First Occurrences of Terms Pertaining to Bible Versions
[OED, 2nd ed. 1:799; title page, Geneva Bible]
[Rheims-Douay, introduction]
[ MWCD, 10th ed., p. 54]
[Translators to the Reader, (preface of 1611 translation)]
[Elzevier Greek edition, f. 2v.]
[MWCD, 10th ed., p. 1068]
[MWCD, 10th ed., p. 78]
[J. Owen, Works 16:357]
[J. Owen, Works 16:363]
[J. Owen, Works 16:364]
[T. Dawson, Disceptio...]
[J. J. Wetstein, Novum Testamentum]
[C. de Missy, article x, Journal Britannique, May-June]
[R. Porson, Letters to Travis, p. i.]
[J. Griesbach, prolegomena to Novum Testamentum Greace, p. lx]
[J. Griesbach, prolegomena to Novum Testamentum Greace, p. lxi]
[J. Griesbach, prolegomena to Novum Testamentum Graece, p. lxii]
[C. Winstanley, Vindication of Certain Passages , title page]
[A. Clarke, New Testament...the Text Taken from the Most Correct Copy of the Present Authorized Version]
[F. Nolan, Inquiry into the Integrity..., p. 6]
[F. Nolan, Inquiry into the Integrity..., p. xi]
[Life of John Jebb, p. 454]
[MWCD, 10th ed., p. 60
[Noah Webster's version, title page]
[MWCD, 10th ed., p. 596]
[MWCD, 10th ed., p. 547]
[MWCD, 10th ed., p. 596]
[W. Brantley, Objections, 2A]
[O. Winslow, Reasons, p. 42]
[O. Winslow, Reasons, p. 45]
[L. Gaussen, Theopneustia, p. 23]
[Christian Review]
[Isaac Westcott, AFBS motion]
[rule 3, American Bible Society]
[F. W. Faber, Interest and Characteristics of the Lives of the Saints, p. 116]
[S. Tregelles, Account of the Printed Text..., p. 29]
[C. Spurgeon, preface to The English Bible by Mrs. H.C. Conant]
[MWCD, 10th ed., p. 1220]
[T. F. Curtis, The Human Element in the Inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures, p. 8]
[The Baptist Quarterly, 2:106]
[F. L. Patton]
[J. Ellicott, Considerations on Revision, p. 44
[P. Schaff, intro, p. xxii, The Revision of the English Version of the New Testament]
[P. Schaff, intro, p. xxviii, The Revision of the English Version of the New Testament]
[P. Schaff, intro, p. xxiv The Revision of the English Version of the New Testament]
[P. Schaff, intro, p. xxiv The Revision of the English Version of the New Testament]
[A. Hovey, Manual of Systematic Theology, p. 83]
[Presbyterian Review, 2:238]
[F. Hort, The New Testament in the Original, p. 20]
[F. Hort, The New Testament in the Original, p. 20]
[F. Hort, The New Testament in the Original, p. 2]
[F. Hort, The New Testament in the Original, p. 126]
[F. Hort, The New Testament in the Original, p. 93]
[F. Hort, The New Testament in the Original, p. 115]
[F. Hort, The New Testament in the Original, p. 108
[J. Burgon, Revision Revised, p. xix]
[Companion Bible, introduction]
[G. Schepps, Priscillian, ein Neuaufgefundener Lat. Schriftsteller..., 13]
[MWCD, 10th ed., p. 691]
[MWCD, 10th ed., p. 643]
[MWCD, 10th ed., p. 841]
[E. Nestle, Salz und Licht]
[F. Gaebelein, Down through the Ages, title page]
[MWCD, 10th ed., p. 458 ]
[MWCD, 10th ed., p. 1220]
[E. Nida, Towards a Science of Translation]
[Z. Hodges, Biblia Sac, 125:500]
[coined by D. A. Waite]
[coined by P. Ruckman]
[S. Custer, Truth about the King James Version Controversyp. 10]
[(origin uncertain)]
[de Waard & E. Nida]
[coined by S. Gipp, An Understandable History, p. 65]
[coined by Gary R. Hudson]
[coined by T. P. Letis, The Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text, p. 28]
[coined by D. Kutilek]
The attempt to trace the earliest occurrences of selected terms in any subject is a task pursued by
lexicographers. The subject of Bible Versions is a specialized subject with many unique terms, whose earliest occurrence ought to be a matter of
great interest to believers, yet due to its specialized nature, it is a topic understandably neglected by renowned lexicographers. The list above is an attempt to trace the earliest occurrence of these terms. (All suggestions for corrections are very welcome, provided the documentation is included.) In any controversy among believers, the appeal to Holy Scripture is
essential. Perhaps, next in line, is the frequent appeal to historical precedent. This present word study reveals a fascination with trends among believers. For example, many today (since 1990) who love the well-known and venerable Bible version produced in 1611, become insulted if one refers to it as the "King James Version". They prefer to call it the "King James Bible". What I have discovered is that the earliest appearance of the phrase "King James Bible" appears to be from 1924. Thus, the term was completely unheard of to millions who lived from ca. 1611 to ca. 1924, who loved and memorized from that version. The term, "King James Bible", thus, is nothing more than a modern trend unique to our twentieth century.
The term "King James Version" which arose about 1889 is actually older than the modern "King James Bible" of 1924. The phrase "King Jame's Version of 1611" (note apostrophe) is even older. It seems to have originated with a Bible critic by the name of Philip Schaff in 1872. Charles Spurgeon also used the term with an apostrophe in 1856 in the introduction he wrote to a book by Mrs. Conant. What many used apparently from 1814 to 1889 was the term "Authorized Version". Adam Clarke seems to have been the first to use it in 1814. (It is my opinion, that this is the best term for the venerable translation work of 1611.) It is difficult to say what anyone called the version for the first two centuries (1611-1811) after its publication. Nevertheless, the noble translation of 1611, and its subsequent updates (e.g., 1769), became so widespread, that in colonial America, it was often merely called "the Bible". Other versions existed, but rapidly fell into relative disuse. It is true that there is historical precendence to call the Authorized Version "the Bible", yet since modern version proliferate today, that term "the Bible" is no longer adequate, since many are asking "Which Bible?" It is undisputed that in the 1700s the version of 1611 had no rivals. In the 1800s we learn that it was called "our English Bible" [1829], "the common version" [1833], and the "commonly received version" [1854]. Surely, none of these three terms of the 1800s will suffice for today. Some who venerate the 1611 version have questioned the character of King James I and have wanted to rename the version with yet another new term, with no historical precedence at all. The remedy is not to introduce a neologism for the old version, but rather to return to the old path (Jeremiah 6:6) and refer to it with the old term which arose about 1814, i.e., the "Authorized Version". The term arose in the 1800s because that was when it began to have rivals. The most interesting fact of this study, is that there were two centuries (1611 to ca. 1811) when this English version was so common, that there were no rivals. Everyone in Britain and America understood what the "common version" was. Some object to the term "Authorized Version" since no one seems to know who authorized it. (Was it Parliament?) Other reliable versions, such as the Geneva version, had the phrases "authorized and appointed" on their title pages, whereas the 1611 version had only "appointed to be read in the churches." But the venerable old version was based on the very same Greek Received Text that the Tyndale, Geneva, Coverdale, and Bishop's Bible were based on. In conclusion, since we live in a day characterized by a flood of faulty versions, each claiming to be a "Bible" and since we no longer have a common English version, it seems best to retain the term "Authorized Version" since the term has a kinship to other old and reliable versions which appeared prior to 1611.