1600's Baptist translator of the Bible

[Logos1560]

Henry Jessey, a Baptist Bible scholar and pastor in the 1600's, complained about the KJV for its episcopacy and said that Bishop Bancroft "who was supervisor of the present translation, altered it in fourteen places to make it speak the language of prelacy" (Williams, The Common English Version, p. 53). Prelacy refers to a system of church government by prelates such as archbishops and bishops set over more than one local church. Williams also noted that "Bancroft's zeal was that of bigoted attachment to prelacy, fierce even to persecution and cruel proscription" (Common English Version, p. 47). Hezekiah Harvey pointed out that the KJV "was prepared under the influence of prelacy" (Church, p. 42). In his 1671 book, Edward Whiston wrote: “Mention might be made of some unhandsome dealing, not in the translators, but in a great prelate of that time, the chief supervisor of the work, who, as the Reverend Doctor Hill declared in a great and honourable Assembly, would have it speak the prelatical language, and to that end altered it in 14 places” (Life and Death of Henry Jessey, p. 49).


Pastor Jessey, who had an extensive knowledge of Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, and Chaldee (Aramaic), worked to produce a new translation of the Scriptures which was never published since he was ejected from his church by the cruel Act of Uniformity and imprisoned where he died in 1663 (Cathcart, Baptist Encyclopedia, p. 600). Cathcart also noted that Jessey had his translation prepared in 1660 when persecutions "rendered its publication impossible and resulted in its destruction" (p. 707). John Lewis confirmed that Jessey was "one well skilled in the Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, and Greek tongues" (Complete History, p. 355). The reference work Dictionary of National Biography noted that “his memory for scripture was so minute and accurate that he was termed a living concordance” (Vol. X, p. 808). John Christian stated that Jessey "was one of the most noted men of his times" (History of the Baptists, I, p. 271). Armitage pointed out that great Oriental scholar, Henry Jessey, "spent his life upon a new translation of the Bible" (History of the Baptists, p. 471). Concerning Jessey, Richard Cook observed: "Much of his time was spent in translating the Bible into English, a work for which he was well qualified by his familiarity with the original languages in which the Bible was written. His habit was to carry about with him his Hebrew and Greek Testaments" (Story of the Baptists, p. 110). J. W. Griffith also pointed out that Jessey "made new and more correct translations of the Bible" (Manual of Church History, III, p. 89). Norton noted that “Jessey conceived it ‘our duty to endeavour to have the whole Bible rendered as exactly agreeing with the original as we can attain‘” (History, p. 98).


Norton suggested that Jessey “eventually became one of a group of revisers appointed in the latter days of the Long Parliament (1652 or 1653)“ (p. 98). The House of Commons Journal of January, 11, 1653, recorded that it be “resolved, that Mr. Scott do bring in a Bill for a New Translation of the Bible out of the original languages and that he present the names of persons fit to be employed in that service to the House, for their consideration.” B. R. White confirmed that Jessey throughout the 1650’s was engaged in “producing a new translation of the Bible with a committee including, among others, John Owen and John Row” (Knox, Reformation, p. 141). Price indicated that [Brian] Walton was also on this committee (Ancestery, p. 280). The Dictionary of National Biography noted that an order in council (1652) appointed Jessey “one of nine (including [Ralph] Cudworth and [John] Owen) whose approval was required to sanction the publication of any new translation of the Bible” (X, p. 808). This same source confirmed that John Owen “was placed on the commission for licensing translations of the Bible” (XIV, p. 1318). This source also pointed out that in 1656-7, Ralph Cudworth “considered with a committee of the House of Commons a proposed revision of the translation of the Bible” (V, p. 271). Price observed that “the reasons that lay back of the bill were in part errors, mainly printers’, and some in translation, and also the so-called prelatical language of the version” (Ancestry, p. 280). The Cambridge History of the Bible indicated that this committee often meet at the home of Bulstrode Whitelocke, who had been assigned care of this project (pp. 363-364). Whitelocke wrote: “This committee often met at my house, and had the most learned men in the oriental tongues to consult with in this great business, and divers excellent and learned observations of some mistakes in the translations of the Bible in English (Memorials, IV, p. 284).

[Matthan]

And your question, purpose or idea is......?

Matthan

[Jim1927]

It is a well documented fact that the King James Version was to be an Anglican translation. most of the scholars who worked on it were, in fact, clergy of the Church of England. It is also noted that the majority of early Baptists did not prefer the King James Version, including Spurgeon, in favour of the Geneva translation, aka the Geneva Bible.

The fact is also that the KJV was made the "popular" copy of scriptures by order of the King, written in the language of the people of the 1600's. Church of England peoples well outnumbered the Baptists and others, and this helped to expand the popularization of the KJV.

So, as has been mentioned, What is your point?

Cheers,

Jim

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

I do not wish to speak for the OP. However a good historical case could be made when the "KJV" was (new) the same objections too it, are the same objections made today against the (new) translations today.

Peace to u,

Bill

[Logos1560]

It is also noted that the majority of early Baptists did not prefer the King James Version, including Spurgeon, in favour of the Geneva translation, aka the Geneva Bible.

What is your point?

Jim

One purpose of my post was to provide information about an early Baptist translator of whom many Baptists may not be aware. While you may have been aware of the fact that Baptists in the early 1600's did not prefer the KJV, many Baptists today especially those who are KJV-only do not seem to know it.

Do you know of any quotations where Charles Spurgeon refers to the 1560 Geneva Bible? While the Geneva Bible was reprinted a couple times in the mid-1800's, I was not aware of Spurgeon stating any preference for it in the late 1800's. By the 1800's, most Baptists were using the KJV. Some Bible scholars including some Baptists did make a revision of the KJV in 1842 in America. In England, some editors including one or two Baptists also produced a slightly revised edition of the KJV in 1877, and Charles Spurgeon favorably reviewed it.

[TwinCrier]

Oh, thou roguish bible critics. Thy artless insurrection against the words of ol shall not encompass me with doubt. My faith shan't be shackled by your folly.

[BBAS 64]

From the web:


I have before cited some of the instances where Spurgeon used the English Revised Version [see "Bynum's Abuse," article #240 in our file]. I will add another reference here: an Exposition in Volume 47, pages 299, 300, where CHS uses Luke 4:16-30 and John 8:37-59 for one of his pre-sermon Bible readings and brief expositions, which was his usual method prior to preaching.
The comment by Grady is "colored" by his saying that Spurgeon did, on rare occasions "succumb to the spirit of the age." Since the "spirit of the age," according to Grady, was rather Satanic, he is associating Spurgeon's use of the ERV with Satan. He picked up this piece of discernment from Ruckman and Riplinger. Ruckman reveals that "Satan filled his heart to lie to the Holy Spirit" (Bible Believers' Bulletin, 8/91), and that God killed him for "correcting" the KJV (The Last Grenade, page 270).
Riplinger reveals that the theological views which Spurgeon embraced "form a Satanic Pentagram" (New Age Bible Versions, page 231). Spurgeon's position on the Eternal Sonship of Christ ("Only Begotten Son"), which is the Creedal or Confessional view, is interpreted by Riplinger as being "Arian" and supposedly makes the Son a "created God" (N.A.B.V., page 562; Blind Guides, pages 15, 37, 38).
She teaches that the "flesh" (body) of Jesus is the "only begotten son," following the heresy of Ruckman (N.A.B.V., page 337).
Now, Grady says Spurgeon succumbed to "the spirit of the age." The Scholars Union of the Antiochan Cult does not have a very high opinion of Mr. Spurgeon. But Grady to the rescue! He says Mr. Spurgeon's widow, Susie, sent Mr. Moody the Bible used by Spurgeon, and this was "as if to symbolize Mr. Moody's lifetime achievement of restoring confidence in the King James Bible," etc. (page 353). The fact is, Mr. Moody often used the English Revised Version, the same as did Spurgeon. For example, there are several references to the "R. V." in Moody's little book, "Notes from My Bible." On page 192 alone he quotes four passages from the Revised Version (Mark 3:35;1 Thess. 5:16-18; John 7:17; I John 5:14). Moody even refers to that "forbidden book," the Septuagint (121)! And Moody was inseparable for years from R. A. Torrey, whom he called to Chicago in 1889 to head the Moody Bible Institute. Grady has a whole lot of bad, bad things to say about Torrey, as Torrey used the RV even more so than Moody.

http://www.kjvonly.org/bob/ross_grady_pr.htm

It is a really good question, who could answer it??

www.spurgeon.org (http://www.spurgeon.org)

Maybe....

Peace to u,

Bill

[TwinCrier]

I'm sorry, the only question mark I see is after your question. What exactly are you requesting an answer to?

[BBAS 64]

Good Day,

The historical quest is "fun".

HEART-DISEASE CURABLE"
June 19th, 1881
AT THE METROPOLITAN TABERNACLE, NEWINGTON
He has sent Me to bind up the broken hearted
This text receives great luster [great fame] from the fact that it was one of the passages which the Savior read when he entered into the synagogue at Nazareth and preached on the Sabbath day. It is as fresh as ever, and we may still say of it, [I]This day is this Scripture fulfilled in your ears. It is no small privilege that we poor under-shepherds should be permitted to take the same text as that great Shepherd of the sheep. Our care must be to point to him in it. I intended to have preached these words in Luke 4:18, but when I looked at the Revised Version and found that the words were not there at all I was somewhat startled. I began to ask whether the omission was a correct one or not; and, without making pretence to scholarship, I feel convinced that the revisers are acting honestly in leaving it out. It was not in the original manuscript of Luke, but probably some pious person added it with the intention of making the quotation more complete. Whatever the intention may have been, and however natural the added words may appear, it is a pity that the unknown brother ventured to improve that which was perfect from the beginning. After revolving in my mind the fact, which I accept, that the passage was not written by Luke in his record, I have, I think, discovered the reason. When our Savior unrolled the Book of Isaiah he read from it; but we are not certain that he read any one passage through. According to the Jewish law it was allowed in the prophets for the reader in the synagogue to skip, as we call it, to make selections, and read here a passage and there a passage, as he aimed at bringing out his subject As the words are given in our Authorized Version you will notice that the portion of Scripture is not exactly like the prophetic words in Isaiah 61, and that one sentence at least must have been taken from another part of the prophetic book. The Savior did read from Isaiah 61, but he also quoted other portions of Isaiah, probably taking a verse here and a verse there, and blending them in one just as sometimes when I wish to give you a connected narrative I read on in a chapter, say to verse eight, and then miss a piece to verse sixteen, and again run on to verse twenty-four, and miss a few verses again. The Savior gave a résumé of texts which stood near each other upon the roll, and Luke records those upon which our Lord dwelt in his sermon.

This would explain why Riplinger had a "cow" :swoon:

Mrs. Riplinger you are no Spurgeon, but that does not excuse your shappy research of history.

Peace to u,

Bill

[BBAS 64]

I'm sorry, the only question mark I see is after your question. What exactly are you requesting an answer to?

Good Day, Twin

Which version (s) did C.H Spurgeon use?

Peace to u,

Bill

[BigNorsk]

May I ask the textual basis behind the Baptist translation? If it's one more translation from the text of Erasmus, I doubt that it would be too different than the KJV, except probably in footnotes.

Marv

[TwinCrier]

It was not in the original manuscript of Luke,Whoa, hold the phone! I thought that, the one thing KJO and modernists agreed on is that the original manuscripts no longer exist. So how can we know something was supposedly ommitted in the original manuscripts and somehow made it word for word into all the majority text? :scratch:

[BigNorsk]

Oh, thou roguish bible critics. Thy artless insurrection against the words of ol shall not encompass me with doubt. My faith shan't be shackled by your folly.

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

What say ye?

Marv

[TwinCrier]

Good Day, Twin

Which version (s) did C.H Spurgeon use?

Peace to u,

BillHistorically I believe he used the ESV, the ERV and KJV, but don't quote me, the man's been dead for quite some time.
Not that it matters.

[JPPT1974]

Historically I believe he used the ESV, the ERV and KJV, but don't quote me, the man's been dead for quite some time.
Not that it matters.

Only the man and God know that
Now don't they?

[Logos1560]

May I ask the textual basis behind the Baptist translation?
Marv

As far as is known, the textual basis of this Baptist translation would be basically the same as the textual basis for the KJV.

It would be very likely that Henry Jessey would have corrected the 14 places where he claimed that Archbishop Richard Bancroft introduced changes in the text of the KJV [changes that were not approved by the majority of the KJV translators].

[Logos1560]

Which version (s) did C.H Spurgeon use?

Bill

C. H. Spurgeon mainly preached from the KJV, but in a few sermons he took the text from the 1881 Revised Version. In a review, he commented favorably about a 1877 revision of the KJV edited by Joseph Gurney, F. W. Gotch, B. Davies, G. A. Jacob, and S. G. Green and published by Eyre and Spottiswoode. Gotch and Green were Baptists. This edition was entitled: The Holy Bible according to the Authorised Version, Compared with the Hebrew and Greek texts, and carefully revised" (Darlow, Historical Catalogue, p. 381). In an email, Bob Ross cited Charles Spurgeon as writing the following in his review concerning this 1877 edition: "Here is our own English Bible with its mistranslations amended, and its obsolete words and coarse phrases removed" (Sword and the Trowel, Sept., 1877, p. 438). Spurgeon added: "We commend the work heartily" (Ibid.).

Here are some quotes from Spurgeon about this issue.
Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) said: "I do not hesitate to say that there is no mistake whatever in the original Holy Scriptures from beginning to end. There may be, and there are, mistakes of translation; for translators are not inspired" (The Scriptures: Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, p. 257). In his preface to the 1859 book The English Bible by Mrs. H. C. Conant, Spurgeon noted: "And it is because I love the most Holy Word of God that I plead for faithful translation; and from my very love to the English version, because in the main it is so, I desire for it that its blemishes should be removed, and its faults corrected" (p. xi). In his same preface, Spurgeon wrote: "I ask, from very love of this best of translations, that its obsolete words, its manifest mistranslations, and glaring indecencies should be removed" (p. xii). In a sermon entitled "The Bible Tried and Proved," Spurgeon stated: "We have occasionally heard opponents carp at certain coarse expressions used in our translation of the Old Testament; but the coarseness of translators is not to be set to the account on the Holy Spirit, but to the fact that the force of the English language has changed, and modes of expression which were correct at one period become too gross for another" (Infallible Word, p. 20).

Yet again, Spurgeon noted: "Concerning the fact of difference between the Revised and Authorised Versions, I would say that no Baptist should ever fear any honest attempt to produce the correct text, and an accurate interpretation of the Old and New Testaments. . . . By the best and most honest scholarship that can be found we desire that the common version may be purged of every blunder of transcribers, or addition of human ignorance, or human knowledge, so that the Word of God may come to us as it came from his own hand" (Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, XXVII, pp. 342-343). In a book of quotations from Spurgeon’s writings, Kerry James Allen cited where Spurgeon noted: “I do not say that either of our English versions is inspired, for there are mistakes in the translation” (Exploring the Mind, p. 43). In his commentary on Matthew, Spurgeon wrote concerning verse 23 of chapter 12: "Our Revised Version very properly leaves out the 'not' ... as it is not in the original, we must not allow the 'not'" (Gospel of the Kingdom, p. 89). Taking his text from 2 Corinthians 4:3-4, Spurgeon commented: “I think in this case the Revised New Testament gives a better translation than the Authorized Version, and I will therefore read it” (Williams, God’s Word, p. 63). Spurgeon declared: "Let us quote the words as they stand in the best possible translation, and it would be better still if we know the original, and can tell if our version fails to give the sense" (The Greatest Fight, p. 23).