The ideology of King James Onlyism (KJVO) and the strict interpretation of Verbal Plenary Preservation (VPP) rests on the premise that God’s Word is preserved only through a specific lineage of manuscripts (the Textus Receptus) and culminated in a single, unchangeable English translation in 1611. This view asserts that changing a word breaks the preservation of Scripture. However, this rigid philosophy is entirely foreign to the early Church fathers who laid the groundwork for biblical scholarship.
St. Jerome, arguably the greatest translator in Church history, addressed these very issues in his Letter to Pammachius (Epistle 57). Defending his own translation methods against critics who accused him of changing the text, Jerome provides a historical and theological framework that dismantles the core tenets of KJVO: that "word-for-word" accuracy is the standard of truth.
1. The "Sense for Sense" Principle vs. Verbal Rigidity
The foundational argument of VPP often suggests that for the Bible to be the Bible, the exact words must correspond one-to-one with the original (or the KJV translators' choice). Jerome explicitly rejects this "literalist" shackles, arguing that a fixation on words often obscures the divine meaning.
In his most famous declaration from the letter, Jerome writes:
"I not only admit but freely announce that in translating from the Greek—except of course in the case of the Holy Scripture, where even the syntax contains a mystery— I render not word for word, but sense for sense."
While Jerome treats Scripture with high reverence, his subsequent examples in the letter clarify that "mystery in the syntax" does not demand a robotic literalism. He argues that trying to preserve every single word results in absurdity:
"If I translate word for word, it sounds absurd; if I am compelled by necessity to change something in the order or style, I shall seem to have failed in the duty of a translator."
Refutation: KJVO proponents often demonize modern translations (like the ESV or NIV) for altering sentence structure or word choice to clarify meaning. Jerome classifies this flexibility not as a corruption, but as a necessity to avoid absurdity. To Jerome, preserving the "sense" (the theological truth) is the true preservation of Scripture; preserving the "word" at the cost of meaning is a failure.
2. Apostolic Precedent: The Apostles Were Not "KJV Onlyists"
Jerome’s most powerful argument comes from the Bible itself. He points out that the Apostles and Evangelists (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Paul), when quoting the Old Testament, rarely quoted it word-for-word. They frequently paraphrased, combined texts, or focused on the meaning rather than the exact phrasing of the Hebrew or the Septuagint.
Jerome cites Matthew 2:15 ("Out of Egypt have I called my son") and compares it to the original Hosea text, noting the differences in the Hebrew and Septuagint manuscripts available at the time. He notes:
"The Evangelist chose to follow the Hebrew, though he did not care to translate word for word."
He continues by examining how St. Mark quotes Jesus's words "Talitha cumi." Jerome notes that Mark adds "which is translated..." to explain the phrase, proving that the Evangelists were constantly engaged in the act of dynamic translation for their audience. Jerome summarizes the Apostolic method:
"[The Apostles] strove not for words but for the meaning, and ... they have not been afraid of the taunt that in the citation of the Old Testament they have somewhat altered the words."
Refutation: If the Apostles themselves "altered the words" of the Old Testament to convey the sense of the prophecy in the New Testament, then the strict definition of Verbal Plenary Preservation (that every word must remain static to be inspired) collapses. If St. Paul was not bound to a "word-perfect" citation standard, the modern church should not bind itself to the 1611 textual decisions as the only "preserved" Word.
3. The "Cacoethes" (Itch) of Inexperienced Critics
Jerome was writing to defend himself against a monk named Rufinus and others who criticized his translations for not being literal enough. He characterizes these critics as lacking education and understanding of how language works. He scolds those who nitpick over syllables while missing the substance:
"A literal translation from one language into another obscures the sense... It is difficult when you are following the lines laid down by others not to diverge anywhere."
Jerome creates a distinction between the "content" of the faith and the "container" of the language. He argues that by clinging to the container (the specific words/syntax), one loses the content.
Refutation: KJV Onlyism essentially canonizes a "container"—the Early Modern English of the 17th century. By insisting that valid Christianity is bound to this container, they commit the error Jerome warned against: they allow the literalism of a specific translation to "obscure the sense" for a modern audience that no longer speaks that dialect.
Conclusion
St. Jerome’s Letter to Pammachius serves as a mirror to modern controversies. The critics of Jerome’s day were the "Traditionalists" who felt that changing the wording of the old Latin texts was heresy. Jerome—the innovative translator—argued that loyalty to God means loyalty to the truth of the text, not the mechanics of the grammar.
To uphold the King James Bible as the only valid version, or to claim that Scripture is only preserved if the words never change, is to oppose the very logic used by the Church Fathers to give us the Bible in the first place. As Jerome concludes:
"Let those who will, keep their old books with their gold and silver letters on purple skins... so long as they leave to me and mine our poor pages and copies which are less remarkable for beauty than for accuracy."
No comments:
Post a Comment