Truelove Textual Info?

[danekristjan]

Critical Text man Mark Ward, recently made comments about the Confessional Text position on Iron Sharpens Iron (a Reformed Baptist radio ministry). I have real difference with his argument (especially his epistemology). I said the 'which TR' is a minor sticking point for me. Mark Ward makes a number of assertions on this. I think a minor revision of the TR may bring some certainty? Do you agree? How do you respond to Dr Ward?

June 1, 2022 Show with Dr. Mark Ward on “King James Only-ism & Confessional Bibliology: Comparison & Contrast (& the Dangers of Both)” | Iron Sharpens Iron Radio

I wondered if this book deals with the arguments Mark Ward (and others) make.

Another issue is that many in our confessional bibliology circles argue for "complete certainty" rather than the more historic, and biblical, defense of the TR, put forward by EF Hills, "maximal certainty".

In practice every Bible believing Christian who opens their Bible and reads it is operating within the bounds of complete certainty, or should be. The question is, upon what theology is the text you are reading compiled? and does that theology support one practically operating in any realm of certainty?

For instance, in Rev.16:5, all TR editions, up till Beza's 1598 edition, read "who wast, and art, ὁ ὅσιος the Holy One." After Beza, whose note upon the text says that he restored the correct reading from an ancient manuscript of good report, it reads ὁ ἐσόμενος "shalt be" (the reading found in our English Authorized Version and the Dutch Statenvertaling). To argue complete certainty here you absolutely have to chose one over the other or your whole argument falls apart. Upon what grounds must you argue? Providential preservation and usage. But to stay consistent with that argument (God's special providence), as TR defenders we can only have maximal certainty regarding the reading, and I see no problem with either reading. I prefer and "receive" what my most providentially blessed English translation says, "and shalt be", but I must still recognize that the Geneva Bible (and basically every reformation era translation into European languages, including the newest TBS revision of the Spanish NT) says "the Holy One". What else can we have but maximal certainty here, especially when there are good arguments for either reading?

Nevertheless, this methodology is a far cry from the rationalistic and postmodern methodologies underlying the critical text, which has created a Frankenstein text that matches no Greek testament in history before it.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Another issue is that many in our confessional bibliology circles argue for "complete certainty" rather than the more historic, and biblical, defense of the TR, put forward by EF Hills, "maximal certainty".

I appreciate the insights Dane. As I reflect on the issue of 'certainty' (and critical text advocates use this against the TR position), to my mind there are three issues:
1. The KJV itself questioning some readings by putting them in italics. Eg, John 8:6 (last part of verse) and 1 John 2:23. The NKJV has these in normal text.
2. The KJV questioning some verses re their authenticity Eg Luke 10:22, Luke 17:36 and Acts 25:6. It was the KJV footnote questioning Luke 17:36 that took me to the critical text for some time. I reasoned if the KJV 'questions' some texts, I cannot blame the CT Bible for doing so.
3 Textual emendations such as Rev 16:5 and other 'difficult' passages such as Eph 3:9. When James White and Geoff Riddle debated Eph 3:9 I was not convinced by Geoff Riddles defense although I agreed with him that the text should not be determined 'naturalistically'. When James White made comments on Eph 3:9 he argued that God works in history and thus he could not accept a reading with extremely little mss support.

Now getting to my point, the reason why I argued for a 'light' revision of the TR, is that WCF 1:8 "kept pure in all ages" is an important standard. Therefore we need to determine a reading that has been in clear use by the church in all ages. I think there may be a case to determine the best TR reading in light of this, even if it means occasionally using the Byzantine Priority reading when it is clear the reading has been in use in all ages. Is it better to use the Byzantine Priority reading for Eph 3:9 for example?

For instance, in Rev.16:5, all TR editions, up till Beza's 1598 edition, read "who wast, and art, ὁ ὅσιος the Holy One."

Here you illustrate the point I have been making. The editions of the TR before Beza's 1598 edition seem to me to adhere to the standard 'kept pure in all ages'. The KJV rendering does not. Can one not argue that the Geneva Bible is correct here?

Here on the Puritanboard you have esteemed members arguing for a Sturzian approach to providential preservation. Others ask why tie providential preservation to a specific era in church history. It seems to me a consistent TR revision would help answer some of this.

 

[danekristjan]

I appreciate the insights Dane. As I reflect on the issue of 'certainty' (and critical text advocates use this against the TR position), to my mind there are three issues:
1. The KJV itself questioning some readings by putting them in italics. Eg, John 8:6 (last part of verse) and 1 John 2:23. The NKJV has these in normal text.
2. The KJV questioning some verses re their authenticity Eg Luke 10:22, Luke 17:36 and Acts 25:6. It was the KJV footnote questioning Luke 17:36 that took me to the critical text for some time. I reasoned if the KJV 'questions' some texts, I cannot blame the CT Bible for doing so.
3 Textual emendations such as Rev 16:5 and other 'difficult' passages such as Eph 3:9. When James White and Geoff Riddle debated Eph 3:9 I was not convinced by Geoff Riddles defense although I agreed with him that the text should not be determined 'naturalistically'. When James White made comments on Eph 3:9 he argued that God works in history and thus he could not accept a reading with extremely little mss support.

Now getting to my point, the reason why I argued for a 'light' revision of the TR, is that WCF 1:8 "kept pure in all ages" is an important standard. Therefore we need to determine a reading that has been in clear use by the church in all ages. I think there may be a case to determine the best TR reading in light of this, even if it means occasionally using the Byzantine Priority reading when it is clear the reading has been in use in all ages. Is it better to use the Byzantine Priority reading for Eph 3:9 for example?

Here you illustrate the point I have been making. The editions of the TR before Beza's 1598 edition seem to me to adhere to the standard 'kept pure in all ages'. The KJV rendering does not. Can one not argue that the Geneva Bible is correct here?

Here on the Puritanboard you have esteemed members arguing for a Sturzian approach to providential preservation. Others ask why tie providential preservation to a specific era in church history. It seems to me a consistent TR revision would help answer some of this.

Those are some great points! I'll respond further soon. For now, I will just add that the KJV italics are of no consequence. They were inconsistently done throughout various printings and editions of the KJV. They were never carried out properly in other words. Many things are italicized that were not meant to be and left unitalicized that were intended to be. So something being in italics does not mean it was not in the text they were working from nor does it even necessarily mean that they were added for English style. They were a good idea that was not executed accurately. This is why David Norton (who has great information on he history of the KJV) completely left out italicization in his Cambridge paragraph Bible, since it was often more misleading than helpful.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Those are some great points! I'll respond further soon.

Look forward to your comments. I'm still in the learning stage

I will just add that the KJV italics are of no consequence. They were inconsistently done throughout various printings and editions of the KJV. They were never carried out properly in other words.

Note that the Geneva Bible does not contain the words at all. The Geneva Bible does not have them, the KJV puts them in italics, the NKJV puts them in the text. Regarding John 8:6 the NKJV footnote states that this last sentence is not in the NU or Majority text.

 

[danekristjan]

Look forward to your comments. I'm still in the learning stage

Note that the Geneva Bible does not contain the words at all. The Geneva Bible does not have them, the KJV puts them in italics, the NKJV puts them in the text. Regarding John 8:6 the NKJV footnote states that this last sentence is not in the NU or Majority text.

Looked up some more information for you on this one (it is an interesting one for sure).

It appears to be very loosely translating the phrase μὴ προσποιούμενος, which could be more literally translated "not pretending / not acting as though". This reading is found in the Complutensian Polyglot (1514) and in the first two editions of Stephanus (1546, 1549), but is found in none of the editions of Erasmus, Beza, or the later of Stephanus (although he does contain the reading in the margin of his later editions, see image bellow). That would explain why it is not in the Geneva, which translated from the earlier editions of Stephanus.

Regarding the italics, the first time it appeared in italics in the KJV was in the 1769 revision. The 1611 did not have it in italics. But I would again remind that the italicization of the KJV really should not be read too much into, especially those done by revisers. It makes sense that the NKJV retains it, since it was a very conservative revision of the KJV, although its interesting that they do not have it in italics. The NKJV footnote is obviously correct, in that it is not found in those printed editions, only in the Complutensian and the first two of Stephanus.

In conclusion, the KJV translators must have taken the reading μὴ προσποιούμενος from the first two editions of Stephanus (or from the margin of his later editions) and translated it "as though he heard them not", which, if we are to give any weight to italicization, they did not italicize in their own 1611 edition. Since it is a reading that the English speaking Church has received for over 400 years, I see no problem retaining it.

 

[danekristjan]

I appreciate the insights Dane. As I reflect on the issue of 'certainty' (and critical text advocates use this against the TR position), to my mind there are three issues:
1. The KJV itself questioning some readings by putting them in italics. Eg, John 8:6 (last part of verse) and 1 John 2:23. The NKJV has these in normal text.
2. The KJV questioning some verses re their authenticity Eg Luke 10:22, Luke 17:36 and Acts 25:6. It was the KJV footnote questioning Luke 17:36 that took me to the critical text for some time. I reasoned if the KJV 'questions' some texts, I cannot blame the CT Bible for doing so.
3 Textual emendations such as Rev 16:5 and other 'difficult' passages such as Eph 3:9. When James White and Geoff Riddle debated Eph 3:9 I was not convinced by Geoff Riddles defense although I agreed with him that the text should not be determined 'naturalistically'. When James White made comments on Eph 3:9 he argued that God works in history and thus he could not accept a reading with extremely little mss support.

Now getting to my point, the reason why I argued for a 'light' revision of the TR, is that WCF 1:8 "kept pure in all ages" is an important standard. Therefore we need to determine a reading that has been in clear use by the church in all ages. I think there may be a case to determine the best TR reading in light of this, even if it means occasionally using the Byzantine Priority reading when it is clear the reading has been in use in all ages. Is it better to use the Byzantine Priority reading for Eph 3:9 for example?

Here you illustrate the point I have been making. The editions of the TR before Beza's 1598 edition seem to me to adhere to the standard 'kept pure in all ages'. The KJV rendering does not. Can one not argue that the Geneva Bible is correct here?

Here on the Puritanboard you have esteemed members arguing for a Sturzian approach to providential preservation. Others ask why tie providential preservation to a specific era in church history. It seems to me a consistent TR revision would help answer some of this.

Here is my promised response to your other points.

1. I would again stress the need not to read too much into the italicization. Especially in 1John 2:23, the last clause in question being found in some of the texts the KJV translators were working from. It is absent from the Complutensia, all of Erasmus' editions, Aldus' (1518), all of Stephanus' editions (though it is present in the margin of the 1550 and 1551), Beza's first two editions, and Tyndale's NT. It is present in the editions of Colinaeus (1534) and the last two editions of Beza (the 5th [1598] being the main text of the KJV translators).
2. I have no problem personally when the KJV, NKJV, or any other translation adds footnotes giving background information on a reading. Many KJVO's and brethren in the TR camp think this means the translators are "questioning" or "casting doubt" on the text, but I think that is a stretch. If they were truly questioning it, they would put brackets around it, as is done in the modern versions, and even then, the fact that a translation places a reading in their main text shows that it is of considerable authority. So, to agree with you, I dont have a problem with any translation giving background information on a reading to inform the reader.
3. A conjectural emendation is when someone emends the text based on nothing but conjecture, (like the NA28 critical text does in 2Pet. 3:9, adding in the negative particle, οὐκ "not", based on absolutely no Greek manuscript support). This is not what Beza did in his 1598 edition. In the footnote he claims to have "restored the reading 'and shalt be' from an old manuscript of good report". Whether he was right to do this or not, this is not the same as conjectural emendation. Dr. Riddle has an entire Word Magazine diving into this footnote, where he translates the Latin note. Regarding Eph. 3:9 κοινονία "fellowship", I would not classify this as a textual emendation, since many of the TR editions have it. True, there is no extant manuscript evidence for it, but that does not equal it not being an original reading, since the editors of those TR editions had to have gotten it from somewhere, and what manuscripts are extant today (at least the ones we know about) do not necessarily represent every manuscript that has ever existed. Personally, I have no issue with either reading, but I err on "receiving" the reading as it has come to us in our vulgar translations (KJV/NKJV). The point to take away from the debate, as you point out, is that regardless of which reading we take, "fellowship" or "economy", we should not approach this naturalistically. Both readings are found in the TR tradition.

In response to your point on a new edition of the TR, I dont think it would harm anything to have a "critical" edition of the TR, that shows all the readings of the various TR's (possibly from the Complutensian to Scrivener), but I also don't think it would solve anything. Interestingly enough, we already have something similar to this in Scrivener's 1881 annotated TR (which is sadly out of print). The appendix in the back is where I have gathered much of the information I have shared with you, regarding different editions of the TR etc.

I hope that helps. It seems to be that the rhetoric on both sides (of which I have played a role in the past) has really hampered this discussion and only caused both "sides" to entrench themselves in sometimes untenable positions, or back themselves into corners of circular reasoning.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

@danekristjan I appreciate your clarification/tempering on the issue of the language around certainty in the TR camp. I think the case being overstated as "absolute certainty on every possible variation" actually weakens the TR position.

Also, your final point there is important. Sometimes TR advocates get caught up in simply debating evidence as if the issue was one of determining the best text-critical solution, but really the issue at stake is a theological one. The more we work to emphasize that issue the better!

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I hope that helps. It seems to be that the rhetoric on both sides (of which I have played a role in the past) has really hampered this discussion and only caused both "sides" to entrench themselves in sometimes untenable positions, or back themselves into corners of circular reasoning.

Thanks for your comments. Plenty to reflect on. Have a blessed Lord's day.

 

[Robert Truelove]

I was just made aware of this thread yesterday by a fellow church member.

So to answer a few questions...

Firstly, I've backed away from discussing the subject of the text on the Internet over the last 2 years. This also included taking down my Youtube videos. This after putting my ideas out there in the 2019 Text and Canon Conference lectures available on Sermonaudio.

My position on the Received Text of the Protestant Reformation as the canonical text has only grown though.

Since I'm here though...I noticed the "which TR?" question has come up again in this thread. Here is my take on that:

Firstly, I do not believe the Biblical doctrine of the preservation of the Scriptures means a kind of preservation that demands absolute certainty. Rather, I believe the Scriptures teach God keeps his Word by special providence, not miracle. This means that issues in transmission are inevitable because of the human equation. However, since God has willed to provide for His church the sacred Scriptures and keep them pure in all ages, we may look for the signs of God's Scripture authenticating providence in history.

It is here that my path diverges from advocates of contemporary textual criticism. They see the matter of textual variants and the discerning of the correct reading to be a historical critical one. I see it as a matter that concerns the canon and therefore requiring a canonical praxis.

The advocate of the Critical Text ends up with an ever changing, provisional text and every minister being expected to do their own textual criticism as well. I argue that the failure of textual criticism to produce anything more than provisional texts demonstrates the reality that it is simply not possible to reproduce the 'original manuscripts' via historical criticism. The Critical Text is an anti-canon.

My approach, on the other hand, looks at the text from the standpoint of the canon which inexorbiatly leads to the Received Text of the Reformation. This is the text that God, by His special providence, provided for his church during the most important period of church history since the time of the apostles. This is also the time that the lingering questions regarding the canon were settled such as the status of the antilegomena, the Apocrypha, and even the canonical status of the Latin Vulgate in relation to the original languages. It must also be mentioned that this is precisely the point in history where God by His special providence, moved the transmission of the text from the manuscript era, to the age of the printed page.
In the conflux of all of this things, God gave us the Received Text.

But which TR? This question is a canard for my position. The question is, which text did God's special providence give us at the time when God reformed the church and brought an end to the lingering questions pertaining to the canon? And the answer, it was not a single edition!
Technically speaking, The Received Text is not this or that edition of the text (whether one of Erasmus, Stephanus, or Beza), but it is a corpus made up of all of it's editions.

Does this still not require some form of textual criticism in relation to the differences? No more so and little different from the sorts of problems we have with the Hebrew Masoretic text (such as the marginal notes that are considered part of the Hebrew canon).

By and large, the Received Text corpus is monolithic. Variants are exceedingly rare, and especially meaningful ones. This is a reality because God gave us the text by His special providence, and not through the divine inspiration of the scholars that produced it.

What we have in the Received Text is a text vindicated by God's special providence. Even with the minor differences within the corpus, it is a fixed text (along with the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament). This corpus is not in an infinite state of regress as is the Critical Text. Rather, the Received Text of the Reformation is a canonical text. I would also argue that it is THE canonical text.

Finally, this is not a novel idea. It is no secret of history that most Bible believing scholars regarded the Received Text as THE text. This is why it took almost 100 years to get us from Griesbach to Wescott and Hort and then another 100 years for the pew to accept these ideas.

Lamenting how long it took contemporary textual criticism to advance, Kurt Aland wrote:

“Yet no real progress was possible as long as the Textus Receptus remained the basic text and its authority was regarded as canonical.” ~ Kurt Aland (The Text of the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1981, P.4)

In another place, Dr Aland wrote:

"Finally it is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed this Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the original text.” ~ Kurt Aland (Trinity Journal, Fall 1987)

My view of the text as canon is not a new one. It is the old one recovered.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I was just made aware of this thread yesterday by a fellow church member.

So to answer a few questions...

Firstly, I've backed away from discussing the subject of the text on the Internet over the last 2 years. This also included taking down my Youtube videos. This after putting my ideas out there in the 2019 Text and Canon Conference lectures available on Sermonaudio.

My position on the Received Text of the Protestant Reformation as the canonical text has only grown though.

Since I'm here though...I noticed the "which TR?" question has come up again in this thread. Here is my take on that:

Firstly, I do not believe the Biblical doctrine of the preservation of the Scriptures means a kind of preservation that demands absolute certainty. Rather, I believe the Scriptures teach God keeps his Word by special providence, not miracle. This means that issues in transmission are inevitable because of the human equation. However, since God has willed to provide for His church the sacred Scriptures and keep them pure in all ages, we may look for the signs of God's Scripture authenticating providence in history.

It is here that my path diverges from advocates of contemporary textual criticism. They see the matter of textual variants and the discerning of the correct reading to be a historical critical one. I see it as a matter that concerns the canon and therefore requiring a canonical praxis.

The advocate of the Critical Text ends up with an ever changing, provisional text and every minister being expected to do their own textual criticism as well. I argue that the failure of textual criticism to produce anything more than provisional texts demonstrates the reality that it is simply not possible to reproduce the 'original manuscripts' via historical criticism. The Critical Text is an anti-canon.

My approach, on the other hand, looks at the text from the standpoint of the canon which inexorbiatly leads to the Received Text of the Reformation. This is the text that God, by His special providence, provided for his church during the most important period of church history since the time of the apostles. This is also the time that the lingering questions regarding the canon were settled such as the status of the antilegomena, the Apocrypha, and even the canonical status of the Latin Vulgate in relation to the original languages. It must also be mentioned that this is precisely the point in history where God by His special providence, moved the transmission of the text from the manuscript era, to the age of the printed page.
In the conflux of all of this things, God gave us the Received Text.

But which TR? This question is a canard for my position. The question is, which text did God's special providence give us at the time when God reformed the church and brought an end to the lingering questions pertaining to the canon? And the answer, it was not a single edition!
Technically speaking, The Received Text is not this or that edition of the text (whether one of Erasmus, Stephanus, or Beza), but it is a corpus made up of all of it's editions.

Does this still not require some form of textual criticism in relation to the differences? No more so and little different from the sorts of problems we have with the Hebrew Masoretic text (such as the marginal notes that are considered part of the Hebrew canon).

By and large, the Received Text corpus is monolithic. Variants are exceedingly rare, and especially meaningful ones. This is a reality because God gave us the text by His special providence, and not through the divine inspiration of the scholars that produced it.

What we have in the Received Text is a text vindicated by God's special providence. Even with the minor differences within the corpus, it is a fixed text (along with the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the Old Testament). This corpus is not in an infinite state of regress as is the Critical Text. Rather, the Received Text of the Reformation is a canonical text. I would also argue that it is THE canonical text.

Finally, this is not a novel idea. It is no secret of history that most Bible believing scholars regarded the Received Text as THE text. This is why it took almost 100 years to get us from Griesbach to Wescott and Hort and then another 100 years for the pew to accept these ideas.

Lamenting how long it took contemporary textual criticism to advance, Kurt Aland wrote:

“Yet no real progress was possible as long as the Textus Receptus remained the basic text and its authority was regarded as canonical.” ~ Kurt Aland (The Text of the New Testament, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1981, P.4)

In another place, Dr Aland wrote:

"Finally it is undisputed that from the 16th to the 18th century orthodoxy’s doctrine of verbal inspiration assumed this Textus Receptus. It was the only Greek text they knew, and they regarded it as the original text.” ~ Kurt Aland (Trinity Journal, Fall 1987)

My view of the text as canon is not a new one. It is the old one recovered.

Thank you for the reply, Pastor Truelove. I understand why you would want to take a break from focusing on textual issues, especially with the amount of tension and heat that was being generated for some time online over these issues. By way of encouragement, I'll just say that your work, both in terms of content and in terms of tone, has been some of the most helpful and persuasive on the subject for me.

May the Lord continue to bless your ministry in every respect!

 

[danekristjan]

Here is an interview done with him, myself, and another brother from a few years back.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

@danekristjan have you done any research on which Puritans used the Geneva Bible, and which used the Authorised Version? I am doing some research for a series of articles for our denominational magazine on the Puritan Jeremiah Burroughs. He certainly used the AV, and I believe John Bunyan loved the Geneva Bible. Would be interested in your thoughts on this.

 

[danekristjan]

@danekristjan have you done any research on which Puritans used the Geneva Bible, and which used the Authorised Version? I am doing some research for a series of articles for our denominational magazine on the Puritan Jeremiah Burroughs. He certainly used the AV, and I believe John Bunyan loved the Geneva Bible. Would be interested in your thoughts on this.

I wish I had a comprehensive list. The problem is that the KJV and the GNV are so similar that it is almost impossible to tell unless they themselves told us or you compare every scripture reference. Obviously all puritans before the publishing of the KJV are using the GNV, William Perkins, Richard Sibbes, the pilgrim fathers, and Henry Smith. Many of the main puritans we read used the GNV up past the printing of the KJV also, but again, without comparing each citation it is difficult to tell, and even then, the KJV and GNV are often identical. The KJV didn't reach widespread influence until around the middle of that century.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I was referring to 4/16/2022:

Years ago the minister of the congregation we had recently started attending was preaching through Mark. At the end of his sermon on the first part of Mark 16, he paused and said he wasn't sure he would preach on the rest the following week because he wasn't sure it was God's inspired Word. I contacted him early in the week to remind him that both our Confession and Larger Catechism use multiple verses from the end of Mark 16 multiple times as proof texts. He thanked me for pointing this out to him and preached the rest of Mark the following week. I have found this to be a well-received way to argue for using the TR without actually arguing about it. I still sit in worship with my Geneva Bible while the pulpit generally uses the NAS.

Ecclesiology is just as important in the discussion of text as methodology and theology. I maintain that only a national church in covenant with God can receive a text and declare it to be that church's canon (the last to do that in the Anglo world would have been the kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland). Unless we live in a nation that has done so, I think we are stuck with an anarchy of text in our congregations, with each doing what is right in their own eyes. That does not mean that we cannot advocate for accepting what has already been accepted by a church (objective arguments) instead of allowing what is acceptable to a majority within a congregation/denomination (subjective arguments).

Does a denomination in a land with no established church have the authority to receive a text definitively? Or does it have the duty to uphold or return to what the covenanted church it descended from has authorized? The latter seems an easy argument to answer with an affirmation in confessional congregations/denominations that maintain a historic confession. It may not be so easy to affirm this in confessional congregations/denominations that have altered their confessional standards.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Stephen @Stephen L Smith , ever hear of the book, William Shakespeare and His Bible, by I.D.E. Thomas? He, with some (to me) convincing proofs, asserts that WS had Puritan leanings, and the Geneva was his primary Bible. Thought this may be of interest to you.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

The problem is that the KJV and the GNV are so similar that it is almost impossible to tell unless they themselves told us or you compare every scripture reference.

I meant to say this in my last post but the reason I asked the question is that I have heard some critical text advocates argue that the KJV was controversial in its time because the KJV is the product of semi Reformed Anglicanism, whereas the Geneva Bible is more Puritan - it is the Bible of Geneva. This was a reason for asking the Puritan attitude to these two translations.

Regarding my comment on Jeremiah Burroughs, 2 Cor 4:17 (a beautiful passage) has clear differences between the KJV and Geneva Bibles. Burroughs quoted the KJV here.

Many of the main puritans we read used the GNV up past the printing of the KJV also

I would assume the Puritans liked the study notes in the Geneva Bible. It would be interesting to find out if the Puritan's, over time, saw the KVJ as a more precise translation, not the product of semi Reformed Anglicanism.

The Bible League Trust has an interesting three part article on the Geneva vs KJV Bibles. They argue the KJV is a more precise translation.

Geneva Bible | Search Results | Bible League Trust

www.bibleleaguetrust.org

Hello Stephen @Stephen L Smith , ever hear of the book, William Shakespeare and His Bible, by I.D.E. Thomas? He, with some (to me) convincing proofs, asserts that WS had Puritan leanings, and the Geneva was his primary Bible.

Hi Steve, I have not read this book. Note I qualified my original comments above.

 

[Eyedoc84]

I meant to say this in my last post but the reason I asked the question is that I have heard some critical text advocates argue that the KJV was controversial in its time because the KJV is the product of semi Reformed Anglicanism, whereas the Geneva Bible is more Puritan - it is the Bible of Geneva. This was a reason for asking the Puritan attitude to these two translations.

Regarding my comment on Jeremiah Burroughs, 2 Cor 4:17 (a beautiful passage) has clear differences between the KJV and Geneva Bibles. Burroughs quoted the KJV here.

I would assume the Puritans liked the study notes in the Geneva Bible. It would be interesting to find out if the Puritan's, over time, saw the KVJ as a more precise translation, not the product of semi Reformed Anglicanism.

The Bible League Trust has an interesting three part article on the Geneva vs KJV Bibles. They argue the KJV is a more precise translation.

Geneva Bible | Search Results | Bible League Trust

www.bibleleaguetrust.org

Hi Steve, I have not read this book. Note I qualified my original comments above.

I do think the KJV is an improvement on the whole. And while Geneva was for a while the Puritans’ bible, they were the ones who lobbied King James for a new translation. Of course, this may have been a compromise given they would never accept the Bishop’s Bible and James would have never accepted Geneva.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I meant to say this in my last post but the reason I asked the question is that I have heard some critical text advocates argue that the KJV was controversial in its time because the KJV is the product of semi Reformed Anglicanism, whereas the Geneva Bible is more Puritan - it is the Bible of Geneva. This was a reason for asking the Puritan attitude to these two translations.

I believe this is true based on what I have read over the years. Many in Scotland opposed the KJV because they opposed KJ. The Scottish church required every church to have a vulgar copy of the Scripture and as the only choice at the time was the Geneva, it was pretty well entrenched by the time of KJ: " we think it a thing most expedient and necessary, that every church have a Bible in English" (Scots First Book of Discipline (1560) The Ninth Head – Concerning the Policy of the Church, par.6).

 

[Northern Crofter]

I do think the KJV is an improvement on the whole. And while Geneva was for a while the Puritans’ bible, they were the ones who lobbied King James for a new translation. Of course, this may have been a compromise given they would never accept the Bishop’s Bible and James would have never accepted Geneva.

Be careful lumping all of the Puritans together - many maintained use of the Geneva even when they had the choice of the KJV, especially in the northern regions of the UK. Yes. some of them lobbied for a new translation, but that seems historically to be largely because many English, like King James, did not like the Geneva notes. I think it is fair to say that many royalists favoured the KJV while it is fair to make the opposite generalization about the Geneva.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I do think the KJV is an improvement on the whole. And while Geneva was for a while the Puritans’ bible, they were the ones who lobbied King James for a new translation. Of course, this may have been a compromise given they would never accept the Bishop’s Bible and James would have never accepted Geneva.

I do think the KJV is an improvement on the whole.

I'm curious why - I grew up on the KJV but switched years ago to the Geneva when it was republished in a modern type and became readily available online.