LET THE KING JAMES TRANSLATORS SPEAK Curtis Pugh Poteau, Oklahoma I confess to loving the King James

Version Bible. Like you robably !o, I most often use a KJV e!ition base! on the "#$% revision of Ben&amin Blayney. 'o(ever, I !o have t(o co ies of the original "$"" e!ition. I have not been able to learn (hether they are Cambri!ge or O)for! e!itions. *s you are a(are, most books have a intro!uction. reface or a fore(or! or an the rea!er

+hese intro!uctions often give valuable information to hel

un!erstan! the book. Both co ies of the original King James Bible that I o(n have the intro!uctory material lace! in them by the King James translators. thing that most of to!ay,s Bible It is a sa! an! hurtful

ublishers no longer inclu!e the translators, intro!uctory

material in the King James Bibles they rint. -ince this intro!uctory material is not in the Bibles most of us o(n an! use, the ur ose of this article is to ac.uaint the rea!er (ith some of that intro!uctory material rovi!e! by the King James translators. +he intro!uction

a!!resse! to King James by the translators is brief. But the (or!s a!!resse! to the rea!er run to eleven ages of small rint in my original King James co ies. Let us look at some things that the King James Bible translators thought the rea!ers of their Bibles shoul! kno(. Our .uotations are mostly from (hat they title!, The Tranflators To The Reader. /e have calle! attention to .uotations by using italic ty e an! have ke t the ol! style s elling, inserting 0brackets1 throughout for clarification of obsolete terms, etc. 2irst of all the King James translators believe! in the 3ivine ins iration of the Bible. +hey (rote, The originall thereof 0original -cri tures1 being from heaven, not from earth; the authour being God, not man; the enditer 0!ictator or com oser1, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets; the Pen men su!h as were san!tified from the wombe, and endewed 0 rovi!e!1 with a prin!ipall 0large1 portion of Gods spirit... +hus they believe! (hat is state! in 4 Peter "54"5 For the prophecy came not in ol time !y the "ill o# man$ !%t

holy men o# Go &pa'e a& they "ere mo(e !y the Holy Gho&t)* /e believe that too6 -econ!, the translators recogni7e! the im ortance of Bible translation to or!inary eo le. +hey (rote, Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that brea"eth the shell, that we may eat the "ernel; that putteth aside the !urtaine, that we may loo"e into the most #oly pla!e; that remooveth the !over of the well, that wee may !ome by 0get ossession of1 the water, even as $a!ob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by whi!h meanes the flo!"es of %aban were watered. &ndeede without translation into the vulgar 0familiar1 tongue 0language1, the unlearned 0those not schoole! in 'ebre( an! 8reek1 are but li"e !hildren at $a!obs well 'whi!h was deepe( without a bu!"et or some thing to draw with. +hey un!erstoo! the rinci le e) resse! by Brother Paul in " Corinthians "95""5 There#ore i# I 'no" not the meanin+ o# the (oice, I &hall !e %nto him that &pea'eth a !ar!arian, an he that &pea'eth &hall !e a !ar!arian %nto me)* +hir!, the King James translators ha! real an! valuable insights into e)actly (hat translators can !o an! (hat they cannot !o. In s eaking of the errors that cree into

translations for various reasons, they e) laine! (hy the Ol! +estament .uotations cite! by the a ostles !iffere! at times from the -e tuagint (hen they .uote! it. :+he -e tuagint is a 8reek translation of the 'ebre( Ol! +estament sai! to be ma!e by seventy Je(ish el!ers in seventy;t(o !ays<. +he translators (rote5 ...the )eventie 0translators of the -e tuagint1 were &nterpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they stumbled and fell, one while through oversight, another while through ignoran!e, yea, sometimes they may be noted 0seen1 to adde to the *riginall 0-cri tures1, and sometimes to ta"e from it; whi!h made the Apostles to leave them many times, when they 0the -eventy1 left the #ebrew, and to deliver the sen!e 0sense1 thereof a!!ording to the trueth of the word, as the spirit 0'oly - irit1 gave them utteran!e. +he King James translators

un!erstoo! that translators are mere =Inter reters> an! not =Pro hets> (ith a ne( revelation

from 8o!. *s Ba tists to!ay (e must regar! the King James translators as =inter reters> or =translators> an! not = ro hets.> /e cannot regar! the King James translators as = ro hets> because no ro het of 8o! (oul! have been a member of a i!olatrous man ma!e religious organi7ation that taught ba tismal regeneration :a false gos el< (hose lea!ers ersecute! an! kille! Ba tists, but the King James translators (ere all members an! ministers of the *nglican Church. Ol! John (as the last =revelator.> In another lace in their intro!uction to the rea!er they (rote about the -e tuagint again, saying, = The translation of the )eventie dissenteth 0!isagrees1 from the *riginall 0-cri tures1 in many pla!es, neither doeth it !ome neere it, for perspi!uitie 0clarity1, gratvitie 0seriousness1, ma+estie 0!ignity or gran!eur1; yet whi!h of the Apostles did !ondemne it, -ondemne it, .ay, they used it, 'as it is apparent, and as )aint $erome and most learned men doe !onfesse( whi!h they would not have done, nor 0because1 by their e/ample of using it, so gra!e 0a rove1 and !ommend it to the -hur!h,

if it had bene 0been1 unworthy the appellation 0!esignation1 and name of the word of God. +his is a most interesting oint. +hey say that even though the -e tuagint translation (as not erfect an! fell far short of the original from (hich it (as translate!, the a ostles !i! not con!emn it, but rather they use! it ? though they correcte! it in their .uotations of it. +he King James translators sai! that use of the -e tuagint by the a ostles (as a recommen!ation of it to Christians. Little can be sai! against the -e tuagint since the laces

a ostles !i! .uote from it ? remembering they (ere able to correct it in certain because they ha! the revelatory gift as a ostles.

2ourth, the King James intro!uction mentions the e)istence of a multitu!e of very early translations throughout the @oman Am ire. +hose first generation Christians5 ...provided Translations into the vulgar 0familiar1 for their -ountreymen 0fello( citi7ens1, insomu!h that most nations under heaven did shortly after their !onversion, heare -#R&)T spea"ing unto them in their mother tongue, not by the voy!e of their 0inister onely, but also by the written

word translated.

+hus it (as through the (ritten /or! as (ell as the reache! /or! that

the Lor!,s congregations (ere establishe! in the truth !o(n through the centuries. +his is hel ful information to the Ba tist historian. If the King James translators (ere correct many of the anaba tist grou s ha! the /or! of 8o! in their tongues. 2ifth, it is very interesting that the King James translators vie(e! even the oorest translations of the Bible as being the /or! of 8o! ? not as merely containing it. +hey (rote5 wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and avow, that the very meanest 0inferior in .uality1 translation of the 1ible in 2nglish, set foorth by men of our profession 'for wee have seene none of theirs of the whole 1ible as yet( !ontaineth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the 3ings )pee!h whi!h hee uttered in Parliament, being translated into 4ren!h, 5ut!h, &talian and %atine, is still the 3ings )pee!h, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the li"e gra!e, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so e/presly 0e) licit or clear1 for sen!e, every where. It is a fact that many sinners hear! the gos el from earlier translations ? robably some of them inferior ones ? an! having hear! only these oorer translations (ere nevertheless converte!. Peo le (ere converte! before these men ro!uce! the King James translation ? an! (e !are to ho e that some have been genuinely converte! since even by the use of some of the mo!ern inferior translations of the /or! of 8o!. -i)th, the King James translators !i! not claim to be making a ne( translation at all. @ather they thought to be making a better one by revising ol!er translations. +hey sai! that they (ere revising the earlier Anglish translations such as the Bisho ,s Bible in articular :as or!ere! by King James< an! +yn!ale,s ? (hose (or!s make u a great ortion of the King James Be( +estament. +he King James translators (rote as follo(s5 Truly 'good -hristian Reader( wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to ma"e a new Translation, nor yet to ma"e of a bad one a good one... but to ma"e a good one better, or out of many good ones, one prin!ipall 0great1 good one, not +ustly 0only1 to be e/!epted 0ob&ecte!1

against; that hath bene our indeavour, that our mar"e 0goal1. +heir claim to be revisionists is more clearly state! in the long title to the original "$"" King James Bible (hich says in art, T#2 #*%6 1&1%2, -onteyning the *ld Teftament and the .ew7 .ewly tranflated out of the *riginall tongues 8 with the former Tranflations dilligently !ompared and revifed 0revise!1 by his 0aiestes fpe!iall 0Ca&esty,s s ecial1 !ommandment... In this they state! they =com are! an! revise!> the former Tranflations. -eventh, the translators s oke of the !ifficulty of translating an! of the nee! for lacing alternative rea!ings in the margins. +o!ay (e have an abun!ance of le)icons for both

'ebre( an! 8reek as (ell as other hel s. In those early !ays of translation hel s (ere scarce if e)tant at all. +he e)act meaning of (or!s ha! to be !etermine! by the conte)t as (ell as the usage of the (or! in other laces ? even in secular 'ebre( an! 8reek (ritings. It (as an! is often !ifficult to kno( the correct meaning of some (or!s. +he King James translators ha! this to say5 )ome peradventure 0 erha s1 would have no varietie of sen!es 0senses or meanings1 to be set in the margine, 0margin1 lest the authoritie of the )!riptures for de!iding of !ontroversies by that shew of un!ertaintie, should somewhat be sha"en. 1ut we hold their +udgmet not to be so be so sound in this point... There be many words in the )!riptures 0original te)ts1, whi!h be never found there but on!e, 'having neither brother nor neighbour, as the #ebrewes spea"e( so that we !annot be holpen 0hel e!1 by !onferen!e of pla!es 0i.e. com aring usages of (or!s in !ifferent laces1 . Againe, there be many rare

names of !ertaine birds, beastes and pre!ious stones, 8!. !on!erning whi!h the #ebrewes themselves are so divided among themselves for +udgement, that they may seeme to have defined this or that, rather be!ause they would say something, the 0than1 be!ause they were sure of that whi!h they said, as ). 0-aint1 $erome somewhere saith of the )eptuagint. .ow in su!h a !ase, doth not a margine 0note in the margin1 do well to admonish the Reader to see"e further, and not to !on!lude or dogmati9e 0be !ogmatic1 upon this or that peremptorily

0a!mitting of no contra!iction1, 4or as it is a fault of in!redulitie 0unbelief1, to doubt of those things that are evident7 so to determine of su!h things as the )pirit of God hath left 'even in the +udgment of the +udi!ious( :uestionable, !an beno 0be no1 lesse then 0than1 presumption. Therfore as ). Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the )!riptures 0original te)ts17 so diversitie of signifi!ation 0meaning1 and sense in the margine 0notes in the margins1, where the te/t 0original -cri ture te)ts1 is not so !leare, must needes doe good, yea is ne!essary, as we are perswaded 0 ersua!e!1. +he King James translators strongly state! their case for the inclusion of marginal notes in their translation ? saying such marginal ren!erings (ere ne!essary. +he translators themselves a!mitte! that some (or!s an! names (ere !ifficult to translate (ith certainty an! so gave us alternate marginal rea!ings in the original King James Version. /e think it a shame that the *merican ublic has most often been !e rive! of the com lete (ork of the King James

translators. *mericans generally !o not have the intro!uctory material or the marginal notes thought to be =necessary> by the King James translators. Aighth, the King James translators un!erstoo! that translation is not mere mechanical (or! s(a ing. +hey (rote as follo(s on this sub&ect5 An other thing we thin"e good to

admonish thee of 'gentle Reader( that wee have not tyed our selves to an uniformitie of phrasing, or to an identitie of words, as some peradventure 0 erha s1 would wish that we had done, be!ause they observe, that some learned men some where, have beene as e/a!t as they !ould that way. Truly, that we might not varie 0vary1 from the sense of that whi!h we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both pla!es 'for there bee some wordes that bee not of the same sense every where( we were espe!ially !arefull, and made a !ons!ien!e 0(ere careful or scru ulous1, a!!ording to our duetie 0!uty1. 1ut, that we should e/presse the same notion in the same parti!ular word; as for e/ample, if we translate the #ebrew or Gree"e word on!e by Purpose, never to !all it &ntent; if one where $ourneying,

never Traveiling; if one where Thin"e, never )uppose; if one where Paine, never A!he; if one where $oy, never Gladnesse, 8!. Thus to minse 0be brief or cut short our comments on1 the matter, wee thought to savour 0taste or smell1 more of !uriositie then 0than1 wisedome, and that rather it 0to al(ays use the same (or!1 would breed s!orne in the Atheist, then 0than1 bring profite to the godly Reader. 4or is the "ingdome of God be!ome words or syllables, why should wee be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one pre!isely when wee may use another no lesse fit, as !ommodiously 0han!y or serviceable1, +hey state! that they (ere not mechanically boun! to one Anglish (or! for one 8reek or 'ebre( (or!. Binth, let us consi!er (hat the King James translators mentione! last in their intro!uction. +hey (rote about their use of ol! church (or!s. Our research in!icates that King James, through the Bisho of Lon!on, gave fourteen rules to the translators about ho( they (ere to !o their (ork. @ules numbere! one, three an! four re.uire! the translators to substitute certain ol! church (or!s instea! of translating the original (or!s literally. +hose three rules are these5 ". The ordinary 1ible read in the -hur!h, !ommonly !alled the 1ishops 1ible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original 0-cri tures1 will permit. D. The old e!!lesiasti!al words 0religious (or!s use! by the Catholic an! *nglican riests1 to be "ept; as the word !hur!h, not to be translated !ongregation, 8!. an! ne)t, 9. ;hen any word hath divers 0!ifferent1 signifi!ations 0meanings1, that to be "ept whi!h has been most !ommonly used by the most eminent fathers 0ol! Catholic church fathers1, being agreeable to the propriety of the pla!e, and the analogy of the faith 0*nglican !octrine1. In stating that they follo(e! the king,s rules, the translators (rote to the rea!er5 %astly, wee have on the one side avoided the s!rupulositie 0careful correctness1 of the Puritanes 0Puritans1, who leave the olde 2!!lesti!all words 0ol! @oman Catholic church (or!s1 , and beta"e them 0go1 to other, as when they put washing for 1aptisme, and -ongregation in stead of -hur!h... Because of

this ractice soun! Ba tist reachers !o(n through the four hun!re! lus years since the

King James (as translate! have ha! !ifficulties. +hey have ha! to e) lain the true meaning of those ol! @oman Catholic (or!s5 not only ba tism an! church, but also other Catholic (or!s such as bisho , !eacon, Aaster, resbytery, cross, etc. ; (or!s that a James Bibles. -umming it all u , (hat (e have in the intro!uctory material is a great amount of information (hich hel s us un!erstan! the King James Bible. It is a grave loss to us all that this material is no longer inclu!e! in our Bibles. +hat loss has resulte! in misun!erstan!ings as to (hat the King James Bible actually says. *n! it shoul! be note!, that, as far as this reacher is able to learn, none of the o ular ne(er translations reme!y this loss. +hey kee mostly if not com letely to the ol! Catholic (or!s. /hat a thing it (oul! be if the ublishers of mo!ern versions actually translate! correctly the 8reek (or!s =ba ti7o,> =ekklesia,> = ascha> an! =stauros> as (ell as others. Co!ern =evangelicals> ; inclu!ing many Protestant Ba tists ? (oul! robably refuse to buy their Bibles ? an! their revenues (oul! go !o(n. 2or the sa! fact is that most Ba tists !o not have an inkling as to the meaning of these 8reek (or!s an! blithely go about believing @oman Catholic !octrines taught by these =ol!e Acclesticall> Anglish (or!s5 =ba tism,> =church,> =Aaster,> an! =cross,> as (ell as others. /e live in a time (here libraries an! the Internet make available to us sources so that (e can kno( the truth regar!ing these an! other (or!s. /e have no e)cuse for believing error. Let us re&oice in the free!om that kno(ing the truth brings as our Lor! Jesus sai!, An ye &hall 'no" the tr%th, an the tr%th &hall ma'e yo% #ree,* :John E5D4<. *n! let us be ro erly a reciative of the ear in our King

(ork of the King James Bible translators (ho tol! us (hat they believe! an! ho( they ma!e their translation of the /or! of 8o!. By means of their o(n intro!uctory (or!s (e can better un!erstan! 8o!,s /or!6