At the outset I ought to say something about myself briefly so that you know where I am coming from. When I became a Christian in 1972 there was pretty much only one Bible. It was almost always black and it was the AV. However, I was aware of other translations. At Sunday School sometimes we would read in a circle and somebody would have a different translation. At home we had a green Bible – the New World Translation of the Watchtower Society! I soon learned what to think of that. When I began at Secondary School we were all given purple Bibles – the RSV. I was also warned off that. In other circles everyone seemed to have a Living Bible or a Good News Bible, but I was warned that these were paraphrases. Elementary studies in Koine Greek made me aware that the AV was not perfect but I was assured by my minister that it was the one to hold on to, and that is what I did until I was about 20 and I bought my first NIV, as a supplementary Bible. I found it so much easier to understand that I never went back to the AV. I think I am reasonably sympathetic to those who would see that move as regrettable but maybe I am not as sympathetic as I think I am!
Before
the AV
When coming to a study of the history of the KJV it is important to remember that it did not fall from the sky ready formed but was the result in part of at least two centuries of previous work on translating the Bible into English. The important predecessors are perhaps known to you. There are six or seven of them.
- Tyndale's New Testament, 1526. First and most important is the New Testament of the father of the English Bible William Tyndale (1494-1536).
- Coverdale's Bible, 1535. Tyndale did not complete his work on the Old Testament. However, in 1535 a complete English Bible was published by Miles Coverdale (1488-1569) who translated using Latin and German sources only. Coverdale's Psalm versions have survived in the Prayer Book and rival the popularity of those found in the KJV.
- The Matthew Bible, 1537. Shortly after Coverdale came the Matthew Bible (Thomas Matthew was a pseudonym for its assembler John Rogers, born around 1500 and martyred in 1555). This Bible was mostly Tyndale's (anonymous) work, supplemented where necessary by Coverdale's (ie Ezra-Malachi and the Apocrypha).
- The Great (Whitchurch) Bible, 1539 . Printing began in Paris but was completed in London, the first Bible to be published in England. Coverdale supervised the work. It is chiefly a revision of the Matthew Bible in light of Munster's Hebrew Testament and the fifth edition of Erasmus's New Testament (both 1535). Coverdale retained his own version of the Psalms.
- The Geneva (Breeches) Bible, 1560 (NT 1557). Following Mary's accession (1553) many Protestants fled the country, some to Calvin's Geneva, where the English were pastored by William Whittingham (1524-1557). There he translated the New Testament (leaning on the Great Bible and Tyndale). A complete Bible appeared in 1560. The Old Testament was a collaboration between Whittingham, Knox, Coverdale and two others. The first Bible to include verse numbers, unlike previous Bibles, it was intended chiefly for private study. For this reason it contained maps, tables and marginal notes or comments, some of which offended King James and others. (In 1579 a “King James version” appeared in Scotland but James was only 13 at the time so had little say in the matter no doubt). This is why the KJV had none until the appearance centuries later of the first Scofield Bible (1909). Early on the two Bibles were sometimes distinguished as with notes (Geneva) and without (AV). Someone did produce a version of the AV with Geneva notes in 1672. Very popular, there were 70 editions of the Geneva Bible by 1644. Over the years two versions of the text and notes of Revelation grew up. The Puritan Bible, its cheapness and size drew many other readers. In 1616 printing it in England was outlawed and that, along with the increasing saleability of the AV, contributed to its demise.
- The Bishops Bible, 1568. The Bishops did not like the anti-episcopal notes in Geneva and they soon produced a revision of the Great Bible to rival it. Known for its dignity rather than its clarity, 20 editions appeared by 1602.
- Douai-Rheims, 1610 (NT 1582). This Roman Catholic translation from Latin may not seem worth mentioning but the New Testament is said to have had an influence on the KJV translators who needed to take note of it.
By 1611 three of these versions were still in print – Geneva for
the Puritans, the unadorned Bishops Bible for Anglicans and the
Doaui-Rheims for Romanists.
How the AV was proposed
The story of the commissioning of the Authorised Version, as it is
often called, is fairly well known. The tension that existed between
the various parties under Elizabeth I came to a head with the arrival
of a new monarch following Elizabeth's death in 1603. Scotland's
James I was an unknown quantity in England and the Puritans, like
others, were hopeful that he would prove sympathetic to their cause.
As soon as he came into England they handed him their millennary
petition, seeking his favour. This lead to the setting up of the
famous conference in Hampton Court Palace, January 14-18 1604.
Participants were chiefly bishops and deans of the established church
but four moderate Puritans were also invited – John Rainolds
(1549-1607, President of Corpus Christi, Oxford), Laurence Chaderton
(c1536-1640, Master of the very Puritan Emmanuel, Cambridge), John
Knewstub (144-1524, a Suffolk rector and Cambridge fellow) and Thomas
Sparke (1548-1616, a Lincolnshire minister). One modern writer speaks
of them as being a second division team chosen by James to face his
league champions!
The
conference was not really intended to discuss Bible translations but
on the second day of discussion Rainolds (according to Barlow's
official account) “moved
his majesty that there might be a new translation of the Bible,
because those which were allowed in the reign of king Henry the
Eighth and Edward the Sixth were corrupt and not answerable to the
truth of the original.” This was a widely accepted view. Back in
Elizabeth's reign Hugh Broughton (1549-1612), who had publicly
tangled with Rainolds and later a fierce critic of the AV, had
petitioned the Queen about a new translation. It may have been that
Rainolds was hoping that the Geneva Bible would be authorised. What
happened, it
seems, is that James seized on the suggestion and urged his bishops
to it. David Norton points out that at a General Assembly of the
Church of Scotland two years before James, who had a thorough
knowledge of the Bible and was conversant with the ancient tongues,
had urged a new translation and a new psalter and had even set about
producing his own metrical psalms. James no doubt liked the idea of a
new Bible that could supplant the Geneva and be connected with his
own name, as it still is. The idea of a Bible to unite the warring
factions was also attractive. It is his promotion of the idea that
lead to his being referred to, in the dedication to the translation,
using almost divine terms, as “the principal mover and author of
the work”.
How the AV was planned
Previous translations had mostly been done by individuals but this
one was to be done by a group of about fifty men. Originally 54 were
commissioned but most lists include only 47. Probably the figure 54
includes revisers brought in at a later stage. Several died before
the project was completed (Lively, Hutchinson, Dakins, Rainolds,
Ravis, Aglionby). These were not replaced, it seems.
There
is some lack of clarity over this. For example, lists
of translators for the first Oxford company (Isa-Mal) always have the
same seven names (Harding, Rainolds, Holland, Kilby, Smith, Brett,
Fairclough). However, in a petition signed in 1606 by 14 bishops, two
known translators, William Thorne, Regius Professor of Hebrew at
Oxford, is said to be “now likewise very necessarily employed in
the translation of that part of the Old Testament which is remitted
to that university.” he was probably one of the seven overseers
appointed for further revision.
The teams worked chiefly in six committees or companies of about 7-10
- two in Westminster (Gen-2 Kings/NT Epistles), two in Cambridge (1
Chron-Canticles/Apocrypha) and two in Oxford (Isa-Malachi/Gospels,
Acts, Revelation). These men are sometimes written of as great and
holy men, which many of them were. In 1858 Alexander McClure wrote
that “the translators enjoyed the highest degree of that special
guidance which is ever granted to God's true servants in exigencies
of deep concernment to his kingdom”. It is important to remember
that they were chosen, however, chiefly for their scholarly ability
not for their piety as such. The translators were not paid but all
had positions in the church that paid them well enough.
With his advisers James drew up a list of guidelines for them.
1. The Bishops Bible to be followed where possible. Hence in the
preface they say that their intention was “not to make a new
translation ... but to make a good one better”. This was often done
but by no means always.
14. Other translations to be used - Tyndale, Matthew, Coverdale,
Great, Geneva. You may notice that nothing was said about what text
to translate from. English style rarely seems to have been a chief
concern. Accuracy was the thing.
2. Proper names to retain their English style. This was often not
done and there is no consistency.
3. “Old Ecclesiastical Words to be kept, viz the Word Church not to
be translated Congregation &c”
4. Where a word can be translated more than one way, the word “most
commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers” to be used.
5. No changes in chapter divisions if possible.
6. No marginal notes except for alternative readings. There were
eventually 6,637 of these.
7. Where Scripture refers to other parts of Scripture a reference to
be given in the margin.
8. Individuals to translate their allotted portion first then
finalise it with others in their company.
9. The other companies then to weigh up what each company produced.
10. A final select arbitrating company also envisaged.
11. Help to be sought wherever it could be found on difficult
passages.
12. All bishops and other scholars to be encouraged to contribute.
13. Directors of each Company to be the Deans of Westminster and
Chester and the King's Professors in Hebrew or Greek in either
University.
15. (Added later) Besides the stated Directors, three or four “of
the most Ancient and Grave Divines, in either of the Universities,
not employed in Translating” to be assigned to be “Overseers of
the Translations”. Four of these names are known. A further
committee of two (Miles Smith 1554-1624, who wrote the preface, and
Thomas Bilson 1547-1616, who may have written the sycophantic
dedication) also acted as revisers, with Richard Bancroft, Archbishop
of Canterbury (1544-1610) having the final say.
It was also intended from the beginning that words necessary only to
make sense of the passage but not in the text should be put in a
different typeface, as they still are). Arguments were to be placed
before each book and headings to each chapter. A map was also to be
included.
Robert Barker (d 1645), the royal printer, supplied the translators
with 40 unbound copies of the 1602 Bishops Bible, which could be
annotated. The Bodleian library has a collection of these sheets,
which have subsequently been bound together, that process
frustratingly hiding some of the notes made.
There
is evidence, then, that, as the translators declare in the preface,
they worked very thoroughly. It “hath
cost the workmen, as light as it seemeth, the pains of twice seven
times seventy two days and more” they say “...
neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring
back
to
the anvil that which we had hammered ...”.
How the AV was produced
It has been suggested that King James lost interest in the project
as the years went by but it is more likely that he was occupied with
other matters. When it finally did appear some years later, in 1611,
there was something of a rush to get it out it and there seems to
have been little fanfare.
Barker
bore the cost of the printing (and subsequently suffered for it,
dying in debtors prison). In 1611 he produced two folio editions of
the Bible. These two were famously known as the “He” and “She”
Bibles. This refers to Ruth 3:15 where the Hebrew has He
though the context demands She
(as
in the Bishops Bible and subsequent KJVs). Also in Lev 1:6 the He
Bible
has “flay the
burnt offering” and the She
Bible
“slay
the burnt offering”. There also seems to have been some problem
with the marginalia. Otherwise printing errors seem to have been
quite low - around the 350 mark.
These early Bibles were in old fashioned black letter with the
headers, chapter summaries and supplied words in Roman type.
Initially they were unbound; binding was a separate task. There were
74 introductory pages, consisting of
• A
title page
• A
dedicatory epistle to King James
• A
preface from the translators
• A
Calendar
• An
Almanac
• A
table for the calculation of Easter
• A
table and calendar setting out the order of psalms and lessons to be
said at morning and evening prayers throughout the year
• A
list of books of the Testaments and the Apocrypha
• The
Royal coat of arms and a Latin statement that the book was printed
‘by authority of the King’
•
Genealogies
• A
table of the place names in Canaan
• A
map of Canaan
How the AV was perceived in the earliest years
The book that was eventually
produced was, and was intended to be staid, even majestic in style.
When Luther had translated the Bible long before he had wanted it to
read as though “it had been written only yesterday” but things
had now moved on and something more respectable and safe was sought,
even to the point of using language that, even at the time, seemed
slightly archaic. One wit called it the first effort at “mock
tudor”.They wanted something that was not only clear but that
sounded good on the ear. It was also intended to be a unifier,
which, perhaps surprisingly, it turned out to be.
The
early comments of Hugh
Broughton, not chosen as a translator, are fairly well known. “The
late Bible” he says “was sent to me to censure: which bred in me
a sadness that will grieve me while I breathe, it is so ill done.
Tell His Majesty that I had rather be rent in pieces with wild
horses than any such translation by my consent should be urged upon
poor churches - The new edition crosseth me. I require it to be
burnt.” No doubt a certain amount of sour grapes entered in here.
Hebrew scholar John Selden (1584-1654) was approving but pointed out
that “the Bible is translated into
English words rather than English phrases. The Hebraisms are
kept and the phrase of that language is kept. As for example,
“he uncovered her shame,” which is well enough so long as
scholars have to do with it, but when it comes among the common
people, Lord what gear they make of it.”
Some
Puritans also questioned the lack of precision and no doubt people
noticed things like the famous use of the word charity
in 1 Corinthians 13 and the translation in Romans 14 “Him that is
weak in faith receive but not to doubtful disputations” (Tyndale
has “not in disputing and troubling his conscience”).
Criticism
would have come as no surprise to the translators who say in their
preface “whosoever
attempteth anything for the public (especially if it pertain to
Religion, and to the opening and clearing of the word of God) the
same setteth himself upon a stage to be gloated upon by every evil
eye, yea, he casteth himself headlong upon pikes, to be gored by
every sharp tongue. For he that meddleth with men’s Religion in
any part, meddleth with their custom, nay, with their freehold; and
though they find no content
in that which they have, yet they cannot abide to hear of altering.”
Though
there were few major objections there was no great rush to adopt the
AV either. The Geneva remained the most popular version for a
generation to come.
How the AV was perceived from
the 1620s to the 1880s
The AV really became popular only after those early years had passed. Even Milton in his Paradise Lost of 1667 and Bunyan in his Pilgrim's Progress of 1678 were still using the Geneva version alongside the AV. As early as 1645 John Lightfoot (1602-1675) was calling for a revision and, according to David Norton, twice in the 1650s (1652 or 53 and 1657) official attempts (one under the Baptist Henry Jessey) were made to bring about revision, but these came to nothing.
It took some time for all the churches in the land to replace their lectern Bibles with the AV and the Geneva Bible continued to be popular even after it was banned by Archbishop Laud in the 1630s. However, by the time of the civil wars in the 1640s the AV was beginning to become the standard Bible for more and more people, whichever side of the divide they were on.
From as a early as 1656 it began to be used as an educational tool a well as an aid to devotion and that has had a big impact. For generations the first book people read was the AV. The literatti were not convinced at first but eventually came to appreciate its merits so that it came to be known as “the noblest monument of English prose”.
The text of the AV itself was not completely settled, as is well known, until 1769. David Norton has interestingly stated (110) that there is no clear evidence that the final manuscript of the AV “was used from after the first edition was printed: it may have been referred to but subsequent editions were made, with an increasing degree of randomness, from earlier editions, not from the manuscript.”
There were four major revisions of the text – in 1629 by Samuel Ward and John Bois; in 1638 by the Cambridge University Press; in 1762 by Dr Thomas Paris of Trinity College, Cambridge and in 1769 by Dr Benjamin Blayney.
It
is said that some 24,000 changes were made altogether down the years
but this would include the Apocrypha and changes in the marginal
notes too. Although most of these were to do with updating
spellings, correcting printing errors, replacing obsolete words and
such like there is evidence to say that some changes were a little
more significant than that. F
H A Scrivener’s
volume, The
Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611): Its Subsequent
Reprints and Modern Representatives
documents
hundreds of textual revisions of the original 1611 version. In an
appendix he reveals that a
number of the revisions were corrections
of translation errors.
Even D A Waite admits “136
substantial changes that were different words ... 136 changes of
substance”
The AV eventually became so
popular that although people were aware of deficiencies in it (there
were some 30 alternative translations of the Bible or the New
Testament by 1800, including Wesley's revision “for plain,
unlettered men who understand only their Mother tongue”) nothing
could dislodge it from its supreme position in America and
throughout the British Empire.
Its
growing popularity in the 19th
Century can be gauged from the quotations that are often cited of
the approval of Thomas Macaulay (1800-1859), John Ruskin
(1819-1900), Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) and even Darwin's Bulldog
Thomas Huxley (1825-1859). It should be noted that when these
quotations are produced the writers are really talking about the
Bible rather than the AV as such, although there is no doubt that it
is this version that they are familiar with. I think a better
literary commendation of the AV is that of William Blake (1757-1827)
who when he began learning Hebrew said “astonishing indeed is the
English translation, it is almost word for word” and nothing short
of inspired!
In 1881 the Revised Version
appeared. It had been mooted back in 1870 by Samuel Wilberforce
(1805-1873) and was executed on similar lines to the KJV. American
scholars were originally involved and in 1898 they produced the
American Revised Version. The RV was “to introduce as few
alterations as possible into the text of the Authorised Version
consistently with faithfulness”. A modern writer suggests that
while the RV may have been more accurate, it “lacked the rhythm of
the original” and is “the literary equivalent of a pseudo-Gothic
cathedral”. Never popular, it was not able to dislodge the AV from
its pre-eminence. Something similar could be said for the RSV
(1952).
How
the AV is perceived today
In
the 19th
and 20th
centuries there were scores and scores of translations, some of
which have become very popular. Some can be quite passionate about
their own preferred version. Meanwhile, the AV continues to be read
by large numbers of people, especially in the USA. In his book The
King James Only Controversy James
White helpfully suggests that we can divide
what has been called by some the King James Only movement into some
five main types.
KJV
First
First,
there are those who simply say they prefer the KJV. This group does
not necessarily believe that the KJV is the only acceptable version.
They simply prefer the KJV over other translations because their
church uses it, because they have always used it or because they
simply like its style.
Some
perhaps would want to go further and say that overall the AV is the
best. Joel Beeke is one who advocates its use for practical reasons.
He gives 13 practical arguments. Let me pick out some of them.
1.
It is the standard text of the English Bible. Choose the known over against the unknown, he says. The AV is uniquely well
established in the market-place and the literature of Christian
scholarship. It will continue to be produced in many editions for
years to come.
3.
It uses a more faithful translation method, that is
verbal equivalence (‘word for word’) rather than dynamic
equivalence (‘meaning for meaning’) as in the NIV.
4.
It is a more honest translation. Italics identify
every word or phrase not in the original.
5.
It uses the more precise Thee and Thou.
6.
It is the best liturgical text. It excels
as a version to be used in public worship.
7.
It is in the best format for preaching – laid out in verses rather
than paragraphs
8.
It is the most beautiful translation
9.
It is an ecumenical text for Reformed Christians. No
other version has been used so widely among evangelical Christians
10.
It is a practical choice. It is
available in many editions; with a full range of helps and reference
materials, not to mention computer software.
11.
It ‘sounds’ like the Bible. The translators sought a reverend
hearing, and to suggest the timeless and eternal character of God’s
Word. It is timeless and other worldly.
Textual
Argument
Like
Beeke many argue from a textual point of view. They argue that the
AV's textual base is the most accurate. These conclude that the KJV
is based on better manuscripts. Such people would accept a modern
version based on the same manuscripts as the KJV. White claims Zane
C Hodges is a good example of this group. However, Hodges would
consider that the Majority Text "corrects" the Received
Text as seen eg, in the Majority Text textual apparatus of the NKJV.
The TBS would probably fit here. It says that it “does not believe
the Authorised Version to be a perfect translation, only that it is
the best available translation in the English language”, and that
it “believes this text is superior to the texts used by the United
Bible Societies and other Bible publishers, which texts have as
their basis a relatively few seriously defective manuscripts from
the 4th century and which have been compiled using 20th century
rationalistic principles of scholarship.”
Received
Text only
This is
the view that sees the traditional Hebrew and Greek texts as being
supernaturally preserved. Again although the AV is believed to be a
translation exemplar, it is believed that other translations based
on these texts have the potential to be equally good. Donald Waite
would fall into this category.
Inspired
These
people believe that the AV itself was divinely inspired. They see
the translation to be preserved by God and as accurate as the
original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts found in its underlying texts.
Sometimes this group will even exclude other language versions based
on the same manuscripts, claiming the KJV to be the only Bible.
New
Revelation
These
people would go even further and say that the AV is a “new
revelation” or an “advanced revelation” from God. It can and
should be the standard from which all other translations originate.
Adherents to this belief may also believe that the original-language
Hebrew and Greek can be corrected by the KJV. This view is often
called “Ruckmanism” after Peter Ruckman, a staunch advocate of
this view. These latter two views have also been referred to as
“double inspiration”.
These
types are not all mutually exclusive, nor is this a comprehensive
summary of those who prefer the KJV. Douglas Wilson, for example,
argues that the AV is superior because of its manuscript tradition,
its translational philosophy (with updates to the language being
regularly necessary), and its ecclesiastical authority, having been
created by the church and authorised for use in the church. The
logistics of the KJV's wide availability and public domain status
also come into play, on top of or apart from any theological
preference.
In the
light of these differences, it is important that those who support
the AV distinguish themselves from those apparent friends who are
really no friends at all. It is equally important that those who are
not AV advocates carefully distinguish among the pro-AV advocates.
Memorable
One matter often debated is whether the AV is easier to memorise
than other versions. Many of us have an inkling that it is. There is
a good argument to say it is as set out in this paragraph from
Gordon Campbell's book (80)
“The balance between the public
reading and private study of the Bible has shifted over the
centuries with the rise in literacy. In the 17th
Century the Bible was more often heard than read, and it is clear
that the translators had the practice of reading aloud (in homes as
well as churches) in mind. Part of the evidence for this is
punctuation, which tends to be rhetorical rather than grammatical,
but the clearest manifestation of the emphasis on the need to
provide a text that can be read aloud is the rhythms of the KJV. The
text is prose, but it often has the pulse of poetry. Adam, blaming
Eve for the fall, says ‘She gave me of the tree, and I did eat’
(Genesis 3:12), a perfect iambic pentameter line (and one that
Milton incorporated intact into Paradise Lost); in the next verse
God says to Eve ‘what is this that thou hast done?’ (Genesis
3:13), a perfect iambic tetrameter line. The seventeen words I have
quoted are all monosyllables cast into prose but the regular rhythm
makes them easy to read aloud.” (Campbell 80)
Ten
myths about the AV
In conclusion and by way of partial summary I thought we might
finish with ten myths with regard to the AV. These may be
contentious. We will see.
1. It is the authorised version
Documentation
may have been lost, but it would seem that though the original title
page usually included the phrase “appointed to be read in
churches”, unlike the Great Bible, there was never any edict of
convocation, act of parliament or royal decree authorising this
Bible. Modern writers usually make this point. It was “never, in
fact, authorised” (David Daniell). “It was not an authorised
version in any meaningful sense of those words” (Derek Wilson). The
first reference to Authorised Version in the OED is as late as 1824.
2. It was a brand new translation
Despite
the title page's “newly translated out of the original languages”
we know that the translators diligently consulted the previous
versions and, as instructed, tried not to depart from the Bishops
Bible any more than strictly necessary.
3. It was the Bible of the Puritans
Although
there was Puritan support for the KJV, it is the earlier Geneva Bible
that has the best claim to be regarded as the Puritan Bible, that is,
the one they most often used until it was outlawed.
4. It was the Bible of Shakespeare, Milton and Bunyan
More
than one scholar has noted that Shakespeare's writings are saturated
with Scriptural thoughts and words. He died in 1616 and so it should
be no surprise that the evidence points to his having learned what he
knew of the Bible from the Geneva version. Milton and Bunyan were
later and do use the AV but follow the Geneva at least as often.
5. It has only begun to sound old fashioned in the last hundred
years
There is
evidence rather that even when it first appeared the KJV would have
sounded old fashioned. They appear to have sought an elevated and
slightly archaic style.
6. All the translators were godly Calvinists
The 50 or
so translators were all Protestants, chosen for their scholarly
ability rather than anything else. There is evidence to say that
there were Arminians among them and, in at least one case, a man who
had a problem with alcohol (Richard “Dutch” Thomson). This is
similar, perhaps, to the way that among
those involved with the NIV translation there was one who proved
later to be guilty of homosexuality.
7. It has been popular ever since it was first published
Uptake of
the KJV when it was first published was pretty slow and it was some
years before it even began to be as popular as it has become.
8. People who use the AV are using the 1611 version
There are
currently two slightly different versions of the AV commonly in print
today (the Cambridge and Oxford versions). These both date back to
the final revision of 1769. Between 1611 and 1769 there were as many
as 24, 000 changes. Some of these were of some significance.
9. The KJV always uses word for word translation
Although
the KJV translators usually aimed at a word for word rendering, they
were not afraid to use a dynamic equivalent where they thought it
appropriate. So for example they regularly translate Paul's “May it
not be” (as in Romans 6:2) as God forbid.
10. There are no arguments for using the KJV today
Many
people today have long abandoned the AV and can see no reason for
retaining it. Joel Beeke and others, however, give several reasons
for doing so. The fact it was good enough for St Paul is not one of
them. We may disagree with what such people say but to say that there
is no reason to carry on using the AV today is to overstate the case.
Paper given at the Evangelical Library
