History of the English Bible
Lesson 7 - King James and the Bible
James - Where did he come from?
From his mother, Mary Queen of Scots. No, that's not a bad joke - that's a good answer. Henry VIII's line ended when his daughter Elizabeth died childless in 1603. So the search of an successor to Elizabeth has to go back to Henry VII's descendants, specifically Margaret, his eldest daughter.
It worked like this -
- Henry VII children included Edward, Henry VIII, and Margaret.
- Henry VIII became king of England when Edward died.
- Margaret was married to James IV of Scotland.
- Margaret and James IV had a son, James V.
- Still with me? Good!
- James V married a French lady and they had a daughter, Mary Queen of Scots.
- Mary Queen of Scots had a son, James VI.
Very few of these died of old age, but that's another story. There were other descendants, of course, but on her deathbed (death-chair, actually) Elizabeth indicated that James VI should be England's next ruler. That made it a done deal.
So James was a Protestant Champion?
The Scotland of James VI was Presbyterian, thanks to John Knox. Don't think of this as just a denomination - it was also a political philosophy. The word Presbyterian means "elder" in Greek. Presbyterian churches were and are run by elders, not a single authority such as an archbishop. This political philosophy of self-government by locally elected leaders is not exactly supportive of the "divine right of kings" philosophy.
The Anglican church of Henry and Elizabeth was an episcopacy - coming from the Greek word for "bishop" - with a detailed heirarchy and the central authority figure of the archbishop. Right - a religious monarchy!
It doesn't take too much imagination to see that people with a high regard for central authority will prefer the episcopal style of government to the presbyterian style. And remember, the church was an integral part of the government in these days. The church, the rulers argued, should reflect and support the state's government.
So whose side was James on? The Puritans in England thought he was on their side. After all, he had made several public statments of support for Presbyterian principles as King of Scotland. Surely James would be their friend.
They were sadly mistaken. James was a politician who knew better than to go against the national spirit of his people. Yes, his words seemed to support Presbyterian principles, but his political heart didn't.
As King of Scotland James had written some works that showed a keen interest in what we call "the divine right of kings." James was no champion of Presbyterianism in either the "kirk" or the kingdom. He saw the episcopal heirarchy of the English church as a major bulwark of his royal authority. Puritianism with its emphasis on self-government was a danger and had to be defused.
Now - key point for us - what about the Geneva Bible? After all, this was the Bible of Scotland through John Knox and the Bible of Puritan Englishmen.
In a word - James HATED the Geneva Bible! Hated it? You bet - its annotations attacked the divine right of kings at every turn. It even called kings who disobeyed God "tyrants" - a term the King James Bible never uses!
Sorry, Puritans. Your new king was not your friend.
The Hampton Road Conference
During James' procession from Edinburgh to London a Puritan delegation presented him with the "Millennial Petition." This document, signed by one thousand Puritan clergy, asked him to grant them relief from the enforced trappings of the Anglican church.
They objected to such things as clerical garb, ritual prayers and lessons, wedding rings, and other things that reminded them of Catholic ritual. Remember, Elizabeth had forced these things on them through the Act of Uniformity.
Surely a Presbyterian King would listen to them - right? Sure, but only if he was Presbyterian! But James wasn't. He was, however, politician enough to recognize that the Puritans could create major problems for him if he merely brushed them aside. After all, they were a majority in Parliment, so they had to be appeased somehow.
In October of his first year James called for a three-day conference to meet at Hampton Road where the religious differences between Puritans and Anglicans would be discussed. This caught the Anglican establishment off guard, for he seemed to be raising the hopes of the Puritans. After all, Elizabeth never gave them a hearing in all her years on the throne.
Richard Bancroft, Bishop of London, thought James had underestimated the situation and made a tactical error. Such a conference would offer hope to the Puritans and offend the high-church bishops. Not exactly an auspicious start for the new king!
True, James loved theological disputation and was intellectually up to the task -
At a Kirk assembly in 1601 he had discussed aspects of the Bible and Bible translation in such learned detail that he seemed, wrote one Church historian, "no less conversant in the Scripture than they whose profession it was." (Bobrick, p. 206)
However, he seemed to be offering official support to the Puritans. But nothing raises frustration more than dashed hopes! If James had no intention of granting the Puritan requests, why meet with them?
Bancroft spent the time between James' announcement of the conference in October and its January meeting convincing him that the stability of his reign depended on the stability of the church. Both must be cut from the same political cloth, and that cloth was the rule of king and archbishop.
So the Conference was a failure?
John Reynolds and the other three Puritans would have said it was. First of all, the Hampton Road Converence was clearly stacked against the Puritans - only four of the 23 invited attendees were Puritans.
Their discussions centered on three topics -
- The Book of Common Prayer and divine servide used in this church.
- Excommunication in the ecclesiastical courts
- The providing of fit and able ministers for Ireland
McGrath - p. 158
Nothing about a new translation was on the table.
James made it clear at the outset that he liked the stability Elizbeth had achieved and had no intention of upsettng it. He knew changes to the Book of Common Prayer - especially the authorization of the Geneva Bible in the liturgy - would create serious religious infighting. No - changes here were out of the question.
As the conference continued James realized that there were few points that he could yield to the Puritans without endangering England's religious stability. At this point he probably realized that calling the conference was a mistake!
Finally John Reynolds proposed a new Bible Translation. We don't know why he did this - perhaps he hoped James and Bancroft would reject the suggestion so he could ask that at least they give official permission to use the Geneva Bible.
As Reynolds guessed, Bancroft immediately rejected his suggestion, but James realized that this was something he could agree to! After all, a new translation would -
- Offer an alternative to the Geneva and Douai-Rheims Bibles,
- Possibly appease the Puritans on the question of what Bible to use, and
- Take lots of time!
When the King told Bishop Bancroft he could have a leading role in selecting the translators and setting out the rules of translation, he quickly joined the King in supporting the idea.
Ironic, isn't it? One of the most significant English translations of the Bible is an afterthought!
Bancroft's support paid off. When the ailing Archbishop of Canterbury, John Whitgift, died, James appointed Richard Bancroft to the post.
What were the Rules of Translation?
In 1604 Richard Bancroft, still Bishop of London, got started on the translation project. He invited the leading universities to suggest names of scholars. He also wrote to his bishop friends, asking them to find posts for the translators so they could have some income while working. Yep - the royal coffers were too empty to pay for the project!
Both Bobrick and McGrath give a full list of the translators and their backgrounds, if you're interested. More interesting are Bancroft's Translation Rules as listed in McGrath, p. 173-175 -
- 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.
- 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.
- The Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz. the Word Church not to be translated Congregation &c.
- 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 Faith.
- The Divisions of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as may be, if Necessity so require.
- 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.
- Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down as shall serve for the fit Reference of one Scripture to another.
- Every particular Man of each Company [of translators] to take the same Chapter or Chapters, and having tyranslated 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.
- As any one Company [of translators] 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.
- If any Company [of translators], upon the Rivew 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.
- 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.
- 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 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 [where the translating was done].
- 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.
- These translations to be used when they agree better with the Text than the Bishop's Bible: Tindoll's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva.
- 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.
These were Bancroft's rules, and since they came over the King's signature, the translators were duty-bound to follow them.
Sadly, Bancroft died in 1610 and never saw the result of his work.
Of Dwarves and Giants
The notes of the various translating committes, or "Companies," show that these men saw themselves standing last in a long line. They were the "dwarves of" whom the 12th-century writer John of Salisbury wrote -
We are like dwarves sitting on the shoulders of giants. We see more, and things that are more distant, than they did, not because our sight is superior or because we are taller than they, but because they raise us up, and by their great stature add to ours.
McGrath puts it this way -
Each era draws on the wisdom of the past, and builds upon it, before handing a greater wisdom on to its successors. The King James Bible can be seen as one of the most outstanding representatives of this corporate apporach to cultural advance and the enterprise of gaining wisdom.
McGrath - p. 178
OK - now go back and reread Rules 1 and 14. The starting point is the Bishops' Bible. Previous English translations will be official reference points. The results of this conservative approach are still with us today, as we'll see in the next lesson.
|
