Perhaps when Hindson found Broughton opposed the KJV he knew all he needed to know and discontinued further research. It is true that the new translation met early opposition, though this is often overblown. However, when “the great scholar Dr. Hugh Broughton” is invoked as representative of its rejection, it is time to learn a bit about Hugh Broughton (1549–1612).
Yes, Broughton was a Puritan, a language scholar, and he severely criticized the translation. I think no one will dispute his scholarship. To the former, though a Puritan in his theology, Broughton held the episcopal polity of the Church of England to be apostolic. Obviously, then, Hindson is wrong to imply Broughton is among the Puritans who saw the new translation as a “compromise with Episcopacy.”
In An Explication of the holy Apocalyps, p. 444, he says the apostles were episcopi and writes, “Our Lord useth that speech in making his Apostles Bishops, in giving them authority to teach what is loose, and what is bound. But Iscariot, let another take his Bishoprick, the rest were faithful Bishops.” In Certain Notes of diverse Nature, he indicates various Bishops, et al. “should rule in the Church.” p. 721.
In A Censure of the Late Translation for our Churches, Broughton starts in immediately, “The late Bible, Right Worshipful, was sent me to cēsure: which bred in me a sadnes that will greeve me while I breath. It is so ill done. Tell his Maiest. that I had rather be rent in pieces with wilde horses, then any such translation by my consent should bee vrged vpon poore Churches...” He soon follows, asserting, “The New edition crosseth me, I require it be burnt...”
“And two and twentie yeares agoe admired by French in London, and by them to Zurick, how by Iewes I cleared the text: and by my enemies in London, as my friends wrote vpon the advertisement, to super-admirable report: that none before me did, nor would after match my heed. And what a prank is this: That translaters sould so mocke with the King.”“I will suffer no scholer in the world to crosse me in Ebrew and Greek, when I am sure I have the trueth. Men that meant quietnes, would never have dealt thus.” A Censure of the Late Translation for our Churches
It was probably for such reasons that he was not invited to be a translator of the new work, and he likely felt slighted. Additionally, Broughton had been involved in severe disputes with others involved in the new translation, including John Rainolds, Edward Lively, and Thomas Bilson. Michael Haykin says Broughton was not considered to work on the translation “probably because of his combative spirit and violent temper...”
Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540–1609), a French Calvinist religious leader and scholar, called Hugh Broughton “furiosuset maledicus” (abusive madman, frantic railer, raging maniac). Anglican theologian Richard Hooker called him vain. [Writing and footnote in “Giordano Bruno in England, Revisited,” Mordechai Feingold, in Huntington Library Quarterly, Vol. 67, No. 3, pages 329–346. © 2004 by the Henry E. Huntington Library and Art Gallery. p. 337]
Broughton’s reputation was such that English playwright Ben Jonson happily satirized him in The Alchemist (1610). (In that day, those attending the play would readily get the Broughton reference.)
Broughton’s reputation was such that English playwright Ben Jonson happily satirized him in The Alchemist (1610). (In that day, those attending the play would readily get the Broughton reference.)
FACE. [the Housekeeper] You are very right, sir, she is a most rare scholar,And is gone mad with studying Broughton’s works.If you but name a word touching the Hebrew,She falls into her fit, and will discourseSo learnedly of genealogies,As you would run mad too, to hear her, sir.
In Biblical Scholarship in an Age of Controversy: the Polemical World of Hugh Broughton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021, p. 1), author Kirsten Macfarlane described Broughton’s activities as a “minefield.” He was “too friendly with the Jesuits, too quarrelsome with the Genevans; happy to denounce Theodore Beza as blasphemous, the English bishops as corrupt, and the Pope as Antichrist while also angling for a professorship in Geneva, begging Queen Elizabeth for a bishopric, and boasting of his favour with Cardinal Caesar Baronius.”
Even John Lightfoot, who collected and published Broughton’s works (The Works of the Great Albionean Divine, Renown’d in Many Nations for rare Skill in Salems & Athens Tongues, and familiar Acquaintance with all Rabbinical Learning, Mr. Hugh Broughton. 1662), and who Macfarlane (p. 2) describes as suppressing Broughton’s coziness with Catholicism, downplaying his “aggressive controversies,” and emphasizing his scholarship, nevertheless must assess him as “sharp and severe,” and could “withal be very angry with Scholars.”
This creates an interesting apposition. King James Detractors who chide certain modern King James Defenders for being acerbic, crass and vain, nevertheless sheepishly bring in to testify on their behalf one of the most acerbic angry Ishmaels of all – Hugh Broughton. As I often say, “Pot, meet kettle.”
Note: I have seen “damnable corruptors of God’s Word” quoted several times in reference to the King James translators. However, up to this point I have not seen the source cited. It may be a completely bogus quote.
No comments:
Post a Comment