# Was the AV ever really 'authorized'?



## bookslover (Jan 3, 2018)

Ed Walsh said:


> It has never been deauthorized. . .



Well, the king authorized the _creation_ of a new translation (and he did so, at least in part, for political, not theological, reasons). Once the KJV was finished, however, the translation itself was never _authorized_ by the king, who had, by then, moved on to other interests. He never gave the finished KJV his official okie-dokie.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jan 3, 2018)

bookslover said:


> He never gave the finished KJV his official okie-dokie.



So I guess calling it _authorized_ is like the Million Man March in 1995.


----------



## KMK (Jan 3, 2018)

Or calling the ASV, NASB, and ESV 'Standard'?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jan 3, 2018)

I guess it depends upon how one views "authorized", as _in having authority_, _recognized as having authority_, _endowed with authority_, etc., to do something. Hence the call to the participants to create the translation, were so authorized to do so.


----------



## ZackF (Jan 3, 2018)

There were other translations that were not authorized at the time.


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Jan 3, 2018)

Richard:

I will forbear quoting standard sources that anyone can easily find on the Internet, but, to take an example, the discussion under "Authorized Version" on the fairly well-done Wikipedia entry deals with this, acknowledging no records of authorization after the fact (the Privy Council records for 1600-1613 were destroyed in a fire), but noting that the King's printer replaced the Bishop's Bible with the AV, which became the lectern Bible in the parish churches. 

I say this only for the sake of the historical record and not to in any way plead for the KJV. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Username3000 (Jan 4, 2018)

Is the 'authorization' of the KJV being used as an argument for why it ought to be used as a translation?

Perhaps if you were an Anglican Royalist, that kind of logic could be reluctantly accepted; but, to claim that this 'authorization' has any type of meaning to the current American Presbyterian is a far, far stretch.

King James did not speak for, nor represent, the Bride of Christ. If he wanted to authorize a new translation of the Scriptures backed by the Crown, so be it; but, to claim some type of weight upon that authorization, I simply cannot see it.

This coming from a Canadian monarchist of British descent (Scottish & English).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 4, 2018)

From page 17 "The King James Version: A Short History From Tyndale To Today," by David Norton;
The First 'Authorised' Version: The Great Bible


> The next draft, again made by Coverdale, was the Great Bible of 1539, also known as Cranmer's Bible because of the preface by the Archbishop included from the second edition onwards. It was the first major revision done under the auspices of the English Church. As such it was the official ancestor of the Bishops' Bible, which in its turn was the official ancestor of the Church's third revision, the KJB.
> The names by which we know these early Bibles are nicknames rather than official titles. Some Great Bible title pages state 'this is the Bible appointed to the use of the churches' ; the fourth and sixth editions (1541) elaborated this to 'the Bible in English of the largest and greatest volume, authorised and appointed by the commandment of our most redoubted prince and sovereign lord, King Henry the VIII'. This is a direct reference to Edward VI's proclamation of 1541 ordering 'the Bible of the largest and greatest volume to be had in every church'.
> Size or greatness would continue to be a defining characteristic of official church Bibles into the seventeenth century, Retrospect makes 'authorised' seem a key word. The Great Bible only used it twice, and the Bishop's Bible did not have it on its title page until 1584, sixteen years after it first appeared (in 1588 this became 'authorised and appointed'). The KJB did not use 'authorised' , only 'appointed to be read in Churches'. 'Authorised' was much less significant than we now consider it.


----------



## Logan (Jan 4, 2018)

In addition to being the only _authorized_ Bible to be read in the Church of England, wasn't it true that after its release the competing Bible (Geneva) was banned from being printed? So it was the only Bible (more or less) _authorized_ to be printed as well.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 5, 2018)

bookslover said:


> Well, the king authorized the _creation_ of a new translation (and he did so, at least in part, for political, not theological, reasons). Once the KJV was finished, however, the translation itself was never _authorized_ by the king, who had, by then, moved on to other interests. He never gave the finished KJV his official okie-dokie.


If it was formally authorized, it would be to the Church of England, and not to the entire Church, as even during its time, many like the Puritans preferred the Geneva Bible.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> If it was formally authorized, it would be to the Church of England, and not to the entire Church, as even during its time, many like the Puritans preferred the Geneva Bible.



Yes. As I understand it, it actually took about 50 years for the KJV to catch on among England's Christians. They were quite happy with their Geneva Bibles.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 5, 2018)

bookslover said:


> Yes. As I understand it, it actually took about 50 years for the KJV to catch on among England's Christians. They were quite happy with their Geneva Bibles.


There were many English versions even at that time, and the same reservations that some have today towards the modern versions were expressed when the KJV was done.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> the same reservations that some have today towards the modern versions were expressed when the KJV was done.


What reservations, exactly? Can you cite a source for that?


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> There were many English versions even at that time, and the same reservations that some have today towards the modern versions were expressed when the KJV was done.


I don't know if the reservations were the same, but there some who definitely favored the Geneva Bible, since it had been in print, and widely read, since 1560. It was rightfully referred to as 'the Bible of the Puritans.' This from a Wiki article 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible


> In 1604, the year after claiming the throne of England in 1603, King James I hosted and presided over a conference pertaining to matters religious, the Hampton Court Conference. While the Geneva Bible was the preferred Bible of Anglican and Puritan Protestants during the Elizabethan Age, King James I disliked the Geneva Bible and made his views clearly known at the conference: "I think that of all [English Bibles], that of Geneva is the worst." *Apparently, his distaste for the Geneva Bible was not necessarily upon all the translations of the numerous passages into English, but mostly the annotations in the margins. He felt strongly many of the annotations were "very partial, untrue, seditious, and savoring too much of dangerous and traitorous conceits..." In all likelihood, he saw the Geneva's interpretations of biblical passages as anti-clerical "republicanism", which could imply church hierarchy was unnecessary. *Hypothetically, it followed that the need for a king as head of church and state could be questioned also. He had been dealing with similar issues with his Presbyterian-Calvinist religious leaders back in Scotland, and he wanted none of the same controversies in England. Also, if annotations were in print, readers might believe these interpretations correct and fixed, making it more difficult to change his subjects' minds about the meanings of particular passages.
> 
> 
> Title page of a Geneva Bible Apparently dated 1599 but probably printed circa 1616 to 1625.
> So when two Puritans towards the end of the conference suggested that a new translation of the Bible be produced to unify better the Anglican Church in England and Scotland, James embraced the idea. He could not only be rid of those inconvenient annotations, but he could have greater influence on the translation of the Bible as a whole. He commissioned and chartered a new translation of the Bible which would eventually become the most famous version of the Bible in the history of the English Language. Originally known as the Authorized Version to be read in churches, the new Bible would forever bear his name as the so-called King James Bible. The first and early editions of the King James Bible from 1611 and the first few decades thereafter lack annotations, unlike nearly all editions of the Geneva Bible up until that time.[11] *Initially, the King James Version did not sell well and competed with the Geneva Bible. Shortly after the first edition of the KJV, King James banned the printing of new editions of the Geneva Bible to further entrench his version. *However, Robert Barker continued to print Geneva Bibles even after the ban, placing the erroneous date 1599 on new copies of Genevas which were actually printed circa 1616 to 1625.[12] Despite popular misconception, the Bible initially brought to North America by the Puritan Separatists or Pilgrim Fathers aboard the Mayflower in 1620 was the Geneva Bible not the King James Version.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 5, 2018)

JimmyH said:


> I don't know if the reservations were the same, but there some who definitely favored the Geneva Bible, since it had been in print, and widely read, since 1560. It was rightfully referred to as 'the Bible of the Puritans.' This from a Wiki article
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible


That was my main gist on the situation, as did know that the Puritans and others favored the Geneva Bible over the KJV itself.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> That was my main gist on the situation, as did know that the Puritans and others favored the Geneva Bible over the KJV itself.


Then they weren't "the same reservations that some have today towards the modern versions," as you stated above?

The reason I'm pressing you on your post (#12) is that you are clearly implying that the grounds on which many stick with the KJV are unwarranted, because the same supposed bias was at work against the KJV in the seventeenth century. However, there are significant differences between most modern translations vs the KJV on the one hand, and the KJV vs the Geneva Bible (or any other translation from that era) on the other hand.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you've made a groundless and underhanded attack on your brethren who prefer to use the KJV.


----------



## bookslover (Jan 5, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Then they weren't "the same reservations that some have today towards the modern versions," as you stated above?
> 
> The reason I'm pressing you on your post (#12) is that you are clearly implying that the grounds on which many stick with the KJV are unwarranted, because the same supposed bias was at work against the KJV in the seventeenth century. However, there are significant differences between most modern translations vs the KJV on the one hand, and the KJV vs the Geneva Bible (or any other translation from that era) on the other hand.
> 
> If I'm understanding you correctly, you've made a groundless and underhanded attack on your brethren who prefer to use the KJV.



He isn't attacking anyone. He's making a historical point. No need to take it personally. It's a fact that the Geneva Bible, which had been around for about half a century by 1611, was favored by many Christians who had no interest in switching to the KJV. It took about another half-century for that to happen, for the KJV to gain market-share, as they say.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jan 5, 2018)

bookslover said:


> He isn't attacking anyone. He's making a historical point. No need to take it personally. It's a fact that the Geneva Bible, which had been around for about half a century by 1611, was favored by many Christians who had no interest in switching to the KJV. It took about another half-century for that to happen, for the KJV to gain market-share, as they say.



That's not the whole of his point, however. He didn't merely say that the Geneva Bible was favored by many Christians. This would not be controversial. What he said was that it was favored because many had the same reservations about the KJV that KJVers hold about modern versions. I'm not really a hardline TR guy myself but it does seem like an implicit criticism of those who do prefer the KJV to modern translations on principle and as such requires elaboration to be fair.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 6, 2018)

bookslover said:


> He isn't attacking anyone. He's making a historical point. No need to take it personally. It's a fact that the Geneva Bible, which had been around for about half a century by 1611, was favored by many Christians who had no interest in switching to the KJV. It took about another half-century for that to happen, for the KJV to gain market-share, as they say.


I'm happy to acknowledge that the KJV took a while to catch on. However, David stated that "the same reservations" which people have about modern translations were the ones at play when the KJV was new. That is simply not the case. The same basic text was used for the KJV as the previous translations. The same basic translation philosophy was used. The same basic grammatical conventions were used in the translation. None of these are true for modern translations over against the KJV, and these issues are the reasons for most peoples' reservations who have them.

David's point was to say that we shouldn't have reservations about the new translations, because people had equivalent reservations about the KJV itself. That's simply not true.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 6, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Then they weren't "the same reservations that some have today towards the modern versions," as you stated above?
> 
> The reason I'm pressing you on your post (#12) is that you are clearly implying that the grounds on which many stick with the KJV are unwarranted, because the same supposed bias was at work against the KJV in the seventeenth century. However, there are significant differences between most modern translations vs the KJV on the one hand, and the KJV vs the Geneva Bible (or any other translation from that era) on the other hand.
> 
> If I'm understanding you correctly, you've made a groundless and underhanded attack on your brethren who prefer to use the KJV.


I did not mean to cast anything badly upon those who prefer to use the KJV, as my main points were that there were some who saw the Geneva as being a superior version for use still even when the KJV came out, and that they objected to using the KJV because they thought it was an inferior version to the Geneva.
I have no problem with anyone here who prefers the KJV, or sees the Tr as being a better Greek text, its just that I prefer the Critical Greek text myself, and the modern versions such as the Esv/Nas, but the KJV is still a fine translation.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 6, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> That's not the whole of his point, however. He didn't merely say that the Geneva Bible was favored by many Christians. This would not be controversial. What he said was that it was favored because many had the same reservations about the KJV that KJVers hold about modern versions. I'm not really a hardline TR guy myself but it does seem like an implicit criticism of those who do prefer the KJV to modern translations on principle and as such requires elaboration to be fair.


I prefer the Critical Greek text and the modern versions, but have no problem with any here who see the KJV as being the best version, or the Tr as best Greek source, just have a problem with anyone in general who holds to a KJVO, which don;t think any here do.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 6, 2018)

bookslover said:


> He isn't attacking anyone. He's making a historical point. No need to take it personally. It's a fact that the Geneva Bible, which had been around for about half a century by 1611, was favored by many Christians who had no interest in switching to the KJV. It took about another half-century for that to happen, for the KJV to gain market-share, as they say.


Thanks for seeing what I was attempting to state here concerning this issue.


----------



## Edward (Jan 6, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> The same basic translation philosophy was used.



It depends on what you mean by 'basic translation philosophy'. The basic philosophy underlying the KJV was to bake in a bias in favor of a hierarchical church government and the king in light of the concerns about the Geneva.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 6, 2018)

Edward said:


> It depends on what you mean by 'basic translation philosophy'. The basic philosophy underlying the KJV was to bake in a bias in favor of a hierarchical church government and the king in light of the concerns about the Geneva.


This is why some have seen it as authorized to the Church of England, as the translators were trying to water down how other versions spoke harshly again Kings, and they also kept in the Baptism as not being immersion, but open to how they viewed that issue.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jan 6, 2018)

Edward said:


> It depends on what you mean by 'basic translation philosophy'. The basic philosophy underlying the KJV was to bake in a bias in favor of a hierarchical church government and the king in light of the concerns about the Geneva.





Dachaser said:


> This is why some have seen it as authorized to the Church of England, as the translators were trying to water down how other versions spoke harshly again Kings, and they also kept in the Baptism as not being immersion, but open to how they viewed that issue.



Edward & David, I prefer CT translations myself. However, I greatly appreciate the KJV & NKJV too. Where do you see the KJV in favor of heiarchical church government (Edward) or non-immersion baptism (David) as compared to any other committee based translation?


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 6, 2018)

TrustGzus said:


> Edward & David, I prefer CT translations myself. However, I greatly appreciate the KJV & NKJV too. Where do you see the KJV in favor of heiarchical church government (Edward) or non-immersion baptism (David) as compared to any other committee based translation?


I feel the same way that you have expressed here, and was just saying that the KJV translators could have taken immersion over as term for water baptism, but chose to just transliterate the Greek over from Baptizmo to Baptism.


----------



## Edward (Jan 6, 2018)

The King was primarily concerned with some of the notes in the Geneva. Since the AV committee largely tracked the language of the Geneva, the finished document isn't substantially different (and some of the changes were for the worse, as far as readability goes). 

" and the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind." (AV)

"And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, as a fig-tree casteth her green figs, when it is shaken of a mighty wind." (G)

Excerpts from BibleGateway. 

I do find it a bit surprising that folks that claim to follow the Puritans stick like glue to the KJV instead of embracing the Geneva.


----------



## JimmyH (Jan 6, 2018)

Here is an article on the lead translator of the KJV of 1611. Lancelot Andrewes. Worth the read, and one of the reasons, besides the famously brilliant William Tyndale's text being followed for much of it, that the Holy Book is the pinnacle of English literature.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 6, 2018)

Edward said:


> It depends on what you mean by 'basic translation philosophy'. The basic philosophy underlying the KJV was to bake in a bias in favor of a hierarchical church government and the king in light of the concerns about the Geneva.





Edward said:


> The King was primarily concerned with some of the notes in the Geneva. Since the AV committee largely tracked the language of the Geneva, the finished document isn't substantially different (and some of the changes were for the worse, as far as readability goes).


I can't see how these quotes fit together. In the first quote, you claim that the text of the KJV is substantially different than the Geneva Bible, insofar as it (allegedly) supports a hierarchical government. In the second quote, you deny that they are substantially different. Let me know if I'm missing something.


----------



## TylerRay (Jan 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I did not mean to cast anything badly upon those who prefer to use the KJV, as my main points were that there were some who saw the Geneva as being a superior version for use still even when the KJV came out, and that they objected to using the KJV because they thought it was an inferior version to the Geneva.
> I have no problem with anyone here who prefers the KJV, or sees the Tr as being a better Greek text, its just that I prefer the Critical Greek text myself, and the modern versions such as the Esv/Nas, but the KJV is still a fine translation.


David,
I'm still not seeing how your earlier statement about the reservations being the same holds up. Yes, there were reservations in both instances; but they were substantially different reservations.


----------



## Edward (Jan 6, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Let me know if I'm missing something.



You are missing something.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Jan 6, 2018)

The purpose of Christian discussion is edification.
*
Moderating*: Closing for a rest. If it reopens, keep this word from Durham in view on doing all things for the edification of the church (something not limited to the duty of pastors, nor excluding posts to the PB):

"Use Two. For exhortation, whether in doctrine, discipline or carriage. And it is in the apostle’s words, “for as much as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church” (1 Cor. 14:12), we had need to take the exhortation in all things to aim mainly at the edifying of the body of Christ. In every sermon, in every exercise of discipline, in every meeting together, in every word we speak in our meeting, in all the steps of our carriage, look to edify. "

Src: James Durham, “_A Sermon on Ephesians 4:11–12_,” Collected Sermons of James Durham: Sixty-one Sermons (Naphtali Press and Reformation Heritage Books, August 2017), 925​


----------

