Is Peter the sole possessor of keys on 1611 KJV Title page?

In the Galleries: Anatomy of the King James Bible title page

The link to the full-size title page has been moved. You can find it here:

http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/pressphotos/2012/kjb/pdf/KJB_Title_Page_Anatomy.pdf

 

Not surprising, considering the Church of England considers itself to be in Apostolic line just as the Eastern Orthodox Churches do. It just doesn't recognize the authority of the Bishop of Rome over it.

 

From the beginning the Anglican church was split by the Reformers and the Traditionalists. The former had the upper hand under the reign of Edward VI, but a compromise was imposed by Elizabeth — but the Traditionalists still had the upper hand. It was further strengthened under Stuart rule.

The Traditionalists inherited the panoply of medieval Roman Catholicism and adhered to many of those traditions. The Puritans — who opposed many Roman practices, such as wearing vestments, requiring wedding rings, certain times to bow during services and celebration of Christmas, to name a few — were in the minority except when Cromwell was in power.

It is interesting that Anglicanism was one of the few "reformed" movements to retain episcopacy. It is absent from Lutheranism and Calvinism. That is a result of its birth, which was at the insistence of a king who considered himself head of the church.

Bancroft supervised the translation of the KJV, and it is entirely in character that traditional themes would appear. However, it is not certain how much influence he had on the frontispiece because he died before publication. The frontispiece may reflect his influence or it may be a result of engravers steeped in traditional themes carried over from the past.

There is no doubt Bancroft was the prime enemy (except perhaps for James I) of the Puritans, who returned his scorn. Among the epitaphs offered by his enemies:

"Here Lyes Dick of Canterburie, suspected a Papist
who liv’d a Machiavillan and dyde an Atheist."

"Heer lye’s my Lord’s Grace at six & at seaven
And if I doe not lye his soule is in heaven
I wish with my heart it may bee to his Leeking
Since all the World know’s it Was never his seeking"

"Bancroft Was for Playes
Lean Lent and holy-dayes
But now under-goe’s their Doome:
Had English Ladies store
Yet kept open a Back dore
To let in the Strumpet of Rome."

For the record, I do not think Bancroft was a Roman Catholic, since he persecuted them with rigor, although he may have shared a good bit of their theology. He was the king's man, and he would uphold the supremacy of the king over the church. Had James wanted to rejoin Rome, I'm not sure he would disagree. He made possible Laud, who pushed the Anglicans even closer to Rome before the English Civil War.The Anglicans never shook the affinity to Rome, which became clear when the Oxford Movement peeled off many clergy (like Henry Newman) in the 19th century. (I might add that, to the horror of the KJV-only folks, that it was clergy like B.F. Wescott who, though wrong on many things, upheld orthodox Protestantism within the Anglican church in the 19th century.)

 

All that aside, it's a really impressive of the engraver's art. No skimping there.

Of course, a Bible of such workmanship and size was prohibitively expensive, another reason the Geneva held on for so long.

 

I assume that all the symbols would have been easily understood by educated readers of the day.

As to the KJV title page, I'm sure all the symbolism would have been understood by educated clergy and was a recycling of religious imagery that had been used for hundreds of years.

 

Would that be Taverner's or the Great Bible?

BTW: The pelican, according to lore, gave its own blood to its young, thereby typifying the work of Christ in his church. While Catholics understand it as Transubstantiation, it is totally flexible toward any number of non-Catholic interpretations. Sometimes a pelican is just a pelican.