Customer Reviews

1560 Geneva Bible

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

To be short on words, yet provide useful content....this is a quality reproduction, and is a diamond among gems in my library.

imagine this: someone laborously and painstakenly translates and handwrites the Bible. Imagine the detail and craftsmanship that went into that task. Imagine further the days and nights and time that passed before its product was finished. Look at the bigger picture and wonder about what the ramifications were for this project (both political and religious). Envision that this work was protected by both a stroke of luck and the blessing of fate to be preserved for several hundred years--every page intact--and delivered into the hands of time and technology to be reproduced via a high grade scanner (and other technological accomplices) so that its beauty could be mass produced and distributed at an economical rate....and so that other fools would have the audacity to rate it with a few stars (as IF they even knew what they were talking about).

I wonder at my colleagues in their discussion about Shakespeare's use of the Geneva Bible. Is that really the issue, and (to refer to my friend's observation that he does not "endorse" this version) does it really matter whether we embrace, endorse or otherwise subscribe to either the translation or the accompanying notes? This is a venture of historical proportions, the value of which is gauged, not in terms of endorsement, but in the availability of such a significant piece of Biblical history (even if the publisher's price is about twice what it should be).

For comparative purposes in drawing doctrinal conclusions, the Geneva Bible is of only cursory value (most of us wouldn't change a doctrinal position anyway; not even if Jesus Himself "endorsed" 1560. That is evident in that we have no intention of changing despite the revelational clarity of the hundreds of other translations. Why should 1560 be any different?).

As a publishing feat, it is significant. As a tool for research, it is invaluable. As another example of the profound processes by which Divine Providence vouched safe His Word to posterity, it is nothing short of remarkable.

Buy it if you can...but don't denigrate its place in the grand scheme of things.

This bible was good enough for the majority of America's founding forefathers, who despised the official government version of the bible commonly known as the King James 1611/1613 version. Our forefathers considered reading the 1611 version, commissioned by the pedo-sodomite King James I, a sinful act. The Geneva Bible of 80 Books with Calvinistic Notes was the most widely read version during the 16th and 17th centuries.

I do agree that William Shakespeare (a.k.a., Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford) was most likely a (non-practicing) medieval pagan catholic by the time of his death. Monthly attendance by the Church of England was mandatory during this period and Shakespeare attended Sunday services rarely if at all. The majority of his works were published between 1590 and his retirement from theatre in 1610 prior to his death in 1616. So he could not have quoted from the official KJ-1611 government bible, except for the "Tempest" written from 1611-1612. William was an active promoter of the pedo-sodomite King James I. In 1603, Shakespeare's theatrical company was taken under the patronage of King James I, and became known as the King's Company Theatre. Without comparing the individual words and phrases I would guess that most of his biblical passages and quotes were taken from the Bishops Bible, with some passages from the Coverdale and Great Bible.

The original Geneva Bible of 1560 is a little harder to read and understand, but I truly believe it is the most accurate English bible available.

The publisher's claim that this was the Bible Shakespeare used is very hard to believe. Professor Peter Milward, who is an expert on Shakespeare, notes that Shakespeare "died a Papist", having sent for a Catholic priest to give him the last rites. Furthermore, "It is clear from his plays that he was against the strictures of Puritanism." Professor Milward goes on to note, "Shakespeare's theology and philosophy do not significantly depart from his mediaeval inheritance, and his plays are laced with references to contemporary Catholic writers of his own time. In King Lear, in particular, Milward sees the dramatist in the role of comforter of the afflicted Catholics of northern England who had almost given up hope that the persecution would ever cease. He provides evidence that Catholic recusant actors performed the play in the houses of the Catholic gentry in the north for precisely these reasons." Shakespeare was certainly aware that Catholics were being murdered and persecuted by Calvinists on the continent since it is believed he spent some time there in a Catholic seminary. All considered, it is doubtful that Shakespeare would have endorsed this version, so neither shall I.