| King James Version | |
|---|---|
 The title page to the 1611 first edition of the authorized version of the Bible byCornelis Boel shows the ApostlesPeter andPaul seated centrally above the central text, which is flanked byMoses andAaron. In the four corners sitMatthew,Mark,Luke andJohn, the traditionally attributed authors of the fourgospels, with their symbolic animals. The rest of theApostles (withJudas facing away) stand around Peter and Paul. At the very top is theTetragrammaton "יְהֹוָה" written withniqqud. | |
| Abbreviation | KJV[a] |
| Complete Bible published | 1611 |
| Online as | King James Version atWikisource |
| Textual basis | OT:Masoretic Text Apocrypha:Septuagint andVulgate NT:Textus Receptus |
| Translation type | Formal equivalence[1] |
| Version revision | 1769 |
| Copyright | Public domain[b] |
| Religious affiliation | Anglican[2][c] |
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. | |
TheKing James Version (KJV), also theKing James Bible (KJB) and theAuthorized Version (AV), is anEarly Modern English translation of theChristianBible for theChurch of England, which was commissioned in 1604 and published in 1611, by sponsorship of KingJames VI and I.[d][e] The80 books of the King James Version[4] include 39 books of theOld Testament, 14 books ofApocrypha, and the 27 books of theNew Testament.
Noted for its "majesty of style", the King James Version has been described as one of the most important books in English culture and a driving force in the shaping of the English-speaking world.[5][6] The King James Version remains the preferred translation of manyProtestant Christians, and is consideredthe only valid one by someEvangelicals. It is considered one of the important literary accomplishments of early modern England.
The KJV was the third translation into English approved by the English Church authorities: The first had been theGreat Bible (1535), and the second had been theBishops' Bible (1568).[7] In Switzerland the first generation ofProtestant Reformers had produced theGeneva Bible[8] which was published in 1560[9] having referred to the original Hebrew and Greek scriptures, and which was influential in the writing of the Authorized King James Version.
The English Church initially used the officially sanctioned "Bishops' Bible", which was hardly used by the population. More popular was the named "Geneva Bible", which was created on the basis of the Tyndale translation in Geneva under the direct successor of the reformerJohn Calvin for his English followers. However, their footnotes represented aCalvinisticPuritanism that was too radical for James. The translators of the Geneva Bible had translated the wordking astyrant about four hundred times, while the word only appears three times in the KJV. Because of this, some have claimed that King James purposely had the translators omit the word, though there is no evidence to support this claim. As the word "tyrant" has no equivalent in ancient Hebrew, there is no case where the translation would be required.
James convened theHampton Court Conference in January 1604, where a new English version was conceived in response to the problems of the earlier translations perceived by thePuritans,[10] a faction of the Church of England.[11] James gave translators instructions intended to ensure the new version would conform to theecclesiology, and reflect theepiscopal structure, of the Church of England and its belief in anordained clergy.[12][13] In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated fromGreek, the Old Testament fromHebrew andAramaic, and the Apocrypha from Greek andLatin. In the1662Book of Common Prayer, the text of theAuthorized Version replaced the text of the Great Bible for Epistle and Gospel readings, and as such was authorized by an Act of Parliament.[14]
By the first half of the 18th century, the Authorized Version had become effectively unchallenged as the only English translation used inAnglican and other English Protestant churches, except for thePsalms and some short passages in theBook of Common Prayer of the Church of England. Over the 18th century, theAuthorized Version supplanted theLatin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English-speaking scholars. With the development ofstereotype printing at the beginning of the 19th century, this version of the Bible had become the most widely printed book in history, almost all such printings presenting thestandard text of 1769, and nearly always omitting the books of the Apocrypha. Today the unqualified title "King James Version" usually indicates this Oxford standard text.
The title of the first edition of the translation, inEarly Modern English, was "THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Teſtament,AND THE NEW: Newly Tranſlated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Tranſlations diligently compared and reuiſed, by his Maiesties ſpeciall Cõmandement". The title page carries the words "Appointed to be read in Churches",[15] andF. F. Bruce suggests it was "probably authorised byorder in council", but no record of the authorisation survives "because thePrivy Council registers from 1600 to 1613 were destroyed by fire in January 1618/19".[16]
For many years it was common not to give the translation any specific name. In hisLeviathan of 1651,Thomas Hobbes referred to it as "the English Translation made in the beginning of the Reign of King James".[17] A 1761 "Brief Account of the various Translations of the Bible into English" refers to the 1611 version merely as "a new, compleat, and more accurate Translation", despite referring to the Great Bible by its name, and despite using the name "Rhemish Testament" for theDouay–Rheims Bible version.[18] Similarly, a "History of England", whose fifth edition was published in 1775, writes merely that "[a] new translation of the Bible,viz., that now in Use, was begun in 1607, and published in 1611".[19]
King James's Bible is used as the name for the 1611 translation (on a par with the Genevan Bible or the Rhemish Testament) inCharles Butler'sHorae Biblicae (first published 1797).[20] Other works from the early 19th century confirm the widespread use of this name on both sides of the Atlantic: it is found both in a "historical sketch of the English translations of the Bible" published in Massachusetts in 1815[21] and in an English publication from 1818, which explicitly states that the 1611 version is "generally known by the name of King James's Bible".[22] This name was also found as King James' Bible (without the final "s"): for example in a book review from 1811.[23] The phrase "King James's Bible" is used as far back as 1715, although in this case it is not clear whether this is a name or merely a description.[24]
The use of Authorized Version, capitalized and used as a name, is found as early as 1814.[25] For some time before this, descriptive phrases such as "our present, and only publicly authorised version" (1783),[26] "our Authorized version" (1731,[27] 1792[28]) and "the authorized version" (1801, uncapitalized)[29] are found. A more common appellation in the 17th and 18th centuries was "our English translation" or "our English version", as can be seen by searching one or other of the major online archives of printed books. In Britain, the 1611 translation is generally known as the "Authorized Version" today. The term is somewhat of a misnomer because the text itself was never formally "authorized", nor were English parish churches ever ordered to procure copies of it.[30]
King James' Version, evidently a descriptive phrase, is found being used as early as 1814.[31] "The King James Version" is found, unequivocally used as a name, in a letter from 1855.[32] The next year King James Bible, with no possessive, appears as a name in a Scottish source.[33] In the United States, the "1611 translation" (actually editions following the standard text of 1769, see below) is generally known as the King James Version today.
There wereseveral translations intoMiddle English of large portions of Scriptures in the 14th Century, with the firstcomplete bibles probably being made by the followers ofJohn Wycliffe. These translations were effectively but not formallybanned in 1409 due to their association with theLollards.[34] The Wycliffite Bibles pre-dated theprinting press but were circulated very widely in manuscript form.
In 1525,William Tyndale, an English contemporary ofMartin Luther, undertooka translation of the New Testament intoEarly Modern English.[35] Tyndale's translation was the first printed Bible in English. Over the next ten years, Tyndale revised his New Testament in the light of rapidly advancing biblical scholarship, and embarked on a translation of the Old Testament.[36] Despite some controversial translation choices, and in spite of Tyndale's execution on charges of heresy for being a Lutheran,[37] the merits of Tyndale's work and prose style made his translation the ultimate basis for all subsequent renditions into Early Modern English.[38]
With these translations lightly edited and adapted byMyles Coverdale to remove offensive notes, in 1539, Tyndale's New Testament and his incomplete work on the Old Testament became the basis for theGreat Bible. This was the first "authorised version" issued by theChurch of England during the reign of KingHenry VIII.[7] WhenMary I succeeded to the throne in 1553, she returned the Church of England to the communion of the Catholic faith and many English religious reformers fled the country,[39] some establishing an English-speaking community in the Protestant city ofGeneva. Under the leadership ofJohn Calvin, Geneva became the chief international centre ofReformed Protestantism and Latin biblical scholarship.[40]
These Englishexpatriates undertook a translation that became known as theGeneva Bible.[41] This translation, dated to 1560, was a revision of Tyndale's Bible and the Great Bible on the basis of the original languages.[42] Soon afterElizabeth I took the throne in 1558, problems with both the Great and Geneva Bibles (namely, that the latter did not "conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy") became apparent to church authorities.[43] In 1568, the Church of England responded with theBishops' Bible, a revision of the Great Bible in the light of the Geneva version.[44]
While officially approved, this new version failed to displace the Geneva translation as the most popular English Bible of the age, in part because the full Bible was printed only inlectern editions of prodigious size and at a cost of several pounds.[45] Accordingly, Elizabethan lay people overwhelmingly read the Bible in the Geneva Version, as small editions were available at a relatively low cost. At the same time, there was a substantial clandestine importation of the rivalDouay–Rheims New Testament of 1582, undertaken by exiled Catholics. This translation, though still derived from Tyndale, claimed to represent the text of the Latin Vulgate.[46]
In May 1601,King James VI of Scotland attended theGeneral Assembly of the Church of Scotland at Saint Columba's Church inBurntisland,Fife, at which proposals were put forward for a new translation of the Bible into English.[47] Two years later, he ascended to the throne of England as James I.[48]
The newly crowned King James convened theHampton Court Conference in 1604. That gathering proposed a new English version in response to the perceived problems of earlier translations as detected by thePuritan faction of the Church of England. Here are three examples of problems the Puritans perceived with theBishops andGreat Bibles:
First,Galatians iv. 25 (from the Bishops' Bible). The Greek wordsusoichei is not well translated as now it is, bordereth neither expressing the force of the word, nor the apostle's sense, nor the situation of the place. Secondly,psalm cv. 28 (from theGreat Bible), 'They were not obedient;' the original being, 'They were not disobedient.' Thirdly, psalm cvi. 30 (also from the Great Bible), 'Then stood up Phinees and prayed,' theHebrew hath, 'executed judgment.'[49]
Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to useformal equivalence and limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. TheBishop of London added a qualification that the translators would add no marginal notes (which had been an issue in theGeneva Bible).[12] King James cited two passages in the Geneva translation where he found the marginal notes offensive to the principles ofdivinely ordained royal supremacy:[50] Exodus 1:19, where theGeneva Bible notes had commended the example of civil disobedience to the EgyptianPharaoh showed by theHebrew midwives, and also II Chronicles 15:16, where theGeneva Bible had criticized King Asa for not having executed his idolatrous 'mother', Queen Maachah (Maachah had actually been Asa's grandmother, but James considered the Geneva Bible reference as sanctioning the execution of his own motherMary, Queen of Scots).[50]
Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to theecclesiology of the Church of England.[12] Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church.[12] For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word "church" were to be retained and not to be translated as "congregation".[12] The new translation would reflect theepiscopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs aboutordained clergy.[12]
The source material for the translation of the New Testament was theTextus Receptus version of the Greek compiled byErasmus; for the Old Testament, theMasoretic text of the Hebrew was used; for some of theapocrypha, theSeptuagint Greek text was used, or for apocrypha for which the Greek was unavailable, theVulgate Latin.
James' instructions included several requirements that kept the new translation familiar to its listeners and readers. The text of theBishops' Bible would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If theBishops' Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list: theTyndale Bible, theCoverdale Bible,Matthew's Bible, theGreat Bible, and theGeneva Bible. In addition, later scholars have detected an influence on theAuthorized Version from the translations ofTaverner's Bible and the New Testament of theDouay–Rheims Bible.[51]
It is for this reason that the flyleaf of most printings of theAuthorized Version observes that the text had been "translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by His Majesty's special commandment." As the work proceeded, more detailed rules were adopted as to how variant and uncertain readings in the Hebrew and Greek source texts should be indicated, including the requirement that words supplied in English to 'complete the meaning' of the originals should be printed in a different type face.[52]
The task of translation was undertaken by 47 scholars, although 54 were originally approved.[13] All were members of the Church of England and all exceptSir Henry Savile were clergy.[53] The scholars worked in six committees, two based in each of the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, andWestminster. The committees included scholars with Puritan sympathies, as well ashigh churchmen. Forty unbound copies of the 1602 edition of theBishops' Bible were specially printed so that the agreed changes of each committee could be recorded in the margins.[54]
The committees worked on certain parts separately and the drafts produced by each committee were then compared and revised for harmony with each other.[55] The scholars were not paid directly for their translation work. Instead, a circular letter was sent to bishops encouraging them to consider the translators for appointment to well-paidlivings as these fell vacant.[53] Several were supported by the various colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, while others were promoted tobishoprics,deaneries andprebends throughroyal patronage.
On 22 July 1604 KingJames VI and I sent a letter toArchbishop Bancroft asking him to contact all English churchmen requesting that they make donations to his project.
Right trusty and well beloved, we greet you well. Whereas we have appointed certain learned men, to the number of 4 and 50, for the translating of the Bible, and in this number, divers of them have either no ecclesiastical preferment at all, or else so very small, as the same is far unmeet for men of their deserts and yet we in ourself in any convenient time cannot well remedy it, therefor we do hereby require you, that presently you write in our name as well to the Archbishop of York, as to the rest of the bishops of the province of Cant.[erbury] signifying unto them, that we do well and straitly charge everyone of them ... that (all excuses set apart) when a prebend or parsonage ... shall next upon any occasion happen to be void ... we may commend for the same some such of the learned men, as we shall think fit to be preferred unto it ... Given unto our signet at our palace of West.[minister] on 2 and 20 July, in the 2nd year of our reign of England, France, and of Ireland, and of Scotland xxxvii.[56]
The six committees started work towards the end of 1604. The Apocrypha committee finishing first, and all six completed their sections by 1608.[57] From January 1609, a General Committee of Review met atStationers' Hall, London to review the completed marked texts from each of the committees, and were paid for their attendance by the Stationers' Company. The General Committee includedJohn Bois,Andrew Downes,John Harmar, and others known only by their initials, including "AL" (who may beArthur Lake). John Bois prepared a note of their deliberations (in Latin) – which has partly survived in two later transcripts.[58] Also surviving of the translators' working papers are a bound set of marked-up corrections to one of the fortyBishops' Bibles—covering the Old Testament and Gospels;[59] and also a manuscript translation of the text of theEpistles, excepting those verses where no change was being recommended to the readings in theBishops' Bible.[60] ArchbishopBancroft insisted on having a final say making fourteen further changes, of which one was the term "bishopricke" at Acts 1:20.[61]
The original printing of theAuthorized Version was published byRobert Barker, the King's Printer, in 1611 as a complete folio Bible.[64] It was soldlooseleaf for tenshillings, or bound for twelve.[65] Robert Barker's father, Christopher, had, in 1589, been granted by Elizabeth I the title of royal Printer,[66] with the perpetual Royal Privilege to print Bibles in England.[f] Robert Barker invested very large sums in printing the new edition, and consequently ran into serious debt,[67] such that he was compelled to sub-lease the privilege to two rival London printers, Bonham Norton and John Bill.[68] It appears that it was initially intended that each printer would print a portion of the text, share printed sheets with the others, and split the proceeds. Bitter financial disputes broke out, as Barker accused Norton and Bill of concealing their profits, while Norton and Bill accused Barker of selling sheets properly due to them as partial Bibles for ready money.[69] There followed decades of continual litigation, and consequent imprisonment for debt for members of the Barker and Norton printing dynasties,[69] while each issued rival editions of the whole Bible. In 1629 the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge successfully managed to assert separate and prior royal licences for Bible printing, for their own university presses—and Cambridge University took the opportunity to print revised editions of theAuthorized Version in 1629,[70] and 1638.[71] The editors of these editions included John Bois and Samuel Ward from the original translators. This did not, however, impede the commercial rivalries of the London printers, especially as the Barker family refused to allow any other printers access to the authoritative manuscript of theAuthorized Version.[72]
Two editions of the whole Bible are recognized as having been produced in 1611, which may be distinguished by their rendering of Ruth 3:15;[73] the first edition reading "he went into the city", where the second reads "she went into the city";[74] these are known colloquially as the "He" and "She" Bibles.[75]
The original printing was made beforeEnglish spelling was standardized, and when printers, as a matter of course, expanded and contracted the spelling of the same words in different places, so as to achieve an even column of text.[76] They setv for initialu andv, andu foru andv everywhere else. They used the longs (ſ) for non-finals.[77] The letter orglyphj occurs only afteri, as in the final letter in aRoman numeral, such as XIIJ.Punctuation was relatively heavy (frequent) and differed from modern practice.[how?] When space needed to be saved, the printers sometimes usedye forthe (replacing theMiddle Englishthorn, Þ, with the continentaly), setã foran oram (in the style of scribe'sshorthand), and set& forand. In contrast, on a few occasions, they appear to have inserted these words when they thought a line needed to be padded.[citation needed] Later printings regularized these spellings; the punctuation has also been standardized, but still varies from current usage.
As can be seen in the example page on the left, the first printing used ablacklettertypeface instead of a roman typeface, which itself made a political and a religious statement.[further explanation needed] Like theGreat Bible and theBishops' Bible, the Authorized Version was "appointed to be read in churches". It was a largefolio volume meant for public use, not private devotion; the weight of the type—blackletter type was heavy physically as well as visually—mirrored the weight of establishment authority behind it.[citation needed] However, smaller editions and roman-type editions followed rapidly, e.g. quarto roman-type editions of the Bible in 1612.[78] This contrasted with the Geneva Bible, which was the first English Bible printed in a roman typeface (although black-letter editions, particularly infolio format, were issued later).
In contrast to theGeneva Bible and theBishops' Bible, which had both been extensively illustrated, there were no illustrations in the 1611 edition of the Authorized Version, the main form of decoration being thehistoriated initial letters provided for books and chapters – together with the decorative title pages to the Bible itself, and to the New Testament.[citation needed]
In the Great Bible, readings derived from the Vulgate but not found in published Hebrew and Greek texts had been distinguished by being printed in smallerroman type.[79] In the Geneva Bible, a distinct typeface had instead been applied to distinguish text supplied by translators, or thought needful for Englishgrammar but not present in the Greek or Hebrew; and the original printing of the Authorized Version used roman type for this purpose, albeit sparsely and inconsistently.[80] This results in perhaps the most significant difference between the original printed text of the King James Bible and the current text. When, from the later 17th century onwards, the Authorized Version began to be printed in roman type, the typeface for supplied words was changed toitalics, this application being regularized and greatly expanded. This was intended to de-emphasize the words.[81]
The original printing contained two prefatory texts; the first was a formalEpistle Dedicatory to "the most high and mighty Prince" King James. Many British printings reproduce this, while most non-British printings do not.[citation needed]
The second preface was calledTranslators to the Reader, a long and learned essay that defends the undertaking of the new version. It observes the translators' stated goal, that they "never thought from the beginning that [they] should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark." They also give their opinion of previous English Bible translations, stating, "We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs [Catholics] of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." As with the first preface, some British printings reproduce this, while most non-British printings do not. Almost every printing that includes the second preface also includes the first.[citation needed]The first printing contained a number of otherapparatus, including a table for the reading of the Psalms atmatins andevensong, and acalendar, analmanac, and a table of holy days and observances. Much of this material became obsolete with the adoption of theGregorian calendar by Britain and its colonies in 1752, and thus modern editions invariably omit it.[citation needed]
So as to make it easier to know a particular passage, each chapter was headed by a brief précis of its contents with verse numbers. Later editors freely substituted their own chapter summaries, or omitted such material entirely.[citation needed]Pilcrow marks are used to indicate the beginnings of paragraphs except after the book of Acts.[g]
The Authorized Version was meant to replace theBishops' Bible as the official version for readings in theChurch of England. No record of its authorization exists; it was probably effected by an order of thePrivy Council, but the records for the years 1600 to 1613 were destroyed by fire in January 1618/19,[16] and it is commonly known as the Authorized Version in the United Kingdom. The King's Printer issued no further editions of theBishops' Bible,[66] so necessarily the Authorized Version replaced it as the standard lectern Bible in parish church use in England.
In the 1662Book of Common Prayer, the text of the Authorized Version finally supplanted that of theGreat Bible in the Epistle and Gospel readings[82]—though the Prayer BookPsalter nevertheless continues in the Great Bible version.[83]
The case was different in Scotland, where the Geneva Bible had long been the standard church Bible. It was not until 1633 that a Scottish edition of the Authorized Version was printed—in conjunction with the Scots coronation in that year ofCharles I.[84] The inclusion of illustrations in the edition raised accusations ofPopery from opponents of the religious policies of Charles andWilliam Laud,Archbishop of Canterbury. However, official policy favoured the Authorized Version, and this favour returned during theCommonwealth—as London printers succeeded in re-asserting their monopoly on Bible printing with support fromOliver Cromwell—and the "New Translation" was the only edition on the market.[85] F. F. Bruce reports that the last recorded instance of a Scots parish continuing to use the "Old Translation" (i.e. Geneva) as being in 1674.[86]
TheAuthorized Version's acceptance by the general public took longer. TheGeneva Bible continued to be popular, and large numbers were imported from Amsterdam, where printing continued up to 1644 in editions carrying a false London imprint.[87] However, few if any genuine Geneva editions appear to have been printed in London after 1616, and in 1637Archbishop Laud prohibited their printing or importation. In the period of theEnglish Civil War, soldiers of theNew Model Army were issued a book of Geneva selections called"The Soldiers' Bible".[88] In the first half of the 17th century the Authorized Version is most commonly referred to as "The Bible without notes", thereby distinguishing it from the Geneva "Bible with notes".[84]
There were several printings of the Authorized Version in Amsterdam—one as late as 1715[89] which combined the Authorized Version translation text with the Geneva marginal notes;[90] one such edition was printed in London in 1649. During the Commonwealth a commission was established byParliament to recommend a revision of the Authorized Version with acceptably Protestant explanatory notes,[87] but the project was abandoned when it became clear that these would nearly double the bulk of the Bible text. After theEnglish Restoration, theGeneva Bible was held to be politically suspect and a reminder of the repudiated Puritan era.[citation needed] Furthermore, disputes over the lucrative rights to print the Authorized Version dragged on through the 17th century, so none of the printers involved saw any commercial advantage in marketing a rival translation.[citation needed] The Authorized Version became the only then current version circulating among English-speaking people.
A small minority of critical scholars were slow to accept the latest translation.Hugh Broughton, who was the most highly regarded EnglishHebraist of his time but had been excluded from the panel of translators because of his utterly uncongenial temperament,[91] issued in 1611 a total condemnation of the new version.[92] He especially criticized the translators' rejection of word-for-word equivalence and stated that "he would rather be torn in pieces by wild horses than that this abominable translation (KJV) should ever be foisted upon the English people".[93]Walton's London Polyglot of 1657 disregards the Authorized Version (and indeed the English language) entirely.[94] Walton's reference text throughout is the Vulgate.
The Vulgate Latin is also found as the standard text of scripture inThomas Hobbes'sLeviathan of 1651.[95] Hobbes gives Vulgate chapter and verse numbers (e.g., Job 41:24, not Job 41:33) for his head text. In Chapter 35:'The Signification in Scripture of Kingdom of God', Hobbes discusses Exodus 19:5, first in his own translation of the'Vulgar Latin', and then subsequently as found in the versions he terms"... the English translation made in the beginning of the reign of King James", and"The Geneva French" (i.e.Olivétan). Hobbes advances detailed critical arguments why the Vulgate rendering is to be preferred. For most of the 17th century the assumption remained that, while it had been of vital importance to provide the scriptures in the vernacular for ordinary people, nevertheless for those with sufficient education to do so, Biblical study was best undertaken within the international common medium of Latin. It was only in 1700 that modern bilingual Bibles appeared in which the Authorized Version was compared with counterpart Dutch and French Protestant vernacular Bibles.[96]
In consequence of the continual disputes over printing privileges, successive printings of the Authorized Version were notably less careful than the 1611 edition had been—compositors freely varying spelling, capitalization and punctuation[97]—and also, over the years, introducing about 1,500 misprints (some of which, like the omission of "not" from the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" in the "Wicked Bible",[98] became notorious). The two Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638 attempted to restore the proper text—while introducing over 200 revisions of the original translators' work, chiefly by incorporating into the main text a more literal reading originally presented as a marginal note.[99] A more thoroughly corrected edition was proposed following theRestoration, in conjunction with the revised 1662Book of Common Prayer, but Parliament then decided against it.[citation needed]
By the first half of the 18th century, the Authorized Version was effectively unchallenged as the sole English translation in then current use in Protestant churches,[14] and was so dominant that the Catholic Church in England issued in 1750 a revision of the 1610Douay–Rheims Bible byRichard Challoner that was much closer to the Authorized Version than to the original.[100] However, general standards of spelling, punctuation, typesetting, capitalization and grammar had changed radically in the 100 years since the first edition of the Authorized Version, and all printers in the market were introducing continual piecemeal changes to their Bible texts to bring them into line with then current practice—and with public expectations of standardized spelling and grammatical construction.[101]
Over the course of the 18th century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Hebrew, Greek and the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English speaking scholars and divines, and indeed came to be regarded by some as an inspired text in itself—so much so that any challenge to its readings or textual base came to be regarded by many as an assault on Holy Scripture.[102]
In the 18th century there was a serious shortage of Bibles in the American colonies. To meet the demandvarious printers, beginning withSamuel Kneeland in 1752, printed the King James Bible without authorization from the Crown. To avert prosecution and detection of an unauthorized printing they would include the royal insignia on the title page, using the same materials in its printing as the authorized version was produced from, which were imported from England.[103][104]
By the mid-18th century the wide variation in the various modernized printed texts of the Authorized Version, combined with the notorious accumulation of misprints, had reached the proportion of a scandal, and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge both sought to produce an updated standard text. First of the two was the Cambridge edition of 1760, the culmination of 20 years' work byFrancis Sawyer Parris,[105] who died in May of that year. This 1760 edition was reprinted without change in 1762[106] and inJohn Baskerville's folio edition of 1763.[107]
This was effectively superseded by the 1769 Oxford edition, edited byBenjamin Blayney,[108] though with comparatively few changes from Parris's edition; but which became the Oxford standard text, and is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings.[109] Parris and Blayney sought consistently to remove those elements of the 1611 and subsequent editions that they believed were due to the vagaries of printers, while incorporating most of the revised readings of the Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638, and each also introducing a few improved readings of their own.
They undertook the mammoth task of standardizing the wide variation in punctuation and spelling of the original, making many thousands of minor changes to the text. In addition, Blayney and Parris thoroughly revised and greatly extended the italicization of "supplied" words not found in the original languages by cross-checking against the presumed source texts. Blayney seems to have worked from the 1550Stephanus edition of theTextus Receptus, rather than the later editions ofTheodore Beza that the translators of the 1611 New Testament had favoured; accordingly the current Oxford standard text alters around a dozen italicizations where Beza and Stephanus differ.[110] Like the 1611 edition, the 1769 Oxford edition included the Apocrypha, although Blayney tended to remove cross-references to the Books of the Apocrypha from the margins of their Old and New Testaments wherever these had been provided by the original translators. It also includes both prefaces from the 1611 edition. Altogether, the standardization of spelling and punctuation caused Blayney's 1769 text to differ from the 1611 text in around 24,000 places.[111]
The 1611 and 1769 texts of the first three verses fromI Corinthians 13 are given below.
[1611] 1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.
[1769] 1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am becomeas sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I havethe gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feedthe poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
There are a number of superficial edits in these three verses: 11 changes of spelling, 16 changes of typesetting (including the changed conventions for the use of u and v), three changes of punctuation, and one variant text—where "not charity" is substituted for "no charity" in verse two, in the belief that the original reading was a misprint.
A particular verse for which Blayney's 1769 text differs from Parris's 1760 version is Matthew 5:13, where Parris (1760) has
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have losthis savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to betroden under foot of men.
Blayney (1769) changes 'losthis savour' to 'lostits savour', andtroden totrodden.
For a period, Cambridge continued to issue Bibles using the Parris text, but the market demand for absolute standardization was now such that they eventually adapted Blayney's work but omitted some of the idiosyncratic Oxford spellings. By the mid-19th century, almost all printings of the Authorized Version were derived from the 1769 Oxford text—increasingly without Blayney's variant notes and cross references, and commonly excluding the Apocrypha.[112] One exception to this was a scrupulous original-spelling, page-for-page, and line-for-line reprint of the 1611 edition (including all chapter headings, marginalia, and original italicization, but with Roman type substituted for the black letter of the original), published by Oxford in 1833.[h]
Another important exception was the 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible, thoroughly revised, modernized and re-edited byF. H. A. Scrivener, who for the first time consistently identified the source texts underlying the 1611 translation and its marginal notes.[114] Scrivener, like Blayney, opted to revise the translation where he considered the judgement of the 1611 translators had been faulty.[115] In 2005,Cambridge University Press released itsNew Cambridge Paragraph Bible with Apocrypha, edited by David Norton, which followed in the spirit of Scrivener's work, attempting to bring spelling to present-day standards. Norton also innovated with the introduction of quotation marks, while returning to a hypothetical 1611 text, so far as possible, to the wording used by its translators, especially in the light of the re-emphasis on some of their draft documents.[116] This text has been issued in paperback byPenguin Books.[117]
From the early 19th century the Authorized Version has remained almost completely unchanged—and since, due to advances in printing technology, it could now be produced in very large editions for mass sale, it established complete dominance in public and ecclesiastical use in the English-speaking Protestant world. Academic debate through that century, however, increasingly reflected concerns about the Authorized Version shared by some scholars: (a) that subsequent study in oriental languages suggested a need to revise the translation of the Hebrew Bible—both in terms of specific vocabulary, and also in distinguishing descriptive terms from proper names; (b) that the Authorized Version was unsatisfactory in translating the same Greek words and phrases into different English, especially where parallel passages are found in thesynoptic gospels; and (c) in the light of subsequent ancient manuscript discoveries, the New Testament translation base of the Greek Textus Receptus could no longer be considered to be the best representation of the original text.[118]
Responding to these concerns, theConvocation of Canterbury resolved in 1870 to undertake a revision of the text of the Authorized Version, intending to retain the original text "except where in the judgement of competent scholars such a change is necessary". The resulting revision was issued as theRevised Version in 1881 (New Testament), 1885 (Old Testament) and 1894 (Apocrypha); but, although it sold widely, the revision did not find popular favour, and it was only reluctantly in 1899 that Convocation approved it for reading in churches.[119]
By the early 20th century, editing had been completed in Cambridge's text, with at least 6 new changes since 1769, and the reversing of at least 30 of the standard Oxford readings. The distinct Cambridge text was printed in the millions, and after the Second World War "the unchanging steadiness of the KJB was a huge asset."[120]
F. H. A. Scrivener and D. Norton have both written in detail on editorial variations which have occurred through the history of the publishing of the Authorized Version from 1611 to 1769. In the 19th century, there were effectively three main guardians of the text. Norton identified five variations among the Oxford, Cambridge, and London (Eyre and Spottiswoode) texts of 1857, such as the spelling of "farther" or "further" at Matthew 26:39.[121]
In the 20th century, variation between the editions was reduced to comparing the Cambridge to the Oxford. Distinctly identified Cambridge readings included "or Sheba",[122] "sin",[123] "clifts",[124] "vapour",[125] "flieth",[126] "further"[127] and a number of other references. In effect the Cambridge was considered the current text in comparison to the Oxford.[128] These are instances where both Oxford and Cambridge have now diverged from Blayney's 1769 Edition. The distinctions between the Oxford and Cambridge editions have been a major point in theBible version debate,[129] and a potential theological issue,[130] particularly in regard to the identification of the Pure Cambridge Edition.[131]
Cambridge University Press introduced a change at 1 John 5:8[132] in 1985, reversing its longstanding tradition of printing the word "spirit" in lower case by using a capital letter "S".[133] A Rev. Hardin of Bedford, Pennsylvania, wrote a letter to Cambridge inquiring about this verse, and received a reply on 3 June 1985 from the Bible Director, Jerry L. Hooper, claiming that it was a "matter of some embarrassment regarding the lower case 's' in Spirit".[134]
In obedience to their instructions, the translators provided no marginal interpretation of the text, but in some 8,500 places a marginal note offers an alternative English wording.[135] The majority of these notes offer a more literal rendering of the original, introduced as "Heb", "Chal" (Chaldee, referring to Aramaic), "Gr" or "Lat". Others indicate a variant reading of the source text (introduced by "or"). Some of the annotated variants derive from alternative editions in the original languages, or from variant forms quoted in thefathers. More commonly, though, they indicate a difference between the literal original language reading and that in the translators' preferred recent Latin versions:Tremellius for the Old Testament,Junius for the Apocrypha, andBeza for the New Testament.[136] At thirteen places in the New Testament[137][138] a marginal note records a variant reading found in some Greek manuscript copies; in almost all cases reproducing a counterpart textual note at the same place in Beza's editions.[139]
A few more extensive notes clarify Biblical names and units of measurement or currency. Modern reprintings rarely reproduce these annotated variants, although they are to be found in theNew Cambridge Paragraph Bible. In addition, there were originally some 9,000 scriptural cross-references, in which one text was related to another. Such cross-references had long been common in Latin Bibles, and most of those in the Authorized Version were copied unaltered from this Latin tradition. Consequently the early editions of the KJV retain many Vulgate verse references—e.g. in the numbering of thePsalms.[140] At the head of each chapter, the translators provided a short précis of its contents, with verse numbers; these are rarely included in complete form in modern editions.
Also in obedience to their instructions, the translators indicated 'supplied' words in a different typeface; but there was no attempt to regularize the instances where this practice had been applied across the different companies; and especially in the New Testament, it was used much less frequently in the 1611 edition than would later be the case.[80] In one verse, 1 John 2:23, an entire clause was printed in roman type (as it had also been in the Great Bible and Bishop's Bible);[141] indicating a reading then primarily derived from the Vulgate, albeit one for which the later editions of Beza had provided a Greek text.[142]
In the Old Testament the translators render theTetragrammaton (YHWH) by "the LORD" (in later editions insmall capitals as LORD),[i] or "the LORD God" (forYHWHElohim, יהוה אלהים),[j] except in four places by "IEHOVAH".[143] However, if the Tetragrammaton occurs with the Hebrew wordadonai (Lord) then it is rendered not as the "Lord LORD" but as the "Lord God".[144] In later editions it appears as "LordGOD", with "GOD" in small capitals, indicating to the reader that God's name appears in the original Hebrew.
For the Old Testament, the translators used a text originating in the editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible byDaniel Bomberg (1524/5),[145][failed verification] but adjusted this to conform to the GreekLXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had attached aChristological interpretation.[146] For example, theSeptuagint reading "They pierced my hands and my feet" was used in Psalm 22:16[147] (vs. theMasoretes' reading of the Hebrew "like lions my hands and feet"[148]). Otherwise, however, the Authorized Version is closer to the Hebrew tradition than any previous English translation—especially in making use of the rabbinic commentaries, such asKimhi, in elucidating obscure passages in theMasoretic Text;[149] earlier versions had been more likely to adopt LXX or Vulgate readings in such places. Following the practice of theGeneva Bible, the books of 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras in the medieval Vulgate Old Testament were renamed 'Ezra' and 'Nehemiah'; 3 Esdras and 4 Esdras in the Apocrypha being renamed '1 Esdras' and '2 Esdras'.
For the New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions ofTheodore Beza,[150][k] which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek andStephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate. Both of these versions were extensively referred to, as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F. H. A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of theBishops' Bible and other earlier English translations.[151] In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 GreekTextus Receptus of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions ofErasmus, or in theComplutensian Polyglot. However, in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate.[152] For example, at John 10:16,[153] the Authorized Version reads "one fold" (as did theBishops' Bible, and the 16th-century vernacular versions produced in Geneva), following the Latin Vulgate "unum ovile", whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, "one flocke" (μία ποίμνη). The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament; still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.[154]
Unlike the rest of the Bible, the translators of the Apocrypha identified their source texts in their marginal notes.[155] From these it can be determined that the books of the Apocrypha were translated from the Septuagint—primarily, from the Greek Old Testament column in theAntwerp Polyglot—but with extensive reference to the counterpart Latin Vulgate text, and to Junius's Latin translation. The translators record references to theSixtine Septuagint of 1587, which is substantially a printing of the Old Testament text from theCodex Vaticanus Graecus 1209, and also to the 1518 Greek Septuagint edition ofAldus Manutius. They had, however, no Greek texts for2 Esdras, or for thePrayer of Manasses, and Scrivener found that they here used an unidentified Latin manuscript.[155]
The translators appear to have otherwise made no first-hand study of ancient manuscript sources, even those that—like theCodex Bezae—would have been readily available to them.[156] In addition to all previous English versions (including, and contrary to their instructions,[157] theRheimish New Testament[158] which in their preface they criticized), they made wide and eclectic use of all printed editions in the original languages then available, including the ancientSyriac New Testament printed with an interlinear Latin gloss in theAntwerp Polyglot of 1573.[159] In the preface the translators acknowledge consulting translations and commentaries in Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, and German.[160]
The translators took the Bishops' Bible as their source text, and where they departed from that in favour of another translation, this was most commonly the Geneva Bible. However, the degree to which readings from the Bishops' Bible survived into final text of the King James Bible varies greatly from company to company, as did the propensity of the King James translators to coin phrases of their own. John Bois's notes of the General Committee of Review show that they discussed readings derived from a wide variety of versions andpatristic sources, including explicitly bothHenry Savile's 1610 edition of the works ofJohn Chrysostom and the Rheims New Testament,[161] which was the primary source for many of the literal alternative readings provided for the marginal notes.
A number ofBible verses in the King James Version of the New Testament are not found in more recent Bible translations, where these are based onmodern critical texts. In the early seventeenth century, the source Greek texts of the New Testament which were used to produce Protestant Bible versions were mainly dependent on manuscripts of the lateByzantine text-type, and they also contained minor variations which became known as theTextus Receptus.[162] With the subsequent identification of much earlier manuscripts, most modern textual scholars value the evidence of manuscripts which belong to theAlexandrian family as better witnesses to the original text of the biblical authors,[163] without giving it, or any family, automatic preference.[164]
A primary concern of the translators was to produce an appropriate Bible, dignified and resonant in public reading.[165] Although the Authorized Version's written style is an important part of its influence on English, research has found only one verse—Hebrews 13:8—for which translators debated the wording's literary merits. While they stated in the preface that they used stylistic variation, finding multiple English words or verbal forms in places where the original language employed repetition, in practice they also did the opposite; for example, 14 different Hebrew words were translated into the single English word "prince".[5][needs context]
In a period of rapid linguistic change the translators avoided contemporary idioms, tending instead towards forms that were already slightly archaic, likeverily andit came to pass.[91] The pronounsthou/thee andye/you are consistently used as singular and plural respectively, even though by this timeyou was often found as the singular in general English usage, especially when addressing a social superior (as is evidenced, for example, in Shakespeare).[166] For the possessive of the third person pronoun, the wordits, first recorded in theOxford English Dictionary in 1598, is avoided.[167] The olderhis is usually employed, as for example at Matthew 5:13:[168] "if the salt have losthis savour, wherewith shall it be salted?";[167] in other placesof it,thereof or bareit are found.[l] Another sign oflinguistic conservatism is the invariable use of-eth for the third person singular present form of the verb, as at Matthew 2:13: "the Angel of the Lord appeareth to Joseph in a dreame". The rival ending-(e)s, as found in present-day English, was already widely used by this time (for example, it predominates over-eth in the plays of Shakespeare and Marlowe).[170] Furthermore, the translators preferredwhich towho orwhom as the relative pronoun for persons, as in Genesis 13:5:[171] "And Lot alsowhich went with Abram, had flocks and heards, & tents"[172] althoughwho(m) is also found.[m]
The Authorized Version is notably moreLatinate than previous English versions,[157] especially the Geneva Bible. This results in part from the academic stylistic preferences of a number of the translators—several of whom admitted to being more comfortable writing in Latin than in English—but was also, in part, a consequence of the royal proscription against explanatory notes.[173] Hence, where the Geneva Bible might use a common English word, and gloss its particular application in a marginal note, the Authorized Version tends rather to prefer a technical term, frequently in Anglicized Latin. Consequently, although the King had instructed the translators to use the Bishops' Bible as a base text, the New Testament in particular owes much stylistically to the CatholicRheims New Testament, whose translators had also been concerned to find English equivalents for Latin terminology.[174] In addition, the translators of the New Testament books transliterate names found in the Old Testament in their Greek forms rather than in the forms closer to the Old Testament Hebrew (e.g. "Elias" and "Noe" for "Elijah" and "Noah", respectively).
While the Authorized Version remains among the most widely sold, modern critical New Testament translations differ substantially from it in a number of passages, primarily because they rely on source manuscripts not then accessible to (or not then highly regarded by) early-17th-century Biblical scholarship.[175] In the Old Testament, there are also many differences from modern translations that are based not on manuscript differences, but on a different understanding of Ancient Hebrewvocabulary orgrammar by the translators. For example, in modern translations it is clear that Job 28:1–11[176] is referring throughout to mining operations, which is not at all apparent from the text of the Authorized Version.[177]
The King James Version contains several alleged mistranslations, especially in the Old Testament where the knowledge of Hebrew and cognate languages was uncertain at the time.[178] Among the most commonly cited errors is in the Hebrew of Job and Deuteronomy, whereHebrew:רְאֵם,romanized: Re'em with the probable meaning of "wild-ox,aurochs", is translated in the KJV as "unicorn"; following in this the Vulgateunicornis and several medieval rabbinic commentators. The translators of the KJV note the alternative rendering, "rhinocerots" [sic] in the margin at Isaiah 34:7. On a similar note Martin Luther's German translation had also relied on the Latin Vulgate on this point, consistently translating רְאֵם using the German word for unicorn,Einhorn.[179] Otherwise, the translators are accused on several occasions of having mistakenly interpreted a Hebrew descriptive phrase as a proper name (or vice versa); as at 2 Samuel 1:18 where 'theBook of Jasher'Hebrew:סֵפֶר הַיׇּשׇׁר,romanized: sepher ha-yasher properly refers not to a work by an author of that name, but should rather be rendered as "the Book of the Upright" (which was proposed as an alternative reading in a marginal note to the KJV text).
Despite royal patronage and encouragement, there was never any overt mandate to use the new translation. It was not until 1661 that the Authorized Version replaced theBishops' Bible in the Epistle and Gospel lessons of theBook of Common Prayer, and it never did replace the older translation in thePsalter. In 1763The Critical Review complained that "many false interpretations, ambiguous phrases, obsolete words and indelicate expressions ... excite the derision of the scorner". Blayney's 1769 version, with its revised spelling and punctuation, helped change the public perception of the Authorized Version to a masterpiece of the English language.[5] By the 19th century,F. W. Faber could say of the translation, "It lives on the ear, like music that can never be forgotten, like the sound of church bells, which the convert hardly knows how he can forego."[180]
Geddes MacGregor called the Authorized Version "the most influential version of the most influential book in the world, in what is now its most influential language",[181] "the most important book in English religion and culture", and "the most celebrated book in theEnglish-speaking world".David Crystal has estimated that it is responsible for 257 idioms in English; examples includefeet of clay andreap the whirlwind. Furthermore, prominentatheist figures such asChristopher Hitchens andRichard Dawkins have praised the King James Version as being "a giant step in the maturing of English literature" and "a great work of literature", respectively, with Dawkins then adding, "A native speaker of English who has never read a word of the King James Bible is verging on the barbarian".[182][183]
The King James Version is one of the versions authorized to be used in the services of theEpiscopal Church and other parts of theAnglican Communion,[184] as it is the historical Bible of this church.
It was presented toKing Charles III at hiscoronation service.[185][186]
Other Christian denominations have also accepted the King James Version. The King James Version is used by English-speakingConservative Anabaptists, along with Methodists of theconservative holiness movement, in addition to certainBaptists.[187][188] In theOrthodox Church in America, it is used liturgically and was made "the 'official' translation for a whole generation of American Orthodox". The later Service Book of the Antiochian archdiocese, in vogue today, also uses the King James Version.[n]The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints continues to use itsown edition of the Authorized Version as its official English Bible.
Although the Authorized Version's preeminence in the English-speaking world has diminished—for example, the Church of England recommends six other versions in addition to it—it is still the most used translation in the United States, especially as theScofield Reference Bible forEvangelicals. However, over the past forty years it has been gradually overtaken by modern versions, principally theNew International Version (1973), theNew Revised Standard Version (1989),[5] and theEnglish Standard Version (2001), the latter of which is seen as a successor to the King James Version.[190]
TheKing James Only movement advocates the belief that the King James Version is superior to all otherEnglish translations of the Bible. Most adherents of the movement believe that theTextus Receptus is very close, if not identical, to the original autographs, thereby making it the ideal Greek source for the translation. They argue that manuscripts such as theCodex Sinaiticus andCodex Vaticanus, on which most modern English translations are based, are corrupted New Testament texts. One of them, Perry Demopoulos, was a director of the translation of the King James Bible intoRussian. In 2010 the Russian translation of the KJV of the New Testament was released inKyiv,Ukraine.[191] In 2017, the first complete edition of a Russian King James Bible was released.[192] In 2017, aFaroese translation of the King James Bible was released as well.[193]
The Authorized Version is in the public domain in most of the world. In the United Kingdom, the right to print, publish and distribute it is aroyal prerogative,[194] and the Crown licenses publishers to reproduce it underletters patent. In England, Wales, andNorthern Ireland, the letters patent are held by theKing's Printer; in Scotland, they are held by the Scottish Bible Board. The office of the King's Printer has been associated with the right to reproduce the Bible for centuries, the earliest known reference coming in 1577.[195]
In the 18th century, all surviving interests in the monopoly were bought out byJohn Baskett. The Baskett rights descended through a number of printers and, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the King's Printer is nowCambridge University Press, which inherited the right when they took over the firm ofEyre & Spottiswoode in 1990.[195]
Other royal charters of similar antiquity grant Cambridge University Press andOxford University Press the right to produce the Authorized Version independently of the King's Printer. In Scotland, the Authorized Version is published byCollins under licence from the Scottish Bible Board. The terms of the letters patent prohibit any other than the holders, or those authorized by the holders, from printing, publishing or importing the Authorized Version into the United Kingdom. The protection that the Authorized Version, and also theBook of Common Prayer, enjoy is the last remnant of the time when the Crown held a monopoly over all printing and publishing in the United Kingdom.[195]
Although Crown Copyright usually expires 50 years after publication, Section 171(b) of theCopyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 made an exception for 'any right or privilege of the Crown' not written in an act of parliament, thus preserving the rights of the Crown under the unwritten royal prerogative.[196]
Within the United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press permits the reproduction of at most 500 verses for "liturgical and non-commercial educational use", provided that their prescribed acknowledgement is included, the quoted verses do not exceed 25% of the publication quoting them and do not include a complete Bible book.[197] For use beyond this, the Press is willing to consider permission requested on a case-by-case basis and in 2011 a spokesman said the Press generally does not charge a fee but tries to ensure that a reputable source text is used.[198][199]
Translations of the books of thebiblical apocrypha were necessary for the King James version, as readings from these books were included in the daily Old Testamentlectionary of theBook of Common Prayer. Protestant Bibles in the 16th century included the books of the apocrypha—generally, following theLuther Bible, in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments to indicate they were not considered part of the Old Testament text—and there is evidence that these were widely read as popular literature, especially inPuritan circles.[200][201]
The apocrypha of the King James Version has the same 14 books as had been found in the apocrypha of theBishops' Bible; however, following the practice of theGeneva Bible, the first two books of the apocrypha were renamed1 Esdras and2 Esdras, as compared to the names in theThirty-nine Articles, with the corresponding Old Testament books being renamedEzra andNehemiah. Starting in 1630, volumes of theGeneva Bible were occasionally bound with the pages of the apocrypha section excluded. In 1644, theLong Parliament forbade the reading of the apocrypha in churches; and in 1666, the first editions of the King James Bible without the apocrypha were bound.[202]
The standardization of the text of the Authorized Version after 1769 together with the technological development ofstereotype printing made it possible to produce Bibles in large print-runs at very low unit prices. For commercial and charitable publishers, editions of the Authorized Version without the apocrypha reduced the cost, while having increased market appeal to non-Anglican Protestant readers.[203]
With the rise of theBible societies, most editions have omitted the whole section of apocryphal books.[204] TheBritish and Foreign Bible Society withdrew subsidies for Bible printing and dissemination in 1826, under the following resolution:
That the funds of the Society be applied to the printing and circulation of the Canonical Books of Scripture, to the exclusion of those Books and parts of Books usually termed Apocryphal;[205]
TheAmerican Bible Society adopted a similar policy. Both societies eventually reversed these policies in light of 20th-century ecumenical efforts on translations, the ABS doing so in 1964 and the BFBS in 1966.[206]
The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on the later editions of Beza's Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition (1588–9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), (51) out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113 times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus. Hence the King James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.
— Edward F. Hills,The King James Version Defended, p. 220.
The King James tradition was continued in the Revised Version of 1881 and 1885, the Revised Standard Version of 1946 and 1952, and the New Revised Standard Version of 1989.
[The royal prerogative includes] Sole right of printing or licensing the printing of the Authorised Version of the Bible, the Book of Common Prayer, state papers and Acts of Parliament
We grant permission to use the text, and license printing or the importation for sale within the UK, as long as we are assured of acceptable quality and accuracy.
Chronological order of publication (newest first)
| Production | |
|---|---|
| Consumption | |
| By country | |
| Other | |
| Related | |
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
