History of the King James Version

[Salty]

I found this interesting page on the KJV It is about the history and background of the writing of the KJV. It also lists some of those who served on the committee.

Salty

 

[Mexdeaf]

These words jumped out at me-

This "Authorized Version" never was authorized by royal proclamation, by order of Council, by act of Parliament or by vote of Convocation. Whether the words "appointed to be read in churches" were used by order of the editors, or by the will of the printer, is unknown. The original manuscripts of this work are wholly lost, no trace of them having been discovered since about 1655.

Turns out the "authorization" is somewhat ambiguous.

 

[Rippon]

Turns out the "authorization" is somewhat ambiguous.

I also get a kick out of those who think the textus receptus (received text)has some kind of God-stamp on it.

 

[Harold Garvey]

Don't you just hate people making statements like the following who are OBVIOUSLY the dreaded "KJVO"

The Rev. Dr. Talbot W. Chambers, himself one of the revisers of the Old Testament Company, has very beautifully and truly said of the King James' Version as follows: "The merits of the Authorized Version, in point of fidelity to the original, are universally acknowledged. No other version, ancient or modern, surpasses it, save, perhaps, the Dutch, which was made subsequently, and profited by the labors of the English translators. But a version may be faithful without being elegant. It may be accurate without adequately representing the riches of the language in which it is made. The glory of the English Bible is that while it conveys the mind of the Spirit with great exactness, it does this in such a way that the book has become the highest existing standard of our noble tongue. Lord Macaulay calls it a stupendous work, which, if everything else in our language should perish, would alone suffice to show the whole extent of its beauty and power."

I don't know if salty wanted this to be acknowledged in the referring of the link.:type:

 

[annsni]

Don't you just hate people making statements like the following who are OBVIOUSLY the dreaded "KJVO"

I don't know if salty wanted this to be acknowledged in the referring of the link.:type:

You DO realize that Rev. Dr. Talbot W. Chambers lived over 150 years ago, right?? He missed out on most of the modern versions you argue against today.

 

[tinytim]

and I wholly agree with this statement although I am not KJVO...

No other version, ancient or modern, surpasses it, save, perhaps, the Dutch, which was made subsequently, and profited by the labors of the English translators.

NO version surpasses the KJV...
They are all EQUAL.

 

[Harold Garvey]

You DO realize that Rev. Dr. Talbot W. Chambers lived over 150 years ago, right?? He missed out on most of the modern versions you argue against today.

You do realize the scholarly advantage he had over the transitioning of the English FROM 150 years ago he didn't have to endure.

 

[Phillip]

These words jumped out at me-

This "Authorized Version" never was authorized by royal proclamation, by order of Council, by act of Parliament or by vote of Convocation. Whether the words "appointed to be read in churches" were used by order of the editors, or by the will of the printer, is unknown. The original manuscripts of this work are wholly lost, no trace of them having been discovered since about 1655.

Turns out the "authorization" is somewhat ambiguous.

I am back, believe it or not. Working for the government takes a lot of your time.

The words "Authorized Version" supposedly were a form of copyright given by the royalty of England to allow a printer to print the KJV. Printers in America were sued for illegal printing (not paying money to the King of England in the form of a tax or royalty), but being seperated from England, it didn't do much good, so printers in England would print "Authorized Version" on their Bibles to let people know that they were printing under the permission of a license granted by the King.

During the early KJV days, there were actually two printing houses that were printing "Authorized Versions". It simply allowed them to let their customers know they were buying a legal (in England) version of a Bible which I understand still has limits on its printing in Great Brittain. Thus, they were saying, "We are licensed, the King gets his taxes or royalty since he had it translated and you are buying a legit, legal copy. Much like movies that have warnings of FBI laws preventing pirating of video DVDs.

This has been twisted around by some groups to make it sound as if God authorized the KJV; while it is actually no more than a printer with authorization to make duplicates as long as they paid royalties to the government of England.

 

[robycop3]

You do realize the scholarly advantage he had over the transitioning of the English FROM 150 years ago he didn't have to endure.

And you do realize that knowledge has been multiplied umpteen times over the last 150 years?

 

[robycop3]

Phillip, I am happy to see copyrights in the Bible versions I own, including a Cambridge KJV. That assures me I am getting an authentic copy.

And the authorizations of man don't mean a thing to GOD in His presentations of His own word to man.

 

[Jerome]

printers in England would print "Authorized Version" on their Bibles

I have never seen the words "Authorized Version" on any of the old KJBs I have examined.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... so printers in England would print "Authorized Version" on their Bibles to let people know that they were printing under the permission of a license granted by the King.

During the early KJV days, there were actually two printing houses that were printing "Authorized Versions". It simply allowed them to let their customers know they were buying a legal (in England) version of a Bible ...

Not exactly. My understanding is that the "Printer to the King" (Robert Barker of London) for many years held the monopoly (a term for sole royal license) to print the Bible in England. Later the universities where also given license to print Bibles (and in convoluted sub-licensing to other printers). This is more like a legal copyright than an ecclesial authorization.

I don't think that any early AVs actually had the words "Authorized Version" printed in them anywhere. The 1611 title page (about 50 words total) begins with "The Holy Bible," but eventually it says that it is "Approved to be read in the Churches". The Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible were also considered to be authorized versions and may have had the Latin phrase "Cum Privilegio" imprinted on them someplace.

Still today, to legally publish text taken from the KJV in the UK you must have permission --
www.speroforum.com/wiki/default.aspx/SperoWiki/KingJamesVersionCopyright.html
www.kingjamesbible.info/king-james-bible-copyright-status.php