Two contrary ideas.
Ecclesiastes 8:4 Where the word of a king is, there is power…
An odd argument between some KJV defenders and some KJV detractors – either the King James Bible was or was not authorized by the King of England. Who knew this was important?
On the “pro” side, there are some KJV defenders who incorporate “authorized by a king” as part of their proof that the King James translation is the one true (authorized) Bible.
I am not sure when or where this argument originated, but Peter Ruckman used it in 1983 in Why I Believe The King James Bible Is The Word Of God. He writes:
“I believe the King James Bible is the word of God because it has no copyright on it. It may have the Crown Copyright, but you don’t have to ask the Crown for the right to print it. In Ecclesiastes 8:4 it says, ‘Where the word of a king is, there is power.’ If it had a Crown copyright, it was copyrighted under a king. If it was copyrighted under a king, it has the right copyright.”
The KJV Bible Truth web site states it this way:
“Another proof is that the King James Bible is the only Bible authorized by a king. The Bible says, Where the word of a king is, there is power. The king’s heart is in the Lord’s hand.”
Perhaps annoyed by such assertions, some KJV detractors strike back. The translation of 1611 was never authorized by James I King of England, say they. Hear Larry Wilson:
“For what it’s worth, the so-called ‘authorized’ version (KJV) was not authorized by King James or his government. King James gave translators permission to proceed with an English translation of the Bible, but he did not put ‘stamp of approval’ on their work.”
I do not know anything about Larry Wilson. However, it is not just little-known web contributors who assert this. Ryan Reeves, former professor at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, holding a Ph.D. from Cambridge University, writes at the popular Gospel Coalition web site that “The Bible Was Authorized by the King” is a myth.
“The Bible Was Authorized by the King
“This myth was created due largely to the title used today for the KJV. The King James Bible (in America) or the Authorized Bible (in Britain). Either name is not bad, but it often convinces people that the Bible was somehow the product of the king’s command.
“In fact, the king never formally authorized or endorsed the Bible directly. The last Bible in English to receive royal sanction was the Great Bible during the reign of Henry VIII.”
In King James, His Bible, and Its Translators (p. 233), Laurence M. Vance pointed out that such an assertion is at least as early as Brooke Foss Westcott in A General View of the History of the English Bible.
“…no evidence has yet been produced to shew, that the version was ever publicly sanctioned by Convocation or by Parliament, or by the Privy Council, or by the king.”[i]
Two strikes and two outs.
The first assertion is poor biblical interpretation.[ii] The second assertion is poor historical interpretation.
If the latter is a poor historical interpretation, what evidence is there that King James authorized the translation first published in 1611, which we know as the Authorized Version or King James Bible? I submit the following.
1. The authorization by King James I at the Hampton Court Conference.
“Whereupon his Highnesse wished, that some special paines should be taken in that behalf for one uniform translation (professing that he could never, yet, see a Bible well translated in English, but the worst of all his Majesty thought the Geneva to be) and this to be done by the best learned in both the Universities, after them to be reviewed by the Bishops, and the chief learned of the Church; from them to be presented to the Privy Councel; and lastly, to be ratified by his Royal Authority. And so this whole Church to be bound unto it, and none other.”
In The Summe and Substance of the Conference…at Hampton Court, Jan. 14. 1603 (Clerkenwell, UK: Bye and Law, Printers, 1804, p. 35), William Barlow reported that Puritan John Rainolds (Reinolds/Reynolds) asked that the new translation of the Bible be made. James seized on the idea and set forth a plan to accomplish it. In 1603 English rule was under a monarchy. The King’s wish was a command, not a mere suggestion that it might be nice if they were to do what he said.
2. The title of this Bible.
“The Holy Bible: Conteyning the Old Testament and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and revised, by his Maiesties speciall Commandment. Appointed to be read in the Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Maiestie. Anno Dom. 1611.”
The title page of the Bible reflects that this translation was produced “by his Maiesties speciall Commandment,” as well as being one “Appointed to be read in the Churches.” “His Majesty’s special commandment” likely refers directly to the King’s decree or command at the Hampton Court Conference. And surely the King’s Printer would not have dared adding “Appointed to be read in the Churches” upon his own authority.
“To the Most High and Mightie Prince Iames…There are infinite arguments of this right Christian and Religious affection in your MAIESTIE; but none is more forcible to declare it to others than the vehement and perpetuated desire of accomplishing and publishing of this Worke, which now with all humilitie we present unto your MAIESTIE. For when your Highnesse had once out of deepe judgment apprehended how convenient it was, That out of the Originall sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our owne, and other foreigne Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue; our MAIESTIE did never desist, to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the worke might be hastened, and that the businesse might be expedited in so decent a maner, as a matter of such importance might justly require.”
The dedication of the work to King James (probably written by Thomas Bilson) indicates that the translators set about the work of creating a new and more exact translation according to the king’s desire, judgment, and urging.
4. The Translators to the Reader preface.
“Therefore let no mans eye be evill, because his Maiesties is good...And what can the King command to bee done, that will bring him more true honour then this? and wherein could they that have beene set a worke, approve their duetie to the King, yea their obedience to God, and love to his Saints more, then by yeelding their service, and all that is within them, for the furnishing of the worke?
“…hereupon did his Maiestie beginne to bethinke himselfe of the good that might ensue by a new translation, and presently after gave order for this Translation which is now presented unto thee.”
The preface to the new translation (probably written by Miles Smith) recognizes that the work originated from the king’s “command” and the king’s “order.”
5. The Royal Coat of Arms page.
Between “The names and order of all the Bookes of the Olde and New Testaments” and “The Genealogies of Holy Scripture,” a page reproduces the the Royal Coat of Arms over the words “Cum Priuilegio Regiae Maiestatis.”[iii] The Latin “Cum Priuilegio” means “With Privilege” and is used especially in a book to indicate that its issue is duly licensed or authorized. The full “Cum Priuilegio Regiae Maiestatis” reveals by whom it is authorized – “With the Privilege of His Royal Majesty.”[iv]
6. The Report to the Synod of Dort.
“Theologi Magnae Britanniae, quibus non est visum tantae quaestioni subitam et inopinatam responsionem adhibere, officii sui esse judicarunt, praematura deliberatione habita, quando quidem facta esset honorifica accuratissimae translationis Anglicanae mentio, à Serenissimo Rege Iacobo, magna cum cura, magnisque sumptibus nuper editae, notum facere huic celeberrimae Synodo, quo consilio, quaque ratione sacrum hoc negotium a Serenissima ejus Majestate praestitum fuerit.”
“The theologians of Great Britain, unwilling to make a sudden and hasty answer to so great a question, judged it their duty to hold a consultation, since there had been an honorable mention of the most accurate English translation, lately published by the Most Serene King James, with great care and at great expense, to make known to this most illustrious Synod, by what counsel and means, by which his Most Serene Majesty bestowed this sacred business.”
At the seventh session of the Synod of Dort, on November 20, 1618 a report on the new Bible of 1611 (now commonly known as the Authorised or King James Version) Samuel Ward, a King James translator in the Second Cambridge Company, gave the Synod a report about that translation. The report was written in Latin. It is reproduced above, which an attempted English translation. Ward credits authority of King James behind producing the translation.
Concluding thoughts.
The preponderance of evidence is clearly on the side of the 1611 translation being authorized by King James I of England. It bore his authority from beginning to end – from his authorization at the Hampton Court Conference to his stamp of approval on the printed product. Those requiring undiscovered official government documents or documents that were destroyed by a fire in 1619 likely have a polemic agenda well beyond an interest in the history of the authorization of the “King James’s” Bible.
I use the book inspired and authorized by the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. That he used the King of England in the process of giving it to me in English is just fine by me! Who may say unto the King of kings and Lord of lords, What doest thou?
[ii] In addition to the exegetical problem, this view of proving the King James Bible has an historical problem as well. King Henry VIII authorized The Great Bible in 1539, making it an English Bible authorized by a king – and the first one to be authorized, at that.
[iii] It is possible some printings do not reproduce this page, or some online reproductions did not bother to scan it. The facsimile of the 1st Edition, 1st Printing produced by The Bible Museum has it.
[iv] “Cum Priuilegio” also appears at the bottom of the New Testament title page. “Cum Priuilegio Regiae Maiestatis” is Latin. The coat of arms itself has two statements in French – Honi Soit Qvi Mal Y Pense (Shame be on him who thinks evil of it) and Diev Et Mon Droit (God and my right). It is well to note, however, that “Cum Priuilegio Regiae Maiestatis” also appeared in the Bishops Bible, as well as at least some editions of the Geneva Bible printed by Barker. Therefore, this is not exclusive to the King James Bible. In FTGF Lesson 192 | The AV 1611: Assessing The Preliminary Material, Part 3, Bryan Ross discusses the coat of arms related to the introductory material in the 1611 Bible. His thoughts on the coat of arms starts at around 40:40 minutes.
No comments:
Post a Comment