When the King James Version was commissioned, England was smarting from scornful treatment at the hands of Spaniards ... in world politics. The major reality of European history, since the Romans anyway, had been the Catholic church, and the Age of Exploration had shifted from Portugal to Spain, with England and the others bringing up the rear.
Spain had it all --- culture, advancement, the defeat of the Moors, the story of the Cid, and then the New World. When Elizabeth snubbed King Philip of Spain, and then when the underdog English sea dogs defeated the mighty Spanish Armada (158
, England experienced a surge of patriotism that possessed her for (in effect) four hundred years. Against this backdrop, when James I authorized a new version, he was going on record in confirming and consolidating the religious course pursued by Henry VIII and his loyal daughter Elizabeth.
Ironically, the Catholic versions (in English) just completed accross the English channel in Douay and Reims, were among those consulted carefully, and the borrowings are there in the King James version to be found. It was not Tyndales only, nor the Bishops' bible.
Thus the contraditions and ironies of Anglo-American "protestantism."
All six councils of the early church were validated and confirmed. Catholic theology, minus Marianism, was taken whole, as were the doctrines of Anselm and Augustine. Even Aquinas, with his more than a little appreciation for Aristotle, was treated with respect. And the medieval mystics, often held at arm's length by the Church authorities, found fresh fans among these wayward children of the Church -- the protestants. The "prodigal sons" always pretended to be more rebellious than they actually were.
And how much was the KJV an innovative version??
Not really all that much. It polished up what the Catholics had done in Douay and Reims. It used much of what Tyndale had done in Holland. It pretended to have cut its dependence on the Vulgate.
But it reiterated more than it innovated.
geocities.com/cott1388/kjv.html
