KING JAMES VERSION ~~ An authority?~~~~ or ~~~ A Hindrance to Christianity ?

[Dr. Brenice Aliyah Fireangel]

Who has made the King James Version of the Bible, " The Authoritative Version?

What View of the Torah does it foster?

Should we rely more upon a Hebraic Version of the Torah?

Why is everyone so attached to the King James Version, in the West?

Brenice FireAngel

[Dr. Brenice Aliyah Fireangel]

History of King James


English Bible History
King James I
King James I

With the death of Queen Elizabeth I, Prince James VI of Scotland became King James I of England. His name has become synonymous with the famous printing of the Bible that bears his name, the “King James Bible” of 1611 AD. He was one of the most intelligent Kings to reign over England, but his personal life made him the most controversial since his relative, King Henry VIII.



James VI of Scotland and James I of England

James VI of Scotland (June 19, 1566 - March 27, 1625, reigned July 24, 1567 - March 27, 1625) became James I of England and Ireland (reigned March 24, 1603-March 27, 1625) and was the first king of both England and Scotland. He also held the title of King of France, as had all his predecessors in the English throne since October 21, 1422, although by his time the title didn't come with an active claim of this throne. James succeeded Elizabeth I as the closest living relative of the unmarried childless English monarch, through his descent from one of Henry VIII's sisters.
King James Crowned at the Age of One

Prince James became King of Scotland on July 24, 1567, at the age of 13 months, after his mother Mary, Queen of Scots was forced to abdicate. Mary fled to England, where she was imprisoned for the next 19 years. His father, Lord Darnley, had died in mysterious circumstances shortly after James was born. James was formally crowned at the Church of the Holy Rood, Stirling on July 29, 1567. In accordance to the religious atmosphere of the time, he was brought up as a Scottish Presbyterian, though his mother had been a Roman Catholic.
King James – from Scotland to England

James inherited the throne of England after the death of his mother's cousin, Queen Elizabeth I. James was never a very popular monarch among the people of England. He laid much of the groundwork that would eventually lead to the beheading of his heir Charles I during the English Civil War, but because of his political skills, his rule was relatively stable. James married Anne of Denmark by proxy on August 20, 1589, and in person on November 23, 1589 and again in person in January 21, 1590. They had eight children, of whom only three lived beyond infancy: Henry, Prince of Wales- (February 19, 1594 - November 6, 1612), Elizabeth Stuart - (August 19, 1596 - February 13, 1662), and King Charles I of England, Scotland and Ireland - (November 19, 1600 - January 30, 1649).

James dissolved the English Parliament on February 8, 1622, following a dispute involving parliamentary criticisms of a marriage proposed by James, of his son Charles to Princess Maria Anna of Spain. King James was quoted as saying, "Monarchy is the greatest thing on earth. Kings are rightly called gods since just like God they have power of life and death over all their subjects in all things. They are accountable to God only ... so it is a crime for anyone to argue about what a king can do."

King James is considered to have been one of the most intellectual and learned individuals ever to sit on any English or Scottish throne. He is primarily remembered for authorizing the production of the King James Version of the Bible, the highly popular English translation from Greek and Hebrew, which remains the most printed book in the history of the world, with over one billion copies in print. King James had nothing to do with the translating the Bible, he merely authorized it and provided financing for its production. Beyond that, however, James wrote several books himself.
'Queen James'

One area of the life of King James that for many years remained clouded in controversy was allegations that James was homosexual. As James did father several children by Anne of Denmark, it is actually more accurate to say that he was allegedly a bi-sexual. While his close relationships with a number of men were noted, earlier historians questioned their sexual nature, however, few modern historians cast any doubt on the King's bisexuality and the fact that his sexuality and choice of male partners both as King of Scotland then later in London as King of England were the subject of gossip from the city taverns to the Privy Council. His relationship as a teenager with fellow teenager Esmé Stuart, Earl of Lennox was criticized by Scottish Church leaders, who were part of a conspiracy to keep the young King and the young French courtier apart, as the relationship was improper to say the least. Lennox, facing threats of death, was forced to leave Scotland.

In the 1580s, King James openly kissed Francis Stewart Hepburn, Earl of Bothwell. Contemporary sources clearly hinted their relationship was a sexual one. When James inherited the English throne from Queen Elizabeth I in 1603, it was openly joked of the new English monarch in London that “Elizabeth was King: now James is Queen!” If there is still any doubt, it should be noted that George Villiers, also held an intimate relationship with King James, about which King James himself was quite open. King James called Villiers his “wife” and called himself Villiers' “husband”! King James died in 1625 of gout and senility. He is buried in the Henry VII chapel in Westminster Abbey, with one of his favorite male suitors on his right, and another on his left.

[Dr. Brenice Aliyah Fireangel]

Correction: King Henry the VIII wanted a divorce from his wife, and wanted the Catholic Church to change church rules so he could remarry, hence, he made himself the head of the Church of England.

Pardon the error!

Brenice

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

Its interesting to watch people hunt for Hebrew translations of the NT when it was written ORIGINALLY in Greek. Thats like Roman Catholics strictly reading it from the Latin. Do not be obsessed with being "more Hebrew" in your quest for righteousness.

By the way, a good Bible to read would be the Interlinear Bible.

[James Pierce]

Trevor,

Actually, the earliest "Greek" manuscripts we have are from the 4th century. There are 1st century Historians who have told us that Matthew had written his Gospel in Hebrew. Its very plausible that James, Peter, and the rest of the NT were orginally written in Hebrew, THEN, in Greek later on. You say its interesting to watch us hunt for Hebrew translation of the bible. Well, we find it just as interesting that Christians read from a language that most Hebrews abhorred, more relevant, a language that Hebrews didn't really speak.

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

The 4th Century?!?!??!?! You MUST mean an Apostolic father's epistle or something, but not scripture!

Matthew is regarded as a Greek writing in its original state, dated at the end of the first century; scholars consider the epistle of James to be written in the late first or early second centuries;Peter's epistles were sited by early Apostolic fathers, so that dates it in early second century or even late first century. These all and more were written in Greek, not Hebrew. Its not an evil thing to have written the epistles in Greek., and to say that most Jews didn't speak Greek was in accurate because Acts 2 shows that there were alot of Jews didn't even speak Greek.

[James Pierce]

Trevor,

Matthew is not regarded as having an original Greek. The majority of scholars agree that the earliest "Greek" manuscripts we have are from the 4th century. That's not debated. What IS debated is that which language the "originals" were written in. Here are quotes from the early fathers of Matthew's Gospel being in Hebrew....

Matthew composed the words in the Hebrew dialect, and each translated as he was able. (Papias, 150-170 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 3:39)

Matthew also issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect. (Ireneus, 170 CE, Against Heresies 3:1)

The first is written according to Matthew, the same that was once a tax collector, but afterwards an emissary of Yeshua the Messiah, who having published it for the Jewish believers, wrote it in Hebrew. (Origen circa 210 CE, quoted by Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. 6:25)

The epistle to the Hebrews he asserts was written by Paul, to the Hebrews, in the Hebrew tongue; but that it was carefully translated by Luke, and published among the Greeks. (Clement of Alexandria, Hypotyposes, referred to by Eusebius in Eccl. Hist.6:14:2)

He (Shaul) being a Hebrew wrote in Hebrew, that is, his own tongue and most fluently; while things which were eloquently written in Hebrew were more eloquently turned into Greek. (Jerome, 382 CE, ‘Lives of Illustrious Men,’ Book V)

It was not Matthew's idea to write the Gospel. He was prevailed upon by the Hebraic Christians of Judea to write the Gospel in their language, Hebrew, before he left to preach in distant lands. According to Eusebius:

“Matthew had begun by preaching to Hebrews; and when he made up his mind to go to others too, he committed his own gospel to writing in his native tongue, so that for those with whom he was no longer present the gap left by his departure was filled by what he wrote.” (Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.24.6-7).

Eusebius was Bishop of Caesarea, a student of Pamphilus, and an early Church historian. He lived from approximately A.D. 260 to 340. Saint Jerome was born roughly about the same time that Eusebius died, about A.D. 340 or so. Jerome also states that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew.

“Matthew, also called Levi, apostle and aforetimes publican, composed a gospel of Christ at first published in Judea in Hebrew for the sake of those of the circumcision who believed, but this was afterwards translated into Greek though by what author is uncertain. The Hebrew itself has been preserved until the present day in the library at Caesarea which Pamphilus so diligently gathered. I have also had the opportunity of having the volume described to me by the Nazarenes of Beroea, a city of Syria, who use it. In this it is to be noted that wherever the Evangelist, whether on his own account or in the person of our Lord the Saviour quotes the testimony of the Old Testament he does not follow the authority of the translators of the Septuagint but the Hebrew. Wherefore these two forms exist 'Out of Egypt have I called my son,' and 'for he shall be called a Nazarene.' ” (Jerome, Lives of Illustrious Men, chapter 3).

Above are some of many proofs that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Also, Paul wrote his letters in Hebrew. Most scholars agree that in Hebrew culture, most of their literature were written in Hebrew, especially 1st century Hebrew culture. While Aramaic may have been the spoken language, Hebrew was the written language. I never said Jews didnt speak Greek, but the majority of them in Jerusalem did not speak Greek, but Aramaic & Hebrew. The facts remain that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, and also Paul. Most likely James was written in Hebrew as well, mainly because his letter's audience was Hebrew.

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

I understand who these Apostolic fathers are. Before I comment back on what out said referring to the time-line they stated, I'll have to go back on my notes & books and research this a bit more. As far as the book of Hebrews, I doubt that Apostle Paul gets the credit of authorship. I would sooner give credit to Barnabas, because Apostle Paul's style is totally different (remember Barnabas was a Levite and an Apostle in the faith before Paul). For starters, he starts off proudly declaring who is writing this epistle with all of Heaven's authority behind it (Galatians 1; 1st & 2nd Corinthians 1; 1st & 2nd Thessalonians 1, ect). I wouldn't fully dispute that Hebrews was written originally in Hebrew because of its audience.

Also, I STRONGLY disagree with your claims of the earliest manuscripts we have are from the 4th century, which lasted from 301 to 400. After taking courses such as "Church History" and doing studies in it myself, I can never agree with that. The Apostolic fathers that you even cited just now (Clement c.150 - 215, ) were before the 4th century, and we have not on the Bible's manuscripts before them, but theirs as well..

[James Pierce]

Trevor,

I stated that most scholars agree to it, even Bruce Metzger. I never gave credit to Paul for writing Hebrews, rather, as some stated above, Paul wrote many of his epistles in Hebrew. Now. most of the quotes above prove that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, rather than all other epistles being in Hebrew. We could make a strong case for all the NT being originally in Hebrew, but the quotes mainly prove that Matthew's Gospel was originally in Hebrew. Above all of these, whether they were written in Hebrew or Greek, The meanings behind the words are all Hebraic! And that is what NO honest scholar can deny.

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

That is arguable also. We have to understand that Paul's mission was MAINLY to the Gentiles who were Greek-speaking converts, and not Hebrews. Galatia, Phillipi, Corinth, Rome, ect, these are ALL Greco-roman speaking congregations. Even the Jews there speak Greek! Also, there are certain terms that are FAR from Hebraic in origin. The terms such as warfare (strategia), Apostle (Apostolos, Apostello), his letter the the Galatians, half of his talks with the Roman Gentiles, and the like, these are not Hebraic in origin. Paul himself said "I became all things to all men", so why stay in a Hebraic context if you are winning souls that are NOT Hebraic to a GOD who is more than just a Hebrew GOD, but the GOD of all creation? We only see HIM (YHWH) as the GOD of Israel, but time after time HE addressed the other nations besides Jacob: Assyria, Egypt, Edom, Babylon, and the list can easily go on. Certain Prophets like Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the like addressed other nations, and not from the Hebraic sense (not keeping Sabbaths, circumcision), but address their sins from what they know to be wrong (murder, thieves, homosexuality). Apostle Paul did just the same.

[James Pierce]

Trevor,

One thing you are missing is that many of the letters he sent were to Jewish communities WITH Gentiles. There is ton of evidence(see Mark Nanos for more) of Jewish Synagouges throughout the empire. Paul sent those letters to these communities. Remember in Acts 15 where James said Moses has someone in every city teaching Torah.

It is true that Paul said he became all things to all men, but that does not mean he reniged his Hebraic understanding for the scriptures. The Jews in these communities spoke Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic.

[Archbishop Trevor 'Elihu' Greene]

1) Not all the Churches were in synagogues. Most were in homes.
2) It was the other way around at times: the Gentile communities had Jews in it. His assignment was MAINLY to the Gentiles. You are mixing up Peter's assignment with Paul's. Thomas had this assignment just as well with even less Jewish synagogues to minister in.
3) Not all Hebrews back then that were scattered spoke Hebrew. Most spoke Greek. The more you found close to Israel, the more spoke Hebrew/Aramaic and less Greek.

[James Pierce]

Trevor,

1) That is true. Some Jewish communities did not except Gentiles who were coming to faith. This is the background of Acts 15.

2) True. Well, im not mixing up anyone's assignment.

3) I agree that Jews scattered across the empire spoke Greek, but they kept their literature in Hebrew.