I must be too used to reading polemical works because I was always expecting to find just over the next page something on the KJV-only controversy, or why Christianity is better than anything else—but alas, this book sticks to history! Now history is the bedrock of good polemics, however, so I will still try to see if McGrath's book has use for them in this review (spoiler: it does!).

But first, what does the book cover? Of course, to understand any point in history you have to know what happened before that point. There was new technology, namely, Gutenberg's printing press. There was English itself, but since I rarely paid any attention in English at school—even with threats—I'm certainly not going to today! Jokes aside, the most fascinating part of this was more the power struggles between the church hierarchy wanting to keep the Bible in inaccessible Latin, and the Reformers who wanted to overthrow their corruptions.

We get into the first Bibles of the "vulgar"—common—tongues: Luther's German translation and some of the reasoning for the Reformation (and differences in how it played out in England); William Tyndale's attempts in English (while being hunted by the church); Erasmus'; Coverdale's; "Matthew's" (a pseudonym, highlighting how dangerous this work was); The Great Bible, officially accepted; and the Geneva Bible—a Protestant milestone. The Geneva Bible was particulalry irksome because it is what we would we call a study Bible—a Calvinist study Bible—and it argued against the divine right of kings (read: ultimate powerbroker), something that King James held dearly.

Oddly, the Bishop's Bible is barely mentioned, though it was officially authorised. I read elsewhere it was revised twice, and it's final revision was the basis for the KJV (surely this is important?!). Then there was the Catholic-oriented Douai-Rheims Bible that just finished mid-way through translation of the KJV, so was not consulted.

Finally, we get to King James. Now here is where I want to pause and consider whether any of this material could be used against KJV-onlyism—which is, if you're unaware, the idea that the KJV is the perfect translation, inspired of God (although others would just say that it's preferred, because of beauty, or traditional). If we follow Mark Ward's pastoral advice to not talk about textual criticism, because most people don't understand those issues, and to focus on the idea that we need an intelligible tongue for our edification—then we do have a fair amount of ammunition.3 Ways to Graciously Engage KJV-Only Believers, 26/7/2018, Mark Ward, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/3-ways-graciously-engage-kjv-believers/, accessed 17 April 2024. (Notwithstanding, there is some good insight into what texts were available to the translators at the time, and its limitations.)

The Latin Bible was called the Vulgate because at the time, with Rome in power, the Latin was much more a language of the people—a vulgar language. But now, with English was the common people's tongue, it was time to have an English Bible. Nevertheless, the translation instruction was to copy the Bishop's Bible (1568), which in turn mostly copied the Great Bible (1539), which was based almost entirely on Matthew's Bible (1537)--but without offending marginal notes—but mostly on Tyndale's work (1530's). This meant that the English used was already archaic. For example -eth endings were in use in Tyndale's day, but all but gone by 1611—yet the translation rules were such that they had to defer to the earlier style. We might enjoy pronouncing "thus saith the Lord", but it quickly gets tiresome and annoying, e.g. 1 John 2:9-11:

I worked out why this reading from the KJV is so tiresome: because you are actually translating it in your mind as you go. So instead of simply reading "loveth" you are processing "loveth—oh wait what's that? -eth means 's'. So that would be loves. He that loves. Right that makes sense"—which is 20x more information than simply reading modern English. Anyone who's learned another language knows this process. The rejoinder would be that once you really get to know it, you start thinking in the language and you don't need to translate it. But, are we really going to require that people learn a new language just to read the Bible without getting tired and annoyed? Do you really want to say that?

Words also changed meaning, so "his" changed, and "its" was starting to take over that function, but was still too new to use for the common people to understand this new function. So instead of "its width was five feet", the KJV would clumsily use "the width thereof was five feet".McGrath, 275. Psalm 59:10 was translated "The God of my mercy shall prevent me", but, the word "prevent" has shifted meaning and used to mean "go before".

When we combine these types of problematic areas, together with grammatical considerations (not discussed), I find the KJV another language. It's alien. It need translating. It's tiresome to read. It's not at all beautiful, though at times it can be.

On stylistic beauty, there is considerable discussion of how it's very helpful to note which text is poetry through formatting such as indentation—something not present in the KJV which uses every verse on one line. "It was thus impossible for the reader...to determine whether he or she was reading prose or poetry."McGrath, 248. Such inelegance extends to not even having extra space after a paragraph. So, together with the clumsiness due to use of a changing language, and the clumsiness of a fixed translation having now experienced 400 more years of English language changes, I'm not sure how people still find it stylistic or beautiful (or understandable).

But with regard to other less known areas, it is instructive to note that King James himself was no theologian, and may have had homosexual tendencies; that the original "Authorised" version included the Apocrypha books; that there is no known official authorisation, though it might have been amongst records that were burned; that there was a great many printing mistakes made in every production of the Bible (often due to financial reasons such as not having enough proof-readers); and there were other outside influences on the text brought about by its translating rules that have distorted it.

Perhaps I'm a bit too provocative when I ask KJV-only people, "which version of the KJV is perfect?" But it's true that almost every version of the Bible, the KJV no exception, goes through revisions—sometimes for mistakes, sometimes for changes to the way language evolves, sometimes due to political reasons, and other times for stylistic reasons. Apparently the version we use today went through 100,000 updates between the 1611 version and the 1769 edition we use today—though McGrath didn't give me that exact detail.How we got our Bible: the KJV Only movement, 29/9/22, Ryan Leasure, https://crossexamined.org/how-we-got-our-bible-the-kjv-only-movement/, accessed 17 April 2024. What he does talk about is how mundane and normal it was treated in the day. It was only long after every translator was dead that it got turned into its mythical status, much like how we might overly revere a figure like Martin Luther, brushing over his anti-charistmatic theology, his anti-semitic rhetoric, and anything else that might ground him as just a normal human like all of us. Mystery invites mythology, but truth grounds us back into mundane reality. McGrath mentions the mythical status the Septuagint reached too (the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, around the 2^nd century BC)—apparently some believed that every translator reached the same translation independently, such that it was even more inspired than the original Hebrew! The things we will say when there's a few centuries of mystery between us!

I find it fascinating that some people from a church that has very little intellectual pedigree reach for the KJV, but, those from a more intellectual church—particularly Baptist, Church of Christ, and similar—have a high regard for readability and therefore use the NIV or even the simpler New International Reader's Version (NIRV). These churches are particularly concerned about newcomers and those young in the faith, so don't want any jargon or strange words to get in the way. So why are those who are clearly having a hard time reading the KJV, reading it? Because they hold to the idea that it was divinely inspired. Combine that with the idea that "the word of God never returns void" (Isaiah 55:11), and you have a recipe for a rosaryification of Protestantism: repeat this verse ten times daily, and you'll have life. The people I'm thinking of are the same who latched onto Jabez's prayer back in the day. Literally—no exaggeration—it was thought that praying 1 Chronicles 4:10 five times a day would give you the desires of your heart. What is this? Works-based sanctification?! Either that, or, it's simply using God as a mechanical genie, where if you know the words to say, he'll be forced to give out what you want. Another name for that is idolatry, because no longer are you trusting in God and his grace, but you are trusting in your spellcasting ability.

But, let's grant that it was divinely inspired. So what? I put it to you that if it was, it was divinely inspired for a particular purpose—and that purpose has been served. "When a translation itself requires translation, it has ceased to serve its original purpose."McGrath, Afterword, 309 It's now time for a new translation that is in once again in a language that the common people can understand. That too, can be divinely inspired. Why would there be a shortage of inspiration? Is God's heart closed to a new people who don't speak 1530's English? Is God's hand too short to create and guide a new work? Of course not. So read into some of the people and circumstances that led to newer translations and be open-minded to what the Spirit has to say about them.

Conclusion

I'm fascinated by the power of a Bible translation. Here McGrath shows how England was shaped because of it, as when you write down so much of a language, at a time when there was very little written down, you shape its usage enormously. I know from wider reading the impact that Bible translation have had on many (most?) other languages—for preservation of their language, as well as propulsion of the people into modernity and all its benefits. But also, the KJV Bible was shaped because of England. It was shaped by previous Bible translations, by the political intrigues of the day, by the changing of the English language, by the selection of the person in charge—an anti-Calvinist—and by the rules used to translate it.

There's always two ways to look at a thing: spiritually and physically. McGrath focuses on the physical. But there's enough to go from to pontificate about the spiritual. Could God have inspired the KJV? Absolutely. Could God have used it? Assuredly. Does that make it infallible then? Not necessarily—he uses us, and yet we are imperfect. But even if it were infallible (we say that of the original Hebrew and Greek, which were also written by fallible people), the language is not one we use today, and we should not be reading a foreign language in public to people who would struggle to understand it. That's neither loving (1 Corinthians 13), nor speaking intelligibly for the church's edification (1 Corinthians 14).

Let's instead capture the spirit of the KJV translators who wanted a Bible for the regular people, and use a modern translation. And because we want to adopt that spirit, it would do us well to understand them, to model our work off them, to the extent that we find it blameless and worthy. Therefore, I commend McGrath's work to you, especially if you are writing anything for the people of God.

Afterword

This is the bit where I pontificate wildly about something related—aka go down a rabbit hole.

I've sometimes wondered why certain people make much of the fact that it's the "Authorised Version". Are we worshippers of King James now? If not, why do we make much of his authorisation—of which there's actually no evidence for? I believe what they're really getting at is the superiority of this translation, but appealing to a homosexual non-theological king is a weird way of doing it.

There was a KJV-only church from America that came over near us as missionaries. They dressed in American dress, spoke with a thick accent, used a Bible which needed translating, never got around to understanding or loving on us, and wondered why we all were so hard-hearted! They have since moved further out, but haven't given up their missionary efforts. Why haven't these people learned anything from the likes of William Carey, who failed in the same way in China, until he run out of money and had to live the way they lived—stumbling into the conversion of millions?

Why do we hold onto proven failed methods? Typically these people believe that both the old methods aren't failures, and the new ones are compromises. Take for example the issue of women in leadership. Many conservative churches think women should not be in leadership over men because of various biblical passages, and that the new understandings are more to do with a compromise over worldly feminist ideology. It's hard to present a case for theological change because any ills associated with egalitarian churches can be taken as 'bad fruit', proving the conservative case. More intriguing would be a take from Indonesian Christians who agree with the conservatives but allow exceptions—and this does have prima facie agreement with Scripture with for example Deborah. She is notable because she is an exception. And she was a good leader. Nevertheless it's still possible that could be an act of judgment for weak male leadership.

Or take the creation evolution debate. There appears to be so much evidence for evolution, so why are creationists sticking to their guns? Are they ignorant? No, that would be highly ungracious, and simply wrong. They would say that Christians siding with evolutionists are compromised—they've eisegetically applied evolution over the top of the Bible, rather than exegetically taken it from Scripture. As a creationist, I've come to learn that in this case, new science and understanding is not actually better. It's deeply flawed, because it's started and continues with atheistic, materialistic, anti-supernaturalist assumptions. Due to those assumptions, events like a global flood are vigorously denied, despite the many evidences pointing to it. Blinkers are so obviously hindering people's perceptions. As such, I can't take evolutionists seriously because I can see exactly how they've come to their faith in that belief system.

Despite their best efforts to deceptively couch evolution as fully fact-based evidence, I can see that it's 90% story, 10% calculation. For starters, the whole debate is forensics (think CSI cold cases), not experimental science, and this is why the story changes so often. But when we're dealing with forensics, if you do happen to find an eyewitness report, that cuts through all the speculative stories and gets immediately to the truth (assuming the eyewitness is trustworthy!). It so happens that we have a trustworthy eyewitness report, and that is the Bible. This is then used as the interpretative framework to best understand the science (not do away with the science, of course), rather than starting with the assumptions there was no creation, no flood, and no God, and trying to merge that atheism with Christianity.

One thing is for sure: people come to their views in complex ways, and the way it is couched by the opposition is usually too simplistic and too straw-man-like when put under scrutiny. As such, historical books like McGrath's are crucial to come back to in the ongoing work to get to the truth.

After afterword

As I'm uploading this, I'm figuring out what category to put this in. Is it technology? You have to invent language, and that is indeed what many Bible translators have to do, for a language that isn't necessarily written down. What letters or characters signify the sounds that people make? This is technology.

Technology needs constant updating, like software. For languages, this is because people update it by using language slightly differently over time. Translations of the Bible, therefore, need constant updating to stay true to what people say in their day.

Of course, that becomes trickier if language is misused and abused, like some Orwellian dictatorship—a threat that is becoming more apparent every day. And a Bible translation is not isolated from these forces.

Technology like language and programming languages also need interpretive rules such as grammar or a programming engine. Like coding, English benefits from 'beautification' to make it easier for a human to read. Like coding, English has certain 'best practices' that enable us to say that this writing is good or bad.

Also, noteworthy is how the Gutenberg printing press was used to create the KJV. Technology freed the Bible from the limited area of the powerful but corrupt church. Of course, the same technology could be used to disseminate evil. We see that more today with the Internet.

But, well, technology it is.