These facts are indisputable.
History shows us this in regards to the "Authorized Version of 1611":
"Instructions were given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. And "the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England.
In addition:
"James' instructions included several requirements that kept the new translation familiar to its listeners and readers. The text of the
Bishops' Bible would serve as the primary guide for the translators, and the familiar proper names of the biblical characters would all be retained. If the
Bishops' Bible was deemed problematic in any situation, the translators were permitted to consult other translations from a pre-approved list: the
Tyndale Bible, the
Coverdale Bible, Matthew's Bible, the
Great Bible, and the
Geneva Bible. In addition, later scholars have detected an influence on the
Authorized Version from the translations of
Taverner's Bible and the New Testament of the
Douay–Rheims Bible.
For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza, which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate. Both of these versions were extensively referred to, as the translators conducted all discussions amongst themselves in Latin. F.H.A. Scrivener identifies 190 readings where the Authorized Version translators depart from Beza's Greek text, generally in maintaining the wording of the
Bishop's Bible and other earlier English translations. In about half of these instances, the Authorized Version translators appear to follow the earlier 1550 Greek Textus Receptus of Stephanus. For the other half, Scrivener was usually able to find corresponding Greek readings in the editions of Erasmus, or in the Complutensian Polyglot. However, in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version, which in these places derives directly from the Vulgate. For example, at
John 10:16, the Authorized Version reads "one fold" (as did the
Bishops' Bible, and the 16th century vernacular versions produced in Geneva), following the Latin Vulgate "unum ovile", whereas Tyndale had agreed more closely with the Greek, "one flocke" (μία ποίμνη). The Authorized Version New Testament owes much more to the Vulgate than does the Old Testament; still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.
The translators appear to have otherwise made no first-hand study of ancient manuscript sources, even those that – like the Codex Bezae – would have been readily available to them. In addition to all previous English versions (including, and contrary to their instructions, the
Rheimish New Testament[ which in their preface they criticized); they made wide and eclectic use of all printed editions in the original languages then available, including the ancient Syriac New Testament printed with an interlinear Latin gloss in the Antwerp Polyglot of 1573. In the preface the translators acknowledge consulting translations and commentaries in Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, and German.
The translators took the Bishop's Bible as their source text, and where they departed from that in favour of another translation, this was most commonly the Geneva Bible. However, the degree to which readings from the Bishop's Bible survived into final text of the King James Bible varies greatly from company to company, as did the propensity of the King James translators to coin phrases of their own. John Bois's notes of the General Committee of Review show that they discussed readings derived from a wide variety of versions and patristic sources; including explicitly both Henry Savile's 1610 edition of the works of John Chrysostom and the Rheims New Testament, which was the primary source for many of the literal alternative readings provided for the marginal notes.
Sources:
a b c d e f Daniell 2003, p. 439. (Daniell, David (2003). The Bible in English: its history and influence. New Haven, Conn:
Yale University Press.)
a b Daniell 2003, p. 436. Ibid
a b Daniell 2003, p. 434. Ibid
Bobrick 2001, p. 328. (Daniell, David (2003). The Bible in English: its history and influence. New Haven, Conn:
Yale University Press
Norton 2005, p. 10. (Norton, David (2005).
A Textual History of the King James Bible. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.)
a b Bobrick 2001, p. 223. Ibid
Daniell 2003, p. 442. Ibid
Daniell 2003, p. 444. Ibid
Scrivener 1884, p. 60. (
Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose (1884).
The Authorized Edition of the English Bible, 1611, its subsequent reprints and modern representatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.)
Scrivener 1884, pp. 243–63. Ibid
Scrivener 1884, p. 262. Ibid
Daniell 2003, p. 448. Ibid
Scrivener 1884, p. 59. Ibid
a b Daniell 2003, p. 440. Ibid
Bois, Allen & Walker 1969, p. xxv. (
Bois, John; Allen, Ward; Walker, Anthony (1969). Translating for King James; being a true copy of the only notes made by a translator of King James's Bible, the Authorized Version, as the Final Committee of Review revised the translation of Romans through Revelation at Stationers' Hall in London in 1610–1611. Taken by John Bois ... these notes were for three centuries lost, and only now are come to light, through a copy made by the hand of William Fulman. Here translated and edited by Ward Allen. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.)
Bobrick 2001, p. 246. Ibid
KJV Translators to the Reader 1611. Ibid
Bois, Allen & Walker 1969, p. 118. Ibid
Main Source
*staff edit*
God Bless
Till all are one.
