Who’s Bible?
King James’s, of course! Assuming you aren’t a monarchist this might raise a red flag when you consider it longer. But why did he do it?
In 1567, Mary Queen of Scots was forced to abdicate the Scottish throne, leaving behind one-year-old James. In England, her cousin Elizabeth I, daughter of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn reigned. Mary would flee to England and her cousin, who would not help her but instead have her imprisoned.
England was having an interesting time with its Christians at the time. As many Catholics saw Henry VIII’s marriage to Anne Bolyn as invalid, they saw his daughter Elizabeth I’s eventual reign as illegitimate. English Catholics who sought to put Mary on the throne were able to correspond with her and plan an escape. When the plot to escape was uncovered, Elizabeth sentenced her to execution.
When Elizabeth died, James became King of England.
A group of Puritans stopped James on his way to England for his coronation, presented him with a list of grievances, and demanded reforms with signatures from about 10% of England’s clergy. In response, he would call a conference that began and ended with him giving in to no demands.
However, one suggestion missing from the petition but made by one of the Puritan representatives that King James would follow through on is the commissioning of a new translation. With multiple different Christian groups in the country, a new translation could serve to unite the groups under the influence of a centralized state religion.
Perhaps most important to James would have been the opportunity to replace the popular Geneva Bible. Marginal notes in the Bible threatened James’s rule and authority.
The rules of translation
James brought together 47 scholars and issued a set of rules, notably one against the inclusion of marginal notes beyond the explanation of Greek and Hebrew words.
A more useful rule was that the translators use the familiar forms of Biblical names rather than more accurate Hebrew, and to translate to popular speech. Phrases that may be opaque to modern readers can be clearer to the illiterate public hearing the verses read.
Ultimately, the scholars at work knew the Bible would need to be approved by a ladder of authority ending in the King. By necessity choices in translation would be made with the awareness that those in power would review those choices.
If anything that might question James’s authority made it through previous review, James would always have the final say. The best intentions of the translators would never be able to make it past a review that deemed it threatening to the status quo.
The project of modern translation
The KJV was popular with Catholics until supplanted by the Jerusalem Bible in 1966. An updated version of the KJV from YEAR is the commonly used form of the KJV. Since then, new translations have been done and popularized. Two major ones are the NIV and the NRSV.
When translating ancient texts, translators come across words that can be translated in multiple ways and grammar that can’t be matched by the target language. Translators must choose between translations that may relay different meanings.
There are two major strategies translators can use. The first, “word for word”, attempts to match the original language as closely as possible with less regard for the conventions of the target language or clarity to modern readers. The other, “phrase for phrase”, focuses on relaying the larger idea faithfully while communicating the meaning naturally in the target language.
Most translations are a balance of the two. The NSRVue updates the NSRV with attempts to remove cultural assumptions that made their way into the translation. The NSRV is a translation leaning toward the precision of word-for-word translations. For example, the Greek ‘adelphoi’ can be translated to brothers or brothers and sisters depending on context. A patriarchal society leans toward the “brothers” translation, updated based on context to “brothers and sisters.”
This example also contradicts the idea that this is the “woke” Bible. LGBTQ+ advocates such as myself might prefer “siblings”. That choice might be accurate in spirit but less literally accurate to the Greek. The original is not a gender-neutral term but rather a term that changes based on binary gender.
How to choose a translation
Ultimately, it is up to what you are looking for in a translation. You can ask yourself a couple of questions while assessing your options:
- Does the translation use unknown preferences for verses you care about? For instance, if you know you disagree with the use of “homosexual in Corinthians (?), check the translation of that verse.
- Do aesthetics matter? One argument in favor of the KJV is the weight and literary quality the translation can convey to modern readers.
- What are you using this for? You may want to choose a new translation that seeks extreme fidelity for certain academic purposes. On the other hand, in practice, you may prefer a translation common to a denomination you belong to.
Ultimately, to thoughtfully choose a translation, you must understand what you seek and educate yourself on how why, and by whom a translation has been made.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In