HISTORY and ORIGINS

The 1978 Preface.

In 1978, the National Publishing Company of Philadelphia distributed the King James Version of the Bible with the following historical notes preceding the text, which I share only in part:

“During the reign of Mary [aka “Bloody Mary” of Scotland] and the restoration of Catholicism, many Protestant leaders sought safety abroad. Among the company that gathered about Calvin at Geneva [Switzerland] were Myles Coverdale, John Knox, and William Whittingham. The latter, a brother-in-law of Calvin, and with probable assistance from Coverdale and others, made a new translation. The New Testament appeared in 1557, and the entire text in 1560. It became known as the Genevan Bible, and was the peoples’ Bible for nearly a century…

...

“When James I succeeded to the throne in 1603, he immediately found himself heir to the religious and political turmoil of the previous hundred years. He had been thoroughly schooled in theology, and in the hope of bringing some semblance of order out of the existing chaos he called a meeting of churchmen at Hampton Palace early in 1605.

“Old rivalries still existed and the Bible was still a basis of strife and differences. In considering this subject, Dr. John Reynolds, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, brought forward the suggestion of a new translation. The king, who had literary ambitions and was something of a language scholar, gave the undertaking his wholehearted endorsement and support.

“So greatly beloved today, it seems strange to believe that the King James text took a long time to win its way into the favor of the people. The Genevan Bible continued to be published until 1644, and it was undoubtedly copies of this earlier version which came to America with the earliest colonists.

...

“Apart from its religious significance, the King James text has come to be recognized as among the finest specimens of English literature. From a religious standpoint it is still, after more than 300 years, THE Bible in English.”

That was 1978. The last fact is not true today, the rest of the preface is good history. And you will note that the history given is not stated with animosity or religious bigotry. These are the facts of the case. The KJV was the successor of other great Bibles and is itself a great Bible.

But I wish to state unequivocally that neither the translators, nor I believe, God Himself, intended for the KJV to be the last and only translation for all time and for all peoples. Those who make this claim have become promoters of a deadly cult.

Let’s back up a little and ask some questions along the way.

Definitions.“

“The King James Version (KJV)… is an English translation of the Christian Bible for the Church of England…”

So says Wikipedia.

I’m wondering. Would any of our KJVO people have felt comfortable in the Church of England? Do they understand that the church of England was very Catholic-like, the main difference being the human headship of the church? That church saw the King of England as the head of the church. Rome saw the Pope in that position.

Various purifications of the English Church were to come, but the basic structure of its meetings and government were such as to make any modern fundamentalist quite uneasy.

It will be seen that some of the translation of the KJV was pointed in the direction of that English denomination of Christians, and not to the church at large. It was the church/government of England that demanded the translation, and certain guidelines were set in place. Certain interpretations were expected.

Take for example the word “baptize.” Where did that word come from, what does it mean? The Greek is baptidzo. It means to overwhelm, to immerse. In the Biblical context, it would mean an immersion in water or the Spirit. But the context of 17^th century England demanded a sprinkling of water for new converts or even children. What is an honest translator to do?

What they did was coin a word, which to this day can mean anything one wants it to mean. But mark it down. The KJV translation, and all others that have followed, have yielded to compromise in this matter. We continue with Wikipedia…

“…commissioned in 1604 and completed as well as published in 1611 under the sponsorship of James VI [of Scotland, aka James I of England.]

The Apocrypha.

“The books of the King James Version include the 39 books of the Old Testament, an intertestamental section containing 14 books of the Apocrypha, and the 27 books of the New Testament.”

Whoa! Stop the quote. Serious explanation needed!

What?! The apocrypha in the KJV? Oh yes, as stated above, the church of England was still very Catholic. Some of the weekly readings for church services demanded use of apocryphal books.

But surely, you say, this was corrected in the 1769 version which is used today, and which, when pressed, is the KJVO of choice?

Yes, and no. Originally the 1769 version carried these books of doubtful origin also!

There had been a long-standing controversy about these 14 books, but the fact that most church fathers and reformers considered them helpful, though not inspired, kept them in until the late 19^th century!

Finally, in 1880, the American Bible Society voted that they be removed. Five years later they were also removed officially from English printings by an act of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Nearly three centuries had passed. Those years saw a KJV that had 14 uninspired books in it! Now, here in 2020, we are asked to believe that the world’s only perfect English Bible has been around to lead people to perfect truth for less than a century and a half of the church’s history.

We continue.

Authorized?

“Noted for its ‘majesty of style’, the King James Version has been described as one of the most important books in English culture and a driving force in the shaping of the English-speaking world.^”

No argument there!

“In January 1604, King James convened the Hampton Court Conference, where a new English version was conceived in response to the problems of the earlier translations perceived by the Puritans…

“James gave the translators instructions intended to ensure that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology — and reflect the episcopal structure — of the Church of England and its belief in an ordained clergy”

See what I mean? Bible translators being instructed to “conform” to the government’s wishes.

James sounds a lot like Emperor Constantine, who took the reins of the church after three hundred long years of persecution. Grateful Christians looked to their deliverer as God’s man of the hour and listened to his pronouncements without question.

Is it heretical for me to suggest that an earthly monarch, however gracious and loved by his people, is not God’s chosen instrument to lead God’s Church? Yet the church has yielded to this influence more than once, and paid the price.

Constantine did indeed free God’s people from the dungeons. But it wasn’t many years before favored Christians were persecuting pagans, who then decided it would be safer to join the church than practice their paganism outside of it. They brought their paganism with them, and we have suffered for it ever since.

We will speak more of James later.

“By the first half of the 18th century, the Authorized Version had become effectively unchallenged as the English translation used in Anglican and English Protestant churches, … Over the course of the 18th century, the Authorized Version [as it came to be known for governmental, not spiritual, reasons] supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of Scripture for English-speaking scholars… this version of the Bible became the most widely printed book in history…...

The title page carries the words "Appointed to be read in Churches",^[11] and F. F. Bruce suggests it was "probably authorised by order in council."

This is why we call it the “authorized” Bible. Not authorized by the church or the Lord, but by the government in England, where the mingling of church and state prevailed.

“The use of Authorized Version, capitalized and used as a name, is found as early as 1814.^[21] For some time before this, descriptive phrases such as "our present, and only publicly authorised version" (1783),^[22] "our Authorized version" (1792),^[23] and "the authorized version" (1801, uncapitalized)^[24] are found…The term is somewhat of a misnomer because the text itself was never formally "authorized", nor were English parish churches ever ordered to procure copies of it.”

So why a new translation in those early centuries of English Christianity?