Jean
Posted on 09/03/2003 10:22:51 AM PDT by Jean Chauvin
King James and His Translators
by Rick Norris
The Great Hypocrite or Great Dissembler:
Was "godly" King James a Liar, a Compromiser, or Both?
While king in Scotland, Benjamin Brook noted that James had declared in the general assembly at Edinburg, with his hands lifted to heaven, "that he praised God that he was born to be the king of the purest kirk [church] in the world." "As for our neighbor kirk [church] of England," said he, their service is an evil-said mass in English." James also said "that the Book of Common Prayer was the English mass book, and that the surplice, copes, and ceremonies were outward badges of popery" (Lives of the Puritans, Vol. 1, p. 60).
W. H. Stowell also pointed out that James "had made strong declarations in Scotland of his adherence to the Presbyterian discipline in which he had been educated, publicly avowing his gratitude that he belonged to the purest church in the world, and his purpose to maintain its principles as long as he lived" (History of the Puristans in England, p. 222). Can the evidence be any clearer that King James either lied in Scotland or else later compromised his own professed beliefs in order to promote the very false teachings of the state church in England that he had claimed were retained from Roman Catholicism?
King James was known as a "great dissembler." "To dissemble" is "to conceal or disguise the actual nature of somethings," "to make a false show of," or "to conceal one's true nature, intentions, etc.; act hypocritically."
W. H. Stowell noted that James was "a great dissembler, a greater liar" and that he was "unscrupulous in breaking his promises" (History of the Puritans, pp. 230, 246). Ashley observed: "James was a congenital, if perhaps unconscious liar: he did not regard truthfulness as a necessary royal attribute" (Stuarts in Love, p. 103). Sir Walter Scott pointed out that James "had been early imbued with the principle that the power of dissembling was essential to the art of reigning" (SCOTLAND, Vol. 2, p. 138).
W. M. Hetherington wrote: "The policy of principle he knew not, because he was himself unprincipled; but the policy of falsehood, cunning, and sycophancy, he well understood and practised" (History of the Church of Scotland, p. 203). Hetherington also noted that James "had repeatedly broken his most solemn pledges, and brought his word into such suspicion, that the more earnestly he protested, the less he was believed" (Ibid., p. 175).
P. Hume Brown noted that in Scotland "the ministers perfectly understood that James was ready to change his faith the moment he should find it expedient" (History of Scotland, Vol. 2, p. 192). It seems that the godly pastors in the Church of Scotland regarded King James as a compromiser and as unworthy of trust. How does all this evidence line up with the unproven claim that James had a godly character?
Director’s Comment: In addition to King James’ possible dishonesty, I also have had several people e-mail me and claim King James was a homosexual. I e-mailed Rick and asked him if he had any information on this possibility. Below is his reply.
Hello Gary, In answer to your question about King James, I have read several biographies, histories of England or English kings, etc. that claim that King James was a homosexual. Otto Scott in his 1976 book James I: The Fool as King and published by Ross House Books, P.O. Box 67, Vallecito, CA 95251 claimed that he was.
On the other hand, in his book defending James, Stephen A. Coston, claimed that the majority of historians are wrong in their view that James was a homosexual and that there is not a preponderance of evidence to support their claim. While Coston has a few possible explanations to explain away some of the evidence against James, he seemed to start with the assumption that James was a godly ruler; therefore, he was not a homosexual.
Clearly, the overall evidence does not prove that James had a godly character.
Comment: Whatever the case as to King James' sexuality, it is true, as a couple of the e-mails I received pointed out, that the KJV’s rendering of 1Cor 6:9 is rather "soft" on homosexual behavior. I discuss the translation of this verse at length in my article "Homosexuals" in 1Corinthians 6:9.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Doctrinal Views of A "Superior" KJV Translator
D. A. Waite, a KJV-only advocate, listed Lancelot Andrewes as one of three "superior King James Old Testament translators" (Defending the KJB, p. 68). Gustavus Paine stated that Andrewes was "the real head or chairman" of all the KJV translators, directly under Archbishop Bancroft (Men Behind the KJV, pp. 16, 70).
Higham observed that the faith of men such as Andrewes and Archbishop Bancroft was "Catholic in its respect for ancient custom, ordered worship, and episcopal rule" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 34). Ashley noted that Andrewes "sought to reconcile Catholic ceremonies with Protestant beliefs" (England in the Seventeenth Century, pp. 41-42). Hill pointed out that "Catholic tradition in the Church of England owes a great deal" to Andrewes (Who’s Who in History, p. 31).
Horton Davies observed that Anglican spirituality had a "continuing link with Catholicism in Lancelot Andrewes and his successors" (Worship and Theology in England, p. 428). Ian Green also referred to the "High Church or Anglo-Catholic persuasion" of men like Andrewes and Laud (History of Religion in Britain, p. 174). Robert Ottley noted that Andrewes considered the Eucharist "both as a sacrament and as a sacrifice" (Lancelot Andrewes, p. 204). In an introduction to a book of sermons by Andrewes, G. M. Story noted that some have claimed that Andrewes was "virtually a crypto-Catholic" (Andrewes, Sermons, p. xiii).
Andrewes had a large influence on William Laud, who was a leader among the younger Anglicans during the reign of James, and who became Archbishop during the reign of Charles I, James's son.
Some of Andrewes' writings and sermons have been included in a series of books entitled the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology. One would think that KJV-only advocates would be shocked if they actually read some of the sermons of Andrewes and saw for themselves his Anglo-Catholic views.
For example, in a sermon on John 20:23, Andrewes taught the doctrine of absolution and confession (Ninety-six Sermons, pp. 82-103). In his sermon points, he claimed that in the institution of baptism and the holy Eucharist, there is a power for the remission of sins.
In the texts that head his sermons, Andrewes used the Roman Catholic Latin Vulgate along with an English translation. Could a man who preached from the Latin Vulgate be influenced by it in his translating?
Please excuse an ordinary believer like myself for examining the evidence about the views of this "great" scholar and "superior" KJV translator. Surely, there must be some Scripture verse that teaches that the "superior" KJV translators were perfect in all their interpretations of God's Word whether in their doctrinal views or in their translating, but I don't know of one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Archbishop Richard Bancroft and his Influence on the KJV
The Church of England was established as a State Church under the King of England, Henry VIII, following the Pope's refusal to grant Henry a divorce from Catherine of Aragon to facilitate a marriage to Anne Boleyn (1533).
Thus, the King of England became the Head of the Church of England, a split off of the Church of Rome. Next in the chain of command was the Archbishop of Canterbury. Diocesan bishops were under the Archbishop. Under King James I, the English Bishops were "Erastian"--that is, they accepted the State as being over the Church and its affairs -- which meant the King was sovereign over both.
King James I had Archbishop Richard Bancroft oversee the translating of the KJV, which was published in 1611. In their preface to the King James Version, the Translators referred to Bancroft as the "chief overseer and task-master under his Majesty, to whom were not only we, but also our whole Church, much bound." Thus, Archbishop Bancroft was known for his determination to make everyone conform to the views of the State Church, the Church of England. He harassed and persecuted the Puritans and other Non-conformists, including Baptists.
In an 1852 booklet, Baptists stated: "Bishop Bancroft, to whom the king confided very much in the actual execution of the work [KJV], was one of the most bigoted and bloody sectarians in the civilized world" (The Bible Question, p. 38). Albert Peel wrote that Bancroft was described by Andrew Melville as "the capital enemy of all the Reformed Churches in Europe" (TRACTS, p. x).
Alexander McClure noted that Bancroft "was the ruling spirit in that infamous tribunal, the High Commission Court, a sort of British Inquisition" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 217). Daniel Neal reported: "Bancroft was a divine of a rough temper, a perfect creature of the prerogative, and a declared enemy of the religious and civil liberties of his country" (History of the Puritans, p. 240).
It was Archbishop Bancroft that approved or made the rules for the translation of the KJV. By his establishment of the rules and overseeing of the actual translation, Bancroft had great influence on the KJV. Bancoft's chaplain, Leonard Hutten, was one of the translators. Several bishops who were in agreement with many of Bancroft's views and were directly under his chain of command were also translators.
In spite of his great influence and authority over the translation, the finished work of the KJV translators did not satisfy Bancroft. This proud Archbishop had to make some changes in the translation before it was even published. Paine noted that Miles Smith, final Editor of the KJV with Thomas Bilson, "protested that after he and Bilson had finished, Bishop Bancroft made fourteen more changes" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 128).
Henry Jessey, a Baptist pastor in the early 1600's, complained about the KJV for its bent favoring "episcopacy," and said that Bancroft, "who was supervisor of the present translation, altered it in fourteen places to make it speak the language of prelacy" (Williams, Common English Version, p. 53). "Prelacy" refers to a system of church government by Prelates such as Archbishops and Bishops set over more than one local church.
Were these fourteen changes directly inspired or approved by God? Are they the "verbally inspired Word of God, preserved through all ages since the Apostles?" One reason to question these fourteen changes is that the changes were certainly made to support episcoplian church government views of the Church of England. The changes were also in violation of some of the translation rules for the KJV. In addition, expressed opposition by some of the KJV translators to these changes indicate that these changes were viewed wrong by these translators.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Influence of the High Commission Court on the KJV
Most likely, most believers today know very little about the High Commission Court in England in the late 1500's and 1600's. On the other hand, believers during the 1600's knew a great deal about the great power of the High Commission Court. The Church of England used the High Commission Court and the Star Chamber to force everyone in England to conform to this state church.
Walker pointed out that the High Commission Court "could examine and imprison anywhere in England and had become the right arm of episcopal authority" (History of the Christian Church, pp. 406-407). John Brown stated that this Court's "methods of investigation were described as worthy only of the Spanish Inquisition" (English Puritans, p. 76). Neal also observed that this Court's methods "were almost equal to the Spanish Inquisition" with its "long imprisonments of ministers without bail or bringing them to trial" (History of the Puritans, p. xi).
Thomas Smith noted that John Cotton (1585-1652) complained that "the ecclesiastical courts are dens of lions," "cages of uncleanness, and roosting places of birds of prey, the tabernacles of bribery, forges of extortion, and fetters of slavery, a terror of all good men, and a praise to them that do evil" (Select Memoirs, pp. 391-392).
In 1610 during the reign of King James I, Babbage stated that "the House of Commons addressed a Petition to the king for the redress of grievances arising through the Court of High Commission" (Puritanism and Richard Bancroft, pp. 286-287). Alexander McClure noted that Archbishop Richard Bancroft "was the ruling spirit in that infamous tribunal, the High Commission Court, a sort of British Inquisition" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 217).
What possible connections or links are there between this hated High Commission Court and the KJV? Directly under King James I, Archbishop Richard Bancroft, a leading member of this Court, was the overseer for the translation of the KJV. He approved or made the rules for the translation, and he clearly had the power to force his views on others. A KJV translator claimed that Bancroft made at least fourteen changes in the KJV before it was published.
Other members of this High Commission Court were KJV translators Lancelot Andrewes and George Abbott. Abbott became Archbishop after Bancroft died. Other KJV translators that were Bishops were most likely also members of this Court. A disciple or follower of Lancelot Andrewes, William Laud (1573-1645), who was a leader among the younger Anglicans during the reign of James, would become the Archbishop during the reign of Charles I, James's son. Frere described Laud as "the man who was to take up Andrewes' work and carry it out into practice by energetic means" (English Church, p. 371).
Some may question whether the High Commission Court with its "distinguished" members such as some KJV translators and several Archbishops can be fairly compared to the Inquisition. As members of this Court, George Abbott and Lancelot Andrewes urged the burning at the stake of two men for their religious views and King James approved this sentence.
The brutality of some of the punishments issued by this court are shocking. The example of the treatment of one Puritan preacher, Alexander Leighton, in 1628 or 1629 illustrates this brutality. For writing a book that condemned the institution of bishops as "anti-Christian and satanic," the High Commission Court issued a warrant for him. He was taken to Laud's house and then to Newgate prison without any trial. Leighton was put in irons in solitary confinement in an unheated cell for fifteen weeks. Smith stated that the roof of his cell was uncovered so that the rain and snow beat in upon him (Select Memoirs, p. 428). None of his friends nor even his wife were permitted to see him during this time. According to four doctors, Leighton was so sick that he was unable to attend his supposed sentencing (Ibid.).
Durant noted that Leighton also "was tied to a stake and received thirty-six stripes with a heavy cord upon his naked back; he was placed in the pillory for two hours in November's frost and snow; he was branded in the face, had his nose split and his ears cut off, and was condemned to life imprisonment" (Age of Reason Begins, pp. 189-190).
In 1615, Archbishop Abbott, a High Commission Court member, "forbade anyone to issue a Bible without the Apocrypha on pain of one year's imprisonment" (Moorman, Forever Settled, p. 183). This order was likely aimed at the Geneva Bible with its 1599 edition printed without the Apocrypha. Archbishop Laud can be linked to using the power of the High Commission Court to make the KJV the officially approved translation.
Conant noted, "So pertinaciously, indeed, did the people cling to it [the Geneva Bible], and so injurious was its influence to the interests of Episcopacy and of the 'authorized version,' that in the reign of Charles I, Archbishop Laud made the vending, binding, or importation of it [Geneva Bible] a high-commission crime" (English Bible, p. 367). Was it the power of this cruel High Commission Court that finally forced believers to give up their beloved and popular Geneva Bible?
Does this documented information, that some of the KJV translators were members of this court which was known as a "terror of all good men," relate to the claim that these men were "superior translators?" How could truly godly men take part in the cruelty of this court? Why did none of the KJV translators condemn the many abuses of power by this Court? Why did King James or the KJV translators do nothing to stop this Court's persecution of true believers?
Jean
But Scripture defines Scripture.
The KJV is the clearest English version (spare me the Old English phrases; I can actually read AND think at the same time); it is beautifully written is the language of Shakespeare; it's not beholden to wealthy East Coast copyrights; and the text has not been insideously undermined by the gnostic, homosexual panderings of New-Age, old-cloth P.C. fat cats.
Why does the KJVOnlyist crowd always find the need to denegrate those who cannot read and comprehend the King's English of the KJV???
It is plain and simple fact that the KJV is far more difficult to read than even the NKJV! Are those who cannot read simple "unworthy"???
"it is beautifully written is the language of Shakespeare;
Quite frankly, I don't give a rat's ass if it is "beautifully written" nor easier to remember (which begs the question of what was "easy to remember" for those in the year 1611).
I want the Bible to be in plain common every-day English! It is the eternal Word of God to be spoken to every nation, tribe, language and people -not just those who can understand Shakespearian English!
...it's not beholden to wealthy East Coast copyrights;...
If you are referring to the NIV, the IBS, who holds the copyright, is located in Colorado Springs.
If you are referring to the NKJV, that is held by Thomas Nelson Publishers, they are located in Nashville (as well as being the largest publisher of the KJV).
If you are referring to the NASB, the copyright holder is the Lockman Foundation which is located in La Habra, California.
Not only is your point totally irrelevant, it is simply wrong.
I am simply astounded at the amount of lies and false information that the KJVOnly crowd is propogating in the name of "Christianity".
...and the text has not been insideously undermined by the gnostic, homosexual panderings of New-Age, old-cloth P.C. fat cats."
Can you demonstrate explicitly any "gnostic", "homosexual panderings" or "New-Age" passages in any "new Bible"?
In fact, the NIV is takes an explicitly stronger stand against Homosexuality compared to the KJV in 1 Corinthians 6:9:
1 Cor 6:9 (NIV)
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders1 Cor 6:9 (KJV)
9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
What, precisely, does it mean to be "effeminate"? I know plently of people who are "effeminate" (a great many of the women I know are "effeminate"), but they most certainly are not homosexual or prostitutes! And what, exactly, does it mean to be an "abuser of themselves with mankind"??? That's rather vague and ambiguous!
Whereas the NIV ~CLEARLY~ and ~UNAMBIGUOUSLY~ tells us "male prostitues" and "homosexual offenders"!
So much for being "soft" on homosexuality!
Jean
Check its history.
Dr E., I hate to laugh at you, but this has me rolling. Clearly you have never been to, or spent any time in, Colorado Springs, Colorado.
Having lived in both Colorado and the NYC area, I can assure you there are immense cultural differences between the two locales. Besides, Colorado is a huge state in comparison to East Coast states, giving Coloradoans lots of physical room to spread out and separate their political differences. Case in point, the political climate in Colorado Springs vastly differs from the climate in the Denver metro area. And Boulder occupies a whole 'nother space-time-continuum in itself.
Jean
Being a life long resident of the the mid-Atlantic East Coast (and having spent a considerable amount of time in Colorado Springs), I'd have to say....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
However, it was founded in New York City.
There are those who will read these threads and do their own research. Others will choose not to. Like we Calvinsts say, "some will see it; and some will not."
BTW, it was you who brought up how "difficult" it was for "some people" to read the KJV. That's pretty "elitist," IMO.
I've lived in Colorado Springs. It is more than the locale of "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman."
Let's see. What is also in Colorado Springs? Who founded Colorado Springs? Who and what owns Colorado Springs?
These are rhetorical questions that you can all answer for yourselves or on this thread or embroidered on pillowcases.
I'm not expounding on this point any further.
And your earlier "rat's ass" comment is unbecoming your argument.
But it is in the vernacular. So I guess it's all well and good.
Fair enough. I am aware that things have "converged" there.
But, have you lived in the mid-Atlantic East Coast? All I was sayin' is that I don't see that as a valid comparison.
There's only one location, mid-Atlantic-wise, I'm talking about. And I'm through talking about it. But thanks for your gentle inquiries ("rat's ass"-wise).
However, it was founded in New York City."
"BTW, it was you who brought up how "difficult" it was for "some people" to read the KJV. That's pretty "elitist," IMO."
I fail how to see my desire to see the Word of God in the ~common~ language of the day as "elitist". It is you who denegrated those of us who have fail to understand or have difficulty with (for whatever reason) Shakespearian English.
According to your logic, Calvinist_Dark_Lord could denegrate us for using ~ANY~ Enlgish Translation whatsoever and failing to learn Greek!
Jean
And all the lies and un-truths in your arguments are OK????
Jean
I've never called you a "liar," Jean. It never would have occurred to me. And our shared beliefs certainly would have prevented it.
FWIW, I said the language of the KJV was generally understandable. You insisted it was above the heads of the unschooled masses.
Get a grip.
See how the NIV leads to gender ambiguity?
(That's a joke, Jean.)
James Dobson and Focus on the Family?
How so?
Jean
I've never called you a "liar," Jean."
I have no doubt you fully believe what you are propogating, therefore, I do not consider you to be a "liar".
Nonetheless, the arguments and facts you have adopted from the KJVOnly crowd are indeed lies and untruths. I have attempted to correct many of them privately to no avail. I also, as have others, have asked for explicit and specific documentation for your charges and you have yet to produce any.
You make the claim that Mollenkott had "great influence" on the NIV translation. I have asked you to explicitly document what influence Mollenkott had on the homosexuality passages. You have failed to do so.
Now either
A) You have failed to do so even though such evidence exists.
Or
B) You have failed to provide this documentation ~BECAUSE~ it doesn't exist!
If A applies, let's see the explicit evidence proving that Mollenkott "had great influence" on the Homosexuality passages in the NIV.
If B applies, even though you believe it to be true, you are propogating unsubstatiated charges.
Jean
;)
Jean
I'm all ears if you have the evidence!
Jean
I'm asking for the specific evidence that tells us that Virginia Mollenkott had "great influence" on what you and I both know are the Biblical passages on Homosexuality.
Now your obfuscating the issue!
Jean
I guess that's proof enough for me, LOL.
"Now, what was the sin of Sodom?"
I asked first: Does or does not the defintion of the Hebrew word Qadesh mean "male temple prostitute"?????
Iquiring minds want to know!
Jean
| "I don't think we'll ever have proof." ~ GWB |
I suppose you can make any ol' willie-nillie claim and fall back to that argument in the face of lack of real proof....IF it suit's your purposes!
"What was the sin of Sodom?"
Have you yet provided an answer as to whether or not the definition of the Hebrew word Qadesh is "male temple prostitute". I must have missed it if you have.
Jean
That's the best you can do? Attack me personally?
Goodness, how in the world do you get that I have "sprouted" the "pro-sodomy" position?
I've simply asked you whether or not the literal definition of the Hebrew word Qadesh is "male temple prostitute".
I fail to see how that question necessarily means I am "pro-sodomy", LOL!
Your failure to answer that simple question and your subsequent (and previous) personal ad-hominem attacks on me speak ~VOLUMES~ about the substance of your position and your arguments.
In reality, the literal definition of the Hebrew word Qadesh has absolutely nothing to do with my position on anything!
Your otherwise respectability is waning, George.
Go ahead! Continue to propgate un-truths and lies in the name of Christ.
Go ahead! Continue to provide irrelevant (and untrue!) personal attacks on me in the name of Christ!
It's the result that is important, right? Certainly not the means!
Jean
Wow! If my asking a single question which you steadfastly refuse to answer (for rather obvious reasons) is "three-fourths of the 'gay Christian' propoganda line", then they don't have much of an argument, now do they?
George, I think that's ludicrous in reality because I haven't even been offering an argument regarding homosexuality. I'm simply asking you a question that you simply refuse to answer.
Really, George, your attack on me to deflect from your refusal to answer the question as to whether or not the literal definition of the Hebrew word Qadesh is "male temple prostitute" is akin to attacking someone who is suspect of the authenticity of the "Johannine Comma" as being anti-Trinitarian.
It simply does not follow.
"No, in fact, it is your refusal to answer my question which is the most telling."
George, the issue is the translation of 2 Kings 23:7.
Now, what ~my~ understanding/definition of "sodomy" is is completely irrelevant.
2 Kings 23 is speaking of events in Jerusalem, not in Sodom. The Hebrew word which the KJV translates as "Sodomite" is Qadesh.
The NIV translates the Hebrew word Qadesh as "male shrine prostitutes".
I'm simply asking you if the literal definition of the Hebrew word Qadesh is "male temple prostitute".
My understanding/definition of the word "sodomite" is entirely irrelevant and is being utilitzed by you as a deflection from the real issue.
Ruckman and Riplinger would be awfully prowd of you!
Jean
George, we are discussing the issue of translation, ~not~ the issue of homosexuality!
Your "chirp...chirp-chirp...chirp-chirp..." comment is a bit hypocritical in the light of ~YOUR~ failure to answer the following ~ON-TOPIC~ question on translation:
DOES or DOES NOT the literal definition of the Hebrew word Qadesh, which is found in 2 Kings 23:7, mean "male temple prostitute"?????(In reality, your "chirp-chirp" attempt to score "debate points" is a result of my being out of town at a trade show combined with the resulting extremely limited internet access that I have.)
Jean
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.