There is tremendous significance in the fact that these men were making a version which should be for all people, making it out in the open day with the king and all the people behind them.It was the first independent version which had been made under such favorable circumstances.Most of the versions had been made in private by men who were imperiling themselves in their work.They did not expect the Book to pass into common use; they knew that the men who received the result of their work would have to be those who were earnest enough to go into secret places for their reading.But here was a changed condition.These men were making a version by royal authority, a version awaited with eager interest by the people in general.The result is that it is a people's Book.Its phrases are those of common life, those that had lived up to that time.It is not in the peculiar language of the times.If you want to know the language of their own times, read these translators' servile, unhistorical dedication to the king, or their far nobler preface to the reader.That is the language peculiar to their own day.But the language of the Bible itself is that form which had lived its way into common use.One hundred years after Wiclif it yet speaks his language in large part, for that part had really lived.In the Bibliotheca Pastorum Ruskin makes comment on Sir Philip Sidney and his metrical version of the Psalms in these words: "Sir Philip Sidney will use any cow-boy or tinker words if they only help him to say precisely in English what David said in Hebrew; impressed the while himself so vividly of the majesty of the thought itself that no tinker's language can lower it or vulgarize it in his mind." The King James translators were most eager to say what the original said, and to say it so that the common man could well understand it, and yet so that it should not be vulgarized or cheapened by adoption of cheap words.
In his History Hallam passes some rather sharp strictures on the English of the King James version, remarking that it abounds in uncouth phrases and in words whose meaning is not familiar, and that whatever is to be said it is, at any rate, not in the English of the time of King James.And that latter saying is true, though it must be remembered that Hallam wrote in the period when no English was recognized by literary people except that of the upper level, when they did not know that these so- calleduncouth phrases were to return to common use.To-day it would be absurd to say that the Bible is full of uncouth phrases.Professor Cook has said that "the movement of English diction, which in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries was on the whole away from the Bible, now returns with ever-accelerating speed toward it." If the phrases went out, they came back.But it is true that the English of the King James version is not that of the time of James I., only because it is the English of the history of the language.It has not immortalized for us the tongue of its times, because it has taken that tongue from its beginning and determined its form.It carefully avoided words that were counted coarse.On the other hand, it did not commit itself to words which were simply refinements of verbal construction.That, I say, is a general fact.
