James 1:13

B. Ward Powers bwpowers at eagles.com.au
Sun Jul 16 05:49:54 EDT 2000


At 07:45 AM 000715 -0400, Frank W. Hughes wrote:
>The King James Version of the Bible is often known as the Authorized 
>Version.  Questions can be raised as to the appropriateness of the title 
>"Authorized Version," however.  On the title-page are the words "Appointed 
>to be Read in Churches," but it was in fact never officially authorized by 
>either Parliament or the Convocations of Canterbury or York, namely the 
>two authorities in the government and the Church of England.  The Oxford 
>Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2nd edition, s.v. "Authorized Version 
>of the Bible," p. 114, notes: "It immediately superseded the Bishops' 
>Bible, and won favour by its intrinsic merits rather than by official 
>backing."


I quite accept that it won favour on its merits. I note that in the New 
International Dictionary of the Christian Church (Ed. J D Douglas), p.127, 
F F Bruce writes, "Both the Geneva and Bishop's Bibles were superseded by 
the 'Authorized Version' of 1611, a work which proved so acceptable that it 
remained, for three centuries, without a serious rival, the Bible of 
English speaking Protestants."  But is it certain beyond question that "it 
was in fact never officially authorized"?

Bruce goes on to say. "When published it was probably authorized by order 
in council. Probably - because the Privy Council registers from 1600 to 
1613 were destroyed by a fire in January 1618/19, so that no record of the 
authorization survives."

So there is perhaps a modicum of doubt.


>It makes no sense to me to call it the "Authorized Version" since it was 
>never authorized by any group that had either secular or ecclesiastical 
>authority.


I cannot agree. For these reasons:

1. If our options are "Authorized Version" and "King James Version", the 
former has a great deal more in its favour than to attribute the 
translation, in some way, to King James.

2. During this period in England and up to the past century it was not 
known by any other designation but "the Authorized Version" - it was 
certainly not known as the "King James Version", an American designation, 
and the extent to which that latter designation is making inroads outside 
America is due (not to any merit in the designation, but) to the influence 
of American publishers who use that title on all their multifarious 
editions of it. The Authorized Version has the merit of being its original 
title.

3. If Frank Hughes is correct, then we have the anomalous situation that 
from the beginning it was described as authorized, and not called anything 
else in the country of its origin, and yet nobody actually authorized it. I 
find this inherently very unlikely.

4. As Frank Hughes mentions, it states on its title page that it has been 
"Appointed to be Read in Churches", and so far as I am aware nobody at the 
time denied that this was the case. The title "Authorized Version" is 
therefore appropriate as embodying the fact that the Bible was now 
officially freely and widely available - in contrast with the earlier 
period when for "ordinary people" to read the Bible was an offence, and to 
the period just before the AV when different translations were in 
competition and favoured by different groups. And the AV won its way 
against this competition on its very considerable merits.

Now, to pick up the thread of discussion concerning the logic of the flow 
of argument in James 1:13 (which actually is where this all began): God 
"cannot be tempted" by evil is APEIRASTOS, concerning which BAGD comments, 
"without temptation, either active = who does not tempt, or passive = who 
cannot be tempted. Of God hO QEOS A. ESTIN KAKWN Js 1:13 certainly passive 
because DE in the next clause introduces a new thought, God cannot be 
tempted to do evil."

Fair enough. The verse starts off by saying, "No one, when tempted, should 
say, 'I am being tempted by God'." Then the two-fold expression which 
follows is covering both sides: God cannot be tempted, and he does not 
tempt anyone either.

Then 1:14 goes on to sheet home the blame for temptation to sin: "But one 
is tempted by one's own desire, being lured and enticed by it." So if I 
fall into sin, it is not God's fault: rather, I have been lured and enticed 
into it by my own desire (EPIQUMIA). So I can't blame God (or the devil 
either): I am responsible, and I am guilty.

Interesting then that God the Son, in his human incarnation, was tempted in 
every way just as we are, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15).

Regards,

Ward

                                 http://www.eagles.bbs.net.au/~bwpowers
Rev Dr B. Ward Powers             Phone (International): 61-2-9799-7501
10 Grosvenor Crescent             Phone (Australia): (02) 9799-7501
SUMMER HILL  NSW  2130            email: bwpowers at eagles.bbs.net.au
AUSTRALIA.                      Director, Tyndale College




More information about the B-Greek mailing list