Early reception of the King James Bible

The claims of the slow acceptance of the KJV have been exaggerated, and some scholars are now debunking this myth.

Kenneth Fincham pointed out “the sheer number of editions indicates strong demand to own a copy” and speaks of “its broad acceptance by 1640” (“The King James Bible: Crown, Church and People,” in Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Volume 71, Issue 1, 2020.)

Mordechai Feingold pointed out that “as in the case of any new contribution to knowledge, a phase of acculturation was required” but that “scholars and the reading public more widely began engaging seriously and approvingly with the KJV from the start” (“Birth and Early Reception of a Masterpiece: Some Lose Ends and Common Misconceptions,” Chapter 1 in Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord: Erudition and the Making of the King James Version of the Bible, Brill, 2018).

Writing of John Bunyan and John Milton using the language of the King James Bible, Hamlin and Jones say that “One mark of the KJB’s dominance over other translations at this point is its use by writers like these, who had little sympathy with King James and his Church. Thus, even for non-conformists, radicals, and dissenters, the KJB had become the English Bible.” (The King James Bible After Four Hundred Years: Literary, Linguistic, and Cultural Influences, edited by Hannibal Hamlin, Norman W. Jones, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)

Hamlin and Jones also point out “Although one might think that the Puritan Commonwealth would have been committed to the Bible most associated with English Puritans (the Geneva), even Oliver Cromwell now favored the KJB (printed by John Field, first Printer to Parliament and then ‘one of His Hignes [i.e. Cromwell’s] Printers’)...” Even before the end of the Commonwealth, no one was printing anything but the KJB, and its domination of the English Bible market was assured for the next 250 years.”

But let’s go back even earlier. Notice in 1618, only seven years after the publication of the new translation, the Reformed Synod of Dordt held at Dordecht, Holland (now Netherlands) speaking of the 1611 translation said “honorifica accuratissimæ translationis Anglicanæ” (that is, “the honor of mentioning the most accurate English translation”). This is a group that, according to modern animadversions, should have preferred the Geneva translation over the KJV. Only seven years – and this bible is recognized outside of England and English, by people who had no pressure to think otherwise, as the most accurate English translation.

The supposed slow reception of the translation commissioned by King James is, in my opinion, an exaggeration or myth used to attack the King James Bible (or, at least in the dreams of some of the naysayers, attack King James-Onlyists). It should be revised according to the historical facts that contradict their theme.

Pilgrims hated KJV, No!

Follow up hit parody:

Pilgrims hated KJV, oh!
For urban myths tell us so.
Little yarns to them belong—
Tell them loud and tell them loud.
Yes, Pilgrims hated, yes, Pilgrims hated
Yes, Pilgrims hated (the KJV); urban myths tell us so.

Sing to the tune Jesus Loves Me.

John Alden and the King James Bible

For some background for this post, please see Bibles at the Pilgrim Hall Museum at Plymouth.

Some ubiquitous KJV critics think they have found the smoking gun to discredit Mayflower passenger John Alden and his King James Bible. My, my, did not only the Geneva Bible come over on the Mayflower! Urban myths tell us so. The Pilgrim Hall Museum allows that they cannot prove that any Bibles were on the Mayflower – in the sense that there exists no log or record of the items that were on the Mayflower. However, they are reasonably sure of two of them. “Among the books in Pilgrim Hall are four Bibles of unusual interest. One belonged to Governor William Bradford, the Pilgrim Governor, and one to John Alden. These are among the very few objects existing today which we feel reasonably sure ‘came over in the Mayflower.’” Those who have some expertise in this area of history are “reasonably sure” these Bibles came over on the Mayflower. Yet for the purpose of Bible version arguments some anti-KJVO people become unreasonably unsure and overly obstinate about Alden’s King James Bible not coming over on the Mayflower.

Anti-KJVO folks such as Rick Norris will argue that John Alden was not a Pilgrim, and also suggest that he did not bring the Bible with him. I guess they want to cover all bases. He didn’t bring the Bible with him, but ordered it later and had it shipped over. Even if he did (to the antis) it does not matter since he was not one of the Pilgrims.

Here are some facts about John Alden:

• He was hired as the ship’s cooper, a job of maintaining and repairing the ship’s barrels.
• He was initially a member of the ship’s crew rather than a New World settler.
• He became a signatory of The Mayflower Compact, signed while the travelers were still on the ship, November 1620.
• He was at the time of his death the last surviving signer of The Mayflower Compact.
• He signed a political and religious covenant, unto which the signers promised under God “all due Submission and Obedience.” From that time Alden would have been a part of the Pilgrim group.
• There is a surviving 1620 KJV Bible in the Pilgrim Hall Museum that belonged to John Alden – and the museum is reasonably sure it came over with him on the Mayflower.

Those who take the “and/or” argument (that Alden was not a Pilgrim and/or did not bring a King James Bible with him) eventually are impaled on the horns of their own dilemma. After signing The Mayflower Compact, John Alden at that point became a covenanted member of the Pilgrims. John Alden owned, used, and passed down in his family a King James Bible printed in 1620. Here are the two horns of their dilemma.

• Either

1. If John Alden brought this King James Bible with him initially as a “non-Pilgrim”, he did not throw away his 1611 translation when or after he became a Pilgrim.

• Or

2. If John Alden did not bring this King James Bible with him, then after he became a Pilgrim and as a Pilgrim John Alden ordered a 1611 translation and had it shipped over to him.

Understanding these two options takes the edge off the claim that the Pilgrims passionately hated the King James Bible and only used the Geneva Bible. This “separatists-hated-the-KJV” argument is broken down and needs to be taken out of service!

Straining at a gnat and not swallowing a camel

In a post in 2023, I took notice of Dan Wallace’s claim that “strain at” in Matthew 23:24 is a translation error. I addressed the usage and whether it is an error (and James Snapp, not a KJV defender, really “cleaned his (and others) clock” about the usage, in the essay Straining at a Gnat). However, in a different article, I noticed Wallace made an additional claim not included in what I addressed. This claim by Wallace is that the 1611 printing of the King James Bible originally had “strain out” rather than “strain at.” That is false.

“Another well-known error is found in Jesus’ discourse against the religious leaders of his day, recorded in Matthew 23. In v. 24 the KJV reads, ‘Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.’ The Greek verb διυλίζω means ‘to strain out.’ I believe that the KJV of 1611 actually had this wording, but inexplicably changed it later to ‘strain at.’”

To be fair, Wallace presents “the KJV of 1611 actually had [strain out], but inexplicably changed it” as what he believes rather than what he knows. Obviously he did not check and did not know, because what he believes is wrong. Checking a scan of a 1611 Bible printing makes it obvious that the original printing has “at” rather than “out.”

This may not be a very large camel in the grand scheme of things – and Snapp has already rebutted this – but I want to add it to my blog. Perhaps someone will stumble along and find this post, and learn that the urban myth perpetuated by a highly esteemed doctor is just that, an urban myth camel to be strained at and strained out of our minds. It is false. Or, as James Snapp concluded, “Those who have promoted that theory (and especially those who have presented it as a fact) should stop doing so.”

We do not allow Dallas doctors to prescribe phony pharmaceuticals. Hopefully Wallace has learned better by now, and has stopped, but his error still adorns the pages of Bible.org to dupe unsuspecting readers.

Arthur Farstad on Geneva and NKJV Bibles

Arthur Leonard Farstad (1935-1998) was executive of the New King James Version, and co-editor (with Zane Hodges) of a Greek Majority Text New Testament. He was a theologian who taught at Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas, Texas. Additionally, he was a co-founder of the Majority Text Society, as well as editor of the Grace Evangelical Society journal.

“God has used many Bibles...And the Geneva, the people who founded America did not use the King James, they used the Geneva. They thought the King James was too ‘high church.’ It said, ‘Church’ instead of ‘congregation’ and ‘bishop’ instead of ‘overseers.’ The Pilgrims and Puritans of Plymouth Colony didn’t use the King James. The foundation of our country was on the Geneva Bible.”

Arthur Farstad, about the Geneva and King James Bibles on the John Ankerberg Show “The King James Only Controversy Revisited – Program 2.”

This statement by Art Farstad demonstrates how some of the Christian urban myths get spread. Leaving the case of what the Pilgrims used (for which, see my “Bibles at the Pilgrim Hall Museum at Plymouth”), let’s consider the reasons given for the “people who founded America” using the Geneva Bible instead of the King James Bible – the words “church” and “bishop.” This is easily falsified by actually looking at a Geneva Bible instead of just taking the word of an authority. These “people who founded America” would have had ready access to the 1599 Geneva Bible (but the same facts are true concerning the 1560 Geneva). An easy check is available at BibleGateway, though scans of the original are available online also. The word “church” and “churches” are used in 113 verses in the Geneva Bible New Testament (1 less than the KJV). “Congregation” only appears 3 times in the Geneva New Testament, two of which have nothing to do with the New Testament church. Bishop appears 5 times in the Geneva Bible, four in reference to a church office, and once in reference to Jesus (Philippians 1:1; 1 Timothy 3:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 2:25). This compares to six times in the KJV. The Geneva Bible did not shy away from the words “church” and “bishop”!

No doubt Art Farstad believed this to be true. Most all of us – yes, even scholars – more readily tend to accept without proof that which we already believe. His believing it to be true does not make it so. Apparently he never checked! Sadly, such myths get spread around. “This must be true – some scholar said it!”

“Originally it was planned to use the Majority Text for the NKJV, not the TR used in the KJV. This was changed near the end of the project. Strangely enough, the one who talked Thomas Nelson into not using the Majority Text was Zane Hodges himself. (He was not, however, on the translation team.) Zane argued that a version should not be based on a Greek text that had not been on the market for a few years to allow time for scholarly appraisal. Also, many felt that this updating of the classic KJV should not introduce another Greek text, like the English Revised had done in 1881 before the Westcott-Hort text (also 1881) had a chance to be evaluated.”

Arthur Farstad. The above statement is found in “Why I Became a Majority Text Advocate,” which is an “Unpublished paper by Arthur L. Farstad when he was at Dallas Seminary.” It is posted on the Dean Bible Ministries website of Robert L. Dean, Jr.  Dean earned a ThM and PhD at Dallas Theological Seminary (where Hodges & Farstad taught).

This statement by Arthur Farstad about the New King James translation suggests that the work on it began with the Majority Text as its textual basis, and then was changed to the Textus Receptus. It would be good to know more about this, and if Farstad discussed or wrote more about it elsewhere. That “start and change” could help explain some of the inconsistencies in the New King James translation.

Baptists, the Bible, and Boyce

Back in March, on a Facebook public group called “KJV Onlyism Discussion Unbiased,” someone reposted a rant by Anglican Apologist and KJVO opponent Stephen Boyce.[i]

“I’m convinced that if the King James translators were alive today, translating the same exact translation we have now, many in the King James Only movement would reject their translation as a translation made by heretics because its authorization came from a monarchy, its translators believed in baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, real presence in the Eucharist, high church practices (such as bowing to a cross, priests in vestments, crossing themselves, scripted prayers, liturgy, etc..) and submitted to Bishops as leaders of the church.”

“The beauty and majesty of this 400 year translation doesn’t belong to a small group of Baptists who claim it for their own, not realizing that their separatists forefathers utterly despised the translation because it was too high church and maintained much of the terminology that the Church of England held to in their high church practices and liturgy. Enough is enough with all this insanity.”

The first paragraph is worth little beyond Boyce stating his personal opinion. It matters not what he is convinced of in an imaginary scenario. Someone else can imagine their opposing opinion, and neither can prove their point – and both will be equally satisfied they are right. Draw. Deadlock.

The second paragraph is a bare assertion that he does not undertake to prove. There is a bit of “insanity” in repeating “urban myths” about early separatists “utterly despising” the King James Bible.[ii] Can he demonstrate it? I can show some who used it rather than despising it. For example, in Ill Newes from New England, John Clarke quotes from the King James Bible.[iii] The same can be found in John Bunyan’s writings (though many falsely claim he only used the Geneva Bible).[iv] The first quotes in the 1644/1646 London Baptist Confession better match the KJV than the Geneva. Maybe someone can find some Baptists who utterly despised this translation, but the ones I have checked so far did not. Which Baptists utterly despised it? Don’t just assert – give us the goods.

In a response to me, Stephen stated, “I never said baptists rejected it. I said separatists (though they developed into baptists over time).” Of course, he did invoke the Baptists, and while all separatists are not Baptists, Baptists are separatists.[v] Then he could not definitely supply any names or faces of separatists who “utterly rejected” the King James Bible. The only person I know who I would say rose to the level of “utterly despising” the new translation was Hugh Broughton (he was cantankerous, fractious, and prickly; a Puritan of sorts, who was all over the page, but not a Separatist).[vi] (Boyce did not mention him.) John Bunyan was more of a separatist than a full-fledged Baptist (and he used the KJB). Boyce mentioned the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock. There are two Bibles in the Pilgrim Hall Museum at Plymouth, a Geneva Bible that belonged to William Bradford, and a King James Bible that belonged to John Alden.[vii] (Using a Geneva Bible and “utterly despising” the KJV are not the same thing, neither necessarily even two sides of the same coin.)

Others mentioned to me were Oliver Cromwell and relational Calvinists (whatever that means).[viii] Cromwell and his supporters did not despise the KJV to the extent that they completely excluded it from the “Souldier’s Pocket Bible” (as has been purported).[ix] Hamlin and Jones in The King James Bible After Four Hundred Years claimed that Cromwell came to favor it and “Even before the end of the Commonwealth, no one was printing anything but the KJB” (p. 8; a book from Cambridge Press, not Peter Ruckman!). And, Cromwell and company were Puritans reforming the Church of England, not Separatists. Those in Geneva and other relational Calvinists surely were not Separatists in the sense of his initial claim. Is the Dutch Reformed Church included as relational Calvinists? They received delegates from the Church of England at the Synod of Dort, 1618, and had them make a report on the new Bible translation![x]

Stephen also told me that “Just because someone quotes the KJV doesn’t mean it was preferred.” Surely. However, when they quote the KJV it doesn’t mean it is despised. Even if they preferred the Geneva Bible, or when they don’t quote the KJV, it doesn’t mean it is despised! I do not fail to believe that some people despised King James Bible. I do not suppose there were none who despised it. However, to assert a claim requires demonstrating the claim. Stephen Boyce failed to give good historical evidence of specific separatists who “utterly despised” the King James Bible. Generic historical claims are unhelpful.[xi] They become Christian urban myths that keep getting repeated as fact, without supplying evidence.

Additionally, in this second paragraph Boyce refers to “a small group of Baptists who claim it for their own.” Here he means “King James Only” Baptists. This is contrary to the facts. “King James Only” Baptists do not ”claim it for their own” to the exclusion of others. Most (if probably not all) of these types of Baptists think that all English-speaking Christians should use the AV (King James Bible).[xii]

A quick look at the 1644/1646 London Baptist Confession (compiled by persecuted separatist folks falsely called Anabaptists)

LBC: But this I confesse unto thee, that after the way which they call heresie so worship I the God of my Fathers, beleeving all things that are written in the Law and the Prophets, and have hope towards God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead both of the just and unjust. - Acts xxiv. 14, 15.

• AKJV: 14 But this I confesse unto thee, that after the way which they call heresie, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: 15 and have hope towards God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
• GNV: 14 But this I confesse unto thee, that after the way (which they call heresie) so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets, 15 And have hope towards God, that the resurrection of the dead, which they themselves looke for also, shallbe both of just and unjust.

LBC: For we cannot but speak the things that we have seen and heard. - Acts iv. 20

• AKJV: For wee cannot but speake the things which we have seene and heard.
• GNV: For we cannot but speake the things which we have seene and heard.

LBC: If I have spoken evill, bear witnesse of the evill; but if well, why smitest thou me? - John xviii. 23.

• AKJV: 23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evill, bear witnesse of the evill: but if well, why smitest thou me?
• GNV: 23 Jesus answered him, If I have evill spoken, bear witnesse of the evill: but if I have well spoken, why smitest thou me?

LBC: Blessed are yee when men revile you, and say all manner of evil against you falsly for my sake. Rejoice, etc. - Matth. v.11, 12. & xix. 29.

• AKJV: 11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shal say all manner of evill against you falsly for my sake. 12 Rejoyce...
• GNV: 11 Blessed shall ye be when men revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evill against you for my sake, falsly. 12 Rejoyce...

The “Bible Versions Debate” will not be settled by history. It should not be settled by history. However, we should be careful in our use of history in the debate. Let it be accurate and straightforward. Some people did not like the new Bible. Some people did. Let those who did and did not be placed accurately.

---

[i] I call this a “rant.” This is not personal. Boyce himself admitted in the thread below his OP that he made this rant because he was blocked on a KJVO discussion. “Got blocked on a KJVO discussion so yeah sorry about the venting” (with a laughing emoji).
[ii] It is mind-numbing and mind-boggling how easily these “Christian urban myths” slip out, and how broadly they have been accepted – without evidence – even by (maybe especially by) scholars and institutions of higher education.
[iii] John Clarke’s Bible.
[iv] John Bunyan – Geneva Bible Only?
[v] Excluding the modern ecumenical type, of course, but that is not what Boyce was talking about.
[vi] Who is the mean guy denouncing my Bible translation?
[vii] Bibles at the Pilgrim Hall Museum at Plymouth.
[viii] I did not find anything about “relational Calvinists” via internet search. Google’s AI generated this answer (which just means Calvinists): “Relational Calvinists are people who believe that God has selected a limited number of souls for salvation at the beginning of time, and that nothing a person can do during their life can change their eternal fate. They also believe that the Bible is the authority and sufficiency for knowing God and one’s duties to God and one’s neighbor.”
[ix] The Cromwell Souldiers Bible.

[x] Report on the 1611 Translation to the Synod of Dort.
[xi] John Milton was not “Geneva Bible Only”. Also notice things I have written HERE and HERE.
[xii] Reasons To Use the King James Bible over Other Translations. As far as I can tell, King James Onlyists from the least to the greatest believe that the King James Bible should be everyone’s Bible. Else they probably would not be King James Onlyists.

Bible translation and copyright

I have read and heard King James Bible proponents argue that translators must intentionally reword portions of their new translations in order to make them original. By that means, they are therefore able to be copyrighted (in other words, as a new and distinct work). For example, Gail Riplinger’s New Age Bible Versions states that “New versions are forced to scramble phrases in order to secure a copyright, which, according to the derivative copyright law requires ‘substantial changes’” (p. 76). Some people claim the change must be at least ten percent.

In most of the world, the Authorized Version (KJV) has long since passed out of copyright and is freely reproduced by any and all who wish to do so. In the U.S. we would call this “public domain.” However, in the United Kingdom, the British Crown restricts production of the Authorized Version under the Letters Patent issued with the royal prerogative. “Rights in The Authorized Version of the Bible (King James Bible) in the United Kingdom are vested in the Crown...”

Visual created by a Facebook member

So, it seems reasonable to think that a Bible that too closely resembled the Authorized King James Bible would violate the rights of the Crown in the United Kingdom, and on the other hand possibly would be considered “public domain” (not copyrightable) in other countries. That said, I have never seen anyone cite the law concerning copyrighting new translations. Further, I cannot find anything about “10%” being the required level of change. That almost seems like a guess or made-up claim.

I also know that if I were to print the CSB or NIV, I would obviously be in copyright violation and subject to whatever punishment that accrues.

It seems that the creation of some Bible versions are related to copyright issues. For example (and this needs to be more carefully verified), it is my understanding that the Southern Baptist Convention backed and created the (Holman) Christian Standard Bible so that they do not have to pay for or get permission to use the Bible as extensively as they wish in their printed materials. If someone has the specifics on this, I would be grateful to have the evidence.

• Bryan Ross discusses some of these issues in Considering Claims Concerning Copyright: King James Bible & Modern Versions.
• Maurice Robinson discusses copyright and translation in The Bondage of the Word: Copyright and the Bible (1996).

No doubt the legal governance of this will vary from country to country. In the United States, 17 U.S. Code § 103 applies to the subject matter of copyright of compilations and derivative works:

(a)The subject matter of copyright as specified by section 102 includes compilations and derivative works, but protection for a work employing preexisting material in which copyright subsists does not extend to any part of the work in which such material has been used unlawfully.

(b)The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the preexisting material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the preexisting material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material.

This is the bare fact, but court cases, precedents, and other things probably complicate the ability of lay persons to understand this matter of derivative Bible copyright. We should try to look at the law, the details, and try to know what we are talking about when we talk about it. I suspect a lot of what has been passed around is just what someone heard someone say (or write) and does not clearly represent what is required to copyright just one more English Bible translation (not that we need one more English Bible translation).

John Milton was not “Geneva Bible Only”

About two years ago I made an effort to root out some World Wide Web claims that folks like John Bunyan and John Milton only used the Geneva Bible. At the time I decided to focus my research on John Bunyan.[i] I found that assertion definitely was untrue concerning Bunyan. I tried to get some sites to correct their error. I found that once a horse is out of the barn, it can be hard to get it back in.

Background.

A PhD at a museum of a major Christian University sent a very gracious reply that they looked into it and agreed that Bunyan’s primary use of the Geneva Bible seemed to be a legend. Yet their website Geneva Bible page continues to perpetuate the legend.

A major purveyor of Bible resources (very well-known, whose name I will not mention at this time) had something on their site about John Bunyan and the Geneva Bible. I received from a representative of this company an obstinate reply, defending their use of the so-called “fact” because it was “widely available online”! In the reply, this representative even copied and included the following statement from a blog: “It was the Bible of Shakespeare and Paul Bunyan and Cromwell’s Army and of our Pilgrim Fathers.” Yes, the person did not care enough to even notice that this quote was defending “Paul Bunyan” (not John Bunyan!) using the Geneva Bible. I’m glad Paul did, if he did! Babe the Blue Ox may have used it too. On the other hand, satisfied with the Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue Ox proof, they never considered the documentation I provided.

I corresponded with the then CEO of GenevaBible.com. He referred me to a single source, an undocumented claim found in the article on the Geneva Bible at Harvard Divinity School library. I guess if Harvard posts it, it has to be true! This led to a very polite exchange with a librarian there (at Harvard). I provided 3 or 4 scholarly resources and one primary resource –Bunyan himself – showing that the Geneva was not his primary Bible. Though the correspondent seemed to be listening, that library page nevertheless still says the Geneva Bible was the Bible of John Bunyan.

Whether it is a claim of a KJVO author, a textual scholar, or just Joe Blow, the World Wide Web exacerbates and multiplies myths and mistakes.[ii] It gives them a false weight that makes them seem to be true. I found it on the internet; it must be true.

John Milton.

Since I found this “Geneva Bible Only” to be untrue concerning John Bunyan and the Pilgrims, I expected it was also untrue of John Milton.[iii] However, at the time I did not pursue it further. Now I present here just a little bit of information that I recently came across in A History of the English Bible as Literature by David Norton. Norton is King James Bible historian and is not “King James Only.”

“His work had enormous influence on both literary taste and religious ideas, and was written with intimate and, at times, open familiarity with the KJB. Moreover, Milton proclaimed the literary supremacy of the Bible.” (Norton, pp. 175-176)

John Milton was not a so-called “King James Onlyist.” He read and studied the Bible in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, as well as English. But he certainly was not a “Geneva Bible Onlyist.” It is the King James Bible that was his primary English Bible.

“Now, Milton had owned from childhood, perhaps from his fourth birthday, a small quarto KJB (Barker, 1612) which shows abundant signs of use, and he was obviously thoroughly familiar with its text.” (Norton, p. 176)

Milton regarded the King James Bible “as the most accurate but yet improvable rendering of the original. The Hebrew and the Greek he did regard as dictated by God, as his very few comments on the language as language show.” (Norton, p. 176)

John Milton wrote versifications or metrical paraphrases of the Psalms. Initially they were looser/more poetry driven, but sets of Psalms composed in 1648 and 1653 (after his blindness) “show an increasing fidelity both to the originals and to the KJB…” (This is not now fidelity to the KJB as compared to the Geneva before – no, but more fidelity to the KJB and original Hebrew language, as compared to his earlier Psalms.) “The appearance of fidelity, which is often also a fidelity to the KJB, is bolstered by his inclusion of notes supplying the Hebrew or a literal translation of it.” (Norton, p. 179)

Of his later metrical Psalms, Norton writes “He obviously wants to be faithful to the KJB’s words – arguably he is responding to the power of some of its phrases – and seems to be experimenting to see how nearly they can be read as English poetry.” (Norton, p. 180)

Interestingly to this subject, David Norton does not even mention the Geneva Bible in Chapter 8, “Writers and the Bible I: Milton and Bunyan.”

“[In his later metrical Psalms] He obviously wants to be faithful to the KJB’s words – arguably he is responding to the power of some of its phrases – and seems to be experimenting to see how nearly they can be read as English poetry.” (Norton, p. 180)

Conclusion.

There is a great deal of information that can be found online that contradicts the other online material that promotes the unsourced Geneva Only myth. For example, S. L. Greenslade refers to Milton and Bunyan – even Cromwell – in context of the English indebtedness to the Authorized Version of the Bible (The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day, S. L. Greenslade, Editor. Cambridge: University Press, 1963, p. 492). The book earlier noted the KJB’s place of complete dominance in the minds of English people as “the” Bible. “Eventually, however, its [i.e., the King James Bible] victory was so complete that its text acquired a sanctity properly ascribable only to the unmediated voice of God; to multitudes of English-speaking Christians it has seemed little less than blasphemy to tamper with the words of the King James Version.” (Cambridge History of the Bible, p. 168)

If you do not like the King James Bible, that is your choice. It is a free country. But people who tout “the evidence” need to learn to deal with all the evidence.

Sources.

• Norton, David. A History of the English Bible as Literature, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000
• Milton, John. The Works of John Milton. Editor, Frank Patterson et al. 18 vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1931-38. (esp. Vol. XVIII, pp. 274-75 and 559-61)
• Greenslade, S. L., Editor. The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West from the Reformation to the Present Day, Cambridge: University Press, 1963

---

[i] “Grace Abounding shows Bunyan’s response to the Bible – which in his case is always the KJB, known with an intimacy few have ever approached – to have had a pathological intensity.” A History of the English Bible as Literature, David Norton, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2000, p. 186.

[ii] A Puritan’s Mind added a disclaimer, which I do not remember being there when I originally found the Brown article on their site: “The following article does contain information which the author of this website disagrees with since they are stated in a “positive light” and not stated with prudence...” I am thankful for this, even though it does not go far enough in disclaiming the “Christian Urban Myth” nature of the article.

[iii] Michael H. Brown is one who gets his facts terribly wrong (seemingly almost deliberately so). As I have previously noticed, Brown asserts, “William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, John Milton, the Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620, and other luminaries of that era used the Geneva Bible exclusively” (p. i). Possibly worse still is those who casually and uncritically blast his erroneous essay around the world and back again.

John Clarke’s Bible

In the Baptist History Preservation group on Facebook, Jonathan Burris asserted that early Baptist churches in America used the Geneva Bible rather than the King James Bible. He invoked the name of John Clarke.[i] He “substantiated” his claim by simply declaring that the Geneva Bible is what came over on the Mayflower, not the King James; and that “All of this is easily verifiable.” Let’s see what we can verify.

Mayflower.

First, I have previously reviewed the claim that the Pilgrims would have only brought and used the Geneva Bible (see HERE). Briefly, the Pilgrim Hall Museum in Plymouth, Massachusetts possesses two Bibles they are “reasonably sure” came over in the Mayflower – a Geneva Bible belonging to Governor William Bradford and a King James Bible belonging to John Alden. The carefully stated position of the museum is that they do not have “absolute proof” that there were any Bibles on the Mayflower. This is not quite the substantial evidence against the King James Bible that Jonathan Burris proposed.

John Clarke.

As I remember it, Burris wished us to take the matter of John Clarke’s Bible “on credit” rather than his presenting evidence to prove his claim.

It can be shown that John Clarke, pastor of the Baptist Church at Newport, Rhode Island, owned a Geneva Bible. In 1978, when Edwin S. Gaustad wrote Baptist Piety,[ii] he stated that this Bible then was “now in the possession of the Rhode Island Historical Society.” He described it as “a 1608 edition of the Geneva Bible, printed in London by Robert Barker.” He adds “it apparently first belonged to John Clarke’s father, Thomas (1570-1627)” and “contains vital statistics pertinent to the Clarke family.” The fact that John Clarke owned a Geneva Bible (which may have survived to the present primarily because of its Clarke family information) does not prove that he did not own or use a King James Bible.

To test the claim of Jonathan Burris, I reviewed John Clarke’s Ill News from New-England; Or, a Narrative of New-Englands Persecution in order to get a sense of what Bible Clarke used – especially hoping to find Bible verses quoted in his book by which to identify a particular translation. There is a lot of scripture in his book, but often times he is likely quoting from memory – just writing and not looking in a Bible to get it exact. In some places it seems like he adjusts Bible verses to fit in the form of the sentence he is writing. Nevertheless, my initial conclusion is that John Clarke’s Bible references favor the King James as the primary Bible he was using in 1652 when he wrote Ill News from New England. Consider this.

Review.

On the cover page of this book, Clarke excerpts from three verses in Revelation: 2:25; 3:11; 22:20. Two are the same in both Bibles, but 3:11 has “behold I come shortly” in the Geneva Bible – which is not what Clarke has.

John Clarke refers to part of Romans 8:2, and that reference does not match either the Geneva or KJV. When he mentions part of Hebrews 12:14, it is the same in both the Geneva and KJV. When he writes “the word that in the 5 Rom. 11. is rendered attonement, is in 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19. and in all other places translated by the word Reconciliation,” he could be speaking of either the Geneva or the KJV.

There are several lengthy quotes at the bottom of page 33 and top of page 34. These seemed to be for the purpose of quotation rather than just worked into writing a paragraph. What Bible or Bibles do these match? 

“Revel. 13. 10. He that leadeth into Captivity shall go into Captivity, he that killeth with the Sword must be killed with the Sword; here is the patience and faith of the Saints.” [Matches the KJV.]

• KJV: “He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.”
• Geneva: “If any lead into captivity, he shall go into captivity: if any kill with a sword, he must be killed by a sword: here is the patience and the faith of the Saints.”

“Rev. 12. 11. And they overcame him by the bloud of the Lamb, and by the Word of their Testimony, and they loved not their lives unto the death.” [Matches the KJV]

• KJV: “And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.”
• Geneva: “But they overcame him by that blood of that Lamb, and by that word of their testimony, and they loved not their lives unto the death.”

Rev. 6. 9, 10, 11. I saw under the Altar the Souls of them that were slain for the Word of God, and for the testimony which they held; And they cryed with a loud voice saying, how long holy and true wilt thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwel on the Earth, &c. [Not an exact match for either, but closer to the KJV.]

• KJV: “…I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: and they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? ....”
• Geneva: “…I saw under the altar the souls of them that were killed for the word of God, and for the testimony which they maintained. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, Lord, which art holy and true! dost not thou judge and avenge our blood on them, that dwell on the earth? …”

Rev. 20. 4. And I saw the Souls of them that were beheaded for the Witness of Iesus, and for the Word of God, and which had not worshiped the Beast, neither his Image, neither had received the marke upon their foreheads; or in their hands, and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. [Matches the KJV]

• KJV: “…and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”
• Geneva: “and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which did not worship the beast, neither his image, neither had taken his mark upon their foreheads or on their hands: and they lived, and reigned with Christ a thousand years.”

Conclusion.

The Mayflower/Geneva Bible legend is overworked and needs a rest (or at least a very thorough and unbiased review). Jonathan Burris’s claim that John Clarke preferred and used the Geneva Bible will not withstand scrutiny. The results of my initial test yields the conclusion that the Bible quotes in 1652 favor John Clarke’s using the King James Bible rather than the Geneva Bible.[iii] 

My conclusion is tentative and needs to be tested more carefully. For example, retest with a greater sample of the work of John Clarke and other early Baptists in the American colonies. Compare using actual scans of Bibles printed in that period to check the quotes. I used the AKJV and 1599 Geneva on BibleGateway (which should be relatively trustworthy, but still not the truest test; it is what I had time to do while discussing this on the Facebook forum). Nevertheless, this test gives an idea how we can begin to verify such claims rather than just make them up!

---

[i] John Clarke was born in England in 1609, the son of Thomas Clarke. He arrived in British America in 1637. Clarke pastored the Baptist Church in Newport, Rhode Island, and was instrumental in gaining Rhode Island’s charter favoring freedom of religion. He died in 1676. A well-researched book on the life of John Clarke is John Clarke (1609-1676): Pioneer in American Medicine, Democratic Ideals, and Champion of Religious Liberty, by Louis Franklin Asher (Dorrance Publishing Company, 1997).
[ii] Gaustad’s book is primarily about Clarke’s co-labourer at the Baptist Church at Newport, Obadiah Holmes. Gaustad concludes that it is difficult to determine from his biblical quotations which Bible Holmes was using. This is due to the similarities of the Geneva and King James Bibles, that writers and speakers often quoted from an inexact memory (and therefore might not exactly match either of these Bibles), and that sometimes verses alluded to are not intended as quotations.
[iii] Burris switched his horses mid-stream, after seeing it could be proven that John Clarke used the King James translation, saying that maybe Clarke switched to the KJV later in his life. That is possible. It would not be unlikely that any Englishman living in this period started his life with the Geneva Bible and ended his life with the King James Bible. However, what “may be” as conjecture falls short of verifiable facts. Burris said his claim regarding the first Baptists in America and the Geneva was “easily verifiable.” Under its own weight, this easy verification must needs have devolved into speculation. John Clarke may have never (as a preacher) used the Geneva Bible and only used the KJV. That is also unproven conjecture (though there is proof of his use of the KJV in his life.) We know that Clarke owned a Geneva Bible which had belonged to his father. Whether he brought it when he came to America, or obtained it after his father’s death when he was back in England is a matter for further research. His father died in 1627. (For example, I own an old Scofield Bible which belonged to my father; that does not make it the Bible I preached from.) We know Clarke quoted from the King James Bible in 1652. How these facts fit together with what Bible John Clarke used in 1638 is currently unknown to me. For now any claim of John Clarke of Newport, Rhode Island preferring the Geneva Bible must be placed on a “Christian urban legend” shelf alongside such claims regarding John Bunyan and John Milton.

To Be a Pilgrim

“To Be a Pilgrim” (also called “He Who Would Valiant Be” and “Who Would True Valour see”) is a hymn derived from the pen of the famed John Bunyan. Bunyan was a prolific writer, but is best known for his classic The Pilgrim’s Progress from This World, to That Which Is to Come.

John Bunyan was born in Elstow, Bedfordshire, England sometime in 1628. His Church of England parents had their infant John baptized November 30, 1628. By trade Bunyan was a tinker, a tinsmith who mended household utensils – which trade he learned from his father. Around 1653 or 1654 John was converted, immersed, and joined a nonconformist meeting in Bedford. Shortly afterward he began to preach and write on theological topics. After the monarchy was restored in 1660, Bunyan was soon arrested for his nonconformist preaching. In jail he wrote Grace Abounding to the Chief of Sinners and probably in this time also started The Pilgrim’s Progress,[i] which was written in an allegorical style. King James II issued a Declaration of Indulgence in 1672, and Bunyan was released from prison. Afterward, he devoted his time to writing and preaching (the Bedford Meeting chose Bunyan as pastor in 1671, while he was still in prison).

Many people consider Bunyan to have been a Baptist, but perhaps he is best understood as a Puritan who held baptistic beliefs. He agreed with Baptists on believer’s immersion, but rejected their strict communion practice (he teaching and practicing open communion). [A curiously inflamed legend runs round the internet while truth tries to get its boots on – that John Bunyan was committed to the Geneva Bible and rejected the King James translation of 1611. I debunked that myth in John Bunyan – Geneva Bible Only?]

John Bunyan died in London August 31, 1688. He was buried in Bunhill Fields, a nonconformist burying ground where many other notable English dissenters are buried.

“To Be a Pilgrim” was not written as a hymn for a hymn book, but first appeared in the second part of The Pilgrim’s Progress, in 1684. The hymn as first given below is how it appears as printed in The Pilgrim’s Progress: in Two Parts (1840 printing by L. & G. Seeley, London, 1840, page 381).

1. Who would true valour see
Let him come hither;
One here will constant be,
Come wind, come weather;
There’s no discouragement
Shall make him once relent
His first avow’d intent
To be a pilgrim.

2. Who so beset him round
With dismal stories,
Do but themselves confound—
His strength the more is.
No lion can him fright,
He’ll with a giant fight;
But he will have a right
To be a pilgrim.

3. Hobgoblin nor foul fiend
Can daunt his spirit;
He knows he at the end
Shall life inherit.
Then, fancies, fly away,
He’ll not fear what men say,
He’ll labour night and day
To be a pilgrim.

Ironically, the church that persecuted Bunyan over 200 years earlier went to some effort to include this poem in a hymnal. Percy Dreamer adapted the words of Bunyan for The English Hymnal of 1906 (Oxford: Oxford University Press). It is No. 402, in the category “General Hymns.” It appears with the tune Monk’s Gate, arranged by Ralph Vaughan Williams from a traditional English melody.

The hymn has also been paired with the tune St. Dunstan’s by Charles Winfred Douglas. The meter is sometimes given as 8 lines of 6.5.6.5.6.6.6.5. (as appears in this blog post) or as 4 lines of 11.11.12.11. (which are essentially the same, other than how it is presented on the page). The word arrangement by Percy Dreamer is as follows:

1. He who would valiant be
’Gainst all disaster,
Let him in constancy
Follow the Master.
There’s no discouragement
Shall make him once relent
His first avowed intent
To be a pilgrim.

2. Who so beset him round
With dismal stories,
Do but themselves confound—
His strength the more is.
No foes shall stay his might,
Though he with giants fight;
He will make good his right
To be a pilgrim.

3. Since, Lord, thou dost defend
Us with thy Spirit,
We know we at the end
Shall life inherit.
Then fancies flee away!
I’ll fear not what men say,
I’ll labour night and day
To be a pilgrim.

---

[i] There is some disagreement among Bunyan historians and scholars as to which time of imprisonment Bunyan started writing The Pilgrim’s Progress.

Correcting the Internet: 1881, not 1894

From time to time, I run across factual errors in the realm of theology or church history on the World Wide Web. If I think it is egregious and possibly influential, I try to contact the web site owner or owners to suggest a correction. Sometimes the suggestions are met with appreciation, sometimes with ambivalence, sometimes with anger, and sometimes with silence. I intend (Lord willing) to start a series “Correcting the Internet” for the times I meet with these issues.

The following correction is to an article section titled “Addendum I: The King James Version” on the textual criticism site of Robert B. Waltz. In this case the “silence” is because I could not contact the owner. The site no longer has a valid contact e-mail and my message was returned undeliverable. There are several things on the site to which I object, but some are matters of opinion which I will overlook for the time being. I note two things.

The Greek Text of the King James Bible

The 2nd paragraph of the article states, “Scrivener reconstructed the text of the KJV in 1894, finding some 250 differences from Stephanus.”

This seems to be a common misconception. The original publication is 1881 rather than 1894. It seems that the 1894 publication of F. H. A. Scrivener’s The New Testament in the Original Greek is the best known, and the edition that was reprinted. Nevertheless, it was first published in 1881. F. H. A. Scrivener was commissioned to compile this work as part of the English Bible revision project. He served on the revision committee with B. F. Westcott, F. J. A. Hort, Charles J. Ellicott, and others. It came out the same year as the New Testament translation The scan of this book available at Google Books verifies the 1881 date.

The New Testament in the Original Greek, According to the Text Followed by the Authorised Version (1881)

This is a simple correction, easily verified in numerous sources.

The Reception of the King James Bible

The next to last paragraph in the article has this statement: “…at the time of its publication, the KJV was greeted with something less than enthusiasm, and for the first few decades of its life, the Geneva Bible remained the more popular work…”

Regarding the reception of the new King James Bible, this is a common misconception. It is not that this has no ring of truth. Rather, the Geneva vs. KJV embellishment is often simply passed on without scrutiny. (I have dealt with this is a few places, e.g., HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE.) In this manner the overstatement exerts a wide and powerful influence on what people think about the reception of the KJV without inspecting the details. The King James Bible was a dud. People would not have used it if King James had not made them. There is a Geneva Bible partisanship running through the WWW, in both scholarly and popular circles, that rushes to judgment.[i] If we take a breath and do some research, we find that this idea encompasses some confirmation bias.

• As might be expected, the new translation faced early and weighty competition with the Geneva Bible. 
• The popular use of the Geneva Bible continued, though in decline, through the first half of the 17th century. 
• For many it was the commentary, the “study notes,” that kept their continued loyalty more than a dislike of the new translation.[ii]
• In the Puritan Commonwealth Oliver Cromwell favored the King James Bible, which was printed by John Field, first Printer to Parliament and “one of His Hignes [i.e. Cromwell’s] Printers.”
• The last known printing of the Geneva Bible occurred in Amsterdam in 1644.

In “Ten Fallacies about the King James Version” (Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, Vol. 15, No. 4, Winter 2011, p. 9), Leland Ryken calls this “Fallacy #5: The KJV Fell Flat And Was Ignored When It Was First Published,” writing:

“It is true that the release of the KJV was surrounded by misfortunes that could easily have subverted the entire publishing venture. The first printer of the KJV found himself in almost immediate financial difficulty, and the early years of printing were bound up in litigation…the new translation was in immediate competition with the entrenched best-selling Bible of the day, the Geneva Bible…Despite this, the KJ V did very well. In its first five years of existence, readers called for seventeen editions, compared with six editions of the Geneva Bible during those same years. Expanding the time frame, in the first 35 years of its existence the KJV went through a whopping 182 editions. The KJV supplanted the Geneva Bible within fifty years of its publication, very good indeed.”[iii] 

There is no doubt that a new translation would not immediately supplant a popular and entrenched Bible, but it was far from a publishing failure.

---

[i] Some of this is exacerbated by a rush to oppose King James Onlyism, and the historical facts are left to die in the gutter. It keeps getting repeated without scrutiny.
[ii] This may be seen in the fact that King James’s Bibles were printed with Geneva notes in 1649, 1679, 1708, and 1715.
[iii] Ryken served as a literary consultant for the English Standard Version, so he is obviously no KJVO partisan. See also The Bible in the Making, Geddes MacGregor, London: Murray, 1961; and “Introduction: the King James Bible and its reception history,” Hannibal Hamlin and Norman W. Jones, in The King James Bible After Four Hundred Years: Literary, Linguistic, and Cultural Influences, edited by Hamlin and Jones, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. See especially “Birth and Early Reception of a Masterpiece: Some Lose Ends and Common Misconceptions,” Mordechai Feingold, Chapter 1 in Labourers in the Vineyard of the Lord: Erudition and the Making of the King James Version of the Bible (Brill, 2018). For example, “As in the case of any new contribution to knowledge, a phase of acculturation was required before the KJV could establish itself as the paramount vernacular version of the Bible—assisted by commercial incentives of interest published. However, scholars and the reading public more widely began engaging seriously and approvingly with the KJV from the start” (p. 27).

The King James Bible: published when?

Q. When was the King James Bible published?

A. The King James Bible, though not yet called by that name, was published in 1611.[i] “This day” posts and pages often claim the King James Bible was first published May 2, 1611. This factoid is posted all over the internet. However, it is incorrect, or least we do not know when in 1611 this Bible was published.

This error may have grown out of events scheduled on May 2 to celebrate the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, or announcements of those events. For example, this announcement and subsequent article marks Monday [i.e., May 2, 2011] as “the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Bible…”

Herald and Review, Sunday, May 1, 2011, page 1

David Norton writes, “The printing history of the KJB is plagued throughout by inadequate publishing records. Presumably because it was considered a revision rather than a new book, the first edition was not entered on the Stationers’ Registers, so we do not know when in 1611 it appeared.”[ii]

After 1557, when the Stationers’ Company of London was given a royal charter, the Stationers’ Register record book registered all new books published in England. The date of their registration is usually considered equivalent of the date of publication. Norton’s research finds that this Bible was not registered. The reason he gives is a possible solution as to why it was not registered. However, the title portrays this Bible as “newly translated” and only “diligently compared” to the former translations (that is, “compared to” rather than “revised”).

Short answer – we do not know what time of the year 1611 the Bible was published, but we do know the year.

---

[i] THE HOLY BIBLE, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: 🙵 with the former Translations diligently compared and reuised, by his Maiesties speciall Comandement. This title is followed by “Appointed to be read in Churches” and “Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Maistie. Anno Dom. 1611.”
[ii] A Textual History of the King James Bible, David Norton. London: Cambridge University Press, 2005, p.46.