Versions, english

i. The history of the Versions of the English Bible may be said to begin with John Wyclif. Previous to his time there had been various attemjjts to render parts of the Scri[)turcs into Anglo-Saxon and Anglo- Norman, or Middle-English. But these had not only been very fragmentary, but were for the most jiart paraphrases rather than literal trans- lations. \\ ith Wyclif, however, a new era in Bible-translation began, and nothing that concerns him can fail to be of interest.

* He was bom about the j"car 1320 in the vicinity of Richmond in York- shire, and when he first comes publicly forward is found filling various important posts in the Uni- versity of Oxford. The bold attitude with regard to the Papal Tribute which he took up in a Tract, led to his being selected as one of the Koyal Com- missioners sent to Bruges in 1374 to treat with the Papal Nuncio regarding the reservation of bene- fices, and from this time may be dated his appear- ance as an ardent eccle.

siastical reformer — ' the Morning Star of the Keformation.' For this end he institute<l an order of ' poor priests ' whose duty it was ' faithfully to scatter the seed of God's word,' and it was to aid them in this work that he set about providing them with the Bible in their native tongue.

The first book translated was the Apocalypse, which was followed by a translation of the Gospels with a commentary, and soon after by versions of the remaining books of the NT, the whole being completed by 1380.

To this was added a translation of the OT principally by one of his friends, Nicolas de Hereford, though Wyclif himself seems to have suiijilied the last books and about one-third of the Apocrypha, so that about the middle of the year 1382 the whole Bible was in the hands of the people ' in their mother tongue.' All this had not been accomplished without difficulty and even danger.

Hereford had to flee the country, and Wj'clif's own teach- ing was publicly condemned at a Synod in London in 1382. The hostility, however, would seem to have been confined to a few persons, notably Archbishop Arundel, for the new translation was generally tolerated, and the reformer himself, con- trary to his own expectations, was eventually allowed to retire to his rectory of Lutterworth, where he passed quietly away on the last day of the year 1384.

But the good work was not allowed to stop, and in 1388 one of Wyclif's pupils, now generally identified with John Purvey, is.sued a careful revision of his translation, introduced by a most interesting Prologue, and accompanied by a num- ber of short cojnments or notes. This version quickly took the place of the older one, and was largely circulated amongst all classes of the people notwithstanding its great cost.

t Both versions were indeed admirably adapted for pojuilar use, being characterized by great homeliness and direct- ness of diction. And though many of the words and expressions nsed are now of course obsolete or • See especially Lechler's John Wyciife and his Entjtish Pre- atrii"rn, translated and edited by Loriiner; and cf. 'The Mirth and I'arentAge of Wiclif ' by L. Sergeant in tlie Adunurwn for Maroli l'.!th and 2Hth, 1892.

' t Kornhall and Madden, in the prcparat ion of their ^reat work on The W'lidijjite Verifiorut, ISfiO, were able to examine ' nearly 160 MSS containing the whole or part* of I'urvey's Bible, the majority of whi'-h were written witliio the space of forty years from its being tluislied ' (Preface, p. xxxli f.) 856 VERSIONS, ENGLISH VKESIONS, ENGLISH inappropriate, it is wonderful, when the spelling is modernized, how little they difl'er as a whole from our A V.

One great blemish they of necessity possess. They are only translations of a trans- lation, being made from the Latin Vul^'ate ; and it was left to another with improved facilities to carry on the work so auspiciously begun, and more than 'any other man to give its character- istic shape to our English Bible' (Westcott, General View of the Eistury of the English Bible-, 1872, p. 24). ii.

That other was William Tindale, and, though there is still consiileralile uncertainty regarding many of the facts of his life, it is now generally agreed that he was born at Slymbridge in Glou- cestershire about the j'ear 14S4,* and that after studj'ing at O.\ford he proceeded to Cambridge in 1515, where the fame of Erasmus' lectures stUl lingered.

In 1521 he returned to his native county as chaplain and tutor in the family of Sir John Walsh of Little Sodbury, and while there is credited with the resolution to which Ids whole after-life w^as devoted, saying in controversy with a clerical opponent, ' If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth the plough shall know more of the Scripture than thou doest.'

In pursuance of this purpose he went up to London two years later, in the hope of executing his task under the patronage of Bishop Tunstall ; but after a year of anxious waiting the conviction forced itself upon him, 'not only that there was no room in my lord of London's palace to translate the NT, but also that there was no place to do it in all England ' (Pref. to Pentateuch).

Voluntarily, therefore, in May 1524, Tindale exiled himself, and after a short stay at Hamburg seems to have visited Luther at Wittenberg. In any case, there can be no doubt that in 1525 he was at Cologne, engaged in bringing out a com- plete edition of the NT.

His plan was, however, discovered by a certain priest John Cochloeus, and he and his assistant Roye had barely time to secure the precious sheets already printed, and carrj' them otl' to Worms, where either in the same or the following year 3000 copies of the first printed English NT were issued from the press of P. Schoetl'er the younger.

The size of the book had been altered from quarto to octavo, probably to escape detection ; but shortly afterwards the original quarto edition, whose printing had been interrupted in Cologne, was also completed. Copies of both editions were immediately despatched to England, where they were eagerly welcomed.

But so vigorous were the steps taken against them that of the octavo edition only one complete copy (with the exception of the title-page) remains ;t while the aiiarto is known to exist only in a single fragment [Ut l'-22''^).:;: After the issue of his Testaments, Tindale quietly continued his work abroad, publishing a translation of The Five Books of Moses at Marburg in 1530, and The Book of Jonah with an interest- ing Prologue in 1531.

§ An edition of the Book of Genesis ' newly corrected and amended ' appeared in 1534, and in the same year there was published at Antwerp, ' The Newe Testament dyl ygc'ntl3' corrected and compared with theGreek by Willyam Tindale,' in which were included certain 'Epistles,' or extracts, out of the OT, a Table of Epistles and • See William Tyndale, a Biography, by It Demaus, new ed. bv Lovett, 18S6, p. 24.

t N'ow in the Library of the Baptist College at Bristol, and reproduced in facsimile in 1S62 by Mr. F. Fry. It was pre- vioualy reprinted with an introduction by O. Offor in ISIiC. I Preserved in the Grenville Kooni of the British Museum, and jjhoto-litho^raphed and published with a valuable intro- auction by E. Arber in 1S71. $ The former haa been reprinted under the editorship of Dr. tlombert, and the latter in facsimile with an introduction by Ur. Fry.

Gospels for Sundays, and ' some things added ' tt fill up the blank pages at the end. The book wa» thus in .some respects more like a modern Church Seri'ice Book than an ordinary Testaiuent, while the improvements introduced into the text fidly justltied the translator's claim that he had ' weeded out of it many faults which lack of help at the beginning, and oversight, did sow therein.'

Thia edition has well been described as Tindale'a ' noblest monument ' ; but not even yet was hia work of revision completed. In 1535 there ap- peared what is often known as ' the G. H. Testa- ment' from the initials attached to the second title-page, and which were first interpreted by Mr. Bradshaw (18S1) as denoting G. van der Haghen, the Antwerp publisher.

In this edition the 1534 text was ' yet once agayne corrected by Willyam Tindale,' the corrections (there are said to be about four hundred of them) proving by their very minuteness the translator's fidelity and zeal. Another NT bearing the same date (1535) is re- markable for its peculiar orthography, sometimes thought to have been purposely adapted to the pionunciation of the peasantry (e.i/.

'laether' for ' father,' ' hueme ' or ' hoome ' for ' home '), but in all probability caused by the mistakes of some Flemish printer in setting up a foreign language. As further showing the rapid spread of Tindale'a translations, it may be mentioned that in the fol- lowing year (1536) seven, if not eight, editions of his NT appeared, one of which (in lolio) is believed to have been the first portion of the Holy Scrip- tures jorinicrf in England.

* Tliere was to be no return, however, for Tindale himself to wliat he pathetically calls ' mine natural country,' for, having been betrayed into the hands of his enemies and imprisoned for about a year at Vilvorde, near Brussels, he sufi'ered martyrdom on Friday, 6th Oct. 1536. With his last words he prayed, ' Lord ! open the king of England's eyes.' It is impossible here to examine in detail Tin- dale's service to the cause of Bible translation, but one or two points may be indicated.

(1) Foremost amongst these is the independence of his work. Attempts have been made to under- estimate this, and more particularly to prove him on the one hand ' merely a full-grown Wyclitfe,' and on the other to show how largely he borrowed from the German Testament of Luther.

But while Purveys revision undoubtedly inliuenced him indirectly by supplying many proverbial ex- pressions and technical terms which through it had become current, and Lulher'a Testament, more especially in its Prefaces and marginal Notes, was freely consulted and used, Tindale was too good a scholar to be slavishly dependent on any one.

t and can justly claim the honour of being the first in England at any rate (with the possible exception of Bede) to go straight to the ilebrew and Greek originals.^ (2) If, however, in his own work he was largely independent of others, his influence on those who followed him was direct and unmistakable.

Thus it is to him that we owe in great part our religious vocabulary, § and, what is even more important, that freedom from dog- • These and many other Interestinff details will be found in A Bil/tiajraphicaJ Dexriplion o/lhe Jiilitunu of the AT, Tynr dale's Verifitm, in Enqtish, by Francis Fry, lb"8. t According to an eminent German scholar, H.

Buschius, who met him at Worms in 1526, Tindale was "so skilled in seven lanifuages, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, English, French, that whichever he spoke you would suppose it his native tongue' (Schelhorn, AiitctnitatfS Literarice, iv. p. 431). 1 The Greek Testament vihich he used was that pubhshed by Erasmus, edd. of 1619, 1522.

§ It has been calculated that in the whole of Tindale's NT the number of stranger words, or words that do not occur i» the AV, is probablv below 360, many of which are used once or twice only (Moultbu, The Histonj of f r Eryjlinh Bihh-. pp. 70, 71). Of his work as a whole, our Bibles are said to retaiu at the present day about 80 % in the OT and 90 % in the NT.

VEKSIOMS, ENGLISH VERSIONS, ENGLISH 867 matic bias and scrupulous fidelity to the exact letter of Scripture which have been in general such littppy features of our English Versions.* (3) It would be idle indeed to pretend that Tindale fell into no mistakes. Many of his renderings are in- correct, others are uncouth, others are paraphra.ses rather than translations.

Serious blemishes, too, are his constant disregard of connecting particles, and his habit of translating the same word in ditierent ways even in the same sentence. But, take it all in all, his translation is a noble one, and its very faults, as Fuller saj-s, are ' to be scored on the account rather of that age, than of '..he author himself.' iii. Nor had Tindale left himself without worthy successors. Amongst those wlio are stated bj' Fo.

xe to have assisted him in translating the Pentateuch was one Miles Coverdale (b. 1488, d. 1jG9), who, urged on by Cromwell, now devoted himself so steadily to the work of Bible-translation that on Oct. 4tli, 1535, the first complete printed English Bible was is.sued, the sheets of which are believed to have been printed by J. van Meteren of Antwerp, and then sold to Nicolson the South- wark printer.

The original title ran as follows : — 'Biblia, The Bible : that is, the Holy Scripture of the Olde and New Testament, faithfully and truly translated out of Douche and Latyn into Englishe, MDXXXV.' The English printer in substituting a new title-page of his own omitted for some reason the reference to ' Douche [German] and Latyn,' and added several preliminary pages containing a Dedication to king Henry Vlll. and a Prologue to the Christian Reader, both signed by Coverdale.

In this Dedication, Coverdale disclaims the position of an independent translator, and speaks of having 'with a clear conscience purely and faithfully translated this out of five sundry interpreters' (new generally identified with Luther, the Ziirich Bil le, the Vulgate, the Latin version of Pagninus, and in all probability Tindale), and to the same ellcct in the Prologue he specially acknowledges his indebtedness to ' the Dutch interpreters, whom (because of their singular gifts and special diligence in the Bible) I have been the more glad to follow for the most i)art, according as I was required.'

Notwithstanding these admissions, it would be wrong, however, to regard Coverdale as a mere ' proof, reader or corrector,' for, while making diligent and discriminating use of the ditierent autliorities within his reach, he supplied many of those hajijjy turns of e.xpression which len(f so much of its charm to our ICnglish Bible.

This is perhaps specially noticeable in the Psalter, of which Coverdale's version in the revised form in which it appeared in the Great Bible still retains its place in the English Book of Common Prayer. Two new editions of Coverdale's Bible were is.sucd by Nicolson in 1537, on the title-page of which there now appeared for the first time the significant words, • Set lorth with the Kynges most gracious licence.'

The following year found Coverdale engaged in biblical work in Paris, and the fruit was seen in a Latin- English Testament, of which in one year three eilitious were called for. New editions of the Bible ajijicared in I5.ji) and 1553.t iv. Other translations now followed in rapid enccession, one of which is generally known as Matthew's Bible. Its real editor, however, was a certain John liogers, who adopted the alias of Thomas Matthew — perhaps, as Vo.

\e suggests, to • ' 1 call Ood to record ajjainBt the day we shall appear before cor IfOrd Jesua, to givo a reckoning of our doiiiKH, that 1 never altered one Bytlable of CJoiI'b word ai^iiiHt my coimcieiicu, nor would thit day, It all tliat in in llie eanh, wlicthir it be plcaaure, honour, or riches, mlKht l>o jfiven rae.'— Tindale In Letter In Fryth, 1533 (Demaus' Tiindalt, p. 336).

t A convenient reprint of C'overd:ilo'» Uible of 1636 hu within rereut years been ij»ued by Uagater, hide his connexion with Tindale. As to the close- ness of this connexion there can at least be no doubt. The whole of the NT and about half the or in the new edition are Tiudale's, while the remainder is Coverdale's. Signs are not wanting, however, of critical editorship. Thus in the Psalter various readings are introduced in the margin, and many technical terms are carefully explained.

Numerous notes have also been added, many of which breathe a spirit of ardent Protestantism, and there is a large amount of prefatory matter £rincipally from Olivetan's French Bible (1535).

like the second edition of Coverdale's Bible, the new version bears to be 'set forth with the kingcs most gracyous 13'ceee,' and Cromwell, instigated by Cranmer, further obtained Henry's peruussiou that ' the same may be sold and read of every person, without danger ot any act, proclamation, or ordi- nance heretofore granted to the contrary.'

Hence it came about that ' by Craniner's petition, by Crumwell's influeuce, and by Henry's authority, without any formal ecclesiastical decision, tlie book was given to the English people, whicli is the foundation of the text of our present Bible. I'rora Matthew's Bible— itself a combination of the labours of Tyiidale and Coverdale — all later revisions have been successively formed' (West- cott, Uistory'', p. 73).

Its author did nut, however, escape in the troublous times that followed on Mary's accession. Through the agency of Bonner he was imprisoned at Newgate, and on Feb. 4th, 1555, was burned at the stake, setting a second seal to the fourfold seal of martyrdom by which the history of our English Bible has been hallowed. V.

Closely allied to Matthew's Bible is a versiou bearing tlie name of Richard Taverner, which was published in 1539, and bore to be ' newly recognized with great diligence after most faythful exemplars.' But the changes introduced are not as a rule of any great importance, though in the NT there are occasional forcible renderings. In Mt 21. '22, for example. Dr. Moulton finds in all about 40 variations from Tindale, of which one- third are retained in the AV (History, p. 135).

So far as we know, Taverner's Bible was only once reprinted, in 1549 (Cotton's Editions of tlis liiUc-, J). 21). VI. \\ e have seen already what a steady friend of Bible-translation Cromwell had proved himself. He was to render it yet another notable service.

Not wliolly satisfied with any version that had appeared, he applied to Coverdale early in 1538 to undertake a wholly new revision, using Matthew's Bible as his basis ; * and as it was determined that the printing should be done in Paris, Coverdale, accompanied by one Giaflon, at once repaired thither. Before, however, the work was com- pleted, the ln(|ui.sition stepped in, and it was with great dilliculty that the sheets were saved, and the presses sent over to England.

There the work was soon finished, and in Ai)ril 153U the Great Bible, as being the Bible ' in the largest volume,' was issued from the press.

It possessed a title- page of elaborate design, in which Henry was represented as handing 'the Word of God' to Cranmer and other clergy on his right hand, and to Cromwell and various lay-peers on his left ; while the contents are described as ' truly trans- lated after the veryte of the Hebruo and tireku textes, by ye dylygent studye of dyuerse excellent learned men expert in the forsayde tonges.'

There can be no doubt, however, that the work was principally Coverdale's, and that in his revision of Matthew's text he made large use of .Miinsler'a Hebrew-Latin version in the OT, and of the \'\i\- I am always willing and readv,' Oovcrtlale had written In the Dedication to his llible, *(0 ao my best as well in on? translation as in another.' S58 VERSIONS, ENGLISH VERSIONS, ENGLISH gate and Erasmus in the NT.

From the Vulgate more e»i)ecially he introducetl a numher of various readings, bit 'certain godly annotations' which he promised in the Prologue to explain ' the dark places of the text' never a|)peared. In I54U a new edition was calk'd for, containing a long Preface by Archbishop Cranmer, which has led to its being known as Cranmer's Bible. Five other editions followed rapidly within the next eighteen months.

* FVom their size and cost these were principally used as Church Bibles, and it must have been a pleasing sight to see in Old St. Paul's or in the aisle of some country cliurch the little group round the Gre.at Bible, from which some one more educated than the rest read aloud. vii. The people, however, were soon to have a Bible of their own, and for this we must turn again to the Continent. The accession of Mary had given a new turn to the ever-varying fortunes of our Bible's history.

Cranmer had followed Rogers to the stake, and the public, though appar- ently not the private, use ot the Scriptures was strictly forbidden. Foreseeing what was coming, a number of the leading Reformers had taken refuge at Geneva, the city of Calvin and Beza, and there, as they themselves tell us, ' we thought we could bestow our labours and study in nothing which could be more acceptable to God, and comfortable to His Cliurch, than in the translating of the Scriptures into our native tongue.'

The immediate result was the publication in 1557 of a translation of the NT alone by one of their number, William Whittingham, who, in his Address to the Reader, describes his work as specially intended for ' simple lambs.'

And it was doubtless the thought of the same class of readers that led to the numerous ' annotations of all hard places,' and to the adop- tion for the first time in an English translation of the convenient but often misleading division into verses, t This Testament was, however, soon cast into the shade by the publication in 1560 of a translation of the whole Bible, due in the main to the com- bined labours of William Whittingham, Thomas Sampson, and Anthony Gilby.

In size this Gen- evan Bible is a moderate quarto, and it is often familiarly known as the Breeclies Bible from its rendering of Gn 3' ('They sewed fig-tree leaves together, and made themselves breeches '). The cost of its production was met by ' such as were of most ability' in the congregation at Geneva.

Regarded simjily as a translation, the version deserves high praise, being based on a careful revision of the (jreat Bible in the OT, and, under the intlaence of Beza's Latin translation and Com- mentary, of Tindale's latest edition in the NT. The changes thus introduced were as a rule marked improvements, and many of them were subse- quently adopted in the AV.

The new version was also abundantly supplied with maiginal notes principally of an explanatory character, and these, combined with the convenient size in which it appeared, did much to account for the popxilarity which for long it enjoyed, $ passing as it did through IGO editions, 60 of them during the reign of Eliza- betli alone,§ and continuing to be printed for some time even after the publication of the AV in 1611.

11 • From the fact that several of these editions were printed by Whitchurch, the Great Bible is sometimes known as VVhit- chnrch'a. t The scheme which Whittinjrham adopted was that prepared by K. Stephanus for the 4th ed. of his Greek NT, published in 1651. In the OT the division into verses was already in exist- ence in the Hebrew Bible. I In 164ft an edition of the AV itself was actually broupht out with the Genevan notes, evidently for the purpose of commend- ing It to public favour.

8 After 1587 a revised version of the NT made by Laurenoe T omson In 1576 pencrally took the place of the earlier version. H The Genevan was the first Bible printed in Scotland in an iiaae gener&lly known as the Batsandyne Bible, from the print«r'8 viii. It was not to be expected, however, that the successors of Cromwell and Cranmer could look with favour on a translation emanating from the scliool of Calvin, and containing so many 'prejudicial notes.'

Accordingly, in 15G3-64 Arch- bishop Parker set on foot a scheme for the revision of Coverdale's version by a number of learned men working separately ; and in 1568 the Bishops' Bible, so called from the number of bishops en- gaged on it, was completed, and a copy presented to the queen. An eUbrt was made at tlie same time to secure that it alone should be licensed ' to draw to one uniformity.'

But, from whatever cause, this licence was never granted, and, although the version gained a considerable circulation, tliis was due ratlier to the support accorded to it by Convocation than to its own merits.* The truth is that as a translation it was marked by the inetiuality inevitable to a work which had been sorted out into ' parcels ' amongst a number of independent workers.

In the OT the historical books as a rule followed the Great Bible very closely ; but in the prophetical books greater variation was indulged in, many of the changes being distinctly traceable to the influence of the Genevan Bible. The Psalter was practically a new translation ; and on this account failed to maintain its ground against the version in the Great Bible, already endeared by constant use.

In tlie 2nd edition of 1587 the two versions were printed side by side, but in all later editions except one (1585) the old Psalter alone appeared. In tlie NT, on the other hand, more particularly in the 1572 edition, the bishops introduced many marked improvements, pointing to a careful study of the original text, though their renderings were occasionally marked by cumbrousness and a love of mouth-hlling phrases.

On the whole, however, the influence of the Bisliops' Bible on succeeding versions cannot be said to liave been very great, and, as has already been indicated, it failed to oust the Genevan Bible from its place as the favourite Bible for household use. The authority of the latter was now, however, to be subjected to a fresh challenge. ix. This came from the Church of Rome, and it is again interesting to notice that the new version, like the Genevan and Tindale's, was pro- duced in exile.

At the beginning of queen Eliza- beth's reign a number of English Romanists had taken refuge on the Continent, and in 1582 there was published a NT ' translated faithfvUy into English out of the authentical Latin, according to the best corrected copies of the same, diligently conferred with the Greeke and other editions in divers languages, ... In the English College of Rhemes.'

The translation of the OT had been pre- viously completed, but 'for lack of goodmeanes' its publication was delayed until 160U-10, when it came out at Douai. The whole Bible thus i.ssued is generally known as the Rheims and Douai Bible, and to three men, William Allen, Gregory Martin, and Richard Bristow, the credit of its production principally belongs.

Prefixed to the Rheinish NT was an elaborate Preface, in which the translators warned readers against the then existing ' profane ' translations, laid the odium on Protestants of casting ' the holy to dogges and jiearles to hogges,' and claimed for themselves to liave at least been ' very precise and religious ' in following their copy, ' the old vulgar approved Latin.' The new version was thus, like the name Thomas Bassandvne (see Hittory of the Bassandimf Bible, by W. T.

Dobson, 1887) ; and so firm was the hold it obtained in the country, that so recently as towards the close of the Ibth cent, a Bible of the Genevan translation was still in use in the church of Crttil in Fifeshire. • It passed through nineteen editions ; the last bears the d»t« 1606.

VtKSIOXS, ENGLISH VERSIONS, ENGLISH 859 Wj'clifite versions, only a secondary translation, and it was not to be wondered at that the extreme literalness at which the translators aimed ' word for word and point for point ' led often to stilled and even unintelliyiUe renderinijs, and also to the introduction of many Latinized terms, many of which were afterwards adopted in the AV.

The charge of theological bias sometimes brought against the translators with regard to some of these terms is probably without foundation ; but the same cannot be said of their notes, which are unmistakably and avowedly of a polemical char- acter. It need only be further noted that in later editions the Douai version has been largely altered to bring it more into conformity with — X. The Authorized Version.

— To tlie history of this version we have now come, and, when we think of the inlluence it exerted and is still exert- ing, it is the more remarkable that its origin should have been of such an incidental, almost accidental, character. One of the first acts of king James on ascending the throne of England was to convene a Conference at Hampton Court Palace in January 1604, to hear and determine 'things pre- tended to be amiss in the Church,' and in the course of the second day's proceedings Dr.

Rey- nolds, the Puritan leader, threw out the sugges- tion 'that there might be a new translation of the Bible, because those which were allowed in the reign of king Henry vui. and Edward VI. were corrupt and not answerable to tlie truth of the original.'

The suggestion commended itself to the king, who had at one time begun a transla- tion of the Psalms himself, and he at once pro- posed that the new translation should be under- taken by ' the best learned in both the universities, after them to be reviewed by the bishops and chief learned of the Church ; from them to be presented to the Privy Coum-il ; and lastly to be ratilied by his royal authority ; and so this wliole Church to be bound unto it and none other.'

Ue further ordered ' that no marginal notes sliould be added,' some of those in the Genevan Bible having recently attracted his attention as ' very partial, untrue, seditious, and savouring too much of dangerous and traitorous conceits.'

Notwithstaniling, however, the royal favour bestowed upon it, the actual work of translation, or rather revision, was not commenced until 1G07, when tlie forty-seven revisers (it had been origin- ally intended that there should be lifty-four) were divided into six companies, of which two sat at ^Vesllninster, two at Oxford, and two at Cam- bridge. Each company was to busy itself in the first instance with the separate portion assigned to it, but provision was also made for the revi.

sion of each nortion by the other live companies, and the whole version thus amended was then to be submitted to a select committee representative of all the companies for the harmonizing of details and hnal prejiaration for the press. How far these arrangements were rigidly adhered to we cannot now determine, for 'never,' says Dr.

Scrivener, who is our principal authority on all that concerns this version, ' was a great enterprise like the pro- duction of our Authorized Version carried out with less knowledge handed down to posterity of 'he labourers, their method and order of work- ing ' (TKe Authorized Edition of the EiKjlish BMe, p. 9). We know, however, that in two years and nine months tlie whole work of revision was carried throu'di, and in 1611 the new version was |niblishe<l.

Its full title ran as follows: — 'The Holy Bible, conteyning the Old Testament and the >:W: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues : with the former Transhitions diligently compared and reuised by his Maiestics Spcciail Comanderaent. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, Printei to the King's Most Excellent Majestie. Anno Dom. 1611."

After the title-page came the ful- some Dedication to king James, and a most in- teresting Preface, generally understood to be the work of Dr.

Miles Smith, afterwards Bishop of Gloucester, in which the main principles that had guided the translators were set forth, t We cannot now attempt to detail these, or to examine the leading internal characteristics of the new version ; but it is important to keep in mind that, in accordance with the rules that had bec^n laid down for their guidance, what the translators aiiued at was a revision rather than a new transla- tion.

The basis of their work was the Bishops' Bible ; but the versions of Tindale, Matthew, Coverdale, Whitchurch (that is, the Great IJiblu), and Geneva were used whenever they were fouiui to be more in accordance with the original, so as to make, in the translators' own words, 'out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against.'

No marginal notes were permitted, 'but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words which cannot, without some circumlocution, so briclly and litly be ex- pressed in the text,' — an exception which was some- what liberally interpreted ;J and 'such quotations of places' were 'set down as shall serve for the lit reference of one Scripture to another.'^ A new set of headings of chapters and columns was also sub- stituted for tlio.

se that had existed in the Genevan, and in the Great and Bishops' Bibles ; Imt the dates (mostly from Usslier) with which we are familiar in most modern editions were first inserted in 1701.

The immediate reception of the new version can hardly be said to have been altogether encouraging to its jiiomoters, for though there was little active opposition extended to it, and it speedily super- seded the Bishops' Bible as the oHicial version, it was not until the middle of the century that it ousted the Genevan Bible from the place of popu- lar favour, y That it deserved the place which it then attained does not admit of a moment's dis- pute ; and none have shown themselves more ready to admit its merits than those wlio in 1870 were appointed to revise it.

' We,' so they tell us, ' have liad to study this great Version carefully and minutely, line by line ; and the longer w<! have been engaged upon it the more wo have learned to admire its simiilicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression, its general accuracj', and, we must not fail to add, the music of its cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm ' (Prcf. toIiV of NT, 1881).

At the same time, great as the excellences of the AV undoubtedly are, it would be absurd to contend that it is not capable of imiirovement, or that the work of constant revision out of which it has been evolved cannot be applied to it in its turn.

And indeed, as a matter of fact, what we still know as king James's version has been sub- jected throughout the course of its long histoiT to a larger amount of revision than many of'^ its * A ti8cru1 reprint of this original edition woa iiiHucd from tlio Olford l'ri;K8 in 1S33. t It liim been reprinted in Hepamte form by the S.I'.C.K. t In tlie orit^inal edition of tlio A\', e.

\ctu(ling ll)e ApoL'r,\jiha, over 7000 brief tnar^'inal noles were inserted, a number that liaa sintre been largely iiicreajied, ti The original iiuuo references have, in some modeni editions, reached the cnonuous total of 00,000.

I Frora the words 'Appointed to be read in Churclies' on the tilTe-poge, it hoa sometimefl been thought thai the use of the new version was at once fonnally enjoined by the king, and thut from this it derived ita name of Authorized, But ' no evidi-nco litts ^'et been produced to show that the version was ever publicly sanctioned liy Convocation or by Parliainetit, or by the Privy Council, or by the king' (Westcott, Uintory'^, p. 12.S).

It became the 'authorised' version simply because it was tits beet. 860 VERSIONS. ENGLISH VERSIONS, ENGLISH readers are aware of. For not merely have the typographical and other imperfections inevitable in so larf;e an undertaking been corrected, but a large number of deliberate changes have from time to time been made in the text, ' introduced silently and without authority by men whose very name.s are often unknown.'

* And, in addition to this unotticial and irresponsible work of revision, wo have abundant evidence of more ambitious proposals for amending the new version. Thus, in lt)45. Dr. John Lightfoot, preaching before the House of Commons, urged them ' to think of a '■eview and survey of the translation of the Bible,' and pleaded for ' an exact, vigorous, and lively translation.'

And a few years later (1653) the Long Parliament actually made an order that a Bill should be brought in for a new translation. Nothing, however, came of this and similar scliemes which were proposed from time to time :t and it was left to the Southern Convocation of the Church of England to take the initial steps for providing as \vith what is now known as par excellence — xi. The Revised Version.

— The fact that it took its rise in Convocation marks off the RV from all otiier English versions.

Tindale's Testament and Coverdale's Bible were the work of individuals ; the Great Bible and the Bishops' were Episcopal in their origin ; the Genevan and the Rheims and Douai Bibles were due to two bands of exiles, Protestant and Roman Catholic respectively ; but the idea of the RV was matured by representa- tives of the Church of England, antl carried through with the assistance of members of other Churclies.J Over the steps leading up to the final decision we cannot linger.

Enough that in May 1870 tlie report of a committee appointed in the preceding February was adopted, to the effect ' that Con- location should nominate a body of its ovm mem- bers to undertake the work of revision, who shall be at liberty to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship to whatever nation or religious body they belong'; and that shortly afterwards, in terms of this resolution, two Com- panies for the revision of the Old and New Testa- ments respectively were appointed.

Eight rules were laid down for the Revisers' guidance, the most important of which were to the following effect: — the alterations to be as few as possible consistently with faithfulness to the original, and to be made in the language of the Authorized and earlier English versions ; each Company to go twice over the portion to be revised, once pro- visionally, the second time finally; the lext adopted to be that for whicli the evidence is decidedly preponderating ; and no changes in the text to "be retained on tlie second final revision, unless approved by twu-thircU of those present.

It will be seen that every precaution was thus taken to ensure that no unneces.sary changes should be introduced into a version already hal- lowed by so many and so varied associations ; and j)robably the charge that is most frequently brought against the Revisers is that they were too apt to lose sight of this. At the same time, it is only fair to them to keep in view the varied causes • Scrivener, The AuthurUi^d Edition, p. 3.

These clianj;e8 may also be conveniently studied in The Cambridge Paragraph Bible, edited by Scrivener, ISTa. t See i'lumptre, art. 'Version (Authorized)* in Smith's DB lii. 1678ff. J The historj' of the RV still remains to be written, but •mongrst reCL-nt works which helped to prepare the way for it mav be mentioned Trench, On the A V o/ the NT in connexion viih gome recent proi>oitaU for its recision^, 1859; EUicott, Coiisiiieratitms on the liemsion of the English Version of Ihr S'T.

ISTu ; Lightfoot, On a Fresh Itnimm of the English NT \ 1891 ; the Revisions of the Gospel of St. John and of several of the Pauline Epistles by Five Clergymen, the first part of which appeared in 1857 ; and Dean Alford s lievised ST, 1869. that made many changes inevitable. Thus, in the matter of text alone, it has been estimated th.

at the text underlying the revised NT of 1881 differed from that of 1611 in no less than 5788 readings ;* while other variations were necessitated by obvious misunderstandings of the original, by the removal of archaisms, and by previous incon- sistencies in the rendering of the same words and phrases.

Numerous, however, as the differences between the Revised and Authorized versions thus came to be, it is reassuring to know tliat in no particular have they seriously affected any of the doctrines of our faith, though in not a few in- stances these doctrines are now presented in a fuller and more convincing lightt Tlie revision of the NT occupied about ten years and a half, and the result was published on May 17th, 1881.

Four years later the Revised OT was ready, and thus on May 19th, 1885, the English reader had the whole Bible in his hands, ' being the ver.-ion set forth A.D. 1611 compared with the most ancient autliorities and revised.'

Each Testa- ment was furnislied with a Preface detailing the principles on which the work had been carried through, and with an Appendix in which the American Companies, who had been associated in the work, placed on record certain points of trans- lation in which they differed from the English Companies. A revised translation of the Apoc- ryjjha by various committees of the Revisers was published in 18'J5.

And in 1898 the work of re- vision was completed by the issue of a new edition of the Revised Bible with a carefully emended set of marginal references. Literature. — The principal works dealing with the separate versions have already been referred to in the preceding pages. For the versions as a whole, Eadie, The EwjUsh Bible : an External and Critical History oj the various English Transla- tions ^f Scripture, 2 vols.

1876, is the most complete account; but much that is very valuable, especially with relation to the internal historj' of the text, will be found in the well-known Histories of Westcott and Moulton.

Of a more popular char- acter are Stouf;hton, Our English Bible: its Translations and Translators (no date); Pattison, 7'Ae History of the English Bible, 1894 ; and The English Bible : a Sketch of its History, 1895, by the present writer, from which the foregoing account with various corrections and additions has been principally drawn.

In Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 1895, the history of the text underlying our various versions is clearly set forth for the benefit of the ordinary readers of the Bible in English ; and in 7'he Evolution of the English Bible, 1901, by H. W. Hoare, the successive versions are interestingly described in connexion with their general historical setting.

Other works connected with the subject which may be con- sulted with advantage are, Lewis, History of the English Translations of the Bible, 1S18, and Anderson, The Annals of the English Bible, 2 vols. 1845, 1 vol. revised ed.

18()2, both of which, however, require to be carefuUv verified in the li^'ht of later knowledge ; Dore, Old Bibles 2, 1888 ; Edgar, The Bibles 0/ England, 1889; Mombert, English Versions of the Bible (no date); and the historical acooimt prefixed to Bagster's issue of The English Uexapla ^no date). The principal authonty for the AV, as has been noted above.

Is Scnvener, The Authorized Edition of Ute English Bible (1611), 1884 ; while to the books already mentioned a:^ dealing with the RV there may be added Newth, Lectures on Bible Jtevision, 1881 (with an Aiipendix containing the Prologues and Prefaces to the various versions) ; Kennetiy, Ely Lectures otl the HV of the ST, 1882 ; Iluniphry, Commentary a: the RV of the NT; Westcott, Some lessons if the RV of the NT, 1897; and Ellicott, Addresses on tlie RV, 1901, Reference may also be made to Biblical Revision, its Necessity and Purpose, 1879, the English republication of a series of Essays by menibcn of the American Revision Committee ; and to the Doaimentary History of the Atnerican Committee on Revision, 1885, pre- pared originally by order of that couunittee for the use of itd members.

For" a vigorous but sometimes misleading criticism of the RV Bee Burgon, The Remsion Revised, 1883. G. MiLLIOAN. * See Kenyon. Our Bible and the Ancient itantucripU, p. 239 ; and compare Bishop Westcott's weighty words, ' What- ever may be the merits of the revised version, it can be said confidently that in no parallel f.-we have the readings of the original text to be translated been discussed and determined witli equal care, thoroughness and candour' (/iwIoryS, p. vill, note).

t See 'The Doctrinal Significance of the RV, three articles in The Expository Timet, viL 877, 462, vUL 171. VERSIONS, GEORGIAN, ETC. VERSIONS, GEORGIAN, ETC. 861 VERSIONS (Georgian, Ootiiic, Slavomc).- ^ The Georgian Version., This versvon is 1 1 to the 5Ui or 6th cent., and, according to " in the mo. vstery on Mount Sinai. The next important -^1^, °* r\,.„t ' In this the Minor a.'^signed to the 11th cent ^^^^ names of many ot the tc"ue3 ^ i two of other parts of the IN 1. , > ersioii js uc".

i-r) Til w was used by 1 • '^• lished at Moscow in 1.43. Ihis w.is u.lu_ ^ _ particular ,-oints.' Both in the OT and in the NT the Version was made from tlie Greek. lie VelfelUU ntM-a i«— L-TBaATCB-.-Besides the bne. notices in Ore^^^^^^^^^^ ?:T^.?.^:^SBS'Si»;s^ i^nt in Scrivener's Introduclum, ii. 166. s^HaiSis^x^""^ ts • i.":XltTL» 'few'.''", ti,. complete liil>le in oeuioiu., i- mnvnnic for according to hi^. P"-r^',;'a."J' (e a Ca2' vhere this purpose.

AV e ^■-^'^^^f ^««^, ^aCa mistaken ^;:5S^^^"^;:;;:;|wtheedit.on.t^ Moscow edition ''"l', " f-^O'" ^'ufootl.cr Visions Song of Songs In >"«„«f '^'j^", °nd additions, there seem to have heen ^«^ ''<'"/^,,„ ji„erent Thus T^i^-^r^'' (';(; ffJiW'.llt the various read- translators, and a^"» v, i nT we ace there were ings of the Georgian N 1 ^"^0^^^;,: .^n^'^li^^l' Mr. was made of their .ver^'O";. , ,,^,\ ^^^^ ^"^hes that Convbeare from his own ^""'^tions tesuii. _ • Scrivener' IiUroduclwii, 11.

p. 167. R The Gothic Version. -L Okioin of the V^; J,v, The beginnings of this Version are Za wi h the nam? of Ulfilas, and our kt^o°:t 4 ^hini comes mainly from Ph.lostor- ^r who was a contemporary and a "^t Y^ °! ur'district of Cappiulocia, from which Ull las narentf had been carried away near t^e end o( StrpaS, Jrobably'some time beU'een AD VlO and A.D. 313; thirty years later, in 340 or 34I he was consecrated bishop «>tlier at Con- =t,ntino,ile or as Kaullmann a.sserts, at Antioth.

itter remain[A"^n Dacia as bishop for some seven fl^XTi loViS; »V~Si.s .. J..M « '^Tl;r.''S«~ .1 -v.™! V.™o«. to. wM.U J» 'It' ,r.. "°. '' Ti; i-:;;- Air io'l ?:IS'r.a"fim.n,.«,,id. v.c„..» do., t. tli<. pxcention of the lioous 01 im"o- > , omitied^becaiise "-y/Jf /."thtc TiXs we? ■""'1:;r,v^f^d'':f wa'- ^'ThisltatenVenrU en- ^iii:d ti f'iiis" consideration as tl-t of a cor. l::^iporary.^n^ we^mu^ in^^^^that at^y i;^^^si^i^;:^f^?;:^Bii.i:.itoc^v.

^ ltret\°er'rmr5S > oL^'aa'^r UUilas' translation otl.m. lot .t '•"S-!;,":'£|™.' r.S° K' '"»» • Thewcnl 'heathen.- «<ll^«ed»» Murm.v;- K;;i'^«J^J^|- Armenian. 862 YERSIONS, GEORGIAN, ETC. VERSIONS, GEORGIAN, ETC. who says that ' certain differences in language and manner of translation make it doubtful even whether the fragments of tlie OT can be traced to the same origin as those of the New.'* ii. The Manuscripts.

—The history of the Version breaks off abruptly, for we know nothing more of it than can be gathered frnra the scanty remains which have come down to us in the MSS — remains which, scanty as they are, are of the greatest possible interest and value to the phUo- logist, because they are ' by several centuries the oldest specimen of Teutonic speech.'

How far they underwent any changes during the century and a half, or rather more, whicli intervened between the date of Ullilas and that to which tliey are assigned, we cannot say. They all belong to the period of the East Gothic kingdom in Italy which began with Theodoric (493-526), and are all assigned to N. Italy. The following t is a list of the MSS of the Bible in this Version : — 1. Codex ArgevXeua, — Thi3 MS is the most important. It is assigned to the 6th or earlj' 6th cent.

, and is now at Upsala in Sweden. It is written in uncial, the letters beinfj of gold or silver, on purple vellum. The MS now contains, on 187 leaves, large fragments of Matthew, John, Luke, Mark in that (the Western) order, beginning with Mt 615. 2. Codex Carolinug. — This and the following fragments are all palimpsest. It is bilingual (Goth. Lat.), and is now at Wolfenbiittel. The upper writing consists of works of Isidore of Seville. The MS is that usually referred to as P. Q.

of the Gospels, and gtu of the Old Latin (Epistles), It was discovered by Knittel, and edited by him m 1762. It contains on four leaves about 42 verses from Ro 11-15. It has been regarded (so Bernhardt) as corrected from the Latin in some places, e.g. 12- 3, and in places agrees very closely with the first fragment at Milan, even in ortho- graphical peculiarities. 8. Codices Ambrosiani.— The following are now in the Am- brosian Library at Milan.

These fragments, all in MSS which came from Bobhio, and originally belonged to two Gothic MSS, were discovered by Mai in 1817. Other frag- ments of the same MSS have been discovered at Turin and in the Vatican. Mai ascribes the writing in part to the early 5th, in part to the 6th, century : — (1) (S. -36) is a MS containing Gregory the Great's Commen- tarj' on Ezekiel. Of this 102 leaves(l of which is illegible and 6 blank) belong to a Gothic MS (in which a note at 2 Co 41'* s.'

iys, liber sancti Cotumbani de bobio) con- taining fragnionts of Rora., 1 and 2 Cor., Eph., Gal., Phil., Col., 1 and 2 Thess., 1 and 2 Tim., Titus, and Philem., in that order, and a fragment of a Gothic calendar. (2) (S. 45) is said to be written in an older character than (1), and cont-ains on 78 leaves 2 Cor., and fragments of 1 Cor., Gal., Eph., Phil., Col., 1 and 2 Thess., 2 Tim., and Titus. (3) (I. 61 sup.) contains t on 2 leaves Mt 2533-263, and 26SS>- 271. (4) (G.

82) contains on 8 leaves fragments of Ezra and Nehomiah.§ (6) (G. 14) contains on 5 leaves fragroents of a commentary on St. lohn. 4. Codex Vaticanus (MS 5750) contains on 3 leaves fragments of the same Commentao' on St. John as the 5th Milan fragment. 6. Codex Taurinensis consists of 4 leaves belonging to the same MS as the first Milan fragment, found in the binding of a MS at Turin. || These leaves contain Gal 61*-18 Col 2ia-20 413-18. 6. Codex Viiulobonensis. — This MS.

ascribed to the 9th cent., came from Salzburg (MS 140, olim 71), and contains, under runes, fragments of On 6, and, on the margin, two half- verses of Ps 621 ». In these MSS we have preserved to us the follow- ing passages of the OT : — Gn 5»-^- =»"=« '»• '», Ps 5'2, »,1[ Neh 5', '8 6"-7»- '»"<"•, and fragments more •See also Wright, Primer, etc p.

144: 'The fragments of the New Testament all point to one and the same translator, but the two small fragments of the Books of Ezra and Neheniiah differ so much in stjie from those of the New Testament that Bcliolars BOW regard them as being the work of a later trans- lator.' t This information is largely taken from Stamm-Heyne's Utjilat (ed. 9). Paderborn, 1890. The figures enclosed in brackets give the press-mark of the MS in the library to which It belongs.

X See Berger, Uittoirt de la Vulgate, p. 68. 5 Kauffmann (Z. /. d. PhUol., 1896) says the supposed frag- ment of Ezr 2is-"a is really Neh 1X«. I See Germania, xiii. 271 fL II See note 5, above. or less extensive of all the books of the NT ex- cept the Acts, Catholic Epistles, and Apocalypse of which we have nothing in this Version. iii. Character of the Text. — The next point to determine in regard to the Version is the char- acter of the text preserved in it.

For the OT the amount preserved is very scanty indeed, but the fragments consist largely of names (as in the lists from Neliemiah), or numbers (as in the Genesis passages), and therefore the nature of the materials is some slight compensation for the deficiency in quantity. The most careful examination of the Version in its relation to the text from which it was translated is in an article by Kauffmann, t who points out the very close agreement with Lucian's recension of the LXX te.\t.

Thus in Neh V^'** (to take two instances only) the Gothic Version agrees with two MSS (HP 93, 108) of this recension in the names 'Affo-o^i, "Hipaii, and this form is found in no other MSS of the LXX. The same close relationship of the Gothic and Lucian meets us in the Genesis frag- ments, where we find agreement between the numerals of the Gothic Version and those found in HP 44, another MS of the Lucian recension.

But there are differences as well as resemblances, and Kauffmann collects instances in which the Gothic departs from Lucian and agrees with the B-text of the LXX. The Gothic does not preserve ' the original Lucianic text, but one derived from it,' or perhaps we may rather say it preserves one of the strains incorporated in the Luc. text.

In regard to tlie NT, Kauffmann, in a later series of articles in the periodical quoted below, entitled ' Beitrage zur Quellcnkritik der Gottischen Bibel- Ubersetzung,' examines the Version in regard to the sources from which it is drawn. He comes to the conclusion (ib. xxxi. 180) that 'the Goth, to whom we owe Matthew, used the Greek text current in the diocese of Constantinople,' and that for St. John there is evidence of 'no other recension than that demonstrated for St. Matthew.'

Whether the Version was made from MSS obtained in Moesia, or from MSS brought by Ullilas' parents from Cappa- docia, we should expect, a priori, that this would be the type of text used. W estcott and Hort ( Vcmj Testament, i. p. 158) thus sum up the position : ' The Gothic has very much the same combination as the Italian revision of the Old Latin, bein" largely Syrian and largely Western, with a small admix- ture of non- Western readings.'

A few instances of the readings of this Version in noteworthy passages from the first ten chapters of St. Luke may be given: — Lk 1^ eiXoyqixivT] ai> iv ynvai^ly ; 2'^ eiidoKlas ; 4'^ Idtraadai r. a. tt]v Kapoiav ; 4 Ta\t- Xoias ; 6' oeiTepoTrpuTCjj ; 6^ xeffcjUcXiorro, k.t.X. ; 8^ raSaprivdv ; 9^ d7a7r7)T<is ; 9 lis Kal 'HX/os iiroiriat ; 9" Kal etrey oix otSare, k.t.X. ; 10' ipSo/i-QKoyra. In all these passages save 2" and 4" it supports a reading rejected by Westcott and Hort.

On tha other hand, in Mk P, Mt 7" ll-"" 27'' it has read- ings accepted by the same editors. In these and many other passages the Version will be seen to have a close relation to the Latin. Various explanations of this resemblance are possible. It has been suggested that the Gothic ha.s been influenced by the Latin between the date at which the Version was made and the date of the MSS of it which survive.

Besides the re- semblances of text, it is urged that the Gospels in the Codex A rqenteits occur in the Western order, and that most, if not all, of the MSS are connected with N. Italy, and date from the time of the Lorn- • Nestle, Ein/iihrung m d Griedt. NT, p. Ill (see also Gregory, PToletjomena to Tischendorf's NT, p. 1111), mentions quotations of the Ep. to the Hebrews as found in the Commen- tary on St. John, mentioned above. A compl jte list of tragmeoU of the NT is given by G^egor^•. t Z.

/. deuUclie Phiiologie, 1896. VLKSIOXS, GEORGIAN, ETC. VERSIONS, GEORGIAN", ETC. 863 bardoGothic kin^'dom there ; that (as has been mentioned above) many Latin words have been incorporated into the Version, and that there are traces of Latin influence in the spelling of proper names, e.g. Scariotits. This view has been uiiht-ld by Marold in articles in Germ/mia for 1SS(^ ISSI, but is disputed by Kisch,* Kaullinann.t and others.

A second explanation of the relationship is that some of the Latin MSS, at any rate, have been revise<l from the Gothic. This theory is stated by Burkitt {J'J'hUl, i. 1) in regard to the Latin MS known as Codex BTixinnxis (f). He refers to the curious preface found in that manuscript, — which liad before been noticed, in this regard, by Stamni — tV/co ne . . legenti vUUatitr alitid in Grwtn liiifjita, aliud in lalina vel gotica de.iignata esse coiiscribta, etc.

, and supposes that it may be the preface of a bilingual Gotho-Lat. MS, of the Latin of which / is a transcript. Burkitt then collects a number of peculiar readings of /, in which it differs from the v'ulg. and Old Latin, and agrees with the Gothic, e.g. Lk 14" G' etc. In a note he makes the same assertion of Gothic influence in the OL fragment of the Ep. to the Komans (guc), mentioned above. Kaull'raann has fully e.

\amined the relation of the Gothic to the Latin, in the light of Burkitt's suggestion, in the last of the series of articles re- feritd to, and the conclusions to which he comes J are the following: — (1) About the j'ear 410 a 'critical' edition of Ulfilas' Bible was prepared by the two Gothic clergy, Sunnias and tretella; (2) the preface to this edition is handed down to us (not quite complete) in the Codex Brixiantis, and formed the introduction to a bilingual (or perhajis trilingual) MS, in wliich certain variants of the translations were traced to their origin ; (3) a frag- ment of this edition probably lies before us in tlie Codex Carolinus; (4) from this bilingual edition the Codex Brixianus arose, the orijzinal text of which is demonstrably that of a Got lio- Latin MS, and to which the text of the Gothic Go.

spels of the Codex Argenteus corresponds fairly exactly; (5) the Cod. Arg. and the Cod. Brix. sprang from that critical edition ; even their calligrai)hical pre- sentation shows tlicy are related ; in the Gth cent., aliout the same time and in the same part of Ujiper Italy, the Gothic Gospels on the one hand and the Latm Gospels on the other were separately derived from that archetj'pe ; (6) on the basis of t^e recen- sion of .

Jerome's translation, which had then attained supremacy in Upper Italy, — and this may have been the reason for the whole transaction, — a redactor worked afresh over the Latin Gospels. A third possibility is that the resemblance is due to the fact of both the Latin and the Gothic being ba-ed on(Jreek MSS belonging to the same family, and preserving the same type of text. Such a hypothesis will leave room lor the dillerences as well as tlie resemblances of the two Versions.

It has to be added in regard to the general char- acter of the translation that it is a close and accurate rendering of the Greek, though Ellicott notices in regard to its rendering of I'h 2""' a trace of those Arian views which iliarac.terized the Goths, especially in Spain. The ' Arianism of llllilas' has been discussed by Kaulfuiann in the uticles already mentioned. LiTiRATDRX.— On Ulfllaa: »rt. In AVijrmeine deutiche Bihlio- thvk: DhU. ChriHt. liiot/r. g.o.; .MoiiuKraph hy O. A.

Scott (C'iiml)rid({e, l&S.'i); artt. by Eckstein in WeBtTiniwin'B IlUutr. Monatshejtt IS'.t'.!. onri Jost^s In Beitrar/^ zur Gr^ch. ilrr d. Sprachf, xxii. On the Gothic Version : Scrivencr'8 Intrntluc' twn. ii. 146 ff. ; Gretjorv'B Prtiterjomena to Tiscliendorfs ST, p. ;i»(T. ; NeaUc Einfuhniivj In dal (iriech. ST, p. llllll. : Urtext und (fbfrtietzuiKjm, i>. 119 fT.; art. in 7. /. itrntgche Philologitt 1806-1900, and In (ifrrnania. The most serviceable Monaltsch. /. Ortch. u. Wiitrmch.

dt* Judtnlhvant, 1873. ♦ Z. f. dtulsdie I'hilol. Jlxxl. 182. t II. lOUO, xxxll. p. 336. edition '3 perhaps that of Stamm, the latest editions of which have been re^'ised by Ileyne, 9th ed., Paderborn, 1896. The edition of Bernhardt, Vuljita Oder die (iotUchf liiUl, Halle IS75, is very full in rctjard to the relation of the Gothic to th« Greek text. There are also sen'iceable editions of separate books by Prof. Skcat ; and & useful Prhnfr o/ the (Juthic Language, Clar. Press, 1899, by Prof.

Wright C. The Slavonic Version.* — i. Origin. — Our information as to the origin of the Slavonic Version is fairly definite, and generally trustworthy, at any rate in its main points. The two men wlio.se names are connected with the beginnings of a Slavonic Version are Cyril and Methodius. They were sons of a Greek nobleman of Thessalonica, round which place there were a number of Slavonic settlers.

The elder, Methodius, died in 885 ; the year of his birth is unknown, 'fhe younger, Con- stantine, was bom in 827, took the name of Cyril when he became a monk, and died at Rome in 809. It is probable that from childhood they were acquainted with the Slavonic of their native district of Tlies.salonica, and tradition ascribes to Cyril the invention of the characters which from him are called Cyrillic, assigninjr as the date of this the year 8.55.

The object of Cyril was to give the Bulgarian Slavs such parts of the Bible as were used in Church services in their own language. A little later the two brothers were summoned to Moravia, and to the period following on this, i.e. after the year 864, the beginnings of the Version are by many assigned. But Lcskien and Polevoi t urge, and with reason, tli.it the work probably began earlier, and was spread over a longer time.

In one of the legendary lives of Cyril J we are told that he began hia translation with St. John's Gospel, and soon completed a translation of the ' whole ecclesiastical cycle,' i.e. he translated first those parts of the Bible which were used for the Church services, both of the OT and NT. It is stated also in the life of Methodius th.at a trans- l.ation of these selected parts preceded the trans- lation of the whole ; and John, ex.irch of Buh.'

aria, who is almost a contemporary, makes a similar assertion that Cyril first translated a 'selection,' and that Methodius and his brother translated ' the whole 60 book.s.' This translation may well have been completed before the death of Methodius, who survived liis brother some time, though not, we may hope, in the sliort time of six months, as one authority states. A much disputed question connected with the ori^'in of the Version concerns the dialect into which the translation was ni.

-ide, and nanus eminent in Slavonic studies may be quoted as dis- agreeing. Thus Schiifarik, Leskien, and others say that the original Version was most closely allied to Old Bulgarian, while Kojiitar, Miklosich, and Jagic connect it with Old Slovenish. It is possible that the various families of Slavonic had not, at the date of which we are speaking, begun to show the marks of difl'erence found in later documentary evidence.

Another interesting literary discussion gathers round the alphabets which are met with in the early MSS. These are of two kinds. The one is known as the Cyrillic, and consisted of 38 letters, derived mainly from Greek, but also, in part, from Hebrew and other languages, and in part invented to express the peculiar na.sal sounds found in Slavonic. The other alphabet is known as Glago- litic, and this is probably the older.

* For ft fuller account of the origin and later history of the Slavonic Version, and it« relation to modem Kus^ian, the writer must refer to an article of his on ' the Kvit-Hian Hiblo ' in the Church Quarteri;/ Jteview for Oct. Ib9.'>. Little new work hos been done in Russia or elsewhere on this subject since that daU'. t IlUtortf of Ruettian Literature, p. 7. i .See Oinr-el, (ienclnclJe dsr Siaurtiapogtei, Ct/nll und ilethod., for detail! aa to the dooumeuta in re(;ard to' Uyril aad Halhodiua.

864 VEESI0:NS, GEORGIAN, ETC. VERSIONS, GREEK ii The MSS.— A few of the MSS are ascribed to 8is early a date as the 10th or 11th cuit. liy Jagic and other scliolars, but these contain only the Gospels, either as complete texts or as lection- aries. 1 he oldest MS of the complete Bible is tiiat called after Gennadius, archbishop of Novgorod, and dated 1499.* As will be seen later, this con- tains a composite text, of very varying value and importance.

The comparative absence of e;uly MSS is explained by the widespread devastalion caused by the Mongol invasions of the 13th and 14tli cents. The records of the period before these invasions tell us of schools in which the Bible was studied, of copies of MSS of the Bible made by monks and professional scribes, of catena; on the Psalms, the Prophets, the Gospels, and some of the Epistles.

t and every page of the chronicles and other writings shows us how inwoven the Bible was into the texture of the language, and what a part it played in Russia, as elsewhere, in fixing the literary style. We find actual quota- tions of many of the UT books, e.g. of the Book of Proverbs, in the Chronicle of Nestor, which dates from the 11th cent. The oldest MSS of any part of the OT are those of the Psalter, some of which go back to the 11th or 12th cent.

Many of the books of the OT have been made the subject of monographs, in which details are given. Besides the editions of the P.salter by Sreznefski and Amphilochius may be mentioned studies in the text of Joshua, the Books of Kings, several of the Minor Prophets, and Isaiah. Passing to the NT we find the Gospels preserved to us in a large number of MSS, many of which are lectionaries. Among them may be mentioned the Codex Zographensis .

and C'uclex Marianus, both written in Glagolitic characters, and the Osiromir Codex, written in Cyrillic, and dated 1056-1057. A critical edition of St. M.ark, based on lOS MS.S, has been published by Professor Voskresenski. He groups the authorities for the text in four main classes. The history of the next division of the NT, t\\eApostol, ha.s been also caiefully studied by the same author. M.SS either of the continuous text, or of the parts used in services, go back as far as the 12th cent.

, and on these he published ,an elaborate monograph in 1879, and in 1S92 produced a critical edition of the Epistle to the Romans based on 51 manuscripts, man\- of which only give the Church lections. The only other part of the NT which has been examined is the Apocalypse. The MSS of this book are fewer and later, but the earliest is ascribed by Oblak to the 13th century. iii. The Text of the Version and its Value.

— For the OT the MSS do not show any great or important variations, but the characteristics of the translation they contain are dillerent in diflerent parts. 'The Pentateuch shows signs of very great antiquity, and probably embodies fragments of the original translation. The Books of Joshua, ludges, and Kuth also represent an old transla- iion. The Books of Samuel and Kings are less old and less exact. The Psalter is of course very old.

Ecclesiastes and Sirach show a later but accurate translation. The Book of Job, Song of .'Songs, and the Prophets . . show signs of glos.ses. While all the above were translated from the Greek, and the Book of Esther from the Hebrew, the Books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, and the other books of the Latin Bible were translated from the Vulgate towards the end of the 15th cent., and embodied in Gennadius' MS [i.e. of A.D. * This >IS ia now in the Synodal Library at Moscow, and is fully de.

-icribed by Gorski and Nevostruief id their description of tlie M^S in that library, t For details of these writings see Philarefs Heview qf Spiritual Literature from 86t to 17S0(,ia Hussion). 1499]. This text was adopted for the edition ol the Bible published at Ostrog in 1581.'* It will be seen from the lueceding words that the value and interest of the Version varies in ditierent parts of the OT.

The only part which is of real interest is that based on the Greek, and, in regard to this, its relation to Lucian's recension is the most important point. This has been variously described, Lagarde asserting that Lucian was the basis of the Slavonic ; Buhl, that the Slavonic resembles the Ij text. The writer has examined this point, but only over a limited area, in reference to Lucian'a recension. t The results seem to vary in difl'erent books.

The Slavonic text of the OT, in the books derived from the Greek, deserves a fuller and wider examination than it has yet received. In regard to the NT the MSS of the Version are more numerous, and contain a number of varia- tions. These are, for the most part, of interest only in regard to the history of the Version itself, and consist of modiUcations in orthography, the removal of archaisms, and the translation of Greek words which in the earlier recensions had been simply transliterated.

To the student of Slavonic these variants present innumerable points of in- terest. They also point to dilierences between the underlying Greek text, which are of wider interest, and it is well here to point out that the ordinary printed text of the Russian or of the Slavonic Bible often fails to indicate the important readings found in the older MSS.

Among the passages where the oldest MSS ditl'er as to the Greek on which they are based, the following may be noticed : Lk 2^ 6' 14-", Jn 9» PJ" 2VK It cannot be said that the Version has any great value for textual criticism, nor should we expect, remembering its close connexion with south- eastern Europe, to find it preser\'ing a text of any uniform or great im]jortance.

Its chief value and interest are in connexion « ith the history of the development of the Slavonic language, and in this department it is not easy to exaggerate its im- portance. LiTERATURB. — This is for the most part in Russian. See Scrivener's Introdurtion, ii. 157 ff. ; Church (Quarterly Hevieto, Oct. IS'J.'J. and the literature there referred to. Nestle, Urtrxt, etc., p. 211 ff., should also be consulted.

There are numeroui articles dealing with details of this subject in the Archie fwt Slacische Philologie. LL. J. M. BEBB.