The Noblest Monument of English Prose

February 24, 2011 admin Feature Article Comments Off on The Noblest Monument of English Prose

The King James Version turns 400 this year

by Harold Rawlings
Chapter seven of his book, Trial by Fire

When news reached James VI of Scot­land in 1603 that his cousin, Queen Elizabeth, had died, as heir to the English throne, he quickly began his journey from Edinburgh to London for the coronation ceremony. Along the way immense throngs lined the roads and cheered the new king. “Church bells rang; mayors gave him the keys to their cities, and an ever increasing num­ber of courtiers attached them­selves to his train. There was stag-hunting forays in parks, banquets, and other entertainments.”1 No longer would he be known as James VI of Scotland, but James I, King of England and Scotland.

But all was not rosy in merry old England. Before arriving in Lon­don, James would be made aware of numerous issues he would soon en­counter as the new sovereign. The most urgent of these appeals was a thorny problem in the Church of England, which would linger long into the seventeenth century and beyond. While en route to London, the King was met by some of the lead­ing bishops and theologians in the Church of England with Puritan sympathies. These Puritans were English ecclesiastical leaders who hoped to purify the church of unscriptural beliefs and corrupt practices, especially those left over from the days of Roman Catholic domi­nation. The delegation was led by John Reynolds (or Rainolds), President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, who was distinguished as “the most learned man in Eng­land.”2

The Puritans presented to the King the “Millenary Petition,” the name of which implies that it was signed by a thousand men (it actually had only 753 signatures), mostly ministers of the Church of England.3 The Petition made no mention of a new Bible version, yet it was the beginning of the events that led to it. Addressing some of the Puritans’ long-standing grievances, it was hoped that this petition might relieve them from their “com­mon burden of human rites and ceremonies.”4 It asked for reforms in the English Church, for the correc­tion of abuses that had grown under Elizabeth’s increasing preference for ritual and ceremony.

Some of the practices objected to included: the lack of discipline in the church, the sign of the cross in baptism, questions addressed to infants in baptism, confirmation, the use of the cap and surplice, the reading in church of anything but the Canonical Scriptures, the use of the terms “priest” and “absolu­tion,” bowing at the name of Jesus, Sabbath-breaking and the keeping of other holy days, long church ser­vices, and “other practices consid­ered high church or popish.”5 Queen Elizabeth had ob­jected to such a conference, but when it was proposed to King James, he delighted in the opportunity afforded him of showing off his learning to the bishops and Puritans, appointing January 14, 1604, for a conference to be held at Hampton Court.6 Puritan hopes were buoyed by the King’s willingness to consider their complaints, but those hopes were quickly dashed as the conference unfolded.

Conference at Hampton Court

Prior to the conference, Richard Bancroft, future Arch­bishop of Canterbury and the most outspoken critic of Puritanism, persuaded the King that if Puritans had their way, the English crown itself might be imperiled. Not surprisingly, the Puritans were outnumbered at the conference nineteen to four. Bancroft had won the day and the conference was heavily weighted toward the es­tablished Church. In fact, the four Puritans invited to the conference were not even admitted to the sessions until the second day, and then were ridiculed by the King and bullied into silence. Overruling almost all of their objections, he told them he would tolerate none of their nonconformity. He would “make them conform or harry (harass) them out of the land.”7

But all was not lost by the Puritans. A suggestion made on the second day of the Conference by Reyn­olds that a new translation of the Bible was needed that would be acceptable to all factions in the Church of England found favor with the new King. One of the principal complaints of the time was which Bible should be the standard text to use in both worship and private study. Three different versions were in circulation in the early seventeenth century, each with a loyal following, and each causing sharp dissent among religious parties in England. The two authorized versions of the Church of England, the Bishops’ and the Great Bible were preferred by the clergy, although the latter was losing ground to the newer Bish­ops’ Bible. Some of the laity, however, still clung to the Great Bible. The Geneva Bible was the favorite of the masses of Englishmen as well as the Puritan leaders in the Church of England. The Geneva was a superior trans­lation but not authorized by the Church, and its Calvinistic notes offended the more con­servative church leaders.

Flattered by the suggestion of a new translation, and ruminating over the legacy that might accrue to him as a result, James promptly expressed his approval. A lover of Scriptural quotation and disputation, the king had earlier written a Paraphrase upon the Revelation of St. John, and had translated the Psalms into meter.8 Aware of the influence of the Geneva Bible on the King in his youthful days in Scotland, Reynolds may have secretly hoped he would declare the Geneva Bible the new Authorized Version, or at least a revised edition of it. But this was not to be. James made it clear he didn’t like any of the previous English Bibles, especially the Geneva. “I profess,” he said, “I could never yet see a Bible well translated in English; but I think, that of all, that of Geneva is the worst.”9 The King’s attack on the Geneva Bible no doubt came as a surprise to the Puritans, since it was the first Bible ever published in Scotland, was dedicated to James in 1579, and the version he quoted from in his own writings.10

In truth, his objection was not so much to the trans­lation itself but to the marginal notes that seemed to contradict his cherished belief in the “divine right of kings.” “For in the Geneva translation,” he complained, “some notes are partial, untrue, seditious, and savour­ing of traitorous conceits,” and he instanced Exodus 1:19 and II Chronicles 15:16.11 The marginal note for Exodus 1:19 commends the Hebrew midwives for disobeying the Egyptian king’s orders. The note for II Chronicles 15:16 states that King Asa’s mother should have been executed, and not merely deposed, for her idolatry. “It is supposed that James’ suspicious mind thought that this might react unfavorably upon the memory of his own mother, Mary Queen of Scots.”12 Such notes insinuating that disobedi­ence to kings was lawful, James considered seditious. As a strong proponent of the divine right of kings, James would use his kingly power to keep the Geneva from be­coming the new Authorized Version.

Though the King liked the idea of a new translation, his enthusiasm was not shared by all the clerics present at the Conference. Bishop Richard Bancroft complained, “If every man’s humour should be followed, there would be no end of translating.”13 But when he saw that the king agreed with Reynolds, Bancroft gradually warmed to the project and eventually gave his wholehearted allegiance to it.

Strategy for the New Revision

The strategy for the development of the new revision was meticulously planned and executed. James ordered in February, 1604, that the work “be done by the best learned in both Universities, after them to be presented to the Privy Council; and lastly to be ratified by his Royal authority, and so this whole Church to be bound unto it, and none other.”14 A total of fifty-four of Eng­land’s foremost Bible scholars and linguists were chosen to serve on six panels — two at Oxford, two at Cambridge, and two at Westminster. Pre­sumably this list of scholars was suggested to the King for approval. Of the fifty-four appointed, only forty-seven are mentioned by name. One of these “foremost Bible scholars” was Lancelot Andrewes “who had begun the study of Greek at the age of six. Eventually, he became acquaint­ed with so many languages that, so it was said, had he been present at the tower of Babel, he could have served as interpreter general!”15 Two of the other translators, John Bois and Andrew Downes, had begun to learn Hebrew at the age of five. 16

With the approval and input of King James I, Bishop of London Richard Bancroft drew up an elaborate set of guidelines for the translators to observe in order to ensure that partisan lean­ings were eliminated in the new version. They determined to minimize the risk of producing a Bible that might be perceived to favor Puritan­ism, Presbyterianism, or Roman Catholicism.

Richard Bancroft’s Translation Rules 17

  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.
  2. The names of the Prophets and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly [commonly] used.
  3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz the Word Church not to be translated Congre­gation &c.
  4. When a Word hath diverse Significations [meanings or possible translations], that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agree­able to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.
  5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, ei­ther not at all, or as little as may be, if neces­sity so require.
  6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlo­cution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.
  7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.
  8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and hav­ing translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.
  9. As any one Company hath dispatched anyone Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judi­ciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this Point.
  10. If any Company, upon the Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal send the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the gener­al Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work.
  11. When any Place of Special Obscurity is doubt­ed of, Letters to be directed by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his Judgment of such a Place.
  12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skillful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at West­minster, Cambridge, or Oxford.
  13. The Directors in each Company, to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester for that Place; and the King’s Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.
  14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops’ Bible: Tindoll’s [Tyndale’s], Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s’ [Great Bible], Geneva.
  15. Besides the said Directors before men­tioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Uni­versities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observa­tion of the 4th Rule above specified.

According to rule number one, it was not to be a new translation but a revision of the Bishops’ Bible. The King had forty unbound folio copies of the Bishops’ Bi­ble, 1602 edition, sent to the translators,18 a strong message that they were to stick closely to that text. But the translators did not allow themselves to be strapped to the Bishops’ Bible. Earlier translations were to be used if it was deemed that they agreed better with the original text.

Some old ecclesiastical words were to be reintroduced, such as “church” in place of “con­gregation,” “charity” instead of “love.” Marginal notes were to be sparingly employed, and then only to clarify Hebrew and Greek words and to point out parallel passages in the text. Each panel was assigned particular books of the Bible to translate. Once each of the groups had made its translation, the work was to be reviewed by a committee of twelve, made up of two scholars from each of the six panels.

Unfortunately, little is known of the meth­ods actually adopted by the revisers. Scrivener notes, “never was a great enterprise like the production of our Authorized Version carried out with less knowledge handed down to pos­terity of the labourers, their method and order of working.”19 John Selden (1584-1654), a con­temporary of the KJV translators, and possibly acquainted with some of them, speaking of the committee of revisers, said,

“The Translators in King James’ time took an excellent way. That part of the Bible was given to him who was most excellent in such a tongue (as the Apocrypha to An­drew Downes) and then they met together, and one read the translation, the rest holding in their hands some Bible, either of the learned tongues, or French, Spanish, Italian, etc. If they found any fault they spoke, if not, he read on.”20

The fourteen Apocryphal books were to be included, just as they had been in all previous English Bibles; and, following Luther’s example, were placed between the Testaments. All of the early English Bibles inserted at the beginning of the Apocrypha an explanation detailing their lack of canonical authority. The Great Bible of 1539 “quotes with approval Jerome’s judgment that they may be read for the edifying of the people, but not to confirm and strengthen the doctrine of the church.”21 Similarly, the Geneva Bible of 1560 states that “they are to be read not for doctrine but for ‘knowl­edge of history’ and ‘instruction of godly manners.”22 In the King James Version of 1611, they are simply headed “Apocrypha.” Indeed, they were regarded as so integral a part of the King James, that one of the translators, George Abbot, after his ap­pointment as Archbishop of Canterbury, issued a decree in 1615 stipulating that anyone who published the English Bible (KJV) without the Apocrypha should be imprisoned for one year.23

In addition to the earlier English Bibles (including the Catholic Rheims NT) the trans­lators had at their disposal, they consulted the Masoretic Hebrew text of the Old Testament and the slightly modified Greek text of Eras­mus’ New Testament. None of the older Greek manuscripts, such as the Codex Sinaiticus, Al­exandrinus, and Vaticanus, were available to the translators. Some had not been discovered, and the Codex Vaticanus was unavailable simply be­cause the Roman Catholic authorities refused permission to all outsiders to review it until 1867.24

In 1546, Robert Estienne (Stephanus) re­printed Erasmus’ Greek New Testament. Be­tween that date and 1551, he published four editions, making slight changes in each, some of which were based on the Complutensian Polyglot. In his fourth and final edition (1551), he added numbered verse divisions to his text. The first English Bible to adopt Estienne’s ver­sification method was the Geneva Bible (1560). Almost all English Bibles since have followed Estienne’s lead. Theodore Beza, an associate of John Calvin and one of the foremost scholars of his day, published several editions of the Greek New Testament (1556-1598). “It was this series of successive revisions from Erasmus, to Estienne, to Beza, upon which the translators of the King James Bible primarily relied.”25 Also consulted were foreign Bibles, such as the German translations of Luther and Zwingli, the French translation of Olivetan, the Latin translations of Pagninus, Sebastian Mun­ster, and Castalio, as well as the Latin Vul­gate, the Chaldaic Targum and the Syriac New Testament.26

The earnest desire of the translators was to provide the Word of God in the lan­guage that people used as they went about their daily business and conversed among themselves. Because they recognized “this is the Word of God which we translate,” they strove for accuracy, beauty, clarity, and dignity. Their linguistic ability, their rever­ence for the Scriptures, their commitment to faithfully communicating the meaning of the original language texts in understand­able English, and their humility before the Holy Spirit as they undertook their task, as­sured success.

The actual work of translating took the panels roughly three years; another three years were spent in reviewing the transla­tions, and an additional nine months in preparing it for the press. Bishop Thomas Bilson of Winchester and Miles Smith of the Oxford Hebrew team gave the whole Bible man­uscript a final editing. Just as Smith thought the work was at last completed, he complained that “in came my Lord Of Canterbury [Richard Ban­croft] to Stationers Hall,” demanding the final say.27 The High Church Archbishop gave it a fi­nal quick check-over, making at least fourteen changes, one of which proved to be quite contro­versial. Bancroft insisted that “the glorious word Bishoprick” be inserted in Acts 1:20,28 where the Geneva Bible had “charge” and the Bishops’ Bible “office.” Smith objected, but Bancroft “is so potent,” he wrote, “there is no contradicting him.”29 The finished product was what might be called a “politically correct” Bible, wherein all factions of the church would be satisfied. It was truly an ecumenical version.

Published in London in 1611 by Robert Barker, the royal printer, the new Bible was a beautiful black-letter folio edition printed on the most expensive rag paper. Measuring 16 by 10 1/2 inches, the King James Bible was even larger than the Great Bible and similar in appearance to the Bishops’ Bible. Two editions were pub­lished the first year, with more than two hun­dred variations in the Biblical text.30 The first is known as “the great ‘He’ Bible,” and the second as “the great ‘She’ Bible.” The first printing ren­ders the closing words of Ruth 3:15, “and he went into the city,” while the next edition corrected it to read, “and she went into the city.”

New Version has its Critics

Like almost all versions when they first appear, the new Bible aroused suspicion and not a little disapproval. In fact, for a century-and-a-half the KJV was the object of severe criticism by cer­tain clergymen and scholars. Hebrew scholar, Hugh Broughton, piqued by his exclusion from the panel of translators, lashed out at the new translation:

The late Bible…was sent 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.31

Broughton must have been particularly annoyed when the KJV translators rejected his advice to “translate with uniformity,”32 meaning that the same English word, not its synonyms, must always be used when translating a Hebrew or Greek word. Miles Smith in “The Transla­tors to the Reader” (KJV Preface) explained why Broughton’s suggestion was tabled:

We have not tied ourselves to a uniformity of phrasing or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done…We thought [to translate with uniformity might] savor more of curios­ity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist than bring profit to the godly reader…We might also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English words.

John Selden complained that,

the Bible is translated into English words rather than into English phrase. The Hebraisms are kept, and the phrase of that language is kept: as an example, (He un­covered her shame) which is well enough, so long as scholars have to do with it; but when it comes among the common people, lord, what gear [i.e. what rubbish] do they make of it!33

In 1659, the Reverend Robert Gell, minister of the parish of St. Mary, Alder-Mary, in Lon­don, published an 800-page treatise denouncing the KJV, “discussing its faults in detail, counting among them a denial of Christ’s authority.”34

Not only did some scholars protest, many common people resented anyone tampering with or attempting to displace their cherished Bible, meaning the Geneva. Indeed, a whole generation passed before the new King James revision exceeded the Geneva Bible in popular­ity.

Although these criticisms were not alto­gether justified, they nonetheless demonstrate that the new version was not immediately wel­comed with enthusiasm by all the recognized scholars of the day, nor was it considered a liter­ary classic when it first appeared. Anticipating such criticism, Miles Smith in “The Translators to the Reader” wrote:

Zeal to promote the common good, whether it be by devising any thing ourselves, or revising that which hath been labored by others, deserveth certainly much respect and esteem, but yet findeth but cold enter­tainment in the world. It is welcomed with suspicion instead of love, and with emula­tion [jealousy] instead of thanks; and if there be any hole left for cavil [criticism] to enter, (and cavil, if it does not find a hole, will make one) it is sure to be misconstrued and in danger to be condernned.35

A Composite Production

The King James Bible, like the one that preceded it (Bishops‘), was a composite production, not an entirely new translation. While this could have diluted the quality of the new version, fortunately the translators were wise enough to incorporate most of the best features of those earlier translations, the end result being a Bible superior to all its predecessors. James Baikie makes the observation that “one of the most astonishing facts connected with the Version is the small amount of change which the scholars of King James found it necessary to make.”36 The early translators had done their work so well that drastic modification was unnecessary. “Much of Tyndale and of Coverdale remains unchanged in the Bible which we read today.”37

It is widely agreed that the most important document in the history of the English language is the King James Version of the Bible. Its liter­ary quality — the strength and nobility of its language combined with openness to a variety of interpretations — has earned it an indisput­able reputation. It took more than 250 years before any large-scale revision of the text was attempted. Almost no one disputes the accla­mation that the King James Bible is “the noblest monument of English prose.” But let it not be forgotten, as English historian J. A. Froude (1818-1894) observed,

The peculiar genius which breathes through it [the KJV], the mingled tender­ness and majesty, the Saxon simplicity, the preternatural grandeur, unequalled, unap­proached in the attempted improvements of modern scholars — all are here, and bear the impress of one man, and that man [is] William Tyndale.38

Notes

1 Benson Bobrick, Wide as the Waters, (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001), 201.

2 Gustavus S. Paine, The Learned Men (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Company, 1959), 3.

3 Walter Farquhar Hook, Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury, vol. 10 (London: Richard Bentley & Son, 1875), 200.

4 Alister E. McGrath, In the Beginning. (New York: Doubleday, 2001), 150.

5 Paine, 2; Hook, vol. 10, 200.

6 Hook, 200-201.

7 Cleland Boyd McAfee, The Greatest English Classic: A Study of the King James Version of the Bible and Its Influence on Life and Literature (New York: Harper & Brothers Publishers, 1912), 50.

8 H. Wheeler Robinson, ed., The Bible in Its Ancient and English Versions. (Oxford: The University Press 1940), 197.

9 Hugh Pope. English Versions of the Bible. (St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1952), 308-309.

10 Robinson, 197.

11 Ibid., 309.

12 F.F. Bruce, The English Bible: A History of Translations. (London: Lutterworth Press, 1961), 97.

13 Robinson, 309.

14 John Stevens Kerr, Charles Houser, ed., Ancient Tests Alive Today, The Story of the English Bible (New York: American Bible Society, 1999),

114.

15 Bruce M. Metzger. The Bible in Translation: Ancient and English Versions. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2001), 72.

16 Ibid., 72.

17 Paine, 70-71.

18 Ward S. Allen & Edward C. Jacobs, The Coming of the King James Gospels: A Collation of the Translators’ Work-in-Progress (Fayetteville: The University of Arkansas Press, 1995), 5.

19 F.H.A. Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611): Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives (Cambridge: The University Press, 1884), 9.

20 John Selden, The Table Talk of John Selden, Samuel Harvey Reynolds, ed. (Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1892), 9.

21 Edgar J. Goodspeed, The Story of the Apocrypha (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1939), 6.

22 Ibid., 5-6.

23 Ibid., 6.

24 William R. Kimball, The Book of Books (Joplin: College Press Publishing Co., 1986), 210.

25 Ibid., 211.

26 Robinson, 205-206.

27 Bobrick, 248.

28 “his bishoprick let another take”— which speaks of filling the apostolic office vacated by Judas.

29 Ibid., 248.

30 Metzger, 75.

31 Robinson, 209.

32 Ibid., 212.

33 Selden, 10.

34 Errol F. Rhodes and Liana Lupas, eds, The Translators to the Reader: The Original Preface of the King James Version of 1611 Revisited (New York: American Bible Society, 1997), 1-2.

35 Alfred W. Pollard, Records of the English Bible: The Documents Relating to the Translation and Publication of the Bible in English, 1525-1611. (London: Oxford University Press, 1911), 340.

36 James Baikie, The English Bible & Its Story: Its Growth, Its Translators & Their Adventure, (London: Seeley, Service & Co. Limited, 1928), 294.

37 Ibid., 294.

38 T. Harwood Pattison, The History of the English Bible (Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society 1894), 182.

After a long and distinguished pastoral ministry, Harold Rawlings is now associated with The Rawl­ings Foundation, preaching and lecturing in churches, institutions, conferences, and seminars world­wide. He is especially in demand for his lecture and book, Trial by Fire, a history of the struggle to translate the Bible into English. For more information regarding Mr. Rawlings and Trial by Fire, contact him at his website, www.haroldrawlings.com.