KJV 400

This talk was given at the 2011 Positively Presbyterian Conference

No doubt you are all familiar with the fact that 2011 is the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Version. Several books have been published, magazine articles have been written, television programmes have been screened, and lectures have been given. Perhaps you assume that nothing new can be said on the subject, and I can assure you that you are right in that assessment, especially as far as this talk is concerned.

This year is not only the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Version – it is also the 57th anniversary of my arrival on earth, which means that I have lived for about one-seventh of the existence of the KJV. Yet for most of my existence I have not used it. I should say it was the version that was used in my family and congregation when I was a child and I learned many verses from the KJV in Sunday School. Most of these passages are still in my memory and come to mind regularly, whether when I am preaching or merely thinking about something.

I was converted about 1973, while the KJV was still in common use. The text that spoke powerfully to me was John 10:10, where Jesus says, ‘I am come that they might have life, and have it more abundantly.’ Personally I prefer that rendering to most others I have read. Shortly afterwards, a new version began to be used widely among younger people and that was the New American Standard Version. It itself was eclipsed totally by the arrival of the New International Version a few years later; the NIV became the Bible version that I used, and has been so since then. I mention that detail because it describes a common feature of many who became Christians round about that time – they were converted through verses found in the KJV but have been informed and fed spiritually by another version of the Bible. So I have two personal reasons for being grateful for the translation of the KJV in 1611, and they are scriptures that I memorised and verses that were used in my conversion experience.

In almost total contrast to those reasons, an atheist such as Richard Dawkins expresses appreciation for the influence of the KJV. He says on the website of the King James Bible Trust: ‘You can’t appreciate English literature unless you are steeped to some extent in the King James Bible. People don’t know that proverbial phrases which make echoes in their minds come from this Bible. We are a Christian culture, we come from a Christian culture and not to know the King James Bible is to be, in some small way, barbarian.’ Other notable atheists also share Dawkins’ assessment. Christopher Hitchens opines: ‘Though I am sometimes reluctant to admit it, there really is something “timeless” in the Tyndale/King James synthesis. For generations, it provided a common stock of references and allusions, rivalled only by Shakespeare in this respect. It resounded in the minds and memories of literate people, as well as of those who acquired it only by listening.’

Both men are against modern translations, perhaps because these translations don’t enable them to hide behind the literary style of seventeenth-century England that is found in the King James Version. And their endorsements only put the KJV on to the same level as Shakespeare in influencing the English language.

An opposing view, both to individuals such as Dawkins and to Christians who don’t use the KJV, is the idea that the KJV is the Word of God in English. Within the upholders of this view there are the sane and the weird. Among the sane are those who believe that the Greek text – commonly called the Received Text – behind the King James New Testament is the original divinely-inspired text that has been preserved by God. These people would not be averse to a modern English translation based on that Greek text, but since there is not one, they have no choice but to use the KJV. The New King James Version, which is frequently regarded by others as the ideal version for such people, uses what is called the Majority Text and so is not acceptable except where the original texts have the same wording, a fact which would apply to all English Bible translations.

As far as the non-sane arguments are concerned, the least said about them the better.

The Background

It is helpful to consider developments in the English language because they have a bearing on the production of the KJV. Three distinct periods have been identified with regard to the progression of the English language. Old English, which itself had replaced the Celtic languages, covered the period from the sixth century to the eleventh century (1066, when the Norman Conquest of England occurred, brought Old English into disrepute and it was not used by the educated and the aristocracy); Middle English, with influences from French, covers the period from 1100 to 1500; and Modern English from 1500 to today. Old English was Anglo-Saxon, Middle English was the combination of Anglo-Saxon and Norman, and Modern English is what has been spoken since 1500.

Some parts of the Bible were translated into Old English (for example, Bede translated the Gospel of John and Alfred the Great either translated personally or arranged for the translation of Psalms 1–50 and the four gospels). During the period of Middle English, there were metrical translations of several books of the Bible. Wycliffe’s translation in 1382 belongs to Middle English whereas the King James Version, despite its archaic language, belongs to the category of Modern English.

None of us could read or understand Old English or Middle English (we could not read Wycliffe’s translation without special training), but we can understand the English of the King James Version even although its grammar, punctuation and style are very different from contemporary English. The point I am making here is that interest in English Bible translations occurred during a period when English was developing into a virtually new language.

Another development that must be taken into account is the invention of the printing press in Germany. In 1475, during the period when Middle English was changing into Modern English, William Caxton began printing books in England. He was not allowed to print the Bible. But at least the printing press had arrived and it helped make it possible to print Bibles. Wycliffe’s Bible, mentioned earlier, was found only in handwritten manuscripts (the first printed edition was made in 1731). According to Donald Brake in his 2011 book, A Visual History of the King James Bible, ‘Only 250 copies of the Wycliffe Bible exist today, and each one differs from the other. This is not surprising since each was hand-copied from different manuscripts.’ So it is not hard to imagine the effects of the printing press. Even if it was illegal to print Bibles in England, they could be printed elsewhere and smuggled into the country.

The above paragraph presumes that there was an interest in translating the Bible into the language of the people. That presumption is accurate. The first translation of the Bible into English was by John Wycliffe (1320-84). Prior to this work, the complete Bible was available only in Latin, although as note earlier some passages from the psalms and the gospels had been translated into Old and into Middle English. Wycliffe and his collaborators did not know either Hebrew or Greek; their translation is from the Latin. Nevertheless the appearance of a version in English was very significant and informed the population about the content of God’s Word and obviously helped prepare the way for future translations. One complaint made in the 1390s about this translation was that he ‘translated from Latin into the language not of angels but of Angles (Englishmen), so that he made the Bible common and open to the laity, and to women who were able to read, which used to be reserved for literate and intelligent clergy.’ Of course, without realising it, the critic was actually commending the work. Nevertheless, it is assumed by most scholars that Wycliffe’s version was not consulted by subsequent translators.

The catalyst for the sixteenth-century situation in England was William Tyndale (1494-1536), whose labours cost him his life. A linguistic genius who was fluent in seven languages, Tyndale’s goal was to make God’s Word available in modern English to as many people as possible. Before he was arrested and executed, he managed to translate into Modern English the entire New Testament as well as the Pentateuch and several historical books of the Old Testament.

Tyndale’s objectives are explained in three words: availability, accuracy and clarity.

Availability: Tyndale’s aim was not that every person would have a copy of the Bible (after all, the vast majority were unable to read), but that each person would be able to understand it when they heard it read in church or elsewhere.

Accuracy: Tyndale believed that any translation in English had to be based on the original languages of the Old and New Testaments.

Clarity: Tyndale wanted readers and listeners to understand what God said in his Word. He did not make simplicity his goal because he was fully aware that there were difficult concepts in the Bible, concepts that required explanation by capable persons. His famous comment about providing a Bible so that a ploughboy would know more than a priest is not so much a description of the simplicity of his English style as an indicator of his aim to spread deepening knowledge of the contents of the Bible to all classes of society.

The success of Tyndale regarding accuracy and clarity can be gauged by the degree in which subsequent versions have utilised his words and phrases. In fact, a spurt of versions began to appear.

Tyndale’s work was continued by his assistant Miles Coverdale, who published a complete Bible in 1535, with the approval of Henry VIII, even before Tyndale died. Coverdale put together a complete Bible that included what Tyndale had done, but Coverdale provided his Old Testament by his own translation based on Latin and German texts. The only lasting contribution of Coverdale was his translation of the Psalms, because it became part of the Book of Common Prayer, and so contributed to the liturgy of the Church of England.

John Rogers published his Matthew’s Bible in 1537, also with royal approval. His Bible was a combination of Tyndale’s and Coverdale’s work (the parts of the Old Testament that Tyndale had not translated and the Apocrypha). The versions Of Coverdale and Rogers were divided into chapters and paragraphs (but not verses), and were often found chained in churches so that the common people could read them.

The ecclesiastical authorities in England then produced an English Version in 1539 called the Great Bible. Archbishop Thomas Cranmer favoured the Matthew’s Version, so Thomas Cromwell, the chief minister of Henry VIII, arranged for Miles Coverdale to revise Matthew’s Bible and it was published as the Great Bible. It was called the Great Bible because of its size and it became the official Bible of the Church of England (the sentence, ‘This is the Bible appointed to the use of the churches,’ appeared on the title page).

In 1560, a translation called the Geneva Bible was published and quickly became very popular with the Puritans. As its name indicates, it was published in Geneva. It is assumed that William Whittingham, the brother-in-law of John Calvin, was responsible for most of it; John Knox also contributed to it. The Geneva Bible was produced in a portable size, utilised a readable font, divided the text into verses, used italics to indicate words added by the translators, and had prefaces to the biblical books. We could say it was the forerunner of contemporary study Bibles. It became very popular because of its additional notes and comments which were included in the margins. For almost a century, it was the English Bible used by the majority of the Puritans. It was the Bible of the Pilgrim Fathers, of John Bunyan, of John Knox and the Reformed Church in Scotland.

Nick Spencer, in his book Freedom and Order (published in 2011 by Hodder and Stoughton), summarises the effect of the Geneva Bible: ‘If the Geneva Bible was not straightforwardly revolutionary, however, it was still dangerous. The fact that it put the Word of God into people’s hands was bad enough. The fact that it did so in such a way as to make the text readable, engaging, relevant and comprehensible was worse.… The Geneva Bible was written to be read and inwardly digested. Ultimately, it was not so much its contents that was revolutionary as the fact that its notes enabled readers to use the Bible to interpret contemporary events for themselves.’

The popularity of the Geneva Bible led leaders of the Church of England to call for another official English translation that would update the Great Bible without including the kind of controversial notes found in the Geneva Bible. This new translation/revision was provided in 1568 and called the Bishops Bible (as its name suggests, it was produced by the bishops of the church). The return of a Protestant monarch (Elizabeth I) in 1560 after the death of her strongly pro-Roman Catholic sister Mary created the impetus for this translation. When it was published, there was a portrait of Elizabeth on the cover, and below was Romans 1:16 (‘I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes’), helpfully displayed in Latin! Clearly it was an attempt by the political and religious hierarchy to defuse the radical influence of the Bible. Despite having the authority of the church hierarchy, the Bishops Bible did not diminish the popularity of the Geneva Bible.

The above summary indicates there had been an ongoing attempt to produce a Bible that was satisfactory to the various Protestant groups in England, but a Bible which would also carry the monarch’s approval. The desire for such a version remained, even although almost three decades were to pass before another opportunity arose with the accession of James VI of Scotland to the throne of Great Britain in 1603.

Motives and methods

The political situation in England was influenced to a great extent by religious opinion. There was a general distrust of Roman Catholicism, and it was assumed that James, coming from Presbyterian Scotland, would maintain that attitude. What was not known was whether or not he would support Puritanism or Anglicanism. The Puritans hoped that he would support them and produced a document signed by a thousand Puritan ministers (the Millenary Petition) that requested the king to implement reform in the Church of England. In response James summoned a conference to meet in Hampton Court in January 1604 to discuss various aspects of church affairs. James did not want radical church reform in England (he actually hated Presbyterianism), but he did enjoy discussing points of theology and various aspects of church government. The Conference was attended by four Puritan and nineteen Anglican representatives.

Several matters were discussed at the conference and it became clear that James was not interested in changing the Anglican Church structures in favour of Puritan wishes. So the only decision with a long-term change was a proposal ‘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.’ The suggestion of a new translation was made by Dr. John Reynolds, whom F. F. Bruce informs us was ‘President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, a leader of the Puritan side in the Church of England, and one of the greatest scholars of his day.’ It is suggested that Rainolds really wanted James to say that one already existed, that is, the Geneva Bible, but it was obvious that James detested it because of its marginal notes which approved of individuals in the Bible who disobeyed tyrants.

Rainolds’ proposal was opposed initially by Richard Bancroft, an adversary of the Puritans, and shortly to become Archbishop of Canterbury. James, however, saw Rainolds’ suggestion as a way (1) to minimise the influence of the Geneva Bible and (2) replace the unpopular Bishops’ Bible with a credible version that would be authorised by the church. The project was set on its way, with Bancroft in charge.

It is probably the case that very few could name even one of the men who translated the KJV (any more than they could mention the names of those who translated recent versions). Yet the individuals who produced the KJV were outstanding scholars. Reading their attainments in languages and theology, which can be found in most books that describe the production of the KJV, informs us that they were easily as capable as any modern scholar. Some were Calvinists, even Puritans, others were Arminians. Rather bizarrely, one of them, Richard Thomson, was known for his persistent drunkenness. Laurence Chatterton lived to be 104 (he died in 1640) and it was said of him that he could read his Hebrew Bible without the aid of spectacles when he was 100 (of course, most of us found difficulty in reading the Hebrew with or without spectacles at any age). John Rainolds once gave 250 lectures on why the Apocrypha should not be included in the English Bible – they were published posthumously (he died in 1607) after the KJV was published in 1611, with the Apocrypha included.

Not only did they understand the importance of Bible translation from a literary point of view, they were also aware of their accountability to God, as is revealed in the conclusion to their preface to the KJV. It was probably this sense of accountability that made them careful in implementing the directives given to them. So while guidelines were drawn up for them, they did not constrain themselves to all of them.

Regarding the work of translation, three teams of scholars worked on the Old Testament, two teams worked on the New Testament, and one team worked on the Apocrypha. According to Leland Ryken, the following process was adopted, a process that indicates they took care to produce a reliable version:

1. Within each team, each scholar initially worked alone on his assigned passage.

2. Each scholar would then meet regularly and discuss their translations with other members of the team.

3. When a book of the Bible was completed, it was past to the other teams for consideration (so all the translators approved of all the translations).

4. If anyone was dissatisfied with a translation, it could be sent to an appropriate committee for review (it was composed of the leaders of each team).

In addition, other guidelines were given to the teams, and we should note some of them.

1. One guideline was that while they had to consult the Hebrew and Greek texts, they had to use as much of the Bishops Bible as possible. This is a reminder that the KJV is a revision of the Bishops Bible.

2. Other translations were to be consulted. Although the Geneva Bible was suspect, it is clear that it was considered by the translators (rather bizarrely, in the original preface to the KJV, the Geneva Bible is quoted several times rather than the KJV. Imagine if the introduction of the NIV included verses from the KJV instead of the NIV). It is evident that the translations of William Tyndale and his successors were also been taken into consideration, indeed some regard the KJV as the fifth revision of Tyndale’s New Testament.

3. The translators were told that marginal notes were to be limited. Yet when it first was published the KJV contained over 8,000 notes (1,000 were in the Apocrypha), of which about 6, 500 were in the Old Testament. Sometimes these notes pointed to textual variants, but a great number merely indicated that the translators were unsure of the meaning of the original text. So the notes were not signs of rebellion against royal pronouncements; instead they reveal a willingness to be honest in Bible translation.

4. They were told to use old ecclesiastical words (for example, ‘church’ was used instead of ‘congregation’) and they were not allowed to translate names of Bible characters consistently (so, for example, we have Elijah in the Old Testament and Elias in the New Testament). Of course, it is literally correct to do what the KJV has done, but at times it is confusing (for example, translating the Old Testament character Joshua by the name Jesus in Acts 7:45 and Hebrews 4:8). Surprisingly they decided to use a variety of English synonyms to translate the same Greek word, which practice can hide the intention of the Biblical author when he used the same word in subsequent phrases (as with the word ‘rejoice’ in Romans 5:1-4).

In 1609, Robert Barker, having paid £3,500 (about £600,000 in today’s money) for the rights to print the new version, began to prepare the text for printing. Nothing is known about how he arranged it, or what the price was that he charged for the first copies, or how many copies were printed.

Initially there was not universal acclaim for the arrival of the KJV. We have to remember that the Geneva Bible was highly regarded. Perhaps in order to promote the KJV, James in 1616 banned further printings of the Geneva Bible in England (it is interesting to note that Robert Barker in 1633 disobeyed this injunction by a adopting a simple ruse – he stated on the Bibles that they were printed in 1599). James, however, could not prevent editions that were printed abroad from coming into England, and the last foreign edition was printed in 1644, thirty-three years after the KJV was printed. Eventually with the passing of time the KJV became accepted and even the ascendancy of Cromwell and the Puritan government in the 1640s did not bring about a desire to restore the Geneva Bible (the KJV was recognised by the Church of Scotland in 1634). Once it gained the ascendancy, the KJV was to retain its position for almost 370 years.

What about thou, thee and eth?

In 1600, ‘thou’ and ‘thee’ were not used in everyday speech to indicate singular as opposed to plural. Interestingly, ‘you’ was the term used when speaking to a superior (children to parents, employees to masters), and it was used between themselves by the aristocracy. ‘Thou’ and ‘thee’ were used to express superiority, so a parent would address his child as ‘thou’ as would a master his servant. If the KJV had intended to reflect the common usage, they would have God addressing all his creatures by ‘thou’ and ‘thee’, and all his creatures would use ‘you’ when speaking to him (Campbell, The Story of the King James Version, 74). So why did the KJV translators use ‘thee’ and ‘thou’, not just for God but for all individuals? There are two possible reasons: one is a concern for biblical accuracy (they wanted readers to identify when a solitary individual was addressed) and the other is that they were obeying the instruction to keep as close to the Bishops Bible as possible (the Bishops Bible used thou and thee). What they did not intend was that ‘thou’ and ‘thee’ were indicators of reverence, but that was the unintended effect.

Virtually everywhere, the KJV uses the ‘eth’ ending for present tense singular verbs. According to Campbell, ‘eth’ was not used in common speech by the 1590s and had also virtually disappeared in informal writings, although it is found in formal writings and in more elevated works (such as the works of Shakespeare). Again it is likely that the reason for this practice was linked to producing a version that indicated dignity of language and a continuation of practice with previous versions. Campbell asserts: ‘The language choices made by the translators of the KJV would have seemed to many listeners and readers slightly formal and slightly archaic, and this may have been thought to be entirely appropriate to the dignity and standing of a sacred text’ (p. 77).

Myths

From the above, I can list four myths connected to the King James Version that we frequently hear, and as we know, the more something is repeated the more credible it can become.

1. The King James Version is the authorised version of the Bible. While I personally would not give any weight at all to government approval of any spiritual matter, some do stress that the KJV is ‘authorised’ by civil authorities and also by ecclesiastical authorities. There is no documentation that is the case (of course, it may have been lost). All that can be said today is that at one time the KJV was ‘appointed to be read in churches’. The Oxford English Dictionary first mentions the notion of ‘authorised’ in 1824.

2. The King James Version was the Bible of the Puritans. Given that it was translated in the Puritan period, it was inevitable that some Puritans used it. Of course, such a claim also requires an explanation of what is meant by the term ‘Puritan’ because it covered a wide range of different groups. In fact, most of the Puritans with whom we would want to be identified probably used the Geneva Bible.

3. The King James Version has remained unchanged since 1611. It was inevitable that errors would creep in to the texts used by printers. Therefore it was arranged for a complete revision to be made and this revision was published in 1769, and it is this revision that is available today. Many thousands of corrections were made over the years due to printers’ errors, changes in spelling and punctuation, and wrong translations. Apparently there are about 24,000 differences between the 1611 and 1769 texts.

4. The King James Version did not include the Apocrypha. It was common for English translations to include the Apocrypha, although there are some editions of the Geneva Bible that did not include it. Doubts about including it were expressed by some Puritans, although it was after 1769 that it became common to have editions of the KJV without it.

The KJV today

I began this talk by relating my personal experience of the KJV. As I said, I owe it a lot. Yet I no longer use it, either in my personal devotions or in my public services. Of course, I have no objection if a person wants to consult it, say to discover whether or not a personal pronoun is singular or plural. Nor do I mind if a person who has been using it for many decades wants to continue using it for devotional purposes. Nevertheless I think there are reasons for not using it and here are some of them.

 First, we have to recognize that the Greek text behind the KJV is not the oldest set of manuscripts. Older manuscripts were discovered after 1611 and surely it is important for us to note what they contain. I am not suggesting that the Received Text is so deficient that it should be ignored. All I am saying is that we should not ignore any authentic manuscripts.

Second, the KJV contains many words that have changed their meaning. At the back of several editions of the KJV published by the Trinitarian Bible Society is a list of words that have changed their meaning. The list runs to several pages and includes hundreds of words. Is it correct to use a version where the wrong meaning can be conveyed because it has not been updated? I think the answer is obvious.

Third, even with regard to passages in which words have retained their meaning, the KJV’s style is archaic. Often there are very long sentences, elsewhere there are punctuation features which we do not practice (such as its use of colons, semi-colons and commas). The result is that the meaning of God’s Word is obscured. I can still recall the sense of relief that many experienced when the NIV appeared. They discovered something that is very basic – much of the Bible is understandable by lay-people.

Fourth, a great deal is said in commendation of the literary excellence of the King James Version and how even unbelievers such as Dawkins and Hitchens acknowledge that many of its phrases have become part of everyday speech and helped develop the English language. Alister McGrath, in the introduction to his book on the KJV, waxes eloquent as he lists the effects of the KJV. Throughout its existence it has influenced poets and politicians, helped refugees, comforted prisoners, and guided reformers. No-one would deny that it has done so, although I would say it would be better to say that God’s Word brought about these effects. After all, for most of the last four centuries, the KJV was the only version available of God’s Word. I think there is a subtle danger in that we can elevate an old translation and in the process actually denigrate God’s Word. What has actually become important in this argument is the quality of the English language used and not the accuracy, and therefore the suitability, of that version today. To me, the obvious response to this suggestion is this: ‘Was the Bible given to elevate a particular language or was the Bible intended to enable people understand the things of God?’ The answer again is obvious. Further the literary excellence argument runs the danger of becoming identified with intellectual snobbery.

In connection to this point, it is also claimed that the KJV influenced political changes in the Western world in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, resulting in improved living conditions, the abolition of slavery, increased wages etc. I would suggest that we should say it was the Word of God that influenced these changes – the KJV happened to be the English version available. The implication of stressing it was the KJV that helped bring about the changes is that another version would not have been so effective, which would be a totally wrong interpretation.

Fifth, it is often claimed that the KJV is easier to memorise than modern versions. Often, this argument is made by those who have learned passages from the KJV. It may have been the case that the KJV was easy to memorise in previous generations, although I cannot say that I found it easy to learn. Personally, I would question the claim that it is more suitable for memory than other versions. I think the problem is that we live in a period when memorization is unfashionable and does not take place. The best way to respond to this suggestion is to try and see if other translations can be memorized. It is important to hide God’s Word in our hearts.

I give God thanks that he gave to his church in 1611 a version of the Bible in English that was blessed by him over the next three centuries for the conversion of millions of sinners and their upbuilding in the faith. I also give him thanks that in the twentieth century he gave to his church a version of the Bible in English (the NIV) that was blessed by him for the conversion of numerous sinners and their upbuilding in the faith. I am sorry that those who have the copyright to the NIV are determined to go ahead with their gender-neutral version. So at present I am grateful to God that he has continued giving his Word in translated, understandable English, and in my congregational life it is the English Standard Version. The point is, Thanks to God for his written Word.