God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible [Paperback]

Indeed, this was work done individually and communally. As Nicolson points out, the King James Version did not arise in a vacuum; there were earlier translations of the Bible into English, the greatest and most influential of which was the Tyndale Bible, whose influence was so great that at least three-quarters of the King James Version (and a goodly percentage of many future versions of the Bible) is directly from Tyndale.

This is no simple tale of translation. Nicolson explores the troubled times surrounding the early Jacobean reign in England. The glory of the Elizabethan age, with its turbulent times politically, socially and religiously, gave way to this somewhat-foreign influence now in authority. Part of the purpose of King James (the first of England, the sixth of Scotland) was to put an indelible English stamp on his reputation and reign, and succeeded such that his name continues to be near-synonymous with the holy scripture.

This age was one of change and growth, but also one of maturity and establishment. The Bible itself, from the very first page, proclaims this - this is the 'Authorised' version. The process itself took seven years, from the first commissioning in 1604 to the publication in 1611. Nicolson argues that there is a deep mystery in the process, whereby the names of the Translators (an official title for the 50 or so scholars from across Britain) are not known to the common reader of the Bible, despite the ubiquitous nature of the text. Their names are not inscribed in the text the way modern scholars ensure their names are duly credited - this anonymity strengthens the idea that this is a transmission of text from God, and not merely the work of human hands.

Nicolson applauds the political purposes behind the text (and yes, there were politics afoot here) - stating that this was 'a work of majesty, not of tyranny', this was an effort to place something in the country as a unifying entity that was simultaneously of the time and timeless, specific to the culture and yet universal.

Nicolson is no fan of Elizabeth, this is clear - the bleak picture of the end of her reign is about as far from a tribute to Gloriana as one can get; of course, this helps set the stage for the heroic James Stuart to appear. This early depiction gives the reader a clue to the bias inherent in the text, and biases there are, many. However, they are generally readily apparent, and the astute reader can glance over lightly interpretations while still enjoying the base information and turns that Nicolson devises as his narrative progresses.

Among the many personalities introduced here are Lancelot Andrewes, the chief Translator, a man of contradictory sensibilities - at once a lavish courtier and a world-denying, remorseful character. Richard Bancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, was the chief organiser; Henry Savile, a figure of some glamour and prestige, is called by Nicolson a buccaneer-scholar - the only Translator not in Holy Orders. In addition to the personalities of the Translators were the characteristic events of the time - colonists setting off for the unknown lands of Virginia, the publication of Shakespeare's sonnets, and the freezing over of the river Thames all occurred during the translation process.

This is a wonderful book to read, not only to gain some back-stage information about the King James Bible, but to experience anew a world so vital for and yet so distant from our own.

The first portion of the book puts the process of translation into the context of the early Jacobean era. Nicolson traces the end of the Elizabethan era and the ascension of James I (James VI of Scotland) to the throne of England in 1603. There were numerous issues of state and theology (the two are inexorably mixed) that James needed to navigate.
James I, was the head of the English church (referred to here as the Anglican church) that operated on a theological level that was betwixt and between Catholicism and the `purer' (for wont of a better adjective) Protestantism of Calvin and Luther (to name two) that had spread like wildfire across the continent and had made serious inroads into English religious life. Those Protestants were referred to as nonconformists in England because their practice did not conform to the Anglican tradition. Nicolson does an admirable job of setting out the doctrinal and political justifications for this tripartite divide. At its most superficial level, Catholicism because of its focus on the religious dominance of Rome and the Pope served to lessen the authority of the crown because it split the allegiance of the faithful and belied the critical notion that the King's authority flowed directly from God without reference to or reliance on the Pope.

The differences between nonconformists and Anglicans were more doctrinal but those differences were as politically laden, if not more so, than those with the Catholic Church. Specifically, the centerpiece of the Anglican Church was the Altar. The idea of the `ceremony' of Christianity took pride of place. There was also a clear hierarchy in the form of the King, Archbishops, and Priests tasked with reading and interpreting God's words. By contrast, the centerpiece of the nonconformist rite was the pulpit. The idea of the word of God took pride of place. Further, nonconformists believed that the individual had the ability to understand the word of God and that the individual could have a personal relationship with God without the guidance of Bishops, Archbishops, or the King. The difference in focus was a direct and immediate threat to the King's authority. If an individual could derive divine guidance without recourse to the church or King the very need for a King and that King's divine right to rule, would be (and was) called into question.

Nicolson devotes the rest of his book to the creation of the King James Bible by a committee of generally unknown churchmen and scholars. Split into groups and assigned different books of the Old and New Testaments the translators (as they were known) were provided with earlier versions (specifically the Geneva and Tyndale versions) and tasked with creating a new, `improved' version. The translators included both Anglicans and nonconformists. Nicolson provides compelling reasons why this committee was so constructed.

It seems clear that James I intended to co-opt a certain moderate segment of the nonconformist tradition and in so doing render them and their flocks less likely to challenge to the authority of royal rule. If successful such a co-option would make his reign less vulnerable from that side of the religious divide. Nicolson infers that the creation of a universally accepted version of the Bible would mitigate doctrinal differences making a ceremony out of the word itself. Focusing more attention on the `word' might appease some nonconformists. Creating a version rich and rife with meaning also had certain ceremonial aspects that might appease the Anglican powers that feared undue focus on the word. It was an admirable goal even if the bloody civil war that followed a mere 30 years or so from its publication proved the attempt futile.

The most important element of the book for me lies with Nicolson's unrelenting love for the words created by this `great commission'. Nicolson does acknowledge that much of the core text of the King James Bible is freely adopted from the Tyndale version. He does show, however, how the change of only one or two words can turn "those words into a tangible experience" that enhances the beauty and power of the previous text. Nicolson is also not averse to castigating contemporary versions of the Bible that denude the language of meaning for the sake of making it a bit easier to read. Nicolson cites T.S. Eliot's admonition of the New English Bible that it "astonishes in its combination of the vulgar, the trivial, and the pedantic."

Nicolson does seem more kindly disposed to James I than may be warranted. He notes James' profligate spending and sensual appetite only in passing. However, my impression was that the beauty and power of the Bible prepared at his direction and published under his name covered a multitude of sins and that James' other actions were not particularly relevant to the creation of `His' Bible