_West-Saxon Gospels.--MS Corpus 140._
Matthew vi. 9. Eornustlice gebiddaeth eow ethus; Faeder ure žu že. eart on
heofonum; si žin nama gehalgod (10) to-becume žin rice; gewurže ethin
willa on eorethan swa swa on heofonum. (11) urne gedaeghwamlican hlaf
syle us to daeg, (12) J forgyf us ure gyltas swa swa we forgyfaeth urum
gyltendum. (13) J ne gelaed žu us on costnunge ac alys us of yfele
sožlice.
AElfric.
Towards the close of the century the Old Testament found a translator in
AElfric (q.v.), the most eminent scholar in the close of the 10th and the
opening decades of the 11th century. According to his own statement in
_De vetere testamento_, written about 1010, he had at that period
translated the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judges, Kings, Job, Esther, Judith
and the Maccabees.[6] His rendering is clear and idiomatic, and though
he frequently abridges, the omissions never obscure the meaning or
hinder the easy flow of the narrative.
Dietrich, AElfric's most competent biographer (Niedner's, _Zeitschrift
fuer historische Theologie_, 1855-1856), looks upon the Pentateuch,
Joshua and Judges as a continuation of his _Lives of Saints_, including
as they do in a series of narratives the Old Testament saints. Genesis
is but slightly abridged, but Job, Kings, Judges, Esther and Judith as
well as the Maccabees are mere homilies epitomized from the
corresponding Old Testament books. Judith is metrical in form.
The 11th century, with its political convulsions, resulting in the
establishment of an alien rule and the partial suppression of the
language of the conquered race, was unfavourable to literary efforts of
any kind in the vernacular. With the exception of AElfric's late works at
the very dawn of the century, we can only record two transcripts of the
West-Saxon Gospels as coming at all within the scope of our inquiry.
In the 12th century the same gospels were again copied by pious hands
into the Kentish dialect of the period.
Anglo-Norman Period.
The 13th century, from the point of view of Biblical renderings into the
vernacular, is an absolute blank. French--or rather the Anglo-Norman
dialect of the period--reigned supreme amongst the upper classes, in
schools, in parliament, in the courts of law and in the palace of the
king. English lurked in farms and hovels, amongst villeins and serfs, in
the outlying country-districts, in the distant monasteries, amongst the
lower clergy, amongst the humble and lowly and ignorant. There were
certainly renderings of the Bible during the 12th, 13th and early 14th
centuries, but they were all in French. Some of these translations were
made in England, some were brought over to England and copied and
recopied. Amongst the latter was the magnificently illuminated Norman
Commentary on the Apocalypse, some of the earliest copies of which were
written in an English hand. In fact before the middle of the 14th
century the entire Old Testament and the greater part of the New
Testament had been translated into the Anglo-Norman dialect of the
period. (MSS. Bibl. Nat. fr. 1, 9562, Brit. Mus. Reg. I.C. iii. Cf. S.
Berger, _La Bible francaise au moyen age_, Paris, 1884, pp. 78 ff.)
14th-century renderings.
When English finally emerged victorious, towards the middle and latter
half of the 14th century, it was for all practical purposes a new
language, largely intermixed with French, differing from the language of
the older period in sound, flexion and structure. It is evident that any
Old English versions which might have survived the ravages of time would
now be unintelligible, it was equally natural that as soon as French
came to be looked upon as an alien tongue, the French versions hitherto
in use would fail to fulfil their purpose, and that attempts should
again be made to render the Bible into the only language intelligible to
the greater part of the nation--into English. It was also natural that
these attempts should be made where the need was most pressing, where
French had gained least footing, where parliament and court were remote,
where intercourse with France was difficult. In fact in the Northern
Midlands, and in the North even before the middle of the 14th century,
the book of Psalms had been twice rendered into English, and before the
end of the same century, probably before the great Wycliffite versions
had spread over the country, the whole of the New Testament had been
translated by different hands into one or other of the dialects of this
part of the country.
At the same time we can record only a single rendering during the whole
century which originated in the south of England, namely the text of
James, Peter, 1 John and the Pauline Epistles (edited by A.C. Paues,
Cambridge, 1904).
Of these pre-Wycliffite versions possibly the earliest is the _West
Midland Psalter_, once erroneously ascribed to William of Shoreham.[7]
It occurs in three MSS., the earliest of which, Brit. Mus. Add. 17376,
was probably written between 1340 and 1350. It contains a complete
version of the book of Psalms, followed by the usual eleven canticles
and the Athanasian Creed. The Latin original is a glossed version of the
Vulgate, and in the English translation the words of the gloss are often
substituted for the strong and picturesque expressions of the Biblical
text; in other respects the rendering is faithful and idiomatic. The
following two verses of the first psalm may exemplify this:--
_MS. British Mus. Add. 17376._
(i. 1.) _Beatus uir, qui non abijt in consilio impiorum, & in uia
peccatorum non stetit, et in cathedra .i. iudicio pestilencie .i.
falsitatis non sedit._ Blesced be že man žat yede nouyt in že counseil
of wicked, ne stode nouyt in že waie of sinyeres, ne sat nouyt in fals
iugement. (2) _Set in lege domini uoluntas eius, & in lege eius
meditabitur die ac nocte._ Ac hijs wylle was in že wylle of oure Lord,
and he schal ženche in hijs lawe bože daye and nyyt.
Richard Rolle.
Before the middle of the century Richard Rolle (q.v.), the hermit of
Hampole (+1349), turned into English, with certain additions and
omissions, the famous _Commentary on the Psalms_ by Peter Lombard. The
work was undertaken, as the metrical prologue of one of the copies tells
us (MS. Laud. misc. 286), "At a worthy recluse prayer, cald dame Merget
Kyrkby." The Commentary gained immediate and lasting popularity, and
spread in numerous copies throughout the country, the peculiarities of
the hermit's vigorous northern dialect being either modified or wholly
removed in the more southerly transcripts. The translation, however, is
stiff and literal to a fault, violating idiomatic usage and the proper
order of words in its strict adherence to the Latin. The following brief
extracts may exemplify the hermit's rendering and the change the text
underwent in later copies.[8]
_MS. Univ. Coll. 64._ _MS. Reg. 18 B. 21_
(i. 1.) Blisful man že whilk Blessed is žat man žat haž
oway ged noght in že counsaile not gone in že counsell of wicked
of wicked, and in že way of men, and in že weye of sinfull
synful stode noght, & in že men haž not stonde, and in že
chaiere of pestilens he noght chaire of pestilence sat not.
sate. (2) Bot in laghe of lord že 2. But in že lawe of our lorde
will of him; and in his laghe is že will of him; and [in] his
he sall thynke day & nyght. lawe we shall žinke day and
nyght.
Approximately to the same period as these early renderings of the
Psalter belongs a version of the _Apocalypse with a Commentary_, the
earliest MS. of which (Harleian 874) is written in the dialect of the
North Midlands. This Commentary, for a long time attributed to Wycliffe,
is really nothing but a verbal rendering of the popular and
widely-spread Norman Commentary on the Apocalypse (Paul Meyer and L.
Delisle, _L'Apocalypse en Francais au XIII^e siecle_, Paris, 1901),
which dates back as far as the first half of the 13th century, and in
its general tenor represents the height of orthodoxy. The English
apocalypse, to judge from the number of MSS. remaining, must have
enjoyed great and lasting popularity. Several revisions of the text
exist, the later of which present such striking agreement with the later
Wycliffite version that we shall not be far wrong if we assume that they
were made use of to a considerable extent by the revisers of this
version.
To the North Midlands or the North belongs further a complete version of
the _Pauline Epistles_ found in the unique MS. 32, Corpus Christi
College, Cambridge, of the 15th century.
_Commentaries on the Gospels of St Matthew, St Mark and St Luke_, we are
told by the heading in one of the MSS. (Univ. Libr. Camb. Ii. 2. 12),
were also translated into English by "a man of že north cuntre." The
translation of these Gospels as well as of the Epistles referred to
above is stiff and awkward, the translator being evidently afraid of any
departure from the Latin text of his original. The accompanying
commentary is based on the Fathers of the Church and entirely devoid of
any original matter. The opening lines of the third chapter of Matthew
are rendered in the following way:--
_MS. Camb. Univ. Libr. Ii. 2. 12._
(iii. 1.) In žo dayes come Ihone baptist prechand in desert of že
Iewry, & seyand, (2) Do ye penaunce; forwhy že kyngdome of heuyne sal
come negh. (3) Žis is he of whome it was seide be Isay že prophete,
sayand, "že voice of že cryand in že desert, redye ye že way of God,
right made ye že lityl wayes of him." (4) & Ihone his kležing of že
hoerys of camels, & a gyrdyl of a skyn about his lendys; & his mete
was že locust & hony of že wode.
A version of the _Acts and the Catholic Epistles_ completes the number
of the New Testament books translated in the northern parts of England.
It is found in several MSS. either separately or in conjunction with a
fragmentary _Southern Version of the Pauline Epistles, Peter, James and
1 John_ in a curiously compiled volume, evidently made, as the prologue
tells us, by a brother superior for the use and edification of an
ignorant "sister," or woman vowed to religion.[9] The translation of
this, our only southern text, surpasses all previous efforts from the
point of view of clearness of expression and idiomatic use of English,
and, though less exact, it may be even said in these respects to rank
equal with the later or revised Wycliffite version.
Apart from these more or less complete versions of separate books of the
Bible, there existed also numerous renderings of the Lord's Prayer, the
Ten Commandments, accounts of the Life, Passion and Resurrection of our
Lord, translations of the epistles and gospels used in divine service,
and other means of familiarizing the people with Holy Scripture. It was
the custom of the medieval preachers and writers to give their own
English version of any text which they quoted, not resorting as in later
times to a commonly received translation. This explains the fact that in
collections of medieval homilies that have come down to us, no two
renderings of the Biblical text used are ever alike, not even Wyclilfe
himself making use of the text of the commonly accepted versions that
went under his name.
It is noteworthy that these early versions from Anglo-Saxon times
onwards were perfectly orthodox, executed by and for good and faithful
sons of the church, and, generally speaking, with the object of
assisting those whose knowledge of Latin proved too scanty for a proper
interpretation and understanding of the holy text. Thus Richard Rolle's
version of the Psalms was executed for a nun; so was in all likelihood
the southern version of the epistles referred to above. Again the
earliest MS. (Harl. 874) of the Commentary on the Apocalypse gives the
owner's name in a coeval hand as "Richard Schepard, _presbiter_," and
the Catholic Epistles of MS. Douce 250[10] were probably glossed for the
benefit of men in religious orders, if one may judge from a short
Commentary to James ii. 2, "& žerfore if eny man come into youre siyt,
_žat is, into youre cumpenye žat bež Godes religiouse men in what degre
so ye be_." Nor do any of the remaining works contain anything but what
is strictly orthodox.
The Wycliffite Versions.
It is first with the appearance of Wycliffe (q.v.) and his followers on
the arena of religious controversy that the Bible in English came to be
looked upon with suspicion by the orthodox party within the Church. For
it is a well-known fact that Wycliffe proclaimed the Bible, not the
Church or Catholic tradition, as a man's supreme spiritual authority,
and that he sought in consequence by every means in his power to spread
the knowledge of it among the people. It is, therefore, in all
likelihood to the zeal of Wycliffe and his followers that we owe the two
noble 14th-century translations of the Bible which tradition has always
associated with his name, and which are the earliest complete renderings
that we possess of the Holy Scriptures into English.[11]
The first of these, the so-called _Early Version_, was probably
completed about 1382, at all events before 1384, the year of Wycliffe's
death. The second, or _Later Version_, being a thorough revision of the
first, is ascribed to the year 1388 by Sir Frederic Madden and the Rev.
Joshua Forshall in their edition of these two versions.[12]
It is a matter of uncertainty what part, if any, Wycliffe himself took
in the work. The editors of the Wycliffite versions say in the Preface,
pp. xv. ff.--"The New Testament was naturally the first object. The text
of the Gospels was extracted from the Commentary upon them by Wycliffe,
and to these were added the Epistles, the Acts and the Apocalypse, all
now translated anew. This translation might probably be the work of
Wycliffe himself; at least the similarity of style between the Gospels
and the other parts favours the supposition." The Wycliffite authorship
of the Commentaries on the Gospels, on which the learned editors base
their argument, is, however, unsupported by any evidence beyond the fact
that the writer of the Prologue to Matthew urges in strong language "the
propriety of translating Scripture for the use of the laity." The
Biblical text found in these Commentaries is in fact so far removed from
the original type of the Early Version as to be transitional to the
Late, and, what is still more convincing, passages from the Early
Version, from both the Old Testament and the New Testament, are actually
quoted in the Commentary. Under such circumstances it would be folly to
look upon them as anything but late productions, at all events later
than the Early Version, and equal folly to assign these bulky volumes to
the last two years of Wycliffe's life merely because the text used in
them happens to be that of the Early Version. It is therefore at present
impossible to say what part of the Early Version of the New Testament
was translated by Wycliffe.[13]
The Old Testament of the Early Version was, according to the editors
(Preface, p. xvii.), taken in hand by one of Wycliffe's coadjutors,
Nicholas de Herford. The translator's original copy and a coeval
transcript of it are still extant in the Bodleian library (Bodl. 959,
Douce 360). Both break off abruptly at Baruch iii. 19, the latter having
at this place a note inserted to the following effect: _Explicit
translacionem Nicholay de herford_. There is consequently but little
doubt that Nicholas de Herford took part in the translation of the Old
Testament, though it is uncertain to what extent. The translator's copy
is written in not less than five hands, differing in orthography and
dialect. The note may therefore be taken to refer either to the portion
translated by the last or fifth hand, or to the whole of the Old
Testament up to Baruch iii. 19. Judging from uniformity of style and
mode of translation the editors of the Bible are inclined to take the
latter view; they add that the remaining part of the Old Testament was
completed by a different hand, the one which also translated the New
Testament. This statement is, however, not supported by sufficient
evidence. In view of the magnitude of the undertaking it is on the
contrary highly probable that other translators besides Wycliffe and
Nicholas de Herford took part in the work, and that already existing
versions, with changes when necessary, were incorporated or made use of
by the translators.
The Early Version, apart from its completeness, shows but little advance
upon preceding efforts. It is true that the translation is more careful
and correct than some of the renderings noticed above, but on the other
hand it shares all their faults. The translation of the Old Testament as
far as Baruch iii. 19 is stiff and awkward, sometimes unintelligible,
even nonsensical, from a too close adherence to the Latin text (e.g.
Judges xx. 25). In the remaining parts the translation is somewhat
easier and more skilful, though even here Latinisms and un-English
renderings abound.
It is small wonder, therefore, if a revision was soon found necessary
and actually taken in hand within a few years of the completion of the
Earlier Version. The principles of work adopted by the revisers are laid
down in the general prologue to their edition, the so-called "Later
Version."
For these resons and orhere ... a symple creature hath translatid the
bible out of Latyn into English. First, this symple creature hadde
myche traueile, with diuerse felawis and helperis, to gedere manie
elde biblis, and othere doctouris, and comune glosis, and to make oo
Latyn bible sumdel trewe; and thanne to studie it of the newe, the
text with the glose, and othere doctouris, as he miyte gete, and
speciali Lire on the elde testament, that helpide ful myche in this
work; the thridde tyme to counseile with elde gramariens, and elde
dyuynis, of harde wordis, and harde sentencis, hou tho miyten best be
vndurstonden and translatid; the iiij tyme to translate as cleerli as
he coude to the sentence, and to haue manie gode felawis and kuonynge
at the correcting of the translacioun.
It is uncertain who the revisers were; John Purvey, the leader of the
Lollard party after Wycliffe's death, is generally assumed to have taken
a prominent part in the work, but the evidence of this is extremely
slight (cf. Wycl. Bible, Preface, oo. xxv. f.). The exact date of the
revision is also doubtful: the editors of the Wycliffe Bible, judging
from the internal evidence of the Prologue, assume it to have been
finished about 1388. This Revised or Later Version is in every way a
readable, correct rendering of the Scriptures, it is far more idiomatic
than the Earlier, having been freed from the greater number of its
Latinisms; its vocabulary is less archaic. Its popularity admits of no
doubt, for even now in spite of neglect and persecution, in spite of the
ravages of fire and time, over 150 copies remain to testify to this
fact. The following specimens of the Early and Late Versions will afford
a comparison with preceding renderings:--
_Early Version._ _Late Version._
(Psalm i. 1.) Blisful the man, (i. 1.) Blessid _is_ the man, that
that went not awei in the counseil yode not in the councel of wickid
of vnpitouse, and in the wei men; and stood not in the
off sinful stod not; and in the weie of synneris, and sat not in
chayer of pestilence sat not. the chaier of pestilence. (2)
(2) But in the lawe of the Lord his But his wille _is_ in the lawe of
wil; and in the lawe of hym he the Lord; and he schal bithenke
shal sweteli thenke dai and nyyt. in the lawe of hym dai and nyyt.
(Matthew iii. 1.) In thilke (iii. 1.) In tho daies Ioon
days came Ioon Baptist, prechynge Baptist cam, and prechide in
in the desert of Iude, the desert of Iudee, and seide,
sayinge, (2) Do ye penaunce, (2) Do ye penaunce, for the
for the kyngdom of heuens shal kyngdom of heuenes shal neiye.
neiy, _or cume niye_. (3) Forsothe (3) For this is he, of whom it is
this is he of whome it is said by seid bi Ysaie, the prophete,
Ysaye the prophet. A voice of seyinge, A vois of a crier in
a cryinge in desert, Make ye redy desert, Make ye redi the weies
the wayes of the Lord; Make ye of the Lord; make ye riyt the
riytful the pathes of hym. (4) pathis of hym. (4) And this
Forsothe that ilk Ioon hadde cloth Ioon hadde clothing of camels
of the heeris of cameylis, and a heeris, and a girdil of skynne
girdil of skyn aboute his leendis; aboute his leendis; and his mete
sothely his mete weren locustis, was honysoukis and hony of the
and hony of the wode. wode.
The Lollards.
The 15th century may well be described as the _via dolorosa_ of the
English Bible as well as of its chief advocates and supporters, the
Lollards. After the death of Wycliffe violence and anarchy set in, and
the Lollards came gradually to be looked upon as enemies of order and
disturbers of society. Stern measures of suppression were directed not
only against them but against "Goddis Lawe," the book for which they
pleaded with such passionate earnestness. The bishops' registers bear
sufficient testimony to this fact.[14] It would appear, however, as if
at first at all events the persecution was directed not so much against
the Biblical text itself as against the Lollard interpretations which
accompanied it. In a convocation held at Oxford under Archbishop Arundel
in 1408 it was enacted "that no man hereafter by his own authority
translate any text of the Scripture into English or any other tongue, by
way of a book, booklet, or tract; and that no man read any such book,
booklet, or tract, now lately composed in the time of John Wycliffe or
since, or hereafter to be set forth in part or in whole, publicly or
privately, upon pain of greater excommunication, until the said
translation be approved by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so
require, by the council provincial. He that shall do contrary to this
shall likewise be punished as a favourer of heresy and error."[15]
It must be allowed that an enactment of this kind was not without
justification. The Lollards, for instance, did not hesitate to introduce
into certain copies of the pious and orthodox Commentary on the Psalms
by the hermit of Hampole interpolations of their own of the most
virulently controversial kind (MSS. Trin. Coll. Camb. B.V. 25, Brit.
Mus. Reg. 18. C. 26, &c.), and although the text of their Biblical
versions was faithful and true, the General Prologue of the Later
Version was interlarded with controversial matter. It is small wonder if
the prelates and priests sought to repress such trenchant criticism of
their lives and doctrines as appeared more especially in the former
work, and probably in many others which since have perished in "faggots
and burning."
For all this, manuscripts of Purvey's Revision were copied and re-copied
during this century, the text itself being evidently approved by the
ecclesiastical authorities, when in the hands of the right people and if
unaccompanied by controversial matter.
Of the Lollard movement in Scotland but little is known, but a curious
relic has come down to our times in the shape of a New Testament of
Purvey's Revision in the Scottish dialect of the early 16th century. The
transcriber was in all probability a certain Murdoch Nisbet, who also
showed his reforming tendencies by adding to it a rendering of Luther's
Prologue to the New Testament.[16]
2. _The Printed Bible._--It is singular that while France, Spain, Italy,
Bohemia and Holland possessed the Bible in the vernacular before the
accession of Henry VIII., and in Germany the Scriptures were printed in
1466 and seventeen times reprinted before Luther began his great work,
yet no English printer attempted to put the familiar English Bible into
type. No part of the English Bible was printed before 1525, no complete
Bible before 1535, and none in England before 1538.
Versions of the Scriptures so far noticed were all secondary renderings
of the Vulgate, translations of a translation. It was only with the
advent of the "new learning" in England that a direct rendering from the
originals became possible. Erasmus in 1516 published the New Testament
in Greek, with a new Latin version of his own; the Hebrew text of the
Old Testament had been published as early as 1488.
William Tyndale.
The first to take advantage of these altered conditions was William
Tyndale (q.v.), "to whom," as Dr Westcott says,[17] "it has been allowed
more than to any other man to give its characteristic shape to the
English Bible." Of Tyndale's early life but little is known. Be it
enough for our purpose to say that he thoroughly saturated his mind with
the "new learning," first at Oxford, where in 1515 he was admitted to
the degree of M.A., and then in Cambridge, where the fame of Erasmus
still lingered. Before the beginning of 1522 we find Tyndale as chaplain
and tutor in the family of Sir John Walsh of Old Sodbury in
Gloucestershire. He was there constantly involved in theological
controversies with the surrounding clergy, and it was owing to their
hostility that he had to leave Gloucestershire. He then resolved to open
their eyes to the serious corruptions and decline of the church by
translating the New Testament into the vernacular. In order to carry out
this purpose he repaired in July or August 1523 to London, and to the
famous protector of scholars and scholarship, Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall.
His reception was, however, cold, the bishop advising him to seek a
livelihood in the town. During a year of anxious waiting, it became
clear to him "not only that there was no rowme in my lorde of londons
palace to translate the new testament, but also that there was no place
to do it in all englonde."[18] In May 1524 he consequently betook
himself to Hamburg, his resolution to carry out his great work never for
a moment flagging, and it was probably during his stay in this free city
and in Wittenberg, where he may have been stimulated by Luther, that his
translation of the New Testament was actually made. At all events there
is no doubt that in 1525 he was in Cologne, engaged in printing at the
press of Peter Quentel a quarto edition of the New Testament. This
edition was provided with prefaces and marginal glosses. He had advanced
as far as the tenth sheet, bearing the signature K, when his work was
discovered by Johann Cochlaeus (q.v.), a famous controversialist and
implacable enemy of the Reformation, who not only caused the Senate of
Cologne to prohibit the continuation of the printing, but also
communicated with Henry VIII. and Wolsey, warning them to stop the
importation of the work at the English seaports. Tyndale and his
assistant, William Roye, managed, however, to escape higher up the Rhine
to Worms, and they succeeded in carrying with them some or all of the
sheets which had been printed. Instead of completing Quentel's work,
Peter Schoeffer, the Worms printer, was employed to print another
impression of 3000 in a small octavo size, without prefaces to the books
or annotations in the margin, and only having an address "To the Reder"
at the end in addition to the New Testament itself. Two impressions, the
quarto having possibly been completed by Schoeffer, arrived in England
early in the summer of 1526, and were eagerly welcomed and bought. Such
strong measures of suppression were, however, at once adopted against
these perilous volumes, that of the quarto only a single fragment
remains (Matt, i.-xxii. 12), now preserved in the British Museum
(Grenville, 12179),[19] of the octavo only one perfect copy (the
title-page missing) in the Baptist College at Bristol,[20] and one
imperfect in the library of St Paul's cathedral.
But Tyndale continued his labours undaunted. In 1529 the manuscript
translation of Deuteronomy is mentioned as having perished with his
other books and papers in a shipwreck which he suffered on the coast of
Holland, on his way to Hamburg. In 1530, however, the whole of the
_Pentateuch_ was printed in Marburg by Hans Luft; it is provided with
prefaces and marginal annotations of a strongly controversial character.
The only perfect copy is preserved in the Grenville library of the
British Museum.[21] It was reissued in 1534 with a new preface and
certain corrections and emendations in Genesis, and again in London in
1551.
In 1531 the _Book of Jonah_ appeared with an important and highly
interesting prologue, the only copy known of which is in the British
Museum.[22]
Meanwhile the demand for New Testaments, for reading or for the flames,
steadily increased, and the printers found it to their advantage to
issue the Worms edition of the New Testament in not less than three
surreptitious reprints before 1534. This is testified by George Joye in
his _Apology_, who himself brought out a fourth edition of Tyndale's New
Testament in August 1534, freed from many of the errors which, through
the carelessness of the Flemish printers, had crept into the text, but
with such alterations and new renderings as to arouse the indignation of
Tyndale. The only remaining copy, a 16mo, is in the Grenville library.
To counteract and supersede all these unauthorized editions, Tyndale
himself brought out his own revision of the New Testament with
translations added of all the _Epistles of the Old Testament_ after the
use of Salisbury. It was published in November 1534 at Antwerp by Martin
Emperowr. Prologues were added to all books except the Acts and the
Apocalypse, and new marginal glosses were introduced. Three copies of
this edition are in the British Museum, and it was reprinted in 1841 in
Bagster's _Hexapla_. In the following year Tyndale once more set forth a
revised edition, "fynesshed in the yere of oure Lorde God A.M.D. and
XXXV.," and printed at Antwerp by Godfried van der Haghen.[23] In this
headings were added to the chapters in the Gospels and the Acts, and the
marginal notes of the edition of 1534 were omitted. It is chiefly noted
for the peculiarities of its orthography. Of this edition one copy is in
the University library, Cambridge, a second in Exeter College, Oxford,
and a fragment in the British Museum. It is supposed to have been
revised by Tyndale while in prison in the castle of Vilvorde, being the
last of his labours in connexion with the English Bible. His execution
took place on the 6th of October 1536, and about the same time a small
folio reprint of his revised edition of 1534 was brought out in England,
the first volume of Scripture printed in this country, probably by T.
Berthelet.[24] A perfect copy is found in the Bodleian library. In later
years, between 1536 and 1550, numerous editions of Tyndale's New
Testament were printed, twenty-one of which have been enumerated and
fully described by Francis Fry.[25]
"The history of our English Bible begins with the work of Tyndale and
not with that of Wycliffe," says Dr Westcott in his _History of the
English Bible_, p. 316, and it is true that one of the most striking
features of the work of Tyndale is its independence. Attempts have been
made to show that especially in the Old Testament he based a great deal
of his work on the Wycliffite translations, but in face of this we have
his own explicit statement, "I had no man to counterfet, nether was
holpe with englysshe of eny that had interpreted the same (i.e. the New
Testament), or soche lyke thige i the scripture beforetyme."[26]
He translated straight from the Hebrew and Greek originals, although the
Vulgate and more especially Erasmus's Latin version were on occasion
consulted. For his prefaces and marginal notes he used Luther's Bible
freely, even to paraphrasing or verbally translating long passages from
it.
Apart from certain blemishes and awkward and even incorrect renderings,
Tyndale's translation may be described as a truly noble work, faithful
and scholarly, though couched in simple and popular language. Surely no
higher praise can be accorded to it than that it should have been taken
as a basis by the translators of the Authorized Version, and thus have
lived on through the centuries up to the present day.