by Rev E. A. Rayner B.A.
We are aware of how the A.V. came into our possession. It was translated from the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that were providentially preserved from the original autographs. No doubt we agree that the original autographs were immediately inspired of God. “Holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” No doubt we also agree that Providential preservation has secured the inspired Word of God in Greek and Hebrew. The question now remains as to whether the translation we have, based as it is on the true text, i.e. the Received Text, is still the inspired Word of God.
Two articles help us to answer this question. The first of these is Inspiration of Scripture by Hugh Martin, D.D., republished by the Free Presbyterian Church 1964. On page 20 Hugh Martin deals with misapprehensions some have about referring to a mere translation as the inspired word of God. He states, “‘The original Hebrew and Greek may have been inspired, but you do not surely claim inspiration for a mere translation?’ It would thus appear that inspiration is conceived of as some spiritual dye or colour or flavour which is washed out or evaporates in the course of translation, and that, however good and satisfactory the translation may be.” The writer then goes on to state, “But this is just a misapprehension, or refusal to accept in its plain and simple meaning the great truth that the Scriptures are the Word of God — God’s Word committed to writing by Himself.” In order to illustrate this Martin compares other works that are translated into another language. Thus, if we would translate the Confession of Faith into Dutch or German, it remains the Confessions of Faith. Therefore if the Holy Scriptures are translated from the Greek and Hebrew into English, Dutch or German or any other language, so long as they are accurately translated, they haven’t ceased to be the inspired Word of God.
The second article is taken from the Bible League Quarterly, July/September 1994 where Charles Breed writes on Thoughts on the Inspiration of Scripture. He asks, “What is the relation between the ancient inspired documents and our Authorised Version of the Scriptures? I have a pretty shrewd idea how this particular book, that I am holding in my hand came into being. I know it is a translation, not the result of a miracle, but of considerable human learning. Yet this same Authorised version has stirred the souls of many, transformed the lives of thousands, and brought multitudes to the feet of Christ. A change of sound, or a change of form, does not change the meaning behind it. When applied by the Holy Ghost, it has the self-same power that the original manuscript had. The fact is you do not lose the power of inspiration by translation.” As Hugh Martin also points out that this is “— stamping with His approbation for ever the principle that the translated Word of God is still the Word of God when translated.” An apt analogy is given by Charles Breed. He says all human beings have the same kind of physical life as Adam had, but they derived their life by ordinary generation from him, while he received it by inspiration when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life. Translations of Scripture have power and authority like that of the originals, but they have derived it by translation from them whose descendants they are. But the autographs received it by immediate inspiration.
Having noted that immediate inspiration belongs alone to the autographs and that inspiration is not lost or washed out like a dye in translation it does not follow that the translation is perfect, or that in better days there may not be a better translation. Some erroneously hold to the idea of Authorised Version perfectionism, but the above reasoning does not imply this. We must therefore guard against going from one extreme to the other. As other articles have shown there are good reasons to believe that the A.V. is the best, and most accurate translation to date. Nor does it deny, as the Confession of Faith states, that ultimately in all controversies of religion the Church is to appeal to the Scriptures in the original languages. (Chp 1: 8) Though we believe that inspiration continues through to sound translations, e.g. the Authorised Version, we do not claim that there is an exact correspondence in every detail between them and the originals. Nor do we claim that, however faithful and well qualified the translators were, they themselves were inspired like the original writers of the autographs.
Nevertheless, any effort to cause us to question whether we have the inspired Word of God in a sound translation is an attempt to undermine our faith in the Word of God. It is a subtle attempt to undermine the believers confidence in the translated Word. So if our present Bible is not the inspired Word of God, then the question arises whether it is the Word of God after all. How contrary to the mind of the Spirit who would have God’s people to trust Him and not to be afraid, so that in times of doubting these may be able to plead, “Remember Lord thy gracious Word thou to thy servant spake, which for a ground of my sure hope thou causest me to take.” Once we begin to have confused ideas as to whether inspiration follows through to a sound translation, they may lead to questioning the providential preservation of the true text in the originals and so the drift continues to even worse things in the course of time.
Let us therefore hold fast the form of sound words as they are expressed in the Larger Catechism. Question 156 states that the Holy Scriptures are to be translated out of the originals into the vulgar tongue. Then question 157 follows immediately on to show how these Scriptures, including those translated into the common tongue, are to be read with a high and reverent esteem and with a firm persuasion that they are the very Word of God — God’s inspired Word.