To make a good one better

The KJV translators explicitly identified five earlier English translations whose wording they would consult when it proved more accurate than the Bishops’ Bible. These were Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Whitchurch, and Geneva.[1]

However, the KJV's preface itself—“The Translators to the Readers”—frames their task differently than simply endorsing prior versions. The translators stated their goal: “We never thought … that we 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.”[1] This language suggests they viewed multiple existing translations as legitimate but sought to synthesize them into a superior single version rather than merely affirming each predecessor as equally authoritative.

The translators’ actual methodology reveals their pragmatic rather than ideological approach. They began with existing versions, consulted other renderings and commentaries, and used the Hebrew and Greek texts as their ultimate court of reference.[2] The preface modestly admitted imperfection and stressed the need for continuous revision, especially where meanings were uncertain.[2]

The historical weight fell heaviest on Tyndale, the earliest and most influential predecessor. The voice most commonly heard in the KJV is that of a man who lived seventy years earlier and was considered a heretic and outlaw in his day, with one recent study concluding that 83% of the KJV text is Tyndale.[1] Yet this dominance was practical rather than theological—Tyndale’s translation simply proved superior in quality, not divinely inspired in a way others were not.

[1] Rodney J. Decker, “400 Years of the KJV,” Journal of Ministry and Theology (2012), 16:1:20–22.
[2] David S. Dockery, ed., Holman Bible Handbook (Nashville, TN: Holman Bible Publishers, 1992), 101.