Editing King James Version (section)

==History==
===Earlier English translations===
{{See also|English translations of the Bible}}

There were [[Middle_English_Bible_translations|several translations]] into [[Middle English]] of large portions of Scriptures in the 14th Century, with the first [[Wycliffe's Bible|complete bibles]] probably being made by the followers of [[John Wycliffe]]. These translations were effectively but not formally [[Censorship of the Bible|banned]] in 1409 due to their association with the [[Lollards]].{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=75}} The Wycliffite Bibles pre-dated the [[printing press]] but were circulated very widely in manuscript form.

[[File:William Tyndale.jpg|thumb|[[William Tyndale]] translated the New Testament into English in 1525.]]
In 1525, [[William Tyndale]], an English contemporary of [[Martin Luther]], undertook [[Tyndale Bible|a translation]] of the New Testament into [[Early Modern English]].{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=143}} Tyndale's translation was the first printed Bible in English. Over the next ten years, Tyndale revised his New Testament in the light of rapidly advancing biblical scholarship, and embarked on a translation of the Old Testament.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=152}} Despite some controversial translation choices, and in spite of Tyndale's execution on charges of heresy for being a Lutheran,<ref name=health>{{cite book | last =Juhász | first = Gergely |author2=Paul Arblaster | editor = Johan Leemans | title = More Than a Memory: The Discourse of Martyrdom and the Construction of Christian Identity in the History of Christianity | chapter = Can Translating the Bible Be Bad for Your Health?: William Tyndale and the Falsification of Memory | publisher = Peeters Publishers | year = 2005 | url = https://books.google.com/books?id=mfZlsUVYClwC | isbn = 90-429-1688-5}}</ref>  the merits of Tyndale's work and prose style made his translation the ultimate basis for all subsequent renditions into Early Modern English.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=156}}

With these translations lightly edited and adapted by [[Myles Coverdale]] to remove offensive notes, in 1539, Tyndale's New Testament and his incomplete work on the Old Testament became the basis for the [[Great Bible]]. This was the first "authorised version" issued by the [[Church of England]] during the reign of King [[Henry VIII]].{{sfn|Daniell| 2003|p=204}} When [[Mary I]] succeeded to the throne in 1553, she returned the Church of England to the communion of the Catholic faith and many English religious reformers fled the country,{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=277}} some establishing an English-speaking community in the Protestant city of [[Geneva]]. Under the leadership of [[John Calvin]], Geneva became the chief international centre of [[Reformed Protestantism]] and Latin biblical scholarship.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=291}}

These English [[expatriates]] undertook a translation that became known as the [[Geneva Bible]].{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=292}} This translation, dated to 1560, was a revision of Tyndale's Bible and the Great Bible on the basis of the original languages.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=304}} Soon after [[Elizabeth I]] took the throne in 1558, problems with both the Great and Geneva Bibles (namely, that the latter did not "conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy") became apparent to church authorities.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=339}} In 1568, the Church of England responded with the [[Bishops' Bible]], a revision of the Great Bible in the light of the Geneva version.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=344}}

While officially approved, this new version failed to displace the Geneva translation as the most popular English Bible of the age, in part because the full Bible was printed only in [[lectern]] editions of prodigious size and at a cost of several pounds.{{sfn|Bobrick|2001|p=186}} Accordingly, Elizabethan lay people overwhelmingly read the Bible in the Geneva Version, as small editions were available at a relatively low cost. At the same time, there was a substantial clandestine importation of the rival [[Douay–Rheims]] New Testament of 1582, undertaken by exiled Catholics. This translation, though still derived from Tyndale, claimed to represent the text of the Latin Vulgate.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=364}}

In May 1601, [[King James VI of Scotland]] attended the [[General Assembly of the Church of Scotland]] at Saint Columba's Church in [[Burntisland]], [[Fife]], at which proposals were put forward for a new translation of the Bible into English.{{sfn|Bobrick|2001|p=221}} Two years later, he ascended to the throne of England as James I.<ref name="How the mighty has fallen: The King James Bible turns 400">{{cite news|last=Valpy|first=Michael|title=How the mighty has fallen: The King James Bible turns 400|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/how-the-mighty-has-fallen-the-king-james-bible-turns-400/article565247/?page=all|access-date=8 April 2014|newspaper=The Globe and Mail|date=5 February 2011}}</ref>

===Considerations for a new version===
The newly crowned King James convened the [[Hampton Court Conference]] in 1604. That gathering proposed a new English version in response to the perceived problems of earlier translations as detected by the [[Puritan]] faction of the Church of England. Here are three examples of problems the Puritans perceived with the ''Bishops'' and ''Great Bibles'':

{{blockquote|First, [[Epistle to the Galatians|Galatians]] iv. 25 (from the Bishops' Bible). The Greek word ''susoichei'' is not well translated as now it is, bordereth neither expressing the force of the word, nor the apostle's sense, nor the situation of the place. Secondly, [[psalm]] cv. 28 (from the [[Great Bible]]), 'They were not obedient;' the original being, 'They were not disobedient.' Thirdly, psalm cvi. 30 (also from the Great Bible), 'Then stood up Phinees and prayed,' the [[Hebrew]] hath, 'executed judgment.'{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=433}}}}

Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to use [[formal equivalence]] and limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. The [[Bishop of London]] added a qualification that the translators would add no marginal notes (which had been an issue in the ''Geneva Bible'').{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=439}} King James cited two passages in the Geneva translation where he found the marginal notes offensive to the principles of [[Divine right of kings|divinely ordained royal supremacy]]:{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=434}} Exodus 1:19, where the ''Geneva Bible'' notes had commended the example of civil disobedience to the Egyptian [[Pharaoh]] showed by the [[Shiphrah and Puah|Hebrew midwives]], and also II Chronicles 15:16, where the ''Geneva Bible'' had criticized King Asa for not having executed his idolatrous 'mother', Queen Maachah (Maachah had actually been Asa's grandmother, but James considered the Geneva Bible reference as sanctioning the execution of his own mother [[Mary, Queen of Scots]]).{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=434}}

Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the [[ecclesiology]] of the Church of England.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=439}} Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=439}} For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word "church" were to be retained and not to be translated as "congregation".{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=439}} The new translation would reflect the [[episcopal polity|episcopal]] structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about [[ordained]] clergy.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=439}}

The source material for the translation of the New Testament was the [[Textus Receptus]] version of the Greek compiled by [[Erasmus]]; for the Old Testament, the [[Masoretic]] text of the Hebrew was used; for some of the [[Biblical apocrypha#King James Version|apocrypha]], the [[Septuagint]] Greek text was used, or for apocrypha for which the Greek was unavailable, the [[Vulgate]] Latin.

James' instructions included several requirements that kept the new translation familiar to its listeners and readers. The text of the [[Bishops' Bible]] would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If the Bishops' Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list: the [[Tyndale Bible]], the [[Coverdale Bible]], [[Matthew's Bible]], the [[Great Bible]], and the [[Geneva Bible]]. In addition, later scholars have detected an influence on the Authorized Version from the translations of [[Taverner's Bible]] and the New Testament of the [[Douay–Rheims Bible]].{{sfn|Bobrick|2001|p=328}} A recent estimate is that 84% of the New Testament in the KJV is word-for-word identical to the Tyndale Bible, and 76% of the Old Testament.<ref name="NielsonSkousen1998">{{cite journal |last1=Nielson |first1=Jon |last2=Skousen |first2=Royal |title=How Much of the King James Bible Is William Tyndale's? An Estimation Based on Sampling |journal=Reformation |date=1998 |volume=3 |issue=1 |pages=49-74 |doi=10.1179/ref_1998_3_1_004}}</ref>

It is for this reason that the flyleaf of most printings of the Authorized Version observes that the text had been "translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by His Majesty's special commandment." As the work proceeded, more detailed rules were adopted as to how variant and uncertain readings in the Hebrew and Greek source texts should be indicated, including the requirement that words supplied in English to 'complete the meaning' of the originals should be printed in a different type face.{{sfn|Norton|2005|p=10}}

===Translation committees===
The task of translation was undertaken by 47 scholars, although 54 were originally approved.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=436}} All were members of the Church of England and all except [[Sir Henry Savile]] were clergy.{{sfn|Bobrick|2001|p=223}} The scholars worked in six committees, two based in each of the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, and [[Westminster Abbey|Westminster]]. The committees included scholars with Puritan sympathies, as well as [[high church]]men. Forty unbound copies of the 1602 edition of the ''Bishops' Bible'' were specially printed so that the agreed changes of each committee could be recorded in the margins.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=442}}

The committees worked on certain parts separately and the drafts produced by each committee were then compared and revised for harmony with each other.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=444}} The scholars were not paid directly for their translation work. Instead, a circular letter was sent to bishops encouraging them to consider the translators for appointment to well-paid [[benefice|livings]] as these fell vacant.{{sfn|Bobrick|2001|p=223}} Several were supported by the various colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, while others were promoted to [[bishoprics]], [[deaneries]] and [[prebend]]s through [[patronage|royal patronage]].

On 22 July 1604 King [[James VI and I]] sent a letter to [[Archbishop Bancroft]] asking him to contact all English churchmen requesting that they make donations to his project.

{{blockquote|Right trusty and well beloved, we greet you well. Whereas we have appointed certain learned men, to the number of 4 and 50, for the translating of the Bible, and in this number, divers of them have either no ecclesiastical preferment at all, or else so very small, as the same is far unmeet for men of their deserts and yet we in ourself in any convenient time cannot well remedy it, therefor we do hereby require you, that presently you write in our name as well to the Archbishop of York, as to the rest of the bishops of the province of Cant.[erbury] signifying unto them, that we do well and straitly charge everyone of them ... that (all excuses set apart) when a prebend or parsonage ... shall next upon any occasion happen to be void ... we may commend for the same some such of the learned men, as we shall think fit to be preferred unto it ... Given unto our signet at our palace of West.[minister] on 2 and 20 July, in the 2nd year of our reign of England, France, and of Ireland, and of Scotland xxxvii.{{sfn|Wallechinsky|Wallace|1975|p=235}}}}

The six committees started work towards the end of 1604. The Apocrypha committee finishing first, and all six completed their sections by 1608.{{Sfn|Norton|2005|p=11}} From January 1609, a General Committee of Review met at [[Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers|Stationers' Hall, London]] to review the completed marked texts from each of the committees, and were paid for their attendance by the Stationers' Company. The General Committee included [[John Bois]], [[Andrew Downes (scholar)|Andrew Downes]], [[John Harmar]], and others known only by their initials, including "AL" (who may be [[Arthur Lake, Bishop of Bath and Wells|Arthur Lake]]). John Bois prepared a note of their deliberations (in Latin)&nbsp;– which has partly survived in two later transcripts.{{sfn|Bois|Allen|Walker|1969}} Also surviving of the translators' working papers are a bound set of marked-up corrections to one of the forty ''Bishops' Bibles''—covering the Old Testament and Gospels;{{sfn|Norton|2005|p=20}} and also a manuscript translation of the text of the [[Epistles]], excepting those verses where no change was being recommended to the readings in the ''Bishops' Bible''.{{sfn|Norton|2005|p=16}} Archbishop [[Richard Bancroft|Bancroft]] insisted on having a final say making fourteen further changes, of which one was the term "bishopricke" at Acts 1:20.{{sfn|Bobrick|2001|p=257}}

* '''First Westminster Company''', translated [[Book of Genesis|Genesis]] to [[2 Kings]]: [[Lancelot Andrewes]], [[John Overall (Bishop)|John Overall]], [[Hadrian à Saravia]], [[Richard Clarke (vicar)|Richard Clarke]], [[John Layfield (theologian)|John Layfield]], [[Robert Tighe]], [[Francis Burleigh]], [[Geoffrey King (theologian)|Geoffrey King]], [[Richard Thomson (theologian)|Richard Thomson]], [[William Bedwell]];
* '''First Cambridge Company''', translated [[1 Chronicles]] to the [[Song of Solomon]]: [[Edward Lively]], [[John Richardson (translator)|John Richardson]], [[Lawrence Chaderton]], [[Francis Dillingham]], [[Roger Andrewes]], [[Thomas Harrison (translator)|Thomas Harrison]], [[Robert Spaulding]], [[Andrew Bing]];
* '''First Oxford Company''', translated [[Book of Isaiah|Isaiah]] to [[Book of Malachi|Malachi]]: [[John Harding (President of Magdalen)|John Harding]], [[John Rainolds]] (or Reynolds), [[Thomas Holland (translator)|Thomas Holland]], [[Richard Kilby]], [[Miles Smith (bishop)|Miles Smith]], [[Richard Brett]], [[Daniel Fairclough]], [[William Thorne (orientalist)|William Thorne]];{{sfn|DeCoursey|2003|pp=331–32}}
* '''Second Oxford Company''', translated the [[Canonical gospels|Gospels]], [[Acts of the Apostles]], and the [[Book of Revelation]]: [[Thomas Ravis]], [[George Abbot (bishop)|George Abbot]], [[Richard Edes|Richard Eedes]], [[Giles Tomson]], [[Sir Henry Savile]], [[John Peryn]], [[Ralph Ravens]], [[John Harmar]], [[John Aglionby (divine)|John Aglionby]], [[Leonard Hutten]];
* '''Second Westminster Company''', translated the [[Epistle]]s: [[William Barlow (Bishop of Lincoln)|William Barlow]], [[John Spenser]], [[Roger Fenton (clergyman)|Roger Fenton]], [[Ralph Hutchinson (President of St John's)|Ralph Hutchinson]], [[William Dakins]], [[Michael Rabbet]], [[Thomas Sanderson (priest)|Thomas Sanderson]] (who probably had already become [[Archdeacon of Rochester]]);
* '''Second Cambridge Company''', translated the [[Biblical apocrypha|Apocrypha]]: [[John Duport]], [[William Branthwaite]], [[Jeremiah Radcliffe]], [[Samuel Ward (scholar)|Samuel Ward]], [[Andrew Downes (scholar)|Andrew Downes]], [[John Bois]], [[Robert Ward (scholar)|Robert Ward]], [[Thomas Bilson]], [[Richard Bancroft]].{{sfn|Bobrick|2001| pp=223–44}}

===Printing===
[[File:Richard Bancroft.png|thumb|[[Archbishop]] [[Richard Bancroft]] was the "chief overseer" of the production of the Authorized Version.]]

The original printing of the Authorized Version was published by [[Robert Barker (printer)|Robert Barker]], the King's Printer, in 1611 as a complete folio Bible.{{sfn|Herbert|1968|p=309}} It was sold [[looseleaf]] for ten [[shilling]]s, or bound for twelve.{{sfn|Herbert|1968|p=310}} Robert Barker's father, Christopher, had, in 1589, been granted by Elizabeth I the title of royal Printer,{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=453}} with the perpetual Royal Privilege to print Bibles in England.{{efn|The Royal Privilege was a virtual monopoly.}} Robert Barker invested very large sums in printing the new edition, and consequently ran into serious debt,{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=451}} such that he was compelled to sub-lease the privilege to two rival London printers, Bonham Norton and John Bill.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=454}} It appears that it was initially intended that each printer would print a portion of the text, share printed sheets with the others, and split the proceeds. Bitter financial disputes broke out, as Barker accused Norton and Bill of concealing their profits, while Norton and Bill accused Barker of selling sheets properly due to them as partial Bibles for ready money.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=455}} There followed decades of continual litigation, and consequent imprisonment for debt for members of the Barker and Norton printing dynasties,{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=455}} while each issued rival editions of the whole Bible. In 1629 the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge successfully managed to assert separate and prior royal licences for Bible printing, for their own university presses—and Cambridge University took the opportunity to print revised editions of the Authorized Version in 1629,{{sfn|Herbert|1968|p=424}} and 1638.{{sfn|Herbert|1968|p=520}} The editors of these editions included John Bois and Samuel Ward from the original translators. This did not, however, impede the commercial rivalries of the London printers, especially as the Barker family refused to allow any other printers access to the authoritative manuscript of the Authorized Version.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=4557}}

Two editions of the whole Bible are recognized as having been produced in 1611, which may be distinguished by their rendering of Ruth 3:15;<ref>{{bibleref|Ruth |3:15|KJV}}</ref> the first edition reading "he went into the city", where the second reads "she went into the city";{{sfn|Norton|2005|p=62}} these are known colloquially as the "He" and "She" Bibles.{{sfn|Anon.|1996|p=}}

[[File:Kjv-hebrews.png|thumb|upright=1.2|left|The opening of the [[Epistle to the Hebrews]] of the 1611 edition of the Authorized Version shows the original [[typeface]]. The text of the Bible (only) is in black text. Marginal notes reference variant translations and cross references to other Bible passages. Each chapter is headed by a précis of contents. There are decorative initial letters for each chapter, and a decorated headpiece to each book, but no illustrations in the text.]]

The original printing was made before [[English spelling]] was standardized, and when printers, as a matter of course, expanded and contracted the spelling of the same words in different places, so as to achieve an even column of text.{{sfn|Norton|2005|p=46}} They set '''v''' for initial '''u''' and '''v''', and '''u''' for '''u''' and '''v''' everywhere else. They used the long '''s''' ('''[[long s|ſ]]''') for non-final '''s'''.{{sfn|Bobrick|2001|p=261}} The letter or [[glyph]] '''j''' occurs only after '''i''', as in the final letter in a [[Roman numeral]], such as XIIJ. [[Punctuation]] was relatively heavy (frequent) and differed from modern practice.{{how|date=September 2023}} When space needed to be saved, the printers sometimes used ''ye'' for ''the'' (replacing the [[Middle English]] [[thorn (letter)|thorn]], Þ, with the continental '''y'''), set '''ã''' for ''an'' or ''am'' (in the style of scribe's [[shorthand]]), and set '''&''' for ''and''. In contrast, on a few occasions, they appear to have inserted these words when they thought a line needed to be padded.{{citation needed|date=April 2018}} Later printings regularized these spellings; the punctuation has also been standardized, but still varies from current usage.

As can be seen in the example page on the left, the first printing used a [[blackletter]] [[typeface]] instead of a roman typeface, which itself made a political and a religious statement.{{explain|date=September 2023}} Like the [[Great Bible]] and the [[Bishops' Bible]], the Authorized Version was "appointed to be read in churches". It was a large [[Book size|folio]] volume meant for public use, not private devotion; the weight of the type—blackletter type was heavy physically as well as visually—mirrored the weight of establishment authority behind it.{{Citation needed|date=January 2010}} However, smaller editions and roman-type editions followed rapidly, e.g. quarto roman-type editions of the Bible in 1612.{{sfn|Herbert|1968|pp=313–14}} This contrasted with the Geneva Bible, which was the first English Bible printed in a roman typeface (although black-letter editions, particularly in [[folio]] format, were issued later).

In contrast to the Geneva Bible and the Bishops' Bible, which had both been extensively illustrated, there were no illustrations in the 1611 edition of the Authorized Version, the main form of decoration being the [[historiated initial]] letters provided for books and chapters{{spaced ndash}}together with the decorative title pages to the Bible itself, and to the New Testament.{{citation needed|date=April 2018}}

In the Great Bible, readings derived from the Vulgate but not found in published Hebrew and Greek texts had been distinguished by being printed in smaller [[roman type]].{{sfn|Scrivener|1884|p=61}} In the Geneva Bible, a distinct typeface had instead been applied to distinguish text supplied by translators, or thought needful for English [[grammar]] but not present in the Greek or Hebrew; and the original printing of the Authorized Version used roman type for this purpose, albeit sparsely and inconsistently.{{sfn|Scrivener|1884|p=70}} This results in perhaps the most significant difference between the original printed text of the King James Bible and the current text. When, from the later 17th century onwards, the Authorized Version began to be printed in roman type, the typeface for supplied words was changed to [[italics]], this application being regularized and greatly expanded. This was intended to de-emphasize the words.{{sfn|Norton|2005|p=162}}

The original printing contained two prefatory texts; the first was a formal ''[[s:Bible (King James)/Preface|Epistle Dedicatory]]'' to "the most high and mighty Prince" King James. Many British printings reproduce this, while most non-British printings do not.{{citation needed|date=April 2018}}

The second preface was called ''[[s:Bible (Authorized Version)/Translators to the Reader|Translators to the Reader]]'', a long and learned essay that defends the undertaking of the new version. It observes the translators' stated goal, that they "never thought from the beginning that [they] should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, ... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark." They also give their opinion of previous English Bible translations, stating, "We do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs [Catholics] of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God." As with the first preface, some British printings reproduce this, while most non-British printings do not. Almost every printing that includes the second preface also includes the first.{{citation needed|date=April 2018}}
The first printing contained a number of other [[Critical apparatus|apparatus]], including a table for the reading of the Psalms at [[matins]] and [[evensong]], and a [[calendar]], an [[almanac]], and a table of holy days and observances. Much of this material became obsolete with the adoption of the [[Gregorian calendar]] by Britain and its colonies in 1752, and thus modern editions invariably omit it.{{citation needed|date=April 2018}}

So as to make it easier to know a particular passage, each chapter was headed by a brief précis of its contents with verse numbers. Later editors freely substituted their own chapter summaries, or omitted such material entirely.{{citation needed|date=April 2018}} [[Pilcrow]] marks are used to indicate the beginnings of paragraphs except after the book of Acts.{{efn|name=Norton}}

===Authorized Version===
The Authorized Version was meant to replace the Bishops' Bible as the official version for readings in the [[Church of England]]. No record of its authorization exists; it was probably effected by an order of the [[Privy Council of England|Privy Council]], but the records for the years 1600 to 1613 were destroyed by fire in January 1618/19,{{sfn|Douglas|1974|loc=Bible (English Versions)}} and it is commonly known as the Authorized Version in the United Kingdom. The King's Printer issued no further editions of the Bishops' Bible,{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=453}} so necessarily the Authorized Version replaced it as the standard lectern Bible in parish church use in England.

In the 1662 ''Book of Common Prayer'', the text of the Authorized Version finally supplanted that of the Great Bible in the Epistle and Gospel readings{{sfn|Procter|Frere|1902|page=187}}—though the Prayer Book [[Psalter]] nevertheless continues in the Great Bible version.{{sfn|Hague| 1948| page=353}}

The case was different in Scotland, where the Geneva Bible had long been the standard church Bible. It was not until 1633 that a Scottish edition of the Authorized Version was printed—in conjunction with the Scots coronation in that year of [[Charles I of England|Charles I]].{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=458}} The inclusion of illustrations in the edition raised accusations of [[Popery]] from opponents of the religious policies of Charles and [[William Laud]], [[Archbishop of Canterbury]]. However, official policy favoured the Authorized Version, and this favour returned during the [[Commonwealth of England|Commonwealth]]—as London printers succeeded in re-asserting their monopoly on Bible printing with support from [[Oliver Cromwell]]—and the "New Translation" was the only edition on the market.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=459}} F. F. Bruce reports that the last recorded instance of a Scots parish continuing to use the "Old Translation" (i.e. Geneva) as being in 1674.{{sfn|Bruce|2002|p=92}}

The Authorized Version's acceptance by the general public took longer. The Geneva Bible continued to be popular, and large numbers were imported from Amsterdam, where printing continued up to 1644 in editions carrying a false London imprint.{{sfn|Hill|1993|p=65}} However, few if any genuine Geneva editions appear to have been printed in London after 1616, and in 1637 [[Archbishop Laud]] prohibited their printing or importation. In the period of the [[English Civil War]], soldiers of the [[New Model Army]] were issued a book of Geneva selections called "The Soldiers' Bible".{{sfn|Herbert|1968|p=577}} In the first half of the 17th century the Authorized Version is most commonly referred to as "The Bible without notes", thereby distinguishing it from the Geneva "Bible with notes".{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=458}}

There were several printings of the Authorized Version in Amsterdam—one as late as 1715{{sfn|Herbert|1968|p=936}} which combined the Authorized Version translation text with the Geneva marginal notes;{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=457}} one such edition was printed in London in 1649. During the Commonwealth a commission was established by [[Parliament of England|Parliament]] to recommend a revision of the Authorized Version with acceptably Protestant explanatory notes,{{sfn|Hill|1993|p=65}} but the project was abandoned when it became clear that these would nearly double the bulk of the Bible text. After the [[English Restoration]], the Geneva Bible was held to be politically suspect and a reminder of the repudiated Puritan era.{{citation needed|date=April 2018}} Furthermore, disputes over the lucrative rights to print the Authorized Version dragged on through the 17th century, so none of the printers involved saw any commercial advantage in marketing a rival translation.{{citation needed|date=April 2018}} The Authorized Version became the only then current version circulating among English-speaking people.

A small minority of critical scholars were slow to accept the latest translation. [[Hugh Broughton]], who was the most highly regarded English [[Hebraist]] of his time but had been excluded from the panel of translators because of his utterly uncongenial temperament,{{sfn|Bobrick|2001|p=264}} issued in 1611 a total condemnation of the new version.{{sfn|Bobrick|2001|p=266}} He especially criticized the translators' rejection of word-for-word equivalence and stated that "he would rather be torn in pieces by wild horses than that this abominable translation (KJV) should ever be foisted upon the English people".{{sfn|Bobrick|2001|p=265}} [[Brian Walton (bishop)|Walton's London Polyglot]] of 1657 disregards the Authorized Version (and indeed the English language) entirely.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=510}} Walton's reference text throughout is the Vulgate.

The Vulgate Latin is also found as the standard text of scripture in [[Thomas Hobbes]]'s ''[[Leviathan (Hobbes book)|Leviathan]]'' of 1651.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=478}} Hobbes gives Vulgate chapter and verse numbers (e.g., Job 41:24, not Job 41:33) for his head text. In Chapter 35: "The Signification in Scripture of Kingdom of God", Hobbes discusses Exodus 19:5, first in his own translation of the Vulgar Latin, and then subsequently as found in the versions he terms "... the English translation made in the beginning of the reign of King James", and "The Geneva French" (i.e. [[Pierre Robert Olivétan|Olivétan]]). Hobbes advances detailed critical arguments why the Vulgate rendering is to be preferred. For most of the 17th century the assumption remained that, while it had been of vital importance to provide the scriptures in the vernacular for ordinary people, nevertheless for those with sufficient education to do so, Biblical study was best undertaken within the international common medium of Latin. It was only in 1700 that modern bilingual Bibles appeared in which the Authorized Version was compared with counterpart Dutch and French Protestant vernacular Bibles.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=489}}

In consequence of the continual disputes over printing privileges, successive printings of the Authorized Version were notably less careful than the 1611 edition had been—compositors freely varying spelling, capitalization and punctuation{{sfn|Norton|2005|p=94}}—and also, over the years, introducing about 1,500 misprints (some of which, like the omission of "not" from the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" in the "[[Wicked Bible]]",{{sfn|Herbert|1968|p=444}} became notorious). The two Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638 attempted to restore the proper text—while introducing over 200 revisions of the original translators' work, chiefly by incorporating into the main text a more literal reading originally presented as a marginal note.{{sfn|Scrivener|1884| pp=147–94}} A more thoroughly corrected edition was proposed following the [[English Restoration|Restoration]], in conjunction with the revised 1662 ''[[Book of Common Prayer (1662)|Book of Common Prayer]]'', but Parliament then decided against it.{{citation needed|date=April 2018}}

By the first half of the 18th century, the Authorized Version was effectively unchallenged as the sole English translation in then current use in Protestant churches,{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=488}} and was so dominant that the Catholic Church in England issued in 1750 a revision of the 1610 [[Douay–Rheims Bible]] by [[Richard Challoner]] that was much closer to the Authorized Version than to the original.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=515}} However, general standards of spelling, punctuation, typesetting, capitalization and grammar had changed radically in the 100 years since the first edition of the Authorized Version, and all printers in the market were introducing continual piecemeal changes to their Bible texts to bring them into line with then current practice—and with public expectations of standardized spelling and grammatical construction.{{sfn|Norton|2005|p=99}}

Over the course of the 18th century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Hebrew, Greek and the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English speaking scholars and divines, and indeed came to be regarded by some as an inspired text in itself—so much so that any challenge to its readings or textual base came to be regarded by many as an assault on Holy Scripture.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=619}}

In the 18th century there was a serious shortage of Bibles in the American colonies. To meet the demand [[Early American publishers and printers|various printers]], beginning with [[Samuel Kneeland (printer)|Samuel Kneeland]] in 1752, printed the King James Bible without authorization from the Crown. To avert prosecution and detection of an unauthorized printing they would include the royal insignia on the title page, using the same materials in its printing as the Authorized Version was produced from, which were imported from England.<ref name="newgass32">[[King James Version#newgass1958|Newgass, 1958]], p. 32.</ref><ref>[[King James Version#thomas1874|Thomas, 1874, Vol. I]], pp. 107–108.</ref>

===Standard text of 1769===
[[File:1760 Cambridge Edition King James Bible.png|thumb|upright=1.2|Title page of the 1760 Cambridge edition]]

By the mid-18th century the wide variation in the various modernized printed texts of the Authorized Version, combined with the notorious accumulation of misprints, had reached the proportion of a scandal, and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge both sought to produce an updated standard text. First of the two was the Cambridge edition of 1760, the culmination of 20 years' work by [[Francis Sawyer Parris]],{{sfn|Norton|2005|}} who died in May of that year. This 1760 edition was reprinted without change in 1762{{sfn|Herbert|1968|p=1142}} and in [[John Baskerville]]'s folio edition of 1763.{{sfn|Norton|2005|p=106}}

This was effectively superseded by the 1769 Oxford edition, edited by [[Benjamin Blayney]],{{sfn|Herbert|1968|p=1196}} though with comparatively few changes from Parris's edition; but which became the Oxford standard text, and is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings.{{sfn|Norton|2005|p=113}} Parris and Blayney sought consistently to remove those elements of the 1611 and subsequent editions that they believed were due to the vagaries of printers, while incorporating most of the revised readings of the Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638, and each also introducing a few improved readings of their own.

They undertook the mammoth task of standardizing the wide variation in punctuation and spelling of the original, making many thousands of minor changes to the text. In addition, Blayney and Parris thoroughly revised and greatly extended the italicization of "supplied" words not found in the original languages by cross-checking against the presumed source texts. Blayney seems to have worked from the 1550 [[Robert Estienne|Stephanus]] edition of the [[Textus Receptus]], rather than the later editions of [[Theodore Beza]] that the translators of the 1611 New Testament had favoured; accordingly the current Oxford standard text alters around a dozen italicizations where Beza and Stephanus differ.{{sfn|Scrivener|1884|p=242}} Like the 1611 edition, the 1769 Oxford edition included the Apocrypha, although Blayney tended to remove cross-references to the Books of the Apocrypha from the margins of their Old and New Testaments wherever these had been provided by the original translators. It also includes both prefaces from the 1611 edition. Altogether, the standardization of spelling and punctuation caused Blayney's 1769 text to differ from the 1611 text in around 24,000 places.{{sfn|Norton|2005|p=120}}

The 1611 and 1769 texts of the first three verses from ''I Corinthians 13'' are given below.

{{blockquote|[1611] 1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.}}

{{blockquote|[1769] 1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become ''as'' sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have ''the gift of'' prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed ''the poor'', and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.}}

There are a number of superficial edits in these three verses: 11 changes of spelling, 16 changes of typesetting (including the changed conventions for the use of u and v), three changes of punctuation, and one variant text—where "not charity" is substituted for "no charity" in verse two, in the belief that the original reading was a misprint.

A particular verse for which Blayney's 1769 text differs from Parris's 1760 version is Matthew 5:13, where Parris (1760) has

{{blockquote|Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost '''his''' savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be '''{{not a typo|troden}}''' under foot of men.}}

Blayney (1769) changes 'lost '''his''' savour' to 'lost '''its''' savour', and '''{{not a typo|troden}}''' to '''trodden'''.

For a period, Cambridge continued to issue Bibles using the Parris text, but the market demand for absolute standardization was now such that they eventually adapted Blayney's work but omitted some of the idiosyncratic Oxford spellings. By the mid-19th century, almost all printings of the Authorized Version were derived from the 1769 Oxford text—increasingly without Blayney's variant notes and cross references, and commonly excluding the Apocrypha.{{sfn|Norton|2005|p=125}} One exception to this was a scrupulous original-spelling, page-for-page, and line-for-line reprint of the 1611 edition (including all chapter headings, marginalia, and original italicization, but with Roman type substituted for the black letter of the original), published by Oxford in 1833.{{efn|''The Holy Bible, an Exact Reprint Page for Page of the Authorized Version Published in the Year MDCXI'' 2 volumes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1833 (reprints, {{ISBN|0-8407-0041-5}}, {{ISBNT|1565631625}} or available at Internet Archive: Vol1: https://archive.org/details/holybibleexactre00oxfouoft and Vol2: https://archive.org/details/holybibleexactre02oxfouoft). According to J.R. Dore,{{sfn|Dore|1888|p=363}} the edition "so far as it goes, represents the edition of 1611 so completely that it may be consulted with as much confidence as an original. The spelling, punctuation, italics, capitals, and distribution into lines and pages are all followed with the most scrupulous care. It is, however, printed in Roman instead of black letter type."}}

Another important exception was the 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible, thoroughly revised, modernized and re-edited by [[F. H. A. Scrivener]], who for the first time consistently identified the source texts underlying the 1611 translation and its marginal notes.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=691}} Scrivener, like Blayney, opted to revise the translation where he considered the judgement of the 1611 translators had been faulty.{{sfn|Norton|2005|p=122}} In 2005, [[Cambridge University Press]] released its [[New Cambridge Paragraph Bible]] with Apocrypha, edited by David Norton, which followed in the spirit of Scrivener's work, attempting to bring spelling to present-day standards. Norton also innovated with the introduction of quotation marks, while returning to a hypothetical 1611 text, so far as possible, to the wording used by its translators, especially in the light of the re-emphasis on some of their draft documents.{{sfn|Norton|2005|p=131}} This text has been issued in paperback by [[Penguin Books]].{{sfn|Norton|2006|}}

From the early 19th century the Authorized Version has remained almost completely unchanged—and since, due to advances in printing technology, it could now be produced in very large editions for mass sale, it established complete dominance in public and ecclesiastical use in the English-speaking Protestant world. Academic debate through that century, however, increasingly reflected concerns about the Authorized Version shared by some scholars: (a) that subsequent study in oriental languages suggested a need to revise the translation of the Hebrew Bible—both in terms of specific vocabulary, and also in distinguishing descriptive terms from proper names; (b) that the Authorized Version was unsatisfactory in translating the same Greek words and phrases into different English, especially where parallel passages are found in the [[synoptic gospels]]; and (c) in the light of subsequent ancient manuscript discoveries, the New Testament translation base of the Greek Textus Receptus could no longer be considered to be the best representation of the original text.{{sfn|Daniell|2003|p=685}}

Responding to these concerns, the [[Convocation of Canterbury]] resolved in 1870 to undertake a revision of the text of the Authorized Version, intending to retain the original text "except where in the judgement of competent scholars such a change is necessary". The resulting revision was issued as the [[Revised Version]] in 1881 (New Testament), 1885 (Old Testament) and 1894 (Apocrypha); but, although it sold widely, the revision did not find popular favour, and it was only reluctantly in 1899 that Convocation approved it for reading in churches.{{sfn|Chadwick|1970| pp=40–56}}

By the early 20th century, editing had been completed in Cambridge's text, with at least 6 new changes since 1769, and the reversing of at least 30 of the standard Oxford readings. The distinct Cambridge text was printed in the millions, and after the Second World War "the unchanging steadiness of the KJB was a huge asset."{{sfn|Norton|2005| pp=115, 126 |loc=“[p. 115, ftn 1 ...] Josh. 19:2; [...] Nahum 3:16; [...] Gen. 10:7; 25:4; [...] Josh. 10:1 (and 3); 19:19 (two readings); 2 Sam. 5:14; 21:21; 23:37; 1 Chr. 2:49; [...] 7:19; 23:20; 24:11; 2 Chr. 20:36; [...] Neh. 7:30; [...] Amos 2:2; [...]”, ”[p. 126 ...] 2 Samuel 6[:8; ...] Judg. 13:19 [...]”}}

It is also worth noting that some American publishers use the 1769 text, but with updated American spelling. Words like "colour" will be spelled as "color" and names like "Elias" will be rendered as "Elijah" in the New Testament.

===Editorial criticism===
F. H. A. Scrivener and D. Norton have both written in detail on editorial variations which have occurred through the history of the publishing of the Authorized Version from 1611 to 1769. In the 19th century, there were effectively three main guardians of the text. Norton identified five variations among the Oxford, Cambridge, and London (Eyre and Spottiswoode) texts of 1857, such as the spelling of "farther" or "further" at Matthew 26:39.{{sfn|Norton|2005|p=126}}

In the 20th century, variation between the editions was reduced to comparing the Cambridge to the Oxford. Distinctly identified Cambridge readings included "or Sheba",<ref>{{bibleref|Joshua|19:2|KJV}}</ref> "sin",<ref>{{bibleref|2|Chronicles|33:19|KJV}}</ref> "clifts",<ref>{{bibleref|Job|30:6|KJV}}</ref> "vapour",<ref>{{bibleref|Psalm|148:8|KJV}}</ref> "flieth",<ref>{{bibleref|Nahum|3:16|KJV}}</ref> "further"<ref>{{bibleref|Matthew|26:39|KJV}}</ref> and a number of other references. In effect the Cambridge was considered the current text in comparison to the Oxford.{{sfn|Norton|2005|p=144}} These are instances where both Oxford and Cambridge have now diverged from Blayney's 1769 Edition. The distinctions between the Oxford and Cambridge editions have been a major point in the [[Bible version debate]],{{sfn|White|2009|p=}} and a potential theological issue,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ourkjv.com/KJB.pdf |title=Settings of the King James Bible |publisher=ourkjv.com |access-date=13 July 2013}}</ref> particularly in regard to the identification of the Pure Cambridge Edition.<ref>{{Cite journal
 |last1        = tbsbibles.org
 |title        = Editorial Report
 |journal      = Quarterly Record
 |volume       = 603
 |issue        = 2nd Quarter
 |pages        = 10–20
 |publisher    = Trinitarian Bible Society
 |year         = 2013
 |url          = http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_reports/247-1.pdf
 |access-date  = 13 July 2013
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20140416192850/http://www.tbsbibles.org/pdf_reports/247-1.pdf
 |archive-date = 16 April 2014
 |url-status     = dead}}</ref>

Cambridge University Press introduced a change at 1 John 5:8<ref>{{bibleref|1|John|5:8|KJV}}</ref> in 1985, reversing its longstanding tradition of printing the word "spirit" in lower case by using a capital letter "S".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ourkjv.com/CambridgeLetter.pdf |title=CUP letter |publisher=ourkjv.com |access-date=13 July 2013}}</ref> A Rev. Hardin of Bedford, Pennsylvania, wrote a letter to Cambridge inquiring about this verse, and received a reply on 3 June 1985 from the Bible Director, Jerry L. Hooper, claiming that it was a "matter of some embarrassment regarding the lower case 's' in Spirit".<ref name="Hooper letter">{{Cite web |url=https://www.purecambridgetext.com/post/2017/09/07/the-hooper-letter |title=The Hooper Letter |last=Asquith |first=John M. |date=7 September 2017 |website=purecambridgetext.com |access-date=7 February 2019}}</ref>