſt Hermogenes.22 And againe,
to Apelles23
an Heretike of the like ſtampe, he ſaith; I doe not admit that which
thou bringeſt in (or concludeſt) of thine owne (head or ſtore,
de tuo) without Scripture. So Saint Iuſtin Martyr24 before him;
Wee muſt know by all meanes, ſaith hee, that it is not lawfull
(or poſſible) to learne (any thing) of God or of right pietie,
ſaue onely out of the Prophets, who teach vs by diuine inſpiration. So
Saint Baſill after Tertullian, 25 It is a
manifeſt falling away from the Faith, and a fault of preſumption, either to
reieƈt any of thoſe things that are written, or to bring in (vpon the
head of them, ἐπεισάγειν) any of thoſe things that are not
written. Wee omit to cite to the ſame effeƈt, S. Cyrill B. of
Hieruſalem in his 4. Catacheſ. Saint Hierome againſt
Heludius, Saint Auguſtine in his 3. booke againſt
the letters of Petilian, and in very many other places of his workes.
Alſo we forebeare to deſcend to latter Fathers, becauſe wee will not wearie
the reader. The Scriptures then being acknowledged to bee ſo full and ſo
perfeƈt, how can wee excuſe our ſelues of negligence, if we doe not ſtudie
them, of curioſitie, if we be not content with them? Men talke much of εἰρεσίωνη,
26 how
many ſweete and goodly things it had hanging on it; of the Philoſphers ſtone,
that it turneth copper into gold; of Cornu-copia, that it had all things
neceſſary for foode in it; of Panaces the herbe, that it was good
for all diſeaſes; of Catholicon the drugge, that it is in ſtead of
all purges; of Vulcans armour, that is was an armour of proofe againſt
all thruſts, and all blowes, &c. Well, that which they falſly or vainely
attributed to theſe things for bodily good, wee may iuſtly and with full
meaſure aſcribe vnto the Scripture, for ſpirituall. It is not onely an armour,
but alſo a whole armorie of weapons, both offenſiue, and defenſiue; whereby
we may ſaue our ſelues and put the enemie to flight. It is not an herbe,
but a tree, or rather a whole paradiſe of trees of life, which bring foorth
fruit euery moneth, and the fruit thereof is for meate, and the leaues for
medicine. It is not a pot of Manna, or a cruſe of oyle, which were
for memorie only, or for a meales meate or two, but as it were a ſhowre of
heauenly bread ſufficient for a whole hoſt, be it neuer ſo great; and as
it were a whole cellar full of oyle veſſels; whereby all our neceſsities may
be prouided for, and our debts diſcharged. In a word, it is a Panary of holeſome
foode, againſt fenowed27
traditions; a Phyſions-ſhop (Saint Baſill28 calleth it)
of preſeruatiues againſt poiſoned hereſies; a Pandeƈt of profitable lawes,
againſt rebellious ſpirits; a treaſurie of moſt coſtly iewels, againſt beggarly
rudiments; Finally a fountaine of moſt pure water ſpringing vp vnto euerlaſting
life. And what maruaile? The originall thereof being from heauen, not from
earth; the authour being God, not man; the enditer, the holy ſpirit, not the
wit of the Apoſtles or Prophets; the Pen-men ſuch as were ſanƈtified from
the wombe, and endewed with a principall portion of Gods ſpirit; the matter,
veritie, pietie, puritie, vprightneſſe; the forme, Gods word, Gods teſtimonie,
Gods oracles, the word of trueth, the word of ſaluation, &c. the effeƈts,
light of vnderſtanding, ſtableneſſe of perſwaſion, repentance from dead
workes, newneſſe of life, holineſſe, peace, ioy in the holy Ghoſt; laſtly,
the end and reward of the ſtudie thereof, fellowſhip with the Saints, participation
of the heauenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortall, vndefiled,
and that neuer ſhall fade away: Happie is the man that delighteth in the
Scripture, and thriſe happie that meditateth in it day and night.
Tranſlation neceſſarie.
But how ſhall men meditate in that, which they cannot vnderſtand?
How ſhall they vnderſtand that which is kept cloſe in an vnknowen tongue?
as it is written, Except I know the power of the voyce, I ſhall be to
him that ſpeaketh, a Barbarian, and he that ſpeaketh, ſhalbe a Barbarian to
me (1 Cor. 14). The Apoſtle excepteth no tongue, not Hebrewe the ancienteſt,
not Greeke the moſt copious, not Latine the fineſt. Nature taught a naturall
man to confeſſe, that all of vs in thoſe tongues which wee doe not vnderſtand,
are plainely deafe; wee may turne the deafe eare vnto them. The Scythian
counted the Athenian, whom he did not vnderſtand, barbarous: 29 ſo the Romane
did the Syrian, and the Iew, (euen S. Hierome30 himſelfe
calleth the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike becauſe it was ſtrange to ſo
many) ſo the Emperour of Conſtantinople calleth the Latine
tongue, barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do ſtorme at it: 31 ſo the Iewes
long before Chriſt, called all other nations, Lognazim, which
is little better then barbarous. Therefore as one complaineth, that alwayes
in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter:
32 ſo
leſt the Church be driuen to the like exigent, it is neceſſary to haue tranſlations
in a readineſſe. 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 curtaine, that we may looke into the moſt Holy place; that remooueth
the couer of the well, that wee may come by the water, euen as Iacob
rolled away the ſtone from the mouth of the well, by which meanes the flockes
of Laban were watered (Gen. 29: 10). Indeede without tranſlation
into the vulgar tongue, the vnlearned are but like children at Iacobs
well (which was deepe) (John 4: 11) without a bucket or ſome thing to draw
with: or as that perſon mentioned by Eſay, to whom when a ſealed booke
was deliuered, with this motion, Reade this, I pray thee, hee was
faine to make this anſwere, I cannot, for it is ſealed. (Isa. 29:
11)
The tranſlation of the olde Teſtament
out of the Hebrew into Greeke.
While God would be knowen onely in Iacob, and haue his Name
great in Iſrael, and in none other place, while the dew lay on Gideons
fleece onely, and all the earth beſides was drie;33 then for one
and the ſame people, which ſpake all of them the language of Canaan,
that is, Hebrewe, one and the ſame originall in Hebrew was
ſufficient. But when the fulneſſe of time drew neere, that the Sunne of righteouſneſſe,
the Sonne of God ſhould come into the world, whom God ordeined to be a reconciliation
through faith in his blood, not of the Iew onely, but alſo of the
Greeke, yea, of all them that were ſcattered abroad; then loe,
it pleaſed the Lord to ſtirre vp the ſpirit of a GreekePrince (Greeke
for deſcent and language) euen of Ptolome Philadelph King of Egypt,
to procure the tranſlating of the Booke of God out of Hebrew into
Greeke. This is the tranſlation of the Seuentie
Interpreters, commonly ſo called, which prepared the way for our Sauiour
among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint Iohn Baptiſt did
among the Iewes by vocall. For the Grecians being deſirous
of learning, were not wont to ſuffer bookes of worth to lye moulding in
Kings Libraries, but had many of their ſeruants, ready ſcribes, to copie
them out, and ſo they were diſperſed and made common. Againe, the Greeke
tongue was well knowen 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 vnderſtood in many places of Europe, yea, and of Affrike
too. Therefore the word of God being ſet foorth in Greeke, becommeth
hereby like a candle ſet vpon a candleſticke, which giueth light to all that
are in the houſe, or like a proclamation ſounded foorth in the market place,
which moſt men preſently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was
fitteſt to containe the Scriptures, both for the firſt Preachers of the
Goſpel to appeale vnto for witneſſe, and for the learners alſo of thoſe times
to make ſearch and triall by. It is certaine, that the Tranſlation was not
ſo ſound and ſo perfeƈt, but that it needed in many places correƈtion; and
who had bene ſo ſufficient for this worke as the Apoſtles or Apoſtolike 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
then by making a new, in that new world and greene age of the Church, to
expoſe themſelues to many exceptions and cauillations, as though they made
a Tranſlation to ſerue their owne turne, and therefore bearing witneſſe to
themſelues, their witneſſe not to be regarded. This may be ſuppoſed to bee
ſome cauſe, why the Tranſlation of the Seuentie was allowed to paſſe
for currant. Notwithſtanding, though it was commended generally, yet it
did not fully content the learned, no not of the Iewes. 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 fift and a ſixt edition, the Authours wherof were not knowen. Theſe
with the Seuentie made vp the Hexapla, and were worthily and
to great purpoſe compiled together by Origen. Howbeit the Edition
of the Seuentie went away with the credit, and therefore not onely
was placed in the midſt by Origen (for the worth and excellencie thereof
aboue the reſt, as Epiphanius34 gathereth) but alſo was vſed by the Greeke
fathers for the ground and foundation of their Commentaries.35 Yea, Epiphanius
aboue named doeth attribute ſo much vnto it, that he holdeth the Authours
thereof not onely for Interpreters, but alſo for Prophets in ſome reſpeƈt:
and Iuſtinian the Emperour36 enioyning the Iewes his ſubieƈts to
vſe ſpecially the Tranſlation of the Seuentie, rendreth this reaſon
thereof, becauſe they were as it were enlighted with propheticall grace.37 Yet for all
that, as the Egyptians are ſaid of the Prophet to bee men and not
God, and their horſes fleſh and not ſpirit (Isa. 31: 3): ſo it is euident,
(and Saint Hierome38
affirmeth as much) that the Seuentie 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 ouerſight, another while through ignorance,
yea, ſometimes they may be noted to adde to the Originall, and ſometimes
to take from it; which made the Apoſtles to leaue them many times, when they
left the Hebrew, and to deliuer the ſence thereof according to the
trueth of the word, as the ſpirit gaue them vtterance. This may ſuffice touching
the Greeke Tranſlations of the old Teſtament.
Tranſlation out of Hebrew and Greeke into
Latine.
There were alſo within a few hundreth yeeres after CHRIST,
tranſlations many into the Latine tongue: for this tongue alſo was very
fit to conuey the Law and the Goſpel by, becauſe in thoſe times very many
Countreys of the Weſt, yea of the South, Eaſt and North, ſpake or vnderſtood
Latine, being made Prouinces to the Romanes. But now the Latine Tranſlations
were too many to be all good, for they were infinite (Latini Interpretes
nullo modo numerari poſſunt, ſaith S. Auguſtine.39) Againe they
were not out of the Hebrew fountaine (wee ſpeake of the LatineTranſlations
of the Old Teſtament) but out of the Greeke ſtreame, therefore the
Greeke being not altogether cleare, the Latine deriued
from it muſt needs be muddie. This moued S. Hierome a moſt
learned father, and the beſt linguiſt without controuerſie, of his age, or
of any that went before him, to vndertake the tranſlating of the Old Teſtament,
out of the very fountaines themſelues; which hee performed with that euidence
of great learning, iudgement, induſtrie and faithfulnes, that he hath for
euer bound the Church vnto him, in a debt of ſpeciall remembrance and thankefulneſſe.
The tranſlating of the Scripture into
the vulgar tongues.
Now though the Church were thus furniſhed with Greeke and
Latine Tranſlations, euen before the faith of CHRIST
was generally embraced in the Empire: (for the learned know40 that euen
in S. Ieromstime, the Conſul of Rome and his wife were
both Ethnicks, and about the ſame time the greateſt part of the Senate alſo)
yet for all that the godly-learned were not content to haue the Scriptures
in the Language which themſelues vnderſtood, Greeke and Latine,
(as the good Lepers were not content to fare well themſelues, but acquainted
their neighbours with the ſtore that God had ſent, that they alſo might prouide
for themſelues (2 Kings 7: 9) but alſo for the behoofe and edifying of the
vnlearned which hungred and thirſted after Righteouſneſſe, and had ſoules
to be ſaued as well as they, they prouided Tranſlations into the vulgar
for their Countreymen, inſomuch that moſt nations vnder heauen did ſhortly
after their conuerſion, heare CHRIST ſpeaking
vnto them in their mother tongue, not by the voyce of their Miniſter onely,
but alſo by the written word tranſlated. If any doubt hereof, he may be
ſatiſfied by examples enough, if enough will ſerue the turne. Firſt
S. Hierome41
ſaith, Multarum gentiu linguis Scriptura antè tranſlata, docet falſa eſſe
quæ addita ſunt, &c.i. The Scripture being tranſlated before in the
languages of many Nations, doth ſhew that thoſe things that were added
(by Lucian or Heſychius) are falſe. So S. Hierome
in that place. The ſame Hierome42 elſewhere affirmeth that he, the time was,
had ſet forth the tranſlation of the Seuenty, ſuæ linguæ hominibus.i.
for his countreymen of Dalmatia. Which words not only Eraſmus
doth vnderſtand to purport, that S. Hierome tranſlated the Scripture
into the Dalmatiantongue, but alſo Sixtus Senenſis,
43 and
Alphonſus à Caſtro44 (that we ſpeake of no more) men not to be
excepted againſt by them of Rome, doe ingenuouſly confeſſe as much.
So, S. Chryſoſtome45 that liued in S. Hieromes time, giueth
euidence with him: The doƈtrine of S. Iohn (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 haue learned to be (true) Philoſophers, he meaneth Chriſtians.
To this may be added Theodorit, 46 as next vnto
him, both for antiquitie, and for learning. His words be theſe, Euery
Countrey that is vnder the Sunne, is full of theſe wordes (of the Apoſtles
and Prophets) and the Hebrew tongue (he meaneth the Scriptures in
the Hebrew tongue) is turned not onely into the Language
of the Grecians, but alſo of the Romanes, and Egyptians, and Perſians, and
Indians, and Armenians, and Scythians, and Sauromatians, and briefly into
all the Languages that any Nation vſeth. So he. In like maner, Vlpilas
is reported by Paulus Diaconus47 and Iſidor48 (and before
them by Sozomen49)
to haue tranſlated the Scriptures into the Gothicketongue: Iohn
Biſhop of Siuil by Vaſſeus, 50 to haue turned
them into Arabicke, about the yeere of our Lord 717: Beda by
Ciſtertienſis, to haue turned a great part of them into
Saxon: Efnard by Trithemius, to haue abridged
the French Pſalter, as Beda had done the Hebrew, about the
yeere 800: King Alured by the ſaid Ciſtertienſis, to
haue turned the Pſalter into Saxon: 51 Methodius
by Auentinus52 (printed at Ingolſtad) to haue
turned the Scriptures into Sclauonian: 53 Valdo,
Biſhop of Friſing by Beatus Rhenanus, 54 to haue cauſed
about that time, the Goſpels to be tranſlated into Dutch-rithme,
yet extant in the Library of Corbinian: Valdus, by diuers to
haue turned them himſelfe, or to haue gotten them turned into French,
about the yeere 1160: Charles the 5. of that name, ſurnamed The
wiſe, to haue cauſed them to be turned into French, about 200.
yeeres after Valdus his time, of which tranſlation there be many copies
yet extant, as witneſſeth Beroaldus.55 Much about
that time, euen in our King Richard the ſeconds dayes, Iohn Treuiſa
tranſlated them into Engliſh, and many Engliſh Bibles in written
hand are yet to be ſeene with diuers, tranſlated as it is very probable,
in that age. So the Syrian tranſlation of the New Teſtament is in moſt
learned mens Libraries, of Widminſtadius his ſetting forth, and the
Pſalter in Arabicke is with many, of Auguſtinus Nebienſis
ſetting foorth. So Poſtel affirmeth, that in his trauaile he ſaw the
Goſpels in the Ethiopian tongue; And Ambroſe Theſius alleageth
the Pſalter of the Indians, which he teſtifieth to haue bene ſet forth
by Potken in Syrian charaƈters. So that, to haue the Scriptures
in the mother-tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken vp, either by
the Lord Cromwell in England, 56 or by the
Lord Radeuil in Polonie, or by the Lord Vngnadius in
the Emperours dominion, but hath bene thought vpon, and put in praƈtiſe of
old, euen from the firſt times of the conuerſion of any Nation; no doubt,
becauſe it was eſteemed moſt profitable, to cauſe faith to grown in mens
hearts the ſooner, and to make them to be able to ſay with the words of the
Pſalme, As we haue heard, ſo we haue ſeene. (Ps. 48: 8)
The vnwillingnes of our chiefe Aduerſaries,
that the Scriptures ſhould be diuulged in the mother tongue, &c.
Now the Church of Rome would ſeeme at the length to beare a motherly
affeƈtion towards her children, and to allow them the Scriptures in their
mother tongue: but indeed it is a gift, 57 not deſeruing
to be called a gift, an vnprofitable gift: they muſt firſt get a Licence
in writing before they may vſe them, and to get that, they muſt approue themſelues
to their Confeſſor, that is, to be ſuch as are, if not frozen in the dregs,
yet ſoured with the leauen of their ſuperſtition. Howbeit, it ſeemed too
much to Clement the 8.58 that there ſhould be any Licence granted to
haue them in the vulgar tongue, and therefore he ouerruleth and fruſtrateth
the grant of Pius the fourth. So much are they afraid of the
light of the Scripture, (Lucifugæ Scripturarum, as Tertullian59 ſpeaketh)
that they will not truſt the people with it, no not as it is ſet foorth by
their owne ſworne men, no not with the Licence of their owne Biſhops and Inquiſitors.
Yea, ſo vnwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the peoples vnderſtanding
in any ſort, that they are not aſhamed to confeſſe, that wee 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 touch-ſtone, but he that
hath the counterfeit; neither is it the true man that ſhunneth the light,
but the malefaƈtour, leſt his deedes ſhould be reproued (John 3: 20): neither
is it the plaine dealing Merchant that is vnwilling to haue the waights,
or the meteyard brought in place, but he that vſeth deceit. But we will let
them alone for this fault, and returne to tranſlation.
The ſpeaches and reaſons, both of our
brethren, and of our Aduerſaries againſt this worke.
Many mens mouths haue bene 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 aſke what may be the reaſon, what the neceſſitie
of the employment: Hath the Church bene deceiued, ſay they, all this while?
Hath her ſweet bread bene mingled with leauen, her ſiluer with droſſe, her
wine with water, her milke with lime? (Laƈte gypſum malè miſcetur,
ſaith S. Ireney.60)
We hoped that we had bene in the right way, that we had had the Oracles
of God deliuered vnto vs, and that though all the world had cauſe to be offended
and to complaine, yet that we had none. Hath the nurſe holden out the breaſt,
and nothing but winde in it? Hath the bread bene deliuered by the fathers
of the Church, and the ſame proued to be lapidoſus, as Seneca
ſpeaketh? What is it to handle the word of God deceitfully, if this be not?
Thus certaine brethren. Alſo the aduerſaries of Iudah and Hieruſalem,
like Sanballat in Nehemiah, mocke, as we heare, both at the
worke and workemen, ſaying; What doe theſe weake Iewes, &c. will they
make the ſtones whole againe out of the heapes of duſt which are burnt? although
they build, yet if a foxe goe vp, he ſhall euen breake downe their ſtony
wall (Neh. 4: 3). Was their Tranſlation good before? Why doe they now
mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people? Yea, why
did the Catholicks (meaning Popiſh Romaniſts) alwayes goe in ieopardie,
for refuſing to goe to heare it? Nay, if it muſt be tranſlated into Engliſh,
Catholicks are fitteſt to doe it. They haue learning, and they know when a
thing is well, they can manum de tabulá. Wee will anſwere them both
briefly: and the former, being brethren, thus, with S. Hierome, 61 Damnamus
veteres? Minimè, ſed poſt priorum ſtudia in domo Domini quod poſſumus laboramus.
That is, Doe we condemne the ancient? In no caſe: but after the endeuours
of them that were before vs, wee take the beſt paines we can in the houſe
of God. As if hee ſaid, Being prouoked by the example of the learned
that liued before my time, I haue thought it my duetie, to aſſay whether my
talent in the knowledge of the tongues, may be profitable in any meaſure to
Gods Church, leſt I ſhould ſeeme to haue laboured in them in vaine, and
leſt I ſhould be thought to glory in men, (although ancient,) aboue that which
was in them. Thus S. Hierome may be thought to ſpeake.
A satiſfaƈtion to our brethren.
And to the ſame effeƈt ſay wee, that we are ſo farre off from condemning
any of their labours that traueiled before vs in this kinde, either in this
land or beyond ſea, either in King Henries time, or King Edwards
(if there were any tranſlation, or correƈtion of a tranſlation in his time)
or Queene Elizabeths of euer-renoumed memorie, that we acknowledge
them to haue beene raiſed vp of God, for the building and furniſhing of his
Church, and that they deſerue to be had of vs and of poſteritie in euerlaſting
remembrance. The Iudgement of Ariſtotle62 is worthy
and well knowen: If Timotheus had not bene, we had not had much ſweet
muſicke; but if Phrynis (Timotheus his maſter) had
not beene, wee had not had Timotheus. Therefore bleſſed be they, and moſt
honoured be their name, that breake the ice, and glueth onſet vpon that which
helpeth forward to the ſauing of ſoules. Now what can bee more auaileable
thereto, then to delieuer Gods booke vnto Gods people in a tongue which they
vnderſtand? Since of an hidden treaſure, and of a fountaine that is ſealed,
there is no profit, as Ptolomee Philadelph wrote to the Rabbins or
maſters of the Iewes, as witneſſeth Epiphanius: 63 and as S.
Auguſtine64
ſaith; A man had rather be with his dog then with a ſtranger (whoſe
tongue is ſtrange vnto him.) Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfited
at the ſame time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiſer: ſo,
if we building vpon their foundation that went before vs, and being holpen
by their labours, doe endeuour to make that better which they left ſo good;
no man, we are ſure, hath cauſe to miſlike vs; they, we perſuade our ſelues,
if they were aliue, would thanke vs. The vintage of Abiezer, that
ſtrake the ſtroake: yet the gleaning of grapes of Ephraim was not to be deſpiſed.
See Iudges 8. verſe 2. Ioaſh the king of Iſrael
did not ſatiſfie himſelfe, till he had ſmitten the ground three times;
and yet hee offended the Prophet, for giuing ouer then (2 Kings 13: 18,
19). Aquila, of whom wee ſpake before, tranſlated the Bible
as carefully, and as ſkilfully as he could; and yet he thought good to goe
ouer it againe, and then it got the credit with the Iewes, to be called
κατὰ ἀκρίβειαν, that is accuratly done, as Saint Hierome65 witneſſeth.
How many bookes of profane learning haue bene gone ouer againe and againe,
by the ſame tranſlators, by others? Of one and the ſame booke of Ariſtotles
Ethikes, there are extant not ſo few as ſixe or ſeuen ſeuerall tranſlations.
Now if this coſt may bee beſtowed vpon the goord, which affordeth vs a little
ſhade, and which to day flouriſheth, but to morrow is cut downe; what may
we beſtow, nay what ought we not to beſtow vpon the Vine, the fruite whereof
maketh glad the conſcience of man, and the ſtemme whereof abideth for euer?
And this is the word of God, which we tranſlate. What is the chaffe
to the wheat, ſaith the Lord? (Jer. 23: 28) Tanti vitreum, quanti
verum margaritum (ſaith Tertullian, 66) if a toy
of glaſſe be of that rekoning with vs, how ought wee to value the true pearle?67 Therefore
let no mans eye be euill, becauſe his Maieſties is good; neither let any
be grieued, that wee haue a Prince that ſeeketh the increaſe of the ſpirituall
wealth of Iſrael (let Sanballats and Tobiahs doe ſo,
which therefore doe beare their iuſt reproofe) but let vs rather bleſſe God
from the ground of our heart, for working this religious care in him, to haue
the tranſlations of the Bible maturely conſidered of and examined. For by
this meanes it commeth to paſſe, that whatſoeuer is ſound alreadie (and all
is ſound for ſubſtance, in one or other of our editions, and the worſt of
ours farre better then their autentike vulgar) the ſame will ſhine as gold
more brightly, being rubbed and poliſhed; alſo if any thing be halting, or
ſuperfluous, or not ſo agreeable to the originall, the ſame may bee correƈted,
and the trueth ſet in place. And what can the King command to bee done, that
will bring him more true honour then this? and wherein could they that haue
beene ſet a worke, approue their duetie to the King, yea their obedience
to God, and loue to his Saints more, then by yeelding their ſeruice, and all
that is within them, for the furniſhing of the worke? But beſides all this,
they were the principall motiues of it, and therefore ought leaſt to quarrell
it: for the very Hiſtoricall trueth is, that vpon the importunate petitions
of the Puritanes, at this Maieſties comming to this Crowne, the Conference
at Hampton Court hauing bene 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 booke, ſince it maintained the Bible as it was there tranſlated,
which was as they ſaid, a moſt corrupted tranſlation. And although this was
iudged to be but a very poore and emptie ſhift; yet euen hereupon did his
Maieſtie beginne to bethinke himſelfe of the good that might enſue by a
new tranſlation, and preſently after gaue order for this Tranſlation which
is now preſented vnto thee. Thus much to ſatiſfie our ſcrupulous Brethren.
An anſwere to the imputations of our aduerſaries.
Now to the later we anſwere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme
and auow, that the very meaneſt tranſlation of the Bible in Engliſh, ſet
foorth by men of our profeſſion (for wee haue ſeene none of theirs of the
whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.
As the Kings Speech which hee vttered in Parliament, being tranſlated into
French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is ſtill the Kings
Speech, though it be not interpreted by euery Tranſlator with the like grace,
nor peraduenture ſo fitly for phraſe, nor ſo expreſly for ſence, euery where.
For it is confeſſed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater
part; and a naturall man could ſay, Verùm vbi multa nitent in carmine,
non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c.68 A man may
be counted a vertuous man, though hee haue made many ſlips in his life, (els,
there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all, (James
3: 2) alſo a comely man and louely, though hee haue ſome warts vpon his
hand, yea, not onely freakles vpon his face, but all ſkarres. No cauſe therefore
why the word tranſlated ſhould bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to
be currant, notwithſtanding that ſome imperfeƈtions and blemiſhes may be
noted in the ſetting foorth of it. For what euer was perfeƈt vnder the Sunne,
where Apoſtles or Apoſtolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary
meaſure of Gods ſpirit, and priuiledged with the priuiledge of infallibilitie,
had not their hand? The Romaniſtes therefore in refuſing to heare, and daring
to burne the Word tranſlated, did no leſſe then deſpite the ſpirit of grace,
from whom originally it proceeded, and whoſe ſenſe and meaning, as well as
mans weakneſſe would enable, it did expreſſe. Iudge by an example or two.
Plutarch69
writeth, that after that Rome had beene burnt by the Galles,
they fell ſoone to builde it againe: but doing it in haſte, they did not
caſt the ſtreets, nor proportion the houſes in ſuch comely faſhion, as had
bene moſt ſightly and conuenient; 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 Ezrah
(Ezra 3: 12), and the propheſie of Haggai it may be gathered, that
the Temple build by Zerubbabel after the returne from Babylon,
was by no meanes to bee compared to the former built by Solomon (for
they that remembred the former, wept when they conſidered the latter) notwithſtanding,
might this later either haue bene abhorred and forſaken by the Iewes,
or prophaned by the Greekes? The like wee are to thinke of Tranſlations.
The tranſlation of the Seuentie diſſenteth from the Originall in
many places, neither doeth it come neere it, for perſpicuitie, gratuitie,
maieſtie; yet which of the Apoſtles did condemne it? Condemne it? Nay, they
vſed it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Hierome and moſt learned
men doe confeſſe) which they would not haue done, nor by their example of
vſing it, ſo grace and commend it to the Church, if it had bene vnworthy
the appellation and name of the word of God. And whereas they vrge for their
ſecond defence of their vilifying and abuſing of the Engliſh Bibles,
or ſome pieces thereof, which they meete with, for that heretikes (forſooth)
were the Authours of the tranſlations, (heretikes they call vs by the ſame
right that they call themſelues Catholikes, both being wrong) wee marueile
what diuinitie taught them ſo. Wee are ſure Tertullian70 was of another
minde: Ex perſonis probamus fidem, an ex fide perſonas? Doe we trie
mens faith by their perſons? we ſhould trie their perſons by their faith.
Alſo S. Auguſtine was of an other minde: for he lighting vpon certaine
rules made by Tychonius a Donatiſt, for the better vnderſtanding
of the word, was not aſhamed to make vſe of them, yea, to inſert them into
his owne booke, with giuing commendation to them ſo farre foorth as they
were worthy to be commended, as is to be ſeene in S. Auguſtines third
booke De doƈtrinâ Chriſtianâ.71 To be ſhort,
Origen, and the whole Church of God for certain hundred yeeres,
were of an other minde: for they were ſo farre from treading vnder foote,
(much more from burning) the Tranſlation of Aquila a Proſelite, that
is, one that had turned Iew; of Symmachus, and
Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is, moſt vile heretikes,
that they ioyned them together with the Hebrew Originall, and the
Tranſlation of the Seuentie (as hath bene before ſignified out of
Epiphanius) and ſet them forth openly to be conſidered of and
peruſed by all. But we weary the vnlearned, who need not know ſo much, and
trouble the learned, who know it already.
Yet before we end, we muſt anſwere a third cauill and obieƈtion of
theirs againſt vs, for altering and amending our Taanſlations ſo oft; wherein
truely they deale hardly, and ſtrangely with vs. For to whom euer was it
imputed for a fault (by ſuch as were wiſe) to goe ouer that which hee had
done, and to amend it where he ſaw cauſe? Saint Auguſtine72 was not afraide
to exhort S. Hierometo a Palinodia or recantation; the ſame
S. Auguſtine73
was not aſhamed to retraƈtate, we might ſay reuoke, many things that had
paſſed him, and doth euen glory that he ſeeth his infirmities.74 If we will
be ſonnes of the Trueth, we muſt conſider what it ſpeaketh, and trample vpon
our owne credit, yea, and vpon other mens too, if either be any way an hinderance
to it. This to the cauſe: then to the perſons we ſay, that of all men they
ought to bee moſt ſilent in this caſe. For what varieties haue they, and
what alterations haue they made, not onely of their Seruice bookes, Porteſſes
and Breuiaries, but alſo of their Latine Tranſlation? The Seruice
booke ſuppoſed to be made by S. Ambroſe (Officium Ambroſianum)
was a great while in ſpeciall vſe and requeſt: but Pope Hadrian calling
a Councill with the ayde of Charles the Emperour, aboliſhed it, yea,
burnt it, and commanded the Seruice-booke of Saint Gregorie uniuerſally
to be vſed.75
Well, Officium Gregorianum gets by this meanes to be in credit,
but doeth it continue without change or altering? No, the very Romane
Seruice was of two faſhions, the New faſhion, and the Old, (the one vſed
in one Church, the other in another) as is to bee ſeene in Pamelius
a Romaniſt, his Preface, before Micrologus. The ſame Pamelius
reporteth out of Radulphus de Riuo, that about the yeere of our Lord,
1277. Pope Nicolas the third remoued out of the Churches of
Rome, the more ancient bookes (of Seruice) and brought into
vſe the Miſſals of the Friers Minorites, and commaunded them to bee obſerued
there; inſomuch that about an hundred yeeres after, when the aboue named
Radulphus happened to be at Rome, he found all the bookes
to be new, (of the new ſtampe.) Neither was there this chopping and changing
in the more ancient times onely, but alſo of late: Pius Quintus himſelfe
confeſſeth, that euery Biſhopricke almoſt had a peculiar kind of ſeruice,
moſt vnlike to that which others had: which moued him to aboliſh all other
Breuiaries, though neuer ſo ancient, and priuiledged and publiſhed by Biſhops
in their Dioceſes, and to eſtabliſh and ratifie that onely which was of his
owne ſetting foorth, in the yeere 1568. Now, when the father of their Church,
who gladly would heale the ſoare of the daughter of his people ſoftly and
ſleightly, and make the beſt of it, findeth ſo great fault with them for
their oddes and iarring; we hope the children haue no great cauſe to vaunt
of their vniformitie. But the difference that appeareth betweene our Tranſlations,
and our often correƈting of them, is the thing that wee are ſpecially charged
with; let vs ſee therefore whether they themſelues bee without fault this
way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correƈt) and whether they bee fit
men to throw ſtones at vs: O tandem maior parcas inſane minori:
76 they
that are leſſe ſound themſelues, ought not to obieƈt infirmities to others.
If we ſhould tell them that Valla, Stapulenſis, Eraſmus,
and Viues found fault with their vulgar Tranſlation, and conſequently
wiſhed the ſame to be mended, or a new one to be made, they would anſwere
peraduenture, that we produced their enemies for witneſſes againſt them;
albeit, they were in no other ſort enemies, then as S. Paul
was to the Galatians (Gal. 4: 16), for telling them the trueth:
and it were to be wiſhed, that they had dared to tell it them plainlier
and oftner. 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 Apoſtolike Letter & Bull; that the ſame Leo77 exhorted
Pagnin to tranſlate the whole Bible, and bare whatſoeuer charges
was neceſſary for the worke? Surely, as the Apoſtle reaſoneth to the Hebrewes,
that if the former Law and Teſtament had bene ſufficient, there had
beene no need of the latter (Heb. 7: 11 and 8: 7): ſo we may ſay, that
if the olde vulgar had bene at all points allowable, to ſmall purpoſe had
labour and charges bene vndergone, about framing of a new. If they ſay,
it was one Popes priuate opinion, and that he conſulted onely himſelfe;
then wee are able to goe further with them, and to auerre, that more of
their chiefe men of all ſorts, euen their owne Trent-champions Paiua
& Vega, and their owne Inquiſitors, Hieronymus ab Oleaſtro,
and their own Biſhop Iſidorus Clarius, and their owne Cardinall
Thomas à Vio Caietan, doe either make new Tranſlations themſelues,
or follow new ones of other mens making, or note the vulgar Interpretor for
halting; none of them feare to diſſent from him, nor yet to except againſt
him. And call they this an vniforme tenour of text and iudgement about the
text, ſo many of their Worthies diſclaiming the now receiued conceit? Nay,
we wil yet come neerer the quicke: doth not their Paris-edition differ
from the Louaine, and Hentenius his from them both, and yet
all of them allowed by authoritie? Nay, doth not Sixtus Quintus78 confeſſe,
that certaine Catholikes (he meaneth certainte of his owne ſide) were in ſuch
an humor of tranſlating the Scriptures into Latine, that Satan taking
occaſion by them, though they thought of no ſuch matter, did ſtriue what
he could, out of ſo vncertaine and manifold a varietie of Tranſlations, ſo
to mingle all things, that nothing might ſeeme to be left certaine and firme
in them, &c? Nay, further, did not the ſame Sixtus ordaine by
an inuiolable decree, and that with the counſell and conſent of his Cardinals,
that the Latine edition of the olde and new Teſtament, which the Councill
of Trent would haue to be authenticke, is the ſame without controuerſie
which he then ſet forth, being diligently correƈted and printed in the Printing-houſe
of Vatican? Thus Sixtus in his Preface before his Bible. And
yet Clement the eight his immediate ſucceſſour, publiſheth another
edition of the Bible, containing in it infinite differences from that of
Sixtus, (and many of them waightie and materiall) and yet this
muſt be authenticke by all meanes. What is to haue the faith of our glorious
Lord IESVS CHRIST
with Yea and Nay, if this be not? Againe, what is ſweet harmonie and conſent,
if this be? Therfore, as Demaratus of Corinth aduiſed
a great King, before he talked of the diſſentions among the Grecians,
to compoſe his domeſticke broiles (for at that time his Queene and his ſonne
and heire were at deadly fuide with him) ſo all the while that our aduerſaries
doe make ſo many and ſo various editions themſelues, and doe iarre ſo much
about the worth and authoritie of them, they can with no ſhow of equitie challenge
vs for changing and correƈting.
The purpoſe of the Tranſlators, with their
number, furniture, care, &c.
But it is high time to leaue them, and to ſhew in briefe what wee
propoſed to our ſelues, and what courſe we held in this our peruſall and
ſuruay of the Bible. Truly (good Chriſtian Reader) wee neuer thought from
the beginning, that we ſhould neede to make a new Tranſlation, nor yet to
make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had
bene true in ſome ſort, that our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons
in ſtead of wine, with whey in ſtead of milke:) but to make a good one better,
or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not iuſtly to be excepted
againſt; that hath bene our indeauour, that our marke. To that purpoſe there
were many choſen, that were greater in other mens eyes then in their owne,
and that ſought the truth rather then their own praiſe. Againe, they came
or were thought to come to the worke, not exercendi cauſâ (as one
ſaith) but exercitati, that is, learned, not to learne: For the chiefe
ouerſeer and ἐργοδιώκτης vnder his Maieſtie, to whom not onely we,
but alſo our whole Church was much bound, knew by his wiſedome, which thing
alſo Nazianzen79
taught ſo long agoe, that it is a prepoſterous order to teach firſt and to
learne after, yea that τὸ ἐν πίθῳ κεραµίαν µανθάνειν to learne and
praƈtiſe together, is neither commendable for the workeman, nor ſafe for
the worke.80
Therefore ſuch were thought vpon, as could ſay modeſtly with Saint Hierome,
Et Hebræum Sermonem ex parte didicimus, & in Latino penè ab
ipſis incunabulis &c. detriti ſumus. Both we haue learned the Hebrew
tongue in part, and in the Latine wee haue beene exerciſed almoſt from our
verie cradle. S. Hierome maketh no mention of the Greeke
tongue, wherein yet hee did excell, becauſe hee tranſlated not the old Teſtament
out of Greeke, but out of Hebrewe. And in what ſort did theſe
aſſemble? In the truſt of their owne knowledge, or of their ſharpeneſſe of
wit, or deepeneſſe of iudgement, as it were in an arme of fleſh? At no hand.
They truſted in him that hath the key of Dauid, opening and no man
ſhutting: they prayed to the Lord the Father of our Lord, to the effeƈt
that S. Auguſtine81
did; O let thy Scriptures be my pure delight, let me not be deceiued
in them, neither let me deceiue by them. In this confidence, and with
this deuotion did they aſſemble together; not too many, leſt one ſhould
trouble another; and yet many, leſt many things haply might eſcape them.
If you aſke what they had before them, truely it was the Hebrew text
of the Olde Teſtament, the Greeke of the New. Theſe are the two golden
pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the oliue branches emptie themſelues
into the golde. Saint Auguſtine82 calleth them precedent, or originall tongues;
Saint Hierome, 83
fountaines. The ſame Saint Hierome84 affirmeth,
and Gratian hath not ſpared to put it into his Decree, That as
the credit of the olde Bookes (he meaneth of the Old Teſtament)
is to bee tryed by the Hebrewe Volumes, ſo of the New by the Greeke
tongue, he meaneth by the originall Greeke. If trueth be to be
tried by theſe tongues, then whence ſhould a Tranſlation be made, but out
of them? Theſe tongues, therefore, the Scriptures wee ſay in thoſe tongues,
wee ſet before vs to tranſlate, being the tongues wherein God was pleaſed
to ſpeake to his Church by his Prophets and Apoſtles. Neither did we run
ouer the worke with that poſting haſte that the Septuagint did, if
that be true which is reported of them, that they finiſhed it in 72. dayes;85 neither were
we barred or hindered from going ouer it againe, hauing once done it, like
S. Hierome, if that be true which himſelfe86 reporteth,
that he could no ſooner write any thing, but preſently it was caught from
him, and publiſhed, and he could not haue leaue to mend it: neither, to be
ſhort, were we the firſt that fell in hand with tranſlating the Scripture
into Engliſh, and conſequently deſtitute of former helpes, as it is written
of Origen, that hee was the firſt87 in a maner,
that put his hand to write Commentaries vpon the Scriptures, and therefore
no marueile, if he ouerſhot himſelfe many times. None of theſe things: the
worke hath not bene hudled vp in 72. dayes, but hath coſt the workemen, as
light as it ſeemeth, the paines of twiſe ſeuen times ſeuentie two dayes and
more: matters of ſuch weight and conſequence are to bee ſpeeded with maturitie:
88 for
in a buſineſſe of moment a man feareth not the blame of conuenient ſlackneſſe.
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; neither did we
diſdaine to reuiſe that which we had done, and to bring backe to the anuill
that which we had hammered: but hauing and vſing as great helpes as were needfull,
and fearing no reproch for ſlowneſſe, nor coueting praiſe for expedition,
wee haue at the length, through the good hand of the Lord vpon vs, brought
the worke to that paſſe that you ſee.
Reaſons moving vs to ſet diuerſitie of
ſences in the margin, where there is great probability for each.
Some peraduenture would haue no varietie of ſences to be ſet in the
margine, leſt the authoritie of the Scriptures for deciding of controuerſies
by that ſhew of vncertaintie, ſhould ſomewhat be ſhaken. But we hold their
iudgmet not to be ſo be ſo ſound in this point. For though, whatſoeuer
things are neceſſary are manifeſt, as S. Chryſoſtome89 ſaith, and
as S. Auguſtine, 90 In thoſe things that are plainely ſet downe
in the Scriptures, all ſuch matters are found that concerne Faith, hope,
and Charitie. Yet for all that it cannot be diſſembled, that partly to
exerciſe and whet our wits, partly to weane the curious from loathing of
them for their euery-where-plaineneſſe, partly alſo to ſtirre vp our deuotion
to craue the aſſiſtance of Gods ſpirit by prayer, and laſtly, that we might
be forward to ſeeke ayd of our brethren by conference, and neuer ſcorne thoſe
that be not in all reſpeƈts ſo complete as they ſhould bee, being to ſeeke
in many things our ſelues, it hath pleaſed God in his diuine prouidence,
heere and there to ſcatter wordes and ſentences of that difficultie and doubtfulneſſe,
not in doƈtrinall points that concerne ſaluation, (for in ſuch it hath beene
vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of leſſe moment, that
fearefulneſſe would better beſeeme vs then confidence, and if we will reſolue,
to reſolue vpon modeſtie with S. Auguſtine, 91 (though not
in this ſame caſe altogether, yet vpon the ſame ground) Melius eſt dubitare
de occultis, quàm litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of
thoſe things which are ſecret, then to ſtriue about thoſe things that are
vncertaine. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be neuer found there
but once, 92
(hauing neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrewes ſpeake) ſo
that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Againe, there be many rare
names of certaine birds, beaſtes and precious ſtones, &c. concerning which
the Hebrewes themſelues are ſo diuided among themſelues for iudgement,
that they may ſeeme to haue defined this or that, rather becauſe they would
ſay ſomething, the becauſe they were ſure of that which they ſaid, as S.
Hierome ſomewhere ſaith of the Septuagint. Now in ſuch
a caſe, doth not a margine do well to admoniſh the Reader to ſeeke further,
and not to conclude or dogmatize vpon this or that peremptorily? For as
it is a fault of incredulitie, to doubt of thoſe things that are euident:
ſo to determine of ſuch things as the Spirit of God hath left (euen in the
iudgment of the iudicious) queſtionable, can beno leſſe then preſumption.
Therfore as S. Auguſtine93 ſaith, that varietie of Tranſlations is profitable
for the finding out of the ſenſe of the Scriptures: ſo diuerſitie of ſignification
and ſenſe in the margine, where the text is not ſo cleare, muſt needes doe
good, yea is neceſſary, as we are perſwaded. We know that Sixtus
Quintus94
expreſly forbiddeth, that any varietie of readings of their vulgar edition,
ſhould be put in the margine, (which though it be not altogether the ſame
thing to that we haue in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we thinke he
hath not all of his owne ſide his fauourers, for this conceit. They that
are wiſe, had rather haue their iudgements at libertie in differences of
readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be the other. If they
were ſure that their hie Prieſt had all lawes ſhut vp in his breſt, as Paul
the ſecond95
bragged, and that he were as free from errour by ſpeciall priuiledge, as
the Diƈtators of Rome were made by law inuiolable, it were an other
matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a deciſion. But the eyes
of the world are now open, God be thanked, and haue bene a great while,
they find that he is ſubieƈt to the ſame affeƈtions96 and infirmities
that others be, that his ſkin is penetrable, 97 and therefore
ſo much as he prooueth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.
Reaſons inducing vs not to ſtand curiouſly
vpon an identitie of phraſing.
An other thing we thinke good to admoniſh thee of (gentle Reader)
that wee haue not tyed our ſelues to an vniformitie of phraſing, or to
an identitie of words, as ſome peraduenture would wiſh that we had done,
becauſe they obſerue, that ſome learned men ſome where, haue beene as exaƈt
as they could that way. Truly, that we might not varie from the ſenſe of
that which we had tranſlated before, if the word ſignified the ſame thing
in both places (for there bee ſome wordes that bee not of the ſame ſenſe
euery where)98
we were eſpecially carefull, and made a conſcience, according to our duetie.
But, that we ſhould expreſſe the ſame notion in the ſame particular word;
as for example, if we tranſlate the Hebrew or Greeke word once
by Purpoſe, neuer to call it Intent; if one where Iourneying,
neuer Traueiling; if one where Thinke, neuer Suppoſe;
if one where Paine, neuer Ache; if one where Ioy, neuer
Gladneſſe, &c. Thus to minſe the matter, wee thought to
ſauour more of curioſitie then wiſedome, and that rather it would breed
ſcorne in the Atheiſt, then bring profite to the godly Reader. For is the
kingdome of God become words or ſyllables? why ſhould wee be in bondage to
them if we may be free, vſe one preciſely when wee may vſe another no leſſe
fit, as commodiouſly? A godly Father in the Primitiue time ſhewed himſelfe
greatly moued, that one of the newfanglenes called κράββατον, σκίμπους,
99 though
the difference be little or none;100 and another reporteth, 101 that
he was much abuſed for turning Cucurbita (to which reading the people
had beene vſed) into Hedera. Now if this happen in better times,
and vpon ſo ſmall occaſions, wee might iuſtly feare hard cenſure, if generally
wee ſhould make verball and vnneceſſary changings. We might alſo be charged
(by ſcoffers) with ſome vnequall dealing towards a great number of good
Engliſh wordes. For as it is written of a certaine great Philoſopher, that
he ſhould ſay, that thoſe logs were happie that were made images to be worſhipped;
for their fellowes, as good as they, lay for blockes behinde the fire: ſo
if wee ſhould ſay, as it were, vnto certaine words, Stand vp higher, haue
a place in the Bible alwayes, and to others of like qualitie, Get ye hence,
be baniſhed for euer, wee might be taxed peraduenture with S. Iames
his words, namely, To be partiall in our ſelues and iudges of euill thoughts.
Adde hereunto, that niceneſſe102 in wordes was alwayes counted the next
ſtep to trifling, 103
and ſo was to bee curious about names104 too: alſo
that we cannot follow a better patterne for elocution then God himſelfe;
therefore hee vſing diuers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for
one thing in nature: 105
we, if wee will not be ſuperſtitious, may vſe the ſame libertie in our Engliſh
verſions out of Hebrew & Greeke, for that copie or ſtore that
he hath giuen vs. Laſtly, wee haue on the one ſide auoided the ſcrupuloſitie
of the Puritanes, who leaue the olde Eccleſticall words, and betake them
to other, as when they put waſhing for Baptiſme, and Congregation
in ſtead of Church: as alſo on the other ſide we haue ſhunned
the obſcuritie of the Papiſts, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational,
Holocauſts, Præpuce, Paſche, and a number
of ſuch like, whereof their late Tranſlation is full, and that of purpoſe
to darken the ſence, that ſince they muſt needs tranſlate the Bible, yet by
the language thereof, it may bee kept from being vnderſtood. But we deſire
that the Scripture may ſpeake like it ſelfe, as in the language of Canaan,
that it may bee vnderſtood euen of the very vulgar.
Many other things we might giue thee warning of (gentle Reader) if
wee had not exceeded the meaſure of a Preface alreadie. It remaineth, that
we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of his grace, which is able to
build further then we can aſke or thinke. Hee remoueth the ſcales from our
eyes, the vaile from our hearts, opening our wits that wee may vnderſtand
his word, enlarging our hearts, yea correƈting our affeƈtions, that we may
loue it aboue gold and ſiluer, yea that we may loue it to the end. Ye are
brought vnto fountaines of liuing water which yee digged not; doe not caſt
earth into them with the Philiſtines (Gen. 26: 15), neither preferre broken
pits before them with the wicked Iewes (Jer. 2: 13). Others haue laboured,
and you may enter into their labours; O receiue not ſo great things in vaine,
O deſpiſe not ſo great ſaluation! Be not like ſwine to treade vnder foote
ſo precious things, neither yet like dogs to teare and abuſe holy things.
Say not to our Sauiour with the Gergeſites, Depart out of our coaſts
(Matt. 8: 34); neither yet with Eſau ſell your birthright for a meſſe
of potage (Heb. 12: 16). If light be come into the world, loue not darkneſſe
more then light; if foode, if clothing be offered, goe not naked, ſtarue
not your ſelues. Remember the aduiſe of Nazianzene, 106 It is
a grieuous thing (or dangerous) to negleƈt a great faire, and to ſeeke
to make markets afterwards: alſo the encouragement of S. Chryſoſtome,
107
It is altogether impoſſible, that he that is ſober (and watchfull)
ſhould at any time be negleƈted: Laſtly, the admonition and menacing
of S. Auguſtine, 108 They that deſpiſe Gods will inuiting
them, ſhal feele Gods will taking vengeance of them. It is a fearefull
thing to fall into the hands of the liuing God (Heb. 10: 31); but a bleſſed
thing it is, and will bring vs to euerlaſting bleſſednes in the end, when
God ſpeaketh vnto vs, to hearken; when he ſetteth his word before vs, to
reade it; when hee ſtretcheth out his hand and calleth, to anſwere, Here am
I; here wee are to doe thy will, O God. The Lord worke a care and conſcience
in vs to know him and ſerue him, that we may be acknowledged of him at the
appearing of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt, to whom with the holy Ghoſt, be all prayſe
and thankeſgiuing. Amen.
Miles Smith 1554-1624
Translators’ Notes
1
ἔξω βέλους
2
Anacharſis with others.
3
Locri.
4
Cato the elder.
5
Gregory the Diuine.
6
Nauclerus.
7
σεισάχθειαν
8
C. Cæſar. Plutarch.
9
Conſtantine.
10
Aurel. Viƈtor.
11
Theodoſius.
12
Zoſimus.
13
Iuſtinian.
14
Αὐτὸς, καὶ παῖδες, καὶ παίδων πάντοτε παῖδες.
15
Suidas. ὥσπερ τὶς ἀνδριὰς ἀπερίτρεπτος καὶ ἄκμων ἀνήλατος.
16
θεοσέβεια.
17
Euſebius lib. 10 cap. 8.
18
S. Auguſt. confeſſ. lib. 8 cap. 12.
19
S. Auguſt. de utilit. credendi, cap. 6.
20
S. Hieronym. ad Demetriad.
21
S. Cyril 7 contra Iulianum.
22
Tertul. adverſ. Hermo.
23
Tertul. de carne Chriſti.
24
Iustin. προτρεπτ. πρὸς ἑλλην. οἶόν τε
25
S. Baſil. περὶ πίστεως. ὑπερηφανίας κατηγορία.
26
Εἰρεσιώνη σῦκα φέρει, καὶ πίονας ἄρτους, καὶ μέλι ἐν κοτύλῃ, καὶ ἔλαιον,
&c. An oliue bow wrapped about with wooll, whereupon did hang figs, &
bread, and honie in a pot, & oyle.
27
S.Hieronym. ad Demetriad.
28
κοινὸν ἰατρεῖον. S. Baſil. in Pſal. primum.
29
Clem. Alex. 1. Strom.
30
S. Hieronym. Damaſo.
31
Michael. Theophili fil. 2 Tom. Concil. ex edit. Petri Crab.
32
Cicero 5. de finibus.
33
See S. Auguſt. lib. 12.contra Fauſt. c. 32.
34
Epiphan. de menſur. & ponderibus.
35
See S. Auguſt. 2 de doƈtrin. Chriſtian. c. 15.
36
Nouell diatax. 146.
37
προφητικῆς ὥσπερ χάριτος περιλαμψάσης αὐτοὺς.
38
S. Hieron. de optimo genere interpret.
39
S. Auguſtin. de doƈtr. Chriſt. lib. 2. cap. 11.
40
S. Hieronym. Marcell. Zoſim.
41
S. Hieron. præf. in 4. Euangel.
42
S. Hieron. Sophronio.
43
Six. Sen. lib. 4.
44
Alphon. a Caſtro lib. 1. ca. 23.
45
S. Chryſoſt. in Iohan. cap. 1. hom. 1.
46
Theodor. 5. Therapeut.
47
P. Diacon. li. 12.
48
Iſidor. in Chron. Goth.
49
Sozom. li. 6. cap. 37.
50
Vaſeus in Chron. Hiſpan.
51
Polydor. Virg. 5. hiſtor. Anglorum teſtatur idem de Alurdeo noſtro.
52
Auentin. lib. 4.
53
Circa annum 900.
54
B. Rhenan. rerum German. lib.2.
55
Beroald.
56
Thuan.
57
δῶρον ἄδωρον κοὺκ ὀνήσιμον, Sophocles.
58
See the obſeruation (ſet forth by Clemen. his authority) vpon the 4. rule
of Pius the 4 his making in the Index, lib. prohib. pag. 15. ver. 5.
59
Tertul. do reſur. carnis.
60
S. Iren. 3. lib. cap. 19.
61
S. Hieron. Apolog. aduerſ. Ruffin.
62
Arist. 2. metaph. cap. I.
63
S. Epiphan. loco ante citato.
64
S. Auguſtin. lib. 19. de civit. Dei. c. 7.
65
S. Hieron. in Ezech. cap. 3.
66
Tertul. ad Martyr.
67
Si tanti vilissimum vitreum, quanti pretiosissimum Margaritum: Hieron,
ad Saluin.
68
Horace.
69
Plutarch. in Camillo.
70
Tertul. de præſcript. contra hæreſes.
71
S. Auguſt. 3. de doƈt. Chriſt. cap. 30.
72
S. Aug. Epiſt. 9.
73
S. Aug. lib. Retraƈtat.
74
Video interdum vitia mea, S. Aug. Epiſt. 8.
75
Durand. lib. 5. cap. 2.
76
Horat.
77
Sixtus Senenſ.
78
Sixtus 5. præfat. fixa Bibliis.
79
Nazianzen εὶς ῥν. ἐπισκ. παρους.
80
Idem in Apologet.
81
S. Aug. lib. 11. Confeſſ. cap. 2.
82
S. Auguſt. 3. de doƈt. c. 3 &c.
83
S. Hieron. ad Suniam et Fretel.
84
S. Hieron. ad Lucininum, Diſt. 9. ut veterum.
85
Ioſeph. Antiq. lib. 12.
86
S. Hieron. ad Pammac. pro libr. adverſ. Iovinian.
87
πρωτόπειροι
88
φιλεῖ γὰρ ὀκνεῖν πράγμ’ ἀνὴρ πράσων μέγα, Sophoc. in Eleƈt.
89
πάντα τὰ ἀναγκαῖα δῆλα, S. Chryſoſt. in 2 Theſſ. cap. 2.
90
S. Aug. 2. de doƈtr. Chriſt. cap. 9.
91
S. Auguſt. li. 8. de Geneſ. ad liter. cap. 5.
92
ἅπαξ λεγόμενα.
93
S. Aug. 2. de doƈtr. Chriſtian. cap. 14.
94
Sixtus 5. præf. Bibliæ.
95
Plat. in Paulo ſecundo.
96
ὁμοιοπαθὴς.
97
τρωτός γ’ οἱ χρὼς ἐστί.
98
πολύσημα.
99
A bed.
100
Niceph. Caliſt. lib. 8. cap. 42.
101
S. Hieron. in 4. Joae. See S. Aug. epiſt. 10.
102
λεπτολογία.
103
ἀδολεσχία.
104
τὸ πηδαξειν ἐπὶ ὀνόμασι.
105
See Euſeb. προπαρασκευ. li. 12. ex Platon.
106
Nazianz. περὶ ἀγ. βαπτ. δεινὸν πανήγυριν παρελθεῖν καὶ τηνικαῦτα πραγματείαν
ἐπιζητεῖν.
107
S. Chryſoſt. in epiſt. ad Rom. Cap. 14. orat. 26. in ἠθικ. ἀμήχαιον σφόδρα
ἀμήχανον.
108
S. Auguſt. ad artic. ſibi falſo obiect. Artic. 16.
TheTranslation Rules
1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops’
Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original
will permit.
2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other
Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they
were vulgarly used.
3 The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz, the Word Church not
to be translated Congregation &c.
4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which
hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being
agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.
5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all,
or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.
6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation
of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so
briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.
7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve
for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.
8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter
or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself,
where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done,
and agree for their Parts what shall stand.
9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner
they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously,
for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.
10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or
differ upon any Place, to send them Word therof; note the Place, and withal
send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded
at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company,
at the end of the Work.
11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of; Letters to
be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his
Judgement of such a Place.
12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy,
admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as
many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send
his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge,
or Oxford.
13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster
and Chester for that Place; and the Kings Professors in the Hebrew or Greek
in either University.
14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the
Text than the Bishops’ Bible: Tindoll’s, Matthew’s Coverda1e’s, Whitchurch’s,
Geneva.
15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of
the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not
employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference
with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well
Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.
Richard Bancroft 1544-1610
THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER
Preface to the King James Version 1611
Thesis by
EDGAR J. GOODSPEED
THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS
CHICAGO - ILLINOIS
(Not Copyrighted)
No book means so much to religion as the Bible. In all its forms
it has greatly served religion, and in its modern forms its meaning comes
out more clearly and more tellingly than ever. It has more to teach the
modern world about religion than even its strongest advocates have realized.
Few of them have fully explored the wealth and depth of its contribution
to modern religious attitudes.
Of all the forms of the English Bible, the most distinguished and
widely cherished is the King James Version. Its value for religion is very
great, and it is on that account all the more important that its origin and
place in the history of the Bible be understood, so that false ideas about
it may not prevail, for in so far as they do prevail they are likely to
impair and to distort its religious usefulness.
There can be no doubt, however, that widespread and serious misapprehensions
as to its origin do very generally prevail, and that these seriously condition
its religious value. The literary interest and the liturgical value of that
version are of course universally recognized. It is a classic of 16th and
17th century English, and it is a treasure of Christian liturgy, deeply freighted
with religious associations. These are values every man of culture will
at once acknowledge and approve.
It is, moreover, deeply imbedded in the affection and devotion of
great groups of people, not all of them religious. They find in it the
final embodiment of moral, social, and literary values which they greatly
prize. This is in itself a fact of great importance. Even if the version
were itself less eminent as an English classic or a liturgical masterpiece
the extraordinary prestige it enjoys would give it a consequence all its
own.
The tremendous significance thus generally attached to it by the
public makes it imperative that the facts as to its origin and ancestry
be well known, or the most fantastic misconceptions about these matters will
arise and prevail. But these facts are not well known, and misconceptions
consequently do prevail to an amazing extent.
The King James Version is predominantly the Bible of the layman,
and it will undoubtedly continue to be so for a long time to come. This fact
makes it doubly important that it be presented to him as intelligently and
as intelligibly as possible. This well-recognized fact has led its publishers
through the generations to have it tacitly revised from time to time, so
that the obsolete words and spellings might not confuse the ordinary reader.
This commendable activity began immediately upon the first publication of
the version in 1611 and continued intermittently until 1769 when, under the
hands of Dr. Blayney of Oxford, it reached its present form. It has cleared
the text of the version of innumerable antique spellings, such as Hierusalem,
Marie, assoone, foorth, shalbe, fet, creeple, fift, sixt, ioy, middes,
charet and the like. Comparatively few verses in the version have escaped
such improvements and modernizations, and most verses contain several such
changes.
It has also corrected the numerous misprints of the version, so that
it is now of the most accurately printed books in the world. The one original
misprint to survive is the famous “strain (straine) at the gnat” in Matthew
23:24 (for “strain out a gnat”), which has so endeared itself to users of
the King James that no modern publisher has the temerity to set it right.
The omission of the Apocrypha from most modern printings of King
James and the insertion of Archbishop Ussher’s chronology, which first
appeared in its margins in 1701, were more serious changes from the original
King James; the chronology in particular has certainly outlived its usefulness
and, as at best a late accretion upon the version, out not to continue.
But it is the omission of the great Preface, “The Translators to
the Reader,” that is most to be regretted. The makers of the version in their
day felt that the work called for some explanation and defense, and entrusted
the writing of a suitable preface to Myles Smith, of Brasenose College,
Oxford, afterward Bishop of Gloucester. His Preface for many years stood
at the beginning of the version. But for various reasons -- its length, its
obscurity, its controversial and academic character -- it has gradually come
to be omitted by modern publishers of the King James, which is thus made
to present itself to the reader abruptly and without explanation or introduction
of any kind.
The result of this upon the hosts of ignorant and untrained people
who use the version is disastrous in the extreme. My own correspondence
abounds in letters from well-meaning people who have been led into the strangest
misconceptions by its absence. It is indeed long, controversial, and pedantic,
but this very fact is significant. And with all its faults, it says some
things about the version and its makers and their aims that still greatly
need to be said, indeed, that must be said, if the readers of the version
are to be given the protection and guidance that they deserve and that its
makers provided for them.
For they will accept this guidance and protection from no one else.
It is idle for any modern to attempt to correct these misapprehensions;
his efforts will only be resented or ignored. But if the King James Bible
itself can be shown to say to its adherents the very things they most need
to know about their version, it will be possible for them to benefit by them
without embarrassment or inconsistency. All the more necessary, it would
seem, for restoring the great Preface, or at least the essential parts of
it, to its rightful place in the “Authorized Bible.”
What are some of the views held by the habitual readers of the King
James Bible about it? Let me answer out of my own recent correspondence
and experience, being careful not to exaggerate or distort, but to set down
only what self-constituted champions of King James have actually written
over or under their own signatures.
First of all must come the widespread belief that the King James
Bible is “the original.” This is probably the prevailing impression of
those who use it, but it has been most definitely and repeatedly expressed
by a distinguished journalist in his paper, the North China Daily News.
In an article published in the News in 1926 the editor steadily refers to
the King James Version as “the original.” We cannot doubt that this cultivated
Englishmen actually believes the King James Version to be the original English
Bible. For him the illustrious services of Bible translators and revisers
from William Tyndale to Matthew Parker simply do not exist. That these men
produced 19/20ths of what now stands in the King James Version has no force
for him. Indeed, he definitely denies them and all their words when he steadily
and publicly, in print, in an editorial article in his own newspaper, describes
the King James Version over and over again as the “original.”
It is no matter that you and I know that this is far from true. For
these people will not give up so cherished a view for any say-so of ours.
On the contrary, it would only serve to set them more rigidly in it. To whom
then would they look with some willingness to learn? To the King James Bible
itself. If its original Preface were once more offered to them, as it was
offered to the first readers of that version, and as its makers intended
it to be offered to all its readers, they could hardly refuse to listen.
And, indeed, the people who hold these fantastic ideas are not so
much to blame for them as the publishers and printers who have so steadily
deprived them of the protection from such egregious mistakes which the King
James Preface so amply and ably provided. They could not have gone so absurdly
wrong if they had found in the Preface of their King James these words which
the makers of that version meant to have them find there:
“Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning,
that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad
one a good one, ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones,
one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against.”
Not only do most readers of the King James Version suppose it to
be the original English Bible; they are actually unconscious that there is
any more ultimate form of the Bible to translate or consult. A leading layman,
in one of our most intellectual communions, has told me that he always supposed
the modern translations of the Bible were made from the King James Version,
and not long ago a newspaper paragraph, with the commanding endorsement
of the Associated Press, explicitly made that assertion. The same idea appeared
in the New Republic as recently as April of last year. What can save these
untrained, well-meaning people from the idea that the King James Bible is
the “original”? Nothing but the statements of its own Preface.
“If you ask what they [the Translators] had before them,” says the
Preface, “truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek
of the New ... If truth be to 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, to be short, were we the first that fell in hand with translating
the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps, ...”
These are just the things that the modern reader of King James needs
to know, and that the Translators intended him to know. Why should they
be kept from him? A few months ago the New York Times and the Literary Digest
united in offering the strange intelligence that “the King James Version
was compiled from the only six original papyri extant in 1611.” What more
can possibly be said?
Another widespread impression as to the King James is that it is
the “Authorized” Bible. The dean of a well-known New England divinity school
recently insisted upon that designation for it, and strongly resented the
application of it of any other name. We need not go into the old vexed question
of whether or not it was ever actually authorized. For practically it certainly
was so, and so regarded, being in fact the third Authorized Bible of the
English Church. The first was the Great Bible of 1539, which was intended
for church use. The second was the Bishops’ Bible of 1568, and the third was
the King James of 1611. “Authorized” meant, of course, officially recognized
for us in public worship, as the phrase “Appointed to be read in Churches”
shows.
But when the Convocation of Canterbury in 1870 inaugurated the revision
of the English Bible, it was definitely with a view to providing a more suitable
Bible for purposes of public worship, and as a matter of fact the English
Revised Bible of 1881-85 has, we are told, actually displaced the King James
in the use of Canterbury Cathedral and Westminster Abbey.
In the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, Canon 45 provides
that the lessons at the morning and evening shall be read in the King James
Bible (“which is the standard Bible of this church”), or in the Revised Version,
or in the American Standard Version.
The Roman Catholic Church in this country uses in public worship
the Douay Bible. It will be seen that the King James is far from being the
Authorized Bible today.
But the tragic part of it all is that the people who still call it
the “Authorized Bible” understand by that term something very different
from this. They understand it to mean DEVINELY AUTHORIZED. I have today received
a letter from a very zealous young minister in Atlantic City, definitely
declaring his belief in the verbal inspiration of the King James Version.
This extraordinary view is very widely held.
Of course the Translators made no such claim; indeed, their account
of their method of work fits very poorly with such an idea:
“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.”
“Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the
margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding controversies
by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their
judgment not to be so sound in this point. ... Yet for all that it cannot
be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, ... 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,
... that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will
resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, .... There be many words in the
Scriptures, which be never found there but once, ... so that we cannot be
helped by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain
birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. ... 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? ... Therefore as S. Augustine
saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of
the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the
margin, where the text is not so clear, must need do good, yea, is necessary,
as we are persuaded.”
These candid, scholarly words of the Translators are not the words
of inspired men, oracularly confident of every word they use; they are
the unmistakable words of careful, sincere scholars, well aware of the inevitable
limitations of their knowledge. The doctrine of the inspiration of the Translators
was not held by them, and it is difficult to see how it can be held by anyone
who will read even this much of their Preface.
Another prevalent notion about the King James Bible is that it is
poetry. On this point Thomas Hardy wrote in his journal, in 1918:
“By the will of God some men are born poetical. Of these some make
themselves practical poets, others are made poets by lapse of time who
were hardly recognized as such. Particularly has this been the case with
the translators of the Bible. They translated into the language of their
age; then the years began to corrupt that language as spoken, and to add
gray lichen to the translation; until the moderns who use the corrupted
tongue marvel at the poetry of the old words. When new they were not more
than half so poetical. So that Coverdale, Tyndale and the rest of them are
as ghosts what they never were in the flesh.”
It must be clear that the men who, by making innumerable small changes
in the text of the Bishops’ Bible, produced the King James Version were poets,
if at all, only in the most attenuated sense of the word. It is not thus
that poems are made.
But if anyone had any doubt remaining as to the justice of Thomas
Hardy’s judgment, it must unquestionably evaporate in the presence of the
Preface. The Translators who there emerge are much closer to pedants than
to poets. “They came or were thought to come to the work, not exercendi causa
(as one saith) but exercitati, that is, learned, not to learn; ... Therefore
such were thought upon as could say modestly with Saint Jerome, .... Both
we have learned the Hebrew tongue in part, and in the Latin we have been
exercised almost from our very cradle.”
Their aim was not poetry but clearness: “But we desire that the
Scripture may speak like itself, ... that it may be understood even by the
very vulgar.”
But of course the greatest illusion about the King James Bible is
that it is the sole, unique, divine Bible, untouched by human hands. This
doctrine, grotesque as it is, is actually held as a matter of course by the
vast majority of people. The publication of any preface from the Translators
to the Reader would, by its very presence, whatever its contents, do much
to remedy this. The superstitious veneration with which some very pious people
regard it would be corrected by the reprinting of the Preface.
But not the pious alone. Many editors, novelists, and professors
cherish views about the version that are simply slightly rationalized forms
of the same notion. Sentimental statements about it in current books and
papers that its translators “went about their work in the spirit of little
children,” or that “it is a finer and nobler literature than the Scriptures
in their original tongues,” are but survivals of the old dogma of uniqueness,
so explicitly disclaimed in the Preface:
“... we are so far off from condemning any of their labors that
travelled before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, ...
that we acknowledge them to have been raised up by God, ... and that they
deserve to be had of us and of posterity, in everlasting remembrance. ...
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.”
These great sentences, are well worth reproducing today. I have
ventured to lay before the leading publishers of the King James Bible the
duty of restoring the great Preface to its rightful place, at the beginning
of it. They have courteously replied, giving various reasons for continuing
to omit it. Let us examine these one by one.
The first reason is that it is too academic. But this does not justify
them in omitting it. If they will let their readers know even this about
the origin of the version, it will save them from grievous error. The King
James revisers were university professors and scholars. They were an academic
group. Why withhold this fact from their readers, especially if silence on
this point is leading to such dire consequences?
One of the most unfortunate things about the adherents of the King
James Version is their antipathy to scholars. They regard them with grave
suspicion. Yet their own version is the masterpiece of biblical scholarship
in Jacobean England. If the Preface reveals no more to them than this, it
would be worth printing, for it is precisely this rift between piety and
learning that is most dangerous to the church. As a matter of fact, we owe
the English Bible to university men, from the sixteenth century to the twentieth.
It could hardly be otherwise. But today, not one reader of King James in ten
thousand even dreams that any biblical scholar had anything to do with his
English Bible.
The argument of the publishers that the Preface is controversial
is also nugatory. The version sprang out of controversy; the Preface reflects
the fact; why conceal it? The hushing of the controversy in the history of
Christianity does not make for intelligence. The New Testament itself sprang,
much of it, out of controversy; I and II Corinthians, for instance. It is
precisely this muting that has produced the impression that the version originated
in some other, better world than ours. If the Preface shows its human background,
let us have it, since it is a part of the truth.
The Translators were well aware that their work would have to encounter
strong opposition:
“Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising any
thing ourselves, or revising that which hath been labored by others, deserves
certainly much respect and esteem, but yet finding but cold entertainment
in the world. ... For he that meddles with men’s Religion in any part, meddles
with their customs, nay, with their freehold, and though they find no content
in that which they have, yet they cannot abide to hear of altering [it].
... Many men’s mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped)
with speeches about the Translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of
Translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity
of the employment: Hath the Church been deceived, say they, all this while?
... Was their Translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not
good? Why then was it obtruded to the people? ...”
Without these trenchant sentences, people are left with the impression
that the King James translation descended like the gentle dew from heaven,
amidst universal acclaim. The silencing of the controversial note of the
Preface puts a false face upon the version, for which its original makers
are not to blame.
A third objection raised by the publishers to restoring the Preface
is its obscurity, and the confusion it would create, in the mind of the
ordinary reader. If this confusion means that the reader would be made aware
that there had been and might be other versions of the Bible, it might better
be called clarification. Confusion is the ordinary reader’s present condition
of mind, as I have tried to show. Left without the translator’s guidance,
he now believes the King James to be the “original” divinely inspired, unique,
not made with hands, final, and definitive. To break in upon this false assurance
with the clear statements of the Preface may produce a temporary confusion,
but the confusion will be due to the disastrous practice of omitting the
Preface, not to the healthful one of including it.
As for obscurity, is the Preface any more obscure than the version
it introduced? This is the strangest of all reasons for the King James
printers to adduce, yet I have it before me in writing from one of the greatest
of them.
“The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the
masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.”
- Ecclesiastes 12:11
So reads the King James Version. Is there anything in the Preface
that approaches this in obscurity? Yet publishers justify the omission
of the Preface on the ground that it is “obscure.” There is not a sentence
in it as obscure as this one, or as hosts of others in the King James Version.
No, if obscurity is the criterion, the publishers might have omitted the
version and printed the Preface, but hardly the other way. It must be that
the publishers are quite unaware of the marked obscurity of great areas of
their own version.
A recent advocate of the King James Version says of the English
Bible: “Much of the writing is inferior. .... Whole sections of the historical
narratives are written in an immature and inferior manner. ... Some of the
prophets have only a single verse that arrests attention. Only occasionally
did Paul reveal his tremendous capacity to express thought in a memorable
manner?” What does this mean, but that the writer does not understand his
version? The simple truth is, the obscurity of the King James Version is
its outstanding trait. When a man says things like this about Paul and the
prophets, he is indicating, not the Bible at all, but his version of it.
He reveals the fact that he is using a version he cannot understand.
It may require some patience for the modern reader to peruse the
King James Preface. But think of the patience he is called upon to exhibit
in reading long obscure areas of Paul and the prophets! He is by no means
unaccustomed to reading his Bible in the midst of obscurity. And it is an
admirable idea to have a genuine piece of first class Jacobean prose before
him, side by side with the Jacobean revision, to show him how these revisers
actually wrote when not translating but expressing their own thoughts. Here
their real literary standards appear, in an authentic sample. If to their
modern publishers their style appears obscure, it may in part explain the
greater obscurity of their version. And at all events, it shows how they
thought one should write. This affords their readers an example of what
they considered clear and forceful English, and the value of this to any
serious reader of King James, as a measuring rod, a standard of style, is
unmistakable. Anyone who can understand the Preface can understand the version.
Especially for students, the Preface, with its wealth of contemporary
materials and attitudes, is indispensable. In a humanities survey course
for college Freshmen, a western university recently purchased 43 copies of
the King James Bible without the Preface. In no other field of study would
such a course have been dreamed of. To approach that version historically,
and as any student should, without the Preface, is simply impossible. What
has been said of the importance of the Preface to the general reader is even
more true of the student, and it is high time our teachers of the English
Bible in colleges awoke to the fact. But how can they be expected to awaken
to it, when very few of them have ever seen a Bible containing the Preface?
For the past hundred years, from the point of view of everyone -- ministers,
professors, students, general readers, pious readers -- the Preface has
been virtually suppressed.
The chief edition of the Bible containing it since 1821 is the English
royal quarto, published by the Oxford University Press. This is an expensive
pulpit Bible, seldom seen in America, which we cannot expect colleges to
place in quantities in their reading rooms. On the other hand, the British
and Foreign Bible Society and the American Bible Society seem never to have
included the Preface in their Bibles at all. It has been included in only
two other printings of the Bible, so far as I can learn, in the past hundred
years.
It is true, it has more than once been published in books about the
Bible. J.R. Dore, at the special request of Christopher Wordsworth, Bishop
of Lincoln, introduced the Preface as an appendix into the second edition
of his OLD BIBLES; and A.W. Pollard, in his RECORDS OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE,
reprinted it in full. “This preface,” said Richard Lovett (The Printed English
Bible), “most unhappily long ago ceased to form a part of the ordinary editions.”
“It is to be regretted,” wrote John Stoughton (Our English Bible), “that
while the dedication appears in all the editions, the address to the readers
is inserted in very few. It would be good alteration to cancel the former
and universally introduce the latter.”
This is no idle demand of a few savants and specialists, in the
interests of mere erudition, but a crying need of present-day religion, of
which the King James Bible is undeniably still the chief stay. That that
edition should continue to sink into greater and greater misconception and
misrepresentation, when much of it might be prevented by the simple and obvious
device of restoring the Preface, is intolerable. That version is too deeply
freighted with religious values to be left at the mercy of every charlatan
to exploit. Its Preface is a great monument of sound biblical learning and
method. Its readers need it as they have never needed it before. It lies
ready to our hands, enfolding in itself the very correctives modern vagaries
about the King James Bible so sadly need.
It is not enough that it is somewhere available in public libraries,
in books about the Bible. Who knows about these books? I have had letters
and inquiries from intelligent, educated ministers, asking where the Preface
can be found. They had never heard of it. What chance, then, has the ordinary
reader to know of it or find his way to it? The King James Version is a tremendous
force in the modern world, very potent for good if it be intelligently used,
but for evil if it be left unexplained. What most of its readers chiefly
need is education about it, and that is precisely what its Preface provides.
For my part, I know of no greater service that can be done to biblical
study today than to put back the King James Preface into its rightful place,
in every copy of that great version, to the understanding of which it is
so indispensable.
The English university presses, which have been since the days of
Charles I among the great printers of the King James Version, used to carry
a separate printing of the Preface for free distribution to those who asked
for it. But this supply is now exhausted. The Preface is practically out
of print. The great version, in its day a monument of enlightened learning,
is left defenseless, to the inevitable confusion of all its readers.
Sound learning and common sense alike demand the reprinting of the
Preface. It is essential to any real understanding of the King James Version.
This has at length been made possible through the liberality of Charles Forrest
Cutter, Esq., a generous friend of the Bible in all its forms. The Oxford
and Cambridge presses have given their consent to the reprinting, and the
Huntington Library has permitted us to publish the text in facsimile from
the Bridgewater copy of the first printing of 1611 in its collection. We
are particularly happy to do this (with the spellings somewhat modernized)
in 1935, the 400th anniversary of the first printed English Bible (by Myles
Coverdale) of which the King James Bible is the most illustrious descendant.
To me, of course, the religious values of the Bible far outweigh
any mere literary considerations. It has great messages which the modern
world greatly needs. To obscure these messages in phraseology which may
once have conveyed them but is now so quaint and antique as to belong to
the museums of literature, seems to me a very shocking and tragic business.
It is like denying a very sick man the medical aid of today and giving him
instead the treatment of the 16th century, because it is so picturesque!
It is like insisting upon cupping him and bleeding him, at the risk of his
health and even his life.
But even to those who take the Bible less seriously -- to the dogmatist
and the dilettante -- it must be clear that the King James Preface belongs
at the beginning of the King James Bible, where its makers put it and meant
it to remain; and that the reasons advanced by its publishers for omitting
it are really very cogent reasons for restoring it to its rightful place.
Edgar J. Goodspeed
Meredith Publications
1030 South Santa Anita Avenue
Arcadia, California
[1]Hebrews 3:15
Return To WJBC Home