Chap. iii. Internal History.

Revision of edition of Νου. 1540.

Is. i.

hibits a text formed on the same principles as that of the edition of 1539, but after a fuller and more thorough revision1.

After April 1540 the text of the Great Bible does not appear to have been systematically revised throughout, but still it is a remarkable and unobserved fact that in parts the edition of Nov. 1540 goes back from the text of April 1540 to that of 1539, so that the edition of April 1540 exhibits the greatest approximation to Münster. It is impossible to tell without a wide collation on what principle this reaction was carried out: a few examples will exhibit its reality2.

reprint of April 1540 (Petyt and
Redman) are both carefully revised
texts, as has been shewn already.
The latter presents some variations
from Crumwell's Bible, but they ap-
pear to be due rather to the printers
than to any special revision: e. g.
Ps. li. 14: O God, O God of my
health sing thy righteousness. 15
shew forth.

1 This revision, as well as the par-
tial one to be mentioned afterwards,
was due to Coverdale, as appears
from his Sermon quoted by Fulke
(p. 98). M. Coverdale defended his
"translation, confessing that he did
'now himself espy some faults which
'if he might review it once over
'again, as he had done twice before,

APRIL, JULY 1540. promoted children.

a seed of ungracious people corrupting their ways.

Another passage of Fulke is itself
decisive: the Bible of 1562,' he
writes, 'is that which was of Dr
Coverdale's translation, most used
'in the church service in king Ed-
'ward's time' (p. 68). This edition
is a reprint of the Great Bible.

The rendering in Is. lvii. 5, 'ye
'take your pleasure under the oaks,
'under all green trees, and ye offer
'children in the valleys and dens of
'stone,' quoted in the Hist. Account,
p. 103, to shew the existence of an
independent revision in Heath's and
Tunstall's edition of 1541 is found in
Cranmer's (April 1540), and is of
course based on Münster: calefaci-
'tis vos apud quercus sub omni ligno
frondoso et immolatis pueros...'

'he doubted not but to amend.' This 2 At first I was inclined to think
statement can only apply to Crum- that mixed sheets had been used for
well's and Cranmer's Bibles.
The printer's copy in the later editions.
changes in the one revision of Cover- but this hypothesis will not cover all
dale's original Bible are not of suffi- the facts of the case.
cient importance to be thus described.

who requireth this of you to
tread.

13, offer me no more ob- therefore offer me no more ob

In other parts of the Old Testament this phenomenon is not observed, and the different editions are grouped together without any certain law. Thus, for example, the following readings occur:

Chap. iii.
Internal
History.

The New Testament. Revised chiefly by the Latin.

Use of the
Vulgate.

The revision of the New Testament was, like Coverdale's original revision of Tyndale, more independent; and based upon a careful use of the Vulgate and of Erasmus' Latin Version. An analysis of the variations in the first Epistle of St John may furnish a type of its general character. As nearly as I can reckon there are seventy-one differences between Tyndale's text (1534) and that of the Great Bible': of these forty-three come directly from Coverdale's earlier revision (and in a great measure indirectly from the Latin): seventeen from the Vulgate where Coverdale before had not followed it: the remaining eleven variations are from other sources. Some of the new readings from the Vulgate are important, as for example the additions in i. 4, 'that ye "may rejoice and that your joy may be full.' ii. 23, 'he that knowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.' iii. I, 'that we should be called and be indeed the sons of God.' v. 9, 'this is the witness of God that is greater?' 'All

1 The differences between the Great fewer (see p. 184, n. 1), but I have not Bible and Matthew are about twelve a complete table of them.

hese additions (like v. 7) are marked distinctly as Latin ́eadings1: of the renderings adopted from Coverdale ɔne is very important and holds its place in our present version. iii. 24, 'Hereby we know that he abideth in us, even by the Spirit which he hath given us,' for which Tyndale reads: 'thereby we know that there abideth in us of the Spirit which he gave us.' One strange blunler also is corrected; 'that old commandment which ye heard' (as it was in the earlier texts) is replaced "by he true reading: 'that old commandment which ye have had' (ii. 7). No one of the new renderings is of iny moment (ii. 8, 18, 19, 20, 22, &c.).

As an illustration of the influence of Erasmus we nay recur to the collation of his differences from Tynlale in Col. ii. In the following readings, nearly half of those noted, the text of the Great Bible is altered rom that of Tyndale (Matthew) to conformity with Erasmus: 'I for I would: how great care: 2 when they are knit together: 6 walk...so that ye be rooted and built in him: II forasmuch as ye have put off: 13 through sin and through...16 or of the new moon: 17 which are shadows: 23 by superstition and humbleness of mind, and by hurting of the body...' Some of these renderings might have been derived independently from the Greek or from the Vulgate; others could not, as we must believe, have occurred to two original interpreters; and when they are taken as a whole there can be no doubt as to their immediate source3.

1 One false rendering introduced nto this version from the Latin has nost unfortunately retained its place n our present Bible; 'there shall be one fold and one shepherd' (John x. 16), for one flock' of the earlier ranslators. The old Latin rightly listinguished between grex and ovile,

but the distinction was lost in the
later texts.

2 See pp. 141 f.

3 One or two other passages may be added in which the Great Bible certainly follows Erasmus :

Luke xix. 42...even in this thy day, thou wouldest take heed (Erasm.curares).

Chap. iii.
Internal

History.

Use of the version of Erasmus.

Chap. iii.
Internal
History.

The New
Testament

in 1540.

The New Testament in the Great Bible of 1539 was! subject to a revision before the edition of 1540 no less than the Old, and the revision was conducted on simila also revised principles. What Münster was for the Old Testamen' Erasmus was in a great measure for the New. How powerful his influence was in the original recension has been just seen, and the review shews additional traces of the sway which his judgment exercised over Cover dale. One or two examples may be quoted':

Greater use of Erasmus.

APRIL 1539.

Rom. v. 15, which...was given
by one man...

i. 25, which is blessed for

ever.

Phil. i. 23, is much better.

Rev. xvi. 9, repented not.

xxii. 6, the Lord God of
Saints and Prophets.

APRIL, NOV. 1540. which...was of one man (quæ fuit unius hominis, Er.) which is to be praised for ever (qui est laudandus in secula, Er.)

is much and far better (multo longeque melius est, Er.) repented not of their evil deeds (neque egerunt scelerum pœnitentiam, Er.)

the Lord God of the holy

Prophets (Dominus Deus

No change perhaps is more remarkable than that in the difficult and famous passage of St James2:

I Pet. i. 14...lusts by which ye were led when as yet ye were ignorant of Christ (Erasm. quibus dum adhuc ignoraretis Christum agebamini).

Col. i. 10...that in all things ye may please (Erasm. ut per omnia placeatis).

Col. iii. 9...seeing that ye have put off (Erasm. posteaquam exuistis). The Latin New Testament of Erasmus was printed with the English of Mat

thew in 1538. The English Testament of 1540, said to be from the Latin of Erasmus, I have not seen.

1 Nearly all the examples given are taken from the list of variations in Mr Fry's treatise on the Great Bibles. By using these for the analy sis all suspicion of partial selection is removed.

2 See Fulke, Defence of the English Translations, pp. 559 f. (ed. P. S.).