A critique of “A Nearly Forgotten Heritage: The Geneva Bible,” by Jonathan Edwards (a modern one, not the Puritan preacher) represents another curious piece of the “pro-Geneva/anti-KJV” puzzle.[i] It contains some of the so-called “common knowledge” that is “widely available online” which passes for historical truth.
“In 1568, the Bishops Bible was published. Although partially using the Tyndale work, it mostly translated from the Latin Vulgate.”
This is false, The Bishops Bible was not “mostly translated from the Latin Vulgate.”
“The Geneva remained popular, and despite many reprints, the Geneva did not require any revisions.”
This is also false. Yes, the Geneva Bible was revised – one revision admitted by this author – but there were others as well. The Geneva Bible itself finds its basis in the prior English translations. Some Geneva Bibles were printed with the New Testament revised by Laurence Tomson (for example, this 1590 printing).[ii]
“All of the KJV printings prior to 1666 contained the Apocrypha...”
This is probably generally true, but not totally correct, in an age when printers bound Bibles in all sorts of ways (e,g., they might add the Book of Common Prayer, Sternhold and Hopkins Psalter, etc.) This 1637 printing of the KJV does not contain the Apocrypha, but skips from Malachi to Matthew.
“…the King James Bible…also included the Apocrypha, books the Roman church used, but which had been removed from the Geneva (the 1560 edition did include the books in an ‘inter-testamental’ section). No marginal notes, no cross-references…”
This statement implies that King James translation did not have the Apocrypha in an “inter-testemantal” sections – but it does! It does not deal with The Prayer of Manasseh, which in the Geneva Bible did not include in or ever move to the “inter-testamental” section. He further misunderstands marginal notes and cross references, both of which the 1611 contain. However, it did not have commentary or study notes, as the Geneva Bible.
“It was a publishing failure. The people did not flock to the new Bible, they continued to use the tried and true Geneva.”
“In its first five years of existence, readers called for seventeen editions, compared with six editions of the Geneva Bible during those same years. Expanding the time frame, in the first 35 years of its existence the KJV went through a whopping 182 editions.” See “The Reception of the King James Bible” in Correcting the Internet.
“The Mayflower pilgrims brought the Geneva to America. As I learned my family history as a 10th generation descendant of John and Priscilla (speak for yourself, John) Alden, I became interested in the Geneva Bible. John’s Bible is on display in the museum at his home near Plymouth, Massachusetts.”
Apparently, this descendant of John Alden does not know Alden’s Bible on display in the museum at Plymouth is not a Geneva Bible, but is rather a King James Bible instead.
“The KJV...is nearly word-for-word identical to the Geneva. Because of the exceptionally close copy of the KJV to the Geneva, I refer to the ‘Authorized Version’ as the ‘Plagiarized Version.’ It is simply hard to believe that being so close, with the exception of maybe 10 places, the KJV is not simply plagiarized rather than an actual work of dedicated scholars.”
This is strange complaint from one touting the Geneva Bible. If it is so great, then he ought to be glad its replacement was so exactly like it! However, in honesty the King James translation definitely is not a plagiarized version of the Geneva Bible, and there are certainly many more than 10 places where the Geneva is different. Many many more. Yet it is true that all the early generations of the English Bible are all built on the work of one William Tyndale. And rightly so.
It is good that this (probably young) “amateur Christian historian” is interested in the Geneva Bible and the history of the English Bible. It is bad that he gets so many facts wrong – facts that someone else can now come along and say this is information “widely available online”! Sadder still that a site that dubs itself “Christian History Institute” allows such to pass as “Christian History.” “Maybe 10 places” the KJV is different from the Geneva? Does anybody at CHI even check the stuff that gets posted?
3 comments:
Wow! We all make mistakes and we misunderstand some things sometimes. But it would appear that the author of the article you critiqued missed a lot of things that are not all that hard to discover. In many Bible software programs one can compare versions. Comparing the Geneva with the KJV reveals that the differences are many.
I appreciate your attention to these things.
E. T. Chapman
yes, that is hilariously sad.
and delusional.
on the note of plagiarism, is the author so sure that the Geneva has not plagiarized any from the earlier English versions?
bottom line: he seems to take great liberties in his dogmatism.
Yes, I think it is sad that this short piece is so full of distortions -- and most which might be easily corrected with minimal research. Even so, if this was the a blog post of random “Joe Blow,” it might not be worth much notice. But, put it on a website called “Christian History Institute” and it gets an air of authority and is much more egregious.
Alex, it seems a person so perplexed by plagiarism would need to consider whether his Geneva Bible plagiarized earlier English versions (from his point of view). As for me, I am satisfied that it was a good thing that the process of early English translation built on and refined the work of William Tyndale. I like to think of it all more as an answer to Tyndale’s prayer, “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes.”
Post a Comment