The “Hampton Court Conference” (so-called because it met at the Hampton Court Palace, near London) was held January 14, 16-18, 1604. King James I presided over this meeting attended by bishops and Puritan leaders of the Church of England. At this conference John Rainolds/Reynolds proposed a new English translation of the Bible be made, and King James agreed. William Barlow reported:
“Whereupon his Highnesse wished, that some special paines should be taken in that behalf for one uniform translation (professing that he could never, yet, see a Bible well translated in English, but the worst of all his Majesty thought the Geneva to be)…” (The Summe and Substance of the Conference…at Hampton Court, Jan. 14. 1603, William Barlow. Clerkenwell, UK: Bye and Law, Printers, 1804, page 35.)
The proud and prickly Hugh Broughton is perhaps best known for being hard to get along with, and for his excoriations of the new Bible translation in 1611 (A Censure of the Late Translation for our Churches). Less known (certainly to me, at least) is that Broughton may have tried to revive with the new King James I of England his former dead attempt with Queen Elizabeth to authorize his [Broughton’s] revising the English Bible. Kristen MacFarlane reports:
“…the succession of James I in 1603 gave Broughton what he perceived to be a window of opportunity. He had always thought his scholarship would be better received in Scotland than in England, and with a Scottish King on the British throne, Broughton felt confident that a change in his fortunes was imminent. This is shown in a letter entitled ‘Of Amending the Genevan translat.’, sent to James by Broughton soon after his succession and before 1604.[89] In this, Broughton explained to James that many bishops and nobles had long wished for an improved version of the Geneva Bible and that even Anthony Gilby (d. 1585), who was one of its translators, had been ‘most earnest to have his work amended’.[90] As well as briefly reiterating some of the general rules that Broughton had already mentioned in his Epistle to the Learned Nobility, this letter also informed James that another work was soon to be printed (An advertisement of corruption) which would further reveal the ‘grosse errors’ in the text and notes of current English Bibles, and urged him to take action in this matter.[91] Whether Broughton ever did send this letter, or indeed whether James ever received it and replied is a matter of speculation but, in any case he would have no more support from James, either for his new English Bible or his other projects, than he had from Elizabeth.” (Biblical Scholarship in an Age of Controversy: The Polemical World of Hugh Broughton (1519-1612), Kristen MacFarlane. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021, page 79.) [89] LBL MS Sloane 3088, fol. 114r-115r. The letter’s reference to the imminent publication of Broughton, An advertisement gives its terminus ad quem. [90] LBL MS Sloane 3088, fol. 114r. [91] LBL MS Sloane 3088, fol. 114v. (“LBL MS Sloane” refers to the Hans Sloane Collection of manuscripts at the British Library, numbered 1-4100.)
This intrigues me, and raises a question. If the letter by Broughton was sent to King James “soon after his succession and before 1604” and IF James received and read it, might Broughton’s points have influenced King James’s negative views and comments at the Hampton Court Conference about the English Bible in general and the Geneva translation in particular? Has any more in-depth research been done in this regard?
Note: After my writing this, Bryan Ross pointed out the previous desire of James to revise the Bible, in 1601 in Scotland:
“After this a Proposition was made for a new Translation of the Bible, and the correcting of the Psalms in Metre: his Majesty did urge it earnestly, and with many Reasons did persuade the undertaking of the Work, shewing the necessity and the profit of it, and what a glory the performing thereof should bring to this Church: speaking of necessity, he did mention sundry escapes in the common Translation, and made it seem that he was no less conversant in the Scriptures then they whose profession it was; and when he came to speak of the Psalms, did recite whole verses of the same, showing both the faults of the metre and the discrepance from the Text. It was the joy of all that were present to hear it, and bred not little admiration in the whole Assembly, who approving the motion did recommend the Translation to such of the Brethren as were most skill’d in the languages, and revising of the Psalms particularly to M. Robert Pont; but nothing was done in the one or the other: yet did not the King let this his intention fall to the ground, but after his happy coming to the crown of England set the most learned Divines of that Church awork for the Translation of the Bible; which with great pains and the singular profit of the Church they perfected.” (The History of the Church of Scotland, Beginning the Year of Our Lord 203, and Continued to the End of the Reign of King James VI (3rd edition), John Spottiswood. London: R. Norton, 1668.)
In contrast to Spottiswood, who heaps high praise on King James VI, David David Calderwood does not mention James in reference to the translation. He writes:
“In the last Session, it was meaned by sundrie of the Brethren, that there were sundrie errours in the vulgar translation of the Bible, and of the Psalmes in meeter, which required correcting; as also that there were sundrie prayers in the Psalme Book, that were not convenient for the time. It was therefore concluded, that for the translation of the Bible, every one of the Brethren, who had greatest skill in the languages, imploy their travails, in sundrie parts of the vulgar translation of the Bible, which need to be amended, & to confer the same together at the next Assembly.” (The True History of the Church of Scotland, From the Beginning of the Reformation unto the End of the Reigne of King James VI, David Calderwood. 1678, page 456.)
Calderwood does mention that “About the end of this Assemblie, the King discoursed upon the dutie of good Kings…” Spottiswood was a partisan for James, while Calderwood opposed his episcopal views. Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between the opinion of two partisans.
As for the Bible to be revised, it would have been the Geneva Bible.
No comments:
Post a Comment