One fold and one shepherd

John 10:16

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

και αλλα προβατα εχω α ουκ εστιν εκ της αυλης ταυτης κακεινα με δει αγαγειν και της φωνης μου ακουσουσιν και γενησεται μια ποιμνη εις ποιμην

There is a modern complaint that “one fold” in John 10:16 is an error or mistranslation. Older commentators, who understood language as well as any of us (e.g. Barnes, Calvin, Clarke, Gill, Henry), do not suggest “fold” is somehow in error here. In more modern times, among modern translators and commentators, it has become popular to accuse the translators of making an error John 10:16. Scottish commentator William Barclay writes:

“In the Authorized Version there is a mistranslation. It has: ‘There shall be one fold and one shepherd.’ That mistranslation goes back to Jerome and the Vulgate. And on that mistranslation the Roman Catholic Church has based the teaching that, since there is only one fold, there can only be one Church, the Roman Catholic Church, and that, outside it there is no salvation.”[i]

Not only does Barclay claim this is a mistranslation, he also assigns a motive for the mistranslation. Consider, in contrast, that the 1560 Geneva Bible translates ποιμνη as sheepfold in John 10:16. The English churchmen who translated the 1560 Geneva Bible had fled the country to Geneva during the reign of Roman Catholic Mary I (Bloody Mary). They most certainly were not trying to bolster Roman Catholic assumptions. No, common sense indicates they thought that to be the correct translation.[ii]

With the anti-movement against the KJV or KJVO, verses such as John 10:16 have provided a handy polemic for the naysayers. It is rather easy to point out that ποιμνη is usually translated “flock.” No dissent from that is allowed. It must always be translated flock (according to them) – that way, they do not have to discuss particulars, and will not lose one of their anti-KJV armaments.

It is perhaps their own problem that creates a problem – not understanding as much about language as they assert, though setting themselves up as authorities.[iii] Our English words have a range of meaning, and the semantic range of “flock” and “fold” have a significant overlap! Those who complain of this translation, or find it has to be an error, show a lack of knowledge of the range of meaning of these words. This can be seen, for example, in A Dictionary of the English Language by Samuel Johnson (1709-1784). There we find:

“1. The ground in which sheep are confined…2. The place where sheep are housed…The flock of sheep…”

As we begin to look at the definitions of “fold” (p. 827),

Further, one does not even have to dig back into musty 1700s dictionaries to find this! Notice that the modern online Dictionary.com has:

“1. an enclosure for sheep or, occasionally, other domestic animals; 2. the sheep kept within it; 3. a flock of sheep.”

Fold in fact carries the idea of “a flock of sheep” in its range of meaning. The naysayers say ποιμνη is a flock. A fold is a flock (in its range of meaning, and in this context).[iv] How can someone say this is a mistranslation? They cannot, honestly and knowledgeably. No, it is a translation they may not prefer, but it is not a mistranslation. I am surprised that the haymakers have made so much hay out of so little grass.[v] Perhaps we have too long failed to check within the bale for the void.

---

[i] The Gospel of John, Volume 2, William Barclay, Edinburgh: The Saint Andrew Press, 1955 (p. 65 in the 1975 Westminster Press printing).
[ii] The translation fold is also found in the Great Bible, 1557 Geneva NT, and Bishops Bible.
[iii] Possibly not also understanding so much about sheep and shepherds.
[iv] In “Translators to the Reader,” Miles Smith explains, “An other thing we thinke good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that wee have not tyed our selves to an uniformitie of phrasing, or to an identitie of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men some where, have beene as exact as they could that way.”
[v] For example, in his book The Unbound Scriptures, Rick Norris makes a page of hay with John 10:16 either without ever bothering to check the semantic range of the word “fold,” or without caring.