PDA

View Full Version : The Miracles of Jesus



barney
10-18-2008, 04:24 PM
I was wondering what the boards opinion on the miracles of Jesus .

He is said , (in one source, the bible) to have done some world shattering stuff. The stuff that would have spread faster than a conspiracy theory on youtube.

I was after the christian & jewish explaination of why there is no ex-bibilic source for anything supernatural or even mundane happening in relation to jesus.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Grace Seeker
10-19-2008, 12:55 AM
I suspect the Jewish explanation is that it didn't happen.

For the Christian explanation, there in fact are non-biblical writings from Christian writers and by non-Christians who report the Christian message. But I also propose that those who heard it and didn't believe, just went on with their lives as before; while those who experienced and believed either themselves became Christian, or were too wrapped up in their own lives to do more than pass it on by word of mouth, but it didn't change their lives enough to commit to writing it down.
Reply

The Khan
10-19-2008, 02:42 AM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I suspect the Jewish explanation is that it didn't happen.
Jesus is mentioned in Maimonides' Epistle to Yemen, written about 1172 to Rabbi Jacob ben Netan'el al-Fayyumi, head of the Yemen Jewish community.

According to it:

Daniel had already alluded to him when he presaged the downfall of a wicked one and a heretic among the Jews who would endeavor to destroy the Law, claim prophecy for himself, make pretenses to miracles, and allege that he is the Messiah, as it is written, "Also the children of the impudent among thy people shall make bold to claim prophecy, but they shall fall." (Daniel 11:14).
So yes, you're 100% right.
Reply

suffiyan007
10-19-2008, 02:53 AM
Jesus can make lotsa miracle, not he is powerful but he prays to Allah(Elah) for guidance,because Jesus can makes lotsa miracle is because Allah had lend the power to Jesus and perform the miracles...because Jesus prays to Allah.! Jesus is Human,Not a Saviour...:coolious:

1. turn the water to wine
2. heal the lazarus, from death to allive.
3. the girl is die,and she alive again.
4. jesus been crucify and lifted to heaven.
5. Jesus chase the demon inside the pig.
6. and etc..!
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Woodrow
10-19-2008, 04:10 AM
The Qur'an acknowledges Allaah(swt) performed many miracles through Prophet Isa(as) even some not mentioned in the bible.
Reply

kwolney01
10-19-2008, 04:26 AM
Jesus (pbuh) was given the miracles to talk in the cradle and perform miracles like healing the blind through Allah...without Allah giving him these miracles he wouldn't have been able to do them.

Allah gave these miracles to Jesus (pbuh) to show the people that he was a true prophet of God since he was born of a virgin mother Mary, people would have been skeptical.


I hope this helps...

I wish you the best

Allahu Alum (Allah knows best)
Reply

ummsara1108
10-19-2008, 04:26 AM
I was wondering why the bible only mentions a few miracles jesus did, rather than share all or at least alot more of his life long miracles, I mean there has to be alot more than we know or anyone wanted to share with the world.

I read a book about the "early childhood of jesus" and my mom was so excited I bought her a book to, but after a few days, she called and said that book was a hoax, I'm sorry to say, my opinion differs from hers, because who really knows. It was a good book though!
Reply

kwolney01
10-19-2008, 04:30 AM
Originally Posted by ummsara1108
I was wondering why the bible only mentions a few miracles jesus did, rather than share all or at least alot more of his life long miracles, I mean there has to be alot more than we know or anyone wanted to share with the world.
I think the main reason the Bible does not tell of all the miracles is because there were probably too many, and most of them were done repeatedly so there was no need to mention them over and over again. Another reason may be that a lot of Bible did not write down what Jesus (pbuh) did. They waited awhile later to write it done, they had to go off of memory.

I hope this helps...

I wish you the best :D

Allahu Alum
Reply

barney
10-19-2008, 06:32 AM
I would consider "Too many" as being a suspect reason not to write them down.

"Hey , did you see that? That guy just flew through the air!"
" Yeah, he did it yesterday as well, nothing to write home about..."

We are talking 2000 years ago. Language and the written word wasnt that uncommon. Jesus was doing miracles for 5 years if you discount the Infant Gospel of Thomas or 34 years otherwise.
Here are some of the people who decided not to write a thing.

Lazerus, or his family and his freinds.
5000 people or their families or freinds who were fed magic bread and fishes.
A crowd watching the demon come out of the pigs.
Thousands of people who saw jesus after he had died and risen again.
The entire Population of Jerusalem, scribes and learned scholars, right down to the street cleaners who saw the dead rise from their grave and run about the city...then thought that they wouldnt bother writing it down.
The sick who were healed, their familys, their freinds.
The Blind who could see, the lame who could walk, their family their freinds.
Jesus's most hardbitten opponents. The Jewish religious leaders.
The 20000 occupying Romans, who wrote everything down in triplicate, decide to write not a syllable about someone who can do evrything from withering a fig tree (highly useful) to raising the dead,(many military applications)
Ect Etc and ad nauseum

We have literally perhaps 100000 people who could have written something. Anything. These miracles were to show he was who he said he was. As a convincing proof to amaze and confirm his god-ness.

So out of all these thousands of people who actually does write anything?

Answer: His 5 best mates and drinking buddies, decades after he died.
They have him retroactively doing the stuff of superheros. Wasnt his supposed message enough? Why add in all the supernatural?
Some people reference him, but not his miracles, in relation to being a preacher that people followed, but again these are not contempory.
It's almost as if he diddnt exist.
Reply

ummsara1108
10-19-2008, 07:19 AM
well of course someone wouldnt cram the bible with the samethings over and over again, but the point being he did it, writing it once is enough, why simply leave it out. Of course like stated he probably did many many things, but for sure they should of added more than the few they did add.
Reply

SixTen
10-19-2008, 09:37 AM
Well, 2000 years ago, it was oral tradition. So, you won't expect everything to be really written down - it wasn't a time of "writing" so to say, the materials at the time wern't too great either (having to use such things as papyrus). So, witnesses, arn't likely to go, write a book or somthing about it. But reports would have been their, whether if they were true or rumours - it would have spread. I am sure, their would have been some writings on it though - I mean even if it wasn't true and it was a rumour, it would have been one so big someone would have writ it somewhere.

But yes, compared to today, the reason is, just that it was a time of oral tradition. I am sure, if it happened today, we would have, as you said, youtube videos, tv, newspaper etc.

As for the jews, I don't know if they would have rejected it. People at the time, would not think it was impossible for people to do such actions, I would believe, I mean this is 2000 years ago - and possibly that if someone could do it, it does not neccessarily make them God, or a Prophet. On the other hand, those who did witness it, may have converted, or found alternative reasoning. I guess we would need a Jew to clarify.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-19-2008, 06:31 PM
Originally Posted by barney
So out of all these thousands of people who actually does write anything?

Answer: His 5 best mates and drinking buddies, decades after he died.
Do you mean this as a figure of speech or in a literal sense?
Reply

Oleander
10-19-2008, 07:45 PM
The miracles of Jesus were too many, but not recorded, because NONE of the nt writers saw Jesus, but it was story teller like.

For example, Paul wrote 75% of the nt, he never knew or see Jesus.

Look at the first verses of the book of Luke, the writer write about something every body talking about at that time, and he was encourge to write too!
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-19-2008, 08:30 PM
Originally Posted by Oleander
The miracles of Jesus were too many, but not recorded, because NONE of the nt writers saw Jesus, but it was story teller like.
Really? NONE? Not one?

Peter will be interested in learning that. As will John and Matthew. Though I know plenty of contemporary liberal NT "scholars" like to dispute their authorship, at least recognize that tradition assigns the authorship of these Gospels to Jesus' disciples.

Likewise though the authorship or James and Jude are in dispute, they are generally attributed to two of Jesus' brothers. I myself wouldn't want to press too hard for that to be true of Jude, but the argument for James seems thoroughly reasonable and highly compelling.

For example, Paul wrote 75% of the nt, he never knew or see Jesus.
Let's see.... that was Matthew, John, James, Jude, and Peter. 5 NT writers other than Paul, responsible for 10 of the 27 books of the NT. Already that is more non-Pauline material than you allow for and I haven't even included Mark and Luke/Acts yet. And as a matter of fact, if you were to count pages, in my Bible the works of Paul (assuming that they are all actually by Paul, for the same people who argue against Matthew and John being actually written by one of Jesus' disciples also argue that most of the letters that bear Paul's name were written by others as well) account for only 92 of the 354 pages (only 26%) of the New Testament. So, may I suggest that before you go making assertions about Paul writing 75% of the NT, that you do some fact-checking first.
Reply

barney
10-19-2008, 09:46 PM
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Really? NONE? Not one?

Peter will be interested in learning that. As will John and Matthew. Though I know plenty of contemporary liberal NT "scholars" like to dispute their authorship, at least recognize that tradition assigns the authorship of these Gospels to Jesus' disciples.

Likewise though the authorship or James and Jude are in dispute, they are generally attributed to two of Jesus' brothers. I myself wouldn't want to press too hard for that to be true of Jude, but the argument for James seems thoroughly reasonable and highly compelling.

Let's see.... that was Matthew, John, James, Jude, and Peter. 5 NT writers other than Paul, responsible for 10 of the 27 books of the NT. Already that is more non-Pauline material than you allow for and I haven't even included Mark and Luke/Acts yet. And as a matter of fact, if you were to count pages, in my Bible the works of Paul (assuming that they are all actually by Paul, for the same people who argue against Matthew and John being actually written by one of Jesus' disciples also argue that most of the letters that bear Paul's name were written by others as well) account for only 92 of the 354 pages (only 26%) of the New Testament. So, may I suggest that before you go making assertions about Paul writing 75% of the NT, that you do some fact-checking first.
Putting my cards on the table, I will say that Jesus is based on a historical real person. He may have claimed some godhood. Plenty of people do this right from Achilles to Mike Travasser, actually hundreds of thousands of people claimed this.

Mike Travasser of Strong City has 50 adherents, 50 diciples, including 12 virgin girls (who remain virgins despite his actions apparently, even the 14 year olds).
We can discount Mike as being divine. He's simply a peadophile with a religious hook and preying on the gullible.

If he died tommorow and he was living in a slightly different era, his diciples would write of his miracles, of which there have been many. All un-filmed, all in the past. He cant actually pop a miracle out on demand. He says to the film crews , "thou shalt not test the lord thy God". Pretty much because as soon as you test him, he fails. In abundance.

Christianity really only got on a roll a century after Jesus was supposed to have lived. Nobody alive saw the miracles. They simply beleived the one single account. The Bible.
It offered paradise which was fairly unique, it brought in a old-new concept...."Hell" and it certainly brought hell on earth for anyone in opposition as the romans battling with christian terrorism finally submitted to "Jesus's mercy".

With the thousands of scribes and historans and scholars faced with a Literal God on Earth, alive in their times and openly wanting people to see and record everything, we are left with 7 people,( the fisherman, the quack, the council-worker, Jesus's best mates,(and how did they learn to write!)) to record in their 90's in an era where people lived to their 50's tales of amazement and wonder.
The sort of stuff that today you would laugh off in a heartbeat.And the sort of stuff that is taken as "Gospel"
Reply

Keltoi
10-19-2008, 10:23 PM
Originally Posted by barney
If he died tommorow and he was living in a slightly different era, his diciples would write of his miracles, of which there have been many. All un-filmed, all in the past. He cant actually pop a miracle out on demand. He says to the film crews , "thou shalt not test the lord thy God". Pretty much because as soon as you test him, he fails. In abundance.
Yes, and the Egyptian kings and queens thought they were divine. It isn't the claim that is unique.

Originally Posted by barney
Christianity really only got on a roll a century after Jesus was supposed to have lived. Nobody alive saw the miracles. They simply beleived the one single account. The Bible.
It offered paradise which was fairly unique, it brought in a old-new concept...."Hell" and it certainly brought hell on earth for anyone in opposition as the romans battling with christian terrorism finally submitted to "Jesus's mercy".
Paradise was fairly unique? I don't believe so. Romans battling with Christian terrorism? Read the Davinci Code I see. Christians were repeatedly persecuted for their faith by a number of Roman emperors. Emperor Diocletian, in 303, launched the last wave of Christian persecution. That only stopped due to Emperor Constantine legalizing Christianity in 310.

Originally Posted by barney
With the thousands of scribes and historans and scholars faced with a Literal God on Earth, alive in their times and openly wanting people to see and record everything, we are left with 7 people,( the fisherman, the quack, the council-worker, Jesus's best mates,(and how did they learn to write!)) to record in their 90's in an era where people lived to their 50's tales of amazement and wonder.
The sort of stuff that today you would laugh off in a heartbeat.And the sort of stuff that is taken as "Gospel"
You have cynicism in abundance, good for you. :D
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-20-2008, 04:28 AM
Originally Posted by barney
Putting my cards on the table, I will say that Jesus is based on a historical real person.
I'm not sure what your comments had to do with my post in which I critiqued Oleander's math skills in falsely claiming that Paul was the author of 75% of the New Testament.

But what I'm really curious about in your post is your above comment, that you will say that Jesus is based on a historical, real person. What evidence do YOU have to substantiate such a belief? If the miracles are all Biblical fiction, why not the person who supposedly did them as well? What leads you to believe that a man Jesus ever even existed for there are plenty today who want to dispute that as well?
Reply

The Khan
10-20-2008, 07:42 AM
True, there's no uncontroversial proof of his existence.
Reply

suffiyan007
10-20-2008, 02:04 PM
jesus lifted up to heaven...by power oF Allah....Jesus will come to the world to fight with Dajjal...for the LAST DAy..judgement DAy...and all armageddon.
the world had been demolished....! Jesus will tell that "Dont pray to me, but pray to the ONE GOD,Allah" i am a messenger of ALLah....!:-\
Reply

Oleander
10-20-2008, 05:15 PM
[QUOTE=Grace Seeker;1030682]Really? NONE? Not one?


>>>Yes, you have no prove anyone of these guys the same ones who were at the time of Jesus.
Reply

barney
10-20-2008, 05:43 PM
Originally Posted by Keltoi
Yes, and the Egyptian kings and queens thought they were divine. It isn't the claim that is unique.



Paradise was fairly unique? I don't believe so. Romans battling with Christian terrorism? Read the Davinci Code I see. Christians were repeatedly persecuted for their faith by a number of Roman emperors. Emperor Diocletian, in 303, launched the last wave of Christian persecution. That only stopped due to Emperor Constantine legalizing Christianity in 310.



You have cynicism in abundance, good for you. :D
Thanks :D
Nero started the first christian percecutions after the Parthian defeated them and they needed a scapegoat for their troubles.
They responded with a series of assassinations and arson.

I beleive Jesus actually lived. Nope theres no evidence for him, but there were hundreds and hundreds of prophets selling their wares in his day and it's to be expected that one was successful.

I cant see any reason however why one source should be the only evidence, written or otherwise, for his miracles.

Pompeii we can still see today as a preserved monument to some Roman Gods wrath! The scribes of the times were waxing lyrical about it.
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-20-2008, 09:46 PM
Originally Posted by Oleander
Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Really? NONE? Not one?

>>>Yes, you have no prove anyone of these guys the same ones who were at the time of Jesus.
Those among "supposed" NT scholars who would make such claims as you have just made also tend to deny the validity of the Pauline texts as actually having been written by Paul. Will you join them in that accusation as well?


As I indicated in my other post, tradition dating back to the 2nd century suggests that many (I'm not saying all) of the New Testament books were indeed authored by people who knew Jesus.

Origen and Papias both are reported to have credited the Gospel of Matthew to the disciple Matthew, even claiming that he first wrote a Hebrew version before the present Greek version that we still have copies of.

Iraneus, Tertullian and Clement all agree that it was the apostle John who wrote the Gospel of John. And Iraneus happens to have grown up at the feet of Polycarp who was known as a pupil of the apostle John and learned from him directly that he wrote the gospel accredited to him.

Origen in his commentary on John also references the letter of James and refers to it as being of apostolic origin. It was not quoted much by the early church, but it was retained in the corpus of the New Testament specifically because of the belief in its connection with James the brother of Jesus. And the writing itself commends this view, for though it is written in Greek the syntax is actually Semitic in character, as if a native-Aramaic speaker had written it or dicated it in Greek.

1 Peter is a book that was never disputed by the early church. A comparison of the letter with Peter's speeches in Acts yields several items favorable to his authorship -- the theme that God is no respecter of persons (Acts 10:34 & 1 Peter 1:17), Christ the stone rejected by the builders (Acts 4:10-11, 1 Peter 2:7-8), the prominence given to the "name" (of Christ) in various connections (Acts 3:6, 4:10, 5:41, 10:43, 1 Peter 4:14, 4:16), and the discussion of the Christ event as the fulfillment of prophetic testiomny (Acts 3:18, 3:24, 1 Peter 1:10-12). There are a number of autobiographical touches in the letter that fit what we know about Peter from the Gospels.

Admittedly Jude and 2 Peter both have some problems. But I think it is incombant on you if you wish to reject these to have some reasons to reject what those who were much closer to the writing of these books accepted. So far your argument consists of a claim and that's all.

I can go into much more detail on the above, so fair warning, if you take up this challenge I'll expect you to be able to back it up and know what you are talking about. If you do a simple cut and paste job from someone else's work, I'll be able to tell, and conclude that you really don't know what you are talking about, and have just bought in to the first work you can find that supports the view you are looking for. We learn little from such a process as that. I'm looking for something a little more substantial than your assertion that Paul wrote 75% of the New Testament. I notice that you didn't make that foolish claim a second time. Please do some fact-checking on your sources if you are going to depend on someone else's work, or you will once again look like you did on that ridiculous assertion about Paul. And that is just a waste of my time.
Reply

Eric H
10-21-2008, 11:45 AM
Greetings and peace be with you barney,
We have literally perhaps 100000 people who could have written something. Anything. These miracles were to show he was who he said he was. As a convincing proof to amaze and confirm his god-ness
Supposing each one of the five thousand gave a testimony of the miracle, would you read through all five thousand and then believe?

If Joe Bloggs was one of the five thousand and gave a testimony, would you want to know who he was. The bottom line is would another 4990 testimonies add to the proof of the miracle, or would readers still say there is no proof.

The 20000 occupying Romans, who wrote everything down in triplicate, decide to write not a syllable about someone who can do evrything from withering a fig tree (highly useful) to raising the dead,(many military applications)
Ect Etc and ad nauseum
Strange how despite the lack of Romans writing this down that Rome should become a centre for Christianity. Strange how the Romans who had their own calendar, changed it and reset time to life before and after Jesus.

All these things are fairly insignificant, the only thing you need to accept fully is that there is a God who created the universe and life. Then everything else falls into place

Barney my friend there will never be enough proof for you, sadly theist accept things they cannot prove, we call it faith.

In the spirit of searching for God

Eric
Reply

barney
10-21-2008, 11:55 AM
Originally Posted by Eric H
Greetings and peace be with you barney,


Supposing each one of the five thousand gave a testimony of the miracle, would you read through all five thousand and then believe?
Nope:
5 or i in a thousand, would lend it a lot of weight, if they were unbiased sources.I'd certainly change my thinking about it.
2, well I'd say it lacked a lot of credibility, but at least it was independent evidence.
1, I'd wonder if this guy was paid off by an apostle
Zero. Thats no evidence at all. Thats solid and sound proof that these events simply diddnt happen. (I'm talking about the supernatural; stuff, not that there was a pious Jew who grew up to beleive he was God and then was executed.)

"For the beleiver no evidence is neccessery, For the Skeptic, Hey ya gotta have SOMETHING!" Apologies to Skye for infringement of signiture copyright.
Reply

Woodrow
10-21-2008, 04:17 PM
Although I may disagree with some of the things in the Bible as it exists today, I do see the Bible as being reasonably historically accurate, but not infallible.

Keep in mind what exists today as the Bible is not the result of one source. It is the selected compilation of many books written by many different people. It is an error to see the Bible as one source, for the historical concepts you need to see it as coming from many sources from many authors.

All of these are separate sources. Think of the Bible as being the condensed version of a gigantic library.

To see more of the views of Isa(as) at the time it is necessary to also read the books that were not included in the Bible. Sadly uring the various consels many of those manuscripts were destroyed. The few remaining that I have seen also seem to support the historical record of at least some of the miracles.
Reply

suffiyan007
10-21-2008, 04:41 PM
Originally Posted by Woodrow
Although I may disagree with some of the things in the Bible as it exists today, I do see the Bible as being reasonably historically accurate, but not infallible.

Keep in mind what exists today as the Bible is not the result of one source. It is the selected compilation of many books written by many different people. It is an error to see the Bible as one source, for the historical concepts you need to see it as coming from many sources from many authors.

All of these are separate sources. Think of the Bible as being the condensed version of a gigantic library.

To see more of the views of Isa(as) at the time it is necessary to also read the books that were not included in the Bible. Sadly uring the various consels many of those manuscripts were destroyed. The few remaining that I have seen also seem to support the historical record of at least some of the miracles.


i agreed:

Authorized King James Version
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from King James version of the Bible)
Jump to: navigation, search
"King James Version" redirects here. For other uses, see King James Version (disambiguation).
Authorized Version
The title page to the 1611 first edition of the Authorized Version Bible by Cornelius Boel shows the Apostles Peter and Paul seated centrally at the top. Moses and Aaron flank the central text. In the four corners sit Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, authors of the four gospels, with their symbolic animals. The rest of the Apostles stand at the top.
The title page to the 1611 first edition of the Authorized Version Bible by Cornelius Boel shows the Apostles Peter and Paul seated centrally at the top. Moses and Aaron flank the central text. In the four corners sit Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, authors of the four gospels, with their symbolic animals. The rest of the Apostles stand at the top.
Full name: Authorized Version
King James
Abbreviation: KJV or AV
Complete Bible published: 1611
Textual Basis: NT: High Correspondence to the Beza 1589 edition of the Textus Receptus, similar to the Byzantine text-type; some readings derived from the Vulgate. OT: Masoretic Text with Septuagint influence. Apocrypha: Septuagint with Vulgate influence.
Reading Level: US and Canada Grade 12 [1], US and Canada Grade 8-10 [2]
Copyright status: (See Copyright status)
Genesis 1:1-3
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
Concordant Hebrew English Sublinear
"in beginning he-created Elohim the heavens and the earth and the earth she-became chaos and vacancy and darkness over surfaces-of abyss and spirit-of Elohim vibrating over surfaces-of the waters and he-is-saying Elohim he-shall-become light and he-is-becoming light"
©2007 Scripture4all Foundation
John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Concordant Greek Text Sublinear
"thus for loves the God the system as-besides the son the only-generated he-gives that every the one-believing into him no should-be-being-destroyed but may-be-having life eonian"
©2007 Concordant Publishing Concern

The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Bible begun in 1604 and first published in 1611 by the Church of England. The Great Bible was the first "authorized version" issued by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII.[3] In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England.

The king gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy. The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

While the Authorized Version was meant to replace the Bishops' Bible as the official version for readings in the Church of England, it was apparently (unlike the Great Bible) never specifically "authorized", although it is commonly known as the Authorized Version in the United Kingdom. However, the King's Printer issued no further editions of the Bishops' Bible; so necessarily the Authorized Version supplanted it as the standard lectern Bible in parish church use in England. In the Book of Common Prayer (1662), the text of the Authorized Version replaced the text of the Great Bible — the Epistle and Gospel readings — and as such was "authorized" by Act of Parliament.[4] In the United States, the Authorized Version is known as the King James Version. The earliest appearance in print of the phrase "authorized version", to mean this particular version of the bible, was published in 1824.[5] The phrase 'King James version' first appeared in print in 1884.[6]

By the first half of the 18th Century, the Authorized Version was effectively unchallenged as the sole English translation in current use in Protestant churches. Over the course of the 18th Century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English speaking scholars.

In most of the world, the Authorized Version has passed out of copyright and is freely reproduced. In the United Kingdom, the British Crown holds perpetual Crown copyright to the Authorized Version. Cambridge University Press, Oxford University Press, and the Queen's Printers have the right to produce the Authorized Version.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Prior English Bible Translations
* 2 New version
o 2.1 Committees
* 3 Apocrypha
* 4 Authorized Version
* 5 Copyright status
* 6 Printing
* 7 Literary attributes
o 7.1 Translation
o 7.2 Style and criticism
* 8 Standard text of 1769
* 9 See also
* 10 Notes
* 11 References
* 12 Further reading
* 13 External links

[edit] Prior English Bible Translations

See also: English translations of the Bible

Despite legal prohibitions against translating the Latin Bible into vernacular languages, the followers of John Wycliffe undertook the first complete English translations of the Christian scriptures in the 15th century. These translations, usually dated to 1409, were banned due to their association with the Lollards.[7] The Wycliffe Bible pre-dated the printing press but was circulated widely in manuscript form. Often these manuscript Bibles were imprinted with a date from before 1409 so as to avoid the legal ban.

In 1525, William Tyndale, an English contemporary of Luther, undertook a translation of the New Testament.[8] Tyndale's translation was the first printed Bible in English. Over the next ten years, Tyndale revised his New Testament in the light of rapidly advancing Biblical scholarship, and embarked on a translation of the Old Testament.[9] Despite some controversial translation choices, the merits of Tyndale's work and prose style made his translation the ultimate basis for all subsequent renditions into Early Modern English.[10] With these translations lightly edited and adapted by Myles Coverdale, in 1539, Tyndale's New Testament and his incomplete work on the Old Testament became the basis for the Great Bible. This was the first "authorized version" issued by the Church of England during the reign of King Henry VIII.[11] When Mary I succeeded to the throne in 1553, she sought to return the English Church to the Roman Catholic faith and many English religious reformers fled the country,[12] some establishing an English-speaking colony at Geneva. Under the leadership of John Calvin, Geneva became the chief international centre of Reformed Protestantism and Latin biblical scholarship.[13]
William Tyndale translated the New Testament into English in 1525.
William Tyndale translated the New Testament into English in 1525.

These English expatriates undertook a translation that became known as the Geneva Bible.[14] This translation, dated to 1560, was a revision of Tyndale's Bible and the Great Bible on the basis of the original languages.[15] Soon after Elizabeth I took the throne in 1558, the flaws of both the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible became painfully apparent.[16] In 1568, the Church of England responded with the Bishops' Bible - a revision of the Great Bible in the light of the Geneva version.[17] While officially approved, this new version failed to displace the Geneva translation as the most popular English Bible of the age - in part because the full Bible was only printed in lectern editions of prodigious size and at a cost of several pounds.[18] Accordingly, Elizabethan lay people overwhelmingly read the Bible in the Geneva Version - small editions were available at a relatively low cost. At the same time, there was a substantial clandestine importation of the rival Douay-Rheims New Testament of 1582, undertaken by exiled Roman Catholics. This translation, though still derived from Tyndale, claimed to represent the text of the Latin Vulgate.[19]

In May 1601, King James VI of Scotland attended the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland at St Columba's Church in Burntisland, Fife, at which proposals were put forward for a new translation of the Bible into English.[20] Two years later, he acceded to the throne of England as King James I of England.

[edit] New version

The newly crowned King James convened the Hampton Court Conference in 1604. This gathering proposed a new English version in response to the perceived problems of earlier translations as detected by the Puritan faction of the Church of England. Three examples of problems the Puritans perceived with the Bishops' and Great Bibles were:
“ First, Galatians iv. 25 (from the Bishops' Bible). The Greek word susoichei is not well translated as now it is, bordereth neither expressing the force of the word, nor the apostle's sense, nor the situation of the place. Secondly, psalm cv. 28 (from the Great Bible), ‘They were not obedient;’ the original being, ‘They were not disobedient.’ Thirdly, psalm cvi. 30 (also from the Great Bible), ‘Then stood up Phinees and prayed,’ the Hebrew hath, ‘executed judgment.’[21] ”

There were instructions given to the translators that were intended to limit the Puritan influence on this new translation. The Bishop of London added a qualification that the translators would add no marginal notes (which had been an issue in the Geneva Bible). King James cited two passages in the Geneva translation where he found the marginal notes offensive:[22] Exodus 1:17, where the Geneva Bible had commended the example of civil disobedience showed by the Hebrew midwives; and also II Chronicles 15:16, where the Geneva Bible had criticized King Asa for not having executed his idolatrous grandmother, Queen Maachah. Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church. For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word "church" were to be retained and not to be translated as "congregation". The new translation would reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about an ordained clergy.

The King's instructions included several requirements that kept the new translation familiar to its listeners and reader. 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 Douai-Rheims Bible.[23] It is for this reason that the flyleaf of most printings of the Authorized Version observes that the text had been "translated out of the original tongues, and with the former translations diligently compared and revised, by His Majesty's special command."

The task of translation was undertaken by 47 scholars, although 54 were originally approved.[24] All were members of the Church of England and all except Sir Henry Savile were ordained priests.[25] The scholars worked in six committees, two based in each of the University of Oxford, the University of Cambridge, and Westminster. The committees included scholars with Puritan sympathies, as well as High Churchmen. Forty unbound copies of the 1602 edition of the Bishops' Bible were specially printed so that the agreed changes of each committee could be recorded in the margins.[26] The committees worked on certain parts separately, and then the drafts produced by each committee were compared and revised for harmony with each other.[27] The scholars were not paid directly for their translation work, instead a circular letter was sent to bishops encouraging them to consider the translators for appointment to well paid livings as these fell vacant.[28] Several were supported by the various colleges at Oxford and Cambridge, while others were promoted to bishoprics, deaneries and prebends through royal patronage.

The committees started work towards the end of 1604. King James I of England, on July 22, 1604 sent a letter to Archbishop Bancroft that asks for him to contact all English churchmen, and he requested that they make donations to his project.

"Right trusty and well beloved, we greet you well. Whereas we have appointed certain learned men, to the number of 4 and 50, for the translating of the Bible, and in this number, divers of them have either no ecclesiastical preferment at all, or else so very small, as the same is far unmeet for men of their deserts and yet we in ourself in any convenient time cannot well remedy it, therefor we do hereby require you, that presently you write in our name as well to the Archbishop of York, as to the rest of the bishops of the province of Cant.[erbury] signifying unto them, that we do well, and straitly charge everyone of them . . . that (all excuses set apart) when we prebend or parsonage . . . shall next upon any occasion happen to be void . . . we may commend for the same some such of the learned men, as we shall think fit to be preferred unto it . . . Given unto our signet at our palace of West.[minister] on the 2 and 20th of July, in the 2nd year of our reign of England, France, and of Ireland, and of Scotland xxxvii." [29]

They all had completed their sections by 1608: the Apocrypha committee finishing first.[30] From January 1609, a General Committee of Review met at Stationers' Hall, London to review the completed marked texts from each of the six companies. The committee included John Bois, Andrew Downes, John Harmar, and others known only by their initials, including "AL" (who may be Arthur Lake) and were paid for their attendance by the Stationers' Company. John Bois prepared a note of their deliberations (in Latin) - which has partly survived in two later transcripts.[31] Also surviving are a bound-together set of marked-up corrections to one of the forty Bishops' Bibles - covering the Old Testament and Gospels,[32] and also a manuscript translation of the text of the Epistles, excepting those verses where no change was being recommended to the readings in the Bishops' Bible.[33] Archbishop Bancroft insisted on having a final say, making fourteen changes; of which one was the term "bishopricke" at Acts 1:20.[34]

[edit] Committees

* First Westminster Company, translating from Genesis to 2 Kings:

Lancelot Andrewes, John Overall, Hadrian à Saravia, Richard Clarke, John Layfield, Robert Tighe, Francis Burleigh, Geoffrey King, Richard Thomson, William Bedwell;

* First Cambridge Company, translated from 1 Chronicles to the Song of Solomon:

Edward Lively, John Richardson, Lawrence Chaderton, Francis Dillingham, Roger Andrewes, Thomas Harrison, Robert Spaulding, Andrew Bing;

* First Oxford Company, translated from Isaiah to Malachi:

John Harding, John Rainolds (or Reynolds), Thomas Holland, Richard Kilby, Miles Smith, Richard Brett, Daniel Fairclough, William Thorne [35];

* Second Oxford Company, translated the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Book of Revelation:

Thomas Ravis, George Abbot, Richard Eedes, Giles Tomson, Sir Henry Savile, John Peryn, Ralph Ravens, John Harmar;

* Second Westminster Company, translated the Epistles:

William Barlow, John Spenser, Roger Fenton, Ralph Hutchinson, William Dakins, Michael Rabbet, Thomas Sanderson;

* Second Cambridge Company, translated the Apocrypha:

John Duport, William Branthwaite, Jeremiah Radcliffe, Samuel Ward, Andrew Downes, John Bois, John Ward, John Aglionby, Leonard Hutten, Thomas Bilson, Richard Bancroft.[36]

Archbishop Richard Bancroft was the "chief overseer" of the production of the Authorized Version.
Archbishop Richard Bancroft was the "chief overseer" of the production of the Authorized Version.

[edit] Apocrypha

For more details on the Apocrypha, see Biblical canon.

English-language Protestant Bibles in the 16th Century included the books of the Apocrypha – generally in a separate section between the Old and New Testaments; and there is evidence that these were widely read as popular literature, especially in Puritan circles.[37][38] By the mid—17th Century, however, Puritan theologians were increasingly uneasy at the intermingling of biblical scripture with popular culture in general, and with the Apocrypha in particular. Further, these theologians were also inclined to reject books which owed their inclusion in the biblical canon to ecclesiastical authority. Starting in 1630, volumes of the Geneva Bible were occasionally bound with the pages of the Apocrypha section excluded. After the Restoration in 1660, Dissenters tended to discourage the reading of the Apocrypha in both public services and in private devotion.

The Church of England in the Thirty-Nine Articles had included the Apocrypha within the canon of holy Scripture. Article VI Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation asserts:
“ And other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine ”

The Authorized Version included the Apocrypha; all the books and sections of books present in the Latin Vulgate's Old Testament — the translation of Jerome (Hierome) — but missing in the Hebrew. Indeed, the Book of Common Prayer specifies lectionary readings from the Apocrypha to be read in Morning and Evening Prayer in October.

The standardisation of the text of the Authorized Version after 1769 together with the technological development of Stereotype printing made it possible to produce Bibles in large print-runs at very low unit prices. For commercial publishers, editions of the Authorized Version without the Apocrypha reduced the cost, while having increased market appeal to non-Anglican Protestant readers.[39] With the rise of the Bible societies in 1827, most editions have omitted the whole section of Apocryphal books.[40]

The Apocrypha was excluded from most Bibles following a withdrawal of subsidies by the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1824, which resolved [41]
“ that no pecuniary grants be made by the Committee of this Society for the purpose of aiding the printing or publishing of any edition of the Bible, in which the Apocrypha shall be mixed and interspersed with the Canonical Books of Holy Scriptures. ”

The society revised its position in 1966.
[edit] Authorized Version

While the Authorized Version was meant to replace the Bishops' Bible as the official version for readings in the Church of England, it was apparently (unlike the Great Bible) never specifically "Authorized", although it is commonly known as the Authorized Version in the United Kingdom. However, the King's Printer issued no further editions of the Bishops' Bible; so necessarily the Authorized Version supplanted it as the standard lectern Bible in parish church use in England. In the 1662 Book Of Common Prayer, the text of the Authorized Version finally supplanted that of the Great Bible in the Epistle and Gospel readings - though the Psalter nevertheless was provided in the 1539 version.

The case was different in Scotland, where the Geneva Bible had long been the standard Church Bible. It was not till 1633 that a Scots edition of the Authorized Version was printed - in conjunction with the Scots coronation in that year of Charles I.[42] The inclusion of illustrations in the edition raised accusations of Popery from opponents to the religious policies of Charles, and of William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury. However, official policy favoured the Authorized Version, and this favour returned during the Commonwealth - as London printers succeeded in re-asserting their monopoly of Bible printing with support from Oliver Cromwell – and the "New Translation" was the only edition on the market.[43] F.F. Bruce reports that the last recorded instance of a Scots parish continuing to use the "Old Translation" (i.e. Geneva) as being in 1674.[44]

The Authorized Version's acceptance by the general public took longer. The Geneva Bible continued to be popular, and large numbers were imported from Amsterdam, where printing continued up to 1644 in editions carrying a false London imprint.[45] However, few if any genuine Geneva editions appear to have been printed in London after 1616, and in 1637 Archbishop Laud prohibited their printing or importation. In the period of the English Civil War, soldiers of the New Model Army were issued a book of Geneva selections called "The Soldiers' Bible" (1643, Herbert #577). In the first half of the 17th Century the Authorized Version is most commonly referred to as "The Bible without notes"; thereby distinguishing it from the Geneva "Bible with notes". There were several further printings of the Authorized Version in Amsterdam - one as late as 1715 (Herbert #936) - which combined the Authorized Version translation text with the Geneva marginal notes;[46] and one such edition was printed in London in 1649. During the Commonwealth a commission was established by Parliament to recommend a revision of the Authorized Version with acceptably Protestant explanatory notes;[47] but the project was abandoned when it became clear that these would be nearly double the bulk of the bible text. After the English Restoration, the Geneva Bible was held to be politically suspect, and a reminder of the repudiated Puritan era. Furthermore, as the disputes over the lucrative rights to print the Authorized Version dragged on through the 17th Century, so none of the printers involved saw any commercial advantage in marketing a rival translation. The Authorized Version became the only current version circulating among English speaking people.

Slowest of all was acceptance of the text by Biblical Scholars. Hugh Broughton, who was the most highly regarded English Hebraist of his time (but who had been excluded from the panel of translators, due to his utterly uncongenial temperament), issued in 1611 a total condemnation of the new version;[48] criticising especially the translators' rejection of word-for-word equivalence.[49] Walton's London Polyglot of 1657 disregards the Authorized Version (and indeed the English Language) entirely.[50] Walton's reference text throughout is the Vulgate. The Vulgate Latin is also found as the standard text of scripture in Thomas Hobbes Leviathan of 1651,[51] indeed Hobbes gives Vulgate chapter and verse numbers (i.e. Job 41:24; not Job 41:33) for his head text. In Chapter 35: 'The Signification in Scripture of Kingdom of God' , Hobbes discusses Exodus 19:5, first in his own translation of the 'Vulgar Latin' , and then subsequently as found in the versions he terms "...the English translation made in the beginning of the reign of King James" , and "The Geneva French" (i.e. Olivetan). Hobbes advances detailed critical arguments why the Vulgate rendering is to be preferred. For most of the 17th Century the assumption remained that, while it had been of vital importance to provide the scriptures in the vernacular for ordinary people; nevertheless for those with sufficient education to do so, Biblical study was best undertaken within the international common medium of Latin. It is only in 1700, that modern bilingual Bibles appear in which the Authorized Version is compared to counterpart Dutch and French Protestant vernacular Bibles.[52]

In consequence of the continual disputes over printing privileges, successive printings of the Authorized Version were notably less careful than the 1611 edition had been – compositors freely varying spelling, capitalisation and punctuation;[53] and also, over the years, introducing about 1,500 misprints (some of which, like the omission of "not" from the commandment "Thou shalt not commit adultery" in the "Wicked Bible" (1631, Herbert #444)), became notorious. The two Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638 attempted to restore the proper text – while introducing over 200 revisions of the original translators' work, chiefly by incorporating into the main text a more literal reading originally presented as a marginal note.[54] A more thoroughly corrected edition was proposed following the Restoration, in conjunction with the revised 1662 Book of Common Prayer, but Parliament then decided against it.

By the first half of the 18th Century, the Authorized Version was effectively unchallenged as the sole English translation in current use in Protestant churches;[55] and was so dominant that the Roman Catholic church in England issued in 1752 a revision of the 1610 Douay-Rheims Bible by Richard Challoner that was, in actuality, very much closer to the Authorized Version than to the original.[56] However, general standards of spelling, punctuation, typesetting, capitalisation and grammar had changed radically in the 100 years since the first edition of the Authorized Version was produced; and all printers in the market were introducing continual piecemeal changes to their bible texts, to bring them into line with current practice - and with public expectations of standardised spelling and grammatical construction.[57]

Over the course the 18th Century, the Authorized Version supplanted the Latin Vulgate as the standard version of scripture for English speaking scholars and divines, and indeed came to be regarded by some as an inspired text in itself; so much so that any challenge to its readings or textual base came to be regarded by many as an assault on Holy Scripture.[58] A key milestone in this process was the publication in 1737 of Alexander Cruden's Complete Concordance to the Holy Scriptures,[59] in which the English words of the Authorized Version were analysed with no regard to the original tongues.

[edit] Copyright status

In most of the world the Authorized Version has passed out of copyright and is freely reproduced. This is not the case in the United Kingdom where the rights to the Authorized Version are held by the British Crown under perpetual Crown copyright. Publishers are licensed to reproduce the Authorized Version under letters patent. In England, Wales and Northern Ireland the letters patent are held by the Queen's Printer, and in Scotland by the Scottish Bible Board. The office of Queen's Printer has been associated with the right to reproduce the Bible for many centuries, with the earliest known reference coming in 1577. In the 18th century all the surviving interests in the monopoly were bought out by John Baskett. The Baskett rights descended through a number of printers and, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Queen's Printer is now Cambridge University Press, who inherited the right when they took over the firm of Eyre & Spottiswoode in 1990.[60]

Other royal charters of similar antiquity grant Cambridge University Press and Oxford University Press the right to produce the Authorized Version independently of the Queen's Printer. In Scotland the Authorized Version is published by Collins under license from the Scottish Bible Board. The terms of the letters patent prohibit those other than the holders, or those authorized by the holders from printing, publishing or importing the Authorized Version into the United Kingdom. The protection that the Authorized Version, and also the Book of Common Prayer, enjoy is the last remnant of the time when the Crown held a monopoly over all printing and publishing in the United Kingdom.[61]

[edit] Printing

The original printing of the Authorized Version was published by Robert Barker, the King's Printer, in 1611 as a complete folio Bible.[62] It was sold looseleaf for ten shillings, or bound for twelve.[63] Robert Barker's father, Christopher, had, in 1589, been granted by Elizabeth I the title of royal Printer,[64] with the perpetual Royal Privilege to print Bibles in England.[65] Robert Barker invested very large sums in printing the new edition, and consequently ran into serious debt,[66] such that he was compelled to sub-lease the privilege to two rival London printers, Bonham Norton and John Bill.[67] It appears that it was initially intended that each printer would print a proportion of the text, share printed sheets with the others, and split the proceeds. Bitter financial disputes broke out, as Barker accused Norton and Bill of concealing their profits, while Norton and Bill accused Barker of selling sheets properly due to them as partial bibles for ready money.[68] There followed decades of continual litigation, and consequent imprisonment for debt for members of the Barker and Norton printing dynasties,[69] while each issued rival editions of the whole Bible. In 1629 the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge managed successfully to assert separate and prior royal licences for bible printing, for their own university presses – and Cambridge University took the opportunity to print revised editions of the Authorized Version in 1629,[70] and 1638.[71] The editors of these editions included John Bois and John Ward from the original translators. This did not, however, impede the commercial rivalries of the London printers, especially as the Barker family refused to allow any other printers access to the authoritative manuscript of the Authorized Version.[72]
The opening of the Epistle to the Hebrews of the 1611 edition of the Authorized Version shows the original typeface. Marginal notes reference variant translations and cross references to other Bible passages. Each chapter is headed by a precis of contents. There are decorative initial letters for each Chapter, and a decorated headpiece to each Biblical Book; but no illustrations.
The opening of the Epistle to the Hebrews of the 1611 edition of the Authorized Version shows the original typeface. Marginal notes reference variant translations and cross references to other Bible passages. Each chapter is headed by a precis of contents. There are decorative initial letters for each Chapter, and a decorated headpiece to each Biblical Book; but no illustrations.

Two editions of the whole bible are recognized as having been produced in 1611, which may be distinguished by their rendering of Ruth 3:15; the first edition reading "he went into the city", where the second reads "she went into the city."[73] However, bibles in all the early editions were made up using sheets originating from several printers, and consequently there is very considerable variation within any one edition. It is only in 1613 that an edition is found,[74] all of whose surviving representatives have substantially the same text.[75]

The original printing was made before English spelling was standardised; and when printers, as a matter of course, expanded and contracted the spelling of the same words in different places, so as to achieve an even column of text.[76] They set "v" invariably for lower-case initial "u" and "v", and "u" for "u" and "v" everywhere else. They used long "ſ" for non-final "s".[77] The letter "j" occurs only after "i" or as the final letter in a Roman numeral. Punctuation was relatively heavy, and differed from current practice. When space needed to be saved, the printers sometimes used ye for the, (replacing the Middle English thorn with the continental y), set ã for an or am (in the style of scribe's shorthand), and set "&" for "and". On the contrary, on a few occasions, they appear to have inserted these words when they thought a line needed to be padded. Current printings remove most, but not all, of the variant spellings; the punctuation has also been changed, but still varies from current usage norms.

The first printing used a black letter typeface instead of a Roman typeface, which itself made a political and a religious statement. Like the Great Bible and the Bishops' Bible, the Authorized Version was "appointed to be read in churches". It was a large folio volume meant for public use, not private devotion; the weight of the type mirrored the weight of establishment authority behind it. However, smaller editions and Roman-type editions followed rapidly; e.g. quarto Roman-type editions of the Bible in 1612 (Herbert #313/314). This contrasted with the Geneva Bible, which was the first English Bible printed in a Roman typeface (although black-letter editions, particularly in folio format, were issued later).

In contrast to the Geneva Bible and the Bishops' Bible, which had both been extensively illustrated, there were no illustrations at all in the 1611 edition of the Authorized Version; the main form of decoration being the historiated initial letters provided for books and chapters - together with the decorative title pages to the Bible itself, and to the New Testament.

The Authorized Version also used Roman type instead of italics to indicate text that had been supplied by the translators, or thought needful for English grammar but which was not present in the Greek or Hebrew. In the first printing, the device of having different type faces to show supplied words was used sparsely and inconsistently. This is perhaps the most significant difference between the original text and the current text.

The original printing contained two prefatory texts; the first was a rather fulsome Epistle Dedicatory to "the most high and mighty Prince" King James. Many British printings reproduce this, while a few cheaper or smaller American printings fail to include it.

The second, and more interesting preface was called The Translators to the Reader, a long and learned essay that defends the undertaking of the new version. It observes that their goal was not to make a bad translation good, but a good translation better, and says 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... containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God".[78] Few editions anywhere include this text.

The first printing contained a number of other apparatus, including a table for the reading of the Psalms at matins and evensong, and a calendar, an almanac, and a table of holy days and observances. Much of this material has become obsolete with the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar by the UK and its colonies in 1752 and thus modern editions invariably omit it.

So as to make it easier to locate a particular passage, each chapter was headed by a brief precis of its contents with verse numbers. Later editors freely substituted their own chapter summaries, or omit such material entirely.

[edit] Literary attributes

[edit] Translation

Like Tyndale's translation and the Geneva Bible, the Authorized Version was translated primarily from Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts, although with secondary reference both to the Latin Vulgate, and to more recent scholarly Latin versions; while two books of the Apocrypha were translated from a Latin source. Following the example of the Geneva Bible, words implied but not actually in the original source were distinguished by being printed in distinct type (albeit inconsistently); but otherwise the translators explicitly rejected word-for-word equivalence.[79] F.F Bruce gives an example from Romans Chapter 5:[80]

2 By whom also wee haue accesse by faith, into this grace wherein wee stand, and reioyce in hope of the glory of God. 3 And not onely so, but we glory in tribulations also, knowing that tribulation worketh patience:

The English terms "rejoice" and "glory" stand for the same word in the Greek original. In Tyndale, Geneva and the Bishops' Bibles, both instances are translated "rejoice". In the Douay-Rheims New Testament, both are translated "glory". Only in the Authorized Version does the translation vary between the two verses.

In obedience to their instructions, the translators provided no marginal interpretation of the text; but in some 8,500 places a marginal note offers an alternative English wording.[81] The majority of these notes offer a more literal rendering of the original (introduced as "Heb", "Chal", "Gr" or "Lat"), but others indicate a variant reading of the source text (introduced by "or"). Some of the annotated variants derive from alternative editions in the original languages, or from variant forms quoted in the fathers; but more commonly they indicate a difference between the original language reading, and that in the translators' preferred recent Latin versions; Tremellius for the Old Testament, Junius for the Apocrypha, and Beza for the New Testament.[82] A few more extensive notes clarify Biblical names, units of measurement or currency; and in a very few places (e.g. Luke 17:36) record that a verse is absent from most Greek manuscripts. Modern reprintings rarely reproduce these annotated variants - although they are to be found in the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. In addition, there were originally some 9,000 scriptural cross-references, in which one text was related to another. Such cross-references had long been common in Latin bibles, and most of those in the Authorized Version were copied across from this Latin tradition, hence preserving their distinct Vulgate references - e.g. in the numbering of the Psalms.[83] At the head of each chapter, the translators provided a short précis of its contents, with verse numbers; these are rarely included in complete form in modern editions.

The translators render the Tetragrammaton YHWH or the name Yahweh by the use of small capitals as LORD, or Lord GOD (for Adonai YHWH, "Lord YHWH"), denoting the divine name, Jesus is referred to as Lord with a capital "L" and lower case "ord" as the example of the scripture in Psalm 110:1 "The LORD said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool".

For their Old Testament, the translators worked from editions of the Hebrew Rabbinic Bible by Daniel Bomberg (1524/5);[84] but adjusted the text in a few places to conform to the Greek LXX or Latin Vulgate in passages to which Christian tradition had tended to attach a Christological interpretation [85]; as, for example, the reading "they pierced my hands and my feet" in Psalm 22:16. Otherwise, however, the Authorized Version is closer to the Hebrew tradition than any previous English translation – especially in making use of the rabbinic commentaries, such as Kimhi, in elucidating obscure passages in the Masoretic Text;[86] by contrast with earlier versions, which had been more likely to adopt LXX or Vulgate readings in such places.

For their New Testament, the translators chiefly used the 1598 and 1588/89 Greek editions of Theodore Beza;[87] which also present Beza's Latin version of the Greek and Stephanus's edition of the Latin Vulgate; both of which 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.[88] 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; but in several dozen readings he notes that no printed Greek text corresponds to the English of the Authorized Version – which in these readings derives directly from the Vulgate.[89] 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; but still, at least 80% of the text is unaltered from Tyndale's translation.[90]

Unlike the rest of the Bible, the translators of the Apocrypha identified their source texts in their marginal notes.[91] From these it can determined that the books of the Apocrypha were translated from the Septuagint – primarily, from the Greek Old Testament column in the Antwerp Polyglot – but with extensive reference to the counterpart Latin Vulgate text, and to Junius's Latin translation. The translators record references to the Sixtine Septuagint of 1587, which is substantially a printing of the Old Testament text from the Codex Vaticanus; and also to the 1518 Greek Septuagint edition of Aldus Manutius. They had, however, no Greek texts for 2 Esdras, or for the Prayer of Manasses, and Scrivener found that they here used an unidentified Latin manuscript.

The translators appear to have otherwise made no first-hand study of ancient manuscript sources, even those which – like the Codex Bezae – would have been readily available to them.[92] In addition to all previous English versions - including the Douay-Rheims Bible, they also consulted contemporary vernacular translations in Spanish, French, Italian and German. They also 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.[93].

[edit] Style and criticism

A primary concern of the translators was to produce a Bible that would be appropriate, dignified and resonant in public reading. Hence, in a period of rapid linguistic change, they avoided contemporary idioms; tending instead towards forms that were already slightly archaic, like verily and it came to pass.[94] They also tended to enliven their text with stylistic variation, finding multiple English words or verbal forms, in places where the original language employed repetition.

The Authorized Version is notably more Latinate than previous English versions,[95] especially the Geneva Bible. This results in part from the academic stylistic preferences of a number of the translators – several of whom admitted to being more comfortable writing in Latin than in English – but was also, in part, a consequence of the royal proscription against explanatory notes.[96] Hence, where the Geneva Bible might use a common English word - and gloss its particular application in a marginal note; the Authorized Version tends rather to prefer a technical term, frequently in Anglicised Latin. Consequently, although the King had instructed the translators to use the Bishops' Bible as a base text, the New Testament in particular, stylistically owes much to the Catholic Rheims New Testament, whose translators had also been concerned to find English equivalents for Latin terminology.[97] In addition, the translators of the New Testament books habitually quote Old Testament names in the renderings familiar from the Vulgate Latin, rather than in their Hebrew forms (e.g. Elias, Jeremias; for Elijah, Jeremiah).

While the Authorized Version remains among the most widely sold, modern critical New Testament translations differ substantially from the Authorized Version in a number of passages, primarily because they rely on source manuscripts not then accessible to (or not then highly regarded by) early 17th Century Biblical Scholarship.[98] In the Old Testament, there are also many differences from modern translations that are based not on manuscript differences, but on a different understanding of Ancient Hebrew vocabulary or grammar by the translators. For example, in modern translations it is clear that Job 28 1-11 is referring throughout to mining operations, which is not at all apparent from the text of the Authorized Version.[99] Some suggest that its value lies in its poetic language at the cost of accuracy in translation, while other scholars firmly disagree with these claims. For example, New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman has written:
“ The Authorized Version is filled with places in which the translators rendered a Greek text derived ultimately from Erasmus's edition, which was based on a single twelfth-century manuscript that is one of the worst of the manuscripts that we now have available to us.[100] ”

[edit] Standard text of 1769

By the mid-18th Century the wide variation in the various modernized printed texts of the Authorized Version, combined with the notorious accumulation of misprints, had reached the proportion of a scandal; and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge both sought to produce an updated standard text. First of the two was the Cambridge edition of 1762 (Herbert #1142), edited by F.S. Parris [101] ; but this was effectively superseded by the 1769 Oxford edition, edited by Benjamin Blayney (Herbert #1196), which became the Oxford standard text, and is the text which is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings [102] . Parris and Blayney sought consistently to remove those elements of the 1611 and successive subsequent editions, that they believed were due to the vagaries of printers; while incorporating most of the revised readings of the Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638, and each also introducing a few improved readings of their own. They undertook the mammoth task of standardizing the wide variation in punctuation and spelling of the original, making many thousands of minor changes to the text; although some of these updates do alter the ostensible sense - as when the original text of Genesis 2:21 "in stead" (in that place) was updated to read "instead" (as an alternative). In addition, Blayney and Parris thoroughly revised and greatly extended the italicization of "supplied" words not found in the original languages by cross-checking against the presumed source texts. Unfortunately, Blayney assumed that the translators of the 1611 New Testament had worked from the 1550 Stephanus edition of the Textus Receptus, rather than from the later editions of Beza; and accordingly the current standard text mistakenly "corrects" around a dozen readings where Beza and Stephanus differ [103] . Like the 1611 edition, the 1769 Oxford edition included the Apocrypha; although Blayney consistently removed marginal cross-references to the Books of the Apocrypha, wherever these had been provided by the original translators. Altogether, Blayney's 1769 text differed from the 1611 text in around 24,000 places [104] ; but since that date, only six further changes have been introduced to the standard text - although 30 of Blayney's proposed changes have subsequently been reverted [105] . The Oxford University Press paperback edition of the "Authorized King James Version" provides the current standard text; and also includes the prefatory section "The Translators to the Reader".[106]

The 1769 text of the first three verses from I Corinthians 13 is given below.

1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.

In these three verses, there are eleven changes of spelling, nine changes of typesetting, three changes of punctuation, and one variant text - where "not charity" is substituted for "no charity" in verse two, in the erroneous belief that the original reading was a misprint.

For a period, Cambridge continued to issue Bibles using the Parris text, but the market demand for absolute standardisation was now such that they eventually fell into line. Since the beginning of the 19th Century, almost all printings of the Authorized Version have derived from the 1769 Oxford text - generally without Blayney's variant notes and cross references, and commonly excluding the Apocrypha [107]. One exception to this was a scrupulous original-spelling, page-for-page, and line-for-line reprint of the 1611 edition (including all chapter headings, marginalia, and original italicization, but with Roman type substituted for the black letter of the original), published by Oxford in 1833.[108] Another important exception to this was the 1873 Cambridge Paragraph Bible, thoroughly revised, modernised and re-edited by F. H. Scrivener, who for the first time, consistently identified the source texts underlying the 1611 translation and its marginal notes [109]. Scrivener, however - as Blayney had done - did adopt revised readings where he considered the judgement of the 1611 translators had been faulty [110]. In 2005, Cambridge University Press released its New Cambridge Paragraph Bible with Apocrypha, edited by David Norton, which modernized Scrivener's spelling again to present-day standards, and introduced quotation marks; while restoring the 1611 text, so far as possible, to the wording intended by its translators, especially in the light of the rediscovery of some of their working documents [111]. This text has been issued in paperback by Penguin books.[112]

From 1769, the text of the Authorized Version remained unchanged - and since, due to advances in printing technology, it could now be produced in very large editions for mass sale, it established complete dominance in public and ecclesiastical use in the English-speaking Protestant world. Academic debate over the next hundred years, however, increasingly reflected concerns about the Authorized Version shared by some scholars that: (a) that subsequent study in oriental languages suggested a need to revise the translation of the Hebrew bible - both in terms of specific vocabulary, and also in distinguishing descriptive terms from proper names; (b) that the Authorized Version was unsatisfactory in translating the same Greek words and phrases into different English, especially where parallel passages are found in the synoptic gospels; and, (c) in the light of subsequent ancient manuscript discoveries, the New Testament translation base of the Greek Textus Receptus could no longer be considered to be the best representation of the original text[113]

The Authorized Version maintained its effective dominance throughout the first half of the 20th Century. New translations in the second half of the 20th Century appeared, which displaced its 250 years of dominance (roughly 1700 to 1950)[114] Some groups do exist - sometimes termed the King-James-Only Movement - that mistrust all changes to the Authorized Version.[115]
Reply

suffiyan007
10-21-2008, 04:48 PM
Allah already knew that the Al-Yahud and nassara..will change every verses and do a lot of version and lotsa controversial about bibles...! something that they filtered up the truth and the falsehood in bible they shown to people...and this is teaching of Jesus....! and etc... and then why churches pope,cardinals ,arcbishops,bishop, priest and brothers... try to prove that the Trinity is by JEsus...wHY jeSus Has to walk through 14 station in the way of the cross....? to wash away the sin of the world....if JEsus is powerful, so how about God....and Jesus can be a God and saviour cause he die for our sin...u think this blurbs are making people believe the truth of jEsus....if a people will a real thinker is making this people to be a real nuts...a christian can be a real nutty proffesor to tell the people this kind of rumour.!
Reply

Eric H
10-21-2008, 04:59 PM
:)Greetings and peace be with you Suffiyan007;
a christian can be a real nutty proffesor to tell the people this kind of rumour
I have been called several things but not a nutty prof..:)

In the spirit of praying for a greater interfaith friendship.

Eric
Reply

suffiyan007
10-21-2008, 05:20 PM
haha....ok...not going for an argument.....that's all..!:thankyou:
Reply

Grace Seeker
10-21-2008, 07:29 PM
Originally Posted by Suffiyan007
if JEsus is powerful, so how about God....and Jesus can be a God and saviour cause he die for our sin...u think this blurbs are making people believe the truth of jEsus....if a people will a real thinker is making this people to be a real nuts...a christian can be a real nutty proffesor to tell the people this kind of rumour.!
Whenever I hear someone say, "If Jesus is so powerful, how about...." I notice they set up their own little conditional world as to what I suppose they would do if they were God. Well, seems to be that it would be simpler if God/Allah/ or whatever it is that you believe in where all-powerful if he were to simply make everyone so that they were believers. I mean if we are going to have a god both so capricious that he does whatever he wants and he is all-powerful enough to do it, then that would seem to be the best solution. Since that apparently hasn't happened, what shall we conclude.

Either:
1) No god exists at all. (Here are the athiests and that's about all.)
2) God exists, but is not in fact all powerful. (I don't see too many Muslims or Christians rushing to join this group either.)
3) God exists and may be all powerful, but is not capricious. (This would appear to be the only option that both Muslims and Christian are left with.)

Now, we must understand what it means then for God to be all powerful, but not capricious. It means that God's ways are not our ways. We may in our own mind, reasoning, and intellect conclude that something must be/should be/ought to be done in such and such a way. And that if we were God that this is in fact exactly how it must be done. But then it is imperative that we remember that we are NOT in fact God. Thus the conclusions that we draw, the assumptions that we make, the "musts/shoulds/oughts" that we have are not those that God has. We may think that it is illogical for God to come as a human being and die as a savior. But if God chooses it, then it still is the case and we have to let God be God.

Ultimately, the difference between Islam and Christianity or any other religion is not about which presentation of God is more logical or not. For that makes it about what we think, and how we conceive of God in our minds, as if our intellect can determine what can and cannot be true about God. The difference is about revelation. Christianity reveals a God who did indeed do these things. Islam reveals a God who would not do these things. And each of us must somehow decide whether they believe or do not believe these revelations. Once that decision is made, everything left to know and believe about God will ultimately be made to fit in the context of the revelation that is believed.
Reply

malayloveislam
10-23-2008, 10:10 AM
:sl:

The miracle of Prophet Isa (Eeshoo) in his infancy, Sura Maryam (27-38):

27 Then she brought him to her people taking him in her lap. They said, 'no 'doubt, you have committed a very vile thing.'

28 'O sister of Haroon! your father was not a wicked man and nor was your mother an unchaste woman.

29 Then Maryam pointed towards the child. They said, how could we talk to him who is a baby in the cradle'.

30 The baby said, 'I am a bondman of Allah, He gave me the Book and made me the communicator of unseen news (the Prophet).

31 And he made me blessed wherever I may be and enjoined on me prayer and poor due (Zakat) so long as I live.

32 And dutiful to my mother and not made me vigorous, unfortunate.

33 And the same peace on me the day I was born and the day I die and the day I am raised alive.

34 This is Isa the son of Maryam, a word of truth in which they doubts.

35 It is not befitting to Allah that He should take to Himself anyone as son, Holy is He. When He decrees anything, thus then He says to it, 'Be' it becomes atonce.

36 And Iesa said, 'undoubtedly Allah is my Lord and your Lord, then worship Him. This path is straight'.

37 Then the parties differed among themselves; then misery is for the infidels from the presence of a great day.

38 How much they will hear and how much they will see the day they will come to Us, but today the unjust are in open error.

Translation by Kanzul Iman
Reply

malayloveislam
10-23-2008, 10:22 AM
V27 The sister of Haroon (Aaron) means Maryam is a very pious lady, she had done charities and worships until she had been called by her people the Jews as the sister of Haroon.

V30 Prophet Isa (Jesus) speak while he is in the cradle defending his mother's dignity. Lord Allah had made him speak. It is the with the Lord Allah's miracle that the baby speak. The baby is just a baby human.

V33 Isa too being borned, died, and raised alive from his grave. He was not crucified by the Roman and the black heart Jews, but he had escaped somewhere through the help of our Lord, Allah the Most Powerful above all.

V34 What had been uttered by Isa is the truth and he is a prophet. A prophet appointed by Lord Allah can't tell lies.

V36 Prophet Isa said that Allah is his Lord and also his people and our Lord, thus he and his people including us must worship Lord Allah alone.

Tafsir Al-Azhar by Professor Abdul Malik Amrullah, Hamka.
Reply

suffiyan007
10-23-2008, 04:37 PM
Jesus is a miracle of Allah, why Allah puts the Nur(holy spirit) a light into Maryam(mary) womb, and born a child call a messiah.Jesus bring the light and the truth to worship to Allah....Jesus Said worship one true God, your God and my God....He begetteth not nor is he begotten....A power of God is real powerful and even plants and animal also zikr to Allah...and make du'a to Allah...
and even the rain falls and sunshine also its show the greatness of Allah. a tomato with with shape of allah Name. and a cloud with name of allah... and etc.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-03-2014, 08:05 PM
  2. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-18-2012, 09:35 PM
  3. Replies: 106
    Last Post: 03-24-2011, 04:11 AM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 09-22-2010, 11:20 PM
  5. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 10-02-2006, 11:37 PM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!