Lori Anne Ferrell wrote: “The Hampton Court Conference did not establish a single Bible in English; it did establish two ways of Bible reading. One way would best flourish in a national church, bounded, organized, and channelled through the liturgy. This is the Bible we should call, simply, King James’s Version” (Killeen, The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Early Modern England, c1530-1700, p. 270).
Robin Griffith-Jones wrote: “The KJV was a liturgical text: appointed (even if the details of that appointment are unclear) to be read in churches, and to be heard in the context of the prayer book of 1559, edited in 1604” (Burke, KJV at 400, p. 71). Robin Griffith-Jones asserted: “The prayer book of 1604 and the Bible of 1611 were both liturgical texts, to be used in conjunction with each other” (p. 81).
Lori Anne Ferrell asserted: “James’s other Bible – same text, different context – would need to come westward, across an ocean and athwart a continent, to thrive in America, where private reading established a multitude of visible denominations, each claiming public status for their singular and eccentric takes on Holy Writ” (Killeen, Oxford Handbook, p. 270).
The way that the makers of the KJV and their state Church of England intended the KJV to be read, understood, and interpreted in connection with the Book of Common Prayer may be very different from how individuals and local congregations in America later read and interpreted it.
Robin Griffith-Jones wrote: “The KJV was a liturgical text: appointed (even if the details of that appointment are unclear) to be read in churches, and to be heard in the context of the prayer book of 1559, edited in 1604” (Burke, KJV at 400, p. 71). Robin Griffith-Jones asserted: “The prayer book of 1604 and the Bible of 1611 were both liturgical texts, to be used in conjunction with each other” (p. 81).
Lori Anne Ferrell asserted: “James’s other Bible – same text, different context – would need to come westward, across an ocean and athwart a continent, to thrive in America, where private reading established a multitude of visible denominations, each claiming public status for their singular and eccentric takes on Holy Writ” (Killeen, Oxford Handbook, p. 270).
The way that the makers of the KJV and their state Church of England intended the KJV to be read, understood, and interpreted in connection with the Book of Common Prayer may be very different from how individuals and local congregations in America later read and interpreted it.