The King James Translation

[JonC]

I don't think you have this quite right. At the Hampton Court conference in 1604, James declared to the Puritan party, "If this be all your party have to say for themselves, I will make them conform to the Church, or I will harry them out of the land, or else do worse." James was a calvinist, but he hated Presbyterianism because of his problems with Scottish Presbyterianism. Therefore he wanted an Episcopal settlement for the English Church (the status quo) so that he could keep the Church under his thumb.

FYI, 'English' is England only; 'British' and 'Britain' refers to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Therefore, since I live in England, I am both English and British. Until the Act of Union between England and Scotland in 1707, there was no 'Britain,' though people did refer to 'the British Isles.'

John Rainolds was the one who purposed the new translation as a unifying Bible at the Hampton Court Conference. About one fourth of the translators chosen were favorable towards the Puritians.

I do not mean that King James viewed Puritians and Presbyterians favorably. He did not hold the detaine Barclay held (Barclay did not want a new translation and abhored Calvinists).

I mean King James sought to unify factions under one Bible.

 

[Logos1560]

About one fourth of the translators chosen were favorable towards the Puritians.

What source indicates that about one fourth of the KJV translators were favorable towards the Puritans? Are the specific names of around one fourth of the KJV translators presented and listed or was this perhaps a guess or rough estimate?

Miles Smith is sometimes suggested to have been favorable towards the Puritans, and yet in the 1611 preface he makes negative comments directed at the Puritans.

While a very few of the makers of the KJV had formerly been associated with the Puritan party of the Church of England, which wanted to purify it from some Roman Catholic doctrines and practices, none were considered active Puritans during the time of the making of the KJV. Archbishop Richard Bancroft had required all those who held any offices or positions in the state Church of England to conform and accept his official 1604 canons [rules]. Their views before 1604 may have been different than their publicly required views according to the 1604 canons.

Otto Scott noted that Archbishop Richard Bancroft had drawn up new canons (church laws) for the Church of England which "added over forty special rules against Puritan dissenters" (James I, p. 283). White asserted that “forty-nine of the leading ministers he [Bancroft] summarily deprived, and struck such terror into the rest that they complied” (Lives, p. 381). Robert Dale maintained that three hundred of the clergy “were silenced or deprived of their livings” (History, p. 187). Alexander Leighton (1568-1649) claimed that “400 ministers were silenced, suspended, or thrust out by virtue of these wicked canons” (Sion’s Plea, p. 75). Alexander Leighton described those wicked canons as “the Popish after-birth of Bishop Bancroft” (Ibid.). Henry Clark noted: “Orders were sent across the country that all the clergy must formally accept the established order of things, from the Royal Supremacy down to the latest item in the Canons of 1604: every precaution was taken to prevent anything in the nature of procrastination or evasion” (History, I, p. 248).

Gustavus Paine observed that by 1606 "all the Puritan translators had conformed enough to escape being banished or direly punished in other ways" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 97). For example, Thomas Sparke, a KJV translator who had earlier been one of the four Puritan representatives at the Hampton Court Conference, conformed. Milward noted that in 1607 Sparke published a book or pamphlet “to encourage the Puritan ministers to follow his example and to justify himself against this ’hard censure of many for conforming myself as I have to the orders of our Church” (Religious Controversies, p. 15). Tyacke suggested that Sparke “claimed to have conformed even before the [Hampton Court] conference” (Anti-Calvinists, p. 13).

 

[JonC]

What source indicates that about one fourth of the KJV translators were favorable towards the Puritans? Are the specific names of around one fourth of the KJV translators presented and listed or was this perhaps a guess or rough estimate?

Miles Smith is sometimes suggested to have been favorable towards the Puritans, and yet in the 1611 preface he makes negative comments directed at the Puritans.

While a very few of the makers of the KJV had formerly been associated with the Puritan party of the Church of England, which wanted to purify it from some Roman Catholic doctrines and practices, none were considered active Puritans during the time of the making of the KJV. Archbishop Richard Bancroft had required all those who held any offices or positions in the state Church of England to conform and accept his official 1604 canons [rules]. Their views before 1604 may have been different than their publicly required views according to the 1604 canons.

Otto Scott noted that Archbishop Richard Bancroft had drawn up new canons (church laws) for the Church of England which "added over forty special rules against Puritan dissenters" (James I, p. 283). White asserted that “forty-nine of the leading ministers he [Bancroft] summarily deprived, and struck such terror into the rest that they complied” (Lives, p. 381). Robert Dale maintained that three hundred of the clergy “were silenced or deprived of their livings” (History, p. 187). Alexander Leighton (1568-1649) claimed that “400 ministers were silenced, suspended, or thrust out by virtue of these wicked canons” (Sion’s Plea, p. 75). Alexander Leighton described those wicked canons as “the Popish after-birth of Bishop Bancroft” (Ibid.). Henry Clark noted: “Orders were sent across the country that all the clergy must formally accept the established order of things, from the Royal Supremacy down to the latest item in the Canons of 1604: every precaution was taken to prevent anything in the nature of procrastination or evasion” (History, I, p. 248).

Gustavus Paine observed that by 1606 "all the Puritan translators had conformed enough to escape being banished or direly punished in other ways" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 97). For example, Thomas Sparke, a KJV translator who had earlier been one of the four Puritan representatives at the Hampton Court Conference, conformed. Milward noted that in 1607 Sparke published a book or pamphlet “to encourage the Puritan ministers to follow his example and to justify himself against this ’hard censure of many for conforming myself as I have to the orders of our Church” (Religious Controversies, p. 15). Tyacke suggested that Sparke “claimed to have conformed even before the [Hampton Court] conference” (Anti-Calvinists, p. 13).

I do not know an extensive list. Not sure of it is an estimate (probably is). But here are a few names:

John Reynolds (1st Oxford Company) was a leading Puritian theologian (a Puritian divine). He was the first to suggest the new translation.

Chaperton (1st Canbridge Company and The first Master of Emmanuel College, Cambridge. — a university stronghold for Puritanism) was a Puritian representative.

Samuel Ward (2nd Cambridge Co) was a strong Calvinist and moderate Puritan.

George Abbott (2nd Oxford Co) was moderate Puritan.

Miles Smith (committee of two, 1st Oxford Co) is often considered a moderate Puritan(doctrine) but not as a group. You could say "puritian leanings".

Thomas Harrison (1st Cambridge Co) was a Puritian scholar.

At the same time you had Bancroft who did not want a new translation and strongly opposed the Puritians. Bancroft set that aside to a point (by doing well overseeing the translation he did not want). But he abhord puritianism and any form of Calvinism.


We have to remember that one reason King James wanted the KJV to bridge gaps within the Church of England. And by creating a unifying Bible that supported the monarchy he was insuring (or trying to) pull opposing groups into a sort of common collective.

Puritian translators (either Puritian theologians like Reynolds and Harrison) and those sympathetic to Puritians were intentionally chosen.

But neither side liked the result. Each had their own Bibles.

 

[Logos1560]

John Reynolds (1st Oxford Company) was a leading Puritian theologian (a Puritian divine). He was the first to suggest the new translation.

John Reynolds, one of the four Puritans invited to the Hampton Court conference, is said to have suggested the idea of a new translation to King James. John Eadie noted that Reynolds “was not chosen in any way by his own [Puritan] party” (English Bible, II, p. 172).

The doctrinal views of John Reynolds may not have been typical of the Puritans who had signed the Millenary Petition. John Eadie maintained that “his own [Puritan] party disowned Reynolds and his colleagues, as being ‘not of their nomination or choosing, or of one judgment’ with them” (English Bible, II, p. 205). Robert Vaughan asserted that the “four Puritan ministers [were] chosen by James himself” (English, p. 69).

In a letter, John Reynolds joined Archbishop Bancroft and King James "in arguing that the Church of England had wholly correct descent from St. Peter, and its clergy were in the direct, sacred line from the first Christian bishops" (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 84). Thomas Fuller claimed that John Reynolds in his own practice "did willingly submit, constantly wearing hood and surplice, and kneeling at the sacrament" and that on his death-bed "he earnestly desired absolution" (Church History of Britain, V, p. 380). Anthony Johnson reported that “Dr. Reynolds, notwithstanding his appearing for the dissenters at the Hampton-Court Conference, conformed himself to the Church ceremonies” (Historical Account, p. 91). John Hunt asserted that Reynolds “ware his square cap and surplice and conformed in everything” (Religious Thought, I, p. 113). Bobrick noted that Reynolds "was not averse to some aspects of High Church practice, such as kneeling to receive the Sacraments, which Nonconformists abhorred; and he accepted the Anglo-Catholic dogma of the apostolic succession" (Wide as the Waters, p. 228). MacGregor cited that one of Reynolds’ students affirmed that Reynolds “wore a surplice in the college chapel and knelt at the Sacrament” (Literary History, p. 198).

William Reynolds (1544?-1594), a brother of KJV translator John Reynolds [or Rainolds] (1549-1607), was said to be one of the translators of the Roman Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible (Paine, Men Behind the KJV, p. 128). At one time a Protestant, William became a Roman Catholic through the influence of his brother John who had been a papist (McClure, KJV Translators Revived, p. 122).

 

[Anthony Pritchard]

I am posting this for the readers, not for those still replying to me. I stepped out of the discussion because it had reached the point where nothing new was being said. The arguments were being repeated in loops, and the replies had shifted from substance to personal accusations. When a discussion becomes repetitive and the focus turns to claiming victory rather than addressing the text, there is no value in continuing.

The continued replies after I left show exactly why I stepped out. They are not attempts to advance the argument. They are attempts to keep the performance going, and that is all it is, performance. The language of “thrashings” and “taking his ball and going home,” the extreme quote stacking, the constant reframing of my words, the shifting of categories to avoid direct answers, and the false claims about my motives and about my position on the KJV and the preserved text are not theological argument. They are posturing. They are strutting. They are attempts to frame the discussion as a contest that must be won, even after the actual exchange has ended.

The readers can see the pattern. When someone stops replying and the other side continues posting in rapid succession, it is not debate. It is fixation. It is an attempt to claim victory by volume rather than by truth. I am not interested in that. I am not responding to it. I am not reading it.

My position was stated clearly. Their arguments were answered directly. The replies that followed did not address those answers. They repeated the same claims, reframed my words, shifted categories, and added personal remarks. That is why I stepped out. Not because the arguments stood, but because they had already been answered and the discussion had degraded into noise.

And that is all any further replies will be, posturing, strutting, false claims and much noise.

 

[Logos1560]

And that is all any further replies will be, posturing, strutting, false claims and much noise.

Are you posturing with your repeated, canned response to several threads? Your pattern is to dodge serious discussion. You claim the victory when you have not proven that your assertions are true.

You are one who throws out the personal accusations, accusing others of "posturing, strutting, false claims, and much noise". Your unproven assertions do not stand.