ENGLISH VERSIONS
217
ENGLISH VERSIONS
ten raised since. "If even' man's humor wore to be fullowt'd, there would be no end of transhiting" (Card- well, Conferences, p. 188). Cranmer's words seemed likely to be fulfilled again. Had it been left to the bishops, we might have waited for the A.V. ''till the day after doomsday. ' ' Even when the Avork was done, and the translators acknowledged that the Hampton > Court Conference had been the starting-point of it, they could not resist the temptation of a fling at their opponents. The objections to the Bishops' Bible had, they s.aid, been nothing more tiian a shift to justify the refusal of the Puritans to subscribe to the Cummunion- book {Preface to A.V.). But tlie king disliked the politics of the Geneva Bible. Either repeating what he had heard from others, or exercising his own judg- ment, he declared that there was as j-et no good trans- lation, and that the Geneva Avas the worst of all. Nothing, howe.ver, was settled at the Conference be- yond the hope thus held out.
2. But the king was not forgetful of what he thought likely to be the glory of liis reign. The work of or- ganizing and superintending the arrangements for a new translation was one specially congenial to him, and in 1G06 the task was accordingly commenced. The selection of the flfty-four scholars to whom it was intrusted seems, on the whole, to have been a wise and fair one. Andrews, Saravia, Overal, Montague, and Barlow represented the "hi^lier" party in the Church ; Eeinolds, Chaderton, and Lively that of the Puritans. Scholarship unconnected with party was represented by Henry Savile and John Boys. One name, that of Broughton, is indeed conspicuous b^' its absence. The greatest Hebrew scholar of the age — the man who had, in a letter to Cecil (1595), urged this verj' plan of a joint translation — who had already translated several books of the 0. T. (Job, Ecclesiastes, Daniel, Lamen- tations), was ignominiously excluded. This may have been, in part, owing to the dislilce with which Whit- gift and Bancroft had all along regarded him. But in part, also, it was owing to Broughton's own char- acter. An unmanageable tem[er, showing itself in violent language, and the habit of stigmatizing those who differed from him, even on such questions as those connected with names and dates, as heretical and atheistic, must have made him thoroughly impractica- ble ; one of the men whose presence throws a commit- tee or conference into chaos. Onl}' forty-seven names appear in the king's list (Burnet, Reform. Records). Seven may have died or declined to act; or it may have been intended that there should lie a final com- mittee of revision. A full list is given In' Fuller (JJh. Hist, x) ; and is reproduced, with biographical partic- ulars, by Todd and Anderson. The Puritan side was, however, weakened by the death of Reinolds and Live- ly during the progress of the work.
3. What reward other than that of their own con- sciences anl the judgment of posterity were the men thus chosen to expect for their long and laborious task ? The king was not disposed to pay them out of his state revenue. Gold and silver were not always plentiful in the household of the English Solomon, and from him they received nothing (Hey wood, SMe of Avth. Bibl. Revision). Tliere remained, however, an inge- nious form of liberality, which had the merit of being inexpensive. A king's letter was sent to the arch- bishops and bishops, to be transmitted Ijy them to their | chapters, commending all the translators to their fa- vorable notice. Tkej' were exhorted to contribute | in all 1000 marks, and the king was to be informed of I each man's liberality. If any livings in their gift, or in the gift of private persons, became vacant, the king I was to be informed of it, that he might nominate some of the translators to the vacant preferment. Heads ' of colleges, in like manner, were enjoined to give free board and lodging to such divines as were summoned from the country to labor in the great work (Strj'pe, Whiiffift, iv). That the king might take his place as
director of the whole, a copj' of fifteen instructions was sent to each translator, and apparenth' circulated freel}' in both universities.
4. The instructions thus given will be found in Fuller (L c), and with a more accurate text in Bur- net (Reform. Records). It \yill not be necessary to give them here in full ; but it will be interesting to note the bearing of each clause upon the work in hand, and its relation to previous versions. (1) The Bish- ops' Bible was to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit. This was probably intended to quiet the alarm of those, who saw in the proposed new version a condemnation of that already existing, j (2) The names of prophets and others, were to be re- tained as nearly as may be in the form vulgarly used. This was to guard against forms like Izhak, Jeremiahu, etc., which had been introduced in some versions, and which some Hebrew scholars were willing to introduce more copiously. To it we owe probaldy the forms Jer- eni}', Elias, Osee, Core, in the N. T. Qi) The old eccle- siastical words were to be kept, as the word '• church" not to be translated "congregation." The rule was apparently given for the sake of this special applica- tion. "Charit}'," in 1 Cor. xiii, was probably also due to it. The earlier versions, it will be remembered, had gone on the opposite principle. (4) " When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept whicli hath been most commonlj' used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the proprietj' of the place and the analogy of faith." This, lilce the former, tends to confound the functions of the preacher and the translator, and substitutes ecclesiastical tradition for philological accuracy. (5) The division of the chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as possible. Here, again, convenience was more in view than truth and accurac}', and the result is that divi- sions are perpetuated which are manifestly arbitrary and misleading. (6) No marginal notes to be aflixed but only for the explanation of Hebrew and Greek words. This was obviously directed against the Ge- neva notes, as the special objects of the king's aver- sion. Practically, however, in wliatever feeling it originated, we may be thankful that the A.V. came out as it did, without note or comment. The open Bible was placed in the hands of all readers. The work of interpretation was left free. Had an opposite course lieen adopteil, we might have had the tremen- dous evil of a whole body of exegesis imposed upon the Church by authority, reflecting the Calvinism of the Synod of Dort, the absolutism of James, the high- flying prelacy of Bancroft. (7) "Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as maj' serve for fit reference of one Scripture to another." The principle that Scripture is its own interpreter was thus recog- nised, but practically the marginal references of the A. V. of 1(111 were somewhat scanty, most of those now printed having been added in later editions. (8 and il) State plan of translation. Each company of translators is to take its own books ; each person to bring his own corrections. The company to discuss them, and, having finished their work, to send it on to anotiier company, and so on. (10) Provides for differences of opinion between two companies by refer- ring them to a general meeting. (11) Gives power, in cases of difficultv, to consult an_y scholars. (12) Invites suggestions from any quarter. (13) Names the directors of the work : Andrews, dean of West- minster; Barlow, dean of Chester; and the regius pro- fessors of Hebrew and Greek at both universities. (14) Names translations to be followed when they agree more with the original than the Bishops' Bible, name- ly, Tyndalo's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, AA'hitchurch's, (Cranmer's), and Geneva. (15) Authorizes universi- ties to appoint three or four overseers of the work.