Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Translations Before the King James: - The KJV Translators Speak!
cin.org ^ | 1611 | KJV Translators

Posted on 05/01/2011 4:14:07 AM PDT by GonzoII

Translations Before the King James:

The KJV Translators Speak!

 

taken from

"THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER"

Preface to the King James Version 1611

 

Old habits die hard, and some who are use to thinking of the Reformation as being responsible for the existence of venacular translations of the Bible will deny that there were translations in the common language of the people before Protestantism arose. In fact, there were many of them, as the following excerpts from the original introduction to the King James Bible (1611) admit. This introduction, written by the translators of the KJV, is no longer printed in most editions of the KJV, but it is in some KJV Bibles, and it clearly testifies to the translators' knowledge and use of prior venacular translations of the Scriptures, including prior English translations. Of particular interest is the fact that it refers to the Douay-Rheims version (1609), a Catholic translation into English which came out after the Reformation and, in fact, just before the King James Version itself did.

In what follows I have put important admissions in bold face, and added some explanatory notes in {curley brackets}.

  

[...]

TRANSLATION OUT OF HEBREW AND GREEK INTO LATIN


There were also within a few hundred years after CHRIST, translations many into the Latin tongue: for this tongue also was very fit to convey the Law and the Gospel by, because in those times very many Countries of the West, yea of the South, East and North, spake or understood Latin, being made Provinces to the Romans. But now the Latin Translations were too many to be all good, for they were infinite (Latini Interprets nullo modo numerari possunt, saith S. Augustine.) S. Augustin. de doctr. Christ. lib 2 cap II.

Again they were not out of the Hebrew fountain (we speak of the Latin Translations of the Old Testament) but out of the Greek stream, therefore the Greek being not altogether clear, the Latin derived from it must needs be muddy. This moved S. Jerome a most learned father, and the best linguist without controversy, of his age, or of any that went before him, to undertake the translating of the Old Testament, out of the very fountain with that evidence of great learning, judgment, industry, and faithfulness, that he had forever bound the Church unto him, in a debt of special remembrance and thankfulness.

THE TRANSLATING OF THE SCRIPTURE INTO THE VULGAR TONGUES


Now through the Church were thus furnished with Greek and Latin Translations, even before the faith of CHRIST was generally embraced in the Empire; (for the learned know that even in S. Jerome's time, the Consul of Rome and his wife were both Ethnics, and about the same time the greatest part of the Senate also) S. Jerome. Marcell.Zosim yet for all that the godly-learned were not content to have the Scriptures in the Language which they themselves understood, Greek and Latin, (as the good Lepers were not content to fare well themselves, but acquainted their neighbors with the store that God had sent, that they also might provide for themselves) 2 Kings 7:9 but also for the behoof and edifying of the unlearned which hungered and thirsted after righteousness, and had souls to be saved as well as they, they provided Translations into the vulgar for their Countrymen, insomuch that most nations under heaven did shortly after their conversion, hear CHRIST speaking unto them in their mother tongue, not by the voice of their Minister only, but also by the written word translated.

If any doubt hereof, he may be satisfied by examples enough, if enough will serve the turn. First S. Jerome saith, Multarum gentium linguis Scriptura ante translata, docet falsa esse quae addita sunt, etc. i.e. "The Scripture being translated before in the languages of many Nations, doth show that those things that were added (by Lucian and Hesychius) are false." S. Jerome. praef. in 4::Evangel. So S. Jerome in that place.

The same Jerome elsewhere affirmeth that he, the time was, had set forth the translation of the Seventy suae linguae hominibus, i.e., for his countrymen of Dalmatia S. Jerome. Sophronio.

Which words not only Erasmus doth understand to purport, that S. Jerome translated the Scripture into the Dalmatian tongue, but also Sixtus Senensis Six. Sen. lib 4, and Alphonsus a` Castro Alphon. lb 1 ca 23 (that we speak of no more) men not to be excepted against by them of Rome, do ingenuously confess as much.

So, S. Chrysostom that lived in S. Jerome's time, giveth evidence with him: "The doctrine of S. John (saith he) did not in such sort (as the Philosophers' did) vanish away: but the Syrians, Egyptians, Indians, Persians, Ethiopians, and infinite other nations being barbarous people {that is, non-Greek speakers} translated it into their (mother) tongue, and have learned to be (true) Philosophers," he meaneth Christians. S. Chrysost. in Johan. cap.I. hom.I.

To this may be added Theodoret, as next unto him, both for antiquity, and for learning. His words be these, "Every Country that is under the Sun, is full of these words (of the Apostles and Prophets) and the Hebrew tongue (he meaneth the Scriptures in the Hebrew tongue) is turned not only into the Language of the Grecians, but also of the Romans, and Egyptians, and Persians, and Indians, and Armenians, and Scythians, and Sauromatians, and briefly into all the Languages that any Nation useth." Theodor. 5. Therapeut. So he.

In like manner, Ulfilas is reported by Paulus Diaconus and Isidor (and before them by Sozomen) to have translated the Scriptures into the Gothic tongue: P. Diacon. li. 12.

John Bishop of Sevil by Vasseus, to have turned them into Arabic, about the year of our Lord 717; Vaseus in Chron. Hispan.

Bede by Cistertiensis, to have turned a great part of them into Saxon: Efnard by Trithemius, to have abridged the French Psalter, as Beded had done the Hebrew, about the year 800: King Alfred by the said Cistertiensis, to have turned the Psalter into Saxon: Polydor. Virg. 5 histor.

Methodius by Aventinus (printed at Ingolstadt) to have turned the Scriptures into Slavonian: Aventin. lib. 4.

Valdo, Bishop of Frising by Beatus Rhenanus, to have caused about that time, the Gospels to be translated into Dutch rhythm, yet extant in the Library of Corbinian: Circa annum {around the year} 900. B. Rhenan. rerum German. lib 2.

Valdus, by divers to have turned them himself into French, about the year 1160: Charles the Fifth of that name, surnamed the Wise, to have caused them to be turned into French, about 200 years after Valdus his time, of which translation there be many copies yet extant, as witnesseth Beroaldus.

Much about that time, even in our King Richard the second's days, John Trevisa translated them into English, and many English Bibles in written hand are yet to be seen with divers {i.e., diverse translations}, translated as it is very probable, in that age.

So the Syrian translation of the New Testament is in most learned men's Libraries, of Widminstadius his setting forth, and the Psalter in Arabic is with many, of Augustinus Nebiensis' setting forth.

So Postel affirmeth, that in his travel he saw the Gospels in the Ethiopian tongue; And Ambrose Thesius allegeth the Pslater of the Indians, which he testifieth to have been set forth by Potken in Syrian characters.

So that, to have the Scriptures in the mother tongue is not a quaint conceit lately taken up, either by the Lord Cromwell in England, Thuan. or by the Lord Radevile in Polony, or by the Lord Ungnadius in the Emperor's dominion, but hath been thought upon, and put in practice of old, even from the first times of the conversion of any Nation; no doubt, because it was esteemed most profitable, to cause faith to grow in men's hearts the sooner, and to make them to be able to say with the words of the Psalms, "As we have heard, so we have seen." Ps 48:8

[...]

THE SPEECHES AND REASONS, BOTH OF OUR BRETHREN,
AND OF OUR ADVERSARIES AGAINST THIS WORK


Many men's mouths have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the Translation so long in hand, or rather perusals of Translations made before: and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment:

"Hath the Church been deceived, say they, all this while? Hath her sweet bread been mingled with leaven, here silver with dross, her wine with water, her milk with lime? (Lacte gypsum male miscetur, saith S. Ireney,) S. Iren. 3. lib. cap. 19. We hoped that we had been in the right way, that we had the Oracles of God delivered unto us, and that though all the world had cause to be offended and to complain, yet that we had none. Hath the nurse holden out the breast, and nothing but wind in it? Hath the bread been delivered by the fathers of the Church, and the same proved to be lapidosus, as Seneca speaketh? What is it to handle the word of God deceitfully, if this be not?" Thus certain brethren.

Also the adversaries of Judah and Jerusalem, like Sanballat in Nehemiah, mock, as we hear, both the work and the workmen, saying; "What do these weak Jews, etc. will they make the stones whole again out of the heaps of dust which are burnt? although they build, yet if a fox go up, he shall even break down their stony wall." Neh 4:3

Was their Translation good before? Why do they {the KJV translators} now mend it? Was it not good? Why then was it obtruded {given} to the people? Yea, why did the Catholics (meaning Popish Romanists) always go in jeopardy {of the Protestant penal laws}, for refusing to go to hear it {at the compulsory Protestant church services}? Nay, if it must be translated into English, Catholics are fittest to do it. They have learning, and they know when a thing is well, they can manum de tabula.

We will answer them both briefly: and the former, being brethren, thus, with S. Jerome, "Damnamus veteres? Mineme, sed post priorum studia in domo Domini quod possums laboramus." S. Jerome. Apolog. advers. Ruffin. That is, "Do we {i.e., the KJV translators} condemn the ancient {translations}? In no case: but after the endeavors of them that were before us, we take the best pains we can in the house of God." As if he said, Being provoked by the example of the learned men that lived before my time, I have thought it my duty, to assay whether my talent in the knowledge of the tongues, may be profitable in any measure to God's Church, lest I should seem to laboured in them in vain, and lest I should be thought to glory in men, (although ancient,) above that which was in them. Thus S. Jerome may be thought to speak.

A SATISFACTION TO OUR BRETHREN


And to the same effect say we, that we are so far off from condemning any of their labors that travailed before us in this kind {of endeavour}, either in this land {England} 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 ever renowned 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.

The judgment of Aristotle is worthy and well known: "If Timotheus had not been, we had not had much sweet music; but if Phrynis Timotheus his master had not been, we had not had Timotheus."

Therefore blessed be they, and most honoured be their name, that break the ice, and giveth onset upon that which helpeth forward to the saving of souls. Now what can be more available thereto, than to deliver God's book unto God's people in a tongue which they understand?

[...]

AN ANSWER TO THE IMPUTATIONS OF OUR ADVERSARIES


Now to the latter we answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.

{This is, of course, impossible to square with the "only the King James is the Word of God" position of some KJV Onlyites, as is what follows...}

As the King's speech, which he uttereth in Parliament, being translated into French, Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King's speech, though it be not interpreted by every Translator with the like grace, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. Horace. A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) James 3:2 also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it....

The translation of the Seventy {the Septuagint or LXX version of the Old Testament} dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God.

[...]

THE PURPOSE OF THE TRANSLATORS,
WITH THEIR NUMBER, FURNITURE, CARE, ETC.


But it is high time to leave them, and to show in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held in this our perusal and survey of the Bible. Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort, that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with whey instead of milk:) but {we intended} to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.

{Here the KJV translators have admitted that there were many good translations prior to their own time.}

[...]

[W]e have shunned the obscurity of the Papists, in their {use of words like} AZIMES, TUNIKE, RATIONAL, HOLOCAUSTS, PRAEPUCE, PASCHE, and a number of such like {words}, whereof their late Translation is full ...

{Here the KJV translators have referred to the Douay-Rheims, a Catholic translation of the Bible into English, which came out in 1609, two years before the KJV.}

Home | File Library | Offsite Files | Catechism | Today's Question | Question Box | Links | About

All material copyright 1997 by James Akin unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved.


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: bible; kjv; scripture
"hear CHRIST speaking unto them in their mother tongue, not by the voice of their Minister only, but also by the written word translated."

Of course, if they could read.

1 posted on 05/01/2011 4:14:10 AM PDT by GonzoII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: NYer

Ping?


2 posted on 05/01/2011 4:25:48 AM PDT by Hieronymus ( (It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged. --G.K. Chesterton))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
I once wrote a graduate research paper on the translation (and politics) of the KJV. It really is a gripping story in its own right with over 47 different translators working in committee at Oxford and Cambridge.

The key man was an obscure but brilliant scholar named John Bois who gave the KJV its ringing poetic quality.

Authorized King James Version

3 posted on 05/01/2011 4:37:12 AM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin has crossed the Rubicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
The notes of the AV translators also show they were most aware that their work was properly subject to revision as better sources and wider scholarship followed.

Having God's word in one’s own language has provided motivation for learning to read as well as having affordable copies available. So the invention of printing and work of Bible translation into the common languages has worked hand in glove to bolster literacy.

Those translators comments are well worth the time to read. thanks!

4 posted on 05/01/2011 4:39:47 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: count-your-change
"So the invention of printing and work of Bible translation into the common languages has worked hand in glove to bolster literacy."

Good point.

5 posted on 05/01/2011 4:45:34 AM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; Hieronymus

In the Empire, by 425 there was a fully functioning elementary school system and an Imperial university at Constantinople. It is estimated that 50% of the population, including peasants, not merely the city dwellers and soldiers, were literate. The Scriptures were written in the mother tongues of the people, mostly Greek but also Aramaic, Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Ge’ez, Coptic, etc. Of course, once the Slavs became Christian, it became a matter of both Church and State urgency that Scripture be translated into their vernacular...and a whole written language was created for that (as were the two Coptic dialects, also from Greek).

The idea that reading the bible in the vernacular was the gift of the Protestant Revolution is absolute, Western parochial nonsense.


6 posted on 05/01/2011 4:49:55 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
"In the Empire, by 425 there was a fully functioning elementary school system and an Imperial university at Constantinople. It is estimated that 50% of the population, including peasants, not merely the city dwellers and soldiers, were literate."

It would be interesting to know if these schools were staffed by clerics and religious. That would be historical evidence that the Church certainly was not trying to prevent the laity from reading Scripture.

7 posted on 05/01/2011 5:01:03 AM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII
"It would be interesting to know if these schools were staffed by clerics and religious."

Probably not until much later when the Patriarchal school was established, say in the 9th or 10th century. Before that, the Imperial government made the professorial appointments. Nevertheless, you should remember just how very religious Byzantine society was. There are all sorts of stories of hierarchs complaining that they couldn't go the baker's or cobbler's shops without being forced to discuss some arcane theological point.

If you are interested, here's a link to a short article on the subject of Byzantine higher ed.

http://byzantine-university.co.tv/

8 posted on 05/01/2011 5:19:33 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

Thanks for the link.


9 posted on 05/01/2011 5:37:23 AM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

Bible Possession Once Banned by the Catholic Church!

ITEM #2 COUNCIL OF TOULOUSE - 1229 A.D.

The Council of Toulouse, which met in November of 1229, about the time of the crusade against the Albigensians, set up a special ecclesiastical tribunal, or court, known as the Inquisition (Lat. inquisitio, an inquiry), to search out and try heretics. Twenty of the forty-five articles decreed by the Council dealt with heretics and heresy. It ruled in part:

Canon 1. We appoint, therefore, that the archbishops and bishops shall swear in one priest, and two or three laymen of good report, or more if they think fit, in every parish, both in and out of cities, who shall diligently, faithfully, and frequently seek out the heretics in those parishes, by searching all houses and subterranean chambers which lie under suspicion. And looking out for appendages or outbuildings, in the roofs themselves, or any other kind of hiding places, all which we direct to be destroyed.

Canon 6. Directs that the house in which any heretic shall be found shall be destroyed.

Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.

Source: Heresy and Authority in Medieval Europe, Edited with an introduction by Edward Peters, Scolar Press, London, copyright 1980 by Edward Peters, ISBN 0-85967-621-8, pp. 194-195, citing S. R. Maitland, Facts and Documents [illustrative of the history, doctrine and rites, of the ancient Albigenses & Waldenses], London, Rivington, 1832, pp. 192-194.


10 posted on 05/01/2011 7:07:48 AM PDT by Cardhu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cardhu

You posted:

“Bible Possession Once Banned by the Catholic Church!”

That’s FALSE. The Catholic Church never banned the Bible in any way.

Toulouse was a local council ONLY and was battling the Albigensians.

Catholicism and Fundamentalism
by Karl Keating

“...The council held in Toulouse dealt with the Albigensian heresy, a variety of Manichaeanism, which maintained that marriage is evil because the flesh is evil...In order to promulgate their views, the Albigensians used vernacular versions of the Bible to “substantiate” their theories...[and they] were twisting the Bible to support an immoral moral system. So the bishops at Toulouse restricted the use of the Bible until the heresy was ended. (C&F p.45)

As noted by the Protestant Harold Lindsell, former editor of Christianity Today and well-known evangelical writer:

The view expressed by Augustine was the view the Roman Catholic Church believed, taught, and propagated through the centuries . . . It can be said that the Roman church for more than a thousand years accepted the doctrine of infallibility of all Scripture . . . The church has always (via Fathers, theologians, and popes) taught biblical inerrancy . . . The Roman church held to a view of Scripture that was no different from that held by the Reformers.

{The Battle For the Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976, pp. 54-56}

Of course, since most anti-Catholics are both stupid and dishonest it is all too easy for them to make the boneheaded mistake - or to just lie - and say that the Church banned the Bible when it never actually happened. A regional council is not the Church. Fighting the Albigensians is not banning the Bible Church wide.


11 posted on 05/01/2011 7:31:25 AM PDT by vladimir998 (Copts, Nazis, Franks and Beans - what a public school education puts in your head.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

***{Here the KJV translators have referred to the Douay-Rheims, a Catholic translation of the Bible into English, which came out in 1609, two years before the KJV.}***

Yet they also say they were forced to do their own translation because the Catholic Church were dragging their feet on producing a good translation and the translators had seen none of the Catholic version yet.

Glad to see someone else reading FROM THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER.


12 posted on 05/01/2011 8:04:31 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Click my name. See my home page, if you dare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

But of course the English had to wait for the Reformation for a vernacular Gospel!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_Bible_translations

;)


13 posted on 05/01/2011 8:38:37 AM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; Kolokotronis

In the west, “Mass Priests”, priests without parochial responsibilities, usually served as tutors or ran schools. Where the reformation swept these out, literacy rates dropped.


14 posted on 05/01/2011 9:09:54 AM PDT by Hieronymus ( (It is terrible to contemplate how few politicians are hanged. --G.K. Chesterton))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Cardhu
"Bible Possession Once Banned by the Catholic Church!"

This is an example of when a half truth a lie?

The Council of Toulouse did ban the possession of vernacular Bibles for the laity without a license; not because the Church wished to discourage the authentic study of Scripture, but because the Bible was used as a tool for the promotion of the Albigensian heresy. In the Middle Ages, Bibles contained glosses, either in between verses or in the margins. These glosses served to guide the reader's interpretation of the text. A decently translated Bible could contain glosses which might lead the reader to reject the Church. Or the translation of the Bible could be perverted to support a heretical doctrine. For these reasons, some very poor and incorrectly translated bibles were burned.

The uncritical anti-Catholic also assumes that because there were relatively few bibles, knowledge of Scripture was limited. That was hardly the case. Catholics transmitted biblical knowledge in other forms. There were books which paraphrased stories in the Bible as is done today in children's books. The visual arts abounded in Scriptural themes. Stained-glass windows were the poor man's Bible. There were Miracle plays, which were the forerunners of modern Western theatre, as well as poems recounting Bible stories. Even the illiterate had access to the Bible through their families. Only a minority of people were literate during the Middle Ages, but sometimes one person in the family could read (often a woman) and the Bible, being the most widely-owned book in the Middle Ages, was read aloud.

The assumption driving this myth of bible-banning is that the Church, during the Middle Ages, was a big bad oppressor who wanted her flock to be ignorant so that it wouldn't challenge her power and her doctrines.

So the charge that the Church was against knowledge of Scripture is entirely unfounded. It's true that in some periods and some places vernacular versions of the Bible were rare or non-existent, but that's not the same thing as saying that the Church did not want the laity to read the Bible.

- from Catholic Answers Forum.

15 posted on 05/01/2011 9:35:41 AM PDT by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Claud

Yes, poor folk...unless of course they had a copy of the the Wessex Gospels:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wessex_Gospels

or the Old English Hexateuch:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_Hexateuch, or any of a number of other Anglo Saxon type translations.


16 posted on 05/01/2011 10:41:03 AM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

Perhaps they confuse the writing with the printing.


17 posted on 05/01/2011 10:44:16 AM PDT by Defiant (When Democrats lose voters, they manufacture new voters instead of convincing the existing voters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

Has that been published? I would love to read it.


18 posted on 05/01/2011 10:49:00 AM PDT by esquirette ("Our hearts are restless until they find rest in Thee." ~ Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]



Please Donate



19 posted on 05/01/2011 11:10:27 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; it_ürür; Bockscar; Mary Kochan; Bed_Zeppelin; YellowRoseofTx; Rashputin; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


20 posted on 05/01/2011 11:14:39 AM PDT by narses ("Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions." Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; Virginia Ridgerunner; esquirette

Here is a link to a nicely formated FROM THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER. It is much easier to read.

http://avbtab.org/av/avPre.htm

And the translators here.

BIOGRAPHIES OF THE
KING JAMES VERSION TRANSLATORS

I. The First Westminister Company—translated the historical books, beginning with Genesis and ending with the Second Book of Kings.

Dr. Lancelot Andrews
Dr. John Overall
Dr. Hadrian Saravia
Dr. Richard Clarke, Dr. John Laifield, Dr. Robert Tighe, Francis Burleigh, Geoffry King, Richard Thompson
Dr. William Bedwell

II. The Cambridge Company—translated Chronicles to the end of the Song of Songs.

Edward Lively, Dr. John Richardson, Dr. Lawrence Chaderton
Francis Dillingham, Dr. Roger Andrews, Thomas Harrison, Dr. Robert Spaulding, Dr. Andrew Bing

III. The Oxford Company—translated beginning of Isaiah to the end of the Old Testament.

Dr. John Harding, Dr. John Reynolds
Dr. Thomas Holland, Dr. Richard Kilby
Dr. Miles Smith, Dr. Richard Brett, Daniel Fairclough

IV. The Second Oxford Company—translated the four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Revelation of St. John the Divine.

Dr. Thomas Ravis, Dr. George Abbot
Dr. Richard Eedes, Dr. Giles Tomson, Sir Henry Savile
Dr. John Peryn, Dr. Ralph Ravens, Dr. John Harmar

V. The Fifth Company of Translators at Westminster—translated all of the Epistles of the New Testament

The fifth company of translators at Westminster are all found at this link
Dr. William Barlow
Dr. John Spencer
Dr. Roger Fenton
Dr. Ralph Hutchinson
William Dakins
Michael Rabbet
[Thomas(?)] Sanderson

VI. The Sixth Company of Translators at Cambridge translated the apocryphal books. The King James translators did not consider the Apocrypha to be scripture and neither did King James—see, Alexander McClure on the Apocryphal committee and Why the Apocrypha is not is the Bible.

Dr. John Duport, Dr. William Brainthwaite, Dr. Jeremiah Radcliffe
Dr. Samuel Ward
Dr. Andrew Downes, John Bois
Dr. John Ward, Dr. John Aglionby, Dr. Leonard Hutten
Dr. Thomas Bilson, Dr. Richard Bancroft


21 posted on 05/01/2011 11:51:09 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Click my name. See my home page, if you dare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

If anyone is interested, last week Walmart had 400th Aniversery copies of the ORIGINAL KJV for $4.99.

With the preface and geaneologies of the various tribes. All this and OLDE ENGLISH lettering. Shows why the Geneva version still gave the KJV a run for it’s money till they modernized the alphabet.

Not bad for less than $5.00 bucks.


22 posted on 05/01/2011 11:55:59 AM PDT by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Click my name. See my home page, if you dare!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: esquirette

No, it was for a graduate history class I took in 1999 on the English Reformation and post-Reformation periods.


23 posted on 05/01/2011 12:08:55 PM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin has crossed the Rubicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Ridgerunner

Was this authorized by God, King James, or both? Are there unauthorized editions out there?


24 posted on 05/01/2011 4:13:09 PM PDT by fire4effect
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fire4effect
Authorized by King James.

Historically speaking, the KJV was translated NOT for the sake of religion, but for purely political reasons.

Remember the context of the times, when the Counter Reformation was well under way (leading to Guy Fawkes' Gunpowder Plot of 1605) and the Puritans in England were attacking the king and the Anglican Church as still being too Catholic.

With Elizabeth I dead and buried, James' hold on power was by no means certain. The Puritans had commissioned their own translation, called the "Geneva" Bible, which included subversive annotations aimed clearly at overthrowing him and establishing a "Puritan" state (similar to what Cromwell ultimately did after the English Civil War). James outlawed the Geneva Bible under pain of death, and commissioned the KJV to supplant it and also provide the Anglican Church with a standard, authorized text to hopefully unify the country.

In the end, James held on to power until he died in 1625, but his Charles I lost both the throne and his head to the Puritans in 1649. But, the KJV still reigned supreme.

25 posted on 05/01/2011 5:08:24 PM PDT by Virginia Ridgerunner (Sarah Palin has crossed the Rubicon!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

“The idea that reading the bible in the vernacular was the gift of the Protestant Revolution is absolute, Western parochial nonsense.”

Thanks so for this. Wonders never cease as to the errors of the prots, especially contradiction of simple history.


26 posted on 05/01/2011 5:16:52 PM PDT by BonRad (Ut Roma cadit, sic omnis terra -As Rome falls, so the entire world)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; GonzoII; Hieronymus; BonRad

“”The Scriptures were written in the mother tongues of the people, mostly Greek””

There is good evidence that even OT Scripture was translated to Greek in 300 Bce. So, for the KJV to try and use Hebrew in many cases was ridiculous considering there was many versions of Hebrew and the language of the times was Greek

Here is a good article from UPENN

The Significance of Greek for Jews in the Roman Empire
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak//publics/notrak/Treu.htm

Excerpt...
Whether it is a special case or not, in the 3rd century BCE the Jewish community in Alexandria had not only made the transition to Greek, they had also given up the native Aramaic to such an extent that a translation of the Torah into Greek became necessary. The fact that we hear nothing about the process of this linguistic transformation suggests that it had taken place gradually and without incident. We can also only conjecture why this happened: The Jews had already accomplished one change in language when they adopted Aramaic, the universal business language. The division between Hebrew, the language of cult and sacred scripture, and the practical everyday language was already familiar to them. Now one business language was being replaced by another, just as Greek was later replaced by Latin in Rome.


27 posted on 05/01/2011 8:55:13 PM PDT by stfassisi ((The greatest gift God gives us is that of overcoming self"-St Francis Assisi)))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ruy Dias de Bivar

Thanks for adding the link.


28 posted on 05/01/2011 9:16:52 PM PDT by GonzoII (Quia tu es, Deus, fortitudo mea...Quare tristis es anima mea?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII

Praise God Almighty that Godly men who rightly feared the Living God [unlike 19th century translators, some of whom reject Jesus Christ, and who are only qualified for the sandbox]…these KJV Bible believing men were not only outstanding scholars of Greek, Hebrew, Latin: but also the target language, which is why they were eminently more qualified than present “scholars” whom poorly wrestle with the nuances of the target language: choosing only to make it a book of “easy” understanding.


29 posted on 05/01/2011 9:45:46 PM PDT by bibletruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; Ruy Dias de Bivar; All
Any history of the KJV NOT mentioning William Tyndale's translation, the very first printed & widely distributed bible in English, is missing the Keystone in the arch of English translations.

Tyndale's translation of the 1520s was absolutely crucial in the development of the English bible. In fact, although he was executed for his work....his last words, a prayer, were answered. Tyndale said, "Lord, open the King of England's Eyes!" Within a few months, Tyndale's translation was republished as the official royally authorized "Great Bible."

The KJV often has exactly the same wording as Tyndale's version of 80 years before...

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

William Tyndale (ca. 1495-1536) was the greatest of all English biblical scholars. His translation of the Bible into English formed the major part of the Authorized Version, or King James Bible.

William Tyndale was born in Gloucestershire and mostly educated at Oxford, where he earned a master of arts degree in 1515. He became a priest and, doubtless influenced among other things by the work of John Colet and Erasmus at Cambridge some years earlier, decided to produce an English translation of the Bible. He found support from a rich London cloth merchant. Within months, however, he became convinced he must leave London if he was to succeed; and, accordingly, with the financial support of the merchant, he left England in 1524, never again to return.

After short sojourns in Hamburg, and, possibly, Wittenberg, Tyndale settled down at Cologne in 1525. He quickly began the printing of his New Testament, but only a few sheets had been finished when the city fathers got wind of it and stopped it. The work was resumed at Worms, and by April 1526 an octavo edition was being sold in London. In November all available copies were burned at St. Paul's Cross. In 1528 Tyndale published the Parable of the Wicked Mammon, dealing with Luther's teaching concerning justification by faith, and the Obedience of a Christian Man, which replaced papal authority by royal authority and was heartily approved by King Henry VIII. However, in the Practice of Prelates in 1530, Tyndale not only attacked Cardinal Wolsey but opposed the annulment of Henry VIII's marriage with Catherine of Aragon. Meanwhile Bishop Tunstall of London had invited Sir Thomas More to reply to Tyndale's books, and a lively controversy took place.

Tyndale's Lutheran-inspired Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount was much admired; and possibly The Supper of the Lord, which appeared in 1533, was also his. Meanwhile throughout these years his work on the Old Testament had been proceeding. In 1530 he published his translation of the Pentateuch. As his New Testament had been pirated for various unsatisfactory editions, he published a revision in 1534, with a third, revised edition in 1535. In 1535, however, he was seized by the local government authorities in Antwerp, where he was living, for being a propagator of heresy. After months of imprisonment and many theological disputations he was condemned in August 1536 for persistence in heresy, and in October he was strangled to death and his body publicly cremated.

During his years at Antwerp, where he was so well maintained by the generosity of the English merchants there, Tyndale acquired a great reputation for austerity of character and frugality of life, combined with a steady attention to the needs of the poor, which offset the impression caused by the violent language found in his polemical works. In the year following his death there appeared in England a new Bible with the king's approval which was said to be the work of one Thomas Matthew. It was, however, a composite work edited by John Rogers and containing translations by him, by Miles Coverdale, and, for the greater part, by Tyndale. This Matthew Bible was reedited by Coverdale and published in 1539. It became known as the Great Bible. In this way Tyndale's translation was the basis of the first Bibles in English to get royal approval. His translation has underlain most subsequent English versions and has profoundly affected the development of the English language.

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/william-tyndale#ixzz1LFuqXfYz

30 posted on 05/02/2011 8:41:48 PM PDT by AnalogReigns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GonzoII; mgist; raptor22; victim soul; Isabel2010; Smokin' Joe; Michigander222; PJBankard; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.

31 posted on 12/25/2012 4:56:16 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson