How true is the King James Bible?

What we do maintain is as follows: — That the Scriptures, as written in their original tongues, were given by inspiration of God, that inspiration extending to the words employed. That by means of the large number of ancient manuscript copies of the Scriptures preserved to us in the providence of God, we possess a very accurate knowledge of the Scriptures as originally written, the words or passages as to which any doubt exists being very few and unimportant. That the Authorized translation is on the whole very good and faithful in its rendering of the inspired original, but that it may be usefully compared with the Revised Version, and more especially with the New Translation by the late Mr. J. N. Darby, to ensure even greater accuracy. Substantially, however, it gives us the inspired Word of God in trustworthy form.

I beg my reader who may not know Greek not to suppose that I have any thought of unsettling his mind as to the plain English words in scripture. My object is just the contrary. In the English Bible, there are no doubt defects, as in every human work. I have found passages which I think might be more exactly translated, and have taken the pains to translate for myself the whole of the New Testament, save a few chapters. But I am sure of this, that the more intimately a person is acquainted with the idiom of the language — the more he is familiar with what the learned call the usus loquendi (that is, the customary forms of speech) — the more he will see how thoroughly well acquainted the translators were with the language they were dealing with. I can confidently affirm this to be the case in the New Testament; and as far as I can pretend to judge of the Old, I can bear the same testimony: so that, on the whole, while admitting some human defects, the reader who knows neither Hebrew nor Greek may be assured he has the sense of the original. Taken as a whole, it is the most perfect translation of any book I have ever read. I am told the Dutch translation is very good: I cannot compare them, but of those which I can, the English Bible is by far the best. Forty-six or forty-eight of the most learned and capable men were long engaged in it — divided into classes of six, who did the part they were most competent for; and then it was passed to the others, and revised by all, and compared with translations in other languages. My object then is, not to lead you away from your English Bible, but back to it with confidence. When persons object to a doctrine, that the original word has not the force ascribed to it in English, one is obliged to enquire what is its force in the original: but my object in this is that the humble English reader may be assured he has God's mind in what he reads. I add the Greek quotations, that those who know that language may see all is well founded and fair.

If, in the translation, minor inaccuracies have occurred, these may be generally found and corrected by honest study. Of course, it is important that one should have a reliable translation, and we may be deeply thankful that the King James Version has been for centuries most prominent in English speaking countries, for in the main it is an excellent translation. A very few others will be helpful however, in giving a more correct rendering in certain passages, and this is advisable for study purposes. But many of the modern translations, and all paraphrased versions, should be avoided. For careful study, the New Translation by J.N. Darby is highly recommended.

But I wish to make two remarks. First, with all the aids of better knowledge of the original and of earlier manuscripts, it remains a fact that this version which we hold in our hands — the Authorized Version — is marvelously free from blemishes. To all intents and purposes it is a faithful representation of the original Scriptures. The simple, untutored Christian who knows nothing of Hebrew and Greek can take it up with confidence as the perfect word of God. No vital truth is clouded in it as a whole. What a comfort this is! And I believe we can see in it a proof of the providential care of God and the guidance of the Holy Spirit during times of great darkness and of persecution.*

Ans.—None whatever. You may trust without fear the common, or “King James” Version. It may not be very critical, but it conveys the mind of the original in such a faithful way as to produce in the reader a divinely- wrought faith, and that is better than all the hair-splitting of men whose knowledge is of the kind which puffs up rather than edifies. Satan has been active to muddle the truth as to the New Birth, both to hide its importance and the greatness of the blessings linked with it. They who maintain in their souls the simplicity which is ever in Christ, will escape the contentions and perplexities of the would-be metaphysicians.

We have already referred to the two versions of the Scriptures in public use during the prosperous reign of Elizabeth, and at the commencement of King James' — namely, the "Bishops' Bible," used at Court and in the Churches, and the "Geneva Bible," in more common use in the households of the people. Neither gave universal satisfaction, and it was felt by all parties that sooner or later an entirely new version must be prepared. It was brought about in a simple way, as most great undertakings are. There was a conference held at Hampton Court, on January 16, 1604. Certain Church differences and questions were discussed in which the King took great interest. In the course of the proceedings, the Puritan, Dr. Reynold, proposed a new version of the Bible. The King, to please the Puritans, and attach them more firmly to his throne and constitution, and also because of his strongly expressed dislike to the two translations then in use, consented. The King's cordial approval silenced the opposition of the conformist party. The superintending hand of God was apparent even in the preliminary arrangements.

The measures adopted to secure a new version of the Holy Scriptures were of the most complete and satisfactory kind, and the result has been an edition of the Word of God unrivalled for its simplicity, for its force and vigour of language, a compendium of literary excellencies, and, what is still better, a faithful and accurate translation of the very words of the Holy Ghost. It is not a faultless version, far from it. Whatever critical helps we use in our private study of the Word of God, we ever and again turn to the authorised version for communion with God.

The very great accuracy of the translation of the Holy Scriptures from the original into the English language is a matter of deep thankfulness. In this we see the good hand of our God. Especially is this so, when we realise that the translators in the time of King James I, with a very thorough knowledge of Greek, were not all of them presumably equally deeply taught in the doctrines of the Holy Scriptures. Many a minister today does not know much about the truths of the Scriptures, as we all know. Be that as it may, there are a few instances where mistakes have clearly been made. This is seen in the use of two words, IMMORTALITY (Greek, athanasia, deathlessness), and INCORRUPTIBILITY (Greek, aphtharsia, incorruption).

From 1702, when an essay appeared by Ross proposing a new translation, the question of revision has not been allowed to slumber for any length of time. Lowth, Secker, Newcome, Blayney, Pilkington, Brett, have in one way or other advocated it. Kennicott, by the publication of various readings of the Hebrew text, and suggested emendations of the Authorised version, stimulated the desire for it. The labours of eminent scholars on the Greek Testament, names familiar to many of our readers, have shown that the received text, and Beza's text, were neither of them an accurate representation of the Greek original. The labours of textual critics in our days have confirmed this, and demonstrated that, in certain passages, the true reading, supported by every great authority, differs from that known, and followed, when the Authorised version was made; and scholars have shown, that, in other passages, a correct version of the original would differ from that given by King James's translators. We must not shut our eyes to all this. A version, which could command the general assent of all Protestant bodies, would be an inestimable boon. Meanwhile the calling attention to passages needing revision is a work of real service. All that any one proposes he can scarcely hope will be accepted; yet it will not be time thrown away if, giving what he thinks is a more correct translation of the original, he brings out into prominence some shade of meaning, which has been hither unperceived. We are well aware that, in a matter of this kind, mere assertion is of no avail without proof of what is asserted. Our proofs we must reserve for other articles.

It would have been strange if, after all the learning and diligent labours of Biblical students for the last 200 years, no advance had been made in philological studies. Strange, too, would it have been, if the science of textual criticism had not progressed since the authorised version was made. Much, that was then unknown, has been since elucidated. The meaning of words, but seldom met with in the Hebrew Scriptures, has been in many cases cleared up by a comparison with other languages of the Semitic group. Greek phrases have been illustrated from classical authors. The grammar of the different languages has also been attended to, and much light thrown on that department of study, so needful for an accurate acquaintance with the meaning that the Spirit of God intended should be conveyed. The texts, too, of both the Old and New Testaments have been subjected to a rigorous examination. Since that day MSS., then unknown, have been brought to light, and the readings they present of the New Testament have in many instances been given to the world. ABCDFaILNPQRTYZ, Tischendorfianus, Sangallensis, Various Codices, Oxoniensis, Zacynthius, aleph and a few others, fragments of the Gospels; ABCDEFaI aleph of the Acts and Catholic Epistles; ABCDGFaHI aleph of the Epistles of Paul; ABC aleph of the Revelation have been published, and the readings of others collated. When the authorised version appeared, the Codex Vaticanus (B) was known, but not collated; the Codex Alexandrinus (A) had not been published; Codex Bezæ (D of the Gospel and Acts) was known, but its peculiar readings had not been accurately determined; the Codex Sinaiticus (aleph) was still hidden in the convent-library of Mount Sinai, and the Nitrian MSS. had not given forth their treasures to the world. Now materials have been amassed for revising the texts of both the Hebrew and the Greek Scriptures.

Though the Authorised Version was said to have been translated from the Hebrew and the Greek, there is no intimation either in the instructions given to the translators nor in their preface as to what Greek text was used. Being a revision rather than a translation they might have simply followed the Bishops' Bible in this respect, but they did not do that, and it is uncertain what text they followed.

It is commonly understood that the Authorised Version corresponds with the 'common Greek text,' as given, for instance, in Stephen's 1550. Beza's text came after that of Stephen, and those of Elzevir were not then published. But the A.V. in about 28 places follows neither Stephen nor Beza, so that it appears they did not follow any strict rule as to the text they adopted. The differences are not of great importance and a few of them have been altered in modern reprints.