* Somewhat singularly, the copies of Dr. Blayney’s edition suffered, though apparently not to the same extent, from a fire at the Bible Warehouse, Paternoster Row.
+ Reprinted from the Gentleman’s Magazine (xxxix. 517) as App. D in Scrivener’s Authorized Edition.
{ We have not considered it within our province to notice versions of detached portions of Holy Scripture. But an excep- tion seems properly made in favour of Sir John Cheke’s trans- lation of St. Matthew and part of the first chapter of St. Mark. This singular work is in a fragmentary state, and there is nothing to show how far the author meant to carry it. The MS, in Cheke’s beautiful handwriting, is preserved in the Library of Corpus Christi Coll., Cambridge. It is unfortunately defec- tive, haying lost a leaf containing Mt 1625-187 inclusive, wanting also the last ten verses of ch. 28. It ends abruptly with the words ‘Capernaum, and’in Mk1. Marginal notes are added, dealing chiefly, as befitted the scholar who ‘taught Cambridge and king Edward Greek,’ with the wording of the original. Cheke’s translation, though probably made about 1550, lay un- published till 1843, when it found a competent editor in the Rev. James Goodwin, B.D. Its chief peculiarity lies in the attempt deliberately made to exclude words of foreign origin, and like Barnes, the Dorset poet, to use solely, or as nearly so as possible, words of native growth. Thus for ‘captivity’ he writes ‘ out- peopling’; for ‘lunatic,’ ‘mooned’; for ‘publicans,’ ‘tollers’ ; for ‘apostle,’ ‘frosent’; for ‘proselyte,’ ‘freschman’; for ‘crucified,’ ‘crossed.’ His principles in this respect were the opposite of those held by Gardiner and his school. Sometimes he is not consistent. Thus in Mt 3 (he adopts the division into chapters, but not into verses) he uses ‘acrids’ for locusts ; but in Mk 1 he retains ‘locustes,’ putting ézpides in the margin. Sometimes his system reduces him to hard shifts, as when for ‘tetrarch’ he gives ‘debitee of ye fourth part of y° contree.’ His method of spelling is interesting, from the light it throws on the pronunciation of the time. To indicate that a vowel is
258 VERSIONS (ENGLISH)
VERSIONS (ENGLISH)
Fa ee ee ee E ——— eee
ix. THE ‘REVISED’ VERSION.—It must be con- stantly borne in mind that the work of 1611 was not a new translation, but a revision of an old one. In any such case the thought is readily suggested that the revision may itself need revising. If in nothing else, the revisers may have erred in excess or defect: they may have changed too much or too little. Nor can men who have undertaken to correct the faults of others reasonably complain if their own performance is subjected to unsparing criticism. So it fared with the AV and its authors. Even before the work had seen the light, it became evident that, in certain quarters, it would meet with a hostile reception. And the origin of this hostility is instructive to notice, as disclosing the mixed motives by which men may be influenced under such circumstances.
The leader of the attack was the learned Hebraist, Hugh Broughton; a scholar whose erudition would have fully justified his inclusion in king James’s company, but whose lack of judgment and imprac- ticable temper would have made it impossible for him to work with the rest. Rainolds and Lively were old antagonists of his. Moreover, he had himself projected a fresh translation of the Bible. In a letter to Lord Burleigh, dated 21st June 1593, he explained what his plan was. He proposed to have the assistance of five other scholars; to make none but necessary changes; and to add short notes. His views on the subject he further set out in ‘An Epistle to the learned Nobility of England, touching translating the Bible from the Original,’ published in 1597.* And when the AV was in preparation he showed his determination even yet to have a say in the matter, by writing an ‘ Advertisement how to execute the translation now in hand, that the first edition be onely for a triall, that all learned may have their censure.’ + We can understand that, when at length the revised translation appeared without his co-operation being asked or his advice attended to, his indignation knew no bounds. A copy of the finished work was sent him for his opinion, and he gave it. Writing to a ‘Right Worshipfull Knight attending upon the King,’ he passionately exclaims: ‘Tell his Majesty that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild horses, than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon poor churches.’ It ‘bred in me,’ he had just said, ‘a sadnesse that will grieve me while I breath. It is so ill done.’ + The reader will judge how far this was prompted by personal feeling ; and how far, as Broughton’s learned editor contends, the words were spoken ‘in zeal and vindication of the truth.’ §
As time went on, the faults which Broughton had detected, or thought he could detect, in the AV, were supplemented by an ever-lengthening list of errors due to the carelessness of printers. After the breaking out of the Civil War more especially, learning, and its handmaid, the art of printing, became held in less esteem; and the presses of Holland found their account in doing what the king’s printer, or an English university, should have done. But the editions of the Bille thus imported were, it need hardly be said, in most cases extremely incorrect. So serious was the mischief judged to be, that, as early as 1643, the Assembly of Divines made a report to Parlia-