Who were the ‘dyuerse excellent learned men,’ expert in Hebrew and Greek, who helped Cover- dale, we are not informed. But traces of their work may perhaps be seen in the translation of musical terms in the Psalms, and in the retention of the Hebrew titles of some of the books of the OT. Thus the first book is described as ‘called in the hebrue Bereschith, and in the latyn Genesis.’
If we take it for granted that Coverdale was the working editor of the Great Bible, we shall be prepared to find that he reproduces in it very much of his own earlier version of 1535, as well as of what had been incorporated with Tindale’s work in ‘Matthew’s’ Bible of 1537. But in the OT there is evidence that this reproduction was care- fully revised by the help of an edition of the Hebrew text, published at Basle in 1534-35, with a new Latin rendering by Sebastian Miinster, ‘Thus,’ Westcott goes so far as to say (Hist. p. 187), ‘Coverdale found an obvious method to follow. He revised the text of Matthew, which was laid down as the basis, by the help of Miinster. The result was the Great Bible.’ This is too un. qualified a statement. For instance, in the open- ing chapters of Genesis, a book the version of which in Matthew’s Bible was by Tindale, we find not a few examples of Coverdale’s own rendering in 1535 being preferred, or of a fresh rendering being made. A very few specimens must suffice—
‘Then of the euening and the morning was made one day’ (C.) ; ‘And the euening . . . one day’ (G. B.); ‘And so of the - - « wasmade the fyrst daye’ (T.); ‘Bt fuit uespera .. . dies unus’ (Minster); ‘Factumque est . . . dies unus’ (Vulg.),
‘And God seé them in the fyrmament’ (OC. and G. B.); ‘put them’ (T.).
‘And all the hoost of them’ (CO. and G. B.); ‘apparell’ (T.), The Vulg. here has ornatus, Miinster exercitus.
‘The Lorde God shope man, euen of the moulde of the erth? (C. and T.);.. . ‘of the dust from of the grounde’ (G. B.).
* Kingdon (Grafton, p. 63), following in this Strype’s Cranmer, i. p.120, endeavours to show that the impression of 2000 copies, seized in Paris, was intended to appear in April 1539, and dated accordingly ; but that, when the embargo was removed, and the copies got over to London, they were not actually pub- lished there till 1540. :
‘In Eden towarde ye east’ (C.); ‘from the begynnynge’ (T.) ; ‘eastward from Eden’ (G. B.). The Vulgate, followed by T., has a principio ; Miinster ab oriente.
The version of Isaiah in Matthew is by Coverdale. But that this was diligently revised for the Great Bible, a few examples from the first two chapters will show— .
‘An oxe knoweth his LorDE’ (M.) ; ‘The oxe hath knowne his owner’ (G. B.).
‘Like a watchouse in tyme of warre’ (M.); ‘lyke a beseged cytie’ (G. B.).
‘Ye tyrauntes of Sodoma’ (M.); ‘ye Lordes of Sodoma’
aE)
‘Cease from doinge of evell & violence’ (M.); ‘& violence’ omitted (G. B.).
‘Leade’ (M.); ‘ tynne’ (G. B.).
‘Al heithen shal prease vnto him’ (M.); ‘all nacyons’
B
‘So that they shal breake ... to make... & sawes therof’ (M.); ‘They shall breake theyr swerdes also in to mattockes ... to make sythes’ (G. B.).
In the NT the relation of the version found in the Great Bible of 1539 to those of Tindale (1534) and Coverdale (1535) may be conveniently traced by the parallel passages from St. Matthew, 52 in number, set down by Westcott (pp. 174-176), for the purpose of comparing the two latter. If the Great Bible be compared with these it will be found to agree with Tindale in 5 places, with Coverdale in 33, and to differ from both (though on the whole nearer to Coverdale) in the remaining 14.
As regards the relation of the text found in the Great Bible of April 1539 to that of the succeeding editions, Westcott has shown, by a full induction of passages, that while in the OT there is little change in the versions of the Pentateuch and the earlier historical books, a careful revision of the Hagiographa and the prophetical books is apparent in the issue of Apel 1540. The authority most relied on for the changes thus made is Miinster. A curious circumstance pointed out by Westcott is the fact that, instead of the alterations being progressive, the text of Nov. 1540 shows a ten- dency to recur to that of April 1539; so that practically two groups or recensions may be recog- nized :—(1) April 1539, Nov. 1540, May 1541, Nov. 1541; (2) April 1540, July 1540. In the NT Erasmus occupies the position which Miinster has done in the OT. A single example will show the deference paid to Erasmus—
Ja 118 ‘Deus enim intentator malorum est: ipse autem
neminem temptat’ (Vulg.).
‘For Gode cannot temte vnto euyll, because he tempteth no man’ (G. B., Apr. 1539).
‘Nam Deus ut malis tentari non potest, ita nec ipse quemquam tentat’ (Eras.).
‘For as God cannot be tempted with euyll, so neither
he himself tempteth any man’ (G. B., May, Noy. 1540).
In the Preface to the Book of Common Prayer it is noted that ‘the Psalter followeth . . . the trans- lation of the great English Bible, set forth and used in the time of King Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth.’ This arrangement, which was unavoidable in 1549, was left unaltered in 1662, the rhythm of Coverdale’s version, and its greater fitness for singing, having in the meantime en- deared it to the people. The present text of the Pr. Bk. Psalter does not, however, represent the text of any edition of the Great Bible exactly, and it contains some misprints (e.g. ‘sight’ for ‘ light’ in Ps 38"). See Preface to Driver’s Par. Psalter, and esp. the elaborate collation in M‘Garvey’s Liturgie American (1895), pp. 1*-51*.