Some praise for old Bancroft

Romans 13:7 Render therefore to all their dues...honour to whom honour.

At the time the King James translation was made, Richard Bancroft (1544-1610) was Bishop of London and then in 1604 made the Archbishop of Canterbury. Bancroft was the supervisor and overseer of the translation project. He died before the finished product was published. Much of what I hear and read about Bancroft is negative (and some deservedly so). For that reason, I was pleasantly surprised when I came across a short piece about Bancroft by Paul V. M. Flesher, a professor in University of Wyoming’s Department of Religious Studies. Writing about the discovery in 2016 of the remains of Bancroft in a crypt beneath the St. Mary-at-Lambeth Church, Flesher included this tribute to his connection with the translation authorized by King James I.

“Bancroft was perhaps the most important figure in the creation of the King James Bible…

“James convened the Hampton Court Conference in January 1604 to address their concerns. It was not a success for the Puritans. Bancroft, who was then bishop of London, was widely known as a fierce opponent of the Puritans. He helped persuade the king to reject the Puritan calls for church reform.

“But, James shared one desire with the Puritans, which he granted. That was their request for a new, ‘authorized’ translation of the Bible. Even as he acceded to their request, he added a twist: James put the anti-Puritan Bancroft in charge of the project…

“Archbishop Bancroft pioneered a new approach to Bible translation, one which helped the translation overcome the political and religious conflict in which the project was conceived.

“Earlier translations had essentially been done by individuals, without consultation or review. Bancroft brought together 47 experts in biblical studies from Oxford, Cambridge and London. Here, he was surprisingly even-handed, bringing in the best scholars whether they were establishment or Puritan…

“And, by all accounts, the King James Bible succeeded. Within 50 years, its ‘majesty of style’ made it the widest circulating English Bible. It traveled to the American colonies, where it was frequently reprinted. For more than 300 years, it was the main Bible used in the English language, and no other Protestant Bible could compete with it.

“Archbishop Bancroft, whose burial site we now know, was a partisan bulldog for the Church of England establishment. Yet, he guided the creation of a new Bible translation that lasted for more than four centuries and was accepted by most branches of Protestant Christianity.”

The Coffin of Archbishop Bancroft and the King James Bible, by Paul V. M. Flesher, professor in University of Wyoming’s Department of Religious Studies.

Spirit and spirit in Acts 10 and 11

The chart below gives some history of the capitalization of Spirit/spirit, 1611-1769, in Acts 10:19, 11:12, and 11:28. It “proves” two things:

1. There is enough variation for anyone who wants to do so, to base some theological or orthographical view on it.
2. More seriously and more importantly, it illustrates the rules of capitalization in English were not fixed during this period of time.[i]

I hope the chart will be large enough to see; it appears to be kind of small. I think perhaps you can enlarge it on your computer. All of these Bibles are King James Bibles. The chart gives the Bible printing year and by whom it was printed (if known). A URL is provided for anyone who wants to check out the printings. I may have made some mistakes. After looking at one word that long, they can all start to look alike! Additionally, I discovered when I was using the tab in Excel, the program was “correcting” every entry to lower-case spirit. I believe I readjusted and corrected all those Excel “corrections.” If any readers find mistakes in the chart, please let me know.

When the entry has two years (e.g., 1640/39), that means the frontispiece of the Bible and the front of the NT had different dates.

---

[i] And I would add that they probably are still not as fixed as some people assume they are.

The Bodleian Bishop

1602 Annotated Bishops Bible, Bodleian Library Arch. A b.18

This link above  is to a 1602 Bishops Bible, held by the Bodleian Libraries of the University of Oxford. It is purported to be a Bible in which some of King James’s translators made notes. These scans have been made available under Creative Commons licensing CC-BY-NC 4.0 (Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International). The Bodleian Library has done Bible and historical researchers a great favor, moving this particular Bishops Bible out of the hands of the few scholars previously with the time, ease, and financing to access it, so that it now may be seen freely by eyes all across the world.

The library notes on the page linked include this statement:

“Annotated Bishops’ Bible, 1602. At the beginning of the translation process, forty unbound copies of the 1602 edition of the Bishops’ Bible were distributed to the translators to serve as the basis for their translation. The only surviving sheets from these Bibles are bound together in this copy described at the time of its acquisition by the Bodleian as ‘a large Bible wherein is written downe all the Alterations of the last Translacion’. The annotations appear in parts of the Old and New Testaments and reflect the work-in-progress of four of the six translating companies.”

Before we make too many conclusions on the insights into the translators’ decisions, we first ought to conclude, as best we can, just what this Bible is. If this is not clear, will the insights we glean be accurate and profitable? Perhaps some of these questions have already been answered. If so, may we be directed to where we might find these answers.

When did the Bodelian Libraries acquire this Bible? That would give a terminus ante quem (last possible date in which notes could have been written). 1602 is the obvious terminus post quem (earliest possible date it in which notes could have been written). What was the actual date or dates in which notes were written in this 1602 Bishops Bible?

Who wrote in it? Only the King James translators, later editors, both, neither? According to Tim Berg’s recent article (link below), it is thought that the OT notes are all in one hand, and the NT notes in three different hands. How does this correspond to possible use of this Bible in the King James translation process? Did one (or more) of the King James translators use this copy? What is the likelihood of someone else making these notes at a different time? Could the handwriting be compared to that of translators or others whose handwriting survives, for a possible match or matches?

A Newly Digitized Bible Reveals the Origins of the King James Version, Timothy Berg, Text And Canon, December 8, 2023

Berg writes, in reference to possible dates, “Several dates have been proposed, including ones that suggest the notes are an actual printers’ master copy, a copy of the printers’ master copy, notes made at the General Meeting, or a revision sent to the General Meeting. Miller argues that, most likely, ‘the annotations were made in preparation for the general, revisory meeting in London, assimilating into a single working manuscript the changes that had been separately proposed by the three Old Testament translation companies.’ This would mean the handwriting is likely that of a scribe, though it is also possible they ‘could have been made at the general meeting itself.’”

Is it necessary to believe that this was originally one Bible? Could it be that this is collected leaves from annotations in different unbound Bishops Bibles by different companies? That they were later found and bound into  one volume? Maybe not so likely, but then again, why not? The 40 Bibles were unbound copies (i.e., loose leaves).

Perhaps somewhat peripheral, but do we know how the 40 Bishops Bibles were distributed and used? In 1605, King James purchased from printer Robert Barker 40 large church Bibles (Bishops Bible) for the translators. There were more than 40 translators, so this was not one Bible each. There were 6 companies in 3 locations, neither of which divide exactly into 40. If six were used by each company, that might leave 3 for the small committee of revisers, and 1 for the final process. Or maybe, more simply, maybe the king just ordered extras. This may be an odd question from an odd thought of an odd guy. Then again, perhaps other inquiring minds want to know.

A picture provided by Christopher Yetzer

Some information acquired after starting this post several months ago:

This Bishops Bible was previously catalogued as BL Bib. Eng. 1602 b.1. It was given a new pressmark in September 2013: Arch. A b. 18. (My thanks to Chris Yetzer for informing me about its digitization.)

“The Bodleian Library acquired the volume in 1646 when it was described as ‘a large Bible wherein is written downe all the Alterations of the last translacōn.’” If this is correct, then the annotations in this “large Bible” were made between 1602 and 1646.

Due to his ministry in Italy, Christopher Yetzer noticed something others evidently previously have not:

“‘j/I’ is the most interesting sign to me and possibly the most important thing that I can contribute to this discussion. Some scholars have suggested that maybe it was a symbol for Jerome’s Vulgate. Westcott thought that the ‘j’ might stand for Junius. At Genesis 14:14 Edward Jacobs was confused by the word ‘allevi’ because he could not find it in an edition of the Latin Vulgate. Possibly what he did not know is that ‘allevi’ is not just a Latin word but it is also an Italian word. In fact, at Genesis 14:14 Diodati’s 1607 Italian Bible used that word. There are also other Italian phrases in the annotations: Genesis 1:12 ‘herba minuta’, Genesis 2:20 ‘conforme a lui’, Genesis 3:7 ‘cinture’, Genesis 3:24 ‘spada fiammeggiante’, Genesis 4:26 ‘nominar alcuni del nome del Signore’, Genesis 13:18 ‘tendendo i suoi padiglioni’, Genesis 20:15 ‘al tuo commando.’ etc. Each one of these is marked with the ‘j/I’. It is actually quite astonishing that the scholars who have looked at this did not notice all the Italian. There are currently two Italian phrases that are of some interest. Genesis 14:19 reads, ‘appo l'altissimo’. In English this would be ‘with the highest’, but Diodati’s text actually reads, ‘appo l'Iddio altissimo’ which would be ‘with the God most high’ or more Englished ‘with the most high God’. Possibly the annotator changed it on their own since the importance at that point had to do with the adjective. The other interesting one comes from Genesis 15:2, ‘governo della mia casa’. Diodati edited two Italian Bibles. One in 1607 and one in 1641. In this verse Diodati’s 1607 actually reads, ‘governo di casa mia’, however his second edition in 1640/41 reads, ‘governo della mia casa’ just like the note. If this note was truly taken from Diodati’s second edition then at least some of the notes in the volume were written after the fall/winter of 1640. However, most of the Italian notes clearly are derived from Diodati’s 1607 (see the note at Genesis 2:20, 3:7, 4:26, 18:4, 18:12, 20:15) and the reading at Genesis 15:2 is clunky Italian. If the annotator(s) knew Italian well, they might have simply reworded Diodati’s words without changing the sense to cleaner Italian. Diodati himself made that same change in 1641, so it is possible. All the notes from Latin and Italian do seem to appear in a darker ink. But sometimes the darker ink is used for Geneva readings as well (see Genesis 4:6 and 28:5).”

This statement by Yetzer demonstrates the utility of this Bishops Bible falling under the eyes of many rather than the small amount of people who had studied it previously. Their work was ground-breaking, but should not stand as the “be-all end-all” of research.

Baptists, the Bible, and Boyce

Back in March, on a Facebook public group called “KJV Onlyism Discussion Unbiased,” someone reposted a rant by Anglican Apologist and KJVO opponent Stephen Boyce.[i]

“I’m convinced that if the King James translators were alive today, translating the same exact translation we have now, many in the King James Only movement would reject their translation as a translation made by heretics because its authorization came from a monarchy, its translators believed in baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, real presence in the Eucharist, high church practices (such as bowing to a cross, priests in vestments, crossing themselves, scripted prayers, liturgy, etc..) and submitted to Bishops as leaders of the church.”

“The beauty and majesty of this 400 year translation doesn’t belong to a small group of Baptists who claim it for their own, not realizing that their separatists forefathers utterly despised the translation because it was too high church and maintained much of the terminology that the Church of England held to in their high church practices and liturgy. Enough is enough with all this insanity.”

The first paragraph is worth little beyond Boyce stating his personal opinion. It matters not what he is convinced of in an imaginary scenario. Someone else can imagine their opposing opinion, and neither can prove their point – and both will be equally satisfied they are right. Draw. Deadlock.

The second paragraph is a bare assertion that he does not undertake to prove. There is a bit of “insanity” in repeating “urban myths” about early separatists “utterly despising” the King James Bible.[ii] Can he demonstrate it? I can show some who used it rather than despising it. For example, in Ill Newes from New England, John Clarke quotes from the King James Bible.[iii] The same can be found in John Bunyan’s writings (though many falsely claim he only used the Geneva Bible).[iv] The first quotes in the 1644/1646 London Baptist Confession better match the KJV than the Geneva. Maybe someone can find some Baptists who utterly despised this translation, but the ones I have checked so far did not. Which Baptists utterly despised it? Don’t just assert – give us the goods.

In a response to me, Stephen stated, “I never said baptists rejected it. I said separatists (though they developed into baptists over time).” Of course, he did invoke the Baptists, and while all separatists are not Baptists, Baptists are separatists.[v] Then he could not definitely supply any names or faces of separatists who “utterly rejected” the King James Bible. The only person I know who I would say rose to the level of “utterly despising” the new translation was Hugh Broughton (he was cantankerous, fractious, and prickly; a Puritan of sorts, who was all over the page, but not a Separatist).[vi] (Boyce did not mention him.) John Bunyan was more of a separatist than a full-fledged Baptist (and he used the KJB). Boyce mentioned the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock. There are two Bibles in the Pilgrim Hall Museum at Plymouth, a Geneva Bible that belonged to William Bradford, and a King James Bible that belonged to John Alden.[vii] (Using a Geneva Bible and “utterly despising” the KJV are not the same thing, neither necessarily even two sides of the same coin.)

Others mentioned to me were Oliver Cromwell and relational Calvinists (whatever that means).[viii] Cromwell and his supporters did not despise the KJV to the extent that they completely excluded it from the “Souldier’s Pocket Bible” (as has been purported).[ix] Hamlin and Jones in The King James Bible After Four Hundred Years claimed that Cromwell came to favor it and “Even before the end of the Commonwealth, no one was printing anything but the KJB” (p. 8; a book from Cambridge Press, not Peter Ruckman!). And, Cromwell and company were Puritans reforming the Church of England, not Separatists. Those in Geneva and other relational Calvinists surely were not Separatists in the sense of his initial claim. Is the Dutch Reformed Church included as relational Calvinists? They received delegates from the Church of England at the Synod of Dort, 1618, and had them make a report on the new Bible translation![x]

Stephen also told me that “Just because someone quotes the KJV doesn’t mean it was preferred.” Surely. However, when they quote the KJV it doesn’t mean it is despised. Even if they preferred the Geneva Bible, or when they don’t quote the KJV, it doesn’t mean it is despised! I do not fail to believe that some people despised King James Bible. I do not suppose there were none who despised it. However, to assert a claim requires demonstrating the claim. Stephen Boyce failed to give good historical evidence of specific separatists who “utterly despised” the King James Bible. Generic historical claims are unhelpful.[xi] They become Christian urban myths that keep getting repeated as fact, without supplying evidence.

Additionally, in this second paragraph Boyce refers to “a small group of Baptists who claim it for their own.” Here he means “King James Only” Baptists. This is contrary to the facts. “King James Only” Baptists do not ”claim it for their own” to the exclusion of others. Most (if probably not all) of these types of Baptists think that all English-speaking Christians should use the AV (King James Bible).[xii]

A quick look at the 1644/1646 London Baptist Confession (compiled by persecuted separatist folks falsely called Anabaptists)

LBC: But this I confesse unto thee, that after the way which they call heresie so worship I the God of my Fathers, beleeving all things that are written in the Law and the Prophets, and have hope towards God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead both of the just and unjust. - Acts xxiv. 14, 15.

• AKJV: 14 But this I confesse unto thee, that after the way which they call heresie, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets: 15 and have hope towards God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.
• GNV: 14 But this I confesse unto thee, that after the way (which they call heresie) so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets, 15 And have hope towards God, that the resurrection of the dead, which they themselves looke for also, shallbe both of just and unjust.

LBC: For we cannot but speak the things that we have seen and heard. - Acts iv. 20

• AKJV: For wee cannot but speake the things which we have seene and heard.
• GNV: For we cannot but speake the things which we have seene and heard.

LBC: If I have spoken evill, bear witnesse of the evill; but if well, why smitest thou me? - John xviii. 23.

• AKJV: 23 Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evill, bear witnesse of the evill: but if well, why smitest thou me?
• GNV: 23 Jesus answered him, If I have evill spoken, bear witnesse of the evill: but if I have well spoken, why smitest thou me?

LBC: Blessed are yee when men revile you, and say all manner of evil against you falsly for my sake. Rejoice, etc. - Matth. v.11, 12. & xix. 29.

• AKJV: 11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shal say all manner of evill against you falsly for my sake. 12 Rejoyce...
• GNV: 11 Blessed shall ye be when men revile you, and persecute you, and say all manner of evill against you for my sake, falsly. 12 Rejoyce...

The “Bible Versions Debate” will not be settled by history. It should not be settled by history. However, we should be careful in our use of history in the debate. Let it be accurate and straightforward. Some people did not like the new Bible. Some people did. Let those who did and did not be placed accurately.

---

[i] I call this a “rant.” This is not personal. Boyce himself admitted in the thread below his OP that he made this rant because he was blocked on a KJVO discussion. “Got blocked on a KJVO discussion so yeah sorry about the venting” (with a laughing emoji).
[ii] It is mind-numbing and mind-boggling how easily these “Christian urban myths” slip out, and how broadly they have been accepted – without evidence – even by (maybe especially by) scholars and institutions of higher education.
[iii] John Clarke’s Bible.
[iv] John Bunyan – Geneva Bible Only?
[v] Excluding the modern ecumenical type, of course, but that is not what Boyce was talking about.
[vi] Who is the mean guy denouncing my Bible translation?
[vii] Bibles at the Pilgrim Hall Museum at Plymouth.
[viii] I did not find anything about “relational Calvinists” via internet search. Google’s AI generated this answer (which just means Calvinists): “Relational Calvinists are people who believe that God has selected a limited number of souls for salvation at the beginning of time, and that nothing a person can do during their life can change their eternal fate. They also believe that the Bible is the authority and sufficiency for knowing God and one’s duties to God and one’s neighbor.”
[ix] The Cromwell Souldiers Bible.

[x] Report on the 1611 Translation to the Synod of Dort.
[xi] John Milton was not “Geneva Bible Only”. Also notice things I have written HERE and HERE.
[xii] Reasons To Use the King James Bible over Other Translations. As far as I can tell, King James Onlyists from the least to the greatest believe that the King James Bible should be everyone’s Bible. Else they probably would not be King James Onlyists.

King James Bible and Masons

Q. Did Sir Francis Bacon, a Freemason and a Rosicrucian, edit the King James Bible before it was released to the public? Why does the original 1611 KJV have Masonic handshakes in its artwork? Why is the KJV the Freemason’s Bible of choice?

A. The last question is answered simply. This is mainly because the King James Bible has been the Bible of choice for most English-speaking peoples for around 400 years. The second answer is rather simple as well, There is nothing in the 1611 Robert Barker artwork in the King James Bible that is distinctly Masonic. Handshakes and other symbols existed in print work before, beyond, outside, and apart from Masonry. The first question is answered in the negative. While there seems to be an effort of some Baconians to suggest otherwise, there is ample evidence about the original of the King James translation to reliably show that Sir Francis Bacon was not involved in translating, editing, or printing the new Bible translation of 1611. Whether Bacon was a Freemason or a Rosicrucian is questionable, but regardless, he did not edit the King James Bible before it was published.

These are persistent myths paddled about in writing, orally, and electronically, but myths they are. Myths (and conspiracy theories) about the King James Bible are often spread by anti-KJVOists. They should be dismissed as calculated but erroneous attempts aimed at tarnishing the status of the King James Bible. On the other hand, it may be that the Masonic claims, when made by Masons, intend to enhance the image of Masonry by associating the fraternity with the King James Bible. It is best to ignore ahistorical claims.

There are some who say that King James I himself was a Mason. However, the document produced to make and prove the claim did not even exist until long after his death. Most historians do not find the document or the claim credible. Whether or not King James was a Mason, that would not make the King James Bible a Masonic Bible. Neither does its use by Masons, Methodists, Mormons, and More make it their Bible. (What Masons think about James might help influence their using the King James translation in their lodges, but it does not go beyond that.) 

The King James translation stands on its on merit, aloof from all those who recommend or reject it, prefer it, read it, and quote it, or disown and complain about it.

King James’s Translation Rules

The translation of the Bible we know as the King James or Authorized Version was conceived in 1604. The translators were given 15 Translation Rules. They are as follows:

1. The Ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishop’s Bible, is to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the originals will permit.

2. The names of the Prophets, and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of the Text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used.

3. The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.

4. When a Word hath divers Significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.

5. The Division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.

6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the Text.

7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.

8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their Parts what shall stand.

9. As any one Company hath dispatched any one Book in this Manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this point.

10. If any company, upon Review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ upon any Place, to send them Word thereof; note the Place, and withal sent the Reasons, to which if they consent not, the Difference to be compounded at the general Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each Company, at the end of the Work. 

11. When any Place of special Obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be directed by Authority to any Learned Man in the Land for his Judgment of such a Place.

12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his Clergy, admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge as many skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford.

13. The Directors in each Company, to be Deans of Westminster and Chester for that Place; and the King’s Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University.

14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishop’s Bible: Tindoll’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, Geneva.

15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the vice-Chancellor, upon Conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well as Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th Rule above specified.

I found the above text online with several slight variations (e.g., here, here, and here). I did not find anything that could be considered original. I chose to use the transcription from In The Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture by Alister Edgar McGrath, (New York: Random House, Inc., 2001, pp. 173-175), presuming it is well researched.

According to Arthur Farstad, “For the Old Testament, the translators used the rabbinic Hebrew Bibles of 1519 and 1525 and the Hebrew texts found in the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots. For the New Testament, printed Greek texts by Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and the Complutensian Polyglot were used. They also ‘diligently compared’ and revised all of the available English Bibles, the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Targum, and versions in other modern languages. In short, these learned men left no stone unturned to produce an accurate, beautiful, and complete Bible.” (Arthur Farstad, The New King James Version: In the Great Tradition, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1989, p. 23.)