The King James Version ("King James Bible")
and the [homosexual] man behind it:
(see
NIV and
NASB sections)
At least 60 men (MEN, of
COURSE!)
were directly involved in the translation
of the King James Bible (hereinafter KJV). Most (47) were Translators, while
a few were project overseers, revisers and editors. Some served in
several roles. There were 47 translators that were actually
approved - out of the 54 allowed for selection.
Who were these men? What were their
backgrounds? What
did they share? In what ways were they different? They were a diverse
group. While some were born in large cities and towns, most were from
small villages scattered throughout England. Several were the children
of university graduates, most were not. They were sons of mariners,
farmers, school teachers, cordwainers (leather merchants), fletchers
(makers of bows and arrows), ministers, brewers, tailors, and
aristocrats. All were members of the Church of England, but their
religious views ran the gamut. Some were ardent Puritans, others
staunch defenders of the religious establishment. Some believed in
pre-destination and limited salvation as taught by John Calvin, while
others believed in self-determination and universal access to heaven as
taught by Jacobus Arminius.
All of the Translators were university graduates. Oxford and Cambridge
claimed nearly equal numbers of Translators as alumni. All of the
Translators except one were ordained Church of England priests. While
several of the Translators had traveled to the Continent, only one had
ventured to the New World. Most of the Translators were married men (38
of 60) with families. Most of the Translators spent a significant
portion of their career associated with their colleges and universities
as fellows, involved in teaching and administration. As fellows, they
were not allowed to marry. As a result many delayed marriage until they
had established themselves in church office away from the university.
When the translation commenced in 1604-1605, the majority of the
Translators, 22, were in their forties, 16 men were in their thirties,
15 in their fifties, 3 in their sixties and 3 in their twenties.
1 Translator died in his thirties, 6 in their forties, 19 in
their fifties, 16 in their sixties, 4 in their seventies, 3
in their eighties and 1 over one hundred. 9 of the Translators
died before the KJV was published in 1611.
https://www.lavistachurchofchrist.org/cms/the-king-james-translators-thoughts-on-bible-translations/
"The missing
verses"
https://mattdabbs.com/2008/03/20/the-case-of-the-missing-verse-john-54/
I always thought the fact that the NIV has 49 blank verses just made it
easier to win a memory verse competition by saying, “Matthew 23:14”
then pausing, “Mark 7:16” then pausing, until you have quoted 49 memory
verses without having to say a word. Go figure. On a serious note,
there have been accusations that the NIV has deleted verses in the New
Testament. The insinuation is that the NIV committee did not have a
proper respect for the text and that earlier versions of the English
Bible are more accurate and faithful to God’s word because they contain
these verses. The first thing that we have to understand when coming to
this issue is that translation is a difficult job. There are over 3000
Greek manuscripts and fragments of the New Testament of varying age.
Each one was hand copied, which leaves room for mistakes and even
practical decisions of what to do with what the previous copyist has
done. John 5:4 is one of the verses in contention.
The KJV decided to include it because it was in the manuscripts they
had at their disposal. The NIV decided to omit it because in the 400
years since the KJV was translated much older manuscripts had surfaced
that did not have that verse. Remember, the KJV was translated largely
from the Textus Receptus which was a compilation of manuscripts that
did not even date prior to 1100 AD.
What happened in the 800 years between the texts the NIV is based on
and the texts the KJV is based on? Copying, copying, and more copying.
Often a copyist would write an explanation in the margin and some times
that explanation would end up in the text. Bruce Metzger (Text of the
New Testament, 194) thinks that is exactly what happened in the case of
John 5:4. Why? For several reasons (listed in Metzger’s textual
commentary Edition 3, 209):
1 – Because the earliest manuscripts don’t contain it. Why not? Did
they omit this verse just like the NIV? Of course not. They don’t
contain the verse because the manuscripts they were copied from didn’t
have it and the ones before them didn’t have it because the original
didn’t have it. It doesn’t start appearing in manuscripts for at least
500 years When no manuscript before 500 AD has a verse you can be
fairly certain that it was added in from a marginal note, from a
copying error, or due to the copyist remembering that verse in another
gospel and accidentally harmonizing them in his head and copying it
wrong (such is the case of a few other “missing verses”). But once it
is added it then gets copied over and over and from that point on may
appear original to the next copyist
2 – Multiple Greek manuscripts copied after 900 AD have a mark showing
that they thought the verse was questionable but they included it
because it was in the manuscript they were copying from.
3 – This verse has multiple words that John doesn’t use anywhere else =
out of character
4 – This verse has a larger number of textual variants = there are many
versions of this text in many different Greek manuscripts which points
to it being very questionable as to what was original if it even was
original.
With all that weight against it the NIV decided not to include that
verse in its translation. Did the NIV delete the verse from the
inspired word of God? They didn’t delete it if it wasn’t there to begin
with. It may seem like a verse was removed because previous English
versions like the KJV included it because it was in the manuscripts
they used to translate from. People read it for 400 years in English
and became accustomed to it. So when they spot it missing from the NIV
eyebrows go up and accusations begin to fly. So it probably wasn’t so
much that the NIV deleted something or that the KJV added something.
The problem was the texts the KJV was translated from were simply not
ideal.
Missing verses in the bible:
https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/the-missing-17-verses-in-the-bible-mondays-with-mounce
I call them the “17 Added Verses” since there is no question they were
added after the original authors wrote. I know there is a lot of
graceless talk out there about “corrupted” texts that “omit” parts of
the Bible, but let me emphasize that if it is wrong to drop out words
from the Bible (and it is), it is equally wrong to add them in.
The only large passages that were added to the biblical text are the
story of the “Woman Caught in Adultery” (John 7:53–8:11), and the
longer ending of Mark (16:9–20). Unless you want to handle snakes and
drink poison, neither of these passages add anything to our knowledge
of the Bible.
The one that causes the most “discussion” (I am being polite using that
word) is 1 John 5:7b–8a, since if original it would be the only
explicit reference to the Trinity. But the evidence is overwhelming
that these words were added centuries after John wrote, and we don’t
need them to affirm the doctrine of the Trinity.
https://missingbibleverses.com
The King James Version was not a new translation
The title page of the 1611 King James Version Bible has a discraimer:
“Newly
Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former
Translations diligently compared and revised.” However, the King James
Version was not really a new translation.
The KJV translation committees were instructed to follow the Bishops’
Bible as much as possible. The Bishops’ Bible (1568) followed the
translation of the Great Bible (1539), which was a revision of
Matthew’s Bible (1537), which was a revision of the Coverdale Bible
(1535) that included Tyndale’s translation. Therefore, much of the 1611
King James Version actually originated with William Tyndale nearly 100
years earlier.
William Tyndale was a brilliant linguist and a superb translator. Many
of the phrases in his translation are still in use today: “give up the
ghost” (Job 3:11, 13:19), “the powers that be” (Romans 13:1), “my
brother’s keeper” (Genesis 4:9), “the salt of the earth” (Matthew
5:13), “fight the good fight” (I Timothy 6:12), “a law unto themselves”
(Romans 2:14), and many more.
In many respects the King James Version was a revision of Tyndale’s
translation. This is demonstrated by the KJV’s use of “thou” and
“thee” instead of “you.” Alister McGrath says that “a careful study of
the court records of the northern English city of Durham suggests that
‘you’ had replaced ‘thou’ as the normal form of address in spoken
English by about 1575,” thirty-five years before James’s new
translation.
The King James Version was NOT a new translation
https://www.storyofbible.com/the-king-james-version-was-not-a-new-translation.html
In answering critics, the translators of the King James Bible defended
the making of translations in general. They said, “Now to the latter we
answer; that we do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very
meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our
profession, (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet)
containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.” They were not
claiming that the KJV was the only proper translation, but were wanting
to improve upon what was already available (e.g., the Bishop’s Bible,
as the KJV was not the first Bible in English).
They further state: “No cause therefore why the word translated should
be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding
that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth
of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or
Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of
God's spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had
not their hand?”
They defended the idea that translations were necessary and they should
not be forbidden “to be current,” even if there are some imperfections.
They saw value in updating where needed, and this is one reason why
newer translations today should have a seat at the table.
They defended the changes they were making: “Yet before we end, we must
answer a third cavil and objection of theirs against us, for altering
and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truly they deal hardly,
and strangely with us. For to whomever was it imputed for a fault (by
such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it
where he saw cause?”
Later, they write, “But the difference that appeareth between our
Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that we
are specially charged with; let us see therefore whether they
themselves be without fault this way, (if it be to be counted a fault,
to correct) and whether they be fit men to throw stones at us…”
In stating their purpose, they say this: “But it is high time to leave
them, and to show in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what
course we held in this our perusal and survey of the Bible. Truly (good
Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should
need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good
one, (for then the imputation of Sixtus had been true in some sort,
that our people had been fed with gall of Dragons instead of wine, with
whey instead of milk:) but to make a good one better, or out of many
good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against;
that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.”
They say, “We desire that the Scripture may speak like itself, as in
the language of Canaan, that it may be understood even of the very
vulgar.”
They were not claiming perfection, and they were not claiming this to
be the one and only final translation, never to be touched again. They
saw value in translations for reaching the common people.
https://kingjamesbibletranslators.org/bios/
DIE-HARD KJers - they don't want to stray from "the foundation" ... yet
BY DEFINITION, they are PROTESTANTS!! They are
protesting against the foundations!! Doest thou knowest
not this, brethern??
There wece 13 months in King James translation
What most people don't know (they just
aren't aware): The blue-eyed,
skinny/frail "Jesus"
that we have on our stained glass
Church windows
and our crucifixes - is not the real Jesus. King
James - the one
who
had the Bible translated into English (well, OLD English: doest
thou understandest?) - also was such an "ego-head" that he had his
image painted - as "Jesus". A fun fact: King James also
made
the Roman system - redone with HIS body: feet, miles, inch. And
I'll close with King James after this little-known fact: King James
sold Irish women and children - as SLAVES.
Go ahead, look it up:
https://swisscows.com/web?query=king james sold irish
as slaves
WATCH THIS VIDEO:
https://youtu.be/FjfvtvmgT3s
King
James changed the original text of The Bible to control the English
People & hunt Witches. Here’s the story of why King James
omitted some text and added passages that were never in the original
scripture:
https://medium.com/@chrissiemassey1023/king-james-changed-the-original-text-of-the-bible-to-control-the-english-people-hunt-witches-c8284564d8b0
NOTE to all of those KJV lovers out there: All the Jews and
Pharisees
_thought_ they "had all the answers" (as YOU think now!)
- but Yeshua ("Jesus" - his
original Hebrew name is Yeshua) came to show them that they did
not. We are the same now as those Pharisees ... and using a
horrible Dictator's translation. A quick closing note:
"Kings and Kingdoms" were all added by KJ - he added all the "kingly"
things, to show that "Kingdoms" were a *good* thing. We all know
that any Dictator/King is not a good thing. The
Greek for "King of Kings" actually means
"Master of to reign/ruler" [see full
disclosure below]. Here is some history on
the King James you all love so much:
Although the title page of The King James Bible boasted that it was
“newly translated out of the original tongues,” the work was actually a
revision of The Bishopʼs Bible of 1568, which was a revision of The
Great Bible of 1539, which was itself based on three previous English
translations from the early 1500s. So, the men who produced the King
James Bible not only inherited some of the errors made by previous
English translators, but invented some of their own.
Desiderius Erasmus was a “Christian humanist” who collected Greek (and
Latin) New Testament manuscripts and compared and edited them, verse by
verse, selecting what he considered to be the best variant
passages,
until he had compiled what came to be known as the “textus receptus.”
Early English translations of the Bible, like those mentioned above,
were based on his “textus receptus.” Erasmus was also a monk whom some
historians believe engaged in homosexual
activities.
Remember: King James - well ... was a *King* - not
"elected". He lived in riches and excess .... while his country
people toiled, and lived in poverty. Yes, same with Solomon,
David ... all Kings. Many get *really* mad - when I dare
say anything about Solomon. 1) "worship"
means "to hold in
high esteem, especially to worship", and 2)
King
solomon
was badly cursed by God - mainly because he worshipped
Baal later, and he married foreign wives. Obviously a sex addict,
his "wisdom" was temporary, and it doesn't take much wisdom - to throw
your children into an inferno (he threw his female children - of which
he had hundreds - into red-hot Baal!) _Now_ do you think he's so
great? Me either. If *God* cursed him, I can
have a grudge against him too.
We all have a thing called "confirmation
bias" (and eisegesis),
and it makes us want to believe what suits our narrative, and "toss"
what doesn't. *I* say* : facts don't have feelings.
Especially since many Christians - use "wine" as an excuse to "get a
buzz". "Fruit of the vine" could mean raw fruit, grape (etc)
juice, or yes, it could mean fermented, but that would toss the "Be ye
not drunk with wine" out the window.
Some history of King James:
King James I inherited a mess when he ascended to the throne of
England. The Church of England, Puritans and Catholics were at odds
with each other. One big problem was the previous translation of the
Bible. James convened the Hampton Court Conference, which would tackle
some of the problems of the earlier translations. The translation work
began in 1604. It took 47 scholars 5 years to complete the work
(published in 1611). The
King James Bible is one of the most important books in English culture.
King James’ England
To understand the turmoil that England was in when James ascended to
the throne, you almost have to go back to King Henry VIII, best known
for having six wives. King Henry’s first marriage was to Catharine of
Aragon, his brother’s widow. It was this marriage that led to a
disagreement with the Pope. Henry wanted the marriage annulled. When
the Pope did not grant the annulment, Henry separated from the Catholic
Church, naming himself Supreme Head of the Church of England. This
started the English Reformation. Henry might have had six wives, but he
only had three living offspring: Mary, Edward and Elizabeth.
As the only male heir, Edward took precedence over his sisters. Edward
was nine years old when Henry died. During Edward’s reign,
Protestantism was established in England. His council of regents
imposed compulsory services in English and abolished the Mass. He never
really ruled in his own right, because he died at the age of 15, but he
did change the succession by naming Lady Jane Grey as his successor.
This was to prevent England from returning to Catholicism. Lady Jane
only reigned for nine short days before Mary, Edward’s sister and
rightful heir, deposed Jane.
Queen Mary attempted to reverse the English Reformation. She would be
known as Bloody Mary. She only reigned for five years, but during that
time had 280 people burned at the stake for being a religious
dissenter. Another 800 rich Protestants chose to leave England in
exile. Mary even imprisoned her sister, Elizabeth, for suspicion of
supporting the Protestant rebels. In the end, Elizabeth succeeded Mary.
Elizabeth I was more religiously tolerant than her brother or sister,
but Elizabeth is largely responsible for the establishment of the
Anglican Church. The Pope declared Elizabeth illegitimate. The
Catholics in Ireland, subject to Elizabeth, turned hostile and
routinely defied her authority, which led to turmoil in the kingdom.
Elizabeth did not marry, nor did she have children. She refused to name
a successor, which made it difficult for her government to prepare for
a smooth transition. James VI of Scotland had a strong claim, but
Elizabeth did not outwardly recognize him. Still, he was proclaimed
James I of England on her death. Although England was politically and
religiously stable when Elizabeth died, there were concerns that James
would throw England back into turmoil.
See my section on "King James was gay/King
James was a homosexual".
King James Rules:
James ascended to the throne in 1603. He inherited an England that was
in debt and religious turmoil. Many of his subjects were Roman
Catholics, concerned about persecution. On the other hand, James was
seeking a Spanish wife for his son, which concerned the Protestants,
who feared that would bring a revival of Catholic power.
Still, James moved forward with the translation of the Bible. This
version was to conform to the episcopal structure of the Church of
England. Considering the state of England when James came into power,
it’s astounding that he was able to bring 47 scholars together to
complete the translation.
Published in 1611 at the behest of King James I of England. It is
likely the most famous translation of the bible and was the standard
English Bible for nearly 3 centuries. Many people think that it’s
so named because James had a hand in writing it, but that’s not the
case. As king, James was also the head of the Church of England,
and he
had to approve of the new English translation of the Bible, which was
also dedicated to him.
So if James didn’t write it, who did? To begin with, there’s no single
author. One individual - Richard Bancroft, the archbishop of
Canterbury - was notable for having the role of overseer of the
project,
something akin to a modern editor of a collection of short stories. The
actual translating (writing) of the KJV was done by a committee of 47
scholars and clergymen over the course of many years. So we cannot say
for certain which individual wrote a given passage.
The other translations available were the Tyndale
version and the
Geneva Bible. King James argued that "ekklesia" in Matthew 16:18
(which
referred to Christ building His "congregation" in the Tyndale
translation) should be translated to "church." And James didn't like
the
Geneva Bible's translation of
Matthew 2:20
which seemed to brand all
kings as tyrants: (most are!)
19 When Herode was deed: beholde an angell of ye Lorde appered in
a dreame to Ioseph in Egypte
20 sayinge: arise and take ye chylde and his mother and go into
ye londe of Israel. For they are deed which sought ye chyldes life.
21 The he arose vp and toke ye chylde and his mother and cam into the
londe of Israhel.
(see more translations
here on my other page, but
see the link at: https://biblehub.com/tyndale/matthew/2.htm)
NOTE: Queen Mary was the horribly evil Queen of England - she
had well over 300 educated people burned at the stake - including women
- for reading the Bible. William
Tyndale (one of those
burned) held-out until his last breath - and prayed loudly "Lord,
please open the King's eyes!!" before he was hanged, then burned.
God answered his prayer - the next King: Henry the 8 ... finally
authorized the Bible to be printed. And NO - King James was
NOT the first Bible to be authorized. It was William
Tyndale's - after he was burned at the stake for Translating
it! Four years later, it was authorized and King James drew
heavily on
it. See The
Forbidden Book on my documentaries page.
The History of The Canonized books (“The Bible”) - from the
10
commandments - to the Catholic crusades (murder) and burning anyone
who
reads or produces any English translation. We can’t IMAGINE that
now,
but William Tyndall and many others - were burned for making it
available it English. The only legal way was in LATIN. And
you
thought YOU had it rough - because people ‘snub” you for telling about
Jesus.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntSFq2IZw4o
Did you know that during the period of A.D. 100 to 400, the Bible had
been translated into nearly 500 languages? Did you also know that from
A.D. 400 to 500 it had been reduced to just one language? A language
only known to the clergy and the educated. As a result of the Bible
becoming the ""Forbidden Book"" the dark ages were marked by
superstition and ignorance. Confusion controlled the minds of the
masses.
However, by God's sovereign hand, He called a few brave men to preserve
and restore the Bible to the people. John Wycliffe, the brilliant
century 14 Oxford scholar, translated the Bible from Latin
into English
in order to enlighten the masses oppressed through ignorance. His work
was so despised by the established church, that Pope Martin V ordered
Wycliffe's bones to be dug up and burned.
Martin Luther was one of the few who challenged church authority in
century 16, and lived to tell the tale. In exposing the folly of
indulgences (paying money to the church in order to obtain favor with
God, and Church prostitutes - to make them rich), he revealed what had
always been written in scripture, that justification was through faith.
William Tyndale was not spared like his friend Luther. Tyndale spent
the last 500 days of his life in a cold castle dungeon. He was then
tied to a stake, strangled and burned. His crime?... printing Bibles in
the English language!
Discover the fascinating story behind the preservation of the Bible,
and the extreme risks many took - including Apos Paul, the apostles,
and disciples …. and today, many taking it overseas.
In 1604, at the Hampton Court Conference, James authorized theologians
to start a new translation for all English-speaking parishes. 47
scholars were convened, worked for 7 years, and
produced The King James Authorized Version of the Bible in 1611. (The
first English translation of the Bible, the Tyndale, was produced just
85 years earlier).
Though his translation of the Bible remains his most famous legacy,
James also approved the flag for Great Britain, sponsored William
Shakespeare as a playwright (even though his plays were vulgar
and
about murder), expanded "trade" with India (this was the SLAVE
TRADE!!),
and was the namesake for the first permanent colony in the New World
(Jamestown).
James was widely unpopular and made many enemies in Parliament. He may
have been bisexual (hence his love for the famous homosexual William
Shakespeare), but he was certainly known to be homosexual. He
opposed
the Pope's power and wrote against
Catholicism's influence in politics (but it's fine for HIM to be!).
That, combined with his holding
fast to the idea that Kings were only responsible only to God (the
divine right of kings) - and not The People - led to an assassination
attempt. In 1605 a group of Catholics attempted to kill James, his
wife, his son, and Parliament. "The Gunpowder Plot", now remembered as
"Guy Fawkes Day", failed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder_Plot
https://www.britannica.com/event/Gunpowder-Plot
https://www.history.com/topics/european-history/gunpowder-plot
https://www.worldhistory.org/Gunpowder_Plot/
https://www.hrp.org.uk/tower-of-london[...]ies/guy-fawkes-and-the-gunpowder-plot/
So, knowing that King James was a Slave Trader,
full of himself (a
narcissist), and Gay .... read this
about the crucifix
we all
think was "Jesus", but was actually King
James:
First, King James was an avid homosexual
- usually in love with older
men. Esmé Stewart was the most famous lover.
https://www.factinate.com/people/facts-king-james/
Although the KJV is on it's Edition #7, they are REVISIONS. They
don't want to call them that, but what shall we calleth
"Changes"??? "Edition". This is sugar-coated for
"translated version". They have "updated" the KJV 7 times
already. OK, 2 ways to look at it:
1) 7 times - over 412 years (2023) - is really GOOD.
2) If you are NOT TO CHANGE it, that's 7 times of CHANGING.
Quick addition: The ORIGINAL Hebrew and Greek HAVE NOT CHANGED AT
ALL - in THOUSANDS of years [duuuh!]
Other reasons I despise that Shakespeare era:
Readability - NASB The New American Standard Bible uses contemporary
language and punctuation, the King James version does not, being
written almost 400 years ago, and virtually unchanged for about 120
years. The crux of the matter of readability is the difficulty of the
Elizabethan English of the KJV, which is laborious to read even for
those who are well educated and familiar with the texts, when compared
to reading the same texts in the clearly written NASB in it's familiar
modern format and natural vocabulary. Other readability issues include
the use of quotations and poetic stanzas, small caps for Old Testament
quotes in the New Testament, and capitalization of pronouns referring
to deity. The NASB also recognizes Greek translations of Hebrew names
and translates the names consistently, as opposed to the KJV which
gives us multiple names for the same person; for example, the KJV calls
Judah, the son of Israel, "Judas" in Matthew 1:2, because that's how it
is in Greek. The NASB simply calls him Judah in both the Old and New
Testaments; this is simpler to understand and just as accurate.
Quality of language translation
We have since learned a great deal about _ancient_ Greek and Hebrew.
Our understanding of Greek has grown significantly, particularly with
the discovery that the Greek Bible was in common (Koine) Greek, but our
understanding of Hebrew has vastly improved since the crentury 17,
during which time the ancient Hebrew was very poorly understood. The
NASB clearly benefits from a better understanding of the languages, and
presents not only closer translations, but provides notes for certain
aspects of translation, as discussed above. When the NASB and KJV
differ on the rendering of a text, which is not based on variance in
the manuscripts, the NASB is usually more favorable to the original
languages. Also, slight variations in words chosen and sentence forms
used throughout the NASB reflect our current understanding of Greek,
Hebrew, and Aramaic, which has improved dramatically in 400 years.
Quality of manuscripts
The KJV was based on the manuscripts which were few in number, local in
geography, and late in date. Archeology has, since the KJV, made almost
all important manuscript discoveries - everything from the Dead Sea
Scrolls back to the Rosetta Stone, all occur _after_ the
KJV. These new manuscripts can be found in conclusive families, based
on history and geography, with standardized variations of content and
recognizable progression of modifications. Today's critical texts are
very broad based and careful reconstructions of the original writings,
and cannot be reasonably discounted out-of-hand, nor can the published
arguments of those who would demand the exclusive use of the Textus
Receptus be validated, or even accepted as reasonable. To suppose
that
the much older, much more widely distributed manuscripts, in many
languages, which have been discovered over the last 390 years are all
corrupted and inferior to the sources for the KJV is incredible, to say
the least.
King James is the worst translation. Here's why:
The KJV uses many archaic words no longer in use: words such as
jangling, subtil, privily, sunder, and holpen, etc. And it uses archaic
expressions and phrases that are unfamiliar to modern readers. For
instance, how many people readily understand “Charity vaunteth not
itself” (1 Cor. 13:4 KJV)? Or these verses in Job?:
Sample:
Job 15:26-27 KJV.
"He runneth upon him, even on his neck, upon the thick bosses of his
bucklers: Because he covereth his face with his fatness, and maketh
collops of fat on his flanks”
The original Hebrew:
יָר֣וּץ בְּצַוָּ֑אר בַּ֝עֲבִ֗י מָֽגִנָּֽיו׃ כִסָּ֣ה פָנָ֣יו
בְּחֶלְבֹּ֑ו וַיַּ֖עַשׂ כָֽסֶל׃ פִּימָ֣ה
(yaˇrutz beˇtzavˇvar baˇ'aˇvi maˇginˇnav chisˇsah faˇnav beˇchelˇbov
vaiˇyaˇ'as chaˇsel piˇmah)
Direct translation: "to run neck
thickness a shield to
cover face fat
do loins/stupidity/confidence
superabundance"
So, does this REALLY sound like the KJV: "Because he covereth his face
with his fatness, and maketh collops of fat on his flanks"
(answer: NO.) Do it RIGHT, Translators - or don't do it at
all!
Earlier editions of the KJV also
used
outdated spelling which can be
confusing for some readers (e.g., “sunne” for “sun”). The current
edition that is still commonly used has “an hungred” for “hungry” in 9
verses and “terribleness” for "awesome or terrifying deeds" in 3.
Furthermore, the current edition of the KJV contains several words that
have changed in meaning over time. Words such as flowers, suffer, vile,
quit, conversation, draught, anon, and bowels convey different meanings
to modern readers than was intended by both the KJV translators and the
original authors of the biblical texts. (See, for example, Lev. 15:24
KJV; the last phrase in Joshua 15:3 KJV; 2 Kings 10:27 KJV; Song 5:4
KJV; the first phrase in Ezekiel 24:23 KJV; Matt. 19:14 KJV // Luke
18:16 KJV; Mark 1:30 KJV; 1 Cor. 16:13 KJV; Phil. 3:20-21 KJV.)
The fact that the KJV uses the word “unicorn” 9 times, and “satyr”
twice (Isa. 13:21; Isa. 34:14) is also
problematic, as unicorns and satyrs are regarded as mythological
creatures rather than real animals - - wild oxen and goats - that are correctly
translated in the Hebrew Bible and in many
contemporary translations.
Isaih 13:21
(KJV) But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses
shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and
satyrs shall dance there.
Original Hebrew: וְרָבְצוּ־ שָׁ֣ם בָתֵּיהֶ֖ם וּמָלְא֥וּ אֹחִ֑ים
יַֽעֲנָ֔ה וְשָׁ֤כְנוּ שָׁם֙ וּשְׂעִירִ֖ים יְרַקְּדוּ־ שָֽׁם׃
Direct translation: “stretch one’s self
out
there a
house to be
full
owl
greed to
dwell
there hairy buck or
goat to skip
about there"
So, “wild beast of th desert” was added, as was "doleful creatures”
[and WHAT does “doleful” mean, anyway? I ask everyone, and nobody
knows!)
Isaih 34:14
(KJV) The wild beasts of the desert shall also meet with the wild
beasts of the island, and the satyr shall cry to his fellow; the
screech owl also shall rest there, and find for herself a place of rest.
Original Hebrew: וּפָגְשׁ֤וּ אִיִּ֔ים וְשָׂעִ֖יר יִקְרָ֑א רֵעֵ֣הוּ
אַךְ־ לִּילִ֔ית הִרְגִּ֣יעָה שָׁם֙ וּמָצְאָ֥ה מָנֹֽוחַ׃
Direct translation: “to
meet/encounter a
jackal
hairy to
call/proclaim
friend/companion
surely a female
night-demon to be at
rest
there to
attain/find to rest”
So, “island” and “desert” were added, as well as “a scratch owl”.
The correct interpretation of it is: “Lilith: chaos, seduction and
ungodliness”.
- - -
Apart from its dated language, there are a few other shortcomings that
KJV-only people seem unaware of. Moreover, many accept incorrect
statements that are frequently made about the KJV. The following
paragraphs contain seven pieces of information that some KJV- only
people may not be aware of.
1. The KJV was not the first English translation of the Bible.
A few "King-James-Only" Christians believe that the King James Bible
(1611) was
the first English translation of the Scriptures. This belief is
incorrect.
- John Wycliffe’s Bible (1526) was translated from Latin into English
and hand-copied in the 1400s.
- In 1526, almost 100 years before the KJV
was first published, William
Tyndale’s
English translation of the Greek
New Testament was printed.
A decade or so later, full English Bibles
began to be printed.
- First came the Coverdale Bible (1535-1537) which
used Tyndale’s NT, as did the Matthew Bible (1537).
- Then came Richard
Taverner’s Bible (1539), closely followed by
- The Great Bible
(1539-1541).
- The Geneva Bible (1556-1560) was published by and for
Calvinist Puritans.
- The Bishops’ Bible (1568) was based on the Great
Bible and edited by Church of England bishops, partly, in response to
the Geneva Bible.
- The Douay Rheims Bible (1582-1609) was translated
from the Latin Vulgate,
rather than Hebrew and Greek, for the Roman
Catholic Church.
Much of the KJV, which was first published in 1611, borrows heavily
from earlier English translations, especially Tyndale’s
New
Testament
and the Bishop’s Bible.
2. The KJV was not the first authorized English translation
of the
Bible.
- The KJV was not the first approved or first authorized English
translation as is sometimes alleged.
- The 1537 edition of the Coverdale
Bible was officially approved by Henry VIII and it bears the royal
license on the title page.
- Henry VIII then authorized The Great Bible
(1539).
- Thomas Cromwell, who was Vicar General and Henry’s secretary,
issued an injunction that a copy of the Great Bible “be set up in every
parish church. It was consequently the first (and only) English Bible
formally authorized for public use.”
- THEN came the KJ. it is #5 "authorized" after 8 (EIGHT)
previous English versions!! Sorry, KJO-ers.
3. The KJV has been through several editions.
Some King-James-Only Christians believe that "the King James Bible
perfectly preserved the Scriptures for all time". If this is the case
there would have been no need for further edits. The current edition of
the KJV is different from the original 1611 translation and several
other early editions. “The KJV Bible we use today is actually based
primarily on the major revision completed in 1769, 158 years after the
first edition.”
"Edition". This is sugar-coated for "translated version".
They have "updated" the KJV 7 times already. OK, 2 ways to look
at it:
1) only 7 times - over 412 years (2023) - is really GOOD.
2) If you are NOT TO CHANGE it, that's 7 times of CHANGING.
Quick addition: The ORIGINAL Hebrew and Greek HAVE NOT CHANGED AT
ALL - in THOUSANDS of years [duuuh!]
Interestingly, the 1611 version, and all other editions of the
KJV that
were published for the next fifty years, contained the Apocrypha.
Protestant Christians do not regard the apocryphal books as uniquely
inspired and authoritative. The AD 1666 edition was the first edition
of
the KJV that did not include these extra books. (Article six of
the
Thirty-Nine Articles, ratified in 1562 before the KJV was first
published, explains the Church of England’s position on the canonical
and apocryphal books of the
Bible.)
4. King James authorized the new translation for political reasons.
King James believed that a single, authorized version was a political
and social necessity. He hoped this book would hold together the
warring factions of the Church of England and the Puritans that
threatened to tear apart both church and country. Most of the
translators were clergymen belonging to the Church of England, but at
least some had Puritan sympathies.
King James issued over a dozen rules that the translators had to
follow. He disliked the Geneva Bible, the Bible used by the
Puritans,
because he believed that some of the comments in the margin notes were
seditious and did not show enough respect for kings.
James’ new
translation was to have no commentary in the margins.
King James favoured the hierarchical structure of the Church of England
and wanted the new translation to use words that supported a bishop-led
hierarchy. In keeping with his preferred views on church government, he
specified, “The old ecclesiastical words [are] to be kept; as the word
church [is] not to be translated congregation.” (I personally believe
“congregation” is a better translation of the Greek word ekklēsia in
some verses.) King James also ruled that only his Bible could
be
read in England’s churches. The political motives of King James
had a
direct influence on the translation of the KJV.
5. The translators of the KJV 1611 were relatively unfamiliar with
Koine Greek.
Koine (“common”) Greek is the original language of the New Testament,
but the KJV translators of the New Testament, who were accomplished
scholars of Classical Greek, were relatively unfamiliar with Koine
Greek. Koine Greek was not well-understood in the 1600s. Some people
suggested it was a “Judaic” or “Hebraic” Greek. Some even believed it
was a unique Spirit-inspired dialect. It was not until the 1800s and
early 1900s, when tens of thousands of papyrus documents were
discovered, many written in Koine, that we began to understand the
language more fully.[8] Unlike the translators of the KJV, modern
translators of the New Testament are usually scholars of Koine Greek.
There are also some issues with the KJV translation of the Hebrew into
English in the Old Testament.
6. The KJV translation of the New Testament is based on relatively
recent
Greek
manuscripts.
As well as relying on previous English translations, the 1611
edition
of the KJV relied on critically edited Greek texts that were “for the
most part based on about half a dozen very late manuscripts” (none
earlier than Century 12 AD).” These Greek texts included
five printed editions of the Greek New Testament by Erasmus, as well as
Robert Estienne’s (a.k.a. ‘Stephanus’) edition (1550) and Theodore
Beza’s edition (1598). Michael Holmes writes more about the Greek texts
behind English Bibles here.
Unfortunately, one of the manuscripts Estienne and Beza used for their
Greek editions contained a few “corrections” that downplayed
the
importance of women in the church.
7. The Textus Receptus,
Latin
for "Received Text", is basically Erasmus’s
Greek
Text.
Many KJV advocates claim that the New Testament in the King James Bible
was translated from a Greek text known as the Textus Receptus (TR) and
that the TR is especially accurate and inspired. The term Textus
Receptus was first coined in 1633, after the KJV was first published,
and it basically refers to Erasmus’ critical text. The current version
of the TR was produced in 1894 by Scrivener who preferred the
Byzantine, or Majority, Text. (The Byzantine-Majority Text is similar
but not identical to the Textus Receptus.)
NOTE: Erasmus did not "invent" the Textus Receptus, but merely printed
a small collection of what was already the vast majority of New
Testament Manuscripts in the Byzantine tradition.
Most modern translations of the New Testament are based on critical
Greek texts that take into account a larger collection of texts than
was available to Erasmus when he was creating his critical texts. A few
of these previously unavailable manuscripts date from as early as
Century 3, which makes them much closer to the date that the New
Testament books and letters were written by the biblical authors.
The textus receptus (received text) - is that they take 95% of the text
they have, and go with the majority. OK, but that would mean that
pop music is far more accurate than Christian music. Just a
fun example there. Also, there have been different copies of many
writings, which have more - or less writing in them. We "picked
and chose" what to put into the final "biblio" (Canonized books).
Also, remember: even Matthew and Luke disagree on Yeshua's
lineage ... Matthew goes by biological, Luke by "legal"
(adoption). Who is correct?? Same with the Book of
Enoch - well The Book of Enoch - which is actually 3 groups of writings
that were originally called "1 Enoch" (and yes, pronounced "One
Enoch"...) through "3 Enoch". The most popular collection
were the - which documented the Nephelim (taken as "all") as 9
cubits.
See the full Textus
Receptus
explanation here.
How many editions is the KJV in? Here are the biggest
"armnaments" the KJO-ers use:
"Men have been "handling the word of God deceitfully" (2 Corinthians
4:2)
Not even CLOSE - it's actually:
(KJV) "But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking
in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by
manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's
conscience in the sight of God."
Original Greek: ἀπειπάμεθα κρύπτα αἰσχύνης περιπατοῦντες
πανουργίᾳ μηδὲ δολοῦντες λόγον θεοῦ φανερώσει ἀληθείας συνιστάνοντες
ἑαυτοὺς πᾶσαν ἀνθρώπων συνείδησιν ἐνώπιον θεοῦ
Literally means: "to forbid/renounce
hidden/secret
disgrace/shame to walk
cleverness/craftiness but not/and
not to ensnare a
word God
disclosure/announcement
truth approve/commend
one's own self
all/every human
co-perception/moral consciousness in the face
of/in the presence of God"
And this one:
“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their
trust in him.” (Proverbs 30:5)
OK, closer. The original Hebrew: כָּל־ אִמְרַ֣ת אֱלֹ֣והַּ
צְרוּפָ֑ה מָגֵ֥ן לַֽחֹסִ֥ים
Literally means: the whole/all
utterance/speech/word God to
smelt/refine/test a shield to seek
refuge"
"These different King James Bibles (KJV 1611, 1769, by Cambridge
University Press, and by Oxford University Press) are different
editions. Realize it says editions, not revisions. They only include
typographical errors and spelling differences, not real changes."
That's odd - because _there HAVE BEEN word changes_.
Standardization
There have been many printings of the King James Version (KJV). The
first printing was in 1611. Early printings contained many
typographical errors due to printing errors. Major attempts to
standardize the text were conducted in 1629 (Cambridge), 1638
(Cambridge), 1762 (by Dr. F. S. Parris, published by Cambridge), and
1769 (by Dr. Benjamin Blayney, published by Oxford). The 1769 Oxford
edition has updated spelling and grammar and is a trustworthy edition
that is widely used today. The differences between the 1611 edition and
the later editions are due to corrections of obvious printing errors
(including words that were accidentally omitted), the standardization
and updating of spelling, and the updating of punctuation and paragraph
marks.
Removal of the Apocrypha
The Apocrypha was included in early printings of the KJV. The
Church of England, having come out of the Roman Catholic Church, had
continued the practice of including the Apocryphal books in the
Bible. However, the Church of England has a history of
disregarding the Apocrypha. King James himself said, “As to the
Apocriphe bookes, I omit them because I am no Papist” (Book I:13,
Basilicon Doron).
There were many reasons to include the Apocrypha within the pages of
the Bible during century 17 (1600's). Protestants of the time
were deeply engaged in debates with Catholics over doctrine, so
Protestant pastors and theologians were served well by being
well-acquainted with the Apocrypha. Some books, such as Maccabees
and Sirach, are quoted in the Talmud; so familiarity with the Apocrypha
can be helpful to understand Judaism during the time of Jesus
Christ. The fulfillment of some Old testament prophecies, such as
those in Daniel, can be confirmed by the historical information in the
Apocryphal books such as Maccabees. Despite its inclusion in the
KJV, however, the translators did not consider the Apocrypha as part of
scripture. Whereas Catholic Bibles included the Apocryphal books.
Unofficial revisions
There have been several unofficial revisions of the KJV, such as the
revisions by the American Bible Society in 1860 and 1867, and revisions
in the 1967 Scofield Bible. From 1611 to 1873 the state of printing had
improved significantly. "We can trust that Scrivener’s 1873 edition
accurately reflects the original manuscripts of the KJV translators."
The Egyptian copies listed many Nephelim as 1,000 cubits - that's
higher than the highest building in the world. The textus
receptus in Numbers 13:33 (it MUST be true - it's the receptus!) states
"we were like glasshoppers to them". Although the actual Hebrew
word means "Locusts", that's a small deal. But imagine how big
someone would be - for you to be a grasshopper in comparison.
That's NOT 9 cubits. That's only head and shoulders above.
I think there were MANY different heights, and gene inheritance.
Most people want "simple" - I get that. "Jesus loves you - that's
ALL you need to know." OK and all .... but I'm gonna dig
deeper :-)
Speaking of...
Enoch 7:2
- Translation 1 (I forgot the language) - The giants were 3000 cubits
(1.37km / 4500’) tall
- The Ethiopic version states 300 cubits (137m / 450’) tall
There were 3 (main) races of Watchers: Elioud was one of
those races, and “Elioud” became “el” (a cubit), and “3” became “3000”
- to exaggerate.
The true height of the Nephilim giants
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2vN7T_ZqvE
1 Enoch 7:2
Elioud - is one of the 3 main races.
Anacheim (Ann-uh-heem) is another
As with many writing (in The Canon), they have been revised over
time. In 1839, translator John Beatty corrected some errors of
the Canon. But in 1883, Robert Henry Charles reinserted several
by mistake. Back to square 1. in 2004, George W E
Nickelsburg and James C VanderKam - fixed the errors in Onoch, and
started working on the KJV, but resistance made them abandon it.
After all - everyone has been used to “rib" for 414 years — they
don’t want to change. The word was NOT “rib” - it was “half”, but
everyone likes “rib” (although not even close), so they “let it
be”. Like the manger scene, and “wise men”, everyone wants the
warm, cosy cradle, and the “wise” ….. MEN. (It HAS to be
all men!!)
The “wise” men were actually astrologers, and “from the East” was
assumed, since they were astrologers, and that was only in the East at
the time - but they were NOT “wise”. Unless people think
“astrology” is “wise”. Also, it was over a period of 2 years -
not “1 night”. The “manger” was a cattle feeding trough, and it
was chilly (it was in the Spring), and the only writing that tells
about the youth of Yeshua (“Jesus”) - is The Infancy of Yeshua” - which
was stricken - as it had Yeshua doing things that kids do, and they
wanted him to be pious, serious, and “perfect”.
The KJV was translated by basically one person (Erasmus). He used
manuscripts** of the Bible that are relatively young (Byzantine,
Eastern Roman Empire). In the more than 400 years since it was
translated, new manuscripts, which are 1000 years older (Alexandrian,
Cesserian,and Hebrew: Tefillin, Tanakh, polyglot), have been found.
That means we have manuscripts which were written closer to the time of
the Bible. Now, we have the Dead Sea Scrolls, “the Dishna Papers”
or “the Bodmer Papyri”. The Greek called 'Textus Receptus' form
the foundation for translating the KJV and in turn the NKJV.
The Textus
Receptus, established on the Byzantine Text, is more commonly called the
Majority Text.
These New Testament manuscripts are the most plentiful - we have many
of them - and they seem consistent across the ones found.
TRANSlations - I
am Trans - I bought a ticket with at TRANSaction, then I ride public
TRANSit - the electronics in which use many TRANSistors. Then I
TRANSfer at another station. I then fly TRANS-atlantic - as they
TRANSmit radio signals, hoping not to be too TRANSfigured when I
arrive. And hoping they never have to use that TRANSponder /
black box. When I arrive, I need a TRANSlator, who can TRANSpose
what I'm saying.
https://www.paulkhosla.org/blog/ive-shelved-my-nkjv-maybe-you-should-too
Also see:
https://www.ranker.com/list/ways-the-king-james-bible-is-wrong/genevieve-carlton
https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today
https://www.ranker.com/list/ways-the-king-james-bible-is-wrong/genevieve-carlton
https://www.bibletalkclub.net/why-did-king-james-dislike-the-geneva-bible/
History of Bible revisions
"The vast majority of those who read the English Bible are entirely
ignorant of the Greek; of the non-translation of baptizo
— and its
signification... As to our being 'left without a standard', through the
multiplicity and variety of translations, we have only to say that
there can, in the nature of things, be no perfect standard but the
Hebrew and Greek originals; these, being written by inspired men, are
infallible, while all translations by men uninspired must be more or
less imperfect. The number of translations cannot affect the original."
[Samuel Aaron & David Bernard, The Faithful Translation (1842) pg.
30]
https://watch.pairsite.com/revision.html
Bible translation history
BC
1,400: The first written Word of God: The Ten Commandments ("10
commandments") delivered
to Moses.
500: Completion of All Original Hebrew Manuscripts which make up The
39 Books of the Old Testament.
200: Completion of the Septuagint
Greek
Manuscripts which contain The
39 Old Testament Books PLUS 14 Apocrypha Books.
AD
Century 1 (1 - 100): Completion of All Original Greek Manuscripts which
make
up The 27 Books of the New Testament.
315: Athenasius, the Bishop of Alexandria, identifies the 27 books
of the New Testament which are today recognized as The Canon of
scripture.
(323 to 31 BC: Koine ("common") Greek arose as the defacto
dialect within the
armies of Alexander the Great.)
382: Jerome's Latin Vulgate Manuscripts Produced which contain All
80 Books (39 Old Test. + 14 Apocrypha
+ 27 New Test).
500: Scriptures have been Translated into Over 500 Languages.
600: LATIN was the Only Language
Allowed
for
Scripture.
995: Anglo-Saxon (Early Roots of English Language) Translations of
The New Testament produced.
1384: Wycliffe is the First Person to Produce a (Hand-Written)
manuscript Copy of the Complete Bible; All 80 Books.
1455: Gutenberg Invents the Printing Press; Books May Now be
mass-Produced Instead of Individually Hand-Written. The First Book Ever
Printed is Gutenberg's Bible in Latin.
1516: Erasmus Produces a Greek/Latin Parallel New Testament. 1522
AD: Martin Luther's German New Testament.
1526: William Tyndale's New
Testament;
The First New Testament
printed in the English Language.
1535: Myles Coverdale's Bible; The First Complete Bible printed in
the English Language (80 Books: O.T. & N.T. & Apocrypha).
1537: Tyndale-Matthews Bible; The Second Complete Bible printed in
English. Done by John "Thomas Matthew" Rogers (80 Books).
1539: The "Great Bible" Printed; The First English Language Bible
Authorized for Public Use (80 Books).
1560: The Geneva Bible Printed; The First English Language Bible to
add Numbered Verses to Each Chapter (80 Books).
1568: The Bishops Bible Printed; The Bible of which the King James
was a Revision (80 Books).
1609: The Douay Old Testament is added to the Rheims New Testament
(of 1582) Making the First Complete English Catholic Bible; Translated
from the Latin Vulgate (80 Books).
1611: The King James Bible Printed; Originally with All 80 Books.
The Apocrypha was Officially Removed in 1885 Leaving Only 66 Books.
1782: Robert Aitken's Bible; The First English Language Bible (KJV)
Printed in America.
1791: Isaac Collins and Isaiah Thomas Respectively Produce the First
Family Bible and First Illustrated Bible Printed in America. Both were
King James Versions, with All 80 Books.
1808: Jane Aitken's Bible (Daughter of Robert Aitken); The First
Bible to be Printed by a Woman.
1833: Noah Webster's Bible; After Producing his Famous Dictionary,
Webster Printed his Own Revision
of
the King
James Bible.
1841: English Hexapla New Testament; an Early Textual Comparison
showing the Greek and 6 Famous English Translations in Parallel Columns.
1846: The Illuminated Bible; The Most Lavishly Illustrated Bible
printed in America. A King James Version, with All 80 Books.
1885: The "English Revised Version" Bible; The First Major English
Revision of the KJV. 1901 AD: The "American Standard Version"; The
First Major American Revision of the KJV.
1971: The "New American Standard Bible" (NASB) is Published as a
"Modern and Accurate Word for Word English Translation" of the Bible.
1973: The "New International Version" (NIV) is Published as a
"Modern and Accurate Phrase for Phrase English Translation" of the
Bible.
1982: The "New King James Version" (NKJV)
is
Published as a "Modern
English Version Maintaining the Original Style of the King James."
2002: The English Standard Version (ESV) is Published as a
translation to bridge the gap between the accuracy of the NASB and the
readability of the NIV.
2017: The Passion Translation - by Brian Simmons, who claims to have
been commissioned by Jesus in 2009. It has received positive and
negative reviews, and was removed from Bible Gateway in 2022.
“Jesus Christ came into my room.He breathed on me and he commissioned
me. … And he spoke to me and said, “I’m commissioning you to translate
the Bible into the translation project that I’m giving you to do.”
-
Another account of translation history:
Samaritan Pentateuch – about 430 BC
Septuagint or LXX –
about 240-150 BC
Aquila’s version – 130 AD
Symmachus’s revision – 170 AD
Theodotion’s revision – 180-190 AD
Origen’s Hexapla – sometime after 200 AD
Masoretic Text – Between 100 and 1,000 AD
Vulgate
(Latin Form) – 383-405 AD
Introduction of various English translations – 640 AD
Introduction paper copies of the Bible – around 1200 AD
Wycliffe’s first English Bible – Around 1400 AD
Gutenberg Bible – 1454
Desiderius Erasmus of Rotterdam publishes the Greek new Testament –
1516 AD
Jacob Ben Chayyim (a Hebrew Christian) publishes standard edition of
the Masoretic Text – 1525 AD
First Printed English Bible – William
Tyndale
– 1525-1535 AD
Printed English Bible – Great Bible – 1539
Robert Estienne (Stephanus) Bible – 1550
Geneva Bible – 1560
Bishops Bible – 1568
King James Bible – 1611
Textus Receptus – 1624
Beginning of biblical criticism and revision – 1648
John Mill reprint of Robert Estieene’s Greek Bible – 1707
Johann Jakob Wettstein publishes Prolegomena – 1751
Johann Salomo Semler reprint of Prolegomena – 1764
Johannes Martin Augustinus Scholz publishes textual analysis – around
1800
Important manuscripts emerge – 1840 – 1930
Dead Sea Scrolls discovered 1947
New International Version 1978
New King James Version 1982
Translation vs. transliteration: Understanding the differences
Translation is the process of rendering text or speech from one
language into another while maintaining its meaning, tone, context, and
intent as closely as possible.
Transliteration is the process of converting text from one script to
another. Unlike translation, which involves the conversion of the
meaning of words or phrases from one language to another,
transliteration focuses on representing the sounds or characters of one
writing system using the characters of another system.
King James - murder and hypocrisy
Many KJO-ers have told me "point blank": if his translators
didn't do it 100% accurate, he (King James) would "have your head"!!
... and it further reminds me of why I hate Kings, and why - if
KJ
_did_ think that way - he is a --murdering-- King, and
didn't
read the "Thou shalt not kill" part. If he did not think that
way, I still hate Kings, but at least he wouldn't' be a murderer.
I only see that he SUPPOSEDLY killed his mother, but I also see that
his mother was taken when he was age 1, and she was kept in a dungeon
in Scotland (maybe killed) and he never knew her.
It is said by many that "King James was
gay" (King James was a homosexual, King James was
homosexual for search)
Now, the people WERE THERE. They LIVED IT. Modern fans of
King James will have "Confirmation
bias"
(and eisegesis),
and completely
reject this
possibility. I hate to say this, but that is "holding him
to high esteem - especially to reverence" - which is, by definition:
worshipping King James!!! He referred to one of his male
"companions" that he
wrote to - as his ”wife”. Just because you have a Bible
“commissioned” - doesn’t mean you live by it. Jimmy Swaggart
spoke out heavily, and often - against immorality (yet he had
prostitutes in all of his most visited locations). Elvis sang gospel
songs (yet belonged to the Hollywood Church of Satan, and he slept with
Priscilla - at he age of 14. This is stanutory RAPE). Elvis
also had HUNDREDS of mistresses - on the road, after concerts.
Forget the "gospel" songs!!
At the age of 13 King James fell madly in love with his male cousin
Esmé Stuart whom he made Duke of Lennox. James deferred to
Esmé to the
consternation of his ministers. In 1582 James was kidnapped and
forced
to issue a proclamation against his lover and send him back to France.
- Esmé Stuart, 1st Duke Of Lennox
- - -
Later, James fell in love with a poor young Scotsman named Robert Carr.
“The king leans on his [Carrʼs] arm, pinches his cheeks, smooths his
ruffled garment, and when he looks upon Carr, directs his speech to
others.”
- Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk, in a letter, 1611
- - -
King James 1 was a known homosexual who murdered his young lovers and
victimized countless heretics and women. His cruelty was justified by
his “divine right” of kings.
- Otto J. Scott, James the First
- - -
King Jamesʼ favorite male lovers were the Earl of Somerset and the Duke
of Buckingham. Jamesʼs sexual orientation was so widely known that Sir
Walter Raleigh
joked about it in public saying “King Elizabeth” had been succeeded by
“Queen James.”
- Catherine D. Bowen, The Lion and the Throne
- - -
Carr eventually ended the relationship after which the king expressed
his dissatisfaction in a letter to Carr, “I leave out of this reckoning
your long creeping back and withdrawing yourself from lying in my
chamber, notwithstanding my many hundred times earnest soliciting you
to the contrary...Remember that (since I am king) all your being,
except your breathing and soul, is from me.” (See The Letters of King
James I & VI, ed., G. P. V. Akrigg, Univ. of Calif. Press, 1984.
Also see Royal Family, Royal Lovers: King James of England and
Scotland, David M. Bergeron, Univ. of Missouri Press, 1991)
But without both King James and Erasmus, the most widely touted Bible
in Christian history would never have been produced, the KJV (or shall
we say, Gay-JV?) Bible.
- Skip Church
- - -
When he revealed a sexual preference for men, falling in love with his
cousin - 24 years the senior to King James - Esmé Stewart and elevating
him to a position of authority on the royal council, some of his nobles
kidnapped James and held him captive, banishing Stewart and controlling
Jamesʼs every move. After nearly a year James escaped, but continued to
resent his jailers; after he began to rule on his own behalf, at
seventeen, he made it a priority to bring the turbulent Scots nobles
under control.
As he aged James indulged his preference for handsome men, living apart
from his wife. His doting fondness was part paternal, part erotic; he
called his favorite George Villiers “sweet child and wife” and referred
to himself as “your dear dad and husband.” But to his courtiers, the
sight of the aging, paunchy, balding monarch, who according to one
court observer had a tendency to drool, leaning on his paramours was
utterly repellant.
The first of the kingʼs minions was Robert Carr, Groom of the
Bedchamber, who the king elevated to earl of Somerset and appointed
Lord Chamberlain. After six years of favors and royal gifts Carr was
brought low, accused of murder and sent away from court. The second and
greatest royal favorite, the extraordinarily handsome George Villiers,
rose from cupbearer to Gentleman of the Bedchamber and ultimately to
Earl of Buckingham.
“I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else,” James announced
to his councilors, “and more than you who are here assembled.” He
compared his love for the earl to Jesusʼs affection for the “beloved
disciple” John. “Jesus Christ did the same,” the king said, “and
therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had his John, and I have my
George.”
With such pronouncements King James seemed to reach a new level of
outrage, especially when he compounded his offense, in the view of
many, by heaping Buckingham with costly jewels, lands, and lucrative
offices.
- Royal Panoply, Brief Lives Of The English Monarchs
Carrolly Erickson, History Book Club
- - -
Links:
https://www.shakespearegeek.com/2024/03/king-james-i-was-gay-how-did-i-miss-this.html
https://edwardtbabinski.us/history/king-james-was-gay.html
https://www.celebgaydar.com/was-king-james-gay/
https://www.deonvsearth.com/was-king-james-gay-questions-answered/
https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/03/18/king-james-gay-mary-and-george/
https://thehistoricalnovel.com/2022/02/09/queer-kings-queens-was-james-i-vi-gay/
https://mediachomp.com/the-gay-escapades-of-king-james/
https://www.advocate.com/history/king-james-bible-queer
https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/was-king-james-i-a-homosexual-the-mary-george-character-and-his-real-life-counterpart-explained/
https://www.mojeek.com/search?q=king+james+was+gay
King James was NOT gay
For those KJO-ers with "confirmation
bias"
(and eisegesis) - thinking he
was
"perfect"
-
some say he raely sinned (yeah, RIGHT!), here is some "ammo" for
"the other side". I always show both sides - here is a researcher
saying “King James was NOT gay!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=AjBQSkX_BbE
OK - I wasn’t there, (neither was he!), but I’m posting this to show
both sides. *I* still declae: I HATE ALL KINGS. Yes,
King David and King Solomon - ALL “leaders” - who live in riches
- just
because of their birth - and live off the backs of the POOR,
hand-working people they rule and decree over. That is a
DICTATOR!! And even if he WAS NOT gay, he STILL ran the
Irish
slave trade - that IS HISTORY!!
So, even if he wasn't gay or a
pedophile (history writings are WRONG), he was WORSE!!!
King James Only-ism (KJOism)
Many KJO-ers have told me "point blank": if his translators
didn't do it 100% accurate, he (King James) would "have your head"!
... and it further reminds me of why I hate Kings, and why - if KJ
_did_ think that way - he is a --murdering-- King, and didn't
read the "Thou shalt not kill" part. If he did not think that
way, I still hate Kings, but at least he wouldn't' be a murderer.
I only see that he SUPPOSEDLY killed his mother, but I also see that
his mother was taken when he was age 1, and she was kept in a dungeon
in Scotland (maybe killed) and he never knew her.
KJV-onlyism — Thou Shalt Keep Them: A Biblical Theology of the
Perfect
Preservation of Scripture - edited by Kent Brandenburg — can be
summarized as follows:
-- God has promised to preserve every word of Scripture
perfectly. (Matt. 5:17-19; Matt. 4:4; Matt. 24:35; Isaiah 59:21; Ps.
12:6-7; 1 Pet. 1:23-25; and also the perfect passive form of the words
“It is written” throughout the NT)
-- God has promised that these words will be available to His
people. (Dt. 30:11-14; Matt. 4:4; Jn. 12:48; 2 Pet. 3:2; Jude 17; and
Is. 59:21)
-- God has ordained local New Testament (Baptistic) churches be
the means by which He preserves His words through their reception,
recognition, and propagation of them. (The Hebrew words natsar and
shamar and the Greek word tareo; Jn. 17:8; 1 Cor. 6 [church invested
with judgment authority]; Jn. 16:13)
I do know that I get LOTS of vitriol on-line - these "Christians" HATE
me - "How daaaa I!" use any other version - or EVEN THE ORIGINAL
SCROLLS (!!!!) This is how they treat me:
Full of toxic HATE, intolerance, and phobia - for THE ORIGINAL WORD (!!!!)
Want to see the "reform"?
https://www.fundamentallyreformed.com/tag/textus-receptus/
The KJVO position depends on a certain handling of historical and
textual evidence. This belief that the church received the KJV and thus
authenticated the TR - is making a historical judgment. It is not
something Scripture directly states (“the TR is where the preserved
words are”). I contend that this historical judgment is flawed and full
of huge assumptions. Let me first list the assumptions and then explain
them briefly:
-- That the church’s use of the KJV/TR is a positive textual
choice.
-- That the church’s choice to use the KJV/TR was a unanimous and
definitive choice.
-- That the choices of English Christians are more important than
those of others.
-- That some differences between TR editions or between the KJV
and the Masoretic Text are okay and do not negate the availability of
every word, yet the differences between the TR and other non-TR texts
do deny the availability of every word.
-- That we can assume whatever we need to, historically, since we
can trust totally in the church’s choice of text on every individual
reading.
The Believing church understandably preferred Greek to the Latin
Vulgate
which was sanctioned by the Roman church, viewed as antiChrist
by most Protestants. But beside the fact that only the TR/KJV was
available, stop and ask yourself this question: Does using the best
available translation necessarily mean you affirm each and every
textual decision it made with regard to textual variants? As I
mentioned above, church leaders and scholars did not uniformly
accept
each reading but often it was the conservative scholars and
pastors -
who dutifully compiled the lists of textual variants and favored many
of the same decisions reached by the editors of the modern critical
text.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/dogma.html
And it gets worse...
- - - -
The hidden agenda of King James Onlyism
“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thess. 5:21)
UPDATE 8/1/21: The hidden agenda of King James Onlyism is to transition
Christians from reading the Bible to understand the plain sense of what
God said, and using Greek and Hebrew resources only when needed, to
using
Kabbalistic methods to divine the "hidden meanings" of Scripture and
Talmudic resources - which are Rabbinic writings in opposition to the
Old
Testament. The endgame of "King James Only-ism" is to undermine the
authority of the Received Greek and Hebrew texts underlying the Bible
and even the inspired original autographs. In their place, KJV-Only
preachers are presenting false teachings
from the
Talmud, Kabbalah and
the heretical Aramaic New Testament, the Syriac Peshitta.
The Introduction (removed on all present revisions)
The Translators’ Preface to the 1611 King James Version has not been
included in King James Bibles for nearly 200 years, ever since
the British and Foreign Bible Society and the American
Bible Society
assumed responsibility for the translation and worldwide distribution
of the Bible. The American Bible Society was founded by
Baptists in
1816 and funded by the British and Foreign Bible Society which was
directed by prominent members of the Quatuor Coronati Lodge of the
United Grand Lodge of England.
Can you say "Freemasons"??
!!!!
We KNOW that King James had MANY political motivations for that version
- which KJ-only-ers deny to their
graves - but
even if you showed them
PROOF of this, they would deny it. Sort of like all the deaths
during/after the
vaccine
.... but all the Left DENIES - passing off the
most deaths in history - to "just a coincidence". Yeah,
right. As I have said MANY times: No matter HOW much you LOVE
King James, I attest: he was still a KING (a DICTATOR!!)
The Webster Bible (WBT)
Containing the Old and New Testaments, in the Common Version, with
Ammendments of the Language by Noah Webster, LL. D.
Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they
had when introduced, and different from that of the original languages,
they do not present to the reader the 'Word of God'. This circumstance
is very important, even in things not the most essential; and in
essential points, mistakes may be very injurious.
In my own view of this subject, a version of the scriptures for popular
use, should consist of words expressing the sense which is most common,
in popular usage, so that the 'first ideas' suggested to the reader
should be the true meaning of such words, according to the original
languages. That many words in the present version, fail to do this, is
certain. My principal aim is to remedy this evil.
The inaccuracies in grammar, such as 'which' for 'who', 'his' for
'its', 'shall' for 'will', 'should' for 'would', and others, are very
numerous in the present version.
There are also some quaint and vulgar phrases which are not relished by
those who love a pure style, and which are not in accordance with the
general tenor of the language. To these may be added many words and
phrases, very offensive to
delicacy and even
to decency.
https://www.biblestudytools.com/wbt/
1830 - The American Bible Society funded Adoniram Judson's Burman
Bible which changed "baptism" to
"immersion."
- - - - -
https://www.ranker.com/list/ways-the-king-james-bible-is-wrong/genevieve-carlton
All The Ways The King James Version Of The Bible Changed The
Original Text
by Genevieve Carlton
The King James Bible was first published in 1611, and it quickly became
the standard English translation of the Bible. But there are a number
of King James Version Bible errors and mistranslations that completely
altered the meaning of the original text. For example, one 1631 edition
ordered people to commit adultery. Yes – you read that right.
The Bible has changed over time, just like depictions of Jesus slowly
became whiter over time. And every translation of the Bible introduces
new changes. The history of the King James Bible is no exception. It
includes multiple mistranslations, errors, and other problems. Ever
heard of the "Holy Ghost"?
That’s an error in
translation – it’s
supposed
to be "Holy Spirit".
Translation is always a
challenge – but it’s
particularly difficult when the translators don’t even know the dialect
of the original text, as was the case with the King James Bible.
The King James Bible was created in the early century 17 to placate
England’s Puritans, making it a deeply political text. On top of that,
the King James Bible includes fantastical creatures that seemed
plausible in 1611, like unicorns and giants. It also attacks witches,
who King James hated and personally tortured – but who don’t seem like
such a huge problem today.
- - - - -
http://logosmadeflesh.com/2012/07/11/why-you-shouldnt-read-the-king-james-version/
https://oakwoodmethodist.org/blog/quit-using-kjv/
https://margmowczko.com/7-things-about-the-king-james-bible/
Video:
https://youtu.be/FjfvtvmgT3s
Rebeccah and Paul Khosla, from the Jewish Learning Centre - suggested
every English-speaking person - watch this video - by a non-Jew, about
translations:
I watched all 13 minutes of it, and he's a good-looking, well-spoken
guy: Dr Robert Plummer. I also learned about Erasmus (KJ main
Translator). He used Byzantine manuscripts, and there are also
Alexandrian, Cesserian, and Efillin, Tanakh. I didn't
know! This PhD
is a great source, though.
**
The original text of an author's work
We now have over 6,000 manuscripts, not just one.
It’s like saying “I have THIS WITNESS” in court. If someone has a
HUNDRED witnesses, we would OF COURSE listen to THEIR words, and put
any differences into account.
- - - - -
The NASB was first published in 1960 and was the result of a
collaboration between conservative Bible scholars who wanted to create
a more literal translation of the Bible that reflected the original
languages as closely as possible. The translators sought to preserve
the nuances of the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek texts, and avoid
adding any interpretation or bias to the translation.
One of the distinctive features of the NASB is its use of formal
equivalence translation, which means that it seeks to translate each
word and phrase as closely to the original as possible, even if the
result is a more awkward or difficult-to-understand sentence. This
approach contrasts with dynamic equivalence translation, which
prioritizes readability and flow over literalness.
https://www.courageouschristianfather.com/the-new-american-standard-bible-nasb/
The NASB is a revision of the American Standard Version (ASV) of
1901. In 1928 the copyright of the ASV, held by Thomas Nelson and
Sons, was acquired by the International Council of Religious Education.
This council is now a part of the National Council of Churches. The
Council then renewed the copyright and established the American
Standard Bible Committee.
The NASB New Testament was published in 1963. The King James Version is
mentioned in the first sentence. There it is lauded as "time-honored"
and "the most prestigious" of English Bible translations. However, we
are informed that the KJV is "itself a revision of the Bishops' Bible
of 1568."
Besides containing many differences from the KJV because of the Greek
texts it followed, the RV as a whole is characterized by a revision and
reduction of italicized words, a revision of the punctuation, the
omission of page and chapter headings, a listing of alternate
renderings and variant readings in the margin, and an attempt to render
each Greek and Hebrew word uniformly.
- - - - -
The NIV history:
Howard Long, an engineer from Seattle, was known for his passion for
sharing the gospel and his love for the King James Bible. One day, he
tried sharing Scripture with a non-Christian only to find that the
KJV’s 17th-century English didn’t connect.
In 1955, Long embarked on a ten-year quest for a new Bible translation
that would faithfully capture the Word of God in contemporary English.
Eventually his denomination, the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), and
the National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) embraced his vision for
what would become the New International Version (NIV).
Evangelicals Unite for a New Bible Translation
In 1965, a cross-denominational gathering of evangelical scholars met
near Chicago and agreed to start work on the New International Version.
Instead of just updating an existing translation such as the KJV, they
chose to start from scratch, using the very best manuscripts available
in the original Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic of the Bible.
- - - - -
Finally .... [drumroll] ... the Translators of
the King James Bible;:
https://www.scionofzion.com/kjvtransqual.htm
Dr. George Abbott 1562-1633
This distinguished ecclesiastic was a native of Guildford, in Surrey.
He was the son of pious parents, who had been sufferers for the truth
in the times of popish cruelty. He was born October 29th, 1562. At the
age of fourteen, he was entered as a student of Baliol College, Oxford;
and in 1583, he was chosen to a fellowship. In 1585, he took orders,
and became a popular preacher in the University. He was created Doctor
of Divinity, in 1597; and a few months after, was elected Master of
University College. At this time began his conflicts with William Laud,
which lasted with great severity as long as Abbot lived. Dr. Abbot was
a Calvinist and a moderate Churchman; while Dr. Laud was an Arminian,
and might have been a cardinal at Rome, if he had not preferred to be a
pope at Canterbury. In 1598, Dr. Abbot published a Latin work, which
was reprinted in Germany. The next year he was installed Dean of
Winchester. In 1600, he was elected Vice-Chancellor of the University;
and was re-elected to the same honorable post in 1603 and 1605. It was
about this time, that he was put into the royal commission for
translating the Bible. Dr. Abbot went to Scotland, in 1608, as chaplain
to the Earl of Dunbar; and while there, by his prudent and temperate
measures, succeeded in establishing a moderate or qualified episcopacy
in that kingdom.
This was a matter which King James had so much at heart, that he ever
had held Dr. Abbot in great favor, and rapidly hurried him into the
highest ecclesiastical dignities and preferments. He was made Bishop of
Litchfield and Coventry on the 3d of December, 1609; and then, in less
than two months, was translated to the see of London. In less than
fifteen months more, he was made Archbishop of Canterbury, and Primate
of all England. Thus he was twice translated himself, before he saw the
Bible translated once. Though an excellent preacher, he had never
exercised himself in the pastoral office, rising at one stride from
being a University-lecturer to the chief dignities of the Church. When
he reached the primacy, he was forty-nine years of age; and was held in
the highest esteem both by the prince and the people. In all great
transactions, whether in church or state, he bore a principal part. And
yet, at times, he showed, in matters which touch the conscience, a
degree of independence of the royal will, such as must have been very
distasteful to the domineering temper of James, and very unusual in
that age of passive obedience, and servile cringing to the dictates of
royalty.
Thus it was, when the King, under the pretence that the strict
observance of the Sabbath, as practiced by Protestants, was likely to
prejudice the Romanists, and hinder their conversion, issued his
infamous “Book of Sports.” This was a Declaration intended to
encourage, at the close of public worship, various recreations, such as
“promiscuous dancing, archery, leaping, vaulting, May-games,
Whitsunales, or morrice-dances, setting up of May-poles, or other
sports therewith used.” This abomination edict was required to be ready
by all ministers in their parish- churches. Its promulgation greatly
troubled the more conscientious of the clergy, who expected to be
brought into difficulty by their refusal to publish the shameful
document. Archbishop Abbot warmly opposed its enforcement, and forbade
it to be read in the church of Croyden, where he was at the time of its
publication. The opposition was too much, even for the ruthless king;
and he, at last, gave up his impious attempt to heathenize the Lord’s
Day. It was in 1619, that the Archbishop founded his celebrated
hospital at Guildford, the place of his nativity, and nobly endowed it
from his private property. In that same year, a sad mischance befell
him. His health being much impaired, he had recourse to hunting, by
medical advice, as a means of restoring it. This sort of exercise has
never been in very good repute among ecclesiastics.
Jerome recognizes some worthy fishermen who followed the sacred
calling; but says, that “we no where read in Scripture of a holy
hunter.” While his Grace of Canterbury was pursuing the case in
Barmshill Park, a seat of the Earl of Ashby de la Zouch, an arrow from
his cross-bow, aimed at a deer, glanced from a tree, and killed a
game-keeper, an imprudent man, who had been cautioned to keep out of
the way. This casual homicide was the cause of great affliction to the
prelate. During the rest of his life, he observed a monthly fast, on a
Tuesday, the day of the mishap. He also settled a liberal annuity upon
the poor game-keeper’s widow, which annuity was attended with the
additional consolation, that it soon procured her a better husband than
the man she had lost. For the Primate, however, who was ever a
celibate, there was no such remedy of grief, and all the rest of his
life was overcast with gloom. This business subjected him to many hard
shots from them that liked him not. Once returning to Croydon, after a
long absence, a great many women, from curiosity, gathered about his
coach. The Archbishop, who hated to be stared at, and was never fond of
females, exclaimed somewhat churlishly, “What make these women here!”
Upon this an old crone cried out,--”You had best to shoot an arrow at
us!” It is said that this tongue-shot, which often goes deeper than
gunshot, went to his very heart. His enemies made a strong handle of
this accidental homicide. It was insisted, that the canon-laws allows
no “man of blood” to be a builder of a spiritual temple; and that the
Primate who had retreated after the accident to his hospital at
Guildford, was disenabled from his clerical functions. The King
appointed a commission to try the question, Whether the Archbishop was
disqualified for his official duties by this involuntary homicide?
After long debate, in which the divines on the continent took part, it
was the general decision, that the fact did disqualify.
Nevertheless, King James, in his usurped character as supreme head of
the English Church, an office which rightly belongs only to the King of
kings, issued, in 1621, a full pardon and dispensation to the humbled
Primate. Still, several newly-appointed bishops, who had been awaiting
consecration, and among them Dr. William Laud, then bishop elect of St.
David’s, refused to receive it from his hands, and obtained the
mysterious virtues of “episcopal grace” from other administration.
Others, however, as Dr. Davenant, bishop elect of Salisbury, and Dr.
Hall, bishop elect of Norwich, were solemnly consecrated by their
dejected metropolitan. All this did not discourage Archbishop Abbot
from making vigorous opposition, in the following year, to the proposed
match between Charles, Prince of Wales, and the Infanta, or Princess
Royal, of Spain. Though this foolish, unpopular, and unsuccessful
scheme was a favorite piece of policy with the King, who was quite
unused to be thwarted by his couriers, Dr. Abbot continued to enjoy his
confidence till the King’s death in 1625. When Charles the First
succeeded to the throne, he was crowned and annointed by the Archbishop
of Canterbury. Nevertheless, the latter soon found himself in deep
eclipse. His inveterate foe, the resolute Dr. Laud, then Bishop of Bath
and Wells, came between, and intercepted the sunshine of royal favor.
The matter of the fortuitous homicide seems to have been revived
against him, as ground for his sequestration. Charles required him to
live in retirement, which he did at Ford; and in 1627, appointed a
commision of five prelates, to suspend him from the exercise of his
archiepiscopal functions. These prelates were Dr. Mountaigne, Bishop of
London; Dr. Neile, Bishop of Durham; Dr. Howson, Bishop of Oxford; and
Dr. Laud, Bishop of Bath and Wells.
When the instrument for the Archbishop’s suspension was drawn up for
their signature, the four senior bishops declined to set their hands
thereto, and appeared to manifest much reluctance and regret. “Then
give me the pen!” said Bishop Laud; and “though last in place, first
subscribed his name.” The others, after some demur, were induced to
follow his example. From that time, it is said, the Archbishop was
never known to laugh; and became quite dead to the world. Next year,
however, the fickle king saw fit to alter his course; and, about
Christmas time, restored Dr. Abbot to his liberty and jurisdiction. He
was sent for to Court; received, as he stepped out of his barge, by the
Archbishop of York and the Earl of Dorset, and by them conducted into
the royal presence. The king gave him his hand to kiss, and charged him
not to fail of attendance at the Council-table twice a week. He sat in
the House of Peers, and continued in his spiritual functions without
further interruption till his death some five years after, when he was
succeeded in his see by his implacable and ill-starred rival, William
Laud. Dr. Abbot’s brief sequestration had made him popular in the
country, and his restoration was probably owing to a desire to
conciliate his influence in the parliament, with which the king was
already in trouble. The Archbishop rather countenanced the liberal
party, and stiffly resisted the slavish tenet of Dr. Mainwaring, which
raised such an excitement. This divine had publicly maintained, as was
supposed with the royal approbation, “that the King’s royal will and
command, in imposing laws, taxes, and other aids, upon his people,
without common consent in parliament, did so far bind the consciences
of the subjects of this kingdom, that they could not refuse the same
without peril of eternal damnation.” Here was the “divine right of
kings” with a vengeance! Dr. George Abbot continued in office during
those troublous times which preceded the civil wars, till he died, at
his palace of Croydon, on Sunday, August 4th, 1633, at the age of
seventy-one, quite worn out with cares and infirmities. He was a very
grave man, and of a very “fatherly presence,” and unimpeachable in his
morals. He was a firm Calvinist, and a thorough Church-of-England man.
He was somewhat indulgent to the more moderate Puritans; but the more
zealous of them accused him sharply of being a persecutor, while the
high-toned churchmen vehemently charged him with disloyalty to their
cause. It is also said, that as he had never exercised the pastoral
care, but was “made a shepherd of shepherds, before he had been a
shepherd of sheep,” he was wanting in sympathy with the troubles and
infirmities of ministers. He was severe in his proceedings against
clerical delinquents; but he protested that he did this to shield them
from the greater severity of the lay judges, who would visit them with
heavier punishments, to the greater shame of themselves and their
profession. He was, in truth, stern and melancholy. As compared with
his brother, Robert Abbot, the Bishop of Salisbury, it was said, that
“gravity did frown in George, and smile in Robert.” The other brother
of these bishops was Lord Mayor of London. The Archbishop was regarded
as an excellent preacher and a great divine. Anthony Wood speaks of him
as a “learned man, having his learning all of the old stamp,”--that is
to say, vast and ponderous. He published lectures on the book of Jonah,
and numerous treatises, mostly relating to the political and religious
occurrences of the times. But to have borne an active part in the
preparation of the most useful and important of all the translations of
the Bible, is an honor far beyond the chief ecclesiastical dignities
and the highest literary fame.
John Aglionby (1566-1611)
Dr. Aglionby was descended from a respectable family in Cumberland. In
1583, he became a student in Queen’s College, Oxford, of which college
he afterwards became a Fellow. After receiving ordination, he travelled
in foreign countries; and, on his return, was made chaplain in ordinary
to Queen Elizabeth, who endured no drone or dunce about her. In 1601,
he was made Rector of Blechindon. In the same year, he was chosen
Principal of St. Edmund’s Hall, in the University of Oxford; and about
the same time, he became Rector of Islip. On the accession of James I.,
he was appointed chaplain in ordinary to the King. Dr. Aglionby was
deeply read in the fathers and the schoolmen, “an excellent linguist,”
and an elegant and instruction preacher. It is said of him by Anthony
Wood, in his Athanae,--”What he hath published I find not; however, the
reason why I et him down here is, that he had a most considerable hand
in the Translation of the New Testament, appointed by King James I., in
1604.” Dr. Aglionby died at his rectory, on the sixth day of February,
1609, aged forty-three. In the chancel of his church at Islip, is a
tablet erected to his memory by his widow. Thus he lived just long
enough to do the best work he could have done in this world.
Dr. Lancelot Andrewes (1568-1626)
He was born at London, in 1565. He was trained chiefly at Merchant
Taylor's school, in his native city, till he was appointed to one of
the first Greek Scholarships of Pembroke Hall, in the University of
Cambridge. Once a year, at Easter, he used to pass a month with his
parents. During this vacation, he would find a master, from whom he
learned some language to which he was before a stranger. In this way
after a few years, he acquired most of the modern languages of Europe.
At the University, he gave himself chiefly to the Oriental tongues and
to divinity. When he became candidate for a fellowship, there was but
one vacancy; and he had a powerful competitor in Dr. Dove, who was
afterwards Bishop of Peterborough. After long and severe examination,
the matter was decided in favor of Andrews. But Dove, though
vanquished, proved himself in this trail so fine a scholar, that the
College, unwilling to lose him, appointed him as a sort of
supernumerary Fellow. Andrews also received a complimentary appointment
as Fellow of Jesus College, in the University of Oxford. In his own
college, he was made a catechist; that is to say, a lecturer in
divinity. His conspicuous talents soon gained him powerful patrons.
Henry, Earl of Huntingdon, took him into the North of England; where he
was the means of converting many papists by his preaching and
disputations. He was also warmly befriended by Sir Francis Walsingham,
Secretary of State to Queen Elizabeth. He was made parson of Alton, in
Hampshire; and then Vicar of St. Giles, in London. He was afterwards
made Prebendary and Canon Residentiary of St. Paul's, and also of the
Collegiate Church of Southwark.
He lectured on divinity at St. Paul's three times each week. On the
death of Dr. Fulke, in 1589, Dr. Andrews, though so young, was chosen
Master of Pembroke Hall, where he had received his education. While at
the head of this College, he was one of its principal benefactors. It
was rather poor at that time, but by his efforts its endowments were
much increased; and at his death, many years later, he bequeathed to
it, besides some plate, three hundred folio volumes, and a thousand
pounds to found two fellowships. He gave up his Mastership to become
chaplain in ordinary to Queen Elizabeth, who delighted in his
preaching, and made him Prebendary of Westminster, and afterwards Dean
of that famous church. In the matter of Church dignities and
preferments, he was highly favored. It was while he held the office of
Dean of Westminster, that Dr. Andrews was made director, or president,
of the first company of Translators, composed of ten members, who held
their meetings at Westminster. The portion assigned to them was the
five books of Moses, and the historical books to the end of the Second
Book of Kings. Perhaps no part of the work is better executed than
this. With King James, Dr. Andrews stood in still higher favor than he
had done with Elizabeth. The "royal pedant" had published a "Defence of
the Rights of Kings," in opposition to the arrogant claims of the
Popes. He was answered most bitterly by the celebrated Cardinal
Bellarmine. The King set Dr. Andrews to refute the Cardinal; which he
did in a learned and spirited quarto, highly commended by Casaubon. To
that quarto, the Cardinal made no reply. For this service, the King
rewarded his champion, by making him Bishop of Chichester; to which
office Dr. Andrews was consecrated, November 3d, 1605. This was soon
after his appointment to be one of the Translators of the Bible. He
accepted the bishopric with great humility, having already refused that
dignity more than once. The motto graven on his episcopal seal was the
solemn exclamation,--"And who is sufficient for these things!" At this
time he was also made Lord Almoner to the King, a place of great trust,
in which he proved himself faithful and uncorrupt. In September, 1609,
he was transferred to the bishopric of Ely; and was called to his
Majesty's privy council. In February 1618, he was translated to the
bishopric of Winchester; which if less dignified that the
archiepiscopal see of Canterbury, was then much more richly endowed; so
that it used to be said,--"Canterbury is the higher rack, but
Winchester is the better manger."
At the time of this last preferment Dr. Andrews was appointed Dean of
the King's chapel; and these stations he retained till his death. In
the high offices Bishop Andrews filled, he conducted himself with great
ability and integrity. The crack-brained King, who scarce knew now to
restrain his profaneness and levity under the most serious
circumstances, was overawed by the gravity of this prelate, and
desisted from mirth and frivolity in his presence. And yet the good
bishop knew how to be facetious on occasion. Edmund Waller, the poet,
tells of being once at court, and overhearing a conversation held by
the king with Bishop Andrews, and Bishop Neile, of Durham. The monarch,
who was always a jealous stickler for his prerogatives, and something
more, was in those days trying to raise a revenue without parliamentary
authority. In these measures, so clearly unconstitutional, he was
opposed by Bishop Andrews with dignity and decision. Waller says, the
king asked this brace of bishops, --"My lords, cannot I take my
subject's money when I want it, without all this formality in
parliament?" The Bishop of Durham, one of the meanest of sycophants to
his prince, and a harsh and haughty oppressor of his puritan clergy,
made ready answer,--"God forbid, Sir, but you should; you are the
breath of our nostrils!" Upon this the king looked at the Bishop of
Winchester,--"Well, my lord, what say you?" Dr. Andrews replied
evasively,--"Sir, I have no skill to judge of parliamentary matters."
But the king persisted,--"No put offs, my lord! answer me presently."
"Then, Sir," said the shrewd Bishop, "I think it lawful for you to take
my brother Neile's money, for he offers it." Even the petulant king was
hugely pleased with this piece of pleasantry, which gave great
amusement to his cringing courtiers. "For the benefit of the
afflicted," as the advertisements have it, we give a little incident
which may afford a useful hint to some that need it.
While Dr. Andrews was one of the divines at Cambridge, he was applied
to by a worthy alderman of that drowsy city, who was beset by the sorry
habit of sleeping under the afternoon sermon; and who, to his great
mortification, had been publicly rebuked by the minister of the parish.
As snuff had not then came into vogue, Dr. Andrews did not advise, as
some matter-of-fact persons have done in such cases, to titillate the
"sneezer" with a rousing pinch. He seems to have been of the opinion of
the famous Dr. Romaine, who once told his full-fed congregation in
London, that it was hard work to preach to two pounds of beef and a pot
of porter. So Dr. Andrews advised his civic friend to help his
wakefulness by dining very sparingly. The advice was followed; but
without avail. Again the rotund dignitary slumbered and slept in his
pew; and again was he roused by the harsh rebukes of the irritated
preacher. With tears in those too sleepy eyes of his, the mortified
alderman repaired to Dr. Andrews, begging for further counsel. The
considerate divine, pitying his infirmity, recommended to him to dine
as usual, and then to take his nap before repairing to his pew. This
plan was adopted; and to the next discourse, which was a violent
invective prepared for the very purpose of castigating the alderman's
somnolent habit, he listened with unwinking eyes and his uncommon
vigilance gave quite a ridiculous air to the whole business. The
unhappy parson was nearly as much vexed at his huge-waisted
parishioner's unwonted wakefulness, as before at his unseemly dozing.
Bishop Andrews continued in high esteem with Charles I.; and that most
culpable of monarchs, whose only redeeming quality was the strength and
tenderness of his domestic affections, in his dying advice to his
children, advised them to study the writings of three divines, of whom
our Translator was one. Lancelot Andrews died at Winchester House, in
Southwark, London, September 25th, 1626, aged sixty-one years. He was
buried in the Church of St. Saviour, where a fair monument marks the
spot. Having never married, he bequeathed his property to benevolent
uses. John Milton, then but a youth, wrote a glowing Latin elegy on his
death. As a preacher, Bishop Andrews was right famous in his day. He
was called "star of preachers." Thomas Fuller says that he was "an
inimitable preacher in his way; and such plagiarists as have stolen his
sermons could never steal his preaching, and could make nothing of
that, whereof he made all things as he desired." Pious and pleasant
Bishop Felton, his contemporary and colleague, endeavored in vain in
his sermons to assimilate to his style, and therefore said merrily of
himself,--"I had almost marred my own natural trot by endeavoring to
imitate his artificial amble."
Let this be a warning to all who would fain play the monkey, and
especially to such as would ape the eccentricities of genius. Nor is it
desirable that Bishop Andrews' style should be imitated even
successfully; for it abounds in quips, quirks, and puns, according to
the false taste of his time. Few writers are "so happy as to treat on
matters which must always interest, and to do it in a manner which
shall for ever please." To build up a solid literary reputation, taste
and judgement in composition are as necessary as learning and strength
of thought. The once admired folios of Bishop Andrews have long been
doomed to the dusty dignity of the lower shelf in the library. Many
hours he spent there each day in private and family devotions; and
there were some who used to desire that "they might end their days in
Bishop Andrew's Chapel." He was one in whom was proved the truth of
Luther's saying, that "to have prayed well, is to have studied well."
His manual for his private devotions, prepared by himself, is wholly in
the Greek language. It has been translated and printed. This praying
prelate also abounded in alms-giving; usually sending his benefactions
in private, as from a friend who chose to remain unknown. He was
exceedingly liberal in his gifts to poor and deserving scholars. His
own instructors he held in the highest reverence. His old schoolmaster
Mulcaster always sat at the upper end of the episcopal table; and when
the venerable pedagogue was dead, his portrait was placed over the
bishop's study door. These were just tokens of respect; "For if the
scholar to such height did reach, Then what was he who did that scholar
teach?" This worthy diocesan was much "given to hospitality," and
especially to literary strangers. So bountiful was his cheer, that it
used to be said, --"My lord of Winchester keeps Christmas all the year
round." He once spent three thousand pounds in three days, though "in
this we praise him not," in entertaining King James at Farnham Castle.
His society was as much sought, however, for the charm of his rich and
instructive conversation, as for his liberal housekeeping and his
exalted stations. But we are chiefly concerned to know what were his
qualifications as a Translator of the Bible. He ever bore the character
of "a right godly man," and "a prodigious student." One competent judge
speaks of him as "that great gulf of learning!" It was also said, that
"the world wanted learning to know how learned this man was." And a
brave old chronicler remarks, that, such was his skill in all
languages, especially the Oriental, that, had he been present at the
confusion of tongues at Babel, he might have served as
Interpreter-General! In his funeral sermon by Dr. Buckeridge, Bishop of
Rochester, it is said that Dr. Andrews was conversant with fifteen
languages.
Dr. Roger Andrews
Dr. Andrews, who had been Fellow in Pembroke Hall, was Master of Jesus
College, Cambridge. He also became Prebendary of Chichester and
Southwell. He too was a famous linguist in his time, like his brother
Lancelot, the Bishop of Winchester, whose life has been already
sketched as President of the first company of Translators.
Dr. Richard Bancroft
In the Translators’ Preface, which used to be printed with all the
earlier editions of the Bible, there is an allusion to one who was the
“chief overseer and task-master under his Majesty, to whom were not
only we, but also our whole Church, much bound.” This was Dr. Bancroft,
then Bishop of London, on whom devolved the duty of seeing the King’s
intentions in regard to the new version carried into effect. Though he
had but little do to in the studies by which it was prepared, yet his
general oversight of all the business part of the arrangements makes it
proper to notice him on these pages. He was born near Manchester, and
educated at Jesus College, Cambridge. He was chaplain to Queen
Elizabeth, under whom he became Bishop of London in 1597. On the death
of Whitgift, in 1604, he succeeded to the archbishopric of Canterbury.
In one year thereafter, such was his fury in pressing conformity, that
not less than three hundred ministers were suspended, deprived,
excommunicated, imprisoned, or forced to leave the country. He was
indeed a terrible churchman, of a harsh and stern temper.
Bishop Kennett, in his history of England, styles him “a sturdy piece;”
and says “he proceeded with rigor, severity, and wrath, against the
Puritans.” He was the ruling spirit in that infamous tribunal, the High
Commission Court, a sort of British Inquisition. Nicholas Fuller, an
eminent and wealthy lawyer of Gray’s Inn, ventured to sue out a writ of
Habeas Corpus in behalf of two of Bancroft’s victims in that Court, and
argued so boldly for the liberation of his clients, that Bancroft threw
him also into prison, where he lingered till his death. Fuller gives
the following picture of this prelate: --”A great statesman he was, an
a grand champion of church-discipline, having well hardened the hands
of his soul, which was no more than needed for him who was to meddle
with nettles and briars, and met with much opposition. No wonder if
those who were silenced by him in the church were loud against him in
other places. David speaketh of ‘poison under men’s lips.’ This bishop
tasted plentifully thereof from the mouths of his enemies, till at
last, (as Mithradates,) he was so habituated unto poisons, they became
food unto him. Once a gentleman, coming to visit him, presented him a
libel, which he found pasted on his door; who nothing moved thereat,
‘Cast it,’ said he, ‘to an hundred more which lie here on heap in my
chamber.’” Peremptory as his proceedings were with all sorts of
Dissenters, whether popish or puritan, he seems sometimes to have had a
relenting fit. It is but fair to relate the following incident.
Fuller tells of an honest and able minister, from whom he derived the
statement, who protested to the Primate, that it went against his
conscience to conform to the Church in all particulars. Being about to
be deprived of his living in consequence, the Archbishop asked him,
--”Which way will you live, if put out of your benefice?” The minister
replied, that he had no way except to beg, and throw himself upon
Divine Providence. “Not that,” said the Archbishop, “you shall not need
to do; but come to me, and I will take order for your maintenance.”
Such instances of generosity, however, were “few and far between.”
Imperious as Bancroft was to his inferiors, he set them an example of
servility to himself, by his own cringing to his master, the King. In a
despicably flattering oration, in the Conference at Hampton Court, he
equals King James to Solomon for wisdom, to Hezekiah for piety, and to
Paul for learning! Scotland owes his memory a grudge for his unwearied
endeavors to force Episcopacy upon that people. He was equally
strenuous for the divine rights of kings and of diocesan bishops. He
vigorously prevented the alienation of church-property; and succeeded
in preventing that most greedy and villainous old courtier, Lord
Lauderdale, from swallowing the whole bishopric of Durham! Dr. Bancroft
died in 1610, at the age of sixty-six years, and was buried at Lambeth
Church. He cancelled his first will, in which he had made large
bequests to the church, and so gave occasion to the following
epigram:-- “He who never repented of doing ill, Repented once that he
had a good will.” In his second testament, he left the large library at
Lambeth to the University of Cambridge.
Although in his time, the political sky was clear, he is said to have
had the sagacity to foresee that coming tempest, which Lord Clarendon
calls “the great rebellion,” and which burst upon England in the next
generation. In his general supervision of the translation-work, he does
not appear to have tampered with the version, except in a very few
passages where he insisted upon giving it a turn somewhat favorable to
his sectarian notions. But, considering the control exercised by this
towering prelate, and the fact that the great majority of the
Translators were of his way of thinking, it is quite surprising that
the work is not deeply tinged with their sentiments. On the whole, it
is certainly very far from being a sectarian version, like nearly all
which have since been attempted in English. It is said that Bancroft
altered fourteen places, so as to make them speak in phrase to suit
him. Dr. Miles Smith, who had so much to do with the work in all its
stages, is reported to have complained of the Archbishop’s alterations.
“But he is so potent,” says the Doctor, “there is no contradicting
him!” Two of those alleged alterations are quite preposterous. To have
the glorious word “bishopric” occur at least once in the volume, the
office is conferred, in the first chapter of Acts, on Judas Iscariot!
“His bishopric let another take.” Many of the Puritans were stiffly
opposed to bestowing the name “church,” which they regarded as
appropriate only to the company of spiritual worshippers, on any mass
of masonry and carpentry. * But Bancroft, that he might for once stick
the name 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. * It is not till about A.D. 229, that we find any record
of the assembling of Christians in what would now be called a church.
-- BARTON, ECC. HIST., 496.
Dr. William Barlow
The fifth company of Translators was composed of seven divines, who
held their meetings at Westminster. Their special portion of the work
was the whole of the Epistles of the New Testament. The president of
this company was Dr. William Barlow, at the time of his appointment,
Dean of Chester. He belonged to an ancient and respectable family
residing at Barlow, in Lancashire. He was bred a student of Trinity
Hall, in the University of Cambridge. He graduated in 1584, became
Master of Arts in 1587 and was admitted to a fellowship in Trinity Hall
in 1590. Seven years later, Archbishop Whitgift made him sinecure
Rector of Orpington in Kent. He was one of the numerous ecclesiastics
of that day, who were courtiers by profession, and studied with success
the dark science of prefermente. When Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex,
was beheaded for high treason in the year 1600, Dr. Barlow preached on
the occasion, at St. Paul’s Cross, in London. He was now a “rising
man.” In 1601, the prebendship of Chiswick was conferred upon him, and
he held it till he was made Bishop of Lincoln. In the year 1603, he
became at the same time, Prebendary of Westminster and Dean of Chester.
This latter prebendship, he held in “commendam” to the day of his
death. When, soon after the accession of James Stuart to the throne of
England, the famous Conference was held at Hampton Court, that monarch
summoned, as we have said, four Puritan divines, whom he arbitrarily
constituted representatives of their brethren. To confront them, he
summoned a large force of bishops and cathedral clergymen, of whom Dean
Barlow was one, all led to the charge by the doughty king himself. At
the different meetings of the Conference, the Puritans were required to
state what changes their party desired in the doctrine, discipline, and
worship, of the Church of England. As soon as they ventured to specify
any thing, they were browbeaten and hectored in the most abusive manner
by the monarch and his minions. In his time, when comparing his reign
with the preceding, it was common to distinguish him by the title Queen
James; and his illustrious predecessor, as King Elizabeth. When his
learned preceptor, Buchanan, was asked how he came to make such a
pedant of his royal pupil, the old disciplinarian was cruel enough to
reply, that it was the best he could make of him! This prince, who
fancied himself to be, what his flatterers swore he was, an
incomparable adept in the sciences of theology and “kingcraft,” as he
termed it, was quite in his element during the discussions at Hampton
Court. He trampled with such fury on the claims of Puritanism, that his
prelates, lordly and cringing by turns, were in raptures; and went down
on their knees, and blessed God extemporaneously, for “such a king as
had not been seen since Christ’s day!” Surely they were thrown off
their guard by their exultation, when they set such an impressive
example of “praying without book.”
This matter is mentioned here the more fully, because the principal
account we have of this Conference is given by the Dean of Chester. It
is not strange that the Puritans make but a sorry figure in his report
of the transactions. Gagged by royal insolence, and choked by priestly
abuse, it could hardly have been otherwise. Indeed, they were only
summoned, that, under pretence of considering their grievances, the
King might have an opportunity to throw off his mask, and to show
himself in his true character, as a determined enemy to further
reformation in his Church. Dr. Barlow’s account is evidently drawn up
in a very unfriendly disposition toward the Puritan complainants, and
labors to make their statements of grievances appear as weak and
witless as possible. Had the pencil been held by a Puritan hand, no
doubt the sketch would have been altogether different. The temper of
the King and of his sycophantic court-clergy may be inferred from the
mirth, which, Dr. Barlow says, was excited by a definition of a
Puritan, quoted from one Butler, a Cambridge man,--”A Puritan is a
Protestant frayed out of his wits!” The plan of the King and his mitred
counsellors was, the substitution of an English popery in the place of
Romish popery. Their notions were well expressed, some years afterward,
in a sermon at St. Mary’s Cambridge,--”As at the Olympic games, he was
counted the conqueror who could drive his chariot- wheels nearest the
mark, yet not so as to hinder his running, or to stick thereon; so he
who, in his sermons, can preach near popery, and yet not quite popery,
there is your man!”
As we have already related, almost the only request vouchsafed to the
Puritans at this Conference was one which was well worth all the rest.
The King granted Dr. Reynold’s motion for a new translation of the
Bible, to be prepared by the ablest divines in his realm. Dr. Barlow
was actively employed in the preliminary arrangements. He was also
appointed to take part in the work itself; in which, being a thorough
bred scholar, he did excellent service. In the course of the work, in
1605, being, at the time, Rector of one of the London parishes, St.
Dunstan’s in the East, Dr. Barlow was made Bishop of Rochester. He was
promoted to the wealthier see of Lincoln in 1608, where he presided
with all dignity till his death. He died at a time when he had some
hopes of getting the bishopric of London. His decease took place at his
episcopal palace of Buckden, where he was buried in 1613. He published
several books and pamphlets, which prove him not out of place when put
among the learned men of that erudite generation of divines.
William Bedwell (1562-1632)
Mr. Bedwell was educated at St. John's College, Cambridge. He was Vicar
of Tottenham High Cross, near London. He died at his vicarage, at the
age of seventy, May 5th, 1632, justly reputed to have been "an eminent
oriental scholar." * He published in quarto an edition of the epistles
of St. John in Arabic, with a Latin version, printed at the press of
Raphelenguis, at Antwerp, in 1612. He also left many Arabic manuscripts
to the University of Cambridge, with numerous notes upon them, and with
a font of types for printing them. His fame for Arabic learning was so
great, that when Erpenius, a most renowned Orientalist, resided in
England, in 1606, he was much indebted to Bedwell for direction in his
studies. To Bedwell, rather than to Erpenius, who commonly enjoys it,
belongs the honor of being the first who considerably promoted and
revived the study of the Arabic language and literature in Europe. He
was also tutor to another Orientalist of renown, Dr. Pococke. For many
years, Mr. Bedwell was engaged in preparing an Arabic Lexicon in three
volumes; and went to Holland to examine the collections of Joseph
Scaliger. But proceeding very slowly, from desire to make his work as
perfect as possible, Golius forestalled him, by the publication of a
similar work.
After Bedwell's death, the voluminous manuscripts of his lexicon were
loaned by the University of Cambridge to aid in the compilation of Dr.
Castell's colossal work, the Lexicon Heptaglotton. Some modern scholars
have fancied, that we have an advantage in our times over the
translators of King James's day, by reason of the greater attention
which is supposed to be paid at present to what are called the
"cognate" and "Shemetic" languages, and especially the Arabic by which
much light is thought to be reflected upon Hebrew words and phrases. It
is evident, however, that Mr. Bedwell and others, among his
fellow-laborers, were thoroughly conversant in this part of the broad
field of sacred criticism. Mr. Bedwell also commenced a Persian
dictionary, which is among Archbishop Laud's manuscripts, still
preserved in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. In 1615, he published his
book, "A Discovery of the Impostures of Mahomet and of the Koran." To
this was annexed his "Arabian Trudgeman." Trudgeman or truchman is the
word Dragoman in its older form, and is derived from a Chaldee word
meaning interpreter. This Arabian Trudgeman is a most curious
illustration of oriental etymology and history. Dr. Bedwell had a
fondness for mathematical studies. He invented a ruler for geometrical
purposes, like what we call Gunter's Scale, which went by the name of
"Bedwell's Ruler." * He is spoken of in his epitaph, as being "for the
Eastern tongues, as learned a man as most lived in these modern times."
Dr. Thomas Bilson (d. 1616)
Dr. Thomas Bilson was of German parentage, and related to the Duke of
Bavaria. He was born in Winchester, and educated in the school of
William de Wykeham. He entered New College, at Oxford, and was made a
Fellow of his College in 1565. He began to distinguish himself as a
poet; but, on receiving ordination, gave himself wholly to theological
studies. He was soon made Prebendary of Winchester, and Warden of the
College there. In 1596, he was made Bishop of Worcester; and three
years later, was translated to the see of Winchester, his native place.
He engaged in most of the polemical contests of his day, as a stiff
partizan of the Church of England. When the controversy arose as to the
meaning of the so called Apostles’ Creed, in asserting the descent of
Christ into hell, Bishop Bilson defended the literal sense, and
maintained that Christ went there, not to suffer, but to wrest the keys
of hell out of the Devil’s hands. For this doctrine he was severely
handled by Henry Jacob, who is often called the father of modern
Congregationalism, and also by other Puritans.
Much feeling was excited by the controversy, and Queen Elizabeth, in
her ire, commanded her good bishop, “neither to desert the doctrine,
nor let the calling which he bore in the Church of God, be trampled
under foot, by such unquiet refusers of truth and authority.” The
despotic spinster ruled with such energy, both in Church and state, as
to sanction the saying, that “old maids’ children are well governed!”
Dr. Bilsons’ most famous work was entitled “The Perpetual Government of
Christ’s Church,” and was published in 1593. It is still regarded as
one of the ablest books ever written in behalf of Episcopacy. Dr.
Bilson died in 1616, at a good old age, and was buried in Westminster
Abbey. It was said of him, that he “carried prelature in his very
aspect.” Anthony Wood proclaims him so “complete in divinity, so well
skilled in languages, so read in the Fathers and Schoolmen, so
judicious is making use of his readings, that at length he was found to
be no longer a soldier, but a commander in chief in the spiritual
warfare, especially when he became a bishop!”
Dr. Andrew Bing (1574-1652)
Dr. Bing was Fellow of Peterhouse, Cambridge. In course of time he
succeeded Geoffry King, who was Dr. Spaulding’s successor, in the
Regius Professorship of Hebrew. Dr. Bing was Sub-dean of York in 1606,
and was installed Archdeacon of Norwich in 1618. He died during the
times of the Commonwealth.
John Bois (1560-1643)
This devoted scholar was a native of Nettlestead, in Suffolk, where he
was born January 3rd, 1560. His father William Bois, a convert from
papistry, was a pious minister, and a very learned man; and at the time
of his death, was Rector of West Stowe. His mother, Mirable Poolye, was
a pious woman, and a great reader of the Bible in the older
translations. He was the only child that grew up. He was carefully
taught by his father; and at the age of five years, he had read the
Bible in Hebrew. By the time he was six years old, he not only wrote
Hebrew legibly, but in a fair and elegant character. Some of these
remarkable manuscripts are still carefully preserved. This precocious
scholar, who yet lived to a ripe and hale old age, was sent to school
at Hadley, where he was a fellow-student with Bishop Overall. He was
admitted to St. John’s College, Cambridge, in 1575. He soon
distinguished himself by his great skill in Greek, writing letters in
that language to the Master and Senior Fellows, when he had been but
half a year in College.
Bois was a pupil to Dr. Downes, then chief lecturer on the Greek
language, who took such delight in his promising disciple, that he
treated him with great familiarity, even while he was a freshman. In
addition to his lectures, which Dr. Downes read five times in the week,
he took the youth to his chambers, where he plied him exceedingly. He
there read with him twelve Greek authors, in verse and prose, the
hardest that could be found, both for dialect and phrase. It was a
common practice with the young enthusiast to go to the University
Library at four o’clock in the morning, and stay without intermission
till eight in the evening. When John Bois was elected Fellow of his
College in 1580, he was laboring under that formidable disease, the
small pox. But, with his usual resolution, rather than lose his
seniority, he had himself wrapped in blankets, and was carried to be
admitted to his office by his tutors, Henry Coppinger and Andrew
Downes. He commenced the study of medicine; but fancying himself
affected with every disease he read of, he quitted the study in
disgust, and turned his attention to divinity.
He was ordained a deacon, June 21st, 1583; and the next day, by a
dispensation, he was ordained priest of the Church of England. For ten
years, he was Greek lecturer in his college; and, during that time, he
voluntarily lectured, in his own chamber, at four o’clock in the
morning, most of the Fellows being in attendance! It may be doubted,
whether, at the present day, a teacher and class so zealous could be
found at old Cambridge, new Cambridge, or any where else,--not
excluding laborious Germany. At this time, Thomas Gataker, afterwards
one of the most distinguished of the Westminster Divines, was a pupil
to Bois. On the death of his father, Mr. Bois succeeded to the rectory
of West Stowe, but soon resigned it, and went back to his beloved
College. The Earl of Shrewsbury made him his chaplain; but this too he
soon resigned. When he was about thirty-six years old, Mr. Holt, Rector
of Boxworth, died, leaving the advowson of that living in part of a
portion to one of his daughters; and requesting of some of his friends,
that “if it might be procured, Mr. Bois, of St. John’s College, might
become his successor.” The matter being intimated to that gentleman, he
went over to take a view of the lady thus singularly portioned, and
commended to his favorable regards.
The parties soon took a sufficient liking to each other, and the
somewhat mature lover was presented to the parsonage by his future
bride, and instituted by Archbishop Whitgift, October 13th, 1596. He
fulfilled the other part of the bargain, by marrying the lady, February
7th, 1598; and so resigned his beloved Fellowship at St. John’s. He
could not, however, wholly separate himself from old associates and
pursuits. Ever week he rode over from Boxworth to Cambridge to hear
some of the Greek lectures of Downes, and the Hebrew exercises of
Lively, and also the divinity-acts and lectures. Every Friday he met
with neighboring ministers, to the number of twelve, to give an account
of their studies, and to discuss difficult questions. While thus
absorbed in studious pursuits, he left his domestic affairs to the
management of his wife, whose want of skill in a few years reduced him
to bankruptcy. He was forced to part with his chief treasure, and sell
his library, which contained one of the most complete and costly
collections of Greek literature that had ever been made. This cruel
loss so disheartened him, as almost to drive the poor man from his
family and his native country. He was, however, sincerely attached to
his wife, with whom he lived in great happiness and affection for five
and forty years. In the translation of the Bible, he had a double
share. After the completion of the Apocrypha, the portion assigned to
his company, the other Cambridge company, to whom was assigned from the
Chronicles to the Canticles inclusively, earnestly intreated his
assistance, as he was equally distinguished for his skill in Greek and
Hebrew. They were the more earnest for his aid, because of the death of
their president, Professor Lively, which took place shortly after the
work was undertaken. During the four years thus employed, Mr. Bois gave
close attention to the duty, from Monday morning to Saturday evening,
spending the Sabbaths only at his rectory with his family.
For all this labor he received no worldly compensation, except the use
of his chambers and his board in commons. When the work had been
carried through the first stage, he was one of the twelve delegates
sent, two from each of the companies, to make the final revision of the
work at Stationers’ Hall, in London. This occupied nine months, during
which each member of the committee received thirty shillings per week
from John Barker, the King’s printer, to whom the copy-right belonged.
Mr. Bois took notes of all the proceedings of this committee. He
rendered a vast amount of aid to his fellow-translator, Sir Henry
Savile, in his great literary undertaking, the edition of Chrysostom.
Sir Henry speaks of him, in the Preface, as the “most ingenious and
most learned Mr. Bois;” and it is said that the aged Professor Downes
was so much hurt at the higher commendations bestowed on his quondam
pupil’s share in that labor than upon his own, that he never got
entirely over it. Mr. Bois, however, did not cease to regard his
veteran instructor with the utmost respect and esteem.
For his many years of hard labor bestowed upon Chrysostom, he received
no compensation, except a single copy of the work. This was probably
owing to the sudden demise of Sir Henry Savile, who was intending to
make him one of the Fellows of Eton College. Mr. Bois continued to be
quite poor and neglected, till Dr. Lancelot Andrews, then Bishop of
Ely, and who had also been employed in the Bible-translation, of his
own accord made him a Prebendary of the cathedral church of Ely, in
1615. He there spent the last twenty-eight years of his life, in
studious retirement, providing a curate for Boxworth. After his removal
to Ely, he visited Boxworth twice a year, to administer the sacraments
and preach, and to relieve the wants of the poor. He left, at his
death, as many leaves of manuscript as he had lived days in his long
life; for even in his old age, he spent eight hours in daily study,
mostly reading and correcting ancient authors. Among his writings, was
a voluminous commentary in Latin on the Gospels and Acts, which was
published some twelve years after his decease. He was of a social and
cheerful disposition, and had a great fund of anecdote at command. He
kept up a strict family government. His charity to the necessitous poor
was limited only by the bottom of his purse; though he “chode the
lazy,” knowing that charity’s eyes should be open, as well as her hands.
He was ‘in fastings oft,” sometimes twice in the week; and punctual in
all religious duties. His preaching was without notes, though not
without much prayer and study. In performing this solemn duty, his main
endeavor was to make himself easily understood by the humblest and most
ignorant of his hearers. This is a wise and noble trait in one of such
a vast acquirements; and one to whom Dalechamp, in dedicating to him a
eulogy on Thomas Harrison, said with truth, that he was “in highest
esteem with studious foreigners, and second to none in solid
attainments in the Greek tongue.” He was so familiar with the Greek
Testament, that he could, at any time, turn to any word that it
contained. His manner of living was quite peculiar. He was a great
pedestrian all his days. He was also a great rider and swimmer; and
possessed a very strong constitution, which all his hard study could
not impair. He took but two meals, dinner and supper, and never drank
at any other time. He would not study between supper and bed-time; but
spent the interval in pleasant discourse with friends. He took special
care of his teeth, and carried them nearly all to the grave. Up to his
death, his brow was unwrinkled, his sight clear, his hearing quick, his
countenance fresh, and head not bald. He ascribed his health and
longevity to the observance of three rules, given him by one of his
college tutors, Dr. Whitaker: --First, always to study standing;
secondly, never to study in a draft of air; and thirdly, never to go to
bed with his feet cold! He had four sons and three daughters. The
first-born son died an infant. The second son and eldest daughter he
saw married. The third son died of consumption, at the age of thirty,
at Ely, where he as a canon in the cathedral. The youngest son died of
the small-pox, while a student of St. John’s College. Thus the father
was not without his sore afflictions. These seem to have been
sanctified to his good. He said of himself, near the end of his
life,--”There has not been a day for these many years, in which I have
not meditated at least once upon my death.” Thus he met death, at last,
with great joy, as an old acquaintance, and long expected friend.
Having survived his wife for two lonesome years, Mr. Bois had himself
carried about five hours before his end, into the room where she died.
He there expired, on the Lord’s Day, January 14th, 1643, in the
eighty-fourth year of his age. “He went unto his rest on the day of
rest; a man of peace, to the God of peace.”
Dr. William Brainthwaite ( B. 1563)
Of Dr. Brainthwaite we recover but little. He spent his life in
Cambridge University, where he was first a student of Clare Hall, then
Fellow of Emanuel College, and at last Master of Gonvil and Caius
College. He was in this last office, when he was named in the royal
commission as one of the Translators. He was a benefactor of the
last-mentioned colleges; and in 1619, was Vice-Chancellor of the
University. These few items go to mark him as a learned, reverend, and
worshipful divine. [He had vast knowledge of Greek and was skilled in
Hebrew.- km]
Dr. Richard Brett (1567-1637)
This reverend clergyman was of a respectable family, and was born at
London, in 1567. He entered at Hart Hall, Oxford, where he took his
first degree. He was then elected Fellow of Lincoln College, where, by
unwearied industry, he became very eminent in the languages, divinity,
and other branches of science. Having taken his degrees in arts, he
became, in 1595, Rector of Quainton in Buckinghamshire, in which
benefice he spent his days. He was made Doctor in Divinity in 1605. He
was renowned in his time for vast attainments, as well as revered for
his piety. “He was skilled and versed to a criticism” in the Latin,
Greek, Hebrew, Chaldee, Arabic, and Ethiopic tongues. He published a
number of erudite works, all in Latin. It is recorded of him, that “he
was a most vigilant pastor, a diligent preacher of God’s word, a
liberal benefactor to the poor, a faithful friend, and a good
neighbor.” This studious and exemplary minister, having attained this
exalted reputation, died in 1638, at the age of seventy, and lies
buried in the chancel of Quainton Church, where he dispensed the word
and ordinances for three and forty years.
Dr. Francis Burleigh
Dr. Burleigh, or Burghley, was made Vicar of Bishop's Stortford in
1590, which benefice he held at the time of his appointment to the
important service of this Bible translation.
Lawrence Chaderton (1537-1640)
This divine was a staunch Puritan, brave and godly, learned and
laborious, full of moderation and the old English hardihood. He was
born at Chaderton in Lancashire, in the year 1537. His family was
wealthy, but bigotted in popery, in which religion he was carefully
bred. Being destined to the bar, he was sent to the Inns of Court, at
London, where he spent some years in the study and practice of the law.
Here he became a pious protestant; and, forsaking the law, entered, as
student, at Christ's College, Cambridge. Oh that, in a far higher
sense, all divinity-students might be trained in Christ’s own college,
and learn their science from the Great Teacher himself! These changes
took place in 1564. Mr. Chaderton applied to his father for some
pecuniary aid; but the wrathful old papist "sent him a poke, with a
groat in it, to go a-begging;" and disinherited his son of a large
estate. The son had to occasion to use the begging-poke.
His high character and scholarship procured him much favor; while his
mind was sustained by the promises of the Saviour, for whose sake he
had "endured the loss of all things." He took his first degree in 1567,
and was then chosen one of the Fellows of his College. He became Master
of Arts in 1561; and Bachelor of Divinity in 1584. He did not receive
the degree of Doctor in Divinity till 1613, when it was pressed upon
him, at the time when Frederick, Prince Palatine of the Rhine, who
married King James's daughter Elizabeth, visited Cambridge in state.
Fuller, remarking on this matter, writes,--"What is said of Mount
Caucasus, 'that it was never seen without snow on the top,' was true of
this reverend father, whom none of our father's generation knew in the
University before he was gray-headed." "He made himself familiar with
the Latin, Greek, and Hebrew tongues, and was thoroughly skilled in
them. Moreover he had diligently investigated the numerous writings of
the Rabbis, so far as they seemed to promise any aid to the
understanding of the Scriptures. This is evident from the annotations
in his handwriting appended to the Biblia Bombergi,* which are still
preserved in the library of Emanuel College."** His studies were such
as eminently to qualify him to bear an important part in the
translating of the Bible.
In 1576, he held a public dispute with Dr. Baron, Margaret Professor of
Divinity, upon the Arminian sentiments of the latter. In this debate,
Dr. Chaderton appeared to the highest advantage, as to his learning,
ability and temper. For sixteen years he was lecturer at St. Clement's
Church, in Cambridge, where his preaching was greatly blessed. In 1578,
he delivered a sermon at Paul's Cross, London, which appears to have
been his only printed production. About that time, by order of
Parliament, he was appointed preacher of the Middle Temple, with a
liberal salary. It was thought best, perhaps, that a flock of lawyers
should have the gospel preached to them by one who had been bred to
know the sins of their calling. In the year 1584, Sir Walter Mildmay,
one of Queen Elizabeth's noted statesmen, founded Emanuel College, at
Cambridge. Sir Walter was not supposed to be a very high Churchman, and
the Queen charged him with having "erected a Puritan foundation." In
reply, he told her, that he had set an acorn, which, when it became an
oak, God only knows what will become of it." And truly, it pleased God,
that it should yield plenteous crops of Puritan "hearts of oak;" and
afford an abundant supply of that sound, substantial, and yet spiritual
piety, which stands in strong contrast with all superstition and
formality. Emanuel College Chapel, by order of the founder, was built
in the uncanonical direction of north and south. Nearly a hundred years
after, this non-conforming building was punished by the crabbed
prelates, who had it pulled down, and rebuilt in the holy position of
east and west, agreeably to the solemn doctrine of the "orientation of
churches!"
Perhaps there was no better way to convert it from the Puritanism
wherewith it was infected, than thus to give it first an over turn, and
then a half turn toward popery. It is likely, however, that the
religious peculiarities which long marked this College are to be
ascribed less to the position in which the chapel was placed, than to
the influence of its first Master. For this important office, Sir
Walter Mildmay made choice of Dr. Chaderton. The modesty of the latter
made him quite resolute to refuse the station, till Sir Walter plainly
told him,--"If you will not be the Master, I will not be the Founder."
Upon this, Dr. Chaderton accepted the office; and filled it with zeal,
and industry, and high repute, for thirty-eight years. Through his
exertions, the endowments of the institution were greatly increased,
and it became a nursing mother to many eminent and useful men. At the
Hampton Court Conference, in 1603, Dr. Chaderton was one of the four
divines appointed by the King as being "the most grave, learned, and
modest of the aggrieved sort," to represent the Puritan interest. Dr.
Chaderton, however, took no part in the debates, perceiving that the
Conference was merely a royal farce, got up to give the tyrant an
opportunity to avow his bitter hostility to Puritanism, because of its
incompatibility with abject submission to arbitrary power.
Coleridge, who was a staunch adherent of the Church of England, but by
no means blinded on that account to the truth of history, thus
expresses his opinion as to the Hampton Court affair. "If any man, who,
like myself, hath attentively read the Church history of the reign of
Elizabeth, and the Conference before, and with, her pedant successor,
can shew me any essential difference between Whitgift and Bancroft,
during their rule, and Bonner and Gardiner in the reign of Mary, I will
be thankful to him in my heart, and for him in my prayers. One
difference I see,--namely, that the former, professing the New
Testament to be their rule and guide, and making the fallibility of all
churches and individuals an article of faith, were more inconsistent,
and therefore, less excusable than the popish persecutors."*** It was
during his mastership of Emanuel College, that Dr. Chaderton was
engaged in the Bible translation, in which good work he was well fitted
and disposed to take his part. "He was a scholar, and a ripe and good
one." Having reached his three score years and ten, his knowledge was
fully digested, and his experience matured, while "his natural force
was not abated," and his faculties burned with unabated fire. Even tot
he close of his long life, "his eye was not dim," and his sight
required no artificial aid. Many years after, in 1622, having reached
the great age of eighty-five, this Nestor among the divines resigned
the office he had so long sustained. Not that he was even then
disqualified for its duties by infirmity; but because of the rapid
spread of Arminianism, and the fear that, if the business were left
till after his death, a divine of lax sentiments, who was then waiting
his chance, would be thrust into the place by the interference of the
Court. The business was so managed, that Dr. Preston, the very champion
of the Puritans, was inducted as Dr. Chaderton's successor.
The vivacious patriarch, however, lived to survive Dr. Preston; and to
see Dr. Sancroft, and after him, Dr. Holdsworth, in the same station.
This latter incumbent preached Dr. Chaderton's funeral sermon. Dr.
Holdsworth used to tell him, that, as long as he lived, he should be
Master in the house, though he himself was forced to be Master of the
house. The patriarch was always consulted as to the affairs of the
College. The most protracted and useful life must come to its end.
There have been various accounts of the time of Dr. Chaderton's death,
and of the place of his interment. But all mistakes are corrected by
his Latin epitaph, which has been found on a monumental stone, at the
entrance of Emanuel College chapel, and has been translated as follows:
Here Lies the body of Lawrence Chaderton, D. D., who was the first
Master of this College. He died in the year 1640, in the one hundred
and third year of his age. Perhaps such longevity was more common then
than now. It is on record, that "ten men of Herefordshire, a nest of
Nestors, once danced the Morish before King James, their united ages
exceeding a thousand years." Their contemporary, Dr. Chaderton, was
more honored by the gravity of his gray hairs, than they by the levity
of their giddy heels. He was greatly venerated. All his habits were
such as inspired confidence in his piety. During the fifty-three years
of his married life, he never suffered any of his servants to be
detained from public worship by the preparation of food, or other
household cares. He used to say, --"I desire as much to have my
servants to know the Lord, as myself." These things are greatly to his
honor; though his regard to the Lord's Day may excite the scorn of some
in these degenerate times. Dr. Chaderton is described by Archdeacon
Echard, as "a grave, pious, and excellent preacher."
As an instance of his power in the pulpit, we will close this sketch
with an incident which could hardly have taken place any where on earth
for the last hundred years. It is stated on high authority, that while
our aged saint was visiting some friends in his native country of
Lancashire, he was invited to preach. Having addressed his audience for
two full hours by the glass, he paused and said,--"I will no longer
trespass on your patience.” And now comes the marvel; for the whole
congregation cried out with one consent,--"For God's sake, go on, go
on!" He, accordingly, proceeded much longer , to their great
satisfaction and delight. "When," says Coleridge, "after reading the
biographies of [Izaak] Walton and his contemporaries, I reflect on the
crowded congregations, who with intense interest came to their
hour-and-two-hour-long sermons, I cannot but doubt the fact of any true
progression, moral or intellectual, in the mind of the many. The tone,
the matter, the anticipated sympathies in the sermons of an age, form
the best moral criterion of the character of that age." Let us not be
so unwise as to inquire concerning this, "What is the cause that the
former days were better than these?" For even now people like to hear
such preaching as is preaching. but where shall we find men for the
work like those who gave us our version of the Bible? * An edition of
the Hebrew Bible, printed by Bomberg, at Venice, in 1518. ** Vita
Laurentii Chadertoni, a W. Dillingham, S. T. P. Cantab. 1700. Pp. 15,
24. *** Literary Remains, II. 388
Dr. Richard Clarke
Dr. Clarke is spoken of as a Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge; and
as a very learned clergyman and eminent preacher. He was Vicar of
Minster and Monkton in Thanet, and one of the six preachers of the
cathedral church in Canterbury. He died in 1634. Three years after his
death, a folio volume of his learned sermons was published. But alas
for "folios" and learned sermons" in these days. When people look on
such a thing, they are ready to exclaim, like Robert Hall, at the sight
of Dr. Gill's voluminous Commentary,--"What a continent of mud!"
William Dakins (d. 1607)
He was educated at Westminster School, and admitted to Trinity College,
Cambridge, May 8th, 1587. He was chosen Fellow in 1593. He became
Bachelor in Divinity in 1601. The next year he was appointed Greek
lecturer. In 1604, he was appointed Professor of Divinity at Gresham
College, London. He was elected on the recommendation of the
Vice-Chancellor and Heads of Colleges in Cambridge, and also of several
of the nobility, and of the King himself. The King in his letter to the
Mayor and Aldermen of London, calls him “an ancient divine,” not in
allusion to his age, but his character. This appointment was given him
as a remuneration for his undertaking to do his part in the
Bible-translation. He was considered peculiarly fit to be employed in
this work, on account of “his skill in the original languages.” In
1606, he was chosen Dean of Trinity College; but died a few months
after, on the second day of October, being less than forty years of
age. Though taken away in the midst of his days, and of the work on
account of which we are interested in him, he evidently stood in high
repute as to his qualifications for a duty of such interest and
importance.
Francis Dillingham (d. 1625)
He was a Fellow of Christ's College, Cambridge. After the translation
was finished, he became parson of Dean, his native place, in
Bedfordshire. He also obtained the rich benefice of Wilden, in the same
County, where he died a single and wealthy man. "My father," says
worthy old Thomas Fuller, "was present in the bachelor's school, when a
Greek act was kept * between Francis Dillingham and William Alabaster,
to their mutual commendation. A disputation so famous, that it served
for an era or epoch, for the scholars in that age, thence to date their
seniority." From this, it would seem, that he was not without reason
styled the "great Grecian." He was noted as an excellent linguist and a
subtle disputant, and was author of various theological treatises. His
brother and heir, Thomas Dillingham, also minister of Dean, was chosen
one of the famous Assembly of Divines at Westminster; but on account of
age, illness, and for other reasons, did not take his seat. Francis
Dillingham was a diligent writer, both of practical and polemical
divinity. He collected out of cardinal Bellarmine's writings, all the
concessions made by that acute author in favor of Protestantism. He
published a Manual of the Christian faith, taken from the Fathers, and
a variety of treatises on different points belonging to the Romish
controversy. * That is, a debate carried on in the Greek tongue.
Dr. Andrew Downes (1544-1625)
Dr. Downes was Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge. For full forty
years he was Regius Professor of Greek in that famous University. He is
especially named by the renowned John Selden as eminently qualified to
share in the translation of the Bible. Thus it is the happiness of Dr.
Downes to be “praised by a praised man;” for no man was ever more
exalted for learning and critical scholarship than Selden, who was
styled by Dr. Johnson, “monarch in letters;” and by Milton, “chief of
learned men in England;” and by foreigners, “the great dictator of
learning of the English nation.” His decisive testimony to Downes’s
ability was one of the revising committee of twelve, composed of the
principal members of each company, who met at London to prepare the
copy for the press. This venerable Professor is spoken of as “one
composed of Greek and industry.” He bestowed much labor on Sir Henry
Savile’s celebrated edition of the works of Chrysostom, and many of the
learned notes were furnished by him. “His pains were so inlaid” with
that monument of erudition, that “both will be preserved together.” He
died, February 2nd, 1625, at the great age of eighty-one years.
Dr. John Duport
The president of this company was Dr. Dupont, then Master of Jesus
College, and Prebendary of Ely. He was son of Thomas Dupont, Esquire;
and was born at Shepshead, in Leicestershire. He was bred at Jesus
College, Cambridge, where he became Fellow, and afterwards Master,
which latter office he exercised with great reputation for nearly
thirty years. He was a liberal benefactor of the College. In 1580 he
was Proctor in the University; and in the same year he was made Rector
of Harlton in Cambridgeshire. He afterwards bestowed the perpetual
advowsance of this rectory on his College. He was soon after Rector of
Bosworth and Medborn, in his native County. In 1583, he was collated to
the rectory of Fulham, in Middlesex, which was a sinecure. Such
frequent change of parishes, in a clergy-man of the Anglican Church, is
a sign of great prosperity; as they are always changes from a poorer
benefice to a better, and are considered as ‘preferments.” Almost every
parish, whenever vacant, is in the gift of some man of wealth, or high
officer in church, state, university, or other corporation: Hence
frequence removals to more desirable parishes tend to shew that a
clergyman has very influential friends or is in high esteem. Still this
does not necessarily follow, inasmuch as a very great part of this
business is mere matter of bargain and sale.
The person who has the right of presenting a clergyman to be pastor of
a vacant church is called the “patron;” and the right of presentation
is called the “advowson.” These advowsons are bought, sold, bequeathed
or inherited, like any other right or possession. They may be owned by
heretics or infidels, who are under very little restraint as to their
choice of ministers to fill the vacancies that occur. If the bishop
should refuse to institute the person nominated, it would involve the
prelate in great trouble, unless he could make out a very strong case
against the fitness of the rejected presentee. Meanwhile the flocks,
who pay the tithes which support the minister, have no voice in the
matter, except in comparatively few parishes. They may be dearly loved
for their flesh and fleece; but they must take the shepherd who is set
over them. If they dislike his pasture, and jump the fence to feed
elsewhere, they must pay tithes and offerings all the same to the
convivial rector, fox-hunting vicar, or Puseyite priest, who has
secured the “benefice” or “living.” It is astonishing, that, under such
an ecclesiastical system, the Church of England is not more thoroughly
corrupted. And it is astonishing, that such as system can be endured to
the middle of such a century as this, by a nation whose loudest and
proudest boast is of liberty. While Dr. Dupont was rapidly rising in
the scale of preferment, he retained his connection with Jesus College.
After he was made Master in 1590, he was four times elected
Vice-Chancellor, the highest resident officer, of the University. In
1585, he became Precentor of St. Paul’s, London; and in 1609, was made
Prebendary of Ely. He married Rachel, daughter to Richard Cox, Bishop
of Ely. There were very happy in their son James Dupont, D. D., a
distinguished Greek p rofessor and divine. The father died about
Christmas, in 1617, leaving a well-earned reputation as “a reverend man
in his generation.” Let him also be reverend in this generation, for
his agency in the final preparation of the Bible in English.
Dr. Richard Eedes
Dr. Eedes was a native of Bedfordshire, born at Sewell, about the year
1555. At an early age he was sent to Westminster school. He became a
student of Christ’s Church, in Oxford, in 1571. He subsequently took
his two degrees in arts, and two more in divinity. IN 1578, he became a
preacher, and arose to considerable eminence. In 1584, he was made
Prebendary of Yarminster, in the cathedral church of Salisbury; and two
years later, became Canon of Christ’s Church, and chaplain to Queen
Elizabeth. In 1596, he was Dean of Worcester, which was the highest
ecclesiastical preferment he attained. He was chaplain to James I., as
he had been to the illustrious queen who preceded him; and was much
admired at court as an accomplished pulpit orator. In his younger days,
he was given, like some other fashionable clergymen, to writing poetry
and plays; but, in riper years, he became, as the antiquarian of Oxford
says, “a pious and grave divine, an ornament to his profession, and
grace to the pulpit.” He published several discourses at different
times. Dr. Eedes died at Worcester, November 19th, 1604, soon after his
appointment to be one of the Bible-translators, and before the work was
well begun, so that another was appointed in his place. But let him not
be deprived of his just commendation, as one who was counted worthy of
being joined with that ablest band of scholars and divines, which was
ever united in a single literary undertaking.
Dr. Daniel Fairclough
The author has bestowed great labor in endeavoring to identify this
person. After exhausting all the means of information within his reach,
he is lead to the belief, that the last on the list of this company of
Translators, who is designated simply as “Mr. Fairclough,” is Daniel
Fairclough, otherwise known as Dr. Daniel Featley; which, strange to
say, is a corrupt pronunciation of the name Fairclough. This is
distinctly asserted by his nephew, Dr. John Featley, who wrote a life
of his uncle, and printed it at the end of a book, entitled, “Dr.
Daniel Featley revived.” The nephew states, that his uncle was ordained
deacon and priest under the name Fairclough. The main ground for
questioning the identity, is the age of Daniel Fairclough, who, when
the Bible-translators were nominated, was only some twenty-six years
old, which is considerably less than the age of most of his associates.
He was, however, an early ripe, and a distinguished scholar; and
comparatively young as he was, it devolved on him to preach at the
funeral of the great Dr. Reynolds, who died during the progress of the
work. This funeral service was performed with much applause, at only
four days’ notice. The birth-place of Daniel Fairclough, or Featley, to
call him by the name whereby he is chiefly known, was Charlton, in
Oxfordshire, where he was born about the year 1578. He was admitted to
Corpus Christi College in 1594; and was elected Fellow in 1602. He
stood in such high estimation, that Sir Thomas Edwards, ambassador to
France, took him to Paris as his chaplain, where he spent two or three
years in the ambassador’s house.
Here he held many “tough disputes” with the doctors of the Sorbonne,
and other papists. His opponents termed him “the keen and cutting
Featley;” and found him a match in their boasted logic; “For he a rope
of sand could twist, As tough as learned Sorbonnist.” On returning to
England, he repaired to his College, where he remained till 1613, when
he became Rector of Northill, in Cornwall. Soon after, he was appointed
chaplain to Dr. Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury, also one of the
Translators, by whom he was made Rector of Lambeth, in Surrey. In 1617,
he held a famous debate with Dr. Prideaux, the King’s Professor of
Divinity at Oxford. About this time, the Archbishop gave him the
rectory of Allhallows Church, Bread Street, London. This he soon
exchanged for the rectory of Acton, in Middlesex. He was also Provost
of Chelsea College; and, at one time, chaplain in ordinary to King
Charles the First. Being puritanically inclined, Dr. Featley was
appointed, in 1643, to be one of the Assembly of Divines at
Westminster. As he was not one of the “root and branch” party, who were
for wholly changing the order of government, he soon fell under the
displeasure of the Long Parliament. Some of his correspondence with
Archbishop Usher, who was then with the King at Oxford, was
intercepted. In this correspondence, he expressed his scruples about
taking the “solemn league and covenant;” and for this, was unjustly
suspected of being a spy. He was cast into prison, and his rectories
were taken from him. The next year, on account of his failing health,
he was removed, agreeably to his petition, to Chelsea College. There,
after a few months spent in holy exercises, he expired, April 17th,
1645. “Though he was small of stature, yet he had a great soul, and had
all learning compacted in him.” He published some forty books and
treatises, and left a great many manuscripts. His other labors have
passed away; “but the word of the Lord,” which, as it is believed, he
aided in giving to unborn millions, “abideth for ever.”
Dr. Roger Fenton (1566-1616)
This clergyman was a native of Lancashire. He was Fellow of Pembroke
Hall, in Cambridge University. For many years, he was “the painful,
pious, learned, and beloved minister” of St. Stephen’s, Walbrook,
London, to which he was admitted in 1601. He was also presented by the
Queen to the Rectory of St. Bennet’s, Sherehog, which he resigned in
1606, for the vicarage of Chigwell, in Essex. He was also collated, in
place of Bishop Andrews, to the Prebendship of Pancras in St. Paul’s
cathedral, where he was Penitentiary of St. Paul’s. His prebendship of
Pancras also made him, (so Newcourt says,) Rector of that church. He
died January 16th, 1616, aged fifty years. He was buried under the
communion-table of St. Stephen’s, where there is a monument erected to
his memory by his parishioners, with an inscription expressing their
affection toward him as a pastor eminent for his piety and learning.
His principal publication is described as a “solid treatise” against
usury.
His most intimate friend was Dr. Nicholas Felton, another London
minister. The following singular incident is related of them by good
old Thomas Fuller; --”Once my own father gave Dr. Fenton a visit, who
excused himself from entertaining him any long. ‘Mr. Fuller,’ said he,
‘hear how the passing bell tolls, at this very instant, for my dear
friend, Dr. Felton, now a-dying. I must to my study, it being mutually
agreed upon betwixt us, in our healths, that the survivor of us should
preach the other’s funeral sermon.’ But see a strange change! God, ‘to
whom belong the issues of death,’ with the patriarch Jacob blessing his
grand-children, ‘wittingly guided his hands across,’ reaching out death
to the living, and life to the dying. So that Dr. Felton recovered, and
not only performed that last office to his friend, Dr. Fenton, but
survived him more than ten years, and died Bishop of Ely.” By that
funeral sermon, it appears that Dr. Fenton was free of the Grocers’
Company, a wealthy guild, to whom belonged the patronage of St.
Stephen’s Church. He was also Preacher of Gray’s Inn, a society or
college of lawyers. Bishop Felton says of him, --”None was fitter to
dive into the depths of school divinity. He was taken early from the
University, and had many troubles afterward; yet he grew and brought
forth fruit. Never a more learned hath Pembroke Hall brought forth,
with but one exception.” This nameless exception was doubtless the
great Bishop Lancelot Andrews. Dr. Fenton suffered severely in regard
to health, in consequence of his sedentary habits. “In the time of his
sickness,” says his friend, “I told him, that his weakness and disease
were trials only of his faith and patience.” Oh no, he answered, they
are not trials but corrections. * * Non probationes, sed castigationes.
Dr. John Harding
This divine was president in his company; a station which shews how
high he ranked among this brethren who knew him; though but little
relating to his character and history has come down to our times. The
offices filled by him were such as to confirm the opinion that his
learning and piety entitled him to the position he occupied in this
venerable society of scholars. At the time of his appointment to aid in
the translation of the Bible, he had been Royal Professor of Hebrew in
the University for thirteen years. His occupancy of that chair, at a
time when the study of sacred literature was pursued by thousands with
a zeal amounting to a passion, is a fair intimation that Dr. Harding
was the man for the post he occupied. When commissioned by the King to
take part in this version of the Scriptures, Dr. Harding was also
President of Magdalen College. He was at the same time rector of
Halsey, in Oxfordshire. The share which he, with his brethren,
performed, was, perhaps, the most difficult portion of the
translation-work. The skill and beauty with which it is accomplished
are a fair solution of the problem, “How, two languages being given,
the nearest approximation may be made in the second, to the expression
of ideas already conveyed through the medium of the first?”
Dr. John Harmer (1555-1613)
A native of Newbury, in Berkshire. He was educated in William de
Wykeham’s School at Winchester; and also at St. Mary’s College, founded
by the same munificent Wykeham at Oxford. “Manners make the man, quoth
William of Wykeham,” is a motto frequently inscribed on the buildings
of his School and College. Mr. Harmar became a Fellow of his College in
1574. He was appointed the King’s Professor of Greek in 1585, being, at
the time, in holy orders. He was head-master of Winchester School, for
nine years, and Warden of his College for seventeen years. He became
Doctor of Divinity in 1605. His death took place in 1613. He was a
considerable benefactor to the libraries both of the school and the
college of Wykeham’s foundation. For all his preferment he was indebted
tot he potent patronage of the Earl of Leicester. He accompanied that
nobleman to Paris, where he held several debates with the popish
Doctors of the Sorbonne. He stood high in the crowd of tall scholars,
the literary giants of the time. He published several learned works;
among them, Latin translations of several of Chrysostom’s
writings,--also an excellent translation of Beza’s French Sermons into
English, by which he shows himself to have been a Calvinist, the master
of an excellent English style, and an adept in the difficult art of
translating. Wood says, that he was “a most noted Latinist, Grecian,
and Divine;” and that he was “always accounted a most sold theologist,
admirable well read in the Fathers and Schoolmen, and in his younger
years a subtle Aristotelian,” Of him too it may be said, “having had a
principal hand in the Translation,” that he was worthy to rank with
those, who gave the Scriptures in their existing English form, to
untold millions, past, present, and to come.
Dr. Thomas Harrison
He had been student and Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge; and was
now Vice-Master of that important seminary. Thomas Fuller records the
following instance of his meekness and charity. “I remember when the
reverend Vice-Master of Trinity College in Cambridge was told that one
of the scholars had abused him in an oration. ‘Did he,’ said he, ‘name
me? Did he name Thomas Harrison?” And when it was returned that he
named him not,--’Then,’ said he, ‘I do not believe that he meant me.’”
We have a strong evidence of his reputation in the University in
another duty which was assigned him. “On account of his exquisite skill
in the Hebrew and Greek idioms, he was one of the chief examiners in
the University of those who sought to be public professors of these
languages.” * * Harrisonus Honoratus, etc. a C. Dalechampio. Cantab,
1632. P. 7.
Dr. Thomas Holland (1539-1612)
This good man was born at Ludlow, in Shropshire, in the year 1539. He
was educated at Exeter College, Oxford; and graduated in 1570, with
great applause. Three years after, he was made chaplain and Fellow of
Baliol College; and as Anthony Wood says, was “another Apollos, mighty
in the Scriptures,”--also “ a solid preacher, a most noted disputant,
and a most learned divine.” He was made Doctor in Divinity in 1584. The
next year, when Robert Dudley, the famous Earl of Leicester, was sent
as governor of the Netherlands, then just emancipated from the Spanish
yoke, Dr. Holland went with him in the capacity of chaplain. In 1589,
he succeeded the celebrated Dr. Lawrence Humphrey as the King’s
Professor of Divinity, a duty for which he was eminently qualified, and
which he trained up many distinguished scholars. He was elected Rector
of Exeter College in 1592; an office he filled with great reputation
for twenty years, being regarded as a universal scholar, and a prodigy
of literature. His reputation extended to the continent, and he was
held in high esteem in the universities of Europe. These were the
leading events in his studious life. As to his character, he was a man
of ardent piety, a thorough Calvinist in doctrine, and a decided
non-conforming Puritan in matters of ceremony and church- discipline.
In the public University debates, he staunchly maintained that “bishops
are not a distinct order from presbyters, nor at all superior to them
by the Word of God.” He stoutly resisted the popish innovations which
Bancroft and Laud strove too successfully to introduce at Oxford. When
the execrable Laud, afterwards the odious Archbishop of Canterbury, was
going through his exercises as candidate for the degree of Bachelor in
Divinity, in 1604, he contended “that there could be no true churches
without diocesan episcopacy.” For this, the young aspirant was sharply
and publicly rebuked by Dr. Holland, who presided on the occasion; and
who severely reprehended that future Primate of all England, as “one
who sought to sow discord among brethren, and between the Church of
England and the Reformed Churches abroad.” As a preacher, Dr. Holland
was earnest and solemn. His extemporary discourses were usually better
than his more elaborate preparations. As a student, it was sad of him,
that he was so “immersed in books,” that this propensity swallowed up
almost every other. In the translation of our Bible he took a very
prominent part. This was the crowning work of his life. He died March
16th, 1612, a few months after this most important version was
completed and published. He attained to the age of seventy-three years.
The translation being finished, he spent most of his time in meditation
and prayer. Sickness and the infirmities of age quickened into greater
life his desires for heaven. In the hour of his departure he
exclaimed,--”Come, Oh come, Lord Jesus, thou bright and morning star!
Come Lord Jesus; I desire to be dissolved and be with thee.”
He was buried with great funeral solemnities in the chancel of St.
Mary’s, Oxford. One of his intimate associates and fellow-translators,
Dr. Kilby, preached his funeral sermon. In this sermon it is said of
him,--”that he had a wonderful knowledge of all the learned languages,
and of all arts and sciences, both human and divine. He was mighty in
the Scriptures; and so familiarly acquainted with the Fathers, as if he
himself had been one of them; and so versed in the Schoolmen, as if he
were the Seraphic Doctor. He was, therefore, most worthy of the
divinity-chair, which he filled about twenty years, with distinguished
approbation and applause. He was so celebrated for his preaching,
reading, disputing, moderating, and all other excellent qualifications,
that all who knew him commended him, and all who heard of him admired
him.” In illustration of his zeal for purity in faith and worship, and
against all superstition and idolatry, the same sermon informs us,
that, whenever he took a journey, he first called together the Fellows
of his College, for his parting charge, which always ended thus,--”I
commend you to the love of God, and to the hatred of all popery and
superstition!” * He published several learned orations and one sermon.
He left many manuscripts ready for the press; but as they fell into
hands unfriendly to the Puritanism they contained, they were never
published. * Commendo vos dilectioni Dei, et odio papatus et
superstitionis.
Dr. Ralph Hutchinson
Dr. Hutchinson, at the time of his appointment, was President of St.
John’s College, having entered that office in 1590. This, which marks
him as a learned man, is all we can tell of him.
Dr. Leonard Hutten (1560-1632)
This divine was bred at Westminster School, from whence he was elected,
on the score of merit, to be a student of Christ’s Church, one of the
Oxford colleges, in 1574. He there devoted himself, with unwearied
zeal, to the pursuit of academical learning in all its branches. He
took orders in due time, and became a frequent preacher. In 1599, at
which time he was a Bachelor in Divinity of some eight years’ standing,
and also Vicar of Flower in Northamptonshire, he was installed canon of
Christ’s Church. He was well known as an “excellent Grecian,” and an
elegant scholar. He was well versed in the fathers, the schoolmen, and
the learned languages, which were the favorite studies of that day; and
he also investigated with care the history of his own nation. In his
predilection for this last study he shewed good sense, “seeing,” as an
old writer has it, “history, like unto good men’s charity, is , though
not to end, yet to begin, at home, and thence to make its methodical
progress into foreign parts.” Of Dr. Hutten it is expressly stated by
Wood, that “he had a hand in the translation of the Bible.” He died May
17th, 1632, aged seventy-two.
Dr. Richard Kilby (1560-1620)
Among those grave and erudite divines to whom all the generations which
have read the Bible in the English tongue are so greatly indebted, a
place is duly assigned to Dr. Richard Kilby. He was a native of
Radcliff on the river Wreak, in Liecestershire. He went to Oxford; and
when he had been at the University three years, was chosen Fellow of
Lincoln College, in 1577. He took orders, and became a preacher of note
in the University. In 1590, he was chosen Rector of his College, and
made Prebendary of the cathedral church of Lincoln. He was considered
so accurate in Hebrew studies, that he was appointed the King’s
Professor in that branch of literature. Among the fruits of his
studies, he left a commentary on Exodus, chiefly drawn from the
writings of the Rabbinical interpreters. He died in the year 1620, at
the age of sixty. These are nearly all the vestiges remaining of him.
There is one incident, however, related by “honest Izaak Walton,” in
his life of the celebrated Bishop Sanderson. The incident, as described
by the amiable angler, is such a fine historical picture of the times,
and so apposite to the purpose of this little volume, that it must be
given in Walton’s own words. “I must here stop my reader, and tell him
that this Dr. Kilby was a man of so great learning and wisdom, and so
excellent a critic in the Hebrew tongue, that he was made professor of
it in this University; and was also so perfect a Grecian, that he was
by King James appointed to be one of the translators of the Bible; and
that this Doctor and Mr. Sanderson had frequent discourses, and loved
as father and son.
The Doctor was to ride a journey into Derbyshire, and took Mr.
Sanderson to bear him company; and they, resting on a Sunday with the
Doctor’s friend, and going together to that parish church where they
then were, found the young preacher to have no more discretion, than to
waste a great part of the hour allotted for his sermon in exceptions
against the late translation of several words, (not expecting such a
hearer as Dr. Kilby,) and shewed three reasons why a particular word
should have been otherwise translated. When evening prayer was ended,
the preacher was invited to the Doctor’s friend’s house, where, after
some other conference, the Doctor told him, he might have preached more
useful doctrine, and not have filled his auditors’ ears with needless
exceptions against the late translation; and for that word for which he
offered to that poor congregation three reasons why it ought to have
been translated as he said, he and others had considered all them, and
found thirteen more considerable reasons why it was translated as now
printed; and told him, ‘If his friend,’ (then attending him,) ‘should
prove guilty of such indiscretion, he should forfeit his favor.’ To
which Mr. Sanderson said, ‘He hoped he should not.’ And the preacher
was so ingenuous to say, ‘He would not justify himself.’ And so I
return to Oxford.” This digression of honest Izaac’s pen may serve to
illustrate the magisterial bearing of the “heads of colleges,” and
other great divines of those times; and also, what has now become much
rarer, the humility and submissiveness of the younger brethren.
It also furnishes an incidental proof of the considerate and patient
care with which our venerable Translators studied the verbal accuracy
of their work. When we hear young licentiates, green from the seminary,
displaying their smatterings of Hebrew and Greek by cavilling in their
sermons at the common version, and pompously telling how it out to have
been rendered, we cannot but wish that the apparition of Dr. Kilby’s
frowning ghost might haunt them. Doubtless the translation is
susceptible of improvement in certain places; but this is not a task
for every new-fledged graduate; nor can it be very often attempted
without shaking the confidence of the common people in our unsurpassed
version, and without causing “the trumpet to give an uncertain sound.”
Geoffry King
Mr. King was Fellow of King's College, Cambridge. It is a fair token of
his fitness to take part in this translation-work, that he succeeded
Mr. Spaulding, another of these Translators, as Regius Professor of
Hebrew in that University. Men were not appointed in those days to such
duties of instruction, with the expectation that they would qualify
themselves after their induction into office. * * The late Professor
Stuart was wont jocularly to say, that, when he was appointed Hebrew
professor at Andover, all he knew of the language was that ash' rai
meant blessed, and ha-ish meant the man! Psalm 1:1
Dr. John Laifield (d. 1617)
Dr. Laifield was Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Rector of
the Church of St. Clement's, Dane's, in London. Of him it is said,
"that being skilled in architecture, his judgment was much relied on
for the fabric of the tabernacle and temple." He died at his rectory in
1617. Few things are more difficult, than the giving of architectural
details in such a manner as to be intelligible to the unprofessional
reader.
Edward Lively (1545-1605)
He is commemorated as "one of the best linguists in the world." He was
a student, and afterwards a fellow, of Trinity College, Cambridge, and
King's Professor of Hebrew. He was actively employed in the preliminary
arrangements for the Translation, and appears to have stood high in the
confidence of the King. Much dependence was placed on his surpassing
skill in the oriental tongues. But his death, which took place in May,
1605, disappointed all such expectations; and is said to have
considerably retarded the commencement of the work. Some say that his
death was hastened by his too close attention to the necessary
preliminaries. His stipend had been but small, and after many troubles,
and the loss of his wife, the mother of a numerous family, he was well
provided for by Dr. Barlow, that he might be enabled to devote himself
to the business of the great Translation. He died of a quinsy*, after
four days' illness, leaving eleven orphans, "destitute of necessities
for their maintenance, but only such as God, and good friends, should
provide." He was author of a Latin exposition of five of the minor
Prophets, and of a work on chronology. Dr. Pusey, of Oxford, says, that
Lively, "whom Popcoke never mentions but with great respect, was
probably, next to Popcoke, the greatest of our Hebraists."
*Quinsy - an abscess in the tissue around a tonsil usually resulting
from bacterial infection and often accompanied by pain and fever
Dr. John Overall (1559-1619)
This divine is the next on the list of three good men, of whom the
marginal comment in the Popish translation says,--"They will be
abhorred in the depths of hell!" They may be abhorred there, bnt, after
a while no where else. He was born in 1559, at Hadley, and was bred in
the free school at that place. He lived through the whole of that happy
period, which many, beside the old bard of Rydal Mount, regard as the
best days of old England, "When faith and hope were in their prime, In
great Eliza's golden time." In due season, he was entered as a scholar
at St. John's College, Cambridge. He was next chosen Fellow of Trinity
College, in the same University. In 1596, he was made King's Professor
of Divinity; and at the same time took his doctor's degree, being about
thirty-seven years of age. It is noted of this eminent theologian by
Bishop Hacket, that it was his custom to ground his theses in the
schools on two or three texts of Scripture, shewing what latitude of
opinion or interpretation was admissible upon the point in hand.
He was celebrated for the appropriateness of his quotations from the
Fathers. He was soon after made Master of Catharine Hall very much
against his will. To end a bitter contention in regard to two rival
candidates, he was elected, if election it could be called, under the
Queen's absolute mandate. When Archbishop Whitgift wished the new
Master "joy of his place", the latter replied that it was "terminus
diminuens;" which is Latin for "an Irish promotion," or a "hoist down
hill." But his Grace, in the true spirit of a courtier "all of the
olden time," told the dissatisfied Professor, that "if the injuries,
much more the less courtesies, of princes must be thankfully taken, as
the ushers to make way for greater favors." These appointments must be
taken as full proof of Dr. Overall's superior scholarship in that
learned age, when such preferments were only won by dint of the
severest application to study. In 1601, on the recommendation of Lord
Brooke, that noble friend and patron of men of learning and genius, Dr.
Overall was made Dean of St. Paul's, in London. It may be doubted
whether this studious recluse, absorbed in deep studies, shone with his
brightest lustre in the pulpit. "Being appointed," says Thomas Fuller,
"to preach before the Queen, he professed to my father, who was most
intimate with him, that he had spoken Latin so long, it was troublesome
to him to speak English in a continued oration." Soon after the throne
was filled by James the First, whom that accomplished statesman, the
Duke of Sully, called "the most learned fool in Europe," the
Convocation, or parliament of the clergy came together.
Dr. Overall was prolocutor, or speaker, of the lower house of
Convocation. To this body he presented a volume of canons, the only
book from his pen now extant. Its object was to vindicate the divine
right of government. But though it was adopted by the Convocation, the
King prevented the publication of the book at that time, because it
taught, that when, after a revolution or conquest, a new government or
dynasty was firmly established, this also, in its turn, could plead for
itself a divine right, and could claim the obedience of the people as a
matter of duty toward God. This "Convocation Book," now so long
forgotten, was printed many years after the death of "King Jamie;" and
obtained some historical and political celebrity, because it had the
very effect which was apprehended by the monarch who suppressed it. For
when his grandson, James the Second, was expelled from the soil and
throne of England, many bishops and other clergymen, called
"non-jurors," refused through conscientious scruples, to swear
allegiance to the new government of William and Mary. Bishop Sherlock
and many others, who at first declined the oath, professed to be
converted from that error by the reading of Dr. Overall's book. But
conversions so favorable to thrift are apt to be held in suspicion. Dr.
Overall was the author of the questions and answers relating to the
sacraments, which have been much admired, by the ablest judges of such
matters, and which were subjoined to the Catechism of the Church of
England, in the first year of James the First.
It was while he was Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral, that he was joined in
the commission, the highest of his honors, for translating the Bible.
Though long familiarity with other languages may have made him somewhat
inapt for continuous public discourse in his mother-tongue, he was
thereby the better fitted to discern the sense of the sacred original.
He was styled by Camden "a prodigious learned man;" and is said by
Fuller to have been "of a strong brain to improve his great reading."
John Overall, who "carried superintendency in his surname," was made
Bishop of Litchfield and Coventry, in 1614. Four years later he was
transferred to the see of Norwich, where, in a few months, he died, at
the age of sixty years. This was in 1619. He frequently had in his
mouth the words of the Psalmist,--"When thou with rebukes dost correct
man for iniquity, thou makest his beauty to consume away like a moth;
surely every man is vanity." In his later years, he was unhappily
inclined to Arminianism. He was a correspondent of Vossius and Grotius,
and other famous scholars on the continent. He was greatly addicted to
the scholastic theology, now so much decried. Since the days of Bacon
the schoolmen have been much depreciated, because there was so little
practical fruit of their studies. And yet there was something wonderful
in the keenness and subtlety of their disputes; though it is lawful to
smile at the excess of logical refinement which subdivided the stream
of their genius into a ramification of rills, absorbed at last in the
dry desert of metaphysics. One of them is highly praised by Cardan,
"for that only one of his arguments was enough to puzzle all posterity;
and that when he was grown old, he wept because he could not understand
his own books." We can conceive, however, that the refinement of the
schoolmen as to precise definitions, and nicer shades of thought, might
be a valuable quality in some, at least, of the company of Translators.
Dr. John Peryn
Dr. Peryn was of St. John’s College, Oxford, where he was elected
Fellow in 1575. He was the King’s Professor of Greek in the University;
and afterwards Canon of Christ’s Church. He was created Doctor of
Divinity in 1596. When placed in the commission to translate the Bible,
he was Vicar of Watling in Sussex. His death took place May 9th, 1615.
These scanty items may serve to show, that he was fit to take part,
with his learned and reverend brethren, in preparing our English Bible
for the press.
Michael Rabbet
All we can tell of him is, that he was a Bachelor in Divinity, and
Rector of the Church of St. Vedast, Foster Lane, London.
Dr. Jeremiah Radcliffe
Dr. Radcliffe was one of the Senior Fellows of Trinity College,
Cambridge. In 1588, he was Vicar of Evesham; and two years later, he
was Rector of Orwell. He was Vice-Master of his College in 1597. In the
year 1600, he was made Doctor in Divinity, both at Cambridge and
Oxford. Thus he, too, is to be ranked as a scholar and a divine by
calling. His death took place in 1612.
Dr. John Reynolds (Rainolds) (1549-1607)
This famous divine, though he died in the course of the good work,
deserves especial mention, because it was by his means that the good
work itself was undertaken. He was born in Penhoe, in Devonshire, in
the year 1549. He entered the University at the age of thirteen, and
spent all his days within its precincts. Though he at first entered
Merton College in 1562, he was chiefly bred at Corpus Christi, which he
entered the next year, and where he became a Fellow in 1566, at the
early age of seventeen. Six years later he was made Greek Lecturer in
his college, which was proud of the early ripeness of his powers. About
this time occurred one of the most singular events in the history of
religious controversy. John Reynolds was a zealous papist. His brother
William, who was his fellow-student, was equally zealous for
protestantism. Each, in fraternal anxiety for the salvation of a
brother’s south, labored for the conversion of the other; and each of
them was successful! As the result of long conference and disputation,
William became an inveterate papist, and so lived and died. While John
became a decided protestant of the Puritan stamp, and continued to his
death to be a vigorous champion of the Reformation.
From the time of his conversion, he was a most able and successful
preacher of God’s word. Having very greatly distinguished himself in
the year 1578, as a debater in the theological discussions, or
“divinity-acts” of the University, he was drawn into the popish
controversy. Determined to explore the whole field, and make himself
master of the subject, he devoted himself to the study of the
Scriptures in the original tongues, and read all the Greek and Latin
fathers, and all the ancient records of the Church. Nor did this flood
of reading roll out of his mind as fast as it poured in. It is stated
that “his memory was little less than miraculous. He could readily turn
to any material passage, in every leaf, page, column and paragraph of
the numerous and voluminous works he had read.” He came to be styled
“the very treasury of erudition;” and was spoken of as “a living
library, and a third university.” About the year 1578, John Hart, a
popish zealot, challenged all the learned men in the nation to a public
debate. At the solicitation of one of Queen Elizabeth’s privy
counsellors, Mr. Reynolds encountered him. After several combats, the
Romish champion owned himself driven from the field. An account of the
conferences, subscribed by both parties, was published, and widely
circulated. This added greatly to the reputation of Mr. Reynolds, who
soon after took his degrees in divinity, and was appointed by the Queen
to be Royal Professor of Divinity in the University.
At that time, the celebrated Cardinal Bellarmine, the Goliath of the
Philistines at Rome, was professor of theology in the English Seminary
at that city. As fast as he delivered his popish doctrine, it was taken
down in writing, and regularly sent to Dr. Reynolds; who, from time to
time, publicly confuted it at Oxford. Thus Bellarmine’s books were
answered, even before thy were printed. It is said, that Reynolds’
professorship was founded by the royal bounty for the express purpose
of strengthening the Church of England against the Church of Rome, and
of widening the breach between them; and that Dr. Reynolds was first
placed in the chair, on that account, because of his strenuous
opposition to the corruptions of Rome. “Oxford divines,” at that
period, were of a very different stamp from their Puseyite successors
in our day. But even at Oxford, there are faithful witnesses for the
truth. Dr. Hampden, whose appointment to the bishopric of Hereford, a
few years since, raised such a storm of opposition from the Romanizing
prelates and clergy, was for many years a worthy successor of Dr.
Reynolds, in the chair which was endowed so long ago for maintaining
the Church of England against the usurpations of Rome. Yet even so long
ago, and ever since, there were persons there whose sentiments
resembled what is now called by the sublime title of Puseyism.
The first reformers of the English Church held, as Archbishop Whately
does now, that the primitive church-government was highly popular in
its character. But they held that neither this, nor any other form of
discipline, was divinely ordained, for perpetual observance. They
considered it to be the prerogative of the civil government, in a
Christian land, to regulate these matters, and to organize the Church,
as it would the army, or the judiciary and police, with a view to the
greatest efficiency according to the state of circumstances. They held
that all good subjects were religiously bound to conform to the
arrangements thus made. These views are what is commonly called
Erastianism. The claim of a “divine right” was first advanced in
England in behalf of Presbyterianism. It was very strenuously asserted
by the learned and long-suffering Cartwright. Some of the Episcopal
divines soon took the hint, and set up the same claim in behalf of
their order; though, at first, it sounded strange even to their own
brethren. * Dr. Bancroft, Archbishop Whitgift’s chaplain, and his
successor in the see of Canterbury, maintained in a sermon, preached
January 12th, 1588, that “bishops were a distinct order from priests;
and that they had a superiority over them by divine right, and directly
from God.” This startling doctrine produced a great excitement. Sir
Francis Knollys, one of Queen Elizabeth’s distinguished statesmen,
remonstrated warmly with Whitgift against it. In a letter to Sir
Francis, who had requested his opinion, Dr. Reynolds observes, --”All
who have labored in reforming the Church, for five hundred years, have
taught that all pastors, whether they are entitled bishops or priests,
have equal authority and power by God’s word; as the Waldenses, next
Marsilius Patavinus, then Wiclif and his scholars, afterwards Huss and
the Hussites; and Luther, Calvin, Brentius, Bullinger, and Musculus.
Among ourselves, we have bishops, the Queen’s professors of divinity,
and other learned men, as Bradford, Lambert, Jewell, Pilkington,
Humphrey, Fulke, &c. But why do I speak of particular persons? It
is the opinion of the Reformed Churches of Helvetia, Savoy, France,
Scotland, Germany, Hungary, Poland, the Low Countries, and our own. I
hope Dr. Bancroft will not say, that all these have approved that for
sound doctrine, which was condemned by the general consent of the whole
church as heresy, in the most flourishing time. I hope he will
acknowledge that he was overseen, when he announced the superiority of
bishops over the rest of the clergy to be God’s won ordinance.” Good
Dr. Reynold’s charitable hopes, though backed by such an overwhelming
array of authorities, were doomed to be disappointed. Bancroft’s novel
doctrine has been in fashion ever since. Still there are not wanting
many who soundly hold, in the words of Reynolds, that “unto us
Christians, no land is strange, no ground unholy; every coast is Jewry,
every town Jerusalem, every house Sion; and every faithful company,
yea, every faithful body, a temple to serve God in. The presence of
Christ among two or three, gathered together in his name, maketh any
place a church, even as the presence of a king with his attendants
maketh any place a court.” Notwithstanding that Elizabeth was no lover
of men puritanically inclined, she felt constrained to notice the
eminent gifts and services of Dr. Reynolds. In 1598, she made him Dean
of Lincoln, and offered him a bishopric.
The latter dignity he meekly refused, preferring his studious
academical life to the wealth and honors of any such ecclesiastical
station. It is supposed, however, that conscientious scruples had much
to do with his declining the prelatic office. He resigned his deanery
in less than a year, and also the Mastership of Queen’s College, which
latter post he had for some time occupied. He was then chosen President
of Corpus Christi College, in which office he was exceedingly active
and useful till his death. This College had long been badly infested
with papistry. The presidency being vacant in 1568, the Queen sent
letters to the Fellows, calling upon them to make choice of Dr. William
Cole, who had been one of the exiles in the time of Queen Mary. The
Fellows, however, made choice of Robert Harrison, formerly one of their
number, but an open Romanist. The Queen pronounced this election void,
and commanded them to elect Cole. On their refusal, Dr. Horn, Bishop of
Winchester, the Visitor of the College, was sent to induct Cole; which
he did, but not till he had forced the College-gates. A commission,
appointed by the Queen, expelled three of the most notorious papists.
As might have been expected, there was but little harmony in that
society. In 1579, Dr. Reynolds was expelled from his College, together
with his pupil, the renowned Richard Hooker, author of the
“Ecclesiastical Polity,” and three others. On what ground this was done
is not known. It was the act of Dr. John Barfoote, then Vice-President
of the College, and Chaplain to the potent Earl of Warwick.
In less than a month, the expelled members were fully restored by the
agency of Secretary Walsingham. In 1586, this Sir Francis Walsingham
offered a stipend for a lectureship on controversial divinity, for the
purpose, as Heylin, that rabid Laudian, says, of making “the religion
of the Church of Rome more odious.” Dr. Reynolds accepted this
lectureship, and for that purposed resigned his fellowship in the
College; “dissentions and factions there,” as he says, “having made him
weary of the place.” He retired to Queen’s College, and was Master
there, till, as has been stated, he became President of Corpus Christi
in 1598, on the resignation of Dr. Cole. Dr. Barfoote struggled hard to
secure the post; but by the firm procedure of that “so noble and worthy
knight Sir Francis Walsingham,” Dr. Reynolds carried the day. King
James appointed him, in 1603, to be one of the four divines who should
represent the Puritan interest at the Hampton Court Conference. Here he
was almost the only speaker on his side of the question; and confronted
the King and Primate, with eight bishops, and as many deans. The
records of what took place are wholly from the pens of his adversaries,
who are careful that he should not appear to any great advantage. It is
manifest from their own account, that, in this “mock conference,” as
Rapin calls it, the Puritans were so overborne with kingly insolence
and prelatic pride, that, finding it of no use to attempt any replies,
they held their peace.
In fact, the whole affair was merely got up to give the King, who had
newly come to the throne of England, an opportunity to declare himself
as to the line of ecclesiastical policy he meant to pursue. The only
good that resulted from this oppressive and insulting conference was
our present admirable translation of the Bible. The King scornfully
rejected nearly every other request of the Puritans; ** but, at the
entreaty of Dr. Reynolds, consented that there should be a new and more
accurate translation, prepared under the royal sanction. The next year
Dr. Reynolds was put upon the list of Translators, on account of his
well known kill in the Hebrew and Greek. He labored in the work with
zeal, bringing all his vast acquisitions to aid in accomplishing the
task, though he did not live to see it completed. In the progress of
it, he was seized with consumption, yet he continued his assistance to
the last. During his decline, the company to which he belonged met
regularly every week in his chamber, to compare and perfect what he had
done in their private studies. Thus he ended his days like Venerable
Bede; and “was employed in translating the Word of Life, even till he
himself was translated to life everlasting.” His days were thought to
be shortened by too intense application to study. But when urged by
friends to desist, he would reply,--”Non propter vitam, vivendi perdere
causas,”--for the sake of life, he would not lose the very end of
living! During his sickness, his time was wholly taken up in prayer,
and in hearing and translating the Scriptures. The papists started a
report, that their famous opposer had recanted his protestant
sentiments. He was much grieved at hearing the rumor; but being too
feeble to speak, set his name to the following declaration,--”These are
to testify to all the world, that I die in the possession of that faith
which I have taught all my life, both in my preachings and in my
writings, with an assured hope of my salvation, only by the merits of
Christ my Saviour.”
The next day, May 21st, 1607, he expired in the sixty-eighth year of
his age. He was buried in the chapel of his College, with great
solemnity and academic pomp, and the general lamentation of good men.
His industry and piety are largely attested by his numerous writings,
which long continued in high esteem. Old Anthony Wood, though so
cynical toward all Puritans, says of him, that he was “most
prodigiously seen in all kinds of learning; most excellent in all
tongues.” “He was a prodigy in reading,” adds Anthony, “famous in
doctrine, and the very treasury of erudition; and in a word, nothing
can be spoken against him, only that he was the pillar of Puritanism,
and the grand favorer of non-conformity.” Dr. Crackenthorpe, his
intimate acquaintance, though a zealous churchman, gives this account
of him,--”He turned over all writers, profane, ecclesiastical, and
divine; and all the councils, fathers, and histories of the Church. He
was more excellent in all tongues useful or ornamental to a divine. He
had a sharp and ready wit, a grave and mature judgment, and was
indefatigably industrious. He was so well skilled in all arts and
sciences, as if he had spent his whole life in each of them. And as to
virtue, integrity, piety, and sanctity of life, he was so eminent and
conspicuous, that to name Reynolds is to commend virtue itself.” From
other testimonies of a like character, let the following be given, from
the celebrated Bishop Hall of Norwich,--”He alone was a well-furnished
library, full of all faculties, all studies, and all learning. The
memory and reading of that man were near to a miracle.” Such was one of
the worthies in that noble company of Translators.
Nothing can tend more to inspire confidence in their version than the
knowledge of their immense acquirements, almost incredible to the
superficial scholars in this age of smatterers, sciolists, and
pretenders. How much more to be coveted is the accumulation of
knowledge, and the dispensing of its riches to numerous generations,
than the amassing of money, and the bequeathing of hoarded wealth. Who
would not choose the Christian erudition of an Andrews or a Reynolds,
rather than the millions of Astor or Girard? * “Dr. Peter Heylin,
preaching at Westminster Abbey, before Bishop Williams, accused the
non-conformists of ‘putting all into open tumult, rather than conform
to the lawful government derived from Christ and his apostles.’ At
this, the Bishop, sitting in the great pew, knocked aloud with his
staff on the pulpit, saying, --’No more of that point! no more of that
point, Peter!’ To whom Heylin answered, --’I have a little more to say,
my lord, and then I have done:’--and so finished his subject.” --BIOG.
BRIT. IV. 2597. Ed. 1747. ** Their requests were very reasonable, viz.:
1. “That the doctrine of the Church might be preserved pure, according
to God’s word. 2. That good pastors might be planted in all churches,
to preach the same. 3. That church government might be sincerely
ministered, according to God’s word. 4. That the book of Common Prayer
might be fitted to more increase of piety.”
Dr. Ralph Ravens
This was the Vicar of Eyston Magna, who was made Doctor of Divinity in
1595. He died in 1616. It is thought that he did not act, for some
reason, under the King’s commission; and that Doctors Aglionby and
Hutten were appointed in place of him, and of Eedes, who died before
the work was begun.
Dr. Thomas Ravis (1560-1609)
This person, the president of his company, was born of worthy
parentage, at Malden, in the County of Surrey. He was bred at
Westminster School; and then entered, in 1575, as student of Christ’s
Church, one of the Oxford Colleges. As it is a matter of some interest,
shewing that he went through an extensive course of study, the dates of
his various degrees will be given. In 1578, he graduated as Bachelor of
Arts; in 1581, he proceeded as Master of Arts; in 1589, he became
Bachelor in Divinity; and in 1595, he was made Doctor in Divinity. The
successive degrees of the greater part of the persons belonging to the
list of Translators could be given; but are omitted for the sake of
brevity. It is enough to record, that they nearly all attained to the
highest literary honors of their respective universities. Dr. Ravis, in
1591, was appointed rector of the Church of All-hallows, Barking, in
London. The next year, he became Canon of Westminster, and occupied the
seventh stall in that church.
Two years later, he was chosen Dean of Christ’s Church College. He was
also, in 1596 and the year following, elected Vice-Chancellor of the
University. In 1598, he exchanged his benefice at All- hallows Church
for the rectory of Islip. He also held the Wittenham Abbey Church, in
Berkshire. All these preferments and profitable livings mark him as a
rising man. His holding a plurality of churches for the sake of their
revenues, in neither of which he could perform the duties of the
pastoral office, was one of the main cases that justified the complaint
of the Lord Chancellor Ellesmere, at the Conference in Hampton Court.
His lordship complained of this practice, as occasioning many learned
men at the universities to pine for want of places, while others had
more than they could fill. “I wish, therefore,” said he, “that some may
have single coats, or one living, before others have doublets, or
pluralities.” To this, the frugal Bancroft, then Bishop of London, who
kept his own ribs thoroughly warmed with such investitures, made the
thrifty reply,-- ”But a doublet is necessary in cold weather!” This
prelate, a fierce persecutor of Puritans, was reputed to have
manifested very little “saving grace,” except in the way of penurious
hoardings. The graceless wags of his day made this epitaph upon him;
“Here lies his Grace, in cold clay clad, Who died for want of what he
had!”
The pernicious custom of pluralities, whereby a man receives tithes for
the care of souls of which he takes no care, fleecing the flock he
neither watches nor feeds, is one of those abuses still continued in
the Church of England, and calling for thorough reform. In 1604, soon
after Dr. Ravis was commissioned as one of the Bible-translators, the
Lords of the Council requested his acceptance of the bishopric of
Gloucester, for which there were very many eager suitors. Three years
later, he was translated to the bishopric of London. Anthony Wood says,
that he was first preferred to the see of Gloucester, which he
reluctantly accepted, on account of his great learning, gravity, and
prudence; and that though his diocese “was pretty well stocked with
those who could not bear the name of a bishop, yet, by his episcopal
living among them, he obtained their love, and a good report from
them.” If he deserved this commendation while at Gloucester, he changed
for the worse on his translation to London, where he not only succeeded
the biter Bancroft in his office, but also in his severe and exacting
behavior. So true is the remark, that “bishops and books are seldom the
better for being translated.” No sooner had he taken his seat in
London, than he stretched forth his hand to vex the non- conforming
Puritans. Among others, he cited before him that holly and blessed man,
Richard Rogers, for nearly fifty years the faithful minister of
Weathersfield, than whom, it is said, “the Lord honored none more in
the conversion of souls.” In the presence of this venerable man, who,
for his close walking with God, was styled the Enoch of his day, Bishop
Ravis protested,--”By the help of Jesus, I will not leave on preacher
in my diocese, who doth not subscribe and conform.” The poor prelate
was doomed to be disappointed; as he died, before his task was well
begun, on the 14th of December 1609. On account of his high offices,
and his dying before the translation was completed, it is not probably
that he took so active a part in that business as some of his
colleagues. Though too much carried away by a zeal for the forms of his
Church, which was neither according to knowledge nor charity, he lived
and died in deserved respect, and hath a fair monument still standing
in his cathedral of St. Paul’s.
Dr. John Richardson
This profound divine was born at Linton, in Cambridgeshire. He was
first Fellow of Emanuel College, then Master of Peterhouse from 1608 to
1615; and next master of Trinity College. He was also King's Professor
of Divinity. He was chosen Vice-Chancellor of the University in 1617,
and again in 1618. He died in 1625, and was buried in Trinity College
Chapel. He left a bequest of one hundred pounds to Peterhouse. He was
noted as a "most excellent linguist," as every good theologian must be;
for, as Coleridge says, "language is the armory of the human mind; and
at once contains the trophies of its past, and the weapons of its
future conquests." In those days, it was the custom, at seats of
learning, for the ablest men to hold public disputes, in the Latin
tongue, with a view to display their skill in the weapons of logic, and
"the dialectic fence." As the ancient knights delighted to display and
exercise their skill and strength in running at tilt, and amicably
breaking spears with one another; so the great scholars used to cope
with each other in the arena of public argument, and strive for
literary "masteries."
Those scholastic tournaments were sure to be got up whenever the halls
of science were visited by the king, or some chief magnate of the land;
and the logical conflicts, always conducted in the Latin tongue, were
attended with as much absorbing interest as were the shows of
gladiators among the Romans. On such an occasion, when James the First
was visiting Cambridge, "an extraordinary act in divinity was kept for
His Majesty's entertainment. Dr. John Davenant, a famous man, and
afterwards Bishop of Salisbury, was "respondent." His business was to
meet all comers, who might choose to assail the point he was to
defend,--namely, that kings might never be excommunicated. Well did Dr.
Davenant urge the wordy war, till our Dr. Richardson pushed him
tremendously with the example of Ambrose, the famous Bishop of Milan,
who, to the admiration of the whole Christian world, excommunicated the
emperor Theodosius the Great. Here was a poser! King James, who was
always very nervous on the subject of regal prerogative, saw that his
champion was staggering under that stunning fact; and, to save him,
cried out in a passion,--"Verily, this was a great piece of insolence
on the part of Ambrose!" * To this, Dr. Richardson calmly rejoined,--
"A truly royal response, and worthy of Alexander! This is cutting our
knotty arguments, instead of untying them." ** And so taking his seat,
he desisted from further discussion. The mild dignity of this
remonstrance, in which independence and submission are happily
combined, presents him in such a light as to constrain us to regret
that this detached incident is about all we know of the personal
character of the man. We can readily believe that he was a wise and
faithful, as well as learned, Translator of the Book of God. * Profecto
fuit hoc ab Ambrosio insolentissime factum. ** Responsum vere regium,
et Alexandro dignum; hoc est non argumenta dissolvere, sed desecare.
Dr. Thomas Sanderson
The bare name is all that is left to us with any certainty. Wood
mentions a Thomas Sanderson, D. D., of Baliol College, Oxford, who was
installed Archdeacon of Rochester in 1601; but does not say whether he
was one of our Translators.
Dr. Hadrian Saravia (1530-1612)
This noted scholar was a Belgian by birth. His father was a Spaniard,
his mother was a Belgian, and both were Protestants. He was born in
1530, at Hedin in Artois. Of his early life no notices have reached us.
He was, for some years, a pastor both in Flanders and Holland. He was,
in his principles, a terrible high- church-man; and seems, from his
zeal for the divine right of episcopacy, to have had some trouble with
his colleagues and the magistrates at Ghent, where he was one of the
ministers in 1566. From that place he retired to England. He was sent
by Queen Elizabeth's Council as a sort of missionary to the islands of
Guernsey and Jersey, where he was one of the first Protestant
ministers; knowing, as he says of himself, in a letter, "which were the
beginnings, and by what means and occasions the preaching of God's word
was planted there." He labored there in a twofold capacity, doing the
work of an evangelist, and conducting a newly established school,
called Elizabeth College. From his island-home, he was recalled to the
continent by the Belgian churches, in 1577. He was invited to become
Professor of Divinity at the University of Leyden, in 1582; and soon
after was also made preacher of the French Church in that city. In 1587
he came to England with the Earl of Leicester, and became master of the
grammar- school in Southampton, where, in the course of a few years, he
trained many distinguished pupils.
His zeal for episcopacy led him to publish several Latin treatises
against Beza, Danaeus, and other Presbyterians. He also published a
treatise on papal primacy against the Jesuit Gretser. All his
publications relate to such matters, and were collected into a folio
edition, in the year 1611. They are still highly praised by the "Oxford
divines," who have given occasion to Macauley to say, in his caustic
style,--"The glory of being further behind the age than any other class
of the British people, is one which that learned body acquired early,
and has never lost." In 1590, Saravia was made Doctor of Divinity at
Oxford, as had been done long before at the University of Leyden. He
was made Prebendary of Gloucester, next of Canterbury, in 1695; and
then of Westminster in 1601. This last was his highest preferment. He
added to it the rectorship of Great Chart, in Kent, some eight years
after. He died at Canterbury, January 15th, 1612, aged eighty-two
years. Thus his fluctuating life ended in a quiet old age, and a
peaceful death. He is said, by Anthony a-Wood, to have been "educated
in all kinds of literature in his younger days, especially in several
languages."
It was his fortune to find friends and patrons among the great.
Archbishop Whitgift, that stern suppressor of Puritanism, held him in
high esteem, and made great use of his aid in conducting his share in
the controversies of the time. In particular the arch-prelate relied
much on Dr. Saravia's "Hebrew learning" in his contest with Hugh
Broughton, that stiff Puritan, whom Lightfoot styles "the great
Albionean divine, renowned in many nations for rare skill in Salem's
and Athen's tongues, and familiar acquaintance with all Rabbinical
learning." Thus the Prebendary of Westminster was accustomed to cross
swords with no mean adversaries; and was, no doubt, thoroughly
furnished with the knowledge necessary for a Bible translator. While
Dr. Saravia was Prebendary of Canterbury, the famous Richard Hooker was
parson of the village of Borne, about three miles distant. Between
these worthies there sprang up a friendship, cemented by the agreement
of their views and studies. Professor Keble says, that Saravia was
Hooker's "confidential adviser," while the latter was preparing his
celebrated books "Of the Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity." Old Izaak
Walton gives the following beautiful picture of their Christian
intimacy;-- "These two excellent persons began a holy friendship,
increasing daily to so high and mutual affections, that their two wills
seem to be but one and the same; and their designs, both for the glory
of God, and peace of the church, still assisting and improving each
other's virtues, and the desired comforts of a peaceable piety."
Sir Henry Savile (1549-1621)
Some have doubted whether the “Mr. Savile,” on the list of Translators,
was the renowned scholar afterwards known as Sir Henry Savile. But the
matter is put beyond doubt by Anthony Wood and others. Savile was born
at Bradley, in Yorkshire, November 30th, 1549, “of ancient and
worshipful extraction.” He graduated at Brazen Nose College, Oxford;
but afterwards became a Fellow of Merton College. In 1570, he read his
ordinaries on the Almagest of Ptolemy, a collection of the geometrical
and astronomical observations and problems of the ancients. By this
exercise he very early became famous for his Greek and mathematical
learning. In this latter science, he for some time read voluntary
lectures. In his twenty-ninth year, he travelled in France and
elsewhere, to perfect himself in literature; and returned highly
accomplished in learning, languages, and knowledge of the world and
men. He then became tutor in Greek and mathematics to Queen Elizabeth,
whose father, Henry VIII., is said by Southey to have set the example
of giving to daughters a learned education.
It is to her highest honor, that when she had been more than twenty
years upon the throne, she still kept up her habits of study, as
appears by this appointment of Mr. Savile. In 1586, he was made Warden
of Merton College, which office he filled with great credit for six and
thirty years, and also to the great prosperity of the institution. Ten
years later, he added to this office, that of Provost of Eton College,
which school rapidly increased in reputation under him. “Thus,” as
Fuller says, “this skilful gardener had, at the same time, a nursery of
young plants, and an orchard of grown trees, both flourishing under his
careful inspection.” He was no admirer of geniuses; but preferred
diligence to wit. “Give me,” he used to say “the plodding student. If I
would look for wits, I would go to Newgate; --there be the wits!” As
might be expected, he was somewhat unpopular with his scholars, on
account of the severity with which he urged them to diligence. Soon
after his nomination as one of the Translators, having declined all
offers of other promotion, whether civil or ecclesiastical, he was
knighted by the King. About the same time, he buried his only son
Henry, at the age of eight years. In consequence of this bereavement,
he devoted most of his wealth to the promotion of learning. He
translated the Histories of Cornelius Tacitus, and published the same
with notes.
He also published, from the manuscripts, the writings of Bradwardin
against Pelagius; the Writers of English history subsequent to Bede;
Prelections on the Elements of Euclid; and other learned works in
English and Latin. He is chiefly known, however, by being the first to
edit the complete works of John Chrysostom, the most famous of the
Greek Fathers. He spent large sums in procuring from all parts of
Europe, manuscripts, and copies of manuscripts. He not only made
learned and critical notes on his favorite author, but procured those
of Andrew Downes and John Bois, two of his fellow-laborers on the
Translation of the Bible. His edition of one thousand copies was
published in 1613, and makes eight immense folios. All his expenses in
this labor of love amounted above eight thousand pounds, of which the
paper alone cost a fourth part. * It was fifty years before all the
copies were sold. The Benedictines in Paris, however, through their
emissaries in England, succeeded in surreptitiously procuring the
labors of the learned knight, sheet by sheet, as they came from the
press. These they reprinted as they were received, adding a Latin
translation, and some other considerable matter, and forming thirteen
mighty folios. By this transaction, the friars may have gained the most
glory, but surely are not entitled to much honor. Sir Henry Savile also
founded two professorships at Oxford, with liberal endowments; one of
geometry, and the other of astronomy. It is related of him; that he
once chanced to fall in with a Master Briggs, of the rival University
of Cambridge.
In a learned encounter, Briggs succeeded in demonstrated some point in
opposition to the previous opinion of Sir Henry. This pleased the
worthy knight so well, that he appointed Mr. Briggs to one of his
professorships. He made other valuable benefactions to Oxford, in land,
money, and books. Many of his books are still in the Bodleian library
there. Sir Henry Savile died at Eton College, where he was buried,
February 19th, 1621, in his seventy-second year. He was styled, “that
magazine of learning, whose memory shall be honorable among the learned
and the righteous for ever.” He left an only daughter, Elizabeth, who
was married to Sir John Sedley, a wealthy baronet of Kent. Sir Henry’s
wife was Margaret, daughter of George Dacrews, of Cheshunt, Esq. It is
said that Sir Henry was a singularly handsome man, and that no lady
could boast a finer complexion. He was so much of a book-worm, and so
sedulous at his study, that his lady, who was not very deep in such
matters, thought herself neglected. She once petulantly said to him,
“Sir Henry, I would that I were a book, and then you would a little
more respect me.” A person standing by was so ungallant as to reply,
“Madam, you ought to be an almanac, that he might change at the year’s
end.” At this retort, the lady was not a little offended. A little
before the publication of Chrysostom, when Sir Henry lay sick, Lady
Savile said, that if Sir Harry died, she would burn Chrysostom for
killing her husband.
To this, Mr. Bois, who rendered Sir Henry much assistance in that
laborious undertaking, meekly replied, that “so to do were great pity.”
To him, the lady said, “Why, who was Chrysostom?” “One of the sweetest
preachers since the apostles’ times,” answered the enthusiastic Bois.
Whereupon the lady was much appeased, and said, “she would not burn him
for all the world.” From these precious samples, it may be inferred
that your fine lady is much the same in all ages of the world, no
matter whom she may marry. It is enough for our purpose, that Sir Henry
Savile was one of the most profound, exact, and critical scholars of
his age; and meet and ripe to take a prominent part in the preparation
of our incomparable version. * Making the usual allowance for the
difference in the value of money then and now, he expended to the value
of more than three hundred thousand dollars!
Dr. Miles Smith (1524-1624
This person, who was largely occupied in the Bible translation, was
born at Hereford. His father had made a good fortune as a fletcher, or
maker of bows and arrows, which was once a prosperous trade in “merrie
England.” The son was entered at Corpus Christi College, in 1568; but
afterwards removed to Brazen Nose College, where he took his degrees,
and “proved at length an incomparable theologist.” He was one of the
chaplains of Christ’s Church. His attainments were very great, both in
classical and oriental learning. He became canon- residentiary of the
cathedral church of Hereford. In 1594, he was created Doctor in
Divinity. He had a four-fold share in the Translation. He not only
served in the third company, but was one of the twelve selected to
revise the work, after which it was referred to the final examination
of Dr. Smith and Bishop Bilson.
Last of all, Dr. Smith was employed to write that most learned and
eloquent preface, which is become so rare, and is so seldom seen by
readers of the Bible; while the flattering Dedication to the King,
which is of no particular value, has been often reprinted in editions
on both sides of the Atlantic. This noble Preface, addressed by “the
Translators to the Reader,’ in the first edition, “stands as a comely
gate to a glorious city.” Let the reader who would judge for himself,
whether our Translators were masters of the science of sacred
criticism, peruse it, and be satisfied. Dr. Smith never sought
promotion, being, as he pleasantly said of himself, “covetous of
nothing but books.” * But, for his great labor, bestowed upon the best
of books, the King, in the year 1612, appointed him Bishop of
Gloucester. In this office he behaved with the utmost meekness and
benevolence. He died, much lamented, in 1624, being seventy years of
age, and was buried in his own cathedral. He went through the Greek and
Latin fathers, making his annotations on them all. He was well
acquainted with the Rabbinical glosses and comments. So expert was he
in the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, that they were almost as familiar
as his native tongue. “Hebrew he had at his fingers’ ends.” He was also
much versed in history and general literature, and was fitly
characterized by a brother bishop as “a very walking library.” All his
books were written in his own hand, an in most elegant penmanship. In
the great Bible-translation, he began with the first of the laborers,
and put the last hand to the work. Yet he was never known to speak of
it as owing more to him than to the rest of the Translators. We may sum
up his excellent character in the words of one stiffly opposed to his
views and principles, who says,--”He was a great scholar, yet a severe
Calvinist, and hated the proceedings of Dr. Laud!” * Nullius rei
praeterquam librorum avidus.
Robert Spaulding
Dr. Spaulding was Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge. He succeeded
Edward Lively, of whom we have briefly spoken, as Regius Professor of
Hebrew.
Dr. John Spencer (1559-1614)
This very learned man was a native of the county of Suffolk. He became
a student of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, where he graduated in
1577. He was elected Greek lecturer for that College, being but
nineteen years of age. His election was strenuously, but vainly opposed
by Dr. Reynolds, partly on account of his youth, and on the ground of
some irregularity in his appointment. Perhaps this opposition was also
to be ascribed to the fact, that young Spencer early attached himself
to that party in his College which dreaded Puritanism quite as much as
Popery. In 1579, he was chosen Fellow of the same College. He was the
fellow-student, and, like Saravia, and Savile, and Reynolds, the
intimate friend of Richard Hooker, the author of that famous work, “The
Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity.” This work, in the preparation of which
Spencer was constantly consulted, as was even said to have “had a
special hand” as in part its author, and which he edited after Hooker’s
death,--this work is to this day the “great gun” on the ramparts of the
Episcopal sect. Its argument, however, is very easily disposed of.
It is thus described by Dr. James Bennett; --”The architecture of the
fabric resembles Dagon’s temple; for it rests mainly upon two grand
pillars, which, so long as they continue sound, will support all its
weight. The first is, ‘that the Church of Christ, like all other
societies, has power to make laws for its well-being;’ and the second,
that ‘where the sacred Scriptures are silent, human authority may
interpose.’ But if some Samson can be found to shake these pillars from
their base, the whole edifice, with the lords of the Philistines in
their seats, and the multitude with which it is crowded, will be
involved in one common ruin. Grant Mr. Hooker these two principles, and
his arguments cannot be confuted. But if a Puritan can show that the
Church of Christ is different from all civil societies, because Christ
had framed a constitution for it, and that where the Scriptures are
silent, and neither enjoin nor forbid, no human association has a right
to interpose its authority, but should leave the matter indifferent; in
such a case, Hooker’s system would not be more stable than that of the
Eastern philosopher, who rested the earth on the back of an elephant,
who stood upon a huge tortoise, which stood upon nothing.” After the
death of Hooker in 1600, his papers were committed to Dr. Spencer, the
associate and assistant of his studies, to superintend their
publication.
He attended carefully to this literary executorship, till the
translation of the Bible began to engross his attention, when he
committed the other duty, though still retaining a supervisory care, to
a young and enthusiastic admirer of Hooker. The publication was not
completed at the time of Dr. Spencer’s death, and the papers of Hooker
passed into other hands. When he became Master of Arts, in 1580, John
Spencer entered into orders, and became a popular preachers. He was
eventually one of King James’s chaplains. His wife a pupil of Hooker’s,
as well as her brothers, George and William Cranmer, who became
diplomatic characters, and warm patrons of their celebrated teacher.
Mrs. Spencer was a great-niece of Thomas Cranmer, that Archbishop of
Canterbury, whom Queen Mary burnt at the stake for his Protestantism.
In 1589, Dr. Spencer was made Vicar of Alveley in Essex, which he
resigned, in 1592, for the vicarage of Broxborn. In 1599, he was Vicar
of St. Sepulchre’s, beyond Newgate, London. He was made President of
Corpus Christ College, on the death of Dr. Reynolds, in 1607. Dr.
Spencer was appointed to a prebendal stall in St. Paul’s, London, in
1612. His death took place on the third day of April, 1614, when he was
fifty-five years of age. Of his eminent scholarship there can be no
question. He was a valuable helper in the great work of preparing our
common English version. We have but one publication from his pen, a
sermon preached at St. Paul’s Cross, and printed after his decease, of
which Keble, who is Professor of Poetry at Oxford, says, that it is
“full of eloquence, and striking thoughts.”
Dr. Robert Tighe
This name, in all the printed lists of the Translators, has been
misspelled Leigh. It should be Teigh or Tighe *. Dr. Tighe was born at
Deeping, Lincolnshire; and was educated partly at Oxford, and partly at
Cambridge. He was Archdeacon of Middlesex and Vicar of the Church of
All Hallows, Barking, London. He is characterized as "an excellent
textuary and profound linguist." Dr. Tighe died in 1620, leaving to his
son an estate of one thousand pounds a year; which is worth mentioning
because so rarely done by men of the clerical profession. * See Le
Neve's Fast Eccles. Ang. P. 194. Also Wood's Athenae, who adds,
--"linguist," and "therefore employed in the Translation of the Bible."
Richard Thompson
Mr. Thompson, at the time of his appointment, was Fellow of Clare Hall,
Cambridge. According to Wood he was "a Dutchman, born of English
parents." By the Presbyterian divines, he was called "the grand
propagator of Arminianism." Of the prelatic Arminians Coleridge too
truly said, that "they emptied revelation of all the doctrines that can
properly be said to have been revealed". If "sin be the greatest
heresy," as that class usually affirms, a more serious error imputed to
Mr. Thompson is intemperance in his later years. As to his literary
qualifications, he is described by the learned Richard Montague as "a
most admirable philologer," who was "better known in Italy, France, and
Germany, than at home."
Dr. Giles Tomson
This good man was a native of “famous London town.” In 1571, he entered
University College, Oxford; and, in 1580, was elected Fellow of All
Souls’ College. A few years later, he was out in a shower of
appointments, “with his dish right side up.” He was, at that lucky
season, made divinity lecturer in Magdalen College; chaplain to Queen
Elizabeth, as was his friend, Dr. Richard Eedes; Prebendary of
Repington; Canon residentiary of Hereford; and Rector of Pembridge in
Herefordshire. He was a most eminent preacher. He became Doctor in
Divinity in 1602; and was, in that year, appointed Dean of Windsor. In
virtue of this latter office, he acted as Registrar of the most noble
Order of the Garter. Dr. Tomson took a great deal of pains in his part
of the translation of the Bible, which he did not long survive. He was
consecrated Bishop of Gloucester, June 9th, 1611; and a year after,
June 14th, 1612, he died, at the age of fifty-nine, “to the great grief
of all who knew the piety and learning of the man.” Man is like the
flower, whose full bloom is the signal for decay to begin. It is
singular that Bishop Tomson never visited Gloucester, after his
election to that see.
Dr. John Ward
This name closes the original list of King James’s translators. Dr.
Ward was Fellow of King’s College, Cambridge. Fuller gives him the
strange title of “Regal,” probably denoting some station in the
University. All that we gather of this Dr. Ward is that he was
Prebendary of Chichester, and Rector of Bishop’s Waltham in Hampshire.
Dr. Samuel Ward (1572-1643)
This was a man of mark,--”a vast scholar.” He was a native of Bishop’s
Middleham, in the county of Durham. His father was a gentleman of “more
ancientry than estate.” He studied at Cambridge, where he was at first
a student of Christ’s College, then a Fellow of Emanuel, and afterwards
Master of Sidney Sussex College. He entered upon this latter office in
1609, and occupied it with great usefulness and honor till his death,
thirty-four years after. His college flourished greatly under his
administration. Four new fellowships were founded, all the scholarships
augmented, and a chapel and new range of buildings erected, all in his
time. He was distinguished for the gravity of his deportment, and for
the integrity with which he discharged the duties of his Mastership.
Being appointed chaplain to the royal favorite, Bishop Montague, he was
by that prelate made Archdeacon of Taunton in 1615, and also Prebendary
of Wells. The King next year presented him to the rectory of
Much-Munden in Hertforshire; and also appointed him one of his
chaplains. In 1617, the excellent Dr. Toby Mathew, archbishop of York,
made him Prebendary of Ampleford in the cathedral church of York; and
this stall Dr. Ward retained as long as he lived. King James sent him,
in 1618, to the Synod of Dort, in Holland, together with Bishops
Carleton, Davenant, and Hall; as the four divines most able and meet to
represent the Church of England, at that famous Council. After a while
Dr. Goad, a powerful divine and chaplain to Dr. Abbot, Archbishop of
Canterbury, was sent in the place of Dr. Hall, recalled at his own
request, on account of sickness. The English delegates were treated
with the highest consideration; and having exerted a very happy
influence in the Synod, returned with great honor to their own country,
after six or eight months’ absence.
The sittings of the Synod began November 3d, 1618, and ended April 29th
of the next year. During all this time, the States General of Holland
allowed the British envoys ten pounds sterling each day; and at their
departure, gave them two hundred pounds to bear their expenses; and
also to each of them a splendid gold medal, representing the Synod in
session. At this celebrated ecclesiastical council, Walter Balcanqual,
B.D., Fellow of Pembroke Hall, and afterwards Master of the Savoy, by
order of King James, represented the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.
There were also, besides the members from the Dutch provinces,
delegates present from Hesse, the Palatinate, Bremen, and Switzerland,
all of whose churches practised the Presbyterial form of discipline and
government. The Church of England, through its “supreme head,”
acknowledged and communed with all these as true churches of the Lord
Jesus Christ, --sitting and acting with them, by its delegated
theologians, in a solemn ecclesiastical assembly. Surely the spirit of
the Anglican Church in those days was widely different from what is
manifested now.
The object of the Synod, which convened by order of their High
Mightinesses, the Lords States General, was to settle the doctrinal
disputes which ten convulsed the established Church of the Netherlands.
For some ten years the dispute had been very sharp between Calvinists,
who adhered to the old national faith, and the followers of Arminius,
who innovated upon the old order of things. The points in dispute
related to divine predestination, the nature and extent of the
atonement, the corruption of man, his conversion to God, and the
perseverance of saints. These five points are explained in some sixty
“canons,” which were “confirmed by the unanimous consent of all and
each of the members of the whole Synod.” The Dordrechtan Canons are,
perhaps, the most careful and exact statement of the Calvinist belief,
in scientific form, that has ever been drawn up. It is wisely framed,
so that all the usual objections to these doctrines are forestalled and
excluded in the very form of their statement. Although the decrees of
Dordrecht had not the desired effect of quelling the errors of
Arminianism, they are worthy of all it cost to procure them. At the
time of their adoption, King James was very hostile to the Arminians.
He soon, however, became more lenient toward them, when convinced by
Bishop Laud, that the laxity and pliancy of Arminianism made it far
more supple and convenient for the purposes of “kingcraft” and civil
despotism, than the stiff and unyielding temper of Calvinism, whose
first principle is obedience to God rather than to man.
The court favor took such a turn, that it was not many years till, in
answer to a question as to what the Arminians held, it was wittily
said, that they held almost all the best bishoprics and deaneries in
England. Before going home to England, the British delegates made a
tour through the provinces of Holland, and were received with great
respect in most of the principal cities. On his return, Dr. Ward
resumed his duties as head of Sidney College. In 1621, he was
Vice-Chancellor of the University. In the same year, he was made the
Lady Margaret’s Professor of Divinity, which office he sustained with
great celebrity for more than twenty years. The English Bible, which he
actively assisted in translating, was formally published in 1611. Some
errors of the press having crept into the first edition, and others
into later reprints, King Charles the First, in 1638, had another
edition printed at Cambridge, which was revised by Dr. Ward and Mr.
Bois, two of the original Translators who still survived, assisted by
Dr. Thomas Goad, Mr. Mede, and other learned men. When the Assembly of
Divines was convened at Westminster, 1643, Dr. Ward was summoned as a
member, but never attended. In doctrine, he was a thorough Puritan; but
in politics, a staunch royalist. In the sad and distracted times of the
civil wars, as Thomas Fuller, his affectionate pupil, says, “he turned
as a rock riseth with the tide. --In a word, he was accounted a Puritan
before these times, and popish in these times; and yet, being always
the same, was a true Protestant at all times.”
When hostilities broke out, he joined the other heads of Colleges at
Cambridge, in sending their college-plate to aid the tyrannical Charles
Stuart, whose character, partially redeemed by some private virtues,
has been so admirably exposed by Macaulay. “Faithlessness,” says that
philosophic historian, “was the chief cause of his disasters, and is
the chief stain on his memory. He was, in truth, impelled by an
incurable propensity to dark and crooked ways. It may seem strange that
his conscience, which, on occasions of little moment, was sufficiently
sensitive, should never have reproached him with this great vice. But
there is reason to believe that he was perfidious, not only from
constitution and from habit, but also on principle.” This historical
judgment may seem severe; but its truth is maintained by other
competent critics. James Stuart was undoubtedly one of the worse sort
of monarchs; but of him Coleridge frankly says, --”James I., in my
honest judgment, was an angel, compared with his sons and grandsons.”
Dr. Ward, no doubt, like many other good men who disliked the King’s
proceedings, was compelled, by his conscientious belief in the long
established doctrine of the “divine right of kings,” to uphold his
sovereign. In consequence of his sending the college-plate to be coined
for the King’s use, the parliamentary authorities deprived Dr. Ward of
his professorship and mastership, and confiscated his goods. He was
also, in 1642, with three other heads of colleges involved in the same
transaction, imprisoned in St. John’s College for a short time. During
his confinement, he contracted a disorder that proved fatal in six
weeks after his liberation, which was granted on account of his
sickness. He died, in great want, at an advanced age, in 1643, and was
the first person buried in Sidney Sussex Chapel. A beautiful character
is drawn in some Latin verses addressed to him by Dr. Thomas Goad, the
close of which is thus given in English by Fuller; - “None thy quick
sight, grave judgment, can beguile, So skilled in tongues, so sinewy in
style; Add to all these that peaceful soul of thine, Meek, modest,
which all brawlings doth decline.”
Dr. Ward maintained much correspondence with learned men. His
correspondence with Archbishop Ushur reveals traits of diversified
learning, especially in biblical and oriental criticism. * In his
letters to the elder Vossius he adimadverts upon that distinguished
author’s History of Pelgianism. His character cannot be better
described than in the following beautiful passage from Dr. Fuller’s
History of the University of Cambridge. “He was a Moses, not only for
slowness of speech, but otherwise meekness of nature. Indeed, when, in
my private thoughts, I have beheld him and Dr. Collins, ** (disputable
whether more different, or more eminent in their endowments,) I could
not but remember the running of Peter and John to the place where
Christ was buried. In which race, John came first, as youngest and
swiftest; but Peter first entered the grave. Dr. Collins had much the
speed of him in quickness of parts; but let me say, (nor doth the
relation of pupil misguide me,) the other pierced the deeper into
underground and profound points in divinity. Now as high winds bring
some men the sooner into sleep, so, I conceive, the storms and tempests
of these distracted times invited this good old man the sooner to his
long rest, where we leave him, and quietly draw the curtains about
him.” * Dr. Usher, in one of these letters, corrects a misprint in the
Translator’s Preface, where the name Efnard should be Eynard, or
Eginhardus. ** Samuel Collins, Provost of King’s College, and for forty
years Regius Professor. “As Caligula is said to have sent his soldiers
vainly to fight against the tide, with the same success have any
encountered the torrent of his Latin in disputation.”
---------
John Harman, M.A., New College, Oxford.
In 1585 he had been appointed King's Professor of Greek. He had
published Latin translations of Calvin's and Beza's sermons, and was
also adept in Greek. He was a member of the New Testament group that
met at Oxford.
John Spencer
At 19 years of age he had been elected Greek lecturer for Corpus
Christi College in Oxford University. It was written of him, "Of his
eminent scholarship there can be no question." He was a member of the
New Testament group (Romans through Jude) that met at Westminster.
Thomas Bilson
McClure wrote that he was "so complete in divinity, so well skilled in
languages, so read in the Fathers and Schoolmen, so judicious in making
use of his readings, that at length he was found to be no longer a
soldier, but commander in chief in the spiritual warfare" (Translators
Revived, pp. 214-416).
Dr. George Abbot, B.D., D.D.
Dr. Abbot started at Oxford in 1578, getting his B.D. in 1593 and at 35
years of age both received his doctorate and became first Master of
University College, and later Vice Chancellor. He became Bishop of
Lichfield in 1609 and Archbishop of Canterbury in 1611. He was regarded
as "the head of the Puritans within the Church of England." He was in
the Oxford New Testament group.
Sir Henry Saville
In 1565 Sir Saville was Fellow of Merton College and Warden in 1585. By
1596 he was Provost of Eton College and tutor to Queen Elizabeth I. He
founded the Savillian professorships of Mathematics and Astronomy at
Oxford. His many works include an 8-volume set of the writings of
Chrysostom.(1) He also worked in the New Testament group at Oxford.
Lancelot Andrewes
From Terence H. Brown, (Secretary of the Trinitarian Bible Society,
London, England) comes this description of Westminster committee member
Lancelot Andrewes
https://www.scionofzion.com/kjvtransqual.htm
I. Westminister Company 1 --translated the
historical books, beginning with Genesis and ending with the Second
Book of Kings.
Dr. Lancelot Andrews
Dr. John Overall
Dr. Hadrian Saravia
Dr. Richard Clarke, Dr. John
Laifield, Dr. Robert Tighe, Francis Burleigh, Geoffry King, Richard
Thompson
Dr. William Bedwell
II. The Cambridge Company --translated Chronicles to
the end of the Song of Songs.
Edward Lively, Dr. John
Richardson, Dr. Lawrence Chaderton
Francis Dillingham, Dr.
Roger Andrews, Thomas Harrison, Dr. Robert Spaulding, Dr. Andrew Bing
III. Oxford Company --translated beginning of
Isaiah to the end of the Old Testament.
Dr. John Harding, Dr. John
Reynolds
Dr. Thomas Holland, Dr.
Richard Kilby
Dr. Miles Smith, Dr. Richard
Brett, Daniel Fairclough
IV. Oxford Company 2 --translated the 4
Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Revelation of St. John the
Divine.
Dr. Thomas Ravis, Dr. George
Abbot
Dr. Richard Eedes, Dr. Giles
Tomson, Sir Henry Savile
Dr. John Peryn, Dr. Ralph
Ravens, Dr. John Harmar
V. Company 5 of Translators at
Westminster--translated all of the Epistles of the New Testament
Dr. William Barlow, Dr. John
Spencer, Dr. Roger Fenton, Dr. Ralph Hutchinson, William Dakins,
Michael Rabbet, [Thomas(?)] Sanderson
VI. Company 6 of Translators at Cambridge translated
the apocryphal books.
Dr. John Duport, Dr. William
Brainthwaite, Dr. Jeremiah Radcliffe
Dr. Samuel Ward
Dr. Andrew Downes, John Bois
Dr. John Ward, Dr. John
Aglionby, Dr. Leonard Hutten
Dr. Thomas Bilson, Dr.
Richard Bancroft
Most were Translators, while a few were project overseers, revisers and
editors. Some served in several roles. Who were these men? What were
their backgrounds? What did they share? In what ways were they
different? They were a diverse group. While some were born in large
cities and towns, most were from small villages scattered throughout
England. Several were the children of university graduates, most were
not. They were sons of mariners, farmers, school teachers, cordwainers
(leather merchants), fletchers (makers of bows and arrows), ministers,
brewers, tailors, and aristocrats. All were members of the Church of
England, but their religious views ran the gamut. Some were ardent
Puritans, others staunch defenders of the religious establishment. Some
believed in pre-destination and limited salvation as taught by John
Calvin, while others believed in self-determination and universal
access to heaven as taught by Jacobus Arminius.
All of the Translators were university graduates. Oxford and Cambridge
claimed nearly equal numbers of Translators as alumni. All of the
Translators except one were ordained Church of England priests. While
several of the Translators had traveled to the Continent, only one had
ventured to the New World. Most of the Translators were married men (38
of 60) with families. Most of the Translators spent a significant
portion of their career associated with their colleges and universities
as fellows, involved in teaching and administration. As fellows, they
were not allowed to marry. As a result many delayed marriage until they
had established themselves in church office away from the university.
When the translation commenced in 1604-1605, the majority of the
Translators, 22, were in their forties, 16 men were in their thirties,
15 in their fifties, 3 in their sixties and 3 in their twenties.
One Translator died in his thirties, six in their forties, nineteen in
their fifties, sixteen in their sixties, four in their seventies, three
in their eighties and one, over one hundred. Nine of the Translators
died before the KJB was published in the 1611.
Most of the Translators were in comfortable economic circumstances
during and after their time involved in the translation.
all 47 of the men under the King’s Commission. McClure writes of the
results of his quest, “the Translators commissioned by James Stuart
were ripe and critical scholars, profoundly versed in all the learning
required.
Tyndale's work of translation was so excellent, that easily 70% of the
words of the Bible are Tyndale's. William Tyndale who translated from
the Textus Receptus line, was strangled and burned at the stake by the
Catholic religion because of translating the Bible. Time fails me here
to speak of John Rogers, Myles Coverdale and others who labored AND
DIED that we might have the word of God in our hands.
- - - -
