Early Reactions
EARLY REACTIONS
The publication of the King James Bible in 1611 occasioned no fanfares of welcome, or accolades of praise. The event caused scarcely a ripple to pass over the face of English society at the time. England had far more important things to worry about than its new Bible. Religious controversies over the question of predestination in the Low Countries were beginning to have an influence in England, and were causing increased religious polarization. Politically, there were concerns about Spanish ambitions in the Low Countries, which could easily involve England in a new military conflict.
The small degree of reaction that could be discerned was generally negative in tone. One response was particularly critical, and deserves mention. When the translators of the King James Bible were selected, some individuals who believed that they were highly suited to the task found that they had been passed over. One scholar who saw himself as belonging to this category of overlooked geniuses was Hugh Broughton (1549–1612). Broughton had pressed the case for a new translation of the Bible during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and had been frustrated by the lack of progress that was achieved. The news that James I was to commission a new translation initially seemed to him to be a most excellent matter.
Contemporary reports suggest that Broughton was a notoriously grumpy old man who disliked working with others, and had an exaggerated sense of his own importance. The world of letters has always been heavily populated with such types, and it is quite likely that Broughton's reputation as a prima donna had preceded him, persuading those close to the King that he could never work on a committee. Broughton was, in any case, heavily involved in a biblical translation project of his own choosing—the revision of the Geneva Bible. This was never completed.
Broughton professed himself “crossed” by the new translation, and declared that the only useful thing that could be done with it was to burn it. Broughton's death in 1612 prevented him from developing his criticisms of the new translation, as much as improving upon it through his own revision of the Geneva Bible. However, there were others who were displeased with the new translation, and sought to secure revisions at the earliest possible stage.
Yet such calls were not taken with any great seriousness until the 1640s, when the issue became polarized for political reasons. The King James Bible had been commissioned by a king. As Parliamentarians—who argued for the authority of the English Parliament over the English monarch—gained influence around this time, the question of who should authorize a new translation of the Bible became a serious political issue. For many, it was Parliament that should commission a new authorized version—and that authority would derive from the English people, not the English monarch. As Parliamentarians were generally Puritan in their religious outlook, it was not surprising that the Geneva Bible should be suggested as a candidate for such “authorization.”
It is, therefore, no cause for surprise to learn that the opponents of Puritanism during the reign of Charles I did all they could to eliminate the influence of this Bible, with its marginal notes.