Gn 152 ‘And the steward (7. possessor, 07 inheritor) of my house’; 2016 ‘Thus was she reproved’ (7, And so thou art cleared); 2518 ‘And he died’ (#. settled); 49 ‘Instruments of cruelty,’ etc. (variously emended); 496 ‘digged down a wall’ (7. houghed oxen); 4914 ‘between two burdens’ (7. between the cattle-pens); Ex 134 ‘This day came ye out’ (7. go ye forth) ; 152 ‘prepare him an habitation’ (7. praise, or glorify him) ; 3279 ‘had made them naked’ (r. had let them loose) ; 337 ‘ tabernacle of the congregation’ (7, tent of meeting—distinct in use from the tabernacle); Nu 1125 ‘and they did not cease’ (7. but they did so no more) ; 2118 ‘by the direction of the lawgiver’ (7, with the sceptre ; but variously rendered) ; Jg 516 ‘for the divisions’ (7. by the brooks, o7 watercourses—see also vy.10.13-15.17); 818 ‘before the sun was up’ (r. from the ascent of Heres); 18 131 ‘Saul reigned one year’ (7. Saul was [thirty] woe old when he began to reign—see margin of RV); 1K 2085 ‘with ashes upon his face’ (7. with his headband over his eyes) ; 22°8 ‘and they washed his armour’ (7. now the harlots washed themselves) ; 2K 1115 ‘without the ranges’ (7. between the ranks); 1116 ‘they laid hands on her’ (7. made way for her); 216 ‘observed times’ (7. practised augury) ; 2 Ch 226 ‘because of’ (7. of); Job 3633 ‘the cattle also concerning the vapour’ (7. concerning the storm, o7' concerning him that cometh up); Is 2916 ‘Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay’ (7. Ye turn things upside down! Shall the potter be counted as clay ?); Ezk 1818 ‘ kerchiefs upon the head of every stature’ (7. kerchiefs for the head of persons of every stature) ; Mal 23 ‘I will corrupt your seed’ (7. I will rebuke the seed for your sake).
Mt 258 ‘are gone out’ (7. are going out) ; 2655 and elsewhere ‘a thief’ (7. a robber) ; Mk 627 ‘an executioner’ (7, a soldier of the guard); Lk 159 ‘called’ (7. were calling, or would have called) ; 1913 ‘occupy’ (7. trade, ov do business) ; 2256 * by the fire’ (r. in the light of the fire); Jn 427 ‘ with the woman EGY with a woman); 1016 * one fold’ (7. one flock) ; Ac 1998 ‘the law is open, and there are deputies’ (7. court days are held, and there are proconsuls; o7 the courts are sitting, and there are magistrates); 1 Co 1423 ‘one place’ (7. the same place); 2 Co 913 ‘experiment’ (7, proof); Eph 412 ‘for the work of the ministry’ (7. to a work of ministration,—removing the comma after ‘saints’); Ph 32! ‘our vile body’ (7. the body of our humiliation) ; 42 ‘Euodias’ (7 Euodia); 2 Ti 46 ‘I am now ready to be offered’ (r. I am already being offered); He 216 ‘He took not on him the nature of angels’ (7. it is not of angels that he taketh hold, i.e. to succour or support); 48 ‘Jesus’ (7. Joshua—so also in Ac 74); Ja 117 ‘gift... gift’ (”. giving . . . gift); Rev 44 ‘seats’ (7. thrones).
If we knew with certainty what were the original texts chiefly relied on by the translators, we should be better able to account for some of the flaws in their work. So far, indeed, as the OT is concerned,
* On a Fresh Revision of the English NT, 1871, p. 191. _
+Scrivener, Zhe Authorized Edition of the English Bible, 1884, p. 141. This is a reprint, with additions and corrections, of the same author’s Introduction to the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, 1873. |
+ J. H. Newman, Grammar of Assent, 1874, p. 56.
256 VERSIONS (ENGLISH)
VERSIONS (ENGLISH)
the variations found among different editions of the Hebrew Bible then printed are less material than might have been supposed. And for this part of their work the translators had good helps. Be- sides the Latin version of the Hebrew Bible made (1575-9) by Immanuel Tremellius (a converted Jew, who became Professor of Divinity at Heidelberg), revised by his son-in-law Francis Junius, who added a similar version of the Apocrypha, ‘an interlinear Latin translation of the Hebrew text, based on that of Pagninus,’* had been appended in 1572 to the Antwerp Polyglott by the Spanish scholar, Arias Montanus. The Complutensian Polyglott had been available since 1517. Moreover, in the interval, versions into several modern languages had appeared :—a revised edition of the French Bible, in 1587-8, at Geneva; an Italian translation by Diodati, in 1607, also at Geneva; and two Spanish versions, one by C. Reyna, Basle, 1569, and the other, based on it, by C. de Valera, Amsterdam, 1602.+ But, as regards the NT, the translators fared worse. The great MSS of the Greek Testament, with which scholars are now familiar, were then unknown. The science of biblical criticism was not yet competent to deal with them, had they been available. The third edition of Robert Stephen, 1550, furnished a ¢extus receptus, representing what was best in the Com- plutensian and Erasmus. To supplement this, the
translators had the several editions of Beza’s Greek .
Testament with his Latin version, preferably the fourth, of 1589. It may be going too far to assert, with Hartwell Horne,+ that “Beza’s edition of 1598 was adopted as the basis’ of the Authorized Version. But even Scrivener, who combats the assertion, admits that, out of 252 passages ex- amined, the translators agree with Beza against Stephen in 113 places, and with Stephen against Beza in only 59; the remaining 80 being cases in which the Complutensian, Erasmus, or the Vulgate were followed in preference to either.