Why was relation of King James I to KJV?

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Logos1560, Mar 28, 2008.

  1. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    KJV-only author Bob Steward claimed that "he [King James] personally had no part in its being translated" (Close Look at the NKJV, p. 22). KJV-only author Dick Cimino contended that "King James did not attempt to superintend the work in any way" (The Book, p. 99).

    King James I was involved in the making of the KJV in several ways.

    1. King James I approved the request for the making of a new translation.

    2. King James I seems to have appointed some of the men who were to be the translators, and he perhaps had to approve of all the selections.

    In his book printed in 1730 entitled An Historical Account of the Several English Translations of the Bible and the Opposition They met with from the Church of Rome, Anthony Johnson noted that "the King made some preparatory advances, as appears in his Letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury of July 22nd 1604, where he tells him, 'He had already appointed certain learned Men for the Work" (p. 87).

    John Mincy indicated that Lancelot Andrewes was one of the "three men who screened suggestions for prospective translators and presented them to the king" (Williams, From the Mind of God, p. 133). If suggestions for translators were presented to King James I, it would likely be to get his approval for them.

    3. King James I approved or made the rules to be followed in the translating process.

    In his 1730 book An Historical Account, Anthony Johnson wrote: "the King recommended the following rules to be by them most carefully observed" (p. 93).

    KJV-only author D. A. Waite claimed: "Now King James had nothing to do with the translation itself other than making the rules" (Defending the KJB, p. 85). The evidence that King James made or approved the rules for the translating would indicate that he had an influence on the KJV.

    4. King James I appointed Archbishop Bancroft to oversee the translating.


    King James followed up on the rules by having Archbishop Richard Bancroft oversee the translation. In their preface, the KJV translators referred to Bancroft as the "chief overseer and task-master under his Majesty, to whom were not only we, but also our whole Church, much bound." Archbishop Bancroft was well known for his dedication to making everyone conform to the views of the state church.

    Is not the part that King James I played in selecting the translators, making or approving the rules for the translating, and appointing an overseer over the translating valid evidence that he could be said to have superintended the work in some way?

    I meant to entitle this thread "what was relation of King James I to KJV"
     
    #1 Logos1560, Mar 28, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2008
  2. Rubato 1

    Rubato 1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think this shows the amount of involment expected from a title like the 'Authorized Version.' It was named after him, after all. This does not mean he influenced the actual work directly, does it?
     
  3. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    Ah , but he did influence the work directly -- the revisors did not have that much latitude in The Royal Version Of 1611 .
     
  4. Crabtownboy

    Crabtownboy
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    16,609
    Likes Received:
    155
    It was probably a politically correct thing to do since he was the King and back then kings has real power.
     
  5. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,403
    Likes Received:
    328
    Yeah , you couldn't do your own thing with the king !
     
  6. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    1. The rules that King James I made or approved for the translating did influence the making of the KJV.

    For example, the rules specified that certain ecclesiastical words such as "church" and "baptism" had to be kept. Thus, the KJV translators were not permitted to follow or keep Tyndale's rendering "congregation," even if they had wanted to keep it.

    2. It is perhaps because of King James I's indirect or direct influence or because of his divine right of kings' view that the renderings "tyrant" and "tyranny" were not kept from the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision. It would be logical to think that the statements of King James directed against some of the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible could have contributed to the removal of the rendering "tyrant," "tyrants," and "tyranny."

    What did those marginal notes of the Geneva Bible say that upset King James I? At Daniel 6:22, the 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible has this marginal note: "For he did disobey the king's wicked commandment to obey God, and so did no injury to the king, who ought to command nothing whereby God should be dishonoured." At Exodus 1:19, it has this note: "Their disobedience herein was lawful, but their dissembling evil." The note at Exodus 1:22 is as follows: "When tyrants can not prevail by craft, they burst forth into open rage." In his article in a modern-spelling edition of the 1599 Geneva Bible, Marshall Foster observed: “the marginal note in the Geneva Bible at Exodus 1:19 indicated that the Hebrew midwives were correct to disobey the Egyptian rulers. King James called such interpretations ‘seditious.‘ The tyrant knew that if the people could hold him accountable to God’s Word, his days as a king ruling by ‘Divine Right’ were numbered” (p. xxv). At Matthew 2:19, the marginal note has the word tyrant [“Christ is brought up in Nazareth, after the death of the tyrant, by God’s providence”]. Its note at Matthew 10:28 stated: “Though tyrants be never so raging and cruel, yet we may not fear them.“ At Acts 12:2, its note again referred to tyrants [“It is an old fashion of tyrants to procure the favour of the wicked with the blood of the godly”]. McGrath maintained that "the Geneva notes regularly use the word 'tyrant' to refer to kings; the King James Bible never uses this word" (In the Beginning, p. 143). Long after King James’ death, these notes were in a few editions of the KJV, such as one in 1672. At the top of the page that has Isaiah 14, the 1560 edition of the Geneva Bible has this heading: “The fall of the tyrant.“ At the top of the page that has Ezekiel 32, the 1560 Geneva Bible has this heading: “The end of tyrants.“ The 1611 KJV did have the word “tyrant” in the Apocrypha [Wisdom of Solomon 12:14, 2 Maccabees 4:25, 7:27].

    Perhaps it was not only the marginal notes that caused King James to dislike the Geneva Bible. If it was only the notes that bothered the king, why didn’t he have the text printed without those notes? Many people may be unaware of the fact that the earlier English Bibles sometimes had the word "tyrant" or the word “tyranny” in the text. At Isaiah 13:11b, the 1599 Geneva Bible read: "I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease and will cast down the pride of tyrants." The Geneva Bible at Job 6:23 stated: "And deliver me from the enemies' hand, or ransom me out of the hand of tyrants?" Again at Isaiah 49:25, it noted: "the prey of the tyrant shall be delivered." At Job 27:13, the Geneva Bible read: "This is the portion of a wicked man with God, and the heritage of tyrants, which they shall receive of the Almighty." Its rendering at the beginning of Job 3:17 stated: "The wicked have there ceased from their tyranny." The Geneva Bible also has the word "tyrant" or "tyrants" in other verses such as Job 15:20 and Psalm 54:3. The 1535 Coverdale's Bible and the 1540 edition of the Great Bible also used these same renderings in several verses. The Bishops’ Bible has “tyrants“ at Job 6:23, Job 15:20, Job 27:13, and Psalm 54:3 and “tyrant” at Isaiah 13:11 and 16:4. At 1 Timothy 1:13, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, and Great Bibles all had the word "tyrant." At James 2:6, Whittingham’s, the Geneva, and Bishops’ Bibles had “oppress you by tyranny” while the Great Bible has “execute tyranny upon you.”

    Concerning Genesis 10:8-9, Ovid Need wrote: “Both the text wording and the notes of the Geneva speak harshly against oppressors and tyrants, such as we have today. As I have used the Geneva and compared it with the KJV, I understand why King James wanted to rid Christians of the Geneva” (Biblical Examiner, January, 2007, p. 2). Ovid Need added: “An example is found in Matthew 2:6, KJV says a governor, where the Geneva says, the governor. The strong wording that demands that only one Sovereign, Jehovah God in the form of Jesus Christ was removed from the KJV” (Ibid.).

    Is it possible that King James I did not want believers to read how strongly God's Word condemns tyranny and tyrants? Did King James think that some might regard some of his actions as being those of a tyrant? Why did the KJV translators remove the words "tyrant,” “tyrants,” and “tyranny” from the text of the English Bible? According to the first rule given the translators, what “truth of the original” demanded this change? Is it possible that the KJV translators agreed with the view of civil government held by King James? Did the translators avoid using the word "tyrant" to keep from offending King James or were they perhaps instructed to remove it? What was wrong with the use of the word “tyrant” in the English Bible?

    3. Since King James I made Archbishop Richard Bancroft overseer of the translation, it could be said that he was at least indirectly responsible for the 14 changes that Archbishop Bancroft is said to have introduced into the text of the 1611. The majority of the KJV translators had not put this 14 renderings in the text. At least a couple of the KJV translators later made known their opposition to the 14 changes that Bancroft made.
     
  7. EdSutton

    EdSutton
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2006
    Messages:
    8,755
    Likes Received:
    0
    "The title should have been "WHAT was the relationship of King James I to the KJV?"

    The answer is that there was no relationship between the two - one was a human being; the other is a version of the Bible."

    Signed, Language Cop
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    "Language Cop is obviously disappointed that Louisville lost in the NCAA tournament to North Carolina!"

    Signed,

    Ed
     
    #7 EdSutton, Mar 29, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 29, 2008
  8. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    It was called the Authorized Version because it was appointed, or authorized, to be read in churches. As for the version being named after the King, until recently, that was only done in America. Here, it was, and still is, known as "the Authorized Version", or "AV". The International Bible Encyclopedia says:
    When the first edition came out in 1611 it carried in its title the phrase, "Appointed to be read in churches." This, along with official sponsorship and the known backing of the king, probably helped to give the new bible in England the common name of Authorized Version, although in fact neither the king, parliament nor convocation ever granted formal authorization. In America the title King James Version obviously derives from the important contribution the sovereign made to the venture, which is acknowledged in excessively flattering terms in the dedicatory epistle.

    That epistle begins:
    TO THE MOST HIGH AND MIGHTY PRINCE

    JAMES

    BY GRACE OF GOD
    KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE AND IRELAND
    DEFENDER OF THE FAITH, ETC.
    THE TRANSLATORS OF THE BIBLE WISH
    GRACE, MERCY, AND PEACE
    THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD


    GREAT and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty's Royal Person to rule and reign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished not well unto our Sion, that upon the setting of that bright Occidental Star Queen Elizabeth of most happy memory, some thick and palpable clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this Land, that men should have been in doubt which way they were to walk; and that it should hardly be known, who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance of Your Majesty, as of the Sun in his strength, instantly dispelled those supposed and surmised mists, and gave unto all that were well affected exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government established in Your Highness, and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted Title, and this also accompanied with peace and tranquillity at home and abroad.

    The whole epistle can be found at: http://homepages.which.net/~gk.sherman/baaaaaag.htm
     
  9. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    Good point David, excellent in fact. I wonder why American (me included, I suppose) gave it a name the British people never did?
     
  10. 4His_glory

    4His_glory
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    0
    I would be interested in reading the history of that as well. When did it start being printed as the KJV instead of the AV?

    Since now there is an unofficial BB language cop, I may need to start posting exclusively in Spanish, but then nobody would read what I say (as if it is important any how). :smilewinkgrin:
     
  11. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    The words "By His Majestie's Special Command" appeared in the AV1611's title page.
     
  12. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    While some of the colonies may have had a state church, after 1776 and the American Revolution, there was no state church for the whole nation.
    Therefore, perhaps one reason might be because the United States did not have a state church [the Church of England] that could authorize a translation for all churches.
     
  13. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    I have not read when the first edition of the KJV was entitled or named the KJV. The pre-1611 English Bibles and the 1611 KJV were usually entitled "The Holy Bible." The editions of the KJV that I have that were printed in the 1700's and 1800's still have only that title "the Holy Bible," and they do not have neither of the other names: King James Version or Authorized Version. Other translations and revisions of the KJV printed in the 1800's also had the title or name "the Holy Bible" such as the 1833 revision of the KJV by Noah Webster, the 1842 revision of the KJV by Baptists and others, etc.

    It might be that the names KJV or AV were not printed on editions of the KJV until the 1900's.

    Editions of the KJV printed at Oxford and Cambridge in Great Britain today have the title King James Version on them. Is that only on the editions that they ship to America?
     
  14. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    I imagine it was when it started to be printed in the U.S. It has continued to be printed as "Authorized Version" here, though I have noticed that recently, the wording "Authorised (King James) Version" has begun to appear, I assume for the American market, or because "KJV" has become increasingly widespread.
     
  15. Rubato 1

    Rubato 1
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    1,167
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trust me, Mr. Lamb, that it was not worded 'Authorised Version'. 'Authorized Version' would be nearer the truth. :laugh:

    Jist pokin' fun atchya :thumbs:One of these daze we'll get you Brits to spel things write.
     
  16. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

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

    The whole title page reads:
    The Holy Bible,
    Conteyning The Old Testament and the New:
    Newly Translated out of
    The Originall Tongues: and with
    the former Translations diligently
    compared and revised, by His
    Majesties Speciall Commandment.
    Appointed to be read in churches.
    ¶ IMPRINTED at London
    by Robert Barker, Printer to the
    Kings Most Excellent Majestie.
    ANNO DOM. 1611


     
  17. NaasPreacher (C4K)

    NaasPreacher (C4K)
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    26,806
    Likes Received:
    78
    They have been spelling it the same way for years - it is we yanks who messed it up.
     
  18. David Lamb

    David Lamb
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2006
    Messages:
    2,982
    Likes Received:
    0
    That is what comes of me copying and pasting! We Brits are very liberal in this matter of ise and ize. In a standard British dictionary - e.g. the Concise Oxford - you will often find that both options are possible in British English - 'realise' or 'realize', 'authorise' or 'authorize' - whilst for other entries -ize is listed as unmistakably American, e.g. 'analyse' = British English, 'analyze' = American English.

    While we are slinging these (very friendly) insults at each other, can I ask when you Americans are going to (or as you would say, "gonna") speak properly, and call the scientist's workplace a "lab or a tor y" rather than "labatory", which sounds like "lavatory" a posh word for a toilet!

    I had better add a few icons, because no one can see my face, and they may just think I'm being serious here. :thumbs: :laugh:
     
  19. Logos1560

    Logos1560
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2004
    Messages:
    3,127
    Likes Received:
    2
    It was not when it was first printed in the U. S. in 1782, but it may have been first entitled KJV in the U.S. later perhaps in the 1900's.

    The first KJV edition in the U. S. was entitled:

    The Holy Bible containing the Old and New Testaments:
    Newly translated out of the original tongues; and with the former translations diligently compared and revised.

    Philadelphia: Printed and sold by R. Aitken, at Pope's Head, Three Doors above the Coffee House, in Market Street

    MDCCLXXXII [1782]
     
  20. readmore

    readmore
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2007
    Messages:
    250
    Likes Received:
    0
    Seems like you might need to get those British ears checked. I've never heard it pronounced "labatory", we would say it "lab-ra-tory", which sounds better then the snooty "la-BOR-a-tory". You just need to start referring to the lavatory as a restroom and all will be solved!

    Now if we could just learn to pronounce nuclear as "nu-clear" rather than "nu-cu-ler"...
     

Share This Page

Loading...