Page images
PDF
EPUB

om. ix. 28 For consummating a word and abridging it in equity: because a word abridged shall our

Lord make upon the earth.

Èph. vi. 12 Our wrestling is...against princes and po-
tentates, against the rectors of the world of this

darkness, against the spirituals of wickedness
in the celestials.

Heb. xiii. 16 Beneficence and communication do not
forget, for with such hosts God is premerited'.

Chap. iii.
Internal
History.

of Latin

have been

our Ver

Such translations as these have no claim to be con- Examples sidered vernacular renderings of the text: except through words which the Latin they are unintelligible. But still they only adopted in. represent what there was in the Vulgate incapable of sion. assimilation to an English version. And on the other hand a single Epistle furnishes the following list of Latin words which King James' translators have taken from the Rhemish Testament: separated (Rom. i. 1), consent (mg.) (i. 32), impenitent (ii. 5), approvest (ii. 18), propitiation (iii. 25), remission (id.), grace (iv. 4), glory in tribulations (v. 3), commendeth (v. 8), concupiscence (vii. 7), revealed (viii. 18), expectation (viii. 19), (conformable, viii. 29), confession is made unto salvation (x. 10), emulation (xi. 14), concluded (xi. 32), conformed (xii. 2), instant (xii. 12), contribution (xv. 26).

Preserva

tion of the

original

But at the same time it must be added that the scrupulous or even servile adherence of the Rhemists to the text of the Vulgate was not always without advan-order; and tage. They frequently reproduced with force the original order of the Greek which is preserved in the Latin; and even while many unpleasant roughnesses

All the quotations are made from the first editions. In the later (Irish) editions of the Rhemes and Doway' Bible and New Testament there are considerable alterations, and the text

is far nearer to that in the A. V.
Examples are given by Dr Cotton,
Rhemes and Doway...Oxford, 1853,
pp. 183 ff.

Chap. iii.
Internal
History.

form of expression.

The Greek Scholarship of the Rhemists.

occur, there can be little doubt that their version gained on the whole by the faithfulness with which they endeavoured to keep the original form of the sacred writings. Examples of this simple faithfulness occur constantly, as for instance: Matt. xviii. 9, having one eye to enter into life; id. 27, the debt he forgave him; xx. 12, the burden of the day and the heat; id. 23, my cup indeed you shall drink of; xxi. 41, the naughty men he will bring to naught; xxii. 13, those that are going in you suffer not to enter; xxvi. 11, the poor you have.

The same spirit of anxious fidelity to the letter of their text often led the Rhemists to keep the phrase of the original where other translators had unnecessarily abandoned it: e.g. Matt. xvii. 1, hour; id. 6, it is expedient; id. 9, the hell of fire; xx. 20, the sons of Z.; xxii. 2, likened; id. 44, the footstool of thy feet; xxvi. 25, Is it I, Rabbi? (contrasted with v. 22) and so v. 49.

When the Latin was capable of guiding them the Rhemists seem to have followed out their principles honestly; but wherever it was inadequate or ambiguous they had the niceties of Greek at their command. Their treatment of the article offers a good illustration of the care and skill with which they performed this part of their task. The Greek article cannot, as a general rule, be expressed in Latin. Here then the translators were free to follow the Greek text, and the result is that this critical point of scholarship is dealt with more satisfactorily by them than by any earlier translators. And it must be said also that in this respect the revisers of King James were less accurate than the Rhemists, though they had their work before them. For example the Rhemish version omits the definite article in the following passages where it is wrongly inserted by A.V. and all earlier versions: Matt. ii. 13 (an angel); Luke ii. 9

(an angel); John vi. 26 (signs not the miracles). Much more frequently it rightly inserts the articles where other versions (including A.V.) omit it: e.g. Matt. iv. 5 (the pinnacle); vi. 25 (the meat, the raiment); xiv. 22 (the boat); xxv. 30 (the utter); xxviii. 16 (the mountain); John v. 35 (the lamp); 1 Cor. x. 5 (the more part); Gal. iii. 25 (the faith); Apoc. vii. 13 (the long white robes).

Chap. iii.
Internal
History.

There are also rarer cases in which the Rhemists English furnish a true English phrase which has been adopted words. since, as fellowservants (Matt. xviii. 28), kingdom against kingdom (Matt. xxiii. 7), fail (Luke xvi. 9), darkened (Rom. i. 21), foreknew (Rom. xi. 2). Elsewhere they stand alone in bold or idiomatic turns of expression: throttled him (Matt. xviii. 28), workmen (Matt. xx. 1), stagger not (Matt. xxi. 21), impious broods (Matt. xxiii. 33), bankers (Matt. xxv. 27), overgoe (1 Thess. iv. 6).

[blocks in formation]

of the Vul

gate re

newed.

The Rhemish Version of the New Testament, sup- The study ported by Martin's attack on the English Bible, had once again called attention to the importance of the Latin Vulgate before the revision of King James was undertaken. During the sixteenth century this had been in a great degree thrust out of sight by the modern. translations of Erasmus and Beza, which had influenced respectively the Great and the Genevan Bibles. At the same time the study of Hebrew and Greek had been pursued with continued zeal in the interval which had elapsed since the publication of the Bishops' Bible; and

1 For most of these and of the other references to the Rhemish Version, I am indebted to the kindness of Prof. Moulton, who placed at my

disposal a most exact collation of the
English versions, reaching over a
large portion of the Gospels.

Chap. iii.
Internal
History.

New Latin Versions of the Old

two important contributions had been made to the interpretation of the Old Testament.

In 1572 Arias Montanus, a Spanish scholar not unTestament. Worthy to carry on the work of Ximenes, added to the

Arias

Montanus.

Antwerp Polyglott, which he edited by the command of Philip II., an interlinear Latin translation of the Hebrew text, based on that of Pagninus, whose readings he added to his own. The translation is rigidly verbal, but none the less it helped to familiarize ordinary scholars with the exact forms of Hebrew idioms which were more or less hidden in the earlier versions. Seven Tremellius. years afterwards Tremellius, by birth a Jew, published an original Latin translation of the Old Testament (1579), with a commentary, which rapidly obtained a very extensive currency. His son-in-law Junius added a translation of the Apocrypha. The whole Bible was completed by a translation of the New Testament by Tremellius from the Syriac; but for this the New Testament of Beza was frequently substituted.

Vernacular
Versions.

French.

Italian.

Spanish.

Besides these works, which were designed for scholars, three important vernacular versions also had been published. In 1587-8 an authoritative revision of the French Bible was put forth by the 'venerable company of Pastors' at Geneva which was based upon a careful examination of the original texts. The chief part of the work is said to have been executed by B. C. Bertram, a Hebraist of distinguished attainments, and he was assisted by Beza, Goulart and others. An Italian translation was printed in the same city in 1607 by J. Diodati, who was a professor of Hebrew there. This translation has maintained its place to the present day, and though it is free, it is of very great excellence. In the mean time two Spanish versions had appeared, the first at Basle in 1569 by C. Reyna, and the second, which was based on

[ocr errors]

Reyna's, at Amsterdam in 1602 by C. de Valera. All these versions have an independent value, and when King James' revisers speak of their pains in consulting 'the Spanish, French and Italian translators,' there can be no doubt that it is to these they refer1.

Thus King James' revisers were well furnished with external helps for the interpretation of the Bible, and we have already seen that they were competent to deal independently with questions of Hebrew and Greek scholarship. Like the earlier translators they suffered most from the corrupt form in which the Greek text of the New Testament was presented to them. But as a whole their work was done most carefully and honestly. It is possible to point out inconsistencies of rendering and other traces of compromise, but even in the minutest details the translation is that of a Church and not of a party. It differs from the Rhemish Version in seeking to fix an intelligible sense on the words rendered: it differs from the Genevan Version in leaving the literal rendering uncoloured by any expository notes. And

1 The French version of Réné John vi. 50 qui est descendu (Coton, Bénoist [Benedictus] is said to have p. 158). no independent value.

2 The most extreme form in which Calvinistic opinion appears in the translation of the Bible is in the French translation of 1588, which has been severely criticized by P. Coton in his Genève plagiaire in connexion with the other Genevan versions. One or two examples may be quoted:

Rom. v. 6 desnuez de toute force...du tout meschans.

x. 15 Sinon qu'il en ait qui
soient envoyez.

Acts x. 34 qui s'addonne à justice
(cf. Coton, p. 1614).
Phil. ii. 12 employez vouz à...(Co-
ton, p. 1746).

51 vivifiant (Coton, p. 174).
In all these places the English
Genevan version is unobjectionable;
but in other places an unfair bias ap-
pears:

Acts iii. 21 contain (cf. Coton, p.
255).
1

Cor. ix. 27 reproved (Coton, p.
1718).

1 Cor. iv. 6 that no man presume
above that which is written (Co-
ton, p. 1486).

And to this must be attributed
the avoidance of the word 'tradition'
in 1 Cor. xi. 1; 2 Thess. ii. 15; iii.
6.

One notable phrase at least has passed from the French through the

Chap. iii.
Internal
History.

« PreviousContinue »