LESSON SEVEN: The Authorized Version

Of late, it has fallen under attack. Not by the skeptic who has always doubted God and His word, but by the scholar. Because of this, many have built faulty argumentation in order to discredit the KJV as the preserved words of God. It is, therefore, essential for us to understand the history of the Authorized Version in order to disavow the contentions of those who wish to discredit the work and word of God among the English peoples.

Some have falsely thought that the King James Bible was the translation of King James I of England. Others have tried to discredit the KJV because of the King himself. One has nothing to do with the other. James did not translate the Bible, and his character has little to do with the translation which bears his name. He was the King of England in 1611 when the Authorized Version was completed, and it was under his authority that the translators began their endeavor.

James was born in Scotland and was the only son of Mary, Queen of Scots. His famous mother was a strict Roman Catholic; however, James was raised a staunch Protestant. He had a love for sports as well as for scholarship. King Henry IV of France referred to James as "the wisest fool in Christendom" (King James VI of Scotland: I of England by Lady Antonia Fraser, 1974. p. 9). And yet, the Christian should keep in mind the words found in 1 Corinthians 1:25-29.

Dr. Charles Ryrie says of King James, "Now this was. . . an odd king. By eight, it was said, he could translate any chapter of the Bible from Latin to French to English. He knew Italian, Hebrew, Greek, and had learned large portions of the Word. He was apparently an effeminate man; so one writer has called him, 'Queen James who succeeded King Elizabeth'. He was undoubtedly a vain man, not really popular because he held to the absolute superiority of the king, and not the Parliament." ("Oddities of the King James Bible," cited from The Christian Librarian Vol. 18, No. 1 & 2 in Oct-Dec., 1974. p.14)

British author Caroline Bingham provides an interesting assessment of this English monarch. "At seventeen he was a remarkable youth who had already achieved an intellectual and political maturity; already he was recognizable as the canny and learned King who never achieved wisdom, who committed follies but was not a fool." (The Making of a King, Doubleday and Comp., 1969. p.15).

Lady Antonia Fraser adds to our understanding of King James in the conclusion of her book. She writes, "Let us assess James by his own sonnet at the start of Basilikon Doron, when he laid down the precepts for a King: 'God gives not Kings the style of Gods in vain, For on his throne his Scepter do they sway: And as their subject ought them to obey, So Kings should fear and serve their God again.' Perhaps James did not have the style of a God, and erred in thinking that it had been granted to him. Nor did he create it for himself as Elizabeth had created the style of a Goddess. But he did fear God and attempt to serve Him by his own lights. As a result, his subject, even if they did not always obey him, were not so badly served by him after all." (Fraser, p. 214).

Of his legacy, Sir Frederic Kenyon has written, "The Authorized Version may be put down as the best deed ever done by James I. . ." (The Story of the Bible, p. 40)

Shortly after James became King of England, he was approached by Dr. John Rainolds concerning various issues facing the English Church. Rainolds, a Puritan and later one of the translators, made the following proposal within his address to the king. He stated, "May your Majesty be pleased to direct that the Bible be now translated, such versions as are extant not answering to the original." This delighted James, who responded with, "I profess, I could never yet see a Bible well translated in English, but I think that of Geneva is the worst." This discourse occurred at Hampton Court on Monday, January 16th, 1604. Within a few short months Bishop Richard Bancroft was notified to appoint certain learned men, numbering about fifty-four for the purpose of translating the word of God. Although the actual number of translators who worked on the KJV remains a mystery (because some died before the work was completed), the following list of names survives as known translators. These men were divided into three groups located at Westminster, Oxford, and Cambridge. Each group was divided into two sections; one worked on the Old Testament, the other on the New Testament. Only the group at Cambridge had a team working on the Jewish Apocrypha.

Dr. Lancelot Andrewes, Dean of Westminster. Mr. William Bedwell, St. John's College, Cambridge. Dr. Francis Burleigh, Pembroke Hall, Cambridge. Dr. Richard Clarke, Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge. Mr. Jeffrey King, Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. Dr. John Layfield, Fellow of Trinity College. Dr. John Overall, Dean of St. Paul's.

Dr. Hadrian Saravia, Canon of Canterbury. Dr. Robert Tigue, Archdeacon of Middlesex. Mr. Richard Thomson, Clare Hall, Cambridge.

Mr. William Dakins, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Dr. Roger Fenton, Fellow of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge. Dr. Ralph Hutchinson, Archbishop of St. Alban's. Mr. Michael Rabbett, Trinity College, Cambridge. Dr. Thomas Sanderson, Balliol College, Oxford. Dr. John Spenser, President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford.

Dr. Richard Brett, Fellow of Lincoln College. Dr. Daniel Featley (also know as Daniel Fairclough), Fellow of New College. Dr. John Harding, President of Magdalen College. Dr. Thomas Holland (no known relation), Rector of Exeter College. Mr. Richard Kilby, Rector of Lincoln College. Dr. John Rainolds, President of Corpus Christi College. Dr. Miles Smith, Canon of Hereford.

Dr. Leonard Hutton, Bishop of Gloucester. Dr. John Perin, Fellow of St. John's College. Dr. Thomas Ravis, Fellow of St. John's College. Sir Hanry Savile, Provost of Eaton.

Mr. Roger Andrews, Master of Jesus College. Mr. Andrew Bing, Fellow of St. Peter's College. Mr. Laurence Chaderton, Master of Emmanuel College. Mr. Francis Dillingham, Fellow of Christ's College. Mr. Thomas Harrison, Vice-Master of Trinity College. Mr. Edward Lively, Fellow of Trinity College. Mr. John Richardson, Master of Trinity College. Mr. Robert Spalding, Fellow of St. John's College.

Dr. John Bois, Fellow of St. John's College (later he edited Rom-Rev.). Dr. William Branthwaite, Master of Caius College. Mr. Andrew Downes, Fellow of St. John's College. Dr. John Duport, Master of Jesus College. Dr. Jeremy Radcliffe, Fellow of Trinity College. Dr. Samuel Ward, Master of Sidney College. Mr. Robert Ward, Fellow of King's College.

These translators were great scholars. Many laid the foundation for linguistical studies which followed. They spent most of their time in pursuit of knowledge and the development of Biblical languages. Some, while waxing eloquent in Latin or Greek, fared rather poorly with their native English. Gustavus S. Paine noted in his book, The Men Behind the King James Version, that these "men were minor writers, though great scholars, doing superb writing. Their task lifted them above themselves, while they learned firmly on their subject." (p. vii). Alexander Whyte also notes about Dr. Lancelot Andrewes, who was the chairman of the translation committee, "All his days Andrewes never could write the English language with any beauty or purity or good taste," (Lancelot Andrews and his Private Devotions, p. 3). Yet, they were able to reach beyond themselves. Again Paine makes the following assessment:

Though we may challenge the idea of word-by-word inspiration, we surely must conclude that these were men able, in their profound moods, to transcend their human limits. In their own words, they spake as no other men spake because they were filled with the Holy Ghost. Or, in the clumsier language of our time, they so adjusted themselves to each other and to the work as to achieve a unique coordination and balance, functioning thereafter as an organic entity--no mere mechanism equal to the sum of its parts, but a whole greater than all of them. (p. 173).

The translation went through a series of committees, all consisting of the translators themselves. Upon finishing the assigned portion given to him, a translator would meet with the first committee and read the work he translated. Those within the committee followed the reading from various sources, such as the original languages, early English translations, and foreign translations including German, French, Italian, and Spanish. If there were no differences concerning the translation the reader read on. If there were differences, the committee would reach a consensus before proceeding. The findings were then presented to the other two companies for their committees to review in like fashion. If these committees differed at any given point, the differences were compounded and presented to a third committee consisting of twelve members. This committee (known as the General Meeting) reviewed what the previous committees had produced and agreed upon the finished translation before presenting the work to two final editors, Bishop Thomas Bilson and Dr. Miles Smith.

Some have erroneously stated that the translators were paid for their efforts or rewarded with political advancements. This is, however, simply not the case. Dr. Jack Lewis has correctly stated that, "Though the king contributed no money to its production, and though no record of an official authorization of the finished product survives (if such were ever given), the Bible came to be known as the King James Bible." (The English Bible: From KJV to NIV, p.29). This is in direct opposition to those, such as James White, who have claimed that the King paid for the translation and offered political advancement for those who worked on it. "Technically the KJV belongs to the English crown, which authorized and paid for its translation nearly four hundred years ago." (The King James Only Controversy, p. 244). "Some, in fact, may have harbored less than perfect motivations for their work. Some hoped to gain favor with the king and advancement in their positions through their work on the translation itself. Some were far too enamored with the idea of royalty, a problem not too uncommon in that day." (Ibid. pp. 70-71). The only evidence offered is a misstating of G. S. Paine's book, The Men Behind the King James Version. At no time does Paine suggest the translators had any such motives. White tries to prove his claim with the example of William Barlow (White, p. 88) as one who sought the kings favor. However, this is not what Paine wrote. Instead Paine states, "About kings and queens, Barlow was always sound," and that "King James greatly approved of him." (Paine, p. 43). There is no hint in Paine's book that Barlow, or any of the translators, sought to be on the translational committee in order to gain favor with the King.

The historical truth is that payment did not come from the crown, but from the Church. Funds were raised and received for the purpose of sustaining the translators during their work on the translation, but they were not given financial reward (John Dore, Old Bibles: An Account of the Early Versions of the English Bible, 1888, p. 325). It is true that several of the translators did advance within the Church after the translation was complete, but this was due to their ability, not as a reward for their effort. These advancement came from within the Church, not from the crown. Their greatest reward was in the fruit of their labor, the KJV itself. The translators wrote, "But among all our joys, there was no one that more filled our heart than the blessed continuance of the preaching of God's sacred Word among us, which is that inestimable treasure which excelleth all the riches of earth; because the fruit thereof extendeth itself, not only to the time spent in this transitory world, but directeth and disposeth men unto that eternal happiness which is above in heaven." (From the Dedicatory of the KJV).

Another common myth concerning the KJV is that it was under the sole printing authority of the crown. There were no copyrights in those days, but some have suggested that the KJV was the Cum Privilegio (i.e. with privilege) of King James and the English crown, and that only the royal printer could publish the KJV. In addressing the KJV Only advocates, James White states, "But we should point out that the KJV carries what is called the Cum Privilegio. Technically the KJV belongs to the English crown, . . .the KJV was first printed by the royal printer, and that for a hundred years no one else could print it. Does this not sound pretty much like a modern copyright? It would seem so. So again we find the KJV Only argument to be inconsistent, involving a double standard." (White, p. 244).

This statement is totally in error. The Royal Printer was Robert Barker. However, we find that the KJV was printed both in England and outside the country by others, not counting Barker. Consider the following statements:

In the year 1642, a folio edition of King James's Version was printed at Amsterdam by "Joost Broersz, dwelling in the Pijlsteegh, in the Druckerije.". . . The notes of the King James's Bible are omitted, and the arguments and annotations of the "Breeches" Bible are inserted in their place. (John R. Dore, Old Bibles: An Account of the Early Versions of the English Bible, p. 345)

In fact, Bibles with the KJV text but with Geneva notes were printed in Holland in 1642, 1672, 1683, 1708, 1715 and in England in 1649. (Jack Lewis, The English Bible: From KJV to NIV, p. 29).

A small octavo Testament was issued at Edinburgh, by the Heirs of Hart, in 1628 (the Anfro Hart whose "Breeches" Bible were so highly esteemed). This is the first Testament printed in Scotland of King James's Version. (Dore, pp. 338- 339).

Although the Universities always claimed the right to print the Bible, Cambridge had not exercised that right since the year 1589; but in 1628 a duodecimo Testament was published at Cambridge, by the printers to the University, and the following year Thomas and John Buck issued the first Cambridge Bible. (Dore, p. 339).

The University of Oxford did not begin to print Bibles until the year 1675, when the first was issued in quarto size; the spelling was revised by Dr. John Fell, Dean of Oxford. (Dore, p. 346).

In England, the printing of the Authorized or King James Version of the Bible (KJV) and the Book of Common Prayer (BCP) of 1662 is the monopoly of the Royal Printer, by virtue of a patent first granted to Christopher Barker in 1577. Only the University Presses of Cambridge and Oxford are permitted by royal charter to override this monopoly; one other publisher, originally Scottish, is an accepted interloper. (M. H. Black, The Oxford Companion to the Bible, 1993, p. 617).

By its royal charter of 1534, the University of Cambridge had acquired the perpetual right to appoint three printers, who could print "all manner of books." The right preexisted Barker's patent, and was taken to cover Bibles, so Cambridge printed a Geneva Bible in 1591 and its first KJV in 1629. Oxford acquired a similar charter in 1636, and in the 1670s printed Bibles. (Black, p.618).

Once again, the evidence shows that the attacks against the KJV are unwarranted.

An objection to the KJV which often arises today is that when first printed the KJV contained the Apocrypha. It was placed between the Old and New Testament, which was common for English Bibles in those days. However, they did not consider the Apocrypha inspired scripture. They placed it between the Testaments as historical record and Jewish poetry. This is noted in the Preface to the Geneva Bible:

These books that follow in order after the Prophets unto the New Testament, are called Apocrypha, that is books, which were not received by a common consent to be read and expounded publicly in the Church, neither yet served to prove any point of Christian religion, save in as much as they had the consent of the other Scriptures called Canonical to confirm the same, or rather whereon they were grounded: but as books preceding from godly men, were received to be read for the advancement and furtherance of the knowledge of the history, and for the insurrection of godly manners: which books declare that at all times God had an especial care of his Church and left them not utterly destitute to teachers and means to confirm them in the hope of the promised Messiah, and also witness that those calamities that God sent to his Church, were according to his providence, who had both so threatened by his Prophets, and so brought it to pass for the destruction of their enemies, and for the trial of his children.

Likewise, the translators of the Authorized Version did not give the Apocrypha the respect they had given the Holy Scriptures. In addition to placing the Apocrypha between the testaments, the translators did not entitle it on the cover page as they had the Old and New Testaments. The cover page in the 1611 edition makes no mention of the Apocrypha whatever. The statement reads, "The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New." When the Apocrypha is introduced between the two testaments, the introduction simply reads, "Books called Apocrypha." Additionally, both the Old and New Testaments have elaborate engravings placed at the beginning of each testaments; the Apocrypha does not.

Furthermore, the translators of the Authorized Version did not malign the canonical books the way they did the Apocrypha. At 1 Esdras 5:5 the margin states, "This place is corrupt," a marginal reading nowhere found in either of the testaments. In the addition to the book of Esther they noted, "The rest of the Chapters of the Booke of Esther, which are found neither in the Hebrew, nor in the Calde."

A popular argument used to oppose the KJV is to ask which edition of the KJV is the preserved word of God. The thought is to assume that the text of the Authorized Version has been changed. If changes in the text have occurred, then there would be justification for additional revisions such as we have today. The truth of this is that the text has not really been changed at all. The revisions of the KJV dealt with the correction of early printing errors, or the formation of the text to reflect today's style of writing and spelling. The verses, however, have remained the same.

There have been four major revisions of the Authorized Version. They took place in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. Our current editions reflect the revision of 1769. The 1762 revision was the work of Dr. Paris of the University at Cambridge. The work of this revision laid the foundation for most modern editions of the text. He made extensive use of the italics and modernized most of the spelling. His edition also added several marginal references. The 1769 edition came from Oxford, and was the work of Dr. Balyney. In this edition several additional revisions were made in correcting earlier printing errors, spelling, and expanding marginal and introductory notes. This edition has become the standard by which modern texts are printed.

This can be illustrated by the following example from Galatians 1:1-5. However, some of the style of printing cannot be illustrated in the class as e-mail will not permit such changes in fonts.

King James Version 1612 edition	King James Version current edition
1. Paul an Apostle not of men, neither by man, but by Iesus Christ, and God the Father, who reised him from the dead,	1. Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead;)
2. And all the brethren which are with me, vnto the Churches of Galatia: 3. Grace be to you and peace, from God the Father, and from our Lord Iesus Christ;	2. And all the brethren which are with me, unto the churches of Galatia: 3. Grace be to you and peace from God the Father, and from our Lord Jesus Christ,
4. Who gaue himself for our fins, that he might deliuer vs fro this present euil world, according to the will of God,&our Father. 5. To whom be glory for euer and euer, Amen.	4. Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from this present evil world, according to the will of God and our Father: 5. To whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

The difference between the early editions of the King James Bible and current ones would reflect the differences in both spelling and the way a word was written, and minor adjustments to the text. Thus *fro* becomes *from,* and *God,&our Father* becomes *God and our Father.* *Iesus Christ* becomes *Jesus Christ,* and *deliuer vs* is changed to *deliver us*. There are also changes in certain words as to capitalization. *Apostle* or *apostle,* and *Churches* or *churches.* Likewise, some words are italicized that were not italicized before; such as *be* and *from* in verse 3. The text, however, has not been altered.

Other revisions sought to correct printing errors. Sometimes a word was omitted by the printer, or words were printed twice. These were corrected in order to produce the text as the translators gave it. One edition, for example, left out the word *not* in a few of the Ten Commandments, thus earning it the nickname of *The Wicked Bible.* Even today with computerized checking of the text, printing errors can occur. This does not mean that there is no preserved word of God, nor does this mean that the text of the KJV is corrupt. It does mean that sometimes printers have made mistakes, and the four major revisions of the KJV have sought to correct such errors.

Again, it must be asserted that the text of the KJV has come to us unaltered. What has changed is the correction of printing errors, changes in punctuation and italics, orthography and calligraphy. This was verified by the American Bible Society in a report published in 1852 (after the fourth major revision of the KJV took place) entitled Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers. An additional report was issued in 1858 by the ABS entitled, Report of the Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers of the American Bible Society. Apart from the changes just listed, the reports stated that, "The English Bible as left by the translators has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text." (1852, p.7. Also see the 1858 report, pp. 1-20).

This is further attested to by scholar and collector of early English Bibles, John R. Dore. In a study published by the Royal Print