It’s amazing how contemporary the controversies surrounding the King James Bible are. What we know as the King James Bible was a reaction to the the Tyndale Bible and later the Geneva Bible which were both noted for their anti-monarchy stance. By using, “elder” and “congregation” rather than “bishop” and “church” these translations together with their marginal notes undermined the authority of the established church whose hierarchy was essential to the maintenance of the monarchy.
The unique inspiration of the King James Bible was in fact a mash-up of the Tyndale, Matthew and Geneva Bible with reference to Latin, Greek and Hebrew. At Better Bibles Blog, I’m live-blogging my reading of Alexander Wilson McClure’s The Translators Revived, 1853 in which he lists and comments on each of the known translators of the King James Bible. These translators are unquestionably academic giants. My question has been whether they were in fact inspired or merely political appointees. Considering the vast fortunes that most of these men held due to their academic posts, it appears that politics was at least as important as piety in the selection of these men. McClure hoped to show that these men were uniquely qualified to translate the Bible into English. I came to quite a different conclusion. In an age when the Church was mistress to the State, these political appointees did very little beyond rework the truly devout and inspired work of the Tyndale, Matthew, Geneva lineage. Although the term “antidisestablishmentarianism” was coined in the 19th century it describes what the motivation of James I in sponsoring this version of the Holy Book. He was reacting against efforts to undermine the authority of the Church of England as well as the divine right of kings which he desperately wanted to assert.
We see a strong contemporary current of antidenominationalism (21 letters!) in churches across the West. This is a specific manifestation of the general trend in the West against organizations in general. As fragmented as the Christian church is it is in fact undergoing a hyperfragmentation (18 letters) that coupled with a series of economic downturns have left the major denominations scattered with echoing white elephants in the form of megachurches with microcongregations. And the community church is in worse shape still. With decaying infrastructures and falling attendance these one-time hubs of spiritual activity have now become an eleventh toe on the suburban feet. The best move at this stage is to declare insolvency, liberate ourselves from enormous debt fueled by the ambitions of prideful men and allow the “congregations” (not churches) to be scattered into the communities again as they were meant to be.
But the more pressing question in your mind is probably, “What is the longest word in the Bible?” I can’t help you with a Latin example but I do have these offerings in Hebrew, Greek and English.
Hebrew Bible
והאחשדרפנים
“of the satraps and the governors”
Esther 8:9 – source
Greek NT
προκεχειροτονημένοις
“having been chosen beforehand”
Acts 10:41
Latin (not Bible)
blandiloloquentulissimorum
of the very smooth-talking ones source
English Bible
maher-shalal-hash-baz (name)
examples from NIV
conscience-stricken (hyphenated)
incomprehensible (unhyphenated)
examples from KJV
evilfavouredness and lovingkindnesses
covenantbreakers fellow-prisoners and unprofitableness
By the way, the most common word in English of greatest length is the humble word, uncharacteristically. In German it is Rechtsschutzversicherungsgesellschaften and in Spanish it is anticonstitucionalmente.
It was not so much the translation (although the King had complaints about that as well) as the notes that he found offensive.
You can read the exact words of the King in this book. His Majesty’s complaints are quoted on p. 46-47 he complains most about the notes of the Geneva; he explicitly cited the Geneva’s notes at Ex. 1:19 where the Hebrew women’s disobedience to the King is said to be lawful and at 2 Chron 15:16 where Asa is criticized for deposing his mother: “he lacked zeal: for she ought to have died.”
His order specifying the translators is on pp. 49-53 (and I disagree with you — this is an impressive list); and the rules for translation are given on pp. 53-55, including
1. The ordinary Bible to be read in the Church, commonly known as the Bishop’s Bible, to be followed and as little altered as the Truth of the original will permit.
3. The old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz., the Word Church not to be translated Congregation, &c.
6. No Marginal Notes to be affixed, but for the Explanation of Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be express’d in the Text.
I think you will nowhere find a more concise expression of the King’s intent than in his own words as quoted on pp. 46-55; certainly his own words are far greater proof than any inference you draw from secondary sources.
I also commend to you the preface (rarely reprinted today) from the translators on pp. 340-377 where they discuss rather explicitly what their translation philosophy was.
Thanks for that source. Is there another accessible version?
I am aware of his complaints regarding those passages. On one hand, he was justified, don’t you think? The Geneva commenters were specifically making a political statement through their interpretation.
Hmm, well, Pollard is definitely the best source, but a google search found this source for the instructions; but none for the list of complaints. If you want, I can send you the 2 page list of complaints.
Oops, our comments crossed in the night…
Send that list of complaints if you would. I don’t have many options as far as bookstores and libraries here in an African village.
Did King James really believe that the midwives should have killed Moses at Pharaoh’s command? What did he think about Mary and Joseph rescuing Jesus from Herod – was that a criminal act? If this is the kind of man who sponsored KJV, then let’s prefer another version.
Folks — the link above is from Google Books — you can read it for yourselves.
David, will extract the two pages and send them to you tomorrow!
The Google Book version only gives snippets. I’ll check the other.
I found this book that seems to have the King’s complaints and more:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ISECAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover
Ironically the book was written in reaction to papists spreading tracts saying that the translators had perverted the original texts.
Bizarre. I got the entire text from Google Books. It must be a country specific limitation. (Do you want me to e-mail you the entire book)?
Interesting. It makes sense they would have international copyright restrictions. I’m fine on it right now. I’ve got plenty to read.
You have mail.
Terrific, I’ll download those next week when I have broadband.