THE KING JAMES VERSION, published in

Transcription

1 Unrevised for centuries The remarkable longevity of the King James Version John Thorpe THE KING JAMES VERSION, published in 1611, took a generation to achieve full acceptance; but eventually it entirely replaced the Geneva Bible as the dominant Bible version of the English-speaking world, and it remained unchallenged until the publication of the Revised Version in There were, of course, some minor revisions of the text of the KJV after 1611; 2 but essentially the version remained largely unchanged. However, the weight of scholarly opinion about the Bible began to change during the nineteenth century, and with it came the desire to produce alternative translations. The Textus Receptus The Greek text of the New Testament used by the King James scholars as the basis for their translation was the so-called Textus Receptus (the Received Text ). 3 This was a Greek text based on the work of the sixteenth-century Reformation scholar Desiderius Erasmus ( ), which was subsequently revised and printed by the French editor and printer Robert Estienne ( , also known as Stephanus). The King James Version translators were not alone in basing their translation of the New Testament on the Erasmus/Estienne Greek text, as it also served as the basis for Luther s German Bible (1522), Tyndale s 1526 New Testament in English, and most of the other sixteenth-century Protestant translations in Europe. The text of Erasmus was based on only seven manuscripts, all of which dated from the twelfth century or later. None of the manuscripts was a complete New Testament; the Gospels were based on four manuscripts, Acts and the Epistles on four, and the Revelation on only one (the last page of which was missing the text here was a back-translation into Greek from Jerome s Latin Vulgate). In spite of this, the Greek text produced by Erasmus was astoundingly good given the resources available. It can be characterised as a 174 Byzantine text (since most late manuscripts, like those used by Erasmus, were based on originals from Byzantium); but it varies from the Majority (Byzantine) Text in about a thousand places. 4 The Textus Receptus is a good text, but it has its limitations. The discovery of earlier manuscripts As the years progressed, however, more and more manuscripts were discovered, many of them much older than the manuscripts on which the Textus Receptus was based. Even by 1675, a hundred Greek manuscripts were known; 270 had been catalogued by 1755 and a thousand by Scholars scoured the libraries of Europe and the Near East and a flood of manuscripts poured in. 1. The Revised Version New Testament was published in 1881; the Revised Version Old Testament was published in These minor revisions continued to be published into the eighteenth century. But the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV, edited by Benjamin Blayney, became the standard text, and is the one used in most printings to this day. 3. The translators of the King James Version would not have known this Greek text as the Textus Receptus, since this term arose from the 1633 edition, published in Leiden, and which is spoken of in the publisher s preface (in Latin) as textum... nunc ab omnibus receptum ( the text now received by all ). See also the background note to the Textus Receptus on pp R.P.C. 4. The Majority Text is the name given to an edition of the Greek New Testament based on the collation of a larger number of late (Byzantine) manuscripts than the seven manuscripts originally used by Erasmus. See On the relationship between the Majority Text and the Textus Receptus (and their principal differences), see pages of W. E. Glenny s very helpful The New Testament text and the version debate, in Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder (eds.), One Bible Only? Examining exclusive claims for the King James Bible (Grand Rapids, MI, Kregel, 2001).

2 With so many older Greek manuscripts of the New Testament to consider, the nineteenthcentury Biblical scholars inevitably began to query the reliability and accuracy of the work undertaken by Erasmus and Estienne. One of the most famous of these textual scholars was Konstantin von Tischendorf ( ), whose own initial discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus in St Catherine s monastery in 1844 is well known. Now in the British Library in London, the Codex Sinaiticus is an early fourth-century manuscript and is one of the two earliest Bibles still in existence (the other being the Codex Vaticanus). 5 Another notable manuscript published by Tischendorf is the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus. In spite of the fact that the Greek text of this fifth-century manuscript had been erased and a book of the sermons of Ephrem had been written over it, 6 Tischendorf was able to decipher the original text. In 1867 Tischendorf also published the first accurate edition of the text of the Codex Vaticanus, which had been hidden in the Vatican Library since the Middle Ages. The result of all this work was a plethora of early manuscripts, some of them different from the Textus Receptus in a few places. The first stage of the process of revising the text was to collate the manuscripts together and to produce a list of variants; these collations were called critical texts and consisted of a scholar s (or a committee s) best guess about the original text, with a table of variant readings (called an apparatus ), showing which manuscripts supported the various different readings. The Greek text produced in this manner by Tischendorf in 1849 proved to be something of a landmark. While the text itself was not especially accurate, being based on the Codex Sinaiticus, the apparatus was of outstanding quality and is sometimes still used, even though far more manuscripts have now been discovered than were available to Tischendorf. New theories of textual transmission The nineteenth century also saw the development of new theories about the way in which the text of the New Testament had been transmitted. The most influential of these theories was the hypothesis developed by the German textual critic Johann Jakob Griesbach ( ). Griesbach divided the available manuscripts into three groups, which were thought to be based on exemplars held in Byzantium (the Byzantine text), Alexandria (the Alexandrian text) and Rome (the Western text). The existence of the Byzantine text is fairly certain, but later work has cast doubt on the existence of the other text groups. In spite of this uncertainty, however, the hypothesis is still widely held even today. Griesbach s hypothesis was taken to extremes by B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort, two nineteenthcentury Cambridge scholars who produced their own Greek text, which was published at the same time as the Revised Version in Westcott and Hort believed that the Alexandrian text (for which they had very much older manuscripts than for the Byzantine text) was the most pure. They called it the Neutral text, and based their own Greek text on the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. While modern texts are less extreme than that produced by Westcott and Hort, they are nevertheless mainly constructed on the assumption that the Alexandrian text exists and that it is better than the Byzantine text. It was against the background of these radical ideas about the text of the New Testament and its transmission that the Revised Version came into being. The rationale for the Revised Version The last, and most comprehensive, edition of Tischendorf s Greek text was published in In February 1870 the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury resolved to commission a revised translation of the Bible into English. The revision was to take account of three principal factors: 1 The discovery of so many earlier manuscripts of the New Testament, which had led to the revision of the Greek New Testament in line with the theories of the time. The work of Tischendorf, and especially of Westcott and Hort, had provided a base text that was different from that of the King James Version in quite a number of places, albeit mostly in minor ways. Several verses present in the KJV were not present in the new Greek text, however, and did not therefore appear at all in the Revised Version (for example, the extraneous part of 1 John 5:7,8). There were no equivalent textual changes to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament. 5. The Codex Sinaiticus can be viewed online at www. bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredtexts/codexsinai.html. 6. Ephrem the Syrian was a fourth-century theologian who is still venerated in the Syriac Orthodox Church. 7. B. F. Westcott and F. G. A. Hort, The New Testament in the Original Greek (Cambridge, Macmillan, 1881). 8. Konstantin von Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece... Editio octava (Leipzig, Giesecke & Devrient, 1869). 175

3 2 The understanding of both the original languages (Greek and Hebrew) had developed considerably since The understanding of Old Testament Hebrew had moved on, with Jewish scholars now being consulted; and there had also been developments in the interpretation of New Testament Greek. In both Old and New Testaments, words for which the meaning had been unknown in 1611 (and which had therefore been interpreted via the Greek of the Septuagint or the Latin of the Vulgate) were now better understood (for example, the list of items of female clothing in Isaiah 3:18-23) and could be translated more accurately. 3 The English language itself had changed since Some words which appeared in the KJV were no longer current (for example, emerods in 1 Samuel 6:4,5,11,17), while other words (for example, meet in Genesis 2:20 and let in 2 Thessalonians 2:7) had changed their meanings completely. The new translation was to be called the Revised Version, and the intention of the scholars behind it was to put right all the minor errors in the KJV, as well as to produce a more scholarly version which would be absolutely reliable for the study of the Scriptures. The new version was not, however, to be produced as an entirely new translation: it would leave the KJV unchanged where the original text was held to be correct and there was no problem with the Jacobean English. An American version was also to be produced, and this came to be known as the American Standard Version (ASV). This would be the Revised Version with a small number of additional changes, such as the use of the word demon for devils (where the underlying Greek was daimonion) and the use of the phrase Holy Spirit (where the Revised Version preferred the continuing use of Holy Ghost ). A sample of the changes made by the Revisers It is possible to illustrate the kinds of changes made by the Revised Version to the KJV by amplifying with examples what the Revisers themselves had to say in their preface to the 1881 Revised New Testament. (The words in italics in the quotations below have been added to show examples of the changes made). The alterations which we have made in the Authorised Version may be roughly grouped in five principal classes. First, alterations positively required by change of reading in the Greek text. [Example: In Luke 9, the second 176 half of verse 55 and the first half of verse 56 (... and said, Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of. For the Son of man is not come to destroy men s lives, but to save them ) is omitted in the RV, with a marginal note to the effect that Some ancient authorities add the omitted sentences.] Secondly, alterations made where the Authorised Version appeared either to be incorrect, or to have chosen the less probable of two possible renderings. [Example: In Luke 12:1 the KJV says:... there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, whereas the RV has the more literal rendering:... the many thousands of the multitude were gathered together. ] Thirdly, alterations of obscure or ambiguous renderings into such as are clear and express in their import. [Example: In Luke 16:9, instead of everlasting habitations (KJV), the RV substitutes the eternal tabernacles. ] Fourthly, alterations of the Authorised Version in cases where it was inconsistent with itself in the rendering of two or more passages confessedly alike or parallel. [Example: In Luke 7:8 and Matthew 8:9, the RV renders both passages the same, whereas the King James Version has a number of variations between the words spoken by the centurion in the two passages.] Fifthly, alterations rendered necessary by consequence, that is, arising out of changes already made... The cases in which these consequential changes have been found necessary are numerous and of very different kinds. Sometimes the change has been made to avoid tautology [Example: Luke 7:44, where the KJV s the hairs of her head is rendered her hair by the RV]; sometimes to obviate an unpleasing alliteration [Example: Luke 8:25, where the KJV s What manner of man is this! is changed by the RV to Who then is this...? ] or some other infelicity of sound [Example: Luke 8:37, where the KJV s rather clumsy (albeit perfectly accurate) returned back again is replaced in the RV by the simpler returned ]; sometimes, in the case of smaller words, to preserve the familiar rhythm [Example: Luke 8:46, where the rhythm of the KJV s Somebody hath touched me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of me is carefully retained by the RV s Someone did touch me: for I perceived that power had gone forth from me ]; sometimes for a convergence of reasons which, when explained, would at once be accepted, but until so explained might never be surmised even by intelligent readers.

4 Scrivener s Parallel AV/RV/Greek New Testament of 1882 The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Being the Authorised Version set forth in 1611 arranged in parallel columns with the Revised Version of 1881 and with the original Greek, as edited by F. H. A. Scrivener... according to the text followed in the Authorised Version with the variations adopted in the Revised Version (Cambridge, University Press, 1882). (Picture: Reg Carr) The reception of the Revised Version The Greek text prepared by Westcott and Hort, which largely served as the basis for the Revised Version New Testament, was heavily dependent on Alexandrian manuscripts: it treated the Codex Vaticanus as the best manuscript available, and it automatically adopted any variant found in both this and the Codex Sinaiticus. Some readings were accepted on the witness of the Codex Vaticanus alone. Westcott and Hort used additional rules to select variants, some of which were quite sensible; but their emphasis on the supposed Alexandrian manuscripts was too extreme for many scholars. While the resulting translation was hailed at the time as a triumph of scholarship by some, it was not especially popular with congregations, with low-church and evangelical groups, or with the general mass of Bible readers. Its use was therefore restricted to the serious study of the Scriptures. There were a number of reasons for this: The new version encountered a general feeling of conservatism. Many Bible-believing groups simply did not wish to move away from what they already knew. They therefore wished to hold onto the KJV. The language of the RV was not as stylish as that of the KJV. The RV attempted to use the same English word wherever a given Greek or Hebrew word was present in the original, while good English style demands that synonyms be used. The wording of the RV, while probably the most precise translation of the Scriptures ever made, was thus stilted in its style, and it read less well than the KJV. This limited its use in church services. The RV left out some cherished proof texts, for example the interpolation in 1 John 5:7,8. The new version was a more accurate representation of the original text, but evangelical groups who depended on passages such as this to support the doctrine of the Trinity were badly upset. The RV contained variant translations in the margin. While this is commonplace nowadays, it was a new idea in 1881, and many of the original readers did not like it. They wanted to be told what the text was rather than having to make their own mind up between variant translations. The question of the underlying text of the RV, while it was important to scholars, was of minimal importance to the general readership. However, it became a focus for opposition from the lowchurch groups, who were particularly bothered by the removal of Trinitarian passages, especially the additional text in 1 John. As a consequence of the removal of this passage there was a considerable protest against the Westcott and Hort text, although much of this protest was poorly informed. The failure of the Revised Version And so matters continued through the first half of the twentieth century. New translations were produced by Weymouth, Moffatt and J. B. Phillips; and while these never threatened the dominance of the KJV they were more popular than the RV. Yet the RV (with its sister-publication, the American Standard Version) did attain a position of ascendency within the academic community: even as late as the 1970s the RV was the preferred translation at some universities. But the final eclipse of the RV was eventually brought about by yet another revision, still based on the KJV the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of The RSV attempted to carry the best characteristics of the RV still further. The basic 9. The RSV Old Testament was published in

5 text of the New Testament was improved, variants were noted in the margin, and the language was brought up to date without becoming too colloquial. The RSV translators also abandoned the principle of using the same English word for a given Greek or Hebrew word: synonyms were allowed, helping to make the RSV more readable than the RV. The Dead Sea Scrolls were unpublished when the RSV was translated, so no account was taken of these in the initial translation; but subsequent editions were produced containing a few very minor alterations prompted by the Scrolls. But again, the RSV largely pleased only the scholars. It was once more short on the proof texts required by Trinitarians. It also mixed language, using thee and thou (which it used where the Hebrew was archaic) as well as you (where the original language was more colloquial). This proved important in the evangelical and charismatic revivals which took place in the 1960s and 1970s, since the evangelicals were determined only to use the most modern forms of English in all aspects of their worship. The RSV has been subsequently revised as the English Standard Version (ESV); but the translators have pandered to doctrinal interests and have reinstated some of the problems which were not present in the RSV. 10 The long life of the King James Version The KJV is part of a long-standing tradition of Bible translation (at one time known as the English tradition ), which is under attack. It is a tradition which does not seek to interpret the text (although some interpretation is always unavoidable) but to give as accurate a translation as possible of the best text available so that students of the Bible can analyse it and come up with their own conclusions. This is a model which is generally unattractive in a world where churches believe that they know the gospel through the Spirit and only need the Scriptures to confirm what the Spirit has taught them. The KJV has enjoyed tremendous longevity and is a long way from being dead. If nothing else, it is the version that one can bank on being able to obtain unchanged in ten or twenty years. Other versions may be more scholarly, or more easy to read, or bring out the message of their sponsors more effectively; but the English tradition of translation provides a long-lasting standard which it is difficult to replace. It is interesting to reflect, by way of conclusion, on the reasons why the KJV has proved to be such a durable translation. The answer is, in part, because its translators did such a good job. While armies of textual scholars have investigated the text of both Old and New Testaments, they have confirmed that the text known to King James s men is very close to the original; the differences between the text used in the seventeenth century and that used in the modern day are very slight. In general it is possible to say that the KJV is a translation that can be trusted. More modern versions tend to be slanted by modern theological and critical concerns, and so need to be used with some suspicion. It can also be said that, while modern versions may come and go and hardly any of the new versions available in the 1980s are still widely used in the twenty-first century the KJV is a translation that can be relied on to be available for the foreseeable future. 10. The New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) is a quite different translation and is, in the author s opinion, much inferior to the ESV. Twenty years on: a translator looks back... the translation... is publikely reade in Churches, and in all families... and is undoubtedly the most correct translation extant. The Translators were many, and very eminent in their faculty; the time they spent in it was much, and their care and diligence extraordinary. Extract from Daniel Featley s introductory essay to Clement Cotton s A Complete Concordance to the Bible of the Last Translation, 1635 edition. Featley (a.k.a. Richard Fairclough), , was a member of the first Oxford company of translators, responsible (with John Rainolds) for translating Isaiah to Malachi in the KJV. 178