A Short History of King James I and the Bible
James I was born at Edinburgh Castle, Edinburgh, Scotland, June 19, 1566 and died March 27, 1625, at his country estate of Theobalds, Hertfordshire, England. He reigned as king of Scotland (as James VI) from 1567 to 1625. He was the first Stuart king of England from 1603 to 1625. He styled himself “king of Great Britain” and was a strong proponent of royal absolutism. He had running conflicts with an increasingly self-assertive Parliament, this set the stage for the rebellion against his son and successor, Charles I.
James was the only son of Mary, Queen of Scots, and her second husband, Henry Stewart, Lord Darnley. When James was Eight months old, his father died when their house exploded. After his mother’s third marriage, to James Hepburn, 4th earl of Bothwell, Mary was soundly defeated by the rebel Scottish lords. She abdicated the throne to her son, James, and, at one year old, he became king of Scotland on July 24, 1567.
The young king grew up in a fairly isolated environment, but his tutors worked hard to see that he received an excellent education. This lasted until the age of 14. He had consistent lessons in Greek, French, and Latin and regularly made use of an excellent library of classical and religious writings that his tutors, George Buchanan, and Peter Young, had assembled for his use. The education that James’s received seems to have sparked literary ambitions within him that was rarely found in royal families, but it also helped to form a young man who tended to be picky and fastidious.
On March 24, 1603 James achieved his lifelong ambition when Queen Elizabeth I died, and he inherited the throne of England. James VI of Scottland would succeed her to the throne; thus he became King James I of England.
Upon the death of Queen Elizabeth, the mood of the country must have been solemn, yet anxious. The queen’s rule had provided a great sense of security and stability for her country both in politics and in religious life over the course of several decades. Her strong steady hand of leadership had helped to quell the violent conflicts of church reform. How would the new king lead on these issues? James, now 36 years old, had been the ruler of Scottland since he was barely 1 year old. He had become a wise and clever king of Scottland, yet he was also very wary of the political intrigue that swirls within the King’s court.
On April 5, he began his journey from Edinburgh to London for his coronation. James’ journey south experienced a critical interruption: a delegation of Puritans presented James with a petition outlining their grievances and desired changes. This document was known as the Millenary Petition.It contained over 1,000 clergy signatures, representative of about ten percent of England’s clergy. This petition would become the catalyst for the Hampton Court Conference. The petition sought to allay suspicions regarding the clergy’s loyalty to the crown. It addressed four areas of church life: church service, church ministers, church living and maintenance, and church discipline. It also set forth several objections that they felt were lingering practices from the earlier pagan culture, among them was the use of the wedding rings, the sign of the cross, and the wearing of specific liturgical clothing. Interestingly, the Millenary Petition contained no mention of a new Bible translation for the churches or the people.
Surprisingly, James took the petition seriously enough to call a conference. In a royal proclamation in October 1603, just seven months after the death of Queen Elizabeth, the king announced a meeting of England’s clergy to take place at the Hampton Court Palace, a magnificent 1,000-room estate just outside of London, built by Cardinal Wolsey.
The Puritans hoped the timing of the new king would allow them to continue their Reformation work. They knew that James had been raised under Presbyterian influences giving the Puritans hope that James would champion their cause of continued reform. They were to be sorely mistaken.
James had experienced many of their “kind” in Scotland and disliked them exceedingly. However, James saw that these reformers were a sizeable minority, serious, well-educated, highly motivated, and convinced of the righteousness of their understanding of scripture. Regardless of his personal antipathy, James understood it politically unwise to ignore them. He desired harmony and permanency in the church and state, but he also understood that the diversity of his citizens had to be considered.
On one side, the Pope and the Catholics of England longed for the English church to return to the Roman fold. Then there were the Puritans, seemingly loyal to the crown but wanting even more distance from Rome. They continued to insist that England’s Reformation did not go far enough because of the many Catholic elements still found within the Church of England. And still another segment was the Presbyterians who wanted to completely break from the current hierarchical structure of powerful bishops and replace it with the New Testament model of church administration under elders or presbyters as found in the Scriptures. And still another group known as the Nonconformists and Separatists, some of whom would later become America’s Pilgrims wanted the state out of all church affairs altogether.
They saw a state-controlled church as an enormous hindrance to the freedom to worship in the way they understood the Scriptures. Politically they were not yet seen as a potent force, but their movement was developing just under the surface. And lastly, there was Parliament. They also saw this change of monarchy as a opportunity to expand their power beyond its current position. James could see that the Parliament had a significant Puritan influence and representation that needed to be considered.
The bishops of the Church of England and the associated hierarchy of the English church were a genuine elite group that held exceptional power, privilege, and wealth. They understood that the Puritan agitators were far more than a group presenting an intellectual abstraction to be debated at Oxford and Cambridge; if this group succeeded in their desires, this hierarchy’s power and access to wealth would crumble.
The participants of the conference were assembled at Hampton Court Palace. The king, his Privy Council of advisors, nine bishops of the Church of England, and deans of the universities were all in attendance. The Puritan cause was represented by four moderates. Noticeably, the deck was stacked against the Puritans from the start, but at least they would have a voice.
In a similar fashion to Constantine at the opening of the Council of Nicaea, King James delivered his opening address. He quickly set the tone and gave clear indications of his expectations for the conference. The doctrine and organization of the state church were not up for review or modification, James indicated that he found a great deal of confidence in the structure and hierarchy of the English church, as compared to the Presbyterian model he witnessed in Scotland.
The four Puritan representatives were not allowed to attend the first day but were allowed to join the meeting on the second day. The Reverend John Reynolds took the lead on their behalf and raised the question of church government. However, any hope of his being heard by the King was lost by one unfortunate and accidental reference.
Rynolds asserted, in the form of a question, that a more collegial approach to church administration might be in order. In other words, “Let’s broaden the decision-making base.” Reynolds posed his question this way: “Why shouldn’t the bishops govern jointly with a presbytery of their brethren, the pastors, and ministers of the Church.”
His unfortunate word choice, using “presbyterie” was like waving a red flag before a bull. The king immediately exploded in reply: “If you aim at a Scots Presbyterie, it agreeth as well with monarchy as God and the devil! Then Jack, and Tom, and Will, and Dick shall meet and censure me and my council.” He then spoke what can be thought his central motto and summary: “No bishop, no King!”
The king went on to caution Reynolds: “If this be all your party hath to say, I will make them conform themselves, or else I will harrie them out of the land, or else do worse!” Although Reynolds’ stumbled with his unfortunate use of “presbyterie”, he should get credit for suggesting what would become the most significant accomplishment of the conference. Reynolds “moved his majesty that there might be a new translation of the Bible because those which were allowed in the reign of King Henry VIII and King Edward VI were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the original.” James was inclined to entertain a new translation because he loathed the popular Geneva Bible. James was angered more by its, often, revolutionary-leaning marginal notes than by the quality of the translation itself.
King James commissioned the new Bible in 1604 at the Hampton Court Conference outside of London. King James appointed sixty of the best scholars in the biblical languages, from Oxford and Cambridge, to review William Tyndale’s translation of the Bible into English. The king did not put forth any funding for the project, they were just required to do the work. Fifty-four of the scholars actually assembled for the project, they were broken into teams by their language specialty, Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew. These teams were then to meet in smaller working groups to read through their specific book of the Bible as assigned. As they worked, they would make margin notes of words they felt could be translated better or clearer, these notes were later reviewed when the entire team met, any changes that they could resolve were, notes that were left in the margin would be discussed further when the entire committee would meet for a final review.
Through this process most of the word translations were resolved, but some remained in the margin and were published as an alternate word. These alternate words gave the reader clarity and a better understanding of the word, giving it more depth and color. It is interesting that the translators were not given the authority to update the language used by William Tyndale, even though it was nearly 90 years old by this time. Many of the pronunciations and readers’ queues had changed or would not be fully understood by this later generation, but they would remain as they were. In the desire to produce a translation that would be popular with the people, James insisted that the translators use old, familiar terms and names: that it may be readable, with familiar phrases from earlier Bibles.
It was made clear that James wanted no biased notes affixed to the translation, as in the Geneva Bible. Rule #6 stated: “No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words.” Also, James was looking for a single translation that the whole nation could rely on “To be read in the whole Church,” as he phrased it. He decreed that special pains be “taken for a uniform translation, which should be done by the best learned men in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by the Royal authority….”
King James conscripted several printers beyond the king’s licensed printer of the Bible to speed production and distribution of the new authorized version of the Bible to the churches and people of England. Once the Bibles were in the hands of the people, a curious typo was noticed and would forevermore be a distinctive feature in just a handful of these 1st edition Bibles. In Ruth 3:15, it should have read, “. . . and she went into the city.” But instead, it reads, “. . . and he went into the city.” These became known as the Great He Bibles, later editions were corrected and are known as She Bibles.
The first edition of the new Bibles were distributed in 1611. The King James version remains one of the most significant literary works in the English language. It has profoundly shaped our language and our perceptions in ways that few understand today. Although it was produced in England for English churches, it has played a distinct role in the religious development of America as well. Today, many still view the King James Bible to be the ultimate translation in English, using it as the measure that all others are compared to for its quality and clarity of translation.
England had transformed over the centuries from a country of nearly absolute illiteracy, including the royals, to a country where the upper strata of society was now literate and it was even becoming possible for others to learn to read and write. By the time of King James, nearly 100 percent of the gentry and merchant elements of society were literate. Possibly as much as 50 percent of the yeomanry (men who held and cultivated small land estates) but only 10 percent of the husbandry (farmers and livestock) and none of the peasantry were able to read or write. Wealth at this time was directly related to the level of literacy in Elizabethan England; meaning if a person could read and write they were more likely to become wealthier than those who could not. Although literacy among townspeople was higher, the proportions relative to wealth still held true.
In this cultural setting, consider how preposterous it was to have a decree by the King to mandate that a team of elite scholars create a written piece of this magnitude for a largely illiterate public. We can only stand back in wonder at this phenomenal achievement.
James called for a product intended to reinforce his clear-cut royal political agenda, to be done by elite scholarly committees, and reviewed by a self-serving bureaucracy of clergy, with ultimate approval reserved to an absolutist monarch. The final product was intended for public consumption to be used primarily in churches.
It was to be read orally, intended more to be heard in public than to be read in private. Yet, God’s hand was moving an unsuspecting king to produce His Word to an exacting level of excellence that would become the standard for all other translations around the world in future generations! How many works of literary genius do you recall that were done by a committee? How many premier scholars are you aware of who can write for the pleasure of the ear? Not to mention in a context intended to evoke a spirit of worship!
How optimistic would you have been that a team of about fifty men could handle the technical and linguistical challenges of the translation, while, at the same time, producing a work with a smooth cadence, rhythm, imagery, and a structure that would resonate so deeply with the popular consciousness that it uniquely shaped civilizations and cultures? History shows that they successfully created a translation that not only met the needs of their generation, but also succeeded in influencing the lives of many generations to come.