English Versions – English Versions

English Versions

1 . The history of the English Bible begins early in the history of the English people, though not quite at the beginning of it, and only slowly attains to any magnitude. The Bible which was brought into the country by the first missionaries, by Aidan in the north and Augustine in the south, was the Latin Bible; and for some considerable time after the first preaching of Christianity to the English no vernacular version would be required. Nor is there any trace of a vernacular Bible in the Celtic Church, which still existed in Wales and Ireland. The literary language of the educated minority was Latin; and the instruction of the newly converted English tribes was carried on by oral teaching and preaching. As time went on, however, and monasteries were founded, many of whose inmates were imperfectly acquainted either with English or with Latin, a demand arose for English translations of the Scriptures. This took two forms. On the one hand, there was a call for word-for-word translations of the Latin, which might assist readers to a comprehension of the Latin Bible; and, on the other, for continuous versions or paraphrases, which might be read to, or by, those whose skill in reading Latin was small.

2. The earliest form, so far as is known, in which this demand was met was the poem of Caedmon, the work of a monk of Whitby in the third quarter of the 7th cent., which gives a metrical paraphrase of parts of both Testaments. The only extant MS of the poem (in the Bodleian) belongs to the end of the 10th cent., and it is doubtful how much of it really goes back to the time of Caedmon. In any case, the poem as it appears here does not appear to be later than the 8th century. A tradition, originating with Bale, attributed an English version of the Psalms to Aldhelm, bishop of Sherborne (.d. 707), but it appears to be quite baseless (see A. S. Cook, Bibl. Quot. in Old Bug. Prose Writers, 1878, pp. xiv-xviii). An Anglo-Saxon Psalter in an 11th cent. MS at Paris (partly in prose and partly in verse) has been identified, without any evidence, with this imaginary work. The well-known story of the death of Bode (in 735) shows him engaged on an English translation of St. John’s Gospel [one early MS (at St. Gall) represents this as extending only to John 6:9; but so abrupt a conclusion seems inconsistent with the course of the narrative] , but of this all traces have disappeared. The scholarship of the monasteries of Wearmouth and Jarrow, which had an important influence on the textual history of the Latin Vulgate, did not concern itself with vernacular translations; and no further trace of an English Bible appears until the 9th century. To that period is assigned a word-forword translation of the Psalter, written between the lines of a Latin MS (Cotton MS Vespasian A. I., in the British Museum), which was the progenitor of several similar glosses between that date and the 12th cent.; and to it certainly belongs the attempt of Alfred to educate his people by English translations of the works which he thought most needful to them. He is said to have undertaken a version of the Psalms, of which no portion survives, unless the prose portion (Ps 1-50) of the above-mentioned Paris MS is a relic of it; but we still have the translation of the Decalogue, the summary of the Mosaic law, and the letter of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:23–29). which he prefixed to his code of laws. To the 10th cent, belongs probably the verse portion of the Paris MS, and the interlinear translation of the Gospels in Northumbrian dialect inserted by the priest Aldred in the Lindisfarne Gospels (British Museum), which is repeated in the Rushworth Gospels (Bodleian) of the same century, with the difference that the version of Mt. is there in the Mercian dialect. This is the earliest extant translation of the Gospels into English.

3. The eariiest independent version of any of the books of the Bible has likewise generally been assigned to the 10th cent., but if this claim can be made good at all, it can apply only to the last years of that century. The version in question is a translation of the Gospels in the dialect of Wessex, of which six MSS (with a fragment of a seventh) are now extant. It was edited by W. Skeat, The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon (1871-1877); two MSS are in the British Museum, two at Cambridge, and two (with a fragment of another) at Oxford. From the number of copies which still survive, it must be presumed to have had a certain circulation, at any rate in Wessex, and it continued to be copied for at least a century. The earliest MSS are assigned to the beginning of the 11th cent.; but it is observable that /Elfric the Grammarian, abbot of Eynsham, writing about 990, says that the English at that time ‘had not the evangelical doctrines among their writings, . . . those books excepted which King Alfred wisely turned from Latin into English’ [preface to iElfric’s Homilies, edited by B. Thorpe, London, 1843-461. In a subsequent treatise (Treatise concerning the Old and New Testament, ed. W. Lisle, London, 1623) also (the date of which is said to be about 1010, see Dietrich, Zeitsch. f. hist. Theol. 1856, quoted by Cook, op. cit., p. Ixiv.) he speaks as if no English version of the Gospels were in existence, and refers his readers to his own homilies on the Gospels. Since iBlfric had been a monk at Winchester and abbot of Cerne, in Dorset, it is difficult to understand how he could have failed to know of the Wessex version of the Gospels, if it had been produced and circulated much before 1000; and it seems probable that it only came into existence early in the 11th century. In this case it was contemporaneous with another work of translation, due to ^Ifric himself. iElfric, at the request of iEthelweard. son of his patron iEthelmsr, ealdorman of Devonshire and founder of Eynsham Abbey, produced a paraphrase of the Heptateuch, homilies containing epitomes of the Books of Kings and Job, and brief versions of Esther, Judith, and Maccabees. These have the interest of being the earliest extant English version of the narrative books of the OT. [The Heptateuch and Job 9 by E. Thwaites (Oxford, 1698). For the rest, see Cock, op. cit.\ ■ . 4. The Norman Conquest checked for a time all the vernacular literature of England, including the translations of the Bible. One of the first signs of its revival was the production of the Ormulum, a poem which embodies metrical versions of the Gospels and Acts, written about the end of the 12th century. The main Biblical literature of this period, however, was French. For the benefit of the Norman settlers in England, translations of the greater part of both OT and NT were produced during the 12th and 13th centuries. Especially notable among these was the version of the Apocalypse, because it was frequently accompanied by a series of illustrations, the best examples of which are the finest (and also the most quaint) artistic productions of the period in the sphere of book-illustration. Nearly 90 MSS of this version are known, ranging from the first half of the 12th cent, to the first half of the 15th [see P. Berger, La Bible Franqaise au moyen Sge, p. 78 fl.; L. Delisle and P. Meyer, L’ Apocalypse en Franqais (Paris, 1901 ) ; and New Palceographical Society, part 2, plates 38. 39], some having been produced in England, and others in France; and in the 14th cent, it reappears in an English dress, having been translated apparently about that time. This English version (which at one time was attributed to Wyclif) is known In no less than 16 MSS, which fall into at least two classes [see Miss A. C. Panes, A Fourteenth Century English Biblical Version (Cambridge, 1902), pp. 24-30); and it is noteworthy that from the second of these was derived the version which appears in the revised Wyclifite Bible, to be mentioned presently, i 6. The 14th cent., which saw the practical extinction of the general use of the French language in England, and the rise of a real native literature, saw also a great revival of vernacular Biblical literature, beginning apparently with the Book of Psalms. Two English versions of the Psalter were produced at this period, one of which enjoyed great popularity. This was the work of Richard RoUe, hermit of Hampole, in Yorkshire (d. 1349). It contains the Latin text of the Psalter, followed verse by verse by an English translation and commentary. Originally written in the northern dialect, it soon spread over all England, and many MSS of it still exist in which the dialect has been altered to suit southern tastes. Towards the end of the century Rolle’s work suffered further change, the commentary being re- written from a strongly Lollard point of view, and in this shape it continued to circulate tar into the 16tti century. Another version of the Psalter was produced contemporaneously with RoUe’a, soniewhere in the West Midlands. The authorship of it WM formerly attributed to William of Shoreham, vicar oft Chart Sutton, in Kent, but for no other reason than tl lat in one of the two MSS in which it is preserved (Br t. Mus. Add. MS 17376, the other being at Trinity Colossians 8, Dublin) it is now bound up with his religious poei is. The dialect, however, proves that this authorship is impossible, and the version must be put down as anonymous. As in the case of RoUe’s translation, the Latin and English texts are intermixed, verse by verse; but there is no commentary. [See K. S. BUlbring, The Earliest Complete Sngliah Prose Psalter (Early English Text Society), 1891.)

6. The Psalter was not the only part of the Bible of which versions came into existence in the course of the 14th century. At Magdalene College, Cambridge (Pepys MS 2498), is an English narrative of the Life of Christ, compiled out of a re-arrangement of the Gospels for Sundays and holy days throughout the year. Quite recently, too, a group of MSS, which (so far as they were known at all) had been regarded as belonging to the WycUflte Bible, has been shown by Miss Anna C. Panes [A Fourteenth Century English Biblical Version (Cambridge, 1902)] to contain an independent translation of the NT. It is not complete, the Gospels being represented only by Matthew 1:1, and the Apocalypse being altogether omitted. The original nucleus seems, indeed, to have consisted of the four larger Catholic Epistles and the Epistles of St. Paul, to which were subsequently added 2 and 3 John, Jude, Acts, and Mt l’-6’. Four MSS of tins version are at present known, the oldest being one at Selwyn College, Cambridge, which was written about 1400. The prologue narrates that the translation was made at the request of a monk and a nun by their superior, who defers to their earnest desire, although, as he says, it is at the risk of his life. This phrase seems to show that the work was produced after the rise of the great party controversy which is associated with the name of Wyclif. ‘7. With Wyclif (1320-1384).we reach alandmarkinthe history of the English Bible, in the production of the first complete version of both OT and NT. It belongs to the last period of W^clif’s life, that in which he was engaged in open war with the Papacy and with most of the official chiefs of the English Church. It was connected with his institution of’ poor priests,’ or mission preachers, and formed part of his scheme of appealing to the populace in general against the doctrines and supremacy of Rome. The NT seems to have been completed about 1380, the OT between 1382 and 1384. Exactly how much of it was done by Wyclif ‘s own hand is uncertain. The greater part of the OT (as far as Baruch 3) is assigned in an Oxford MS to Nicholas Hereford, one of Wyclif’s principal supporters at that university; and it is certain that this part of the translation is in a different style (more stiff and pedantic) from the rest. The NT is generally attributed to Wyclif himself, and he may also have completed the OT, which Hereford apparently had to abandon abruptly, perhaps when he was summoned to London and excommunicated in 1382. This part of the work is free and vigorous in style, though its interpretation of the original is often strange, and many sentences in it can have conveyed very little idea of their meaning to its readers. Such as it was. however, it was a complete English Bible, addressed to the whole English people, high and low, rich and poor. That this is the case is proved by the character of the copies which have survived (about 30 in number). Some are large folio volumes, handsomely written and illuminated in the best, or nearly the best, style of the period; such is the fine copy, in two volumes (now Brit. Mus. Egerton MSS 617, 618), which once belonged to Thomas, Duke of Gloucester, uncle of Richard ii. Others are plain copies of ordinary size, intended for private persons or monastic libraries; for it is clear that, in spite of official disfavour and eventual prohibition, there were many places in England where Wyclif and his Bible were welcomed. Wyclif, indeed, enjoyed advantages from personal repute and influential support such as had been enjoyed by tuo English translator since Alfred. An Oxford scholar, at one time Master of Balliol, holder of livings successively from his college and the Crown, employed officially on behalf of his country in controversy with the Pope, the friend and prof6gfi of John of Gaunt and other prominent nobles, and enjoying as a rule the strenuous support of the University of Oxford, Wyclif was in all respects a person of weight and influence in the realm, who could not be silenced or isolated by the opposition of bishops such as Arundel. The work that he had done had struck its roots too deep to be destroyed, and though it was identified with Lollardism by its adversaries, its range was much wider than that of any one sect or party.

8. Wyclif’s translation, however, though too strong to be overthrown by its opponents, was capable of improvement by its friends. The difference of style between Hereford and his continuator or continuators, the stiff and unpopular character of the work of the former, and the imperfections inevitable in a first attempt on so large a scale, called aloud for revision; and a second Wyclifite Bible, the result of a very complete revision of its predecessor, saw the light not many years after the Reformer’s death. The authorship of the second version is doubtful. It was assigned by Forshall and Madden, the editors of the Wyclifite Bible, to John Purvey, one of Wyclif’s most intimate followers; but the evidence is purely circumstantial, and rests mainly on verbal resemblances between the translator’s preface and known works of Purvey, together with the fact that a copy of this preface is found attached to a copy of the earlier version which was once Purvey’s property. What is certain is that the second version is based upon the first, and that the translator’s preface is permeated with Wyclifite opinions. This version speedily superseded the other, and in spite of a decree passed, at Arundel’s instigation, by the Council of Blackfriars in 1408, it must have circulated in large numbers. Over 140 copies are still in existence, many of them small pocket volumes such as must have been the personal property of private individuals for their own study. Others belonged to the greatest personages in the land, and copies are still in existence which formerly had for owners Henry vi., Henry vii., Edward vi., and EUzabeth.

9. At this point it aeems necessary to aay something of the theory which has been propounded by the well-known Roman Catholic historian. Abbot Gasquet, to the effect that the versions which pass under the name of ‘Wyclifite’ were not produced by Wyclif or his followers at all, but were translations authorized and circulated by the heads of the Church of England, Wyclif’s particular enemies. [The Old English Bible, 1897, pp. 102-178.] The strongest argument adduced in support of this view is the possession of copies of the versions in question h)Oth by kings and princes of England, and by religious houses and persons of unquestioned orthodoxy.’This does, indeed, prove that the persecution of the English Bible and its possessors by the authorities of the Catholic Church was not so universal or continuous as it is sometimes represented to have been, but it does not go far towards disproving the Wyclifite authorship of versionfj which can be demonstratively connected, as these are, with the names of leading supporters of Wyclif, such as Hereford and Purvey; the more so since the evidence of orthodox ownership of many of the copies in question dates from times long after the cessation of the Lollard persecution. Dr. Gasquet also denies that there is any real evidence connecting Wyclif with the production of an English Bible at all; but m order to make good this assertion he has to ignore several passages in Wyclif’s own writings in which he refers to the importance of a vernacular version (to the existence of his own version he could not refer, since that was produced only at the end of his life) , and to do violence alike to the proper translation and to the natural interpretation of passages written by Wyclif s opponents (Arundel, Knyghton, and the Council of Oxford m 1408) in which Wyclif s work is mentioned and condemned. Further, Dr. Gasquet denies that the Lollards made a special point of the circulation of the Scriptures in the vernacular, or were charged with so doing by the ecclesiastical authorities who prosecuted them; and in particular he draws a distinction between the versions now extant and the Bible on account of the heretical nature of which (among other charges) one Richard Hun was condemned by the Bishop of London inl514- It has, however, been shown conclusively that the depositions of the witnesses against the Lollarck (which cannot be regarded as wholly irrelevant to the charges brought against them) constantly make mention of the possession of vernacular Bibles; and that the changes against Richard Hun, based upon the prologue to the Bible in his possession, are taken verbatim from the prologue to the version which we now know as Purvey’s. It is true that Dr. Gasctuet makes the explicit statement that ‘we shall look in vain in the edition of Wyclifite Scriptures published by Forshall and Madden for any trace of these errors’ (i.e. the errors found by Hun’s prosecutors in the prologue to his Bible) ; but awnter in the Church Quarterly Remew (Jan . 1901 , p. 292 ff .)has printed in parallel columns the charges against Hun and the corresponding passages in Purvey’s prologue, which leave no possibihty of doubt that Hun waa condenoned for possessing a copy of the version which is commonly known as Purvey’s, or as the later Wyclifite version. The article in the Church Quarterly Review must be read by everyone who wishes to investigate Dr. Gasciuet’s theory fully; the evidence there adduced is decisive as to the unsoundness of Dr. Gasquet’s historical position. It is impossible to attribute to the official heads of the English Church a translation the prologue to which (to quote but two phrases) speaks of ‘the pardouns of the bisschopis of Rome, that ben opin leesingis,’ and declares that ‘to eschewe pride and speke onour of God and of his lawe, and repreue eynne bi weie of charite, is matir and cause now whi prelatis andsummelordis sclaundren men, and clepen hemloUardis, eretikis, and riseris of debate and of treson agens the king. In the face of this evidence it will be impossible in future to deny that the Wyclifite Bible is identical with that which we now possess, and that it was at times the cause of the persecution of its owners by the authorities of the Church. That this persecution was partial and temporary is likely enough. Much of it was due to the activity of individual bishops,_such as Arundel; but not all the bishops shared Arundel’s views. Wyclif had powerful supporters, notablj^ John of Gaunt and the University of Oxford, and under their protection copies of the vernacular Bible could be produced and circulated. It is, moreover, likely, not to say certain, that aa time went on the Wyclifite origin of the version would often be forgotten. Apart from the preface to Purvey’s edition^ which appears only rarely in the extant MSS, there is nothing in the translation itself which would betray its Lollard origin; and it is quite probable that many persons in the 15th and early 16th cent, used it without any suspicion of its connexion with Wyclif. Sir Thomas More, whose good faith there is no reason to question, appears to have done so; otherwise it can only be supposed that the orthodox English Bibles of which he speaks, and which he expressly distinguishesfrom the Bible which caused the condemnation of Richard Hun, have wholly disappeared, which is hardly likely. If this be admitted, the rest of More’s evidence falls to the ground. The history of the Wyclifite Bible, and of its reception in England, would in some points bear re-statement; but the ingenious, and at first sight plausible, theory of Abbot Gasquet has failed to stand examination, and it is to be hoped that it may be allowed to lapse.

10. With the production of the second Wyclifite version the history of the manuscript English Bible comes to an end. Purvey’s work was on the level of the best scholarship and textual knowledge of the age, and it satisfied the requirements of those who needed a vernacular Bible. That it did not reach modern standards in these respects goes without saying. In the first place, it was translated from the Latin Vulgate, not from the original Hebrew and Greek, with which there is no reason to suppose that Wyclif or his assistants were familiar. Secondly, its exegesis is often deficient, and some passages in it must have been wholly unintelligible to its readers. This, however, may be said even of some parts of the AV, so that it is small reproach to Wyclif and Purvey; and on the whole it is a straightforward and intelligible version of the Scriptures. A few examples of this, the first complete English Bible, and the first version in which the English approaches sufficiently near to its modern form to be generally intelligible, may be given here.

John 14:1–7. Be not youre herte affraied, ne drede it. Ye bileuen in god, and bileue ye in me. In the hous of my fadir ben many dwellyngis: if ony thing lasse I hadde seid to you, for I go to make redi to you a place. And if I go and make redi to you a place, eftsone I come and I schal take you to my silf , that where I am, ye be. And whidir I go ye witen: and ye witen the wey. ‘Thomas seith to him, Lord, we witen not whidir thou goist, and hou moun we wite the weie. Ihesus seith to him, I am, weye truthe and liif : no man cometh to the fadir, but bi me. If ye hadden knowe me. sothli ye hadden knowe also my fadir: and aftirwarde ye schuln knowe him, and ye han seen hym.

2 Co li7-zo_ But whanne I wolde this thing, whether I uside unstidfastnesse? ether tho thingis that I thenke, I thenke aftir the fieische, that at me be it is and it is not. But god is trewe, for oure word that was at you, is and is not, is not thereinne, but is in it. Forwhi ihesus crist the sone of god, which is prechid among you bi uSj bi me and siluan and tymothe, tner was not in hym is and is not, but is was in hym. Forwhi hou many euer ben biheestis of god, in thilke is ben fulfillid. And therfor and bi him we seien Amen to god, to oure glorie.

Ephesians 3:14–21. For grace of this thing I bowe my knees to the fadir of oure lord ihesus crist, of whom eche fadirheed in heuenes and in erthe is named, that he geue to you aftir the richessia of his glorie, vertu to be strengthid bi his spirit in the ynner man; that criste dwelle bi feith in youre hertis; that ye rootid and groundid in charite, moun comprehende with alle seyntis whiche is the breede and the lengthe and the highist and the depnesse; also to wite the charite of crist more excellent thanne science, that ye be fillid in all the plente of god. And to hym that is myghti t9 do alle thinris more plenteuousli thanne we axen, or undirstande bi the vertu that worchith in us, to hym be glorie in the chirche and in crist ihesus in to alle the generaciouns of the worldis. Amen.

11. The English manuscript Bible was now complete, and no further translation was issued in this form. The Lollard controversy died down amid the strain of the French wars and the passions of the wars of the Roses; and when, in the 16th century, religious questions once more came to the front, the situation had been fundamentally changed through the invention of printing. The first book that issued from the press was the Latin Bible (popularly known as the Mazarin Bible), published by Fust and Gutenberg in 1456. For the Latin Bible (the form in which the Scriptures had hitherto been mainly known in Western Europe) there was indeed so great a demand, that no less than 124 editions of it are said to have been issued before the end of the 15th century; but it was only slowly that scholars realized the importance of utilizing the printing press for the circulation of the Scriptures, either in their original tongues, or in the vernaculars of Europe. The Hebrew Psalter was printed in 1477, the complete OT in 1488. The Greek Bible, both OT and NT, was included in the great Complutensian Polyglot of Cardinal Ximenes, printed in 1514^17, but not published till 1522. The Greek NT (edited by Erasmus) was first published by Froben in 1516, the OT by the Aldine press in 1518. In the way of vernacular versions, a French Bible was printed at Lyons about 1478, and another about 1487; a Spanish Pentateuch was printed (by Jews) in 1497; a German Bible was printed at Strassburg by Mentelin in 1466, and was followed by eighteen others (besides many Psalters and other separate books) between that date and 1522, when the first portion of Luther’s translation appeared. In England, Caxton inserted the main part of the OT narrative in his translation of the Golden Legend (which in its original form already contained the Gospel story), published in 1483; but no regular English version of the Bible was printed until 1525, with which date a new chapter in the history of the English Bible begins.

12. It was not the fault of the translator that it did not appear at least as early as Luther’s. William Tindale (c. 1490-1536) devoted himself early to Scripture studies, and by the time he had reached the age of about 30 he had taken for the work of his life the translation of the Bible into English. He was born in Gloucestershire, where his family seems to have used the name of Hutchins or Hychins, as well as that of Tindale, so that he is himself sometimes described by both names) ; and he became a member of Magdalen Hall (a dependency of Magdalen College) at Oxford, where he definitely associated himself with the Protestant party and became known as one of their leaders. He took his degree as B.A. in 1512, as M.A. in 1515, and at some uncertain date he is said (by Foxe) to have gone to Cambridge. If this was between 1511 and 1515, he would have found Erasmus there; but in that case it could have been only an interlude in the middle of his Oxford course, and perhaps it is more probable that his visit belongs to some part of the years 1515 to 1520, as to which there is no definite information. About 1520 he became resident tutor in the house of Sir John Walsh, at Little Sodbury in Gloucestershire, to which period belongs his famous saying, in controversy with an opponent: ‘If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scripture than thou doest.’ With this object he came up to London in 1523, and sought a place in the service of Tunstall, bishop of London, a scholar and patron of scholars, of whom Erasmus had spoken favourably; but here he received no encouragement. He was, however, taken in by Alderman Humphrey Monmouth, in whose house he lived as chaplain and studied for six months; at the end of which time he was forced to the conclusion ‘not only that there was no room in my lord of London’s palace to translate the New Testament, but also that there was no place to do it in all England.’

13. About May 1524, therefore, Tindale left England and settled in the free city of Hamburg, and in the course of the next 12 months the first stage of his great work was completed. Whether during this time he visited Luther at Wittenberg is quite uncertain; what is certain, and more important. Is that he was acquainted with Luther’s writings. In 1525, the translation of the NT being finished, he went to Cologne to have it printed at the press of Peter Quentel. Three thousand copies of the first ten sheets of it, in quarto, had been printed oB when rumours of the work came to the ears of John Cochlaeus, a bitter enemy of the Reformation. To obtain information he approached the printers (who were also engaged upon work for him), and having loosened their tongues with wine he learnt the full details of Tindale’s enterprise, and sent warning forthwith to England. Meanwhile Tindale escaped with the printed sheets to Worms, in the Lutheran disposition of which place he was secure from interference, and proceeded with his work at the press of Peter Schoefler. Since, however, a description of the Cologne edition had been sent to England, a change was made in the format. The text was set up again in octavo, and without the marginal notes of the quarto edition; and in this form the first printed English NT was given to the world early in 1526. About the same time an edition in small quarto, with marginal notes, was also issued, and it is probable (though full proof is wanting) that this was the completion of the interrupted Cologne edition. Three thousand copies of each edition were struck off; but so active were the enemies of the Reformation in their destruction, that they have nearly disappeared off the face of the earth. One copy of the octavo edition, complete but for the loss of its title-page, is at the Baptist College at Bristol, whither it found its way from the Harley Library, to which it once belonged; and an imperfect copy is in the library of St. Paul’s Cathedral. Of the quarto, all that survives is a fragment consisting of eight sheets (Mt li-22’2) in the Grenville Library in the British Museum.

14. The hostility of the authorities in Church and State in England was indeed undisguised. Sir T. More attacked the translation as false and heretical, and as disregarding ecclesiastical terminology. Wolsey and the bishops, with Henry’s assent, decreed that it should be burnt; and burnt it was at Paul’s Cross, after a sermon from Bishop Tunstall. Nevertheless fresh supplies continued to pour into England, the money expended in buying up copies for destruction serving to pay for the production of fresh editions. Six editions are said to have been issued between 1526 and 1530; and the zeal of the authorities for its destruction was fairly matched by the zeal of the reforming party for its circulation. It was, in fact, evident that the appetite tor an English Bible, once fairly excited, could not be wholly balked. In 1530 an assembly convoked by Archbishop Warham, while maintaining the previous condemnation of Tindale, and asserting that it was not expedient at that time to divulge the Scripture in the English tongue, announced that the king would have the NT faithfully translated by learned men, and published ‘as soon as he might see their manners and behaviour meet, apt, and convenient to receive the same.’

15. Tindale’s first NT was epoch-making in many ways. It was the first English printed NT; it laid the foundations, and much more than the foundations, of the AV of 1611; it set on foot the movement which went forward without a break until it culminated in the production of that AV; and it was the first English Bible that was translated directly from the original language. All the English manuscript Bibles were translations from the Vulgate; but Tindale’s NT was taken from the Greek, which he knew from the editions by Erasmus, published in 1516, 1519, and 1522. As subsidiary aids he employed the Latin version attached by Erasmus to his Greek text, Luther’s German translation of 1522, and the Vulgate; but it has been made abundantly clear that he exercised independent judgment in his use of these materials, and was by no means a slavish copier of Luther. In the marginal notes attached to the quarto edition his debt to Luther was greater; for (so far as can be gathered from the extant fragment) more than half the notes were taken direct from the German Bible, the rest being independent. It is in this connexion with Luther, rather than in anything to be found in the work itself, that the secret of the official hostility to Tindale’s version is to be found. That the translation itself was not seriously to blame is shown by the extent to which it was incorporated in the AV, though no doubt to persons who knew the Scriptures only in the Latin Vulgate its divergence from accuracy may have appeared greater than was in fact the case. The octavo edition had no extraneous matter except a short preface, and therefore could not be obnoxious on controversial grounds; and the comments in the quarto edition are generally exegetical, and not polemical. Still, there could be no doubt that they were the work of an adherent of the Reformation, and as such the whole translation fell under the ban of the opponents of the Reformation.

16. Tindale’s work did not cease with the production of his NT. Early in 1530 a translation of the Pentateuch was printed for him by Hans Luft, at Marburg in Hesse. The colophon to Genesis is dated Jan. 17, 1530. In England, where the year began on March 25, this would have meant 1531 according to our modern reckoning; but in Germany the year generally began on Jan. 1, or at Christmas. The only perfect copy of this edition is in the British Museum. The different books must have been set up separately, since Gn. and Nu. are printed in black letter, Ex., Lev., and Dt. in Roman; but there is no evidence that they were issued separately. The translation was made (for the first time) from the Hebrew, with which language there is express evidence that Tindale was acquainted. The book was provided with a prologue and with marginal notes, the latter being often controversial. In 1531 he published a translation of the Book of Jonah, of which a single copy (now in the British Museum) came to light in 1861. After this he seems to have reverted to the NT, of which he issued a revised edition in 1534. The immediate occasion of this was the appearance of an unauthorized revision of the translation of 1525, by one George Joye, in which many alterations were made of which Tindale disapproved. Tindale’s new edition was printed by Martin Empereur of Antwerp, and published in Nov. 1534. One copy of it was printed on vellum, illuminated, and presented to Anne Boleyn, who had shown favour to one of the agents employed in distributing Tindale’s earlier work. It bears her name on the fore-edge, and is now in the British Museum. The volume is a small octavo, and embodies a careful revision of his previous work. Since it was intended for liturgical use, the church lections were marked in it, and in an appendix were added, ‘The Epistles taken out of the Old Testament, which are read in the church after the use of Salisbury upon certain days of the year.’ These consist of 42 short passages from the OT (8 being taken from the Apocrypha), and constitute an addition to Tindale’s work as a translator of the OT. The text of the NT is accompanied throughout by marginal notes, differing (so far as we are in a position to compare them) from those in the quarto of 1625, and very rarely polemical. Nearly all the books are preceded by prologues, which are for the most part derived from Luther (except that to Heb., in which Tindale expressly combats Luther’s rejection of its Apostolic authority).

17. The edition of 1534 did not finally satisfy Tindale, and in the following year he put forth another edition ‘yet once again corrected.’ [The volume bears two dates, 1535 and 1534, but the former, which stands on the first title-page, must be taken to be that of the completion of the work.] It bears the monogram of the pubhsher, Godfried van der Haghen, and is sometimes known as the GH edition. It has no marginal notes. Another edition, which is stated on its title-page to have been finished in 1535, contains practically the same text, but is notable for its spelling, which appears to be due to a Flemish compositor, working by ear and not by sight. These editions of 1635, which embody several small changes from the text of 1534, represent Tindale’s work in its final form. Several editions were issued in 1636, but Tindale was not then in a position to supervise them. In May 1635, through the treachery of one Phillips, he was seized by some officers of the emperor, and carried off from Antwerp (where he had lived for a year past) to the castle of Vilvorde. After some months’ imprisonment he was brought to trial, condemned, and finally strangled and burnt at the stake on Oct. 6, 1536, crying ‘with a fervent, great, and a loud voice, " Lord, open the King of England’s eyes."‘,

The chief authority for the life of Tindale is the biography by the Rev. R. Demaus (2nd ed., revised by R. Lovett, 1886) . Thef ragmentary quarto of 1525 is published in photographic faoaimile by E. Arber (.The First Printed English NT.lSTl), with an important introduction. The octavo of 1525 is reproduced in facsimile by F. Fry (1862), as also is the Jonah of 1631 (1863). ‘The Pentateuch is reprinted by Mombert (Bagster, 1884), and the NT of 1534 in Bagster’s English Hexapla. See also the general bibliography at the end of this article.