The King James Bible
By LuckStrike
Despite the multiple translations of Biblical Scripture in circulation today, no other translation has generated more controversy than the King James Version. On one side, many claim that the King James Version is the only true literal translation of ancient biblical Hebrew and Greek manuscripts written by respectable 17th Century English scholars. However, on the other side, many assert that the King James Version is an outdated translation written in an outdated dialect of English and unreliable due to the sources it was composed from. And from this basic disagreement, many emotional and heated exchanges have taken place.
The purpose of this paper is to objectively and factually demonstrate that the King James Version of the Bible is based on questionable textual sources. First, this paper will demonstrate that the King James Version does not have an origin purely based on Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, but instead an origin based on a Catholic translation of Hebrew and Greek manusripts that underwent Protestant revisions. Second, this paper will demonstrate that the King James Version people have today is not a one time work, but instead it is essentially based on a line of scriptural translations based upon other scriptural translations (thereby historically retaining and even compounding errors made in scriptural translation). Third, this paper will show that the King James Version people have today is not the original King James Version or a universally uniform King James Version. In summary, the intention of this paper is not to completely discredit the King James Version as totally unreliable, but to show that the King James Version people have today is not to be held above all other scriptural translations. By LuckStrike
Despite the multiple translations of Biblical Scripture in circulation today, no other translation has generated more controversy than the King James Version. On one side, many claim that the King James Version is the only true literal translation of ancient biblical Hebrew and Greek manuscripts written by respectable 17th Century English scholars. However, on the other side, many assert that the King James Version is an outdated translation written in an outdated dialect of English and unreliable due to the sources it was composed from. And from this basic disagreement, many emotional and heated exchanges have taken place.
The textual lineage of the King James Version begins in the Roman Empire. During the 2nd Century CE, the Septuagint was used for the Old Testament while churches in Italy, Spain, Gual, and North Africa used an “Old Latin” translation of the New Testament made by unknown authors.1 But in the 4th Century, so many variant texts had gotten into circulation that Pope Damasus asked Eusebius Hieronymus, later called St. Jerome, to revise the “Old Latin” translation. His translation of the Gospels was completed in 383/384 CE and his translation of the whole Bible was completed in 405 CE.2, 3 However, the translation made by Jerome was essentially a new translation with parts based on revisions of the “Old Latin” version. For instance, the Book of Psalms was not freshly translated from the Hebrew, but instead was Jerome’s revision of “Psalterium Vetus.”4 As pointed out by Erasmus of Rotterdam (who had studied Greek New Testaments) in the early 16th Century CE, this translation clearly contained a Catholic bias. For example, the Vulgate translated Matthew 3:1-2 as saying:
In those days, John the Baptist came, preaching in the wilderness of Judaea, and saying: “Do penance, for the kingdom of the heavens is close to hand.”
In this verse, Erasmus said the words “do penance” do not appear in the original Greek text. Instead, he said the best translation for that part would be “repent” and this was a subjective change in words used to create scriptural support for the Catholic Church’s system of penance used during medieval times. Another example would be how the Vulgate translated Luke 1:28 as saying:
And the angel went in, and said to her: “Hail, O one that is full of grace! The Lord is with you! Blessed are you among women!”
Again, Erasmus rejected the rendering of this verse. He asserted that the angel’s words were translated incorrectly to support the Catholic doctrine she was a reservoir of grace and could give grace to others. Erasmus said the true meaning of this verse was to express that Mary had favor from God. However, Erasmus never provided his translation of this verse.5 And in addition to these questionable translations, the Vulgate also contained the Apocrypha.6 The Vulgate, which became to be known as the “common version,”7 was universally used in “Christendom” for approximately 1,000 years8 until the Reformation9.
During the Reformation, translations of the Bible in the vernacular began to appear. The first English Bible was produced by the efforts of John Wycliffe. While it is unkown how much work Wycliffe personally did,10 it is known that he oversaw the project. 11 Because Wycliffe had very little knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, no access to original texts,12, 13 and proficiency in using Latin,14 he chose to translate the Latin Vulgate into English. The first version of this translation was supervised by Nicholas Hereford and was done between 1380 and 1382 CE. As Bobrick states:
To its general credit, it showed a complete respect for the authority of the Vulgate, but its word-for-word rendering often followed the Latin syntax so closely that the awkward result was impractical for popular use.15
Butterworth observes:
This first attempt was consequently crude and often over-literal. In some places it is difficult to follow because it copies so exactly the Latin order of the words. It was quickly succeeded by a second attempt.16
Thus, a revision was done sometime between 1388 and 1395 CE, which was literary in nature17, under the direction of Wycliffe’s personal secretary, John Purvey. For each book he inserted prologue and epilogue, inserted marginal notes from a 14th Century Franciscan named Nicholas of Lyra and other prominent church figures such as St. Augustine, and smoothed out awkward sentences in general.18 However, the fact remained that the Wycliffite versions of the Bible reproduced translation inaccuracies found in the Vulgate.19
The first printed, but incomplete, English Bible came from William Tyndale. Tyndale’s translation of the New Testament was mostly based on the Greek, but he also consulted Luther’s German New Testament, the Vulgate, and the two editions (1516 and 1522 CE) of Erasmus’s translation of the New Testament.20 Between May 1524 and July 1525 CE, Tyndale, with his assistant named William Roye, completed his translation of the New Testament in the city named Cologne in Germany.21 The only books of the Old Testament to be translated by Tyndale were those from the Pentateuch, in which the first version was published in 1530 CE, and Jonah, in which the first version was published in 1531 CE22. 23 For his Old Testament translations, he primarily used the Hebrew, but consulted the Vulgate, Luther’s work (who had also done a translation of Jonah)24,25 the Septuagint, and a Latin translation of Hebrew texts made by Sanctus Pagninus.26
Tyndale’s work was significantly influenced by Luther. Tyndale borrowed many phrases from Luther’s work and organized chapter divisions and book order according Luther’s work.27 In addition, based upon the Cologne quarto sheets of 1525, one finds that Tyndale organized the New Testament by a convention that existed in Lutheran circles which held that the books of Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were of unreliable authenticity. Thus, he put these books at the end of his translation and did not number them. The Cologne quarto sheets also contained a “prologue,” which contains direct borrowings from Luther’s prologue from his 1522 German New Testament. And the 1525 printed edition of Tyndale’s work also contained a significant amount of marginal notes which were Lutheran in nature, with some being direct borrowings from Luther’s own comments. However, it is notable that the printing of the 1525 edition, which was being done at the printing house of Peter Quentell, was never completed. The 1526 edition of Tyndale’s work, printed by the presses of Peter Schoeffer, eliminated the Lutheran convention with regards to the books of “unreliable authenticity” within the New Testament, eliminated marginal notes, and separated the “prologue” into another work called A Pathway into the Scripture.28
Later, George Joye began to generate unauthorized, pirate editions of Tyndale’s work.29 In 1534 CE, right before Tyndale completed his own revision of his New Testament,30 Joye had a revision of Tyndale’s 1526 version printed from the press of the widow of Christoffel van Endhoven because of his claim that Flemish printers were introducing errors into the text. Because this was done without Tyndale’s authorization or even his knowledge, thus this created a controversy between Joye and Tyndale.31, 32 Tyndale then included this message to Joye in the prologue of his New Testament of 1534:
I beseech George Joye, yea and all other too, for to translate the Scripture for themselves, whether out of Greek, Latin, or Hebrew . . . Let them put their own names [to it], and not play bo-peep . . . But I neither can nor will suffer of any man, that he shall go take my translation and correct it without name, and make such changing as I myself durst not do. 33
Also, in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1534, he included “Epistles taken out of the olde Testament which are red in the church after the vse of Salsburye vpon certen dayes of the yere.” (In other words, it was various selections taken from the Old Testament that were read in church on certain days.) But in refusing to be outdone, Joye had issued a reprint of his New Testament that contained a copy of Tyndale’s “Episltes,” called “Pistles,” with very few revisions of his own.34 But aside from the Tyndale-Joye rivalry, it is notable that in Tyndale’s New Testament of 1534, he included more commentary with previously used marginal notes that were “toned down.”35
The first complete and printed English Bible, published in 1535 CE, was composed by Miles Coverdale. Coverdale’s Bible is not a true “translation” because he did not use the original Hebrew and Greek, but instead it was a combination of pre-existing translations organized by personal preferences. Coverdale primarily used Tyndale’s Bible (the New Testament and the Pentateuch), but also consulted the Vulgate, a Latin translation of the Vulgate done by an Italian Dominican monk named Sancte Pagini (Pagninus) in 1528 CE, Luther’s German translation, and a translation of Luther’s Bible into the a Swiss-German dialect called the Zurich Bible (which was translated by Leo Juda and Ulrich Zwingli) 36, 37, 38, 39 In Coverdale’s Bible, the order of the Old Testament books followed the order in the Vulgate over the Hebrew and the order of the New Testament books followed the order in Luther’s Bible instead of Erasmus’s translation of the Greek. In addition, the Coverdale Bible followed the Vulgate by including the Apocrypha and restoring the usage of some words such as “penance,” which had been removed by Tyndale in his translation.40 Two revisions of Coverdale’s Bible were published in 1537 CE, with a diglot edition of the New Testament for the clergy was published in 1538 CE.41
The next Bible version that impacted the King James Bible is the “Matthew’s Bible,” which was also not a “new translation” but a combination of materials from pre-existing works. It was published in 1537 CE and was actually composed by an editor named John Rogers. Because he relied heavily on Tyndale’s work, he used a pseudonym of his name, “Thomas Matthew,” on the title page to protect himself and Tyndale. In this Bible version, Tyndale’s Old Testament translation work ranging from the Book of Joshua to the Book of 2 Chronicles, which he had done in prison, was combined with material in Coverdale’s Bible. Specifically, Tyndale’s translation of the New Testament, Pentateuch, and books mentioned above were used along with Coverdale’s translation of the Book of Ezra through the Book of Malachi, the Book of Jonah, and the Apocrypha. Also, the numbering of the Book of Psalms was changed to match the Hebrew, material from the Hebrew concordance and marginal notes of the French Bible composed by Pierre-Robert Olivetan was included, and the Prayer of Manasses was put in the Apocrypha. It is notable that Rogers himself inserted a small amount of alterations directly into the text based on the French Bibles done by Lefevre and Olivetan.41, 42, 43, 44, 45
But because of offensive Protestant marginal notes, Thomas Cromwell, the vicar-general of England under King Henry VIII, ordered than another Bible be published. For the process of composing this newer Bible version, Cromwell directed Coverdale to base its text on the text of Matthew’s Bible, but to also use the Vulgate, Erasmus’s translation of the New Testament, and Sebastian Munster’s Latin Translation of the Old Testament as well. As Cromwell ordered, no “private or contentious opinions” were to be in the text, so Coverdale did not put marginal notes in the text. It was published in London in 1539 CE.46 This Bible is famous for the picture on its title page (drawn by Hans Holbein) of King Henry on his throne while handing down the Bible to Cranmer and Cromwell, who in turn had handed it down to the people shouting “Vivat Rex!” or “God save the King!” Above that scene, God is pictured with two scrolls coming out of his mouth, one with Isaiah 55:11 on it and the other with Acts 13:22 on it.47, 48, 49, 50 Within three weeks of the publication of the Great Bible, a second edition of the Great Bible was published. In the following July, the third edition on the Great Bible was published, and then four more editions followed by the end of 1541 CE,51 with two being published at the same time in April 1540 CE.52
The next Bible version that impacted the King James Bible is the Geneva Bible, which is named after where it was composed. Geneva was where Protestants would commonly flee to from the Marian persecution. It was published in 1560 CE and mostly the work of William Whittingham, but with the help of Thomas Sampson and Anthony Gillby (a Hebrew scholar). Miles Coverdale, Laurence Tomson, and John Knox also participated in the making of this Bible, but to an unknown extent.53, 54 The text of the Great Bible was used as a basis for the Old Testament, with Latin translations of the Old Testament done by Leo Juda, Munster, and Pagninus being consulted for guidance. The Geneva New Testament of 1557 CE, which was written by Whittingham, was used as the basis of the New Testament text, with a Latin translation of the New Testament done by Theodore Beza and Stephanus being consulted for guidance.55 And it is necessary to note that the Geneva New Testament of 1557 CE itself is based on a revision of the quarto edition of Tyndale’s New Testament done by Richard Jugge, which was guided by Theodore Beza’s Latin New Testament translation.56 While the Geneva Bible represents “the best scholarship of the time”57 58 and is the most accurate Bible before the Authorized Version,59 the Geneva Bible has a Calvinistic and Puritanical bias, especially in its marginal notes where it explained “hard places” in the Bible.60, 61 The Geneva Bible is the first Bible to break the Old and New Testament into verses,62 probably because of the Puritans’ practice of quoting biblical text.63
With the goal of making an English Bible with a more “Anglican character,” the Bishops’ Bible was composed by bishops of the Anglican Church of England and published in 1568 CE. These bishops were: Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury; Edwin Sandys, Bishop of Worcester; Andrew Pierson, prebendary of Canterbury Cathedral; John Parkhurst, Bishop of Norwich; Richard Davies, Bishop of St. Wales, Wales; Robert Horne, Bishop of Winchester; William Barlow, Bishop of Chichester; Thomas Bentham, Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield; Edmund Scambler, Bishop of Peterborough; Edmund Grindal, Bishop of London; Nicholas Bullingham, Bishop of London; Richard Cox, Bishop of Ely; William Alley, Bishop of Exeter; Gabriel Goodman, dean of Westminster; Andrew Perne, dean of Ely; and an unknown sixteen person. The Bible was divided up into different parts and different parts were assigned to different bishops to revise.64 The text of the Great Bible was used as the basis for the revised text, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Munster, Leo Juda, and Castalio were consulted with inconsistency. Obscenities, such as the phrase “a pissing she-mule,” were eliminated and comments on controversial text were avoided.65 However, while the bishops regularly reported their progress to Archbishop Parker, the head editor, they had “no common discipline,” they never compared their work, and better readings from the Geneva Bible were often ignored.66 Overall, the way the Bishops’ Bible was composed was “erratic,” “sloppy” and resulting in an “arbitrary and often ignorant” reading of “uneven character.” This was because each bishop ultimately used their own judgement in the work they did.67 The text of the Bishops’ Bible of 1568 was lower in quality when compared to the Geneva Bible. However, the Bishops’ Bible was revised 22 times, such as in the Old Testament being revised by consulting the Geneva Bible and Munster’s work, until the 1602 edition was published.68
Having fully traced the pre-existing lineage of the King James Version of the Bible, it is now time to examine the textual basis and composition of the King James Version of the Bible itself, which is based on the King James Bible of 1611 (Authorized Version) and its subsequent revision. The King James Bible of 1611 was composed by 54 translators appointed by King James I (47 of which are known), who were divided into six groups of seven or eight men and each group worked on a different section of the Bible, which was also divided into six parts. The project itself was entrusted the Bishop of London, Richard Bancroft.69
According to a draft of “the rules of procedure,” or rules that were enacted to guide the translators in their work, the text of the Bishops Bible was to be used as the basis for the text of the King James Version of 1611:
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.70, 71, 72
For instance, the Apocrypha, as translated by John Boys, was included in this Bible.73 Butterworth adds:
The King James Bible was based on a conscientious study of the original Scriptures as they were known in 1611 . . . Though the King James Bible may have been superior in its scholarship to the English versions that preceded it, a great deal more is known today about the original texts of the Holy Scriptures than was known in 1611.74
The translators of the King James Bible of 1611 were not afraid to use pre-existing translations in their work. In the preface to the reader, it said:
Neither did thinke much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, or Latine, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdaine to reuise that which had been done.75, 76
And indeed, they consulted such works as the interlinear Latin translation of the Hebrew text done by Ximenes and edited by Arias Montanus in 1572 CE, the Latin translation of the Old Testament done by Tremellius in 1579 CE, the French Bible, an Italian translation done by J. Diodati in 1607 CE, and two Spanish translations, one done by Cassidoro de Reyna in 1569 CE and the other done by Cipriano de Valera in 1602 CE (which was a revision of Reyna’s work).77 They also consulted the Complutensian Polygot of 1517, the Old Testament Latin translation by Sebastian Munster, the Zurich Bible, Luther’s Bible, Lefevre’s and Olivetan’s French Bibles, and the Latin translations of Castalio, Leo Juda, and Sanctus Pagninus.78, 79 However, according to a draft of “the rules of procedure,” certain translations, such as “Tindoll’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s [i.e. the Great Bible], [and] Geneva” were “to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible.”80, 81 Butterworth clarifies the apparent contradiction:
In the first place, the King James committees did not restrict themselves to the versions mentioned in the rule; and, in the second place, their Bible turned out to be much more than a mere revision of the Bishop’s Bible. The description given of it on the title-page is nearer to the actual fact: “Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and reuised.”82
Daiches adds:
Their aim, as the Preface again tells us, was not to prepare a new translation—though the title does say “Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues”—“but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not iustly to be excepted against.”83
The key here is that many pre-existing translations are used, thereby making it clear to the reader that the King James Bible is a culmination of previous versions plus the best original texts of the time. Butterworth offers more:
It remains to be said that the King James translators seem to have been particularly partial to the Latin editions of the Old and New Testaments. They made special use of the composite Bible translated by Tremellius, Junius, and Beza, as Dr. Wescott has shown in a number of illustrations.84
And whereas the push for a conservative approach in restricting the textual sources used failed, it did succeed in stopping the modernization of the English used for this translation. Bobrick explains:
Their conservative mandate—not to make a new translation but to revise the old—restrained them to some degree from modernizing the English of it, even up to the usage of their own time. Some of the expressions they adopted were already a bit archaic in 1611—such as verily and it came to pass—but these were kept because they had become familiar and because they also seemed to endow the text with a certain “antique rightness” for which it has always been prized.85
The following is an example of the English used:
For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep [1 Thessalonians 4:15].86
In continuing to examine the preface, one next takes note of the translators emphasizing possessing a freedom of word choice used in this translation:
An other thing we thinke good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that wee haue not tyed our selues to an vniformitie of phrasing, or to an identitie of words, as some peraduenture would wish that we had done, . . . as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greeke word once by Purpose, neuer to call it Intent; if one where Iourneying, neuer Traueiling; if one where Thinke, neuer Suppose; if one where Paine, neuer Ache; if one where Ioy, neuer Gladnesse, &c. Thus to minse the matter, wee thought to sauour more of curiositie then wisedome, and that rather it would breed scorne in the Atheist, then bring profite to the godly R.eader. For is the kingdome of God become words or syllables? why should wee be in bondage to them if we may be free, vse one precisely when wee may vse another no lesse fit, as commodiously?87, 88
The reason they may have chosen to stress freedom of word choice is to avoid “the peculiarities” of the Geneva Bible and the Rheims New Testament, being tied to any “identity of words,” 89 and the political controversy that comes with them. According to the preface:
Lastly, wee haue on the one side auoided the scrupulositie of the Puritanes, who leaue the olde Ecclesiasticall words, and betake them to other, as when they put washing for Baptisme, and Congregation instead of Church: as also on the other side we haue shunned the obscuritie of the Papists, in their Azimes, Tunike, Rational, Holocausts, Praepuce, Pasche, and a number of such like, whereof their late Translation is full.90
It is at this point that one begins to question the extent at which this principle allowed any free licensing to take place. Butterworth comments, “The translators may have been influenced by doctrinal motives in their choice of words.”91 Other editions of the King James Version were printed, such as in 1613, 1629, 1631, 1638, 1675, and 1682 CE with various details changed due to previous printer’s errors.92 For example, the 1631 edition of the King James Version became known as the “Wicked Bible” because the seventh commandment read, “Thou shalt commit adultery.”93
In conclusion, while the King James Bible Version has some strength to it, it also has many weaknesses it has inherited from its development. But only a critical, in-depth examination of history, not a simple statement of faith or personal belief, can reveal the true facts about this particular Bible version. So one should be cautious in holding up the King James Bible Version as superior to all other Bible versions.
Notes
1. Bobrick, Benson. Wide as the Waters: The Story of the English Bible and the Revolution It Inspired. (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 2001), 14.
2. Gaebelein, Frank E., A.M. Down Through the Ages; The Story of the King James Bible. (New York, NY: The Macmillan Company, 1924), 24.
3. Bobrick, 14.
4. Daiches, David. The King James Version of the English Bible; An Account of the Development and Sources of the English Bible of 1611 with Special Reference to the Hebrew Tradition. (Hamden, Conn.: Archon Books, 1968), 88.
5. McGrath, Alister E. In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture. (New York, NY: Doubleday, 2001), 56-58, 241.
6. Ibid., 223.
7. Benson, 15,16.
8. Butterworth, Charles C. The Literary Lineage of the King James Bible, 1340-1611. (New York, NY: Octagon Books, 1971), 4.
9. Daiches, 88.
10. McGrath, 21.
11. Bobrick, 51.
12. Gaebelein, Frank E., LITT. D. The Story of the King James Bible. (Wheaton, ILL: Van Kampen Press, 1950), 29.
13. Daiches, 37.
14. Butterworth, 41.
15. Bobrick, 52-53.
16. Butterworth, 42.
17. Ibid., 42.
18. Bobrick, 53.
19. McGrath, 59.
20. Bobrick, 103-104.
21. McGrath, 72.
22. Bobrick, 120.
23. Butterworth, 61-62.
24. Bobrick, 120.
25. Daiches, 173-174.
26. Bobrick, 117.
27. Ibid., 103-104.
28. McGrath, 72-73.
29. Bobrick, 121.
30. Daiches, 10.
31. Butterworth, 80
32. Daiches, 10.
33. Bobrick, 121.
34. Butterworth, 81, 84.
35. Ibid., 120.
36. McGrath, 89-90.
37. Bobrick, 144-145.
38. Daiches, 20-21.
39. Olsen, M. Ellsworth, Ph. D. The Prose of Our King James Version; It’s Origin and Course of Development. (Washington, D.C.: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1947), 61.
40. Daiches, 144.
41. Bobrick, 147.
41. Ibid., 148.
42. Daiches, 176-177.
43. McGrath, 91.
44. Butterworth, 113-116.
45. Olsen, 61-62.
46. Ibid., 62.
47. Daiches, 35, 37.
48. Bobrick, 149-151.
49. Butterworth, 132.
50. McGrath, 94-97.
51. Daiches, 35.
52. Butterworth, 137.
53. McGrath, 114-115.
54. Daiches, 178.
55. Olsen, 67, 69.
56. McGrath, 115-116.
57. Ibid., 67-68.
58. Bobrick, 174-175.
59. Daiches, 51, 179-180.
60. Butterworth, 159, 161, 165, 169.
61. McGrath, 121.
62. Bobrick, 175.
63. Daiches, 53, 180.
64. Butterworth, 174.
65. Olsen, 72.
66. Bobrick, 176, 181-183.
67. Butterworth, 177-178.
68. Daiches, 57-58, 181-182.
69. Butterworth, 207-209.
70. Ibid., 212.
71. McGrath, 196.
72. Olsen, 78-79.
73. Butterworth, 213.
74. Ibid., 214, 217.
75. Ibid., 216.
76. Daiches, 171.
77. Butterworth, 216-217.
78. Bobrick, 238.
79. Daiches 171-172.
80. Butterworth., 212, 228.
81. Olsen, 80.
82. Butterworth, 228.
83. Daiches, 171.
84. Bobrick, 255.
85. Butterworth, 217.
86. McGrath, 309.
87. Butterworth, 218.
88. McGrath, 194.
89. Butterworth., 218-219.
90. Ibid., 219.
91. Ibid., 219.
92. McGrath, 215-216.
93. Bobrick, 253.
