The similarity between the Rheims and Wycliffite is due to the fact that they are both translations of the Vulgate, the text of which differs from the Greek original of the other versions. We are reminded of a passage in The Innocents Abroad, Chapter 28:

"I wish here to mention an inscription I have seen, before I forget it:

"Glory to God in the highest, peace on earth to men of good will!' It is not good scripture, but it is sound Catholic, and human nature."

It happens to be good scripture, if you read the Vulgate, or a translation of it. Mark Twain was in Rome, but he was thinking of the King James Version.

A second difference between the Rheims-Douay and the other versions is in the inclusion, or omission, of passages, due to differences in original sources. This is illustrated by Matthew 6:13, the ascription at the close of the Lord's Prayer:

"For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.”

The Rheims-Douay and the Wycliffite omit this, because it is not in the Vulgate. Other versions include it because it is in the Greek. The Revised Version and the American Revised Version omit it, because Greek manuscripts differ, and some of the best omit it.

Another example of textual difference between versions is found in Psalm 14 (Psalm 13, Rheims-Douay) which has already been mentioned.1 The numbering of the Psalms in the Rheims-Douay, following the Vulgate, differs from the versions which were based directly

1 See above p. 374.

on the Hebrew text. The greatest difference in the versions is the inclusion of the Apocrypha (except the Prayer of Manasses and I and II Esdras), in the Douay Version, among the canonical books, because the Vulgate contained it.

It is clear then that quite apart from the "bitter notes" which necessarily gave offense to many, there were differences in what Tindale had called "a bare text of the Scriptures." Stripped of their notes and other accompanying material the "bare texts" of the English versions differ, because they are not translations of the same originals.

CHAPTER XX

THE ENGLISH VERSIONS 1611-1881

WHEN James I ascended the throne in 1603, there was religious dissension, not only between his Protestant and Roman Catholic subjects, but also between different groups of Protestants. The Geneva Bible with its notes had not been acceptable to the Bishops while the Bishops' Bible was never the version commonly read in the homes of the Puritans. The Roman Catholic New Testament had attacked all Protestant versions as inaccurate. Fulke had published his New Testament with the Rheims and Bishops' Bible versions parallel, and with controversial notes. It was evident that a new translation of the Bible into English must be made for the purpose of reconciling, if possible, differences of opinion caused by lack of uniformity in the current versions. This need had been recognized during the reign of Elizabeth, for there is in the British Museum the draft for an Act of Parliament the title of which is:

"An act for the reducinge of diversities of Bibles now extant in the Englishe tongue to one setled vulgar translated from the originall."

The purpose of the Act is stated to be:

"For avoydinge of the multiplicitie of errors, that are rashly conceaved by the inferior and vulgar sorte by the

varietie of the translacions of Bible to the most daungerous increase of papistrie and atheisme." 1

The relations of Church and State made the questions of Bible translation political, as well as religious, a fact to which attention was called by King James, at the Hampton Court Conference, in January, 1604, between the King and representatives of the Bishops, and of the Puritan party. The King:

gave this caveat (upon a word cast out by my Lord of London) that no marginall notes should be added, having found in them which are annexed to the Geneva translation (which he sawe in a Bible given him by an English Lady), some notes very partiall, untrue, seditious, and savoring too much of daungerous and trayterous conceites. As for example, Exod. 1:19 where the marginal note alloweth disobedience to Kings. And 2 Chron. 15:16, the note taxeth Asa for deposing his mother, onely and not killing her.” 2

Such questions connected with the translating of the Bible were very much in the public mind and were leading directly to the Civil War between Parliament and King, the Geneva Bible being the version used by the Puritans and continuing to be printed long after the new version had appeared.

THE KING JAMES BIBLE

The result of the Conference was that a new version of the Bible was decided upon, and the Dean of Westminster and the Regius Professors of Hebrew at Oxford and Cambridge were asked for the names of competent

1 A. W. Pollard, Records of the English Bible, p. 329.

2 Ibid., p. 46.

scholars to do the work. Later Bancroft, Bishop of London, sent to the other Bishops a letter enclosing one from the King, dated July 22, 1604, in which the King stated that he had appointed fifty-four learned men for the translating of the Bible. Various lists of names of the translators differ, about fifty such names being given, only forty-seven on any one list. “The most trustworthy is that printed by Bishop Burnet in his History of the Reformation." 1

The translators were divided into six groups, to each of which was assigned a different portion of the Bible. These groups were to meet at Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster respectively, for conference. When the work of the groups was completed the whole was reviewed by a final board of twelve revisers, which met daily for nine months at Stationers' Hall. Each member of a group translated the whole of the portion that had been assigned to the group. The group then met and after discussion decided upon a translation that should be submitted for final review. When the whole work had been completed and revised by the subcommittee of reviewers, it received the finishing touches from Bilson, Bishop of Winchester, and Miles Smith, later Bishop of Gloucester, and it is said that Bancroft, Bishop of London, insisted on fourteen alterations.2 The actual work of revision took four years; 1607-9 being the period during which conferences of the six groups were held; 1610 the year during which the reviewing committee met at Stationers' Hall; and 1610–11 the period of printing. To translation by the individual members of the groups was presumably given 1604-7. The version thus produced was not, like preceding

1 A. W. Pollard, Records of the English Bible, p. 49. 2 Ibid., pp. 55-58.