Rating: 
Summary: Rich discussion of the skimpy evidence
Review: The fifty-odd men who accepted King James I's commission to translate the Bible into English didn't leave much of a paper trail, and most of the records that did exist were destroyed by fire before the century was out. Over the seven years it took to complete the work, six separate "companies", each assigned a major segment of the Bible, thrashed out the wording in innumerable meetings; and then the principals joined together to review the whole work. Out of all that hive of activity, we have actual minutes of only one conclave, in 39 pages discovered serendipitously in the 1950s.In the face of this paucity of hard documentation, Nicolson draws his account out to book length by examining the personalities, theological sympathies, and careers of a dozen individual translators, and by limning the political and theological atmosphere of England under King James: its extravagance and its horror of extravagance, its insatiable appetite for three hour sermons and for generous decolletage, and its capacity for combining fierce and ascetic intellectualism with passionate feeling, a capacity we've forgotten the Puritans were capable of, and pretty much lost the knack of ourselves. All these characters of the age found their way into the irreplaceable, apposite music of the King James Bible: in its unhurried pace, its direct Anglo-Saxon vocabulary set in those sonorous rhythms that even in 1611 harked back to an older diction; in its frank refusal to clothe the heavy-breathing Song of Songs in euphemisms; in the countless precise choices that left ambiguities in the original unresolved, and so secured the peace; in the Translators' conscious plan to compile majestic words fit to present to a majestic king. I thoroughly enjoyed the book. It will appeal more to history buffs than it will to most people who spend a lot of time actually reading the KJV. For us in the 21st century, politics and theology are two realms with a great gulf fixed between them, and the story spelled out here will sound like it had far more to do with government than with God. As Nicolson ably explains, that wouldn't have been the Translators' point of view at all. Their mental and spiritual world, for which the divine right of kings was a life and death issue, and a faith issue, barely intersects with our own. And it connects only slightly more solidly with the world modern fundamentalists inhabit. It is remarkable that the six companies' labor produced so much language that still speaks to us so intimately and insistently, and seems to dissolve the divide. It's a tribute both to their literary skill, and to their unparalleled fidelity to the original, timeless text. The making of the KJV is a picture that can never be painted. "God's Secretaries" does a fine job of sketching the surroundings, sometimes in glorious Rembrandtian oils. (Nicolson's own style has the evenly paced dignity common to the seventeenth century texts he has steeped himself in.) But the central figures, their actual writing and translating, is lost in the chiaroscuro of history. The best periscope into the minds of the translators is still going to be found by opening the Authorized Version itself.
Rating:
Summary: Fun and informative
Review: The intellectual and political climate of Jacobean England is the core subject of "God's Secretaries". Indeed, Adam Nicolson is primarily interested in showing how the leading personalities and issues of the day combined to make this great book possible. This means that readers (such as me) who are looking for a book about the writers and translators of the King James Bible-imagine "Here at the New Yorker" with a biblical twist-will be disappointed. Alas, most of this information is lost. Nonetheless, there were a few amazing tidbits about the participants in this great project. My favorite is about John Layfield, a writer who actually journeyed to the Caribbean and then contributed to the work on Genesis in this bible. The experience enriched Layfield's prose and perspective, Nicolson claims. He says: "The seventeenth-century English idea of Paradise, a vision of enveloping lushness, was formed by this seduction of an almost untouched Caribbean."
Rating:
Summary: God's Secretaries
Review: The King James Bible was created by - to put it kindly - very fallible mortals. King James, while intellectually sharp and politically conciliatory, also spent much time in his cups, and gave away a large part of the treasury to his -er-"personal" favorites at court. As for the fifty four men who produced the translation at the king's behest, Adam Nicolson shows them to be an amazing mixture of brilliant but obscure scholars, saintly prelates, and venal grandees. Due to a lack of basic source material, we can only have a partial insight today about the details of how the King James Bible came to be created. Nicolson fills out the story nicely, with due attention to the personalities involved, and to the political and religious background of the time. The amount of information that Nicolson provides is, I think, nicely judged. He explains enough about the Stuart court, the established church, Puritan dissent, and previous translations so that most readers will come away from the book with a better appreciation of these many important influences on the King James Bible's content, and he gives enough examples and comparisons to support his claim of the "clarity and majesty" of the King James Bible's style. "God's Secretaries" is a popular rather than a scholarly work; the author, a publisher and travel writer, makes no claims to new information or insights. In the best tradition of popular historical writing, he has set out the main points clearly and interestingly. The author's liking for the subject is present in every page of the book, and I feel that his enthusiasm will readily communicate itself to most readers of this book.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting and Insightful
Review: The language of the King James Bible is both beautiful and powerful. Nicolson, in "God's Secretaries", writes an account both of the motivation behind and the translation process of this bible. To better understand why the translators choose the form of language they did you must first understand the mind-set of Jacobean England. And Nicolson spends much of the book at the task of describing this world. His imagery runs from the superb, "London was a sucking sink of iniquity, with something murderous and dissolving at the core", to the rather tedious, "...he is in many ways its hero; as broad as the great Bible itself, scholarly, political, passionate, agonized, in love with the English language, endlessly investigating its possibilities, worldy, saintly, sensuous, courageous, craven, if not corrupt then at least compromised, deeply engaged in pastoral care, generous, loving...." At first, I found it difficult to become involved in the story. It was somewhat the uneven style and somewhat the fact that much of the beginning is devoted to background. But persistence pays off. Nicolson's book, once he gets going, becomes interesting and enlightening, particularly when he finally gets to the Bible itself. The translators were a contradictory bunch of imperfect men. Lancelot Andrewes, one of the central translators, could be at once cruel and insensitive and devotedly passionate. With the available information Nicolson sketches in their lives, some in more detail than others. Because of the dearth of information he is only really able to write about a handful of the translators and there are gaps and holes in the history. But he is able tell enough of the tale that they become, if not alive, then reasonable facsimiles. Toward the end of the book he compares and contrasts various biblical passages from other translations against the King James. Nicolson's goal, and I believe he achieves it splendidly, is for the reader to get a sense not only of why the translators chose the words and phrases they did, but how much more rhythm and richness is in the King James compared to Tyndale's et al translations. Nicolson's preference for the King James Bible, and for Jacobean thought, is clear. Yet, even in his bias, he does provide some convincing arguments. Much criticism has been leveled at the accuracy and clarity of the translation. He acknowledges that it is fraught with error - particularly in the Hebrew sections. But with respect to the language itself, he contends that the translators spent much time arguing over the specific words to use. And their selection criteria included, among other things, richness of meaning and rhythm. Their translation was meant to replace the Bishops Bible and so to be read out loud during sermons. Modern day society tends to crave the specific, the exact. Jacobean England did not. And the translation reflects that. For Nicolson, the King James Bible still holds power and authority precisely because it hasn't been reduced to a common language and because it still retains a richness and drama that, for him, modern translations lack in their enthusiasm for exactitude. His answer to the criticism that the Tyndale Bible is the greater of the two since the King James Bible takes 80-90% of its material from Tyndale's earlier translation is that that 10-20% difference is what counts. Where Tyndale is clumsy and halting the King James is majestic, rhythmic, and powerful. He also points out that the translators did not set out to make something new, but rather to improve on what had already been done; and that this was to some extent driven by political motives. All-in-all Nicolson's analysis is interesting, biased and yet convincing despite that, and well worth the time to read.
Rating: 
Summary: Unreadable
Review: The most unreadable book I've ever picked up-- this coming from an English major who's read her share of post-modern authors, as well as such giants of unreadability as Hegel and Kant. Mr. Nicolson isn't of the pomo school, nor is he a philosopher, but boy is his prose ever confused, vague & disconnected. What is the point? I kept asking myself. I still don't have an answer. Not to mention how dull dull dull! it all is. The man is badly in need of both an English Grammar class and some lessons in Style.
For those of you that had no troubles reading this book, I don't know how you did it. I tried and tried, but couldn't make it through more than a few pages at a time before giving up, having retained almost nothing of what I'd read. I'd then pick up another book and have no trouble reading it, so I know for sure that it's Nicolson's unabsorbable prose, not any reading comprehension issues on my part. I also agree with the reviewers who said Nicolson's faithful reproduction of archaic spellings made the reading unnecessarily laborious.
Rating: 
Summary: The Committee that Made a Classic
Review: There are a good many churches in America who insist that the use of any Bible other than the King James Version is anathema. The joke goes that one of the members of such a sect declared, "If it was good enough for Saint Paul, it is good enough for me." The truth is that the KJV is good enough for any English speaker, more majestic than any other version, and that it is a foundation of the English-speaking world more than even Shakespeare is. How this astonishing book came to be composed is Adam Nicolson's story in _God's Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible_ (HarperCollins). It is a successful account of how diverse personalities, European history, and religious fashions produced a timeless classic.
There were English Bibles before 1611. The KJV grew out of a conference at Hampton Court where the new king took up grievances of the Puritans; the Bible was a byproduct of the conference. James was heartened by the idea of a new translation. He distrusted the widely used Geneva Bible because it had marginal notes about how people ought to view kings, notes he viewed as seditious. Less self-servingly, he thought an authoritative translation might bring religious peace to his conflicted land. The translation was his personal project. There are plenty of jokes about how committees invariably complicate rather than solve problems, but Nicolson shows that in Jacobean England, individuality was distrusted and "Jointness was the acknowledged virtue of the age." The KJV was a product of 54 translators, broken into teams and organized in a fashion that would befuddle a modern CEO, and they followed general or specific rules laid down by King James. The notes and directives generated by the translators have been largely lost, but Nicolson is able to tell us about a few of the translators themselves, a mixed bunch. A combination of puritans, prudes, drunkards, scholars, libertines, hotheads, and other eccentrics were perhaps just the crew to be involved in translating a work of such breadth. Among the most interesting parts of Nicholson's book are comparative translations. He gives a history of Luke 1:57, for instance, to show how it was rendered as "Now Elizabeths full time came that she should bee delivered, and she brought forth a son." Nicholson points out the richness of "full" meaning plump, perfect, or overbrimming. He also gives us another committee translation, performed over three centuries after the KJV, the New English Bible: "Now the time came for Elizabeth's child to be born, and she gave birth to a son." There is nothing at all remarkable in these flat words; they might have come from a social worker's report. Nicolson says of these translators, "Wanting timelessness, they achieved the language of the memo." Recently we have been treated to gender-free translations of the Bible, or the Ebonics Bible, as attempts to make the book relevant or up to date. There are also "modern" translations into American English that are as dull as they are easy to read. Such translations will quickly themselves be out of date curiosities, but the KJV will never be antiquated. _God's Secretaries_ is a fine tribute to the imperishable majesty of its words, and to the particular Jacobean circumstances that brought it about.
Rating:
Summary: A Challenging Foray into Jacobean Society
Review: These observations come from a reader who is a scholar of neither the Bible nor British history and for whom Nicolson's book was the first venture into literature pertaining to the creation of the King James Bible. In multiple ways, then, these are all first impressions. They also represent the reactions of a reader who was steeped in the conservative Protestant ethic prevalent in the Bible Belt of the United States, a broad area of the country where the King James Bible is taken as the literal Word of God and is not to be submitted for interpretation, much less translation. Yes, there are many there who fervently believe that every word in the King James Bible is represented precisely as the Christian deity placed it in the minds of the holy ones who set it on paper and that the King James Bible is the only "true" Bible that has ever existed. Even when one does not subscribe to such a literalist and historically ignorant approach to the contents of the Bible, growing up in such an environment leaves lasting impressions. With this as background, I found Nicolson's work informative and enlightening. Understand that Nicolson's book is not "Bible study": It does not deal with issues of spirituality; it does not attempt to explicate biblical passages; and it does not care whether or not heaven and hell exist or whether or not God is dead or alive-or has ever existed. It does deal with the social, cultural, economic, and governmental milieu that existed at the time King James VI of Scotland and I of England directed that a new translation be made of the Greek and Hebrew texts comprising the Bible. It explains why yet another Bible was to be created-in addition to the multiple versions that already existed. It explains why, despite the efforts of six companies of Translators, the world has never enjoyed a totally authentic copy of the King James Bible (think "printers' errors," including such egregious mistakes as replacing the name "Jesus" with the name "Judas"). As do some other reviewers represented here, I feel that Nicolson has perhaps tried to make too strong a case for the power of the language used in the Bible. In this instance and others, he is dealing with highly subjective topics, and I do not always find his arguments persuasive. He is also hampered by the fact that we are now four centuries removed from the events he describes, and much evidence has been lost to the passage of time. Consequently, there is little concrete cause-and-effect in the book and much surmise and supposition. Are Nicolson's conclusions accurate? Alas, the most we can say at this point in history is "perhaps." The casual reader also needs to be forewarned that Nicolson's use of language is, at its best, erudite and, at its worst, obfuscated. Have a dictionary handy before plunging into Nicolson's text and be prepared to add to your existing vocabulary because this book can be a learning experience in more ways than one! Is this the best book available on Jacobean society in the early 17th century in England? I have no idea for, as I stated in the beginning, this was my first venture into that particular subject. Is it sometimes challenging reading? Yes. Does its reliance upon conclusions based on subjective interpretations produce frustration in readers hoping for concrete evidence? Again, yes. Do these weaknesses condemn the book? Definitely not, at least not for a reader newly come to this subject, for there is much here to be learned about the far-reaching theological conflicts between the austere Puritans and the Catholic-influenced Anglicans, about the other versions of the Bible extant when the King James Bible was being written, and about the King himself. And did you know that the King James Bible was NOT the one that the Puritans brought with them to the New World? Nicolson's book will cause many Americans-at least those of us who are products of the Bible Belt-to correct quite a few erroneous assumptions. It is indeed a learning experience and worth the effort to study it.
Rating:
Summary: a subtle look at the society that produced the KJV
Review: This book is about the making of the King James Bible and would be of interest to anyone looking at the Bible, Jacobean England, Puritanism (in England and America), or the Anglo-catholic church. I liked this book a lot because it appreciated and articulated what is so great about the KJV - its brilliant, poetic language that brings to life the majesty and elevated experience of religion; its way of embracing ambiguity; its aural quality; its intermingling of the religious, political, emotional, sexual, poetic, and historical. Nicholson begins with James's ascension, looks at the political atmosphere that commissioned the translation, then examines key translators and issues in the translation itself. In several places he gets specific about what choices the translators made, why they made them, and how subsequent translations flattened the word and failed to achieve either the grace or the depth of this one. I got a bit lost in some of the biographical stretches and in the many facets of the translators' lives, but overall I gained an appreciation not only for the KJ Bible, but also for the Jacobean society that produced - by committee - what I consider to be the greatest poetical work in the English language. Nicholson, too, I think manages to embrace the ambiguity of the characters in this drama - James I and the translators themselves, complex and controversial figures at best. He is able to see their evils and their genius, as he is able to see the genius and the weakness in the translation. The result was, for me, a rich and human canvas rather than a slick, or judgmental, treatise.
Rating:
Summary: Writing literature by committee
Review: This is a completely fascinating work about the composing of the King James Bible in the early 17th century. The author gives his readers quick thumbnail sketches of the principal players, and also goes into the conflict between Ceremony and Word which exercised everyone, it seems, in England at the time. As a Catholic, I tend to favor the Ceremony aspect of religion, but I deeply respect those who believe implicitly in the Word, and the Word alone. This Bible creation walked a very fine line between two competing interests, and succeeded very well. Of course, the majesty of its language can never be surpassed, and for that aspect alone the Translators should be eternally thanked by those of us who favor great literature.
Rating: 
Summary: Not bad but not as good as Alister McGrath
Review: This is a fascinating subject and Adam Nicholson is a good writer and easy to read, on this gripping tale. So five stars for the book - except that the book by Alister McGrath that came out in 2002 on the subject is even better, because Alister, unlike this author, really understands and can fully empathise with the theology of the KJV translators. So 3 stars rather than 5 - but this is a good book. Christopher Catherwood, author of CHRISTIANS, MUSLIMS AND ISLAMIC RAGE (Zondervan, 2003)
|
