This is the third part of Christopher Yetzer’s treatment of the KJV Translator’s Preface to the Reader. You can find Part 1 here and Part 2 here. Thanks again to Christopher for allowing us to repost his work without modification. Blessings.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Because the preface is the words of just one translator, it is not always known how well it represents all the translators or the historical truth in general. Before all the complaints and accusations hail down upon just the mention of such a possibility, give me just a moment to clearly demonstrate this happening in another British religious book written by committee in the 17th century. The Italian annotations by Giovanni Diodati were translated into English and printed in 1643. 2 years later around 12 English scholars, perhaps including one KJV translator, printed their own annotations. In the preface (possibly written by John Downame) to the first printing of those annotations it was said, “We have made speciall use of the Italian Annotations of Deodat, and of the Dutch Bibles…” and “…[we] have submitted our private Dictates to the censure and correction of our Colleagues in this Service daily assembled together, for the perusall of every ones part.” Normally neither of these points would be any problem at all and are fine points of publicity. However the next time Diodati’s annotations were printed, it’s preface, talking about the scholars of the 1645 English annotations, mentions, “they, I say, all so highly approve of Diodati’s Annotations, that any one who shall please to compare those severall Notes of theirs, with the first Impression of this in English, shall finde many thousands of this our Authours inserted, but especially in Ezekiel, Daniel, and all the minor Prophets, where there is hardly any one Note of Diodati’s forborn, but in theirs printed verbatim by our Translation:” Plagiarism! It was such a grave accusation that the English annotators had to respond and they did, “The Annotations of the foresaid Divines were finished, and given up to the Stationers the year before the first Edition of Diodati’s Annotations, translated into English, were published: so as they could have no help from that English Translation. As for the Italian, in which language, Diodati’s Annotatations were first composed, many of the foresaid Divines understood not that tongue: nor had any translation thereof for their help… one of the Annotators to whose share, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the smaller Prophets fell, hath manifested himself to be Plagiarius; shall his crime be imputed to all the rest…”

In summary:

• 1643 Diodati’s annotations printed
• 1645 English annotations printed. The preface claims that they made “special use” of Diodati.
• 1648 preface to 2nd edition of Diodati’s annotations claims that the 1645 annotations plagiarized Diodati’s work.
• 1651 preface to the 2nd edition of the English annotations claims that most of them didn’t know Italian or have a translation available.

An analysis of the 1645 English annotations demonstrates that 2 sections of the work contain heavy plagiarism from the English translation of Diodati’s notes. 3 other sections contain many of Diodati’s annotations but most likely from his Italian Bible and not from the English translation. The rest contain small traces of acceptable use of Diodati as a source. Which preface lied, the 1645, the 1651 or both? The point here is only to demonstrate that in the 17th century the preface was a commercial product of publicity and secondarily that the authors of them often had agendas and at points were errant or dishonest. The English Annotations were not the only ones either. [see this authors unpublished work on Diodati’s annotations.]

Possibly one misleading example from Smith’s preface in KJV can be found in the phrase “for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet.” Smith claims that the KJV translators had not yet seen a whole English Bible translation by the Catholics. The Rheims New Testament was printed in 1582 and clearly available and used by the translators (see John Bois’ notes during translation). The Old Testament was printed at Douai, France in two volumes in 1609 and 1610. According to the 1609 preface, these were made to complete the work of the 1582 Rheims New Testament and create a whole Catholic translation of the Scriptures. The approbation for both volumes is dated November 8, 1609. The first volume surely would have been available at least to the general committee which met in London. Bois’ letters to Casaubon near the end of 1610 demonstrate that most likely the second volume would have been available as well.[Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord – Revising the King James Apocrypha by Nicholas Hardy] There also appears to be evidence within the text of the KJV that shows use of both volumes.[For some examples from the first volume see Genesis 48:22 “took”, 50:15, “requite”, 50:26 “coffin” etc.] Rather than go through lists of examples from the first volume, we will concentrate only on the second edition since it was the later of the two to be printed.[There is some probability that both the KJV and the Douai translators came to the same readings simultaneously, or that the Douai translators actually copied from the KJV, “But as we heare in a new Edition (which we have not yet sene) they translate it almost as in the first.” – Preface to the 1610 Douai. ]

Psalms 145:21

• AV1611 – My mouth shall speake the praise of the Lord: and let all flesh blesse his holy Name for euer and euer.
• Bishops(printed 1602) – My mouth shall speake the praise of the Lord: and let all fleshgive thankes unto his holy name for ever and ever.
• Geneva(printed 1606) – My mouth shall speake the prayse of the Lorde, and all flesh shallblesse his holy Name for ever and ever.
• Douai – My mouth shal speake the prayse of our Lord: and let al flesh blesse his holie name for ever, and fore ever and ever.
• Coverdale, Great and Matthew’s all have “let all flesh give thanks”.

Psalms 147:11

• AV1611 – The Lord taketh pleasure in them that feare him: in those that hope in his mercie.
• Bishops(printed 1602) – But the Lordes delight is in them that feare him: and put their trust in his mercie.
• Geneva(printed 1606) – But the Lord delighteth in them that feare him, and attend upon his mercie.
• Douai – Our Lord is wel pleased toward them that feare him: and in them, that hope upon his mercie.
• Coverdale, Great and Matthew’s all have “delight” for the first word and “trust” for the second.

Proverbs 20:12

• AV1611 – The hearing eare, and the seeing eye, the Lord hath made euen both of them.
• Bishops(printed 1602) – The eare to heare, the eye to see, the Lord hath made them both.
• Geneva(printed 1606) – The Lord hath made both these: even the eare to heare. and the eye to see.
• Douai – The eare hearing, and the eie seing, our Lord made both.
• Coverdale and Matthew’s both have “hearing/sight”, while the Great Bible reads like the Bishops’ and Geneva.

Proverbs 26:4

• AV1611 – Answere not a foole according to his folly, lest thou also be like vnto him.
• Bishops(printed 1602) – Give not the foole an answer after his foolishnesse, lest thou become like unto him.
• Geneva(printed 1606) – Answere not a foole according to his foolishness, lest thou also be like him.
• Douai – Answer not a foole according to his follie, lest thou be made like to him.
• The other English Bibles have “foolishness”. [There is a book titled A Commentarie Vpon the Booke of the Prouerbes of Salomon published in 1596 that has this reading]

1 Maccabees 1:17

• 1611AV – Wherefore he entred into Egypt with a great multitude, with chariots, and elephants, and horsemen, and a great nauie,
• Bishops(printed 1602) – Upon this entred hee into Egypt with a strong hoste, with charets, elephants, horsemen, and a great number of ships,
• Geneva(printed 1606) – Therefore hee entred into Egypt with a mightie companie, with Charets, and Elephants, and with horsemen, and with a great navie,
• Douai – And he entered into Egypt with great multitude, with chariots and elephants, and horsemen, and a copious multitude of shippes:

1 Maccabees 12:10

• AV1611- for there is a long time passed since you sent vnto vs.
• Bishops(printed 1602) – For it is long since the the time that ye sent word unto us.
• Geneva(printed 1606) – for it is long since the time that ye sent unto us.
• Douai – for much time is passed, since you sent to us.

Like Downame’s (or whoever the author of the 1645 English Annotations preface might have been) denial of using Diodati’s annotations, Smith denied seeing all the volumes of the Douay-Rheims Bible. The text of the English Annotations proves Downame wrong as the text of the KJV appears to prove Smith wrong. The problem is that often students and scholars have taken Smith at his word without understanding the context of the 17th century preface. In the last section of this study I made reference to Smith replying primarily to the 1582 Rheims preface. That is true, but it also seems that he may have made use of the 1609 preface which itself often repeats the information found in the Rheims preface.

• Smith’s 1611 KJV preface: on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Præpuce, Pasche, and a number of such like,
• 1609 Douay preface: And why then may we not say Prepuce, Phase or Pasch, Azimes, Breades of Proposition, Holocaust, and the like? Rather then as Protestants translate them: Foreskinne, Passeover, The feast of swete breades, Shew breades, Burnt offerings: &c.
• 1582 Rheims preface: The Pasche. The feaste of Azymes. The bread of Proposition. Which they translate The Passeover, The feast of swete bread, The shew bread.

Besides the words which match the 1609 preface better, another reason this may more clearly represent the 1609 text is that the 1582 Rheims used breast-plate in Ephesians 6:14 and 1 Thessalonians 5:8 instead of rational which was only used in the Douai Old Testament. Also the New Testament never used tunic as the Old Testament did. These points seem to eliminate the possiblity that Smith might have written the preface much earlier than is normally thought or that he was simply unaware of what other resource the other translators might have been using.

At times Smith seems to represent well the group and at other times he might have embellished a bit to accomplish his task. In order for one to claim “the translators believed” in reference to words in the preface, there should be some effort made in analyzing if the words might reasonably have been believed by all the translators or if there is any external evidence to support the claim. Some of Smith’s statements are upheld by separate witnesses and others seem to be refuted by them. Here are two very clear statements which are backed up by other witnesses and at times other translators and an analysis of the text.

• Miles Smith in the KJV preface: Another thing we think good to admonish thee of, gentle reader, 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,
• Possible first Oxford Company translator Daniel Featley in Transubstantiation Exploded 1638: The same word in divers places of Scripture may be diversly taken, according to the diversity of the matter and circumstances of the Text.
• Textual analysis: “dabhar (word or thing) is translated by eighty-four English words, panim (face) by thirty-four, sim (to set or place) by fifty-nine, shubh (to turn back) by sixty, nasah (to lift up) by forty-six, abhar (to passover) by forty-eight, and rabh (much) by forty-four.” [A Monarch’s Majestic Translation: The King James Bible by Donald Brake]

Example number two where agreement can be found is in regards to the works the translators consulted.

• Miles Smith in the KJV preface: Neither did we think much to consult the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no, nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch;
• Second Oxford Company translator George Abbot in The Reasons Which Doctor Hill Hath Brought for the Upholidng of Papistry 1604: There is not in the world, any fit meanes to come to the right sence of Scripture, which our men doe not frequent. They seeke into the Original tonges, wherin the booke of God was written. They conferre translations of all sortes: they lay one text with another, & expound the harder by that which is lesse difficult: they compare circumstances of Angecedents and Consquents: they looke to the Analogy of faith prescribed in the Creede of the Apostles, They search what the first Councels did establish: they seeke what was the opinions of the Fathers concerning textes in question, and refuse not therein to cope with you about the highest points…

This same fact is also demonstrated by the notes taken by Second Cambridge Company translator John Bois. He cites the Rheims New Testament at Colossians 2:18, Latin at Romans 9:6 and 1 Corinthians 9:5, “old Interpreters” at 1 Corinthians 11:10, Septuagint at 2 Timothy 2:19, Italian at Revelation 7:15, “major number of translators” at Hebrews 10:12 and “others” is mentioned throughout. John Selden who was a friend of several translators also said, “The Translators in King James’s time took an excellent way. That Part of the Bible was given to him who was most excellent in such a Tongue, (as the Apocrypha to Andrew Downs); and then they met together, and one read the Translation, the rest holding in their Hands some Bible, either of the learned Tongues, or French, Spanish, Italian, etc. if they found any Fault, they spoke, if not he read on.”

Analyzing the text itself is difficult because of the number of possible sources consulted and the fact that those sources commonly agree with one another. Here are some possible examples: Genesis 23:6 most translations have something like “Prince of God”, but the KJV translates it as “mighty prince” similar to the 1588 French Bible which read “Prince excellent”; Genesis 37:36 most of the previous English translations have “chief steward” or something similar, but the KJV has “captain of the guard” similar to the 1569 Spanish which read “capitan de los de la guarda”; Hebrews 11:28 most English translations had “effusion” but the KJV uses “sprinkling” similar to Diodati’s 1607 Italian Bible which read “spruzzamento”; Matthew 9:4 most English translations had “seeing” but the KJV uses “knowing” possibly following the quote by Chrysostom; 2 Corinthians 2:10 most English translations had “in the sight” but the KJV uses “in the person” like the 1582 Rheims; 1 Corinthians 7:35 most English Bibles had “separation”, but the KJV uses “distraction” like Beza’s Latin translation which read “distratione”.

Other instances of agreement could be noted: John Bois’ quotes from a paragraph of the preface in An Exposition of the Festivall Epistles and Gospels and the opinion that Christ and the Apostles quoted from the Septuagint is cited in several different translators’ works. So while some of the preface is substantiated by other sources, it is not true that every word of the preface accurately and universally represented the opinions of all the translators, even though Smith’s intention was certainly to do so as much as his agenda would permit. KJV researcher Timothy Berg, in talking about the section titled A satisfaction to our brethren, has noted that Smith’s, “rebuttal of Puritan objections to the project for example could hardly be said to reflect the thinking of, say, John Rainolds.”

Clearly not all the translators could have ratified the final draft of the preface given that a few of them had died before Smith’s quill was dipped into the inkwell for the first stroke (Richard Eedes 1604, Edward Lievely 1605, Ralph Hutchinson 1606, William Dakins 1607, John Rainolds 1607, Thomas Ravis 1609, John Harding 1610, John Aglionby 1610, Richard Bancroft 1610). Besides this, there seems to be some evidence that at least a few of the translators might have disagreed with some of the wording in the preface.

• Miles Smith in the KJV preface: we have at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see.
• The youngest KJV translator[if he was one] at the time of publication (29 years old), Daniel Featley, in The Dippers Dipt: a worship of God devised by man may be taken in a double sense, either for a whorship wholly devised by man, without any precept or president in Scripture; and such a worship is not agreeable unto God, but condemned in his Word, under the name of will-worship: or for a worship in substance prescribed by God, but in some circumstance, manner, or help thereunto devised or composed by man; and such may be and is acceptable unto God: as for example, reading Scripture is a religious act prescribed by God, yet the translation of the Originall into the Mother-tongue, divisions of the text into Chapters and Verses, diverse readings, interlineary glosses, together with the Contents, and fitting them to the times and seasons, are from man.

Miles Smith seemed to have believed that God had an active part in the work, while Featley talks of a very human, yet pleasing to God, process. Likewise the example below possibly shows a slight difference in the words the translators might have used to describe the Geneva Bible.

• Miles Smith in the KJV preface: Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one…but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark…. And to the same effect say we, that we are so far off from condemning any of [the brethren’s] labours that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea,
• Daniel Featley in The Dippers Dipt: Featley: “none ought to take upon them the Office of a Pastour, or Minister of the Word, who are not able to reprove and convince Hereticks, and all gain-sayers: but your lay and unlettered men are not able to convince Hereticks, and stop the mouthes of gain-sayers, because they can alledge no Scripture but that which is translated into their mother-tongue, in which there may be and are some errours: for, though the Scriptures be the infallible Word of God, yet the Translators were men subject to errour, and they sometimes mistooke.” Scotch-man: “Will you say that those learned men who translated the Bible at Geneva committed any errour in their Translation?” Featley: “I will…I could produce many other errours in that translation, which are corrected in the Kings translation.”
• Leader of the Second Westminster Company William Barlow speaking of the opinions concerning the Geneva and Bishops Bibles by First Oxford Company translator John Rainolds and King James himself at Hampton Court: [Reinolds] moved his Maiestie, that there might be a new Translation of the Bible…After that, he moved his Maiestie, that there might be a new Translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reignes of king Henry the eight, and Edward the sixt, were corrupt and not answerable to the trueth of the Originall… (professing that hee coulde never, yet, see a Bible well translated in English, but the worst of all his Maiestie thought the Geneva to bee)[The Summe and Substance of the Conference, which, it pleased his Excellent Maiestie to have with the Lords bishops, and other of his Cleargie, (at which the most of the Lordes of hte Councell were present) in his Maiesties Privie-Chamber, at Hampton Court. 1605]
• Again William Barlow in One of the foure Sermons preached before the Kings Majestie1606 spoke about a passage , “which the Geneva hath not well translated”.
• John Bois in An Exposition of the Dominical Epistles 1610 laments the Latin translation of Erasmus and Beza at Matthew 24:34 and goes on to attack the footnote of the Geneva translation, “and the translators of Geneva following them in our lesser English Bible, This age shall not passe: but as well the translation as the observation is defective…”

At least 3 translators and King James were critical of the Geneva Bible in some places in their published works. Possibly their actual feelings about the Geneva would be slightly different than the charitable speech of the preface. KJV researcher Timothy Berg has summarized, “I think it is wise to speak of the preface as having a “sole author” (Miles Smith) who was commanded to write “in the name of all the translators” (to quote from the editor of his 1632 collection of sermons). This can help us most fruitfully dialogue without the – to my mind unwarranted – claims that “all the translators” either agreed perfectly with Smith at every point, or disagreed in unison with him at any point.”

_______________________________________________________________________________

The following is Part 2 of Christopher Yetzer’s treatment of certain terms found in the KJV Translator’s Preface to the Reader and the specifically the role of translations in the Church. If you are looking for Part 1 you can found it here.

Yetzer here observes that the KJV translator had several audiences they were trying to reach and recognize, so I think it fair to conclude that the KJV was in this sense eclectic in its presentation and ecumenical in its publication.

Part of the reason for the Translators’ Preface was to address certain nay-sayers, both Protestant and Catholic. Here Yetzer points out that it is rationally permissible to maintain that certain terms in the Preface were aimed at Roman Catholic critiques regarding translation and as such the term “very vulgar” used by the KJV Translators was an appeal to the non-scholar rather than the under-educated or non-literate.

Again, I appreciate Yetzer’s work on this point and again thank him for allowing me to repost his work without modification here on StandardSacredText.com. Blessings.

______________________________________________________________________________

“very vulgar”

Part 2: The KJV Preface Considered.

Historically the KJV preface was the work of one translator, Miles Smith. To understand it best, one must understand the context in which it was written. That context was first and foremost a commercial product of the early 17th century. As such Smith had several important audiences and for each one different objectives to accomplish. He had to prepare the general public for the acceptance of a new translation without maligning the ones they believed to have been accurate representations of the words of God and were defended as such[A Defence of the Sincere and True Translations of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue, 1583]. He also had to prepare them for the criticisms which Smith knew would come as well as inform them on some particulars of the book. The most consuming portion of the preface was a defense against the Anglicans’ primary rivals whom Smith calls “Adversaries”, “Papists”, “Romanists” and not without objection “Catholics”. Smith also had to create unity among the theologians of differing positions in England whom he refers to as “brethren” and “Puritans” and twice describes them as “scrupulous”. Apart from those audiences which he was actively working to refute or convince, he also had a few which he was simply trying to honor. Possibly the most important of these was King James who had his own dedication printed separately from the general preface, but also had a place in the preface where Smith called him “Majesty”, “King” and “Sovereign”. Lastly he had to represent the other translators. The word “we” appears 143 times in the preface although a fair amount of them are simply inclusive with the general Christian reader.[Throughout this article the preface I am using for the text is found on wikisource as well as images of a 1611 KJV preface found on archive]

As mentioned, the largest portion of the preface is Smith’s attempt at responding to the papists’ arguments, and primarily the ones made by Gregory Martin in the preface to the 1582 Rheims New Testament[unpublished article by Timothy Berg] but also in a lesser manner to the material in his book against the English Translations published the same year as the New Testament. KJV translator Francis Dillingham said, “Master Martins discouery of our translations argueth either blinde ignorance or extreame malice”[A Disswasiue from Poperie, 1599] and translator William Barlow, “Indeede Gregory Martin hath, in his Pharisaicall discoverie, compassed sea and land, traversed much grounde mounted himselfe upon every molehill, ransackt all corners, to descry our translatours ignorance and malice, and when all is doone, it is but the suruay of drunken zebull, Jud. 9. A shadow of mountains, for a band of souldiers.”[A Defence of the Articles of the Protestants Religion, 1601]

In the preface to the Rheims New Testament, Martin had included a lengthy text defending the suppression of Bible reading by the general public. He introduces their excuses by saying, “due preservation of this divine worke from abuse and prophanation, and for the better bridling of the intolerable insolencie of proude, curious, & contentious wittes, the governours of the Church guided by Gods Spirit, as ever before, so also upon more experience of the maladie of this time then before, have taken more exacte order both for the readers and translatours in these later ages, then of old…” He makes it clear that “we must not imagin that in the primitive Church… the translated Bibles into the vulgar tonges, were in the hands of every husbandman, artificer, prentice, boies, girls, mistresse, maide, man: that they were sung, plaied, alleaged, of every tinker, taverner, rimer, minstrel: that they were for table talke, for alebenches, for boates and barges, and for every porphane person and companie.” Further on, after explaining that the Scriptures were maintained by the institutions of the church, he then adds, “The poore ploughman, could then in laboring the ground, sing the hymnes and psalms either in knowen or unknowen languages, as they heard them in the holy Church, though they could neither reade nor know the sense, meaning, and mysteries of the same.” and “the word of God can not be preached nor certaine mysteries uttored to all men alike, but are to be delivered according to the capacitie of the hearers: as he proveth both by S. Paules example, who gave not to every sort strong meate but milke to many, as being not spiritual, but carnal and not capable: and by our lords also, who spake to some plainely, and to others in parables, & affirmed that he had many things to utter which the hearers were not able to beare. How much more may we gather, that all things that be written, are not for the capacitie and diet of every of the simple readers, but that very many mysteries of holy writte, be very far above their reach, & may and ought to be (by as great reason) delivered them in measure & meane most meete for them?”[All quotes from Martin’s preface are from one of two sources Rhemes and Doway, 1855 or scans available on gallica]

Miles Smith handled the above claims mostly in paragraphs 5 titled Translation necessarie, 8 The translating of the Scripture into the vulgar tongues and 9 The unwillingnes of our chiefe Adversaries, that the Scriptures should be divulged in the mother tongue, &c. of the KJV preface. However the phrase under consideration is found at the end of paragraph 16 Reasons inducing us not to stand curiously upon an identitie of phrasing. Here Smith returned to his adversaries once more and assailed them because they “of purpose darken the sense” by using terms such as Holocaust or Pasche. [One might wonder if he would not say the same thing about modern translators and their use of Sheol.] Then Smith adds the subsequent point, “But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar.” By including this at the end of paragraph 16 directly after his point concerning the clarity of terms, was not Smith referencing the vocabulary used more than the overall intelligibility of the Scriptures? Was he responding more clearly to this portion from the Rheims preface, “most shamefully in all their versions Latin, English, and other tonges, corrupting both the letter and sense by false translation, adding, detracting, altering, transposing, pointing, and all other guileful meanes…To say nothing of their intolerable liberty and licence to change the accustomed callings of God, Angel, men, places, & things used by the Apostles and all antiquitie, in Greeke, Latin , and all other langauges of Christian Nations, into new names, sometimes falsely, and always ridiculously and for ostentation taken of the Hebrues: to frame and fine the phrases of holy Scriptures after the forme of prophane writers, sticking not, for the same to supply, adde, alter or dimish as freely as if they translated Livie, Virgil, or Terence. Having no religious respect to keepe either the maiestie or sincere simplicity of that venerable style of Christes spirit, as S. Augustine speaketh, which kind the holy Ghost did choose of infinite wisedom to have the divine mysteries rather uttered in, then any other more delicate, much lesse in that meretricious maner of writing that sundrie of these new translators doe use… that we have used no partialitie for the disadvantage of our adversaries, nor no more licence then is suffereable in translating of holy Scriptures: continually keeping our selves as neere as is possible, to our text & to the very words and phrases which by long use are made venerable, though to some prophane or delicate eares they may seeme more hard or barbarous, as the whole style of Scripture doth lightly to such at the beginning.”?

By using burnt offering in place of the Rheims holocaust, passover in place of pasche, robe in place of tunic, unleavened bread in place of azymes, breastplate in place of rational, and uncircumsized in place of prepuces, the language of the KJV was more on the level of the common man, but that does not necessarily mean that the phrasing or sense was entirely intelligible or that that was their goal. The Puritan William Sclater just 8 years later would argue that the translators didn’t go far enough and words in the KJV were still unintelligible to the people, “But how apparent is it, even where the meanes of knowledge have beene most plentifull, wee are many, such as need to be instructed; shall I say in the rudiments of Christian faith? yea, surely in the very language of Scripture. Insomuch that to this day, the termes of Redemption, Vocation, Justification, are strange to our people; and wee seeme Barbarians, when we mention these things in their eares.”[An Exposition with Notes upon the Frist Epistle to the Thessalonians.] All three words he used as examples were found in the text of the KJV.

One might still argue that word choices and grammar leads to intelligibility, which is not always incorrect, but sometimes the one does not bear fruit by means of the other. Here are two examples from the text of the KJV which demonstrate this:

• At Deuteronomy 32:14, the Bishops’ Bible had “the fat of the most plenteous wheate”, the Geneva, “the fat of the graines of wheat”. Here the KJV changed what was the Bishops’ reading closer to something similar to the Geneva but literal to the Hebrew, “the fat of the kidneys of wheat”. While every one of the words chosen by the KJV translators was most likely clear and understandable to the very vulgar, the combination of them was certainly less clear than was the Bishops’ or the Geneva.
• At 1 Samuel 24:3 both the Bishops’ Bible and Geneva had “to do his easement”. “Easement”, like “plenteous”, is a more complex word. The KJV translators changed this to, “to cover his feet”. Again, while the individual pieces are simpler, the whole is more complex. In other words the words were more vulgar, but the sense less intelligible.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Below is a brief history of the theme of “plowboy” or ploughman” in the context of Bible translations their intelligibility. This is part one of a four part series written by Christopher Yetzer on his FB wall [07/26/2022]. Thanks to him for allowing me to repost this here.

I found Yetzer insightful on the point that “plowboy” or ploughman” represents a kind of person. The terms “plowboy” or ploughman” stand as representatives of the common man in his socio-economic and socio-academic condition when compared to academicians. I hope it will be a blessing to you.

_______________________________________________________________________________

Jerome seems to be one of the earliest witnesses to the type of language that has come to be associated with the plowman as it relates to his use of Scripture. Around 386AD he wrote to Marcella[letter 46] describing the condition of the Holy Land using these words: “in the cottage of Christ all is simple and rustic: and except for the chanting of psalms there is complete silence. Wherever one turns the laborer at his plough [arator stivam tenens] sings alleluia, the toiling mower cheers himself with psalms, and the vine-dresser while he prunes his vine sings one of the lays of David. These are the songs of the country; these, in popular phrase, its love ditties: these the shepherd whistles; these the tiller uses to aid his toil.”

Around the same time on his first homily on the Gospel of Matthew, Chrysostom speaks about the “few and plain words” which Christ has taught concerning what is virtuous and right. He then says, “And these things even to a ploughman[γηπονω], and to a servant, and to a widow woman, and to a very child, and to him that appears to be exceedingly slow of understanding, are all plain to comprehend and easy to learn.” The word γηπονω has been rendered differently in modern translations. γη means land/earth/soil and πονω means to toil or suffer. In some printings it is translated in Latin as rustico or agricolæ. As early as 1636 in Nehemiah Rogers’ The True Convert, Chrysostom’s word was translated as “plough-man” in English. Most modern translations interpret it as laborer, but this most likely brings the wrong image to mind. It seems to be more appropriate to call him at least a laborer of soil or earth, possibly a farmer or plowman. The main idea is obviously the same, no matter the specific word used.

This image of a farmer or a plowman was then carried on by some Catholics who desired to have the Scriptures translated into the vulgar tongues. In the preface to Erasmus’ first edition of his Greek and Latin New Testament, he uses similar words to those used by Jerome. However, whereas Jerome was claiming to have heard them in his day, Erasmus was desirous that in his day such things could be heard, “Perhaps it is better to conceal the mysteries of kings, but Christ’ mysteries he desires to be published as openly as possible. I wish that all young women would read the Gospel and read Paul’s Epistles. Also that they would be translated into every language, so that they could be read and understood not only by the Scots and Irish, but also by the Turks and Saracens. The first step is to learn them, no matter the cost. There may be many who laugh, but some would be captured. Would that, as a result, the farmer might sing some portion of them at the plough[ad stivam aliquid decantet agricola], that the weaver might hum some parts of them at his wheel and that the traveler might relieve the weariness of his journey with stories of this kind! Let all the conversations of every Christian be drawn from this source. For in general our daily conversations reveal what we are.”

The Dominican friar, Marmochino, then mimicked Erasmus in his 1638 Italian Bible preface, “And then if with a pious and Christian eye one considers the truth, would it not seem a most laudable and holy thing if even this plowman, guiding the plow, sang anything in his mother tongue from the Psalms; and if the weaver, while standing diligently at his loom checking over his work, consoled his fatigue with the Gospel; and if the helmsman diligent about the rudder, sang something from it; and so if others like them, diligent on their labors, would ease themselves with the most holy praise of God and word of the Gospel?”

The 1582 Catholic Douay-Rheims English New Testament, while clearly opposing vulgar translations, continues the tradition of using the ploughman, “The poore ploughman, could then in laboring the ground, sing the hymnes and psalms either in knowen or unknowen languages, as they heard them in the holy Church, though they could neither reade nor know the sense, meaning, and mysteries of the same.”

While the ploughman was mostly used by Catholics up to the time of the Council of Trent, shortly thereafter he was borrowed as a sort of battle cry for the Protestants.

In 1563 John Foxe took the analogy to an even greater level when he reported in his book, Actes and Monuments, that William Tyndale said to “a certain Divine”, “If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the scripture than thou dost.” This moved the plea from the common laborer to a working young boy. The attribution of this phrase to Tyndale has been challenged and doubted by some. [Jan J. Martin, “William Tyndale, John Foxe, and the ‘Boy That Driveth the Plough’,” Religious Educator, 17, no. 2 (2016): 86–105.] Even if the phrase was never said by Tyndale, the idea was still promoted by Foxe who was no friend of the Catholics and a similar thought (albeit closer to the ploughman than the ploughboy) is still demonstrated in Tyndale’s 1530 preface, “Which thing only moved me to translate the New Testament. Because I had perceived by experience, how that it was impossible to stablish the lay people in any truth, except the scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue, that they might see the process, order, and meaning of the text.”

Almost a century later, Thomas Swadlin, although surely not unbiased, tried to give a fair perspective of the differing opinions of the Church of Rome and the Reformed Church concerning the Scriptures. In 1643 he said concerning the position of the “Protestant or Reformed Divines”, “That in respect of the manner of Delivering, the Scriptures are onely easie and perspicuous unto them, who are not hindered by Age or Ignorance of the Language in which they reade the Scripture; and who are endued with the Spirit of God; they understanding them onely as they ought to be understood, though they be but plough-men:”[The Scriptures Vindicated from the Unsound Conclusions of Card: Bellarmine.]

Not everyone used the “ploughman/ploughboy” moniker, in fact most people didn’t. For instance Thomas Cranmer in his prologue attached to the Bishops’ Bible used the phrase “the lay and vulgare people”. KJV translator John Bois described them as, “the common people.” [An Exposition of the Dominical Epistles and Gospels Used in Our English Liturgie Throughout the Whole Year.] Therefore the image of the ploughman (while a historical occupation and also a figure throughout the Bible) was originally an application used by the Catholics which Erasmus’ borrowed from Jerome for his preface. It was then replicated by other Catholics who in that time desired the Bible to be translated into the vulgar languages. After the Council of Trent, Protestants in some rare examples took up the character and furthered its use left by the wayside by the Catholics. The word “ploughboy” is not in the KJV preface and neither is “ploughman”. But I do think the language Smith used had a similar idea in mind. Newman and Houser defined Smith’s phrase “very vulgare” as “the ordinary or uneducated person”.[Translation that Openeth the Window.]

_______________________________________________________________________________