ESSAY XVII.

THE ENGLISH BIBLE.*

It is now three centuries since Miles Coverdale completed his great plan of translating and publishing the entire Bible in the English language. The sermons before us are in commemoration of this interesting event. They are sensible, well written discourses, on an important topic, and richly merit the pains that have been taken to give them an extensive circulation. From the celebration of the first English version, the authors have taken occasion to direct the attention of the public to the history and merits of the one now in use. Though very unlike in their style, they are equally admirers of this noble monument of the learning and piety of our fathers, and have done a valuable service to the cause of truth by presenting in such a forcible manner its claims to the confidence of the community. The ripe scholarship evinced by one of these sermons, the earnestness of the other, and the good sense and piety of both, will cause them, we trust, to be very generally read, and thus to be the means of correcting the erroneous opinions that are prevalent to some extent on the subject of which they

treat.

These sermons are the more acceptable at this time, because a disposition has been manifested of late to disparage the received translation of the Scriptures. From a contemporary journalt we learn that the Rev. Dr. Jonathan Homer, of Newton, Massachusetts, has been some forty years "seeking to improve the text of the common version." We are not entirely certain that we understand what is meant by this improved text. In the ordinary

* Originally published in 1836, in review of the following work: 1. "The English Bible. A sermon by the Rev. John W. Nevin, of the Western Theological Semi2. "The History, Character, and Importance of the received English version of the Bible. A sermon by the Rev. William Adams, New York."

nary

In the Biblical Repository for 1835, is an article on the subject of English versions of the Scriptures generally, to which is appended an extract of five or six pages with the following notice by the editor: "At the close of this article, we are happy to present the following communication from the Rev. Dr. Jonathan Homer, of Newton, Massachusetts, a gentleman who has given long and indefatigable attention to this subject, and who is more intimately acquainted with it than any other individual in the country."

acceptation of that term, a perfect text of any author is one which gives the ipsissima verba of the original autograph. In no department of letters have more acuteness and industry been displayed than in the collation, for this purpose, of different editions of ancient authors sacred and profane. Labours of this kind are of the utmost importance, especially in sacred literature; and their necessity has by no means ceased since the introduction of the art of printing. The utmost vigilance cannot prevent some misprints from creeping into a work that has gone through so many hundred editions as our common version of the Bible: and each mistake of this kind is not confined, as in transmission by manuscript, to a single copy or to the few which may be transcribed from it, but is perpetuated through many thousands of copies. To remedy this evil, Dr. Blaney undertook, near the close of the last century, to publish a text which should be perfectly accurate, and might be safely followed, in all future editions, as a standard. This was issued in 1769, under the direction of the Vice-Chancellor, and delegates of the Clarendon press, at Oxford. But, notwithstanding the extreme care and labour bestowed upon this edition, there have since been discovered in it no less than one hundred and sixteen errors, some of them of importance. The most perfect edition of our translation is said to be that given in 1806, by Eyre and Strahan, printers to His Majesty. But one erratum has as yet been discovered in it. It is, therefore, probably the nearest approximation that will ever be made to an immaculate text. If, however, Dr. Homer has authenticated copies of all the principal editions, and has in other respects the means and the abilities for giving a more thorough revision than that of Dr. Blaney, or a more accurate print than that of Eyre and Strahan, we would be the last in the world to discourage him from his long cherished purpose of "improving the text of our common version."

But if we may judge from the materials which he has collected for his work, this is not precisely what he contemplates. His attention has been directed not to the collecting of different editions of the common version, but of copies of the different versions. Those to which he has had access, as detailed by him through several not very intelligible pages, are Matthew's Bible of 1537, Cranmer's of 1539, the Great Bible of 1541, a New Testament dated 1552, a Coverdale's Tindal of 1551 or 1561, the Bishops' Bible of 1568, and the common version made in 1611. Each of these versions, he says, renders particular passages correctly, and in accordance with the views of the great modern critics. His plan, therefore, appears to be, to select from each version those passages which have been rightly translated, and to combine them in one perfect whole which shall throughout express the exact meaning of the original, and be in good English idiom. That this is what he means by "seeking to improve the text of the common version" will be manifest from the concluding paragraph of this remarkable communication.

"Each translation has its special good renderings, corresponding with the best modern critics. The Bible of 1537 best agrees with Gesenius, Stuart, and the richest portions [those taken from other authors?] of Rosenmüller. It was executed by the three first Hebrew, Greek, and English scholars, and thorough Germans, ever known among the several translators. The New Testament of Rogers's Bible, 1537, and Coverdale's Tindal, 1551, and Tindale's first Testament of 1526, are in English idiom, and they are executed most in conformity to the latest and best biblical critics. From the whole, with the consulted aid of more than two hundred critical works, including the sources of each translation, I have long been seeking to improve the text of the common version."

What Dr. Homer proposes, then, is not by a collation of the different editions of our translation to give an improved text of the same, but by comparing different translations and by various other "consulted aids," to give a new improved translation. The ground for this bold attempt, as well as the manner in which it has been conducted, will be evident from the following passages.

"I have employed myself, for a portion of eleven years, in collating and comparing each of these Bibles and Testaments with each other, with the originals, with the principal versions and comments and lexicographers of the three last centuries, to the present date. I have compared them also with the notes which I began to collect, at the age of seventeen, from the books of Harvard College library, and which have been accumulating for fifty-eight years, following my collegiate course. Prompted by the conscientious religious motive of the venerated, learned and indefatigable German, Bengel (obiit, 1752), for about forty years, I have paid critical attention to various readings in both Testaments, of Hebrew and Greek text, and of ancient respected versions, and have examined the authorities for and against them individually. I have endeavoured, particularly, to mark those in which the old English versions and the orthodox, or those of James's creed among the learned, are agreed, with few or no exceptions. I have found as the result, that the Cranmer Bible, the Bishops' Bible, and the King James' Bible were not independently rendered. King James's Bible was under the control of the very arbitrary King James and his Primate, men of strong prejudice and of no Hebrew, if any Greek learning-mere Latin scholars. It is, throughout, a version drawn from other versions and comments, not exceeding twenty. It was carried on with the felt early loss of their two greatest scholars, Hebrew Professor Lively, and the President Dr. Reynolds. These two

Bibles [the Cranmer Bible, and the Great Bible] differing little from each other, I have also collated in all their parts, and traced them successively to their sources other than the original. So I affirm of King James's Bible, this is in no part a new translation taken directly from the originals. Those parts of King James's Bible which were drawn from Luther, were not taken by them from the German Bible, but by the early translators, from whom they borrowed the English version. This I have everywhere traced to the English, French, Latin or German versions, which preceded it. This circumstance I found proved by a full exploring of the New Testament in 1828. It has since been confirmed in every book of the Old Testament."

When such statements as these are sent forth to the world as the oracles of wisdom, when Dr. Webster's expurgated edition is recommended to the public by the high authority of the Faculty of Yale College, when even the Temperance Society cannot be advocated or the gospel preached without such constant parade of modern criticism and such frequent corrections of the received translation as to shake the confidence of the people in its accuracy,

we hail with pleasure the publication of these sermons by Mr. Nevin and Mr. Adams, and hope they will go far to counteract what we cannot but consider erroneous and dangerous opinions.

We had supposed the masterly discussions consequent upon the publication of the extravagant assertions of Mr. John Bellamy in 1818,* and the overwhelming array of evidence internal and historical then brought forward by Whittaker, Todd, Lee, Hurwitz, and Townley, and by repeated articles in the London Quarterly, Antijacobin, and Eclectic Reviews, had put the question of the competency and fidelity of King James's translators for ever at rest. We are not a little surprised then at such an unqualified impeachment of both by one who is introduced to the public as better qualified to speak on the subject than any other individual in the country, and who from his tone and manner evidently would not think the eulogy misplaced. Our translators themselves say of their version that it is "translated out of the original tongues." But Dr. Homer has discovered that this is a falsehood-that our version was drawn from "sources other than the original" that it " is in no part a new translation taken directly from the original." He is so certain of this that he has even given the precise date of the discovery, "in a full exploring of the New Testament in 1828." And he not only affirms that their work was not as they say, "translated out of the original tongues," but argues that it is impossible it should be so, they being "under the control of the very arbitrary James and his Primate, men of strong prejudice, and of no Hebrew, if any Greek learning-mere Latin scholars." That is to say, the translators have published a deliberate falsehood on the very title-page of their great work: and either falsehood, or less information concerning thein than we now possess, must be charged upon those of their contemporaries who have represented them as the most learned, pious, and venerable company that were ever united in any one great literary undertaking. The more we consider these assertions, the greater is our amazement. There is no fact in history better ascertained than that the men called upon in 1607

The sources of information on this subject, and on the subject of English translations generally, are Fuller's Church History of Great Britain; Lewis's History of English Biblical Translations, prefixed to his folio edition of Wickliffe's New Testament, 1731; Johnson's historical account of the several English translations of the Bible, originally published in 8vo. 1730, and reprinted in the 3d vol. of Watson's Theological Tracts; Newcombe's View of the English Biblical Translations, 1792; Horne's Introduction, vol. 3d; Mr. John. Bellamy's new Translation and notes, 1818-21; London Quarterly Review, vols. xix and xxiii; Eclectic Review, vol. 10, N. S.; Antijacobin Review, vol. liv.; Todd's Vindication of our authorized Translation, and Translators, 1819; Whittaker's Historical and Critical Inquiry into the Interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures, 1819, and supplement, 1820; Prof. Lee's Letter to Mr. Bellamy, 1821; Hymen Hurwitz' Vindiciae Hebraicae, 1821. All these between 1818 and 1821 were called forth by the misrepresentations in the Introduction and notes of Mr. Bellamy's translation. For information respecting the particular lives of the different translators, the reader is referred to Townley's Illustrations of Biblical Literature, and Chalmers's Biographical Dictionary, unless he is disposed to glean for himself from Fuller, Camden, Antony Wood, &c.

to translate the Holy Scriptures were men eminently qualified for their task, and that they did translate directly from the original Greek and Hebrew. Where they found any passages already correctly translated in any of the existing_versions, conveying the exact idea of the original, and in good English, they did not of course wantonly change the phrase, and thus give unnecessary offence to the people, all whose prejudices would be in favour of that to which their ears had been accustomed, We have always admired the wisdom of that part of the King's instructions relating to this subject. The translation then most commonly in use was to be followed with as little alteration as was consistent with fidelity to the original. When it was found to vary from the original, and the true meaning had been expressed by any one of the earlier translations which were still in use, they were then to adopt its phraseology, Their compliance with this part of their regulations contributed we doubt not in no small degree to that unparalleled popularity which this translation almost immediately received, and has to this day retained; a popularity so great that all the preceding translations, though of acknowledged excellence, have gradually passed into disuse, and are now so rare that the possessor of some four or five of them, trumpets it over the land as a literary curiosity. In adopting this course, those men did what any man of sense would now do who should attempt to give a new translation of the Bible. They did precisely what Dr. Homer himself proposes to do. They adopted the "special good renderings" of each existing translation, and where they found none such they made one. This was, in full justness of speech, giving a new translation; and so is what Dr. Homer calls "seeking to improve the text of the common version." The thing aimed at in both cases is precisely the same. The only difference is, that in the present case, it is one irresponsible, unknown individual, who takes upon himself the important office, without any urgent necessity, unsolicited by any public body, and untrammelled by any established rules. In the other case, it was a numerous body of the most illustrious scholars, maintained at the public expense, enjoying the public confidence, and summoned to the work by the Head of a mighty nation hungering for the pure Word of God.

The translation of the Scriptures is not a work to be intrusted, except from imperative necessity, to any one man, however gigantic may be his attainments or his genius. Dormitat aliquando Homerus. Though he may give a "special good rendering" in one place, he may give a special bad one in another. Hence the number of translators employed by King James adds greatly to the authority of their work. What is overlooked or omitted by one, may be observed or supplied by another. Although fifty-four men who knew nothing of Greek or Hebrew might not have the authority of one who did yet when, as in the case of our translators, all of them were men of learning and ability, and some of them pre-eminently