Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Jerome, Sep 10, 2013.
Can anyone here substantiate this tale?
I saw this a long time ago, most likely in the writings of either Doug Kutilek or Gary Hudson. However, I can't find it now.
Cecil died in 1612, as KJ's Lord Treasurer.
Speaking of "excuses to attempt to compensate for one's LACK OF REAL EVIDENCE supporting one's myth", have you made any progress in tracking down your 'source' for the OP howler?
Sorry, no go, but not for lacka looking.
Have YOU found any SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth, or any other actual evidence suggesting it might have a glimmer of truth?
Speaking of "goofy ideas", "hooey", and phantom sources, have you made any further progress in substantiating your claim?
Newp...aint tried any more.
How are YOU doing in finding any SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth?
You're unable to substantiate the claim you made, yet you want me to address claims I haven't made?
I do not recall reading this claim in any writings of Doug Kutilek or Gary Hudson, and I do not recall reading it anywhere else.
There was a matter that may have increased the cost for the 1611 edition of the KJV and for KJV editions for the first ten years at least a little. John Speed is said to have gave or paid money to King James I for a patent or for the claimed purpose that Bibles or the KJV would have to include his pages of information entitled "The Genealogies Recorded in the Sacred Scripture" ["by J. S. Cum Privilegio"] and the printer would have to pay him back something for the use of his pages. Donald Brake noted that "Speed retained the patent for the genalogies and the map of Canaan for ten years" (A Visual History of the King James Bible, p. 187).
Robert Barker, the printer of the 1611 edition, would likely also have wanted to charge a high enough price for it to cover the money that he paid King James I for the rights to print it.
Robert Sargent, a KJV-only advocate, noted that Robert Barker paid 3,500 pounds for the copyright of the KJV and that Barker's firm held the rights to print the KJV until 1709 (English Bible: Manuscript Evidence, p. 226). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church also pointed out that Robert Barker bought the final manuscript of the KJV (now lost) for 3,500 pounds, "which included the copyright" (p. 135). Donald Brake asserted: “In 1610 Barker had paid 3,500 pounds for exclusive printing rights for the King James Version” (Visual History of KJB, p. 163). W. H. T. Wrede noted that Cantrell Legge, printer at Cambridge, attempted to print the 1611 KJV in 1614, but Robert Baker “claimed the sole right of Bible printing under his Patent” and prevented him from printing it (Short History, pp. 5-6).
Do you happen to have contact info for these guys you could share with 'robycop3'?
i've been working against the KJVO myth for over 30 years, and that has involved, among other things, reading thousands of works, some long, some short, both pro- and anti-KJVO. Now, if you wanna sift thru all those writings, especially those written before 1990, go ahead.
The farthest I've bothered to tryta discover the sourca the tax-stamp claim is several bios of Robt. Cecil. And I don't intend to concern myself with it any more. You can chooseta believe it or disregard it, whatever flips yer trigger.
But the facts remain that the current KJVO myth has a cultic, dishonest origin, is phony as a Ford Corvette, and that it took awhile for the KJV to replace the Geneva as Great Britain's fave English Bible translation, and one factor in this delay was the KJV's price.
Does the matter of whether this claim was supposedly accurate and substantiated or inaccurate and unsubstantiated have any bearing on whether or not a KJV-only view is correct or not?
I've been noticing this thread for a couple of weeks and checked it out.
From my research, which includes technical articles and historical documents, I haven't been able to substantiate the Tax Stamp claim in the OP. This doesn't mean it is a false claim, but it doesn't, imho, meet a solid burden of evidence to been seen as true.
In my opinion, you are correct to suggest that the burden of evidence for this claim to be considered true has not been met.
The person who made the claim claims to have read it somewhere, and perhaps that is possible. The fact that he is unable to substantiate it now does not mean that it was a false or dishonest claim as your comments acknowledged. The person's memory could be faulty and imperfect as all our memories may be, and he could possibly recall what he read incorrectly.
Again...the ONLY research I've done in trying to substantiate the tax stamp thingie is to read several bios of the life of Robert Cecil. And I will admit that whatever source in which I read about the tax stamp was most likely incorrect.
But among the factors that kept the AV 1611 from becoming an immediate hit was its price.
(The most-compelling of these preventing factors was the reluctance of the general public to abandon the Geneva Bible.)