High-church Protestants and Catholics in a tizzy
In the journey toward the publication of the King James’ Authorised Version we have reached that point where the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church had got themselves into a bit of a tizzy. And why? Because what had become known as “the Geneva Bible” (see last month’s newsletter and Fleetwood United Reformed Church’s website) had become a best seller. This was despite the import being banned and the reading was also banned. And flouting the bans attracted the severest of penalties, including death. The high-church party of the Church of England were offended. And, Roman Catholics were being challenged because “the Geneva Bible” was sweeping across Europe replacing the Latin Vulgate [1] as the scripture of choice. [2]
Anglican bishops’ noses out of joint
The Geneva Bible was thoroughly Calvinist. And the offence felt by high-church people was not because of the translation of the text but because of marginal notes. These notes explained ‘difficult’ words, phrases, verses, chapters etc. The offence felt was that Calvinism was associated with Presbyterianism. Presbyterianism sought to replace government of the church by bishops with government by lay elders. It is easy to understand why the high-church party – the bishops – were upset and wanted the Geneva Bible to be replaced. They were going to be out of a (lucrative) job and positions of power over the people. The root of the problem is in the translating. Yes, you can find in translations the title ‘bishop’. But in the original from which the translation is being made it could be translated by other titles, like for instance ‘elder’. (Certainly there were no bishops in the early church but there were elders because there were elders in Jewish communities. Further, there is no ‘job description’ in scripture for bishop. What we have today has been developed over time.) Therefore, it could be argued that the title ‘bishop’ is incorrect – unless you are a bishop and about to lose your job. And if you go down that track then there are questions over the role and position of bishops, certainly as we have today. What must not be ignored is that there are Non-Conformist denominations with bishops, even some who can be described as fundamentalists taking God’s Word with great literalness.
Bit of a botched job
The promoter of the replacement of the Geneva Bible, and the leading figure in the translating, was Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, pictured here. [3]
This translation became known as the Bishop’s Bible. Unhappily, Parker and his fellow bishops did not make a very good job of it. That was so, very probably, because they focused too heavily on producing text justifying their position over that of the Presbyterians. The Bishop’s Bible was published first in 1568. Because of its errors it had to be re-issued in an extensively revised form in 1572. Those revisions brought the Bishop’s Bible so close to the Geneva Bible as to make little difference! The Bishop’s Bible still wasn’t right and the last edition with further revisions of the complete Bible was issued in 1602 and another revision of the New Testament was reissued in 1617.
The people’s choice
The Bishop’s Bible had the authority of the royal warrant and was appointed to be read aloud in church services. However, it failed miserably to displace the Geneva Bible in homes. But that was not the intention. It was meant to be an authorised replacement for an unacceptable (to some and mainly churchmen) version. However, men and women who could read, and from what they had read in the Geneva Bible, were questioning, nay undermining, what was being read to them and interpreted using the Bishop’s Bible. (“Hang about, vicar. That’s not what it says in my Geneva Bible” sort of challenge to authority.)
Catholics upholding tradition
Almost simultaneous with the Bishop’s Bible, remember it was to be a counter to the Geneva Bible, the Roman Catholics worked hard to produce their version. It became known as the Douai-Rheims Bible. The purpose of the version was to uphold [Roman] Catholic tradition in the face of the Protestant Reformation. As such it was an impressive effort by English Catholics [4] in exile in France to support the Counter-Reformation.
Authentic root
The Douai-Rheims Bible is a translation of the Latin Vulgate, itself largely created due to the efforts of St Jerome. Jerome’s translation was declared to be the authentic Latin version of the Bible by the Council of Trent. [5] (As will be appreciated many highly regarded translations of the Bible still use the Vulgate for consultation.)
You’ve got yours so we must have ours
The title page of Douai-Rheims version reads:
“The Holy Bible, faithfully translated into English out of the authentic Latin.
Diligently conferred with the Hebrew, Greek and other Editions ….
[the cause of the delay in its publication] was our poor state of banishment …”
Furthermore, to add to its credentials, the title page of the New Testament includes,
“… specially for the discovery of the
CORRUPTIONS of divers late translations, and for clearing the CONTROVERSIES in religion.”
Title page of the Douai-Rheims New Testament
Somewhat ironic then that the English working of the Douai-Rheims New Testament follows more or less closely the Protestant version first produced by William Tyndale in 1525. Furthermore, there is much evidence of the translators also using Miles Coverdale’s 1535 work. So why a new translation? It had to be one authorised by the Roman Catholic Church to underpin the Catholic Church as ‘the one and only true church’ in all its guises.
Word play
The Douai-Rheims translation deserves mention in the history of the English Bible. This is because it was one of the versions consulted by the translators of the King James Version and for its influence on the English language. When you use words like, “acquisition”, “adulterate”, “advent”, “allegory”, “character”, “cooperate”, “resuscitate”, and “evangelism” (amongst others, including “holocaust” [6] ) their roots are in the Douai-Rheims translation from the Vulgate.
Jigsawing
The Douai-Rheims achieved little popularity, even among English-speaking Catholics. That was until it was substantially revised between 1749-1752 by an English man, Richard Challoner. Challoner’s revisions borrowed heavily from the King James Authorised Version. But what must not be overlooked is that the King James Authorised Version drew on the original Douai-Rheims translation. (But there were strong denials that the Douai-Rheims looked for inspiration from Tyndale and Coverdale and King James’ translators took inspiration for the Douai-Rheims. It wouldn’t do for Protestants and Catholics to acknowledge the interconnecting pieces in a ‘jigsaw ‘ of translations would it?)
[1] Vulgate = Common as in ‘common use’.
[2] The Roman Catholic Church had argued that the Latin Vulgate was the bedrock of Western Christian life and thought. This despite a whole raft of scholars who had pointed up the errors in the translations from Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek etc into Latin.
[3] Just an aside: Is it from Matthew Parker that we get ‘Nosey-Parker’?
[4] Fleetwood has a link to the Douai-Rheims Bible. One of the translators was a man who became Cardinal Allen (of Rossall Hall and adopted by Cardinal Allen school.)
[5] Council of Trent: It convened in Trent, Northern Italy, between 1545 and 1563. (It took this long because of wars and popes dying and new popes being elected.) The council issued condemnations of what it defined as Protestant heresies and produced 17 dogmatic decrees covering all aspects of Roman Catholic belief and doctrine and practice. In particular by specifying Catholic doctrine on salvation, the sacraments, the Biblical canon, the Council was answering Protestant disputes. It would be over 300 years until the next Ecumenical Council. When announcing Vatican II, Pope John XXIII stated that the precepts of the Council of Trent continue to the modern day, a position that was reaffirmed by Pope Paul VI.
[6] Holocaust = burnt offering.