Obvious anti-Catholicism in the KJV?

[Vico]

Ok, other than the obvious, viz, that most editions of the KJV do not include the Deuterocanon, are there any obvious wordings, phrases, passages therein that are anti-Catholic? Please cite book, chapter, verse.

Thanks.o

King James 1611 is based on the Textus Receptus so does not include the Alexandrian texts as the Vulgate and Douay-Rheims do. The original KJV was revised including wording from original Rheims (1582 N.T.) and Douay (1610 O.T.). Douay-Rheims was later updated by Challoner (abt. 1750). Also there is another Douay-Rheims-Challoner-MacMahon (abt. 1810). There is also a Troy revision about the time of MacMahon. If you compare the versions from KJV and DR there are many differences.

 

[Manfred]

King James 1611 is based on the Textus Receptus so does not include the Alexandrian texts as the Vulgate and Douay-Rheims do. The original KJV was revised including wording from original Rheims (1582 N.T.) and Douay (1610 O.T.). Douay-Rheims was later updated by Challoner (abt. 1750). Also there is another Douay-Rheims-Challoner-MacMahon (abt. 1810). There is also a Troy revision about the time of MacMahon. If you compare the versions from KJV and DR there are many differences.

All well and good re the textual bases for the respective versions, but I’m looking for renderings in the English text that would render the KJV verboten for Catholics.

So far, any evidence appears to be scant.

 

[Vico]

All well and good re the textual bases for the respective versions, but I’m looking for renderings in the English text that would render the KJV verboten for Catholics.

So far, any evidence appears to be scant.

Some differences of KJV from Vulgate:

**********Genesis 3:15
************Genesis 37:35
****Genesis 42:38
****Genesis 47:31
******3 King 2:6,9
******Hosea 6:14
******Psalm 6:5 **

**********Matthew 11:10
********************Luke 1:28

********1 Timothy 3:8
**1 Timothy 5:17
****1 Timothy 5:19
****1 Timothy 9:14 **
2 Timothy 4:8
Corinthians 9:5
**Romans 11:4 **
James 5:14
Acts 15:2
******Acts 20:28

---

 

[patrick457]

In the preface to the TAN Publication edition of the Douay-Rheims-Challoner, the publisher states that Challoner’s reason for revising the 1609 D-R was that few Catholics in Great Britain were actually reading the D-R, that many were, in fact, reading the KJV, a situation that was felt had to be remedied. Given that the KJV of that era (1) contained no polemical notes (in fact, NO notes whatsoever), and (2) included the Apocrypha, then what was the big deal if Catholics were reading the KJV?

Could anyone shed some light on this?

One reason was that the original DR was too literally translated. It simply was not ‘English’. The original translators actually criticized translators of their time for translating the text in clear and understandable English, often to the point of sacrificing literal faithfulness to the text: “… we presume not in hard places to modifie the speaches or phrases, but religiously keepe them word for word, and point for point, for feare of missing or restraining the sense of the holy Ghost to our phantasie.” Their translation philosophy was to translate the text as literally as possible: if the original text is obscure, then the translation should also reflect that obscurity.

Just from the Pauline epistles:

But death reigned from Adam unto Moses, even on them also that sinned not after the similitude of the prevarication of Adam, who is a figure of him to come. But not as the offence, so also the gift: for if by the offence of one, many died: much more the grace of God and the gift, in the grace of one man Jesus Christ, hath abounded upon many. (Romans 5:14-15)

For this thing in yourselves, which also in Christ Jesus, who when he was in the form of God, thought it no robbery, himself to be equal to God, but he exaninated himself, taking the form of a servant, made into the similitude of men, and in shape found as man. He humbled himself, made obedient unto death: even the death of the cross. For the which thing God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: that in the name of Jesus, every knee bow of the celestials, terrestrials, and infernals: and every tongue confess that our Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father. (Philippians 2:5-11)

The Gentiles to be co-heirs and concorporate and comparticipant of his promise in Christ Jesus by the Gospel: whereof I am made a minister according to the gift of the grace of God, which is given me according to the operation of his power. To me the least of all the saints is given this grace, among the Gentiles to evangelize the unsearcheable riches of Christ, and to illuminate all men what is the dispensation of the sacrament hidden from worlds in God, who created all things: that the manifold wisdom of God, may be notified to the Princes and Potestates in the celestials by the Church, according to the prefinition of worlds, which he made in Christ Jesus our Lord. In whom we have affiance and access in confidence, by the faith of him. (Ephesians 3:6–12)

 

[Usagi]

As has already been pointed out, both “bishop” and “overseer” are valid translations of the Greek word “episkopos”, which literally means "someone who over (epi) - sees (skopos).

Right. “Bishop” is not even a translation so much as a direct word-mutation of “episkopos.” Somewhere along the way, the “e” and the ending got lopped off and other sounds got softened, the first “p” to a “b” and the “sc” to a “sh,” until we ended up spelling and pronouncing it “bishop.” “Presbyter” similarly mutated into “priest,” even though an actual English translation of the word would give us “elder.”

One thing the KJV definitely gets right, and most other translations (even Catholic ones) render less clearly, is in the passage where St. Matthias is appointed to fill Judas’ “office” among the Apostles. The word usually rendered “office” is a form of “episkopos” that signifies specifically THAT office. The KJV provides admirable clarity by rendering the word as “bishopric.”

Usagi

 

[JohnR77]

Yeah, there is that, the “Dedicatorie”

“So that, if on the one side we shall be traduced by Popish persons at home or abroad . . .”

Thanks Dave. The use of the word “Popish” is an obvious ant-Catholic slant.

BIBLES OF HATE

web.archive.org/web/20050309011532/http://www.catholicapologetics.net/Bibles_of_hate.htm#THE%20KING%20JAMES%20VERSION%20%281611%29:

In the “THE TRANSLATORS TO THE READER” *the original Preface to the King James Version of 1611] *we find such anti-Catholic statements as: “Now the Church of Rome …they must first get a license in writing before they may use them, and to get that, they must approve themselves to their Confessor, that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the dregs, yet soured with the leaven of their superstition. Howbeit, it seemed too much to Clement the Eighth that there should be any License granted to have them in the vulgar tongue, and therefore he overruleth and frustrateth the grant of Pius the Fourth… So much are they afraid of the light of the Scripture, that they will not trust the people with it, no not as it is set forth by their own sworn men, no not with the License of their own Bishops and Inquisitors.”

“…The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the Word translated, did no less than despite the spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express…”
What is not mentioned is that these Anti-Catholic translations – obviously versions of the Bible that preceded AD 1611 – referred to as “the Word” actually deserved to be burned because of the Anti-Catholic polemics in them. If you wish I can provide some of the slanderous accusations made by Martin Luther in his “Bible.” To falsely accuse the Church as they did above is Anti-Catholic.

I mean, c’mon, should we expect these 17th-century translators to be familiar with every nook and cranny of Palestine? I mean, we’ve got the Internet and air travel right now, but we’re talking about the days when you can’t even be sure you’ll make it to the Holy Land and back alive in one piece.

P.S. Caesarea Philippi (Banias) was destroyed in 1291, and was only rediscovered in the mid-19th early-20th century (AFAIK the Roman period layer was only excavated properly during the late 1980s-1990s). The ‘other’ Caesarea (Maritima) was also in ruins around this time.

You are correct in that the translation of KJV is technically acceptable, but if it fails to make the connection for the reader that the original intended then it fails as a really a good translation.

The huge rock at Caesarea Philippi (200 x 500 feet according to Fr. Jaki) was of not minor significance to the Jews or to St. Matthew, or to Jesus, who was surely making a comparison between this rock and Simon who is now called Rock, translated as “Peter” CF. John 1:42
“Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas’ (which is translated Peter).”
So, even if the passage in not a mistranslation, if it fails in helping the reader to make the connection that St. Matthew was relaying, and so then it fails as a good translation.

In the Old Testament only God is called a Rock. The connection being made to Simon, now Rock, is very significant.

The city of Caesarea Philippi might have been in ruins, but the massive wall of rock which was being compared to St. Peter, has always been there. And that is the main point here. In the book, And On This Rock, by Fr. Stanley L. Jak, the author illustrates on page 22 a drawing made by John Burckhardt who died in AD 1817 of this massive wall of rock.

Fr. Jaki points out that this massive rock at Caesarea Philippi is second only to the rock at the Temple Mount at Jerusalem in regards to its topological significance. The Jews would not have considered this as just a “nook or cranny.” The important question in not What significance do we or even What significance do those in the 17th century place on this rock, but what significance did the Jews of the first century, Jesus, and Matthew place on this rock. A good translation should successful convey that meaning, or at least not confuse or lose that connection…

.

 

[JohnR77]

On a side note, these pages may be of interest.

The Evolution of a Heretical Bible

**“The King James Version”

**

web.archive.org/web/20060827120708/http://www.catholicapologetics.net/why_trust.htm

… The Truth be told, from the very start the “Authorized Version” has gone through constant change, in order to correct the over 400 errors found in the first edition, and the countless other ones that in time worked there way into the KJV. …

It has been shown that there were places were the translators of the 1611 even altered the word of God in order to please King James. One [of many possible] such example of this is I Cor. xiii:5 the translators added the word “easily”.

“The English version [the KJV] here has the adverb ‘easily,’ which is not in the original. it is said that the translators inserted that word to save the Christian character of King James, who had a very high temper”
[Translation of the New Testament by Rev. W.B. Godbey 1910 pg. 7]

you see this addition I Cor. 13:5 softens that which Christ made hard, and smoothes what God made rough; thus letting down God’s standard of Christianity to the level of human feebleness.

Another example of this catering to the King’s faults is found in …

The Protestant scholar Woolsey, D. D., LL.D., thus summarizes some of the defects in the 1611 KJV: “Our translators of the seventeenth century, in a great many instances, misunderstood the sense. To make this as evident as it may be made we should need to write a volume … The main deficiency in our translation proceeds from want of exact knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek languages. Not only is the sense wholly misapprehended in a number of instances—as could scarcely fail of being the case—but a perception of the finer rules of grammar and interpretation was wanting. In the use of the article, of the tenses and modes of verbs, and of participles, and in a great variety of other instances,”
*The Revised New Testament and History of Revision, *prepared under the direction of Professor Isaac H. Hall, LL.B.; Ph. D. printed in Philadelphia: Hubbard Brothers; Atlanta: C.R. Blackall & Co.; New York: A.L. Bancroft & Co., 1881]
The Fact is The original 1611 “Authorized Version” [as it came to be called] was so badly translated that it had to go through several revisions. “More than 400 errors in the first edition of the King James Bible were corrected in a subsequent edition two years later.”
[NEIL LIGHTFOOT, How We Got the Bible pg. 59] …
EARLY PROTESTANT OPPOSITION TO THE KJV:

Even from the very start many renowned Protestant scholars came out in opposition the Authorized version and to its inaccuracies, …

In 1612 Dr. Hugh Broughton said in a critique addressed to the house of Lords: “The late Bible (The 1611 King James version)… bred in me sadness that will grieve me while I breathe, it is so ill done… to his Majesty that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses, then any such translation by my consent should be urged upon the poor churches…the new edition crosseth me. I require it to be Burnt”
(The Bible Through the Ages copyright 1996 p. 318)
Mr. Broughton, also wrote an epistle to the lords of the council, that “the English translation perverts the text of the old testament in eight hundred and forty-eight places; and causes millions of souls to run to eternal flames.”
(A Letter to a Protestant Friend on the Holy Scriptures, by Demetrius Gallitzin, pp. 58 - 72. Published 1819.)
Defects of the King James Version

web.archive.org/web/20060827050738/http://www.catholicapologetics.net/defects_in_the_kjv.htm

…A single additional illustration: every reader of Paul knows the importance he attaches to the doctrine that ‘faith’ is ‘reckoned as righteousness.’ But the proof-text from the Old Testament (Gen. xv., 6,) on which the doctrine rests is given differently by our translation every time Paul quotes it (Rom. iv., 3, compare ix., 22; Gal. iii., 6); and the verb itself, which may be called one of his technical theological terms, and which constitutes the very warp of his argument in Rom. iv., being used eleven times within the compass of twenty-two verses, receives there three different renderings."

.

 

[Manfred]

Some differences of KJV from Vulgate:

**********Genesis 3:15
************Genesis 37:35
****Genesis 42:38
****Genesis 47:31
******3 King 2:6,9
******Hosea 6:14
******Psalm 6:5 ****

********Matthew 11:10
********************Luke 1:28

************1 Timothy 3:8
**1 Timothy 5:17
****1 Timothy 5:19
****1 Timothy 9:14 **
2 Timothy 4:8
Corinthians 9:5
**Romans 11:4 **
James 5:14
Acts 15:2
******Acts 20:28

---

Yes, I can see there are differences, but of these differences nothing strikes me as being anti-Catholic. In fact, many of these same renderings from the KJV appear in updated form in the later translations, Catholic as well as Protestant.

Remember, King James commanded there be NO notes in the translation. It is typically the notes in study Bibles that define the editors’ theological biases. Cf., the highly-vaunted NIV Study Bible, or a more extreme example, The Scofield Reference Bible. I bought a Scofield on a dare once; it was so vehemently anti-Catholic I returned it two days later.

 

[Vico]

Yes, I can see there are differences, but of these differences nothing strikes me as being anti-Catholic. In fact, many of these same renderings from the KJV appear in updated form in the later translations, Catholic as well as Protestant.

Remember, King James commanded there be NO notes in the translation. It is typically the notes in study Bibles that define the editors’ theological biases. Cf., the highly-vaunted NIV Study Bible, or a more extreme example, The Scofield Reference Bible. I bought a Scofield on a dare once; it was so vehemently anti-Catholic I returned it two days later.

The one particularly cited is ************Luke 1:28.

************For example:

Stephanus NT (Greek): και εισελθων ο αγγελος προς αυτην ειπεν χαιρε κεχαριτωμενη ο κυριος μετα σου ευλογημενη συ εν γυναιξιν
VUL: et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus

KJV: And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
RSV: And he came to her and said, “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”

DRC: And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
RSV-CE: And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!"

 

[Manfred]

The one particularly cited is ************Luke 1:28.

************For example:

Stephanus NT (Greek): και εισελθων ο αγγελος προς αυτην ειπεν χαιρε κεχαριτωμενη ο κυριος μετα σου ευλογημενη συ εν γυναιξιν
VUL: et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus

KJV: And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
RSV: And he came to her and said, “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”

DRC: And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
RSV-CE: And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!"

The NAB w/NT of 1986: “Hail, favored one!”
The New Jerusalem Bible (1985): “Rejoice, you who enjoy God’s favour.”

Both of the above are Catholic, although the USCCB altered Luke 1:28 in that edition to read, “Hail, full of grace” when used in the Liturgy.

 

[Manfred]

JohnR77,

The two articles you listed are quite good; thank you!

web.archive.org/web/20060827120708/http:/www.catholicapologetics.net/why_trust.htm

web.archive.org/web/20060827050738/http:/www.catholicapologetics.net/defects_in_the_kjv.htm

Of course, before we get too far along, note that our own Douay-Rheims-Challoner has word problems very much like those of the KJV, so we must tread lightly here.

Wrt the KJV: “erroneous” does not equate to “anti-Catholic”.

 

[Vico]

The NAB w/NT of 1986: “Hail, favored one!”
The New Jerusalem Bible (1985): “Rejoice, you who enjoy God’s favour.”

Both of the above are Catholic, although the USCCB altered Luke 1:28 in that edition to read, “Hail, full of grace” when used in the Liturgy.

So does not allowing it to be used in the liturgy without change make it anti-Catholic per your definition?

It is also entirely missing translation for: μετα σου ευλογημενη συ εν γυναιξιν.

Some non-Catholics use the Luke 1:28 translation to oppose the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, although it indicates a perfected pre-established state in the Greek.

 

[DaveBj]

The one particularly cited is ************Luke 1:28.

************For example:

Stephanus NT (Greek): και εισελθων ο αγγελος προς αυτην ειπεν χαιρε κεχαριτωμενη ο κυριος μετα σου ευλογημενη συ εν γυναιξιν
VUL: et ingressus angelus ad eam dixit have gratia plena Dominus tecum benedicta tu in mulieribus

KJV: And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
RSV: And he came to her and said, “Hail, O favored one, the Lord is with you!”

DRC: And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
RSV-CE: And he came to her and said, “Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with you!"

Using this verse to claim that a particular translation favors or does not favor Catholicism really is a non-starter. The problem is that the single word κεχαριτωμενη encompasses an entire compound/complex sentence in its meaning. There is no one best way to say this in English. “Full of grace” is not really accurate, but it does demonstrate one way. “Favored one” is another way, although it does not have the complete impact of the original. Neither translation is more or less Catholic than the other.

 

[Manfred]

So does not allowing it to be used in the liturgy without change make it anti-Catholic per your definition?

It is also entirely missing translation for: μετα σου ευλογημενη συ εν γυναιξιν.

Some non-Catholics use the Luke 1:28 translation to oppose the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, although it indicates a perfected pre-established state in the Greek.

You are missing my point, which is that even other Catholic translations have deviated from “full of grace”, so Luke 1:28 is NOT a reason to qualify or disqualify a particular Biblical translation as "heretical " or not.

Once more: is there a compelling reason why Catholics TODAY cannot use the KJV?

 

[porthos11]

You are missing my point, which is that even other Catholic translations have deviated from “full of grace”, so Luke 1:28 is NOT a reason to qualify or disqualify a particular Biblical translation as "heretical " or not.

Once more: is there a compelling reason why Catholics TODAY cannot use the KJV?

I’m guessing the mere lack of approval is what prevents the KJV from Catholic use.

I quite frankly believe that based merely on the text of the KJV (not on any critical factors or issues with the textual basis), there’s no reason this approval cannot be given. I even think this approval can be given without even changing a single word of the KJV.

 

[Vico]

You are missing my point, which is that even other Catholic translations have deviated from “full of grace”, so Luke 1:28 is NOT a reason to qualify or disqualify a particular Biblical translation as "heretical " or not.

Once more: is there a compelling reason why Catholics TODAY cannot use the KJV?

I did not miss your point. I am not aware of any Church stipulation that a Catholic cannot morally refer to a Bible translation that is not approved. I know is that certain approved translations with specific modifications are approved for use in the liturgy. Even the Psalms from the NAB are not approved for the liturgy.

There has been no Catholic approved Bible translation that I know of that ignored the texts used for the Vulgate.

 

[robertericleech]

“Now the Church of Rome …they must first get a license in writing before they may use them, and to get that, they must approve themselves to their Confessor, that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the dregs, yet soured with the leaven of their superstition…”

Is the ‘license in writing’ thing true, or did they just make that up??

When I google it, I get only anti-Catholic websites, and of course they are going to say it’s true.

 

[Vico]

“Now the Church of Rome …they must first get a license in writing before they may use them, and to get that, they must approve themselves to their Confessor, that is, to be such as are, if not frozen in the dregs, yet soured with the leaven of their superstition…”

Is the ‘license in writing’ thing true, or did they just make that up??

When I google it, I get only anti-Catholic websites, and of course they are going to say it’s true.

For scriptural reading used as an indulgenced work, concession 30, requires an approved text:30 Reading of Sacred Scripture

/1 A* plenary indulgence* is granted to the faithful who read the Sacred Scriptures as spiritual reading, from a text approved by competent authority and with the reverence due to the divine word, for at least a half hour; if the time is less, the indulgence will be partial.

/2 If for some good reason a person is unable to read the Sacred Scriptures, a plenary or partial indulgence is granted, as above, if the text of Sacred Scriptures is listened to while another person is reading or if it is heard by means of a video or audio recording.
Manual of Indulgences, 2006, USCCB, p. 100 (translation from Enchiridion Indulgentiarum, fourth editon, 1999)

 

[robertericleech]

Actually what I am wondering is were Catholics ever required to get some special ‘license’ or permission to read the scriptures, or was this assertion by the translators of the KJV an anti-Catholic fabricaton?

 

[Mintaka]

There were never any rules for laymen on reading the Bible in Greek or Latin.

After several centuries of really crazy people reading really bad vernacular translations and coming up with bad theology, there were some secular governments and some Church authorities that banned vernacular translations temporarily. (And no, I don’t know why things suddenly got so crazy, because people had had vernacular Bible translations for centuries before the crazy started.)

Then in 1564, Pope Pius IV did make a rule in the Constitution (that’s a kind of papal document) “Dominici gregis” that laypeople could use a vernacular translation of the Old Testament if they were learned scholarly people, to help in understanding the Vulgate; and that if laypeople wanted to read the New Testament in the vernacular, that could be allowed by the bishop if people’s confessors or pastors vouched for them as being able to profit by it.

So basically, the Pope was trying to free up use of the vernacular, but without opening the floodgates to crazy people and bad translations.

But again, there wasn’t any restriction on reading the Bible in Greek and Latin. Somebody who could read Latin was somebody with at least a little education and formation, who wouldn’t jump to conclusions.

This was as opposed to a guy who has never read a book before reading the Bible, and didn’t get much grounding in Bible stories because of all the war, disease, and social unrest (unlike his dead grandparents). A person like that could instantly think the whole point of Jacob’s story is that you can control the color of sheep and marry multiple wives. (And yes, that sort of thing happened. The difference is that if you mean that sort of guy on the Internet, he has neighbors to talk him down. Some places in Europe after all the wars, you didn’t have neighbors.)

But remember, Latin still wasn’t restricted, and anybody who wanted to do anything big in the world did learn Latin, even in Protestant countries. It was the international language. Vernacular languages were for people who only got a year or two of baby school.

Anyway, the problem with this was that the next few popes tightened up the restrictions, and then others kept them the same. Pope Benedict XIV started trying to loosen it up by just saying laypeople should read good translations with notes and not read cruddy ones, but most bishops were nervous about taking it as loosened.

So then you got a situation for the next three centuries where popes kept saying, “Yes! We want laypeople to read good Bible translations!” while bishops and priests and laypeople basically tried to decide if the popes were serious and had a good idea. Some places went to the vernacular with enthusiasm, while other places didn’t.

It’s a messy story.