Celebrating the Quad Centenial of 1611 King James Bible


            The new year will mark the 4th Centennial of the KJV. While this was not the first English translation, it has become one of the most widely used, in its modernized form, of all the early English translations. John Wycliffe was the first to translate the Bible into English that was widely circulated in manuscript form (before the printing press). It became illegal because of his stance against the Catholic Church’s teachings on several things in England in 1409. The manuscripts usually had a date before 1409 to circumvent the religious ban. Interestingly, because Wycliffe translated word for word from the Latin Vulgate, there wasn’t any way to distinguish it from other English translations so later Bible commentators from about 1600 through 1799 mistook the banned manuscripts as orthodox translations.

William Tyndale translated the New Testament in 1525 and later began a translation of the Old Testament but did not finish it before his death. Myles Coverdale took Tyndale’s translation and with only minor adaptations made it into the Great Bible version which was adopted as the Authorized Version by the Church of England during the reign of King Henry VIII. After his death, Edward I became king at age eight, and he named Lady Jane Grey as his successor in his will. She was queen for nine days. The movie about her depicts some of her arguments with the religious leaders of the day. She believed in individual salvation by grace, not works based salvation, and she believed the Eucharist did not turn into Christ’s body and blood. She was beheaded in the Tower of London in 1553 and was succeeded by her cousin, Mary I, Queen of Scots who reinstated the Roman Catholicism as the state religion resulting in many English Reformers fleeing the country.

John Calvin led these Reformed Protestants in Geneva where these scholars produced the Geneva Bible. This translation was actually a revision of the Great Bible and Tyndale’s Bible based on the original languages. Then came the Church of England’s Bishop’s Bible which failed to displace the Geneva Bible in the hearts and parlors of the common folk. The Roman Catholics subversively imported the Douay-Rheims translation in 1582.

King James VI of Scotland convened the Hampton Court Conference in 1604 with instructions that the Bishop’s Bible, then the Authorized Version of the Church of England, as the primary guide so as to keep the words recognizable to readers, and the translation to be true to the ecclesiology of the Church of England.

Forty-seven scholars divided into six groups and translated sections of the book, each completed by 1608. The King’s Printer, Robert Barker published the Authorized Version in 1611 which was sold loose leaf for ten shillings, and bound for twelve shillings.

This volume opened the eyes of many ordinary people like you and me. Suddenly, God’s word was there for all to read, albeit not all people could read. However, it has been one of the most published Bibles since the first day ink was set to paper. However, there have been many modernizations made to the original 1611 text. For example…

1611 version of 1 Corinthians 13:
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 version:
1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the 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 feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

Comparing the two, besides the punctuation and spelling changes, the word no is substituted erroneously for the word not. In the original Greek the word  μή mē (may) is a primary particle of qualified negation and is adverbially translated not. It is apparent that the 150 something years between the first publication of the King James Version and the 1769 published version the English language had undergone tremendous changes indicated by the nearly 24,000 changes between the first edition and the 1769 Oxford text edition. The substance is the same, no matter what language a person reads. While the words may be spelled differently, and some of the meanings of the words have shifted with modern usage, we can still be astounded that the Bible has remained steadfast since Moses wrote the Law and the Apostles wrote their epistles. 

(A lot of this history came from Wikipedia. While I generally take this source with a huge grain of salt, the sources for this piece on Wikipedia are quite authoritative. You might also want to check out The King James Bible Trust)

10 comments:

David said...

Thanks! A big surprise tied into the 400th anniversary of the 1611 King James Version Bible:

Two scholars have compiled the first worldwide census of extant copies of the original first printing of the 1611 King James Version (sometimes referred to as the "He" Bible). For decades, authorities from the British Museum, et al., have estimated that “around 50 copies” of that first printing still exist. The real number is quite different.

For more information, you're invited to contact Donald L. Brake, Sr., PhD, at dbrake1611@q.com or his associate David Sanford at drsanford@earthlink.net

Refreshment in Refuge said...

I've emailed you, Dr. Brake! I'm interested...

Unknown said...

In love, Mrs. Burgess, I would like to take you to task on claims made in your article: 1)Who did you quote, "...nearly 24,000 changes..." from?; and 2)Do you really believe any of the 54 original 1611 translators or the revisionists up to 1769 were not up to task as Greek scholars?

May I challenge you, please? Instead of believing and perpetuating erroneous information from unreliable sources, try this: listen to an audible version of the KJV, say, by Alexander Scourby, and then read along and compare that with a written copy of the A.V.1611. Mark down the changes and calculate the totals.

Dr. Waite, a Th.D., Ph.D, from N.J. has completed this test and found only 421 changes in the whole of the KJB out of 791,328 words. None of the changes affected doctrine in any way.

I would be interested in hearing your reply.

Refreshment in Refuge said...

I guess you are not counting spelling changes? Punctuation changes? The two side by side translations above have 9 changes in just the first two lines. You mistook my meaning, I'm sure. I never said the changes were to doctrine, just spelling, punctuation and minor translation changes. Please read my last paragraph again. Thank you very much for your comment and the opportunity to make myself clearer :)

Unknown said...

Thank you for your reply, Mrs. Burgess.

No, I believe I understood you perfectly.

You said: "Comparing the two, besides the punctuation and spelling changes, the word no is substituted erroneously for the word not."

That is more than just punctuation. You are challenging God's translators saying a word they chose was "erroneous". I just wonder, how did you decide that this is a correct statement? Are you a greater scholar than these God-moved translators to correct them?

I believe God preserved ALL His words in the English and that every word is truth; not one "jot or tittle" would be changed; and, clearly, plagues would be added to those that meddle with His words.

Therefore, what you read in the KJB is not erroneous if you believe what Psm.12:6-7 says about His words..."Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

Refreshment in Refuge said...

The KJB as well as countless others are translations of the Greek and Hebrew. If you look up in Vine's or Strong's, the word translated no you will see that the word is translated adverbially as not.

In the verse, the above, the word in the sentence is an adverb and used properly, translated properly in the 1769 KJB. It wasn't me that first recognized the translation error in the original 1611 version.

OR, it could have been a typographical error since the word not is used properly other places.

I hope this clears up our misunderstanding.

Unknown said...

Again, I was hoping to focus your attention to God and not on lexicons, Strong's, Vines, et al. (which, incidentally, have been proven to be incorrect in places), whereby, again, the translators that God chose to preserve His words have been demoted by the modernist critics.

Further, you said, "The KJB as well as countless others are translations of the Greek and Hebrew." But, are you aware of the two different streams of manuscripts? That is where the KJB and ALL the others diverge. The KJB is the only one that comes from correct manuscripts. ALL the others come from corrupt manuscripts. Have a look and study it out. May I suggest a great book to help explain? It's called "Did The Catholic Church Give Us The Bible?" by David Daniels - Chick Publications.

Thank you for your time. I trust you will prayerfully consider this.

Refreshment in Refuge said...

You know, I think you just want to debate.

First your problem is with the quote of 24,000 changes.
I answered your problem by pointing out the changes included spelling and punctuation.

Then your problem is with the translation of no/not.
I pointed out the 1769 translation had corrected the original 1611 translation. I'm talking apples and apples. I pointed out the translations come from the original Greek and Hebrew. I'm not muddying the waters by discussing other translations, I'm still discussing the KJV.

Since I'm still discussing the KJV (both 1611 and 1769), I do not see how you can have a problem with my conclusion that the 1611 version has a grammatical error by using the word "no" instead of the correct adverb "not". They are both KJV.

I realize you are a KJB only person. I do not have a problem with you or your view because you have every right to your opinion.

Regardless, the message is the same because God in His mighty power has preserved His Word and will continue to do so.

Unknown said...

You can think that if you want and I don't mind debating, but what I really want from you is, as mentioned above, to stop, "believing and perpetuating erroneous information from unreliable sources" about the KJB and stop casting doubt on God's words and the translators/revisionists God chose to preserve them.

This 24,000 number you so flagrantly throw out casts doubt on God's words, implying they are not inerrant. As well, you said, "countless other versions". Not, countless other translations. Perhaps, I misunderstood your intent, but there is a world of difference. You're "no/not" argument again casts doubt on God's words, because you are relying on the modern Greek (not even proper Greek; Koinonia), and not God's word written in your native tongue. The right word currently found is God's word.

Not to argue. I guess I'll leave it at that. The issue is not an opinion, but a matter of facts.

Refreshment in Refuge said...

You are the one that pointed out that Dr. Waite found 421 changes which did not alter doctrine.

The no/not change does not alter doctrine. It was KJV scholars, not me that caught the grammatical error which does not alter doctrine. It isn't my argument.

You should take up your argument with the KJV scholars of 1769.

My point is God's message is the same today as it was from the very beginning when Moses set pen to scroll.