The version of the OT is substantially Tindale’s ; that of the NT Whittingham’s; but both are vigilantly revised. A comparison of the Genevan version of a passage from Ac 27%-284 with that of Whittingham,t and with that of the Bishops’ Bible in 1568, will suffice to show this-—
W. lowsed nearer (apuvres wocoy). Ac 27138 16. losed nearer. loosed unto Asson. : . there arose agaynst Candie, a stormye wynd out of the northeast (za7 atr7s). there arose by tt a stormie winde called Euro- clydon. . there arose against their purpose a flawe of winde out of the northeast. . and draue wyth the wether (é¢pous6e). . and were caryed away. and were dryuen with the weather. . and we were caryed beneth a litle yle. . . tocome by the boat (rs czegys). . and we ra vndera litle yle . . but we were caryed into an Ile. .
2a
y.1t
. to get the boat. . to come by a
a = —
a
et
o SS eee
abe 4 pe ghost a
oat. . undergirding the shyp .. . they let slip the vessel (70 7zeUos).
. wundergirding the ship . . . the vessel.
. and made fast the shippe . . . @ vessel,
. and to haue gayned this iniurie and losse (zép- Ojos).
G. so cei ae ye haue gained this hurt and losse (=haue saued the losse by auoiding the danger— marg. note).
B. neither to haue brought vnto vs this harme and
losse.
W. were caried to and fro in the Adriatical sea (d:0 p¢po-
EVO).
G aoe ad to & fro in the Adriatical sea.
B. were saylyng in Adria.
. they committed the ship (italics) (c/w).
they committed the ship (italics).
B. they committed themselues (smaller type).
W. should jlie away.
. shulde jlee away.
B. should runne away.
W. on broken peces (both words in italics) (i tivwyv
riiv arb, x%7.A.).. . that they came all safe.
. on certeine pieces (pieces in italics)... y* thei
came all safe.
B. on broken peeces . . . that they escaped all.
. the Barbarians . .. the showre which appeared (ov
verdy Toy EpearsiTe).
. the Barbarians . . . the present showre.
. yestraungers .. . the present rayne.
. a fewe stickes.
. a nomber of stickes (gpuyaévay 71 727005).
B. a bondell of stickes.
sw. the worme (+0 Opioy). v.44. G. the worme. LB: the beast.
*The size of page in the copy before the present writer (Brit. Mus. O. 17. b. 8) is 9} by 63 inches. :
+ Some of these are said to be from the French Bible of A. Davodeau, published at Geneva earlier in the same year. .
t Whittingham’s translation is included in Bagster’s English Hexapla, from which we quote it.
250 VERSIONS (ENGLISH)
A few peculiarities of spelling may be noticed. The desire to economize space, as shown in the frequent contractions, even of short words like ‘ma’ (man), ‘ra’ (ran), has led to the reduction of double consonants and diphthongs—in many instanees, to single letters. hus we find ‘delt,’ ‘hel,’ ‘ wildernes,’ ‘confunded,’ ‘ thoght,’ and many more of a like kind.
A 4to edition of the Genevan Bible, printed at Geneva in 1570, by John Crispin, professes to be the second edition; but Pocock has shown that this title really belongs to one issued at Geneva in folio without any printer’s name, the OT being dated 1562 and the NT 1561. The first edition
ublished in England was one in small folio, with
oman type, issued in 1576 by Richard Barkar (sic). An edition of the metrical version of the Psalms by Sternhold and Hopkins was prepared for binding up along with this. Later on, in 1578, we find the Book of Common Prayer, somewhat garbled, printed in the same volume with the Genevan Bible.
No other change need be noticed, except the partial displacement of the Genevan NT by a fresh version, made in 1576, by Laurence Tomson, a private secretary of Sir Francis Walsingham. Tomson closely followed Beza, putting ‘ that’ for the ze by which Beza had rendered the Greek article. Thus, in Jn 11, we have ‘that Word? for ‘the Word.’ Tomson’s notes were more pro- nouncedly Calvinistic than before. His NT was often bound up with the Genevan OT, and, as a separate book, is said to have been preferred to the other,
vi. ELIZABETHAN.—The Bishops’ Bible.—It was not to be expected that the Elizabethan bishops should acquiesce in the popularity of the Genevan version. Its Calvinism, if we may judge from Whitgift’s example later on, might have been tolerated by them, but not its hostility to their ottice. Accordingly, a move was made by Arch- bishop Parker for a new translation, or rather for a fresh revision of that contained in the Great Bible. The steps taken can be followed, with fair certainty, in the Parker Correspondence. There is extant a letter, dated Noy. 26, addressed by the archbishop to Sir William Cecil. This is referred, in the Calendar of State Papers, to the year 1566. But if, as Pocock suggests, it should be placed a year earlier, it would present to us one of the first acts in the proceedings. For in this letter the archbishop not only acquaints Cecil with his plans, but asks the busy statesman (out of compliment, we inay well suppose) to undertake some portion of the translation. The general principle on which the work was to be carried out, was for certain books to be assigned to individual bishops, or other biblical scholars, who should work on the text of the Great Bible as their basis, and transmit their portions, when finished, to the primate, for his final revision.