In an earlier post titled “The Logos of Translation” it is pointed out that,

 

“The logical goal of the word studies and translation found on this blog is to render (as much as possible) a translation that is a good representation of what the original authors meant when they originally wrote it (and how it would have been perceived by its recipients in that time).”

However, it is also noted there that,

“Some may argue this is the goal of all scripture interpretation and translation but this does not seem to be the case in many instances.”

It is in this post that this will be attempted to be explained via a brief historical survey of the major influences, figures and production of English translations of the Bible.

Now an important starting point is to remember what was explained in the first blog (mentioned above) that,

“Any translation is really the translators interpretation of the scriptures.”

Because of this,

“Every translators theological lens, background, influences and assumptions find themselves in the translation itself. Therefore, it is important to understand what the translators theological lens, background, influences and assumptions are.”

So the driving question here is who are the original translators of the English Bible and what are their theological lens, background, influences and assumptions.

Augustine: A Faulty Foundation?

Historically speaking Augustine is a towering figure when it comes to Western theology. Some have said that there is no more important figure in all of Western Christianity. Others have said that the battle of the reformation was hinged on Augustinian practice (Roman Catholicism) verses Augustinian theology (the Protestant Reformers). Indeed, his influence on Western Christian thought can not be overstated even to this very day. In some ways this should not be surprising as he was undoubtedly a brilliant philosophical mind. It may come as a surprise then that he may not be all that good of a foundation piece for understanding scripture and theology. This is because of 3 reasons:

1. His Philosophical Background – (Before becoming a Christian Augustine had spent the better part of 10 years in Gnostic and Neo-platonic sects and there philosophical ideas seem to often infiltrate Augustine’s theological concepts of God).

2. His poor ability to read Greek – (As such he relied on the Latin Vulgate, at that time recently created by Jerome, to formulate his theology about God).

3. He is the first one to usher in entire new concepts of theology- such as divine determinism (which was his new version of God’s sovereignty), original sin, original guilt, and irresistible grace (among others) – to the church that had before been labeled as gnostic and therefor incorrect by all the preceding Church Fathers.

Since the majority of the early church would have considered Augustine to be in error in much of his theology and interpretation of the scriptures, a major question to consider would be: Why did Augustine’s theological and interpretational views prevail in the West?

I think there are 4 main answers to this question that I will discuss here (though there may be more.)

1. First and foremost, Augustine is a very convincing and articulate expositor of the scriptures. Like Luther, Calvin and a litany of others after him. If one listens to them and tries to understand what they explain they can present very convincing arguments for their view.
2. Secondly, in the West there appears to be no other strong expositor of the scripture during Augustine’s initial time period to present the view of the church that had been held prior to him.
3. Of particular importance is the language separation taking place between the East and West at this point in time. Up to the late 300’s virtually every leader in the church spoke, read, and used Greek to read and expound the scripture. In the East it remains this way (some would say even to this day but certainly for hundreds if not a thousand plus years after the time of Augustine) but for the west the vast majority of people had begun to stop speaking, reading and writing in Greek and had instead started to use Latin. It is for this very reason that in the year 390 Jerome begins to make a translations of the scriptures called the Latin Vulgate because Latin had become the common (vulgar) language.

While Latin had become the primary language in the West, most Christian leaders continued to write in Greek up until Jerome’s completion of the Vulgate. After this completion Augustine becomes the primary writer in the west because he writes in Latin which is now the language in the west. Elsewhere and those other than Augustine continued to use Greek. This made Augustine’s writings by far the most accessible and easily understood in the west where Latin was spoken by virtually all and was the preferable language. Whereas the eastern church leaders and theologians of the time began to be ignored in the west because they continued to use Greek. It is for this same reason why Augustine and his writings are somewhat ignored in the east because in the east it was considered that all serious theologians read, spoke, and wrote in Greek.

In this way Augustine becomes the only prolific writer of note in the West separated not only in proximity to anyone who taught what the church had earlier taught but also by language. If someone had picked up to write what Augustine expounded about the scriptures in the East and particularly in Greek it would probably have been thoroughly addressed by the other church fathers of the time (such as Chrysostom) but since it was in Latin those in the east either couldn’t address it (for lack of knowing Latin well enough) or ignored it and did not take it seriously because it was written in Latin. This creates a theological vacuum in the West which was theologically occupied almost completely by Augustine.

4. The Roman Empire had just recently (when Emperor Theodosius recognized Christianity again as the official religion of the Empire in 380 AD) decided (once again that) they were not only going to now be accepting of the Christian religion along with other religions (this was ushered in by Constantine when he was made emperor in 312) in the Empire but that it would now be a Christian Empire that persecuted other religions consistently. This was not the first time the Roman empire had done as such, for after Constantine died in 353 AD his sons (Constantine II, Constans and Constantius) killed hundreds of their father’s offspring to secure the throne. Then Constans slew Constantine II. Constans was killed in battle which left Constantius the sole ruler of the Christian Roman Empire (Byzantine). Constantius proceeded to pillage and destroy the Pagan temples and gave the booty to the church. This was the beginning of the Christian state government which forced its will and rule on all people (for the first time). Christianity had not only been made a legal religion, but had now become the only option. It was in this militant Christian state fifty years before Augustine that Athanasius wrote the following to rebuke to Constantius and his violent oppression of man’s free will to respond to the gospel. Here is what Athanasius wrote:

 

“Satan, because there is no truth in him, breaks in with axe and sword. But the Savior is gentle, and forces no one, to whom he comes, but knocks and speaks to the soul . . . If we open to him, he enters; but if we will not, he departs. For the truth is not preached by sword and dungeon, by might of an army, but by persuasion and exhortation. How can there be persuasion where fear of the emperor is uppermost? How exhortation, where the contradicter has to expect banishment and death?”

 

This is significant because it shows that the empire (which was claiming to be Christian) was doing this against the will and guidance of what virtually all consider the orthodox leader and voice of the church at the time in Athanasius. The empire seemed to have somewhat accepted the rebuke at that time but then when Emperor Theodocius came to not only claim the empire as Christian but again began to persecute other religions in 380 AD Athanasius was now gone. However, in light of his differing theology from the other church fathers, Augustine (who had become the foremost Bishop in the West during this time) found reason (for the first time in Christian History) in his theology for both Holy war and forcible conversions of people who disagreed with him theologically. As it was the Roman Empire (who’s persecution of pagans and others who did not agree theologically with the Empire was already taking place), naturally embraced Augustinian theology in that it gave these actions theological teeth and backing. This often times is quite shocking to people so instead of trying to further explain how Augustine came to this idea I will instead show you some of Augustine’s writing on the subject (in an effort to show how much it differs from the rebuke of Athanasius provided above), so I quote:

You are of opinion that no one should be compelled to follow righteousness; and yet you read that the householder said to his servants, “Whomsoever ye shall find, compel them to come in.” You also read how he who was at first Saul, and afterwards Paul, was compelled, by the great violence with which Christ coerced him, to know and to embrace the truth; for you cannot but think that the light which your eyes enjoy is more precious to men than money or any other possession. This light, lost suddenly by him when he was cast to the ground by the heavenly voice, he did not recover until he became a member of the Holy Church. You are also of opinion that no coercion is to be used with any man in order to his deliverance from the fatal consequences of error; and yet you see that, in examples which cannot be disputed, this is done by God, who loves us with more real regard for our profit than any other can; and you hear Christ saying, “No man can come to me except the Father draw him,” which is done in the hearts of all those who, through fear of the wrath of God, betake themselves to Him. You know also that sometimes the thief scatters food before the flock that he may lead them astray, and sometimes the shepherd brings wandering sheep back to the flock with his rod…..

Augustine’s explanation hear of why the church should coerce people into Christianity by force, relies on his new Manichean/ Christian doctrine whereby he would say God forces himself onto individuals overriding their free will and leaving them without choice. While, in this scenario just because God has the authority to do so does not without debate mean men of his church should (in fact many even within a Calvinistic stance would say that the church shouldn’t force conversions and that only God can). However, there is something deeper at root in this argument. It is important to realize this doctrine of God forcing an individual to convert is the one Augustine himself invented and was the first to articulate in the Church. He claims (as shown above) that this doctrine cannot be disputed and yet it would be (by his contemporaries like Chrysostom and those shortly after him like Cassian and Vincent of Lyons) and this doctrine he claims as irrefutable would not be recognized by those church fathers prior to him in any way and thus no other Christian leader had ever taught or written that accordingly God’s church should do the same because they would not agree with the premise that God forces people to belief by overriding their free will in the first place. Augustine continues later and states that:

“You now see therefore, I suppose, that the thing to be considered when any one is coerced, is not the mere fact of the coercion, but the nature of that to which he is coerced, whether it be good or bad: not that anyone can be good in spite of his own will, but that, through fear of suffering what he does not desire, he either renounces his hostile prejudices, or is compelled to examine truth of which he had been contentedly ignorant; and under the influence of this fear repudiates the error which he was going to defend, or seeks the truth of which he formerly knew nothing, and now willingly holds what he formerly rejected. Perhaps it would be utterly useless to assert this in words, if it were not demonstrated by so many examples. We see not a few men here and there, but many cities, once Donatist, now Catholic, vehemently detesting the diabolical schism, and ardently loving the unity of the Church; and these became Catholic under the influence of that fear which is to you so offensive by the laws of emperors, from Constantine …. down to the emperors of our own time, who most justly decree that the decision of the judge whom your own party chose, and whom they preferred to a tribunal of bishops, should be maintained in force against you.”

What can be seen here is that the supposed success of the empire in forced conversions seems to have swayed Augustine’s opinion and for the first time in Church history Augustine a leader in the Christian church articulates a theological argument for forcing people to convert. He continues:

“I have therefore yielded to the evidence afforded by these instances which my colleagues have laid before me. For originally my opinion was, that no one should be coerced into the unity of Christ, that we must act only by words, fight only by arguments, and prevail by force of reason, lest we should have those whom we knew as avowed heretics feigning themselves to be Catholics. But this opinion of mine was overcome not by the words of those who controverted it, but by the conclusive instances to which they could point. For, in the first place, there was set over against my opinion my own town, which, although it was once wholly on the side of Donatus, was brought over to the Catholic unity by fear of the imperial edicts, but which we now see filled with such detestation of your ruinous perversity, that it would scarcely be believed that it had ever been involved in your error. There were so many others which were mentioned to me by name, that, from facts themselves, I was made to own that to this matter the word of Scripture might be understood as applying: “Give opportunity to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser.” … How many, believing that it mattered not to which party a Christian might belong, remained in the schism of Donatus only because they had been born in it, and no one was compelling them to forsake it and pass over into the Catholic Church!”

Augustine’s former view, “that no one should be coerced into the unity of Christ, that we must act only by words, fight only by arguments, and prevail by force of reason,” I believe is the one pretty much all modern day believers agree with. However, you can see by his own admission that he switched views but not because he was convinced by scripture at first but rather by the events that transpired around him and it was only then that he wrote a theological defense using his incorrect interpretation of scripture (when compared with how the church had interpreted it up to him) to support the idea. This, I believe is the flaw of his that made his theology so appealing to the Roman empire in that he decided to try to defend theologically the action the Empire was already starting to do and thus gave there actions theological and scriptural backing for the first time in history.

With all this in mind you can see how:

A) There were no supporters of the Augustinian theological views in the Early Church prior to Augustine.

B) Augustine being the first to express these concepts and understandings of scriptures had been heavily influenced by Gnostic/ Neo platonic doctrine.

C) That Augustine’s new interpretation of scripture found little opposition in the West because of the language barrier.

D) That Augustine’s doctrine then found a foothold in the West because it supported forced unity by forcing those who believed differently theologically to agree or be persecuted, forced conversion of the pagans, and eventually his ideas would be used to support the idea of a Christian empire in Holy War such as the crusades.

Now let’s transition to an overview of the History of the English Bible

Now one may well ask, what does this have to do with the English translations of scriptures? Let me explain, because Augustine’s theology had taken root and was actually a strong proponent used by western Roman Catholicism (though many in the Catholic church would not fully agree with his doctrines now) it was Augustine that much of western Christianity is built on because western Roman Catholicism was trying to force everyone to the same belief that was articulated by Augustine.

However, over a period of time (stretching almost 1,000 years) the leaders of the Roman Catholic church started to not teach the Augustinian understanding of the scriptures but did so by replacing them with new doctrines (such as purgatory and indulgences) that many would consider even more incorrect and corrupt. As their Doctrines became more and more corrupt, certain people (such as the Waldensians, John Wycliff, and John Huss) began clamoring for reform and were persecuted in the process (following Augustine’s articulated defense of forced unity). It was after this that famously Martin Luther began the reformation.

The question is what was Martin Luther trying to reform to. While most protestants would claim that he was trying to reform back to the early church or the bible, in all actuality Luther appears to be trying to reform back to the theological understanding of the scripture posed by Augustine. Luther’s heavy influence from Augustine can be seen by the fact that most of his theological training was as an Augustinian monk before the reformation begins and second by several different writings of his that occur after the reformation started, that show an affinity toward Augustinian understanding of the scriptures. Luther was followed closely by Zwingli who championed Augustine by quoting him often in his own writings to the exclusion of many of the other church father and fell in line with Luther’s reformation teaching (except for there dispute regarding the Lord’s supper) . Then comes Calvin who chronologically followed and was influenced by both Luther and Zwingli and there is no question that he quotes Augustine an embarrassing amount of times when compared to any other church father. All three of the main reformers seem to be most influenced by Augustine and trying to reform back to Augustinian theology and understanding of the scriptures.

Therefore, the standard Protestant practice that most English translators have inherited and follow is to ignore and dismiss all early church Fathers accept Augustine. This tendency to ignore the other church Fathers or call them incoherent compared to Augustine is still prevalent in many western church’s, denominations, and even scholars even to this day. However, this is probably due to the tendency to look at the early church fathers writings and teaching with our western theological lenses on (fully influenced by Augustine through reformation teaching) and call it incoherent because it often times seems completely foreign to the way we read and understand the scriptures. Why do our scriptures seem to contradict and not gell well with the early Church fathers teachings? This is where the issue of translation comes in.

Let us now turn toward the English translation of the scriptures. The first man that really took the time to try to translate the scriptures to English was John Wycliff but he was at a loss for having any Greek transcripts so he had to do a translation of the Latin Vulgate. So it was rightly dismissed by the reformers as a translation of a translation and not all that useful by the time of the reformation because of that. Instead the man considered to be the father of the English bible would be William Tyndale.

Tyndale tried to do his translation in England but he was forced out of England in order to avoid persecution. So he made his way to Wittenberg, Germany where most historians believe he met with Martin Luther to write Tyndale’s New testament. Tyndale at the very least was considered a reformer and Lutheran for fleeing to Wittenberg and was thus heavily influenced by Luther’s theology. It is plain if you read Tyndale’s other works that he was adhering to and defending the Augustinian reformational theology posited by Luther.  In fact it is thought that Tyndale (who was also fluent in German) was using Luther’s heralded German translation to help assist him in the translation of the scriptures to English. The fact that Tyndale was fully on board with the reformers and their theology is hardly questioned by anyone weather from a reformed position or otherwise. The thing to consider then when it comes to Tyndale’s translation is the fact that he was Augustinian/ Lutheran in doctrine and let us remember that “ Any translation is really the translators interpretation of the scriptures.” So Tyndale wrote his translation of the scriptures while being influenced heavily by Luther’s understanding of the scriptures and his subsequent german bible for understanding and translating the Textus Receptus into English. Tyndale does finish the New Testament and parts of the old before he is killed in England for doing so.

However, Tyndale’s good friend and fellow reformer Myles Coverdale continued his work and was allowed to finish the first complete Bible from the Greek and Hebrew into English. Coverdale at this point when he finishes the “Coverdale Bible” was highly influenced by Tyndale and practically used all of Tyndale’s translation in the New Testament. Later the next major translation of the Bible would be the Great Bible which Coverdale was the main contributor and editor of.

During the reign of Mary Tutor (Bloody Mary) many of the reformers and protestants of England flee to mainland Europe and many of them end up taking refuge in Geneva. So during Bloody Mary’s reign many of the English reformers flee to Geneva which at this time is under the influence and guidance of John Calvin. Coverdale then along with other well known reformers such as Calvin and John Knox translate the bible from a particularly Reformed/ Augustinian view with interpretational study notes and all, and this translation becomes known as the Geneva Study Bible.

When these reformers return to England and Scotland the Geneva Study Bible is the more liked and used translation to any formerly authorized Bible that has been used in England prior to that time. The Anglican (being the English state) church had a problem in that the Geneva Bible was superior in both quality of English and in popularity and so the people wanted to use this Bible but it was not used by the state Church and the King did not want to use it because the notes in the Geneva Bible that criticized the authority of the King especially in instances when it came to the church. So King James then authorizes the production of what is known as the King James Bible. In it the leaders of Anglicanism who had to sign off on the 39 articles (produced by Thomas Cromwell another well know reformer who backed the reformed/ Augustinian theological doctrine) which has a clear picture of Augustinian/Reformed doctrine in its theology in order to be partakers in the project. Even upon its completion the King James Bible leaned heavily on Tyndale’s original translation and it is estimated that the completed King James New Testament is 80% the same as Tyndale’s original translation.

I have given you this brief history of the English bible to show you this very important fact. The English Bibles that were first produced were all written by reformers for reformers, by westerners (who were reforming to Augistine theology) for westerners (who were reforming to Augistine theology) and so Luther’s, Zwingli’s, and Calvin’s theology (which relied heavily on Augustine interpretation) is written into most (if not all) of our English Bibles. This is because many if not all of our current translation still use the King James as their base (sometimes without even realizing it) and even if that is not the case, the influence of the King James version (and the interpretation held within it) is not to be understated. This is because the King James Bible was pretty much the only English translation used regularly by protestants for over 200 years after its inception as the authorized version.

Most modern translations rely on the King James (if not intentionally at least in the tradition of understanding what certain words mean and should be translated) and therefor all the way back to Tyndale/ Luther. There may be a few exceptions (for example those put out by the Roman Catholic Church) but they are virtually all written from a western perspective and understanding of the Greek and Hebrew and in light of this our western theology. Whenever using a translation it is of the utmost importance to understand the theological viewpoint of which the authors or council writing it are coming from because we all have theological presuppositions and when writing a translation those are certainly going to be expressed weather intentional or not.

In closing here, I want to say something briefly. First, I don’t believe that the reformers were writing there Augustine/ Reformed/ Western doctrine into the text intentionally but rather that it happened naturally. I believe the reformers and early English translators were trying to be as honest with the Greek and Hebrew texts as possible but that when there was a word that had more than one possible meaning they would pick the one that made the most since in their theological ideas or when needing to rearrange words to make more since, they would do so to make them make the most since in their theological understanding. This would seem a good thing in that they were trying to the do their best to understand  and to fully reproduce what was being said in scripture. The problem is there understanding was tainted and slanted by almost strictly western ideas and in many areas of Augustine. They couldn’t help thinking and understanding and translating passages in a certain way because that is what there presuppositions dictated. While this may seem like I am attacking the reformers I am highly thankful to them for bringing us westerners fully out of the Roman Catholic heresies that were happening at that specific time in History. However, I must state the fact that appears to be obvious at this point and that is that they took Augustinian/Reformed theology and unintentionally placed it into our modern Western English translations which has been highly influential ever since.

In light of this I will now reiterate what was said at the beginning of this blog post

All that has been explained here is why, “The logical goal of the word studies and translation found on this blog is to render (as much as possible) a translation that is a good representation of what the original authors meant when they originally wrote it (and how it would have been perceived by its recipients in that time).”