King James "Translators "

Welcome back!

Thanks for the information about the translators. I haven't done much research on them. Now I'm wondering how much is out there.

 

The Geneva Bible actually was not the main version translators of the KJV consulted, except possibly to avoid the readings found in the Geneva Bible. The KJV translators stuck very closely to their goal of revising the Bishops' Bible without following the readings found in the Geneva Bible. Here are some examples...

In John 1:1-5 translators followed neither the reading of the Geneva nor the Bishops'. The KJV translators sustituted "he" for "it" found in both the Bishops' and the Geneva.

Bishops': In the begynnyng was the worde, & the worde was with God: and that worde was God. The same was in the begynnyng with God. All thynges were made by it: and without it, was made nothyng that was made. In it was lyfe, and the lyfe was the lyght of men, And the lyght shyneth in darkenesse: and the darknesse comprehended it not.

Geneva: In the beginning was that Word, and that Word was with God, and that Word was God. This same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by it, and without it was made nothing that was made. In it was life, and that life was the light of men. And that light shineth in the darkenesse, and the darkenesse comprehended it not.

1611 KJV: In the beginning was the Word, & the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darknesse, and the darknesse comprehended it not.

Another example where the KJV translators followed the reading of the Bishops' Bible more closely is found in John 3:16 where KJV translators chose "gave" over "hath given."

Bishops': For God so loued the worlde, that he gaue his only begotten sonne, that whosoeuer beleueth in hym, shoulde not perishe, but haue euerlastyng lyfe.

Geneva: For God so loued the worlde, that hee hath giuen his onely begotten Sonne, that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

1611 KJV: For God so loued ye world, that he gaue his only begotten Sonne: that whosoeuer beleeueth in him, should not perish, but haue euerlasting life.

In Acts 12:4 KJV translators again followed the reading of the Bishops' Bible rather than the better reading found in the Geneva Bible, using "Easter" rather than "Passover." (As an aside, this is the only verse in the KJV where the translators didn't use the preferable "Passover" rather than "Easter.")

Bishops': And when he had caught hym, he put hym in pryson also, and delyuered hym to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intendyng after Easter to bryng hym foorth to the people.

Geneva: And when he had caught him, he put him in prison, and deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intending after the Passeouer to bring him foorth to the people.

1611 KJV: And when hee had apprehended him, hee put him in prison, and deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to keepe him, intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people.

Actually, there are many, many more places where the KJV translators more closely followed the readings of the Bishops' Bible than that of the Geneva Bible. It is likely true that they consulted both the Geneva and the Bishops', but claiming that the Geneva was the main translation they used is apparently quite unfounded.

 

Seems the AV men used an ECLECTIC MIX, same as modern translators do, with existing translations diligently considered in that mix.

 

WHAT??? The Textus Receptus wasn't a single manuscript??? (Ouch, gotta get my tongue out mf my cheek!)

 

Yep,
"Textus Receptus" is plural. Also, KJV is plural, I know I have three
different copies of the KJVs in my house.

In the King James Version (KJV) of 1611 you have to look in
the New Testament at the FIRST PAGE of Matthew to find
a margin note explainging that the KJV Translators had multiple
versions of the Textus Receptus.

Matthew 1:11 (KJV1611 Edition):
And ||Iosias begate Iechonias and his brethren,
about the time they were caried away to Babylon.

Margin note:
|| Some read, Iosias begate Iakim, and Iakim begate Iechonias

So the translators of the KJV had a Textus Receptus that
read:And Iosias begate begate Iakim, and Iakim begate
Iechonias and his brethren,
about the time they were caried away to Babylon.

 

How many percentage of Tyndale's translation was used in KJV is depending on how to classify the words, vocabularies, and sentences, and I notice someone saying 70%, 75%, 85%, and 94% as Rippon says.

In detail, we need to know what and how they are, and my understanding is that the following words were invented by W Tyndale and were used by KJV as well:

Brokenhearted, Passover, Scapegoat, Firstfruits, Firstborn, Days of Unleavened Bread, Burntoffering, Let there be light, Tabernacle, .....

Obviously William Tyndale was a great man of God, in Jesus Christ, which KJV translators recognized.

 

While a few may use the 90% from Tyndale in referring to the whole Bible, it is usually used only for the New Testament. Since Tyndale was killed before he was able to translate a good portion of the Old Testament (Ezra to Malachi), the 90% could not accurately apply to the while Bible. The 90% figure is still high for just the New Testament.

Even if the accurate percentage was more like 60 to 70% coming from Tyndale's, it is still a large percentage and confirms Rippon's point that the KJV translators are sometimes given too much credit.

In his introduction to his modern-spelling edition of Tyndale's 1526 N. T., KJV-only author John W. Sawyer referred to Tyndale as "the primary translator of the KJV" (p. 6). William Bradley, another KJV-only author, identified Tyndale as "the principal translator" of the KJB (PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES, p. 51).

Surely KJV-only advocates would say that the primary or principal translator of the KJV was guided by the Holy Spirit. Would KJV-only advocates claim that the Holy Spirit's guiding or illuminating of William Tyndale was good only 70% of the time?

 

Though Tyndayle died in the midst of translating OT after he finished NT, he had a good understanding on the proper wordings for OT already and some have have been known then.
The fact that KJV translators adopted most of them is a credit for KJV. If there were NIV translators then, they wouldn't have adopted them, but may have sided on Roman Catholic condemning Tyndale's.
But if the claim is that KJV was inspired to have its own wordings by Holy
Spirit, it might have forgotten such historical fact.

 

There are at least four books about the Church of England translators of the KJV, and there are a number of others with some information about them [for example, some of the histories of the English Bible]. In addition, individual articles can be found about many of the KJV translators in the standard reference work entitled DICTIONARY OF NATIONAL BIOGRAPHY.

McClure, Alexander. KJV TRANSLATORS REVIVED.
Nicolson, Adam. GOD'S SECRETARIES: THE MAKING OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE. New York: HarperCollins, Publishers, 2003.
Opfell, Olga. THE KING JAMES BIBLE TRANSLATORS. Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1982.
Paine, Gustavus. THE MEN BEHIND THE KJV. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1959.

 

Thanks Logos!

I found two of those at CBD and some more that were interesting enough to order. Not all exactly on this topic, but . . . :tongue3:

One Bible Only?
by Roy Beacham

God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible
by Adam Nicolson

In The Beginning
by Alister McGrath

A User's Guide to Bible Translations: Making the Most of Different Versions
by David Dewey

Origin of the Bible (Revised Edition)
by F.F. Bruce

The Canon of Scripture
by F.F. Bruce

The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?
by F.F. Bruce

The Formation of the Christian Biblical Canon
by Lee Martin McDonald

King James, His Bible, and its Translators
by Laurence M. Vance

Facts on the King James Only Debate
by John Ankerberg, John Weldon

The King James Version In History
by Kenneth L. Bradstreet

 

It depends somewhat on how you look at it. The first rule given the KJV translators stated: "The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit."

This rule suggests that the text of the Bishops' Bible was the starting point for the KJV translators. There are many renderings in the 1611 KJV that came from the Bishops' Bible. Of course, since the Bishops' Bible was a revision of the Great Bible, and the Great Bible was a revision of the 1537 Matthew's Bible which was based mostly on Tyndale's, many renderings in the Bishops' Bible were first used in an earlier translation. That fact does not mean and prove that the Bishops' Bible was not the actual source that the KJV translators from which the KJV translators took the renderings. The Bishops' Bible and also the Geneva Bible were very likely the two main sources from which the KJV obtained many of its renderings that were actually first found in Tyndale's.

According to two scholars [Ward Allen and Edward Jacobs] who examined the pre-1611 Bibles, the KJV translators "in revising the text of the synoptic Gospels in the Bishops' Bible, owe about one-fourth of their revisions, each, to the Genevan and Rheims New Testaments" (COMING OF THE KING JAMES GOSPELS, p. 29).

 

I totally agree, based upon what I have read on this subject.

 

Yes, Keith, the Geneva Bible probably wasn't the main version the AV revisionists consulted.

However, it is the Geneva Bible that is quoted exclusively several times in the AV's preface "...To the Reader".

 

I just finished Wide As The Waters: The Story of the English Bible and the Revolution It Inspired by Benson Bobrick recently.

It is aprroximately one-third about the AV revisionists and King James; one-third about Wycliffe and Tyndale; and one-third other translators (Coverdale, Rogers, etc) and the English socio-political influences. I highly recommend it!