Chap. iii. was due to the labours of Coverdale; but his influence was felt not so much directly through his own first bible, as through Matthew's Bible, in which a large portion of it was incorporated, and still more through the Great Bible, in which he revised more than once his own work and that of Tyndale with which it had been joined1. 1 The classification of the books in Coverdale's Bible (1535) is the following: (1) The Pentateuch. (2) The second part of the Old Testament. Josua-1 Esdr. 2 Esdr. Esther. Job-Salomons Balettes (with no special heading). (3) All the Prophets in English. Esay, Jeremy, Baruch, EzechielMalachy. (4) Apocrypha. The books and 'treatises which among the fathers of 'old are not reckoned to be of like authority with the other books of the Bible, neither are they found in 'the Canon of the Hebrew. '3 Esdras, 4 Esdras... Mach. 2 Unto these also belongeth Ba- 1. 2. 3 S. John. Hebrews. S. James. S. Jude. The Revelation of S. John. In Nycolson's new edition of the Bible (1537) the books are arranged differently: (1) The first part: Genesis-Ruth. (2) The second part: 1 SamuelEsther. (3) The third part: Job-Salomon's Ballets. (4) The Prophets: Esaias, Jeremias, Threni, Ezech.-Malachias. (5) The Apocrypha: 3 Esdr. 4 Esdr....Baruch... Mach. 2 Mach. The books in the N.T. follow the same order as before. The edition of 1550 follows the order of that of 1537. The edition of 1537 is described as being 'newly overseen and corrected;" but as far as I have been able to compare the texts the differences which are not accidental are few and unimportant. In 1 John I have noted only the following: i. 1 of the life (of life 1535). 7 is light (is in light). 28 beashamed (be made ashamed). iii. 18 my children (my little children). iv. 3 the spirit (that spirit). V. 10 because...of his Son. Omitted in 1535. 11 the record (that record). Chap. iii. Matthew's Bible composite. Strype's account of it The Bible which bears Matthew's name consists of three distinct elements. The Pentateuch and the New Testament are reprinted from Tyndale's published translations with very slight variations'. The books of the Old Testament from Ezra to Malachi, and the Apocrypha, are reprinted in like manner from Coverdale. The remaining books of the Old Testament from Joshua to 2 Chronicles are a new translation. Nothing in the book itself indicates the sources from which it was derived, and the direct external evidence is vague and inconclusive. If it proves anything it proves too much. Thus Strype, following Bale, relates that Rogers 'trans'lated the Bible [in this edition] into English from Genesis to the end of Revelations, making use of the 'Hebrew, Greek, Latin, German and English (that is 'Tyndale's) copies.' He also it is said 'added prefaces Chap. iii. account. ' and notes out of Luther, and dedicated the whole book to 'king Henry, under the name of Thomas Matthews (sic) 'by an epistle prefixed, minding to conceal his own 'name'. No description could well be more inaccurate. More than a third of the book is certainly Coverdale's. The Preface to the Apocrypha is translated from that in the French Bible of Olivetan'. The Prologue to the Romans is Tyndale's. The dedication is signed by Thomas Matthew. It is evident that no dependence can be placed on the details of such evidence. The Foxe's narrative of Foxe is not more satisfactory: 'In the 'translation of this Bible the greatest doer was indeed 'W. Tyndale, who with the help of Miles Coverdale had 'translated all the books thereof except only the Apo'crypha, and certain notes in the margin which were 'added after. But because the said W. Tyndale in the 'meantime was apprehended before this Bible was fully 'perfected, it was thought good...to father it by a 'strange name of Thomas Matthewe. John Rogers at 'the same time being corrector to the print, who had 'then translated the residue of the Apocrypha and 'added also certain notes thereto in the margin: and 'thereof came it to be called "Thomas Matthewe's 'Bible3." It is unnecessary to dwell upon the errors in this account. Foxe has evidently wrought out into a story the simple fact that Tyndale, Coverdale and Rogers were all engaged upon the work. ed it. But although these original statements are thus Rogers editloose, and I have been unable to find any more trustworthy, it can scarcely be doubted that Rogers did super 1 Strype, Cranmer, I. 117. With 2 This insertion is very remarksingular inconsistency Strype else- able. I have not been able to detect where (p. 84) gives Foxe's account any other mark of the influence of (quoted below), which is different the French translation on Matthew. from this in many essential particulars. 3 Acts and Monuments, V. 410. N Chap. iii. intend Matthew's Bible, and used in it the materials. which Tyndale had prepared, and that these constitute the new translation (Joshua-2 Chronicles). If he had purposed to complete the translation himself it is not likely that he would have paused at the end of 2 Chronicles. On the other hand, Tyndale's engagements might have allowed him to complete thus much more of his work in the interval between the publication of his PenThe version tateuch and his death. The version of Jonah was an exceptional work, and furnishes no ground for supposing that he did not intend to proceed regularly through the Old Testament. Perhaps, too, it was from the exceptional character of this translation, which was as it were a text for the Prologue, that Rogers was led to adopt Coverdale's version of Jonah as well as of the other prophets, though he could not have been ignorant of Tyndale's work; and the fact that Coverdale had used Tyndale's rendering diligently left no overpowering reason for abandoning him. of Jonah from Co verdale. Matthew's text compared with the Epistles from the Old Testa ment. We are not however left wholly to conjecture in determining the authorship of the original portion of Matthew's Bible. The 'Epistles of the Old Testament' added to Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, contain several passages from the historical books as well as from the Pentateuch; and generally it may be said that these fragments bear about the same relation to the translation in Matthew as those from the Pentateuch do to Tyndale's published text. There are from time to time considerable variations between them, but still it is evident that the renderings are not independent. . It is of course possible that Rogers may have consulted the fragments in the execution of his work, but, as will appear directly, this supposition is practically inadmissible, because the corresponding sections from the Prophets and the Apocrypha are completely neglected. |