Smith's Bible Dictionary.pdf - Online Christian Library

Smith's Bible Dictionary
did not object to the principle of an English translation. They only charged the versions hitherto
made with being false, corrupt, heretical. To this there was the ready retort that they had done
nothing; that their bishops in the reign of Henry had promised, but had not performed. It was felt
to be necessary that they should take some steps which might enable them to turn the edge of this
reproach. The English Catholic refugees who were settled at Rheims undertook a new English
version. The New Testament was published at Rheims in 1582 and professed to be based on “the
authentic text of the Vulgate.” Notes were added. as strongly dogmatic as those of the Geneva
Bible, and often keenly controversial. The work of translation was completed somewhat later by
the publication of the Old Testament at Douay in 1609.
•AUTHORIZED VERSION.—The position of the English Church in relation to the versions in
use at the commencement of the reign of James was hardly satisfactory. The Bishops’ Bible was
sanctioned by authority. That of Geneva had the strongest hold on the affections of the people.
Scholars, Hebrew scholars in particular, found grave fault with both. Among the demands of the
Puritan representatives at the Hampton Court Conference in 1604 was one for a new, or at least
a revised, translation. The work of organizing and superintending the arrangements for a new
translation was one specially congenial to James, and accordingly in 1606 the task was commenced.
It was intrusted to 64 scholars. The following were the instructions given to the translators: (1)
The Bishops’ Bible was to be followed, and as little altered as the original would permit. (2) The
names of prophets and others were to be retained, as nearly as may be as they are vulgarly used.
(3) The old ecclesiastical welds to be kept. (4) When any word hath divers significations, that to
be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being agreeable to the
propriety of the place and the analogy of faith. (5) The division of the chapters to be altered either
not at all or as little as possible. (6) No marginal notes to be affixed but only for the explanation
of Hebrew and Greek words. (7) Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as may serve
for fit reference of one Scripture to another. (8) and (9) State plan of translation. Each company
of translators is to take its own books; each person to bring his own corrections. The company to
discuss them, and having finished their work, to send it on to another company, and so on. (10)
Provides for differences of opinion between two companies by referring them to a general meeting.
(11) Gives power in cases of difficulty, to consult any scholars. (12) Invites suggestions from any
quarter. (13) Names the directors of the work: Andrews, dean of Westminster; Barlow, dean of
Chester and the regius professors of Hebrew and Greek at both universities. (14) Names translations
to be followed when they agree more with the original than the Bishops’ Bible, sc. Tyndal’s,
Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, Whitchurch’s (Cranmer’s), and Geneva. (15) Authorizes universities to
appoint three or four overseers of the work. For three years the work went on, the separate
companies comparing notes as directed. When the work drew toward its completion, it was
necessary to place it under the care of a select few. Two from each of the three groups were
accordingly selected, and the six met in London to superintend the publication. The final correction,
and the task of writing the arguments of the several books, was given to Bilson, bishop of
Winchester and Dr. Miles Smith, the latter of whom also wrote the dedication and preface. The
version thus published did not at once supersede the versions already in possession. The fact that
five editions were published in three years shows that there was a good demand. But the Bishops’
Bible probably remained in many churches, and the popularity of the Geneva Version is shown
by not less than thirteen reprints, in whole or in part, between 1611 and 1617. It is not easy to
ascertain the impression which the Authorized Version made at the time of its appearance. Selden
790
William Smith