Lesson 9 - Acceptance of the King James Bible

• The greatness of the King James Bible
• So the King James Bible was an instant hit?
• How'd the KJV do under Charles I?
• Didn't the Puritans publish another Geneva-type Bible in England?
• So where do we go from here?
• What tells you that the KJV wasn't the final destination?

The Greatness of the King James Bible

Amazing, isn't it? As we saw in our last lesson one of the greatest books of all times was a political afterthought! It's easy to see why James agreed to John Reynolds' suggestion for a new translation. We'll never know why he made it!

In any event, the resulting King James Bible is unique in Bible translation history because -

• It was one of the last "renaissance" translation that deliberately "stood on the shoulders" of its predecessors
• The leading scholars of the national universities served as translators
• It helped shaped English language, literature, and culture.

As Albert Stanburrough Cook, Professor of English Language and Literature at Yale University in the 1920's, wrote -

No other book has so penetrated and permeated the hearts and speech of the English race as has the Bible. What Homer was to the Greeks, and the Koran to the Arabs, that - or something not unlike it - the Bible has become to the English. (McGrath - p. 252)

The KJV not only helped change the English language, but it also helped change the English culture, and by extension, American culture.

Return to top

So the King James Bible was an instant hit?

Hardly! In fact, when the KJV hit the markets in 1611 it hardly caused a stir. The Geneva Bible was and remained far and away the best seller. It had been on the New York - make that London - Times "Best Seller" list longer than most people could remember. And why not? It was -

• Cheaper than the King James Bible
• Better made than the King James Bible
• Full of explanatory notes which just happened to reflect the Puritan point of view.

James had granted Robert Barker a monopoly over over the printing of the KJV. The first edition was folio (about 18 x 12 inches) size and printed in black type. That and its ornate binding put it way out of reach of the average citizen. The Geneva Bible came in several smaller sizes, sharper type, and better paper.

Here - look at the the two of them side by side -

Geneva Bible	King James Bible

Now tell me - which one would you rather read?

Now add to this that James was quite unpopular when "his" Bible came out. He had married a French princess - a Catholic - and engaged in several disasterous foreign policy adventures. Worst of all, he constantly fought with Parliament over little things like money and authority. And the Puritans, primarily the moderate ones, controlled Parliament.

During his lifetime the King James Bible never gained popular acceptance. It's hard to say how much of that was due to the nature of the book and how much was due to the nature of the king whose name it bore. For many people the KJV was the Bible of the King, the Geneva was the Bible of Parliament.

Return to top

How'd the KJV do under Charles I?

Interesting you should ask. James' son, Charles I, was even more difficult a king than James! He took the throne in 1625 and was executed in 1649. No, that's not a misprint. He and Parliament actually got into a war! Charles' forces, the Royalists, were defeated by the Parliamentary forces led by Oliver Cromwell. Parliament tried Charles, found him guilty of treason, and executed him.

Charles did, however, accomplish one thing - he finally shut down the Geneva Bible!

If James hated the pro-Puritan slant of this Bible's notes, Charles positively loathed them! Father and son both firmly believed in the "divine right" of kings. The Geneva Bible's notes, the Puritans, and the Apostle Paul (among others) argued that all men, kings included, were subject to the rule of God and could be held accountable.

So what's a king to do? He appointed William Laud as archbishop of Canterbury, and Laud chose to wave the flag of patriotism! The Geneva Bible, you remember (you do remember, don't you?) was imported from Amsterdam while the KJV was published in England. In fact, Amsterdam was the source of many books sold in England.

Laud, to protect the livlihood of the "impoverished English book publishers," banned the imporation of the Geneva Bible. This time an importation ban stuck and finally the reign of the Geneva Bible was over. The last known edition was published in 1644, about ten years after Laud's decree. The KJV had the English market to itself.

Ah, patriotism - the last refuge of scoundrels!

Return to top

Didn't the Puritans publish another Geneva-type Bible in England?

Interesting question! Archbishop Laud, of course, never raised this possibility for obvious reasons. Others, however tried. Between 1642 and 1715 at least nine editions of the King James Bible with the Geneva notes appeared, but the hybred never caught on with either side. The text was too "high church" for the Puritans, and the notes too "Puritan" for the high churchmen.

After the execution of Charles I Oliver Cromwell, a Puritan, ruled England until 1660. You'd think that the Puritans would have issued their own translation during this time, but for some reason they never did.

Cromwell and his followers were far better generals and theologians than politicians, and in 1660 the populace welcomed the monarchy back with open arms.

Under Charles II (1660-1685) the nation regained the dynamic tension that had kept it more or less steady over the years - the tension between a sovereign monarch and an elected Parliament. With the restoration of the monarchy also came the final embrace of the King James Bible. Finally it was received into the hearts and minds of King and subjects alike.

Return to top

So where do we go from here?

The KJV translators deliberately set about to build on the linguistic foundation of the Bishops' Bible. Their main timbers were their university-trained knowledge of the Biblical languages and texts. They wrapped the entire framework in their wonderful knowledge of the English language.

But what they built was an inn, not a mansion.

What?

The KJV translators knew they were adding to the sum total of Bible translations. They fully expected others to come along and do what they had done - stand on their shoulders and build another translation. the KJV is simply one stop - a grand and glorious stop - but just a stop on the translation highway. It's an inn, not a final destination.

Return to top

What tells you that the KJV wasn't the final destination?

As the KJV translators worked, they encountered at least six difficult areas of language studies. During the last 400 years of scholarship, archeology, research, and language study have dramatically increased our knowledge -

1. Cognate Languages

Each language is influenced by its neighbors, and the Biblical languages are no exception. Through archeological research and linguistic studies we know far more about the languages of the people among whom the Hebrews lived.

2. Idioms

Idiots? No - IDIOMS! You know - common expressions that really don't make sense when taken literally. Consider -

• "Let's go, Wombats (or Gophers or some other rodent)" - where are they going?
• "To tell time" - tell whom?
• "The cockles of his heart"- what's a cockle?

Hebrew and Greek have their share of things like this - but we don't know what they all are! We do, however, know more about them than scholars knew in the 1600's.

3. Rare Words

"A word," said Humpty-Dumpty to Alice, "means exactly what I want it to mean." Unfortunately language in Realland doesn't work quite that way. Usually words have a range of meaning, and we determine that range by seeing how various writers and speakers use them.

When a word shows up in the Biblical texts just once or twice, well, that's a problem! Again, through archeology and other research we know know how many of these rare words were used in non-Biblical writings. This helps us understand how the Biblial writers used them. Again, this is something that the KJV translators did not have access to.

4. Classical vs. Koine Greek

Sounds like an Olympic soccer match, doesn't it! "Classical" Greek is the language of Homer, Plato, Socrates, etc. The KJV translators were world-class experts in this area. However, the Greek of the New Testament is different from Classical Greek, but back in 1600 no one knew how or why it differed. The scholars of 1600 translated it by the only rules they knew - Classical Greek rules.

In the late 1800's scholars began comparing New Testament Greek to the language used in the thousands of pieces of writing that archeologists were uncovering in Greece. These were things like personal letters, diaries, shopping lists, and the like. Guess what - these common documents spoke the same Greek as the New Testament. The New Testament was written in common (= koine) Greek!

They didn't know that in 1600.

5. The Text of the New Testament

Tyndale based his New Testament translation on the Greek New Testament published by Erasmus. He, in turn, compiled his text from a few copies that he found at the University of Basel. Others followed Erasmus and published their own compilations. One even called his work the "Received Text," or as it is known in Latin - the Textus Receptus. It was received only because that's all that was known! That's pretty much what the KJV translators used.

Since then hundreds of copies of the Greek New Testament have been discovered. While no one claims that any of them was written by an Apostle, all scholars believe that among them we have all the words of all the original documents! Current opinion favors some of these other manuscripts over the Textus Receptus in most, but certainly not all, places where they differ.

6. Biblical Poetry

OK - open up a King James Bible to Psalm 23. Now look at Romans 5. Sure, the words are different, but is the appearance of the text on the page any different? Nope - even though Psalm 23 is a poem and Romans 5 is an essay, they both look the same.

Here again the last 400 years has opened up our understanding of Hebrew poetry far beyond what the KJV translators had. In English we show poetry by, among other things, the placement of text on the page. Poetry, even an English translation of Hebrew poetry, should look like poetry.

Return to top

So where does this lead?

All this leads us back to the translation journey and on to the next inn. There's no need to hurry - we won't reach it for well over 250 years!

Return to top