The Roman Catholics argued against the King James Bible, saying that if the Bible was already given in English, why would they need to go again to correct it? If Tyndale or Geneva or whatever, why another new one?
And so it was to these that the translators (by the pen of Miles Smith) answered: “That we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God”. He is talking about “our” works, meaning Protestant, saying that he had not seen theirs yet, meaning the Catholic Douay Old Testament (which appeared around the same time as the KJB did).
When he said “the very meanest”, he was referring generally to any historical Protestant English translation about which that accusation was made. He most certainly was not referring to modern versions. Yet this is what anti-KJB people read into it. How could the 1611 translators be said to be allowing modern versions when modern versions did not exist? Especially since that modern versions deny the Protestant tradition (the Textus Receptus), and embrace something of the Catholic, the very enemies of the 1611 translators!
When Smith wrote that such an English Version is the Word of God, this is quite correct. The Vulgate can be said to contain the Word of God. But because the King James Bible was designed to, and in reality did, supersede other English versions, and that now that English is the global language, we very well can hold to one Bible for the world, not because other versions were not Bibles, but because one Bible translation is superior to all. Providence has long worked and revealed one exact, extant form of the Word, which is superior to any single manuscript or printed edition of the original languages, and is supersucessionary to any Bible in the whole world. This is based on the principle of scattering and gathering, a process which God providentially used the King James Bible translators to finalise. Thus, while any old manuscript from the Traditional Text Family, or any Textus Receptus edition, or any Reformation English or foreign translation may be accepted and called “The Word of God” (or constituting some part thereof), non can be produced which is final in manifest form that is perfect in Canon, Version-Text and Translation altogether in one extant volume. Only the King James Bible can be so (which has lately been published without even so much as typographical errors).
Therefore, in all the time when there were improvements in English Bibles (the gathering process, and the refining process), it is true that “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word”. Again, that any should not be “forbidden to be current”. Yet, we know that because of the succession, eventually later better versions superseded the former, and eventually by various factors under the Providence of God, the King James Bible alone became current, as it should be this day.
Moreover, “some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it”, that is, any one of the Early Protestant English Versions. But as far and text and translation, this was all improved, and finalised with the King James Bible. It would be incorrect to argue that the King James Bible also had “imperfections and blemishes” in its text and translation, for Smith was speaking only of the former translations, which they were avowedly doing, saying elsewhere that “the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place”, and again, in the Dedication, “of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue”. Thus, they knew that the King James Bible was the truth, exactly correct and final.
|