Anthony Pritchard
Well-Known Member
The King James Translation
Preface
Since the accusation of “KJVO” has been assigned to me, I think it is reasonable to step back and look at the Bible in question. Labels do not interest me. The text does. Before anyone decides what the King James Bible is or is not, it helps to remember how it came into being and who produced it.
Main Article
The King James Bible was not the work of one man, nor of a small circle of scholars. It was the product of a national effort planned at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604, where fifty‑four men were appointed by King James Charles Stuart VI of Scotland and I of England to produce a translation of Scripture for the English churches. Forty‑seven are known to have carried out the work. They represented the strongest concentration of linguistic and theological learning England had gathered in one generation.
They were organized into six companies, two at each center of learning: Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Most were ordained priests of the Church of England, but they were not a narrow group. They included bishops, high churchmen, Puritans, professors, classicists, and men trained in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Chaldee, and Aramaic. Several were recognized across Europe for their command of Oriental languages. Their backgrounds were varied, but their purpose was shared.
The work began at Westminster under Lancelot Andrewes, Dean of Westminster, who directed the company responsible for Genesis through 2 Kings. Andrewes was known for his mastery of Oriental languages, and contemporaries said the world lacked the learning to measure how learned he was. His company included William Bedwell, a noted Arabist, and John Overall, a respected theologian.
At Cambridge, the First Company was led by Edward Lively, the Regius Professor of Hebrew. Lively was eminent in Oriental languages and set the tone for the work before his death in 1605. His company translated 1 Chronicles through the Song of Solomon. Among them was Laurence Chaderton, Master of Emmanuel College for nearly forty years and one of the few Puritans in the project.
Oxford’s First Company worked from Isaiah to Malachi under John Harding. This group included Richard Kilby, regarded as one of the foremost Hebraists of his day, and John Reynolds, the Puritan who first suggested the new translation to King James. Miles Smith, later one of the final editors, also served in this company.
The Second Cambridge Company translated the Apocrypha. It was led by John Duport and included John Bois, who could write elegant Hebrew at age six and became one of the most laborious revisers of the entire project. Andrew Downes, another member, was one of the most respected Greek scholars in Europe. Several in this company were skilled in Aramaic and Syriac, which strengthened their handling of the intertestamental literature.
The Second Oxford Company handled the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation. Thomas Ravis directed the work. Among his company was Sir Henry Savile, Warden of Merton College for thirty‑six years and a distinguished Greek scholar. George Abbot, later Archbishop of Canterbury, also served in this group.
The Second Westminster Company translated Romans through Jude. William Barlow led this company, which included Arthur Lake, later Bishop of Bath and Wells, and John Spencer, a noted preacher and scholar.
Oversight was provided by Archbishop Richard Bancroft, who drew up fifteen rules to guide the translation. These rules ensured consistency, reverence, and careful comparison with earlier English Bibles. The translators did not intend to create a new Bible, nor to turn a bad one into a good one, but to make a good one better. They consulted Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, and the Bishops’ Bible, along with the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.
Forty unbound copies of the Bishops’ Bible were supplied as a base text. Each translator first produced his own draft of his assigned portion. The company then met to debate and refine a common version. That draft was sent to the other five companies for review. In addition to this internal circulation, copies were also sent to other esteemed linguists outside the six groups, men whose judgment was valued even if they were not part of the formal companies. Their comments were considered in the final shaping of the text.
The last stage of the work was carried out by two groups. The Committee of Two, Thomas Bilson and Miles Smith, served as final editors. Smith wrote the famous preface, “The Translators to the Reader,” and was known as a walking library for his command of Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic. A larger committee of revisers, twelve men drawn from Cambridge and Oxford, met to harmonize the final text. John Bois, Andrew Downes, and John Harmar were among them.
Even King James himself, though not a translator, was a competent linguist. He read Latin and French fluently, handled Greek respectably, and had enough Hebrew to follow theological argument. His interest in languages shaped his expectations for the project and helped set the tone for the work.
In Closing
It is worth remembering that the King James Bible did not arise from accident or simplicity. It was shaped by scholars whose learning ran deep and whose methods were careful. They worked across the great centers of English learning, consulted the best texts available to them, and submitted their drafts to review by other companies and by respected linguists outside the formal groups. Their aim was to serve the English churches with a faithful and dignified translation of Scripture.
If difficulty is being claimed, it should be measured with this history in view.
~Tony
© A.K. Pritchard 1979, 2026 – Free to use with proper attribution.
Sources
The historical details in this overview are drawn from the standard works on the translation of the King James Bible. These include Alexander McClure’s The Translators Revived, Gustavus Paine’s The Men Behind the King James Bible, Ward Allen’s studies of the Oxford translators, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and the original 1611 preface, “The Translators to the Reader.” Additional information comes from the surviving notes of John Bois and from university records at Cambridge and Oxford.
Preface
Since the accusation of “KJVO” has been assigned to me, I think it is reasonable to step back and look at the Bible in question. Labels do not interest me. The text does. Before anyone decides what the King James Bible is or is not, it helps to remember how it came into being and who produced it.
Main Article
The King James Bible was not the work of one man, nor of a small circle of scholars. It was the product of a national effort planned at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604, where fifty‑four men were appointed by King James Charles Stuart VI of Scotland and I of England to produce a translation of Scripture for the English churches. Forty‑seven are known to have carried out the work. They represented the strongest concentration of linguistic and theological learning England had gathered in one generation.
They were organized into six companies, two at each center of learning: Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford. Most were ordained priests of the Church of England, but they were not a narrow group. They included bishops, high churchmen, Puritans, professors, classicists, and men trained in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Syriac, Chaldee, and Aramaic. Several were recognized across Europe for their command of Oriental languages. Their backgrounds were varied, but their purpose was shared.
The work began at Westminster under Lancelot Andrewes, Dean of Westminster, who directed the company responsible for Genesis through 2 Kings. Andrewes was known for his mastery of Oriental languages, and contemporaries said the world lacked the learning to measure how learned he was. His company included William Bedwell, a noted Arabist, and John Overall, a respected theologian.
At Cambridge, the First Company was led by Edward Lively, the Regius Professor of Hebrew. Lively was eminent in Oriental languages and set the tone for the work before his death in 1605. His company translated 1 Chronicles through the Song of Solomon. Among them was Laurence Chaderton, Master of Emmanuel College for nearly forty years and one of the few Puritans in the project.
Oxford’s First Company worked from Isaiah to Malachi under John Harding. This group included Richard Kilby, regarded as one of the foremost Hebraists of his day, and John Reynolds, the Puritan who first suggested the new translation to King James. Miles Smith, later one of the final editors, also served in this company.
The Second Cambridge Company translated the Apocrypha. It was led by John Duport and included John Bois, who could write elegant Hebrew at age six and became one of the most laborious revisers of the entire project. Andrew Downes, another member, was one of the most respected Greek scholars in Europe. Several in this company were skilled in Aramaic and Syriac, which strengthened their handling of the intertestamental literature.
The Second Oxford Company handled the Gospels, Acts, and Revelation. Thomas Ravis directed the work. Among his company was Sir Henry Savile, Warden of Merton College for thirty‑six years and a distinguished Greek scholar. George Abbot, later Archbishop of Canterbury, also served in this group.
The Second Westminster Company translated Romans through Jude. William Barlow led this company, which included Arthur Lake, later Bishop of Bath and Wells, and John Spencer, a noted preacher and scholar.
Oversight was provided by Archbishop Richard Bancroft, who drew up fifteen rules to guide the translation. These rules ensured consistency, reverence, and careful comparison with earlier English Bibles. The translators did not intend to create a new Bible, nor to turn a bad one into a good one, but to make a good one better. They consulted Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, and the Bishops’ Bible, along with the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.
Forty unbound copies of the Bishops’ Bible were supplied as a base text. Each translator first produced his own draft of his assigned portion. The company then met to debate and refine a common version. That draft was sent to the other five companies for review. In addition to this internal circulation, copies were also sent to other esteemed linguists outside the six groups, men whose judgment was valued even if they were not part of the formal companies. Their comments were considered in the final shaping of the text.
The last stage of the work was carried out by two groups. The Committee of Two, Thomas Bilson and Miles Smith, served as final editors. Smith wrote the famous preface, “The Translators to the Reader,” and was known as a walking library for his command of Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic. A larger committee of revisers, twelve men drawn from Cambridge and Oxford, met to harmonize the final text. John Bois, Andrew Downes, and John Harmar were among them.
Even King James himself, though not a translator, was a competent linguist. He read Latin and French fluently, handled Greek respectably, and had enough Hebrew to follow theological argument. His interest in languages shaped his expectations for the project and helped set the tone for the work.
In Closing
It is worth remembering that the King James Bible did not arise from accident or simplicity. It was shaped by scholars whose learning ran deep and whose methods were careful. They worked across the great centers of English learning, consulted the best texts available to them, and submitted their drafts to review by other companies and by respected linguists outside the formal groups. Their aim was to serve the English churches with a faithful and dignified translation of Scripture.
If difficulty is being claimed, it should be measured with this history in view.
~Tony
© A.K. Pritchard 1979, 2026 – Free to use with proper attribution.
Sources
The historical details in this overview are drawn from the standard works on the translation of the King James Bible. These include Alexander McClure’s The Translators Revived, Gustavus Paine’s The Men Behind the King James Bible, Ward Allen’s studies of the Oxford translators, the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and the original 1611 preface, “The Translators to the Reader.” Additional information comes from the surviving notes of John Bois and from university records at Cambridge and Oxford.
