ART. VI.

King James' Translation of the Bible.

6

THE learned and intelligent, among all sects in religion, admit that a new and better version of the Scriptures would be of essential service to the community. Since our common version was made, great improvements in the English language have taken place. Besides, the translators in many places erred, in not conveying the sense of the original writers. Archbishop Newcombe 6 says, were a version of the Bible executed in a manner suitable to the magnitude of the undertaking, such a measure would have a direct tendency to establish the faith of thousands.' Blackwell, in his Sacred Classics, observes, 'innumerable instances might be given of faulty translation of the divine original.... An accurate translation, proved and supported by sacred criticism, would quash and silence most of the objections of pert and profane cavillers.' In Waterland's Scripture Vindicated, it is said, 'our last English version is undoubtedly capable of very great improvements.' Pilkington, in his Remarks, observes, many of the inconsistencies, improprieties, and obscurities are occasioned by the translators misunderstanding the true import of Hebrew words and phrases: showing the benefit and expediency of a more correct and intelligible translation of the Bible." Professor Symonds also remarks, whoever examines our version in present use, will find that it is ambiguous and incorrect, even in matters of the highest importance.' Dr. Kenuicott, the great Hebrew scholar, says, 'great improvements might now be made, because the Hebrew and Greek languages have been much cultivated and far better understood, since the year 1600.' Blaney, in his Preliminary Discourse to Jeremiah, thus writes, 'the common version has mistaken the true sense of the Hebrew in not a few places. Is it nothing, to deprive the people of that edification which they might have received, had a fair and just exposition been substituted for a false one? Do we not know the advantages commonly taken by the enemies of revelation, of triumphing in objections plausibly raised against the divine word, upon the basis of an unsound text or wrong translation?' Purver also remarks, 'it is necessary that translations should be made from one time to another, accommodated to the present use of speaking or writing. This deference is paid to the hea

6

then classics, and why should the Scripture meet with less regard.' And to conclude this testimony, the Rev. John Wesley says, 'the common English translation, though the best I have seen, is capable of being brought, in several places, nearer to the original.'

Such are a few, out of the many writers that might be quoted, who have expressed their opinion respecting our common English translation, and the advantages which would result from a new and improved version of the Scriptures. It appears from the present state of religious sects, that the day is not at hand when they would all agree to adopt a new version, were it made. Perhaps no one sect would consent to adopt universally a new version, if it were even made by the most learned and judicious of their own body. The rival sects are jealous of each other, lest they pervert the Scriptures to favor their own opinions; and most people in all the sects have a veneration for the common version, amounting almost to superstition. Under these circumstances the mass of readers, in order to obtain a more correct understanding of the Scriptures, must avail themselves of translations and criticisms made by individuals. Various versions of the Scriptures have appeared; and a great mass of critical matter has been accumulating, which must be of great use when a new public translation shall be made.

In remarking on translations of the Bible, let us,

FIRST, notice the translations of the Hebrew Scriptures. The first version from the Hebrew is that of the Greek, commonly called the Seventy or the Septuagint. It is said to have been made, 3501 years before Christ. The next in order, are the Chaldee translations; but properly speaking, these are rather paraphrases than translations. They were made by different persons, and few, if any of them, were known before the Christian era. The old Syriac translation is said to have been made within the first century of the Christian era; and the Latin translations, not before the introduction of Christianity into Rome.

Before the art of printing was discovered, translations of the Bible were rare, and very expensive. From the very nature of the case, they were in few hands. None but people of some wealth possessed a copy of the Scriptures. Admitting

1 Rather, about 270 years before Christ; and it was not completed till long afterwards. Ed.

every person could write, which is far from the truth, it was an immense labour to make out a copy of the whole Scriptures with a pen. Many people in our day would rather live and die without a Bible, than submit to it. But such labour was often submitted to, and the frequent transcriptions of the Bible gave rise to many various readings from the mistakes of copyists.

SECONDLY. The English versions of the Bible. Critics have supposed that the Saxons read the Scriptures in their own language, some parts of them being translated by Adelm, bishop of Sherburne; Eadfrid, or Egbert, bishop of Lindisferne; the venerable Bede, and king Alfred. Elfric, abbot of Malmesbury, translated the five books of Moses, Judges and Job. These were printed at Oxford, in the year 1699. See Lewis's History of the English translations. The Four Gospels were printed from an ancient Saxon manuscript, (now in the Bodleian Library,) in 1571 under the care of the martyrologist John Fox, assisted and encouraged by Matthew Parker, archbishop of Canterbury. In the year 1349, the Psalms were translated by Richard Rolle, a hermit of Hampole in Yorkshire; and in the Harleian and King's Libraries, are specimens of other early versions. John Wicliff translated the New Testament, about the year 1377; and William Tyndal printed the first edition of his translation of the New Testament, in the year 1526.

Miles Coverdale printed the first complete English Bible. The first edition bears date 1535, dedicated to King Henry VIII., ornamented with an emblematical border cut in wood, with the following words, 'Biblia, the Bible; that is, the Holy Scripture of the Olde and New Testament; faithfully and newly translated out of Douche and Latyn into Englishe, MDXXXV.' Thomas Matthews printed a Bible, the first edition of which was in 1537. The title is in an emblematical frontispiece cut in wood, the Byble, which is all the Holy Scriptures; in which are contained, the Olde and New Testament, truely and purely translated into English by Thomas Matthews.' This is partly from Tyndal's, and partly from Coverdale's translation. Archbishop Cranmer's Bible was printed in the year 1539. The Psalms are those now used in the English liturgy. The other parts are a revision of the translations of Coverdale and Matthew's translations. Richard Taverner printed a Bible, the title of which was, 'the most Sacred Bible, which is the Holy Scripture, containing the Old and New

Testament, translated into English, and newly recognised with great diligence after most faithful examplars, by Richard Taverner, MDXXXIX.' Elizabeth's translation was printed in the year 1568. And the common translation now in use, was undertaken by order of King James the First, in the year 1603.

Calmet says, 'the first division of the New Testament was made by Robert Stephens, in 1551; and of the whole Bible, in 1555.' Michaelis says, 'verses were first used in the New Testament, by Robert Stephens in 1551, and in the Old Testament by Hugo de St. Caro, a Dominican monk, in the twelfth century.' But a Latin Bible, translated by Sanctus Pagninus, and printed at Lyons in the year 1527 or 1528, before Robert Stephens had printed any Bible on his own account, is divided, the verses being numbered in the margin and distinguished in the texts by paragraphical marks, both in the Old and New Testament. See Calmet.

We shall now take a more particular notice of our common English version. It was made by order of king James the First in the year 1603, and the most learned men in the universities of Oxford and Cambridge were appointed to carry it into execution. They met at Westminster, Cambridge, and Oxford, according to the following order. Westminster: To the following persons were assigned the Pentateuch, and the books of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel and Kings, viz. Dr. Lancelot Andrews, dean of Westminster; Dr. John Overal, dean of St. Paul's; Dr. Adrian de Saravia; Dr. Richard Clarke; Dr. John Layfield; Dr. Leigh; Mr. Streetford; Mr. Sussex; Mr. Clave; Mr. Bedwell. Cambridge: To the following persons were assigned the books from Chronicles to Ecclesiastes, viz. Dr. Richardson; Mr. Lively; Mr. Chadderton; Mr. Dillingham; Mr. Harrison; Mr. Andrews; Mr. Spalding; Mr. Binge. Oxford: To the following persons were assigned all the Prophets and Lamentations, viz., Dr. Harding; Dr. Reynolds; Dr. Holland; Dr. Kilby; Mr. Hereford; Mr. Brett; Mr. Fareclowe. Westminster: To the following persons were assigned all the Epistles, viz., Dr. William Barlow, dean of Chester; Dr. Hutchinson; Dr. Spencer; Mr. Fenton; Mr. Rabbet; Mr. Sanderson; Mr. Dakins. Oxford: To the following persons were assigned the Gospels, Acts and Apocalypse, viz. Dr. Thomas Ravis, dean of Christ's church; Dr. George Abbot, dean of Winchester;