Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

safe. Long will it be, judging from the failure of past attempts, before the Authorized Version will be superseded. Such is its 6 complete possession of the public mind, it has been remarked, 'that no translation differing materially from it, can ever become * acceptable to the country; -a somewhat bold prediction, but,

6

for the present, a safe one.

The only English translations of the entire Bible that have appeared since the reign of King James, are, we believe, Anthony Purver's (1764), characterized by Dr. Geddes as a crude, 'incondite, and unshapely pile'; and Dr. Boothroyd's (1818), a monument of learning and industry, and in many parts highly valuable and satisfactory as a version, though sometimes defective on the score of taste, rather than of sound knowledge, and disfigured by typographical inaccuracies. Upon the whole, however, this is the most important addition to the means of ascertaining the import of the Old Testament Scriptures, that has been made by any individual. Dr. Boothroyd has availed himself of the profound scholarship of Geddes, without suffering himself to be misled by his eccentricity and heresy. In his Version of the New Testament, he is less successful. Dr. Doddridge's Version is the only one that can be advantageously compared with the Received Version, which it equals in fidelity, and upon which it not unfrequently improves; but, like Archbishop Newcome's, it is a revisal of the Public Translation, rather than an independent work. Of the Unitarian Version, it is unnecessary for us to speak: one bad effect which it has had, is, that it has brought the very words 'improved version' into suspicion, and tended to discourage better attempts. Dr. Campbell's Translation of the Four Gospels is one of the best that has appeared in any language, and will always be valued, although it can never be popular: it has too much the air of an antique modernized; the style is frigid and tasteless; and it is disfigured by some very questionable renderings. Upon Dr. Macknight's translation of the Epistles, rash, uncouth, and often ungrammatical, no one can set any value, apart from the notes and commentary, which, learned and ingenious as they are, have tended more to perplex than to enlighten the Biblical student. There have been a few other translations of the New Testament, but they are known only to the bibliographer. Paraphrases there are in abundance; but these come under the head of commentaries.

Among all these works, and among all the translations of particular books of the Old and New Testaments that have appeared, we do not find one that has had for its distinct object, that which Wyclif, and Tyndale, and Coverdale proposed to

* Orme's Bibliotheca Biblica, p. 37.

themselves, to make the word of God plain in the mother. tongue to the lay people, independently of gloss, paraphrase, and comment. They have been all prepared, either to accompany a paraphrase or body of notes, or as a work designed chiefly for the professional student, and intended to exhibit a higher critical exactness, a more literal closeness, rather than a more intelligible and idiomatic version. The excellence, the popularity, the authority of the Public Version, have repressed every original effort that might seem to savour of the presumption of competition with an acknowledged standard; nor has any one dared to call in question the accuracy of the principles which governed the Translators. In fact, the greatest improvement of which, in the opinion of some persons, the Public Version is susceptible, would be the removal of the Italic supplements, with a view to render it less exegetical, more literal, and still more worthy of the panegyric of Selden, that the Bible is translated into English words, rather than into English phrase.'

*

Now, waiving all dispute as to the proper principles of translation for a standard or public version, those upon which we should wish to see a judicious attempt made to interpret the Scriptures, would be widely different. The fundamental principle would be, that of closely adhering to the literal sense, but giving that sense in equivalent, not literal terms, in the same manner as would be adopted in translating Thucydides or Cicero. The object would be, to transfer the results of criticism to the text, and to make the translation interpret, instead of the comment. For this purpose, the respective offices of the text and the annotation would just be reversed. Instead of the reader's

finding the literal rendering in the translation, and the meaning in the comment, we would have him find the meaning in the text, and the literal rendering, when requisite, in the notes, which would be necessary chiefly in order to shew to what extent it had been found requisite to depart from verbal exactness, or to exhibit variations of rendering. As the design would be to illustrate the received version, not to supersede it, there would be no propriety in adhering to its phraseology. In fact, as a slight deviation from the language of the English Bible disappoints and offends the ear familiarized to its cadence, a version totally dissimilar, and even studiously varied, would be less unpleasing,

*There is no book', says the learned Critic, so translated as the Bible for the purpose. If I translate a French book into English, I turn it into English phrase, not into French-English. Il fait froid; I say, 'tis cold, not makes cold. But the Bible is rather translated into English words than into English phrase. The Hebraisms are kept, and the phrase of that language is kept.' Cited in Horne's Introd., Vol. II. p. 263.

and more useful, than one which affected to keep as close as possible to the present text. Any thing that looked like modernizing its antique character, or grafting upon it incongruous improvements, would be resented by the feelings more than an original version composed without reference to preceding translations. It was a great advantage enjoyed by the early translators, that they were at liberty to employ the vernacular and conventional language of their day, without affecting obsolete phrases, or imitating the style of predecessors who flourished two centuries before them. The style of Tyndale's translation is that of his other writings, excellent vernacular English, pure, simple, and perspicuous. The English Bible was then a modern book, in the spoken dialect of the existing generation. Can we have a better precedent for adopting the English of our own times in any new version, as the most natural and most intelligible medium of expression? The simple aim which ought to govern the style and diction, would be to make the sense plain, unambiguous, connected, self-interpretative, leaving nothing to be supplied by the annotator that a free yet faithful translation could express. Such a version, competently executed, would not fail to meet with some portion of the treatment that Tyndale's labours met with; but it would survive the storm of hostile criticism and invective, and prove one of the greatest blessings that could be conferred upon the Church. But who would be willing to engage in so thankless a service? Only those who would find their reward in their labour, and deem it an honour even to fail of success in such an enterprise.

Something of this kind was attempted by Dr. Harwood, the learned author of a valuable Introduction to the Study of the New Testament; and his signal failure has tended to bring any thing like 'liberal translation' into discredit. We find Mr. Orme objecting against the plan of his work, that the opportunity it affords for introducing the sentiments of the translator is very great *; of which Dr. Harwood extensively availed himself, so as to Arianize the whole New Testament. But this objection applies à fortiori to paraphrase, to which Dr. Harwood's verbose rendering approaches; and Mr. Eyre's production will serve to shew, that extended paraphrase is required by the exigencies of heresy. But the opportunity which the most literal translation affords for insinuating opinions, is so considerable, that the only security must consist in the integrity and piety of the translator. In the failure of a person of Dr. Harwood's sentiments, there is nothing to discourage: the wonder would have been, had he succeeded. His design, like that of Mr. Eyre, was excellent; and

* Biblioth. Biblica, p. 234.

renewed failures would prove only its difficulty, and the necessity of other requisites for the task, than have hitherto been brought to it. Mr. Terrot, in his Paraphrase upon the Epistle to the Romans, has afforded some good specimens of liberal rendering, not exceeding, in our opinion, the proper bounds of freedom of translation * ; and we could wish that he had adhered to this plan throughout, instead of deviating ad libitum into paraphrase. Mr. Cox, in his " Hora Romance"+, has given a version of the same Epistle, which has great merit, and, in its style, is much superior to the indistinct and uncouth phraseology of the public version; but the anxiety to make it as literal as possible, has evidently fettered his efforts; and he too has sought to benefit 'the young divine', rather than to accommodate his translation to the capacities of the unlearned lay-people. These works deserve, however, warmer praise and more general attention than they have obtained: they approach by different paths to what is really wanted in order to render the Scriptures as popularly intelligible as they were in their original character.

One of the best paraphrases and commentaries on any book of the New Testament, in the English language, is that by Archibald M'Lean upon the Epistle to the Hebrews, which includes a new literal translation, interspersed with connecting and explanatory supplements, less diffuse than those of Dr. Doddridge, but which might in most cases be superseded by expressive translation. Professor Stuart has given us a double translation of the same Epistle; and, what is remarkable, the one at the head of the volume, upon the diction of which he has bestowed most pains, is almost uniformly inferior in perspicuity and propriety to that which is found among the notes. It is, in fact, dry, verbal, and uncouth to an extreme, and affords a striking instance of an acute commentator and critic proving an indifferent translator. The habit of minute philological criticism would appear in fact to have a tendency to disqualify for free and elegant composition. The best musical-instrument-makers rarely excel either as composers or performers. Yet, Dr. Stuart has shewn, that, had he not adopted the literal system in all its rigidness, he could have produced a far superior version. Dr. Boothroyd's is equally bald and uncouth; and little seems gained, in point of clearness or accuracy, by deviating, in such cases, from the standard version. If we wish to secure exactness, let us go to the Greek text, and distrust all translation. If our object is to be intelligible, we must use pure English. That this beautiful Epistle is susceptible of being rendered with the utmost elegance, no one will

* See Ecl. Rev. 2d Series, vol. xxx. p. 508.
+ See Ecl. Rev. 2d Series, vol. xxiii. p. 71.

66

[ocr errors]

doubt, who has made it his study. With what dignity and simple grandeur does it open! Not, as almost every translator (except the Vulgate, Beza, and one of our earlier versions,) makes it, with the abrupt and rude introduction of the word GOD, which has always struck us as an impropriety, but thus: Пchuμegas nai πολυτρόπως πάλαι ὁ Θεὸς λαλήσας τοῖς πατράσιν ἐν τοῖς προφήταις rendered by Beza: Multis vicibus multisque modis* olim Deus 'loquutus patribus in prophetis, ultimis diebus hisce loquutus est 'nobis in Filio, quem constituit hæredem omnium,' &c. Will the reader accept the following attempt to render the opening paragraph? In manifold and various ways God + spake of old to our ancestors through the prophets in these the last days, He has spoken to us through the Son whom He hath constituted Lord of all, by whom also he formed the universe: Who being the radiant glory and very representation of His essence, governing all nature by His omnipotent word, having in His own person expiated our sins, has assumed His throne at the right hand of the Supreme Majesty in the highest heavens; being exalted as far in honour above the angels as the name with which He is invested is pre-eminent above theirs." What need of paraphrase or exposition to illustrate this sublime exordium?

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

In

A new race of commentators', Mr. Douglas remarks, ́is required to throw light, not on the letter, but on the spirit of works, whether sacred or profane'; and with equal truth he might have said, there is required a new race of translators. the sacred writers', he adds, new and undiscovered treasures are yet awaiting the explorer. The genius of each sacred writer will be resuscitated, and the peculiar point of view will be 'gained, from which objects were contemplated, and according to which they received their colouring and their shading, their 'prominence and their distance.' Learned criticism has well nigh exhausted its resources upon the sacred volume. To improve its results, the Church stands in need of other gifts than have hitherto been consecrated to the illustration of the Christian Scriptures.

* Or, Multifariè et multipliciter, &c. (edition of 1642. Camb.) Multifariam, multisque modis. Vulg.

+ This is scarcely an equivalent rendering of it. The Deity, The Almighty, would be both more literal and more reverential. Our language, unlike the Latin, might often give the proper force of the Greek article; but custom has reconciled us to the impropriety.

Douglas's Truths of Religion, p. 92.

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »