Related articles and links |  1 of 6

The King James version of the Bible was a failure—at least when measured against the purposes of King James himself. According to Alister McGrath, James wanted to "destroy, discredit, or displace" the most popular Bible of his time because it promoted anti-monarchist sentiments. The Geneva Bible, as it was called, also betrayed the translators' hatred for hierarchical forms of church life, and James knew he needed England's bishops to stabilize his rule.

In one of history's great ironies, however, the rise of the King James Version would seriously undermine both kings and bishops and lay the foundation for modern constitutional democracies. Without your KJV, historically speaking, you probably wouldn't have your vote.

Two books published earlier this year tell the story of how the Bible came to be "Englished." Alister McGrath's In the Beginning (Oxford) focuses more narrowly on the King James Version, including rare bits of documentation on the translators' work, the specifics of the printing, and the archaic English retained from earlier versions. Benson Bobrick's less detailed but more entertaining Wide as the Waters (Simon & Schuster) tells the story of how translators liberated God's Word from clerical control, beginning in the 14th century.

When she lay dying in March 1603, England's Queen Elizabeth named her cousin, James VI of Scotland, as her successor. As he traveled south to claim the English crown, James was met by Puritan ministers who presented him with a petition bearing over a thousand signatures, demanding that he purge the Church of England of unbiblical practices ("human rites and ceremonies") and address their detailed concerns either in writing or in a "conference of the learned."

He granted them a "conference of the learned," which convened on Saturday, January 14, 1604, at Hampton Court.

James stacked the conference the way Franklin D. Roosevelt aimed to pack the Supreme Court: he invited 19 representatives of the establishment, but only 4 Puritan spokesmen. James himself was partial to some aspects of Puritan belief, which matched what he had often praised in his Scots Presbyterians. But he also believed firmly in the Divine Right of Kings, and before the conference Richard Bancroft, the wily bishop of London, persuaded him that only the bishops could be counted on to support him in his God-given prerogative.

According to Bobrick, in James's opening speech at the conference, the king "roundly criticized the corruption of the Church of England for five solid hours. Lancelot Andrewes, dean of Westminster, later noted that 'the king did wonderfully play the Puritan that day!'" But to keep everyone off balance, the king then brought in the Puritans and proceeded to deny all their requests.

Having affirmed the status quo, James needed to give the Puritans something to avoid the appearance of being completely one-sided. The breakthrough came when the Puritan spokesman suggested a new Bible translation. This was perhaps a sop to James, for the Puritans already favored the Geneva Bible which, though outlawed, was by far the most popular version in the realm.

Nevertheless, as McGrath writes, "Here was a major concession [James] could make without causing any pressing difficulties to anyone. A translation of this magnitude took time, so he was not committing himself to anything with major short-term implications." This decision bought him time.

Why should James need to defend himself against the existing English Bibles? The first English translations did not stop at trying to bring the Scriptures to the common people: they also offered translations and commentary that called in question both absolute monarchy and the hierarchical church establishment.

next page... |  1 of 6

October 22 2001, Vol. 45, No. 13