Puritan history is wonderfully stubborn about refusing to fit into modern KJV-Only categories. The Puritans did use the King James Version—but they were not KJV-Only, not in theology, not in practice, not in how they handled manuscripts, and not in how they handled textual differences.
1. What Bible translations did the Puritans actually use?
The Puritan era (1550s–1680s) spans more than a century, so their Bible use changed over time. Here are the translations they used:
a. The Geneva Bible (1560) — the Puritan favorite
This was the Bible of the Puritan movement for decades, well into the 1600s.
• Heavily used in England and Scotland
• Printed with study notes
• Translated by exiles in Geneva
• Used by John Knox, the early English Separatists, and most Puritan preachers before 1640
The Geneva Bible contains numerous renderings that differ from the KJV.
b. The Bishops’ Bible (1568)
Used in Church of England parishes. Some Puritans heard it read in worship while privately using the Geneva Bible.
c. The King James Version (1611 onward)
Gradually accepted across the Puritan world, but not instantly.
• Adoption was slow
• Many Puritans continued using Geneva Bibles for personal devotion for decades
• In New England, the Geneva Bible was still popular into the mid-1600s
The idea of “only the KJV is the preserved Word of God” would have made no sense to them.
d. Latin and Greek editions
Puritan pastors were scholars. They used:
• Erasmus’s Greek New Testament
• Stephanus (1550, 1551) editions
• Beza’s Greek editions
• Hebrew Rabbinic texts
• Latin Vulgate (for comparison, not authority)
None of these agreed word-for-word. Puritans knew that and worked with it.
2. Were the Puritans KJV-Only?
Not even close. Historically impossible.
a. They continued to use other translations
Puritans cited the Geneva Bible for preaching even after the KJV existed.
b. They openly acknowledged textual variants
John Owen, the greatest Puritan scholar, wrote entire treatises discussing manuscript variations. He argued that textual differences do not destroy the doctrine of preservation.
He says in Of the Integrity and Purity of the Hebrew and Greek Text:
“There are differences in some copies… yet the general providence of God hath so preserved the text, as that no part of the truth is lost.”
That is not “a perfect TR text exists with no variants.”
Owen's position was characteristic of the orthodox Protestant view of his era, which affirmed:
- Existence of Variants: He openly recognized that human scribal errors led to "differences in some copies" or "various lections" (variant readings). He was responding to the publication of the London Polyglot Bible by Brian Walton, which highlighted a large number of these variations.
- Providential Preservation: Despite the variations, Owen maintained a strong doctrine of preservation through God's "general providence." This means that the essential truths and all necessary articles of faith were preserved intact in the entire collection of available manuscripts (apographa).
- Rejection of Corruption: His main concern was to defend the biblical text against the Roman Catholic charge (and later, the emerging critical view of scholars like Louis Cappellus) that the Hebrew and Greek originals were so thoroughly corrupted as to be unreliable and therefore needed an authoritative church body (a Magisterium) to interpret.
- No Absolute Text: Owen did not argue for a single, perfect printed edition (like the Textus Receptus) that was devoid of any scribal imperfections. Instead, he argued that the entire Word of God, down to every "jot and tittle," remained discoverable and was preserved within the total body of manuscripts possessed by the church.
Therefore, since Owen explicitly states there are "differences in some copies," he did not hold the view that a single, printed text (like the TR) was perfectly preserved with "no variants."
c. They allowed and valued translation differences
The KJV translators themselves—many of whom were Puritan sympathizers—said this in their Preface:
“We do not deny the translations out of which ours is made… nor speak of them as bad.”
They saw translation variety as a help, not a threat.
The KJV translators explicitly stated in their original 1611 Preface ("The Translators to the Reader") that they viewed previous translations as a help and did not condemn them.
Their entire project was not to scrap previous Bibles, but to build upon them. Their goal was not to make a new translation or make a bad one good, but:
"...to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark."
They saw the variety of translations as beneficial, quoting St. Augustine:
"Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures."
In short, they viewed the cumulative work of their predecessors (Tyndale, Coverdale, the Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, etc.) as a necessary foundation and a resource for achieving the best possible translation, not as a threat to be eliminated.
d. They used multiple Greek editions
Owen compares Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza directly and notes differences. He never grants perfection to any one edition.
e. KJV-Onlyism did not exist yet
The idea that the KJV is the single perfect form of Scripture didn’t show up until the 20th century. No Puritan ever taught it.
3. Why the Puritans could not be KJV-Only theologically
Puritan theology does not support KJV-Onlyism.
a. Their doctrine of preservation applied to the entire manuscript tradition
They believed the autographs are inspired; copies are reliable but not flawless. Preservation was providential, not mechanical.
b. They grounded Scripture’s authority in inspiration, not in a specific translation
Westminster Confession of Faith 1.8 (1646):
“The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek… being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages.”
Notice:
• The authority is in Hebrew and Greek, not English
• “Kept pure,” not “kept perfect in one printed edition”
If the Puritans believed the KJV was perfect, they would have said so here. They did not.
c. No Puritan taught that vernacular translations were without error
They explicitly taught all translations are subordinate to the original languages.
Calvin, Cranmer, Bucer, Knox, Perkins, Owen, Baxter—they all taught this.
4. How the Puritans maintained unity with multiple translations
They didn’t insist that all believers use one Bible. They insisted on doctrinal unity, not textual uniformity.
Thomas Manton warned against treating translation differences as heresy:
“It is not good to brand things with the name of error until we have proved them so… If matters were dispatched by arguments rather than censures, we should have fewer differences.”
He often argued for judiciousness and discernment rather than rash condemnation. In his commentaries, he frequently discussed different translations and interpretations (as seen in his analysis of the Septuagint and other versions of Psalm 119:66) without branding the variations as error or heresy.
He believed that non-essential differences (like minor textual or translation preferences) should not be the basis for dividing the church or accusing fellow believers of doctrinal error.
The phrase about preferring arguments over censures is a clear call for intellectual humility and careful, reasoned debate rather than merely denouncing opposing views as heresy (a "censure").
In the context of the larger Puritan and post-Reformation debates over scriptural text and translation, Manton stood among those who affirmed the providential preservation of the core truth while acknowledging the reality of minor textual variants and the propriety of multiple translations—a position that necessarily warned against treating those differences as heresy.
That is the exact opposite of a KJV-Only spirit.
5. Summary
What Bibles did the Puritans use?
Geneva Bible, Bishops’ Bible, KJV, plus Greek and Hebrew texts.
Were the Puritans KJV-Only?
Absolutely not.
Why not?
Because:
• They used multiple translations side-by-side
• They studied and debated textual variants
• They saw no translation as perfect
• They grounded authority in the original languages
• Unity was based on doctrine, not one English version
• KJV-Onlyism didn’t exist until 300 years later
If a Puritan walked into a modern KJV-Only church, they would be bewildered—not by modern translations, but by the idea that one translation should be made the exclusive gatekeeper of orthodoxy.
No comments:
Post a Comment