slayer: v. 20 an understanding that...' for 'a mind CHAP. to...' (sensum ut cognoscamus Vulg.)'.

In other cases the revisers aimed at a more literal exactness, as in iii. 14 have passed for are translated: iv. 18 'made perfect' for 'is perfect': iii. I bestowed for shewed: iii. 9 'doth not commit sin' for 'sinneth not': iii. 6, 22 (article): v. 9, 10 (tense); or at consistency of rendering, as ii. 27 abideth (dwelleth): iii. 10 manifest (known)1; or at clearness, as ii. 24, iii. 8 'that he might destroy the works of the devil' for 'to loose...' (iv. 3, v. 16); or at emphasis, as ii. 3 do know... Once an unhappy combination of renderings is attempted, ii. 17 'Bowels of compassion...' (Bowels Rh. compassion Tynd. &c.): once a neater word is introduced, iii. 3 purifieth (purgeth)3.

1 Other coincidences are found: ii. 8 which thing... ii. 9 until now

...

ii. 1o occasion of stumbling (marg. scandal): (ii. 5): iv. 15 shall confess.

3 The converse change of 'record' to 'witness' in v. 8 is quite inexplicable.

3 The substitution of 'torment' for 'painfulness' in v. 18 is less completely successful: neither word renders κόλασις.

The scrupulous and watchful

care with which the revisers
worked is nowhere seen more
remarkably than in their use of
italics to mark the introduction
of words not directly represented
in the original. The detail may
seem at first sight trivial, and
Luther neglected it entirely; but
in reality it involves much that
is of moment. It is of import-
ance as marking distinctly that
the work is a translation; and
yet more the use distinguishes

III.

INTERNAL
HISTORY.

СНАР.

III.

INTERNAL

This analysis, in which I have endeavoured to include all the variations introduced into the AuHISTORY. thorised Version, will shew better than any description the watchful and far-reaching care with which the revisers fulfilled their work. No kind of emendation appears to have been neglected; and almost every change which they introduced was an improvement. They did not in every case carry out the principles by which they were generally directed; they left many things which might have been wisely modified; they paid no more attention than was commonly paid in their time to questions of reading1: but when every deduction is made for inconsistency of practice and inadequacy of method, the conclusion yet remains absolutely indisputable that their work issued in a version of the Bible better

in many cases an interpretation
from a rendering: e.g. Hebr. x.
38. This question has been ex-
haustively treated by Dr Turton
in his pamphlet on The Text of
the English Bible (1833), who
shews conclusively that the Cam-
bridge text of 1638 bears clear
marks of representing very ex-
actly the true form of the Autho-
rised Revision. In the use of
italics it is far more consistent
than the editions of 1611, which

seem

to have been hastily printed.

1 I have given an account of the Greek text followed by the revisers in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, II. 524 n. But the question is of no real importance, as they do not appear to have been influenced by any consistent critical views, and the variations are too superficial to admit a general classification or discussion.

because more faithful to the original-than which had been given in English before1.

any

altered in A. V. are interesting.
I am indebted for them to an
anonymous Essay called Eng-
lish retracted (Cambridge, 18-)
which contains many excellent
criticisms on the English of the
Genevan Version. The readings
of A. V. are given in (). The
other notation is as before.

1 It is impossible to enter here upon the question of the language of the Authorised Version. Linguistic changes were common in each successive revision as has been already noticed; but it does not at once follow that no archaisms were retained. The following examples of old words contained in the Genevan Bible and Ex. xxviii. 8 gard. Genevan. (girdle so Matthew Bishops'.) 1 Sam. ii. 26 profited and grew M. G. Bp. (grew on) 1 Sam. xxv. 18 frailes (mg. clusters) G. Bp. bondelles M. (clus

ters mg. lamps)

1 K. xx. 39 be lost and want G. be missed M. be missed or

lost Bp. (be missing)

2 K. xix. 24 plant G. soles M. step of my going Bp. (sole) Ps. cxxxvi. 23 base G. when we were brought low Bp. (low)

Ps. cxlii. 7 art beneficial G. (shalt deal bountifully)

Prov. xxii. 6 in the trade of his way G. (in the way he should go.

mg. in his way)

Is. xxiii. 8 chapmen G. factors Bp. (traffickers)

took up our burthens
(took up our carriages)

Acts xxi. 15 made ourselves ready Ty.
G. B. Bp. trussed up our fardels G.
Acts xxv. 18 accusation Ty. G. B. Genevan Test. Bp. crime G.
Rom. xiv. 16 treasure Ty. G. B. commodity G. (good so Bp.)
2 Cor. ix. 9 sparsed Ty. G. B. G. Bp. (dispersed)

2 Cor. xii. 17 pill Ty. G. B. G. Bp. (make a gain of)

Tit. i. 8 herberous Ty. harberous G. a keeper of hospitality
G. B. (a lover of hospitality so Bp.)

CHAP.
III.

INTERNAL
HISTORY.

CHAP. 2 Tim. iv. 2 improve Ty. G. B. G. Bp. (reprove)

III. INTERNAL I Pet. iv. 9 herberous Ty. G. B. G. Bp. (use hospitality) See HISTORY. above, Tit. i. 8.

Heb. viii. 2 pight Ty. G. B. G. Bp. (pitched)

CONCLUSION.

THUS step by step and in slow degrees, under The Prayer

every variety of influence, the English Bible sumed its present shape; and the record of

Book con

as- tains traces of the three its stages of

transla

progress is still partially shewn in our public ser- tion. vices. Among its other manifold memorials of the past, the Book of Common Prayer preserves clear traces of this eventful history. Some of the scriptural translations which it contains are original, some are from the Great Bible, some from the Authorised Version. The Offertory sentences and the 'comfortable words' are not taken from any version, but are a rendering of the Latin, made probably by Cranmer. The same independence is found Original renderings in the Evangelic Hymns, the Benedictus, the Magni- from the Vulgate, ficat and the Nunc dimittis, which differ more or less from the Great Bible and the Authorised Version. But even here the labour of correction was not neglected; for after their introduction into the first Prayer-Book of 1548 these Hymns were elaborately revised in 1549 and again in 1552. So also