The Irish standard., 1890-07-26

IL &eSVO0e9 w AAA&oAAS&keSAAPN
ofEmuch earlier date than. any nov
leMant. This alyes TO- the Vulgate al
authority equal to such Greek ani
Hebrew manuscripts as were to be hat
by the King James translators. Til.
correctness of the Vulgate has beer
shown by the recent revisors Of King
Janes' Bible. whose emendations art
IN line with the Vulgate's translation
he Catholic Or Douay Bible was
|ptdiected by Rev. VIM. Allen. after
Wards Cardinal. In 1868 he gathered 8
number Of the exiled Catholic Fellows
fthe Universities Of Oxford and Cam
bridge at Douay, in France, and estab-
Hshed there new English university
and began the translation Of the Vul-
9ate into English. comparing it with
the Greek and Hebrew texts. The
principal translator was Rev. Gregory
Martin, a learned Hebraist, who was
called by one Of his contemp poraries ''the
Grecian poet. the honor and glory OF
St John = The, work was revised by
Allen, Richard Brlstowe and John
Reynolds, Through English influence
the English Catholics were in 1878 ex-
PEELED from Douay. They removed to
Rheims, where the New 'l'esta nent was
printed in 1882. In 1897 the translators
returned to Douay, where the Old Tes-
lament in two volumes was brought out
IN 1909 10, and hence has been called
4yarlously the ''Douay and Rheims
Bible. The work of the translators
rave evidence OF high scholarship and
tire edition was enriched with explain
atory notes. which aroused the violent
opposition of Protestant divines. That
they were cons ntious in their work is
admitted for Protestant critics admit
that no charge OF Wilfpl peryersion was
ever made against the translation; this
is m admission thai Catholics cannot
make regaEdingthe King James version.
The original Dotlay Rheims translation
was1ikewise pecimeno Of pure English.
It iB frequently asserted that the trans
lators were not good English scholars.
that having lived In France SO long
they had lost the purity of their mother
tongue. That this is untrue we know
from the original translations, which
abound in admirable renderings, and
Macanley refers to other writings OF
the translators as specimens of pure,
forcible and vigorous English. Certain
portions Of the Holy Scriptures are diff
fcult to understand and their true
meaning is obscure. This is especially
:tnea case In the Psalms.s Unlike the
King James translators, Martin and
Allen did not give their own rendering
but translated literally. This gives q
cumbersome reading, but it has the
great merit Of exactness. IN rendering
Hebrew names the DouaY translators
are consistent throughout; they used
Noe, Eliseus, Elias. In the King
James version. in the Old Testament,
these names are given Noah, Elisha and
Elijah. but in the New Testament are
given the same as the Douav transla-
tlons. It is needless 10 say that the
Douay translation did not reach a
large sale as the circulation Of the Douay
was prohibited by the law OF England.
The Catholic versions of the Scripture
in English are nots strictly speaking,
the Douay- Rheims Bible, but mainly a
revision Of that work made by D. Chal-
sloner in 1850. In attempting to adapt
the original translation to more modern
English, it is conceded that DR.. Chal
loner weakens it by the large use Of
Latinized words, then 80 much in
vogue. The King James version also
differs from the Douay in the number
ing OF sthaasT asTerses and chapters. This
was often dome for partisan purposes,
as il thsSsdiyision of the First Com.
mandment into two to nake it appear
that Catholic veneration Of images is
forbidden. Other renderings were
made to uphold doctrines peculiar to
the reformers, such as righteous for
just repent for do penance, .
Wife for woman and for "or, :, Z
and others pointed out by Ward,
The recent revision OF the King James
Bible was made ID 3 spirit of great
honesty and fairness, though It ls plain
that. the reyisors. from sentimental
nHrn rfsaIsf