The Accuracy of the Authorized Version After 400 Years

By Malcom H. Watts

We are grateful that the Authorized Version is receiving so much attention in terms of books, articles, and conferences on its 400th anniversary this year. We do not believe the Authorized Version to be an inspired or perfect translation, only that it is the best available translation in the English language. There is therefore no need for us to answer every criticism of this version. However, some criticisms are totally ill-founded and unjustified, and we believe such do require a detailed response. In this article, my aim is modest as I simply wish to address a sampling of fifteen ill-founded criticisms.

1. Romans 5:11—Critics maintain that “atonement” is a mistranslation. The Greek word is katallagen. While it could have been rendered “reconciliation,” the Authorized Version rendering is not summarily to be rejected. W. G. T. Shedd comments: “This important word is rendered ‘atonement,’ in the English version. At the time when the version was made, atonement=at-one-ment, or reconciliation.” [1] Furthermore, Shedd argues with reference to Athenaeus that the true meaning of the Greek word is “satisfaction,” and he concludes: “Through Christ, the believer ‘receives the atonement’: namely, that expiation for sin which settles the difference between God and man. The result is reconciliation and harmony between the two parties.” [2]

Moses Stuart of Andover confirms Shedd’s first point, writing, “The word means reconciliation; and such is the sense in which our English translators here used the word atonement (quasi at-one-ment).” [3]

2. 2 Thessalonians 3:5—It is maintained that “patient waiting for Christ” is a misrendering of the original. The Greek literally means “the patience of Christ,” and could mean “the patience which Christ exercised” or, as in the Authorized Version, “the patient waiting for Christ.” C. F. Hogg and W. E. Vine acknowledge that the latter is a possible interpretation. [4] Calvin endorses that interpretation, although he does concede the expression might be otherwise understood. He says, “I prefer to understand it as referring to the hope of ultimate redemption. For this is the only thing that sustains us in the warfare of the present life, that we wait for the Redeemer; and farther, this waiting requires faithful endurance amidst the continual exercises of the cross.” [5] Certainly, this supports the rendering of the Authorized Version and is in accord with the emphasis in the two epistles (1 Thess. 1:10; 2:19; 3:13; 4:16, 17; 5:23; 2 Thess. 1:10; 2:8).

3. Romans 1:3—The phrase “Jesus Christ our Lord” is said to be misplaced. In Scrivener’s Greek text it does indeed appear at the end of verse 4—“...resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ our Lord.” The words between “his Son” and “the dead” were therefore regarded by the translators as a parenthesis. Surely the point is that the words are properly translated, although included slightly earlier for the sake of the sense and the right understanding of the two verses.

4. 1 Peter 1:2—The objection here is taken to the position of “elect.” It is true that, in the Greek, this word appears in the first verse—“elect strangers,” and the epistle then proceeds with “Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father….” The point is, however, that the word “elect” begins Peter’s description of his readers. The translators obviously believed (and rightly so, in our opinion) that the verbal adjective “elect” governs the words which follow in the second verse (“according to the foreknowledge of God the Father”). If it doesn’t, then what does? E. H. Plumptre concludes, “The word ‘elect’ or “chosen” belongs, as already stated, to verse 1, but the English sufficiently represents the meaning of the Greek.” [6]

5. Matthew 27:44—Exception is taken to the words “cast the same in his teeth.” The word used here is oneidizon, which means to “reproach” or “to heap insults upon.” If we look at the original, it literally reads, “And with the same thing also the thieves who were crucified together with him reproached him.” The Authorized Version (which follows Tyndale, Coverdale, and the Geneva) understands “reproached” quite correctly, as “cast on him reproaches.” The Greek words to auto, translated “the same,” indicate that “something” was actually thrown—and the concluding word auto indicates that it was thrown “at him” (this being the indirect object of the verb). This is why the Authorized Version chooses to translate the verb in this somewhat surprisingly accurate manner, although it is not widely used in English today—“cast the same in his teeth.”

Regarding Matthew 27:44, we may note James Morison’s comment: “An exceedingly graphic translation.” [7]

6. Mark 2:3—“Paralytic” is reckoned to be a better translation than “sick of the palsy.” The problem is that the term “paralytic” is the modern definition of a person with palsy. J. A. Alexander says it is “a word now in common use, but not at the date of our translation.” [8] But leaving aside that fact, if “palsy” means “paralysis” (which it does), then we can surely assume that one “sick of the palsy” is actually a paralytic. Given that there was no such word in common use in the seventeenth century, the Authorized Version has an excellent rendering of the Greek word.

7. Romans 3:4—The exclamation “God forbid” is considered far too free a translation. The Greek literally means, “May it not be!” but since it is an exclamation of abhorrence, some scholars, like Professor John Murray, have defended the rendering. Murray writes, “It really needs the force of the expression given in our version ‘God forbid.’” In a footnote, Murray says, ”[M]e genoito corresponds to a Hebrew expression and actually occurs in the LXX of Gen. 44:7, 17; Josh. 22:29; 24:16; 1 Kings 21:3. The Hebrew expression is sometimes used with names for God (1 Sam. 24:6—‘The Lord forbid that I should do this thing unto my master.’ See also: 26:11; 1 Kings 21:3; 1 Chron. 11:19; Job 34:10).” He concludes: “Hence our English expression ‘God forbid’ has biblical precedent. The Greek me genoito, indicating the recoil of abhorrence, needs the strength of this English rendering derived from the Hebrew.” [9]

8. Matthew 8:31—Here and elsewhere, the word for “demons” is said to be mistranslated “devils.” In the New Testament, “devil” appears some thirty-five times, and literally means “slanderer” or “one who trips us.” The Greek word, which could be translated “demon” and which denotes an evil spiritual being, occurs a number of times in the original—and it occurs in its verbal form, “demonized” or “possessed of devils.” It is often maintained that there is one devil but many demons, or inferior spirits, subject to him. Hence, the devil is called “the prince of devils” (literally, demons) (Matt. 12:24). But this very title suggests that demons are “the same in nature with one another, also the same with their prince.” [10] Conceivably, then, it is quite acceptable to speak of the devil and also of lesser devils, which is what the Authorized Version appears to do. In fact, it is perhaps worth noting that the word “demon” does not appear anywhere in the Authorized Version.

9. Revelation 4:6ff.—“Beasts” is considered to be a most unsuitable translation for “living beings” or “living creatures.” In the Authorized Version, “beast” appears as a general word for creatures other than man. The Greek word translated “beasts” in the book of Revelation could certainly have been translated “living beings” (in keeping with Ezek. 1, 3, 10); but it should be noticed that the term “beast” is used in reference to forms resembling a lion, a bull calf, etc.—creatures that have mighty power (as the “protectors” of the throne of God) and are meant to strike all observers—and readers—with real and deep fear.

10. Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:8—It is argued that “with water,” in reference to baptism, is a mistake and inconsistent with “in Jordan” mentioned elsewhere. Now, Greek prepositions are notoriously difficult because often they can be translated in many different ways. The Greek preposition en properly signifies “in,” and that is how it could have been rendered (which rendering would have no doubt pleased some); but, in all fairness, it must be said that, in Greek, this preposition (en) followed by the dative case (hudati) can signify the instrument. Here are just two examples: “almost all things are by the law purged with blood (en haimati)” (Heb. 9:22); and “the high priest entereth into the holy place with blood (en haimati)” (Heb. 9:25). Given this indisputable fact, no one can say that the Authorized Version’s rendering (in Matt. 3:11 and Mark 1:8) is a mistranslation, although some might prefer the other rendering.

11. Matthew 6:10—The point made is that this verse should read “thy will be done on earth” rather than “in earth.” The Greek preposition here is epi, literally, “upon”; but, again, it is a preposition which can be variously translated, and when followed by the genitive, it can often mean “in,” as the following examples show: “Archelaus did reign in [epi] Judea” (Matt. 2:22); “in [ep]) their hands they shall bear thee” (Matt. 4:6); “From whence can a man satisfy these men with bread here in [epi] the wilderness?” (Mark 8:4); “there shall be two in [epi] one bed” (Luke 17:34); and “by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in [epi] earth” (Col. 1:16).

12. 1 Thessalonians 4:14—“Sleep in Jesus,” some say, should properly be translated “sleep through Jesus.” Here the preposition is dia, usually “through,” but consider the following: “build it in (dia) three days” (Matt. 26:61); “a vision appeared to Paul in [dia] the night” (Acts 16:9); “I have written a letter unto you in [dia] few words (Heb. 13:22). If this is allowed, it will express the same truth as in 1 Corinthians 15:18 (although there it is with a different preposition): “they also which are fallen asleep in Christ.” However, if “through” is still preferred, it will simply mean, as Albert Barnes observes, that “his death and resurrection are the cause of the quiet and calm repose.” [11]

13. 2 Peter 1:1—It is maintained that this phrase should read “in” and not “through the righteousness of God and our Savior Jesus Christ.” The preposition is indeed en (literally, “in”), and if so translated (as by Wycliffe and Tyndale) it will be similar to “faith in his blood” (Rom. 3:25). But if “through” be maintained—as in “sanctify them through [en] the truth” (John 17:17); “preached through [en] Jesus the resurrection” (Acts 4:2); “consolation and good hope through [en] grace” (2 Thess. 2:16); and “grace and peace be multiplied unto you through [en] the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord” (2 Pet. 1:2)—then, as Alexander Nisbet rightly remarks, “Faith...comes...through Christ’s righteousness, which is, His doing and suffering to purchase it, and other saving graces for us.” [12] A slightly different understanding is supplied by John Lillie, who says, “[I]t may indeed be said that faith is ‘through’ this righteousness, inasmuch as, had there been no such righteousness, there could have been no revelation of it, and consequently no faith.” [13]

14. Luke 9:58—Fault is found on account of the omission of the definite articles in the expression “foxes and birds.” The omission of the definite article in these two cases is a very small matter, especially as particular foxes or birds are not intended. A stronger case could be made for an improvement in Luke 18:13—“God be merciful to me a sinner” (literally, the sinner), as the publican may have thought of himself as the sinner above all others (cf. 1 Tim. 1:15). But this is not at all certain. Dean Alford says, “There may be a stress on to (the Greek article) before hamartolo, ‘me the sinner.’ But see Matthew 18:17, where, as probably here, the article is generic. It seems to me that any emphatic comparison here would somewhat detract from the solemnity and simplicity of the prayer…. The to (the article) rather implies, not comparison with others, but self-abasement: ‘sinner that I am.’” [14] As for John 3:10, in the Greek it does indeed read, “Art thou the master of Israel, and knowest not these things?” It is suggested that there is a contrast with verse 2, “a teacher come from God,” but this is not a view generally endorsed. Indeed, I cannot find it mentioned by any commentator. “The master of Israel” just may suggest that Nicodemus held some special, high position; but, interestingly, Alford, in his Greek Testament, defends the Authorized Version’s rendering here—“a master”—on the grounds that “the article is inserted as required by tou before Israel, which is expressed as giving a solemnity to Isr. as the people of God.” As an alternative reason for this rendering, he asks this question: “Is it possible that ‘the master’ may merely be meant as ‘one of the masters’?” He then concludes by saying, “I prefer either of these reasons for the presence of the article, to supposing it to have any emphatic meaning.” [15] I quote Alford here, not to suggest that he is necessarily correct in his interpretation, but to show that some Greek scholars (and Alford was recognized as eminent in this discipline) support the omission of the article in the translation because its inclusion would give an emphasis not intended. The conclusion must be that criticism of the Authorized Version at this point is quite unjustified.

15. 2 Corinthians 5:14—“If one died for all, then all died” is regarded as more in accord with the original than the Authorized Version’s “if one died for all, then were all dead.” Charles Hodge states that the verse has been “variously explained.” One view (Beza’s and others) is that it means “if one died for all, then were all subject to death,” while another view (supported by the use of the aorist and favored by Hodge) is that “the death of one was the death of all…. The death of Christ was legally and effectively the death of his people.” [16] This is perhaps more a matter of interpretation than translation. The rendering in the Authorized Version could conceivably support both of these views, the point being that “if Christ died for all, then all those were dead for whom he died” (John Gill). [17]

The criticisms which have been made do not, in any way, constitute a general and sustainable indictment of the Authorized Version. Indeed, on examination, they appear to be neither significant or valid. Modern versions, on the other hand, are generally found to be lamentably deficient, containing not only many departures from the Received Text, but also a great number of palpable translational errors. It is our firm belief that the Authorized Version retains its honorable place as the most noble, worthy, and accurate translation of the Scriptures in the English language.

Notes

1. William G. T. Shedd, A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1879), 118-19.
2. Shedd, A Critical and Doctrinal Commentary, 119.
3. Moses Stuart, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London: Thomas Tegg and Son, 1838), 198.
4. C. F. Hogg and W. E. Vine, The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians (Glasgow: Pickering and Inglis, 1914), 285. Cited by W. E. Vine in An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (London: Oliphants Ltd., 1966), 168
5. John Calvin, Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1979), 351.
6. E. H. Plumptre, The General Epistles of St. Peter & St. Jude (Cambridge: The University Press, 1899), 92.
7. James Morison, A Practical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1899), 594.
8. J. A. Alexander, Commentary on the Gospel of Mark (New York: Charles Scribner and Sons, 1864), 34.
9. John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1967), 94.
10. James Henderson, The Imperial Bible Dictionary, ed. Patrick Fairbairn, D.D. (London: Backie and Son, n.d.), Article on Demons, 2:145.
11. Albert Barnes, Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1966), 1098.
12. Alexander Nisbet, An Exposition of 1 & 2 Peter (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), 223.
13. John Lillie, Lectures on the First and Second Epistles of Peter (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1869), 355.
14. Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (London: Rivingtons, 1874), 615.
15. Alford, The Greek Testament, 716.
16. Charles Hodge, A Commentary on the Second Epistle to the Corinthians (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1963), 136
17. John Gill, An Exposition of the New Testament (London: Mathews & Leigh, 1809), 2:789.