Bible Encyclopedias
English Versions of the Bible.

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Search for…

Enter query below:

or

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z

Prev Entry
English Nuns

Next Entry
Engratia (Encratis, or Eugracia)

Resource Toolbox

Print Article

Passing over the lives of the individual translators, the long struggle with the indifference or opposition of men in power, the religious condition of the people as calling for, or affected by, the appearance of the translation, the time, and place, and form of the successive editions by which the demand, when once created, was supplied — all of which is given under more appropriate titles — we shall here aim to give an account of the several versions as they appeared; to ascertain the qualifications of the translators for the work which they undertook, and the principles on which they acted; to form an estimate of the final result of their labors in the received version, and, as consequent on this, of the necessity or desirableness of a new or revised translation; and, finally, to give such a survey of the literature of the subject as may help the reader to obtain a fuller knowledge for himself. In doing this we shall substantially adopt so much of Prof. Plumtre's art. in Smith's Diet. of the Bible, s.v. Versions, as relates to the subject. The present article has been carefully revised by the Reverend T.J. Conant, D.D., of Brooklyn.

I. Early Translations. — It was asserted by Sir Thomas More, in his anxiety to establish a point against Tyndal, that he had seen English translations of the Bible which had been made before Wycliffe, and that these were approved by the bishops, and were allowed by them to be read by laymen, and even by devout women (Dialogues chapter 8-14, col. 82). There seem good grounds, however, for doubting the accuracy of this statement. No such translations versions, i.e., of the entire Scriptures are now extant. No traces of them appear in any contemporary writer. Wycliffe's great complaint is that there is no translation (Forshall and Madden, Wycliffe's Bible, Pref. page 21, Prol. page 59). The Constitutions of archbishop Arundel (A.D. 1408) mention two only, and these are Wycliffe's own, and the one based on his and completed after his death. More's statement must therefore be regarded either as a rhetorical exaggeration of the fact that parts of the Bible had been previously translated. or as arising out of a mistake as to the date of MSS. of the Wycliffe version. The history of the English Bible will therefore begin, as it has begun hitherto, with the work of the first great reformer. One glance, however, we may give, in passing, to the earlier history of the English Church, and connect some of its most honored names with the great work of making the truths of Scripture, or parts of the books themselves, if not the Bible as a whole, accessible to the people. We may think of Caedmon as embodyingthe whole history of the Bible in the alliterative metre of Anglo-Saxon poetry (Bede, Hist. Eccl. 4:24); of Aldhelm, bishop of Sherborne, in the 7th century, as rendering the Psalter; of Bede, as translating in the last hours of his life the Gospel of John (Epist. Cuthberti); of Alfred, setting forth in his mother tongue, as the great ground-work of his legislation, the four chapters of Exodus (20-23) that contained the first code of the laws of Israel (Pauli's Life of Alfred, chapter 5). The wishes of the great king extended further. le, desired that "all the free-born youth of his kingdom should be able to read the English Scriptures" ["Enslisc gewritt," which, however, may merely denote English literature in general] (Ibid.). Portions of the Bible, some of the Psalms, and extracts from other books, were translated by him for his own use and that of his children. The traditions of a later date, seeing in him the representative of all that was good in the old Saxon time, made him the translator of the whole Bible (Ibid., supp. to chapter 5).

The work of translating was, however, carried on by others. One Anglo- Saxon version of the four gospels, interlinear with the Latin of the Vulgate, known as the Durham book, is found in the Cottonian MSS. of the British Museum, and is referred to the 9th or 10th century. Another, known as the Rushworth Gloss, and belonging to the same period, is in the Bodleian Library at Oxford. Another, of a somewhat later date, is in the same collection, and in the library of Corpus-Christi College, Cambridge. The name of Aldhelm, bishop of Sherborne, is connected with a version of the Psalms, that of Aelfric with an epitome of Scripture history, including a translation of many parts of the historical books of the Bible (Lewis, Hist. of Transl. chapter 1; Forshall and Madden, Preface; Bagster's English Hexapla, Pref.). The influence of Norman ecclesiastics, in the reigns that preceded and followed the Conquest, was probably adverse to the continuance of this work. They were too far removed from sympathy with the subjugated race to care to educate them in their own tongue. The spoken dialects of the English of that period would naturally seem to them too rude and uncouth to be the channel of divine truth. Pictures, mysteries, miracle plays, rather than books, were the instruments of education for all but the few who, in monasteries under Norman or Italian superintendence, devoted themselves to the study of theology or law. In the remoter parts of England, however, where their influence was less felt, or the national feeling was stronger, there were those who carried on the succession, and three versions of the Gospels, inthe University Library at Cambridge, in the Bodleian, and in the British Museum, belonging to the 11th or 12th century, remain to attest their labors. The metrical paraphrase of the Gospel historyknown as the Ormulum, in alliterative English verse, ascribed to the latter half of the 12th century, is the next conspicuous monument, and may be looked upon as indicating a desire to place the facts of the Bible within reach of others than the clergy. The 13th century, a time in England, as throughout Europe, of religious revival, witnessed renewed attempts. A prose translation of the Bible into Norman-French, circ. A.D. 1260, indicates a demand for devotional reading within the circle of the court, or of the wealthier merchants, or of convents for women of high rank. Farther signs of the same desire are found in three English versions of the Psalms — one towards the close of the 13th century; another by Schorham, circ. A.D. 1320; another, with other canticles from the O.T. and N.T., by Richard Rolle, of Hampole, circ. 1349; the last being accompanied by a devotional exposition and in one of the Gospels of Mark and Luke, and of all Paul's epistles (the list includes the apocryphal epistle to the Laodiceans), in the library of CorpusChristi College, Cambridge. The fact stated by archbishop Arundel in his funeral sermon on Anne of Bohemia, wife of Richard II, that she habitually read the Gospels in the vulgar tongue, with divers expositions, was probably true of many others of high rank. It is interesting to note these facts, not as detracting from the glory of the great reformer of the 14th century, but as showing that for himself also there had been a preparation; that what he supplied met a demand which had for many years been gathering strength. It is almost needless to add that these versions started from nothing better than the copies of the Vulgate, more or less accurate, which each translator had before him (Lewis; chapter 1; Forshall and Madden, Preface). II. WYCLIFFE (born 1324, died 1384). —

1. It is singular, and not without significance, that the first translation from the Bible connected with the name of Wycliffi should have been that of part of the Apocalypse. The Last Age of the Church (A.D. 1356) translates and expounds the vision in which the reformer read the signs of his own times, the sins and the destruction of "Antichrist and his meynee" (=multitude). Shortly after this he completed a version of the Gospels, accompanied by a commentary, "so that pore Cristen men may some dele know the text of the Gospel, with the comyn sentence of the olde holie doctores" (Preface). Wycliffe, however, though the chief, was not the only laborer in the cause. The circle of English readers was becoming wider, and they were not content to have the book which they honored above all others in a tongue not their own. Another translation and commentary appear to have been made about the same time, in ignorance of Wycliffe's work, and for the "manie lewid men that gladlie would kon the Gospelle, if it were draghen into the Englisch tung." The fact that many MSS. of this period are extant, containing in English a Monotessaron' or Harmony of the Gospels, accompanied by portions of the Epistles, or portions of the O.T., or an epitome of Scripture history, or the substance of Paul's epistles, or the Catholic Epistles at full length, with indications more or less distinct of Wycliffe's influence, shows how widespread was the feeling that the time had come for an English Bible (Forshall and Madden, Pref. pages 13-17). These preliminary labors were followed up by a complete translation of the N.T. by Wycliffe himself. The O.T. was undertaken by his coadjutor, Nicholas de Hereford, but was interrupted probably by a citation to appear before archbishop Arundel in 1382, and ends abruptly (following so far the order of the Vulgate) in the middle of Baruch. Many of the MSS. of'this version now extant present a different recension of the text, and it is probable that the work of Wycliffe and Hereford was revised by Richard Purvey, circ. A.D. 1388. To him also is ascribed the interesting Prologue, in which the translator gives an account both of his purpose and his method (Forshall and Madden, Pref. page 25).

2. The former was, as that of Wycliffe had been, to give an English Bible to the English people. He appeals to the authority of Bede, of Alfred, and of Grostete, to the examples of "Frenshe, and Beemers (Bohemians), and Britons." He answers the hypocritical objections that men were not holy enough for such a work; that it was wrong for "idiots" to do what the great doctors of the Church had left undone. He hopes "to make the sentence as trewe and open in Englishe as it is in Latine, or more trewe and open."

It need hardly be said, as regards the method of the translator, that the version was based upon the Vulgate (comp. Genesis 3:15 : "She shall trede thy head"). If, in the previous century, scholars like Grostete and Roger Bacon, seeking knowledge in other lands, and from men of other races, had acquired, as they seem to have done, some knowledge both of Greek and Hebrew, the succession had, at all events, not been perpetuated. The war to be waged at a later period with a different issue between scholastic philosophy and "humanity" ended, in the first struggle, in the triumph of the former, and there was probably no one at Oxford among Wycliffe's contemporaries who could have helped him or Purvey in a translation from the original. It is something to find at such a time the complaint that "learned doctoris taken littel heede to the lettre," the recognition that the Vulgate was not all sufficient, that "the texte of oure bokis" (he is speaking of the Psalter, and the difficulty of understanding it) "discordeth much from the Ebreu" (which knowledge is, however, at second hand, "bi witnesse of Jerom, of Lire, and other expositouris"). The difficulty which was thus felt was increased by the state of the Vulgate text. The translator complains that what the Church had in view was not Jerome's verslon, but a later and corrupt text; that "the comune Latyne Bibles ban more neede to be corrected as manie as I have seen in my life, than hath the Englishe Bible late translated." To remedy this he had recourse to collation. Many MSS. were compared, and out of this comparison the true reading ascertained as far as possible. The next step was to consult the Glossa Ordinaria, the commentaries of Nicholas de Lyra, and others, as to the meaning of any difficult passages. After this (we recognize here, perhaps, a departure from the right order) grammars were consulted. Then came the actual work of translating which he aimed at making idiomatic rather than literal. As he went on, he submitted his work to the judgment of others, and accepted their suggestions. It is interesting to trace these early strivings after the true excellence of a translator; yet more interesting to take note of the spirit, never surpassed, seldom equalled, in later translators, in which the work was done. Nowhere do we find the conditions of the work, intellectual and moral, more solemnly asserted. "A translator hath grete nede to studie well the sentence, both before and after," so that no equivocal words may mislead his readers or himself, and then also "he hath nede to lyve a clene life, and be ful devout in preiers, and have not his wit occupied about worldli things, that the Holie Spiryt, author of all wisedom, and cunnynge, and truth, dresse (=train) him in his work, and suffer him not for to err" (Forshall and Madden, Prol. page 60).

3. The extent of the circulation gained by this version may be estimated from the fact that, in spite of all the chances of time, and all the systematic efforts for its destruction made by archbishop Arundel and others, not less than 150 copies are known to be extant, some of them obviously made for persons of wealth and rank, others apparently for humbler readers. It is significant as bearing, either on the date of the two works or on the position of the writers, that while the quotations from Scripture in Langton's Vision of Piers Plowman are uniformly given in Latin, those in the Persone's Tale of Chaucer are given in English, which for the most part agrees substantially with Wycliffe's translation.

4. The following characteristics may be noticed as distinguishing this version:

(1) The general homeliness of its style. The language of the court or of scholars is as far as possible avoided, and that of the people followed. In this respect the principle has been acted on by later translators. The style of Wycliffe is to that of Chaucer as Tyndale's is to Surrey's, or that of the A.V. to Ben Jonson's.

(2) The substitution,in many cases, of English equivalents for quasi- technical words. Thus we find "fy" or "fogh" instead of "Raca" (Matthew 5:22); "they were washed" in Matthew 3:6; "richesse" for "mammon" (Luke 16:9; Luke 16:11; Luke 16:13); "bishop" for "high-priest" (passim).

(3) The extreme literalness with which, in some instances, even at the cost of being unintelligible, the Vulgate text is followed, as in 2 Corinthians 1:17-19.

III. TYNDALE. — The work of Wycliffe stands by itself. Whatever power it exercised in preparing the way for the Reformation of the 16th century, it had no perceptible influence on later translations. By the reign of Henry VIII its English was already obsolescent, and the revival of classical scholarship led men to feel dissatisfied with a version which had avowedly been made at second-hand, not from the original. With Tyndale, on the other hand, we enter on a continuous succession. He is the patriarch, in no remote ancestry, of the Authorized Version. With a consistent, unswerving purpose, he devoted his whole life to this one work, and, through dangers and difficulties, amid enemies and treacherous friends, in exile and loneliness, accomplished it. More than Cranmer or lidley, he is the true hero of the English Reformation. While they were slowly moving onwards, halting between two opinions, watching how the courtwinds blew, or, at the best, making the most of oppor. tunities, he set himself to the task without which, he felt sure, reform would be impossible, which, once accomplished, would render it inevitable. "Ere many years," he said, at the age of thirty-six (A.D. 1520), he would cause "a boy that driveth the plough" to know more of Scripture than the great body of the clergy then knew (Foxe, in Anderson's Annals of English Bible, 1:36). We are able to form a fairly accurate estimate of his fitness for the work to which he thus gave himself. The change which had come over the universities of Continental Europe since the time of Wycliffe had affected those of England. Greek had been taught in Paris in 1458. The first Greek Grammar, that of Constantine Lascaris, had been printed in 1476. It was followed in 1480 by Craston's Lexicon. The more enterprising scholars of Oxford visited foreign universities for the sake of the new learning. Grocyn (d. 1519), Linacre (d. 1524), Colet (d. 1519), had, in this way, from the Greeks whom the fall of Constantinople had scattered over Europe, or from their Italian pupils, learned enough to enter, in their turn, upon the work of teaching. When Erasmus visited Oxford in 1497, he found in these masters a scholarship which even he could admire.

Tyndale, who went to Oxford cir. 1500, must have been within the range of their teaching. His two great opponents, Sir Thomas More and bishop Tonstal, are known to have been among their pupils. It is significant enough that, after some years of study, Tyndale left Oxford and went to Cambridge. Such changes were, it is true, common enough. The fame of any great teacher would draw around him men from other universities, from many lands. In this instance, the reason of Tyndale's choice is probably not far to seek (Walter, Biog. Notice to Tyndale's Doctrinal Treatises). Erasmus was in Cambridge from 1509 to 1514. All that we knew of Tyndale's character and life, the fact especially that he had made translations of portions of the N.T. as early as 1502 (Offor, Life of Tyndale, page 9), leads to the conclusion that he resolved to make the most of the presence of one who was emphatically the scholar and philologist of Europe. It must be remembered, too, that the great scheme of cardinal Ximenes was just then beginning to interest the minds of all scholars. The publication of the Complutensian Bible, it is true, did not take place till 1520; but the collection of MSS. and other preparations for it began as early as 1504. In the mean time Erasmus himself, in 1516, brought out the first published edition of the Greek Testament, and it was thus made accessible to all scholars. Of the use made by Tyndale of these opportunities we have evidence in his coming up to London (1522), in the vain hope of persuading Tonstal (known as a Greek scholar, an enlightened Humanist) to sanction his scheme of rendering the N.T. into English; and bringing a translation of one of the orations of Isocrates as a proof of his capacity for the work. The attempt was not successful. "At the last I understood not only that there was no room in my lord of London's palace to translate the N.T., but also that there was no place to do it in all England"' (Pref. to Five Books of Moses).

It is not so easy to say how far at this time any knowledge of Hebrew was attainable at the English universities, or how far Tyndale had used any means of access that were open to him. It is probable that it may have been known, in some measure, to a few bolder than their fellows, at a time far earlier than the introduction of Greek. The large body of Jews settled in the cities of England must have possessed a knowledge, more or less extensive, of their Hebrew books. On their banishment, to the number of 16,000, by Edward I, these books fell into the hands of the monks, superstitiously reverenced or feared by most yet drawing some to examination, and then to study. Grostete, it is said, knew Hebrew as well as Greek.

Roger Bacon knew enough to pass judgment on the Vulgate as incorrect and misleading. Then, however, came a period in which linguistic studies were thrown into the background, and Hebrew became an unknown speech even to the best-read scholars. The first signs of a revival meet us towards the close of the 15th century. The remarkable fact that a, Hebrew Psalter was printed at Soncino in 1477 (forty years before Erasmus's Greek Testament), the Pentateuch in 1482, the Prophets in 1486, the whole of the O.T. in 1488, that by 1496 four editions had been published, and by 1596 not fewer than eleven (Whitaker, Hist. and Crit. Inquiry, page 22), indicates a demand on the part of the Christian students of Europe, not less than on that of the more learned Jews. Here also the progress of the Complutensian Bible would have attracted the notice of scholars. The cry raised by the "Trojans" of Oxford in 1519 (chiefly consisting of the friars, who from the time of Wycliffe had all but swamped the education of the place) against the first Greek lectures — that to study that language would make men pagans, that to study Hebrew would make them Jews — shows that the latter study as well as the former was the object of their dislike and fear (Anderson, 1:24; Hallam, Lit. of Eur. 1:403).

Whether Tyndale had in this way gained any knowledge of Hebrew before he left England in 1524 may be uncertain. The fact that in 1530-31 he published a translation of Genesis, Deuteronomy, and Jonah (see a letter by the ven. lord Arthur Hervey to the Bury Post of February 3, 1862, transferred shortly afterwards to the Athenaeum), may be looked on as the firstfruits of his labors, the work of a man who was giving this proof of his power to translate from the original (Anderson, Annals, 1:209-288). We may perhaps trace, among other motives for the many wanderings of his exile, a desire to visit the cities Worms, Cologne, Hamburg, Antwerp (Anderson, pages 48-64), where the Jews lived in greatest numbers, and some of which were famous for their Hebrew learning. Of at least a fair acquaintance with that language we have, a few years later, abundant evidence in the table of Hebrew words prefixed to his translation of the five books of Moses, and in casual etymologies scattered through his other works, e.g. "Mammon" (Parable of Wicked Mammoen, page 68), "Cohen" (Obedience, page 255), "Abel Mizraim" (page 347), "Pesah" (page 353). A remark (Preface to Obedience, page 148) shows how well he had entered into the general spirit of the language. "The properties of the Hebrew tongue agreeth a thousand times more with the Englishe than with the Latine. The manner of speaking is in both one, so that in a thousand places thou needest not but to translate it into Englishe word for word." When Spalatin describes him in 1534, it is as one well-skilled in seven languages, and one of these is Hebrew (Anderson, 1:397).

The N.T. was, however, the great object of his care. First the gospels of Matthew and.Mark were published tentatively, then in 1525 the whole of the N.T. was printed in 4to at Cologne, and in small 8vo at Worms (reproduced in facsimile in 1862 by Mr. Francis Fry, Bristol). The work was the fruit of a self-sacrificing zeal, and the zeal was its own reward. In England it was received with denunciations. Tonstal, bishop of London, preaching at Paul's Cross, asserted that there were at least 2000 errors in it, and ordered all copies of it to be bought up and burnt. An act of Parliament (35 Hen. VIII, cap. 1) forbade the use of all copies of Tyndale's "false translation." Sir T. More (Dialogues, 1.c. Supplication of Souls, Confutation of Tindal's Answer) entered the lists against it, and accused the translator of heresy, bad scholarship, and dishonesty, of "corrupting Scripture after Luther's counsel." The treatment which it received from professed friends was hardly less annoying. Piratical editions were printed, often carelessly, by trading publishers at Antwerp. One of his own pupils, George Joye, undertook (in 1534) to improve the version by bringing it into closer conformity with the Vulgate, and made it the vehicle of peculiar opinions of his own, substituting "life after this life'" or "verie life," for "resurrection," as the translation of ἀνάστασις . (Comp. Tyndale's indignant protest in Pref. to edition of 1534.) Even the most zealous reformers in England seemed disposed to throw his translation overboard, and encouraged Coverdale (see below) in undertaking another. In the mean time the work went on. Editions were printed one after another, namely, at Halmburg, Cologne,Worms, in 1525; Antwerp in 1526, '27, '28; Marlborow (=Marburg) in 1529; Strasburg (Joye's edition) in 1531; Bergen-op-Zoom in 1533 (Joye's); John 6:1-71 at Nuremberg in 1533; Antwerp in 1534 (Cotton, Printed Editions, pages 4-6). The last appeared in 1535, just before his death, "diligently compared with the Greek," presenting for the first time systematic chapter-headings, and with some peculiarities in spelling specially intended for the pronunciation of the peasantry (Offor, Life, pages 82). His heroic life was brought to a close in 1536. We may cast one look on its sad end — the treacherous betrayal, the Judas-kiss of the false friend, the imprisonment at Vilvorden, the last prayer, "Lord, open the king of England's eyes." He was tied to the stake, then strangled to death, and finally burnt. (See Offor's memoir prefixed to his edition of Tyndale's New Testament.)

The work to which a life was thus nobly devoted was as nobly done. To Tyndale belongs the honor of having given the first example of a translation based on true principles, and the excellence of later versions has been almost in exact proportion as they followed his. Believing that every part of Scripture had one sense and one only, the sense in the mind of the writer (Obedience, page 30), he made it his work, using all philological helps that were accessible to attain that sense. Believing that the duty of a translator was to place his readers as nearly as possible on a level with those for whom the books were originally written, he looked on all the later theological associations that had gathered round the words of the N.T. as hindrances rather than helps, and sought, as far as possible, to get rid of them. Not "grace," but "favor," even in John 1:17 (in edition of 1525); not "charity," but "love;" not "confessing," but "acknowledging;" not "penance," but "repentance;" not "priests," but "seniors" or "elders;" not "salvation," but "health;" not "church," but "congregation," are'instances of the changes which were then looked on as startling and heretical innovations (Sir T. More, 1.c.). Some of them we are now familiar with. In others the later versions bear traces ofa reaction in favor of the older phraseology. In this, as .in other things, Tyndale was in advance, not only of his own age, but of the age that followed him. To him, however, it is owing that the versions of the English Church have throughout been popular, and not scholastic. All the exquisite grace and simplicity which have endeared the A.V. to men of the most opposite tempers and contrasted opinions — to J.H. Newman (Dublin Review, June, 1853) and J.A. Froude — is due mainly to his clear-sighted truthfulness. The testimony of a Roman Catholic scholar is worth quoting: 'In point of perspicacity and noble simplicity, propriety of idiom and purity of style, no English version has as yet surpassed it" (Geddes. Prospectus for a new Translation, page 89). The desire to make the Bible a people's book led Tyndale in one edition to something like a provincial rather than a national translation; but, on the whole, it kept him free from the besetting danger of the time, that of writing for scholars, not for the people; of a version full of "inkhorn" phrases, not in the spoken language of the English nation. And throughout there is the pervading stamp, so often wanting in other like works, of the most thorough truthfulness. No word has been altered to court a king's favor, or please bishops, or make out a case for or against a particular opinion. He is working freely, not in the fetters of prescribed rules. With the most entire sincerity he could say, 'I call God to record, against the day we shall appear before our Lord Jesus to give a reckoning of our doings, that I never altered one syllable of God's Word against my conscience, nor would this day, if all that is in the world, whether it be pleasure, honor, or riches, might be given me" (Anderson, 1:349).

IV. COVERDALE. —

1. A complete translation of the Bible, different from Tyndale's, bearing the name of Miles Coverdale, printed probably at Zurich, appeared in 1535. The undertaking itself, and the choice of Coverdale as the translator, were probably due to Cromwell. Tyndale's controversial treatises, and the polemical character of his prefaces and notes, had irritated the leading ecclesiastics, and embittered the mind of the king himself against him. All that he had written was publicly condemned. There was no hope of obtaining the king's sanction to anything that bore his name. But the idea of an English translation began to find favor. The rupture with the see of Rome, the marriage with Anne Boleyn, made Henry willing to adopt what was urged upon him as the surest way of breaking forever the spell othehe pope's authority. The bishops even began to think of the thing as possible. It was talked of in Convocation. They would take it in hand themselves. The work did not, however, make much progress. The great preliminary question whether "venerable" words, such as hostia, penance, pascha, holocaust, and the like, should be retained, was still unsettled (Anderson, 1:414). Not till "the day after doomsday" (the words are Cranmer's) were the English people likely to get their English Bible from the bishbps (ib. 1:577). Cromwell, it is probable, thought it better to lose no further time, and to strike while the iron was hot. A divine whom he had patronized, though not, like Tyndale, feeling himself called to that special work (Pref. to Coverdale's Bible), was willing to undertake it. To him accordingly it was intrusted. There was no stigma attached to his name, and, though a sincere Reformer, neither at that time nor afterwards did he occupy a sufficiently prominent position to become an object of special persecution.

2. The work which was thus executed was done, as might be expected, in a very different fashion from Tyndale's. Of the two men, one had made this the great object of his life; the other, in his own language, "sought it not, neither desired it," but accepted it as a task assigned him. One prepared himself for the work by long years of labor in Greek and Hebrew; the other is content to make a translation at second hand "out of the Douche (Luther's German Version) and the Latine." The one aims at a rendering which shall be the truest and most exact possible; the other loses himself in weak commonplace as to the advantage of using many English words for one and the same word in the original, and in practice oscillates between "penance" and "repentance," "love" and '"charity," priests" and "elders," as though one set of words were as true and adequate as the other (Preface, page 19). In spite of these weaknesses, however, there is much to esteem in the spirit and temper of Coverdale. He is a second-rate man, laboring as such contentedly, not ambitious to appear other than he is. He thinks it a great gain that there should be a diversity of translations. He acknowledges, though he dare not name.it, the excellence of Tyndale's version, and regrets the misfortune which left it incomplete. He states frankly that he had done his work with the assistance of that and of five others. The five were probably: (1.) The Vulgate; (2.) Luther's; (3.) The German Swiss version of Zurich; (4.) The Latin of Pagninus; (5.) Tyndale's.

Others, however, have conjectured a German translation of the Vulgate earlier than Luther's, and a Dutch version from Luther (Whit. aker, Hist. and Crit. Inquiry, page 49). If the language of his dedication to the king, whom he compares to Moses, David, and Josiah, seems to be somewhat fulsome in its flattery, it is, at least, hardly more offensive than that of the Dedication of the A.V., and there was more to palliate it.

3. An inspection of Coverdale's version serves to show the influence of the authorities he followed. The proper names of the O.T. appear for the most part in their Latin fotm, "Elias," "Eliseus," "Ochozias;" sometimes, as in "Esay" and "Jeremy," in that which was familiar in spoken English. Some points of correspondence with Luther's version are not without interest. Thus "Cush," which in Wycliffe, Tyndale, and the A.V. is uniformly rendered "Ethiopia," is in Coverdale "Morians' land" (Psalms 68:31; Acts 8:27, etc.), after the "Mohrenlande" of Luther, and appears in this form accordingly in the P.B. version of the Psalms. The proper name Rabshakeh passes, as in Luther, into the "chief butler" (2 Kings 18:17; Isaiah 36:11). In making the sons of David "priests" (2 Samuel 8:18) he followed both his authorities. Ε᾿πίσκοποι are "bishops" in Acts 20:28 ("overseers" in A.V.). "Shiloh," in the prophecy of Genesis 49:10, becomes "the worthy," after Luther's "der Held." "They houghed oxen" takes the place of "they digged down a wall," in Genesis 49:6. The singular word "Lamia" is taken from the Vulg., as the English rendering of Ziim ("wild beasts," A.V.) in Isaiah 34:14. The "tabernacle of witness," where the A.V. has "congregation," shows the same influence. In spite of Tyndale, the Vulg. "plena gratia," in Luke 1:28, leads to "full of grace;" while we have, on the other hand, "congregation" throughout the N.T. for ἐκκλησία, and "love" instead of "charity" in 1 Corinthians 13:1-13. It was the result of the same indecision that his language as to the Apocrypha lacks the sharpness of that of the more zealous reformers. "Baruch" is placed with the canonical books, after "Lamentations." Of the rest he says that they are "placed apart," as "not held by ecclesiastical doctors in the same repute" as the other Scriptures, but this is only because there are "dark sayings" which seem to differ from the "open Scripture." He has no wish that they should be "despised or little set by." "Patience and study would show that the two were agreed."

4. What has been stated practically disposes of the claim which has sometimes been made for this version of Coverdale's, as though it had been made from the original text (Anderson, 1:564; Whitaker, Hist. and Crit. Inquiry, page 58). It is not improbable, however, that as time went on he added to his knowledge. The letter addressed by him to Cromwell (Renains, page 492, Parker Soc.) obviously asserts, somewhat ostentatiously, an acquaintance "not only with the standing text of the Hebrew, with the interpretation of the Chaldee and the Greek," but also with "the diversity of reading of all sects." He, at any rate, continued his work as a pains-taking editor. Fresh editions of his Bible were published, keeping their ground in spite of rivals, in 1537, 1539, 1550, 1553. He was called in at a still later period to assist in the Geneva version. Among smaller facts connected with this edition may be mentioned the appearance of Hebrew letters-of the name Jehovah-in the title-page (יהוה ), and again in the margin of the alphabetic poetry of Lamentations, though not of Psalms 119:1-176. The plural form "Biblia" is retained in the title-page, possibly, however, in its later use as a singular feminine, (See BIBLE). There are no notes; no chapter-headings, no divisions into verses. The letters A, B, C,D in the margin, as in the early editions of Greek and Latin authors, are the only helps for finding places. Marginal references point to parallel passages. The O.T., especially in Genesis, has the attraction of wood-cuts. Each book has a table of contents prefixed to it. A careful reprint, though not a facsimile, of Coverdale's version has been published by Bagster (London 1838).

V. MATTHEW. —

1. In the year 1537, a large folio Bible appeared as edited and dedicated to the king, by Thomas Matthew. No one of that name appears at all prominently in the religious history of Henry VIII, and this suggests the inference that the name was pseudonymous, adopted to conceal the real translator. The tradition which connects this Matthew with John Rogers, the protomartyr of the Marian persecution, is all but undisputed. It rests

(1) on the language of the indictment and sentence which describe him (Foxe, Acts and Monuments, page 1029, 1563; Chester, Life of Rogers, pages 418-423) as Joannes Rogers, alias Matthew, as if it were a matter of notoriety;

(2) the testimony of Foxe himself, as representing, if not personal knowledge, the current belief of his time;

(3) the occurrence, at the close of a short exhortation to the study of Scripture in the preface, of the initials J.R.; (4) internal evidence. This last subdivides itself.

(a.) Rogers, who had graduated at Pembroke College, Cambridge, in 1525, and had sufficient fame to be invited to the new Cardinal's College at Oxford, accepted the office of chaplain to the merchant adventurers of Antwerp, and there became acquainted with Tyndale two years before the latter's death. Matthew's Bible, as might be expected, if this hypothesis were true, reproduces Tyndale's work, in the N.T. entirely, in the O.T. as far as 2 Chronicles, the rest being taken, with occasional modifications, from Coverdale.

(b.) The language of the Dedication is that of one who has mixed much, as Rogers mixed, with foreign reformers ("the godlie in strange countries").

2. The printing of the book was begun apparently abroad, and was carried on as far as the end of Isaiah., At that point a new pagination begins, and the names of the Lond6n printers, Grafton and Whitechurch, appear. The history of the book was probably something like this: Coverdale's translation had not given satisfaction — least of all were the more zealous and scholar-like reformers contented with it. As the only complete English Bible, it was, however, as yet, in possession of the field. Tyndale and Rogers, therefore, in the year preceding the imprisonment of the former, determined on another, to include O.T., N.T., and Apocrypha, but based throughout on the original. Left to himself, Rogers carried on the work, probably at the expense of the same Antwerp merchant who had assisted Tyndale (Poyntz), and thus got as far as Isaiah. The enterprising London printers, Grafton and Whitechurch, then came in (Chester, Life of Rogers, page 29). It would be a good speculation to enter the market with this, and so drive out Coverdale's, in which they had no interest. They accordingly embarked a considerable capital, £500, and then came a stroke of policy which may be described as a miracle of audacity. The name of Rogers, known as the friend of Tyndale, is suppressed, and the simulacrum of Thomas Matthew disarms suspicion. The book is sent by Grafton to Cranmer. He reads, approves, rejoices. He would rather have the news of its being licensed than a thousand pounds (Chester, pages 425-427). Application is then made both by Grafton and Cranmer to Cromwell. The king's license is granted, but the publisher wants more. Nothing less than a monopoly for ave years will give him a fair margin of profit. Without this, he is sure to be undersold by piratical, inaccurate editions, badly printed on inferior paper. Failing this, he trusts that the king will order one copy to be bought by every incumbent, and six by every abbey. If this was too much, the king might, at least, impose that obligation on all the popishly-inclined clergy. That will bring in something, besides the good it may possibly do them (Chester, pages 430). The application was to some extent successful. A copy was ordered, by royal proclamation, to be set up in every church, the cost being divided between the clergy and the parishioners. This was, therefore, the first Authorized Version. It is scarcely conceivable, however, that Henry could have read the book which he thus sanctioned, or known that it was substantially identical with what had been publicly stigmatized in his Acts of Parliament (ut supra). What had before given most offense had been the polemical character of Tyndale's annotations, and here were notes bolder and more thorough still.. Even the significant "W.T." does not appear to have attracted notice.

3. What has been said of Tyndale's version applies, of course, to this. There are, however, signs of a more advanced knowledge of Hebrew. All the technical words connected with the Psalms, Neginoth, Shiggaion, Sheminith, etc., are elaborately explained. Psalms 2:1-12 is printed as a dialogue. The names of the Hebrew letters are prefixed to the verses of Lamentations. Reference is made to the,Chaldee Paraphrase (Job 6:1-30), to Rabbi Abraham (Job 19:1-29), to Kimchi (Psalms 3:1-8). A like range of knowledge is shown in the N.T. Strabo is quoted to show that the magi were not kings, Macrobius as testifying to Herod's ferocity (Matthew ii), Erasmus's Paraphrase on Matthew 13:15. The popular identification of Mary Magdalene with "the woman that was a sinner" is discussed, and rejected (Luke 10:1-42). More noticeable even than in Tyndale is the boldness and fullness of the exegetical notes scattered throughout the book. Strong and earnest in asserting what he looked upon as the central truths of the Gospel, there was in Rogers a Luther-like freedom in other things which has not appeared again in any authorized translation or popular commentary. He guards his readers against looking on the narrative of Job 1:1-22 as literally true. He recognises a definite historical starting-point for Psalms 41:1-13 ("The sons of Korah praise Solomon for the beauty, eloquence, power, and nobleness, both of himself and of his wife"), Psalms 22:1-31 ("David declareth Christ's dejection ... and all, under figure of himself"), and the Song of Solomon ("Solomon made this balade for himself and his wife, the daughter of Pharaoh, under the shadow of himself, figuring Christ," etc.).

The chief duty of the Sabbath is "to minister the fodder of the Word to simple souls," to be "pitiful over the weariness of such neighbors as labored sore all the week long." "When such occasions come as turn our rest to occupation and labor, then ought we to remember that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath" (Jeremiah 17:1-27). He sees in the prophets of the N.T. simply "expounders of Holy Scripture" (Acts 15:1-41). To the man living in faith, " Peter's fishing after the resurrection, and all deeds of matrimony are pure spiritual;" to those who are not, "learning, doctrine, contemplation of high things, preaching, study of Scripture, founding of churches and abbeys, are works of the flesh" (Pref. to Romans). "Neither is outward circumcision or outward baptism worth a pin of themselves, save that they put us in remembrance to keep the covenant" (1 Corinthians 7:1-40). "He that desireth honor gaspeth after lucre ... castles, parks, lordships... . desireth not a work, much less a good work, and nothing less than a bishop's" (1 Timothy 3:1-16). Ezekiel 34:1-31 is said to be "against bishops and curates that despise the flock of Christ." The ἄγγελος ἐκκλησίας of Rev. ii and in appears (as in Tyndale) as "the messenger of the congregation." Strong protests against Purgatory are found in notes to Ezekiel 18:1-32 and 1 Corinthians 3:1-23, and in the "Table of Principal Matters" it is significantly stated under the word Purgatory that " it is not in the Bible, but the purgation and remission of our sins is made us by the abundant mercy of God." The Preface to the Apocrypha explains the name, and distinctly asserts the inferiority of these books. No notes are added to them, and the translation of them is taken from Coverdale, as if it had not been worth while to give much labor to it.

4. A few points of detail remain to be noticed. In the order of the books of the N.T. Rogers follows Tyndale, agreeing with the A.V. as far as the Epistle to Philemon. This is followed by the Epistles of John, then that to the Hebrews, then those of Peter, James, and Jude. Wood-cuts, not very freely introduced elsewhere, are prefixed to every chapter in the Revelation. The introduction of the "Table" mentioned above gives Rogers a claim to be the patriarch of Concordances, the "father" of all such as write in Dictionaries of the Bible. Reverence for the Hebrew text is shown by his striking out the three verses which the Vulgate has added to Psalms 14:1-7. In a later edition, published at Paris, not by Rogers himself, but by Grafton, under Coverdale's superintendence, in 1539, the obnoxious prologue and prefaces were suppressed, and the notes systematically expurgated and toned down. The book was in advance of the age. Neither booksellers nor bishops were prepared to be responsible for it.

VI. TAVERNER (1539). —

1. The boldness of the pseudo-Matthew had, as has been said, frightened the ecclesiastical world from its propriety. Coverdale's version was, however, too inaccurate to keep its ground. It was necessary to find another editor, and the printers applied to Richard Taverner. But little is known of his life. The fact that, though a layman, he had been chosen as one of the canons of the Cardinal's College at Oxford indicates a reputation for scholarship, and this is confirmed by the character of his translation. It professes, in the title-page, to be "newly recognized, with great diligence, after the most faithful exemplars." The editor acknowledges the labors of others (i.e., Tyndale, Coverdale, and Matthew, though he does not name them) who have neither undiligently nor unlearnedly traveled," owns that the work is not one that can be done "absolutely" (i.e., completely) by one or two persons, but requires "a deeper conferring of many learned wittes together, and also a juster time and longer leisure;" but the thing had to be done; he had been asked to do it. He had "used his talent" as he could.

2. In most respects this may be described as an expurgated edition of Matthew's. There is a table of principal matters, and there are notes; but the notes are briefer and less polemical. The passages quoted above are, e.g. omitted wholly or in part. The epistles follow the same order as before.

VII. CRANMER. —

1. In the same year as Taverner's, and coming from the same press, appeared an English Bible, in a more stately folio, printed with a more costly type, bearing a higher name than any previous edition. The title-page is an elaborate engraving, the spirit and power of which indicate the hand of Holbein. The king, seated on his throne, is giving the Verbum Dei to the bishops and doctors, and they distribute it to the people, while doctors and people are all joining in cries of "Vivat Rex." It declares the book to be "truly translated after the verity of the Hebrew and Greek texts" by "divers excellent learned men, expert in the foresaid tongues." A preface, in April 1540, with the initials "T.C." implies the archbishop's sanction. In a later edition (November 1540) his name appears on the title-page, and the names of his coadjutors are given, Cuthbert (Tonstal), bishop of Durham, and Nicholas (Heath), bishop of Rochester; but this does not exclude the possibility of others having been employed for the first edition.

2. Cranmer's version presents, as might be expected, many points of interest. The prologue gives a more complete ideal of what a translation ought to be than we have as yet seen. Words not in the original are to be printed in a different type. They are added, even when "not wanted by the sense," to satisfy those who have "missed them" in previous translations, 1:e. they represent the various readings of the Vulgate where it differs from the Hebrew. The sign * indicates diversity in the Chaldee and Hebrew. It had been intended to give all these, but it was found that this would have taken too much time and space, and the editors purposed therefore to print them in a little volume by themselves. The frequent hands in the margin, in like manner, show an intention to give notes at the end; but Matthew's Bible had made men cautious, and, as there had not been time for the "king's council to settle them," they were omitted, and no help given to the reader beyond the marginal references. In the absence of notes, the lay- reader is to submit himself to the "godly-learned in Christ Jesus." There is, as the title-page might lead us to expect, a greater display of Hebrew than in any previous version. The books of the Pentateuch have their Hebrew names given, Bereschith (Genesis), Velle Schemoth (Exodus), and so on. 1 and 2 Chronicles in like manner appear as Dibre Haiamim. In the edition of 1541, many proper names in the O.T. appear in the fuller Hebrew form, as e.g., Amaziahu, Jeremiahu. In spite of this parade of learning, however, the edition of 1539 contains, perhaps, the most startling blunder that ever appeared under the sanction of an archbishop's name. The editors adopted the preface which, in Matthew's Bible, had been prefixed to the Apocrypha. In that preface the common traditional explanation of the name was concisely given. They appear, however, to have shrunk from offending the conservative party in the Church by applying to the books in question so damnatory an epithet as Apocrypha. They looked out for a word more neutral and respectful, and found one that appeared in some MSS. of Jerome so applied, though in strictness it belonged to an entirely different set of books. They accordingly substituted that word, leaving the preface in all other respects as it was before, and the result is the somewhat ludicrous statement that the "books were called Hagiographa," because "they were read in secret and apart!"

3. A later edition in 1541 presents a few modifications worth noticing. It appears as "authorized" to be "used and frequented" in every church in the kingdom. The introductionwith all its elaborate promise of a future perfection, disappears, and in its place there is a long preface by Cranmer, avoiding as much as possible all references to other translations, taking a safe via media tone, blaming those who "refuse to read" on the one hand, and "inordinate reading" on the other. This neutral character, so characteristic of Cranmer's policy, was doubtless that which enabled it to keep its ground during the changing moods of Henry's later years. It was reprinted again and again, and was the authorized version of the English Church till 1568 — the interval of Mary's reign excepted. From it, accordingly, were taken most, if not all, the portions of Scripture in the Prayer-books of 1549 and 1552. The Psalms as a whole, the quotations from Scripture in the Homilies, the sentences in the Communion services, and some phrases elsewhere (such as "worthy fruits of penance"), still preserve the remembrance of it. The oscillating character of the book is shown in the use of "love" instead of "charity" in 1 Corinthians 13:1-13; and "congregation" instead of "church" generally, after Tyndale; while in 1 Timothy 4:14, we have the singular rendering, as if to gain the favor of his opponents, "with authority of priesthood." The plan of indicating doubtful texts by a smaller type was adhered to, and was applied, among other passages, to Psalms 14:5-7, and the more memorable text of 1 John 5:7. The translation of 1 Timothy 3:16, "All Scripture given by inspiration of God is profitable," etc., anticipated a construction of that text which has sometimes been boasted of, and some. times attacked as an innovation. In this, however, Tyndale had led the way.

VIII. GENEVA. —

1. The experimental translation of the Gospel of Matthew by Sir John Cheke into a purer English than before (Strype, Life of Cheke, 7:3) had so little influence on the versions that followed that it hardly calls for more than a passing notice, as showing that scholars were as yet unsatisfied. The reaction under Mary gave a check to the whole work, as far as England was concerned; but the exiles who fled to Geneva entered upon it with more vigor than ever. Cranmer's version did not come up to their ideal. Its size made it too costly. There were no explanatory or dogmatic notes. It followed Coverdale too closely; and where it deviated, did so, in some instances, in a retrograde direction. The Genevan refugees — among them Whittingham, Goodman, Pullain, Sampson, and Coverdale himself — labored "for two years or more, day and night." They entered on their "great and wonderful work" with much "fear and trembling." Their translation of the N.T. was "diligently revised by the most approved Greek examples" (MSS. or editions?) (Preface). The N.T., translated by Whittingham, was printed by Conrad Badius in 1557, the whole Biule in 1560.

2. In point of general correctness in expressing the true sense of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, the Geneva version shows a very marked advance on all that preceded it, and for more than sixty years it was the most popular of all the English versions. Largely imported in the early years of Elizabeth, it was printed in England in 1561, and a patent of monopoly was given to James Bodleigh. This was transferred in 1576 to Barker, in whose family the right of printing Bibles remained for upwards of a century. Not less than eighty editions, some of the whole Bible, were printed between 1558 and 1611. It kept its ground for some time even against the later version of king James, and gave way, as it were, slowly and under protest. In the Soldiers' Pocket Bible, published in 1643 for the use of Cromwell's army, almost all the selections of Scripture were taken from the Geneva version. The causes of this general acceptance are not difficult to ascertain. The volume was, in most of its editions, cheaper and more portable — a small quarto, instead of the large folio of Cranmer's "Great Bible." It was the first Bible which laid aside the adolescent black letter, and appeared in Roman type. It was the first which, following the Hebrew example, recognised the division into verses, so dear to the preachers or hearers of sermons. It was accompanied, in most of the editions after 1578, by a Bible Dictionary of considerable merit. The notes were often really helpful in dealing with the difficulties of Scripture, and were looked upon as spiritual and evangelical. It was accordingly the version specially adopted by the great Puritan party through the whole reign of Elizabeth, and far into that of James. As might be expected, it was based on Tyndale's version, often returning to it where the intermediate renderings had had the character of a compromise.

3. Some peculiarities are worthy of special notice:

(1) It professes a desire to restore the "true writing" of many Hebrew names, and we meet accordingly with forms like Izhak (Isaac), Jaacob, and the like.

(2) It omits the name of Paul from the title of the Epistle to the Hebrews; and, in a short preface, leaves the authorship an open question.

(3) It avows the principle of putting all words not in the original in italics.

(4) It presents, in a Calendar prefixed to the Bible, something like a declaration of war against the established order of the Church's lessons, commemorating Scripture facts, and the deaths of the great reformers, but ignoring saints' days altogether.

(5) It was the first English Bible which entirely omitted the Apocrypha.

(6) The notes were characteristically Swiss, not only in their theology, but in their politics. They made allegiance to kings dependent upon the soundness of their faith, and in one instance (note on 2 Chronicles 15:16) at least seemed, to the easily startled James I, to favor tyrannicide.

4. The circumstances of the early introduction of the Geneva version are worth mentioning, if only as showing in how different a spirit the great fathers of the English Reformation, the most conservative of Anglican theologians, acted from that which has too often animated their successors. Men talk now of different translations and various readings as likely to undermine the faith of the people. When application was made to archbishop Parker, in 1565, to support Bodleigh's application for a license to reprint the Geneva version in 12mo, he wrote to Cecil in its favor. He was at the time looking forward to the work he afterwards accomplished, of one other special Bible for the churches, to be set forth as convenient time and leisure should permit" but in the mean time it would "nothing hinder, but rather doo much good, to have diversity of translations and readings" (Strype, Life of Parker, 3:6). Many of the later reprints, instead of the Geneva version from the Greek, have Tomson's translation of Beza's Latin version; and the notes are said to be taken from Joac. Camer, P. Leseler, Villerius, and Fr. Junius. The Geneva version, as published by Barker, is that popularly known as the Breeches Bible, from its rendering of Genesis 3:7. It had, however, been preceded in this by Wycliffe's.

IX. THE BISHOPS' BIBLE. —

1. The facts just stated will account for the wish of archbishop Parker, in spite of his liberal tolerance, to bring out another version which might establish its claims against that of Geneva. Great preparations were made. The correspondence of Parker with his suffragans presents some points of interest, as showing how little agreement there was as to the true theory of a translation. Thus, while Sandys, bishop of Worcester, finds fault with the "common translation" (Geneva?), as "following Munster too much," and so "swerving much from the Hebrew," Guest, bishop of St. David's, who took the Psalms, acted on the principle of translating them so as to agree with the N.T. quotations, "for the avoiding of offense;" and Cox, bishop of Ely, while laying down the sensible rule that "inkhorn terms were to be avoided," also went on to add "that the usual ter