Q. In the King James Bible in Romans 8:16 and 8:26, the Holy Spirit is called an “it.” Is not that translation incorrect?
Romans 8:16 - The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
Romans 8:26 - Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
A. No, it is not incorrect. It seems to be something latched on to by KJV Detractors as some kind of major criticism of the flaws in the King James Bible. KJV-Only opponent Doug Kutilek is representative of the clamour (and perhaps the primary originator?).
“Any honest evaluation of the King James Version leads to the conclusion that it has numerous defects as a translation, some major, most minor. But of these defects, among the most serious, quite probably the worst of the lot, is its occasional use of the English pronoun ‘it’ to refer to the Holy Spirit. ... I will plainly state my opinion on the matter: I think that here the KJV comes dangerously close to blasphemy, if it does not in fact actually wander into it.” (from his website KJVOnly.org, which is not currently working, 12/14/2023)
This is a harsh “take down” of the King James Bible and its translators. To Kutilek, this is a serious error (possibly the worst in the KJV), and is “dangerously close” or “in fact” blasphemy! He covers all bases by implying that anyone who does not agree with him has not made an “honest evaluation” of the King James Version.
In the long run, Kutilek succeeds in exposing his own ignorance of the Greek language, the English language, and English Bible translations in general. His complaint and criticism focus on four verses: John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 8:26, and 1 Peter 1:11.
I will mainly focus on the passages in Romans, with some mention of 1 Peter 1:11. Even disregarding the explanations I will give below, his including John 1:32 is worse than a quibble. The antecedent of “it” in that passage is “dove.” Of course, the Spirit is descending like a dove, but “it” – the Spirit in the form of the dove – abode upon him.[i]
Misunderstanding the Greek.
Every Greek word has a distinct gender – masculine, feminine, or neuter. The Greek word for spirit (πνεῦμα) is designated as a neuter noun. The Greek pronoun αὐτὸ is also neuter. The phrase “the Spirit itself” is an accurate translation of the Greek “auto to pneuma” (αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα). The pronoun “auto” is correctly translated “it” or “itself.” So, let us ask ourselves? Do we believe God inspired the words of the Bible – the very words that Paul wrote in Romans 8:16 and 26? If you claim the King James translators were wrong to use a neuter or genderless pronoun (itself) to refer to a neuter noun (Spirit), will you also, with Doug Kutilek, have a problem with God using a neuter pronoun (αὐτὸ) to refer to a neuter noun (πνεῦμα)?? What a gaggle of gibberish! Let God be true, but every man a liar.
These two verses use a neuter pronoun in reference to the Spirit. “Himself” is not incorrect in the sense of identification. Nevertheless, adding “himself” rather than “itself” is a case of the translators making a minor interpretation of what Paul wrote rather than simply translating what he wrote.[ii]
1 Peter 1:11 searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
“it testified beforehand” is a translation of προμαρτυρόμενον, which is neuter in gender, so “it” is the proper pronoun (i.e., same kind of pronoun in English fitting the Greek).
Misunderstanding the English.
The quibbles on these three verses proceed from the assumption that “it” and “itself” only refer to inanimate objects, things. However, dictionaries disagree with this unsustained assessment. Dictionary.com gives the following:
“it” is a pronoun “used to represent an inanimate thing understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context” and/or “used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded.”
“itself” is a pronoun, “an emphatic appositive or a reflexive form of it.”
That’s right, it can refer to a person! The entire quibble is that using “it” or “itself” means the Holy Spirit is not a person. Not so.
KJV not the only one.
Some people say that only the King James Bible does this. That is not correct, though the majority of modern translations do have himself rather than itself. Using the two initial verses mentioned, at least the following English translations have “itself” in Romans 8:16, 26.
Romans 8:16 “The Spirit itself” (αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα) Darby Translation, 1602 Bishops, New American Bible (Revised Edition), New Testament for Everyone.
Romans 8:26 “the Spirit itself” (αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα) Coverdale, Darby Translation, 1560 Geneva, 1599 Geneva, 1602 Bishops, Jubilee Bible 2000, New American Bible (Revised Edition), New Testament for Everyone.
Additionally, though other Bibles may not have “itself” or “it” in these places, I would urge complainers, “Physician, heal thyself.” Check your own Bibles, whichever one you use regularly, and find that they also use neutral pronouns to refer to people.[iii] Just weights and measures, as anti-KJVO detractor Rick Norris always repeats. I guess he forgot to mention it to his friend Doug Kutilek.
[ii] Early English versions often used “same Spirit” or “selfsame Spirit,” which carries the same connotation.
[iii] For example, whatever is born of God in 1 John 5:4 is neuter. Many Bibles translate this as “whatsoever,” “whatever,” or “everything.” including AMP, ASV, CJB, DLNT, DRA, HCSB, KJV, LSB, NASB1995, NKJV, NRSV, NTE, OJB, RSV, WEB, WYC. Are you born of God? Are you a thing or a person? Let God use whatsoever word he will, and let every man bow before him.
3 comments:
so would we say that in an argument concerning "precision" in these four verses the KJB came out one top compared to Kutilek's choices?
I guess the other thing I will emphasize, that you have done well in your defense, is that we do not take a hard rigid ground on these things when it comes to translation - the KJB may do this correct gender alignment here and others may not, but there will be other cases in the bible where the opposite is true. That is where people always fault in taking absolute grounds on certain things and then when they are shown where their choice version does the same thing somewhere else - then they have to scramble and defend the indefensible and acclimate and accept cognitive dissonance as a way forward.
I bet you Kutilek has probably argued "precision", 'this something HAS to be translated THIS way because of this..', and then ignores the lack of precision in other places in his bible.
Not sure I am making sense.
It is something we all must be aware of - we can't take a dogmatic stance on a word in the KJB, if it is possible that another word could convey the same thing - if it is not conveying the same thing, that is another issue.
And sometimes the translators chose words that would not pin something down to just one specific minute thing but left it open with a little ambiguity.
Anyway...I am drifting.
Nice article and well defended.
Very good article, brother Vaughn!
E. T. Chapman
Thanks, brothers. Alex, I appreciate your extended thoughts. It is a shame to even have to write such defenses.
Post a Comment