37818
Well-Known Member
Who in 1611 critized Acts of the Apostles 12:4 for using "Easter?" Or are you just making a false assertion?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
KJV vs. NKJV: which do you prefer?
- Thread starter alexander284
- Start date
- Status
37818
Well-Known Member
Likely? A bald face falsehood.
There's PLENTYA proof it's a goof. First, Easter simply didn't exist when Luke wrote "Acts". Second, the AV men clearly knew Easter & passover apart. Third, neither the Jews nor Herod woulda observed Jesus' resurrection. Fourth, there was no good reason not to render pascha as 'passover', as was done 28 other times in the NT. Fifth, the translation is supposed to reflect LUKE'S written thoughts, not those of the translators.
Can you prove differently? Of course not.
We Freedom Readers readily admit that "back in the day", English used Easter & pask, etc. interchangeably, & that in MODERN Greek, pascha can mean either one, depending on context. But Tyndale wanted to separate the observance of Jesus' resurrection from the date of Israel's being spared by God's destroyer he sent over Egypt. Thus, he coined 'passover', as Israel was "passed over" by the destroyer. (Remember, Easter was considered to be one of the Anglicans' 2 holiest days of the year, along with Christmas, while they didn't observe passover.) And by the time the AV was made, passover was in common use, same manner that 'homosexual', coined in 1892, is now in common English use, including in Bible translations.
Now, had the KJV CONSISTENTLY rendered pascha as Easter, it could simply be chalked up as an archaism, but the ONE-TIME rendering must be considered a GOOF. (Pascha is the SAME WORD Jesus is quoted as using for passover, unless you believe HE observed Easter !)
Bibliography of the King James Bible
Ward S. Allen, ed., Translating for King James: being a true copy of the only notes made by a translator of King James’s Bible, the Authorized Version, as the Final Committee of Review revised the translation of Romans through Revelation at Stationers’ Hall in London in 1610-11. Allen Lane: Penguin Press, 1970. A reproduction of notes taken by John Bois as he and others discussed the translation.
Ward S. Allen, Translating the New Testament Epistles, 1604-1611: A Manuscript from King James’s Westminster Company. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1977. A collation of Lambeth Palace Library MS. 98, with the Bishops’ Bible, and the Authorized Version of 1611. Includes bibliographical references.
Ward S. Allen and Edward C. Jacobs, The Coming of the King James Gospels: A Collation of the Translators’ Work-in-Progress. Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 1995. Collates the scribal notes in a copy of the Bishops’ Bible used to record revisions for the KJV. Reproduces the text of the Bishops’ Bible, the proposed revisions, and the final form accepted in the KJV.
In this thread, historical evidence from the 1600's was already presented where Thomas Hill, a member of the Westminster Assembly, maintained that the KJV was altered by inserting the rendering "Easter" in order "to keep up that holy time of Easter"
Some in that day objected to the Church of England's keeping a tradition from the Roman Catholic Church concerning Easter so it was suggested that "Easter" was inserted in the KJV to attempt to provide a scriptural basic for the Church of England's tradition.
In a 1671 book based on earlier manuscripts of Henry Jessey, Edward Whiston indicated that a great prelate, the chief supervisor of the KJV, inserted “Easter” back into the text of the KJV at this verse as one of the 14 changes he was said to have made (Life and Death of Mr. Henry Jessey, p. 49).
In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,” Thomas Hill also noted that Acts 12:4 “was another place that was altered (as you have heard) to keep up that holy time of Easter, as they would think it” (Six Sermons, p. 25).
There was no freedom of religion or freedom of the press in England in 1611 so that the state Church of England could control and had to approve what could be printed.
That 1602 Bishops' Bible does not have the KJV translators' annotations for the whole Bible.
Ward Allen and Edward Jacobs stated: "The New Testament annotations fill margins and text in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John 17-21. Except for five annotations scattered in the Epistles, there are no other annotations" (Coming of the King James Gospels, p. 5).
Then, unless the translators wrote about it elsewhere, I suppose we are left we no translator testimony on why Easter was left in Acts 12:4.
A shame John is so narrowly annotated also, since John 11:55 is the other place the Bishop's Bible had "Easter" (twice). "And the Iewes Easter was nye at hande, and many went out of the countrey vp to Hierusale before the Easter, to purifie them selues."
Last edited:
Yes, it does look that way. But not for nothing. At least he would have a good trip to a foreign country that speaks the King's English.
This is a little off-subject, but this morning during adult Sunday School with about 70 attending, a question was asked by the teacher. "Does anyone have a King James Bible?" He wanted to see what the rendering was for a particular verse in that version. No one raised their hand. It had to be accessed electronically. I would conjecture that a dozen years ago at least a dozen hands would have been raised hearing that question.
The pew Bible is ESV. Most bring that version with them to church. I would suppose that a smattering have NKJV. I any use the NLT. I suppose some carry the 1984 NIV. I should do a survey. I'd say about 25% of folks do not carry a physical Bible with them to church. They just access their favorites by phone or tablet.
The Calender of State Papers, Domestic Series, 1652-1653 as edited by Mary Green noted: “Statement that Dr. Hill declared in his sermon, and has since published, that when the Bible had been translated by the translators appointed, the New Testament was looked over by some prelates he could name, to bring it to speak prelatical language, and that he was informed by a great observer, that in 14 places, whereof he instanced five or six, it was corrupted by them. The like testimony was given by some other ancient and godly preachers who lived in those times, and some appearance hereof may yet be seen in a part of that very copy of those translations” (p. 73). As noted earlier, one of those 14 places is Acts 12:4.
John Eadie pointed out that the report of these 14 changes became part of the preamble of a bill in Parliament around 1657 (English Bible, II, p. 272). Eadie cited that preamble as noting that “the like testimony of these prelates” making those changes was “given by some other ancient and godly preachers also, who lived in those times” (Ibid.). Eadie also reported the preamble affirmed that “some appearance hereof may yet be seen in part of that very copy of these translators” (Ibid.).
That important evidence asserts that some who examined the copy of the text prepared by the KJV translators for the printers saw evidence of the changes made by a prelate or prelates in that copy before it was lost or destroyed [perhaps around 1660 in the London fire].
John Eadie pointed out that the report of these 14 changes became part of the preamble of a bill in Parliament around 1657 (English Bible, II, p. 272). Eadie cited that preamble as noting that “the like testimony of these prelates” making those changes was “given by some other ancient and godly preachers also, who lived in those times” (Ibid.). Eadie also reported the preamble affirmed that “some appearance hereof may yet be seen in part of that very copy of these translators” (Ibid.).
That important evidence asserts that some who examined the copy of the text prepared by the KJV translators for the printers saw evidence of the changes made by a prelate or prelates in that copy before it was lost or destroyed [perhaps around 1660 in the London fire].
The_5_Solas
New Member
Prefer neither. But either are okay.
Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
So, if I am understanding you correctly, there is second-hand testimony of what somebody who saw something told, and we are currently unable to corroborate it because the text somebody saw no longer exists?
The_5_Solas
New Member
Funny. Lol
Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-N960U1 using Tapatalk
Wow. I have for years suspected Easter was a synonym for Passover in English during that time period. thank you for confirming.
I also find it of interest that the Anglo Saxon NT uses the word Easter every place to translate the Greek Pascha.
A KJV translator is said to have maintained that changes were made, which would support the claim that the 14 alterations were “against the minds of the translators.”
In “a series of memoranda concerning the translators, set down about 1640,“ Charles Butterworth noted that the following was stated: "Dr. Bret [Richard Brett, a KJV translator] reported that the Bps [bishops] altered very many places that the translators had agreed upon" (Literary Lineage of the KJB, p. 213). Laurence Vance wrote: “A manuscript about the translators in the Lambeth Palace Library, apparently written about 1650, records that Richard Brett (1567-1637), a translator of the Oxford Old Testament company, reported that ‘the Bps. altered very many places that the translators had agreed upon: He had a note of the places’” (King James, His Bible, p. 52). Gail Riplinger also wrote: “The Bps. [Bishops] altered very many places that the translators agreed upon,” noted Dr. Brett of the Old Testament Oxford Committee” (Hidden History, p. 32). Opfell also confirmed that Brett "complained that the bishops had altered many places on which the members of the company had agreed" (KJB Translators, p. 62). Opfell maintained that “a man with whom [Miles] Smith often conferred was Richard Brett” (Ibid.). Brett and Smith had been part of the same Oxford group of O. T. translators. These statements said to be from Richard Brett seem to distinguish between those considered translators which included some bishops and those considered only bishops but not translators.
Another known fact suggests that it is possible that some Church of England bishops that were not translators may have been permitted at some point to review the translation and make changes. For example, one such fact is that at the Hampton Court Conference there had been mention that the translation “be reviewed by the Bishops“ (Barlow, Sum and Substance, p. 46; also Cloud, Glorious History, p. 130; Vance, King James, His Bible, p. 52). Conant affirmed that “the original plan” had been for the translation to be subject to “the examination of the bishops” (English Bible, p. 439).
The original plan for the making of the KJV at the Hampton Court Conference had also asserted that after the review of the Bishops that the translation “be presented to the Privy Council” (Barlow, Sum and Substance, p. 46). In his introduction to Everyman’s Library edition of the KJV’s New Testament, John Drury wrote: “The king’s plan for the process of translation was characteristically hierarchical, ascending from scholars, through bishops, to the Privy Council and the crown” (p. xix). The Archbishop of Canterbury was a member of the King’s Privy Council, and other bishops also sometimes had other positions that made them members of that same Privy Council. Bishop Thomas Bilson was also a member of that Privy Council. If the original plan was followed, there were at least these two times when bishops who were not translators could have possibly introduced changes into the work of the translators. While there is no known evidence that indicates that the translation was taken to the entire Privy Council, there is sound historical evidence that shows that Archbishop Bancroft, one member of that Privy Council, had chief oversight of it, and it seems very likely if not certain that according to the original plan it would have been taken to him before going to the printers. George McWhorter asserted: “Finally the revision of the two latter [Smith and Bilson] was submitted to Bancroft, Bishop of London, who retouched the whole” (Popular Hand-Book, p. 52). Edwin Bissell suggested: “It was at this point, moreover, that Bancroft, now Archbishop of Canterbury, found an opportunity to step in, and that he did so, with the evil result of marring the version in a number of places, is generally admitted” (Historic Origin, p. 81). Larry Stone indicated that the archbishop of Canterbury reviewed the 1611 (Story of the Bible, p. 75).
In “a series of memoranda concerning the translators, set down about 1640,“ Charles Butterworth noted that the following was stated: "Dr. Bret [Richard Brett, a KJV translator] reported that the Bps [bishops] altered very many places that the translators had agreed upon" (Literary Lineage of the KJB, p. 213). Laurence Vance wrote: “A manuscript about the translators in the Lambeth Palace Library, apparently written about 1650, records that Richard Brett (1567-1637), a translator of the Oxford Old Testament company, reported that ‘the Bps. altered very many places that the translators had agreed upon: He had a note of the places’” (King James, His Bible, p. 52). Gail Riplinger also wrote: “The Bps. [Bishops] altered very many places that the translators agreed upon,” noted Dr. Brett of the Old Testament Oxford Committee” (Hidden History, p. 32). Opfell also confirmed that Brett "complained that the bishops had altered many places on which the members of the company had agreed" (KJB Translators, p. 62). Opfell maintained that “a man with whom [Miles] Smith often conferred was Richard Brett” (Ibid.). Brett and Smith had been part of the same Oxford group of O. T. translators. These statements said to be from Richard Brett seem to distinguish between those considered translators which included some bishops and those considered only bishops but not translators.
Another known fact suggests that it is possible that some Church of England bishops that were not translators may have been permitted at some point to review the translation and make changes. For example, one such fact is that at the Hampton Court Conference there had been mention that the translation “be reviewed by the Bishops“ (Barlow, Sum and Substance, p. 46; also Cloud, Glorious History, p. 130; Vance, King James, His Bible, p. 52). Conant affirmed that “the original plan” had been for the translation to be subject to “the examination of the bishops” (English Bible, p. 439).
The original plan for the making of the KJV at the Hampton Court Conference had also asserted that after the review of the Bishops that the translation “be presented to the Privy Council” (Barlow, Sum and Substance, p. 46). In his introduction to Everyman’s Library edition of the KJV’s New Testament, John Drury wrote: “The king’s plan for the process of translation was characteristically hierarchical, ascending from scholars, through bishops, to the Privy Council and the crown” (p. xix). The Archbishop of Canterbury was a member of the King’s Privy Council, and other bishops also sometimes had other positions that made them members of that same Privy Council. Bishop Thomas Bilson was also a member of that Privy Council. If the original plan was followed, there were at least these two times when bishops who were not translators could have possibly introduced changes into the work of the translators. While there is no known evidence that indicates that the translation was taken to the entire Privy Council, there is sound historical evidence that shows that Archbishop Bancroft, one member of that Privy Council, had chief oversight of it, and it seems very likely if not certain that according to the original plan it would have been taken to him before going to the printers. George McWhorter asserted: “Finally the revision of the two latter [Smith and Bilson] was submitted to Bancroft, Bishop of London, who retouched the whole” (Popular Hand-Book, p. 52). Edwin Bissell suggested: “It was at this point, moreover, that Bancroft, now Archbishop of Canterbury, found an opportunity to step in, and that he did so, with the evil result of marring the version in a number of places, is generally admitted” (Historic Origin, p. 81). Larry Stone indicated that the archbishop of Canterbury reviewed the 1611 (Story of the Bible, p. 75).
Last edited:
37818
Well-Known Member
Hmm . . . . a intentional goof? I do not think so.
". . . And when he had caught hym, he put hym in pryson also, and delyuered hym to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intendyng after Easter to bryng hym foorth to the people. . . ." Acts of the Apostles 12:4, Bishops' Bible 1568, A MySword App note on the Bishops' Bible, "The Bishops' Bible is an English translation of the Bible which was produced under the authority of the established Church of England in 1568. It was substantially revised in 1572, and this revised edition was to be prescribed as the base text for the Authorized King James Version of 1611. <snip>"
- Status