The Demand For Revision
THE DEMAND FOR REVISION
With the passing of time, the demand for revision of the King James translation has gained momentum. The English language has changed considerably since 1611, causing difficulties in interpretation at points. Yet such is the status of the King James Bible that there has been intense resistance to any revisions to the text. Many feel that this text, like Shakespeare's works, is vested with the dignity and sanctity of a classic, and cannot, therefore, be revised. There is no doubt that the King James Bible is a model English text, which can be studied as a landmark in the history of the English language, and is to be seen as a major influence on English literature, especially in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
But the awkward fact remains that those who produced the King James Bible did not see their labors in quite this way. They saw their work as a translation—that is, something that aims to convey to its readers the meaning of another text, written at a different time and place, and in another language. By definition, no translation can be perfect. The King James Bible may indeed be esteemed as an excellent translation of the word of God by the standards of 1611 and beyond. Yet translations eventually require revision, not necessarily because they are defective, but because the language into which they translated itself changes over time. Translation involves aiming at a moving target, which has accelerated over the centuries. English is developing more quickly today than at any time in its previous history. Some words have ceased to be used; others have changed their meanings. When a translation itself requires translation, it has ceased to serve its original purpose.
The King James translators themselves were alert to the need to ensure faithful and accurate translation of the Bible into living English. The English of 1611 is not the English of the twenty-first century. It can mislead us, simply because English words have changed their meaning. For example, consider the sentence:
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep (1 Thessalonians 4:15).
A modern reader would find this puzzling, in that the 1611 meaning of the word “prevent” does not correspond to its modern sense. For the King James translators, “prevent” meant what we now understand by “precede” or “go before”—not “hinder.” In that linguistic change now means that the King James Bible has the potential to mislead and confuse, there is a clear case for revision of the translation. The extent of that revision is a matter for discussion; its necessity is beyond doubt. Like any living language, English changes over the years. Linguistic development is simply a sign of life, in that a language is being used and adapted to new situations.
The King James translators were perfectly aware of their need to provide a faithful and accurate translation of the Bible for their day and age. That day and age are now many centuries behind us. The paradox is that those who insist that we retain the King James Bible as the only English translation of the Bible actually betray the intentions and goals of those who conceived and translated it—namely, to translate the Bible into living English.
King James's translators honored and made use of the English translations that already lay to hand. These were the existing landmarks, to which the King James translators added their own—perhaps the greatest. But the journey continues. Its direction has been mapped and guided by Tyndale, Coverdale, and the six companies of translators whose achievement has been celebrated and documented in this volume. It has yet to end; indeed, it will not end, until either history is brought to a close or English ceases to be a living language. The true heirs of the King James translators are those who continue their task today not those who declare it to have been definitively concluded in 1611.