Why Prayer Book to replace Geneva notes?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Jan 19, 2009.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    In his book entitled I Will Have One Doctrine & One Discipline: An Essay on the Influence of Religion and Politics on the Formation of the King James Bible, Ross Purdy wrote: "The King James Bible was 'appointed to be read in churches' where it could then be immediately interpreted by the church according to its authorised doctrine whether right or wrong. Notes were not allowed in the King James Bible so that they would not compete with or contradict the church's teaching. Rather, the Prayer Book [or Book of Common Prayer] was to be studied for church doctrine and took the place of notes. The King James Bible promoted the church organization as the Christians' authority. King James wanted every soul in his realm to obey that authority without question" (p. 44).

    Purdy wrote: "It was appointed to be read in church so the priests and bishops could comment on any questions a reader might have. Thus a Bible read in the church did not require notes" (p. 41).

    Did King James I and the KJV translators intend that the Church of England's Book of Common Prayer was to take the place of the study notes in the Geneva Bible?
     
  2. Jim1999

    Jim1999
    Expand Collapse
    <img src =/Jim1999.jpg>

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2002
    Messages:
    15,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't know about replacing the study notes in the Geneva Bible, but it was intended that no notes should appear in the King Jame Version. Any notes or church doctrines, sacraments, orders are in the Common Prayer Book and scriptural doctrines are taken from the Bible alone. All church services are taken from the Prayer Book including appropriate scripture readings.

    Cheers,

    Jim
     
  3. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    King James' approval of the making of a new translation without any marginal notes and his approval of canons in 1604 requiring acceptance of the Prayer Book could be connected.

    Hunt noted that King James I had approved canons in 1604 that "required subscription to the entire Book of Common Prayer and the endorsement of all Thirty-nine Articles" (Puritan Moment, p. 108). Lee wrote: "The canons of 1604 demanded that every benefice-holder subscribe to a statement that the Prayer Book and the Thirty-nine Articles were entirely agreeable to the word of God" (Great Britain's Solomon, p. 172). Fisher observed that Bancroft "procured from Convocation, with the King's approval, the passage of a series of canons which forbade, under penalty of excommunication, the least deviation from the Prayer Book, or any disparagement of the established system of government and worship in the Church" (History, p. 398). These 1604 canons did not receive the approval or sanction of Parliament. Gardiner pointed out that after the 1604 canons "conformity--thorough and unhesitating conformity--was to the unbending rule of the English Church" (History, IV, p. 148).
     

Share This Page

Loading...