Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew


New on NRO . . .
Close
The Bible Translation that Changed the World
The King James Version is an unparalleled cultural triumph.

By Rich Lowry


About Author Archive Latest E-Mail RSS Send Follow•   followers
Text  

If every committee did such impressive work, committees wouldn’t have a bad name.

Four hundred years ago, King James of England commissioned several dozen scholars to update and improve on prior translations of the Bible into English. Their handiwork — known as the King James Version — put an indelible stamp on the English language and on the Anglo-American mind.

Advertisement

The prodigious task took roughly six years. Just printing it was an undertaking. Initially, a typo appeared on average once every ten pages of text. One edition was called the “Wicked Bible” when the word “not” was accidentally left out of the admonition, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”

Typographical struggles aside, the translation was inspired and came to seem almost unimprovable. It culled from prior English translations, forging a synthesis that rose at times to the level of poetry. As Benson Bobrick notes in his history of the Bible in English, Wide as the Waters, the King James Version stayed true to Hebraic turns of expression and kept language that was already archaic in the 17th century. 

All of this gave it a majestic lift that swept away all competition in both England and America. One historian has written that “its victory was so complete that its text acquired a sanctity properly ascribable only to the unmediated voice of God; to multitudes of English-speaking Christians it has seemed little less than blasphemy to tamper with its words.”

An archbishop of Dublin scandalized a conference of clergy in the 19th century when he said of the King James Version, “Never forget, gentlemen, that this is not the Bible.” They needed reminding it was only a translation of the Bible.

The ascendant King James Version had a profound influence on the language. As Alister McGrath writes in his book In the Beginning, “It did not follow literary trends; it established them.” It made commonplaces of phrases that we have forgotten are biblical in origin: “to fall flat on his face,” “to pour out one’s heart,” “under the sun,” “sour grapes,” “pride goes before a fall,” “the salt of the earth,” and on and on. Without it, McGrath reckons, “there would have been no Paradise Lost, no Pilgrim’s Progress, no Handel’s Messiah, no Negro Spirituals, and no Gettysburg Address.”

The mere act of translating the Bible from Latin into the vernacular was a victory for freedom. According to Bobrick, “The first question ever asked by an Inquisitor of a ‘heretic’ was whether he knew any part of the Bible in his own tongue.” 

Visionaries like John Wycliffe championed an English version of the Bible in the 14th century when even the clergy didn’t read it much. A proto-Reformation figure, Wycliffe was posthumously declared a heretic, his remains dug up and burned. William Tyndale, whose translation would become the basis of much of the King James Version, had to flee England and was eventually arrested by the authorities, tried for heresy, and burned at the stake.

The availability of the Bible in English, Bobrick notes, fostered commercial printing and a culture of reading. It created space for people — ordinary people, needing no official sanction or filter — to read and think about their faith and life’s profoundest questions. Ultimately, that undermined the authority of, to take another phrase from the King James Version (Romans 13:1), “the powers that be.”

“Free discussions about the authority of Church and state,” Bobrick argues, “fostered concepts of constitutional government in England, which in turn were the indispensable prerequisites for the American colonial revolt. Without the vernacular Bible — and the English Bible in particular, through its impact on the reformation of English politics — there could not have been democracy as we know it.”

The translators of the King James Version stated their “desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood of the very vulgar.” In a cultural triumph difficult to imagine 400 years later, it not only found a wide audience, but elevated it.

— Rich Lowry is editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. © 2011 by King Features Syndicate.

Text  

You Might Also Like...

Trinko: Will Fear Decide Texas Senate Race?

Symposium: Polling Life

Malkin: Obama’s Land of the LOST



COMMENTS   51

EXPAND  

HistoryBuff
   07/08/11 07:15

Also, Mr Lowry...

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."----Isaac Asimov

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/08/11 09:08

Funny, then, that most atheists I've seen who invoke the Bible's more difficult passages seem to have the most glib understanding of the text, even to the degree of not considering (or even reading) the passage's immediate context.

A "proper" reading then, must be one that leads to Asimov's conclusions, not one that actually takes the text seriously.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/08/11 09:08

(Previous comment directed to HistoryBuff.)

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Common Tater
   07/08/11 10:09

@HistoryBuff,

Ipse dixit,argumentum ad verecundiam?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
MagD
   07/08/11 11:17

"Properly read." O-kay....

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/08/11 15:07

LIKE NIETZSCHE, ASIMOV IS DEAD, BUT JESUS LIVES ON........IT'S A NO BRAINER BUD

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Perplexed
   07/08/11 07:44

I still consider it one of the most accurate translations around today. The only more accurate one would be Darby's translation but it is generally unavailable. I do like the New King James.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
RThompson
   07/08/11 08:59

A note about Darby's translation. It is freely available in most Bible study computer programs and online via www.BlueLetterBible.org

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/08/11 12:43

@Perplexed,

I read the Darby translation also exclusively over the last 20 years. However, most of my early Sunday School memorization was done in the KJV. It's amazing what sticks after more than 50 years. As to the KJV accuracy, I'd say that it ranks below JND and ASV and NAS. NAS is a particularly good study Bible.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/08/11 07:59

"Sour grapes"--when a person claims that they don't want something that they can't get--actually comes from Aesop's fables. "The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge" is from the Bible, but of course has a very different meaning.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/08/11 08:28

As someone who studies the Bible in the original languages (aided by modern computers) I have often been struck how the King James follows the original Hebrew quite closely, better than modern translations. Unfortunately, in some places it used source text that was not accurate to the originals. For the optimal balance of modern scholarship without politically correct translation, the ESV (English Standard Version) is best. I often read both ESV and KJV to get the sense of a passage.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
bouletboulet
   07/08/11 08:41

Mr. Lowry, I am wondering what you think of the Douay-Rheims Bible -- originated in France by Catholic exiles who were escaping persecution in Reformation England, where it is estimated that an estimated 200,000 Catholics were executed by Henry VIII & Elizabeth I?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
lshack
   07/08/11 09:18

I notice you're leaving the reign of Mary out of the succession. Pick up a copy of Foxe's Book of Martyrs, the SECOND best-selling book of the era.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Londoner
   07/08/11 08:45

Nice article. Just one correction, though - the King James Bible was not translated "from Latin" into English. The Latin Vulgate was itself a translation, and was certainly not the basis for the King James Bible (though the translators were certainly familiar with it).

The translators of the King James Bible translated from the original languages of the Scriptures - Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/08/11 09:20

Funny, too, Lawrence,that those same atheists who superficially quote small portions of the Bible, seem to have no idea about the contemporaneous environment of the Bible, future protestations from HistoryBuff notwithstanding.

Rich, how about Luther's translation into German? That also had a salutory effect and predated KJV by about 100 years.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
lshack
   07/08/11 09:22

I highly recommend the McGrath book mentioned by Mr. Lowry. Also, if you can, get a copy of Tyndale's New Testament in the original spelling edition, to discover how much of the KJV is owed to this great man (who was hounded to his death by the "saintly" Thomas More). One funny note is that Tyndale spells "ask" as "ax" throughout: so maybe some contemporary Americans are being truer to the mother tongue than we might care to admit.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/08/11 09:39

I agree with Londoner, this sentence...

"The mere act of translating the Bible from Latin into the vernacular was a victory for freedom."

...would be more accurate if stated as, "The mere act of moving from a Latin translation of the Bible to a translation in the vernacular was a victory for freedom."

About the beauty and accuracy of the KJV, I believe the former is undisputed even though we now have access to older manuscripts that call into question the latter.

Like C.S. Lewis, I do think the translation can be TOO aesthetically pleasing that it can lull the reader rather than provoke him to more faithful devotion, but corporate worship *IS* helped by a common translation, and for that the KJV is still unquestionably dominant.

It's just a shame that attempts to bring the Bible into contemporary, even vernacular English comes off as artless and even theologically suspect: works like the Message seem to abandon the details of the text for the ends of the ones creating the translation/paraphrase.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/08/11 10:04

It changed the world and despite this fact it is the most underrated and underappreciated translation ever.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Gregory DiPippo
   07/08/11 10:12

I'm sorry, I thought this was National Review, the house that William F. Buckley built. Surely you can sing the praises of the KJV (well-deserved as they are) without resorting to these silly anti-Catholic calumnies? “The first question ever asked by an Inquisitor of a ‘heretic’ was whether he knew any part of the Bible in his own tongue.” Such drivel.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   07/08/11 10:17

The KJV is riddled with deliberate mistranslations, Mr. Lowery.
But my tiny opinion they were largely improvements over the original.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact