Featured These Men Are Responsible For Our Modern Versions

How many of the average translators owed their livelihoods, as college masters, deans, prebendaries, & etc., to bishops such as Andrewes?

 

Whoa, I just noticed this. Comes from reading too quickly I reckon. Erasmus compiled. He didn't edit.

 

I don't think the Kings commands would have been taken lightly Rob. Heads would have probably rolled.

 

Gustavus Paine stated that Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626), who headed the Westminster group, “became the real head” of all the translators, directly under Archbishop Bancroft (Men Behind the KJV, pp. 16, 70).

Donald Brake asserted that Andrewes “became the chairman of the translation committee and the most influential of the translators” (Visual History of the KJB, p. 91). Hamlin and Jones maintained that companies of translators was “all under the general supervision of Lancelot Andrewes” (KJB after 400 years, p. 7). Jon Sweeney suggested that Andrewes “was put in charge of the entire translation effort” (Verily, Verily, p. 85). Adam Nicolson noted that Andrewes “could be relied on to do Bancroft’s work for him” (God’s Secretaries, p. 86).
Paine asserted that Andrewes "chose many other translators" (Men, p. xiii), and that he was "among the highest of the high churchmen" (p. 143). Opfell also observed that "Andrewes suggested other scholars and assisted in the preliminary arrangements" (KJB Translators, p. 27). John Mincy affirmed that 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). Nicolson confirmed that “Andrewes plays a central role in the story of the King James Bible” (God’s Secretaries, p. 26). Hewison noted that "in 1616 Andrewes nearly became Archbishop of Canterbury" (Selected Wrings, p. x).

 

Erasmus did more than just compile. He edited and even made textual decisions and wrote in changes and corrections to the Greek manuscripts that he used. Erasmus even introduced some textual conjectures or emendations into his Greek text edition that are not found in any known Greek NT manuscripts [some of them Erasmus translated from the Latin Vulgate].

M. A, Screech wrote: “Historically speaking Erasmus’ work as a textual critic is fascinating; our own textual and linguistic approaches today descend from the example and writings of Erasmus” (Erasmus’ Annotations, p. xiii). Moises Silva claimed that Erasmus “the creator of what would be later known as the textus receptus was absolutely committed to the very principles that lie at the foundation of WH’s accomplishments” (Black, Rethinking NT Textual Criticism, p. 142). Jan Krans maintained that Erasmus “became a pioneer in New Testament textual criticism” (Beyond What is Written, p. 28). Halkin claimed that Erasmus “made himself the champion of textual criticism” (Erasmus, p. 276). Krans wrote: “In the preface of the Annotations, Erasmus describes the basic text-critical task as follows: ‘if I found something damaged by carelessness or ignorance of scribes or by the injuries of time, I restored the true reading, not haphazardly but after pursuing every available scent’” (Beyond What is Written, p. 31). Erasmus is translated as writing: "Here is another labor, to examine and correct the different MSS. . . and a great many of them, so as to detect which one has a better reading, or by collating a number of them to make a guess at the true and authentic version" (Rabil, Erasmus and the N. T., p. 69). Arthur Pennington cited Erasmus as writing the following in a letter: “By a collation of Greek and ancient manuscripts, I have corrected the text of the whole of the New Testament” (Desiderius Erasmus, p. 144). Jan Krans wrote: “Since Erasmus did not provide a formal list of text-critical rules, such a list has to be derived from his annotations, in which several descriptions of text-critical phenomena in general terms can be found” (Beyond What Is Written, p. 30). Jan Krans observed: “It has to be stressed that Erasmus did not apply his own ’rules’ in a consistent, methodical way. This cannot be expected, for he did not have a fixed canon of rules that could be used as a check-list to inspire and to guide text-critical reflections and decisions” (p. 51). Jason Harris maintained: “The readings in the TR were not based on consistent criteria” (Doctrine of Scripture, p. 113). Kevin Bauder asserted that “the TR was compiled by textual critics” (Bible Video Debate, p. 3).

 

How were the kings commands being broken, if the man in charge of the clerical spoils merely voiced his opinion, and the rank and file fell in line? The use of soft power doesn't leave a trail.

If it occured. Who knows, but there's no way that I could rule it out.

(Of course, God's Secretaries mentioned a studious fellow who completed his own portions, and then worked on another translator's work for pay. So perhaps the more politically active members had less time to influence the work.)

 

Nope, it was too public and too dangerous for a man to place or sneak teachings of the Roman Catholic church into the Bible that was intended to bring the truth and break the RCC's superstitions and dogma's. I don't care who he was...

Look, my love is in the textural streams, but I would agree with a certain author whole heartedly when he wrote the book; One Book Stands Alone. As has been stated however, I agree I can only work out my own salvation with fear and trembling and I can't answer for the convictions of another over their preferred versions. I don't have that right.

 

Can you provide documentation and proof that these fourteen examinations were actually followed?

If these fourteen examinations actually always happened, how do you explain how some errors in the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible remained uncorrected in the 1611 edition of the KJV?

Are you omitting that KJV translator Miles Smith and Bishop Thomas Bilson are said to have acted as final co-editors after the revision committee of twelve?

Are you ignoring the historical evidence from the 1600's that suggest that a prelate or prelates introduced at least 14 changes to the text of the KJV after the revision committee's work?

 

Editing in the terms used meant addition doesn't it? Editing to add newly found acquired scripts, yes. Editing to reform a premise or idea, nope. Don't think so. I'm not ready to claim that prize yet Mr. Cassidy. Not by a long shot.

 

The KJV-only view's two streams, lines, or trees of Bibles [one good and one corrupt] argument is inconsistent and unreliable.

The makers of the KJV borrowed or followed some renderings from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome and from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament, which are on the KJV-only view's corrupt stream of Bibles.

 

Were these "proofs" given before Westcott and Hort created their work? There's a reason for my question.

 

Oh no. Wait for it. I'm about to be labeled as a foaming at the mouth, KJV Only, Fundamentalist, Dispensationalist. Am I right?

 

I referred to historical evidence from the 1600's.

In his 1648 sermon, Thomas Hill (c1602-1653), a member of the Westminster Assembly, stated: “I have it from certain hands, such as lived in those times, that when the Bible had been translated by the translators appointed, the New Testament was looked over by some of the great Prelates, (men I could name some of their persons) to bring it to speak prelatical language, and they did alter fourteen places in the New Testament to make them speak the language of the Church of England” (Six Sermons, p. 24; see also Currie, Jus Populi Divinum, pp. 37-38, Eadie, English Bible, II, p. 272, and Bridges, Patronage in the Church of Scotland, p. 6). Thomas Smith noted that Thomas Hill was “much distinguished for his humility and purity of life,” and he described him as “an excellent and useful preacher of great learning and moderation” (Select Memoirs, p. 554). Samuel Clark observed that Hill “was sound in the faith, orthodox in his judgment” (Lives, p. 90).

Thomas Hill would have known KJV translator Laurence Chaderton (1536 or 7-1640), who was Master of Emmanuel, when Hill received his B. A. from Emmanuel. Hill could have had contact with other KJV translators in his years at Cambridge. For example, KJV translator Thomas Harrison (1555-1631) was vice-prefect of Trinity College at Cambridge the last twenty years of his life so that Hill could have met him or at least could have had possible access to his books and papers. KJV translator Samuel Ward was master of Sidney-Sussex College at Cambridge a number of years so that Hill could have met him. KJV translator John Richardson died at Cambridge and was buried in Trinity College chapel. The time before 1638 when two KJV translators were among those editing the KJV for the 1638 Cambridge edition would have been another opportunity for Thomas Hill to have had firsthand contact with translators. Furthermore, other men with close connections to the KJV translators and Richard Bancroft during the time of the making of the KJV could also have been at Cambridge. For example, Samuel Collins (1576-1651), who was chaplain to Archbishop Bancroft and later to Archbishop Abbot, became provost of King’s College in 1615 and regius professor of divinity at Cambridge in 1617. In addition, Thomas Hill may have had access to other primary sources at Cambridge, including the Lambeth Library with the papers of Archbishop Richard Bancroft. Therefore, it can be validly concluded that Thomas Hill could have had access to enough primary sources to know whether or not the information in his sermon was reliable and accurate. Along with Hill’s 1648 sermon, there are state papers from 1652-1653 that cite his sermon and that refer to the testimony of other preachers that confirm the information in it.

The Calender of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1652-1653 as edited by Mary Green noted: “Statement that Dr. Hill declared in his sermon, and has since published, that when the Bible had been translated by the translators appointed, the New Testament was looked over by some prelates he could name, to bring it to speak prelatical language, and that he was informed by a great observer, that in 14 places, whereof he instanced five or six, it was corrupted by them. The like testimony was given by some other ancient and godly preachers who lived in those times, and some appearance hereof may yet be seen in a part of that very copy of those translations” (p. 73). John Eadie pointed out that the report of these 14 changes became part of the preamble of a bill in Parliament around 1657 (English Bible, II, p. 272). Eadie cited that preamble as noting that “the like testimony of these prelates” making those changes was “given by some other ancient and godly preachers also, who lived in those times” (Ibid.). Eadie also reported the preamble affirmed that “some appearance hereof may yet be seen in part of that very copy of these translators” (Ibid.). That important evidence asserts that some who examined the copy of the text prepared by the KJV translators for the printers saw evidence of the changes made by a prelate or prelates in that copy before it was lost or destroyed [perhaps around 1660 in the London fire].

According to his 1648 sermon and according to 1652-1653 state papers, Thomas Hill indicated that it was “prelates” [plural] who were responsible for the changes. On the other hand, the later 1671 book about Baptist Henry Jessey seems to indicate that it was “a prelate” [singular], “the chief supervisor of the work.” It is not that important whether it was one prelate or more than one or even if it were the KJV translators themselves that was responsible for the renderings that are evidence of Episcopal bias. Unless they used some other source, likely the later books about the history of the English Bible identify the prelate as being Archbishop Bancroft because he is considered to have been the “chief overseer” over the translating. There was the 1727 book by Edmund Calamy which suggested that the “prelate” was “Bancroft.” On the other hand, perhaps the 1671 book about Jessey could possibly be understood to indicate that the prelate could be Bishop Thomas Bilson. Bilson would clearly be “the other” (Life, p. 50) person who went over the final edition with Miles Smith. Thomas Bilson was not named on the lists of those who were assigned to do the translating. While the known information about the translating indicates that there had been “supervisors” [plural], it may be that Bancroft had made Bishop Thomas Bilson a “chief supervisor.” If Bilson introduced changes [perhaps assumed to be according to instructions from Bancroft and at least with authority from Bancroft], it could explain why Hill would maintain that it was “prelates” [plural] that was responsible for them. Another possibility would be that Hill knew of some other prelates or bishops that had also been permitted to look over the manuscript and make changes. In 1767, John Brown asserted: “The bishops, who revised the work, were equally zealous for their own honor. They altered fourteen places of the New Testament version, to make it speak a more Episcopalian strain” (Letters of the Constitution, Government, and Discipline of the Christian Church, p. 41).

Another KJV translator is also said to have maintained that changes were made, which would support the claim that the 14 alterations were “against the minds of the translators.” In “a series of memoranda concerning the translators, set down about 1640,“ Charles Butterworth noted that the following was stated: "Dr. Bret [Richard Brett, a KJV translator] reported that the Bps [bishops] altered very many places that the translators had agreed upon" (Literary Lineage of the KJB, p. 213). Laurence Vance wrote: “A manuscript about the translators in the Lambeth Palace Library, apparently written about 1650, records that Richard Brett (1567-1637), a translator of the Oxford Old Testament company, reported that ‘the Bps. altered very many places that the translators had agreed upon: He had a note of the places’” (King James, His Bible, p. 52). Gail Riplinger also wrote: “The Bps. [Bishops] altered very many places that the translators agreed upon,” noted Dr. Brett of the Old Testament Oxford Committee” (Hidden History, p. 32). Opfell also confirmed that Brett "complained that the bishops had altered many places on which the members of the company had agreed" (KJB Translators, p. 62). Opfell maintained that “a man with whom [Miles] Smith often conferred was Richard Brett” (Ibid.). Brett and Smith had been part of the same Oxford group of O. T. translators. These statements said to be from Richard Brett seem to distinguish between those considered translators which included some bishops and those considered only bishops but not translators.

 

My goodness, you most certainly type fast Logos. Spent the better part of a decade looking for such and you present it to me in a matter of minutes.

 

Your post made me think of this book. It's been years since I read it, but I would recommend it to those who want an inside look at the translation work of the KJV. It explores "the handwritten annotations made by the Oxford New Testament Company as members completed Matthew Mark, Luke, and John."

The Coming of the King James Gospels: a Collation of the Translators' Work-in-Progress, edited by Ward S. Allen & Edward C. Jacobs

 

Neat. It's amazing how some of these notes sat in libraries for centuries.