Skip to main content

Full text of "Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles compared; the Gould prize essays"

See other formats

Division 'SS'^r'70 


cc y 




The Gould Prize Essays 












Copyright, 1905, 1908, by 



Preface to the First Edition vii 

Preface to the Second Edition ix 

History of the Contest xi 

Catholic and Protestant Versions of the Bible . 1 

The History of the Catholic English and the 
American Revised Versions of the Bible . 61 

The Origin and History of the Version of the 
Bible Authorized by the Roman Catholic 
Church, and of the American Revised Ver- 
sion 137 

Appendix 197 

Bibliography 317 


The outstanding result of this contest will prob- 
ably be to bring into bold relief the great differ- 
ence between, and the otherwise practical unity of, 
the Eoman 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. 


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 rela- 
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 

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 
l)ibliography has been wrought out, saving repeti- 
tions of titles and classifying the sources in such a 


•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 
Nourse, of the Hartford Faculty, and the patient 
skill of Dr. William John Chapman, of the Case 
]\remorial Lihrary, by whom has been accomplished 
the difficult task of bringing the bibliographies into 
their present serviceable form. 


In ISTovember, 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- 

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 Eoman Catholic Church ; " second, 
" The Origin and History of the American Eevised 
Version of the English Bible." In reply to this offer, 
Dr. White said, " Standing, as we do, for the study 


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. 

Xearly five hundred persons entered their names 
for the contest. Two hundred and sixty-five essays 
w^ere 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- 

The Board of Judges consisted of the following 
gentlemen : 


Rev. KoBERT William Rogers, D.D., Chairman, 
Professor Drew Theological Seminary. 

Rev. Henry Mitchell MacCracken, D.D., 
Chancellor Kew York University. 

The Hon. Wiiitelaw Reid, 

Editor New York Tribune. 

Rev. Francis L. Patton, D.D., 

President Princeton Theological Seminary. 

Rev. Melanctiion 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. 



(Cambridge, Eng.), LL.D. (Melbourne, Australia) 

Member of the American Historical Association ; Fellow of the 
Royal Historical Society; Fellow of the Theological Senate 



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 tw^o 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. 



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 Itonie. 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 
Manasses, 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 arc 
written in Hebrew, Aramaic,^ and Greek, and arc 
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. 


their rivals, the Samaritans.^ Still more ancient 
copies of the N^ew Testament may be seen in Rome, 
Saint Petersbnrg, 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 
ISTew. The books of the Xew 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 ISTew Testament collec- 
tion was not quite so large as it is at present.^ Those 
read in ISTorth Africa were, in the l*^ew Testament, 
also not so numerous as in our present listJ 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 liinder 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 Pome, commis- 
sioned a monk from Dalmatia, named Jerome, to 


revise the old Latin versions of the Psahns 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 rccoc^izc 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 finislied tlic 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 Cffisarea 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 now version. 
However, it gradually made its way in llie 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 acccptt'd much ear- 
lier than the Old Testament, owing to tlic^ fact that 
the latter work was done on far more radical prin- 

Jerome deliberately raised and discussed tlic iui- 


portant question, What books shall we read ? ^"^ In 
the JSTew Testament he nsed 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.^^ 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-canonical 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 


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 monies at Lindisfarne used the 
older, or Roman Psalter, the Italian monies 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 Y15.^*^ Bede used both versions, 
his exposition of Habakkuk being based on the 
older.^^ But by degrees the newer prevailed, though 
with some mixture, and the surviving Latin copies 


made in England are almost entirely of Jerome's re- 

Not long afterward the German King, Charles the 
Great, desired a simple, standard, modernized Latin 
text. His counselor Alcnin 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, Avho 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 


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. This 
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 !N'ew 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, C omplutum) 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, (6) 
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 


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 Kew 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 the 
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. 


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 Avas decided that all the books 
specified at Florence Avere 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 Ivoman world, so tlic majority adhered to 
precedent.'*^ The decree finally ran that the " old 


and common version {vulgata edltio) "^^ wliieli, 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 


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 


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 coj)ies w^ere 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 


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 Eome 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 


Catholic Versions in English 

The average American takes for granted that the 
version authorized bj 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 difPer.^^ To understand this 
state of affairs we must consider the history of the 
English version which the Catholic Church has pro- 

Before the year 1000 many parts of the Bible were 
translated into English from the Latin repeatedly, 
but the ISTorman 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 



higher clergy opposed the circulation of this version, 
desiring to keep a monopoly of Bible knowledge to 
their own gnild;'^*' 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, Erance, 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 


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 were 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 well in forbidding 
to the people the common use of the Holy Scriptures 


ill the English tongiie." ^^ Seven years later Henry 
was excommunicated by the Pope, and the immedi- 
ate consequence 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 Pojie excommunicated the Queen. This 
had been foreseen, and a Lancashire gi'aduate 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 bcgun.^^ 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, tlie 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 


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 he ohviated hy suitahle 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 Avere 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 l^ew 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 I^ew 


Testament.^'* As far as the translation is concerned, 
however, it is little more than a reprint of the issue 
of 1582, thongh 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 
Ehemists' 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 was 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 
cither party. Even when James II favored Catlio- 


lies, nothing is heard of any proposal to cireulate 
the Catholic version. It is indeed said that in 1698- 
1G99 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 Witliam, 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- 


lished in 17-19 another Xew 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 new 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 Newman 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 jiriest 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 
Clialhmer and MacMahon by styling itself the Fifth 
Edition.-*"* To this work w'as prefixed the transla- 
tion of a letter from Pius VI in 1778 to Martini, 
Archbishop of Florence, commending his diligence in 


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 ISTew 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 


printers began issuing Bibles.^ ^^ One of tbese, Mat- 
thew Carey, saw the opportunity of catering to his 
numerous Irish kinsmen ; so he obtained the patron- 
age of the Arcljbishop 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, Stewart & 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." 1^3 

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 
I^ew 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 ISTew 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 ISTewman describes 
as partly Challoner's, partly Troy's, partly original, 
despite its claim to have followed Challonor. It 
came into notice through its new set of elaborate 
notes written by a priest named Haydock, by whose 
name the edition is known. It has been reprinted 
at Dublin, Edinburgh, London, and ISTew York with 


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 17-19 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 ISTew Testament abso- 
lutely free from all notes. He certified that the 
text conformed to that of former approved editions. 


especially his own of 1791, but it seems to be the 
only accurate reprint of Challoner's second edi- 
tion.^ ^^ 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 ISi^ew Testament. Many copies 
were sold in London, and some booksellers pasted in 
a new rescrijDt 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." ^^^ 

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. Tor 
instance, Xewman shows tliat it has won the approval 
of the authorities in England and at Glasgow, Newry, 
Belfast, and Philadelphia.^^"* Yet, to oblige the com- 
missioners of Irish education, he joined with his fel- 
low Catholic arclibishops in approving the use of the 
English Roman Catholic Bible Society's plates for at 
least five editions.^"^ 

Cardinal Wiseman well summed up the position 
when he said that of the current editions, nominally 
of tlic Plieims New Testament, " many may appear 
rather new versions than revisions of the old." ^-" 


Adding to tlie variety of the Englisli texts, lie ap- 
proved an edition based largely on Troy's later edi- 
tion, but with a few original renderings.-^ ^''^ 

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.^ ^^ 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 ISTew 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 ISTew Testament in 
1862, with a preface reciting these facts, and numer- 
ous original notes, critical and explanatory.^"^ 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 


the fittest lias Lad every chance to survive. Xewman 
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 geogi-aph- 
ical limitation.^^^ 

As regards the New Testament, the case is radi- 
cally different. I^ewman 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.-'^^ 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 ]^ew York, be- 
sides Husenbeth's edition of Ilaydock. 

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 Ehemish translators." ^^^ The 
Catholic Gigot acknowledges " that at the present 
day there is really no one received text of the 
Rheims ISTew Testament among English-speaking 
Catholics." ^^^ See Diagram 4. 


The Protestant Version 

The American Standard Edition avows in one of 
its prefaces that the foundation of the I^ew Testa- 
ment version Avas laid by William T^Tidale. 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, Y96 remain unchanged to- 
day in the modern Catholic and Protestant edi- 

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 " ISTot only that there was no rowme in my 
lorde of londons jDalace 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 



Emperor, and at Marburg, where ho and Zwingli had 
conferred.-' ^^ Yet very little bias is to be seen in 
the text, which he did not " improve " as Luther had 
donc,^^^ but rendered most faithfully. ■'^^ Although 
Sir Thomas More professed to find a thousand errors 
in it, ho specified only a few, 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 boon M'iser to lot 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, " Hero all bind and 
loose." ^^^ Indeed, his second edition was freed 
from notes, and subsequent writings show that he 
realized how seriously he bad handicapped his work 
by such a device.^ '*^ 

This enterprise was quite indejxjndent of the King, 
who is well known to have been entitled by the Pope 
" Defender of the Eaitli " against the new 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 
jjolitical 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." ^'*^ 


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 
which he adopted the separation of the Apocrypha, 
though the New Testament is based more on Tyn- 
dale.^ ^^ It was soon reprinted in England, and the 


third edition was " 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.^^^ Cromwell 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 tlie 
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 
tlie promised authorized version.-^ ''•^ Coverdale was 
engaged as an experienced editor, but was not fur- 
nished with a complete manuscrii)t text. He took as 


his basis, not Wyclif s nor his own 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 Crannier 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 wiser 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 ISTew 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. N^ext year 
the whole Bible was published by the English con- 


gregation at Geneva. It contained an epistle to 
" Qvene Elisabet," whieli 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.^ ''^ 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 T^oidale 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 while 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.^''* 
Eor this purpose a revision of the authorized Great 
Bible was made, resulting in the Bishops' Bible, 
Avhich was jmblished during IHGS in a large and 
expensive form. But the Queen did not heed a re- 


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 ]^ew Testament revised by Tomson and 
issued by the Queen's printer, while Catholics prompt- 
ly followed it with the Rheims I^ew 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 down, as recorded by Bancroft, it was 
ordered that it should be made chiefly 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.^^^ Eifty-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 deej)ly influenced by 


the Genevan, and by the Rhelms Kew Testament, 
Avhich stood side by side with the Bishops' text in 
Fulkc's critical edition.^^^^ The Doiiay Old Testa- 
ment did not have this gratuitous advertisement, and 
appeared rather too late to influence their work. 

Their revision was 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.^'^ 
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 Boyal 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 
Grceke text." Walton in 1657 published a fine crit- 
ical edition of the originals, many early versions, 
and quotations from early Avritcrs. The work went 
on chiefly in England and Germany, though wilh 
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 


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- 
gen, 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 ? 


After years of popular debate, the British society 
refused to circulate the Apocrypha, and practically 
adopted the canon advised by Jerome.^ ^^ 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 publislied portions, then 
in 1865 a complete ISTew 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 Eree Churches, and with which new 
American Committees interchanged suggestions, so 
as to make the new revision both international and 
interconfessional.^^^ Tlie revised New Testament 
appeared in 1881, the Old in 1885, when the British 
Committee practically ceased work.^^^ At the re- 


quest of the University Presses, which had bono;ht 
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 T^ew Testa- 
ment, and in the same year the whole Bible without 
Apocrypha, but with much-improved editing,^^^ 


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 modern 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 


as tlie rest, equally inspired by the same Spirit.^ ^^ 
I^ow 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 
work (II: 24—33), while 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 Translatoes. — 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.b., 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 down to us only in 
fragments. He had the Old Latin versions in manu- 


scripts, probably older than any which 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 knew of the standard Syriac version. The 
Douay scholars were no better off. 

The Anglo-American Revisers were worse off than 
Jerome for old Jewish manuscripts, but had critical 
texts based on many more, gathered from all parts 
and i^arties ; 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 always 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 was a good scholar. On the other side. Cover- 
dale, although he disclaimed all Hebrew scholarship. 


was yet most painstaking in his work ; while even in 
1526 Tyndale was 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 iSTew 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.^*^*^ 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 Avere 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 


charge liim 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.^*'^ 
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- 

errors exist in the modern Catholic versions, trace- 
able to blunders of Jerome. ^*^^ 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.^^* 

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, l^ot 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- 


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. ^^^ 

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 tlie difference ; though the read- 
ing now followed in the text coincides with that 
always followed by tlie Douay translators. ^^^ In a 
few cases the Protestant version lias silently adopted 
the reading always preferred at Douay; ^^^ in others, 
the Protestant margin acknowledges that the read- 
ing of the Catholic version is worth considering; ^^^ 
in still other passages, scholars do not agree as to 


what is certainly the true original, and there are 
even remarkable readings unnoticed by either ver- 
sion. ^"^ 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 bo 
wrong, while the 1901 version is certainly right.^^*' 
Two 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.' " ISTow, 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.^^^ 

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." Xo words corresponding ex- 
actly to the bracketed passage are to be found in a 
single one of the two hundred and fifty Greek manu- 


scripts that contain the adjoining verses. Any words 
at all like them are foimd only in four Greek manu- 
scripts, all written after the year 1400, with suspi- 
cions of forgery in each case.^^^ They are never 
quoted by any Greek writer till 1215, even when 
discussing the doctrine of the Trinity, and adducing 
texts to prove it. They were unknown to the Chris- 
tians of Kussia, 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 drawn 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 unknoM'n 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 M'as sanctioned by tlie 
Council of Trent, Catholics generally maintain it," 


without expressing any personal opinion. Ordinary 
Catholic editions insert the passage without a shred 
of warning that it was not written by the Apostle. 


The current Catholic versions retain a scholarly uni- 
formity in rendering, to which the 1901 edition has 
not yet attained. ^^^ They are, however, tamer in 
their syntax than the parent version of 1582, a fault 
charged against the American revision also.^^^ 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. Eor 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.^^^ 

AccESSOEiEs OF THE Text. — Catholic authorities 
attach great importance to supplying notes. The 
Rheims !N^ew 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 


England, both then and when reprmtcd in 1816. The 
notes on the Old Testament were milder and fewer, 
and were 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.-^''' Modern Catho- 
lic editions, however, still print some notes dealing 
with debated theological points.^^* 

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 ijisa, 
" She shall crush," others ipsum, meaning " The Seed 
shall crush," ^^^ 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- 


tides of Canticles " in the editions of 1610, 1611, 
1885, 1901.) 

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, drew up a very 
large body, which gave a great impulse to the fash- 
ion.^^*^ 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 between 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 unknown 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, ajjproved by church authority. The Prot- 


estant edition of 1901 appends with 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 own tongue, and until lately special permis- 
sion was needed for each person.^^^ 

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.^^^ 

" 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.^"^ 

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 arc 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 


The chief Catholic English Version borrowed free- 
ly from the Protestant versions at its first transla- 
tion."^^' 136 

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 J9- «<^' ^^ 

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 wlien 
the rendering or text is open to question. Either 


edition, ho^^'eve^, is amply sufficient to fulfill the 
desire of one of the latest and greatest New Testa- 
ment writers, 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." 


Diagram i 

To illustrate its miscellaneous composition 

Ecclesiasticus Judith Wisdom 

I Maccabees Psalms Tobit 2 Maccabees New 

PartofBaruch Most of the Old Testament Additions Testament 


Greek LXX 

Old Latin 

Greek LXX 

Old Latin 


Psalter Jerome's 


Greek LXX 

Old Latin 


Old Latin 

Old Latin 


Ordinary Bible of the early Middle Ages, varying in contents, order, and text 

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

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

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

Diagram 2 



to illustrate the material available in print 

in 1582 for the Douay and Vulgate : ADDITIONAL IN 1750 



Hebrew in care of Jews Hebrew 
in care of 

Greek of 


Greek Septuagint 


Greek of 

reek edition by Origen 
emnants in notes 1887 



Latin of ARM EN 
Jerome l6b6,/SSQ 
1455, 1591, 

Syriac by Paul 
of Telia, 1573 
Part of Deut. 

( Ashburnham 
Ainiatine and 
S. Gall MSS) 

in MS) 


by He 






Old Latin 
1588, 174J 


n, 1514 



1000 ARABIC ol 
Abu Sa'id 

Samuel ENGLISH by 

ben Jacob iT-.lfric 

Petersburg 1698 


Diagram 3 


The Catholic English Version of the Sixteenth Century 


Catholic and Protestant Publications 



Wyclif 1380 


Purvey 1388 



Zwingli IJ24 



Luther 1^22 

Z.w,ngli IS24 , I 

>/rf<j/« /J'a^. ____ — .^^1 PAGNINUS \$ii\ ST£PH^NUS ISii 

TyndaU I^3S 


Coverdale 15JS 

Rogers {Matthew) IS37 

Coverdale IS3Q-41 Taverner IJ3g 


Parker { Bishops')' IjbS-^S 
MONTANUS 1569-72 



Martin, Rheims, 1582 i 

Coverdale IJJS English-LATIN 

STEPHANUS 1538-40 
HE NT EN 1547 


Fulie ibor 
Fulke 76/7 

Eulke jb33 

Antwerp 1600^ 

By Lucas of 
^^ALLEN 1592 

Antwerp 1621 

Rouen 1633 

Douay ( 1738 

Liverpool 1788 

Dublin 1816-18 

' Bruges 

New Yorl 1834 

Bagster 184I 

Diagram 4 


as set forth by Newman and Gigot 
New Testament only 

Douay reprint 1738 

Challonir 1750 

Cambridge revision l6j8 
final form of Royal 
Protestant Version 
constantly attracting 

Cambridge edition lyds 
Oxford edition lj6g 
MacMahon 1 783 

Troy 1791, 
Trovi794. / 

Murray 1825 

Husenbeth 1853 

Duffy, Dublin 

Dunigan, New York 

Gigot does not give facts 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 1862,60 
is cot mdicated. 

Diagram 5 




Important Greek and Latin Testaments in margin 
Catholic and Protestant publications 


Erasmus l^lb 
Stumca I §20 

Erasmus j^22 Tyndale 1^2^ 


Tyndale 1^35 


Rogers {^Mattheiv') I^^y 

Co'ver'dak [Great) IJJ8-4/ 

Stephanus l^^O 
Slephanus IJJI 

Beza ij6j 
Bey.a ijgS 

Parker (Bishops') ij68-^2 

Beza IJj6 
fFhittingham /JJ/ 

Whittingham (Gene'van) J^6o 

Beza Ij6j 

Martin 1^82 

Tomson /J^6 

Fulke's edition of both 1601 

\ II . 

King jfames Re-vision ibll 
( Arrival ofAlexandnan MS /62J ) I i 

King Charles Re-vtsion l62<p 
Elze-vir l6jj 1 1 

Final Re-vision l6j8 


Lachmann 1842-^0 
Tischendorf j8^b-^() 

Tregelles l8^y-'J2 
( Sinaitic MS printed 1862) 
Tischendorf l8b4-'J2 
(Alexandrian AiSautotfped /8bj) 
ff^estcolC & Hon used by re-visers 
Westcott 6f Hort published 18S1 

Anglo-American Re-vision 1881 
Vatican MS Photographic edition i88g 1 1 

American Re-vision igol 


Bible Union Re-vision 





Introduction. The Origin of the Bible 

Our Bible is a collection of little books, as its 
name from the Latin form of a Greek word, Bihlia, 
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, 



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 I^ew Testament were written in 
Greek, though possibly one or two of them appeared 
first in Aramaic. Jesus Himself, so far as Ave know, 
wrote nothing. But after His death some of His dis- 
ciples wrote out accounts of His life. Four of these 
accounts are our Four 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 !N"ew 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 ^NTew Testament. Besides, 
there is the book of the Revelation. Using round 


numbers and somewhat extreme limits, we may say 
that these l^ew 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.^ 


(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- 

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, 
Avere 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- 


ceived into the Septiiagint, 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 ISTew 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 N^ew 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 


sometimes malicious, as in the Roman persecutions 
of the Christians; or well meant, as with the Jews, 
wliose custom was to destroy a copy of their Scrip- 
tures as soon as it became worn, so that it might not 
be 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 ISTew 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 
]\[ount 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 


Hebrew into Greek, and of both Hebrew and Greek 
into Syriac, Latin, Egj'ptian, and other hmguages 
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 


corroborative and corrective merely, and should be 
received with caution.^ 

4. Regaining the Trtte 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 ilie Old Testament 

In the Old Testament text there are far fewer 
variations among existing numuscripts than in the 


!N^ew ; yet tbe text of tlie 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) Tlie 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: 


(a) Antiocliian, 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 Antiocliian 
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 
Antiocliian is a later and less reliable form of the 


Scripture text. In following the received Greek text, 
however, our earlier English versions followed this 

(h) 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, excej^ting 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 I^eutral 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 tMe 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 
difiiculties mentioned. I^^o other ancient classic com- 
pares with the Bible in the number of manuscript 
copies and translations in which it has been pre- 


served. Of no other is the antiquity of extant copies 
so great, l^o 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 ISTew 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." ^^ 


The Origin" and History of the "Version of the 
Bible Authorized by the Roman Catholic 

Having learned sometliing 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 



the approval of some archbishop. Both the Douay 
Version proper, however, and those of the modern 
Catholic versions that are in general nse, are based 
primarily on the Latin Vnlgate. 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.b. After 
a life devoted to Bible study, he died at Bethlehem 
in the year 420. lie 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 Xew 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.^^ 


(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 

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 ^ew 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 


(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 written copies of the Bible, were at work in 


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 

(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 

(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- 


tions to Daniel and Esther, from the Old Latin 

(e) The Gospels in the Old Latin translation of 
the original Greek, compared Avith the Greek and 
carefully revised by Jerome. 

(/) The rest of the liew 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, 


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 
YIII, 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 


standard but imperfect text for all Catholic versions 
of the Scriptures, from which, according to a Bull 
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 : " ]^ow, 
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 Ile- 
brew books which are equivalent to our thirty-nine. 
The Septuagint contained other books besides the 


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 
liote 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 


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 Koman Catholic — cannot now be justi- 
fied, Nor can the view held by many, of a wide 
difference in kind as well 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. Eor 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 wdiole, and their history in the church, 
condemn as unjustifiable and misleading tlie 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 cither of these extremes. The practice 


of the Itoman Catliolic Church, in printing at the 
end of the Vnlgate the three books, III and IV 
Esdras and The Prayer of Manasses, as apocryphal 
but worthy of Christian perusal, corresponds to this 

(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 Ilebrew.^^ The Old Latin Version 
Avhich 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 


number of its most distinctive religious and theolog- 
ical words.^^ At tlie 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 ]^ew 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) WortJi, Not Infallibility 

While, then, the worth of the Vulgate in some re- 
spects is considerable, the reader may be sure that it 


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 
wisli 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." 


The History of the Catholic Version 

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 scliolar, in 
1568 established an English college at Douay, Elan- 
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 



the College to Eheims, the New Testament was first 
published ; and is, therefore, often called the " Rhem- 
ish Version." Tlie Old Testament, delayed for lack 
of funds, was issued in 1009-10, 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 


wording which in some cases marked the Calvinists' 
Genevan Version.*'^ The Doiiay'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 Avhicli 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 " (Eomans 1 : 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 

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 wliicli this version of 
the Scriptures met with in England perhaps helped 


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 tpie 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 itsTew 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 ISTewman (Catholic) concluded, as 
Cotton (Protestant) had done before him, that 
" Challoner's Version [of the Old Testament] is 


even nearer to the Protestant than it is to the 
Douay." ^" And that the same holds in the Xew 
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 

(2) The Troy Bible 

The only other revision that has had any notice- 
able eifect on subsequent editions is that known as 
the Troy Bible. This w^as 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 
anew." ^^ 

(3) The " AuthcnUc" 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 


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. ]^either 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 


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 
!N^ew 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 down 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 varieties 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." 


(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 hooks, 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 bymany 
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 ! " 


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 

Acts XVI: 16, " A certain girl, having a pythonical 

James V: 17, " Elias was a man passil)le like nnto 

I John IV : 3, " And every sjnrit that dissolveth 

Jesus is not of God." 

(6) Testimony of Catholic Translators from the 
HeJjrew and Greek 

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 imdertaken more 
accurate and more intelligible versions direct from 
the Hebrew and Greek. One of these, Archbishop 
Kenrick of Baltimore, between the years 18-19 and 
1860, translated the whole r>ible. The Xew Testa- 
ment part he called, " A translation of the Latin 
Vulgate," believing that in the Xew Testament books 
the readings of the Vulgate were generally to be 
])referred. Even here he freely adopts renderings 
from a former Catholic version from the Greek by 
Lingard, and from the Authorized English Version. 


In the Old Testament part, tlioiigli the title " Re- 
vised Edition of the Doiiay " 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. 


The Origin and History of the English Revised 
Version of the Bible, American Standard 

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 
1011; the third is marked by the English-American 
revisions of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. 


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. 



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 Cnodmon, 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 Avas another Psalter in Anglo-Saxon. In 
the tenth century parts of the book of Exodus and 
the Psalter were translated by King Alfred, while 
^Elfric, 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- 
J^orman translations of the Gospels, dating from the 
time of William III to the time of Henry II. 

Erom the thirteenth century we have a metrical 
joaraphrase 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 oed nouot in the 


counseil of wicked: ne stocle nouot in the 
waie of sinoeres, ne sat noiiot in fals juge- 
ment. Ac hijs wylle was in the wylle of 
oiire Lord; and lie sclial thenche in hijs 
lawe both da3e and nj3t. 

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, ahnost certainly, the rest of the ISTew 
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.^8 

(1) Oenuineness 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 


the fourteentli 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 His Worh 

In respect of character, intelligent ability, and 
purpose as a translator, Wyclif has been justified 
both by his works and by his fellow men. Milman, 
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. 


(3) Character and Influence of Wyclifs Work 

The source of Wyclifs Bible, like that of the para- 
phrases before it^, was the Latin Vulgate. In conse- 
quence, this version had all the faults of the faulty 
Latin. Wyclif and his fellow laborers knew little 
or nothing of IlebreAv 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.®'* Tor all this, Wyclifs 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 Wyclifs Bible is the 
English of our Bibles still. In the next section we 
shall have to do with William T^mdale, 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 Wyclifs 
work. One can hardly set before himself any famil- 
iar passage, like the following from Wyclifs l^ew 
Testament, without acknowledging this debt (only the 
modern y, g, and v are inserted) : 

Romans XII : 1, 2. Therfore, britheren. 


Y biseclie you bi the mercy of God, that ye 
gyve youre bodies a lyvynge sacrifice, hooli, 
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- 


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 ISTew 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 T^Tidale's opportunity.^® 

(1) Tyndale's ^VorTc 

He was a man of clear vision and lieroic 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 N^ew 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- 


werp, he was strangled to death and his body burned 
at Vilvorde, 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 ISTew 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 ISTew 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. ISTevertheless, 
in translating the ISTew 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 


(3) Tyndale's ScJwIarship 

What of Tyndale's scholarship ? lie spent at least 
eleven years at Oxford and Cambridge Universities. 
In 1903 a Roman Catholic professor describes him as 
" a Franciscan priest who, having tnrned out a Prot- 
estant, nndertook to publish a translation of the 
whole Bible from the original text, thongh he had 
but little knowledge of Hebrew." But in T^Tidale'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 his 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- 


(5) Tynddles Purpose 

His dominating pnrpose 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 he the author of any sect, or to draw disciples 
after me, or that I would he 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) Tynddles 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 wdiich 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 



its final 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) : 

Philippians II: 5-8 


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. 

American Revised Version 
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. 


The Histoey of the AMEEicAisr Revised Veksion 

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. 

153Y, Matthew's (Rogers's) Bible. 

1539, The Great Bible. 

1539, Taverner's Bible. 

1560, The Genevan Bible. 

1568, The Bishops' Bible. 
IsText after these, setting aside the Rheims-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 imdertook a translation of the 



Bible.'^'' In tliis work he proved himself honest and 
humbly receptive of the truth. Thongli 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 — ]\Iyles Coverdale's w^ork 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 ISTew 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 

(1) King Henry VIII mid 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 syuipathetic toward 
the IN^ew Learning, if it did not interfere with his 


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 Poj)e 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 OAvn 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 

(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 peoj^le 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 


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 Tjmdale, 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 T;)Tidale's 
Kew 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 


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 ISTew 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. Taveenee'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. 


(1) " Back 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 Avhatever advantages accrue from 

(2) "For Obvious Reasons" 

Just what is meant by the Protestant version be- 
ing " gotten up for obvious reasons " is not clear : 
whether 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. Tlie obvious reason for 
the work of Tyndale, Coverdale, and Rogers was that 
they believed themselves called of God to give the 


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 fled, 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." 


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. 

i7. The Authorized Version 

(1) Its 8 cope 

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 within 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. 


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) lis 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 chiefly the Genevan, and next the Ehemish.^* 
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 w^ere helps. In the New Testament they were 
not much better off, depending chiefly 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 w^ere 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- 


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. 
N'inety 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."^ 


The History of the American Revised Version 

the third period 

1. The English Revised Version 

After the Anthorized Version of 1611, came a 
long pause in Bible translation. Neither material 
nor scholarship was ready for a imited 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 Anthorized 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 



1638 makes l^umbers XXV: 18 saj, " They vex you 
with their wives" ("wales"), 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 chiefly 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 Xew Testament. In both 
Old and New Testaments the advance in geography, 
geology, history, and archicology 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 


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 ISTew 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. ISTot 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.) 


(2) The ^Vorhers and the Work 

It was in tlie lig-ht of these facts that the English 
Revision was undertaken in 1870. Private transla- 
tions or revisions of parts of the Bihle had been 
attempted from time to time bj individual scholars, 
and concerted eifort 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 Apocryplia 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. 


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, wliile correcting it in passages where they 
vary from it considerably. 

(h) The New Testament text has been corrected 


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, 


the Challoner-Douay translation of this is blind: 
" But what am I thy servant a dog, that I should do 
this great thing ? " los 

(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 

(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 "). 

(/t) Certain Obscure Phrases have been clarified. 


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 

(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 emj)hasis 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. 

(k) 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. 

(I) 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 })erson can fail to recognize the vast 
superiority of the English Ivovised Version over all 
others tlint lind preceded it.^"'' Through it all there 


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 in 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.^^^ 


(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 flesh 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. ii, Xote 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.^ ^^ 
(&) 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 tliat the English Eil)le sliould 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," 


" straitness," " 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 Ohscure 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. 
Eor 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 

(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 Eather 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." 


(/) Names of a special eliaractcr liavc been inoro 
faithfully rendered. The name Jehovah, expressive 
of the thought of God as the ever-j^resent 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 ohjectionahle 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- 

(i) The English Revisers prudently omitted the 
old chapter headings and page headlines altogether, 
rather than amend them, With a lame apology, tlic 
English New Testament Revisers allowed the titles 
of books to stand unrcviscd. In both cases the Ameri- 
can Revisers have rendered a positive service: first, 


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 w^as 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 


'"" ""-liLDV -CTHEg HEBREW-^EEKWSS. ^mKH^lKlH^* 


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

Diagram 2 







■ SDH 







p V«i|i\fs '' 











ri t: 





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. 
t " " " *' Tyndale, Genevan, Bishops', and Authorized Versions. 

J " *' " " English-American Revision. 

Diagram 3 

Tabular View 


English Versioi^softheBibih. 



CTiirfStvrcei ifltier1llttntiii>li'k 


Hn^Io -Saxon and OldEnj- 
lish ]3QrapfirasPS,of(iDS{}eIs , 
HalVt2S. £t(?. 



Wyc^klifffe Bible. 

Latin Vul(Jatfe. 

Tyndales ftrftateuch and 

Wycklifrtt Cvo^H 

Covci-dglg's Bible, 

Tyndaks, N.T. 



Em.smus' latin N.T- 
Luther's Scrtngn, 


ryndcxlcs 'A O.T. 
CovcKlales '/i CXT. 
ryndales N.T. 

Fa^riinus'LcCt'ia . 
Zurich, (rermara. 


C<rgat Bibles. 


Frasmus' latin N.T. 


Sam? as gbov^. 

CjCngy/ar? . 

O.T. f ro>n"Mqtthgu^* 

LaTiVi Vulgate, 
Era'^mus' gfg.gkNT. 

Cgrrnariand. rnncW W»S10 



f si<asT "sQ., 








'l^cceived' HebrecJ . 
Ttetnellius' latin. 




"Ifdccivad." HebrGa?". 
TlnCianTCre.k NX ^^SS. 


l\mcr]dan Kgvisd Verst'oti 

English %vise<i 

Tha Sarne . 

Diagram 4 


refold l.<i1™V€.r»|op.opS«p-tUo«.^*, 

I- ^ 
















" 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 born the wonderful works of 

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 



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 


Gospels before 
70 A.D. 

Between '^ Epistles be- 

Old Testament writ- 1 1200 B.C. The New Testament J tween 51 A.D. 

ten in Hebrew 

written in Greek 

and 67 A.D. 

The Booii of 
the Revelation 
96 A.D. 

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



Hebrew Greek Quotations by Versions in sev- \ -^^^ 

oldest 916 A.D. oldest 4th century early Chris- eral languages, / y^jg^j.^ 


tian Fathers 

one of the most , 
important being 

The Revised Version 

The Douay 

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. 



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 Avhere 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 diiference between Catho- 
lics and Protestants as to what is contained in the 

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. {*). 


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 do^\^l 
to us unchanged from the time of Christ himself. But 
the Catholic Church does object to the reading of the 
Protestant version, Avhicli goes back only to the days 
of Henry VIII of England, and was then gotten 
up for obvious reasons. ISTeither 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 


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. 


The Manuscripts, 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 ISTew 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 nuitilated 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 OIG A.n. 



The Greek manuscripts of the ^ew Testament 
suifered 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 CXIX: 161), 
" Printers have persecuted me without a cause," a 
form of persecution from which he at any rate was 

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 


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 E, iN" 
miglit be read, 
BB^, BEE", BRI^, BUl^ BEN 

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 tlieir 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 imcertain in many 
places. Still more is this likely to be the case with 
the text of the Bible, written two or tliree thousand 
years ago, and of which no original manuscript is 
in existence. 


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 !N^ew Testament, the 
existing manuscripts are much nearer the date of 
the originals, and must have passed through fewer 
hands. ]\Ioreover, 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 


variations for the most part to be of trifling im- 

Thus we still have amj)le material for ascertaining 
the true text of Scripture from tlie 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 Avhicli 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. 


How TO Ascertain the True 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 



referred to and their value carefully taken into ac- 

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.^*^ 


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 wath 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- 



isting Latin text of the ISTew Testament from the 
best Greek manuscripts Avhich 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 OAvn 
intrinsic merit, and through the growing influence of 
the Church of Rome^ and for more than a thousand 
years 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 


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 Bites at Rome. 


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. 


Authority for Use of the Dotjay Bible 

The translation of the Yiilgate 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, vs^hich 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 
w^here 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 wall take care that the most approved 
copy should be designated by them, and all editions 
both of the Old and jSTew 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 



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 

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 ap])roval 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 


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 

The Histoey of the Douay Bible 

During 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 Elanders, was founded 
with the object of organizing missionary work in 
England, and his labors gained for him the cardinal's 

In 15Y8, owing to political troubles, the members 
of the College migrated to Rheims, returning to 
Douay in 1009. 

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. 



The result of their labors was the publication in 
1582 of the !New Testament with notes by Bristow 
and Allen at Rheims, and in 1G09 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 ]^e^^^nan, " 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 Klieims 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. 


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 kno^vn 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 Ilaydock, 
was issued by the Very Rev. F. C. Husenbeth with 


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 Xew 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- 
j)robation of Cardinal Gibbons as " an accurate re- 
print of the Rhemisli 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. 


The Men who Translated the Bible into 

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 clone in verse by Cscdmon, a 
monk of Whitby (d. 680). 

Erom 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 Wyelif 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 Avas 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, ^- Eoxc bears witness tliat " the fervent zeal 
of those churches seemed superior to our days and 
times, as manifestly may appear by their sitting up 



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." ^^ 


It was about this time (1522) that Luther, the hero 
of the Reformation, published his version, which hud 
a marked influence on subsequent transhitions. In- 
deed, notwithstanding the anatheuuis 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 which, with Wy- 
clif's, the Kevised Version is most indebted is that of 
William Tyndale, born about 1484. Ilis 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 IMay, 
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 w^ork witli 
effect, and in 1525 printed a quarto edition of the 
New Testament at Worms, whither he fled from 
Cologne to avoid an injunction on his printer ob- 
tained at the instigation of Cardinal Wolse3\ The 
issue of this edition soon became kno's\Ti in England, 
and Tyndale's enemies kept a sharp lookout for its 
arrival, with the charitable object of seizing and 


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 w^ere 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 fling 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 tlie patient labors and tender sym- 
pathy of Myles Coverdale, the beauty of whose char- 
acter is fully shown in his disclaimer of originality 


in translations* of the Bible which both friends and 
foes have ascribed to him. 

The persecutions endured by Tjndale 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. 


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 
owTi 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. 


This Cutbbert was the same man who had refused 
the hospitality of his palace to Tjndale 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 1543 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 w^as given to tlie 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 


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 ISTew 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 

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 1611.27 


This was the work of forty-seven translators chosen 
bj 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 w^hich 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 wdiich 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 


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 Plouse of Convoca- 
tion, with a view to the revision of the Old and IN'ew 
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 ISTew 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." 


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 

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, Avhether 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. 


The Influence of Previous English Transla- 
tions ON THE Revised Version 

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, " Harrow 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 

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 able 
to use and did use the original Hebrew and Greek 

While " 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." 



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. lie 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 slioidd be endowed Avith 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 sucli a word may be permitted — 
which brcatlies 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." ^^ 

Tyndalc's was an honest translation from the orig- 
inal, and to its excellence witness is given by Geddes, 
a Boman Catholic scholar. Thougli his knowledge of 
Hebrew has been denied by souie authorities, the evi- 
dence seems conclusive in favor of his haviug been an 
accurate Hebrew scholar. It is not, as has been as- 
serted by Ilallam and by ]\racknight, a copy from the 
Vulgate, nor from Luther's German. He " availed 
himself of the best help which lay within his reacli, 
but he used it as a master and not as a disciple. In 


this work alone he felt thcat 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." ^^ 

Tjndale's translation of the Xew 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 

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 

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. 


Among expressions for wliicli lie is indebted to 
Luther we quote the following-, found also in the 
Douaj and Revised Versions : " A voice was heard 
in Kama," " to the Greek and to the barbarians," 
" thj 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 l^umbers 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 
which 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 


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 

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 
which he revised more than once his own work." '^^ 
Some part of his Bilile 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- 
jDcndent 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- 


sion. Owing to the nnnibcr of translators, tlie 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. 


The Authorized VERsioiir of IGll and the Eng- 
lish AND American 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 Avould permit. Where alter- 
ations were decided on, the expression of them was to 
be in the language of earlier English versions. In 
the 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- 



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 
bo done in collecting and comparing copies of 
the Septuagint and other versions and in careful 
study of the Hebrew manuscrij^ts 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. 


of the word " Jehovah " for " Lord " and " God." 
A Jewish siijierstition regards the divine name 
" Jehovah " as too sacred to he uttered, and in the 
Authorized Version the word is seldom or never used. 
The Revisers in their Preface point out tliat the 
word " designates God as the personal God, as the 
covenant God, the God of revelation, the Deliverer, 
the Friend of tlio 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 " wdien not referring to persons.^'* 

The work on the ]Srew 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 w^as carefully sifted, 
and the different schools of criticism among the Re- 
visers ehabled 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. 


In some passages it was necessary to revise tlic Greek 
text in accordance with documentary evidence. For 
example, the weight of evidence is against the in- 
sertion of the cLanse, " For thine is the kingdom, 
and the power, and tlie glory, forever. Amen " 
(]\ratthew 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." 


The Douay Version" and the Re seised VEKsioisr 

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 ISTew 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 



Douay, but have been altered to agree with the Au- 
thorized and Revised Versions. We need only con- 
cern ourselves with those which the modern Douay 
retains, and we find that the Revised Version agrees 
with the modern Douay in the use of " hosanna," 
" raca," " johylacteries," " 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: 


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 

Xo 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 i^ew 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 tliemselves 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 shoAvn that this can 
be done), why should the Bible reader be compelled 
to turn to a table at the end to ascertain the meaning 


of the fifty-five words there given ? Revisers of the 
Douaj 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 Don ay 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 1G83. !N^ine 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.^*^ l^ine 
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. 


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 diflS- 
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 shown 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 w^ere 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 T^m- 
dale's Bible; neither, when Ave criticise the Douay 
Bible as used by Catholics of to-day, should we refer 
for that purpose to an out-of-date edition. Thus out 
of seventy-one passages (pioted from the Douay Bible 
by Protestant writers and condemned as " unintel- 
ligible," " painful," " absurd," we find that eighteen 
passages in the modern Douay agi'ee 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 


the modern Doiiay 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, Plebrews 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 wdth 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. 


the eleven apostles;" Romans I: 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 tlie 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 : 


Jeremiah 11 19 Let us put wood on Let us destroy the tree 

his bread with the frviit 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 i n 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 



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 


overlaying of their 


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 

all her hires 


their heads 

not being able to ex- 

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 



We are now in a position to consider the different 
points raised in Father Early's letter. 

Wc have shown that the Catholic Chnrch docs 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 chnrch, 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, Avhose use is, as we have sho^\Ti, 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 



" 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 


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 Kevisers 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 Avhatever with Henry VIII, his errors or 
his opinions. There is, in fact, not one instance in 
the history of the English Bible Avhere the influence 
of that monarch, except as a persecutor, had any 
effect on the Avork 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 tlie thought of tlie original. The original 
object of the Douay Version of 1S52 was to stop lib- 
erties taken with the text by reformers. This object 
has not been kept in vicnv by its modern editors, who 
have introduced extensive alterations, and have made 


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, " l^either Avill 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 


translate tlie Holy Scriptures into another tongue 
must fall short of tlieir aim, when the obligation is 
imposed of prodncing a version, that shall be alike, 
literal and idiomatic, faithful to each thoiiglit 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 tlie fact that revised translations of the 
Holy Scriptures must be necessary as more light is 
tlirown 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 faitli 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 wlio value one of the versions as highly 
as they do their own. 




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 still pre- 
sents the results of indei^endent 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 full titles of works referred to will be found 
in the Bibliography; 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 S-6 18, 7 12-26; 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 Naphtali of Babylon, 
partly of the standard Eastern Jewish Text, at Tzufutkale. See 
Strack in Hastings IV. 725-732, and Buhl Canon and Text 



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. G3. 
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 quota- 
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 re\'isions, 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 
all 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 IiHrod. 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 


Scriptures in Syria comes from the Christians of Edessa, and the 
history of the versions near here is not so far unraveled tliat 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 "Pesliito." 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, viz., 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 TertuUian and St. Cyprian ; but Tertullian 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 
Hernias." See also Westcott Canon 423. 


8. Thirty-eight of the Old Latin manuscripts are described in 
Scrivener-Miller Introduction II. 45-54. Kennedy gives an ex- 
haustive Hst 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. 

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, 

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 

18. Gigot Introduction 104. 

19. "Time and again, this illustrious Doctor of the Latin 
Church rejects the authority of the deutero-canonical books in 
the most explicit 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 


Tobit, Judith, and the additions to Esther and Daniel. Gigot 
Introduction 56-59; Comely 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 llSff; 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. Cornely 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." 


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-G4. 

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 
utilitatis accedere posse Ecclesise Dei, si ex omnibus latinis 
editionibus, quae circumferuntur, sacrorum librorum, quamam pro 
authentica habenda sit, innotescat, statuit et declarat, ut hsec 
ipsa vetus et Vulgata editio, quae longo tot saeculorum 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 haic ipsa vetus et Vulgata etlitio quam emendatissime im- 

46. Vatican Decrees, ii. On the difference of faith and dis- 
cii)line see Westcott's article on the " Vulgate " in Smith Dic- 

47. Brent's 1676 translation of Pietro Soave Polano History 
of the Council of Trent 146-147; Cornely Introd. Compend. 
111-112; Van Ess GeschichtederVtdgata I 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 I)e 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 


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 

50. Gigot Introduction 336; Brent's transl. of Polano Coun- 
cil of Trent 150. 

51. Cornely Introd. Compend. 115; Gigot Introduction 

52. Swete quotes the introductory matter, Introduction 174- 
182. It explains the principles on which Sixtus was working, and 
the appreciation at Rome tliat 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 1547, 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 


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. 

57. Gigot Introduction 338; Fritzsche in Schaff-Herzog 1. 284a. 

58. Cornely Introd. Compend. 117; White in Hastings IV. 
881b; instances in Home Introduction II. 237-238. 

59. The writer has examined original impressions of 1592, 
1593, 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 1598 are 
full 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. Bulil 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 

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 Bihlio- 
theca; White in Hastings IV. 882a. 

64. Rule III. allows the bishop to sanction a version of the Old 


Testament as an elucidation of the Vulgate, not as the sound text. 
It stipulates that the version must be approved by the Catholic 
Faculty of a University or by the Inquisition. See Buckley 
Canons and Decrees of Trent, 1851. 

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 Gosjiels 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 Wyclif '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 
Wyclif or by his reviser. Westcott- Wright A General View of 
the History of the English Bible 15. 


69. This revision 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 felawis and helperis, to gedere manie 
elde biblis, and othere doctouris, and comune glosis and to make 
CO 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 kunnjiige at the 
correcting of the translacioun. . The comune Latyn Biblis han 
more nede to be correct id, as manie as I haue seen in my lif, 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 34i; 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 ]-»earl 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 lie yields to the re- 
quest of the monk and nvm who asked for them, "y moste in cas 
vnderfonge the deth." Even he does not contemplate that his 


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 surviving manuscripts show that it was 
made for people in orders, and owned by them. Paues 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 English 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." WUkins Consilia Magnce Britannice et Hihernice 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 English, 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 policy 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- 
Bynge that no man schulde haue ne drawe eny texte of holy 


scrypfiirc in-to Englysshe wythout lyccnse of the bysshop 

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 
insiu-e that they are accurate, and to discriminate between the 
new hostility 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 Wyclifjeand 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 175, that in 1511 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 1529, when they had only been printed in English for three 
years. Mr. Bradshaw pointed out that the success of the revised 
Wyclif 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 
CathoHc version of the Middle Ages. He was answered next year 
by Matthew, and also by Kenyon of the British Museum, but 
maintained his opinion, republishing 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 Catholic 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 acceptability to one scholarly Catholic to- 
day. Wright sums up that "the Wycliffite origin of the transla- 
tions . . has been reestablished." Westcott General View 20. 


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 Wydif 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 

77. Twenty extracts from early versions were originally sub- 
mitted in this note, illustrating 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 tho 
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 light 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 morntid was maad one day. 

(6) Caxton (1483): 

In the begynnyng god made and created heuen and erthe/ 
The erthe was ydle and voyde and couerd with derknes And 
the spyrite of god was born on the watres/ And god said/ Be 
made lyght/ And anon lyght was made/ And god savve 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 mornyng was made 
one day/ 

Job 31 35-49 ill three versions. 

(c) Purvey (Skeat's reprint of Forshall and Madden) : 

who gyueth an helpere to me, that Almygti God here my 
desire? that he that demeth, write a book, that Y bere it in my 
schuldre, and cumpasse it as a coroun to me? Bi alle my degrees 


Y schal pronounce it, and Y schal as offre it to the pryncc. If 
my lond crieth agens me, and hise forewis wepen with it; if Y 
eet fruytis thereof with out money, and Y turmentidc the soule of 
erthetileris of it; a brere growe to me for wheete, and a thorn for 

(d) Covcrdale (Bagster's reprint of the 1535 edition): 

O that I Iiad one which wolde heare me. Lo, this is my cause. 
Let ye AUmightic geue me answerer & let him that is my cotrary 
party, sue me with a lylx>ll. Then shall I take it vpon my shuldcr, 
& as a garlade aboute my hcade. 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 frutes thereof vnpayed 
for, yee yf I haue greued eny of the plow men: Than, let thistles 
growe in steade of my wheate, & thornes 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 judgeth 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 Catholic versions are bound to 
give faulty renderings. Other modern Catholic editions give the 
same words as Denvir's text, but the punctuation is even more 

(/) Passage from the Rheims Testament, illustrating how every 
word not borrowed from previous versions is due to the Vulgate: 

[Words from Wyclif, Tyndale, or Covcrdale's diglot are in CAP- 
ITALS. New renderings are in ordinary type, with Vulgate in 

I Tim 4 1-5 
And THE SPIRIT manifestly (Manifeste) SAITH THAT IN 


THE FAITH atTENding (Attendentes) TO SPIRITES OF ER- 
GOOD, AND NOTHING TO BE reiected (rejiciendum) that 

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. 

85. See Bibliography. 

86. " Life of Allen " by Thompson Cooper in the Dictionary of 
National Biography. 

87. Carleton Rheims and the English Bible 15-16. 

88. " Life of Martin " by Thompson Cooper in the Dictionary of 
National Biography; Newman Tracts Theological and Eccles- 
iastical 361; Gigot Introduction 3'^!. 

89. There is a vague impression that the Catholic version is 


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 obligations 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 previous Oxford translator. 

91. Newman Traces 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 generally 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 Allen at the very center of the English textual scholars, 
marking the transition from Ceolfrid, Bede, Alcuin, .iElfric, Bacon, 
and Harding, to the new learning represented by Walton, Fell, 
Mill, Bentley, Kennicott, Tregelles, Westcott and Hort. Few men 
have had similar opportvmities 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 

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 
thit Catholics would not translate, and that to remedy the cor- 
ruptions of these new masters, Catholic pastors were setting forth 


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 
Dublin 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 

101. Darlow Catalogue 279-280. Challoner also extensively 
revised 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 Challoner'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. 

105. 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 


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 against 
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 
wilier 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, 
255: "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 tyj^e were carried off, the printers prosecuted." This 
action of the Tuscan civil authorities — though they erred in sujv 
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 h\troduction II. Part ii, 266. 

108. Darlow Catalogue 313. 

109. Newman Tracts 363. 

110. Darlow Catalogue 327. 


111. Wright Early Bibles of America 60, G3, 78, 89, 121, 
126, 127. 

112. Wright Early Bibles 69-71. Perhaps America has the 
honor of issuing the first whole Cathohc Bible in English, bound 
in one volume. See note 104. 

113. Cotton Editions of the Bible 112; Newman Tracts 377. 

114. Newman Tracts 385-386. 

115. 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 355-358. 

131. Gigot Introduction 352; Newman Tracts 395; 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 parallel reprint will show 
the large originality of Tyndale. Here and there coincidences 
with Wyclif 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 


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 following transcript from Tyndale's version of 
Ex 2, published 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 spelling is modernized. 

AND TOOK A daughter of Levi. AND the wife CONCEIVED 
AND BORE A SON. AND when she saw that it was a proper 
PITCH, AND laid THE child THEREIN, AND put it IN THE 
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 modern 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 shall agree 
shall desire, IT SHALL BE given THEM of MY FATHER which 
midst OF THEM. THEN PETER came to HIM, and SAID, 
Master, HOW oft SHALL MY BROTHER trespass against ME 
AND I shall FORGIVE HIM? shall I forgive him SEVEN 
unto A certain KING which WOULD TAKE ACCOUNT OF 


sought HIM SAYING Sir give ME respite AND I WILL PAY it 
every whit. Then had THE LORD PITY on the SERVANT 
18 19-27. 

A third extract may be taken from a less familiar portion, 
such as the Epistle to Philemon. Here the language of Tyndale is 
taken from his edition of 1534, not his first, nor his final revision. 

I thanke MY GOD MAKINGE mencion aU wayes OF THE 
IN MY PRAYERS, when I heare OF THY love AND FAYTH, 
that thou hast in the FAYTH, is frutefull 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 PALTL aged, AND NOW in bondes for lesu Christes sake. 
begat IN MY BONDES, which in tyme passed was TO THE 
THE AND also to ME, WHOM I HAVE SENT home agayne. 
Thou therfore receave him, that is to saye, myne awne bowels, 
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 wliich springeth 
of the, shuld NOT BE AS it were OF NECESSITIE, BUT 
willingly. Haply HE therfore dePARTED FOR A SEASON 
THAT THOU shuldest receave HIM FOR EVER, not nowe 


THE OR oweth the ought, that laye TO MY charge. I PAUL 
recompence IT. So that I do NOT SAYE to THE, howc 
Even so BROTHER, let me enlOYE THE IN THE LORDE. 
Comforte MY bowels in the Lorde. Trusting IN THYNE 
THOU WILT DO more then I SAYE for. Moreover PRE- 

Vs. 4-22. 

An extract from Tyndale's version of Eph 2, will show how 
he has left his mark on the 1611 version and through that on 
modern Catholic editions, which discard the extremely crabbed 
translation of Martin in the Rheims Testament. 

Wherfore remember THAT YE beynge in tyme passed GEN- 
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 
lESU, YE which a whyle agoo WERE FARRE OF, ARE MADE 
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 
TAYNED IN the lawe written) for to make of twayne ONE 
to RECONCILE BOTH vnto GOD IN ONE BODY thorow his 


CROSSE, and slewe hatred therby: AND came and PREACHED 
HAVE an open waye in, IN ONE SPRETE vnto THE FATHER. 
the householde OF GOD: and are BILT APON THE FOUN- 
every BILDYNGE coupled TOGEDDER, GROWETH vnto 
GOD IN THE SPRET. Eph 2 11-22. 

Tliese passages have not been chosen to hear out a ready-made 
theory; but they have been taken, two resolutely 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- 

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 really 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 sillable 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 modern Catholics to Tyndale. Gigot does not 
repeat More's attack on his accuracy; Introduction 345-346, 358- 


142. Allen at least would agree that "the dangers which arise 
from reading certain more difficult passages may be ob\aated 
by suitable notes." 

143. Anderson Annals of the English Bible 42-48. The revised 
editions of 1534 and 1535 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, G. 

144. Lovett Ttj7idale 14-15. 

145. Cotton MS Galba B. x. p. 338, quoted in Tregelles 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 miscliievous opin- 
ions were imbibed, the King would cause Scripture to be trans- 
lated "by great, learned, and CatlioHc persons." See Gairdner in 
the Cambridge Modern History, Reformation, II. 465; Wcstcott 
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, vi. 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 lifetime, but the manuscript passed into the hands of 
John Rogers, chaplain at the Merchants' House in Antwcrji, 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 
Ilarleian MS 422, Plutarch Ixv. E 87. 

148. Tliis was printed in 1535, probably by Christo])hor Froscli- 
auer of Zurich. But in 1533-1534 an act of Parliament had 


limited the importation of books, which had been freely permitted 
for fifty years ; henceforth only unbound sheets might be brought 
in. An English printer, apparently Nycolson, cancelled the early 
sheets, printed others and published. 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 Tyndale. 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 will 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 i. O (add ye) folisshe 
Galathyans: who hath bewitched you, that ye shuld not beleve 
the treutli ? 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 all 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 all 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 Cromwell used his powers as Vicar-genera) 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 English." Cam- 
bridije Modern History, Reformation, II. 465. This accounts 


for the English reprints of Coverdale in 1537, of which tlic quarto 
bears the legend cited in the text. Full details arc 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 Manasscs. 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 
Lefevrc; but these were forbidden after 1544, and the reprints 
of 1549 have new or revised notes. Darlow Catalogue 15, 38; 
Westcott General View 336. The writer has seen copies. 

151. Questions of licensing and copyright deserve more atten- 
tion than they often receive in this connection. Papal control 
of the press was asserted in a Bull of 1515, 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 unlicensed 
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 iinprimendum 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 1539 sjiccial restriction was laid for five years on diverse vc- 
sions of Scripture by requiring license from Cromwell (Pat. 31. 
lien. 8. p. 4. m. 15. Rymer Focdera). In 1556 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 copyriglit in aU 
books was perpetual, but this was altered generally in 1774. For 


the Royal Version, apart from new notes or apparatus, perpetual 
copyriglit 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 1591, Oxford entering on its splendid career 
only in 1673. 

152. Jacobs Lutheran Movement in England, Philadelphia, 

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 recollected 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 will 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. 

155. 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. 

156. It has been alleged that this phrase means that the 
Epistles and Gospels for festivals, etc., are "pointed out" or 
marked, as is still the custom in Bibles prepared for Anglican 
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 1539, 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 Cromwell in July, 1540, limited his 
chances, and he lost the special recommendation. Coverdale, 


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 
tlirough the others who had bought "Matthew" and wlio were 
being drawn into tlie printing trade by the French Inquisition 
forbidding their work to be done in Paris, and by the difficulty of 
finding good Enghsh estabhshments. 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 Pri\'y 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 1540-1541 are often 
called Cranmer's, though he had nothing to do with them except 
writing the preface, and perliaps 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 Catalogue 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 95, 26, etc.; Anderson Amwls 588. Arch- 
bishop Davidson has shown that stanch Anglicans used it as late 
as 1624. But after the civil wars the colonists in America were 
restricted to import, and in practice could only obtain the Royal 

163. The writer has seen it, with a note by Francis Newport, 
who gave it. The story is often incorrectly tokl; the time was 
January, 1558-1559; place. Little Conduit in Cheapside. 


164. Anderson Annals 453. 

165. Lupton in Hastings V. 250-251. 

166. Darlow Catalogue 115. 

167. Gigot Introduction 360-361 ; Lupton in Hastings V. 253a. 

168. Gigot Introduction 361 ; Prothero Statutes arid Constitu- 
tional Documents, 1558 to 1625, p. 416. 

169. Gigot Introduction 361 ; Lupton in Hastings V. 253-254. 

170. Carleton Rheims 22-25; Lupton in Hastings V. 256a. 

171. The version is popularly called the "Authorized Version," 
though it is well 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 till 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 Catalogue 182; Lupton in Hastings V. 257a. 

174. This astonishing figure is given by Baillie, 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 /2csw7tor?< Gree/c Testaynent. 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 
brilliant 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. 353b. 


179. Gigot Introduction 210-210; Bebb in Hastings IV. 853a; 
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 published; 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 j^arts 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. Darlow 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 lists 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 Apocryjiha as collected by Anglicans 
include not only the Catholic dcutcro-canonical books, but also 
I Esdras known to modern Catholics as III Esdras, II Esdras 
known to modern Catholics as IV Esdras, and the Prayer of 

190. Lupton gives a further criticism of the American edition 
in Hastings V. 269-271. 

191. Gigot gives a hst 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 road his lal)ore(l pleas is to see how little 
can be said ; but it may be worth while to append for those who do 


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-evident 
romance." Porter in Hastings II. 823b. Marshall 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. CathoHc 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, 7n<roc?uch'on 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 "full prettily learned." This is 
plainly evident in his preface to Matthew, his epistle to the 
reader in 1534, and in several notes. 

200. Comely 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 
shall not swear'), especially in Messianic prophecies; for he so 


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 shall 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' ; 55 5' my just one is near 
at hand, my savior is gone forth,' where the abstract nouns 
justice, salvation ought to be placed); others wliich are spoken 
briefly, he fills out in his own way (Dan 9 26, Hebrew 'it shall 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 mere thinking they xvould 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 oid of the earth. And 
/ shall be clothed again with my skin, and in my flesh I shall see 
my God. Whom / 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. Father 
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 


clothed with my skin, and out of my flesh I shall behold God; 
whom I shall 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 all the editions based 
on the Challoner text reproduce all 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 shall go forth before his feet;" ver 
13: "Thou wentest forth for the salvation of thy people: for sal- 
vation with thy Christ;" ver IS: "But I will 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. Gell, 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 
tlie 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 modern Catholic 
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 ^s -^vas 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. Catholics being witnesses. To 
prove that it may mean this, does not prove that it viust mean 
this, but refutes the charge of being a dishonest rendering. It is 
possible for honest difference of opinion to exist. 


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 bm-nt"! But they must follow 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, immarried 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 possibility lies 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 Catholic version does not object 
to render it into English as 'Wife' a dozen times in that chapter. 
Therefore the Protestant version is allowable, Catholics being 
witnesses. But when the Catholic 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 stand by a possible rendering which accords 
with their doginatic ^'iews; b\it the Latin translators and editors 
have dealt differently with this text. Tertullian 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,' Avhich assertion is against a mass 
of evidence; Helvidius 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 Alford, that " the sacred 
text was tampered with by the parties in the controversy on 
celibacy." Moreover the stamlard text of the Vulgate here is 
not only variant from the Greek in its order, but is in opposition 


to the best surviving manuscript copies of Jerome's version. It 
would be wise for Catliolic controversialists not to mention this case. 
I Cor 11 27. This text has been corrected as Catholics desire. 
The criticism was just, but unimportant in view of ver 26, 

Heb 10 38. Following the Genevan Version, the Royal read: 
"Now the just shall Hve by faith: but if amj man draw back, my 
soul shall have no pleasure in him." Kem-ick 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 witliin the cognizance of the present writer. In any case, 
the revisions of 1865, 1881, 1900 remove all occasion for it. 

203. Gen 11 31 tells how Abram came "out of Ur of the Chair- 
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 valley 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 Catholic version no indication that the Hebrew and Ara- 
maic have been supplemented in Latin. 

On the other hand, Gen 35 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 like mere weariness, leading to the prun- 
ing of a pleonastic style in the original. 


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 wall." 

Worse liberties than these were taken, as at Ex 40 12-15 and 
Jdg 14 15. And in all these cases an English 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 5 5, 
24 26; Acts 4 13; Rom 5 7; II Cor 10 1, 2; I Tim 3 2, 5 4, 6 7; Phlm 
12; Rev 15 6. 

205. On this subject see Corncly 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 is, 13 i. 

207. For instance, Acts 16 7; I Jno 2 23. 

208. See Mk 6 20; Lk 2 14, 6 l; Rom 5 l. 

209. Matt 1 16; Mk 5 36; Acts 13 18; Phil 2 1; Col 2 2; 
Jude 5. 

210. Among these are Matt 27 35; Mk 7 19; Jno 5 3, 4, 7 53-8 11, 
10 16; Acts 8 37, 15 34; I Cor 11 24, 15 51; I Th 2 7; Jas 4 4; I Pet 
1 2, 3 15; I Jno 5 7, 8, 18. Gigot briefly alludes to some of these. 
Introduction 236-245. 

211. Scrivener-Miller 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' 

215. Thus the Catholic version at ver 63, "And they all 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 impossiljle with God." 


216. Newman Tracts 361; Carleton Rheims 18. 

217. Rule VI. is quoted by Lupton in Hastings V. 253b. 

218. Of the modern 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 Catholic 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 will 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 sj^eaks 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 puzzling. 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 yield 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, really 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 nepded. 

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, practically abol- 
ished the old rule which prohibited laymen from reading the 
Word of God in the vulgar tongue without first obtaining the 


permission of their confessor." Ninetj-ninth Report oj 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 witli the vernacular Latin opposite, and that 
this important diglot was the parent or pattern of many other 
vernacular versions. See Kenyon Hatulbook of the Textual Criti- 
cism of the New Testament, and the Cambridge Texts arul Stud- 
ies II. It is certain that a Bishop of Rome ordered Jerome 
to revise 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 all vernacular versions. The tide turned in the days of Hil- 
debrand, whose predecessor had permitted the vernacular in 
public worship. He now objected, saying, "God has ordained 
that in some places Holy Scripture should remain imknown, be- 
cause if all 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 Provencal 

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 Coimcil of 
Trent, Pius IV approved of ten Rules, of wliich 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 Catholics 
will better elucidate the situation. In the Ilighlantls of Scotland, 
many Celts were and are Catholics, yet, fill the days of James VII, 
they had no version to which they could turn, and tliis was first 


provided by Protestants. Ireland has been a Catholic 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 
Catholic version. Nor were they more earnest in urging the 
supply of the Douay. In the south of Ireland about 1800, one 
Protestant family in tliree was provided, but only one Catholic 
in five hundred. Canton History I. 22. The great CathoUc 
powers that colonized the New World were Spain and France. 
They neither provided adequately for their own settlers, nor at all 
for the natives. When the government of New Orleans was taken 
over in 1803, "it was not till 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. 245. In Canada then "the 
Bible was in general a book at once unknown and forbidden" 
(Canton II. 57), 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 dollars 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- 
fully 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, willing, and anxious to buy a copy when 
it was shown to them. Report 328. 

Whether then appeal be made to the colonies of Catholic coun- 
tries, or to the mother lands, it is incorrect that "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." But it must be grantcMl that the Church is sometimes 
very anxious to shield her children from unauthentic versions; 
for during 1902 public 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 5, 1903, at Louisville. 

If appeal be made to the efforts of Catholics 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 vacilla- 
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 hat! seasonably effected this 
"by publishing the Sacred Writings in the language of your 
country, suitable to cxcvy 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 allowed 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 
Apostolic of Great Britain commending the reading of the Holy 
Scriptures, the British ought to feel highly honored by his 


Holiness's discrimination in their favor. Darlow Catalogue 

His successor, Leo XII, in an encyclical 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 will 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 "i^ublishing 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 followed 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 generally the decrees of Trent on Revelation, and renewed a 
curse on all who "shall 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 encyclical he com- 
mended to his clergy the more careful study of the Holy Scrip- 
tures. Report 64. In 1897 he published an ApostoHc Con- 
stitution, where in Ch. iii, § 7, it is stated anew, "All versions 
of the vernacular, even by Catholics, are altogether prohibited, 
unless approved by the Holy See, or published under the vigilant 
care of the Bishops, with annotations taken from the Fathers of 
the Church and learned Catholic writers." But having thus 
aligned himself with his predecessors, he made rapid advances. 
His rescript next year threw open such approved versions without 
further trouble. Presently he allowed 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 


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, appointing 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 villagers on the frontiers of Bulgaria, Servia, and 
Turkey still speak a dialect of Latin wliich recent travelers note 
with surprise is plain enough for students of the classics to recog- 


1. Even the highest view of the authority of councils must 
recognize the fact that their conchisions 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 biblical ; 
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 X (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 coi)y 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, Vallarsi'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 called the " church 





J3 M 








4) . 














. hf 


o ^ 






b ti 


















<d o 





■^ d . 


ij tllO 



C C t3 . 

'^^ o — 

<3 O 
■C *-> 








Fathers," and the character of their testimony, Geddes, a 
Scotch Roman Catholic priest and scholar, says: "The Christian 
writers of the first few centuries were men of great probity, but 
generally 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 simplicity; and recommended the 
doctrines they taught more by the sanctity of their lives 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 

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 Providence 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 still 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, especially 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 


than either of the two parts that enter into it, is regarded by most 
schohirs 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 actually 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 slightly from Hort's theory, 
in recognition of later modifications. The relative distance in 
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 3G. 

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 published with 
notes drawn from the Holy Fathers or from learned Catholic 
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, 


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 tyjDical 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 called 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 Hterary 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 McClin- 
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 linguist, 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 Httle. . . . The result is 
that our Versions of the Gospels are all 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. 526 f. 
and XXVIII, col. 463. 

15. The translators of the King James Version speak of 
Jerome as "a most learned father, and the best linguist, without 
controversy, of his age, or of any other that went before him, to 


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 revising the Gospels, compare 
his Preface to the Gospels, Migne, XXIX, col. 525. 

McClintock and Strong, who give long lists 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 revision. 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 tells 
us, that he translated the one in "a single day," and that the 
other was "a short efTort." 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- 
plia) that became the Old Testament of the Latin Vulgate. 
See Jerome, in Migne, Epistle to Damosus, XXXVI, and 
Preface to the Books of Chronicles, Vallarsi'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 


Psalter, as already stated) wliich 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 published 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 all 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 Catholics "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- 

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 


Hebrew . . . Archbisliop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland, 
I. 107. But, since the Hebrew canon, and Jerome following it, 
both excluded the apocryphal, or "deutero-canonical," 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 tlic written word 
of God" to Catholic folk, for the purpose of justifying the enlarged 
canon of the Catholic 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 whicli the translation of the 
Old Testament from the Hebrew brouglit on to Jerome's head. 
. . . The great stumbhng 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 peculiar relation in wliich our Vulgate stood to the 
Old Latin Version . . . led to a strange mixture of texts. From 
Bheer familiarity 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 liturgy, from 
the writings of Saint Jerome, or even of Josephus, and thought 
that they had thereby secured what they were pleased to call 
'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 


which was valuable and popular. It seems to have been limited, 
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 well 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 publishing 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 Catholic 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 fh-st really critical piece of 
work done on Vulgate Bibles, though, unfortunately, based on the 
"Parisienne Correctorium," the poorest of the thhteenth cen- 
tury standard copies. See Hastings IV. 878, 879. 

2L 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, 5 f. 

The oldest manuscript of the Vulgate now known to be in 
existence is called 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 


treasure. It measures 19f x 13f x 7 inches; contains the whole 
Bible with Preface; is written in uncial, or capital, letters on 
1,029 leaves of vellum, in a clear beautiful hand, two columns to a 
page. This manuscrijit 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 Chridian 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 Hrighes, D.D., p. 4. 

Similarly, Goddps says that the Synod's declaration [that is, the 
decision of Trent] that the Vulgate was " authentic" ditl 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 Catliolic ruling; and that, in 
common practice, "authentic" has usually been taken to mean 
al)solutely 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 (/va- 
tholisches) Kirchenlexikon, Article, "Vulgate." 

23. "He" [Sixtus] "forbade expressly the publication of vari- 
ous readings in copies of the Vulgate, and declared tliat all read- 
ings in other editions and Manuscripts which vary from those of 
his revised text ' are to have no cretlit or authority for the future.' " 


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 
Bull is quoted in The History of the English Bible, Condit, 314 f. 
It is printed at length in James Bellum Papalc, London, IGOO. 
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 "infallibility" was not equal to the "patience, 
learning and critical sagacity" required. Infallibility of the 
Church 228. After detailed comparison of the two texts, Mc- 
Clintock and Strong say: "He (Sixtus) had changed the readings 
. . . with the most arbitrary and unskillful 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, allow- 
ing no time for comparison with the originals. A second Clem- 
entine Edition was pubHshed 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, — Vercellone, 3,000; Gigot, "some 4,000." 

25. 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 ge^ 
schichtlichen Erlauterungen. 

As to the "errors of the press," compare Preface by Bellarmine 
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 


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" ("pra'li vitio"). In the Autobiography Bellarmine 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 Bellarmine 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 well 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 Bellarmine's death, "Cardinal Azzo- 
lini urged that, as Bellarmme 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 Dollinger, 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 little probability." Geddes 
Prospectus 52. 

"... Other things, wliich it appeared ought to be altered, 
were purposely left unaltered ... for the sake of avoiding giv- 
ing offence to the people." From Bellarmine's Preface, xxvi. 

26. "It is well known that many little corrections . . . that 
had been pointed out by Bellarmine 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. 


"... 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 105. 

The Bull of Clement is quoted by White in Hastings IV. 381. 

27. The list of books judged canonical by the Council 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 biblical manuscripts extant, all 
containing the Septuagint Version of the Old Testament in whole 
or in part, the Sinai tic contains IV Maccabees, Epistle of Barna- 
bas, and a large part of the Shejiherd of Hermas, as well as Judith, 
Tobit, I Maccabees, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus ; the Alexandrian 
has III Maccabees and The Prayer of Manasses, as well as the 
seven which Roman Catholics account canonical; the Vatican has 
the Epistle of Jeremiah, besides five of the seven. See Heaford 
Use of the Apocrypha in the Christian Church. 

The words of another Roman Catholic 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-canonical books and rejecting others?" Dixon General 
Introduction I. 42. 

The twenty-fom- 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 


and II Samuel, I and II Kings, I and II Chronicles, and Ezra and 
Nehemiah, each one. 

29. Professor Gigot mentions Justin Martyr, Melito, 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. 
Origan'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 5. 

Irenseus, TertuUian, and Clement of Alexandria are only some 
of the Fathers that quote as Scriptural or prophetical, books 
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 5G. 

" In his Epistle to Paulinus, about 394, he draws up a canon of 
the Old Testament, without even mentioning the deutero-canon- 
ical 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 


current in 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 will be borne in mind that this was before the break 
in the Catholic 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 'lequahter' ['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 full 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 Catholic 
writers who, "even after the dogmatic decision of the Council of 
Trent," have "thought it still allowable 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, 
57. In another place he says of the Apocryiaha: "The utmost 
prudence is necessary to seek for gold in mud." Gigot 58. 


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 hfe and instruction of 
manners; but yet doth it not apply them to establish any doc- 

"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 Uttle set by'; he says, 'patience 
and study will show that the canon and the Apocrypha are 
agreed.' " See Heaford Use 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 silence, rather than expressly reject, the three books 
rated by Catholics as apocryi^hal, yet published 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 parallel 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. McClintock 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 


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. McClin- 
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 liim 
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 stiU 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 1, 
'Send forth, O Lord, the lamb, the ruler of the earth, from Petra 
of the desert, to the mount of the daughter of Sion ' [Challoner- 
Douay translation of Jerome], it is clear that he inserts an allusion 
to the future Lamb of God which is unwarranted by the Hebrew. 
In this passage, the prophet simply tells 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, substantially, 
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- 


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 Catholic scholars think, that Version is neither literal nor 

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 
English translation of the Challoner-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 Vidgate], and 
they should be 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 follow wholly the ancient Ver- 
sions, either Greek or Latin, which the Church has authorized by 
long usages; but these origimils 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, still the same Church has not pretended 
that these translations are either infallible in all their particulars, 
or that nothing more correct can be had." Critical History of 
the Old Testament, Vol. I, Bk iii, ch. 18, pp. 4, 5, 6. 

40. The first and third quotations are from a letter lately writ- 


ten by the Rev. Father Early of Irvington, N. Y. As this letter 
will 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 
will permit the buying of a copy, there you will 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 

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 all. 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 com- 
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 published by the Popes Six- 
tus V and Clement VIII, it may and does in several cases point to 


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 collation must have 
been limited in scope or incfTectual, for the Psalter (to take one 
signal example) is translated, not from Jerome's version of the 
Hebrew, but from his revision of the very faulty translation from 
tlie 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 (spelling 


Lay not up treasures for Heap not up to yourselves 

yourselves upon the earth, treasures on the earth: where 

where tlie 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 lay up treasures for But lieap 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 will your heart be also. there is thy heart also. 

4G. There is little, 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 
Downy lo6. 

47. The honestly meant, but unscientific bias noted, is e^^dent 
in such passages as Gen 3 15. Here the Roman Catholic trans- 
lators, blindly following the Latin, though they knew that neither 


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. Ipi 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 like symbols. See Essay just mentioned. The author 
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, following 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 popular translators and revisers 
do but justify their Vidgate 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 Catholics like Lingard and Kenrick 
translate "repent," pointing out that the true meaning is the 
attitude of the heart toward sin, are still 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 57 (R. V. 


58): 9 (R. V. 8). As wax that melteth shall 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 living so 
in wrath he swallowed them. 

11. The just shall rejoice when he shall see revenge: he shall 
wash liis 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 all men 
to condemnation: so also by the justice of one unto all 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 revision." 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 niunber of places it is unintelligible." Newman 
Tracts All. 

49. For the motives of Catholic 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 especially desiderate the energy, 
jiurity and beauty of language which they so enthusiastically 
])ortray as characteristic of the Authorized Version." Intro- 
duction 8. 

60. After citmg a number of passages, in which he finds dial- 


loner's Revision agreeing, not uniformly, but prevailingly, with 
the Protestant Iving James Version, against the Douay, New- 
man says : ' ' Looking at Dr. Challoner '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 little be said to be made on tlie 
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 
Challoner being allowed for, Challoner'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 all allowances 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 
Challoner "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, Challoner 
makes twenty-nine accord with the Protestant Version ; and adds : 
"The second — Challoner— edition, 1750, differs from the first, 
according to the collations which Dr. Cotton has printed, in about 
124 passages; the third — 1752 — in more than 2,000. These al- 
terations. Dr. Cotton tells us, are all in the direction of the Protes- 
tant Version." How far this is the case, and in what sense, New- 
man says his explanation of Challoner'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, till scarcely any verse remains as originally published." 
Dublin Review II. 470. 

51. 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 little difference between the texts of Dr. Challoner and Mr. 


McMahon [the Troy Bible]." Newman's table, showing that the 
variations of Catholic New Testament editions follow in nearly 
every case either Challoncr 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- 

53. See Father Early's letter. Note 40 of this Appendix. 

54. Alcuin, Bishop of York, in liis revision of the Vulgate, made 
for the Emperor Charlemagne, omitted the words I Jno 5 7b, 8a. 

Other passages for which there is no sufficient manuscript evi- 
dence are: Ps 14 (13) 3, (9 lines) ; Matt 9 28, " Unto you," 17 21, 
18 29, 27 35b; Lk 4 19 (last five words), 22 C4, "And smote his 
face;" Acts 9 5b, 6, 15 34, 28 29; I Cor 5 20, "And bear;" Gal 3 l, 
"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 Challoner-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 revision. 

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 follows: "The learned 
are agreed that, in the books of the New Testament, its 
readings [those of the Vulgate] are generally preferable. In 
tlie Pentateuch it frequently gives a double version or para- 
[)hrase; or it abridges, to avoid repetitions, so that although it 
faithfully renders the substance, it is not as literal 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 made from the Hebrew, 
is preferable. In Ecclesiasticus, much freedom of interpretation 
... is used. In the Prophets and Job the Vulgate is literal. 
Respecting it, as an authentic Version — that is, a standard to be 


followed in all 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 Cathohc 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 public at large." Introduction 

56. 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 all about half of the New 
Testament. These have lately been ably edited by Anna C. 
Panes, and pubhshed 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. 

57. The manuscript of the Wyclifite 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 

58. Kenyon reminds Gasquet, who has called in question Pur- 
vey's connection with the revision of Wyclif's work, that the 
probability of it is based not merely on the fact that Purvey was 
the owner 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 Wyclif's 
"glosser." The work was doubtless composite. See Forshall 
and Madden Introduction to the Wycliffe Bible, 1850. 

59. Among the manuscripts in the Bodleian Library, one 


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) WycHf. See Momhert 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 1395, 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 English, 
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 Wycliffe translated from Latin into 
English 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, filling 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 


between Wyclif 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 all, but 
' filling up the measure of liis recent malice, by devising the ex- 
pedient of a translation of Scripture.' If so, we have one more 
witness to Wyclif as the author of our first English Bible transla- 

(3) The Wychf 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 argiunent would be unnatural, if there were at the 
time a second English version, whether first or second were the 
"orthodox" Version. 

(4) "Nothing can be more damning (to the theory of an ortho- 
dox English Bible of the fourteenth century free to all) than 
licenses to particular people to have English Bibles; for they dis- 
tinctly show that, without such hcense, it was thought wrong to 
have them." Trevelyan England in the Age of Wycliffe 362. 

(5) There is a definite record that Nicholas Hereford trans- 
lated part of the Old Testament of Wychf 's Bible. But, as Here- 
ford was a Wyclifite Lollard, he certainly would not be employed 
to make a translation for the chvirch of his day. 

6L The quotation from Milman 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 Wyclif as acknowledging, in his Truth of Holy 
Scripture, "his expectation that he will 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 


cursed of clippers,' and the papacy, with its sacerdotaHsm, par- 
dons, indulgences, excommunication, absolution, pilgrimages, 
images and transubstantiation, 'a gigantic fraud,' was not hkely 
to be held in high favor in the Churcli of tiie fourteenth century." 
See English Versions 41. Also Wyclif on "Priests Good and 
Bad " in Vaughan Wycliffe II. 259-262. 

64. Sir Thomas More says, Wychf "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 fulfil 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 shall 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-English Testament of Covcrdale. . . . 
The coincidences of rendering between this and Purvey ( Wycliffe's 
Revised Edition) are frequently remarkable, but as both literally 
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 own words are sufficient: 'I had,' he says, 
'in the New Testament no man to coimterfeit (imitate) — neither 
was helped with English of any that had interpreted the same 
or such like thing in the Scripture beforetime.' (Epistle to the 
Header I. 390.)" 

On the other hand. Marsh, in his Lectures on the English Lan- 


guage, First Series, 627 f., says: "Tyndale is merely a fullgrown 
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 chiwn 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. Wycliflfe, then, must be con- 
sidered as having originated the diction and phraseology, which 
for five centuries has constituted the consecrated dialect of the 
English 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 Revised Version, is too evident to deny "any WyclifBte 
influence on the later English Versions." The sameness of the 
Latin Version translated, would, certainly, account for some 
words being the same in the English of Wyclif and the English 
of Coverdale; but this does not apply to either Tyndale or the late 
revisions, 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 like 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 English. In- 
deed, Westcott (General View App. VIII), admits that Tyndale 
must have known and used the Wyclifite Versions, " even though 
he could not follow 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 English 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- 



guage of certain passages, does not imply a likeness 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 Wyclif is, not for the exact 
substance, but for the form of the translation. 

Purvey's Wyclif 


Matt G 9-13 

Our Father that art in heav- 
ens, hallowed be Thy name; 
Thy kingdom come to ; be Thy 
will done in earth as in heaven; 
Give to us tills day our bread 
over other substance; and for- 
give to us our debts, as we for- 
give to our debtors. And lead 
us not into temptation, but de- 
liver us from evil. Amen. 

O Our Father which art in 
heaven, hallowed be Thy name. 
Let Thy kingdom come. Thy 
will be fulfilled, as well in earth 
as it is in heaven. Give us this 
day our daily bread. And for- 
give us our trespasses as we 
forgive our trespassers. And 
lead us not into temptation; 
but deliver from evil. For 
thine is the kingdom and the 
power and the glory forever. 

Matt 5 3-6 

Blessed be poor men in spirit, 
for the kingdom of heavens is 

Blessed be they that mourn, 
for they shall be comforted. 

Blessed be mild men, for 
they shall wield the earth. 

Blessed are the poor in spirit, 
for theirs is the kingdom of 

Blessed are they that mourn, 
for they shall be comforted. 

Blessed are the meek, for 
they shall inherit the earth. 

A few particular phrases, out of many, may be compared also, 
with their form in the American Revised Version. 


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. 


Matt 25 21 

Enter thou into the joye of Enter thou into the joy of 
thy Lord. thy Lord. 

J710 3 3 

No but a man schal be born Except one be born anew, 

I 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, like those of Norwich and 
Lincoln, show several cases of men charged with such offenses. 
See Panes English Version, Introduction, xxxii. Westcott 
General View, 17 fjf. 

68. The principal significance of Erasmus's Greek text was in 
the challenge its publication by a Catholic of learning and in- 
fluence gave to the hitherto generally accepted theory of the 
verbal inspiration and special sanctity of the Latin Vulgate. 
Tyndale had a more reliable 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- 


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 little reserve, ofTcred for sale in 
the streets of London in hundreds." Demaus Biography of 
WiUicun Tyndale 262. The long struggle of Church and State 
to maintain the repression of the people was at last coming to an 

71. Gigot, whom we have listened 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 responsibility of important offices in the Church.' 
These words of a Protestant writer are not too severe to describe 
such men as William Tyndale, . . . Miles Coverdale, . . . and 
John Rogers. . . ." Introduction 346 and 358 f. Father Early 
of Irvington, N. Y., also says: "The Protestant Version which 
goes back only to the days of Henry VHI of England, and was 
then gotten up for obvious reasons." (For letter in full, 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 William Tyndale 
and his successors, was a Churchman of the stripe that 
would "be sure that the Catholic faith is still held by the Church 
of England," and "let Rome treat us how she will . . . still 
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 like the self-testimony of 


an honest man. " I call God to record . . . that I never altered 
one syllable of God's word against my conscience, nor would this 
day, if all 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 all 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 Knight," 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 fall into 
the mashing-fat, and turn Iiimself into draff as [which] the hogs of 
hell shall feed upon and fill their bellies 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 Catholic doctrines and practices. 

Tyndale, on the other hand, was a grim and satirical polemic 
and his Bible comments were sometimes warped by his preju- 

74. King Henry's agent, Vaughan, reports to him Tyndale's 
conversation with him at Bergen in 1531, as follows: " 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 shall please His Majesty, 
I shall immediately repair into his realm and there most humbly 
submit myself offering my body to suffer what pain or torture, 


yea, what death his Grace wills; so that tliis be obtained." This 
does not sound like one of the men whom Blunt and Gigot say, 
"had too easy a confidence in their own abilities for this great 
work." Demaus, Tyndale's biographer, before Gigot character- 
ized him as "a more or less doubtfid 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. 

75. 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 well known for a man of right good living, 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 14L 
According to an eminent German scholar, H. Buschius, who met 
him at Worms in 1526, Tyndale was "so skilled 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. 856, 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 t-cstimony to the diligence 
with which Tyndale still 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 150 f. For detailed proof, see 136-145. 

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." 


Dore Old Bibles: Account of Early Versions of the English Bible, 
1888, p. 25. 

As to Tyndale'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 following 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 1531 and 1534. 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 fidelity to the exact letter of Scripture, which have 
been in general such happy features of our English Versions." 
Milligan in Hastings IV. 857a. 

77. See Mombert English Versions 93; Hoare Evolution 120; 
Milligan 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 substantially the same as Tyndale wrote 
it in 1525." Old Bibles 25. To dehght in the strength and 
beauty of the English of the Iving James Version (see Gigot 
Introduction 365), and yet sneer at Tyndale, is like revelling 
in the sunlight 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 350, many of which are used once or twice only." Moul- 
ton History of the English Bible 70 f. 

The quotation from the English Revisers 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- 


ner of sect. . . ." Remains of Myles Coverdale, Edited by- 
Pearson, 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 call it as well 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 have seen, describe as having " too easy a confidence in their 
own abilities for tliis 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 liand . . ."; 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 will." 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. 

80. 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 Gc/i- 
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 while he may be found, call ye upon him while 
he is near," and " They shall perish, but tiiou shalt endure; they 
all shall 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 "(1358), 
" It will 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 Apocryi)hal books] between the Old 
Testament and the New, with the title: 'Apocripiia. The 
bookes and treatises which amonge the fathers of olde are not 


rekened to be of like authoritie with the other bokes of the byble, 
nether are theyfounde in the Canon of the Hebrue.'" Porter 
in Hastings I. 123. 

83. " Of the tliree millions of people, or thereabouts, then living 
in England, many were still attached to the old Roman Catholic 
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 Stryj^e, ' who could buy this book, either read it 
assiduously, or had it read to him by others, and many well ad- 
vanced in years learned to read with the same object.' " Taine 
History of English Literature, Ch. v, 249. 

In 1534, and again in 1536, Convocation expressed its change 
of feeling 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 English Literature 

Already in the fourteenth century, it will be remembered, 
England had refused payment of the annual tribute to the See 
of Rome. 

85. 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 alludes 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, 
(5) the Vulgate Latin. 

88. John Rogers's honesty and earnestness, if also a certain 
self-assurance, are characteristically reflected in his reply to the 


sentence placing him under the "great curse of the Church" 
"Well, 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 all good men. I am not afraid but that 
you and I shall come before a Judge which is righteous, before 
whom I shall be as good a man as you; and where, I nothing 
doubt, I shall 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 
travailed in good learning." He was appointed rector of Trinity 
the Less, in London, and in 1551 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 Vier- 
sion, which Kenyon characterizes as "immensely superior to the 
Zurich Latin Bible," which Coverdale had before used. The 
revision of Tyndale's New Testament was by aid of Erasmus's 

91. A hint of the care exercised by the Genevan Rev'isers 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 
English Genevan Version, as cited by the French critic P. Coton. 

Acts 3 21, (Jesus Christ) whom heaven must contain (Ge- 

Whom heaven indeed must receive (Challoner-Douay). 

Whom tlie heaven must receive (A. V. and Am. Rev.). 

I Cor 9 27, I myself should have been re-proved (Genevan). 


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 Catholics then demanded that "tradition" should be 
the translation, is now translated "ordinances" even in the 
Challoner-Douay. (I Cor 11 2.) 

93. "Truly, good Christian reader," say King James's trans- 
lators, "we never thought froin 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 little, especially in the Prophets, the King James's 
Revisers kept to the less reliable Bishops' Bible, though it was 
their formal basis, may be inferred from the following three verses 
from the fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, according to the Bishops' 
translation. The words underlined 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 shall be no fair- 
ness; we shall 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 vile that we hid 
our faces from him. 

Nearly all the words substituted for these came from either 
the Latin of Pagninus, the Latin of Tremellius, or the Genevan 

Eadie mentions the following among many phrases taken by 
the King James's translators from the Roman Catholic Rheims 


Testament: "Unction from the holy one," "Lead captive silly 
women laden with sins," "Evil communications corrupt good 

95. See Preface of King James's tranislation, page 3L 

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, 1572, based on that of 
Pagninus, by Montanus, worthy successor of Cardinal 
Ximenes, together with the Hebrew text. 

(2) A Latin translation, 1599, of the Hebrew, by Tremellius, 
a Jew. 

2. In the New Testament: 

(1) Stephanus's (Etienne's) Greek Text, based on 

(a) The latest editions of Erasmus's Greek, which was 
made from six manuscripts, none ancient. 

(b) 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. 
(/3) The Paris MS. of the Four Gospels. 

(2) Beza's Greek Text. 

96. Gigot says: "Differently from the Douay Bible, cases of 
wilful 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. 

Challoner-Douay: All men take not this word [about mar- 

Authorized: All men cannot receive this saying. 

American Revised: Not all men can receive this saying. 

There are fairly two sides to this question. Tlie word trans- 
lated "do not take" in the Catholic Version, and "can- 


not receive" in the Authorized Version, means literally, 
'make room for.' Jesus's word may, therefore, mean, 
'Not all 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, x^pe'w (choreo) III; " v n6\is avrov ov x'^P^^i — the city 
cannot contain him." 

(2) I Cor 7 9. 

ChaUoner-Douay: But if they do not contain themselves, 

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 implied 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 

English and American Revised: 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 Paul married. 
Every scholar, Catholic as well 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 5 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, "wilful perversion"? 


(4) I Cor 11 27. 

The Authorized Version translates wrongly, "eat this bread 
and drink tliis cup," where the CliaUoner-Douay reads 
correctly, "eat this bread or drink the chalice." Tlie 
error of the Authorized Version is corrected in the Revised 
Version, wliich reads, "or drink the cup." 

(5) Heb 10 38. 

Challoner-Douay: But my just man liveth by faith; but if 

he withdraweth himself, he shall 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. 
Revised: But my righteous one shall 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 A'ew Testament 
645) justifies all these translations. None of them can be 
called incorrect. 
Of these five cases, then, cited in proof of "dogmatic," "erro- 
neous" and "wilful 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 autlior cited is Kenyon Our Bible 2.'5.S. 

Consult the following expressions from Roman Catholics of the 


"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 English Bible. 

Perhaps the best witness to the worth of the Authorized Ver- 
sion as a whole is that of the Revisers of 1881, who say in the 
Preface to their own revision, "We have had to study this great 
version carefully and minutely . . . and the longer we have been 
engaged upon it, the more we have learned to admire its sim- 
pHcity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression, its 
general accuracy, and . . . the felicities of its rlaythm." 

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 tlian 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. 5014. 

101. The pubhcation in 181 0-1826, by the great Hebrew scholar 
Gesenius, of liis monumental works on the Hebrew language, — 


lexicon, grammar, history and thesaurus, — was both an e\-idence 
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 full for most. See also Articles on " Manuscripts," 
under their symbolic letters (Note 2) in Hastings. 

103. Bible societies in America, dissatisfied with the imperfect 
state of the English 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 revision. 
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 On the 
Authorized Version, Trench. Also, for a later view, The Revision 
of the English Version, by Lightfoot, Trench and others, London, 

104. For these facts, see Prefaces to the Old and New Testa- 
ments of the English Revision of 1881 and 1885, published with 
the Revised Bible. 

105. The changes in the English Re\asion 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 Miller, 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 



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, ... fey 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 troubling the water). 

Acts 8 37, And Phihp said. If thou behevest, etc. 

All except the first two of the above passages are retained 
without mark or question in the Roman Catholic 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: 


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

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


Acts 26:28 

Almost thou persuad- 
est me to be a Chris- 

I Tim 6:10 

For the love of money 
is the root of all evil. 


With but little per- 
suasion thou would- 
est fain make me a 

For the love of money 
is a root of all kinds 
of evil. 

And whithersoever 
thou Shalt go: and 
remember thou wast 

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

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 

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 
true — that the Revised New Testament cannot be "considered as 


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 all the 
critical work wliich 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 English Revised Version of 1881, p. 6. 

111. This should be sharply distinguished from an edition of the 
English Revised 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 English 
Company. Preface, iii. 

114. Other examples of corrected passages are: Isa30 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 substantially 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 evidence of the need of a thor- 
ough revision of the Cathcjlic versions, all are still rendered 
wrongly according to Cardinal Wiseman, in Gibbons's Edition of 
the Challoner- Douay Version; and all but one of those contained 


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. 

115. See Preface to the Old Testament, Eng. Rev. Version, 3. 

116. The translators of the Douay Bible, though not Uving, 
still bear witness to the fidelity of the American Revisers in re- 
spect of the titles of the New Testament books, although the Chal- 
loner-Douay, now circulated among the Catholics 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 well warranted or not, if we exhibit — not some exceptional 
part — but two or three short passages of average sort from the 
genuine Douay, the Challoner-Douay and the American Revised 



o o iS 


"■V d 


«l-d b 

aj I-.— ' 

htoJ oJ o ■- o "^ 

o -r, d -^ I' t"" 
(us;:i7^u £d d 

-•-«;. .^Ei^*^ 

g ce d i; o 4; d ^-j3 
■a ""O c j2 u.:: ho 

O O— D.Q OJ ••is P 

■^.Q 03 c!j c «3 O O w 
C CS J3 l-E-l E-d 

—pa -go ° . ^ 

4J<M O d ^-dt KJ 

■Kcgo tsdoft 


O r- f ■'^ I- m ^ 

<D Ef o d o c o >> > S 


O JJ » !8 

O hf3 ' O-d 

d jJg >, 

^ -d O r/ 

E •^ 
od "o 

"■^ado « 

ts o^ d ctj 3 a^ 
d IU.D o a m 

c3 C*- G w 4^ 3 

O =« o !3 -5 o- 
!_, =0 d *^ 

E o S7 3 d^ dv^ 3„ 

2 -.d "" d-a a csjai; oj 


•O O H 

dS w 

o ..»5 

*d d_. o oj -H y 
es >'-'ii d — ^-e 

-l3 5j-.^_Od^ 
<u OJ3 O o<D a°S 


















; o 




■-J3J3 O (dSj^.^: 2 

.cS I 

> d S „• o 

-— d tJ.o.^ "ii3 
d .tl'5<u^='dS 
•adSj::iH ■■2> 
i,5„00 -5^0 
si r^a K 0) e ^ 


te D •• 0;— 4, d >J 

" 2 o 2 °^ o «3 1; 

•*3 a> 


■a w 

■a . -S-S**^ 

d K 

cd >- tS '" .. 

S «s 

aul and Barnabas h, 
test with them, the 
that Paul and Barn 
n others of the other 
up to the apostle; 
1 Jerusalem about 

[own fr 
ren: Tl 
>, you 










■g bo 

b d 


TJt^-d "" 
>- ..p 

1-1 3+j 


d °i2 

d m CS '■" O ■- 3 

O txi2 d m O'^ 


«Q u,--->-3 O u 


C <o <a ii oi3 1 I 

ii .^P 

1 C8 ! 


^ ''-' O aj ^ J- 

d .i;^a;=si;22 
'dd:22x: Smm 

^ - £3 usi 

B <u bo 

— pa~j3 

""o'i'S S-.OS 



■dbJgbra '2 00 
u d o d o'^j^-d > 


S'So d 

bf"-dT) D, 

te S-d o 
5 I- a; ■ 



O ^ «i 

M o 2 

Tod .-^ 

*^ S i" d rJ 

cu cd ^ 

«j g £13 o " ° 

•r^ cd r- d5 +^ ^ 

e ■" C 5 . O.S>Mii 3 

d-d— pi—d'dGMCiw.o' 
o*^"s£odo. p.,, 


"H^^d^ogXiss o<;ij 
•3 ^ 





^.^1^-. I|s| .^llf i;55 

*=3c:S o ^^ •fliS S S «— a' ri 

-. CO r .^ H-^ ri c? ra - '-' 
i3 oS '^T3 ** " c 1^ o c o S, 

'Xi^4^ C'M.o.a^^ [ 


1. References to and proofs of the facts here stated will he 
found under the chapters dealing more fully with these subjects. 

2. Father Prendergast of the College of St. Francis Xavier. 

3. II Mace 12 46; Ecclus 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 indusioyi in Canon 

A.D. A.D. 

Council of Hippo 397 Melito, Bishop of Sardis . . 180 

Council of Carthage 397 Origen 254 

St. Augustine 400 Athanasius of Alexandria. 350 

Innocent I, Bishop of Cyril of Jerusalem 351 

Rome 405 Epiphanius of Cyj^rus .... 350 

Gelasius 492 Amphilochius of Iconium. 375 

Gregory Nazianzen 370 

Hilary of Poitiers 368 

Ruffin of Aquilcia 400 

Jerome 382 

[The above dates are intended to be only approximate.] 

Green (167-174) points out that Augustine's influence over- 
shadowed all others in the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, and 
these three catalogues are equivalent to one witness only. Pas- 
sages in his writings jjrove beyond doubt that he ranked the 
Hebrew canon above tiie other books included in his catalogue. 
He and his Councils used the wortl "canon" in its wider sense. 



Of the catalogues of Innocent and Gelasius, Westcott (Bible in 
the Church 175) says, "Both lists simply repeat the decision at 
Carthage, and determine the ecclesiastical canon, the books, that 
is, which might be publicly used in the Church Services." 

On the Catholic point of view we quote Waterworth Faith of 
Catholics I. 325: "To give those catalogues in an isolated manner, 
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 discijiles, who could know in 
what rank the Master Himself held them." 

II. Decrees of Councils 
For inclusion in Canon Against inclusion in Canon 

A.D. A.D. 

Council of Trent 1546 Synod of Laodicea 363 

Sanction of Patriarch of Confession of Faith of 

Jerusalem 1672 Greek Church 1631 

fficumenical Council 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 slie 
has come to since as to placing of these books in the canon except 


that of Judith." The fact that they are in the Vulgate is the basis 
of the contention for making these books canonical. 

Carchnal Ximenes in the preface to the Complutensian Poly- 
glot dedicated to Pope Leo X declares against the Apocrypha. 

Cardinal Capellan in his j^reface 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 gradually attached as a supplement, 
as in Protestant Bibles. 

2. That it was read in churches. Tliis 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 like manner applied to 

In his Introductio in Sacram Scripturam, iii, § 18, pp. 49 f., 
Lamy argues in favor of the Apocrypha on the ground of quota- 
tion by our Lord and His Apostles of the Septuagint, which con- 
tains the Apocrypha. He maintains (hat the New Testament, 
writers in referring to the witness of the Old Testament seek the 


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 ii. Maclear Hel-ps 
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 
Bibliography gives full particulars of all manuscripts, versions, 
and quotations with extracts from standard authors as to their 
purport. References are there given for all 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 list 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. 65. 

14. The Vatican decree will be found in the printed reports of 


the Council and is in the following words: " Veteris et Novi Test a- 
menti libri integri cum omnibus suis partibus prout in ejusdem 
Concilii decreta recensentur, et in veteri vulgata Latina editione 
habentur, pro sacris et canonicis suscipicndi sunt. Eos vero 
Ecclesia pro sacris et canonicis habct non ideo quod sola humana 
industria concinnati, sua deinde auctoritate sunt approbati, nee 
ideo dumtaxat, quod revelationem sine errore contineant, sed 
propterea quod SpLritu Sancto inspirante conscripti Deum habent 
auctorem, atque ut tales ipsi Ecclesia) traditi sint." {Translution.) 
"The complete books of the Old and New Testaments with all 
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 collected 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." 

15. The decree of the Second Council of Baltimore will be found 
in Acta et Decreta Concilii Plenarii Baltimorensis Secundi, 18G6. 
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 illis desumere. Sta- 
tuimus igitur ut Duacensis versio, qua) in omnibus ecclesiis 
quarum fideles Anglice loquuntur recepta, et a predecessoribus 
nostris fidelium merito proposita est, omnino retineatur. Cura- 
bunt autem episcopi ut, jus ita exemplar probatissimum ab ipsis 
dcsignandum, omnes tum novi turn veteris Testament! Duacensis 
versionis editiones in posterum emendatissime fiant, cum adnota- 
tionibus qua; ex Sanctis Ecclesia; Patribus vel doctis catholicisque 
viris tantum desumpta; 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 ConciHi sumnopere exoptavit ut habeatur authentica, 
quceque omnium votis respondeat, Anglica Scripturic Sacra; 


Versio. Responsuin est ei, hoc in Concilio Plenario superior! 
prepositum fuisse, diuque de ejus mode versione deliberasse 
Patres, sed nihil 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 Council urgently wished that an EngUsh Version of 
the Holy Scriptures should be considered authentic which would 
be agreeable to the opinions of all. 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 familiaris 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 familiar 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 Bible 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- 
probatio: Nos infra scripti, in alma Duacensi universitate Sacrae 
TheologiiB Doctores et Professores, hanc Anglicanam Veteris Tes- 
tamenti translationem, quam tres diversi ejus nationis eruditis- 
simi Theologi non solum fidelem, sed propter diversa quai ei 
sunt adjuncta, valde utilem fidei CathoHcaj propagandse ac tuen- 
dse, et bonis moribus promovendis, sunt testati, quorum testi- 
monia ipsorum syngraphis munita vidimus; cujus item Transla- 
tionis et Annotationum auctores nobis de fidei integritate et 


eruditionis prcestantia probe sunt noti; his rebus adducti et nixi 
fructuose evulgari posse censuinius Duaci 8 Novembris 1609. 
" Professors at Douay. 

" GuiELMUS EsTius, SacrsB Theologiae Doctor, 

" Bartholom^us Petrus, Sacra; Theologiae Doctor, 

" Georgius Colveneruis, Sacra; 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 published, 
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 oeditionis authores nobis de fide et eruditione 
sint probe cogniti, aliique S. Theologiae et linguae AngUcanae 
peritissimi viri contestati sint, nihil in hoc opere reperiri, quod 
non sit Catholice Ecclesie doctriiia; et pietate consentaneum vel 
quod uUo niodo potestate ac pace ciuli repugnet sed omnia potius 
veram fidem, Reip. bonum, vita?que ac morum probitatem provo 
mere; ex ipsorium fide censemus esta utiliter excudi et publicari 
posse, [no date.] 

" Petrus Remigus, [Vicar-Gcncral of Abp. of Rhcims]. 

"Hubertus Morus, [Professor of Theology at Rheims]. 

" Johannes Le Besque, [Professor of Theology at Rheims]. 

" GuiELMUS Balbus, [Profcssof of Theology at Rheims]." 
(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 College and of the English language have 
borne witness to them as most accomplisiied men, nothing is 
found in this work which is not consistent with the doctrine and 
pious belief of the Catholic Church, or which is opposed in any 


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 usefully composed and might be pub- 

19. Bishop Troy's approbation of MacMahon's version is as 
follows: "By our authority we approve the new English edition of 
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 1582, and with the London Old and New 
Testaments of 1752, approved English versions." Newman 
Tracts 429. 

The details of all editions are given in the Bibliography. 

20. It can be affirmed and proved that there is no published 
copy of the whole Bible in English prior to Wyclif. 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 Bible 22 f. 

23. The quotation from Foxe will be found in A cts and Monu- 
ments IV. 217, as quoted by Westcott General View 26. 

24. See list of Hebrew Bibles in Bibliography. 

25. Wolsey founded in 1519 a chair of Greek. Westcott Gen- 
eral View 165. 

The following 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 Bibliography. 

28. For particulars of Tyndale's Imprisonment, trial and mar- 
tyrdom, see his life by Demaus, xiii. 


29. The quotation is from Westcotfc General View 64. 

30. "Coverdale wherever he worked was encouraged, if not em- 
ployed, by Cromwell in the translation of the Bible and it would 
seem from a letter without date (assigned to 1527 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 life see Mombert 159, 161. 

31. Letter from Cranmer to Cromwell 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 Hem-y VIII and his successors and of the Genevan 
Bible see Moulton History 150-168; Momhert English Versions 
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 Bibliography, 
and published previous to 1557, Pellican's Hebrew Grammar, 
1503; Reuchhn's Dictionary, 1506; Miinster's Grammar, 1525. 

36. See Mombert English Versions 265 as to the circulation of 
the Great Bible and the Genevan Bible and 275 as to edi- 

37. The second edition was taken as the basis of the Authorized 
Version. Westcott General View 316. 

38. The following quotation from Mombert English Versions 
362 f. gives some particulars of the various editions: "Not less 
than 50 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 regarilcd 
as the first revision, that of 1629 and 1638 arc the first Cambridge 
editions revised and a number of their errata have been trans- 
mitted to modern times. . . . That of 1660 by Hills 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." 


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, Itahan and Spanish editions, mentioned in the 
Bibliography. [These are doubtless what the Revisers refer to 
when they speak of their pains in consulting Spanish, French 
and Itahan translations. Westcott General View 355, 356.] 

(3) Buxtorf's Lexicon, 1607, Hebrew Grammar, 1609. Mombert 
English Versions 387. 

"They had the bare Hebrew text without more light 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 (1590) 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 1560 to 1598 and the fifth edition of Beza 1598, is probably 
what they used, as well as the 3rd edition of Stephanus 1550-1551, 
they likewise consulted the Complutensian Polyglot 1514, the dif- 
ferent editions of Erasmus 1516-1535, Aldus 1518, Colinseus 
1534, Planten 1572, the Vulgate and Beza's Latin version of 

"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 followed 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 follows. [Modern spelling 
is adopted in this and similar quotations.] 



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 shall be born Except one be born anew, 


Rom 12 1 

A living sacrifice. A living sacrifice. 

I 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 all men largely and who giveth to all liberally and 

upbraideth not and it shall be upbraideth not. 
given him. 

42. The extracts are from the following 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 IIT) f. gives a careful argument on Tyndale's knowledge of 
Hebrew, and proves his case by a collation of Luther and Tyn- 
dale in Deut 6 6-9, and states that "the rendering of these four 
verses proves an independent knowledge of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, 
German and English." He gives specific instances to prove 


this and gives the following list of helps available to Tyndale: 
The Hebrew Bible (Soncino, 1488, Brescia, 1494); Bomberg's 
Bible published in 1518; Rabbinical Bible published in 1519 
and 1525; Pellican's Hebrew Grammar, 1503; Reuchlin's Dic- 
tionary in 1506; Miinster's Grammar, 1525; Complutensian 
Polyglot with a Hebrew Grammar and Lectionary, 1517-1520. 



o 2 > 

CO ^ -O 

« -C ^ 

M o 23 

4) O 

s °° 

^ .^ -g q3 

r/^ r. t~t 

CO o *— ^ r5 

" a 



O) rt 


:-■" ~ -M a 

H- C ri o 

§ g I 

j^ i^ i .s 

o o rt -tj 


^ 5 


c ^^ 

a< Wj Ml 

So C 4) 



th long 1 
en as. 
d gave. 
; the Ge 
rrupt sp 



— f c "- « o 



> o .a 

T M 4) m « : 


_ - iJ o 

o u a ~ii S 
a > C m tdii 


.S CI 


^ a 





3 > c o t- — ■Srs ^ — 

Or- o u d ^^ '° 3 c OS 

« £(2bs £| -"5 -»• -3t:- 

g 2 w-S ,„5 fes S = 

3 UK'S t*^ ^' ^O' .-n, « 



— u , 

&^l5 -& ^a ^g i?^g« 
5 £ £ « £ 



fea a fl a a-gSi 

■M 3 <6 RJ 3 0)5 ■O 

£« 3 C5 w CO 


ii O 3 


£j3ij • J3ia -fig .3 c = 2'° u 

•S"^o^ -3 5| §■« ji=s2 . « g 

Sfcog J=0 r°^S >-" 0«S„- o in 

«S(ucs c:>> >>o 30 !r;'5'"iin S "^ 

o« . So fern -g^i iagxiS -S H 

■§-& S5 £S g^ £o5S . 

^^^ ^>> 75? 2- -SStu^g 

Ifo T^ ei si |P=i ^ "=- 

^ g ^> 

i< S" i3 i>« P. 4^ o 3 2 te- 37 

^o _ o- ^^ _.s sa J 5 ^^ 

i'i =1 li if li^is I ^° 



o .S 

o --sa 

^"3 S 


_: a (u lu 

« ^ r- ^J ^' 

9 oj Si— u 
Co CS P 

£ as O 

OJ o S . 

O 4; 
O ij-O" 


u wo 


ed d 

Ss d 



« 8 
"3 d 



= «d«^ ^3=^ 
3 3 O v» d 




4j dTS*^— ' 

^ O rt^ *^ 

"^ ^^^° « 

^Sij Odd ^2 

£ > O i9 

P — U. CO 


— O aJ 73 

.— CO 

•a ^J3 
^3 ti 

S aj o 

bf O 

;^ ^' 

•so b S 
goo! -a is a; 

~ HO >.s 

d Hoc." 

=* d M aj " 

•a . .- ii 3 

d M 


fcf b 

11 II 


o _ 

-d d-a 

i^n o 2 cod 

, o'" d e o aj 
iUo £ S-d d 


i£ S d 

dT3 e« 

■? o o 

So 55 

d o d 

a3~ o 

r, .d 

— 2 <u ^^ 

s^ °>.d 

-it •/: o d 
•J-. - • ^ — o 

— -D ;i*J o 

i S5 

, ft*!! 

E=<!C3 2^ 

. a!-. 

^ od 

o d— ea 

d-5 2 c - 
o5 d d d 

-, O d j:; > 

3 = 5 S ^ as 
J — V- m >■ 5j 

3 ^ O O -d 

t-H +3 ^3 O 

" o 

fj o 

rt 2 J 

da « 

do o 


o ^2 
*d -d 
d ^, P! 

0.2 o 

£"5 o 

m ^ CO 


'C: "=•==«> 




o*-" aj >- 

y= aj ' 


: J2 aj-d^ o'oJ o 

EhQ^j 4j^ ja H-l bC+J S 




05 M 

5 " 



.!X)t» CM'T 

ClrH M T-l^-IC^n 


h o 









.S u bo 





2 a 

V V t» u 

l-l o > t) 



g o-s^ -^ . fcc 5a^a 








2 2 


S a 


si .o 

•S u be 








were made 
a while ago 
by whom y 





.-I«d . 










48. Westcott General View 212, and Murnbcrt Emjlish Ver- 
sions 163, both agree that Coverdale's cannot be called an inde- 
pendent translation. These words omitted by TjTidale are given 
by Westcott 220. 

49. Westcott General View 217, 220. Mombert Encjlish 
Versions 1G4-I67has collated Mai 4, as translated by Covcrdale, 
with Luther, the Zurich, the Worms edition of Peter Schafer 
(1528) and the Combination Bible of Wolff KopphI, with the 
result that there is hardly a word that cannot be referred to one 
or more of them. Collations 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 well as the Latin translation of Sanctes Pag- 
ninus (1528), 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 

"It is unquestionably inferior to Matthew's Bible as to trans- 
lation." Mombert 222, 223. See also Westcott General View 
300, 301. 

52. 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. 

55. 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 Beza;, four Cursive MSS., the 
Vulgate, the Old Latin, nor the Memphitic Version. It is not 


noticed in expositions on the Lord's Prayer by Origen 254 a.d., 
Tertullian 200 a.d., nor Cyiirian 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 Ethiopia 
Version, the Armenian Version, tlie 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. 

57. 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: 



I ^ b S t, p: a 

o o w 

<D +a Kg; a 

0-!elm«i*^>-lKi p >>P O— „ O Si? CD '^ 

I 15 p: 






P o 


O to 





4j O o 

Li V 


1-1 +^ 


. 1) 03 






"SPt^A^'O i2 So ^ So P S^° rtS^Sa 

S-db,, ^ j3 CU B fl O 

''•g^'S°« ^^ -o ^ 2 .2 

"" >* d t>,-2 5 t3 "S ^ 

•° £-2*"- «a g 2 £ c 

^ I 7. -S 

r:?*?^5:j>. . .d«j 

«> •■' 00 c: :i2 . 















Ph < 


to > « 

2§ I ^ Sal 

Sm « -7-! J30 be S''3 M 13 


ft ft. 

^2 ^ -d.-sS. bfS'Oo- SS'£S&£ t.r^ci 

«2 i "^ S 

< «> 

BO Siii^oiiv: fe •'^ c 

(D;3 i- lu Si^ -G -G '3 

ft o ft-O 5 cd o •*^ -w 

*- fl Q .S —a 

S'C^o .. 5S o "o 


ss ^ g ^ o s .ggsHs°i:§-« ^lois^sss 

SiH • !>, !3 -S S i3«He'a-!2ft'=^!=c:n^ocft^>Sg«^u 

ftom3*3(S cl to " ^S 

S ;!:5 to S • • 

O ^ U ^-^ O , . .CM 

.is! * 'ic-'oO C 55^;^ t« o ftoH (PiSi3 §0 o OO o o^ ftojlli 











s: o 







T '- S 

o o 



o ^ 


ft — 






at s 





CO <»-) 




sabbath re 

of God. 
am Gabriel 

presence o 








Id .«-< 






•H O 




>>c2q"5£S a 

^^ — ^^3a;j::D ^ 

« |« .s s 

5 a -^3 

c -^ 



S 5S. o 



•d 2o5 '- 

is , 

•au. g 

u^ o 


O ►* ^' O ' 

3 .oti«>.5 

1 am Ga 














y ft " ::3 2 

.2 >> 


































2« S S5 5 2 ^ •§ 

«--• OS 0*J o _I - h 

°>- " -s a S . -§-§ 

rt G 


43 (3 
bC c3 




-a t^ 

oS«2 g Ss-aS-^'SS ES^-SJiEfca ^-•S>,H^»'S 
w53£> B^ ■n|<K8^>,>Ss^is-a8ft3^o|2^ce:a.£„Sa 

£ £i8 O pcq 83«3 ft <a w5 K 


ti-T ►J'* 

° ^5 .ti . 

(Sni< ei ■So 

'?y ° ^ tsM cs u oo 



BJ (U M 

* o ^ 

^ S Q 


O E^ Ed S 
Ed ffl ^ f' ':2 




Ui J3 CD t>^d 

Jd o cs a M 
■*-* ^^ o w 

t! -S >-■ ° ,„ aM t3 -^ ^ 

"^^ -ft 



K o 



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." 

I Cor 11:27. Theuseof the word "or" for "and." 

Acts 20:28. "Bishops" for "overseers." 

I Cor 9:5. ) Quoted as opposing the celibacy 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 ll; Rom 4 3; 
I Pet 1 25; Jas4 6. 

61. Passages in which the Douay and Revised Versions agree: 
Jas 516; Heb 1022; Lk 1842; 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 5. 

62. The passages referred to are as follows: 

Agreeing Exactly Altered in Douay Version 

with the so as to be made 

Revised Version Intelligible 

Quoted by Westcott General View 331. 
Mk 5:35. Ps 19:9. 

Rom 6:13, 8:18. 
Heb 13:16 
Quoted by Mombert English Versions 303 t. 

Lk 22:18. Matt 27:62. 

Jno 6:45, 7:2 Mk 15:46. 

Acts 23:14. Lk 22:7, 12. 

Rom 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. 

Bev 1:10. 21:6, 22:2, 22:14. I Tim 3:6, 5:6. 

II Tim 1:14, 4:4. 

Phlm 6. 

Heb 2:17, 3:15, 4:10, 9:23, 10:16. 

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 t. 

Phil 2.7. Ps 23:5. 

Isa 13:22. 


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 5. 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 

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 10. Be not wise in your own conceits. 

13 8. Owe no man anything. 

14 9. For to this end Christ diet!. 

Ton 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. appro vest. 
3 25. propitiation 

4 4. grace. 

5 8. commendeth. 


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 vmrighteousness. 

Douay, "just" for "righteous," "iniquity" for "unright- 
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 CEcumenical Council of the Vatican held April 24, 
1870, says on this point (Caput II): 

"Ha;c porro supernaturalis revelatio, secundum universalis 
Ecclesise fidem a sancta Tridentina Synodo declaratam, contine- 
tur in libris scriptis et sine traditionibus quae ipsius Christi ore ab 
A})ostolis acceptse, aut at ipsis Apostolis Spiritu Sancto dictanto 
quasi per manus traditaj 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 like 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. 



Selected and Compiled from the Sources Employed by 


A. — Sources of the Text of the Old and New Testaments. 
B. — Printed Editions of 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. 



Section I 

(/) Hebrew Manuscripts of the Old Testament ^ 

The Hebrew MSS are of two classes: those for use in the 
synagogues 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 

• Material furnisherl by Messrs. Whitley, Beard, and Dalton respectively, 
is indicated in the BibliogTafihy by their initials. 

2 See Green Introduction to O T Text 74f.; Kirkpatrick The Dimne 
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.) 




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. 


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. 

7. The 10th cent. (7) 

8. 1018 or 1019 a.d. 

9. 1106 A.D 

10. Uncertain date. 


12. 1227 A.D. 


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 7) 
in the Karaite SynagoRue at Cairo. (D.) 

Codex ben Asher, " Is reported to be at Alep- 
po." . (D.) 

Codex Babylonicus, in the Imperial Library 
St. Petensburg. (D.) 

Codex Lauilianus containing the whole O T, 
except part of Genesis. This MS, though 
thus dated, is held by Ginsburg, Stein- 
schneider 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 \ 
yon Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts 
47 (W.) 

Codex Caesareus. The Prophets and Hagio- 
grapha, in the Imperial Library, Vienna. 


Codex Carlsruhensis contains the Prophets, at 
Carlsruhe. (D.) 

A manuscript of the latter Prophets put by 
some in the 6th, by others in the 15th cent. 


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, (1)) 
an .\rabic versicm 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. 


(//) 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 
which preceded the period of the Massorites." Green Text 167. 




1. Septuagint. 

2. The Version 
of Aquila 

3. The Ver- 

sion of 

4. The Version 

of Sym- 

5. Peschito. 







About th e 
middle of 
the 3d cent. 

117-i38 A.D. 

About the 2d 

A.D. 200. 

2d or 3d cent, 


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 

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 
5th 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 
transUteration 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. 






1. Samaritan 

2. Targum of 

3. Targum of 

West Ara- 



2d cent., ac- 
cording to 

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 1 494 at 
Leiria. CW.) 



Section II 
(/) Greek Manuscripts 


1. Codex Sinai- 


2. Codex Alex- 


3. Codex Vati- 


4. Codex Eph- 


5. Codex Bezse. 

6. Codex Claro- 


7. Codex Lau- 


8. C o d e X 


9. Codex Ros- 


10. Codex Basil- 


11. Codex Ni- 


12. Codex Har- 



4th cent. 
5th cent. 

4th cent. 

5th cent. 

the 6th 

6th cent. 

6th cent. 
8th cent. 
6th cent. 

Middle of 
8th cent. 

8th or 9th 

9th cent. 


In the Imperial Library, St. Peters- 
burg. Contains the entire N T. (D.) 

In the British Museum. From the 
N T, Matt 1-25 e, Jno 660-862, II Cor 
4 13-12 16 are missing. (D.) 

In the Vatican Library. Contains 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 1-?- 
27 so. _ (D.) 

In the Bodleian Library, Oxford. A 
Grffico-Latin MS of the Acts. (D.) 

In the Royal Library, Paris. Contains 
most of the Gospels. (D.) 

In the Library, Rossano. The earliest 
copy of the Scriptures adorned with 
miniatures. (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 "very important." A 
palimpsest containing 516 verses of 
Luke. Two other MSS of less im- 
portance are also marked R. (D.) 

In the British Museum. 

• The information as to the Greek manuscripts is taken from the following 
authorities: Scrivener Introduction to N T I. 90-189; Westcott Bible in 
the Church 302f.; Maclear Helps 13f.; Mitchell Critical Ilarulbook 108- 
136. (D.) 

'^ A palimpsest, i. e., 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.) 





13. Codex 


14. Codex Cam- 


15. Codex Pur- 


16. Codex Tis- 


17. Codex San- 


18. Codex Nani- 



9th cent. 
9th cent. 

End of 9th 

About 9th 


About 9th 

About the 
10th cent. 


In the Royal Library, Paris, a com- 
plete copy of the four Gospels. (D.) 

In the Royal Library, Paris, the four 
Gospels complete. (D.) 

Parts in different Libraries. (D.) 

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 17-36. Graco-Latin. 

In the Library of St. Mark, Venice. 
Contains the four Gospels entire. 


(//) 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 


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 of the New Testament 


1. Curetonian, 

2. Peschito. 





2d cent. 

411-435 A.D. 


Contains the Gospels only. Other 
books are quoted by Ephrem; 
but he seems to use, instead oi 
these separate Gospels, the Dia- 
tessaron of Tatian — a single 
composite narrative. (W., D.) 

A revision by Rabbula. SeeNet^tle 
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.) 




3. Harkleian. 

4. Sahidic. ) 

5. Bohairic. 3 

6. Gothic. 


Syria c. 




616 A.D. 

3d or 4th cent. 

4th cent. 


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 earher date is not 
proven. (W.) 

Large fragments of the Gospels and 
of Paul's Epistles .survive. As 
this version is akin to the Old 
Latin, while the Armenian is 
based on the Syriac, and the 
I'jthiopic is influenced by the 
Egyptian, these three versions 
can be used for textual criticism 
only with extreme caution. 


Section III 

The Latin Versions^ 

The best known and most important of the Latin Versions 




1. The Vulgate 

2. Old Latin. 

387 to 405 A.D 

Before 2.50 A.D 

Translated by Jerome. The O T, except the 
Apocrypha, from the Hebrew, the Apoc- 
rypha from the Seiituagint. 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 sncrorum lotimv rersinne-t nntiqurj; 
sen uelus Itnlira, bvPetrus Sabatier,3 vols. 
Rheims, 1739-1749, reprinted at Paris, 

The Ancient Versions of the Four Evangelists, 
by .Joseph Bianchini, 2 vols.. Rome, 1749. 
These works show that though there are 
points of difference, there are traces of a 
source common to many, if not to all of 
them. (W.,D.) 

1 The information as to Latin versions is taken from Scrivener Introduc- 
tion II. 42f. (D.) 

The text of the Viilpate was revised by Alcuin, 801 A.o., by 
Theodulf, by Lanfranc of Canterbury (1069-1089 a.d.), by 


Stephen Hardinp;, 1109, and by Cardinal Nicolaus Manicoria in 
1150. In the 13th cent, a more systematic re\asion was under- 
taken by bodies of scholars in the so-called "Correctoria Bibli- 
orum." The best and most critical of these is the Corredorium 

Section IV 
Lectionaries and Liturgies 

(I) The Lectionaries are summarized by Scrivener Intro- 
duction 1. 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.KeblelA Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church 
and New- Anterior to tfie Division of the East aTid West. (D.) 

Schaff a,nd,Select Library of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers. (D.) 




Section I 
Printed Editions of the Hebrew Text 


Place of Publication, etc. 



5. 1516-17 















16. 1890 

17. 1894 

The Law, pointed, with Aramaic version and Yarhi's commen- 
tary, ed. Abraham b. Hayim. fol. Bologna. (W.) 

Hebrew Bible, pointed, ed. Abraham b. Hayim. fol. Son- 
cino. ' (W.) 

The Law, Lisbon. (W.) 

Hebrew Bible, ed. Berson b. Moses. 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.) 

" Bibles 

I Published at Venice by Bomberg. 

J 4 J. de Gard, 

I Published at Venice by < Bragadine, 
V ( Buxtorf. (D.) 

Rabbinical Bible, ed. Moses b. Simaon of Frankfurt. (D.) 

Vetus Teslamentum H ebraicum, with various readings, ed. 
Benjamin Kennicott. fol. 2 vols. Oxford. (W.) 

Critical Hebrew Texts. Baer, Leipzig. 

Prophetarum posteriorum. Codex Babylonica Petropolitann. 
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.) 



Skction II 
(7) Printed Editions of the Greek Text 


Novum Instrumentum 
omne diligenter ab 
Erasmo Roterdamo 
recognitum et emen- 
datum. (W.) 

2. Sacra Scripturm Veter- 

is Novreque omnia. 

3. Novum Testamenlum 


4. Novum Testamenlum 

cum versione Latina 
veteri et nova Theo- 
dori Bezse. (W.) 

5. Novum Testam,entuni 

Greece ex officina 

6. Novum Teslamentum 

GrcBCumcum lectioni- 
bus variantibus MSS 
Exemplarium Ver- 
sionum, Editionum, 
SS. Patruni et Scrip- 
torum Ecclesiasti- 
corum et in easdem 
notisStudioet labore 

7. Novum Testamenlum 

GrcBCum inserviente. 
J. A. B(engel) 

8. Novum Testamenlum 

Grcecum. Wetstein. 

9. Novum Testamenlum 


J. J. Grjesbach. 


fol. Basel. 

Small fol. 



fol. Paris. 

fol. Geneva. 

1624 and 1633 
12mo. Leyden 


fol. Oxford. 

1734. 4to. 

1751-52. 2 

vols. fol. 
1796 (vol. i). 
1806 (vol. ii). 
London and 


Four subsequent editions pub- 
lished with 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 delay 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. 

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 at Rome 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.) 




10. Novum Tesiamenliim 

juxta exemplar, J. 
Millii accuratissime 
impressum E d i t io 
prima Americana. 

11. Novum Testam.entum 

Grwce. J. M. A 

12. Novum Testamentum 


Carl Lachmann. 

13. N. T. G. et Latine. 

14. The New Testament in 

the original Greek 
with introductions 
and notes. Chris 
topher Words 
worth. (D.) 

15. The Greek Testament 

vnth a critically re- 
vised text, digest of 
readings, etc. Henry 
Alford. (D.) 

16. The Greek A'ew Testa- 

ment, edited from 
ancient authorities. 
etc. S. P. Tregelles. 
(W.. D.) 

17. Novum, Testamentum 

Griece. Constantine 

18. The Neiv Testament in 

the original Greek. 
B. F. Westcott and 
F. J. A. Hort. 


19. Novum Testamentum 

Greece cum appar:it\i 
critico ex eiliticniiljus 
etlibris manuscriptis 
coUecto curavit ICh- 
erhard Nestle. Ivli- 
tio tertia recognita. 

20. The Resultant Greek 

Testament, etc.. liv 
Weymouth. (W.) 

Mass. (W.) 

vols. 4to 




2 vols. Berlin 



4to. London 


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




Small 8vo. 



1 905 

The fourth Catholic critical edition 
with plenty of fresh material 
used most carelessly. Reprinted 
1841 in Bagster, Eng. Heinjtla. 

Lachmann's first edition, the first 
that made a new beginning, 
neglecting previous printed edi- 
tions. (W.) 

This is beyond question the most 
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 1S81 , 
among whom they sat; so that 
their editions give substantially 
the same text. _ (W.) 

Three volume edition with notes 
by Weiss. .(W.) 

.\ fourth edition was published in 
1904 at London by the British 
and Foreign Bible Society. 

St ed. 1886. 3d ed. 1905, with 
Introduction by Bp. Perowne. 



{11) Editions of Parts of the New Testament 





J. B. Lightfoot. 


The Epistles of St. Paul. (D.) 


Dean Stanley. 
Bishop Ellicott. 



The Greek Text of the Epistles to the Corinthians. 

The Greek Text of the Epistles to the Corinthians. 

A Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek. (D.) 


A. Wright. 


The text constructed by the Engh'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 


1. Biblia Sacra 

2. Biblia Sacra 
e ditioni s 
ad concilii 
turn emen 


vols, fol 





3 vols. fol. 



From the press of Fust and Scheffer. 


The first critical edition by Castillanus. _ 

E(lition 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 olfler editions. White says it is really 
the foundation of the Clementine Vulgate. It 
fell, however, under censure. (W.. D.) 

Other editions 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 Sixtua V (W. D.) 




3. Biblia Sacra 

Latina Vul- 
r/atiE edi- 
tionis Sixti 

V Font. 
Max. jussu 
atque edi- 
ta. (W.) 

4. Biblia Sacra 

V ul g atw 
. . . Roma. 
Ex Typo- 
g r ap h ia 


5. Biblia Sacra 

V u Igatw 

C. Biblia Sacra 
V u I gatce 
editi onis 
Sixti V et 
Maix jus- 
su recog- 
nita atque 

7. Biblia Sacra 

Latina Ve- 
teris Tes- 
etc. (W.) 

8. NovumJesu 

C h r i 8 t i 









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. 


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 Bil)les, 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 re|)rint of the 
edition of 1801. 



(77) Other Latin Versions^ 


1. 1516 

2. 1528 

3. 1535 

4. 1543 

6. 1557 



Sanctes Pagninus. 

Sebastian Munster. 

Leo Juda, Zwingli 
B i b 1 i a n d e r and 

Other versions. 



"The principal oljject of the volume was the 
new Latin version, the original being placed 
alongside as a guarantee of the translator's 
good faith." It was highly commended by 
Pope Leo X. Four editions were printed in 
England, with Tyndale's England alongside. 


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. 


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 
Tremellius, 1579; Latin version of the Apoc- 
rypha, by Junius, 1579. (D.) 

N T. (D.) 

1 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 37 f (!>•) 

Section IV 
Printed Polyglots 




1. Psalterium, Hebreum, Grec- 

um, Arabicum, and Chal- 
deum, cum tribus interpre- 
tationibus and glossis. 

2. Biblia Sacra Polyglotta, com- 

plectentia Vetus Testamen- 
tum, Hebraico, Grceco, et 
Latino Idiomati; Novum 
Testamenti, Grwcum et 
Latinum . . . Studio, Opere, 
et Impensis Card. Fr. 
Ximenes de Cisneros. 

3. [The Law; in Hebrew, Ara- 

maic, Persian, and Arabic] 





6 vols. fol. 



The first result of Aldus's sug- 
gestion of a polyglot; and ap- 
parently the first Hebrew text 
edited by 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 Wolders Poly- 
glot, 1596; and Hutter's Poly- 
glot, 1599. (D.) 

By Jews, for Jews under Muslim 
rule, the new versions by 







Bibiia If ehraica , Scnnnrilana . 


The Paris Polvglot. It con- 

Chaldaica, (Irrpca.Syriaca. 

lOvol.'f. fol. 

tains all that is in the Com- 

Latina, A rahica. 


I)lutensian and Antwerp Poly- 
glots, the greater part of the 
O T and the N T in Syriac and 
the Arabic Versions. The Sa- 
riiaritan Pentateuch is for tlie 
first time printed. (W.. D.) 


Bibiia Sacra Polyglotta, com- 


The Walton Polvglot. It con- 

plectentia Textus Oriqina- 

6 vols. fol. 

tains the Bible in 

lea . . . Veraionum que An- 


Hebrew, Arabic, 

tiquarum. . . . 

Samaritan, Ethiopic, 

Brian Walton, S.T.D. 

Chaldee, Persian, 
Greek, Latin. 
Syriac (W., D.) 


Polyglot of Reineccius. 




Bagster's London Polyglot. 




Pohiqlotten-Bihel . . . des 


The best cheap polyglot. 

Vrteites, der Septuaqinta, 



Vulgata. . . . Sowie die 

6 vols. 

wichtigsten Varianten . . . 

von R. Stier und K. CJ. W. 



Section I 
(/) Trandations Before 1400 


Title and Particulars. 

1. 680 

2. 9007 

3. 102,3 

4. 1150? 

5. 1320? 

Cmdmonis monachi paraphrasis poeiica Genesios ac prircipiiarum 
sacrrp paqino' historiarum, Anolo-Saronice, nunc (1G55) priinuni 
edita a Fr. Junio. 4to. 2 vols. Amsterdam. (W.) 

Anqlo-Saj-on ami Rarhj English Psalter, now (1843-47) first {)ub- 
lished from MSS in the British Museum (for the Surtees Society 
by .1. Stevenson). 8vo. 2 vols. London. (W.) 

11 eptiiteuchus. Liber Job, et Erangelium Nicodemi. 

Thwaites, 1098. Oxford. Remnants of a metrical version by 
■Aelfric, .abridged from the historical books of the O T. (W.) 

The Holy Gospels in Anglo-Snrnn, Northumbrian atul Old Mercian 
Version. Skeat, to.' 1871-87. Cambridge. 

This edition gives not only the Lindisfarne and Riishworth 
texts Latin an<l English, but also two MSS of about 1100 and 
1150, which attest the latest form known as "Anglo-Saxon." 

New Versions follow the revival of national feeling in the 14th 

The Earliest Complete English Psalter, together u-ilh Eleven 
Canticles. Buelbring, 1891. London. (W.) 




Title a nd Particulars. 

6. 13507 

A Fourteenth Cenluri/ EtviUsh Biblical Versio7i, 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. 


(77) Translations by Wyclif^ 

Books Translated. Date. 


1. N T. 

2. O T. 

3. The whole Bible.2 

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.; Mombert English Versions of the Bible 45{.; Moulton 
History 59f. 

2 To these we must add: The Nexo Testament in Scots, being Purvey's 
Revision of Wycliffe's Version turned itito Scots by Murdoch Nisbet (1520?). 
Printed for the Scottish Text Society, 1901. (W.) 

(777) Printed Editions of Wyclif s Bible 


1. The New Testament of our Lord 
and Sninor .Jesus Christ, traJis- 
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. 

3. The Song of Solomon, Dr. Adam 


4. The Holy Bible, containing th e Old 

and New Testaments vnth the 
apocryphal booksin the earliest 
English versions, made from, 
the Latin Vulgate, by John Wy- 
cliffe a?vi his followers. 







4 vols. 



N T taken from two MSS 

(1) in I'jodleian 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. 

Purvey's revision of 1388, 
edited by Forshall and 
Madden. This fine edition 
supersedes former printed 
editions both for text and 
introduction. Several re- 
prints of various portions 
have been made. (W.) 



Section II 

Tyndale's Version 

A glance at the next division — D — of this bibliography 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.) 


1. Quarto edition of 3,000 

copies. The first Englisli 
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 erlition of 3,000 

copies, the prologiie 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. 

3. The prophete Jonas. 

4. The fyrst boke of Moses called 


(Ten sheets 
printed at 
Col ogne 
and taken 
where p«T- 
h(tps the 
e d i t i o n 
was fin- 

1527 28 





Facsimile ed. by Archer. Lon- 
don, 1871. (B.) 

Facsimile ed. by Fry. Bristol, 
1802, and by Dabney. New 
York. (W., D.) 

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

Printed by Christopher of End- 
hoven. (I).) 

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 

The five books were issued to- 
gether, but without one gen- 
eral title. 

Tyndale's N T, pirated by .loye. 
(W., D.) 




6. The ncwe 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. 


1534 Revised version by Tyndale, 
8vo. usually known as the 2d ed. 

Antwerp. Marginal notes added. 

Reprinted in Bagster Hexa- 
pla, from a copy in the Library 
of the Baptist College, Bristol. 
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.) 
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.) 







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


Biblia. The Bible, that is the 
Holy Scrypture of the Okie 
and New Testament, fayth- 
fully and truly translated 
out of Douche and Latyn 
into Englyshe MDXXXV. 





The first complete Bible printed 
in English. (W.) 

Reprinted in 1838: The 
Holy Scriptures faithfrilly 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.) 

Second edition of the 1535 is- 

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. 



Section IV 
Rogers's {Matthew's) Bible 


The Byhle irhich is nil the holy 
script u ic, in ivhi/ch arecon- 
Ini/ned the Okie attd Newe 
T estament truly and pure- 
ly translatcil into lOnglysli 
by Thomas Matthew. . . . 
Set forth with the Kinges 
most gracyous lycece. 


This edition was edited by John 
Rogers, chaijlaiu to the Mer- 
chants' House at Antwerp. It 
contained all Tynilale'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 
one, 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. lu Yale Li- 
brary: twenty-two leaves 
missing. (B.) 

Section V 
Taverner' s Bible 




1. The Most Sacred Bible, 


This version is based on Mat- 

Whiche is the holy scrip- 


thew's, the \ ulgate and the 

ture, conteyning the old 


Greek Text. (Westcott Gen- 

and new testatncnt trans- 

eral View 3S3ff.) 

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. 


by Rychard Taverner. 
2. The New Testament in 


Two editions of the N. T. 


4to and 


A five-volume edition of the 




The O T revised by Becke, to- 


gether with Tyndale's N T. 
These editions are expressly 
noted by Darlow and Moule, 
as erroneous statements are 
frequently made. (W.) 



Section VI 
The Great Bible 


The Byble in Englyshe, that is 
to saye the content of all 
the holy scrypture, hath of 
ye olde and ne.we testament 
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. 

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 the reu 
erende father in God 
Thomas archbysshop of 
Cantorbury. This is the 
Byble apoynted to the vse 
of the churches. (W.) 








(July and 



This version is based on Mat- 
thew's, Munster, Erasmus, and 
the Complutensian Polyglot. 
(W e s t c o 1 1 General View 
383fif.) 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. 

Second edition, with Cranmer's 
preface. (D.) 

The edition of November 1540 
and November 1541 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 Latin 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, Paris), containing the English of 
Coverdale and the Latin Vulgate, influenced the Catholic 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.) 



Section VII 
The Genevan Bible 


1. The Neiwc Testament 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- 
tiesof readings, and moste 
proffitable annotations of 
all harde places: wherunto 
is added a copious Table. 

2. The Psalms. 

3. The Bible and Holy Scrip- 

tures contei/ned in the 
Olde and Newe Testament 
Translated according to 
the Ebrue and Greke, and 
conferred with the best 
translations in diuers Ian- 
gages. With inoste profit- 
able annotations upon all 
the harde places. 

(W., B.) 

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








N T 1,576 

O T 1579 



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 rei)rinted this in 1841. 
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 probalily 
by Myles Coverdale. With 
them were associated Knox, 
(loodman. Cole, PuUam and 
Bodleigh. (D.) 

The Genevan Bible im- 
mediately became popular, 
and about 150 editions were 
printed in eighty years. Bod- 
ley securing the lOnglish cojiy- 
right for seven years from 
Queen Elizalieth. (W'.) 

This version is based on 
Tyndale and Beza. (Westcott 
General View SSaff.) (D.) 

This was apparently the first 
large book printed in Scot- 
land. The Scotch Authorized 
Version (W.) 

Section VIII 







1. The. holie. Bible, conteyninq 


This is the handsomest of Eng- 

the olde Testament and the 


lish Bibles, but the quality of 

newe. (W.) 


text is poor. It was revised 


by several ilignitaries, so that 


it was popularly known as the 
Bishops' Bible. Reiirinted: 
1569, 1570, 1571. 1572, 1605. 



Section IX 
Other Bibles for the British Isles 


1. Testament newydd. 

2. Tiomna Nnadh. 

3. (Irish Bible). 

4. Yn Vible Caskerick. 

5. (Gaelic Bible). 











The Welsh Bible was completed 
in 1,588 by Barker issuing a 
folio edition: Y Bibl Cyssegr- 
lan, sef yr Hen Destament a'r 
Newydd. (W.) 

This Irish N T was translated by 
William Daniel, Protestant 
archbishop of DuV)lin, and 
printed in the native charac- 
ter. It was reprinted in 1681, 
and in 1686 the O T was issued 
in similar form. (W.) 

A reprint in Ronian type. This 
was again reprinted at Glas- 
gow in 1754 for the West 
Highlands. (W.) 

The Manx O T with Wisdom 
and Ecclesiasticus. (W.) 

A revision for the Highlands, by 
James Stuart of Killin. (W.) 


Section I 

Early Slavic and Prankish 


1. The Slavonic Version. 

2. The Prankish Version. 

3. South of France. 



9th cent. 

12th cent. 


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.d. , the earliest 
MSS of the whole Bible a.d. 
1499." _ (W.) 

The Slavonic Version is not 
without critical value. — Scriv- 
ener Intr oductio7i ii. \&Q-\^\. 

MS at St. Gall. _ (D.) 

A translation in Latin and 
German of Tatian's 
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.) 



Section II 

Early German 







All these versions, and many 


2 vols. 

other editions, api)eare<i while 


western Christendom was one. 


It is a grave mistake to think 
that there were no vernacular 
versions till the Reformation. 


Die duyt sch e snuier (J. 


Jacobszoeii). (W.) 

8vo. Delft. 


De Bihlie mit vlitigher ach- 


tiiighe recht na denie 

2 vols. fol. 

latine in fludesck auer- 


ghesettet; mit vorluch- 

tinge unde glose. (Steffen 

Arndes.) (W.) 


D er Teutsch Psnlter 


(Schoensperger). (W.) 

8vo. Augs- 

Section III 
Early French 


1. Les livres de I'nncien & 

nouveau Testaments, his- 
toirds en FranQois, par 
frbre Julien Macho. (Guill. 
le Roy.) (W.) 

2. Le Nouveau Testament et 

la declaration d i c e 1 1 u y 
faicte et composf'-e par 
Julien Macho et Pierre 
Farget(B. Buyer). (W.) 

3. La qrande Bible en Francois 

historiee. (W.) 

4. La Bible en Fran?oi.s 

(Verard). (W.) 


fol. Lyons. 

fol. Lyons. 

fol. I^yons. 

2 vols. fol. 



Section IV 
The Versions of Luther and Others 


1. N T published at Witten- 


2. The Pentateuch. 

3. Historical Books and Holy 



' Particulars in this section are taken from Moulton History 30f.. and 
Westcott History of the English Bible 171, 386. (D.) 





4. The Prophets. 1526 

5. The whole Bible. (Witten- 1534 


6. Revised version thereof. 1541 

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.) 


rendering the Apocrypha from 

7. Leo Juda's German Bible. 

Bihel tcutsch der ursprun- 
glichen Hebreischen und 
Griechischen warheit nach 
auffs treuwlichest verdol- 
metschet. Froschauer, Zu- 
rich. (W.) 





(2d ed. in 




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. 


Section V 
French Bibles 


1. Le Fevre (Translator). 

2. Olivetan. 

3. A revision of Olivetan. 

4. Martin. 

5. Osterwald. 


A complete Bible mainly from the Vulgate. 
Subsequent French versions have been 
more or less depenflent 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. 


Two further revisions of Olivetan, which 
stand high in the esteem of French Prot- 
estants. (D.) 



Section VI 

Editions of the Bible in Other European Languages 

1. In Italian: The whole Bible by Malermi or Malherbi, 1471, Venice; by 

Bruccioli, 1532, Venice; by J. Dioilate, 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.) 


Section I 

The Rheims and Douay Versions ^ 


1. The New Testament of lesus 
Christ, translated faithfvlly 
into English out of the 
authentical Latin. ... In 
the English College of 
Rhemes. (W., B.) 

2. The Holie Bible, 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.) 












1582, quarto edition; 1600 (a 
few alterations and correc- 
tions); 1021, 16mo edition; 
1633, quarto edition. (D.) 

A controversial Protestant re- 

This was reprinted in 1001, 
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 \yholo 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. Theolotrical and Ecclesiastical 409f.; Cotton Editions of the Bible; 
Shea Bibliographical Account of Catholic Bibles. 



Section II 
Earlier Revisions, 1718-1750 


The New Testament . . . newly 
translated out of the Latin 
Vulgate, together with an- 
notations by C(ornelius) 
N ( a r y ) , C(onsultissima') 
F(acultatis) P(arisiensis) 
D(octor). (W.) 

The New Testament. Newly 
revised and corrected accord 
ing to the Clementine edi- 
tion of the Scriptures. 


The Holy Bible, translated 
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.) 

The Holy Bible, translated 
from the Latin Vulgate, etc. 








4 vols., 





To correct old language, bad 
spelling, too literal translation, 
etc., in the original editions, 
and published 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 year 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 .\ Catholic version by Goddes, 1792 97, London: The Holy Bible, or the 
Bonks (iccounted snrred. etc. Never approved; distinctly disavowed by the 
Vicars-.Vpostolic, who in lieu of it promoted the 1796-97 editions of the 
Challoner at Edinburgh. (W.) 



Section III 
Revisions by MacMahon and Troy 


1. The Holy Bible. 



17S3 Revision of N T by MacMahon with formal 
Dublin. approval of Archbishop Carpenter. 

Later editions of Challoner's N T were 
published in America as follows: 1817, 
Georgetown; 1829 I'hiladelphia (from the 
text of 17.32; 1829 (text of 1750) Utica; 
184.5, New York. (D.) 

2. The following revisions were made by MacMahon with the approbation of 
Archbishop Troy and are usually referre<l 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 the 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; 1S05, Philadelphia; in 1816 and 1818, Dublin and Cork; 
1820, Dublin; 1824, Philadelphia; 18.37, Baltimore; and 1852, 
New York; 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 Philaileli)hia; 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 


1. The Holy Bible. 


5 vols. 




Issued untler 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 sonie- 
time.s varies from Challoner's edition of 
17G3-G4. . (D.) 

Revisions were issued under the sanc- 
tion of Dr. Gibson, Vicar Aiiostolic of 
Northern England; fol. 1 SI 0-17, 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, Loiidon) 
sanctioned by Dr. Bramston, Vicar 
Apostolic. (U-) 




The New Testa- 
ment of our Lord 
and Savior Jesus 
Christ, translated 
out of the Latin 
Vulgate; and 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) wa.« published 
at the expense of the Commissioners of 
Irish education with the .sanction of the 
four archbishops of Ireland (D.) 

> The Hohi Bible .... 4to, Cork, 1818. With an Appendix, Errata to 
the Protestant Bible by Ward, first published 16S8. (W.) 

Section V 
Revisions by Dr. Murray 




The Holy Bible. 


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 eilition 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 


Neiv Ve r si o n of 
the Four Gospels 
with Notes Criti- 
cal and Explana- 
tory by a Catholic 


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



Section^ VII 
Revisions by Bishop (Archbishop) Kenrick 


The Four Gospels 
translated from 
the Latin Vulyate 
and diligently 
compared with 
tlie Original 
Greek Text. . 
By the Rt. Rev. 
P'rancis Patrick 
Kenrick, Bishop 
of Philadelphia. 

TheNew T estament. 
Translated from 
the Latin Vul- 
gate, etc. . . . By 
Francis P. Ken- 
rick, Archbishop 
of Baltimore. 


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 1S57 
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 




The Holy Bible. . . . 



An edition following the text of Troy's 
edition of 1803 %vith slight variations. 


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




1. The Holy Bible . . . 


This edition was contemplated as earlv as 



1800. ... It has V)eeu permanently s\ic- 


cessful. (W.) Subsequent eilitions ap- 

ter and 

peared as follows: 1822,' 1824, Dublin; 


1825, Philadelphia; 184.')-4S, iMlmburgh 
and London; 18.')2 -56, New York; 185;<, 
London and New York. 

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









and New 



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

The Holy Bible, 

translated from 

the Latin Vul- 
gate . . . (Douav 

Bible) . . . with 

useful notes, crit- 
ical, historical, 

con t r o versial, 

and explanatory, 

selected from the 

most eminent 

comme n tators, 

and the inost able 

and judicious 

critics. (B.) 
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." 


In addition, the prelates of the Church in America mentioned below gave 
their approbation. 

John B. Purcell, Archbishop of Cincinnati. 

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. 

This information is obtained from a copy of the Bible in the College of St. 
Francis Xavier, N. Y. (D.) 

4. It may be of interest to note that the Rheima and Douay Bible has been 
translated for resitlents in the United States as follows: 1824, New York, 
Spanish; 1850, New York, German; The New Testament, 1810, 
Boston, French; 1819, New York, Spanish; 1837, New York, Spanish; 
1838, New York, French; 1839, New York, Portuguese; 1852,_New 
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.) 



By F. A. Spencer (O. 


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



Section I 
Editions of King James's Version 


1. The Holy Bible, Con- 

teyning the Old Tes- 
tament and tlie Neiv: 
Newly translated 
out of the Originall 
tongues : & with 
the former Trans- 
lations diligently 
comparetl and re- 
uised, by his Ma- 
iesties speciall Co- 
mandernent. 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 










' Imprinted at London by Robert Barker, 
Printer to the Kings most Excellent 
Maiestie." (W.) 

The Standard or primary Edition. 

"The authentique corrected Cambridge 
Bible" (Kilhurne, 1658). This was in- 
tended to be the standard text; but 
the subsequent troubles caused the fact 
to be obscured. (W.) 

Contains Bishojj Ussher's chronology fix- 
ing the creation of the world at 4004 
B.C. Known as "Bishop Lloyd's Bible." 

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 eflition. (D.) 

The improvements of this standard 
text were largely derived from the edi- 
tion of 1762. (W.) 



Section II 
Early American Bibles 




1. The New Testament, . . . Trans- 

latedinto the Indian Language. 

2. The Haiti 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 theConsent of theCorpora- 
tion in England For the Propa- 
gation of the Gospel amongst 
the Indians in New ICngland. 
,3. Biblia.das ist Die H eiiige Schrift. 
. . . Nach der Deutschen Ueber- 
setzung D. Martin Luther's. 

4. The New Testament. 

5. 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. 

0. The Holy Bible. . . . translated 

from the Greek by Charles 

Thomson, late Secretary to the 

Congress of the United States. 





Long 4 to. 
2 vols, or 

8vo. 4 vols. 

The Eliot New Testament. 
The Eliot Bible. 

The Saur Bible. 

The Aitken New Testa- 

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 


The New Testament 


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. 










The English Revision. 




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






4. The Holy Bible, being the revised ver- 1898 

sion with the readings and render- Oxford 
ings preferred by the American re- and 
vision companies incorporated in the Cambridge 
text, and with copyright marginal 

5. The New Covenant commonly called 

the New Testament. Newly edited 
by the New Testament members of 
the American Revision Committee. 

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.) 

New York, 

New York. 


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, EUicott, 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 Mas.soretic 
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. 186.5. The New Testament. American Bil)le Union Version, begun 

in 1854. This was again revised after 1883. (W.) 

3. 1877. Revised Emilish 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 ai'l'eared 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 

E. — Historical and Biographical Works. 
F. — Works on the Standard Roman Catholic Versions. 
G. — Books on the English Bible (Protestant Versions). 
H. — Works on Revision. 



Section I 

The Greek and Hebrew Text 


1. 1746 

2. 1753 

3. 1770 

4. 1854 

5. 1871 
6 1871 

7. 1880 


Houhigant (Rom, 

Kennicott, B. 

Kennicott, B. 

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

Burgon, J. W., and E 


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 jes of St. Mark vin- 
dicated against recent critical objectors. 
Oxford and London. (D.) 

The Causes of the Corruption in the Tradi- 
tional Text. (B.) 

1 In additiori to the following specific publications there may he consulted 
under the various sections relevant articles in the Dictionaries of Hastings 
(1902), Cheyne (1903). and Schaff-Herzog (1907 





8. 1881 

9. 1886 

10. 1894 

11. 1894 

12. 1890 

13. 1897 

14. 1898 

15. 1901 

16. 1901 

17. 1903 


Westcott and Hort. 
Miller, E. 
Harris, J. Rendel. 

BiiFKnn, J. W., and E, 

Copinger, W. A. 

Blass, Fr. 
Kcnyon, F. G. 

Nestle, E. 
Kenyon, F. G. 


The New Testamevt in Greek. Volunie two 
becan a new era in textual criticism. 

4 Guide to the Textual Criticism of the New 
Testament. Lomlon. (D.) 

Four Lectures on the Western Text. Lon- 
don. _ (B.) 

A Plain Tntrodttction to the Criticism of the 
New Testament. 4th ed. London, New 
York and Cambridge. Indispensable for 
serious work. (W.) 

The Tradilional Text of the Ilohj Gospels. . (B.) 

The Bible audits 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 (establishins the 
true text). London. (B.) 

Hamlbook to the Textual Criticism of the 
Greek New Testament. London and 
New York. (W., B.) 

Introduction to the Textual Critirism of the 
Greek New Testament. 'I'heological 
Translation Library. Vol. XII L 


Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 
being a history of the text and its trans- 
lations. 4th ed. London. (W., B.) 

Section II 
Works on the Vulgate and Old Latin Versions 


1. 1655 

2. 1824 

3. 1827 

4. 1845 

5. 1868 

6. 1875 

7. 1879 


Bois, J. 

Van Ess, 

Brunati, J. 

L. (Rom 

Migne, J. P. 

Kaulen, Fr. 

Ronsch, II. 
Ziegler, L. 

(R o m 


Collatio Veteris Interpretis cum Beza 
aliisijue recentioribus collatio in. quatuor 
Evangeliis et Actis Apostolorum. L(jn- 

"The first who pointed out the real 
value of" the Vulgate. (W.) 

Pragmatisch-Kritische Geschichte der Vul- 
gata. Tubingen. OV.) 

Dc Nomine, .Xuctore, etc. (Dissertations on 
the Name, .\uthor. Revisions and Authen- 
ticity of the Vulgate.) Vienne. (B.) 

Works of St. .lerome, in Patrologiw Latinos 
Cursus Co?npletus. (A complete collec- 
tion of the works of the Fathers.) Vols. 

Geschichte der Vulgaia. Mainz. (W.) 

fl(daund Vulgata. (W.) 

Die lateinischen Bibeluhersetzungen vor 

llicrouijmus und die Itala des A ugustinus. 


"Stoutly asserts tlic inultii>licity of 

Latin translations." (W.) 




8. 1887 

9. 1892 

10. 1893 

11. 1896 


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

B erprer , S. (Ro ni . 

Burkitt, F. C. 


De VHisloire de la Vulgate en France, 

Paris. (W.) 

Incunabula Bihlica. London. Extremely 

valuable for the Latin printed Bibles. 

Hisioire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers 

sicclcs du moyen age. (W.) 

The Old Latin and the iLala (Texts and 

Studies). (W ) 



1. 1520 

2. 1865 

3. 1880 

4. 1887 

5. 1892 

6. 1895 

7. 1901 


Andreas Bodenstein 

Stuart, Moses. 

Davidson, S. 

Reuss, Edward. 

Ryle, H. E. 

Wildeboer, G. 
Peters, J. P. 


De Canonicis Scnpturis. 


8. The following works deal 
(1)1881 iWestcott, B. F. 

(2) 1884 

(3) 1904 

Mitchell, 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 the Old 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 
etlited by F. Morse. London. (D.) 

Th e 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. 


The New Testament in the Christian Church 
(on the Canon). New York. (D ) 


Section I 

Protestant Writers 


1. 1878 

2. 1882 


Wellhausen, J. 
Blunt, J. H. 


\Einleitung in das Alte Testament (4(h ed 

of Bleek). (W ) 

\A Key to the Knowledge and U se of the Holy 
I Bible. New York. (D ) 




3. 1883 

4. 1887 














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. 


The Doctrine of Holy Scripture, a critical, 

historical and dogmatic inquiry into the 

origin aiul nature of the Old and New 

Testaments. 2 vols. New York. (B.) 
Dil>!ical Stud)/, its princiiiles, methods and 

history. 2d cd. New York. (B.) 

What is the liUilcf New York. (B.) 

A Manual of Introduction to the New Testa- 

7}ient (Tnmsl.). 2 vols. Lonflon. (W.) 
The Old Documents and the New Bible. 2d 

ctl. London and Dublin. (W., D.) 

.lids to the Devout Study of Criticism. 

London. (D.) 

Helps to the Study of the Bible. London. 

The Dinne 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 


1. 1685 

2. 1839 

3. 1816 


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

Van Ess, Lcandcr. 


Ilistoire CrUupie du Viexi x Testament 
(Critical HLstory of the Old Testament). 
Rotterdam. ^ (B.) 

Similar Critical Histories followed from 
his pen, on the te.xt of the N T, 1689; a 
version of the N T, 1690; principal com- 
mentators of the N T, 1093. (VV.) 

Gigot claims that "scholars of our cen- 
tury who apply historical and critical 
mcth'tdsof investigation to the various de- 
partments of human knowledge, willingly 
ascrilie to Richard Simon the honor of 
having been the first to inaugurate the 
method accf)r(ling to which the question.s 
introdiictorv to the interpretation of the 
Bible should be handled." (W.) 

Canones et Dccrcta. etc. (Canons and De- 
crees of the Holv Ecumenical Council of 
Trent.) Leii)7.ig. (B^.) 

Praqmatica doctl. Cath. Trid. circa Vulg. 
dccrcti scnsum. Sulzbach. (W.) 






6. 1886 

7. 1891 

Waterworth, J. 

Dixon, Joseph. (Pro- 
fessor of Sacred 
Scripture and He- 
brew, Archbishop of 
Armagh and Primate 
of all Ireland.) 

Lamy, T. J. 

Comely, Rudolph, S.J. 

8. 1897 

9. 1901 


Breen, A. E. 

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


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.) 

Introduciio in Sacram Scripturam. Mech- 
lin. (D.) 

Historicw et critical Introductionis in U. T. 
libros sncros Compendium S. Theologitc 
auditoribus accommodatum. Editio al- 
tera, commentariolo de inspiratione aucta 
cum approbations superiorum. Paris. 

This book has been drawn upon most ex- 
tensively for Catholic witness to facts. It 
came out imder 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 in 
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 turn quotes from Protestants, without 
express notice. (W.) 

Section III 
Materials Relative to Papal Sanction 


1. 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, Slavonica lingua translatum 
in auribus populi Latina verba non intelligentis annuncietur, 
sicut in quibusdam ecclesiis fieri videatur." Krasinski in Maclear's 
Christian Missions: 280. (W.) 

Pope Pius IX; Encyclical and Syllabus. (W.) 

Pope Leo XIII; Providentissimiis 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.) 




Section I 
General Works 


1. 1S70 

2. 1900 


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


The Pope and the Council. Authorized 
translation from the German. Boston. 


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 Yxdgate, etc. 

(I) The Catholic View 


1. 1884 

2. 1885 

a 1899 


Addis, W. E., and 

Thomas Arnold. 
Waterworth, J. 



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 York. 


Library of St. Francis de Sales. \o\. III., 
Part II., pp. 87-142. London and New 
York (D.) 

(//) Works that Contest the Catholic View 


1. 1800 

2. 1672 

3. 1845 

4. 1855 

5. 1879 

6. 1896 


James, Thomas. 
Cosin John. 

Whitakcr, W. A. 
Robins, S. 

Stearns, E. J. 
Sijencer, J. A. 


Bellum papale, seu concordia discors Siiti 
V. et Clanentis VIII. circa Hieronymia- 
nnni edition cm. (W.) 

Scholastical History of the Canon of the 
Holy Scripture. "Still worth reatlinK. 
esi)ecially as between the Trotestant and 
Romish canon." (W.) 

Disputation on Holy Scripture against the 
Pajnsts. Cambridge. (D.) 

The Whole Erulmce Against the Claims of 
the Roman Catholic Churclu, Ch. vii. 
On the Council of Trent and Canon of 
Scripture. London. (D.) 

The Faith of Our Forefathers. New York, 


Papalism and Catholic Truth and Riiiht. 
New York. Part II., pp. 71-81. (D.) 



Section III 
Bible-reading by the Laity 





Wetzer and Welte. 
(Rom. Cath.) 

Kirchenlexicon (a Church Dictionary), 
edited by Hergenrothe and Kauler: ar- 
ticle, " Biljle-reailing by tlie Laity," Vol. 
I. Freiburg in Ureisgau. (B.) 


Section I 










A uthor. 

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


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. 

Chronicon, Henrici Knighton. 2 vols. 
London. (B.) 

Section II 


2. 1831 

3. 1832 

4. 1851 

5. 1880 

6. 1900 


Lewis, John. 

Vaughan, Robert. 


Forshall and Madden. 

Storrs, R. S. 

Trevelyan, G. M. 


The History of the Life and Sufferings of 
the Reverend and Learned John Wyclif, 
D.D., Warden of Canterbury Hall and 
Professor of Divinity in Oxford, etc. 
Oxford. (B., D.) 

Life and Oiiinions of John Wyclif. 2 vols. 
2d ed. London. (B.) 

Acts and 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 Wy cliff e. 3d ed. 
London. (B.) 



Section III 







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



Demaus, R. 

William Tyndale. A biography. A con- 
tribution to the early history of the English 
Bible. London. (B.) 



Demaus, R. 

Edited by R. Lovett. London. (D.) 




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

Section IV 
Coverdale and Rogers 




1. 1838 

2. 1846 

3. 1861 

Pearson, G. 
Chester. J. L. 

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 Bible. London. 


Section V 
Reformation Period, Roman Catholic Writers 


1. 1676 

2. 1887 

3. 1897 

4. 1904 

5. 1904 


Sarpi, Paolo. 

Bellarmine, R. (Cardi- 

Gasquet, F. A. (D.D., 

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


Fra Paolo Sarpi: Istoria del Concilio Tri- 
dentino. (Translation by Sir N. Brent.) 
"Liberal, almost semi-Protestant." (W.) 

Die Selbsthiographie des Cardinals Bellar- 
mine. lateiiiiseh und deutsch, niit ge- 
schichtlichen Krliiuterungen. J. J. I. von 
DiJllinger und F. IL Reusch. Bonn. 


The Old English Bible, and other Essays. 
London. _ (W., B.) 

Unconvincing in its main contention. 

The English Bible before the Reformation, 
in The Catholic World, Vol. 78, March, 
1904; PI). 791 -796. (B.) 

Reformation aiul Renaissance, 1377-1610. 
London. Thi.s 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.) 





A uihor. 


1. 1582 Martin, Gregory. 
; Withers, G. 

2. 1588 

3. 1589 

4. 1786 

5. 1824 

Fulke, William. 

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

Ward, Thomas. 

G. 1843 Fulke, William. 

7. 1855 

Cotton, Henry. 

8. 1859 Newman, J. H. (Car- 

A Discovery of the Manifold Corruptions 
of the Holy Scriptures by the H eretzkes of 
Our Daies, especially the English Sec- 
taries. Rhemes. (B.) 

.1 View of the Marginal Notes of the Popish 
Testament, translated into 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- 

This was reprinted in 1601, 1617, 1G3.3, 
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 Ton gue, Ag r in ft the Cavils of 
Gregory Martin. Ed. C. H. Hartshorne. 
(Parker Societv Publications, No. 10.) 


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 m 
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. (W.) 

The History of the Text of the Rheims and 
Douay Versions of Holy Scripture. Re- 
printed 1902 in his Tracts Theological and 
Ecclesiastical 403-445. London and New 
York. (B.) 




9. 1859 

10. 1874 

11. 1878 


Shea, John Gilmary. 

Newman, J. H. 

Douay, English Col- 

12. 1900 Butler, T. J. 

13. 1900 McCabe, L. R. 

14. 1902 Carleton, J. G. 


A Bibliographical Account of the Catholic 
Bibles, Testaments ami 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 and second diaries of the English 
College, Uouay, and an appendix of un- 
published tlocumeiils. 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. VIIL, pp. 23-35. 
Dublin. (D.) 

The Story of the Daly Bible. Catholic 
World, Vol. 70, pp. 809-820. New York. 


The Part of Rheims in the Making of the 
English Bible. Oxford. (W., B.) 

Ecclesiastical Approbation, etc. 

15. 1877 

16. 1884 

Acta et Decreta C oncilii Plenarii Baltimor en- 
sis Secundi. Baltimore. 

Ada et Decreta C oncilii Plenarii Balti- 
mor ensis Tertii. Baltimore. 



1. 1730 

2. 1731 

3. 1818 

4. 1841 

5. 1841 


Lewis, John. 

Lewis, John. 



Historical Account of the Several English 
Translations of the Bible. (W.) 

.\ History of the Several Translations of the 
Holy Bible and New Testament into 
English, etc. (In preface to \V y cliff e' s 
New Testament, edition of 1731.) 

(W., B.) 

A Complete History, eic. 3d ed. London, 
(W., D.) 

The English Hexapla, exhibiting the six im- 
portant translations with preface. Bag- 
ster (ed.). (D.) 

An historical account of the English tran.s- 
lationa. Prefixed to some editions of 
Bagster's Hexapla. The publishers can- 
celled one accoinit, an<l the title page. . . . 
Not a single title i>age of five copies con- 
sulted is accurate in its description of the 
versions printed. (W.) 




6. 1852 

7. 1856 

8. 18G2 

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 


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. 

23 1889 Smyth, J. Paterson. 

24 1892iWright, John. 
25. 1894'pattison, T. H. 


Editions of the Bible and Parts thereof in 
English, J r o ni 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 the Authorized Version. London. 


The Bible by Coverdale. London. (W., D.) 

Translators' Preface to the Authorized Ver- 
sion, being an exact reprint of the original 
edition of 1011. 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 EncyclopcBdia Britannica 
VIIL (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. Cambridge: 
(W., B.) 

Old Bibles. An account of the Early Ver- 
sions of the English Bible. London. 


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. 


History of the English Bible. (W.) 




26. 1901 

A uthor. 

(Booklovers' Library 
Philadelphia 1901.) 

27. 1902 Hoare, H. W 

28. 1903 

29. 1905 

30. 1905 


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

Heaton, W. J. 


Pollard, A. W. 
Stoughton, John. 


The English Bible: How we Got it. (Course 
24, Booklovers' ReadingClub.) Contents: 
Books selected for this course, Pres. W. 
R. Harper and Prof. J. F. Genung. . . . 
The English Bible, W. N. Clarke. . . . 
A Century with Versions and Editions, J. 
F. Genung. . . . The Bible as one of the 
World's Great Literatures, R. G. Moulton. 
. . . The American Revised \'ersion 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 in the Library of the 
British and Foreign Bible Society , . . in 
2 vols. Vol. L, English. London. In- 
valuable for the purposes of this essay. 


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. (W.) 

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 16G0. Within its limits 
most valuable. (W.) 

English Literature. The English Bible. 
Philadelphia. i)p. 22. (B.) 

Our English Bible, its Translations and 
Translators. London. (B., D.) 



5. 1870 






Scrivener, ff. H. 



Beard, J. 



Trench, R. C. 

Bishop Ellicott. 

C. 1871 Bishop Lightfoot. 


Essay for a New Translation of the Bible 
Ijondon. (B.) 

A Supplement to the Authorized English 
Version of the New Testament. London. 


A Reprised English Bible, the Want of the 
Church and the Demand of the Age. 
London. (D.) 

On th e A uthorizcd Version of the New Testa- 
ment, in connection with some recent 
I)r()|)osals for its revision. (D.) 

Considrralions on the Reidsion of the Eng- 
lis/i V'<r.v(()«. London. (D.) 

On a Fresh Kefision of the English New 
Testament. London. (D-) 




7. 1879 















Schaff, Philip. 

Newth, Samuel. 
Cook, F. C. 

Schaff, Philip 

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. 

Ellicott, C. J. 

Wylie, D. G. 
[ Whitney, H. M. 



22. 1903 Davidson, A. B 

23. 1903 Roseman, William. 

24. 1904 Body, C. W. E. 


Bible Revision, by members of the Ameri- 
can Revision Committee. New York. 


Lectures on Bible Revision. London. (B ) 

The ReirLsed Version of the First Three 
Gospels. (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. (W.) 

The Revision Remsed. (B.) 

The Common Tradition of the Synoptic 
Gospels in the Text of the Revised (Eng- 
lish) Version. London. (D.) 

Companion to the Revised Old Testarnent. 
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. 
417-419. (B.) 

Notes on the Translation of the New Testa- 
ment. Cambridge. (D.) 

Pitfalls in Biblical English. London. 


Addresses on the Revised Version of Holy 
Scripture. London. (D.) 

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- 
3,57. (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.) 

Compa7iion to the Marginal Readings in the 
Bible A uthorized by the General C'o?ivention 
O/1901. New York. (D.) 

Date Due 

fF S7 '42 

f^Arm TV 

APR 1 t 

\ 1995 


dS4/0 .j'li i^Oo 

Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles 

Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library 

1 1012 00113 9379