During the Tyndale quincentenary year we were told repeatedly, and rightly, that most of the language of the King James Version of the Bible was taken, without acknowledgement, from William Tyndale's translation. The figures given varied, ranging from two-thirds to 90%. David Daniell, the leading authority on Tyndale, stated that nine-tenths of the New Testament in the King James Version is Tyndale's.

A new encyclopaedia recently published stated that “about 20% of the text of the Authorized (King James) Version shows the influence of Tyndale.” We can suppose that this was just a misprint rather than an editorial error. In writing to the editor to suggest a correction, I thought I would try to establish the actual percentage.

At the same time I decided to try to measure the amount of Tyndale's work used by the translators of the Geneva Version, about which we had heard less. The Geneva Version, first printed in 1560, went through at least 140 printings: it was the Bible that Shakespeare read; it was the version in common use at the time that King James' men undertook their revision. My figures indicate that the Geneva Version followed Tyndale even more closely than the King James Version.

It is possible to calculate the percentage in different ways, without making any significant difference to the result. I followed the simple procedure of counting the total number of words in nine representative chapters first in Geneva, then in King James, and then counting how many of these words were taken from Tyndale's translation. The resulting figures are as follows:

Number of words taken from Tyndale by Geneva Version and King James Version

It will be seen that in these nine chapters more than 83% of the words in the Geneva Version were taken direct from Tyndale, and more than 81% of the words in the King James Version. I believe this sample is statistically valid for the whole New Testament and those books of the Old Testament that Tyndale translated, within a margin of possible error of between 2 and 3 per cent.

As a matter of interest I have set down the Beatitudes in the three versions. It is well known that in these verses the closeness of the language is very great; as can be seen, verse after verse is identical in all three.

The Beatitudes, Matthew 5, 1-16: Tyndale, Geneva, and King James Versions

Most of the differences between the versions are inconsequential. Here are the differences between Tyndale and King James in Revelation, chapter 20:

Of greater consequence:

Of less consequence:

There are indeed significant differences elsewhere, such as Tyndale's use of elder or minister, not priest; repent, not do penance; and congregation, not church. Such usages have doctrinal importance, and were held against Tyndale. But this is not the place to consider their implications. Here I have been concerned merely with the modest aim of establishing the percentage of Tyndale's words that were used by his successors. It seems reasonable to use 80% as a rough figure.