There are still some in the Church today who think that the King James Version (KJV) is the best or only trustworthy English translation of the Bible, and that new translations are unnecessary or corrupt. Reading the preface to the original KJV reveals that the King James translators (biblical scholars of the Anglican Church) would have actually opposed such a view.
While some KJV advocates point out that the translators’ stated goal was to produce “out of many good ones [translations] one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against,” this statement must be read in context. The full preface shows that the KJV translators were simply seeking to draw from the strengths of prior translations to create the best translation that they could for use in the Church of England, as commissioned by James I. They were not seeking to put an end to English Bible translations, and they were not claiming that the Church is best served by having one and only one translation.
This article gives a point-by-point summary of the translation philosophy of the King James translators, with special attention to those points which undermine the “KJV only” position. Unless otherwise noted, everything in quotation marks is from the KJV 1611 Preface.
1. Translations are necessary because few people can understand the original languages of Scripture (Hebrew and Greek).
When the Bible is left untranslated, it is like a “hidden treasure” or a “sealed fountain”:
All of us in those tongues [languages] which we do not understand are plainly deaf. … It is necessary [in the Church] to have translations in a readiness [readily available]. … Indeed without translation into the vulgar tongue [common language], the unlearned are but like children at Jacob’s well (which was deep) without a bucket or something to draw with.
2. Translations are a gift to be celebrated because they give people access to God’s life-giving Word.
The KJV translators asked, “What can be more available [effective] thereto [to the salvation of souls], than to deliver God’s book unto God’s people in a tongue [language] which they understand?”
Translation it is that openeth the window, to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtain, that we may look into the most holy place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water; even as Jacob rolled away the stone from the mouth of the well, by which means the flocks of Laban were watered.
3. There is a long history of many translations of God’s Word—even multiple translations into the same language during the same time period.
The preface to the KJV traces the history of translation into Greek, Latin, and other languages such as French and English. “To have the Scriptures in the mother tongue [common language of a people] is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, … but hath been thought upon, and put in practice of old.” English translations prior to the KJV include The Coverdale Bible, Matthew’s Bible, The Great Bible, The Geneva Bible, The Bishops’ Bible, and The Douay-Rheims Version.
4. The Church should work to provide translations for all Christians.
The KJV translators condemned the Roman Catholic Church for making it difficult for ordinary believers to access God’s Word in their native language: “So unwilling they are to communicate the Scriptures to the people’s understanding in any sort, that they are not ashamed to confess, that we forced them to translate it into English against their wills.” (It’s worth noting that since the Protestant Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church has done much to remedy this and to promote Bible reading among the laity.)
5. People should not resist new translations or question their necessity.
The KJV translators faced opposition from those who thought that the old translations were good enough, and that another English translation was not necessary: “[They] ask what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment. … Was their translation good before? Why do they now mend it? Was it not good?” The King James translators compared these people to Sanballat who mocked Judah and Jerusalem! Ironically, KJV-only advocates today often dismiss new translations in the same way, saying that the KJV was “good before” and so new translations are not necessary.
6. New translations are not a rejection of the work of past scholars, but a respectful following in their footsteps to carry on an ever-necessary work.
The KJV translators made this point by quoting and then summarizing Jerome as follows:
Being provoked [roused and inspired] by the example of the learned that lived before my time, I have thought it my duty to assay [examine], whether my talent in the knowledge of the tongues [linguistic skills] may be profitable in any measure to God’s Church, lest I should seem to have laboured in them in vain, and lest I should be thought to glory in men (although ancient) above that which was in them.
The King James translators emphasized, “We are so far off from condemning any of their labours that travelled before us in this kind, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance.” For example, the KJV translators relied heavily on the work of William Tyndale, and the KJV 1611 is estimated to be about ninety percent Tyndale.
7. Those who reject new translations glory too much in men of the past.
Notice in the summary of Jerome above that although the KJV translators emphasized their respect for past translators, they recognized the danger in “glorying in men (although ancient) above that which was in them.” All human beings are fallible, including translators, and so translations always need to be respectfully, humbly, prayerfully, and critically examined and revised over time.
This point and the previous point must be held in tension. KJV-only advocates tend to glory too much in the King James translators (which they would not have wanted!), and act as though scholars today are not as intelligent or spiritual as they were, and so incapable of producing translations of equal or greater accuracy and value. At the same time, those who are opposed to KJV onlyism must remember that the KJV (1611) and its various revisions (1629, 1638, 1769) were great translations in their day that served the English-speaking world well for centuries. Although modern English translations are needed, the KJV is worthy of “everlasting remembrance” in the Church. We should not lift up the KJV as an idol, but we should lift up a memorial to the KJV and other great translations of the past. One thing that I appreciate about translations such as the RSV and ESV is that they have intentionally followed in the footsteps of the KJV translators and been sensitive to the impact of the KJV on much of the English-speaking Church.
8. If the translators of the past were still alive, they would be thankful for new translators and translations.
The KJV translators explained,
If we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen [helped] by their labours, do endeavour to make that better which they left so good; no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us.
If the King James translators were alive today, they would be thankful for the wonderful translation work that’s been done by devoted Christian scholars in the last century.
9. Many Bible translations should be available, and they should be revised again and again to improve their accuracy.
Read the following passage from the KJV translators carefully:
How many books of profane [secular] learning have been gone over again and again, by the same translators, [and] by others? Of one and the same book of Aristotle’s Ethicks [Ethics] there are extant [still in existence] not so few as [no fewer than] six or seven several [different] translations. Now if this cost may be bestowed upon the gourd, which affordeth us a little shade, and which to day flourisheth, but to morrow is cut down; what may we bestow, nay, what ought we not to bestow, upon the vine, the fruit whereof maketh glad the conscience of man, and the stem whereof abideth for ever?
In other words, if the world works hard to provide multiple translations of secular works, and to revise those translations over time, how much more should we do so with the Word of God? The KJV translators cited the opinion of Augustine that “variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures,” and affirmed that many translations and many revisions are desirable.
The KJV translators praised King James I for desiring “to have the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined.” “Whatsoever is sound already, … the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if any thing be halting [awkward], or superfluous [unwarranted], or not so agreeable to the original [languages in which the Bible was written], the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.” “For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise,) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?”
The KJV translators readily acknowledged their own limitations and deficiencies, and revised their own work many times throughout the translation process: “Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered.” Although Scripture is clear on things pertaining to salvation, the King James translators acknowledged that it is very difficult on many other points, which in turn makes translation difficult (all translation involves interpretation). For example, they pointed out that some Hebrew and Greek words appear only once, and so it is difficult to discern what those words meant at the time. The KJV translators were not so naive as to think that they got everything right, and they would have wanted their translation to be examined and further “hammered out” today.
The King James translators argued against those Roman Catholics who charged Protestants with too frequently altering and amending their translations. The KJV translators showed that, across its history, the Roman Catholic Church produced many translations of its own, often with “innumerable differences.” As long as they continue to make so many different translations, they have no right to challenge Protestants for their many translations and revisions: “All the while that our adversaries do make so many and so various editions themselves, and do jar so much about the worth and authority of them, they can with no shew of equity challenge us for changing and correcting.”
Ironically, modern KJV-only advocates have taken the position of the 17th-century Roman Catholics who opposed the King James translators.
Ironically, modern KJV-only advocates have taken the position of the 17th-century Roman Catholics who opposed the King James translators. It’s safe to say that if the King James translators were alive today, they would be opposed to KJV-onlyism, and they would not use their own 1611 translation (of course, virtually no one does, since even most ardent KJV-only advocates use the 1769 revision). Unlike the KJV-only advocates of today who often fear any change and revision, lest it amount to “compromise,” the King James translators emphasized that the Church has always revised its translations as well as its service books, hymnals, prayer books, and other documents. While KJV-only advocates tend to view the multiplicity of modern translations as proof of their inadequacy, the original KJV translators saw this as consistent with serious and appropriate devotion to the necessary work of translation in the Church.
What the King James translators said about the benefit of marginal notes in Bible translations also supports having multiple translations: “Those who are wise would rather have freedom to decide among alternative readings than to be captive to one, when the other may be correct.” The KJV translators emphasized that translators, like all men, have many infirmities and must make difficult decisions, and so their opinions should not be regarded as infallible dictates.
10. Even a poor translation with many mistakes may be viewed and used as the Word of God.
The King James translators recognized that no translation is perfect. All have errors—some more than others. But even very poor translations of the Bible are, on the whole, the Word of God: “We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [poorest] translation of the Bible in English … containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God” (emphasis added). The KJV translators noted that the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) was used by the apostles themselves despite its many imperfections: “It is certain, that that translation was not so sound and so perfect, but that it needed in many places correction.”
Commenting on this portion of the preface, Mark Ward notes, “The KJV translators were not Bible translation tribalists. They were not ‘King James Version only.’ Perhaps we should take a page out of their book” (see Ward’s Youtube video series on his book Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible).
The KJV translators gave the illustration of the King of England giving a speech in Parliament which is then translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin. While the speech may be translated with varying degrees of accuracy and beauty, the translations are still recognized and revered as the King’s speech. The KJV translators emphasized that things should be evaluated by their overall character, just as a man may be considered virtuous despite making many mistakes in his life.
There is no reason, then, to refuse to call an imperfect translation “the Word of God,” or to oppose its publication: “No cause therefore [there is no reason] why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current [published], notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.”
Some KJV-only advocates have pointed to a few errors in modern translations and used them to dismiss the translations as a whole, or even to malign and disrespect them. These KJV-only advocates often fail to recognize that there are also errors in the KJV, and that modern translations have been a tremendous blessing to millions of Christians worldwide. All translations have errors, but thankfully there are many excellent English translations available to us today that can be viewed and used as God’s Word.
11. Even if a newer translation is inferior to an older one, it should not be disdained or condemned.
The KJV translators noted, for example, that Zerubbabel’s temple was inferior to Solomon’s temple, but was still worthy of respect—not of being forsaken or profaned. “The like [in the same way] we are to think of translations.” Again, the apostles refused to condemn the Septuagint even though it fell short of the clarity, dignity, and majesty of the Hebrew.
The charitable attitude of the King James translators towards other translations, even inferior ones, stands in stark contrast to the attitude of many KJV-only advocates today.
The charitable attitude of the King James translators towards other translations, even inferior ones, stands in stark contrast to the attitude of many KJV-only advocates today, who are characterized by suspicion and disdain for modern translations, and prone to slander and malign them with weak and unfounded accusations.
12. Even someone with bad or imperfect theology can produce a usable translation.
The King James translators addressed the Roman Catholic argument that Protestant translations should be rejected because Protestants are heretics. Instead of defending Protestant theology, the KJV translators simply explained that even if Protestants are heretics, it doesn’t mean that their translations should be rejected, since the Church never took this posture in the past. For example, they noted that Augustine made use of the work of a Donatist heretic, and Origen and the whole Church for centuries respected the work of a Jew and of two Ebionites (“vile heretics”). “Far from treading under foot (much more from burning) the[se] translation[s] … they joined them together with the Hebrew original, and the translation of the Seventy [the Septuagint] … and set them forth openly to be considered of and perused by all.”
KJV-only advocates often dismiss modern translations by pointing to someone on their translation committee whose theology they view as suspect. In my experience, these criticisms are often unfair or unfounded, but whatever the case, the King James translators would not have viewed them as sufficient reason to dismiss a translation.
This is not to say that one’s theology or spirituality is an irrelevant or unimportant factor in translation work. As the KJV translators themselves go on to say, translators should strive to be both learned scholars and godly Christians who prayerfully rely on God and not merely their own abilities.
13. Translations should be made from the original Hebrew and Greek.
Some English Bibles of the time, such as the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Version (NT 1582; OT 1609), had been translated from the Latin Vulgate or from other language translations. The KJV translators emphasized that while scholars should consider previous translations, they should ultimately seek to translate the Hebrew and Greek which Augustine called the “original languages” and Jerome called the “fountains,” since these are the languages in which God originally inspired the text.
If truth be to be tried by these tongues [languages], then whence should a translation be made, but out of them? These tongues therefore … we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles.
The KJV translators would be horrified to learn that some radical KJV-onlyists today claim, without basis, that the KJV actually improved on the Greek and Hebrew. Thankfully, this is a rare view even among KJV advocates.
The key point is that the KJV translators understood that translation is dependent on our access to the original Hebrew and Greek. What many people don’t realize is that we don’t have the original document (autograph) of any book of Scripture. We don’t have the piece of papyrus on which Paul or Peter wrote. We depend on manuscripts (copies of copies of copies of the original) which generally agree, but do have some significant differences, and must be compared to discern what the original said (a work called “textual criticism”). When the KJV was translated, only a handful of Greek manuscripts were available. Today, over 5,000 manuscripts are available, thanks to the important work of archeologists. The KJV translators would have been thrilled to have access to these manuscripts, which allow modern translations to be even more accurate.
KJV-only advocates often point to “missing verses” in modern translations, and sometimes imply that this is some kind of grand conspiracy to “change the Bible.” Even worse, some point to Revelation 22:19 about taking away from God’s Word, implying that modern translators will lose their share in eternal life! In fact, there are very few places in modern translations where verses are “missing,” and these “missing” verses do not affect any Christian doctrine. More importantly, and more to the point, these verses are not “missing” at all. Rather, these verses are not found in many of the earliest and best manuscripts that we now have. It would be more accurate to say that they were inadvertently “added” to the KJV and modern translators have remedied this by removing them. For an example of this, and how to address it with laypeople who may be alarmed by “missing” verses, see my article “The Woman Caught in Adultery: A Case Study in Pastoring and Textual Criticism.”
While modern translators have access to better manuscripts than the KJV translators, the differences should not be exaggerated by either side. The manuscripts then and now largely agree, and the differences do not affect any major Christian doctrine.
14. Translations do not need to be woodenly literal and may take some liberty of expression as long as the meaning of the original is preserved.
While the KJV translators were serious about their duty to carefully translate God’s Word, they resisted an overly rigid and fastidious approach to translation. For example, they insisted that it was not necessary or helpful to always use the same English word to express the same Hebrew or Greek word. “For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? use one precisely, when we may use another no less fit as commodiously [suitably]?” The KJV translators warned that “niceness [quibbling] in words was always counted the next step to trifling.”
15. Translations should be in the common language so that they are understandable even to the most ordinary people.
One reason that the KJV translators resisted trifling over words is that they wanted freedom to use words that were commonly known and understood by their readers: “We desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very vulgar [the most common of people].”
This is a key reason why the KJV translators would reject KJV-onlyism if they were alive today: the English of 1611 (and of the 1769 revision for that matter) is no longer the language of the common people. Language changes drastically over time. Modern English is not Shakespearian English. Refusing to update our translations to reflect changes in our language can have negative and even detrimental effects on readers. For one of countless examples, see my article “If I Take Communion Unworthily, Will I Drink Damnation to My Soul?” John Wesley called the King James version of 1 Corinthians 11:29 a “vile mistranslating,” but it might be more accurate to say that the meaning of “damnation” in the English language changed from 1611 to Wesley’s day.
Those who cling to the KJV and resist modern translations must wrestle with the fact that, by doing so, they are rejecting the very principles and admonitions of the men who translated their Bible.
Those who cling to the KJV and resist modern translations must wrestle with the fact that, by doing so, they are rejecting the very principles and admonitions of the men who translated their Bible. While the KJV was a great translation in its day, and should be highly regarded as a historical document, there are now more accurate and edifying modern English translations available. The KJV translators and the Protestant Reformers understood that translation is an ongoing work of the church, and would have celebrated the multiplicity of English Bible translations now available for private and public reading and teaching in the Church.
16. The hard work of Christian translators should be honored and appreciated, not dismissed or taken for granted.
The KJV translators ended their preface by reminding Christians that when they come to a Bible translation, without which they would not have access to God’s life-giving Word, they should be humble, appreciative, and ultimately obedient to the truth contained therein:
Ye are brought unto fountains of living water which ye digged not; do not cast earth into them, with the Philistines, neither prefer broken pits before them, with the wicked Jews. Others have laboured, and you may enter into their labours. O receive not so great things in vain: O despise not so great salvation. Be not like swine to tread under foot so precious things.
The KJV-only position is unloving and unappreciative of the brothers and sisters whom God has gifted by his Holy Spirit for the work of translation, and who have devoted their lives to following in the footsteps of the KJV translators to provide many excellent modern translations. These translations should be read, honored, and appreciated, despite their flaws, as a necessary gift to the Church, and not viewed with the same kind of suspicion and slander that the KJV translators faced in their day.
