On king James’ bible, the ‘Authorised Version’

The story behind the King James translation or KJV, including the men who were involved in producing it

Please always get the latest version of this document, from the Bible Pages web site, at this address: www.biblepages.web.surftown.se/fs03b.htm

Need larger text? Hold down the CTRL key and press the + key. For advice on text-size in print-out, click here. Bookmark this page – hold down CTRL and press D.

In the USA, especially in the Baptist- and Freemason-influenced South, there is a movement or cult, “KJV only”, which claims the King James version to be the “most accurate” bible-translation, “without error”. Some even claim that it was “inspired by God”. Often, particularly its 1769 edition is considered to be “The Bible”. But, is that correct?

In other words: king James’ bible, the “Authorised Version” – is it somehow “the inspired Word of God”, better than other translations, or a particularly “holy” bible-version, or the best or most exact or accurate one as some say? Also: In what way or sense is it “authoritative” – who “authorised” it?

This article has some details of the story behind the King James translation or KJV, including the men who were involved in producing it. Some examples of the text of KJV-1611 are also included. Further, there are some brief remarks on the so-called “Received Text” or Textus Receptus, the Greek NT text compilation produced by the Catholic priest Gerrit Gerritszoon (“Erasmus”), which some have erroneously claimed to have been the basis for the New Testament part of king James’ bible. (Many may not know this, but KJV-1611 was merely a slight revision of the 1602 edition of Bishops’ bible. There is more on this, later in this article, including a text comparison.)

Here is a small sample of the looks of KJV-1611, a part of Genesis 1:

A note: As you can see, the main text of the 1611 edition of king James’ bible was printed with the already in those days antiquated Gothic or “black letter” font. Likewise, the language that was used in king James’ bible, was archaic already at that time. It may be that that old font and old language were used for the purpose of giving James’ bible an air of “ancientness” or “authority”. (For instance the 1560 Geneva bible had been printed with a more modern font-style, even though the “black letter” font was used in some of its later editions.)

Many might not be able to read the old-style letters in the text sample above. Here are verses 1-12 in modern-day letters, but with the 1611 wording and spelling:

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth. 2 And the earth was without forme, and voyd, and darkenesse was vpon the face of the deepe: and the Spirit of God mooued vpon the face of the waters. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God diuided the light from the darkenesse. 5 And God called the light, Day, and the darknesse he called Night: and the euening and the morning were the first day. 6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters: and let it diuide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament; and diuided the waters, which were vnder the firmament, from the waters, which were aboue the firmament: and it was so. 8 And God called the firmament, Heauen: and the euening and the morning were the second day. 9 And God said, Let the waters vnder the heauen be gathered together vnto one place, and let the dry land appeare: and it was so. 10 And God called the drie land, Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called hee, Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11 And God said, Let the Earth bring foorth grasse, the herbe yeelding seed, and the fruit tree, yeelding fruit after his kinde, whose seed is in it selfe, vpon the earth: and it was so. 12 And the earth brought foorth grasse, and herbe yeelding seed after his kinde, and the tree yeelding fruit, whose seed was in it selfe, after his kinde: and God saw that it was good. (KJV-1611)

As was mentioned earlier, king James’ bible was not a new translation. It was merely a slight revision of the 1602 edition of Bishop’s bible, with some stylistic changes – and with certain specific things “adjusted” according to the king’s specific orders. In its first printed version, the publisher (the printing house) included a claim that it was “newly translated out of the original tongues”, but that was not true. The “translators” were given forty wide-margin prints of the 1602 edition of Bishops’ bible (also a Church of England translation), and their orders were to produce a text that was as close as possible to that 1602 edition, with as few changes as possible – but with certain things “adjusted”, according to the king’s wishes.

Appendix 1 contains a comparison of the texts of the 1602 edition of Bishops’ bible and the 1611 king James’ bible.

Appendix 2 contains another facsimile example of text in KJV-1611, and links to downloadable facsimile copies (PDF) of the book of Matthew and the dedication letter, the “Epistle Dedicatorie”.

The men whom king James put to produce a new bible-edition.

Some writers have said that those men were “among the best translators” that were found in England at that time. That might be, but really what kind of men were they, and were their orders, in regard to the text which the king had put them to produce?

When the 1602 Bishops’ bible and James’ in 1611 published revision of it were produced, Europe had been ruled by the Catholic Church for a thousand years. Even though the Church of England had broken financial and other ties with Rome, it was still basically Catholic, in regard to its teachings and practices. So were also the men whom king James in 1604 put to produce a revision of the 1602 edition of Bishops’ bible. Basically Catholic, in regard to religion.

Also, the text which the king in 1604 put them to produce, was not a new translation but merely a slight revised edition of the 1602 edition of Bishops’ bible. There is more on this, under the next heading.

For a list of the men whom king James selected to produce his new bible-edition, see appendix 3.

Was the 1611 King James version made for the purpose of producing a translation that was better or more exact than earlier English bibles?

In other words: Was it made for the purpose of producing a text that was closer to the original languages? No. Read on, for more.

It was in 1604 that James ordered a new bible-edition to be produced, for the Church of England whose head he had made himself. He gave the men whom he engaged in that project, orders to produce a text that was as close as possible to the 1602 edition of Bishops’ bible, also a Church of England translation, with as few changes as possible. In other words: A “new” bible-edition was ordered in 1604, to replace one that had been published only two years earlier. And still, it was to be a close copy of that 1602 edition. So, what was the point with that project?

The answer is that it was for political reasons that James was not satisfied with the 1602 translation. That is why he in January 1604, a few months after he was coronated as the king of England, [A] ordered a revision of that 1602 version. On the one hand, he wanted a bible which did not have any marginal notes that were not in favour of tyrants. (Some English bibles of the 1500s had such for James annoying notes.) James claimed that he was a “heavenly king” who was “not answerable to any man”. He used the “divine right

of kings” dogma as an excuse for his dictatorship. On the other hand, he gave orders that the new text was to be written so that it supported “church hierarchies” of the Old Catholic kind. (He needed those things for staying in power. For controlling the people of England, so that his own power position would be secured, he had to have the help of the local priests of the Church of England. He could not personally control them, but he could do that by the help of a “church hierarchy”. For that reason, the men who he set to produce a new edition of the 1602 version, were given specific orders in regard to certain things. There is more on this, later in this article.)

[A] James was coronated as the king of Scotland on 29 July 1567, and as the king of England on 24 March 1603.

Was the New Testament part of king James’ bible based on a ‘superior Greek text’?

Some have claimed that the NT part of KJV-1611 was based on a “superior Greek text”. But, the facts are different.

For the first, king James’ bible was not a “new translation based on the original languages”, even though the printing house made such a claim. It was merely a slight revision of the 1602 Bishops’ bible – however, with certain specific things “adjusted” according to the king’s orders. Consequently, KJV-1611 contains peculiarities which are not been found in any earlier text except for BIS-1602.

Secondly, the New Testament part of KJV-1611 contains some wordings that are not supported by any Greek text, but which are found in the Latin text of the Catholic Vulgate version. The reason for this is that earlier English translations, including the 1602 Bishops’ bible which was the basis for king James’ bible, were in many ways influenced by Catholic things.

KJV-1611 included even the Apocrypha. Why? Well, because the Catholic Vulgate version included Apocrypha. The apocrypha was still there, also in the 1769 Oxford edition of the KJV. (Many present-day “KJVs” are of a much later date. In them, numerous textual changes have been made since 1769, not to mention 1611. Sometimes, versions which give the appearance of being “the 1769 edition, re-printed”, may actually be based on some later edition.)

And then, regarding Hebrew and Greek texts: It is not true that the KJV would have been “based on the Hebrew and the Greek texts”. Again, when James in 1604 ordered a new bible-edition, the “translators” were instructed that they were to base their text on the 1602 edition of Bishops’ bible, with as few changes as possible, but with certain things “adjusted” according to specific orders. Some of the men in the “translation committee” may have looked even at some Hebrew and Greek texts, or at some already existing

translations (English, Latin and other) – but again, they were told to produce a text that as close as possible to that of the 1602 edition of Bishops’ bible. In short: Those men received specific instructions which hindered them from producing a text that would have correctly carried over the meaning of the Hebrew and Greek texts.

Regarding the so-called “Erasmian text”, see the next point.

Some remarks on the so-called ‘Received Text’ or Textus Receptus, the Greek NT text-compilation produced by the Catholic priest Gerrit Gerritszoon (‘Erasmus’).

There is a cult around the so-called “Erasmian text”, which some have misleadingly claimed to have been the “basis” for the New Testament part of king James’ bible. Some have spoken much about the supposed “supremacy” of Erasmus’ (Gerritszoon’s) text. But, the facts are different. Read on.

The “Erasmian” or “TR” text was compiled by a Catholic monk and priest, a Dutchman by the name Gerrit Gerritszoon, circa 1466-1536, an illegitimate son of a man who also became a Catholic priest. Gerritszoon’s Latin name was “Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus”. (Apparently, the part “Erasmus” was after the “saint” Erasmus of Formiae who appears in some Catholic stories.)

In the early 1500s, the book printer Johann Froben in Basel in Switzerland asked Gerritszoon to produce a Greek text of the New Testament, for publishing purposes. Apparently, Gerritszoon did not have access to Greek manuscripts for all of the NT. But, the publisher wanted a text and pressed on, and so, Gerritszoon produced a text, in a hurry. This was circa 1516. It seems that in passages where he lacked a Greek text, he created one by translating the Latin text of the Catholic Vulgate. This and other things in connection with his hasty work, brought in many errors.

(Over the decades that followed, there were published several different, revised editions of that co-called “Erasmian” Greek NT text. In other words: There are numerous differences between the text which Gerritszoon produced, and the texts that today are called “Textus Receptus” or “Erasmian text”.)

The origin of the phrases ‘textus receptus’ and ‘received text’.

In 1624, the Dutch Elzevier brothers printing-house in Amsterdam published a Greek NT, basing it on revised versions of the text which Gerritszoon had produced (see the preceding heading). In 1633, almost a century after Gerritszoon’s death, Elzevier brothers published yet another edition. In its preface, they included the promotional Latin language sales phrase (“blurb”) textum ergo habes, nunc ab omnibus receptum, in quo

nihil immutatum aut corruptum damus, meaning, “so you have the text that is now accepted by all, in which we present nothing that has been changed or that is corrupted”. That was not true – all did not at all accept that text, and it was not in any way a text without errors – but sales talk is sales talk.

It is from those words ab omnibus receptum, “accepted by all”, in that Latin-language sales phrase, that the misconceptions “textus receptus” and “received text” have then been produced.

In short: Some writers and preachers have caused people to believe that the different Greek text compilations which are based on what Gerritszoon in a hurry produced in the early 1500s, supposedly are a “received text”, as if they were “inspired texts”, “received from above”. That is plain deception. Again, the phrase textum ergo habes nunc ab omnibus receptum did not in any way refer to some “receiving from above” or “inspiration”; it was merely the publisher’s for sales purposes produced claim (a false such) that their text supposedly was “accepted by all” (ab omnibus receptum).

king James’ bible is also called ‘Authorised Version’. In what way is it ‘authoritative’ – who ‘authorised’ it?

Yes indeed – in what way or sense was James’ new bible-edition “authoritative”, and who “authorised” it?

James, the dictator king who for political reasons ordered the creation of a new bible-edition, apparently demanded that he personally was to check and “authorise” the text before it was published. He had made himself the “head” of the Church of England, and now he wanted a bible-edition which would make it easier for him to control that church, and through it the people of that country. Thus, king James’ bible was indeed produced “at his majesty’s special command” as is stated in many KJV bibles – for the king’s goals and purposes. The results were according to that.

So, the “authority” behind that translation was the dictator king. But, one can view the matter even this way: James’ bible is not without reason called “authorised version”, because the group of men who produced it (and the final editor before the text went into print) wrote into that new edition “authority” and “power” and “rights” for the king (James) and also for the church hierarchy whose support James needed in order to stay in power.

(Regarding the word “authority” – it comes from the old Latin noun auctor which meant “the originator”, “the author”. The only true “biblical authorities” are those who can be said to be the real originators, authors, of the books of the Bible: Jesus and God the Father. But, they have not “authorised” any bible-translation. The essay fs06.htm has more on “biblical authority”.)

James actually claimed that it would be right to call him “god”. He acted as if he was a “heavenly king” with a “divine right” to rule. He claimed that he was “not answerable to any man”. The new bible-edition which he ordered, came to have wordings which give seeming support to those claims. There is more on the “divine right of kings” dogma, later in this article.

Support for church hierarchies was written into the bible which James ordered.

“Ranks” and “ordination” have no basis in the Greek text of the New Testament. So, why does the King James version cause its readers to think that those things are biblical? The answer is that James the king wanted the Church of England to continue to be controlled by a hierarchical system of the Catholic type. Earlier, when that church was fully Catholic, things were more simple for those in power. Common people were not expected to read the Bible, and it was Catholic tradition that counted and not what the Bible said. But now, in the beginning of the seventeenth century, even some “common” people were beginning to read the Bible. That could easily lead to problems for the king and for the religious system which he needed for staying in power.

It is said that James felt, “No bishop, no king.” Putting that in other words: If things in England remained as they had been in Catholic times, so that the king had a level of “higher churchmen” who controlled the local priests and through them the common people, the king was more likely remain in power.

So, he saw to it that support for such things was included in the “new” bible-edition which he ordered in 1604. In that connection, he gave orders that “the old ecclesiastical words [were] to be kept”; that meant that for instance such words as “church” and “bishop” were to be used, instead of properly translating the Greek text of the New Testament.

And, he saw to it that men of his liking had “high” positions in the Church of England, and then he made an unholy alliance with those men. They helped him to stay in power, and he recompensed them for that help. Some of those men were in the group that produced a new bible-edition for him.

Among the concepts that were included in king James’ bible were “ordination”, “offices” and “ranks”. (Those things have no basis or support in the Greek text of the NT. (Also: The KJV text causes its readers to think that elders in the saints’ fellowships “ruled” over the other saints. Wordings of that kind had been used already in earlier English translations, but in James’ bible, those things were made even more accentuated. The “translation committee”, or the final editor, wrote in shrewdly chosen wordings which give a totally upside-down turned picture of many of the apostle Paul’s teachings, and of how things were among the saints.

The essay ee04d.htm takes a closer look at Hebrews 13:7 and 17 and other NT passages where many bible-translators have made it seem that the saints were “ruled” by elders. The essay fe02.htm sorts out the (originally Catholic) concept of “ordination”. The essay ee01d.htm studies the role of elders among the saints, and even the word and concept “bishop”.

The so-called ‘divine right of kings’.

James was coronated as the king of England in 1603. A new edition of Bishops’ bible had just been published the year before, in 1602. But, in those days, the Geneva Bible (an English translation published in 1560) was still in popular use. The Geneva contained some marginal notes which were not favourable to dictators. That disturbed James. Also, it seems that not even the 1602 edition of Bishops’ bible was good enough for James’ needs and purposes, in that regard. So, he ordered a new edition to be produced. It was to be a close copy of the 1602 edition, with as few changes as possible, and without marginal notes of the annoying kind – and with certain things “adjusted”, according to the king’s specific orders. (There was a written 14-point instruction list in this regard, but James’ hand-picked men in the translation committee, or the final editor, may have received further orders of various kinds. And anyway, many of them knew well what James wanted, and the result of their work shows that they acted according to his wishes.)

Among the things that came to be included in the new edition which James ordered, was better support for the concept of a supposed “divine right of kings”. He made some truly incredible claims about himself. In a speech to the parliament (which he regarded as nothing), he claimed that kings

“haue power of raising, and casting downe: of life, and of death: Iudges ouer all their subiects, and in all causes, and yet accomptable to none but God onely”

(“Accomptable” = accountable.)

and that

“kings are iustly called Gods”

and then, consequently,

“I conclude then this point touching the power of Kings, with this Axiome of Diuinitie, That as to dispute what God may doe, is Blasphemie; but quid vult Deus, that Diuines may lawfully, and doe ordinarily dispute and discusse; for to dispute A Posse ad Esse is both against Logicke and

Diuinitie: So is it sedition in Subiects, to dispute what a King may do in the height of his power”.

(Quid vult Deus = Latin for “what God wants”. A Posse ad Esse = “from ‘may be’ to ‘is’”.)

Again, the men whom James put to produce a new bible-edition – or, perhaps the final editor who checked the text before it went into print – then dutifully saw to it that certain wordings which gave at least some support to his claims about a “divine right”, were included in that new edition. Many of those things have then been copied, into later bible-versions. Thus, even though there is no biblical basis for the “divine right of kings” dogma, many translations of the Bible contain wordings that can be interpreted to give some support to it.

Many have claimed, echoing wordings included in king James’ bible and in many other versions, that the rulers of this world supposedly are “appointed by God” and “continually in his service”. Is that so? Was Genghis Khan “appointed by God” and “in his service”? Or the caesars of Rome, or Mao Tse Tung? Or Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, or any of the other tyrants and butchers? No, of course not. It is only that bible-translations that have been produced at the order and under the control of worldly rulers, may cause the reader to think so. (The essay ew02e.htm has more on the rulers of this age, worldly rulers.)

Much more could be said about king James’ bible.

Indeed, much could be said about that bible-edition, but it is enough to note that it was not in any way “inspired”. Its claimed accuracy is a mere myth. It is not any better than other bible-versions; it contains bias and errors and even purposely twisted things, just as other translations do. It simply is a bible-edition which James the dictator ordered, for his own political purposes.

(Why is it that so many preachers and “theologians” praise the KJ version, and speak against other translations? Well, perhaps because the KJV contains wordings which make it easier for preachers to control people.) (Those who wonder why king James has been such a big “hero” for certain groups, can read the essay ew04f.htm.)

Are there better translations, then? Well, some translations are worse while some others are not quite as bad, but it is important to understand that there are no “good” ones. Virtually all existing bible-versions have been produced by persons who worked for this world’s churches or rulers, or at least were under their control or influence. Consequently, believers should not put their faith on translations but should have and use proper study tools. The essay gg02.htm provides easy keys to deeper understanding of the

Scriptures. The pages es01e.htm and es02d.htm have some notes on tools and helps for bible-study.

See also the “recommended reading” section, after the appendixes below.

Please send or mention the address to this site to others, and link to these pages. The address to the table of contents page is biblepages.web.surftown.se/flist.htm

Appendix 1 – comparison of the text of BIS-1602 and KJV-1611.

The men whom king James in 1604 put to produce a new bible-edition for him, were given forty wide-margin prints of the 1602 version of Bishops’ bible (also a Church of England translation). Their orders were to produce a text that was as close as possible to that 1602 edition, with as few changes as possible – but with certain things “adjusted”, according to the king’s wishes.

Below, the text in the left-hand column is taken from a photo of a page in one of the BIS-1602 bibles which the “translators” were given as a basis for the new edition which James ordered.

This is the text on the page where BIS-1602 contains Luke 23:28-24:18.

Bishops’ bible, 1602: king James’ bible, 1611:

23:28 But Jesus turning backe, unto them, sayd, Yee daughters of Hierusalem, weepe not for me, but weepe for your selues, and for your children.

23:28 But Iesus turning vnto them, said, Daughters of Hierusalem, weepe not for me, but weepe for your selues, and for your children.

29 For behold, the dayes are comming, in the which they shall say, Happie are the barren, and the wombes that neuer bare, & the paps which neuer gause sucke.

29 For beholde, the dayes are comming, in the which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that neuer bare, and the paps which neuer gaue sucke.

30 Then shall they beginne to say to the mountaines, Fall on vs, and to the hilles, Couer vs.

30 Then shall they begin to say to the mountaines, Fall on vs, and to the hils, Couer vs.

31 For if they doe these things in a moist 31 For if they doe these things in a green

tree, what shall be done in the drie? tree, what shalbe done in the drie?32 And there were two other euill doers, led with him, to be put to death.

32 And there were also two other malefactors led with him, to bee put to death.

33 And after that they were come to the place which is called Caluarie, there they crucified him, and the euill doers, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

33 And when they were come to the place which is called Caluarie, there they crucified him, and the malefactors, one on the right hand, and the other on the left.

34 Then sayd Iesus, Father, forgiue them, for they wote not what they doe: And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

34 Then said Iesus, Father, forgiue them, for they know not what they doe: And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

35 And the people stoode beholding, and the rulers mocked him with them, saying, He saued other men, let him saue himselfe, if he bee verie Christ, the chosen of God.

35 And the people stood beholding, & the rulers also with them derided him, saying, Hee saued others, let him saue himselfe, if he be Christ, ye chosen of God.

36 The souldiers also mocked him, comming to him, and offering him vineger,

36 And the souldiers also mocked him, comming to him, and offering him vineger,

37 And saying, If thou bee the king of the Iewes, saue thy selfe.

37 And saying, If thou be the king of the Iewes, saue thy selfe.

38 And a superscription was written ouer him with letters of Greeke, and Latin, and Hebrewe, THIS IS THE KING OF THE IEWES.

38 And a superscription also was written ouer him in letters of Greeke, and Latin, & Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE IEWES.

39 And one of the euill doers, which were hanged, railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, saue thy selfe and vs.

39 And one of ye malefactors, which were hanged, railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, saue thy selfe and vs.

40 But the other answering, rebuked him, saying, fearest thou not God, seeing thou art in the same damnation?

40 But the other answering, rebuked him, saying, Doest not thou feare God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?

41 And we truely are righteousely punished; for we receiue according to our deeds, but this man hath done nothing amisse.

41 And we indeed iustly; for we receiue the due reward of our deeds, but this man hath done nothing amisse.

42 And he sayd vnto Iesus, Lord, remember me when thou commest into thy kingdome.

42 And he said vnto Iesus, Lord, remember me when thou commest into thy kingdome.

43 And Iesus said vnto him, Uerely, I say vnto thee, to day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

43 And Iesus said vnto him, Uerily, I say vnto thee, to day shalt thou be with me in Paradise.

44 And it was about the sixt houre, and 44 And it was about the sixt houre, and

there was a darkenesse ouer all the earth, vntill the ninth houre.

there was a darkenesse ouer all the earth, vntill the ninth houre.

45 And the Sunne was darkened, and the vaile of the temple was rent, euen thorow the middes.

45 And the Sunne was darkened, and the vaile of the temple was rent in the mids.

46 And when Iesus had cried with a loude voice, hee sayd, Father, into thy hands I will commend my spirit: And when he thus had said, he gaue vp the ghost.

46 And when Iesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: And hauing said thus, he gaue vp the ghost.

47 When the Centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, Verely this was a righteous man.

47 Now when the Centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.

48 And all the people that came together to that sight, when they sawe the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned.

48 And all the people that came together to that sight, beholding the things which were done, smote their breasts, and returned.

49 And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afarre off, beholding these things.

49 And all his acquaintance, and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood a farre off, beholding these things.

50 And beholde, there was a man named Ioseph, a counseller, and hee was a good man, and a iust,

50 And behold, there was a man named Ioseph, a counseller, and hee was a good man, and a iust.

51 (The same had not consented to the counsell and deed of them) which was of Arimathea, a citie of the Iewes, which same also waited for the kingdome of God.

51 (The same had not consented to the counsell and deede of them) he was of Arimathea, a city of the Iewes (who also himselfe waited for the kingdome of God.)

52 He went vnto Pilate, and begged the body of Iesus.

52 This man went vnto Pilate, and begged the body of Iesus.

53 And he had taken it downe, he wrapped it in linnen cloth, and layd it in a sepulchre that was hewen in stone, wherein neuer man before was layd.

53 And he tooke it downe, and wrapped it in linnen, and layd it in a Sepulchre that was hewen in stone, wherein neuer man before was layd.

54 And that day was the preparing of the Sabboth, and the Sabboth drew on.

54 And that day was the Preparation, and the Sabbath drew on.

55 The women that followed after, which had come with him from Galilee, followed after, beheld the sepulchre, and how his body was layd.

55 And the women also which came with him from Galilee, followed after, and beheld the Sepulchre, and how his body was layd.

56 And they returned, and prepared sweete odours and ointments, but rested the Sabboth day, according to the commandement.

56 And they returned, and prepared spices and ointments, and rested the Sabbath day, according to the commandement.

24:1 But vpon the first day of the Sabboths, very early in the morning, they came vnto the sepulchre, bringing the sweete odours, which they had prepared, and other women with them.

24:1 Now vpon the first day of the weeke, very earely in the morning, they came vnto the Sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certaine others with them.

2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.

2 And they found the stone rolled away from the Sepulchre.

3 And they went in, but found not the bodie of the Lord Iesu.

3 And they entred in, and found not the body of the Lord Iesus.

4 And it came to passe, as they were amazed thereat, beholde, two men stood by them in shining garments.

4 And it came to passe, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments.

5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they sayde vnto them, why seeke ye the liuing among the dead?

5 And as they were afraid, and bowed downe their faces to the earth, they said vnto them, Why seek ye the liuing among the dead?

6 He is not here, but is risen: Remember how he spake vnto you when he was yet in Galilee,

6 He is not heere, but is risen: Remember how he spake vnto you when he was yet in Galilee,

7 Saying, The Sonne of man must bee deliuered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise.

7 Saying, The Sonne of man must be deliuered into the hands of sinfull men, and be crucified, and the third day rise againe.

8 And they remembred his words, 8 And they remembred his words,9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things vnto those eleuen, and to all the remnant.

9 And returned from the Sepulchre, and told all these things vnto the eleuen, and to all the rest.

10 It was Marie Magdalene, and Ioanna, & Marie Iakobi, & other that were with them, which told these things vnto the Apostles.

10 It was Marie Magdalene, & Ioanna, & Mary the mother of Iames, and other women that were with them, which tolde these things vnto the Apostles.

11 And their wordes seemed to them fayned things, neither beleeued they them.

11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they beleeued them not.

12 Then arose Peter, and ranne vnto the sepulchre, and when he had looked in, hee sawe the linnen clothes layd by themselues, and departed, wondring in himselfe at that which was come to passe.

12 Then arose Peter, and ranne vnto the Sepulchre, and stowping downe, hee behelde the linnen clothes layd by themselues, and departed, wondering in himselfe at that which was come to passe.

13 And behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emaus, which was from Hierusalem about threescore furlongs.

13 And behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emaus, which was from Hierusalem about threescore furlongs.

14 And they talked together of all these things that had come to passe.

14 And they talked together of all these things which had happened.

15 And it came to passe, that while they communed together, and reasoned, Iesus himselfe drew neere, and went with them.

15 And it came to passe, that while they communed together, and reasoned, Iesus himselfe drew neere, and went with them.

16 But their eyes were holden, that they should not know him.

16 But their eyes were holden, that they should not know him.

17 And he sayd vnto them, What manner of communications are these that yee haue one to another as ye walke, and are sad?

17 And he said vnto them, What maner of communications are these that yee haue one to another as yee walke, and are sad?

18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleophas, answering, sayd vnto him, Art thou onely [End of page.]

18 And the one of them, whose name was Cleophas, answering, saide vnto him, Art thou onely […]

Again, the bible-edition which king James ordered in 1604 and which then went into print in 1611, was not a “new translation from the original languages” as the printing house claimed. It was merely a slight revision of the 1602 edition of Bishops’ bible, with some stylistic changes – and with certain specific things “adjusted” according to the king’s wishes.

Back

Appendix 2 – more facsimile examples of the 1611 version.

First, a picture of the page with Hebrews 1 in the 1611 edition of king James’ bible. In that edition, most scripture text was printed with the already in those days antiquated Gothic or “black letter” font, perhaps in an effort to give it an air of “ancientness” or “authority”. Note the archaic spelling – “diuers”, “yeeres”, “sonne”, “oyle”, et cetera, and the occasional use of v instead of u, the use of both “shal” and “shall” and also “he” as well as “hee”, and so on.

More of KJV-1611 in facsimile:

All of the book of Matthew: kj1611mt.pdf (PDF-file, around 4 megabytes in size. Can take a while to download and open.)

The dedication letter: fs03.pdf. (PDF-file, around 2 megabytes in size. Can take a while to download and open.)

Back

Appendix 3 – a list of the men who were selected to produce king James’ bible.

Some notes: Most of the translators were either clergymen (priests of the Church of England), or university people, or both. In those days, universities and religion were intimately tied to each other. Also, many of them were personal favourites of James the king and upheld his dogma regarding “the divine right of kings”, and more. Further, it is important to keep in mind that in those days (early 1600s), the religion of England was basically Catholic. This was so, despite the political and financial break between the Church of England and Rome. The Church of England has never had a “reformation” of the continental type, and it certainly had not had anything of that kind back in those days. In the early 1600s, the religion of England was in many ways more Catholic than the Catholicism of our day is. It was men of that kind – in doctrines and practices basically Catholic, and politically allies of James who acted as a dictator – who produced James’ bible.

Those men worked in six groups, each group concentrating on a specific part of the Bible. It is said that 54 men were appointed to the “translation” work, but, the names of them all are not known with certainty. Nor is there full agreement regarding what group each of them worked in. Thus, the list below is not to be taken as any “absolute fact”. (A note: Some of the men on this list died before the work with James’ new bible-edition was finished. One of them died in 1604, without ever taking part in the work.)

First Westminster group (Genesis to 2 Kings):

Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626), an English clergyman, assisted at James’ coronation, made to bishop of Chichester in 1605.

John Overall (1559-1619), an English clergyman, the dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral, bishop of Norwich from 1618 to 1619.

Hadrian à Saravia (1532-1612), a clergyman born in Flanders, former professor of divinity at the University of Leiden. Just as Andrewes and Overall, even Saravia defended the (unbiblical) dogma regarding “the divine right of kings”.

Richard Clarke.

John Laifield (Layfield) (circa 1563-), an English clergyman, and a fellow of the Trinity College, Cambridge.

Robert Tighe. Francis Burleigh. Geoffry King. Richard “Dutch” Thomson (Thompson). William Bedwell.

Second Westminster group (the Epistles):

William Barlow, a former chaplain to queen Elizabeth, also favoured by king James, made bishop of Rochester and then bishop of Lincoln.

John Spencer, became president of Corpus Christi College, after the death of John Rainolds.

Roger Fenton (1565-). Ralph Hutchinson (died in 1606). William Dakins (died in 1607). Michael Rabbet. Thomas Sanderson.

First Cambridge group (1 Chronicles to the Song of Solomon):

Edward Lively (regius professor of Hebrew at Cambridge, died 1605). John Richardson. Lawrence Chaderton (circa 1536-1640), an English clergyman (long-time

master of the university’s Emmanuel College). Francis Dillingham. Roger Andrews. Thomas Harrison. Robert Spaulding (Spalding) (succeeded Lively in the regius professorship

of Hebrew). Andrew Bing (had the chair of the regius professorship of Hebrew, from

1609).

Second Cambridge group (the Apocrypha):

John Duport (of Jesus College). William Brainthwaite (became in 1607 master of Gonville and Caius

College). Jeremiah Radcliffe. Samuel Ward (1577-1639), an English academic, in 1610 master of Sidney

Sussex College, also a religious writer.

Andrew Downes (Dounaeus) (circa 1549-1628), an Englishman, regius professor of Greek at Cambridge.

John Bois (1560-1643), an English clergyman (note-taker for the “final revising committee”).

Robert Ward. Thomas Bilson. Richard Bancroft (1544-1610), an English clergyman, bishop 1597, later

archbishop.

First Oxford group (Isaiah to Malachi):

John Harding. John Reynolds (Rainolds) (died in 1607). Thomas Holland. Richard Kilby. Miles Smith. Richard Brett. Daniel Fairclough. William Thorne.

Second Oxford group (the Gospels, Acts, Revelation):

Thomas Ravis (died 1609). George Abbot (1562-1633), an English clergyman whom James made a

bishop (1608) and later archbishop of Canterbury. Richard Eedes (Edes), died 1604, without ever taking part in the work. Giles Tomson. Henry Savile (1549-1622), a university administrator, provost. John Peryn. Ralph Ravens. John Harmar. John Aglionby. Leonard Hutten.

Back

Table of contents – What’s new here? – Key-word index – Search function – Goal and purpose – Contact, comment, question

Recommended reading at the Bible Pages:

A facsimile copy of the dedication letter in the 1611 translation. → fs03.pdf (File-size is around 2 megabytes; it may take a while for your computer to download and open that file.)

The book of Matthew in the KJV-1611 in facsimile, as a PDF-document. → kj1611mt.pdf (File-size is around 4 megabytes; it may take a while for your computer to download and open that file.)

What does the Bible say about authority? Who has biblical, spiritual or religious authority on the human level? Who can speak for God? → fs06.htm

How to understand the Bible. Easy keys to deeper understanding of the Scriptures. → gg02.htm

Check your bible knowledge. A basic self-test with 15 questions (with answers and commentary). → fs04.htm

How to study the Bible in a deeper way. Some notes and guidelines on study methods. → es01e.htm

Bible software, computer bibles – facts and recommendations. → es02d.htm

What does the English language word and concept “doctrine” literally mean? Likewise, the terms “dogma”, “creed” and “tenet”, what do they signify? → es08d.htm

The so-called “divine right of kings” – is there such a thing? Are present-day kings, rulers and governments appointed by God? → ew02e.htm

Jesus warned his disciples about false prophets, teachers of falsehood, deceivers and deception. He said that many would be deceived. → eo09e.htm

For those who are interested: A free, printable word-search puzzle consisting of 65 archaic words from the original 1611 edition of the King James version. (The meaning of each of those old words is explained in that document.) → p45.pdf – A large print version, and many more bible-based word-mazes. → fp01.htm

Freemasonry and Freemason halls – things believers should know about them. → ew04f.htm

What does the Bible say about elders? What was their role in the saints’ fellowships? Also, was there a “hierarchy” with “ranks”? → ee01d.htm

What does the Bible say about deacons? → fe06b.htm

What does the Bible say about titles of men, in the religious context? → ea08b.htm

What does the Bible say about ordaining and ordination? In other words: How did the saints appoint or choose their elders? And, were those elders “ordained”, and did they function as “priests” of some kind? → fe02.htm

Were the saints “ruled” by elders? On the translation and meaning of Hebrews 13:7, 17 and 24 and a number of similar passages. → ee04d.htm

On the example the apostle Paul set, for others to imitate. Paul did not tell people to “follow him as their leader”; what he did was that he told the saints to imitate him, to copy his example. A part of that was connected to certain specific matters. → fm03.htm

The origin and meaning of the word “church”. → fg06.htm

Table of contents – a list of the essays at this site, with short subject descriptions. → flist.htmAn alphabetical keyword index of the contents of this site. → kind.htmSearch for specific things at this site. → fp04.htm

If you find any of the documents at this web site interesting and helpful, please provide copies to other people as well. Make sure to get the very latest version, directly from this site.

Important: You may not re-publish any part of the contents of this site, as a booklet, brochure or on the Internet or in other ways; the author retains the copyright ©. But, you can quote shorter passages in the documents at this site – the Bible Pages – provided that you mention the source, by giving the full Internet address (URL) to the document in question. For more on copying and quoting, see the page gp03.htm.

This site is non-denominational and non-sectarian and is not connected to any church, sect or religious organisation or movement. It looks at things from a biblical perspective, and not from a dogmatic one. It consists of an ongoing bible study that has been made public, and does not claim to have a perfect or complete explanation or interpretation of all things. As the study goes on, the contents of this site are revised and sometimes expanded. Readers are invited and welcome to write to the author with comments and

questions, or to point out mistakes. For more on the goal and purpose of this site, and a contact address, see the page gp03.htm.

The address to this page is www.biblepages.web.surftown.se/fs03b.htm

Please send or mention the address to this site to others, and link to these pages.

This document was created or modified 2012-05-03.