8. Translations: Can we trust them? (Pt. 1--English Translation History)

History of English Bible Translations

We’re going to do a brief history of English Bible translations. I want you to understand a few things:

The history of English Bible translation precedes the KJV by almost 1,000 years. The KJV was not the first English translation of the Bible. There as many as a dozen before it.

I want you to understand the cost of your English Bible.

You paid very little for your Bible—maybe $10, $20, or even $100. But up until the invention of the printing press, hand copied manuscripts were the only option and they were extremely expensive. Even after the printing press, many Bibles cost more than the average person could afford.

Many of the translators of the English Bible paid for it with their lives.

Lindisfarne Gospels (c. 700 A.D.)

Primary language: Latin

Old English/Anglo-Saxon was used from around 450-1100 A.D.

OE was originally written in runes, but later imported Latin letters.

There was a growing need for an English Bible by the end of the first millenium.

In the 10th Century, a monk added Anglo-Saxon (Old English) glosses above the Latin words to create an interlinear. (technically not a translation)

Example Greek-English Interlinear of John 1:1-2:

Wessex Gospels (c. 990 A.D.)

Language: Anglo Saxon

Oldest extant Scripture portion in the English language.

7 MSS extant

Probably translated by the monk Ælfric of Eynsham.

Fæder ure þu þe eart on heofonum, si þin nama gehalgod. To becume þin rice, gewurþe ðin willa, on eorðan swa swa on heofonum. Urne gedæghwamlican hlaf syle us todæg, and forgyf us ure gyltas, swa swa we forgyfað urum gyltendum. And ne gelæd þu us on costnunge, ac alys us of yfele. Soþlice. Matthew 6:9-13 (Wessex Gospels, Old English)

Ælfric’s Hexateuch/Heptateuch (c. 1010 A.D.)

Language: Anglo Saxon

First six or seven books of the Bible (Genesis-Joshua/Judges)

7 MSS extant

Wycliffe Bible (c. 1380’s A.D.)

Language: Middle English

Translator: John Wycliffe (and team)

Source Text: Latin Vulgate

Wycliffe and his colleagues produced many manuscripts of their Middle English translation. Over 250 so-called Wycliffite manuscripts survive; only 20 of these are or were complete bibles.

All are manuscripts—hand copied. Some were more literal word for word translations, and some were freer meaning based translations.

John 3:16 Wycliffe

16 Forsothe God ʽso louede the world, that he ȝaf his oon bigetun sone, that ech man that bileueth in to him perische not, but haue euere lasting lyf.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpCUQK9zZKg

Posthumously declared a heretic and his writing banned (1415), his body exhumed, burned, and cast into the river in 1428.

Tyndale New Testament (1526 A.D.)

Erasmus’ published Greek New Testament (1516) revealed significant mistranslations in the Latin Vulgate, and enabled a much simpler translation process from the original language.

Luther kicked off the Protestant Reformation in 1517 by publicly challenging the Papacy.

The English language had changed, Middle English was no longer used.

Language: Early Modern English

Translator: William Tyndale

Source Text: Erasmus’Greek New Testament

The first English New testament translated directly from the original language.

John 3:16 Tyndale 1536

16 For God so loveth the world/that he hath gevē his only sone/that none that beleve in him/shoulde perisshe: but shoulde have everlasting lyfe.

Tyndale was in the process of translating the OT, but never was able to finish.

In 1537, Tyndale was condemned as a heretic and executed.

Strangled and burned at the stake.

Coverdale Bible (1535 A.D.)

The first complete English Bible in early modern English.

Coverdale spent a significant amount of time in exile on the mainland because his Protestant views made him a target. He spent the years 1528-1535 (7 yrs), 1540-1547 (7 yrs), and 1553-1559 (6 yrs) in exile and eventually died in poverty.

He helped with the Matthew’s Bible and the Geneva Bible as well.

Matthews Bible (1537 A.D.)

Translator: John Rogers (Tyndale’s friend)

Source Text: Tyndale’s NT and OT portions, plus translation from Hebrew OT

Authorized by Henry VIII to be used for personal study/devotion.

Rogers published the First Edition of the Matthew-Tyndale Bible in 1537 under the assumed name “Thomas Matthew” since any association with Tyndale was dangerous.

This version was a more complete translation than the Coverdale Bible had been.

John Rogers, along with Bishop Thomas Cranmer who had promoted the Matthews Bible, were burned at the stake at the orders of Queen Mary I of England (“Bloody Mary”) on February 4, 1555.

The Great Bible (1539 A.D.)

The first English translation to receive full, official authorization from English royalty to be read aloud in Church services.

It relied heavily upon Tyndale’s translation, supplementing from other sources where Tyndale’s was incomplete. But, since it didn’t have the anti-Catholic and anti-Church of England marginal notes, it was approved by Henry VIII. (Also, Henry was angry with Rome and the pope for not approving his annulment and remarriage, so he had begun the Church of England by this point.)

The Geneva Bible (1560 A.D.)

During the reign of Mary I (1553–1558), who restored Catholicism and outlawed Protestantism in England, a number of English Protestant scholars fled to Geneva, which was a Protestant safe haven. John Calvin and, later, Theodore Beza, were the primary spiritual and theological leadership. 

Translated in: Geneva, Switzerland

Source Text: Hebrew and Greek (plus Tyndale’s NT)

Translators: William Whittingham, Myles Coverdale, Christopher Goodman, Anthony Gilby, Thomas Sampson, and William Cole.

First English Bible with verse numbers.

First Study Bible with extensive marginal notes.

Bible of the Protestant Reformers, the Pilgrims, the Puritans

Contained extremely Protestant (anti-Catholic) marginal notes.

Referred to the Pope as the beast in the notes on Rev. 11:7 and others, and argued for biblical permission to defy tyrants in notes in passages like Daniel 6:22, 11:36, and Exodus 1:19, which upset the King of England.

This was the most popular English Bible translation for almost 100 years.

The Bishop’s Bible (1568 A.D.)

Anglican reaction against the Geneva Bible.

Forerunner and “rough-draft” of the KJV.

Did not gain much popularity.

Douay-Rheims Bible (1582/1610 A.D.)

Catholic reaction against the Geneva Bible.

Source: Latin Vulgate

Because of its reliance upon the Latin, and some eisegesis into the translation, it has a number of Catholic quirks: “penance” instead of “repentance,” explicit references to transubstantiation, etc.

Matthew 4:17 D-R

17 From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say: Do penance, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

Matthew 6:11 D-R

11 Give us this day our supersubstantial bread.

The King James Version (1611 A.D.)

Commissioned by King James of England in 1604, completed in 1611.

aka, the “Authorized Version” (AV)

Commissioned to replace the Geneva Bible, which was growing in popularity.

Contained no marginal notes, aside from translation choices.

Translated from Greek and Hebrew, but also referenced former English translations

Some scholars estimate that about 84% of the New Testament in the KJV is word-for-word identical to the Tyndale Bible, and roughly 76% of Tyndale's OT portions are in the KJV.

The KJV did not immediately supplant the Geneva Bible. The Geneva Bible continued to be printed up til 1644. But, in 1637 Archbishop Laud outlawed printing or importing the Geneva Bible, so the KJV took over in popularity from that point on.

There were a number of typos and misprints (the “He Bible”, the “wicked Bible,” etc.) due to printing variations, and several minor revisions and reprints.

The KJV was standardized in 1769 by Oxford, which became the basis for modern KJV’s.

Why Translations Differ

Choices in Textual Basis

Most modern translations still use the BHS as their primary textual base, but do occasionally use a reading from the DSS or Septuagint

When comparing older translations like the KJV, Geneva, etc.—all of those use the Textus Receptus for the NT, while newer translations take advantage of older manuscripts discovered since then.

Manuscript Variants

Examples of contrast between translations due to difference in choice of manuscript variant

Sometimes it’s not 100% clear which variant in the MSS is original, so different translations may make a different choice. This doesn’t happen a lot, and it’s usually not a big difference, but it does happen occasionally.

Style and Approach to Translation

Formal Equivalence vs. Dynamic Equivalence

Interpretive Choices

Ambiguity—words can have multiple meanings.

John 3:3–4 ESV

3 Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” 4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?”

John 3:3–4 NET

3 Jesus replied, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?”

Consistency and Semantic Range

Idiomatic Expressions

What is the best translation?

That depends upon what criteria you use.

Accuracy

Accurate to meaning?

Accurate to form?

Accurate to style?

Accurate to impact?

Naturalness

Sometimes the more formally equivalent translations (NASB, ESV, CSB) sacrifice naturalness in English in order to preserve more of the underlying Greek or Hebrew structure.

Sometimes the more dynamically equivalent translations (NLT, GNB, NIV) obscure important details in the underlying Greek and Hebrew in order to preserve naturalness in the English language.

Questions to help you select a translation:

Does this translation have strong support in the evangelical Christian community? Is the translation committee comprised of well-respected scholars in the Christian community?

Am I a strong reader? Do I innately pick up on subtle nuance and structure changes?

What is my primary purpose for this translation? In-depth study? Personal devotion? Evangelism to children?

Will I be using this Bible at church? Will this translation enrich or detract from my experience in worship and small groups?

Am I interested in a study Bible, or just a reference Bible? If study Bible, what kind of Bible options and study helps are available with this translation?

Do I have to pick just one?

Bible Translations Bestsellers, January 2025 Compiled and distributed by ECPA Rank Title

New International Version (NIV)

English Standard Version (ESV)

King James Version (KJV)

New Living Translation (NLT)

New King James Version (NKJV)

Christian Standard Bible (CSB)

Reina Valera (RV)

New American Standard Bible (NASB)

New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)

New International Reader's Version (NIRV)

The best translation is the one that you will read and understand.

King James Only-ism

The Claim: “The KJV is the only inerrant, inspired version of the Bible.”

Disclaimer: There are a lot of variations of the KJV only movement, but most of them come back to these claims of inerrancy and inspiration applied to the translation itself.

Disclaimer: I love the KJV, I’m grateful for the KJV, and most of our modern translations owe a lot to the KJV. I’m not against the KJV, and if it were the only translation available to me, I’d happily use it. It’s trustworthy and a good, generally reliable translation. What I’m against is the idea that it, as a translation, is inerrant, superior, or divinely inspired and the idea that all other modern English translations are insufficient or in error. I’m for the KJV, I’m against the “KJV only” movement. If you have a KJV—cherish it, read it, believe it.

Debunking “KJV only”

Claim: “The KJV comes from a superior textual (MSS) basis.”

The KJV relies upon the “Textus Receptus” (Erasmus’ Greek NT) for the NT.

Erasmus’ Greek Text (aka, “Textus Receptus”) was primarily compiled from Greek MSS he had access to, not necessarily the best Greek MSS.

Erasmus only had access to about six MSS, none complete. The oldest Greek MSS Erasmus had access to were the 10th and 12th centuries.

Codex Vaticanus was largely unavailable to him, and Sinaiticus was not discovered until the 1800’s.

Beyond these major uncials, modern scholars now possess more than four thousand Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, whereas Erasmus worked with a limited collection of medieval copies housed at Basel University. The manuscripts he consulted were at Basel University and convenient, but not necessarily the most complete. His reliance on these particular manuscripts led to textual problems—for instance, since the last six verses of Revelation were missing from the Greek manuscripts he consulted, Erasmus translated those six verses from Latin into Greek.

The DSS were not discovered until 1940’s.

Holman Illustrated Bible Dictionary Textus Receptus

Erasmus would be the first to applaud the study of as many manuscripts as possible and would be horrified to know that his tentative work achieved such a revered status. Until the end of his life, he continued to improve his Greek NT whenever better manuscripts and editions became available to him.

The Masoretic text would have been the primary, if not the only, source text for the OT in the KJV, aside from the Septuagint.

Not translated from a superior textual basis; actually, an inferior one.

Claim: “The KJV translators were inspired and/or inerrant.”

2 Timothy 3:16 KJV 1900

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

When Paul wrote that, he was talking about the original authors’ writings, like himself and Peter. In short, he was talking about the autographs.

Our doctrine of inerrancy applies to the autographs—not to the MSS, and certainly not to the translations.

Very few well-educated KJV only-ists would dare make this argument, but many people in the pew believe this because of how the KJV is revered.

Fact: The KJV translators were not, and never would have been, “KJV-onlyists.”

The KJV translators believed that revising a translation to improve it was necessary and good.

THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER Preface to the King James Version 1611 Unabridged Preface to the King James Version 1611

Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising anything ourselves,

THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER Preface to the King James Version 1611 Unabridged AN ANSWER TO THE IMPUTATIONS OF OUR ADVERSARIES

Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us,

THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER Preface to the King James Version 1611 Unabridged THE PURPOSE OF THE TRANSLATORS, WITH THEIR NUMBER, FURNITURE, CARE, ETC.

Truly (good Christian Reader)

The KJV translators desired to make Scripture as accessible as possible to contemporary readers.

THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER Preface to the King James Version 1611 Unabridged TRANSLATION NECESSARY

But how shall men meditate in that, which they cannot understand? How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue?...Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most Holy place...

The KJV translators believed that all English translations were to be regarded as the Word of God.

THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER Preface to the King James Version 1611 Unabridged AN ANSWER TO THE IMPUTATIONS OF OUR ADVERSARIES

Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay

THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER Preface to the King James Version 1611 Unabridged AN ANSWER TO THE IMPUTATIONS OF OUR ADVERSARIES

A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [

The KJV translators sought to balance accuracy with readability.

THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER Preface to the King James Version 1611 Unabridged REASONS INDUCING US NOT TO STAND CURIOUSLY UPON AN IDENTITY OF PHRASING

Lastly, we have on the one side avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans, who leave the old Ecclesiastical words, and betake them to other, as when they put WASHING for BAPTISM, and CONGREGATION instead of CHURCH:

as also on the other side we have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full, and that of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must needs translate the Bible,

“mean” (early modern English) = “ordinary, common, humble, or low-status”

So, when someone denigrates an attempt to improve upon the KJV translation, they are denying the spirit of the KJV. When someone insists on using a version of English that the common person can no longer understand, they are denying the spirit of the KJV. When someone insists that the KJV is without error or inspired, they are contradicting the plain statements of the KJV translators themselves.

The best way to honor the legacy of the KJV is to do what the KJV translators would do—constantly seek to improve it, never denigrate other honest efforts at translation.