study of the king james bible(杯咫ヾ淵将ゝ冩梢)-及12嫗
梓囚徒貧圭�鮗� ○ 賜 ★ 辛酔堀貧和鍬匈��梓囚徒貧議 Enter 囚辛指欺云慕朕村匈��梓囚徒貧圭�鮗� ● 辛指欺云匈競何��
!!!!隆堋響頼��紗秘慕禰厮宴和肝写偬堋響��
uniformity and to see it through the press。 The records are not extant that
tell whether this was done in full detail�察�though we may presume that each
section of the Scripture had the benefit of the scholarship of the entire
company。
We know a good deal of the method of their work。 We shall
understand it better by recalling what material they had at hand。 They
were enabled to use the result of all the work that had been done before
them。 They were instructed to follow the Bishops' Bible wherever they
33
´ Page 34´
Study of the King James Bible
could do so fairly�察�but they were given power to use the versions already
named from Wiclif down�察 �as well as those fragmentary versions which
were numerous�察�and of which no mention has been made。 They ransacked
all English forms for felicitous words and happy phrases。 It is one of the
interesting incidents that this same Hugh Broughton�察�who was left off the
committee and took it so hard�察 �yet without his will contributed some
important matter to the translation�察�because he had on his own authority
made translations of certain parts of the Scripture。 Several of our capital
phrases in the King James version are from him。 There was no effort to
break out new paths。 Preference was always given to a familiar phrase
rather than to a new one�察�unless accuracy required it。 First�察�then�察�they had
the benefit of all the work that had been done before in the same line�察�and
gladly used it。
In addition�察�they had all other versions made in the tongues of the time。
Chiefly there was Luther's German Bible�察�already become for the German
tongue what their version was destined to be for the English tongue。 There
were parts of the Bible available in Spanish�察 �French�察 �and Dutch。 They
were kept at hand constantly for any light they might cast on difficult
passages。
For the Old Testament there were very few Hebrew texts。 There had
been little critical work yet done on them�察�and for the most part there were
only different editions running back over the centuries。 We have little
more than that now�察 �and there is almost no new material on the Old
Testament since the days of the King James translators。 There was�察 �of
course�察 �the Septuagint�察 �the Greek translation from the Hebrew made
before Christ�察 �with the guidance it could give in doubtful places on the
probable original。 And finally there was the Vulgate�察�made into Latin out
of the Greek and Hebrew。 This was all the Old Testament material they
had�察�or that any one could have in view of the antiquated original sources。
The New Testament material was more abundant�察�though not nearly so
abundant as to´day。 There were few manuscripts of the early days to which
they could refer�察�but there were the two great critical versions of the New
Testament in Greek�察�that by Erasmus and the Complutensian�察�which had
made use of the best manuscripts known。 Then�察 �finally again�察 �there was
34
´ Page 35´
Study of the King James Bible
the Vulgate。
We must stop a moment to see what was the value of the Vulgate in
this work。 It is impossible to reckon the number of the early New
Testament manuscripts that have been lost。 In the earlier day the Scriptures
were transmitted from church to church�察 �and from age to age�察 �by
manuscripts。 Many of them were made as direct copies of other
manuscripts�察 �but many were made by scribes to whom the manuscripts
were read as they wrote�察 �so that there are many�察 �though ordinarily
comparatively slight�察 �variations among the manuscripts which we now
know。 More manuscripts are coming to light constantly�察�manuscripts once
well known and then lost。 Many of them�察�perhaps many earlier than we
now have�察 �must have been familiar to Jerome four hundred years after
Christ。 When�察 �therefore�察 �there is a plain difference between the Vulgate
and our early Greek manuscripts�察�the Vulgate may be wrong because it is
only a translation�察�but it may be right because it is a translation of earlier
manuscripts than some of ours。 It is steadily losing its value at that point�察�
for Greek manuscripts are all the time coming to light which run farther
back。 But we must not minimize the value of the Vulgate for our King
James translation。
With all this material the scholars of the early seventeenth century set
to work。 Each man in the group made the translation that seemed best to
him�察�and together they analyzed the results and finally agreed on the best。
They hunted the other versions to see if it had been better done elsewhere。
The shade of Tindale was over it all。 The Genevan version was most
influential。 The Douai had its share�察 �and the Bishops' was the general
standard�察�altered only when accuracy required it。 On all hard passages they
called to their aid the appropriate departments of both universities。 All
scholars everywhere were asked to send in any contributions�察�to correct or
criticize as they would。 Public announcement of the work was made�察�and
all possible help was besought and gladly accepted。
Very faithfully these greatest scholars of their time wrought。 No one
worked for money�察�and no one worked for pay�察�but each for the joy of the
working。 Three years they spent on the original work�察 �three years on
careful revision and on the marginal references by which Scripture was
35
´ Page 36´
Study of the King James Bible
made to throw light on Scripture。 Then in six months a committee
reviewed it all�察 �put it through the press�察 �and at last�察 �in 1611�察 �with the
imprint of Robert Barker�察�Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty�察�the
King James version appeared。 The name Authorized Version is not a
happy one�察�for so far as the records go it was never authorized either by
the King or the bishop�察�and�察�even if it were�察�the authority does not extend
beyond the English Church�察�which is a very small fraction of those who
use it。 On the title´page of the original version�察�as on so many since�察�is the
familiar line�察 �Appointed to be Read in Churches�察─ �but who made the
appointment history does not say。
The version did not at once supersede the Genevan and the Bishops'�察�
but it was so incomparably better than either that gradually they
disappeared�察�and by sheer excellence it took the field�察�and it holds the field
to´day in spite of the numerous supposedly improved versions that have
appeared under private auspices。 It holds the field�察 �also�察 �in spite of the
excellent revised version of 1881 made by authority�察 �and the more
excellent version issued in 1901 by the American Revision Committee�察�to´
day undoubtedly the best version in existence�察 �considered simply as a
reproduction of the sense of the original。 And for reasons that may later
appear�察�the King James version bids fair to hold the fiel