bibles

[Nate]

Wikipedia says:

James' instructions included several requirements that kept the new translation familiar to its listeners and readers. The text of the Bishops' Bible would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If the Bishops' Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list: the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, and the Geneva Bible.

So the Tyndale Bible is definitely one of the references the KJV translators used, but it doesn't say how much they used. I don't know if it qualifies as "a lot" but I'm sure there's at least a bit of Tyndale's material in there.

[Agloval]

In the introduction of his (partisan, for obvious reasons!) edition of Tyndale's New Testament, Daniell says that '[t]hroughout the New Testament, where the Authorised Version is direct, simple and strong, what it prints is pure Tyndale.' He uses Luke 15 as an example, saying that despite the odd different word, the essence of the passage is all Tyndale. Apparently the Geneva Bible borrowed fairly extensively from Tyndale too, so he found his way into the AV via that route as well as via direct checking.

I don't feel particularly bad about the AV's translators though -- if they were using parts of other translations because they thought they were good, so much the better. And I suspect seventeenth-century people had a different attitude to copying and attribution.