Page lxiii

a text is quoted generally, or (as is so often the case) with variations, those words only are set in spaces which are truly identical, at least in sense. But we have not employed this notation where the reference seems uncertain or remote, such as Ps. lxvii. 4 alleged by some in Acts xvii. 31, and Gen. vi. 5 or viii. 21 in James iv. 5.

The present is scarcely a fit opportunity for discussing at length the merits and faults of the Authorized Version, which “so laborious, so generally accurate, so close, so abhorrent of paraphrase, so grave and weighty in word and rhythm, so intimately bound up with the religious convictions and associations of the English people1” will never yield its hard-earned supremacy, save to some reverential and well-considered Revision of which it has been adopted as the basis, that shall be happy enough to retain its characteristic excellencies, while amending its venial errors and supplying its unavoidable defects. Yet it may not be improper to touch briefly on one or two particulars, which have not been prominently noted by others, but have impressed the editor’s mind in the prosecution of his laborious, yet most interesting task.

First then, we mark great inequality in the execution of the several portions of this version. The limits of life and human patience would forbid the whole Bible (including the Apocrypha) from being committed to the care of a single Company, but it was surely a mistake to divide the whole body of Translators into six parties. The Bishops’ Bible indeed seems to have had a fresh translator for almost every book2, and the inconsistency which such a plan must needs engender may have been one of the causes which hindered that version from obtaining general acceptance. No doubt it had been wisely provided by the King’s ninth and tenth Instructions that “As any one Company hath despatched any book…, they shall send it to the rest to be considered of seriously and judiciously; for His Majesty is very careful in this point:” as also that “If any Company doubt or differ upon any place…the difference be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company at the end of the work.” But our very meagre information respecting the progress of the Translators gives us no great reason to believe that this wholesome device was carried out in practice (see Sect. 1. p. xiv.), while internal evidence points decidedly to a contrary conclusion3. Certain it is that the six or twelve who met at Stationers’ Hall during the nine months which immediately preceded publication had mechanical work enough on their hands in carrying the sheets through the press, without troubling themselves much about higher matters. The first Westminster Company undertook the historical books from Genesis down to the end of 2 Kings, and included the great names of Andrewes, then Dean of Westminster; of Overall Dean of S. Paul’s; and of Adrian de Saravia, by birth a Fleming, at that time Prebendary of Westminster, but best known as the bosom friend and spiritual counseller of saintlike Richard Hooker. Compared with other portions of Holy Scripture their share in the work may seem

1	Preface to The Gospel of S. John revised by Five Clergymen, p. VI. In regard to the rhythm it may be said that those can best appreciate the Translators’ happy skill, who have tried to improve upon their version. Even such an expression as “that that” Ezek. xxxvi. 36; Dan. xi. 36; Jonah ii. 9; Zech. xi. 9 (bis), 16—all the work of one Company—is common in so musical a contemporary writer as Fletcher.
2	Fourteen of the sacred books have appended to them the initials of their translators, eight of these being Bishops, so far as they can be identified; but “they do not indicate all the contributors.” Westcott, General View of the History of the English Bible, p. 135. This is plain both from the manner in which the initials are distributed, and because the names of some persons known to have been employed nowhere appear. But even in regard to the present Authorized translation, tradition has assigned a share in the final revision to Dr Thomas Bilson, Bishop of Winchester, whose name appears in no list of the six Companies.
3	One instance of this lack of consistency observable in the different parts of our Translation, the more minute the better for our purpose, will serve to illustrate a statement which is notoriously true. The Oxford Company, which revised the Prophets, was careful to render the Niphal conjugation of דבר with some intensity of meaning, whether wrongly or rightly matters not. In Ezek. xxxiii. 30 we find “still are talking;” in Mal. iii. 16 “spake often;” three verses before “spoken so much.” where 1629 so little understands what is intended as to put “so much” in italics. This Niphal form occurs only once elsewhere, Ps. cxix. 23, where the second Company simply has “speak.”