Asking for a (Calvinist) sic. Puritan resource

It is my understanding, although I'm not entirely sure this is accurate, that the first European Bible to be bound with just 66 books, is the Geneva Bible (1579). Do you know of a contemporaneous text explaining with reasons for this shorter canon? I'm looking for a source that is sympathetic with the change.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Frank Hodges

I haven't read this, and don't know if it necessarily answers your question, but poking around the footnotes of this article may be of some interest to you.
https://founders.org/articles/the-geneva-bible-and-its-influence-on-the-king-james-bible/

Also I stumbled upon a journal by Bruce Metzger from 1960 about The Geneva Bible, there may be something of interest there:
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F004057366001700308

I never knew The Geneva Bible was the first Bible with the shorter canon, this sparks my interest and I want to do some digging as well. I'm a bit under the weather right now, so I can't think straight, but I'm going to bookmark this and revisit it when I fell better.

If your search turns up anything interesting, can you please share it here so I can follow along.

Also, when you say the "first European Bible bound with just 66 books" is that to say there's other traditions that predate Geneva that followed what we'd now consider the Protestant canon, but they just weren't bound/European?

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1257568#Comment_1257568

Thanks for the references; I'll check them out.

Also, when you say the "first European Bible bound with just 66 books" is that to say there's other traditions that predate Geneva that followed what we'd now consider the Protestant canon, but they just weren't bound/European?

I worded it that way because my knowledge of non-European sources tend to be limited e.g. I know there was a Sogdian NT but I don't know about the OT. I find getting accurate information as to what is contained in the Old Testament is difficult even for European languages; I spent more than a hour today trying to pin down the contents and order of the Gustav Vasa Bible (first complete Swedish Bible) and am still not comfortable I have accurate information. I stuck in "bound" because many resources omit books that are placed between the testaments or in an appendix; my interest is in the contents not the structure of the content. But I can safely say that I have found no hint of a 66-book Bible in any form or in any language before the Geneva Bible ... but I certainly would not say there is none, simply that I know of none.

Frank Hodges

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1257569#Comment_1257569

But I can safely say that I have found no hint of a 66-book Bible in any form or in any language before the Geneva Bible ... but I certainly would not say there is none, simply that I know of none.

Thanks, this is news to me and a very exciting research topic.

Has your search turned up anything else of interest? I really want to follow along on this.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1257673#Comment_1257673

Usually, I am looking at Bibles that contain more than the Catholic canon of 73 or at groups that use less than the Protestant canon of 66. I find so much bad-faith scholarship on the 73/66 split that I've chosen to focus expanding my knowledge of canonical texts elsewhere. But recently it has been important to track down the first actual 66 book Bible as opposed to lists where the distinction made by some between canonical and ecclesial books could cause me to misinterpret the evidence.

What I am slowly working towards is list of European Bibles, each of which is the first full translation in the language, and the canon it contains. For major languages I also want to note the current best selling translation and the canon it contains. This is proving to be surprisingly difficult. I had originally hoped to have a third column of the first Bible to use the 66 book canon in the language, but without a research assistant, I have given up on that.

ReformedDoc

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1257679#Comment_1257679

Here's is some info, I hope it helps.

https://www.apuritansmind.com/puritan-worship/the-geneva-bible/

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1257695#Comment_1257695

Thanks for the reference. It seems as if people were so caught up in the marginal notes that no one noticed the canon. [:O] or these were written for the longer edition.

ReformedDoc

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1257696#Comment_1257696

I searched about why 66 books & there was no specific link I could find especially from the reformed perspective. I actually found the Puritan link the other day when you asked, but didn't post it because none of those 3 different pages answered the question you were asking.

Justin Gatlin

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1257696#Comment_1257696

Do you have FF Bruce's book The Canon of Scripture? It discusses this from pages 105-108.

Paul Caneparo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1257706#Comment_1257706

Do you have FF Bruce's book The Canon of Scripture? It discusses this from pages 105-108.

In fact I think the whole of chapters 5, 6 & 7 may be relevant.

I wasn't sure why the request was for a Calvinist resource, as I tend to think of this as "Protestant" issue rather than a Calvinist one as I would expect an evangelical, Protestant, Arminianist to hold the same view on the Canon as a Reformed or a Calvinist.

NB.Mick

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1257708#Comment_1257708

I wasn't sure why the request was for a Calvinist resource

The Geneva bible comes from a Calvinist (i.e. Swiss reformed) corner of the reformation - and it was published the year Arminius was born, back in 1560. At that time, the only significant other stream of Protestantism that published bibles would be Lutheranism ("German" reformed) which did and usually still does include the deuterocanonical books - in a separate section.

Paul Caneparo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1257727#Comment_1257727

I wasn't sure why the request was for a Calvinist resource

The Geneva bible comes from a Calvinist (i.e. Swiss reformed) corner of the reformation - and it was published the year Arminius was born, back in 1560. At that time, the only significant other stream of Protestantism that published bibles would be Lutheranism ("German" reformed) which did and usually still does include the deuterocanonical books - in a separate section.

Interestingly FF states:

The Geneva Bible was produced by English Protestants who sought refuge at Geneva during the reign of Mary Tudor (1553–58); it was issued with a dedication to Elizabeth. It included the apocryphal books in a section following the Old Testament (except that the Prayer of Manasseh is printed as an appendix to 2 Chronicles);

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1257708#Comment_1257708

I wasn't sure why the request was for a Calvinist resource, as I tend to think of this as "Protestant" issue rather than a Calvinist one as I would expect an evangelical, Protestant, Arminianist to hold the same view on the Canon as a Reformed or a Calvinist.

My reasoning was entirely historical. The Anglicans and the Lutherans left the deuterocanonicals in the Bible but moved them. I believe that the Anglicans left them in their lectionary throughout most their history. The Calvinists removed them entirely. I don't recall what the Anabaptists did off the top of my head. The Geneva Bible initially included them, then removed them. I understand why in the general cultural milieu but thought there must be a contemporaneous writing that "went along with" the publication change. I may be thinking a bit too 20th century.

My original intent was to track down the first 66 book Bible in each of the major European languages. I'm beginning to believe its a fool's task.

Paul Caneparo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1257736#Comment_1257736

I wasn't sure why the request was for a Calvinist resource, as I tend to think of this as "Protestant" issue rather than a Calvinist one as I would expect an evangelical, Protestant, Arminianist to hold the same view on the Canon as a Reformed or a Calvinist.

My reasoning was entirely historical. The Anglicans and the Lutherans left the deuterocanonicals in the Bible but moved them. I believe that the Anglicans left them in their lectionary throughout most their history. The Calvinists removed them entirely. I don't recall what the Anabaptists did off the top of my head. The Geneva Bible initially included them, then removed them. I understand why in the general cultural milieu but thought there must be a contemporaneous writing that "went along with" the publication change. I may be thinking a bit too 20th century.

My original intent was to track down the first 66 book Bible in each of the major European languages. I'm beginning to believe its a fool's task.

Thanks!

FF Bruce in the above book in pages 108/9 goes on to say:

The Authorized (King James) Version of 1611 was formally a revision of the last (1602) edition of the Bishops’ Bible; it included a version of the Apocrypha as a matter of course. Four years later, the Archbishop of Canterbury, George Abbot, a firm Calvinist in theology, forbade the binding or selling of Bibles without the Apocrypha on penalty of a year’s imprisonment. This measure seemed to be necessary because of the increasingly vocal Puritan objection to the inclusion of the Apocrypha among the canonical books. In 1589 an attack on their inclusion by John Penry (‘Martin Marprelate’) had called forth a spirited reply from an earlier Archbishop, John Whitgift. Now, despite the penalty enacted by Archbishop Abbot, copies of the av/kjv without the Apocrypha began to be produced in the years from 1626 onward.

The tide was running in the Puritan favour in those years: in 1644 the Long Parliament ordained that the Apocrypha should cease to be read in services of the Church of England.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1257747#Comment_1257747

in 1644 the Long Parliament ordained that the Apocrypha should cease to be read in services of the Church of England.

IIRC they were added back into the 1662 Book of Common Prayer

Paul Caneparo

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1257750#Comment_1257750

in 1644 the Long Parliament ordained that the Apocrypha should cease to be read in services of the Church of England.

IIRC they were added back into the 1662 Book of Common Prayer

Indeed, although the doctrine of the Church of England as written in "the 39 articles of religion" produced in 1563 states:

VI. OF THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE HOLY SCRIPTURES FOR SALVATION

HOLY Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.

(The 66 books of the Protestant canon are listed.)

And the other Books (as Hierome saith) the Church doth read for example of life and instruction of manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doctrine; such are these following:

The Third Book of Esdras

The Fourth Book of Esdras

The Book of Tobias

The Book of Judith

The rest of the Book of Esther

The Book of Wisdom

Jesus the Son of Sirach

Baruch the Prophet

The Song of the Three Children

The Story of Susanna

Of Bel and the Dragon

The Prayer of Manasses

The First Book of Maccabees

The Second Book of Maccabees

Gordon Jones

It is my understanding, although I'm not entirely sure this is accurate, that the first European Bible to be bound with just 66 books, is the Geneva Bible (1579). Do you know of a contemporaneous text explaining with reasons for this shorter canon? I'm looking for a source that is sympathetic with the change.

The Geneva Bible printed in 1579 in Edinburgh by Bassandyne and Arbuthnot contained the Apocrypha, so I wonder if looking at the place of publication of the 1579 edition you are aware of may give a clue as to why it contains the shorter canon. Sorry I can't be more helpful.

Happy hunting.

MJ. Smith

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/1257921#Comment_1257921

The Geneva Bible printed in 1579 in Edinburgh by Bassandyne and Arbuthnot contained the Apocrypha,

Fantastic ... that is a great clue.

It appears that it was actually Barker's 1599 edition of the Geneva Bible that omitted the apocrypha first.

Just tried Google's Bard which says my original information was incorrect -- that "The first English Bible to be printed without the Apocrypha was Robert Aitken's Bible, which was published in 1782." I have reason to believe this is incorrect as I've heard that American AV's got permission to omit the apocrypha during the American Civil War on reason of cost and supplies.

However, Bard appears to ignore later editions of the same text. Asked the earliest Geneva Bible without the apocrypha it gave this quite reasonable answer: "The first Geneva Bible to exclude the Apocrypha was published in 1612 by the Eliot's Court Press in London. This Bible was printed for the use of the Puritans,"

So in dualing AI manner, I asked ChatGPT to confirm the Bard quote. It replied "The Eliot's Court Press did print the Geneva Bible, but the version that excluded the apocrypha was published in 1599, not 1612. This edition, often referred to as the "Tomson's Geneva Bible" or the "Geneva Bible of 1599," was intended for the use of the Puritans."