Ambivalence: The Puritan Commonwealth
AMBIVALENCE: THE PURITAN COMMONWEALTH
In the closing years of the reign of Charles I, the growing political influence of Puritanism began to become of importance to the reception of the King James Bible. The new emphasis upon the authority of Parliament—as opposed to that of the king—within Puritan circles led to demands for revision of the translation to be undertaken by the state. Parliament, it was argued, should commission a new translation, which would eliminate the errors and ecclesiastical bias of the King James Bible. William Laud had been one of the most formidable opponents of the Geneva Bible, and a staunch defender of the King James Bible. However, Laud found himself outmaneuvered by an increasingly confident Puritan Parliament. In 1641, he was imprisoned in the Tower of London; in 1645, he was executed.
With Laud out of the way, serious opposition to the King James Bible gathered momentum. Calls for the revision of the translation became increasingly frequent and strident. In a sermon delivered before the House of Commons, assembled at the church of St. Margaret's, Westminster, on August 26, 1645, John Lightfoot (1602–75) argued the case for a revised translation, which would be both accurate and lively:
It was the course of Nehemiah when he was reforming that he caused not the law only to be read and the sense given, but also caused the people to “understand the reading” And certainly it would not be the least advantage that you might do to the three nations, if not the greatest, if they by your care and means might come to understand the proper and genuine reading of the Scripture by an exact, vigorous and lively translation.
The Parliamentary Grand Committee for Religion eventually agreed to order a subcommittee to look into this matter. It was clear that the complaints against the King James Bible could be broadly divided into two categories: the many misprints in the printed versions of the text, which caused confusion to readers; and, perhaps more seriously, questions concerning the accuracy of the translation itself. A Parliamentary group that crystallized around Henry Jessey (1601–63), noted for his competence in sacred languages, concluded that the literary style of the King James Bible left something to be desired; “many places which are not falsely may be yet better rendered.” Similar comments can be found in Robert Gell's An Essay Towards the Amendment of the Last English Translation of the Bible (1659).
Yet perhaps one may conjecture that a political issue colored this discussion, in that hostility to the King James Bible reflected a perception that it was hostile to Puritanism—or at least that it lacked the Puritan emphasis that made the Geneva Bible so satisfying to its readers. One Parliamentary group, meeting in 1652–53, argued that the King James Bible used “prelatical language”—in other words, the traditional church terminology, such as “bishop.” This practice, which was specifically laid down in Richard Bancroft's rules for the translators, was offensive to many Puritans. It reminded them of the religious establishment that they had worked hard to overthrow. There was also new and increased resistance from many Puritans to the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the King James Bible. The Westminster Confession of Faith would reject the inclusion of this group of works in Bibles; some Puritans wanted immediate action on this matter.
It might be thought that the period of the Puritan Commonwealth would have seen a new lease on life for the Geneva Bible. In fact, this was not the case. Perhaps there was a realization that the Geneva translation was not as good as might be hoped. In any case, the marginal notes could be had by other means. In the first year of the Commonwealth, an edition of the King James Bible with the Genevan notes was published, with official backing, in London. The Soldier's Pocket Bible, issued in 1643, consisted of selections from the Geneva Bible. The following year saw the final reprint of the Geneva Bible, which henceforth virtually disappeared from the radar screens of English religious controversy.
This is a curious fact, and its explanation remains far from clear. The simplest explanation is economic, and relates to the continuation of earlier monopoly regulations under the Commonwealth. Oliver Cromwell conferred the monopoly on the King James Bible to John Field and Henry Hills in 1656, during which year Field also became printer to Cambridge University. Field was widely regarded as a monopolist on a grand scale, and it is possible that Field, wishing to gain as much as possible from his monopoly on the King James Bible, sought to discourage the publication of rival versions, or the development of revisions. Entirely plausible though this explanation may be, it must be stressed that we simply do not know with any certainty the true reasons for the waning in popularity of the Geneva Bible at a time when it might have been expected to enjoy a surge in popularity.
The Commonwealth thus came to an end without the anticipated surge in popularity and influence of the Geneva Bible. Oliver Cromwell, who was installed as “Lord Protector” of the English nation in December 1653, failed to ensure the Puritan succession. As a result, his death in September 1658 led to the Puritan government falling apart. The resulting political instability eventually led to the restoration of the monarchy in 1660. With Charles II restored to the English throne, and a growing public backlash developing against the excesses of the period of the Puritan Commonwealth, the earlier Puritan opposition to the King James Bible virtually guaranteed that it would be the established translation of the new administration.
Portrait of Oliver Cromwell by Robert Walker (1607–60)