Why was relation of King James I to KJV?

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. 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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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]