The Bible of the Colonial Era

Tyndale Bible,
Gospel of John 

That really should read, the Bibles of the Colonial Era.

When discussing this topic, we actually have to go back to just before the Colonial Era to what is known as the Age of Exploration. Because, really, where did colonialism begin? Was it with the English, or the Spanish before them? In truth it's a concept far older than even the Spanish, but they seemed to perfect it with an efficiency both ruthless and shameless, appropriating new lands, the people inhabiting them, and any available natural resources. English colonial efforts didn't take off until the reign of Queen Elizabeth I.

Elizabeth also formalized the Anglican Church, or Church of England, after her father King Henry VIII's split with the Catholic Church. Even so, "Protestant" didn't just apply to Anglicanism, however, but to other groups popping up--followers of Jan Hus, Martin Luther, John Calvin, John Knox, and others. In the middle of all that was the growing push to make the Holy Scriptures available to the common people in their own tongue--not just in Latin, which only those schooled in classical languages could read and understand. This exclusivity had been maintained for far too long by the clergy (Catholic and otherwise) as a way to keep the congregation in line.

John Wycliffe

John Wycliffe, 14th century priest and reformer, is credited with the first complete English version of the Bible. Nearly 200 years later, William Tyndale followed, providing the first English translation directly from Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, but before he could finish, was martyred by Henry VIII. Ironically enough, Henry commissioned a translation shortly thereafter, based largely on Tyndale's unfinished work. Supposing that the colony at Roanoke Island might have had a copy, I used this translation, referred to as the Great Bible, for scripture references in my upcoming Elinor. 

And here, for more information on the subject of Bible translations, I will pause and refer you to two excellent articles previously posted here at Colonial Quills:

Christendom in the American Colonies During 17th Century by Lynn Squire (Aug 15, 2012)

Bibles in Colonial America by Tamera Lynn Kraft (Nov 18, 2016)

For more reading on the history and issues of Bible translations:

Bible Translations Into English at Wikipedia

Textus Receptus Bibles (insight into why there's so much debate over the King James Version)

Bibles in Colonial America

by Tamera Lynn Kraft

Saur's German Bible

Bibles were in America from the earliest days of the English colonization. There were four common translations of the Bible in the early 1600s: The Great Bible, The Bishop's Bible, The Geneva Bible, and the King James Bible. Bibles were allowed to be printed only at official printers approved by the king, so Bibles weren't printed in America. The first Bible printed in America was Saur’s German Bible in 1743.

In his book written in 1810, The History of Printing in America, Isaiah Thomas claims Gamaliel Rogers and Daniel Fowle printed about 2,000 copies of the New Testament in Boston, Massachusetts as early as 1750. Apparently they falsely added to the first page that the Bible was printed in London to avoid being fined by the English Crown, but there is no proof that happened.

American Revolution Bible

The first English language Bible printed in America that can be verified was in 1771. Robert Aitken, who became the first official printer of the Journals of Congress for the United States Congress in 1776, was disturbed by the lack of Bibles in America so he printed the first English language New Testament. On January 21, 1781, Aitken petitioned the Unites States Congress to authorize, and if possible even fund, the printing of a complete Bible in the English language of the King James Version. On September 10, 1782, Aitken received authorization to commence his American printing of the Bible in English. In 1782, Robert Aitken produced the first English language Bible printed in America. It was known as the “Bible of the American Revolution.

The Great Bible

Nobody knows for sure which Bibles were brought to America. A Bible might have been brought to the Roanoke colony in 1585. More likely, it was in 1605 when Jamestown was colonized. The Great Bible translated in 1539 was the first official English translation, and many churches used that version, so it might have been brought to Roanoke or Jamestown. The Great Bible used the outlawed Tyndale Bible as its guide. Another Bible that might have been in early Jamestown was the Bishop's Bible first printed in 1568 to correct problems in The Great Bible translation. It was the authorized version of the Bible in England until 1611 when the King James Bible was authorized. There may have been King James Bibles later, but in 1605 when the ships sailed for Jamestown, it didn't exist. By 1620, it might have been shipped to Jamestown for use by the pastor.

Geneva Bible

When the Pilgrims landed in Plymouth in 1620, there were two Bible translations aboard the ships. John Alden, a prominent member of the Plymouth Colony who was a ship's carpenter on the Mayflower, brought a copy of the King James Bible. Alden was not originally a member of the Pilgrims which is why he probably brought that version. The Pilgrims used the Geneva Bible first printed in 1560, the most popular English Bible until the mid-seventeenth century. William Bradford quoted from the Geneva Bible. The Bible was given its name because of its associations with the Calvinists in Geneva. The Geneva Bible had study notes in it written by many Protestant reformers including John Calvin. King James considered the translation seditious. 

Tamera Lynn Kraft has always loved adventures and writes Christian historical fiction set in America because there are so many adventures in American history. She has received 2^nd place in the NOCW contest, 3^rd place TARA writer’s contest, and was a finalist in the Frasier Writing Contest. Her novellas Resurrection of Hope and A Christmas Promise are available on Amazon and at Barnes and Noble.

Christendom in the American Colonies During 17th Century

I love the 17th century because of the tremendous changes that happened within the spiritual realm of our Western World.

In earlier centuries, most people relied on the leadership of State Churches (Church of England, Roman Catholic Church, Lutheran Church, etc.) to tell them what to believe.

The pivotal factor to the change both in Europe and trickling into the American colonies was the translation of the Bible into languages other than Latin. No longer did people need to rely on a priest or vicar to tell them what the Bible says. They could go to the source and form their own opinion.


Prior to the 17th century attempts made to translate the Bible into English were met with great opposition. However, by 1560 the Geneva Bible became the first English translation available to those not of the clergy and was used by William Shakespeare, Oliver Cromwell, John Knox, John Bunyan and many others. It was this version of the Bible that came with the Pilgrims on the Mayflower, and it was the version used by the Puritans in the Massachusetts Bay Colony.

The mass production of this Bible included study guides and aids, making the Geneva Bible the first study Bible. The “apparatus” (what the guides and aids were called) seemed to threaten those in the Church of England and in particular King James I, who was baptized a Catholic. This, in part, led to the king commissioning another version now known as the King James Version, which would be free of the “apparatus”.

I draw attention to the Geneva Bible because it is foundational to understanding what ensued in the American colonies. The Bible played an important role in determining how many of these people lived, their culture, and their decision making.

Because the Geneva Bible was made available to the general public, people who in the past would never have been allowed to read Scripture were finding truths kept from them by both the Catholic Church and the Church of England, and they were interpreting these truths for themselves.

If you examine the rise of the Puritans, especially those who came to New England, you’ll discover many differences in the application of the precepts and principles they found in Scripture, as well as a struggle to reconcile church traditions with God’s Word.

You’ll discover people within the Massachusetts Bay Colony excommunicated, banished, whipped, and even executed because they opposed some leader of the Congregational Church on some doctrine.

Many of these persecuted people became instrumental in bringing to formation our current religious liberties.

To say the Puritans believed ‘this’ or ‘that’ might be correct for a handful of people and not for others. For example, Anne Hutchinson followed Rev. Cotton to the colony because his discourse on the “covenant of grace” appealed to her. However, she discovered that other preachers in the colony held to a “covenant of works” that she could not agree with. Eventually her beliefs led to her banishment from the colony. She and a group of people, including Dr. John Clarke, left to establish the settlement of Portsmouth, RI.

In my research of the colonies, I have discovered that there is a great deal of misunderstanding of the different faiths under the umbrella of Christendom by historians, part of which I am sure is do to the fact these historians may not fully comprehend the faith of the people and the details of their doctrines because they are not of that faith.

An example of this is Historian Brydon G. MacLaren, in his book Religious Life of Virginia in the Seventh Century. MacLaren was the historiographer of Diocese of Virginia, and he wrote this book in 1957. His perspective, therefore, is from the Church of England viewpoint. This would explain why he tended to lump all opposition to the Church of England as Calvinists. Indeed, most Protestant dissenters were Calvinist, but not all held to the same doctrines, especially when it came to the doctrines surrounding baptism. When I read him (and other historians) mention the Calvinists when they were referring to dissenters in general, I began to question the specifics of the people of whom they spoke.

For example, MacLaren claimed that the Reverend Henry Jacob “founded the first Independent or Baptist congregation in London.” Further research shows that Reverend Jacob could not have formed a Baptist congregation because he apparently still held to the doctrine of infant baptism, something Baptists strongly opposed. He also claimed that the Church of England was a true church needing reformation. A true Baptist would not have made such a claim.

When I research I look at who authored the history book, who was in power (both politically and religiously) when the public record was written, and the faith or perspective of the person’s diary/journal I m reading. Then I approach each record with “who, what, where, WHY, when, and how.” WHY is of particular importance. Motivations for writing a record can change how that record is interpreted.