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.
Which textual sources (Hebrew, Greek, translations) did the KJV translators use compared to those used for the Geneva Bible?
Executive summary
The available reporting shows the Geneva Bible [1] was translated directly from Hebrew and Greek sources available mid‑16th century—building on Tyndale, Coverdale and the Bomberg Masoretic edition—and included extensive marginal notes [2] [3] [4]. The King James Version (KJV, 1611) used the Hebrew Masoretic text for the Old Testament and a Textus Receptus Greek base (via Erasmus/Stephanus/Beza) for the New Testament, while its translators also compared earlier English versions and relied heavily on the Geneva text in places [5] [6] [7] [8].
1. How the Geneva translators worked — a study Bible from original tongues
The Geneva team were English Protestants in exile who produced a complete English Bible in 1560 that “followed the work of William Tyndale” and used improved Latin and Greek texts, while its Old Testament drew directly from Hebrew sources (notably printed rabbinic editions such as Daniel Bomberg’s work) and the New Testament from contemporary Greek texts; the edition was distinctive for verse divisions and extensive marginal commentary [2] [3] [9] [10].
2. What Greek and Hebrew texts the Geneva Bible used
Contemporary descriptions and publisher notes assert Geneva translators worked from original Hebrew and Greek where possible: the Old Testament translation used the Masoretic tradition and printed Hebrew editions current in the 1550s, and the New Testament translators continued Tyndale’s line while consulting available Greek witnesses and Latin authorities [9] [2] [4].
3. How the KJV translators were instructed and which texts they used
King James’s rules required the translators to work “out of the original tongues,” and the KJV New Testament is based on the Textus Receptus tradition assembled by Erasmus and developed through Stephanus and Theodore Beza; the Old Testament used the Hebrew Masoretic text, while some apocryphal material traced to the Septuagint or Vulgate [5] [6] [11].
4. The practical lineage: English predecessors and mutual influence
Both translations built on earlier English work—Tyndale’s and Coverdale’s renderings were particularly foundational. The KJV was formally a new, collegiate revision but the translators repeatedly compared existing English versions; historians and commentators estimate a substantial portion of KJV wording derives from Geneva and Tyndale (estimates in sources cite roughly 19% Geneva influence in places and large percentages attributable to Tyndale) [12] [7] [8].
5. Textual traditions: Masoretic for OT, Textus Receptus for NT — but with caveats
Reporting identifies the Masoretic Hebrew as the Old Testament base for the KJV and Geneva’s OT work, and a Textus Receptus/Beza lineage for the KJV New Testament; scholars note the KJV’s Greek text reached the translators via Stephanus and Beza even though Erasmus’s editions underlie the Textus Receptus tradition [5] [6] [13].
6. Where the translations diverged because of editorial aims and notes
The Geneva Bible’s marginal notes (Calvinist/Puritan perspective) shaped readers’ understanding and were politically sensitive; King James explicitly sought a version without those “seditious” notes and gave directions to reflect Church of England usage, which influenced lexical choices and ecclesiastical vocabulary in the KJV [3] [14].
7. Scholarly and popular claims about “which text was used most”
Several sources argue Geneva contributed more to the KJV than the Bishops’ Bible—one assessment places Geneva’s direct contribution to the Authorized Version at a notable proportion and cites authorities like Leland Ryken and David Daniell; other popular writers emphasize “KJV as revision of Bishops’ Bible” but acknowledge heavy Geneva influence in practice [8] [7] [12].
8. Limitations and remaining questions in current reporting
Available sources describe the broad textual families (Masoretic, Textus Receptus, Septuagint/Vulgate for apocrypha) and list influential English precursors, but they do not supply a complete, verse‑by‑verse apparatus here; detailed textual-critical differences and manuscript-level citation require specialized editions and are not fully given in these summaries [6] [8].
In short: Geneva’s translators worked from the best Hebrew and Greek printings then available and leaned on Tyndale/Coverdale; the KJV was formally commissioned to use Hebrew (Masoretic) and Greek (Textus Receptus lineage) originals but also compared and adopted significant wording from earlier English translations—especially Geneva—while removing Geneva’s polemical notes [2] [5] [6] [8].