/' "It has been taken for granted by many, if not by all writers on this.Theĭate of the final rupture of Heniy YlII with the Pope causes it to be improbable that the printing wasĭone in London. Page and the one page of the introductory matter printed in the same type as the body of the work. Pressed almost immediately only one copy, belonging to the Earl of Leicester, has survived with this title The first edition was completed with a title page and introductory matter, which must have been sup. Good English, nor yet write none, and they wilbe both the printers and correctors thereof."^'' In 1537 for his interest to obtain the King's privilege to issue the edition of the Bible of that year, used theįollowing words : "Dutchmen, living in this realm, go about the printing of it: which can neither speak Richard Grafton, when writing to Cromwell Svas printed by Jacob van Meteren and Edward Whitchurch must be taken as the fact, unless the formalĭeposition made in due language be considered of no credit. That Jacob van Meteren is entitled to the honor of " ha"\'ing caused at his ownĬosts" the Bible of 1535 to be translated into English may be considered as finally established. Stevens maintained in this respect, but the place where the newly-discovered documentĥvas found, and the relationship of the deposer to Jacob van Meteren, give a position, the strength of whichĬan hardly be denied. I The error of stating that it was printed at Antwerp must be laid on Euytinck the original Dutch clearly In 1614, the question where it was printed,Īnd by whom, would have been considered of little moment. Iyhose cost, where and by whom the translation was made. Jx what must have been considered, then as now, the more important portions of the statement, viz., at JRuytinck ( perhaps altered by a re-s-iser ) concerning the father of his dear friend Emanuel. )f Emanuel van Meteren concerning his father must be taken in preference to the printed statement of That the English Bible was printed at AntweiqD.Ĭliis latter statement is corrected by the veiy document that Ruytinck had in his keeping. That Coverdale, as a learned student, was employed to translate.
That Tan Meteren paid "the cost of translating and printing."Ģ. )y name, to the great advancement of the kingdom of Jesus Christ in England." Paiytinck's statementġ. )b van Meteren "displayed his especial zeal in defraying the cost of translating and printing theĮnglish Bible in Antwerp, employing for that purpose the services of a learned student, Miles Coverdale Vill be Avell to give the translation of lluvtinck's original statement, so correctly stated by Mr. iz., "that Jacob van Meteren did not translate the Bible himself, but paid another for translating it." It 'nferencc that ^h: William Aldis Wriglit draws^ from the unfortunately expressed statement of lluytinck, J All will, no doubt, after the publication of the deposition of Emanuel van Meteren, agree with the Llusiontliat he certainly was not Coverdale, but might probably be Van Meteren himself." Li 1877-8.- Again, ^ " Next came up the question of the translator into English, and I came to the con. Stevens was in 1878, he, in 1884, "unquestionably" reaffirms his statements \)ntra-]N'os," who was, we believe, for a time connected with the Dutch Church of Austin Friars in Symeon lluytinck, the bosom friend of our " Emanuel Quis. He larger part of our statement to the llev. Itb.ers but, on the whole, we trust that our hurried account is substantially correct. Hcr and more careful investigation may compel us to somewhat modify some of these details, and to qualify Stevens was in 1878 inclined to doubt his own statements, for he then wrote " f ur.
#John voket star99 raddio full
Full text of " The marriage, baptismal and burial registers, 1571-1874, and monumental inscriptions of the Dutch Reformed Church, Austin Friars, London with a short account of the strangers and their churches"
0 kommentar(er)
