Chap. iii. 'corrected and compared with the Greek,' and this last revision, and not that of 1534, was adopted by Rogers. The differences which exist between Matthew and this last Testament of Tyndale are very slight and can be explained in most cases by the supposition of accidental errors: their agreement on the other hand extends to the adoption of some certain mistakes. A complete collation remains yet to be made, but on an examination of a large number of passages I have found scarcely any characteristic readings of the edition of 1535 which do not also appear in Matthew's Bible of 15371. From 1 The following collation of Tyndale's Testaments of 1534, 1535, and Matthew of 1537 in Mark xvi. and the Epistles to the Romans and Galatians will justify in all respects the statements made in the text. The error in Mark xvi. 17 is very remarkable. The readings in ( ) are those of the Testament of 1534. Mark xvi. 11 though (when 1534) they heard...and (he 1534) had appeared...yet (om.)...they believed not. So Matthew (1537). 17 these things (these signs). So Matthew. 19 sate him down (is set down). thew. xv. 5 Christ Jesu. So Mat - xvi. 5 the congregation that is in their house (all the company that is in thy house). So Matthew. 18 preaching (preachings). So Matthew. 19 innocent as concerning (innocents concerning). So Matthew. Gal. ii. I thereafter (after that). So Matthew. 2 between ourselves with them (apart with them). So Matthew. 16 can be (shall be). So Matthew. iii. 4 then ye (there ye). Matthew omits. 9+ the faithful A. Not Matthew. 16 as one (as in one).... Not Mat thew. [Prof. Moulton informs me that there are eight differences between the editions of Matthew of 1537 and 1551 in these passages.] Compare also App. III. and note P. 165. Chap. iii. internal evidence it seems likely that both these texts were taken from the same corrected copy of Tyndale. History. Such a hypothesis would account equally for the discrepancies between them, since the New Testament at least is most carelessly printed, and for their agreement in errors, which can only have been derived from the original copy1. $ 4. THE GREAT BIBLE. The Great vision of Bible a re Matthew's by Cover dale. Matthew's Bible was essentially a transitional work. It had hardly passed into circulation when a careful revision of it was undertaken. This, as all evidence external and internal goes to prove, was entrusted to Coverdale. It was thoroughly characteristic of the man that he should be ready to devote himself to the perfecting of another's labours; and he has left us an account of his method of procedure. 'We follow,' he Coverdale's writes, not only a standing text of the Hebrews, with 'the interpretation of the Chaldee and the Greek2; but 'we set also in a private table the diversity of readings 'of all texts...' And again when the work had made Aug. 9th. some progress he enters into greater details: 'As touch'ing the manner and order that we keep in the same 'work, pleaseth your good lordship to be advertised that plan. June 23rd, 1538. Chap. iii. Münster's edition his the Old Testament. 'the mark in the text signifieth that upon the same in the latter end of the book there is some notable 'annotation which we have written without any private 'opinion, only after the best interpreters of the He'brews, for the more clearness of the text. This mark 'o+ betokeneth that upon the same text there is diver'sity of reading among the Hebrews, Chaldees and 'Greeks and Latinists; as in a table at the end of the 'book shall be declared. This mark * sheweth that 'the sentence written in small letters is not in the He'brew or Chaldee, but in the Latin, and seldom in the 'Greek, and that we nevertheless would not have it 'extinct, but highly accept it for the more explanation 'of the text. This token in the Old Testament 'giveth to understand that the same text which follow'eth it is also alleged of Christ or of some Apostle in 'the New Testament. This among our other necessary 'labours is the way that we take in this work...' It is obvious that a man who thus describes his chief help in plan is not the mere press-corrector of another's revision, but himself the editor of the entire work'. If there were any doubt remaining it would be removed by the character of the revision. About the time when Coverdale's own Version was passing through the press a new Latin Version of the Old Testament with the Hebrew text and a commentary chiefly from Hebrew sources was published by S. Münster (1534-5). It does not appear that at that time Coverdale was able to avail himself of it. The Zurich Version was sufficient. But 1 It is a very important confirma- 68). This was an edition of the Great tion of this view that Fulke speaks of Bible. This passage also explains the Bible of 1562 most used in the the anecdote which he gives of the 'Church Service in King Edward's criticism and revision of 'Coverdale's 'time' as 'Doctor Coverdale's trans- Bible.' See p. 200, n. I. 'lation.' (Defence of Eng. Trans. p. a very slight comparison of Münster with the Zurich Bible could not fail to bring out the superior clearness of the former. Even a poor Hebrew scholar must feel its general faithfulness. Thus Coverdale found an obvious method to follow. He revised the text of Mat thew, which was laid down as the basis, by the help of Münster. The result was the Great Bible. One difficult passage given in full will be sufficient to shew the certainty of this explanation of the origin of the text of the Great Bible, and for the interest of the comparison the Zurich original of Coverdale's translation is added1. Chap. iii. 28-30. MATTHEW (TYNDALE). Through a window looked Judges v. 'Sisera's mother and howled through a lattice Why abideth his chariot so long, that it cometh not? Why 'tarry the wheels of his waggons? 'The wisest of her ladies answered her, yea and she 'answered her own words herself, Haply, they have found 'and divide the spoil: a maid, yea two maids, for a 'piece: a spoil of diverse colours for Sisera, a spoil of 'divers colours with brodered works, divers coloured 'brodered works for the neck of a prey.' COVERDALE. His mother looked out at the window, and cried piteously through the trellis, Why tarrieth his chariot out so long that he cometh not? Wherefore do the wheels of his chariot make so long tarrying? The italicised words are differently rendered in the several versions, and furnish the best means of com ZURICH VERSION. Seyn mutter sach zum fen- parison with the Greek and Latin. GREAT BIBLE (1539, 1540, The mother of Sisera looked out at a window and cried through the lattice. Why is his chariot so long a coming? Why tarry the wheels of his carts? All the wise ladies answered her, yea and her own words answered herself: Surely they have found, they divide the spoils. Every man hath a damsel or two. Sisera hath a prey of divers coloured garments, even a prey of raiment dyed with sundry colours, and that are made of needle-work raiment of divers colours and of needlework, which is meet for him that is chief in distributing of the spoils. ZURICH VERSION. Die weysest vnder seinen! frawen antwurtet, vnnd sprach zu jr: Sollend sy nit finden vnd auszteilen den raub, eyn yeglichen mann eyn schöne mätzen oder zwo zur auszbeüt, vnd Sissera bundte gestickte kleyder zur auszbeüt, gestickte bundte kleyder vmb den halsz zur auszbeüt. MÜNSTER. Per fenestram prospexit et vociferata est mater Siseræ, per cancellos inquam : quare moratur currus ejus venire? ut quid morantur vestigia quadrigarum ejus? Sapientes quæque dominæ respondebant illi, quin et ipsa sibi ipsi reddebat verba. Certe invenerunt, dividunt spolia: est puella vel duæ puellæ cuilibet viro: habet Sisera predam vestium coloratarum, prædam inquam vestium vario tinctarum colore et quæ acu pictæ sunt : vestem discolorem et acu pictam, quæ priori competit in spoliorum distributione. |