|
by Dr. Laurence M. Vance
(Bible Editions & Versions –
July/Sept. 2004)
Pick up any promotional literature about the translators
of a modern version of the Bible and you will read about
the many degrees they hold and their scholarly
credentials. Read the preface or introduction to a new
translation and you will see that the critical attitude
of the translators is rather unlike that of the
translators of the King James Version.
In the “Epistle Dedicatory” to their work, which is
still printed at the front of some editions, the
translators of the Authorized Version stated: “We are
poor instruments to make God’s holy Truth to be yet more
and more known unto the people.”
Several volumes have been written over the years about
the translators of the Authorized Version: A
Vindication of our Authorized Translation and
Translators of the Bible,
by John Henry Todd (1819); An Authentic Account
of Our Authorized Translation of the Holy Bible, and of
the Translators: with Testimonies to the Excellence of
the Translation, also
by John Henry Todd (1834); The Translators
Revived, by Alexander
McClure (1858); The Learned Men,
by Gustavus Paine (1959), reissued in 1977 as The
Men Behind the King James Version;
The King James Bible Translators,
by Olga Opfell (1982); and most recently, God’s
Secretaries, by Adam
Nicolson (2003).
What makes this subject of particular relevance at this
point is that July 2004 is the 400th anniversary of the
letter written by King James to Richard Bancroft
(1544-1610), Bishop of London, and soon to be Archbishop
of Canterbury, in which the king mentions that he has
“appointed certain learned men, to the number of four
and fifty, for the translating of the Bible.” July 1604
was also the month in which Bishop Bancroft wrote to the
University of Cambridge regarding the translators: “The
parties’ names, who are appointed to be employed
therein, Mr. Lively [professor of Hebrew at Cambridge]
can show you; of which number I desire you by him to
take notice, and to write to such of them as are abroad
in his Majesty’s name, (for so far my commission
extendeth) that, all excuses set aside, they do
presently come to Cambridge, there to address themselves
forthwith to this business.”
It was on the second day of the Hampton Court Conference
in January 1604 that the idea for the Authorized Version
was born. The Puritan, Dr. Rainolds, proposed that a new
translation of the Bible be undertaken. According to the
“official” account: “After that he [Rainolds] moved his
majesty that there might be a new translation of the
Bible, because those which were allowed in the reign of
king Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth were corrupt
and not answerable to the truth of the original.”
The king liked the idea, and directed the bishops to
form a committee regarding the new
translation he had “authorized.” He wanted it done by
“the best learned in both the Universities, after them
to he reviewed by the Bishops and the chief learned of
the Church.” In “A Note of Such Things as Shall be
Reformed in the Church,” written soon after the
conference, the new translation is mentioned. Then, in a
list of principal matters to be considered, which was
also drawn up soon after the conference, the fourth says
that “care be taken, that one uniform translation of the
Bible be printed, and read in the church: and that
without any notes.” A report of the bishops’ proceedings
shows that by early March no arrangements for the
translation had yet been made: “The fourth which
toucheth the translation of the Bible hath not as yet
been dealt with.”
By June, however, things changed. A list of names of
potential translators had been submitted to the king,
for on June 30, 1604, Bishop Bancroft wrote: “His
Majesty being made acquainted with the choice of all
them to be employed in the translating of the Bible, in
such sort as Mr. Lively can inform you, doth greatly
approve of the said choice. And for as much as his
Highness is very desirous that the same so religious a
work should admit of no delay, he has commanded me to
signify unto you in his name that his pleasure is, you
should with all possible speed meet together in your
University and begin the same.”
Then on July 22, 1604, King James wrote to Bishop
Bancroft: “Whereas we have appointed certain learned
men, to the number of four and fifty, for the
translating of the Bible,…Furthermore, we require you to
move all our bishops to inform themselves of all such
learned men within their several dioceses as, having
especial skill in the Hebrew and Greek tongues, have
taken pains in their private studies of the Scriptures
for the clearing of any obscurities either in the Hebrew
or the Greek, or touching any difficulties or mistakings
in the former English translation, which we have not
commanded to be thoroughly viewed and amended, and
thereupon to write unto them, earnestly charging them,
and signifying our pleasure therein, that they send such
their observations either to Mr. Lively, our Hebrew
reader in Cambridge, or to Dr. Harding, our Hebrew
reader in Oxford, or to Dr. Andrewes, Dean of
Westminster, to be imparted to the rest of their several
companies, that so our said intended translation may
have the help and furtherance of all the principal
learned men within this our kingdom.”
Enough has been written about the translators of the
Authorized Version that their names, positions, and
abilities need not be recounted here. However, there are
several discrepancies in the accounts of the
translators, as well as some often-overlooked details
about them, that need to be noted.
First, as to the number of translators. The July 22
letter from King James states that there were fifty-four
men appointed to translate the Bible. However, most
lists name only forty-seven men. This can be explained
by the fifteenth instruction given to the translators
(sometimes omitted in the list of “rules”): “Besides the
said Directors before mentioned [in rule thirteen],
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.” The difference of seven between forty-seven
and fifty-four can be accounted for if one university
chose four men to act as overseers and the other chose
three. In addition, the eleventh and twelfth rules given
to the translators, as well as the above mentioned
letter from King James, state that other learned men
were also to be consulted.
And second, as to the identification of the translators.
We know that they were assigned to six companies: two to
meet at Oxford, two at Cambridge, and two at
Westminster. Of the companies at Westminster, which
translated Genesis to 2 Kings and Romans to Revelation,
there are no discrepancies in any of the lists of
translators. Likewise, of the companies at Cambridge,
which translated I Chronicles to Ecclesiastes and the
Apocrypha, there are no discrepancies. But in the lists
of translators that served on the Oxford companies, and
especially the second one, which translated the Gospels,
Acts, and Revelation, there are some lingering
discrepancies which will probably never be completely
solved.
In every roster of translators, there is always listed
for the first Oxford company, which translated Isaiah
through Malachi, the same seven men: John Harding, John
Rainolds, Thomas Holland, Richard Kilby, Miles Smith,
Richard Brett, and Richard Fairclough. Sometimes there
are some spelling variations in the names, but this is
to he expected. But in a petition signed in 1606 by
fourteen bishops, two of whom we know were translators,
in behalf of one William Thorne, a noted Hebraist and
Rcgius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, it is stated that
Thorne is “now likewise very necessarily employed in the
translation of that part of the Old Testament which is
remitted to that university.” Yet, not even the oldest
extant lists of translators mention Thorne.
The names of the men who served on the second Oxford
company have been in dispute from the beginning. Of the
eight men on the company, two are in dispute. This has
been compounded because the original list apparently
listed four of the men by office instead of by name.
These four men are the deans of Christchurch,
Winchester. Worcester, and Windsor. The dean of
Worcester at the time of the Hampton Court Conference
was Richard Edes. He died in November of 1604 and was
apparently replaced on the second Oxford committee by
John Aglionby. This is why some lists of the King James
translators give the name of Aglionby in place of (or in
addition to) that of Edes. The name of James Montague is
sometimes given instead of (or in addition to) Edes
because he succeeded Edes in the office of dean. But
this does not necessarily mean that he took his place as
a translator. The other name in question is that of
Ralph Ravens. Some lists give the name of Leonard Hutten
in place of (or in addition to) Ravens. But because
Ravens did not die until 1616, it is a mystery as to why
he was apparently replaced by Hutten.
Thomas Fuller (1608- 1661), in his Church History
of Britain, lists both
Edes and Ravens as the original translators. Bishop
Burnet (1643-1715), in his History of the
Reformation of the Church of England,
lists the “Dean of Worcester” and “Dr. Ravens.” Burnet
supposedly copied his list from the papers of Bishop
Ravis, one of the original translators. Contrary to
Fuller and Burnet, John Lewis, in his History of
the English Bible, the
first edition of which was published in 1731, says the
“Dean of Worcester,” but identifies him as Montague, and
“Dr. Ravens.”
The earliest known list of translators appears in a
letter of some kind, apparently written before 1650,
that contains information about the translators. The
author of the document, who claims that the dean of
Worcester is “not in my Copy at all,” goes on to mention
Dr. Edes as being succeeded by Dr. Henry Parry and then
Dr. Montague and then by a Dr. Anthony Lake (or Lakes).
But since the one he is writing to has the dean of
Worcester in his list (“but in yours it is as it
seems”), the author posits that Parry was the dean in
question, not Edes. But then he acknowledges that the
one he is writing to has Dr. Lake as the dean of
Worcester, which was true, but not at the time that the
translators were selected. However, regarding Dr. Lake,
an official document from May 1605 mentions him as
“engaged on the translation of the New Testament at
London.”
Then there is the case of George Ryves. In a letter
written by Bishop Bilson in 1605, Dr. Ryves is referred
to as “one of the overseers of that part of the New
Testament that is being translated out of Greek.” It is
therefore possible that the reason why the names of
Thorne, Lake, and Ryves do not appear in any of the
lists of translators is that they were all part of the
group of seven men assigned “to he Overseers of the
Translations as well Hebrew as Greek.”
Although other translators besides Edes had died before
the Bible was published in 1611 (Edward Lively in 1605,
Ralph Hutchinson and William Dakins in 1606, John
Rainolds in 1607, Thomas Ravis and John Aglionhy in
1609), it appears that once the work of translation was
in progress, translators who died were not replaced.
The other thing about the translators that should he
noted is that some had been at the Hampton Court
Conference in 1604: William Barlow (d. 1613), Lancelot
Andrewes (1555-1626), John Overall (1560-1619), George
Abbot (1562-1633), Thomas Ravis (1560-1609), Richard
Edes (1555-1604), Cues Thomson (1553-1612), and James
Montague (1568-1618), if indeed he was one of the
translators.
No man who served as a translator of the Authorized
Version could ever have imagined that he would he the
subject of such intense historical scrutiny. But four
hundred years after the fact, the role of these “learned
men” in the history of the English Bible still
captivates layman and scholar alike. But as interesting
and intriguing a subject as the translators of the
Authorized Version is, we should remember that it is
their product that is the important thing.
|
