OF THE MODERN ENGLISH BIBLE.
§1. The Authorized Version.
THE Royal, or present so-called Authorized Version, 1611, was the fruit of a suggestion made to King James 1 by Dr. John Reynolds in the Hampton Court Conference of 1604.: the king accepted it without hesitation. The story is well told by Thomas Fuller. Dr. Reyn.: May your Majesty be pleased that the Bible be new translated, such as are extant not answering the original, &c.
B. of Lond. [Bancroft]. If every man's humor might be followed, there would be no end of translating.
His Majesty. I profess I could never yet see a Bible well translated in English, but I think that of all, that of Geneva is the worst. I wish some special pains were taken for a uniform translation, which should be done by the best learned in both Universities, then reviewed by the Bishops, presented to the Privy Council, lastly ratified by Royall authority, to be read in the whole Church, and no other.
Bp. of Lond. But it is fit that no marginal notes should be added thereunto.
`His Majesty. That Caveat is well put in, for in the Geneva Translation, some notes are partial, untrue, seditious, and favoring of traitorous conceits. As when from Ex. 1:1919And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them. (Exodus 1:19) disobedience to Kings is allowed in a marginal note,' &c.
The King shortly afterward appointed the translators; but the work was not begun until the year 1607.
One company, ten in number, sitting at Westminster under the presidency of the excellent Lancelot Andrewes, took the Pentateuch and Books from Joshua to 2 Kings. The ripe Arabic scholarship of Bedwell was secured for this portion of the work.
Another company, eight or nine in all, were appointed to work at Cambridge under the superintendence of Edward Lively, the Regius Professor of Hebrew in that University, who died soon after the plan of the work was formulated. These translators took the remaining historical Books and the Hagiographa.
A third company met at Oxford under the lead of Dr. Harding, Regius Professor of Hebrew. The honored name of Reynolds, who was President of Corpus College, appears second on the list, but his services were lost to the company by his death in 1607; that of Miles Smith (to whom we shall refer again) stands fifth; four others made up this company, whose work was from Isaiah to Malachi.
The Apocrypha engaged the labors of seven scholars at Cambridge. The first name on the list is that of Dr. Duport, Master of Jesus College.
Amongst the rules recommended by the King for observance by the translators were the following:
1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.
2. The names of the Prophets and the Holy Writers with the other names in the text, to be retained as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used.
‘6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed but only for the explanation of the Hebrew... which cannot without some circumlocution, so fitly and briefly be expressed in the text.
‘14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible, viz. Tindals, Matthews, Coverdals, Whitchurch, Geneva.'
Amongst other helps, the translators seem to have made large use of Tremellius' Latin version (1579).
Besides a Dedication to the King, the Bible was accompanied by a Preface addressed to the reader, the writer of which is said by Fuller to have been Dr. Miles Smith.
Under the year 1611, Fuller writes: And now after long expectation and great desire came forth the new Translation of the Bible... wheresoever the Bible shall be preached or read in the whole world, there shall also this that they have done be told in memorial of them.' We may almost say of this Bible, as Macaulay of a book that reflects much of its spirit, that it stole silently into the world.' The translators or one of them did speak out in an exquisite Preface to the Reader,' but no names were added. The title of the Bible was, The Holy Bible, containing the Old Testament and the New: Newly translated out of the original Tongues, and with the former Translations diligently compared and Revised.
It is necessary to consult the Preface to see what is meant by these words. There we read: Truly we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new Translation nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one.' That is to say, our present English Version was itself a Revision.
Our translators have been often censured for having introduced needless diversity of renderings, so that the version has appeared to some more a work of art than a vehicle of truth. But the reader should weigh well what the translators say as to this in their preface, and we believe he will take sides with them. We have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing or to an identity of words.... If the word signified the same thing in both places... we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty... but that we should express the same notion in the same particular word ... we thought to savor more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the Atheist, then bring profit to the godly reader. Add hereunto that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling, and so was to be curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than. God himself: therefore he using divers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: we, if we will not be superstitious, may use the same liberty in our English Versions out of Hebrew and Greek for that copy or store that he hath given us. It is just those who use the modern Concordance that can testify to the conscientious work of these translators; there are very many passages that would be spoiled by uniformity, as there are others that are marred by diversity, of rendering. It is in parallel passages that this difficulty is most felt.
The late Mr. Darby, in his English Translation of the New Testament, sometimes went further in the direction of diversity than even King James's translators: the reader may consult his renderings of Matt. 3:1-101In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, 2And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand. 3For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 4And the same John had his raiment of camel's hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey. 5Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judea, and all the region round about Jordan, 6And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. 7But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance: 9And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. 10And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. (Matthew 3:1‑10); Luke 3:1-91Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene, 2Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness. 3And he came into all the country about Jordan, preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins; 4As it is written in the book of the words of Esaias the prophet, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 5Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low; and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth; 6And all flesh shall see the salvation of God. 7Then said he to the multitude that came forth to be baptized of him, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance, and begin not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our father: for I say unto you, That God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. 9And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: every tree therefore which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. (Luke 3:1‑9); Mark 1:1-61The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; 2As it is written in the prophets, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee. 3The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight. 4John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. 5And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of Jordan, confessing their sins. 6And John was clothed with camel's hair, and with a girdle of a skin about his loins; and he did eat locusts and wild honey; (Mark 1:1‑6), comparing the Greek Text which respectively underlies them and the Authorized Version throughout. In the Old Testament, passages of the Law' naturally demand uniformity as a rule: yet even here taste,' as Mr. Darby would have said, sometimes rebels against it. May we not say our translators used a wise discrimination in their respective renderings of the same Hebrew word (שמר) in Ex. 23:1313And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth. (Exodus 23:13) be circumspect,' ver. 21 beware'—which two passages have one context—and in Deut. 4:99Only take heed to thyself, and keep thy soul diligently, lest thou forget the things which thine eyes have seen, and lest they depart from thy heart all the days of thy life: but teach them thy sons, and thy sons' sons; (Deuteronomy 4:9) take heed'? It is difficult to improve upon these renderings. It is a mistake to suppose that one English word can be carried through the same Book or even passage: sometimes it would be ambiguous in one connection, though not in another; at other times it would be obscure, if it did not mislead.
We may suppose an English book speaking upon one page of a bull let loose in the streets of Rome, and upon the next page of the Pope having issued a bull. In the one case clearly the word would be used in its natural, in the other in its technical sense; but an English reader would experience no difficulty. In a translation, however, of such book for a Jewish reader, into Biblical Hebrew, we should have to make use of different words. The same process has often to be adopted in translating from the Hebrew of the Old Testament. In the New Testament may be taken as an example of the same thing, the uses of ἐκβάλλω in Matt. 9:25, 33, 3825But when the people were put forth, he went in, and took her by the hand, and the maid arose. (Matthew 9:25)
33And when the devil was cast out, the dumb spake: and the multitudes marvelled, saying, It was never so seen in Israel. (Matthew 9:33)
38Pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that he will send forth laborers into his harvest. (Matthew 9:38), where the Revisers have wisely adhered to the old respective renderings in each verse.
There were two issues in 1611: cf. Scrivener's Bible, Appendix B. The book preserved at the Clarendon Press in Oxford represents one issue that kept by the Syndics of the Cambridge Press represents the other. Scrivener and Fry, who have both studied the matter very thoroughly, disagree as to which was the first issue, which indeed is of little importance. The only available book for an ordinary student is the Oxford Reprint of 1833. As originally printed the Authorized Version was in black letter,' and for the present italics was then used the Roman type. There are, as far as is known, only eight perfect copies of 1611 in existence. They are preserved in, or are in the possession of, The Clarendon Press.
The Bodleian Library (the Catalog says, 'first issue').
New College, Oxford.
Wadham College, Oxford.
Cambridge University Library.
The British Museum.
The Bible Society.
Sion College.
A corrected edition was published in 1613. The readings that had been displaced and those then substituted may be seen in the List of Various Readings' prefixed to the Oxford Reprint of 1611 (1833). The edition of 1613 was thenceforth followed by the printers, more or less, for 150 years.
The translators may be said to have done their work remarkably well, when we consider how few helps these excellent men possessed. But Scrivener is fully justified in saying there is 'great inequality in the execution of the several parts of the version.' The part from Isaiah to Malachi is undoubtedly the best done. There was no Lexicon upon which they could depend but that of the elder Buxtorf, which, according to Steinschneider, appeared in 1607. The Hebrew Concordance, by the same scholar and his son, though preceded by that of Rabbi Isaac Nathan (1524), upon which it was founded, dates only from 1632. The Vulgate the translators could only have possessed in its later form; the Peshito Syriac had not yet been published. In spite of all this, the Old Testament of the Authorized Version is a monument of careful and sober learning.
As to the English of this version, we may refer to Hallam's critique. He says: In consequence of the principle of adherence to the original versions which had been kept up ever since the time of Henry VIII. it is not the language of James 1. It abounds, especially in the Old Testament, with obsolete phraseology and with single words long since abandoned, or retained only in provincial use.' These remarks, however just, in no way affect the intrinsic excellence of the version, to which all classes of readers alike must look. The language is indeed not that of our own day; but in this respect the present Old Testament Revisers would doubtless have to break a lance with the great literary critic, as their colleagues of the New Testament company already have done with Mr. Washington Moon.
For the vocabulary of the Authorized Version, Eastwood and Wright's Bible Word-Book' would be found useful.
To the many commendations (collected in Manuals) that have been passed upon the Authorized Version by the very best judges, even amongst Roman Catholics, the American Dr. Krauth, writing from Pennsylvania, adds one clothed in all the vigor of our mother-tongue. He speaks of that remarkable version, which in its aggregations stands almost unique as a miracle of providence and history, the symbol of England itself'; of its having so interwoven the very idioms characteristic of the sacred tongue, that Hebraisms and Hellenisms need no comment to the English mind, but come as parts of its simplest, its noblest, its deepest thought and emotion,' and of its having made a new translation, as against something old and fading, impossible, for it is itself new, more fresh, more vital, more youthful than anything which has sought to supplant it. We need, and may have, a revision of it. Itself a revision of revisions, its own wonderful growth reveals the secret of the approach to perfection. But by very virtue of its grandly closing one era of struggle it opened another, for in human efforts all great endings are but great beginnings. A revision we may have, but a substitute, not now,—it may be never. The accidents of our Authorized Version are open to change, but its substantial part is beyond it, until the English takes its place among the tongues that shall cease. The New Revision will need little new English. Its best work will be to reduce the Old English of the Old Version to more perfect consistency with the text and with itself. That Version is now, and unchanged in essence will be perhaps to the end of time, the mightiest bond—intellectual, social, and religious—of that vast body of nations which girdles the earth, and spreads far toward the poles, the nations to whom the English is the language of their hearts ... . so long as Christianity remains to them the light out of God, the English Bible will be cherished by millions as the dearest conservator of true faith, the greatest power of holy life in the world.'
Is our reader acquainted with the interesting eulogy of the Protestant Bible from the pen of Father ' Faber? We shall transcribe a portion, because of the echo we believe it will find in the reader's heart: The memory of the dead passes into it. The potent traditions of childhood are stereotyped in its verses. The power of all the griefs and trials of man are hid beneath its words. It is the representative of his best moments, and all that there has been about him of soft and gentle, and pure and penitent, and good, speaks to him forever out of his English Bible. It is his sacred thing which doubt has never dimmed and controversy never soiled.'
The Version of 1611 was imperfectly edited as it left the hands of the translators: this is seen by the needless variations which exist in the old Bibles one may take up; and these faults are only the more noticeable in Bibles of different dates. Cf. Scrivener's edition, Appendices A and C. After being revised in I 638, it escaped remodeling at the time of the Commonwealth, 'then a proposal was made for its further revision; but Drs. Blayney and Paris in the last century, respectively employed by the Oxford and Cambridge Presses, introduced changes of spelling, &c., which—as will have appeared from what has been said of Oxford—have been followed in the respective issues of the two Universities. Some of Blayney's alterations were much for the worse; and on the other hand he overlooked many of the most palpable errors in his copy. This Bible indeed had been carelessly printed from the very firsts: in the Oxford Reprint of 1833, which is said to be a faithful reproduction of the Clarendon Press copy, no less than twenty words in Ex. 14:1010And when Pharaoh drew nigh, the children of Israel lifted up their eyes, and, behold, the Egyptians marched after them; and they were sore afraid: and the children of Israel cried out unto the Lord. (Exodus 14:10) are printed twice over. But during the last half century much more care has been taken. Mr. E. Pickard Hall says, 'In 1834, by the authority of the two Universities, the Oxford and Cambridge Bibles were carefully collated, which resulted in agreement that the Oxford Small Pica 8vo. Bible, with references, printed in 1824, with the corrections then marked, should henceforth be the standard for both Universities. From this no deviation whatever is permitted' except as to the marginal notes, which were revised by Mr. Woolcombe in 1838, whose corrections have been since followed. Mr. Hall further says, The Oxford Press has no fewer than forty different editions, from the stately folio down to the recently published smallest Bible in the world, measuring only half an inch thick, and weighing under three and a half ounces.'
The best critical edition is Scrivener's Cambridge Paragraph Bible,' which has just run its first decade like early editions, down to the year 1629, it embraces the Apocrypha. The Introduction and Appendices to this Work are well worth perusal; whilst the marginal references are better than those of any other edition—not excepting Bagster's—and relate to the Apocrypha as well as the Canonical Books, thus facilitating comparison. Another feature of Scrivener's Bible is that the passages which are cited in the New Testament are printed in a larger type than the rest of the Text, which assists the profitable study of such parts; and in the Books from Genesis to Joshua the varying chronology of the LXX is added alongside of the Hebrew chronology, which has found place in English Bibles for 180 years, since the appearance of the edition of Dr. William Lloyd.
The following are the chief copies in circulation:
The Queen's Printers' Bibles, London, Edinburgh, and New York, in various editions.
Oxford Press Bible, in various editions.
Cambridge ditto.
Bagster's Polyglot, with original notes, &c.
The Societies' Bibles, as the Religious Tract Society's Paragraph Bible, According to the Authorized Version,' with original notes, &c. The Queen's Printers' Bibles are issued by virtue of patents from time to time renewed.
The Oxford and Cambridge Bibles are privileged' productions, the printing and publication of which have been authorized by certain charters and letters patent.
Trinity College, Dublin, has, by its charter, similar power not however exercised of issuing Bibles to that of the two old English Universities, without prejudice to the circulation in Ireland of the Oxford and Cambridge Bibles. The Oxford Bible is there circulated by the Hibernian Bible Society.
'In Scotland,' Mr. William Chambers writes, the last patent expired in 1839... The Crown appoints a board with authority to grant licenses to parties desirous to print editions of the Bible.' Such licenses have been taken out by, e. g. Mr. Collins. His Bibles, he says, are printed from a comparison of the Scotch and English Authorized Versions,' i. e. within the Instructions of the Privy Council, 1839. The Oxford Bible circulated in Scotland bears the names of Nelson and Sons as publishers.
In the Parliamentary Report of 1859-60 we are told The Patentees have not exercised their legal right of preventing the introduction of Bibles from Scotland, nor of interfering with the publication of the Bible in other languages or translations, or accompanied, with notes or references, but have practically restricted themselves to the issue of the Bible, without note or comment, and in the Authorized Version.' Hence the circulation of such books as Bagster's Bibles, which, however, do not purport to be according to the Authorized Version.
The reader is referred for more information upon this head to the Report from the Select Committee on the Patent.' As Mr. Copinger writes, It was recommended by this Committee that the exclusive privilege of publishing the sacred volume should not be reserved. The House of Commons took no action on this recommendation, and the Crown renewed the patent during pleasure.' The existing Patent bears date the 19th January, 1860.
§ 2. The Revised Version.
A proposal for revision had been made in the year 1856, but it was not until 1870 that anything of a national character was attempted. It fell to Dr. Samuel Wilberforce (son of a man who proved his fidelity to the Word of God by such a life of active goodness as is seldom exhibited amongst us) to use the influence his official position afforded him to bring about a systematic revision of our time-honored English Bible. A Revision Committee was organized, composed of two companies, to one of which was assigned the Old Testament. This company began their work on June 30th of the same year. Two years later both companies associated themselves with a Committee of American Biblical scholars; and we still await the fruit of this Anglo-American Revision of the Old Testament; but the completion has just been announced. Some indication of what may be expected is contained in the following statement of Dr. Philip Schaff, the President of the American Committee: The object of this Anglo-American enterprise is to adapt Ring James's version to the present state of the English language, without changing the idiom and vocabulary, and to the present standard of Biblical scholarship, which has made very great advances since 1611, especially during the last thirty years, in Hebrew philology, in Biblical geography and archeology. It is not the intention to furnish a new 'version (which is not needed, and would not succeed), but a conservative revision of the received version, so deservedly esteemed as far as the English language extends. The new Bible is to read like the old, and the sacred associations connected with it are not to be disturbed; but within these limits all necessary and desirable corrections and improvements on which the best scholars are agreed will be introduced; a good version is to be made better; a clear and accurate version clearer and more accurate; the oldest and purest text is to be followed; errors, obscurities, and inconsistencies are to be removed; uniformity in rendering Hebrew words and proper names to be sought. In one word, the revision is to give, in idiomatic English, the nearest possible equivalent for the original Word of God... It aims to be the best version possible in the nineteenth century, as King James's version was the best which could be made in the seventeenth century.'
The printing, which is very heavy, it is hoped will be finished, and the whole (including, it seems, the Apocrypha) published within the present year. There has been, we repeat, but one British—as indeed American—company, which is a decided advantage: all the Old Testament Books have thus received the same treatment, and that by men who are leaders of Hebrew study in Great Britain. Their ungrudging labor, whether we accept the result or not, puts all British Christians under obligations to them. The number of those at work in England at the time the second Revision was finished, seems to have been twenty-five: nearly the same number of scholars as were appointed by King James, because the Revision of the Apocrypha is, or was planned to be, the joint work of both companies of each Committee. Dr. Edward Harold Browne, who is the author of a Reply to Colenso's attack upon the Pentateuch, has been the Chairman of the British Old Testament company. As was that of Lancelot Andrewes, Chairman of the Westminster Company in King James's time, the name of the recent Chairman is associated with Ely and Winchester.
The American company of Old Testament Revisers seems finally to have been composed of fourteen scholars. As to the chances of the Revision superseding the Authorized Version, one of the British company has well said: In 1611 they gave us not a new Bible, but simply a revision of the old Bishops' Bible, which is the one published by "authority to be read in churches." It has no "authority" whatever. It superseded the Bishops' Bible, simply because the people liked it better. It had no authority from the Crown, or Convocation, or Parliament... And so with the forthcoming new Bible, there will be no "authority." If people like it better, if people find it expresses more clearly what they believe to be the will of God, then it will find acceptance in the Church; but no authority in the world would impose upon the English people a Bible they don't like. I feel it will be a very difficult thing for any new Bible to take the place of the grand old Bible which has endeared itself to our hearts for many ages.'
We trust that after the appearance of a Revised Version,' British Christians will continue to use the older volume for growth in grace and knowledge of Christ. It has, we believe, provided material for every true Christian sentiment from the time that it became the chief of English classics. More appeal has been made to it in the interests of truth than on the side of error. Dr. Trench, writing in 1858, says: With the exception of the Roman Catholics, the Authorized Version is common ground for all in England who call themselves Christians; is alike the heritage of all? One of the American Revisers has spoken of the Old Version as a bond of union amongst those who differed materially from each other, a common standard of appeal.' How pregnant are these words!
The anxiety to which Dr. Trench has given expression as to the evil which would be wrought amongst us by the use of divers translations, in the event of a revision failing in its object, would doubtless be allayed if the suggestion of Dr. Christopher Wordsworth, a devoted student of Scripture, were adopted, which is, that for a time the Authorized Version shall continue in full public use, but be accompanied by marginal notes embodying such results of the Revision as meet with general approval. Whatever course be pursued, it will be well to remember the history of the Version at present in use. For several years after the Authorized Version first appeared, the Bishops' Bible continued to be used in public in many parts; and the Genevan Bible was marketable for at least fifty years. Although the Authorized Version did not always speak King James's sentiments, that alone was no barrier to its circulation; but there was for long a powerful prejudice against the New Version. An old friend was not hastily abandoned; spiritual sentiments had been formed, associated alone with texts as they appeared in the earlier Bibles. The Authorized Version had to fight its way to general acceptance. Not until Geneva' had long competed with it—up to the close of the reign of Puritanism and the revival of the monarchy—was our common English Bible pronounced to be the best of any translation in the world.'
We may here call the reader's attention to a Bible published by the Queen's Printers (1877) under the following title: The Holy Bible, according to the Authorized Version, compared with the Hebrew and Greek Texts, and carefully revised; arranged in Paragraphs and Sections, with supplementary notes, references to parallel and illustrative passages, chronological tables and maps,' the design of which is to correct what may be considered indisputable errors and inadequate renderings in our present English Bible.' The methods adopted are explained in the Preface. Westcott draws attention to the seal of martyrdom upon the old English Bibles. Tyndale, who gave us our first New Testament from the Greek, was strangled for his work at Vilvorde; Coverdale, who gave us our first printed Bible, narrowly escaped the stake by exile: Rogers, to whom we owe the multiform basis of our present Version, was the first victim of the Marian persecution; Cranmer, who has left us our Psalter, was at last blessed with a death of triumphant agony.' We live in days of comparative peace and quietness: let us be on our guard against the seductions that underlie such a state of things.