This document was supplied for free educational purposes.
Unless it is in the public domain, it may not be sold for profit
or hosted on a webserver without the permission of the
copyright holder.
If you find it of help to you and would like to support theministry of Theology on the Web, please consider using thelinks below:

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/theology

https://patreon.com/theologyontheweb

PayPalhttps://paypal.me/robbradshaw

A table of contents for Bibliotheca Sacra can be found here:

htps://biblicalstudies.org.uk/ar�cles_bib-sacra_01.php

1911. ]The "Authorized" Version of 16II.

693

ARTICLE x.
THE " AUTHORIZED ., VERSION OF 1611.
BY H. C. HOSKIER, SOUTH ORANGE, NEW JERSEY.
OWING to the three hundredth anniversary of the i:;sue ofKing James's Version, there has been talk in some quarters,
and writing in others. of the desirableness of a new revision;for it seems to be admitted on aU sides to-day that the Revisionof 1881 was unfortunate and overzealol1s, and indulged in a
finality of judgment for which we were not prepared.
I desire to lift my voice again!'t any revision at the present
time. I.feel that this cannot be succe:;sfully handled to-day.
One man might do it tentatively, and do it rather happily, but
no one per~on could be entrusted with this great undertaking;and a body of men would not (I fear) produce the results
looked for. We are not far enough away from the scene of
the attempt in 1870-81.
Since then, it is tnle that we have increased very considerably
our critical materials. We have discovered Old Syriac versions and edited them; we have ·reedited the Peshitta; we havefound the Di.atessaron in Arahic; we are reediting important
Latin texts; we have edited our Bohairic MSS., and Balestri
has furnished us with an edition of some Sahidic MSS. [Mr.
Horner has reedited soh this year as to the Gospels.] We havealso unearthed considerable fragments from Oxyrynchus (besides the Old Testament papyri at Elephantine), and we haverecovered the Didachc and the Ap%g'y of Aristides.
But we still lack the Diatessaron in the original Syriac

694

The "Authorized

11

Version of 1611.

[Oct.

(which may easily tum up), Mr. Homer has not yet given us
the complete edition of the Sahidic Version, and we know notwhat extraordinary papyri may underlie Herculaneum. Meanwhile other documents are reaching us, and one very interesting and important Greek fifth-century document is to hand,and is being edited by Professor Sanders, of the Universityof Michigan. So that our materials continue to grow, andmany workers, as Dr. Souter and E. S. Buchanan, withWhite, Youngman, de Bruyne, and others, are giving up theirlives to an examination of important Latin documents.
But what of our critical methods?
The trouble as to this is that we have not yet succeeded inagreeing upon a scientific working basis. Canon Cook's indictment of the methods of the Revisers, Dean Burgon's exposition of some of the fallacious reasoning of Dr. Hort, and theother strictures of less well-known but equally well-equippedchurchmen, all stand to-day. Yet it is but slowly that modem scholars are freeing themselves from the yoke of a tinygroup of fourth-century guides, and are taking a broader viewof the matter.
If the body of men selected in 1870 could not live up to theirinstructions, can we be sure that others to-day will be content
to do so and merely to remove plain and clear errors?
I
have spent the last twenty years in work which I .hope willtend to show how to identify and remove the errors in ouroldest documents. It may be said that I am talking of theunderlying Greek text, and not af a simple revision of rendering which has been suggested. The trouble is that, inpractice, it is next to impossible to dissociate these two mattersentirely. However, even if we could do so, the question ofrendering remains.
And I will cite one instance to show what happened under1911.]The "Authori::ed" Version of 16II.

695

the Revisers' no doubt well-meant handling. I refer to the
Revisers' preference for the word appoint rather than the word
ordain. Now the Greek words involved are many - TIO.,,/I.£,&'.TIO.,,/I.£, 7T'O£e., VIIVTUUOJ, all.B«tE"" ICdfMO. (1 Thess. iii. 3),
a7T'OICelTa£ (Heb. ix. 27), ICaTaUTt7u!l~ (Tit. i. 5), IC.TauT~UOfMJI(Acts vi. 3), and several others.
I do not wish here to find fault with the Revisers' " appoint."
Other good men have done that. 'It is a fact, however, thatthey have gone out of their way to displace ordain, even when
the laying on of hands is distinctly understood, conveyed, or
implied. I am merely speaking of the .difficulty of handlingthese Greek words in any new revision.
For observe that the Revisers not only objected to the apostles' ordaining, but preferred appoint of OUR LORD's ordaining: ('fro£I"" Mark iii. 14; [Semitic] which we cannot render
literally ,in English) and of the Trinity ordaining St. Paul('frPOx"pwauOa£, Acts xxvi. 16; 'frpoe")(,npUraTo, Acts xxii.
14). The R. V. here displaces the "make" and "chosen" ofthe A. V. for (Jppoint," and it may be said that it is merely
in line with the modern scholarship and proper principles inconnection with their use of appOint elsewhere.
Not so, however; for in seven places R. V. retains" ordained," rendering three other Greek expressions; viz. O,PUT~ (Acts x. 42), 7T'POWpUTEJI (1 Cor. ii. 7), TETary/l.eJlO£ (Actsxiii. 48), TETaryp./va£ (Rom. xiii. 1), B£aTaryE/~ (Gal. iii. 19),8£b~E (1 Cor. ix, 14) , and lastly ICElCpt/l.wa (Acts xvi. 4).
Two of these are compounds of TUUOJ and two plain formsof this verb. Elsewhere the A. V. had rendered this appoint(Matt. xxvi. 19; xxvii. 10; xxi. 6), where the R. V. followed.
We object, however, to" ordained" for Ta ICElCp,,,.IJla. Thatis, we object to the Revisers' using it here. In these seven
(I

696

The "Authorized" Version of 16Il.

[Oct.

places the A. V. also has "ordain," but why the Revisers
should insist upon ordain for Ta ICflCptp.e"a (the passage is,"And as they went through .the cities, they delivered themthe decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles andelders which were at Jerusalem"), when casting out ordain
for Xf&pOTOvr1fTallT~ (Acts xiv. 23), we fail to see. The Revisers allow the apostles and elders to ordain things rather
than "decree" or " appoint" them, but object absolutely tothe same apostles and elders ordaining men.
My point is, that once commence to attempt revision, andmatters are apt to become worse rather than better, because we are to-day over-proud of a nicety of scholarship,
which proves in practice to break down just as easily as thatof our forerunners.
Our Bible of 1611 is so precious - obtained through fireand sword, blood and much tribulation - that we cannot safeguard it enough. Dear old Wic1if was often so happy, that,apart from Tyndale (and from Wiclif much credit due to him
is often withheld), we have a heritage there which we must
preserve. Thus Wic1if, I believe, gave us our "God forbid"
for "'~ 'Yno£TO, -:1{hich has survived throughout, although, remember, he was translating the Latin absit. 1 Wic1if is the
only one to retain Greek and Latin order in that wonderfulthirteenth chapter of First Corinthians. He says: " I am madeas bras sownynge or a cymbal tinkynge," instead of "I am
become as sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal." Tyndale,translating from the Greek 'Ye.yolla xaM~ ,.jXC;1II ~ ICvp.{3a).o1l
aXaMlt"oll, lost this, nor has it since been regained.
But let us pass on .
. • In Wid If's first Issue, .. God forbid" 1B not present, but Itobtains In bls ,econd IMue. It Is therefore bis deliberate emenda·
tlon, or that of Purveyor one of the other aMlstant Revisers. At
any rate, It was fixed in the English Bible before 1400.

1911. ]The "Authorized" Version of I6II.

697

There are very few things which it is necessary to change
in our Authorized Version of 1611. Very few. The rest are
academic.
Among these few the most outstanding is in St. John x. 16,
where FOLD stands erroneously for FWCK. St. Jerome is alone
responsible for this. No other Version and no MS. reads foldin the second part of the verse. St. Jerome explains that aliXT]and .".o(I'JITI are practically the same, but of course this is not
so.
Wiclif, following his Latin, impressed this on our first English version of 1380.
Tyndale corrected it. Coverdale let Tyndale'scorrect translation stand. And it was not Rheims which put " fold" backfirst, but our Great Bible of 1539 (Cranmer), which was followed by the Bishops' and the Genevan - very naturally occurred in the Rhemish Version - and was allowed to remainin the A. V. of 1611. The verse should read:" And other sheep I have which are not of this fold [auXT]];
them also I .must bring, and they shall hear my voice; andthere shall be one flock [.".0(1'1111] and one shepherd."
Now the difference here is very great, and only the supposed
exigencies of a rather narrow ecclesiastical position would
wish to translate the second word (( fold," for the first part ofthe verse distinctly implies more than one fold, just as the second part of the verse emphasizes one flock.
This I consider to be the only matter of any great consequence which must be emended in any revision, but as everybody knows about this, it is not likely to mislead, except thevery ignorant and simple. On the other hand, such an exaggerated number ,of fundamental changes (of readings as wellas Irenderings) were :made by the Revision of 1881 that wehave lost our A. V. in the process. The A. V. of 1611 was an

698

The "Authorized" Version of 16II.

[Oct.

evolution, and a beautiful one. It was the intention of Convocation of 1870 to continue the evolution on very conservativelines. But the Revisers seem to have acted ,contrary to instructions in the matter, and the result was chaos.
Now, as I have said, better no revision than such an one
where we lose, or are in peril of losing:.. Blessed art thou among women" (Luke i. 28) ;.. But by every word of God" (Luke iv. 4) ;" Bless them that curse you"do good to them that hate you"
(Matt. v, 44) ;.. But if ye do not forgive, neither will your Father whichis in Heaven, forgive your trespasses" (Mark xi. 26) ;.. This is my blood of the covenant" (-new) [against Jer.
xxxi. 31] (Matt. xxvi. 28) ;The precious verses about our Lord's bloody sweat (Lukexxii. 43, 44) ;"Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do"(Luke x~iii. 34) ;.. And saith unto them, Peace be unto you" (Luke xxiv.
36) ;" And when he had thus spoken, he showed them his hands
and his feet" (Luke xxiv. 40).
Better, I say, no revision than such excision as this, forthese are not "plain and clear errors," but very debatableomissions indeed, supported by a very small "cloud of witnesses," and upheld by the Church, geographically entire, led
by Justin Martyr and Irenreus.
And as regards translation, I will cire but one instance, so
as not to occupy too much space.
Luke ii. 49 A. V.: " I must be about my Father's business."
R. V.: "I must be in my Father's house."

The "Authorized" Version of r6II.

1911.]

699

The Greek is, lJl Toiv Toii 'I1'a.Tptk p.ov &i (lJla.t~. The ripescholarship of 1871-81, it seems to me, made a fatal blunderof rendering here, purely idiotic (I use the word in its primarysense) and well-meaning, no doubt, but contrary to the spiritof the two rules cited further 011. Canon Cook says:" I cannot think that the Revisers were justified in altering• about my Father's business' of the A. V. and substituting
for it • in my Father's house.' This may be the true meaningof the Greek, but it is far from certain. With their own marginal alternative, and their somewhat awkward rendering of
the Greek, before them, it seems a bold thing to condemn the
Authorized Version as being aptain and clear error. In fact
• in the things' is a very awkward rendering. [Canon Cook
referred to the margin of R. V., which reads, "Or about myFather's business. Gr. in the things of my Father."] The
Greek is ambiguous, and I believe it is purposely chosen (JS acomprehensive expression. Our Lord used words which implicitly declared the whole purpose of His life on earth [theitalics are ours 1; but that was to be • about His Father's business; engaged in His Father's affairs, certainly not simply to
be in His Father's house, if by the house is meant the Temple."

So far Canon Cook. Note that in the resolutions of the Lower
House of Convocation, May 10, 1870, section 4 said, " That insuch necessary changes, the style of ,the language employed in
the existing Version be closely followed." Rule IV. of the1611 .. evolution" was better yet: "When a word ·hath divers
significations, that is to be kept which hath been most commonlyused by the most of the ancient Fathers, being agreeable tothe propriety of the place and the analogy of the faith." 1
But our Revisers of 1870-81 knew so much better than all
their predecessors! Observe that it had been said byI

See lreDJeUB, Tertulllan, Ambrealua, G4 Zoe.

700

The "Authorized" Version of 1611.

[Oct.

Wiclif: "Wisten ye not that in tho thingis that ben of myfadir it behoueth me to be."Tyndale: U Wist ye not that I must goo aboute my Father'sbusines."I
Coverdale: "Wyst ye not y I must go aboute my fathers
busynes."Cranmer (1539): "Wist ye not that I must goo aboute mifathers business."
Bishops' (1568): "Wyste ye not that I must go about myfathers businesse."
Geneva (1557): "Wyst ye not that I must go about myfathers business."
Rheims (1582): "Did you not know that I must be about
those things which are my fathers."
A. V. (1611): "Wist yee not that I must bee about myfathers businesse."
Luther (1522): U Wisset yhr aicht das ich seyn mus ynn
dem das meynes vaters ist."
The French of 1524: "Ne scauez vous point que it me faultI

estre es choses q sont de mon pere."
The Gothic long since (350): "Niu ,wisse<iuth thatei inthaim attins meinis skulda wisan."Were ye not knowing that I must be in the
Coptic:(things) of my Father."
Canon Cook did not put his finger on the source of the Revisers' "house." It was the Syriac which first suggested thistranslation, and the Diatessaron has it. The Revisers found it
in the Peshitta and in the Cureton Syriac (which latter was extant at this place) and thought it was a good idea. The S)'T. S.
and Diatess. arab. were also found later to have it. But, as amatter of fact, 'both Baethgen and Mrs. Lewis refuse to render" house" in translating. As 'a matter of fact, the Syriac isU1911.]The "Authorized" Version of 16II.

701

indeterminate, as is shown by a variety of rendering by thedifferent translators. Gwilliam and Burkitt are content withdomo, Mrs. Lewis reads (legitimately enough) with. The
Jerus. syr. cod. Breads" in THE hand." Now the Syriac " inthe hand" and " house" can easily be confused, while the preposition with in Syriac and the word house have identical consonants. And, as regards hand - (perhaps the original here
in Syriac) - a secondary meaning of this word is opera. Sothat it would seem that opera, or ' business' (anglice), convey properly the great underlying truth.
The Latin also refuses to be influenced by the Syriac here
(although it agrees in numberless places), and all Latins givea close rendering of the ambiguous Greek. Thus, the Vulgate,
all Vulg. codices, and the Old Latin c d f h gat Dimma Moling,with Iren., write:"quia (quoniam d I ren.) in his quae patris mei sunt oportet me esse";
a 1f2 q l'a, with Teyt., give:-"quia (quod q Teyt.) in patris mei ( - his quae, - sunt)
oportet me esse (esset If2' esse me a),';b and A mbrose write:" quia in propria patris mei oportet me esse" ;and e="quia in re patris mei oportet me esse."[Are wanting i k 1'2 at this place.]
The Jerusalem Syriac baulked at the translation; and of thethree codices of this version one reads ell Tip or"tp, one ,".,.,
xnpl, while the third writes V;Df for fJ/ TO"!
The Philoxenian follows the Greek.
All this testimony of the ancients was swept away by thesuperior scholarship of the Revisers of 1881. Were theyright? Are we the gainers?
Vol. LXVIII.

No. 272.

10

702

[Oct.

The "Authorized '.' Version of 191I.

The beautiful further evolution of our Bible was abruptly
halted by these men.
I need not go into the matter in greater· detail here. But it
is a well-known fact that the margin of the R. V. is encumbered with .many things which were better omitted, and fails
to indicate many other things of greater importance.
Thus, in St. John'S First Epistle (i. I), the R. V. says" concerning the Word of life" in the text, and in the margin" or'Word," with a lower-case w. Is not this puerile in a work
designed for popular circulation? Again, in chapter i. 4
they say, "that our joy may be fulfilled" in the text, but inthe margin, .. Many ancient authorities read your." Thewords .q/4E&<; 01" vp4t; and cases occur eighty-nine times
in this First Epistle, and are often interchanged by the "ancient authorities," yet in only one other place in the Epistle(iii. 25) does the R. V. margin notice a change. If they n0tice one they should note more.
Again, Gal. i. 4, " that ,he might deliver us out of .this present evil world" (margin, "or age "), where this should be reversed, and" age" (alAtIlO~) should be in the text, and" world"in the margin. For St. Paul knew perfectly well what he wasdoing when he wrote age here. He uses " age" thus in Eph.
i. 21; 1 Cor. i. 20; ii. 6, 8; iii. 18; 2 Cor. iv. 4; 1 Tim. vi. 17;
2 Tim. iv. 10; Tit. ii. 12; Heb. vi. 5; while at Heb. i. 2 E7r'
EtTxaT0111 TAtIl .q/4EpAtIl IS preferred, and 1Ctkr~ at
Phil. n. 15: 01~ 4*a'ri}p~ Ell tcOtTM'
Col. i. 6: Ell 'lT4",~ T~ ,,&u1M/'
11.
8: "41'4 1'4 tTTOlXEi4 TOU "&uiMJV
ii. 20: ti'IT. TAtIl tTTOlXEUtW TOU "&Ul'-OV
while in Romans the predominant expression is ""'PIP.
St.

.

Paul is careful of his choice of ""'ptk , .ql'-I.P4, alUw or "&vIUK'... ,and I' believe we should follow him strictly. For in Galatians~

1911.]The "Attthori:::ed" Version of 16II.

703."'' ' 41;

5t. Paul usedadvisedly in i. 4, varying the expression
later in the same Epistle (iv. 3) to Td. crTo,x~ia TOU ICtHrJl-OV.
Thus in Ephesians he says:--i. 4 ci'7Te) IC"T"j30XT,1; "ocr P.OV while at i. 21 EV Tip ,,£0,,1& TOVrIjt
ana at ii. 2· he combines them: ICtITd. TCV "lid"a TOU tctJcrJl-OV.
And we have not yet exhausted 5t. Paul's vocabulary. For
at 2 Cor. vii. 8 another word is used. What we translate :" Made you sorry though it were but for a season " i~ El",,~'7T~ rlpa." lA.""",cr~,, 'Jl-W;, that is to say the word" hour"
is used. There is really a most instructive and deep play here.

Because St. Paul follows with vW X"(POJ OUx OT' EJ...V'7T.q8'1TE,
cixx' ih,. . ... as if while suppressing "a'po".md using rlpav
he yet played on ""'po" with the following Xa(pOJ.
So thathe chose rlp"" deliberately here. And if here, why notequally deliberately "u;,,,, "ocr~, ~".epa, "atpch elsewhere?
As a matter of fact (this time true to their instructions not
to disturb anything unnecessarily) the Revisers let season
stand for rlpaJl in 2 Cor. vii. 8 7(r1thout any marginal comment!
Again the margin fails at Gal. i. 18:
R. V.: "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem
to visit (" to see" A. V.) 'Cephas (" Peter" A. V.) and .... "The margin says for visit: .. or become acquainted with."
The Greek is lcrTOP;,crat. Neither" see" nor" visit" of thetexts of A. V. and R. V. convey icrTOp.;,cr",. Nor does R. V.
margo "become acquainted with" convey all that icrTOpfJcrat
can mean. See Tertullian ad loc.: "cognoscendi Petri causa:'
This expression having caused a good deal of discussion inancient times, would it not have been advisable to indicate
in the margin that icrTopfJcratalso means .. to inquire about"or "to learn by inquiry from Peter" or "to confer withPeter"? It seems to me that the margin should be silent or704

The "Authorized" Version of 1611.

[Oct.

very clear. So the word ~""'''I'~''. is not rendered recognise by the Revisers, as it might have been.
Colossians i. 6 should be: "Since the day ye heard it andrecognised [R. V. kneu.] the grace of God in truth."Matt. xiv. 35: "The men of Gennesaret recognised Jesus."
Vll. 16:"Ye shall recognise them by their fruits."
Acts xii. 14: "Rhoda recognised St. Peter's voice."
Much more, clearly, might be said. Revision may be agood thing, but not to-day, and not yet. Let us be a little
more patient, and not strive for finality before we have examined our documents. We can revise the renderings, but wecannot revise our Greek text properly as yet.
Therefore I entreat that we may let the good old Authorized
Version of 1611 serve its purpose, for better or for worse, forsome years to come.