CATHOLIC ENGLISH VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXII, Issue 45, 10 November 1904, Page 4

CATHOLIC ENGLISH VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE

In connection with a veiv caiefully written and exhaustive paper on the English \ ersions of the Bible (.says the ' Austial Light ') piepaied for the Catholic Confess by the Ke\ Philip O'Doherly, Pl , MX ' \, a large collection of the \ aiious editions has been made and will be on exhibition during the Congress week at the Cathedral Hall. This collection, though necessarily incomplete, is amply sufficient to letuto the old calumny regarding the attitude of the Catholic Church towards the translation and circulation of the Sacred Scriptures All our Catholic English versions aie based on the Rheims translation of the 'New Testament made m 1582, and the Douay translation of I lie Old Testament made m 160 ( ) Hence all our English versions are usually known as the iJouay Bible. At the very time vvhen persecution was most intense in England, and the profession oi the Catholic faith meant exile or death, some exiled English priests undertook, for the benefit of their count* \ men at home, to tianslate the Sacred Scriptures into English The translation was made chiefly by the Rev. Gregory Martin, Fellow of St. John's College, Oxfoid, assisted by Dis. Alien (afterwards Cardinal), Btistow, Reynolds, and other scholars of high reputation. But the chief part of the labor fell on Dr. Gregory Martin, of whom Wood tells us, in his ' Athcn,ac Oxomenses,' that he was a man ' of great learning and knowledge, especially in the Greek and Hebrew tongues, and of extraordinary modesty and model ation in his behaviour. The New Testament was the hist translated and published at Rheims in 1582 The English College of Douay, founded by Dr. William Allen in 15G8, was owing to the success of the Prince of Orange, violently broken up in I■>/ 8, and translerred to Rheims, where it continued till 1 •>>.<. when it was jc-established at Douay. Hence it is that the translation of the New Testament was made and published at Rheims, and that of. the Old Testament at DD ° U The chief characteristic of Dr. Martin's translation, both of the New and Old Testaments, was its scrupu-

lous accuracy an"d fidelity ' (Kitto Encycl. Bib. Lit. Art. \ulgate) I'iotestant scholars of the' highest eminence, lii.c Dr Westeott, bear testimony to its ' scrupulous and even .senile adherence to the text of the Vulgate.' To lictehty and accuracy the translators sacrificed beauty of language and elegance of expression, deeming it better, as l)i Todd n«_ntly obsenes, to oflond e\en against the i rules ot f ,iaiuiiui than to nsk Uie sense of God's Vvord J Io: the ■ a'.o ot a fine period A second edition of the New Testament was published at Anlweip in IGOO. A third appeared at Antweip m ltiHl, a fouith by John Coustuner in 1033. The Translation of the Old Testament was first published at Douay in 1609-10. This edition contains an address to English readers, giving as an explanation of the cause of the delay in publishing this second part •— ' Our poore estate in banishment,' and also giving the reason why the translation was made from the Latin Vulgate rather than from the Hebrew or Greek :— •• If it be asked " Why we translate the Latin text, rather than the Hebrew or Greke, whicn Protestants prefeire, as the fountaine tongues, wherein hohc Scriptures were first written ? " to this we answer " That if in dede those first pure editions were now extant, or if such as be extant were more pure than the Latin, we would also preferre such fountaines before the rivers, in whatsoever they should be found to disagree-" ' But they explain that the MSS now existing arc not as, tree irom error as those used by St. Jerome, and accordingly they translated the Latin Vulgate rather than the less accurate Hebrew or Greek extant,texts. The second volume of the first, edition appeared in 1610 The second edition of the Douav version of the Old Testament appeared in 1635. This edition was published by John Cousiturier, who had nublished the fouith edition of the New Testament in 1633. Since that time innumerable editions both of the Old and New Testaments have been published in English As time went on the asperities of the earlier editions were smoothed without any sacrifice of the sense., and our English translations at present, though without the strength or rhythm of the Authorised Version, give a more faithful rendering of the original. All These Early Versions were published on the Continent, because, as the translators sadly indicate, they dare not publish them in England This fact will account, too, for the Latini'/ed .style ot the early translations. The souna of the English language was lost to the ear, and its idiom was at varianre with the language which the translators were forced, habitually, to speak on the Continent. When copies of the Rheims version of the New Testament leached England in 1582, we are told by an impartial authority, J. R Dore, in his most instructive book, ' Old Bihles An Account of the Early Versions ot t'-ie English Bible,' dedicated by permission to the \rchbishop of Canterbury (18bfc), that ' this translation and the annotations attached to this version excited great opposition ; many copies were seized by Queen Eh'/abeth's searchers, and confiscated. If a priest was found with a copy in his possession, he was at once imprisoned ' Nay, more, incredible as it may seem, the author p-oves that priests were not only imprisoned, but tortured in prison for r lhe Heinous Crime of having a ropy in their possession Cecil, Lord Rurleigh, speaking of a certain priest punished for this oiienco, says : 'He was charitably used, and was never so racked but that he was presently able to walke,' and ' that the warders whose office it is to handle the rackc vvctc charged to use it in 'as chant able a manner as such a thing might be.' Mr. Dore's comment on this defence made by Lord Burleigh is as follows :— ' So that there is no doubt that torture was anphed to those who circulated this translation of the Testament, and inflicted by those who most zealously advocated the unlimited right of privare judgment ' (Second Edition, p. 292.) The same author gives (p. 306) another proof of ' the hatred of this version of the New Testament hy the dominant party of the day.' So bitter was it, he tells us, ' that an oath sworn on the Rheims version was not deemed valid. A touching incident in the life of the unfortunate Mary Queen of Scots, about five years after the first edition "was published, shows this. When Mary offered to pledge her word upon it that she had not oonsmred a-ainst the life of Queen Elr/~V<h the Earl of Krnt exclaimed • " The book is a popish Testament, and, of course, an oath on it is of no value." "Tt is a Catholic Testament," rejoined the Queen, " and on tnat account I prize it the more, nnd, therefore, according to your own reasoning, you ought to judge my oath the more satisfactory." '

We may well rejoice that those days of fanatical inconsistency are passed away, and that fie Rheims and Douay versions of the New and Old Testaments are now rcgurded with esteem and reverence by every true bcholar.