Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
When was the King James Version translated and what source texts did its translators use?
Executive Summary
The King James Version (KJV) was translated under royal commission and published in 1611 after a formal translation process carried out roughly between 1607 and 1611; its translators used a mix of the best available Hebrew, Greek, and Latin printed texts of their day along with earlier English translations as aids. For the Old Testament they relied principally on the Masoretic Text, for the New Testament on the early modern printed Greek text family later called the Textus Receptus (deriving from Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza), and for the Apocrypha they consulted the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate; they also drew on prior English translations such as Tyndale, Coverdale, the Bishops’ and Geneva Bibles [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. How the KJV Project Began and When the Translation Was Completed — A Royal Undertaking That Ended in 1611
The KJV was commissioned by King James I and produced by teams of scholars working in committees over several years; the translation effort is commonly dated to 1604–1611, with the first edition published in 1611, though some editorial refinements followed immediately after [1] [2]. The project organized translators into six companies who worked from a set of instructions and existing English renderings, then subjected the work to committee review and final editorial oversight before issuing the printed 1611 edition. The 1611 imprint remains the canonical historical marker for the KJV’s completion, and contemporary accounts tie the work explicitly to royal patronage and institutional review processes [1] [2]. These facts place the KJV firmly in the early 17th century academic and ecclesiastical context.
2. New Testament Base Texts — The Textus Receptus Lineage in Plain Sight
For the New Testament the KJV translators relied mainly on the Textus Receptus, the printed Greek text tradition developed in the sixteenth century from the editions of Erasmus, Robert Estienne (Stephanus), and Theodore Beza. Erasmus’s early editions, created from a handful of late Greek minuscules, formed the backbone; subsequent printed editions by Stephanus and Beza introduced further readings and apparatus that the translators used. The translators also consulted the Latin Vulgate at times and favored its readings on occasion. This means the KJV’s New Testament reflects the textual choices and limitations of 16th‑century printed Greek editions rather than later manuscript discoveries [2] [4] [5].
3. Old Testament and Apocrypha — Masoretic Hebrew and Ancient Translations
The KJV translators used the Masoretic Text as the principal base for the Old Testament, the standard Hebrew text preserved and transmitted by Jewish scribes, while for the Apocrypha they consulted the Septuagint (the ancient Greek translation of Hebrew scriptures) and the Latin Vulgate. The translators treated the Masoretic Text as authoritative for canonical Hebrew scriptures but did not ignore ancient translations; the Apocrypha’s wording shows clear Septuagintal and Vulgate influence, reflecting the textual resources available in Europe at the time [3] [6] [7]. This combined approach produced a KJV Old Testament anchored in medieval Hebrew scholarship but informed by classical Christian textual traditions.
4. English Precedents and the Translators’ Toolbox — Tyndale and the Bishops’ Bible Left Their Mark
Translators of the KJV did not start tabula rasa; they deliberately used earlier English translations—most notably William Tyndale, Coverdale, the Bishops’ Bible, and the Geneva Bible—as working templates, rephrasing and harmonizing where the committee found those renderings helpful. The KJV shows linguistic continuity with Tyndale’s idiom and with the Elizabethan English tradition; editors and translators explicitly drew on these predecessors while aiming for clarity, ecclesiastical propriety, and fidelity to original-language texts [1] [8] [5]. This lineage explains why KJV phrasing often feels both archaic and derivative of earlier influential English sacred translations.
5. What the Choice of Sources Meant Then — Strengths, Limits, and Later Perspectives
Relying on the Masoretic Text and the Textus Receptus meant the KJV reflected the best scholarly resources available to its translators but also the manuscript limitations of their era: Erasmus’s Greek manuscripts were late and few, and major older codices known today were not accessible or collated for their work. The KJV’s reliance on printed editions rather than a wider manuscript base led to readings that later textual criticism revised as older manuscripts surfaced. Modern scholarship therefore sees the KJV as historically authoritative but textually bound to early‑modern source choices, a nuance echoed by later comparisons with translations that use far older manuscripts [4] [2] [9].