The KJV: A Translation Built by a Committee

C. Fred Smith, Liberty University

Dr. C. Fred Smith is Associate Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary. He has published "Does Open Theism Deny Divine Transcendence" in Bibliotheca Sacra and "Apologetic Approaches to Hinduism" in The Journal of Union Biblical Seminary.

Abstract

The paper examines the make-up of the series of committees (six in all, each taking a section) that worked on the King James translation. The men who served on each of the committees are discussed and general characteristics of them are presented. It describes how the committees worked on their sections and the system of cross-checking and editing that went on among them and between them. Some attention is given to the differences between sections that resulted from the differences in the committees despite the efforts at ensuring harmony between them. The slow acceptance of the translation is explored and how an eighteenth century revision made the KJV the accepted English Bible.

The paper then discusses how the translation benefited both in quality and in public acceptance due to being the product of a large and diverse committee rather than the work of one or a few individuals. The goals and translation theory applied by the committees is discussed as well as consideration of the extent to which they achieved their goals. The vocabulary and the reasons for it are considered as well. In this section comparisons are made to previous translations. This influenced later translations, which have largely been the product of committees rather than individuals or small groups.

In this light, the paper then turns to later English translations, focusing mostly on the Revised Version of 1881/85 and its relationship to the American Standard Version of 1901. The committee dynamics and structure of this translation effort are compared with that of the King James translators, and the reasons for these versions not gaining the wide acceptance of the KJV are explored. For example the dynamic between the American and British translators of the Revised Version are discussed and how the American Committee later produced the ASV. Some attention is given to the committees that translated the New American Standard and NIV Bibles and the differences in theories practiced by them appear here as well.

The role of business factors as they influence Bible translation are considered in the conclusion, especially as it relates to the 1901 American Standard Version and the revisions to the NIV made in the past two decades. The place of translation theory on the marketing of Bibles is mentioned. In this regard, the roles played by the committees that produced the KJV and NLT Bibles and the markets they sought to reach are considered. The paper concludes that translations produced by committees generally have greater acceptance than translations produced by individuals, with some exceptions, but that even a committee must have an eye on the target audience as it works and how the translation will be marketed to that audience.

 
Oct 1st, 9:15 AM Oct 1st, 10:30 AM

The KJV: A Translation Built by a Committee

Room A

The paper examines the make-up of the series of committees (six in all, each taking a section) that worked on the King James translation. The men who served on each of the committees are discussed and general characteristics of them are presented. It describes how the committees worked on their sections and the system of cross-checking and editing that went on among them and between them. Some attention is given to the differences between sections that resulted from the differences in the committees despite the efforts at ensuring harmony between them. The slow acceptance of the translation is explored and how an eighteenth century revision made the KJV the accepted English Bible.

The paper then discusses how the translation benefited both in quality and in public acceptance due to being the product of a large and diverse committee rather than the work of one or a few individuals. The goals and translation theory applied by the committees is discussed as well as consideration of the extent to which they achieved their goals. The vocabulary and the reasons for it are considered as well. In this section comparisons are made to previous translations. This influenced later translations, which have largely been the product of committees rather than individuals or small groups.

In this light, the paper then turns to later English translations, focusing mostly on the Revised Version of 1881/85 and its relationship to the American Standard Version of 1901. The committee dynamics and structure of this translation effort are compared with that of the King James translators, and the reasons for these versions not gaining the wide acceptance of the KJV are explored. For example the dynamic between the American and British translators of the Revised Version are discussed and how the American Committee later produced the ASV. Some attention is given to the committees that translated the New American Standard and NIV Bibles and the differences in theories practiced by them appear here as well.

The role of business factors as they influence Bible translation are considered in the conclusion, especially as it relates to the 1901 American Standard Version and the revisions to the NIV made in the past two decades. The place of translation theory on the marketing of Bibles is mentioned. In this regard, the roles played by the committees that produced the KJV and NLT Bibles and the markets they sought to reach are considered. The paper concludes that translations produced by committees generally have greater acceptance than translations produced by individuals, with some exceptions, but that even a committee must have an eye on the target audience as it works and how the translation will be marketed to that audience.