TheRevisionofthe1602Bishop’sBible(AKA,theProductionoftheKJV)

ByTimothyBerg

TableofContentsTHEKJVNTASAREVISION....................................................................................................................................3TheSourcesUsed...................................................................................................................................................4ThePreparationfortheWork.........................................................................................................................6TheProcessFollowed..........................................................................................................................................9TheThree-FoldProcessoftheRevisionWork.......................................................................................18TheResultingRevision.....................................................................................................................................18TheSourcesoftheRevisionoftheBishop’sBible(TheKJV)...........................................................21

CATEGORYCONFUSIONS.......................................................................................................................................22CONCLUDINGAPPEAL............................................................................................................................................26

TheKJVNTasaRevisionThereisofcourseasenseinwhichtheKJVisanewtranslationintoEnglish

producedfrom1604-1611.ButthereisanevenstrongersenseinwhichtheKJVisn’treallyatranslationatall.HoweveraccurateitmightbetosaythattheKJVisanewtranslation,itisfarmoreaccuratetosaythattheKJVisactuallyarevisionofthe1602editionoftheBishop’sBible,andinsomeways,acompositerevisionofseveralpreviousEnglishtranslations.1Aswenotedpreviously,theytitledtheirwork,“newlytranslated”butalsonotedinthesametitlethattheirworkwastheproductof“theformertranslationsdiligentlycomparedandrevised.”Intheirpreface,theyoccasionallyrefer(eveninoneoftheheadings)toKingJames’determinationforthework,notoftranslation,butof,“theperusalof[previous]Englishtranslations.”Atonepointintheirpreface,theymentiontheirworkas“theTranslationsolonginhand,”butthenimmediatelyqualify,“orrather,perusalsofTranslationsmadebefore.”Theyfreelyadmitthattheirworkissimply,“buildingupontheirfoundationthatwentbeforeus.”TheyrefertotheKing’scommissionasbeing,“tohavethetranslationsoftheBiblematurelyconsideredofandexamined.”Theynotethatultimatelytheirtaskwastotakepreviousworkandmakeit,“rubbedandpolished.”IntheirreporttotheSynodofDortin1618,severalofthetranslators(primarilySamuelWard)explainedthatthefirstrulehadconstrainedthemtoproduceonlyarevisionoftheBishop’sBibleratherthananewtranslation.Theynotedthat,“inthefirstplace[thefirstrule]cautionwasgiventhatanentirelynewversionwasnottobefurnished,butanoldversion[theBishop’s],longreceivedbytheChurch,tobepurgedfromallblemishesandfaults;tothisendtherewastobenodeparturefromtheancienttranslation[theBishop’sBible],unlessthetruthoftheoriginaltextoremphasisdemanded.”2AsNortonnotes,“theywerenotpioneers,butrevisers.”3Astheynoteintheprefaceunderthesectionheadingon“Purpose,”

“Truly(goodChristianReader)weneverthoughtfromthebeginning,thatweshouldneedtomakeanewTranslation,noryettomakeofabadoneagoodone,(forthentheimputationofSixtushadbeentrueinsomesort,thatourpeoplehadbeenfedwithgallofDragonsinsteadofwine,withwheyinsteadofmilk:)buttomakeagoodonebetter,oroutofmanygoodones,oneprincipalgoodone,notjustlytobeexceptedagainst;thathathbeenourendeavor,thatourmark.

Inotherwords,theworkofthe“translators”was,farmoreaccurately,thatofrevisers.4AsScrivenernoted,ratherthananewtranslation,itis,“tospeakmorecorrectly,arevisionofformerversions.”Thequestionbeforeusatthispointis;howwasthisrevisionaccomplished?

1SeeDaniell,“TheBibleinEnglish”pg.440-442;andVance,“TheMakingoftheKingJamesBible”pg.ix,(whoisaKJVOadvocate)forexplanationthattheKJVismoreofarevisionthanatranslation.2Pollard,“Records”pg.339.3Norton,“HistoryoftheEnglishBibleasLiterature,”pg.60.4NotethetitleofDaniell’ssection,“revisersnottranslators,”orthestatementofScrivener,thatratherthananewtranslationitis,“tospeakmorecorrectly,arevisionofformerversions.”

TheSourcesUsedWehaveavailabletodayagoodnumberofprimarysourcesthatallowusto

createarepresentativepictureofthecreationoftheKJVmoreaccuratelythanmanypreviousgenerations.First,wehavethetitlepage,thethree-pagededicationtotheKing,andtheprefatory“TheTranslatorstotheReader,”5pennedbyMilesSmith,representingtheviewsofthetranslatorsasawhole.6Second,wehavethenotesthatweretakenbyJohnBois,oneoftheKJVtranslators,duringoneofthelateststagesoftherevision,publishedrecentlybyAllenWard,7inwhichBoisrecordssomeofthediscussionandargumentthatthetranslatorsengagedinastheyworkedatthatstage.HisgoodfriendAnthonyWalkerexplainedthattheseweretheonlynotestakenduringthefinal“review”stage.Third,wehavethecopyofthe1602Bishop’sBible8thatthetranslatorsdidtheiroriginalworkon,crossingthingsoutthattheywantedtochange,writingthingsintothemarginsthattheywantedtoadd,andleavingthingsastheywerethattheychosenottochangefromtheBishop’sBible.Thisworkisknownas“Bod.1602”forshort.9Fourth,wehaveManuscript98,whichisafurtherrevisedcopyoftheBishop’stextoftheEpistlesfromalaterstageoftherevision,whichhasbeenpublishedrecently,alsobyAllenWard,whichhastheBishop’sreadings,manyoftheKJVtranslatorsalterationstoit,andtheblankcolumnontheright,presumablyfortheadditionalcommentsoftheothercompany5SeeAppendixIforafullexpositionofthismostimportantprimarysource.6Availableinanyofthegoodfacsimileeditionsorreprintsofthefirstedition1611.Pollard’sistheacademicstandardreprint,withhisownintroduction,availableherehttps://archive.org/stream/holybiblefacsimi00polluoft#page/n21/mode/2upAreprintwithoriginalspellingbutmodernfontisavailableinDaniell,“TheBibleInEnglish”asanappendix(Daniell,pg.775-793).PerhapsthebestresourceisRhodesandLupas,“OriginalPrefacetotheKingJamesVersion”whichprovidesthe“TranslatorstotheReader”inoriginalformbutwithmodernizedspelling,thenalsooffersanewrenditionoftheworkintomodernEnglish,withannotationstohelpcontextualizesomeoftheobscurelanguageandreferences.7AllenWard,ed.“TranslatingforKingJames:BeingaTrueCopyoftheOnlyNotesMadebyaTranslatorofKingJamesBible”Vanderbiltpress,1969.Wardprovidesanexcellentintro,aphotographicpresentationofthenotes,andthenhisowntranslationofthenotes(includingthemostlyLatinnotes,andtheGreekandHebrewelements).8Moreaccurately,themanuscriptcombinespagesfromseveraldifferentcopiesoftheBishop’sBibleuponwhichtheworkwasdone.Aswewillsee,thesewereoriginallyunboundsheets,spreadamongthetranslators,andlatercompiledintoasingleBible.9Alargesectionoftheworkisreprintedwithanintroductionas,“TheComingoftheKingJamesGospels:ACollationoftheTranslator’sWork-in-Progress”editedbyWardAllenandEdwardJacobs.Fayettville,UniversityofArkansasPress,1995.Onedownsideisthatonlypartsofthereprintarephotographs,muchofitistheeditor’stranscriptionofthework.Afullphotographicfacsimilewouldbemuchmorevaluabletoscholarsandstudents.Nonetheless,theentiremanuscriptcanbeviewedintheCambridgelibrary.

whowouldmakeadditionalsuggestions.10WealsohavetheaccountoftheHamptonConferencebyWilliamBarlowe,adivinewhowaspresentattheconference,publishedin1613.11WehavethereportofthetranslationworktotheSynodofDortin1618,madebyseveralofthetranslators.12WehavethebiographyoftranslatorJohnBois,writtenbyAnthonyWalker,apersonalfriendofhis,whichspellsoutsomeofthedetailsofthetranslationworkthatBoishadsharedwithhim.13Wealsohaveavarietyofothersecondarysourcesthatcontributetothepicture.14

Anadditionalnoteshouldbemadeaboutasourcethathasonlyrecentlycometolight.15Justrecently,adocumentwritteninthehandofSamuelWard,KJVtranslatorintheApocryphacompanyhascometolight.ThedocumentisknownasMs.WardB,andisasectionoftheApocrypha,(IEsdrasandchapters3-4ofWisdom).Itwasmis-cataloguedforyearsasacommentarybySamuelWardonthetextoftheBishop’sBible.ItcontainsthetextoftheBishop’sBible,withnotesfollowingallthroughoutaboutthetranslation,suggestingalternatetranslationsandrevision.IthasjustrecentlybeenrecognizedtoactuallybefromWard’stranslationworkontheApocrypha,andconfirmsseveralthingswhichNortonhadsuggestedaboutthetranslationprocessseveralyearsago.However,theacademicworldhasnotyetseenapublicationofthedocumenttobeanalyzedliketheothersources,andmanyquestionsawaittobeansweredfromthisfascinatingdocument.

WhilenoneofthesesourcesgivesusindividuallyafullpictureofhowtheKJVwascreated,theydocombinetoallowustopiecetogetheramuchmorecompletepictureoftheprocessthanisoftenimagined.PopularlevelworksabouttheoriginsoftheKingJamesBiblearetobefoundinabundance,oftenwrittenbyauthorswhosescholarshipintheareaissomewhatdubiousatbest.16Thevastmajorityof

10Asthepublisherprintsthisworkonlyuponacademicrequest,Ihavenotbeenabletoobtainafullcopy,thoughsectionsarereprintedinNorton’s,“TextualHistory.”11Barlow,William,Clerkenwall,England,1613,“TheSumandSubstanceoftheConference…”availableherehttps://archive.org/details/summesubstanceof00barlThepublicationdateislistedas1603,whichIbelieveisanoriginaltypofor1604.12ReprintedinPollard’sexcellentresourcelinkedabove.13ReprintedinWards,“TranslatingforKingJames”above.14Theprimaryandothersecondarysourcesarediscussedatlengthin“TheTextualHistoryoftheKingJamesBible”byDavidNorton.NotableamongthesecondarysourcesistheletterfromBancroft,whochosethetranslatorsandheadedmuchofthework,andhis“exhortationtotheBishops.”15Miller,JefferyAlan,“FruitofGoodLabours”inTheTimesLiterarySupplement(TLS),14Oct.2015.http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1619318.ece16ThereareliterallyscoresofsuchworksthatdescribetheKJV,orattempttotellthestoryitsorigins,inavarietyoffancifulways,butlargelyignorealmostalloftheprimarysources.OnethinksforexampleofthemultipleworksbyTeems,thosebyNicolson,Brake,Davies,Ryken(whoisslightlybetter),tonameafew,(thoughnamingonlyafewisapartialitytomanyothers!),andnotethatIhavenotmentionedanyoftheKJVOorTROworks,whichalmostwithoutexception,andto

suchpopularlevelworkscompletelyignoretheprimarysources,andoftensharesomewhatfancifultaleswithlittleornogroundingintheactualliterature.EarlyscholarlyaccountswererenderedinworksbyPollard,17Westcott18andScrivener.19Buttheyeachlamentedalackofcertainsources.Forexample,theyeachknewthataprivatecollectorsomewherehadBois’notes,whichtheywouldlovetohaveconsulted,buttheydidn’tknowwhohadthemorwhere.Today,thesesourcesandmanyothershavebeencollectedandstudiedmorecarefullyandcomprehensivelythaneverbefore.20Wewillsimplyreviewheresomeofthehighpointsofthisalltooseldomtoldstory.

ThePreparationfortheWorkAshewasonhiswaysucceedElizabethonthethrone,KingJamestheVIof

Scotland(soontoBecomeJamestheIofEngland)wasmetbyadelegationofPuritanswhowerehopefulthathisnewregimewouldbemoreamenabletotheirpleasforreformthathadbeenignoredrepeatedlyinpreviousreigns.Theypresentedhimwithadocumentsignedbysome1000ministersoftheChurchofEngland(thusknownas,“TheMillinaryPetition”)askingforsuchreforms.TheKingdidnotimmediatelyagreetoanything,butonOctober24,1603,heissuedaproclamationthathewouldconveneaconferencetohearthecomplaints.InJanuaryof1604,21theHamptonConferencewascalledbyKingJames.Threebasicissueshad

evengreaterdegrees,fallintothiscategoryofignorance.Suchscholarshipshouldbegivenonlythemerititearns.17https://archive.org/details/holybiblefacsimi00polluoft18“AGeneralViewoftheHistoryoftheEnglishBible”availableherehttps://archive.org/details/generalviewofhis00westrich19Hisearlier,“ASupplement”gaveabriefaccount;hislater,“TheAuthorizedEdition”availableherehttps://archive.org/details/cu31924029268708isevenmorefull.20Thus,abriefscholarlyaccountisnowavailableintheintroductiontoAllen’s,“TranslatingforKingJames”(pg.3-34).Abrief(andperhapsslightlylessacademic)accountisgiveninLaurenceM.Vance’s,“TheMakingoftheKingJamesBible”(pg.1-55),whoisaKingJamesOnlyadvocate,thoughhefocusesmostlyonthehistoryoftheBishop’sBible.AlongeraccountisavailableinDaniell,“TheBibleinEnglish”(pg.427-461).AsimilarlengthyaccountisavailableinNorton’s,“HistoryoftheEnglishBibleasLiterature”(pg.56-107).Thebestsummaryaccountwasprintedas“TheKingJamesBible:AShortHistory”byNorton.AlsonotableisMcGrath’s,“IntheBeginning,”abooklengthtreatmentoftheoriginsandeffectsoftheAV.Thefullest,mostacademic,andindisputablymostaccurateaccountisnowtheoneinNorton’srecent,“TheTextualHistoryoftheKingJamesBible”(pg.3-127).Hecorrectsafewminorstatementshehadmadeinpreviousworks,andprovidesalevelofpainstakingdetailandawarenessofthesourcesthatissimplyunmatchedinanypreviouswork,andisapproachedonlybyWestcottandScrivenerforscope.21Barlowmentionsmorespecificallythatitwas9:00AMonThursday,Jan.12th(Barlow,“Summe”pg.1).

beenraised,22whichthenewlyappointedKingsoughttoaddress.Thefirstwasproblemswiththeprayerbook,“theBookofCommonPrayer.”JohnReynolds,(orRainolds),speakingforthepetitioners,claimedthatitcontainedseveralstatementsthatneededclarifyinginrelationtoBaptism,othersinrelationtoConfirmation,andstillothersinrelationtoabsolutionbyapriest,andthegarmentswornbythepriest.Healsofeltthecatechismintheprayerbookwastooshortandshouldbeextended.ThesecondissuewasexcommunicationintheEcclesiasticalcourts,andthethird,appointingministersforIreland.Thesewerecomplaintslongvoicedandneverheard.OneoftheultimategoalswasarevisionoftheBookofCommonprayerthatwouldbemoreProtestant(andultimately,theyhoped,morePuritan)thatitwasatthetime.ButtheywereaskingformorethantheKingcouldgrant,sincehisownAnglicantheologyhadproblemsonlywiththePapalauthorityofCatholicism,butmostlyacceptedtheotherelementsofitstheologywhichtheydisputed.Towardstheendoftheconference,onthesecondday,Reynolds,ratherwithoutwarning,madetherequestthattherebeanewtranslationoftheBible.Thecomplaintoftheconferenceinitscontextwouldhavehadlesstodowiththetranslationingeneraluse,andmorespecificallywiththetranslationemployedintheliturgicalBookofCommonPrayer.ThePuritanswantedthePrayerbookrevisedinavarietyofways,buttheKingwashavingnoneofit.Suggestingthatitneededrevisionatleastinitstranslationwasahail-Marytacticofsorts.TheKJVtranslatorsrecountedtheburdenoftherequestintheirpreface,noting,“theyhadrecourseatthelast,tothisshift[strategy],thattheycouldnotwithgoodconsciencesubscribetotheCommunionbook,sinceitmaintainedtheBibleasitwastheretranslated,whichwasastheysaid,amostcorruptedtranslation.”

TheBishop’sBiblewasatthetimetheofficialchurchBible,buttheGenevatranslationwasvastlymorepopularamongthepopulace.BothwererevisionsofTyndale’swork,thoughrevisionintwodifferentdirections.However,theCommunionBookstillemployedtheuniversallydislikedGreatBibleforitsquotations.Reynoldssuggestedthreeexamplesofplaceswherethecurrenttranslationintheprayerbookwasdefective,23andthustheneedforanewtranslation.ButthereadingshepresentedwerereadingsfromtheGreatBible,twoofwhichhadalreadybeencorrectedintheBishop’sBible,whichheseemstoignoreinhisrequest.Moreimportantly,therevisionsthathesuggestedareessentiallythereadingsalreadycontainedintheGenevaBible,whichcontainsnoneoftheproblemsheraisedinhisexamples.Thus,scholarstodayoftendeducethatheactuallyintendedtosubtlypressthekingtoaccepttheGenevaBibleasanofficialBibleoftheChurch,orattheleasttoreprinttheBookofCommonPrayerinan

22McGrath,“IntheBeginning,”pg.158.SeealsoBarlow’ssummaryoftheissues.23Gal.4:25wherehethoughttheword“Boardereth”amistranslation;Psalm105:28wherehenotedthatamisprintcausedthetexttosay,“Theywerenotobedient,theoriginalbeing,theywerenotdisobedient”(Barlow,“Summe”pg.34);andPs.106:30,thecommonbooksaidPhineas“prayed”whiletheHebrewwasmoreaccurately,“ExecutedJudgement.”

editionthatusedtheGenevaBibleinitsquotations.24Atpresent,minstersusingthebelovedGenevaweretechnicallybreakingtheroyallaw.Thisrequestshouldhavebeenaneasilyagreeablestep,andthus,revisionofthePrayerbookwouldalreadybeagiven,whichwouldgivethePuritansafootholdintheirotherrequestsforrevision.Nortonnotes,“Lookedatmoreclosely,theargumentissubtle:hehasnotattackedtheBishop’sBible,northereforetheChurchestablishment,butthesethreereadingsremainintheBishop’sBibleandarecorrectedintheGenevaBible.Anyinvestigationwouldshowtheinadequacyoftheformerandthecorrectnessofthelatter.Reynoldsprobablyhopedthathissuggestionforanewtranslationwouldbedismissedandthemuchsimplersolutionfollowed,adoptionofGenevaastheofficialBibleoftheChurch.”25

Thiswouldhaveresultednotonlyinthefavorablereplacementofthe“bad”translationsintheprayerbook,butalsowouldhaveasideeffectoffinallyauthorizingthebelovedtranslationofthepeople,theGeneva,whichissomethingtheyhadwantedforsometime.Ifthatwashisplan,itbackfired.Infact,eventheprefacetotheKJVnotesthathisrequestwas,“judgedtobebutaverypooreandemptieshift.”KingJamesinsteadexpressedgreatdisapprovaloftheGenevaBible,notduetoitstranslationcharacter,butduetosomeofitscontroversialnotes,specificallytheoneswhichhefeltmightinspiredisloyaltytothemonarchy.Thus,thefirstthingtheKingdecreedafteragreeingthatanewtranslationwasagoodideawasthatthenewBibleshouldnothavemarginalnotes,“havingfoundinthemthatwereaffixedtotheGeneva,(whichhesawinaBiblegiventohimbyanEnglishlady),somenotesverypartial,untrue,seditious,andfavoringtoomuchofdangerous,andtraitorousconceits.”26TheKinggavetwoexamples,thenotesonEx.1:19,27andonIIChron.15:16.28

Thus,theKingassentedtowhatwasprobablyanimpromptuandratherinsincererequestforanewtranslation.Thiswouldaccomplishseveralthingsatonce.First,itwouldthrowthePuritansabone,sincehewouldthenbegrantingsomethingtheyhadtechnicallyaskedfor,eventhoughitwasnotsomethingtheyreallywanted.Hefoundhimselfinaprecariousposition,aspracticallyeveryrequestmadebythePuritanswasbeingstaunchlyopposedbytheBishops,andthekinghadyettotakethePuritansideagainsttheBishops,andtheconferencewouldsoonappearentirelyonesided.29Second,removingthenotesoftheGenevawould(he24Norton,TextualHistory,pg.6;TheKingJamesBible,pg.84;Weigle,TheEnglishBible1525-1611inCHB3,pg.164;Mcgrath,“IntheBeginning,”pg.158-160;et.al.Thisisnowthecommonlyacceptedview.25Norton,“TheKingJamesBible”pg.84.26Barlow,“Summe”pg.35,whowaspresentattheconference.27ThenotehadsuggestedthatwhenthemidwivesliedtoPharaoh,thiswasjudgedokinGod’ssight,andthusthekingthoughtitmightencouragedisobediencetotheMonarchy.28ThenoteofferedacommendationofAsafordeposinghisMother,buttheKingfeltthatthisagainistoendorsetheideathatamonarchcanbedeposed,whichnotionshouldberejected.29SeeMcGrath,“IntheBeginning”pg.155-165.

hoped)coolsomeoftheheatedcontroversyfromthePuritannon-conformists.Ultimatelythen,itwasapoliticalmovetoachieveunity,becauseitwouldcreateatranslation(asnotedinthepreface),“notjustlytobeexceptedagainst.”Butfinally,theKinghadonlyrecentlyacquiredthisthrone,andlikelyfeltthatanewtranslationwastheperfectwaytosealhisstatureasayoungscholar-kingandtoestablishhisfame,especiallyinoppositiontotheCatholics.TheRheimstranslationoftheOThadjustbeencompleted,andtheNTwouldsoonfollow.AsCatholicismenteredtheEnglishtranslationmarket,theKingcouldmakeanevengreatersplashwithhisowncontribution.AsthetranslatorsnoteintheirdedicationtotheKing,renderinghimpreciselythefamehehopedtheworkwouldbring,

“There are infinite arguments of this right Christian andreligiousaffectioninYourMajesty;butnoneismoreforcibletodeclareittoothersthanthevehementandperpetuateddesireofaccomplishingand publishing of thiswork,which now,with all humility,we presentunto Your Majesty. For when Your Highness had once, out of deepjudgement,apprehendedhowconvenientitwas,that,outoftheOriginalsacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in ourownandotherforeignlanguages,ofmanyworthymenwhowentbeforeus, there should be onemore exact translation of the Holy Scripturesinto the English tongue; YourMajesty did never desist to urge and toexcite those to whom it was commended, that the Work might behastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent amanner,asamatterofsuchimportancemightjustlyrequire.”Andastheyalsonotedfinallyintheirpreface,“AndwhatcantheKing

commandtobedone,thatwillbringhimmoretruehonorthenthis?”TheKingwantedtoincreasehisfamebyleavinghismarkontheworld.AndwhatbetterwaytodothisthanwithanewtranslationfortheChurchofEngland,whichbothBishop’sandPuritanscouldagreeto?Inonefellswoop,hecouldsupporttheChurchofEnglishinoppositiontoCatholicismandPuritanism,butPuritanscouldnotcomplain,becausetheyhad,technically,askedforit.30Itwasamasterfulpoliticalmove,suretoincreasehisfame.Hecouldhavenoideaofthelastinglegacyhewouldendupleaving.

TheProcessFollowedThus,theKingcommissionedarevisionoftheofficialBishop’sBibletobe

made.Therewasbasicallyathree-stageprocessthatwastobefollowed;sixcompanieswoulddothework,one“generalmeeting”ofadozenscholarswouldpolishit,andafinalrevisionbytwoindividualswouldprovidefinishingtouches.He

30SeetheexpositionofthePrefaceintheappendixforthetranslatorsmakingpreciselythispoint.ThePuritanshadcalledfortheworktowhichtheKinghadagreed,sotheycouldnotlegitimatelycomplainaboutit(eventhoughtheydidn’treallywantit,dislikedtheresults,andstillpreferredtheGenevaBible).

dividedtheworkintosixcompanies31oftranslators,twoatWestminster,twoatCambridge,andtwoatOxford.ThefirstWestminsterCompanytackledGenesis-IIKings.ThefirstCambridgeCompanytookIChronicles-SongofSolomon.ThefirstOxfordCompanyhandledtheprophets,whilethesecondhandledtheGospels,Acts,andRevelation.ThesecondWestminsterCompanytooktheEpistles.ThesecondCambridgeCompanytooktheApocrypha.Ithaslongbeensuspectedthatintheactualcompletingofthework,thecompanieshadsubdividedtheirworkevenfurther.Thatis,eachcompanyof8-10mendidn’tworkovertheentireportionallottedtothem,butratherthecompanydividedtheirportionintosmallerunitsamongthemselves.AnthonyWalker’sBiographyofJohnBoishadmentionedthissubdivision,andNortonhadsuggestedthatWalker’saccountwasaccurate.TheMSWardB(mentionedabove)nowconfirmsthisfact.ThemanuscriptoccursonlyinWard’shand,butcontainsonlyasmallsubsectionoftheApocrypha.Infact,onlytwochaptersofoneofthetwobooks.Further,thereareplentyofblankpagesaftertheworkinthesamedocument,showingthatWardhadnointentionsofworkingonafurtherportionofthetext.Thus,itisevidentthatatleastsomeofthecompaniessubdividedtheirworkfurtheramongthemselves.32

ArchbishopBancroft,withapprovaloftheKing,appointedalistofrulestobefollowedinthetranslationwork.Heinitiallygavethem14rules,andshortlybeforetheworkbeganincludedafifteenth.Therulestobefollowedwerelaidoutasfollows;33

1. TheordinaryBiblereadintheChurch,commonlycalledtheBishop’sBible,tobefollowed,andaslittlealteredasthetruthoftheoriginalwillpermit.

2. Thenamesoftheprophets,andtheholywriters,withtheothernamesinthetext,toberetained,asnearasmaybe,accordinglyastheyarevulgarlyused.

3. Theoldecclesiasticwordstobekept,viz,:astheword‘Church’nottobetranslatedcongregationetc.

4. Whenawordhathdiversesignifications,thattobekeptwhichhathbeenmostcommonlyusedbythemostancientFathers,beingagreeabletotheproprietyoftheplace,andtheAnalogyoftheFaith.

5. Thedivisionofchapterstobealterednotatall,oraslittleasmaybe,ifnecessitysorequire.

31Someolderscholarssawthedivisionasthreecompanies,eachwithtwoparts.Accordingtothisdivision,therewouldbesixscholarsinthesecondstage,ratherthantwelve.Abeautifulcollectionofphotographsofthegenerallocationsandeventheexactroomsinwhicheachcompanydidtheirworkisavailableathttp://kingjamesbibletranslators.org,withadecentdescriptionofthetranslator’slivesandhistoryaswell.32SeeNorton’s,“TheKingJamesBible”pg.54-62.33SeeNorton,“TextualHistory”pg.8-11.Wehavethreecopiesoftherulesthatweregiventothetranslatorsextanttoday(MSAdd.28721,MSHarley750,andMSEgerton2884),aswellasarecountingoftheminWalker’sbiographyofBois(inAllen’sreprint,pg.140),andasummaryoftheminthereporttotheSynodofDort(printedinPollard,pg141-143).Someofthemwereclearlynotfollowedveryclosely,andothersmaynothavebeenfollowedatall.

6. Nomarginalnotesatalltobeaffixed,butonlyfortheexplanationoftheHebreworGreekwords,whichcannotwithoutsomecircumlocutionsobrieflyandfitlybeexpressedinthetext.

7. SuchquotationsofplacestobemarginallysetdownasshallserveforfitreferenceofoneScripturetoanother.

8. Everyparticularmanofeachcompanytotakethesamechapterorchapters,andhavingtranslatedoramendedthemseverallybyhimselfwherehethinkgood,alltomeettogether,conferwhattheyhavedone,andagreefortheirpartwhatshallstand.

9. Asonecompanyhathdispatchedanyonebookinthismanner,theyshallsendittotheresttobeconsideredofseriouslyandjudiciously,forHisMajestyisverycarefulforthispoint.

10. Ifanycompany,uponreviewofthebooksosent,shalldoubtordifferuponanyplace,tosendthemwordthereof,notetheplaceandwithalsendtheirreasons,towhichiftheyconsentnot,thedifferencetobecompoundedatthegeneralmeeting,whichistobeofthechiefpersonsofeachcompany,attheendofthework.

11. Whenanyplaceofespecialobscurityisdoubtedof,letterstobedirectedbyauthoritytosendtoanylearnedmaninthelandforhisjudgmentofsuchaplace.

12. LetterstobesentfromeveryBishoptotherestofhisclergy,admonishingthemofthistranslationinhand,andtomoveandchargeasmanyasbeingskillfulinthetongueshavetakenpainsinthatkind,tosendhisparticularobservationstothecompany,eitheratWestminster,Cambridge,orOxford.

13. ThedirectorsineachcompanytobetheDeansofWestminsterandChesterforthatplace,andtheKing’sProfessorsintheHebrewandGreekineachuniversity.

14. ThesetranslationstobeusedwheretheyagreebetterwiththetextthantheBishop’sBible,viz.:Tyndale’s,Matthew’s,Coverdale’s,Withchurch’s[theGreatBible],Geneva.

15. Besidesthesaiddirectorsbeforementioned,threeorfourofthemostancientandgravedivines,ineitheroftheuniversitiesnotemployedinthetranslating,tobeassignedbytheVice-Chancellors,uponconferencewiththerestoftheheads,tobeoverseersofthetranslationsaswellHebrewasGreek,forthebetterobservationofthefourthruleabovespecified.

ThereisabrilliancetothissuggestedprocedurewhichNortonsummarizes

well,“Thisisgrandiose.Asmanyastentranslatorsareindividuallytotranslateasinglepart,thentoagreetogetheronthetranslation.Thisworkisthentobecirculatedamongtheothergroupsoftranslators,commentedonandfurtherconsideredbytheoriginalcompany.Thenageneralmeetingistodealwithallremainingpointsofdifference.”34

34Norton,“TextualHistory”pg11.Thoughhenotesthatthisgrandiosevisionwasnotactuallyfollowedinanygrandioseway.

Forty-sevenmenwerechosentobetranslators,35probablybyBancroft,anddividedintothesixchosencompanies.WithinsixmonthsoftheHamptonConference,theywerehardatwork.Contrarytopopularnotions,theydidnotdotheirworkwithaGreektestamentinonehandandblankpaperandpenintheother.(Theycertainlydidn’tworkwithanyGreekmanuscriptsdirectly).AsMcGrathnotes,“ItisimpossibletooverlookthefactthattheKingJamestranslatorsdidnotbegintotranslatewithblanksheetsofpaperinfrontofthem.”36Theirworksimplywasnottheworkofnewtranslationthatsuchanimagewouldsuggest.Rather,theirworkwasexpresslytobearevisionoftheBishop’sBible,andsotheydidtheirworkdirectlyuponcopiesoftheBishop’sBiblemadeespeciallyfortheoccasion.ThekingcommissionedRobertBarker(whoheldtheofficeof“theKing’sprinter”)toprintfortycopiesoftheBishop’sBible,tobegiveninunboundsheetstothetranslators.37Fortymightseemtoosmallanumberforforty-seventranslators,butitactuallyissomewhatexcessive.RememberthateachcompanyisrevisingonlyaselectportionoftheBible.SincetheBibleswereunboundsheets,theappropriatesectionscouldeasilybedividedamongthecompanies.Thetranslatorsthendidtheirrevisingworkdirectlyontheseunboundsheets.38Acollectionoftheseunboundsheets(probablyfromthreedifferentcompanies,andcertainlyfromatleasttwodifferentstagesoftherevision)wereboundtogetherasawholeBibleandnowmakeupthemanuscriptknownas“BodleianLibraryBibl.Eng.1602b”orsimply,“Bod.1602.”39

35Thenumber54isfirstmentionedintheletterfromBancroft(Pollard,“Records”pg.331).Therearefourdifferentrecordedlistsofthetranslatorsandthedivisionofthework,(aswellasnotesinWalker,etal.)andtheyhavethelistintwoslightlydifferentforms,sothereareoccasionallyminorquestionsatthispoint.Atotaloffifty-fourmencouldbementionedasappointed,withforty-sevenofthemultimatelyengaginginthework.SeeNorton,“TextualHistory”pg.6-7,his“TheKingJamesBible”pg.54-88.AlsoseeVance,“KingJamesHisBibleanditsTranslators”(pg.23-35),andCHB3pg.164.36McGrath,“IntheBeginning”pg.176.37WehavehiscommandtoBarker,andevenstillhaveacopyofthebillBarkerwrote,whichreads,“40.Largechurchbiblesforthetranslators”dated10May1604.(Norton,“TextualHistory”pg.12.)38AnexceptionseemstobeSamuelWard.MSWardBcontainsthetextoftheBishop’sBible,butwrittenoutinhand,withalterationssuggestedtotheside,whichiswhyitwasmistakenlyclassifiedasacommentarybyhimupontheBishop’sBible.Thisisodd,andthisauthorcannotunderstanditspurpose.Didhiscompanyrunoutofsheets?Didhispersonalproclivitiespreferworkingfromahandwrittentext?Theseandotherquestionsaboutthedocumentremaintobeansweredbyscholars.39SeeNorton,“TextualHistory”pg.20-24fordiscussion.Thegospelsportionofthemanuscriptisavailablein,“TheComingoftheKingJamesGospels”byAllenandJacobs,andtheirintro(pg.3-57)hasfurtherdetails.

Belowareafewphotographs40ofthework-in-progress,asexamples.Theseareimagesofsomeoftheactualpagesuponwhichthetranslatorsdidtheirwork.

40ImagestakenfromAllenandJacobs,“TheComingoftheKingJamesGospels”pg.8,16.Notethatthequalityisnotgreat,asthisisapictureofareprintedimageofthework.

Asonecaneasilysee,thetranslatorsunderlinedwordingthatwouldwarrantfurtherreview,addedwordsintothemarginsthattheywantedtoincorporate,anddirectlycrossedwordsoutintheBishop’stextthattheywantedtoremoveorsubstantiallyrevise(withtherevisedwordingthenaddedinthemargins).Onecanimagineaparticularcompanyatwork.Tenmengatheredaroundatable,eachholdingacopyoftheBishop’sBible,andacopyofeitheranancientversion,aGreek

text,orapreviousEnglishversion,andonemanreadingtheBishop’stextaloud.Ifsomeonesawsomethingtheythoughtneededamended,theyspokeup,ofnot,hecontinuedtoread.41Thisstageoftherevisionhadbasicallythreesteps.First,therevisionworkdonebyeachcompany.Second,oncetheirpartoftherevisionwascomplete,theworkwas(presumably)lookedoverbytheothercompanies(thoughwehavenoideahowfullythiswascarriedout),whomadeadditionalsuggestions,andsenttheirsuggestionsbacktotheoriginalcompany.Third,theoriginalcompanythenlookedagainovertheworkandhadamorefinalsayaboutthereadings.Thisstageoftheworkwaslikelycompletedbytheendof1608.Atthisstage,thetranslatorsarerepeatedlychoosingamongthereadingsofprevioustranslations,essentiallytodecidewhosewordingtoborrow.TheyagainandagainincorporatereadingsfromTyndale,Matthew,Coverdale,Geneva,andtheRhiems-Douai.

In1609-1610,thesecondstage,the“generalmeeting”whichKingJames(viaBancroft)haddemandedwasheldatStationer’sHallinLondon.Tworepresentativesfromeachofthesixcompaniesweresent,withtheannotatedcopyoftheirpartoftherevisedBishop’sBiblewiththem.42Atthisgeneralmeeting,thesetwelvemen43tookthedetailsandhammeredthemout.DuringthecourseofthisGeneralmeeting,JohnBoistookoccasionalnotesofthedebatesandquestionsthattookplace,whilealsonotinginmanyoccasionsthereadingthatwasadopted.Ifhehadtakenmoresubstantialnotes,wemightfindeveryquestionansweredabouttheKJVtext.Asitstands,wehaveagoodrepresentativesampling.Weknowforsureafewofthemenwhocomprisedthissecondstage.JohnBoisobviously,andheseemstorecordcommentsfromAndrewDownes,Dr.Harmer.Helistscommentsfromseveralothers(C.,H.,D.H.,D:Hutch.,Hutch.,B.andD.)butidentifyingthesefromthelargerbodyoftranslatorsisonlyamatterofconjecture.Bios’notesrevealmanyinterestingelementsofthisstageofthework.

Forexample,Boisnotesthatthetranslatorssettledonthetranslation,“answer”inthecontroversialpassageinIPet.3:21becausetheyacceptedtheinterpretationofTertullianinhistreatiseonBaptism,echoedbyErasmus,thatwhilethereisnothingmagicalinthewaterofthelaverthatsaves,thevowofbaptismiswhatbringsregeneration.Turtullianhadwritten,44“Happyisoursacramentofwater,inthat,bywashingawaythesinsofourearlyblindness,wearesetfreeandadmittedintoeternallife!”and“Thereisabsolutelynothingwhichmakesmen’smindsmoreobduratethanthesimplicityofthedivineworkswhicharevisibleintheact,whencomparedwiththegrandeurwhichispromisedtheretointheeffect;sothatfromtheveryfact,thatwithsogreatsimplicity,withoutpomp,withoutanyconsiderablenoveltyofpreparation,finally,withoutexpense,amanis41SeeNorton“TextualHistory”pg.12forSeldon’ssuggestivepictureinasimilarvein.42Bod1602containsportionsbothfromthisstageofthework,andportionsfromthelaterfinalstageofthework.43Orsix,iftheolderdivisionofthreecompaniesisaccepted.44SeeANFvolumeIIIhttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.vi.iii.i.html(especiallychaptersV-VII,andXII“OntheNecessityofBaptismtoSalvation”).

dippedinwater,andamidtheutteranceofsomefewwords,issprinkled,andthenrisesagain,notmuch(ornotatall)thecleaner,theconsequentattainmentofeternityisesteemedthemoreincredible.”Andfinally,“Thus,too,inourcase,theunctionrunscarnally,(i.e.onthebody,)butprofitsspiritually;inthesamewayastheactofbaptismitselftooiscarnal,inthatweareplungedinwater,buttheeffectspiritual,inthatwearefreedfromsins.”Boisexplainedthatratherthanthepreviousrenderings,like“request,”“promise,”“agreement,”orTyndale’s,“consenteth,”thetranslatorschoosetorendertheword,“answer”inordertopropagatetheinterpretationwhichsaysthatitisthebaptismalvowthatsaves,and“answer”wouldnaturallycallthistomind.45

Orasanotherexample,considerBois’noteatICor.7:29.HeexplainsthattherehadbeendiscussionofwhatwaytorendertheGreek.HehadpointedtheotherstothemarginalnotesoftheGreektexts(scholiaprobablyareferencetothenotesofBeza).Buttheothershadchosennottoheedhisadvice,andsohenotes,“cuinonassentior,LegeGr.Scholia”(or“towhichIdonotassent.ReadtheGreekScholia”).46Clearlytherewasdiscussion,debate,andoccasionaldisagreementamongthetranslators.Atthisstage,afinalannotatedcopyoftheBishop’sBiblewasprepared.

Inthethird47andfinalstageoftherevision,48MilesSmithandThomasBilsonplacedthefinishingtouchesonanannotatedcopyoftheBishop’sBible.Itisgenerallyagreedthattherewerefewchangestotheactualtextmadeatthispoint.Rather,theymostlyaddedtheheadings,andcompiledtheTranslatorstotheReaderthatwouldaccompanythework.49Allensummarizesthethree-stageworkwhenhewrites,“Workonthetranslationprogressedinthreestages.Eachcompanyprepareditspreliminarytranslation.Fromthesepreliminarytranslations,thecommitteeofreviewpreparedafinalversionatStationer’sHallinLondon.ThomasBilson,BishopofWinchester,andDr.MilesSmith,alearnedOrientalist,prebendaryofHerefordandExeterCathedralsandlaterBishopofGloucester,suppliedthefinishing

45SeediscussionofBois’noteinAllen,pg.27-28,thenoteisonpage93.46SeehisnoteinAllenpg.47,andbriefdiscussionofitinNorton,“TheKingJamesBible”pg.103.47Itshouldbenotedthata“fourthstage”couldbesuggested,becauseitisclearthatArchbishopBancroftlookedovertheentireworkduringthethirdstage,andSmithcomplained(repeatedly)thatBancroftmadefourteenchangestothetextwhichthetranslatorshadnotactuallyagreedto.However,wehavetodaynowayofknowingpreciselywhatthosechangeswere,oriftheywereultimatelyprintedinthetext.SeeMcGrath,“InTheBeginning”pg.188.48Nortonnotesthatthereisinasenseafurtherstageofrevision,thatoftheprinter.Heandhis(probably2)helpersmadeseveralhundredminorchangestothetextintendedbytheKJVtranslator’sfinalcopy.Mostofthesewerelikelyaccidental,butitispossiblethatsomewereintentionalaswell.Nortonhassoughttoremovetheseerrorsinhis“CambridgeParagraphBible”sothatthereaderhasthetextastheyintended,ratherthanascorruptedbyBarkerandsuccessiveprintersandeditors.49Norton,“TextualHistory”pg.25.

touches.”50Nortoncompilestheevidencewithhisdeductionsandsummarizestheworkasawholenoting,“Sixcompaniesproduceddrafttranslationsbetween1604and1608.Theysometimessubdividedtheirworkandtheywentoverittwice.MS98representsfirstdraftwork;atthisstageabouthalfoftheeventualreadingshadbeensettled.Bod1602’sNTannotationsrepresentworkasitleftthehandsofthecompanies,withinplacefive-sixthsofthereadingssettled.Theworkwascalledin1608,andthecompaniesforwardedittothegeneralmeetingintheformofannotationstotheBishop’sBibletext.Thegeneralmeetinghadworkingcopiesmadeofsomeofthesubmittedwork(Bod1602’sOTworkisoneofthese).Itworkedovertheseinsmallgroupsin1609and1610,producingasafinalcopyaheavilyannotatedandinterleavedcopyoftheBishop’sBible.JohnBois’notesgiveaglimpseoftheworkdonein1610.In1610and1611,twomenworkedoverthewholetextinco-operationwiththeprinter,establishingtheKJBasfirstprintedin1611.Whatevermanuscripttheremighthavebeen,this,withthesecondprinting,effectivelybecamethemastercopyoftheKJB.”51NortongoesontodetailatgreatlengththeprintingofthedifferenteditionsandrevisionsoftheKJV,notingthehundredsoftextualdifferencesbetweeneachsuccessiveeditionoftheKJV,52andthehundredsofverbaldifferencesbetweenanymodernKJVboughtofftheshelf,andeachoftheseeditions,especiallynotinghowthetexthassuccessivelygottenfartherandfartherawayfromthetextualformoriginallyintendedbythetranslators.

50Allen,Ward,“JohnBois,hisnotes”in“TranslatingforKingJames”pg.7.51Norton,“TextualHistory”pg.27-28.52Norton,“TextualHistory”pg.46-114.

TheThree-FoldProcessoftheRevisionWork

TheResultingRevisionForourpurposes,thepointtonoteisthattheKJVwasbornasarevisionthat

wasessentiallyaneclecticcompilationofdisparateelementsofahostofpreviousEnglishtranslations.Aswehavenotedbefore,thereisasenseinwhichitisanewtranslation,sincethetranslatorsrepeatedlywentbacktotheirGreek(primarilyBeza’seditions,butalsothoseofStephanus,andErasmus),Hebrew(Bomberg),andVersionaltexts(primarilytheLatinVulgateandLXX)towrestlewithtextualvariantsandaccuracyoftranslation.ButitmustbekeptinmindthatitsNTisinthissenseatranslationofaneclecticcompilationoforiginallanguagetexts(Stephanus,Beza,etc.),thosetextsthemselvesvariousrevisionsofErasmus’text,itselfaneclectictextbasedonacombinationofreadingsfromahandfulofmanuscripts(primarilyminiscules1and2)andtheoccasionalintrusionfromtheLatinVulgate,mixedwithhisownconjecturalemendationsor“guesses”aboutwhatthetextshouldread.Inthatsenseitisanewtranslation.Butinitstruestsense,itisjustonemoreinalongsuccessionofrevisionsofTyndale’sEnglishwork.Theworkofthetranslatorswasnotprimarilytranslation,butcompilation.Itistheresultofthemessy(andirreverent?)workofcrossingthingsoutintheirBishop’sBibles,debatingaboutwhohadpreviouslysaiditbest,occasionallyarguingaboutinterpretation,andsometimesneverfindingtotalagreement.Attheendoftheday,itisessentiallyaworkofgreatcompositeplagiarism.

Infact,verylittleoftheKJVisworkoriginaltothetranslators.InoneofthemostcarefulstudiesdonetodatetodeterminehowmuchoftheKJVissimplythe

StageOne(1604-1608)SixCompaniesof47MenTranslateTheirAllotedPortions,Compare,and

RevisetheirWork

StageTwo(1609-1610)Two"ChiefMen"fromeachcomanyReviewandRevisetheEntireWorkat

the"GeneralMeeting"

StageThree(1610-1611)Twoqinalrevisers(BilsonandSmith)completeqinishingtouches,andpentheheadingsandPreferatorymaterial

resultofborrowingfromothers,53theauthorstakeawideswathof“samplepassages”anddoadetailedcomputer-drivenverbalcomparisonofthepre-KJVBibleswiththeKJVtodeterminehowoftentheKJVgoesbacktothelanguageofTyndale,followseachofhissuccessors,orinnovateswithnewreadingsoriginaltothem.Thestudydeterminesthatwhilecomparisontoanindependenttranslationthatwasconsistentlyliteralwouldfindmuchsimilarity(sincetheyareafteralltranslationsofthesamebook)thatnumberwouldhoveronlyaround50%.TheexactcorrespondencebetweentheKJVandtheworkstheycomparedshowswhatthetranslatorsintentionallyretained,innumericalandstatisticalformat.IntheNT,itwasfoundthat83.7%oftheKJVisactuallyTyndale’swork.Inlargemeasure,thisissimplybecausetheKJVtranslatorsretainedsomuchoftheBishop’sBible,whichofcourseisessentiallyalaterrevisionofhiswork,ratherthanbeingduetoadirectintentiontoreplicateTyndale.Infact,asVancenotes,“Ofthe7,957oftheversesintheNewTestamenttheAuthorizedVersionreadsexactlywiththeBishop’sBiblein2,102ofthem(26.4%).”54Inover¼oftheversesoftheNT,theyletthetextstand,andintroducednochangeswhatsoevertotheBishop’stext.Inanadditional3,827ofthe5,855remainingverses,theymakeonlysimple(minor)changesinvolving1-2words.55NotonlyisittruethattheKJVisarevisionofthe1602Bishop’sBible,itisarevisionthatultimatelychangedlittleofthetext.WhentheKJValtersthetextoftheBishopsBible,itisoccasionallysimplytoreturntothepreviouswordingofTyndale.Interestingly,theKJVfollowsthewordingoftheRheims-DouaytranslationoftheVulgateagainstalltheotherpreviousEnglishversionsin1.9%oftheNT.56AddtothistheamountofErasmus’textwhichisitselfadirecttranslationintoGreekfromtheVulgate(opposedtoallGreekManuscriptsofbothhisdayandours)andonecanfeelthestronginfluenceoftheLatinVulgateupontheKJV,attwoseparatestagesofitscreation.

Howoriginalwastheirwork?TheKJVtranslatorsonlyprovideoriginalreadingsin2.8%oftheKJVNT.IntheportionsoftheOTonwhichTyndaleworked,theyeitherretainorreturntohiswording75.7%ofthetime.IntheportionsoftheOTonwhichTyndaledidn’twork,theyseemtofollowCoverdale57%ofthetime,theGeneva25.6%ofthetime,andprovidetheirownuniquereadings17.4%ofthe53Nielson,Jon,andSkousen,Royal.“HowMuchoftheKingJamesBibleisWilliamTyndale’s?”ReformationJournal,Volume3,Issue1,1998,pg.49-74.54Vance,“TheMakingoftheKingJamesBible”pg.247.ThisfinalanalysisisthestatisticalresultofhiscompletecollationoftheBishop’s1602withtheKJV1611.Itisunfortunatethathisanalysisusedtheverseastheunittopresentthestatisticsin,ratherthantheindividualword,whichmighthaveprovedfarmorehelpful,butofcourse,onecanreadilyconsulthisprintedcomparison,andnotethenatureandextentofeachchange.55Vance,“TheMakingoftheKingJamesBible”pg.247.Vanceprovidesfurtherstatisticsaboutversesinvolving3,4,5,6,and7+simplechanges,aswellasthoseinvolvingmore“complexchanges.”56Thisshowsthatwhilerule14hadnotmentionedtheVulgatetranslation,andmayevenhavebeenformulatedinsuchawayastoexcludeit,theKJVtranslatorsultimatelywouldbepartytonosuchshunning.

time.WhilethestudyisonlyofasamplegroupratherthanafullcollationofeachBible,itaccordswiththegeneralestimatesthatcarefulscholarshavealwaysgivenofTyndale’sinfluenceontheKJV(Westcott,Scrivener,Daniell,Norton,etc.).Inotherwords,whiletheKJVtranslatorsproducedinasensea“new”translation,itisfarmoreaccuratetogenerallyspeakoftheirworkasjustonemorerevisionofthenumeroussuccessiverevisionsofTyndale.TheKJVisthegrandworkthatitisbecausethetranslatorswerere-tweetingtheworkofothers,andprimarilythatofWilliamTyndale.Scrivenernoted,“ItisnomeanevidenceofTyndale’sgeneralworth,thathisNewTestamentisthevirtualgroundworkofeverysubsequentrevision.Pageafterpageofhistranslationofthegospels,inlanguageandphraseology;inthearrangementofthewords,andturnoftheconstruction,bearsostrongaresemblancetoourcommonversion[theKJV]astobescarcelydistinguishablefromit.Thevariationsthatdooccurareoftensominuteaseasilytoescapeobservation;andthechangesthathavebeenintroduced[wheretheKJVdepartsfromTyndale]arenotalwaysforthebetter.”57Daniellnotes,“ThoughintheNewTestament,andparticularlyintheEpistles,KingJames’srevisersmademanychanges,andthoughtheirbasewasBishop’s,thetruthisthattheultimatebasewasTyndale.”58InhisintroductiontothereprintofTyndale’s1536NT,hefurtherremindsusthat,“Intheclangourofthemarket-placeofmoderntranslations,Tyndale’sravishingsoloshouldbeheardacrosstheworld.Astonishmentisstillvoicedthatthedignitarieswhopreparedthe1611AuthorizedVersionforKingJamesspokesooftenwithonevoice–apparentlymiraculously.Ofcoursetheydid:thevoice(neveracknowledgedbythem)wasTyndale’s.”59WhileweoftenspeakoftheKJVasatranslationinit’sownright,itisinfactmoreaccuratetospeakofitasaworkofrankcompositeplagiarism.EnoughoftheBishop’sBiblewaschangedtobeabletomarketitasanewrevision,butmostchangesweresimplyre-tweetingTyndalewithoutgivingcredit.60

57Scrivener,“ASupplement”pg.80.Hefurthernoted,“Itwouldnotbedifficultalsotopointoutinstancesinwhichachangehasbeenintroducedintothelateredition[i.e.,aplacewheretheKJVdidn’tfollowTyndale]decidedlyfortheworse.Ihavenoticednolessthanfifty-foursuchcases…intheGospelofMatthewalone.”(pg.83).58Daniell,“TheBibleinEnglish”pg.448.59Daniell,“Tyndale’sNewTestament”(introduction)pg.vii.60SeetheTyndaleSociety’sexplanationandinvestigationofhistranslation’scontributiontotheReformation.Astheynote,historyrarelycreditshimasitshould.http://www.tyndale.org

TheSourcesoftheRevisionoftheBishop’sBible(TheKJV)

Thepointofthissectionhasbeenasimplequestion,whichhopefullyhas

alreadyariseninthereadersmind.TheKJVisquiteplainlyjustonemoreofalongseriesofrevisionsofTyndale,eachchangingtheformofthetext,anditselfgoingthroughnumeroustextualchangesalongtheway.TyndalehimselfisatranslationofjustonemorerevisionofaneclecticGreektext,createdasamixtureofreadingsfromahandfulofGreekmanuscripts,withvariousreadingsfromtheLatinVulgatemixedin,andconjecturalemendation(andoccasionalsimpleerrors)byErasmussprinkledthroughout.Thequestionisthen,uponwhatpossiblegroundscanonecallit,(asamatterofdoctrine!),“theverywordsGodinspired”inanysenseexclusiveofallotherversions?Howcanitbecalledinanysense,“preserved”when,ratherthanperfectlypreservinganypreviousformofthetext,itcreatesanentirelynewone,andmostlyasacompositeatthat?Uponwhatgroundscanonedemanditsexclusiveuse?Or,inScrivener’swords,61“Nowitwereunreasonabletosuppose,thatifourAuthorizedVersionissogreatanimprovementonallwhowentbeforeit,duringthespaceofeightyyears,thecurrentofimprovementisheretostop,andthatno61Whoalsonotedinthiscontextthathefeltwedidn’tsomuchneedawholenewtranslationaswedidaseriousrevisionofthetextandtranslationoftheKJV.HeconcludeshisintroductionwithmarvelouswordsofpraisefortheKJV.ButitmustbenotedthatthereisacategoricaldistinctionbetweenpraisingtheKJVandbelievingitperfect,ratherthaninneedofmuchimprovement.

KJV

1602Bishop'sBase

Geneva,et.al.

KJVTranslators(2.8%)

VulgateRheims(1.9%)

Tyndale(83.7%)

blemishesremainforfuturestudentstodetectandremove.Morethantwocenturieshavepassedsincethatversion(or,tospeakmorecorrectly,revisionofformerversions)wasexecuted,andtheyhavebeencenturiesofgreatandrapidimprovementineverybranchofknowledgeandscience.”62TheESV,forexample,hasconsciouslysoughttostandinthelineageofTyndale,asperhapsthemostrecentrevisionofTyndale’swork.TheNKJVstandsinthatsamelineage,makingupdatesonlytothetranslation,whileretainingthesameGreektextoftheKJV.WhyistheKJVperfectandtheESVevil;theKJVdemandedandtheNKJVrejected?Theyaresimplydifferentpointsonthesamespectrumofrevision.ThereisonlyonepossiblegrounduponwhichtheverbalperfectionoftheKJVcanbeasserted.Thereisonlyonepossiblewaytotakewhatisdemonstrablyaproductofrevisionanddemandthatallrevisionsubsequenttothatrevisionmusthavesupernaturallyhalted.Inotherwords,thereisonlyonepossiblewaythatdoctrinalstatementsassertingtheverbalperfectionoftheKJVarenotassertingseriousfalsehoodintheirposition.OnemustbelievethatGodinspiredtheKJVtranslatorstocreateafinalformofthetextthatcanneverbetouchedagainorimprovedinanyway.ApartfrombeliefintheinspirationoftheKJVtranslators,itsimplyisnotpossibletoassertthepositionthattheKJVisverballyperfect.EithertheKJVisdemonstrablyinerroratpoints,andfurtherrevisionispossibleandneeded,orthereviserswereinspiredbyGodwithanewformofrevelation.Therearenootheroptions.Andthisisthefinalandinsurmountabledilemma.

CategoryConfusionsManydoctrinalstatementstreatingtheissueoftheKJVmakeavarietyof

conflictingassertions.Perhaps,attheendoftheday,mostofthelogicalproblemsinsuchstatementsandinthevastmajorityofworksseekingtodefendtheKJV,theTR,ortheMTasperfectaretheresultsofastrangelyunnoticed(orintentionallyignored)confusionofcategories.Thereisandalwayswillbeacategoricaldividebetweenperfectionandallvaryingdegreesofimperfection;betweenflawless,andanymeasuredamountoferror;betweenaninerranttext,andatextwithasingleadmittederror;betweenverbalfaultlessness,andthepresenceofevenasingleverbalfault.TheregularlymadeargumentsthatseektodefendtheKJVonthebasisoftheByzantinetextorMasoretictextmakeavarietyoferrors,andtheyareallcategoryconfusions.TheyfailtounderstandthattheKJVOTisnotadirecttranslationoftheMT,andthattheMTisnotaverballymonolithicentity.Theyfailtorealizethatthe“Byzantinetext”islikewisenotamonolithicentity.ThereisdiversitybetweeneverysingleByzantinemanuscriptandanyotherByzantinemanuscript.Butfurther,theKJVisnotadirecttranslationoftheByzantinetext.ErasmususedafewmanuscriptsthatweregenerallyByzantineincharacter,butheincorporatedavarietyofreadingsfromtheWesternLatinVulgate,makinghisresultanttextaneclecticcombinationofByzantineandWesternreadings.Thiscombinationhadneverexistedbefore1516.Butevenifoneignoredthisfact,theKJVdoesnottranslatethetextofErasmusdirectly,andErasmus’ownworkwasnoverballystaticentity.Thetwentysomedifferenteditionsandrevisionsthatthe62Scrivener,“ASupplement”pg.2.

basicformofhistextwouldgothroughpriortotheKJVareallverballydifferentfromoneanotherinhundredsofplaces,anddifferentfromtheeclecticcombinationoftheirreadingsthattheKJVtranslatorswouldproduceandthatwouldbecometheScrivenerTR.Butevenifoneignoredthis,eventheScrivenerTRinallofitseditionsisdifferentatminorpointsfromtheKJVofwhichitseekstopresenttheunderpinnings.SimilarproblemsplagueanyattempttodefendtheKJVonthebasisoftheMT.ThereareverbaldifferencesbetweeneveryHebrewmanuscriptofthe“Masoretic”family,andthereareverbaldifferencesbetweeneveryformoftheMTandtheKJVOT.Further,ifthisobstacleweresomehowmounted,itmustbenotedthateacheditionoftheKJVisatpointsverballydifferentfromoneanother,andasNortonhasshown,duetoprintingandeditorialerrors,eacheditionoftheKJVisverballydifferentfromwhattheKJVtranslatorsintendedtoproduce.

Thesedistinctionsareroutinelyignored(ordeceitfullyhidden)bythoseadvocatingforaperfectKJV.Allofthesediverseformsofthetextarelumpedtogetheras“supportingtheKJV.”Occasionallyonewillusemoreaccuratelanguageassaythingslike,“theTRgenerallyspeakingisliketheKJV”or“theByzantinemanuscriptsarelargelythebasisoftheKJV”or,“theMTisgenerallyreliable.”Butonecannothaveafoundationthatis“generally”notwithouterror,butstillcontainingerror,andthendemandthatthestructurebuiltonthatfoundationsuddenlyattainsaperfectionthatitsfoundationadmittedlydidn’thave.Watercannotriseaboveitssource.Astructureisnotfirmerthanitsfoundations.Achaincannotholdaweightgreaterthanitsweakestlink,andfoundationsofadmittederrorcannotsupportaclaimofinerrancy.Itissimplynotpossible.IfonewantstoplacetheKJVinthecategoryof“withouterror”thenitsfoundationsmustbeviewedfromthesameperspectiveofprecision,andfromthatperspective,everysinglesourcefortheKJV,andeveryargumentusedtodefenditisindemonstrableerror.EveryGreekmanuscriptisinerror.EveryprintedGreektextisinerror.EveryHebrewmanuscriptisinerror.EveryprintedHebrewtextisinerror.EverypreviousEnglishtranslationisinerror.OnlytheKJVisperfect.Thus,iftheKJVisperfect,thenthecategoriesinvariablysetbysuchaclaimdemandthatitistheonlytextinanylanguageatanytimethathaseverbeenso.Andifthisbeaccepted,thenonlyoneeditionofitcanbeso,andalltheothereditionsmustbecategoricallyrejected.

Ifonedeniestheseassertions,andintonesthat,“thedifferencesbetweentheeditionsoftheKJVarenotthatbigofadeal”or,“thedifferencesbetweentheeditionsoftheTRarenotthatbigofadeal”or,“thedifferencesbetweenthedifferentByzantinemanuscripts,orbetweentheByzantinetextandtheKJV,orbetweentheMTandtheKJVarenotthatbigofadeal”thenunderstandwhathashappened.OnehasmovedthefoundationsoftheKJVoutoftherealmofperfectandintothecategoryofimperfect.Itisnotamatterofhowgreattheirerrorsare.Asinglewordisenoughtocauseacategorychange.IfthefoundationsoftheKJVaremovedtothecategoryoferrant,thentheKJVitselfmustfollow.Itnowcannolongerbeassumedcorrectineverypassage;infact,itmustbefreelyacknowledgedtobewronginsome.WhenplacedalongsideanyotherEnglishtranslation,everypassagemustthenbeinductivelydefended,becauseitspresenceinthecategoryofimperfectiondemandsthatitisattimesinerror,andthediscoveryandexposureof

sucherrorscannotbecondemnedapriori,andshouldratherbewelcomed.WehavepointedoutanumberofsucherrorsthatcanonlybedefendedbyanaprioriassumptionthattheKJVisverballyincapableoferror.Manymorecouldbepointedoutifsuchalineofargumentwereallowed.63

Ifoneweretochooseinsteadtoargueforoneofthe“sources”oftheKJV(e.g.,aparticulareditionoftheTRoroftheMT)asbeinginthecategoryofperfection(suchastheso-called“TROnlypositiondoes),thenthedifferencesbetweenthatsourceandtheKJVnowdemandthattheKJVcannotoccupythesamecategory.TheKJVisthusnolongerinthecategoryoferrorlessbuthasmovedintotherealmoferror.Allthatremainstobedebatedisthemagnitudeoftheerrors,andmanyofthetextsoftheKJVcannotsustainsuchscrutinyapartfromtheaprioriclaimofperfection.Andthenwemustrepeatthesameprocedureinrespecttothat“source,”foritdemonstrablyhasfoundationswhicharenowinescapablyinerror,thiserrorbeingdemandedbythecategoriessetbytheassertionitself.

IfontheotherhandonedeniesthepresenceofidentifiableandcorrectableerrorintheKJV,thenoneisassertingverbalperfectionfortheKJV,andthecategorieshavebeenirrevocablysetbytheassertionbeingmade–anobjectisnowjudgedeitherverballyperfect,orverballyinerror.Thepresenceofasingleerrantwordcausestheobjectunderconsiderationtoswitchcategories.Thepresenceofmultiplesucherrorssimplyenforcesthealreadyforgoneconclusion.Andthepresenceofsucherrorsisdemanded,becauseplacingtheKJVinthecategoryofverbalperfectiondemandsthateverytextthatisverballydifferentisbydefinitionthenverballyinerror.ClaimingverbalperfectionfortheKJVimposesthestandardthatinherentlycondemnstheKJV’sownfoundations.OnecannotclaimanymanuscriptortextpriortotheKJVtobethe“preserved”wordofGod,usingadefinitionof“preserved”thatassumesthepresenceofverbalerror,andthenapplytheword,“preserved”totheKJV,anddemandtheabsenceofsucherrors.Ifonemeansonlygenerallypreserved,butadmittedlycontainingerror,thentheresultantKJVcanonlybeconsideredgenerallypreserved,butundeniablycontainingerror.ItissimplydishonesttousethewordinacategorydemandingoferrorwhenspeakingoftheargumentsusedtosupporttheKJV,andthenusethewordoftheKJVinacategorydemandingtheabsenceorerror.TheKJVcannotbeconsidered,“preserved”inasensethatiscategoricallydifferentfromthatinwhichitsfoundationsare“preserved.”

OnlyonepossiblecircumstancecanmovetheKJV,theMT,orTRfromthecategoryof“containingerror”whichallofitsfoundationsmustthenliein,intothecategoriesof“altogetherperfect”containing“theverywordsGodinspired”createdbysuchdoctrinalstatements.OnemustassertthatGodsupernaturallyinspiredthetranslatorswithanewformofrevelation.Ithasonlybeenbytheregularpropagationofakindof“fuzziness”aboutsuchdistinctionsthattheideaofaverballyperfectKJVapartfromthedivineinspirationofthetranslatorshasbeenthoughtapossibility.Butclaimsofperfectiondonotadmitofimprecisedefinitions.Iftheconclusiononewishestoproveisinthecategoryof“perfection”thentheargumentsadducedforitmustworkinthesamecategory,andthereisonlyone63SeeforexamplethehelpfullistofKJVerrorsinScriveners,“ASupplement.”

argumentthatcansustainapresenceinthatcategory,andthatisthebeliefthatGodsupernaturallymovedtheKJVtranslatorswithaninfallibilitywhichallowedthemtocreateanewandfinalformofthetextthathadneverexistedbefore,God’snewandfinalrevelationtoHispeople.

ItmustbenotedfurtherthatthereisaseriouslackoflogicalintegrityinvolvedintryingtousecategoricallydifferentelementstoargueforaperfectKJV.AppealstoBurgon,Scrivener,Byzantinepriority,amajorityofmanuscripts,sustainedhistoryofuse,receptionbyGod’speopleofa“ReceivedText,”thelegacyofTyndaleorthereformers,etc.allarecategorically“imperfect”andcannotbeappealedtowithanyintegrityforaperfectKJV.TheirirrelevancetotheclaimstheyarebeingpromotedtosubstantiateispatentlyobviousateverypointwheretheycontradicttheKJV,andyettheKJVremainsuncorrected.OnecannotappealtothescholarshipoftheKJVtranslators,becausehumanscholarshipisahumanendeavor,demandinghumanerrors,whichdemandsapresenceintheimperfectcategory.Toerrishuman.OnecannotappealtoBurgonandMajoritytextsupporters,andthenignorethemthemomenttheycorrecttheKJV.Thismakesthemnotsupportfor,butagainstaperfectKJV.OnecannotappealtothevariouseditionsoftheTRaswhyonebelievesinaperfectKJV,andthenrefusetoallowcorrectionstotheKJVthatanyparticulareditionwouldrequire.OnecannotappealtoByzantinepriority,andthenrejecttheByzantinetraditionineveryplacethatitdiffersunanimouslyfromtheKJV.OnecannotappealtothemajorityofmanuscriptsaswhyonebelievestheKJVperfect,andthenassertthatwheneverysinglemanuscriptinexistencecontradictstheKJV,theKJViscorrectandthemanuscriptsareinerror.Itisahopelessconfusionofcategories,andintegritydemandsthatargumentsusedtosupportaperfectKJVbemadeonlyinthecategoryofperfectionthattheyarebeingadducedtosupport.TheonlyargumentsustainableinthiscategoryistheinspirationoftheKJVtranslatorswithnewrevelationfromGodaboutthepreciseverbalformofthetext.

Perfection/Inerrant Imperfections/Errant

TheKJV

TheInspirationoftheTranslators

BurgonScrivenerTheMasoreticTextTheScholarshipoftheTranslatorsTheMajorityofManuscriptsTheByzantinetextTheAntiochiantextTheReformationtextTheReceivedTextTheverballydifferenteditionsoftheTRTheverballydifferenteditionsoftheKJVEtc.

Onesimplycannotignoretheinfinitedividethatexistsbetweenthesetwo

categories.Thepointisnotthemagnitudeofthedifferencesbetweenthese

elementsandtheKJV,ortheirdifferencesfromoneanother.AdifferenceofasinglewordfromtheKJVcausesaninexorableshiftofcategory,andthatistheultimatepoint.Categoricallyspeaking,everyargumentthathasbeenusedtosupporttheideaofaperfectKJV(apartfrombeliefinnewrevelationgivenin1611)actuallyunifiestogethercategoricallytoarguedirectlyagainstsuchperfection.

ConcludingAppealWhatwehaveseenthenisthatthereisaseriouslogicalflawinthemany

statementsonScripturethatconcerntheKJV,becausetheyaffirmsimultaneouslypropositionsthatareinfactmutuallyexclusive,andcategoricallyopposed.Suchstatementstypicallyassert,

1. ThattheEnglishtextoftheKJVis“theWordofGodkeptintactforEnglish-speakingpeoples”andastheonlyrighttranslationofthepuretextsisthustheonlyplaceinEnglishwhereGodhasfully“preservedtheverywordsthatHeinspired.”Thisstatementisfurtherheightenedbyreferringtothetranslatorsas,“God'sinstrumentsusedtopreserveHiswordsforEnglish-speakingpeoples.”Themultipleuseof“word/words”insuchstatementsstrengthensthisverbalfocus.Thissentimentissostronglysetforth,thatitcanbedemandedthattheKJVbe,“theonlyEnglishversionusedandorendorsed.”SuchstatementsareundeniablyassertingtheverbalperfectionoftheKJV.AnybeliefthattheKJVcontainserrorsineithertextortranslationisprecludedbythiswording.TheentiregoalofsuchstatementsseemstobetopresentanattitudeofabsolutecertaintyaboutthetextoftheKJV.AnyoneentertainingdoubtsaboutthetextoftheKJV,orbelievinginspecificplacesthatthetextoftheKJVisinerror,wouldbedirectlyprecludedfromsigningsuchastatement.

2. ThatScripturepromisestheperfectverbalpreservationoftheBibleinHebrew,Greek,andevenEnglish.Definingpreservationasendingin,“altogetherthecomplete,preserved,inerrantWordofGod,”claimingthat“ByprovidentiallypreservedwemeanthatGodthroughtheageshas,inHisdivineprovidence,preservedtheverywordsthatHeinspired”andrepeatedlyreferringtotheKJVas“preserved”demandsthatthispromiseappliestoeach.ThelistofScripturereferencesusuallyincludedbelowthestatementbolstersthisclaim.Theexegeticalfallaciesofthisassertionarenumerousandhavebeentakenupelsewhere.

3. ThattheMTandTRareverballyperfect,identicaltotheautographs.Thisismorestronglyassertedthan#1or#2,andisusuallytheexpresspurposeofstatementslike,“ByprovidentiallypreservedwemeanthatGodthroughtheageshas,inHisdivineprovidence,preservedtheverywordsthatHeinspired;thattheHebrewOldTestamenttext,asfoundintheTraditionalMasoreticText,andtheGreekNewTestamenttext,asfoundintheTextusReceptus,areindeedtheproductsofGod'sprovidentialpreservationandarealtogetherthecomplete,preserved,inerrantWordofGod.”Thestatementfocusesontheverbalnatureof‘preservation.’GoddidnotjustpreservehisWord,buthis‘words.’Andasifthatwasn’tstrongenough,theytypicallyadjectivallyclarify,‘theverywords.’Suchstatementsclaimthattheoneandonlyplace

thattheexactwordsinspiredbyGodcanbefoundistheTraditionalMasoretictext,andtheTextusReceptus.

4. ThatthetranslatorsoftheKJVwerenotinspired.Thisisusuallystatednegatively,asadenial,“thattheAuthorizedVersiontranslatorswerenot‘inspired.’”

5. Asalogicalresultofassertions1-4,theKJVisassertedastheonlyEnglishtranslationthatcanbeusedorendorsed.Or,tosummarizeintothemostimportantpointsintomoremanageable

abridgments,suchstatementscommonlyaffirm;1.ThattheKJVisverballyperfect2.ThatScripturepromisesverbalpreservationinHebrew,Greek,andEnglish3.ThattheMTandTRareverballyperfect4.ThatthetranslatorsoftheKJVwerenotinspired Iwouldagreeonlywithpoint#4.Butaswehaveseenfromtheevidence,notwooftheabovepointscanbeheldatthesametimewithintegrity.Theyarecategoricallyopposed.Tobelievethemallinvolvesoneininescapablecontradiction.If#1istrue,then#2,#3,and#4,cannotbe.#2cannotbetrueinanyway,asitisself-contradictory.If#2istrue,thenGodisaliar,becausesuchapromisesimplyhasnotbeenkept.IfthereisaperfectEnglishtext,thentheresimplyisnoHebrewandGreektextthathasbeenpreservedasperfectlyasthattext.And,entirelyapartfromtheinternalcontradictionin#2,thisagaindemandsthatnumber#4isfalse.If#3istrue,then#1and#4cannotbe.If#4istrue,then#1and#3areimpossible,astheyareinescapablydependentontheinspirationoftheKJVtranslators.TheseassertionsbysuchstatementsonScriptureareinherentlyandinescapablycontradictory.Theyareinfactcategoricallyopposed.Thatwhichisinherentlycontradictorycannotandshouldnotbemaintainedastrue.AndifwearetohonorJesus,thenitmustnotbeprofessedasdoctrine.Thereareseveraldifferentoptionsavailabletothosewhopromotessuchstatementsmakethemfreeoftheircurrentlogicalcontradictions;

1. TheycouldbechangedtoaffirmonlythegeneralreliabilityoftheKJV,theMT,andtheTR,andremoveallofthelanguageabout“words”and“perfectly”and“preserved”and“inerrant”fromthestatement,(exceptinrelationtothe“originallywritten”autographs).Thisplaceseachinthecategoryof“errant.”Ofcourse,suchanaffirmationofadmittederrorcouldnotthenbeusedasafoundationforademandfortheexclusiveuseandendorsementoftheKJV,buttheycouldlegitimatelyaffirmthegeneralreliabilityofboth,whilestillmaintainingtheassertionthattheKJVtranslatorswerenotinspired.Further,itwoulddemandcontinualreviewandrevisionoftheKJV.Iwouldsignsuchastatement.TheycouldthenlegitimatelyrequiretheexclusiveuseoftheKJV,withoutmakingitadoctrinalissue,ongroundsotherthanitsperfection,andwithoutanappealtoits“preservation.”Forinstance,theycouldsaythat“intheinterestofunity”theyrequireonlytheuseoftheKJV.Theycouldsay,

“outofrespectfortradition”theyrequiretheexclusiveuseoftheKJV.Thosearebothlegitimategrounds.WhatisnotlegitimateisaffirmingtheperfectionoftheKJV,andtheTR,andtheMT,andthenassertingthatthetranslatorswerenotinspired.Thosecannotalllogicallybemaintainedsimultaneously.

2. TheycouldbechangedtoaffirmonlytheperfectionoftheTRandtheMT,andremoveallsuchlanguageabouttheEnglishKJV,andremoveanydenialoftheinspirationoftheKJVtranslators.SincetheKJVisatpointsnotbasedonanyGreekorHebrewtext,andthusdifferentfromeveryprintedTRandeveryprintedHebrewtext,aswehaveseen,itisimpossibletoaffirmsimultaneouslytheverbalpreservationofeach.SincetheTRistheresultofthetranslator’sdecisions,theperfectionoftheTRcannotbeaffirmedwhiletheinspirationofthetranslatorsissimultaneouslydenied.However,sincetheinspirationofthetranslatorsmustbemaintainedtoaffirmtheperfectionoftheTRtheycreated,oncetheyhaveaffirmedthatperfection,thereislittlereasonnottoinsteadchoosetoaffirmtheinspirationoftheKJV.Besideswhich,ifthestatementassertedtheverbalperfectionoftheMT,thatwouldmoreaccuratelyresultina“NKJVOnly”positionthanapositiondemandinguseoftheKJV,astheNKJVOTfollowstheMTmorecloselythantheKJV(seenoteabove).Thus,Isuspectthatthisoptionwouldnotbelikelytobeapproved.

3. TheycouldchangeittoaffirmtheperfectionoftheEnglishKJV,andremoveanylanguageabouttheperfectionoftheTRandMT.Theywouldalsohavetoremovethelanguageofverbal“preservation”sincetheywouldthenbeassertingthatperfectGreekandHebrewtextsarenotpreservedanywhere,andonlytheEnglishoftheKJVisperfect.TheywillhavetothenremovethedenialoftheinspirationoftheKJVtranslators,sincethisviewisabsolutelydependentuponsuchaclaim.Isuspectsuchaformulationwouldmostaccuratelyreflectwithintegritywhatmost“FriendsofHeartland”actuallybelieve.ThisbeliefisinfacttheunspokencoreofthepositionheldbymostwhopromotetheideathattheKJCisperfect.Iviewsuchaformulationasinseriousbibliologicalerror,butitisatleastlogicallycoherentatthatpoint,andcouldthusbemaintainedandpromotedwithmoreintegrity.SuchpromoterscouldthenarticulatetheviewthatGodmovedtheKJVtranslatorssupernaturallytorecreateaperfectHebrewandGreektext(whichwouldonlybetemporarilyavailableintheirminds),butonlyinordertofacilitatethecreationoftheperfectEnglishKJV,afterwhichpoint,theperfectHebrewandGreektextsceasedtoexist.TheycanalsothenlegitimatelydemandtheexclusiveuseoftheKJV.TheywillalsohavetodemandthatnooneuseanyHebreworGreektexts,sincetheyalldifferfromtheKJV.OnlyEnglishcanbeallowed,astheEnglishtextoftheKJVisthentheonlyverballyperfecttextoftheBibleinanylanguage.

Hopefully,atthispoint,oneseestheinsurmountabledifficultiescontainedin

mostdoctrinalstatementsassertingtheperfectionoftheKJV.ItishopedthatadesireforbasichonestyamongGod’speoplewillleadtothecessationoftheuseofwordslike“preserved”inamistakenfashion,whenwhatismeantisnot,

“preserved”butrather,“divinelyrecreatedbyinspiredtranslatorsin1611.”Itishopedthattheframersofsuchstatements(andadherentstothem)willcometorealizethatitisimpossibletoaffirmtheperfectionoftheMT,theTR,andtheKJV,aseachareverballydifferentfromoneanother.Itcouldbehopedthatthoseframingsuchstatementswouldsaywhattheyactuallybelieved,(thattheKJVisadvancedrevelationfromGodwhichcorrectseverysingleGreekandHebrewmanuscriptinexistence),ratherthanwhattheywouldlikeotherstothinktheybelieved.Butalas,thisisahopenotlikelytoberealized.