The History of the English Bible-The King James Bible
Wenstrom Bible Ministries
Pastor-Teacher Bill Wenstrom
Thursday October 9, 2014
The History of the English Bible: The King James Bible
Lesson # 4
So as we noted in our study, England possessed two translations, namely the Bishops Bible which was used in the churches and the Geneva Bible which was read in homes.
The latter was the most popular which created a problem for the clergy who needed a translation that their parishioners would love and revere.
James VI ascended to power after the death of Queen Elizabeth in 1603.
He had already ruled Scotland for thirty-seven years when he became king of England.
In January of the following year, he called a conference of the country’s religious leaders at Hampton Court.
The purpose of this conference was to iron out ecclesiastical differences.
The most important matter which the participants of this conference settled upon was a translation of the entire Bible which would be based upon the original Greek and Hebrew text.
They decided that it would be printed without marginal notes and was only to be used in all the churches of England.
In England this new translation would be called the “Authorized Version” because it was authorized by the king.
The man who proposed this new translation was Dr. John Reynolds but it did not meet universal approval.
However, the king approved of it and that was all that was needed to get the project up in running.
The king disliked the Geneva Bible which ironically had been the official Bible of Scotland during his reign.
The reason for his hatred of the Geneva was of course its notes and not its translation.
This is indicated clearly by the fact that he explicitly mentioned Exodus 1:19 and the Hebrew midwives disobedience of Pharoah’s edict to murder the infant Jewish baby boys.
Therefore, we can see that the motivation for the King James Bible was religious and political.
The King was a major player in the project as demonstrated by the fact that he even wrote the rules for determining who should be the translators and how they should be organized and the principles that they should follow.
Many erroneously believe that he took part in the translation but this is not the case.
He assigned six panels of scholars who would do the work of translating.
There were three for the Old Testament and two for the New Testament as well as one for the Apocrypha.
Two teams of scholars met at Oxford while two met at Cambridge and two were at Westminster Abbey.
The total number of scholars working on the project was forty-seven.
The rules the translators were to follow were interesting.
First, they were to be diligent in basing their translation on the Greek and Hebrew text of the original but at the same time retain the wording of the Bishop’s Bible wherever possible.
Secondly, it was, as noted earlier, to have no notes but only those which explained the Greek and Hebrew words or cross-referenced other passages.
Interestingly, the translators however did not follow these rules, especially the first.
The translators based their work on existing published texts and did not consult any Greek or Hebrew manuscripts when they did a revision.
The textual basis of the Old Testament had not changed dramatically since the sixteenth century.
However, the New Testament has changed quite a bit.
The King James translators used primarily the Stephanus text of 1550 (third edition) which relied on Erasmus’ third edition of 1522 which was the same text that Tyndale employed when making his translation.
The King James Bible was influenced by many translations and not simply the Bishop’s Bible.
In fact, the Geneva Bible had an enormous influence on the King James and in particular the Old Testament books.
Interestingly in the original preface of the King James, the Geneva is quoted several times and not the King James.
Furthermore the Rheims-Douai translation influenced the King James translators as well.
The New Testament the Catholics used appeared in 1582 while the Old Testament was published only a year or two before the King James.
In the preface to the 1611 English version, the translators set forth their theory of translation. They wrote “We have not tied ourselves to an [sic] uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men somewhere, have been as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same in both places (for there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But, that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by Purpose, never to call it Intent; if one where Journeying, never Traveling; if one where Think, never Suppose; if one where Pain, never Ache; if one where Joy, never Gladness, etc. Thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist, than bring profit to the godly Reader.”
The King James Bible is really the fifth revision of Tyndale since it is greatly influenced by the Geneva and Tyndale translations.
In fact, ninety percent of the King James New Testament was Tyndale’s translation.
But in defense of the King James translators, they did rigorously work over the translation and produced an entirely new work.
There are many places where they sacrificed Tyndale’s accuracy for a more elegant translation.
The primary principle of the King James translators was not faithfulness to the Greek but rather elegance in English.
They also followed the Protestants in regards to the Apocrypha by placing it at the end of the Old Testament.
The King James Bible was originally published with many marginal notes.
There were 6,500 that appeared in the Old Testament while the Apocrypha had 1,000 notes and the New Testament possessed 800.
Thus, we can see that there 8,500 notes total.
Most of these notes indicated textual variants but a great number explained to the reader where the translators were undecided as to the meaning of the original.
The preface contained a note from the translators to the reader which expressed their conviction that their translation was not inspired by the Holy Spirit and that they knew future discoveries of manuscripts would help to clear up the meaning of the original text.
Sadly, this preface is no longer printed in the King James Bible.
This glaring omission is one of the big reasons why some believe that the King James is the only inspired translation and that it is perfect and inerrant.
Bruce writes “Some people would prefer a false appearance of certainty to an honest admission of doubt.”
These same Christians who are of the conviction that the King James is inspired by God are also ignorant of the fact that following the translation of the King James, a great deal of research and discovery has helped scholars to understand more clearly the original text.
Consequently, because of this, translations must always be updated to keep up with new archaeological and manuscript discoveries.
Furthermore many King James only advocates are also ignorant that the preface of the first edition of the King James had the following statement: “To those who point out defects in [the translators’ works], they answer that perfection is never attainable by man, but the word of God may be recognized in the very meanest translation of the Bible, just as the king’s speech addressed to Parliament remains the king’s speech when translated into other languages than that in which it was spoken, even if it be not translated word for word, and even if some of the renderings are capable of improvement. To those who complain that [the translators] have introduced so many changes in relation to the older English version, they answer by expressing surprise that revision and correction should be imputed as faults. The whole history of Bible translation in any language, they say, is a history of repeated revision and correction.”
Wallace has the following comment, he writes “A few observations on this statement are in order. (1) The translators do not equate their work with the inspired word of God; they explicitly deny the perfection of the KJB. (2) They freely admit that even the worst translation of Scripture is still to be regarded as the Word of God. (3) They make a qualitative distinction between the text written in one language and the translation of it into another. Regarding Scripture, they admit that only the original text in Greek and Hebrew was inspired (4) They implicitly approve all later revisions of their own work, because the very nature of Bible translation involves ‘a history of repeated revision and correction.’ Sadly, many today who are ‘King James Only’ advocates would deny all four of these points. Their only excuse for doing so is that they have never read the text of ‘The Translators to the Reader.’ But just a few years ago, that preface became available as a separate book, published by the American Bible Society. It includes both the old wording as well as an updated version, along with a full commentary.”
When the King James Bible was first published in 1611, it was not universally received since many Roman Catholics rejected it.
The preface of the King James though anticipated this by rejecting the Rheims-Douai translation of the Roman Catholic church.
They wrote “[The Catholics have] the purpose to darken the sense, that [although] they must needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof it may be kept from being understood. But we desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, … that it may be understood even [by] the very vulgar.”
Another reason why the King James was not universally received was inaccuracies.
Dr. Hugh Broughton who was a first class Hebrew scholar pointed out, “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.”
His rejection however could have been from resentment at not being picked to be on the translation committee which he was more than qualified for.
He was not overlooked by accident but rather rejected because of his inability to work with others.
The King James Bible really never had a first printing since the revision and correction process had already immediately begun in 1611 and even before the first printed edition was completed and assembled together.
Amazingly the actual first edition and the corrected second edition appeared to be accidentally mixed before they were assembled and bound.
The King James also went through at least two more revisions in the first year alone.
In fact, not only this but it actually went through fourteen minor editions due to the frequent mistakes in the process of translating, revising and printing.
This was followed by two massive revisions in 1629 and 1638.
In the end, there were almost 10,000 changes made to the original 1611 King James Bible.
Most of these changes were minor involving spelling and punctuation.
This makes clear that those King James advocates are clearly in the wrong by ignorantly claiming “We read only the original 1611 King James Version of the Holy Bible”!
The King James is not the only Bible which is imperfect since every translation ever made is imperfect including the RSV, NRSV, NASB, NIV, TNIV, ESV and NET Bibles.
Despite its shortcomings, the King James Bible is the greatest monument to the English language and had endured the test of time.
The elegance of translation of the King James is unparalleled.
It has had a tremendous influence upon Western Civilization and should be in the library of every English speaking Christian for the simple reason that it is a part of their rich literary and religious heritage.