Literature.

Colonist, Issue 23, 8 January 1858, Page 3

Literature.

REVIEW. (From the Leader.) A REVISED ENGLISH BIBLE. A Revised English Bible the Want of the Church, and the Demand ofthe Age. Comprising a Critical History of the Authorised Version and Corrections of numerous Mistranslations. By John .R,.Beard, D.D.—E. T. Whitfield. The present generation of Englishmen.ought" to be undeceived as to the manner in which the "authorised version ofthe Bible"—the version which they regard as infallible in style and diction, in spirit and in doctrine—was prepared. When Dr. Cumming and other pulpit authorities studiously endeavour to mislead them, and talk of the translators " having been raised up in the providence of God for the special purpose of giving us the translation of the Bible as we now have it," it is right that the nation should be made acquainted with the party spirit which actuated "the most accomplished scholars .-in Greek and Hebrew that ever lived1' in their work; as well as the " table of directions" which was placed in their hands by their prero-gative-loving king James I. as the fountain of their inspiration. For this reason we recommend them to read the history of the various translations which appeared during the sixteenth century, and also to compare the task accomplished by the Divines of the seventeenth century (the authors of our present edition) with the labours of their predecessors. The attempt to popularize the Scriptures in England may be traced back as far as the Anglo Saxon epoch, when - the venerable Bede v Atheistan, Aldred, Alfric, and Alfred the Great devoted themselves to giving the people portions of the Bible in their own native tongue. Up to the year 1360, however, the Psalter was the only book the whole of which existed in an English dress. Twenty years later, the language wa3 enriched by a complete version of the Scriptures from the hand of Wickliffe. This patriarch of the Reformation translated the New Testament entirely himself; but in the production of the Old was aided, it would seem, by Nicholas Herford and other scholars. His work, however, is only a translation from the Vulgate. - A century after, that is, in the year 1480, William Tyndale was born, a man destined to prepare for his countrymen a version which should stand the test of more than three centuries, and is, in fact, the groundwork of the " authorised version," which we at present possess. It is uot our intention to depict the struggles and misfortunes of this persecuted scholar. He lived in troublous times ; took an active part in making his countrymen acquainted with the proscribed Scriptures, and was obliged to live the greater portion of his time upon the Continent' where with difficulty he supported his wife and children. He was, however, taken by the myrmidons of Henry VIIL, and burnt at Smithneld. When being led to the stake, he prayed, it is said, that the eyes of the king, who was burning his subjects right and left, might be opened and that he would allow them to read their Bible in quiet.

In less than one year after his death, Tyndale's translation was "set forth with the king's most gracious license;" so soon had the capricious monarch's will--! become, changed. Tyndale's version is no unworthy image of the Hebrew and Greek originals. There are, however, evident traces of the help he derived from Luther's German translation, a work going on contemporaneously with his own, and to.which he was greatly indebted, if not for direct at least.for collateral aid. However, so close and sterling is that -version, that it has become the basisjof every subsequent, and especially of our present version. " Tyndale," says Dr. Beard, " was a fine scholar.. He was familiar alike with the models of aneieut Greece and Rome, the simple force and grandeur of the Scriptures in the Originals, and the treasures and capabilities of his native tongue. He appears also to have studied tire art <>f composition. Accordingly he was master of With skill and dexterity did he handle the Saxon element of our language; and, had his version cornel down in its purity to our times the native resources of the English language would have been more largely developed, and our literature I would have been less attenuated in its force and j injured in its expressiveness and unity by ! Latinisms." We cannot stay to show the anal- j ogies between the version of Tyndale and that i of Luther, so as to prove how much help he derived from his friend and contemporary; we pass on to other versions. "■■■. From the year 1535 to 1609 noJes3>.han: eight translations were put forth—Coyeidale's"' Bible (1535); Matthews, that is, Tyi-dale's edited by Rogers (1537); Taverner c s (1539); 0 anmer's Great Bible (1540); Archbishop Parker's Bible (1568); the Rheims or Catholic edition of the Sew Testament (1582); and the Douay translation of the Old Testament (1609). The translation of Covevdale, some time Bishop of Exeter, was avowedly made from the Vulgate and the German; Matthew's was , only Tyndale's introduced in disgir-se from the Coutinent, and afterwards authorised through the influence of Cranmer and Cromwell. Taverners Bib'e, which appeared with a dedication to the King, is but a revision of Matthew's Bible or a reprint of Tyndale's; CiannWs or the Great Bible, as it was called, was undertaken at the instigation ofthe King, and consists, like the others,-of a-.-v_.xo_i m-£ 3 ...M^sr -<"-P6*~tms-t!ditnTti Cranmer prefixed a prdogue, and hence his name has been associated with it. The Geneva Bible is supposed to be the work of persons who took refuge in Geneva during the Marian persecution, although the New Testament is evidently by the same hand throughout, as appears from the prefatosy address. The Rheims and Douay editions were issued iri consequence of the numerous transkr lions, or rather revisions, that had beien issued by the Protestants: and William Cardinal Alleyari, of Rossal, iri Lancashire, was the person entrusted with this important and delicate labour, and under his superintendence the Catholics of England were, early iri the seventeenth century, presented with a copy of tHe Scriptures in their own language. As may be supposed, these several versions were full of party or sectarian leanings, the great object of each revision being to substitute a word or reconstruct a phrase so as to make it bear upon and support the peculiar tenets of the reviser and his party. It must, however, be understood that the authorised version is .not a translation-effected by the fifty-four "accomplished scholars" alluded to by Dr. Cumming. The great impulse given by Luther to the mind of Europe took in Protestant countries two directions. In the one it was mainly popular, working for the people; in the other it was aristocratic, and being carried forward by royal and noble personages, was turned to their special advantage, " If Geneva," says Dr. Beard, " may be considered the fountain head of the popular current, in London and the English court the aristocratic had its rise." Never did Episcopacy sit so much at her ease and look so grand and dignified as during the reign of Elizabeth. Its. stately repose, however, was not to last for ever. The popular stream had acquired both volume and impetus. Geneva, though a small city, made its power felt in the high places of London. Question-! of doctrine came up to complicate already agitated questions of discipline. The two forces, the force of doctrinal diversities and the force of diversities of discipline, combined to swell the social storm. That storm was very hi avy and destructive. '_ As early as the accession of James its low threatening notes could be hoard from a distance. The event was regarded by Episcopacy and Presbyterianism with excitement iv which the fear on that side was equalled by hope on this. Coming from a Presbyterian Jand, James was expected to be cold towards Episcopacy and generally fostering towards its rival. Both parties were destined to be disappointed, for neither the fear of the one nor the hope of.the other was realised. James' evident learning, however, was towards the Episcopalians, but to keep the Presbyterians in good humour, a conference was held in 1604, at Hampton Court, between these two rival parties under royal auspices, in which ithe idea of a new translation of the Bible was suggested. The. King expressed his wish that there might be " one uniform translation," there being two Bibles then in use, the Bishops' or Parker's in favour with the aristocracy, and the Geueva-or •the' People's Bible. Ffiy-four of "the 'mostlearned divines .were therefore appointed for the important task. Seventeen worked at Westminster, fifteen at Cambridge, and. fifteen at Oxford, from which it app.ars that only fortyseven were actually employed.. A list of instructions was also supplied them by the king. They were to follow the Bishops' Bible which was to be as little altered as the original would admit; though if they wanted to consult other translations, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Whitechiirch's, and the Geneva might be used. But what shews the animus of the revision altogether is the third article of instruction, in which it is enjoined that "the old ecclesiastical words should be kept," thereby perpetuating the system of priestcraft as it had existed for a thousand years before. The effect of this is seen in the words church, bishop, priest, deacon, ceremonial te:ms belonging to the Roman Catholic establishment, instead of the words congregation, overseer, elder, servant, or nlinister } the true scriptural words, which banish altogether the idea of ecclesiastical exclusiveness. It is curious, also, to trace the instances in which the king endeavoured to wrest the translation of a word or sentence so as to confirm his high notion of prerogative. In this, however, he did not always find his forty-seven divines so compliant as he wished. We have no space to enter into a critical analogy of Tyndale's trans* lation of the authorised version. Could we do so, it would not be difficult to show that the translated Bible universally read is the work of one man, and that the revisions of subsequent

scholars have only extended to verbal correct lions] influenced as much by party considerations as by a desire for truth. . .

Forty: Years at Sea.—l first sailed from Boston (U;S.<), June 5, 1816. Lsailed for twentythree years ip four vessels, of which time nine years and eleven months was in one vessel. I have never been in a vessel where a man fell from aloft, neither have,l buried a man at sea; I have never seen a main spar carried away, nor sprung a leak^ nor been in contact with d, vessel, nor been struck with lightning, nor yet have been on an allowance of water, nor ever had a vessel on shore* I have been master thirty-one years, and have -never extended a protest to call on the underwriters. I have visited as master the following ports! . [The names of the countries and ports are here given.]' I have made fifty-one voyages to the island of Cuba, and fourteen to the island of Sicily. I have crossed the Atlantic Ocean sixty-eight times, and the equator twenty-three. I have been in and out Boston twenty-six winters, and never had a man frost-bitten, f never put but one man in a, hospital. In 1828 I saw the sun eighteen days without setting. lam now on my ninth voyage to Buenos Ayres.—At sea, 4th June, 1856, long. 55 "west, lat. 39 north, from Boston bouud to Buenos Ayres. Fresh breeze and pleasant weather. Captain Bowans, of the American barque Mary Broughton.— Letter from q Ship Captain in the British Packet, Buenos Ayres.