Berean Fact Sheet Number 019

This Fact Sheet is best viewed in Times New Roman font. It is also available in PDF format. For more information, click here.

“… altering and amending our Tranſlations …”
An Answer to Complaints and Objections (Both Ancient and Modern)
Concerning the Proliferation of Bible Translations in English

Copyright © 2006 by Larry G. Overton*

The title of this Berean Fact Sheet comes from the translators of the King James Version (more on that in a moment). The subtitle actually gives a more complete picture of what to expect in this work. It is an article that answers complaints and objections to the existence of the many versions of the Bible in English. As we will see, these criticisms have all been heard before. Solomon was right; “there is nothing new under the sun” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). Complaints of this nature, most often made by modern advocates of King James Onlyism, were also being heard by the KJV translators themselves.

And this brings me back to the title of this Fact Sheet. It comes (as I said before) from the translators of the King James Version. To be more precise, it is taken from the words of Miles Smith, one of the translators, who also wrote the lengthy prefatory remarks to the version he helped produce. His preface, which he entitled, “ The Tranſlators to the Reader ,” is almost never reprinted in modern editions of the KJV. That’s a real shame; there is a good deal of insightful information in that preface.

Indeed, Smith’s comments in his preface are directly applicable to the subject of this article. There are those today who treat the text of the KJV as sacrosanct. I referred to them a moment ago as advocates of King James Onlyism. In their view, the text of the KJV cannot be touched; it must not be altered. Therefore, they believe that no new translation of the Bible is ever warranted. However, when we read the words of Miles Smith, we find that the KJV translators themselves would not agree with the current King James Only position. Here is a more extended quote from that preface.

Yet before we end, we must anſwere a third cauill and obiection of theirs againſt vs, for altering and amending our Tranſlations 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?

That quote is a literal transcription of the words of Miles Smith from his preface to the KJV. It is accurate to the original right down to the orthographic details. The wording and spellings appear (understandably) strange and archaic. After all, that preface was written 396 years ago. Here is a modernized version of that same paragraph from “The Translators to the Reader.”

Yet before we conclude, we must answer a third complaint and objection of theirs against us for altering and amending our translations so often. In this they truly deal harshly with and misjudge us. For what wise person ever considered it a fault in someone that he go over his work and amend it where he saw cause for doing so?

From the context of the preface it is clear that the “translations” which Smith refers to “altering and amending” are the English versions that appeared prior to the KJV. The Roman Catholics were for the most part the ones raising objection to translating the Bible into English, and one of their pretended criticisms was that there was already a proliferation of Protestant translations of the Bible in English.

For 86 years—from Tyndale’s first edition of the New Testament to the KJV—there had been scarcely more than a half dozen versions of the Bible produced in English. These versions were also subsequently revised, resulting in slight variations between editions and/or printings of these versions. To the Roman Catholic hierarchy, this qualified as “translating too often.” All of this compares (even pales in comparison) to the translation activity of the last century, which witnessed the birth of scores of new Bible versions in English. And many of these 20th century versions have gone into subsequent printings that have been revised somewhat (e.g., the RSV, TEV, NASB, NIV, et al.).

In truth, the Roman Catholic position on Bible translation was nothing but sour grapes on their part. Rome was bemoaning their loss of a stranglehold-like control over the contents of Scripture. Before the “proliferation” of versions in English—to say nothing of other versions in other languages in Europe, such as Luther’s Bible in German—the Scriptures were in Latin, and beyond the reach of the common man. So the Roman Catholic argument concerning the Protestants “altering and amending” their translations too often (and thus “proliferating” English versions of Scripture) was in truth a thinly veiled complaint against making the Scriptures so readily available.

But I digress. Miles Smith responded to this “You alter and amend your translations too often” argument of the Roman Catholics by asking a rather pointed (albeit rhetorical) question. He in essence asked, “What person in his right mind would ever consider it a bad thing to reexamine his work in order to correct it and improve upon it where he could?” The answer to Miles Smith’s rhetorical question of four centuries ago is that it is not a “fault” to go over one’s work and amend it where necessary.

The same logic that applied to the Roman Catholics in the days of the “best learned men” of the KJV ironically applies to the advocates of King James Onlyism today. It is no “fault”—indeed, in the words of one of the KJV translators, it is the hallmark of “such as [are] wise”—to reexamine the King James Version, if for no other reason than its age, and see if there are places where it can be amended.

And there are definitely places where the KJV can and should be amended. It is 396 years old, and it shows. Its antiquated nature can be readily seen in an unbiased examination of its grammatical forms, orthography and vocabulary. Furthermore, there are definite examples of inaccurate renderings, and bone fide examples of mistranslation, which cannot be blamed on the changes in the English language from then to now. To put it plainly, the renderings to which I am referring never were accurate.

So, contemporary King James Only doctrine notwithstanding, the KJV needs to be amended. And if the translators of the KJV could speak to us today—and they can via Smith’s preface—they would be the first to agree.

* This article was first written in August of 2004, but was never published. I have revised it somewhat, and offer it now in its present form as a Berean Fact Sheet.