Some ancient Translations have been referred to already as forming a certain part of the evidence for the text.

The Samaritan Pentateuch is not indeed a version, for it is in Hebrew, though in the so-called Samaritan letters, which are much the same as the Phoenician. It is, however, of a different recension to the Massoretic. The history of this Pentateuch, the only part of Scripture received by the Samaritans, is very uncertain. It has been held by some that it is that form of the Pentateuch current in the Northern Kingdom, by others that on the foundation of the Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim, copies of the Pentateuch were procured by the Samaritans from the Jewish exiles in Egypt.

The Samaritan Pentateuch often agrees with the Septuagint against the Massoretic text. This favours the second of the above views, the Septuagint having been made in Egypt.

Among the leading differences between the Samaritan and Massoretic Pentateuchs may be specially noted the much greater length given for the age of the earlier Patriarchs in the former, and the substitution of Gerizim for Ebal in Deut. xxvii. 4.

Two versions exist of the Samaritan Pentateuch:(1) a Samaritan version (i. e. actually in the Samaritan language), and (2) an Arabic version made in the eleventh century.

The word Targum means an interpretation or version, but, as a matter of fact, it is confined to the versions of the Old Testament into the so-called Chaldee (Aramæan). As we have already stated, this language is akin to Hebrew, and was that which in an increasing degree was the vernacular in Palestine after the return from Captivity. In all probability, these versions were at first oral, gradually crystallizing more and more into shape, and ultimately reduced into writing.

The two most important Targums are those of Onkelos on the Pentateuch and of Jonathan ben Uzziel on the Prophets. Both of them present a great contrast to the other Targums, which run far afield from their original and at times introduce the wildest and most puerile stories.

Onkelos is not mentioned earlier than by the Babylonian Talmud (c. 500 A. D.). It is exceedingly probable that the name is a mere variant of that of Aquila (the two names are much more nearly akin when written in Hebrew letters), the Greek translator, of whom we shall speak presently, seeing that of this latter exactly the same things are said in the Jerusalem Talmud as of Onkelos in the Babylonian. The date has been a matter of much dispute, the 1st century B. C., the 1st century A.D., and even the third or fourth. Jonathan ben Uzziel is said by the Babylonian Talmud to have been a disciple of the older Hillel and therefore of the 1st century B.C. Other Targums are those of Pseudo-Jonathan and the Jerusalem Targum, both on the Pentateuch, the latter being fragmentary. These two are akin to each other and are full of the wildest tales. They are works of the 7th or 8th century. Other Targums exist of various parts of the Hagiographa.

The name Septuagint, the "Version of the Seventy," is doubtless to be connected with the various legends as to its origin. The oldest form of the story is that contained in the so-called letter of Aristeas, according to which 72 elders were sent from Jerusalem to Alexandria and by conference achieved a version in 70 days. According to a later story, apparently believed by Philo and certainly by many of the Christian fathers, the elders were placed separately, each in his own cell, and at the end of 70 days the versions of each were miraculously found to be identical. The story of Aristeas was not challenged

till the 16th century, but it is a sufficient refutation to say that the version is undoubtedly the work of Egyptian-Jewish hands. There can be little doubt that the following is approximately the truth as to the matter. Even before Alexander's time, the Jews had settled in large numbers in Egypt, and the building of Alexandria would help to bring them together yet more largely. As in Palestine, so a fortiori in Egypt, Hebrew had died out, and here Greek, the universal lingua franca, had taken its place. Unless the Jews were to remain ignorant of the contents of their Scriptures, some means must be found of setting them forth in Greek. With hardly an exception, ancient witnesses give the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus (284-246 B.C.) as the date when the translation was made, so that we may probably assume that in his reign the work (doubtless the Law only in the first instance) was reduced to writing or that some specially authorized text was put forth. The work was clearly done piecemeal, as the varying character of the different parts shews, and was finished probably not later than the middle of the second century B. C. (Evidence as to this last point is furnished by the Prologue to Ecclesiasticus and the apocryphal epilogue to Esther.)

The majority of the quotations from the Old Testament in the New are taken from the Septuagint, and this translation was the Bible of the great mass of the Christian Fathers. It would be the only basis of argument between the first Christian teachers and Hellenistic Jews or Gentile inquirers.

All ancient versions of the Old Testament, excepting the Peshitto Syriac, Targums, and the Vulgate, are taken from the Septuagint.

In the 2nd century A. D., other Greek translations, those of Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion, were made.

Aquila was a native of Sinope in Pontus and was probably the most literal translator the O. T. ever had, his translation indeed requiring at times a knowledge of Hebrew to understand its Greek interpretation.

Of Symmachus hardly anything is known: he is said to have been an Ebionite and appears to be later than the other two. Theodotion appears to have been a native of Ephesus.

All these versions entered into Origen's great work the Hexapla, in which the six columns were arranged (from left to right) according to their closeness to the Hebrew, thus (1) Hebrew, (2) Hebrew in Greek letters, (3) Aquila, (4) Symmachus, (5) Septuagint, (6) Theodotion.

Besides these, there were three other Greek versions, by authors unknown, none of which, however, embraced the whole of the Old Testament. These are commonly known as the Quinta, Sexta and Septima.

The chief Syriac Version is that known as the Peshitto, i.e. simple (doubtless in contradistinction to free and paraphrastic). This version, containing both O. and N. T., is probably of the 2nd century of our era. The O. T. part was taken from the Hebrew, though there are traces of the influence of the Septuagint. It has been for many centuries and still is the Bible of all the fragments of the now disunited Syrian Church.

Besides this may be named (1) the Curetonian, fragments of a version older than the Peshitto. This is as yet known by one MS. of the fifth century, in the Brit. Mus., containing the Gospels only; (2) the Philoxenian or Harclean version of the N. T., made 508 A.D. by one Polycarp for Bishop Philoxenus, and revised a century later by Thomas of Harkel, whence its two names; (3) the so-called Syro-Hexa

plaric Version, made in 617 A.D. by Paul, bishop of Tella, from the text of the Septuagint, as given in Origen's Hexapla.

The oldest Latin version was made, not later than the 2nd century A.D., in the Roman province of Africa, the O. T. part being a translation of the Septuagint. Another version, sufficiently different from this to be in all probability independent, was in use in North Italy in the latter part of the fourth century. In 384 A.D., the great scholar Jerome was asked to revise the text and, after partially doing so, was led ultimately to translate the O. T. directly from the Hebrew, the whole work being finished by 405 A.D. This work of Jerome's is known as the Vulgate and ultimately, though very gradually, it superseded the older Latin translation. As in our own Church, however, so in the Roman, the newer version of the Psalms, though of course more accurate, could never dislodge the old familiar one, the Psalter in the Vulgate to this day being what is known as the Gallican Psalter, the 2nd edition of Jerome's revision of the old Latin.

The Gothic version is the work of Ulphilas, appointed bishop of the Moso-Goths in 348 A.D. The O. T. part of it is taken from the Septuagint, and apparently from the Hexaplaric text: only slight fragments, however, exist of this part of the work.

Of the N. T. much larger fragments are known, by far the most important MS. being the Codex Argenteus of the Gospels, written in the 6th century and now in the University Library of Upsala.

The Egyptian Versions are three in number, all in what is commonly known as Coptic. They are known as the Memphitic, Thebaic and Bashmuric, representing respectively the dialects of Lower and Upper Egypt, and of the region of the Delta. The second of the above is very incomplete in the N. T., and of the O. T. merely a few fragments survive. Of the third very little survives. The date of these versions, in part at any rate, must be decidedly ancient, perhaps not later than the end of the 2nd century. See above, p. 26.

The only other ancient versions needing to be mentioned are the Ethiopic and Armenian versions. The former, the Bible of the ancient Abyssinian Church, has been variously referred to the 4th and later centuries. The O. T. therein is translated from the Septuagint. The Armenian version is the work of Miesrob and his coadjutors, shortly after the time of the Council of Ephesus, 431 A. D. The elaborate Armenian alphabet of 36 letters was specially devised for this, replacing the Syriac alphabet which had previously been in use. The Old Testament is from the Septuagint.

i. The first English Bible is associated with the great name of John Wycliffe. Attempts had been made in the early part of the fourteenth century to supply the Scriptures in a language intelligible to the common people, but these had been very partial and insufficient. When Wycliffe began to send throughout the land his itinerant evangelists, he saw the necessity of providing them with the Bible in English. As in his controversial writings his leading principle was the supreme authority of Scripture, so he made it the chief duty of his 'poor preachers' faithfully to scatter the seed of God's Word.' Wycliffe himself does not lay claim to the translation which now bears his name, but we possess evidence which leaves no doubt that the work is his, though in the execution of it he received much help from friends. Of the exact character and detailed history of Wycliffe's Bible little was generally known until 1850, when for the first time the complete work appeared in print, edited by Forshall and Madden. No fewer than 170 manuscripts were examined for this edition, and the researches of the editors led them to results which are now accepted by all. It is very plain that we possess two versions, not one only, the older completed in 1382, the other about 1388. Of the earlier two-thirds must be assigned to Nicholas Hereford: the remainder (the New Testament, the last books of the Old Testament, and one-third of the Apocrypha) is in all probability from the hand of Wycliffe himself. Hereford's portion ends abruptly, in Baruch iii. 20: his citation before the Synod in London (1382) probably explains the sudden close. The later translation, which is introduced by a Prologue of remarkable interest, is mainly due to John Purvey, Wycliffe's assistant at Lutterworth. It cannot be called a distinct version, but is rather the work of a careful and skilled reviser. Purvey's aims were to secure a better original text, and to improve the English renderings; and his work shews a great advance on the early version in correctness and clearness, and in ease of style.

These Versions were of necessity made from the Latin. They include all the Canonical Books and almost all the Apocryphal Books that are usually found in English Bibles. To many books are prefixed short prefaces or prologues, and explanatory words, or 'glosses,' are often introduced into the text. A striking feature of the later Version is the large body of marginal notes, critical and explanatory, derived from Jerome, Augustine, and other Fathers, but especially from Lyra, a celebrated commentator of the fourteenth century. The work, thus carefully executed, was circulated far and wide. To what extent it has

After

influenced later English Versions is a much debated question, to which reference will again be made. ii. William Tindale was born near Berkeley in Gloucestershire, about 1490. When about eighteen he entered at Oxford, where he remained seven years; from 1515 to 1521 he studied at Cambridge. Colet had left Oxford in 1505. Erasmus lectured in Cambridge as Professor from 1509 to 1514; and his first edition of the Greek Testament (the earliest Greek Testament published) bears date 1516. Hence the influences of Tindale's prolonged University career must have done much to foster the great purpose of his life, to translate the Scriptures for his countrymen. In 1523 he went up to London hoping to execute his work under the patronage of Tunstall, Bishop of London. After a year of anxious and fruitless waiting he left England for the Continent, where he remained until his death in 1536. landing in Hamburg, it seems probable that he visited Luther at Wittenberg. In 1525 we find him at Cologne, engaged in printing a quarto edition of the New Testament at Quentel's press. When about ten sheets were printed his plan was discovered, and an interdict placed on the work. On this Tindale fled to Worms, with Roye his assistant, carrying with him the sheets already printed. Whether this edition was ever completed is uncertain; but in the same year, or early in 1526, an octavo edition of 3000 copies was published in Worms, at the press of P. Schoeffer the younger. Of the sheets printed at Cologne one fragment remains (Matt. i. 1-xxii. 12), which is now in the British Museum. Prefixed to the Gospel is a prologue of some length, which is mainly translated from Luther: the marginal notes also, and the arrangement of the table of contents, clearly shew Luther's influence. Of the Worms edition we possess one complete copy, now preserved in the Baptist College, Bristol: it contains no notes or prologues, but only a short unsigned Address to the Reader. These two works differ so slightly in the translated text (as far as we can now compare them) that they are usually taken together as constituting Tindale's first New Testament. The printed copies, bearing no author's name, reached England in the course of 1526. Though proscribed, they were eagerly sought after; and the large demand led to the publication of pirated editions by Dutch printers, and also to the issue of an unauthorized revision of Tindale's translation, by Joye, one of his assistants. Tindale's second edition, published at Antwerp in Nov. 1534 by Martin Emperour, bears his own name: 'the New Testament diligently

corrected and compared with the Greek by William Tindale. This edition is furnished with marginal notes and prologues, and also contains a very small portion of the Old Testament and Apocrypha, namely certain 'Epistles' read in the Services of the Church. The translation was 'yet once again corrected by William Tindale': the first title-page of this volume has the date 1535, the second 1534, and on the latter is added a trade-mark, with the letters G. H. These letters were first interpreted by Mr Bradshaw (1881), as denoting G. van der Haghen, the Antwerp publisher. To the same year (1535) belongs another edition, conspicuous for the strange spelling of the words; there is little doubt that the edition was pirated, and that the peculiarities are due to the Flemish printers. As many as forty editions of Tindale's Testament were published from 1525 to 1566; the first printed in England was a folio of 1536. The period from 1526 to 1534 seems to have been devoted by Tindale in large measure to work on the Old Testament; and in 1530 he published the Book of Genesis, printed by Hans Luft at 'Malborow in the land of Hesse' (Marburg). The other books of the Pentateuch were no doubt printed at the same press, but are without name or date. A revised edition of Genesis appeared in 1534. All these books are furnished with prologues and notes, often keenly controversial. With the exception of a translation of Jonah (1531) no other portion of the Old Testament was published by Tindale himself. He laboured however to the last. A letter is extant in which he begs for the use of his Hebrew Bible, Grammar and Dictionary, in his place of imprisonment; and when the end came he had completed the translation of nine books, Joshua-Chronicles. Tindale suffered martyrdom at Vilvorde, in October 1536.

iii. Miles Coverdale was born in Yorkshire in 1488, and was educated at Cambridge under Robert Barnes, in the Monastery of the Augustine Friars. With the exception of a statement by Foxe, that in 1529 he assisted Tindale in translating the Pentateuch, we have hardly any record of Coverdale's history earlier than 1534. From that year to 1541 he is closely identified with the history of the English Bible, as given below. After the fall of his patron Cromwell (1540) he left England, and remained abroad until the accession of Edward VI. From 1551 to 1553 he held the see of Exeter. He died in 1569.

The King's proclamation (1530), which promised to the people the New Testament in their own tongue, was followed up in 1534 by a petition from Convocation for a translation of the whole Bible. Urged probably by Cromwell, Coverdale, who had long been an earnest student of Scripture, devoted himself to the work of translation; and in October 1535 gave to the world the first printed English Bible. The copies preserved contain two different forms of title-page, in foreign and in English type, respectively; but there is no mention of the printer's name or the place of publication. It is now believed that the book was printed by J. van Meteren of Antwerp, and then sold to Nicolson the Southwark printer. On the Antwerp title-page the translation is said to be made out of Dutch and Latin'; but these words were omitted by the English printer. The volume is dedicated to Henry VIII.; and both the dedication and the prologue bear Coverdale's name. These documents shew clearly that he undertook the work at the instance of others, and also that he had no wish to claim the position of a direct and independent translator from the original texts. He refers in plain terms to Latin and German translations by which he had been helped; and declares that he had 'purely and faithfully translated out of five sundry interpreters.' Coverdale's Bible contains very little extraneous matter; his few marginal notes are limited to explanations, various readings, and alternative renderings. Two other editions were issued by Nicolson in 1537; and now we read on the title-page, 'Set forth with the King's most gracious license.' A later edition of the Bible (1550, 1553), the New Testaments of 1538, and three Latin-English Testaments (1538), containing Coverdale's Version somewhat altered, can only be mentioned here.

iv. We must leave Coverdale for a time to notice a Bible of 1537, printed abroad (probably at Antwerp), but published in London by Grafton and Whitchurch, and issued with the King's license. On the title-page the translation is ascribed to Thomas Matthew, and the dedication also bears this signature. In various parts of the volume we meet with the capital letters R. G., E. W., W. T., I. R. Grafton's, Whitchurch's and Tindale's initials are recognised at once: I. R. indicates John Rogers (1500-1555), Tindale's faithful friend during the last two years of his life, who was one of the first to suffer martyrdom under Mary. Rogers was the real editor of this work; and it is probable that Thomas Matthew was merely a name assumed by him, as in 1555 he is described as 'John Rogers alias Matthew.' In this volume the New Testament and half the Old Testament are Tindale's, the remainder Coverdale's. 'Matthew's' Bible is remarkable as containing a very large amount of marginal commentary (explanatory and controversial) and prefatory matter, derived to a great extent from Olivetan's French Bible (1535).

v. Closely akin to Matthew's Bible is that which bears the name of an Oxford scholar, Richard Taverner (1539). In the Old Testament the chief difference consists in the omission of many notes. The New Testament however often shews signs of careful and skilled revision.

vi. We now return to Coverdale, who is connected with the chief Biblical enterprise of 1539. The previous year he had spent in Paris, commissioned by Cromwell to superintend the printing of a new Bible, differing in important respects both from Matthew's and from his own work of 1535. When the printing was nearly completed, an interdict was laid upon the work by the Inquisition; but, through Bp Bonner's assistance, the sheets were saved, and the presses sent over to England. In April, 1539, 'Cromwell's Bible'-otherwise known as (the first edition of) the Great Bible, as being the Bible' of largest volume'was issued from the press. On the title-page is an elaborate engraving, which represents the king giving the Word of God to the clergy, and, through Cromwell, to the laity of his kingdom, amid the great joy of his subjects. The Bible is here described as truly translated after the verity of the Hebrew and Greek texts, by the diligent study of divers excellent learned men'; but there can be no doubt that the translation, which is a revision of that in Matthew's Bible, is due to Coverdale. There are no marginal notes: though promised in the Prologue, and even referred to by hands' and other signs in the margin, they were never added in any edition of the Great Bible. In April, 1540, an improved edition was published, containing a long Preface written by Archbishop Cranmer: as this Preface appears in all subsequent editions, the Great Bible has been widely known as Cranmer's. Five other editions of the Great Bible appeared in 1540-1; two of these purport to have been overseen and perused' by Bishops Tunstall and Heath, but their revision can have been but slight. The points of difference indeed amongst all seven editions, though by no means few, were relatively of small account: Coverdale seems certainly to have been the reviser throughout.

vii. During the reign of Edward VI. many editions of the Bible (in various versions) and of the New Testament (mainly Tindale's) were published; but, with one partial exception, no new translation was undertaken. The isolated attempt was a rendering of St Matthew and part of St Mark by Sir J. Cheke, formerly Professor of Greek at Cambridge. The chief characteristic of this work is a strained and excessive avoidance of words derived from Latin or Greek.

viii. The accession of Mary threatened danger to all who were closely identified with the translation or circulation of the English Bible. Coverdale narrowly escaped with his life; Cranmer and Rogers were brought to the stake; many others sought safety in flight. The work of Bible-revision was however continued and advanced by the band of English exiles who in 1555 found their way to Geneva, the city of Calvin. Amongst these were Knox

1611. The familiar Dedication to the King, and also a long Preface, ably setting forth the principles and aims of the work, are said to have been written by Dr Miles Smith, afterwards Bishop of Gloucester. The words on the title page, appointed to be read in churches,' would seem to imply express authorization; but we have no evidence that the book ever received formal sanction. It was however naturally regarded as the legitimate successor of the Bishops' Bible, which had been directly sanctioned by Convocation; just as the Bishops' Bible had succeeded to the position of the Great Bible, which was 'authorised and appointed by the commandment of Henry VIII.' But no kind of authorization would have enabled this version to maintain its ground, had not its intrinsic excellence ultimately commended it to all. The later history of the Authorized Version has many points of interest, but we have space for but few particulars. The earliest editions were very incorrectly printed, and it was by slow degrees that a high standard of accuracy was attained. Not a few editions are commonly known by names derived from gross blunders in their text. The first editions remarkable for their accuracy were those of 1629, 1638 (Cambridge). At a later date Dr Paris (Cambridge 1762) and Dr Blayney (Oxford 1769) bestowed great labour on the marginal notes and references: in the Bible of 1611 these were comparatively scanty. The marginal dates (mostly from Ussher) were first inserted in 1701.-King James's Version had a formidable rival in the Genevan Bible, and it was not until the middle of the century that the Authorized Version held the field. In 1652 the Long Parliament made an order for a new translation, but the scheme was abandoned. Until 1662 the Epistles and Gospels in the Prayer Book were taken from the Great Bible, with but slight alteration: in that year, when the Prayer Book assumed its present form, the translation of 1611 was adopted throughout, except in the Psalter, the various Canticles, the Commandments, and a few isolated quotations of Scripture. The Psalter is Coverdale's, as we have seen: the translation of the Canticles, &c., differs more or less from all our versions.

xii. In 1856 the subject of a revised translation was brought before Convocation, but without any definite result. Fourteen years later the discussion was revived, and a Committee was appointed by the Convocation of Canterbury to consider the desirableness of revising the Authorized Version. The Convocation of York resolved to stand aloof. On receiving a favourable report from its Committee, in May 1870 the Convocation of Canterbury appointed a Committee of its own members to undertake the work of revision, and authorized this Committee to invite the co-operation of other scholars, 'to whatever nation or religious body they may belong.' Two Companies of revision were formed without delay, and invitations issued to scholars belonging to the Church of England and various bodies of Nonconformists. To the Old Testament Company were assigned nine members of Convocation and fifteen invited members; for the New Testament Company the numbers were seven and eighteen respectively. Both Companies entered on their work in the course of June, 1870, holding their meetings in the Jerusalem Chamber, Westminster. The chief rules of revision laid down by the Committee of Convocation were the following: the alterations to be as few as possible, consistently with faithfulness, and to be made in the language of the Authorized and earlier Versions; the text adopted to be that for which the evidence is decidedly preponderating; each portion to be revised twice; all changes to be made on the first and provisional revision by the decision of simple majorities, but not to stand finally unless approved by a two-thirds vote; the work of each Company to be communicated to the other, as completed; external scholars to be consulted on difficult points, if necessary.

Many changes were made in the constitution of both Companies, through death and retirement, and the appointment of new members; but during the

greater part of the work the Old Testament Company consisted of nearly thirty members, the New Testament Company of twenty-five. In 1871 the cooperation of American scholars was sought; and two Revision Companies were formed in the United States. In the New Testament the work of revision occupied about ten years and a half; in the Old Testament fourteen years. The Revised New Testament was published on May 17, 1881; the whole Bible on May 19, 1885. The main body of results rests on the authority of English and American Revisers alike; but Appendices are added, specifying certain points as to which the American Companies had formed and wished to place on record a different judgement. The Prefaces to the Old Testament and New Testament furnish information as to the principles of revision, and notice some important points of detail.

Having reviewed the history of the several English Bibles, we will now notice the characteristics and mutual relations of the Versions themselves, taking separately the New Testament, the Old Testament, and the Apocryphal Books. The Wycliffite versions however stand by themselves, and may be considered as a whole. They depend entirely on the Vulgate, and upon manuscripts of the Vulgate which were often faulty and inaccurate. Each version is carefully executed and generally faithful; but the earlier is at times obscure through excessive literalness of rendering. The Vulgate itself varies greatly in quality: a translation of the Vulgate therefore must be of unequal value. The chief question before us now, however, is the relation of these versions to those which follow them. Some hold that Tindale is merely a full-grown Wycliffe,' and that the excellence of the Authorized Version is thus in large measure inherited from the Bible of 1382. Tindale on the other hand denies that he was 'holpen with English of any that had interpreted the same or such like thing in the Scripture beforetime.' Internal evidence is fully consistent with this statement, for most of the direct coincidences are explained by the common use of the Vulgate. The earliest translation may have exerted great indirect influence by shewing the language and style most fitting for the Bible of the people; current proverbial expressions and familiar technical terms would naturally be retained: direct imitation is most improbable. Tindale's work bears the clear stamp of originality. I. New Testament.-i. The Greek text from which Tindale translated was that of Erasmus (eds. of 1519, 1522). His renderings shew that, whilst aided by the Vulgate and Luther, and still more by Erasmus's Latin Version, he made it his chief aim faithfully and independently to follow the Greek. His second New Testament differs very frequently from the first, mainly in a more exact rendering of the original text; and his latest edition (1534 G. H.) shews in some four hundred places the hand of the careful reviser. The characteristics of his style may be learnt from the Authorized Version itself; for from 85 to 90 per cent. of the New Testament of 1611 is to be found in Tindale. No doubt much had been gained between 1535 and 1611; but we cannot study Tindale's work without being impressed by his general accuracy, and acknowledging that he furnished to all later translators a wonderful pattern of simple and dignified English.

ii. The Latin and Dutch' (German) authorities followed by Coverdale in the New Testament were the Vulgate, Luther, and the Zürich Bible-a GermanSwiss translation by Zwingli and others, founded on Luther's in the New Testament and a large portion of the Old. He appears to have taken Tindale's Testament of 1526 as the basis of his own, making alterations here and there in deference to Tindale's later revision or Luther's version or the Zürich Bible, or in accordance with his own true feeling for rhythm and ease of style. The amount of change is small.

iii. The New Testament of Matthew's Bible is Tindale's latest edition: the differences do not average one for each chapter.-Taverner's New Testament is interesting, but is very unequal in different