The Mind of Brian

God’s Secretaries January 7, 2012

While the 400th anniversty of the King James Bible was last year, I am only now getting around reading more about it, seeking to understand how it came about and its influence.  The first book I picked up, though, is actually not one prompted by the 400th anniversary, as Adam Nicolson’s God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible was published in 2003 (originally in Britain and it uses British English throughout). Nicolson does not write as a devout Christian nor an atheist (see p. 241), but more of a historian, in this case almost a cultural historian. In some ways, I feel like the title is a bit misleading; I was thinking there would be more about the processes that were involved in the translation than there was. Perhaps that is because, as Nicolson readily admits, we don’t know a whole lot about it. The translators did not, for the most part, seek the limelight; many are essentially historically anonymous, only having names and a few other facts about them. Some documents discussing the translation (both directly or indirectly) have been found, but much would seem to be lost. Therefore, there is not a lot to go through in the processes of the making of the translation; Nicolson does cover those facts when he can (such as the Hampton Court meeting that prompted the translation, the rules for translation, the different committees assigned to do it and the revision process). The book proceeds somewhat in chronological order, but it also reminded me a bit of Capitol Men in its somewhat unclear structure (at least to me), with vignettes on different members of the translation committee appearing in various chapters. In some ways, the book is more about the world and the culture from which the KJV emerged, and less about the actual process. It starts with James I’s ascension to the English crown and the different challenges early in the reign. It continually talks about the peculiarities and key elements of that period in English history, political and cultural, the tensions of the period that shaped the translation. Nicolson essentially seeks to show how the translation epitomizes its historical context.

The irony that Nicolson continued to point out was that the translation was prompted in one sense as a slap in the face to the strong Puritans (the moderate Puritans did particpate), as it was a new translation, as they requested, but not one they probably would like. In some ways, it was the epitome of the English reformation, done by the request of the king and an attempt to moderate various differences and unify the factions. It was done by men who were definitely sinners and saints; they were not perfect or always even pious, some perhaps even symbolizing the corruption that comes to different churches throughout history. In its translation, the KJV  sought both majesty of language and precise and faithfulness to the original (though sometimes incorrect and using manuscripts that would prove a bit problematic), in a way different from the typical translation from one language to another. Something unique about the KJV was, in addition to the work done in committees and the way it took the best from all previous English translations, was that the sifting process of proposed translations were checked orally; it was not editors reading it on their own, but them hearing the translation that was the court of appeal. What a shift from our “word-based” culture and inability to listen.  A further irony is that, in some ways, the KJV was for public reading, not private study; it did not supplant the Geneva Bible (which had extensive notes, upsetting to some) for private reading, even for the translators. The fact that the KJV made its ways into most American homes and is connected with Puritans and their followers (and for a time served to separate rather than unite groups of Christians) somewhat flies in the face of its original purposes. But I guess for over 300 years it did serve something of a unifying force among Protestants; they had different interpretations but the same Bible and even the same translation. Perhaps after a revival of numerous English translations, we may move towards something that has a consensus as a translation again.