« AnteriorContinuar »
the chapters are divided into verses, as in our bibles; and the feveral editions from the vulgate Latin, which in the great bible were printed in fmall characters, are omitted, except 1 John, ch. v. 7. which is printed in the fame character with the reft of the text. To this edition, Parker added fome good notes, different from those of Tyndal and Coverdale, and two prefaces. In the one to the old teftament, he exhorted the people to study the scriptures, which, after St. Jerome, he termed the fcriptures of the people. In the preface to the new teftament, he advised the reader not to be offended with the diversity of translation. After the preface to the old teftament, Cranmer's prologue is inferted; and before, the Pfalms there is a prologue of St. Bafil. On the margin, befides the notes, there are references, and the whole is embellished with cuts and maps. This bible, on account of the pains which the bishops took in perfecting it, was called the bishops bible, and was authorifed to be read in the churches. Yet it was found fault with by some, on pretence that it was not as exact as it should be; because in the old teftament it does not always follow the Hebrew, but in fome places is on purpose accommodated to the LXX. and is disfigured with divers errors. But Lewis fays, the bishops bible hath fared fomewhat the worse through the intemperate zeal of the fticklers for the Geneva tranflation. In 1572, the bishops bible was reprinted in folio, in the fame fplendid manner as in 1568, with a few additions and alterations.
L. THOMSON'S NEW TESTAMENT.-In the year 1983, one Laurence Thomson, an under fecretary to Sir F. Walfinghame, published an English verfion of Beza's Latin tranflation of the new teftament, to which he added notes from Beza, Camerarius, and others. This tranflation differs fo very little from the Geneva bible, that it was fometimes printed with the Geneva tranflation of the old teftament.
RHEMISH NEW TESTAMENT.-The English papifts, who, after queen Mary's death fled to Rhemes, finding it imprac ticable to hinder their countrymen from having the fcriptures in their mother-tongue, publifhed an Englifh tranflation of the new teftament from the authentical Latin; that is from the vulgate, printed at Rhemes by John Fogny, in the year 1582. At the fame time they promised a tranflation of the old teftament in the fame language. Their tranflation of the new teftament, the Rhe
mifts rendered unintelligible to common readers, by introducing into it a number of hard words, neither Greek, nor Latin, nor English, but a barbarous mixture of the three languages; such as, Azymes, Tunike, Holocauft, Prepuce, Pafche, Parafceue, Neopyte, Evangelize, Penance, Chalice, Hoft, &c. Thefe are what the Romish clergy call ecclefiaftical and facred words; and by affirming that they contain certain deep and inexplicable meanings, they have raised in the minds of the vulgar a fuperftitious veneration of the clerical orders, to the enflaving of their confciences (See p. 14.) To their tranflation, the Rhemifts added notes, from what they called catholic tradition, from the expofitions of the fathers, and from the decrees of popes and councils, for the fupport of the Romish errors. This is what goes by the name of the Rhemish new teftament.—In the year 1589, Dr. Fulke, master of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, reprinted this tranflation, together with that of the bishops bible, in two columns; and in his notes confuted all its arguments, gloffes, annotations, manifeft impieties, and flanders against the tranflations used in the church of England; and dedicated the whole to queen Elizabeth.
Doway Bible.—About 27 years after the publication of the Rhemish new teftament, an English tranflation of the old teftament, from the authentical Latin, came forth from the English college of Doway, in two vols. 4to; the first in the year 1609, the fecond in 1610, both printed at Doway, by Laurence Kellam. But this tranflation is of the fame complexion with the Rhemish new teftament, having been made many years before in the college of Rhemes, by the very fame perfons who tranflated the new teftament: for it was only revised and published by their brethren of the college of Doway.
KING JAMES'S BIBLE.-Queen Elizabeth dying in March 1602, was fucceeded by James VI. king of Scotland, who, foon after his arrival at London, received a petition from the puritan ministers, defiring a reformation of certain ceremonies and abuses in the church. In confequence of this petition, the king appointed several bishops and deans, together with the principal petitioners, to meet him at Hampton-court, January 12, 1603, to confer with him on these abuses. On the second day of the conference, the puritans proposed that a new translation of the bible should be made; and no one oppofing the propofition, the
king, in the following year 1604, appointed 54, or according to others 47 perfons learned in the languages, for revising the common translation. These he divided into fix companies, and to the feveral companies he allotted certain books of scripture to be tranflated or amended by each individual of the company fepa rately. And that they might execute their work in the best manner, he prescribed to them certain rules which they were to observe. The first was; the ordinary bible read in the churches, commonly called the bishops bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original would permit.-The third was; the old ecclefiaftical words to be kept; as the word church not to be tranflated congregation, &c.-The fifth; the divifion of the chapters to be altered, either not at all, or as little as might be.The fixth; no marginal notes to be affixed, but only for explaining the Hebrew and Greek words, which could not be expreffed in the text without fome eircumlocution.-The eighth; every particular man of each company to take the fame chapter or chapters; and having amended or tranflated them severally by himfelf, where he thought good, all were to meet together to compare what they had done, and to agree on what they thought should stand. The ninth; when any one company had finished any book in the manner prescribed, to fend it to the other companies to be confidered by them.-The fourteenth; the translations of Tyndal, Coverdale, Matthew, Whitechurch, (the great bible) and Geneva, to be used where they agree better with the original than the bishops bible.-This, therefore, was not to be a new translation, but a correction only or amendment of the bishops bible.--The tranflators entered on their work in spring 1607.
Selden, in his table-talk, fays, The king's tranflators took an excellent way. That part of the bible was given to the person who was moft excellent in fuch a tongue. And then they met together, and one read the tranflation, the reft holding in their hands fome bible, either of the learned tongues, or French, Spanish, Italian, &c. If they found any fault, they spoke; if not, he read on.
After long and earnest expectation, the bible, thus revised, came out in the year 1611, dedicated to the king: and is that which at prefent is ufed in all the British dominions.
To this edition of the bible, it hath been objected, 1. That it often
often differs from the Hebrew, to follow the LXX. if not the German tranflation; particularly in the proper names.-2. That the tranflators, following the vulgate Latin, have adopted many of the original words, without tranflating them; fuch as, ballelujah, hofannah, mammon, anathema, &c. by which they have rendered their verfion unintelligible to a mere English reader. But they may have done this, in compliance with the king's injunction concerning the old ecclefiaftical words, and because, by long use, many of them were as well understood by the people, as if they had been English.-3. That by keeping too close to the Hebrew and Greek idioms, they have rendered their version obscure.— 4. That they were a little too complaisant to the king, in favouring his notions of predeftination, election, witchcraft, familiar fpirits, &c. But these, it is probable, were their own opinions as well as the king's.-5. That their translation is partial, speaking the language of, and giving authority to one fect. But this, perhaps, was owing to the restraint they were laid under by those who employed them.-6. That where the original words and phrases admitted of different tranflations, the worse translation, by plurality of voices, was put into the text, and the better was often thrown into the margin.-7. That notwithstanding all the pains taken in correcting this, and the former editions of the English bible, there still remain many paffages mis-tranflated, either through negligence or want of knowledge: and that to other paffages improper additions are made, which pervert the sense; as Matt. xx. 23. where by adding the words, it shall be given, it is infinuated, that some other person than the Son, will distribute rewards at the day of judgment.
Such are the objections which have been made to the king's tranflation by the proteftants. They are mentioned here as hiftorical facts. How far they are juft, lies with the reader to confider. The objections made by the papifts, were the same with those which were made to the former translations; and particularly, that feveral texts are mis-tranflated, from the tranflators' averfion to the doctrines and usages of the church of Rome.
If the reader defires more full information concerning the English translations of the bible, he may confult Anthony Johnfon's historical account, published at London in 1730; alfo John Lewis's complete hiftory of the feveral tranflations of the bible
in English, 2d edit. published at London in 1739. From which treatises, most of the facts relating to the English translations of the bible, mentioned in this section, are taken.
Since the commencement of the prefent century, several English translations of the gofpels and epiftles have been published by private hands. But they are little different in the sense from the king's tranflation; or, if they differ, it is occafioned by their giving the sense of a few paffages, not in a different tranflation, but in paraphrafes which do not truly exprefs the meaning of the original. And even where the meaning is truly expreffed, it cannot be faid that the tranflation is improved by thefe paraphrases, at least in those inftances where the fenfe could have been reprefented with equal strength and perfpicuity, in a literal verfion.
From the foregoing account of the English translations of the bible, it appears, that they are not different tranflations, but different editions of Tyndal and Coverdale's tranflation. It appears likewife, that Tyndal and Coverdale's tranflation, of which the reft are copies, was not made from the originals, but from the vulgate Latin. For as they did not fay in the title-pages that their tranflation was made from the originals, and as Coverdale, in particular, declared in his prefaces to Hollybushe's new teftament, that he fwerved as little as poffible from his Latin text, it is reasonable to think that Tyndal and he made their tranflation from that text. Befides, it did not fuit their purpose to tranflate from the originals. The vulgate Latin text being the only word of God that was then known to the people, and even to many of the clergy, thefe tranflators knew, that the nearer their version approached to the Latin bible, they would be the less offenfive; a confideration which Coverdale acknowledges in his prefaces, had great weight with him.
As Tyndal and Coverdale made their tranflation from the vulgate, they could hardly avoid adopting a number of its errors, Some that were palpable, they corrected, especially when the fenfe of the paffage fuggefted the correction. But in tranflating the more difficult texts, which they did not understand, they im, plicitly followed the vulgate, as Luther, Erafmus and others had done before them. It is true, their tranflation was often corrected, in the editions of the English bible, which were published