II.A second trait of the work as a version is its remarkable accuracy.It is surprising that with all the new light coming from early documents, with all the new discoveries that have been made.the latest revision needed to make so few changes, and those for the most part minor ones.There are, to be sure, some important changes, as we shall see later; the wonder is that there are not many more.The King James version had, to be sure, the benefit of all the earlier controversy.The whole ground had been really fought over in the centuries before, and most of the questions had been discussed.They frankly made use of all the earlier controversy.They say in their preface: "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make a bad one a good one, but to make a good one better.That hath been our endeavor, that our work." Also, they had the advantage of deliberation.This was the first version that had been made which had such sanction that they could take their time, and in which they had no reason to fear that the results would endanger them.They say in their preface that they had not run over their work with that "posting haste" that had marked the Septuagint, if the saying was true that they did it all in seventy-two days; nor were they "barred and hindered from going over it again," as Jerome himself said he had been, since as soon as he wrote any part "it was snatched away from him and published"; nor were they "working in a new field," as Origen was when he wrote his first commentary on the Bible.Both these things--their taking advantage of earlier controversies which had cleared many differences, and their deliberation--were supplementedby a third which gave great accuracy to the version.That was their adoption of the principle of all early translators, perhaps worded best by Purvey, who completed the Wiclif version: "The best translation is to translate after the sentence, and not only after the words, so that the sentence be as open in English as in Latin." That makes for accuracy.It is quite impossible to put any language over, word for word, into another without great inaccuracy.But when the translators sought to take the sentence of the Hebrew or the Greek and put it into an exactly equivalent English sentence, they had larger play for their language and they had a fairer field for accuracy.These were the three great facts which made the remarkable accuracy possible, and it may be interesting to note three corresponding results which show the effort they made to be absolutely accurate and fair in their translation.
The first of those results is visible in the italicized words which they used.In the King James version words in italics are a frank acknowledgment that the Greek or the Hebrew cannot be put into English literally.These are English words which are put in because it seems impossible to express the meaning originally intended without certain additions which the reader must take into account in his understanding of the version.We need not think far to see how necessary that was.The arrangement of words in Greek, for example, is different from that in English.The Greek of the first verse of the Gospel of John reads that "God was the Word," but the English makes its sentences in a reversed form, and it really means, "the Word was God." So the Greek uses particles where the English does not.Often it would say "the God" where we would say simply "God." Those particles are ordinarily wisely omitted.So the Greek does not use verbs at some points where it is quite essential that the English shall use them.But it is only fair that in reading a version of the Scripture we should know what words have been put in by translators in their effort to make the version clear to us; and the italicized words of the King James version are a frank effort to be accurate and yet fair.
The second result which shows their effort at accuracy is in the marginal readings.Most of these are optional readings, and are preceded by the word "or," which indicates that one may read what is in the text, orsubstitute for it what is in the margin with equal fairness to the original.But sometimes, instead of that familiar "or," occur letters which indicate that the Hebrew or the Greek literally means something else than what is given in the English text, and what it literally means is given in the margin.The translators thereby say to the reader that if he can take that literal meaning and put it into the text so that it is intelligible to him, here is his chance.As for them, they think that the whole context or meaning of the sentence rather involves the use of the phrase which they put into the text.But the marginal references are of great interest to most of us as showing how these men were frank to say that there were some things they could not settle.They were rather blamed for it, chiefly by those who had committed themselves to the Douai version, which has no marginal readings, on the ground that the translation ought to be as authoritative as the original.The King James translators repudiate that theory and frankly say that the reason they put these words in the margin was because they were not sure what was the best reading.In the margin of the epistle to the Romans there are eighty- four such marginal readings, and the proportion will hold throughout most of the version.They were only trying to be accurate and to give every one a chance to make up his own mind where there was fair reason to question their results.
