ENGLISH
VERSIONS
this
version,
and
not
upon
that
of
King
James,
that
the
Bible
Icnowledge
of
the
Puritans
of
the
Civil
War
was
built
up.
Its
notes
furnished
them
with
a
full
commentary
on
the
sacred
text,
predominantly
hortatory
or
monitory
in
character,
but
Calvinistic
,in
general
tone,
and
occasionally
definitely
polemical.
Over
160
editions
of
it
are
said
to
have
been
issued,
but
the
only
one
which
requires
separate
notice
is
a
revision
of
the
NT
by
Laurence
Tomson
in
1576,
which
carried
still
further
the
principle
of
deference
to
Beza;
this
revised
NT
was
successful,
and
was
frequently
bound
up
with
the
Genevan
OT
in
place
of
the
edition
of
1560.
[The
Geneva
Bible
Is
frequently
called
(in
booksellers'
catalogues
and
elsewhere)
the
'Breeches'
Bible,
on
account
of
this
word
being
used
in
the
translation
of
Gn
3'.]
28.
The
Bishops'
Bible
(1568).
Meanwhile
there
was
one
quarter
in
which
the
Geneva
Bible
could
hardly
be
expected
to
find
favour,
namely,
among
the
leaders
of
the
Church
in
England.
Elizabeth
herself
was
not
too
well
disposed
towards
the
Puritans,
and
the
bishops
in
general
belonged
to
the
less
extreme
party
in
the
Church.
On
the
other
hand,
the
superiority
of
the
Genevan
to
the
Great
Bible
could
not
be
contested.
Under
these
circumstances
the
old
project
of
a
trans-lation
to
be
produced
by
the
bishops
was
revived.
The
archbishop
of
Canterbury,
Matthew
Parker,
was
himself
a
scholar,
and
took
up
the
task
with
interest.
The
basis
of
the
new
version
was
to
be
the
authorized
Great
Bible.
Portions
of
the
text
were
assigned
to
various
revisers,
the
majority
of
whom
were
bishops.
The
archbishop
exercised
a
general
supervision
over
the
work,
but
there
does
not
appear
to
have
been
any
organized
system
of
collaboration
or
revision,
and
the
results
were
naturally
unequal.
In
the
OT
the
altera-tions
are
mainly
verbal,
and
do
not
show
much
originality
or
genius.
In
the
NT
the
scholarship
shown
is
on
a
much
higher
level,
and
there
is
much
more
independence
in
style
and
judgment.
In
both,
use
is
made
of
the
Geneva
Bible,
as
well
as
of
other
versions.
The
volume
was
equipped
with
notes,
shorter
than
those
of
the
Geneva
Bible,
and
generally
exegetical.
It
appeared
in
1568,
from
the
press
of
R.
Jugge,
in
a
large
folio
volume,
slightly
exceeding
even
the
dimensions
of
the
Great
Bible.
Parker
applied
through
Cecil
for
the
royal
sanction,
but
it
does
not
appear
that
he
ever
obtained
it;
but
Convocation
in
1571
required
a
copy
to
be
kept
in
every
archbishop's
and
bishop's
house
and
in
every
cathedral,
and,
as
far
as
could
conveniently
be
done,
in
all
churches.
The
Bishops'
Bible,
in
fact,
superseded
the
Great
Bible
as
the
official
version,
and
its
predecessor
ceased
henceforth
to
be
reprinted;
but
it
never
attained
the
popularity
and
influence
of
the
Geneva
Bible.
A
second
edition
was
issued
in
1569,
in
which
a
considerable
number
of
alterations
were
made,
partly,
it
appears,
as
the
result
of
the
criticisms
of
Giles
Laurence,
professor
of
Greek
at
Oxford.
In
1572
a
third
edition
appeared,
of
Importance
chiefly
in
the
NT,
and
in
some
cases
reverting
to
the
first
edition
of
1568.
In
this
form
the
Bishops'
Bible
con-tinued
in
official
use
until
its
supersession
by
the
version
of
1611,
of
which
it
formed
the
immediate
basis.
29.
The
Bheims
and
Douai
Bible
(1582-1609).
The
English
exiles
for
reUgious
causes
were
not
all
of
one
kind
or
of
one
faith.
There
were
Roman
Catholic
refugees
on
the
Continent
as
well
as
Puritan,
and
from
the
one,
as
from
the
other,
there
proceeded
an
English
version
of
the
Bible.
The
centre
of
the
English
Roman
Catholics
was
the
English
College
at
Douai,
the
founda-tion
(in
1568)
of
William
Allen,
formerly
of
Queen's
College,
Oxford,
and
subsequently
cardinal;
and
it
was
from
this
college
that
a
new
version
of
the
Bible
ema-nated
which
was
intended
to
serve
as
a
counterblast
to
the
Protestant
versions,
with
which
England
was
now
flooded.
The
first
instalment
of
it
appeared
in
1582,
during
a
temporary
migration
of
the
college
to
Rheims.
ENGLISH
VERSIONS
This
was
the
NT,
the
work
mainly
of
Gregory
Martin,
formerly
Fellow
of
St.
John's
College,
Oxford,
with
the
assistance
of
a
small
band
of
scholars
from
the
same
university.
The
OT
is
stated
to
have
been
ready
at
the
same
time,
but
for
want
of
funds
it
could
not
be
printed
until
1609,
after
the
college
had
returned
to
Douai,
when
it
appeared
just
in
time
to
be
of
some
use
to
the
preparers
of
King
James'
version.
As
was
natural,
the
Roman
scholars
did
not
concern
themselves
with
the
Hebrew
and
Greek
originals,
which
they
definitely
rejected
as
inferior,
but
translated
from
the
Latin
Vulgate,
following
it
with
a
close
fidelity
which
is
not
infrequently
fatal,
not
merely
to
the
style,
but
even
to
the
sense
in
English.
The
following
short
passage
(Eph
3'-"),
taken
almost
at
random,
is
a
fair
example
of
the
Latinization
of
their
style.
'The
Gentila
to
be
coheires
and
concorporat
and
coin-
participant
of
his
promis
in
Christ
Jesus
by
the
Gospel:
whereof
I
am
made
a
minister
according
to
the
gift
of
the
erace
of
God,
which
is
given
me
according
to
the
operation
of
his
power.
'To
me
the
least
of
al
the
samctes
is
given
this
grace,
among
the
Geutils
to
evangelize
the
unsearchable
riches
of
Christ,
and
to
illuminate
al
men
what
is
the
dis-pensation
of
the
sacrament
hidden
from
worldes
in
God,
who
created
al
things;
that
the
manifold
wisedom
of
God
may
be
notified
to
the
Princes
and
Potestats
in
the
celestials
by
the
Church,
according
to
the
prefinition
of
worldes
,
which
he
made
in
Christ
Jesus
our
Lord.
In
whom
we
have
affiance
and
accesse
in
confidence,
by
the
faith
of
him.'
The
translation,
being
prepared
with
a
definite
po-lemical
purpose,
was
naturally
equipped
with
notes
of
a
controversial
character,
and
with
a
preface
in
which
the
object
and
method
of
the
work
were
explained.
It
had,
however,
as
a
whole,
little
success.
The
OT
was
reprinted
only
once
in
the
course
of
a
century,
and
the
NT
not
much
oftener.
In
England
the
greater
part
of
its
circulation
was
due
to
the
action
of
a
vehement
adversary,
W.
Fulke,
who,
in
order
to
expose
its
errors,
printed
the
Rheims
NT
in
parallel
columns
with
the
Bishops'
version
of
1572,
and
the
Rheims
annotations
with
his
own
refutations
of
them;
and
this
work
had
a
considerable
vogue.
Regarded
from
the
point
of
view
of
scholarship,
the
Rheims
and
Douai
Bible
is
of
no
importance,
marking
retrogression
rather
than
advance
;
but
it
needs
mention
in
a
history
of
the
English
Bible,
because
it
is
one
of
the
versions
of
which
King
James'
translators
made
use.
The
AV
is
indeed
dis-tinguished
by
the
strongly
English
(as
distinct
from
Latin)
character
of
its
vocabulary;
but
of
the
Latin
words
used
(and
used
effectively),
many
were
derived
from
the
Bible
of
Rheims
and
Douai.
30.
The
Authorized
Version
(1611).
The
version
which
was
destined
to
put
the
crown
on
nearly
a
century
of
labour,
and,
after
extinguishing
by
its
excellence
all
rivals,
to
print
an
indelible
mark
on
English
religion
and
EngUsh
literature,
came
into
being
almost
by
accident.
It
arose
out
of
the
Hampton
Court
Con-ference,
held
by
James
i.
in
1604,
with
the
object
of
arriving
at
a
settlement
between
the
Puritan
and
Anglican
elements
in
the
Church;
but
it
was
not
one
of
the
prime
or
original
subjects
of
the
conference.
In
the
course
of
discussion.
Dr.
Reynolds,
president
of
Corpus
Christi
College,
Oxford,
the
leader
of
the
moder-ate
Puritan
party,
referred
to
the
imperfections
and
dis-agreements
of
the
existing
translations;
and
the
sugges-tion
of
a
new
version,
to
be
prepared
by
the
best
scholars
in
the
country,
was
warmly
taken
up
by
the
king.
The
conference,
as
a
whole,
was
a
failure;
but
James
did
not
allow
the
idea
of
the
revision
to
drop.
He
took
an
active
part
in
the
preparation
of
instructions
for
the
work,
and
to
him
appears
to
be
due
the
credit
of
two
features
which
went
far
to
secure
its
success.
He
suggested
that
the
translation
should
be
committed
in
the
first
instance
to
the
universities
(subject
to
sub-sequent
review
by
the
bishops
and
the
Privy
Council,
which
practically
came
to
nothing),
and
thereby
secured
the
services
of
the
best
scholars
in
the
country,
working
