YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

ROMAN CATHOLIC AND
PROTESTANT BIBLES COMPARED
THE GOULD PRIZE ESSAYS

ROMAN CATHOLIC AND
PROTESTANT BIBLES
COMPARED
The Gould Prize Essays
EDITED BY
MELANCTHON WILLIAMS JACOBUS, D.D.
DEAN OP HAETPOKD THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

SECOND EDITION
REVISED AND SUPPLEMENTED WITH
APPENDICES ORIGINALLY ACCOMPANYING THE ESSAYS
AND A COMPgSHB-aiByiJOGRAPHY
COVERING THE GBifSluL ptEllAJ^^^^F THE SUBJECT

NEW-YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1908

4 1^'

COPYRIOHT, 1905, 1908, BY
BIBLE TEACHERS TRAINING SCHOOL

TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Preface to the First Edition  vii
Preface to the Second Edition  ix
History op the Contest  xi
Catholic and Protestant Versions op the Bible . 1
The History of the Catholic English and the
American Revised Versions op the Bible . 61
The Origin and History of the Version op the
Bible Authorized by the Roman Catholic
Church, and of the American Revised Ver
sion  137
Appendix  197
Bibliography  317

PEEFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
The outstanding result of this contest will prob
ably be to bring into bold relief the great differ
ence between, and the otherwise practical imity of,
the Roman Catholic and the Protestant Bibles.
The great difference between the versions is the
presence in the Roman Catholic Bible of the Apoc
rypha. The collection of books so named is rejected
by Protestants as uncanonical. The American Re
vised Version does not even allude to the existence
of the Apocrypha. Compared with this difference
between the two versions all other differences are
insignificant. Whatever may be the merits or the
defects of expression in either, and however impor
tant may be the correction of textual errors by devout
and enlightened scholarship, both versions contain
the same and the complete message of the Gospel of
our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
The publication of the Gould Prize Essays in
1905 aroused new interest in the facts attaching to
the Protestant and the Catholic English versions of
the Bible, and gave to many readers new ideas re
specting the historical sources and the literary relar
tions of these versions besides their value as repro
ductions of the Sacred Scriptures.
It was inevitable, however, that the traditional
Scripture controversy between these two Commu
nions should reassert itself in criticism. This has
given force to the desire, which had been present
from the first, that there might be printed with the
Essays a full justification of the positions their au
thors had assumed, together with a complete display
of the sources from which their material had been
dravsra. This desire has realized itself in a Second Edi
tion in which the Essayists have reviewed the text
of their productions, appending to them in restricted
form the notes and comments by which they have
substantiated their statements, and further adding to
them bibliographical lists brought down as far as
possible to the present day, from which a composite
bibliography has been wrought out, saving repeti
tions of titles and classifying the sources in such a

X PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION
way as to render them of most service to those who
may wish to use them.
In the work of the First as well as of the Second
Edition, the editor desires to acknowledge the schol
arly help and assistance of Professor Edward Everett
ISTourse, of the Hartford Eaculty, and the patient
skill of Dr. William John Chapman, of the Case
Memorial Library, by whom has been accomplished
the diiScult task of bringing the bibliographies into
their present serviceable form.

HISTORY OF THE CONTEST
In November, 1903, in a correspondence between
Miss Helen Miller Gould and Father Early, of Irv-
ington-on-the-IIudson, the latter made the following
statement : " The Catholic Church has never prohib
ited any of her members reading the Scriptures or
Bible. In every family whose means will permit the
buying of a copy, there you will find the authentic
version of God's words as authorized by the Church,
and which has come down to us, unchanged, from the
time of Christ himself. But the Catholic Church
does object to the reading of the Protestant version,
which goes back only to the days of Henry VIII of
England, and was then gotten up for obvious rea
sons." In consequence of this, desiring to stimulate in
vestigation and to secure a brief and popular state
ment of facts for general use, Miss Gould made Dr.
White, as President of the Bible Teachers Training
School, the following proposition: that she would
offer prizes for the best essays on the double topic,
first, " The Origin and History of the Bible Ap
proved by the Roman Catholic Church ; " second,
" The Origin and History of the American Revised
Version of the English Bible." In reply to this offer.
Dr. White said, " Standing, as we do, for the study

xii HISTORY OF THE CONTEST
of the English Bible and for the encouragement of
.the most thorough investigation in all subjects relat
ing thereto, an obligation is laid upon us by you,
which we are glad to assume."
Three prizes were offered for three essays in the
order of merit: a first prize of -one thousand dollars,
a second prize of five hundred dollars, and a third
prize of two hundred and fifty dollars.
The essays were limited to fifteen thousand words,
exclusive of illustrative diagrams. The bibliogra
phies and appendices were not limited. The contest
closed October 1, 1904. The conditions required
judges to have regard not only to the historical accu
racy of the papers submitted, but also to the adap
tability of a paper to the average reader.
Nearly five hundred persons entered their names
for the contest. Two hundred and sixty-five essays
were submitted to the judges. The writers repre
sented all quarters of the world. Several essays were
submitted by Roman Catholics.
Earnest effort was made to secure at least two
Roman Catholic judges. In this, however, the Com
mittee failed, notwithstanding the fact that promi
nent members of the American hierarchy joined in
the friendly search for men whose talents and schol
arship might fitly represent a world-wide com
munion. The Board of Judges consisted of the following
gentlemen :

HISTORY OF THE CONTEST xiii
Rev. Robert William Rogers, D.D., Chairman,
Professor Drew Theological Seminary.
Rev. Henry Mitchell IMacCracken, D.D.,
Chancellor New York University.
The Hon. Whitelaw Reid,
Editor New York Tribune.
Rev. Francis L. Patton, D.D.,
President Princeton Theological Seminary.
Rev. Melancthon Williams Jacobus, D.D.,
Dean Hartford Theological Seminary.
Dr. Talcott Williams,
Editorial Staff The Philadelphia Press.
Rev. Walter Quincy Scott, D.D.,
Professor Bible Teachers Training School.
The Board held its first session, with all the judges
present, upon the seventeenth day of October, 1904,
and at its final meeting, upon the thirteenth day of
February, 1905, the members unanimously agreed
upon the three essays here printed as best meeting
the conditions of the contest.

CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT
VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY
By WILLIAM THOMAS WHITLEY, M.A., LL.M.
(Cambridge, Eng.), LL.D. (Melbourne, Australia)
Member of the American Historical Association ; Fellow of the
Royal Historical Society ; Fellow of the Theological Senate

CATHOLIC AND PROTESTANT
VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE

THE QUESTION STATED
Two editions of the Bible invite our attention.
The one is set forth as being " translated from the
Latin Vulgate; diligently compared with the He
brew, Greek, and other editions, in divers lan
guages." It was published with the approbation of
Cardinal Gibbons of Baltimore, in 1899. The other
professes to be " translated out of the original
tongues," and to be authorized by the American Com
mittee of Revision, 1901.
Comparing the tables of contents, where differing
titles often indicate the same book, the 1901 volume
is the shorter. It omits Tobit, Judith, several chap
ters of Esther, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, more
than two chapters of Daniel, and two books of the
Maccabees ; nor is there any word in the volume that
hints at the existence of these portions. They form
an integral part of the other volume, where the chief
references to any shorter edition are in notes, which
state that Jerome detached the extra chapters of
Esther and Daniel from the place they occupied in
the ancient Greek and Latin Bibles, and placed them
at the end. 1

2 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
These notes, and the reference on the title-page to
the Latin Vulgate, oblige us to take into account a
magnificent folio edition of the Bible in Latin, pub
lished in 1592 at Rome. Prefixed to this is the ex
press papal authorization of the book as the standard
Bible for the Catholic Church. This contains at the
end in smaller type three additions: the Prayer of
ilanasses. III Esdras, IV Esdras. A note to the
reader explains not so much their presence here as
their absence from the body of the work, and atten
tion is drawn to the absence of all notes from the
text generally.
Our subject will be treated in four parts:
1. The Authentic Version of God's Word as au
thorized by the Church of Rome.
2. Catholic Versions in English.
3. The Protestant Version of 1901.
4. Comparison of the Versions.

The Version Authorized by the Church of Rome
The Scriptures in the oldest form known to us are
written in Hebrew, Aramaic,^ and Greek, and are
grouped in two great collections called the Old Testa
ment and the New Testament. Ancient copies of the
whole or part of the Old Testament have come to us
from Jews in various parts of the world, and from
* The superior figures refer to notes in the appendix.

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 3
their rivals, the Samaritans.^ Still more ancient
copies of the New Testament may be seen in Rome,
Saint Petersburg, London, Paris, and elsewhere.^
As Christianity spread, the Scriptures were trans
lated into other languages, notably Syriac, Latin, and
Egyptian ; and many ancient copies of these versions
are available.*
Before long questions arose as to what books ought
to be included in either the Old Testament or the
New. The books of the New Testament read pub
licly at Rome about the year 200 were fewer than
Protestants and Catholics now use ; and one book was
read which all now reject, though some opposed its
public use.^ The books of the Old Testament read
in and near Palestine at that time were those of our
Protestant collection, but the New Testament collec
tion was not quite so large as it is at present.® Those
read in North Africa were, in the New Testament,
also not so numerous as in our present list.'' More
over, there was nothing to hinder any copyist retrans
lating these books, or blending, adding to, or shorten
ing their contents; there was nothing to hinder a
scholar putting out an entire new version of the Scrip
tures. In Africa, Spain, Britain, France, and Italy
the Latin copies went through these varied experi
ences, and in the forty or more surviving examples
of these early anonymous attempts * it is easy to see
the truth of the complaint, " There are almost as
many versions as manuscripts." ®
At length Damasus, Bishop of Rome, commis
sioned a monk from Dalmatia, named Jerome, to

4 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
revise the old Latin versions of the Psalms and Gos
pels.^" Jerome had traveled widely and studied
deeply, and so was both the best scholar of the day,
and sufficiently a man of the world to recognize the
delicacy of the task offered him.^^
He began with the Psalms, which were needed in
daily song. The Latin versions had been made, not
from the Hebrew direct, but from a famous Greek
version known as the Septuagint. He revised the
Latin with the aid of current copies of the Greek, and
Damasus at once introduced the revision into his
cathedral at Rome.^" In 384 he finished the Gos
pels; but, as his patron died that year, he hurried
over the rest of the New Testament and returned to
the East.i2
At Csesarea he found a critical edition of the
Greek Bible made one hundred and fifty years earlier
by Origen, one of the great scholars of the church;
from it he revised his Psalter again.^^ Then he
worked fourteen years at translating the Old Testa
ment from the original Hebrew, to which the work
of Origen had introduced him.^* Much discussion
was aroused by the appearance of this new version.
However, it gradually made its way in the West on
its own merits, though it was not until nine centuries
later that it wholly displaced the older versions.^ ¦^
The New Testament portion was accepted much ear
lier than the Old Testament, owing to the fact that
the latter work was done on far more radical prin
ciples.-'® Jerome deliberately raised and discussed the im-

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 5
portant question, What books shall we read ? " In
the New Testament he used exactly our twenty-
seven. ^^ In the Old Testament he took his stand on
the list of the Jews, and at first refused to go beyond
it.i^ Although the Protestant Old Testament ar
ranges, divides, and names the books differently, it
contains exactly those books advised by Jerome, as
employed by the Jews of Palestine, including our
Lord Himself.^" Most of the other books then
read by Christians, and intermixed with these, Je
rome declined to revise.^^ He stigmatized them
as " Apocrypha," a name previously given by the
Jews to forgeries.^^ This word is now used mainly
in the sense given it by Jerome — to signify
books once claimed as parts of the Bible, but dis
allowed. Catholics apply it to such as III and IV
Esdras, III and IV Maccabees, and Enoch. Prot
estants apply it to a wider circle, including what
Catholics term the " Deutero-canonieal books of
the Old Testament," namely, those neglected by
Jerome.^^ In the West Jerome was opposed by his friend
Augustine, who sat in a council of African bishops
which drew up for the Old Testament a longer list
of books. ^* They decided that besides reading on
anniversary days accounts of the martyrdoms of
saints, churches might read in public only canonical
Scripture. This included the Wisdom of Solomon,
Ecclesiasticus or the Wisdom of Joshua, Tobit, Ju
dith, two books of Maccabees, and editions of Jere
miah, Daniel, and Esther longer than those used by

6 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
the Jews. Twelve years later the Bishop of Rome
was asked by the Bishop of Toulouse what was the
best list of Old Testament books, and after long delay
Innocent sent one agreeing in contents with the
African list.^^
By degrees the principal churches of Britain,
France, and Italy fell into line, and, regardless of
Jerome's opinion, scribes simply copied the unre-
vised versions, and went on mixing at their pleasure
the older and the newer versions.^® Thus, about the
year 600, Gregory the Great found older and newer
versions alike in use at Rome, and did not object.^'
All he did was to try to limit the use of that very
Psalter, which his predecessor had ordered and
adopted, to the daily song, replacing it in the written
Bibles by the second revision that Jerome had made,
but ignoring the third, made from the Hebrew. And
strange to say, his own church resisted even this
change.^* There are curious instances of this transition in
England. The Irish monks at Lindisfarne used the
older, or Roman Psalter, the Italian monks at Can
terbury brought the newer, the Gallican.^^ Later on.
Abbot Ceolfrid of Wearmouth obtained from Rome
three copies of the whole Bible in the new version,
and one in the old. He made a fresh copy of the
new version in the most magnificent style, and sent
it to the Pope in YlS.^" Bede used both versions,
his exposition of Habakkuk being based on the
older.2* But by degrees the newer prevailed, though
with some mixture, and the surviving Latin copies

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 7
made in England are almost entirely of Jerome's re
vision. ^^
Not long afterward the German King, Charles the
Great, desired a simple, standard, modernized Latin
text. His counselor Alcuin sent over to his native
York and obtained several manuscripts of Jerome's
version. By Christmas, 801, he gave Charles the
first copy, and from his abbey at Tours rapidly multi
plied others. But the demand was so great that
another revision and older unrevised manuscripts
were also pressed into service. So with no control,
no copyright, no printing, every scribe did as he
liked; the text degenerated again, versions inter
mingled, contents varied.^^
In the age of the Crusades, revisions of the Latin
text were undertaken by Lanfranc of Canterbury, by
Stephen Harding of Dorchester, who made use of
Greek manuscripts and had the help of Jewish ad
visers, and by Cardinal Maniacoria, with the result
of even greater variations.** The contents of manu
scripts varied in details, the Epistles to the Hebrews
and the Laodiceans, with Baruch, III and IV Macca
bees, and the Prayer of Manasses being sometimes
inserted, sometimes omitted.**
Roger Bacon revived Bible study in the thirteenth
century, and three important corporations undertook
to prepare lists of corrections needed in, the ordinary
Latin text *^ — the Dominicans, the Franciscans, and
the theologians at the University of Paris, headed
by Stephen Langton, who made our modern chapter
divisions.*®

8 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
For some time attention was diverted from the
subject by the quarrels between Popes and Councils.
But in 1439 a council assembled at Florence with
delegates even from the Eastern Church, l^his
formally announced : " We define the holy apostolic
see and the Roman pontiff to have primacy over the
whole earth, and the Roman pontiff to be himself
. . . head of the whole church, and father and
teacher of all Christians." *'' The Eastern patri
archs and the French disagreed, but Eugenius IV
soon rallied nearly all the West under him. Clothed
with this plenary authority, he issued a Bull on the
subject of the Bible, in which he neglected all
distinctions between canonical books and those for
private reading only, declaring that all the books
specified — those of the African list — ^were inspired
by the same Holy Spirit.*® He was succeeded by
three or four scholarly Popes, who recognized the
Latin text as faulty; and Nicholas V ordered a
fresh version of the New Testament to be made.*®
The invention of printing soon raised the old ques
tions in a more acute form. Sixtus IV was quick
to favor a new edition of the Latin Bible. Cardinal
Ximenes of Alcala (Latin, Complutum) in Spain,
under the patronage of Leo X, prepared a magnifi
cent edition of the Bible known as the Complutensian
Polyglot. This work contained (a) the Hebrew text
of the Old Testament, with Aramaic portions, (b)
the Aramaic Targum on the Law by Onkelos, (c) the
Septuagint Greek text of the Old Testament, (d) the
Latin Vulgate, and (e) the Greek text of the New

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 9
Testament, in addition to which the Targum and the
Septuagint were accompanied by literal Latin trans
lations. By the time it was ready, however, a revolt
against papal authority arose, and the Pope hesitated
to sanction the work he had forwarded. But it be
came clear that others would publish without waiting
for his leave. Hebrew Testaments were put forth by
Jews and Christians. Erasmus dedicated to Leo a
hastily edited Greek Testament with a new Latin
paraphrase. So in 1520 he formally approved the
publication of the Complutensian Polyglot.***
In that same year Karlstadt, the head of the
University at Wittenberg, published a little treatise
on the canon, giving the history of the disputed
books, and advising a reconsideration of the question
of contents. The scholars of Zurich published the
first modern language version, taking Karlstadt's ad
vice and putting the disputed books together under
Jerome's title, " Apocrypha." *^ This was the first
appearance in the form so familiar to Anglicans.
Luther, in turn, went further, and separated from
the New Testament James, Jude, Hebrews, and
Revelation, putting them in a fourth group, without
a collective title. *^
Long before these disturbances arose, a Dominican
friar had been making a new Latin version with tlie
approval of three Popes, which he published at Lyons
in 1528, after twenty-five years of work. Soon three
more Latin versions appeared, two by Protestants.**
And thus the printing press repeated and intensified
the old evils of many competing Latin versions.

10 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
Consequently, when the Emperor Charles V per
suaded the Pope to call a Council, among the very
first questions considered were those that concerned
the Scriptures. And no one can criticise the answers
as being hazy.** It was decided that all the books
specified at Florence were to be received and vener
ated equally, as God was the author of them all.*^
This leveling up of certain " Deutero-canonieal
books " or " Apocrypha " was much opposed by some
bishops, who were not silenced by the Bull of 1439;
but finally it was adopted, and a curse was pro
nounced on all who refused to acquiesce in the de
cision. To this day the decree remains an article of
faith with Roman Catholics, and was reaffirmed at
the Vatican Council.*®
The canon being settled, the language had to be
chosen. The original languages were discussed, but
it was thought that to adopt these alone as standards
would place priests and theologians at the mercy of
Hebrew and Greek scholars. Inasmuch, however, as
Latin had been common to all scholars of the West
for a millennium, this was taken as a convenient me
dium ; but the decree does not depreciate the original
texts, either explicitly or by implication. Careless
Catholics and polemical Protestants often go astray
at this point. *^
Next arose the question of the particular version in
Latin. Several had recently been ordered or ap
proved by Popes, but other innovations were shock
ing the Roman world, so the majority adhered to
precedent.*^ The decree finally ran that the " old

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY H
and common version (vulgata ediiio) *° which, by
the long usage of so many ages, has been approved
in the church itself, is to be held as authentic in
public lectures, disputations, preachings, and exposi
tions." But the bishops deliberately refused to make
this an article of faith, treating it only as a matter
of discipline subject to revocation. Hitherto, how
ever, it has not been changed, and in 1870 was
expressly ratified.*®
In the same decree it was declared unlawful " for
anyone to print or cause to be printed any books
whatever on sacred matters without the name of the
author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep
them by them, unless they shall have been first ex
amined and approved by the ordinary."
The next point was to get a standard edition of
this chosen version, and a committee of six was ap
pointed to publish it before the Council rose.®" But
unexpected delays occurred, the Emperor wrote to
express his amazement that fifty-three men of no
particular scholarship should so summarily settle in
tricate questions, the Pope ordered the committee not
to act hastily, and political disturbances caused the
premature dispersal of the Council. New commit
tees were presently appointed at Rome. Meantime
many printers were at work, and the theologians of
Louvain put out two editions based on good material
collected by Stephanus of Paris, and corrected by
reference to the originals.®^
At length one of the Roman scholars became Pope,
as Sixtus V. He soon published a fine edition of the

12 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
Greek Bible ; ®- then one of the Old Latin, a mosaic
of quotations from the early Latin writers ; ®* and
in 1590 completed his work by a three-volume edi
tion of the common Latin version, printed from
early copies carefully corrected by quotations.®* He
prefaced it by a Bull approving it by his apostolic
authority transmitted from the Lord, and announc
ing that this was to be used " as true, legitimate,
authentic, and undoubted in all public and private
debates, readings, preachings, and explanations; and
that anyone who ventured to change it without papal
authority would incur the wrath of God Almighty
and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul." He
reserved copyright for ten years, and ordered that
after this period all future editions should be con
formed to it, all existing copies — even missals and
breviaries — should be corrected by it and should be
officially certified by inquisitor or bishop. He for
bade any marginal notes, whether of various readings
or of explanation.®®
This might seem final; but Sixtus died that year,
leaving behind the revisers whose work he had per
sonally corrected, including the famous Jesuit cardi
nal, Bellarmine, whom he had offended by the sup
pression of one of his books.®® The next Pope died
in ten days; his successor was induced to disown
this legitimate and authorized version. And though
he too died soon, and the next within a few months,
Bellarmine was appointed to buy up this official
edition and issue another.®'^ Clement VIII appointed
Cardinal Allen, of Oxford and Douay, together with

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 1.3
an Italian prelate, to revise the text of his predeces-
sor.^® Allen had studied the principles of textual
criticism, as is shown in the preface to the Rheims
Testament. Instead of relying chiefly on early
quotations, he referred to the original languages.
This resulted in more than three thousand altera
tions from the text of Sixtus — ^whole passages being
omitted or introduced, and the verses being divided
differently.®* Bellarmine, however, saved appear
ances by saying in the preface that Sixtus himself
had intended to do this, owing to the misprints and
other errors. This second edition had a new Bull
by Clement, which specified among other things that,
as before, no word of the text might be altered, that
no various readings might be registered in the
margin, and that all copies were to be conformed
to it.®»
Now, so far, the saving clause of Sixtus would
cover this proceeding, for this edition was " under
papal authority " ; but it proved to have more than
two hundred misprints of its own. Moreover, while
the edition of 1590 had rigidly excluded all books
but those decreed by the Council of Trent, and had
eschewed all apparatus whatever, the edition of 1592
added in smaller type the Prayer of Manasses and
two books of Esdras, explaining in the preface the
reason why this was done.®*" The third edition, in
1593, went further, and gave the prologues of
Jerome, an index of quotations in the New Testa
ment from the Old, a table of interpretation of
names, and a general index to the contents of the

14 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
Bible. And while it indeed corrected some of the
printer's errors, Kaulen declares that it " left a
large number uncorrected, and added new mistakes
of its own." ®^ In 1598 a fourth edition appeared,
of handy size, and with all the above features, only
the extra books were now printed in the same size
type as the canonical. It was also furnished with
three tables of corrections to the editions of 1592,
1593, and 1598, which, however, are most inade
quate. This was the last edition before the monop
oly of publication was surrendered. All four edi
tions were attributed to Sixtus, not to Clement.®^
Since this last standard edition of an authentic
version of a fixed canon in a chosen language, Rome
has taken no further official steps in the matter.
Two critical editions of Jerome's own translation,
freed as far as possible from later corruptions, have
indeed been published by Catholics, but they do not
profess to be the Authentic Version adopted by the
church.®* Vercellone at Rome collected and pub
lished various readings, but did not incorporate them
in his reprint of 1861, which gives the standard text.
Pope Pius X has, however, now commissioned the
order of the Benedictines to revise the text of the
Vulgate. Modern critical editions by Protestants
like Corssen or Wordsworth and White are not yet
completed.

II
Catholic Versions in English
The average American takes for granted that the
version authorized by the Catholic Church is not in
Latin, but in English. This idea, however, is due to
a lax use of the phrase " authorized." By the rules
approved by Pius IV after the Council of Trent
every bishop had the right to authorize a version for
use in his own diocese.®* Although these rights were
often exercised in unison, yet the fact remains that
there is no one version in English so authorized as
to exclude others. In a Catholic shop may be bought
authorized editions that differ.®® To understand this
state of affairs we must consider the history of the
English version which the Catholic Church has pro
duced. Before the year 1000 many parts of the Bible were
translated into English from the Latin repeatedly,
but the Norman Conquest put a stop to their use.®®
A new and complete version was published in 1382
by Wyclif.®'' It contained a few explanatory notes
and alternative translations which the scribes wrote
in a different hand, thus setting the fashion copied
in our present Bibles of italicizing words not in the
original, but added to complete the sense.®* A re
vision of the version was soon undertaken, but, owing
to Wyclif's death, in 1384, the work devolved upon
other hands, being published about 1388.®' The
15

16 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
higher clergy opposed the circulation of this version,
desiring to keep a monopoly of Bible knowledge to
their own guild; '''' but in 1390 Parliament refused
to place a ban upon it.'^^ The bishops forbade its
use ; ''^ but the people read it, and the Pope ignored
an attempt to discourage it.''* For more than fifty
years it was freely copied, edited, and irresponsibly
revised. More than one hundred and seventy ex
emplars survive, some being pocket editions, others
elaborate volumes for the monasteries or the libraries
of dukes and princes.''* Its use fell off during the
Wars of the Roses, and when printing found its way
to England it seems to have dropped out of favor,
and not to have attracted the notice of any pub
lisher.''® Only in the north did Murdoch Nisbet turn
it into Scotch about 1520; but there was no press in
Scotland then, and a newer version was freely im
ported within five years. Whether in English or
Scotch, it has only been printed as a monument of
the past, not for actual popular use.''® Specimens
of this and other early versions are given in the
notes.'''' Caxton was the first to print any portion of the
Bible in English. Jacobus de Voragine, archbishop
of Genoa in the thirteenth century, had compiled the
Golden Legend, a collection of lives of saints, which
became very popular in Italy, France, Bohemia, and
England. The stories of Adam, Noah, the Apostles,
and other Bible characters are mostly in the very
words of Scripture; so when Caxton in 1483 trans
lated the French version into English he incidentally

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 17
printed part of the Bible in the vernacular. The
same thing was done by Wynken de Worde. As a
consequence the Bible narratives came to be widely
circulated. These versions, however, were not de
liberately used by subsequent translators, even if
they were haunted by reminiscences of them.''®
Catholic versions Avere belated in England; al
though before 1500 Germany, Italy, France, Flan
ders, Spain, Holland, and Bohemia had their ver
nacular Bibles in print.''® The Dean of Saint Paul's
in 1512 charged the Southern Convocation with neg
lect of duty,®" and Wolsey was so grieved at the
lethargy and ignorance of the clergy that, with leave
of the Pope and of the King, he diverted the revenues
of many priories to found colleges.®^ At Cambridge
a Dutch monk, Erasmus, pursued the Bible studies
that resulted in the Basle edition of the Greek Scrip
tures, which he dedicated to Leo X, writing in the
preface, " I wish they were translated into all lan
guages." ®^
Tyndale furnished the next version of the Bible
for England, but his work was so bound up with
the translation of Luther that Catholics eschewed
it ; ®* while the proceedings under Henry toward
translating or revising were not with Catholic good
will. For instance, in 1530 Warham and other dig
nitaries reported to the University of Cambridge that
" the publication of the Holy Scriptures in the vul
gar tongue is not necessary to Christians; and the
king's majesty and the bishops do wellin forbidding
to the people the common use of tt

oo^y

I • '^''

18 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
in the English tongue." ** Seven years later Henry
was excommunicated by the Pope, and the immedi
ate eonscciuence was that the printing of the Great
Bible in Paris was stopped. This, of course, did not
prevent its completion in England, nor even its in
dorsement by such prelates as Heath and Tunstall,
under the direct orders of Henry.*® Under Edward
also numerous editions appeared, but the accession
of Mary promptly closed Bible printing. Elizabeth
resumed her father's policy in this as in other mat
ters; so a final breach with Rome occurred in 1570,
when the Pope excommunicated the Queen. This
had been foreseen, and a Lancashire graduate of
Oxford, Dr. Allen, had, in 1568, with papal ap
proval, founded a seminary at Douay for the train
ing of English Catholics. Ten years later it was
shifted to Rheims, and there a translation of the
Bible was at once begun.*® The preparation was long
and thorough, as may be seen from the Douay
diaries ; but the project of giving an English version
to the laity was hardly spontaneous, as is evident
from the preface to the version, or from the follow
ing extract from a letter by Allen : *^
" Perhaps indeed it would have been more desirable
that the Scriptures had never been translated into
barbarous tongues; nevertheless at the present day,
when, either from heresy or other causes, the curi
osity of men, even of those who are not bad, is so
great, and there is often also such need of reading
the Scriptures in order to confute our opponents, it
is better that there should be a faithful and Catholic

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 19
translation than that men should use a corrupt ver
sion to their peril or destruction; the more so since
the dangers which arise from reading certain more
difficult passages may be obviated by suitable notes."
With such motives three or four well equipped
Oxford scholars, of whom Gregory Martin was chief,
began the work of translating the New Testament.**
They used a good edition of the Latin, published
hard by at Louvain, and revised the earlier English
versions, basing their work largely on Wyclif and
Tyndale.*® Other helps of which they availed them
selves were a parallel Latin-English Testament pub
lished by Coverdale in 1538, and the original Greek
text.®® In order to give doctrinal expositions of con
troversial texts, notes were added which were often
of a vigorously controversial character.®^
Funds, however, were lacking to publish the Old
Testament, though it was ready for the press. But
later, in 1582, the New Testament was issued at
Rheims. The preface not only avowed the motives
of the translators, but criticised rather severely the
Protestant versions, and laid down sound principles
for ascertaining what is the real Greek text.®^
Seven years later it was reprinted parallel with the
Bishops' text by Fulke, a Protestant, who replied to
the attack in numerous critical notes."*
In 1598 appeared the final form of the Vulgate, of
which Allen was joint editor, authorized by Pope
Clement, and ordered as the standard for all trans
lations. In 1600, consequently, the Catholics re
issued at Antwerp the English version of the New

20 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
Testament.®* As far as the translation is concerned,
however, it is little more than a reprint of the issue
of 1582, though the notes were augmented and re
arranged.®® After the Old Testament was revised
by the standard Vulgate it was published in 1609
and 1610 by the Seminary at Douay, whither the in
stitution had returned. It appeared in two volumes,
with fewer and milder notes, but with some longer
" Recapitulations " inserted at intervals.®® The sec
ond volume contains III and IV Esdras ; but, as the
issue was only that of the Old Testament, it was im
possible to place these apocryphal books in the same
position as they occupy in the Vulgate — at the end
of the whole Bible.
In 1618 was published a " Confutation of the
Rhemists' Translation," on which Cartwright had
labored for twenty years, but it is not certain that
it had much effect on subsequent revisions. The
third edition, printed at Antwerp, agrees closely with
the second, but is noteworthy as being the first to be
issued in pocket size, showing that a demand for the
book was arising among the Catholic public.
When Laud was repressing the Puritans and tol
erating the Catholics a fourth edition was put out at
Rouen, and Avas followed soon by a reprint of the
Old Testament uniform with it. Protestants also
absorbed new critical editions of the New Testament
by Fulke, parallel, as was his first edition, with the
Bishops' Version. With this, however, publication
ceased, no more copies being placed on the market by
either party. Even when James II favored Catho-

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 21
lies, nothing is heard of any proposal to circulate
the Catholic version. It is indeed said that in 1698-
1699 the New Testament was reprinted at Dublin,
but the edition was apparently suppressed for inac
curacy. And as regards a Belfast edition of 1704,
it is not clear what version is meant.®'
The strength of Catholicism, however, was in Ire
land, with its center in Dublin. A priest named
Nary felt that the old version was hardly intelligible,
and, therefore, made a new translation from the Vul
gate, which was duly approved and published by
1719. The penal laws being in force, however, there
was not much demand for the book, and it fell
flat. Yet its appearance and authorization em
phasize the fact that no one version had a monopoly
among Catholics.®*
The Douay Seminary, however, was roused to
emulation, and the president, Robert Witham, pre
pared a totally new version, which he published in
1730. There were thus now three Catholic versions
authorized, two issuing from the same institution.®®
In this same year another Douay scholar, Richard
Challoner, was sent to London, and soon made him
self a name in literature: his Garden of the Soul
is a classic. In his use of the Bible he neglected his
president's version, which he himself had indorsed,
and reverted to the original Rheims New Testament,
soon putting forth a fifth edition, slightly modern
ized.^®** When, however, he was consecrated bishop
and advanced to authority, he undertook a more
elaborate work. Calling in other scholars, he pub-

22 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
lished in 1749 another Ncav Testament, " newly re
vised and corrected according to the Clementine Edi
tion of the Scriptures." In 1750 he published the
whole Bible, and continued revising and publishing
until 1777. His work was epoch-making. Newman
says that in the Old Testament his labors " issue in
little short of a ncAv translation, nearer to the Protes
tant than it is to the Douay." And the same high
authority declared that " at this day the Douay Old
Testament no longer exists as a Received Version of
the Authentic Vulgate." Though NcAvman does not
say so, Challoner dropped from the Douay the extra
books, and adopted the list decreed by the Council
of Trent. ^®^ As to the New Testament, the third
edition differs from the first in more than two thou
sand places, though the title-page gives no notice of
the fact.i®2
At that time Ireland was a separate kingdom, and
enjoyed a regular Catholic hierarchy. When Chal
loner died, in 1781, a Dublin priest took up the work
and published a Testament, " the fourth edition, re
vised and corrected anew" with the approbation
of his archbishop. It introduced more than five hun
dred changes into the text.^®* Troy, Archbishop
of Dublin, then took charge more directly, and in
1791 put out an elaborate impression with the same
editor. It links itself to the Dublin Testaments of
Challoner and MacMahon by styling itself the Fifth
Edition.*®* To this work was prefixed the transla
tion of a letter from Pius VI in 1778 to Martini,
Archbishop of Florence, commending his diligence in

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 23
making an Italian version.*®® The letter is often
reprinted in modern Irish editions, and is a valuable
commentary on the fact that subsequent Popes have
suppressed the circulation of Martini's version.*®®
Scotland appeared next on the scene. A learned
priest had long been contemplating a new version
from the originals on critical principles. Two vol
umes were published in 1792 and 1797, and were
promptly condemned by the vicars-apostolic on the
express, ostensible, and legitimate ground that they
were not examined and approved by due authority.*®''
An authorized edition was immediately issued at
Edinburgh, but the copies were mostly sold in Eng
land and Ireland.*®*
In 1788 the primitive Rheims text was repub
lished at Liverpool with the original preface and
notes.*®® It may well be imagined that its quaint
diction provoked challenge, and four years later
a new revision appeared, when the words " an
cients," " chalice," " pasche," " penance " gave way
to " elders," " cup," " passover," " repentance."
Four hundred such changes appeared to the end of
Acts alone; while the notes were greatly altered,
some being dropped and new ones written.**® Thus
by 1800 there were circulating in the British Isles at
least seven types of text in the New Testament : these
two, two with Troy's approval, and three of Chal-
loner's revisions.
In America, as soon as independence was declared,
a Scotchman at Philadelphia printed a Protestant
Testament, and as soon as peace was certain, several

24 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
printers began issuing Bibles.*** One of these, Mat
thew Carey, saw the opportunity of catering to his
numerous Irish kinsmen ; so he obtained the patron
age of the Archbishop of Baltimore, and in 1790 the
second complete Catholic Bible in English was is
sued, a reprint of Challoner's 1750 edition, by the
firm of Carey, StcAvart & Co., at Philadelphia.**^
Next year appeared Troy's Irish text, which was
republished by Carey in 1805 with the advertise
ment, " First American, from the fifth Dublin, edi
tion." ***
The north of England has always been a Catholic
stronghold, and at Newcastle appeared a careless
reprint of the 1792 Testament.**® Gibson sanc
tioned a folio Bible at Liverpool, " revised and cor
rected " by two local clergy for a second edition, so
as to coincide with Challoner's last edition of the
New Testament, and reprinted apparently in London
with the sanction of the vicar-apostolic.*** Manches
ter issued two rival editions : one contained an early
text of Challoner's, with his Old Testament notes,
the New Testament notes being taken from the in
dependent version of Witham. This edition, by a
series of accidents, lost its proper authorization.**®
The other edition has a text which Newman describes
as partly Challoner's, partly Troy's, partly original,
despite its claim to have followed Challoner. It
came into notice through its new set of elaborate
notes written by a priest named Haydock, by whose
name the edition is knoAvn. It has been reprinted
at Dublin, Edinburgh, London, and New York with

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 25
abundant approbations, but with numerous varia
tions of text and abridgment of notes.**®
It is not surprising that the inconvenience of so
many varying types of text should be felt. Troy
himself grew more conservative and in later edi
tions reverted somewhat toward MacMahon's text of
1783.**'' Attempts were made to bridge the gulf be
tween Catholics and Protestants. In Ireland a
schoolbook was printed with the consent of both Dub
lin archbishops, giving extracts from the Bible in
both versions on opposite pages ; but differences arose
and the book dropped out of use.*** In England a
Roman Catholic Bible Society was formed by Bishop
Poynter and. others, which printed four large edi
tions of the 1749 text, with Challoner's notes toned
down ; but the movement was opposed by other Cath
olics and died out, the stereotype plates passing for
a while into the hands of a Protestant printer.**®
Perhaps it was as a loyal Catholic offset to this
tendency that an Irish edition appeared with a text
and notes based in the Old Testament on Challoner's
edition, but with the New Testament following the
Liverpool folio of 1788, namely, the original Rhem-
ish edition.*^® This time it caught Protestant atten
tion, and a storm sprang up; the printer retired to
another diocese and reissued the entire Bible with
even more irritating adjuncts.*^* At length Troy
withdrew his approbation, and went so far as to
sanction a large edition of a New Testament abso
lutely free from all notes. He certified that the
text conformed to that of former approved editions.

26 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
especially his OAvn of 1791, but it seems to be the
only accurate reprint of Challoner's second edi
tion.* 22 The fact is that attention was then centered
on the notes, and it is important that for once an
archbishop licensed an edition containing none, de
spite the rules of the Council of Trent. Subse
quently, the same printer issued a tract containing
the usual notes — not those of 1582 — which was
freely given away, and was of a size that could be
bound up with the New Testament. Many copies
Avere sold in London, and some booksellers pasted in
a new rescript of Pius VII to the English vicars-
apostolic, commending the reading of the Bible, bind
ing in the tract, and altering the title to state that
it was " with Annotations." *2*
Under Archbishop Murray, of Dublin, a new era
set in. He approved a fresh revision, which approxi
mated Challoner's early editions. Stereotype plates
were cast which have been extensively used, and the
text chosen has greatly influenced later editions. For
instance, Newman shows that it has won the approval
of the authorities in England and at Glasgow, Newry,
Belfast, and Philadelphia.*2* Yet, to oblige the com
missioners of Irish education, he joined with his fel
low Catholic archbishops in approving the use of the
English Roman Catholic Bible Society's plates for at
least five editions.*2®
Cardinal Wiseman well summed up the position
when he said that of the current editions, nominally
of the Rheims New Testament, " many may appear
rather new versions than revisions of the old." *-®

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 27
Adding to the variety of the English texts, he ap
proved an edition based largely on Troy's later edi
tion, but with a few original renderings.* 2^
But a more important work was now under way.
In 1836 Lingard had published, not a revision, but
a new version of the Gospels, with notes critical
rather than doctrinal or practical.* 2* In England it
made no popular headway, and simply illustrates
afresh that there is no one English version authorized
to the exclusion of others, provided all are made
from the Vulgate. But in America it was taken as
the basis of a new revision of the Rheims edition by
Francis Patrick Kenrick, then Bishop of Philadel
phia, who completed the New Testament in 1851.
He was encouraged to revise the Old Testament, and
the manuscript was unanimously approved by the
Ninth Provincial Council of Baltimore in 1858,
which desired that a version for common use should
be prepared on its basis. Archbishop Kenrick com
pleted the publication of the Old Testament and the
revision and republication of the New Testament in
1862, with a preface reciting these facts, and numer
ous original notes, critical and explanatory.* 2® Yet
no further edition has been called for, and it is too
early to say whether Spencer's new version from the
Greek, with reference to the Vulgate and Syriac, will
meet any better fate.**®
In view of these facts, it is plain that Catholics
have been far ahead of Protestants in constant au
thorized revision. England, Ireland, Scotland, and
America have rivaled one another at this work, till

28 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
the fittest has had every chance to survive. Newman
said for England in 1859, " There is at present, as
regards the Old Testament, one and only one re
ceived text, or very nearly so," that being Challoner's
of 1750. Gigot in 1901 agrees with this statement
as far as America is concerned, and the Protestant
Lupton in 1904 concurs in it without any geograph
ical limitation.***
As regards the New Testament, the case is radi
cally different. Newman found that the Irish copies
mostly followed Challoner's early editions; the Eng
lish followed his later editions, or Troy's revision;
the American introduced fresh novelties.**2 Since
then less has been said about revision, but no uni
formity has been attained. Lupton indeed affirms
that Challoner's text is the only one current, but a
slight examination of editions taken at random shows
that he was not quite at home in this detail of his
subject. Gigot enumerates six types still current,
one at Dublin, two at London, two at New York, be
sides Husenbeth's edition of Haydock.
Two remarks may fitly close this section. The
Protestant Scrivener honorably vouches that " no
case of willful perversion of Scripture has ever been
brought home to the Rhemish translators." *** The
Catholic Gigot acknowledges " that at the present
day there is really no one received text of the
Rheims New Testament among English-speaking
Catholics." *** See Diagram 4.

Ill
The Protestant Version
The American Standard Edition avows in one of
its prefaces that the foundation of the New Testa
ment version was laid by William Tyndale. He in
his turn claimed originality for his work, saying in
his Address to the Reader : " I had no man to coun-
terfet, neither was holpe with englysshe of eny that
had interpreted the same, or soche lyke thige i the
scripture beforetyme." **® How great is the debt of
the English-speaking world to him may be seen by
transcripts of his original rendering of four passages,
where out of 1109 words, 796 remain unchanged to
day in the modern Catholic and Protestant edi
tions.**® Tyndale did not at first mean to defy the authori
ties, and when suspected by the ignorance and con
servatism of the country clergy, he appealed for help
in his undertaking to Tunstall, Bishop of London, a
generous scholar. After a while, however, he under
stood " Not only that there was no roAvme in my
lorde of londons palace to translate the new testa
ment, but also that there was no place to do it in all
englonde . . ." **^ As a consequence he was com
pelled to seek refuge abroad, and this almost forced
him into the arms of the Protestants. His work was
largely done at Wittenberg, the residence of Luther,
at Worms, where the bold friar had defied Pope and
29

30 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
Emperor, and at Marburg, where he and Zwingli had
conferred.*** Yet very little bias is to be seen in
the text, Avhich he did not " improve " as Luther had
done,**® but rendered most faithfully.**" Although
Sir Thomas More professed to find a thousand errors
in it, he specified only a fcAv, some of which have been
adopted by modern Catholics.***
The great cause of offense was the glosses, or mar
ginal notes. To add these had been the custom in
Latin Bibles, and in the English Bible founded on
them; but Tyndale set the example of a vigorous
polemic against his adversaries. We may think to
day that it would have been Aviser to let Scripture
speak for itself, and not to point the moral on the
same page ; for instance, that it was enough to trans
late " Whatsoever ye bynde on erth, shal be bound in
heven," without the comment, " Here all bind and
loose." **2 Indeed, his second edition Avas freed
from notes, and subsequent writings shoAv that he
realized how seriously he had handicapped his work
by such a device.***
This enterprise was quite independent of the King,
who is well known to have been entitled by the Pope
" Defender of the Faith " against the ncAV opinions
of Luther, and who long turned a deaf ear to Tyn-
dale's pleas for an authorized version.*** Any idea
that this version was due to Henry's personal or
political leanings is quite mistaken, as a comparison
of dates would prove. As late as 1531 Henry de
scribed Tyndale's works as " imagened and onely
fayned to enfecte the peopull." **®

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 31
In a later preface the translator gave his reasons
for undertaking the work : " I had perceived by ex
perience how that it was impossible to establish the
lay people in any truth, except the Scriptures were
plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue,
that they might see the process, order, and meaning
of the text ; for else, whatsoever truth is taught them,
these enemies of all truth quench it again."
His New Testament was published in 1526, and
at once met a wide sale in Scotland and England.
He continued revising and translating till he had fin
ished from Genesis to Chronicles, and Jonah.**®
Tunstall kept on trying to buy and burn the copies,
and, when he complained that the money simply
helped Tyndale, was told that he should have bought
and burned the type. This hint was improved upon ;
the translator himself was bought by treachery, stran
gled, and burned. Nor did Henry try to save him.
But Henry had now broken with the Pope for
political and personal reasons, and had chosen
Thomas Cromwell as his minister. The Convoca
tion of Canterbury petitioned for an authorized ver
sion without marginal notes; and Cranmer divided
among the higher clergy for revision an existing ver
sion.**'' Meanwhile another translator, Myles Cover-
dale, apparently encouraged by Cromwell, produced
the first complete printed English Bible, translated
chiefly from the Zurich German Bible of 1534, from
Avhich he adopted the separation of the Apocrypha,
though the New Testament is based more on Tyn
dale.*** It Avas soon reprinted in England, and the

32 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
third edition Avas " set forth with the kynge's moost
gracious licence." **®
His work, however, was not from the originals, so
that another edition was produced based on Tyn
dale's, pieced out with a revision of Coverdale's for
the end of the Old Testament and the Apocrypha,
furnished with elaborate prefaces, indices, and notes,
and sold to two London merchants.*®® They issued
it under the name of Thomas Matthew, getting the
" Kinges most gracyous lycece." *®*
The notes were of a character likely to annoy
Henry, so Cromwell decided on a revision by some
one he could control. Richard Taverner, a scholar
of Wolsey's at Cardinal College, where he had helped
circulate the early Testaments of Tyndale, had since
translated several Lutheran books.* ®2 CroniAvell ap
pointed him clerk to the signet, and set him to revise
the Matthew Bible, in which he not only toned down
the notes, but improved the English. He paid more
attention to the Vulgate than his predecessors. His
version came out under splendid auspices, being the
first published by the king's printer. But in spite
of the fact that his revision was reprinted two or
three times, it fell into disuse under Mary, and was
superseded by other versions, though he lived till
1567. Its influence can be traced in the Rheims
New Testament more than in Protestant editions.*®*
Convocation became anxious in 1536 to expedite
the promised authorized version.*®* Coverdale was
engaged as an experienced editor, but was not fur
nished Avith a complete manuscript text. He took as

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 33
his basis, not Wyclif's nor his OAvn version, but Mat
thew's, into which he introduced corrections made by
eight or nine bishops.*®® In 1539 this Great Bible
was published, and a revision next year appeared
with a preface by Cranmer and the notice : " This
is the Bible apoynted to the vse of the churches." *®®
A copy of this first Authorized Version was ordered
to be placed in every church for public reading.*®''
In the troublous years that followed, dissenters
from the religion established for the time being
found it Aviser to emigrate. For a century, conse
quently, Geneva, Rheims, Antwerp, Douay, Rouen,
and Amsterdam became great centers for English
translations or printing. In the seven years of Ed
ward's reign forty editions of Bibles and New Testa
ments appeared. During -Mary's reign no edition
was printed in England; only a Primer printed at
Rouen with the Epistles and Gospels attached found
episcopal favor.*®*
In 1557 Whittingham broke new ground at
Geneva with the first critical Testament ever issued.
It was based on Tyndale's work, revised with the
help of Beza's new Latin version and commentary,
then furnished with the new verse divisions of
Stephanus with summaries and notes, and was
printed in Roman type and issued in a cheap and
handy form.*®® On the appearance of Beza's Greek
Testament he and two helpers began a revision, and
then revised the Old Testament of the Great Bible,
publishing the Psalms separately in 1559. Next year
the whole Bible was published by the English con-

34 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
gregation at Geneva. It contained an epistle to
" Qvene Elisabet," which resulted in her granting
Bodley the English copyright for seven years.*®® It
contained also an address " To ovr Beloved in the
Lord the Brethren of England, Scotland, and Ire
land," in consequence of which it became the Scotch
Authorized Version — the Scottish King's printer
being licensed to print it, the Church of Scotland
ordering every parish to purchase a copy, and the
Scots Parliament directing every substantial house
holder to procure one.*®* The version also became
the People's Bible and molded the words of Shake
speare and Bunyan. It was revised and reprinted
both in Great Britain and on the Continent, down to
1776 in as many as one hundred and sixty edi
tions.* ®2 But while the- Great Bible was devoid of
notes, and was so far neutral that all parties might
possibly unite in using it, the Genevan Bible revived
the precedent of Tyndale in giving numerous notes.
Of these some displeased Catholics, others Arminians,
and others bishops or sovereigns who believed in
divine right.
Elizabeth tried at first to conciliate all parties,
and AA-hile she publicly accepted a manuscript copy
of Wyclif's Gospels,*®* almost her only action in this
popularizing of the Scriptures was to repeat her fa
ther's order to place a large Bible in each church.*®*
For this purpose a revision of the authorized Great
Bible was made, resulting in the Bishops' Bible,
which Avas published during 1568 in a large and
expensive form. But the Queen did not heed a re-

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 35
peated request for an authorization of the publica
tion, and after revision and a futile attempt to stop
the issue of all other versions it was only " Set foorth
by aucthoritie " of the Southern Convocation.*®® It
quite failed to win popular approval, and though the
clergy might use it in church, Puritans soon had
their Genevan New Testament revised by Tomson and
issued by the Queen's printer, while Catholics prompt
ly followed it with the Rheims Ncav Testament.
Editions of the Genevan Bible poured forth, and
Puritans began demanding copies without the Apoc
rypha.*®® As a consequence by 1600 there came to
be great diversity of versions and editions.
Presently a concordat was arrived at in Great
Britain between Protestants. James VI of Scotland
was annoyed at the notes in the Scotch Authorized
Version, and when, at the Hampton Court Confer
ence of 1604, he found that the English Puritans
equally disliked the Bishops' Bible, he promptly ac
ceded to their wish for a new version.*®'' Among the
conditions laid doAvn, as recorded by Bancroft, it was
ordered that it should be made chiefiy by university
scholars, should follow Henry's order of 1543 and
have no marginal notes, should be approved by the
bishops, the privy council, and the King, and should
then be authorized for church use.*®* Fifty-four
scholars were appointed by the King, and forty-seven
revised the Bishops' Bible for four or five years,
being directed to consult Tyndale, Matthew, Cover-
dale, the Great Bible, and the Genevan.*®® As a
matter of fact, they were most deeply influenced by

36 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
the Genevan, and by the Rheims New Testament,
Avhich stood side by side with the Bishops' text in
Fulke's critical edition.*^® The Douay Old Testa
ment did not have this gratuitous advertisement, and
appeared rather too late to influence their work.
Their revision Avas published in 1611, two printers
putting on the market nearly twenty thousand copies
at once.*'* It instantly encountered severe criticism,
in consequence of which it was revised in 1629.*'2
The final authorized edition did not appear till 1638,
shortly after a reprint of the Douay Old Testa
ment.*''* During the civil wars and the Common
wealth fresh experiments were tried, and it is said
that seven hundred thousand Bibles were imported
from Amsterdam without the Apocrypha.*'* But
though a new version was undertaken by Henry
Jessey, it was not published, a committee of Parlia
ment reporting that the Royal Version was " the best
of any in the world." *''®
Attention was turned next to the original Hebrew
and Greek, as the Douay divines had professed them
selves ready to follow " the true and vncorrupted
Greeke text." Walton in 1657 published a fine crit
ical edition of the originals, many early versions,
and quotations from early writers. The work went
on chiefiy in England and Germany, though with
help from the French Catholic Richard Simon. In
1831 Lachmann broke with the tradition of twelve
centuries, and printed a new Greek Testament
founded entirely on early evidence. To a second edi
tion he added a critical edition of the Vulgate from

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 37
good early manuscripts. Other scholars soon bettered
his example, and it is now possible to buy a result
ant Greek Testament, showing how few are the points
still in doubt among scholars, and how unimportant
they are.*''®
In Hebrew the work has been slower and less com
plete. The Jews had long ago been more thorough
than the Council of Trent, had established a standard
text and destroyed all others,*'''' except that the Sa
maritans retained an early edition of the Pentateuch,
and the Egyptian Jews also read an earlier edition of
which a few fragments have recently been un
earthed.*''* To get behind the " Massoretic Text"
the best aids are the Greek versions edited by Ori
gin, and the Latin version made by Jerome — ^not the
standard Clementine Vulgate. But scholars are by
no means agreed on the exact text of what was writ
ten by the authors of the Old Testament.*''®
Meantime the public was being prepared for
another revision by a different chain of circum
stances.**® The impulse came partly from a demand
for Bibles by Germans and others, but chiefly from
the success of foreign missions and the making of
many fresh versions for the East.*** With Bible so
cieties in Great Britain and America, with translators
like Carey and Judson, Protestants had to answer
the old questions. Shall we use the Apocrypha ? Shall
we have a standard edition at home? If so, shall
it be old, or a new revision ? Must this standard be
taken as a pattern for other versions, or may trans
lators go direct to the originals?

38 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
After years of popular debate, the British society
refused to circulate the Apocrypha, and practically
adopted the canon advised by Jerome.* *2 The Amer
ican society declared in 1836 that it would encour
age " only such versions as conform in the principle
of their translation to the common English ver
sion." *** In opposition to this decision, a new
society was founded " to procure and circulate the
most faithful versions of the sacred Scriptures in all
languages throughout the world." *** Similar move
ments took place in Great Britain, but the more impor
tant actions were taken in America. The old society
set to work to edit carefully the text of the Royal
Version and produce a standard text, but after a few
years found it so unpopular that it was dropped.**®
The new society enlisted sixteen American and eight
British scholars of five different churches to revise
the English Bible, and first published portions, then
in 1865 a complete New Testament.**®
Private scholars were encouraged to print numer
ous editions, revisions, and versions, but in Great
Britain Parliament and the Convocation hung back
till the appearance of the American Testament com
pelled action. In 1870 the Convocation of Canter
bury appointed Committees which were joined by
members of the Free Churches, and with which new
American Committees interchanged suggestions, so
as to make the new revision both international and
interconfessional.**^ The revised New Testament
appeared in 1881, the Old in 1885, when the British
Committee practically ceased work.*** At the re-

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 39
quest of the University Presses, which had bought
the copyright, small and dwindling Committees did,
however, revise the Apocrypha by 1894, for these
books still received a qualified recognition by Epis
copalians, as they do to-day ; and marginal references
were added by 1898.**® Despite repeated inquiry it
became clear that the precedent of 1611-29-38
would not be followed in Great Britain, consequently
the American Companies continued their work, and
in 1901 issued the second revision of the New Testa
ment, and in the same year the whole Bible without
Apocrypha, but Avith much-improved editing.*®®

IV
Comparison of the Versions
Understanding now the origin and history of the
versions, it is possible to compare them. Several
points deserve attention : Contents ; resources, com
petence, and honesty of the translators; accuracy
and literary merit of the modem editions ; accessories
of the text. As a result of these tests it will be fur
ther possible to estimate the worth of the versions,
and to consider the claims put forth on their behalf.
Contents. — Catholic Bibles, whether Latin or
English, intermingle with the books of the Old Testa
ment used by our Lord seven others, and have en
larged editions of two more.*®* All these are asserted
on the highest Catholic authority to be as valuable

40 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
as the rest, equally inspired by the same Spirit.*®^
NoAv the grandson of the author of Ecclesiasticus,
one of the best of these added books, drew a sharp
line between it and the Scriptures in the prologue
to the Greek version that he made of it; II Macca
bees professes to be only a summary of another man's
Avork (II: 24^33), AA-hile the additions to Daniel
and the book of Judith are evidently fictions by au
thors ignorant of history.*®*
Further, the Council of Trent ruled out certain
other books, read then by many as equally valuable
with these. We have noted that some of the Popes
did not agree with one another or with themselves
as to the Apocrypha.*®* It is evident that our Lord
used no more than our thirty-nine books of the Old
Testament.*®® His references in Luke XXIV: 44
and XI: 51 even suggest to scholars that He knew
them exactly in the form in which they are still cur
rent among the Jews.*®® It was of them alone that
He said, " They give testimony of Me." With them,
therefore, we may well be content ; " for the testi
mony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."
Resources of the Translators. — Jerome had a
few advantages in the materials at his command.*®'
His Hebrew manuscripts were at least five hundred
years older than any we possess. He had one written
by Origen before 250 a.d., and he was at least aware
of others in the custody of the Samaritans, close at
hand. He knew Origen's splendid collection of
Greek versions, which has come doAvn to us only in
fragments. He had the Old Latin versions in manu-

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 41
scripts, probably older than any Avhich we still pos
sess. At the same time his Greek copies of the New
Testament do not seem to have been remarkable.
The Vatican editors had also in the Old Testament
the accumulated lore of generations of Jews who had
studied the text microscopically, besides possessing
written Aramaic versions. In the New Testament
they had available one of the best manuscripts of the
Greek, they used the best manuscript of the Latin,
and they kncAV of the standard Syriac version. The
Douay scholars were no better off.
The Anglo-American Revisers were worse off than
Jerome for old JcAvish manuscripts, but had critical
texts based on many more, gathered from all parts
and parties ; besides several more ancient versions,
such as Syriac, Samaritan, Egyptian, Gothic, Ar
menian, etc. For the New Testament they had fine
critical texts founded on a wealth of material care
fully considered.
On the whole, the differences in the matter of the
sources available in 390, 1590, and 1890 are not very
serious. See Diagram 2.
Competence of the Translators. — Jerome was
perhaps the best Western scholar for fifteen hundred
years; but he acknowledged his deficiencies in He
brew, and ahvays threw the responsibility for his Old
Testament work on his teachers.*®* Nor were the
Vatican editors much stronger on this side; though
Martin of Douay was in the front rank, and Chal
loner Avas a good scholar. On the other side. Cover-
dale, although he disclaimed all Hebrew scholarship.

42 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
was yet most painstaking in his work ; while even in
1526 Tyndale Avas reported to be a master of He
brew, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, English, and
French.*®® And since their days the work of the
Bishops', the Authorized, the English, and the Amer
ican editions has brought into the field scores of able
men, including the best Hebraists and critics of the
English-speaking world. So too with the New Testa
ment. Indeed, it may be said that each Catholic
version is due mainly to a single man, such as
Jerome, Martin, Challoner, Kenrick, slightly checked
by others; while the Protestant versions are due
mainly to committees, among whom none stand out
conspicuously. Since the Reformation the advan
tage has not been with the Catholics.
Honesty of the Translators. — Jerome was an
earnest Christian, but at the same time a polemical
theologian, with strong opinions as to the interpreta
tion of prophetic passages ; and he allowed his polem
ics and his prejudices to warp his translation in a
way that Catholics frankly admit.2®® Martin and
Challoner are honorably acquitted of adding to these
perversions of Scripture;*** but they accurately re
peat them, as the Rules of Pope Pius seem to require.
Tyndale was vehemently attacked for the charac
ter of his work ; but, setting aside his notes, his text
does not seem wilfully mistranslated. The chief
objections taken were that he rendered ecclesia as
" congregation," rather than " church," and other
wise broke with tradition; but these renderings are
defensible. Modern Catholics do not appear to

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 43
charge him with deliberate perversion. At a later
stage, Protestants of the seventeenth century did say
that " dogmatic interests were in some instances al
lowed to bias the translation" of King James.2®*
And modern scholars both Catholic and Protestant
advert to " dogmatic erroneous renderings " in that
version, though they do not accuse the revisers then
of intentional dishonesty. Of five instances adduced
by Kenrick, all have now been revised, and probably
only two would now be challenged by Catholics;
while Protestants would retort that in these cases the
objection would be due to Catholic misapprehen
sion. 2®2
Accueact of the Modern Editions. — Several
errors exist in the modern Catholic versions, trace
able to blunders of Jerome.2®* On the other hand,
the 1901 Protestant version is inferior to the Cath
olic in a few places ; though in the judgment of the
writer these are very few. 2®*
The history of the versions will explain many of
these variations. Jerome went over some of his work
again and again, especially the Psalms, but his final
revision was rejected. Not only was the work of
1611 brought to the anvil again and again, it under
went two further revisions after public criticism be
fore it took shape in 1638. Similarly the Revisers
of 1881-85 went over their work repeatedly, and
after public criticism it was reconsidered before the
American edition of 1901.
The Vatican editors did improve on Jerome, but
not to this extent. Sixtus was aware of the impor-

44 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
tance of consulting the earliest copies of the Vul
gate ; furthermore, he had paved the way for his work
by his fine edition of the Greek version and by his
careful compilation of quotations by the early Fa
thers. But he did not wait to insure that these quo
tations were as the early Fathers had made them,
and not distorted by subsequent scribes; while he
overlooked the fact that at best they could only re
produce the earliest form of Jerome's version, includ
ing all its mistakes. In appealing direct to the He
brew and Greek, Clement avoided this element of
error.2®® The Revisers of 1881, after the principles of using
early manuscripts and versions and quotations had
been well studied and practiced, combined both meth
ods. The Revisers of 1885 in England did the
same, but attached greatest weight to the Hebrew or
Aramaic. In the final revision of 1901, all impor
tant variations of the early versions are recorded in
the margin.
There are thus in the two Bibles numerous varia
tions, which rest upon differences in the early au
thorities. In several of these cases the Protestant
margin still registers the difference ; though the read
ing now followed in the text coincides with that
always followed by the Douay translators. 2®® In a
few cases the Protestant version has silently adopted
the reading always preferred at Douay ; 207 j^ others,
the Protestant margin acknowledges that the read
ing of the Catholic version is worth considering; 2®*
in still other passages, scholars do not agree as to

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 45
what is certainly the true original, and there are
even remarkable readings unnoticed by either ver
sion. 2®® But there are several passages in which
Protestant scholars are agreed that the text of the
Clementine Vulgate does not represent the original
Greek, and that, therefore, the Douay Bible must be
wrong, while the 1901 version is certainly right.2*®
Tavo of these may be set forth for special reasons:
Matthew XXVII: 35 not only records that the
soldiers divided the garments at the cross, casting
lots, but comments : " That it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophet, saying, ' They
divided my garments among them; and upon my
vesture they cast lots.' " Now, this very comment
is certainly made by John, at XIX: 24; but it is
beyond doubt that it was not made by Matthew, and
that it was only imported here by a blunder. This
is a case where Pope Sixtus cut out the intrusive
words, and Pope Clement restored them in the teeth
of evidence.2**
I John V: 7, 8 in modern Catholic versions dif
fers from the American Revised Version not only
in the division of verses, but by the presence of the
following bracketed words : " And there are three
who give testimony [in heaven, the Father, the
Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are
one; and there are three that give testimony on
earth] : the spirit, and the water, and the blood, and
these three are one." No words corresponding ex
actly to the bracketed passage are to be found in a
single one of the two hundred and fifty Greek manu-

46 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
scripts that contain the adjoining verses. Any Avords
at all like them are found only in four Greek manu
scripts, all written after the year 1400, with suspi
cions of forgery in each case. 2*2 They are never
quoted by any Greek writer till 1215, CA'en when
discussing the doctrine of the Trinity, and adducing
texts to prove it. They were unknown to the Chris
tians of Russia, Georgia, and Armenia ; of Persia,
Arabia, and Syria ; of Abyssinia and Egypt : for the
numerous versions of these countries omitted them.
They are not even found in any Latin manuscript
earlier than the seventh century, nor in any used by
Alcuin in 800. While the great mass of Latin manu
scripts contain them, they appear at first after
verse 8, and often as inserted by a later writer. The
first express quotation is by the Bishop of Carthage
in 484, in a confession draAvn up for a king leaning
to Unitarianism. After that time the words can
be traced spreading from that district over the Latin-
speaking world, and changing into the form and
position they now assume in the Catholic version.
Earlier allusions, even in that neighborhood, only
imply a knowledge of verse 8 and an application
of it to the doctrine of the Trinity ; while as late as
Jerome, Augustine, and Pope Leo the words them
selves were unknown in the Latin text. Seventy
years ago Cardinal Wiseman discussed the passage,
but did not say he believed it genuine; and in 1862
Archbishop Kenrick loyally said, " Being read in the
Vulgate, which in all its parts Avas sanctioned by the
Council of Trent, Catholics generally maintain it,"

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 47
without expressing any personal opinion. Ordinary
Catholic editions insert the passage without a shred
of warning that it was not written by the Apostle.
Literary Merits of the Modern Editions. —
The current Catholic versions retain a scholarly uni
formity in rendering, to which the 1901 edition has
not yet attained.2** They are, however, tamer in
their syntax than the parent version of 1582, a fault
charged against the American revision also. 2** They
have also profited largely by the sharp criticism
of the Latinized English of Martin, and have bor
rowed most extensively from the Protestant ver
sions.''''' **® A good illustration may be seen by
minutely comparing a long and varied passage.
Luke I contains eighty verses, of preface, narrative,
and canticles. From the version of King James,
a modern Catholic edition has borrowed ninety-four
words and several changes of order; in return the
Protestant edition of 1901 has adopted six words
from Martin and five from Challoner. Evidently
the literary merit of even Challoner is not esteemed
highly by Protestants. For the rest, the Catholic
has one felicitous phrase against a clumsy Protestant
one, but is open to question seven times in the oppo
site direction. 21®
Accessories of the Text. — Catholic authorities
attach great importance to supplying notes. The
Rheims New Testament was annotated by Allen and
Bristow, with comments as strong on the Catholic
side as Tyndale's or Whittingham's had been on the
Protestant. They caused the utmost irritation in

48 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
England, both then and when reprinted in 1816. The
notes on the Old Testament Avere milder and fewer,
and Avere due to Worthington.^*® Kings Henry and
James saw that any such notes seriously hindered
general use, and forbade any in the Authorized Ver
sions, and the modern revisions have followed these
precedents on the Protestant side.2*'' Modern Catho
lic editions, however, still print some notes dealing
with debated theological points.2**
Other notes refer to a doubt as to what is the true
text. Thus at Genesis III: 15 an Irish Catholic edi
tion acknowledges that some Latin Fathers read ipsa,
" She shall crush," others ipsum, meaning " The Seed
shall crush." 21^ On the other hand, the American
Revisers of 1901 admit that at Genesis VI: 3 the
present Hebrew text, " strive with man," differs from
the ancient Greek, Latin, and Syriac versions, which
give the opposite meaning, " abide in man." Where
any serious doubt exists, it is only honest to warn
the reader, and both parties do this, though with
more reserve by the Catholics. Yet, as in these in
stances, both often follow their tradition against the
weight of evidence.
Catholic Bibles have continued the ancient prac
tice of furnishing headnotes to the various books,
explaining their origin; and to the chapters, sum
marizing them. In the 1901 revision only the chap
ters and pages receive similar headings. The Eng
lish editions lack even these, in reaction from the
headings of 1611, which are not always bare sum
maries, but often interpretations also. (See " Can-

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 49
tides of Canticles " in the editions of 1610, 1611,
1885, 190L)
Modern Catholic editions supply a system of dat
ing. Into Protestant versions another system was
introduced in 1701 from the researches of Ussher,
Protestant Archbishop of Armagh. The advance of
knowledge lays both systems open to question, and
the omission of any dates from the 1901 edition re
moves a dubious element.
Catholic Bibles continue a good custom of the
Middle Ages in giving a few marginal references to
illustrative texts in other parts of the Bible. The
version of 1611 also had a few, but John Canne, a
Baptist of the seventeenth century, drcAv up a very
large body, which gave a great impulse to the fash-
ion.22® The 1901 edition is well supplied with these
admirable helps to study, on a far larger scale than
in most Catholic editions. But it must be borne in
mind that the variation betAveen Catholic editions is
very marked in all accessories to the text.
Catholic Bibles led the way in indicating quota
tions from the Old Testament in the New, an exam
ple followed in 1881 and 1901. But all editors
ignore the usual device of inverted commas, and all
use italics in a way that is unknoAvn outside the
Bible. It is unfortunate that the typographical tra
ditions present all Bibles in a style strange to an
average reader.
Catholic Bibles contain with continuous paging an
historical index and a table of references on doctrinal
points, approved by church authority. The Prot-

50 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
estant edition of 1901 appends Avith fresh paging
a geographical index and atlas, claiming no author
ity from the Revisers. Probably many people never
think of these fine distinctions, and vaguely attrib
ute to all the matter added by editors and publish
ers an authority almost equal to that of the text.
Claims on Behalf of the Catholic Versions.
— To summarize the foregoing inquiry, with special
reference to a widely circulated statement as to the
usage of the Catholic Church and her versions :
The Catholic Church has for centuries prohibited
her members, as a rule, from reading the Scriptures
in their OAvn tongue, and until lately special permis
sion was needed for each person.22*
The versions she does promulgate in countries
mainly Catholic have often been too expensive for
wide circulation, though of late a splendid reform has
taken place in Italy by Pope Leo XIII.222
" The Authentic Version of God's Words as Au
thorized by the Church of Rome " is in Latin,*®' *®®
long obsolete as a spoken language, except in an ob
scure corner of the Balkans.223
This version did not exist in the time of Christ,
and no portion of it is known to have been current
then, except the inscription on the cross. It had un
dergone repeated change till 1592.
All the Catholic English versions are based, not on
the originals, but on this Latin version with all its
initial defects, and with all the further defects of an
edition printed more than a thousand years after its
execution.

FIRST PRIZE ESSAY 51
The chief Catholic English Version borrowed free
ly from the Protestant versions at its first transla
tion.''''' **®
It has undergone repeated revision, and has been
assimilated more and more to the Protestant.''''' **®
The Protestant version was got up for the obvious
reason that the Catholics were not circulating any in
England; although other nations had used them for
years.^®' *®' *2
As to interpretation of the Scriptures, a Catholic
version contains the following excellent text : " There
shall be safety where there are many counselors."
And on Hebrews VIII: 2 it gives the authorized
comment : " So great shall be the light and grace of
the new testament, that it shall not be necessary to
inculcate to the faithful the belief and knowledge
of the true God, for they shall all know him."
The Catholic and Protestant versions concur in
most points of importance. If they took their origin
in suspicions of opposing parties, and the notes
showed this strongly, the text and translation were
dealt with honestly. Each has been repeatedly re
vised, and the modern editions are much nearer each
other than those of the sixteenth century ; but Catho
lic revisers may not avail themselves of their own
scholarship to go behind the standard text of the
Latin Vulgate of 1592 or 1861. Both editions are
freely annotated, but the Catholic reader is generally
given a little further guidance in faith and morals,
while the Protestant reader is rather warned Avhen
the rendering or text is open to question. Either

52 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
edition, however, is amply sufficient to fulfill the
desire of one of the latest and greatest New Testa
ment Avriters, who said of his longest work :
" These are written that you may believe
that JESUS is the CHRIST the Son of God;
and that believing ye may have life in his name."

LAUS DEO

Diagram i
SOURCES OF THE VULGATE
To illustrate its miscellaneous composition
Ecclesiasticus Judith Wisdom
1 Maccabees Psalms Tobit 2 Maccabees New
Part of Baruch Most of the Old Testament Additions Testament

HEBREW HEBREW \ HEBREW & ARAMAIC ARAMAIC GREEK GREEK

I Edition by Alcuin standardized the order, and partly the text |

I Edition by Sixtus, based on early copies, checked by early quotations

I Edition by Clement, based on early copies, checked by originals |

Diagram 2
EARLY EDITIONS AND VERSIONS OF
THE LAW
to illustrate the material available in print
in 1582 for the Douay and Vulgate : ADDITIONAL IN 1750
FOR CHALLONER:
ADDITIONAL IN igoo FOR THE REVISERS

HEBREW SYRIAC Hebrew in care of Jews Hebrew

in care of
Samaritans1645,7790

SAM1645,

1 54$
jssr

1482 and oftenl

Aramaic of
Onkelos
1484

AN

Aramaic f
(JerusalemTargum)
IJ91

(Arabicversion
stillin MS)

1000 ARABIC ol
Abu Sa'id
1851-4

in care of
Christians

Greek of
Aquila

Greek of
Symmachus I
reek edition by Origen
emnants in notes 1887
EST EDITION 1S7S

Greek Septuagint 1587

BOHAIRI1731,7*67

Latin of ARMEN
Jerome itbb^lSSQ
1455, 1592,
etc.

T

Syriac by Paul
of Telia, 1573
Part of Deut,

( Ashburnham
Amiatine and
S. Gall MSS)

(Arabic
stillin MS)

Greek by He
519

Greek
^Luci

ET
1853

Petersburg 1698

ENGLISH by
^Ifric

VIS
dot

ionion

Old Latin
588, 1743

edition
sychius

edition
an, 1514

by

CODEX
LUGDUN. ENSIS lill

lavonic
1 581 I
GEORGIAN
•745

Diagram 3
SOURCES OF THE RHEIMS
TESTAMENT
The Catholic English Version of the Sixteenth Century
GREEK AND LATIN TESTAMENTS
Catholic and Protestant Publications

ORIGINAL GREEK

ERASMUS 1516
STUNICA <5lo
ERASMUS 1522

Wyclif 1380
Purvey 138S

Zwingli IS24

I

JEROME 38J

CASTELLANUS 1504
ERASMUS 1516
STUNICA 1520
Luther rjZ2

Ziwmgti 1524 I I
Tyndale 7-J2J-_._ — — .J.I PAGNINUS 1528 I STEPHANUS I528
Tyndale IS3S I ^^^Cot/erio/e 1535

Coverdale IS3S Engliih-LATIN

Rogers {Matthew) IS37

Coverdale 2330-41 Taverner TS3g
(Great)

STEPHANUS 1550
farler (tishofs')~lSbS-y2
MONTANUS 1569-71 I.
TuUe IsSq/T

Martin, Rheims.

i, 1582 Y'

Fulke iboT
Fulie iblj

h lb-

fulke 1633

Antwerp l6c».

Antwerp 1621
I
Rouen 1633
Douay ( 1738
I
Liverpool 1788

Dublin I8l6-l8

STEPHANUS IS38-40
HENTEN I$47

,HENTEN REVISED IS7J

SECOND REVISION Ij8j
By Lucas of Bruges

ALLEN I59»

New Tori 1S34 Bagitir 1S4I

Diagram 4
DIVERGENCE OF THE CURRENT
CATHOLIC EDITIONS

as set forth by Newman and Gigot
New Testament only

Douay reprint 1 738

Challon

Cambridge rniishn 16^8
final form of Royal
Prolestatit f^eriion
comtanlly attracting

Cambridge edition Jj6a
Oxford edition Ij6g
MacMahqn 1783

Muiray 1815

Dolman, London Richardson, London

Duiiy, Dublin

Dunigan, New York

Gigot does not pve ftcts for tracing the connection of Sadlier's Bible of
New York, nor specify the publishers of Husenbeth. Newman says only of
this last that it is British.
Kenrick's Testament has apparently not been reprinted since 1 861, to
is not indicated.

Diagram 5
SOURCES OF THE
AMERICAN PROTESTANT VERSION
OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, 1900
Important Greek and Latin Testaments in margin
Catholic and Protestant publications
ORIGINAL greek
Erasmus iJt6

Siumca IJ20
Erasmus 1^22

Stephanus I^SO
Stephanus IJS^

Beza Ij6j

Tyndale /J2J
Tyndale 1335
Rogers (^Matthew) //J/
Coverdale (Great) IJJ8-41

Parker {Bishops') 1^68-72

Beza issb
Whittingham IJJJ
Whittingham {^Genevan) j^bo
Bensa Jj6j

Martin IjSs
Be-aa i^gS \
Fulke's edition of both 2601
King "James Revision loiI
{^Arrival of Alexandrian MS i62_$) 11
Kjng Charles Revision l62g

Tomson IJ^^

/

Elzevir 163J

Lachmann 1842-^0
Tiscbendorf iS^S-Sg

Final Revision 1638 1

Tregetles J8J7-72
(Sinaitic MS printed 1862)
Tischendorf 1864-72
{Alexandrian MS autotyped l86j)
WestcotI & Hon used by revisers
Westcott (3 Hon published 188 1
Anglo-American Revision 1881
Vatican MS Photographic edition i88g ||
American Revision igoi

American

Bible Union Revision
1854-bS

THE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC
ENGLISH AND THE AMERICAN RE
VISED VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY
By GERALD HAMILTON BEARD, Ph.D.

THE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC
ENGLISH AND THE AMERICAN RE-
VISED VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE
CHAPTER I
Introduction. The Origin of the Bible
Ottb Bihle is a collection of little books, as its
name from the Latin form of a Greek word, Biblia,
or ' little books,' implies. In order to reach a clear
understanding of the comparative merits of the Cath
olic and American Revised Versions of the Bible, it
will help us if we get hold of certain recognized facts
regarding these " little books," to the superlative
worth of which, as the Christian Bible, all versions
are a witness.
1. What is the Bible?
(1) Who Wrote It?
The Bible was not dictated to some one by an
angel from heaven, as legend says the Koran was
dictated ; nor was it discovered in some secret place,
a golden-leaved book engraved with mystic charac
ters, as story says the Book of Mormon was discov
ered. Under the providence and inspiration of God,
61

62 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
these books that went to make up our Bible were
written by men very like ourselves. Most of them
were men of Palestine, called Hebrews.
(2) The Old Testament
The Old Testament was written* in the Hebrew
language, except a few chapters which were written
in Aramaic, a language much like the Hebrew. Just
when all the Old Testament books were written is
not known. Some parts of the oldest books are per
haps as ancient as the fourteenth century B.C. ; the
latest come to within a century of Jesus's lifetime.
These books are chiefly historical narratives, proph
ecies or sermons, psalms and other religious poems.
(3) The New Testament
The books of the New Testament were written in
Greek, though possibly one or two of them appeared
first in Aramaic. Jesus Himself, so far as we know,
wrote nothing. But after His death some of His dis
ciples wrote out accounts of His life. Four of these
accounts are our Pour Gospels. There were histories,
also, of the church after Jesus's resurrection, with
stories of the work of Apostles like Peter and Paul.
One of these histories is the Acts of the Apostles in
our New Testament. Other men, especially the
Apostle Paul, wrote letters to the churches or to in
dividual Christians for their guidance; and so we
have many epistles in the New Testament. Besides,
there is the book of the Revelation. Using round

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 63
numbers and somewhat extreme limits, we may say
that these New Testament books (except II Peter)
were written between 50 and 125 a.d.
2. The Canon of the Bible
In Bible study the word ' canon,' meaning some
thing straight, like a rule, is used of the approved
collection of biblical books. So that a canonical book
is a book that is straightly or approvedly part of
the Sacred Scriptures. ' Apocryphal,' on the other
hand, a word meaning originally simply ' hidden,'
and descriptive of books not used in public worship,
became synonymous with ' noncanonical ' or even
' spurious.' There are Old Testament apocrypha and
New Testament apocrypha. The books of Tobit (or
Tobias), Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and
I and II Maccabees, however, with some additions
to the books of Esther and Daniel, are called by
Protestants specifically " The Apocrypha." By the
Roman Catholic Church these books are regarded as
fully canonical.
How did the several books which constitute the
Bible become classed as canonical, to the exclusion
of other and noncanonical books ? It was a gradual
process. Church councils really did little more than
record judgments already formed. The determining
factor was the sacred value the Scriptures were found
to possess, as tested in actual use, by the judgment
of spiritually minded men.^

64 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
(1) The Old Testament Canon
Take the Old Testament canon first; for that, of
course, was formed first. Among the Hebrews, the
Law, consisting of the first five or six books of our
Old Testament, was for a long time a collection by
itself, and was always accorded the most sacred posi
tion among the Sacred Scriptures. At the same time
and later, the prophetic books were added, as the
words of men that spoke for God were committed to
writing. Much later, a third class of books, called
" The Other Writings," became treasured with the
Law and the Prophets. It is true that some of this
third class of books were received by the Jews only
slowly and with hesitation as authoritative Scripture.
However, the whole collection was probably com
pleted before 100 b.c. ; and about one hundred years
after Christ open discussion ended and the Old
Testament canon may be said to have been estab
lished. Yet, even then, among the Jews themselves, there
were two canons of the Old Testament. For, from
the time of the later writings just alluded to — that
is, from about 175 B.C. until the fall of Jerusalem
in the year 70 a.d. — the religious compositions which
we have noted above as the Apocrypha, and some
other books with which we are not now concerned,
were seeking admittance to the Hebrew collection of
Scriptures. These seven books and two supplements
were received with favor by the Greek-speaking Jews
at Alexandria. So it came about that they were re-

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 65
ceived into the Septuagint, which was the Greek
translation of the Hebrew Bible current in the time
of Jesus and the Apostles. From this they passed
into the Old Latin translation of the Septuagint, and
so into the Latin Vulgate, which, as we shall see,
was the successor of the Old Latin. The Jews of
Palestine, whose Bible was about all that was now
left to them of the old treasures of Zion, held to the
list completed a hundred years or more before Christ.
These latest books they judged unworthy of highest
reverence — ^noncanonical or apocryphal.
(2) The New Testament Canon
In a way similar to that in which the Hebrew
canon was developed, the New Testament writings
became gradually raised to the high level of the Old
Testament Scriptures in the esteem of Christian
worshipers. Here there has happily been agreement
between the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches.
Both recognize and use the same twenty-seven
books as " The New Testament of our Lord and
Saviour Jesus Christ."
3. The Witnesses as to What Was Written
The originals of the Holy Scripture have all been
lost. They must have been written, as was the cus
tom, on rolls, or perhaps leaves, of parchment or
papyrus — a paper made from the Egyptian reed of
that name ; and natural decay, or else purposeful de
struction, has done away with them. The latter was

66 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
sometimes malicious, as in the Roman persecutions
of the Christians ; or well meant, as with the Jews,
whose custom was to destroy a copy of their Scrip
tures as soon as it became worn, so that it might not
bo a source of mistakes in copying.
(1) Manuscripts
Even before destruction threatened the originals,
and much more since, the spread of Christianity
caused many copies, first of particular books and then
of the whole Bible, to be made in the same languages
in which the originals were written: Old Testament
Hebrew, and New Testament Greek. A common
name for these copies in the original language is
" manuscripts." Other things being equal, a manu
script copy of the Scriptures is the best sort of wit
ness to what was originally written. Of the oldest
five Greek manuscripts of the Bible now known to
be in existence, excepting a few fragments, two were
probably written in the fourth century a.d. One of
them is named the " Vatican Manuscript," because it
is the property of the Vatican Library ; the other the
" Sinaitic," because it was found in a convent on
Mount Sinai. ^ The earliest copy of the Hebrew Old
Testament extant was made as late as 1009 of our era.*
(2) Versions
Besides these Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, peo
ples of other languages needed copies of the Scrip
tures in their own tongues. So translations of the

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 67
Hebrew into Greek, and of both Hebrew and Greek
into Syriac, Latin, Egyptian, and other languages
were made. These translations are usually spoken
of as " versions." They are valuable as secondary
witnesses to what was originally written. If a ver
sion is older than a Hebrew or Greek manuscript of
the same Scripture, it becomes an even more reliable
witness than the later copy of the original, provided
one can be sure that a retranslation of it would give
the words of the manuscript from which the version
was made.* But this is seldom possible, for the lan
guage of the version is often very different in struc
ture from that of the original manuscript, and most
of the versions have undergone revision and amend
ment. Besides the famous Septuagint, or Greek
translation of the Old Testament, which was made by
different translators between 285 b.c. and the begin
ning of the Christian era, and which lives to-day in
the Sinaitic and Vatican Manuscripts, there are in
existence several early copies of part of the Old
Latin version, or versions, first made probably in the
second century; of the Old Syriac originating in
the second or third century; of the Egyptian, Ar
menian, and others. (3) Quotations
A third class of witnesses to what the Bible
writers wrote is found in quotations from Scripture
made in the works of early Christian teachers, com
monly called " the church Fathers." This evidence,
which is in the nature of the case fragmentary, is

68 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
corroborative and corrective merely, and should be
received with caution.^
4. Regaining the True Text
By " text " is here meant the total contents of any
copy, or group of similar copies, of the Scriptures.
It should be borne in mind that to ascertain what is
the true text is not without great difficulties as to
details, yet is easily possible as to the substance of
the truth. God has granted no special providence
insuring perfect accuracy to copyists engaged in
reproducing the Scriptures. The crude and some
what divergent forms of early Hebrew letters, till
recent centuries without adequate vowel signs,
and the lack of spacing between letters, as if one
were to write, " In the beginning God created,"
NTHBGNNNGGDCRTD; unintentional mistakes
of scribes, as in the omission of words or the inclu
sion of some note written in the margin, as if it were
a part of the work itself; intentional insertion of
additions for supposed completeness; abbreviations
for the economizing of space; a more or less feeble
appreciation of the worth of literal exactness in copy
ing — ^these and other causes have given rise to dif
ferences among the manuscripts and versions of the
Bible numbering, in all, many thousands.®
(1) The Text of the Old Testament
In the Old Testament text there are far fewer
variations among existing manuscripts than in the

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 69
New ; yet the text of the New Testament is the more
reliable, for there is a difference important to remem
ber between the two. In the case of the Old Testa
ment, two or more types, or varieties, of its text were
in circulation at the beginning of the Christian era.
One of these, though far from perfect, became pre
dominant in the second century a.d. ; and, taking the
name " Massoretic " from the Massoretes — Hebrew
guardians of the Massorah, or Hebrew tradition —
finally became the authoritative text. Later this was
known as the "Received Text" of the Old Testa
ment. All extant Hebrew manuscripts of the entire
Old Testament, so far as is known, are of this type.
The Hebrew text from which the Septuagint transla
tion came was of another sort. But this and other
documents by which this received Hebrew text might
be tested and corrected are often imperfect and mutu
ally contradictory. In the case of the Old Testament,
therefore, we are left with a substantially uniform
but little corrected text.
(2) The Text of the New Testament
In the case of the New Testament there are sev
eral differing texts, and many different manuscripts
and versions to correct or corroborate one another.
These, according to Hort's classification, which is
accepted essentially by most biblical scholars, are
arranged in four groups. '^ Each group represents a
distinctive type of manuscript. For reasons that
need not here concern us, these groups are named:

70 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
(o) Antiochian, or Syrian, (h) Western, (c) Alex
andrian, (d) Neutral.
We are interested in these groups because the tra
ditional, or so-called " Received Text," which the
King James's and most earlier English New Testa
ment translators followed, belongs to the Antiochian
group ; the Old Latin and the Vulgate, on which the
Roman Catholic Douay Version is based, belong to
the Western group; and the Vatican and Sinaitic
Manuscripts, on which the English and American
Revisers depended more than on any other source
for their version of the New Testament, are of the
Neutral group. Two or three facts, therefore, we
must be patient enough to master.
In the making of copies of the Scriptures the four
groups branched off from each other quite soon after
the first century (see Diagram 2), some departing
farther, some less far, from the first manuscripts as
originally written.
(a) The Antiochian group is characterized chiefly
by combinations of words that appear in two or more
of the other groups. A simple illustration of this is
in Luke XXIV : 53. After the words, " And they
were continually in the temple," come, in the Neu
tral group of manuscripts, the words " blessing
God " ; in the Western group, " praising God " ; but
in the Antiochian group, " praising and blessing
God." That the combination is later than either of
the two parts that enter into it is almost certain.^
The conclusion from this and other facts is that the
Antiochian is a later and less reliable form of the

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 71
Scripture text. In following the received Greek text,
however, our earlier English versions followed this
text. (6) The Western group is an early offshoot of the
original writings. The Syriac and the Old Latin,
which is the basis of the Vulgate mentioned above,
both belong to it. In all three, excepting one copy
of the Syriac, a chief characteristic, unfortunately, is
a free amplification of the text, passages of greater
or less length being inserted without apparent right.
The Western group shows also some omissions. In
following the Vulgate one is likely to follow this text
to a large extent.
(c) The Alexandrian group is found principally
in the writings of the church Fathers, and may here
be passed by.
(d) The Neutral group is so named because, for
the most part, it is without the peculiarities notice
able in each of the other groups. It is held, there
fore, to be the nearest to the original text, now lost.
Its chief representatives are the Vatican and Sinaitic
Manuscripts. Our English and American Revised
Versions depended largely on these manuscripts, and
so usually followed the Neutral Text.^
The result of all this, though less in uniformity
than is the case with the text of the Old Testament,
is far more in assurance of what was originally writ
ten. It is easy to exaggerate the consequences of the
difficulties mentioned. No other ancient classic com
pares with the Bible in the number of manuscript
copies and translations in which it has been pre-

72 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
served. Of no other is the antiquity of extant copies
so great. No other has had a hundredth part of the
care bestowed on its transmission that has been given
to the Bible. And, consequently, as has been esti
mated, important variations affect scarcely more than
a thousandth part of the whole New Testament;
while none of these discredits a single one of the
great truths of the gospel. We may conclude, there
fore, with the very careful and reliable editors of the
biblical text, Westcott and Hort, that " the books
of the New Testament [and, in a much less com
plete sense, the books of the Old Testament also], as
preserved in extant documents, speak to us in every
important respect in language identical with that in
which they spoke to those for whom they were orig
inally written." ^°

CHAPTER II
The Origin and History of the Version of the
Bible Authorized by the Roman Catholic
Church
Having learned something of the history of the
Bible, its origin and transmission in the early times,
we wish now to set clearly in order the main facts
regarding the English version of the Bible approved
by the Roman Catholic Church.
1. Roman Catholic Authorization
Accurately speaking, the Catholic Church has given
formal authorization to no English version of the
Bible. Still less has it given approval to any one
English version exclusively. The authority of the
Douay Version, into the history of which we must
soon inquire, is that of certain Roman Catholic cler
gymen of the College of Douay, " confirmed by the
subsequent indirect recognition of English, Scotch,
and Irish bishops," and by its long use among Eng
lish-speaking Catholics.*^ Similarly, the several
" editions " of the Douay Bible, which have been so
far revised through comparison with other English
versions as to be very different from the original
Douay, have received no expressed authorization from
the Holy See.^^ They come before us usually with
73

74 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
the approval of some archbishop. Both the Douay
Version proper, however, and those of the modern
Catholic versions that are in general use, are based
primarily on the Latin Vulgate. We wish, therefore,
to learn, in simple but accurate fashion, the chief
facts about that famous work.
2. Origin of the Latin Vulgate
(1) The Old Latin
" Vulgate," from the Latin Vulgata Editio, mean
ing * the Current Version,' is a name originally ap
plied to the Greek Septuagint and then to the Old
Latin translation of the same, but given by the Coun
cil of Trent to the Latin version of the Bible made
by the famous Christian scholar, Eusebius Sophro-
nius Hieronymus, more commonly known as Jerome.
Jerome was a Dalmatian, born about 340 a.d. After
a life devoted to Bible study, he died at Bethlehem
in the year 420. He came to make his translation
and revision of the Bible in this way. In his time
there existed the Latin version just alluded to, now
called the " Old Latin " to distinguish it from Je
rome's. The New Testament text of this Old Latin
Version was that described above as the " Western
Text." Its Old Testament text was that of the Sep
tuagint. As a translation it was crude and literal;
yet, in its original purity, faithful to the Greek. Just
where it was made, or by whom, no one knows. Its
date is the second century, or at latest the middle of
the third century a.d.^*

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 75
(2) Jerome's Revision
It was this Old Latin Bible that Jerome, at the
request of Pope Damasus of Rome, in the year 382,
first undertook to revise. There was much need of
this revision, for the version had become much cor
rupted.^* Jerome was easily the first biblical scholar
of his day; and, although his facilities were, of
course, very limited in comparison with those of
modern scholars, he was excellently fitted for his
task.i5 He began with the Gospels. These he revised
with care ; though correcting, he tells us, " only those
passages in which the sense had suffered marked
change," so that his version might not differ too much
from the customary one. The rest of the New Tes
tament he revised but cursorily. This work, both
good and poor, became the Vulgate New Testa
ment.^^ After revising apparently the whole Latin
Old Testament, Jerome made a second revision of
the Psalms. This was the more carefully executed
of the two, through comparison with the Hebrew and
the Septuagint Greek. Yet both his exemplar and
the copy he worked on were faulty, and his revision
lacked the degree of accuracy reached in his own still
later translation of the Psalms made direct from the
Hebrew. His second revision, however, was the one
that passed into the Vulgate. It was, therefore, a
Latin translation of the Greek translation of the
Hebrew.

76 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
(3) Jerome's Original Translation
Jerome's last and greatest work was a translation
of the whole Old Testament direct from the Hebrew.
In compliance with the wish of his bishop, though
against his own judgment, he translated also two
books of the Apocrypha, Tobit and Judith, which a
friend had previously turned into Hebrew from the
Aramaic.^^ All of this original translation, except
the book of Psalms, was used in the Vulgate; and,
in addition, from the Old Latin and Septuagint, the
other five books of the Apocrypha and two supple
ments, all of which Jerome refused to revise. His
work on the two apocryphal books and some others was
done in haste ; but to the Old Testament as a whole
Jerome gave much more care, spending nearly fifteen
years on its translation. It cost him a storm of
denunciation because, leaving the Septuagint and Old
Latin, he had translated directly from the Hebrew.^*
3. The History of the Vulgate
(1) From Jerome to the Council of Trent
This Latin Bible of Jerome's gradually supplanted
the Old Latin and the Greek Septuagint in the use
of the Western churches. Circulating until the ninth
century side by side with the Old Latin, the two were
often mixed in the making of new copies. All the
causes which we have already noted as tending to
corrupt %vritten copies of the Bible, were at work in

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 77
this case. Its history is therefore one of constant
deterioration and attempted revision.^^ When print
ing came in, Latin manuscripts were chosen for print
ing without regard to their accuracy, and some sixty
early editions served to spread their variations and
corruptions. During the sixteenth century repeated
attempts to revise the printed Vulgate were made.^**
(2) The Council of Trent
At last the Council of Trent, in 1545, after much
debate, declared : " The same old and Vulgate [or
current] edition, which has been approved by long
use for so many ages in the church itself, is to be re
garded as authentic in public readings, controversies,
discourses, and expositions, and nobody may dare or
presume to reject it on any pretense." ^^
The name " Latin Vulgate," therefore, now stands
for: (a) The Old Testament, except the Psalms, trans
lated into Latin from the Hebrew by Jerome.
(&) The Psalms in the Old Latin translation of
the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew, com
pared with the Hebrew and Greek and revised by
Jerome. (c) The apocryphal books of Judith and Tobit,
translated into Hebrew from the Aramaic by a
friend, and hastily translated from the Hebrew into
Latin by Jerome.
{d) The apocryphal books of Wisdom, Ecclesias
ticus, I and II Maccabees, and Baruch, with addi-

78 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
tions to Daniel and Esther, from the Old Latin
unrevised. (e) The Gospels in the Old Latin translation of
the original Greek, compared with the Greek and
carefully revised by Jerome.
(/) The rest of the New Testament in the Old
Latin, cursorily revised by Jerome. (See Dia
gram 4.)
The meaning of this decision of the Council of
Trent has been disputed. A reasonable Catholic view
is that it did not condemn the Hebrew and Greek
text, nor declare the Vulgate the best possible trans
lation, still less faultless; but that, for the sake of
unity and authority, it chose the Vulgate as best
among Latin translations, and authorized it as the
only version to be used in public worship, preaching,
and controversies.^^ (3) The Sixtine and Clementine Editions
Curiously enough, although the chief confusion
had been caused by different editions of this one Vul
gate version, the Council of Trent adjourned without
stamping any particular edition with its approval.
This matter was committed to the Pope. After much
delay. Pope Sixtus V, in 1587, appointed a number
of scholars to revise the Vulgate text. He ventured
to revise their revision in arbitrary fashion, follow
ing chiefly the epoch-making but faulty edition of
Robertus Stephanus issued in 1538-40. Sixtus's
judgment as against theirs was usually wrong. Yet,

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 79
on the basis of it, he issued his famous Bull declar
ing that his edition was " to be received and held as
true, lawful, authentic, and unquestionable " ; adding
after the word " public " in the phrase of the decree
of Trent the words " and private " ; forbidding any
least unauthorized deviations in future editions from
the readings he had adopted; and pronouncing ex
communication against any who should disobey.^*
But Sixtus died in 1590, and his enemies allowed
his decree the burial of neglect, and suppressed his
edition of the Bible. In 1592, under Pope Clement
VIII, a new edition, hastily revised and differing in
some thousands of places from the Sixtine edition,
was published.^* It is interesting to note how the
Roman Catholic hierarchy met the dilemma in which
it found itself, through setting aside a Pope's infal
lible decisions. They called their new edition by the
old name " Sixtine," and issued an explanation by
Bellarmine, a Roman Catholic cardinal, that not a
few errors had crept into the former (the true Six
tine) edition " through the carelessness of the print
ers " ; while Bellarmine's preface added that Sixtus
himself had meant to recall and amend his edition —
for which, unfortunately, there is no evidence. At
the same time, the public was informed that some
readings, although wrong, had been allowed to stand
in the new revised edition, in order to avoid popular
offense.^® This Clementine Vulgate in its final edi
tion (1598) became the authorized edition of the
Roman Catholic Church. With many minor correc
tions, introduced without authority, it is to-day the

80 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
standard but imperfect text for all Catholic versions
of the Scriptures, from which, according to a BuU
of Clement, none have a right to vary.^®
4. The Worth of the Vulgate
(1) Its Canon
In forming a just estimate of the comparative
worth of the Vulgate Version of the Bible, one must
take into account the validity of its Old Testament
canon. In other words, ought these seven books
which Protestants term the Apocrypha to be treated
as canonical and published without discrimination
from other Old Testament books, as is the case in all
Catholic versions of the Scripture ? As part of the
Vulgate these books were declared canonical by the
Council of Trent, which enumerates forty-six books
and ends with this interesting proposition : " Now,
if anyone receive not as sacred and canonical the
said books entire with all their parts, ... as they
are contained in the Old Latin Vulgate edition, . . .
let him be anathema." ^^
Some reasons for dissenting from this decision of
the Council of Trent are evident : The Hebrew Bible
excluded all these seven books, and in this matter
its authority is better than that of the Septuagint.
Different copies of the Septuagint contain different
ones of these seven, showing a doubt regarding them
when there was no doubt about the twenty-four He
brew books which are equivalent to our thirty-nine.
The Septuagint contained other books besides the

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 81
canonical books and these seven; and these others
the Catholic Church itself regards as apocryphal.^*
An argument from such a list, therefore, proves noth
ing, or it proves too much. Moreover, it is the
Hebrew Bible, not the Septuagint, that Catholics
themselves read in the Old Testament Latin Vul
gate, excepting the Psalms and the Apocrypha. (See
Note 18.)
The New Testament writers, however familiar
with these apocryphal works, never quote from them.
The testimony of the church Fathers to the Apoc
rypha is neither unanimous nor decisive ; while their
quotations from other writings admittedly apocry
phal, as if they too were Scripture, show that an
argument built on the Fathers' reference to some of
these seven as Scripture again proves nothing, or
too much for the purpose.^^ After the third century
the testimony of Christian scholars, including Je
rome himself, is strong against treating these addi
tions as integral parts of the Bible.*** To justify
decisions of Catholic Councils by an assertion of
church unanimity in their favor, while ruling out
as merely private opinion the mature judgment of
representative members of that church, is to argue
in a circle.** The Council of Trent itself, while
styling these books " sacred and canonical," yet, in
recognition of strong Catholic opinion against them,
left open the question of a distinction among the
sacred books.*^
The truth seems to lie between the extremes of
both Catholic and Protestant opinion. The intense

82 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
antagonism of the first Protestants toward the Apoc
rypha — an antagonism which itself attached a base
meaning to that name, and was born of opposition to
all that was Roman Catholic — cannot now be justi
fied. Nor can the view held by many, of a wide
difference in kind as Avell as degree of worth, exist
ing between all canonical books on the one hand, and
all noncanonical books on the other, be maintained
at the bar of history. Between the sacredness and
inspiration of the First Epistle of Clement, for ex
ample, which, it has been said, " was within an inch
of getting in" to the Bible, and that of the Second
Epistle of Peter, which was within an inch of being
left out of the Bible, no broad chasm can be truly
said to have existed. For all that, one need appeal
to none but Catholics to show that, in the judgment
of Christians of acknowledged weight, both the liter
ary and religious character of these seven apocryphal
books on the whole, and their history in the church,
condemn as unjustifiable and misleading the practice
of publishing them in the Old Testament volume
without any sign of discrimination.** The sugges
tion of Jerome that these apocryphal books be read
for moral instruction and edification — a suggestion
adopted by Pope Gregory the Great, repeated in
Article VI of the Church of England, and advanced
by the Protestant practice of publishing them, either
in a group by themselves between the Old and New
Testaments, or separately — accords better with the
demands of religion, history, and sound educational
methods than either of these extremes. The practice

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 83
of the Roman Catholic Church, in printing at the
end of the Vulgate the three books, III and IV
Esdras and The Prayer of Manasses, as apocryphal
but worthy of Christian perusal, corresponds to this
precisely.** (2) Its Text, Translation and Transmission
Besides this matter of its amplified canon, the
question of the reliability of this Vulgate Latin Ver
sion, which was destined to play so large a part in
the subsequent Catholic English versions, still re
mains. It has been shown already that the Vulgate
was partly Jerome's translation of the Hebrew and
partly the Old Latin Version, revised or unrevised.
The Hebrew from which Jerome translated was sub
stantially the same as that which we know as the
" Received Text." Jerome had, however, only the
" unpointed " text — that is, consonants without the
signs that later stood for vowels ; and popular preju
dice in favor of the Septuagint led him to vary some
what from the Hebrew.*® The Old Latin Version
which he used in the Psalms was, we have seen, itself
a faulty translation of the Septuagint, which repre
sents quite another type of Hebrew text. In the New
Testament the Vulgate was a literal translation of
the Western Greek text^ marked by numerous inter
polations and some serious omissions.*®
What did Jerome do with this material? His
translation is learned, graceful, and intends to be
faithful. It gave to English Christianity a large

84 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
number of its most distinctive religious and theolog
ical words.*^ At the same time, its servility in
reproducing the forms of Greek words and phrases
without translating them has had a baneful influ
ence, as is seen in the English versions based on it.
Some of its renderings are so free as to be inaccu
rate.** Jerome not infrequently mistakes the mean
ing of a passage, and sometimes gives translations
that suffer from doctrinal bias.*® In estimating the
worth of the Vulgate it is always to be borne in
mind, too, that, other things being equal, a transla
tion of the language in which a document was first
written is never as reliable as a copy in that original
language itself ; still less is a translation of a transla
tion. The Old Latin translation from which the Vul
gate New Testament comes seldom meets the test of
superiority that otherwise might belong to its origin
in the second century, by showing certainly what
was the Greek text at that time. Corruptions in the
Vulgate itself, also, of which the present-day copies
show many, some of them serious, must be taken into
account. These corruptions have extended over cen
turies of transmission with but partial revisions. In
such a case the only hope of near approach to what
was originally written is through severely careful
study and impartial treatment of the text.
(3) Worth, Not Infallibility
While, then, the worth of the Vulgate in some re
spects is considerable, the reader may be sure that it

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 85
has no just claim to preeminent superiority. He may
be sure that no copy of the Vulgate in existence is
possessed of such faultless accuracy as to justify its
being called " the authentic version of God's words,"
bearing " all the evidences of infallible certitude."
He may be sure that no copy has " come down to us
unchanged from the time of Christ himself." *" If
the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts are themselves
not without error, much less is this Latin transla
tion infallible. Indeed, one cannot wonder that the
French Catholic historian Richard Simon should
wish to assert that " the [Roman Catholic] Church
does not pretend that these translations are either
infallible in all their parts or that nothing more
correct can be had."

CHAPTER III
The History of the Catholic Version
(concluded)
1. The Douay Version
(1) Its Origin
The sixteenth century witnessed in England a re
markable activity in the translating of the Bible into
the English language. The English people, stirred
anew by the spirit of the Renaissance and the Ref
ormation, were eager to the point of excitement for
the privilege of reading it. In chary response to
their insistent demand, with which the Roman Cath
olics themselves had little sympathy, and as a meas
ure of protection from what they regarded as the
dangerous heresies of the Protestant English versions
with their doctrinal annotations. Catholic ecclesias
tics undertook their own translation of the Bible
into English.**
In Elizabeth's reign many of them were virtually
exiles, as the Protestants had been before them. One
of these exiles, William Allen, an able scholar, in
1568 established an English college at Douay, Flan
ders. It was he, with several associates, who set on
foot the English Version afterward known as the
" Douay." In 1582, during a temporary removal of
86

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 87
the College to Rheims, the New Testament was first
published ; and is, therefore, often called the " Rhem
ish Version." The Old Testament, delayed for lack
of funds, was issued in 1C09-10, after the College
had returned to Douay. The chief translator of both
Testaments was Gregory Martin, of Oxford, " an ex
cellent linguist, exactly read and versed in the Sacred
Scriptures." *^ (2) Its Sources
For the text to be translated, these English trans
lators not unnaturally turned to the Latin Vulgate.
The Vulgate, besides being approved by the Council
of Trent, had long been the Bible of Catholic Eng
land. When their work was first done the standard
Clementine edition had not yet appeared, but they
revised their version in partial conformity with it
later.** They had Hebrew and Greek texts before
them, but were influenced by them only in minor
matters.** They made some use, too, of the Ge
nevan and other English versions.**
(3) Its Translation
The Douay was, in the main, a faithful version
of the Vulgate, and uniform in its renderings. So
good a judge as Scrivener has said that " no case of
wilful perversion of Scripture has ever been brought
home to the Rhemish translators." *® Yet occasion
ally in their translation, and much more, of course,
in their Notes, one finds the same controversial

88 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
wording which in some cases marked the Calvinists'
Genevan Version.*'^ The Douay's chief fault, how
ever, is its blind English. Whether because the
men engaged in the work were scholastics only, and,
lacking that " touch of nature which makes the
whole world kin," imagined that a repetition of for
eign words could give the true " sense of the Holy
Ghost " better than simple idiomatic English, or for
some other reason, it is the testimony of unpreju
diced Catholic scholars that much of their transla
tion was harsh and obscure.** A chief cause of this
obscurity lay in the extreme literalism of the trans
lation — of which, as we have seen, the Vulgate fur
nished an unfortunate example. A very few in
stances of a large number of such words, which
appeared in the Douay Version but have been
removed in the several subsequent revisions are:
" odible to God " (Romans I: 30), " exinanited him
self" (Philippians II: 7), "Thou hast fatted my
head with oil" (Psalm XXIII: 5), "after the
Parasceve " (Matthew XXVII: 62), " longanimite "
(II Corinthians VI: 6), " commessations " (Gala-
tians V: 21), "keep the depositum " (I Timothy
VI: 20), "as in that exacerbation" (Hebrews
III: 15).
As a partial compensation, this literalism has en
riched our English language with many words from
the Latin that thereafter passed into good English
and has given the Authorized Version some effective
phrases. The fierce opposition which this version of
the Scriptures met with in England perhaps helped

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 89
as much as anything to establish the Rheims Testa
ment, and later the whole Douay Bible, in the affec
tions of the English Roman Catholics.
2. The Revised Versions of the Douay
The need, however, of a thorough revision of the
Douay Bible was soon felt. The unintelligible char
acter of much of its English, the manifest errors in
the Vulgate text employed, and the success of the
King James Version, which they naturally emulated,
emphasized this need.*®
(1) The Challoner Bible
Yet the only largely effective work in this direc
tion, thus far, has been that of Challoner, Cath
olic Vicar-Apostolic of London. In 1749 he brought
out an edition of the Rheims New Testament, and
later of the whole Douay Bible, " newly revised and
corrected according to the Clementine edition of the
Scriptures." This work was worthy. It remains
within the obvious limitations of all translations
from the Vulgate, as far as the substance goes. Yet
its alterations of the language of the Douay Version
were so many as to amount almost to a new transla
tion. In these alterations one of the chief guides
used was the Protestant Authorized Version of 1611.
Indeed, so much of the phrasing was borrowed from
this source that Newman (Catholic) concluded, as
Cotton (Protestant) had done before him, that
" Challoner's Version [of the Old Testament] is

90 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
even nearer to the Protestant than it is to the
Douay." *° And that the same holds in the New
Testament, both have shown. It is therefore little
less than amazing to find in the American edition
of the Bible approved by Cardinal Gibbons, which,
like the Denvir Edition before it, reproduces Chal
loner almost invariably, the statement over the Car
dinal's name that this " is an accurate reprint of
the Rheims and Douay Edition with Dr. Challoner's
Notes." (2) The Troy Bible
The only other revision that has had any notice
able effect on subsequent editions is that known as
the Troy Bible. This was the work of an Irish
priest, Bernard MacMahon. He seems to have fol
lowed the King James Version only a little less
than Challoner. In the New Testament he differs
from Challoner in over five hundred places; in the
Old Testament scarcely at all. So great was the
popular adherence to Challoner that the first edition
of the Troy Bible was set forth as " the fourth edi
tion," evidently of Challoner, " revised and corrected

(3) The "Authentic" Catholic English Version
These Challoner and Troy revisions of the Douay
are, then, the Bibles used by the Catholics of Eng
land and America.®^ Dixon's Introduction (Catho
lic) says : " This — Dr. Challoner's — is the Douay

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 91
Bible now current among the Catholics of this coun
try." Cardinal Gibbons writes : " The Douay Ver
sion is authorized and legitimate for the faithful in
their private reading." As his authorization of the
Challoner-Douay shows, he calls this the Douay. To
speak accurately, one generally finds in the hands
of such American Catholics as have any English
Bible the Challoner-Douay, with some minor vari
ations. The editions usually bear, not Challoner's
name, but that of some subsequent editor or of the
archbishop who approves them.
It is evident, therefore, that one cannot speak ac
curately of any one English version of the Scrip
tures as the " Authentic Version of God's Words
authorized by the [Roman Catholic] Church " read
by the people in their homes.®* The Latin Vulgate
has been declared " authentic " by the Catholic
Church; but people in American homes do not read
much Latin. Neither the Douay nor the Challoner
nor the Troy Bible has been authorized by the Catho
lic Church. The Troy revision is not the Challoner
revision. The Challoner-Douay is not the Douay.
(4) " Unchanged from the Time of Christ "
Still less ground — if possible — is there for saying
that this so-called Authentic Version " has come down
to us unchanged from the time of Christ Himself."
Subject to numerous changes, and all the vicissitudes
of translation and transmission, these English Cath
olic versions all go back, in the chief part of the Old

92 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
Testament, to the same Hebrew text as that of the
Protestant versions — a text which assumed its present
form in the second century a.d., though coming
down to the Catholic translators for most of that
time in the Latin translation of the Vulgate. In
the Psalms and some smaller parts, these Catholic
versions go back to the Septuagint Greek Version,
made before Christ, but transmitted to the English-
American Catholic In the form of a translation of
a translation of a translation. The books of the
New Testament were, of course, none of them writ
ten until after Christ's time. The Challoner-Douay
Version of these books, so far as it has borrowed
from the Authorized Version, goes back to late copies
of the received Greek text of the Antiochian type.
In the main, it goes back, through the Vulgate, to
the Old Latin translation of the second century and
the Western Greek text which that represents. There
are the strongest grounds for believing that " the
truth as It is in Jesus " has come dovra to us sub
stantially unchanged in all the versions. But it
passes comprehension how any intelligent person, re
membering the uncertainties of the Hebrew text, the
looseness of the Septuagint, the amplifications and
omissions of the Western Greek text, the varletiee of
the Old Latin version, the checkered history of the
Vulgate itself, and then the variations in the Catho
lic English versions of the Vulgate, could speak of
Challoner, Douay, or Vulgate as an " Authentic Ver
sion . . . which has come down to us unchanged
from the time of Christ Himself."

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 93
(5) Worth of the Challoner-Douay Version
As a translation, the Challoner-Douay Is a vast
Improvement over the harsh, un-English English of
the Douay Version. One may read chapter after
chapter and fancy one is reading from the King
James Version; while, to turn to the Douay, made
only thirty years before King James's translators did
their work, seems like turning to a strange tongue.
For all this, Challoner and his successors have
followed the Vulgate in retaining, interspersed
among Old Testament canonical books, seven books
which, as we have seen, were rejected by the author
of the Vulgate translation himself, have been ad
judged a distinctively lower class of writings by many
Catholics since, and have no valid claim to such
equality. Out of servile adherence to the Vul
gate, they have retained as genuine such passages as
Mark XV: 9-20, which. In the light of present
knowledge, certainly should not be retained without
some indication of their very doubtful character;
and others, like I John V: 7b-8a, which have no
rightful place in any true Bible.®* Despite revisions,
they have left, for example in the Gibbons Edition
of the Challoner-Douay — one of those commonly
sold in America in this year of our Lord 1907 —
such words and sentences as the following, unintel
ligible or misleading to most English readers:
Psalm XXII (XXIII) : 5, " My chalice which in-
ebriateth me, how goodly it is ! "

94 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
Psalm XLVIII: 6 (XLIX: 5), "The iniquity of
my heel shall encompass me."
Psalm CV (CVI) : 33, " And he distinguished with
his lips."
Acts XII : 3, " Now it was in the days of the
Azymes."
Acts XVI: 16, "A certain girl, having a pythonical
spirit."
James V : 17, " Ellas was a man passible like unto
us."
I John IV : 3, " And every spirit that dissolveth
Jesus is not of God."
(6) Testimony of Catholic Translators from the
Hebrew and OreeJc
Happily, there have not been wanting Catholic
scholars in England and America, who, appreciating
the facts above mentioned, and believing with the
Catholic Geddes that " translating from a trans
lation is a strange Idea," have undertaken more
accurate and more Intelligible versions direct from
the Hebrew and Greek. One of these. Archbishop
Kenrick of Baltimore, between the years 1849 and
1860, translated the whole Bible. The New Testa
ment part he called, " A translation of the Latin
Vulgate," believing that In the New Testament books
the readings of the Vulgate were generally to be
preferred. Even here he freely adopts renderings
from a former Catholic version from the Greek by
Lingard, and from the Authorized English Version.

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 95
In the Old Testament part, though the title " Re
vised Edition of the Douay " is still maintained, he
tells us plainly that, while respecting the Latin Vul
gate as an authentic version, he has generally pre
ferred the readings of the Hebrew text ; and although,
of course, delivering himself from any sympathy with
the " peculiar tenets " of the Protestant version, says
distinctly that this version is better than those made
from the Vulgate. But Kenrick's version is not
wanted by Catholics. It is out of print.
The most recent attempt of this sort is a version
of the Four Gospels by Francis A. Spencer, O.P.
This follows the best modern editions of the Greek
text and the English Revised Versions, and is pro
nounced by Gigot, of the Catholic Seminary In
Baltimore, " in several respects the best translation
of the Gospels." But he is compelled to add with
reference to it : " It is not probable, however, that
this ' New Version ' will meet with a more last
ing success than the various independent [Catholic]
translations of the Gospels which have preceded
it " ®®
Unhappily, none of these translations direct from
Hebrew or Greek has been approved by the Catholic
Church or by Catholic churchmen generally. So per
sistent has been Roman Catholic devotion to the
ancient but faulty Vulgate, and to the obscure and
uncouth Douay Version of the Vulgate, that little
encouragement, thus far, has been given to more ac
curate translations from the languages in which the
Bible was originally written.

CHAPTER IV
The Origin and History of the English Revised
Version of the Bible, American Standard
Edition
The history of the English Bible may be divided
Into three periods. The first period begins with
Anglo-Saxon paraphrases of parts of the Scriptures,
and is completed In the Wyclifite Bible of the four
teenth century; the second includes the sixteenth
century versions of Tyndale and his numerous suc
cessors, and culminates in the Authorized Version of
1611 ; the third is marked by the English-American
revisions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
the first period
The first period — from the beginning to Wyclif
— is distinguished by translations from the Latin
Vulgate only. Contrary to the Christian practice in
Egypt, Armenia, and in Rome itself, where the peo
ple, almost from the beginnings of Christianity, read
the Scriptures in their own tongue, the Western
Church for a long time gave the people of England
and other countries only the Latin Bible. The
church's appeal was made largely through pictures,
rude songs, and, later, the religious drama; its
strength was in ceremonials and moral discipline.

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 97
1. The Anglo-Saxon Paraphrases
The first Anglo-Saxon versions of the Scriptures
were poems. In the seventh century a poetic para
phrase of Old Testament history and other Scriptures
was made by Casdmon, a monk of Whitby, England.
This Is the earliest Anglo-Saxon translation known.
In the eighth century Aldhelm and Guthlac put forth
an interlinear version of the Psalter; Eadfrith,
Bishop of Lindisfarne, translated parts of the Gos
pels, and the Venerable Bede a portion of the Gospel
of John and the Lord's Prayer. In the ninth cen
tury there was another Psalter in Anglo-Saxon. In
the tenth century parts of the book of Exodus and
the Psalter were translated by King Alfred, while
Mlirie, Archbishop of Canterbury, translated the
Gospels and seven books of the Old Testament. There
exist also an Anglo-Saxon version of the Gospels by
an unknown hand, of somewhat later date, and, in
manuscript form, several copies of the Psalter, pro
duced shortly before the Conquest, and three Anglo-
Norman translations of the Gospels, dating from the
time of William III to the time of Henry II.
From the thirteenth century we have a metrical
paraphrase of stories from the Gospels and Acts — the
earliest known translation of any part of the Bible
into Old English as distinguished from Anglo-Saxon.
To the first half of the fourteenth century belong two
prose versions of the Psalms. In one of these the
first Psalm begins :
Blessed be the man that 3ed nou3t in the

98 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
counsell of wicked: ne stode nouSt in the
wale of sin3eres, ne sat nou3t In fals juge-
ment. Ac hijs wylle was in the wylle of
oure Lord; and he schal thenche in hija
lawe both da3e and ny3t.
2. The Wyclifite Bible
The work of John Wyclif (1324[ ?]-1384) and
his followers distinguishes the fourteenth century.
Wyclif was a priest. He loved the plain people.
For their sake he brought out, about 1383, the first
entire Bible in the English language.®® The work
was not all his own. He translated the Gospels cer
tainly and, almost certainly, the rest of the New
Testament. His friend, Nicolas Hereford, Vice-
Chancellor of Oxford, translated most of the Old
Testament. Wyclif probably did the rest.®^ A re
vision, in which the English of the Old Testament
especially was improved, was begun perhaps under
Wyclif's supervision, and, after his death, was car
ried on by Purvey and other friends and followers
of Wyclif, and published in 1388.®*
(1) Genuineness of the Wyclifite Bible
It has sometimes been questioned whether Wyclif
did give the people of England their first English
Bible. Sir Thomas More, in the sixteenth century,
said he had seen English Bibles " written long before
Wycliffe's times." There is reason to believe More
mistook the age of one of the Wyclifite versions. Of
other complete Bibles than Wyclif's, belonging to

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 99
the fourteenth century or earlier no vestige can be
found; except the theory recently advanced by a
learned Catholic author, that the Bibles known for
centuries as Wyclifite were not Wyclif's in any
sense, but were the Bibles to which More refers, au
thorized by the Catholic Church.®® This theory,
though ingeniously defended, ignores altogether part
of the evidence for Wyclif's authorship, and a ver
dict of " not proven " must be entered.®"
(2) Wyclif's Fitness for Eis Work
In respect of character. Intelligent ability, and
purpose as a translator, Wyclif has been justified
both by his works and by his fellow men. Mlbnan,
In his History of Latin Christianity, says : " His
[Wyclif's] austere, exemplary life has defied even
calumny." His best biographer, John Lewis, records
that he was acknowledged learned, able, and earnest
by the ablest men of his day. Of his ability, Henry
Knighton, who had no patience with Wyclif's work
as a translator, says : " In philosophy Wycliffe came
to be reckoned Inferior to none of his time." ®* In
his life, as recorded by his bitterest enemies, there
Is abundant evidence of his sacrificial and dauntless
heroism.®^ His dominating principle — and In this
lay his offense — was that, not the church, still less
the Pope, but the Bible, should be the guide of the
people's life, and to be this it must be an English
Bible.®* From this principle came the great work of
his life.

100 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
(3) Character and Influence of Wyclif's Worh
The source of Wyclif's Bible, like that of the para
phrases before It, was the Latin ^''ulgate. In conse
quence, this version had all the faults of the faulty
Latin. Wyclif and his fellow laborers knew little
or nothing of Hebrew or Greek. The Wyclif trans
lation of the Latin was very literal and often awk
ward — a fault somewhat overcome in Purvey's re
vision.®* For all this, Wyclif's undying glory is that,
with little help from predecessors, and despite the
opposition of the church authorities, he gave to Eng
land its first entire Bible in the native tongue.®®
The influence of this work was felt in the conflicts
over the Bible in the time of Henry VIII, and from
its victories then has come down to us. Besides this,
no small part of the English of Wyclif's Bible is the
English of our Bibles still. In the next section we
shall have to do with William Tyndale, the great
Bible translator of the sixteenth century. Yet here
already we must note that, while Tyndale's work,
in its far more reliable Hebrew and Greek sources
and in its faithful, scholarly translation, was new,
and his English more modern, the elementary basis
of the language of his English Bible, and so of the
language of our Revised Bibles to-day, is in Wyclif's
work. One can hardly set before himself any famil
iar passage, like the following from Wyclif's New
Testament, without acknowledging this debt (only the
modern y, g, and v are inserted) :
Romans XII : 1, 2. Therfore, britheren,

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 101
Y biseche you bi the mercy of God, that ye
gyve youre bodies a lyvynge sacrifice, hooll,
plesynge to God, a lyvynge servyse reason
able. And nyle [not will] ye be con-
fourmyd to this world, but be ye reformed
In newnesse of youre wit, that ye prove
[prove] which is the wille of God, good
and wel plesynge and parfit [perfect].®®
THE second period
3. The Tyndale Bible
The second, and in some respects most Important,
period in the development of the English Bible be
gins with William Tyndale (1484[ ?]-1536) and
culminates in the Authorized Version of 1611. For
one hundred and fifty years a few English manu
script Bibles had been copied from time to time, and
were read by a few, though not without danger from
the authorities.®'^ These Bibles were not in sixteenth
century English, however; they were not translated
from the original languages of the Bible; they were
not printed; and they were not circulated freely in
the hands of the people.
But the world was advancing. The fourteenth
century had heralded the dawn of a better day: the
sixteenth witnessed the full daybreak. In 1455 the
first book printed in Europe with movable types had
been published. It was a Latin Bible. A revival of
the study of the ancient classics had set in. Latin
was no longer to be the sole language of " the faith-

102 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
ful," nor Hebrew and Greek the despised weapons of
" heretics." Dictionaries and grammars of the He
brew and Greek languages had been prepared. In
1488 the first printed Hebrew Bible had been issued.
In 1516 the famous scholar Erasmus published his
Greek New Testament. In 1517 the free spirit of
the Reformation found expression in Luther's theses,
and only a little later in England's break with Rome.
Then came William Tyndale's opportunity.®*
(1) Tyndale's Worh
He was a man of clear vision and heroic determi
nation. Himself a priest of the church, he recognized
the fact, to which apparently no less a Catholic than
Cardinal Bellarmine bears witness, that the church
of his day was sadly lacking in education, in moral
discipline, in real religion.®® The primary need, as
he conceived it, was an English Bible translated from
the Hebrew and Greek into the language of the
people. Repulsed by the churchmen of his native
land, he sent forth from Worms, Germany, In 1525,
his first edition of the New Testament in English.
Despite ecclesiastical prohibition, the book circulated
in England by hundreds.''® Within ten years Tyn
dale added a translation of the Pentateuch and the
book of Jonah, and a careful revision of his New
Testament. All this excited fierce opposition. Tyn
dale's opinions were condemned, and his Testaments,
so far as possible, confiscated and burned. In 1536,
having been betrayed by certain agents, when at Ant-

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 103
werp, he was strangled to death and his body burned
at Vllvorde, Belgium, near Brussels. Yet Tyndale
was successful. His dying words were, " Lord, open
the king of England's eyes." Within a year of his
death, the whole Bible in English, including his own
translation of the New Testament, was freely circu
lated in his native land by order of the King of Eng
land himself. (2) Tyndale's Character
Certain Roman Catholic teachers of repute have
lately repeated aspersions on Tyndale's character,
learning, and purpose In translation, belittling the
worth and reliability of his version of the Scrip
tures.''* What are the facts ? That he was a man of
conscience and heroic resolution his life as an exile,
and his death as a martyr to the cause he loved, give
unimpeachable witness. The same moral fiber Is re
vealed In his words, anticipatory of his fate : " In
burning the New Testament they did none other than
I looked for ; no more shall they do if they burn me
also, if it be God's will it shall be so. Nevertheless,
in translating the New Testament I did my duty and
so do I now. . . ." ''^ In such controversies as that
with Sir Thomas More, he was sometimes, though
not without severe provocation, needlessly virulent.''*
Yet he was a man of marked humility, unselfishly
subordinating himself to his great aim of giving the
best possible translation of the Bible to the English
people.''*

104 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

(3) Tyndale's Scholarship
What of Tyndale's scholarship ? He spent at least
eleven years at Oxford and Cambridge Universities.
In 1903 a Roman Catholic professor describes him as
" a Franciscan priest who, having turned out a Prot
estant, undertook to publish a translation of the
whole Bible from the original text, though he had
but little knowledge of Hebrew." But in Tyndale's
time his contemporaries who knew him, even though
they were ardent Catholics and bitterly hostile to
Tyndale's work, bore witness to him as " a man of
right good living, studious and well learned in Scrip
ture," a scholar of " high learning In bis Hebrew,
Greek, and Latin." ''®

(4) Tyndale as a Translator
As a translator, Tyndale was independent, mi
nutely careful, conscientious. He did not discard the
Latin Vulgate nor despise the help of modern ver
sions. He was guided somewhat by Luther's German
Bible; still more, though chiefly in the matter of
English phraseology, by the Wyclifite versions.''®
Yet he used all these as a scholar, with main reliance
on the Hebrew and Greek Testaments. His version
had faults of inexactness and uncouth style. Yet it
is the all but unanimous testimony of scholars that
for felicity of diction, Tyndale has never been sur
passed.''''

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 105
(5) Tyndale's Purpose
His dominating purpose may be fairly stated In
his own words. He never wrote, he declares, " either
to stir up any false doctrine or opinion in the Church,
or to be the author of any sect, or to draw disciples
after me, or that I would be esteemed above the least
child that is born, but only out of pity and com
passion which I had, and yet have, on the darkness
of my brethren, and to bring them to the knowledge
of Christ." (6) Tyndale's Influence
Tyndale did not live long enough to translate the
whole Bible. But, besides the parts published in his
lifetime, he translated and bequeathed to his suc
cessors the Old Testament books from Joshua to II
Chronicles, and certain liturgical epistles from the
Prophets and the Apocrypha.
The influence of Tyndale's work on our standard
English Version can scarcely be exaggerated. Re
specting that part of the Bible which he translated,
it has been estimated that no less than eighty per
cent of his translation has been retained in the Old
Testament and ninety per cent in the New. The
authors of the English Revised New Testament of
1881 say of the Authorized Version of 1611 : " The
foundation was laid by William Tyndale. His trans
lation of the New Testament was the true primary
version. The versions that followed were either sub
stantially reproductions of Tyndale's translation In

106

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

Its flnal shape, or revisions of versions that had been
themselves almost entirely based on it." ''* A hint of
this may be given in even a verse or two (with spell
ing modernized) :

Tyndale

Philippians II: 5-8
American Revised Version

Let the same mind be in
you that was in Christ Jesus,
which being in the shape of
God, thought it not robbery
to be equal with God. Nev
ertheless he made himself of
no reputation, and took on him
the shape of a servant, and be
came like unto men, and was
found in his apparel as a man.
He humbled himself, and be
came obedient unto death,
even the death of the cross.

Have this mind in you,
which was also in Christ Je
sus: who, existing in the form
of God, counted not the being
on an equality with God a
thing to be grasped, but emp
tied himself, taking the form
of a servant, being made in
the likeness of men; and be
ing found in fashion as a man,
he humbled himself, becoming
obedient even unto death, yea,
the death of the cross.

CHAPTER V
The History of the American Revised Version
(continued)
It Is easy to remember the great works of Wyclif
and Tyndale, In order to prevent confusion through
the numerous works succeeding theirs, it will help if
we set them down plainly, with their dates. The last
four are simply revisions of their predecessors.
1525, Tyndale's Bible.
1535, Coverdale's Bible.
1537, Matthew's (Rogers's) Bible.
1539, The Great Bible.
1539, Taverner's Bible.
1560, The Genevan Bible.
1568, The Bishops' Bible.
Next after these, setting aside the Rhelms-Douay
Version of 1582 and 1609, already described, came
the Authorized Version of 1611. (See Diagram 3.)
1. The Coverdale Bible
Myles Coverdale was an Augustinian friar, whose
heart was against church abuses, but whose mild
temper made him a willing follower, anxious to avoid
offense, rather than an Intense leader like Tyndale.
At the suggestion of Thomas Cromwell, Minister
of State, Coverdale undertook a translation of the
107

108 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
Bible.'® In this work he proved himself honest and
humbly receptive of the truth. Though knowing
something of Hebrew, his Bible was not from the
Hebrew and Greek, but was " faithfully and fully
translated out of the Douche [German] and Latin."
Yet he made large use of Tyndale's work from the
originals, so far as that went. This and the Zurich
German Bible of 1529, were his chief guides.*® In
conserving the great end — a true reproduction of the
original writings — Myles Coverdale's work was of a
subordinate sort. Yet his contribution was note
worthy, (1) because he gave the first complete Eng
lish Bible in the sixteenth century; (2) because he
revised and secured circulation for what was prac
tically Tyndale's New Testament; (3) because he
was the author of many Bible words and phrases of
lasting worth and beauty.** Coverdale's Bible was
the first to include the Apocrypha, but with a head
ing that distinguished it clearly from the canonical
books.*^ (1) King Henry VIII and the Licensed Bible
Strange as it may seem, the first edition of Cover-
dale's Bible (1535) was not suppressed by the Gov
ernment. The popular demand for the Scriptures in
England was making itself felt through the Govern
ment and through Convocation, even while Tyndale
was in prison.** Archbishop Cranmer and some of
the bishops were heartily in favor of English ver
sions. King Henry VIII was sympathetic toward
the New Learning, if it did not interfere with his

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 109
authority.** Though always a Catholic In tempera
ment, because of his divorce from Catherine of Aragon
and marriage to Anne Boleyn, he had, in 1534, com
pleted a rupture with the Pope of Rome, which was
even in Wyclif's time becoming inevitable. This
fact, and his ambition to be himself supreme head of
a united nation with a national language, which an
English version would promote, made Henry the
more ready to favor the use of the English Bible
and encourage reverence for its authority. The pow
erful but heartless primate, Cromwell, also had am
bitions of his own to advance. So it came about that
when Coverdale's second edition was ready, in 1537,
it was " set forth with the king's most gracious
license." (2) The Primary Reason for the Licensed Bible
Yet neither King Henry nor Thomas Cromwell,
however self-seeking and self-willed, could ever have
used the desire of the English people for the Bible in
their native tongue, or the earnest purpose of Tyn
dale and his successors to satisfy that desire, for a
support to their selfishness, if this desire and pur
pose had not first existed as the primary cause of
Bible translation.*®

(3) Coverdale's Purpose
What Coverdale's purpose in his work was is hon
estly stated in his Prologue : " To say the truth before
God, it was neither my labor nor desire to have this
work in hand; nevertheless it grieved me that other

110 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
nations should be more plenteously provided for with
the Scripture in their mother-tongue than we. . ." *®
" I . . . have with a clear conscience purely and faith
fully translated this out of five sundry interpreters,
having only the manifest truth of Scripture before
mine eyes ...."*''
2. The Matthew's Bible
The name Matthew's Bible was given to a com
pilation of Tyndale's and Coverdale's translations,
edited and published in 1537 by John Rogers, un
der the name of Thomas Matthew. John Rogers
was a Cambridge graduate of 1525, and a clergy
man who gradually withdrew from Rome. He was
an honest and earnest but bigoted reformer, who,
having approved the burning of Joan of Kent, was
himself a brave martyr under the persecutions of
Queen Mary.** A friend of Tyndale, Tyndale had
left in Rogers's hand his unpublished translation
from the Hebrew of the Old Testament from Joshua
to II Chronicles. It Is almost certain that this, with
Tyndale's Pentateuch, the remaining books of the Old
Testament from Coverdale's version, and Tyndale's
New Testament, formed Matthew's Bible. Rogers's
own work on it was that of an editor. Yet his
biographer shows that his editing was laborious and
careful — an example of his independent and sound
judgment being his omission from Psalm XIV of
three verses which Coverdale, mistakenly following
the Vulgate, had put In.*® Despite the fact that

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 111
about two thirds of the translation was by William
Tyndale, whose works had been publicly burned and
himself, with King Henry's acquiescence, strangled
only the year before, this Bible was not only licensed
by the King, but expressly permitted to be " sold and
read of every person without danger of any act, proc
lamation, or ordinance heretofore granted to the
contrary." In Matthew's Bible was found the con
stituent character and form that distinguished the
Protestant English Bible down to and including the
Authorized Version of 1611.
3. The Great Bible
Several revised editions now followed. One was
the Great Bible of 1539. This was a revision, by
Coverdale, the tireless reviser, and others, of the Old
Testament of Matthew's Bible (Tyndale's and Cov
erdale's work) and of the New Testament of Tyndale.
Unfortunately, many small additions were introduced
from the Latin Vulgate, whose tendency to incorrect
expansion of the thought of the Scripture writers has
been noted.®® 4. Taverner's Bible
Taverner's revision, also of 1539, was, for Protes
tant versions, comparatively unimportant. Richard
Taverner was a lawyer and a good Greek scholar, but
not a Hebraist. The Old Testament of later versions
was little affected by his edition. In the New Testa
ment, where naturally his work was best, a few happy
renderings of his have become permanent.

112 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
(1) " Bach Only to the Days of Henry VIII "
These, then, were the English Bibles published
during King Henry's reign. It has been said that
" the Protestant Version goes back only to the days of
Henry VIII of England, and was then gotten up for
obvious reasons." How grossly incorrect this is in
the case of the present Revised Bible will be seen
later. Yet even of those versions that had not the
advantage of the most ancient New Testament manu
scripts the statement is a surprising one. For Tyn
dale and his successors, except Coverdale, went back
to the traditional Hebrew and Greek text, in late
copies indeed, but reaching back to at least the end
of the second and third centuries respectively. Some
of them used also the Latin Vulgate, and so shared
with the Catholics whatever advantages accrue from
that. (2) "For Obvious Reasons"
Just what is meant by the Protestant version be
ing " gotten up for obvious reasons " is not clear :
^^'hetller personal reasons (of Henry VIII) or Prot
estant reasons (of the Protestant translators). No
one questions the mixed character of the motives of
King Henry above described ; but those motives could
no more vitiate the work to which Tyndale and his
followers gave their lives than the blood upon the
hands of Queen Mary could stain the saintly devo
tion of a Rowland Taylor. The obvious reason for
the work of Tyndale, Coverdale, and Rogers was that
they believed themselves called of God to give the

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 113
people a faithful version of the Bible in a language
they could understand.
5. The Genevan Bible
The Genevan Version took its name from Geneva,
Switzerland, whither many Englishmen had fied, to
escape the Roman Catholic persecutions in the reign
of Queen Mary. There, in 1557, Whittingham — one
of the nonconforming clergy and a brother-in-law of
John Calvin — had completed a revision of Tyndale's
New Testament, in accordance with the Greek. This
New Testament, itself re-revised, together with the
Old Testament of Matthew's Bible, compared with
excellent Latin, German, and French versions and
thoroughly corrected, was issued in 1560 by a com
pany of Genevan pastors, including Whittingham
himself, John Knox, and Coverdale.®*
The Genevan Bible was abreast of the soundest
scholarship of the times, though the text on which It,
like the rest, depended was still faulty. It enjoyed
an immense popularity, not only till the publication
of the King James Version in 1611, but for half a
century after that. Its notes were strongly Calvin-
istic, and. In a very few instances, its translation
gives some ground for the charge of Roman Catholic
critics that " English Protestants corrupted the text "
for dogmatic ends.®^ With these rare exceptions, the
Genevan revisers made their work square with their
pledge that "in every point and word" they had
" faithfully rendered the text."

114 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
6. The Bishops" Bible
The last of these six sixteenth-century Bibles was
the Bishops' Bible. The Genevan Bible was Puri
tan; the Great Bible — the then Authorized Version
— was of inferior worth. So the bishops set to work
on a new revision. Taking the Great Bible as their
basis, save where " It varieth manifestly " from the
Hebrew and Greek, they sometimes followed it where
the Genevan Version was far more accurate. " Bit
ter or controversial notes " were excluded, and wisely
so ; for such notes had often obscured the true sense
of Scripture. The several parts of the Bishops' Ver
sion, done by different translators, were of varying
merit. Although authorized by Convocation, It was
unpopular, partly because of a certain ornate and
artificial style of language, very different from the
simplicity of the other English versions.
,7. The Authorized Version
(1) Its Scope
The King's Bible, or so-called " Authorized Ver
sion," was itself a revised version, like those before
and after it.®* Undertaken in 1604 at the suggestion
of the Puritans, ordered by King James I, and exe
cuted under the supervision of the Anglican bishops,
this version aimed to be nonsectarian vsdthin the lim
its of Protestantism. Not any one man or party, but
fifty-four men. Including Anglicans and Puritans,
theologians and linguists, were chosen to do the work.

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 115
They did it in six companies, each man translating
the part assigned to his company, and then submit
ting his translation to his associates. Finally, a rep
resentative committee reviewed the work and passed
on difficult points. (2) Its Sources
The Bishops' Bible, being the Authorized Version
at the time, was named as the basis of the new re
vision. The revisers, however, were to adhere to it
only " as far as the truth of the original would per
mit." In fact, of the English translations, they fol
lowed chiefiy the Genevan, and next the Rhemish.®*
Unfortunately, they had only a poor copy of the He
brew Old Testament, though some recently made
Latin translations of the traditional Hebrew and the
Syriac were helps. In the New Testament they were
not much better off, depending chiefiy on a copy of
the Greek Testament which was based in turn on a
Greek text made from only a few manuscripts, no
more than two of which were ancient.®®
(3) Its Worth
King James's translators were men of sound schol
arship, and they made the best of their materials.
They worked for two years and nine months with
painstaking industry, and in 1611 published their
work. Because of a lack of sufficient cooperation
between the companies, it is uneven in quality. Much
of it is forceful and happy in expression. Its sharp-

116 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
est critics have been able to point to only a passage
here and there that gives a suspicion of dogmatic
bias.®® The " studied variety of renderings " given
to one and the same word sometimes obscures the
meaning, though perhaps adding to the elegance of
the translation. Indeed, it has been remarked of the
Old Testament especially that the " splendid stateli-
ness of the English version sometimes makes us
blind to the deficiencies in the sense." Catholic and
Protestant concur in the verdict that " the English
of the Authorized Version is the finest specimen of
our prose literature at a time when English prose
wore its stateliest and most majestic form." ®'' Yet
the Version's stateliness does not bar out simplicity.
Ninety per cent of its words are Saxon.
Meeting with strong opposition at first — for, as
its authors naively say, " cavil, if it do not find a
hole, will be sure to make one " — the Authorized
Version has yet stood for nearly three hundred years
the Bible of the English-speaking people, and is still
largely in popular use.®*

CHAPTER VI
The History of the American Revised Version
(concluded)
the third period
1. The English Revised Version
After the Authorized Version of 1611, came a
long pause in Bible translation. Neither material
nor scholarship was ready for a united and effective
advance. At last, in 1870, the third period in the
history of the English Bible was marked by the in
ception of the English Revised Version. The feeling
one may have that, after so many revisions in the
sixteenth century, nothing further should be neces
sary, or that the Authorized Version is " good
enough," is soon dispelled by a little consideration of
the facts. (1) Reasons for Revision
The natural growth of language, with its changes
of meaning, of itself makes periodic revision a neces
sity. King James's translators had not always made
correct translations. The numerous errors of copy
ists of Bible manuscripts were no longer being re
peated; but even the printed Bibles contained mis
takes, sometimes serious, more often ludicrous. For
instance: the edition of the Authorized Version of
117

118 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
1638 makes Numbers XXV: 18 say, " They vex you
with their wives" ("wiles"), and that of 1682
makes the divorce law of Deuteronomy XXIV:
3 say, " If the latter husband ate her " (for " hate
her").®® Mechanical means and clerical skill have
been marvelously Improved, preventing a repetition
of such errors.
Moreover, the growth In the scientific spirit with
its love of accuracy, together with a notable ad
vance in studies that bear particularly on biblical
knowledge, must be taken into account. There Is now
a long list of scholars whose lives are given wholly
to the study of ancient languages. In the Old Testa
ment it is necessary, as yet, to use chiefiy the " Re
ceived Text," for lack of more perfect Hebrew wit
nesses ;*®® but large additions to the vocabulary and
knowledge of the Hebrew language have been made
lately through the study of Arabic and other lan
guages related to the Hebrew.*®* The study of Sans
krit — older sister to the Greek — an appreciation of
the Hebraistic Greek of the Bible, as distinguished
from classical Greek, and the use of the comparative
method in studying language, have been of similar
help in understanding the New Testament. In both
Old and New Testaments the advance in geography,
geology, history, and archa?ology have made it practi
cable to reproduce with far greater accuracy than was
formerly possible the statements of the Bible writers.
Encouraged by these helps, biblical scholars have
done much since the middle of the eighteenth century,
and especially during the last fifty years, in collecting

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 119
Bible manuscripts, examining their text, comparing
and grouping them ; so that their genealogy, age, and
other characteristics may determine what weight
ought to be given to their testimony as to what was
originally written.
Together with all this, and more Important than
any other one fact, is the acquisition in the last
sixty years of manuscript copies of the Bible, and
particularly of the New Testament, that are regard
ed by nearly all competent judges as far more ancient
and true to the original Scriptures than anything
before available. We have seen that there are five
ancient manuscripts entitled to preeminence In this
respect. Not one of these was available as a con
tinuous text when the Authorized Version was made
in 1611. The Douay translators and Challoner paid
small attention to the Greek; but most of these
manuscripts they could not have used had they
wished. Only one, and that the least valuable, was
used by King James's translators at all : from it they
had merely select readings. Two of the oldest and
best three were not known to exist until 1844 and
1859 respectively; and the other was concealed in the
Vatican Library, beyond the reach of investigators,
until 1862. Even the Alexandrian Manuscript,
which stands perhaps fourth in value, was not in use'
as a whole till 1786 — one hundred and seventy-five
years after the Authorized Version was completed.
Besides this, a large number of later manuscripts and
some ancient versions were at that time almost wholly
uncollected and unused.*®^ (See Diagram 1.)

120 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
(2) The Worhers and the Worh
It was in the light of these facts that the English
Revision was undertaken in 1870. Private transla
tions or revisions of parts of the Bible had been
attempted from time to time by individual scholars,
and concerted effort was urged in printed publica
tions and in debate.*®* At length, through a Re
vision Committee of the Convocation of Canterbury,
two companies of English scholars, members of the
Church of England and Nonconformists, were ap
pointed — one to revise the Old Testament, the other
the New. Of important religious bodies, only Roman
Catholics had no share in the work. Cardinal New
man was invited, but declined. After the work was
begun, the cooperation of American scholars was
sought and given; but the version, in its original
form, remains a distinctively English revision. In all,
about eighty biblical scholars cooperated in the work.
The utmost care was taken. Each passage was
gone over three times, and no change was made un
less approved by two thirds of the Revisers. Some
ten years were spent on the New Testament, which
was published in 1881; and upward of fourteen
years on the Old Testament, which appeared in
1885.*®* A revision of the Apocrypha was no part
of the original plan, but this has since been made,
and published by the University presses. " The la
bor," say the Revisers, " has been great, but it has
been given ungrudgingly." And the result has justi
fied the effort.

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 121
It is true, the Revision has been sharply criticised.
To some the changes made — especially in the New
Testament — are too many, and the alternative read
ings too often noted. Accuracy, it is said, has been
gained at too great a cost of musical cadences.*®®
It may be so. But those whose chief care is to know
just what was originally written will agree that " In
translations it is required first, as Saint Paul says of
stewards, ' that a man be found faithful,' not musi
cal." And all who revere the great reviser Jerome
will wish to remember his incisive words about cer
tain Christians of his day who " mistook ignorance
for piety " : " If they do not like the water from
the pure fountain head, let them drink of the muddy
streams." *®® (3) Distinctive Features
The results of this revision may be summarized as
follows :
(a) The Old Testament text is still the " Masso
retic," or " Received Text," though occasionally cor
rected by the ancient versions. It will be remem
bered that this means that our present English Bibles
in the Old Testament go back to a copy of the date of
1009, and many later copies, of a text that was cur
rent In the second century a.d. The Septuagint,
made before Christ, and other ancient versions, it
will be understood, corroborate the main substance of
this text, while correcting it in passages where they
vary from it considerably.
(b) The New Testament text has been corrected

122 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
according to the best Greek manuscripts, particularly
those of the fourth century already described. The
text of these fourth century copies, which must, of
course, have been older than the copies, belonged, as
we have seen, to the ancient Neutral group. Our
Revised New Testament Is, therefore, closely related
to the New Testament writings themselves. Even
that part of It that may still claim affinity to the
Greek received, or Antiochian, text, which Tyndale
and his immediate successors used, though later than
the Neutral type, is still ancient. To say, then, that
" the Protestant Version goes back only to the days
of Henry VIII of England," is no more true than it
would be to say that the Catholic English versions
go back only to the days of Queen Elizabeth. It is
estimated that the text of the Revisers differs from
that of the Version of 1611 in no less than 5,988
readings. It should be noted, however, that only
about one fourth of these involve changes in the sub
ject-matter; and only a very few affect the sense
largely. The meaning of passages is often Illuminat
ed by this return to a more correct text. A spurious
passage here and there — ^like I John V : 7b, 8a, about
the " Three Heavenly Witnesses," retained in the
King James and Challoner-Douay Versions — has
been dropped. Many small interpolations have been
removed, and doubtful passages marked doubtful.*®'
(c) Mistranslations have been corrected. For in
stance II Kings VIII : 13, " But what, is thy servant
a dog that he should do this great thing ? " is correct
ed to, " But what Is thy servant, who is but a dog,
that he should do this great thing ? " As so often,

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 123
the Challoner-Douay translation of this is blind:
" But what am I thy servant a dog, that I should do
this great thing ? " *®*
(d) Inexact Translations have been improved.
Luke III : 23, " And Jesus himself began to be about
thirty years of age," corrected to, " And Jesus him
self when he began to teach was about thirty . . ." ;
and I Corinthians IV : 4, " For I know nothing
by myself," corrected to, " For I know nothing
against myself," are two instances out of many. In
these two passages the Challoner-Douay Version has,
again, literal renderings which seem dubious : " And
Jesus himself was beginning about the age of thirty
years ; " and " For I am not conscious to myself of
anything." (e) The rendering of Tenses has been conformed
more exactly to the Hebrew and Greek uses. Mark
IV : 37, " so that it [the ship] was now full,"
changed to, " insomuch that the boat was now fill
ing " is an example which sailors will appreciate.
(/) A few of the many Obsolete Terms have been
replaced by English that can be understood. Two
or three examples are: " taches " (by "clasps"),
" wimples " (by " shawls "), " cotes " (by " folds "),
"to ear" (by "to plow").
(g) Some words that have changed their meaning
are discarded for other words that now express the old
sense. Illustrations are : " vagabond " (for " wan
derer"), "harness" (for "armor"), "peep" (for
" chirp "), " conversation " (for " behavior "), " car
riage " (for " goods ").
(h) Certain Obscure Phrases have been clarified.

124 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
For instance: I Timothy III: 13, "For they that
have used the office of a deacon well purchase to them
selves a good degree," is translated, " For they that
have served well as deacons gain to themselves a good
standing." (i) Varieties in rendering that were suggestive of
differences not in the Greek have been made uniform.
For example, John XV, " abide " throughout : not
sometimes " abide," sometimes " continue " — so miss
ing the intended emphasis of repetition.
(;') Religious Poems, such as the Psalms and Ex
odus XV — " I will sing unto the Lord, for he hath
triumphed gloriously " — are printed, not as prose,
but as poetry. One could wish that this principle
had been extended to the suitable printing of prose
discourse and quotations.
{h) The sense of passages is preserved through the
abolition of the often misleading Chapter and Verse
Division, and the introduction of symmetrical group
ings, as in the ' Six Woes ' of Isaiah V, and the
' Seven Epistles ' of Revelation II and III.
(J) The frequently misleading Chapter Headings
of the Authorized Version are abolished, and italics
are used only when real additions have been made to
the original language, to complete the sense.
It would be easy to point out incompleteness in
this work, due chiefly to the English conservative
fear of change ; but It is difficult to conceive how any
fair-minded person can fail to recognize the vast
superiority of the English Revised Version over all
others that had preceded it.*®® Through it all there

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 125
is evident " the sincere desire " of the Revisers " to
give to modern readers a faithful representation of
the meaning of the original documents." **®
2. The American Standard Edition
The history of the American Standard Edition of
the Revised Version is contained largely in the his
tory of its predecessors, which has been given.***
It is a recension of the Revised Version of 1881-85,
not a distinct revision. Of course, therefore, its
text is the same as that of the English Revised Ver
sion. In translation, it is believed to inherit all that
was good In that version. It also presents several
marked improvements. (1) Its Origin and Scope
As the origin of the Revision of 1881 was with the
English translators, so the deciding vote in respect of
questions raised iu the work of revision was theirs.**^
The American Committee, while fulfilling their
promise to refrain from any similar publication for
fourteen years, continued its work, and in 1901 pub
lished this American Edition. In this their preferred
readings, published in appendices in the English
Revised Version, with others which the haste of the
English publishers and a fear of too great apparent
disagreement had previously ruled out of the appen
dices, were incorporated in the body of the text. In
the Old Testament other changes in translation,
judged to be obviously for the better, were added.***

126 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
(2) Its Distinctive Features
The student will find the distinctive features of
the American Revised Version to be as follows :
(a) A few Incorrect or Incomplete Translations
have been corrected. Job XIX : 26 Is an Illustration.
The English Revision has:
And after my skin hath been thus destroyed,
Yet from my fiesh shall I see God:
Whom I shall see for myself,
And mine eyes shall behold, and not another.
The Challoner-Douay, still following what Gigot
(Catholic) calls the most striking instance of Je
rome's dogmatic bias (see Ch. il. Note 39) has:
And I shall be clothed again with my skin,
and in my flesh, etc. (as above).
The American Revision translates this :
And after my skin, even this body, is destroyed.
Then without my flesh shall I see God ;
Whom I, even I, shall see, on my side.
And mine eyes shall behold and not as a stranger.***
(b) Many Obsolete Words have been put into In
telligible English. The English Revisers " thought
it no part of their duty to reduce the Authorized
Version to conformity with modern usage." **® The
American Revisers have counted it of first impor
tance that the English Bible should be plain enough
to be understood by all intelligent persons. It may
well be doubted whether, in a company of American
people of average intelligence and education, ten
per cent would know the meaning of the following
words : " minish," " chapiter," " ouches," " sith,"

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 127
" straltness," " chapmen," " wot," " poll thee." In
their places the American Revised Version gives:
"diminish," "capital," "settings," "since," "dis
tress," "traders," "know," "cut off thy hair."
(c) A more complete exchange has been made of
words still in use but bearing an altered meaning, for
words that now express the sense of the Bible writers.
Examples of this class of words in the English Re
vision, with their modern substitutes in the Ameri
can Revision, are : " fray " (" frighten "), " tell "
("number"), "clouted" ("patched"), "hale"
("drag"), "delicates" ("delicacies"), "charger"
("platter"), "cunning" ("skill"), "let" ("hin
der"), "sod" ("boiled"), "turtle" ("turtle
dove"), "reins" (" heart "—literally, "kidneys").
(d) Certain uncouth, unidiomatic or Obscure Ex
pressions existing in the Authorized Version, despite
the general excellence of its English, were allowed to
remain in the English Revision. These have been
greatly improved In the American Revised Version.
For Instance : I Kings XXII : 5, " inquire for the
word," instead of " inquire at the word," and
Deuteronomy XXXII : 14, " with the finest of the
wheat," instead of, " with the fat of kidneys of the
wheat." (e) The Grammar has been Improved, making the
sense of Scripture more real and clear. " Who " and
" that " are used Instead of " which," when referring
to persons, as in " Our Father who art in heaven " ;
and " a " has been substituted for " an " before the
aspirated " h " — an appropriate thing in this country
where people pronounce their initial " h's."

128 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
(/) Names of a special character have been more
faithfully rendered. The name Jehovah, expressive
of the thought of God as the ever-present and cove
nant-keeping God, although itself a compromise form,
is, at least, better than the wholly unjustifiable
" Lord." " Lord," in this use of the word, is a leg
acy of a late Jewish superstition against uttering the
divine Name.
(g) A few words that are now objectionable to
decently refined taste are found in the Challoner-
Douay and King James Versions, and were unfor
tunately retained by English conservatism. In the
American Revision these give place to refined words,
which in some cases really reproduce the original bet
ter than the now coarser words. Jeremiah IV: 19,
" My bowels, my bowels," becomes, " My heart, my
heart " ; for it is precisely such English use of
the word " heart " that corresponds to the Hebrew
thought of the " bowels " as the seat of the affections.
Other instances are: Isaiah LXIII: 15, John XI:
39, Philippians III: 8.
(h) In a few passages, most of them comparatively
unimportant, the American Revisers judged it better
to return to the translation of the Authorized Ver
sion. (i) The English Revisers prudently omitted the
old chapter headings and page headlines altogether,
rather than amend them. With a lame apology, the
English New Testament Revisers allowed the titles
of books to stand unrevised. In both cases the Ameri
can Revisers have rendered a positive service: first.

SECOND PRIZE ESSAY 129
by inserting headlines drawn largely from the biblical
text, to guide in reading, yet " avoid as far as possible
all precommitments, whether doctrinal or exegeti-
cal " ; and, second, in conforming the titles to the
ancient manuscripts, so that we are not led to think
that Matthew the tax-collector was called Saint Mat
thew in his day, or that the Apostle Paul wrote the
Letter to the Hebrews, when it is almost certain that
he did not.**®
(;') Paragraphs have been shortened, making un
derstanding of a passage easier, punctuation has been
corrected, and spelling has been made to agree more
consistently with the current orthography. There Is
no good reason. In this country at least, for spelling
jubilee, for Instance, jubile ; show, shew ; or thorough
ly as If it were " throughly."
Perfection is not claimed for this Version ; but it
Is safe to say that nearly all, if not all, of these im
provements justify the aim and belief of the Ameri
can Revisers, that their edition of the Bible would
" on the one hand bring a plain reader more closely
Into contact with the exact thought of the sacred
writers than any version now current in Christen
dom, and on the other hand prove itself especially
serviceable to students of the Word." **^' ***

Diagram i
SOURCES OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE

SEPT^ftGlNT.
BEF-ORF (^^HRIST
ion a.n \

-sao.

QUI Catin-'othes HEBREW^GREEK MSS.

JC-

4oo.

tWitf kVOlBftTE.

^00

¦6po

I40O.

.rSQQ.

-1KU2.

-LZflfi-

isoo

rovEnoiiu* OouaV, '

CHAUONER.^

I9PP.-

RE>

(UNfEVAll

hmsnii

!iseo>

AMERICnNiREVlSEn-

(The solid line, as distinguished from the dotted line, shows about how far
back the oldest extant copies go.)

Diagram 2
TYPICAL KINDS OF NEW TESTA
MENT MANUSCRIPTS

¦ too

ion

50D

MIL

.iBL

-ML.

¦ 'SPQ.

-ifann

nnp

I80Q

.iqtio

I

r

^

I i

J

Vaiqn v

T

I I Clementine VuljSote..

*-r-i

I
.511

ff

%•

jtxxt. 

Illustrating the history of the several groups of "Texts"
and their relation to our English Versions.
* Textual basis of the Rheims Version, Challoner had Clementine edition.
•j- ** tt ti tt Tyndale, Genevan, Bishops*, and Authorized Versions.
J " '< " " English-American Revision.

Diagram 3

Tabular VIE.W
English Versioi^softheBibii.

'Centufy.

Chitf Sgurcts iflhgrHiag^i^

Ctiiy;f,£n^lisif)Sm,'rccs

0*-13!

Hnfila -Saxon and Old Eng
lish iJaraphrasfs.ofGbspels ,
Hafmzs. £.f(t. 

Latin Vujdjcrie.

141^

Wygkliffte Bible.

LaTitiVulcggfe.

Tyndales Pentateuch and
l\I.I ro.T JDsh-l.C}irDB3[Wi/cklifrt{ g't^^^

Erasmus' lA'f in N.T-
li/ttiei-'s'Kz>niatt.

Coverdale's Bible.

'Mdittiecgs'

%^

Tyadales N.T., .
iyncia,ies A O.T.
Covudaiss 'A OiTi
Tyndale's N.T,

R^tllnus'i.a:tirt.
"Zurich. Grgrroan.

^mgi3M&.

"Matthea^s.',

Hcbreuj.bcpruaDinr
Fraamus'lQ.fm N.T.

Tax/eme/s .

Sung as aho*t.

(kenzwan

LaTinVul$atc.
FrQ.smuc'jgi-egkNT.

ThgBisbo|:>.«;'..

Ctgflt^iblg.

HebreiUixndGu'zeK-

"Rheims- Douoy,

Genevan mjBI shop

Latin Vulgate.

Ty5

ly'n^James "/lulhofi'zgd"

(jgRCVanMitll^cliBS

'l^etfcived* Hebreitf *
T^nmus'Iali)!.. Tremellius'Jla'tiR.
Slttliaini5Y.'»CT«iW(p CtrellW

191?

English K^gN/isrriVerslnrj

KiV\§clames'^irtiiiirini[

(Received." Hcbreu^-
DneisitrSmk NT KA&S.

20^

HmericfanKetfisprffefttH

Eri^lfsh l^evisgd

TTle Samg.

Diagram 4

CONSTITUENT PARTS OF THE VUL
GATE, AND THEIR SOURCES

W a ,
J?

THE
UTIN- VULGATE
iLi
TESTAMENT.

2

-iSHSte^^fts^TsiSi!^

s

THE

s

:3
LATIN VULGATE
t
0.
to
UJ
13
IMIW
d
K
^
TESTAMENT,
THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE
VERSION OF THE BIBLE AUTHOR
IZED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
CHURCH, AND OF THE AMER-
ICAN REVISED VERSION

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY
By CHARLES B. DALTON

THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE
v4:RSI0N OF THE BIBLE AUTHOR
IZED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC
CHURCH, AND OF THE AMER-
ICAN REVISED VERSION

CHAPTER I
Intkoductoby
" If God spares my life," said William Tyndale,
" ere many years I will cause a boy that driveth a
plow to know more of the Scriptures than the Pope
does ! " That this was no idle boast, the story of
Tyndale's life and work well shows, and time has so
multiplied versions of the Bible that it has now been
translated into about two hundred and sixty of the
languages spoken throughout the world. Thus has
the miracle of the day of Pentecost been extended to
our own day, so that we hear ' every man in his own
tongue wherein he was bom the wonderful works of
God.' The labors of the noble men who at the cost often
of their liberty have accomplished this result form
a story full of living interest, and it is the purpose
of this essay to tell so much of that story as relates
the origin and history of 137

138 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
1. The version of the Bible authorized by the
Catholic Church.
2. The version of the Bible known as the Revised
Version, American Standard Edition.
The original manuscripts of the Bible constitute
theoretically the origin of all Bible versions. These
original manuscripts, however, have been lost, leaving
for such version work as is here under consideration
later manuscript copies of the originals, to which are
to be added early translations into other languages,
known as " ancient versions " and quotations by the
early Christian Fathers.
The only version authorized for use by the Catholic
Church is the Vulgate, a Latin translation completed
405 a.d. The English translation of the Vulgate
which may be used by Catholics is known as the
" Douay Version."
Tyndale was the first Englishman who translated
directly from the original languages, and from him,
through the Bibles of Coverdale and Rogers, the
Great Bible, the Genevan, the Bishops', and the
Authorized, we come to the first version which com
bined ancient manuscripts, ancient versions, and pa
tristic quotations — the Anglo-American Revision.
The history of the Douay Version is, therefore,
that of the Vulgate and the translations into English
made from it; while the history of the Revised
Version is that of the original sources, from which
the text is derived, and the translations into English
from the time of Tyndale to the present date.^

Diagram i

THE HOLY BIBLE
Gospels before
70 A.D.
Epistles be-
Old Testament writ- ) 1200 B.C. The New Testament) tween 51 A.D,
^-_ :_ ii-L  ._j ..._:..„ :_ ^ __!_ ^ ^„^ 5^ A.D.

ten in Hebrew

written in Greek

The Book of
the Revelation
96 A.D.

Collected in one book 325 A.D.
Original manuscripts now lost
represented by
I

Manuscripts

Hebrew

Greek

iicuicw vi.ccn. Quotations by Versions in sev- \ .j.jjg
oldest 916 A.D. oldest 4th century early Chris- eral languages, / Vulgate
V tian Fathers one of the most )
important being) ^ p

The Revised Version

The Douay
Bible

CHAPTER II
The Bible
What is the Bible ? It is a collection of books by
many authors, who wrote as " the Spirit gave them
utterance," during a period of about fourteen hun
dred years, known also as the " Scriptures " or " Sa
cred Writings," or in Anglo-Saxon as " Holy Writ,"
and aptly called by Jerome " The Divine Library."
In other words it is the inspired Word of God given
to us through human writers.
As Protestants generally receive it, the Bible con
sists of the Old Testament, containing thirty-nine
books (accepted as the Holy Scriptures by the Jews
also), and the New Testament, containing twenty-
seven books.
These books are all accepted by the Protestant
churches as " canonical," that is, as the collection of
the authoritative books of the church.
The Catholic Church accepts as canonical all these
books, and with them others called by Protestants
" The Apocrypha " — a word which means ' hidden.'
These books are: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesi
asticus, Baruch, I and II Maccabees, An addition to
the Book of Esther, The Song of the Three Children,
The Story of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, the last
three constituting additions to the Book of Daniel.
140

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY 141
They are of minor importance, are often printed
with the Protestant Bible, and can, therefore, be read
by anyone who wishes to do so. They are not, we are
informed on good authority,^ applied by the Catholic
Church to establish any doctrine, except in the pas
sage where it is stated " that it is a holy and whole
some thought to pray for the dead," and in others
held by them to be applicable in praise of the Blessed
Virgin Mary.^ As, however, the Catholic Church
relies on texts in other parts of the Bible to support
these doctrines, there are no special doctrinal reasons
for her reckoning the Apocrypha as canonical. There
is, therefore, no substantial difference between Catho
lics and Protestants as to what is contained in the
Bible.* The main question is then the comparative merits
of the Douay and the Revised Versions as presenta
tions to the reader of the thought and language of
the inspired writings of the Bible rendered into the
English language.
Father Early in his letter says : " I take this op
portunity of correcting an erroneous assertion con
tained in the end of your note, and which so many
non-Catholics, knowingly or otherwise I do not say,
persist in falsely asserting and spreading, namely:
* The Church you represent discourages the reading
of the Scriptures by the people.' The Catholic
Church has never prohibited any of her members
* Any reader who wishes to go more fully into this branch of the
subject will find in the Appendix a summary of the arguments
for and against the inclusion of the Apocrypha in the canon. (*).

142 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
reading the Scriptures or Bible. In every family
whose means will permit the buying of a copy, there
you will find the authentic version of God's words as
authorized by the Church, and which has come doA;vn
to us unchanged from the time of Christ himself. But
the Catholic Church does object to the reading of the
Protestant version, which goes back only to the days
of Henry VIII of England, and was then gotten
up for obvious reasons. Neither will the Catholic
Church allow private interpretation of the Scrip
tures, for then there would be as many interpretations
as there are men and women whose interests or
passions would suggest."
We can at once dispose of that part of the letter
which refers to the reading of the Bible by the in
dividual or family in private, and for this purpose
we quote from a pastoral letter issued by the Third
Plenary Council of Baltimore, 1884: " It can hardly
be necessary for us to remind you that the most high
ly valued treasure of every family library and the
most frequently and lovingly made use of should be
the Holy Scriptures. We hope that no family can be
found amongst us without a correct version of the
Holy Scriptures. Among other versions we recom
mend the Douay, which is venerable as used by our
forefathers for three centuries, which comes down to
us sanctioned by innumerable authorizations, and
which was suitably annotated by the learned Bishop
Challoner, by Canon Haydock, and especially by the
late Archbishop Kenrick." ^
This Council governs the actions of Catholics in

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY 143
the United States, and the quotation given is suf
ficient proof of the practice of the Catholic Church
in this matter. The correctness of Father Early's
other statements can only be tested by a study of the
history of the two versions and of the sources from
which they are derived.

CHAPTER III
The Manusceipts, Versions, and Quotations
In dealing with ancient writings the first inquiry
is directed toward obtaining the most accurate text
possible of the original.
The language of the Old Testament is Hebrew (ex
cepting certain passages in Aramaic) ; ® of the New
Testament, Greek. Hebrew was the language of the
Jews. At the date when the New Testament was
written the Jews had wandered far and wide, and
spoke in Greek, the language of the countries they
lived in, forming thus a Jewish-Greek dialect, which
colors much of the Greek in which the New Testa
ment is written.''
The original manuscripts have all disappeared.
Many of the Old Testament manuscripts were de
stroyed during the frequent exiles and numerous per
secutions of the Jews. But the Jews themselves are
partly responsible for their destruction. In each syna
gogue they set apart one room called the Geniza,
where torn and mutilated copies were stored. The
contents were from time to time burned to prevent
their application to common uses. There are, how
ever, a large number of Hebrew manuscripts — thir
teen or fourteen hundred — still preserved, of which
the oldest is dated 916 a.d. 144

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY 145
The Greek manuscripts of the New Testament
suffered in persecutions against Christians in the
early days of the church, but we have access to more
than one hundred and twenty-five uncials — so-called
from a Latin word meaning * an inch ' — written in
capital letters, and about two thousand five hundred
cursives — so called from a Latin word meaning ' run
ning ' — written like modern handwriting. The un
cials are the oldest, dating back in the most ancient
copy extant to the fourth century a.d.
To secure circulation of a book in ancient times,
when these Greek and Hebrew manuscripts were
written, was no easy matter. Every copy had to be
made by hand at a great expenditure of time and
trouble, and often too with a loss of accuracy. If the
reader will copy out a few pages of any modern book,
have his manuscript copied by a friend, and continue
the process through five or six copyings, and then
compare the last manuscript with the printed book,
he will see how easily mistakes can be made. Errors
are not uncommon even in printed books, with proofs
carefully examined. A well known instance occurs
in one edition of the Authorized Version, where
King David is made to say (Psalm OXIX: 161),
" Printers have persecuted me without a cause," a
form of persecution from which he at any rate was
free. The Hebrew alphabet also made possible variations
in the text. Originally it consisted of consonants
only. Later, in the Christian era, marks were added
to the letters to represent vowel sounds. Even these

146 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
marks were sometimes omitted in manuscripts written
for use in the synagogues.^ How easily, in these
circumstances, mistakes could be made can be seen
in an example from the English language. Thus if
we adopted the Hebrew method, the letters B R N
might be read,
BRN, BRN, BRN, BRN BRN
a o u i y, a ey,
and in several other ways.
The Greek alphabet, on the other hand, has both
vowels and consonants, and this particular liability to
error is not present in the New Testament manu
scripts; but both Hebrew and Greek manuscripts
were frequently written without any division between
the words, and a word might easily be wrongly
divided. Mr. Paterson Smyth {Old Documents and
the New Bible), to whom we are indebted for
the illustration on vowel points, gives a striking ex
ample of a mistake thus made in the story of the
infidel who wrote over his bed : " God is nowhere."
This was read by his little boy as " God is now here."
Sometimes, again, copyists took liberties with the
text and amended them on their own authority.
It will thus be seen how easily mistakes could
arise, and in all old texts variations are sure to occur
from these causes. The genuine text of Shakespeare,
comparatively a modern work, is uncertain in many
places. Still more is this likely to be the case with
the text of the Bible, written two or three thousand
years ago, and of which no original manuscript is
in existence.

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY 147
Nevertheless, in the Bible we have a more correct
text than that of any other ancient book. In the
case of the Old Testament this is due to the pre
cautions taken by the Jews to make the errors as few
as possible. The plan they adopted was as follows :
One writer copied the consonants, another put in
the vowel points and accents, while the whole was
scrupulously revised by a third, and notes on the text
inserted by a fourth. In addition to these precau
tions they invented an elaborate system to secure the
text from error or corruption, guarded by rules of
almost painful minuteness, and called the " Masso
rah." These rules included a count of the number of
letters, words, and verses in each book and a note of
the middle verse, word, and letter. The men who
during hundreds of years elaborated the system are
known as the " Massoretes," and the " Received
Text " of the Old Testament is from these circum
stances known as the " Massoretic Text." " The re
sult is that whatever variations may have crept in are
verbal only, the value of the substance has never been
touched, and the " Massoretic Text " is generally re
ceived as the authentic Word of God.
Though no such system as the Massoretic was used
for preserving the text of the New Testament, the
existing manuscripts are much nearer the date of
the originals, and must have passed through fewer
hands. Moreover, the peculiar form of writing and
similar causes which led to variations in the Hebrew
text were not present in the case of the Greek, and a
comparison of the different manuscripts show the

148 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
variations for the most part to be of trifling im
portance. Thus we still have ample material for ascertaining
the true text of Scripture from the existing manu
scripts, and the loss of the originals is in a great
measure made up by the existence of translations into
other languages, or, as they are called, " versions."
There are several of these, some of earlier date than
the existing manuscripts, such as the Syriac and the
Latin, both of which originated in the second century.
To the testimony of the manuscripts and versions
we must add that of quotations of the Bible by early
Christian writers. Though neither versions nor quo
tations are of the same value as manuscripts, both are
often invaluable in giving them support and in ascer
taining the true reading.

CHAPTER IV
How TO Asceetain THE Teue Text of the Bible
The discovery and correction of errors in the text
of any ancient document is a branch of learning to
which much attention has been paid in recent years,
and which is known as " textual criticism."
In the sense in which we use that expression it in
volves the textual study and comparison of all docu
ments which throw light on the text of the Bible.
The rules which govern it may be shortly sum
marized as follows : 1. The earliest manuscripts are
most likely to be correct, as they have not passed
through so many hands as those later in date. 2. The
true reading is that contained in the majority of
manuscripts, if all are of the same authority. 3. But
as all are not of the same authority, the origin
and history of each have to be considered. The work
of a critic in ascertaining the correct text of a pas
sage, say in the New Testament, would therefore in
volve not merely a search for the oldest Greek manu
scripts containing the passage but a comparison of
the values of the text which these manuscripts repre
sent, which would point to the reading of the passage
most likely to be correct. In addition to this the
ancient versions would have to be consulted and the
value of the text they represent considered; while
quotations from the early Fathers would have to be
149

150 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
referred to and their value carefully taken into ac
count. Important discoveries of new manuscripts have
been made during the last century, especially that of
the Codex Sinaiticus, and it is only in recent years
that the science of textual criticism has been fully
developed, and the resources at the disposal of the
critic arranged in an accessible form.
Even with these advantages, however, the work is
by no means a simple one. It requires a mind skilled
in weighing evidence, trained in the study of
manuscripts and in the detection of errors which
they contain, and above all reverent to God, and
anxious in all humility to find, as far as human
means can do so, what is the true text of the in
spired Word.
The history of the two Versions, the Douay and
the Revised, will show what use has been made of
the wealth of material now accessible. The reader
will be able to judge in each case whether the best
methods of criticism have been adopted, whether
every available source of information has been util
ized, and in which version the greater care has been
taken to ascertain the true text."*

CHAPTER V
The Vulgate
The only version authorized by the Catholic
Church — the Vulgate — is a translation of the Bible
made by Jerome between 387 a.d. and 405 a.d.
This name (Latin, Vulgata = ' common ') was
given to it because it had become by about 600 a.d.
the version of the Bible commonly used in western
Europe, and to-day the Prayer-book of the English-
speaking Episcopal churches contains two transla
tions from it — ^the Benedicite and the Psalter, trans
lated by Coverdale.
As Christianity spread westward, where there was
little knowledge of Greek, and less of Hebrew, a
version in Latin became necessary. More than one
was made, and as copies had to be multiplied by
hand, and were altered to agree with local dialect, a
corruption of the text was unavoidable. Errors also
arose from attempts of copyists to improve the text
instead of strictly following it. In order to secure
a correct and uniform text Pope Damasus in 382
A.D. commissioned Jerome to revise the existing
Latin version.
In carrying out this great work Jerome trans
lated the entire Old Testament and a portion of the
Apocrypha from the Hebrew, and corrected the ex-
151

152 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
isting Latin text of the New Testament from the
best Greek manuscripts which he could find.
Jerome's work is especially valuable as a wit
ness to the Hebrew and the Greek text in manu
scripts of greater antiquity than any we now pos
sess." It gradually gained ground from its own
intrinsic merit, and through the growing influence of
the Church of Rome, and for more than a thousand
3'ears it was the origin of all translations of the
Scriptures in western Europe.-*^
Several revisions of the Vulgate were made, but
no special authority was given to it by the Catholic
Church before the decrees of the Council of Trent in
1546. To quote the words of a Catholic writer
(Waterworth, Council of Trent, Preface, p. Ixxxix,
pp. 19, 20), this Council, regarding " the great va
riety of translations current in the church an evil
to be remedied, decreed that the old and Vulgate
edition be held as authentic, as being the most
ancient, the most used, as representing more correct
ly the state of the ancient copies of the Greek and
Hebrew Scriptures than any other Latin version,
or even probably than any other then or now existing
Greek or Hebrew edition, and, finally, as having been
prepared ages before the modern disputes and, there
fore, unbiased by them." The decree further de
clared that " if any one receives not as sacred and
canonical " all the books therein contained, which
include the Apocrypha, " let him be anathema."
Further, the Council, " seeing clearly that truth and
discipline are contained in the written books and

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY 153
the unwritten traditions, . . . receives and venerates
with an equal affection of piety and reverence all the
books of the Old and New Testament, ... as also
the said traditions, as well those pertaining to faith
as to morals, as having been dictated either by
Christ's own word of mouth or by the Holy Ghost,
and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continu
ous succession."
An edition of the Vulgate had to be determined
upon as the authentic version mentioned in the de
cree; and, after Pope Sixtus V had published one,
which, though declared by him to be " authentic,"
was found to be very faulty, and was recalled, Clem
ent VIII issued an edition, which " from that time
forward (sometimes under the name of Clement,
sometimes under that of Sixtus, sometimes under
both names) has been the standard edition of the
Roman Church. By the Bull of 1592 every edition
must be assimilated to this one, no word of the text
may be altered, nor even variant readings printed in
the margin." Every authorized edition of the Vul
gate subsequently published has had the approval of
the Pope who at the time occupied the chair of
Peter at Rome.^^
The approval given by the Council of Trent, a
plenary or ecumenical Council of the whole church,
has been confirmed by another similar Council, that
of the Vatican, held in 1870.^* Such an approval
is the highest which the church can give, the next
in weight being that of the Congregation of the
Index or Rites at Rome.

154 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
The church being catholic for all nations and all
time, no one version could be authorized other than
the Vulgate for all the different languages spoken
throughout the Christian world. Any country which
wishes for a Bible in its own language must use a
translation of the Vulgate.

CHAPTER VI
AUTHOEITT FOE UsE OF THE DoUAY BiBLE
The translation of the Vulgate used by English-
speaking people is known as the " Douay Bible."
Cardinal Capellan in his remarks on the decrees
of the First Council of Baltimore points out that,
for the reasons given at the end of the last chapter,
no approval has been given to this version either by
an ecumenical Council or by a Congregation at
Rome. The authority for its use in the United States
is found in the decrees of the Second Council of
Baltimore (1866),^° a plenary Council for this coun
try, which recommends that the clergy do not per
mit their flock " to select the pure food of the Word
of God, unless from approved versions and editions,"
and continues as follows : " We order, therefore, that
the Douay Version, which is received in all churches
where the faithful speak English, and which has
been justly set forth for the use of the faithful by
our predecessors, be altogether retained. Moreover,
the bishops will take care that the most approved
copy should be designated by them, and all editions
both of the Old and New Testament of the Douay
Version be most perfectly made, with such notes as
might be selected from the holy Fathers of the
church or from learned Catholics." In the Third
Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884) a suggestion
155

156 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
was made that an authorized English version of the
Scriptures should be published; but this was not
agreed to, presumably for the reasons we have
given.-*® The Council particularly directed that all biblical
discussion among the clergy be based on the Vulgate
only, and not on any translation.
The position taken by the Catholic Church as to
the Vulgate and the Douay Bible is the same to-day
as it was at the date of the decrees. In proof of this
we have permission to quote the following letter from
the Rev. Father Prendergast, of the College of Saint
Francis Xavier, 30 West Sixteenth Street, New
York City, dated March 20, 1904: " I find no appro
bation of the Douay Version given by the Church.
Individual theologians and individual bishops have
approved this or that version, and the Council of
Baltimore II quotes Archbishop Carroll as approving
the Douay Version in general, reapproves it, and
urges the bishops to see that all editions to which they
give their imprimatur are in accord with some good
exemplar of it. This Council has authority only in
the United States. Such approval is more than the
Church has given to any other translation of the
Vulgate into a modern tongue." With reference to
English approvals, the Rev. T. M. Joaffe, professor
of theology at Saint Benno's, England, in a letter
dated June 19, 1904, which we have permission to
quote, says, " There is no favorite edition."
In brief, the position of the Catholic Church is
that any of these revisions, approved by a bishop or

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY 157
higher authority, may be used by members of the
Catholic Church, but the only authorized version of
the Bible is the Vulgate itself. Bearing these facts
in mind, the reader will be better able to appreciate
the history of the Douay Bible given in the next
chapter.

CHAPTER VII
The Histoey of the Douay Bible
DuEiNG the reign of Queen Mary of England,
William Allen, a strong supporter of the Roman
Catholic Church, was Principal of Saint Mary's
Hall, Oxford. His character and intellect are de
scribed by Bishop Andrewes in the following pithy
sentence : " His forehead was surely flint and his
tongue a razor." ^'' After the accession of Queen
Elizabeth he left England and was for many years
an enthusiastic worker for the restoration of England
to communion with Rome. Through his efforts the
Catholic College at Douay, in Flanders, was founded
with the object of organizing missionary work in
England, and his labors gained for him the cardinal's
hat. In 1578, owing to political troubles, the members
of the College migrated to Rheims, returning to
Douay in 1609.
Another Englishman, Gregory Martin, reputed to
be the best Hebrew and Greek scholar of his day,
joined William Allen at Douay in 1570, and they
were there associated with Richard Bristow, Dr.
Reynolds, and Dr. Worthington.
These were the men who made the translation of
the Douay Bible from the Vulgate. Martin trans
lated and his fellow laborers revised his translation.
158

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY 159
The result of their labors was the publication in
1582 of the New Testament with notes by Bristow
and Allen at Rheims, and in 1609 of the Old Testa
ment with notes by Worthington at Douay, form
ing the Rheims and Douay Bible, or, as it is more
commonly called the " Douay Bible."
Though approved by the Universities of Rheims
and Douay at the time of publication,^* the trans
lation has " never," says Cardinal Newman, " had
any episcopal imprimatur, much less has it received
any formal approbation from the Holy See. It
comes to us on the authority of certain divines of the
Cathedral and College of Rheims and of the Uni
versity of Douay, confirmed by the subsequent in
direct recognition of English, Scotch and Irish bish
ops, and its general reception by the faithful."
Two editions of the Douay Bible were published,
the first in 1609, the second in 1633, which was ren
dered necessary by the issue of Clement VIII's re
vised version of the Vulgate (1592-98). Of the
many revisions which have been made of this trans
lation, the most important is that of Challoner,
whose first edition of the whole Bible appeared in
London in 1750. His text was the first of the Douay
versions published with episcopal sanction, for he
himself was a bishop. The alterations are very con
siderable, based on the principle of making the text
more easily understood by the reader. Old and dis
used words and expressions are replaced by more
familiar language, but there is not apparently any
wish to use Saxon in place of Latin words.

160 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
His version of the Old Testament must be con
sidered, as a whole, to be a new translation. Every
Catholic translation. Cardinal Newman points out,
must resemble others, as all are translations of the
same Vulgate ; but, " this connection between the
Douay and Challoner being allowed for, Challoner's
version is even nearer to the Protestant than it is to
the Douay." " At this day," he continues, " the
Douay Old Testament no longer exists as a received
version of the authorized Vulgate. There is one and
only one received text " (that of Challoner).
The New Testament has been frequently revised,
and the revisions differ widely from the original ; but
there is not any one standard edition of the same
authority as Challoner's Old Testament. In 1783
in Dublin Rev. Bernard McMahon published a re
vision, approved by Archbishop Carpenter, which,
though it claims descent from Challoner, has never
theless about fifty variations from his text in the
Gospels, and about five hundred in the other books
of the New Testament. The editions of this revision,
subsequently published, are known as Troy's Bible,
as that prelate directed their preparation and gave
his formal approval of the translation.^^ They strive
to make the language more colloquial, and in many
places are certainly successful.
Subsequent editors of the New Testament have
had to choose between Challoner's and Troy's texts,
and have made free use of the choice thus given
them. One of these editions, that of Haydock,
was issued by the Very Rev. F. C. Husenbeth with

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY 161
abridged annotations in 1853, under the sanction of
the Right Rev. Dr. Wareing and " the concurrent
approbation and sanction of all the Right Rev.
Vicars-Apostolic of Great Britain." The approba
tion of most of the archbishops and bishops of the
church in America was also given to it. The other
editions of the New Testament of most importance
are those of Murray (1815), " which follows Chal
loner's early edition, and that of Cardinal Wise
man (1847)." The edition from which we make
quotations, and which is in common use in the
United States, was published in 1899 with the ap
probation of Cardinal Gibbons as " an accurate re
print of the Rhemish Douay edition." This state
ment is not strictly correct, as the edition differs
widely from the original version and resembles the
Revised Version more than many of its predecessors.

CHAPTER VIII
The Men who Teanslated the Bible into
English
Although the Bible, as a whole, was not trans
lated into Anglo-Saxon,^" parts of it exist in that
tongue — the earliest effort being a paraphrase of
portions of the Bible done in verse by Csedmon, a
monk of Whitby (d. 680).
From that time down to the fourteenth century
paraphrases, versions, and translations were made by
various men at various times, but all with the one
deep purpose of giving the people the Word of God in
their own language. In 1382 John Wyclif issued the
first published translation of the Bible, which may
be considered " the original stock of the Authorized
Version, whose peculiar strength is directly derived
from his." ^^
To translate the Bible in those days was as much
as a man's life was worth, and the work was pub
lished anonymously. It was not approved by the au
thorities, and the Vulgate was the standard Bible.
But though the terrors of excommunication were held
over the heads of any who dared to read Wyclif's
books, -- Foxe bears witness that " the fervent zeal
of those churches seemed superior to our days and
times, as manifestly may appear by their sitting up
162

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY 163
all night in reading and hearing; also by their ex
penses and charges in buying books in English, of
whom some gave five marks [about $200] . . . and
some gave a load of hay for a few chapters of James
or Paul in English." ^^ This translation was indeed
precious as the only English version before Tyndale's,
nearly one hundred and fifty years later.
These intervening years witnessed the invention
of printing and a revival of learning in Europe,
which made possible the wider study of the Bible in
the original. The Hebrew of the Old Testament
was for the first time published in a complete form
in 1488, followed by the rabbinical Bibles of Bom-
berg in 1518 and 1525, well furnished with com
mentaries of early Jewish scholars.^* The Greek
language before this time was practically unknown
in western Europe. But the scholars of Greece, ex
iled from their country on the fall of the Eastern
Empire in 1455, stimulated its study. Printed
Greek Testaments were published, of which the first
was that of Erasmus (1516). The appliances for
the study of Greek soon became fairly adequate,
grammars obtained a wide circulation, and several
lexicons were published.^^ These Hebrew and Greek
editions were eagerly bought up, and an impulse
given to the study of the Word of God, which so
alarmed the ignorant and illiterate monks that they
declared there were no such languages as Hebrew
and Greek. The art of printing was denounced in a
sermon from Saint Paul's Cross : " We must root
out printing, or printing will root out us." ^®

164 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
It was about this time (1522) that Luther, the hero
of the Reformation, published his version, which had
a marked influence on subsequent translations. In
deed, notwithstanding the anathemas of the monks,
" so mightily grew the Word of God and prevailed "
that by the middle of the sixteenth century the Scrip
tures were circulated throughout almost all Europe
in the language of each nation.^''
The translation into English to wliich, with Wy
clif's, the Revised Version is most indebted is that of
William Tyndale, born about 1484. His work met
with considerable opposition, and he was diligently
hunted down by emissaries of Henry VIII, then
King of England, Cardinal Wolsey, and Cuthbert,
Bishop of Durham. He was often obliged to use
a feigned name and to move about from place to
place. This persecution made it impossible for him
to work in England, and he left that country in May,
1524, never to return. As he plaintively says in his
preface to the book of Genesis published in 1531,
he " understood at the last that there was no room
in my lord of London's palace to translate the New
Testament, but also that there was no place to do it
in all England." Abroad he was able to work with
effect, and in 1525 printed a quarto edition of the
New Testament at Worms, whither he fied from
Cologne to avoid an injunction on his printer ob
tained at the instigation of Cardinal Wolsey. The
issue of this edition soon became kno%vn in England,
and Tyndale's enemies kept a sharp lookout for its
arrival, with the charitable object of seizing and

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY 165
burning it. To baffle their design, Tyndale issued an
octavo edition of three thousand copies, which was
widely circulated in his native country. Tyndale's
name did not appear on either edition, for as he says
in his prologue, " I followed the counsel of Christ,
which exhorteth men to do their deeds secretly and to
be content with the conscience of welldoing."
The stringent measures taken to suppress these
editions, though in a great measure successful, de
feated their own purpose. They naturally increased
the price of the book, and many copies were bought
for large sums of money and used for reprints and
new editions. The books were indeed as eagerly
bought up as they were sought out for destruction.
The importers were prosecuted and made to do pen
ance " by riding with their faces to the horses' tails,
with the books fastened thick about them or tacked to
their gowns or cloaks, to the Standard in Chepe, and
then with their own hands to fiing them into the fire
made on purpose to burn them."
Tyndale ultimately crowned his life's labors with
the martyr's death. On October 6, 1536, after a
long imprisonment at Vilvorde, he was strangled at
the stake and his body burned to ashes. ^* His
dying cry was, " Lord, open the King of England's
eyes ! " ^^ He was as noble a man as his translation
was a noble work.
In contrast to the heroic nature and strength of
Tyndale stand the patient labors and tender sym
pathy of Myles Coverdale, the beauty of whose char
acter is fully shown in his disclaimer of originality

166 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
in translations* of the Bible which both friends and
foes have ascribed to him.
The persecutions endured by Tyndale did not
deter Coverdale from entering on the same work, and
his first translation was published in 1535, before
Tyndale's martyrdom. The edition was dedicated to
Henry VIII, Coverdale's object being to secure free
circulation of the Scriptures. It had, however, no
distinct royal sanction, though it is said to have been
carried out with the knowledge of Thomas Crom
well, the Chancellor, and Sir Thomas More, the latter
of whom was one of Tyndale's most active opponents.
In the prologue to this edition, some copies refer to
the King's " dearest wife " as Anne, others have
altered it to J. Ane, and in some copies the Queen's
name is suppressed altogether.
Like other translators, Coverdale had to suffer for
his zeal. He was twice exiled, and on the accession
of Mary, in 1556, was deprived of the bishopric of
Exeter. He subsequently returned to England, and
died in 1569, at the ripe age of eighty-one.^"
The next translator, John Rogers, whose alias,
Thomas Matthew, appears upon the title-page of his
Bible, published his first edition in 1537, two years
after Coverdale's first Bible. This may be called the
first Authorized Version, as we find permission given
by Henry VIII, " that the book shall be allowed
by his authority to be bought and read within this
realm." ^^ The royal license was obtained for Cov
erdale's Bible in the same year, making it the second
Authorized Version.

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY 167
Richard Taverner published an edition in 1539,
which, though allowed to be read in churches, quickly
fell into neglect, and " appears to have exercised no
influence whatever on later revisions." ^^
The Great Bible, so called from the size of the
volume, was published in 1539. It is sometimes,
though erroneously, called Cranmer's Bible ; but the
credit of it is really due to Cromwell, by whose di
rections Coverdale and Grafton were authorized to
print and publish it. The prologue was written by
Cranmer, and is a proof of his wisdom and earnest
ness. The actual work was carried on in Paris, and
the inquisitor-general, hearing of it, stopped its prog
ress in December, 1538, and ordered the printed
sheets to be seized. Coverdale and his associates fled,
leaving the presses, the type, and some printed copies
behind them. These were condemned to be burned,
but the officers of the Inquisition, apparently for a
pecuniary consideration, which even in those days
could accomplish some of the feats it performs in our
own time, sold the outfit to a haberdasher, who bought
them as waste paper. In this manner " four great
dry vats full " were saved, and removed to England,
where the Great Bible was published. The fourth
edition of 1541 was by command of the King author
ized by Cuthbert, Bishop of Durham, and Nicholas,
Bishop of Rochester. This was necessary; since the
Great Bible being principally due to Cromwell, his
disgrace and the suspicion of heresy under which he
had fallen called for an episcopal sanction to render
it orthodox.

168 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
This Cuthbert was the same man who had refused
the hospitality of his palace to Tyndale and burned
his books, and who now, by the irony of fate, author
ized what was practically the same work under a
changed name.*^
The zeal for the general reading of the Bible was
not permitted to have much scope. In 1 543 the read
ing of Scripture was placed under very severe
restrictions and an Act of Parliament sardonically
entitled " for the advancement of true religion " for
bade the use of Tyndale's translation. Three years
later similar restrictions were placed on Wyclif's,
Coverdale's, and other Bibles, which were ordered to
be burned. The rigid enforcement of these laws ac
counts for the few copies preserved of early Bibles and
Testaments, and the mutilated form of others, saved
only by removing the title-pages. It was only the
Great Bible the reading of which was not forbidden.
In the midst of the reaction against the Bible
Henry VIII died (1547), and the history of the
English version remained stationary for some years.
On the accession of Edward VI the restrictions
placed on printing and reading the Scriptures were
removed, and an impulse was given to the study of
the Word of God, which resulted in the publication
of several Bibles and New Testaments. On the ac
cession of Queen Mary (1553) public reading of the
Scriptures was again prohibited, no English Bibles
were printed during her reign, and the works of
Tyndale, Coverdale, and others were denounced as
heretical.

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY 169
But religious intolerance did not stop with these
measures. Both Catholics and Protestants alike be
lieved it to be their duty to convert or exterminate
their opponents, and the choice offered to an opponent
when seized was to recant or to be burned at the stake.
Many distinguished divines betook themselves to
Geneva. There, mainly through the influence of the
great Protestant leader, Calvin, they met with hos
pitable treatment and were allowed to study and to
worship God according to their own convictions.**
The result was the, publication at Geneva by William
Whittingham of the New Testament, in 1557, and
the whole Bible in 1560. This version was known
as the " Genevan Bible." *^ One hundred and thirty
editions were published, and it retained its popu
larity for one hundred years.*®
The superiority and wide circulation of the Ge
nevan Bible made the defects of the Great Bible gen
erally known, and rendered it difficult to restore that
version to its former position. On the other hand,
the one-sided theological tendency of the Genevan
Version made its adoption as an authorized version
impossible. In these circumstances the Bishops' Bible was
planned — so called because the work of translation
was divided among the bishops of the English
Church, under the leadership of Matthew Parker,
Archbishop of Canterbury. The first edition was
published in 1568, and a corrected version in 1572
was the immediate basis of the Authorized Version
of 1611."

170 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
This was the work of forty-seven translators chosen
by King James I on the recommendation of the Uni
versities of Oxford and Cambridge. They worked
in three companies, and at the close of their labors
the whole work was revised by members from each
company. Though known as the Authorized Ver
sion it was never formally sanctioned by any author
ity, ecclesiastical or temporal. As Westcott in his
History of the English Bible (p. 310) says, " A re
vision which embodied the ripe fruits of nearly a
century of labor and appealed to the religious in
stinct of a great Christian people gained by its own
internal character a vital authority which could never
have been secured by any edict of sovereign rulers."
Subsequent editions contained many errors, which
have been catalogued and arranged by Scrivener
in his Authorized Edition of the English Bible
(Cambridge, 1881). The one usually regarded as
the standard edition was published by Blayney in
1749. The American Bible Society in 1851-52
published an edition which claims to contain the
version in the form used for three centuries without
addition or omission, and to which all the subsequent
editions published by the society conform.*^
Several attempts were made during the eighteenth
century by individual writers to improve the Author
ized Version, but were, on the whole, dismal failures.
In the middle of the nineteenth century a greater
impulse to revision was given by the publication of
critical texts of the New Testament by well known
scholars, by a substantial advance in Hebrew and

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY 171
Greek scholarship, and, especially, by the discovery
of one of the oldest known manuscripts of the entire
Scriptures, and the careful examination and collating
of many hundred manuscripts.*^ As a result two
Committees were formed in England in February,
1870, under a resolution of the House of Convoca
tion, with a view to the revision of the Old and New
Testaments. American scholars were invited to join
in the work, and two Committees, organized in con
cert with and on the same lines as the English Re
visers, began work on October 4, 1872.
The English Revisers undertook to send all their
revisions to the American Committee, and to take all
their suggestions into consideration before they con
cluded their labors — to furnish them before publica
tion with copies of the Revision in its final shape,
and to allow the American Revisers to present in an
Appendix all differences of reading and renderings
of importance which the English Revisers did not see
their way to adopt. The American Revisers, on their
part, promised to give their moral support to the
Revised Version published in England, and not to
issue a rival edition for fourteen years. The English
Revision Company published the New Testament on
May 17, 1881, and the Old Testament on July 10,
1884. In their preface they " gratefully acknowl
edge " the American Committee's " care, vigilance,
and accuracy," and add " we humbly pray that their
labors and our own, thus happily united, may be
permitted to bear a blessing to both countries, and to
all English-speaking peoples throughout the world."

172 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
Soon after the close of their work the English Re
vision Company disbanded, but the American Com
mittee continued their organization and made prep
arations for the publication of the American Revised
Version. The Appendix to the English Revision had been
somewhat hastily prepared, and itself required re
vision. In it an effort had been made to reduce the
number of different readings to the lowest possible
point; but in preparing an American Revision the
Revisers " felt themselves free to go beyond the task
of incorporating the Appendix in the text," and in
cluded in their Revised Version any emendations
which a two-thirds majority decided to be of im
portance, whether they had been in the Appendix
or not. The time limit of fourteen years having
elapsed, the Revisers in 1901 published the Revised
Version, American Standard Edition.

CHAPTER IX
The Influence of Previous English Teansla-
TIONS ON THE REVISED VeESION
Wyclif's translation is " robust, terse, popular,
and homely, and undoubtedly had an indirect effect
on the general style of Scripture translations and on
the formation of the English language." *" Many
expressions in the Revised Version owe their origin
to it, as, for example, " Narrow is the gate and
straitened the way," " to be born anew," " the deep
things of God," " a living sacrifice," " the cup of
blessing which we bless." ** The Beatitudes in Luke
VI: 20-23 are almost word for word the same as
Wyclif's.* These expressions are found also in Tyndale's
Bible, the connecting link between the two being the
Vulgate. Wyclif translated direct from that version,
but Tyndale and all subsequent translators were al)le
to use and did use the original Hebrew and Greek
texts. AVhile " Wycliffe must be considered as having
originated the diction and phraseology which for five
centuries has constituted the consecrated dialect of
the English speech," Tyndale gave " to it that finish
and perfection which has so admirably adapted it to
* The Douay Version adopts all these expressions except " the
cup of blessing," which is called " the chalice of benediction."
173

174 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
the expression of religious doctrine and sentiment,
and to the narration of the remarkable series of his
torical facts which are recorded in the Christian
Scriptures. He fixed the type according to which
later laborers worked. His influence decided that
our Bible should be popular and not literary, speak
ing in a simple dialect, and that so by its simplicity
it should be endowed with permanence. He felt by
a happy instinct the potential affinity between He
brew and English idioms, and enriched our language
and thought forever with the characteristics of the
Semitic mind."
To quote Froude, his translation " is substan
tially the Bible with which we are all familiar. The
peculiar genius — if such a word may be permitted —
Avliich breathes through it, the mingled tenderness
and majesty, the Saxon simplicity, the preternatural
grandeur unequaled, unapproached in the attempted
improvements of modern scholars, all are here, and
bear the impress of the mind of one great man —
William Tyndale." *-
Tyndale's was an honest translation from the orig
inal, and to its excellence witness is given by Geddes,
a Roman Catholic scholar. Though his knowledge of
Hebrew has been denied by some authorities, the evi
dence seems conclusive in favor of his having been an
accurate Hebrew scholar. It is not, as has been as
serted by Hallam and by Macknight, a copy from the
Vulgate, nor from Luther's German. He " availed
himself of the best help which lay within his reach,
but he used it as a master and not as a disciple. In

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY 175
this work alone he felt that substantial independence
was essential to success. In exposition or exhortation
he might borrow freely the language or the thought
which seemed suited to his purpose, but in rendering
the sacred text he remained throughout faithful to
the instincts of a scholar." **
Tyndale's translation of the New Testament is a
complete proof of his independence. It shows clearly
that he rendered the Greek text, while he consulted
the Latin of the Vulgate, and the German of Lu
ther.** Instances in which he followed the Vulgate
are found in the expressions " pinnacle of the
temple," " this night is thy soul required of thee,"
" in my Father's house are many mansions," " let us
run the race that is set before us," " written on their
foreheads." The American Revisers have in these and other
passages where Tyndale followed the Vulgate in
dorsed his renderings, and adopted them almost word
for word — a striking proof of the accuracy of his
scholarship. In these passages the Douay is naturally similar to
Tyndale and the Revised Version ; but this is not the
case where Tyndale has shown his independence in
departing from the Vulgate. His scholarship in
these cases is in almost every instance confirmed by
the American Revisers.**
One striking instance is the expression in the
Lord's Prayer " our daily bread," which the Douay
Version renders " our supersubstantial bread," a
slavish literalism from the Latin.

176 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
Among expressions for -which he is indebted to
Luther we quote the following, found also in the
Douay and Re-\dsed Versions: "A voice was heard
in Rama," " to the Greek and to the barbarians,"
" thy hardness and impenitent heart," " the foolish
ness of God," " that they may have the right to the
tree of life."
One other expression of Luther's, " the natural
man," adopted by Tyndale and the American Revis
ers, is rendered in the Douay Version " the sensual
man," which can hardly be claimed as an improve
ment. But the similarity of the other expressions to
Luther's German would indicate that the translators
of the Douay Version were not unwilling to consult
other authorities besides the Vulgate.*®
The remarkable similarity between Tyndale and
the Revised Version is well shown in two passages
taken at random, one from Numbers XVI: 28-35,
and the other from Luke XV. A comparison of
these passages shows that they are almost identical.
Another proof of this similarity is found by a com
parison of the First Epistle of John, nine tenths of
Avhich owes its origin to Tyndale,*^ and in the
Epistle to the Ephesians, where five sixths of the
text is Tyndale's. In nine instances in these passages
the Revised Version has either adopted Tyndale's
rendering in preference to that of the Authorized
Version or approaches more nearly to him.
These passages may be taken as fair examples of
the effect of Tyndale's translation on the Bible of
to-day.

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY 177
It is not generally considered that Coverdale's
Bible can be given a place among independent trans
lations; but it is due to him that certain old words,
not used by Tyndale, such as " charity," " confess,"
" church," " grace," " priest," are not lost in the
Bible.*8 Coverdale's influence is chiefly felt through
Rogers's edition, in which a large portion is incorpo
rated, and still more through the Great Bible, " in
wliich he revised more than once his own work." *^
Some part of his Bible survives in the poetical books
and the Prophets. But where his work still lives and
is in daily use is in the version of the Psalms in the
Prayer-books of the American and English Episcopal
Churches, which, though taken from the Great Bible,
is in essence the Psalter of Coverdale.
The version of Rogers had no original and inde
pendent influence on the present text. It combined
the work of earlier translators with " the judicious
hand of an accomplished scholar," *" and laid the
basis of later revisions. The labors of the next
seventy-five years, which witnessed the issue of the
Great Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the Authorized
Version, were devoted to efforts to improve the text
left by Rogers.
The Great Bible is, however, considered to be in
ferior to Rogers's in many respects, and both the
Genevan and the Bishops' Bible corrected its text
and strove to remove errors which impaired the
sense.*^ The work of the bishops was especially
designed to make a popular and not a literary ver-

178 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
sion. Owing to the number of translators, the dif
ferent books have varying merit, but in general it
may be said that the Greek scholarship is inferior to
the Hebrew. Such new renderings as are given can
generally be traced to some other translation, and are
not original; but throughout the translation may be
seen the influence of the Genevan Version. This
first gave the present division into verses, based upon
Robert Stephanus's Greek Testament of 1551.

CHAPTER X
The Authorized Version of 1611 and the Eng
lish AND Ameeican Revisions Thereof
The Authorized Version and the English and
American Revised Versions are the work of a church,
and not of a man.
The rules which guided the Revisers in both cases
have a remarkable similarity. In each case they
were directed to follow the English translation then
in common use, and to make as few alterations as
faithfulness to originals would permit. Where alter
ations were decided on, the expression of them was to
be in the language of earlier English versions. In
th^ English and American Revisions no alteration
was permitted unless supported by two thirds of the
Revisers. Precautions were taken to secure the full
est consideration of every change. The opinions of
" divines, scholars, and literary men " were invited,
and every effort made to " bring a plain reader more
closely into contact with the exact thought of the
sacred writers." ®^ The later Revisers had at their
disposal sources of information which were not avail
able to the translators of the Authorized Version. In
particular, we may mention the Codex Sinaiticus,
a few leaves of which were discovered in 1844, the
whole Codex coming to light in 1859 ; the examina
tion of many hundred Hebrew manuscripts by Ken-
179

180 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
nicott, De Rossi, Davidson, and others, and a large
literature on the text of the Bible, gathering to
gether in available form and order all the material
from which light on the true text could be obtained.*
In fact, textual criticism as a science was not in
existence in 1611.
The revision of the Old Testament was a some
what easier task than that of the New Testament.
The " Massoretic Text," accepted as the basis of their
work, has come down in manuscripts which differ
little from one another. Though there are admitted
defects in it, the only means of correcting it is from
the versions, especially the Septuagint. But the copies
of these versions vary considerably from one another,
and before a revision of the " Massoretic Text " can
be made a vast amount of preliminary work must
be done in collecting and comparing copies of
the Septuagint and other versions and in careful
study of the Hebrew manuscripts themselves. For
these reasons the Revisers did not consider that the
existing knowledge on the subject justified a recon
struction of the text.^* Where there are evident
mistakes in the Hebrew and renderings in versions
which seemed plausible, the correction is usually
noted in the margin. In a few of these cases a
change in the text is made. But the majority of
changes arise from the more accurate Hebrew scholar
ship of to-day and correct obvious mistakes in the
Authorized Version.
One change of this kind made is the substitution
* The Bibliography gives particulars as to all these works.

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY 181
of the word " Jehovah " for " Lord " and " God."
A Jewish superstition regards the divine name
" Jehovah " as too sacred to be uttered, and in the
Authorized Version the word is seldom or never used.
The Revisers in their Preface point out that the
word " designates God as the personal God, as the
covenant God, the God of revelation, the Deliverer,
the Friend of the people, the ever-living Helper of
those who are in trouble," and " with its wealth of
sacred associations is now restored to the place in
the sacred text to which it has an unquestionable
claim." Another similar change affecting a great
number of passages is the substitution of the Hebrew
word " Sheol " for the different renderings " grave,"
" pit," " hell," for the same word. " Sheol " sig
nifies the " abode of departed spirits," and as the
words used in the Authorized Versions have wider
and different meanings the alteration seems desirable.
Other alterations include the use of " its " for " his "
and " her " when not referring to persons.**
The work on the New Testament involved a criti
cism of the text, which " forms a special study of
much intricacy and difficulty," and " the rival claims
of various readings " had to be settled.^* The evi
dence in favor of any change was carefully sifted,
and the different schools of criticism among the Re
visers enabled the best results to be obtained. Where
the authorities differ a note is made in the margin
to the effect that " some ancient authorities " have a
different rendering, which is also given in the note.
The state of the case is in this way fairly represented.

182 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
In some passages it was necessary to revise the Greek
text in accordance with documentary evidence. For
example, the weight of evidence is against the in
sertion of the clause, " For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen "
(Matthew VI: 13),*® and it is accordingly omitted.
The evidence is in favor of reading the passage " God
was manifest in the flesh" (I Timothy III: 16)"
as " He who was manifest in the flesh," some ancient
authorities reading " which was." The passage is
altered accordingly.*
One decided improvement in both Old and New
Testaments is the arrangement of the text. The old
method of division into chapter and verse, while re
tained for convenience of reference, is subordinated
to divisions into paragraphs. A minute subdivision,
which is a serious obstacle to the right understanding
of Scripture, is thus avoided. Each paragraph with
out reference to chapter or verse deals with one
subject. In poetical portions the text is arranged in
lines so as to exhibit the parallelism characteristic of
Hebrew poetry.
*The Douay Version omits the clause from Matthew and
makes the clause from Timothy read " which was."

CHAPTER XI
The Douay Version and the Revised Version
compaeed
Two documents, the Preface to the Douay Bible
and the Errata of the Protestant Bible published in
1822 by Ward, give criticisms by Catholics on
Protestant versions. They may be regarded as the
best defense of the Douay Version, and the most
severe condemnation of the Authorized Version, and
of its successor, the Revised Version.
The Preface to the New Testament of the Douay
Bible states that the translators are " very precise
and religious in following . . . the old vulgar ap
proved Latin not only in sense . , . but sometimes
in the very words and phrases which may seem . . .
to common English ears not yet acquainted there
with rudeness or ignorance; but to the discreet
reader that deeply weigheth and considereth the im
portance of sacred words and speeches and how easily
the voluntary translator may miss the true sense of
the Holy Ghost we doubt not but our consideration
and doing therein shall seem reasonable and neces
sary : yea, and that all sorts of Catholic readers will
in short time think that familiar which at first may
seem strange." The Preface then gives specific in
stances of " words and phrases " so retained. Many
of them, however, are not retained in the modern
183

184 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
Douay, but have been altered to agree with the Au
thorized and Revised Versions. We need only con
cern ourselves with those which the modem Douay
retains, and we find that the Revised Version agrees
with the modern Douay in the use of " hosanna,"
" raca," " phylacteries," " concision," " circumci
sion," "priest," "deacon," "tradition," "altar."
The only other " words and phrases " retained in the
modern Douay are those given below side by side
with the words preferred by the American Revisers:
DOUAY VERSION REVISED VERSION
Alleluia Hallelujah
sons of Belial base fellows
flourished again revived
exhaust the sins of many bear the sins of many
doth penance that repenteth
penance repentance
chalice cup
No argument in support of any doctrine can be
founded on the alterations made by the Revised Ver
sion, which, however, are certainly more easily un
derstood by the average reader.
At the end of the Douay New Testament is a table
of words which the translators " thought it far better
to keep in the text and to tell their signification in a
table for that purpose than to disgrace both the text
and themselves with translating them." It is difficult
to understand this reasoning; for, if the words in
question can be translated into English by apt words
(and the American Revisers have sho-wu that this can
ho done), why should the Bible reader be compelled
to turn to a table at the end to ascertain the meaning

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY 185
of the fifty-five words there given ? Revisers of the
Douay Bible have evidently felt the force of this argu
ment, and in their revisions twenty-nine words and
phrases of these fifty-five agree exactly with the Re
vised Version, eight are expressed in words familiar
to the ordinary reader, while eighteen, retained in
the modern Douay from the original, are rendered in
the Revised Version by ordinary English words,
which in every case agree with the meaning of those
words as given in the table.* When we add that
among the words retained we find " azymes," " holo
causts," " parascue," " pasche," we are forced to ad
mit that the American Revisers have adopted the
wiser course.
Ward's book gives one hundred and seventeen
quotations from all parts of the Bible, in which he
considers the rendering of the Authorized Version
to be erroneous. An analysis of the quotations
gives some very curious results, and throws light on
changes made by the American Revisers.
Thirty-five passages are admitted by Ward to
have been corrected in the edition of the Authorized
Version of 1683. Nine are so altered in the Revised
Version as to remove the objections raised.*® Eight
are altered in the modern Douay to agree with the
Revised Version on the points objected to.®" Nine
agree in both versions.®^
The objections raised to the Revised Version and
its predecessors are almost entirely removed by altera-
* A statement of all these words and phrases will be found in
the Appendix, Note 58.

186 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
tions in one version or the other, and where readings
objected to are retained the arguments used against
them are founded on illogical premises. It is diffi
cult to show more clearly than do these facts the
danger of making comments of too severe a nature
on the work of translators, who, even by their op
ponents, might be credited with an honest intention.
This is also sho-wu in criticisms on the Douay Ver
sion by modern writers, which have not always been
quite fair. They take advantage of the curious
diction of the original Douay Version and always
quote from it, and not from modern editions. These
have made extensive alterations, and it would, we sub
mit, display a more judicial and charitable spirit if
these criticisms were founded on versions of the
Douay Bible now in use, and not on that used three
hundred years ago. If we wish to criticise the Re
vised Version we do not do so by referring to Tyn
dale's Bible; neither, when we criticise the Douay
Bible as used by Catholics of to-daj', should we refer
for that purpose to an out-of-date edition. Thus out
of seventy-one passages quoted from the Douay Bible
by Protestant writers and condemned as " unintel
ligible," " painful," " absurd," we find that eighteen
passages in the modern Douay agree exactly with the
Revised Version, while thirty-five have been altered
in the modern Douay to make them intelligible and
agreeable in sense with the Revised Version.®^ The
truth is that the Authorized Version and its daughter,
the Revised Version, are largely indebted to the
Douay Version for many words and expressions, and

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY 187
the modern Douay has adopted from the Authorized
Version a very great number of renderings. Out of
twelve hundred and thirty-three passages which we
have collated,®* eight hundred and forty-seven have
been altered in the modern editions to agree exactly,
or substantially, either with the Authorized or Re
vised Version.®^ This may be taken as a fair test of
the alterations in general.*
On the other hand, the influence of the Douay on
the Revised Version is seen in the large proportion
of words of Latin derivation which owe their origin
(through the medium of the Authorized Version) to
the Douay, and it is from this source rather than
from Coverdale that the most powerful action of the
Vulgate on the Revised Version is exercised. In
the Epistle to the Romans there are phrases and
sentences in every chapter, and two or three in most
chapters, and ten words, such as " impenitent,"
" propitiation," " contribution," which derive their
origin in this way and are identical in both the
Douay and Revised Versions.®* In a passage of
moderate difficulty, Hebrews XIII, verses 8 to 13 are
almost identical in both versions, and an examination
of the First Epistle of John shows a large number
of phrases in the Revised Version identical with the
Douay Version.®* Other expressions identical in
the two versions and originating with the Douay of
1582 are : John IX : 22, " he should be put out of the
synagogue;" Acts I: 26, "he was numbered with
* Other cases of agreement affecting numerous passages have
been pointed out in the Essay.

188 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
the eleven apostles ; " Romans 1 : 21, " their . . .
heart was darkened; " XI: 2, " his people which he
foreknew;" Titus IV: 5, "regeneration." At the
same time there are a sufficient number of passages in
the modern Douay to support the contention that
the translation in use to-day itself requires transla
tion in some passages.
For the purpose of our comparison we must, of
course, take the version as we find it, and we can
best call attention to its diction by the following quo
tations in addition to those we have already noticed :

MODERN DOUAY REVISED VERSION
Jeremiah 11 19 Let us put wood on Let us destroy the tree
his bread -with the fruit thereof
Matthew 1 17 the transmigration of the carrying away to
Babylon Babylon
Mark 3 6 made a consultation took counsel
John 5 2 a pond, called Probat- by the sheep gate a
ica pool
Ephesians 3 15 of whom all paternity from whom every fam-
in heaven and earth ily in heaven and
is named earth is named
Colossians 3 16 spiritual canticles spiritual songs
I Peter 5 5 insinuate humility one gird yourselves with
to another humility
Hebrews 11 21 adored the top of his and worshiped, leaning
rod on the top of his staff

In some passages, however, the Douay Version is
in advance of the Revised Version in the use of mod
ern language. In the passages quoted below, sug
gestions were made by scholars for the substitution
of modern for out-of-date expressions, but were not
accepted by the American Revisers. It will be

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY

189

observed that the rendering in the Douay Bible
meets the objections:

Exodus 38 19
Judges 12 6
Ruth 2 3
I Samuel 9 26
Isaiah 1 13
Isaiah 18 6

Micah 1 7
Luke 14 32

REVISED VERSION
overlaying of their
capitals
he could not frame to
pronounce it right
her hap was to light
on the portion of
the field belonging
unto Boaz
about the spring of
the day
I cannot away with
the ravenous birds
shall summer upon
them
all her hires

DOUAY VERSION
their heads
not being able to ex
press
it happened that the
owner of the field
was Boaz
it began now to be light
I will not abide
the fowls shall be upon
them all the summer
all her wages
embassy

CHAPTER XII
Conclusion
We are now in a position to consider the different
points raised in Father Early's letter.
We have shown that the Catholic Church does not
prohibit the reading in private or in the family circle
of the Word of God. The only version, however,
which, by the decrees of that church, is authentic
is the Vulgate — a Latin translation — and this will
certainly not be found " in every family," and would
not be of much practical use if it was. What will be
found is one of the numerous editions of the Douay
Bible, whose use is, as we have shoAvn, permitted in
this country, but which has never been declared au
thentic. Father Early's description indicates that, in
his opinion, any of these editions represents the text
more faithfully than " the Protestant version, which
goes back only to the time of Henry VIII of England
and was then gotten up for obvious reasons."
Can this statement be supported ? Let us look at
the facts. The Douay Version and its revisions are,
or profess to be, translations direct from the Vulgate
— itself only a version, though of great antiquity
and value. No effort is made in the Douay Version
to translate the original Hebrew and Greek, or to
compare them with the Vulgate or other versions of
equal or greater value. In the Old Testament the
190

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY 191
" Received Text," beyond reasonable doubt, as faith
fully preserves the original as the Vulgate can do.
In the New Testament, Greek manuscripts discovered
in comparatively recent years, and almost as old as
the Vulgate, are disregarded. Thus, in the case of
both Testaments, no attention is paid to documents
which may indeed be said to have come down to us
unchanged " from the time of Christ Himself."
The original Douay Version was the result of the
labors of four men, and each revision represents only
the individual scholarship and thought of one, or at
the most two revisers. We have shown that its
modern editions have borrowed largely from the
Authorized Version, and most of their alterations
are taken from it.
The original basis of the Revised Version was
Tyndale's translation — a man diligently persecuted
by Henry VIII and his emissaries. The Authorized
Version, founded on Tyndale's and other transla
tions, was the work of a church represented by its
most learned divines and scholars in an age when the
intolerance of former years had somewhat abated,
and the versions which most largely contributed to
changes made in Tyndale's text were the Douay
Bible itself and the Genevan Version. These repre
sented two extreme types of thought, and the use
made of them by the Revisers of 1611 shows that
they were anxious to obtain the best translation, inde
pendently of the tenets of the school of thought which
proved those translations to be correct. The Revised
Version is the result of continued study and criticism

192 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
of the best minds, for several hundred years, of the
original Hebrew and Greek text, the versions, quota
tions from the Fathers, and modern translations,
completed by a body of men who thought that ad
vantage should be taken of all that critical study has
brought to light, and who felt " that such a work
can never be accomplished by organized efforts of
scholarship and criticism unless assisted by Divine
help." ®® The Revisers have been able to consult
manuscripts and authorities not at the disposal of
the compiler of the Vulgate or of its translators.
Their work has been carried out with an earnest
desire to give the Word of God in English as nearly
as possible as it is in the original, and has no
connection whatever with Henry VIII, his errors or
his opinions. There is, in fact, not one instance in
the history of the English Bible where the influence
of that monarch, except as a persecutor, had any
effect on the work of the translators.
To sum up our conclusions, the principal points of
difference between the two versions are:
1. The Douay Version includes and the Revised
Version excludes the Apocrypha.
2. The Douay Version in numerous cases uses
words and expressions which require explanation,
while the Revised Version strives to put in idiomatic
English the thought of the original. The original
object of the Douay Version of 1852 was to stop lib
erties taken with the text by reformers. This object
has not been kept in view by its modern editors, who
have introduced extensive alterations, and have made

THIRD PRIZE ESSAY 193
the text much more like that of the Revised Version
than the original edition. This has been done to
such an extent as to remove most of the criticisms
which Catholics have passed on Protestant Bibles.
3. The most important difference of all is in the
commentaries on the text printed with all editions of
the Douay Bible in accordance with the sentence in
Father Early's letter, " Neither will the Catholic
Church allow private interpretation of the Scrip
tures." ®''^ We need not enter into the question
whether this view is held by the Roman Catholic
Church alone, or discuss the points of doctrine raised
in the commentaries on the text. At the end of the
Douay Bible there is a " Table of References," to
texts in support of various doctrines held by the
Catholic Church. A careful collation of all the texts
there quoted in support of the most important articles
of faith of that church shows that, though in many
cases the renderings in the Douay and Revised Ver
sions differ, the differences are verbal only, and in
no way affect the validity of those texts as supporting
or opposing the doctrine with reference to which they
are quoted. The notes, of course, construe them in
support of the Catholic doctrine, and herein lies the
main difference between the two versions.
We have now traced the origin and history of the
two versions, and by comparison between them, im
partially and faithfully represented, enabled the
reader to judge which " most clearly and most
freshly " shows forth the Word of God to those who
speak the English language. " All endeavors to

194 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
translate the Holy Scriptures into another tongue
must fall short of their aim, when the obligation is
imposed of producing a version, that shall be alike,
liter.ol and idiomatic, faithful to each thought of
the original and yet in the expression of it har
monious and free." Our readers can judge for them
selves which version most nearly approaches this
ideal, and in forming an opinion we would ask them
to recognize the fact that revised translations of the
Holy Scriptures must be necessary as more light is
thrown on the languages in which the Bible was
written, and the texts of it which have been preserved,
and that a modern phraseology is necessary for
preserving and bringing home to modern men and
women " the faith once delivered to the saints." We
would ask from all an impartial judgment, a recog
nition of the merits of each version, and respect for
the convictions of those who honestly differ from
them and who value one of the versions as highly
as they do their own.

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

FIRST ESSAY
Preue ye all thingis. — I Th 5 21, Wyclif.
The notes originally submitted contained more information,
illustration, and criticism. In a few cases the essayist stiU pre
sents the results of independent study in compressed form, as at
notes 69-77, 92, 100, 138, 153, 158. In a few others the matters
at stake are so important that the reader may desire to see the
evidence and judge for himself, as at notes 202, 204, 205, 221,
225. Otherwise, however, the notes now printed have been
confined to justifying the statements in the text by mere ref
erence to writers of acknowledged eminence. Among these may
be mentioned Cornely, Introductionis Compendium, Paris, 1891,
and Gigot, General Introduction, New York, 1901, as the chief
Catholics cited. The fuU titles of works referred to will be found
in the BibUography; the extra (fifth) volume of Hastings' Dic-
tionary is cited as V. A very few references have been made
to books published since the essays were sent in.
1. The Aramaic portions are: Ezr 4 8-6 18, 712-26; Jer 10 11;
Dan 2 4-7 28. Once there were also extant in Aramaic: Judith,
Tobit, and a first edition of Matthew. See Cornely Introd.
Compend. 58. Also Diagram 1, based on Hastings' Dictionary.
2. Some of the most important manuscripts of the Hebrew are:
The Prophets, written by Aaron ben Moses ben Asher of Tiberias
in 895 A.D., now at Cairo. The whole of the Old Testament
edited by the same scholar, the standard Western Jewish Text, at
Aleppo. The Later Prophets, at St. Petersburg. The Later
Prophets, written by Moses ben David ben NaphtaU of Babylon,
partly of the standard Eastern Jewish Text, at Tzufutkale. See
Strack in Hastings IV. 725-732, and Buhl Canon and Text
197

198 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
85-90. Other manuscripts of the Hebrew Pentateuch have been
in the custody of the Samaritans from soon after the time of Ezra;
but those which have been seen by Europeans are no older than
the Jewish, and are considered as giving a corrupted text. See
Konig in Hastings V. 68-72; Comely Introd. Compend. 63.
Only one important manuscript was anciently in Christian cus
tody, the copy by Origen in his great Hexapla. This is no longer
extant; but a few extracts from it have been preserved in quotas
tion, and in 1896 a copy of part of the Psalms was discovered at
Milan. See Nestle in Hastings IV. 442-443.
3. Of the original Greek of the New Testament, more than 2,300
copies have been examined, though few are complete. There are
traces of revisions, especially after the time of Constantine, when
a demand arose for handsome volumes to be used in fashionable
churches and families. The copies made after a few centuries
are not much esteemed for purity of text. Of early copies note:
Before 400 an entire New Testament at St. Petersburg; one at
Rome, lacking part of Hebrews, Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and
the Revelation. Before 500 two mutilated Testaments at London
and Paris. These four are parts of very valuable Greek Bibles,
the Old Testaments being the Septuagint Translation, with vary
ing contents. For full lists see Scrivener-Miller Introduction to
the Criticism of the New Testament I., and Cornely Introd. Com
pend. 76-77.
4. More than 8,000 copies of Latin versions are extant, but not
aU have been examined carefully, and not quite 250 are yet known
that have been copied with care. See Cornely Introd. Compend.
90-121; Kennedy and White in Hastings III. 49-53, IV. 886-889;
Scrivener-Miller Introduction, Vol. II., Chs. ii.-iv.
5. See Cornely Introd. Compend. 40, 637-640; Westcott A
General Survey of the History of the Canon 242 and Appen
dix C.
6. It might have been expected that the customs and usages
of Palestine should be the most important, as this land was the
cradle of Christianity. But the Jewish revolts in 66 a.d. and in
131 A.D. broke all continuity, and the remnants of Jewish Chris
tians lost all importance. The earliest information as to the

APPENDIX 199
Scriptures in Syria comes from the Christians of Edessa, and the
history of the versions near here is not so far unraveled that all
scholars are quite agreed. The probable course of events is as fol
lows: The earliest Christians here were Jews, and they translated
into Syriac the books usually read in Palestine, those in the
Protestant Old Testament. To these they added Ecclesiasticus.
About 180 A.D. a native called Tatian returned from Rome, bring
ing with him the four Gospels as read there, which he pieced to
gether into one continuous story, and translated into Syriac ; this
book was called the "Diatessaron." The only other Christian
books used there were the Acts, and the Epistles of Paul with the
Hebrews. Twenty years later under the influence of Antioch the
Revelation was added, and the four separate Gospels were trans
lated, but were not taken into church use. Soon after 411 a.d.
the Diatessaron was confiscated from the churches, and a revision
of the Bible was introduced, adding a few more books to the New
Testament, but dropping the Revelation. This revised Bible,
introduced by Rabbula, Bishop of Edessa, became standard for all
Syrians, and is known as the "Peshito." Speaking of this, Gigot
says, Introduction 289-294: "As Jews, they would naturally
select the Hebrew text as the basis of their work" in the Old
Testament. In the New, "the other canonical books, -vdz., II
Peter, II and III John, St. Jude, and the Apocalypse, had not
been translated." See, however. Nestle in Hastings IV. 648a,
650a, 740b, and Burkitt Early Eastern Christianity.
7. Cornely says, Introd. Compend. 41: "As the second century
went out and the third century came in, almost the same canon
used at Rome was found in the rest of the Western churches. For
the African Church lacked only the epistles to the HEBREWS, of
JAMES, and the second of PETER, as is gathered from the
evidence of Tertullian and St. Cyprian; but TertulUan also testi
fies that at that time the epistle to the HEBREWS was received
by not a few churches. The Galilean Church, whose solitary
witness is St. Irenseus, seems to have lacked four books, HE
BREWS, JAMES, II PETER, JUDE, and in its canon was
present also a book not inspired, namely the SHEPHERD of
Hermas." See also Westcott Canon 423.

200 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
8. Thirty-eight of the Old Latin manuscripts are described in
Scrivener-Miller Introduction 11. 45-54. Kennedy gives an ex
haustive list in Hastings III. 49-52.
9. Specimens are given by Swete An Introduction to the Old
Testament in Greek 89-91 ; by Westcott in Smith Dictionary of the
Bible, article "Vulgate." See also Kennedy in Hastings III. 48b;
Gigot Introduction 307-312.
10. Cornely Introd. Compend. 106; Gigot Introduction 318,
316; Fritzsche in Schaff-Herzog Cyclopedia I. 283.
11. Cornely Introd. Compend. 106; White in Hastings IV.
873b. 12. Gigot Introduction 316; White in Hastings IV. 874, where
383 is given as date for Gospels, without reference.
13. Gigot Introduction 318; Buhl Canon and Text 161.
14. Gigot Introduction 318; Buhl Canon and Text 162.
15. Berger Histoire de la Vulgate; Gigot Introduction 328-
329; Burkitt Old Latin and Itala 91. See also note 4. The Old
Latin versions were used longest by the Western Christians who
would not bow to the authority of Rome — e.g., the Donatists;
the Irish in Ireland, Britain, and the continent; the Albigenses,
etc. 16. Augustine used the New Testament and commended it,
though he opposed the fresh translation of the Old Testament.
See Burkitt Old Latin and Itala 55-65. With him agree Berger,
Corssen, and Zahn.
17. The "Prologus Galeatus" is reprinted in the 1592 Standard
Vulgate. 18. Gigot Introduction 104.
19. "Time and again, this illustrious Doctor of the Latin
Church rejects the authority of the deutero-canonieal books in
the most expUcit manner." Gigot Introduction 56.
20. "A large number of scholars think that the Palestinian
Canon never contained other books than those now found in the
Hebrew Bible . . . (This) the first solution is better grounded
on fact." Gigot Introduction 32, 34. See Ryle Canon of the Old
Testament 208, 209.
21. Jerome yielded to importunity so far as to skim over

APPENDIX 201
Tobit, Judith, and the additions to Esther and Daniel. Gigot
Introduction 56-59; Cornely Introd. Compend. 107.
22. Origen Letter to Africanus. See Bleek in Studien und
Kritiken, 1853, p. 267ff. Gigot quotes with approval the article
on "Apocrypha '' in Hastings I.
23. Gigot Introduction 118ff; Swete Introduction 281.
24. For the Council of Carthage see Mansi Conciliorum nova
et amplissima Collectio III. 891.
25. For the Letter to Exsuperius of Toulouse see Mansi Col
lectio III. 1,040, or Migne Latin Fathers XX. 501-502.
26. "Up to the middle of the ninth century ... we find a dis
tressing jumble of the best and the worst texts existing side by
side, the ancient versions mixed with the Vulgate in inextricable
confusion, and the books of the Bible following a different order
in each manuscript." Berger Histoire xvii. See also Gigot
Introduction 105, 330; Swete Introduction 103; White in Has
tings IV. 877; and Diagram 1.
27. Gregory's preface to Job: Migne LXXV. 516.
28. Gigot Introduction 318, 329; Swete Introduction 98-99.
29. Lingard Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church 516.
30. Cornely Introd. Compend. 110; Kenyon Our Bible and
the Ancient Manuscripts 171-172.
31. Comely Introd. Compend. 108; White in Hastings IV. 878a.
32. " The texts of the old versions and the new are constantly
mixed and confused in the manuscripts." Berger Histoire xi.
See also Gigot Introduction 67, 330-331; Kenyon Our Bible
182-185; White in Hastings IV. 878-879.
33. Gigot Introduction 331 ; White in Hastings IV. 879a.
34. Cornely Introd. Compend. 110; Reuss History of the
Canon of the Holy Scriptures 252-254.
35. Gigot Introduction 331 ; White in Hastings IV. 879b.
36. Gigot Introduction 331 ; Kenyon Our Bible 186.
37. Encyclopedia Brittanica XIX. 503b.
38. Gigot Introduction 71; Reuss Canon 268. The impor
tance of this is hardly recognized by Protestants. The Bull deals
not only with inspiration, but declares that the Roman Church
"receives and venerates the books."

202 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
39. White in Hastings IV. 879b.
40. Gigot Introduction 209, 249. Coppinger gives abundant
details and illustrations in his Incunabula Biblica, and The Bible
and its Transmission.
41. Gigot Introduction 75, 118.
42. Buhl Canon and Text 65-67. Reuss and Gigot know of
some copies still arranged in Luther's order.
43. Cornely Introd. Compend. 112; Fritzsche in Schaff-Herzog
I. 284; Home Introduction to the Holy Scriptures,. edition of
1839, II. Part ii, 62-64.
44. Careless Protestants often misunderstand the true bear
ing of these decrees, perhaps only reading part of them. They
should study the careful expositions in Cornely Introd. Compend.
111-115; Gigot Introduction 77-82, 333-336.
45. "Eadem sacrosancta Synodus considerans non parum
utiUtatis accedere posse Ecclesise Dei, si ex omnibus latinis
editionibus, qu£e circumferuntur, sacrorum librorum, qusenam pro
authentica habenda sit, innotescat, statuit et declarat, ut haec
ipsa vetus et Vulgata editio, quse longo tot sseculorum usu in ipsa
Ecclesia probata est, in publicis lectionibus, disputationibus,
praedicationibus et expositionibus, pro authentica habeatur et
ut nemo illam reiicere quovis pretextu audeat vel presumat. .
Sed et impressoribus modum in hac parte, ut par est, imponere
volens . . . decernit et statuit, ut posthac S. Scriptura, potissimum
vero haec ipsa vetus et Vulgata editio quam emendatissime im
primatur." 46. Vatican Decrees, ii. On the difference of faith and dis
cipline see Westcott's article on the " Vulgate " in Smith Dio-
tionary. 47. Brent's 1676 translation of Pietro Soave Polano History
of the Council of Trent 146-147; Cornely Introd. Compend.
111-112; Van Ess Geschichteder Vulgata ^27.
48. This matter was hotly debated in two separate congrega
tions, and the legate had to meet the minority privately and
represent that in the public session it would be fitting to allow it
to pass without question. He quieted some scruples by pointing
out that it was only forbidden to say it contained such errors of

APPENDIX 203
faith as should cause its rejection. Brent's transl. of Polano
Council of Trent 151-152; Cornely Introd. Compend. Ill may
also be consulted.
49. The term "Vulgate" had been applied by Jerome himself
and many others to the text of the Greek Bible as generally read
in the third century, as distinguished from a critical text proposed
by a scholar such as Origen, or new translations, as by Aquila and
Symmachus: Swete Introduction 68. The analogy, therefore,
was perfect; the Fathers at Trent preferred the average current
text of the Latin, as distinguished from a critical text prepared
by a scholar such as Ximenes, or new translations, as by Erasmus
and Pagninus. The transfer of the name "Vulgate" from a
Greek to a Latin text, had long been going on, and since 1545 is
stereotyped. 50. Gigot Introduction 336; Brent's transl. of Polano Courv-
cU of Trent 150.
61. Comely Introd. Compend. 115; Gigot Introduction
336. 52. Swete quotes the introductory matter, Introduction 174-
182. It explains the principles on which Sixtus was working, and
the appreciation at Rome that this work was necessary as a pre
liminary to the standard text of the Vulgate.
53. Kennedy in Hastings III. 53b.
54. The revisers were good scholars, but they and Sixtus went
on different principles. They attached greater weight to the
originals when the Latin manuscripts did not agree; Sixtus gave
the determining voice to early quotations, as he had done with the
Old Latin Version. (It is worth noticing that his principle has
been adopted by Westcott and Hort as their sheet-anchor for a
critical text of the New Testament. ) Sixtus left nothing undone
to authorize his text, except that he died before it was officially
published. Cornely Introd. Compend. 116-117; Gigot Introduc
tion 337. The genealogy of the text the revisers worked on is:
Stephanus 1540, Henten 1647, Louvain 1573, Lucas of Bruges
1583. See Diagram 3.
55. An original impression has been carefully examined by the
writer, and the summary of the Bull is a fairly close translation

204 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
of some phrases in the Latin. The Bull has often been reprinted,
last by Cornely in his large Introductio Generalis.
56. Cornely Introd. Compend. 117; White in Hastings IV.
881a. 57. Gigot Introduction 338; Fritzsche in Schaff-Herzog I. 284a.
58. Cornely Introd. Compend. 117; White in Hastings IV.
881b; instances in Home Introduction II. 237-238.
69. The writer has examined original impressions of 1592,
1693, and 1598, and deliberately disregards several statements
which appear inaccurate. In particular, the note by Buhl Canon
and Text 165 errs both by inadequate information and by the
impression conveyed that the tables of corrections in 1698 are
fuU and final; they only occupy sixty lines for the three editions.
60. Jerome had repeatedly refused to revise or translate these
books, and in this respect his judgment was indorsed at Trent.
The valuable Codex Amiatinus, copied in England about 700,
omitted them, and this was used by Allen for the 1592 edition. It
is a strong testimony to the force of custom that in spite of the
decisions at the Council of Trent, it was felt necessary to concil
iate public opinion by appending them to the authorized Bible.
In modern editions their presence is defended by the plea that
they were cited by some holy Fathers, and are found in manu
scripts and printed Bibles. See Thackeray in Hastings I. 759a.
61. Buhl Canon and Text 165.
62. James's book Bellum Papale published in 1600 has often
been reprinted, as in 1841. Cornely Introd. Compend. 118
responds that no one difference touches faith or conduct, and it is
for such purposes alone that the Vulgate was authorized at Trent;
Gigot Introduction 338, however, takes a more serious -view of the
differences, and Vercellone declares that some do touch dogmatic
passages. 63. The Benedictines published at Paris a complete edition of
Jerome's works, and the first volume in 1693 was his translation;
Ilorne Introduction II. Part ii, 54. Vallarsi in 1734 reedited the
translation in his complete collection, entitling it Divina Biblio-
theca; White in Hastings IV. 882a.
64. Rule III. allows the bishop to sanction a version of the Old

APPENDIX 205
Testament as an elucidation of the Vulgate, not as the sound text.
It stipulates that the version must be approved by the Cathohc
Faculty of a University or by the Inquisition. See Buckley
Canons and Decrees of Trent, 1861.
65. For instance, a London edition and a New York edition
taken at random and opened a dozen times at random read
differently at Matt 1 18, Mk 1 21, Jno 1 40, Acts 2 10, Rom 9 20,
Gal 3 3, Eph 2 4, II Th 2 12, Heb 9 4, Jas 1 23, 1 Pet 1 7, Rev 22 17.
Even in the Old Testament a similar casual examination of an
Irish edition and of a Scotch picked up at hazard discloses trivial
discrepancies on every page tested. Some of these are of no
importance whatever for the sense, some may possibly be put
down to the proof-reader, some to editorial discretion; but what
ever the explanation, the fact remains that the editions do not
tally exactly.
66. Lingard says, -without quoting his source, that the Epistle
and Gospel were read in English: History of the Anglo-Saxon
Church 399. Bede's version of John has perished. Caedmon's
metrical paraphrase is well known as the earliest surviving speci
men of English. Aldred about 950 interlined an English version
into a fine Latin manuscript called the Lindisfarne Gospels. The
Psalms were often translated. A version of the Gospels is pre
served at Cambridge, and of much of the Old Testament at Ox
ford. Skeat published a critical edition of the Gospels in three
or four versions, 1871-1877. The court of Rome probably knew
nothing of these versions. See Lupton in Hastings V. 236-237;
Gigot Introduction 340-342.
67. Nicholas of Hereford is the best known of Wychf 's assist
ants; his original manuscript is extant, ending at Bar. 3 20.
Wyclif himself had the largest share in the New Testament work.
Gigot Introduction 344.
68. The manuscripts of the Vulgate employed, contained short
prologues by Jerome to the various books, which were translated,
as in modern Catholic Bibles. In some copies may be found the
forged Epistle to the Laodiceans, but this was not translated by
Wychf or by his re-vdser. Westcott- Wright A General View of
the History of the English Bible 16.

206 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
69. This re-vision is generally attributed to John Purvey, an
assistant of Wyclif at Lutterworth. Gasquet declares that this
is a mistake, due simply to a marginal note on a manuscript
at Dublin, which note has been misread. Other experts declare
that there is no misreading, and that the character of the revision
and of the prologue accord with the writings acknowledged by
Purvey. His subsequent change of opinions readily accounts
for his not claiming this as his work. A few extracts from the
prologue will be of interest as showing the method pursued:
"First . . . with diuerse fela-wis and helperis, to gedere manie
elde biblis, and othere doctouris, and comune glosis and to make
oo Latyn Bible sumdel trewe; and thanne to studie it of the newe,
the text with the glosse . . the thridde tyme to counseile withelde
gramariens . . the iiij. tyme to translate as cleerli as he code to
the sentence, and to haue manie gode felawis and kunnynge at the
correcting of the translacioun. . The comune Latyn Biblis han
more nede to be correctid, as manie as I haue seen in my Uf, than
hath the English Bible late translatid." This last remark agrees
with the estimate of Roger Bacon a century earlier; but the
elaborate tables of corrections drawn up in Paris must have been
available for Oxford scholars. See Gigot Introduction 344; Lup
ton in Hastings V. 240a. The glosses referred to were explana
tory notes or comments; the best of these in the Middle Ages were
by Nicolas a Lyra, once perhaps a Jew, then a Franciscan friar.
His exposition deeply influenced Luther afterward.
70. Canon Knighton of Leicester, speaking of the Gospel,
which he regarded as intrusted by Christ to the clergy and
doctors for them to dispense to the laity, regretted that "this
master John Wyclif has translated from Latin into a tongue,
Anglican not Angelic, so that through him it becomes common,
and is more open to laymen and women able to read than it used
to be to lettered and intelligent clergy. Thus the gospel pearl is
scattered and trodden underfoot by swine." A few years before
Wyclif some fragments of versions were undertaken for use in
monasteries; but the translator vows that if he yields to the re
quest of the monk and nun who asked for them, "y moste in cas
-vnderfonge the deth." Even he does not contemplate that his

APPENDIX 207
work will pass into the hands of the unprofessed and ignorant
laity. And he is earnest to warn his monastic readers that this
version is not to replace, but to supplement the Latin. The notes
and memoranda on the sur-viving manuscripts show that it was
made for people in orders, and owned by them. Panes A Four
teenth Century English Version.
71. Home Introduction II. Part ii, 67; historical account in
Bagster Hexapla 33.
72. The Southern Convocation at Oxford in 1408 enacted and
ordained "that no one henceforth do by his own authority trans
late any text of Holy Scripture into the EngUsh tongue, or any
other, by way of book or treatise: nor let any such book or treatise
now lately composed in the time of John Wyclif aforesaid, or
since, or hereafter to be composed, be read in whole or in part, in
public or in private, under the pain of the greater excommuni
cation." Wilkins Consilia MagncB Britannice et Hibemiw III.
317. This was a distinct breach -with a fine English tradition.
For Bishop Grosseteste of Lincoln had said about 1275, "It is
the will of God that the Holy Scriptures should be translated
by many translators, so that what is obscurely expressed by
one may be more perspicuously rendered by another." And
Archbishop Thursby of York, shortly before 1373, published
an English exposition of the Creed, the Commandments, and
the Lord's Prayer, forcibly objecting to the new doctrine that
the people should be forbidden the use of the Bible. Even
Archbishop Arundel in 1394, when he was in deep disgrace
with King Richard, praised Queen Anne for studying the four
Gospels in Enghsh, and said "Against them that say the gospel
in English would make men err, do they know that in the Latin
are more heretics than of all others.'' But in 1408, when under
a weak king he was free to speak his mind and take his own way,
this same Archbishop presided over the Convocation which re
versed the old poUcy and followed on the lines of the French
Council of Toulouse and the German Council of Trier. The new
decree is plainly referred to in the Myroure of our Ladye, after
1415, where we read, "Yt is forboden vnder payne of cur-
synge that no man schulde haue ne drawe eny texte of holy

208 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
scrypture in-to Englysshe wythout lycense of the bysshop
dyocesan." The authorship and circulation of this version have been
much discussed. Gasquet has cleared up some points, and the
renewed study initiated by him has cleared up more. The sen
tences in the text are brief, but some pains have been devoted to
insure that they are accurate, and to discriminate between the
new hostiUty of the English clergy, and the tolerant attitude of
the Roman court. Gigot's note. Introduction 345, says the very
utmost that can be plausibly claimed.
73. Lechler-Lorimer John Wycliffe and his English Precursors
209; also Gasquet The Old English Bible and Other Essays.
As instances of the popular use, we find from Foxe Book
of Martyrs 176, that in 1611 James Brewster of St. Nicho
las, Colchester, owned "a certain little book of scripture in Eng
lish, of an old writing, almost worn for age." And John Tewkes
bury "had studied holy scriptures by the space of then 17 years"
in 1629, when they had only been printed in English for three
years. Mr. Bradshaw pointed out that the success of the re-vised
WycUf was so great, it completely stopped the copying of Latin
Bibles in England. See Wright's note on p. 15 of the third edi
tion of Westcott General View.
74. The writer has cursorily seen a dozen copies.
75. Gasquet claimed in 1894 that the version in question
is wrongly attributed to Wyclif, and that it is the authorized
CathoUc version of the Middle Ages. He was answered next year
by Matthew, and also by Kenyon of the British Museum, but
maintained his opinion, repubUshing it in 1897. Gigot disagrees
with him, and his only convert seems to be a Catholic, J. M.
Stone, who adduces no new fact, nor notices the counter argu
ments. See Bibliography. Indeed, if before Luther came into
prominence, Englishmen were punished for using or owning the au
thorized Cathohc version, what was authorization worth? But the
fact of this claim being made is admirable testimony to the accuracy
of the version, and of its acceptabiUty to one scholarly CathoUc to
day. Wright sums up that "the WycUffite origin of the transla
tions . . has been reestablished." Westcott General View 20.

APPENDIX 209
76. Purvey's revision of the New Testament was edited by
Lewis in 1731, and reprinted by Baber in 1810. A new edition
is in Bagster Hexapla, 1841. The original unrevised New
Testament of WycUf was first printed in 1848 by Lea Wilson.
The whole Bible in both editions was edited by Forshall and Mad
den in 1850, and Purvey's New Testament was reprinted from
this in 1879. There are also reprints of other portions. All have
been inspected, and some are owned by the writer. Nisbet's
Scottish version was printed for the Scottish Text Society in
1901. 77. Twenty extracts from early versions were originally sub
mitted in this note, iUustrating the independence of all before
Tyndale. Six of the simplest and most readable are here re
tained: Gen 1 1-5.
(a) Revised Wyclif (c. 1388) :
In the bigynnyng God made of nought hevene and erthe, for-
sothe the erthe was idil and voyde, and derknessis weren on the
face of deppe; and the Spiryt of the Lord was borne on the watris.
And God sayde, light be maad, and light was maad. And God
saw the Ught that it was good, and he departide the light fro
derknessis, and he clepide the light day, and the derknessis nyght;
and the eventid, and momtid was maad one day.
(t) Caxton (1483):
In the begymayng god made and created heuen and erthe/
The erthe was ydle and voyde and couerd with derknes And
the spyrite of god was bom on the watres/ And god said/ Be
made lyght/ And anon lyght was made/ And god sawe that
lyght was good/ And dyuyded the lyght fro derknes/ & called
the lyght day/ and derknes nyght And thus was made lyght
with heuen and erthe fyrst/ and euen and momyng was made
one day/ Job 31 "-*» in three versions.
(c) Purvey (Skeat's reprint of ForshaU and Madden) :
who gyueth an helpere to me, that Ahnygti God here my
desire? that he that demeth, write a book, that Y here it in my
schuldre, and cumpasse it as a coroun to me? Bi alle my degrees

210 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
Y schal pronounce it, and Y schal as offre it to the prynce. If
my lond crieth agens me, and hise forewis wepen with it; if Y
eet fraytis thereof with out money, and Y turmentide the soule of
erthetileris of it; a brere growe to me for wheete, and a thorn for
barli. (d) Coverdale (Bagster's reprint of the 1535 edition) :
O that I had one which wolde heare me. Lo, this is my cause.
Let ye Allmightie gene me answere: & let him that is my cotrary
party, sue me with a lybell. Then shall I take it vpon my shulder,
& as a garlade aboute my heade. I haue tolde the nombre of my
goinges, and delyuered them vnto him as to a prynce. But yf
case be that my londe crie agaynst me, or yt the forowes thereof
make eny complaynte: yf I haue eaten the f rates thereof vnpayed
for, yee yf I haue greued eny of the plow men: Than, let thistles
growe in steade of my wheate, & thomes for my barlye.
(e) Challoner's Catholic (Denvir's text) :
Who would grant me a hearer, that the Almighty may hear my
desire: and that he himself that judge th would write a book,
That I may carry it on my shoulder, and put it about me as a
crown? At every step of mine I would pronounce it, and offer it
as to a prince. If my land cry against me, and with it the furrows
thereof mourn. If I have eaten the fruits thereof without money,
and have afflicted the soul of the tillers thereof: Let thistles grow
up to me instead of wheat, and thorns instead of barley.
In this passage the Vulgate has missed the sense of the opening
phrases, and so the authorized CathoUc versions are bound to
give faulty renderings. Other modem Catholic editions give the
same words as Den-vir's text, but the punctuation is even more
mysterious. (/) Passage from the Rheims Testament, illustrating how every
word not borrowed from previous versions is due to the Vulgate:
[Words from Wyclif, Tyndale, or Coverdale's diglot are in CAP
ITALS. New renderings are in ordinary type, with Vulgate in
brackets.] I Tim 4 1-5
And THE SPIRIT manifestly (Manifeste) SAITH THAT IN

APPENDIX 211
THE LAST TIMES certain (Quidam) SHAL DEPART FROM
THE FAITH atTENding (Attendentes) TO SPIRITES OF ER-
ROUR, AND DOCTRINES OF DIUELS, SPEAKing LIES IN
HYPOCRISIE, AND HAUING THEIR CONSCIENCE seared
(cauteriatam), FORBIDDING TO MARIE, TO ABSTAINE
FROM MEATES WHICH GOD CREATED TO RE-
CEAUE WITH THANKES-GIUING for the FAITHFUL,
(fidelibus) AND THEM THAT HAUE KNOVVEN THE
TRUTH. FOR euery (omnis) CREATURE OF GOD IS
GOOD, AND NOTHING TO BE reiected (rejiciendum) that
(quod) is RECEIUED WITH THANKES-GIUING. FOR IT
IS SANCTIFIED BY THE WORD OF GOD AND PRAIER.
78. Two impressions of Caxton and two of Wynken de Worde
have been seen by the writer, and one has been carefully examined.
The Temple Classics furnish a handy modern reprint. The work
was the largest Caxton ever printed, and proved to supply a
wide popular demand. He originated the rendering "breeches"
in Gen 3 7, which reappeared in the Genevan Bible of 1560.
79. Fritzsche enumerates ten editions of the Bible in German
dialects alone before Luther was born. They made the Arch
bishop of Mainz uneasy, and in 1486 he tried to check them.
Schaff II. 866. Green Handbook of Church History 577.
80. Seebohm Era of the Protestant Revolution 85.
81. Gardiner Student's History of England 377.
82. Lovett Life of Tyndale 5a.
83. Lovett Tyndale 3a.
84. Wharton's notes to Strype Cranmer; Cambridge Modi ,-,.'
History, Reformation, II, 465.
86. See Bibliography.
86. " Life of Allen " by Thompson Cooper in the Dictionary of
National Biography.
87. Carleton Rheims and the EngUsh Bible 16-16.
88. " Life of Martin " by Thompson Cooper in the Dictionary of
National Biography; Newman Tracts Theological and Eccles
iastical 361; Gigot Introduction 347.
89. There is a vague impression that the CathoUc version is

212 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
independent. This will be dispelled by a glance at the last extract
in note 77. Note 138 supplies another conclusive proof that
the modern Catholic versions are enormously indebted to
Tyndale. For obUgations to the Genevan see Westcott General
View 245.
90. Carleton Rheims 5-8, 19-20. It is worthy of notice that
University clannishness showed itself in the attention paid to the
work of Taverner, the only pre-vious Oxford translator.
91. Newman Tracts 361.
92. The preface has been rather unfairly represented by some
writers, who amuse themselves with the fact that -within ten
years the Vulgate text which they had used was superseded by
the Roman authorized edition, forgetting that this was edited
by one of the Douay scholars themselves. The present writer
has been struck with the critical acumen shown at that date, and
the grasp of the relative value of the common Greek manuscripts
and the Latin version. Many of the remarks made are most
just, and have since been generaUy acted on by scholars. Ap
parently this was the first application of these principles to the
criticism of the New Testament text, and probably it was the first
enunciation of them. A searching examination would very likely
place AUen at the very center of the English textual scholars,
marking the transition from Ceolfrid, Bede, Alcuin, MMtw, Bacon,
and Hardinj, to the new learning represented by Walton, Fell,
MiU, Bentley, Kennicott, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort. Few men
have had similar opportunities of editing standard editions in two
influential languages, or have employed them so well.
93. Carleton Rheims 22.
94. This is the actual edition used by the -writer, though he
has seen the original and Fulke, and owns modern reprints of
1582. 95. Newman Tracts 363.
96. The preface is shorter than that to the New Testament,
but goes on the same lines, criticising the four Protestant editions.
It avows that this Douay Version is to refute the Lutheran slander
that Catholics would not translate, and that to remedy the cor
ruptions of these new masters, CathoUc pastors were setting forth

APPENDIX 213
true and sincere translations in most languages of the Latin
Church. See also Gigot Introduction 348.
97. Darlow and Moule Historical Catalogue of Printed Bibles
L 257.
98. Gigot Introduction 353; Darlow Catalogue 261.
99. Gigot Introduction 353; Darlow Catalogue 268.
100. Cardinal Newman drew attention to the fact that the
Rheims-Douay Version has never been directly approved by any
bishop, much less by the Holy See itself. Doubtless the remark
is correct, but it is irrelevant. The Rules approved by Pius IV
do not stipulate for more than leave from a faculty of a Catholic
University, and these three versions were formally approved,
the first by professors at Rheims and Douay, Nary's by four
DubUn priests, but not apparently by a faculty or inquisition,
though he himself was a Doctor of Paris; Witham 's by Douay
divines, including Challoner for the second volume. Darlow
Catalogue 268-269. Further it deserves much attention that " the
general usage of the Holy See is not to interpose its judgment in
a matter of so much delicacy" as a foreign vernacular version —
so the Cardinal Prefect of Propaganda wrote to Archbishop
Kenrick. 101. Darlow Catalogue 279-280. ChaUoner also extensively
re-vised the notes, and those in modern cheap editions are mostly
based on his.
102. Newman Tracts 364-376.
103. Gigot Introduction 351.
104. Newman Tracts 377. If the Rouen editions of 1633 and
1635 are reckoned together, they make the first whole Bible.
Then ChaUoner's editions of 1750 make the second; the Phila
delphia of 1790 the third; the Dublin of 1791 the fourth. But
a quarto edition of the whole Bible has just been discovered, the
Old Testament 1610 and the New 1600, issued at Amsterdam.
See Bibliography and Darlow Catalogue 173, 279.
106. Darlow Catalogue 327.
106. Not the printing of this version is in question, only its
general circulation. After the Council of Trent, ten Rules concern
ing prohibited books were put forth by Pope Pius IV, the fourth

214 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
of which stipulates that the reading of the Bible in the vernacular
can be allowed only to those who have leave from their priests
or confessors, and if they be regular clergy, from the head also.
When therefore Pius VI applauded the learning of Martini and
even agreed that the faithful should be excited to the reading of
the Holy Scriptures, this did not convey any general permission
for any one to read this version. Nor was there any novel de
parture in the next five Popes enforcing the standing rule ag.ainst
indiscriminate circulation, as detailed in note 225. The new
emphasis they laid on the matter was largely due to the formation
of Bible Societies, the chief of which had as its sole object the
wider circulation of the Holy Scriptures without note or com
ment. This doubly opposed the Rules of Pope Pius IV, and
therefore reminders were issued by Pius VII and his successors,
under which all vernacular versions, including Martini's, were
still allowed only to those who had special permission. One con
spicuous instance of the application of the Rule was given in the
revolutionary year of 1849, and is thus described by Canton in
his recent History of the British and Foreign Bible Society, II,
256: "At Florence an edition of 3,000 copies of Martini's New
Testament speedily left the press. . . The Sovereign Pontiff
himself, in an encyclical to the Italian prelates before his return
from Naples, denounced the Society and its Scriptures, 'trans
lated contrary to the rules of the Church into the vulgar tongue,
and most wretchedly perverted.' At Florence the 3,000 copies
of the New Testament of Martini, a Florentine Archbishop, were
seized by the restored government, the presses were stopped, the
paper and type were carried off, the printers prosecuted." This
action of the Tuscan civil authorities — though they erred in sup
posing that Martini's Testament was expressly aimed at in these
words — was in perfect harmony with the Rules of Pius IV, and the
exhortations of Pius VII, Leo XII, Pius VIII, Gregory XVI, and
Pius IX.
107. Home Introduction II, Part ii, 266.
108. Darlow Catalogue 313.
109. Newman Tracts 363.
110. Darlow Catalogue 327.

APPENDIX 215
111. Wright Early Bibles of America 60, 63, 78, 89, 121,
126, 127.
112. Wright Early Bibles 69-71. Perhaps America has the
honor of issuing the first whole Catholic Bible in English, bound
in one volume. See note 104.
113. Cotton Editions of the Bible 112; Newman Tracts 377.
114. Newman Tracts 386-386.
116. Newman Tracts 391; Darlow Catalogue 329.
116. Newman Tracts 391-393; Cotton Editions 119.
117. Newman Tracts 377.
118. Darlow Catalogue 331.
119. Newman Tracts 386; Darlow Catalogue 333.
120. Newman Tracts 363.
121. Darlow Catalogue 334.
122. Newman Tracts 387-388.
123. Newman Tracts 388; Darlow Catalogue 341.
124. Newman Tracts 388-389.
125. Newman Tracts 387.
126. Dublin Review II. 476-477.
127. Newman Tracts 390.
128. Gigot Introduction 354.
129. Gigot Introduction 355-358. The statements are drnwn
from the writer's own copy.
130. Gigot Introduction 366-368.
131. Gigot Introduction 352; Newman Tracts 396; Lupton
in Hastings V. 252b.
132. Newman Tracts 398-399.
133. Cotton Rhemes and Doway 156.
134. Gigot Introduction 353.
135. Turning over the pages of any paraUel reprint will show
the large originality of Tyndale. Here and there coincidences
with WycUf can be noticed, but in view of his express words it
would seem that these are probably due to the current speech,
which appears to have been enriched by stock quotations, much
as people who have neither read nor seen a play of Shakespeare
yet use phrases coined by him. While, however, his English is
original, it is evident that he used freely the familiar Vulgate, the

216 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
new Latin version of Erasmus and the new German version of
Luther, yet with such independence as to amend or even
reject them. See Westcott General View 130-138, 316-319.
136. In the foUowing transcript from Tyndale's version of
Ex 2, pubUshed in 1531, words which are found identically
in modern Catholic and also in the 1901 standard American edi
tion, are in CAPITALS. The passage is taken at random, and
the spelUng is modernized.
And THERE WENT A MAN OF THE HOUSE OF LEVI
AND TOOK A daughter of Levi. AND the wife CONCEIVED
AND BORE A SON. AND when she saw that it was a proper
CHILD, she HID HIM THREE MONTHS long. AND WHEN
SHE COULD no LONGER HIDE HIM, SHE TOOK a basket
OF BULRUSHES AND DAUBED IT WITH SLIME AND
PITCH, AND laid THE child THEREIN, AND put it IN THE
flags BY THE RIVER'S BRINK. And HIS SISTER stood
AFAR OFF, to wit WHAT WOULD come of it. Ex 2 1-4.
The coincidences of language here cannot be largely accidental.
The vocabulary is rather rich, and obvious synonyms will occur
for many words, which have not been utilized by modem or
ancient editors. Even the order has only been varied once,
though rearrangement was often possible.
A second passage is taken at random from the unique fragment
of the first edition of Matthew.
Again I SAY unto YOU THAT IF TWO OF YOU shaU agree
in EARTH in any manner THING WHATSOEVER THEY
shaU desire, IT SHALL BE given THEM of MY FATHER which
IS IN HEAVEN. FOR WHERE TWO OR THREE are
GATHERED together IN MY NAME THERE I AM IN THE
midst OF THEM. THEN PETER came to HIM, and SAID,
Master, HOW oft SHALL MY BROTHER trespass against ME
AND I shaU FORGIVE HIM? shall I forgive him SEVEN
TIMES? JESUS said unto HIM I SAY NOT unto THEE
SEVEN TIMES BUT SEVENTY TIMES SEVEN times.
THEREFORE IS THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN LIKENED
unto A certain KING which WOULD TAKE ACCOUNT OF
HIS SERVANTS. AND WHEN HE HAD BEGUN TO reckon

APPENDIX 217
ONE WAS BROUGHT unto HIM which OWED HIM TEN
THOUSAND TALENTS: but when HE HAD nought TO PAY
the LORD COMMANDED him to BE SOLD AND HIS WIFE
AND his CHILDREN AND ALL THAT HE HAD AND PAY
MENT TO BE MADE. The SERVANT feU DOWN and be
sought HIM SAYING Su- give ME respite AND I WILL PAY it
every whit. Then had THE LORD PITY on the SERVANT
and loosed HIM AND FORGAVE HIM THE DEBT. Matt
18 19-27.
A third extract may be taken from a less famiUar portion,
such as the Epistle to Philemon. Here the language of Tyndale is
taken from his edition of 1634, not his first, nor his final re-vision.
I thanke MY GOD MAKINGE mencion all wayes OF THE
m MY PRAYERS, when I heare OF THY love AND FAYTH,
WHICH THOU HAST towarde THE LORDE JESU, AND
TOWARDE ALL SAYNCTES: so THAT THE feUisshippe
that thou hast in the FAYTH, is frutefuU thorow KNOWL
EDGE OF all GOOD thinges, which are IN YOU by JESUS
CHRIST. And we have great lOYE, AND consolation over
THY love: For by THE (BROTHER) THE SAYNCTES hertes
are comforted. WHERFOR THOUGH I be bolde IN CHRIST
TO enioyne THE, THAT WHICH becommeth the: yet FOR
loves SAKE I RATHER BESECHE the, though I be as I am,
even PAUL aged, AND NOW in bondes for lesu Christes sake.
I BESECHE THE FOR MY sonne ONESIMUS, WHOM I
begat IN MY BONDES, which in tyme passed was TO THE
VNPROFFETABLE: BUT NOW PROFFETABLE bothe TO
THE AND also to ME, WHOM I HAVE SENT home agayne.
Thou therfore receave him, that is to saye, myne awne bowels,
WHOM I WOLDE fayne HAVE retayned WITH ME, THAT IN
THY stede HE myght have ministred vnto ME IN THE BONDES
OF THE GOSPELL. Neverthelesse, WITHOUT THY mynde
WOLDE I DOO NOTHING, THAT that GOOD which springeth
of the, shuld NOT BE AS it were OF NECESSITIE, BUT
wUlingly. Haply HE therfore dePARTED FOR A SEASON
THAT THOU shuldest receave HIM FOR EVER, not nowe
AS A SER VAUNT: BUT above A SERVAUNT, I meane

218 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
A BROTHER beloved, SPECIALLY TO ME: BUT HOW
MOCHE more vnto THE, BOTH IN THE FLESSHE, AND
also IN THE LORDE? YF THOU COUNT ME A felowe,
RECEAVE HIM AS MY SELFE. YF HE HAVE hurte
THE OR oweth the ought, that laye TO MY charge. I PAUL
have written IT WITH MYNE AWNE HONDE, I WILL
recompence IT. So that I do NOT SAYE to THE, howe
THAT THOU OWEST vnto ME even THYNE AWNE SILFE.
Even so BROTHER, let me enlOYE THE IN THE LORDE.
Comforte MY bowels in the Lorde. Trusting IN THYNE
OBEDIENCE, I wrote vnto THE, KNOWYNGE THAT
THOU WILT DO more then I SAYE for. Moreover PRE
PARE ME LODGYNGE: FOR I trust THOROW the helpe
of YOURE PRAYERS, I SHAL BE geven VNTO YOU.
Vs. 4-22.
An extract from TjTidale's version of Eph 2, will show how
he has left his mark on the 1611 version and through that on
modem Catholic editions, which discard the extremely crabbed
translation of Martin in the Rheims Testament.
Wherfore remember THAT YE beynge in tyme passed GEN-
TYLS IN THE FLESSHE, and were CALLED VNCIRCUM-
CISION to them WHICH are CALLED CIRCUMCISION IN
THE FLESSHE, which circumcision is MADE BY HONDES:
Remember I saye, THAT YE WERE AT THAT TYME with
oute CHRIST, and were reputed ALIANTES FROM THE
common welth OF ISRAEL AND were STRAUNGERS from
the testamentes OF PROMES, and had NO HOPE, AND were
WITH OUT GOD IN this WORLDE. BUT NOW IN CHRIST
lESU, YE which a whyle agoo WERE FARRE OF, ARE MADE
NYE by THE BLOUDE OF CHRIST. FOR HE IS OUR
PEACE, whych hath MADE of BOTH ONE, AND hath broken
DOUNE THE WALL that was a stoppe bitwene vs, and hath
also put awaye thorow HIS FLESSHE, the cause of hatred
(that is to saye, THE LAWE OF COMMAUNDEMENTS CON-
TAYNED IN the lawe written) for to make of twayne ONE
NEWE MAN IN HIM SILFE, so MAKYNGE PEACE: AND
to RECONCILE BOTH vnto GOD IN ONE BODY thorow his

APPENDIX 219
CROSSE, and slewe hatred therby: AND came and PREACHED
PEACE TO YOU which WERE a FARRE OF, AND TO
THEM THAT WERE NYE: FOR thorow HIM WE BOTH
HAVE an open waye in, IN ONE SPRETE vnto THE FATHER.
Therfore now YE ARE NO MOARE STRAUNGERS AND
foreners: BUT CITESYNS WITH THE SAYNCTES, AND of
the householde OF GOD: and are BILT APON THE FOUN-
DACION OF THE APOSTLES AND PROPHETES, lESUS
CHRIST BEYNGE THE heed CORNER STONE, IN WHOM
every BILDYNGE coupled TOGEDDER, GROWETH vnto
AN HOLY TEMPLE IN THE LORDE, IN WHOM YE ALSO
ARE BILT TOGEDDER, and made AN HABITACION for
GOD IN THE SPRET. Eph 2 11-22.
These passages have not been chosen to bear out a ready-made
theory; but they have been taken, two absolutely at random,
others to insure variety, but with no idea of what the result would
be. The examination shows that out of 1,109 words used by
Tyndale, 796 are at the present day used by both Catholics and
Protestants — more than 71 per cent.
137. Preface to Genesis 396 in the reprint by the Parker So
ciety. 138. Mombert disputed any connection with Marburg. Schaff-
Herzog II. 733a. But other books have since been found which
bear a similar colophon, so that it seems while Hans Luft had his
chief press at Wittenberg, he reaUy did print for Tyndale at
"Malborowe in the londe of Hesse." See Darlow Catalogue 3.
139. Fritzsche in Schaff-Herzog II. 867b.
140. " I caU God to recorde against ye day we shall appeare
before our Lord Jesus, to geue a recknyng of our doings, that I
neuer altered one siUable of Gods Word agaynst my coscience,
nor would this day, if aU that is in the earth, whether it be pleas
ure, honour, or riches, might be geuen me." Tyndale's letter to
Frith in 1533.
141. The illustrations already given prove the enormous in
debtedness of modem Catholics to Tyndale. Gigot does not
repeat More's attack on his accuracy; Introduction 345-346, 358-
360.

220 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
142. AUen at least would agree that "the dangers which arise
from reading certain more difficult passages may be obviated
by suitable notes."
143. Anderson Annals of the English Bible 42^8. The revised
editions of 1534 and 1635 are furnished afresh with prologues,
largely based on Luther, with references, subject-headings, and
notes; from these the coarse polemical element is absent, explana
tion and advice predominating. Darlow Catalogue 5, 6.
144. Lovett Tyndale 14-16.
145. Cotton MS Galba B. x. p. 338, quoted in TregeUes His
torical Account. In May, 1530, an assembly was held to consider
several recent books, and in June a royal proclamation was issued
to suppress Tyndale's and other heretical books, promising that,
though translation of Scripture was not in itself necessary, yet
if corrupt translations were laid aside and no mischievous opin
ions were imbibed, the King would cause Scripture to be trans
lated " by great, learned, and CathoUc persons." See Gairdner in
the Cambridge Modern History, Reformation, II. 465; Westcott
General View 43. Three years later, More was still eager for the
use of Scripture in the mother-tongue. Letters and Papers of the
Reign of Henry VIII, \i. 184.
146. Jonah was printed separately, and was not incorporated
into any popular Bible; one single copy survives. The five books
of Moses were printed separately. Joshua to Chronicles were not
printed in his Hfetime, but the manuscript passed into the hands of
John Rogers, chaplain at the Merchants' House in Antwerp, and
was used by him when editing the Bible curiously known as
"Matthew's." Darlow Catalogue 15. The writer has seen fac
similes of the first Testaments, and copies of the last editions of the
Testament and Pentateuch. He owns reprints of the editions of
1526 and 1534.
147. Strype has misled many -writers into arguing that this
version must have been Wyclif's. But Westcott and Wright
show that there is no authority for this in his source, which is the
Harleian MS 422, Plutarch Ixv. E 87.
148. This was printed in 1535, probably by Christopher Frosch-
auer of Zurich. But in 1533-1534 an act of Parliament had

APPENDIX 221
limited the importation of books, which had been freely permitted
for fifty years; henceforth only unbound sheets might be brought
in. An EngUsh printer, apparently Nycolson, cancelled the early
sheets, printed others and pubUshed. Coverdale acknowledges
his indebtedness to five interpreters, which can easily be identi
fied as the Zurich German Bible, the Latin of Sanctes Pagninus,
Luther's German Bible, the Vulgate, and Tjmdale. Darlow and
Moule in their description of this Bible, Catalogue 6-8, say that
he drew chiefly from the first two; but Westcott and Wright
emphasize the dependence on Tyndale for the New Testament.
In Bagster Memorials of Myles Coverdale 203-213 are passages
from the Gospels which show this, and specimens from the other
books taken at random wiU illustrate further ; the quotations are
from Tyndale, 1534, with Coverdale's variations bracketed; Wy
chf 's is very different; differences of spelling are neglected, other
wise the coincidences are close.
I Cor 14 1. Labour for love. Gal 3 l. O {add ye) folisshe
Galathyans: who hath bewitched you, that ye shuld not beleve
the treuth? To whom lesus Christ was described before the eyes,
and among you crucified. Heb 1 1-3. God in tyme past di-
versly and many wayes, spake vnto the fathers by Prophetes:
but in these last dayes he hath spoken vnto vs by his sonne,
whom he hath made heyre of aU thinges: by whom also he made
the worlde. Which sonne beinge the brightnes of his glory, and
{add the) very ymage of his substaunce, bearing vp aU thinges
-with the worde of his power, hath in his awne person pourged
oure synnes, and is sitten (set) on the right honde of the maiestie
an hye. Jas 3 7. All the natures of beastes, and of byrdes, and
of serpentes, and thinges of the see, are meked and tamed of the
nature of man. Rev 11 13. And in the erthquake were slayne
names of men seven .M. and the remnaunt were feared, and gave
glory to god of heven.
149. In 1536 CromweU used his powers as Vicar-generaJ of the
King, the Supreme Head on Earth of the Church of England, to
issue injunctions ordering every church within twelve months to
obtain a whole Bible "in Latin and also in EngUsh." Camr-
bridge Modern History, Reformation, II. 465. This accounts

222 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
for the English reprints of Coverdale in 1537, of which the quarto
bears the legend cited in the text. Full details are given by
Tregelles Historical Account 71-76. Descriptions may be seen
in Darlow Catalogue 12-14. The writer has seen these editions.
150. Justice Bradley has pointed out what appears to be an
acknowledgment of debt to Tyndale. The only addition to the
text was the Prayer of Manasses. The text as a whole became
the basis of all subsequent versions. The real features of the
edition were the accessories, which were chiefly taken from con
tinental sources, especially the French Bibles of Olivetan and
Lefevre; but these were forbidden after 1544, and the reprints
of 1549 have new or re\'ised notes. Darlow Catalogue 15, 38;
Westcott General View 336. The writer has seen copies.
151. Questions of Ucensing and copyright deserve more atten
tion than they often receive in this connection. Papal control
of the press was asserted in a Bull of 1516, and with that prece
dent it was ordered in England that a book must be licensed in
manuscript before printing, and Thomas Berthelet was appointed
"Prynter vnto the Kynges grace" in 1529. {Enc. Brit. IV. 39b.)
Next year the law was enforced by a general burning of unUcensed
books. In 1538 anonymous translations were forbidden, licenses
were required to print or import English Scriptures, and the
license to print at all in English was to be expressed by the words
"cum privilegio Regali ad imprimendum solum." (Cotton MS
Cleopatra E. v. fol. 340b.) This last word seems to imply a
recognition of copyright; the word " Regali " dropped out quietly.
In 1639 special restriction was laid for five years on diverse ver
sions of Scripture by requiring license from Cromwell (Pat. 31.
Hen. 8. p. 4. m. 15. Rymer Fcedera). In 1566 the Stationers'
Company was incorporated with a monopoly of printing and
large powers to enforce this. Under Elizabeth the Star Chamber
also supervised. As the Company derived its revenue chiefly
from Bible printing, it housed the revisers of 1611 and provided
part of the expense ; but long litigation arose as to the copyright
in the Royal Version, for which see Darlow Catalogue 134-135.
The usage of the Company led to the belief that copyright in aU
books was perpetual, but this was altered generally in 1774. For

APPENDIX 223
the Royal Version, apart from new notes or apparatus, perpetual
copyright is still vested in the King's Printer and in the Univer
sities of Cambridge and Oxford, the former asserting privilege and
publishing first in 1691, Oxford entering on its splendid career
only in 1673.
152. Jacobs Lutheran Movement in England, Philadelphia,
1894. 153. Taverner's Bible seems to have been considerably under
rated. Writer after writer has repeated gossip about his personal
appearance, or a statement that his work exercised little or no
influence on subsequent versions. If they had examined it, or
had recoUected the existence of the Douay Bible, they would have
told a different story. The writer's attention was directed to it
by Carleton, in whose 160 pages of collation -wiU be found abun
dant evidences of its influence on the Douay Version. A copy of
the first edition was accessible to the writer for verification.
154. Blunt in Enc. Brit. VIII. 386-387.
156. Details in many places, e.g., Bagster Memorials -80-94.
Westcott shows that Munster's Hebrew-Latin edition and com
mentary of 1535 helped him greatly. Coverdale seems to imply
that he used the Complutensian Polyglot: State Papers I. 576.
166. It has been aUeged that this phrase means that the
Epistles and Gospels for festivals, etc., are "pointed out" or
marked, as is stiU the custom in Bibles prepared for AngUcan
churches. Murray Historical Dictionary gives no indication that
the word "apoynt" ever bore such a technical meaning. And
other Bibles before and at the same time were similarly marked,
without their containing this notice: for instance, Coverdale's
1535, Matthew's 1537, Taverner's 1639, and the Great Bible of
1539. But in September, 1538, injunctions to the clergy had
been drafted, ordering them to obtain "one boke of the whole
Bible in the largest volume in Englyshe." This naturally raised
hopes in various minds of securing either a portion of the trade,
or even a monopoly. Two rivals had strong backing: Taverner
was prompted by Cromwell, and had the use of the King's
Printer's press, but the fall of CromweU in July, 1640, limited his
chances, and he lost the special recommendation. Coverdale,

224 BIBLE VEKSIO-N'S CU.MPARED
who was editing the Great Bible, had also obtained the patronage
of Cranmer, whose power was unshaken; and what was more
important, he was financed by a London merchant, working
through the others who had bought "Matthew" and who were
being drawn into the printing trade by the French Inquisition
forbidding their work to be done in Paris, and by the difficulty of
finding good English establishments. Anthony Marler, haber
dasher, speculated in six large editions of the Great Bible, pro
curing a preface from Cranmer, presenting a magnificent copy to
the King, and securing a four years' monopoly for the supply of
the churches, at a price fixed by the Privy Council. The facts are
to be gleaned from Darlow, and are set forth by Anderson, with
out a clear grasp of the trade rivalries at work. Some of the facts
are also given in Bagster Memorials. See also Cambridge Modern
History, Reformation, II. 466.
157. The six editions of the Great Bible in 1640-1541 are often
called Cranmer's, though he had nothing to do with them except
writing the preface, and perhaps securing the corrections sug
gested by the bishops as mentioned above. Copies of the first and
second editions have been seen by the writer.
158. Darlow Catalogue 59; Cotton Editions 30.
159. Darlow Catalogue 60. The writer has seen a copy and
owns a reprint.
160. Darlow Catalogue 61 ; Westcott General View 91-92.
161. Darlow CatoZogwe 89. The fact that this Genevan Version
was authorized in Scotland seems to be curiously ignored by
most people.
162. The writer has seen several editions. This was the ver
sion used by the Pilgrim Fathers. See Arber The Story of the
Pilgrim Fathers 96, 26, etc.; Anderson Annals 588. Arch
bishop Da-vidson has sho-wn that stanch Anglicans used it as late
as 1624. But after the ci-vU wars the colonists in America were
restricted to import, and in practice could only obtain the Royal
Version. 163. The writer has seen it, with a note by Francis Newport,
who gave it. The story is often incorrectly told; the time was
January, 1658-1559; place, Little Conduit in Cheapside.

APPENDIX 225
164. Anderson Annals 453.
166. Lupton in Hastings V. 250-251.
166. Darlow Catalogue 116.
167. Gigot Introduction 360-361 ; Lupton in Hastings V. 253a.
168. Gigot Introduction 361 ; Prothero Statutes and Constitw-
tional Documents, 1558 to 1625, p. 416.
169. Gigot Introduction 361 ; Lupton in Hastings V. 253-264.
170. Carleton Rheims 22-25; Lupton in Hastings V. 256a.
171. The version is popularly called the "Authorized Version,"
though it is weU known that after all James's intentions as to
elaborate authorization, not a single document is extant that
authorizes it. Curiously enough there was one thing about it
authorized that is now never seen, some genealogies and maps,
which were by royal order to be bought from the compiler and
inserted in every copy for ten years. The King's Printer bought
the copyright of the text from the revisers for ;£3,500, and re
tained it tiU 1709, though -with much disturbance and litigation.
See Darlow Catalogue 135; Anderson Annals 483.
172. Gigot Introduction 366-368; Lupton in Hastings V. 258a.
173. Darlow Catotoyue 182; Lupton in Hastings V. 257a.
174. This astonishing figure is given by BaiUie, the well-known
Scots commissioner to the Long Parliament. See Darlow Cata
logue 184. Archbishop Abbot in 1615 had forbidden the binding
or sale of any Bible without the Apocrypha.
175. Anderson Annals 487-488.
176. Preface to Weymouth Resultant Greek Testament. Gigot,
however, doubts whether this new "Textus Receptus" is not
overrated. Introduction 252-259. His doubt is shared by con
servative Anglicans like Burgon and Scrivener, as also by the
briUiant Irish Protestant Salmon. Perhaps the trend of modern
opinion is towards reconsidering the work and theories of West
cott and Hort, and revaluing the " Western Text. " See Strack in
Hastings IV. 738a, footnote. On the other hand, the British and
Foreign Bible Society has printed an edition by Nestle on these
lines, and desires new versions to be conformed to it.
177. Gigot Introduction 206; Strack in Hastings IV. 728b.
178. Kenyon in Hastings V. 363b.

226 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
179. Gigot Introduction 210-219; Bebb in Hastings IV. 863a;
Burkitt in Cheyne IV. 4978; Margoliouth in Hastings III. 31a;
Strack in Hastings IV. 731b; White in Hastings IV. 884b.
180. Scores of private versions have been pubUshed; the writer
owns several, but has grown weary of trying to enumerate all.
See Gigot Introduction 368-370.
181. The outbreak of missionary zeal from 1789 onward is
largely responsible for this. At Serampur alone, in 32 years,
translations of parts of the Bible into 46 different languages came
from the press. Smith Life of Carey 213-214.
182. Regulation I of 1826 and 1827.
183. Armitage History of the Baptists 894.
184. Armitage History 907.
185. Dariow Catalogue 362-363.
186. Darlow Catalogue 372; Armitage History 907-909.
187. Only five of the 1865 revisers worked on the 1881-1885
revisions; in America Hackett, Kendrick, and Schaff; in England
Angus and Gotch. Full Usts may be seen in Biblical Revision or
by Lupton in Hastings V. 260-261.
188. For acute criticisms see Gigot Introduction 367-378;
Lupton in Hastings V. 262-265. The chief defects seem to be,
in the New Testament a poor EngUsh style, the fault charged on
Challoner too, and in the Old Testament an inadequate use of the
versions of antiquity.
189. Gigot Introduction 377; Lupton in Hastings V. 262, 266.
Be it remembered that the Apocrypha as coUected by Anglicans
include not only the Catholic deutero-canonieal books, but also
I Esdras known to modern CathoUcs as III Esdras, II Esdras
known to modern CathoUcs as IV Esdras, and the Prayer of
Manasses. 190. Lupton gives a further criticism of the American edition
in Hastings V. 269-271.
191. Gigot gives a Ust on page 26 of his Introduction.
192. Gigot Introduction 503, 505, 509.
193. Cornely discusses these points, Introd. Compend. 19,
278-280, 420-423. To read his labored pleas is to see how Uttle
can be said; but it may be worth while to append for those who do

APPENDIX 227
not wish to read Latin, the terse summaries of Protestants, "The
early chapters of the book (of Judith) contain historical and geo
graphical impossibilities, and the later chapters much self-e-vident
romance." Porter in Hastings II. 823b. MarshaU calls and
proves Bel and the Dragon "two legends," and shows that the
story of Susanna " cannot be regarded as historical." Hastings
I. 267a, IV. 631b.
194. Gregory the Great wavered. Gigot Introduction 67. In
787 Hadrian I accepted the canons of the Second Council of
Nicea, and thereby tacitly indorsed several contradictory
opinions as to the Canon of Scripture, recorded in 691-692 at
Constantinople, in Trullo. Gigot 65, 109.
195. Gigot Introduction 39, 52.
196. Ryle Canon 141, 152. CathoUc notes on Lk 11 51 "From
the blood of Abel unto the blood of Zacharias" refer to Gen 4 8
and II Paralipomenon (II Chron) 24 22. Now in the Hebrew
Bibles, these books are respectively the first and the last, so that
the effect is as if we were to say "from Genesis to Malachi," or for
the whole Bible, "from Genesis to Revelation." It appears a
fair inference that the Jewish Scriptures were known to our Lord
in the very order in which they are now printed.
197. Gigot Introduction 326 quotes the Catholic Dictionary,
which estimates them less favorably as " few," not as " a few."
198. Gigot Introduction 319, 320.
199. Gigotquotes, /nirodwchora 358-359, Protestant estimates to
the contrary, but the contemporary evidence is strong. Besides
that of Buschius cited in the text, his amanuensis, George Joye,
assures us he had high learning in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin; and
Sir Thomas More owned he was "fuU prettily learned." This is
plainly e-vident in his preface to Matthew, his epistle to the
reader in 1534, and in several notes.
200. Cornely writes in Latin {Introd. Compend. 107) of which
the following is the Essayist's translation: "Into some dog
matic or moral texts he inserted his own interpretation (for in
stance Ex 23 13 for the Hebrew text 'Make no mention of the
name of other gods,' he put 'By the name of strange gods you
shaU not swear'), especially in Messianic prophecies; for he so

228 DIDLE VERSIONS COMPARED
rendered some that they could be drawn into a Messianic sense
(for instance Isa 2 22 'for he is reputed high'; 16 1 'send forth, O
Lord, the lamb, the ruler of the earth,' etc.), although he anno
tates in a commentary that the other rendering which excludes
a Messianic bearing is commoner; other texts, which are Messianic
in a certain broad sense, he determines to a special fact (for in
stance Isa 11 10 'his sepulchre shaU be glorious'); others which
were spoken about the Messiah's reign, he refers to the Messiah's
person (for instance Isa 45 8 'let the clouds rain the just: let the
earth be opened, and bud forth a savior' ; 66 5 ' my just one is near
at hand, my savior is gone forth,' where the abstract nouns
justice, salvation ought to be placed); others which are spoken
briefly, he fiUs out in his o-wn way (Dan 9 26, Hebrew 'it shaU not
be to him' for which St. Jerome: 'the people that shall deny him
shall not be his,' or, as he has it in his commentary, 'the empire
that they were thinking they would retain shall not be his'; but
St. Augustine indicates another supplement: 'he shall not be of
that state'; and other people indicate other renderings)."
Gigot speaks rather severely of some of these translations of
Jerome, Introduction 322-325, and adds further illustrations. In
Gen 49 ">, the Vulgate guides the Douay to translate: "The scep
tre shall not be taken away from Juda, nor a ruler from his thigh,
till he come that is to be sent, and he shall be the expectation of
the nations." Gigot says that some of this rendering was
already traditional, so that Jerome only acquiesced in it, but
ascribes to him the clause in italics, "which could be obtained
only by an arbitrary reading of the Hebrew text." Again,
Jerome's Latin of Job 19 "¦" results in "I know that my Re
deemer liveth, and in the last day I shall rise out of the earth. And
/ shall be clothed again with my skin, and in my flesh I shaU see
my God. Whom I myself shall see, and my eyes shall behold, and
not another; this my hope is laid up in my bosom." Criticising
Jerome, "many Catholic scholars think that version is neither
literal nor accurate," objecting to the clauses in italics. Fathei'
Corluy, the Jesuit, offers a new Latin translation meaning "I
know that my Defender is living, and He at last will appear on
the dust. And afterwards these (members of my body) will be

APPENDIX 229
clothed with my skin, and out of my flesh I shall behold God;
whom I shaU behold for myself, and my eyes shall see, and not
another; my kidneys have failed in my bosom." Yet no edition
known to the writer has ventured to depart from the Latin of
Jerome, in face of the decision of Trent; and aU the editions based
on the ChaUoner text reproduce aU these faults, although they do
vary among themselves in other and petty details.
The translation of Hab 3 has some marvelous touches, some
of which are indorsed in notes; ver 5 runs: "Death shall go be
fore his face. And the Devil shaU go forth before his feet;" ver
13: "Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people: for sal
vation -with thy Christ;" ver 18: "But I wiU rejoice in the Lord:
and I will joy in my God Jesus."
Now some of these may be simple blunders, but not all; and
to say that these are "serious defects" is less than the truth.
They betoken a willingness to tamper with the text.
201. GeU, quoted by Gigot Introduction 367. The matter
does not fall strictly -within the scope of this essay, but still the
writer would have tested the assertion, could he have found
references to any specific passage. Gigot indorses the accusa
tion, and the five cases he quotes from Kenrick are set forth in
the next note.
202. Matt 19 11 now runs in the Protestant version of 1900:
"But he said unto them, Not all men can receive this saying, but
they to whom it is given." Kenrick objected to the word " can,"
saying that it was stronger than the text. A modem CathoUc
version renders: "All men take not this word." A Protestant
will adopt the principle of Pope Clement and appeal to the Greek,
finding the same Greek word (rendered by the same Latin) at
Mk 22, where a Catholic version renders: "there was no room."
The same Greek word at Jno 21 '^ was rendered by Jerome
"capere posse" and in a Catholic version "would not be able to
contain." Therefore it is clear that the text may mean what the
Protestant version says it does, CathoUcs being witnesses. To
prove that it may mean this, does not prove that it must mean
this, but refutes the charge of being a dishonest rendering. It is
possible for honest difference of opinion to exist.

230 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
I Cor 7' has been revised, and Catholics would probably be
satisfied with the result. When criticising this mote, they had a
beam of their own while their final words read: "It is better to
marry than to be burnt"! But they must foUow the Vulgate.
I Cor 9 5 still stands: "Have we no right to lead about a wife ?"
A Catholic note asserts that it is certain Paul had no wife, and
refers to 7 7, 8. This indeed says he was then without a wife, but
suggests two alternatives, unmarried or widowed. The second of
these, the CathoUc annotator ignores. There are other reasons
for thinking Paul was a widower, drawn from Acts 26 10. Without
assuming this, the possibiUty Ues open, and we are thrown back on
the meaning of the Greek word. In ch. vii it occurs repeatedly,
and in the official Vulgate it is rendered by two different Latin
words, one vague and equivalent to 'Woman' ("whether mar
ried or not" says Smith Latin Dictionary), the other precise and
equivalent to 'Wife.' A modern CathoUc version does not object
to render it into English as 'Wife' a dozen times in that chapter.
Therefore the Protestant version is allowable, CathoUcs being
-witnesses. But when the CathoUc Bible says that "erroneous
translators have corrupted the text," the statement goes beyond
the truth, and is couched in unseemly language. And indeed
when the facts are scanned closely, this charge has a boomerang
quality about it. The English translators are perfectly within
their rights, if they s(;and by a possible rendering which accords
with their dogmatic views; but the Latin translators and editors
have dealt differently with this text. TertuUian dropped the
word ' Sister'; Ambrosiaster does the same, if his editors are to be
trusted; Sedulius declares on the other hand that the Greek
reads ' Sisters,' not ' Women,' which assertion is against a mass
of e-vidence; Hel-vidius and Cassiodorus restore the balance by
the brave assertion that the rendering is unmistakably 'Wives';
Jerome, Augustine, and Hilary, with the Armenian version,
strongly influenced by the Latin, have other variations; and it
is difficult to resist the conclusion of Afford, that " the sacred
text was tampered with by the parties in the controversy on
ceUbacy." Moreover the standard text of the Vulgate here is
not only variant from the Greek in its order, but is in opposition

APPENDIX 231
to the best surviving manuscript copies of Jerome's version. It
would be wise for Catholic controversialists not to mention this case.
I Cor 11 27. This text has been corrected as CathoUcs desire.
The criticism was just, but unimportant in view of ver 26.
Heb 10 38. FoUo-wing the Genevan Version, the Royal read:
"Now the just shaU live by faith: but if any man draw back, my
soul shall have no pleasure in him." Kenrick charged that the
"interpolation in italics was designed to prevent the obvious
inference, that the just man might fall from grace." The charge
of motive is not supported by references, nor borne out by any
facts within the cognizance of the present writer. In any case,
the re-visions of 1865, 1881, 1900 remove aU occasion for it.
203. Gen 11 31 tells how Abram came "out of Ur of the Chal-
dees"; but II Esd 9 7 translates the proper name "Ur" and gives
the miraculous rendering, "out of the fire of the Chaldees"!
Gen 12 6 speaks of the "noble vale." A better rendering of the
same phrase is in Deut 11 30, "the vaUey that reacheth and en-
tereth far." In each case the Hebrew seems really to mean "the
oak of Moreh."
Gen 31 32 has added a few words, in the style now indicated by
italics, and the same thing has been done at ver 47, with the result
that the text is more inteUigible than the Protestant. But there
is in the CathoUc version no indication that the Hebrew and Ara
maic have been supplemented in Latin.
On the other hand. Gen 36 13 has been needlessly cut down to
"And he departed from him."
Gen 38 5 is a case wHere Jerome was misled by his teachers,
and wittingly or unwittingly he has given a paraphrase, not a
translation: "After whose birth, she ceased to bear any more."
Gen 39 5 cuts out the information given once already at ver 4.
Gen 39 19 is a short paraphrase.
Gen 40 5 is another case of ingenious compression, which yet is
beyond our ideas of a translator's duty; nor is it to be compen
sated by the free treatment of 40 20-23, which paraphrases, am
plifies, and condenses.
Gen 41 28 again looks Uke mere weariness, leading to the prun
ing of a pleonastic style in the original.

232 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
Gen 49 22 has missed a beautiful figure of a spreading -vine, and
gives the rendering: "Joseph is a growing son, a growing son and
comely to behold: the daughters run to and fro upon the waU."
Worse Uberties than these were taken, as at Ex 40 12-15 and
Jdg 14 15. And in aU these cases an EngUsh translator is for
bidden to go behind the standard text of Jerome; nor does any
annotation occur in the copies available to the writer.
204. To gather twelve such cases is not very easy, but for vari
ous reasons there may be mentioned Ps 24 6; Matt 11 19; Lk 6 5,
24 20; Acts 4 13; Rom 5 7; II Cor 10 1, 2; I Tim 3 2, 5 4, 6 7; Phlm
12; Rev 16 6.
205. On this subject see Cornely Introd. Compend. 121-123, or
Hammond Outlines of Textual Criticism applied to the New
Testament, or Marvin R. Vincent History of the Textual Criti
cism of the New Testament.
206. See Matt 6 13, 19 17; Lk 10 42, 11 2-4, 22 43-44, 23 34; Jno
1 18, 3 13, 7 8; Acts 11 20; I Cor 13 3; Rev 12 18, 13 1.
207. For instance, Acts 16 7; I Jno 2 23.
208. See Mk 6 20; Lk 2 14, 6 1 ; Rom 5 l.
209. Matt 1 16; Mk 5 36; Acts 13 18; PhU 2 1; Col 2 2;
Jude 5.
210. Among these are Matt 27 35; Mk 7 19; Jno 5 3, 4, 7 53-8 ll,
10 16; Acts 8 37, 16 34; I Cor 11 24, 16 51; I Th 2 7; Jas 4 4; I Pet
1 2, 3 15; I Jno 6 7, 8, 18. Gigot briefly aUudes to some of these.
Introduction 236-245.
211. Scrivener-MiUer Introduction II. 334.
212. For a statement of the evidence, consult Hammond, or
Home Introduction, or Scrivener-Miller, or Gloag Dissertation,
or Westcott's additional Note, or Grafton's Digest in Alford, or
Wiseman Two Letters on I John V. 7.
213. Gigot Introduction 349; Lupton in Hastings V. 252, 271a.
214. Wiseman Essays I. 75; Washington Moon The Revisers'
English. 215. Thus the Catholic version at ver 63, "And they aU won
dered" is decidedly better than "And they marvelled all." On
the other hand there are clumsy renderings at vs 6, 17, 23, 35, 37, 54,
72, such as, "Because no word shall be impossible with God."

APPENDIX 233
216. Newman Tracts 361 ; Carleton Rheims 18.
217. Rule VI. is quoted by Lupton in Hastings V. 253b.
218. Of the modem Catholic notes dealing with debatable
questions, two specimens may suffice. At Matt 16 23 we read
that Jesus "turning said to Peter: Go behind me, satan, thou art
a scandal unto me." A CathoUc note does not refer to 4 10, and
show that this is the rebuke to the devil, intensified. It advocates
an explanation that "the Lord would have Peter to follow him in
his suffering, and not to oppose the divine wiU by contradiction;
for the word satan means in Hebrew an adversary or one that
opposes." Despite the holy Fathers, this is not the probable
meaning. Kenrick speaks much to the same effect, but quotes
at length Jerome and Bloomfield. At Eph 4 11-13 is a note
"Gave some apostles — Until we all meet, etc. Here it is plainly
expressed that Christ has left in his Church a perpetual succession
of orthodox pastors and teachers, to preserve the faithful in
unity and truth." The note is courteous enough; but it em
phasizes what is a possible deduction from a barely possible mean
ing, and leaves untouched the main drift of the passage.
219. The candor of this avowal deserves all praise; but the
scholarship is puzzUng. A critical edition of the Vulgate by Stier
and Theile gives not ' ipsum' but 'ipse' as the various reading of
the manuscripts; and this alone would 3deld the sense or be har
monious with the laws of syntax. Yet 'ipsum' is not a mere
Irish misprint, for a Scotch edition a century older gives sub
stantially the same information. Is it possible that a flagrant
mistake of grammar and of fact has been carelessly perpetuated
in several editions; or is it that the accusative case, realiy found
in a sentence of some Father using it correctly, has been trans
ferred here exactly -without suiting it to the context? Whatever
the explanation, some is needed.
220. Darlow Catalogue 219.
221. Decrees of Trent, and Rules of Pope Pius IV. These are
set forth by Buckley Canons and Decrees. But on the other
hand, "the Papal rescript of December, 1898, practicaUy abol
ished the old rule which prohibited laymen from reading the
Word of God in the -vulgar tongue without first obtaining the

234 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
permission of their confessor." Ninety-ninth Report of the Brit
ish and Foreign Bible Society 64.
222. The Roman authorities have been singularly variable in
their attitude toward vernacular versions. There is some rea
son to think that in the second century the Greek Gospels were
published at Rome with the vernacular Latin opposite, and that
this important diglot was the parent or pattern of many other
vernacular versions. See Kenyon Handbook of the Textual Criti
cism of the New Testament, and the Cambridge Texts and Stud
ies II. It is certain that a Bishop of Rome ordered Jerome
to re-vise the Latin versions of the Psalms and Gospels. In the
Middle Ages another Pope after hesitation authorized a Slavonic
version, still used in the Russian Empire, on grounds that apply
to aU vernacular versions. The tide turned in the days of Hil-
debrand, whose predecessor had permitted the vernacular in
pubUc worship. He now objected, saying, "God has ordained
that in some places Holy Scripture should remain unknown, be
cause if aU could easily understand it, it might through being
despised or misinterpreted, lead the people into error." A cen
tury later Alexander III refused approval to Waldo's Provengal
Version. For the appearance of the numerous versions put to the press
in its early days, the Papal Court was not directly responsible,
neither did it hinder them, whatever local clergy might do. But
-with the revolt of many local churches from the rule of Rome,
the whole subject entered on a new phase. After the Council of
Trent, Pius IV approved of ten Rules, of which the fourth pro
vides that the use of even CathoUc versions depends on leave
from bishop or inquisitor, together with priest or confessor, and
in the case of regular monks on further leave from the head of the
order. This is a rule interesting to those who are told that the
Catholic Church has never prohibited any of her members read
ing the Scriptures.
A few facts as to the circulation of the Scriptures by CathoUcs
wiU better elucidate the situation. In the Highlands of Scotland,
many Celts were and are CathoUcs, yet, till the days of James VII,
they had no version to which they could turn, and this was first

APPENDIX 235
pro-vided by Protestants. Ireland has been a CathoUc strong
hold, yet the Irish version was made by Protestants; and despite
the efforts of the Catholic clergy to encourage the use of the lan
guage, it does not seem that they have provided an authentic
CathoUc version. Nor were they more earnest in urging the
supply of the Douay. In the south of Ireland about 1800, one
Protestant family in three was provided, but only one CathoUc
in five hundred. Canton History I. 22. The great CathoUc
powers that colonized the New World were Spain and France.
They neither pro-vided adequately for their own settlers, nor at aU
for the natives. When the government of New Orleans was taken
over in 1803, "it was not tiU after a long search for a Bible to
administer the oath of office that a Latin Vulgate was at last pro
cured from a priest." Canton I. 246. In Canada then "the
Bible was in general a book at once unknown and forbidden"
(Canton II. 67), while in Quebec itself, as late as 1826, many
people had never heard of the New Testament. Canton II. 61.
In that same year at the anniversary of the American Bible Society
attention was directed to South America, where fifteen millions
of people, professedly Christian, and under Christian influence for
about three centuries, were almost entirely without the Bible. At
Cordova, the ancient seat of the Jesuits, books of all kinds were
prohibited by the Inquisition, except missals and breviaries. Can
ton II. 82. If a few years later, a Bishop of Aragon in the Old
World prepared and published a Spanish version, it was 1831 be
fore the first Bible was printed in Spanish America, and the ver
sions published by the clergy ranged from twenty-five to a hun
dred and thirty-two doUars in cost. Canton II. 347. Nor is this
apathy a matter of the past, long since redeemed by zeal in the
cause. A traveler across Brazil in 1902, who enquired care-
fuUy into the subject, found in a thousand miles bishops and
priests in plenty, but not a single copy of the Scriptures in any
lay home; nor had most of the residents ever heard of the Bible,
though they were able, -wiUing, and anxious to buy a copy when
it was shown to them. Report 328.
Whether then appeal be made to the colonies of CathoUc coun
tries, or to the mother lands, it is incorrect that "in every family

236 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
whose means wiU permit the buying of a copy, there you will
find the Authentic Version of God's words as authorized by the
Church." But it must be granted that the Church is sometimes
very anxious to shield her children from unauthentic versions;
for during 1902 pubUc bonfires of them were made in Austria, Fiji,
Pernambuco, and Peru, and the Archbishop of Sucre in Bolivia
" actually suggested that capital punishment should be meted out "
to a man circulating them. Report 9, 35, 38, 39, 54-57, 323,
etc. And on February 22, 1903, another public burning of
Bibles was made in Pernambuco, and another was planned but
forbidden by the state officers, so that the bonfire was private, in
the back of the church . Letter of W. H. Cannada published in the
Baptist Argus of November 6, 1903, at Louis-ville.
If appeal be made to the efforts of CathoUcs in countries
mainly Protestant to counteract the mischief of unauthentic
copies, it should be remembered that in 1813 the Roman Catholic
Bible Society founded in England by a bishop and others was
bitterly opposed by Catholics, and soon came to an end; and that
the Catholic Bible Society at Regensburg, circulating only ver
sions made by Catholics, was suppressed by Papal Bull in 1817.
It is best to look again to headquarters and note the vaciUa-
tions of the Popes themselves in modern times. A great deal is
made of the brief of Pius VI, the anti-Jesuit Pope, in 1778 to
Archbishop Martini. This declares that the Holy Scriptures
"are the most abundant sources, which ought to be left open to
every one, to draw from them purity of morals and of doctrine"
and it acquiesces in his claim that he had seasonably effected this
"by pubUshing the Sacred Writings in the language of your
country, suitable to every one's capacity." But as soon as the
revolutionary upheavals were over, and the reaction had set in,
Pius VII sent a brief on September 3, 1816, to Stanislaus, Metro
politan of Russia, wherein he declared that "if the Sacred Scrip
tures were aUowed in the vulgar tongue everywhere without dis
crimination, more detriment than benefit would arise.'' As this
was the Pope who on April 20, 1820, sent a rescript to the Vicars
ApostoUc of Great Britain commending the reading of the Holy
Scriptures, the British ought to feel highly honored by his

APPENDIX 237
HoUness's discrimination in their favor. Darlow Catalogue
341. His successor, Leo XII, in an encycUcal of May 3, 1824, within
nine months of his accession, indorsed the traditional attitude:
"If the Scriptures be everywhere indiscriminately published,
more evil than advantage wiU arise." Though Pius VIII reigned
only one year, yet he found time on May 29, 1829, to condemn
Bible Societies. Again on May 8, 1844, Gregory XVI objected
to their "publishing the books of the Holy Scriptures in every
vernacular tongue .. so as to induce every one to read them
-without the aid of an interpreter or guide." Canton II. 159.
Pius IX foUowed in the same strain, and at last on December 8,
1864, gathered up several denunciations into his famous Syllabus
of Errors, when he classed Bible Societies with Socialism, Com
munism, Secret Societies, and Clerico-liberal Societies, recalling
how "pests of this description are frequently rebuked in the
severest terms." Then in 1870 the Council of the Vatican rati
fied generaUy the decrees of Trent on Revelation, and renewed a
curse on all who "shaU not receive as holy and canonical all the
books of Holy Scripture -with all their parts, as set forth by the
holy Tridentine Synod [including the 'Apocrypha '], or shall deny
that they were divinely inspired.'' Fortunately the same Coun
cil declared that under certain circumstances the Pope is in
fallible, and so the proceedings of Leo XIII may reassure us to
some extent. On November 18, 1893, by encycUcal he com
mended to his clergy the more careful study of the Holy Scrip
tures. Report 64. In 1897 he pubUshed an Apostolic Con
stitution, where in Ch. in, § 7, it is stated anew, "All versions
of the vernacular, even by CathoUcs, are altogether prohibited,
unless approved by the Holy See, or pubUshed under the vigilant
care of the Bishops, with annotations taken from the Fathers of
the Church and learned Catholic writers." But ha-ving thus
aligned himself with his predecessors, he made rapid advances.
His rescript next year threw open such approved versions without
further trouble. Presently he aUowed a "Pious Society of St.
Jerome for the Dissemination of the Holy Gospels" to issue from
the Vatican Press itself hundreds of thousands of a four-cent

238 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
Italian edition of the Gospels and Acts, and a one-cent Matthew,
pushed throughout Italy by the younger priests. Report 63.
Then on October 30, 1902, he issued another Apostolic Letter in
continuation of his 1893 encyclical, apf)ointing a Commission to
sit in Rome for promoting the study of the Sacred Scriptures in
certain specified ways, and appropriating part of the Vatican
Library for the purpose.
It is devoutly to be hoped that further steps will be taken along
this road, but remembering the fate of Lasserre's French Gospels,
and that another Pope now wears the Fisherman's ring, it is early
to feel sure that this state of affairs is assured. Meantime the
translation of the Psalms is being proceeded with for the Society,
and a new French Bible revised by the Jesuits has been issued
in popular form avowedly for seminarists, priests, and laymen.
If the proceedings of Leo XIII seemed in some measure to
relax the stringent rules, yet the tightening of the bond is again
apparent in a letter to Cardinal Cassetta on January 21, 1907,
from Pius X, in which he declares: "It -will also be advisable
that the Society of St. Jerome hold as a sufficient field of labor
for itself its effort to publish the Gospels and the Acts of the
Apostles." The work of translation is stopped.
223. The -viUagers on the frontiers of Bulgaria, Servia, and
Turkey still speak a dialect of Latin which recent travelers note
-with surprise is plain enough for students of the classics to recog
nize.

SECOND ESSAY
1. Even the highest -view of the authority of councils must
recognize the fact that their conclusions as to the Scripture canon
have always been based primarily on what they judged to be the
experience spiritual men had had of a book's worth in synagogue
or church. This was true of the -violent Jewish Assembly of
Jamnia in 90 a.d., which declared in favor of the Hebrew canon.
It was true of the early Christian councils, like the local synods of
Laodicea and Carthage, and of the Council of Trent itself, which
declared for the fuller text, and whose decision was, of course,
authoritative for Catholics. The name of an author, the appro
priateness of a writing for use in public worship, and other con
siderations, had weight in accepting or rejecting a book as bibUcal ;
but the fundamental factor was the spiritual worth of a book, as
tested in the experience of God's people.
2. The other three of the oldest five manuscripts are known as
the Alexandrian MS., the Codex of Ephraim, and the Codex of
Beza. Even the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. are manuscript copies
in the original only in the New Testament; for, in both, the Old
Testament is the Septuagint Greek translation of the Hebrew.
The five are, for convenience, known as K (Aleph, the Hebrew
A), A, B, C, and D, respectively. Their symbols, names, deriva
tion, probable date, chief contents, and present home, may be
grouped as shown in table on the following page.
3. There is a copy of the Prophets dated 916 a.d. and a recently
acquired copy of the Pentateuch is "not later than the ninth cen
tury." This is in the British Museum. See Kenyon Our Bible
and the Ancient Manuscripts 38 ff.
4. On the comparative worth of manuscript copies and ver
sions, compare Jerome's Works, VaUarsi's Ed., IX, Preface to
the Chronicles from the Hebrew, col. 1405. Also Burkitt in
Cheyne IV, col. 4981.
5. Of the early Christian writers, commonly caUed the " church
239

to

Symbol

Name

Sinaitic.

Vatican .

Alexandrian.

Codex of Ephraim .

Codex of Beza.

Date

4th Cent.

4th Cent.

5th Cent.

5th Cent.

6th Cent.

Found in 1844 In Con
vent on Mt. Sinai.

Long at the Vatican,
Rome.

Once in Library of
Alexandria. Given
to Charles I of En
gland, 1628.

Constantinople, Italy
and Paris. Works ol
Ephraim the Syrian
written over It.

Beza, French theolo
gian. 16th Century,
once owned It.

Contents

O. T. Incomplete. All
N. T.

O. T. complete, Sep
tuagint. N. T. all
but four books.

Whole Bible, though
parts of O. T. miss
ing.

Fragments of nearly
all books.

Gospels. Acts.

St. Petersburg, Bussla.

Vatican Library.

British Museum.

Library of Paris.

Cambridge University,
England.

l-H w
f<!
CO o
CO oo >pia

APPENDIX 241
Fathers," and the character of their testimony, Geddes, a
Scotch Roman CathoUc priest and scholar, says: "The Christian
writers of the first few centuries were men of great probity, but
generaUy of little learning and less taste. They transmitted to
posterity the depositum [tradition of essential truth] which they
had received from the Apostles and their immediate successors,
with honesty, earnestness, and simpUcity; and recommended the
doctrines they taught more by the sanctity of their Uves than by
the depth of their erudition. They form so many invaluable links
in the golden chain of universal and apostolic tradition; but they
afford very little help towards clearing up the dark passages of
Scripture." Prospectus of a New Translation of the Holy Bible
114. 6. In this connection, Gigot, Professor of Sacred Scripture
in St. Mary's Seminary, Baltimore, Md., says: "Though watched
over in a special manner by Divine Pro-vidence in the course of
ages, the inspired books of the canon have been transcribed dur
ing many centuries by all manner of copyists whose ignorance
and carelessness they stiU bear witness to." General Introduc
tion to the Study of the Holy Scriptures 163.
7. Very recent discoveries and investigations tend to confirm
Hort's groupings of the biblical text, in the main, as against such
advocates of the " Received Text" of the Authorized Version as
the late Dean Burgon. See his books. The Traditional Text and
The Causes of Corruption. At the same time, they increase
respect for the " Western Text " as a witness to the truth before the
early and numerous interpolations which have so largely distin
guished it came into it. A very ancient Syriac MS., discovered
in 1892, is Western, but has none of the common additions, as
found, for instance, in the Latin Vulgate. The readings of such a
manuscript, when corroborated by the Neutral group, are almost
certainly true readings. Compare Murray in Hastings V. 208-
236, especiaUy paragraph 83; Burkitt in Cheyne IV, col. 4990;
Nestle in Hastings IV. 737-739. Also, Harris Four Lectures
on the Western Text and The Oxford Debate on Textual Criticism
of the New Testament.
8. That the combinations of the Antiochian group are later

242 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
than either of the two parts that enter into it, is regarded by most
scholars as extremely probable, (1) because a more natural and
worthy motive would lead a copyist to include both words when
he found one in one of his copies, another in another, while it
would be unnatural and unworthy for a copyist to find two words
in his exemplar and copy only one; (2) because it is known that
such combinations were actuaUy practiced; and (3) because, in
the writings of the church Fathers, before the middle of the third
century, are found quotations of Scripture that foUow the readings
in the Neutral, Western, and Alexandrian groups, but none that
have the distinctive Antiochian combinations.
9. See Diagram 2. This varies sUghtly from Hort's theory,
in recognition of later modifications. The relative distance La
the diagram from the ideal (broken) line in the center, represent
ing the orginal text now lost, indicates approximately the relative
accuracy with which the several groups reproduce the original
New Testament writings. Of course, there was in fact more or
less intermixture between groups. Of course, also, only the
chief epochs in manuscript-making are represented in the dia
gram. Of the Vulgate manuscripts, for instance, there are said to
be some 8,000. For examples of the interpolations and omissions
characteristic of the "Western Text," see Note 36.
10. From Westcott and Hort The New Testament in the
Original Greek II. 284.
11. On the nature of the authority attaching to the Douay
Version, see Newman: "It [the Douay] never has had any epis
copal imprimatur [authoritative permission to print], much less
has it received any formal approbation from the Holy See."
"The Rheims and Douay Version of Holy Scripture" in Tracts
Theological and Ecclesiastical 410.
12. Although the rule enacted by the Congregation of the Index
under Benedict XIV is that only those versions may be read that
"have been approved by the Holy See, or are pubUshed -with
notes drawn from the Holy Fathers or from learned CathoUc
writers," only the second alternative seems to be followed in
practice; since it is the custom of the Holy See not to give formal
approval to any vernacular version of Scripture. See Kenrick,

APPENDIX 243
Archbishop of Baltimore, in his General Introduction to the Books
of the Old Testament, p. ix.
13. The facts about the Old Latin Version are in a somewhat
chaotic condition. Whether, originally, there was one version
or were many; whether the typical version, to which extant copies
bear witness, was made in North Africa, Italy, or Gaul; whether
the European text of the Old Latin, which, subject to more or less
revision, appeared, for example, in the edition used by Jerome,
commonly caUed the Old Itala, was an independent version, or
was descended from the North African Version, are points on
which scholars are not yet agreed. The main things that concern
us are plain: (1) that the Old Latin Version that Jerome revised
was a faithful translation; but (2) possessed of a Uterary rude
ness, or literalness, instanced in the use of many Greek words
and grammatical constructions foreign to the Latin; and (3) at
that time corrupted and existing in various forms. See Je
rome's Works, in Patrologia Latina, Migne, XXIX, cols. 525 f. ;
Kennedy in Hastings III. 47-62; Article "Vulgate," in McCUn-
tock and Strong X. 825.
14. As to the need of revision of the Old Latin, Augustine,
the famous church Father, contemporary with Jerome, writes,
"... The Latin translators are innumerable; for in the early
days of Christianity, whoever got hold of a Greek Manuscript and
fancied he had some little ability as a Unguist, ventured to turn
his Greek into Latin." On Christian Doctrine, Bk II, ch ii.
And Jerome himself, in his preface to the Gospels, writes: "Much
error has crept into our texts (of the Gospels), since whatever any
evangelist says more than another, people have added to the
other, because they fancied he had too Uttle. . . . The result is
that our Versions of the Gospels are aU mixed up." Again:
"... there are as many copies of the Latin translations as there
are codices; and everyone adds what he pleases, or subtracts what
he thinks best." Jerome's Works, in Migne, XXIX, cols. 626 f.
and XXVIII, col. 463.
15. The translators of the King James Version speak of
Jerome as "a most leamed father, and the best linguist, -without
controversy, of his age, or of any other that went before him, to

244 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
undertake the translating of the Old Testament out of the very
fountains themselves, which he performed -with . . . great learn
ing, judgment, industry, and faithfulness. .' ." From Preface
to the Revision of 1611, p. 16.
Geddes says: "St. Jerome certainly knew more of the Hebrew
language than any other Western Christian of his day: . . . but he
was inferior in that respect to many moderns." Prospectus
47 and Note.
16. On Jerome's method in re-vising the Gospels, compare
his Preface to the Gospels, Migne, XXIX, col. 625.
McCHntock and Strong, who give long Usts of examples of
changes in the Old Latin made by Jerome, conclude that a com
parison of Jerome's Vulgate with the Old Latin in quotations
from the Fathers before his time, shows the reality and character
of his re-vision. But it shows also that the revision was hasty
and imperfect. Migne, X, col. 827.
Jerome's revision of the Old Testament, and therefore, of the
Psalms, received into the Vulgate, was from an unrevised copy
of the Old Latin Version of the Septuagint, the imperfections of
which he notes. See Epistle to Sunia and Fretula.
17. As to Jerome's translation of the apocryphal book of
Tobit, he says: " I have satisfied your [the bishops'] wish, but not
my learning." Migne, XXIX, cols. 23 f.
Of the haste in his translation of this book and Judith, he teUs
us, that he translated the one in "a single day," and that the
other was "a short effort." Migne, cols. 26 and 39.
18. There can be no question, we suppose, that Jerome trans
lated the Old Testament from the Hebrew, or that it was this
translation (with the exception of the Psalms and the Apocry
pha) that became the Old Testament of the Latin Vulgate.
See Jerome, in Migne, Epistle to Damasus, XXXVI, and
Preface to the Books of Chronicles, VaUarsi's Ed., IV, 1405.
Gigot, of the Roman Catholic Seminary in Baltimore, states the
facts thus: "... Our Latin Vulgate has three component
parts. The first part is distinctively St. Jerome's work, inas
much as it is no other than his own translation of the proto-
canonical books of the Old Testament, (except that of the

APPENDIX 245
Psalter, as already stated) which he rendered from the Hebrew."
Introduction 320. In view of these facts, one is at a loss to
understand an assertion in the Preface to the version of the Holy
Bible pubUshed at Baltimore, and bearing the printed "Appro
bation of His Eminence, James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of
Baltimore." In justification of the fact that the Catholic Bible
contains certain books not found in other Bibles, this Preface
says: "The Church's Version, the Septuagint, the Greek transla
tion from the original Hebrew, and which contained aU the writ
ings now found in the Douay Version, as it is called, was the
Version . . . translated into Latin, known under the title of
Latin Vulgate and ever recognized as the true Version of the
written word of God.'' The Holy Bible, Translated from the
Latin Vulgate, etc., published with the Approbation of Cardinal
Gibbons, 1899, Preface, p. i.
It is known, of course, that the Old Latin translation of the
Septuagint once bore the name Vulgate. But it is also known
that that is not Jerome's Vulgate, which was declared " authen
tic" by the Council of Trent, and has ever since been "recog
nized" by Roman CathoUcs "as the true version of the written
word of God." Of the relation of Jerome's Vulgate (outside the
Psalms) to the Septuagint, the most that can be said is that
Jerome "did not disdain to incorporate parts of the Old Latin
Versions" and (as he says of his translation of Ecclesiastes)
in general tried to conform to the old translation from the
Greek, particularly that of Symmachus, "in those places where
it did not show much discrepancy from the Hebrew." This is cer
tainly a very different thing from translating the Greek Sep
tuagint. Scholarly Catholics are usually very glad to note that in
Jerome's Vulgate the Old Testament comes from the Hebrew
direct. The Catholic Archbishop Dixon says distinctly, in a
book from which many Catholic clergymen have received their
knowledge of these things: "Our Vulgate is manifestly in these
[the Old Testament books other than the Psalms] a translation
from the Hebrew." General Introduction to the Sacred Scrip
tures, by Dixon, formerly Professor of Sacred Scripture and

246 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
Hebrew . . . Archbishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland,
I. 107. But, since the Hebrew canon, and Jerome foUowing it,
both excluded the apocryphal, or "deuteroJcanonical," books,
and these were only added, as above noted, to Jerome's work
against his own judgment, the Greek Septuagint should not, one
would think, be cited as "the true version of the written word
of God" to CathoUc folk, for the purpose of justifying the enlarged
canon of the CathoUc Bible. See also White in Hastings IV.
833 f.
On the opposition Jerome met, see p. 876 of the same article:
"The mutterings of suspicion which were aroused by the emended
version of the New Testament were as nothing compared with the
storm of indignation and opposition which the translation of the
Old Testament from the Hebrew brought on to Jerome's head.
. . . The great stumbUng block was that he should have gone
behind the Septuagint version, and made a translation which
. . . even set itself up as an independent rival."
19. Gigot (Catholic) writes: "During the course of the two
centuries which elapsed between the time of Saint Jerome and
the general reception of his work, corruptions of a very extensive
character crept naturally into the text of the Latin Vulgate.
Not only the ordinary mistakes of transcription . . . were made
. . . but the pecuUar relation in which our Vulgate stood to the
Old Latin Version ... led to a strange mixture of texts. From
sheer famiUarity with the words of the older version, the trans
cribers of the Vulgate wrote down its words instead of those of
Saint Jerome. Another fertile source of corruptions . . . con
sisted in the lack of critical sense in most of the transcribers and
owners of Manuscripts during the Middle Ages; time and again
they inserted in their copies of Holy Writ glosses drawn from other
Manuscripts, from parallel passages, from the sacred Uturgy, from
the writings of Saint Jerome, or even of Josephus, and thought
that they had thereby secured what they were pleased to caU
'pleniores codices' (more complete texts), while they had simply
added to the corruptions already existing." Introduction 330.
By direction of the Emperor Charles the Great, in 797 the
scholarly Missionary-Bishop Alcuin made a revision of the Vulgate

APPENDIX 247
which was valuable and popular. It seems to have been Uinited,
however, to a comparison of the best Latin manuscripts he could
obtain. Near the end of the eleventh century, Lanfranc, Arch
bishop of Canterbury, corrected the text. In the twelfth cen
tury, Stephen Hardy, Abbot of Citeaux, compared good Latin and
Greek manuscripts, and by aid of these and the guidance in He
brew of some Jewish scholars, removed from the current text
many interpolations. In the thirteenth century, the copying of
Vulgate Bibles increased greatly, and among many poor ones
excellent "correctoria," or standard manuscripts, were made by
societies of learned men. The best of these was the "Correc-
torium Vaticanum," which served weU to restore, in a measure,
Jerome's text.
20. " It is true that the discovery of the art of printing supplied
the long desired means of obtaining uniform and authoritative
copies of the Vulgate. But it is true, also, that lack of critical
skill, desire of multiplying editions of the Bible, etc., betrayed
the editors of the fifteenth century into pubUshing Manuscripts
of the sacred text irrespectively of their origin and value."
Gigot Introduction 332.
Among the best of these printed Vulgate Bibles were (1 ) The
Mazarin, named after Cardinal Mazarin, the owner of a famous
copy made in 1452; (2) the Complutensian Polyglot, done by
Cardinal Ximenes, a very able CathoUc scholar, at Complutum, or
Alcala, Spain; and (3) Stephanus's (Etienne's, or "Stephen's")
Vulgate, on which the Sixtine revisers depended as much as on
any one edition. This last was the first reaUy critical piece of
work done on Vulgate Bibles, though, unfortunately, based on the
"Parisienne Correctorium," the poorest of the thirteenth cen
tury standard copies. See Hastings IV. 878, 879.
21. From the Latin of Canons and Decrees of the Holy Council
of Trent, Session IV, — Decree concerning the Edition and Use of
the Sacred Books, 6 f.
The oldest manuscript of the Vulgate now known to be in
existence is caUed the Codex Amiatinus, because it was formerly
in the Convent of Monte Amiata, near Sienna in Italy. It is now
in the Mediceo-Laurentian Library at Florence, and is its greatest

248 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
treasure. It measures 19| x 13f x 7 inches; contains the whole
Bible with Preface; is written in uncial, or capital, letters on
1,029 leaves of veUum, in a clear beautiful hand, two columns to a
page. This manuscript was brought to Rome during the Sixtine
revision of the Vulgate mentioned on pages 78 f. It was made in
England, by the order of Ceolfried ; and by him presented to Pope
Gregory II about 715 a.d. Condensed from The Codex Amia
tinus and Its Birthplace, by White, 273 ff.
22. Bingham {Antiquities of the Christian Church II. 754) goes so
far as to say: "We do not thereby [by the Vatican Decree] de
clare it [the Vulgate] to be the best translation, or absolutely
without faults, but only such a one as we can piously use and
read publicly in the Church." "What more does the Council of
Trent assert, when she declares the Vulgate to be authentic?"
From Prefatory Note to The Holy Bible, translated from the
Latin Vulgate, and published with the Approbation of the Rt. Rev.
John Hughes, D.D., p. 4.
SimUarly, Geddes says that the Synod's declaration [that is, the
decision of Trent] that the Vulgate was " authentic" did not imply
"an absolute and exclusive authenticity in the strictest sense of
the word, which gave it a preference and superiority not only
over all other translations, but also over the originals them
selves." This "opinion was that of the most ignorant," says
Geddes; the opposite "that of the most learned Catholic theolo
gians." Prospectus 10.
The fact remains, however, that none but the Vulgate Version
can claim authenticity under the CathoUc ruling; and that, in
common practice, "authentic" has usually been taken to mean
absolutely authoritative, if not infallible. The most damaging
thing in the Decree was its inclusion of "controversies," which
certainly implies a standard of truth for students as well as a
usable guide for general readers. See Wetzer and Welte {Ka-
tholisches) Kirchenlexikon, Article, "Vulgate."
23. "He" [Sixtus] "forbade expressly the publication of vari
ous readings in copies of the Vulgate, and declared that all read
ings in other editions and Manuscripts which vary from those of
his re\'ised text ' are to have no credit or authority for the future.' "

APPENDIX 249
Gigot Introduction 337. "This edition," Sixtus said, "is -with
out any doubt or controversy to be regarded by the Christian
public as the Vulgate Latin edition of the Old and New Testa
ments received as authentic by the Council of Trent." Sixtus's
BuU is quoted in The History of the English Bible, Condit, 314 f.
It is printed at length in James Bellum Papale, London, 1600.
The Bull is dated 1589, and Sixtus died in 1590.
It is agreed on all hands that, while the Sixtine edition was
mechanically superior to the later Clementine edition, the text re-
¦vision itself was very bungling. According to Vercellone, Six
tus's substitutions of his own readings for those of his board of
revisers were wrong nineteen times out of twenty. Salmon
says that Sixtus's "infallibiUty" was not equal to the "patience,
learning and critical sagacity" required. Infallibility of the
Church 228. After detailed comparison of the two texts, Mc-
CUntock and Strong say: "He (Sixtus) had changed the readings
. . . with the most arbitrary and unskiUful hand." " The
Clementine, though not a perfect text, is yet very far purer than
the Sixtine:" X. 833. See also Note 20, end.
24. The inscription of the Clementine Revision says that the
work was done in nineteen days. At any rate, it was hasty, aUow-
ing no time for comparison with the originals. A second Clem
entine Edition ws^ published in 1593, and a third in 1598, with a
triple list of errata. Geddes estimates that the changes made in
the Sixtine Edition by the Clementine Revision were over 2,000.
The more complete investigations of later scholars place the
number even higher, — VerceUone, 3,000; Gigot, "some 4,000."
26. The Clementine second edition bore the title, "By com
mand of Sixtus V," and the editors did not use the name Clemen
tine until some forty years after the death of Clement. See also
Die Selbstbiographie des Cardinals Bellarmine . . . mit gc'
schichtlichen Erlduterungen.
As to the "errors of the press," compare Preface by BeUarmine
to The Holy Bible, Vulgate Edition, edited by Tischendorf, p.
XXV. In his Autobiography, just referred to, Bellarmine uses the
expression, "some errors of the printers or of others" ("aliqua
errata vel Typographorum vel aliorum"). But not even this

250 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
faint hint of the truth found its way into the Preface which he
actually wrote. There he says baldly, "by the fault of the
press" ("prEeU vitio"). In the Autobiography BeUarmine says
further that his advice to pursue this course pleased Pope Gregory
XIV and was acted upon by Clement VIII. Compare, also,
Wetzer and Welte Kirchenlexikon: "An obstacle [to the canon
ization of Bellarmine] was met with, however, each time; the
question being whether cause for not canonizing BeUarmine was
found in the assertion in the Preface to the Clementine Edition of
the Vulgate, prepared by him, that, 'the errors of the Sixtine
Edition were errors of the press,' as weU as in the circumstance
that he had described the Clementine Edition, upon the second
published title page, as revised and published by command of
Sixtus." II. 292. After BeUarmine's death, "Cardinal Azzo-
lini urged that, as BeUarmine had insulted three popes, and ex
hibited two as liars, — namely Gregory XIV and Clement VIII,
his work should be suppressed and burnt, and the strictest secrecy
inculcated about it. For, thought Azzolini, what shall we say
if our adversaries infer . . . the pope can err in expounding
Scripture; — nay, hath erred . . . not only in expounding it, but
in making many wrong changes in it." Von DoUinger, The Pope
and The Council, Authorized Translation, 51.
"The Pope [Sixtus V] . . . decided and gave order that the
whole work be brought back to the anvil (revised)." "...
Clement VIII . . . has completed the work which Sixtus had
determined on." From Bellarmine's Preface, xxv. "It was
pretended that Sixtus himself had resolved on the suppression,
but of this there is no proof and Uttle probabUity." Geddes
Prospectus 52.
"... Other things, which it appeared ought to be altered,
were purposely left unaltered ... for the sake of avoiding giv
ing offence to the people." From BeUarmine's Preface, xxvi.
26. "It is weU known that many Uttle corrections . . . that
had been pointed out by BeUarmine and others have, from time
to time, been admitted even into the Vatican impressions; and
thence have found their way into most other posterior editions."
Geddes Prospectus 52, Note.

APPENDES 251
"... There are many passages in the Vulgate badly ren
dered. . . . Other faults have crept into it since the days of its
author, many of which were not corrected even by the last re
visers. Are we to translate these faults and retain these render
ings for the sake of uniformity? . . . He must be a sturdy
Vulgatist indeed who maintains so ridiculous a proposition."
Geddes 106.
The BuU of Clement is quoted by White in Hastings IV. 381.
27. The list of books judged canonical by the CouncU of Trent
numbers 45 by count; but Jeremiah and Lamentations are reck
oned one.
The quotation respecting the canon is from the Canons and
Decrees, Session IV, 1546, confirmed by Pius IV, 1564.
" It is denied by some theologians that the idea of a curse prop
erly belongs to the anathema as used in the Christian Church."
Century Dictionary, "Anathema.'' Yet the Catholic Dictionary
after saying, "In pronouncing anathema against wilful heretics,
the Church does but declare that they are excluded from her
communion," adds: "and that they must, if they continue ob
stinate, perish eternally."
28. Of the three most ancient bibUcal manuscripts extant, all
containing the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament in whole
or in part, the Sinaitic contains IV Maccabees, Epistle of Bama^
has, and a large part of the Shepherd of Hermas, as weU as Judith,
Tobit, I Maccabees, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus; the Alexandrian
has III Maccabees and The Prayer of Manasses, as weU as the
seven which Roman Catholics account canonical; the Vatican has
the Epistle of Jeremiah, besides five of the seven. See Heaford
Vse of the Apocrypha in the Christian Church.
The words of another Roman CathoUc author, though written
for another purpose, may be quoted in this connection: "Are not
our adversaries very inconsistent in admitting one class of deu
tero-canonieal books and rejecting others?" Dixon General
Introduction I. 42.
The twenty-four books in the Hebrew canon are equivalent to
the thirty-nine in the Protestant canon because the Hebrew
counted the twelve Minor Prophets one book; and the pairs I

252 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
and II Samuel, I and II Kings, I and II Chronicles, and Ezra and
Nehemiah, each one.
29. Professor Gigot mentions Justin Martyr, MeUto, and Ori
gen as exceptions to the "well-nigh perfect unanimity" of the
early Fathers in favor of the canonicity of the books in question.
Origen's definite list of books agreeing with the Palestinian canon
is of some importance as showing the crystallization of opinion
and practice in his time and part of the world. But it is more
important not to exaggerate the weight of evidence from the
Fathers of the first Christian centuries, on either one side or the
other. See Note 6.
Irenaeus, TertuUian, and Clement of Alexandria are only some
of the Fathers that quote as Scriptural or prophetical, boolcs
which the Catholic Church, quite as much as Protestants, treat
as apocryphal. Nor should one forget that even Jesus himself,
we are told, quoted at least one passage as Scripture that is not in
the Old Testament. (Jno 7 38.)
30. The testimony of Jerome is in part as follows: In his
Preface to his translation of Kings he says: "... Whatever is
beyond these (Hebrew books) must be reckoned among the
apocrypha. Therefore the Wisdom of Solomon, as it is commonly
entitled, and the Book of the Son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) and
Judith and Tobias, and the Shepherd, are not in the canon. . . ."
Gigot Introduction 56.
"In his Epistle to Paulinus, about 394, he draws up a canon of
the Old Testament, without even mentioning the deutero-canon
ieal books, whilst in his Preface to Esdras, he says: 'what is not
found in them (Ezra and Nehemiah) and among the twenty-four
Old Men (that is, the twenty-four books of the Hebrew canon,
which are equal to the thirty-nine of the Protestant Bible), should
be put aside, and kept at a considerable distance from them.' "
Gigot 56.
31. After citing a considerable list of church scholars of the
Middle Ages for and against the canonicity of the books in
question, Gigot says: "From this simple enumeration ... it
may readily be inferred that, since their series keeps on from
century to century, we are in the presence of a two-fold opinion

APPENDLX 253
current ia the Churches of the West, the one favorable to the
writings which were not found in the Hebrew Bible, the other
ascribing to them only inferior authority." Gigot Introduc
tion 68. It wUl be borne in mind that this was before the break
in the CathoUc Church that resulted in the Lutheran Reformation.
32. " During the discussion [at the Council of Trent] some of
them [the Fathers] expressed the wish that a difference should
be indicated between the sacred books." Gigot Introduction 79.
That the Council left aside " the question whether the sacred books
differ from one another in other respects [than that of sacredness
and canonicity], such as, for instance, their usefulness for proving
dogma, . . we think may be inferred from their express inten
tion 'to leave the question of a distinction among the sacred
books as it had been left by the Holy Fathers'; and also from
their substituting the expression 'pari pietatis affectu' ['with a,
feeUng of equal loyalty'] for the word 'aequaUter' ['equally'] in
the framing of the decree; because 'there is a great difference
among them,' — that is, among the sacred books." Gigot 81
and note.
33. Erasmus and Ximenes are examples besides those already
named as taking a position against the f uU canonicity of the books
of the second class before the Council of Trent. Sixtus of Sienna,
Dupin, Lamy, and, in later times, Jahn, are instances of CathoUc
writers who, "even after the dogmatic decision of the Council of
Trent," have "thought it stiU aUowable to maintain a real differ
ence in respect of canonicity between the sacred books of the
Old Testament." Gigot Introduction 82 f. See also Strack in
Schaff-Herzog I. 385-389.
34. Jerome's words as to the use of the Apocrypha are: "As
the Church reads the Books of Judith and Tobias and of the
Maccabees, but does not receive them among the canonical
Scriptures, so also it reads these two books (the Ethics of Jesus,
son of Sirach, and the Wisdom of Solomon) for the edification of
the people, but not for the confirmation of revealed doctrine."
From Preface to Works of Solomon, in Gigot Introduction 56,
67. In another place he says of the Apocrypha: "The utmost
prudence is necessary to seek for gold in mud." Gigot 68.

254 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
Pope Gregory the Great calls the Apocrypha, "books which,
though not canonical, are received for the edification of the
Church." Gigot 66, 67.
Article VI of the English Church reads: "The other books . . .
the Church doth read for example of Ufe and instruction of
manners; but yet doth it not apply them to estabUsh any doc
trine." "When Myles Coverdale placed the Apocrypha, except Baruch,
at the end of the New Testament, he expressly stated that 'he
did not wish it to be despised or little set by'; he says, 'patience
and study wiU show that the canon and the Apocrypha are
agreed.' " See Heaford Vse of the Apocrypha 62. Yet Cov
erdale distinguished the two, and placed the Apocrypha on a dis
tinctly lower level. See Note 82.
Forty-one out of fifty-three of the Fathers of Trent voted to
pass over in sUence, rather than expressly reject, the three books
rated by Catholics as apocryphal, yet pubUshed at the end of the
Vulgate. Gigot speaks of these as "books of manifold interest,"
78, 119.
35. "... Jerome had before him only an unpointed text,
and felt repeatedly bound to abide by the established current
version of the time in order to avoid offending the prejudices of its
admirers." Gigot Introduction 326.
36. Chief among these corruptions are "glosses," that is, mar
ginal notes incorporated as part of the text. For instance, tra
ditional interpretations, as in Matt 3 15, 20 28; Lk 3 22 (see also
1 46, 12 38). Also insertions from paraUel passages in other Gos
pels: Matt 3 3; Mk 16 4; Lk 1 29, 6 10, 9 43, 50, 54, 11 2; and Jno
6 56. In John, however, the Old Latin more commonly omits
than enlarges. Thus there are omissions in: 3 31, 4 9, 5 36, 6 23,
8 58, etc. McCUntock and Strong X. 827.
37. Among religious and theological terms that we owe to the
Vulgate, may be noted: essence, person, lecture, sermon, grace,
repentance, conversion, redemption, salvation, justification,
sanctification, regeneration, revelation, propitiation, missionary,
congregation, communion, eternity.
38. In his commentary on Galatians, Jerome himself condemns

APPENDIX 255
such additions as 3 1 ("that they should not obey the truth"),
5 21 ("murders"), and several other Vulgate translations. Sim
ilarly in his commentaries on Ephesians and Titus. McCUn
tock and Strong X. 836.
We have heard from Gigot on the text and the canon of the
Vulgate. None speaks with greater clearness than he on Jerome's
weaknesses in translation, as weU as his strength. As his testi
mony cannot certainly be prejudiced against the author of the
Vulgate, we give a few statements: "His desire to avoid what he
considers useless repetitions in the Hebrew narrative betrays him
into a complete suppression of important particulars." Intro
duction 322. An example is Ex 40 12-15, where Jerome com
presses what the author of the passage -wrote into half the space.
"An examination of his — Jerome's — translation, such as has
been made by Kaulen and Nowack, verifies this expectation [that
Jerome would be much less literal than he thought he was]. It
is the work of a good, though by no means immaculate or scien
tific Hebrew scholar, aiming at the sense rather than at the
words of the original." White in Hastings IV. 884.
39. "It must even be said that he went stUl further, and gave
to a few passages a Messianic character which they never pos
sessed in the original; as, for example, when he renders Isa 16 l,
'Send forth, O Lord, the lamb, the ruler of the earth, from Petra
of the desert, to the mount of the daughter of Sion ' [ChaUoner-
Douay translation of Jerome], it is clear that he inserts an allusion
to the future Lamb of Grod which is unwarranted by the Hebrew.
In this passage, the prophet simply teUs the king of the pastoral
country of Moab so rich in flocks (Num 32 4) and who formerly
sent lambs as a tribute to Samaria (IV [II] Kgs 3 4) that he
should send them henceforth to Jerusalem. The exact trans
lation of the verse is, therefore, 'Send ye the lambs of (due to)
the ruler of the land, from Petra, which is toward the wilderness,
to the mountain of the daughter of Sion.' [So, substantiaUy,
the American Revised Version: 'Send ye the lambs for the ruler
of the land from Selah (or Petra) to the wilderness, unto the
mount of the daughter of Zion.*]
" We might also " — continues Gigot — "point out a certain num-

256 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
ber of passages in which the translation assumes a dogmatic or
moral bearing which seems to be outside that of the original.
The most striking is to be found in the rendering of the well-
known passage. Job 19 25-27, commonly appealed to as a proof
of the resurrection of the body. The proof, indeed, is clear
enough — the Version of St. Jerome once admitted. But, as
many CathoUc scholars think, that Version is neither literal nor
accurate." Instead of giving the Vulgate Latin and the Latin translation
from the Hebrew by Corluy, which Gigot quotes at this point,
we refer the reader to the almost identical contrast involved in the
EngUsh translation of the ChaUoner-Douay Version and the
American Revised Version, respectively, which may be found on
pages 119 f.
Gigot's conclusion on this point is: " ... These are, indeed,
serious defects in our translation of Holy Writ [the Vulgate], and
they should he borne in mind when we endeavor to determine the
extent to which this official version of the Church corresponds
truly to the original text. But they should not make us lose
sight of the real excellence of St. Jerome's translation, considered
as a whole." Introduction 324 f. (Italics are ours.)
The opinion of the Catholic scholar, Richard Simon, with
regard to the consequent need of going back of the Vulgate to the
originals, is as follows: "One cannot deny that the Hebrew and
Greek copies to which Protestants assign the virtues of the origi
nals, have been altered in numberless places. Yet they should
not be put aside for that reason to foUow wholly the ancient Ver
sions, either Greek or Latin, which the Church has authorized by
long usages ; but these originals of the Bible should be amended,
so far as possible, by means of extant manuscripts, and of the
ancient Versions of Scripture. . . . And though we can establish
strongly a definite rule of faith from the Versions which the
Church has approved of, stiU the same Church has not pretended
that these translations are either infaUible in all their particulars,
or that nothing more correct can be had." Critical History of
the Old Testament, Vol. I, Bk in, ch. 18, pp. 4, 6, 6.
40. The first and third quotations are from a letter lately writ-

APPENDIX 257
ten by the Rev. Father Early of Irvington, N. Y. As this letter
wiU be alluded to again, we give here the part of it that is per
tinent: "The Catholic Church has never prohibited any of her members
reading the Scriptures or Bible. In every family whose means
wiU permit the buying of a copy, there you wiU find the Authen
tic Version of God's Words as authorized by the Church, and
which has come down to us unchanged from the time of Christ
Himself. But the Catholic Church does object to the reading of
the Protestant Version which goes back only to the days of
Henry VIII of England, and was then gotten up for obvious
reasons." The second quotation is from the Preface to The Holy Bible
translated from the Latin Vulgate, etc., revised, and published
with the Approbation of His Eminence, James Cardinal Gibbons,
Archbishop of Baltimore, p. 2.
41. The purpose back of the first Catholic translation of the
Bible into the English language is told by the Douay translators
themselves. Their work, they say, was done not from an "er
roneous opinion of necessity that the Holy Scriptures should
always be in our mother tongue, or that they ought ... to be
read indifferently of aU. Not for these causes do we translate
this sacred book, but upon special consideration" that "diverse
things are . . . medicineable now that otherwise in the peace of
the Church were neither much requisite, nor perchance wholly
tolerable." The incentive to their labors has been their con:-
passion to see their "beloved countrymen with extreme danger of
their souls to use only such profane translations" — as Protestant
Bibles — and also the "desires of many devout persons. . . ."
(From Preface to Rheims New Testament, 2. )
42. The quotation concerning Dr. Gregory Martin, is from
Anthony Wood, in the Oxford Athenceum, cited by Stoughton
Our English Bible 226.
43. "It must be said that, since the Douay Version was made
very closely from Latin Manuscripts, or editions of the sixteenth
century, anterior to the official texts pubUshed by the Popes Six
tus V and Clement VIII, it may and does in several cases point to

258 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
Latin readings no longer found in our editions of the Latin Vul
gate." Gigot Introduction 348 f.
44. "It [the Douay Bible] is said, indeed, to have been com
pared with the Hebrew and Greek, but the coUation must have
been limited in scope or ineffectual, for the Psalter (to take one
signal example) is translated, not from Jerome's version of the
Hebrew, but from his re-vision of the very faulty translation from
the Septuagint, which commonly displaced it in Latin Bibles."
Westcott- Wright General View of the History of the Bible 260 f.
45. The Douay translators use the preceding EngUsh Protes
tant versions, which they industriously condemned, chiefly in
the New Testament. A short example is Matt 6 19-21 (speUing
modernized): I. THE GENEVAN VERSION II. THE RHEIMS VERSION
Lay not up treasures for Heap not up to yourselves
yourselves upon the earth, treasures on the earth: where
where the moth and canker the moth and rust do corrupt,
corrupt, and where thieves dig and where thieves dig through
through and steal. and steal.
But hay up treasures for But heap to yourselves treas-
yourselves in heaven where ures in heaven; where neither
neither the moth nor canker the rust nor moth doth cor-
corrupteth and where thieves rupt, and where thieves do not
neither dig through nor steal. dig through nor steal.
For where your treasure is. For where thy treasure is
there wiU your heart be also. there is thy heart also.
46. There is Uttle, if any, proof that the suspicion of King
James's translators was well-founded, when they wrote in the
Preface to their version that the Douay translators had retained
Latin words "of purpose to darken the sense, that since they must
needs translate the Bible, yet by the language thereof it may be
kept from being understood."
Scrivener's testimony may be found in Cotton Rhemes and
Doway 166.
47. The honestly meant, but unscientific bias noted, is evident
in such passages as Gen 3 15. Here the Roman CathoUc trans
lators, blindly following the Latin, though they knew that neither

APPENDIX 259
the Hebrew nor the Greek Septuagint justified it, have translated
"She shall bruise thy head," and on this a vast deal of doctrine in
support of the divine worship of the Virgin Mary has been based.
See the Essay, Ought Protestant Christians to Circulate Romish
Versions of the Word of God? by Grant.
Again in Heb. IP' we find the Challoner - Douay Bible reads:
"... Jacob dying . . . adored the top of his rod." Catholics
have used the passage, as translated, to justify the use of cruci
fixes and Uke symbols. See Essay just mentioned. The author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, foUowing his Septuagint transla
tion of the Hebrew, understood Gen 47 31 ("And Israel bowed
himself upon the bed's head"), from which he draws his illustra
tion, to read, 'rod' instead of 'bed.' In the Hebrew, the differ
ence between the two words is not more than that between a " t"
and an "1." But what the author of the New Testament Epistle
wrote was: not "adored the top of his rod," but: "adored (or,
worshiped) upon the top of his rod (or, staff)." So the Ameri
can Revision translates: "Jacob, when he was dying . . . wor
shiped (leaning) upon the top of his staff." The Catholic Arch
bishop Kenrick translates: "And bowed towards the top of his
staff." Yet what do our Catholic popidar translators and revisers
do but justify their Vulgate reading and the Genesis original, by
saying that both are true, and Jacob must have turned to the bed
and taken the rod to worship, not only God, but also Joseph.
Similarly, the passages that CathoUcs Uke Lingard and Kenrick
translate "repent," pointing out that the true meaning is the
attitude of the heart toward sin, are stiU rendered in the Chal
loner-Douay Bibles: "Do penance." E.g., Acts 17 30.
48. In their Preface the translators say of their work : " We have
kept ourselves as near as is possible to our text and to the very
words and phrases made venerable. . . . though to some profane
or delicate ears they may seem more hard or barbarous. . . ."
They do this because "the voluntary translator may easily miss
the true sense of the Holy Ghost."
The extreme result of this theory may be seen in a few examples
from the Psalms, in which the Latin followed by the Douay trans
lators has itself sometimes lost the sense. Take Ps 67 (R. V.

260 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
58): 9 (R. V. 8). As wax that melteth shaU they be taken away:
fire hath fallen on them, and they have not seen the sun.
10. Before your thorns did understand the old brier; as Uvingso
in wrath he swallowed them.
11. The just shaU rejoice when he shall see revenge: he shal!
wash his hands in the blood of a sinner.
The translation of the New Testament Epistles is but little
clearer than the Psalms:
Rom 5 18. Therefore as by the offence of one, unto aU men
to condemnation: so also by the justice of one unto aU men to
justification of Ufe.
7 23. I see another law in my members, repugning to the law
of my mind and capturing me.
9 28. For consummating a word and abridging it in equity: be
cause a word abridged shall our Lord make upon the earth.
Heb 13 16. Beneficence and communication do not forget, for
with such hosts God is premerited.
After this, the reader may be less surprised to read Geddes's
verdict: "The Douay Bible," he says, "is a literal and barbarous
translation from the Vulgate before its last re-vision." Pro
spectus 110.
Similarly, Nary (Roman Catholic, also) as early as 1718 wrote:
"The language — of the Douay Bible — ^is so old, the words so ob
solete, the orthography so bad, and the translation so literal,
that in a number of places it is unintelligible." Newman
Tracts 411.
49. For the motives of CathoUc Revision of the Douay, lying
in its obscure language, see above word from Nary, Note 48.
Nary was one of the early workers for a new translation.
As to errors in the Vulgate text, see Note 36 above, also
Note 24.
As to emulation of the Authorized Version, see Archbishop
Kenrick's remark: "Converts especiaUy desiderate the energy,
purity and beauty of language which they so enthusiasticaUy
portray as characteristic of the Authorized Version.'' Intro
duction 8.
50. After citing a number of passages, in which he finds Chal-

APPENDIX 261
loner's Revision agreeing, not uniformly, but prevailingly, -with
the Protestant King James Version, against the Douay, New
man says: "Looking at Dr. ChaUoner's labors on the Old Testament
as a whole, we may pronounce that they issue in little short of a
new translation. They can as Uttle be said to be made on the
basis of the Douay as on the basis of the Protestant Version. Of
course, there must be a certain resemblance between any two
Catholic Versions whatever; because they are both translations of
the same Vulgate. But, this connection between the Douay and
ChaUoner being allowed for, ChaUoner's Version is even nearer to
the Protestant than it is to the Douay; nearer, that is, not in
grammatical structure, but in phraseology and diction." Tracts
416. "After aU aUowances for the accident of selection [of pas
sages to be compared] it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that
at this day the Douay Old Testament no longer exists as a re
ceived Version of the Authorized Vulgate." Newman 418 f.
Of the New Testament, after calling attention to the fact that
ChaUoner "could not be unfaithful to the Vulgate," Newman
shows that, in a comparison of three passages, chosen at random,
out of thirty-nine changes from the Rheims Version, ChaUoner
makes twenty-nine accord with the Protestant Version; and adds:
"The second — ChaUoner — edition, 1750, differs from the first,
according to the coUations which Dr. Cotton has printed, in about
124 passages; the third — 1762 — in more than 2,000. These al
terations. Dr. Cotton tells us, are aU in the direction of the Protes
tant Version." How far this is the case, and in what sense, New
man says his explanation of ChaUoner's relation to the Vulgate
has shown.
Cardinal Wiseman says: "To call it any longer the Douay or
Rheimish Version is an abuse of terms. It has been altered and
modified, tiU scarcely any verse remains as originally published."
Dublin Review II. 470.
61. As to the Troy Bible and Challoner's part in this, and the
current editions, see Newman Tracts 422-429 ; Gigot Introduc
tion 352 f. Newman, with whom Gigot agrees, says: "As regards
the Douay translation of the Old [Testament] there seems to be
very Uttle difference between the texts of Dr. Challoner and Mr.

262 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
McMahon [the Troy Bible]." Newman's table, showing that the
variations of Catholic New Testament editions foUow in nearly
every case either ChaUoner or Troy, and Challoner more than
Troy, in the proportion of about two to one, may be found on
page 444 of his Tracts.
52. The reference is to Dixon General Introduction I. 129.
So also Kenrick General Introduction to the New Testament,
vii. The words of Cardinal Gibbons are quoted from a private
letter, written by his secretary in reply to a request for informa
tion. 53. See Father Early's letter. Note 40 of this Appendix.
54. Alcuin, Bishop of York, in his revision of the Vulgate, made
for the Emperor Charlemagne, omitted the words I Jno 6 7b, 8a.
Other passages for which there is no sufficient manuscript evi
dence are: Ps 14 (13) 3, (9 Unes) ; Matt 9 28, "Unto you," 17 21,
18 29, 27 35b; Lk 4 19 (last five words), 22 64, "And smote his
face;" Acts 9 5b, 6, 15 34, 28 29; I Cor 5 20, "And bear;" Gal 3 1,
"Obey the truth among you;" I Pet 3 22 (middle clause); and
so on.
Jno 7 53 — 8 11 was incorporated in the Vulgate, and is retained
in the ChaUoner-Douay, despite the fact that it was not in all the
manuscripts of the Old Latin Bible of which the Vulgate, in the
Gospels, is a re-vision.
55. Archbishop Kenrick's opinion on the comparative merits
of the Vulgate and the Hebrew texts, and of the " Protestant "
translation (King James Version) is as foUows: "The leamed
are agreed that, in the books of the New Testament, its
readings [those of the Vulgate] are generally preferable. In
the Pentateuch it frequently gives a double version or para
phrase; or it abridges, to avoid repetitions, so that although it
faithfuUy renders the substance, it is not as Uteral and close as the
Protestant translation. In the historical books it scarcely has
the advantage. In the Psalms, which came to us through the
Septuagint, the Protestant Version, being m.ade from the Hebrew,
is preferable. In Ecclesiasticus, much freedom of interpretation
... is used. In the Prophets and Job the Vulgate is Uteral.
Respecting it, as an authentic Version — that is, a standard to be

APPENDIX 263
foUowed in aU public acts, a safe guide in faith and morals, a
faithful representation of the substance of the sacred writing, —
I have, nevertheless, read the Hebrew text -with a disposition to
prefer its readings unless critical motives weighed in favor of the
Vulgate. The Protestant Version, therefore, being close, I have
not hesitated to prefer it, unless where doctrinal bias led its
authors to select terms for controversial effect, or by para^
phrases or otherwise, to favor their peculiar tenets." Kenrick
General Introduction to the Historical Books, ix.
On the Catholic versions independent of the Douay, Gigot's
summary word is significant: "... Catholic translators who
do not connect their work with the Douay Bible can hope only
for a transient favor with the pubUc at large." Introduction
356. 66. Besides the earlier paraphrases of the 8th to the 13th
centuries, the 14th century -witnessed several translations into
English of parts of the Scriptures — in aU about half of the New
Testament. These have lately been ably edited by Anna C.
Panes, and pubUshed in a volume with the somewhat mis
leading title: "A Fourteenth Century English Biblical Version '' —
misleading, for the only 14th century English version of the Bible
known is the Wyclifite.
67. The manuscript of the WycUfite Bible now in the Bodleian
Library has these words -written in Latin, after Bar 3 20, where a
break in the work of the translator occurs: "Nicolay de Hereford
made the translation." This was in 1382, the year that
Hereford was summoned to London to answer ecclesiastical
charges. 58. Kenyon remiads Gasquet, who has caUed in question Pur
vey's connection -with the revision of WycUf's work, that the
probability of it is based not merely on the fact that Purvey was
the ovmer of one of the known copies of Wyclif's Bible, but that
the Prologue found in the later version is in Purvey's own
handwriting. Our Bible 205. Purvey was known as WycUf's
"glosser." The work was doubtless composite. See ForshaU
and Madden Introduction to the Wycliffe Bible, 1850.
59. Among the manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, one

264 BIBLE VERSIONS COMP.\UED
marked "Fairfax 2," has the subscription, "Ye eer of ye lord
mccc viii yis book was endid." The fourth 'c' is erased to make
the book appear older. Its true date is 1408 a.d., the year of the
enactment of Archbishop Arundel's Oxford Decree. The altera
tion was very clumsily made, and survives as a specimen of pious
fraud to deprive Wyclif of the honor and merit of his translation.
. . . This version, lauded as superior to Wyclif, turns out to be
a veritable (revised) Wyclif. See Mombert English Versions
of the Bible 67 ff. More also quotes from this version without
recognizing it as a Wyclifite Bible. Its Prologue, which bears
internal evidence of being as late as 1396, through references to
certain laws, the date of whose enactment is known {Life and
Opinions of Wycliffe, by Vaughan, II. 43, Note), was supposed
by More to belong to his "century old" Bible. See Lewis History
of the Several Translations 11.
60. Gasquet's argument may be found in The Old English Bible
and Other Essays.
The question he raises concerns us only so far as the spirit of
the man Wyclif and of the movement he represented enters into
his translation of the Bible. Because of this, it is worth while to
know who gave us the Bible from which so much of the EngUsh,
and so much more of the free and devout spirit, of our Bible come.
Some of the facts and reasons which Gasquet's theory either mis
conceives or ignores, are, very briefly:
(1) Henry Knighton, Canon of Leicester of Wyclif's time,
complains: "This master John WycUffe translated from Latin into
EngUsh the Gospel." Chronicon II. 152. It seems unnatural
to understand, as Gasquet does, the word ' Gospel ' in this
passage, as meaning, "The Christian teaching and ministry, rather
than the New Testament books."
(2) Gasquet quotes Archbishop Arundel as writing to Pope
John: " He — Wycliffe — even tried by every means in his power to
undermine the very faith and teaching of Holy Church, fiUing up
the measure of his malice by devising the expedient of a new
translation of Scripture," and Gasquet, therefore, concludes that
there must have been a translation that was not new issued by
order of the church. But the contrast, if there is any; might be

APPENDIX 265
between WycUf's English and the Latin translation. However,
the position of the Latin word for 'new,' in the above sentence,
were it in decent Latin would certainly — and in any case does al
most certainly — make it mean, not 'new translation' at aU, but
' filUng up the measure of his recent malice, by devising the ex
pedient of a, translation of Scripture.' If so, we have one more
witness to WycUf as the author of our first EngUsh Bible transla
tion. (3) The Wyclif translators justify their version on the ground
that the people are without the Bible in their own language; and
appeal to the French translation as setting them an example.
The first argument would be known by aU to be contrary to fact,
and the second argument would be unnatural, if there were at the
time a second Enghsh version, whether first or second were the
"orthodox" Version.
(4) "Nothing can be more damning (to the theory of an ortho
dox EngUsh Bible of the fourteenth century free to aU) than
Ucenses to particular people to have English Bibles ; for they dis
tinctly show that, without such Ucense, it was thought wrong to
have them." Trevelyan England in the Age of Wycliffe 362.
(6) There is a definite record that Nicholas Hereford trans
lated part of the Old Testament of WycUf's Bible. But, as Here
ford was a Wyclifite Lollard, he certainly would not be employed
to make a translation for the church of his day.
61. The quotation from Mihnan concerning Wyclif 's character
is taken from Storrs Oration on John Wycliffe 78, Note; that
from Lewis, from his History of the Life and Sufferings of Wycliffe ;
and that from Knighton, from Hoare The Evolution of the English
Bible 61.
62. Hoare quotes WycUf as acknowledging, in his Truth of Holy
Scripture, "his expectation that he vriU either be burnt, or else
be put out of the way by some other form of death." Yet he per
sisted, "confident that in the end the truth must prevail." Evo
lution 90.
63. "It is a great mistake," says Mombert, "to represent
Wycliffe as deficient in learning or judgment. But a man that
called the Pope 'anti-Christ'; the proud worldly priest, 'the most

266 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
cursed of clippers,' and the papacy, with its sacerdotalism, par
dons, indulgences, excommunication, absolution, pilgrimages,
images and transubstantiation, 'a gigantic fraud,' was not Ukely
to be held in high favor in the Church of the fourteenth century."
See English Versions 41. Also WycUf on "Priests Good and
Bad " in Vaughan Wycliffe II. 259-262.
64. Sir Thomas More says, Wyclif "purposely corrupted the
Holye Texte." But More offers no proof. Wyclif's purpose he
himself expresses in the Preface to his Harmony of the Gospels,
"That I may fulffi that is set in the draft [translation] of the book,
and that he at whose suggestion I this work began, and they that
this work read, and all Christian men with me, through doing of
that that is written in this book, may come together to that bliss
that never shaU end." From Westcott General View 16.
65. As to the church authorities' attitude toward Bible trans
lation, see Letter of Archbishop Arundel, cited above; also Decree
of a Church Council held at Oxford, 1408, in Wilkins History
of Councils III. 317.
66. The influence of Wyclif's translation on the English Bible
as we have it — beyond the influence of its part in the historic move
ment which gave us any English Bible at all — has been extremely
minimized by some, and extremely magnified by others. West
cott, for example {General View 135, Note 4 and Appendix), says:
"The Wycliffite Versions do not seem to have exercised any influ
ence on the later English Versions, unless an exception be made
in the case of the Latin-EngUsh Testament of Coverdale. . . .
The coincidences of rendering between this and Purvey (Wycliffe's
Revised Edition) are frequently remarkable, but as both literaUy
reproduce the Vulgate, I have been unable to find . . . any cer
tain proof of the dependence of one on the other. So far as Tyn
dale is concerned, — and his work was the undoubted basis of the
later revisions — his o-wn words are sufficient: 'I had,' he says,
'in the New Testament no man to counterfeit (imitate) — neither
was helped with English of any that had interpreted the same
or such like thing in the Scripture beforetime.' {EpisUe to the
Reader I. 390.)"
On the other hand. Marsh, in his Lectures on the English Lan^

APPENDIX 267
guage, First Series, 627 f., says: "Tyndale is merely a fuUgrown
Wycliffe, and his rescension of the New Testament is just what his
great predecessor would have made it, had he awaked again to
see the dawn of that glorious day of which his own life and labors
kindled the morning twilight. Not only does Tyndale retain the
grammatical structure of the older Version but most of its felic
itous verbal combinations and rhythmic periods which are again
repeated in the rescension of 1611. Wycliffe, then, must be con
sidered as having originated the diction and phraseology, which
for five centuries has constituted the consecrated dialect of the
EngUsh speech."
The first statements in both of these quotations seem to go be
yond the facts. The frequent identity of language in the
Wyclifite versions and either Tyndale's, Coverdale's or the Ameri
can Re-vised Version, is too evident to deny "any Wycliffite
influence on the later English Versions." The sameness of the
Latin Version translated, would, certainly, account for some
words being the same in the EngUsh of Wyclif and the English
of Coverdale; but this does not apply to either Tyndale or the late
re-visions, for these were mainly from the Hebrew and Greek.
Tyndale's own testimony, quoted by Westcott, is somewhat hard
to understand; yet, in view of the similarity existing between
Wyclif's and his own translation, "the same or such Uke thing
which," he says, "no man had translated before him for his help
in the English," must be understood to refer to the Hebrew and
Greek which Tyndale was the first to render into EngUsh. In
deed, Westcott {General View App. VIII), admits that Tyndale
must have known and used the WycUfite Versions, " even though
he could not foUow their general plan, as being a secondary trans
lation only."
Wyclif owed something to the fragmentary English versions
before his own; and his language, in turn, must have become
familiar to EngUsh Bible students in the century and a half be
tween his day and Tyndale's. We give a few well-known verses,
which show both the likeness and the difference. In the Pauline
Epistles the likeness is less. In reading such comparisons, it
must be constantly remembered that a striking likeness in Ian-

268 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
guage of certain passages, does not imply a Ukeness throughout
the book in the substance of the translations. Scholars whose
investigations have been the most minute and fair, assure us that
Tyndale's debt, and so our debt, to WycUf is, not for the exact
substance, but for the form of the translation.
Purvey's Wyclip Tyndale's
Matt 6 9-13
Our Father that art in heav- O Our Father which art in
ens, hallowed be Thy name; heaven, hallowed be Thy name.
Thy kingdom come to ; be Thy Let Thy kingdom come. Thy
will done in earth as in heaven; wUl be fulfilled, as well in earth
Give to us this day our bread as it is in heaven. Give us this
over other substance; and for- day our daily bread. And for
give to us our debts, as we for- give us our trespasses as we
give to our debtors. And lead forgive our trespassers. And
us not into temptation, but de- lead us not into temptation;
liver us from evil. Amen. but deliver from evil. For
thine is the kingdom and the
power and the glory forever.
Amen.
Matt 6 3-6
Blessed be poor men in spirit, Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for the kingdom of heavens is for theirs is the kingdom of
theirs. heaven.
Blessed be they that mourn, Blessed are they that mourn,
for they shall be comforted. for they shall be comforted.
Blessed be mild men, for Blessed are the meek, for
they shall wield the earth. they shall inherit the earth.
A few particular phrases, out of many, may be compared also,
with their form in the American Revised Version.
Wyclip American Revised
Matt 7 14
Streit is the gate and narewe Narrow is the gate and
the weye. straitened the way.
Matt 23 15
compass sea and land. compass sea and land.

APPENDIX 269
Matt 25 21
Enter thou into the joye of Enter thou into the joy of
thy Lord. thy Lord.
Jno 3 3
No but a man schal be born Except one be born anew.
again. / Cor 2 10
The depe thingis of God. The deep things of God.
/ Cor 10 16
"The cuppe of blessynge the The cup of blessing which
which we blessen. we bless.
Jas 1 5
and upbraydith not. and upbraideth not.
67. Before 1408 no serious objection had been made by the
Catholic Church to the possession of copies of the English Bible by
the clergy, the religious or, probably, the wealthier people. The
use of such books by the middle and lower classes had long been
prohibited. After the Arundel Constitution of 1408, the danger
of reading or owning the Scriptures without special license in
creased, and the registers of dioceses, Uke those of Norwich and
Lincoln, show several cases of men charged with such offenses.
See Panes English Version, Introduction, xxxii. Westcott
General View, 17 ff.
68. The principal significance of Erasmus's Greek text was in
the chaUenge its pubUcation by a CathoUc of learning and in
fluence gave to the hitherto generaUy accepted theory of the
verbal inspiration and special sanctity of the Latin Vulgate.
Tyndale had a more reUable help, by way of Hebrew and Greek
texts, in the Complutensian Polyglot Bible edited by Cardinal
Ximenes. This contained, besides the Hebrew and Greek Scrip
tures, the Septuagint, the Latin Vulgate, and the Chaldee para
phrase of the Pentateuch, with a Latin translation; Greek and
Hebrew grammars and a Hebrew lexicon.
69. Hoare Evolution 116 quotes Cardinal Bellarmine as fol-

270 BIBLE VERSIONS CIOMPARED
lows (but without reference that one could test): "Some years
before the rise of the Lutheran heresy, there was almost an entire
abandonment of equity in the ecclesiastical judgments; in morals
no discipline, in sacred literature no erudition, in divine things no
reverence: religion was almost extinct."
70. " Upwards of 350 of such books [the Tyndale New Testa
ment] had been introduced into Oxford in a single visit by a single
agent. And they were, with very Uttle reserve, offered for sale in
the streets of London in hundreds." Demaus Biography of
William Tyndale 262. The long struggle of Church and State
to maintain the repression of the people was at last coming to an
end. 71. Gigot, whom we have Ustened to with respect, says:
"The first to succeed Wycliffe in the work of translating Holy
Writ into English" were "men of comparatively little ability, and
of more or less doubtful character." Again: " 'They had,' says
Blunt, 'too easy a confidence in their own abilities for this great
work; and their translations met -with an opposition from more
learned scholars. . . . Nor were the characters of the translators
themselves such as were likely to command the respect of men
under the responsibiUty of important offices in the Church.'
These words of a Protestant writer are not too severe to describe
such men as WiUiam Tyndale, . . . MUes Coverdale, . . . and
John Rogers. . . ." Introduction 346 and 368 f. Father Early
of Irvington, N. Y., also says: "The Protestant Version which
goes back only to the days of Henry VIII of England, and was
then gotten up for ob-vious reasons." (For letter in fuU, see
Note 40 of this Appendix.)
In passing, it may be noted that "the Protestant Blunt"
whom Gigot cites in support of his estimate of WUliam Tyndale
and his successors, was a Churchman of the stripe that
would "be sure that the Catholic faith is stiU held by the Church
of England," and "let Rome treat us how she wiU . . . stiU
claim union with her." Blunt The Reformation of the Church
of England 15.
72. Tyndale's declaration, in a private letter, as to his con
scientious rectitude in his work, sounds Uke the self-testimony of

APPENDIX 271
an honest man. " I caU God to record . . . that I never altered
one syUable of God's word against my conscience, nor would this
day, if aU that is in the earth, whether it be pleasure, honor or
riches, might be given me." Demaus William Tyndale 336.
His life and work squared with his profession.
Tyndale's words, expressing his heroic facing of anticipated
death, are from his Preface to Parable of the Wicked Mammon
I. 44. Quoted by Westcott General View 37.
His estimate of the hierarchy of his time was this: "The rulers
of the Church be aU agreed to keep the world in darkness, to the
intent that they may sit in the consciences of the people. . . .
This moved me to translate the New Testament." Preface to
Translation of the Pentateuch.
73. Tyndale had spoken unceremoniously in writing of Thomas
Aquinas, as mere "draff." Thereupon the "Gentle Elnight," Sir
Thomas More, let loose this diatribe: "... This drowsy drudge
hath drunken so deep in the devils' dregs, that but if he wake and
repent himself the sooner, he mayhap ere aught long to faU into
the mashing-fat, and turn himself into draff as [which] the hogs of
heU shaU feed upon and fiU their beUies thereof." From More's
Confutation 672. Cited in Demaus William Tyndale 284.
Unbelievable as it seems, More's grievance against Tyndale —
and apparently his only grievance — was that he had substituted
in his Testament modern and sometimes less fitting words for the
church words, charity, penance, priest, church, salvation and
others endeared by long usage but unfortunately then associated
with distinctively Roman CathoUc doctrines and practices.
Tyndale, on the other hand, was a grim and satirical polemic
and his Bible comments were sometimes warped by his preju
dices. 74. King Henry's agent, Vaughan, reports to him Tyndale's
conversation -with him at Bergen in 1531, as foUows: "If it would
stand with the King's most gracious pleasure to grant only a bare
text of the Scripture to be put forth among his people, ... be
it the translation of what person soever shaU please His Majesty,
I shaU immediately repair into his realm and there most humbly
submit myself offering my body to suffer what pam or torture.

272 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
yea, what death his Grace wills; so that this be obtained." This
does not sound Uke one of the men whom Blunt and Gigot say,
"had too easy a confidence in their own abUities for this great
work." Demaus, Tyndale's biographer, before Gigot character
ized him as "a more or less doubtful character," says: "Of the
excellence of his moral character, fortunately no defence has ever
been required. . . . Friends and enemies, in his own time and in
subsequent ages, have, with unvarying consent, repeated the
same encomiums. No voice of scandal has ever been raised
against him." William Tyndale 484.
76. The first reference is: Gigot Introduction 359.
Sir Thomas More, who has been seen to be not over considerate
of Tyndale, writes of him that " before he went over the sea, he
was weU known for a man of right good Uving, studious and well
earned in Scripture." George Joy, also an enemy, in his Apology
to Wm. Tyndale, alludes to his "high learning in his Hebrew,
Greek and Latin." Both are quoted by Hoare Evolution 141.
According to an eminent German scholar, H. Buschius, who met
him at Worms in 1526, Tyndale was "so skUled in seven languages,
Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Italian, Spanish, English and French,
that, whichever he spoke, you would suppose it was his native
tongue." Schelhorn Pleasures of Literature IV. 431. See
Milligan in Hastings IV. 866, Note. Mombert, after a severe
analysis of Deut 6 6-9, says: "The rendering of these four verses
proves an independent knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Ger
man and English." English Versions 116.
76. Westcott says: "If he — ^Tyndale — used the Vulgate, or
Erasmus, or Luther, it was with the judgment of a scholar.
[He shows] complete independence in this respect." "The very
minuteness of the changes is a singular testimony to the diligence
-with which Tyndale stUl labored at his appointed work. Noth
ing seemed trifling to him, ... if only he could better seize or
convey to others the meaning of one fragment of Scripture."
General View 160 f. For detailed proof, see 136-146.
A somewhat adverse critic proves the same quality in citing
Tyndale's words: "I have weeded out of it many faults which
lack of help at the beginning and oversight did sow therein."

APPENDIX 273
Dore Old Bibles: Account of Early Versions of the English Bible,
1888, p. 25.
As to TjTidale's conscientious purpose as a translator, his own
witness has been given. The only proof offered to the contrary
that we know of, is the foUowing from Blunt Reformation 514,
Note: "In some editions of Tyndale's New Testament there is
what must be regarded as a -wilful omission of the gravest possible
character; for it appears in several editions. . . ." The passage
is I Pet 2 13, 14, concerning the king and his rule. Blunt names
the editions of 1631 and 1634. These editions we have not been
able to see. In the edition of 1526, reprinted verbatim, the
whole of both verses is included. "It is to him [Tyndale] that
we owe in great part . . . that freedom from dogmatic bias and
scrupulous fideUty to the exact letter of Scripture, which have
been in general such happy features of our English Versions."
Milligan in Hastings IV. 867a.
77. See Mombert English Versions 93; Hoare Evolution 120;
MiUigan in Hastings IV. 856b. Even Dore says of him: "To him
we owe the exceeding beauty and tender grace of the language of
our present New Testament, for in spite of many revisions,
almost every sentence is substantiaUy the same as Tyndale wrote
it in 1625." Old Bibles 25. To deUght in the strength and
beauty of the English of the King James Version (see Gigot
Introduction 365), and yet sneer at Tyndale, is Uke revelUng
in the sunhght while decrying the sun.
78. For Tyndale's purpose see his "Protestation," in the 1534
Edition of his New Testament.
As to his influence, " It has been calculated that, in the whole of
Tyndale's New Testament, the number of 'stranger' words, or
words that do not occur in the Authorized Version, is probably
below 360, many of which are used once or twice only." Moul-
ton History of the English Bible 70 f.
The quotation from the EngUsh Re-visers is the first part of the
Preface to the New Testament, Edition of 1881.
79. "I make," writes Coverdale, "this protestation, having
God to record in my conscience, that I have neither wrested nor
altered so much as one word for the maintenance of any man-

274 BIBLE VERSIO.VS CO.MPARED
ner of sect. . . ." Remains of Myles Coverdale, Edited by
Pear.son, 11.
In conformity to others' opinions, he even went so far as to
restore the old ecclesiastical words, saying, "For my part I . . .
am indifferent to oaU it as weU with the one term as the other, so
long as I know it is no prejudice nor injury to the meaning of the
Holy Ghost." (Westcott General View 29.)
Coverdale is one of the translators whom Blunt and Gigot, as
we liave seen, describe as having "too easy a confidence in their
own abilities for this great work." Yet Coverdale was one of the
most modest, not to say timorous, of men. "It was neither my
labor nor desire to have this work put in my hand . . ."; yet
"when I was instantly required, though I could not do so well as I
would, I thought it yet my duty to do my best, and that with a
good wUl." And "whereinsoever I can perceive by myself or by
the information of other, that I have failed (as it is no wonder) I
shall now by the help of God, overlook it better and amend it."
Westcott 12, 14.
SO. See Title-page to Coverdale's Bible, Edition of 1535. (So
copy in British Museum.)
"Its basis [that of Coverdale's New Testament] is Tyndale's
first edition, but this he very carefully revised, by the help of his
second edition, and yet more by the German." Westcott Gen
eral View 171. Coverdale's work is characterized by smooth
ness rather than great accuracy.
81. We owe to Coverdale such Old Testament passages as:
" Seek ye the Lord whUe he may be found, call ye upon him while
he is near," and " They shaU perish, but thou shalt endure; they
aU shaU wax old as doth a garment, and as a vesture shalt thou
change them, and they shall be changed." A few of his fitting
words contained in the Gospel of Matthew, are: "firstborn son"
(1 25), " a leathern girdle "(3 4)," because of their unbeUef " (13 58),
"It wiU be foul weather to-day" (16 3), "Have patience with
me " (18 26), " there will the eagles be gathered together " (24 28).
82. "He put them [the Apocryphal books] between the Old
Testament and the New, -with the title: 'Apocripha. The
bookes and treatises which amonge the fathers of olde are not

APPENDIX 275
rekened to be of like authoritie with the other bokes of the byble,
nether are they founde in the Canon of the Hebrue.' " Porter
in Hastings I. 123.
83. "Of the three mUUons of people, or thereabouts, then Uving
in England, many were stiU attached to the old Roman CathoUc
order of things, and many were unable to read. But there was an
eager, wide-spread desire among the people to obtain and to read
the Scriptures." Fisher History of the Christian Church 352.
" ' Every one,' says Strype, ' who could buy this book, either read it
assiduously, or had it read to him by others, and many weU ad
vanced in years learned to read with the same object.' " Taine
History of EngUsh Literature, Ch. v, 249.
In 1534, and again in 1636, Convocation expressed its change
of feeUng toward the translating of the Scriptures, in resolutions
petitioning that a new translation might be undertaken.
84. "To make use of words in a foreign language, merely with
a sentiment of devotion, the mind taking no fruit, could be
neither pleasing to God nor beneficial to man." (From Letter of
Henry VIII to Cranmer, quoted by Taine EngUsh Literature
252.) Already in the fourteenth century, it wiU be remembered,
England had refused payment of the annual tribute to the See
of Rome.
86. The very excesses to which the spirit of liberty in the use
of the Scriptures went, itself proves that the primary motive for
translation came, not from the King or his antagonism to the
papacy, but from the people who were experiencing a tremendous
revulsion from the ignorance and tyranny of the past.
86. See Pearson Remains of Myles Coverdale 11 f.
87. A critical examination by scholars of Coverdale's Bible,
has led to the conclusion that the "five sundry interpreters
[translators] " he aUudes to, were : (1 ) the Zurich German Bible,
(2) Luther's German Bible, (3) Tyndale's English Pentateuch,
Jonah and the New Testament, (4) Pagnini's Latin Bible of 1528,
(6) the Vulgate Latin.
88. John Rogers's honesty and earnestness, if also a certain
self-assurance, are characteristicaUy reflected in his reply to the

276 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
sentence placing him under the "great curse of the Church"
"WeU, my lord, here I stand before God and this honorable
audience, and take him to -witness that I never wittingly and
willingly taught any false doctrine; and therefore I have a good
conscience before God and aU good men. I am not afraid but that
you and I shaU come before a Judge which is righteous, before
whom I shall be as good a man as you; and where, I nothing
doubt, I shaU be found a true member of the Catholic Church and
everlastingly saved." Life of John Rogers, by Chester, 183.
89. It is recorded of Rogers that at Cambridge "he profitably
travaUed in good learning." He was appointed rector of Trinity
the Less, in London, and in 1661 was Prebendary of St. Paul's.
90. Tyndale's and Coverdale's Old Testament translation was
corrected chiefly by reference to Sebastian Munster's Latin Ver
sion, which Kenyon characterizes as "immensely superior to the
Zurich Latin Bible," which Coverdale had before used. The
re-vision of Tyndale's New Testament was by aid of Erasmus's
Latin. 91. A hint of the care exercised by the Genevan Revisers is
given in the fact that, though the New Testament they used was
itself a revision of Tyndale's by Whittingham, one of their own
number, of forty changes made in one section from Whittingham's
renderings, twenty-six of these were retained by King James s
Revisers in 1611.
The Genevan Bible was a translation " according to the Ebrue
and the Greke''; yet its editors amended considerably Tyndale's
and Coverdale's work in the Old Testament of the Matthew's
Bible, by the use also of Beza's Latin, representing Stephanus's
latest Greek text, and the French Olivetan Version.
92. Westcott {General View 269, Note 2) notes three or four
instances of unfair bias in favor of Calvinistic doctrine in the
EngUsh Genevan Version, as cited by the French critic P. Coton.
Acts 3 21, (Jesus Christ) whom heaven must contain (Ge
nevan). Whom heaven indeed must receive (ChaUoner-Douay).
Whom the heaven must receive (A. V. and Am. Rev.).
I Cor 9 27, I myself should have been reproved (Genevan).

APPENDIX 277
I myself . . . become a castaway (Challoner-Douay).
Be a castaway (A. V.), be rejected (Am. Rev.).
As these two examples indicate, the points would pass wholly
unnoticed to-day. Then they were sore spots of controversy,
concerning the doctrines of Christ and election.
The fact is the temper of the times was intensely dogmatic.
Men might easily be unable to see any but their own dogmas in
Scripture, and translate accordingly with perfect honesty of
purpose. In this spirit the Genevan pastors fought shy of the
word "tradition." On the other hand, one of the verses for
which the CathoUcs then demanded that "tradition" should be
the translation, is now translated "ordinances" even in the
ChaUoner-Douay. (I Cor 11 2.)
93. "Truly, good Christian reader," say King James's trans
lators, "we never thought from the beginning that we should
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 principal good one.'' (From the Preface to the
Reader.) 94. How Uttle, especiaUy in the Prophets, the King James's
Revisers kept to the less reUable Bishops' Bible, though it was
their formal basis, may be inferred from the foUowing three verses
from the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, according to the Bishops'
translation. The words underUned are the words changed:
But who hath given credence unto our preaching; or to whom
is the arm of the Lord known? For he did grow before the Lord
like as a branch and as a root in a dry ground: he hath neither
bounty nor favor ; when we look upon him, there shaU be no fair
ness; we shaU have no lust unto him. He is despised and ab
horred of men: he is such a man as hath good experience of sor-
rows and infirmities: we have reckoned him so vUe that we hid
our faces from him.
Nearly aU the words substituted for these came from either
the Latin of Pagninus, the Latin of TremeUius, or the Genevan
English. Eadie mentions the following among many phrases taken by
the King James's translators from the Roman CathoUc Rheims

278 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
Testament: "Unction from the holy one," "Lead captive silly
women laden with sins," " Evil communications corrupt good
manners." 95. See Preface of King James's translation, page 31.
If one cares to know what texts the translators of the Author
ized Version most depended on, they seem to have been these:
1. In the Old Testament:
(1) An interlinear Latin translation, 1672, based on that of
Pagninus, by Montanus, worthy successor of Cardinal
Ximenes, together with the Hebrew text.
(2) A Latin translation, 1699, of the Hebrew, by TremeUius,
a Jew.
2. In the New Testament:
(1) Stephanus's (Etienne's) Greek Text, based on
(o) The latest editions of Erasmus's Greek, which was
made from six manuscripts, none ancient.
(6) Ximenes's Greek in the Complutensian Polyglot, which
was made, in turn, from fifteen manuscripts. Two of
these were ancient.
(a) The sixth century Codex of Beza.
(;8) The Paris MS. of the Four Gospels.
(2) Beza's Greek Text.
96. Gigot says: "Differently from the Douay Bible, cases of
-wUful perversion [see Notes 47 and 92] of Scripture have been
brought home to its Protestant authors." Introduction 366.
As proof he cites five such passages in the Authorized Version of
the New Testament that "have justly been pointed out by Arch
bishop Kenrick, as so many dogmatic erroneous renderings," while
he remarks: " It is only right to add that some of these have been
corrected by the revisers of 1881." These five are:
(1) Matt 19 11.
ChaUoner-Douay: All men take not this word [about mar
riage].
Authorized: AU men cannot receive this saying.
American Re-vised: Not all men can receive this saying.
There are fairly two sides to this question. The word trans
lated "do not take" in the CathoUc Version, and "can-

APPENDIX 279
not receive" in the Authorized Version, means literally,
'make room for.' Jesus's word may, therefore, mean,
'Not aU men make room for, or receive, this saying.'
Yet the word means also to 'have room for.' Here the
idea of inability to contain, or to receive, is involved in
the meaning of the negative of the verb itself, — 'not to
have room for.' See Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon
793, xap4a) {choreo) III; "^ ir6\is abrov ov x<«'P", — the city
cannot contain him."
(2) I Cor 7 9.
ChaUoner-Douay: But if they do not contain (licmselves,
let them marry.
Authorized: But if they cannot contain, etc.
English and American Revised: If they have not conti-
nency, etc.
Here the "cannot" of the Authorized Version does not
seem necessarily impUed in the Greek word.
The Douay and Revised Versions appear to be more true.
(3) I Cor 9 5.
ChaUoner-Douay: Have we not power to carry about [!]
a woman, a sister?
Authorized: Have we not power to lead about a sister, a
wife?
EngUsh and American Re-vised: Have we no right to lead
about a wife that is a believer?
There is some question here about the order of words
in the text. But it does not affect the Roman Catholic
complaint, that a word which means ' woman,' Protes
tants translate '-wife,' in order to prove Paid married.
Every scholar, CathoUc as weU as Protestant, knows
that one established meaning of the Greek word used
is 'wife.' Why does not the ChaUoner-Douay Version
translate the same word in Eph 6 28 'women' and
'woman,' and make it read, "So also ought men to love
their women. . ." "He that loveth his woman, loveth
himself" ? Of course they translate, "love their -wives,"
"loveth his wife." Is this, then, "wUful perversion"?

280 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
(4) I Cor 11 27.
The Authorized Version translates wrongly, "eat this bread
and drink this cup," where the Challoner-Douay reads
correctly, "eat this bread or drink the chaUce." The
error of the Authorized Version is corrected in the Revised
Version, which reads, "or drink the cup."
(5) Heb 10 38.
ChaUoner-Douay: But my just man liveth by faith; but if
he withdraweth himself, he shaU not please my soul.
Authorized: Now the just shall live by faith; but if any
man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.
Re-vised: But my righteous one shaU live by faith:
And if he shrink back, my soul hath no pleasure
in him.
The text (see Liddell and Scott Greek Lexicon 743 and
Thayer Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
645) justifies aU these translations. None of them can be
called incorrect.
Of these five cases, then, cited in proof of "dogmatic," "erro
neous " and "wUful perversion," only two appear to be errors in
the Authorized Version, and both of these are corrected in the
American Revised Version.
Similarly Newman, in the Dublin Review, XXXIV. 466, says
that the Authorized Version "is notoriously unfair where doctrinal
questions are at stake," and speaks even of its "dishonest render
ings." What is his evidence? Matt 19 ll and I Cor 11 27, noted
above; Acts 1 8, in which the Authorized Version, "after the
Holy Spirit is come" is more accurate than the Challoner-
Douay, for the phrase rendered by the Challoner-Douay, " the
power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you" is what is called a
"Genitive Absolute," expressive of the time when an action
takes place, and the form of the verb used expresses a com
pleted action, rendered by the American Revisers, "when the
Holy Spirit is come"; also Gal 1 18, in which the two versions are
almost identically the same.
97. The author cited is Kenyon Our Bible 233.
Consult the foUowing expressions from Roman CathoUcs of the

APPENDIX 281
"music" of the King James Version: Faber, in Dublin Review,
June, 1883, p. 466, Note. Also Newman, on the same page. Also
see, among Protestant appreciators. Marsh, Lecture XXVIII, in
Lectures on the EngUsh Bible.
Perhaps the best witness to the worth of the Authorized Ver
sion as a whole is that of the Re-visers of 1881, who say in the
Preface to their own revision, " We have had to study this great
version carefuUy and minutely . . . and the longer we have been
engaged upon it, the more we have learned to admire its sim
pUcity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression, its
general accuracy, and . . . the felicities of its rhythm."
98. Hugh Broughton, probably the most learned scholar in
Hebrew of the time, but a man of testy temper, and not appointed
on King James's Board of Translators for that reason, said of the
Authorized Version when completed: "Tell His Majesty that I
had rather be rent in pieces by wild horses than that any such
translation by my consent should be urged upon poor Churches."
99. The edition of 1656 was said to contain 2,000 faults. The
American Bible Society undertook two rescensions on its own
account, which corrected many errors. Mombert English Ver
sions 366.
100. The necessity of keeping, in the main, to the "Received
Text," is due to the lack of other means of correcting it than the
Septuagint. The Septuagint may often be right, but in its pres
ent state it is more faulty than the Hebrew we have got. Very
recently, however, some fragments of papyrus have been found,
containing the Ten Commandments and the Shema (Deut 6 41)
in Hebrew. (Edited by Cook, in Proceedings of the Society of
Biblical Archeology.) The appearance of the papyrus and hand
writing are believed to point to a date not later than the second
century a.d. The text agrees in several instances with the
Septuagint against the Massoretic or Hebrew Text. It may be,
therefore, that new discoveries may yet make possible a direct
revision of the Hebrew Text of our Old Testament. See Burkitt
in Cheyne IV, col. 6014.
101. The pubUcation in 1810-1826, by the great Hebrew scholar
Gesenius, of his monumental works on the Hebrew language, —

282 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
lexicon, grammar, history and thesaurus, — was both an evidence
of this work and a chief help in its prosecution.
102. See Westcott and Hort New Testament, II, Introduction
72-80. See Tischendorf's fascinating account of the finding of
the Sinaitic MS., in his book. The Sinaitic Bible and Its Discovery.
Ladd, Doctrine of Sacred Scripture, gives an account of the MSS.
sufficiently fuU for most. See also Articles on " Manuscripts,"
under their symboUc letters (Note 2) in Hastings.
103. Bible societies in America, dissatisfied with the imperfect
state of the EngUsh texts they were reproducing, made emenda
tions, now to secure exact conformity to the edition of 1611, again
to improve upon it. These emended editions, however, in no con
siderable degree satisfied the demand for a thorough re-vision.
For the growing consciousness of this need of revision, see the
books. An Essay for a New Translation of the Bible, by Ross,
London, 1702; Reasons for Revising, Cambridge, 1788; Obser'
vations on the Expediency of Revising the Present English Ver'
sion, Symonds, 1789; Bible Revision, Slater, 1856; and Ore the
Authorized Version, Trench. Also, for a later -view. The Revision
of the EngUsh Version, by Lightfoot, Trench and others, London,
1873. 104. For these facts, see Prefaces to the Old and New Testa
ments of the EngUsh Re-vision of 1881 and 1885, published with
the Revised Bible.
105. The changes in the EngUsh Revision from the Authorized
Version have been estimated at 36,000, counting every letter and
punctuation mark. These things are not unimportant in so
great a work; yet the impression of change may easily be greatly
exaggerated through such a statement unexplained.
For antagonism to the Revision, see Burgon, The Revision
Revised, and Prebendary MUler, in the Oxford Debate, on the
textual work done for the Revised New Testament. See also
a recent scholarly estimate, Burkitt in Cheyne IV, col. 4977.
106. The first words are Whiton's, Article, "The American
Revision of the Bible,'' Outlook, LVIII, 418. The quotation
from Jerome is found in his works. Epistle 28.
107. Other cases of evident or apparent interpolation, which

APPENDIX

283

have been dropped, bracketed or placed in the margin in the
Revised Version, are:
I Jno 3 16, Hereby know we {the) love {of God).
I Tim 3 16, {God) who was manifested.
Eph 3 9, ... by Jesus Christ.
Mk 16 9-20, (The closing verses of the Gospel).
Jno 7 53-8 11, (The story of the Woman taken in Adultery).
Lk 22 43, 44, (The bloody sweat).
Jno 5 4, (The angel troubUng the water).
Acts 8 37, And PhUip said. If thou beUevest, etc.
All except the first two of the above passages are retained
without mark or question in the Roman CathoUc Version. This
is typical. 108. Important corrections in translation have been made in
conformity -with what appears to be the true words that were
-written. A very few examples are:

CHALLONEK-DOUAT

In a little thou per-
suadest me to be
come a Christian.

For the desire of money
is the root of all evils.

And whithersoever
thou Shalt go: and
remember thou wast
taken.

We are become as in
the beginning when
thou didst not rule
over us, and when
we were not called
by thy name.

AUTHORIZED VEHSION
Acts 26:28
Almost thou persuad-
est me to be a Chris
tian. I Tim 6:10
For the love of money
is the root of all evil.
Gen 20:16
and with all other : thus
she was reproved.

Isa 63:19
We are thine: thou
never bearest rule
over them; they were
not called by thy
name.

BEVISED VEBSION

With but little per
suasion thou would-
est fain make me a
Christian.
For the love of money
is a root of all kinds
of evil.

and in respect of all
thou art righted.

We are become as they
over whom thou
never barest rule, as
they that were not
called by thy name.

109. Gigot, the Roman Catholic scholar we have often and
justly introduced as witness, while pointing out — what is no doubt
trae — that the Revised New Testament cannot be "considered as

284 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
a final translation," yet says: " It is not surprising to find that it
has been steadily gaining ground among the scholars of the various
denominations." Of the Revised Old Testament, he says: "...
The Revisers did not avail themselves freely enough of aU the
critical work which has been going on during the last hundred
years"; yet " ... it cannot be denied that in most changes —
especially as regards the interpretation of the prophetical and
poetical books — the Revisers were particularly happy.'' Intro
duction 376-378.
110. Preface to EngUsh Revised Version of 1881, p. 6.
111. This should be sharply distinguished from an edition of the
English Re-vised Version published in 1898, -with merely those
readings and renderings that were formerly published in the
appendices, embodied in the text. For this edition the American
Revision Committee were in no way responsible.
112. For facts on this and the following pages, see the Prefaces
to the Old and New Testaments . . . newly edited by the Amer
ican Revision Committee, 1901 a.d.
113. The American New Testament Company, -with perhaps
excessive conservatism, did not feel "at liberty to make new
changes of moment" that had not been discussed with the EngUsh
Company. Preface, iii.
114. Other examples of corrected passages are: Isa 30 32; 35 8;
Hos 11 2; Mic 1 6; Acts 17 22.
If the Douay translators were living, they would observe that
some of the passages in the Protestant versions of their day,
which they cited as "heretical translations," are translated in the
American Revision substantiaUy as they desired. To this extent,
the American Revision substantiates their complaint. These
Catholic translators, in turn, themselves become witnesses to the
scrupulous fidelity of the Revised Version. Instances are: Gen
4 7; 31 19; Matt 26 26; Mk 10 52; Jno 9 22.
Again, of five passages cited by Cardinal Wiseman {Dublin
Review, April, 1837, II 489 ff.) in e-vidence of the need of a thor
ough re-vision of the Catholic versions, all are stiU rendered
wrongly according to Cardinal Wiseman, in Gibbons's Edition of
the ChaUoner-Douay Version ; and all but one of those contained

APPENDIX 285
in the American Revised Version are there rendered correctly,
according to the same authority.
The passages are: Ps 50 14 (51 12); Zeph 3 18; Wisd 8 2; Jno 2 4;
Heb 11 1.
116. See Preface to the Old Testament, Eng. Rev. Version, 3.
116. The translators of the Douay Bible, though not Uving,
stiU bear witness to the fideUty of the American Revisers in re
spect of the titles of the New Testament books, although the Chal
loner-Douay, now circulated among the CathoUcs of America,
has departed from their example in this matter. " We say not in
the titles of the Gospels . . . Saint Matthew, Saint Mark, Saint
Luke, because it is so neither in Greek nor Latin." See preface
to the Douay Bible, 21 f.
117. See Preface to the American Edition of the New Testa
ment, last paragraph.
118. Possibly it may help some readers to judge whether the
closing words of the American Revisers' Preface, and of this essay,
are weU warranted or not, if we exhibit — not some exceptional
part — but two or three short passages of average sort from the
genuine Douay, the ChaUoner-Douay and the American Revised
Versions:

The law of our Lord is immaculate,
converting souls: the testimony of
our Lord is faithful, giving wisdom
to little ones.
The Justices of our Lord be right,
making hearts Joyful: the precept
of our Lord lightsome, illuminating
the eyes.

Come down, sit In the dust, O virgin
daughter of Babylon, sit on the
ground, there is no throne for the
daughter of the Chaldees, because
thou shalt no more be called nice
and tender. Take a mill and
grind meal: make bare thy turpi
tude, discover the shoulder, un
cover the thighs, pass the rivers.

And certain coming down from
Jewry taught the brethren: That,
unless you be circumcised accord
ing to the manner of Moses, you
cannot be saved.
No little sedition therefore being
risen to Paul and Barnabas against
them, they appointed that Paul
and Barnabas should go up, and
certain others of the rest, to the
Apostles and priests unto Jerusa
lem, upon this question.

CHALLONEB-DOUAT
Ps 19:7, 8. (LXX 18:8, 9)
The law ol the Lord is unspotted.
converting souls: the testimony of
the Lord Is faithful, giving wisdom
to little ones.
The Justices ol the Lord are right,
rejoicing hearts: the command
ment ol the Lord is lightsome, en
lightening the eyes.
, Isa 47:1, 2
Come down, sit In the dust, O virgin
daughter of Babylon, sit on the
ground: there Is no throne for the
daughter of the Chaldeans, for
thou shalt no more be called
deUcate and tender. Take a mill
stone and grind meal; uncover thy
shame, strip thy shoulder, make
bare thy legs, pass over the rivers.
Acts 15:1, 2
And some coming down from Judea,
taught the brethren: That except
you be circumcised after the
manner of Moses, you cannot be
And when Paul and Barnabas had no
small contest with them, they de
termined that Paul and Barnabas,
and certain others of the other side,
should go up to the apostles and
priests to Jerusalem about this
duestlon.

AMEBICAN BEVISED

The law of Jehovah is perfect, re
storing the soul: The testimony of
Jehovah Is sure, making wise the
simple.
The precepts of Jehovah are right.
rejoicing the heart: The command
ment of Jehovah Is pure, enlighten
ing the eyes.

Come down, and sit In the dust, O
virgin daughter of Babylon; sit on
the ground without a throne, O
daughter of the Chaldeans: for
thou shalt no more be called
tender and delicate. Take the mill
stones, and grind meal: remove
thy veil, strip ofl the train, un
cover the leg, pass through the
rivers.

And certain men came down from
Judea and taught the brethren.
saying. Except ye be circumcised
after the custom of Moses, ye can
not be saved.
And when Paul and Barnabas had no
small dissension and questioning
with them, the brethren appointed
that Paul and Barnabas, and cer
tain other of them, should go up to
Jerusalem unto the apostles and
elders about this question.

to
05

td3fH<: ?3
CO t— I
OCO oo > O

I beseech you therefore brethren by
the mercy of God, that you ex
hibit your bodies a living host,
holy, pleasing God, your reason
able service.

CHAIiLONER-DOUAT Rom 12:1
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by
the mercy of God, that you present
your bodies a living sacrifice, holy,
pleasing unto God, your reasonable
service.

AMERICAN REVISKD

I beseech you therefore, brethren, by
the mercies of God, to present your
bodies a living sacrifice, holy, ac
ceptable to God, which is your
spiritual service.

For In this also do we groan, desirous
to be overclothed with our habita
tion that is from heaven: yet so if
we be found clothed, not nailed.
For we also that are in this
tabernacle, groan being burdened:
because we would not be spoiled,
but overclothed, that that which is
mortal might be swallowed up of
life. And he that maketh us to
this same, is God, who hath given
us the pledge of the Spirit.

II Cor 5:2-5
For in this also we groan, desiring to
be clothed upon with our habita
tion that is from heaven. Yet so
that we be found clothed, not
naked. For we also, who are in
this tabernacle, do groan, being
burthened; because we would not
be unclothed, but clothed upon,
that that which Is mortal may be
swallowed up by life. Now he
that maketh us for this very thing
is God, who hath given us the
pledge of the Spirit.

For verily In this we groan, longing
to be clothed upon with our habi
tation which is from heaven : if so
be that being clothed we shall not
be found naked. For indeed we
that are in this tabernacle do
groan, being burdened; not for that
we would be unclothed, but that
we would be clothed upon, that
what is mortal may be swallowed
up of life. Now he that wrought
us for this very thing Is God, who
gave unto us the earnest of the
Spirit.

I— (
X

00

THIRD ESSAY
1. References to and proofs of the facts here stated will be
found under the chapters deaUng more fully with these subjects.
2. Father Prendergast of the CoUege of St. Francis Xavier.
3. II Mace 12 46; Eoclus 24 24, 26 3-16.
4. In the early days of the church the word " canon " was some
times used to describe the 39 books of the Old Testament without
and sometimes with the Apocrypha.
The testimony of the early church on the canon of Scripture
is shown by (1) catalogues of books of the Bible, (2) decrees
of Councils, and (3) statements of theologians.
The facts next stated are taken from Green General Introduc
tion to the Old Testament — The Canon 157 f. :
I. Catalogues
For inclusion in Canon Against inclusion in Canon
A.D. A.D.
CouncU of Hippo  397 MeUto, Bishop of Sardis. . 180
CouncU of Carthage  397 Origen  254
St. Augustine  400 Athanasius of Alexandria. 350
Innocent I, Bishop of CyrU of Jerusalem  351
Rome  405 Epiphanius of Cyprus. . . . 350
Gelasius  492 AmphUochius of Iconium. 375
Gregory Nazianzen  370
Hilary of Poitiers  368
Ruffin of Aquileia  400
Jerome  382
[The above dates are intended to be only approximate.]
Green (167-174) points out that Augustine's influence over
shadowed aU others in the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, and
these three catalogues are equivalent to one witness only. Pas
sages in his writings prove beyond doubt that he ranked the
Hebrew canon above the other books included in his catalogue.
He and his Councils used the word "canon'' in its wider sense.
288

APPENDLX 289
Of the catalogues of Innocent and Gelasius, Westcott {Bible in
the Church 175) says, "Both Usts simply repeat the decision at
Carthage, and determine the ecclesiastical canon, the books, that
is, which might be pubUcly used in the Church Services."
On the CathoUc point of view we quote Waterworth Faith of
Catholics I. 325: "To give those catalogues in an isolated maimer,
as representing the opinions of those writers, would not only be an
imperfect, it would be an incorrect, statement of their views."
Library of St. Francis de Sales, III, The Catholic Controversy
116: "We must not think that the ancient Church and these
most ancient doctors would have had the boldness to rank these
books as canonical, if they had not had some direction by the
tradition of the Apostles and their disciples, who could know in
what rank the Master Himself held them."
II. Decrees op Councils
For inclusion in Canon Against inclusion in Canon
A.D. A.D.
CouncU of Trent  1546 Synod of Laodicea  363
Sanction of Patriarch of Confession of Faith of
Jerusalem  1672 Greek Church  1631
(Ecumenical CouncU of Orthodox Teaching of
Vatican  1865 Metropolitan of Moscow 1836
Authorized Russian Con
fession  1839

III. Statements by Theologians
Jerome, who translated the Vulgate, expressly states in his
preface that the Apocrypha includes those writings which make
a claim to be on a par with the canonical books to which they are
not rightfully entitled and adds that whatever is additional to the
Hebrew canon (which excluded it) is to be placed in the Apocry
pha. Green 160.
On this The Catholic Controversy III. 101 says: "As for St.
Jerome whom you allege, this is not to the purpose, since in his
time the Church had not yet come to the resolution which she
has come to since as to placing of these books in the canon except

290 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
that of Judith. " The fact that they are in the Vulgate is the basis
of the contention for making these books canonical.
Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to the Complutensian Poly
glot dedicated to Pope Leo X declares against the Apocrypha.
Cardinal CapeUan in his preface to a Commentary on the his
torical books of the Old Testament, says (Green 177 f.): "The
whole Latin Church is very greatly indebted to Saint Jerome for
distinguishing the canonical from the noncanonical books, since
he has freed us from the reproach of the Hebrews that we frame
for ourselves books or parts of books of the old canon which they
lack entirely." These books "do not belong to the rule for con
firming those things which are of faith; yet they can be called
canonical, that is, belonging to the rule for the edification of be
lievers. With this distinction what is said by Augustine and
written by the Council of Carthage can be rightly apprehended."
The arguments in favor of the Apocrypha are:
1. Its inclusion in some early versions (the Septuagint and
others); but Green (128) considers that these books were not in
the early editions, but were graduaUy attached as a supplement,
as in Protestant Bibles.
2. That it was read in churches. This is done in Protestant
churches also. It is the meaning and intention with which it
is done which is the essential feature. This is pointed out by
Jerome. Green 183 f.
3. That it is quoted by the Fathers. Green (185-190) proves
that the quotations are not made so as to show they are from
inspired words — that though the formula "It is written" is used
for introducing quotations from the canon and the Apocrypha,
they are so used by Origen, Jerome and others who did not admit
the Apocrypha into the canon, and that the use of the word
"Scripture" or "Prophet" was in Uke manner applied to
both. In his Introductio in Sacram Scripturam, iii, § 18, pp. 49 f.,
Lamy argues in favor of the Apocrypha on the ground of quotar
tion by our Lord and His Apostles of the Septuagint, which con
tains the Apocrypha. He maintains that the New Testament,
writers in referring to the witness of the Old Testament seek the

APPENDIX 291
sense and not the words, and that many passages so agree with
the Apocrypha that it can scarcely be doubted that they referred
to those passages, the mere difference in words not being an ob
stacle. For this purpose he compares:
Tob 4 16 with Matt 7 12.
II Mace 6 19 with Heb 11 35.
Wisd 13 with Rom 1 17-31.
Wisd 7 26 with Heb 1 3.
Ecclus 24 29 with Jno 6 35.
Ecclus 35 11 with II Cor 9 7.
5. Published in Acta et Deer eta Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis
Tertii, 1884.
6. Ezr 4 8-6 18; 7 2-26; Dan 2 4-7 28; Jer 10 11. Maclear Helps
to the Study of the Bible 6.
As to the use made of the verse in Jeremiah see Cook Com
mentary V. 391-392.
7. For particulars as to language, see Maclear Helps 7. The
BibUography gives full particulars of aU manuscripts, versions,
and quotations with extracts from standard authors as to their
purport. References are there given for aU facts, and it is un
necessary to repeat them.
8. The facts as to the Hebrew alphabet will be found in Smyth
The Old Documents and the New Bible 7 f.
9. For particulars of the work of the Massoretes see Green
General Introduction to the Old Testament — The Text 142 f., Kirk-
patrick The Divine Library of the Old Testament 73 f.
10. See Bibliography for Ust of books forming the authority
for statements made in this chapter.
11. Particulars as to the Vulgate and the sources on which
Jerome founded his work will be found in the Bibliography.
12. "For more than a thousand years it (the Vulgate) was the
parent of every version of the Scriptures in Western Europe."
Smyth Old Documents 171.
13. The facts and quotations as to the editions of the Vulgate
are from Scrivener Introduction to the Criticism of the New
Testament II. 66.
14. The Vatican decree wUI be found in the printed reports of

292 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
the CouncU and is in the following words : " Veteris et Novi Testa^
menti Ubri integri cum omnibus suis partibus prout in ejusdem
ConcUii decreta recensentur, et in veteri vulgata Latina editione
habentur, pro sacris et canonicis suscipiendi sunt. Eos vero
Ecclesia pro sacris et canonicis habet non ideo quod sola humana
industria concinnati, sua deinde auctoritate sunt approbati, nee
ideo dumtaxat, quod revelationem sine errore contineant, sed
propterea quod Spiritu Sancto inspirante conscripti Deum habent
auctorem, atque ut tales ipsi Ecclesise traditi sint." {Translation.)
"The complete books of the Old and New Testaments with aU
their parts, as they are received in the decrees of the same Council
(Trent) and contained in the Old Latin Vulgate edition, must be
received as sacred and canonical. The Church moreover holds
these books as sacred and canonical not only because coUected by
man's industry, since they have been approved by its authority,
nor for the reason only that they contain revelation without
error, but because, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the col
lections have God as their author, and as such the Churches have
handed them down."
16. The decree of the Second Council of Baltimore wiU be found
in Acta et Decreta Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis Secundi, 1866.
The words of the decree Titulus I, par. 16, of which a translation
is given in the Essay are: "Nonnisi exprobatis versionibus atque
editionibus verbi Dei pabulum incorruptum UUs desumere. Star
tuimus igitur ut Duacensis versio, quae in omnibus ecclesiis
quarum fideles Anglice loquuntur recepta, et a predecessoribus
nostris fideUum merito proposita est, omnino retineatur. Cura-
bunt autem episcopi ut, jus ita exemplar probatissimum ab ipsis
designandum, omnes turn novi tum veteris Testamenti Duacensis
versionis editiones in posterum emendatissime fiant, cum adnota-
tionibus qase ex Sanctis Ecclesise Patribus vel doctis cathoUcisque
viris tan tum desumptse sint."
16. A eta et Decreta Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis Tertii, 1884.
The statement as to an authorized version is as follows:
No. VII. "In eadem congregatione privata, quidam e Pa
tribus Concilii sumnopere exoptavit ut habeatur authentica,
quoeque omnium votis respondeat, AngUca Scriptura; Sacrse

APPENDIX 293
Versio. Responsum est ei, hoc in ConciUo Plenario superiori
prepositum fuisse, diuque de ejus mode versione deUberasse
Patres, sed nihU effectum fuisse. Rejecta tamen fuit a Patribus,
agentibus viginti et octo, negantibus octo supra triginta."
{Translation.) "In the same private congregation, one of the
Fathers of the CouncU urgently wished that an English Version of
the Holy Scriptures should be considered authentic which would
be agreeable to the opinions of aU. Answer was made to this,
that it had been placed before the former Plenary Council, and
the Fathers had discussed a version of this character at length,
but nothing had been done. The suggestion was however re
jected by the Fathers 28 for and 38 against it."
Titulus I, No. 167 deals with the use of the Vulgate in discus
sion. " In exegesi Biblica pro textu explicando adhibeatur versio
Vulgata latina, ut ilia clericus omnino famiUaris evadet, quam
Cone. Trident, in publicis lecturibus, disputationibus et proe-
dicationibus pro authentica habendum esse statuit et declar-
avit." {Translation.) "In Biblical discussion for explaining
the text the Vulgate Latin Version should be adhered to, as that
is altogether famiUar to the clergy and is that which the Council
of Trent has ordained and declared should be used by authority
in public reading, in arguments and proclamations."
17. Mombert English Versions of the Bihle 293. For the other
facts and quotations as to the translators, see Mombert 293 f . ;
also Moulton History of the English Bible 182 f.; Newman Tracts
Theological and Ecclesiastical, Vol. Ill, No. 7 "History of the
Text of the Rheims and Douay Version of Scripture."
18. The approbations (copied from the original edition in the
General Theological Seminary, New York) are as follows: " Ap-
prohatio: Nos infra scripti, in alma Duacensi universitate Sacrse
Theologiae Doctores et Professores, hanc Anglicanam Veteris Tes
tamenti translationem, quam tres diversi ejus nationis eruditis-
simi Theologi non solum fidelem, sed propter diversa quse ei
sunt adjuncta, valde utilem fidei Catholicse propagandas ac tuen-
dae, et bonis moribus promovendis, sunt testati, quorum testi-
monia ipsorum sjrngraphis munita vidimus; cujus item Transla-
tionis et Annotationum auctores nobis de fidei integritate et

294 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
eruditionis proestantia probe sunt noti; his rebus adducti et nixi
fructuose evulgari posse censuimus Duaci 8 Novembris 1609.
" Professors at Douay.
" Guielmus Estius, Sacrse Theologiae Doctor,
" Bartholom^us Petrus, Sacrse Theologise Doctor,
" Georgius Colveneruis, Sacrse Theologiae Doctor."
{Translation.) "We whose names are written below. Doctors
and Professors in the University of Sacred Theology at Douay,
are of opinion that this English Translation of the Old Testa
ment which three several most learned Theologians of that
nation have borne witness to, not only as faithful, but on ac
count of the special properties which belong to it, exceedingly
useful for propagating and preserving the Catholic Faith, and for
the increase of good morals, should be advantageously pubUshed,
whose testimony we have seen proved by their signatures, of
which translation and Annotations moreover the authors are
known to us by the integrity of their faith and the eminence of
their learning."
The Censure and Approbation of the New Testament. "Cum
hujus versionis ac ceditionis authores nobis de fide et eruditione
sint probe cogniti, aliique S. Theologise et linguae AngUcanse
peritissimi viri contestati sint, nihil in hoc opere reperiri, quod
non sit Catholice Ecclesie doctrime et pietate consentaneum vel
quod uUo modo po testate ac pace ciuli repugnet sed omnia potius
veram fidem, Reip. bonum, vitaeque ac morum probitatem prove
mere; ex ipsorium fide censemus esta utiliter excudi et publicari
posse, [no date.]
" Petrus Remigus, [Vicar-General of Abp. of Rheims].
"HuBERTUs MoRus, [Professor of Theology at Rheims].
" Johannes LeBescjue, [Professor of Theology at Rheims].
" Guielmus Balbus, [Professor of Theology at Rheuns]."
{Translation.) "Since the authors of this version and edition
are favorably known to us on account of their faith and learning,
and others of the Sacred CoUege and of the English language have
borne witness to them as most accompUshed men, nothing is
found in this work which is not consistent with the doctrine and
pious belief of the CathoUc Church, or which is opposed in any

APPENDIX 295
way to the civil power and peace, but promotes rather the true
faith, the good of the State and probity of hfe and morals, we
consider that it has been usefuUy composed and might be pub
lished." 19. Bishop Troy's approbation of MacMahon's version is as
foUows: "By our authority we approve the new English editionof
the Holy Bible . . . which has by our order been carefully col
lated by the Rev. Bernard MacMahon with the Clementine Vul
gate, also with the Douay Old Testament of 1609, and the Rheims
New Testament of 1682, and with the London Old and New
Testaments of 1762, approved English versions." Newman
Tracts 429.
The details of all editions are given in the BibUography.
20. It can be affirmed and proved that there is no pubUshed
copy of the whole Bible in English prior to WycUf. Mombert
English Versions 28.
21. For examination of the authorship of Wyclif's version see
ForshaU and Madden Preface to Wyclif's Bible and Mombert
English Versions 69.
22. Convocation in 1408 ordered that no one read any book of
Wyclif's until the translation had been approved by the ordinary
on pain of excommunication. Westcott- Wright General View of
the History of the Bihle 22 f.
23. The quotation from Foxe will be found in Acts and Monur-
ments IV. 217, as quoted by Westcott General View 26.
24. See Ust of Hebrew Bibles in BibUography.
25. Wolsey founded in 1519 a chair of Greek. Westcott Gen^-
eral View 165.
The foUowing grammars and lexicons are mentioned by West
cott 166: Grammar of Lascaris (Milan, 1476); Grammar of
Clenardus (Louvain, 1530); Lexicon of Craston (1480). [Re
published by Aldus (1497).]; Lexicon of Guarino.
26. The sermon was preached by the Vicar of Croydon. See
Foxe Acts and Monuments I. 927.
27. For list of Bibles in European languages, see BibUography.
28. For particulars of Tyndale's Imprisonment, trial and mar
tyrdom, see his Ufe by Demaus, xiii.

296 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
29. The quotation is from Westcott General View 64.
30. "Coverdale wherever he worked was encouraged, if not em
ployed, by CromweU in the translation of the Bible and it would
seem from a letter without date (assigned to 1627 or 1532) that
Sir Thomas More was aware of his occupation." Mombert
English Versions 150. Westcott General View 70, agrees with
this. For facts as to Coverdale's Ufe see Mombert 159, 161.
31. Letter from Cranmer to CromweU quoted by Westcott
General View 92.
32. Westcott General View 271.
33. Particulars from Mombert English Versions 201, 210,
220, and quotation 203.
34. For further particulars of the history of the Bible during
the reign of Henry VIII and his successors and of the Genevan
Bible see Moulton History 160-168; yiomheit English V er sions
233-265; Westcott General View 120-121.
35. The helps at the command of the Genevan Revisers as given
by Mombert English Versions 249, were, in addition to the
Hebrew, Greek and Latin Bibles mentioned in the BibUography,
and published previous to 1557, Pellican's Hebrew Grammar,
1503; ReuchUn's Dictionary, 1606; Miinster's Grammar, 1626.
36. See Mombert English Versions 265 as to the circulation of
the Great Bible and the Genevan Bible and 275 as to edi
tions. 37. The second edition was taken as the basis of the Authorized
Version. Westcott General View 316.
38. The foUowing quotation from Mombert English Versions
362 f. gives some particulars of the various editions: "Not less
than 60 had been issued before 1640 by Barker (Printer to the
King's Most Excellent Majesty) and his successors. The edition
of 1613 contains 412 variations. That of 1616 may be regarded
as the first revision, that of 1629 and 1638 are the first Cambridge
editions revised and a number of their errata have been trans
mitted to modern times. . . . That of 1660 by HiUs and Field
introduced additional notes improved upon in John Hayes, Cam
bridge, 1677. 1701 brought the dates and index by Bishop
Lloyd. 1762 is the famous edition of Dr. Paris."

APPENDIX 297
39. Critical apparatus (in addition to those mentioned for the
Genevan Bible) at disposal of Compilers of Authorized Version:
(1) The Latin translations mentioned in the Bibliography.
(2) The French, Italian and Spanish editions, mentioned in the
BibUography. [These are doubtless what the Revisers refer to
when they speak of their pains in consulting Spanish, French
and ItaUan translations. Westcott General View 356, 356.]
(3) Buxtorf's Lexicon, 1607, Hebrew Grammar, 1609. Mombert
EngUsh Versions 387.
"They had the bare Hebrew text without more Ught shed on
it by the ancient versions except that derived from such editions
of the Septuagint and the Vulgate, as were then circulating, the
Sixtine edition of 1587, being the latest of the former and the Six
tine (1690) and Clementine (1592-1593) editions the latest of the
latter version. The Chaldee Paraphrase of Onkelos (1482-1546,
1590) was also available to them, but the Samaritan Pentateuch,
the Syriac and Arabic versions and the fragmentary Ethiopic
and Persian translations were unknown to them. For the Greek
text of the New Testament they had the various editions of Beza
from 1660 to 1598 and the fifth edition of Beza 1598, is probably
what they used, asweUas the 3rd edition of Stephanus 1550-1651,
they likewise consulted the Complutensian Polyglot 1514, the dif
ferent editions of Erasmus 1516-1536, Aldus 1618, Colinaeus
1534, Planten 1572, the Vulgate and Beza's Latin version of
1656. "The common statement is that the Greek text of the Author
ized Version of 1611 agrees in 81 places with Beza against Ste
phanus, in about 21 with Stephanus against Beza, and that in
29 places the translators foUowed the Complutensian, Erasmus or
the Vulgate." Mombert 387, 388.
For critical apparatus for Revision in 1870 see Bibliography.
Also the references given above.
40. Mombert English Versions 69.
41. The exact wording of the texts referred to and of others
which owe their origin to Wyclif is as foUows. [Modern spelling
is adopted in this and similar quotations.]

298 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
WYCLIF AMERICAN REVISED VERSION
Matt 7 14
Strait is the gate and narrow Narrow is the gate and
the way. straitened the way.
Matt 16 22
Far be it from thee Lord. Be it far from thee Lord.
Jno 3 3
If a man shaU be born Except one be born anew.
again. Rom 12 1
A Uving sacrifice. A living sacrifice.
/ Cor 2 10
The deep things of God. The deep things of God.
/ Cor 10 16
The cup of blessing which The cup of blessing which
we bless. we bless.
Jas 1 5
And if any of you needeth But if any of you lacketh
wisdom, ask he of God which wisdom, let him ask of God,
giveth to aU men largely and who giveth to aU UberaUy and
upbraideth not and it shaU be upbraideth not.
given him.
42. The extracts are from the foUowing authors quoted in the
order named: Marsh, Lectures in English Language, 1st Series,
627; Westcott General View 210, 211; Froude History of Eng
land III. 84.
43. Westcott General View 210. Mombert English Ver
sions 115 f. gives a careful argument on Tyndale's knowledge of
Hebrew, and proves his case by a coUation of Luther and Tyn
dale in Deut 6 6-9, and states that "the rendering of these four
verses proves an mdependent knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, Latin,
German and EngUsh." He gives specific instances to prove

APPENDIX 299
this and gives the foUowing list of helps available to Tyndale:
The Hebrew Bible (Soncino, 1488, Brescia, 1494); Bomberg's
Bible published in 1518; Rabbinical Bible pubUshed in 1519
and 1525; PeUican's Hebrew Grammar, 1603; ReuchUn's Dic
tionary in 1506; Miinster's Grammar, 1525; Complutensian
Polyglot with a Hebrew Grammar and Lectionary, 1517-1520.

44. Westcott General View 174 says "the translation of the New Testament itself is the com
plete proof of its own independence. It is impossible to read through a single chapter without
gaining the assurance that Tyndale rendered the Greek text directly whUe he consulted the Vul
gate, the Latin translation of Erasmus, and the German of Luther."

COo o

VULGATE
Ver. 2. cum patlentla suppor-
tantes.
Ver. 4. slcut.
Ver. 8. dedlt.
Ver. 17. slcut et.
Ver. 27. dlabolo.
Ver. 29. sermo malus.

In Eph 4
TYNDALE
In long suffering for
bearing one another.
even as.
and hath given.
as other Gentiles.
backbiter.filthy communication.

with patience support
ing one another.
as. he gave.
as also the Gentiles.
devil.evil speech.

AM. H. v.
with long suffering for
bearing one another.
even as.
and gave.
As the Gentiles also.
devil.corrupt speech.

The following passages are instances of renderings suggested to Tyndale by the Vulgate and
their correspondence with the Douay Version :

VDLGATE
plnnaculum templl.

MaUi:5
TYNDALE DOUAY
pinnacle of the temple. pinnacle ol the temple.

AM. R. V.
pinnacle of the temple.

wf H<! W10
CO o w oo > a

omnes enlm ex eo quod
abundabat UUs, mlserunt.

they all put In ol their
superfluity.

for all they did cast in ol
their abundance.

for they all did cast In of
their superfluity.

TYNDALE

quanto magls Pater vester
de coelo dabit splrltum
bonum.

how much more shall your
Father celestial give a
good spirit.

how much more will your
Father from heaven give
the good Spirit to them
that ask him.

AM. R. V.
how much more shall your
heavenly Father give
the Holy Spirit to them
that ask bim.

bac nocte anlmam tuam
repetunt a te.

Lk 12:20

this night will they fetch
away thy soul from thee.

this nigbt do they require
thy soul of thee.

this night Is thy soul re
quired of thee.

Jno 14:2

In domo Patrls mel man-
slones multffi sunt.

Curramus ad proposltum
nobis certamen.

Deponentes Igitur omnem
malltlam et omnem dol-
um et slmulatlones et
Invldlas et omnes de-
tractlones.

In my Father's house are
many mansions.

let us run unto the battle
that Is set before us.

In my Father's house there
are many mansions.

let us run to the fight
proposed to us.

I Pet 2:1

Wherefore lay aside all
maliciousness and all
guile and dissimulation
and envy and all back
biting.

Wherefore laying away all
malice and all guile, and
dissimulations and
envies, and all detrac
tions.

In my Father's house are
many mansions.

let us run the race that is
set before us.

Putting away therefore all
wickedness, and all guile
and hypocrisies and
envies and all evil speak
ing.

>OI— (
X

Bcrlptum in frontlbus suis.

Bev 14:1
written In their foreheads. written on their foreheads.

written on their forehead.

45. The following passages show Tyndale's independence of the Vulgate.
the Greek and rejects the Vulgate.

In them he follows

00o

Matt 6:1.
6:11.
Lk 2:14.2:18.
17:36.

23:39.
Eph 5:32.

VULOATH
justltlam. supersubstantlalem.
bomlnlbus bous vol
untatis.
et de his.
duo In agro: unus as-
sumetur: et alter re-
Unquetur.

latronlbus.sacramentum.

alms.our dally bread.
and unto men rejoicing.
wondered at these
things.
(omitted.)

malefactors.secrete.

justice.supersubstantial bread.
to men of good will.
wondered, and at these
things.
(ver. 35) two men shall
be In the field; the
one shall be taken,
and the other left.
robbers. sacrament.

46. Luther's influence is seen in the foUowing passages :

Matt 1:1.
2:18.
Jno 19:17.
Acts 28:2.
Rom 1:14.
2:5.
11:13.
I Cor 1:25.
2:14.
Eph 3:15.

Col 3:16.

I Tim 1 :7.
Rev 22:14.

This Is the book.
on the hills was a voice beard.
the place of dead men's skulls.
the people of the country.
to the Greeks and them which
are no Greeks.
bard heart that cannot repent.
I will magnify mine office.
godly foolishness.
the natural man,
which is father over all which
Is called father In heaven
and In earth.
and spiritual songs which have
favour with them.
doctors In the Scripture.
their power may be in the tree
of life.

The book,
A voice In Bama was beard.
Golgotha,
barbarians,
to the Greeks and to the
barbarians,
thy hardness and Impenitent
heart.
I will honour my ministry,
the foolishness of God,
the sensual man.
of whom all paternity In
heaven and earth is named.
and spiritual canticles singing
In grace In your hearts to
God.
teachers of the law.
that they may have a right to
the tree of llli,.

AMER. R. V.
righteousness. our dally bread.
among men in whom
be is well pleased.
wondered at the things.
(ver. 34) there shall be
two men In one bed:
the one shall be taken
and the other shall
be left.
malefactors.mystery.

AMER, R. V.
The book.
A voice was heard in Rama,
The place of a skull, which is
called In Hebrew Golgotha.
barbarians.to Greeks and to barbarians.
thy hardness and Impenitent
heart.
I glorify my ministry.
the foolishness of God.
the natural man.
from whom every family In
heaven and In earth is
named.
with spiritual songs singing
with grace in your hearts to
God.
teachers of the law.
that they may have the right
to come to the tree of life.

COO to

w
wf
< H
GQ o
m o >
MO

47. In I John, the American Revised Version returns to Tyndale's reading in the foUowing
passages: TYNDALE AUTHORIZED VERSION REVISED VERSION

S:16.

love.

3:17.

compassion.

3:24.

gave.

love of God.
bowels of compassion,
batb given.

and in the foUo^-ing passages come near to Tyndale:
2:20. ointment. unction.
and in the Epistle to the Ephesians in the following:

1:11.

were made heirs.

2:13.

a while ago.

4:30.

by whom ye are sealed.

4:8.

once.

have obtained an Inheritance.
sometimes.
whereby ye are sealed.
sometimes.

love.compassion.gave.

anointing.

were made an heritage.
once.
In whom ye were sealed.
once.

O X

03o00

304 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
48. Westcott General View 212, and Mombert English Ver
sions 163, both agree that Coverdale's cannot be caUed an inde
pendent translation. These words omitted by Tyndale are given
by Westcott 220.
49, Westcott General View 217, 220, Mombert English
Versions 164-167 has collated Mai 4, as translated by Coverdale,
with Luther, the Zurich, the Worms edition of Peter Schafer
(1528) and the Combination Bible of Wolff Kopphl, with the
result that there is hardly a word that cannot be referred to one
or more of them. CoUations by other authors show that Cover-
dale "set great store by many translations, deeming them highly
advantageous and carrying his eclecticism into his own trans
lation." Mombert 168. He "availed himself freely of the work
of Tyndale as far as it was published," i.e., the Pentateuch and
the book of Jonah at the date of the 1st edition.
50. Mombert English Versions 184.
51. "The Great Bible is a revision of Tyndale, Matthew and
Coverdale by the original with the help of Luther's version, the
Zurich version, as weU as the Latin translation of Sanctes Pag
ninus (1628), and Sebastian Munster (1534-1535) in the Old Tes
tament and the Latin Version of Erasmus in the New ; the text of
the Great Bible of 1539 may be described with sufficient accuracy
as a revision of Matthew, that is of Tyndale, Rogers and Cover-
dale by Coverdale himself." Mombert English Versions
209. " It is unquestionably inferior to Matthew's Bible as to trans
lation." Mombert 222, 223. See also Westcott General View
300, 301.
62. American Revised Version, Preface to the New Testament.
53. The statement as to the "Massoretic Text" is made in the
English Revised Version, Preface to the Old Testament.
54. The Douay Version agrees with the Revised Version in
this use of the personal pronoun.
56. English Revised Version, Preface to the New Testament.
56. The passage in Matt 6 13 is not found in Codex Sinai
ticus, Codex Vaticanus, Codex Bezse, four Cursive MSS., the
Vulgate, the Old Latin, nor the Memphitic Version, It is not

APPENDIX 305
noticed in expositions on the Lord's Prayer by Origen 254 a,d.,
TertuUian 200 a,d,, nor Cyprian 248 a.d.
It is found in some MSS, (in red ink or in the margin, to distin
guish it from the text), in Codex Rossanensis, the Ethiopic
Version, the Armenian Version, the Gothic Version, the Syriac
Version, and is given by Chrysostom, 397 a,d.
The details as to the New Testament Revision are based on
criticisms by Mombert English Versions 462 f.
67. I Tim 3 16, in the Authorized Version reads: "And without
controversy, great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest
in the flesh." The Revised Version reads: " He who was mani
fested in the flesh," and gives this note: "The word 'God' in place
of 'He who' rests on no sufficient ancient evidence. Some an
cient authorities read 'which.'"
The Douay Version adopts the latter reading, "which was mani
fested in the flesh." The words "He who" are found in Codex
Sinaiticus, Codex Ephremis, Memphitic and Thebaic Versions.
The word "God" is found in Codex Alexandrinus.
Some of the alterations required by change of reading in the
Greek text are:

Authorized Version
Matt 5 :22. — whosoever is angry with his
brother without a cause.

19:17. Why callest thou me good?
there Is none good but one,
that Is, God.

II Pet 3:3. That ye may be mindful of
the words which were
spoken before by the holy
prophets, and of the com-
mandment of us the
Apostles of the Lord and
Saviour.
Bev 22:14, Blessed are they that do bis
commandments.

Revised Version
— ^whosoever Is angry with bis
brother.
Note, — Many ancient author
ities insert without cause.
Why askest thou me concern
ing that which Is good? One
there is who Is good.
Note, — Some ancient author
ities read: Why callest thou
me good? None is good
save one, even God.
That ye should remember the
words which were spoken
before by the holy prophets,
and the commandment of
the Lord and Saviour
through your apostles.
Blessed are they that wash
their robes.

68. Statement of words and phrases used in the original Douay Bible
Preface thereto and explained in the body of the Essay, and the extent
Authorized and Revised Versions.

Douay Version
-whosoever is angry with his
brother.

Why askest thou me concern
ing good? one Is good, God.

That you may be mindful of
those words which 1 told
you before from the holy
prophets and of your
Apostles, of the precepts of
the Lord and Saviour.
Blessed are they that wash
their robes In the Blood of
the Lamb.
for the reasons given in the
to which they agree with the

I. Words and phrases mentioned in the Preface itself:
The Orioinal The Modern
Douay Bible Douay Bible
Alleluia. Hosanna.Baca,sons of Belial,
phylacteries.concision,circumcision,flourished again,
exhaust.

Rev 19:1,

Alleluia,

Matt 21:9,

Hosanna.

5:22,

Raca.

Jdg 19:22,

sons of Belial.

Matt 23:5.

phylacteries.

PhU 3:2.

concision.

3:3,

circumcision.

4:10,

reflorlshed.

Heb 9:28,

exhaust.

The Authorized
Version
Alleluia, Hosanna,Baca.
sons ol Belial.
phylacteries.concision,circumcision,flourished again,
bear.

The Bevised
Version
Hallelujah.Hosanna,
Baca.
base fellows.
phylacteries.concision.
circumcision.revived.bear.

COO05

tdWf< wpiO ao >Pi U

Lk 24:47.
Matt 26:27.
Heb 4:14.
I Tim 3:8.
Col 2:8.
I Cor 9:13.

The Original

TBB Mi

Douay BibiiB

Douay

penance.

penance.

chaUce.

ChaUce.

priest.

priest.

deacon.

deacon.

tradition.

tradition.

altar.

altar.

The Authorized
Version
repentance.cup, priest,deacon.
tradition.altar.

The Revisei)
Version
repentance. cup.priest. deacon.
tradition.altar.

One reference only is given to each word, but other passages where the words are used will show
similar results.

II. Words and phrases given in the
(a) Words, etc., altered in the
Version: The Original Douay

table at the end of the Douay Bible.
modem Douay and corresponding exactly with the Revised

Jae 1:14.
Matt 24:27.
Mk 5:22.
Gal 5:21.
Bom 8:18.
Eph 4:30.
Bom S:28.
I Tim 6:20.
Bev 1:10.
Lk 2:10.
Phil 2:7.
passim.1 Cor 10:18.
Acts 9:21.
Eph 3:11.
Bom 2:26, 27.
Acts 2:23.
Bom 2:25.
II Tim 1:6.
Ejph 1:9.
Heb 9:3.
I Pet 2:5.

Version
abstracted.advent.archlsynagogue. commersa tions.
condlgne. contristate.cooperate.the depositum.
the dominical day.
evangelize.
exanited himself.
gratis.hostes.
Invocated. prefinltlon ol worlds.
prepuce.prescience.prevaricator.resuscitate.sacrament of bis will.
Sanctum Sanctorum.
superedlfled.

The Modern Douay
Version
tempted.coming.
rulers of the synagogue.
revelllngs.
worthy. grieve.
work together.
that which Is committed to.
the Lord's Day.
bring you good tidings.
emptied himself.
freely.sacrifices.called upon.
the eternal purpose.
unclrcumcislon.
foreknowledge.transgressor.stir up.
mystery of bis will.
Holy of Holies.
built up.

The Bevised
Version
tempted.coming.
rulers of the synagogue.
revelllngs.
worthy.grieve.work together,
that which is committed to.
the Lord's Day,
bring you good tidings.
emptied himself.
freely. sacrifices,called upon,
the eternal purpose.
unclrcumcislon.foreknowledge.transgressor.stir up.
mystery of his will.
Holy of HoUes.
built up.

>
i-d
O
X

Coo

Number of words in this schedule, 22; number of words in next schedule, 7 — making the 29
words mentioned in Essay.
(6) Words, etc., in the original Douay retained in the modern Douay and in the Revised
Version :

The Original and Modern
DouAY Version

Gal 4:24.

allegory.

Bom 9:3.

anathema.

Matt 19:12

eunuchs.

Acts 27:14

Euro-aQullo.

Matt 14:1.

Tetrarch.

Col l:ie.

Thrones.

Acts 2:1

Pentecost.

The Revised Version

allegory.
anathema. eunuchs. Euro-aquilo.
Tetrarch. Thrones.Pentecost.

(c) Eight words, etc., altered in the modern Douay to agree in sense with the Revised
Version, and put in modern language :

The Original
Douay Version
Gal 6:6, catechized, catechizeth,
Lk 21:5. donanes.
Gal 5 :4, evacuated from Christ,
Heb 2:17, repropltiate the sins,
4 :9, a sabbatlsme for the people ol
God.
Phlm 6:6, agnltlon,
Lk 1 :19, I am Gabriel that assist before
God.
II Tim 4:6. resolution.

The Modern
Douay Version
Instructed, Instructeth.
gifts.
made void of Christ,
might be a propitiation for
the sins,
a day of rest for the people of
God.
acknowledgment, I am Gabriel who stand before
God,
dissolution.

The Revised
Version
taught, teacheth.
offerings. severed from Christ.
make propitiation for the sins.
a sabbath rest for the people
of God.
knowledge. I am Gabriel that stand In the
presence ol God.
departure.

{d) Eighteen words, etc., in the original Douay Version retained in the modern Douay
Version with the renderings in the Revised Version. The meaning of these words when given

00o00

WI— I
td< HfO
cc h- 1
o 'Z.
CO oo >pi t?3O

in the Table at the end of, or in foot-notes in, the Douay Version is also given in the words of
that Table.

The Original and Modern
Douay Version

Eph 1:14.
ir Cor 2:17.
Jno 8:34.
Lk 9:51.

acquisition.adulterating.Amen. assumption.

Matt 26:17.
Lk 3:14.

Azymes. calumniate.

Bev 13:17.
Matt 27:6.

character.corbana.

17:25.

dldracbms.

Heb 10:8.

holocausts.

I Cor 10:13.
Bom 4:13.

Issue.justice.

I Tim 3:6.

neophyte.

The Meaning of the Words
IN the first Column as
Given in the Table or in
Footnotes in the Douay
Version
getting, purchasing.
corrupting.Christ's departure out of tbia
world by His death and
Ascension while the days of
His assumption were ac
complishing.
unleavened bread.
By this word Is signified
violent oppression by word
or deed.
a mark or stamp.
a place about the Temple
which received the people's
gifts or offerings.
pieces of money which they
paid for tribute.
a kind of sacrlflce where all
was burnt In the honour of
God.
good event.
taken in the New Testament
not as it is contrary to
wrong or injury, but for
that quality whereof a man
Is just or justified.
He that was lately christened
or newly planted In the
mystical body of Christ.

The Bevised Version

possession.corrupting.
Verily. that He should be received up.

unleavened bread.
accuse wrongfully.

mark.Treasury.

halt shekel. ,
whole bumt-oflerlngs.

way of escape.
righteousness.

novice.

ISH
oX

CO

Jno 14:16.

Mk 15:42.
Lk 22:1.
Matt 12:4.

Acts 7:4.

The Original and Modern
Douay Version

Paraclete.

Parascue.Pascheloaves of proposition.

victories.

The Meaning of the Words
IN the first Column as
Given in the Table or in
Footnotes in the Douay
Version
By Interpretation Is either a
Comforter or an advocate
and therefore to translate It
by any one of them only is
perhaps to abridge the sense
of this place.
the Jews Sabbath Eve.
Easter and the Paschal Lamb.
60-called because they were
proposed and set upon the
table In the temple of God.
sacrifices.

The Revised
Version

Comforter.

Preparation.Passover. show bread.

slain beasts.

03 1—1
o

w wf < fS
w l-Ho 03 Oo g >pi O

APPENDIX 311
59. Nine passages quoted by Ward {Errata of the Protestant
Bible 18-66) are as follows:
Reference to Alteration in Revised Version which
Passage Removes Objection
Prov 9:5. The use of the word "ye."
1 Cor 11:27. Theuseof the word "or"for "and."
Acts 20:28. "Bishops" for "overseers."
1 Cor 9:5. ) Quoted as opposing the'cellbacy of the priest, but
Phil 4:3. > the passage from Hebrews being now exactly
Heb 13:4, ) what Ward wants, the argument falls.
Heb 5:7, "having been heard for his godly fear" for "was
heard In that he feared,"
Heb 10:29. "Judged" for "thought,"
Col 1:23, Omission of the word "and."
60. Passages altered in the modern Douay to agree with Re
vised Version on the points objected to by Ward Errata, 18 f:
Matt 1 25; II Pet 1 15; Rom 8 18; Heb 2 9; Matt 19 11; Rom 4 3;
IPetl 25; Jas 4 6.
61. Passages in which the Douay and Revised Versions agree:
Jas 516; Heb 10 22; Lk 18 42; Rom 5 6, "we were weak"; I Cor
9 13 and I Cor 10 18 (use of word "altar"); I Cor 10 20 and Heb
13 16 (use of word "sacrifice"); and I Pet 2 S.
62, The passages referred to are as follows:
Agreeing Exactly Altered in Douay Version
with the so as to be made
Bevised Version Intelligible
Quoted by Westcott General Vlcui 331,
Mk 5:35. Ps 19:9.
Bom 6:13, 8:18.
Heb 13:16
Quoted by Mombert English Versions 303 f.
Lk 22:18. Matt 27:62.
Jno 6:45, 7:2 Mk 15:46,
Acts 23:14, Lk 22:7, 12.
Bom 1:30, 2:25. Jno 2:4,
Gal 5:21, Acts 1:2,
Eph 2:6. 4:30. Eph 3:6,
Heb 3:13, 9:3. Phil 3:10.
Ill Jno 9. II Th 3:8.
Rev 1:10, 21:6, 22:2, 22:14. 1 Tim 3:6. 5:6.
II Tim 1:14, 4:4.
Phlm 6.
Heb 2:17, 3:15, 4:10, 9:23, 10:16,
12:2.
Jas 1:17, 3:4,
I Pet 1:14, 4:12.
II Pet 2:13.
Jude 4: 19,
Rev 1:15, 10:7.
Quoted by Hoare The Evolution of the English Bible 209 f.
Phil 2-7 Ps 23:5.
*^'"' ^¦^- Isa 13:22.

312 BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED
63. The collated passages are those referred to in different
parts of the Essay and other passages collated by the author.
64. Westcott General View 352, 353, gives certain passages
in Romans as common to the original Douay and Authorized
Versions alone and adds "it is impossible that the coincidences
have been accidental,"
We give here such of these passages as are identical in the mod
ern Douay and the Revised Version as deriving their origin from
the original Douay. Any differences that exist are noted.
1 10. if by any means.
13. I would not have you ignorant.
23. changed the glory of the incorruptible God.
2 6. revelation of the righteous judgment of God.
The Douay Version has "just" instead of "righteous,"
10, glory, honour and peace to every man that worketh
good, Douay, "one" for "man."
13. for not the hearers of the law are just before God.
15. the work of the law written in their hearts.
3 7. why am I also still judged as a sinner.
Douay, "yet" for "still."
5 3. And not only so but we also rejoice in our tribulations.
Douay, "glory" instead of "rejoice."
10 10, With the mouth confession is made unto salvation,
12 16, Be not wise in your own conceits.
13 8. Owe no man anything,
14 9, For to this end Christ died.
Ten words identical in the Douay and Authorized Versions
stated by Westcott 334 as owing their origin to the original
Douay Version.
Rom 1 1. separated.
32. consent.
2 5. impenitent.
18. approvest.
3 25, propitiation
4 4. grace.
5 8, commendeth.

APPENDIX 313
8 18. revealed.
19. expectation.
15 26. contribution.
65. The following passages from 1 John are identical (except
where otherwise noted) in the modern Douay and the Revised
Versions, and derive their origin from the original Douay Version.
1 9. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to for
give us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
Douay, "just" for "righteous," "iniquity" for "unright
eousness."
10. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar
and his word is not in us.
4 10. and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
Douay, "a" for "the."
2 17. He that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.
3 15. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer.
66, The quotation is from the English Revised Version, Preface
to the New Testament,
67, The (Ecumenical Council of the Vatican held April 24,
1870, says on this point (Caput II):
"Hsec porro supernaturahs revelatio, secundum universalis
Ecclesise fidem a sancta Tridentina Synodo declaratam, contine-
tur in Ubris scriptis et sine traditi onibus quae ipsius Christi ore ab
Apostolis acceptse, aut at ipsis Apostolis Spiritu Sancto dictanto
quasi per manus tradita; ad nos usque pervenerunt," {Trans
lation.) "Further this supernatural revelation according to the
faith of the Catholic Church, declared by Holy Council of Trent
is contained in written books and without writing in the tradi
tions which were received by the Apostles from the mouth of
Christ Himself, or have come down to us from the Apostles them
selves at the dictation of the Holy Spirit as given by their hands."
Waterworth Faith of Catholics I. 334 f. says:
Proposition LX. "As the Church assuredly tells us what par
ticular book is the Word of God, so can she with the Uke assurance
tell us the true sense and meaning of it in controverted points of
faith." This view is held by all Catholic writers. See also The
Catholic Controversy 149-157.

BIBLIOGRAPHY'
Selecttbd and Compiled prom the Sources Employed by
MESSRS. WHITLEY, BEARD, AND DALTON
PART I
A. — Sources op the Text op the Old and New Testaments.
B. — Printed Editions op the Greek and Hebrew Scrip
tures AND THE Latin Vulgate.
C. — English Versions Antedating the Authorized Version.
D. — Some Important Continental Versions.
E. — Standard Catholic Versions.
F. — ^The English Authorized and Revised Versions.
PART I
A.— SOURCES OF THE TEXT
Section I
(/) Hebrew Manuscripts of the Old Testament'
The Hebrew MSS are of two classes: those for use in the
sjmagogues are written on parchment or leather rolls and con
tain the unpointed or consonantal text only. Manuscripts for
private use are usually in book shape and contain the pointed
I Material furnished by Messrs. Whitley, Beard, and Dalton respectively,
is indicated in the Bibliography by their initials,
2 See Green Introduction lo O T Text 741.; Kirkpatrick The Divine
Library of the O T 56f.; Maclear Helps to the Study of the Bible llf,; and
Copinger The Bible and its Transmission for the particulars given in
Part I. (D.)
317

318

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

or vocalized text. The Heb. MSS mentioned below, except Nos.
1, 2, and 7, are those given by Green Text 80-81. The particu
lars of the manuscripts numbered 1, 2, 7, are from Copinger.
The quotations are from Green.

Date

1, 856 A,D,
2. The 9th cent.
3. 843 and 881 a.d,
4, 895 a.d.
5. Latter half of 10th cent.
6. 916 A.D,
t
7. The 10th cent. (?)

8. 1018 or 1019 a.d.
9. 1106 A.D
10. Uncertain date.
11.

12. 1227 A.D.

Particulars.

A manuscript, in the Cambridge University
Library. (D.)
A codex of the Pentateuch, in the British
Museum. (D.)
Fragments of the Pentateuch, at Odessa. (D.)
A copy of the Prophets (by Moses ben Asher ?)
in the Karaite Synagogue at Cairo. (D.)
Codex ben Asher. " Is reported to be at Alep
po." . (D.)
Codex Babylonicus, in the Imperial Library
St. Petersburg, (D.)
Codex Laudianus containing the whole O T,
except part of Genesis, This MS, though
thus dated, is held by Ginsburg, Stein-
Bchneider and others to belong to the 13th
cent. (D.)
The oldest known MS in the care of the Samar
itans, in the Hebrew language, but in the
old style of writing, now known as Samar
itan, containing only the Law. See Ken
yon Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts
47 (W.)
Codex Ceesareus, The Prophets and Hagio-
grapha, in the Imperial Library, Vienna. (D.)
Codex Carlsruhensis contains the Prophets, at
Carlsruhe, (D.)
A manuscript of the latter Prophets put by
some in the 6th, by others in the 15tn cent,
(D.)
Fragments of the Pentateuch dated 489 a.d,
and 639 a.d, and other MSS of the 8th, 9th,
and 10th cents, are in the Imperial Library,
St. Petersburg. The total number of man
uscripts is given in Copinger Transmis-
sion 4 as 1346.
A triglot MS made by the Samaritans, con
taining (a) the Hebrew text of the Law, (b)
an Arabic version made 1070 a.d., (c) a Sa
maritan version or targum, dating from the
2d cent., all in the Samaritan character. See
Konig Samaritan Pentateuch in Hastings V,
(W.)

{II) Ancient Versions of the Old Testament
"In order to have any critical value whatever a version must
be ancient and it must be immediate. Only those versions of
the Old Testament are held to be ancient in this technical sense
wliich preceded the period of the Massorites." Green Text 167.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

319

Title.

1. Septuagint.

2. The Version
of Aquila.

3, The Ver
sion of
Theodo- tion,
4. The Version
of Sym
machus,
5, Peschito.

Language.

Greek.
Greek.Greek.
Greek. Syriac.

Date.

About th e
middle of
the 3d cent.
117-i38 A.D.

About the 2d
cent.

A.D, 200.
2d or 3d cent.

Remarks.

The text shows important varia
tions from the Hebrew as we
now have it.
Made for the use of Jews in opposi
tion to the Septuagint, which
had been appropriated by the
Christians,
A revision of the Septuagint.

Samaritan influence is asserted by
Epiphanius and traced by Red-
path, Hastings IV, 465
The original version contains no
Apocrypha nor Chronicles, It is
best known by quotations in
Ephrem and Afrahat, In the
6tn cent, it was revised and en
larged with the help of the Sep
tuagint. See Nestle in Hastings
IV. 650, and Kenyon Our Bible,
73-75, (W„ D,)

These versions, together with the Hebrew text and a Greek
transliteration of the same, were collated and published by
Origen (185-253 a.d.) in his Hexapla. The fragments of the
Hexapla have been collected and published by Drusius in 1622;
Lambert Bos in 1709; Montfaucon in 1713; and by Field in
1878. (D.)
Targums, or Aramaic paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures,
are also included among the material for textual criticism.
Ten targums are known to be in existence in whole or in part.
(D.)

Title.

Language.

Date.

Remarks.

1. Samaritan Targum.

2. Targum of
Onkelos.

3. Targum of
Jonathan

West ^ Ara
maic.

Aramaic.

Aramaic.

2cl cent., ac
cording to
Kantzocb,

2d or 3d cent,
3d cent.

The Law only. To be carefully dis
tinguished from the Hebrew-
copy of the Law in the custody
of the Samaritans. Both were
first printed in the Paris Poly
glot of 1645. (W.)
The Law only. Translated in
Judea, revised in Babylon two
centuries later. Printed 1482
at Bologna. (W.)
The Prophets only. A companion
to the preceding, but often ad
ding comments. Printed 1494 at
Leiria. (W.)

320

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

Section II
(/) Greek Manuscripts »

Name.

1. Codex Sinai
ticus.
2. Codex Alex
andrinus.
3. Codex Vati
canus.

4. Codex Eph-
rsemi.2
5. Codex Bezs.

6. Codex Claro-
montanus.
7. Codex Lau
dianus.
8. C o d e X
Regius.
9. Codex Ros-

10. Codex Basil-
iensis.

11. Codex Ni-
triensis.

12. Codex Har-
leianus.

Refer ence
Mark.

C
D

E, L2ER

Probable Date.

4th cent.
5 th cent.
4th cent.
5 th cent.
Uncertain, probably the 6th
cent.
6th cent.
6th cent.
8 th cent.
6th cent.

Middle of
8th cent.

8th or 9th
cent.

0th cent.

Remarks.

In the Imperial Library, St. Peters
burg. Contains the entire N T. (D.)
In the British Museum. From the
N T, Matt 1-25 6, Jno 660-862, II Cor
4 13-12 le are missing. ^D.)
In the Vatican Library. Contams all
the N T books, except parts of
Hebrews, Pastoral Epistles, and the
Apocalypse. (D.)
In the Royal Library, Paris. "Frag
ments of nearly all books." (D.)
In the University Library, Cambridge,
England. (D.)

In the Royal Library, Paris. Contains
all Paul's Epistles, except Rom 1 i-t
37-30. (D.)
In the Bodleian Library, Oxford. A
Graeco-Latin MS of the Acts. (D.)
In the Royal Library, Paris. Contains
most of the Gospels. (D.}
In the Library, Rossano. The earhest
copy of the Scriptures adorned with
mmiatures. (D.)
In the Public Library, Basle. Con
tains all of the Gospels except two
short passages. (D.)
In the British Museum, described by
Scrivener as "verj^ important." A
palimpsest containing 516 verses of
Luke. Two other MSS of less im
portance are also marked R. (D.)
In the British Museum.

1 The information as to the Greek manuscripts is taken from the following
authorities: Scrivener Introduction to N T 1. 90-189; Westcott Bible in
the Church 302f.; Maclear Helps 13f.; Mitchell Critical Ha-ndbook 108-
136. , . (D.)
2 A palimpsest, i. c. , a manuscript parchment which after an erasure, partial
or otherwise, has been written over a second time, and on which the former
writing is more or less discernible. (D.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

321

Name.

13. Codex Cy-
prius.
14. Codex Cam-
planus.
15. Codex Pur-
pureus,
16. Codex Tis-
chendor-
fianus.
17. Codex San-
gallensis.

IS. Codex Nani-
anus.

Refer ence
Mark.

K
M N r

Probable Date.

9th cent.
0th cent.
End of 9th
cent.
About gth
cent.

About 9th
cent.

About the
10th cent.

Remarks.

(D,5

In the Royal Library, Paris, a com
plete copy of the four Gospels, (D,)
In the Royal Library, Paris, the^ four
Gospels complete.
Parts in different Libraries,
In the Bodleian Library, Oxford (part) ;
the rest in the Imperial Library, St.
Petersburg. The two parts contain
nearly all the four Gospels. (D.)
In the Monastery of St. Gall, Switzer
land, the four Gospels complete,
except Jno 19 17-sfi. Graeco-Latin. (D.)
In the Library of St. Mark, Venice.
Contains the four Gospels entire, (D.)

(//) The Cursive Manuscripts
The manuscripts in cursive or running hand date from the
10th to the 15th cent. They follow the main body of the
Uncials with remarkable unanimity. The total number is given
by Scrivener Introduction I. 189-326, as :
Gospels  1,326
Acts and Catholic Epistles . . 422
Paul's Epistles  497
Apocalypse  184
2,429
In this calculation the numbers in each class are given, and
a MS which includes parts of more than one class is reckoned
under each class. (D.)

(///)

Ancient Versions o

f the New Testament

TiOe.

Language.

Date.

Remarks.

1. Curetonian.
2. Peschito.

Syriac. Syriac.

2d cent.
411-435 A.D,

Contains the Gost>els only. Other
books are quoted by Ephrem;
but he seems ' to use, instead of
these separatCi' Gospels, the Dia
tessaron of Tatian — a single
composite narrative, (W., D.)
A revision by Rabbula. See Nestle
in Hastings IV, 740, More books
were added, but not II and III
John, II Peter, Jude, Revela
tion. See Burkitt Early Eastern
Christianity. (W., D.)

322

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

Title.

3. Harkleian.

4. Sahidic.
5. Bohairic.

6. Gothic.

Language.

Syriac. Egyptian,
Gothic.

Date.

616 A.D.

3dor 4th cent.
?

4th cent.

Remarks.

A revision of a version made in
508 A.D. in a most hteral fash
ion. .(W., D.)
Forbes Robinson shows in Hastings
I, 668, that an earlier date is not
proven. (W.)
Large fragments of the Gospels and
of Paul's Epistles survive. Aa
this version is akin to the Old
Latin, while the Armenian is
based on the Syriac, and the
Ethiopic is influenced by the
Egyptian, these three versions
can be used for textual criticism
only with extreme caution. (W.)

Section III
The Latin Versions'^
The best known and most important of the Latin Versions
are:

Name.

Date.

Remarks.

1. The Vulgate

2. Old Latin.

387 to 405 A.D

Before 250 a.d

Translated by Jerome. The O T, except the
Apocrypha, from the Hebrew, the Apoc
rypha from the Septuagint. The N T was
a correction of the existing Latin texts
from the best Greek manuscripts. (W., D.)
Used by Cyprian at Carthage. There are
many varieties of text, but all were based in
the O T upon the Septuagint. A careful
study of the surviving codices has been
made in the following works:
Bibliorum sacrorum latince versiones antiquoB
sen uetus Italica, by Petrus Sabatier,3vols.
Rheims, 1739-1749, reprinted at Paris,
1757.
The Ancient Versions of the Four Evangelists,
by Joseph Bianchinx, 2 vols., Rome, 1749.
These works show that though there are
points of difference, there are traces of a
source conamon to many, if not to all of
them. (W.,D.)

1 The information as to Latin versions is taken from Scrivener Introduc
tion IL 42f. (D.)
The text of the Vulgate was revised by Alcuin, 801 a.d., by
Theodulf, by Lanfranc of Canterbury (1069-1089 A.D.), by

BIBLIOGRAPHY 323
Stephen Harding, 1109, and by Cardinal Nicolaus Manicoria in
1150. In the 13th cent, a more systematic revision was under
taken by bodies of scholars in the so-called "Correctoria BibU-
orum." The best and most critical of these is the Correctorium
Vaticanum.

Section IV
Lectionaries and Liturgies
(I) The Lectionaries are summarized by Scrivener Intro
duction I, 327-397, as follows:
Evangelistaria, containing extracts from the Gospels  980
Praxapostoli, containing extracts from the Acts and Epistles , 293
(II) Liturgies date back to the 4th or 5th cent. The quo
tations are however rare and not of any great length. (D.)
Section V
Patristic Citations
1. Dean Burgon in The Revision Revised (London, 1883), has arranged all
the quotations of the Scriptures by the early Fathers on a system which
renders it only the work of a minute to ascertain how any particular
Father quoted a text.
The following books also deal with the subject:

2. 1839.
3. 1892.

Pusey.Keble and New
man.
Schaff and
Wace.

A lAbrary of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church
Anterior to the Division of the East and West. (D.)
Select Library of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, (D.)

324

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

B.— PRINTED EDITIONS OF THE TEXT AND OF THE
VULGATE VERSION.
Section I
Printed Editions of the Hebrew Text

Date.

Place of Publication, etc.

1. 1482
2. 1488

3. 1491
4. 1494

5. 1516-17
6. 1518
7. 1524-26
8. 1547-49
9, 1568
10. 1617
11, 1618-20
12. 1724-27
13, 1776-80
14, 1869-95
15, 1876
16, 1890

17, 1894

The Law, pointed, with Aramaic version and Yarhi's commen-

(W.)
fol. Son-
(W,)
(W.)

tary. ed. Abraham b. Hayim. fol. Bologna,
Hebrew Bible, pointed, ed. Abraham b. Hayim
cine.
The Law, Lisbon.
Hebrew Bible, ed. Berson b. Moges. 8vo. Brescia.
The basis of the Complutensian, Bomberg's first rabbini
cal, Bomberg's first and second Bibles, Munster's Basel
edition. (W.)
This edition was used by Luther in his translation. (D.)
First rabbinical Bible, ed. Felix Pratensis. fol. 4 vols.
Venice. (W.)

. Rabbinical
[ Bibles

I Published at Venice by Bomberg.

' Published at Venice by

de Gard,
Bragadine,
^ Buxtorf. (D.)
Rabbinical Bible, ed. Moses b. Simeon of Frankfurt. (D.)
Vetus Tesiamentum Hebraicum, with various readings, ed,
Benjamin Kennicott. fol. 2 vols. Oxford. (W.)
Critical Hebrew Texts. Baer, Leipzig.
Prophetarum posteriorum. Codex Babylonica Petropolitana.
Strack. St. Petersburg. (W.)
The Sacred Books of the Old Testament. Haupt. Leipzig,
Baltimore, and London. A critical edition of the Hebrew
text printed in colors. (W.)
The Twenty-four Books. 2 vols. London, (Christian)
David Ginsburg. An elaborate apparatus of the Massorah
is the chief feature. (W., D.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

325

Secttion II
(/) Printed Editions of the Greek Text

Name.

1. Novum 2nstrumentum
omne diligenter ab
Erasmo Roterdamo
recognitum et emen
datum. (W.)

2, Sacra Scriptures Veter
is Nov(Bque omnia.

3. Novum Greece.

Testamentum

Novum Testamentum
cum versione Latina
veteri et nova Theo-
dori Bez£e. (W.)
Novum Testamentum
Greece ex officina
Elzevirian a.

6. Novum Testamentum
Grcecumcum lectioni
bus variantibus MSS
Exemplarium Ver-
sionum, Editionum,
SS. Patrum et Scrip-
torum Ecclesiasti'
corum et in easdem
notisStudioetlabore
JoannisMilliiS.T.P
7. Novum Testamentum
Grcecum inserviente.
J. A. B(engel)
8. Novum Testamentum
Grcecum. Wetstein
9. Novum Testamentum
Grace. 3. 3. Griesbach

Date.

1516
fol. Basel.

1518-19
Small fol.
Venice. 1550
fol. Paris.

1598
fol. Geneva.

1624 and 1633
12mo. Leyden

1673

1707
fol. Oxford.

1734, 4 to.
Tubingen.
1751-52. 2
vols. fol.
Amsterdam.
1796 (vol. i).
1806 (vol. ii)
London and
Jena.

Remarks.

Four subsequent editions pub
lished witn considerable emen
dations in 1519, 1522, 1527. and
1535. (D.)
The Emperor ^ Maximilian
granted to this edition an ex
clusive right to circulate in the
Holy Roman ^ Empire for four
years, and this may partly ac
count for the dela>^ in circulat
ing the Complutensian Polyglot.
As a matter of fact, Aldus took
this as the groundwork of his
own edition. It was the 3d ed.
of 1522, which Tyndale seems to
have used, revised, with head
ings. ^ (W.)
Known as the Aldine edition. (D.)
Robert Stephanus (1546). Three
other editions were published.
the 3d or folio in 1550. (D.) The
text of 1550 is called in England
the " Received Text." (W.)
Earlier editions were in 1565, 1576.
1582, 1589. This was perhaps
the text used in 1611 by James's
revisers. (W.)
This second edition became the
"Received Text" on the Con
tinent. (W.)
An edition atRome by Caryophilus,
collated from the Vatican manu
script. (W.)

It classified MSS into groups. 2d
ed. 1763. (W.,D.)
A million quotations. Notation
invented as now used. (W., D.)
1st ed. 1775-77. It gives only
selected variants. (W., D.)

326

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

Name.

10, Novum Testam.entum
juxta exemplar, J
Millii accuratissime
impressum Editio
prima Americana.
11. Novum Testamentum
Grmce. J. M. A.
Scholz.

12. Novum Tesiamentum
Greece. Carl Lachmann.
13. N. T. G. et Latine.
14. The New Testament in
the original Greek
with introdu ction s
and notes. Chris
topher Words-
worth. (D.)
15. The Greek Testament
with a critically re
vised text, digest of
readings, etc. Henry
Alford. (D.)
16. The Greek New Testa
Tnent, edited from
ancient authorities.
etc. S. P. Tregelles,
(W., D.)
17. Novum Testamentum
Grmce. Constantine
Tischendorf.
18. The New Testament in
the original Greek.
B. F. Westcott and
F.J. A. Hort.

Date.

19. Novum Testamentum
Greece cum apparatu
critico ex editionibus
et libris manuscriptis
collecto curavit Eb-
erhard Nestle. Edi'
tio tertia recognita.
20. The Resultant Greek
Testament, etc., by
Weymouth. (W.")

1800
Worcester,
Mass. (W.)

1830-36 vols. 4 to,
Leipzig.

1831 and
1842-50
2 vols. Berlin,
1861
London

1862-65
London.

1857-72
4to. London

Remarks.

The fourth Catholic critical edition
with plenty of fresh material
used most carelessly. Reprinted
1841 in Bagster, Eng. Hexapla. (W.)
Lachmann's first edition, the first
that made a new beginning,
neglecting previous printed edi
tions. (W.)

1865-72
Leipzig,

1881. Cam
bridge and
London. 2
vols. 8vo.

1894-1900 1901.
Small 8vo.
Stuttgart. (W.)

1905
London.

This is beyond question the mo.st
full and comprehensive edition
of the Greek Testament exist
ing. (W., D.)
"Drs. Westcott and Hort depart
more widely from the received
text than any previous editor
had thought necessary." (D.)
This edition expounded in its
second volume an elaborate
theory of textual criticism which
now almost holds the field. . . .
Westcott and Hort had a deep
influence on the revisers of 1881 ,
among whom they sat; so that
their editions give substantially
the same text. (W.)
Three volume edition with notes
by Weiss. (W.)
A fourth edition was published in
1904 at London by the British
and Foreign Bible Society. (W.)

1st ed. 1886. 3d ed. 1905. with
Introduction byBp. Perowne.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

327

(77) Editions of Parts of the New Testament

Editor.

Date.

Remarks.

1.

J. B. Lightfoot.

1880 to
18851885

The Epistles of St. Paul. (D.)

2,

Dean Stanley.

The Greek Text of the Epistles to the Corinthians. (D.)
The Greek Text of the Epistles lo the Corinthians. (D,)
A Synopsis of the Gospelsin Greek. (D.)

3.

Bishop Ellicott.

1887

4.

A. Wright.

1903

The text constructed by the Engli.sh Revisers in preparation for their
Revised Translation was published in two forms, of which the following
are the full titles:
(1) The New Testament in the Original Greek, according to the text
followed in the Authorized Version, together with the variations adopted
in the Revised Version. Edited for the Syndics of the Cambridge
University Press, by F. H. A. Scrivener. M.A., D.C.L.. LL.D.. Pre
bendary of Exeter and Vicar of Hendon. Cambridge, 1881, (D.)
(2) The Greek Testament, with the Readings Adopted by the Revisers
of the Authorized Version, Oxford, at the Clarendon Press, 1881,
(Preface by the editor. Archdeacon Palmer, D.D.) (D,)
Section III
Printed Editions of the Latin Text
{I) The Vulgate

Title.

1 , Biblia Sacra
Latina.

Biblia Sacra
V ulgatce
editionis
ad concilii
Tridentinipraescrip- tum emen-
data.

Date.

1455
2 vols, fol,
Mainz, 15041528
1540

1590
3 vols. fol.
Rome.

From the press of Fust and Scheffer.

Particulars,

(W.)

The first critical edition by Castillanus.
Edition by Stephanus. The first edition of a
really critical nature. (D.)
The fourth edition by Stephanus at Paris was
furnished with the readings of 17 manuscripts
and 3 older editions. White says it is really
the foundation of the Clementine Vulgate. It
fell, however, under censure. (W., D.)
Other e<litions are by John Hentenius, Lou
vain, 1547; Th. Vivian, Paris, 1534; Junta
Louvain. 1534; Isidore Clarius, Venice. 1542
J. Benedictus. Paris, 1558; Paul Eber. 1565
Luke Osiander. 1578. (D.)
The " authentic" version published by the order
of Pope Sixtus V (W, D.)

328

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

3.

Title.

Biblia Sacra
Latina Vul
gatce edi
tionis Sixti
V Pont.
Max. jussu
recognita
atque edi-
ta. (W.)
4. Biblia Sacra
V u Igatce
Editionis. . . . Romas.
Ex Typo-
g r ap h ia
Vaticana. (W.)
5. Biblia. Sacra
V u Igatce
editionis,
etc.

6. Biblia Sacra
Vu IgatcB
editionis
Sixti V et
ClementisVlll.Pontt
Maxx jus
su recog
nita atque
edita. (W.)
7. Biblia Sacra
Latina Ve
teris Tes-
tam enti,
etc. gv.)
NovumJesu Christi Testamen
tum.

8,

1592
fol. Rome.

1598
Rome

1824
Tubingen.

18281861
Rome.

1873
Leipzig.

1896
Mechlin.

Particulars.

The above was superseded by the second au
thentic edition, published by order of Pope
Clement VIII. (D.)
This edition was to replace the former, and
bears the name of Sixtus, though by degrees
it has become known as the Clementine text.
(W.)

The last edition from the Vatican press, with
tables of corrections to its predecessors. (W.)

Holy Bible, Vulgate edition, according to the
standard copy of the Vatican Press, of Rome,
1592; revised according to the corrections of
the Revision Index published at Rome for the
use of Vatican Latin Bibles in the years 1592,
1593, 1598; together with readings taken from
the Vatican Latin Bibles, 1590, 1592, 1598,
which differ among themselves, added and set
in parallel columns: edited by Leander Van
Ess. (B.)
Didot's Paris reprint of the Clementine text.
"The best reprint of the Clementine Vulgate
Bible."— White. (W.)
Bagster's editions of 1831 and 1872 give no
critical apparatus. (W.)

The Holy Latin Bible, The Old Testament, trans
lated by Jerome from the most ancient source.
Edited by C. J. De Bunsen, T. Heyse, and C.
Tischendorf. (B.)
Claims to be a most accurate reprint of the
edition of 1861.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

329

{II) Other Latin Versions *

Date.

1. 1516

2. 1528

3, 1535
4. 1543

6. 1557

Translator.

Erasmus.

Sanctes Pagninus.

Sebastian Munster.
Leo Juda, Zwingli,
B i b I i a n d e r and
others.
Other versions.

Beza.

Particulars.

"The principal object of the volume was the
new Latin version, the original being placed
alongside as a guarantee of the translator's
food faith." It was highly commended by
'ope Leo X. Four editions were printed in
England, with Tyndale's England alonjeside.
This Dominican friar translated the whole
Bible into Latin. The O T is translated
from the Hebrew and "is much used and
highly prized on account of the literalness
with which the Hebrew text is rendered."
(Moulton History 37.) (D.)
A translation of the O T from the Hebrew, (D.)
Printed at Zurich, Version by some scholars
of Zurich of the whole Bible. (D.)
By Castalio, the whole Bible, 1551: Version of
the O T in Latin and of the Syriac N T, by
TremeUius, 1579; Latin version of the Apoc
rypha, by Junius, 1579. (D.)
N T. (D.)

^ The particulars as to these translations are taken from Westcott A
General View of the History of the English Bible 169f.; and Moulton History
of the English Bible 37f (D.)
Section IV
Printed Polyglots

Title.

Date.

Particulars.

1. PsaUerium, Hebreum, Grec-
um, Arabicum, and Chal-
deum, cum tribus interpre-
tationibus and glossis.
2. Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, com-
plectentia Vetus Testamen-'
tumj Hebraico, Grwco, et
Laimo Idiomati; Novum
Testamenti^ Grcecum. et
Latinum . . . Studio, Opere,
et Impensis Card. Fr.
Ximenes de Cisneros. (W.)
3. [The Law; in Hebrew, Ara
maic, Persian, and Arabic]

1516 fol.
Genoa.
1517-20
6 vols, fol,
Alcala.

1546 fol.
Constanti nople.

The first result of Aldus's sug
gestion of a polyglot; and ap
parently the first Hebrew text
edited bv Christians,
The Complutensian Polyglot
compiled under the direction
of Cardinal Ximenes. (W.,D.)
Other early polyglots were
the Antwerp, 1569-1572; the
Polyglot of Vatable, 1586: the
Hamburg or Woldera Poly
glot, 1596; and Butter's Poly
glot, 1599. (D.)
By Jews, for Jews under Muslim
rule, the new versions by
Jews

330

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

Title.

Date.

Particulars.

4.

Biblia Hebraica. Samaritana,

1629-45

The Paris Polyglot, It con

Chaldaica, Grwca, Syriaca.

10 vols. fol.

tains all that is in the Com

Latina, Arabica.

Paris.

plutensian and Antwerp Poly
glots, the greater part of the
O T and the N T in Syriac and
the Arabic Versions. ^ The Sa
maritan Pentateuch is for the
fir.st time printed. (W., D.)

5.

Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, com-

1657

The Walton Polyglot, It con

plectentia Textus Origina-

6 vols. fol.

tains the Bible in

les . . . Ver sionum que An-
London.
Hebrew, Arabic,
tiquarum. . . .
Samaritan, Ethiopic,
Brian Walton. S.T.D.
Chaldee, Persian,
Greek, Latin.
Syriac (W., D.)
6.
Polyglot of Reineccius,
1750
Leipzig,
(D.)
7,
Bagster's London Polyglot.
1818
London,
1847-49
(D.)
8,
Polyglolten-Bibel . . . des
The best cheap polyglot.
Urtextes, der Septuaginta,
Bielefeld.
(W.)
Vulgata. . . . Sowie die
6 vols.
wichtigsten Varianten . . .
von R. Stier und K. G. W.
Theile,
-ENGLISH VERSIONS ANTEDATING THE
AUTHORIZED VERSION
Section I
(/) Translations Before 1400
Date.
Title and Particulars.
1. 680
2. 9007
3, 1023
4. 1150?
5, 1320?
C(£dmoniB monachi paraphrasis poetica Genesios ac prtsHpuurum
sacras paging historiarum, Anglo-Saxonice, nunc (1655) primum
editaa Fr. Junio. 4to, 2 vols, Amsterdam. (W.)
Anglo-Saxon and Early English Psalter, now (1843-47) first pub
lished from MSS in the British Museum (for the Surtees Society
by J. Stevenson). 8vo, 2 vols. London. (W.)
Heptaieuchus, Liber Job, et Evangelium Nicodemi.
Thwaites, 1698. O.xford. Remnants of a metrical version by
Aelfric, abridged from the historical books of the O T. (W.)
The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Saxon, Northumbrian and Old Mercian
Version. Skeat. 'to, 1871-87. Cambridge.
This edition gives not only the Lindisfarne and Rushworth
texts Latin and English, but also two MSS of about 1100 and
1150, which attest the latest form known as "Anglo-Saxon." (W.)
New Versions follow the revival of national feeling in the 14th
cent.
The Earliest Complete English Psalter, together with Eleven
Canticles. Buelbring, 1891. London, (W,)
BIBLIOGRAPHY

331

Date.

Title a nd Particulars.

6, 1350?

A Fourteenth Century English Biblical Version, from MSS con
taining a translation of nearly half of the New Testament, en
tirely independent of the Wyclifite version, Anna C. Panes.
Cambridge; 1904. (B.)
Contains parts of Matthew and Acts and most of the Epistles. (W.)

(77) Translations by Wyclif^

Books Translated. Date.

Remarks.

1, N T.
2. O T.

3. The whole Bible.2

I Translated from the Vulgate.
: Genesis to Baruch (3^"), translated by Nicholas
de Hereford, the rest by Wyclif. MSS in Bod
leian Library, Oxford.
Revision of edition of 1380. MSS preserved at
Dublin. (D.)
Known as "Purvey's Revision.'' (B.)

This Section refers to manuscripts only. Particulars are from Westcott
General View 16f.; Momhevi English Versions of the Bible 45f.; Moulton
History 59f.
2 To these we must add: The New Testament in Scots, being Purvey's
Revision of Wycliffe's Version turned into Scots by Murdoch Nisbet (1520?),
Prmted for the Scottish Text Society, 1901. (W.)

(777) Printed Editions of Wyclif's Bible

Title.

1. The New Testament of our Lord
and Savior Jesus Christ, trans
lated out of the Latin Vulgate,
by John Wycliffe. ed. Rev.
J. Lewis. (B.)

2. The New Testament translated
into English about 1380, by
John Wycliffe. Now first print
ed from a contemporary MSS
formerly in the Monastery of
Sion, Middlesex, late in the
collection of Lea Wilson, F.S.A. (B.)
3. The Song of Solomon, Dr. Adam
Clarke.
4. TheHoly Bible, containing the Old
and New Testaments with the
apocryphal booksin the earliest
English versions, made from
the Latin Vulgate, by John Wy
cliffe and his followers. (B.,D.)

Date.

1731
London.

1810
London,

1848
London.

1810-25 London. 1850
4 vols.
4to.
Oxford.

Particulars.

N T taken from two MSS
(1) in Bodleian Library;
(2) in possession of Rev. W.
Conybeare, Dean of Llan-
daff. (D.)
Edited by Baker. Reprint of
above with improved glos
sary. (D.)
Printed from MSS of Wyclif's
earlier version of the N T in
Lord Ashburnham's collec
tion. (D.)

From MSS in British Museum. (D.)
Purvey's revision of 1388,
edited by Forshall and
Madden. This fine edition
supersedes former printed
editions both for text and
introduction. Several re-
Erints of various portions
ave been made. (W.)

332

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

Section II

Tyndale's Version
A glance at the next division — D — of this bibHography will
show that many other nations now had regular versions in print,
provided by Catholics; but the first instalments of a regular
English version were left to private enterprise for sixty years.
None of these obtained official indorsement from crown or
convocation until England had thrown off the Papal dominion.
Even between 1554 and 1570, when England was more or less
restored to " its orbit in the ecclesiastical firmament," no
Catholic version was published. (W.)

Particulars.

1, Quarto edition of 3,000
copies. The first English
N T ever printed and the
first made from the origi
nal. Of this edition only
a fragment (the Green
ville fragment) containing
the prologue and 21 chap
ters of Matthew is pre
served. (D.)
2, Octavo edition of 3.000
copies, the prologue and
glosses omitted. Of this
edition one perfect copy is
in the Baptist College at
Bristol, and an imperfect
one in St. Paul's Cathedral. (D.)

3. The prophete Jonas.

4. The fyrst boke of Moses called
Genesis.

Date.

1526
(Ten sheets
printed at
Cologne
and taken
toWorms,
where per-
haps the
e di tion
was fin
ished), 1526
Worms.

1526
Antwerp. 1527-28
Antwerp. 1531?
Antwerp?

1530-1
Marburg. 1534
Antwerp,

Reprints.

Facsimile ed. by Archer. Lon
don, 1871. (B.)
Facsimile ed. by Fry. Bristol,
1862, and by Dabney. New
York. (W.,D.)

Facsimile edition by Fry and
Bagster under the directorship
of Offor from the copy in St.
Paul's. (D.)

Printed by Christopher of End-
hoven. (D.)
A piratical edition of 5,000
copies. Very rare. (D.)
Perhaps the first translation from
the Hebrew direct to English.
With an introduction on the
right use and understanding of
Scripture.
The five books were issued to
gether, but without one gen
eral title.
Tyndale's N T, pirated by Joye.
(W„ D.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

333

Particulars.

6,

The newe Testament dyly
gently corrected and com
pared with the Greke by
Willyam Tindale. (W.)

The newe Testament yet
once agyne corrected by
Willyam Tindale. (W.)

8. The New Testament.

Date.

1634 Revised version by Tyndale,
8vo. usually known as the 2d ed.
Antwerp. Marginal notes added, . . .
Reprmted in Bagster Hexa
pla, from a copy in the Library
of the Baptist College, Bristol. (D.)
Anne Boleyn accepted a
copy of this edition, (W.)
A revised edition prepared by
Tyndale while in prison at
Vilvorde, A perfect copy is
preserved in the Cambridge
Univ, Library and an imper
fect one in the British Mu
seum, _ (D.)
The last edition retouched by
Tyndale, basis of "Matthew"
 [1537], (D,)
(W,) Supposed to be the first part
of the Bible printed in Eng
land. (W,)
9, Other portions of Scripture which appeared at this time were: The
Psalter in 1530; Isaiah (Joye), 1531; Jeremiah (Joye) in 1534; the
Psalter (Joye) in 1534, None of these detached books entered into
any Bible, except Tyndale's five books of Moses which appear to have
always been published together, (W,)

1534-35 8vo,
Antwerp.

1536 fol.
London.

Reprints.

Section III
Coverdale's Bible
This version is based on the Vulgate, Luther, Zurich, Pagninus,
and Tyndale (Westcott General View 383). (D.)

Title.

Biblia. The Bible, that is the
Holy Scrypture of the Olde
and New Testament, f ayth-
fully and truly translated
out of Douche and Latyn
into Englyshe MDXXXV. (W., B.)

Date

1535
uncertain.

1S36
Southwark.

Particulars.

The first complete Bible printed
in English. (W.)
Reprinted in 1838: The
Holy Scriptures faithfully and
truly translated by Myles Cover-
dale, Lord Bishop of Exeter,
1535. Reprinted from the copy
in the library of H. R, H. the
Duke of Sussex, for Samuel
Bagster, 1838, London, (The
above is in the Yale Library.) (B,)
Second edition of the 1535 is
sue. Two editions, not sanctioned
byCoverdale, appeared in 1537
and 1538, and a diglot, Cov
erdale's version and the Latin
Vulgate at Paris, 1538, Later
editions of Coverdale appeared
at London in 1550 and 1553.
(D.)

334

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

Section IV
Rogers^s {Matthew's) Bible

Title.

The Byble which is all the holy
scriptui e, in why chare con-
inyned the Olde and Newe
Testament truly and pure
ly translated into Englysh
by Thomas Matthew. . . .
Set forth with the Kinges
most gracyous lycece.

Particulars.

This edition was edited by John
Rogers, chai)lain to the Mer
chants' House at Antwerp. It
contained all Tyndale's work
except Jonah . . .the remain
der was on the basis of Cover-
dale. , , (W.)
Copies in the British Museum,
Lambeth Palace, Bodleian
Library, etc. "For critical
purposes, Matthew's Bible
possesses only a relative value,
and yet it is a very important
onCj as being virtually the
basis of the text of the Author
ized Version." (Mombert Eng
lish Versions 194.) (D.)
The Bible and Apocrypha, trans
lated by "T. Matthew" (John
Rogers), 1549. In Yale Li
brary: twenty-two leaves
missing. (B.)

Section V
Taverner's Bible

Title.

Date.

Particulars.

1, The Most Sacred Bible,

1539

This version is based on Mat

Whiche is the holy scrip
ture, conteyning the old

fol.and4to.

thew's, the Vulgate and the

London,

Greek Text. (Westcott Gen

and new testament trans

eral View 383ff.)

lated into English, and

It influenced the Rheims trans

newly recognized with

lators, but not so strongly

great diligence after the

as Coverdale's diglot.
most faythful exemplars.
(W,)
by Rychard Taverner. (W.)
2. The New Testament in
1539
Two editions of the N, T.
Englysshe,
4to and
8vo.
1549-1551
A five-volume edition of the
8vo.
OT.
1551
The O T revised by Becke, to
fol.
gether with Tyndale's N T.
These editions are expressly
noted by Darlow and Moule,
as erroneous statements are
frequently made. (W.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY

335

Section VI
The Great Bible

Title.

The Byble in Englyshe, that is
to saye the content of all
the holy scrypture, both of
ye olde and newe testameiU
truly translated after the
veryte of the Hebrue and
Greke textes, by ye dyly-
gent studye of dyuerse ex
cellent learned men, expert
in the forsayde tonges. (W.)

The Byble in Englyshe, that is
to saye the contet of al
the holy scripture both of
ye olde, and newe testa-
met, with a prologe
therinto made by tne reu-
erende father in God,
Thomas archbysshop of
Cantorbury. This is the
Byble apoynted to the vge
of the churches. (W.)

Date.

1539 fol.
London.

1540
2ded.
London.

1540
(July and
Nov.)
London.

This version is based on Mat
thew's, Munster, Erasmus, and
the Complutensian Polyglot.
(Westcott General View
383ff.) A copy on vellum
and illuminated is preserved
in St. John's College, Cam
bridge. 2,500 copies, all
printed in black letter, were
issued. A reprint of the N T
of this edition will be found
in Bagster English Hexapla. (D.)
Second edition, with Cranmer's
preface, (D.)

Particulars.

The edition of November 1540
and November 1641 bear on
the title-page the names of
Cuthbert Tunstall, Bishop of
London, and Nicholas Heath,
Bishop of Rochester, as " hav
ing overseen and perused" the
publication by the command
ment of " the Kings High
ness." Other editions were
published in May, November
and December 1541 and 1569.
The British Museum has copies
of all these editions. (D.)

In 1547-49 three editions of the N T with the Latm of Erasmus were
published and the following editions of other Bibles: Coverdale, 3;
Great Bible, 7; Matthew, 5; Taverner, 2; Tyndale, 24. (D.)
The diglot N T of 1538 (Regnault. Pans), containing the English of
Coverdale and the Latin Vulgate, influenced the Catho ic English
translators of the Douay and Rheims versions. The English text is
not that of the 1535 Bible, but is adapted to the Vulgate. (W.)

336

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

Section VII
The Genevan Bible

Title.

1. TheNeweTestameni of ovr
Lord lesus Christ. Con
ferred diligently with the
Greke and best approued
translations. With argu
ments as wel before the
chapters, as for euery Boke
&. Epistle, also diuersi-
ties oi readings, and moste
proffitable annotations of
all harde places : wherunto
is added a copious Table. (W.)
2. The Psalms.
3, The Bible and Holy Scrip
tures conteyned in th e
Olde and Newe Testament.
Translated according to
the Ebrue and Greke, and
conferred with the best
translations in diuers Ian-
gages. With moste profit
able annotations upon all
the harde places. (W.,B.)

4, The Bible and Holy Scrip-
tvres conteined in the Olde
and Newe Testament. .
Printed in Edinbrvgh Be
Alexander Arbuthnot,
printer to the Kingis
Maiestie.

Date

15578vo.
Geneva.

1159
Geneva, 1560 4to.
Geneva.

N T 1576
O T 1579
fol.

Particulars.

The version is due to Whitting
ham, pastor of the exiled
English Church in succession
to Knox. He revised Tyndale
with the help of the Great
Bible and of Beza's Latin.
Bagster reprinted this in 1841.
(W.)
It contains an introductory
epistle by Calvin, (D.)

The first instalment of the O T.
Edition of the whole Bible by
Whittingham, Gilby, Samp
son, assisted at first probably
by Myles Coverdale. With
them were associated Knox,
Goodman, Cole, Pullam and
Bodleigh. , (D.)
The Genevan Bible im
mediately became popular ,
and about 150 editions were
{)rinted in eighty years, Bod-
ey securing the English copy
right for seven years from
Queen Elizabeth._ (W.)
This version is based on
Tyndale and Beza. (Westcott
General View 383ff.) (D.)
This was apparently the first
large book printed in Scot
land. The Scotch Authorized
Version (W.)

Section VIII

The Bishops'

BibU

TMe.

Date.

Particulars.

1, The. holie. Bible, conteyning

1568

This is the handsomest of Eng

the olde Testament and the

fol.

lish Bibles, but the quality of

newe. (W,)

London.

text is poor. It was revised

(Black

by several dignitaries, so that

letter.)

it was popularly known as the
Bishops' Bible. Reprinted:
1569, 1570, 1571, 1572, 1605,
(W.,D.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

337

Section IX
Other Bibles for the British Isles

Title.

1. Testament newydd.
2. Tiomna Nnadh.
3. (Irish Bible).
4. Yn Vible Caskerick.
5. (Gaelic Bible).

Dale.

1567 4to,
London.

1602
folio.
Dublin.

1690

1771
White haven
1767-1802

Particulars.

The Welsh Bible was completed
in 1588 by Barker issuing a
folio edition: Y Bibl Cyssegr-
lan, sef yr Hen Destament a'r
Newydci. (W.)
This Irish N T was translated by
William Daniel, Protestant
archbishop of Dublin, and
printed in the native charac
ter. It WEis reprinted in 1681,
and in 1686 the O T was issued
in similar form. (W.)
A reprint in Roman type. 'This
was again reprinted at Glas-
fow in 1754 for the West
lighlands, (W.)
The Manx O T with Wisdom
and Ecclesiasticus. (W,)
A revision for the Highlands, by
James Stuart of Killin, (W.)

D.-^OME IMPORTANT CONTINENTAL VERSIONS
Section I
Early Slavic and Prankish

Name.

1, The Slavonic Version.

2. The Frankish Version.

3. South of France.

Date.

879

9th cent.

About
12th cent.

Remarks.

Pope John VIII sanctioned the
use of the Slavonic. Krasin-
sky in Maclear Christian Mis
sions in the Middle Ages 286
says: *'The earliest dated
complete MS of the Gospels is
dated 1144 A,n,,the earliest
MSS of the whole Bible a.d,
1499," . . (W.)
The Slavonic Version is not
without critical value. — Scriv
ener Introduction ii. 160-161. (D.)
MS at St. Gall. . (D,)
A translation in Latin and
German of Tatian's Har
mony of the Gospels, (W.)
The Gospels and several books
of Scripture translated into
one of the dialects of the
South of France by Peter
Waldo (mentioned by Moul
ton History 38). (D.)

338

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

Section II

Early German

Title.

Dale.

Particulars.

1.

Die Bibel (Mentelin),

1465

All these versions, and many

(W,)

2 vols.

other editions, appeared while
western Christendom was one.

fol.
Strasburg,
It is a grave mistake to think
that there were no vernacular
versions till the Reformation.
o
Die duytsche souter (J.
1480
Jacobszoen), (W,)
8vo, Delft.
3.
De Biblie mit vlitigher ach-
1494
tinghe recht na deme
2 vols, fol.
latine in dudesck auer-
Lubeck.
ghesettet; mit vorluch-
tinge unde glose, (Steffen
Arndes.) (W.)
4.
Der Teulsch Psalter
1498
(Schoensperger), (W.)
8vo, Augs
burg.
Section III
Early French
Title.
1. Les livres de Vancien &
nouveau Testaments, his-
toir^s en Francois, par
f r^re Julien Macho . (Guill.
le Roy.) (W.)
2. Le Nouveau T estameni et
la declaration dicelluy
faicte et compos^e _ par
Julien Macho et Pierre
Farget(B. Buyer). (W.)
3. La grande Bible en Francois
historide. (W.)
4, La Bible en Francois
(Verard), (W.)
Date.
1475
fol. Lyons.
1475
fol, Lyons.
1500
fol. Lyons.
1517
2 vols, fol,
Paris.
Particulars.
Section IV
The Versions of LtUher and Others '
Title.
1. N T published at Witten
berg,
2, The Pentateuch.
3, Historical Books and Holy
Writings,
Particulars.
* Particulars in this section are taken from Moulton History 39f,, and
Westcott History of the English Bible 171, 386, (D.)
BIBLIOGRAPHY

339

Title.

(Witten-

Date.

15261534

1541

4. The Prophets.
5. The whole Bible.
berg.)
6. Revised version thereof. (D.)
In 1534 Luther completed his Bible by :
the Vulgate. The whole was pirated extensively, but, though Luther
complained of this, he had used the work of Denk and Hetzer without
acknowledgment. He revised down to 1544-45. (W.)

Particulars.

rendering the Apocrypha from

7, Leo Juda's German Bible.

8. Bibel teutsch der ursprun-
glichen Hebreischen und
Griechischen warheit nach
auffs treuwiichest verdol-
metschet. Froschauer, Zu
rich. (W.)

1525
Zurich.

1529 1530
Zurich,

(2d ed. ii
1531
Zurich.) 1534

It was really the basis of Cover-
dale's first Bible. (W.)
The first complete transla
tion into a modern language
from originals, published at
Zurich. (W.)
The Worms Bible. (D.)
Translation by Zwingli and his
associates, of Luther's N T
into German-Swiss dialect;
the Prophets by the "preach
ers of Zurich;" the Apocrypha
by Leo Juda — generally known
as the "Bible of Zurich,"
where it was published. (D,)

Section V
French Bibles

Title.

1. Le Fevre (Translator). (D.)

2. Olivetan.
3. A revision of Olivetan.

4. Martin.
5. Osterwald.

Particulars.

A complete Bible mainly from the Vulgate.
Subsequent French versions have been
more or less dependent on this. (D.)
Le Fevre used the Revision of the XIII
Century Version, by Jean de Rely; the
whole Bible was issued by 1534. . . .
This is really the basis of all later French
versions, and had some influence on
Coverdale, (W.)
The whole Bible. (D.)
Revision of the forementioned by College
of Pastors and Professors at Geneva. (D.)
Two further revisions of Olivetan, which
stand high in the esteem of French Prot
estants. (D.)

340

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

Section VI
Editions of the Bible in Other European Languages
1. In Italian: The whole Bible by Malermi or Malherbi, 1471, Venice; by
BruccioH, 1532, Venice; by J. Diodate, 1607. (D.)
2. In Spanish: The N T by Enzinas, 1543, Antwerp; the whole Bible by
DeReynain 1569; by Cypr. de Valera, 1602. (D.)
3. In Swedish: A Swedish N T (1526) and Bible (1541) avowedly taken from
Luther. , ^ . (D.),
4, In various languages: In 1522 printed versions of the Scriptures were in
circulation in Danish, Dutch, Bohemian, Slavonic, Russian, and the
Spanish dialect of Valencia, (D,)
E.— STANDARD CATHOLIC VERSIONS
Section I
The Rheims and Dov^y Versions^

Title.

The New Testament of lesus
CAne*. translated faithfvlly
into English put of the
authentical Latin. ... In
the English College of
Rhemes. (W„B.)

2. The Holie Bihle, faithfully
translated into English ovt
of the avthentical Latin,
diligently conferred with the
Hebrew, Greeke and other
editions in diuers languages,
with arguments, etc.; by the
English College of Doway.
Printed at Doway by Lau
rence Kellam, at the signe of
the Holie Lambe, MDCIX-
X. (W„ B.)

Date.

1582 4to.
Rheims.

1589 fol.
London.

1609 and
1610 4to.
Douay.

1816-18 Liver pool.

1834New
York.

Particulars.

1582, quarto edition; 1600 (a
few alterations and correc
tions); 1621, 16mo edition;
1633, quarto edition, (D.)
A controversial Protestant re
print. This was reprinted in 1601,
1617, 1633, always with the
Bishops' Version, and evident
ly contributed to the influence
exercised by the Rheims Tes
tament on King James's re
vision. (W.)
The two volumes were printed
in 1609, 1610, and were never
completed with a New Testa
ment. . . . The Rouen edi
tion ranges well with that of
the N T in 1633, but in strict
ness there never has been an
edition of the whole Bible in
the original versions of Rheims
and Douay. ^ ^ (W.)
Modernized revisions ap
peared in 1738, London ;
1788, Liverpool; 1834, Bos
ton. (D.)
The O T follows Challoner's re
vision (see below both in text
and notes). The N T is the
Rhemish text and annota
tions. It is known as the
"7th edition of the original
Rhemish Version."
Published by a Protestant as
"exactly printed from the
original volume." (D.)

^ Particulars are taken from Mombert English Versions 325f.; Newman
Tracts, Theological and Ecclesiastical 409f.; (Cotton Editions of the Bible;
Shea Bibliographical Account of Catholic Bibles.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

341

SBcrioN II
Earlier Revisions, 1718-1750

Title

1, The New Testament . . . newly
translated out of the Latin
Vulgate, together with an
notations by C(ornelius)
N(ary), C(onsultissima;)
F(acultati3) P(arisiensis)
D(ootor), (W,)

The New Testament. Newly
revised and corrected accord
ing to the Clementine edi
tion of the Scriptures, (W,)

3, The Holy Bible, traD3\ated
from the Latin Vulgate . . .
first published by the Eng
lish College at Doway, Anno
1609. Newly revised, and
corrected, according to the
Clementine Edition of the
Scriptures. With annota
tions for clearing up the
principal difficulties of Holy
Writ, (W.)
4. The Holy Bible, tTa,na\a,ted
from the Latin Vulgate, etc.
(W.)

Date.

1718-19 8vo.
Dublin?

1730

1749
12mo.
Dublin?

1750
4 vols.,
12mo.
Dublin or
London?

1790' 4to,
Phila
delphia.

1796
Edin
burgh,

Particulars.

To correct old language, bad
spelling, too literal translation,
etc., in the original editions,
and pubUshed in a more con
venient size. (D.)

By Witham, President of Douay
College. The revision was
made for reasons similar to
the above, ^ ^D,)
Challoner's revision. This was
a new departure of the great
est importance, initiating the
constant revision that has pro
ceeded at frequent intervals.
He continued this course, re
vising and republishing in
1750, 1752, 1764, 1772, 1777.
Thousands of changes were
introduced, especially in the
edition of 1752. Collations
may be seen in Newman
Tracts 368-376, (W.)
The reference to Douay and not
Rheims also, justifies the re
mark that this is only an O
T. An edition of the N T in
the same j^ear ranges well with
it. This is the text now al
ways reprinted. (W.)
Edition of the whole Bible,
1750-63, London, with re
visions of text and annota
tions. (D.)
A reprint of the edition of 1763,
with approbation of Arch
bishop Carroll in the Synod of
1791, The first approval of
the whole Bible for the United
States, (D.)
Probably the first complete
Catholic Bible in English, It
follows Challoner in omitting
the Catholic Apocrypha. (W .)
Revision of the O T, (D.)

1 A Catholic version by Geddes, 1792-97, London: The Holy Bible or the
Books accounted sacred, etc. Never approved ;di3tinc«y disavowed by the
Vicars-Apostolic, who in lieu of it promoted the 1796-97 editions of the
Challoner at Edinburgh. ^" •'

34::

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

Section III
Revisions by MacMahon and Troy

Title.

1. The Holy Bible.

Date

Particulars.

Revision of N T by MacMahon with formal
approval of Archbishop Carpenter. (D.)
Later editions of Challoner's N T were
published in America as follows: 1817,
Georgetown; 1829 Philadelphia (from the
text of 1752; 1829 (text of 1750) Utica;
1845, New York. _ (D.)
2. The following revisions were made by MacMahon with the approbation of
Archbishop Troy and are usually referred to as Troy's Bible.
(1) The Holy Bible, 1791 Really the fifth edition of the O T, Douay,
"fifth edi- 4to. Rouen, Dublin, and Philadelphia having
tion." Dublin, preceded it. It was at least tlie 14th of
the N T put out by Catholics, and only the
second of the whole Bible. (W.)
(2) The above edition was reprinted in 1794, Dublin; 1803, Dublin; 1810,
Dublin; 1805, Philadelphia; in 1816 and 1818, Dublin and Cork;
1820, Dublin; 1824, Philadelphia; 1837. Baltimore; and 1852,
New Vork; 1805, Philadelphia. The whole Bible, known as "the
first American." This follows the text of 1794. (D.)
The edition of 1824 was published with the approval of Dr.
Conwell, Bishop of Philadelphia; the edition of 1837 (Baltimore)
received the approbation of the archbishop and bishops of the
United States in the Provincial Council at Baltimore April 22,
1837. It contains Challoner's notes. (D.)

Section IV
Revisions Issued Under Authority of Prelates in Great Britain
and Ireland and in America

Title.

Date.

Particulars.

1. The Holy Bible.

1761
5 vols.
12mo.Edin
burgh.

Issued under the authority of Dr. Hay,
Vicar Apostolic in Scotland. This edition
was reprinted: 1804-5, Edinburgh; 1811,
Dublin. The N T, 1811 and 1814,
Dublin; 1817, Belfast. The text of the
O T is substantially that of Challoner
(Newman Tracts 431). The N T some
times varies from Challoner's edition of
1763-64. (D.)
Revisions were issued under the sanc
tion of Dr. Gibson, Vicar Apostolic of
Northern England; fol. 1816-17, Liver
pool; 1822-23, London. Newman Tracts
432 says these editions are " taken almost
without exception from Challoner's latest
editions." He makes a similar statement
concerning the edition (1829, London)
sanctioned by Dr. Bramston, Vicar
Apostolic. (D.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

343

Title.

Particulars.

2. The New Testa
ment of our Lord
and Savior Jesus
Christ, translated
out of the Latin
Vulgate land dili
gently compared
with the original
Greek. Stereo
typed from the
edition published
by authority in
1749. (W.)

Sanctioned by Dr. Poynter.
Often reprinted. The "Roman Catholic
Bible Society" that promoted it. though
formed by Bishop Poynter and others,
died. (W.)
Subsequent editions of Poynter's Bible ap
peared as follows; 1818, Cork; 1823,*
1825,. 1842, London; 1826, 1834, 1835,
1837, and 1840, Dublin.
The edition of 1826 (Dublin) was published
at the expense of the Commissioners of
Irish education with the sanction of the
four archbishops of Ireland (D.)

I The Holy Bible .... 4to, Cork, 1818. With an Appendix, Errata to
the Protestant Bible by Ward, first published 1688. (W.)

Section V
Revisions by Dr. Murray

Title.

Date.

Particulars.

The Holy Bible.

1815- 1847

Revisions by Murray, a Catholic theologian.
The text of the N T follows Challoner's
early editions of 1749 and 1750. Six or
seven editions, 1815-47. (D.)
Text of edition of 1815 was printed in
1833, New York (D.), and reprinted 1844
with approval of Dr, Hughes, Bishop of
New York. (B., D.)
Murray's revision was approved in 1839
by Dr. Denvir, Bishop of Down and Con
nor, Vicar Apostolic, (W,, B., D.)

Section VI
Revision of the Gospels by Lingard

Title.

New Ve r sion of
the Four Gospels
with Notes Criti
cal and Explana
tory by a Catholic
(Lingard).

Particulars.

Kenrick styles this "new and elegant," the
notes "few but luminous," (W.)

344

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

Section VII
Revisions by Bishop {Archbishop) Kenrick

Title.

1. The Four Gospels
translated from
the Latin Vulgate
and diligentl
compared wit
the Original
Greek Text. . .
By the Rt. Rev,
Francis Patrick
Kenrick, Bishop
of Philadelphia.
2. TheNewT estam.ent.
Translated from
the Latin Vul
gate, etc. . . . By
Francis P. Ken
rick, Archbishop
of Baltimore.

Particulars.

The Dedication "To the Hierarchy of the
United States assembled in the Seventh
Provincial Council of Baltimore," is
dated May 1, 1849. The revision was
based on Lingard. (W.)

In 1851 the N T was completed; in 1857
followed the poetical books of the O T;
in 1859 Job and the Prophets; in 1860
the Pentateuch; in 1860 also the his
torical books. (W., B.)
(2d ed. 1862.) (B.)

Section VIII
Revision Approved by Drs. Walsh and Wiseman

TitU.

Date.

Particulars.

The Holy Bible. . . .

1847
London and
Derby.

An edition following the text of Troy's
edition of 1803 with slight variations. (D.)

Section IX
Revision by the Rev. G. L. Haydock and Other Divines

Title.

Date

Particulars.

1. The Holy Bible . .
(Haydock).

1814 fol.
Manches ter and
Dublin.

This edition was contemplated as early as
1806. ... It has been permanently suc
cessful. (W.) Subsequent editions ap
peared as follows: 1822,' 1824, Dublin;
1825, Philadelphia; 1845-48, Edinburgh
and London; 1852-56, New York; 1853,
London and New York.

' Two new editions (1822, 1824, Dublin) carelessly edited and full of
rrors. (D.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

345

Title.

Date.

1852 4to.
New
York,

A republication of the edition of 1811. (D.)
A magnificent edition with reprinted
commendations. (W.)

1853
London
and New
York,

Particulars,

2. The Holy Bible,
translated from
the Latin Vul
gate , , , (Douay
Bible) , . , with
useful notes, crit-
ical, historical,
controversial,and explanatory,
selected from the
most eminent
commentators. and the most able
and judicious
critics. (B.)
3, The Holy Bible . . . 1853 An edition of Haydock with a statement
(W.) London that the text is "carefully collated with
¦ " that of original editions and annotations
abridged by the Rev, F. C. Husenbeth,
Canon of the English Chapter and pub
lished with the sanction of my own eccle
siastical superior, the Right Rev, Dr,
Wareing, and with the concurrent appro
bation and sanction of all the Right Rev.
Vicars Apostolic of Great Britain." (D.)
In addition, the prelates of the Church in America mentioned below gave
their approbation, , „. .
John B. Purcell, Archbishop of Cincmnati,
Peter Richard Kenrick, " " St. Louis.
John McCloskey, Bishop of Albany.
John H, Neumann. " " Philadelphia,
John B, Fitzpatrick, " " Boston.
Peter Paul Lefevere, " " Detroit.
Morton J, Spalding, "' " Louisville,
Richard Pius Miles, " " Nashville,
John Joseph Chanche, " " Natchez,
and the Very Rev. Father Matthew, ¦ ^i. r, ii . o*
This information is obtained from a copy of the Bible m the l.ollege of St.
Francis Xavier, N.Y. (D.)
4. It may be of uiterest to note that the Rheims and Douay Bible has been
translated for residents in the United States as follows: 1824, New York,
Spanish ; 1850, New York, German ; . The New Testament, 1810,
Boston, French: 1819, New York, Span^h; 1837, New York, Spanish;
1838, New York, French; 1839, New York, Portuguese; 1852,^ew

York, German
6, The Four Gospels, a new trans
lation from the Greek direct.
with reference to the Vulgate
and the Syriac Versions,
6. The Holy Bible, translated from
the Latin Vulgate, etc. New
edition, (B.)

1898

1899
New
York,

(D.)
By F. A. Spencer (O. P.). (B,)

Published with the approbation
of His Eminence James Car
dinal Gibbons, Archbishop of
Baltimore. (B,)

346

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

F.— THE ENGLISH AUTHORIZED AND REVISED
VERSIONS Section I
Editions of King James's Version

Title.

1. The Holy Bible, Con
teyning the Old Tes
tament and the Nexii
Newly translated
out of the Originall
tongues : & with
the former Trans-
la tions diligently
compared and re-
uised, by his Ma-
iesties speciall Co-
mandement. A p ¦
pointed to be read
in Churches. (W., B.)
2. The Holy Bible.

3. The Holy Bible.

4. The Holy Bible, con
taining the Old anil
New Testaments.

5. The Holy Bible.

6. The Cambridge Para
graph Bible of the
authorized English
version.

Date.

1611 fol.
London. (Black
letter.)

1638 fol.
Cam
bridge. 1701
London.

1762 4to.
Cam
bridge.

1769
Oxford.

1873
Cam
bridge.

Particulars.

' Imprinted at London by Robert Barker,
Printer to the Kings most Excellent
Maiestie." (W.)
The Standard or primary Edition. (D.)

The authentique corrected Cambridge
Bible" (Kilburne, 1658). This was in
tended to be the standard text; but
the subsequent troubles caused the fact
to be obscured. (W.)
Contains Bishop Ussher's chronology fix
ing the creation of the world at 4004
u.c. Known as " Bishop Lloyd's Bible." (D.)
Edited by Dr. Paris adding 383 marginal
notes. (D.)
This was intended as a standard edi
tion. Spelling, punctuation and italics
were attended to; marginal references
were formally adopted, a style of note
introduced by John Canne during the
Civil Wars; dates and chronological
notes, drawn up by Bishop Lloyd at the
request of the Southern Convocation on
the basis of Archbishop Ussher's cal
culations, were now revised from his
London edition of 1701; marginal
notes were at last admitted. The folio
edition of this year was nearly all
burned at the printer's, and an Oxford
editor of 1769 appropriated most of
the improvements, without acknowl
edgment. (W.)
Blayney's edition adding 76 marginal
notes. The text now in use is taken
from this edition. (D.)
The improvements of this standard
text were largely derived from the edi
tion of 1762. (W.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

347

Section II
Early American Bibles

Title.

Date.

Particulars.

1. The New Testament, . . . Trans-
latedinto the Indian Language.
2. The Holy Bible: containing the
Old Testament and the New.
Translated into the Indian
Language, and ordered to be
printed by the Commissioners
of the United Colonies in New
England. At the Charge, and
with the Consent of theCorpora-
tion in England For the Propa
gation of the Gospel amongst
the Indians in New England.
3. Biblia, das ist Die Heilige Schrift.
. . . Nach der Deutschen Ueber-
setzung D. Martin Luther's.
4. The New Testament.

6. The Holy Bible, containing the
Old and New Testaments: new
ly translated out of the original
tongues, and with the former
translations diligently com
pared and revised.

1661
Cambridge, Mass.
1663
Cambridge Mass.

1743
Long 4to.
German- town. 1777
Small
12mo.
Philadel phia.
1781-82 12mo.
2 vols. O]
one.
Philadel phia.

The Eliot New Testament.
The Eliot Bible.

0. The Holy Bible. . . . translated
from the Greek by Charles
Thomson, late Secretary to the
Congress of the United States.
(W.)

1808
8vo. 4 vols
Philadel phia.

The Saur Bible.

The Aitken New Testa
ment.

The Aitken Bible.
Directly after the title
were printed Resolutions
of Congress in 1782, ap
proving, recommending
for sale, and authorizing
Aitken to publish the
recommendation. (W.)
The first version of the
Septuagint in English.
Lately reprinted. (W.)

Section III
The Revised Version

Title.

1. The New Testament . . . revised
1881. (W.)
2. The Holy Bible, containing the Old and
New Testaments; translated out of
the original tongues, being the ver
sion set forth a.d. 1611 compared
with the most ancient authorities
and revised a.d. 1881-85.

Date.

1881
12mo.
Cambridge, 1885
Oxford and
Cambridge,

Particulars.

The English Revision.

348

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

Title.

3. The Apocrypha translated out of the
Greek and Latin tongues ... re
vised A.D. 1894.

4. The Holy Bible, being the revised ver
sion with the readings and render
ings preferred by the American re
vision companies incorporated in the
text, and with copyright marginal
references.
5. The New Covenant commonly called
the New Testament. Newly edited
by the New Testament members of
the American Revision Committee. (W.)
6. The Holy Bible . . . being the ver
sion set forth a.d. 1611 compared
with the most ancient authorities
and revised a.d. 1881-85. Newly
edited by the American Revision
Committee a.d. 1901. Standard
edition. (W., B.)

Date.

1895
Oxford and
Cambridge, 1898
Oxford and
Cambridge.

1900
New York,

1901
New York,

Particulars.

Section IV

Semi-Private Versions
Every few years some single scholar has published a revision, or a new
version, of some part of the Bible. The names of Alford, Webster,
Sharp, Ellicott, James Murdock, Julia Smith, will illustrate the great
variety of aim and value. Four recent publications may deserve
notice: (W.)
1. 1865 a.d. [but dated in Hebrew fashion, 5625.] The Twenty-four books
of the Holy Scriptures: carefully translated according to the Massoretic
text, after the best Jewish authorities. By Isaac Leeser. A revision
of a work which appeared first in 1854 at Philadelphia. Text arranged
in the Hebrew divisions; a few notes added. (W.)
2. 1865. The New Testament. American Bible Union Version, also begun
in 1854. This was again revised after 1883. (WO
3. 1877. Revised English Bible. The Religious Tract Society published an
edition with emendations by four divines. This edition is a step
further in the same direction. (W.)
4. 1902. The Twentieth Century New Testament. Not a revision of any
preceding version, but a translation into modern English made from the
original Greek, Westcott and Hort's text. Instalments began in 1898,
and a revision has appeared more recently. It was made by about
twenty persons, including graduates of several universities and members
of various sections of the Christian Church. Their names are as yet
unknown. (W.)

PART in
A. — ^WoRKS ON Textual Criticism.
B. — ^WORKS ON THE CaNON.
C. — ^WoRKs ON Introduction.
D. — ^Points in Dispute between Roman Catholics and
Protestants.
E. — Historical and Biographical Works.
F. — ^WoRKS on the Standard Roman Catholic Versions.
0. — Books on the English Bible (Protestant Versions).
H. — ^WoRKS on Revision. PART II
A.— WORKS ON TEXTUAL CRITICISM

Section I
The Greek and Hebrew Text

Date.

1. 1746
2. 1753
3. 1770
4. 1854
5. 1871
6 1871
7. 1880

Author.

Houbigant (Rom,
Cath.).
Kennicott, B.

Kennicott, B.
Tregelles, S. P.
Tischendorf, C.
Burgon, J. W.

Burgon, J, W,, and E,
Miller.

Particulars.

Prolegomena (to a new edition of the
Hebrew Text), (W.)
The State of the Printed Hebrew Text of
the Old Testament Considered. Oxford,
(W„ D.)
Ten Annual Accounts of the Collation of
Hebrew Manuscripts of the Old Testa
ment. Oxford, (D.)
Account of the Printed Text of the Greek
New Testament. _ ^ (W.)
The Sinaitic Bible, its discovery, publication,
etc. Leipzig. (B.)
The Last Twelve Ver .¦c« of Si. Mark vin
dicated against recent critical objectors.
Oxford and London, (D.)
The Causes of the Corruption in the Tradi
tional Text. (B.)

' In addition to the following specific publications there may be consulted
under the various sections relevant articles in the Dictionaries of Hastmgs
(1902) Cheyne (1903), and Schaff-Herzog (1907
349

350

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

Date.

8,

1881

Westcott and Hort.

9,

1886

Miller, E,

10.

1894

Harris, J, Rendel.

11.

1894

Scrivener-Miller.

12.
13.

18961897

Burcon, J. W., and E.
.Miller.
Copinger, W. A.

14. 1898
15. 1901
16. 1901
17. 1903

Author.

Blass, Fr.
Kenyon, F. G.
Nestle, E.
Kenyon, F. G.

Particulars.

The New Testament in Greek. Vulume two
began a new era in textual criticism.
A Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New
Testament. London. (D.)
Four Lectures on the Western Text. Lon
don. (B.)
.1 Plain Introduction to the Civicism of the
New Testament. 4th ed. London, New
York and Cambridge. Indispensable fur
serious work. (W.)
The Traditional Text of the Holy Gospels.
London. (B.)
The Bible andits Transmission, an historical
and bibliographical view of the Hebrew
and Greek Texts and other versions.
London. _ (W., D.)
Magnificently illustrated with fac
similes. (W.)
Philology of the Gospels (establishing the
true text). London. (B.)
Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the
Greek New Testament. London and
New York. (W., B.)
Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the
Greek New Tcstununt. Tlieological
Translation Library. Vol. XIII. (B.,D.)
Our Bible and the A ncient Manuscripts,
being a history of tlie text and its triins-
lations. 4th ed. London. (W., B.)

Section II
Works on the Vulgate and Old Latin Versions

Date.

1. 1655

2. 1824
3. 1827

5. 1868

6. 1875
7. 1879

Author.

Bois, J.

Van Ess, L.
Cath.)
Brunati, J.

Migne, J. P.

(Rom.

Kaulen, Fr.
Cath.)
Rbnsch, H.
Ziegler, L.

(Rom

Particulars.

Collatio Veteris Interpretis cum Beza
aliisque recentioribus collatio in quatuor
Evangeliis et Aclis Apostolorum. Lon
don. "The first who pointed out the real
value of" the Vulgate. (W.)
Pragmalisch-Kritische Geschichte der Vul
gata. Tubingen. (W .)
De Nomine, Auctore, etc. (Dissertations on
the Name, Author, Revisions and Authen
ticity of the Vulgate.) Vienne. (B.)
Works of St. Jerome, in Pairologire Lalinw
Cursus Completus. (A complete collec
tion of the works of the Fathers.) Vols.
XXII-XXX.
Geschichte der Vulgata. Mainz. (W.)
Itala und Vulgata. (W.)
Die lateinischen Bibelvbersetzungen vor
Hieronymus und die Itala des Augustinus.
Munich. "Stoutly asserts the multiplicity of
Latin translations." (W.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

351

Date.

8. 1887
9. 1892
10. 1893
11. 1896

Author.

Berger, S.(Rom. Cath.)
Copinger, W. A,

Berger, S. (Rom
Cath.)
Burkitt, F, C,

Particulars.

De V Histoire de la Vulgate en France.
Paris. (W.)
Incunabula Biblica. London. Extremely
valuable for the Latin printed Bibles.
(W.)
Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers
sikcles du Tuoyen age, (W.)
The Old Latin and the Itala (Texts and
Studies), (W )

B,— WORKS ON THE CANON

Dale.

1. 1520
2, 1865
3. 1880
4. 1887
5. 1892
6. 1895
7. 1901

Author.

Andreas Bodenstein
Carlstadt,
Stuart, Moses,
Davidson, S.
Reuss, Edward,
Ryle, H. E,
Wildeboer, G,
Peters, J, P,

of

Particulars.

De Canonicis Scnpturis.

(W.)

8. The following works deal
(1)1881

(2) 1884
(3) 1904

Westcott, B. F.
^litchell, E. C.
Moore, E. C.

A Critical History and Defence of the Old
Testament Canon. Andover. (B.)
The Canon of the Bible, its formation, his
tory and fluctuations London. (W., D.)
History of the Canon of the Holy Scriptures
in the Christian Church, translated by
David Hunter. Edinburgh. (W., D.)
The Canon of theOld Testament. An Essay
on the gradual growth and formation of
the Hebrew Canon of Scripture. London.
(W.. D.)
The Origin of the Canon of the Old Testa
ment. Translated by B. W. Bacon and
edited by F. Morse. London. (D.)
The Old Testament and the New Scholarship.
London. 1901. (D.)
specifically with the New Testament Canon:
A General Survey of the History of the Canon
of the New Testament. (B )
A Guide to the Study of the Authenticity,
Canon and Text of the New Testament. (D.)
The New Testament in the Christian Church
(on the Canon). New York. (D.)

C— WORKS ON INTRODUCTION
Section I
Protestant Writers

Date.

1. 1878
2. 1882

Author.

Wellhausen, J.
Blunt, J. H.

Particulars.

EinleitvnQ in das Alte Testament (4th ed
of Bleek). (W )
4 Key to the Knowledge and U se of the Holy
Bible. New York. (D )

352

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

Date.

3. 1883

4. 1887

10.11.12. 13.
14,
15. 16.17.

1888 188818891892189318961897
1898 1899
1900 190319041907

Author.

Ladd, G. T.
Briggs, C. A.
Ladd, G. T.
Weiss, Bernhard.
Smyth, J. P.
Cheyne, T. K.
Maclear. G. F.
Kirkpatrick, A. F.
Driver, S. R.
Green, W. H.
Briggs, C. A.
Swete, Henry Barclay.
Green, W. H.
Julicher, A.
Zahn, Theodor.

Particulars.

The Doctrine of Holy Scripture, acritical,
historical ana dogmatic inquiry into the
origin and nature of the Old and New
Testaments. 2 vols. New York. (B.)
Biblical Study, its principles, methods and
history. 2d ed. New York. (B.)
What is the Bible f New York. (B.)
A Manual of Introduction to the New Testa
ment {Tra.nsl.). 2 vols. London. (W.)
The Old Documents and the New Bible. 2d
ed. London and Dublin. (W., D.)
Aids lo -the Devout Study of Criticism.
London. (D.)
Helps to the Study of the Bible. London. (D.)
The Divine Library of the Old Testament,
London. (D.)
An Introduction to the Literature of the
Old Testament. London. (D.)
General Introduction to the Old Testament.
The Canon. New York. (W., D.)
General Introduction to the Study of Holy
Scripture. New York. (W.)
An Introduction to the Old Testament in
Greek. Cambridge. (W.)
General Introduction to the Old Testament.
The Text New York. (D.)
An Introduction to the New Testament
(Transl .) . London.
An Introduction to the New Testament
(Transl.). 3 vols. Edinburgh.

Section II
Roman Catholic Writers

Date.

1. 1685

2. 1839
3. 1816

Author.

Simon, Richard (Priest
of the Congregation
of the Oratory.)

Van Ess, Leander.

Particulars.

Histoire Critique du Vieux Te stament
(Critical History of the Old Testament).
Rotterdam. ^ (B.)
Similar Critical Histories followed from
his pen, on the text of the N T, 1689; a
version of the N T, 1690; principal com
mentators of the N T, 1693. (W.)
Gigot claims that "scholars of our cen
tury who apply historical and critical
methods of investigation to the various de
partments of human knowledge, willingly
ascribe to Richard Simon the honor of
having been the first to inaugurate the
method according to which the' questions
introductorv to the interpretation of the
Bible should be handled." (W.)
Canones et Decreta, etc. (Canons and De
crees of the Holy Ecumenical Council of
Trent.) Leipzig. (B.)
Pragmntica doctt. ' Cath. Trid. circa Vulg.
decreti sensum. Sulzbach. (W.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

353

Date.

4. 1848

5. 1853

6. 1886
7. 1891

8. 1897
9. 1901

Author.

Waterworth, J.

Dixon, Joseph. (Pro
fessor of Sacred
Scripture and He
brew, Archbishop of
Armagh and Primate
of all Ireland.)
Lamy, T. J.
Cornely, Rudolph, S.J,

Breen, A. E.

Gigot, Francis E., S.S.,
Professor of Sacred
Scripture in St.
Mary's Seminary,
Baltimore, Md.

Particulars.

The Canons and Decrees of the Council of
Trent. New York and London. (D.)
(A translation by T. A. Buckley ap
peared in 1851.) (W.)
A General Introduction to the Sacred Scrip
tures. First American edition carefully
revised from the Dublin edition. Balti
more. 2 vols in one. (B.)

Introductio in Sacram Scripturam. Mech-
, Hn. (D.)
HistoriccB et criticce Introductionis in U. T.
libros sacros Compendium S. Theologise
auditoribus accommodatum. Editio al
tera, commentariolo de inspiratione aucta
cum approbatione superiorum. Paris.
(W.)
This book has been drawn upon most ex
tensively for Catholic witness to facts. It
came out under the seal of the Society of
Jesus and received the imprimatur of the
Cardinal Archbishop of Paris. (W.)
A General and Critical Introduction to the
Study of Holy Scripture. Rochester,
N. Y. (W.)
General Introduction to the Study of the
Holy Scriptures. Second and revised
edition. New York, Cincinnati, Chicago.
(W., B.)
The first edition, 1899, differed chiefly m
arrangement. This bears the imprimatur
of the Archbishop of New York, Con
stant and adequate references are made
to books of larger size, both Catholic and
Protestant. This work has been taken
in the essay by W . as giving the Catholic
testimony on most litigated facts, with
care not to quote as Gigot merely what he
in tum quotes from Protestants, without
express notice. (W.)

Section III
Materials Relative to Papal Sanction

Date.

Particulars.

879

2. 1875
3. 1893
4. 1902

Pope John VIII sanctioned the use of the Slavonic version: "Jube-
mus ut in omnibus Ecclesiis propter majorem honorificentiam
evangelium Latine legatur, et post, Slayonica lingua translatum
in auribus populi Latina verba non intelligentis annuncietur,
?icut in quibusdam ecclesiis fieri videatur." Krasinski in Maclear's
Christian Missions: 280. (W.)
Pope Pius IX: Encyclical and Syllabus. (W.)
Pope Leo XIII; Providentissimus Deus. (W.)
Pope Leo XIII: The Study of the Scriptures. Apostolic Letter of
His Holiness Pope Leo XIII, appointing the Commission for
promoting the Study of the Sacred Scriptures. Translated in the
Catholic Pulpit, November, 1902, and published in London. New
York, and Sydney.  (W.)

354

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

D.— POINTS IN DISPUTE BETWEEN ROMAN CATHO
LICS AND PROTESTANTS
Section I
General Works

Date

1. 1870
2. 1900

Autho

Dollinger, J. J. I.
Daubney, W. H.

Particulars.

The Pope and the Council. Authorized
translation from the German. Boston. (B,)
The Use of the Apocrypha in the Christian
Church. London. 16mo. (B.)

Section II
Works Dealing Especially with the Roman Catholic Contention
on the Canon, the Vulgate, etc. '
(I) The Catholic View

Dale.

1. 1884
2. 1885

a 1899

Author.

Addis, W. E., and
Thomas Arnold.
Waterworth, J.

Mackey.

Particulars.

Catholic Dictionary: article, the Vulgate,
849-858. (B.)
The Faith of Catholics confirmed by Scrip
ture and attested by the Fathers of the
first five centuries, with preface by Mon-
signor Capel. London and New Vork.

Library of St. Francis de Sales. Vol. III.,
" IL,  - ¦

PartYork

pp. 87-142.

(D.
bi. I

London and New
(D.)

(//) Works that Contest the Catholic View

Date.

1. 1600
2. 1672

3. 1845
4. 1855

5. 1879
6. 1896

Author.

James, Thomas.
Cosin John.
Whitaker, W. A.
Robins, S.
Stearns, E. J.
Spencer, J. A.

Particulars.

Bellum papale, seu concordia discors Sixti
V . et Clementis VIII. circa Hieronymia-
nam editionem. (W.)
Scholastical History of the Canon of the
Holy Scripture. "Still worth reading,
especially as between the Protestant and
Romish canon." (W.)
Disputation on Holy Scripture against the
Papists. Cambridge. (D.)
The Whole Evidence Against the Claims of
the Roman Catholic Church, Ch. vii.
On the Council of Trent and Canon of
Scripture. London. (D.)
The Faith of Our Forefathers. New York,
(D.)
Papalism and Catholic Truth and Right.
New York. Part II., pp. 71-81. (D.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

355

Section III
Bible-reading by the Laity

Date.

Author.

Particulars.

1883

Wetzer and Welte.
(Rom. Cath,)

Kirchenlexicon (a Church Dictionary),
edited by Hergenrothe and Kauler: ar
ticle, " Bible-reading by the Laity," Vol.
I. Freiburg in Breisgau. (B.)

E,— HISTORICAL AND BIOGRAPHICAL WORKS
Section I
General

Date.

1. 1S68
2, 1888
3. 1888
4. 1895

Author.

Blunt, J. H.
Fisher, G. P.
Fisher, G. P.
Lumby, J. R, (ed.).

Particulars.

The Reformation of the Church of England.
London, Oxford and Cambridge. (B.)
History of the Christian Church. New
York. (B.)
History of the Reformation. New York.
(B.)
Chronicon, Henrici Knighton. 2 vols.
London. (B.)

Section II
Wyclif

Date.

Author.

Particulars.

1. 1820
2. 1831
3. 1832
4, 1851
5, 1880
6, 1900

Lewis, John,
Vaughan, Robert,
Foxe,Forshall and Madden,
Storrs, R. S,
Trevelyan, G. M.

The History of the Life and Sufferings of
tile Reverend and Learned John Wyclif,
D.D., Warden of Canterbury Hall and
Professor of Divinity in Oxford, etc.
Oxford. (B., D.)
Life and Opinions of John Wyclif. 2 vols,
2d ed, London. (B.)
Acts arid Monuments (Book IX., Sec. 1,
Wyclif). Philadelphia. (D.)
Preface to their edition of the Bible trans
lated by Wyclif and his followers. (D.)
John Wyclif and the First English Bible.
New York, (B.)
England in the Age of Wycliffe. 3d ed.
London, (B,)

356

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

Section III
Tyndale

Date.

Author.

Particulars.

1.

1832

Foxe,

Acts and Monuments (Book IX,, Sec. 2,
Tyndale). Philadelphia. (D.)

2,

1871

Demaus, R,

William Tyndale. A biography. A con
tribution to the early history of the English
Bible. London, (B.)
Edited by R. Lovett, London, (D.)

3,

1886

Demaus, R,

4,

1894

Jacobs.

The Lutheran Movementin England. Phila
delphia, (W.)

Section IV
Coverdale and Rogers

Date.

1838

2. 1846
3. 1861

Author.

Pearson, G.
Chester, J. L.

Particulars.

Memorial of the Right Reverend Father in
God, Myles Coverdale, who first translated
the whole Bible into English. London.
(W., B.)
Remains of Myles Coverdale, edited for the
Parker Society, Cambridge, (B.)
John Rogers, the Compiler of the First
Authorized English Bihle. London, (B.)

Section V
Reformation Period, Roman Catholic Writers

Date.
1. 1676
2, 1887
3. 1897
4. 1904
5. 1904

Author.

Sarpi, Paolo,

Bellarmine, R, (Cardi
nal),

Gasquet, F. A. (D.D.
O.S.B.).

Reid, G. J.
Stone, J. M.

Particulars.

Fra Paolo Sarpi : Istoria del Concilia Tri
dentina. (Translation by Sir N. Brent.)
"Liberal, almost semi-Protestant," (W.)
Die Selbstbiographie des Cardinals Bellar
mine, lateinisch und deutsch, mit ge-
schichtlichen Eriauterungen. J. J. I, von
Dollinger und F. H. Reusch, Bonn. (B.)
The Old English Bible, arui other Essays.
London. (W„ B,)
Unconvincing in its main contention, (W.)
The English Bible before the Reformation,
in The Catholic World, Vol, 78, March,
1904; pp. 791-796. (B.)
Reformation and Renaissance, 1377-1610,
London, This handsome illustrated oc
tavo does not rely for its Biblical informa
tion on recent authorities, quoting chiefly
Stevens's Catalogue of 1877. It is also
disfigured by strange blunders, (W,)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

357

F.— WORKS ON THE STANDARD ROMAN CATHOLIC
VERSIONS

Date.

Author.

Particulars.

1. 1582

2. 1588

3. 1589

Martin, Gregory.
Withers, G.
Fulke, William.

4, 1786

5, 1824

6, 1843

7. 1855

Geddes, A. T. (LL.D,).

Ward, Thomas.

Fulke, William.

Cotton, Henry.

8. 1859

Newman, J. H. (Car
dinal),

A Discovery of the Manifold Corruptions
of the Holy Scriptures by the Heretikes of
Our Daies, especially the English Sec
taries. Rhemes. (B,)
A View of the Marginal Notes of the Popish
Testament, translated into English by the
English fugitive Papists resident at
Rheims in France. London. (D.)
The Text of the New Testament of Jesus
Christ. . . . (W„ D.)
A parallel edition of the Rheims and
Bishops' Versions with controversial an
notations. This was reprinted in 1601, 1617, 1633,
always with the Bishops' Version, and
evidently contributed to the influence ex
ercised by the Rheims Testament on King
James's revision, (W.)
Prospectus of a New Translation of the
Holy Bible from Corrected Texts of the
(Originals, compared with Ancient Ver
sions and various readings, explanatory
notes and critical observations, Glasgow,
(W.,B.)
Errata of the Protestant Bible. Philadel
phia, (W., D.)
First published 1688, Reprinted,
1818, as appendix to the Cork edition of
Poynter's Bible. (W.)
A Defence of the Sincere and True Transla
tions of the Holy Scripture into the Eng
lish Tongue, Again tt the Cavils of
Gregory Martin. Ed. C. H. Hartshorne.
(Parker Society Publications, No. 10.)
(B.)
Reprint of 1617, (D.)
Rhemes and Doway. An attempt to show
what has been done by Roman Catholics
for the diffusion of the Holy Scriptures in
English. Oxford. (W., B., D.)
Stigmatized by Newman as so anti-Cath
olic that he declined " to use him with that
ready and unfaltering confidence, which
would be natural." Therefore, while the
writer has no reason otherwise to distrust
Cotton, scarcely a single statement has
been made in his essay on the authority
of this work, germane as it is to the sub
ject, , .CW.)
The History of the Text of the Rheuns and
Douay Versions of Holy Scripture. Re
printed 1902 in his Tracts Theological and
Ecclesiastical 403-145. London and New
York, (B.)

358

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

Date.

9. 1859

10. 1874
11. 1878

12. 1900
13, 1900
14, 1902

15. 1877
16. 1884

Author.

Shea, John Gilmary.

Newman, J, H.
Douay, English Col
lege.

Butler, T. J.
McCabe, L. R.
Carleton, J. G.

Particulars.

.4 Bibliographical Account of the Catholic
Bibles, Testaments and Other Portions of
Scripture, translated from the Latin Vul
gate and printed in the United States.
New York. (D.)
The reprint of 1874 has been used here, most
extensively. (D., W.)
The first ana second diaries of the Enghsh
College, Douay, and an appendix of un
published documents, edited by Fathers
of the Congregation of the London Ora
tory, with historical introduction by T.
F. Knox, London. (Records of English
Catholics under the Penal Laws I.) (B,)
The Douay Bible, Irish Ecclesiastical
Record, Series 4, Vol, VIII., pp, 23-35,
Dublin, (D.)
The Story of the Daly Bible. Catholic
World, Vol, 70, pp. 809-820. New York.
(D.)
The Part of Rheims in the Making of the
English Bible. Oxford. (W., B.)

Ecclesiastical Approbation, etc.

Acta et Decreta ConcUiiPlenariiBallimoren-
sis Secundi. Baltimore.
Acta et Decreta Concilii Plenarii Balti
morensis Tertii. Baltimore,

G,— BOOKS ON

THE ENGLISH BIBLE.
VERSIONS.)

(PROTESTANT

Date.

Author.

Particulars,

1. 1730
2. 1731

3, 181S
4, 1841

Johnson, Lewis, John,
Lewis, John.
(Tregelles?).

Historical Account of the Several English
Translations of the Bible. (W.)
A History of the Several Translations of the
Holy Bible and New 'Testament into
English, etc. (In preface to Wycliffe's
New Testament, edition of 1731.) (W„ B.)
A Complete History, etc. 3d ed. London,
CW., D.)
The English Hexapla, exhibiting the six im
portant translations with preface. Bag
ster (ed.). (D.)
An historical account of the English trans
lations. ^ Prefixed to some editions of
Bagster's Hexapla. The publishers can
celled one account, and the title page. . . .
Not a single title page of five copies con
sulted is accurate in its description of the
versions printed. (W.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

359

Date.

6. 1852
7. 1856
8. 1862
9. 1865

10. 1867
11. 1870

12. 1872
13. 1876
14. 1878
15. 1878
16. 1878
17. 1882
18, 1883
19, 1883
20, 1884
21. 1888
22. 1889
23 1889
24 1892
25. 1894

Author.

Cotton, Henry.
Anderson, C.
Anderson, C.
Fry, Francis.
Fry, Francis.
Westcott, B. F.
Eadie, John.
Blunt, J. H.
Fry, Francis.
Moulton W. F.
Condit, B.
Mombert, J. J.
Richey, T.
Scrivener, F. H. A.
Dore, J. R.
Edgar, A.
Smyth, J, Paterson,
Wright, John.
Pattison, T, H,

Particulars.

Editions of the Bible and Parts thereof in
English, from the year MDV. to
MDCCCL. ... Second edition, cor
rected and enlarged from an edition in
1821. Oxford. (W,, D.)
First edition in 1821. Used freely for
this essay, ( w ,)
The Annals of the English Bible abridged
and continued by S, J. Prince. New
York. (D.)
The Annals of the English Bible. A new
and revised edition, edited by his nephew,
Hugh Anderson, London, First edition
in 1845. The modern pioneer. (W., B.)
Description of the Great Bible and Editions
of ^e Authorized Version, London. (D.)
The Bible by Coverdale. London. (W.,D.)
Translators' Preface to the Authorized Ver
sion, being an exact reprint of the original
edition of 1611. London, (B.)
A General View of the History of the English
Bible. London. (W„ B.)
The English Bible, an exegetical and critical
history of the various English versions of
Scripture, 2 vols, London, (W„ B„ D.)
English Bible, in Encyclopcedia Britannica
VIII, (W.)
Bibliographical description of the Editions
of the New Testament. London. (W., B., D.)
History of the English Bible. London, 1878,
A handbook with copious examples
illustrating the ancestry and relationship
of the several versions, (W,, D,)
The History of the English Bible. New
York and Chicago, (B.)
English Versions of the Bible. London, 2d
ed. 1891. (W„ D.)
What is the Bible? New York. (D.)
The Authorized^ Edition of the English
Bible (1611), its subsequent reprints and
modern representatives. Cfambridge: CW., B.)
Old Bibles. An account of the Early Ver
sions of the English Bible. London. (D.)
The Bibles of England. A plain account for
plain people of the principal versions of
the Bible in English, London, (D.)
A most admirable account, popular and
accurate, (W,)
How we Got our Bible. Sixth edition.
London and Dublin. (W., D.)
Early Bibles of America. New York, (W,)
History of the English Bible. (W.)

360

BIBLE VERSIONS COMPARED

Date.

26. 1901

27. 1902

28. 1903

29. 1905

30. 1905

31.(n.d.) 32.(n.d.)

Author.

(Booklovers' Library
Philadelphia 1901.)

Hoare, H. W

Darlow, T. H., and
Moule, H. F.

Heaton, W. J.

Wright-Westcott.

Pollard, A. W.
Stoughton, John,

Particulars.

The English Bible: How we Got it. (Course
24, Booklovers' Reading Club.) Contents:
Books selected for this course, Pres. W.
R. Harper and Prof. J. F. Genung. . . .
The English Bible, W. N. Clarke. . . .
A Clentury with Versions and Editions, J.
F. Genung. . . . The Bible as one of the
World's Great Literatures, R. G. Moulton.
. . . The American Revised Version of
1901, C. T. Chester (editor). . . . Edito
rial notes, etc. (B.)
The Evolution of the English Bible; a his
torical sketch of the successive versions
from 1382 to 1885. 2d ed. with bibli
ography, portraits and specimen pages
from old Bibles. London. (W., B.)
Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions
of Holy Scripture m the Library of the
British and Foreign Bible Society ... in
2 vols. Vol. I., English. London. In
valuable for the purposes of this essay.
(W.)
Our Own English Bible, its translators and
their work. 2 vols. London.
Only the first volume, on the MS Bible,
is yet published. For that period it seems
the fullest account. X^*^
A General View of the History of the English
Bible, by B. F, Westcott, D.D. Third
edition revised by W. A. Wright. Lon
don and New York. Not up to date.
Nothing after 1660. Within its limits
most valuable. (W.)
English Literature. The English Bible.
Philadelphia, pp. 22. (B.)
Our English Bible, its Translations and
Translators. London. (B., D.)

H.— WORKS ON REVISION

Date.

Author.

1.

1727

2.

1845

Scrivener, ff, H,

3.

1857

Beard, J.

4.

1858

Trench, R. C.

5,

1870

Bishop Ellicott.

6,

1871

Bishop Lightfoot.

Particulars.

Essay for a New Translation of the Bible
London. (B.)
A Supplement to the Authorized English
Version of the New Testament. London. (D.)
A Revised English Bible, the Want of the
Church and the Demand of the Age.
London, (D.)
On the Authorized Version of the New Testa
ment, in connection with some recent
proposals for its revision. (D.)
Constaeralions on the Revision of the Eng
lish Version. London. (D.)
On a Fresh Revision of the English New
Testament. London, (D.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

361

Date.

7. 1879

1881 1882

10. 1883

Schaff, Philip.

Newth, Samuel.
Cook, F. C.

Schaff, Philip

11. 12.

13. 14.15,16, 17. 18.19.
20, 21.

1883 1884

1886 189718981899 189919011901 1902

19021903

Author.

22. 1903

23.24.

1903 1904

Burgon, J. W.
Abbott, E. A., and
C. Rushbrooke,
Chambers, T, W.
Westcott, B. F.
Whiton, J. M.
Field, F.
Clapperton, J, A.
Ellicott, C. J. (Bp.
Gloucester).
Ellicott, C. J.
Wylie, D. G.
[ Whitney, H. M.
Davidson, A. B
Roseman, William.
Body, C. W. E.

W

of

Particulars.

Bible Revision, by members of the Ameri
can Revision Committee. New York. (D.)
Lectures on Bible Revision. London, (B.)
The Revised Version of the First Three
Gos]pels. (This deals with the English
Revised Version.) London, (D,)
A Companion to the Greek Testament and
the English Version. New York, (W„ D.)
*'An admirable book . . . treating . , , of
the , . , Revised Version. An authoritative
history of the latter from the standpoint
of an American reviser," Fourth edition,
1892. CW.)
The Revision Revised. (B.)
The Common Tradition of the Synoptic
Gospels in the Text of the Revised (Eng
lish) Version. London. (D.)
Companion to the Revised Old Testament.
London, (D.)
Some Lessons of the Revised Version of the
New Testament. London. _ (D.)
The American Revision of the Bible. In
the Outlook, Vol. 58, Feb. 12, 1898; pp.
417^19. (B.)
Notes on the Translation of the New Testa
ment. Cambridge, (D.)
Pitfalls in Biblical English. London, (B.)
Addresses on the Revised Version of Holy
Scripture. London. (DO
Report of the Joint Commission on Mar
ginal Readings in the Bible to the General
Convention of 1901, (D.)
The American Standard Edition of the
Revised Bible in Pulpit and Pew. New
York. . , (B,)
The Latest Translation of the Bible, In the
Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 59, April, 1902, pp.
217-237; July, 1902, pp. 451-475; Octo
ber, 1902, pp, 653-681: Vol. 60, Jan,
1903, pp. 109-120; April, 1903, pp. 342-
357. (B-)
Biblical and Literary Essays, edited by J.
A, Patterson. No, VIII. The English
Bible and its Revision, (D.)
Hebraisms in the Authorized Version of
the Bible. Baltimore, (B.)
Companion to the Marginal Readings m the
Bible Authorized by the General Convention
0/1901. New York. (D.)

^

..it

' v< fjM

is.
»<,*i