Andersen 1

Nathan Andersen

HIST1010-006: Survey of Western Civilization, Part I

7 December 2011

The Word of Our God Shall Stand Forever: The Story behind the King James Bible

Four hundred years following its completion and initial publication in 1611, the King

James Bible (also known as the Authorized Version) is acknowledged as having borne

tremendous influence on the development of the English-speaking world. It is subject to much

remarkable trivia, such as being the most printed version of Scripture in history and the primary

source of numerous phrases and terms applied in everyday communication. Although this

particular Bible translation stands as a cornerstone of English language and culture as we know

them today, its enormous impact has been achieved in spite of two major obstacles surrounding

its initial publication. One of them was the book’s failure to gain popularity when first released, a

disappointment which interestingly proved true for both scholars and laymen. Various factors

were involved in the unenthusiastic reception early on, such as the rich, unique prose of the text,

which would require time to find a suitable audience. The other obstacle lay in the rather obvious

political purposes which drove the project forward as overseen under James I himself; the

translation was meant to help fulfill the king’s relatively short-term vision for political and social

unity in England under his supreme authority. Both of those encumbrances probably ought to

have doomed the book to permanent obscurity, setting aside even the remote possibility of

becoming the well-known and influential work among English-speaking peoples that it is today.

Needless to say, however, the King James Bible would indeed overcome those obstacles, in the

process demonstrating the power of skillful, timeless language for helping a given Scripture

translation stand the test of time.

Andersen 2

By the time James ascended the throne of England as the successor of Elizabeth I, and

before he would give the word for a monarchy-sponsored translation of Scripture to be carried

out, the nation was steeped in mass social and religious discord, as affirmed by the breakout of a

civil war only about thirty years later. Whereas most of Europe attained at least momentary

peace after the furious conflicts of the Reformation, England remained mired in battles for

influence among different factions, such as between Puritans and members of the Church of

England (Nicolson 2). Revolutionary ideas regarding liberty in opposition to regal government

further stirred the tumultuous nature of the times. “The period was held in the grip of an

immense struggle: between the demands for freedom of the individual conscience and the need

for order; between monarchy and democracy; between extremism and toleration” (Nicolson xiii).

The actual supremacy of traditional authorities and ordinances was questioned, but outright

individualism as we know it today was far from coming into its own.

In order to fully understand why James I would have taken the ambitious task upon

himself of attempting to create political and social unity in England during a time wrought with

conflict and uncertainty, and why he would have arranged a new translation of the Bible as a

means of making that vision come true, attention must be drawn to his fervent belief in the

heavenly appointment of monarchs and their subsequent responsibility to secure peace among

their subjects. “James held that kings had been ordained by God to rule the nations of the world,

to promote justice, and to dispense wisdom. It was, therefore, imperative that kings should be

respected and obeyed unconditionally and in all circumstances” (McGrath 144). He was

determined to give a new sense of direction to the centuries-old theory of the divine right of

kings, which had recently started to come under fire. Before transferring his reign from Scotland

to England, James had “written some works that showed a keen interest in the divine validation

Andersen 3

of royal authority, subject to certain limitations” (McGrath 141). The king tried to better

understand the doctrine of regal supremacy on his own before attempting to exercise it.

As an example, his convictions regarding the monarchy as a divinely ordained power in

the course of the nation can be observed firsthand here in the opening of a collection of sonnets

which he wrote in 1598: “God gives not Kings the style of Gods in vain, For on his Sceptre do

they sway; And as their subjects ought them to obey, So Kings should fear and serve their God

again” (James I 91). Through elegant poetry, James equates the allegiance which he believes a

monarch must display before God with the allegiance which he is likewise convinced should be

exhibited by citizens toward their monarch. His sonnet grandly expresses that kings somewhat

share God’s supreme authority, as observed with the image of the scepter, and that because of

this they have not been uselessly endowed with “the style of Gods.” It is worth noting, at least on

the basis of the poem, that James does not seem to have considered kings autonomous (they after

all sway on God’s scepter) or absolute (although kings must be obeyed by their subjects, God

remains the one with the overarching authority).

In the process of aiming to better ensure his indisputable authority as monarch and to

oversee the advancement of a peacefully unified England, the publication of a new, regally-

supported translation of Scripture toward achieving that goal was driven in major part by the

success of an English translation that was already in mass circulation. The Geneva Bible, which

was the much preferred version of the Bible among Puritans and Calvinists, had been around for

more than four decades by the time James I assumed England’s throne in 1603, and was by far

the best selling and most widely owned translation for the time being (McGrath 148). James

vehemently disapproved of the Geneva Bible, occasionally referring to it as “the worst” of all the

translations available; his severe dislike, shared with traditionalists in general, lay rooted

Andersen 4

primarily in the marginal notes which accompanied that Bible’s text (Nicolson 58). With every

Scripture passage that might have supported James’ conviction of the divine right of kings, the

marginal notes in the Geneva Bible would interpret the passage as irrelevant to the matter of

royal authority, if not opposed to the idea. On the other hand, the notes would treat passages in

which individuals happened to defy a king as examples that readers should be ready to follow

towards their own rulers if, and when, their wishes were contrary to God’s.

In short, the Geneva Bible was a translation fervently opposed to the supreme rule of a

monarch, apparently based on the belief that kings, being mere men, will inevitably attempt to

work against God’s will. Even in terms of the text itself, the anti-royalist position was clear

enough by the fact that the term “tyrant” was applied more than four hundred times, and almost

always to identify a king (the word would be completely absent in the King James Version)

(Nicolson 58). As far as the book’s accompanying commentary went, one example of the

opposing view could be observed in the marginal notes for Psalm 105:15, a verse commonly

used to defend the notion of the divine right of kings. The Geneva’s translation was simply

“Touch not mine anointed, and do my prophets no harm,” but whereas traditionalists considered

“mine anointed” as a reference to the king, having been anointed at his coronation, a marginal

note interpreted the phrase as “Those whom I have sanctified to be my people” (Geneva Bible).

By claiming the passage to be in protection of God’s people as a whole, rather than the king as

an authority by heavenly appointment, the verse became quite useless for substantiating James

I’s convictions.

The enormous ownership which the book had amassed among the English people, even

next to competitors, had full reason to be recognized as a threat to James’ goal of better ensuring

his supreme authority as a monarch. Not only did he fear the influence which the work would

Andersen 5

probably have on the attitudes of readers and churchgoers toward their king, but he recognized

the threat posed to the other half of his vision for the nation, that of creating political and social

unity in the middle of tumultuous times. The Geneva Bible would only heighten the confidence

of Puritans and Calvinists in their own virtue, while at the same time inflaming defensiveness

from Anglicans; if there was going to be a translation of God’s Word capable of helping arouse

peace in England, this was not it. “The future of both the English monarchy and the church could

depend upon eliminating this most turbulent of Bible translations” (McGrath 148). James I ended

up deciding that the best way to try unseating the Geneva Bible was to initiate the development

of a new translation that would hopefully replace it.

The decision for work to commence on a new English translation of the Bible would arise

from the Hampton Court Conference of 1604, a series of meetings organized in an effort to,

among other things, resolve matters of doctrinal conflict between Puritans and members of the

Church of England. From the beginning, James envisioned for the new book to not only bear his

valuable seal of approval but to become the Scripture translation of choice for citizens all over

the country. One transcriber’s account of the conference offers the following summary of early

plans for the translation: “His Highness wished that some especial pains should be taken in that

behalf for one uniform translation, and this to be done by the best learned in both Universities

[Oxford and Cambridge], after them to be reviewed by the bishops and the chief learned of the

church; from them to be presented to the Privy Council; and lastly to be ratified by his Royal

authority; to be read in the whole Church, and no other” (“Transcription”). James made clear that

the monarchy-sponsored Bible would feature no marginal notes whatsoever. That arrangement,

along with the translators coming from the faculties at Oxford and Cambridge, who often had

highly traditionalist views, secured that the resulting translation would prove as unlike the

Andersen 6

Geneva Bible as possible. That the work was to be reviewed afterwards by the bishops of the

Anglican Church, the Privy Council, and finally “his Royal authority” would cement that

guarantee for James I.

The king had incredibly high hopes for the potential of this regally-supported Bible as an

instrument by which he might achieve his goal of a socially and politically unified England held

safely under his power. “James was to make the Bible part of the large-scale redefinition of

England. It had the potential to become, in the beautiful phrase of the time, an ‘irenicon’, a thing

of peace, a means by which the divisions of the church, and of the country as a whole, could be

encompassed in one unifying fabric founded on the divine authority of the king” (Nicolson 66).

The monarch’s ambitious vision of unity would be emulated through the new translation, which

would in turn help that dream to become an impressive reality, assuming that the work were in

fact to gain widespread popularity and ownership once released. “The production, at the king’s

initiative, of a new English translation of the Bible would reinforce the image of the king as the

political and spiritual leader of his people. The unity of king, Bible, and church would ensure the

unity of the English people. Much, it seemed, would depend on that translation” (McGrath 171).

The book was meant to become the symbol of a singular national identity, and a cherished gift

for the citizens from their beloved monarch. Alas, the near future would show that those lofty

ambitions for the translation, at least the way James I envisioned them, were not meant to be.

The presumption among many nowadays might be that the King James Bible was as

adored and renowned at the time of its initial publication as it is in the present day. Surely a chief

cornerstone of the English-speaking world such as this has always enjoyed mass popularity, even

if true influence on the development of modern language and culture took time of course to

manifest itself. History’s account, however, proves strikingly opposite of this picture, instead

Andersen 7

indicating that the monarchy-sponsored translation’s original reception was astonishingly

anticlimactic. This disappointing launch was somewhat a reflection of circumstances that came

to surround the regal administration under James over the course of the seven years up to 1611 in

which the team of about fifty highly educated men diligently labored to create the translation.

“James’ popularity had waned substantially. People began to long for the good old days of

Queen Elizabeth, with whom James was regularly compared – unfavorably” (McGrath 171). As

the years passed, the king’s vision of a peacefully unified nation would become increasingly

laughable, and his lack of effectiveness in resolving issues between different factions of the

Church would compound with an ever more sinking economy to make him an unpopular figure.

However, reasons for the underwhelming performance of the initial publication went

deeper than just the monarch’s association with the Bible, having a great deal to do with the

work itself. Although the King James Bible, bearing the age of four hundred years, strikes

modern readers as having decidedly old-fashioned language, even readers back when it was first

available considered the book’s prose to be rather rich and unique. “The language choices made

by the translators of the KJV would have seemed oddly formal and archaic to many readers and

listeners, and this may have been thought to be entirely appropriate to the dignity and standing of

a sacred text” (Campbell 77). Critics often accused the translation’s prose as seeming

ridiculously out of date by about sixty or seventy years, when the interesting truth was that the

team of about fifty Oxford and Cambridge dons had exercised English of a form no one had ever

actually spoken before. The translators, who were granted considerable freedom during the

development process, had taken inspiration for language from a whole variety of sources,

including William Tyndale’s landmark translation, the Bishops Bible, and, ironically enough, the

Geneva Bible (McGrath 189). That the men had been aiming to produce a culminating work for

Andersen 8

generations of effort and skill is clearly expressed in the Preface which accompanied the King

James Bible during its first release: “Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the

beginning that we should 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” (Smith 14).

On top of all the sources already referred to, the translators had applied the sophisticated

language which they were accustomed to speaking with one another. The result was a truly

unique English style that has ever since remained archaic and yet miraculously timeless

(Nicolson 225). For many revered works of art and literature, the story has been that they first

needed to resonate with the observers of their particular eras before standing the test of time and

proving that they could be of enduring value to future generations. Such has been a very different

case for the King James Bible, which felt strangely antiquated and out of place upon its initial

publication. Having fallen short in terms of connecting with the current readership, the

monarchy-sponsored translation would have to wait before finding a suitable audience, probably

once its distinct and old-fashioned language felt more excusable with the passage of years.

In addition to the unique and seemingly outdated prose which the King James Bible

contained, the disappointing reception early on resulted from the attachment which an

overwhelming number of citizens felt for the Geneva Bible, easily the best-selling English

version of Scripture for the present. Even when authorities ended printing of the Geneva

translation around 1616, the enormous and devoted readership would cause the book to be

imported from publishing houses in the Netherlands. “The Geneva Bible continued to hold its

position in English affections, at least partly because it was so useful for its notes and

appendices, a guidebook to the world of the divine” (Nicolson 228). The interpretive features

that included anti-royalist statements were a draw for those seeking to better understand what

Andersen 9

they were reading, especially by comparison with the new translation, which of course had

purposefully been made devoid of marginal notes. The situation was not helped by how James I

apparently felt little urge to provide further assistance to the monarchy-sponsored Bible. “He

cordially disliked the Geneva Bible, but believed that his own new translation would eventually

displace it without any need for special action on his part” (McGrath 280). All of that meant that

the Geneva translation would not be unseated from its height of popularity any time soon.

Something particularly noteworthy about the anticlimactic initial publication for the King

James Bible is the fact that the lack of enthusiasm was not just true for the laymen constituting

the general public; it was also true for scholars, the individuals who might have been expected to

better appreciate the work’s rich and skillful language. One example of such a scholar was Hugh

Broughton, an expert in Hebrew, who assumed that the translators’ own understanding of

Hebrew had been inadequate and that they were interested “only in promotion in the church and

crawling to royal authority” (Nicolson 228). The scholar voiced his judgment through a letter to

Richard Bancroft, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who had overseen the translation process by

the appointment of James: “The late Bible was sent to me to censure: which bred in me a sadness

that will grieve me while I breathe, it is ill done. Tell His Majesty that I had rather be rent in

pieces with wild horses, than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor

churches… The new edition crosseth me. I require it to be burnt” (“Hugh Broughton”).

Broughton might have been emotionally compromised in his criticism, considering that he had

felt unfairly excluded from participation in the committee of translators, but his negative opinion

was nonetheless echoed among many other scholars at the time.

The most ironic example of the lacking support for the King James Bible at first among

the highly educated is how the translators themselves seemed hesitant to commend their own

Andersen 10

work; they preferred to use the Geneva Bible like the majority of England. “Lancelot Andrews

nearly always took his sermon texts from the Geneva. Even William Laud, the most anti-

Calvinist bishop in the church, quoted from the Geneva. Most extraordinarily of all, Miles Smith,

in the Preface to the new translation, quotes from the very Geneva Bible which it was, in part,

intended to replace” (Nicolson 229). Such was the initial existence of the King James Bible, a

translation that bore the royal seal of approval and had been laboriously produced with the

utmost skill and craftsmanship, but somehow, in spite of those benefits, appeared to have been

tossed aside as merely a project of the royal administration with little value at the moment for

anyone else. The rather short-term vision for social and political unity which had been a major

force in inspiring the work’s creation was quickly sinking into oblivion anyways. This is

probably where the fate of the King James Bible should have been deemed secure, an instant

museum piece ready to gather dust, doomed to be forever overlooked as a result of informal

banishment into obscurity.

Of course, as numerous English speakers are aware in our modern era four centuries after

the highly disappointing launch, the journey of the King James Bible certainly would not end on

that note. Against the odds, this Scripture translation would steadily but surely overcome those

two formidable strains of narrow political motivations and a failed initial publication. Not only

would those obstacles be surmounted, but the work would become the most printed, widely

owned, admired, and arguably beloved English Bible ever produced, even to the point of

operating as an undeniable pillar of the language and culture as we know them today. How the

King James Bible scaled such dramatic heights from endangerment of obscurity to incalculable

success and impact is a story much too lengthy and detailed to be covered in the remaining space

Andersen 11

of this discussion, but a basic explanation can be offered with regards to how the book has

managed to resonate powerfully with countless readers up to the present.

The ultimate key lies in the prose which the team of Oxford and Cambridge dons

managed to skillfully exercise during the painstaking translation process; it is a form of English

that has always felt rather archaic, but at the same time proves to be uncannily timeless. The

enduring quality of the King James Bible’s language might partly have resulted from

exceptionally good timing for its creation and publication in the timeline of history. “The King

James Bible, along with the works of William Shakespeare, is regularly singled out as one of the

most foundational influences on the development of the modern English language. It is no

accident that both date from the late English Renaissance, when English was coming into its own

as a language” (McGrath 253). The monarchy-sponsored translation had the advantage of being

produced when the fundamentals were maturing and getting established. As a result, the work

would bear essences of modern English that have never changed. In addition, the enormously

beneficial timing meant that, as soon as the Bible were to gain popularity, it would be far more

likely to influence the speech and writing of others than it would to be swayed by them. The

book carried the ripe potential to set standards for language, especially when considering that the

translators dared to apply a kind of prose which could not be associated with any particular era.

Matters of happenstance set aside, timelessness was also simply enough a very conscious

aspiration for the team of translators. James I’s political vision may have initiated the process

behind the Bible which bears his name, but during the actual development, the dons hardly saw

their work as politically driven; they earnestly labored to create as eloquent and accurate an

English translation as possible (McGrath 241). Their hope was that such a level of excellence

would allow reading of the Scriptures to be all the more a help and blessing to individuals within

Andersen 12

the Church who sought spiritual growth. The following samples a beautifully poetic portion of

the Preface which translator Miles Smith wrote to accompany the King James Version: “[The

Bible] is not only an armor, but also a whole armory of weapons, both offensive and defensive;

whereby we may save ourselves and put the enemy to flight. It is not an herb, but a tree, or rather

a whole paradise of trees of life, which bring forth fruit every month, and the fruit thereof is for

meat, and the leaves for medicine” (23). The translators, using the full extent of their linguistic

skill, strove to produce a definitive Bible that would assuredly last for generations to come as a

guide, strength, and comfort to believers throughout the English-speaking world. If the passage

of time has been any indication, they obviously succeeded.

The widespread and long lasting impact of the King James Bible perhaps affirms the truth

of a verse found in the Old Testament book of Isaiah, here quoted from the Authorized Version

itself: “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: But the word of our God shall stand for ever”

(King James Version, Isaiah 40.8). The prophet’s prediction would remain true even if the King

James Version had utterly disappeared into obscurity so long as some other translation of

Scripture, English or otherwise, remained available. Even with that in mind, the Bible handled

four hundred years ago by some fifty highly educated men commissioned under a monarch

affirms the statement in this way: It has demonstrated that exercising skillful and timeless

language in the process of translation can be truly valuable, especially for the sake of more

strongly ensuring that a given version of Scripture will stand the test of time and truly bear

influence. That advantage is apparently enough even for withstanding obstacles such as short-

term political motivations and failure to gain enthusiastic readership early on, as was the case for

the King James Bible, which now firmly stands as a chief cornerstone of English language and

culture.

Andersen 13

Works Cited

The Bible: Authorized King James Version. Ed. Robert Carroll. New York: Oxford UP, 2008.

Print.

Campbell, Gordon. Bible: The Story of the King James Version, 1611-2011. New York: Oxford

UP, 2010. Print.

The Geneva Bible, 1560 Edition. Ed. William Whittingham. Grand Rapids: Hendrickson, 2007.

Print.

“Hugh Broughton: letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury (1611).” World History: The Modern

Era. ABC-CLIO, 2011. Web. 15 Nov. 2011.

James I. The True Law of Free Monarchies and Basilikon Doron. New York: Cambridge UP,

1996. Print.

McGrath, Alister. In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed

a Nation, a Language, and a Culture. New York: Doubleday, 2001. Print.

Nicolson, Adam. God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible. New York:

HarperCollins Publishers Inc., 2003. Print.

Smith, Miles. The Translators to the Reader: The Original Preface of the King James Version of

1611 Revisited. Wheaton: American Bible Society, 1997. Print.

“Transcription from Hampton Court Conference (1604).” World History: The Modern Era.

ABC-CLIO, 2011. Web. 11 Nov. 2011.