The Holy Bible: King James Version (KJV)

“For whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope.” (Rom 15:4)

Among English Bibles, the King James Version (KJV) has been cherished by generations of Christians for its clarity, dignity, and musical cadence. Historically, the KJV emerges from the English Reformation and the pastoral need for a trustworthy public Bible. In 1604, at the Hampton Court Conference, King James I agreed that a new translation—more precisely, an authorized revision—should be undertaken for reading in the churches. By that summer, a list of 54 revisers had been approved; extant records show that 47 scholars actually participated, organized into six “companies” at Westminster, Oxford, and Cambridge, each assigned portions of Scripture and then cross-reviewed for unity of style and substance.¹

Their marching orders stressed reverent continuity: the Bishops’ Bible (1602) was the base text; the revisers compared it diligently with the Hebrew and Greek and consulted earlier English versions (Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Great, Geneva) where they judged those renderings superior. The KJV’s famous preface, “The Translators to the Reader,” shows their philosophy: they refused a wooden one-English-word-per-original-word rule and embraced good synonyms—“to translate the same notion in the same particular word” always would be to “mince the matter.”² They also signaled words supplied for sense with a typographic convention that later printers standardized as italics, and they provided thousands of brief marginal notes indicating literal renderings or textual alternatives.³

Texts Used and the KJV’s Place in the English Tradition

For the Old Testament, the translators chiefly used the Masoretic Text as printed in the Rabbinic Bibles (e.g., Bomberg, 1524/25), occasionally consulting the Septuagint (LXX) or Vulgate where traditional Christian readings carried weight in debated places.⁴ For the New Testament, they used editions of the Textus Receptus (notably those of Stephanus and Beza).⁵ Importantly, the KJV stands downstream from William Tyndale’s pioneering work (d. 1536). Modern analysis presented by David Daniell suggests that roughly 80–83% of the KJV New Testament reflects Tyndale’s wording—a testimony to his genius and to the providence of God in preserving lucid English Scripture for the people.⁶

The first edition (1611) was printed by the King’s Printer, Robert Barker, in large folio with two prefatory texts—the royal Dedicatory Epistle and the translators’ own preface—and it included the Apocrypha placed between Testaments, as was then customary for lectionary reading (distinguished from doctrine).⁷ Over time, many English printings omitted the Apocrypha (especially after the mid-17th century), though the KJV’s canonical Old and New Testaments remained unchanged.⁸

How the Printed Text Was Standardized

The 1611 printing came from a living editorial ecosystem; already by 1611–1613 there were variant impressions (“He/She” readings in Ruth 3:15), and through the 17th–18th centuries compositors and editors corrected misprints, regularized spellings, and harmonized italics and punctuation. Notable stages include Cambridge corrections in 1629 and 1638, Dr. Thomas Paris’s Cambridge work (often cited as 1762), and Benjamin Blayney’s 1769 Oxford edition, which became the dominant standardized KJV text in use today.⁹ Because most changes involved spelling, punctuation, small typographic conventions, and occasional obvious slips, modern KJV printings differ from 1611 in many thousands of minor places—often summarized as “about 24,000” differences—yet without altering the KJV’s doctrinal content or its recognizable voice.¹⁰

Even after Blayney, Oxford and Cambridge retained a few house differences (e.g., farther/further at Matt 26:39) until modern times, but the overall text has been very stable. In the 19th–20th centuries, Cambridge and Oxford helped preserve and propagate this standardized KJV; in the UK, publication rights in the Authorized Version are administered under royal letters patent—a prerogative arrangement (distinct from ordinary copyright) historically associated with the office of the King’s/Queen’s Printer and with both university presses.¹¹

Style, Reception, and Ongoing Use in the Church

The KJV was intended to be read aloud in church, and its “majesty of style” continues to commend it in worship and devotion. Its cadences shaped English hymnody and homiletics, and many of its turns of phrase have become part of everyday speech. At the same time, the translators explicitly recognized human limitation and the ongoing need for careful revision: they were not claiming inspiration for their English, but laboring to render God’s Word faithfully for the people of God.¹²

For Christians today, the KJV remains a beloved witness to God’s providence in history. Its roots in the Reformation, its continuity with earlier English Bibles, and its deep imprint on the language give it a unique place. Some readers will prefer contemporary translations for accessibility or textual-critical reasons; others treasure the KJV’s stability and liturgical resonance. The church can receive both as gifts—so long as we read, hear, and obey the Scriptures together in charity (Jas 1:22; Eph 4:15).

Annotated Bibliography (Chicago style)

1) Encyclopaedia Britannica, “King James Version (KJV).” Concise, reputable overview of the commissioning at Hampton Court, the six companies and ~47 working translators, and the first publication in 1611; useful as a high-level reference.¹

2) The Translators to the Reader (1611). The original preface reveals aims and method (e.g., not binding one English word to one original word), and provides the theological/pastoral rationale for the revision; essential primary source.²

3) David Norton, A Textual History of the King James Bible (Cambridge, 2005). Definitive study of how the printed text developed from 1611 through the 1762/1769 standardizations, with collations and analysis; indispensable for editorial history.⁹

4) F. F. Bruce, History of the Bible in English (Oxford, 1978). Classic survey placing the KJV within the broader lineage of English Bibles from Wycliffe to the modern period; excellent for accessible context.¹³

5) Britannica entries on “Biblical literature: The King James and subsequent versions” and “Texts and versions.” Useful background on the Masoretic tradition and the KJV’s placement among English versions.⁴

6) Cambridge University Press — “Royal connections.” Explains King’s/Queen’s Printer arrangements and letters-patent administration for the Authorized Version in the UK; clarifies rights distinct from ordinary copyright.¹¹

7) Library of Congress (reporting David Daniell), “Tyndale Responsible for Most of King James Translation.” Summarizes quantitative analysis that ~80–83% of the KJV NT reflects Tyndale’s wording.⁶

8) BYU Religious Studies Center, “Chapters, Verses, Punctuation, Spelling, and Italics in the KJV.” Explains why modern standardized printings differ from 1611 in thousands of minor typographic details without altering doctrine.¹⁰

Footnotes

1. “King James Version (KJV),” Encyclopaedia Britannica, overview of commissioning, number of translators, six companies, and first publication in 1611. ↩
2. The Translators to the Reader (1611), esp. the section on synonyms and phrasing (“to translate the same notion … by the same particular word” would “mince the matter”). ↩
3. On italics and extensive marginal notes giving literal renderings or alternates, see the KJV printers’ conventions and summaries in standard references. ↩
4. On the Masoretic base and occasional LXX/Vulgate influence: see discussions of KJV source texts in major reference works on biblical literature and the KJV. ↩
5. On the Textus Receptus as the NT base (via Stephanus/Beza), with some readings echoing the Vulgate tradition: standard KJV textual histories summarize this pattern. ↩
6. David Daniell’s widely cited estimate (≈80–83% of the KJV New Testament reflects Tyndale’s wording), reported by the Library of Congress. ↩
7. On the presence of the Apocrypha between Testaments in 1611, see standard histories and reference entries. ↩
8. On later omissions of the Apocrypha in many English printings and related ecclesial decisions, see historical surveys of English Bibles. ↩
9. For the 1629/1638 Cambridge corrections, the 1762 Paris edition, and Benjamin Blayney’s 1769 Oxford standardization as the basis of modern KJV printings, see David Norton and other editorial histories. ↩
10. On “thousands” (often summarized as ≈24,000) spelling/punctuation/format differences between 1611 and later standardized KJV printings (without doctrinal change), see editorial notes in reference works and technical essays on KJV punctuation/italics. ↩
11. On UK publication under letters patent (royal prerogative) and the role of the King’s/Queen’s Printer and the university presses, see Cambridge University Press explanations and legal primers on letters patent. ↩
12. For assessments of the KJV’s enduring “majesty of style” and influence on English speech, see major literary/biblical reference entries. ↩
13. F. F. Bruce, History of the Bible in English (Oxford University Press, 1978), for broader context and concise evaluation across English versions. ↩