I am Catholic, I like the KJV and I don't care who knows it!

[Devare]

The original King James Version of the Bible contained all the Deuterocanonical works. They were only removed later, to support Protestant theology.

King James writes in the Basilikon Doron (BEFORE the King James Bibles was authorized):

“And as to the Apocrypha books, I omit them, because I am no Papist, as I said before” - King James, Basilikon Doron

That was ALSO the theology back then too - it’s not something recent… King James just wanted to translate all the books (there were 4 groups of KJV translators - two of which went to OXFORD which Edward de Vere was in charge of - hence he called himself Edward Oxenford at occassion).

 

[Devare]

Hello, friend.

I, too, am Catholic and like the classic KJV. The Shakespearean English there is beautiful. Despite the extraordinary elegance of the language, the authors managed to hone amazingly close to the meaning of the original ancient Hebrew and Greek verses

But, of course, 7 books and parts of two others have been removed from the KJV. Protestant commentators say that the Reformers did it because there is little evidence that Jesus made use of the texts. This is wrong. Jesus made massive use of Wisdom and Sirach.

Did you know that it is said by some that Shakespeare encoded his name into Psalm 46? Shakespeare was 46 when the KJV was published. If you go to Psalm 46, and count 46 words in from the beginning (skipping selah, a procedural instruction), you read “shake.” If you go to the end, and count 46 words up, it says “spear” – “shake-spear”!

There was no “William Shakespeare,” Edward de Vere was the one who wrote the plays. Edward de Vere even WROTE letters to King James, and, some of his poems DID survive under his own name.

As for the psalm 46 - the Bishops Bible has it for every 47th letter - the KJV translators simply combined the Bishops with the Geneva - and voila.

 

[Jimzz12]

As a lifelong Catholic it drives me nuts to read the KJV, but not really because I’m a lifelong Catholic but because I spent 4-years of my life reading Shakespeare and it just gives me bad vibes of my youth, and well I’m a professionally trained historian, and in everything I see, unfortunately, I see it through the lense of history.

I do find it odd that Shakespeare had anything to do with the KJV. We know today that he died a Catholic.

Side note: If you thumb through the KJV you’ll find his signature. Gee… gosh! I wish I could remember where it was. I have read it but it’s been years. He took the first letter from a series of words to spell out, “I AM WILL SHAKESPEARE” Nifty.

The priest who let me in on that one is the pastor of St. Margaret in Dorcester, MA. He recieved a perfect cumlative average (4.0) from Harvard University in astro-physics and is the only person I’ve ever known to speak perfect grammatically correct English. Listening to him talk is like listening to someone read a perfectly edited dissertation – a real egg-head.

 

[patrick457]

I do find it odd that Shakespeare had anything to do with the KJV. We know today that he died a Catholic.

Don’t worry, from what we can see, he didn’t have anything to do with it, at least not that we know of. Not a single piece of paper or document we have (and we have a fair number of those) puts him anywhere near the translation process of the King James Version. Plus, Shakespeare - just like John Bunyan, John Knox, and John Donne - preferred to use the Geneva Bible which King James I (along with the ruling conservative Protestants of the Church of England) hated due to the Calvinistic and Puritan tone of many of its footnotes; in fact, it was James’ dislike for it that prompted him to commission the Authorized Version!

Side note: If you thumb through the KJV you’ll find his signature. Gee… gosh! I wish I could remember where it was. I have read it but it’s been years. He took the first letter from a series of words to spell out, “I AM WILL SHAKESPEARE” Nifty.

Are you sure that it would be compatible with the original 1611 version? And what spelling of his name did he use (Shakespeare, Shakespheare, Shagspeare, Shaxpere, Shakspere, etc.)?

That reminds me of how William Shakespeare’s name is supposedly an anagram for “Here was I, like a psalm.”

 

[Jimzz12]

Concerning “I AM WILL SHAKESPEARE”

I’ve actually seen it in a KJV. It was shown to me by the priest who himself was made aware of it in his literary circles.

Also, it’s kind of coincidental… they uncovered a potrait of Shakespeare recently.

 

[patrick457]

Concerning “I AM WILL SHAKESPEARE”

I’ve actually seen it in a KJV. It was shown to me by the priest who himself was made aware of it in his literary circles.

How can I see it?

 

[Jimzz12]

If I remember correctly, it was in one of the Old Testament books. And, since it’s KJV, that sort of narrows it down even furthur. It’s been over 10 years since I was shown it. Regardless, of the possibility of coincidence, it’d be fun just to locate it one more time for posterity.

 

[SFH]

In other posts I have ranted about finding the perfect translation. Well after serious consideration I have managed to figure out my problem…none of the Catholic translations in my opinion equal the Protestant translations that I used prior to entering the Catholic Church…they just don’t measure up, particularly when it comes to study bibles. The KJV and NASB study bibles I have blow away all of the Catholic so-called study bibles with the exception of the DR Haydock. They just can’t be beat as far as layout, readability, and other helps go. Unfortunately some of the notes are “too Protestant” theologically speaking but most are applicable to Catholics as they are just descriptives. I know these bibles don’t contain the deuterocanonicals but I have others that do, and I do not personally see a problem with reading such bibles as long as one is aware that there may be some Protestant bias interwoven into the fabric of the text…but then again the RSV is a Protestant based translation that has been embraced by Catholic scholars and lay-readers alike. Any thoughts??

Well, I’m a cradle Catholic, and I like the KJV too! I just wish they had stuck with “Hail, full of grace” and “Amen, amen” in the New Testament, and kept the “Hallelujah” in the Psalms instead of “Praise the Lord.” Just be sure you’ve got a KJV with the apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments (most Anglican versions have it, including the one published by Cambridge Press).

 

[joemccarron]

For apologetics it might be good to get used to the wording of the KJV. I tend to like the wording. But hey I even like the NAB and everyone seems to complain about that. I’m not an expert in Greek but most of what people like and dislike seems based more on subjective taste than anything being wrong in one translation or another.

 

[Jimzz12]

For apologetics it might be good to get used to the wording of the KJV. I tend to like the wording. But hey I even like the NAB and everyone seems to complain about that. I’m not an expert in Greek but most of what people like and dislike seems based more on subjective taste than anything being wrong in one translation or another.

I have a NAB. I’m not sure what version but I haven’t found much of the neutral languages. I find the Psalms are rather conducive to prayer. I’m not an expert either, but I prefer my Bible language to be harsh like it is in the NAB. It’s my personal preference, but I generally associate KJV Bible speech as a little cliché.

 

[Devare]

I do find it odd that Shakespeare had anything to do with the KJV. We know today that he died a Catholic.

On the contrary, William Shakespeare never existed, he’s just an invented character like Richard Hakluyt or John Wallis. I don’t doubt that Shakespeare was portrayed as a Catholic.
The man who DID write shakespeare, Edward de Vere, was an extreme “Anti-Catholic,” from his letters to his plays, you can cleary tell:

“Stand back, thou manifest conspirator, Thou that contrivedst to murder our dead lord; Thou that giv’st whores indulgences to sin:… Under my feet I stamp thy cardinal’s hat: In spite of pope or dignities of church, Here by the cheeks I’ll drag thee up and down… Now beat them hence; why do you let them stay? Thee I’ll chase hence, thou wolf in sheep’s array. Out, tawny coats! out, scarlet hypocrite!” - Edward de Vere, I King Henry VI, Act I, Scene III

“Upon what meat doth this our Caesar feed, That he is grown so great? . . . Till then, my noble friend, chew upon this: Brutus had rather be a villager Than to repute himself a son of Rome Under these hard conditions as this time Is like to lay upon us.” - Edward de Vere, Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene II

“…the Admiral in France was an eyesore or beam in the eyes of the papists…” - Edward de Vere, letter to William Cecil sept 1572

Then de Vere goes on to PRAISE King James:

“God hath endued our new master and sovereign Lord [King James], who doth not come amongst us as a stranger but as a natural prince, succeeding by right of blood and inheritance, not as a conqueror but as the true shepherd of Christ’s flock” - Edward de Vere, letter to Robert Cecil april 1603

I should note that Edward de Vere used a Geneva Bible (yeah, the one for the Shakespeare plays with which he underlined certain phrases); clearly King James and vice versa didn’t mind of the book - King James just wanted to correct the mistakes it contained.

I’m somewhat perplexed why a Catholic forum is bothering to diverge in “Protestant” materials and creations.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Swampboy et alia,

There are, indeed, plenty of reasons to love and to prefer the greatest Protestant (actually, Anglican) Bible, the Authorised “King James” Version (A.V.), which, after all, the USCCB recognises as one that Roman Catholics can use, and, I would add, profitbly. For me, the A.V. always will be my Bible of reference; it is the readings of this version that I have memorised and its beauty only has one rival, Bp. Challoner’s text of the Douay-Rheims Version (D.R.-C.), which is so beautiful, accurate, and memorable in large measure due to the influence of the A.V. on Challoner’s work.

The two versions, the A.V. and the D.R.-C., are translated from the two most important texts of the New Testament, the Textus Receptus (a.k.a. Majority Text, Byzantine Text, Ecclesiastical Text), a form of Greek N.T. text which for the Roman Catholic reference point is above all the Complutensian Polyglot’s Greek N.T. text, which differs only very minutely from the usual T.R. Greek text underlying the A.V., and the Complutensian Greek, in fact, is part of the Byzantine Text transmission of the N.T. The D.R.-C. is based, of course, on the Clementine Latin Vulgate, which is a far better text than the dreadfully corrupt Greek readings that account for the so-called “Critical Text” (essentially Alexandrian Text) on which most modern Protestant and post-W.W. II Roman Catholic versions use; it is better to translate from the Clementine Vulgate than from the “Critical * Text” Greek.

Anyway, there is plenty of good reason to stick with the A.V., for the sake of memory retention that so many of us developped prior to becoming Roman Catholics, as well as for ithe A.V.'s excellence. Since the A.V. does include the deutero-canononical writings in what the A.V. refers as its “Apocrypha”, a R.C. believer who posesses an A.V. in a truly complete edition that includes the “Apocrypha” has the entire canon of Holy Scripture of the Canon of the Bible that the Council of Trent established as normative, plus the three supplementary deutero-canonical writings that the Clementine Latin Vulgate relegates to its appendix.

Doctrinal differences in rendering in the A.V., compared to truly Roman Catholic versions, are few in number of any which really matter much at all, and this is precisely because the Anglican translators of the A.V. were so honest in their work of translation. It is easy to keep in mind where such pof the assages occur that matter a bit. So – up with the A.V. (and its papal cousin, the D.R.-C. version)!

Jerry Parker*

 

[Jimzz12]

On the contrary, William Shakespeare never existed, he’s just an invented character like Richard Hakluyt or John Wallis. I don’t doubt that Shakespeare was portrayed as a Catholic. The man who DID write shakespeare, Edward de Vere, was an extreme “Anti-Catholic,” from his letters to his plays, you can cleary tell:

I’m somewhat perplexed why a Catholic forum is bothering to diverge in “Protestant” materials and creations.

Whether he existed on didn’t exist, I’m not sure if that is pertinent. The works attributed to William Shakespeare have brought about a great number of conversion. I’ve encountered at least two people, on my own, who have told me they work converted by literature. Both mentioned ‘King Lear’ at a catalyst to a desire to seek fullness of faith.

I’d say it’s less important fret over Catholics discussing Protestant material, than if we weren’t. The KJV is really a study in socio-political history. It’s an interesting gaze into what happens when the government sticks their filthy paws into our Church. At the time of the writing of the KJV there was already a wide-spread English version in place. The only problem the opponents of St. Thomas More had was that it spoke too Papist. That version is the Douy-Rheims. It hasn’t effectively changed in since it’s inception.

I’m not a fan of the Douy-Rheims, really for the same reason as why the KJV bugs me. It’s just too difficult to read. It’s not properly formatted. It’s not conducive to ejaculative prayer. And, frankly I can’t get any inspiration out of it.

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Jimmzz 12,

**You wrote: ** *At the time of the writing of the KJV there was already a wide-spread English version in place. The only problem the opponents of St. Thomas More had was that it spoke too Papist. That version is the Douay-Rheims. It hasn’t effectively changed since it’s inception. I’m not a fan of the Douay-Rheims, really for the same reason as why the KJV bugs me. It’s just too difficult to read. It’s not properly formatted. It’s not conducive to ejaculative prayer. And, frankly I can’t get any inspiration out of it. *

I am perplexed that you would claim that the Douay-Rheims Version Bible “hasn’t changed since its inception”. This simply is not true, and, frankly, it is a good thing that the Douay-Rheims, indeed, did undergo so much change! Saintly Bp. Richard Challoner considerably modified the wording of the Douay-Rheims in the severral editions of his revision which he produced during his lifetime, which various publishers used, basically sometimes following one or another of Challoner’s text, others mixing and matching wording from Challoner’s remake of the Douay-Rheims Version. In its modern, slightly fluid form, it rightly should be called not simply the Douay-Rheims Version, but rather, the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version.

The original Douay-Rheims Version, despite much crudity in wording as originally conceived, influenced to some degree the Authorised “King James” Version (A.V.), which latter, in turn, influenced Challoner’s revision(s). If it had not been for Bp. Challoner, the Bible of the translators at Douay and Rheims long would have been forgotten, a mere curio. As it was, Challoner’s Bible, with its much more elegant and elevated prose, gave a “new lease of life” on the Douay-Rheims Bible and provided a fine Roman Catholic alternative to the Geneva and A.V. Protestant Bibles.

I disagree with you about the supposed unsuitability of the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Bible for oral use publically. Its beauty of expression makes a far more eloquent and lovely effect when read aloud than do most of even the best modern versions, and some, like the N.A.B., as irksomely as they are when reading to oneself, fall even woefully flatter in public reading.

Fortunately, there are enough good 20th century versions, even if too many other poor ones, to meet a Catholic Christian’s needs, if he really does not care for the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version, whether for good or for less well-grounded reasons!

Jerry Parker

 

[patrick457]

I am perplexed that you would claim that the Douay-Rheims Version Bible “hasn’t changed since its inception”. This simply is not true, and, frankly, it is a good thing that the Douay-Rheims, indeed, did undergo so much change! Saintly Bp. Richard Challoner considerably modified the wording of the Douay-Rheims in the severral editions of his revision which he produced during his lifetime, which various publishers used, basically sometimes following one or another of Challoner’s text, others mixing and matching wording from Challoner’s remake of the Douay-Rheims Version. In its modern, slightly fluid form, it rightly should be called not simply the Douay-Rheims Version, but rather, the Douay-Rheims-Challoner Version.

I’ll agree with this. If we could simplify it further:

1.) The 1582 Rheims NT was one of the versions consulted by the translators of the AV as a minor influence (vide infra).
2.) Bishop Richard Challoner (a convert from Protestantism) substantially revised the Douai-Rheims between 1749 and 1752, borrowed heavily from the King James Version; producing a version which, while still called the Douay-Rheims, was little like the original. The chief points to note in these revisions are the elimination of the obscure and literal translations from the Latin in which the original version abounds, the alteration of obsolete terms and spelling, a closer approximation in some respects to the AV (for instance, the substitution of “the Lord” for “our Lord”), and finally the printing of the verses separately.

For the next 200 years Challoner’s revisions were the groundwork for nearly all English Catholic Bibles, including those published in America, beginning with a Philadelphia edition in 1790. Rather than use any particular revision, later editors tended to pick and choose from the several versions available. This means that many of the Douai-Rheims Bibles available differed from each other in the texts they contained. Significantly, the American editions tended towards the later, more natural, revisions, while the English ones tended towards the earlier, more conservative versions (which were closer to the Latin).

Thus:

1682 Rheims New Testament → influenced → 1611 Authorized King James Version
King James Version → influenced → Challoner’s 1749-1752 Douai-Rheims

 

[Devare]

There are, indeed, plenty of reasons to love and to prefer the greatest Protestant (actually, Anglican) Bible, the Authorised “King James” Version (A.V.), which, after all, the USCCB recognises as one that Roman Catholics can use, and, I would add, profitbly…
Doctrinal differences in rendering in the A.V., compared to truly Roman Catholic versions, are few in number of any which really matter much at all, and this is precisely because the Anglican translators of the A.V. were so honest in their work of translation. It is easy to keep in mind where such pof the assages occur that matter a bit.

I have to disagree, the King James Bible has MAJOR differences between the Douay-Rheims Bible - ESPECIALLY in the Old Testament (I outlined this in a different post). The most noticeable is, the King James Bible calls God “the Rock,” whilst the Douay-Rheims simply uses “God.” With few exceptions.

There seems to be some confusion with King James - was he an anglican, calvinist, or freemason etc? (To be honest, he was none - although I believe he, as a king, was required to attend masonic meetings).
Well certainly the King James Bible has masonic symbols in it (which the same woodcuts appear in the “shakespeare” 1623 first folio as well), however, that is Bacon’s doing to make a long story short.
King James tried to stay in the middle of everything; he believed one was only saved by faith - and the Church of England was quite different back then from Queen Elizabeth’s modifications.
To prove this point of HOW different the English Church was, I direct you to what King James said in the Hampton Court:

“Particularly in this land, King Henry VIII towards to the end of his reign altered much, King Edward VI more, Queen Mary reversed all, and lastly Queen Elizabeth (of famous memory) settled religion as it now standeth. Herein I am happier than they, because they were fain to alter all things they found established, whereas I see yet no such cause to change as confirm what I find settled already.” - King James, Hampton court

Obviously, the English Church today wouldn’t be suited to King James’ expectations.

 

[patrick457]

I have to disagree, the King James Bible has MAJOR differences between the Douay-Rheims Bible - ESPECIALLY in the Old Testament (I outlined this in a different post). The most noticeable is, the King James Bible calls God “the Rock,” whilst the Douay-Rheims simply uses “God.” With few exceptions.

That’s a given. The King James Version is translated from the original languages, while the DR is made from the Latin Vulgate. Plus, as I mentioned, the influence that the 1582 Rheims New Testament had over the KJV is rather small (only 3%!) and rests mainly on some of the Latin vocabulary that the KJV uses (such as emulation in Romans 11:14).

There seems to be some confusion with King James - was he an anglican, calvinist, or freemason etc? (To be honest, he was none - although I believe he, as a king, was required to attend masonic meetings).

Well certainly the King James Bible

has masonic symbols in it (which the same woodcuts appear in the “shakespeare” 1623 first folio as well), however, that is Bacon’s doing to make a long story short.

Such as?

Obviously, the English Church today

wouldn’t be suited to King James’ expectations.

Unfortunately, I’ll have to agree with this one.

 

[Cranch]

I didn’t know RSV was a protestant based translation. What do you mean by that?

I didn’t see your question answered in the thread. The following is from the preface to the 1971 RSV:

The Revised Standard Version of the Bible is an authorized revision of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which was a revision of the King James Version, published in 1611.

The RSV-CE and RSV-CE 2nd edition are basically the same as the original RSV (in either its 1959 or 1971 editions) with the exception of a few “more Catholic” translations of some verses. Here is an informative page put together by a CAF member showing the differences between various RSV and RSV-CE versions:

umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/RSVCEdiff.htm

 

[graceandglory]

The original King James Version of the Bible contained all the Deuterocanonical works. They were only removed later, to support Protestant theology.

:newidea:

 

[graceandglory]

I didn’t see your question answered in the thread. The following is from the preface to the 1971 RSV:

The Revised Standard Version of the Bible is an authorized revision of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which was a revision of the King James Version, published in 1611.

The RSV-CE and RSV-CE 2nd edition are basically the same as the original RSV (in either its 1959 or 1971 editions) with the exception of a few “more Catholic” translations of some verses. Here is an informative page put together by a CAF member showing the differences between various RSV and RSV-CE versions:

umsis.miami.edu/~medmunds/RSVCEdiff.htm

Woah, I didn’t even know you were responding to my post, and I was already all over that website like “white on rice!”
Thanks for sharing that! Very interesting webpage. Would be nice in book form.

I’d like to delve into this more. It’s interesting. I think I must have been wired for scripture study since a child. I love the written word, can’t stop reading and writing, have studied scripture for nearly 30 yrs, and majored in linguistics and foreign language.

When I was a protestant believer, I seriously considered going to work for Wycliffe.