There's A Lot Of "Stuff" In the KJV

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Rippon, May 20, 2008.

  1. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    I found it interesting that a word that has such modern connotations would wind up in the Anglican Version.

    The word 'stuff' occurs 8 times in Ezekiel 12.

    It occurs once each in 1 Samuel 10,25 and 30.

    It occurs twice in Genesis 31 and once in chapter 45.

    It occurs once in Exodus 22 , and once again in chapter 36.

    It occurs once in Luke 17.

    In Nehemiah it occurs once in chapter 13.


    ( I'm expecting someone to say :"Hey, good stuff!)
     
  2. TCGreek

    TCGreek
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2006
    Messages:
    7,373
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hey, good stuff!
     
  3. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,404
    Likes Received:
    328
    Didn't George Carlin have a routine about"stuff"?
     
  4. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0

    Sorry, what is "the Anglican Version"? If Anglicans use the KJV, they use the same version that is used by other denominations. In my KJV, the English word "stuff" occurs 13 times. Mostly it translates a Hebrew word meaning "utensils, tools, equipment", but sometimes, as in Exodus 36.7, it translates a word meaning "work, occupation, business":
    "For the stuff they had was sufficient for all the work to make it, and too much."


     
    #4 David Lamb, May 20, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: May 20, 2008
  5. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The KJV is sometimes identified as "the Anglican Version" because all its translators/revisors were members of the Church of England and because it became the official version of the Church of England. The KJV's other name [the Authorized Version] came from the claimed authorization by the Church of England and the head of that Church. While it may not be nearly as commonly used, in some ways "Anglican Version" would seem to be as valid as the name "Authorized Version."

    The 1560 Geneva Bible is sometimes called "the Puritan Bible" even though members of all parties or groups read it. So far as I know, its translators did not call themselves "Puritans" although some of them would later be associated with that group.

    The 1842 revision of the KJV was made by a number of Bible scholars from different denominations including Baptists but it would later be identified as "the Baptist Bible." In addition, others than just Baptists may have read it. That 1842 revision of the KJV was not even the official version of Baptists and was not made by only Baptists, even though it was called "the Baptist Bible."
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The majority of the KJV's uses of the word "stuff" were kept from the Geneva and Bishops' Bibles. I did not check the English Bibles earlier than the Geneva yet to see if it was also in them. The Geneva and Bishops' did have "stuff" at two verses in Exodus (28:8, 39:5--"of the same stuff") where the KJV omitted the word "stuff" ["of the same"]. At 1 Chronicles 29:16, the Bishops' has "all this stuff" where the KJV has "all this store." The KJV did use the word "stuff" at one verse (Neh. 13:8) where it was not in the Geneva or Bishops'.

    By the way, the Bishops' Bible used the verb form "stuffed" two times (1 Samuel 19:13, Nahum 3:1) that is not found in the KJV.
     
  7. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Interesting STUFF, Logos!

    It appears the main use of 'stuff' as a noun 400 years ago was as an aggregate of materials, supplies, or equipment used for various activities, and also as military baggage of all types. I don't remember seeing the word used in many other senses in my reading of other 16th-17th C. literature. But I coulda missed some, if course!

    "Stuff" does NOT appear as a verb in the KJV.
     
  8. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Webster's 1828 states --
    STUFF, n.

    1. A mass of matter, indefinitely; or a collection of substances; as a heap of dust, of chips or of dross.
    2. The matter of which any thing is formed; materials.
    The carpenter and joiner speak of the stuff with which they build; mechanics pride themselves on having their wares made of good stuff.
    Time is the stuff which life is made of.
    Degrading prose explains his meaning ill, and shows the stuff, and not the workmans skill.
    Cesar hath wept; ambition should be made of sterner stuff.

    3. Furniture; goods; domestic vessels in general.
    He took away locks, and gave away the kings stuff. [Nearly obsolete.]
    4. That which fills any thing.
    Cleanse the suffd bosom of that perilous stuff that weighs upon the heart.
    5. Essence; elemental part; as the stuff of the conscience.
    6. A medicine. [Vulgar.]
    7. Cloth; fabrics of the loom; as silk stuffs; woolen stuffs. In this sense the word has a plural. Stuff comprehends all cloths, but it signifies particularly woolen cloth of slight texture for linings.
    8. Matter or thing; particularly, that which is trifling or worthless; a very extensive use of the word. Flattery is fulsome stuff; poor poetry is miserable stuff.
    Anger would indite such woful stuff as I or Shadwell write.
    9. Among seamen, a melted mass of turpentine, tallow, &c. With which the masts, sides and bottom of a ship are smeared.
     
  9. Mexdeaf

    Mexdeaf
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2005
    Messages:
    7,051
    Likes Received:
    0
    Nearly obsolete meaning in 1828? That is interesting!
     
  10. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, it is interesting. It seems to illustrate how Webster's dictionary was New England oriented. "Stuff" used in that sense was common in the South where (and when) I grew up. I haven't taken a poll lately but I suspect it is still commonly understood (and spoken).
     
  11. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for that, Logos. I think "Anglican Version" must be an American term - a Google search restricted to UK sites, brought up sites that used that phrase, but not of a bible tranlation. For example,"Unlike the Anglican version of evangelicalism, which tended to reinforce....." Certainly it seems a misnomer in the case of the 1611 translation, because the term "Anglican" did not come into use as an ecclesiastical term until 1635 (as an adjective) and 1797 (as a noun) according to an online etymological dictionary. (Having said that, I suppose we often use modern words for older concepts.)

    It was Puritans who approached King James to ask for a new translation of the bible. (They approached him on many other matters too, but the new translation was the only one he agreed to). Also, there were Puritans in the Church of England, and some of the translators of the 1611 were Puritans.



    As for the title "Authorized", I am not sure. Title pages said that it was appointed to be read in churches, but as far as I know, there was no authorization, either by the king or the bishops of the Church of England. The web site http://www.scriptorium.org/articles/historyofthebible/hotb_0015.html includes:
    Another name given to the King James Bible is the Authorized Version or "A.V." However, there is no record that any official authorization was ever given to the King James Version.


    I have always assumed (perhaps wrongly) that the name "Authorized Version" stems from the fact that the King James authorized the making of the translation.

    I have not heard of the 1842 revision. I don't think baptists here used it.
     
  12. franklinmonroe

    franklinmonroe
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2006
    Messages:
    2,872
    Likes Received:
    3
    Great info!
    Good point!
    We could then properly call it the 'Appointed Version'. :laugh:
     
  13. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    The rendering "stuff" goes back at least to the 1535 Coverdale's Bible, which has it at least five times [Numbers 31:20, 1 Samuel 17:22, 1 Sam. 25:13, 1 Sam. 30:24, Luke 17:31]. It may have it other times spelled differently than "stuffe."
     
  14. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    As you noted, the Puritans of that day were still members of the Church of England. Thus, all the translators of the KJV were still members of the Church of England.

    While a few of the KJV translators had been associated with the Puritan party in the Church of England or had Puritan leanings, it might be more accurate to consider them "former Puritans" in 1611 since they would have been forced to conform by the 1604 canons [rules] made by Bancroft.

    Scott noted that Bancroft had drawn up new canons (church laws) for the Church of England which "added over forty special rules against Puritan dissenters" (James I, p. 283). Gustavus Paine observed that by 1606 "all the Puritan translators had conformed enough to escape being banished or direly punished in other ways" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 97).

    For example, Thomas Sparke, a KJV translator who had earlier been one of the four Puritan representatives at the Hampton Court Conference, conformed. Milward noted that in 1607 Sparke published a book or pamphlet “to encourage the Puritan ministers to follow his example and to justify himself against this ’hard censure of many for conforming myself as I have to the orders of our Church” (Religious Controversies, p. 15). Tyacke suggested that Sparke “claimed to have conformed even before the [Hampton Court] conference” (Anti-Calvinists, p. 13).
     

Share This Page

Loading...