US Bible readers prefer the Authorised Version

Of the 89% of U.S. adults who own at least one Bible, 67% own a King James. 82% of those who read the Bible at least once a month rely on the AV. More information here

The King and The English Bible - 1911

the value of the English Bible

Various translations of the Psalms are before the public. Many of them have much merit and preserve much of the heavenly savor of the original. All of them may occasionally afford a good hint. Of those made into English none can compare with the authorized version...no competent scholar would agree that our authorized version has any successful rival.

The author thinks proper here to record his high estimate of the value of the English Bible now in common use. It seems to him that his brethren, who seek to bring it into disrepute, might be much better employed. He gives it as his deliberate judgment that he has never seen even one chapter done into English so well anywhere else. The learning of the men, who made it, was vast, sound, and unquestionable. In this respect their little fingers were thicker than the loins of the men, who decry their labors.

William Swan Plumer, Commentary on the Psalms. (see this related post)

Praise for The English Bible - 2011

It is a year of praise for the only translation of the Bible into English that can justly be referred to as The English Bible. "After four centuries, the symbolic power of the 1611 Bible remains mighty indeed" writes Boyd Tonkin.

"Today it is a commonplace to note that the words and rhythms of the KJB and its source translations shape the speech of countless millions who never open a bible or enter a church. Somehow, the language of the 1611 version never falls from grace (Galatians 5.4) even if its message falls on stony ground (Mark 4.5). In a secular age where ignorance of religion goes from strength to strength (Psalms 84.7) among lovers of filthy lucre (1 Timothy 3.8) who only want to eat, drink and be merry (Luke 12.19), we know for a certainty (Joshua 23.13) that these resonant words endure as a fly in the ointment (Ecclesiastes 10.1) and a thorn in the flesh (2 Corinthians 12.7) of the powers that be (Romans 13.1). They can still set the teeth on edge (Jeremiah 31.29) of those who try to worship God and Mammon (Matthew 6.24). But does this ancient book, proof that there is no new thing under the sun (Ecclesiastes 1.9), now cast its pearls before swine (Matthew 7.6), and act as a voice crying in the wilderness (Luke 3.4) – a drop in a bucket (Isaiah 40.15) of unbelief, no longer a sign of the times (Matthew 16.3) but a verbal stumbling-block (Leviticus 19.14) or else all things to all men (1 Corinthians 9.22) while the blind lead the blind (Matthew 15.14)?"

A useful indication of its continuing influence upon the language (besides Crystal's "Begat" book) is available here.

James Naughtie's radio series was very worthwhile - he writes here. Another insightful article by Charles Moore is worth extensive quotation (Daily Telegraph, Saturday 27th November 2010: ‘Gove’s sense of the nobility of education offers hope to us all’.)

This week marked the 400th anniversary celebrations [of the King James Bible]. It has often been said – by Winston Churchill and T S Eliot among others – that the King James Bible is the greatest work in the English language, and it is true...Time and chance [sic] found a moment when our language was young yet mature, sprightly yet stately, earthy yet sublime.

But what was the purpose of this enterprise? It was not to produce lovely language for its own sake. It was educational. The translators dedicated their work to King James 1, explaining that it was essential that “God’s holy truth . . . be yet more and more known unto the people” (who, until then, had had no one, permitted, English version). They praised James for “cherishing the teachers” of this truth. They saw what they were doing as a work of national salvation, both in a religious and political sense. The fact that the version is known by the name of an earthly King tells you a lot about its aims.

So the point of this Bible was not only that everyone might study it in private, but also that it was “appointed to be read in churches”, often to those who could not read. It was taught in schools, it was the classic text, the words – the Word, indeed – which people needed to know.

This persisted until the 1960s, and, to a remarkable degree, it worked. Contrary to the claims of the modernists, you did not have to be clever to profit from the King James Version . . . In my own village school, where most of the pupils were the children of gypsum miners and labourers, we read and heard always the King James Version (and the collects from the Book of Common Prayer). No doubt we frequently did not understand it, but only a fool would claim to fully understand the Bible in any version. We benefitted from something that was seriously beautiful and beautifully serious.

All this changed, as it was bound to do. The 1960s saw the production of the New English Bible, which was intended to be relevant. Today, nobody reads it at all: it is – to adapt a King James phrase – perished as though it had never been. It failed, but it succeeded in dethroning the King James Version. Now there are many Bibles, but no known one - a Babel of Bibles, in fact."

1611 and 2011

Has any other Bible version been the subject of an early day motion in the House of Commons? And a debate(9 Dec 2009 : Column 97WH)? Or the subject of a BBC documentary?

See here for a secular national initiative to mark the anniversary of the AV but here for a more appropriate series of events.

the case for a contemporary bible in English

What makes a contemporary English Bible? It is widely presumed that this is an easy and straightforward question to answer: a contemporary version can only mean the Bible put into modern idiom. The great variety of modern idiom versions that exists, however, tells us that even this conclusion is not that uncomplicated since there is significant difference of opinion over what modern English idiom is. Does it for instance, include “gender neutral” terms? Kenneth Barker, secretary of the NIV Committee aimed to justify the 'gender-neutral' revision of that version in terms of “shifts in English idiom”.

Another problem is the common assumption that contemporary idiom means that “a modern Bible should aim not to tax its readers’ linguistic or interpretative abilities on bit. If this aim is to be achieved then it seems likely that a new Bible will have to be produced for every generation - each one probably moving us further away from the original text, now that the initial break has been made”. (Gerald Hammond). Indeed some publishers of the modern versions have estimated that translation will need to be revised in the light of modern language every 25-50 years.

There is yet another problem. What constitutes contemporary idiom? Where is it best found? Many modern versions have selected one contemporary idiom above all others and forced the Bible to speak in a journalistic voice. Billy Graham's high praise for the Good News Bible was that it read like the newspaper. Yet this a problem in that: "Unlike the modern newspaper, the Bible was never meant to yield the fullness of its message to those who are only willing to expend the absolute minimum of effort necessary” (Robert P. Martin).

From the perspective of language study this obsession with the journalistic voice is very strange since it is clear that different varieties of English exist in different situations. These are called registers and they vary according to the setting and purpose of the interaction, the relationship of those speaking together, and whether the language is spoken or written. Prof. WH Stevenson explains: ‘…at any given time, there is more than one “English” in use. The language of the corner shop is not the language of the most “popular” journalist, and the language of the pulpit, even with the most modern of preachers installed, is different from either’. What is ‘the language of today’ that we hear so much glib reference to in Bible version discussion? The very concept makes very little sense in this context. Instead of speaking of contemporary English we need to be more accurate and to define the register of the English language that is in question.

Definitions of contemporary idiom can be remarkably elastic and subjective. One of the principal translators of the New English Bible, Prof. Kenneth Grayston said: ‘Modern English, it seems to me, is slack instead of taut, verbose and not concise, infested with this month’s cliché…it seems to me a repository for the bad habits of foreigners speaking English. This is how we must speak if people are to listen and grasp what we say’. The translators of the New English Bible believed they were reproducing modern idiom, but in fact it was coloured by their ‘preponderantly Anglican’ and ‘Oxford’ background. The translators often found themselves proposing some ‘very 1930ish upper middle class English idiom’: the translation was made in the 1960s.

Dr Anthony H Nichols has researched problems in contemporary cross-cultural translation. In some versions Western principles and thought forms seem to dominate. This making the Scriptures to be Westernised rather than reflective of biblical language and culture. Dr. Nichols’ highly important research investigates the influence of dynamic equivalence in several Far Eastern translations. The results are alarming: “ what emerged was the immense influence of the GNB [Good News Bible] on three important no-western versions”. It was concluded that “the renderings of the more traditional ‘formal-correspondence’ Indonesian versions were regularly more culturally appropriate [in comparison with the dynamic equivalent versions]”.

What is more culturally appropriate in our own society may likewise be far different than the manufacturers of the modern versions assume. Like the “traditional” formally equivalent Far Eastern versions we believe that the Authorised Version is actually more culturally appropriate than its recent rivals. It is the most accurate and the faithfulness of the Authorised Version is the very thing that has contributed to its character of being perennially contemporary and appropriate. It is worth reflecting upon the fact that it was no more accessible to the large number of working class converts in the 1920’s and 1930’s who loved it, than it is to us.

The AV, contrary to much misleading prejudice, is ‘clearly a form of Modern English’ (WH Stevenson). Its language is still part of English as currently used, indeed the English Bible has shaped the language. Granted that it is an early form of modern English but it is clear that it is as removed from Medieval English (Chaucer and Wycliffe) as 20th century English. What is required in a translation is that it should be accurate and faithful and that it should be in English. The AV has not only shaped the English language as a whole, it is the most significant influence upon ‘religious English’, the register appropriate for worship.

God’s Word through the AV still maintains a place in our society.In fact it is more contemporary than the so-called contemporary English versions. This is because we must properly define the term “contemporary” in relation to accurately and faithfully rendering the Scriptures and presenting them adequately. There are broader dimensions to the position, place and influence that a translation of the Bible holds and should hold. Contrary to the popular fallacy that there is no present point of contact with the idiom of the AV, it is firmly embedded in everday speech, especially in our proverbialisms. A website which investigates the origin and meaning of proverbial sayings notes: 'What raises that version above other versions of the Bible in terms of its linguistic impact is the fact that the language used has persisted into the present-day. Many of the phrase used are still commonplace. Here are some of the many phrases that originated in the Bible...' (go here for the list, which is only a selection).

There is a Bible that contains the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer, and the 23rd Psalm as the man in the street knows them only. There is a Bible that carries a weight of authority and stirs a wealth of association for a significant proportion of our population. A Bible too exists that is quoted whenever the bible is quoted or alluded to, whether in popular books; academic seminars and conference papers; tabloids; broadsheets; and high, low, or middle-brow culture.

Think of a local church with a building that is situated prominently within a community, town, or village: a building with which all sections of the community are readily familiar and into which the majority have been at least once or so. Should that church abandon that building and commission plush, new premises right out in the middle of nowhere, remote from any houses whatsoever? The analogy with the Authorised Version and our community is very appropriate.

We are surely justified in concluding that rumours of the death of the Authorised Version have been greatly exaggerated and that it still deserves its justified title - The English Bible.

Why are the 10 Commandments addressed in the singular?

This is an important question. The original Hebrew is in the singular which is accurately reflected in the Authorised Version "Thou shalt not..." You is plural whereas Thou is singular. It does not say It does not say, "Do not kill" but "Thou shalt not kill".

Jewish writers and Rabbis have given many answers to this such as that they stood 'as one person of one heart', see here and here and here. For instance the first century AD Jewish writer Philo writes: "But why are the commandments formulated in the singular (Thou), when a multitude was present? Readers of the Holy Scriptures may learn from this that each individual who keeps the law and obeys God is as precious as the whole Nation, nay more, as the whole world. Another reason is that commands and prohibitions are more impressive if addressed to each individual in the audience." It highlights individual responsibility.

No doubt there is also something to be said for the fact that Israel is seen as the son of God, see here.

John Willison asks:
Q. Why doth this and the rest of the commands still run in the singular number, Thou, and not You?
A. Because God would have every man to notice the directions thereof as particularly as if they were spoken to himself by name.

It is "thou" not "ye," because each person is addressed separately as a distinct moral agent responsible to God for keeping the law. Willison also notes: "The Decalogue, or Ten Commandments, which were solemnly delivered to the people of Israel from Mount Sinai, do contain the moral law; being a fixed and perpetual rule of righteousness, which God hath given to be observed by all mankind, in all ages and periods, to the end of the world." The Larger Catechism reminds us:
"That the law is perfect, and bindeth every one to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience forever; so as to require the utmost perfection of every duty, and to forbid the least degree of every sin."

The puritan Thomas Watson answers our question:
"Because the commandment concerns every one, and God would have each one take it as spoken to him by name. Though we are forward to take privileges to ourselves, yet we are apt to shift off duties from ourselves to others; therefore the commandment is in the second person, Thou and Thou, that every one may know that it is spoken to him, as it were, by name." Some have said that we ought to put our own name as it were into the commandment in order to recognise our own responsibility.

James Ussher in his Body of Divinity answers the question as to why the commandments are addressed in the singular:
1. Because God being without partiality, speaketh to all men alike; as well the rich as poor, high as low.
2. Because no man should put the commandments of God from himself, as though they did not concern him: but every particular man should apply them to himself as well as if God had spoken to him by name. Whence we gather, that God wisely preventeth a common abuse amongst men: which is to esteem that which is spoken unto all men, to be (as it were) spoken to none. As you shall have it common amongst men to say and confess, that God is just and merciful, and that he commandeth this, and forbiddeth that: and yet they usually so behave themselves, that they shift the matter to the general, as if it did not belong unto them in particular; and as if they
notwithstanding might live as they list. And therefore every man is to judge and esteem that God speaketh in the law to him in particular; and is accordingly to be affected therewith.

We are addressed individually by God as sovereign. This is because as the puritan John Dod put it "self [is] our chief idol: So that every carnal man sets up himself, he does nothing but seek and serve himself and therefore is his own idol, and another god to himself".

There is also intimacy in the individual singular and personal address "thou". Thomas Boston shows that when we see the context of redemption in the Preface to the Ten Commandments we see the commandments in their correct light for the believer. "The ten commandments were not given to the Israelites as a covenant of works, but in the way of the covenant of grace, and under that covert. Ye saw it was Jesus the Mediator that spoke these, Heb. 12:24-26. Amongst all the reasons there is not one of terror; but the sweet savour of gospel-grace."

"All true obedience to the ten commandments now must run in the channel of the covenant of grace, being directed to God as our God in that covenant, Deut. 28:58. This is to fear that glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD. And so legal obedience is no obedience at all. This obedience is performed not for righteousness, but to testify our love to the Lord our Righteousness; not in our own strength, but in that of our Lord God and Redeemer; not to be accepted for its own worth, but for the sake of a Redeemer’s merits; not out of fear of hell, or hope to purchase heaven, but out of love and gratitude to him who has delivered us from hell, and purchased heaven and everlasting happiness for us."

"So far is the state of the saints from being a state of sinful liberty, that there are none so strongly bound to obedience as they, and that by the strongest of all bonds, those of love and gratitude, arising from the amazing and wonderful obedience and satisfaction which he has performed for them. So that the love of Christ will sweetly and powerfully constrain them to run the way of his commandments; for his commandments are not grievous, and in the keeping of them is a great reward. They will love him, because he has first loved them; and his love has flowed out to them in the crimson streams of their dear Redeemer’s blood, by which their sins are expiated, and their guilt atoned. And those to whom much is forgiven, will certainly love much."

"God might have required of us obedience by his mere will, without giving any other reason; and in that case, men had been bound to give it at their peril. But how much sweeter is the command, and agreeable what he demands, when he enforces the equirement he makes by such engaging motives, as that he is the Lord, a being possessed of all possible perfection, of every glorious attribute and excellency, the author of all other beings, and all the amiable qualities and attracting xcellencies of which they are possessed; that he is our God, related to us by a covenant, which he hath made with his own Son as our Surety and Saviour, and which is brought near to us in the gospel, that we may enter into the bond thereof, and the righteousness of which is brought near unto us, who are stout-hearted and far from righteousness, that we may accept thereof, and so be delivered from condemnation and wrath? How agreeable and ravishing is it to reflect, that he incites and prompts us to obedience, not by the authority of his absolute sovereignty over us, and undoubted propriety in us, but by the inviting and attracting consideration of the great deliverance he has wrought for us, of which the deliverance from the Egyptian bondage was a bright type!

Can we reflect on the great salvation wrought for us by Jesus Christ, by which we were saved from all the horrors of sin and hell, rescued from the power of Satan, and delivered from the present evil world, and the pollutions thereof; can we reflect on these great and glorious benefits, which afford astonishment to men and angels, and our hearts not glow with the warmest fire of love and gratitude to him who hath done such excellent things for us? Can we hesitate a moment to say, good is thy will, O God, just and holy are thy laws, and we will cheerfully obey what thou commandest us?"

We wonder why the modern versions see fit to obliterate the fact that we are personally and individually addressed in the commandments. They translate it as "you" and not "thou". Yet when we think that the Ten Commandments that were written by the finger of God and that He wrote in the singular what a fearful thing it is to alter this. The Lord also commanded Moses to keep the second set of Ten Commandments safe in the ark for a perpetual testimony (Deut 10:5). Does this not give particular reverence and care for God's written words? Why then have modern versions showed such contempt for this way in which God makes His sovereign will known?

There is in the Authorised Version a Bible that contains the Ten Commandments, the Lord’s Prayer and the 23rd Psalm as the man in the street knows them only. There is a Bible that carries a weight of authority and stirs a wealth of association for a significant proportion of our population. It is a Bible which alone addresses them as singular and as individuals in the way that God did at Mount Sinai.

John Rainolds and the AV Project

John Rainolds or Reynolds was the theologian who famously suggested a revision of the existing English translations to King James at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604.

Early life

Born in 1549 at Penhoe near Exeter, in Devon, he went up to Oxford University at the age of thirteen. He was made Fellow of Corpus Christi College in 1568, at the early age of seventeen. Of his five brothers, four others were fellows at Oxford University.

Conversion
Although he was later known as a prominent Puritan he actually began as an ardent Roman Catholic, and it is thought that he may have spent some time educated by Roman Catholics on the continent. It was at this period, in the late 1560s that Rainolds was converted together with his brother William. It was a time of controversy between Protestants and the Roman Catholics who were still prominent in the land. There was a famous debate at this time carried on between Thomas Harding and John Jewel. This may well have had some influence in turning both brothers away from the errors of Rome. It seems that both were brought to the truth and sought at the same time to bring each other to the same knowledge. Sadly, however, his brother William later returned to Romanism and in 1575 he made a public recantation at Rome. One of the professors at the English College in Rheims he was to be one of the translators of the Rheims New Testament of 1582 and a bitter opponent of Protestant theology in print.

Scholarship

In 1572, at age 23, Rainolds was appointed reader in Greek at Corpus Christi College. His public lectures on Aristotle's Rhetoric were held in particularly high regard and also remained very popular in their printed version. He resigned his lectureship however, and gave himself more to the study of theology. He was adept in theological debate and entered into the areas of dispute between Protestants and Romanism in significant depth. He studied the Scriptures in the original languages, and read all the Greek and Latin early fathers. It appears that he was gifted with a photographic memory since it was said that "his memory was little less than miraculous. He could readily turn to any material passage, in every leaf page, column and paragraph of the numerous and voluminous works he had read." He came to be known as "the very treasury of erudition" and was spoken of as "a living library and a third university".

He became the leader of the puritans at Oxford and proved to be a strong defender of Calvinism. In 1575 he led the case for disciplinary action against Francesco Pucci who publicly taught against various Calvinistic doctrines. The next year he protested against conferring a doctorate on Antonio del Corro because of heretical views in relation to predestination and justification by faith. It was at this time that Rainolds was ordained and quickly became a noted preacher

Rainolds entered into extended debate with John Hart who saw himself as a champion of Romish doctrine. The summary of the debate was published in 1584 as The summe of the conference betweene John Rainoldes and John Hart: touching the head and the faith of the church.


In 1586 Rainolds became a tutor at Queen's College. Rainolds lectured three times a week during term to large audiences: ‘never were any lectures in our memory so frequented as these in that university’, wrote Daniel Featley, ‘nor any in Cambridge, save those of Dr. [William] Whitaker’ (Abel redivivus, 2.226). The Jesuit Cardinal Bellarmine was another more widely-known individual who had set himself to refute Protestant teaching and published various books with this aim. While he publicly lectured against Protestantism in the Gregorian University there were those with connections to England who were recording what he delivered. It is said that the notes of his lectures against Protestantism were sent regularly to Rainolds from Rome who refuted them publicly. Rainolds refuted Bellarmine's attempt to make the Apocryphal books part of the Old Testament canon. The 250 lectures were not published during Rainolds's lifetime, but appeared in 1611 in two enormous quarto volumes under the title Censura librorurn apocryphorum veteris testamenti.

Dr. Bancroft, Archbishop Whitgift's chaplain, and his successor as Archbishop of Canterbury, maintained in a sermon, preached January 12th, 1588, that "bishops were a distinct order from priests and that they had a superiority over them by divine right, and directly from God." This was a startling doctrine to many at the time. Sir Francis Knollys, one of Queen Elizabeth's distinguished statesmen, remonstrated warmly with Whitgift against it. In a letter to Sir Francis, who had requested his opinion, Dr. Rainolds observes, "All who have labored in reforming the Church, for five hundred years, have taught that all pastors, whether they are entitled bishops or priests, have equal authority and power by God's word; as the Waldenses, next Marsilius Patavinus, then Wiclif and his scholars, afterwards Huss and the Hussites; and Luther, Calvin, Brentius, Bullinger, and Musculus. Among ourselves, we have bishops, the Queen's professors of divinity, and other learned men, as Bradford, Lambert, Jewell, Pilkington, Humphrey, Fulke, &c. But why do I speak of particular persons? It is the opinion of the Reformed Churches of Helvetia, Savoy, France, Scotland, Germany, Hungary, Poland, the Low Countries, and our own. I hope Dr. Bancroft will not say, that all these have approved that for sound doctrine, which was condemned by the general consent of the whole church as heresy, in the most flourishing time. I hope he will acknowledge that he was overseen, when he announced the superiority of bishops over the rest of the clergy to be God's own ordinance”.

Rainolds went on to say that "unto us Christians, no land is strange, no ground unholy; every coast is Jewry, every town Jerusalem, every house Sion; and every faithful company, yea, every faithful body, a temple to serve God in. The presence of Christ among two or three, gathered together in his name, maketh any place a church, even as the presence of a king with his attendants maketh any place a court."

(to be continued)

The Importance of An Approved Translation Of The Bible

The following article explains the Importance of An Approved Translation Of The Bible for any Church.

http://www.fpchurch.org.uk/Beliefs/AuthorisedVersion.php

adding to the Word of God

The Better Bibles Blog is not one that supports the Authorised Version but in an even-handed way it has commended its accuracy.

http://englishbibles.blogspot.com/2007/08/inserting-words-into-text.html

"Here are a few examples of where a word has been inserted into the English text of Bibles. Only the KJV doesn't do this. That is one thing you can be comfortable with in the KJV. And if words are added they now appear in italics."

The examples provided include 1 Cor. 2:1 "And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God." KJV

The TNIV has added the word "human".

And so it was with me, brothers and sisters. When I came to you, I did not come with eloquence or human wisdom as I proclaimed to you the testimony about God. TNIV

In 1 Cor. 1:7 modern versions add a word, this time the word "spiritual" to read spiritual gifts. So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ: KJV

In Romans 12:19 we read "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath" KJV
But even the NASB which is more literal than others adds the words "of God" to read "wrath of God".

Bible rankings

The CBA (Christian Booksellers Association) has released their March figures for sales of Bibles in their stores during January.
Their Bible sales ranked as:
1 King James Version
2 New International Version
3 New Century Version
4 New King James Version
5 New Living Translation
6 English Standard Version
7 Holman Christian Standard Bible
8 New American Standard Bible update
9 The Message Eugene Peterson
10 Reina Valera 1960 (Spanish)

What is most obvious from this is that the Authorised Version remains the bestseller in the USA. It also noteworthy that the ESV has not managed to supplant even the New King James or New Living Translation. It is also notable that the TNIV has dropped off the list for this particular month. It is sad, however, that The Message, which is a particularly bad and dangerous paraphrase should be in competition with translations, albeit that many of these have paraphrastic qualities themselves.

Translating the AV: John Bois' Notes

In the previous article on the life and labours of John Bois we followed him until his death in 1643. Before he died, however, he prepared his last will and testament in which he first bequeathed his soul 'unto the hands of almighty God, from whom I first received it, nothing doubting but that he will restore it unto me again at the general resurrection'. Bois also made clear instructions for the preservation of his papers, which recorded a lifetime of study in the languages of the Scriptures and amongst these were the notes of all the proceedings of the revision committee of the Authorised Version. Anthony Walker, who wrote the biography of John Bois, tells us that while the work of the revision was being done 'he [Bois], and he only took notes of their proceedings, which he diligently kept to his dying day'. These notes were lost from 1688 until 1964, when Professor Ward Allen located a handwritten copy among the papers of William Fulham, a seventeenth century antiquarian and collector, whose papers were in the Corpus Christi College Library at Oxford University.

In 1969 the notes were published and remain in print (Translating For King James: Notes Made by a Translator of King James's Bible, trans. and ed. by Ward Allen, Vanderbilt University Press, 156pp, pbk, $19.95 ISBN 0-8265-1246-1). They run to thirty-nine pages and are the only record of some of the deliberations and preferences of the translators, most especially the twelve members of the revision committees, covering the text from Romans to Revelation. (Ward Allen has also, together with Edward C. Jacobs, collated the scribal notes in a copy of the Bishops’ Bible used by the translators to record revisions for the Gospels, The Coming of the King James Gospels: A Collation of the Translators’ Work-in-Progress, University of Arkansas Press, 1995). Since Ward Allen published the notes another earlier copy has been discovered and has been compared with Allen’s copy by David Norton in 'John Bois’s Notes on the Revision of the King James Bible New Testament: A New Manuscript' (The Library, 1996, 18/4, pp.328-346). Norton comments that Bois’s notes, 'give a unique insight into the way the translators worked, and they show above all the translators’ sensitivity to the nuances of the Greek and the level of scholarship they brought to their work' (p. 328). The notes are crucial as a testimony to the piety, learning and scrupulous diligence of the translators in searching into the language and meaning of the Scriptures. In what follows there are a sample of passages in which the notes testify to this.

Carefulness
One way in which we see the endeavours of the translators to follow strict faithfulness to the letter of Scripture is in passages where there are various possible interpretations which are not resolved by the grammar of the Greek. In such instances the translators refused to impose a translation which would favour one single interpretation above other possibilities. In 1 Peter 1:7 we find the phrase 'that the trial of your faith...might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ'. The question of interpretation relates to the words 'unto praise' and who the praise would be directed to? Since it is 'your faith', should it also be 'your praise'? Or is the praise to God alone? As Ward Allen notes the Geneva and the Bishop's Bible had added extra words such as 'your' or 'to be unto you' in order to interpret the praise as accruing to the believer. The AV, however, followed Tyndale in translating the words simply as they are in the Greek without additions. John Bois records in his note the alternatives 'that is to say, praise of God, or your praise'. He believed that the grammar of the Greek gave no authority for making explicit either interpretation. This was not a desire for obscurity, however, but a refusal to impose interpretation in translation. In recognition of this, Bois adds 'We have not thought that the indefinite sense ought to be defined'. It should be noted in passing that at least the Geneva and Bishop's Bible translations indicated the extra words by brackets or italics whereas many modern translations (particularly those wedded to a paraphrasing 'thought for thought' mode of translation) simply decide upon what they think the writer means and then impose that interpretation in their own words.

Another question of interpretation arose in considering Hebrews 2:9 'we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour'. As Bois puts it 'it is uncertain whether the suffering of death should be considered as an argument of the humility of Christ , or as a cause of glory'. In other words should it read that Christ was crowned with glory and honour as a reward because of the suffering of death or should it read that Christ humbled himself by taking a human nature (made a little lower than the angels) in order that he should enter into the ultimate humiliation of the suffering of death? Both are truth, but which is the truth taught by the text? Simply rearranging the commas would render either possible. In part the interpretation centred on how the Greek word 'dia' (translated 'for' above) should be translated. As Bois shows, it can be rendered 'through', 'for' or 'for the sake of' or even 'by'. Those who favoured either could both appeal to Phil. 2:8-9 where both doctrines are set forth. The simple word 'for' was chosen ultimately and the translation favours the view that the suffering of death in this verse is more closely related to Christ's humiliation than his exaltation, nevertheless the margin gives the alternative possibility of translating 'dia' with the word 'by' which would tend to the other interpretation. This reveals the evenhandedness and carefulness of the translators. As the Preface says they 'sought the truth rather than their own praise'.

The translators used the margin to include what they termed 'diversity of signification and sense' and a close study of the notes shows how the the margin was used in order to supply a secondary or fuller meaning to the words translated in the text (e.g. Phil 2:20; 1 Tim1:6). In Hebrews 5:7 there is a difficult verse to render which speaks of the prayers offered by Christ in the days of his flesh, he was heard 'in that he feared'. Bois' notes reveal that there are two difficulties in these words. The Greek word 'eulabeian' in context could mean fear, reverence or piety. The Greek word 'apo' could mean from, after, out of, because of. The translation 'in that he feared' allows the interpretation that Christ was heard in the expression of his fears, so as to be saved from his fear or that he was heard because of his reverential Godward fear, which is reinforced by the marginal note 'or for his piety'. The New King James Version asserts without question and without alternative, 'because of his godly fear'. It may well be that this is the correct interpretation, but it is clear that the AV translators shrank from imposing it upon the text as the only possibility.

We ought also to note the carefulness of the translators to the literal sense of Scripture. Instead of rendering the thought they sought to render the words as far as possible. In relation Hebrews 13:3 'Remember...them which suffer adversity, as being yourselves also in the body' they noted that the idea behind the last clause was 'as being even men yourselves' and 'as even yourselves enduring adversity with them', but Bois notes that the most literal is 'as being yourselves also in a body' and it is the most literal that they chose. Again the most literal rendering does not narrow down the options of interpretation and is therefore a more careful and faithful way of dealing with the words of Scripture.

Knowledge of Greek
The notes that John Bois has left are also crucial because they show the fallacy of many modern assumptions about the 'limited' knowledge of Greek that they suppose the translators of the AV to have possessed. An interesting story of how the same mistake was made in the seventeenth century is often told about Dr Richard Kilbye who was Oxford Professor of Hebrew, and reckoned among the foremost Hebraists of his day. One Lord’s Day Dr Kilbye heard a young preacher spend most of his sermon criticising several words as they were translated in the then recent translation. The preacher painstakingly gave three reasons why the Greek word should not be translated as found in the AV. Later that evening both the preacher and Dr Kilbye were invited to a meal. Dr Kilbye began to explain that the translators were very much aware of the preacher’s three reasons and had given them careful consideration, but they had thirteen other reasons that were far more compelling for making the translation that they did.

Men still leap to such assumptions. Take for instance 2 Corinthians 2:17 'For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.' The Greek word translated 'corrupt' is the word 'kapeleuontes'. James R. White in The King James Only Controversy claims that 'if the KJV translators were alive today they would gladly admit that 'peddle' is a better translation than 'corrupt,' and would adopt it themselves.' (p.114). Edwin H. Palmer, who was the Executive Secretary of the NIV Committee on Bible Translation, regards 2 Corinthians 2:17 as an obscurity in the AV. (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth Barker, editor. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986], p.149). John Bois' note shows that the translators were in fact aware of the various shades of meaning present in the word kapelountes. 'v. 17. kapeleuontes] [being a retail dealer, playing tricks, corrupting] i.e. notheuonetes [adultering]. kapelos is derived apo tou kallunein ton pelon [from glossing over lees] by corrupting and adultering wine.' (p. 51).

It was commonplace for wine merchants to water down their wine, mixing it with new harsh wine in order to pass the product off as vintage quality which would be more expensive (see New Testament Metaphors, Anthony Byatt, Pentland Press, 1995, pp.259-60). Thus the word 'kapeleuontes', as Bois rightly notes, has a double meaning of deceitful adulterating and cheating. The most important notion is not the profit made from the adulteration but the corruption itself. One can peddle the word for profit without necessarily seeking to adulterate it. Thus the AV translation is to be preferred over against that of the NIV and NKJV. The translation 'corrupt' is also borne out by the word 'sincerity' (Greek 'eilikrines') used later in the verse which is a word that literally signifies freedom from impurities or complete purity, something that has been held up to the light to confirm its purity. The English word sincere had an original meaning of pure and unmixed.

Various lexicons show that while the word can mean a peddler or retailer it was also used to refer to one who sells with deceit, a corrupter. According to Bauer's Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament And Other Early Christian Literature, p.403 the word came to mean 'to adulterate'. Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon Of The New Testament, [Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1977 edition], pp.324-325) states, 'But as peddlers were in the habit of adulterating their commodities for the sake of gain . . . (the word) was also used as synonymous with 'to corrupt, to adulterate.' Kittle's Theological Dictionary Of The New Testament notes that it has the meaning 'to falsify the word (as the 'kapelos' purchases pure wine and then adulterates it with water) by making additions...This refers to the false Gospel of the Judaizers.' (Vol. III., p. 605).The early Church Fathers understood the verse to refer to those who corrupt God's word. Athanasius wrote: 'Let them therefore be anathema to you, because they have, 'corrupted the word of truth.' (Defence Against the Arians, III:49.) Gregory-Nazianzus alludes to 2 Corinthians 2:17 using the word 'corrupt:' 'And who is sufficient for these things? For we are not as the many, able to corrupt the word of truth, and mix the wine, which maketh glad the heart of man, with water, mix, that is, our doctrine with what is common and cheap, and debased, and stale, and tasteless, in order to turn the adulteration...' (In Defence Of His Flight To Pontus, II:46)

In places the knowledge of Greek and its wider usage possessed by the translators is certainly illuminating. The note for 1 Peter 5:5 shows that the word that the apostle uses to exhort Christians to 'clothe' themselves with humility relates to a white outer garment worn by slaves which identified them as such. Ward Allen notes that previous translations had all understood the requirement to be an inward ornamentation with humility whereas in the light of this knowledge of the word and the context the AV shows that it relates very much to our outward conduct and testimony.

Doctrine
Bois' notes tell us much more about the translators, however, than their linguistic erudition. Bois often interprets and comments on certain passages in his notes showing a perceptive grasp of vital doctrine. For instance in relation to justification by faith alone Bois comments on Romans 3:25-26 'to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus'. Bois shows how God's justice and mercy are both perfectly fulfilled in justification, and that the meaning of the verse is that 'the justice of God stands whole, whether we contemplate sins having been pardoned, or indeed to be pardoned, and which are now pardoned'. 'Scarcely another place is to be found more apt to this point, so that there is exhibited how well the justice of God joins with His mercy: He is dikaios [righteous], i.e. at the same time just; and nevertheless dikaioei [He justifies], i.e. He justifies the sinner, i.e. He is merciful in the highest degree'.

There are also useful reflections upon passages that are difficult doctrinally. Commenting on Hebrews 12:15 'Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God' Bois says that these 'words seem to be said to those specifically, to whom the care has been assigned of ecamining the habits and life of others, that none through negligence be deprived of, etc. or that none absent them selves from the grace of God. by charitos tou Theou [the grace of God] I understand the public proclamation of the Gospel'. In other words Bois does not interpret these words in an Arminian way, that is is possible to fall from saving grace but that it is dangerous to forsake the means of grace and the word of God's grace negligently as in Hebrews 10:25.
In relation to Hebrews 12:17, Bois gives his understanding of the difficulty in relation to Esau not being able to find any place for repentance, though he sought it diligently with tears. It is not to be understood that someone such as Esau can forego repentance though they earnestly desire it rather 'he could not bend the mind of his father, or persuade him, so that having altered his determination he would recall and rescind the blessing with which he had blessed Jacob'. The margin of the AV confirms this with the explanation 'or way to change his mind'

Piety
At times, Bois cannot resist commenting in such a way on the text that he not only explains but applies its truth. There is the delightful aside on the words 'there is none occasion of stumbling in him' 1 John 2:10 - 'the placid course of him who remains in the light'. He notes solemnly upon James 1:15 which describes the progress of sin: 'Suggestion, Delight, Agreement, Act, the four steps of sin'. He is also practical in his comments, such as on Romans 12:10 'In honour preferring one another', which is elucidated as, 'let each one of you strive to prevail in giving honour to another'. On Ephesians 6:4, he notes as an experienced father notes 'it falls out from too great austerity that children are angry with their parents, and bear their authority reluctantly and impatiently. In relation to Romans 14:5 'Let every man be persuaded in his own mind', the note reads 'let each one acquire for himself true knowledge from the word of God, so that without doubt be may perceive what the will of God is'. Such comments show that this was not a scientific and detached enterprise for the translators but a humble and devout search after the truth with a real endeavour after the practical outworking of it.

These notes resolve some but not all questions of interest in relation to the reasons for the translation of certain words and passages in the AV. This brief book provides interest to those who wish to know more about the translators and the translation of the AV but also gives genuine insight into the Scriptures, and so may be of use in reference for ministers and students of the Bible. We should remember the translators not simply for their eminent scholarship but also for their piety, 'in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of their own knowledge, or of their sharpness of it, or deepness of judgment, as it were in an arm of flesh? At no hand. They trusted in him that hath the key of David, opening and no man shutting; they prayed to the Lord'. The translators were conscious of their indebtedness to the help of God in their studies, acknowledging that it was 'through the good hand of the Lord upon us' that they succeeded in their work. As one of the 'poor instruments to make God's Holy Truth to be yet more and more known', we are indebted to John Bois for having preserved a small portion of the labours that were required for so great a work.

John Bois and the translation of the AV

The translators of the Authorised Version were certainly the most learned of their age (perhaps of any age) in the Biblical languages . John Bois (not to be confused with John Boys, Dean of Canterbury from 1619-1625) was one of the most distinguished scholars of all the eminent translators and revisers of the Authorised Version. He was a brilliant classics scholar, proficient in both Hebrew and Greek, Fellow at St. John's College, Cambridge and chaired the translation committee of six scholars who delivered the final copy of the Authorised Version in 1611.

A Godly Home
He was born in Nettlestead, Suffolk on 3 January, 1560. His father William Bois, had been taught by Martin Bucer when he was professor of divinity at Cambridge and had converted from Romanism. He went to live in Hadley, Suffolk which was at that time renowned for its godliness and as Foxe notes in his Book of Martyrs it was 'one of the first which received the purity of the gospel', 'the whole town seemed rather a university of the learned, than a town of cloth-making or labouring people'. William Bois married Mirable Poolye a godly woman who, according to one of her children, had read the Bible through over twelve times, the Book of Martyrs twice, besides many other books. She appears to have counselled her husband wisely while he wrestled over a call to the ministry, saying 'he was in the wrong way whilst he forbore'. He became curate and then rector at Elmesett near Hadley and later West Stow about four miles from Bury St Edmunds.

John was their only child that survived childhood, and he was carefully and thoroughly taught by his father in the truth as well as to a very high academic standard. At the age of only five years old, he had read the Bible in Hebrew. By the age of six, it seems that he could also write in Hebrew in such a legible and attractive script that would have been remarkable if he had 'been as old in the university as he was in nature'. (It should be noted that Hebrew is an exceptionally difficult language to write). He attended school at Hadley, where he was a fellow-student with John Overall later dean of St Paul's, Bishop of Norwich and translator of the Authorised Version who was well known for his skill in Latin and the biblical languages and his comprehensive knowledge of the Church Fathers. From this period in his life, John Bois was grounded in the practice of meditating in the Scripures in the morning and evening.

A Diligent Scholar
Bois went up to Cambridge University and was admitted to St. John’s College in 1575 at the age of fourteen, an amazing accomplishment in those days when students were considered precocious if they went to university before 21 or 22 years old. Dr. Andrew Downes, who was the king's professor of Greek and the chief university lecturer in that subject, paid particular attention to Bois, even in his first year, by giving him personal tuition. They read together twelve of the most difficult Classical Greek authors, in poetry verse and prose, 'the hardest that could be found, both for dialect and phrase'. Downes was later to be one of the most significant translators and revisers on the translation team that prepared the Authorised Version. He was professor of Greek in Cambridge from 1585 to 1625 and published lectures on classical authors throughout this time. He was spoken of as 'one composed of Greek and industry.'

Bois had been at the College for only half a year when he was writing letters in Greek to the Master and Senior Fellows. This is significant because scholars usually find it challenging enough to translate from Greek into English without actually composing freely in that language. Bois was so diligent in the language that during the summer he usually went to the University Library at four a.m. to read and study remaining without interruption until eight o'clock in the evening, a total of sixteen hours a day!

In 1580, Bois was elected Fellow of St John's College, and for ten years, he was Greek lecturer in his college and gave additional lectures in his own chamber at four o’clock in the morning, when most of the Fellows and lecturers also attended. One of the most famous pupils taught in this way was Thomas Gataker - an eminent Hebrew, Latin and Greek scholar and later to be a member of the Westminster Assembly. Gataker carefully preserved the notes that he had taken at these lectures, and years after when visited by Bois he showed them to him. Bois was overjoyed at the profit that had been derived from the lectures, saying that it made him feel many years younger.

It is clear that the period in which Bois was at his prime was marked by great scholarship and expertise in the biblical languages. Many scholarly editions of classical works, translations, lexicons, grammars and dictionaries were published by laymen and ministers during this period. Men such as Archbishop Ussher displayed expert knowledge of Greek geography, astronomy and Greek chronological material. Ussher wrote a treatise on the origin of the Greek Septuagint and edited two ancient Greek translations of the Book of Esther. Jeremiah Whitaker, of Oakham free school, read all the epistles in the Greek Testament twice every fortnight. John Conant, regius professor of divinity in Oxford, often debated publicly in Greek. The zenith of this scholarship was witnessed in the gathering of the translators of the Authorised Version. According to The Cambridge History of English and American Literature (1907-21) Volume VII, the most eminent Greek scholars of the day were engaged in this project.

Calling to the ministry
Bois began to study medicine but was called to the holy ministry and was first of all ordained a deacon, on 21 June, 1583, and the very next day, by a dispensation, he was ordained minister. At the death of his father, Bois followed as rector of West Stowe, but shortly after resigned, and went back to St John's College, after which he was briefly chaplain to the Earl of Shrewsbury. His marriage was rather curiously contrived when Mr. Holt, Rector of Boxworth, died, 'leaving the advowson of that living in part of a portion to one of his daughters; requesting of some of his friends, that “if it might be by them procured, Mr. Bois, of St.John’s College, might become his successor by the marriage of his daughter.”' When Bois was told, he went to meet the lady in question, and it seems that they became genuinely attached to one another and he became rector of the Boxworth on October 13, 1596.

As a consequence of marrying, Bois had to resign the fellowship at St. John’s. Still, however, he rode from Boxworth over to Cambridge every week in order to hear some of the lectures of Andrew Downes together with those of the king's professor of Hebrew Edward Lively (later translator on the AV project, regarded as 'one of the best linguists in the world' and the author of a Latin exposition of five of the Minor Prophets), as well as the other divinity lectures. He lost none of the time that he spent in riding in that he meditated on certain theological questions that he could discuss with his friends at the college. Every Friday he met for dinner with a group of twelve neighboring ministers in order to relate the studies that they had been engaged in over the week and to discuss and resolve difficult questions for their mutual benefit. Bois also paid a young scholar to teach his own children and other children of the town, both poor and wealthy. The domestic affairs of the rectory were left to his wife who found great difficulty in her task and managed to incur such serious debts that he was forced to sell his library, 'which contained one of the most complete and costly collections of Greek literature that had ever been made'.

Translating and revising
When the translators for the Authorised Version were gathered together, Bois was enlisted along with Andrew Downes amongst the many scholars assembled. Both men were engaged in Company Six, the Cambridge group, which translated all the books of the Apocrypha. It should be noted that the Church of England and the translators were in no way giving any veneration to the Apocryphal books. The Thirty-Nine Articles reject the Roman Catholic position of adding them to the Old Testament as canonical. 'And the other books (as Jerome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine'. They are in no way the inspired Word of God: the only value of these books is in providing historical background to biblical times and history. None of the Apocryphal books are in Hebrew in contrast to all of the canonical Old Testament. None of the writers claim inspiration and it is clear that the spirit of prophecy was withdrawn in the period between the Old and New Testaments in any case. They were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, to whom were committed the oracles of God (Rom 3:2) and are not cited in the New Testament. Consequently, the Early Church gave them no place in the canon.

Some of their content is plainly legendary. There are also statements in these books which contradict not only the canonical Scripture but themselves: for instance in the two books of Maccabees Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in various places. Various unbiblical doctrines are taught such as prayers for the dead, salvation by works and sinless perfection, they also encourage lying, suicide and magic. The translators showed that they did not regard it as inspired Scripture in the time (a mere few months rather than years) that they took to complete the task. The translators also made a clear distinction between the Old Testament and 'the books called Apocrypha' (as they distinguished them on the contents page) by stating at the end of Malachi 'The end of the prophets'. The books that follow are clearly marked as the Apocrypha, indeed each page notes at the top that it is the Apocrypha rather than Scripture. These books conclude with the rubric 'The End Of The Apocrypha'.

The other Cambridge company, who were translating Chronicles to the Song of Solomon, earnestly desired the assistance of Bois in their translation from the Hebrew. Professor Lively, who had been overseeing the project, died not long after it had begun. During these four years Bois spent Monday to Saturday on translation work and returned to conduct the Sabbath services and to spend the day with his family. His dedication to the work of translation was evidenced in the fact that he received no financial remuneration for this work, except meals and accommodation in College.

After the first stage, he was one of the twelve delegates who were sent (two from each company), to make the final revision at the Stationers’ Hall, in London, which took nine months in all. Bois took notes of all the proceedings of this committee, they were discovered recently and have been reprinted. The notes run to thirty-nine pages and are the only record of some of the deliberations and preferences of the translators. It is a record of the sheer diligence of the translators, comparing, discussing and consulting authorities. The Preface to the Translation explains this work of revision. '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 the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see'.

Later life
Bois gave great help to his fellow-translator, Sir Henry Savile, in his publication of the complete works of the Early Church father,John Chrysostom (347-407 A.D.), which extended to eight large folios. Sir Henry refers to Bois, in the Preface, as the 'most ingenious and most learned Mr. Bois'. Bois regarded Chrysostom as 'one of the sweetest preachers since the apostles' times'. Savile, who was Provost of Eton College, had been employed in the New Testament Oxford company of translators and was a brilliant Greek scholar from an early age, well known for his Greek and mathematical learning. He was so well known for his education and skill in languages, that he became Greek and mathematical tutor to Queen Elizabeth during the reign of her father, Henry VIII. He translated and published many learned works in English and Latin, and was referred to as 'that magazine of learning, whose memory shall be honorable among the learned and the righteous forever' and 'one of the most profound, exact, and critical scholars of his age'
Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Ely and fellow translator made Bois a Prebendary of Ely Cathedral, in 1615. He spent the last twenty-eight years of his life in this capacity, where he attended church twice or three times a day. At his death, Bois left as many pages of manuscript as he had lived days, having lived eighty-three years and eleven days this was a total of 30,306 days. Even in his old age, he spent eight hours in daily study and produced a large commentary in Latin on the Gospels and Acts (with the intention of covering the whole New Testament) which was published some twelve years after his death. Yet despite being so studious, he would not study between supper and bed-time; but preferred to spend the interval in conversation with friends. He had the entire Greek New Testament committed to memory and was so familiar with it that he could, at any time, turn to any word that it contained. He was a very careful linguist who had read no less than sixty grammars in the Latin, Greek, Hebrew and Syriac languages. It was also said of him that he was 'in highest esteem with studious foreigners, and second to none in solid attainments in the Greek tongue'. The Dictionary of National Biography notes that Bois was an able textual scholar, pointing out that one of Bois's works 'consists of brief critical notes on words and passages of the Greek text, in which the renderings of the Vulgate are in the main defended'. It is likely that these 'renderings' are the Received Text readings which are testified to by the Latin translations.

Piety
Despite his learning, when he was in the pulpit, Bois sought to be easily understood by the most uneducated of his hearers. He compared those of weak ability to the young and tender of the flock who should not be overdriven (Gen 33:13). He preached without notes, having well prepared himself with much prayer and study. His desire was that he might live no longer than he was able to preach or be a minister. He was also diligent in hearing sermons himself, always keeping a note of the preacher and his text. Frequently, he fasted twice in the week and was so generous to the poor that he often left himself with very little; he seldom went to church without giving something to the poor by his return. He was regular in family worship, always kneeling on the bare bricks. He made frequent approach to the throne of grace, often praying while he walked. He was a frequent walker in fact, and in his journeys he sought to enter into profitable conversation with those that he travelled with, but if the company was not desirable he preferred to take out a book and read while he walked. The Holy Scriptures were in such reverence with him that he would always uncover his head in hearing them read or in reading them himself. His dependence upon divine assistance in his labours was always acknowledged and he would often finish a hard piece of study with the Latin words of praise to God 'Deo Sit Laus'.

The end of a diligent life
In later days Bois often meditated solemnly upon Samuel's words 'I am this day fourscore years old, and can I discern between good and evil?' (2 Sam 19:35) as well as the wisdom of Moses in Psalm 90:10. At the end of his days he was in health like Moses whose 'eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated' (Deut 34:7). 'His brow was unwrinkled, his sight clear, his hearing sharp, his countenance fresh, with a full head of hair and a full set of teeth'.

Having witnessed three of his seven children die young, together with the death of his wife, he said solemnly, near the end of his life that 'There has not been a day for these many years, in which I have not meditated at least once upon my death'. In his last illness he was so concerned that he might express himself unwisely under affliction that he asked his children that they should tell him if at any time, he expressed any thing which seemed to express impatience with his condition. He desired much time for devotion in solitude, often painfully conscious of his remaining sin. Bois departed this life on the Lord’s Day, 14 January, 1643, in the eighty-fourth year of his age. 'He went unto his rest on the day of rest; a man of peace, to the God of peace'.

the scholarship of the AV translators

Prof. Kenneth Grayston, one of the translators of the New English Bible once remarked that “the Authorised Version was a translation made by men who knew far less than we know”. Quantity of knowledge undoubtedly does not equal quality or depth of knowledge and the ability to use it. Grayston’s prejudice is highly questionable in fact, as Theodore Letis indicates: “...in the seventeenth century, scholarship had reached no mean attainment. Lancelot Andrews, one of the translators (at home in fifteen modern languages, not to mention his command of Latin, Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic), spent the greater part of five hours a day in prayer. John Bois, another on the translating committee, spent sixteen hours a day studying Greek...All spare time for these men was consumed with learning”.

Miles Smith, one of the translators and the probable author of the preface “the Translators to the Reader”, was especially expert in Hebrew. One day he was requested in promptu to read the Scriptures as part of evening prayer at Hereford Cathedral, “and having with him a little Hebrew Bible...of Plantin’s impression, sine punctis; [without vowel points] he delivered the chapter thence in the English tongue plainly, and fully”. This would certainly be one way of testing the “superiority” of modern scholars. We need to be a lot better informed before we begin to declaim confidently against the alleged inaccuracies and inconsistencies of the AV.
Theodore Letis relates an account from the life of one of the AV translators Dr Kilbye, that shows that the criticisms directed against the AV are nothing new. 'One Lord’s Day Dr Kilbye heard a young preacher spend most of his sermon criticising several words as they were translated in the then recent translation. The preacher painstakingly gave three reasons why the Greek word should not be translated as found in the AV. Later that evening both the preacher and Dr Kilbye were invited to a meal. Dr Kilbye began to explain that the translators were very much aware of the preacher’s three reasons and had given them careful consideration, but they had thirteen other reasons that were far more compelling for making the translation that they did.' While many assume that the AV translators were limited in their knowledge they should at least acquaint themselves with the reasons for the word choices of the AV before thinking that they can improve.

The translators of the Authorised Version were certainly the most learned of their age (perhaps of any age) in the Biblical languages . This was according to King James' desire: 'I wish some special pains were taken for an uniform translation, which should be done by the best learned men in both Universities'. Others equally learned elsewhere were also to be brought into the group so that the 'intended translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned men within this our kingdom'. The result was to be 'as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek'.

In their Preface to the translation, the translators themselves were modest about their abilities, considering themselves 'poor instruments to make God s holy truth to be yet more and more known unto the people' and felt that 'there were many chosen, that were greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise.'
They spoke of the Scriptures as 'that inestimable treasure which excelleth all the riches of the earth', 'a fountain of most pure water, springing up into everlasting life.' They believed that 'the original (Scriptures were) from heaven, not earth; the author being God, not men; the penmen, such as were sanctified from the womb and endued with a principal portion of God's Spirit.' They referred to the Bible as 'God's Word,' 'Gods Truth,' 'God's testimony,' 'the Word of salvation', 'so full and so perfect'.

How did they esteem the Scriptures? To study the Scriptures brought 'light of understanding, stableness of persuasion, repentance from dead works, newness of life, holiness, peace, joy in the Holy Ghost, fellowship with the saints, participation of the heavenly nature, fruition of an inheritance immortal, undefiled, and that shall never fade away.' 'Among all our joys, there was not one that more filled our hearts, than the blessed continuance of the preaching of Gods sacred Word among us.'

In their address to the reader the translators conclude: 'We commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of His grace. He removeth the scales from our eyes, the veil from our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand His Word, enlarging our hearts, yea correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, yea that we may love it to the end. Ye are brought unto fountains of living water which ye digged not. Others have labored, and you may enter into their labors; O receive not so great things in vain, O despise not so great salvation! It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God; but a blessed thing it is, and will bring us to everlasting blessedness in the end, when God speaketh unto us, to hearken; when He setteth His Word before us, to read it; when He stretcheth out His hand and calleth, to answer, Here am I, here we are to do thy will O God.'

One of the frequent charges against the AV is that is supposedly inconsistent in its choice of words, not translating the same Greek or Hebrew term always by the same word in English. It was in fact clear to the translators that this would be thrown back at them, that they might “be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English words”. The translators freely admitted that “we have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe that some learned men somewhere have been as exact as they could that way”. They were not cavalier in their choice of words, however, but “especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty” to compare the ways that they rendered the terms in respective passages. Their varying choice of words was not carelessness or mistake, in fact they justified it by appeal to the way in which Scripture was written. They concluded that “we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore He using divers words in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature, we, if we will not be superstitious, may use that same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us”.

By virtue of their fluency in Hebrew, Greek and the other languages and close acquaintance with them almost as spoken languages, the translators were intimate with them as living and flexible. In spoken English for instance, we use many words without being in any sense aware of their etymology. Calvin insisted that “usage rather than etymology or intrinsic meaning” “distinguishes one word from another”. Modern translators with their “scientific” assumptions are tied pedantically to their lexicons. As Martin Buber comments it is “almost as if [the translator] had learned the supposed meanings of the word from a dictionary”. Gerald Hammond speaks of the “creative inferiority of the modern translators” in comparison with the old divines, they “do not see that the life of anything written lies in its words and syntax”.
We know that the translators of the AV were so aware of the concrete vitality of the original that instead of transferring their choices from dictionaries they preserved ambiguities where they discerned them in the text. John Bois, a translator of the AV recorded in his notes that he and his committee had been careful to preserve ambiguities in the original text. For modern translators ambiguity is unconscionable, it must be replaced even if it is in the Hebrew or Greek.
The translators in 1611 used the margin to include “diversity of signification and sense”. This provided possible alternatives or more woodenly literal phrasing in order to assist the reader, and of course all words that the translators added in order to enhance the meaning were italicised. It was assumed that part of the responsibility of exposition was to expand upon the meaning of the text, so that there was no need for the absurdity of an “Amplified Version”. The assumption also obtained that interpretation by the individual Christian would be in connection and harmony with preaching and other helps to understanding, this was what the Westminster divines later called “the ordinary means”. The translators of the AV put their scholarship into producing a translation which was as accurate as possible rather than interpreting the text for the reader. The “Authorised Version has the kind of transparency which makes it possible for the reader to see the original more clearly. It lacks the narrow interpretative bias of modern versions, and is the stronger for it”. The latter versions decide for the reader what a verse means and inscribe their own interpretation in the biblical text during the process of “translation” to the exclusion of all other available possibilities. In the modern versions the translator stands between the reader and the original, but “through its transparency the reader of the Authorised Version not only sees the original but learns how to read it” (Gerald Hammond).