(Matthew iii. 1-4.) In those dayes came Iohn the Baptyst, preaching in the wyldernes of Iewry, saying, Repent of the life that is past, for the kyngdome of heauen is at hande, For thys is he, of whom the prophet Esay spake, which sayeth, the voyce of a cryer in the wyldernes, prepare ye the waye of the lorde: make hys pathes strayght. Thys Iohn had hys garment of camels heer And a gyrdell of a skynne aboute hys loynes. His meate was locustes and wylde hony.(Matthew vi. 9-13.) Oure father which art in heauen, halowed be thy name. Let thy kingdome come. Thy will be fulfilled, as well in erth, as it is in heuen. Geue vs this daye oure dayly bred. And forgeue vs oure dettes, as we forgeue oure detters. And leade vs not into temptation: but delyuer vs from euyll. For thyne is the kyngdom and the power, and the glorye for euer. Amen.
(Matthew iii. 1-4.) In those dayes came Iohn the Baptyst, preaching in the wyldernes of Iewry, saying, Repent of the life that is past, for the kyngdome of heauen is at hande, For thys is he, of whom the prophet Esay spake, which sayeth, the voyce of a cryer in the wyldernes, prepare ye the waye of the lorde: make hys pathes strayght. Thys Iohn had hys garment of camels heer And a gyrdell of a skynne aboute hys loynes. His meate was locustes and wylde hony.
(Matthew vi. 9-13.) Oure father which art in heauen, halowed be thy name. Let thy kingdome come. Thy will be fulfilled, as well in erth, as it is in heuen. Geue vs this daye oure dayly bred. And forgeue vs oure dettes, as we forgeue oure detters. And leade vs not into temptation: but delyuer vs from euyll. For thyne is the kyngdom and the power, and the glorye for euer. Amen.
Meanwhile the closing years of Henry VIII.’s reign were characterized by restrictive measures as to the reading and use of the Bible. Tyndale Version was prohibited by an act ofparliament, 1543; at the same time it was enacted that all notes and marginal commentaries in other copies should be obliterated, and that “no woman (unless she be a noble or gentle woman), no artificers, apprentices, journeymen, servingmen, under the degree of yeomen ... husbandmen or labourers” should read or use any part of the Bible under pain of fines and imprisonment.37
In 1546 Coverdale’s Bible was included in the proscription, theGreat Biblebeing the only translation not interdicted. During Edward VI.’s reign there was a brief respite, but with the accession of Mary the persecutions of theWilliam Whittingham.English Bible and its friends were renewed. Cranmer suffered martyrdom at the stake, as John Rogers had done before him. Other prominent reformers, amongst them Coverdale, sought refuge in Geneva, the town of Calvin and Beza, where they employed their enforced leisure in planning and carrying out a new revision of the Bible. The first fruits of these labours was a New Testament issued in June 1557, with an introduction by Calvin, probably the work of William Whittingham.38The volume, in a convenient quarto size, printed in clear Roman type, and provided with marginal annotations, gained immediate popularity in England, where a Bible suited for household demands had long been needed. It was the first Bible which had the text divided into “verses and sections according to the best editions in other languages.”39
Whittingham’s enterprise was, however, soon superseded by an issue of the whole Bible, which appeared in 1560, the so-calledGenevan Bible, popularly also known as theBreeches Bible, from its rendering of Gen. iii. 7, “They sewedThe Genevan Bible.fig leaves together and made themselves breeches.” This edition was mainly due to the combined efforts of William Whittingham, Anthony Gilby and Thomas Sampson, and the expenses towards printing and publication were borne by members of the congregation at Geneva. It represented in the Old Testament a thorough and independent revision of the text of theGreat Biblewith the help of the Hebrew original, the Latin versions of Leo Judä (1543), Pagninus (1528), Sebastian Münster (1534-1535), and the French versions of Olivetan. The New Testament consisted of Tyndale’s latest text revised to a great extent in accordance with Beza’s translation and commentary. The changes introduced by the Genevan translators were, as a rule, a great improvement, and the version received a ready welcome and immediate popularity, not only on account of its intrinsic merits, but because of its handy size, usually that of a small quarto, and of its being printed, like Whittingham’s New Testament, in a readable Roman type instead of black letter. Like this earlier publication, it had the division of the chapters into verses, and a marginal commentary which proved a great attraction to the Puritans. The popularity of the Genevan Bible was so great that between 1560 and 1644 at least 140 editions of it were published,40and this in spite of its not being allowed for use in the churches.
In 1576 the New Testament of the Genevan Bible was again revised by Lawrence Tomson and provided with a new commentary mainly translated from Beza. It soon became popular and even replaced the Genevan New Testament in later editions of this Bible.
Some time after the accession of Queen Elizabeth an attempt was made to improve the authorizedGreat Bible, and in this way to challenge the ever growing popularity of the CalvinisticGenevan Bible. The initiative was takenThe Bishops’ Bible.by Archbishop Parker, about 1563-1565, who, according to Strype (Parker i. 414) “took upon him the labour to contrive and set the whole work a going ... by sorting out the whole Bible into parcels ... and distributing these parcels to able bishops and other learned men, to peruse and collate each the book or books allotted them ... and they to add some short marginal notes for the illustration or correction of the text.”
The rules upon which they proceeded 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 text as Pagnine in his translation useth, and for the verity of the Hebrew to follow the said Pagnine and Münster 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 matters 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.”
The rules upon which they proceeded 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 text as Pagnine in his translation useth, and for the verity of the Hebrew to follow the said Pagnine and Münster 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 matters 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.”
The work was pushed forward with energy, and on the 5th of October 1568 the volume was ready for publication. It was a magnificent folio, generally known as theBishops’ Bible, since not less than eight of these dignitaries took part in the revision. But the detached and piecemeal way in which the revision had been carried out naturally caused certain inequalities in the execution of the work. The different parts of the Bible vary considerably in merit, the alterations in the New Testament, for instance, showing freshness and vigour, whereas most of the changes introduced in the Old Testament have been condemned as “arbitrary and at variance with the exact sense of the Hebrew text” (Westcott,op. cit.p. 237). Several editions of theBishops’ Biblewere afterwards published, but it is doubtful whether the ecclesiastical authorities in spite of repeated enactments (Cardwell,Synodalia, pp. 115, 123, 210, 292) ever succeeded in entirely enforcing its public use in the churches. After 1569 the Great Bible ceased, however, to be reprinted. But in the homes the Genevan version still maintained its supremacy. One thing is certain, that the book of Psalms of the new revision had fairly soon to give way before the well-known and smooth rendering of the Great Bible. In the second edition of the Bishops’ Bible, 1572, the two texts were actually printed side by side; in all later editions except one (1585) the older Psalter alone remained.
From the time of Tyndale onwards the translation of the Scriptures into English had been more or less an outcome of the great reformatory movements within the church. It was not until Queen Elizabeth’s reign that membersThe Reims and Douai Version.of the Romanist party found it expedient to translate the Bible into the vernacular “for the more speedy abolishing of a number of false and impious translations put forth by sundry sectes, and for the better preseruation or reclaime of many good soules endangered thereby” (Prefaceto the Rhemish Version).
According to the title-page the New Testament was “translated faithfvlly into English ovt of the authentical Latin, according to the best corrected copies of the same, diligently conferred vvith the Greeke and other editions in diuers languages.... In the English College of Rhemes, 1582.” The Old Testament had been “long since” completed, but “for lacke of good meanes” (Preface to the New Testament), its appearance was delayed till 1609-1610, when it was published at Douai. The complete work, known as theRhemes and Douay Version, was reprinted in Rouen in 1635, and after a considerable time revised by Dr Challoner (1749-1750). The translation is really anonymous, but there seems to be little doubt that it was carried out by some of the Romanist refugees connected with the Seminary at Douai and the English college at Reims, the chief amongst them being Gregory Martin, William Allen, Richard Bristow and J. Reynolds. Like the Wycliffite Versions it is merely a secondary rendering from the Latin Vulgate, and it suffered from many of the defects which characterized these versions, extreme literalness, often stilted, ambiguous renderings, at times unintelligible except by a reference to the Latin original, as in Luke xxii. 18, “I will not drink of the generation of the vine,” or Phil. ii. 7, “But he exinanited himself.”
As further examples of this rendering we print the same passages from St Matthew:—
(Matthew iii. 1-4.) And in those dayes cometh Iohn the Baptist preaching in the desert of Ievvrie, saying. Doe penance: for the Kingdom of heauen is at hand. For this is he that vvas spoken of by Esay the Prophet, saying, A voyce of one crying in the desert, prepare ye the way of our Lord, make straight his pathes. And the sayd Iohn had his garment of camels heare, & a girdle of a skinne about his loynes: and his meate was locustes & vvilde honie.(Matthew vi. 9-13.) Ovr Father which art in heauen, sanctified be thy name. Let thy Kingdom come. Thy wil be done, as in heauen, in earth also. Giue vs to day our supersubstantial bread. And forgiue vs our dettes, as we also forgiue our detters. And leade vs not into tentation. But deliuer vs from evil. Amen.
(Matthew iii. 1-4.) And in those dayes cometh Iohn the Baptist preaching in the desert of Ievvrie, saying. Doe penance: for the Kingdom of heauen is at hand. For this is he that vvas spoken of by Esay the Prophet, saying, A voyce of one crying in the desert, prepare ye the way of our Lord, make straight his pathes. And the sayd Iohn had his garment of camels heare, & a girdle of a skinne about his loynes: and his meate was locustes & vvilde honie.
(Matthew vi. 9-13.) Ovr Father which art in heauen, sanctified be thy name. Let thy Kingdom come. Thy wil be done, as in heauen, in earth also. Giue vs to day our supersubstantial bread. And forgiue vs our dettes, as we also forgiue our detters. And leade vs not into tentation. But deliuer vs from evil. Amen.
The strongly Latinized vocabulary of this version was not without its influence on the next great venture in English translations of the Bible, theAuthorized Version.41
The English Bible, which is now recognized as theAuthorized Versionwherever the English language is spoken, is a revision of the Bishops’ Bible, begun in 1604, and published in 1611. It arose incidentally out of a ConferenceThe Authorized Version, 1611.between the High Church and the Low Church parties convened by James I. at Hampton Court Palace in January 1604, for the purpose of determining “things pretended to be amiss in the church,” and was originally proposed by Dr Reynolds, president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford, the leader and spokesman of the Low Church party, and subsequently on the committee which revised the translation of the Prophets.
No real opposition was offered to the proposal, and the king cleverly sketched out on the moment a plan to be adopted. He “wished that some special pains should be taken in that behalf for one uniform translation—professing that he could never yet see a Bible well translated in English—and this to be done by the best learned in both the Universities; after them to be reviewed by the bishops and the chief learned of the Church; from them to be presented to the privy council; and lastly to be ratified by his royal authority; and so this whole church to be bound unto it and none other.”42He also particularly desired that no notes should be added by way of comment in the margin, since some of those in the Genevan Bible appeared to him “very partial, untrue, seditious and savouring too much of dangerous and traiterous conceits.”
The appointment of the revisers was a work of much responsibility and labour, and five months elapsed before they were selected and their respective portions assigned to them; but the list of those who began the work, and who, with some few changes in consequence of deaths, brought it to a happy conclusion, shows how large an amount of scholarship was enlisted. It includes Dr Andrewes, afterwards bishop of Winchester, who was familiar with Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Greek, Latin and at least ten other languages, while his knowledge of patristic literature was unrivalled; Dr Overall, regius professor of theology and afterwards bishop of Norwich; Bedwell, the greatest Arabic scholar of Europe; Sir Henry Savile, the most learned layman of his time; and, to say nothing of others well known to later generations, nine who were then or afterwards professors of Hebrew or of Greek at Oxford or Cambridge. It is observable also that they were chosen without reference to party, at least as many of the Puritan clergy as of the opposite party being placed on the committees.
The following list43is drawn up in such a way as to show the academical or other position which each of them occupied, and the particular part of the work on which they were engaged.Genesis-2Kings.Dr Lancelot Andrewes, dean of Westminster.Dr John Overall, dean of St Paul’s.Dr Hadrian de Saravia, canon of Canterbury.Dr Richard Clark, fellow of Christ’s Coll., Camb.Dr John Layfield, fellow of Trin. Coll., Camb.Dr Robert Teigh, archdeacon of Middlesex.Mr Francis Burleigh, Pemb. Hall, Camb., D.D., 1607.Mr Geoffrey King, fellow of King’s Coll., Camb.Mr Thompson, Clare Hall, Camb.Mr William Bedwell, St John’s Coll., Camb.Westminster.1 Chron.-Eccles.Mr Edward Lively, fellow of Trin. Coll.Mr John Richardson, afterwards master of Trin. Coll.Mr Laurence Chatterton, master of Emm. Coll.Mr Francis Dillingham, fellow of Christ’s Coll.Mr Thomas Harrison, vice-master of Trin. Coll.Mr Roger Andrewes, afterwards master of Jesus Coll.Mr Robert Spalding, fellow of St John’s.Mr Andrew Byng, fellow of St Peter’s Coll.Cambridge.Isaiah-Malachi.Dr John Harding, pres. of Magd. Coll.Dr John Reynolds, pres. of Corpus Christi Coll.Dr Thomas Holland, afterwards rector of Ex. Coll.Mr Richard Kilbye, rector of Lincoln Coll.Dr Miles Smith, Brasenose Coll.Dr Richard Brett, fellow of Lincoln Coll.Mr Richard Fairclough, fellow of New Coll.Oxford.TheApocrypha.Dr John Duport, master of Jesus Coll.Dr William Branthwait, master of Caius Coll.Dr Jeremiah Radcliffe, fellow of Trin. Coll.Dr Samuel Ward, afterwards master of Sid. Coll.Mr Andrew Downes, fellow of St John’s Coll.Mr John Bois, fellow of St John’s Coll.Mr Robert Ward, fellow of King’s Coll.Cambridge.The FourGospels, Acts,Apocalypse.Dr Thomas Ravis, dean of Christ Church.Dr George Abbot, dean of Winchester.Dr Richard Eedes, dean of Worcester.Dr Giles Thompson, dean of Windsor.Mr (Sir Henry) Saville, provost of Eton.Dr John Perin, fellow of St John’s Coll.Dr Ravens [fellow of St John’s Coll.]Dr John Harmer, fellow of New Coll.Oxford.Romans-Jude.Dr William Barlow, dean of Chester.Dr William Hutchinson, archdeacon of St Albans.Dr John Spencer, pres. of Corp. Chr. Coll., Ox.Dr Roger Fenton, fellow of Pemb. Hall, Camb.Mr Michael Rabbett, Trin. Coll., Camb.Mr Thomas Sanderson, Balliol Coll., Oxford, D.D., 1605.Mr William Dakins, fellow of Trin. Coll., Camb.Westminster.
The following list43is drawn up in such a way as to show the academical or other position which each of them occupied, and the particular part of the work on which they were engaged.
Dr Lancelot Andrewes, dean of Westminster.
Dr John Overall, dean of St Paul’s.
Dr Hadrian de Saravia, canon of Canterbury.
Dr Richard Clark, fellow of Christ’s Coll., Camb.
Dr John Layfield, fellow of Trin. Coll., Camb.
Dr Robert Teigh, archdeacon of Middlesex.
Mr Francis Burleigh, Pemb. Hall, Camb., D.D., 1607.
Mr Geoffrey King, fellow of King’s Coll., Camb.
Mr Thompson, Clare Hall, Camb.
Mr William Bedwell, St John’s Coll., Camb.
Mr Edward Lively, fellow of Trin. Coll.
Mr John Richardson, afterwards master of Trin. Coll.
Mr Laurence Chatterton, master of Emm. Coll.
Mr Francis Dillingham, fellow of Christ’s Coll.
Mr Thomas Harrison, vice-master of Trin. Coll.
Mr Roger Andrewes, afterwards master of Jesus Coll.
Mr Robert Spalding, fellow of St John’s.
Mr Andrew Byng, fellow of St Peter’s Coll.
Dr John Harding, pres. of Magd. Coll.
Dr John Reynolds, pres. of Corpus Christi Coll.
Dr Thomas Holland, afterwards rector of Ex. Coll.
Mr Richard Kilbye, rector of Lincoln Coll.
Dr Miles Smith, Brasenose Coll.
Dr Richard Brett, fellow of Lincoln Coll.
Mr Richard Fairclough, fellow of New Coll.
Dr John Duport, master of Jesus Coll.
Dr William Branthwait, master of Caius Coll.
Dr Jeremiah Radcliffe, fellow of Trin. Coll.
Dr Samuel Ward, afterwards master of Sid. Coll.
Mr Andrew Downes, fellow of St John’s Coll.
Mr John Bois, fellow of St John’s Coll.
Mr Robert Ward, fellow of King’s Coll.
Dr Thomas Ravis, dean of Christ Church.
Dr George Abbot, dean of Winchester.
Dr Richard Eedes, dean of Worcester.
Dr Giles Thompson, dean of Windsor.
Mr (Sir Henry) Saville, provost of Eton.
Dr John Perin, fellow of St John’s Coll.
Dr Ravens [fellow of St John’s Coll.]
Dr John Harmer, fellow of New Coll.
Dr William Barlow, dean of Chester.
Dr William Hutchinson, archdeacon of St Albans.
Dr John Spencer, pres. of Corp. Chr. Coll., Ox.
Dr Roger Fenton, fellow of Pemb. Hall, Camb.
Mr Michael Rabbett, Trin. Coll., Camb.
Mr Thomas Sanderson, Balliol Coll., Oxford, D.D., 1605.
Mr William Dakins, fellow of Trin. Coll., Camb.
When this large body of scholars were set down to their task, an elaborate set of rules was drawn up for their guidance, which contained a scheme of revision as well as general directions for the execution of their work. This is one of the very few records that remain of their undertaking.44
“(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 wordChurchnot to be translatedCongregation, &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 expressed 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 dispatched 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 histranslation 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, Cambridge or Oxford. (13) The directors in each company to 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. Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, 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 fourth rule above specified.”
“(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 wordChurchnot to be translatedCongregation, &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 expressed 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 dispatched 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 histranslation 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, Cambridge or Oxford. (13) The directors in each company to 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. Tyndale’s, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Whitchurch’s, 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 fourth rule above specified.”
It is not possible to determine in how far all these rules were adhered to. All we know of the way this noble work was carried out is contained in the Preface, where Dr Miles Smith, in 1612 bishop of Gloucester, in the name of his fellow-workers gives an account of the manner and spirit in which it was done:—
“Neither did we run ouer the worke with that posting haste that theSeptuagintdid, if that be true which is reported of them, that they finished it in 72 days.... The worke hath ... cost the workemen, as light as it seemeth, the paines of twise seuen times seuentie two dayes and more.... Truly (good Christian Reader), we neuer thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not iustly to be excepted against.... To that purpose there were many chosen, that were greater in other mens eyes than in their owne, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise.... Neither did wee thinke much to consult the Translators or Commentators,Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, orLatine, no mor theSpanish, French, ItalianorDutch[German]; neither did we disdaine to reuise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anuitl that which we had hammered: but hauing and vsing as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for slownesse, nor coueting praise for expedition, wee haue at the length, through the good hand of the Lord vpon vs, brought the worke to that passe that you see.”
“Neither did we run ouer the worke with that posting haste that theSeptuagintdid, if that be true which is reported of them, that they finished it in 72 days.... The worke hath ... cost the workemen, as light as it seemeth, the paines of twise seuen times seuentie two dayes and more.... Truly (good Christian Reader), we neuer thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one... but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not iustly to be excepted against.... To that purpose there were many chosen, that were greater in other mens eyes than in their owne, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise.... Neither did wee thinke much to consult the Translators or Commentators,Chaldee, Hebrewe, Syrian, Greeke, orLatine, no mor theSpanish, French, ItalianorDutch[German]; neither did we disdaine to reuise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anuitl that which we had hammered: but hauing and vsing as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for slownesse, nor coueting praise for expedition, wee haue at the length, through the good hand of the Lord vpon vs, brought the worke to that passe that you see.”
From the above it appears that the actual work of revision occupied about two years and nine months, an additional nine months being required for the final preparation for press. The edition appeared at length in 1611, the full title being as follows: The Holy Bible, conteyning the Old Testament, and the New: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues, & with the former Translations diligently compared and reuised, by his Maiesties speciall comandement. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printer to the Kings most Excellent Maiestie.Anno Dom. 1611.45Since that time many millions of this revised translation have been printed, and the general acceptance of it by all English-speaking people of whatever denomination is a testimony to its excellence.
Still the work of improving and correcting went on through the centuries, and a modern copy of the Authorized Version shows no inconsiderable departures from the standard edition of 1611. Dr Scrivener imputes some of those differences “to oversight and negligence ... but much the greater part of them” he holds to be “deliberate changes, introduced silently and without authority by men whose very names are often unknown.”
(A. C. P.)
More ambitious attempts at amending the new version were not lacking, but they all proved fruitless, until in February 1870 the Convocation of Canterbury appointed a committee to consider the subject of revision. The report ofThe Revised Version.this committee, presented in May, was adopted, to the effect “that Convocation should nominate a body of its own members to undertake the work of revision, who shall be at liberty to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong”; and shortly afterwards two companies were formed for the revision of the Authorized Version of the Old and New Testaments.
These companies consisted of the following:—1. For the Old Testament:—(α)Appointed by Convocation.—Connop Thirlwall, bishop of St David’s (d. 1875); Alfred Ollivant (1798-1882), bishop of Llandaff; E. Harold Browne (1811-1891), bishop of Ely; Christopher Wordsworth, bishop of Lincoln; and Lord Arthur Hervey (1808-1894), bishop of Bath and Wells; Archdeacon H.J. Rose (d. 1873); William Selwyn (1806-1875), canon of Ely and Lady Margaret professor at Cambridge; Dr John Jebb (1805-1886), canon of Hereford; and Dr William Kay (1820-1886). (β)Invited.—Dr William Lindsay Alexander (1808-1884), congregational minister; Thomas Chenery (1826-1884), professor of Arabic at Oxford, and afterwards (1877) editor ofThe Times; Frederick Charles Cook (1810-1889), canon of Exeter; Professor A.B. Davidson; Dr Benjamin Davies (1814-1875), professor of oriental and classical languages at Stepney Baptist College; the Rev. A.M. Fairbairn, congregationalist; the Rev. Frederick Field (1801-1885), fellow of Trinity, Cambridge; Dr C.D. Ginsburg; the Rev. Dr Gotch of Bristol; Archdeacon Benjamin Harrison (1808-1887), Hebraist; the Rev. Stanley Leathes (1830-1900), professor of Hebrew at King’s College, London; Professor M’Gill; Canon Robert Payne Smith (1819-1895), regius professor of divinity at Oxford, dean of Canterbury (1870); Professor J.J.S. Perowne, afterwards bishop of Worcester; the Rev. Edward Hayes Plumtre (1821-1891), professor of exegesis at King’s College, London, afterwards dean of Wells; Canon E. Bouverie Pusey; William Wright (1830-1889), the orientalist; W. Aldis Wright, Cambridge. Of these Canons Cook and Pusey declined to serve, and ten members died during the progress of the work. The secretary of the company was Mr W. Aldis Wright, fellow of Trinity, Cambridge.2. For the New Testament:—(α)Appointed by Convocation.—Samuel Wilberforce, bishop of Winchester; Charles J. Ellicott, bishop of Gloucester and Bristol; and George Moberly, bishop of Salisbury; Dr Edward Bickersteth (1814-1892), prolocutor of the lower house of convocation; Henry Alford, dean of Canterbury, and Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, dean of Westminster; Joseph Williams Blakesley (1808-1885), canon of Canterbury, and (1872) dean of Lincoln. (β)Invited.—The Rev. Dr Joseph Angus, president of the Stepney Baptist College; Dr David Brown; Richard Chenevix Trench, archbishop of Dublin; the Rev. Dr John Eadie (1810-1876), Presbyterian; the Rev. F.J.A. Hort; the Rev. W.G. Humphry (1815-1886), vicar of St Martin-in-the-Fields, London; the Rev. Benjamin Hall Kennedy, canon of Ely; William Lee (1815-1883), archdeacon of Dublin, and professor of ecclesiastical history in the university; J.B. Lightfoot, afterwards bishop of Durham; Professor William Milligan; the Rev. William Fieldian Moulton (1835-1898), Wesleyan biblical scholar; Dr J.H. Newman; the Rev. Samuel Newth (1821-1898), congregationalist, professor of ecclesiastical history at, and afterwards president of, New College, London; Dr A. Roberts; the Rev. G. Vance Smith; Dr Robert Scott; the Rev. F.H.A. Scrivener (1813-1891), rector of St Gerrans, Cornwall; Charles Wordsworth, bishop of St Andrews; Dr W.H. Thompson; Dr S.P. Tregelles; Dr C.J. Vaughan; Canon Westcott. Of these, Dr Thompson and Dr Newman declined to serve. Dean Alford, Dr Tregelles, Bishop Wilberforce and Dr Eadie were removed by death. Only the first vacancy was filled up. Dean Merivale was co-opted, and on his resignation Professor, afterwards Archdeacon, Edwin Palmer. The Rev. J. Troutbeck, minor canon of Westminster, acted as secretary.
These companies consisted of the following:—1. For the Old Testament:—(α)Appointed by Convocation.—Connop Thirlwall, bishop of St David’s (d. 1875); Alfred Ollivant (1798-1882), bishop of Llandaff; E. Harold Browne (1811-1891), bishop of Ely; Christopher Wordsworth, bishop of Lincoln; and Lord Arthur Hervey (1808-1894), bishop of Bath and Wells; Archdeacon H.J. Rose (d. 1873); William Selwyn (1806-1875), canon of Ely and Lady Margaret professor at Cambridge; Dr John Jebb (1805-1886), canon of Hereford; and Dr William Kay (1820-1886). (β)Invited.—Dr William Lindsay Alexander (1808-1884), congregational minister; Thomas Chenery (1826-1884), professor of Arabic at Oxford, and afterwards (1877) editor ofThe Times; Frederick Charles Cook (1810-1889), canon of Exeter; Professor A.B. Davidson; Dr Benjamin Davies (1814-1875), professor of oriental and classical languages at Stepney Baptist College; the Rev. A.M. Fairbairn, congregationalist; the Rev. Frederick Field (1801-1885), fellow of Trinity, Cambridge; Dr C.D. Ginsburg; the Rev. Dr Gotch of Bristol; Archdeacon Benjamin Harrison (1808-1887), Hebraist; the Rev. Stanley Leathes (1830-1900), professor of Hebrew at King’s College, London; Professor M’Gill; Canon Robert Payne Smith (1819-1895), regius professor of divinity at Oxford, dean of Canterbury (1870); Professor J.J.S. Perowne, afterwards bishop of Worcester; the Rev. Edward Hayes Plumtre (1821-1891), professor of exegesis at King’s College, London, afterwards dean of Wells; Canon E. Bouverie Pusey; William Wright (1830-1889), the orientalist; W. Aldis Wright, Cambridge. Of these Canons Cook and Pusey declined to serve, and ten members died during the progress of the work. The secretary of the company was Mr W. Aldis Wright, fellow of Trinity, Cambridge.
2. For the New Testament:—(α)Appointed by Convocation.—Samuel Wilberforce, bishop of Winchester; Charles J. Ellicott, bishop of Gloucester and Bristol; and George Moberly, bishop of Salisbury; Dr Edward Bickersteth (1814-1892), prolocutor of the lower house of convocation; Henry Alford, dean of Canterbury, and Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, dean of Westminster; Joseph Williams Blakesley (1808-1885), canon of Canterbury, and (1872) dean of Lincoln. (β)Invited.—The Rev. Dr Joseph Angus, president of the Stepney Baptist College; Dr David Brown; Richard Chenevix Trench, archbishop of Dublin; the Rev. Dr John Eadie (1810-1876), Presbyterian; the Rev. F.J.A. Hort; the Rev. W.G. Humphry (1815-1886), vicar of St Martin-in-the-Fields, London; the Rev. Benjamin Hall Kennedy, canon of Ely; William Lee (1815-1883), archdeacon of Dublin, and professor of ecclesiastical history in the university; J.B. Lightfoot, afterwards bishop of Durham; Professor William Milligan; the Rev. William Fieldian Moulton (1835-1898), Wesleyan biblical scholar; Dr J.H. Newman; the Rev. Samuel Newth (1821-1898), congregationalist, professor of ecclesiastical history at, and afterwards president of, New College, London; Dr A. Roberts; the Rev. G. Vance Smith; Dr Robert Scott; the Rev. F.H.A. Scrivener (1813-1891), rector of St Gerrans, Cornwall; Charles Wordsworth, bishop of St Andrews; Dr W.H. Thompson; Dr S.P. Tregelles; Dr C.J. Vaughan; Canon Westcott. Of these, Dr Thompson and Dr Newman declined to serve. Dean Alford, Dr Tregelles, Bishop Wilberforce and Dr Eadie were removed by death. Only the first vacancy was filled up. Dean Merivale was co-opted, and on his resignation Professor, afterwards Archdeacon, Edwin Palmer. The Rev. J. Troutbeck, minor canon of Westminster, acted as secretary.
Negotiations were opened with the leading scholars of the Protestant denominations in America, with the result that similar companies were formed in the United States. The work of the English revisers was regularly submitted to their consideration; their comments were carefully considered and largely adopted, and their divergences from the version ultimately agreed upon were printed in an appendix to the published work. Thus the Revised Version was the achievement of English-speaking Christendom as a whole; only the Roman Catholic Church, of the great English-speaking denominations, refused to take part in the undertaking. The Church of England, which had put forth the version of 1611, fitly initiated the work, but for its performance most wisely invited the help of the sister churches. The delegates of the Clarendon Press in Oxford, and the syndics of the Pitt Press in Cambridge, entered into a liberal arrangement with the revisers, by which the necessary funds were provided for all their expenses. On the completion of its work the New Testament company divided itself into three committees, working at London, Westminster and Cambridge, for the purpose of revising the Apocrypha.
The work of the Old Testament company was different in some important respects from that which engaged the attention of the New Testament company. The received Hebrew text has undergone but little emendation, and the revisers had before them substantially the same Massoretic text which was in the hands of the translators of 1611. It was felt that there was no sufficient justification to make any attempt at an entire reconstruction of the text on the authority of the versions. The Old Testament revisers were therefore spared much of thelabour of deciding between different readings, which formed one of the most important duties of the New Testament company. But the advance in the study of Hebrew since the early part of the 17th century enabled them to give a more faithful translation of the received text. The value of their work is evident, especially in Job, Ecclesiastes and the prophetical books.
It is the work of the New Testament committee which has attracted most attention, whether for blame or praise. The critical resources at the disposal of scholars in 1611 were very meagre, and the few early manuscripts with which they were acquainted failed to receive the attention they deserved. The results of modern critical methods could not fail to make the incompleteness of the “Received Text,” and of the “Authorized Version,” which was based on it, obvious. It had long been the opinion of all competent scholars that a thorough revision was necessary. A proposal in favour of this course was made in Convocation in 1856, but it was not until fourteen years later that the committee was appointed to undertake the work. The revisers’ first task was to reconstruct the Greek text, as the necessary foundation of their work. In this difficult duty they were no doubt influenced by Westcott and Hort’s edition of the New Testament. These two scholars were members of the committee which prepared the Revised Version, and on the question of various readings they appear to have exercised a predominating influence. The revisers were privately supplied with instalments of Westcott and Hort’s text as their work required them. But it is scarcely necessary to say that the Revised Version is not the work of one or two scholars. Different schools of criticism were represented on the committee, and the most careful discussion took place before any decision was formed. Every precaution was taken to ensure that the version should represent the result of the best scholarship of the time, applied to the work before it with constant devotion and with the highest sense of responsibility. The changes in the Greek text of the Authorized Version when compared with thetextus receptusare numerous, but the contrast between the English versions of 1611 and 1881 is all the more striking because of the difference in the method of translation which was adopted. The revisers aimed at the most scrupulous faithfulness. They adopted the plan—deliberately rejected by the translators of 1611—of always using the same English word for the same Greek word. “They endeavoured to enable the English reader to follow the correspondences of the original with the closest exactness, to catch the solemn repetition of words and phrases, to mark the subtleties of expression, to feel even the strangeness of unusual forms of speech.”
The revision of the New Testament was completed in 407 meetings, distributed over more than ten years. It was formally presented to Convocation on May 17, 1881. The revision of the Old Testament occupied 792 days, and was finished on June 20, 1884. The revised Apocrypha did not make its appearance until 1895.
The text of the Revised Version is printed in paragraphs, the old division of books into chapters and verses being retained for convenience of reference. By this arrangement the capricious divisions of some books is avoided. Various editions of the New Version have been published, the most complete being the edition of the whole Bible with marginal references. These references had their origin in the work of two small subcommittees of the revisers, but they received their present form at the hands of a specially appointed committee. The marginal references given in the original edition of the Authorized Version of 1611 have been retained as far as possible.
The work of the revisers was received without enthusiasm. It was too thorough for the majority of religious people. Partisans found that havoc had been played with their proof texts. Ecclesiastical conservatives were scandalized by the freedom with which the traditional text was treated. The advocates of change were discontented with the hesitating acceptance which their principles had obtained. The most vulnerable side of the revision was that on which the mass of English readers thought itself capable of forming a judgment. The general effect of so many small alterations was to spoil the familiar sonorous style of the Authorized Version. The changes were freely denounced as equally petty and vexatious; they were, moreover, too often inconsistent with the avowed principles of the revisers. The method of determining readings and renderings by vote was not favourable to the consistency and literary character of the Version. A whole literature of criticism and apology made its appearance, and the achievement of so many years of patient labour seemed destined to perish in a storm of resentments. On the whole, the Revised Version weathered the storm more successfully than might have been expected. Its considerable excellences were better realized by students than stated by apologists. The hue and cry of the critics largely died away, and was replaced by a calmer and juster appreciation.
The work of the revisers has been sharply criticized from the standpoint of specialists in New Testament Greek. Dr Rutherford stated the case briefly and pointedly in the preface to his translation of the Epistle to the Romans (London, 1900). He maintains that “the Greek of the New Testament may never be understood as classical Greek is understood,” and accuses the revisers of distorting the meaning “by translating in accordance with Attic idiom phrases that convey in later Greek a wholly different sense, the sense which the earlier translators in happy ignorance had recognized that the context demanded.”
The use of the new Version has become general. Familiarity has mitigated the harshness of the revisers’ renderings; scholarship, on the whole, has confirmed their readings. The Version has been publicly read in parish churches both in London and in the country. In Canterbury cathedral and Westminster Abbey it has definitely displaced the older Version. Bishops have acquiesced and congregations approved. It is no longer possible to maintain the plausible and damaging contention that the Revised Bible is ill suited for public use. The Upper House of the Convocation of Canterbury in May 1898 appointed a committee to consider the expediency of “permitting or encouraging” the use of the Revised Version in the public services of the Church.
(H. H. H.*)
Bibliography.—The principal works dealing with the separate versions have been referred to in the text of the article. The following authorities may also be cited:For the version as a whole: J.R. Dore,Old Bibles(2nd ed., 1888); J. Eadie,The English Bible: an External and Critical History of the various English Translations of Scripture(2 vols., 1876: the most complete account); A. Edgar,The Bibles of England(1889); H.W. Hoare,The Evolution of the English Bible(2nd ed., 1902: gives historical setting of the Versions); F.G. Kenyon,Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts(1895); J.H. Lupton, article on “English Versions,” in Hastings’Dict. of the Bible(extra vol.); R. Lovett,The Printed English Bible, 1525-1885(1894); G. Milligan,The English Bible, a Sketch of its History(1895); J.I. Mombert,English Versions of the Bible(1883); F. Moulton,The History of the English Bible(2nd ed., 1884); T.H. Pattison,History of the English Bible(1894); J. Stoughton,Our English Bible, its Translations and Translators[1878].For the earlier history: J. Lewis,History of English Translations of the Bible(1818); the historical accounts prefixed to Bagster’s issue ofThe English Hexaplaand of Forshall and Madden’s edition of theWycliffite Versions(Oxford, 1850). These are all to a great extent antiquated, their errors being repeated in almost all subsequent accounts of the subject. The only trustworthy authority on the Anglo-Saxon Bible is A.S. Cook’s “Introduction on Old English Translations of the Bible,” inBiblical Quotations in Old English Prose-writers.For the 14th and 15th centuries: See A.C. Paues,The Bible in the Fourteenth Century.For the early printed Bibles: H. Cotton,List of Editions of the Bible(1852),Rhemes and Doway(1855); F. Fry,The Bible by Coverdale(1867);Description of the Great Bible, 1539(1865);Bibliographical Descriptions of the Editions of the New Testament(1878); N. Pocock, “On the Bishops’ and Genevan Bible,” (Bibliographer, vols. i.-iv.); Prime Wendell,Fifteenth-Century Bibles(1888); John Wright,Early Bibles of America(1893).For the Authorized Version: F.H.A. Scrivener,The Authorized Edition of the English Bible(1884). See also R. Gell,Essay toward the Amendment of the Authorized Version(1659); W. Kilburne,Dangerous Errors in ... Bibles(1659); R.C. Trench,On the Authorized Version of the New Testament in connexion with some recent proposals for its revision(2nd ed., 1859).For the Revised Version: J.B. Lightfoot,On a Fresh Revision of the English New Testament(London, 1871; 3rd ed. 1891); Westcott,Some Lessons of the Revised Version(London, 1897); Kennedy,Ely Lectures on the Revised Version(London, 1882). The Revisers fully explained their principles and methods in the Preface. The American Committee of Revision issued an historical account of their work (New York, 1885). The case against the Revisers is ably stated inThe Revision Revised, by Dean Burgon (London, 1883). The literary defects of the Version are elaborately exhibited by G. Washington Moon in two works:The Revisers’ English(London, 1882), andEcclesiastical English(London, 1886). See alsoSome Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, by G. Salmon, D.D. (London, 1897); Bishop Ellicott’sCharge(1901). The Greek Text of the New Testament adopted by the Revisers was edited for the Clarendon Press by Archdeacon Palmer (Oxford, 1881). Parallel editions of the Bible, showing both the Authorized and Revised Versions, a large-type edition for public use, a reference edition, and (1900) a “Two Version” edition, have been issued by one or both the University Presses.
Bibliography.—The principal works dealing with the separate versions have been referred to in the text of the article. The following authorities may also be cited:
For the version as a whole: J.R. Dore,Old Bibles(2nd ed., 1888); J. Eadie,The English Bible: an External and Critical History of the various English Translations of Scripture(2 vols., 1876: the most complete account); A. Edgar,The Bibles of England(1889); H.W. Hoare,The Evolution of the English Bible(2nd ed., 1902: gives historical setting of the Versions); F.G. Kenyon,Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts(1895); J.H. Lupton, article on “English Versions,” in Hastings’Dict. of the Bible(extra vol.); R. Lovett,The Printed English Bible, 1525-1885(1894); G. Milligan,The English Bible, a Sketch of its History(1895); J.I. Mombert,English Versions of the Bible(1883); F. Moulton,The History of the English Bible(2nd ed., 1884); T.H. Pattison,History of the English Bible(1894); J. Stoughton,Our English Bible, its Translations and Translators[1878].
For the earlier history: J. Lewis,History of English Translations of the Bible(1818); the historical accounts prefixed to Bagster’s issue ofThe English Hexaplaand of Forshall and Madden’s edition of theWycliffite Versions(Oxford, 1850). These are all to a great extent antiquated, their errors being repeated in almost all subsequent accounts of the subject. The only trustworthy authority on the Anglo-Saxon Bible is A.S. Cook’s “Introduction on Old English Translations of the Bible,” inBiblical Quotations in Old English Prose-writers.
For the 14th and 15th centuries: See A.C. Paues,The Bible in the Fourteenth Century.
For the early printed Bibles: H. Cotton,List of Editions of the Bible(1852),Rhemes and Doway(1855); F. Fry,The Bible by Coverdale(1867);Description of the Great Bible, 1539(1865);Bibliographical Descriptions of the Editions of the New Testament(1878); N. Pocock, “On the Bishops’ and Genevan Bible,” (Bibliographer, vols. i.-iv.); Prime Wendell,Fifteenth-Century Bibles(1888); John Wright,Early Bibles of America(1893).
For the Authorized Version: F.H.A. Scrivener,The Authorized Edition of the English Bible(1884). See also R. Gell,Essay toward the Amendment of the Authorized Version(1659); W. Kilburne,Dangerous Errors in ... Bibles(1659); R.C. Trench,On the Authorized Version of the New Testament in connexion with some recent proposals for its revision(2nd ed., 1859).
For the Revised Version: J.B. Lightfoot,On a Fresh Revision of the English New Testament(London, 1871; 3rd ed. 1891); Westcott,Some Lessons of the Revised Version(London, 1897); Kennedy,Ely Lectures on the Revised Version(London, 1882). The Revisers fully explained their principles and methods in the Preface. The American Committee of Revision issued an historical account of their work (New York, 1885). The case against the Revisers is ably stated inThe Revision Revised, by Dean Burgon (London, 1883). The literary defects of the Version are elaborately exhibited by G. Washington Moon in two works:The Revisers’ English(London, 1882), andEcclesiastical English(London, 1886). See alsoSome Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, by G. Salmon, D.D. (London, 1897); Bishop Ellicott’sCharge(1901). The Greek Text of the New Testament adopted by the Revisers was edited for the Clarendon Press by Archdeacon Palmer (Oxford, 1881). Parallel editions of the Bible, showing both the Authorized and Revised Versions, a large-type edition for public use, a reference edition, and (1900) a “Two Version” edition, have been issued by one or both the University Presses.
(A. C. P.; H. H. H.*)
1See A.S. Cook,Biblical Quotations in Old English Prose Writers, with an introduction onOld English Biblical Versions(London, 1898-1903), vol. i. pp. xxvi. ff.; H. Sweet,The Vespasian Psalterin “Oldest English Texts” (E.E.T.S., No. 83, London, 1885); F. Harsley,Eadwine’s Canterbury Psalter(E.E.T.S., No. 92, London, 1892); John Spelman,Psalterium Davidis Latino-Saxonicum Vetus(London, 1640); Fr. Roeder,Der altengl. Regius Psalter(Reg. II. B. 5, Halle, 1904).2Benjamin Thorpe,Libri Psalmorum versio Antiqua Latina cum paraphrasi Anglo-Saxonica(Oxford, 1835); cf. J.D. Bruce,The Anglo-Saxon Version of the Book of Psalms ... known as the Paris Psalter(Baltimore, 1894).3K.W. Bouterwek,Die vier Evangelien in alt-nordh. Sprache(Gütersloh, 1857),id. Screadunga(Elberfeld, 1858, prefaces to the Gospels); J. Stevenson and E. Waring,The Lindisfarne and Rushworth Gospels(Surtees Soc., 1854-1865); W.W. Skeat,The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian and Old Mercian Versions(Cambridge, 1871-1887).4See Stevenson, Waring and Skeat, op. cit.5W.W. Skeat,The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, &c.(Cambridge, 1871-1887); J.W. Bright,The Gospel of Saint Luke in Anglo-Saxon(Oxford, 1893); for earlier editions see Cook, op. cit, p. lx.6C.W.M. Grein,Ælfrik de vetero et novo Testamento, &c.—Bibl. d. Angels. Prosa (Cassel and Göttingen, 1872), p. 6; E. Thwaites,Heptateuchus, Liber Job, et Evangelium Nicodemi; Anglo-Saxonice(Oxon., 1698).7K.D. Bülbring,The Earliest Complete English Prose Psalter(E.E.T.S., No. 97), part i. (London, 1891); cf. A.C. Paues,A Fourteenth-Century Engl. Bibl. Version(Upsala Diss.) (Cambridge, 1902), p. lvi.8H.R. Bramley,The Psalter and Certain Canticles... by Richard Rolle of Hampole(Oxford, 1884); cf. H. Middendorff,Studien uber Richard Rolle van Hampole unter besonderer Berücksichtigung seiner Psalmen-Commentare(Magdeburg, 1888).9A.C. Paues,A Fourteenth-Century English Biblical Version(Cambridge, 1904), pp. xxiv. ff.10See Paues,op. cit.p. 210.11For a different view as to the authorship of the Wycliffite versions, see F.A. Gasquet,The Old English Bible and Other Essays(London, 1897), pp. 102 ff.12Sir F. Madden and Rev. J. Forshall,The Holy Bible... made from the Latin Vulgate by John Wycliffe and His Followers(4 vols., Oxford, 1850), pp. xix., xxiv.13Cf. A.C. Paues,The English Bible in the Fourteenth Century.14See Foxe,Acts and Monuments, iv. 135 ff. (ed. Townsend, 1846).15Wilkin’sConcilia, iii. 317.16T.G. Law,The New Testament in Scots, being Purvey’s Revision of Wycliffe’s version turned into Scots by Murdoch Nisbet,c.1520 (Scot. T.S., Edinburgh, 1901-1905).17B.F. Westcott,History of the English Bible(3rd ed.), revised by W. Aldis Wright (London, 1905), p. 25.18Pref. to Genesis, p. 396 (Parker Soc.).19Photo lithographed by Edw. Arber (London, 1871).20Reprinted by G. Offor (London, 1836); reproduced in facsimile by Francis Fry (Bristol, 1862).21Reprinted with an introduction by J.T. Mombert (New York, 1884).22Reproduced in facsimile by Francis Fry (1863).23Cf. H. Bradshaw,Bibliographer(1882-1881), i. 3 ff. (reprinted 1886).24See F. Jenkinson,Early English Printed Books in the Univ. Libr. Cambridge, iii. (1730).25SeeBiographical Description of the Editions of the New Testament, Tyndale’s Version, in English(1878).26Epistle to the Readerin the New Testament of 1526, reprinted by G. Offor; cf.Parker Soc.(1848), p. 390.27Westcott, op. cit. p. 57 note.28See Dr Ginsburg’s information to Mr Tedder,D.N.B.xii. 365.29Cf. H. Stevens,Catalogue of the Caxton Exhibition(1877) p. 88.30Remains, Parker Soc., pp. II f.31Westcott, op. cit. p. 172 note.32Cranmer’sWorks, letter 194 (Parker Soc.).33See examples in Westcott, op. cit. pp. 208 f.34Burnet’sRef., ed. Pococke, 1865.35Westcott, op. cit. pp. 180 f.36Remains(Parker Soc.), p. 493; cf. J.A. Kingdon,Incidents in the Lives of Thomas Poyntz and Richard Grafton(1895).37Cf. Burnet’sRef.i. 584.38Printed in Bagster’sHexapla, 1841, reprinted separately in 1842.39See “Address to the Reader.” The division into verses of the New Testament was first found in R. Stephanus’ Greek-Latin New Testament (4th ed., 1551), whereas these divisions already existed in the Hebrew Old Testament.40See T.H. Darlow and H.F. Moule,Historical Catal. of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Libr. of the Brit, and Foreign Bible Soc.(London, 1903).41See J.G. Carleton,The Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible(Oxford, 1902).42Barlow,Sum and Substance of the Conference ...in Cardwell’sHistory of Conferences, pp. 187 f.43Compiled chiefly from the list found in Cardwell’sSynodalia(ed. 1844), ii. 145-146, a reprint from Burnet’sDoc. Annals, ii. 106 ff., “who himself took his list from a copy belonging originally to Bishop Ravis.” The list is correct for the year 1604; cf. Westcott, op. cit. pp. 112 f.44Quoted from G. Burnet’sHist. of Reformation, ii. p. 368 (1861).45A reprint of this edition has been published by the Clarendon Press (Oxford, 1833).
1See A.S. Cook,Biblical Quotations in Old English Prose Writers, with an introduction onOld English Biblical Versions(London, 1898-1903), vol. i. pp. xxvi. ff.; H. Sweet,The Vespasian Psalterin “Oldest English Texts” (E.E.T.S., No. 83, London, 1885); F. Harsley,Eadwine’s Canterbury Psalter(E.E.T.S., No. 92, London, 1892); John Spelman,Psalterium Davidis Latino-Saxonicum Vetus(London, 1640); Fr. Roeder,Der altengl. Regius Psalter(Reg. II. B. 5, Halle, 1904).
2Benjamin Thorpe,Libri Psalmorum versio Antiqua Latina cum paraphrasi Anglo-Saxonica(Oxford, 1835); cf. J.D. Bruce,The Anglo-Saxon Version of the Book of Psalms ... known as the Paris Psalter(Baltimore, 1894).
3K.W. Bouterwek,Die vier Evangelien in alt-nordh. Sprache(Gütersloh, 1857),id. Screadunga(Elberfeld, 1858, prefaces to the Gospels); J. Stevenson and E. Waring,The Lindisfarne and Rushworth Gospels(Surtees Soc., 1854-1865); W.W. Skeat,The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian and Old Mercian Versions(Cambridge, 1871-1887).
4See Stevenson, Waring and Skeat, op. cit.
5W.W. Skeat,The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, &c.(Cambridge, 1871-1887); J.W. Bright,The Gospel of Saint Luke in Anglo-Saxon(Oxford, 1893); for earlier editions see Cook, op. cit, p. lx.
6C.W.M. Grein,Ælfrik de vetero et novo Testamento, &c.—Bibl. d. Angels. Prosa (Cassel and Göttingen, 1872), p. 6; E. Thwaites,Heptateuchus, Liber Job, et Evangelium Nicodemi; Anglo-Saxonice(Oxon., 1698).
7K.D. Bülbring,The Earliest Complete English Prose Psalter(E.E.T.S., No. 97), part i. (London, 1891); cf. A.C. Paues,A Fourteenth-Century Engl. Bibl. Version(Upsala Diss.) (Cambridge, 1902), p. lvi.
8H.R. Bramley,The Psalter and Certain Canticles... by Richard Rolle of Hampole(Oxford, 1884); cf. H. Middendorff,Studien uber Richard Rolle van Hampole unter besonderer Berücksichtigung seiner Psalmen-Commentare(Magdeburg, 1888).
9A.C. Paues,A Fourteenth-Century English Biblical Version(Cambridge, 1904), pp. xxiv. ff.
10See Paues,op. cit.p. 210.
11For a different view as to the authorship of the Wycliffite versions, see F.A. Gasquet,The Old English Bible and Other Essays(London, 1897), pp. 102 ff.
12Sir F. Madden and Rev. J. Forshall,The Holy Bible... made from the Latin Vulgate by John Wycliffe and His Followers(4 vols., Oxford, 1850), pp. xix., xxiv.
13Cf. A.C. Paues,The English Bible in the Fourteenth Century.
14See Foxe,Acts and Monuments, iv. 135 ff. (ed. Townsend, 1846).
15Wilkin’sConcilia, iii. 317.
16T.G. Law,The New Testament in Scots, being Purvey’s Revision of Wycliffe’s version turned into Scots by Murdoch Nisbet,c.1520 (Scot. T.S., Edinburgh, 1901-1905).
17B.F. Westcott,History of the English Bible(3rd ed.), revised by W. Aldis Wright (London, 1905), p. 25.
18Pref. to Genesis, p. 396 (Parker Soc.).
19Photo lithographed by Edw. Arber (London, 1871).
20Reprinted by G. Offor (London, 1836); reproduced in facsimile by Francis Fry (Bristol, 1862).
21Reprinted with an introduction by J.T. Mombert (New York, 1884).
22Reproduced in facsimile by Francis Fry (1863).
23Cf. H. Bradshaw,Bibliographer(1882-1881), i. 3 ff. (reprinted 1886).
24See F. Jenkinson,Early English Printed Books in the Univ. Libr. Cambridge, iii. (1730).
25SeeBiographical Description of the Editions of the New Testament, Tyndale’s Version, in English(1878).
26Epistle to the Readerin the New Testament of 1526, reprinted by G. Offor; cf.Parker Soc.(1848), p. 390.
27Westcott, op. cit. p. 57 note.
28See Dr Ginsburg’s information to Mr Tedder,D.N.B.xii. 365.
29Cf. H. Stevens,Catalogue of the Caxton Exhibition(1877) p. 88.
30Remains, Parker Soc., pp. II f.
31Westcott, op. cit. p. 172 note.
32Cranmer’sWorks, letter 194 (Parker Soc.).
33See examples in Westcott, op. cit. pp. 208 f.
34Burnet’sRef., ed. Pococke, 1865.
35Westcott, op. cit. pp. 180 f.
36Remains(Parker Soc.), p. 493; cf. J.A. Kingdon,Incidents in the Lives of Thomas Poyntz and Richard Grafton(1895).
37Cf. Burnet’sRef.i. 584.
38Printed in Bagster’sHexapla, 1841, reprinted separately in 1842.
39See “Address to the Reader.” The division into verses of the New Testament was first found in R. Stephanus’ Greek-Latin New Testament (4th ed., 1551), whereas these divisions already existed in the Hebrew Old Testament.
40See T.H. Darlow and H.F. Moule,Historical Catal. of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Libr. of the Brit, and Foreign Bible Soc.(London, 1903).
41See J.G. Carleton,The Part of Rheims in the Making of the English Bible(Oxford, 1902).
42Barlow,Sum and Substance of the Conference ...in Cardwell’sHistory of Conferences, pp. 187 f.
43Compiled chiefly from the list found in Cardwell’sSynodalia(ed. 1844), ii. 145-146, a reprint from Burnet’sDoc. Annals, ii. 106 ff., “who himself took his list from a copy belonging originally to Bishop Ravis.” The list is correct for the year 1604; cf. Westcott, op. cit. pp. 112 f.
44Quoted from G. Burnet’sHist. of Reformation, ii. p. 368 (1861).
45A reprint of this edition has been published by the Clarendon Press (Oxford, 1833).
BIBLE CHRISTIANS,one of the denominations now merged in the United Methodist Church (seeUnited Methodists), so called because its early preachers appealed solely to the Bible in confirmation of their doctrines. The denomination arose in the agricultural districts and fishing villages of north Cornwall and Devon; a district only slightly influenced by John Wesley and the original Methodist movement. The founder was William O’Bryan (afterwards Bryant), a Methodist lay preacher of Luxillian, Cornwall. Finding that the people had no evangelical preaching he began an itinerary to supply the need. The coastmen were expert smugglers and wreckers, the agriculturists were ignorant and drunken, the parish clergy were slothful, in many cases intemperate, and largely given to fox-hunting. Only in a parish or two was there any approach to religious ministry. O’Bryan commenced his labours in north Devon, and in 1815 a small society was formed at Lake Farm, Shebbear. The movement had the seeds of great vitality in it. In 1819 the first conference was held at Launceston. There were present besides O’Bryan one accepted minister—James Thorne—fourteen ministers on trial and fifteen women preachers, a class that was always conspicuous in the denomination. At that conference the work had spread from Ring’s Ash in Devon to Morrah, a lonely and desolate parish in west Cornwall. In 1820-1821 Kent, Northumberland, the Scilly and Norman (i.e.Channel) Islands appeared on the list of stations. Then came a serious break. In 1829 there was a severance between the larger part of the new body and O’Bryan, who had claimed to be perpetual president, and to have all property vested in him personally. He tried to establish a separate conference, but failed, and in 1836 there was a reunion. O’Bryan left England for America, where he remained for the rest of his life, and his contingent (numbering 565 members and 4 ministers) returned to the original conference. The growth continued. In 1831 agents were sent to Canada and Prince Edward’s Island, in 1850 to South Australia, in 1855 to Victoria, in 1866 to Queensland, in 1877 to New Zealand and in 1885 to China, so that the original O’Bryan tradition of fervid evangelism was amply maintained.
On O’Bryan’s departure, James Thorne, the first fully recognized minister, at whose father’s farm the connexion started, became its leader. Although reared as an ordinary farm lad, he proved to be a man of singular devotion and spiritual genius. He laid the foundations broadly in evangelism, finance, temperance and education, founding in the latter connexion a middle-class school at Shebbear, at which generations of ministers’ sons and numerous students for the ministry have been educated. James Thorne was five times president of the conference and fifteen times secretary. He died in 1872. In this period there was much persecution. Landowners refused sites, and in the Isle of Wight the people worshipped for many months in a quarry. The preachers were sometimes imprisoned and many times assaulted. The old Methodist body even excommunicated persons for attending “Bryanite” meetings. Partly co-operative with James Thorne and at his death independently, the Church was favoured with the influence of Frederick William Bourne. He was a minister for fifty-five years, and served the Bible Christians as editor, missionary treasurer, book steward and three times president of conference. With him will always be associated the name of Billy Bray, an illiterate but inimitable Cornish evangelist, a memoir of whom, written by Bourne, exerted a great influence in the religious life of the denomination.