In the Jack Chick video "Where was the Bible before 1611? How can we know God endorsed the KJV?" (linked here), this claim is made:

You know, Winston Churchill said that the King James Bible had been translated into more than 760 languages. So there's a testimony of the importance of the King James Bible. It's had 400 years of history.

Did Winston Churchill ever make this statement (regardless of if the statement itself is accurate or not)?

  • 1
    I wonder if Churchill might be not far from the mark. If an English speaking missionary wanted to produce a bible in the local language, it's likely that many took the English bible they had and translated it rather than starting from the original languages. At least in the nineteenth and early 20th century. Commented Jan 3, 2018 at 15:05
  • @DJClayworth Sounds like a good question for this site. Commented Jan 3, 2018 at 17:28
  • Asked here, for those interested: christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/61538/… Commented Jan 4, 2018 at 16:47

1 Answer 1


It appears he said it in A History of the English - Speaking Peoples, Vol. 2 The New World.

A short paper authored by Calvin George in 2009 quotes the book directly

If the adventurers took books with them they took the Bible, Shakespeare, and later The Pilgrim’s Progress, and the Bible they mostly took was the Authorized Version of King James I. About ninety million complete copies are thought to have been published in the English language alone. It has been translated into more than seven hundred sixty tongues. The Authorized Version is still the most popular in England and the United States.

A snippet of the book is also available as a preview on Amazon.

  • 2
    Although the entire thing is not available for free, you can read the relevant snippet here.
    – Laurel
    Commented Jan 3, 2018 at 4:45
  • 3
    In context, it isn't quite an explicit claim that the KJV has been translated (the "it" might refer to the Bible not the KJV: it isn't clear). And the following sentence contrasting the KJV with other translations supports that version.
    – matt_black
    Commented Jan 3, 2018 at 9:55
  • 1
    @matt_black - I would have thought the context (generally James I, and more specifically his desire to have a non-sectarian Bible translation) suggests rather strongly "It" is the Authorized Version
    – Henry
    Commented Jan 3, 2018 at 11:49

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .