8. Archbishop Parker's, or the Bishops' Bible.— This Bible was published in 1568, at London, in one folio volume. It was superintended by Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury, the text being carefully revised after the originals, by upwards of fifteen scholars, eight of whom were bishops. Different portions were assigned to different individuals, the initials of whose names are placed at the end of their several parts. It was not, as is commonly sup posed, undertaken by royal command. The text of it is much better than that of any preceding one.
9. Anglo-Romish Version.—An English transla tion of the N. T. was published at Rheims in 1582, in a quarto volume. It is made from the Latin Vulg. not from the original, and is accompanied with annotations. In 16o9-to the O. T. was trans lated from the Vulg., and published at Douay in two quarto volumes, also with notes. These three volumes contain the standard version of Roman Catholics. Many of the original Hebrew and Greek words are retained, so that simplicity and perspicuity are sacrificed. It has been conjectured that this was done to render it as obscure as pos sible to the common people. The N. T. has been reprinted in Bagster's Hexapla.
to. King janzes's Bible.—The proposal for this new translation of the Bible originated with Dr. John Rainolds, of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. Forty-seven persons were engaged upon it, doubt less the most eminent men for learning that could then be procured. They met in companies at dif ferent places, having their respective tasks assigned them. According to the ordinary account, fourteen rules were given to the translators for their guid ance ; but another account states that only seven were finally prescribed. The whole was revised by twelve men together, two having been chosen out of each of the six companies. The final *vision was made by Dr. Miles Smith, who wrote the Preface, and Dr. Bilson. It was first published, in a folio volume, in 1611. The whole expense was defrayed by Barker, the patentee. In order to judge of the reai character of this work, which has continued to be the authothea' version down to the present day, it is necessary to consider two of the rules given to the editors or translators, viz., the first and few-teen/7z :—` The ordinary Bible read in the church, commonly called the Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will permit.' Again :—` These translations to be used when they agree better with the text than the Bishops' Bible : viz., I. Tyndale's ; 2. Matthew's ; 3. Coverdale's ; 4. Whitchurch's (Cranmer's) ; 5. The Geneva.' From these instructions it may he inferred that the A. V. is a revision of the Bishops' Bible, by a careful collation of the ori ginals and a comparison of existing translations. It was not a new and independent work, but a. laborious compilation from existing works of the same kind, regulated in every case by the Greek and Hebrew.
It is needless to pronounce a formal encomium on our A. V. The time, learning, and labour ex pended on it were well bestowed. It far surpasses
every other English version of the entire Bible, in the characteristic qualities of simplicity, energy, and purity of style, as also in uniform fidelity to the original.
A revision of it, however, is now wanted ; or rather a new translation from the Hebrew and Greek, based upon it. Since it was made, criti cism has brought to light a great mass of mate rials ; and elevated itself in the esteem of the critical theologian as an important science. Her meneutics too have been cultivated, so as to as sume a systematic, scientific form. We require, in consequence, a new English version, suited to the present state of sacred literature. It need scarcely be stated that King James's translators have failed to apprehend the true meaning in many passages. Of the merit attaching to their version a considerable share belongs to Tyndale. Parker's Bible was the professed basis, and that was a revision of Cranmer's. Cranmer's Bible was chiefly a correction of Matthew's, or in other words of Tyndale's, as far as Tyndale had trans lated. Thus King James's translation resolves itself at last, in no small measure, into Tyndale's ; and when we consider the adverse circumstances continually pressing upon that noble-minded man, with the little assistance he could obtain ; the work he produced assumes a pre-eminent position amid the immortal monuments of human learning and skill.
Thus few men have successfully attempted an English version of the entire Bible since the author ised one of 161i. They have contented themselves with separate books, either of the O. or N. T. In point of style and diction Lowth's translation of Isaiah is the best. Dr. Campbell translated the Gospels, and Macknight the Epistles ; but the for mer scarcely reaches the expectations which a reader of the Preliminary Dissertations would form ; while the latter has not commended itself to competent judges. [PURVER ; GEDDES ; BOOTH ROYD. ] See Johnson's Account of the several English translations of the Bible, Lond, 173o, 8vo, re printed in Bp. Watson's Theological Tracts; Bp. Marsh's History of the Translations which have been made of the Scriptures, from the earliest to the pre sent age, Lond. 1812, Svo ; Lewis's History of the principal Translations of the Bible, Lond. 1739, Svo • Newcome's Historical View of the English Biblical translations, Dublin, 1792, Svo ; Cotton's List of Editions of the Bible, from the year 1505 to 182o, Oxford, 1821, Svo ; Walter's Letter an the Independence of the Authorized Version of the Bible, Lond. 1823, Svo ; Todd's Vindication of our Au thorized Translation, etc., Lond. 1819, Svo ; Whit taker's Historical and Critical Inquiry into the Interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, etc., Lond. 1819, Svo, and Supplement, 1S2o ; Townley's Illustrations of Biblical Literature, Lond. 1821, 3 vols. Svo ; and especially Anderson's Annals of the English Bible, Lond. 1845, 2 vols. Svo, which must be regarded as the standard work on the sub ject.-S. D.