If you could only have ONE Study Bible?

[Yeshua1]

My opinion, based upon a bit of reading, is just that. He was a ruler that wanted his will done no matter the cost, and to supposedly appease some puritans, he ok'd the 1611 Bible to be printed, even tho people were quite addicted to their Geneva Bibles and needed no new Bible.

There is a Chick Tract explaining the 'history' of the KJV that is very popular. Yet it is full of deceit, and void of the truth. They act as if there were no other English Bibles around then. Quite un-Christian of a Christian ministry.

The Geneva and Kjv both came oftheTynsdale TR tree, correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

Whittingham's was the one supervising the Geneva Bible. The 1560 is a revision of his 1557. Correct? **Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible 1525–1961, London, New York: British and Foreign Bible Society, American Bible Society, SBN 564-00130-9.**

It seems the 1560 Geneva is a Whittingham. It wasnt just him, but he was heavily involved.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

So te 1599 edition was from different editor?

 

[McCree79]

So te 1599 edition was from different editor?

Yes. The NT was a revision by Tompson. The 1560(Whittingham's 1557 NT) and 1599(Tompson) appear to have been revisions of Tyndale's NT. ....well, Tompson was a revision of a revision.

Whittingham's worked with other translators and they did their work from the original languages. They didn't just look at Tyndale's work and reword it.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

Yes. The NT was a revision by Tompson. The 1560(Whittingham's 1557 NT) and 1599(Tompson) appear to have been revisions of Tyndale's NT. ....well, Tompson was a revision of a revision.

Whittingham's worked with other translators and they did their work from the original languages. They didn't just look at Tyndale's work and reword it.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

They ued same sources as he did, correct?

 

[McCree79]

They ued same sources as he did, correct?

The TR, yes. It is likely they had access to more than Tyndale, but I would be guessing based upon circumstances of the transaltion work. One group was in exlie, the other guy was running for his life and could only take so much with him.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

The TR, yes. It is likely they had access to more than Tyndale, but I would be guessing based upon circumstances of the transaltion work. One group was in exlie, the other guy was running for his life and could only take so much with him.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

You would be Geneva Bible preferred?

 

[McCree79]

You would be Geneva Bible preferred?

No, not me. I prefer the ESV. I do like the Geneva though.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[Yeshua1]

No, not me. I prefer the ESV. I do like the Geneva though.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Sounds good to me!

 

[Jerome]

According to the Historical Catalogue of the British and Foreign Bible Society, listed in Charles Eason's book called "The Genevan Bible, Notes on it's Production and Distribution", (pages 8 and 9), Dublin, 1937 - they list 187 quarto editions of the pure Geneva Bible, OT & NT, were printed in 1599, while 43 quarto editions of the Geneva NT by its self were printed, besides all the Tomson editions of the 1599 OT/NT & NT printings.

Those numbers for a single year seem quite inflated. Could you provide the full quote making this claim?

 

[GenevanBaptist]

Those numbers for a single year seem quite inflated. Could you provide the full quote making this claim?

Those two pages are a complete list from the "Historical Catalogue of the British and Foreign Bible Society". Not a quote, but a 'chart' listing each year and which Bible, or NT, with number of editions printed in that year.

If I can figure it out I will post a photo of the pages.

If I misunderstood the list I apologize. But I do understand it to mean what I previously posted.

 

[rsr]

Those numbers for a single year seem quite inflated. Could you provide the full quote making this claim?

David Daniell, who has been referenced here, says that (because of the suppression of the Geneva by the English crown and church) there were 140 editions — of varying fidelity to the actual 1599 — were printed (primarily in the Netherlands, whose printers were eager to supply English demand) with the 1599 date even though they were published as late as 1640.

http://www.tyndale.org/tsj21/daniell.html

 

[McCree79]

David Daniell, who has been referenced here, says that (because of the suppression of the Geneva by the English crown and church) there were 140 editions — of varying fidelity to the actual 1599 — were printed (primarily in the Netherlands, whose printers were eager to supply English demand) with the 1599 date even though they were published as late as 1640.

http://www.tyndale.org/tsj21/daniell.html

Gary DeMar, President of American Vision &
Honorary Member of the 1599 Geneva Bible Advisory Board says this in an article

"While other English translations failed to capture the hearts of the reading public, the Geneva Bible was instantly popular. Between 1560 and 1644 at least 144 editions appeared. For forty years after the publication of the King James Bible, the Geneva Bible continued to be the Bible of the home. Oliver Cromwell used extracts from the Geneva Bible for his Soldier's Pocket Bible which he issued to the army."

144 is pretty close to the 140 claim made by Daniell.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

 

[GenevanBaptist]

The list they use in Easons book, published 1937, is a list of existing Bibles, whether whole Bible, or just NT, that they are aware of and have record of as actually being possessed by known organizations or persons. Each printing (edition) had a certain amount produced. As such, there weren't only 144 Bibles printed, but possibly 1000's. So to have a couple 100 GB printed in 1599 that weren't Tomson NT's is hardly an impossibility.

 

[Jerome]

As I thought.

Known copies, then, were being counted, not editions, right?

 

[Logos1560]

So te 1599 edition was from different editor?

Tomson’s 1576 New Testament should perhaps be considered a different English translation than the 1560 Geneva Bible.

The title page of a 1599 edition and a 1611 edition of his New Testament stated that it was “translated out of the Greek by Theodore Beza,” which indicated that its basis would have been the Latin New Testament of Beza that Beza himself translated from the Greek. The title page also noted that Beza’s translation was “Englished by L. Tomson.

Laurence Tomson likely used the 1560 Geneva’s N. T. as a basis for his translating of Beza’s Latin N. T.
David Daniell referred to “Tomson’s revision of the Geneva English New Testament, based on Beza’s important Latin edition of 1565” (Bible in English, p. 352). Daniell added that “the edition of Beza he [Tomson] is using was that prepared by L’Oiseleur, as he states on his title page, and L‘Oiseleur had put together the notes from Beza and from Joachim Camerarius” (Ibid.).

Concerning Tomson’s 1576 revision of the Geneva N. T., T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule noted: “The alterations are mainly due to a comparison with Beza’s Latin version of 1565” (Historical Catalogue, p. 96). In a book published by or for John Rylands Library, this is stated concerning Tomson’s 1576 NT: “The alterations resulted from a close comparison of the Geneva text with Beza’s Latin version of 1565” (Catalogue of an Exhibition of Bibles, p. 24).

Backus referred to Tomson as the “translator of Beza’s Latin New Testament into English” (Reformed Roots of the English NT, p. 174). Backus noted that “Tomson translated Beza’s Latin New Testament” (pp. 187-188). Backus pointed out that in 1574 Pierre L’Oiselsur de Villers “produced an edition of Beza’s Latin New Testament” and that “in 1576 Tomson published his translation of L’Oiseleur’s edition of Beza’s New Testament” (pp. 18, 22, 27, 188). Backus asserted that “we can see that Beza’s influence on the English Geneva and Laurence Tomson’s version was largely that of his Latin versions” (p. 27). Backus concluded: “We can also see a large measure of agreement between Tomson and Geneva, which suggests that Tomson must, at least, have referred to the 1560 Geneva when translating L’Oiseleur’s edition of Beza’s Latin New Testament” (p. 197).

 

[Logos1560]

As I thought.

Known copies, then, were being counted, not editions, right?

It seems to be different editions being counted, not known copies.

Those who listed them found some differences in them indicating that they were different printed editions.

 

[Yeshua1]

Tomson’s 1576 New Testament should perhaps be considered a different English translation than the 1560 Geneva Bible.

The title page of a 1599 edition and a 1611 edition of his New Testament stated that it was “translated out of the Greek by Theodore Beza,” which indicated that its basis would have been the Latin New Testament of Beza that Beza himself translated from the Greek. The title page also noted that Beza’s translation was “Englished by L. Tomson.

Laurence Tomson likely used the 1560 Geneva’s N. T. as a basis for his translating of Beza’s Latin N. T.
David Daniell referred to “Tomson’s revision of the Geneva English New Testament, based on Beza’s important Latin edition of 1565” (Bible in English, p. 352). Daniell added that “the edition of Beza he [Tomson] is using was that prepared by L’Oiseleur, as he states on his title page, and L‘Oiseleur had put together the notes from Beza and from Joachim Camerarius” (Ibid.).

Concerning Tomson’s 1576 revision of the Geneva N. T., T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule noted: “The alterations are mainly due to a comparison with Beza’s Latin version of 1565” (Historical Catalogue, p. 96). In a book published by or for John Rylands Library, this is stated concerning Tomson’s 1576 NT: “The alterations resulted from a close comparison of the Geneva text with Beza’s Latin version of 1565” (Catalogue of an Exhibition of Bibles, p. 24).

Backus referred to Tomson as the “translator of Beza’s Latin New Testament into English” (Reformed Roots of the English NT, p. 174). Backus noted that “Tomson translated Beza’s Latin New Testament” (pp. 187-188). Backus pointed out that in 1574 Pierre L’Oiselsur de Villers “produced an edition of Beza’s Latin New Testament” and that “in 1576 Tomson published his translation of L’Oiseleur’s edition of Beza’s New Testament” (pp. 18, 22, 27, 188). Backus asserted that “we can see that Beza’s influence on the English Geneva and Laurence Tomson’s version was largely that of his Latin versions” (p. 27). Backus concluded: “We can also see a large measure of agreement between Tomson and Geneva, which suggests that Tomson must, at least, have referred to the 1560 Geneva when translating L’Oiseleur’s edition of Beza’s Latin New Testament” (p. 197).

So there was one version based upon theTR, and aother on the Latin?

 

[GenevanBaptist]

Whittingham's was the one supervising the Geneva Bible. The 1560 is a revision of his 1557. Correct? **Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible 1525–1961, London, New York: British and Foreign Bible Society, American Bible Society, SBN 564-00130-9.**

It seems the 1560 Geneva is a Whittingham. It wasnt just him, but he was heavily involved.

Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk

Have downloaded a 1557 from Internet Archives - Going to do a little comparison.
https://archive.org/stream/newtestamentofou42lond#page/n533/mode/2up

 

[Jerome]

Those two pages are a complete list from the "Historical Catalogue of the British and Foreign Bible Society". Not a quote, but a 'chart' listing each year and which Bible, or NT, with number of editions printed in that year.

If I can figure it out I will post a photo of the pages.

Please do.

I have the Historical Catalogue of the British and Foreign Bible Society before me and frankly I don't see how one could get to those numbers from what is presented in the Catalogue.

 

[GenevanBaptist]

1557 Wittingham NT -

"To the which the figure of Baptism is agreeing now that saveth vs also: not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but in that a good conscience maketh request to God, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Which is at the right hand of God : gone into heaven, to whom the Angels, powers, and might are subdued."

1560 Geneva NT -

"To the which also the figure that now saveth us, even Baptism agreeth (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but in that a good conscience maketh request to God) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, Which is at the right hand of God, gone into heaven, to whom the Angels, and Powers, and might are subject."

See a difference?