Chap. iii.
Internal
History.

Bible.

in fragments from 1524-1529, and first completely in two forms in the latter year. It was republished in 1530, and with a new translation of the Hagiographa in 1531, and often afterwards'. Another German Bible Worms with an original translation of the Prophets appeared at Worms in 15292. The French translation of Lefèvre French (Faber Stapulensis) was made (1523-1530) from the tions. Vulgate, and was not an independent work: that of Olivetan (Neuchâtel 1535) is said to have been based in the Old Testament on Sanctes Pagninus, and in the New on Lefèvre3.

The works of the first German translators, or at least of Luther, must then be added to those previously enumerated as accessible to Tyndale' during the execution of his version of the New Testament. Luther's name was indeed at the time identified with the idea of vernacular versions of Scripture, and it is not surprising that More affirmed that Tyndale's work was a translation of Luther's, an assertion in which he has been followed by writers who have less excuse. What Tyndale's version really was we have now to inquire.

1 The editions which I have used are those of 1530 and 1534. I have not been able to consult the small edition of 1529 with glosses; nor have I collated the two editions or determined how far the translation in the earlier books differs as a whole from Luther's. The difference in isolated passages is very considerable.

This edition I have not used. 3 I have not examined Lefèvre's translation; and am ignorant also of the real character of Bruccioli's Italian version (1530-1532), which is said to have been made from the original.

The Wycliffite Versions do not seem to have exercised any influence on the later English Versions, unless an exception be made in the case of the Latin-English Testament of Co

verdale mentioned above. The coin-
cidences of rendering between this
and Purvey are frequently remark-
able, but as both literally reproduce
the Vulgate I have been unable to
find (so far as I have examined them)
any certain proof of the dependence
of one on the other.

As far as Tyndale is concerned-
and his work was the undoubted basis
of the later revisions-his own words
are sufficient: 'I had,' he says in the
New Testament, 'no man to coun-
'terfeit [imitate], neither was helped
'with English of any that had inter-
'preted the same or such like thing
in the Scripture beforetime.' (Epi-
stle to the Reader, I. p. 390.) See
App. viii.

Hallam's account is so amazing

transla

Chap. iii.
Internal
History.

Tyndale
acquainted

and Hebrew.

§ I. TYNDALE.

All external evidence goes to prove Tyndale's originality as a translator'. He had, as we have seen, formed his purpose of translating the New Testament before with Greek he could have heard of Luther's', and in the year in which that appeared (1522) went up to London with a translation from Isocrates as a proof of his knowledge of Greek. His knowledge of Hebrew and Greek is also incidentally attested by the evidence of Spalatinus, of his opponent Joye, and yet more clearly by the steady confidence with which he deals with points of Hebrew and Greek philology when they casually arise. Thus after defending his renderings of presby teros (elder), charis (favour), agape (love), &c. against Sir T. More he says (1530): 'These things to be even so 'Mr More knoweth well enough: for he understandeth 'the Greek, and he knew them long ere I". Again in an earlier work he writes (1528): The Greek tongue 'agreeth more with the English than the Latin. And the properties of the Hebrew tongue agree a thousand 'times more with the English than the Latin."

Tyndale's Version compared with Vulgate and Luther.

of which he thus summarily disposes.

1 For the part which Joye had in the work of preparing the transla tion see Preface to the Parable of the Wicked Mammon.

But the translation of the New Testament itself is the complete proof of its own independence. It is impossible to read through a single chapter without gainfrom the complication of blunders which it involves that it deserves to be quoted as a curiosity. From this 'translation [Luther's], and from the 'Latin Vulgate, the English one of Tyndale and Coverdale, published in 1535 or 1536, is avowedly taken "...That of 1537, commonly called 'Matthew's Bible, from the name of the printer, though in substance the same as Tyndale's, was superintend'ed by Rogers...' (Introd. to Lit. I. p. 148. 373.) It is impossible that he could p. 75. have examined any one of the books p. 468.

2 See above, p. 26.
3 See above, p. 34 n.
4 Anderson, I. 397.

5 Answer to Sir T. More, III.
p. 23 (ed. Park. Soc.).
6 Obedience of a Christian Man, I.
Compare Answer to More,
Prologue to St Matthew, 1.

ing the assurance that Tyndale rendered the Greek text directly while still he consulted the Vulgate, the Latin translation of Erasmus, and the German of Luther. Thus taking a chapter at random we find in Eph. iv. the following certain traces of the peculiarities of the Greek which are lost in the Vulgate and the translations made from it.

2 in...longsuffering, forbearing one another...cum patientia supportantes...with patience supporting each other... (Wycliffe, Rheims).

4 even as...sicut...as (Wycliffe, Rheims).

8 and hath given...dedit...he gave... (Wycliffe, Rheims).
17 as other Gentiles...sicut et...as heathen men (Wyc-
liffe), as also the Gentiles (Rheims).

27 backbiter...diabolo...the devil (Wycliffe, Rheims).
29 filthy communication......sermo malus......evil word
(Wycliffe): naughty speech (Rheims).

but that which is good to edify withal when need
is...sed si quis bonus ad ædificationem fidei...but if
any is good to the edification of faith (Wycliffe);
but if there be any good to the edifying of the faith
(Rheims).

And so again Tyndale's rendering of vv. 5, 12, 14, 22 might come from the Greek but hardly from the Latin. On the other hand it is evident that he had the Vulgate before him, and that he owed to it the rendering 'blindness of their hearts' (cæcitatem), which has wrongly retained its place in the authorised version.

From Luther the same chapter differs in the entire complexion of the rendering and unequivocally in the interpretation of the following passages:

5 Let there be but one Lord...Ein Herr...

13 Till we every one, in the unity of faith...grow up unto a perfect man...bis dass wir alle hinan kom

Chap. iii.
Internal
History.

Chap. iii.
Internal
History.

The Vulgate,
Luther,
Tyndale.

Eph. ii. 13

22.

men zu einerlei glauben...und ein vollkommener Mann werden...

21 as the truth is in Jesus......wie in Jesu ein rechtschaffenes Wesen ist.

24 in righteousness and true holiness...in rechtschaffener Gerechtigkeit und Heiligkeit...

A continuous passage will place the substantial independence of Tyndale in a still clearer light1.

VULGATE.
13 Nunc autem in
Christo Jesu vos
qui aliquando eratis
longe, facti estis
prope in sanguine
Christi.

14 Ipse enim est pax nostra, qui fecit utraque unum, et medium parietem maceriæ solvens,

15 inimicitias in carne sua,

legem mandatorum
decretis evacuans,

16 ut duos condat

13 But now in 13 Nun aber die Christ Jesu ye which a while ago were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our
peace which hath
made of both one, and
hath broken down the
wall in the midst
that was a stop be-
tween us,

15 and hath also
put away through
his flesh the cause
of hatred, that is to
say, the law of com-
mandments contained
in the law written,
16 for to make of

ihr in Christo Jesu seyd und weiland ferne gewesen, seyd nun nahe geworden durch das Blut Christi.

14 Denn er ist unser Friede, der aus beiden Eines hat gemacht, und hat abgebrochen den Zaun der dazwischen war, 15 in dem dass er durch sein Fleisch wegnahm die Feindschaft; nemlich das Gesetz, so in Geboten gestellet war,

16 auf dass er aus

1 The Italics in Tyndale mark of 1525 and 1534 is the omission in what is preserved in the Authorised the latter of the words in the midst Version. The only difference which in v. 14.

I have observed between the editions

Chap. iii. Internal History.