Illuminating the Staying Power of the King James Version of the Bible among English-Speaking Latter-day Saints

English-speaking members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reverence the King James Version of the Bible and demonstrate a preference for it over other English translations. This is a significant phenomenon when viewed against the number of English versions now available, and it reflects the official view of the Church toward the King James Version in particular and, perhaps surprisingly to some, a general preference among English speakers of various faiths in general.

The King James Version (KJV) was first published in 1611, the result of a process of trying to produce increasingly better English translations of the Bible depending on one’s understanding of original biblical languages, one’s theological orientation, and one’s faith community. Two foundational works preceded the KJV. The first was John Wycliffe’s New Testament, produced in AD 1380 (the entire Wycliffe Bible was finished in about 1382).¹ The second was William Tyndale’s translation of the New Testament from the Greek, published in 1526.

The latter laid the foundation for the King James Version, also called the Authorized Version, which borrowed heavily from Tyndale’s work. In fact, one authority on Tyndale stated that in “translating the Bible, Tyndale fathered what is probably the best known and certainly the most quoted work in the English language. A complete analysis of the Authorized Version, known down the generations as ‘the AV’ or ‘the King James,’ was made in 1998. It shows that Tyndale’s words account for 84 per cent of the New Testament, and for 75.8 per cent of the Old Testament books that he translated.”²

A Proliferation of English Versions

The production of English versions did not cease in 1611. During the last century and a half, more translations of the Bible into English have appeared than most of us can keep track of. Revised versions of just the King James Bible itself include the following:³

• The Revised Version (the New Testament, 1881; entire Bible, 1885)
• The American Standard Version (1901)
• The Revised Standard Version (New Testament, 1946; entire Bible, 1952; Apocrypha, 1957)
• New American Standard Bible (1971)
• King James II Version (1971)
• The New King James Version (New Testament, 1979; entire Bible, 1982)
• New Revised Standard Version (1989)

Other English translations not categorized as revisions of the King James Version include the following:⁴

• The Twentieth Century New Testament (1901, revised 1904)
• Weymouth’s New Testament (editions produced from 1903 through 1929)
• The Moffatt Version (New Testament, 1913; entire Bible, 1924)
• An American Translation (New Testament, 1923; entire Bible, 1927)
• The Confraternity Version (New Testament in 1941; entire Bible, 1970)

From 1950 onward, new English Translations of the Bible proliferated.⁵ Included are the following:

• Phillips Bible (1958; revised, 1972)
• The Berkeley Version (New Testament, 1945; entire Bible, 1959)
• The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (New Testament, 1950; entire Bible, 1961; revised, 1981)
• The New English Bible (New Testament, 1961; entire Bible, 1970)
• The Jerusalem Bible (1966)
• Good News Bible: Today’s English Version (New Testament, 1966; entire Bible, 1976)
• The Living Bible (New Testament, 1969; entire Bible, 1971)
• The New International Version (New Testament, 1973; entire Bible, 1978)
• The Revised English Bible (1989)
• The Message (New Testament, 1993; Old Testament Wisdom Books, 1997)
• The New Living Translation (1996)

This is a sampling of the English translations that have appeared since the publication of the King James Version in 1611. It is not a comprehensive list. The point here is to emphasize the large number of English Bible versions available to readers in modern times.

Reasons for New Versions

New versions or translations of the Bible since the King James Version appeared were and are undertaken for a variety of reasons. One is the archaic nature of seventeenth-century English and the desire to keep pace with changes in the English language. Even before 1800, the language of the KJV had already become antiquated. Only a few phrases from the 1611 edition are needed to illustrate the issue (other examples abound):

• “And Jacob sod pottage” (Gen. 25:29).
• “And mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke” (Ex. 19:18).
• “Thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing” (Ps. 5:6).
• “I trow not” (Luke 17:9).
• “And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift” (Rom. 5:16).

The meaning of some words used by the King James translation committee fell out of use to the point that the general populace no longer knew what they meant. And some words actually changed meaning over time, as the following examples indicate:

Another reason for needed changes is the increased understanding that has come to light with the discovery of additional early manuscripts. The sources available to the King James translation committee were significantly inferior to those available in our day. One scholar noted, “Of the five primary uncial manuscripts now received as authority for the purity of the text of the New Testament, only Codex Bezae was then available, and there is no evidence that it was used. Papyrus discoveries came three hundred years later. The King James scholars could have known fewer than twenty-five late manuscripts of the New Testament, and these were carelessly used. Today there are 5,358 known New Testament manuscripts and fragments. . . . The 1611 situation for the Old Testament was even poorer.”⁶

Still another reason for revisions of the King James Version, as well as the creation of new translations over the years, involves concerns over style and content. The appearance of the newly published King James Version in 1611 immediately aroused detractors. Some of the most fervent were the pilgrims, some of whom brought the old Geneva Bible with them to the New World and rejected the KJV because it was seen as supporting the divine right of kings.⁷ (And yet the King James Version was the first Bible printed in America in 1782.)

The 1611 King James Version included the Apocrypha, like previous English Bibles. This was strongly disapproved of by the Puritans. It became such a hot issue between those who were for its inclusion and those against it that in 1616, one Archbishop Abbot issued a decree stating that anyone who published an edition of the King James Version without the Apocrypha was to be thrown in prison for a year. The Apocrypha continued to be included in editions of the KJV fairly consistently until 1826, when it was omitted by the British Foreign Bible Society for financial reasons rather than real theological ones.⁸

One of the most famous and intense, even vitriolic, opponents of the King James Version early on was Dr. Hugh Broughton, a distinguished scholar in the seventeenth century who was not invited to serve on the King James translation committee because of his disagreeable, even violent, temperament. He obviously saw a need for a new translation, or at least a revision of the existing Geneva Bible, because he had been working on such a revision for some thirty years before his death in 1612. Therefore, Broughton’s outright rejection of the KJV does not seem to be based on lack of need (or desire) to improve the English text of the Bible but because the KJV was not well done in his view. Said he, “The late Bible . . . was sent to me to censure: which bred in me a sadness that will grieve me while I breathe, it is so ill done. Tell His Majesty that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses, than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor churches. . . . The new edition crosseth me. I require it to be burnt.”⁹

In truth, early editions of the King James Version were plagued with misprints. Successive printings seemed to introduce new challenges. Sometimes the mistakes were so egregious that different editions of the King James Version acquired their own sobriquets. One of the most famous errors in an early edition of the KJV, printed in 1631, was the omission of the word “not” in the seventh commandment. Thus it read, “Thou shalt commit adultery.” This edition came to be called the “Wicked Bible.” In 1653 an edition called the “Unrighteous Bible” appeared, containing an error in 1 Corinthians 6:9, “the unrighteous shall inherit the earth,” instead of “the righteous.” In 1717 the “Vinegar Bible” was printed. It had many problems, but the misprint that gave this edition its nickname occurred in the chapter heading of Luke 20: “The Parable of the Vinegar” instead of “Vineyard.” In the 1795 edition of the KJV, Mark 7:27 reads, “Let the children first be killed,” instead of “be filled.” Thus it is called the “Murderer’s Bible.”

Most misprints eventually got corrected. However, an example of an error that never got corrected in any of the King James editions until very recently is found in Matthew 23:24, “strain at a gnat.” It did get corrected in other English translations and in modern-day revised editions of the King James Bible. (Readers are encouraged to see what their KJV says.) The New International Version (1973) reads, “Strain out a gnat,” which reflects the original meaning. (In New Testament times, the strict Pharisee would carefully strain his drinking water through a cloth to make sure he did not swallow a gnat—the minutest of unclean animals.)

From Rejection to Exalted Status

For eighty years after it was first published, “the King James Version endured bitter attacks. It was denounced as theologically unsound and ecclesiastically biased, as truckling to the king and unduly deferring to his belief in witchcraft, as untrue to the Hebrew text and relying too much on the Septuagint. The personal integrity of the translators was impugned. Among other things, they were accused of ‘blasphemy,’ ‘most damnable corruptions,’ ‘intolerable deceit,’ and ‘vile imposture.’ The critic who used these epithets was careful to say that they were not ‘the dictates of passion, but the just resentment of a zealous mind.’”¹⁰

Eventually, the criticisms leveled against the King James Version faded away, and the King James Version ultimately gained standing so great that “its text acquired a sanctity properly ascribable only to the unmediated voice of God; to multitudes of English-speaking Christians it has seemed little less than blasphemy to tamper with the words of the King James Version,” according to S. L. Greenslade, an editor of the Cambridge History of the Bible.¹¹

Though the King James Version seemed the only divinely approved and proper version in the minds of people for a long time after this, with its archaic but sacred-sounding language, the Bible also seemed to be less and less familiar to average people in the view of some scholars and church leaders. In 1870, Samuel Wilberforce, bishop of Westminster, proposed that the King James Bible be revised. The principles and policies adopted by scholars and translators regarding what was to be allowed in the revision process were overly restrictive, and in the end, they produced a Bible in 1881 that was not very satisfying to anyone. Renowned preacher Charles Spurgeon said of the New Testament that the new version was “strong in Greek, weak in English.”¹² But this effort at revision signaled both the very need for such improvements and the beginning of a slew of revised English versions.

Around this time, there also arose calls for new, modernized translations of the Bible that were not in the lineage of the King James Version. In 1891, for example, an idea was put forward by two laypeople in England: Mary Higgins, wife of a Congregational minister, and Ernest Malan, a telegraph engineer. They suggested a New Testament translation that would reflect “their own language.”¹³ This resulted in a translation called The Twentieth Century New Testament: A Translation into Modern English Made from the Original Greek (Westcott & Hort’s Text), appearing in stages from 1898 to 1901.¹⁴ In the preface to this translation the reason for its undertaking is explained:

English-speaking people of today have not, until quite recently, had the opportunity of reading the Bible in the English of their own time. Though in the course of the last hundred years the Bible has been translated into the vernacular of most countries, the language of our Bible remains the English of three hundred years ago. This translation of the New Testament is an endeavor to do for the English nation what has been done already for the people of almost all other countries. . . . It had its origin in the recognition of the fact that the English of the Authorized Version (closely followed in that of the Revised Version), though widely valued for its antique charm, is in many passages difficult, or even quite unintelligible to the modern reader.¹⁵

Since the turn of the twentieth century, new English translations have proliferated, usually undertaken with the intent of making the biblical text more relevant to modern changing times. These attempts sought to harmonize language, and thus content, with changes in theological understandings. Translators also sought to make biblical concepts and language less rigid, less sexist, less racist, and so forth. (As a Latter-day Saint, one finds several changes to be helpful, but others not, like when translators skew the doctrinal intent of biblical passages as measured against the yardstick of restoration scripture.)

Yet the truly amazing thing in the history of the many English translations that have been published, each with its supportive constituency, is the staying power of the King James Version. With so many choices available to readers of the English Bible, the King James Version is the Bible that a majority of readers seem to stick with. A survey published in 2014 showed that 55 percent of the respondents who read the Bible in the United States reported using the King James Version, followed by 19 percent for the New International Version, with other versions used by fewer than 10 percent.¹⁶

King James Usage among Latter-day Saints

Latter-day Saints as a whole are among those who love the King James Version and demonstrate a continuing preference for it over any other translation. One believes this is so for a number of reasons, some of which are as follows:

1. Though seventeenth-century King James English is regarded as archaic or outdated, twenty-first century English is still brimming with idioms and expressions from the King James Version. They are part of our culture, and we enjoy them. Here are some examples:

• “the skin of my teeth” (Job 19:20)
• “a drop in [the] bucket” (Isa. 40:15)
• “my brother’s keeper” (Gen. 4:9)
• “holier than thou” (Isa. 65:5)
• “at their wits’ end” (Ps. 107:27)
• “hair stood on end” (Job 4:15)
• “apple of his eye” (Ps. 17:8)
• “line upon line” (Isa. 28:10)
• “salt of the earth” (Matt. 5:13)
• “can a leopard change its spots” (Jer. 13:23)—and there are others.

2. The King James Version has received positive endorsements by Church leaders. President J. Reuben Clark said in his book Why the King James Version, published in 1956, that the King James Version was “the best version of any yet produced.”¹⁷ President M. Russell Ballard said, “It is not by chance or coincidence that we have the Bible today. . . . I believe even the scholars of King James had spiritual promptings in their translation work.”¹⁸

3. Many luminaries outside the Church have viewed the King James Version as a high watermark in the history of the English language. H. L. Mencken called the King James Version “probably the most beautiful piece of writing in all the literature of the world.”¹⁹ Such views have influenced members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because we are encouraged in scripture to be a wise, literature-loving people: “Yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom” (D&C 88:118), and “study and learn, and become acquainted with all good books” (D&C 90:15).

4. Forty years ago, new enhanced editions of the triple combination and the King James Version of the Bible were published by the Church in 1979 and 1981, respectively. The four standard works of the Church became intricately tied to each other through footnotes and cross-references that mentioned all the standard works, and a new topical guide was published that provided very good references to scripture topics, which included passages from all the standard works.

5. Restoration scripture—the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price—is written in King James English, or modified King James English, thus seamlessly tying each of the standard works to one another.

6. The King James Version is the foundation or basis for Joseph Smith’s inspired revision of the Bible, called the Joseph Smith Translation (JST), which the Lord called “the scriptures . . . as they are in mine own bosom” (D&C 35:20). Additions in the JST to the various passages of the King James Version are presented in replicated seventeenth-century King James English.

7. One of the most significant reasons for the continued use of the King James Version among members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a First Presidency letter dated May 22, 1992, that was addressed to all priesthood leaders serving in English-speaking units. It bears the signatures of Presidents Ezra Taft Benson, Gordon B. Hinckley, and Thomas S. Monson.

In part, the letter reads:

Since the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has used the King James Version of the Bible for English-speaking members. . . .

Many versions of the Bible are available today. Unfortunately, no original manuscripts of any portion of the Bible are available for comparison to determine the most accurate version. However, the Lord has revealed clearly the doctrines of the gospel in these latter-days. The most reliable way to measure the accuracy of any biblical passage is not by comparing different texts, but by comparison with the Book of Mormon and modern-day revelations.

While other Bible versions may be easier to read than the King James Version, in doctrinal matters latter-day revelation supports the King James Version in preference to other English translations. All of the Presidents of the Church, beginning with the Prophet Joseph Smith, have supported the King James Version by encouraging its continued use in the Church. In light of all the above, it is the English language Bible used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.²⁰

Concluding Reflections

The foregoing represent some reasons why, in my view, the King James Version resonates so deeply with members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and why it has such staying power in the face of so many other translations of the English Bible. The King James Version, along with the Joseph Smith Translation, helps teach the doctrines of the Restoration. The Restoration of the gospel of Jesus Christ in this last dispensation is tied to the King James Version. All English-language instructional and administrative materials produced by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints draw on the King James Version for biblical quotations.

Is the King James Version a perfect rendering of the Bible? Obviously not. Otherwise, the Lord would have seen no need to prompt his Prophet of the Restoration to undertake an inspired revision—the Joseph Smith Translation. In addition, since the time of Joseph Smith, the discovery of new biblical manuscripts, relevant historical documents, and our refined understanding of the Greek language have further expanded our understanding of the biblical text. This, combined with our increased knowledge of true doctrine from prophetic discourses, has motivated scholars to undertake a new English rendition of the Bible explicitly for Latter-day Saints based on the best available Greek versions plus insights from Restoration scripture. We also aim to provide an accompanying commentary written from the perspective of committed belief. This is a unique contribution. The translations and commentaries of the Brigham Young University New Testament Commentary series will be a helpful study aid.