English Versions (continued) – English Versions (continued)

English Versions (continued)

18. Coverdale’s Bible (1535). Tindale never had the satisfaction of completing his gift of an English Bible to his country; but during his imprisonment he may have learnt that a complete translation, based largely upon his own, had actually been produced. The credit tor this achievement, the first complete printed English Bible, is due to Miles Coverdale (1488-1569), afterwards bishop of Exeter (1561-1663). The details of its production are obscure. Coverdale met Tindale abroad in 1629, and is said to have assisted him in the translation of the Pentateuch. His own work was done under the patronage of Cromwell, who was anxious for the publication of an English Bible; and it was no doubt forwarded by the action of Convocation, which, under Cranmer’s leading, had petitioned in 1534 for the undertaking of such a work. It was probably printed by Froschover at Zurich; but this has never been absolutely demonstrated. It was published at the end of 1535, with a dedication to Henry viii. By this time the conditions were more favourable to a Protestant Bible than they had been in 1525. Henry had finally broken with the Pope, and had committed himself to the principle of an English Bible. Coverdale’s work was accordingly tolerated by authority, and when the second edition of it appeared in 1637 (printed by an English printer, Nycolson of Southwark), it bore on its title-page the words, ‘Set forth with the Kinges moost gracious licence.’ In thus licensing Coverdale’s translation, Henry probably did not know how far he was sanctioning the work of Tindale, which he had previously condemned. In the NT, in particular, Tindale’s version is the basis of Coverdale’s, and to a somewhat less extent this is also the case In the Pentateuch and Jonah; but Coverdale revised the work of his predecessor with the help of the Zurich German Bible of Zwingli and others (1524-1529), a Latin version by Pagninus, the Vulgate, and Luther In his preface he explicitly disclaims originality as a translator, and there is no sign that he made any noticeable use of the Greek and Hebrew; but he used the available Latin, German, and English versions with judgment. In the parts of the OT which Tindale had not published he appears to have translated mainly from the Zurich Bible. [Coverdale’s Bible of 1535 was reprinted by Bagster (1838).)

19. In one respect Coverdale’s Bible was epoch-making, namely, in the arrangement of the Books of the OT. In the Vulgate, as is well known, the books which are now classed as Apocrypha are intermingled with the other books of the OT. This was also the case with the LXX, and in general it may be said that the Christian Church had adopted this view of the Canon. It is true that many of the greatest Christian Fathers had protested against it, and had preferred the Hebrew Canon, which rejects these books. The Canon of Athanasius places the Apocrypha in a class apart; the Syrian Bible omitted them; Eusebius and Gregory Nazianzen appear to have held similar views; and Jerome refused to translate them for his Latin Bible. Nevertheless the Church at large, both East and West, retained them in their Bibles, and the provincial Council of Carthage (a.d. 397), under the influence of Augustine, expressly included them in the Canon. In spite of Jerome, the Vulgate, as it circulated in Western Europe, regularly included the disputed books; and Wyclit’s Bible, being a translation from the Vulgate, naturally has them too. On the other hand, Luther, though recognizing these books as profitable and good for reading, placed them in a class apart, as ‘Apocrypha,’ and in the same way he segregated Heb., Ja., Jude, and Apoc. at the end of the NT, as of less value and authority than the rest. This arrangement appears in the table of contents of Tindale’s NT in 1525, and was adopted by Coverdale, Matthew, and Taverner. It is to Tindale’s example, no doubt, that the action of Coverdale is due. His Bible is divided into six parts — (1) Pentateuch; (2) Jos.-Est.; (3) Job-‘Solomon’s Balettes’ (i.e. Cant.); (4) Prophets; (6) ‘Apocripha, the bokes and treatises which amonge the fathers of olde are not rekened to be of like authorite with the other bokes of the byble, nether are they founde in the Canon of the Hebrue’; (6) NT. This represents the view generally taken by the Reformers, both in Germany and in England, and so far as concerns the English Bible, Coverdale’s example was decisive. On the other hand, the Roman Church, at the Council of Trent (1646), adopted by a majority the opinion that all the books of the larger Canon should be received as of equal authority, and for the first time made this a dogma of the Church, enforced by an anathema. In 1538k Coverdale published a NT with Latin (Vulgate) and English in parallel columns, revising his English to bring it into conformity with the Latin; but this (which went through three editions with various changes) may be passed over, as it had no influence on the general history of the English Bible. „. 20. Matthew’s Bible (1537). In the same year as the second edition of Coverdale’s Bible another English Bible appeared, which likewise bore upon its title-page the statement that it was ‘set forth with the Kinges most gracyous lycence.’ It was completed not later than Aug. 4, 1537, on which day Cranmer sent a copy of it to Cromwell, commending the translation, and begging Cromwell to obtain for it the king’s licence; in which, as the title-page prominently shows, he was successful. The origin of this version is slightly obscure, and certainly was not realized by Henry when he sanctioned it. The Pentateuch and NT are taken direct from Tindale with little variation (the latter from the final ‘GH’ revision of 1535). The books of the OT from Ezra to Mai. (including Jonah) are taken from Coverdale, as also is the Apocrypha. But the historical books of the OT (Jos.-2 Chron.) are a new translation, as to the origin of which no statement is made. It is, however, fairly certain, from a combination of evidence, that it was Tindale’s (see Westcott’, pp. 169-179). The style agrees with that of Tindale’s other work; the passages which ‘gndale published as’ Epistles’ from the OT in his NT of 1534 agree in the main with the present version in these books, but not in those taken from Coverdale; and it is expressly stated in Hall’s Chronicle (completed and published by Grafton, one of the publishers of Matthew’s Bible) that Tindale, in addition to the NT, translated also ‘the v bookes of Moses, Josua, Judicum, Ruth, the bookes of the Kynges and the bookes of Paralipomenon, Nehemias or the fyrst of Esdras, the prophet Jonas, and no more of ye holy scripture.’ If we suppose the version of Ezra-Nehemiah to have been incomplete, or for some reason unavailable, this statement harmonizes perfectly with the data of the problem. Tindale may have executed the translation during his imprisonment, at which time we know that he applied for the use of his Hebrew books. The book was printed abroad, at the expense of R. Grafton and E. Whitchurch, two citizens of London, who issued it in London. On the title-page is the statement that the translator was Thomas Matthew, and the same name stands at the foot of the dedication to Henry viii. Nothing is known of any such person, but tradition identifies him with John Rogers (who in the register of his arrest in 1555 is described as ‘John Rogers alias Matthew’), a friend and companion of Tindale. It is therefore generally believed that this Bible is due to the editorial work of John Rogers, who had come into possession of Tindale’s unpublished translation of the historical books of the OT, and published them with the rest of his friend’s work, completing the Bible with the help of Coverdale. It may be added that the initials I. R. (Rogers), W. T. (Tindale), R. G. and E. W. (Grafton and Whitchurch), and H. R. (unidentified, 7 Henricus Rex) are printed in large letters on various blank spaces throughout the OT. The arrangement of the book is in four sections: (1) Gen.-Cant., (2) Prophets, (3) Apocrypha (including for the first time the Prayer of Manasses, translated from the French of OUvetan), (4) NT. There are copious annotations, of a decidedly Protestant tendency, and Tindale’s outspoken Prologue to the Romans is included in it. The whole work, therefore, was eminently calculated to extend the impulse given by Tindale, and to perpetuate his work.

21. Taverner’s Bible (1539). Matthew’s Bible formed the basis for yet another version, which deserves brief mention, though it had no influence .on the general development of the English Bible. Richard Taverner, formerly a student of Cardinal College [Christ Church], Oxford, was invited by some London printers (‘John Byddell for Thomas Barthlet’) to prepare at short notice a revision of the existing Bible. In the OT his alterations are verbal, and aim at the improvement of the style of the translation; in the NT, being a good Greek scholar, he was able to revise it with reference to the original Greek. The NT was issued separately in two editions, in the same year (1539) as the complete Bible; but the success of the offlcial version next to be mentioned speedily extinguished such a personal venture as this. Taverner’s Bible is sometimes said to have been the first English Bible completely printed in England; but this honour appears to belong rather to Coverdale’s second edition.

22. The Great Bible (1539-1541). The fact that Taverner was invited to revise Matthew’s Bible almost immediately after its publication shows that it was not universally regarded as successful; but there were in addition other reasons why those who had promoted the circulation and authorization of Matthew’s Bible should be anxious to see it superseded. As stated above, it was highly controversial in character, and bore plentiful evidence of its origin from Tindale. Cromwell and Cranmer had, no doubt, been careful not to call Henry’s attention to these circumstances; but they might at any time be brought to his notice, when their own position would become highly precarious. It is, indeed, strange that they ever embarked on so risky an enterprise. However that may be, they lost little time in inviting Coverdale to undertake a complete revision of the whole, which was ready for the press early in 1538. The printing was begun by Regnault of Paris, where more sumptuous typography was possible than in England. In spite, however, of the assent of the French king having been obtained, the Inquisition intervened, stopped the printing, and seized the sheets. Some of the sheets, however, had previously been got away to England ; others were re-purchased from a tradesman to whom they had been sold; and ultimately, under Cromwell’s direction, printers and presses were transported from Paris to London, and the work completed there by Grafton and Whitchurch, whose imprint stands on the magnificent title-page (traditionally ascribed to Holbein) depicting the dissemination of the Scriptures from the hands of Henry, through the instrumentality of Cromwell and Cranmer, to the general mass of the loyal and rejoicing populace. [A special copy on vellum, with illuminations, was prepared for Cromwell himself, and is now in the library of St. John’s College, Cambridge.)

23. The first edition of the Great Bible appeared in April 1539, and an injunction was issued by Cromwell that a copy of it should be set up in every parish church. It was consequently the first (and only) English Bible formally authorized for public use; and contemporary evidence proves that it was welcomed and read with avidity. No doubt, as at an earlier day (Philippians 2:15). some read the gospel ‘of envy and strife, and some also of good will’; but in one way or another, for edification or for controversy, the reading of the Bible took a firm hold on the people of England, a hold which has never since been relaxed, and which had much to do with the stable foundation of the Protestant Church in this country. Nor was the translation, though still falling short of the perfection reached three-quarters of a century later, unworthy of its position. It had many positive merits, and marked a distinct advance upon all its predecessors. Coverdale, though without the force and originality, or even the scholarship, of Tindale, had some of the more valuable gifts of a translator, and was well qualified to make the best use of the labours of his predecessors. He had scholarship enough to choose and follow the best authorities, he had a happy gift of smooth and effective phraseology, and his whole heart was in his work. As the basis of his revision he had Tindale’s work and his own previous version; and these he revised with reference to the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, with special assistance in the OT from the Latin translation by Sebastian MUnster published in 1634-36 (a worlc decidedly superior to the Zurich Bible, which had been his principal guide in 1534), while in the NT he made considerable use of Erasmus. With regard to the use of ecclesiastical terms, he followed his own previous example, against Tindale, in retaining the familiar Latin phrases; and he introduced a considerable number of words and sentences from the Vulgate, which do not appear in the Hebrew or Greek. The text is divided into five sections— ( 1 ) Pent. , (2) Jos.-Job, (3) Psalms-Mai., (4) Apocrypha, here entitled ‘Hagiographa,’ though quite different from the books to which that term is applied in the Hebrew Bible, (5) NT, in which the traditional order of the books is restored in place of Luther’s. Coverdale intended to add a commentary at the end, and with this view inserted various marks in the margins, the purpose of which he explains in the Prologue; but he was unable to obtain the sanction of the Privy Council for these, and after standing in the margin for three editions the sign-post marks were withdrawn.

24. The first edition was exhausted within twelve months, and in April 1540 a second edition appeared, this time with a prologue by Cranmer (from which fact the Great Bible is sometimes known as Cranmer’s Bible, though he had no part in the translation). Two more editions followed in July and November, the latter (Cromwell having now been overthrown and executed) appearing under the nominal patronage of Bishops Tunstall and Heath. In 1541 three editions were issued. None of these editions was a simple reprint. The Prophets, in particular, were carefully revised with the help of MUnster for the second edition. The fourth edition (Nov. 1540) and its successors revert in part to the first. These seven editions spread the knowledge of the Bible in a sound, though not perfect, version broadcast through the land; and one portion of it has never lost its place in our liturgy. In the first Prayer Book of Edward vi. the Psalter (like the other Scripture passages) was taken from the Great Bible. In 1662, when the other passages were taken from the version of 1611, a special exception was made of the Psalter, on account of the familiarity which it had achieved, and consequently Coverdale’s version has held its place in the Book of Common Prayer to this day, and it is in his words that the Psalms have become the familiar household treasures of the Enghsh people.

25. With the appearance of the Great Bible comes the first pause in the rapid sequence of vernacular versions set on foot by Tindale. The English Bible was now fully authorized, and accessible to every Englishman in his parish church; and the translation, both in style and in scholarship, was fairly abreast of the attainments and requirements of the age. We hear no more, therefore, at present of further revisions of it. Another circumstance which may have contributed to the same result was the reaction of Henry in his latter years against Protestantism. There was talk in Convocation about a translation to be made by the bishops, which anticipated the plan of the Bible of 1668 ; and Cranmer prompted Henry to transfer the work to the universities, which anticipated a vital part of the plan of the Bible of 1611; but nothing came of either project. The only practical steps taken were in the direction of the destruction of the earlier versions. In 1543 a proclamation was issued against Tindale’s versions, and requiring the obliteration of all notes; in 1546 Coverdale’s NT was likewise prohibited. The anti-Protestant reaction, however, was soon terminated by Henry’s death (Jan. 1547); and during the reign of Edward’ vi., though no new translation (except a small part of the Gospels by Sir J. Cheke) was attempted, many new editions of Tindale, Coverdale, Matthew, and the Great Bible issued from the press. The accession of Mary naturally put a stop to the printing and circulation of vernacular Bibles in England ; and, during the attempt to put the clock back by force, Rogers and Cranmer followed Tindale to the stake, while Coverdale was imprisoned, but was released, and took refuge at Geneva.

26. The Geneva Bible (1557-1560). Geneva was the place at which the next link in the chain was to be forged. Already famous, through the work of Beza, as a centre of Biblical scholarship, it became the rallying place of the more advanced members of the Protestant party in exile, and under the strong rule of Calvin it was identified with Puritanism in its most rigid form. Puritanism, in fact, was here consolidated into a living and active principle, and demonstrated its strength as a motive power in the religious and social life of Europe. It was by a relative of Calvin, and under his own patronage, that the work of improving the English translation of the Bible was once more taken in hand. This was W. Whittingham, a Fellow of All Souls’ College, Oxford, and subsequently dean of Durham, who in 1657 published the NT at Geneva in a small octavo volume, the handiest form in which the English Scriptures had yet been given to the world. In two other respects also this marked an epoch in the history of the Enghsh Bible. It was the first version to be printed in Roman type, and the first in which the division of the text into numbered verses (originally made by R. Stephanus for his Grseco-Latin Bibleof 1551) was introduced. A preface was contributed by Calvin himself. The translator claims to have made constant use of the original Greek and of translations in other tongues, and he added a full marginal commentary. If the matter had ended there, as the work of a single scholar on one part of the Bible, it would probably have left little mark; but it was at once made the basis of a revised version of both Testaments by a group of Puritan scholars. The details of the work are not recorded, but the principal workers, apart from Whittingham himself, appear to have been Thomas Sampson, formerly dean of Chichester, and afterwards dean of Christ Church, and A. Gilby, of Christ’s College, Cambridge. A version of the Psalter was issued in 1559 [the only two extant copies of it belong to the Earl of EUesmere and Mr. Aldis Wright], and in 1560 the complete Bible was given to the world, with the imprint of Rowland Hall, at Geneva. The Psalter in this was the same as that of 1559; but the NT had been largely revised since 1667. The book was a moderate-sized quarto, and contained a dedication to Elizabeth, an address to the brethren at home, the books of the OT (including Apocrypha) and NT in the same order as in the Great Bible and our modern Bibles, copious marginal notes (those to the NT taken from Whittingham with some additions), and an apparatus of maps and woodcuts. In type and verse-division it followed the example of Whittingham’s NT.

27. The Genevan revisers took the Great Bible as their basis in the OT, and Matthew’s Bible (i.e. Tindale) in the NT. For the former they had the assistance of the Latin Bible of Leo Juda (1544), in addition to Pagninus (1527), and they were in consultation with the scholars (including Calvin and Beza) who were then engaged at Geneva in a similar work of revision of the French Bible. In the NT their principal guide was Beza, whose reputation stood highest among all the Biblical scholars of’ the age. The result was a version which completely distanced its predecessors in scholarship, while in style and vocabulary it worthily carried on the great tradition established by Tindale. Its success was as decisive as it was well deserved; and in one respect it met a want which none of its predecessors (except perhaps Tindale’s) had attempted to meet. Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, and the Great Bible were all large folios, suitable for use in church, but unsuited both in size and in price for private possession and domestic study. The peneva Bible, on the contrary, was moderate in both respects, and achieved instant and long-enduring popularity as the Bible for. personal use. For a full century it continued to be the Bible of the people, and it was upon this version, and not upon that of King James, that the Bible Icnowledge of the Puritans of the Civil War was built up. Its notes furnished them with a full commentary on the sacred text, predominantly hortatory or monitory in character, but Calvinistic ,in general tone, and occasionally definitely polemical. Over 160 editions of it are said to have been issued, but the only one which requires separate notice is a revision of the NT by Laurence Tomson in 1576, which carried still further the principle of deference to Beza; this revised NT was successful, and was frequently bound up with the Genevan OT in place of the edition of 1560. [The Geneva Bible Is frequently called (in booksellers’ catalogues and elsewhere) the ‘Breeches’ Bible, on account of this word being used in the translation of Genesis 3:7.)

28. The Bishops’ Bible (1568). Meanwhile there was one quarter in which the Geneva Bible could hardly be expected to find favour, namely, among the leaders of the Church in England. Elizabeth herself was not too well disposed towards the Puritans, and the bishops in general belonged to the less extreme party in the Church. On the other hand, the superiority of the Genevan to the Great Bible could not be contested. Under these circumstances the old project of a translation to be produced by the bishops was revived. The archbishop of Canterbury, Matthew Parker, was himself a scholar, and took up the task with interest. The basis of the new version was to be the authorized Great Bible. Portions of the text were assigned to various revisers, the majority of whom were bishops. The archbishop exercised a general supervision over the work, but there does not appear to have been any organized system of collaboration or revision, and the results were naturally unequal. In the OT the alterations are mainly verbal, and do not show much originality or genius. In the NT the scholarship shown is on a much higher level, and there is much more independence in style and judgment. In both, use is made of the Geneva Bible, as well as of other versions. The volume was equipped with notes, shorter than those of the Geneva Bible, and generally exegetical. It appeared in 1568, from the press of R. Jugge, in a large folio volume, slightly exceeding even the dimensions of the Great Bible. Parker applied through Cecil for the royal sanction, but it does not appear that he ever obtained it; but Convocation in 1571 required a copy to be kept in every archbishop’s and bishop’s house and in every cathedral, and, as far as could conveniently be done, in all churches. The Bishops’ Bible, in fact, superseded the Great Bible as the official version, and its predecessor ceased henceforth to be reprinted; but it never attained the popularity and influence of the Geneva Bible. A second edition was issued in 1569, in which a considerable number of alterations were made, partly, it appears, as the result of the criticisms of Giles Laurence, professor of Greek at Oxford. In 1572 a third edition appeared, of Importance chiefly in the NT, and in some cases reverting to the first edition of 1568. In this form the Bishops’ Bible continued in official use until its supersession by the version of 1611, of which it formed the immediate basis.

29. The Bheims and Douai Bible (1582-1609). The English exiles for religious causes were not all of one kind or of one faith. There were Roman Catholic refugees on the Continent as well as Puritan, and from the one, as from the other, there proceeded an English version of the Bible. The centre of the English Roman Catholics was the English College at Douai, the foundation(in 1568) of William Allen, formerly of Queen’s College, Oxford, and subsequently cardinal; and it was from this college that a new version of the Bible emanated which was intended to serve as a counterblast to the Protestant versions, with which England was now flooded. The first instalment of it appeared in 1582, during a temporary migration of the college to Rheims. This was the NT, the work mainly of Gregory Martin, formerly Fellow of St. John’s College, Oxford, with the assistance of a small band of scholars from the same university. The OT is stated to have been ready at the same time, but for want of funds it could not be printed until 1609, after the college had returned to Douai, when it appeared just in time to be of some use to the preparers of King James’ version. As was natural, the Roman scholars did not concern themselves with the Hebrew and Greek originals, which they definitely rejected as inferior, but translated from the Latin Vulgate, following it with a close fidelity which is not infrequently fatal, not merely to the style, but even to the sense in English. The following short passage (Ephesians 3:6–12). taken almost at random, is a fair example of the Latinization of their style.

‘The Gentila to be coheires and concorporat and coinparticipant of his promis in Christ Jesus by the Gospel: whereof I am made a minister according to the gift of the erace of God, which is given me according to the operation of his power. ‘To me the least of al the samctes is given this grace, among the Geutils to evangelize the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to illuminate al men what is the dispensation of the sacrament hidden from worldes in God, who created al things; that the manifold wisedom of God may be notified to the Princes and Potestats in the celestials by the Church, according to the prefinition of worldes , which he made in Christ Jesus our Lord. In whom we have affiance and accesse in confidence, by the faith of him.’

The translation, being prepared with a definite polemical purpose, was naturally equipped with notes of a controversial character, and with a preface in which the object and method of the work were explained. It had, however, as a whole, little success. The OT was reprinted only once in the course of a century, and the NT not much oftener. In England the greater part of its circulation was due to the action of a vehement adversary, W. Fulke, who, in order to expose its errors, printed the Rheims NT in parallel columns with the Bishops’ version of 1572, and the Rheims annotations with his own refutations of them; and this work had a considerable vogue. Regarded from the point of view of scholarship, the Rheims and Douai Bible is of no importance, marking retrogression rather than advance ; but it needs mention in a history of the English Bible, because it is one of the versions of which King James’ translators made use. The AV is indeed distinguished by the strongly English (as distinct from Latin) character of its vocabulary; but of the Latin words used (and used effectively), many were derived from the Bible of Rheims and Douai.

30. The Authorized Version (1611). The version which was destined to put the crown on nearly a century of labour, and, after extinguishing by its excellence all rivals, to print an indelible mark on English religion and English literature, came into being almost by accident. It arose out of the Hampton Court Conference, held by James i. in 1604, with the object of arriving at a settlement between the Puritan and Anglican elements in the Church; but it was not one of the prime or original subjects of the conference. In the course of discussion. Dr. Reynolds, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, the leader of the moderate Puritan party, referred to the imperfections and disagreements of the existing translations; and the suggestion of a new version, to be prepared by the best scholars in the country, was warmly taken up by the king. The conference, as a whole, was a failure; but James did not allow the idea of the revision to drop. He took an active part in the preparation of instructions for the work, and to him appears to be due the credit of two features which went far to secure its success. He suggested that the translation should be committed in the first instance to the universities (subject to subsequent review by the bishops and the Privy Council, which practically came to nothing), and thereby secured the services of the best scholars in the country, working in co-operation; and (on the suggestion of the bishop of London) he laid down that no marginal notes should be added, which preserved the new version from being the organ of any one party in the Church.

31. Ultimately it was arranged that six companies of translators should be formed, two at Westminster, two at Oxford, and two at Cambridge. The companies varied in strength from 7 to 10 members, the total (though there is some little doubt with regard to a few names) being 47. The Westminster companies undertook Gn.-2 Kings and the Epistles, the Oxford companies the Prophets and the Gospels, Ac, and Apoc, and the Cambridge companies 1 Chron.-Eccles. and the Apocrypha. A series of rules was drawn up for their guidance. The Bishops’ Bible was to be taken as the basis. The old ecclesiastical terms were to be kept. No marginal notes were to be afhxed, except for the explanation of Hebrew or Greek words. Marginal references, on the contrary, were to be supplied. As each company finished a book, it was to send it to the other companies for their consideration. Suggestions were to be invited from the clergy generally, and opinions requested on passages of special difficulty from any learned man in the land. ‘These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops’ Bible, namely, Tindale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s[i.e. the Great Bible], Geneva.’ The translators claim further to have consulted all the available versions and commentaries in other languages, and to have repeatedly revised their own work, without grudging the time which it required. The time occupied by the whole work is stated by themselves as two years and three-quarters. The several companies appear to have begun their labours about the end of 1607, and to have taken two years in completing their several shares. A final revision, occupying nine months, was then made by a smaller body, consisting of two representatives from each company, after which it was seen through the press by Dr. Miles Smith and Bishop Bilson; and in 1611 the new version, printed by R. Barker, the king’s printer, was given to the world in a large folio volume (the largest of all the series of English Bibles) of black letter type. The details of its issue are obscure. There were at least two issues in 1611, set up independently, known respectively as the ‘He’ and ‘She’ Bibles, from their divergence in the translation of the last words of Ruth S’S; and bibliographers have differed as to their priority, though the general opinion is in favour of the former. Some copies have a wood-block, others an engraved title-page, with different designs. The title-page was followed by the dedication to King James, which still stands in our ordinary copies of the AV, and this by the translators’ preface (believed to have been written by Dr. Miles Smith), which is habitually omitted. [It is printed in the present King’s Printers’ Variorum Bible, and is interesting and valuable both as an example of the learning of the age and for its description of the translators’ labours.] For the rest, the contents and arrangement of the AV are too well known to every reader to need description.

32. Nor is it necessary to dwell at length on the characteristics of the translation. Not only was it superior to all its predecessors, but its excellence was so marked that no further revision was attempted for over 250 years. Its success must be attributed to the fact which differentiated it from its predecessors, namely, that it was not the work of a single scholar (like Tindale’s, Coverdale’s, and Matthew’s Bibles), or of a small group (like the Geneva and Douai Bibles), or of a larger number of men working independently with little supervision (like the Bishops’ Bible), but was produced by the collaboration of a carefully selected band of scholars, working with ample time and with full and repeated revision. Nevertheless, it was not a new translation. It owed much to its predecessors. The translators themselves say, in their preface: ‘We never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad , one a good one, . . . 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.’ The description is very just. The foundations of the AV were laid by Tindale, and a great part of his work continued through every revision. Each succeeding version added something to the original stock, Coverdale (in his own and the Great Bible) and the Genevan scholars contributing the largest share; and the crown was set upon the whole by the skilled labour of the Jacobean divines, making free use of the materials accumulated by others, and happily inspired by the gift of style which was the noblest literary achievement of the age in which they lived. A sense of the solemnity of their subject saved them from the extravagances and conceits which sometimes mar that style; and, as a result, they produced a work which, from the merely literary point of view, is the finest example of Jacobean prose, and has influenced incalculably the whole subsequent course of English literature. On the character and spiritual history of the nation it has left an even deeper mark, to which many writers have borne eleoquent testimony; and if England has been, and is, a Bible-reading and Bible-loving country, it is in no small measure due to her possession of a version so nobly executed as the AV.

33. The history of the AV after 1611 can be briefly sketched. In spite of the name by which it is commonly known, and in spite of the statement on both title-pages of 1611 that it was ‘appointed to be read in churches,’ there is no evidence that it was ever ofhcially authorized either by the Crown or by Convocation. Its authorization seems to have been tacit and gradual. The Bishops’ Bible, hitherto the ofBcial version, ceased to be reprinted, and the AV no doubt gradually replaced it in churches as occasion arose. In domestic use its fortunes were for a time more doubtful, and for two generations it existed concurrently with the Geneva Bible; but before the century was out its predominance was assured. The first 4to and 8vo editions were issued in 1612; and thenceforward editions were so numerous that it is useless to refer to any except a few of them. The early editions were not very correctly printed. In 1638 an attempt to secure a correct text was made by a small group of Cambridge scholars. In 1633 the first edition printed in Scotland was published. In 1701 Bishop Lloyd superintended the printing of an edition at Oxford, in which Archbishop Ussher’s dates for Scripture chronology were printed in the margin, where they thenceforth remained. In 1717 a fine edition, printed by Baskett at Oxford, earned bibliographical notoriety as ‘The Vinegar Bible’ from a misprint in the headline over Luke 20. In 1762 a carefully revised edition was published at Cambridge under the editorship of Dr. T. Paris, and a similar edition, superintended by Dr. B. Blayney, appeared at Oxford in 1769. These two editions, in which the text was carefully revised, the spelling modernized, the punctuation corrected, and considerable alteration made in the marginal notes, formed the standard lor subsequent reprints of the AV, which differ in a number of details, small In importance but fairly numerous in the aggregate, from the original text of 1611. One other detail remains to be mentioned. In 1666 appeared the first edition of the AV from which the Apocrypha was omitted. It had previously been omitted from some editions of the Geneva Bible, from 1599 onwards. The Nonconformists took much objection to it, and in 1664 the Long Parhament forbade the reading of lessons from it in public ; but the lectionary of the English Church always included lessons from it. The example of omission was followed in many editions subsequently. The first edition printed in America (apart from a surreptitious edition of 1752), in 1782, is without it. In 1826 the British and Foreign Bible Society, which has been one of the principal agents in the circulation of the Scriptures throughout the world, decided never in future to print or circulate copies containing the Apocrypha; and this decision has been carried into effect ever since.

34. So tar as concerned the translation of the Hebrew and Greek texts which lay before them, the work of the authors of the AV, as has been shown above, was done not merely well but excellently. There were, no doubt, occasional errors of interpretation; and in regard to the OT in particular the Hebrew scholarship of the age was not always equal to the demands made upon it. But such errors as were made were not of such magnitude or quantity as to have made any extensive revision necessary or desirable even now, after a lapse of nearly three hundred years. There was, however, another defect, less important (and indeed necessarily invisible at the time), which the lapse of years ultimately forced into prominence, namely, in the text (and especially the Greek text) which they translated. As has been shown elsewhere (Text of the NT), criticism of the Greek text of the NT had not yet begun. Scholars were content to take the text as it first came to band, from the late MSS which were most readily accessible to them. The NT of Erasmus, which first made the Greek text generally available in Western Europe, was based upon a small group of relatively late MSS, which happened to be within his reach at Basle. The edition of Stephanus in 1550, which practically established the ‘Received Text’ which has held the field till our own day, rested upon a somewhat superficial examination of 15 MSS, mostly at Paris, of which only two were uncials, and these were but slightly used. None of the great MSS which now stand at the head of our list of authorities was known to the scholars of 1611. None of the ancient versions had been critically edited; and so far as King James’ translators made use of them (as we know they did), it was as aids to interpretation, and not as evidence for the text, that they employed them. In saying this there is no imputation of blame. The materials for a critical study and restoration of the text were not then extant; and men were concerned only to translate the text which lay before them in the current Hebrew, Greek, and Latin Bibles. Nevertheless it was in this Inevitable defectiveness of text that the weakness lay which ultimately undermined the authority of the AV.