The Translators To The Reader: The Preface
THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER: THE PREFACE
While modern versions of the King James Bible continue to print the dedication “to the most high and mighty King James,” the lengthy preface is generally omitted. While this is understandable, given both the length and the verbosity of the piece, this omission deprives readers of a fascinating defense of the principle of translation of the Bible into the vernacular, and the specific features of the King James Bible.
Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,… but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.
The point being made is that the translation now being set before the public can be thought of as representing the best possible distillation of the wisdom, grace, and beauty of existing translations, corrected where necessary against the original biblical documents in their original languages.
The preface comments briefly on the circumstances that led to the decision to prepare a fresh translation. For Smith, the origins of the King James Bible are not to be seen in Puritan concerns over the accuracy of existing translations, or the need to ensure that the biblical translations included in the Prayer Book were reliable. The credit for the decision to translate is firmly given to James himself.
The very Historical truth is, that upon the importunate petitions of the Puritans, at his Majesty's coming to this Crown, the Conference at Hampton Court having been appointed for hearing their complaints: when by force of reason they were put from other grounds, they had recourse at the last, to this shift, that they could not with good conscience subscribe to the Communion book, since it maintained the Bible as it was there translated, which was as they said, a most corrupted translation. And although this was judged to be but a very poor and empty shift; yet even hereupon did his Majesty begin to bethink himself of the good that might ensue by a new translation, and presently after gave order for this Translation which is now presented unto thee.
So why translate in the first place? In answering this question, Miles Smith began by stressing the immense spiritual richness of the Bible, and its central place in Christian life and thought.1
[The Bible] is not only an armor, but also a whole armory of weapons, both offensive and defensive; whereby we may save ourselves and put the enemy to flight. It is not an herb, but a tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which bring forth fruit every month, and the fruit thereof is for meat, and the leaves for medicine. It is not a pot of Manna, or a cruse2 of oil, which were for memory only, or for a meal's meat or two, but as it were a shower of heavenly bread sufficient for a whole host, be it never so great; and as it were a whole cellar full of oil vessels; whereby all our necessities may be provided for, and our debts discharged. In a word, it is a Panary3 of wholesome food, against fenowed traditions; a Physician's shop (Saint Basil called it) of preservatives against poisoned heresies; a Pandect4 of profitable laws, against rebellious spirits; a treasury of most costly jewels, against beggarly rudiments; finally a fountain of most pure water springing up unto everlasting life. And what marvel? The original thereof being from heaven, not from earth; the author being God, not man; the inditer, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the Penmen such as were sanctified from the womb, and endued with a principal portion of God's spirit; the matter, verity, piety purity, uprightness; the form, God's word, God's testimony, God's oracles, the word of truth, the word of salvation, etc.; the effects, light of understanding, stableness of persuasion, repentance from dead works, newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in the holy Ghost; lastly, the end and reward of the study thereof, fellowship with the Saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortal, undefiled, and that never shall fade away: Happy is the man that delighted in the Scripture, and thrice happy that medi-tateth in it day and night.
But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand?
The strategy developed by Smith is to stress the importance of direct access to the Bible for Christian spiritual growth, personal integrity and doctrinal correctness. Without these, the Church cannot hope to prosper. But if ordinary Christians cannot cope with the biblical languages, they will be denied access to these treasures.
The Roman Catholic Church had argued that the Latin Vulgate translation was the bedrock of Western Christian life and thought. Smith contests this position hotly. The Bible was translated into Latin precisely because it was the language of the Roman Empire. In order for the riches of Scripture to be brought to the Latin-speaking world, the Bible was translated into its everyday speech. By virtue of precisely the same argument, the time had now come for the Bible to be translated into English. The same principles applied—the need to translate the Bible into the everyday language of the world. If salvation depended on knowledge of the gospel, it was imperative that the Bible should be made accessible to all in a language they understood. As Smith concluded his argument on this point:
Now what can be more available thereto, than to deliver God's book unto God's people in a tongue which they understand?
Smith is highly critical of those who deny God's people direct access to the text of the Bible.
Smith and his colleagues saw translation as the essential means by which the people of God could gain access to the spiritual nourishment found in the Bible. In an elegant section, the preface sets out a series of images to illustrate the importance of translation.
Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered [Genesis 29:10]. Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacob's well (which is deep) [John 4:11] without a bucket or something to draw with; or as that person mentioned by Isaiah, to whom when a sealed book was delivered, with this motion, “Read this, I pray thee,” he was fain to make this answer, “I cannot, for it is sealed” [Isaiah 29:11].
This passage clearly points to the high degree of motivation experienced by the companies of translators. To translate the Bible was an act of service to the people of God as a whole.
The King James Bible was not the first English translation; as we have seen, it build upon a substantial foundation laid by others, such as William Tyndale. Smith is explicit on this point; King James's translators were aware that they were building on honorable foundations laid by others.
And to the same effect say we, that we are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queen Elizabeth's of ever renowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance… 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 holpen by their labours, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mis-like us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.
The preface is commendably honest; the science of biblical translation is not as precise as many would like, not least because of continuing difficulties in understanding what certain rare Hebrew words meant. For this reason, the translators inserted marginal notes in which alternative translations were suggested. Some, the preface notes, might see this as challenging the reliability and trustworthiness of the Bible itself, let alone this specific translation. Yet the preface affirms that this is the only honest policy that could be adopted. Readers have the right to know where there are difficulties or uncertainties.
There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.
The translators also avoided what—at least, to them—seemed a wooden and dogmatic approach to translation, which dictated that precisely the same English words should regularly be used to translate
Greek or Hebrew words. The preface sets out clearly the view that the translators saw themselves as free to use a variety of English terms.
Another things we think good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure5 would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified that same in both places (for there be some words that be not the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But, that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by PURPOSE, never to call it INTENT; if one where JOURNEYING, never TRAVELING; if one where THINK, never SUPPOSE; if one where PAIN, never ACHE; if one where JOY, never GLADNESS, etc. Thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly Reader. For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously?
This principle suggests that the translators saw variety as a means of enhancing the beauty of the text, by avoiding crude verbal repetitions. Yet it must be pointed out that this principle led to some quite puzzling consequences.
The translation of Romans 5:2–11 reveals this concern to ensure variety. According to the King James Bible, Paul and his colleagues “rejoice in hope of the glory of God… we glory in tribulations… we also joy in God.” The same Greek verb—which would normally be translated as “rejoice”—is, in fact, being translated using different words (here italicized) in each of the three cases. There can be no doubt that this flexibility allowed the translators to achieve a judicious verbal balance that enhanced the attractiveness of the resulting work. Yet inevitably a price was paid for this in terms of the accuracy that some had hoped for.
The translation, of course, used the standard orthography of the period, which seems strange to modern readers. In what follows, we shall set out the original spelling of Luke 1:57–65, to allow this point to be appreciated. The passage describes the birth of John the Baptist:
Now Elizabeths full time came, that shee should be deliuered, and shee brought foorth a sonne. And her neighbours and her cousins heard how the Lorde had shewed great mercy upon her, and they rejoyced with her. And it came to passe that on the eight day they came to circumcise the childe, and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father. And his mother answered, and said. Not so, but he shalbe called John. And they said unto her, There is none of thy kinred that is called by this name. And they made figures to his father, how he would have him called. And he asked for a writing table, and wrote, saying, His name is John: and they marueiled all. And his mouth was opened immediately and his tongue loosed, and hee spake, and praised God. And feare came on all that dwelt round about them, and all thse saying were noised abroad thorowout all the hill countrey of Judea.
While many differences with modern orthography are obvious, the similarities are perhaps even more impressive.
So the final text was delivered to the king's printer, Robert Barker. But precisely what form did this text take? However it was presented, the text has not survived.
Two main hypotheses have been developed, each with their respective merits. One school of thought holds that an annotated manuscript text, incorporating all the changes, was delivered to the printers. This is supported by some comments found in a 1660 pamphlet, which complained of printers who had obtained “the manuscript copy of the Holy Bible in English, attested with the hands of the remarkable and learned translators in King James, his time.” If such a manuscript existed, it is possible that it was destroyed in the Great Fire of London (1666), which laid waste to most of the central area of the city.
Another possibility, however, must be noted. The first rule laid down for the translators by Richard Bancroft reads as follows:
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.
This indicates that the text of the Bishops' Bible was to be the base of the revision.
It is known that Robert Barker, the king's printer, furnished the translators with forty large-format editions of this text to assist them in their work. A number of scholars have suggested that what was actually delivered to the printer was a copy of the Bishops' Bible, with alterations entered directly into the text of the work. In 1956, Edwin Willoughby discovered a heavily annotated 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible in the Bodleian Library, Oxford. There is at least some degree of correspondence between the annotated text and the final version of the King James Bible. Attractive though this theory may be, the correspondence is not as great as one might expect. The simple truth is that we shall probably never know precisely what was delivered to Robert Barker in 1611, enabling him to begin the process of production.
1 As some of the English terms used by Miles Smith have now fallen out of use, these are explained in accompanying footnotes.
2 A small bottle.
3 A breadbasket.
4 A collection of texts.
5 Perhaps.