Featured No Conflict In The KJV

The word, "anachronism" is a word or phrase from more modern times
(i.e., more modern than the translation of the KJV,)
put back into a time when it did not exist
(i.e., prior to the time the word, "anachronism" was invented
and first came into use, several years after the translation
and subsequent publication of the KJV had already taken place.

It would be difficult to say that the KJV translators
intentionally or unintentionally chose to employ the linguistic license
involved by the use of an "anachronism", legitimately or illegitimately,
since there was no such thing as an "anachronism" that existed
when the KJV was translated, etc.

"In a 2009 article ‘The Rhetoric of Anachronism’, a scholar of comparative literature, Joseph Luzzi, suggested that the word ‘anachronism’ was ‘first used in English in 1669’, a century after it had first appeared in Italian. Deriving the word from ‘a fusion of the Greek compound meaning “late in time”’, and so from ‘the oldest of Western high-cultural idioms’, Luzzi went on to suggest that the word ‘was actually created millennia after that culture had disappeared’: ‘the term’s etymology stands both as an ironic gloss on its semantic connotations and an allegory for its thematic claims.’ In other words, Luzzi is commenting on the fact that a classically derived word for belatedness was itself surprisingly late to appear on the scene..." "... the intellectual historian Peter Burke, author of more than one treatment of the Renaissance sense of anachronism, seems to be making a better stab of it when he writes that it was ‘around 1650 that the term ‘anachronism’ (anachronismus, anacronismo, anachronism) began to come into use in Latin, Italian, French and English’ ‒ at least as far as the English term is concerned (Luzzi is right that the word entered Italian in the second half of the sixteenth century..."

from: An anachronistic anniversary

If I were a linguist, I would find it to be irrational to form the essential
element of my argument against the use of a literary device
by using an actual application of that figure of speech
in order to accomplish identifying my point
with something that didn't exist.

Do you translate from original language source manuscripts
which have the distinction of making no effort in engendering, invoking,
or ingratiating to their writers the Intent of The Author?

That would be irrational, also.

And as a Bible professor, do you use, recommend as reliable,
and teach from versions which have the distinction
of making no effort in engendering, invoking,
or ingratiating to their writers the Intent of The Author, too?

 

KJV defender or KJV-only author H. D. Williams wrote: “Under no circumstances should an anachronism be used in translating. It is wrong to refer to an item that did not exist in Biblical times” (Word-For-Word Translating of the Received Texts, pp. 140, 230).

 

Concerning churches at Acts 19:37, Marvin Vincent maintained that “the A. V. puts a droll anachronism into the mouth of the town-clerk of a Greek city” (Word Studies, I, p. 557).

It is interesting that one of the claimed 14 changes made by Archbishop Bancroft or another Church of England prelate involved Acts 19:37. In his 1671 book, Whiston identified Acts 19:37 [robbers of Churches, for robbers of the temple] as one of the fourteen changes (Life, p. 49). Jack Lewis pointed out that “undue prelate influence has been seen in the phrase ‘robbers of churches’” (English Bible, p. 62).

In a book reprinted by D. A. Waite's The Bible for Today, Alexander McClure wrote: "Bancroft, that he might for once stick the name [church] to a material building, would have it applied, in the nineteenth chapter of Acts, to the idols' temples! 'Robbers of churches' are strictly, according to the word in the original, temple-robbers; and particularly, in this case, such as might have plundered the great temple of Diana at Ephesus. Let us be thankful that the dictatorial prelate tried his hand no farther at emending the sacred text" (KJV Translators Revived, p. 221).

Henry Fox asserted: “As an instance of his emendations we may note the 37th verse of the 18th chapter of the Acts. The words which the translators had quite correctly translated ‘robbers of temples,‘ Bancroft altered into ‘robbers of churches,‘ in order to furnish a Scripture precedent for the word ‘church’ being applied to a material building” (On the Revision, pp. 7-8). John R. Beard claimed: “That he might for once stick the name church to a material building, he insisted on its being applied, in the nineteenth chapter of Acts, verse thirty-seven, to idols’ temples--‘neither robbers of churches,‘ in the original ‘temple-robbers’” (A Revised English Bible, p. 87). Silas Shepard asserted that Bancroft “compelled them to translate hierosulous (Acts 19:37), ‘robbers of churches,‘ when he knew that the word meant robbers of temples, or temple robbers, and that it referred to heathen temples. This gave authority for calling houses for religious convocations churches. So, by a false translation of one passage, he laid a foundation for English prelacy, and by the same violence to the Word of God, he transferred the name of a congregation to the house in which they convened” (British Millennial Harbinger, Vol. VIII, p. 75; The Reviser, 1855, p. 58).

Was it a prelate’s goal to render faithfully the meaning of the Greek word at this verse or was his goal something else? In his commentary on Acts, J. A. Alexander asserted that “robbers of churches is a Christian phrase put into the mouth of a heathen” (p. 217). Marvin Vincent maintained that “the A. V. puts a droll anachronism into the mouth of the town-clerk of a Greek city” (Word Studies, I, p. 557). In his book about Acts, H. A. Ironside commented that “the word should be ‘temples,’ for the word ‘church,’ of course, as we know it today was not known to them” (p. 460).

David Cloud’s Concise KJB Dictionary acknowledged that “in one passage, Acts 19:37, the Greek word hierosulos, meaning ‘a robber of a sacred place,’ is translated ‘church’” (p. 18).

William Tyndale had earlier used the English word “church” for buildings or temples as seen in Acts 14:13 [“the church porch”] and Acts 19:37 [“robbers of churches”] while he translated ecclesia as "congregation". Likewise, Miles Coverdale used the English word “church” or “churches” for buildings intended for worship. For example, the 1535 Coverdale’s Bible has “churches” at Hosea 8:14 where the KJV has “temples.” It also has “churches” (Lev. 26:31, Amos 7:9) where the KJV has “sanctuaries.”

 

The concept existed, even if the relevant terminology had not yet been coined. Cain committed murder before any such word existed.

Irrelevant to my point.

I see no relevance to my point here. All I said was that "Easter" in the KJV is an archaism.

Since archaisms are not figures of speech, this point is also irrelevant.

I don't translate from "original language source manuscripts." Forgive me for pointing this out, but this is an ignorant statement. No one that I know of translates from manuscripts (and I know many missionary translators). We translate from texts. In my case, my team translated the Lifeline New Testament from the Scrivener Greek New Testament. The Old Testament team is working from the Masoretic text of the Hebrew Bible.

For our Greek classes (I teach Greek 101), we are blessed to be provided the Scrivener Textus Receptus Greek text for our students for free from the Trinitarian Bible Society.

My school uses the KJV in our classrooms and chapel. As for the Author's intent, in my seminary classes on Bible translation I teach that authorial intent is primary, and we oppose dynamic/functional equivalence and its reader response theory.

As for the word "ingratiating," you are not using it correctly. Anyone who tries to "ingratiate" themselves to the eternal Author of the Word of God is committing sin.

 

A first occurrence. Tyndale, 1534. Used 27x.
Luke 22:1, The feaste of swete breed drue nye whiche is called ester
Acts of the Apostles 12:4, And when he had caught him he put him in preson and delyvered him to .iiii. quaternios of soudiers to be kepte entendynge after ester to brynge him forth to the people.

 

He had a body. Here was no ancient mythology of life, death and rebirth. Death itself was being unraveled by the Author of Life.

Denver can feel like a polarized place, like the rest of our country. Yet on Easter morning, men and women across the city declare a single truth with a rare unity.

What you are leaning toward is always that there is some kind of disparaging connotation to what afterwords was invented,
(and if there was some concept with no name,
like when searching for Forgeries, i.e.,*) that the KJV Translators blundered into, ignorantly, unintentionally (especially since there wasn't such a thing)
and are guilty of employing a Dasteredly new thing you're calling now,
archaisms and they are not figures of speech.

And it's The Curse of Sudden Death, to anyone who ever uses one.

You go get 'em, John of Japan, it's a really big deal.

That's really lightening startlingly bright there Mr. Japan

That's all we're talking about, when it's use is intentional or someone can categorize something as a new concept word, there is everything positive and legitament about it.