John Jewel on the lawfulness of Bible translations

[Reformed Covenanter]

I know there are some, that lay it unto our charge, as the false apostles did unto Paul, that we use the word of God deceitfully; they find fault with our translations of the Scriptures; they spare not to say there be a thousand faults in the New Testament; yet would they never set down five hundred, or one hundred, or fifty, or twenty-five, or five.

If there be errors in the translation, I know they were men which translated it, and they might err like men. May no translation be allowed that is not altogether perfect? as if the Greek translation were without fault, or as if many faults were not in the common vulgar translation in Latin, or in the translation of Jerome. What then? Must the Greek translation be forbidden? must Jerome’s translation, or the vulgar translation, be forbidden? As for the old Latin common translation, though many learned men have shewed the gross errors thereof; yet have they well provided for it in the council of Trent.

”Let no man dare or presume (say they) by any manner of colour to refuse the old common translation of the Bible.” Yet is no translation of ours so corrupt, as that which they have thus privileged. But if it were true, which they falsely report, reason would they did correct the errors, and so set it abroad. But thus they bear you in hand, that they may bring you in hatred of it, and pull you from the reading of the Scriptures. I will not say in what sort they abuse the word of God. What speak I of abusing? Nay, they do manifestly against and contrary to the word.

For the reference, see:

John Jewel on the lawfulness of Bible translations

I know there are some, that lay it unto our charge, as the false apostles did unto Paul, that we use the word of God deceitfully; they find fault with our translations of the Scriptures; they spare…

reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

This is a good thought. Quick question, that slightly has something to do with this. With the King James Version of the Bible, why do you think it is that so many Protestants endorse the translation so much, when King James was known as a persecutor of the Church? Are they okay with separating the scholarly work from the moral works of the king?

 

[alexandermsmith]

This is a good thought. Quick question, that slightly has something to do with this. With the King James Version of the Bible, why do you think it is that so many Protestants endorse the translation so much, when King James was known as a persecutor of the Church? Are they okay with separating the scholarly work from the moral works of the king?

Well in one sense it really has nothing to do with James. He commissioned the translation but it wasn't the work of his hands. The men who produced the translation were godly, exceedingly gifted men in all the fields necessary for such an endeavour. And this shows in the translation itself: a masterpiece of faithful and wise translation and of the English language. It was also the translation used for generations thereafter, acting as a point of unity and uniformity across the visible church. Along with the companion Psalms of David in Metre 1650, the AV became part of the warp and woof of Christian theology and piety. It is considered by those of us who continue to use it to be thus the most faithful and precious English translation we have and we lament the discord and division which has been brought about by the myriad modern translations, as well as the errors contained within them.

 

[dsanch1120]

Well in one sense it really has nothing to do with James. He commissioned the translation but it wasn't the work of his hands. The men who produced the translation were godly, exceedingly gifted men in all the fields necessary for such an endeavour. And this shows in the translation itself: a masterpiece of faithful and wise translation and of the English language. It was also the translation used for generations thereafter, acting as a point of unity and uniformity across the visible church. Along with the companion Psalms of David in Metre 1650, the AV became part of the warp and woof of Christian theology and piety. It is considered by those of us who continue to use it to be thus the most faithful and precious English translation we have and we lament the discord and division which has been brought about by the myriad modern translations, as well as the errors contained within them.

What are your thoughts on the NKJV, and do you feel like there errors in the KJV/AV due to it using the textus receptus?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

This is a good thought. Quick question, that slightly has something to do with this. With the King James Version of the Bible, why do you think it is that so many Protestants endorse the translation so much, when King James was known as a persecutor of the Church? Are they okay with separating the scholarly work from the moral works of the king?

To be honest, I think that this portrayal of King James is one-sided. Many of our Reformed forebears esteemed him as a good ruler and an ally. Yes, he was no friend to Presbyterianism and leaned at times towards despotism, but he was not all bad. He supported the cause of Reformed orthodoxy against the Arminians, for instance. While I am not a KJV advocate (not by a long shot), even if James VI/I was the worst human being who ever lived, it would be irrelevant to the quality of the KJV as a translation.

 

[Phil D.]

It seems both "sides" can go to extremes concerning King James as a person. Many KJVO advocates (Chick Pub., for example) insist he was a really godly man, while some on the other side emphasize his staunch opposition to the Puritan cause and his almost certain homosexuality. But having the official authorization for a scholarly work come from a deeply flawed person has no substantial bearing on the merit and worth of the work itself. You see the same dynamic in play with criticisms of Westcott and Hort.

 

[Solparvus]

It seems both "sides" can go to extremes concerning King James as a person. Many KJVO advocates (Chick Pub., for example) insist he was a really godly man, while some on the other side emphasize his staunch opposition to the Puritan cause and his almost certain homosexuality. But having the official authorization for a scholarly work come from a deeply flawed person has no substantial bearing on the merit and worth of the work itself. You see the same dynamic in play with criticisms of Westcott and Hort.

Good to bring this out, that it goes either way. The TR advocates push against the theology of those who are more in the CT camp, and the CT guys harp on the blemishes of James VI/I, Erasmus. You might add, the AV was authorized in an Erastian church. You have partially regenerated (even unregenerate) people on both sides.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think both sides should agree to the following premises:

(1) His Majesty probably was not a homosexual.
(2) Westcott and Hort probably do not have the failings attributed to them.

In case either (1) or (2) are not granted, three necessarily obtains:

(3) It is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the argument.

 

[joebonni63]

KJV is an interesting Bible even for the time it was written. I read somewhere that James wanted a version without the notes because what they wrote in the notes was negative to the crown………. As a Bible version I have not read it in many years as my attention is on the ESV

 

[Charles Johnson]

I think both sides should agree to the following premises:

(1) His Majesty probably was not a homosexual.
(2) Westcott and Hort probably do not have the failings attributed to them.

In case either (1) or (2) are not granted, three necessarily obtains:

(3) It is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the argument.

I'll grant King James wasn't a homosexual if you can produce one portrait of him wearing pants, and I'll grant Westcoff and Hort were orthodox if you can produce a picture of them with a King James bible.
The ball is in your court.

 

[dsanch1120]

I read somewhere that James wanted a version without the notes because what they wrote in the notes was negative to the crown……….

Interesting, I had heard that it was because the notes were too Calvinistic

 

[Phil D.]

I'll grant King James wasn't a homosexual if you can produce one portrait of him wearing pants, and I'll grant Westcoff and Hort were orthodox if you can produce a picture of them with a King James bible.

In the age of AI I'm sure such images can easily be "produced"...

 

[Charles Johnson]

In the age of AI I'm sure such images can easily be "produced"...

You might be surprised. I just typed "King James I wearing pants" into the AI, and he's still wearing tights.
Meanwhile, the prompt "King James I in blue jeans" gives a man in denim that is clearly a cross between King James I, and the basketball star Lebron James ("King James" on twitter).

 

[Phil D.]

You might be surprised. I just typed "King James I wearing pants" into the AI, and he's still wearing tights.
Meanwhile, the prompt "King James I in blue jeans" gives a man in denim that is clearly a cross between King James I, and the basketball star Lebron James ("King James" on twitter).

There's your trouble - you need to type "King James VI of Scotland wearing Levi blue jeans"...

 

[TylerRay]

Interesting, I had heard that it was because the notes were too Calvinistic

It's because they were too republican. They support limited government and resistance to tyrants.

 

[dsanch1120]

It's because they were too republican. They support limited government and resistance to tyrants.

That makes sense! I’ll have to look more into that

 

[riverman]

I think both sides should agree to the following premises:

(1) His Majesty probably was not a homosexual.
(2) Westcott and Hort probably do not have the failings attributed to them.

In case either (1) or (2) are not granted, three necessarily obtains:

(3) It is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the argument.

Well done.

 

[Solparvus]

I heard about James I's dislike for the Geneva notes, but does the KJV text itself reflect any Church of England tendencies?

 

[ZackF]

I heard about James I's dislike for the Geneva notes, but does the KJV text itself reflect any Church of England tendencies?

<non moderator hat> Start a new thread. </non moderator hat>

 

[dsanch1120]

I heard about James I's dislike for the Geneva notes, but does the KJV text itself reflect any Church of England tendencies?

I’d be curious to learn more about this

 

[Solparvus]

<non moderator hat> Start a new thread. </non moderator hat>

Sure. If anyone wishes to answer I'd be content to see it split off into another one.

 

[ZackF]

Sure. If anyone wishes to answer I'd be content to see it split off into another one.

I remember Pastor Winzer addressing this years ago.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

I know there are some, that lay it unto our charge, as the false apostles did unto Paul, that we use the word of God deceitfully; they find fault with our translations of the Scriptures; they spare not to say there be a thousand faults in the New Testament; yet would they never set down five hundred, or one hundred, or fifty, or twenty-five, or five.

If there be errors in the translation, I know they were men which translated it, and they might err like men. May no translation be allowed that is not altogether perfect? as if the Greek translation were without fault, or as if many faults were not in the common vulgar translation in Latin, or in the translation of Jerome. What then? Must the Greek translation be forbidden? must Jerome’s translation, or the vulgar translation, be forbidden? As for the old Latin common translation, though many learned men have shewed the gross errors thereof; yet have they well provided for it in the council of Trent.

”Let no man dare or presume (say they) by any manner of colour to refuse the old common translation of the Bible.” Yet is no translation of ours so corrupt, as that which they have thus privileged. But if it were true, which they falsely report, reason would they did correct the errors, and so set it abroad. But thus they bear you in hand, that they may bring you in hatred of it, and pull you from the reading of the Scriptures. I will not say in what sort they abuse the word of God. What speak I of abusing? Nay, they do manifestly against and contrary to the word.

For the reference, see:

John Jewel on the lawfulness of Bible translations

I know there are some, that lay it unto our charge, as the false apostles did unto Paul, that we use the word of God deceitfully; they find fault with our translations of the Scriptures; they spare…

reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com

I much prefer the term version to the term translation, when there are hundreds upon hundreds of English “translations.” We simply don’t need more versions, more copyrights and editions.

I fail to see how it isn’t plain to anyone and everyone that at this point more Bible versions in the same language simply make it that much easier to say “yea, hath God said?”

It’s a question not posed enough on this topic:

What (or who) does it profit? Pun intended.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

Interesting, I had heard that it was because the notes were too Calvinistic

He didn’t like the bit about the Hebrews rebelling against Pharoah, among other things. The 1599 Geneva’s footnotes are quite Calvinistic and simply excellent in my estimation.

 

[dsanch1120]

I much prefer the term version to the term translation, when there are hundreds upon hundreds of English “translations.” We simply don’t need more versions, more copyrights and editions.

I fail to see how it isn’t plain to anyone and everyone that at this point more Bible versions in the same language simply make it that much easier to say “yea, hath God said?”

It’s a question not posed enough on this topic:

What (or who) does it profit? Pun intended.

I think the numerous versions are absolutely unnecessary, though it tends to be, in my opinion more as a result of publishers not wanting to pay royalties rather than needing some new Bible translations that’s going to do it better than the X number of others which is how they tend to be marketed. So I do agree that we don’t, at the moment, need more. To answer your question.. the publishers.
That being said, except in certain instances, I don’t tend to run into interpretive issues with my friends who is NAS95, KJV, NKJV, or even CSB. The translators typically do a fine job, and what they lack is well supplemented by a preacher and/or commentary who has a knowledge of the original language.

 

[Zach]

I much prefer the term version to the term translation, when there are hundreds upon hundreds of English “translations.” We simply don’t need more versions, more copyrights and editions.

I fail to see how it isn’t plain to anyone and everyone that at this point more Bible versions in the same language simply make it that much easier to say “yea, hath God said?”

It’s a question not posed enough on this topic:

What (or who) does it profit? Pun intended.

I profit tremendously from reading the text from multiple translations in my sermon preparation process to better absorb and understand the text and see where I ought to pay most attention to the original languages and I am genuinely thankful that they all exist. Reading multiple translations only confirms all the more clearly what God has said.

 

[Deleted member 13126]

I profit tremendously from reading the text from multiple translations in my sermon preparation process to better absorb and understand the text and see where I ought to pay most attention to the original languages and I am genuinely thankful that they all exist. Reading multiple translations only confirms all the more clearly what God has said.

Indeed, friend. You raise a good point. For me, even, a few may be of some profit with a particularly difficult text. It is the hundreds I take issue with, personally.

 

[Northern Crofter]

(1) His Majesty probably was not a homosexual.

I could accept the premise that James did a lot of good for the Church. But I cannot accept the above premise after having been exposed to James' letters to Buckingham in the 1620s during my university studies. I will grant that there is no evidence James actually engaged in sodomy. But his letters prove beyond any doubt in my mind that he was engaged in unlawful lust towards another man. These letters are available many places online and have been studied in academia (I believe the most comprehensive is King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire by David Bergeron). I do not recommend reading the letters, nor will I quote them. I have only read reviews of Bergeron's book - had it come to a different conclusion than what I came to reading the letters years ago, I might have purchased it to see if I had misunderstood what I read.

 

[alexandermsmith]

I heard about James I's dislike for the Geneva notes, but does the KJV text itself reflect any Church of England tendencies?

The KJV regrettably translates "pascha" in Acts 12:4 as "Easter" rather than "Passover".

The KJV also translates "ekklesia" as "church" rather than "assembly", which some Christians believe is an attempt to suppress Scripture's support for Independency. But all the other main English translations use "church" as well, as did the Geneva I think. And I think "church" is quite acceptable. But these, I suppose, would be two areas where there was a particular bent to the translation.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Alexander,

I think what's "regrettable" is the misunderstanding of many regarding the use of "easter" in Acts 12:4 KJV, where it is properly used to differentiate between the pre-resurrection passover of the Passover Lamb and the post-resurrection passover. It's really an excellent example of Luther's, Tyndale's, and the 1611 translators' linguistic wisdom and genius.

An earlier thread on this topic, “Easter” in Acts 12:4(AV)-is it justifiable? I start in post #9. Some very good links to others' defenses of the genius and rightness of the AV's translators in this case.