these-In what relation does the Great Bible stand to those previously published by Coverdale and Rogers? What influences may be traced in this new version ? How far are we justified in speaking of the seven issues in 1539 and the two following years as editions of the same work? Comparing Numb. xxiv. 15-24, as given in the Great Bible, with the translations of Tyndale and Coverdale, we find that in every four places in which these two translators differ, the Great Bible agrees with Tyndale three times, with Coverdale's Bible once. Very rarely do we find any new rendering of importance. The most striking are in verse 16, "and that falleth with open eyes;" verse 18, and Edom shall be possessed, and Seir shall fall to the possession of their enemies; " verse 22, "the Kenite shall be rooted out;" verse 24, "Italy," in the place of " Chittim." In most of the new renderings the authority followed is Münster's Hebrew-Latin Bible, published in 1534-5. In the early books of the Old Testament the successive editions of the Great Bible appear to be nearly in accord, the work of revision being in the main completed when the book was first published in 1539. If we pass to the prophetical books we meet with a much larger proportion of new matter. In Isa. liii., for example, the Bible of 1539 differs in about forty places from Coverdale's former translation; in the Bible known as Cranmer's we find about twenty additional alterations, some of great importance; in the editions of 1541 hardly any further change was made. The influence of Münster is to be seen in almost every case. We gladly welcome such renderings as "the chastisement of our peace" (1540) in the place of "the pain of our punishment" (1539); and "the Lord hath heaped together upon him the iniquity of us all," is a more adequate representation of the prophet's meaning than "through him the Lord hath pardoned all our sins." We need not examine other passages in detail. So far as the Old Testament is concerned, we see that the term Great Bible represents in the main two revisions (1539, 1540); and that, whilst much use was made of the Vulgate and of the Complutensian Polyglott, Münster's Latin version was the authority to which Coverdale chiefly deferred.

In its general character the New Testament is very similar to the Old. In Luke xv., xvi., for example, the Great Bible almost always agrees either with Tyndale's or with Coverdale's earlier version, but in most instances with Tyndale. What is new is of little value. The impression produced by these chapters is confirmed as we extend our survey. There are, however, some changes of detail which are very important, though they are not always changes for the better. Thus in John iii. 3, "born anew gives place to "born from above;" in John x. 16, one fold" is unfortunately substituted for " one flock;" in John xiv. 1, the familiar rendering, "ye believe in God, believe also in me," takes the place of Tyndale's, in which all was exhortation ("believe in God, believe also in me"). In these passages the change is apparently due to the authority of Erasmus. Throughout the New Testament, indeed, the new

renderings are mainly derived from Erasmus and the Vulgate. The later editions of the Great Bible sometimes contain valuable emendations, but the amount of variation is apparently not great.

The chief characteristic of the Great Bible is found, not in its translations, but in its text. In one of his letters to Cromwell, Coverdale speaks of the care with which he notes the diversity of reading among the Hebrews, Chaldees, and Greeks, and Latinists." The result is, that on every page of this version we find some additions to the text. The reader may remember that Purvey's version of Proverbs contains several clauses and verses found in the Latin text, but not in the Hebrew (Vol. I., p. 82). Almost all these supplements may be seen in the Great Bible. The same phenomenon meets us in the New Testament. In Luke xvi. 21, for instance, we read of Lazarus, that "no man gave unto him;" at the end of 1 Cor. xvi. 19, we find the words, "with whom also I am lodged;" and it is in this version that Luke xvii. 36 first finds a place. It must be confessed that his unwillingness to give up any portion of the text presented by the Vulgate sometimes (in 1 John ii. 23, for example) led Coverdale to adopt readings which are now recognised as correct; but this good fortune is only occasional. As a rule, the additions found no favour with later editors. These supplements, however, were not presented by Coverdale as part of the text, but were placed within parentheses, printed in a different type, and pointed out to the reader by a special sign. Besides this sign, a hand () is of very frequent occurrence in both text and margin of the Great Bible. It had been Coverdale's intention to supply numerous annotations on difficulties of every description, and great was his regret when the hurry and confusion amidst which the first edition was completed rendered this part of his scheme impracticable. The notes were never published, but in the first three editions the sign remained. Another mark (+) is used in the Old Testament, to point out passages which are "alleged of Christ or of some apostle in the New Testament."

One portion of the Great Bible stands apart from the rest, not indeed in internal character, but in virtue of its subsequent history. A note at the beginning of the Book of Common Prayer states that the Psalter therein contained "followeth the division of the Hebrews, and the translation of the great English Bible, set forth and used in the time of King Henry the Eighth and Edward the Sixth." This translation was necessarily adopted in connection with the first Prayer-Book (1549), and obtained a very strong hold upon the people. At the last revision of the Prayer-Book (1662), when the new translation was accepted for the Epistles and Gospels, it proved impossible to change the Psalter. "It was found, it is said, smoother to sing; but this is not a full account of the matter, and it cannot be mere familiarity which gives to the Prayer-Book Psalter, with all its errors and imperfections, an incomparable tenderness and sweetness. Rather we may believe that in it we can yet find the spirit of him whose work it mainly is, full of humility and love, not heroic or

creative, but patient to accomplish by God's help the task which had been set him to do, and therefore best in harmony with the tenour of our own daily lives." 1 The general characteristics of the version are found here also. Every careful reader has been struck with the additional words and clauses found in the Psalter of the Prayer-Book. For example, "him that rideth upon the heavens, as it were upon an horse" (Ps. lxviii. 4); "their corn, and wine, and oil” (iv. 8); "a moth fretting a garment” (xxxix. 12); “God is a righteous Judge, strong and patient " (vii. 12); “even where no fear was (xiv. 9); "neither the temples of my head to take any rest" (exxxii. 4). In Ps. xxix. 1, we find a double translation of one clause, " bring young rams unto the Lord," and "ascribe unto the Lord glory and strength." A verse is added to Ps. cxxxvi., and three verses are introduced into Ps. xiv. Canon Westcott gives a list of more than seventy of these additions, some from Münster, but most brought in from the Vulgate. In the Great Bible the word, or clause, or verse, is in almost all cases carefully separated from the context, and marked as an addition; but unfortunately all such distinction has been obliterated in our editions of the Prayer-Book. The titles of the Psalms, and such notes as Selah, omitted in the Prayer-Book, are here given in full. The curious love of variety of rendering, so characteristic of Coverdale, is often observable. The "chief musician" is usually "the chanter," but sometimes "he that excelleth." Michtam of David becomes "the badge or arms of David." Halleluya is retained from the original, but a translation, "Praise the everlasting," is placed by its side. As we might expect, the inscriptions of the Psalms are sometimes enlarged from the Latin. Thus Ps. xxiv. is assigned to "the first day of the Sabbath." It is curious to read at

1 Westcott, History of English Bible, p. 294.

the beginning of Ps. xxvi. "a Psalm of David afore he was embalmed."

In

There is little requiring notice in the arrangement of the Great Bible. It contains no dedication. the table of contents the word “ Hagiographa ” (a name designating those books of the Old Testament which are not included under "the Law" and "the Prophets "such as Job, the Psalms, &c.) strangely takes the place of "Apocrypha." As in the earlier editions of the Great Bible Rogers's preface to the Apocryphal books is retained, we light upon the astonishing statement that "the books are called Hagiographa because they were wont to be read, not openly and in common, but as it were in secret and apart." The preliminary matter resembles that of Matthew's Bible. The Concordance, however, is omitted, and a short prologue is inserted, to explain the marks found in the text and margin. Short headings are usually prefixed to the chapters, but no book has a preface, unless the three or four lines expressing the general meaning of the Song of Solomon can be so considered.

Many copies of the Great Bible have been preserved. Mr. Fry, to whom we owe the most complete and accurate account of the various editions, has examined nearly one hundred and fifty copies; most of these, however, are incomplete, perfect copies being very rare. The library of the British Museum contains every one of the seven editions. At Lambeth Palace may be seen copies of the first two editions which may very possibly have belonged to Cranmer himself. Amongst the treasures of the library of St. John's College, Cambridge, is a splendid copy of Cromwell's Bible, printed on vellum and illuminated; another copy on vellum (April, 1540), presented by Anthony Marler to Henry VIII, is preserved in the British Museum. A useful reprint of the New Testament of 1539 will be found in Bagster's English Hexapla.

T is a significant saying, attributed to Rabbi Akiba: "Man and wife who are devout, the Shechinah is between them; if other wise, fire devours them." There is here a play upon the terms in the original, which it is not difficult to explain. The Hebrew word for man-AISH (pronounced Ish)-has for its middle letter the I; and that for woman—AiSHaH (pronounced Ishah)—for its final letter the H, which together form the word Jah (Jehovah); while if you remove these two letters there remain only AeSH (Esh), which means fire.1 The

1 The letters printed in capitals are the proper letters; those in small type the vowel-points. The saying is given in the Pirke R. Elieser in name of another Rabbi, and the explanation added, that the fire is that of spiritual destruction.

sentence is brief, and sounds peculiarly rabbinical. But like such aphorisms, it throws a flash of light on social matters-the position of woman, the marriage relationship, and family life in the ancient synagogue. Happily, there is here scarcely a dark side to the picture. And to this day Jewish family life may well serve as a model, shaming every other than a genuinely Christian household. Indeed, on no part of his subject can the impartial Jewish historian dwell with more satisfaction than on this. Quotations superficially made, and trite references to the ease with which divorce might be obtained, have produced a false popular impression, for which neither the Scriptures nor the teachings of the Rabbis afford warrant.

At the outset the reader should bear in mind the

almost immeasurable difference between the position of woman among the Hebrews and among all other Eastern nations. There was, indeed, concession in this, as in other matters, to "the hardness" of men's hearts-for all God's teaching is "little by little"-but comparison will here show a difference not in degree but in kind. Rabbinical sayings on this subject might be multiplied, but we prefer, in the first instance, to take our sketch from the Old Testament. The position of woman seems already implied in the account of her creation. Not only the New Testament (Mark x. 6) but the Rabbis trace back the institution of marriage to the state in Paradise. From the first woman was destined to be man's ezer, or help (Gen. ii. 18), and as such she is presented throughout the sacred story. Every one knows the position of equality and influence, sometimes even unduly so, of Sarah, Rebekah, Leah, and Rachel in the families of the patriarchs; how independently they were addressed, spoke, and acted. There is nothing like it in any other Eastern story, nor in the spirit of the times. And to this day the Jews are wont to name "the four mothers" as ancestral saints by the side of "the three fathers." For these many centuries has their reverent mention been repeated at the family service each night of the Paschal supper, till even this would have sufficed to make female equality a traditional household thought.

Of course the reasons of all this reach down to the very root of religious life in Israel. But the social conditions also were such as, on the one hand, to presuppose, and, on the other, to promote the proper position of woman. She was not shut up, as Eastern females are, in a separate part of the house, jealously guarded, but mingled freely with the other sex in the family, and among strangers. She entertained the guests, appeared at the family feasts and at marriages, took part in public festivals, went to the sanctuary—not unfrequently quite alone; in short, enjoyed free social intercourse, so far as at all possible in those times and circumstances. Even the occupations of women, as referred to in Scripture (e.g., Exod. xxxv. 25; 1 Sam. ix. 11; 2 Sam. xiii. 6, 8; Prov. xii. 4; xxxi. 13-24, &c.), show a marked contrast to the idleness of the harem. It is quite true that polygamy was not prohibited, and that divorces were possible. But it is well known that in Old and New Testament times monogamy seems, in practice, to have been the rule (compare Prov. xii. 4; xix. 14; xxxi. 10; Tobit i. 9; ii. 11; viii. 4, 13; Sus. 29, 63; Ecclus. xxvi. 1; Matt. xviii. 25; Luke 1.5; Acts v. 1), and that the exceptions chiefly lay with kings, or with the rich and luxurious. The Rabbis, indeed, also allowed a plurality of wives.

But the circumstance

that they limited their number;' that, according to their unanimous opinion, the high priest required to be monogamous; that the law fixed that the claims of the first married woman should take precedence of those

1 According to some, by the outward circumstances of a man; according to others, no civilian was to have more than four, nor princes more than eighteen wives.

of the second, the second of the third, and so on (Cheth. x.); and, finally, the provision that in case a man had lived in monogamy and afterwards became polygamous, his first wife might claim to be divorced (Yeb. 65, a)— all prove that the whole current of feeling was in the direction which we know Jewish life generally took. It has been well remarked, that even the symbolical representation of the union between Jehovah and His people seemed to point to monogamy.

From what has been stated it will be inferred, that ordinarily the choice of a wife must have lain with a youth himself, though no doubt there are even Biblical examples of betrothal on the part of the parents. The Rabbis expressly disapprove of engagements made through messengers, as likely to lead to disappointments. A woman was required to give her express consent, else the marriage was not valid. Of course this applied only to those who were of age. A girl was considered a minor up to twelve years and one day; from that time she was of age. While a minor her father (but not her mother) could betroth or give her in marriage. But once betrothed or married he lost his power over her, even though she had been divorced or become a widow during her minority. Similarly she might, if she attained majority after betrothal, insist upon divorce. Perhaps for our present purpose it may be best, first, briefly to state what, in the view of the ancient synagogue, should influence the choice of a wife; then to describe successively the rites of betrothal and of marriage, the legal enactments prohibiting or regulating marriage, and those referring to divorce; and lastly, to detail what were regarded as the mutual duties of married life.

The common proverb, "marriages are made in heaven,” is assuredly of Jewish origin (Ber. Rabba, 58). The destination of man and wife for each other was supposed to be God's special work, since creation had ended. Indeed, there is a story, that forty days before the birth of a child it is announced in heaven to whom he or she is to be wedded. But in all fairness this language is not that of fatalism; rather of reverent acknow. ledgment of God in the most important event of life. Quite in accordance with the principles which were to guide in the choice of a wife, it was said, that regard should, in the first place, be had to the family of a girl. For it was thought that daughters generally were like their fathers, and sons to their maternal uncles. If we put it this way: first, learning and piety (for in the Jewish mind the two covered each other), then descent, and lastly money, we have correctly indicated the degrees of a desirable union. If possible, a man should marry the daughter of a sage, or at least of the head of a synagogue, or of a parochial adminis trator, or of a schoolmaster. As for the unlettered, "they were dead even while living," according to Isa. xxvi. 14, and connection with them was only to be contemplated if the wealth thereby acquired were devoted to assist a sage in his studies.

We have felt ourselves at liberty to gather up the spirit of the Rabbis at different periods, because on