 |
Barnes in Commonthe magazine of Churches Together in BarnesWinter2011
|
|
|
|
THE ENGLISH BIBLE 1611-2011 The
Authorised or King James Version of the Bible has for four centuries
been accepted by most English-speaking people as their familiar
translation. The first complete translation into English was made in
the fourteenth century, attributed to John Wycliffe though probably by
some of his followers, ‘Lollards’, whose work was condemned by the
Church. The acceptable version in western Christendom was the Vulgate,
the Latin translation made by St Jerome in the fourth century. The
Reformation which began early in the sixteenth century changed the
situation, with many translations into vernacular languages. The
Reformers appealed to the Bible as the sole source of doctrine, and
encouraged its private as well as public reading. The new translations
were mainly taken from the original Hebrew and Greek, stimulated by
Renaissance scholarship and new editions like the Greek New Testament
of Erasmus. Many of them helped to develop the written form of European
languages, notably Martin Luther’s German translation. The recent
invention of printing enabled wide circulation and private possession
of the Bible.William Tyndale produced the first English New Testament from the Greek, which became the strongest single influence on the Authorised Version. To escape official opposition he fled to Germany in 1524; and there translated the Pentateuch and some other Old Testament books. The beginning of the English Reformation changed the situation, and in 1534 the Convocation of Canterbury petitioned for a complete Bible in English. This was published in 1535, the work of Miles Coverdale, based on Tyndale with Coverdale’s own work. After some revision, the Great Bible appeared in1539 and was ordered to be set up in churches. Early in the reign of Elizabeth I, Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, and other bishops revised the Great Bible as the Bishops’ Bible. This was the immediate ancestor of the Authorised Version, but it was not the only English translation of the period. The Geneva Bible was made by Protestant exiles, based on the Great Bible but influenced by Calvin, with some polemical marginal notes. The Roman Catholic response to the new translations was the Douai Bible translated by members of the English College at Douai. Both of these were studied by the Authorised Version translators in a spirit of true scholarship despite differences of doctrinal interpretation. In 1604 James I, the new king of England, was being pressed by the more extreme Protestant members of the Church for changes in the Book of Common Prayer and church government. Seeking agreement, he convened a conference of bishops and leading Puritans at Hampton Court. Few concessions were made about the Prayer Book, but John Reynolds, the Dean of Lincoln, proposed a new Bible translation. An elaborate co-operative mechanism was put in place. Committees of a total of fifty-four translators met in six companies, in Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster. Lancelot Andrewes, Bishop of Winchester, whose tomb is in Southwark Cathedral, was prominent among them. They included the greatest scholars in the biblical languages. They were instructed to keep close to the Bishops’ Bible, revising rather than innovating wherever possible. The companies worked separately on certain portions of the Bible, with extra advisers for difficult questions. Marginal cross-references gave the literal meanings when some paraphrase was necessary, and possible alternative meanings of a word or phrase. The title page read ’With the former translations diligently compared and revised by His Majesty’s special command’. There were page-headings, some of which, like the Prodigal Son and the Good Samaritan, have passed into the language, although they do not occur in the text. The first edition was made in 1611 by Robert Barker, the royal printer. It was folio size, in double column black-letter type, with roman for words not in the original languages. These last appear in later printings as italics, not meant for emphasis, as unwary readers aloud have sometimes supposed.. What we have today is not a replica of the first edition. There have been many emendations and corrections through the period when there were no copy editors as we know them, and proofs were read by the printers themselves. The gradual development of modern spelling is seen in successive editions. Our bibles today are generally based on an edition printed at Oxford in 1769. The translators produced a magnificent piece of work, though one not always perfect by later criteria. Their contemporary ideas of authorship attributed the Pentateuch to Moses, and the Epistle to the Hebrews to St Paul. Readings of more recently acquired manuscripts would give Joseph a coat with sleeves rather than of many colours, and make Jesus say that we cannot add to the span of our lives, not to our height, by worrying. These and others are minor blemishes, which encourage us to consult other versions in our bible study without losing our love for the old. The English of the translation was already formal in 1611, not conversational though not archaic. For example, the distinction between ‘ye’ and ‘you’: ‘ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you’, was going, but its retention gives a strong sense of the subject and object of verbs. There is no use of ‘its’, newly developing and not found in Shakespeare’s plays printed before 1616, ‘his’ or ‘of it’ being used. The ending ‘-eth’ for verbs was being replaced by ‘s’:‘ I say unto one, Go and he goeth and to another, Come and he cometh’. Is this a weakness or a strength for the modern reader? The language of this version, together with that of the Book of Common Prayer, has developed a distinctive religious style for English, evoking a response of worship, familiar in many hymns and prayers, free from the continual changes which occur in all languages. It does not invalidate new translations, but it gives a stable basis on which the expression of our faith can rest. There is virtue in a style linked to the history of English Christianity, used in shared worship, and known by generations of believers. 
The language was the foundation of a literary style which has been long
admired for its power and beauty. The art of English prose was
developing at this time, and the new translation was influential in its
formation. It combined the natural rhythms of English with some of the
features of the original languages, such as the parallelism of Hebrew
poetry seen in the Psalms and Proverbs: ‘Hear my cry, O God: attend
unto my prayer’ (Psalm 61.1 ). 'Lying lips are an abomination to
the Lord: but they that deal truly are his delight' (Proverbs 12. 22).
Most readers will have their favourite passages, memorable for their
force and elegance as well as their message. Here are a few to remind
us: 2 Samuel 2. 19-27; Isaiah 40. 1-5;
Lamentations 3. 22-24; Matthew 23. 37; Romans 8. 35-39The influence on our literature has been great and continuous. The prose of Bunyan and Milton shows how strong it was after a few decades. Swift and Sterne in the eighteenth century, Ruskin in the nineteenth, are a few among many names. Remember also the wonderful use of bible passages in Handel’s Messiah. Even the agnostic Thomas Huxley wrote that ‘For three centuries, this book has been woven into all that is best and noblest in English history’. Many phrases have passed into colloquial language, used in speech and writing by people who may not even know their origin. A few examples are: the skin of my teeth; hiding your light under a bushel; going the extra mile; through a glass darkly; casting pearls before swine; the powers that be. One often misquoted, ‘money is the root of all evil’, is an error for the very different emphasis of ‘the love of money is the root of all evil’ (1 Timothy 6. 10)... The language which has given English its religious style should be no problem for an age in which new vocabulary must continually be added. We need to have at least some idea of what is meant by ‘cyberspace’, ‘facebook’, ‘download’, or new meanings attached to ‘monitor’, ‘mouse’, ‘default’. Some innovations will be archaic in a few years while the older text remains unchanged. Worshippers like any other group can learn and share special language usage. There is danger of valuing the language above content. Eminent people do no service to the faith when they praise the Authorised Version simply as a literary masterpiece. There is always the temptation of clinging to the verbal rather than the spiritual inspiration of any translation. There have been many new versions over the last century, some of poor quality, some good. They are neither to be ignored nor allowed to supersede the old. It is wise to use more than one version in our bible study, even if others lack the stylistic excellence of the Authorised Version. Some modern sensitivities may dislike such usages as the generic use of words like ‘men’ and ‘forefathers’. This objection can be respected, while observing that ‘I will make you fish for people’ has not quite the same resonance as ‘I will make you fishers of men’. It is a matter which relates not only to the Bible but to the whole canon of English literature. Measures and prices from the past may seem strange, but here again only a little intelligent adjustment is needed. If the labourers in the vineyard received a penny each at the end of the day, we readily understand this as a translation of ‘denarius’, the regular daily payment of a casual worker. A modern rendering, ‘the usual daily wage’, reads fussily in context. Great news needs great language. We can recognise and excuse errors and shortcomings as we do with family and friends, but this quatercentenary is a time for celebration of a great translation. The Authorised Version has given us a continuity that we can ill afford to lose. It has become part of our national identity, for centuries the approved translation for Anglican and Nonconformist English-speaking Christians, respected also by many who prefer another translation. It has communicated the faith to millions here and abroad, and continues to do so. A final point is that what we call the Authorised Version was never formally authorised, though ‘appointed to be read in churches’. Perhaps we should settle for the ‘King James Version’: in short, not AV but KJV. Raymond Chapman Abridged from a lecture given at St Mary’s Church on 25 May 2011  |
|
