Baruch House Publishing
  • Home
  • Books
    • All Books
    • The October Testament
    • The Pentateuch
    • Coverdale Books
      • The Hope of the Faithful
      • Fruitful Lessons upon the Passion, Burial, Resurrection, Ascension, and of the Sending of the Holy Ghost
      • Treatise on Death
      • A Sweet Exposition on Psalm 23
    • The Story of The Matthew Bible, Parts 1 and 2
    • True To His Ways
  • Bookstore
  • Blog
  • NMB Project
  • The Matthew Bible
  • Contact
  • Cart

Tag Archives: Geneva Bible

Traitorous Conceits

Posted on April 28, 2020 by rmd Posted in Puritans

The Geneva Bible (GNV) was published by puritan scholars in Geneva in the 16th century. The first full edition was published in 1560, and a revision followed in 1599. King James I, who ruled England from 1603-1625, is well-known for his statement that he did not like the puritan Bible, because the notes revealed “traitorous conceits,” or seditious views. The king’s words were prophetic: his own son Charles was beheaded at the hands of the puritans during their violent uprising in England, accused as a “tyrant” and a “traitor.”

Among other things, the revolutionary teachings that came out of Geneva – which were completely contrary to the teachings of Tyndale, Luther, Cranmer, or the early Reformers – advocated the right of lesser officials, called “magistrates,” to overthrow a king or queen, or any greater power, for “tyranny.” The revolution in England was preceded by a great deal of demagoguery against “tyrannical lordships” and so forth. The puritan goal was to, by force if need be, overthrow the monarchy, the bishops, and the English Church, in order to install themselves in power and build their “Restored Church.” Oliver Cromwell, who led the rebel armies, had a post-millennial vision of inaugurating the reign of Christ on earth. During the civil war, Cromwell’s troops were issued copies of “The Soldiers’ Pocket Bible,” containing excerpts from the GNV.

But before the trouble exploded in England, in an attempt to mitigate the revolutionary influence of the GNV, King James commissioned the Bible that is known by his name, the King James Version. He was adamant that it should contain no notes. However, it may have escaped his notice that the notes were not the only problem with the GNV. The biblical text itself had been changed in subtle ways that undermined the authority of the monarchy.

The GNV Old Testament was a revision of the Great Bible (GRT), which was itself based on the 1537 Matthew Bible (MB). But when it favoured their cause, the puritans departed from the GRT translation to follow other versions more closely, or to introduce a new translation of their own. Perhaps due to the influence of the puritans on the KJV translation committee, a few of the GNV revisions were replicated in the KJV. Psalm 76 below is an example. In the Matthew Bible, God was described as “wonderful” among the kings. “Wonderful” translated the Hebrew yawray. However, the GNV changed this in a way that portended only evil for a king, and the note was even worse (note, in 16th century English, a “prince” was a supreme ruler, a king, queen, or emperor):

Psalm 76:11-12

MB & GRT Look, what ye promise unto the Lord your God, see that ye keep it, all ye that be round about him. Bring presents unto him that ought to be feared, which [who] taketh away the breath of princes, and is wonderful among the kings of the earth.

GNV 1599 Vow and perform unto the Lord your God, all ye that be round about him; let them bring presents unto him that ought to be feared. He shall *cut off the spirit of princes; he is terrible to the kings of the earth.

  GNV note: The Hebrew word signifieth to vintage, or gather grapes; meaning, that he shall make the counsels and enterprises of wicked tyrants foolish and vain.

KJV Vow and pay unto the Lord your God: let all that be round about him bring presents unto him that ought to be feared. He shall cut off the spirit of princes: he is terrible to the kings of the earth.

The GNV note suggests that it is a fruit of God’s harvest to make “foolish and vain” the works of “wicked tyrants.” Be that as it may, the simple fact is that such a note would alarm King James, especially considering that, for many years now, the puritans had been agitating to put down the “wicked tyrants” in England.

Below, Proverb 16:10 in the MB and GRT says simply that a king will not go wrong in judgement when he has “the prophecy.” I believe this means, when he has God’s word. But the GNV imposes an absolute duty on kings not to transgress in judgement. This sets up a standard that could be used – and which was used in England – to justify an uprising. The verse was further revised in the KJV, with an odd result:

Proverbs 16:10

MB & GRT When the prophecy is in the lips of the king, his mouth shall not go wrong in judgement.

GNV 1599 A divine sentence shall be in the lips of the king: his mouth shall not transgress in judgement.

KJV A divine sentence is in the lips of the king: his mouth transgresseth not in judgement.

The KJV revision above states that the king does not transgress in judgement, which, of course, is impossible. Kings are not infallible. It also conflicts with Psalm 76. Why would the Lord be terrible to, and cut off the spirit of, such a king? The MB and GRT are eminently superior translations for their common sense and how they glorify God.

In Proverb 20:2 below, the puritans changed the GRT to follow the Latin Vulgate, the Bible of the Roman Church (a thing they frequently did). Here the MB and GRT taught that the king ought to be feared, but the GNV robbed the monarch of this due. It might seem a small thing – and in itself, it is a small thing – but together with everything else, it contributed to undermining the honour and authority of the king. The GNV note then portrayed the offence of angering the king as wrong merely because it endangers the self:

Proverb 20:2

MB & GRT The king ought to be feared as the roaring of a lion; whoso provoketh him unto anger, offendeth against his own soul.

GNV 1599 The fear of the king is like the roaring of a lion: he that provoketh him unto anger, *sinneth against his own soul.

  GNV note: Putteth his life in danger.

KJV The fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion: whoso provoketh him to anger sinneth against his own soul.

In the next proverb, Geneva flipped the teaching to set a trap for princes. This was a new translation. The Latin Vulgate, Wycliffe Bible, MB, and GRT brought essentially the same message, but the GNV portrayed the evil as done by princes, and not against them. The KJV is again a strange revision:

Proverb 17:26

MB & GRT To punish the innocent, and to smite the princes that give true judgement, are both evil.

GNV 1599 Surely it is not good to condemn the just, nor that the princes should smite such *for equity.

  GNV note: For their well-doing.

KJV Also to punish the just is not good, nor to strike princes for equity.

Thus, in the GNV, there were many new translations that could be used against princes and kings. Part 2 of The Story of the Matthew Bible, due for release in late 2020, will review several of the notes in the GNV, which validate King James’ concerns about their seditious tendencies, and which confirm that the Geneva Bible was published in order to support and advance the puritan revolutionary cause.

Tyndale: Don’t Tamper with My Translation and Call It a “Diligent Correction”

Posted on October 24, 2018 by rmd Posted in History MB

William Tyndale was a humble man. He always wanted to do better and he welcomed sound criticism. But he had a message for people who took his translations, changed them, and then promoted their work as a “diligent correction.” With a moment’s thought, we will realize that to do such a thing to another man’s work, no matter what it might be, is the height of effrontery and offense. But when it came to God’s word, which Tyndale loved as gold, and over which he laboured painstakingly to make true and faithful, he had every right to be indignant.

There were a few offenders, and they are discussed in Part 2 of The Story of the Matthew Bible. Here is a brief review of just two instances of people unilaterally, without permission, taking and changing Tyndale’s work.

George Joye

George Joye was a scholar who had an interest in bible translation. In the 1530s, he was employed as a proofreader and corrector for a printer in Antwerp when that printer happened to be working on a new edition of Tyndale’s New Testament.  Without Tyndale’s knowledge or consent, Joye revised the text. In particular, he changed the word ‘resurrection,’ because he had his own unique ideas about it. At the close of the book was the statement:

Here endeth the new Testament diligently ouersene and corrected, and prynted now agayn at Antwerpe … In the yere of oure Lord m.cccc. and xxxiiij. in August.[1]

Tyndale complained:

[Some]one brought me a copy and shewed me so many places, in such wise altered, that I was astonished and wondered not a little what fury had driven him to make such change and to call it a diligent correction. For throughout Matthew, Mark and Luke perpetually: and oft in the Acts, and sometimes in John and also in Hebrews, where he findeth this word ‘resurrection,’ he changeth it into ‘the life after this life,’ or ‘very life,’ and such like, as one that abhorred the name of the resurrection. …[2]

Tyndale did not want people taking and changing his work to suit their own ideas.

William Whittingham and the Geneva Bible

The Geneva Bible was the work of Puritans living in Geneva during the Marian exile, after Tyndale’s death. The English Puritan William Whittingham first revised Tyndale’s New Testament in 1557, and then the whole Bible followed in 1560. In their preface to the whole Bible, the Geneva revisers claimed, among other things, to have received a new, clear revelation of light from God. Further, though Coverdale and Tyndale were of the same generation, the revisers characterized their work as “from the infancy of those times” and as needing greatly to be “perused and reformed” – that is, reviewed and corrected by them:

Preface, 1560 Geneva Bible: We thought that we should bestow our labours and study in nothing which could be more acceptable to God and conformable to his Church than in the translating of the Holy Scriptures into our native tongue; the which thing, albeit that divers heretofore have endeavoured to achieve [i.e. Tyndale and Coverdale], yet considering the infancy of those times and imperfect knowledge of the tongues, in respect of this ripe age and clear light which God hath now revealed, the translations required greatly to be perused and reformed.[3]

The Puritans then went on to revise the Scriptures and promote it as a corrected Bible.

Tyndale: Play fair

Tyndale protested that if anyone want to make a Bible, he should translate it for himself. It is not right, he said, to take another man’s work, change it, and promote the revised work as a correction:

It is lawful for who will to translate and show his mind, though a thousand had translated before him. But it is not lawful (thinketh me) nor yet expedient for the edifying of the unity of the faith of Christ, that whosoever desires should by his own authority take another man’s translation, and put out and in, and change at pleasure, and call it a correction.[4]

Many are the difficulties caused by proceeding like this, aside from the offense to the original author. But for Tyndale, the greatest risk was falsifying God’s word. If the text itself is “corrected” to support a false opinion of the “corrector,” there is no way for the sheep to find the truth:

If the text is left uncorrupted, it will purge herself of all manner false glosses, however subtly they be feigned, as a seething pot casteth up her scum. But if the false gloss is made [to be] the text “diligently overseen and corrected”, how then shall we correct false doctrine and defend Christ’s flock from false opinions ?[5]

Don’t touch my translations, he said. Leave them alone. Or if they must steal and change it, then they should call it their own and put their own names to it, and leave him out of it.

But did Tyndale request that his work be corrected?

Four years before the Joye fiasco, Tyndale wrote words that have been misused to justify later revisions. He said in the preface to his 1530 Pentateuch,

Notwithstanding yet I submit this book, and all others that I have either made or translated, or shall in time to come (if it be God’s will that I shall further labour in his harvest), to all who submit themselves to the word of God, to be corrected of [by] them, yea and moreover to be disallowed and also burnt, if it seem worthy when they have examined it with the Hebrew, so that [provided] they first put forth of their own translating another that is more correct.[6]

People have seized on these words to argue that Tyndale would have welcomed the Geneva and KJV “corrections.” But this overlooks his last sentence. Let them correct as they will, he says, but by means of their own translation – and, furthermore, don’t cast his aside until theirs is done. So, Tyndale did not want men tampering with his work.

The silver lining

Truth be told, there are only two true “diligent corrections” of Tyndale’s New Testament. Those are the two he performed himself, one in 1534 and the other in 1535. However, it was no doubt in the providence of God that Tyndale’s work furnished the base of the major English Bibles. Computer studies have shown that over 83% of the KJV New Testament is straight Tyndale. We may thank the Lord for not answering Tyndale’s prayer, however much we know that he would regret many of the changes made. His voice was largely preserved, especially in the New Testament, and has been greatly used by the Holy Spirit.

However, it cannot be said that Tyndale wanted his work to be corrected this way.

To learn about Tyndale’s work with the Scriptures, and the many unauthorized changes that have been made to his translations read The Story of the Matthew Bible, now in 2 Parts.

 

© Ruth Magnusson Davis, October 2018. Minimal revisions June 2021.

Endnotes:

[1] Herbert’s Catalogue of Printed Bibles, page 6.

[2] 2nd foreword to Tyndale’s 1534 New Testament, modern spelling edition by David Daniell, page 13.

[3] Preface to the 1560 Geneva Bible. Reproduced in 1599 Geneva Bible, modern spelling Tolle Lege edition, beginning at p. xxvii.

[4] Tyndale, 2nd foreword, 1534, pages 13-14.

[5] Ibid, page 14.

[6] Tyndale, “W.T. to the Reader,” 1530 Pentateuch, David Daniell’s modern spelling edition, pages 5-6.

Obsolete English and punctuation may be silently updated in quotations from the early 16th century.

Subscribe to BHP

Subscribe to receive blog posts: enter email address below

Loading

Learn the Story of the Matthew Bible.

Part 1: How it was made.

Part 2: What changed in later Bibles and why.

Information about The Story of the Matthew Bible

© Baruch House Publishing

Shipping reduced below actual cost on orders shipped from Canada. All prices are $US. Dismiss

October Testament Sale

Reduced to clear for new edition:

The October Testament
2018 leather edition

 

Big savings with
added shipping discount