The KJV was Never Authorized

[glfredrick]

Yet, ignorant people have taken for granted that the AV in the flyleaf of that Bible signifies some importance of standing -- supposedly granted by God Himself.

Weird, huh? :thumbs:

 

[InTheLight]

====================================

There is a little error in your statement that needs to be corrected. When the King James Bible was put to press there were two companies in England licensed to print it. In order that they let the buying public know that they had permission from the King to actually print it they simply added "The Authorized Version".

There were bootlegged copies of the KJ being printed in other countries, in England itself and copies from the United States (later on) that the King of England was trying to make clear did not have rights to print it. So, "The Authorized Version" became a sort of stamp just like Microsoft puts a laser generated stamp on its software boxes to indicate that it is indeed from Microsoft.

The printer was simply letting people know they were buying a Bible that had been authorized by the King to print, no more, no less. :thumbs:

Not only that but the KJV was copyrighted and the government received royalties from sales. I mention this because KJVO people often complain that modern versions are published so the publishing company can copyright the Bible and receive payments for it. KJV-Onlyists then point out that the KJV is in the public domain. In fact, the KJV is in the public domain only because the copyright expired. The British government did receive royalty payments (I believe for 100 years, IIRC.)

 

[Ruiz]

Not only that but the KJV was copyrighted and the government received royalties from sales. I mention this because KJVO people often complain that modern versions are published so the publishing company can copyright the Bible and receive payments for it. KJV-Onlyists then point out that the KJV is in the public domain. In fact, the KJV is in the public domain only because the copyright expired. The British government did receive royalty payments (I believe for 100 years, IIRC.)

Even before the time of the Revolutionary War, the Crown ensured that we could not print our own Bibles but import them from England. We only printed our first Bible at about the time of the Revolutionary War, in rebellion to the crown

 

[Phillip]

Not only that but the KJV was copyrighted and the government received royalties from sales. I mention this because KJVO people often complain that modern versions are published so the publishing company can copyright the Bible and receive payments for it. KJV-Onlyists then point out that the KJV is in the public domain. In fact, the KJV is in the public domain only because the copyright expired. The British government did receive royalty payments (I believe for 100 years, IIRC.)

Exactly.
But, I do want to put in one item. In England there is still a perpetual copyright which still requires a printer in England to pay a royalty. I do not know what the royalty is, but not many KJV's are printed there today.

They lost a case when they tried to get U.S. printers to pay the royalty shortly before the revolutionary war and we ignored them both before and after the war.

Most of the Pilgrams used the Geneva Bible until English influence brought many KJV's to this country.

 

[franklinmonroe]

Early English Bibles get their nicknames from their translator (ie Tyndale, Coverdale), size (ie Great), or place of origin (ie Geneva). The official titles usually have very long strings of words describing them as being the Holy Scriptures.

The Bible text we now refer to as the "King James' Version" (primarily in America) or the "Authorized Version" (in England) was born without either name. Early after it's publication the KJV was alternately referred to as the 'the new translation', 'the Bible of the latest edition', or 'the last English translation'; it could be distinguished in the 1640s as the 'Bible with notes' as against the Geneva; even later it might be called the 'Royal Translation', 'our present English version', or the 'King's Bible'.

The first recorded reference to join the 1611 text with "King James" was in 1645; the first OED citation for "Authorized Version" was in 1824.

Most of the above info comes from David Norton's The King James Bible:A Short History from Tyndale to Today (2011) which I am currently reading (borrowed from public library).

 

[franklinmonroe]

... When the King James Bible was put to press there were two companies in England licensed to print it. In order that they let the buying public know that they had permission from the King to actually print it they simply added "The Authorized Version". ...

Not exactly. The king's printer, Robert Barker, paid a tidy sum to own exclusive privilege to print the AV1611. I've read several accounts of the arrangements and it is still unclear to me, but Barker lost control of his monopoly within very short period thereafter. Plenty of official Anglican Bible versions were sold without the word 'authorised' on it.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... King James commissioned the translation, but he nor Parliament never authorized this version. Thus, the understanding it is "authorized" is a misnomer. ...

From page 17 of Norton's The King James Bible --

Retrospect makes 'authorised' seem like a key word. The Great Bible only used it twice, and the Bishops' did not have it on it's title page until 1584, sixteen years after it first appeared (in 1588 this became 'authorized and appointed'). The KJB did not use 'authorised', only 'appointed to be read in Churches'. 'Authorised' was much less significant than we now consider it.​

 

[plain_n_simple]

Authorized or not, I sure am glad I have one.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... We only printed our first Bible at about the time of the Revolutionary War, in rebellion to the crown

The first Bible printed in America was an Indian translation. The first KJV was brought about purely as a business opportunity by printer Aitkens. A German language Bible had also already been printed in America.

 

[Luke2427]

Okay, like I said I, not well read on the topic and I'm sure Dr Noll is so I'll defer to his scholarly acumen.

That's refreshing...:godisgood:

 

[David Lamb]

Exactly.
But, I do want to put in one item. In England there is still a perpetual copyright which still requires a printer in England to pay a royalty.

Not quite. The Authorised Version (King James Version, as you call it in America) is Crown Copyright. And that is not just in England; it applies in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland too - the whole of the UK.

I do not know what the royalty is, but not many KJV's are printed there today.

You could be right, but I had not heard of the printers having to pay a royalty on printing the AV/KJV. I do know that the early bible printers, such as Robert Barker, had to finance the production costs, but that is a different matter from royalties. I wonder if the confusion could come from the various meanings of the word "royalty"? I understand that it can mean "a monarch's permission to have something", such as a printer having the right to print a bible. It can also mean "a percentage of the income from a book, piece of music, or invention that is paid to the author, composer, or inventor." But in that sense, when applied to a translation of the bible, the royalties, if any, would go to the translators.

I would be interested to know why you think not many KJVs being printed in England today. I don't know what the statistics are, but there are always plenty of KJVs on the shelves in Christian and secular bookshops. If the number being printed has gone down, it is far more likely to be due to the growing tide of atheism or just plain apathy to spiritual things among the population in general, or to the fact that more people now use English translations other than the KJV.

They lost a case when they tried to get U.S. printers to pay the royalty shortly before the revolutionary war and we ignored them both before and after the war.

Most of the Pilgrams used the Geneva Bible until English influence brought many KJV's to this country.

My meagre knowledge of American history is not enough for me to make a meaningful comment on this last part.

 

[Logos1560]

When the King James Bible was put to press there were two companies in England licensed to print it.

According to what I have read, only the King's printer could print the KJV at first. The second printer of the KJV, Cambridge, was not able to print it until 1629. The king's printer in Scotland was later able to print it. Later Oxford also obtained the same rights as Cambridge.

Robert Sargent, a KJV-only advocate, noted that Robert Barker paid 3,500 pounds for the copyright of the KJV and that Barker's firm held the rights to print the KJV until 1709 (English Bible: Manuscript Evidence, p. 226). The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church also pointed out that Robert Barker bought the final manuscript of the KJV (now lost) for 3,500 pounds, "which included the copyright" (p. 135). W. H. T. Wrede noted that Cantrell Legge, printer at Cambridge, attempted to print the 1611 KJV in 1614, but Robert Baker “claimed the sole right of Bible printing under his Patent” and prevented him from printing it (Short History, pp. 5-6). Allister McGrath observed that "Barker was obliged to hand over the copyright to Bonham Norton in 1617 as financial security" and only regained control of it in 1629 (In The Beginning, p. 199). Barker would end up in prison for debt. Christopher Anderson quoted William Ball as writing in 1651 the following: “I conceive the sole printing of the Bible and Testament with power of restraint in others, to be of right the propriety of one Matthew Barker, citizen and stationer of London, in regard that his father paid for the amended or corrected Translation of the Bible 3500 [pounds]: by reason whereof the translated copy did of right belong to him and his assignees” (Annals, II, p. 384).


Theodore Letis, a defender of the Textus Receptus, wrote: "This Bible [the KJV] had the Cum Privilegio ("with privilege") printed on it which meant that the Crown of England, as the official head of the state church, held the copyright to this Bible, giving permission only to those printers which the Crown had chosen" (Revival of the Ecclesiastical Text and the Claims of the Anabaptists, p. 29). This “Cum pivilegio” is found on the title page for the New Testament in the 1611 edition, but it is found on the title page for the whole Bible in later KJV editions printed in 1613, 1614, 1615, 1617, 1618. 1619, etc. David Cloud maintained that “the King James Bible was produced under the direct authority of the British Crown and is owned and ’copyrighted’ by the crown of England” (Faith, p. 584).


Along with the King's printer in London and later extended to the royal printer in Edinburgh, Cambridge and Oxford Universities also had certain patents or privileges from the Crown that allowed them to print Bibles. De Hamel observed that “when monopolies were abolished in England in 1623, an exception was made for royal grants of the sole right to print certain books” (The Book, p. 248). Wrede indicated that around 1628 King Charles I ratified the Cambridge Printing Charter that had been granted by Henry VIII in 1534 (Short History, p. 7). After being prevented from printing the KJV for 14 years, Cambridge University had its right to print Bibles confirmed, and it was able to print the KJV in 1629. David Norton noted that Archbishop Laud had obtained from Charles I in 1632 a Letters Patent giving Oxford “similar printing rights to those enjoyed at Cambridge” (Textual History, p. 99). Oxford is said to have leased its rights back to the Stationer’s Company until 1673. Oxford did not print its first edition of the KJV until 1675.

 

[Logos1560]

During a period of England’s history of around forty years (from 1536 until 1575 or 1576), “the printing of the Sacred Scriptures in England had been common to all printers--that is, to any printer who applied and secured a license for the edition” (Anderson, Annals of the English Bible, II, p. 345). In a complaint about a patent of privilege as “her printer of the English tongue” that was granted to Thomas Wilkes by Queen Elizabeth, the printers and members of the Stationers’ Company maintained that the printing of the Scriptures had not been regarded before “as in any sense or degree attached to the office or title of the King’s or Queen’s printer” (Ibid.). Christopher Barker, one of the printers who had complained about this patent, purchased with a great sum an exclusive patent from Thomas Wilkes in 1577 whose terms included printing rights to “all Bibles and Testaments, in the English language, of whatever translation, with notes, or without them” (pp. 346-348). After Wilkes got into trouble and ended up in prison around 1587, Christopher Barker obtained a patent directly from Queen Elizabeth in 1589: one that included a longer privilege and that included his son Robert (pp. 349-350). De Hamel affirmed that “in 1589, Queen Elizabeth had granted an exclusive patent for the publishing of Bibles in English to Christopher Barker” (The Book, p. 248). Anderson contended that “no other nation in Europe had so treated its vernacular Bible. There never was any monopoly of the Sacred Scriptures, as to printing them, in Germany, similar to that in England; no patents from the beginning, to compare with British policy” (Annals, p. 572). Anderson asserted that “it should be found that all these Bible Patents have taken their rise from what was once distinctly understood and pronounced to be illegal” (p. 620). In 1841, William Savage wrote: “England is the only Protestant country in Europe where the printing of Bibles is a monopoly” (Dictionary on the Art of Printing, p. 49).