From understandable concerns to timeless praise and modern condemnation, the King James Bible has faced its share of great controversy, but upon each page of the text remains the impact of men whose labor in translation have earned the efforts of this paper to convey. Those who oppose the King James Bible still revere it. Those who revere the King James Bible often go so far as to worship it as God's divine authorship in the English language. Indeed, it can be said that in 1611, a window of priceless words was opened. Thus, it is with great eagerness that I attempt to share a portion of translational history through the characters who stood on stage and played a part.

English ruling classes of the early 14th Century deemed Latin and French to be the most scholarly languages of the day. Men of education would never believe that English was capable of expressing a "full range of human emotions and thoughts." 1 After all, English was an undistinguished language that simply could not convey the necessary words for trade and diplomacy such as the elite required. At the close of the Hundred Years War in 1453, while English was not necessarily given any great respect, it was common to see French as the language of the enemy. Shakespeare would later go on expressing the age of Henry VI through the famous words to Sir Humphrey when Cade said, "He can speak French; and therefore he is a traitor." 2 With French falling off the road map of acceptable popularity, Latin was all that remained. This would not last very long.

Far removed from any modern debates over the preservation of God's Word, William Tyndale became enamored in 1522 with the bubbling of reformation on the European continent. While serving as a tutor in England, he had heard about Luther's German translation of the Bible and found himself inspired to risk doing a similar venture. 3 Sir Thomas More, an English Catholic made famous by his authoring of Utopia, was serving as Lord Chancellor to Henry VII and took it upon himself to relentlessly pursue Tyndale as an enemy, a heretic, and an outlaw. No attacks or condemnation of his activities could slow Tyndale down from believing that the common man, to which Latin was never designed to address, could simply not understand salvation "except the Scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue." 4 Average citizens of England began to salivate for what they had long been missing.

By the close of February 1526, Tyndale's New Testament had become available in London, but it was still to be firmly opposed by More and the Oxford Constitutions. 5 It became clear that if any English translation was to be successful under such a hostile upper class government, Tyndale was going to need help. Between 1529 and 1535, he joined hands with Miles Coverdale. Coverdale was fluent in Latin and German, but he "lacked the scholarship" required to deal with Biblical languages of Hebrew and Greek. 6 Nevertheless, when Tyndale was permanently arrested in May 1535, the unfinished work fell to Coverdale who published the "first complete English Bible" later that same year. When his famously imprisoned partner was strangled and burned in October 1536, the unknown fate of all English translators proved to be "illegal, dangerous, and ultimately fatal." 7

Mounting opposition by the elite drove middle class printers and linguists to increase their efforts all the more. In an unexpected turn of events, a friend of Tyndale, John Rogers, received "the king's most gracious license" in 1537 for what became known as Matthew's Bible. It was not, however, acceptable to the crown because it included many of Tyndale's notes along with those of other Protestant believers. For the king to support anything that would remind Englishmen of Tyndale's blood on his hands, this was unacceptable. Coverdale was given the responsibility, yet again, of handling translation issues that were beyond his resume. The resulting work of 1539 was called the Great Bible, so called because of its size. 8 Henry VIII went so far as to say that it had been produced by "dyverse excellent learned men." 9 Scattered years from 1522 to 1539 proved a turbulent roller coaster for the translators of the English Bible, but regardless of resistance, this once unpolished tongue was gaining attention in the literary world.

During the reign of Queen Elizabeth over the last half of the 16th Century, England received a "new confidence" about their everyday language. This should not, however, mislead anyone to believe that she was fully in favor of the prominent Bible circulating during her reign. William Whittingham, author of the acclaimed Geneva Bible in 1560, had appealed to the Virgin Queen that she might give his translation national acceptance, but she denied him this request. The problem with Whittingham's translation was not in the work itself, but in his marginal notes. He appeared to discourage what both Elizabeth and James VI of Scotland, her successor, saw as the "divine right of kings." 10 Even without royal authorization, the Geneva Bible became vastly popular.

In the fall of 1603, the newly enthroned Scottish king, James I, took it upon himself to announce a rather politically-minded conference that would be held "for hearing and for the determining of things pretended to be amiss in the Church." 11 This "conference of the learned" was initiated by a set of Puritan ministers who had approached James earlier that summer with a petition holding more than one thousand signatures in demand for the purging of unbiblical rites and ceremonies being practiced in the Church of England. 12 But the king was no fool and he would not be taken for a ride by eager Protestants.

James took a great deal of pride from his biblical skills as a translator during the latter part of the 16th Century. While living in Scotland, he had made "his own metrical version of thirty Psalms, and of the Book of Revelation." 13 Having been separated from his Catholic parents as an infant, James was raised in a Presbyterian world littered with Calvinistic teaching. Though he would later be styled as only a "moderate Calvinist" in his theology, he found a great concern in the Calvinistic Bible of Geneva. 14 Like his predecessor, the king was discomforted by Whittingham's notes that seemed to displace the king's authority in favor of the everyday man.

A "prolific writer" of "towering intellect," King James was known for giving powerful speeches and scholarly writings. 15 One author suggested that the lifelong king was "deeply learned, without possessing any useful knowledge." 16 Speaking from the Whitehall Palace in 1609, James famously declared, "Kings are not only God's lieutenants upon earth, and sit upon God's throne, but even by God himself they are called gods." 17

This thirst to declare himself all powerful was culminated in October 1604 when he assumed the title, King of Great Britain. In many ways, James saw himself as a "new Arthur" put in place to bring Scotland and England together under one head. 18 Needless to say, when the men gathered for their assigned meeting in January 1604, the newly crowned English king had a vulnerable hot spot if anyone was willing to press it.

The infamous Hampton Court Conference began on January 12, but was lopsided in its participants. Nineteen had been invited by the king as representatives of "the learned," but only four were Puritan. 19 Hardly the expectation of a man who had descended from Presbyterian Calvinism, these four men were boxed into a theological corner by James and his skillful rhetoric. C.S. Lewis, eventually noting the religious tension of England, wrote, "No one can write that history [17th Century] without skipping to and fro across national and religious boundaries at every moment." 20 The new king had been pressured and clawed by the Scottish church who continually challenged his divinity. The church spoke with boldness because they believed they were equal to the king. This upcoming conference was set up by King James to show both Puritan and Anglican alike that he was not going to be pushed around any longer. He was there to flex his intellectual muscle and put them all in their place below his own.

Among those Puritans present for his verbal lashing were Lawrence Chaderton and John Reynolds. Chaderton was a "staunch Puritan, brave and godly…full of moderation." He had been educated in the practice of English law at Cambridge where he would continue as a professor. Familiar with Latin, Greek, and Hebrew, this accomplished man of the church was intimidated to silence by the presence of a king who seemed to despise all things Puritan. 21

John Reynolds, by contrast, had developed a reputation since 1578 of being a fierce debater. His ability to retain information earned him the esteemed merit of being a "living library, a third university" and a "prodigy in reading." 22 When the other three Puritans were backed into a corner, it was Reynolds who found a unique strategy to get them in the ring once again. He had nothing to lose when he made the unexpected suggestion that even his own peers were not praising. The long time Fellow and President of Corpus Christi College said that there should be "one only translation of ye byble to be authenticall and read in ye churche." 23 What the Puritans had really wanted was the authorizing of the Geneva Bible that Elizabeth had chosen to discourage. What they got was the ear of King James as he now contemplated the beginnings of a new translation that might fulfill his hope of a legacy. This conversation aggravated one of the most ruthless enemies of English Puritanism.

Richard Bancroft, during a sermon preached in 1589, had claimed that Puritans were "false prophets" who would ultimately destroy the Church of England. 24 Standing in the wings of Hampton Court, Bancroft responded to the suggestion of Reynolds by saying, "If every man's humor were followed, there would be no end of translating." 25 However, when James became more fascinated by the idea of a translation done under his watch, the infamous bishop began to see a personal advantage that might work in his favor. James gave Bancroft a fair amount of breathing room to set the translation rules as well as to organize the most formidable names who should do the work. By the hope of the king, this was a task that would please everyone and help ease the religious tension.

By July of 1604, Bancroft had initiated the process of assigning more than fifty men as translators. This was, by comparison to other recent efforts, a very corporate task. Rather than one or two men working together like Tyndale and Coverdale, the upcoming King James Bible was to be put through a somewhat unprecedented system of checks and balances. Six Companies of Translators were assigned to work at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford in the following order: 26

Location                                          Assigned Translation                                  Head of the Company

First Westminster Company             Genesis through II Kings                      Lancelot Andrewes

First Cambridge Company               I Chronicles through Song of Songs     Edward Lively

First Oxford Company                    Isaiah through Malachi                         John Harding

Second Oxford Company                Four Gospels, Acts, Revelation             Thomas Ravid

Second Westminster Company       The New Testament Letters                   William Barlow

Second Cambridge Company          The Apocryphal Books                         John Duport

King James and Richard Bancroft not only organized the companies of men, but also gathered what they termed as fifteen "Translation rules." First and foremost, the Bishops' Bible was to serve as the template with "as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit." This point should not go unnoticed. Neither Elizabeth or James had ever authorized the Bishops' Bible with any royal backing and it was hardly the text of the everyday man. The king had grown up on the Geneva Bible and with Bancroft being the only other rule maker, the Bishops Bible appears to have been his preferred text. Fortunately amidst his personal bias, the bishop set forth Rule 14 which permitted the Translators (historians have set a pattern of capitalizing Translators; here forward the pattern will continue) to use the work of Tyndale, Rogers, and Coverdale if and when their work agreed with the original Greek and Hebrew. 27

One of the most difficult challenges that the Translators faced was in the translation of Bible words that had no English counterpart. Dealing with this matter in 1604, a schoolteacher named Robert Cawdrey did what "the entire literary universe was baying for." He put together a small book (what many have come to deem as the first English dictionary) entitled, A Table Alphabeticall, conteyning and teaching the true writing and understanding of hard usuall words, borrowed from the Hebrew, Greek, Latin or French. 28 His efforts were intended to enlighten the common man to words that they might otherwise not know or understand in both Shakespearean plays and the English Bibles that were floating from hand to hand. This would prove useful as Lancelot Andrewes and the men of the First Westminster Company gathered to begin their work.

Few church men were more famous than Bishop Andrewes in the early 17th Century. This "star of preachers" was incomparable in his sermons and delivery. 29 No one was more instrumental in establishing what we now know as Guy Fawkes Day. On November 5, 1606, a year after the failed Gunpowder Plot that nearly took the lives of the king and many in the Church of England, Andrewes delivered an anticipated message commemorating the day for its triumph of safety. "This day was meant to be the day of all our deaths; and many were appointed as Sheepe to the Slaughter." With all edification in mind, he continued, "Let us not be behind them then, but shew as much joy for our saving, as they would certainly have done, for our perishing." 30 Deeply familiar with Scripture and the Bishops Bible, much can be made of his earlier allusion of sheepe before the slaughter.

"He suffered violence, and was euyll intreated, and dyd not open his mouth: He shalbe led as a sheepe to be slayne, yet shall he be as styll as a lambe before the shearer, and not open his mouth." 31

While Andrewes went to work with his team on the first third of the Old Testament, the "great Hebraist" from Cambridge, Edward Lively, led a team of his own through the Biblical books of poetry. His untimely death in 1605 left a gaping hole among the Translators of such pivotal Scripture as the Psalms and the Proverbs. 32 Stepping into Lively's absence was his most esteemed pupil from the 16th Century, John Bois, the most memorable Translator of the Apocrypha.

Even before earning praise at Cambridge, Bois had read the entire Bible in Hebrew by age five. In 1575, while he was still a teenager, this budding young scholar was distinguished in Greek and quickly moved into a familiar role with Andrew Downes, his first year professor. 33 Bois was the type of student that people like to talk about. Peers and biographers have said that he would get up around four in the morning to teach classes in Greek, but could easily work until eight in the evening. Outstanding from other intellectuals of his day, Bois read standing up. 34

Together in first decade of the 17th Century, he and Downes shared in translating the controversial Apocrypha. Knowing that their work would be less observed than the rest of the Translators, it is conceivable that Bois was given leave by the head of his company, John Duport, when Lively fell ill. But much is left open for historians to surmise.

The concluding prophetic books of the Old Testament fell to John Harding and the twenty-six year old Daniel Fairclough (sometimes known as Richard Fairclough or Richard Featley). Perhaps as stunning as his appointment to the Translators, young Fairclough preached the eulogy of his fellow First Oxford Company Translator and already notable initiator of the King James Bible, John Reynolds. 35 When the famed Reynolds died on May 21, 1607, yet another hole was left in the otherwise remarkable system of translation. 36

Four Gospel accounts, the Book of Acts, and the Book of Revelation was handed to a company of powerful men led by Thomas Ravis, the Bishop of London. The historian Adam Nicolson notes that this particular company had "a greater density of egos" than all others. Among them were George Abbot and Sir Henry Savile. Savile was a "brilliant man who thrived on his intellect," but who also was "an extraordinary handsome man, no lady having a finer complexion." 37 For the six men placed in charge of this text, there were sure to be any handful of anticipated debates between them.

Many of the Translators, while spread out over six companies, were very much interconnected. When the teams lost John Reynolds to what some might call overzealous labor, his seat as President of Corpus Christi College in Oxford was left vacant. Both a peer and a theological rival at the college, John Spencer filled the post. He was married to the great niece of Thomas Cranmer, whom Queen "bloody" Mary had burned alive for his Protestant beliefs. Along with William Barlow and five others, Spencer served as a prominent Translator for the Pauline and post-Pauline epistles of the New Testament. 38

For the better part of six years, from 1604 to 1610, each company would periodically complete its work and gather their pages together for what was to become known as the meeting at Stationer's Hall. Two from every group, totaling twelve, were to be represented at the final gathering. 39 Perhaps somewhat reminiscent of twelve tribes or twelve apostles, the structure was in place to set forth a final document. At the heart of this meeting were two memorable characters, Thomas Bilson and Miles Smith.

Bishop Bilson went on to write the Epistle Dedicatory as a praise of King James while Smith would compose the largely obscure preface known as the Translators to the Reader. 40 Sometimes called a "walking library" as a testament to his expertise in eastern languages, history, and widespread literature, Miles Smith was a deeply committed Calvinist who took great pride in the task he had been nominated to complete. 41 After rising to a key role in the First Oxford Company when Reynolds died, Smith was now being asked to decisively communicate just what the process had been like for his peers. The curious exclusion of his preface from most printed King James Bibles is a modern mystery. His explanations and vision for all translational efforts are beautiful enough to be quoted in these words: "Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel." 42 By way of tremendous eloquence, Smith was later to write that his fellow Translators were destined to face their share of expected opposition.

When the King James Bible hit shelves in 1611, enough time had elapsed from its first commissioning to the final completion that few in London and the surrounding area were drawn to much interest. No evidence suggests that King James himself had ever given it official authorization other than its initial mandate. The new translation received moderate assistance in 1616 when Parliament made it illegal for printers to continue printing the Geneva Bible. 43 This lack of enforcement from the crown is yet another puzzle.

Some historians suggest that James was preoccupied with foreign policy while others imply that his fanciful parties and homosexual tendencies were enough of a distraction that he had simply lost interest in the project. Acclaimed author and historian, Martin Marty, once clarified that historians remain unable to "follow James into the bedroom," thus leaving more questions than dogmatic conclusions. Regardless, the king "loved to hang on the necks of handsome young men, showering them with caresses and extravagant gifts." 44 Perhaps the meeting of 1604 was a running start to prove himself competent and now he simply did not care.

Based on his intellectual prowess found at Hampton Court, I find it difficult to believe that he was utterly disinterested in the product of 1611. Still, no evidence affords us a reasonable explanation as to why the King James Bible received no royal signature that might have helped it compete with the ever popular Geneva Bible. Perhaps there is a bit of wisdom found when Lewis says, "A sacred book rejected is like a king dethroned." 45

In 1659, as Englishmen paid the new Bible more attention, Dr. Robert Gell published an 800-page treatise intended to denounce the work called An Essay Toward the Amendment of the Last English Translation of the Bible. In it, Gell "discusses its faults in detail, counting among them a denial of Christ's authority." 46 His critiques were, at the very least, focused less on personal attacks and more on the content of translation. The same could not be said for another critic, Hugh Broughton.

Soon after the completion of King James Bible in 1612, Broughton published a work entitled, A Censure of the Late Translation for our Churches: Sent unto a Right Worshipfull Knight, Attendant upon the King. 47 Although he was considered by James and Bancroft in their appointments of 1604, his "combative spirit" and attention to topic driven translation lost him a valuable place among the Translators. Such omission from the group would only fuel his distaste for anything that they produced. Full of eccentricities and a lack of intellectual restraint, Broughton died soon after the Censure was published and was unable to continue his attacks. 48 By 1613 and 1629, much of Broughton's criticisms regarding more than four hundred typographical errors and misplacement of words became too evident to ignore as revisions began.

Archbishop James Ussher, made famous by his systematic and genealogical declaration that the world had begun in 4004 BC, was acclaimed enough between 1650 and 1654 with his Latin-based Annals of World History that the Church of England pushed for Biblical revisions of the King James that included Ussher's studies as essential notes in the margin. When Parliament, which was to be distinguished for its lack of separation between church and state, submitted a bill calling for such modifications in 1653, it wasn't until 1701 that the additions were incorporated. By 1762, scholars of Cambridge including Dr. Thomas Paris produced yet another extensive revision. Almost by way of slight from a competing college, Dr. Benjamin Blayney joined with Oxford in 1769 to produce what most modern readers now keep shelved in their libraries. This popularized edition was to now include nearly sixty-five thousand cross references intended to guide readers from passage to passage and verse to verse throughout the whole of Scripture. 49

While this exposition can hardly be exhaustive in its brevity, there are amazing details and connections scattered throughout each character who played a role. Together they did indeed open the window that Smith so profoundly illustrated. The English world may never again see such a diverse collection of men gathered for the purpose of remaining faithful to God's Word. Modern scholars and translators are rightly faulted for doing much of their work at the imposition and laziness of English readers. Favoring content over style, the Translators of the King James Bible nevertheless achieved a potent and sophisticated eloquence of language that has yet to be rivaled.