Translation of the Bible

Translation of the Bible is the rendering of Scripture, originally written in Hebrew and Aramaic (the Old Testament) and Koine Greek (the New Testament), into the languages people actually speak, so that those without the original tongues can read, hear, and understand it.¹

Confessional Witness

The conviction that Scripture must be translated, not confined to its original languages or to one privileged translation, is stated in nearly identical terms across the Reformed confessional family. The Second London Baptist Confession states it alongside the doctrine of Scripture’s own authority:

“The Old Testament in Hebrew…and the New Testament in Greek…being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic…But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope.”¹

The Westminster Confession (1646) and the Savoy Declaration (1658) state the same principle in the same chapter and paragraph, with only minor wording differences.² The doctrine is not a Baptist distinctive but the common Reformation-era conviction that access to Scripture belongs to “all the people of God,” not to a learned or clerical class alone.

Biblical Basis

The case for translating and reading Scripture in the common tongue draws on several strands of biblical teaching: God commands his people to know and teach his word continually (Deut. 6:6-8; 30:11-12; Isa. 34:16; Col. 3:16), Scripture-reading was an ordinary practice in both the Israelite and apostolic communities (Luke 16:29; Acts 15:21; 17:2; Col. 4:16; 1 Thess. 5:27), and its benefit is for the whole people of God without distinction of learning or office (John 5:39; 20:31; Rom. 15:4; 2 Tim. 3:16-17). Petrus van Mastricht collates these texts under the question of whether Scripture, translated into the common languages, ought to be read by the common people, and answers that it should, for these and related reasons.³

John Gill states the underlying conviction: “it has been the will of God, and appears absolutely necessary that so it should be, that the Bible should be translated into different languages, that all may read it, and some particularly may receive benefit by it.”⁴

Historical Development

Jerome’s Vulgate and Rome’s Later Restriction

The Vulgate, Jerome’s revision of the Old Latin Bible, is dated by Elijah Porter Barrows to the fourth century.⁵ Its subsequent transmission alongside the older Old Latin version led to textual corruption in both that was never fully resolved.⁶ At its fourth session in 1546, the Council of Trent decreed the Vulgate the church’s sole authentic text, to be used “in public lectures, disputations, sermons, and expositions,” and declared that “no one is to dare or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.”⁷

The Reformation and Vernacular Translation

Vernacular translation of the whole Bible into English began with John Wycliffe’s translation, dated to 1384, and continued through William Tyndale’s New Testament of 1526 to the Authorized, or King James, Version of 1611.⁸ The Reformed confessions of the following decades, from the Westminster Confession (1646) through the Second London Baptist Confession (1677/1689), codified the principle behind this work: that Scripture belongs in “the vulgar language of every nation,” not reserved to a single sanctioned edition.

Opposing Views

Rome’s historic position holds the Vulgate as the church’s sole authentic text and treats the ordinary use of Scripture by the laity as something to be regulated rather than encouraged. Charles Hodge described the practical effect: “the use of the sacred volume by the people, is discountenanced by the Church of Rome, although its use has never been prohibited by any General Council,” noting that a series of popes, including Gregory VII, Innocent III, Clement XI, and Pius IV, made vernacular reading depend on a priest’s permission.⁹ Hodge’s own account qualifies this: many “Romish prelates and theologians have encouraged the general reading of the Bible,” even where the institutional pattern he describes ran the other way.⁹

Objections and Responses

Only the original-language text, or a single authorized edition, can be trusted as the church’s rule of faith, so translations are inherently second-rate. Gill’s response grants the premise that no translation equals the original text in authority, while denying that this makes translation illegitimate or its benefit uncertain: “to the Bible, in its original languages, is every translation to be brought, and by it to be examined, tried and judged, and to be corrected and amended.” A translation’s proper use is to be checked against the original, not treated as beyond correction. Gill applies the same standard to Rome’s own claimed exception: “the papists…plead for their Vulgate Latin version; which has been decreed authentic by the council of Trent; though it abounds with innumerable errors and mistakes.”⁴

Modern translations that use gender-inclusive language for generic statements distort what Scripture actually says. Bible translator Dave Brunn examined literal and nonliteral English translations side by side on this specific point and found that the real difference between them is “the frequency rather than the nature of the adjustments”: every major modern English translation, including versions marketed as strictly literal, uses some gender-inclusive rendering for masculine generic terms,¹⁰ a practice that traces back through “every English translation since Wycliffe [translated 1384].”¹¹

Related Doctrines

References

The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1677/1689), chap. 1, “Of the Holy Scriptures,” para. 8. ↩ ↩²
The Westminster Confession of Faith (1646), chap. 1, para. 8; The Savoy Declaration (1658), chap. 1, para. 8. ↩
Petrus van Mastricht, Theoretical-Practical Theology, vol. 1, Prolegomena, trans. Todd M. Rester, ed. Joel R. Beeke (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2018), chap. 2, “Holy Scripture,” 267. ↩
John Gill, A Body of Doctrinal Divinity; or, A System of Evangelical Truths, Deduced from the Sacred Scriptures, 2 vols. (London: Printed for the Author, and Sold by George Keith, 1769), book 1, chap. 2, “Of the Holy Scriptures.” ↩ ↩²
Elijah Porter Barrows, Companion to the Bible (New York: American Tract Society, 1867), chap. 2, 36-58. ↩
Barrows, chap. 28, 399-404. ↩
Archibald Alexander Hodge, Outlines of Theology (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1879), chap. 5, “Rule of Faith and Practice,” quoting the Decrees of the Council of Trent, session 4; the 1546 date for this session is given in Hodge, chap. 6, “Comparison of Systems.” ↩
Dave Brunn, “Gender in Bible Translation: A Crucial Issue Still Mired in Misunderstanding,” Themelios 49, no. 1 (2024): 20. ↩
Charles Hodge, “Chapter V. Roman Catholic Doctrine Concerning the Rule of Faith,” in Systematic Theology, Volume I (New York: Charles Scribner and Company, 1871), 108. ↩ ↩²
Brunn, “Gender in Bible Translation,” 12. ↩
Mark L. Strauss, 40 Questions about Bible Translation (Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2023), 153, quoted in Brunn, “Gender in Bible Translation.” ↩