I realize not everyone geeks out on the history of bible versions, but it completely fascinates me to think about the stories of the translators, their motives and drives, their courage and faithfulness, their devotion and dedication. Frankly, it’s humbling. In the words below, I share some fruit of my investigations into the story of the world’s most popular English bible—the King James Bible.
The Beginning
The King James Bible was the third “authorized” version, the first being the Great Bible (1539) and the second being the Bishop’s Bible (1568). They were “authorized” as the official bible sanctioned by the King or Queen of England for use in the Church of England.
King James I ascended the throne in 1603 after Queen Elizabeth I died, and he was given the idea for producing a new and excellent English bible translation during a conference at Hampton Court in January 1604. The idea seemed right to him, so despite some heavy pushback, he officially launched the project a few months later by appointing 54 men to share the task. Archbishop Richard Bancroft was the chief overseer for the project. (He, sadly, died in 1610, a year before publishing.)
Six committees were formed across three different colleges: two in Oxford, two in Westminster, and two in Cambridge. They divided the work as follows:
| Committee | Section Assigned to Translate |
| Oxford Team 1 | Isaiah – Malachi |
| Oxford Team 2 | Gospels, Acts, Revelation |
| Westminster Team 1 | Genesis – 2 Kings |
| Westminster Team 2 | Epistles |
| Cambridge Team 1 | 1 Chronicles – Song of Solomon |
| Cambridge Team 2 | Apocryphal books |
The work began slowly and didn’t really begin in earnest until 1607.
Forty-seven translators of high esteem, mainly Church of England men, did the work. The 1611 KJV’s Introduction says they
“were greater in other mens eyes then in their owne, and . . . sought the truth rather then their own praise . . . And in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of their owne knowledge, or of their sharpenesse of wit, or deepenesse of judgement, as it were in an arme of flesh? At no hand. They trusted in him that hath the key of David, opening and no man shutting: they prayed to the Lord the Father of our Lord, to the effect that S. Augustine did; O let thy Scriptures be my pure delight, let me not be deceived in them, neither let me deceive by them.”
The King James Bible was first printed in 1611 and it slowly gained popularity, eventually overtaking and replacing the Geneva Bible as the version of choice in the common English household by the 1640s.
Translation Philosophy
The translator teams operated under a set of restrictive rules, which slowed their process but ensured a quality product. Some of those rules included:
- They were to start with the Bishop’s Bible for wording, unless the original language didn’t fit. However, they referenced all available material at the time, including the Geneva Bible.
- They were to keep ecclesiastical wording, unlike the Geneva Bible, which had purposefully used more common language in many cases. According to the translators, “Lastly, wee have on the one side avoided the scrupulositie of the Puritanes, who leave the olde Ecclesticall words, and betake them to other, as when they put washing for Baptisme, and Congregation in stead of Church.”
- They were to insert no comments in the margins (again unlike the Geneva Bible), except to clarify what the original language said if necessary. As the translators state in the introduction: “Some peradventure would have no varietie of sences to be set in the margine, lest the authoritie of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that shew of uncertaintie, should somewhat be shaken . . . doth not a margine do well to admonish the Reader to seeke further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?”
See a complete list of the translation rules.
The Introduction to the Original 1611 Edition is quite lengthy. Here is an excerpt which gives a small window into the minds of the translators; they were not trying to create the translation of all translations, but realized theirs was one among many:
“For when your Highnesse had once out of deepe judgment apprehended, how convenient it was, That out of the Originall sacred tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our owne and other forreigne Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English tongue; your MAJESTIE did never desist, to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the worke might be hastened, and that the businesse might be expedited in so decent a maner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.”
They wrote much concerning the value and power of God’s word to the reader, including:
“The Scriptures then being acknowledged to bee so full and so perfect, how can wee excuse our selves of negligence, if we doe not studie them, of curiositie, if we be not content with them? Men talke much of , how many sweete and goodly things it had hanging on it; of the Philosphers stone, that it turneth copper into gold; of Cornu-copia, that it had all things necessary for foode in it; of Panaces the herbe, that it was good for all diseases; of Catholicon the drugge, that is in stead of all purges; of Vulcans armour, that is was an armour of proofe against all thrusts, and all blowes, &c. Well, that which they falsly or vainely attributed to these things for bodily good, wee may justly and with full measure ascribe unto the Scripture, for spirituall. It is not onely an armour, but also a whole armorie of weapons, both offensive, and defensive; whereby we may save our selves and put the enemie to flight. It is not an herbe, but a tree, or rather a whole paradise of trees of life, which bring foorth fruit every moneth, and the fruit thereof is for meate, and the leaves for medicine… Happie is the man that delighteth in the Scripture, and thrise happie that meditateth in it day and night.”
They sorrowed for those who had no access to a translation in their own tongue, making an appropriate illustration of Jacob’s well:
“Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtaine, that we may looke into the most Holy place; that remooveth the cover of the well, that wee may come by the water, even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which meanes the flockes of Laban were watered. Indeede without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but like children at Jacobs well (which was deepe) without a bucket or some thing to draw with: or as that person mentioned by Esau, to whom when a sealed booke was delivered, with this motion, Reade this, I pray thee, hee was faine to make this answere, I cannot, for it is sealed.”
They swipe several times at the Roman Catholic Church:
“Now the Church of Rome would seeme at the length to beare a motherly affection towards her children, and to allow them the Scriptures in their mother tongue: but indeed it is a gift, not deserving to be called a gift, an unprofitable gift: they must first get a Licence in writing before they may use them, and to get that, they must approve themselves to their Confessor, that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the dregs, yet soured with the leaven of their superstition.”
In the paragraph following, they bluntly ask concerning how the Catholics had kept the word from the common man: “What is it to handle the word of God deceitfully, if this be not?”
They understood their English work to be the very word of God, while at the same time admitting it had human-introduced blemishes:
“No cause therefore why the word translated should bee denied to be the word, or forbidden to be currant, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting foorth of it.”
Concerning their purpose in making this translation, they write:
“Truly (good Christian Reader) wee never thought from the beginning, that we should neede 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 principall good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeavour, that our marke.”
If you wish to read this introduction in an English closer to today’s, check out the modernized English of the introduction to the 1769 KJV.
Should We Use the KJV Today?
The King James Version is the word of God, just as other English translations. It holds a high seat among Bible translations because of its place in history—it sits as a father to many others. It’s helpful to know that the KJV was not the first English translation, though, and it was not perfect. Keep also in mind that the translators’ stated intent was to produce a bible that would be easy to read by the common British populace. Because of the natural evolution of language, there will always be a need for version adjustments over the years if we want Bibles accessible for everyone to read and understand.
Translators today have access to more accurate New Testament Greek texts, so the bible translations produced today can be even closer to the original autographs.
If all you have is a King James Version, you have a powerful gift—you can read God’s word! If you have another version which is easier to read, praise God!
Thank God for all the translators who have given, sometimes at their own peril, years of their lives to make sure the Bible is widely available. God has preserved His word, and He ever will.