• It passed through nineteen editions ; the last bears the d»t« 1606.
VtKSIOXS, ENGLISH
VERSIONS, ENGLISH
859
Wj'clifite versions, only a secondary translation, and it was not to be wondered at that the extreme literalness at which the translators aimed ' word for word and point for point ' led often to stilled and even unintelliyiUe renderinijs, and also to the introduction of many Latinized terms, many of which were afterwards adopted in the AV. The charge of theological bias sometimes brought against the translators with regard to some of these terms is probably without foundation ; but the same cannot be said of their notes, which are unmistakably and avowedly of a polemical char- acter. It need only be further noted that in later editions the Douai version has been largely altered to bring it more into conformity with —
X. The Authorized Version. — To tlie history of this version we have now come, and, when we think of the inlluence it exerted and is still exert- ing, it is the more remarkable that its origin should have been of such an incidental, almost accidental, character. One of the first acts of king James on ascending the throne of England was to convene a Conference at Hampton Court Palace in January 1604, to hear and determine 'things pre- tended to be amiss in the Church,' and in the course of the second day's proceedings Dr. Rey- nolds, the Puritan leader, threw out the sugges- tion 'that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reign of king Henry vui. and Edward VI. were corrupt and not answerable to tlie truth of the original.' The suggestion commended itself to the king, who had at one time begun a transla- tion of the Psalms himself, and he at once pro- posed that the new translation should be under- taken by ' the best learned in both the universities, after them to be reviewed by the bishops and chief learned of the Church ; from them to be presented to the Privy Coum-il ; and lastly to be ratilied by his royal authority ; and so this wliole Church to be bound unto it and none other.' Ue further ordered ' that no marginal notes sliould be added,' some of those in the Genevan Bible having recently attracted his attention as ' very partial, untrue, seditious, and savouring too much of dangerous and traitorous conceits.'
Notwithstaniling, however, the royal favour bestowed upon it, the actual work of translation, or rather revision, was not commenced until 1G07, when tlie forty-seven revisers (it had been origin- ally intended that there should be lifty-four) were divided into six companies, of which two sat at ^Vesllninster, two at Oxford, and two at Cam- bridge. Each company was to busy itself in the first instance with the separate portion assigned to it, but provision was also made for the revi.sion of each nortion by the other live companies, and the whole version thus amended was then to be submitted to a select committee representative of all the companies for the harmonizing of details and hnal prejiaration for the press. How far these arrangements were rigidly adhered to we cannot now determine, for 'never,' says Dr. Scrivener, who is our principal authority on all that concerns this version, ' was a great enterprise like the pro- duction of our Authorized Version carried out with less knowledge handed down to posterity of 'he labourers, their method and order of work- ing ' (TKe Authorized Edition of the EiKjlish BMe, p. 9). We know, however, that in two years and nine months tlie whole work of revision was carried throu'di, and in 1611 the new version was |niblishe<l. Its full title ran as follows: — 'The Holy Bible, conteyning the Old Testament and the >:W: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues : with the former Transhitions diligently compared and reuised by his Maiestics Spcciail Comanderaent. Appointed to be read in Churches.
Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printei to the King's Most Excellent Majestie. Anno Dom. 1611." After the title-page came the ful- some Dedication to king James, and a most in- teresting Preface, generally understood to be the work of Dr. Miles Smith, afterwards Bishop of Gloucester, in which the main principles that had guided the translators were set forth, t
We cannot now attempt to detail these, or to examine the leading internal characteristics of the new version ; but it is important to keep in mind that, in accordance with the rules that had bec^n laid down for their guidance, what the translators aiiued at was a revision rather than a new transla- tion. The basis of their work was the Bishops' Bible ; but the versions of Tindale, Matthew, Coverdale, Whitchurch (that is, the Great IJiblu), and Geneva were used whenever they were fouiui to be more in accordance with the original, so as to make, in the translators' own words, 'out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against.' No marginal notes were permitted, 'but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briclly and litly be ex- pressed in the text,' — an exception which was some- what liberally interpreted ;J and 'such quotations of places' were 'set down as shall serve for the lit reference of one Scripture to another.'^ A new set of headings of chapters and columns was also sub- stituted for tlio.se that had existed in the Genevan, and in the Great and Bishops' Bibles ; Imt the dates (mostly from Usslier) with which we are familiar in most modern editions were first inserted in 1701.