THE GROWTH OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE.

The English Bible, more than any other of the forms in which the Scriptures have been used by Christian men, has been a growth. It is not the production of one man, or of one epoch. It has come down to us through a long series of transformations, and it is the result of the continuous endeavours of a succession of earnest labourers to give to their fellow-countrymen a faithful representation of the word of God.

At what date, and by whom, the Scriptures were first set forth in a form which was intelligible to the people of this country is not known. In the earliest period respecting which we have any clear information, the Latin Vulgate was the Bible of the clergy and of public worship. Some portions only were rendered into the language of the common people. Few of them probably were able to read, and this may explain why it was that the Psalms were especially selected for translation. They could be more readily committed to memory, and be more easily wedded to music. But whatever the reason, the Psalter is the earliest English Bible of which we have any definite knowledge. It was translated quite early in the eighth century, both by Aldhelm, sometime Abbot of Malmesbury, but at his death, in A.D. 709,[4] Bishop of Sherborne, and by Guthlac,[5] the hermit of Croyland, who died A.D. 714.[6] A few years later, A.D. 735, the Venerable Bede translated the gospel of John, dying, as related in the touching narrative of his disciple Cuthbert, in the very act of completing it. In the following century King Alfred greatly encouraged the work of translation, and it is to this period that we are probably to attribute those Anglo-Saxon gospels which have come down to us.[7] Towards the close of the tenth century, or early in the eleventh, the first seven books of the Old Testament were partly translated and partly epitomised by Ælfric, Archbishop of Canterbury. A verse from each of these two last-mentioned works will show of what sort was the form of these early English Bibles, and will at the same time illustrate one of the causes which from time to time have rendered the task of revision an imperative duty.

The Anglo-Saxon gospel presents Matthew v. 3 thus:

“Eadige sind Ða gastlican Þearfan, forÐam hyra ys heofena rice.”And in Ælfric’s Heptateuch, Genesis xliii. 29 reads:

“Ða josep geseah his gemeddredan broÞor beniamin Þa cwaeÞ he, is Þis se cnapa Þe ge me foresaedon and eft he cwaeÞ god gemilt sige Þe sunu min.”

In the course of time our language gradually changed from the form exhibited in these quotations to that seen in the writings of Chaucer and Wycliffe. During the earlier part of this transition period the Old English (Anglo-Saxon) Scriptures continued in use; but towards the middle part they seem to have become partially unintelligible, and attempts were consequently made to give the Scriptures to the people in the new form of language then prevalent, and which is known as the Early English. It has been asserted that the entire Scriptures were issued in this form; but for this there is no satisfactory evidence. We have certain knowledge only of a poetical version of the Psalms (the “Ormulum”), written about the close of the twelfth century; of a poetical narration of the principal events recorded in Genesis and Exodus, written about the middle of the thirteenth century; and of two prose verses of the Psalms, both belonging to the early part of the fourteenth century, one by William de Schorham, vicar of Chart-Sutton, in Kent, and the other by Richard Rolle, of Hampole, near Doncaster. In the version of the former the first two verses of Psalm i. are thus given:

“Blessed be the man that ?ed nou?t in the counseil of wicked: ne stode nou?t in the waie of sin?eres, ne sat nou?t in fals jugement. Ac hijs wylle was in the wylle of oure Lord; and he schal thenche in hijs lawe both da?e and ny?t.”

The year 1382 is the earliest date at which it can with any confidence be affirmed that the entire Scriptures existed in the English language.[8] During several years previous to this date Wycliffe and his associates had in various ways been working towards the accomplishment of this result. But it was with some measure of secrecy, as of men who apprehended danger from the attempt. This renders it difficult to determine with precision the date when the work was completed, and what was the part which each of the joint labourers had in the common task. It is beyond controversy that the chief place of honour is due to John Wycliffe. His name is so closely and constantly associated with this Bible by those who refer to it in the times immediately succeeding, as to put it beyond all doubt that it is to his influence our country is mainly indebted for this unspeakable boon. The translation of the New Testament was probably in whole or in large part the work of Wycliffe himself. That of the Old Testament, down to the twentieth verse of the third chapter of Baruch, is credibly assigned, upon the authority of a MS. in the Bodleian library, to Nicholas de Hereford, one of the leaders of the Lollard party in Oxford. It is probable that this Bible was somewhat hurriedly completed, and that either the translators were prevented by circumstances from reviewing their work before issuing it, or, with the natural eagerness of men engaged in a first attempt, they did not allow themselves time for doing so. Possibly also they may themselves have regarded it but as a sort of first draft of their work, and the variations they had found to exist in their copies of the Vulgate had revealed to them the need of further labour before they could satisfactorily complete the task they had undertaken.

Wycliffe died in December, 1384; but either before his death, or shortly afterward, a revision of this work was commenced by one of his most intimate friends, John Purvey, who, having resided with Wycliffe during the latter part of his life, may be reasonably credited with acting herein under a full knowledge of the wishes and aims of his honoured teacher.

The course pursued by Purvey, as described by himself in his prologue,[9] is interesting and instructive, setting forth, as it does, most distinctly the main lines upon which any work of Biblical revision must proceed. His first step was to collect old copies of the Vulgate, and the works of learned men who had expounded and translated the same; and then, by examination and comparison, to remove as far as he could the errors which in various ways had crept into the Latin text. His second step was to study afresh the text so revised, and endeavour to arrive at a correct apprehension of its general meaning. His third was to consult the best authorities within his reach for the explanation of obscure terms, and of specially difficult passages. His fourth was to translate as clearly as possible, and then submit the same to the joint correction of competent persons; or, to use his own words, “to translate as clearly as he could to the sentence, and to have many good fellows, and cunning, at the correcting of the translation.” By the co-operation of this band of skilful helpers the work was completed about the year 1388, and copies of it were rapidly multiplied.[10] It became, in fact, the accepted form of the Wycliffite version.By a comparison of the two verses of Psalm i., given above, with the forms in which they appeared in the two Wycliffe Bibles, the reader will be able in some degree to estimate the growth of our language, and will also understand how painstaking and reverent was the care taken by these “faithful men” that in this sacred work they might offer of their very best.

In the earlier Wycliffe version the verses read thus:

“Blisful the man that went not awei in the counseil of unpitouse, and in the wei off sinful stod not, and in the cha?er of pestilence sat not. But in the lawe of the Lord his wil; and in the lawe of hym he shal sweteli thenke dai and ny?t.”

In Purvey’s revised version they read:

“Blessid is the man that ?ede not in the councel of wickid men; and stood not in the weie of synneris, and sat not in the chaier of pestilence. But his wille is in the lawe of the Lord; and he schal bithenke in the lawe of hym dai and ny?t.”

This Bible, so long as it remained in use as the Bible of English people, existed, it should be remembered, only in a manuscript form.[11] The chief point, however, to be noticed here is, that with all its excellences, and unspeakable as was its worth, it was but the translation of a translation. Neither Wycliffe nor his associates had access to the Hebrew original of the Old Testament; and although some copies of the Greek New Testament were then to be found in England, there is no reason to believe that Purvey or his friends were able to make any use of them. They were, indeed, aware that the Latin of the common text did not always faithfully represent the Hebrew; but their knowledge of this fact was second-hand, gathered chiefly from the commentaries of Nicholas de Lyra, a writer whose works were held in high repute by Bible students in that age. They did not, therefore, venture to correct these places, but contented themselves with noting in the margin, “What the Ebru hath, and how it is undurstondun.” This, Purvey states, he has done most frequently in the Psalter, which “of alle oure bokis discordith most fro Ebru.”

The third stage in the growth of the English Scriptures is brought before us by the interesting series of printed Bibles that issued from the printing press in the reign of Henry VIII.

After the death of Wycliffe the efforts of the Popish party to crush the Lollards had increased in violence, and various enactments were passed proscribing the use of the Bible which bore his name. An act, passed in the second parliament of Henry V., went still further, and declared that all who read the Scriptures in their native tongue should forfeit land, cattle, life, and goods, they and their heirs for ever. Notwithstanding these repressive measures, copies of the Wycliffe Bible were still made and read in secret. This could be done only with great risk and difficulty, and none but persons of some wealth could afford the expense of a complete copy. Those in humbler positions deemed themselves happy if they could secure a single book, or even a few leaves. Moreover, through the growing changes of the language, many passages were becoming very obscure to ordinary readers. During the hundred years which followed after the issuing of the law just referred to, two important events had happened; namely, the invention of printing,[12] and the German Reformation. Both of these had a large influence in stimulating the friends of the Bible to new efforts in revising it for popular use.

The leader of this movement in our own country was William Tyndale, who, in the year 1525, printed on the Continent, whither he had been driven by the opposition which beset him at home, the first edition of his New Testament, translated from the Greek. A second and revised edition, “dylygently corrected and compared with the Greke,” was printed at Antwerp, and published in November, 1534; and a third and final edition was published in the early part of 1535, in the May of which year he was arrested and committed to the castle of Vilvorde, near Brussels. Of other parts of the Scriptures Tyndale was able to publish only the Pentateuch (1530 or 1531) and the book of Jonah (1534). On the sixth day of October, 1536, he was led to the stake. He was there strangled and his body burnt.

Just twelve months before the martyrdom of Tyndale, the first printed edition of the entire Scriptures in the English language was issued from the press of Jacob van Meteren, at Antwerp. The privilege and honour of accomplishing this memorable work belongs to Miles Coverdale, at that time a poor scholar, dependent upon the patronage of Thomas Cromwell and others, though subsequently, for a short period in the reign of Edward VI., Bishop of Exeter. The first edition of his Bible was “prynted in the year of our Lord MDXXXV., and fynished the fourthe day of October.” Coverdale had been moved to the undertaking by his own deep sense of the needs of his country, and by the earnest appeals addressed to him by others. Through his modesty of disposition, and his lowly estimate of his own abilities, he would have declined the task, but the urgency of his friends prevailed. The expenses also of the preparation and publication of the work were met by the liberality of some of them. In his prologue he says, “It was neither my labour nor desire to have this work put in my hand; nevertheless it grieved me that other nations should be more plenteously provided for with the Scripture in their mother tongue than we; therefore, when I was instantly required, though I could not do as well as I would, I thought it my duty to do my best, and that with a good will;”[13] and in the dedication to the king, prefixed to some of the copies, he says, “As the Holy Ghost moved other men to do the cost hereof, so was I boldened in God to labour in the same.” According to the statement on the title-page this was not a translation made from the original texts,[14] but was faithfully and truly translated out of the “Douche and Latyn in to Englishe.” In the dedication he states that he had, “with a clear conscience purely and faithfully translated this out of five sundry interpreters,” and in his prologue he explains further, that to help him in his work he had used “sundry translations, not only in Latin, but also of the Dutch interpreters;” and he is careful, further, to explain that he did not “set forth this special translation” “as a reprover and despiser of other men’s translations,” but “lowly and faithfully have I followed mine interpreters, and that under correction.” The five interpreters to whom Coverdale thus refers were probably the Vulgate, the Latin version of Pagninus, Luther’s translation, the Zurich Bible, and Tyndale’s New Testament and Pentateuch. Though the volume was dedicated to the king, and though Coverdale was backed by powerful patrons, this Bible was not published with a royal license. No direct attempt, however, was made to suppress it. In the following year (1536) it was virtually condemned by the members of Convocation, who prayed the king that he would “grant unto his subjects of the laity the reading of the Bible in the English tongue, and that a new translation of it be made for that end and purpose.” But notwithstanding this two new editions of Coverdale’s Bible were printed in London in 1537, and on the title-page of both of these there appeared the words, “Set forth with the kynge’s moost gracious licence.”

In the same year, 1537, and probably in the earlier part of it, there was issued in London another Bible, which also bore upon its title-page the inscription, “Set forth with the kinge’s most gracyous lycence.”[15] This Bible, commonly known as Matthew’s Bible, was, it is now generally believed, prepared for the press by John Rogers, who suffered martyrdom at Smithfield, under the Marian persecution. In the New Testament and Pentateuch he agrees substantially with Tyndale’s version. Of the other books of the Old Testament, a portion is obviously taken from Coverdale, the remaining part, Joshua to Chronicles, has been thought with good reason to be the work of Tyndale. It is known that Tyndale, after the publication of his Pentateuch, continued to labour at the translation of the Old Testament. In a letter written during his imprisonment he prays to be allowed to have his Hebrew Bible, and his Hebrew grammar and dictionary; and it is by no means unlikely that the results of his studies were committed to the care of Rogers. If this surmise be correct, then this Bible may be viewed as a compilation, two-thirds of it being due to Tyndale, and one-third to Coverdale. A sufficient reason for the adoption of the assumed name of Thomas Matthew is thus supplied, since Rogers could not claim the work as his own, and Tyndale’s name would have arrayed against it the opposition both of the king and of the Romish party.

Both of the last mentioned Bibles were open to certain obvious objections. Coverdale’s, in that it was derived from German and Latin versions; and Matthew’s, in that it was in part only made from the original texts. Matthew’s also was accompanied by a considerable number of critical and explanatory notes, many of which were of a decided anti-papal cast. Accordingly, at the instigation and under the patronage of Thomas Cromwell, Coverdale set himself to revise his former work with the aid of the valuable contribution supplied to him in Matthew’s Bible. The printing of this new Bible was completed in April, 1539, and from the circumstance that it was printed in the largest folio then used, 15 inches by 9, it was, and is, commonly described as the Great Bible. In the title-page it is declared to be “truly translated, after the veryte of the Hebrue and Greke textes by ye dylygent studye of dyuerse excellent learned men, expert in the forsayde tonges.”[16] By this, it is now tolerably certain, we are to understand, not that several living scholars took part with Coverdale in the preparation of the volume, but that he availed himself of the published writings of men skilled in the ancient languages, who had translated and expounded the Hebrew and Greek texts of the Scriptures. His chief guides were Sebastian Munster for the Old Testament, and Erasmus for the New. The Bible appeared without notes, and had no dedication.[17]

In the same year (1539) there appeared also the Bible[18] edited by Richard Taverner, formerly of Cardinal College (now Christ Church), Oxford, afterwards of the Inner Temple, and more recently Clerk of the Signet to the King.[19] It may be briefly described as a revised edition of Matthew’s Bible. Taverner had some reputation as a Greek scholar, but his work is very unequally executed, and before the formidable competition of the Great Bible it soon sank into obscurity. After its first year of issue this Bible seems to have been only once reprinted in its entirety; namely, in 1549.[20]

Not content with what he had already done, Coverdale persevered in the revision and re-revision of his work. A second edition was issued in April, 1540, to which was prefixed a prologue by Cranmer,[21] and its title contained the words, “This is the Byble apoynted to the use of the churches.” Two other editions appeared in the same year, and three in the following year.[22] (The edition of April, 1540, seems, however, to have been regarded as a sort of standard edition.) This Bible was the Bible read in churches in the reign of Edward VI., and in the early part of the reign of Elizabeth.

Hence it will be seen that of the four principal Bibles published in the reign of Henry VIII., namely, Tyndale’s New Testament and Pentateuch, Coverdale’s Bible, Matthew’s Bible, and the Great Bible, the last three form a group of closely related versions, of which Tyndale’s is the common parent, and the rest successively derived therefrom. And it is very noteworthy that these Bibles are mainly the result of the patient and devoted labours of two men only. The work done by such men as Rogers and Taverner, however important, is altogether of a subordinate kind. William Tyndale and Miles Coverdale stand apart, and above all others, as the men who, in those days of religious awakening and of conflict with the papal tyranny, gave the Bible to our countrymen in a form that could reach at once their understanding and their heart. Remembering this, and remembering also in what difficult circumstances the work was done, the wonder is far less that room was left for improvement, and that further revision was felt by themselves and others to be an imperative duty, than that so much was accomplished, and so well, by the indomitable and self-denying labours of these noble men.