The Translators

To The

Reader

1611 King James Preface

by

Miles Smith

This October, 2012 eBook edition is published by authority of

Philadelphia Baptist Church

202 Mill Street SW

Decatur, Alabama 35603 - USA

http://www.pbcofdecaturalabama.org

admin@pbcofdecaturalabama.org

For additional free eBooks please visit:
http://www.pbcofdecaturalabama.org/KindleBooks/KindleBooks.html

Contents

Acknowledgements

Preface

The Epistle Dedicatory

The Translators To The Reader

Fifteen Rules Of Translation

Edgar J. Goodspeed's Thesis

Acknowledgements

I would like to give a special thanks to my dear Christian Brother and eBook conversion mentor Illya Antonenko of osnova.com. When I mentioned to him that I was going to do this eBook of the The Translators To The Readers and was looking for a digital source of one of the non-modernized versions (I wanted to avoid the labor of scanning it in from one of my printed editions if possible) he graciously sent me the already prepared source code from his 1611 KJV which includes all of the footnotes from the original already created and coded in.

Thanks Illya, you saved me a lot of time.

Preface

When the forty-seven or so Translators, all members of the Church of England, who actually worked on what was to become the 1611 King James Version of the English Bible had completed their assigned tasks one of those Translators, Miles Smith, wrote The Translators To The Reader. In this insightful document he records for those who would read the culmination of their seven years of labor some thoughts on the purposes of the Translators and their justifications for the pursuit of those labors as well as their thoughts on their own translation, other translations, margin notes, and a host of other topics.

Regrettably many years ago most Bible publishers ceased including The Translators To The Reader in their King James Bibles (now generally the 1769 Benjamin Blayney edition / revision) and many who highly esteem this wonderful English translation of the Bible have never really read for themselves those thoughts of the ones who actually did the translation. It is my hope that by making this eBook edition available some of those who are unaware of a number of very important and pertinent thoughts that those forty-seven Translators had concerning their translation processes as well as the finished result of their efforts will be thereby enabled to view those processes and the finished translation as those Translators did.

I have also included Edgar J. Goodspeed’s Theiss on The Translators To The Reader in hopes that readers of the King James Bible may see the importance of having this enlightening preface, The Translators To The Reader, available to them, even if is not included in their Bibles

There are a number of “modernized” editions of The Translators To The Reader that can be found on the internet, which for some may be easier to read, but as I mentioned in the Acknowledgements, it was my desire to present an eBook edition as close to the original as I could produce. The version here presented is with the actual words and spelling of the original 1611 first edition with only the font being changed to make it far easier to read. The only other variation is that the various sub headings included in this edition are not in the “exact, page by page, digitally remastered replica of the original 1611” [1] first edition I have or in any other 1611 first edition I have ever seen. At what point they were added I do not know and as it is such an inconsequential matter I did not take time to research when they were included. If any reader can supply that factual data I would be glad to include it in any future revision.

Perhaps a short note as to how these “somewhat modernized” (exact wording and spelling but with a modern font) versions came into being is in order.

In order to see what changes were made through the years an “exact copy” of a 1611 first edition was reconstructed (using 8 point Roman type). This is where the modernized (same words and spelling but with a different font) editions currently marketed came from. They are copies of that text. These editions are commonly referred to as The 1833 Oxford Edition and are available from Hendrickson Publishers, Inc. – ISBN 978-1-56563-808-2

The following quote is from the book, A Textual History of the King James Bible by David Norton.

The quote has to do with the selecting of Blayney’s text as the “final” revision, edition, or whatever appropriate term a person may be comfortable with, which became our current 1769 KJV.

“At this time Curtis’s involvement with Cambridge came to light, leading, he supposes, both to the breakdown of the Cambridge project and, very importantly, to renewed cooperation between the Universities. Curtis meanwhile was left on the outside, still campaigning.

“There were two important consequences: greater uniformity in the editions of both Universities and an exact reprint of the first edition, published by Oxford in 1833 (H 1792), a truly remarkable piece of work that reproduces all the quirks of the first edition, even inverted letters, with scarcely an error. This was judged by the Delegates to be ‘the most effectual method for enabling themselves and others to judge how far the complaints were well-founded.’ [2]

“Scrivener comments that this edition ‘virtually settled the whole debate, by shewing to the general reader the obvious impossibility of returning to the Bible of 1611, with all the defects which those who superintended the press had been engaged, for more than two centuries, in reducing to a more consistent and presentable shape’ (p. 35; for a contrasting view, see below, p. 120). One might add in qualification that many of Curtis’s complaints had been justified, and that the studious general reader might still want to see exactly what the translators and their printer produced.

“One quiet element rebutting Curtis is worth noting. Following the title page, there is a collation of the first edition with the 1613 folio (selected in preference to the other folios because no two exactly identical copies of them could be found). Over 400 variations of words are recorded so that ‘the Reader may learn how far it was thought necessary to correct the Authorized Text in the time of the original Translators.’ In short, Curtis’s claim that no substantive change to the original was permitted was shown not to be the view held in the time of the translators, thus affirming that there was precedent for the continuing work on the text.

“The necessity of standardisation having been brought home to the Universities, the Oxford standard, essentially Blayney’s text, now ruled.”

With this final brief informational statement I will bring this Preface to a conclusion. I have also included in this eBook The Epistle Dedicatory (the Translators’ dedication of their translation to King James written by Thomas Bilson) and The Fifteen Rules of Translation which were given to all the original Translators as their guidelines (co-authored by Richard Bancroft and King James).

[1] King James Version 1611 digital reproduction - Zondervan Publishing.

[2] The Holy Bible, an Exact Reprint, statement bound in at the beginning.

TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTIE

Prince, Iames

by the grace of God King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c.

THE TRANSLATORS OF THE BIBLE,
with Grace, Mercie, and Peace, through IESVS CHRIST our LORD.

Great and manifold were the bleſſings (moſt dread Soueraigne) which Almighty GOD, the Father of all Mercies, beſtowed vpon vs the people of ENGLAND, when firſt he ſent your Maieſties Royall perſon to rule and raigne ouer vs. For whereas it was the expeƈtation of many, who wiſhed not well vnto our SION, that vpon the ſetting of that bright Occidentall Starre Queene ELIZABETH of moſt happy memory, ſome thicke and palpable cloudes of darkeneſſe would ſo haue ouerſhadowed this land, that men ſhould haue bene in doubt which way they were to walke, and that it ſhould hardly be knowen, who was to direƈt the vnſetled State: the appearance of your MAIESTIE, as of the Sunne in his ſtrength, inſtantly diſpelled thoſe ſuppoſed and ſurmiſed miſts, and gaue vnto all that were well affeƈted, exceeding cauſe of comfort; eſpecially when we beheld the gouernment eſtabliſhed in your HIGHNESSE, and your hopefull Seed, by an vndoubted Title, and this alſo accompanied with Peace and tranquillitie, at home and abroad.

But amongſt all our Ioyes, there was no one that more filled our hearts, then the bleſſed continuance of the Preaching of GODS ſacred word amongſt vs, which is that ineſtimable treaſure, which excelleth all the riches of the earth, becauſe the fruit thereof extendeth it ſelfe, not onely to the time ſpent in this tranſitory world, but direƈteth and diſpoſeth men vnto that Eternall happineſſe which is aboue in Heauen.

Then, not to ſuffer this to fall to the ground, but rather to take it vp, and to continue it in that ſtate, wherein the famous predeceſſour of your HIGHNESSE did leaue it; Nay, to goe forward with the confidence and reſolution of a man in maintaining the trueth of CHRIST, and propagating it farre and neere, is that which hath ſo bound and firmely knit the hearts of all your MAIESTIES loyall and Religious people vnto you, that your very Name is precious among them, their eye doeth behold you with comfort, and they bleſſe you in their hearts, as that ſanƈtified perſon, who vnder GOD, is the immediate authour of their true happineſſe. And this their contentment doeth not diminiſh or decay, but euery day increaſeth and taketh ſtrength, when they obſerue that the zeale of your Maieſtie towards the houſe of GOD, doth not ſlacke or goe backward, but is more and more kindled, manifeſting it ſelfe abroad in the furtheſt parts of Chriſtendome, by writing in defence of the Trueth, (which hath giuen ſuch a blow vnto that man of Sinne, as will not be healed) and euery day at home, by Religious and learned diſcourſe, by frequenting the houſe of GOD, by hearing the word preached, by cheriſhing the teachers therof, by caring for the Church as a moſt tender and louing nourcing Father.

There are infinite arguments of this right Chriſtian and Religious affeƈtion in your MAIESTIE: but none is more forcible to declare it to others, then the vehement and perpetuated deſire of the accompliſhing and publiſhing of this Worke, which now with all humilitie we preſent vnto your MAIESTIE. For when your Highneſſe had once out of deepe iudgment apprehended, how conuenient it was, That out of the Originall ſacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our owne and other forreigne Languages, of many worthy men who went before vs, there ſhould be one more exaƈt Tranſlation of the holy Scriptures into the Engliſh tongue; your MAIESTIE did neuer deſiſt, to vrge and to excite thoſe to whom it was commended, that the worke might be haſtened, and that the buſineſſe might be expedited in ſo decent a maner, as a matter of ſuch importance might iuſtly require.

And now at laſt, by the Mercy of GOD, and the continuance of our Labours, it being brought vnto ſuch a concluſion, as that we haue great hope that the Church of England ſhall reape good fruit thereby; we hold it our duety to offer it to your MAIESTIE, not onely as to our King and Soueraigne, but as to the principall moouer and Author of the Worke. Humbly crauing of your moſt Sacred Maieſtie, that ſince things of this quality haue euer bene ſubieƈt to the cenſures of ill meaning and diſcontented perſons, it may receiue approbation and Patronage from ſo learned and iudicious a Prince as your Highneſſe is, whoſe allowance and acceptance of our Labours, ſhall more honour and incourage vs, then all the calumniations and hard interpretations of other men ſhall diſmay vs. So that, if on the one ſide we ſhall be traduced by Popiſh perſons at home or abroad, who therefore will maligne vs, becauſe we are poore Inſtruments to make GODS holy Trueth to be yet more and more knowen vnto the people, whom they deſire ſtill to keepe in ignorance and darkneſſe: or if on the other ſide, we ſhall be maligned by ſelfe-conceited brethren, who runne their owne wayes, and giue liking vnto nothing but what is framed by themſelues, and hammered on their Anuile; we may reſt ſecure, ſupported within by the trueth and innocencie of a good conſcience, hauing walked the wayes of ſimplicitie and integritie, as before the Lord; And ſuſtained without, by the powerfull Proteƈtion of your Maieſties grace and fauour, which will euer giue countenance to honeſt and Chriſtian endeuours, againſt bitter cenſures, and vncharitable imputations.

The LORD of Heauen and earth bleſſe your Maieſtie with many and happy dayes, that as his Heauenly hand hath enriched your Highneſſe with many ſingular, and extraordinary Graces; ſo you may be the wonder of the world in this later age, for happineſſe and true felicitie, to the honour of that Great GOD, and the good of his Church, through IESVS CHRIST our Lord and onely Sauiour.

(∵)

Thomas Bilson 1547-1616

THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER.

The beſt things haue been calumniated.

Zeale to promote the common good, whether it be by deuiſing any thing our ſelues, or reuiſing that which hath bene laboured by others, deſerueth certainly much reſpeƈt and eſteeme, but yet findeth but cold intertainment in the world. It is welcommed with ſuſpicion in ſtead of loue, and with emulation in ſtead of thankes: and if there be any hole left for cauill to enter, (and cauill if it doe not finde a hole, will make one) it is ſure to bee miſconſtrued, and in danger to be condemned. This will eaſily be granted by as many as know ſtory, or haue any experience. For, was there euer any thing proieƈted, that ſauoured any way of newneffe or renewing, but the ſame endured many a ſtorme of gaine-ſaying, or oppoſition? A man would thinke that Ciuilitie, holeſome Lawes, learning and eloquence, Synods, and Church-maintenance, (that we ſpeake of no more things of this kinde) ſhould be as ſafe as a Sanƈtuary, and out of ſhot, [1] as they ſay, that no man would lift vp the heele, no, nor dogge mooue his tongue againſt the motioners of them. For by the firſt, we are diſtinguiſhed from bruit-beaſts led with ſenſualitie: By the ſecond, we are bridled and reſtrained from outragious behauiour, and from doing of iniuries, whether by fraud or by violence: By the third, we are enabled to informe and reforme others, by the light and feeling that we haue attained vnto our ſelues: Briefly, by the fourth being brought together to a parle face to face, we ſooner compoſe our differences then by writings, which are endleſſe: And laſtly, that the Church be ſufficiently prouided for, is ſo agreeable to good reaſon and conſcience, that thoſe mothers are holden to be leſſe cruell, that kill their children aſſoone as they are borne, then thoſe nourſing fathers and mothers (whereſoeuer they be) that withdraw from them who hang vpon their breaſts (and vpon whoſe breaſts againe themſelues doe hang to receiue the Spirituall and ſincere milke of the word) liuelyhood and ſupport fit for their eſtates. Thus it is apparent, that theſe things which we ſpeake of, are of moſt neceſſary vſe, and therefore, that none, either without abſurditie can ſpeake againſt them, or without note of wickedneſſe can ſpurne againſt them.

Yet for all that, the learned know that certaine worthy men[2] haue bene brought to vntimely death for none other fault, but for ſeeking to reduce their Countrey-men to good order and diſcipline: and that in ſome Common-weales[3] it was made a capitall crime, once to motion the making of a new Law for the abrogating of an old, though the ſame were moſt pernicious: And that certaine, [4] which would be counted pillars of the State, and paternes of Vertue and Prudence, could not be brought for a long time to giue way to good Letters and refined ſpeech, but bare themſelues as auerſe from them, as from rocks or boxes of poiſon: And fourthly, that hee was no babe, but a great clearke, [5] that gaue foorth (and in writing to remaine to poſteritie) in paſſion peraduenture, but yet he gaue foorth, that hee had not ſeene any profit to come by any Synode, or meeting of the Clergie, but rather the contrary: And laſtly, againſt Church-maintenance and allowance, in ſuch ſort, as the Embaſſadors and meſſengers of the great King of Kings ſhould be furniſhed, it is not vnknowen what a fiƈtion or fable (ſo it is eſteemed, and for no better by the reporter[6] himſelfe, though ſuperſtitious) was deuiſed; Namely, that at ſuch time as the profeſſours and teachers of Chriſtianitie in the Church of Rome, then a true Church, were liberally endowed, a voyce forſooth was heard from heauen, ſaying; Now is poiſon powred down into the Church, &c. Thus not only as oft as we ſpeake, as one ſaith, but alſo as oft as we do anything of note or conſequence, we ſubieƈt our ſelues to euery ones cenſure, and happy is he that is leaſt toſſed vpon tongues; for vtterly to eſcape the ſnatch of them it is impoſſible. If any man conceit, that this is the lot and portion of the meaner ſort onely, and that Princes are priuiledged by their high eſtate, he is deceiued. As the ſword deuoureth aſwell one as the other, as it is in Samuel (2 Sam. 11: 25); nay as the great Commander charged his ſouldiers in a certaine battell, to ſtrike at no part of the enemie, but at the face; And as the King of Syria commanded his chiefe Captaines to fight neither with ſmall nor great, ſaue onely againſt the King of Iſrael (1 Kings 22: 31): ſo it is too true, that Enuie ſtriketh moſt ſpitefully at the faireſt, and at the chiefeſt. Dauid was a worthy Prince, and no man to be compared to him for his firſt deedes, and yet for as worthy an aƈte as euer he did (euen for bringing backe the Arke of God in ſolemnitie) he was ſcorned and ſcoffed at by his owne wife (2 Sam. 6: 16). Solomon was greater then Dauid, though not in vertue, yet in power: and by his power and wiſdome he built a Temple to the LORD, ſuch a one as was the glory of the land of Iſrael, and the wonder of the whole world. But was that his magnificence liked of by all? We doubt of it. Otherwiſe, why doe they lay it in his ſonnes diſh, and call vnto him for eaſing of the burden, [7] Make, ſay they, the grieuous ſeruitude of thy father, and his ſore yoke, lighter. (1 Kings 12: 4) Belike he had charged them with ſome leuies, and troubled them with ſome cariages; Hereupon they raiſe vp a tragedie, and wiſh in their heart the Temple had neuer bene built. So hard a thing it is to pleaſe all, euen when we pleaſe God beſt, and doe ſeeke to approue our ſelues to euery ones conſcience.

The higheſt perſonages haue been calumniated.

If wee will deſcend to later times, wee ſhall finde many the like examples of ſuch kind, or rather vnkind acceptance. The firſt Romane Emperour[8] did neuer doe a more pleaſing deed to the learned, nor more profitable to poſteritie, for conſeruing the record of times in true ſupputation; then when he correƈted the Calender, and ordered the yeere according to the courſe of the Sunne: and yet this was imputed to him for noueltie, and arrogancie, and procured to him great obloquie. So the firſt Chriſtened Emperour[9] (at the leaſtwiſe that openly profeſſed the faith himſelfe, and allowed others to doe the like) for ſtrengthening the Empire at his great charges, and prouiding for the Church, as he did, got for his labour the name Pupillus, [10] as who would ſay, a waſtefull Prince, that had neede of a Guardian, or ouerſeer. So the beſt Chriſtened Emperour, [11] for the loue that he bare vnto peace, thereby to enrich both himſelfe and his ſubieƈts, and becauſe he did not ſeeke warre but find it, was iudged to be no man at armes, [12] (though in deed he excelled in feates of chiualrie, and ſhewed ſo much when he was prouoked) and condemned for giuing himſelfe to his eaſe, and to his pleaſure. To be ſhort, the moſt learned Emperour[13] of former times, (at the leaſt, the greateſt politician) what thanks had he for cutting off the ſuperfluities of the lawes, and digeſting them into ſome order and method? This, that he hath been blotted by ſome to bee an Epitomiſt, that is, one that extinguiſhed worthy whole volumes, to bring his abridgements into requeſt. This is the meaſure that hath been rendred to excellent Princes in former times, euen, Cum benè facerent, malè audire, For their good deedes to be euill ſpoken of. Neither is there any likelihood, that enuie and malignitie died, and were buried with the ancient. No, no, the reproofe of Moſes taketh hold of moſt ages; You are riſen vp in your fathers ſtead, an increaſe of ſinfull men. (Num. 32: 14) What is that that hath been done? that which ſhall be done: and there is no new thing vnder the Sunne, ſaith the wiſeman (Steuen, As your fathers did, ſo doe you. (Acts 7: 51)

His Maiesties conſtancie, notwithſtanding calumniation, for the ſurvey of the Engliſh translations.

This, and more to this purpoſe, His Maieſtie that now reigneth (and long, and long may he reigne, and his offſpring for euer, Himſelfe and children, and childrens children alwayes)[14] knew full well, according to the ſingular wiſedome giuen vnto him by God, and the rare learning and experience that he hath attained vnto; namely that whoſoeuer attempteth any thing for the publike (ſpecially if it pertaine to Religion, and to the opening and clearing of the word of God) the ſame ſetteth himſelfe vpon a ſtage to be glouted vpon by euery euil eye, yea, he caſteth himſelfe headlong vpon pikes, to be gored by euery ſharpe tongue. For he that medleth with mens Religion in any part, medleth with their cuſtome, nay, with their freehold; and though they finde no content in that which they haue, yet they cannot abide to heare of altering. Notwithſtanding his Royall heart was not daunted or diſcouraged for this or that colour, but ſtood reſolute, as a ſtatue immoueable, and an anuile not eaſie to be beaten into plates, [15] as one ſayth; he knew who had choſen him to be a Souldier, or rather a Captaine, and being aſſured that the courſe which he intended made much for the glory of God, & the building vp of his Church, he would not ſuffer it to be broken off for whatſoeuer ſpeaches or praƈtiſes. It doth certainely belong vnto Kings, yea, it doth ſpecially belong vnto them, to haue care of Religion, yea, to know it aright, yea, to profeſſe it zealouſly, yea to promote it to the vttermoſt of their power. This is their glory before all nations which meane well, and this will bring vnto them a farre moſt excellent weight of glory in the day of the Lord Ieſus. For the Scripture ſaith not in vaine, Them that honor me, I will honor, (1 Sam. 2: 30) neither was it a vaine word that Euſebius deliuered long agoe, that pietie towards God[16] was the weapon, and the onely weapon that both preſerued Conſtantines perſon, and auenged him of his enemies.[17]

The praiſe of the holy Scriptures.

But now what pietie without trueth? what trueth (what ſauing trueth) without the word of God? what word of God (whereof we may be ſure) without the Scripture? The Scriptures we are commanded to ſearch. Ioh. 5.39. Eſa. 8.20. They are commended that ſearched & ſtudied them. Aƈt. 17.11. and 8.28, 29>. They are reproued that were vnſkilful in them, or ſlow to beleeue them. Mat. 22.29. Luk. 24.25. They can make vs wiſe vnto ſaluation. 2. Tim. 3.15. If we be ignorant, they will inſtruƈt vs; if out of the way, they will bring vs home; if out of order, they will reforme vs, if in heauines, comfort vs; if dull, quicken vs; if colde, inflame vs. Tolle, lege; Tolle, lege, Take vp and read, take vp and read the Scriptures, (for vnto them was the direƈtion) it was ſaid vnto S. Auguſtine[18] by a ſupernaturall voyce. Whatſoeuar is in the Scriptures, beleeue me, ſaith the ſame S. Auguſtine, [19] is high and diuine; there is verily trueth, and a doƈtrine moſt fit for the refreſhing and renewing of mens mindes, and truely ſo tempered, that euery one may draw from thence that which is ſufficient for him, if hee come to draw with a deuout and pious minde, as true Religion requireth. Thus S. Auguſtine. And S. Hierome: [20] Ama ſcripturas, & amabit te ſapientia &c. Loue the Scriptures, and wiſedome will loue thee. And S. Cyrill againſt Iulian;[21] Euen boyes that are bred vp in the Scriptures, become moſt religious, &c. But what mention wee three or foure vſes of the Scripture, whereas whatſoeuer is to be beleeued or praƈtiſed, or hoped for, is contained in them? or three or foure ſentences of the Fathers, ſince whoſoeuer is worthy of the name of a Father, from Chriſts time downeward, hath likewiſe written not onely of the riches, but alſo of the perfeƈtion of the Scripture? I adore the fulneſſe of the Scripture, ſaith Tertullian againſt Hermogenes.[22] And againe, to Apelles[23] an Heretike of the like ſtampe, he ſaith; I doe not admit that which thou bringeſt in (or concludeſt) of thine owne (head or ſtore, de tuo) without Scripture. So Saint Iuſtin Martyr[24] before him; Wee muſt know by all meanes, ſaith hee, that it is not lawfull (or poſſible) to learne (any thing) of God or of right pietie, ſaue onely out of the Prophets, who teach vs by diuine inſpiration. So Saint Baſill after Tertullian, [25] It is a manifeſt falling away from the Faith, and a fault of preſumption, either to reieƈt any of thoſe things that are written, or to bring in (vpon the head of them, ἐπεισάγειν) any of thoſe things that are not written. Wee omit to cite to the ſame effeƈt, S. Cyrill B. of Hieruſalem in his 4. Catacheſ. Saint Hierome againſt Heludius, Saint Auguſtine in his 3. booke againſt the letters of Petilian, and in very many other places of his workes. Alſo we forebeare to deſcend to latter Fathers, becauſe wee will not wearie the reader. The Scriptures then being acknowledged to bee ſo full and ſo perfeƈt, how can wee excuſe our ſelues of negligence, if we doe not ſtudie them, of curioſitie, if we be not content with them? Men talke much of εἰρεσίωνη, [26] how many ſweete and goodly things it had hanging on it; of the Philoſphers ſtone, that it turneth copper into gold; of Cornu-copia, that it had all things neceſſary for foode in it; of Panaces the herbe, that it was good for all diſeaſes; of Catholicon the drugge, that it is in ſtead of all purges; of Vulcans armour, that is was an armour of proofe againſt all thruſts, and all blowes, &c. Well, that which they falſly or vainely attributed to theſe things for bodily good, wee may iuſtly and with full meaſure aſcribe vnto the Scripture, for ſpirituall. It is not onely an armour, but alſo a whole armorie of weapons, both offenſiue, and defenſiue; whereby we may ſaue our ſelues and put the enemie to flight. It is not an herbe, but a tree, or rather a whole paradiſe of trees of life, which bring foorth fruit euery moneth, and the fruit thereof is for meate, and the leaues for medicine. It is not a pot of Manna, or a cruſe of oyle, which were for memorie only, or for a meales meate or two, but as it were a ſhowre of heauenly bread ſufficient for a whole hoſt, be it neuer ſo great; and as it were a whole cellar full of oyle veſſels; whereby all our neceſsities may be prouided for, and our debts diſcharged. In a word, it is a Panary of holeſome foode, againſt fenowed[27] traditions; a Phyſions-ſhop (Saint Baſill[28] calleth it) of preſeruatiues againſt poiſoned hereſies; a Pandeƈt of profitable lawes, againſt rebellious ſpirits; a treaſurie of moſt coſtly iewels, againſt beggarly rudiments; Finally a fountaine of moſt pure water ſpringing vp vnto euerlaſting life. And what maruaile? The originall thereof being from heauen, not from earth; the authour being God, not man; the enditer, the holy ſpirit, not the wit of the Apoſtles or Prophets; the Pen-men ſuch as were ſanƈtified from the wombe, and endewed with a principall portion of Gods ſpirit; the matter, veritie, pietie, puritie, vprightneſſe; the forme, Gods word, Gods teſtimonie, Gods oracles, the word of trueth, the word of ſaluation, &c. the effeƈts, light of vnderſtanding, ſtableneſſe of perſwaſion, repentance from dead workes, newneſſe of life, holineſſe, peace, ioy in the holy Ghoſt; laſtly, the end and reward of the ſtudie thereof, fellowſhip with the Saints, participation of the heauenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortall, vndefiled, and that neuer ſhall fade away: Happie is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thriſe happie that meditateth in it day and night.

Tranſlation neceſſarie.

But how ſhall men meditate in that, which they cannot vnderſtand? How ſhall they vnderſtand that which is kept cloſe in an vnknowen tongue? as it is written, Except I know the power of the voyce, I ſhall be to him that ſpeaketh, a Barbarian, and he that ſpeaketh, ſhalbe a Barbarian to me (1 Cor. 14). The Apoſtle excepteth no tongue, not Hebrewe the ancienteſt, not Greeke the moſt copious, not Latine the fineſt. Nature taught a naturall man to confeſſe, that all of vs in thoſe tongues which wee doe not vnderſtand, are plainely deafe; wee may turne the deafe eare vnto them. The Scythian counted the Athenian, whom he did not vnderſtand, barbarous: [29] ſo the Romane did the Syrian, and the Iew, (euen S. Hierome[30] himſelfe calleth the Hebrew tongue barbarous, belike becauſe it was ſtrange to ſo many) ſo the Emperour of Conſtantinople calleth the Latine tongue, barbarous, though Pope Nicolas do ſtorme at it: [31] ſo the Iewes long before Chriſt, called all other nations, Lognazim, which is little better then barbarous. Therefore as one complaineth, that alwayes in the Senate of Rome, there was one or other that called for an interpreter: [32] ſo leſt the Church be driuen to the like exigent, it is neceſſary to haue tranſlations in a readineſſe. 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 curtaine, that we may looke into the moſt Holy place; that remooueth the couer of the well, that wee may come by the water, euen as Iacob rolled away the ſtone from the mouth of the well, by which meanes the flockes of Laban were watered (Gen. 29: 10). Indeede without tranſlation into the vulgar tongue, the vnlearned are but like children at Iacobs well (which was deepe) (John 4: 11) without a bucket or ſome thing to draw with: or as that perſon mentioned by Eſay, to whom when a ſealed booke was deliuered, with this motion, Reade this, I pray thee, hee was faine to make this anſwere, I cannot, for it is ſealed. (Isa. 29: 11)

The tranſlation of the olde Teſtament out of the Hebrew into Greeke.

While God would be knowen onely in Iacob, and haue his Name great in Iſrael, and in none other place, while the dew lay on Gideons fleece onely, and all the earth beſides was drie;[33] then for one and the ſame people, which ſpake all of them the language of Canaan, that is, Hebrewe, one and the ſame originall in Hebrew was ſufficient. But when the fulneſſe of time drew neere, that the Sunne of righteouſneſſe, the Sonne of God ſhould come into the world, whom God ordeined to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, not of the Iew onely, but alſo of the Greeke, yea, of all them that were ſcattered abroad; then loe, it pleaſed the Lord to ſtirre vp the ſpirit of a GreekePrince (Greeke for deſcent and language) euen of Ptolome Philadelph King of Egypt, to procure the tranſlating of the Booke of God out of Hebrew into Greeke. This is the tranſlation of the Seuentie Interpreters, commonly ſo called, which prepared the way for our Sauiour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint Iohn Baptiſt did among the Iewes by vocall. For the Grecians being deſirous of learning, were not wont to ſuffer bookes of worth to lye moulding in Kings Libraries, but had many of their ſeruants, ready ſcribes, to copie them out, and ſo they were diſperſed and made common. Againe, the Greeke tongue was well knowen and made familiar to moſt inhabitants in Aſia, by reaſon of the conqueſt that there the Grecians had made, as alſo by the Colonies, which thither they had ſent. For the ſame cauſes alſo it was well vnderſtood in many places of Europe, yea, and of Affrike too. Therefore the word of God being ſet foorth in Greeke, becommeth hereby like a candle ſet vpon a candleſticke, which giueth light to all that are in the houſe, or like a proclamation ſounded foorth in the market place, which moſt men preſently take knowledge of; and therefore that language was fitteſt to containe the Scriptures, both for the firſt Preachers of the Goſpel to appeale vnto for witneſſe, and for the learners alſo of thoſe times to make ſearch and triall by. It is certaine, that the Tranſlation was not ſo ſound and ſo perfeƈt, but that it needed in many places correƈtion; and who had bene ſo ſufficient for this worke as the Apoſtles or Apoſtolike men? Yet it ſeemed good to the holy Ghoſt and to them, to take that which they found, (the ſame being for the greateſt part true and ſufficient) rather then by making a new, in that new world and greene age of the Church, to expoſe themſelues to many exceptions and cauillations, as though they made a Tranſlation to ſerue their owne turne, and therefore bearing witneſſe to themſelues, their witneſſe not to be regarded. This may be ſuppoſed to bee ſome cauſe, why the Tranſlation of the Seuentie was allowed to paſſe for currant. Notwithſtanding, though it was commended generally, yet it did not fully content the learned, no not of the Iewes. For not long after Chriſt, Aquila fell in hand with a new Tranſlation, and after him Theodotion, and after him Symmachus: yea, there was a fift and a ſixt edition, the Authours wherof were not knowen. Theſe with the Seuentie made vp the Hexapla, and were worthily and to great purpoſe compiled together by Origen. Howbeit the Edition of the Seuentie went away with the credit, and therefore not onely was placed in the midſt by Origen (for the worth and excellencie thereof aboue the reſt, as Epiphanius[34] gathereth) but alſo was vſed by the Greeke fathers for the ground and foundation of their Commentaries.[35] Yea, Epiphanius aboue named doeth attribute ſo much vnto it, that he holdeth the Authours thereof not onely for Interpreters, but alſo for Prophets in ſome reſpeƈt: and Iuſtinian the Emperour[36] enioyning the Iewes his ſubieƈts to vſe ſpecially the Tranſlation of the Seuentie, rendreth this reaſon thereof, becauſe they were as it were enlighted with propheticall grace.[37] Yet for all that, as the Egyptians are ſaid of the Prophet to bee men and not God, and their horſes fleſh and not ſpirit (Isa. 31: 3): ſo it is euident, (and Saint Hierome[38] affirmeth as much) that the Seuentie were Interpreters, they were not Prophets; they did many things well, as learned men; but yet as men they ſtumbled and fell, one while through ouerſight, another while through ignorance, yea, ſometimes they may be noted to adde to the Originall, and ſometimes to take from it; which made the Apoſtles to leaue them many times, when they left the Hebrew, and to deliuer the ſence thereof according to the trueth of the word, as the ſpirit gaue them vtterance. This may ſuffice touching the Greeke Tranſlations of the old Teſtament.

Tranſlation out of Hebrew and Greeke into Latine.

There were alſo within a few hundreth yeeres after CHRIST, tranſlations many into the Latine tongue: for this tongue alſo was very fit to conuey the Law and the Goſpel by, becauſe in thoſe times very many Countreys of the Weſt, yea of the South, Eaſt and North, ſpake or vnderſtood Latine, being made Prouinces to the Romanes. But now the Latine Tranſlations were too many to be all good, for they were infinite (Latini Interpretes nullo modo numerari poſſunt, ſaith S. Auguſtine.[39]) Againe they were not out of the Hebrew fountaine (wee ſpeake of the LatineTranſlations of the Old Teſtament) but out of the Greeke ſtreame, therefore the Greeke being not altogether cleare, the Latine deriued from it muſt needs be muddie. This moued S. Hierome a moſt learned father, and the beſt linguiſt without controuerſie, of his age, or of any that went before him, to vndertake the tranſlating of the Old Teſtament, out of the very fountaines themſelues; which hee performed with that euidence of great learning, iudgement, induſtrie and faithfulnes, that he hath for euer bound the Church vnto him, in a debt of ſpeciall remembrance and thankefulneſſe.

The tranſlating of the Scripture into the vulgar tongues.

Now though the Church were thus furniſhed with Greeke and Latine Tranſlations, euen before the faith of CHRIST was generally embraced in the Empire: (for the learned know[40] that euen in S. Ieromstime, the Conſul of Rome and his wife were both Ethnicks, and about the ſame time the greateſt part of the Senate alſo) yet for all that the godly-learned were not content to haue the Scriptures in the Language which themſelues vnderſtood, Greeke and Latine, (as the good Lepers were not content to fare well themſelues, but acquainted their neighbours with the ſtore that God had ſent, that they alſo might prouide for themſelues (2 Kings 7: 9) but alſo for the behoofe and edifying of the vnlearned which hungred and thirſted after Righteouſneſſe, and had ſoules to be ſaued as well as they, they prouided Tranſlations into the vulgar for their Countreymen, inſomuch that moſt nations vnder heauen did ſhortly after their conuerſion, heare CHRIST ſpeaking vnto them in their mother tongue, not by the voyce of their Miniſter onely, but alſo by the written word tranſlated. If any doubt hereof, he may be ſatiſfied by examples enough, if enough will ſerue the turne. Firſt S. Hierome[41] ſaith, Multarum gentiu linguis Scriptura antè tranſlata, docet falſa eſſe quæ addita ſunt, &c.i. The Scripture being tranſlated before in the languages of many Nations, doth ſhew that thoſe things that were added (by Lucian or Heſychius) are falſe. So S. Hierome in that place. The ſame Hierome[42] elſewhere affirmeth that he, the time was, had ſet forth the tranſlation of the Seuenty, ſuæ linguæ hominibus.i. for his countreymen of Dalmatia. Which words not only Eraſmus doth vnderſtand to purport, that S. Hierome tranſlated the Scripture into the Dalmatiantongue, but alſo Sixtus Senenſis, [43] and Alphonſus à Caſtro[44] (that we ſpeake of no more) men not to be excepted againſt by them of Rome, doe ingenuouſly confeſſe as much. So, S. Chryſoſtome[45] that liued in S. Hieromes time, giueth euidence with him: The doƈtrine of S. Iohn (ſaith he) did not in ſuch ſort (as the Philoſophers did) vaniſh away: but the Syrians, Egyptians, Indians, Perſians. Ethiopians, and infinite other nations being barbarous people, tranſlated it into their (mother) tongue, and haue learned to be (true) Philoſophers, he meaneth Chriſtians. To this may be added Theodorit, [46] as next vnto him, both for antiquitie, and for learning. His words be theſe, Euery Countrey that is vnder the Sunne, is full of theſe wordes (of the Apoſtles and Prophets) and the Hebrew tongue (he meaneth the Scriptures in the Hebrew tongue) is turned not onely into the Language of the Grecians, but alſo of the Romanes, and Egyptians, and Perſians, and Indians, and Armenians, and Scythians, and Sauromatians, and briefly into all the Languages that any Nation vſeth. So he. In like maner, Vlpilas is reported by Paulus Diaconus[47] and Iſidor[48] (and before them by Sozomen[49]) to haue tranſlated the Scriptures into the Gothicketongue: Iohn Biſhop of Siuil by Vaſſeus, [50] to haue turned them into Arabicke, about the yeere of our Lord 717: Beda by Ciſtertienſis, to haue turned a great part of them into Saxon: Efnard by Trithemius, to haue abridged the French Pſalter, as Beda had done the Hebrew, about the yeere 800: King Alured by the ſaid Ciſtertienſis, to haue turned the Pſalter into Saxon: [51] Methodius by Auentinus[52] (printed at Ingolſtad) to haue turned the Scriptures into Sclauonian: [53] Valdo, Biſhop of Friſing by Beatus Rhenanus, [54] to haue cauſed about that time, the Goſpels to be tranſlated into Dutch-rithme, yet extant in the Library of Corbinian: Valdus, by diuers to haue turned them himſelfe, or to haue gotten them turned into French, about the yeere 1160: Charles the 5. of that name, ſurnamed The wiſe, to haue cauſed them to be turned into French, about 200. yeeres after Valdus his time, of which tranſlation there be many copies yet extant, as witneſſeth Beroaldus.[55] Much about that time, euen in our King Richard the ſeconds dayes, Iohn Treuiſa tranſlated them into Engliſh, and many Engliſh Bibles in written hand are yet to be ſeene with diuers, tranſlated as it is very probable, in that age. So the Syrian tranſlation of the New Teſtament is in moſt learned mens Libraries, of Widminſtadius his ſetting forth, and the Pſalter in Arabicke is with many, of Auguſtinus Nebienſis ſetting foorth. So Poſtel affirmeth, that in his trauaile he ſaw the Goſpels in the Ethiopian tongue; And Ambroſe Theſius alleageth the Pſalter of the Indians, which he teſtifieth to haue bene ſet forth by Potken in Syrian charaƈters. So that, to haue the Scriptures in the mother-tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken vp, either by the Lord Cromwell in England, [56] or by the Lord Radeuil in Polonie, or by the Lord Vngnadius in the Emperours dominion, but hath bene thought vpon, and put in praƈtiſe of old, euen from the firſt times of the conuerſion of any Nation; no doubt, becauſe it was eſteemed moſt profitable, to cauſe faith to grown in mens hearts the ſooner, and to make them to be able to ſay with the words of the Pſalme, As we haue heard, ſo we haue ſeene. (Ps. 48: 8)

The vnwillingnes of our chiefe Aduerſaries, that the Scriptures ſhould be diuulged in the mother tongue, &c.

Now the Church of Rome would ſeeme at the length to beare a motherly affeƈtion towards her children, and to allow them the Scriptures in their mother tongue: but indeed it is a gift, [57] not deſeruing to be called a gift, an vnprofitable gift: they muſt firſt get a Licence in writing before they may vſe them, and to get that, they muſt approue themſelues to their Confeſſor, that is, to be ſuch as are, if not frozen in the dregs, yet ſoured with the leauen of their ſuperſtition. Howbeit, it ſeemed too much to Clement the 8.[58] that there ſhould be any Licence granted to haue them in the vulgar tongue, and therefore he ouerruleth and fruſtrateth the grant of Pius the fourth. So much are they afraid of the light of the Scripture, (Lucifugæ Scripturarum, as Tertullian[59] ſpeaketh) that they will not truſt the people with it, no not as it is ſet foorth by their owne ſworne men, no not with the Licence of their owne Biſhops and Inquiſitors. Yea, ſo vnwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the peoples vnderſtanding in any ſort, that they are not aſhamed to confeſſe, that wee forced them to tranſlate it into Engliſh againſt their wills. This ſeemeth to argue a bad cauſe, or a bad conſcience, or both. Sure we are, that it is not he that hath good gold, that is afraid to bring it to the touch-ſtone, but he that hath the counterfeit; neither is it the true man that ſhunneth the light, but the malefaƈtour, leſt his deedes ſhould be reproued (John 3: 20): neither is it the plaine dealing Merchant that is vnwilling to haue the waights, or the meteyard brought in place, but he that vſeth deceit. But we will let them alone for this fault, and returne to tranſlation.

The ſpeaches and reaſons, both of our brethren, and of our Aduerſaries againſt this worke.

Many mens mouths haue bene open a good while (and yet are not ſtopped) with ſpeeches about the Tranſlation ſo long in hand, or rather peruſals of Tranſlations made before: and aſke what may be the reaſon, what the neceſſitie of the employment: Hath the Church bene deceiued, ſay they, all this while? Hath her ſweet bread bene mingled with leauen, her ſiluer with droſſe, her wine with water, her milke with lime? (Laƈte gypſum malè miſcetur, ſaith S. Ireney.[60]) We hoped that we had bene in the right way, that we had had the Oracles of God deliuered vnto vs, and that though all the world had cauſe to be offended and to complaine, yet that we had none. Hath the nurſe holden out the breaſt, and nothing but winde in it? Hath the bread bene deliuered by the fathers of the Church, and the ſame proued to be lapidoſus, as Seneca ſpeaketh? What is it to handle the word of God deceitfully, if this be not? Thus certaine brethren. Alſo the aduerſaries of Iudah and Hieruſalem, like Sanballat in Nehemiah, mocke, as we heare, both at the worke and workemen, ſaying; What doe theſe weake Iewes, &c. will they make the ſtones whole againe out of the heapes of duſt which are burnt? although they build, yet if a foxe goe vp, he ſhall euen breake downe their ſtony wall (Neh. 4: 3). Was their Tranſlation good before? Why doe they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people? Yea, why did the Catholicks (meaning Popiſh Romaniſts) alwayes goe in ieopardie, for refuſing to goe to heare it? Nay, if it muſt be tranſlated into Engliſh, Catholicks are fitteſt to doe it. They haue learning, and they know when a thing is well, they can manum de tabulá. Wee will anſwere them both briefly: and the former, being brethren, thus, with S. Hierome, [61] Damnamus veteres? Minimè, ſed poſt priorum ſtudia in domo Domini quod poſſumus laboramus. That is, Doe we condemne the ancient? In no caſe: but after the endeuours of them that were before vs, wee take the beſt paines we can in the houſe of God. As if hee ſaid, Being prouoked by the example of the learned that liued before my time, I haue thought it my duetie, to aſſay whether my talent in the knowledge of the tongues, may be profitable in any meaſure to Gods Church, leſt I ſhould ſeeme to haue laboured in them in vaine, and leſt I ſhould be thought to glory in men, (although ancient,) aboue that which was in them. Thus S. Hierome may be thought to ſpeake.

A satiſfaƈtion to our brethren.

And to the ſame effeƈt ſay wee, that we are ſo farre off from condemning any of their labours that traueiled before vs in this kinde, either in this land or beyond ſea, either in King Henries time, or King Edwards (if there were any tranſlation, or correƈtion of a tranſlation in his time) or Queene Elizabeths of euer-renoumed memorie, that we acknowledge them to haue beene raiſed vp of God, for the building and furniſhing of his Church, and that they deſerue to be had of vs and of poſteritie in euerlaſting remembrance. The Iudgement of Ariſtotle[62] is worthy and well knowen: If Timotheus had not bene, we had not had much ſweet muſicke; but if Phrynis (Timotheus his maſter) had not beene, wee had not had Timotheus. Therefore bleſſed be they, and moſt honoured be their name, that breake the ice, and glueth onſet vpon that which helpeth forward to the ſauing of ſoules. Now what can bee more auaileable thereto, then to delieuer Gods booke vnto Gods people in a tongue which they vnderſtand? Since of an hidden treaſure, and of a fountaine that is ſealed, there is no profit, as Ptolomee Philadelph wrote to the Rabbins or maſters of the Iewes, as witneſſeth Epiphanius: [63] and as S. Auguſtine[64] ſaith; A man had rather be with his dog then with a ſtranger (whoſe tongue is ſtrange vnto him.) Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfited at the ſame time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiſer: ſo, if we building vpon their foundation that went before vs, and being holpen by their labours, doe endeuour to make that better which they left ſo good; no man, we are ſure, hath cauſe to miſlike vs; they, we perſuade our ſelues, if they were aliue, would thanke vs. The vintage of Abiezer, that ſtrake the ſtroake: yet the gleaning of grapes of Ephraim was not to be deſpiſed. See Iudges 8. verſe 2. Ioaſh the king of Iſrael did not ſatiſfie himſelfe, till he had ſmitten the ground three times; and yet hee offended the Prophet, for giuing ouer then (2 Kings 13: 18, 19). Aquila, of whom wee ſpake before, tranſlated the Bible as carefully, and as ſkilfully as he could; and yet he thought good to goe ouer it againe, and then it got the credit with the Iewes, to be called κατὰ ἀκρίβειαν, that is accuratly done, as Saint Hierome[65] witneſſeth. How many bookes of profane learning haue bene gone ouer againe and againe, by the ſame tranſlators, by others? Of one and the ſame booke of Ariſtotles Ethikes, there are extant not ſo few as ſixe or ſeuen ſeuerall tranſlations. Now if this coſt may bee beſtowed vpon the goord, which affordeth vs a little ſhade, and which to day flouriſheth, but to morrow is cut downe; what may we beſtow, nay what ought we not to beſtow vpon the Vine, the fruite whereof maketh glad the conſcience of man, and the ſtemme whereof abideth for euer? And this is the word of God, which we tranſlate. What is the chaffe to the wheat, ſaith the Lord? (Jer. 23: 28) Tanti vitreum, quanti verum margaritum (ſaith Tertullian, [66]) if a toy of glaſſe be of that rekoning with vs, how ought wee to value the true pearle?[67] Therefore let no mans eye be euill, becauſe his Maieſties is good; neither let any be grieued, that wee haue a Prince that ſeeketh the increaſe of the ſpirituall wealth of Iſrael (let Sanballats and Tobiahs doe ſo, which therefore doe beare their iuſt reproofe) but let vs rather bleſſe God from the ground of our heart, for working this religious care in him, to haue the tranſlations of the Bible maturely conſidered of and examined. For by this meanes it commeth to paſſe, that whatſoeuer is ſound alreadie (and all is ſound for ſubſtance, in one or other of our editions, and the worſt of ours farre better then their autentike vulgar) the ſame will ſhine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and poliſhed; alſo if any thing be halting, or ſuperfluous, or not ſo agreeable to the originall, the ſame may bee correƈted, and the trueth ſet in place. And what can the King command to bee done, that will bring him more true honour then this? and wherein could they that haue beene ſet a worke, approue their duetie to the King, yea their obedience to God, and loue to his Saints more, then by yeelding their ſeruice, and all that is within them, for the furniſhing of the worke? But beſides all this, they were the principall motiues of it, and therefore ought leaſt to quarrell it: for the very Hiſtoricall trueth is, that vpon the importunate petitions of the Puritanes, at this Maieſties comming to this Crowne, the Conference at Hampton Court hauing bene appointed for hearing their complaints: when by force of reaſon they were put from all other grounds, they had recourſe at the laſt, to this ſhift, that they could not with good conſcience ſubſcribe to the Communion booke, ſince it maintained the Bible as it was there tranſlated, which was as they ſaid, a moſt corrupted tranſlation. And although this was iudged to be but a very poore and emptie ſhift; yet euen hereupon did his Maieſtie beginne to bethinke himſelfe of the good that might enſue by a new tranſlation, and preſently after gaue order for this Tranſlation which is now preſented vnto thee. Thus much to ſatiſfie our ſcrupulous Brethren.

An anſwere to the imputations of our aduerſaries.

Now to the later we anſwere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and auow, that the very meaneſt tranſlation of the Bible in Engliſh, ſet foorth by men of our profeſſion (for wee haue ſeene none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God. As the Kings Speech which hee vttered in Parliament, being tranſlated into French, Dutch, Italian and Latine, is ſtill the Kings Speech, though it be not interpreted by euery Tranſlator with the like grace, nor peraduenture ſo fitly for phraſe, nor ſo expreſly for ſence, euery where. For it is confeſſed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a naturall man could ſay, Verùm vbi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, &c.[68] A man may be counted a vertuous man, though hee haue made many ſlips in his life, (els, there were none vertuous, for in many things we offend all, (James 3: 2) alſo a comely man and louely, though hee haue ſome warts vpon his hand, yea, not onely freakles vpon his face, but all ſkarres. No cauſe therefore why the word tranſlated ſhould bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithſtanding that ſome imperfeƈtions and blemiſhes may be noted in the ſetting foorth of it. For what euer was perfeƈt vnder the Sunne, where Apoſtles or Apoſtolike men, that is, men indued with an extraordinary meaſure of Gods ſpirit, and priuiledged with the priuiledge of infallibilitie, had not their hand? The Romaniſtes therefore in refuſing to heare, and daring to burne the Word tranſlated, did no leſſe then deſpite the ſpirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whoſe ſenſe and meaning, as well as mans weakneſſe would enable, it did expreſſe. Iudge by an example or two. Plutarch[69] writeth, that after that Rome had beene burnt by the Galles, they fell ſoone to builde it againe: but doing it in haſte, they did not caſt the ſtreets, nor proportion the houſes in ſuch comely faſhion, as had bene moſt ſightly and conuenient; was Catiline therefore an honeſt man, or a good Patriot, that ſought to bring it to a combuſtion? or Nero a good Prince, that did indeed ſet it on fire? So, by the ſtory of Ezrah (Ezra 3: 12), and the propheſie of Haggai it may be gathered, that the Temple build by Zerubbabel after the returne from Babylon, was by no meanes to bee compared to the former built by Solomon (for they that remembred the former, wept when they conſidered the latter) notwithſtanding, might this later either haue bene abhorred and forſaken by the Iewes, or prophaned by the Greekes? The like wee are to thinke of Tranſlations. The tranſlation of the Seuentie diſſenteth from the Originall in many places, neither doeth it come neere it, for perſpicuitie, gratuitie, maieſtie; yet which of the Apoſtles did condemne it? Condemne it? Nay, they vſed it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Hierome and moſt learned men doe confeſſe) which they would not haue done, nor by their example of vſing it, ſo grace and commend it to the Church, if it had bene vnworthy the appellation and name of the word of God. And whereas they vrge for their ſecond defence of their vilifying and abuſing of the Engliſh Bibles, or ſome pieces thereof, which they meete with, for that heretikes (forſooth) were the Authours of the tranſlations, (heretikes they call vs by the ſame right that they call themſelues Catholikes, both being wrong) wee marueile what diuinitie taught them ſo. Wee are ſure Tertullian[70] was of another minde: Ex perſonis probamus fidem, an ex fide perſonas? Doe we trie mens faith by their perſons? we ſhould trie their perſons by their faith. Alſo S. Auguſtine was of an other minde: for he lighting vpon certaine rules made by Tychonius a Donatiſt, for the better vnderſtanding of the word, was not aſhamed to make vſe of them, yea, to inſert them into his owne booke, with giuing commendation to them ſo farre foorth as they were worthy to be commended, as is to be ſeene in S. Auguſtines third booke De doƈtrinâ Chriſtianâ.[71] To be ſhort, Origen, and the whole Church of God for certain hundred yeeres, were of an other minde: for they were ſo farre from treading vnder foote, (much more from burning) the Tranſlation of Aquila a Proſelite, that is, one that had turned Iew; of Symmachus, and Theodotion, both Ebionites, that is, moſt vile heretikes, that they ioyned them together with the Hebrew Originall, and the Tranſlation of the Seuentie (as hath bene before ſignified out of Epiphanius) and ſet them forth openly to be conſidered of and peruſed by all. But we weary the vnlearned, who need not know ſo much, and trouble the learned, who know it already.

Yet before we end, we muſt anſwere a third cauill and obieƈtion of theirs againſt vs, for altering and amending our Taanſlations 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? Saint Auguſtine[72] was not afraide to exhort S. Hierometo a Palinodia or recantation; the ſame S. Auguſtine[73] was not aſhamed to retraƈtate, we might ſay reuoke, many things that had paſſed him, and doth euen glory that he ſeeth his infirmities.[74] If we will be ſonnes of the Trueth, we muſt conſider what it ſpeaketh, and trample vpon our owne credit, yea, and vpon other mens too, if either be any way an hinderance to it. This to the cauſe: then to the perſons we ſay, that of all men they ought to bee moſt ſilent in this caſe. For what varieties haue they, and what alterations haue they made, not onely of their Seruice bookes, Porteſſes and Breuiaries, but alſo of their Latine Tranſlation? The Seruice booke ſuppoſed to be made by S. Ambroſe (Officium Ambroſianum) was a great while in ſpeciall vſe and requeſt: but Pope Hadrian calling a Councill with the ayde of Charles the Emperour, aboliſhed it, yea, burnt it, and commanded the Seruice-booke of Saint Gregorie uniuerſally to be vſed.[75] Well, Officium Gregorianum gets by this meanes to be in credit, but doeth it continue without change or altering? No, the very Romane Seruice was of two faſhions, the New faſhion, and the Old, (the one vſed in one Church, the other in another) as is to bee ſeene in Pamelius a Romaniſt, his Preface, before Micrologus. The ſame Pamelius reporteth out of Radulphus de Riuo, that about the yeere of our Lord, 1277. Pope Nicolas the third remoued out of the Churches of Rome, the more ancient bookes (of Seruice) and brought into vſe the Miſſals of the Friers Minorites, and commaunded them to bee obſerued there; inſomuch that about an hundred yeeres after, when the aboue named Radulphus happened to be at Rome, he found all the bookes to be new, (of the new ſtampe.) Neither was there this chopping and changing in the more ancient times onely, but alſo of late: Pius Quintus himſelfe confeſſeth, that euery Biſhopricke almoſt had a peculiar kind of ſeruice, moſt vnlike to that which others had: which moued him to aboliſh all other Breuiaries, though neuer ſo ancient, and priuiledged and publiſhed by Biſhops in their Dioceſes, and to eſtabliſh and ratifie that onely which was of his owne ſetting foorth, in the yeere 1568. Now, when the father of their Church, who gladly would heale the ſoare of the daughter of his people ſoftly and ſleightly, and make the beſt of it, findeth ſo great fault with them for their oddes and iarring; we hope the children haue no great cauſe to vaunt of their vniformitie. But the difference that appeareth betweene our Tranſlations, and our often correƈting of them, is the thing that wee are ſpecially charged with; let vs ſee therefore whether they themſelues bee without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault, to correƈt) and whether they bee fit men to throw ſtones at vs: O tandem maior parcas inſane minori: [76] they that are leſſe ſound themſelues, ought not to obieƈt infirmities to others. If we ſhould tell them that Valla, Stapulenſis, Eraſmus, and Viues found fault with their vulgar Tranſlation, and conſequently wiſhed the ſame to be mended, or a new one to be made, they would anſwere peraduenture, that we produced their enemies for witneſſes againſt them; albeit, they were in no other ſort enemies, then as S. Paul was to the Galatians (Gal. 4: 16), for telling them the trueth: and it were to be wiſhed, that they had dared to tell it them plainlier and oftner. But what will they ſay to this, that Pope Leo the tenth allowed Eraſmus Tranſlation of the New Teſtament, ſo much different from the vulgar, by his Apoſtolike Letter & Bull; that the ſame Leo[77] exhorted Pagnin to tranſlate the whole Bible, and bare whatſoeuer charges was neceſſary for the worke? Surely, as the Apoſtle reaſoneth to the Hebrewes, that if the former Law and Teſtament had bene ſufficient, there had beene no need of the latter (Heb. 7: 11 and 8: 7): ſo we may ſay, that if the olde vulgar had bene at all points allowable, to ſmall purpoſe had labour and charges bene vndergone, about framing of a new. If they ſay, it was one Popes priuate opinion, and that he conſulted onely himſelfe; then wee are able to goe further with them, and to auerre, that more of their chiefe men of all ſorts, euen their owne Trent-champions Paiua & Vega, and their owne Inquiſitors, Hieronymus ab Oleaſtro, and their own Biſhop Iſidorus Clarius, and their owne Cardinall Thomas à Vio Caietan, doe either make new Tranſlations themſelues, or follow new ones of other mens making, or note the vulgar Interpretor for halting; none of them feare to diſſent from him, nor yet to except againſt him. And call they this an vniforme tenour of text and iudgement about the text, ſo many of their Worthies diſclaiming the now receiued conceit? Nay, we wil yet come neerer the quicke: doth not their Paris-edition differ from the Louaine, and Hentenius his from them both, and yet all of them allowed by authoritie? Nay, doth not Sixtus Quintus[78] confeſſe, that certaine Catholikes (he meaneth certainte of his owne ſide) were in ſuch an humor of tranſlating the Scriptures into Latine, that Satan taking occaſion by them, though they thought of no ſuch matter, did ſtriue what he could, out of ſo vncertaine and manifold a varietie of Tranſlations, ſo to mingle all things, that nothing might ſeeme to be left certaine and firme in them, &c? Nay, further, did not the ſame Sixtus ordaine by an inuiolable decree, and that with the counſell and conſent of his Cardinals, that the Latine edition of the olde and new Teſtament, which the Councill of Trent would haue to be authenticke, is the ſame without controuerſie which he then ſet forth, being diligently correƈted and printed in the Printing-houſe of Vatican? Thus Sixtus in his Preface before his Bible. And yet Clement the eight his immediate ſucceſſour, publiſheth another edition of the Bible, containing in it infinite differences from that of Sixtus, (and many of them waightie and materiall) and yet this muſt be authenticke by all meanes. What is to haue the faith of our glorious Lord IESVS CHRIST with Yea and Nay, if this be not? Againe, what is ſweet harmonie and conſent, if this be? Therfore, as Demaratus of Corinth aduiſed a great King, before he talked of the diſſentions among the Grecians, to compoſe his domeſticke broiles (for at that time his Queene and his ſonne and heire were at deadly fuide with him) ſo all the while that our aduerſaries doe make ſo many and ſo various editions themſelues, and doe iarre ſo much about the worth and authoritie of them, they can with no ſhow of equitie challenge vs for changing and correƈting.

The purpoſe of the Tranſlators, with their number, furniture, care, &c.

But it is high time to leaue them, and to ſhew in briefe what wee propoſed to our ſelues, and what courſe we held in this our peruſall and ſuruay of the Bible. Truly (good Chriſtian Reader) wee neuer thought from the beginning, that we ſhould neede to make a new Tranſlation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had bene true in ſome ſort, that our people had bene fed with gall of Dragons in ſtead of wine, with whey in ſtead of milke:) but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not iuſtly to be excepted againſt; that hath bene our indeauour, that our marke. To that purpoſe there were many choſen, that were greater in other mens eyes then in their owne, and that ſought the truth rather then their own praiſe. Againe, they came or were thought to come to the worke, not exercendi cauſâ (as one ſaith) but exercitati, that is, learned, not to learne: For the chiefe ouerſeer and ἐργοδιώκτης vnder his Maieſtie, to whom not onely we, but alſo our whole Church was much bound, knew by his wiſedome, which thing alſo Nazianzen[79] taught ſo long agoe, that it is a prepoſterous order to teach firſt and to learne after, yea that τὸ ἐν πίθῳ κεραµίαν µανθάνειν to learne and praƈtiſe together, is neither commendable for the workeman, nor ſafe for the worke.[80] Therefore ſuch were thought vpon, as could ſay modeſtly with Saint Hierome, Et Hebræum Sermonem ex parte didicimus, & in Latino penè ab ipſis incunabulis &c. detriti ſumus. Both we haue learned the Hebrew tongue in part, and in the Latine wee haue beene exerciſed almoſt from our verie cradle. S. Hierome maketh no mention of the Greeke tongue, wherein yet hee did excell, becauſe hee tranſlated not the old Teſtament out of Greeke, but out of Hebrewe. And in what ſort did theſe aſſemble? In the truſt of their owne knowledge, or of their ſharpeneſſe of wit, or deepeneſſe of iudgement, as it were in an arme of fleſh? At no hand. They truſted in him that hath the key of Dauid, opening and no man ſhutting: they prayed to the Lord the Father of our Lord, to the effeƈt that S. Auguſtine[81] did; O let thy Scriptures be my pure delight, let me not be deceiued in them, neither let me deceiue by them. In this confidence, and with this deuotion did they aſſemble together; not too many, leſt one ſhould trouble another; and yet many, leſt many things haply might eſcape them. If you aſke what they had before them, truely it was the Hebrew text of the Olde Teſtament, the Greeke of the New. Theſe are the two golden pipes, or rather conduits, where-through the oliue branches emptie themſelues into the golde. Saint Auguſtine[82] calleth them precedent, or originall tongues; Saint Hierome, [83] fountaines. The ſame Saint Hierome[84] affirmeth, and Gratian hath not ſpared to put it into his Decree, That as the credit of the olde Bookes (he meaneth of the Old Teſtament) is to bee tryed by the Hebrewe Volumes, ſo of the New by the Greeke tongue, he meaneth by the originall Greeke. If trueth be to be tried by theſe tongues, then whence ſhould a Tranſlation be made, but out of them? Theſe tongues, therefore, the Scriptures wee ſay in thoſe tongues, wee ſet before vs to tranſlate, being the tongues wherein God was pleaſed to ſpeake to his Church by his Prophets and Apoſtles. Neither did we run ouer the worke with that poſting haſte that the Septuagint did, if that be true which is reported of them, that they finiſhed it in 72. dayes;[85] neither were we barred or hindered from going ouer it againe, hauing once done it, like S. Hierome, if that be true which himſelfe[86] reporteth, that he could no ſooner write any thing, but preſently it was caught from him, and publiſhed, and he could not haue leaue to mend it: neither, to be ſhort, were we the firſt that fell in hand with tranſlating the Scripture into Engliſh, and conſequently deſtitute of former helpes, as it is written of Origen, that hee was the firſt[87] in a maner, that put his hand to write Commentaries vpon the Scriptures, and therefore no marueile, if he ouerſhot himſelfe many times. None of theſe things: the worke hath not bene hudled vp in 72. dayes, but hath coſt the workemen, as light as it ſeemeth, the paines of twiſe ſeuen times ſeuentie two dayes and more: matters of ſuch weight and conſequence are to bee ſpeeded with maturitie: [88] for in a buſineſſe of moment a man feareth not the blame of conuenient ſlackneſſe. Neither did wee thinke much to conſult the Tranſlators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, or Latine, no nor the Spaniſh, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we diſdaine to reuiſe that which we had done, and to bring backe to the anuill that which we had hammered: but hauing and vſing as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for ſlowneſſe, nor coueting praiſe for expedition, wee haue at the length, through the good hand of the Lord vpon vs, brought the worke to that paſſe that you ſee.

Reaſons moving vs to ſet diuerſitie of ſences in the margin, where there is great probability for each.

Some peraduenture would haue no varietie of ſences to be ſet in the margine, leſt the authoritie of the Scriptures for deciding of controuerſies by that ſhew of vncertaintie, ſhould ſomewhat be ſhaken. But we hold their iudgmet not to be ſo be ſo ſound in this point. For though, whatſoeuer things are neceſſary are manifeſt, as S. Chryſoſtome[89] ſaith, and as S. Auguſtine, [90] In thoſe things that are plainely ſet downe in the Scriptures, all ſuch matters are found that concerne Faith, hope, and Charitie. Yet for all that it cannot be diſſembled, that partly to exerciſe and whet our wits, partly to weane the curious from loathing of them for their euery-where-plaineneſſe, partly alſo to ſtirre vp our deuotion to craue the aſſiſtance of Gods ſpirit by prayer, and laſtly, that we might be forward to ſeeke ayd of our brethren by conference, and neuer ſcorne thoſe that be not in all reſpeƈts ſo complete as they ſhould bee, being to ſeeke in many things our ſelues, it hath pleaſed God in his diuine prouidence, heere and there to ſcatter wordes and ſentences of that difficultie and doubtfulneſſe, not in doƈtrinall points that concerne ſaluation, (for in ſuch it hath beene vouched that the Scriptures are plaine) but in matters of leſſe moment, that fearefulneſſe would better beſeeme vs then confidence, and if we will reſolue, to reſolue vpon modeſtie with S. Auguſtine, [91] (though not in this ſame caſe altogether, yet vpon the ſame ground) Melius eſt dubitare de occultis, quàm litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of thoſe things which are ſecret, then to ſtriue about thoſe things that are vncertaine. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be neuer found there but once, [92] (hauing neither brother nor neighbour, as the Hebrewes ſpeake) ſo that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Againe, there be many rare names of certaine birds, beaſtes and precious ſtones, &c. concerning which the Hebrewes themſelues are ſo diuided among themſelues for iudgement, that they may ſeeme to haue defined this or that, rather becauſe they would ſay ſomething, the becauſe they were ſure of that which they ſaid, as S. Hierome ſomewhere ſaith of the Septuagint. Now in ſuch a caſe, doth not a margine do well to admoniſh the Reader to ſeeke further, and not to conclude or dogmatize vpon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulitie, to doubt of thoſe things that are euident: ſo to determine of ſuch things as the Spirit of God hath left (euen in the iudgment of the iudicious) queſtionable, can beno leſſe then preſumption. Therfore as S. Auguſtine[93] ſaith, that varietie of Tranſlations is profitable for the finding out of the ſenſe of the Scriptures: ſo diuerſitie of ſignification and ſenſe in the margine, where the text is not ſo cleare, muſt needes doe good, yea is neceſſary, as we are perſwaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus[94] expreſly forbiddeth, that any varietie of readings of their vulgar edition, ſhould be put in the margine, (which though it be not altogether the ſame thing to that we haue in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we thinke he hath not all of his owne ſide his fauourers, for this conceit. They that are wiſe, had rather haue their iudgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be the other. If they were ſure that their hie Prieſt had all lawes ſhut vp in his breſt, as Paul the ſecond[95] bragged, and that he were as free from errour by ſpeciall priuiledge, as the Diƈtators of Rome were made by law inuiolable, it were an other matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a deciſion. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and haue bene a great while, they find that he is ſubieƈt to the ſame affeƈtions[96] and infirmities that others be, that his ſkin is penetrable, [97] and therefore ſo much as he prooueth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.

Reaſons inducing vs not to ſtand curiouſly vpon an identitie of phraſing.

An other thing we thinke good to admoniſh thee of (gentle Reader) that wee haue not tyed our ſelues to an vniformitie of phraſing, or to an identitie of words, as ſome peraduenture would wiſh that we had done, becauſe they obſerue, that ſome learned men ſome where, haue beene as exaƈt as they could that way. Truly, that we might not varie from the ſenſe of that which we had tranſlated before, if the word ſignified the ſame thing in both places (for there bee ſome wordes that bee not of the ſame ſenſe euery where)[98] we were eſpecially carefull, and made a conſcience, according to our duetie. But, that we ſhould expreſſe the ſame notion in the ſame particular word; as for example, if we tranſlate the Hebrew or Greeke word once by Purpoſe, neuer to call it Intent; if one where Iourneying, neuer Traueiling; if one where Thinke, neuer Suppoſe; if one where Paine, neuer Ache; if one where Ioy, neuer Gladneſſe, &c. Thus to minſe the matter, wee thought to ſauour more of curioſitie then wiſedome, and that rather it would breed ſcorne in the Atheiſt, then bring profite to the godly Reader. For is the kingdome of God become words or ſyllables? why ſhould wee be in bondage to them if we may be free, vſe one preciſely when wee may vſe another no leſſe fit, as commodiouſly? A godly Father in the Primitiue time ſhewed himſelfe greatly moued, that one of the newfanglenes called κράββατον, σκίμπους, [99] though the difference be little or none;[100] and another reporteth, [101] that he was much abuſed for turning Cucurbita (to which reading the people had beene vſed) into Hedera. Now if this happen in better times, and vpon ſo ſmall occaſions, wee might iuſtly feare hard cenſure, if generally wee ſhould make verball and vnneceſſary changings. We might alſo be charged (by ſcoffers) with ſome vnequall dealing towards a great number of good Engliſh wordes. For as it is written of a certaine great Philoſopher, that he ſhould ſay, that thoſe logs were happie that were made images to be worſhipped; for their fellowes, as good as they, lay for blockes behinde the fire: ſo if wee ſhould ſay, as it were, vnto certaine words, Stand vp higher, haue a place in the Bible alwayes, and to others of like qualitie, Get ye hence, be baniſhed for euer, wee might be taxed peraduenture with S. Iames his words, namely, To be partiall in our ſelues and iudges of euill thoughts. Adde hereunto, that niceneſſe[102] in wordes was alwayes counted the next ſtep to trifling, [103] and ſo was to bee curious about names[104] too: alſo that we cannot follow a better patterne for elocution then God himſelfe; therefore hee vſing diuers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: [105] we, if wee will not be ſuperſtitious, may vſe the ſame libertie in our Engliſh verſions out of Hebrew & Greeke, for that copie or ſtore that he hath giuen vs. Laſtly, wee haue on the one ſide auoided the ſcrupuloſitie of the Puritanes, who leaue the olde Eccleſticall words, and betake them to other, as when they put waſhing for Baptiſme, and Congregation in ſtead of Church: as alſo on the other ſide we haue ſhunned the obſcuritie of the Papiſts, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocauſts, Præpuce, Paſche, and a number of ſuch like, whereof their late Tranſlation is full, and that of purpoſe to darken the ſence, that ſince they muſt needs tranſlate the Bible, yet by the language thereof, it may bee kept from being vnderſtood. But we deſire that the Scripture may ſpeake like it ſelfe, as in the language of Canaan, that it may bee vnderſtood euen of the very vulgar.

Many other things we might giue thee warning of (gentle Reader) if wee had not exceeded the meaſure of a Preface alreadie. It remaineth, that we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of his grace, which is able to build further then we can aſke or thinke. Hee remoueth the ſcales from our eyes, the vaile from our hearts, opening our wits that wee may vnderſtand his word, enlarging our hearts, yea correƈting our affeƈtions, that we may loue it aboue gold and ſiluer, yea that we may loue it to the end. Ye are brought vnto fountaines of liuing water which yee digged not; doe not caſt earth into them with the Philiſtines (Gen. 26: 15), neither preferre broken pits before them with the wicked Iewes (Jer. 2: 13). Others haue laboured, and you may enter into their labours; O receiue not ſo great things in vaine, O deſpiſe not ſo great ſaluation! Be not like ſwine to treade vnder foote ſo precious things, neither yet like dogs to teare and abuſe holy things. Say not to our Sauiour with the Gergeſites, Depart out of our coaſts (Matt. 8: 34); neither yet with Eſau ſell your birthright for a meſſe of potage (Heb. 12: 16). If light be come into the world, loue not darkneſſe more then light; if foode, if clothing be offered, goe not naked, ſtarue not your ſelues. Remember the aduiſe of Nazianzene, [106] It is a grieuous thing (or dangerous) to negleƈt a great faire, and to ſeeke to make markets afterwards: alſo the encouragement of S. Chryſoſtome, [107] It is altogether impoſſible, that he that is ſober (and watchfull) ſhould at any time be negleƈted: Laſtly, the admonition and menacing of S. Auguſtine, [108] They that deſpiſe Gods will inuiting them, ſhal feele Gods will taking vengeance of them. It is a fearefull thing to fall into the hands of the liuing God (Heb. 10: 31); but a bleſſed thing it is, and will bring vs to euerlaſting bleſſednes in the end, when God ſpeaketh vnto vs, to hearken; when he ſetteth his word before vs, to reade it; when hee ſtretcheth out his hand and calleth, to anſwere, Here am I; here wee are to doe thy will, O God. The Lord worke a care and conſcience in vs to know him and ſerue him, that we may be acknowledged of him at the appearing of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt, to whom with the holy Ghoſt, be all prayſe and thankeſgiuing. Amen.

Miles Smith 1554-1624

Translators’ Notes

[1] ἔξω βέλους
[2] Anacharſis with others.
[3] Locri.
[4] Cato the elder.
[5] Gregory the Diuine.
[6] Nauclerus.
[7] σεισάχθειαν
[8] C. Cæſar. Plutarch.
[9] Conſtantine.
[10] Aurel. Viƈtor.
[11] Theodoſius.
[12] Zoſimus.
[13] Iuſtinian.
[14] Αὐτὸς, καὶ παῖδες, καὶ παίδων πάντοτε παῖδες.
[15] Suidas. ὥσπερ τὶς ἀνδριὰς ἀπερίτρεπτος καὶ ἄκμων ἀνήλατος.
[16] θεοσέβεια.
[17] Euſebius lib. 10 cap. 8.
[18] S. Auguſt. confeſſ. lib. 8 cap. 12.
[19] S. Auguſt. de utilit. credendi, cap. 6.
[20] S. Hieronym. ad Demetriad.
[21] S. Cyril 7 contra Iulianum.
[22] Tertul. adverſ. Hermo.
[23] Tertul. de carne Chriſti.
[24] Iustin. προτρεπτ. πρὸς ἑλλην. οἶόν τε
[25] S. Baſil. περὶ πίστεως. ὑπερηφανίας κατηγορία.
[26] Εἰρεσιώνη σῦκα φέρει, καὶ πίονας ἄρτους, καὶ μέλι ἐν κοτύλῃ, καὶ ἔλαιον, &c. An oliue bow wrapped about with wooll, whereupon did hang figs, & bread, and honie in a pot, & oyle.
[27] S.Hieronym. ad Demetriad.
[28] κοινὸν ἰατρεῖον. S. Baſil. in Pſal. primum.
[29] Clem. Alex. 1. Strom.
[30] S. Hieronym. Damaſo.
[31] Michael. Theophili fil. 2 Tom. Concil. ex edit. Petri Crab.
[32] Cicero 5. de finibus.
[33] See S. Auguſt. lib. 12.contra Fauſt. c. 32.
[34] Epiphan. de menſur. & ponderibus.
[35] See S. Auguſt. 2 de doƈtrin. Chriſtian. c. 15.
[36] Nouell diatax. 146.
[37] προφητικῆς ὥσπερ χάριτος περιλαμψάσης αὐτοὺς.
[38] S. Hieron. de optimo genere interpret.
[39] S. Auguſtin. de doƈtr. Chriſt. lib. 2. cap. 11.
[40] S. Hieronym. Marcell. Zoſim.
[41] S. Hieron. præf. in 4. Euangel.
[42] S. Hieron. Sophronio.
[43] Six. Sen. lib. 4.
[44] Alphon. a Caſtro lib. 1. ca. 23.
[45] S. Chryſoſt. in Iohan. cap. 1. hom. 1.
[46] Theodor. 5. Therapeut.
[47] P. Diacon. li. 12.
[48] Iſidor. in Chron. Goth.
[49] Sozom. li. 6. cap. 37.
[50] Vaſeus in Chron. Hiſpan.
[51] Polydor. Virg. 5. hiſtor. Anglorum teſtatur idem de Alurdeo noſtro.
[52] Auentin. lib. 4.
[53] Circa annum 900.
[54] B. Rhenan. rerum German. lib.2.
[55] Beroald.
[56] Thuan.
[57] δῶρον ἄδωρον κοὺκ ὀνήσιμον, Sophocles.
[58] See the obſeruation (ſet forth by Clemen. his authority) vpon the 4. rule of Pius the 4 his making in the Index, lib. prohib. pag. 15. ver. 5.
[59] Tertul. do reſur. carnis.
[60] S. Iren. 3. lib. cap. 19.
[61] S. Hieron. Apolog. aduerſ. Ruffin.
[62] Arist. 2. metaph. cap. I.
[63] S. Epiphan. loco ante citato.
[64] S. Auguſtin. lib. 19. de civit. Dei. c. 7.
[65] S. Hieron. in Ezech. cap. 3.
[66] Tertul. ad Martyr.
[67] Si tanti vilissimum vitreum, quanti pretiosissimum Margaritum: Hieron, ad Saluin.
[68] Horace.
[69] Plutarch. in Camillo.
[70] Tertul. de præſcript. contra hæreſes.
[71] S. Auguſt. 3. de doƈt. Chriſt. cap. 30.
[72] S. Aug. Epiſt. 9.
[73] S. Aug. lib. Retraƈtat.
[74] Video interdum vitia mea, S. Aug. Epiſt. 8.
[75] Durand. lib. 5. cap. 2.
[76] Horat.
[77] Sixtus Senenſ.
[78] Sixtus 5. præfat. fixa Bibliis.
[79] Nazianzen εὶς ῥν. ἐπισκ. παρους.
[80] Idem in Apologet.
[81] S. Aug. lib. 11. Confeſſ. cap. 2.
[82] S. Auguſt. 3. de doƈt. c. 3 &c.
[83] S. Hieron. ad Suniam et Fretel.
[84] S. Hieron. ad Lucininum, Diſt. 9. ut veterum.
[85] Ioſeph. Antiq. lib. 12.
[86] S. Hieron. ad Pammac. pro libr. adverſ. Iovinian.
[87] πρωτόπειροι
[88] φιλεῖ γὰρ ὀκνεῖν πράγμ’ ἀνὴρ πράσων μέγα, Sophoc. in Eleƈt.
[89] πάντα τὰ ἀναγκαῖα δῆλα, S. Chryſoſt. in 2 Theſſ. cap. 2.
[90] S. Aug. 2. de doƈtr. Chriſt. cap. 9.
[91] S. Auguſt. li. 8. de Geneſ. ad liter. cap. 5.
[92] ἅπαξ λεγόμενα.
[93] S. Aug. 2. de doƈtr. Chriſtian. cap. 14.
[94] Sixtus 5. præf. Bibliæ.
[95] Plat. in Paulo ſecundo.
[96] ὁμοιοπαθὴς.
[97] τρωτός γ’ οἱ χρὼς ἐστί.
[98] πολύσημα.
[99] A bed.
[100] Niceph. Caliſt. lib. 8. cap. 42.
[101] S. Hieron. in 4. Joae. See S. Aug. epiſt. 10.
[102] λεπτολογία.
[103] ἀδολεσχία.
[104] τὸ πηδαξειν ἐπὶ ὀνόμασι.
[105] See Euſeb. προπαρασκευ. li. 12. ex Platon.
[106] Nazianz. περὶ ἀγ. βαπτ. δεινὸν πανήγυριν παρελθεῖν καὶ τηνικαῦτα πραγματείαν ἐπιζητεῖν.
[107] S. Chryſoſt. in epiſt. ad Rom. Cap. 14. orat. 26. in ἠθικ. ἀμήχαιον σφόδρα ἀμήχανον.
[108] S. Auguſt. ad artic. ſibi falſo obiect. Artic. 16.

TheTranslation Rules

1. 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.

2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

3 The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz, the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.

4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.

6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.

7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.

9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.

10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word therof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.

11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of; Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a Place.

12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester for that Place; and the Kings Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.

14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops’ Bible: Tindoll’s, Matthew’s Coverda1e’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva.

15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.

Richard Bancroft 1544-1610

THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER

Preface to the King James Version 1611

Thesis by

EDGAR J. GOODSPEED

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS

CHICAGO - ILLINOIS

(Not Copyrighted)

No book means so much to religion as the Bible. In all its forms it has greatly served religion, and in its modern forms its meaning comes out more clearly and more tellingly than ever. It has more to teach the modern world about religion than even its strongest advocates have realized. Few of them have fully explored the wealth and depth of its contribution to modern religious attitudes.

Of all the forms of the English Bible, the most distinguished and widely cherished is the King James Version. Its value for religion is very great, and it is on that account all the more important that its origin and place in the history of the Bible be understood, so that false ideas about it may not prevail, for in so far as they do prevail they are likely to impair and to distort its religious usefulness.

There can be no doubt, however, that widespread and serious misapprehensions as to its origin do very generally prevail, and that these seriously condition its religious value. The literary interest and the liturgical value of that version are of course universally recognized. It is a classic of 16th and 17th century English, and it is a treasure of Christian liturgy, deeply freighted with religious associations. These are values every man of culture will at once acknowledge and approve.

It is, moreover, deeply imbedded in the affection and devotion of great groups of people, not all of them religious. They find in it the final embodiment of moral, social, and literary values which they greatly prize. This is in itself a fact of great importance. Even if the version were itself less eminent as an English classic or a liturgical masterpiece the extraordinary prestige it enjoys would give it a consequence all its own.

The tremendous significance thus generally attached to it by the public makes it imperative that the facts as to its origin and ancestry be well known, or the most fantastic misconceptions about these matters will arise and prevail. But these facts are not well known, and misconceptions consequently do prevail to an amazing extent.

The King James Version is predominantly the Bible of the layman, and it will undoubtedly continue to be so for a long time to come. This fact makes it doubly important that it be presented to him as intelligently and as intelligibly as possible. This well-recognized fact has led its publishers through the generations to have it tacitly revised from time to time, so that the obsolete words and spellings might not confuse the ordinary reader. This commendable activity began immediately upon the first publication of the version in 1611 and continued intermittently until 1769 when, under the hands of Dr. Blayney of Oxford, it reached its present form. It has cleared the text of the version of innumerable antique spellings, such as Hierusalem, Marie, assoone, foorth, shalbe, fet, creeple, fift, sixt, ioy, middes, charet and the like. Comparatively few verses in the version have escaped such improvements and modernizations, and most verses contain several such changes.

It has also corrected the numerous misprints of the version, so that it is now of the most accurately printed books in the world. The one original misprint to survive is the famous “strain (straine) at the gnat” in Matthew 23:24 (for “strain out a gnat”), which has so endeared itself to users of the King James that no modern publisher has the temerity to set it right.

The omission of the Apocrypha from most modern printings of King James and the insertion of Archbishop Ussher’s chronology, which first appeared in its margins in 1701, were more serious changes from the original King James; the chronology in particular has certainly outlived its usefulness and, as at best a late accretion upon the version, out not to continue.

But it is the omission of the great Preface, “The Translators to the Reader,” that is most to be regretted. The makers of the version in their day felt that the work called for some explanation and defense, and entrusted the writing of a suitable preface to Myles Smith, of Brasenose College, Oxford, afterward Bishop of Gloucester. His Preface for many years stood at the beginning of the version. But for various reasons -- its length, its obscurity, its controversial and academic character -- it has gradually come to be omitted by modern publishers of the King James, which is thus made to present itself to the reader abruptly and without explanation or introduction of any kind.

The result of this upon the hosts of ignorant and untrained people who use the version is disastrous in the extreme. My own correspondence abounds in letters from well-meaning people who have been led into the strangest misconceptions by its absence. It is indeed long, controversial, and pedantic, but this very fact is significant. And with all its faults, it says some things about the version and its makers and their aims that still greatly need to be said, indeed, that must be said, if the readers of the version are to be given the protection and guidance that they deserve and that its makers provided for them.

For they will accept this guidance and protection from no one else. It is idle for any modern to attempt to correct these misapprehensions; his efforts will only be resented or ignored. But if the King James Bible itself can be shown to say to its adherents the very things they most need to know about their version, it will be possible for them to benefit by them without embarrassment or inconsistency. All the more necessary, it would seem, for restoring the great Preface, or at least the essential parts of it, to its rightful place in the “Authorized Bible.”

What are some of the views held by the habitual readers of the King James Bible about it? Let me answer out of my own recent correspondence and experience, being careful not to exaggerate or distort, but to set down only what self-constituted champions of King James have actually written over or under their own signatures.

First of all must come the widespread belief that the King James Bible is “the original.” This is probably the prevailing impression of those who use it, but it has been most definitely and repeatedly expressed by a distinguished journalist in his paper, the North China Daily News. In an article published in the News in 1926 the editor steadily refers to the King James Version as “the original.” We cannot doubt that this cultivated Englishmen actually believes the King James Version to be the original English Bible. For him the illustrious services of Bible translators and revisers from William Tyndale to Matthew Parker simply do not exist. That these men produced 19/20ths of what now stands in the King James Version has no force for him. Indeed, he definitely denies them and all their words when he steadily and publicly, in print, in an editorial article in his own newspaper, describes the King James Version over and over again as the “original.”

It is no matter that you and I know that this is far from true. For these people will not give up so cherished a view for any say-so of ours. On the contrary, it would only serve to set them more rigidly in it. To whom then would they look with some willingness to learn? To the King James Bible itself. If its original Preface were once more offered to them, as it was offered to the first readers of that version, and as its makers intended it to be offered to all its readers, they could hardly refuse to listen.

And, indeed, the people who hold these fantastic ideas are not so much to blame for them as the publishers and printers who have so steadily deprived them of the protection from such egregious mistakes which the King James Preface so amply and ably provided. They could not have gone so absurdly wrong if they had found in the Preface of their King James these words which the makers of that version meant to have them find there:

“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.”

Not only do most readers of the King James Version suppose it to be the original English Bible; they are actually unconscious that there is any more ultimate form of the Bible to translate or consult. A leading layman, in one of our most intellectual communions, has told me that he always supposed the modern translations of the Bible were made from the King James Version, and not long ago a newspaper paragraph, with the commanding endorsement of the Associated Press, explicitly made that assertion. The same idea appeared in the New Republic as recently as April of last year. What can save these untrained, well-meaning people from the idea that the King James Bible is the “original”? Nothing but the statements of its own Preface.

“If you ask what they [the Translators] had before them,” says the Preface, “truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New ... If truth be to be tried by these tongues, then whence should a Translation be made but out of them? These tongues therefore, the Scriptures we say in those tongues, we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles ... Neither, to be short, were we the first that fell in hand with translating the Scripture into English, and consequently destitute of former helps, ...”

These are just the things that the modern reader of King James needs to know, and that the Translators intended him to know. Why should they be kept from him? A few months ago the New York Times and the Literary Digest united in offering the strange intelligence that “the King James Version was compiled from the only six original papyri extant in 1611.” What more can possibly be said?

Another widespread impression as to the King James is that it is the “Authorized” Bible. The dean of a well-known New England divinity school recently insisted upon that designation for it, and strongly resented the application of it of any other name. We need not go into the old vexed question of whether or not it was ever actually authorized. For practically it certainly was so, and so regarded, being in fact the third Authorized Bible of the English Church. The first was the Great Bible of 1539, which was intended for church use. The second was the Bishops’ Bible of 1568, and the third was the King James of 1611. “Authorized” meant, of course, officially recognized for us in public worship, as the phrase “Appointed to be read in Churches” shows.

But when the Convocation of Canterbury in 1870 inaugurated the revision of the English Bible, it was definitely with a view to providing a more suitable Bible for purposes of public worship, and as a matter of fact the English Revised Bible of 1881-85 has, we are told, actually displaced the King James in the use of Canterbury Cathedral and Westminster Abbey.

In the Protestant Episcopal Church in America, Canon 45 provides that the lessons at the morning and evening shall be read in the King James Bible (“which is the standard Bible of this church”), or in the Revised Version, or in the American Standard Version.

The Roman Catholic Church in this country uses in public worship the Douay Bible. It will be seen that the King James is far from being the Authorized Bible today.

But the tragic part of it all is that the people who still call it the “Authorized Bible” understand by that term something very different from this. They understand it to mean DEVINELY AUTHORIZED. I have today received a letter from a very zealous young minister in Atlantic City, definitely declaring his belief in the verbal inspiration of the King James Version. This extraordinary view is very widely held.

Of course the Translators made no such claim; indeed, their account of their method of work fits very poorly with such an idea:

“Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered; but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.”

“Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point. ... Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, ... and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, ... that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, .... There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, ... so that we cannot be helped by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. ... 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? ... Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must need do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

These candid, scholarly words of the Translators are not the words of inspired men, oracularly confident of every word they use; they are the unmistakable words of careful, sincere scholars, well aware of the inevitable limitations of their knowledge. The doctrine of the inspiration of the Translators was not held by them, and it is difficult to see how it can be held by anyone who will read even this much of their Preface.

Another prevalent notion about the King James Bible is that it is poetry. On this point Thomas Hardy wrote in his journal, in 1918:

“By the will of God some men are born poetical. Of these some make themselves practical poets, others are made poets by lapse of time who were hardly recognized as such. Particularly has this been the case with the translators of the Bible. They translated into the language of their age; then the years began to corrupt that language as spoken, and to add gray lichen to the translation; until the moderns who use the corrupted tongue marvel at the poetry of the old words. When new they were not more than half so poetical. So that Coverdale, Tyndale and the rest of them are as ghosts what they never were in the flesh.”

It must be clear that the men who, by making innumerable small changes in the text of the Bishops’ Bible, produced the King James Version were poets, if at all, only in the most attenuated sense of the word. It is not thus that poems are made.

But if anyone had any doubt remaining as to the justice of Thomas Hardy’s judgment, it must unquestionably evaporate in the presence of the Preface. The Translators who there emerge are much closer to pedants than to poets. “They came or were thought to come to the work, not exercendi causa (as one saith) but exercitati, that is, learned, not to learn; ... Therefore such were thought upon as could say modestly with Saint Jerome, .... Both we have learned the Hebrew tongue in part, and in the Latin we have been exercised almost from our very cradle.”

Their aim was not poetry but clearness: “But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, ... that it may be understood even by the very vulgar.”

But of course the greatest illusion about the King James Bible is that it is the sole, unique, divine Bible, untouched by human hands. This doctrine, grotesque as it is, is actually held as a matter of course by the vast majority of people. The publication of any preface from the Translators to the Reader would, by its very presence, whatever its contents, do much to remedy this. The superstitious veneration with which some very pious people regard it would be corrected by the reprinting of the Preface.

But not the pious alone. Many editors, novelists, and professors cherish views about the version that are simply slightly rationalized forms of the same notion. Sentimental statements about it in current books and papers that its translators “went about their work in the spirit of little children,” or that “it is a finer and nobler literature than the Scriptures in their original tongues,” are but survivals of the old dogma of uniqueness, so explicitly disclaimed in the Preface:

“... we are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travelled before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, ... that we acknowledge them to have been raised up by God, ... 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 helped by their labors, do endeavor to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.”

These great sentences, are well worth reproducing today. I have ventured to lay before the leading publishers of the King James Bible the duty of restoring the great Preface to its rightful place, at the beginning of it. They have courteously replied, giving various reasons for continuing to omit it. Let us examine these one by one.

The first reason is that it is too academic. But this does not justify them in omitting it. If they will let their readers know even this about the origin of the version, it will save them from grievous error. The King James revisers were university professors and scholars. They were an academic group. Why withhold this fact from their readers, especially if silence on this point is leading to such dire consequences?

One of the most unfortunate things about the adherents of the King James Version is their antipathy to scholars. They regard them with grave suspicion. Yet their own version is the masterpiece of biblical scholarship in Jacobean England. If the Preface reveals no more to them than this, it would be worth printing, for it is precisely this rift between piety and learning that is most dangerous to the church. As a matter of fact, we owe the English Bible to university men, from the sixteenth century to the twentieth. It could hardly be otherwise. But today, not one reader of King James in ten thousand even dreams that any biblical scholar had anything to do with his English Bible.

The argument of the publishers that the Preface is controversial is also nugatory. The version sprang out of controversy; the Preface reflects the fact; why conceal it? The hushing of the controversy in the history of Christianity does not make for intelligence. The New Testament itself sprang, much of it, out of controversy; I and II Corinthians, for instance. It is precisely this muting that has produced the impression that the version originated in some other, better world than ours. If the Preface shows its human background, let us have it, since it is a part of the truth.

The Translators were well aware that their work would have to encounter strong opposition:

“Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising any thing ourselves, or revising that which hath been labored by others, deserves certainly much respect and esteem, but yet finding but cold entertainment in the world. ... For he that meddles with men’s Religion in any part, meddles with their customs, nay, with their freehold, and though they find no content in that which they have, yet they cannot abide to hear of altering [it]. ... Many men’s mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the Translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of Translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment: Hath the Church been deceived, say they, all this while? ... Was their Translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded to the people? ...”

Without these trenchant sentences, people are left with the impression that the King James translation descended like the gentle dew from heaven, amidst universal acclaim. The silencing of the controversial note of the Preface puts a false face upon the version, for which its original makers are not to blame.

A third objection raised by the publishers to restoring the Preface is its obscurity, and the confusion it would create, in the mind of the ordinary reader. If this confusion means that the reader would be made aware that there had been and might be other versions of the Bible, it might better be called clarification. Confusion is the ordinary reader’s present condition of mind, as I have tried to show. Left without the translator’s guidance, he now believes the King James to be the “original” divinely inspired, unique, not made with hands, final, and definitive. To break in upon this false assurance with the clear statements of the Preface may produce a temporary confusion, but the confusion will be due to the disastrous practice of omitting the Preface, not to the healthful one of including it.

As for obscurity, is the Preface any more obscure than the version it introduced? This is the strangest of all reasons for the King James printers to adduce, yet I have it before me in writing from one of the greatest of them.

“The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd.”

- Ecclesiastes 12:11

So reads the King James Version. Is there anything in the Preface that approaches this in obscurity? Yet publishers justify the omission of the Preface on the ground that it is “obscure.” There is not a sentence in it as obscure as this one, or as hosts of others in the King James Version. No, if obscurity is the criterion, the publishers might have omitted the version and printed the Preface, but hardly the other way. It must be that the publishers are quite unaware of the marked obscurity of great areas of their own version.

A recent advocate of the King James Version says of the English Bible: “Much of the writing is inferior. .... Whole sections of the historical narratives are written in an immature and inferior manner. ... Some of the prophets have only a single verse that arrests attention. Only occasionally did Paul reveal his tremendous capacity to express thought in a memorable manner?” What does this mean, but that the writer does not understand his version? The simple truth is, the obscurity of the King James Version is its outstanding trait. When a man says things like this about Paul and the prophets, he is indicating, not the Bible at all, but his version of it. He reveals the fact that he is using a version he cannot understand.

It may require some patience for the modern reader to peruse the King James Preface. But think of the patience he is called upon to exhibit in reading long obscure areas of Paul and the prophets! He is by no means unaccustomed to reading his Bible in the midst of obscurity. And it is an admirable idea to have a genuine piece of first class Jacobean prose before him, side by side with the Jacobean revision, to show him how these revisers actually wrote when not translating but expressing their own thoughts. Here their real literary standards appear, in an authentic sample. If to their modern publishers their style appears obscure, it may in part explain the greater obscurity of their version. And at all events, it shows how they thought one should write. This affords their readers an example of what they considered clear and forceful English, and the value of this to any serious reader of King James, as a measuring rod, a standard of style, is unmistakable. Anyone who can understand the Preface can understand the version.

Especially for students, the Preface, with its wealth of contemporary materials and attitudes, is indispensable. In a humanities survey course for college Freshmen, a western university recently purchased 43 copies of the King James Bible without the Preface. In no other field of study would such a course have been dreamed of. To approach that version historically, and as any student should, without the Preface, is simply impossible. What has been said of the importance of the Preface to the general reader is even more true of the student, and it is high time our teachers of the English Bible in colleges awoke to the fact. But how can they be expected to awaken to it, when very few of them have ever seen a Bible containing the Preface? For the past hundred years, from the point of view of everyone -- ministers, professors, students, general readers, pious readers -- the Preface has been virtually suppressed.

The chief edition of the Bible containing it since 1821 is the English royal quarto, published by the Oxford University Press. This is an expensive pulpit Bible, seldom seen in America, which we cannot expect colleges to place in quantities in their reading rooms. On the other hand, the British and Foreign Bible Society and the American Bible Society seem never to have included the Preface in their Bibles at all. It has been included in only two other printings of the Bible, so far as I can learn, in the past hundred years.

It is true, it has more than once been published in books about the Bible. J.R. Dore, at the special request of Christopher Wordsworth, Bishop of Lincoln, introduced the Preface as an appendix into the second edition of his OLD BIBLES; and A.W. Pollard, in his RECORDS OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE, reprinted it in full. “This preface,” said Richard Lovett (The Printed English Bible), “most unhappily long ago ceased to form a part of the ordinary editions.” “It is to be regretted,” wrote John Stoughton (Our English Bible), “that while the dedication appears in all the editions, the address to the readers is inserted in very few. It would be good alteration to cancel the former and universally introduce the latter.”

This is no idle demand of a few savants and specialists, in the interests of mere erudition, but a crying need of present-day religion, of which the King James Bible is undeniably still the chief stay. That that edition should continue to sink into greater and greater misconception and misrepresentation, when much of it might be prevented by the simple and obvious device of restoring the Preface, is intolerable. That version is too deeply freighted with religious values to be left at the mercy of every charlatan to exploit. Its Preface is a great monument of sound biblical learning and method. Its readers need it as they have never needed it before. It lies ready to our hands, enfolding in itself the very correctives modern vagaries about the King James Bible so sadly need.

It is not enough that it is somewhere available in public libraries, in books about the Bible. Who knows about these books? I have had letters and inquiries from intelligent, educated ministers, asking where the Preface can be found. They had never heard of it. What chance, then, has the ordinary reader to know of it or find his way to it? The King James Version is a tremendous force in the modern world, very potent for good if it be intelligently used, but for evil if it be left unexplained. What most of its readers chiefly need is education about it, and that is precisely what its Preface provides.

For my part, I know of no greater service that can be done to biblical study today than to put back the King James Preface into its rightful place, in every copy of that great version, to the understanding of which it is so indispensable.

The English university presses, which have been since the days of Charles I among the great printers of the King James Version, used to carry a separate printing of the Preface for free distribution to those who asked for it. But this supply is now exhausted. The Preface is practically out of print. The great version, in its day a monument of enlightened learning, is left defenseless, to the inevitable confusion of all its readers.

Sound learning and common sense alike demand the reprinting of the Preface. It is essential to any real understanding of the King James Version. This has at length been made possible through the liberality of Charles Forrest Cutter, Esq., a generous friend of the Bible in all its forms. The Oxford and Cambridge presses have given their consent to the reprinting, and the Huntington Library has permitted us to publish the text in facsimile from the Bridgewater copy of the first printing of 1611 in its collection. We are particularly happy to do this (with the spellings somewhat modernized) in 1935, the 400th anniversary of the first printed English Bible (by Myles Coverdale) of which the King James Bible is the most illustrious descendant.

To me, of course, the religious values of the Bible far outweigh any mere literary considerations. It has great messages which the modern world greatly needs. To obscure these messages in phraseology which may once have conveyed them but is now so quaint and antique as to belong to the museums of literature, seems to me a very shocking and tragic business. It is like denying a very sick man the medical aid of today and giving him instead the treatment of the 16th century, because it is so picturesque! It is like insisting upon cupping him and bleeding him, at the risk of his health and even his life.

But even to those who take the Bible less seriously -- to the dogmatist and the dilettante -- it must be clear that the King James Preface belongs at the beginning of the King James Bible, where its makers put it and meant it to remain; and that the reasons advanced by its publishers for omitting it are really very cogent reasons for restoring it to its rightful place.

Edgar J. Goodspeed

Meredith Publications

1030 South Santa Anita Avenue

Arcadia, California