The AV1611: Purified seven times

The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times." (Psalm 12:6)

As any student of English Bible history knows, the Authorized Version of 1611 was not the first Bible to be translated into English. But even though hundreds of complete Bibles, New Testaments, and Scripture portions have been translated into English since 1611, it is obvious that the Authorized Version is the last English Bible; that is, the last English Bible that God "authorized."

Because the Authorized Version is the "last" English Bible, and because its defenders believe it to contain the very words of God, various schemes have been contrived to make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times." The problem is that the Authorized Version is not the seventh English Bible -- it is the tenth one.

Although there were some attempts during the Old and Middle English period to translate portions of the Bible into English, the first complete Bible or New Testament in English did not appear until the fourteenth century.

John Wycliffe (c.1320-1384) is credited with being the first to translate the entire Bible into English. It is to be remembered that no Greek or Hebrew texts, versions, or editions were yet fabricated. Wycliffe did his translating primarily from the only Bible then in use: the Latin Vulgate. He is often called the "Morning Star of the Reformation" for his opposition to ecclesiastical abuses and the Papacy. Wycliffe's New Testament translation was completed in 1380, and the entire Bible in 1382.

William Tyndale (c. 1494-1536) has the distinction of being the first to translate the New Testament from Greek into English. He early distinguished himself as a scholar both at Cambridge and Oxford, and was fluent in several languages. Tyndale soon advanced both his desire and his demise, as seen in his reply to a critic: "I defy the pope and all his laws; if God spare my life, ere many years I will cause the boy that driveth the plough in England to know more of the Scriptures than thou doest." The Bible was still forbidden in the vernacular, so after settling in London for several months while attempting to gain approval for his translation efforts, Tyndale concluded: "Not only that there was no room in my lord of Londons palace to translate the New Testament, but also that there was no place to do it in all England, as experience doth now openly declare."

Accordingly, Tyndale left England in 1524 and completed his translation of the New Testament in Germany. The moving factor in his translation of the New Testament was that he "perceived by experience, how that it was impossible to establish the lay people in any truth, except the scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue, that they might see the process, order and meaning of the text." The printing of his New Testament was completed in Worms and smuggled into England, where it was an instant success. Tyndale then turned his attention to the Old Testament. He never finished it, however, for on May 21, 1535, Tyndale was treacherously kidnaped and imprisoned in Belgium. On October 6, 1536, he was tried as a heretic and condemned to death. He was strangled and burned, but not before he uttered the immortal prayer of "Lord, open the King of England's eyes."

Although Tyndale's English Bible was the first to be translated directly from the original languages, it was just the New Testament. It was Myles Coverdale (1488-1569) who was the first to publish a complete English Bible. In 1533, King Henry VIII established the Church of England, and, in 1534, the Upper House of Convocation of Canterbury petitioned King Henry to decree "that the holy scripture should be translated into the vulgar English tongue by certain good learned men, to be nominated by His Majesty, and should be delivered to the people for their instruction." Thomas Cromwell (1485-1540) and Archbishop Cranmer (1489-1556) were likewise convinced of the desirability of having the Bible translated into English. Coverdale's Bible was printed in October of 1535. He based his work on the Zurich Bible of Zwingli, the Vulgate, the Latin text of Paginius, Luther's Bible, and the previous work of William Tyndale, especially in the New Testament.

Although Coverdale's second edition of 1537 contained the license of the king, the first Bible to obtain such license was published earlier the same year. The Matthew Bible was more of a revision than a translation. Thomas Matthew was just a pseudonym for John Rogers (c. 1500-1555), a friend of Tyndale, to whom he had turned over his unpublished manuscripts on the translation of the Old Testament. Rogers used Tyndale's New Testament and the completed parts of his Old Testament. For the rest of the Bible, he relied on Coverdale. The whole of this material was slightly revised and accompanied by introductions and chapter summaries. Cranmer commented in a letter to Cromwell that he liked it "better than any other translation heretofore made." And so it happened that Tyndale's translation, which was proscribed just a few years earlier, was circulating with the King's permission and authority both in the Coverdale and Matthew Bibles.

Although the Coverdale and Matthew Bibles were "set forth with the King's most gracious license," the Great Bible was the first "authorized" Bible. Cromwell delegated to Myles Coverdale the work of revising the Matthew Bible and its controversial notes. In 1538, an injunction by Cromwell directed the clergy to provide "one book of the bible of the largest volume in English, and the same set up in some convenient place within the said church that ye have care of, whereas your parishioners may most commodiously resort to the same and read it." The completed Bible appeared in April of 1539. Although called the Great Bible because of its large size, it was referred to by several other designations as well. It was called the Cromwell Bible, since he did the most to prepare for its publication. It was also termed the Cranmer Bible, after the often reprinted preface by Cranmer beginning with the 1540 second edition. Several editions were printed by Whitechurch, and hence it was also labeled the Whitechurch Bible. In accordance with Cromwell's injunction, copies of the Great Bible were placed in every church. This led to it being called the Chained Bible, since it was chained in "some convenient place within the said church."

At the same time as Coverdale was preparing the Great Bible, Richard Taverner (1505-1577) undertook an independent revision of Matthew's Bible. It appeared under the title of: "The Most Sacred Bible whiche is the holy scripture, conteyning the old and new testament, translated into English, and newly recognized with great diligence after most faythful exemplars by Rychard Taverner." He was a competent Greek scholar and made some slight changes in the text and notes of the Matthew Bible. His work was eclipsed by the Great Bible and had but minor influence on later translations.

During the reign of the Catholic queen, Mary Tudor (1553-1558), many English Reformers, among them Myles Coverdale, fled to Geneva. It was here in 1557 that William Whittingham (1524-1579), the brother-in-law of John Calvin, and successor of John Knox at the English church in Geneva, translated the New Testament in what was to become the Geneva Bible. When Elizabeth, the sister of Mary, assumed the throne in 1558, many exiles returned to England. But Whittingham and some others remained in Geneva and continued to work on a more comprehensive and complete revision of the entire Bible that superseded the 1557 New Testament -- the Geneva Bible of 1560.

The superiority of the Geneva Bible over the Great Bible was readily apparent. It was the notes, however, that made it unacceptable for official use in England. Archbishop Matthew Parker soon took steps to make a revision of the Great Bible that would replace both it and the Geneva Bible. The Bible was divided into parts and distributed to scholars for revision. Parker served as the editor and most of his revisors were bishops, hence the Bishops' Bible. The first Bible to be translated by a committee, it was published in 1568.

The Douay-Rheims Bible was the first Roman Catholic translation of the Bible in English. When English Romanists fled England for the Continent under the reign of Elizabeth, many settled in France. In 1568, an English college was established by William Allen (1532-1594) at Douay. The college moved for a time to Rheims in 1578 under Richard Bristow (1538-1581). It was here that Gregory Martin (d. 1582) began translating the Bible into English from the Latin Vulgate. This was precipitated by Allen's recognition that Catholics had an unfair disadvantage compared with Bible-reading Protestants because of their use of Latin and the fact that "all the English versions are most corrupt." The Catholic New Testament was finished in 1582, but the complete Old Testament did not appear until 1610.

After the death of Elizabeth in 1603, James I, who was at that time James VI of Scotland, became the king of England. One of the first things done by the new king was the calling of the Hampton Court Conference in January of 1604 "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the church." Here were assembled bishops, clergyman, and professors, along with four Puritan divines, to consider the complaints of the Puritans. Although Bible revision was not on the agenda, the Puritan president of Corpus Christi College, John Reynolds, "moved his Majesty, that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reigns of Henry the eighth, and Edward the sixth, were corrupt and not answerable to the truth of the Original."

The next step was the actual selection of the men who were to perform the work. In July of 1604, James wrote to Bishop Bancroft that he had "appointed certain learned men, to the number of four and fifty, for the translating of the Bible." Although fifty-four men were nominated, only forty-seven were known to have taken part in the work of translation. The completed Bible, known as the King James Version or the Authorized Version, was issued in 1611, and remains the Bible read, preached, believed, and acknowledged as the authority by all Bible believers today.

Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Great, Taverner, Geneva, Bishops', Douay-Rheims, and King James -- ten English Bibles. As mentioned previously, various schemes have been contrived to make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times." The problem with this noble goal is that it entails the elimination of three versions. But which three? Wycliffe's Bible is sometimes omitted because it was translated from the Latin instead of the original Hebrew and Greek. Tyndale's Bible is sometimes omitted because it was not a complete Bible -- just a New Testament and portions of the Old Testament. Coverdale's and Matthew's Bibles could conceivably be omitted because they rely so much on Tyndale. Taverner's Bible is sometimes omitted because it was a revision of Matthew's Bible and had little influence on later English versions. The Geneva Bible could conceivably be omitted because King James considered it to be the worst of the English versions. The Douay-Rheims, because it is a Roman Catholic version, is always omitted from the list.

This leaves the Great Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James Bible -- three out of the ten. It appears that Bible believers have manipulated the history of the English Bible to prove a bogus theory.

The answer is yes and no. As will presently be proved, the theory is not bogus at all -- even if some zealous brethren have been careless in the way they went about proving it.

The definitive list of Bibles that makes the Authorized Version the seventh Bible, thus fitting the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times," is not to be found in the opinions of the many writers on the history of the English Bible. To the contrary, the definitive list is to be found in the often-overlooked details concerning the translating of the Authorized Version.

To begin with, the translators of the Authorized Version did acknowledge that they had a multitude of sources from which to draw from: "Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch." The Greek editions of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza were all accessible, as were the Complutensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and the Latin translations of Pagninus, Tremellius, and Beza. What we want, however, is a reference to English Bibles.

The translators also acknowledged that they had at their disposal all the previous English translations of the sixteenth century: "We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in King Henry's time, or King Edward's (if there were any translation, or correction of a translation in his time) or Queen Elizabeth's of everrenowned memory, that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance." Although this statement of the translators refers to English Bibles, it is not specific as to exactly which versions.

The information we need is to be found, not in the translators' "The Epistle Dedicatory" or their "The Translators to the Reader," but in the "Rules to be Observed in the Translation of the Bible." These general rules, fifteen in number, were advanced for the guidance of the translators. The first and fourteenth, because they directly relate to the subject at hand, are here given in full: "1. 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." "14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishops Bible: Tindoll's, Matthews, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva."

And thus we have our answer. The seven English versions that make the English Bibles up to and including the Authorized Version fit the description in Psalm 12:6 of the words of the Lord being "purified seven times" are Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, the Great Bible (printed by Whitechurch), the Geneva Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James Bible.

The Wycliffe, Taverner, and Douay-Rheims Bibles, whatever merits any of them may have, are not part of the purified line God "authorized," of which the King James Authorized Version is God's last one -- purified seven times.

Con, Thanks for your reply. This little discussion is helping me to get a better understanding of this controversy. However, I still have many questions regarding your points.

If I understand the reasoning behind your points you are basically saying that;

1. During the 1500's the term "Easter" was commonly used in place of the term "Passover" simply because the term "Passover" didn't exist. The term "Easter" was the best available english word to use at that time. To counter this problem, Tyndale, invented the term "Passover" to differentiate between the Christian celebration of Easter and the Jewish celebration of Passover.

2. Tyndale and the translators of the KJV used the term "Easter" as the proper translation of "pascha" in Acts 12:4 because they understood that the newly created term "Passover" (pascha) referred to the first day of the feast of unleaved bread that had already passed. Hence, they decided, "pascha" must be refering to the pagan celebration of "Easter" which was celebrated by Herod.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but, I believe those two points sum up the bulk of your argument in defence of the pascha / Easter translation. They are interesting points, but, I am not sold yet.

First, I have to question the strong reliance on Tyndale when, even though he invented the term "Passover", he used the term "Easter" in his version of the NT in nearly every occurance of the term "pascha". If he was the one who would be the top authority why doesn't he use the term "Passover" in his own translation when the context is very clear that it is refering to the Jewish celebration. Also, if he was such an authority, why did the translators of the KJV disagree with him on all but one occurance of the term.

Secondly, I would have to question limiting the term "pascha" to meaning the first day of unleavened bread. I did a very quick check and found that the term "pascha" or "pesach" (the Hebrew word) could refer to the passover meal, the sacrificial lamb, the Holy Day itself, or even the seven day period that makes up the "days of unleavened bread" which are refered to in Acts 12:4. Ezekiel 45:21 (attached below) makes that clear.

Eze 45:21 In the first [month], in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten.

I also have a hard time accepting the position that "pascha" here refers to the pagan Easter celebration. What we do know from the context is that Herod was interested in vexing the church. To accomplish this end he had James the brother of John killed. When he saw how it pleased the Jews he, in an effort to gain further Jewish support, seized Peter with the intent of killing him also. However, this was during the days of the unleavened bread and it might not have pleased the Jews to have a killing during this time. During this time it was typical for the Romans to release a prisoner as a show of good will (remember Barabas). It wouldn't be consistent with the spirit of holy day to kill someone. So Herod decided to wait till the Jewish Holy Days were over and he could safely kill Peter and win the support he desired.

The term Passover was commonly used to refer to the entire seven day period and the use of pascha (Passover) in this context is very appropriate. I do find it a bit to speculative to some how try to bring the pagan Easter into this narrative. I find it quite odd that it would be asserted that Herod, whose livelihood rested on keeping his subjects happy and peaceful, would delay giving his special prize (the killing of Peter) to the Jews because he was so devout that he had to celebrate the pagan Easter first.

Anyway, I appreciate your time in discussing this with me. Any further information you have is greatly appreciated as I sort through this issue.

It is indeed amazing to watch the bitter reaction to the King James Bible. It's not bitterness towards the Bible or any version of it; it's a reaction towards a silly man-made elitist, exclusivist doctrine, whose proponents are basically saying "Unless you you love, read, and bow down before our translation, the KJV, you aren't a Christian."

And who ever said that?

You can be saved and not read the King James.

You will be saved by the pure word of God engrafted into your souls (1Pet.1:23) and it is the King James text that is the pure word of God.

So, where a reading follows that text, as in Jn.3:36 in the NIV/NASB you can be saved by it.

I've seen this "bitter" reaction towards cultists like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who say "I cannot believe the bitterness of these people who will not believe the truth that Jesus is Michael the Archangel."

The King James was the only Bible for some 200 years (not counting the RCC bible).

It is the Modern versions, using a Roman Catholic text that have divided the churches on this issue, not the King James defenders.

It got its name the Authorized 1611 due to the authority it obtained in all the Christian churches. Except of course, the Orthodox and Catholic Churches, and since then, many other Protestant sects. But I guess by your logic, those groups are not Christians for not accepting the primacy of the KJV translation (as circular an argument as I've ever seen). >>>>>First, we are speaking of a Protestant Reformation Bible. >>>>>Second, yes, if the Roman and Orthodox churches do not use the Received texts they are not using the correct texts. >>>>>Nothing 'circular' about it at all. Well, if you're saying that "all the Christian Churches" recognized its authority, and you admit that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches don't and never have, then the only way for your statement to be true is to say that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not actually Christian. To me that is a bit circular, if you are in fact disqualifying as a Christian anyone who disagrees with your particular doctrine.

No, first I believe the Greek Orthodox church does use the TR.

Second, I would not regard Romanists as being saved if they follow the teachings of their church, salvation plus works.

A catholic may be saved despite being a Catholic by accepting Christ as his personal saviour and ignoring what the RCC teaches on the subject.

I guess what I'm really trying to get it is, do you feel that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches are not Christian? For that matter, anyone who doesn't hold to the KJV only doctrine?

It isn't the KJV only issue here it is faith plus Nothing (Gal.2:14)

No, it doesn't, but if we look for a common element on apostasy, the first sign of it is when the church gives up its Bible for alternative authorities like Popes, Councils, Priests,Creeds, Scholars etc. Well, to bring up Popes, Councils, and Creeds (it was the Lutherans, Calvinists, and other Reformation-era Protestants who followed the priests and scholars) is just silly, since the Christian Church was following those for over a millennia, and nearly all Christian Churches still recognize at least some of the Councils and Creeds.

And as a Bible believing Baptist, I believe that the Reformation did not go far enough in following Sola Scriptura.

They did have it correct in theory however, but did not put it into practice.

If you ask me, there are two common starting points when apostasy began. The first is the Reformation itself, for the rather broad reason that it gave approval to the idea that anyone who felt like it could start their own sect based on their own personal interpretation of Scripture. The second, is 1930 when the first Christian sect began endorsing artificial birth control. You can see that since then, the slide into moral equivalency has accelerated. To me, it's Christianity's need to "get with the times" that is hurting it.

Well, as far as I am concerned apostasy began when church combined with state under Constance.

That always leads to corruption and persecution.

That was another weakness with the Reformation.

Once again thanks for your input. I did get the opportunity to spend some time yesterday evaluating various explanations for the Easter reference in the KJV. However, I can't say that I found any of them convincing.

My reservations with the items you point out are listed below following your statements.

<< Actually, the one who coined the term 'passover' Tyndale, translated it as 'Easter' >>

Yes, I did learn that Tyndale was the one who originally coined the term "Passover" in english as a translation of the greek word Pascha. I also learned that before that term was created it wasn't uncommon to translate pascha as easter, and, as you pointed out, Tyndale did tranlate Acts 12:4 as Easter. In this you are correct.

However, I also learned that Tyndale also translated nearly every occurance (approximately 25 times) of the word pascha in his version as easter where as the KJV only translated pascha as easter only once. What I find odd is that the appeal is made to Tyndale as the ultimate authority in the usage of the term "Passover" in Acts 12:4 yet he is at odds with the KJV on nearly every other occurance of pascha in the NT. It appears to me that line of reasoning is self defeating. If you appeal to Tyndale to justify the Acts 12:4 occurance you must accept his other translations of the word or have a very good reason why the KJV translators disagreed with him.

<< If you look at the modern Greek you will see that the word for Easter is-pascha! >>

The use of the term pascha in modern greek is not what we are concerned with. The issue is the usage of the term pascha in NT greek which can be quite different.

Your previous comments regarding Tyndale made it clear that he saw the need to create a new english word for the greek word pascha that would clearly differentiate the Jewish celebration of Passover from the Christian celebration of Easter. The english term Passover was coined to eliminate the confusion surrounding the usage of pascha in modern greek. What I don't understand is why, after coining the english word Passover, he didn't readily use it in his own translation.

<< There are number of explainations of why the King James used Easter and not passover. >>

One thing I have learned from experience is that whenever a "number of explainations" are offered it is generally because there is not one good one in existence. That I have found to be true in this case.

Once such explaination was that the term pascha in this case refers to the pagan celebration of easter because, since the days of unleavened bread had begun, the passover was passed. In this case the term pascha is limited the mean the passover meal or holy day in the singular. However, by looking at the usage of the terms pascha and pesach (hebrew) in the OT and NT you will find that such a limitation is not justified. These two terms can refer to the passover meal, the sacrificial lamb, the holy day (singular), or the entire seven day period which occupies the days of unleavened bread as well as the feast. An example of this last usage is in Ezekiel 45:12 which says "In the first [month], in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days; unleavened bread shall be eaten." Clearly this verse indicates that the restriction of the term pascha to the singular feast day is inappropriate.

Secondly, I find the attempt to read into the verse the pagan celebration of easter equally wanting. It is hard for me to believe that anyone would suggest that Herod, in his rush to please the Jews, would deeply offend them by celebrating a holiday which was deeply offensive to the very people he was trying to win over. Now, if secondary information were given to back up this claim I might accept it, but, none has. For example, if it could be shown that Herod did celebrate these pagan holidays, or, that the pagan easter was celebrated in Jerusalem, I might buy into this argument. However, no one has made such a connection so I must guess that it doesn't exist. If there is more information on this please show me.

Anyway, please don't get me wrong, I am open on this issue, but, I just have't seen enough good information to satisfy my questioning. I still have a hard time with the inspiration = infallibility position that must be taken to accept the KJV only position. I'm also curious what your take of the NKJV is being that it translates this occurance as Passover and not easter.

God Bless

See, thats the thing. For all the character assasination of Westcott and Hort, I've never seen any concrete proof that they were off-kilter. I dont trust Riplinger et al.

I've read Westcott (one of my elders is really into history, and he has a book on NT criticism by Westcott. I don't recall the title though. It might have been GENERAL SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE NT -- that would fit with the topic I was researching.) Admittedly, I can't claim to be exhaustive (I didn't read all of the book, since I decided that it wouldn't be helpful to what I was researching for, nor did I have time to read the whole thing), but I certainly can say that I got a sense that Westcott had an immense respect for the NT text.

Look at how frequently Westcott is cited by McDowell's EVIDENCE THAT DEMANDS A VERDICT.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.