In This Issue

• KING OF THE JEWS
• A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE
• WHY WE QUOTE SCRIPTURE
• UPCOMING GOSPEL MEETING SCHEDULE
• MORE INFORMATION...

KING OF THE JEWS

"Now Jesus stood before the governor. And the governor asked Him, saying, ‘Are You the King of the Jews?’ So Jesus said to him, ‘It is as you say.’ And while He was being accused by the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing. Then Pilate said to Him, ‘Do You not hear how many things they testify against You?’ And He answered him not one word, so that the governor marveled greatly. Now at the feast the governor was accustomed to releasing to the multitude one prisoner whom they wished. And they had then a notorious prisoner called Barabbas. Therefore, when they had gathered together, Pilate said to them, ‘Whom do you want me to release to you? Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?’ For he knew that because of envy they had delivered Him. While he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent to him, saying, ‘Have nothing to do with that just Man, for I have suffered many things today in a dream because of Him.’ But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitudes that they should ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. The governor answered and said to them, ‘Which of the two do you want me to release to you?’ They said, ‘Barabbas!’ Pilate said to them, ‘What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?’ They all said to him, ‘Let Him be crucified!’ Then the governor said, ‘Why, what evil has He done?’ But they cried out all the more, saying, ‘Let Him be crucified!’ When Pilate saw that he could not prevail at all, but rather that a tumult was rising, he took water and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, ‘I am innocent of the blood of this just Person. You see to it.’ And all the people answered and said, ‘His blood be on us and on our children.’ Then he released Barabbas to them, and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered Him to be crucified" (Matt. 27:11-26).

There is a very important matter that we want to call attention to in this reading. Note that in answer to Pilate’s question, Jesus did acknowledge Himself to be King of the Jews -- the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament Scriptures. Many modern critics insist that Jesus never made such a claim; that the idea of His Messiahship was invented by His followers in later generations. We need to realize that virtually everything we know about Jesus is what is recorded in the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. In this passage, Matthew clearly indicates that Jesus did indeed testify in a Roman court of law that He was the Messiah of Old Testament prophecy. John elaborates on Jesus’ claim in John 18:37, "You rightly say that I am a King. For this cause I was born, and for this cause I have come into the world..." We also call to mind the praise Jesus heaped on Simon Peter when he recognized Jesus as the "Christ, the Son of the living God" in Matt. 16:13-19.

--CRJ

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE

Almost 400 years ago (1611) the King James Version of the Bible came into being. Who could have imagined then the impact this one translation would have on the English-speaking world and beyond? Professors Steven Sheeley and Robert Nash in a recent volume on English translations of the Bible said this of the KJV:

"Its impact on both worship and language is difficult to exaggerate. Long after we have abandoned the practice of our Puritan forebears, addressing one another as ‘thee’ and ‘thou,’ people continue to use such language to address God. Even the words of Scripture that we have committed to memory are the words of the KJV."

As true as the above statement is, how much do we really know about this version’s beginning? How aware are we of the purposes and expectations that King James and those with him had for this work? Like many in the Lord’s church, I continue to use the King James Version as my primary English Bible. That being the case, shouldn’t we be expected to be at least nominally familiar with the version of the volume that we treasure so much? It will be my hope and prayer that the following article will whet your appetite for a deeper investigation of not only the King James Version, but also all English Bible translations period.

In January of 1604 King James, I, who had previously reigned for 37 years as King James, VI, of Scotland, called together a conference of religious leaders at Hampton Court "for the hearing, and for the determining, things pretended to be amiss in the Church." The only notable thing that came out of this meeting was the proposal of Puritan leader John Reynolds that a new translation of the Bible be begun. It seems apparent that James, I, leaped at the suggestion. William Barlow recorded these remembrances of that historic occasion (they appear just as he wrote them -- in Old English):

"Whereupon his Highness whished, that some especiall pains should be taken in that behalf for one vniforme translation (professing that he could neuer, yet, see a Bible well translated in English; but the worst of all, his Maiestie thought the Geneua to be) and this to be done by the best learned in both the Vniuersities, after them to be reuiewed by the Bishops, and the chiefe learned of the Church; from them to be presented to the Priuy Councell; and lastly to bee rarified by his Royall authority..."

The work of translating went forth under the following arrangement and guidelines. Forty-seven men working in six companies, two at Cambridge, two at Oxford, and two at Westminster, were to do the translating. Three teams worked on the Old Testament, two on the New Testament, and one on the Apocrypha, with final editing being done by two representatives from each company. "An admirable set of rules was drawn up for the instruction of the revisers." Among the fifteen rules/guidelines the translators were to follow were these,

1. The Bishop’s Bible (1568) was to serve as the basic guide.

2. There were to be no marginal notes, except for those explaining Hebrew and Greek words, those citing parallel passages and those suggesting a "suitable" alternative translation.

3. Old ecclesiastical words [like the word "church"] were to be retained.

4. Existing chapter and verse divisions were to be kept.

5. Words added to complete the sense were to be set off with distinctive type.

6. Chapter headings were to be supplied by the translators themselves.

By November of 1604 at least one of the companies was already translating. "The translators were probably working in earnest, then, by 1605... the committee of review worked during 1610-1611, preparing a final draft for the printer." There is no reason to believe that the companies finished their work at the same time -- in fact the evidence is just the opposite. In 1611 Robert Baker printed the version, in a large folio volume. It contained a dedication to King James and a long preface contributed by Miles Smith, one of the translators. Part of the last paragraph of the lengthy preface says much about the translators’ intent,

"Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one... that hath been our endeavor, that our mark."

Other editions/revisions of the King James Version came out in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. The 1769 edition essentially represents the current form of our King James Bible. Contrary to popular opinion, the Geneva Bible (1560), not the King James, was the Bible of the Puritans/Pilgrims who came to America.

Not everyone, of course, was favorable to the production of a new translation. And it must be remembered that the King James Version was just that. Still in circulation at this time were Coverdale’s Bible (1535), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishop’s Bible (1568). Most of the complaints leveled against these versions were due to the abundance and nature of their marginal notes. Sharp criticism of the King James Bible came especially from one Hugh Broughton:

"The late Bible... was sent to me to censure; which bred in me a sadness that will grieve me while I breathe, it is so ill done. Tell His majesty that I rather be rent in pieces with wild horses, than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor churches... The new edition crosseth me. I require it to be burnt."

In the 19th century even the esteemed Alexander Campbell was quite critical of the King James Version, believing it needed to be replaced with another translation.

We recognize that no version of the Bible. the King James included, has been perfectly translated. New translations are inevitable. However, the King James Version is still one of the strongest translations available. May we always appreciate it and its history.

--Mel Futrell, Vigil, Vol. 30, Number 1

WHY WE QUOTE SCRIPTURE

Though we could say 1,000 words about salvation, if we could not back them up with Scriptures, they would be wasted words. Anyone can read his Bible and tell someone what it says, but how much more effective it is to be able to point the passage out and let everyone see it for himself. How could we ever expect to be able to say anything more effectively than Christ and His apostles?

We could say 1,000 words about Bible subjects but one Bible passage would be worth much more. It is good for us to talk and write about things concerning our salvation, but it would be completely useless unless we show by the Scriptures what the Holy Spirit has revealed about it.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness..." (2 Tim. 3:16).

--CRJ

"Let all that you do be done in love" (1 Cor. 16:14)

MORE INFORMATION...