“Grave, learned and reverend men” The KJV translators and how they worked together on their common task Eric Marshall

HE KING JAMES of the issues raised in the three days of discussions, “the arose almost unexpectedly from the ten- only thing accomplished after the Hampton Court sions between the bishops in the Anglican conference that was of any lasting significance T 4 Church and the Puritans at the accession of James was the translation of the new Bible.” VI of Scotland to the English throne as James I. On the death of Elizabeth I in 1603, the Puritans’ Planning the new translation Millenary petition had urged the king, on his de- Having opened the way for the production of parture from Edinburgh, to undertake to complete a new translation of the Bible, the king was the English Reformation. The petition gave James not slow to progress the matter. He instructed the opportunity to start his reign in with Richard Bancroft, who became Archbishop of an initiative to bring peace and unity to his new Canterbury shortly after the Hampton Court subjects. To this end he set up the Hampton Court Conference, to ensure that the most competent Conference, in the opening speech of which he scholars and theologians were assembled for the said: “Blessed be God’s gracious goodness, who task. By the summer of 1604 fifty-four scholars hath brought me into the promised Land, where had been selected as translators, although the religion is purely professed, where I sit amongst grave, learned and reverend men . . . Our purpose therefore is, like a good physician, to examine and 1. State Trials II, pp. 31-2. Cited in Derek Wilson, The try the complaints, and fully remove the occasions People’s Bible (, Lion Hudson, 2010), pp. 84-5. thereof, if scandalous; cure them, if dangerous; James’s reference to Cerberus illustrates his extensive and take knowledge of them, if frivolous, thereby knowledge of Greek mythology: Cerberus was a three- to cast a sop into Cerberus’s mouth, that he bark headed hound which guarded the gates of Hades, to 1 prevent anyone from escaping. no more”. 2. Although he died before the KJV was actually pub- The “grave, learned and reverend men” to lished, Rainolds, who was the President of Corpus whom James referred were the senior bishops of Christi College, Oxford, took an active part in the the Anglican Church and strong supporters of work of translating Isaiah to Malachi. Another of the the status quo, of a king ruling by Divine right as members of his first Oxford company left this written head of both State and Church. His description tribute to him in later years: “I can upon my owne of those who were critical of this view was much knowledge testifie of the deceased Phenix of our Uni- versity and Colledge Doctor Rainolds his industry, less complimentary! Even so, as we will discover, who followed that pious worke with that intention of it is an accolade that is justified for the group of spirit and vigilance, that hee thereby much impaired men who were selected to produce a new transla- his strength, and neere the end of it ended his days; tion of the Bible. and in the translation of the Booke of life, was himself The proposal for the new translation was made translated” (, in his introductory essay by the Puritan Dr John Rainolds (or Reynolds),2 of 1630 to Clement Cotton’s A complete concordance to the Bible of the last translation). and it was accepted by the king as an opportunity 3. For King James’s (critical) views on the Geneva Bible, to supersede the use of the Geneva Bible favoured see Wilson, op. cit., pp. 85-6. by the Puritan Protestants 3 and to replace the 4. Laurence M. Vance, King James, His Bible and its Transla- unpopular Bishops’ Bible. Despite the number of tors (Pensacola, Vance Publications, 2006), p. 21. 138 The Testimony, June 2011 number ­actually involved in the translation work Details of the translators are given in a number dropped to forty-seven.5 of places,11 where the scope of their learning is This is a large group, which to the modern clearly indicated. Vance’s essay on ‘The learned mind would be a recipe for endless debate and men’ tells us that the translator John Bois (1560– an uninspiring product. But the king was aware 1643) could read the Hebrew Bible at the age of of the hazards of the enterprise and insisted that six, and that (1555–1626) knew “So religious a work should admit of no delay.” 6 so many languages that he might have served “as He also drew up a list of precise guidelines for interpreter general at the confusion of tongues.” the translators to follow,7 in order to ensure that Fellow translator Miles Smith (1554–1624) was a they produced a conservative translation, without noted Orientalist who had Hebrew at “his fingers’ marginal notes as used in the Geneva Bible. As ends.” Hebrew had been taught in England for Adam Nicolson has noted, “the text, as all good many years, and King Henry VIII (1491–1547) Protestants might require, was to be presented had established Hebrew professorships at both clean and sufficient of itself, except where ac- Oxford and Cambridge. Several of the KJV transla- tual words of the original were so opaque that a tors had been, were, or were to become Hebrew ‘circumlocution’ might not explain them within Professors; and the translator William Bedwell the text.” 8 (c. 1562–1632) was not only a competent Hebrew scholar but also had a mastery of Arabic which The translation companies was “unsurpassed in England.” 12 To facilitate the work of translation the selected The translators contained a mix of those who translators were grouped into teams, usually were strong supporters of the establishment, like referred to as ‘companies’. Each company had a Lancelot Andrewes, and Richard leader with up to nine other translators. The six Bancroft, and those with Puritan, anti-ceremonial companies were based, two each, at Westminster, ideals such as Lawrence Chaderton, John Rainolds Cambridge and Oxford. Each company was given (both of whom represented the Puritan views at a specific portion of the Bible to work on. This the Hampton Court Conference) and Thomas information is summarised in Table 1 overleaf. Holland. It is to be expected that such keen intel- There is no record to indicate how the translators lects with strong viewpoints would be bound to were allocated to each company, although it seems clash, leading to long debate and disagreement. likely that those in the university companies were It is a testimony to their overriding belief that already working in those places or nearby and they were translating the very words of God 13 thus able to travel to them. that such disagreements were resolved through In literature promoting modern versions of the Bible it is usual to find lists of the translators and their qualifications and skills. No such informa- 5. There are various lists, but none of them is definitive. tion was published with the KJV, although the See A. W. Pollard, Records of the English Bible (London, translators were very well qualified. King James’s Oxford University Press, 1911), pp. 49-53. 6. Wilson, op. cit., p. 88. instruction about those to be chosen as translators 7. See the panel on the translators’ Terms of Reference, makes this clear: “. . . His Highness wished that on p. 136. some especiall pains should be taken in that behalf 8. Adam Nicolson, Power and Glory: Jacobean England and for one uniforme translation . . . and this to be the making of the King James Bible (London, HarperCol- done by the best learned in both the Universities, lins, 2003) p. 77. after them to be reviewed by the Bishops, and the 9. Cited by Ward Allen in: Translating for King James: Notes made by a translator of King James’s Bible chief learned of the Church.” 9 (Nashville, Vanderbilt University Press, 1969), p. 4. Without doubt there were many fine scholars 10. Original spelling version, quoted from: The Holy Bible. among the translators; but their own view of Quatercentenary Edition. An exact reprint . . . of the King themselves was very modest, as set out in the James Version . . . with an anniversary essay by Gordon KJV preface (The Translators to the Reader): “There Campbell (Oxford, University Press, 2010). were many chosen, that were greater in other 11. For example: Nicolson, op. cit., pp. 251-9 (“The six mens eyes then in their owne, and that sought the companies of translators”), and Laurence M. Vance, “The learned men,” at www.baptistpillar.com/bd0059.htm. truth rather then their own praise. Againe, they 12. Quotations from Vance, King James, op. cit., pp. 24-5. came or were thought to come to the worke, not 13. See the article on pp. 150-3 by John Nicholls (“‘Wholly exercendi causa (as one saith) but exercitati, that is, inspired’: The translators’ faith in learned, not to learne.” 10 the Bible as the very Word of God”). The Testimony, June 2011 139 Table 1 The translating companies and their tasks Company Text assigned Director Members

Westminster I Genesis – 2 Kings Lancelot Andrewes John Overall Adrian à Savaria John Layfield Richard Clark Robert Tighe Francis Burleigh Richard Thomson William Bedwell Geoffrey King

Westminster II New Testament Epistles William Barlow Ralph Huchinson John Spencer Roger Fenton Michael Rabbet Thomas Sanderson William Dakins

Oxford I Isaiah – Malachi John Harding John Rainolds Thomas Holland Richard Kilbye Miles Smith Richard Brett Richard Fairclough (a.k.a. Daniel Featley)

Oxford II Gospels, Acts, Revelation Thomas Ravis George Abbot R. Edes/John Aglionby Giles Tomson Sir Henry Savile John Perin (or Perne) Ralph Ravens (?) John Harmer Leonard Hutten James Montagu (?)

Cambridge I 1 Chronicles – Song of Edward Lively (died John Richardson Solomon 1605, replaced by Laurence Chaderton Chaderton) Francis Dillingham Roger Andrewes Thomas Harrison Robert Spalding Andrew Byng

Cambridge II The William Branthwait Jeremiah Radcliffe John Bois

140 The Testimony, June 2011 discussion, or were allowed to go forward to the use in worship, a book that would be read aloud other companies and to the final revision commit- to passive but, hopefully, attentive congregations. tee for the ultimate decision. Therefore it had to be mellifluous, easy on the ear. The constant refining and re-refining resulted in The translators at work a text which had most of the irregularities ironed While it is believed that the names of all those out and that flowed smoothly.” 17 Such care re- involved in the translation are known, much less sulted in passages and phrases which could be is known by way of written records about what easily memorised and which would enable the actually happened in the translating process. hearers, many of whom were illiterate or at best One nineteenth-century writer, quoted by Vance, semi-literate, to remember and be influenced by noted that “Never was a great enterprise like the the Word of God. production of our Authorised Version carried out with less knowledge handed down to posterity of Did they follow their brief? the labourers, their method and order of work- The translators were given very specific instruc- ing.” 14 There is no official record of what took tions to work to in their common task. These place between the start of the translation work in terms of reference were drawn up under the 1604 and its publication in 1611. Some incidental supervision of King James himself. His intention information is provided in the KJV translators’ was to ensure that the resulting text did not have preface (The Translators to the Reader), where their an unduly Puritan bias like the Geneva Bible. Yet aim is recorded as being not “to make a new he also wanted no major changes making to the translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good text, in order to avoid giving any support to the one . . . but to make a good one better, or out of Catholic claims that the Protestants had previ- many good ones one principal good one . . .” 15 ously been using a faulty Bible which needed The translators also took as much time as was extensive correction. needed with repeated revision where necessary: Because comparatively little is known about the “Neither did we run over the work with that working methods of the translators, it has been posting haste that the Septuagint did . . . neither suggested by some writers 18 that the terms of were we barred or hindered from going over it reference were largely ignored by the translators. again . . . Neither did we think much to consult Nevertheless, there are certain indicators that the the translators or commentators . . . neither did translators did, in fact, abide by their instructions. we disdain to revise that which we had done, The first term of reference required that they and to bring back to the anvil that which we should use the Bishops’ Bible as a starting point; had hammered: but having and using as great and this was to be “as little altered as the truth of helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach the original will permit.” 19 The for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, at Oxford has some sheets of a 1602 edition of we have at the length, through the good hand of the Bishops’ Bible with annotations made by the the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass KJV translators, thus confirming their attention that you see.” 16 to the detail of this term of reference (see picture The translation progressed in three stages. on p. 131). A manuscript (MS 98) in Lambeth Each company prepared its preliminary transla- Palace Library provides evidence of how the tion. From these early versions, the committee of translators worked on the Epistles. It shows the review prepared a final translation at Stationer’s text of over half the verses of the New Testament Hall in London, with Thomas Bilson and Miles Epistles produced by the translators. In a column Smith supplying the finishing touches. The pre- liminary phase took between four and five years; but the review committee of twelve completed 14. Vance, King James, op. cit., p. 37. their work in nine months. 15. Quoted from the modern spelling version given in: The The intended context in which the finished New Cambridge Paragraph Bible . . . King James Version. translation would be used (“to be read in Edited by David Norton (Cambridge, University Press, Churches”) undoubtedly influenced the transla- 2005), p. xxxi. 16. Ibid., p. xxxii. tors’ choice of words and phrases consistent with 17. Wilson, op. cit., p. 111. faithfulness to the texts from which they worked. 18. Including, for example, Laurence Vance (King James, Derek Wilson makes the point well: “What they op. cit., p. 45). were most conscious of creating was a book for 19. Quoted from Pollard, op. cit., p. 53. The Testimony, June 2011 141 Table 2 1 Peter 1:7 and John Bois’s note Tyndale: “that youre faith . . . might be founde unto lawde, glory, and honoure, at the ap- perynge of Jesus Christ.” Geneva Bible: “that the trial of your faith . . . might be found unto (your) praise, and honour and glorie at the appearing of Jesus Christ.” Bishops’ Bible: “That the trial of your faith . . . might be found to be unto you unto laud, honour, and glory, at the appearing of Jesus Christ.” KJV: “that the trial of your faith . . . might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ.”

Bois’s note: “That is to say, praise of God, or your praise. We have not thought that the in- definite sense should be defined.” alongside are marginal readings, Greek words the believer. Tyndale had left the issue undefined, and references to other Scriptures, providing allowing the praise to be either for God or for clear evidence of the careful work undertaken the believer, or (most probably) for both. Bois’s to arrive at an improved translation rather than note makes it clear, however, that the KJV final a radically new one. revision committee believed that the Greek text Two other sources of information give some does not define the subject of praise, and so they direct insights into the translation process. One is opted to leave it undefined, which is how it ap- a biography of John Bois written by his younger pears in the final 1611 version. This decision is contemporary, Anthony Walker.20 A later copy represented in Table 2 above. of notes written by Bois, describing the detailed One commentator on Bois’s notes concludes work of the final revision committee, provides that they “show the Greek text being criticized the second source.21 and analysed, both for the exact meaning of the In his biography, Walker notes that Bois words and phrases used and for the figures of was chosen as a translator for the Cambridge speech and grammatical constructions used; they Company which translated the Apocrypha, and show word-for-word being made and that he spent four years at this task, while still set alongside more English renderings, synonyms discharging his duties on Sundays as rector of being listed and alternative translations being Boxworth. It seems that John Bois was particularly compared; and finally, they show signs of liter- diligent in his translating work, because he also ary sensitivity in considering both the Greek and assisted another translator (not named) in another possible English meanings.” 23 company, presumably at Cambridge. Along with Andrew Downes, the Regius Professor of Greek A job well done at Cambridge, Bois was also appointed to the The whole process of translation has been sum- revising committee of twelve who brought the marised by Ward Allen thus: “Each translator whole translation together in London. completed his revision of a chapter week by week, It was during this latter assignment that he and each company forged a common revision by made the notes, the copy of which lay undiscov- ered in the Corpus Christi College until 1959. 20. Anthony Walker’s “The life of that famous Grecian, The notes refer to textual details addressed by Mr. John Bois” was published in 1779 by Francis Peck, the translators. An indication of the translators’ as Part viii of a work entitled Desiderata curiosa: or A care and adherence to the requirement to alter Collection of Divers Scarce and Curious Pieces. the Bishops’ Bible “as little as the truth of the 21. The original notes by Bois have not survived; but a 39- original will permit” is illustrated by Bois’s note page manuscript copy, made by the late seventeenth- on 1 Peter 1:7.22 It would seem that the text from century antiquarian William Fulman, exists in the library of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. the translators in the second Westminster Com- 22. What follows is based on Allen, op. cit., p. 12. It was pany had opted for the approach of the Geneva Allen who ‘discovered’ Fulman’s copy of the notes by and Bishops’ , in which the subject of the Bois. “praise” (or “laud”) in the verse was defined as 23. Vance, King James, op. cit., p. 39. 142 The Testimony, June 2011 comparing these private revisions. This revision which spent nine months compounding disagree- being completed, a company circulated its work, ments among companies.” 24 book by book, among the other companies. From Despite the limited information about the ac- this circulation there resulted revisions, made tivities of the translators, the evidence strongly in the light of objections raised to the work of a supports the view that they worked diligently company, and an excursus upon any objections according to their brief, with a single aim: to pro- which the original company did not agree to. Then duce an accurate and intelligible translation into the translators circulated their work among the English of the texts available to them, believing learned men who were not official translators, and that this was the very Word of God. For them, as revised their work in view of suggestions from it should be for us, the work was more important these men. Now the translators had to circulate than the worker. these revisions among the other companies. Then, they prepared the final text. The final text they submitted to the general meeting in London, 24 Allen, quoted in Vance, King James, op. cit., pp. 49-50.

The Testimony, June 2011 143