The American Spectator : The Greatest Book in the English Language

Text Size

High Spirits

The Greatest Book in the English Language

By Jonathan Aitken from the March 2011 issue

The King James Bible celebrates its 400th anniversary this year.

It is received Washington wisdom that nothing great was ever created by a committee. But the rule has one stunning exception — the King James Bible, which celebrates its 400th anniversary this year, with no end to its spiritual longevity or literary influence in sight.

The King James Version (KJV) was born out of political compromise and royal patronage. Church life in 16th-century England was characterized by high and often violent tensions over vernacular translations of the ancient Latin version of the Bible known as the vulgate. Early translators such as William Tyndale and John Rogers were burned at the stake. When the Reformation gathered momentum after Queen Elizabeth came to the throne in 1558, the Puritans popularized the Geneva Bible, which went through 70 editions selling more than half a million copies. But when James succeeded Elizabeth, the new and scholarly king (called “the wisest fool in Christendom”) identified footnotes in the Geneva Bible that he deemed to be subversive of royal authority.

At Hampton Court Palace in 1604, King James moved to end this subversion by convening a conference of established church bishops and moderate political Puritans. Keeping the latter on his side was one of James’s priorities, although he was theologically opposed to their low church governance, as he showed by his comment, “No bishops, no King.” Nevertheless James commissioned six committees drawn from both Puritan and Episcopalian scholars to translate a new English language version of the Bible dedicated to himself as “the principal mover and author” of the translation. So the KJV was conceived as a unifying production, endorsing the idea of a monarchical national church.

Although the scholars appointed to the translation committees were men of extraordinary erudition, some of the early printers of the King James Bible proved more fallible. Among their more amusing misprints was the omission of not from the Seventh Commandment, so making God’s instruction: “Thou shalt commit adultery!”

Aside from such typographical mistakes, a curious but calculated error was to leave much of the language of the KJV in forms that were dated, if not archaic by the time it was published in 1611. By that time “you” had replaced “ye” in common parlance. “Thee” and “thou” were also falling into disuse. The translators left such anachronisms in place because they were conservative in their scholarship. They preferred to keep alive the sonorous language that had been fundamental to the historic work of earlier translators like Tyndale and Coverdale. Such scholars had an ear for the rhythms and cadences of poetic utterance. An early clue to this resonance is to be found in the third chapter of Genesis when Adam says to God, “she gave me of the tree and I did eat” (Genesis 3:12). These KJV words are written in the classical form of iambic pentameter, the five-meter beat of Shakespeare’s plays.

The linguistic conservatism of the King James Version flourished in the new American colonies. It is not known whether the first Puritan settlers brought Geneva Bibles with them (the famous Mayflower Geneva Bible of 1588 displayed in the University of Texas is a fake), but they soon focused on the KJV, which was the only English-language Bible available in America for most of the 17th century. To this day the King James Version is far more popular in the United States than it is in the wider English-speaking world. It crosses all denominational borders, is loved by black churches, and has considerable political as well as spiritual resonance.

Oxford University Press, the KJV’s original and current publisher, has marked the 400th anniversary in part by releasing the entertaining new book Bible: The Story of the King James Version 1611-2011, by Gordon Campbell. It opens with this paragraph about U.S. presidents and the KJV:

On 20 January 2009 Barack Obama took the presidential oath of office on a copy of the King James Version of the Bible published by Oxford University Press in 1853; it was the same Bible that had been used by Abraham Lincoln in 1861. Similarly a series of twentieth century presidents (Warren Harding, Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter and George Bush Senior) chose to take their oath on the copy of the KJV published in London in 1789. The two Bibles are artefacts that represent turning points in American history.

History and the King James Version have been closely connected in American political oratory. The opening words of the Gettysburg Address, “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth,” are based on a combination of the KJV rendering of Psalm 90:10, “The days of our years are three score years and ten,” and its description of Christ’s birth, “Mary brought forth a son.” When Lincoln later in this address observed the tragic fact that in the Civil War both sides “read the same Bible,” he was referring to the KJV.

A century later when Martin Luther King, Jr. delivered his “I Have a Dream” speech from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial, he based one of his most purple passages almost verbatim on Isaiah 40:45 as translated by the KJV:

I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every mountain and hill made low. The rough places will be made plain, the crooked places will be made straight and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South.

More important than politicians plagiarizing the KJV for their speeches is the popular usage of innumerable phrases from the 1611 text in everyday speech. The most original book published to celebrate the 400th anniversary is David Crystal’s Begat: The King James Bible and the English Language. Also published by Oxford University Press, it traces hundreds of common expressions back to the KJV. They include:

Fly in the ointment; my brother’s keeper; fight the good fight; finding the scapegoat; how are the mighty fallen; bricks without straw; new wine in old bottles; baptism of fire; blind leading the blind; root and branch; turning the other cheek; scales falling from eyes; holier than thou; going the second mile; reaping the whirlwind; fall by the wayside; sour grapes; two edged sword; old wives’ tales and writing on the wall.

According to Crystal, the KJV has contributed more to the English language than any other source, creating double the number of familiar expressions that derive from Shakespeare.

The greatness of the KJV lies in a mysterious mixture of its historicity, familiarity, and spirituality. More than 2.6 billion copies of it have been published in the last four centuries, and sales continue strong as the Oxford University Press expects to sell around 250,000 this year. This is a most felicitous combination, to use yet another phrase coined by the 17th-century translators, of God and Mammon. The King James Bible deserves its label as “the most celebrated book in the English speaking world.”

About the Author

Jonathan Aitken, The American Spectator’s High Spirits columnist, is most recently author of John Newton: From Disgrace to Amazing Grace (Crossway Books). His biographies include Charles W. Colson: A Life Redeemed (Doubleday) and Nixon: A Life, now available in a new paperback edition (Regnery).

Letter to the Editor View all comments (57) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

cg| 3.22.11 @ 6:38AM

There is no Isaiah 40:45.

LarryK| 3.22.11 @ 8:33AM

I believe he meant IS 40:4-5

Handy| 3.22.11 @ 2:02PM

The article proves that all religions are, at base, political. In sum, a means to the end of controlling fools.

There is no reason to religiousness. You have faith; you have abandoned reason. Simple as that. Can't have both.

Quote scripture if you wish, but bring cash if you want to purchase something. I sure ain't buying what you "Fundies" are selling.

Keep your idiotic faith and whatever translation of the Bible you choose inside the walls of your churches. Leave us rational people alone.

Ryan| 3.22.11 @ 4:58PM

Irrational people like Newton, or Bach, or Galileo, or...

Sorry, I really don't know that the "faith is irrational" quite flies with me. There's plenty of points about atheism that I could say you are being irrational about.

Missouri David| 3.23.11 @ 6:28AM

It was Faith of founding fathers, Puritan work ethic that made US great. They adhered to precepts of BIBLE and as we forget God, He takes blessings away, just look at failure of public schools today where Jesus is no longer allowed! Have you read Newton's annotation of the Book of Revelation??? Thanks and Merry Christmas

Alan Brooks| 3.22.11 @ 7:48PM

Handy, American Spectator worships at the church of the White Trash God.

Tony in Central PA| 3.22.11 @ 7:53PM

Handy's post would only be correct if humans are omniscient.

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 8:48PM

Handy wrote: "You have faith; you have abandoned reason."

Not true. Reason acts on premises. Faith provides premises and precedes reason. For example, in order to begin to reason, you may first believe your sense of sight, or some other sense. First you believe, then you reason.

Faith vs Reason is a false dichotomy.

elixelx| 3.23.11 @ 3:08AM

You, Handy, you BELIEVER, believe in your rightness!
You have abandoned reason in blindly believing that there can be no reason for the beliefs of others. That is surely not reasonable!
Most may say this makes you a BIGOT!
I say that you, Handy, are truly RELIGIOUS!

Missouri David| 3.23.11 @ 6:20AM

Only a fool in his heart says there is no God. It was our Puritan-fathers who bequeathed us a gov't immersed in Judeo-Christian morals and values. We became the greatest, because we were good and adhered to that book which tells us why, who, where we are. The Bible and Life have a beginning, middle, and an end and so to does human- life and existence with meaning and morality in between and to glibbly refute as [illogical!??] idiotic? We should kneel and thank JESUS for what we are so fast loosing for forgetting HIM! Why can't Johnny read?, Johnny needs the BIBLE! which has given us what we are today. Thanks and Merry Christmas!

KyMouse| 3.22.11 @ 7:25AM

That's a typo, cg. The verses are Isaiah 40:4-5; 45:2; and Luke 3:4-6.

Pall Leosson| 3.22.11 @ 9:37AM

Henry VIII, that fat old reprobate, did not found the Church of England or any church. He merely declared that the Pope (Bishop of Rome) would no longer have power over the Church of England. The king wanted his marriage annulled and was frustrated by the Pope's refusal to grant an annulment. (He would have been happier and less frustrated with 21st century Roman Catholicism.) But he remained an orthodox Catholic to his dying day. He did not found a new church. The ancient Church of England remained intact, minus Papal authority over ecclesial politics in England. It remains so today, however threatened by insidiously creeping liberalism and dramatic decline in membership.

Pall Leosson| 3.22.11 @ 9:41AM

This was meant to be a reply to Purple Lips. (His unfunny mockery that the Church of England was built upon the institution of adultery. Of course, he makes this "twist" in historical and ecclesial interpretation in order to exercise wit relating to the printing error in the 10 Commandants of one of the earliest editions of the KJV of the Bible.)

Doctor Right| 3.22.11 @ 12:29PM

Henry VIII most certainly DID establish ("found") the "Church of England".

This fact was even explicitly acknowledged by Catholic martyr Thomas Moore. Moore had no problem stating that Henry was the Founder of the C of E.

What Moore objected to was Henry's insistence that he (Moore) acknowledge that Henry's marriage to Anne Boleyn was legitimate, and that the C of E was itself legitimate. Moore refused, on religious grounds, and was put-to-death.

Admitting that something is legitimate is NOT the same thing as admitting it exists. For example, Scientology is a farce, but there's no doubt that it exists, and was founded by L. Ron Hubbard.

In any event, it's all academic anyway, because neither the C of E nor the Church from which it separated are "the one, true church".

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 8:52PM

Pall Leosson wrote "He merely declared that the Pope (Bishop of Rome) would no longer have power over the Church of England."

Not accurate, I think. Henry declared that the King was "Supreme Head" of the Church of England. The first oath qualified it "as far as the law of Christ allows". But this qualification was later removed and then Catholics started refusing to sign.

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 8:57PM

To be really clear, let's say that Augustine of Canterbury established the Church of England by authority of Pope Gregory the Great around 550AD. Henry VIII stole the Church in violation of his own Coronation Oath and the First Article of the Magna Carta.

Roland | 3.23.11 @ 12:33AM

If Henry VIII founded a Church of England, it was abolished by his daughter Mary. The present Church of England was founded by his other daughter, Elizabeth.

Purple Lips| 3.22.11 @ 7:32AM

Since the Church of England was built upon the institution of adultery I could perfectly understand how some translators had to tip-toe around certain prohibitions of the 10 Commandments.

Pall Leosson| 3.22.11 @ 9:44AM

My reply to you, Purple Lips, is above in reply to KyMouse. I accidentally typed out my reply under the wrong reply section. I hope you will read it. I appreciate your attempt at humour, but not at the expense of historical truth and the unjust exercising of historical revisionism.

Purple Lips| 3.22.11 @ 1:02PM

The King was a heretic pure and simple. And to say he didn't leave the Church or he didn't found a new church as akin to saying the United States didn' leave the Realm, but codified new rules concerning colonies. Henry butchered thousands of his subjects who refused to follow him. He stole Church property, killed priests and bishops who had the affrontry to remind him of his sins, and he had a jolly old time with his women folk.

The Church of England never would have come about without his approval, and ordinations within the Church of England had to meet his approval. He had his theologians perform theological cartwheels in order to justify his action. Not even those despots in Vienna, Paris, or Madrid promoted the kind of spiritual decadance Henry displayed during his lifetime. The King, whom Pope Leo X once called a Defender of the Faith, fell about as far as one can go. And he took an entire nation with him. The Anglican Church was built upon the sins of its King. And the foundation stones were crafted from the blood and bones of Catholic martyrs.

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 9:07PM

Henry VIII wasn't so much a heretic as he was a serial adulterer and wife beheader. To further his adultery he feigned a schism with the papacy. But it was later Anglicans like Cranmer and Elizabeth that dragged the CofE into a liturgical Protestantism.

Dee See| 3.22.11 @ 7:54AM

"--The Calvinists were the only church with
a faculty for self-government and
the ONLY Protestants who would fight--"

"Religion is the key to history"
-LORD ACTON

"John Calvin was the REAL father of America."
-GEORGE BANCROFT
U.S. Historian Prre-eminent
1835

----GO to your local bookstore, ANY bookstore
and try to find ANYTHING by, or even about
John Calvin, or even John Bunyan beyond
'Pilgrim's Progress'.

-----JUST TRY

THEN ---check out the background and legacy
of the ARMINIAN Heresy.

THEN ---SEE the real nature of the damage.

---Oh, you will. We guarantee it!

Stuart Koehl| 3.22.11 @ 10:44AM

I'm semi-pelagian myself.

Ryan| 3.22.11 @ 10:55AM

I'm more or less Reformed Baptist (for lack of a better label, and no one has defined "neo-Calvinist" yet), but I don't hold to Dee See's views that Arminianism is heresy at all. I've known far too many good Christians, and calling such people heretics goes a bit against the promise made to Abraham about the number of his children.

David T| 3.22.11 @ 2:35PM

Amen.

USSAlabama| 3.22.11 @ 8:39AM

It was a landmark we should all be thankful for - the ability to have our own copy of scripture, but the King James version, in particular is one of the worst translations available. And one of the most biased.

Igor| 3.22.11 @ 9:15AM

The Lincoln quote "Read the same Bible" is from his second inaugural, not the Gettysburg address.

Peppermint Tea| 3.22.11 @ 10:38AM

"When Lincoln later in this address observed the tragic fact that in the Civil War both sides "read the same Bible," he was referring to the KJV."

No, that was not in the Gettysburg Address, that was in the second (?) inaugural.

Peppermint Tea| 3.22.11 @ 10:45AM

About 80 per cent (exact 83 per cent) of the New Testament and 76 per cent of the Old Testament (in the King James Bible) is Tyndale's translation. from Wiki. Google it.

In other words, the KJ committee system worked because Tyndale had done all the heavy lifting--or in this case the poetic rendition.

Old Soldier | 3.22.11 @ 10:53AM

I read other versions for study, but nothing beats the poetry of the KJV - particularly around the holidays.

Winston S| 3.22.11 @ 11:26AM

The Rheims NT had a influence as well on the KJV having been published 29 years prior to the KJV. The Douay OT was published in 1609. Both were translated by Catholics. Imagine that.

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 9:10PM

The Douay Rheims version was published in 1582, was it not? Are you saying its OT came after?

Petronius| 3.22.11 @ 11:53AM

Many have intimated and predicted that there will be a clash between the "fundies", (old line puritanical Baptists), and the legions of late boomer trash from the 60's who hijacked western culture to foster sexual hedonism without consequence and the infantile egotism which canonizes all the Paris Hiltons, and Charlie Sheens in our midst. That possibility has long passed. And the unchurched wastrels are destroying themselves. And the sad fact is that modern theologians have enabled all of it. But then there are no Holy Inquisitors or stocks on the village green to maintain any public compliance to religious stricture either. King James desired unity in belief and practice among his subjects even as He played in the mud. He formed the commission to avoid the tumult which had taken place during the Tudor dynasty. Read God's Secretaries by Adam Nicholson.

Seek| 3.22.11 @ 12:27PM

We're kind of generalizing a bit, aren't we? For centuries all societies have produced its share of Charlie Sheens. They just haven't necessarily produced an inquiring press to create free publicity.

Good for the Rolling Stones, Al Pacino, and every other purveyor of "infantile egotism" since the Sixties. They create culture - the real kind. Prigs, on the other hand, create little, save for priggery.

Petronius| 3.22.11 @ 11:03PM

So the macrophage amoeba is an advanced life form.

HistoryDoc| 3.22.11 @ 1:57PM

The KJV was dedicated to James I, a homosexual in sundry forms. A literary masterpiece for its time, verily, aside the patronizing dedication which should have been a dedication to Almighty God. Still, the umpteenth changes in words, yea, consider thou the word "habergeon." Art thou wearing one today? Hast thou ever worn a habergeon? Probably not in the same way the Romans did, simply a "breastplate". Then the word "charity" in the KJV is the overarching word for "love" even though the Greek word "agape" (simply "to look out for another's best interests", e.g., John 3:16) which is quite distinct from the other Greek word "phileo" (brotherly love, emotional love). The Greek word for sexual love, "eros" is not used in the NT. The KJV for me has always been easier to memorize, however, serious students use the NASB and NIV. Nothing beats the Greek text, naturally, the KJV scholars relied on the Textus Receptus, the "received text" by the Catholic Church which was penned by Erasmus who used the Latin text, not the Greek text. If you read the KJV use some modern translations and you will see how words have changed over time. Don't mean to nit-pick here... Blessings and Good hunting!

Frisbee| 3.22.11 @ 9:13PM

It is my understanding that the original KJV included the so-called "Catholic" books of the OT, later ignored by protestants, did it not?

For Those Who Thirst| 3.22.11 @ 2:05PM

http://www.sgpbooks.com/cubeca.....d_705.html

USSAlabama| 3.22.11 @ 11:03PM

Even better: _Truth in Translation_ Jason BeDuhn.
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-Tr.....1300849327

David T| 3.22.11 @ 2:45PM

Mr. Aiken--I think it was probably Anglican scholars and not Episcopalian scholars who helped translate the KJV.

Who Knows?| 3.22.11 @ 7:14PM

As the first born grandson to a bible banging refugee from Kansas, Grandma Marsh, I was "lucky" to be named James, without a doubt because of that bible.

Her son, my father, was a well traveled man, having had to get a job as a merchant marine at age 14, in 1929, since there wasn't enough food to go around.

When I reached 14, she gave me my own KJV bible---and, I have that bible to this day.

I can still remember how new and fresh-smelling it was, in 1956!

However, ol' mom and dad were too---what?---to belong to any church.

LUCKY ME!

The closing of minds can start very early, but grandma's attempt to make me a Christian happily failed.

The religious body-mind snatchers, in their exoteric manifestations, only bring separation and violence.

Hello jihad.

Hello crusaders.

When no one can truly EVER know what a single thing IS, well----

There is only God!

Read "The Central Philosophy of Buddhism", by T. R. V. Murti---

"The Real or the Truth is not constituted by our knowing it or not knowing it as such.---

Truth is impersonal, true for all and for all time---the intrinsic nature of all things.

The "thatness", invariable for all time.

It does not suffer by NOT being taught (declared as the Truth); nor does it suffer by BEING TAUGHT either.

It is not a necesary part of Truth that it should be known and declared as truth." page 277

And, THAT'S the Truth!!!

David T| 3.22.11 @ 8:36PM

Who Knows? Your grandma did. Jesus loves us. We know that because your KJV Bible tells us so. Take it out, dust it off, and read it with an open mind and heart. Start with the Gospel of John. It's deeply spiritual and theological and philosophical. Contrast Buddha with Christ. You will find that the ontological presuppositions of Buddhism are epistemologically bankrupt. Christ, however, is the way, the truth, and the life.

Dave Trap| 3.22.11 @ 8:45PM

I would rather be a white trash God fearing Christian than a gutter Jew like Alan Brooks.

Danny| 3.22.11 @ 9:10PM

You left out "skin of my teeth"

Dee See| 3.22.11 @ 11:07PM

"Learn to discern the mystical body
of Anti-Christ. Learn! See!"
-JOHN BUNYAN

---Then take a good long look at, not only at
the Rockefeller founded and funded Globalist front op 'World Council of Churches',
but our entire, cross-the-boards, 'Christian'
establishment.

Doesn't it at all bother the 'liberals' of the CAP-COM con-job that there's not a single contrary
or critical voice being raised in the face of
EUGENICS and One Worldism?

NOT EVEN ONE

---------"A cage of every unclean bird"

Where did we read that?

jo anne white | 3.22.11 @ 11:32PM

I enjoyed this article. But I feel sorry for so many who choose to criticize the Bible.
For those who have never know the peace of the words. For those who do not have the memory of learning to read from the King James Bible while sitting with Grandparents who lived a faith that was based on belief that produced a more honest lifestyle than most people have had the joy of knowing .It is sad to read the comments from the unknowing and unbelieving. There is more to life than you know and (higher education ) doesn't come from the educational facility's .

Missouri David| 3.23.11 @ 7:27PM

Thank-you, Jo
Being raised Catholic I always thought we had a monopoly on Salvation. I was glad to find Bible thumping Southern-Baptist who taught me that relationship with Jesus is all important factor for ones' eternal soul! My family is blessed. And I see, dear lady, you are of the old school and blessed! Can't wait to meet you near Jordan! Merry Christmas!

Roland | 3.23.11 @ 12:37AM

I'm pretty sure the proverbial use of "sour grapes" comes from Aesop, not the KJV.

Richard Baker| 3.23.11 @ 7:42PM

While there may be translational questions regarding the King James, it has profoundly affected Western thought and our concept of God. Considering the limits of knowledge and scholarship in 1611 it has stood the test of time rather well. As we celebrate the 400th anniversary we should be glad that the King James came about. To those who want to nitpick it to death, remember that the theologians did the best that they could and we are better off for it's creation.

mike| 3.25.11 @ 9:53PM

thank you for a great article.
grew up Roman Catholic and really missed out on hearing the beauty of the KJV. Now Lutheran and hear the nonpoetic NRSV.
Like they say here in the South about the King James, if it was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me.

Christian Louboutin | 6.23.11 @ 4:12AM

It is received Washington wisdom that nothing great was ever created by a committee. But the rule has one stunning exception -- the King James Bible, which celebrates its 400th anniversary this year, with no end to its spiritual longevity or literary influence in sight.

Creative Recreation | 8.10.11 @ 11:41PM

is good

The American Spectator