06.05. The English Versions

Chapter 4 The English Versions In tracing the records of the Bible thus far, we have said more or less about certain versions, but there is one version which interests us more than the rest, and whose history we should be familiar with before proceeding to other branches of our subject. I refer, of course, to the English version or versions. The history of the English versions begins really with the story of the Latin version of the second century, to which reference was made in the preceding chapter. This Latin version is not now in existence, but scholars are agreed that it was the ground-work of another version in the same tongue prepared in the fourth century by Jerome, and known as The Vulgate. The word “Vulgate” in the Latin means the vulgar, or the common, tongue, that is, the vernacular of the people as distinguished from the scholarly and classic Greek. This “Vulgate” was the only Bible of the Anglo-Saxon down until the close of the Middle Ages or the end of the 14th century, and is still the only Bible followed by the Roman Catholics in all their translation work, furnishing the basis of their Douay version of the Old Testament and their Rhenish version of the New Testament. These names are given to those versions from the French cities in which the translation, in each case, was accomplished.

Towards the close of the seventh century, metical paraphrases of parts of the “Vulgate” were translated into the Anglo-Saxon tongue by a Yorkshire monk, and a little later the Bishop of Sherborne translated fifty of the Psalms into the same tongue. In the next century (about 735), the Venerable Bede, as he is called, translated the Gospel of John, but it was not until the rise of John Wyckliffe, the Morning Star of the Reformation, in 1382, that the whole Bible was ever known in the English tongue.

Although his work was in manuscript, copies of which were expensive, and although its circulation was strongly opposed by the priests, yet it was eagerly sought by the people and had a comparatively large circulation. Wyckliffe preachers, as they were called, went about the country reading its pages to the people and reciting its contents in their sermons.

One hundred years later, when printing had become known, William Tyndale utilized it for the publication of another English version of the New Testament, translating it from the original Greek sources. Because of persecution in his own country, most of this work was done at Cologne and at Worms, the whole being completed in 1526, and smuggled into England, packed in bales of cloth and sacks of flour.

It also enjoyed a large circulation, stirring up his enemies to various efforts to exterminate it, until finally the Bishop of London purchased and burned all available copies; but with the proceeds thus obtained, a second and better edition followed. The same translator, still an exile, began work on the Old Testament, the successful conclusion of which, however, was defeated by the malice of his foes, who at length caused him to perish at the stake.

“The blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church.” Tyndale’s work took root, and in less than three years after his death, an edition of the whole of the Scriptures, called The Great Bible, was published under royal authority, and became the first authorized copy of the English Bible. In 1560 the Geneva Bible was published, so named after the city in which the translation occurred, and was the work of a number of scholarly exiles. It was popular for half a century, being the first to appear in Roman type. In 1568 the Bishops Bible appeared, under the auspices of Archbishop Parker and other ecclesiastics of the Church of England, but did not possess the popularity of its immediate forerunner.

Finally the King James Version appeared, which has been known as the “Authorized” down to our own day. A company of fifty-four learned and devout men were selected by the king for this undertaking, forty-seven of whom actually engaged in the task which continued for four years, from 1603 to 1607. The value of this version is borne witness to by its long and blessed history. And yet as early as the beginning of the nineteenth century, if not earlier, the leaders of the church felt the necessity for a revised version of the King James, a necessity which became more and more apparent as the church advanced in the knowledge of the original languages of the Bible and as archaeological research caused the converging of greater light upon the meaning of names of persons and places in the sacred text. The Anglo-Saxon tongue itself indeed had been undergoing changes in the course of the centuries which made a revised version desirable, if not necessary.

Accordingly, the first international and interdenominational effort to prepare an English version of the Scriptures originated in the Convocation of Canterbury, of the Church of England, May 6, 1870, when sixty-five men were selected for the work, forty one of whom belonged to that church and twenty-four to other Christian bodies, including the Church of Ireland, the Church of Scotland, the Baptists, Congregationalists, Presbyterians, and Methodists, with power to add to their numbers representatives from America. In the following year, the American Committee was formed to cooperate with the English, consisting of thirty-four men of different denominations. The labors of the joint committees covered several years, the New Testament company completing its work November 11, 1880, and the Old Testament company, June 20, 1884. It is an interesting fact to be remembered that when the New Testament revision was published in May 1881, one million copies were sold the first day, the issue appearing on both sides of the Atlantic simultaneously. Moreover, the whole of it was telegraphed from New York to Chicago in time to appear in a secular daily in the last-named city on the following day. Such circumstances as these indicate the strong hold of the Bible upon the popular mind. This English version, known as the “Revised,” is, in my judgment, best used not as a substitute for the King James, but as a commentary upon it. It has not yet supplanted the latter in either public or private use, and it were well that it should not do so. Superior as it is in most particulars, yet some of its textual changes are inferior in scholarship to the King James and even harmful in their tendencies to the Christian faith. 2 Timothy 3:16 is a case in point, and several others are pointed out in Dean Burton’s Revision Revised and Newton’s Remarks on the Revised Version. The changes referred to were made by a two thirds vote of the Committee, and some of the most notable and devout scholars engaged were not always present on these occasions.

Let us stand by the King James for a while longer, using the Revised to throw light upon it here and there as a kind of critical commentary. My own plan is to use the Two Version Bible in which I have all the results of the revision very conveniently in the margin.