Did the Puritans prefer the Geneva Bible over Kjv?

[Yeshua1]

Did they, along with, still preferred and kept using the Geneva even after the Kjv was produced?

 

[rlvaughn]

Leland Ryken, Professor of English at Wheaton College, does not address this at length or in detail, but mentions it in Ten Fallacies about the King James Version (The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 15/4, Winter 2011)

He writes:
"If we turn from the origins of the KJV to its reception history, we again find that the Puritans played a role. The last edition of the Geneva Bible published in England appeared in 1616, just five years after the first publication of the KJV. Additionally, it might be expected that when the Puritans gained the ascendancy around 1642 they would have thrown their weight behind the Geneva Bible, but they did not do so. In another surprise, between 1642 and 1715 at least nine editions of the KJV were printed with the Geneva Bible notes.8 Another interesting sidelight is that the language of the KJV appears in Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms.9"

8. Alister McGrath, In the Beginning: The Story of the King James Bible and How It Changed a Nation, a Language, and a Culture (New York: Anchor, 2001), 284.
9. The [Westminster] Confession of Faith and Catechisms (Willow Grove, PA: The Orthodox Presbyterian Church, 2005), x.

 

[Jerome]

Same, in America:

"the King James Bible...replaced the Geneva Bible as the most popular version of the Bible in English. Nowhere was this more true than in New England, where Puritans were quick to adopt the King James Version over the Geneva Version."

Google Books:
American Bible: A History of the Good Book in the United States

 

[Logos1560]

David Daniell claimed: “The Geneva Bible was at the heart of the founding of those colonies, as will be seen, in a greater way than even [the] KJV” (Bible in English, p. 221). David Daniell contended: “This evidence of the regular use of the Geneva Bible can be supported by many documents from the colonies” (p. 425).

Cotton Mather (1663-1729) in his history of Harvard referred to “the notes in the Geneva Bible (which were considered authoritative)” (Hall, Genevan Reformation and the American Founding, p. 313). G. S. Wegener maintained that the Geneva Bible “was to become equally popular in America, where it accompanied many who exiled themselves from Britain for conscience’s sake” (6000 Years, p. 237).

Valerie Offord noted that “the Geneva Bible was in the hands of those founding families when they landed to start a colony in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607” (Tyndale Society Journal, August, 2007, p. 6). Jack Lewis also confirmed that “the Geneva played an important role in the history of early America” (English Bible, p. 26). John Jeffcoat wrote: “America was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible” (www.Greatsite.com). James P. Stobaugh also wrote: “American was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible” (Studies in World History, Vol. 2, p. 120). J. Paul Foster wrote: “It can truthfully be said that this version shaped America. For it was the Geneva Bible that the Pilgrims brought over with them to America, and, as all their laws and institutions were founded on that Book, and their Bible was the Geneva version, was not America’s childhood shaped by that version?” (The Christian Nation, Vol. 54, June 7, 1911, p. 5).

David Hall asserted: “Primary documents confirm the thesis we have been documenting: the Declaration of Independence, acts of the Continental Congress between 1776 and 1787, and the United States Constitution all bear the impress of two centuries of Calvinistic thinking” (Genevan Reformation, p, 420). David Hall wrote: “Other transporters of Calvinism to the West were the Geneva Bible and Beza’s New Testament Annotations” (p. 286).

 

[Will J. Kinney]

There are a few Geneva Bible sites out there that are now promoting this Bible as The Bible that Changed the World, but the simple facts are that God has long ago put the Geneva bible on the shelf of virtual oblivion and He used the King James Bible to bring about the world wide missionary outreach to the unevangelized nations and tribes and to translate the Bible into numerous foreign languages.

Many of these Geneva bible sites also claim that it was the Geneva Bible alone that was brought over to America by the Pilgrims, as though this has some special significance. However what they chose to ignore is that there were at least two Bibles the Pilgrims carried with them, and one of them was John Alden's copy of the King James Bible.



John Alden, one of the first Pilgrims to come to America on the Mayflower, brought his copy of the King James Bible with him. It is now on display at a museum.


http://manifoldgreatness.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/the-first-king-james-bible-in-america/


Four Early Bibles in Pilgrim Hall


http://www.pilgrimhallmuseum.org/pdf/Four_Early_Bibles.pdf


No. 90 in the Pilgrim hall catalogue designates the Bible which once belonged to John Alden. Some of the leaves are missing, but the colophon at the end of Revelation shows that the New Testament was printed in London by Robert Barker, "Printer to the Kings most excellent Majestie," in 1620. The Concordance was printed by Bonham Norton and John Bill in 1619. This is not a Geneva Bible, but the "King James" or "Authorized" version.

 

[Logos1560]

John Alden, one of the first Pilgrims to come to America on the Mayflower, brought his copy of the King James Bible with him. .

Can you demonstrate and document that John Alden was a Pilgrim or a Separatist before he came to America or when he first came to America?

I have read that John Alden was a crew member on the Mayflower and that he was originally hired by William Bradford and others to be the cooper for the colony. It is said that he could have returned to England the following year, but he chose to stay in the new colony. Thus, he may have become one of the Pilgrims after staying with them and living with them a year and later marrying one of them, but he may not have been one when he first came over. He may have still been a member of the Church of England when he came over instead of being part of any Separatist congregation. A member of the Church of England would more likely have a copy of the third authorized Church of England translation--the King James Version.

 

[Jerome]

Check out this thread which demonstrates that the Pilgrims' pastor who remained back in Holland used the KJB:

Baptist Board, December 2009, Bible quotations in books authored by John Robinson

 

[rlvaughn]

I do not know about Alden’s church affiliation. For whatever it is worth, however, he was one of 40 some odd men who subscribed his name to the Mayflower Compact “at Cap-Codd ye 11 of Nouember, in ye year of ye raigne of our soueraigne Lord king James of England, france, & Ireland ye eighteenth and of Scotland ye fiftie fourth. Ano: Dom. 1620.”

So this signing suggests that he (as well as the others who signed) agreed to undertake “for ye glorie of God, and aduancemente of ye christian faith and honour of our king & countrie, a voyage to plant ye first colonie in ye Northerne parts of Virginia,” and covenanted together into what seems to be both a civil and religious compact, promising “all due submission and obedience.”

 

[rlvaughn]

Check out this thread

I notice over there you asked the following question.

What version was Cromwell's The Souldiers Pocket Bible [London, 1643]?

Dr. Bob answered, "The Geneva."

I think he is generally correct, that in the main the select verses in The Souldiers Pocket Bible (this is not a whole Bible) match the Geneva more so than the KJV. I tested some verses there and found that to be there case. (I did a quick test using AKJV and 1599 Geneva at Bible Gateway, so there is room for error just in updating present there that did not exist in 1643.) Sometimes the verses did not match either version. There might be various explanations for this, such as printing errors, using a different edition, using a different translation of the Bible other than those two, etc. -- or that sometimes perhaps they only intended to capture the gist of the meaning (cf. 1 Samuel 18:17). Here are two examples, one short and one long.

1 Samuel 18:17
Be valiant and fight the Lords battels. (Souldiers Pocket Bible)
only be thou valiant for me, and fight the Lord’s battles (AKJV)

Be valiant and fight the Lords battels.(Souldiers Pocket Bible)
only be a valiant son unto me, and fight the Lord’s battles (1599 Geneva)

2 Chronicles 14:8-11
And Asa had an Army of Judah, that bare shields and speares, three hundred thousand, and of Benjamin that bare shields and drew bowes, two hundred and fourscore thousand: all these were valiant men of war.
And there came out against them Zerah of Ethiopia with an hoste of ten hundred thousand, and three hundred chariots.
Then Asa went out before him, and they set the battell in array in the valley of Zephathah besides Mareshah.
And Asa cryed unto the Lord his God, and said, Lord, it is nothing with thee to help with many or with no power, helpe us O Lord our God for we rest on thee, and in thy name are we come against this multitude. O Lord thou art our God let not man prevaile against thee. (Souldiers Pocket Bible)
And Asa had an army of men that bare targets and spears, out of Judah three hundred thousand; and out of Benjamin, that bare shields and drew bows, two hundred and fourscore thousand: all these were mighty men of valour.
And there came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian with an host of a thousand thousand, and three hundred chariots; and came unto Mareshah.
Then Asa went out against him, and they set the battle in array in the valley of Zephathah at Mareshah.
And Asa cried unto the Lord his God, and said, Lord, it is nothing with thee to help, whether with many, or with them that have no power: help us, O Lord our God; for we rest on thee, and in thy name we go against this multitude. O Lord, thou art our God; let not man prevail against thee. (AKJV)

And Asa had an Army of Judah, that bare shields and speares, three hundred thousand, and of Benjamin that bare shields and drew bowes, two hundred and fourscore thousand: all these were valiant men of war.
And there came out against them Zerah of Ethiopia with an hoste of ten hundred thousand, and three hundred chariots.
Then Asa went out before him, and they set the battell in array in the valley of Zephathah besides Mareshah.
And Asa cryed unto the Lord his God, and said, Lord, it is nothing with thee to help with many or with no power, helpe us O Lord our God for we rest on thee, and in thy name are we come against this multitude. O Lord thou art our God let not man prevaile against thee. (Souldiers Pocket Bible)
And Asa had an army of Judah, that bare shields and spears, three hundred thousand, and of Benjamin that bare shields and drew bows, two hundred and fourscore thousand: all these were valiant men.
And there came out against him Zerah of Ethiopia with an host of ten hundred thousand, and three hundred chariots, and came unto Mareshah.
Then Asa went out before him, and they set the battle in array in the valley of Zephathah, beside Mareshah.
And Asa cried unto the Lord his God, and said, Lord, it is nothing with thee to help with many, or with no power: help us, O Lord our God: for we rest on thee, and in thy Name are we come against this multitude: O Lord, thou art our God: let not man prevail against thee. (1599 Geneva)

Another explanation might be that they were not obsessed with exact matches in 1643 as we are in 2021.

 

[rsr]

"The last edition of the Geneva Bible published in England appeared in 1616, just five years after the first publication of the KJV.

One of the reasons that the last edition was published in 1616 is that the crown outlawed the printing of the Geneva in that year.

Additionally, while 1616 might have been the last year of legal publication in England, it was often imported from Holland (until the Church of England got around to forbidding importation) and there were some bootleg editions printed in England. A favorite ploy was to print the title page to a 1599 edition and pawn it off as an old copy.

 

[Jerome]

English Reformed delegates to the Synod of Dort (1618) gave presentation on their English Bible (the KJB).
As a result, the Dutch Reformed determined to produce a similar definitive Bible in their language:

Statenvertaling Bible

"ordered by the Synod of Dordrecht 1618....It was completed in 1635 and authorized by the States-General in 1637. From then until 1657, when a second edition was published, a half-million copies were printed. It remained authoritative in Protestant churches well into the 20th century."

 

[Yeshua1]

There are a few Geneva Bible sites out there that are now promoting this Bible as The Bible that Changed the World, but the simple facts are that God has long ago put the Geneva bible on the shelf of virtual oblivion and He used the King James Bible to bring about the world wide missionary outreach to the unevangelized nations and tribes and to translate the Bible into numerous foreign languages.

Many of these Geneva bible sites also claim that it was the Geneva Bible alone that was brought over to America by the Pilgrims, as though this has some special significance. However what they chose to ignore is that there were at least two Bibles the Pilgrims carried with them, and one of them was John Alden's copy of the King James Bible.



John Alden, one of the first Pilgrims to come to America on the Mayflower, brought his copy of the King James Bible with him. It is now on display at a museum.


http://manifoldgreatness.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/the-first-king-james-bible-in-america/


Four Early Bibles in Pilgrim Hall


http://www.pilgrimhallmuseum.org/pdf/Four_Early_Bibles.pdf


No. 90 in the Pilgrim hall catalogue designates the Bible which once belonged to John Alden. Some of the leaves are missing, but the colophon at the end of Revelation shows that the New Testament was printed in London by Robert Barker, "Printer to the Kings most excellent Majestie," in 1620. The Concordance was printed by Bonham Norton and John Bill in 1619. This is not a Geneva Bible, but the "King James" or "Authorized" version.

Think can be fair to say then that the Geneva was still favored and in use by some even when the Kjv arrived!

 

[Jerome]

Chapter with excellent treatment of this topic in The Bible in America: Essays in Cultural History, eds. Nathan Hatch and Mark Noll; explains that as elaborate covenant theology theories arose and dominated Puritanism, attachment to the Geneva Bible waned. Its notes were from an earlier era, its commentary was lacking on what Puritanism had come to be enamored with.

summary from p. 20
"Puritanism was actually the product of two Bible translations, each of which dominated at different stages in the movement, and each of which served different needs and purposes. In its infant stage, English Puritanism was organized around the Genevan translation of 1560. As the movement grew in power and influence, clerical loyalties switched to the Authorized or "King James" version of 1611. This later version furnished the primary text on which New England's Bible Commonwealth would rest."

 

[rlvaughn]

Bit of a side issue some might find fascinating.

Up until about 2001, the Harry Ransom Center at the University of Texas at Austin housed a Mayflower Bible in its rare book collection. Until they realized it wasn’t.

“My final sally captured the prize–certainty as to whether or not this Bible had actually come over on the Mayflower–although not at all in the way that I thought it would.”

“I did not have mixed feelings when I made this discovery. I was elated. It is very seldom that you can prove that something is a fake–usually even strong suspicions remain in mental coffins without the final nail. But I was sorry that we had shown off this clever pastiche, as the real thing, to generations of school children and other awed visitors, and sorry too that we had lost one of the most intriguing out-of-scope artifacts in our collections.”

Our Mayflower Bible, by John B. Thomas III

 

[rsr]

English Reformed delegates to the Synod of Dort (1618) gave presentation on their English Bible (the KJB).
As a result, the Dutch Reformed determined to produce a similar definitive Bible in their language:

The Westminster Assembly repaid the compliment by authorizing the translation of the Statenvertaling and its annotations into English, a task that took the translator a dozen years.

 

[Logos1560]

In his letters written in the late 1720’s, Daniel Waterland indicated that there were editions of the Geneva Bible printed as late as 1657, 1677, and 1688 (Works, X, p. 400).

David Norton cited where Thomas Ward in 1688 indicated that Bibles printed in 1562, 1577, and 1579 [editions of the Geneva Bible] were still “in many men’s hands” (History, p. 39). In a footnote, David Norton pointed out that “sixteenth-century Geneva Bibles with eighteenth-century inscriptions are quite common” (p. 39, footnote 3). He gave the example of one Geneva Bible in a New Zealand library that “contains signatures, comments and records that date from 1696 to 1877.” Alec Gilmore observed that there is some evidence that a 1610 edition of the Geneva Bible “was still being used in Aberdeenshire as late as 1674” (Dictionary, p. 84). In 1824, John Lee noted: “Till within the last forty years, a Bible of the Geneva translation, printed at London in 1583, was used in the church of Crail, as it had been nearly 200 years” (Memorial for the Bible Societies, p. 112). John Brown also mentioned that “as late as the close of the 18th century a Genevan Bible was still in use in the church of Crail in Fifeshire” (History, p. 84). A Geneva Bible printed in London in 1615 that is now preserved at Davidson College’s library has family record inscriptions dated 1747 and 1749, indicating its use in the 1700’s. Even as late as 1867, A. E. Rich wrote: “This version is known as the Genevan edition, and is still in use, to some extent, in England and Scotland” (Congregational Review, VII, p. 586).

 

[Logos1560]

One of the reasons that the last edition was published in 1616 is that the crown outlawed the printing of the Geneva in that year.

After 1616, the Geneva Bible could not be printed in England for a good number of years. Alister McGrath wrote: “As a result of pressure from the authorities, after 1616 the printing of the Geneva Bible ceased in England” (In the Beginning, p. 280). David Cloud claimed: “In 1616 the king [James I] issued a command that only the King James Bible was to be printed in England” (Faith, p. 584). Donald L. Brake wrote: “It should be noted that in England the Geneva was not permitted to be printed after 1616” (Visual History of the English Bible, p. 155). Brake asserted: “James banned the printing of the Geneva Bible in England after 1616” (Visual History of the KJB, p. 172). Adam Nicolson maintained that “”in 1616, the king put a halt to it, or at least attempted to: no more editions of the Geneva Bible were to be printed” (God’s Secretaries, p. 228). Larry Stone asserted: “In 1616 the printing of the Geneva Bible was forbidden in England” (Story of the Bible, pp. 76-77). Geddes MacGregor wrote that the last quarto edition of the Geneva Bible printed in England was in 1615 and the last folio in 1616 (Literary History, p. 145). MacGregor wrote: "After the Geneva Bible ceased to be printed in England, about 150,000 copies of it were imported from Holland for English household use" (p. 146). Alister McGrath observed that “official opposition to the Geneva Bible could not prevent it from becoming the most widely read Bible of the Elizabethan, and subsequently the Jacobean, era” (In the Beginning, p. 127).

David Norton indicated that William Laud played a “role in securing the dominance of the KJB” (History, p. 104). John Lee noted: “The total suppression of the Geneva Bible was not attempted for several years; and when it was at last effected, it was ascribed in a great measure to the rising influence of Laud” (Memorial, p. 92). Bradstreet maintained that “the popularity of the Geneva Bible so disturbed King Charles and Archbishop Laud that they did everything they could think of to discredit and get rid of it” (KJV in History, p. 103). John Southerden Burn pointed out that in 1632 a man named Blayreve was “imprisoned for having taken in his house many new Bibles of the Geneva print, with the notes” (High Commission, p. 45). Conant noted: "So pertinaciously, indeed, did the people cling to it [the Geneva Bible], and so injurious was its influence to the interests of Episcopacy and of the 'authorized version,' that in the reign of Charles I, Archbishop Laud made the vending, binding, or importation of it a high-commission crime" (English Bible, p. 367). Edmunds and Bell affirmed that “Laud made it a high commission crime to import, print, or sell the Geneva [Bible]“ (Discussion, p. 116). Anderson pointed out that “one of the first books most strictly prohibited to be printed, imported, or sold by this Archbishop was the English Geneva Bible” (Annals, II, p. 390). Norton pointed out that Laud gave “the Geneva Bible’s commercial success as one of his reasons for its suppression” (History, p. 91). Anderson quoted Laud as saying that the “Bibles, both with and without notes, from Amsterdam” . . . “were better print, better bound, better paper, and for all the charges of bringing, sold better cheap” (Annals, II, p. 390). Laud’s decree to prohibit the importing of the Geneva Bible was around 1637. Kenneth Bradstreet noted that Laud’s “propaganda campaign suggested that it was near treason to purchase a Bible printed in a foreign land when Bibles printed in England could be had” (KJV in History, p. 103).

From 1637, some foreign publishers were said to print Geneva Bibles with a false date of 1599 perhaps to try to keep those who obtained them from getting in trouble with Archbishop Laud and the High Commission Court. Jack Lewis maintained that Archbishop Laud even ordered copies of the Geneva Bible burned (English Bible, p. 32). Bobrick asserted that Laud "even inserted Catholic prints of the life of the Virgin into Scottish editions of the King James Version of the New Testament and burned every copy of the Geneva Bible he could find" (Wide as the Waters, p. 278). David Katz maintained that these pictures printed in this KJV N. T. edition “were purloined from a small devotional book put out by the Jesuits at Antwerp in 1622” (God’s Last Words, p. 46). Daniell also confirmed that in 1646 William Prynne wrote that “he [Laud] would suffer no English Bibles to be printed or sold with marginal notes [i. e. the Geneva version] to instruct the people, all such must be seized and burnt . . . but himself gives special approbation for the venting of Bibles [KJV’s] with Popish pictures taken out of the very Mass book, to seduce the people to Popery and idolatry” (Bible in English, p. 458).

 

[Just_Ahead]

Thanks.This is one of the most interesting KJV threads I have read in some time.