the7ones.comThe making of the King James Version
by Matthew K. Clifton
Introduction
For nearly 400 years, the KJV has been “The Bible” of English-speaking people. In the last 100 years, as a rush of new translations came about, the KJV was still seen by many as the “gold standard” when evaluating new versions.[1] There are even many die-hard “KJV only” believers who stand by the “Authorized Version” as the only accurate translation of the scriptures, some even going so far as to believe the KJV translation itself was directly inspired by God,[2] and not just the original language manuscripts behind it.
But while many have already formed an opinion of the King James Version based on personal taste, tradition, or other reasons, how much does the average Bible reader actually know about the creation of this translation? Why was it created? Where was the work done? Who were the people responsible? Was there a clear objective for the work? And how was the new translation received?
The goal of this short paper is to investigate the origins of the King James Version, the historical setting, and the people involved with the translation process. Did the KJV translators understand that they were making a “final translation” that would never need revision? Did they feel their work was “inspired by God?” Were there any errors to be found in their work? By understanding these things, we will be better equipped to make a decision on how to view the King James Version translation.
The purpose
In sparkling prose, Adam Nicolson sets the historical stage for the creation of the King James Version: In the England of 1603, “the old, hesitant, querulous and increasingly unapproachable Queen Elizabeth was dying.”[3] Even before her illness, she seemed to be a relic of a past age. While some were calling for the issues of religious tolerance and acceptance to be addressed, Elizabeth had buried the issue of religious differences. Far from a practice of tolerance, both Roman Catholics on one extreme and Puritans on the other had faced persecution under the queen’s rule. Although Wegner says the reign of Elizabeth gave birth to an “air of tolerance,”[4] McGrath writes that the period was marked by growing religious tensions.[5]
While Elizabeth stood as a symbol of the unwillingness to reach terms between religious groups, the variety of English translations of the Bible in use in 1603 was another testament to the wrangling among religious parties.[6] The Bishop’s Bible was in use in public worship of the Church of England, and the Geneva Bible was popularly used in homes, but neither was universally accepted by all factions.[7] It was into this religious entanglement that James I, the successor to the English throne, was tossed.
On his way to England to assume the throne, James was met by representatives of the Puritan party who presented him with the Millenary Petition. The petition, which is said to have contained about a thousand signatures, listed the complaints of the Puritans in the English church.[8] Among the contentions of the Puritans was the use of liturgical material containing quotes from the Great Bible, which they considered a corrupt translation.[9]
In response to the pressure exerted by the Puritans, James called for a conference to be held at Hampton Court in 1604. Bishops from the Church of England and Puritan clergy were in attendance to discuss subjects related to religious tolerance. Although very little was actually accomplished at the meeting, there was one important thought that was brought forward: John Reynolds, a Puritan spokesman and president of Corpus Christi College in Oxford, “raised the subject of imperfections of the current English Bibles and proposed that a new, or at least a revised, translation be made.”[10] The Puritans only raised a few difficulties with the current translations, and the Church of England mainstream leaders trivialized the problems. Bishop Richard Bancroft, who was an opponent of the Puritans, raised the objection that “if every man’s humor were to be followed there would be no end of translating.”[11]
James, however, had a different mind. Having a personal interest in Bible study and translation, James liked the idea of a new version. He considered the current English versions to be poorly done, and he especially disliked the Geneva Bible. His opinion that the Geneva Bible was the worst was due “largely to his distaste for the accessories that accompanied the translation rather than the translation itself. James had been brought up to believe that kings were appointed by God and had a divine right to rule their people.”[12] Since the Geneva Bible contained marginal notes that he considered contrary to the “divine right of kings,” the English monarch was more than willing to see this popular work replaced in the hearts and minds of the English people.
In light of these circumstances, it becomes clear that the purpose of the new translation was not only to unite the English people behind one common translation, but also to rid the realm of what James (and the Puritans) saw as substandard Bibles. With a purpose in mind for a new translation, the next thing that was needed was a solid plan.
The plan
Although Reynolds had proposed a new translation, it is doubtful that he and James had the same goals in mind. As a Puritan, Reynolds was eager to put away any vestiges of Roman Catholicism, which seemed to still permeate the hierarchy of the Church of England. When Reynolds vied for a new translation, he probably had in mind a direct rendering of the Word of God from the Hebrew and Greek, not processed through the councils and bishops of the Church of England. But that is exactly what James declared, along with his agreement to the making of the new translation.[13] Reynolds surely agreed with the goal that a
“translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all churches of England in time of divine service.”
Reynolds was very much in favor of a “strict Puritan Bible, non-episcopal, the naked word of God, truly transmitted.”[14]
However, the part he would have had a hard time agreeing with is the filtering process James commanded. The king ordered the work to begin with the most capable scholars to be found at Cambridge and Oxford universities, but the resulting translations would be reviewed by the bishops and “learned men” of the Church of England. After that the work would be reviewed by the Privy Council, and later ratified by the king.[15] So although the Puritans were getting the new translation they desired, the end result actually had the potential to be more beneficial to the religious establishment in England, and certainly more pleasing to James.
The king himself took a major role in organizing and directing the work of translation.[16] However, although he was initially opposed to the translation, Richard Bancroft and the other bishops in the Church of England got on board by the summer of 1604, and the work of appointing a translation committee began.[17] Bancroft contacted Lancelot Andrewes, dean of Westminster, and the Greek and Hebrew professors at Cambridge and Oxford to request suitable nominations for the translation committee.
Bancroft also took steps to “ensure that the translation process was judiciously guided, and limit the freedom of the translators.”[18] These rules were drawn up by Bancroft and approved by James himself. The goal of these restrictions was not only to produce a good translation, but also to ensure no credibility was given to the beliefs of Puritans, Roman Catholics, or Presbyterians. Bancroft’s translation rules were as follows:
1. THE ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.
2. The Names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.
3. The old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.
4. When a Word hath divers Significations; that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.
5. The Divisions of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.
6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the Explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be express’d in the Text.
7. Such Quotations of Places to marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.
8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter, or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.
9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this manner they shall send it to the rest, to be consider’d of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.
10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the General Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.
11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed, by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgement of such a Place.
12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many as being skilful in the Tongues; and having taken Pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge or Oxford.
13. The directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester for that Place; and the King’s Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.
14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishop’s Bible: Tindoll’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva.
15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th rule above specified.[19]
As for the actual workforce, fifty-four men were assigned to six panels, although only forty-seven men actually did the work.[20] Two of the panels met at Cambridge to work on Chronicles through Ecclesiastes and the Apocrypha. Two more panels met at Oxford to revise Isaiah through Malachi and the gospels, Acts and Revelation. The other two panels convened at Westminster to translate Genesis through 2 Kings and Romans through Jude. These panels began work in 1607.
When the panels completed the revision of a particular book, it was sent to the other panels for comments, suggestions and criticism. The final questions would be hammered out in a final meeting among the heads of the panels.[21] Metzger writes that beginning in about 1609 and continuing for nine months, John Bois, Andrew Downes and four others met at Stationers’ Hall in London to review the first draft as it came from the panels.
Before the King James Version went to press, an essay likely written by Miles Smith was attached to the work. This preface, titled The Translators to the Reader, aims to give the reader of the KJV insight into the thought processes and reasoning behind the translation. As quoted by McGrath, Smith writes,
“Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,…but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.”
Smith makes clear that the purpose of the translation was not to discredit past translations, but to build upon the work of the past. Although some have claimed that the KJV was an inspired work, it is clear from Smith’s preface that the translators were indebted to much translation work that went on beforehand.
This brings up the question of whether the KJV is better described as a translation, or a revision. On the title page of the 1611 King James Bible, the work claims to be “Newly Translated out of the Originall Tongues.” Smith’s preface, however, seems to imply more of a revisionary process. On this discrepancy there are mixed thoughts among scholars. Geisler and Nix write that the KJV is “not really a version at all,” citing the title page’s claim to being a translation from the original, but recognize that Miles Smith’s preface talks about the revision of past versions.[22] Metzger says that although the King James Bible is usually called a translation, “it is in fact merely a revision of the Bishop’s Bible, as this itself was a revision of the Great Bible, and the Great Bible a revision of Coverdale and Tyndale.”[23] He claims the idiom and vocabulary owe to Tyndale, the melody and harmony to Coverdale, and the scholarship and accuracy to the Geneva version.
While these versions were consulted, the original language texts were also checked. For the Old Testament, the text was the Complutensian Polyglot and the Antwerp Polyglot. For the New Testament, a version of the Greek produced by Theodore Beza based on the Erasmus text. This text has come to be known as the Textus Receptus. However, it is clear that the version of the Greek text used was based on “little if any of the superior texts of the 12th to 15th centuries, as it followed the 1516 and 1522 editions of Erasmus’ Greek text, including the interpolation of 1 John 5:7.”[24]
The product
When the translation work was completed, the finished product was sent to the press. The first edition printed in 1611 is commonly referred to as the “Authorized Version,” although it is unclear if any formal authorization was made. James certainly supported and urged the work along, but no official order has been found. If such an official order was given and recorded, it could possibly have been destroyed in a fire at Whitehall in 1618, in which books of record from 1600-1613 were destroyed.[25] Regardless, the meaning of “authorized” simply refers to the appointment of the translation as the official version to be used in the churches.
As with any work of translation, there are many opinions as to the quality of the effort. While the King James Version was certainly the best English translation of its time, it was not without faults and detractors. Perhaps the most famous attacker of the King James Version was Hugh Broughton, a notable scholar of his time. Broughton was passed over for the translation committee, however, due to his difficult nature. Bruce writes that Broughton “was not cut out for collaboration with others, and would have proved an impossible colleague.”[26] It is very likely that Broughton was offended by being passed over to take part in the effort, or perhaps he had genuine problems with the translation. In any case, Broughton had a very bad opinion of the new translation:
“The late Bible…was sent to me to censure: which bred in me a sadness that will grieve me while I breathe, it is so ill done. Tell His Majesty that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses, than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor churches…The new edition crosseth me. I require it to be burnt.”
But even criticism of this dramatic sort could not hold back the acceptance of the new version. The Geneva Bible continued to compete for about 50 years, but the KJV gradually caught on.[27] One of the strengths of the version was its suitability for public reading. Bruce comments that those responsible for the version had an instinctive feeling for good style.[28] Other factors that led to its acceptance included the qualifications of the revisers, the feeling that the work was a national effort, the availability of previous scholarly work upon which to build, the climate of goodwill toward the translation process, the organized system that was used, and the literary atmosphere of the 16th and 7th centuries which appreciated the lofty prose of the King James Version.[29]
Over the years there has been continued support and criticism for the King James Version. Zane Hodges took up a defense of the Greek text which the King James Version uses.[30] Jack P. Lewis has written on some of the doctrinal problems found in the King James version.[31] In a fairly presented effort, D.A. Carson made a plea for realism in the debate, seeking to sway readers away from extreme positions.[32]
From the study of the origins of the King James Version, it is clear that errors were made in translation. It is also clear that the men who partook in the effort were prayerful, careful men, but they were not divinely guided in their work. Therefore, when making a judgment about how to view the King James Version, one must see it as an honest effort to bring God’s word to the people, but not as the final effort.
WORKS CONSULTED
[1] Jack P. Lewis, Questions You’ve Asked About Bible Translations (Searcy, AR: Resource Publications, 1991), 251.
[2] James R. White, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust The Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1995), 3. White describes four different camps of those who hold to the “King James Only” view, with the KJV being inspired by God the most extreme unit.
[3] Adam Nicolson, God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible (New York: Harper Perennial, 2003), 1.
[4] Paul D. Wegner, The Journey from Text to Translation: The Origin and Development of the Bible (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1999), 307.
[5] Alister McGrath, In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture (New York: Anchor Books, 2001), 132.
[6] Bruce M. Metzger, The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2001), 70.
[7] Wegner, 307.
[8] Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1996), 564.
[9] Wegner, 308.
[10] Metzger, 70.
[11] Metzger, 70.
[12] Geisler and Nix, 564.
[13] McGrath, 163.
[14] Nicolson, 60.
[15] Ibid.
[16] F.F. Bruce, History of the Bible in English (Cambridge, England: The Lutterworth Press, 1979), 97.
[17] McGrath, 172.
[18] Ibid.
[19] As cited in McGrath, 173-175.
[20] Geisler and Nix, 564.
[21] Metzger, 71.
[22] Geisler and Nix, 565.
[23] Metzger, 76.
[24] Geisler and Nix, 567.
[25] Bruce, 99-100.
[26] Bruce, 107.
[27] Wegner, 313.
[28] Bruce, 109.
[29] Geisler and Nix, 567.
[30] Zane Hodges, Hodges, Zane Clark. “Greek text of the King James version.” Bibliotheca Sacra. 125.500 (O-D 1968): 334-345.
[31] Lewis, Jack Pearl. “Doctrinal problems and the King James version.” Restoration Quarterly. 14.3-4 (1971): 142-154.
[32] D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979).
Comments are currently closed.
Matt, your understanding of recent history is quite lacking. I am, I guess, rather old now: 55 in fact. I was raised in the church, and literally attending Bible classes in “mainstream” and “conservative” churches since I was in my mother’s arms. I can tell you for a certainty that the KJV was NOT ubiquitous in American churches of Christ in 1980, or indeed, even in 1970 – 40 years ago, and even as far back as the early 1960s, as a young child, I know that many MANY other versions were in use: the American Standard of 1901, the Revised Version of 1880-something, and even the Revised Standard Version of the 1950s were commonly in use by brethren, and often preferred to the shortcomings of the KJV. In talking to older brethren, the ASV of 1901 was more common in many churches, both as pew Bibles and as the preferred translation by elders and preachers alike. Although I know that there were some who were adamant about using the KJV then, the modern KJV-only movement did not gain much ground in churches in the areas I am familiar with (Texas, Colorado, the Great Plains states) until the infatuation with the original “Good News” (TEV) and the NIV became so strong in the 1980s. It is a reaction to the use of those versions to promote “faith only” and similar changes in doctrine. I can name you dozens of small and tiny churches in the 1970s and 1980s that were not welded to use of the KJV in the least.
I agree with much of what you are saying, but we do not need to play the revisionist with history – even recent history – to make your points.
Matt, some further comments on your article, lest you think I am attacking your scholarship, for I am not intending to do so, but only to correct a single error which distracts from the rest.
Your article is a careful evaluation of the making of the KJV and it is therefore important, because too many people DO believe it was some free-standing and spectacular effort akin to the Manhattan Project or something similar. You do touch on the contribution of past efforts, and probably understate the contribution of William Tyndall and others.
An excellent follow-up would be to discuss the efforts on the mid to late 1800s and early 1900s to revise and replace the KJV.
Nathan