Part 4

15. Besides the said Directors before mentioned, three or four of the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities not employed in Translating, to be assigned by the Vice-Chancellor upon conference with the rest of the Heads, to be Overseers of the Translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the 4th rule above specified.[45]

Besides these rules, some others of a more definite nature seem to have been adopted by the translators themselves. At the Synod of Dort, held in the years 1618 and 1619, the question of preparing a new Dutch translation came under consideration, and for the guidance of its deliberations upon this point the English Delegates[46] were requested to give an account of the procedure observed in the translation recently made in England. In a matter of such grave importance the Delegates felt that they ought not to give any off-hand statement, and accordingly, after careful consideration, prepared a written account, which was presented to the Synod on its seventh Session, November 20th, 1618. In this account eight rules are given, the first three of which embody the substance of the first, sixth, and seventh of the rules given above. The others direct:

That where the Hebrew or Greek admits of a twofold rendering, one is to be given in the text, and the other noted in the margin; and in like manner where an important various reading is found in approved authorities.

That in the translation of the books of Tobit and Judith, where the text of the old Latin Vulgate greatly differs from that of the Greek, the latter text should be followed.

That all words introduced for the purpose of completing the sense are to be distinguished by a difference of type.

That new tables of contents should be prefixed to each book, and new summaries to each chapter.

And lastly, that a complete list of Genealogies[47] and a description of the Holy Land should be added to the work.[48]

From various causes, which cannot now be discovered, a period of three years elapsed before the revisers commenced their labours. One reason may have been that no provision was made for meeting the necessary costs of the undertaking. With a cheap liberality the king directed Bancroft to write to the bishops, asking them, as benefices became vacant, to give him the opportunity of bestowing them upon the translators as a reward for their service; and as to current expenses, the king, while professing with much effusiveness his readiness to bear them, cleverly evaded the responsibility by stating that some of “my lords, as things now go, did hold it inconvenient.”[49]

The revision was completed, as the revisers themselves tell us, in “twice seven times seventy-two days and more;” that is to say, in about two years and three-quarters; and if to this be added the nine months spent in a final revision and preparation for the press, we have then only a period of three years and a half. The new Bible was published in 1611; the work, therefore, could not have been commenced before 1607.

Although the men who engaged in this important undertaking are called “translators,” their work was essentially that of revision. This is clearly shown both by the rules laid down for their guidance, and by the statement of the translators themselves, who say in their preface, “Truly, good Christian reader, wee never thought from the beginning that wee should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one,” “but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not justly to bee excepted against; that hath beene our indeavour, that our marke.”[50]

Further, this revision was a more extensive and thorough revision than any which had been heretofore undertaken. In former revisions, either the work had been done by the solitary labours of one or two, or when a fair number of competent men were engaged in it no sufficient provision had been made for combined action, and but few opportunities had been given for mutual conference. In this revision a larger number of scholars were engaged than upon any former, and the arrangements were such as secured that upon no part of the Bible should the labour of fewer than seven persons be expended. The revisers were divided into six companies, two of which met at Westminster, two at Cambridge, and two at Oxford. The books of the Old Testament, from Genesis to 2 Kings inclusive, were assigned to the first Westminster company, consisting of ten members; from 1 Chronicles to Song of Solomon, to the first Cambridge company, consisting of eight members; and from Isaiah to Malachi, to the first Oxford company, consisting of seven members. The Apocryphal books were assigned to the second Cambridge company, which also consisted of seven members. Of the books of the New Testament, the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Apocalypse were given to the second Oxford company, in which as many as ten members were at different times associated; the Epistles were entrusted to the seven scholars forming the second Westminster company.[51]

The portions assigned to each company were not again subdivided amongst its members; but, in accordance with the eighth rule, “every particular man of each company” translated and amended by himself each successive portion, and the company met from time to time to confer upon what they had done, and to agree upon what should stand.[52] Of the mode of procedure followed at the meetings of the several companies, we have no other information than the brief statement given by Selden in his _Table Talk_--that “one read the translation, the rest holding in their hands some Bible, either of the learned tongues, or French, Spanish, Italian, &c. If they found any fault they spoke; if not, he read on.”

One interesting and touching picture of the translators at work, which however seems to have escaped the notice[53] of all writers upon the history of the English Bible, is given us by Dr. Daniel Featley in his account of the _Life and Death of John Rainolds_, and which is probably the substance, if not the very words, of the oration delivered by him at the funeral of the latter, when, on account of the large number of mourners, “the Chapell being not capable of the fourth part of the Funerall troupe,” a desk was set up in the quadrangle of Corpus Christi College, and a brief history of Rainolds’ life, “with the manner of his death,” was thence delivered to the assembled company. Dr. Rainolds was one of the Oxford scholars to whom the difficult task was assigned of revising the prophetical books of the Old Testament; and Featley tells us that “for his great skill in the originall Languages,” the other members of the company, “Doctor Smith, afterward Bishop of Gloster; Doctor Harding, President of Magdalens; Doctor Kilbie, Rector of Lincolne Colledge; Dr. Bret, and others, imployed in that worke by his Majesty, had recourse” to him “once a weeke, and in his Lodgings perfected their Notes; and though in the midst of this Worke, the gout first tooke him, and after a consumption, of which he dyed; yet in a great part of his sicknesse the meeting held at his Lodging, and he lying on his Pallet, assisted them, and in a manner in the very translation of the booke of life, was translated to a better life.”[54] Rainolds died May 21st, 1607.

In the discharge of their responsible task the translators made use of all the aids accessible to them for the perfecting of their work. Not only did they bring to it a large amount of Hebrew and Greek scholarship, and the results of their personal study of the original Scriptures, they were careful to avail themselves also of the investigations of others who had laboured in the same field. Translations and commentaries in the Chaldee, Hebrew, Syriac, Greek, Latin, Spanish, French, Italian, and Dutch languages were laid under contribution. “Neither,” they add, “did we disdaine to revise that which wee had done, and to bring back to the anvill that which wee had hammered; but having and using as great helpes as were needfull, and fearing no reproch for slownesse, nor coveting praise for expedition, wee have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the worke to that passe that you see.”

When the several companies had completed their labours there was needed some general supervision of the work before it finally issued from the press. There is no evidence that the six companies ever met in one body (though possibly the two companies in each of the three centres may have had some communication with each other); but having spent almost three years upon the revision, “at the end whereof,” says the writer of the life of John Bois,[55] “the whole work being finished, and three copies of the whole Bible sent from Cambridge, Oxford, and Westminster to London, a new choice was to be made of six in all, two out of every company,[56] to review the whole work, and extract one copy out of all these to be committed to the press, for the dispatch of which business Mr. Downes and Mr. Bois were sent for up to London, where,[57] meeting their four fellow-labourers, they went daily to Stationers’ Hall, and in three-quarters of a year fulfilled their task, all which time they had from the Company of Stationers thirty shillings[58] each per week duly paid them, though they had nothing before but the self-rewarding, ingenious industry.”[59] “Last of all Bilson, Bishop of Winchester, and Dr. Miles Smith, again reviewed the whole work, and prefixed arguments to the several books.”

And thus at length, as Thomas Fuller quaintly puts it, “after long expectation, and great desire, the new translation of the Bible (most beautifully printed) by a select and competent number of Divines appointed for the purpose, not being too many, lest one should trouble another, and yet many, lest in any things might haply escape them. Who, neither coveting praise for expedition, nor fearing reproach for slackness (seeing in a business of moment none deserve blame for convenient slowness), had expended almost three years in a work, not only examining the channels by the fountain, translations with the original, which was absolutely necessary, but also comparing channels with channels, which was abundantly useful.” “These, with Jacob, rolled away the stone from the mouth of the Well of Life, so that now Rachel’s weak women may freely come, both to drink themselves, and to water the flocks of their families at the same.”[60]

LECTURE V.

_REVISION A RECURRING NECESSITY._

On the title-page of the first edition of King James’s Bible there appeared as now the legend, “Appointed to be read in Churches.” Whence this originated is unknown; it is even uncertain what meaning is to be attached to the words. Some contend[61] that they mean nothing more than that the book contained the directions in accordance with which the Scriptures were “appointed” to be read in public worship, such as are now given in the Book of Common Prayer. But, however this may be, there is no evidence that this Bible was ever formally sanctioned, either by the king, or by Parliament, or by Convocation. The king, as we have seen, encouraged the making of the revision, but that the revision when made was, by any public act on his part, invested with any special authority, is a fancy altogether unsupported by fact. Its designation as the Authorized Version has been due simply to common parlance; the claim which that designation seems to assert is absolutely baseless.

It was not in virtue of any privileges conferred upon it by those in authority, but by its intrinsic excellence, that this version made its way into general use, and at length supplanted all previous versions. Its chief, if not only, competitor was the Genevan. So strong was the attachment of many to the latter that two editions of it, one a folio and the other a quarto, were published by the king’s printer in the very year in which the new version was issued, and during at least five years after that date[62] various other editions were issued from the same source. After 1616 the Genevan ceased to be printed in England, but the demand for it still continuing, various editions were printed on the Continent, and thence introduced into this country. A folio edition, printed at Amsterdam, bears so late a date as 1644. In 1649, in order to win the favour of those who still clung to their old favourite, an edition of the new version was issued with the Genevan notes. After this date the revision of 1611 may be said to have gained for itself universal recognition, and for more than 230 years it has been the accepted and cherished Bible of almost all English-speaking people.

We should, however, form a very erroneous opinion both of the spirit and of the learning of King James’s translators, if we were to suppose that they would have claimed finality for their work. They were too well acquainted with the state of the original texts not to know what need there was for further research after the most ancient and trustworthy authorities. They were too keenly sensitive to the difficulties of translation not to feel that they must often have failed to convey the exact meaning of the words they were attempting to render. They were too conscious of the merits of their predecessors, and of the extent to which they had profited by their labours, to hesitate to acknowledge that others might in like manner profit by what they themselves had done. And they were too loyal in their reverence for the Scriptures, and too devoutly anxious that every imperfection should be removed from the form in which they were given to their fellow-countrymen, to offer any discouragement to those who should seek to remove the blemishes that might still remain. They would strongly have deprecated any attempt to find in their labours a plea against further improvement; and they would have emphatically proclaimed that the best expression of thankfulness for their services, and of respect for themselves, was in the imitation of their example, and in the promotion of further efforts for the perfecting of the book they so profoundly loved.

In the case of such a book as the Bible, however perfect the translation which may at any time be made, the duty of revision is one of recurring obligation. The necessity for it is inevitable, and this from two causes in constant operation. (1) By the imperfection that attaches to all kinds of human labour various departures from the standard form became gradually introduced in the process of reproduction; and (2) by the natural growth of language, and the attendant changes in the meaning of terms, that which at one time was a faithful rendering becomes at another obscure or incorrect.

No long time elapsed before blemishes arose in the version of 1611 from the first of these causes, and, to use the language of the translators themselves, their translation needed “to be maturely considered and examined, that being rubbed and polished it might shine as gold more brightly.” The invention of printing, although it has largely diminished the liability to error in the multiplication of copies, has not, as everyone knows who has had occasion to minutely examine printed works, altogether removed them. Various typographical errors soon made their appearance in the printed copies of the Bible, and these became repeated and multiplied in successive editions, until at length no inconsiderable number of variations, sometimes amounting to several thousands, could be traced between different copies. Most of these it is true were unimportant variations, but some of them were of a more serious nature. The following instances will serve to illustrate this. The dates attached are the dates of the editions in which the errors may be found:

Exod. xx. 14. “Thou shalt commit adultery,” _for_ “Thou shalt not.” 1631, Lond., 8vo.[63]

Numb. xxv. 18. “They vex you with their wives,” _for_ “their wiles.” 1638, Lond., 12mo.

Numb. xxvi. 10. “The fire devoured two thousand and fifty men,” _for_ “two hundred and fifty.” 1638, Lond., 12mo.

Deut. xxiv. 3. “If the latter husband ate her,” _for_ “hate her.” 1682, Lond.

2 Sam. xxiii. 20. “He slew two lions like men,” _for_ “two lion-like men.” 1638, Lond., 12mo.

Job xxix. 3. “By his light I shined through darkness,” _for_ “I walked through.” 1613, Lond.

Isaiah xxix. 13. “Their fear toward me is taught by the people of men,” _for_ “by the precept of men.” 1638, Lond., 12mo.

Jer. iv. 17. “Because she hath been religious against me,” _for_ “hath been rebellious.” 1637, Edin., 8vo.

Jer. xviii. 21. “Deliver up their children to the swine,” _for_ “to the famine.” 1682, Lond.

Ezek. xxiii. 7. “With all their idols she delighted herself,” _for_ “she defiled herself.” 1613, Lond.

Matt. xxvi. 36. “Then cometh Judas with them unto a place called Gethsemane,” _for_ “Then cometh Jesus.” 1611, Lond.

Acts vi. 3. “Look ye out among you seven men of honest report ... whom ye may appoint,” _for_ “whom we may appoint.” 1638, Camb. fo.[64]

1 Cor. v. 1. “And such fornication as is not so much as not among the Gentiles,” _for_ “not so much as named.” 1629, Lond., fo.[65]

1 Cor. vi. 9. “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God?” _for_ “shall not inherit.” 1653, Lond., 32mo.

2 Tim. iv. 16. “I pray God that it may be laid to their charge,” _for_ “may not be laid.” 1613, Lond.

Titus i. 14. “Now giving heed to Jewish fables,” _for_ “not giving heed.” 1636 Edin., 8vo.

James v. 4. “The Lord of Sabbath,” _for_ “Sabaoth.” 1640, Lond., 8vo.

1 John i. 4. “That our joy may be full,” _for_ “that your joy.” 1769, Oxf.

These facts will serve to show how soon some kind of revision became needful, and that a true reverence for Scripture is shown, not by opposition to revision, but by a desire, and even demand, that it should be undertaken. This necessity became all the more imperative in the case of the revision of 1611, because there existed no standard copy to which appeal could in all cases be made as evidence of the conclusions reached by the translators. It is a curious and remarkable fact, that two editions, differing in several respects, were issued by the king’s printer, Robert Barker, in 1611, and competent judges are not agreed as to which of these two priority in time belongs. Nor even if this point were satisfactorily settled, would it suffice to reproduce that one of the two texts which might be proved to be the earlier. For excellent as was the main work done by the translators, the final revision and the oversight of the sheets as they passed through the press were not so thorough as was to be desired. In the most carefully prepared edition of this revision that has ever been issued, viz., the Cambridge Paragraph Bible, edited by Dr. Scrivener, the learned and laborious editor has seen it right to depart from the printed text of 1611 in more than nine hundred places.[66] It will be manifest that such corrections, whenever called for, ought not to be made in any haphazard way, and that it is in the interest of all that careful revisions of the printed texts should from time to time be made, and that they should be made by men thoroughly competent for the task.

* * * * *

The second cause to which reference has been made is, of course, much slower in its operation, but though slow it is certain; and sooner or later every version, whensoever and by whomsoever made, must call for revision, because of the changes to which all language is subject. Words which were once in common use pass altogether out of currency, and are utterly unintelligible save to a learned few. Other words change their meaning, and give to the sentences in which they occur a different and sometimes an alien sense to that which they formerly conveyed. Others again, while retaining fundamentally their original sense, become limited in their range of application, and when used in other connections than those to which they are thus confined by custom, become grotesque and disturb the mind of the reader by the strange associations which they suggest.

How many words found in our Bibles have, since 1611, passed out of general use the following list will show. Most of these are wholly without meaning, even to an educated reader; a few survive as local provincialisms, and a few also are still employed in the technical vocabulary of certain arts or professions. All are out of place in a book intended for universal use.

_Assay._ Deut. iv. 34; Job iv. 2; Acts ix. 26, &c.

_Attent._ 2 Chron. vi. 40.

_Bestead._ Isa. viii. 21.

_Blain._ Exod. ix. 9, 10.

_Bolled._ Exod. ix. 31.

[_Brickle._ Wisd. xv. 13.]

_Brigandine._ Jer. xlvi. 4; li. 3.

_Bruit._ Jer. x. 22; Nah. iii. 19.

_Calamus._ Exod. xxx. 23; Cant. iv. 14; Exek. xxvii. 19.

_Camphire._ Cant. i. 14; iv. 13.

_Causey._ 1 Chron. xxvi. 18.

_Chanel-bone._ Job xxxi. 22, _marg._

_Chapiter._ Exod. xxxvi. 38, &c.

_Chapman._ 2 Chron. ix. 14.

_Chaws._ Ezek. xxix. 4.

[_Cithern._ 1 Macc. iv. 54.]

_Cockatrice._ Isa. xi. 8, &c.

_Collops._ Job xv. 27.

_Confection._ Exod. xxx. 35.

_Coney._ Lev. xi. 5, &c.

_To Convent._ Jer. xlix. 19, _marg._

_Cotes._ 2 Chron. xxxii. 28.

_To Couch._ Dent, xxxiii. 13.

_Countervail._ Esth. vii. 4.

_Daysman._ Job ix. 33.

[_Dehort._ 1 Macc. ix. 9.]

_Delicates._ Jer. li. 34.

_Dredge._ Job xxiv. 6, _marg._

_Dure._ Matt. xiii. 21.

_Earing._ Gen. xlv. 6.

_Endirons._ Ezek. xl. 43, _marg._

_Flue-net._ Hab. i. 15, _marg._

_Gier eagle._ Lev. xi. 18.

_Gorget._ 1 Sam. xvii. 6, _marg._

_Habergeon._ Exod. xxviii. 32; xxxix. 23, &c.

_Helve._ Deut. xix. 5.

_Hough._ Josh. xi. 6, 9.

_Implead._ Acts xix. 38.

_Jewry._ Dan. v. 13; John vii. 1.

_Knop._ Exod. xxv. 31, &c.

_Leasing._ Ps. iv. 2; v. 6.

_Makebate._ 2 Tim. iii. 3, _marg._

_Muffler._ Isa. iii. 19.

_Neesing._ Job xli. 18.

_Ossifrage._ Lev. xi. 13.

_Ouches._ Exod. xxviii. 11, &c.

_Pilled._ Gen. xxx. 37.

_Prelation._ 1 Cor. xiii., _heading_.

_Purtenance._ Exod. xii. 9.

_Ravin._ Gen. xlix. 27.

_Rereward._ Num. x. 25, &c.

_Scall._ Lev. xiii. 30.

_Scrabble._ 1 Sam. xxi. 13.

_A Settle._ Ezek. xliii. 14, &c.

_Silverling._ Isa. vii. 23.

_Sith._ Ezek. xxxv. 6.

_Tabering._ Nah. ii. 7.

_Tache._ Exod. xxvi. 6.

_Throughaired._ Jer. xxii. 14, _marg._

_Thrum._ Isa. xxxviii. 12, _marg._

_Viol._ Isa. v. 12.

_Wimple._ Isa. iii. 22.

A still larger number of words or phrases, though still finding a place in our current speech, have wholly or partially changed their meanings. Amongst these are the following:

_All to brake._ Judges ix. 5.

_Base._ 1 Cor. i. 28; 2 Cor. x. 1.

_Botch._ Exod. ix. 9.

_Bought of a sling._ 1 Sam. xxv. 29, _marg._

_Bravery._ Isa. iii. 18.

_Bray._ Prov. xxvii. 27.

_By and by._ Matt. xiii. 21; Luke xxi. 9.

_Captivate._ 2 Chron. xxviii.; Jer. xxxix., _headings_.

_Careful._ Dan. iii. 16; Phil. iv. 6.

_Carriage._ Judges xviii. 21; Acts xxi. 15.

_Cast about._ Jer. xli. 14.

_Chafed._ 2 Sam. xvii. 8.

_Champaign._ Deut. xi. 30.

_Charger._ Matt. xiv. 8; Mark vi. 25.

_Charity._ 1 Cor. xiii. 1, &c.

_Churl._ Isa. xxxii. 5, 7.

_Cieling._ 1 Kings vi. 15.

_Clouted._ Josh. ix. 5.

_Cockle._ Job xxxi. 40.

_Comfort._ Job ix. 27.

_Confectionary._ 1 Sam. viii. 13.

_Contain._ 1 Cor. vii. 9.

_Conversation._ Gal. i. 18; Phil. iii. 20; Heb. xiii. 5.

_Convince._ Jno. viii. 48; Jas. ii. 9.

_Cunning._ Ps. cxxxvii. 5.

_Curious._ Exod. xxviii. 8; xxix. 5.

_Damnation._ 1 Cor. xi. 29.

_Delicately._ Lam. iv. 5; Luke vii. 25.

_Discover._ Ps. xxix. 9; Mic. i. 6; Hab. iii. 13.

_Doctrine._ Mark iv. 2.

_Duke._ Gen. xxxvi. 15.

_Ensign._ Num. ii. 2; Isa. v. 26.

_Fast._ Ruth ii. 8, 21.

_Fetch a compass._ Acts xxviii. 13.

_Flood._ Josh. xxiv. 2, 3, &c.

_Footman._ Jer. xii. 5.

_Fret._ Lev. xiii. 55.

_Grudge._ Ps. lix. 15.

_Hale._ Luke xii. 58; Acts viii. 3.

_Harness._ 1 Kings xx. 11; xxii. 34.

_Indite._ Ps. xlv. 1.

_Jangling._ 1 Tim. i. 6.