King James Bible

Tutorial Paper by Nixon de Vera Topic: ‘The Book that Changed the World: The Story of the King James Bible’ King James I of England or King James VI of Scotland and Ireland (1566–1625) also became the head of the Anglican Church in 1603 under his new seat of power as King of England, thus he saw himself as the bearer of what is divine and blessed. However, there was intense religious schism and clash between the leaders of the Anglicans and the Puritans threatening national stability. So, in January 1604, King James I convened the Anglican bishops and Puritan leaders in Hampton Court to settle differences between the two rival factions. At first, according to historical accounts, the king was mean to both parties and reprimanded them for their bigotry that was dividing the kingdom. He even dispelled two bishops from the meeting, thus it appeared that there was no settlement to be made. And with a twist of fate, Dr John Reynolds, a leading Puritan came up with an idea that excited the king. Reynolds impressed the need of producing a new translation to somehow correct several theological issues affecting the faith of the people, and perhaps serves as a way of a concession. James I thought the suggestion to be brilliant and a great opportunity to unite both parties; most importantly, stamp his authority as monarch of England and solidify his heritage in history. In that conference headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Richard Bancroft, they laid out guidelines for accomplishing the king’s demands. There were fifteen guidelines and the highlights are the following: strikeout seditious elements, conform to the ecclesiastical and episcopal structure of the tradition, reflect the authority of the king and bishop, refer to the original language, 1 comprehensible to the commoners and use the 1572 Bishops’ Bible as base text.1 Although some parameters were against Puritan principles, they eventually agreed for the sake of unity, and at least, a new bible was an idea that they could credit for. Aside from the Bishops’ Bible being the principal English source, the following versions were also considered: the 1535 Coverdale Bible, the 1536 Tyndale Bible, the 1537 Matthew Bible, the 1539 Great Bible and the 1560 Geneva Bible. The main reason why James I did not approve of these bibles was that he considered them seditious by having rebellious undertones or baffling doctrinal overtones; especially in commentaries added that were counter-productive to his vision of one strong kingdom. The appointed scholars did not waste time doing their tasks having the king’s urgent mandate in mind without any allowance for their agenda. The official committee of about fifty theologians, mostly Anglican bishops with a few Puritan leaders was divided into six companies. The groupings of translators with their respective assignments were: The First Westminster Company––Genesis to 2 Kings, The Cambridge Company––Chronicles to the Song of Songs, The First Oxford Company––Isaiah to Malachi, The Second Oxford Company––Matthew to Acts and Revelation, The Fifth Westminster Company–– all epistles of the New Testament, The Sixth Cambridge Company - Apocrypha (although no longer included since the 1666 edition). Almost all translators had doctorates in theology except for a handful of prominent church leaders. After about seven years of tedious work and unrelenting pressure, the first edition of the King James Bible (KJB) was finally done and printed in 1611. It ended up a disaster. There were approximately 350 typographical errors; some were even crucial as to twisting the truth, e.g. ‘Thou shalt commit adultery’ (Exodus 20.14) accidentally omitted ‘not’, enough reason to label this new translation as ‘The Wicked Bible’. 2 This unexpected blunder was not good timing for the declining national situation so the second printing was immediately employed. 2 Despite the swift correction, it took time for the public to accept the KJB; perhaps because of the perceived superiority of the Geneva Bible and the lack of promotion by the king himself due to pressing diplomatic concerns locally and internationally. Was the king’s expectation met in somehow uniting the entire nation through this ambitious project? On the contrary, England went downhill leading to a civil war in 1641 headed by the Puritans and Parliamentarians. As a result, his son King Charles I was deposed from the throne giving way to a Republican government. It was only in 1661 when the royal throne was reestablished that the main vision of the new bible was at last realised. Anglicans and Puritans finally laid down their differences in church polity and doctrine to rebuild their nation and the KJB from then on became the symbol of English monarchy; its edited edition was distributed throughout England, Scotland, and Ireland. In the 18th century, the KJB overthrew the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English-speaking scholars. And with the development of massive printing in the 19th century, this version became the most widely reproduced book in history.3 Despite the rough start in the infancy stage of the KJB and the fact that it was highly politically charged in its objective, it is reasonable to conclude that King James I and the committees involved in this grand enterprise did a remarkable job in producing a bible. It would be later called the ‘Authorised Version’, impacting the lives of people, not only domestically but also across the English-speaking countries for over five centuries. The renowned literature expert Albert Cook expresses, ‘What Homer was to the Greeks, the Koran to the Arabs, that––or something not unlike it ––the Bible has become to the English.’ 4 On the same note, David 3 Daniell, author of The Bible in English, claims that the KJB is ‘still the bestselling book in the world’. Britain’s National Trust specialist Adam Nicolson claims that more than five billion copies of the KJB have been sold to date.5 Nevertheless, despite the accolades, the KJB enjoyed for such a long period and its unprecedented mark in history, it is not perfect. Today’s version is derived primarily from the major revision completed in 1769, 158 years after the first edition. 6 Another interesting fact is that this bible, although subject to numerous revisions until now, is never exempt from controversy; the study of textual criticism has demonstrated this clearly. It is common knowledge that the translators of the KJB, like most printed bible during the Reformation were only using textus receptus ‘received text’ of the New Testament (NT) in Greek by Basel and Erasmus. Even the latter’s highly contested book of Revelation rendered from the Latin Vulgate was included. Though the committee desperately wanted to have access to the Codex Vaticanus, it was simply impossible due to the Vatican restrictions. In other words, despite the NT scholars’ painstaking reference to Greek manuscripts, they had no alternative but to use available yet somewhat questionable ‘handed-down’ materials more likely containing contested elements. Furthermore, the scholars in the discussion were untrained in Koine Greek, the original language of the NT simply because this particular type of ancient Greek had been ‘a dead language’ for over a millennium and thus considered a ‘mysterious dialect’. 7 Therefore almost all acclaimed critics agree that modern versions after the discovery of the papyri in 1930 are textually superior to the KJB. This is because of the use of manuscripts dating back to the 4th century including, in particular, the Codex Sinaiticus which is considered the best archaic Greek manuscript of the NT along with Codex Vaticanus.8 4 Although textual criticism is a valid argument not favouring the KJB, other scholars in defense assert that in spite of the inadequacy of the manuscripts used by the Anglican and Puritan translators, they still preserved the essence and veracity of the doctrines that inspired the medieval Reformation. In fact, Reformers such as Luther, Zwingli and Calvin were able to compose out of these documents in question, extensive treatises and dogmatics which become articles of faith and ecclesiastical polity throughout centuries. Thus, the monumental effect achieved by the writings of these leading Reformers is undeniable proof of the scholars’ argument.9 Furthermore, although the old English may not be comprehensible to contemporary readers, the language has managed to convey the means of securing salvation and cultivating virtues. This is in contrast to some modern translations that have ‘serious theological perversion’ according to D.A. Waite.10 In response to venerating the version in discussion and pushing the ‘KJV Onlyism’, evangelical apologist James White remarks that those who attempt to make it the standard to the detriment of more readable, and in many cases more accurate contemporary versions ‘are in serious error’ as he examines allegations that modern translators conspired to corrupt Scripture and lead believers astray from genuine Christian faith.11 With the complexity and intrigue surrounding the KJB, this historic version is worth appreciating, let alone admiring because of its fair balance of exquisite wording and sobriety in purpose. The greatest legacy of the KJB is, as Nicholson aptly puts it, ‘the precision and rigour of its scholarship, richness and depth of meaning of its words, the sheer music it brings to the listener’s ears and the majestic appeal throughout generations’12. 5 1 David Burke, ed., Translation That Openeth the Window: Reflections on the History and Legacy of the King James Bible. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2009, 67. 2 Alister McGrath, In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture. Barcelona: Random House Inc., 2001, 216. 3 S.L. Greenslade, ed., The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963, 362. 4 Albert Cook, The Authorized Version of the Bible and Its Influence. London: Putnam’s Sons, 1910, 35. 5 Adam Nicholson, God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible. New York, N.Y.: HarperCollins, 2009, 320. 6 Jack Lewis, The English Bible From KJV to NIV: A History and Evaluation. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1984, 39. 7 Bill Mounce, The Basics of Biblical Greek. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003, 1. Mounce states, ‘For a long time Koine Greek confused many scholars. It was significantly different from Classical Greek. Some hypothesized that it was a combination of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. Others attempted to explain it as a “Holy Ghost language”, meaning that God created a special language just for the Bible. But studies of Greek papyri found in Egypt over the past one hundred years have shown that this language was the language of the everyday people . . .’ It was not until the late 1800s and during the 1900s, when tens of thousands of papyri documents were discovered – many written in Koine, that we could begin to understand the language more fully. Unlike the translators of the KJV, modern translators of the New Testament are scholars of Koine Greek. 8 Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1995,107. 9 Carson, Donald Arthur. The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1979, 134. 10 D.A. Waite, Defending the King James Bible, Cleaveland, GA: Old Paths Publications, 1998, 158. 11 James White. The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations? Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Publishing, 1995, 186. 12 Adam Nicholson, When God Spoke English: The Making of the King James Bible. London: BBC Documentary, 2011. 6