Translate

Friday, January 21, 2022

A (really bad) Introduction to the Geneva Bible

Review of “An Introduction to the Geneva Bible” by Michael H. Brown

Though I often use The Reformed Reader to view transcriptions of historical documents, this “Introduction” to the Geneva Bible by Brown has not been on my radar until recently. I “happened” upon it at The Reformed Reader while searching for information about John Bunyan and the Geneva Bible. It turned out to be one of the more egregious offenders re that topic.

After finishing what I wrote about Bunyan, I turned into Brown’s “Introduction” for a closer look. I found it to be inaccurate, inconsistent, incohesive, inordinate – and in my colloquial speech, just plain weird. Perhaps weirder still is that reputable sites such as A Puritan’s Mind and The Reformed Reader deign to give it credibility.

Though posted on those sites, and perhaps others, its point of origin appears to be this. “An Introduction to the Geneva Bible” is printed on pages i-x of The Geneva Bible: a facsimile of the 1599 edition with undated Sternhold & Hopkins Psalms (Buena Park, CA: Geneva Publishing Company, 1991), where it is called “An Introduction to the Facsimile Edition,” and dated 1988. This writing is not just online rambling, such as I do here, as it might appear, but rather is an introduction for a printed facsimile Bible. That exacerbates its oddity.

Inaccurate; incorrect, or untrue.

Numerous times throughout the “Introduction,” Michael H. Brown gets his facts wrong. As I have previously noticed, Brown asserts, “William Shakespeare, John Bunyan, John Milton, the Pilgrims who landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620, and other luminaries of that era used the Geneva Bible exclusively” (p. i).[i] I have given ample evidence of the inaccuracy of the statement regarding Bunyan, and we might find the rest of the statement incorrect or incomplete as well. He further alleges that none of the groups named in the preceding paragraph [the Reformation, the Puritans, the Calvinists, and the Pilgrims] used a King James Bible nor would they have used it if it had been given to them free” (p. i). That is “bulloney” with a capital “B” on the bull and long “ō” on the baloney!

Brown states that when “James ascended the English throne in 1603” that he “wasted no time in ordering a new edition of the Bible in order to deny the common people the marginal notes they so valued in the Geneva Bible” (p. v). King James did not conceive the idea of a new Bible translation. Historical records well attest this fact. The idea immerged out of a conference, convened at Hampton Court Palace in January 1604. John Reynolds / Rainolds, on behalf of the Puritans, requested a new translation of the Bible. The king accepted the request but did not originate the idea.

Further, Brown implies that it was King James who “set up rules” (p. vi) for the translation. Most scholars of the King James Bible history, however, believe that he simply gave approval to the translation principles drawn up by Richard Bancroft, the bishop of London.[ii]

Inconsistent; or self-contradictory.

A number of Brown’s opinions are inconsistent, or self-contradictory. He tries to “have it both ways.” Brown complains of the directive that “The old Ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz. the word ‘church’ not to be translated ‘congregation,’ etc…” (p. vi). He claims this deliberate mistranslation work on behalf of the Church of England. History tells us a different story. English Bibles between 1526 and 1560, following Tyndale, used the word congregation.[iii] The 1560 Geneva Bible bucked that trend! This can be seen in checking Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, and Great Bibles in places where we familiarly read the word “church.” Compare, for example, Tyndale (congregation) versus the 1560 Geneva Bible (church) in these places.

Brown informs us that when the Bible was finished, “It was not technically a translation.[iv] What the flunkies employed by King James did was revise and compare other translations of which they simply plagiarized about 20% of the Geneva Bible” (p. vi). In addition to “plagiarizing” the Geneva Bible, he concludes that the New Testament translation was simply a copy, “almost word for word” of “William Tyndale’s 1525 New Testament” (p. vii). Given Brown’s view of the Geneva and the King James, why does he complain about these things? That the new Bible follows Geneva and Tyndale (which was “labeled as ‘seditious material’ by Henry VIII”) should be admirable and commendatory, according to other points he made. If the King James Bible follows Tyndale and Geneva so closely, as he says, then it is not quite the English government and Church of England Bible that he claimed (p. ii).

He notices “in James’ time…religion was controlled by the government” and that “The hapless individuals who fell into the hands of the government for holding religious opinions of their own were simply punished according to the royal whim” (p. iii). What he acknowledges concerning England and Rome, he fails to acknowledge concerning “his beloved” Geneva. The laws in Geneva made heresy punishable by death. Therefore, his heroes were guilty of the same kind of evil as the others (even if not to the same degree). The theocratic government of Geneva enforced the death penalty for such crimes as idolatry, blasphemy, adultery, sorcery (witchcraft), and heresy. The best-known case is that of Michael Servetus, burned at the stake for heresy on October 27, 1553. Jacques Gruet was tortured (for information, apparently), then executed by beheading on July 26, 1547. In Geneva, others were hanged, beheaded, burned at the stake, and drowned, for various crimes – including women suspected of being witches.[v]

Inordinate; unrestrained in feelings, disorderly, or excessive.

Brown drags in any charge that might set the King James Version in disarray, including the claim that King James was homosexual (p. v), and that his mother was an adulteress (p. ii). Even for contrasting the Geneva Bible and KJV, such is unusual and unnecessary, and exhibits a churlish spirit.

Brown knows all. Concerning the king’s sexuality, “there is no room for debate on the subject” (p. v). In their book Early Modern England 1485–1714, Robert Bucholz and Newton Key tackle that claim about King James and find that it “is murky.”[vi] Still some room for debate, despite Brown’s certainty! It seems that the charge of King James being homosexual was (1) made by his enemies, and (2) not until after his death. This does not mean it is not true, but should give pause regarding its validity. Whether or not King James was homosexual is not important to the history of the Geneva Bible, and not much even in regard to the origin and history of the Authorized Version of 1611.

That James “was a great coward” who “fouled his breeches in fear” (p. v), even if true, is impertinent and inapplicable to the task at hand. Throughout “An Introduction to the Geneva Bible” Brown gives vent to feelings of anger toward the King James Bible rather than faithfully introducing us to the Geneva Bible.

Incomprehensible; or baffling, confused.

This example definitely baffles me!

A backwoods preacher, Noah Fredericks, wrote a book titled, Pilgrim Ships, in which he claimed the people of the Old Testament came from outer space, Moses’s rod was an electronic control used to open a fortress (mistranslated, “rock”), Elijah introduced a path for current to flow from the ionosphere to the ground in order to fry two platoons of Ahab’s infantry, and other theological positions that will probably never be taken seriously by anybody (unfortunately). (p. ix).

Why it is unfortunate that no one takes these ideas seriously, I am unable to comprehend. Seems to this backwoods preacher that it would be a great blessing if anyone and everyone rejected such nonsense. Nothing unfortunate about it.

Incohesive; or disjointed, lacking unity.

This last example might well be included under the heading “inordinate.”[vii] It seems to inject some feelings in favor of both divorce and polygamy! Here is the paragraph:

The last run of Geneva Bibles was printed in 1644. That was the year John Milton was invited to instruct the English Parliament on the actual teachings of the Bible regarding divorce (it was allowed). What Milton understood that none of our modern “experts” seem to was that “He who divorces his wife and marries another,” was not a prohibition of divorce, it was a prohibition against throw-away people. As John Milton in his On Christian Doctrine and Martin Luther in his essay on Deuteronomy 21:15 pointed out, having more than one wife was Scriptural. You just weren’t supposed to throw them away when you got bored with them. (pp. viii-ix).

Though this could be included under the heading “inordinate,” nevertheless, it also exposes the disjointed nature of Brown’s “Introduction.” We can wonder why the circumstance of Milton instructing Parliament about divorce is essential in reference to the last run of Geneva Bibles, especially to those people being first introduced to it! Just because it happened the same year? Luther died 14 years before the coming of the 1560 Geneva Bible, yet to be introduced to it we must know what he believed about polygamy?[viii]

Rejected; not recommended.

In the end, we discover more about how Michael H. Brown feels about the Reformation, the demise of the Geneva Bible, the rise of the King James Bible, King James’s character, and the views of Luther and Milton on polygamy than we do about the Geneva Bible itself. We can gather a few introductory facts along the way, but readers should not have to be pulled down into the quicksand of Brown’s biases in order to learn a little of the history of the Geneva Bible. Surely there are better sources out there on the Web (though many seem to be tainted with the folklore aspect of “who exclusively used” the Geneva Bible). I don’t presently have time to look through them all. Maybe try these: The Geneva Bible at Bible-Researcher.com, Geneva Bible at Britannica, The Geneva Bible, A Bible of Firsts, even Wikipedia.


[i] Page numbers are in reference to the facsimile Bible, which is available to “borrow” at Archive.org. It may be that Brown’s essay is the source for the misinformation about Bunyan’s and Milton’s primary or exclusive use of the Geneva Bible.
[ii] For example, McGrath describes them as “drawn up by Bancroft and approved by James…” In The Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture, Alister Edgar McGrath. New York, NY: Random House, Inc., 2001, p. 173.
[iii] I obviously have not checked every single reference in every one of these Bibles. However, the references I did check have the word “congregation”. Intriguingly, the Bishop’s Bible, which came eight years after the Geneva Bible, has “congregation” in a few places.
[iv] The rules directed that the translators consider and follow the Bishop’s Bible, Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale, Whitchurch’s (Great Bible), and Geneva. They were to alter these if necessary to better agree with the truth of the original language texts.
[v] Other names mentioned in items I read were Daniel Berthelier and Jerome Bolsec (arrested and banished). See also L’inquisition Protestante: les Victimes de Calvin, Jean-Maurice Rouquette, Paris: Librairie Bloud, 1910; “Un procès d’athéisme à Genève : l’affaire Gruet (1547-1550),” François Berriot, Bulletin de la Société de l’Histoire du Protestantisme Français, Vol. 125 (October-December 1979), pp. 577-592; “Judicial drowning in the Republic of Geneva (1558-1619),” Sonia Vernhes Rappaz. Crime, History, and Societies, Vol. 13, No.1, 2009, pp. 5-23. I primarily express this in regards to the government in Geneva. When it comes to John Calvin himself, everyone has an ax either to grind or polish. It is hard to wade through the morass. Calvin, who had corresponded with Servetus, informed the French Inquisition of his location. Had Servetus been captured, he would have been executed. Instead, he escaped, only to be captured, arrested, convicted, and executed in Geneva. Considering the religious persecution in Geneva, keep it in perspective. These executions were apparently numerically mild in comparison to the Roman Catholic persecution of heretics.
[vi] Early Modern England 1485–1714: A Narrative History, Robert Bucholz and Newton Key. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2004, p. 208. 
[vii] And some of the examples under the other headings expose the rambling nature of Brown’s narrative. 
[viii] I checked and, apparently, Michael H. Brown did get this correct, as far as Luther’s and Milton’s beliefs about polygamy. See The Facts about Luther (Patrick F. O’Hare. New York, NY, F. Pustet & Company, 1916, p. 334; originally from De Wette II, 459, pp. 329-330), and A Treatise on Christian Doctrine compiled from the Holy Scriptures Alone (John Milton. Translated by Charles R. Sumner, Cambridge: University Press, 1825, p. xxxiii).

No comments: