those thinges whereof we are fully persuaded. As they have delivered
them unto us, which from the beginning saw them theirselves, and were
ministers of the worde, It seemed good also to me (most noble
Theophilus), as sone as I had searched out perfectly all things from
the beginnyng, to write unto thee thereof from point to point, That
thou mightest acknowledge the certaintie of these things, whereof thou
hast bene instructed.”
It will be seen that in this short passage the changes made from the
earlier form of the work are as many as ten in number. As this, however,
may be deemed a somewhat exceptional passage, let us take an ordinary
chapter in the Gospels, presenting no special difficulty, as for instance
Matt. xvii. A collation of the two versions will show that in this chapter
of twenty-seven verses the revision of 1560 departs from Whittingham’s
earlier work in no fewer than forty places.[25] Thus persevering was the
endeavour of these faithful men to do their very best, and with what
success may to some extent be seen in the fact that of these forty
changes twenty-six were confirmed in after years by the judgment of King
James’ translators.
“So earnestly,” says Strype[26] in his _Life of Archbishop Parker_, “did
the people of the nation thirst in those days after the knowledge of the
Scriptures, that that first impression was soon sold off.” So earnestly
also did the translators seek to perfect their work, that about the
beginning of March, 1565, they had finished a careful review and
correction of their translation in preparing for a fresh issue.
Popular as was the Genevan Bible amongst the mass of the English people,
the decidedly puritanic cast of its annotations stood in the way of its
universal acceptance, while its manifest superiority as a translation to
the Great Bible made it almost an impossibility that the latter could be
maintained in its place of pre-eminence as the Bible appointed by
authority to be read in churches. Steps were accordingly taken by Matthew
Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, to prepare a Bible, by the aid of
“diverse learned fellow-bishops,” that would accord with the
ecclesiastical sympathies of the party to which he belonged.[27] He
distributed portions to twelve of his episcopal brethren, and to other
Church dignitaries;[28] one portion he took under his own charge. The
completed work was presented to Elizabeth within a few weeks of the
completion of the tenth year of her reign, October 5th, 1568.
The rules laid down by Parker for the guidance of his colleagues were
these: 1. “To follow the common English translation used in the churches,
and not to recede from it but where it varieth manifestly from the Hebrew
or Greek original. 2. To use sections and divisions in the texts as
Pagnine[29] in his translation useth; and for the verity of the Hebrew, to
follow the said Pagnine and Munster specially, and generally others
learned in the tongues. 3. To make no bitter notes upon any text, or yet
to set down any determination in places of controversy. 4. To note such
chapters and places as contain matter of genealogies, or other such places
not edifying, with some strike or note, that the reader may eschew them in
his public reading. 5. That all such words as sound in the old translation
to any offence of lightness or obscenity be expressed with more convenient
terms and phrases.” From the first of these rules it is clear that the
work then undertaken was intended to be a revision of the Great Bible.
Some of the revisers seem to have observed this rule in a most rigid
manner, and have followed the Great Bible so closely as to retain its
words, even in places which had been more correctly rendered in the
Genevan. There appears to have been no co-operative action on the part of
the several revisers, and to this cause we may attribute much of the
irregularity that attaches to the execution of their work. In many
respects they laid themselves open to adverse criticism, and a paper was
sent to Parker by Thomas Lawrence, Head Master of Shrewsbury School, and
an eminent Greek scholar, entitled, _Notes of Errors in the Translation of
the New Testament out of the Greek_.[30] He points out fifteen passages in
which the words are not “aptlye translated,” eight in which “words and
pieces of sentences” are “omytted,” two in which superfluous words are
inserted, two in which, owing to mistranslation, an “error in doctrine” is
involved, and two in which the moods and tenses of verbs are changed.
These passages, except one from the Colossians, are all taken from the
Gospels; and we may hence not unreasonably infer that the writer intended
the passages named to be regarded, not as an exhaustive list, but as
illustrations simply of the kind of defects which called for correction.
Moved, as would seem, by these criticisms, Parker set on foot a revision
of his former volume; and in 1572 this Bible was, as his biographer
expresses it,[31] “a second time by his means” “printed with Corrections
and Amendments and other improvements, more than the former Editions.”
Although this Bible received the sanction of Convocation, and every
Archbishop and Bishop was ordered to have a copy in his hall or
dining-room for the use of his servants and of strangers; and although
some editions bear on their title-page the words, “Set forth by
Aucthoritie” (meaning thereby the authority of Convocation), it never came
into anything like general use, nor did it even establish itself as the
Bible exclusively read in churches. The Genevan Bible was still used by
many of the clergy in their sermons and in their published works; and in
1587, though nineteen years had then passed since its first publication,
we find Archbishop Whitgift complaining that divers parish churches and
chapels of ease had either no Bible at all, or those only which were not
of the translation authorized by the Synods of Bishops. Between 1568,
when this Bible was first published, and 1608, when the last New Testament
of this version was issued, there were sent forth altogether twenty
editions of the Bishops’ Bible and eleven of the New Testament. In the
same period there were published seventy-nine editions of the Genevan
Bible, and thirty of the Genevan New Testament.[32]
Besides the Genevan and the Bishops’, another Bible made its appearance
(so far, at least, as the New Testament was concerned) in the reign of
Elizabeth. In the year 1582 there was printed at Rheims a translation of
the New Testament,[33] made by certain scholars connected with the English
seminary for the training of Catholic priests, formerly established at
Douai, in Flanders. The translators, in their preface, candidly confess
that they did not publish from any conviction “that the Holy Scriptures
should alwaies be in our mother tonge,” or that they ought “to be read
indifferently of all,” but because they had compassion to see their
“beloved countrie men with extreme danger of their soules, to use only
such prophane translations;” viz., as the Protestant Bibles previously
referred to, “and erroneous men’s mere phantasies, for the pure and
beloved word of truth;” and because, also, they were “moved thereunto by
the desires of many devout persons,” and whom they hoped to induce to lay
aside the “impure versions” they had hitherto been compelled to employ.
Quite apart from the polemical purpose thus distinctly avowed, this
translation was a retrograde movement. It did not profess to translate the
original texts, but only the “vulgar Latin;” and the translators justify
their procedure by this plea, amongst others, that “the holy Council of
Trent ... hath declared and defined this onely of al other Latin
translations to be authentical, and so onely to be used and taken in
publike lessons, disputations, preachings, and expositions, and that no
man presume upon any pretence to reject or refuse the same.”
In the accomplishment of their work the Rhemish translators have very
faithfully observed the rule which they laid down for themselves, to be
“very precise and religious in folowing our copie, the old vulgar approved
Latin; not only in sense ... but sometime in the very wordes also, and
phrases;” that is to say, they have given a very literal and exact
translation of the Vulgate, in many parts extremely Latinized in its
diction. A considerable number of words they virtually left untranslated,
boldly venturing to transfer the unfamiliar, and in many cases
unintelligible, vocables into their English text. Some of these Latinized
words have obtained a permanent place in our language, but the larger
number have failed to commend themselves.[34]
Such then were the chief forms through which, at the close of the
sixteenth century, the English Bible had passed. The devout and earnest
scholars who from time to time sought to “open the Scriptures” to their
fellow-countrymen were for the most part moved by a burning desire to give
to God of their very best. They grudged no labour to render their work
more complete. They allowed no spirit of self-satisfaction to blind them
to a perception of defects. They were too humble and too well convinced of
the greatness and manifoldness of their work to fancy that they had
reached perfection, but were persevering and self-denying in their
endeavours to attain unto it. And they have left behind them for us to
follow a noble example of patient continuance in well doing.
How in their hands the English Bible has grown, from the first attempt to
set it forth in the language of our country to the form in which we are
most familiar with it, can be fully learnt only by a careful comparison of
the successive revisions to which it has been subjected. To aid my readers
in forming some approximate idea of it I append Psalm xxiii., as it
appears in the principal Bibles which have been mentioned in this and the
preceding lecture.
1. WYCLIFFE’S, 1382. (?)
The Lord gouerneth me, and no thing to me shal lacke; in the place of
leswe[35] where he me ful sette. Ouer watir of fulfilling he nurshide me;
my soule he conuertide. He broȝte doun me upon the sties of riȝtwisnesse;
for his name. For whi and if I shal go in the myddel of the shadewe of
deth; I shal not dreden euelis, for thou art with me. Thi ȝerde and thi
staf; tho han confortid me. Thou hast maad redi in thi siȝte a bord; aȝen
hem that trublyn me. Thou hast myche fattid in oile myn hed; and my chalis
makende ful drunken, hou riȝt cler it is. And thi mercy shal vnderfolewe
me; alle the daȝis of my lif. And that I dwelle in the hous of the Lord;
in to the lengthe of daȝis.
2. PURVEY’S, 1388. (?)
The Lord gouerneth me, and no thing schal faile to me; in the place of
pasture there he hath set me. He nurschide me on the watir of
refreischyng; he conuertide my soule. He ledde me forth on the pathis of
riȝtfulnesse; for his name. For whi thouȝ Y schal go in the myddis of
schadewe of deeth; Y schal not drede yuels, for thou art with me. Thi
ȝerde and thi staf; tho han coumfortid me. Thou hast maad redi a boord in
my siyt; aȝens hem that troblen me. Thou hast maad fat myn heed with oyle;
and my cuppe, fillinge greetli, is ful cleer. And thi merci schal sue me;
in alle the daies of my lijf. And that Y dwelle in the hows of the Lord;
in to the lengthe of daies.
3. COVERDALE’S, 1535.
The Lorde is my shepherde, I can want nothinge. He fedeth me in a greene
pasture; and ledeth me to a fresh water. He quickeneth my soule, and
bringeth me forth in the waye of rightuousness for his name’s sake. Though
I shulde walke now in the valley of the shadowe of death, yet I feare no
euell, for thou art with me; thy staffe and thy shepehoke comforte me.
Thou preparest a table before me agaynst mine enemies; thou anoyntest my
heade with oyle, and fyllest my cuppe full. Oh let thy louying kyndnes and
mercy folowe me all the dayes off my life that I maye dwell in the house
off the Lord for euer.
4. GREAT BIBLE, 1539.
The Lorde is my shepherde, therefore can I lacke nothing. He shal fede me
in a grene pasture and lead me forth besyde the waters of cōforte. He shal
conuerte my soule and bring me forth in the pathes of righteousnes for his
name’s sake. Yea, though I walke thorow y{e} valleye of y{e} shadow of
death, I wyl feare no euell, for thou art w{t} me: thy rod and thy staff
confort me.
Thou shalt prepare a table before me, agaynst them that trouble me: thou
hast annointed my head w{t} oyle, and my cup shal be ful. But (_thy_)
louing kyndnes and mercy shal folowe me all the dayes of my lyfe: and I
wyll dwel in the house of the Lord for euer.
5. GENEVAN, 1560.
1. The Lord _is_ my shepheard, I shall not want.
2. Hee maketh mee to rest in greene pasture, _and_ leadeth me by the still
waters.
3. He restoreth my soule, _and_ leadeth me in the paths of righteousnesse
for his Names sake.
4. Yea, though I should walke through the valley of the shadow of death, I
will feare no euill, for thou art with me: thy rodde and thy staffe, they
comfort me.
5. Thou doest prepare a table before me in the sight of mine adversaries:
thou doest anoynt mine head with oyle, _and_ my cup runneth over.
6. Doubtlesse kindnesse and mercy shall follow mee all the dayes of my
life, and I shall remaine a long season in the house of the Lord.
6. BISHOPS, 1568.
1. God is my shephearde, therefore I can lacke nothyng: he wyll cause me
to repose myselfe in pasture full of grasse, and he wyll leade me vnto
calme waters.
2. He wyll conuerte my soule; he wyll bring me foorth into the pathes of
righteousnesse for his name sake.
3. Yea, though I walke through the valley of the shadowe of death, I wyll
feare no euyll; for thou art with me, thy rodde and thy staffe be the
thynges that do comfort me.
4. Thou wylt prepare a table before me in the presence of myne
aduersaries; thou has annoynted my head with oyle, and my cup shalbe
brymme full.
5. Truely felicitie and mercie shal folowe me all the dayes of my lyfe:
and I wyll dwell in the house of God for a long tyme.
7. DOUAI, 1610.
1. The Psalme of Dauid.
2. Our Lord ruleth one, and nothing shal be wanting to me: in place of
pasture there he hath placed me.
3. Upon the water of refection he hath brought me vp: he hath conuerted my
soule.
He hath conducted me upon the pathes of iustice for his name.
4. For, although I shal walke in the middes of the shadow of death, I will
not feare euils: because thou art with me, Thy rod and thy staffe, they
haue comforted me.
5. Thou hast prepared in my sight a table, against them; that truble me.
Thou hast fatted my head with oyle; and my chalice inebriating how goodlie
is it!
6. And thy mercie shal folow me al the dayes of my life; And that I may
dwel in the house of our Lord, in longitude of dayes.
LECTURE IV.
_THE REVISION OF 1611--THE SO-CALLED AUTHORIZED VERSION._
At the accession of James I. the GENEVAN BIBLE and the BISHOPS’ BIBLE
were, as we have seen, the Bibles in current use, the latter being the
Bible upheld by ecclesiastical authority, the former the favourite Bible
of the people at large. The Book of Psalms also in the version of the
Great Bible survived, as it still does, in the psalter of the Prayer Book,
and probably in some few parish churches old and worn copies of the Great
Bible still maintained their place.
The state of religious parties at that date rendered it almost an
impossibility that either of the two first-named versions should become
universally accepted. The close connection of the Genevan Bible with the
Puritan party, and the decidedly puritanic cast of some of its notes,
created an insuperable prejudice against it in the minds of the more
zealous advocates of Episcopal authority; while the inferiority[36] of the
Bishops’ Bible as a version effectually barred its claim to an exclusive
use. The need, then, for a new version was obvious, and a desire for it
was probably felt by many of all parties.
Public expression was first given to this desire on the second day of the
Hampton Court Conference, January 16, 1604, by Dr. John Rainolds,[37] the
leading representative of the Puritans in that assembly. It was not
brought forward as one of the matters which he had been deputed to lay
before the Conference; it seems rather to have been mentioned by him
incidentally in connection with certain suggested reforms in the Prayer
Book. “He moved his Majesty that there might be a new translation of the
Bible, because those which were allowed in the reign of King Henry VIII.
and Edward VI. were corrupt, and not answerable to the Truth of the
Original,”[38] referring in illustration to the renderings given of Gal.
iv. 25,[39] Ps. cv. 28,[40] and Ps. cvi. 30.[41] It is somewhat curious
that no direct reference was made to the Bishops’ Bible; the reason,
probably, was that this Bible was not one of those which had been
“allowed” by royal authority. Of the three mistranslations quoted by
Rainolds, the first only is found in the Bishops’ Bible; the other two
occur in the Prayer Book Psalter.
The suggestion of Rainolds met with no opposition. The king himself
expressed his approval of it, not, however, without an ignorant and
disingenuous fling at the Genevan version; and “presently after,” say the
translators in their preface, the king “gave order for this translation”
to be made. In the course of a few months a scheme for the execution of
the work was matured, and in a letter to Dr. Richard Bancroft, then Bishop
of London, the king informed him that he had appointed fifty-four learned
men to undertake the translation. He even seems to have contemplated the
possibility of securing the co-operation of all the biblical scholars of
the country; and in a letter to Bancroft, dated July 22, 1604, directed
him “to move the bishops to inform themselves of all such learned men
within their several dioceses as, having especial skill in the Hebrew and
Greek tongues, have taken pains in their private studies of the Scriptures
for the clearing of any obscurities, either in the Hebrew or the Greek, or
touching any difficulties, or mistakings in the former English
translation, which we have now commanded to be thoroughly viewed and
amended; and thereupon to write unto them, earnestly charging them, and
signifying our pleasure therein, that they send such their observations to
Mr. Lively, our Hebrew reader in Cambridge, or to Dr. Harding, our Hebrew
reader in Oxford, or to Dr. Andrewes, Dean of Westminster, to be imparted
to the rest of their several companies; that so our said intended
translation may have the help and furtherance of all our principal learned
men within this our kingdom.”[42] Directions to a similar effect were sent
also to the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge, who was empowered in the king’s
name to associate with those already appointed any “fitt men” he might be
acquainted with; and we may infer that a corresponding communication was
sent to Oxford.
To what extent this comprehensive scheme was carried out we have no means
of determining. The names of the fifty-four learned men referred to are
not given, and we are consequently left in uncertainty whether those who
ultimately engaged in the work[43] were all men included in that list, or
whether other scholars, chosen by the universities or recommended by the
bishops, formed part of the number.
The rules laid down for the guidance of the translators were as follows:
1. The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops’
Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the Truth of the Original
will permit.
2. The Names of the Prophets and the Holy Writers, with the other Names of
the Text to be retained, as nigh as may be, accordingly as they were
vulgarly used.
3. The old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept; viz., the word _Church_ not to
be translated _Congregation_, &c.
4. When a Word hath divers significations, that to be kept which hath been
most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to
the Propriety of the Place, and the Analogy of the Faith.
5. The division of the Chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as
little as may be, if necessity so require.
6. No Marginal Notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of
the Hebrew or Greek Words, which cannot without some circumlocution, so
briefly and fitly be exprest in the Text.
7. Such Quotations of Places to be marginally set down, as shall serve for
the fit reference of one Scripture to another.
8. Every particular Man of each Company, to take the same Chapter or
Chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself,
where he thinketh good, all to meet together, confer what they have done,
and agree for their parts what shall stand.
9. As any one Company hath despatched any one Book in this manner, they
shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and judiciously,
for his Majesty is very careful in this point.
10. If any Company, upon the review of the Book so sent, doubt or differ
upon any Place, to send them word thereof; Note the place, and withal send
the Reasons; to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded
at the General Meeting, which is to be of the chief Persons of each
Company at the end of the Work.
11. When any Place of special obscurity is doubted of, Letters to be
directed, by Authority, to send to any Learned Man in the Land, for his
judgment of such a Place.
12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop, to the rest of his Clergy,
admonishing them of this Translation in hand; and to move and charge, as
many as being skilful in the Tongues; and having taken pains in that kind,
to send his particular Observations to the Company, either at Westminster,
Cambridg, or Oxford.
13. The Directors in each Company to be the Deans of Westminster and
Chester for that place; and the King’s Professors in the Hebrew or Greek
in either University.
14. These Translations to be used, when they agree better with the Text
than the Bishops’ Bible; viz., _Tindall’s_, _Matthew’s_, _Coverdale’s_,
_Whitchurch’s_,[44] _Geneva_.
15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most
Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities not employed in
Translating, to be assigned by the Vice-Chancellor upon conference with
the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew
as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th rule above specified.[45]
Besides these rules, some others of a more definite nature seem to have
been adopted by the translators themselves. At the Synod of Dort, held in
the years 1618 and 1619, the question of preparing a new Dutch translation
came under consideration, and for the guidance of its deliberations upon
this point the English Delegates[46] were requested to give an account of
the procedure observed in the translation recently made in England. In a
matter of such grave importance the Delegates felt that they ought not to
give any off-hand statement, and accordingly, after careful consideration,
prepared a written account, which was presented to the Synod on its
seventh Session, November 20th, 1618. In this account eight rules are
given, the first three of which embody the substance of the first, sixth,
and seventh of the rules given above. The others direct:
That where the Hebrew or Greek admits of a twofold rendering, one is to be
given in the text, and the other noted in the margin; and in like manner
where an important various reading is found in approved authorities.
That in the translation of the books of Tobit and Judith, where the text
of the old Latin Vulgate greatly differs from that of the Greek, the
latter text should be followed.
That all words introduced for the purpose of completing the sense are to
be distinguished by a difference of type.
That new tables of contents should be prefixed to each book, and new
summaries to each chapter.
And lastly, that a complete list of Genealogies[47] and a description of
the Holy Land should be added to the work.[48]
From various causes, which cannot now be discovered, a period of three
years elapsed before the revisers commenced their labours. One reason may
have been that no provision was made for meeting the necessary costs of
the undertaking. With a cheap liberality the king directed Bancroft to
write to the bishops, asking them, as benefices became vacant, to give him
the opportunity of bestowing them upon the translators as a reward for
their service; and as to current expenses, the king, while professing with
much effusiveness his readiness to bear them, cleverly evaded the
responsibility by stating that some of “my lords, as things now go, did
hold it inconvenient.”[49]