IX. The Bishops' Biblk. — 1. The facts just stated will account for the wish of archbishop Parker, in spite of his liberal tolerance, to bring out another version which might establish its claims against that of Gene- va. Great preparations were made. The correspond- ence of Parker with his suffragans presents some points of interest, as showing how little agreement there was as to the true theory of a translation. Thus, whilo Sandys, bishop of Worcester, finds fault with the " com- mon translation" (Geneva?), as "following Munster too much," and so "swerving much from the He- brew," Guest, bishop of St. David's, who took the Psalms, acted on the principle of translating them so as to agree with the N.-T. quotations, "for tlie avoid- ing of offence;" and Cox, bishop of Ely, while h.ying down the sensible rule that "inkhorn terms were to be avoided," also went on to add "that the usual terms were to be retained so far forth as the Hebrew will well bear" (Strype, Parker, iii, 6). The principle of pious frauds, of distorting the truth for the sake of edification, has perhaps often been acted on liy other translators. It has not often been so explicitly avow- ed as in the first of these suggestions.
2. The bishops thus consulted, eight in number, to- gether with some deans and professors, brought out the fruit of their labors in a magnificent folio (1568 and 1572). Everything had been done to make it at- tractive. A long erudite preface vindicated tlie right , of the people to read the Scriptures, and (quoting the authority of bishop Fisher) admitted the position which later divines have often been slow to admit, that "there be yet in the Gospel many dark places which, without all doubt, to the posterity shall be made much more open." Wood-engravings of a much higher character than those of the Geneva Bible were scat- tered profusely, especially in Genesis. Three por- traits of the queen, the earl of Leicester, and lord Bur- leigh, beautilul specimens of copperplate engraving, appeared on the title-pages of the several parts. A map of Palestine was given, with degrees of latitude and longitude, in the edition of 1572. It also contain- ed more numerous illustrated initials. Some of these caused very great dissatisfaction, being grossly offen- sive representations of lieathen mythology; for which, however, the printer alone was responsilile, who used such ornamental initials as he chose, following the taste of the age. From one of them, the initial letter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, this version is popular- ly known as the Leda Bible. A most elaborate scries of genealogical tables, prepared by Hugh Broughton, the great rabbi of the age (of whom more hereafter), but ostensibly by Speed the antiquaiy (Broughton's name being in disfavor with the bishops), -was prefixed
ENGLISH VERSIONS
216
ENGLISH VERSIONS
(Strypp, Parhfr, iv, 20; Lightfoot, Life of Brovghton). In some points it followed previous translations, and was avowedly based on Cranmer's. "A new edition was necessary." "This had led some well-disposed men to reeognise it again, not as condemning the for- mer translation, which has been followed mostly of anj' other translation, excepting tlie original text" (Pref. of 1572). Cranmer's Prologue was reprinted. The Geneva division into verses was adopted tliroughout.
3. Some peculiarities, however, appear for the first and List time. (1.) The books of the Bible are classi- fied as legal, historical, sajiiential, and jirophetic. This was easy enough for the O. T.,but the application of the same idea to the N. T. produced some rather curi- ous combinations. The Gospels, the catholic Epis- tles, and tliose to Titus, Philemon, and the Hebrews, are gronpt^d together as legal, St. Paul's other epistles as. sapiential ; the Acts appear as the one historical, the Hevelation as the one prophetic book. (2.) It is the only Bilile in which many passages, sometimes nearly a whole chapter, have been marked for the ex- press purpose of being omitted when the chapters were read in the public service of the Church. (3.) In the edition of 1572, Cranmer's version of the Psalms, as being the one used in the Book of Common Prayer (which could not be changed without an act of Parlia- ment), was printed along with the Bishops' version in parallel columns. In the editions subsecjuent to this date the Bishops' version is omitted altogether, and that of Cranmer is substituted in its place, in order that the Bible and the Prayer-book might have the same version. They are so far worthless, therefore, as editions of the Bishops' Bible. (4.) The initials of the translators were attached to the books which thej' had severally undertaken. The work was done on the plan of limited, not joint liabilit}'. (5.) Here, as in the Geneva, there is the attempt to give the Hebrew proper names more accurately, as e. g. in Heva, Isa- hac, Uziahu, etc.
4. Of all the English versions, the Bishops' Bible had probably the least success. It did not command the respect of scholars, and its size and cost were far from meeting the wants of the people. Its circulation appears to have been practically limited to the church- es which were ordered to be supplied with it. It had, however, at any rate, the right to Ijoast of some good Hebrew scholars among the translators, one of whom, bishop Alley, had written a Hebrew Grammar; and, though vehementh' attacked by Brougliton (Tov^nley, Litermy Hisiory of the Bible, iii, 190), it was defended as vigorously b}' Fulke, and, together with the A. V., received from Selden the praise of being " the best translation in the world" {Table Talk, Works, iii, 2009).