With this post, Religion in America welcomes Jonathan Newell as an author. Jonathan holds a degree in history and a master’s of divinity, and he is a chaplain in the Army Reserves, as well as an extraordinarily prolific reviewer of books.
Nicolson, Adam. God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible. New York: HarperCollins, 2003. 280 pages. ISBN: 0060185163.
With the four-hundredth anniversary of the King James Version rapidly approaching, one can hear legions of scholars drawing their pens from their scabbards, ready to enter the fray over the Authorized Version. The growth of the King James Only movement over the past decades have hardened opinions among American Christians. Some see it as a fossil; others see it as having come down from heaven.
Though Nicholson does not speak directly to these modern controversies, both sides would benefit from a careful reading of Nicolson’s work. Though most histories of the English Bible are as dry as the manuscripts they describe, this work is full of verve and life. That is because Nicholson tells the story of the KJV by telling the stories of the translators. Using the scant biographical sources available, he presents compelling portraits of Puritans, Anglicans, and the monarch whose varying and often-conflicting motives produced what many consider to be the finest literary work in English.
Nicholson’s major contribution to the KJV debate is placing the translation’s origin back into its human context. He highlights James I’s desire to unify his realm and church. Guided by his directives, the scholars strove to produce a translation that would avoid the controversies of the Geneva Bible, improve the language of previous versions such as the Bishops’ Bible, and above all, reflect the majesty of God in the Word as James strove to reflect it in the kingdom. Nicholas concludes that as a product of Jacobean England, the Authorized Version cannot be understood apart from Jacobean England.
He guides the reader into developing a new frame of reference for approaching the translation’s language. He argues that the language of the KJV was not the common man’s English of the day. Instead, he points out the scholars translated from the Hebrew and Greek, compared previous English translations and then evaluated those translations in the academic’s language—Latin. The translators were seeking a translation that would be read aloud in the services of the Church. The words and rhythms chosen by the translators were intended to create a majestic spoken word. Thus the modern reader of the KJV must remember that the modern idea of silent, personal reading was not the world of the translators where public, oral reading of Scripture was widely practiced.
The book serves as a reminder that the KJV and its attendant controversies must be evaluated in the context of the seventeenth-century. Clergy and laity alike must realize the KJV and all translations bear the marks of the religious, social, and political contexts of the day. Until we pause from the shouting and raving of the recent controversy and allow the translators to speak for themselves, we will fail to appreciate the King James Version for what it really is—a majestic, yet human, endeavor to speak the Word of God in “the tongues of men and angels.” As Myles Smith wrote in the “Preface,” “Others have laboured, and you may enter into their labours; O receive not so great things in vain.”
In the KJV debate what is Evangelicals Fear most and what does the KJV symbolize? The KJV freed the common man from the Tyranny of clericalism. Having the bible in their hands made them free to seek God in their own way. In the 19th century preachers started to say the “The Greeks ays or the Hebrew says” numerous times in sermon. Some of these men were quite unlearned and the result was the propagation of a number of sects and accompanying heresies. The backlash was the people began to reject anything which did not agree the KJV. The situation was made worse with new translations recasting John 3:16 and Isaiah 11:14. We know Hebrew was a primitive language and did not have the shades of meaning of modern languages and translating them in another manner was certain to cause anxiety and rejection among the laity of the church. It appears to me the people were in fear of a new clericalism not founded on a sacramental system, rather a new top down structure where the intellectual elite were telling people what to believe. The King James version is a goo translation and the Gospel Message is clearly contained in it. Holding it as the basis of faith and practice will not harm anyone. We also understand UBS27 has several thousand variant readings from the KJV. Few of these are of any consequence. This phobia of a new clericalism continues when the minister begins to say, this word really does not mean what you read, therefore people fear our message. Maintaining the KJV to many is a symbol of being in control of their own spiritual destiny as oppose to a few interpreting it for them.