originality of our English Version. For not only did Tyndale contribute to it directly the substantial basis of half of the Old Testament (in all probability) and of the whole of the New, but he established a standard of Biblical translation which others followed. It is even of less moment that by far the greater part of his translation remains intact in our present Bibles1, than that his spirit animates the whole. He toiled faithfully himself, and where he failed he left to those who should come after the secret of success. The achievement was not for one but for many; but he fixed the type according to which the later labourers worked. His influence decided that our Bible should be popular and not literary, speaking in a simple dialect, and that so by its simplicity it should be endowed with permanence. He felt by a happy instinct the potential affinity between Hebrew and English idioms, and enriched our language and thought for ever with the characteristics of the Semitic mind". 1 To take two examples: about nine-tenths of the authorised version of the first Epistle of St John, and five-sixths of the Epistle to the Ephesians (which is extremely difficult) are retained from Tyndale. 2 The order of the Books in Tyndale's N.T. is worth recording:The four Gospels r. 2 Peter This order exactly coincides with that in Luther's translation, and the books are numbered i.—xxiii. up to 3 John, while the remaining four are Thirteen Epistles of St Paul not numbered. So they stand also (Romans Philemon) Acts in Luther. Note to p. 151. In the following Table I have given the most important variations between the editions of 1535 and 1534 in a considerable number of books. The readings adopted in Matthew, 1537, are marked M. In making the table I have had the advantage of using a collation Chap. iii. Chap. iii. Coverdale's Bible a secondary translation. § 2. COVERDALE, The contrast between Tyndale and Coverdale has been already pointed out; and in spite of all that has been written to the contrary it is impossible to grant to Coverdale's Bible a place among independent translations. In fact Coverdale distinctly disavows the claim for himself. I have,' he writes to the king in his dedication, 'with a clear conscience purely and faithfully 'translated this out of five sundry interpreters, having 'only the manifest truth of the Scripture before mine eyes..." 'To help me herein,' he informs the Chris'tian reader,' I have had sundry translations, not only in 'Latin but also of the Dutch [German] interpreters, 'whom, because of their singular gifts and special diligence in the Bible, I have been the more glad to follow 'for the most part, according as I was required?.' 'Lowly ' and faithfully,' he adds, 'have I followed mine interpre'ters and that under correction".' And so it was that the title-page of his Bible which was printed with it In connexion with this edition Mr F. Fry has made a very remarkable discovery. He has found substantially the same text in an edition dated 1534 with the letters G. H. in the border of the second title, no one of the four copies which he has examined having the first title. Out of 113 readings marked as characteristic of the edition finished 1535' he found 102 in this edition of 1534, while it agreed only in the II remaining places with M. Emperour's edition of 1534. It seems to follow certainly from this fact that the revision was printed in the spring of 1535, i.e. before March 25. Thus finished 1535' would be reconcileable with the existence of an edition dated 1534 in the other reckoning. At present it must remain doubtful whether the edition of 1534 (G. H.) or that 'finished 1535' was the origi nal. Happily this uncertainty does not affect the text which they present in common, which is the true standard of Tyndale's completed work. [I learn from Mr Demaus that there is a mutilated copy of the edition of 1535 in the British Museum, and that he has ascertained with tolerable certainty that it was printed by Vorstermann of Antwerp: Demaus, Life of Tyndale, p. 500.] 1 Remains, p. 11. described it as 'faithfully translated out of Latin and 'Dutch'.' Chap. iii. History. Nothing, it might be supposed, could be more ex- Its sources. plicit or intelligible or consistent with Coverdale's aims; but his critics have been importunately eager to exalt his scholarship at the cost of his honesty. If the titlepage, said one who had not seen it, runs so, 'it contains 'a very great misrepresentation". To another the notice appears to be a piece of advertising tact. Expediency, a third supposes, led Coverdale to underrate his labours. And yet it may be readily shewn that the words are simply and literally true. Coverdale certainly had some knowledge of Hebrew by which he was guided at times in selecting his rendering; but in the main his version is based on the Swiss-German version of Zwingli and Leo Juda, Zurich (1524-9, 1539, &c.), and on the Latin of Pagninus. He made use also of Luther and the Vulgate. His fifth version may have been the Worms German Bible of 1529, or the Latin Bible of Rudelius with marginal renderings from the Hebrew (1527, 1529), or (as is most likely), for he does not specify that his 'five inter'preters' are all Latin or German, the published English translations of Tyndale to which he elsewhere refers. 1 See pp. 58, 59. It 5: Dan. iii. 25. [Since this was 2 Whittaker, Historical Inquiry, written I find that Dr Ginsburg has p. 59 n. In support of this bold already pointed out the falsity of Dr statement Dr Whittaker quotes four Whittaker's argument: Kitto's Cypassages from Coverdale (pp. 52 ff.), clopædia, s. v. Coverdale. To him and compares them with all the ver- therefore belongs the credit of having sions which, as he affirms, he could first clearly proved the dependence of have consulted. As Coverdale differs Coverdale on the Zurich Bible. from these, he is pronounced to have was indeed from the reference to Dr translated from the Hebrew and Ginsburg in the Dictionary of the Bi'from nothing else' (p. 50). Un- ble, that I was led to examine in dehappily Dr Whittaker was not ac- tail the Zurich Versions. Hencequainted with the German-Swiss Ver- forth it may be hoped we shall hear sion-a sufficiently famous book— no more of Dr Whittaker's mistake.] from which they are all rendered. 3 Compare p. 76. Ex. xxxiv. 30: Num. x. 31: Is. lvii. |