Chap. iii.
Internal
History.

Matthew's
Bible com-

posite.

Strype's account of it

The Bible which bears Matthew's name consists of three distinct elements. The Pentateuch and the New Testament are reprinted from Tyndale's published translations with very slight variations'. The books of the Old Testament from Ezra to Malachi, and the Apocrypha, are reprinted in like manner from Coverdale. The remaining books of the Old Testament from Joshua to 2 Chronicles are a new translation. Nothing in the book itself indicates the sources from which it was derived, and the direct external evidence is vague and inconclusive. If it proves anything it proves too much. Thus Strype, following Bale, relates that Rogers 'trans'lated the Bible [in this edition] into English from 'Genesis to the end of Revelations, making use of the 'Hebrew, Greek, Latin, German and English (that is 'Tyndale's) copies.' He also it is said 'added prefaces

1 I have not collated any considerable passages of the Pentateuch with Matthew, though it would be interesting to compare a complete book in the Pentateuchs of 1531 and 1534 with Matthew (1537). The text of Matthew's New Testament is examined below, p. 183.

In Mr Offor's MS. Collections for a history of the English Bible (Brit.

Mus. 26,670-3) there is a collation of Tyndale's Pentateuchs of 1530 (1531) and 1534 with one another and also with Matthew and Coverdale. Matthew appears to follow the earlier edition almost without exception: Coverdale generally the later. I have not however verified the collations.

Chap. iii.
Internal
History.

account.

nd notes out of Luther, and dedicated the whole book to ing Henry, under the name of Thomas Matthews (sic) y an epistle prefixed, minding to conceal his own ame' No description could well be more inaccurate. ore than a third of the book is certainly Coverdale's. he Preface to the Apocrypha is translated from that in e French Bible of Olivetan. The Prologue to the omans is Tyndale's. The dedication is signed by homas Matthew. It is evident that no dependence an be placed on the details of such evidence. The Foxe's arrative of Foxe is not more satisfactory: 'In the translation of this Bible the greatest doer was indeed W. Tyndale, who with the help of Miles Coverdale had translated all the books thereof except only the Apocrypha, and certain notes in the margin which were added after. But because the said W. Tyndale in the meantime was apprehended before this Bible was fully 'perfected, it was thought good...to father it by a 'strange name of Thomas Matthewe. John Rogers at 'the same time being corrector to the print, who had 'then translated the residue of the Apocrypha and 'added also certain notes thereto in the margin: and 'thereof came it to be called "Thomas Matthewe's

'Bible3.", It is unnecessary to dwell upon the errors in this account. Foxe has evidently wrought out into a story the simple fact that Tyndale, Coverdale and Rogers were all engaged upon the work.

ed it.

But although these original statements are thus Rogers editloose, and I have been unable to find any more trustworthy, it can scarcely be doubted that Rogers did super

1 Strype, Cranmer, I. 117. With singular inconsistency Strype elsewhere (p. 84) gives Foxe's account (quoted below), which is different from this in many essential particulars.

2 This insertion is very remarkable. I have not been able to detect any other mark of the influence of the French translation on Matthew.

3 Acts and Monuments, V. 410.

N

Chap. iii.
Internal
History.

intend Matthew's Bible, and used in it the materials which Tyndale had prepared, and that these constitute the new translation (Joshua-2 Chronicles). If he had purposed to complete the translation himself it is not likely that he would have paused at the end of 2 Chronicles. On the other hand, Tyndale's engagements might have allowed him to complete thus much more of his work in the interval between the publication of his PenThe version tateuch and his death. The version of Jonah was an exceptional work, and furnishes no ground for supposing that he did not intend to proceed regularly through the Old Testament. Perhaps, too, it was from the exceptional character of this translation, which was as it were a text for the Prologue, that Rogers was led to adopt Coverdale's version of Jonah as well as of the other prophets, though he could not have been ignorant of Tyndale's work; and the fact that Coverdale had used Tyndale's rendering diligently left no overpowering reason for abandoning him.

of Jonah from Coverdale.

Matthew's text compared with "the 'Epistles from the Old Testament.'

We are not however left wholly to conjecture in determining the authorship of the original portion of Matthew's Bible. The 'Epistles of the Old Testament' added to Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, contain several passages from the historical books as well as from the Pentateuch; and generally it may be said that these fragments bear about the same relation to the translation in Matthew as those from the Pentateuch do to Tyndale's published text. There are from time to time considerable variations between them, but still it is evident that the renderings are not independent. It is of course possible that Rogers may have consulted the fragments in the execution of his work, but, as will appear directly, this supposition is practically inadmissible, because the corresponding sections from the Prophets and the Apocrypha are completely neglected.

Two examples will illustrate the extent of the coincidence and variations between the versions, and serve to shew how much dependence can be placed on this Examples. indication of the identity of their authorship.