The Printed Bible

THE PRINTED BIBLE It is singular that while France, Spain, Italy, Bohemia and Hol land possessed the Bible in the vernacular before the accession of Henry VIII., and in Germany the Scriptures were printed in 1466 and 17 times reprinted before Luther began his great work, yet no English printer attempted to put the familiar English Bible into type. No part of the English Bible was printed before 1525, no complete Bible before 1535, and none in England before 1S38. Versions of the Scriptures so far noticed were all secondary rend erings of the Vulgate, translations of a translation. It was only with the advent of the "new learning" in England that a direct rendering from the originals became possible. Erasmus in 1516 published the New Testament in Greek, with a new Latin version of his own; the Hebrew text of the Old Testament had been published as early as 1488.

William Tyndale.

The first to take advantage of these al tered conditions was William Tyndale (q.v.), who, in his desire to rouse clerics and laymen alike to an understanding of the se rious corruptions and decline of the Church, resolved to trans late the New Testament into English. But he encountered power ful resistance to this project, in fact he found "that there was no place to do it in all englonde" (Pref. to Genesis, p. 396, ed. Parker Soc.) . But undaunted he sought in May 1524 refuge for himself and his work first in Hamburg and then in Wittenberg, in which cities his translation of the New Testament must have been made. For in 1525 he was undoubtedly in Cologne engaged in printing at the press of Peter Quentel, a quarto edition of the New Testa ment, provided with prefaces and marginal glosses. But his work was stopped at the tenth sheet by Johann Cochlaeus (q.v.) an implacable enemy of the Reformation, who not only caused the printing to be discontinued, but also communicated with Henry VIII. and Wolsey, warning them to prevent the importation of such "pernicious merchandise." Tyndale managed, however, to escape higher up the Rhine to Worms, carrying with him some or all of the sheets which had been printed. Instead of completing Quentel's work he began, however, an octavo edition of the New Testament without prefaces or marginal glosses which was printed by the Worms printer Peter Schoeffer and actually finished before the quarto. Both editions reached England early in the summer of 1526 and were eagerly welcomed and bought. Such strong measures of suppression were, however, at once adopted against these perilous volumes that of the quarto only a single fragment remains (Matt. i.–xxii. 12), now preserved in the British Museum (Grenville, 12179), of the octavo only one perfect copy (the title page missing) in the Baptist College at Bristol, and one imperfect in the library of St. Paul's Cathedral.

But Tyndale continued his labours with indomitable courage. In 1 S3o the whole of the Pentateuch was printed in Marburg by Hans Luft ; it was provided with prefaces and marginal annota tions of a strongly controversial character. The only perfect copy is preserved in the Grenville Library of the British Museum. In 1531 the Book of Jonah appeared, and in 1534 no fewer than three surreptitious reprints of the Worms edition of the new Testa ment. This is testified by George Jay in his Apology, who himself brought out a fourth edition of Tyndale's New Testament freed from many errors but with such alterations and new render ings as to arouse the indignation of Tyndale. The only remaining copy, a 16mo., is in the Grenville Library. To counteract and supersede all these unauthorized editions, Tyndale himself brought out his own revision of the New Testament with translations added of all the Epistles of the Old Testament of ter the use of Salisbury. It was published in 1534 at Antwerp by Martin Em perowr. Prologues were added to all books except the Acts and the Apocalypse, and new marginal glosses were introduced. Three copies of this edition are in the British Museum, and it was reprinted in 1841 in Bagster's Hexapia. In Tyndale once more set forth a revised edition printed at Antwerp by Godfried van der Haghen. In this, headings were added to the chapters in the Gospels and the Acts, and the marginal notes of the 1534 edi tion were omitted. Of this edition one copy is in the University Library, Cambridge, a second in Exeter college, Oxford, and a fragment in the British Museum. It is supposed to have been revised by Tyndale while in prison in the castle of Vilvorde, being the last of his labours in connection with the English Bible. For on Oct. 6, 1536, the execution took place of this martyr and "apostle of England." Yet he had not travailed or suffered in vain, for in the same year a small folio reprint of his revised edition of 1534 was brought out in England, the first volume of Scripture printed in this country. A perfect copy is found in the Bodleian Library. In later years, between 1536 and 1550, numer ous editions of Tyndale's New Testament were printed, 21 of which have been enumerated and fully described by Francis Fry. (See Bibliography.) "The history of the English Bible begins with the work of Tyn dale and not with that of Wycliffe," says Dr. Westcott in his History of the English Bible, p. 316, and it is true that one of the most striking features of the work of Tyndale is its independence. He translated straight from the Hebrew and Greek originals, al though the Vulgate and more especially Erasmus's Latin version were on occasion consulted. For his prefaces and marginal notes he used Luther's Bible freely, even to paraphrasing or verbally translating long passages from it.

Apart from certain blemishes and awkward and even incorrect renderings, Tyndale's translation may be described as a truly noble work, faithful and scholarly, though couched in simple and popular language. Surely no higher praise can be accorded it than that it should have been taken as a basis by the translators of the Authorized Version, and thus have lived on through the centuries up to the present day. The following specimen of the earliest translation of the Lord's Prayer direct from the Greek may Drove of interest : [Tyndale 5525 (Grenville 12179)] Matt. vi. 9-13. 0 oure father which art in heven, halewed be thy name. Let thy kingdom come. Thy wyll be fulfilled, as well in erth, as hit ys in heven. Geve vs this daye oure dayly breade. And forgeve vs oure treaspases, even as we forgeve them whych treaspas vs. Lede vs nott into temptation, but delyvre vs from yvell. Amen.

Miles Coverdale.

Meanwhile a complete English Bible was being prepared by Miles Coverdale (q.v.). As the printing was finished on Oct. 4, it is evident that he must have been engaged on the preparation of the work for the press at almost as early a date as Tyndale. Foxe states (Acts and Mon. v. 12o) that Coverdale was with Tyndale at Hamburg in 1529, and it is prob able that most of his time before 1535 was spent abroad, and that his translation, like that of Tyndale, was done and probably printed out of England. It is possible that the sheets were sent for binding and distribution to James Nicolson, the Southwark printer (H. Stevens, Cat. of the Caxton Exhibition, 1877, p. 88). This first of all printed English Bibles is a small folio in German black letter, provided with woodcuts and initials, the title page and preliminary matter in the only two remaining copies (British Museum and Holkham Hall) being in the same type as the body of the book. A second issue of the same date, 1535, has the title page and the preliminary matter in English type, and omits the words "out of Douche [German] and Latyn" found in the title of the first ; a third issue bears the date 1536. A second edition in folio "newly oversene and corrected," was printed by Nicolson in English type, in 1537; and also in the same year a third edition in quarto. On the title page of the latter were added the cant words, "set forth with the Kynges moost gracious licence." Tyndale translated straight from the original Hebrew and Greek, Coverdale proclaims his dependence on "fyne sundry inter preters," that is, Luther, the Zurich Bible, the Latin Version of Pagninus, the Vulgate, and, in all likelihood, the English transla tion of Tyndale. (Wescott op. cit. p. 163.) Though Coverdale's work was but a translation of translations, he showed great skill in the handling and use of his authorities, and moreover a certain delicacy and happy ease in his rendering of the Biblical text, to which we owe not a few of the beautiful expressions of our present Bible. The following extract from the edition of 1J35 may serve as example of his The First Psalme. I. (1-2). Blessed is be man, be goeth not in the councell of be ungodly: be abydeth not in the waye off synners, & syt teth not in be seate of the scornefull. But delyteth in the lawe of be Lorde, & exercyseth himself in his lawe both daye and night.

It should be added that Coverdale's Bible was the first in which the non-canonical books were left out of the body of the Old Testament and placed by themselves at the end of it under the title Apocripha.

Matthew's

Bible.—The large sale of the New Testaments of Tyndale, and the success of Coverdale's Bible, showed the London book-sellers that a new and profitable branch of business was opened out to them. Richard Grafton and Edward Whitchurch were the first in the field, bringing out a fine and full-sized f olio in 1J37, "truely and purely translated into English by Thomas Matthew." Thomas Matthew is, however, in all probability, an alias for John Rogers (q.v.), a friend and fellow-worker of Tyndale, and the volume is in reality no new translation at all, but largely a compilation from the renderings of Tyndale and Coverdale (Westcott op. cit. 169 $.) . John Rogers's own work appears in a marginal commentary distributed throughout the Old and New Testament. The volume was printed in black letter in double columns. Three copies are preserved in the British Museum. In 1538 a second edition in folio appeared; it was reprinted twice in 1549 and again in 1551. It is significant that this Bible, like Coverdale's second edition, was "set forth with the kinges most gracious lycence." Taverner.—Meanwhile a rival edition was published in in folio and quarto by "John Byddell for Thomas Barthlet" with Richard Taverner as editor. This was, in fact, what would now be called "piracy," being Graf ton's Matthew Bible revised by Taverner, a learned member of the Inner Temple and famous Greek scholar. His revision, characterized by critical acumen and strong and idiomatic expressions, seems, however, to have had little or no influence on subsequent translators. It was only once, in 1J49, reprinted in its entirety. Quarto and octavo editions of the New Testament alone were published in the same year, as the original edition, and in 1540 the New Testament in duo decimo. The Old Testament was reprinted as part of a Bible in 1551, but no other editions than those named are known.

The Great Bible, 1539.

It will have been observed that the translations of Holy Scripture which had been printed during these years (1525-1539) were all made by private men and printed without any real public or ecclesiastical authority. Some of them had indeed been set forth by the king's licence, but the object of this is shown by a letter from Archbishop Cranmer to Cromwell, touching Matthew's Bible. It is "that the same may be sold and read of every person . . . until such time that we, the bishops, shall set forth a better translation, which I think will not be till a day after doomsday." This letter was written on Aug. 4, and the impatient words at the end refer to a duly author ized version which was, in fact, at that very time in preparation, though not proceeding quickly enough to satisfy Cranmer. Cover dale had been placed at the head of the enterprise, the result of his labours being an entirely new revision, based on Matthew's Bible. In his revision he consulted the Latin Version of the Old Testament with the Hebrew text by Sebastian Munster, the Vulgate and Erasmus's editions of the Greek text for the New Testament.

This authorized Bible, planned on too large a scale evidently for the resources of the English presses, was begun in Paris in I and after many vicissitudes completed in London, the Colo phon stating that it was "Fynisshed in Apryll, Anno M. CCCCC. XXXIX." It is a splendid folio Bible of the largest volume, and was distinguished from its predecessors by the name of the Great Bible. The title page states it to be "truly translated of ter the veryte of the Hebrewe and Greke texts by p e dylygent studye of dyverse excellent learned men, expert in the forsayde tongues. Prynted by Rychard Grafton and Edward Whitchurch." This was the first of seven editions of this noble Bible which issued from the press during the years second of them, that of 154o, called Cranmer's Bible, from the fact that it contained a long preface by Archbishop Cranmer, having the important addi tion, "This is the Byble apoynted to the use of the Churches" on the title page. Seventy years later it assumed the form ever since known as the Authorized Version, but its Psalter is still embedded, without any alteration, in the Book of Common Prayer.

Meanwhile the closing years of Henry VIII.'s reign were char acterized by restrictive measures as to the reading and use of the Bible. Tyndale's version was prohibited by an act of parliament, I 543 ; at the same time it was enacted that all notes and marginal commentaries in other copies should be obliterated, and that "no woman (unless she be noble or gentle woman), no artificers, ap prentices, journeymen, servingmen, under the degree of yeomen . . . husbandmen or labourers" should read or use any part of the Bible under pain of fines and imprisonment (Burnet's Ref . i. 584) .

In 1546 Coverdale's Bible was included in the proscription, the Great Bible being the only translation not interdicted. During Edward VI's reign there was a brief respite, but with the acces sion of Mary the persecutions of the English Bible and its friends were renewed. Cranmer suffered martyrdom at the stake, as John Rogers had done before him. Other prominent reformers, amongst them Coverdale, sought refuge in Geneva, the town of Calvin and Beza, where they employed their enforced leisure in planning and carrying out a new revision of the Bible. The first-fruits of these labours was a New Testament issued in June 1557, with an intro duction by Calvin, probably the work of William Whittingham. The volume, in a convenient quarto size, printed in clear Roman type and provided with marginal annotations, was the first Bible which had the text divided into "verses and sections according to the best editions in other languages" (cf. "Address to the Reader").

The Geneva or "Breeches" Bible.—Whittingham's enter prise was, however, soon superseded by an issue of the whole Bible, which appeared in 156o, the so-called Geneva Bible, popu larly also known as the Breeches Bible, from its rendering of Gen. iii. 7, "They sewed fig leaves together and made themselves breeches." Chief among the editors were William Whittingham, Anthony Gilby and Thomas Sampson, and the expenses towards printing and publication were borne by members of the congre gation at Geneva. Based on the latest results of Hebrew and clas sical scholarship the revision gained immediate and lasting popu larity, not only on account of its intrinsic merit but because of its quarto size and clear Roman type. Like Whittingham's earlier publication it had the division of chapters into verses and a mar ginal commentary which proved a great attraction to the Puritans.

The Bishops' Bible.

Though not allowed for use in the churches, the Geneva version with its ever growing popularity, became a serious rival to the authorized Great Bible. As a conse quence, some time after the accession of Elizabeth, attempts were made to improve it. The initiative was taken by the learned and energetic Archbishop Parker, about 1563-65, who, according to Strype (Parker i. 414) "took upon him the labour to contrive and set the whole work agoing . . . by sorting out the whole Bible into parcels . . . and distributing these parcels to able bish ops and other learned men, to peruse and collate each the books allotted to them . . . and they to add some short marginal notes for the illustration or correction of the text." Rules were pro vided for the guidance of the revisers, and the work was pushed forward with energy. On Oct. 5, 1568, the volume was ready for publication. It was a magnificent folio generally known as the Bishops' Bible, but, though several editions were published in the course of time, it is doubtful whether the ecclesiastical authori ties ever succeeded in entirely enforcing its use in the churches. In the homes the Genevan version reigned supreme. Even into the very text of this proud revision the smooth and well-known rendering of the Psalter of the Great Bible found its way. In the second edition of the Bishops' Bible, 1572, the two texts were actually printed side by side; in all later editions except one (1585) the older Psalter alone remained.

The Rhemes and Douai Version.

From the time of Tyndale onwards the translation of the Scriptures into English had been -more or less an outcome of the great reformatory movements within the Church. It was not until Queen Elizabeth's reign that members of the Romanist party found it expedient to translate the Bible into the vernacular "for the more speedy abolishing . . . of false and impious translations put forth by sundry sectes" (Preface to the Rhemes Version) .

The New Testament was published in 1582 in the English Col lege of Rhemes, the Old Testament at Douai, 1609-1o. Like the Wycliffite versions, this work, known as the Rhemes and Douai Version, was merely a secondary rendering from the Latin Vulgate, and in many places it suffered like these from extreme literalness and stilted and ambiguous renderings, e.g., Luke xxii. 18, "I will not drink of the generation of the vine"; Phil. ii. 7, "But he exin anited himself." The Lord's Prayer is rendered in the following way: Matt. vi. 9-13. Ovr Father which art in heauen, sanctified be thy name. Let thy Kingdom come. Thy wil be done, as in heauen, in earth also. Giue vs to day our supersubstantial bread. And forgiue vs our dettes, as we also forgiue our detters. And leade vs not into tentation. But deliuer vs from evil. Amen.

Its strongly Latinized vocabulary was, however, not without its influence on the next great venture in English translations of the Bible, the Authorized Version.

The Authorized Version, 1611.

The English Bible, which is now recognized as the Authorized Version wherever the Eng lish language is spoken, is a revision of the Bishops' Bible, begun in 1604, and published in 1611. It arose incidentally out of a conference between the High Church and the Low Church parties convened by James I. at Hampton Court Palace in Jan. 1604 a few months after he came to the throne.

No real opposition was offered to the proposal and the king himself sketched out on the moment a plan to be adopted. He "wished ... for one uniform translation—professing that he could never yet see a Bible well translated in English—and this to be done by the best learned in both universities; after them to be reviewed by the bishops and the chief learned of the Church ; from them to be presented to the privy council; and lastly to be ratified by his royal authority ; and so this whole Church to be bound unto it and none other" (Cardwell, History of Conferences, p. 187 ff.) . He also particularly desired that no marginal notes should be added.

The revisers were then chosen with extreme care and apparently without reference to party. Amongst them were some of the great est scholars of the period, as Dr. Andrewes, afterwards bishop of Winchester, who was familiar with Hebrew, Chaldee, Syriac, Greek, Latin and at least ten other languages, while his knowledge of patristic literature was unrivalled ; Dr. Overall, regius profes sor of theology and afterwards bishop of Norwich ; Bedwell, the greatest Arabic scholar of Europe; and Sir Henry Savile, the most learned layman of his time. These "learned men, to the number of four and fifty" (Cardwell, Doc: Annals, II. 84) were divided into six companies, and set down to their task. An elaborate set of rules was drawn up for their guidance, which contained a scheme of revision as well as general directions for the execution of their work. This is one of the very few records that remain of their undertaking (Burnet, Hist. of Reformation ii., p. 368, 1861, re printed by Westcott, op. cit. p. 114 ff.) . A few of these may be quoted : (1) "The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called "the Bishops' Bible" to be followed and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit.

(2) The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names of the text to be retained as nigh as may be, accord ingly as they were vulgarly used.

(3) The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz., the word Church not to be translated congregation, etc. . . .

(4) These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible; viz., Tyndale's, Matthew's, Coverdale's, Whitchurch's, Geneva. . . ." It is not possible to determine how far all these rules were fol lowed. All we know of the way this noble work was carried out is contained in the preface, where Dr. Miles Smith, in 161 2 bishop of Gloucester, in the name of his fellow-worker, gives an account. of the manner and spirit in which it was done. "The worke hath . . . cost the workemen, as light as it seemeth, the paines of twise seuen times seuentie two days and more . . . truly (good Chris tian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one . . . but to make a good one better. . . . To that pur pose there were many chosen, that were greater in other men's eyes than in their owne, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise. . . ." From the above it appears that the actual work of revision occupied about two years and nine months, an additional nine months being required for the final preparation for press. The edition appeared at length in 161r, having been printed in London by Robert Barker. Since that time many millions of this revised translation have been printed, and the general acceptance of it by all English-speaking people of whatever denomination is a testimony to its excellence.

Still the work of improving and correcting went on through the centuries, and a modern copy of the Authorized Version shows no inconsiderable departure from the standard edition of 16ii.

The Revised Version.

More ambitious attempts at amending the new version were not lacking, but th.-y all proved fruitless, until in Feb. 187o the Convocation of Canterbury appointed a committee to consider the subject of revision. The report of this committee, presented in May, was adopted, to the effect "that Convocation should nominate a body of its own members to undertake the work of revision, who shall be at liberty to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong"; and shortly afterwards two companies were f ormed for the revision of the Authorized Version of the Old and New Testaments.

Negotiations were opened with the leading scholars of the Protestant denominations in America, with the result that similar companies were formed in the United States. The work of the English revisers was regularly submitted to their consideration; their comments were carefully considered and largely adopted, and their divergences from the version ultimately agreed upon were printed in an appendix to the published work. Thus the Revised Version was the achievement of English-speaking Chris tendom as a whole; only the Roman Catholic Church, of the great English-speaking denominations, refused to take part in the under taking. The Church of England, which had put forth the version of 161i, fitly initiated the work, but for its performance most wisely invited the help of the sister Churches. The delegates of the Clarendon Press in Oxford, and the s-yndics of the Pitt Press in Cambridge, entered into a liberal arrangement with the revisers, by which the necessary funds were provided for all their expenses. On the completion of its work the New Testament company di vided itself into three committees, working at London, Westmin ster and Cambridge, f or the purpose of revising the Apocrypha.

The work of the Old Testament company was different in some important respects from that which engaged the attention of the New Testament company. The received Hebrew text had under gone but little emendation, and the revisers had before them sub stantially the same Massoretic text which was in the hands of the translators of 1611. It was felt that there was no sufficient justi fication to make any attempt at an entire reconstruction of the text on the authority of the versions. The Old Testament revisers were therefore spared much of the labour of deciding between dif ferent readings, which formed one of the most important duties of the New Testament company. But the advance in the study of Hebrew since the early part of the 17th century enabled them to give a more faithful translation of the received text. The value of their work is evident, especially in Job, Ecclesiastes and the prophetical books.

It is the work of the New Testament committee which has attracted most attention, whether for blame or praise. The re visers' first task was to reconstruct the Greek text, as the necessary foundation of their work. In this difficult duty they were no doubt influenced by Westcott and Hort's edition of the New Testament. But it is scarcely necessary to say that the Revised Version is not the work of one or two scholars. Different schools of criticism were represented on the committee, and the most careful discus sion took place before any decision was formed. Every precau tion was taken to ensure that the version should represent the re sult of the best scholarship of the time, applied to the work before it with constant devotion and with the highest sense of responsi bility. The changes in the Greek text of the Authorized Version when compared with the textus receptus are numerous, but the contrast between the English versions of 161i and 1881 is all the more striking because of the difference in the method of transla tion which was adopted. The revisers aimed at the most scrupu lous faithfulness. They adopted the plan—deliberately rejected by the translators of 161i—of always using the same English word for the same Greek word. "They endeavoured to enable the Eng lish reader to follow the correspondences of the original with the closest exactness, to catch the solemn repetition of words and phrases, to mark the subtleties of expression, to feel even the strangeness of unusual forms of speech." The revision of the New Testament was completed in 4o7 meet ings, distributed over more than ten years. It was formally pre sented to Convocation on May 17, 188i. The revision of the Old Testament occupied 792 days, and was finished on June 20, 1884. The revised Apocrypha did not make its appearance until 1895.

The text of the Revised Version is printed in paragraphs, the old division of books into chapters and verses being retained f or convenience of reference. By this arrangement the capricious divisions of some books is avoided. Various editions of the New Version have been published, the most complete being the edition of the whole Bible with marginal references. These references had their origin in the work of two small sub-committees of the re visers, but they received their present form at the hands of a specially appointed committee. The marginal references given in the original edition of the Authorized Version of 1611 have been retained as far as possible.

The work of the revisers was received without enthusiasm. It was too thorough for the majority of religious people. Partisans found that havoc had been played with their proof texts. Ecclesi astical conservatives were scandalized by the freedom with which the traditional text was treated. The advocates of change were discontented with the hesitating acceptance which their principles had obtained. The most vulnerable side of the revision was that on which the mass of English readers thought itself capable of forming a judgment. The general effect of so many small altera tions was to spoil the familiar sonorous style of the Authorized version. The changes were freely denounced as equally petty and vexatious; they were, moreover, too often inconsistent with the avowed principles of the revisers. The method of determining readings and renderings by vote was not favourable to the con sistency and literary character of the Version. A whole literature of criticism and apology made its appearance, and the achievement of so many years of patient labour seemed destined to perish in a storm of resentments. On the whole, the Revised Version weath ered the storm more successfully than might have been expected. Its considerable excellences were better realized by students than stated by apologists. The hue and cry of the critics largely died away, and was replaced by a calmer and more just appreciation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.-The

principal works dealing with the separate verBibliography.-The principal works dealing with the separate ver- sions have been referred to in the text of the article. The following authorities may also be cited:— For the version as a whole: F. G. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (19II) ; J. H. Lupton, article on "English Versions," in Hasting's Dict. of the Bible, extra vol. 1904; B. F.

Westcott, A General View of the History of the English Bible, 3rd ed. revised by W. Aldis Wright (London, iqo5) .

For the Manuscript Bible: The historical accounts prefixed to Bagster's issue of The English Hexapla and of Forshall and Madden's edition of the W yclifte Versions are to a large extent antiquated. The only trustworthy authority on the Anglo-Saxon Bible is A. S. Cook's "Introduction on Old English Biblical Versions" in his Biblical Quotations in Old English Prose writers, I. (London, 1898; II. New York, , with a full bibliography.

For the 14th and 15th centuries, see M. Deanesly, The Lollard Bible and other Mediaeval Biblical Versions (1920), with copious bibliography ; A. C. Paues, A Fourteenth Century English Biblical Version, consisting of a Prologue and Parts of the New Testament, with some Introductory Chapters on Middle English Biblical Versions (Prose-translations) (1902), and A Fourteenth Century Biblical Version (1904), which has an introductory chapter on Middle Eng lish translations; Hope Allen, The Canon of Richard Rolle; D. Everett, "The Middle English Prose Psalter of Richard Rolle of Ham pole," Mod. Lang. Review, XVII. 217-2 2 7, 33 7-350, (1922), XVIII. ; H. B. Workman, John W ycli f : a study of the English Med. Church (1926).

For the printed Bibles: Edw. Arber, Facsimile Texts. The First printed English New Testament, trans. by Wm. Tyndale (1871) ; British and Foreign Bible Society: Hist. Cat. of Printed Editions, by T. H. J. Darlow and H. F. Moule (1903-11) ; R. Demans, William Tindale, a biography, being a contribution to the early History of the Engl. Bible., rev. by R. Lovett (192 2) ; F. Fry, The Bible by Cover dale, 1867; Description of the Great Bible, 1S39 (1865) ; Bibliograph ical Descriptions of the Editions of the New Testament (1878) ; A. W. Pollard, Matthew i—xxii .. , by William Tyndale, zszs. Fac simile ... with an Introduction (1926), containing also a reprint of Matth. V. acc. to Tyndale (1535), the Great Bible Geneva (1560) , Bishops' (1572), .Rhemes (1582) , Authorized (1611) ; idem, The Holy Bible. An exact reprint . .. of the Authorized Version .. . with an Introduction (1911) ; idem, A facsimile ... of the Authorized Version ... with an Introduction and illustrative documents (1911) .

For the Revised Version: J. B. Lightfoot, On a Fresh Revision of the English New Testament (London, 1871 ; 3rd 1891) ; Westcott, Some Lessons of the Revised Version (London, 1897) ; Kennedy, Ely Lectures on the Revised Version (London, 1882). The Revisers fully explained their principles and methods in the Preface. The American Committee of Revision issued an historical account of their work (New York, 1885) . The case against the Revisers is ably stated in The Revision Revised, by Dean Burgon (London, 1883) . The literary defects of the Version are elaborately exhibited by G. Washington Moon in two works: The Revisers' English (London, 1882), and Ecclesiastical English (London, 1886) . See also Some Thoughts on the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, by G. Salmon, D.D. (London, 1897) ; Bishop Ellicott's Charge (1901) . The Greek Text of the New Testament adopted by the Revisers was edited for the Clarendon Press by Archdeacon Palmer (Oxford, 1881) . Parallel editions of the Bible, showing both the Authorized and Revised Versions, a large-type edition for public use, a reference edition, and (1900) a "Two Version" edition, have been issued by one or both the University Presses.