Chap. ii.
External
History.

of the proceedings of the revisers is contained in the
noble preface which the printers have removed from
modern editions of the Bible. In this Dr Miles Smith,
afterwards Bishop of Gloucester, writing in the name
of his fellow-labourers, gives some account of the time
which was spent upon the revision, and of the man-
ner and spirit in which it was executed. 'We did not,'
he says, 'run over the work with that posting haste
'that the Septuagint did, if that be true which is re-
'ported of them, that they finished it in seventy-two
'days...... The work hath not been huddled up in
'seventy-two days, but hath cost the workmen, as light as
'it seemeth, the pains of twice seven times seventy-two
'days and more' (about two years and nine months).
'We were so far off,' he writes again, 'from condemn-
'ing any of their labours that travailed before in this
'kind, either in this land or beyond sea, either in K.
'Henry's time or K. Edward's (if there were any trans-
'lation or correction of a translation in his time), or
'Q. Elizabeth's of ever-renowned memory, that we ac-
'knowledge them to have been raised up of God, for
'the building and furnishing of his Church, and that
they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in ever-
'lasting remembrance'....... Still, let us bless God
'from the ground of our heart for working this religious
'care in [the King] to have the translations of the
Bible maturely considered of and examined. For by
'this means it cometh to pass that whatsoever is sound
already (and all is sound for substance in one or
other of our editions, and the worst of ours far bet-
'ter than their [the Romanists'] authentic Vulgate) the
'same will shine as gold, more brightly being rubbed
and polished; also if any thing be halting or super-
'fluous or not so agreeable to the original, the same

1

may be corrected and the truth set in place...' And chus, summing up all briefly, he says, 'Truly, good Christian reader, 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, not justly to be excepted 'against: that hath been our endeavour, that our mark. To that purpose there were many chosen that were 'greater in other men's eyes than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise.

.... Neither did we think [it] much to consult the 'translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, 'Greek or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, 'or Dutch [German]'; neither did we disdain to revise 'that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered; but having and using 'as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach 'for slowness nor coveting praise for expedition, we have 'at the length, through the good hand of the Lord upon 'us, brought the work to that pass that you see.'

6

Chap. ii.
External
History.

When the revision was completed at the different The revision prepared centres, 'two members were chosen from each com- for the press. 'pany' to superintend the final preparation of the work

1 Selden, in his Table Talk, has given a similar account of the proceeding of the translators, which he may have received from some one who was engaged in the work: 'The 'English Translation of the Bible is 'the best Translation in the World and renders the Sense of the Origi'nal best, taking in for the English 'Translation the Bishops' Bible as 'well as King James's. The Trans'lation in King James' time took an excellent way. That part of the 'Bible was given to him who was

for the press in London; and 'Three copies of the 'whole Bible were sent there, one from Cambridge, a 'second from Oxford, and a third from Westminster'.' It is not likely that this committee did more than arrange the materials which were already collected; but whatever their work was, it was completed in nine months, and the whole labour of the revision was thus brought to a successful end'.

The revised version appeared at length from the press of R. Barker, in 1611. The book is said 'to be 'newly translated out of the original tongues; and with 'the former translations diligently compared and revised 'by his Majesty's special command.' A further notice adds that it is 'appointed to be read in churches.' From what has been said, it will appear with what

1 Walker's Life of Boys, quoted by Anderson, II. 381.

2 It is remarkable that none of the many copies of the Bishops' Bible used for the revision have yet been discovered. There is an interesting volume in the Bodleian Library (Bishops' Bible, Barker, 1602), which has been commonly but certainly wrongly supposed to be one of the copies prepared for the press. The text is corrected throughout some books to the Royal Version; and in some cases letters are attached (g, j, t) which appear to indicate the sources from which the corrections were derived. MrJ. Wordsworth, Fellow of Brasenose, has kindly given me the following summary of the extent of the corrections:

Gen. i.-xxv. with g, j, t, and per-
haps another letter.

Gen. xxvi. to Joshua inclusive with
g (j again from Deut. xxxii. to end).
Judges-Is. iv. corrected without
added letters; and so also
Jer. i. iv.

Ezech. i.-iv.

Dan. I.-iv.

The Minor Prophets.

St Matthew, St Mark, St Luke.
St John xvii. to end.

There are also two notes on Eph. iv. 8, 2 Thess. ii. 15.

From collations which I owe to the great kindness of the Rev. H. O. Coxe, the Bodleian Librarian, it is certain that 'g' marks corrections obtained from the Genevan Version. The materials which I have are not as yet sufficient to identify 't' and ‘j.'

The history of the book is unknown; but the occurrence of the reference-letters is at least a certain proof that it was not designed for the press. In all probability it contains simply a scholar's collation of the Royal and Bishops' texts, with an attempt to trace the origin of the corrections.

The corrections throughout the O. T. are apparently in the same hand: those in the N.T. are in a different hand and 'considerably more modern.'

External
History.

limitations the first statement must be interpreted. Chap. ii. The second is more difficult of explanation; for not evidence has yet been produced to shew that the version was ever publicly sanctioned by Convocation or by Parliament, or by the Privy Council, or by the king. It gained its currency partly, it may have been by the weight of the king's name, partly by the personal authority of the prelates and scholars who had been engaged upon it, but still more by its own intrinsic superiority over its rivals. Copies of the 'whole 'Bible of the largest volume and latest edition' are required to be in churches by the Visitation Articles of Laud 1622 (St David's), 1628 (London). In the Scotch Canons of 1636 it is said still more distinctly that the Bible shall be of the translation of King James' (Cap. 16, § 1). Similar provisions are, I believe, contained in the Visitation Articles of London 1612, and Norwich 1619; but these I have been unable to see.

gress of the

towards

acceptance.

The printing of the Bishops' Bible was at once Slow prostayed when the new version was definitely undertaken. Version No edition is given in the lists later than 1606, though universal the New Testament from it was reprinted as late as 1618 (or 1619). So far ecclesiastical influence naturally reached. But it was otherwise with the Genevan Version which was chiefly confined to private use. This competed with the King's Bible for many years, and it was not till about the middle of the century that it was finally displaced. And thus, at the very time when the monarchy and the Church were, as it seemed, finally overthrown, the English people by their silent and unanimous acceptance of the new Bible gave a spontaneous testimony to the principles of order and catholicity of which both were an embodiment.

Chap. ii.
External
History.

A new revision

proposed.

Jan. 16, 1656 (i. e. 1657).

Feb. 6.

The Royal Bible unanimously received from the

Some steps indeed were taken for a new version during the time of the Commonwealth. The Long Parliament shortly before it was dissolved made an order (April 1653) that 'a Bill should be brought in for a new 'translation of the Bible out of the original tongues,' but nothing more was done at that time1. Three years afterwards the scheme was revived, and Whitelocke has preserved an interesting account of the proceedings which followed.

'At the grand committee [of the House] for Religion, 'ordered That it be referred to a sub-committee to 'send for and advise with Dr [Brian] Walton, Mr 'Hughes, Mr [Edmund] Castle, Mr [Samuel] Clark, 'Mr Poulk, Dr [Ralph] Cudworth, and such others as 'they shall think fit, and to consider of the Translations 'and impressions of the Bible, and to offer their opinions 'thereon to this Committee; and that it be especially 'commended to the Lord Commissioner Whitelocke to 'take care of this business.'

This committee often met at my house,' writes Whitelocke, and had the most learned men in the 'Oriental tongues to consult with in this great business, and divers [made] excellent and learned observations 'of some mistakes in the Translations of the Bible in 'English; which yet was agreed to be the best of any Translation in the world. I took pains in it, but it 'became fruitless by the Parliament's Dissolution".

With this notice the external history of the English Version appropriately ends. From the middle of the seventeenth century, the King's Bible has been the

1 Lewis, Hist. of Translations, 354.

2 Mr J. E. B. Mayor informs me that this can be nothing but an error for Mr [Matthew] Poole.

3 Whitelocke, Memoirs, p. 654. 4 Since the first edition of this book appeared the work of revision has been resumed. See App. ix.