From Moses to King James: A Short History of the English Bible

“In the beginning, there were no tape recorders.” (Bock, Jesus, 94)  Without some means to preserve them, words vanish the instant they are spoken. Only as they are remembered, do they continue to exist--and cease to exist when they are forgotten. If they are to preserved, they must be passed on.

The Christian religion is based on the fact that God has given a revelation to man. Francis Scheaffer said: “[God] is there, and He is not silent.”  But, as with all words, the words of God must be preserved or they will disappear. It is not enough for God to give a revelation as one particular point in time; that revelation must be recorded and transmitted. So it is that we go from revelation given to men thousands of years ago to the Bible we hold in our hands today.

The Old Testament was written over a period of 1000 years, beginning with Moses writing the Pentetauch and ending with the prophecy of Malachi, though some believe that Genesis is based on oral or written records passed down to Moses from the time before the flood. The Old Testament is comprised of many different kinds of books--books of history, poetry, and prophecy. Some of the writers seem to have been deliberately recording a revelation entrusted to them by God, while others seem to have been unaware of the task they were fulfilling. Many of the Old Testament books are compilation of previously written material. So, for instance, the books of Samuel and Kings seem to have been compiled by several different editors over the course of Israel's history. Proverbs and Psalms are also compilations of various materials.

Paper as we know it today was not known in the Ancient Near East. The books of the Old Testament were (most likely) originally written on Papyrus, a paper-like material formed from reeds. Because it was not a very durable material, none of these original writings still exist. Instead, these original writings were copied, over and over again, down through the centuries. The oldest copies we possess are the Dead Sea Scrolls, some of which may be as early as 300 BC. The Jewish scribes who copied the Old Testament were very careful in attempting to copy the text accurately, because they believed they were copying the Word of God.

The New Testament was written during a much shorter period of time than the Old Testament. The first books of the New Testament were probably written during the 40s while the last, Revelation, was probably in the 90s. They were all written in Greek. Like the Old Testament, they were written by a variety of different people in different circumstances. It includes books of history (Acts and the Gospels), letters, and one book of Prophecy (Revelation). As with the Old Testament, we do not have original text of any of the New Testament books. After they were written, they were copied and copied again, traveling far and wide across the Mediterranean World.

The term “canon” is used in reference to Scripture (both Old and New Testament) to refer to the establishing of exactly what writings were considered part of the sacred text. The establishing of the Canon can be seen as the end point of the process of the writing of Scripture. Most of the books of the Old Testament were understood as being canon from the time they were written, because they were seen as direct revelations from God.  The Talmud relates that there was some debate about several books--Ezekiel, Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Song of Solomon, and Esther--but they were ultimately accepted as canonical. (Word, 98) By the time the New Testament was beginning to be written, the Old Testament canon was established as it is today, though the order of the books was considerably different.

Though the books of the New Testament were written over a period of fifty years and therefore originally were distributed separately, it appears that they began to be collected into a single “book” fairly early. Some have suggested that Paul himself may have collected his epistles together and distributed them as a single collection. It appears that the New Testament as we know it may have been collected together sometime in the second century. (Cradle, 16ff) Though it is not certain, if this is true that canonicity of the NT books would have been settled at that time. We do know by the late 2nd century most of the New Testament was already recognized as scripture. There may have been some debate around Hebrews, Revelation, and the General Epistles but by the fifth century these were all clearly accepted. Athanasius in 367 listed all the books as we know them today though in a slightly different order. (ibid, 7-10) The church recognized that books of the New Testament had authority because they (1) came from the apostles (2) or the apostolic period (3) reflected the orthodox teaching of the church and (4) had been used by all the churches. (ibid, 8-10)

With the writing of Revelation in the 90s, the Bible was complete and, as already stated, was probably quickly seen as a single, holistic book, rather than just a miscellaneous collection of individual books. That is, strictly speaking, where the Bible as a book came from. But, of course, this original Bible was not written in English. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew (and some Aramaic) while the New Testament was written in Greek. The process of which begins with the original languages of the Bible and stretches to the King James and other modern English Bibles is the process of Translation.

An old proverb states that every translator is a traitor. While we shouldn't go quite that far, it is true that the act of taking something that is spoken or written in one language and trying to put it into another language is always tasking. Anyone who has ever had to act as a middle man has experience how hard it can be to translate an idea from English into English, let alone from one language to another. The Bible has unique problems because it is both literature and authoritative scripture. In order to translate, you must both be able to understand what is stated in the original language and then try to express it in English, express it in a way which fully and accurately pictures the original meaning. Hayyim Nachman Bialik comments: “He who reads the Bible in translation is like a man who kisses his bride through a veil.” (Quoted in “Wycliffe”) Translation is a daunting task, but it is one that--given the authority of what Scripture is--must be done. In the preface to the KJV, the translators wrote: “[P]erfection is never attainable by man, but the word of God may be recognized in the very meanest translation of the Bible, just as the king’s speech addressed to Parliament remains the king’s speech when translated into other languages than that in which it was spoken, even if it be not translated word for word, and even if some of the renderings are capable of improvement. ... The whole history of Bible translation in any language ... is a history of repeated revision and correction.” (Quoted in “Reign”)

As already mentioned, the Old Testament was originally written in Hebrew, since Hebrew was (not surprisingly) the language of the Hebrews. However, as time passed, Greek became more and more the dominate language of the world around the Mediterranean Sea. For this reason, in Alexandria, in c. 250 BC a project began to translate the books of the Old Testament into Greek. (Word, 99) This translation is called the Septuagint, which comes from a word meaning Seventy--it is usually abbreviated as LXX, the Roman Numeral for Seventy--because of a tradition that the books of Moses were translated by a group of seventy-two scholars. The Septuagint was the first translation of such a large work from Hebrew into Greek, and is a very important part of the history of the Bible. In the time of Jesus, this would have been largely what common people knew of the Bible. Generally, when the New Testament writers quote the Old Testament, they are quoting the Septuagint. (ibid, 112) One major problem with the Septuagint, however, was that during the long process of its creation, a number of books found their way into it, aside from the recognized canon of the Old Testament. These books are known as the Apocrypha and they will continue to pop up as we move forward. (ibid, 99)

Somewhere after AD 381, an irascible Christian scholar named Jerome embarked on important enterprise--a complete translation of the Bible into Latin. This translation would become known as the Vulgate. This was not the first of such translations, but it was important for several reasons. In the Old Testament, rather than basing his translation on the Septuagint as previous translations had done, he translated directly from the Hebrew, making this the first major Christian translation of the Old Testament. Interestingly, many people were unhappy with his decision to make a new translation of the Old Testament, and even St. Augustine wrote to him suggesting he should leave well enough alone. (Story, I:202-204) Jerome wanted to limit the Old Testament to the canon books, but he included some of the apocrypha in his Bible, though trying to make it clear that they were not on the same level as the canonical books. However, after his death, other apocryphal books were added to Vulgate and would become an official part of the Bible of the Roman Catholic Church. This translation was in Latin. Though in NT times, Greek was the dominant language in the Mediterranean area, as history progressed, Latin became the main language. It would become the official language of the Catholic Church and remained such long after Latin ceased to be the language of the people. Jerome's Latin Bible (which would become the standard Bible for Catholic Europe) had a very important position, then. In the Medieval Period, very few clergy would have known the original languages of the Bible and so they depended on the Latin Vulgate. “In terms of longevity, the Latin Vulgate is the most influential translation of the Bible in history.” (“Wycliffe”)

The Roman Catholic church was the dominant religious force in Europe until the end of the 1500s. Though there were opponents and off-shoots, for all intents and purposes, the Roman church was the Christian Church in Europe. The official language of the church was Latin, since it was the church of Rome, the repository of the Roman empire. Since the church spread over many countries with diverse languages, it made sense to use a separate language to unite the church. A priest in Germany wouldn't be likely to know French and a priest in France wouldn't know English but they all knew Latin. (In theory.) For the same reason, Latin was was the language used by scholars from across Europe, and many scientific and scholarly terms are still in Latin. The problem with this was that common people didn't know Latin and so couldn't read the Bible or understand it if it was read too them, making it impossible for them to really know what the Bible taught. By in large, the church didn't want people to study the Bible on their own. With everyone studying the Bible and interpreting it for themselves, they feared mass confusion would arise. When the Reformation officially began, one Catholic official remarked: “Now every man will become his own pope.” The catholic ideal of a single, united church required that authority remain in the church, an authority which would be threatened if everyone could read the Bible for themselves. They wanted the priests ordained by the church to be the ones who interpreted the Bible for the people. The problem was that as time went on, there were too many priests who didn't really know Latin either, at least not very well. Daniel Wallace claims that many Catholic priests of this period had never even read the entire Bible. (“Wycliffe”) They couldn't act as interpreters for the Bible because they didn't even know it well themselves. Ordinary people couldn't study the Bible and too many of the clergy didn't study the Bible.

It didn't help any the church itself was going through a time of crisis. The ideal of the Catholic church had been a church which had political power and could therefore act as as a balance to the political power of nations. The problem was that this made the church another counter in the already complex politics of Europe. At the beginning of the 1300s, political tensions grew between Pope Boniface and King Philip IV of France, which climaxed to the point where Philip had a band of armed men capture the Pope, in hopes of forcing him to resign. Though this plot failed, it was the beginning of a period of time in which French political power overshadowed the Papacy. For a period of time, the Popes would reside in Avignon, France rather than in Rome and in some cases were merely puppets controlled by the French king. This climaxed in the great schism, in which there were two popes at the same time--in order to solve the problem, a council met and appointed a new pope to replace these two--and that led to their being THREE Popes. (Imagine the state of not knowing who is truly the divinely appointed leader of the church.) Political power and money had come to play a larger role in the life of the church than theology or piety.

It was in this background that John Wycliffe began his work. Wycliffe was born in the early 1300s. He was an ordained Catholic priest and held a doctorate of theology from Oxford, (“Wycliffe”) but he was not afraid to challenge the practices and beliefs of the Catholic church. The basis of his teaching was a belief that the true church was not the ecclesiastical structure but those predestined to salvation as evidenced by the fruits of their lives. He claimed that many Catholic leaders including the Pope were most likely not really Christians. Because he held all true believers to be the church he thought that all believers should have access to the Bible. (Story, I:347) He wrote: “Those Heretics who pretend that the laity need not know God's law... do not deserve to be listened to. For Holy Scriptures is the faith of the Church, and the more widely its true meaning becomes known the better it will be. Therefore since the laity should know the faith, it should be taught in whatever language is most easily comprehended.” (Quoted in “Wycliffe”) For this reason, he wanted a translation of the Bible in English. This translation, which appeared around 1382, is known as Wycliffe's translation, though it is not clear how much of the actual translation work he did.

The Wycliffe Bible was translated from Jerome's Vulgate. While Latin was available to scholars, very few people in England would have known Greek or Hebrew.  The significance of this Bible is that “It was the first complete Bible in English--in fact, the first complete Bible in any modern European language!” (“Wycliffe”) Though it was not a very good translation, it was the first time in history that ordinary people in England could read the Bible through.

Wycliffe's Bible faced a difficult situation. All copies had to be written out by hand. (Imagine writing out the entire Bible by hand.) Shortly after it was created, English law made it illegal to read the Bible in English. And yet, for all that, this Bible was copied and spread and began to have an impact on the religious life of England. (“Wycliffe”)

Though Wycliffe's translation was the first in English, a great deal would happen before the next English translation, that of Tyndale. Between Wycliffe and Tyndale the face not only of England but all of Europe would have changed tremendously. A great many factors went into this change, but several need mentioned specifically, which regard a growing dissatisfaction with the Catholic Church as it then existed.

Many even loyal Catholics felt that the church had lost its way, with corruption and immorality being widely practiced and accepted. Those who still were concerned with Christian living were confused about how it could be pursued in the midst of a decadent church. Justo Gonzalez explains: “In such circumstances, even the many priests and monastics who wished to be faithful to their calling found this to be exceedingly difficult. How could one practice asceticism and contemplation in a monastery that had become a house of leisure, and a meeting place for fashionable soirées? How could a priest resist corruption in his parish, when he himself had been forced to buy his position? How could the laity trust a sacrament of penance administered by a clergy that seemed to have no sense of the enormity of sin?” (Story, II:7)

Many were also questioning doctrines of the church. When Constantinople was conquered by the Turks in 1453, many scholars from the city came to Europe, bringing with them knowledge and documents which had been lost in the west. (Story, I:336) Particularly, they brought a knowledge of the Greek language which had been almost entirely absent. For the first time in centuries, Greek would be studied at a European university. (“Wycliffe”) All this led to a movement which wanted to study the original documents of the church and compare them with the present practices of the church. (Story, II:7-8) It was out of this thirst for learning that the Humanist Movement was born, a movement dedicated to the revival of ancient culture and knowledge--many of them hoping that such a revival would bring reformation to the Church. The leader of this movement was Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam. One of Erasmus's most important contributions was to prepare a Greek New Testament. This would allow people to study and compare the Greek text of the Bible with the Vulgate. It would do much to undermine the authority of the Catholic church. It would also be the Greek text used as the foundation of Tyndale's translation. (“Yields”)

Another important change which occurred was the invention of the printing press by Johann Gutenberg. Up to that point, the Bible (and all books) had to be hand-copied or printed in slow, cumbersome methods like stamps. In the 1450s he had completed his printing press and began (later finished by others) the first book printed on a modern printing press--the Vulgate Bible. This invention would allow books of all kinds to be promulgated much more quickly and extensively than at any point in world history up to that point. (“Gutenberg”)

Into this atmosphere of change and renewed interest in the past came the Protestant Reformation. In Germany, Martin Luthor began questioning the Catholic church while Ulrich Zwingli was asking similar questions in Switzerland. Following from these two men would come a movement that would change the face of European Christianity forever. After this the Catholic church was still present and still powerful, but it was not longer “The Church.” Part of the Reformation movement was increased emphasis on Scripture as the basis of faith. Because of this emphasis, Martin Luthor translated the Bible in German. This Bible would have some impact on William Tyndale's English translation. (“Wycliffe”)

William Tyndale was a well-educated man, holding a master's degree from Oxford as well as having study at Cambridge. He knew at least six different languages. (“Wycliffe”) Though Tyndale is most known for his translation of the Bible, he was also an original writer. C. S. Lewis called him “the best prose writer of his age.” (Literary Impact, 13) Tyndale had a passion for getting a good English Bible, upset with the ignorance that many even in the church had about the Bible. (“Crown”) In 1523 he told one religious man: “If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more Scripture than thou dost.” (Quoted in “Wyclifee”) He originally hoped to do this with the permission and support of Bishop Tunstall, but the Catholic cleric refused to countenance an English Bible. (“Crown”) Besides, it was still illegal in England to make or read an English Bible. Therefore, he traveled to Germany. Here he met Jewish scholars who helped him learn Hebrew, which would help him in his translation work. His English New Testament was printed in 1526, though he would make several revisions of it over the next several years. He did much work on the Old Testament also but was not able to complete it. He was executed in 1536 for the crime of creating an English translation of the Bible. (“Wycliffe”)

Daniel Wallace lists several significant facts about Tyndale's New Testament: It was the first English translation made after the invention of the printing press, the first one to work from the original language rather than from Latin, the first translation to use italics for words added to the texts, and it was simply a better translation than any of the previous translations. “Tyndale knew the biblical languages better than any Englishman at that time, and he knew English better than most. He turned good Greek into good English.” He created several words which have become part of the English language: passover, peacemaker, scapegoat, and beautiful. His translation would be the basis for later translations. J. Isaacs comments: “His simple directness, his magical simplicity of phrase, his modest music, have given an authority to his wording that has imposed itself on all later versions. ... Nine-tenths of the Authorized New Testament is still Tindale, and the best is still his.” (Quoted in “Wycliffe”)

In 1534, a year before Tyndale's arrest on the Continent, the King of England (Henry VIII) had finally broken from the Catholic church. The Parliament confirmed that the King and not the Pope was the head of the church in England. (Story, II:73) Though Henry's main motivation was political, this would lead to religious changes in England, one of them being that he allowed the Bible to be printed in English legally. Thus, while Tyndale was still in prison in Europe, the Coverdale Bible (partly based on his work) was printed in England, becoming the first complete English Bible produced in the age of the printing press. (“Wycliffe”) Myles Coverdale had worked with Tyndale and he produced a translation of the Bible after Tyndale's arrest. He didn't know Greek and Hebrew so he combined some of the OT that Tyndale had translated along with a new translation of his own from German and Latin translation. (“Wycliffe”, History, 70-71, “Crown”) This translation would be important because of its relation to the apocrypha. Previous Old Testaments had placed the Apocrypha throughout the Old Testament, making no distinction between the books of the Apocrypha and the canonical Old Testament. Coverdale was the first to place all the apocrypha in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments, indicating that they were not truly part of the Old Testament. “Protestant Bibles that were to follow, if they included the Apocrypha at all, included them as an appendix--just like Coverdale had done.” (“Wycliffe”)

After the Coverdale Bible, came the Matthew's Bible, also known as the “Wife-Beater's Bible.” This Bible was published in 1537, created by Thomas Matthew (whose real name was John Rogers). Though it borrowed heavily from Tyndale, Matthew did know Greek and Hebrew and translated some directly. (“Crown”) This Bible was also produced under the religious freedom provided by Henry VIII. This Bible is most famous for the 2000 or so footnotes or comments which Matthew added. One of these notes read: “If [the wife] be not obedient and healpfull under [her husband, he] endeavoureth to beate the feare of God into her...” (Quoted in “Wycliffe”) This was the source of this Bible's unusual nickname.

The Bible enjoyed a great deal of privilege under Henry VIII. He ordered that “ye shall discourage no man... from the reading or hearing of the ... Bible, but shall expressly provoke, stir and exhort every person to read the same, as that which is the very lively  Word of God...” Moreover, he ordered every church in England to have a copy of the Bible in them, even specifying that it had to be “the whole Bible of the largest volume in English” (Quoted in “Wycliffe”) Up to that point, Matthew's Bible was the largest Bible in size and was also the best translation of the whole Bible in English. But his controversial footnotes made it less than ideal. So, Thomas Cromwell (a member of Henry's government), ordered a new version of the Bible. (Story, II:72, 75) his version was done by Myles Coverdale but was based on Matthew's (since Matthew knew the Biblical languages better than Coverdale) which in turn was based on Tyndale. This Bible was known as the Great Bible because it was the largest Bible produced in English (deliberately, in order to fulfill the King's requirement.) Henry would later ban all English Bibles except for the Great Bible.

When Henry's daughter Mary Tudor became queen, she began a campaign of undoing the religious reforms which had been enacted by her father and brother. This forced many English Protestants to travel to Protestant centers in Europe, including Geneva, Switzerland which had become an important point in the European reformation and which had become the residence of French theologian, John Calvin. William Whittingham (brother-in-law to Calvin) and other of these scholars created a new English translation of the Bible which became known as the Geneva Bible. (The New Testament was produced in 1557; the whole Bible in 1560.) Though this translation was very much influenced by Tyndale, it did go back to the original Greek and Hebrew making it the first entire English Bible to be completely based on the Biblical languages. (“Wycliffe”) This Bible also was the first to use verse divisions and used italics more extensively than Tyndale's NT, both of which have come down to the King James. This Bible was enormously popular. Even after the King James Version was produced, the Geneva Bible would remain the most popular Bible in England for years. (“Wycliffe”) Unlike the Great Bible, it was printed in a small size so as to be easily accessible to common people. (General View, 93)  It was nicknamed the “Breeches' Bible” because of the translation of Genesis 3 which described Adam and Eve as sewing fig leaves together to make breeches. (“Wycliffe”)

After Mary's death, her half-sister Elizabeth became queen and returned England to Protestantism, though she tried to keep the church in the middle of the road without committing too much to any extreme. The Great Bible was still being used in churches, but after the Geneva Bible was produced in Europe and flooded into England, it became clear that the Great Bible needed revision. F. F. Bruce comments: “The instant success of the Gevena Bible made it impossible to go on using the Great Bible for reading in church; its deficiencies became all too obvious in the light of the new version.” (Quoted in “Wycliffe”) Archibishop Parker undertook the translation of a new Bible, assigning various scholars the work of translation specific portions. At least eight of these translators were bishops of the English church; hence this Bible is called the Bishop's Bible. (General View, 96-99) It was based heavily on the Great Bible but also had some influence from the Geneva Bible. (“Crown”) Though it was not formally recognized by the Queen (“Wycliffe”), it did become the official Bible of the Anglican church. (General View, 101)

As a result of the Catholic/Protestant controversies, Catholics wished to publish an English Bible of their own, since people were widely reading other translations and some Catholics felt that these were biased in favor of Protestantism. (“Douay Bible”) Tony Lane explains: “English Roman Catholics wanted to fight the Protestants on their own ground and not be forced to read Protestant translations.” (“Crown”) William Allen had founded an English seminary in Douai, France (later moved to Rheims) largely for English Catholics who had been forced from England by Elizabeth. It was here that his new translation of the scripture arose. (General View, 103) Dr. Gregory Martin, an Oxford scholar, did most of the translation, working alongside several other Oxford scholars. (“Douay Bible”) It was based on Vulgate rather than original language. It attempted to be more literal than Protestant translations but it was so much like Latin that it was hard to understand in English. This Bible is the foundation of modern English catholic Bibles. (“Crown” “Douay Bible”)

During Elizabeth's reign, the Geneva Bible remained the most popular translation for most people but the Bishop's Bible was still being used in churches. Many religious leaders felt the need for a compromise--for a Bible that could be used both by the church and the common people.Also during Elizabeth's reign, the Puritan Movement began and started growing in strength. The Puritans felt the Anglican Church was still too much like the Catholic and demanded more sweeping reforms to bring the church into alignment with Scripture. Following Elizabeth's death, the throne passed James Stuart, the son of Elizabeth's cousin. He was King James VI of Scotland but then became James I of England.

One of the first things James had to do was deal with the various religious problems which had risen within the church of England and to that end convened the Hampton Court Conference in 1604, largely to deal with objections raised by Puritans (who were becoming more and more strong and would shortly after become powerful enough to overthrow and behead James' son and heir, Charles I). (Story, II:151-153) By in large, this conference did nothing productive. However, one solid result did come out. Dr. John Reynolds, one of the Puritan leaders present, suggested that a new Bible translation be made. He asked: “May your Majesty be pleased... to direct that the Bible be now translated, such versions as are now extant not answering to the original.” (Quoted in Defending, 66) James, who strongly disliked the Geneva Bible because of its Calvinistic bent, agreed. And so the conference produced this resolution: “That a translation be made of the whole Bible, as consonant as can be to the original Hebrew and Greek; and this to be set out and printed, without any marginal notes, and only to be used in all Churches of England in time of divine service.” (“Reign”) Because this new translation was authorized by King James it would become known as the Authorized Version or the King James Version.

Though James, naturally, did none of the actually translating, he does seem to have chosen the 47 men who did the work of the translation and laid out the general plan of the translation. (“Reign”) The translation team included both Puritans and non-Puritans. (History, 75) Two things were specifically laid out for the new Bible. It was to be a revision of the Bishop's Bible, following it as closely as possible. It was to have no footnotes. (James disliked the footnotes in the Geneva Bible, specifically one which said that questioned the authority of kings.) These two rules are important because the translators ended up not obeying either of them. (“Reign”)

There were 47 people who worked on the translation of the KJV, divided into several smaller groups, to work specifically on the Old Testament, New Testament, and Apocrypha. These groups worked at Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster Abbey. Though the KJV translators did work from published Greek and Hebrew texts of Scripture, their translation was heavily influenced by earlier works. It was supposed to be based on the Bishop's Bible and be as close to it as possible, but as the process of translation continued the influence of the Bishop's Bible grew less and less. The Rheims-Douai Bible, or at least the New Testament, had some influence on the KJV, especially in choice of certain words. The Geneva Bible, especially the Old Testament, also played a role. However, the main influence on the translation was Tyndale.  David Daniell comments: “Astonishment is still voiced that the dignitaries who prepared the 1611 Authorized Version for King James spoke so often with one voice--apparently miraculously. Of course they did: the voice (never acknowledged by them) was Tyndale's.” (Quoted in “Reign”) Daniel Wallace points out the KJV is very close to Tyndale (and Geneva, which was largely based on Tyndale) and should be considered a revision of Tyndale. (“Reign”) The translation also contained 8500 marginal notes, many of them noting points where the translators were unsure about the correct translation.

In 1611 the translation was published. It met with some initial dislike. One scholar commented that he would rather be torn apart by wild horses than be a part of promoting a translation “so ill done.” (Quoted in “Reign”) For some time, the Geneva Bible would still be the more popular of the two. Over a hundred years later, Methodist scholar Adam Clarke would comment that many people were unhappy with the problems in the KJV but they should be thankful it was no worse. However, it did become the established Bible of the English speaking world and would become one of the most influential works of English literature.

One scholar observed, “The men who made [the KJV] did not set out to manufacture a literary classic... Yet they did produce one: perhaps the only classic ever turned in by a committee...” (Quoted in “Reign”) Many writers, even non-Christians, have admired the the literary quality of the King James. Daniel Wallace asked: “What is it that makes the King James so good? In a word, it is its elegance. The KJB has rhythm, balance, dignity, and force of style that is unparalleled in any other translation... No translation today lingers in the mind like the King James of old does.” (“Reign”)

References

Christian History. “1456 Gutenberg Produces the First Printed Bible” Christian History Institute. https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/gutenberg-bible/ (accessed January 30, 2018)

Fink, David C. “The Man Who Yielded to No One.” Christian History Institute. https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/the-man-who-yielded-to-no-one (accessed January 30, 2018)

Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity. 2 Vols. New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1984, 1985.

Kostenberger, Andreas J., L. Scott Kellum, and Charles L. Quarles, The Cradle, The Cross, and The Crown: An Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2009.

Lane, Tony. “The Crown of English Bibles.” Christian History Institute. https://christianhistoryinstitute.org/magazine/article/crown-of-english-bibles (accessed January 1, 2018)

Lewis, C. S. The Literary Impact of the Authorized Version.  Facet Books Biblical Series, John Reuman, General Editor. Fortress Press, Philadelphia © 1963. 2nd printing, revised, 1968. First published by The Athlone Press, London, 1950.

Merrill, Eugene H., Mark F. Rooker, and Michael A. Grisanti, The World and the Word: An Introduction to the Old Testament. Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2009.

New Advent. “Douay Bible” Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05140a.htm (accessed January 1, 2018)

Underwood, Jonathan. A History of the English Bible. Cincinatti: OH: Standard Publishing, 1983.

Waite, D. A. Defending the King James Bible: God's Word Kept Intact in English, 2nd ed. Collingswood, NJ: Bible For Today Press, 1996.

Wallace, Daniel B. “From Wycliffe to King James (The Period of Challenge).” Bible.org. https://bible.org/seriespage/1-wycliffe-king-james-period-challenge (accessed October 29, 2017)

Wallace, Daniel B. “The Reign of the King James (The Era of Elegance).” Bible.org. https://bible.org/seriespage/2-reign-king-james-era-elegance (accessed October 29, 2017)

Westcott, Brooke Foss. A General View of the History of the English Bible. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1927. First edition, 1868. Third edition revised by William Aldis Wright, 1905.

Wilkins, Michael J. and J. P. Moreland, Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus. Zondervan, 1995.