A Short History of the King James Version of the Bible

The King James version of the Bible is often considered the gold standard for modern translations, but few of us are familiar with its history, mandate, publication and early printing. This article provides a brief glimpse in the hope that we will understand it and its historical context a little better.

The Bibles in Use at the Time

Any history of the English versions of the Bible has to begin with the work of William Tyndale and Myles Coverdale. Tyndale translated the New Testament and significant portions of the Old Testament from Greek and Hebrew into the English language in the 1520’s. In so doing he raised the wrath of the Catholic Church, and he was ultimately strangled and burned at the stake. His translation was of sufficient quality that significant portions of his translation were used in subsequent English translations. Myles Coverdale is credited with producing the first complete translation of the Bible into the English language. This was published in the 1530’s. Like Tyndale’s work, his translation and wording was used extensively in subsequent translations. The contribution of both Tyndale and Coverdale to both translation and to the Reformation movement in the English-speaking world cannot be underestimated.

In the early 1600’s there were three Bibles used in English Churches. The highly regarded Great Bible had been developed by Myles Coverdale at the request of Thomas Cramer, Archbishop of Canterbury, under the reign of Henry VIII in 1535. It was large – over 15 inches high, (hence its name) – and copies were distributed to all churches where they were chained to the pulpit. Its New Testament depended largely on Tyndale’s earlier translation. The Great Bible was the first “Authorized” English Bible.

Part of Matthew 13 in a 1611 print of the King James Bible

The second Bible of significance was the Geneva Bible. Published in 1560 it was the work of Protestant English scholars who had fled England to Switzerland during the reign of Catholic Queen Mary I. William Whittingham supervised the translation, working with other scholars including Coverdale, Goodman, Gilby, Sampson and Cole. The Geneva Bible was the first mechanically printed, mass-produced Bible made available to the public directly. It was also the first Bible to introduce numbered verses, making the Bible easy to study. To enhance its study potential, it contained copious annotations. These notes had been written by Calvinists and Puritans and were contentious to both the monarchy and the bishops of the high Church of England. However, it became the most widely popular Bible at the time and remained so for some time even after the publication of the King James Bible. It was the Bible familiar to Shakespeare and was one of the Bibles taken to America by the Plymouth Pilgrims. It also depended largely on Tyndale for the New Testament translation.

In 1568 a revision of the Great Bible, known as the Bishops’ Bible, was produced, mainly as a reaction to the Geneva Bible. It was not mass-produced as it was intended as a pulpit Bible, but it was not as popular as the Great Bible.

The Politics

King James VI of Scotland succeeded Queen Elizabeth I of England to become James I of England. He was the son of the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots. It was a time of unrest between the Scottish Protestant Parliament and the Catholic Monarchy. His mother abdicated while he was quite young. Thus, when James 1 became king, Scotland was essentially ruled by the Protestant regents until he became 18. As a consequence, he was brought up as a Protestant. One of his aims was to unite the Kingdoms of England, Scotland and Ireland. He had strong views about the monarchy’s divine right to rule. In England, he tolerated Catholics, provided they swore allegiance to the throne.

In Scotland, the ruling Protestants were fairly intolerant of Catholics, and Scotland was the scene of some of the worst persecution of Catholics by Protestants. England had separated from the Holy Roman Empire under King Henry VIII, not as result of reform, but for political expediency. The Church of England was the state church and, to a large extent, was very similar to the Roman Catholic Church, except that the King had replaced the Pope. Within the Church of England were two opposing factions – the Papists, who wanted the Church to return to the Roman Catholic Church – and the Puritans who wanted to purge the church of any Roman Catholic influence at all. Religious persecution was fairly common. Roman Catholics were allowed to practise, provided they swore allegiance to the King. Puritans were somewhat tolerated, provided they were relatively quiet. Of course, some of the Puritan leaders did not keep quiet and they, together with their congregations, were known as “Dissenters.”

The tensions between the religious factions is highlighted by two notable events that occurred during King James’ reign. The Papists attempted to blow up the English Parliament in 1605, an event associated with the name Guy Fawkes, who was caught guarding the explosives under Parliament House. Secondly, the Pilgrim Fathers, who were essentially dissident Puritans, left England (circa 1607) for Holland and ultimately America.

Culture and Literature

During the reign of James I, literature flourished and the English language came into its own as a literary force. William Shakespeare, John Donne, Ben Jonson and Sir Francis Bacon were all active during this period and all made a significant contribution to the literary culture of the English language. It is notable that the King James version of the Bible was translated during a period when English language was gaining respect as a language for literature. Even today unchurched literary experts acclaim the value of the Bible as literature.

The Mandate

In this setting James convened the Hampton Court Conference in 1604 for a discussion between the King, and representatives of the Church of England, including the Puritans. The conference was a response to a request for reforms from the Puritans to remove Catholic terminology and practices from the Church. Initially the conference accepted many of the Puritans’ requests, but unfortunately John Whitgift, the Archbishop of Canterbury, died and was replaced by Richard Bancroft, who was anti-Puritan. Ultimately, the main concession won by the Puritans was that man should know God’s Word without intermediaries.

This led to James I calling for a new translation of the Bible, authorized to be read in churches. The mandate for the new Bible translation included:

  1. Instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy[i]. Certain Greek and Hebrew Words were to be translated so that they reflected Church of England practice.
  2. The new translation was not to have marginal notes. This had been an issue with the Geneva Bible as it had extensive notes that were viewed with disfavour by both the Papists and the monarchy.
  3. It must be written in a language that is familiar to the readers and listeners. One effect of this was that anglicized names were used wherever possible.

The Translation Process

Fifty-four translators were called to make up the translation workforce. Eventually forty-seven translators were involved as some were unable to participate for various reasons. All except one were Church of England clergy and included scholars with both High Church of England and Puritan sympathies. (The names of the translators, the committees they sat on and the sections they translated have all been recorded together with their collected working papers and marked up corrections to one of the Bishops’ Bibles.) They worked under the supervision of Richard Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury. There were two committees in each of Oxford University, Cambridge University (church operated universities), and Westminster University. They worked separately and cross-checked each other. They translated from the original languages and compared their work with previous English translations (i.e. Tyndale and Coverdale). The translation was essentially completed by 1608. In 1609-1610 the work was reviewed by a review committee. Archbishop Bancroft had the final say, making fourteen final changes after the committee stage. One of these was the term “bishoprick” in Acts 1:20.

Publishing and Printing

The initial printing was run in 1611 and sold for 10 shillings loose-leaf or 12 shillings bound. Two editions were printed in 1611 known as the “He” (1st Ed) and “She” (2nd Ed) Bibles based on their rendering of Ruth 3:15. The original printers fell into serious debt and printing was assigned to two rival printing companies, who engaged in rather spurious business practices. There was a rather embarrassing row between them.

Mis-printed KJV

Spelling in the English language had not been standardized when the King James version of the Bible was first printed and printers made their own revisions to spelling, punctuation and grammar where they thought it was needed to reflect current usage. Further, proof reading was not as thorough as it should have been. One notorious printing omitted the word “not” from the commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” [ii] The printers printed 1000 copies with this error and were fined 300 pounds for their mistake. Although they were supposed to have been recalled and destroyed, some are still in existence today (At the time of writing this article, one is currently on offer for over $100,000). By the mid 1700’s the variations in the King James Version prints had reached the stage where it was embarrassing and could not be ignored. This led to a revision and standardization.

The 1769 Revision

In the 1760’s the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge undertook to standardize the text, reverting as much as possible to the original 1611 version but at the same time adding corrections and improvements of their own, mainly under the direction of Benjamin Blayney. The 1769 version that was produced from this effort incorporated these changes and differs from the 1611 text with about 20,000 spelling and punctuation changes and 400 wording changes. Most of the spelling revisions were due to the issues like the use of “u” and “v”.

Word change examples:

TOWARDS has been changed to TOWARD 14 times.
BURNT has been changed to BURNED 31 times.
AMONGST has been changed to AMONG 36 times.
LIFT has been changed to LIFTED 51 times.
YOU has been changed to YE 82 times.

In Genesis 22:7 AND WOOD was changed to AND THE WOOD.
In Leviticus 11:3 CHEWETH CUD was changed to CHEWETH THE CUD.
In Romans 6:12 REIGN THEREFORE was changed to THEREFORE REIGN.

To give you some idea of how the 1611 and 1769 versions compare for reading, here are parallel quotes from 1 Cor 13, 1-3.

[1611] 1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.

[1769] 1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

In this passage, there are 11 changes of spelling, 16 changes of typesetting, three changes of punctuation and one variation in translation.

The King James Version in use today is largely the same as the 1769 Blayney revision, in spite of the fact that the modern preface often states the 1611 publication date.


The original King James Version was published with the annotation, “Appointed to be read in Churches” on the title page. This annotation was most likely approved by the Privy Council, but records of their actions in the first two decades of the 1600’s were lost in a fire in 1619. The term “Authorized” was used on the title page of the King James Bible sometime in the early 1800’s. There is evidence that “Authorized” was used in the description of this version in other literature in the late 1700’s. Significantly “Appointed” and “Authorized” were terms used by the government and the Bishop’s council to indicate that the version was the one that must be used in the Church of England. The King James Bible was the third Bible to be “Appointed to be read in Churches.” The earlier ones being the Great Bible and the Bishop’s Bible.


Like all translations, even modern ones, the King James Version is a product of the circumstances of its time. It was written at a time when Church and State were not separated. However in spite of its mandate and history of publication, it is still a clear record of God’s dealings with man.


[i] Daniell, David (2003). The Bible in English: its history and influence. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-09930-4.

[ii] Herbert, A. S. (1968). Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible, 1525-1961, Etc. British and Foreign Bible Society.

Source Material

Much of the background material for this article came from Wikepedia. Words used in the searches included; Tyndale, Coverdale, King James Version, Great Bible, Bishops Bible, Kings James VI and I.

If this post piqued your interest, you may be interested in one of the following books:

Click to buy at Amazon

How We Got Our Bible, by Timothy Paul Jones is a broad overview, not an in-depth history. Filled with dramatic stories of how people risked their lives to bring us the Bible in our language and highly-visual charts and illustrations, this Bible History handbook will take you from the earliest clay tablets and papyrus copies to the first bound Bible and the various Bible translations that we use today!

One of our readers (Mike Lewis) recommended  God’s Secretaries by Adam Nicholson. It is available on Amazon.com in Kindle and Hardcover format. You can read the reviews on Amazon to get an idea of how the author approaches the subject. It looks to be a very readable account which provides a good feel for the environment in which the KJV was born. 

Another book on the subject, In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Cultureby Alister McGrath, explores the ‘fascinating history of a literary and religious masterpiece explores the forces that obstructed and ultimately led to the decision to create an authorized translation, the method of translation and printing, and the central role the King James version of the Bible played in the development of modern English.” It is highly rated on Amazon.  

Click to buy at Amazon

Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible, by E Randolph Richards,delves into the culture of Bible times to allow us to see what the original writers had in mind. For instance, we tend to think of Jesus being born in a detached stable/barn. But the author suggests that it is more likely that Jesus was born in the stable part of a peasant home, with the stable being on a slightly lower level than the living area, complete with diagrams. Many more such fascinating details. 

Finally, you might want to take a look at The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? by James R White. Unfortunately, it’s not available in Kindle format. (You can also look up the author’s name on Youtube and watch him debate on the subject. 

Alternately, you can check out The King James Version Debate: A Plea for Realism by D. A. Carson which is available in Kindle format as well as paperback. 

If you are familiar with any of these books, please feel free to leave feedback. 

Posted in Feature, Holy Scriptures - Fundamental Belief 1 Tagged , permalink

About Maurice Ashton

Maurice Ashton is a retired lecturer who lives in Australia. He taught Science and Mathematics at high school level before taking a research interest in Computer Science. He lectured at Avondale College for nearly 30 years before retiring in 2012. He is married to Carmel and they have two adult children and two grand children. Currently Maurice is pursuing a keen interest in bird photography and spends much of his time sitting in swamps observing and photographing birds. He has been involved with Sabbath School Net since about 1997.


A Short History of the King James Version of the Bible — 16 Comments

    • Mike, there is no doubt a large number of good sources such as the one mentioned. Many have endorsements of very similar information. I am not a book worm, so I tend to pick and choose if possible. If it is understandable, I am interested.

      • I found it understandable. And challenging at times. But a fascinating insight into much of what was going on in England at the time.

  1. Thank you Maurice for sharing your extensive research. While we have newer translations for our time, just like the KJV was a new translation for its time, I appreciate what you shared about it literary value. Many people memorize Shakespeare because the literature is easy to memorize. Likewise many feel the KJV is easy to memorize. As much as I appreciate newer translations of the Bible, I notice as we get farther away from the KJV, the less and less we are actually memorizing Scripture. While some forget that the KJV is a version and not the original manuscripts, I believe the KJV is a classic that will always have a place in the English culture.

  2. Maurice, words fail me to express the amount of appreciation you have provided for the extensive volumes of information. Much more than I would ever be able to access such as a through and complete comprehensive historical background of the King James Bible. You are truly amazing. Thank you so much.

  3. I love the conclusion of the piece the kind gentleman presented. The bible is the clear record of how God is dealing with man!

  4. Maurice, I enjoyed and appreciate your posting. It is timely as I was searching for the most accurate and authentic version to use in my Bible studies. There are many views out there regarding which is the "right" version to use.

    The NIV is becoming very popular and it is recommended for easy reading. However, from the internet and friends, I was told it is not an ideal version to use for serious studies. Care to share your opinion?

    • I am not a theologian, nor am I a linguist Kelvin, so I cannot really say one is better or worse than another. I accept that all versions have some sort of mandate for their translation. I personally keep in mind John 5:39-40:

      Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. And ye will not come to me, that ye might have life. (KJV)

      or, as in a modern translation:

      You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, 40 yet you refuse to come to me to have life. (NIV)

      Both translations give the sense that it is quite possible for us to search the scriptures looking for eternal life yet fail to see Jesus.

      In my own personal Bible study I use the YouVersion app on my iPhone or iPad (simply because it is free) and have access to over thirty English translations or paraphrases. I use the KJV for searches because I am familiar with it, but use a variety for reading. I am often reassured by their similarities and enlightened by their differences.

    • Kelvin, I appreciate your wanting to use the "right" version. We must remember of course that the "right (= original)" version was written in Aramaic, Hebrew (for the Old Testament) and Greek (for the New). And there were numerous copies of numerous ancient manuscripts, many of which had small but occasionally significant differences. So we in the twenty-first century have a problem. What is "right" today? From a scholarly point of view the NRSV is considered "most accurate" - but even that one is not without its difficulties. The REV (Revised English Version) is considered very good by many. The KJV with its traditional language may be hard to set aside by older generations, but let's face it, it is very hard to to make sense of at times - especially Paul's letters. For me at least it is the content and meaning which is important and sacred, not the traditional language.

      I have discovered over the years that, as Maurice pointed out, it is valuable to read a variety of good quality translations (NRSV, REV, NKJV, RSV, NIV) comparing them along with other older ones as you feel you are able. I would also comment that prayerful study is what is needed most. Searching the scriptures is a good discipline. But searching with prayer will lead one closer to the truth. Of that I am convinced. It is good to know that you are searching for what is "right". May you be blessed as you "search the scriptures".

  5. One footnote to Maurice's article. Recent research (primarily original documents that have been found) suggest that the KJV translators did not function as a committee to the extent previously believed, but rather, different portions were parceled out to each for translation. The best translations involve dialog between members of a committee who bring different backgrounds and perspectives to the table.

    As for the "best" translation, as has been stated, there is no best translation. There are many good translations, but all are translated by humans and have some mistakes and biases. The use is a major factor. For devotional reading a dynamic translation (such as NIV or Living Translation) is generally best, because it reads the smoothest. For detailed study a more word literal translation, such as NASB is better. Personally, one of the best translations I have found is the NET Bible, a translation that was created for use online. I have a copy on my smart phone as part of Cadre Bible. I have found it in most cases to accurately reflect the original language and the many notes go quite deep into the challenges of translating. Anyone who has ever looked at NA Greek NT knows that often notes take up half the page. The NET Bible is the only translation I know of that provides a similar emphasis on quality of sources as well as meaning of words.

    • That is quite correct there were six committees, two at each of Oxford, Cambridge, and Westminster. The individual committees worked separately then compared their work with their paired committee. Finally all the work was brought together in one location and a final committee went through it during 1609-10. Lastly, the Archbishop of Canterbury made fifteen ex-committee changes of his own to the final manuscript before it was printed.

    • I really appreciate your comment, Wilton, perhaps because our experience mirrors yours.

      Just last year we read through the Chronological New Living Translation Bible< /em>, and we found it remarkably accurate for a version that followed the original "Living Bible" by Dr Kenneth Taylor, which was only a paraphrase. The current edition appears to be a solid translation that reads very well.

      I also use the NASB for reference and very much enjoy the NET Bible. I was impressed by the translators' goals in translation, and I particularly appreciate your comment on the NET use of sources.

      • My wife got a NLT a while back and we have been using it quite a bit. My perception, like yours is that it is actually a high quality translation. I can't say that I have found any more problems with it than with other translations I trust. She also recently got a Message Bible. It has proved interesting, bringing concepts to life. But I would not consider it highly accurate. It makes for interesting reading and can give useful insights, but if there is any doctrinal or theological intent when using it, a more trustworthy version should always be open beside it.

        I have about ten translations in Cadre Bible on my phone (including Greek NT). I do a lot of my reading and study using the phone. (I also have SS lessons and all EGW and the old and new hymnals on it).

        What many people don't understand is that KJV is not error free. We just have gotten to know its errors. Many consider it the standard to judge other translations by, but that is misguided. If a newer translation differs from KJV and their notion of what the text should say, the new translation is assumed wrong. But in just about every case I've looked at, it is the KJV that is wrong. It isn't really possible to make that judgement without referring back to the original language. Sadly most of those most vocal on this topic are the least qualified--they generally know nothing of the original languages and their theology training didn't go beyond Academy Bible class--but they are certain of their position. I'd love to show them the highly annotated NA27 Greek NT to give them a brief glimpse of what translators have to deal with. Ten manuscripts use one word, fifteen have a different word, five omit the word entirely. Some are older and presumed more accurate. Is it easier to see how a scribe could have omitted the word, or how a scribe could have accidentally added the word--or was the scribe deliberately trying to clarify something (according to his own theological understanding)?

        One translation that bothers me most is NKJV. Many Adventists use it, thinking that because it stays close to KJV it is more accurate than others. It is true that it is more familiar sounding, but as for accuracy, the translators specifically state that they did NOT avail themselves of any of the manuscripts that have been discovered since KJV was translated (including things like the dead sea scrolls) or any of the advances in understanding of the original languages. They simply updated the wording of KJV to more closely match current English usage, which is itself a benefit. But without considering the extensive material that is available now that wasn't available 400 years ago, NKJV must, by definition, be one of the less accurate translations available.

  6. Recent discoveries seem to indicate even more than that. Some of the committee members appear to have taken passages to their individual churches and worked on them alone. We don't know to what extent the committee reviewed the results, but the annotated working documents suggest that some, possibly most of the actual translation was not done in a group setting, but by individuals. Probably the largest continuity factor was actually the three translations you mentioned that hey had access too. The is a lot of commonality to Tyndale's work, in particular.

    • Tyndale's contribution to both Biblical translation and the English language should never be underestimated. He even invented words when no word was currently available. The fact that so much of his wording was retained in the Great Bible and the KJV is testament to the fact that he had done rather a good job of translating in the first place.

  7. Absolutely loved the article and the comments. While I am not a bible scholar I am so grateful that God would move on a kings mind to produce a bible the common man could have,hold,and read and protected it's existence through hundreds of years. It brings tears to my eyes to know how much God loves me, as I learn, in reading my bible in a modern day world that is full of strife and confusion. Whoever translated Isaiah 26:3 and Psalms 119:165 I will be forever grateful. We serve an AWESOME GOD!!! In Christian Love, david.


Please leave a comment long enough to say something significant and considerably shorter than the original post. First and last name required.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *