The Bishop’s Bible

By Jacob R. Blandford

On Saturday, July 30^th, 2016 A.D. I read ‘The Making of the King James Bible New Testament’ by Laurence M. Vance. The book is about the role of the Bishop’s Bible in the translation of the Authorized Version of 1611. Vance saw the importance of the Bishop’s Bible, as is evident in the book, but he quoted eight church historians on pages 52-53 who all basically stated that the Bishop’s Bible was a failure. Their judgment is both wrong and short-sighted. The Bishop’s Bible was a success because it served the purpose God had for it. Historians fail to see God’s hand in His overall plan for the English Protestant Bible. According to Psalms 12:6-7 the English Bible would need to be purified seven times. For those who don’t know, the formula was this: (1) Tyndale [1525] (2) Coverdale [1535] (3) Matthews [1537] (4) Great [1538] (5) Geneva [1560] (6) Bishop’s [1568] (7) King James [1611]. So the Bishop’s Bible wasn’t the final purification, the King James was. God would use the Bishop’s Bible (which was a good and reliable translation of the Textus Receptus) to be the springboard and catalyst for the King James Version. That was God’s overall purpose was for the Bishop’s Bible: to be the foundation of the 1611. God would then use the 1611 for the greatest movement of missions and evangelism the world has ever known from 1600-1900. The Authorized Version got the glory (which it rightly deserves) but we shouldn’t forget that without such a strong, correct, and well done translation as the Bishop’s Bible: the King James wouldn’t be as sharp, right, and clear as we now have it. So when historians and scholars say the Bishop’s Bible was a failure (because it didn’t grow in popularity and use as the KJV), they fail to see the REAL purpose it served—to be an under-girding support for the 1611. Apostle Paul, as great as he was, wouldn’t have been who he was without a Barnabas.