So if they will receive the geneva as OK, for sure should see the Nkjv in same light?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Are the 1560 Geneva Bible and the 1611 KJV basically the same English Bible?
- Thread starter Logos1560
- Start date
So if they will receive the geneva as OK, for sure should see the Nkjv in same light?
The Tyndale bible of 1524 was revised in 1534 and again in 1536 and revised into the Matthew bible of 1537 which was revised again into the Great Bible of 1539 which was revised in 1540 and 1541.
The Tyndale/Matthew bible was also the basis of the Geneva bible of 1557 which was revised into the 1560 Geneva and reprinted (unauthorized) in 1599 with minor changes.
The Great Bible was revised into the Bishops Bible of 1568 with significant input from the Geneva bible. The Bishops bible was again revised in 1572, and again in 1602.
It was the Bishops Bible of 1602 that was revised into the King James Version of 1611 which was revised in 1615, 1629, 1638, 1762, 1769, and 1873.
The New King James Version of 1979/1982 is the latest revision of the above line of venerable old bibles.
It is interesting that the Roman Catholic Rheims Bible of 1582, translated from the Latin Vulgate, also had input into the KJV.
And there was a group of "Bishops Bible Only" people who published a side by side comparison of the two bible in an attempt to discredit the Rheims Bible, but all it did was make the Rheims Bible that much more popular in England.
The Tyndale/Matthew bible was also the basis of the Geneva bible of 1557 which was revised into the 1560 Geneva and reprinted (unauthorized) in 1599 with minor changes.
The Great Bible was revised into the Bishops Bible of 1568 with significant input from the Geneva bible. The Bishops bible was again revised in 1572, and again in 1602.
It was the Bishops Bible of 1602 that was revised into the King James Version of 1611 which was revised in 1615, 1629, 1638, 1762, 1769, and 1873.
The New King James Version of 1979/1982 is the latest revision of the above line of venerable old bibles.
It is interesting that the Roman Catholic Rheims Bible of 1582, translated from the Latin Vulgate, also had input into the KJV.
And there was a group of "Bishops Bible Only" people who published a side by side comparison of the two bible in an attempt to discredit the Rheims Bible, but all it did was make the Rheims Bible that much more popular in England.
The Coverdale bible was the preparation for the publication of the Great Bible.
Taverners Bible was a minor revision (some say just a subsequent unauthorized pirate printing) of the Matthew bible.
Was there really a group of "Bishops' Bible only" people?
William Fulke, a Purtian who had the New Testament of the Bishops' Bible printed along side the Rheims New Testament, would likely not have been a "Bishops' Bible Only" advocate. He wrote a book defending all the Protestant English translations.
In his 1583 book that defended the Protestant view of Bible translation, Puritan William Fulke (1538-1589) stated: "We say indeed, that by the Greek text of the New Testament all translations of the New Testament must be tried; but we mean not by every corruption that is in any Greek copy of the New Testament" (A Defence of the Since and True Translations of the Holy Scriptures into the English Tongue, p. 44).
In the preface of another book, Fulke noted: "The dissension of interpreters [translators] must be decided by the original Greek" (Confutation of the Rhemish Testament, p. 26). Fulke maintained: “The Greek text of the New Testament needeth no patronage of men, as that which is the very word and truth of God” (Confutation, p. 32).
Fulke observed: "We acknowledge the text of the Old Testament in
Hebrew and Chaldee, (for in the Chaldee tongue were some parts of it written,) as it is now printed with vowels, to be the only fountain, out of which we must draw the pure truth of the scriptures for the Old Testament, adjoining here with the testimony of the Mazzoreth, where any diversity of points, letters, or words, is noted to have been in sundry ancient copies, to discern that which is proper to the whole context,
from that which by errors of the writers or printers hath been brought into any copy, old or new" (A Defence, p. 78).
It is most likely that the KJV translators obtained their knowledge of the Rheims New Testament from a book by William Fulke which compared the Rheims N. T. side by side with the Bishops' NT. In his introduction to a 1911 facsimile reprint of the 1611, A. W. Pollard maintained that "probably every reviser of the New Testament for the edition of 1611" possessed a copy of Fulke's book that "was regarded as a standard work on the Protestant side" (p. 23). John Greider observed that “This work [by Fulke] was studied by the translators of the 1611 Bible” (English Bible Translations, p. 316). Peter Thuesen pointed out: “William Fulke’s popular 1589 annotated edition of the Rheims New Testament, though intended as an antidote to popery, in reality had served as the vehicle by which some of the Rhemists’ Latinisms entered the vocabulary of the King James Bible” (In Discordance, p. 62). David Norton noted that KJV translator William Branthwaite had a copy of “Fulke’s parallel edition of the Rheims and Bishops” in his personal library (KJB: Short History, p. 64). Norton also pointed out that the Bodleian Library in 1605 had a copy of Fulke’s edition of the Rheims and Bishops’ New Testaments (Ibid.). Even Gail Riplinger confirmed that the KJV translators had Fulke’s book with these verse comparisons, but she in effect ignored the evidence that they followed some of the renderings of the Rheims (In Awe, p. 536).
Nevertheless, you had made a timeline of Bible translations and neglected an important step along the way.
franklinmonroe
Active Member
You have not looked close enough.
I have actually read through an entire 1562 edition of the Geneva New Testament (also a difficult to read Matthews-1537 facsimile, the Great-1540, Bishop's-1602, and Tyndale-1534/5 Newe Testaments).
I have begun posts related to early English translations (I call them EETs). Here are a few links (but there are others) --
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=55819
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=58261
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=76150
Last edited by a moderator:
The Coverdale was not an important step between the Tyndale and the KJV except as it was eventually published as the Great Bible. It was the Great Bible that was the first "authorized version" of the CoE, with the Bishops being the second, and the KJV being the third (sort of, King James never got around to officially authorizing it in his capacity of head of the CoE being the "defender of the faith").
franklinmonroe
Active Member
The emphasis here I believe is on the translated text. However, there are other differences including arrangement and content. Remember, Tyndale (1528 and 1534/5 editions) was only the New Testament but in a different order than most today. No verse numbers (until Geneva) makes comparison difficult (not mention spelling). Also, some early English Bibles included unsegregated apocryphal material (like Psalm 151), and spurious verses (in the book of Acts, for example). I'm not including Wycliffe's differences my comments.
Last edited by a moderator:
Miles Coverdale is said to have revised the 1537 Matthew's Bible in his making of the 1539 Great Bible, not his own 1535 Bible.
In his introduction to his modern spelling edition of Tyndale’s N. T., David Daniell maintained that the 1539 Great Bible “was a further revision of ‘Matthew’s’ by Coverdale, in a more Latinate direction, to appease bishops who were alarmed by the moves away from the Latin Bible” (p. xi).
Robert Sargent, a KJV-only advocate, maintained that in the Great Bible, Coverdale used the Latin Vulgate and the Latin translation of Erasmus in his revision of the New Testament of the Matthew's Bible and used the Latin Vulgate in his revision of the Old Testament of the Matthew's Bible (English Bible, p. 196; see also The KJV of the English Bible, p. 178).
David Sorenson suggested that in the Great Bible Coverdale "essentially updated printing errors of the Matthew Bible" (Touch Not, p. 45).
The 1535 Coverdale's Bible differs from the 1539 Great Bible in a good number of places.
Logos1560 already corrected you on the second part of your sentence. I will take exception to the first part. Of course the Coverdale translation was an important step between the Tyndale and the KJV. The Coverdale version was the first full printed translation of the English Bible after all!
Myles Coverdale's version was said to be smoother than Tyndale's because of the former's editorial skills, not because of his mastery of Greek and Hebrew. He didn't know Greek, but there is some indication that he knew more Hebrew than was previously thought.
Tyndale's translation(s) was influenced by Luther's translations. Even Tyndale's introductions to the books of the Bible were reworked English of Luther's German.
Speaking of German Coverdale's work was dependent on Luther's German Bible and the Zurich Bible. I can rememnber the name of the author, but last summer I read a book all about Coverdale which clamed to some extent that Coverdale's translation was basically a German to English translation. Yes, he used the Vulgate too, but the German language was a major influence after that of Tyndale's himself.
Coverdale's translation was especially important to the Anglican Church in that his Psalms continued to be used in the Book of Common prayer even after the KJV was adopted for other readings in 1662.