IN REVELATION 11:3 it is written, And I will

Transcription

1 The most fitting monument King James I as sponsor of the KJV Nigel Bernard IN REVELATION 11:3 it is written, And I will give power unto My two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. This prophecy speaks of the sometimes violent witnessing against the Roman Catholic Church over a period of 1,260 years which began in A.D. 312 when Constantine came to power. By the sixteenth century the witnessing had given birth to the Reformation in Europe and the emergence of Protestantism. The prophetic period came to an end in 1572 with a violent crackdown against the Huguenots in France by Roman Catholic mobs, beginning with the St. Bartholomew s Day Massacre. But across the sea from mainland Europe, Protestantism had irrevocably taken hold. In 1560, Scotland formally broke with Rome following the ruling of what became known as the Reformation Parliament. Six years later, the man who would later become James VI, king of Scotland, was born. The Protestant forces which had been at work in the years leading up to his birth would help shape the man who would one day commission the most famous English translation of the Bible. When this commissioning occurred, in 1604, James had become King James I of England. In the Epistle Dedicatory of the 1611 KJV, the translators wrote of the blessings from God bestowed upon us the people of England, when first he sent Your Majesty s Royal Person to rule and reign over us. This had followed upon the setting of that bright Occidental Star, Queen Elizabeth. The relief apparent in this dedication was very real. Elizabeth I had died childless; there were grounds for claiming, as they went on to write, that it should hardly be known, who was to direct the unsettled State. Yet King James was sent to them; and to understand the man who sponsored the 1611 translation we must take account both of his Scottish origins and how he came to be king of England. Queen of Scots In December 1542 the Scottish King James V died. Six days earlier, his daughter Mary had been 132 born. She was the rightful heir to the throne of Scotland. As a descendant of Henry VII she also had an outside claim to the English throne. From the outset, differing factions, including English forces, sought to gain control over her future. In 1548 her guardians sent her to France under the care of the French king, Henri II. In 1558 Mary married Henri II s son Francis. The following year Francis became king, and Mary became queen consort of France as well as queen of Scotland. But Francis died two years later, and, with no longer any authority in France, Mary decided to return to Scotland. Mary was a Catholic; but by this time Scotland had been taken over by Protestant nobles, with the fiery preacher John Knox as their spiritual leader. It was therefore agreed that Mary would celebrate her Catholic religion privately while Scotland would remain Protestant. Many Protestants objected to her being queen, but she toured the country, persuading many nobles to accept her rule, if not her religion. But all the time she coveted also the throne of England, at this time ruled by Elizabeth I. In 1565 Mary married Henry, Lord Darnley, her first cousin. A year later, their son James was born. Meanwhile, Darnley was rapidly becoming disillusioned with the pre-eminence of his wife and turned to a debauched lifestyle. He was killed by Scottish nobles, and it was suspected by many that Mary had been involved in the plot. These suspicions were strengthened when she married James Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell, a prime suspect in the murder. By now many nobles had become exasperated by Mary s behaviour, and they confronted her and Bothwell at a place called Carberry. Bothwell escaped, but Mary surrendered and was imprisoned in Lochleven Castle. While in Lochleven, Mary was coerced by the nobles to sign abdication papers and thus ceased to be queen. And so it was that her young son became James VI of Scotland. Mary would later escape prison; but, following the defeat of her army near Glasgow, she fled to England and threw herself upon the mercy of Queen Elizabeth. The Testimony, June 2011

2 Mary would eventually be executed for treason in 1587 after the discovery of a letter written by her which spoke of a plot to kill the English queen. Childhood With his mother in prison, the young King James was educated from the age of four by a variety of tutors. His senior tutor was George Buchanan, who was renowned for his learning and poetry. He was also vehemently against Mary; and this antipathy was manifest in the punishments he inflicted on James. Nevertheless, James was to benefit greatly from his learning. The historian Antonia Fraser relates how another royal tutor, Peter Young, described a typical day in his studies, starting with prayers to propitiate the deity, then Greek the New Testament, Isocrates or Plutarch. After breakfast, came Latin Livy, Justin or Cicero; after dinner, composition, and then arithmetic or cosmography, which included geography and astronomy, or dialectics or rhetoric. 1 James s education from an early age provided a scholarly background which would be an important factor in his sponsorship of a new translation of the Bible. As mentioned above, Bible translation itself was a feature of his education. Indeed, in addition to the translation of Greek Bible texts into English, by the age of eight James could translate aloud a chapter of the Bible from Latin into French and then into English. 2 When, many years later, the request would be made to him for a new translation of the Bible, his childhood education would provide a basis for his positive response and an awareness of the problems to be addressed. Ungodly character As James grew up he developed, to use the language of Paul, vile affections (Rom. 1:26). These relationships were well-documented and known about at the time, and characterised his reign as king throughout his life. In addition, his reign as king in England would become renowned for its extravagance and debauchery. His sponsorship of a new translation of the Bible is therefore very much at odds with his ungodly personal behaviour. James VI and I At age 17, James formally took control of the government of Scotland. His rule as king in Scotland is generally accepted as having been successful. Although he failed to gain full control of the clans in the north and west, he did achieve significant James I of England by Paul van Somer. (Wikimedia Commons) success in the south, encouraging those on the border lands to abandon the use of force and to use the courts instead to settle differences. The historian S. J. Houston has summarised the reign of James in Scotland as follows: By 1603 James s passion for law and order had brought to Scotland an unaccustomed peace which, by encouraging trade, began to promote a small measure of prosperity. 3 On 24 March 1603, Queen Elizabeth I died. Any doubts about whether or not James should succeed her on the English throne were dispelled by a proclamation in Whitehall Gate in London that James was the new king of England. Messengers hurried north to Scotland, and James lost no time in heading south to claim the throne. At the head of the Epistle Dedicatory in the KJV, James is referred to as King of Great Britain. The title 1. Antonia Fraser, King James VI and I (London, Book Club Associates, 1974), p Ibid. 3. S. J. Houston, James I (Harlow, Longman, 1995), p. 7. The Testimony, June

3 was never ratified by Parliament, but it reflected a desire on the part of James to unify the island peacefully. A key to such unity would be to unify religion; and it was religious differences which would provide him with one of the first challenges he faced as king in England. These differences would be played out the following year at what became known as the Hampton Court Conference. And it was at this conference that the idea for a new translation of the Bible was promulgated. Hampton Court Soon after James s accession to the English throne, as he journeyed from Scotland, the Puritans presented him with a petition. It supposedly contained over 1,000 signatures, and later became known as the Millenary Petition. According to historian Gordon Campbell, it covered issues such as popish ceremonies and vestments, married clergy, the requirement that clergy be educated, and the grounding of doctrine in Scripture. 4 In order to discuss this petition, King James organised a three-day conference, held in January 1604 at Hampton Court Palace. The Puritans largely followed Calvinism, the doctrines of which included predestination and the importance of the sabbath. It also placed much emphasis on the Bible as a source of belief, and encouraged the development of personal faith and preaching. The Puritans were not, however, a completely unified group. Some were separatists who claimed that individuals need not worship within a national church. Independents wished to remain within a national church but with greater freedom for congregations. Moderate Puritans were happy to continue to acknowledge the monarch as head of the church and accepted the role of bishops. By contrast, Presbyterians, whilst advocating a national church, rejected the idea that the monarch was the head of the church, and they also advocated the replacement of bishops by elders and synods. King James already had an aversion to the Scottish Presbyterians, not least because of their views of the monarchy. At one stage during the conference, James uttered the phrase, no bishop, no king. This was a reaction to what he perceived was Presbyterian sentiment; but this statement is also indicative of his belief that he had a Divine right to rule. It also suggests that he was more sympathetic to the high church than to Puritanism. Indeed, such was his distaste for Scottish Presbyterianism that English Catholics were hopeful that his accession to the English throne 134 would lead to the lifting of Elizabethan restraints on their worship. That this did not happen led to the failed Gunpowder Plot in 1605, when disaffected Catholics sought to blow up Parliament. The prophecy of Revelation 11 identifies two opposing forces. On the one hand there is the Roman Catholic Beast, and on the other hand there are the Protestant witnesses. King James in many ways sought a middle way between these two. This is reflected in the wording of the Epistle Dedicatory:... if, on the one side, we shall be traduced by Popish Persons at home or abroad... on the other side, we shall be maligned by self-conceited Brethren. Whatever the details of the path that James chose to take between these two extremes, the new translation was certainly a product of this effort to find a middle way. The only Puritans invited to the conference were five moderates who had not been involved in the Millenary Petition, and they were led by John Rainolds, the President of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. In addition to the Puritans, there were nine bishops, of whom the Bishop of London, Richard Bancroft, was a key spokesman. There were also present eight deans, an archdeacon and around nine privy councillors. There is by no means unanimity amongst historians about the Hampton Court Conference, particularly with regard to the motives and role of James. The generally accepted interpretation of the conference is that James used it to try to accentuate the divisions between the radical, independent and separatist Puritans on the one hand and the moderates on the other. This strategy involved making some concessions to the Puritans, including, it could be argued, the decision to produce a new translation of the Bible. It is also generally agreed that the supposed concessions reflected James s own Protestant inclinations and his desire to move away from Catholic practice. Some historians, however, argue that Hampton Court involved no true concessions, and that all the changes that can be traced with confidence to James s own opinions involved a definite shift away from godly [i.e. Puritan] aspirations. 5 On the first day of the conference, Saturday 14 January, James met with the bishops, but not with 4. Gordon Campbell, Bible: The Story of the King James Version (Oxford, University Press, 2010), p Alan Cromartie, King James and the Hampton Court Conference, in R. Houlbrooke (ed.), James VI and I Ideas, Authority and Government (Aldershot, Ashgate, 2006), pp The Testimony, June 2011

4 Archbishop Richard Bancroft ( ) As Bishop of London ( ), Bancroft was one of the leading participants in the Hampton Court Conference (January 1604). He became Archbishop of Canterbury later that same year (1604) on the death of Archbishop Whitgift. Dying in November 1610, he did not live to see the KJV in print; but he is generally acknowledged as the chief overseer of the translation, since it was he who dealt directly with the king, appointed and liaised with the translators, drafted their Rules, and corresponded with the bishops and clergy about the new translation and its use. He was succeeded as Archbishop in March 1611 by the Bishop of London and former Dean of Winchester, George Abbot, who, as a member of the second Oxford company, had had a personal hand in translating significant sections of the KJV New Testament. (Picture: Reg Carr) the Puritans. At this meeting James spoke about such issues as excommunication and baptism. At the second session, on Monday 16 January, the Puritans were present, and only two bishops were admitted. During this meeting, the issues covered included a proposal by John Rainolds that a new translation of the Bible be made. According to the account of the conference written by the anti-puritan William Barlow, Rainolds justified his request on the grounds that those [translations] that were allowed in the reigns of Henry VIII and Edward VI were corrupt, and not answerable to the truth of the original. The historian Gordon Campbell, from whom this sentence is cited, notes that the Great Bible (1539) was used in the days of Henry and Edward, but that the Bishops Bible (1568) was in use in 1604, and it is not clear why Rainolds does not mention this latter version. 6 However, whatever was said or not said by Rainolds (Barlow may not have recorded his words fully), James agreed to the suggestion. On the last day of the conference, Wednesday 18 January, a meeting was held with the bishops and lawyers, and then the king met for the final meeting with the Puritans, during which a list of agreed proposals was drawn up. In the event the Puritans had little to show from the agreed outcomes of the conference, and not everything was carried out. But the proposed new translation of the Bible was one thing which certainly did come to fruition. The king s agreement Why, then, did James agree to a new translation? Although it might seem like a concession to the Puritans, this does not seem to have been an overriding motive of the king. While still in Scotland, in 1601, James himself had urged a new translation on the Kirk [Scottish Church] but without it being followed up; so he was clearly sympathetic to the idea. 7 One factor which undoubtedly did motivate James was his antipathy towards the Geneva Bible. This was because it contained marginal notes which were subversive about the concept of monarchy. A new translation which did away with such notes would provide an alternative to, and would challenge, the Geneva Bible. Another factor was the academic interest that James had in languages, literature and theological debate. The project appealed to the interests he had developed during his scholarly upbringing. Translation The Epistle Dedicatory spoke of James as the principal Mover and Author of the work. Allowing for the fact that this particular translation was not his original idea, these words do reflect the role James played as the translation s sponsor. He was the Author in the sense that he initiated the project rather than having any hands-on role in the actual work of translation. The Epistle Dedicatory also states: Your Majesty did never desist to urge and to excite those to whom it was commended, that the work might be hastened, and that the business might be expedited in so decent a manner. This statement indicates that the king took an active interest in 6. Campbell, op. cit., p Fraser, op. cit., p The Testimony, June

5 The Rules to be observed in the Translation of the Bible 1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit. 2. The names of the prophets, and the holy writers, with the other names of the text, to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were vulgarly used. 3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. the word church not to be translated congregation &c. 4. When a word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the ancient fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogy of the faith. 5. The division of the chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require. 6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text. 7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit reference of one scripture to another. 8. Every particular man of each company, to take the same chapter, or chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself, where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their parts what shall stand. 9. As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for his Majesty is very careful in this point. 10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, doubt or differ upon any place, to send them word thereof, note the place, and withal send the reasons, to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work. 11. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directed, by authority, to send to any learned man in the land, for his judgement of such a place. 12. Letters to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand; and to move and charge as many as being skilful in the tongues; and having taken pains in that kind, to send his particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge, or Oxford. 13. The Directors in each company, to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester for that place; and the King s Professors in the Hebrew or Greek in either University. 14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops Bible: Tyndale s, Matthew s, Coverdale s, Whitchurch s [Great Bible], Geneva. 15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most ancient and grave divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in translating, to be assigned by the Vice-Chancellor, upon conference with the rest of the Heads, to be overseers of the translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th rule above specified. [Quoted from A. W. Pollard, Records of the English Bible, pp The sixteenth-century spelling and arbitrary capitalisation have been modernised, for easier reading] 136 The Testimony, June 2011

6 the project and ensured that the work was completed within a reasonable time. One of the ways by which the influence of the king impacted on the translation was through a set of fifteen rules, devised by Richard Bancroft, for the translators to follow (see opposite). 8 Rule Six stated: No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text. This rule probably owes much to the aversion James had to the marginal notes of the Geneva Bible. The influence of the king is explicitly stated in Rule Nine: As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful in this point. That there were six companies to translate different sections of the Bible, and that the king was careful in this regard, would seem to indicate the keenness James had to ensure that the translation was as accurate as possible and that it would be the subject of intense scholarly review and checking. Four of the companies were based in universities, two in Cambridge and two in Oxford. Rule 13 stated: The directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester for that place, and the King s professors in Hebrew or Greek in each university. The King s professors (Regius professors) had been originally appointed by the king and would have been chosen for their loyalty to him. As such, their role as directors of the companies would ensure that the translation work would proceed in a way which pleased the king. According to Antonia Fraser, It is evident that James s prime motive in his instructions and the care he took in his consultative work, was that the Bible should be easily understood by the ordinary people of the day. 9 If this is true, then one can discern a two-pronged approach to the translation. On the one hand, the king ensured that the very best scholars in the land were employed on it. On the other hand, he was mindful that the scholars could lose sight of the need to produce a translation which was not only accurate but also accessible by the general reader. Few would disagree that James succeeded in achieving both these goals. Conclusion The title for this article is taken from an article by Jenny Wormald, where she states: Perhaps the most fitting monument for King James, and the one he himself would have wanted, is the glorious prose of the Authorised Version. 10 As has been alluded to earlier in the article, King James was not a godly man, and the Authorised Version of the Bible is a flattering monument, to say the least. However, it is surely the case that, as the various prophetic time periods were running their course, God was ruling in the kingdoms of men to ensure that a translation of His Word would be produced which would play such an important part in the revival of the Truth in the last days. 8. See also Campbell, op. cit., pp Fraser, op. cit., p Jenny Wormald, James VI and I, History Today, 52 (6), 2002, pp Within a web of politics The King James Version of the Bible is seldom viewed as a radical text, yet the history of English Bible translation in the sixteenth century, culminating in the now-familiar King James Version, is a complex one, revealing that Bible translation did not occur in a vacuum but within a web of politics, shifting religious pressures and repressions. Roland H. Worth That moment of optimism The King James Bible is a window on that moment of optimism, in which the light of understanding and the majesty of God could be united in a text to which the nation as a whole, Puritan and prelate, court and country, simple and educated, could subscribe. Adam Nicolson The Testimony, June