"FOR THEY KNOW HIS VOICE"

The Priesthood of the Believer and the Initial Reception of the King James Bible

"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice. And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers."

John 10: 5 our hundred years ago, in the providence of God, the English-speaking world received the purest translation of the Holy Bible that it had ever laid eyes upon. Other godly men had labored before to produce such a translation, and indeed had laid the foundation for it. Yet, remarkable and prodigious as their efforts had been, this new translation would far outshine the previous endeavors, and Western Civilization would witness its miraculous power in wave after wave of Holy Spirit revival, while millions would come to a saving knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ and the gospel message through its sacred contents.

But today, critics of this Sacred Deposit of the English Scriptures like to claim that in 1611 very few responded favorably to the new translation, and that King James essentially had to force his favored translation upon the British people by outlawing the Geneva Bible, which, they claim, retained a greater popularity in the hearts and minds of the common people. Of course, we don't have to puzzle over the motivation behind this claim. We can see plainly the obvious reason for it. If the King James Bible only gradually gained acceptance among English-speaking people by slowly displacing old loyalties to the Geneva Bible, then it stands to reason that all of the opposition to the flood of modern Bibles now at work simply gives an example of history repeating itself. From this perspective, defenders of the King James Bible can simply be categorized with the same group that resisted the Authorized Version at its birth as a group of unthinking traditionalists, loyal to a near-obsolete relic of antiquity. From this perspective, the modern perversions of Scripture which now flood the market have every bit as much right to assert their presence in the twenty-first century that the King James Bible had to assert its presence in the seventeenth century. This argument also involves another insinuation. The Lord Jesus Christ said that his sheep know his voice. But if in 1611, when the King James Bible first appeared, Christians in general immediately recoiled in disgust and rejection, how could we then claim it as the very voice of God communicating his

very words to his people? If the King James Bible only gained acceptance among Christians by virtue of its ultimate forceful imposition through the royal decree of the house of Stuart anathematizing and exiling the Geneva Bible, what does that subtly suggest about its true character in light of the priesthood of the believer? On the other hand, if the King James Bible represents a sovereign act of God in providentially providing the English-speaking people with a pure and faithful translation of the Bible in their own language, why would he not also afterwards confirm in the hearts of his children the validity of that translation by the inward testimony of the Holy Ghost? So we see that this argument involves subtle but serious implications for those who continue to defend the King James Bible. In his book, Our Authorized Bible Vindicated, Benjamin G. Wilkinson gives us a much different picture. "The Authorized Version," says he, "was translated in 1611, just before the Puritans departed from England, so that they carried it with them across stormy seas to lay the foundation of one of the greatest governments the world has ever known." This paints another picture altogether. Here we see the Puritans quite comfortable with the King James Bible, carrying it with them across the Atlantic Ocean on the Mayflower, and then utilizing it in the development of colonial government.

Pastor Roy Sargent in the syllabus for his course Manuscript Evidence also gives us a more balanced view of the facts. He describes a competitive rivalry between the King James Bible and the Geneva Bible, rather than any general rejection of the King James Bible in favor of the Geneva Bible. All of this of course contradicts the popular notion of those early settlers of Plymouth Plantation, Salem and Boston clinging defensively to their Geneva Bibles in complete jealous distrust of the hated King James Version. We have good reasons to accept these claims. In fact, the burden of proof lies upon those who oppose his view. I have listed five reasons below that counter the popular myth of the King James Bible's initial rejection:

1. The whole idea of translating the King James Bible originated with the Puritans.
While opponents of the King James Bible like to prattle on about the Puritans greatly preferring the Geneva Bible, they do so at the expense of the historical facts. In reality, the Puritans disliked the Geneva Bible because of the footnotes that it contained. They wanted a plain Bible, devoid of footnotes and commentaries, so that Scripture could speak for itself without any outside spin influencing the reader. To remedy the problem of the footnotes in the Geneva Bible, they produced the Millenary Petition, which communicated the desire of a thousand ministers representing many multiplied thousands more Puritan church members, asking for this new translation. Led by Dr. John Reynolds, they presented this petition to King James at the Hampton Court Conference, and met with approval for the commencement of the new translation. So why would they then reject the very Bible that they had asked for in favor of one that they had already disapproved of?

2. The King James Bible represented the great majority of English congregations.
While the idea of translating the King James Bible originated with the Puritans, the work of translation involved representatives of both the high-church Episcopalians and the Puritan faction. Thus, both major, influential parties had representation in the translation process. Additionally, throughout the work, the translators sought counsel from ministers not included on the actual committee. In this way, congregations across the nation, both Episcopalian and Nonconformist, had a sense that the translation involved reasonable representation of their views.

3. The translators stood by their work after its completion.

When we consider the mother of modern Bible perversions, the Revised Version of Westcott and Hort introduced in 1881, we notice the division throughout the translation process. Westcott and Lightfoot, led by Hort, dominated the translation committee that produced that perverse abomination. When more honest scholars, such as Scrivener, opposed their agenda, the two-thirds majority, with Hort at the helm, voted down their opinions, and imposed their views on the whole group. Afterwards, men like Scrivener testified against the finished product. In contrast, we find the King James translators diligently exchanging their work with one another for analysis. By the end of the translation process, each portion had undergone a minimum of at least fourteen critical reviews. Afterwards, translators such as Dr. Richard Kilbye defended the translation against those who brought up objections to certain renderings. Nowhere do we find them complaining of the results, but rather recommending them to the general public.

We would do well to remember that within a matter of decades after the King James Bible first went to print, the Puritans had gained the political ascendency in England. With Oliver Cromwell in power as Lord Protector, they had the perfect opportunity to overthrow the King James Bible and restore the Geneva Bible once again. They didn't. Instead we find them incorporating the King James Version into their major documents, such The Confession of Faith and Catechisms. This is hardly symptomatic of the bitter hatred and distrust of the King James Bible so often asserted by proponents of the modern versions of today.

4. History has left us no substantial literary evidence of any major antagonism to the King James Version at its introduction.
While a certain amount of competitive rivalry may have existed between the King James Bible and the Geneva Bible, it does not compare to the fierce opposition that Spirit-led, Bible-believing Christians have exerted against the modern versions of our day from their very introduction. Since 1881, volume upon volume of literature has been produced by Christians of numerous persuasions. From Anglicans such as Dean John William Burgon, to Seventh-day Adventists such as Benjamin G. Wilkinson, to Presbyterians

such as Ian Paisley, to Lutherans such as Theodore Letus, Christians have denounced the corrupting influence of modern Bible perversions. Baptists of numerous varieties, including Regular Baptists such as David Otis Fuller, Southern Baptists, such as Zane Hodges, and Independent Baptists, such as David Cloud, Richard Flanders, R. B. Ouellette, David Sorenson, D. A. Waite, and Clinton Branine have stood at the forefront of the battle. Baptists, Protestants and Seven-day Adventists, Calvinists and non-Calvinists alike, have raised their voices and put pen to paper to oppose the current wave of critical text-based Bibles. Book after book after book has gone into circulation denouncing the modern perversions. So we have a question to answer: If the King James Version had experienced the same kind of stiff opposition and total rejection by so many that modern versions today face, where is the great body of literature written by its adversaries? Surely, if the King James Bible had emerged from the Jerusalem Room into a society fiercely hostile to its existence, we could expect to find a body of literature written around the subject. We should expect to find some multi-volume sets analyzing and denouncing the translation, some single-volume books doing the same, articles, essays and treatises published in popular periodicals to oppose its acceptance, as well as a veritable host of tracts, pamphlets and polemics written against it. Instead, we find the solitary voice of Hugh Broughten echoed by a few sparse criticisms of certain specific word translations such as "church," "bishop," and "ordain." But where is the voluminous mass of literature that undoubtedly would have gone into publication and circulation if indeed it faced such hostility and controversy? Where is the literary evidence of such an assault? Where is the written testimony of this opposition?

5. The Separatists represent a very small minority.

Some opponents of the King James version may point to a few quotations from Separatists who continued to use the Geneva Bible after the translation of the King James Bible. However, this does nothing to validate their claim of fierce resistance to the King James Bible at its introduction. The Separatists represent a very small, persecuted minority, not any great, influential body that held power. The Episcopalians and the Puritans held the key positions of power and influence, both in the churches and in the universities. Their churches dominated the ecclesiastical landscape of seventeenth-century England. The Separatists left because they had so little voice at all. So the fact that they continued to use the Geneva Bible does nothing to support the idea of stiff opposition to the King James Bible in 1611, because their voice does not at all reflect the sentiments of the majority. But, as stated before, even from the Separatists, there's no body of literature extant to indicate any actual hostility to the King James Bible. In reality, the King James Bible received a positive response among the English people. For the first three decades, it contended on fairly equal footing with the Geneva Bible, contrary to the popular image of a despised translation struggling to gain acceptance that its critics would paint for us. In fact, the Geneva Bible went to print for the last time in 1616, a mere five years after the King James Bible saw the light of day. Afterwards, the last remnants of loyalty to the Geneva Bible died away completely, and the King James Bible gained national supremacy and a unique place in the hearts of Spirit-led Christians, who embraced and cherished it. Four centuries later, it remains the most influential English Bible ever translated. May God help us to continue to remain faithful to the Bible that God has blessed so marvelously; to cherish, embrace and defend it against those who would steal it from our hands and from our hearts.