THE KING JAMES VERSION 

Stephen M. Reynolds, Ph. D.

The King James Bible, first published in 1611, has been a means of instructing many as to the salvation of their souls and as such a power for good it should be held in honor. It should not be criticized lightly; and if any people such as the members of the Lorine L. Reynolds Foundation are called upon to demonstrate errors in it which lead readers to faults in faith and practice, they should only do so for the gravest reasons and after much searching of their own souls to purge out unworthy motives. 

Before Evangelical Christians take the stand that the King James Version, formerly known as the Authorized Version, had its origin in men of the purest Evangelical faith, they should consider a number of facts. One is that King James I at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604 in beginning the action which led to the translation and publication of this version in 1611 is reported to have given orders for the Authorized¹ Version that reflected adversely upon the Geneva Bible. He required that "no marginal notes at all be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text." He did this because he had found in the Geneva Bible "some notes very partial, untrue, seditious, and savouring too much of dangerous, and trayterous concerts. As for example, Exod. 1, 19 where the marginal note alloweth disobedience to Kings. "² 

King James believed very strongly in "the divine right of kings" which in effect is absolute monarchy. Believing as he did he was deeply offended that the midwives in Egypt disobeyed Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, and preserved alive the male infants. The note in the Geneva Bible which he hated spoke of the midwives and said: "Their disobedience herein was lawful, but their dissembling evil." 

To King James I, since Pharaoh was king, there could be no lawful disobedience to him even if he commanded murder. Could such a man as King James I properly set the tone for any Bible translation? We believe that the motivation for this translation was tainted at the start because of the guidelines the king set forth. 

Another requirement that King James made of the translators was that they retain the ecclesiastical language of the Bishops' Bible.³ One of the passages where "ecclesiastical" language may have been pleasing to the king is Acts 19:37. Here the Bishops' Bible which the translators gathered by King James dutifully followed says that the townclerk of Ephesus to appease the angry idolatrous mob told them that the Christians were not "robbers of churches." The Greek original is properly translated sacrilegious. The Geneva Bible has it that he defended them by saying that they did not commit sacrilege, which is correct The Bishops' Bible was followed by the King James Bible in saying that they were not robbers of churches.⁴ Now in the time of King James I the term churches was used of Christian houses of worship. Pagan places of worship were called temples. It would have been absurd for the townclerk to defend the Christians on the ground that they had not robbed their own houses of worship. King James was an intelligent man and knew that the town clerk did not use the equivalent of the English word churches. It appears that he preferred the translation churches because he wished to have a statement in the Bible against iconoclasm, the breaking of images and stained glass windows by zealous Protestants who resorted to violence in their hatred of image worship. The Christians of Ephesus at the time of the incident described in Acts 19:23­-41 did not demonstrate their hostility to paganism by destroying images or robbing pagan temples and the townclerk used that fact to calm the crowd of pagans. The term he used could be translated sacrilegious or robbers of temples but not "robbers of churches." The Bishops' Bible and the King James Bible falsified Scripture. Did they do this with the motive of restraining true Protestants from stripping churches of images which the ignorant people had made objects of worship? The probable answer is yes. 

The King James Version errs in a number of places by showing a predilection for alcoholic wine and for a certain stage or mode of being drunk, called being "merry." For example, in Genesis 43:34 this version says that Joseph's brothers "drank and were merry with him." The implication is that they drank alcoholic wine to the extent that their sense of decorum was removed and they were laughing together. It is further implied that this was approved by God. The fact is that the word used for the condition of the brothers is the word normally used to mean they were drunk. Drunkenness is a condition always condemned in the Bible. Now it is true that the verb in question (dk;v') is used in Haggai 1:6 in a context where it may mean to get one 's fill or to have enough. This is a very rare use of the word. Even this use is uncertain. The text in Haggai may mean that the people wished to have temporary relief from their misery by getting drunk but this was denied them. Whatever this passage in Genesis may mean it is totally without warrant to translate as does King James' version to say they were merry. The great mass of the evidence is that they were drunk. If they just drank until they had enough (whatever that may mean as to the alcoholic content of their blood), there is no reason to presume they were merry.  They came to Joseph fearing he would make them slaves (verse 18). What Joseph did was not calculated to allay their fears. He kept them segregated (verse 32) and to be treated in this way would not have been a very comforting experience. He gave Benjamin five times as much food as the other brothers which must mean that either the other brothers had only one fifth of an adequate meal or that Benjamin had five times as much as he could eat. This treatment surely must have alarmed them and would not make them merry. 

Such is the influence of King James' Version that subsequent translators have followed it in giving the impression that all the brothers drank alcoholic wine following which they were innocently merry, but not drunk. This may have given countless thousands of people the idea that drinking alcohol to the point that inhibitions against being silly are removed and if their uninhibited nature is to laugh in a silly manner then they drink and are silly and think God is well pleased. The fact is they are drunk, and God is always displeased with drunkenness. In fact He is so displeased that at a later time He sternly commanded everyone not to even look at alcoholic wine (Prov. 23:31). This command is binding on all humanity from the time it was placed in the Bible. 

It seems that in all probability Joseph and his brothers had drunk an alcoholic beverage to the point that if they were living today they would be committing a crime if they should drive cars. If their blood alcohol level was so low that they would be permitted to drive a car it is almost certain the brothers were not merry in view of the dangerous situation they thought they were in. 

Another place where the King James translators allowed their predilection for wine to influence their handling of God's Word is their treatment of a certain substance (hv'yvia) which David gave to all the people who celebrated with him the transfer of the ark of the LORD from the house of Obed-edom the Gittite to the City of David (II Sam. 6:19; I Chron. 16:3). The ancient translators did not understand this word to mean a beverage but a cake, and modern translators after studying the word in the greatest depth available to them render this word as a cake of raisins. Among these modern versions is the New King James Version. This is an improvement on the old King James of 1611, but the Foundation cannot endorse this translation fully in its present form. 

The King James Version renders hv'yvia in this place as "a flagon of wine." A flagon as a liquid measure is defined as two quarts. The word wine might in 17th Century English mean grape juice, but perhaps the translators because of their probable liking of alcoholic wine may have thought that David gave two quarts of an intoxicating substance to everyone, man and woman alike. Philology is against such an idea, even the philology available to scholars in the 17th Century, but an even more telling argument is that David surely would not have turned this event into a drunken orgy. Hardly anyone could have drunk two quarts of alcoholic wine and maintained his or her dignity. 

Martin Luther, who is known to have delighted in alcoholic wine, seems to have put the English translators who followed him in error. He rendered hv'yvia as "ein Nossel Wein." Nossel is said to be an obsolete word meaning about a pint. The Geneva Bible (1560) has it a "bottel of wine." This could have been a small bottle which might have intoxicated nobody, but the King James Version suggests that the bringing of the Ark to Jerusalem was probably accompanied with disorderly conduct. This is a good reason to consider this version as not the best guide on Christian ethics. 

The failure of translators to rightly divide the word of truth (see II Timothy 2:15) has produced grave errors. When these occur as in I Corinthians 7:14, the Foundation, working with God's help, will bring the truth to light. 

Where the King James Version introduces a word that is not in the original, as the word
”if” in Hosea 6:3, which makes it appear that there was doubt that Hosea and other believers had assurance that they would follow on to know the LORD, the necessary correction will be made in the work of the Foundation. 

While translators of the early English versions, made when the English word wine meant both alcoholic wine and grape juice, cannot be blamed for not making the distinction, translators of our time cannot but be blamed for not distinguishing these concepts, for the distinction is of the greatest importance in the modern English language. 

The King James Version, along with all other versions, is inadequate in giving readers proper instruction as to what beverages are so harmful that they may not even be looked at⁵ much less drunk for pleasure and what beverages are given by God to make glad the heart of man.⁶  This deficiency must be remedied and this Foundation is established to cooperate with any who will assist in this great work or to do it alone with the help of the Holy Spirit who has called His servants to this task. 

Let no one suppose that the Foundation's work is intended to diminish in any way the tremendous good the King James Version has done and is doing. By all means possible it should be distributed for the salvation of souls until humble servants of God, moved by the Holy Spirit, produce a translation in which its errors will be diligently sought out and removed. 

The English vocabulary and style of the King James Version (KJV) has been highly praised and it has become very dear to many people. Yet it is proper that shortcomings of the translators' knowledge of the original languages should be brought to the attention of people who wish to know the truth. Philip Schaff a very learned man, wrote: "The Greek and Hebrew learning of the translators was sufficient to enable them to read the original Scriptures with ease; while with the Latin Vulgate they were probably more familiar than with the earlier English versions. But the more delicate shades of the Greek and Hebrew syntax were unknown in their age, and the grammars, dictionaries, and concordances very imperfect. Hence the innumerable arbitrary and capricious violations of the article, tenses, prepositions, and little particle."⁷ 

Dr. Schaff cites many examples of serious errors caused by a failure to observe those grammatical shades of meaning. Out of many, two will be cited, one from the Hebrew and one from the Greek. In the Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 the inspired writer wrote, "The virgin shall conceive." This is one particular virgin, chosen in eternity to conceive and bear the God‑man, Jesus Christ. The King James translators wrote "a virgin shall conceive," as though the one referred to was merely one among many who might have been chosen. In the New Testament. In the New Testament an example is I Timothy 6:10 where the love of money is said in the original to be a root of all kinds of evil. The King James translators wrongfully wrote "the root." Pride (as in the case of Satan) is also a root of all evil.⁸ 

It is ironic that some of the most ardent and even fanatical advocates of the KJV only as the true Bible would be most uncomfortable if they were to live in a country with James I as their king and with his chosen translators as their spiritual authorities. Many who hold to the KJV have no love for absolute monarchy nor for rule of the church by bishops. James I carried his zeal for absolute monarchy to such an extreme, as noted above, as to criticize the Geneva Bible as seditious because in a note it said the midwives in Egypt did well to disobey the king and save the male infants alive. 

At the very meeting where he met with Puritans and others out of which meeting came his decision to authorize the translation that has come to bear his name the unlucky use of the word `presbyter' by one of the Puritans sent him off into scolding. "If this is all they have to say," he declared after the Puritans had been driven from the room. "I shall make them conform themselves, or I will harry them out of the land." The phrase "No bishop, no king" became an integral part of his policy.⁹ 

The KJV should be honored for the good it has done, but Bible students should have some knowledge of its faults and be aware of reasons for correcting it. 

As an example of a fault in this version which not only shows an imperfect knowledge of Hebrew on the part of the translators is the rendering of the words hy<h.Ti tr,QoB in Leviticus 19:20. This expression the KJV translators rendered "she shall be scourged." This means the translators not only violated Hebrew grammar, misunderstood the meaning of tr,QoB, but also showed that their mindset was far removed from the justice and compassion which followers of Christ should grant to the lowly. 

The case is that a slave girl who has been betrothed to someone has illicit sexual relations with someone else. The inspired original used a rare word, in fact it is used only once in the Bible. It says "there shall be a tr,QoB" The Septuagint, being the earliest attempt at translation, renders it evpiskoph. ev,stai auvtoi/j, "a visitation shall be to them." This word evpiskoph. means a watching over, a visitation of God, the word used of the punishment described in Numbers 16:29. This suggests that no punishment by human justice is to be inflicted, but that the sinning people should be left to the justice of God. This is what happened in the Numbers passage. It is also to be noted that the ancient translators did not single out the slave girl to be whipped, leaving the man in question apparently unpunished. 

It is thought by many competent scholars that the KJV translators were unduly influenced by the Vulgate of Jerome, but in this case he did better than they. He translated "vapulabunt ambo", they shall both be flagged (whipped or beaten). It is proper to pay serious attention to two errors of the KJV, one, in violating Hebrew grammar and, two, in showing a harsh, unloving, discriminatory attitude to a humble slave girl, with apparently no concern that the man in the case should not be punished at all. But Jerome is wrong for the original only says that there shall be a tr,QoB which is not necessarily a beating. 

The KJV translators here subject to criticism, were learned men, and God used them greatly, but those Christians who take offense at any deviation from the way they translated the inspired original should have it demonstrated to them that there was error both in their learning and in their sense of justice. 

Modern translations tend to see in tr,QoB the idea of scourging, but the New Revised Standard Version has it “an inquiry shall be held.” The TANAKH, the latest English translation by Jews, has it "there shall be no indemnity."¹⁰ 

The Founder of the Foundation believes that the best rendering is the English equivalent of the Greek translation of the Septuagint, "there shall be a visitation." A note should be added that this may mean a visitation of God's justice as in Numbers 16:29-33 or a visitation of a duly constituted human authority who will decide what should be done. Some compensation should probably be allowed to the man to whom the slave girl was betrothed, and if human justice required that punishment be inflicted for the illicit sexual intercourse, it should not fall on the girl alone. 

1. The term "Authorized" used of this version should be rejected by Evangelical Christians, and in fact it is rejected by the great majority of Christians who call it The King James Version

2. The Geneva Bible. A Facsimile of the 1560 edition, University of Wisconsin Press, 1969. Introduction. p. 15.

3. Philip Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament and the English Version New York, Harper Brothers, 1883, p. 317. The requirement of ecclesiastical words is paragraph 3.

4. Luther with "Kirchenrauber" appears to have set a bad example here. Jerome in his great Latin translation has the word sacrilegos (sacrilegious) and Beza in his Latin translation does the same. The error of using the word churches has been corrected in modem versions including the New King James. Reasons why this NKJV should not be accepted without major revision will be presented elsewhere.

5. Proverbs 23:31.

6. Psalm 104:15.

7. Schaff, op. cit., p. 350.

8. Schaff, off. cit., pp. 350-370.

9. Article "James 1, King of England" in Dictionary of National Biography, vol. x, p. 606. Schaff, op cit., p. 315, writes of King James I that "his short method with Dissenters was, `Just hang them, that's all."' Schaff also writes that James' Archbishop of Canterbury, Bancroft, is said to have altered the translation in fourteen places to make it speak in prelatic language" (op cit., p319, note 1). It is evident that although James did not engage in actual translation, he influenced the work by rejecting Puritans and by insisting on prelacy

10. There is no philological reason for this understanding of the passage. It is not derived from Jewish tradition and is not found in other translations made by Jews. According to Mishnah Kerith ii, 4, the punishment of the woman consisted of forty stripes. (The authority for this citation is the C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on Leviticus, vol. 1, p. 422).