Featured Dear Ole Westcott & Hort

Can we, therefore, also address the rampant homosexuality of King James himself?

Here's the thing, it becomes increasingly clear as one surveys the history of translation that these ad hominems don't work in understanding the nature of what goes into a translation. When someone defaults to that as a primary means of discrediting someone's work it usually means the rest of their points aren't very good or worth considering.

If you have a problem with Westcott and Hort's work address their work.

Talk about the challenges in gathering a Critical Text over a Majority Text. Talk about the nature of scholarship and the horizon of historiographical limitations. Talk about the issues around variants and their contribution to a divided text. Talk about the so-called scientific method and its integration into this process. Talk about the educational and professional backgrounds of the major figures. After you do all of this the life and lifestyle of a scholar(s) can be weighed...though it is really only worth a footnote.

 

You could correct your errors regarding your KJVO ways in the here and now.

That's being very charitable.

 

No.

That's right. He hates the NIV,HCSB,NLT etc. You best not be hatin' on em' either!

What a contradiction. You reverence the Word of God yet despise the Word of God at the same time as expressed by many other translations other than the KJV.

 

guess that our brother has "revelation" knowledge that God ONLY gave to those who ONLY see the KJVO as from Him, and no other bible version is today!

 

Hmm.. KJVO's really have a lack of consistency. All of the above( with the exception of #5) have been leveled against Westcott and Hort by your cohorts. Shameful,very shameful.

 

remember how the KJVO crowd blasted the 1984 NIV gtroup, for having a lesbian involve din its translation staff, but was found out that she ONLY was consulted for how the commitee had translated as regarding to how it read in the English, NOT actually in the translation aspect!

 

Of course I remember the incident about V.M. I am awaiting the lies of the KJVO community to rehash the whole thing again and not admit their false charges after they are proven wrong.

 

I'm tired. Just got home from working on a project to make life a little easier for a disabled woman. These old bones don't recover as quickly as they used to. So, for right now, I'd like to address just this point.

I'm asking you to please prove your statement. When doing so, if you have a creditable source of evidence of his "rampant homosexuality" that was produced within his lifetime, please provide it. From what I've been able to find, so far, the claim of his homosexuality was made some 20 years after his death.

One of the frequent charges made against King James was that he wanted a new translation that wouldn't challenge his authority as a monarch. If memory serves, there only a couple or so verses / footnotes in the Geneva Bible that would have (could have) been considered as such.

Yet a "rampant" homosexual let stand the utter condemnation, of himself, that is throughout the KJB and I presume the Geneva, too? Logical?

About the time I was first learning of the KJVO controversy, I heard a preacher say that King James was a ________. That was when I heard of this charge being made against him. So far, I haven't found any creditable evidence that this is a true charge. As best that I've been able to determine, this rumor started well after his death and was fostered by those who were opposed to his rule.

If you can prove the claim, I'm more than willing to listen, as above all, I seek the TRUTH. The end result will be that I'll either change my mind or be more firmly convinced that it is a false rumor.

If you'll accept the challenge, now is the time to prove it. If the claim is valid, it won't be the first time I've changed my opinion on a subject, when confronted with the truth. And, I'm sure it won't be the last time.

Proverbs 2:3-6 and 2 Tim 2:15 (KJB).........................................

 

I thought I'd take this opportunity to introduce a specific example of literal translation contrasted with interpretative rendering using your reference to Matthew 5:18 (KJV) --

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. ​

Iota (Strong's #2503) is the undisputed Greek word represented above (and by other versions) by "jot". Jot is the name applied to a Hebrew character. Certainly, "jot" is not a straightforward transliteration of ἰῶτα. Additionally, "jot" is not even a literal translation of ἰῶτα; although several 'literal' translations do have "iota" in their text (see Young's, Darby's, and even the ESV).

Matthew records the Lord's speech with Greek words written with Greek letters; and one of those letters is called the iota (that Greek letter is comparable with the ninth English letter, i). The word ἰῶτα identified a Greek letter then, and ἰῶτα identifies that same letter today. Jot indicates a particular character in one language and iota indicates a different letter in another language. So then, how does a Greek term come to be replaced by a Hebrew term? Interpretation. (A good interpretation? Yes. But that isn't the point.)

 

That this is not literal is arguable. My English dictionary in Microsoft Bookshelf (American Heritage, 3rd ed.) has for "jot": "The smallest bit; iota." Then for "iota" it has, "1 The ninth letter of the Greek alphabet."

 

Since there are two points from two posters that contain the same question let me answer this question and then I'll reply specifically to other germane points.

Okay, well unfortunately you all have asked me a question that I've actually done some research on during my PhD coursework...so....

The issue of the orientation of King James I (VI if you're Scottish) is almost without question in contemporary historical scholarship. Given that we possess the originals of his romantic correspondence between three male lovers the point is without question. The evidence is overwhelming that James had romantic (and frankly sexual) relationships with at least three men: Esmé Stuart, Robert Carr, and George Villiers. If you take time to read the letters you'll want to repent of his sin for him soon after.

I'll refer you to the text King James' Letters of Homoerotic Desire edited by David Beregon http://www.amazon.com/dp/0877456690/?tag=baptis04-20

Anyone consulting several of his recent biographies will find discussion of this attraction in James' life. Please refer to the following:

Great Britain's Solomon : James VI and I in His Three Kingdoms by Martin Lee http://www.amazon.com/dp/0252016866/?tag=baptis04-20

Majestie: The King Behind the King James Bible by David Teems http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0058M5GMW/?tag=baptis04-20

An additional textual resource is a sexual history of James I's life:
Royal Family, Royal Lovers: King James of England and Scotland by Beregon http://www.amazon.com/dp/0826207839/?tag=baptis04-20

and

King James & the History of Homosexuality by Michael B Young http://books.google.com/books?id=7hmKQgAACAAJ&hl=en

Frankly, there are other works out there and any number of histories of England of this time will discuss the reality of this fact. Also, a number of recent biographies of the King James Bible produced to honor its 400th Anniversary do recognize the orientation of James.

You can go and look up these resources yourself if you choose. Quite simply the issue is as certain a historical reality as we have. To bring this to somewhat a close I point to a text from Justo Gonzalez's The Story of Christianity vol 2 which is the standard Christian history textbook for most evangelical seminary classes. In his description of James I, Gonzalez writes this:

Jame's personal character did little to increase his prestige. He was a homosexual, and his favorites enjoyed unmerited privileges and power in his court and in his government. While insisting on his right to an absolute monarch, he wavered between stubborn rigidity and weak flexibility. (pg 152)​

I leave you with this evidence. As a final point I simply link to the Wikipedia entry for anyone still unbelieving: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationships_of_James_VI_and_I

It has links to other works.

 

[snipped - see special rules on version debate]

 

Not necessarily the case. James was pretty insistent on some theological concepts within the text in order to maintain his kingdom. That said, my overarching point isn't to belabor this discussion with muddled conversation about James, but instead to point out that that there are often many aspects of a person's life that might not sit well with us. For those who accuse Westcott and Hort of, essentially, being pagans I would like to give them pause. Their lives are not at issue, their work in constructing a Critical Text is at issue.

Too often the KJVO crowd, as the article in the OP demonstrates, simply attack the men for their lives and never deal with their scholarship. So my larger point is that you can't have it both ways. In KJVO refuse to engage in discussions of the scholarship of Westcott and Hort's work then I shall simply pivot to the troublesome lifestyle of the man whose name is on the Bible.

I challenge this, I completely challenge this. Name me three contemporary versions that are in widespread use and we'll run down their translations of the relevant passages against homosexuality and we will see, absolutely see, that they continue the same stand against homosexuality in the KJV. I absolutely challenge this.

This isn't an argument. James' actual legislative work condemned homosexual behavior more harshly than any king before him. The work of respectable historians has shown that this was done to a) shelter his own oppressed orientation and safeguard it and b) require those in relationship with him to remain so lest they fall into a trap and suffer punishment.

Well this point invalidates your above argument. However, as I've seen God uses broken people to accomplish His work as they yield themselves to Him. Take your point here and apply it to brothers Westcott and Hort. So that removes that line of argumentation against their work.

Now, let's get on with it...show me in the scholarship of Westcott and Hort how they failed to properly construct a Critical Text and how their Critical Text is inferior to the Majority Text.

 

[snipped - see special rules on version debate]

 

Good points and research, preachinjesus! In the spirit of the OP though, I wonder if KJVO people here know about the occult dalliances of anti-Westcott-Hort critic Herman Hoskier. He once got a spirit to tell him that Mark was not written in Latin. Why he needed a spirit to figure this out is beyond me.

 

Looking at the history of the text the translation was done to keep himself in power. There was a significant division arising in England during this time, not the least because of James' inability to rule well, and he needed to toss the people a bone. The dissenting religious factions were using the Bishops's Bible and Geneva Bible in opposition to official CoE dogma. The people were clamoring for a text in their vernacular.

To buy himself some time, King James brought together a group of translators out of the CoE and produced the first translation. They later edited it, more than a few problems in the original 1611, and it satisfied the people.

Well it satisfied them until the next king, when the people rose up, led by some chap named Cromwell, and overthrew the monarchy, executed the king, and established a Lord Protectorate. Rather nasty little period for people with grand titles.

See my above post. Really the going points for this is that by standing against something so boldly and publicly, James was able to shelter his own personal life. He didn't care if homosexuality was outlawed in his land, because he was beyond the law. The translation of the King James Bible would be tested by scholars across the land, any derivation from the Greek and Hebrew would be caught and that wouldn't be good.

I don't think this is an effective point of argumentation for KJVO (or KJVPreferred) to use. The text is a decent translation, for its time, of the texts available and it accurately reflects a dynamic approach to bring the text to life in its era.

I'll look forward to your feedback.