Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the chapters are divided into verses, as in our bibles; and the several editions from the vulgate Latin, which in the great bible were printed in fmall characters, are omitted, except i John, ch. v. 7. which is printed in the same character with the rest 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 fcriptures, which, after St. Jerome, he termed the scriptures of the people. In the preface to the new testament, he advised the reader not to be offended with the diversity of translation. After the preface to the old testament, Cranmer's prologue is inserted ; and before the Psalms there is a prologue of St. Bafil. On the margin, besides 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 authorised 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 testament it does not always follow the Hebrew, but in some places is on purpose accommodated to the LXX. and is disfigured with divers errors. But Lewis says, the bishops bible hath fared somewhat the worse through the intemperate zeal of the sticklers for the Geneva translation. In 1572, the bishops bible was reprinted in folio, in the same 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 secretary to Sir F. Walsinghame, published an English version of Beza's Latin translation of the new testament, to which he added notes from Beza, Camerarius, and others. This translation differs so very little from the Geneva bible, that it was sometimes printed with the Geneva translation of the old testament.

RHEMISH NEW TESTAMENT.-The English papists, who, after queen Mary's death fled to Rhemes, finding it impracticable to hinder their countrymen from having the furiptures in their mother-tongue, published an English translation of the new testament from the authentical Latin; that is from the vulgate, printed at Rhemes by John Fogny, in the year 1582. At the same time they promised a translation of the old teitament in the 'fame language. Their translation of the new testament, the Rhemists 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, Hof, &c. These are what the Romish clergy call ecclefiaftical and sacred 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 enslaving of their consciences (See p. 14.) To their translation, the Rhemists added notes, from what they called catholic tradition, from the expositions of the fathers, and from the decrees of popes and councils, for the support of the Romish errors. This is what goes by the name of the Rhemish new testament. In the year 1589, Dr. Fulke, master of Pembroke-hall, Cambridge, reprinted this translation, together with that of the bishops bible, in two columns; and in his notes confuted all its arguments, glofjes, annotatisns, manifest impieties, and sanders against the translations 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 testament, an English translation of the old testament, from the authentical Latin, came forth from the English college of Doway, in two vols. 4to; the first in the year 1609, the second in 1610, both printed at Doway, by Laurence Kellam. But this translation is of the same complexion with the Rhemish new testament, having been made many years before in the college of Rhemes, by the very fame persons who translated the new testament: 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 succeeded by James VI. king of Scotland, who, soon after his arrival at London, received a petition from the puritan ministers, defiring a reformation of certain ceremonies and abuses in the church. In consequence 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 opposing the propofition, the king, in the following year 1604, appointed 54, or according to others 47 persons learned in the languages, for revising the common translation. These he divided into fix companies, and to the several companies he allotted certain books of scripture to be tranflated or amended by each individual of the company separately. 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 trandated congregation, &c.-The fifth; the division 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 expressed in the text without some circumlocution.—The eighth ; every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters; and having amended or translated them severally by himself, 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 send it to the other companies to be considered 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 originai than the bishops bible.-This, therefore, was not to be a new translation, but a correction only or amendment of the bishops bible.--The translators entered on their work in spring бо-7.

Selden, in his table-talk, says, The king's translators tock an excellent

way. That part of the bible was given to the person who was most excellent in fuch a tongue. And then they met together, and one read the translation, the rest holding in their bands fone bible, either of the learned tongues, or French, Spanish, Italian, &c. If they found any fuult, 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 present is used 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 translation; particularly in the proper names.-2. That the translators, following the vulgate Latin, have adopted many of the original words, without translating them ; such as, hallelujah, hosannah, mammon, anathema, &c. by which they have ren-, dered 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 predestination, election, witchcraft, familiar spirits, &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 sect. 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 translations, 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 passages mis-translated, either through negligence or want of knowledge : and that to other passages improper additions are made, which pervert the sense; as Matt. xx. 23. where by adding the words, it shall be given, it is insinuated, 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 translation by the protestants. They are mentioned here as historical facts. How far they are just, lies with the reader to conlider. The objections made by the papists, were the same with those which were made to the former translations; and particularly, that several texts are mis-translated, from the translators' averfion to the doctrines and usages of the church of Rome.

If the reader desires more full information concerning the English translations of the bible, he may consult Anthony Johnson's historical account, published at London in 1730; also John Lewis's complete history of the several translations of the bible in English, 2d edit. published at London in 1739. From which treatises, most of the facts reiating to the English translations of the bible, mentioned in this section, are taken.

Since the commencement of the present century, several English translations of the gospels and epiltles have been published by private hands. But they are little different in the sense from the king's translation ; or, if they differ, it is occasioned by their giving the sense of a few paffages, not in a different translation, but in paraphrases which do not truly express the meaning of the original. And even where the meaning is truly expressed, it cannot be faid that the translation is improved by these paraphrases, at least in those instances where the sense could have been represented with equal strength and perspicuity, in a literal version.

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 translation. It appears likewise, that Tyndal and Coverdale's translation, of which the rest are copies, was not made from the originals, but from the vulgate Latin. For as

For as they did not say in the title-pages that their translation was made from the originals, and as Coverdale, in particular, declared in his prefaces to Hollybushe's new tef, tament, that he swerved as little as possible from his Latin text, it is reasonable to think that Tyndal and he made their translation from that text. Befides, it did not suit their purpose to translate 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, these translators knew, that the nearer their version approached to the Latin bible, they would be the less offensive; a consideration which Coverdale acknowledges in his prefaces, had great weight with him.

As Tyndal and Coverdale made their translation from the vul. gate, they could hardly avoid adopting a number of its errors, Some that were palpable, they corrected, especially when the sense of the paffage suggested the correction. But in translating the more difficult texts, which they did not understand, they im, plicitly followed the vulgate, as Luther, Erasmus and others had done before them. It is true, their translation was often cogrected, in the editions of the English bible, which were published

from

« AnteriorContinuar »