The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1912-08-31
translations met with an opposition

translations met with an opposition
from more learned scholars, which
has thrown a sad shadow of disunion
over the history of the Reformation
version of the Bible. Nor were the
characters of the translators them
selves such as to earn the respect of
men under the responsibility of i'm
portant offices in the Church.
Among the translators here re-.
ferred to we reckon first William
Tyndale (1471-1536), an apostate
Franciscan, who undertook to publish
a translation of the Bible from the
Hebrew version, language which he
but imperfectly understood. In the
New Testament alone Bishop Tunstal
(Catholic) discovered no less than
1000 corruptions, which were also ex-
posed by Blessed Thomas More.
"The next translator is Miles Cover
dale (1547-1568), an Augustinian monk,
afterwards Protestant Bishop of Exc
ter, who edited in 1885 the whole Bible
in English. He was neither a Greek
nor Hebrew scholar, hence his YER
sion was based on German and Latin
translations.
'Then comes John Rogers (1500-
1850, another apostate priest, who
made slight revision of the work
of those who had gone before him, re-
tanning, of course, their corruptions.
"We next find the well-known &C.
neva Bible, the joint production Of
several prominent divines of the Puri-
tan stamp, who, when the Catholic
Queen Mary assembled the throne of
England, fled to the more congenial
atmosphere of the Calvinistic center
in Switzerland. It was issued 1857
1850, and is saturated throughout with
Swiss Professionalism, the forerunner
of the Presbyterian Calvanistic creed
of our days.
"Of all the other revised versions,
such as the Great Bible, 1539-1541;
Taverner's Bible, 1889, and the Bish-
ops Bible, 1878, as of the four de-
scribed above, it must be said that
they all in greater or less degree have
departed from the traditional texts,
and were made subservient to the
justification and support of the re-
formed doctrines.
''The Authorized, or King James
Version (1611) of the Bible is the
translation which has been prescribed
and used by the Church of England for
more than $50 years. When King
James I assembled the throne, an ad-
dress was presented to his majesty
by prominent members of the HER
archy, who wished to enlist his patron
age for the issue of a new version of
the Scriptures. They alleged that the
translations in common use under
Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth and Ed
ward vi were corrupt, perverting in
many places the truth of the original
and the sense of the Holy Ghost.
'The king ordered fifty-four of the
most eminent divines from Oxford and
Cambridge to produce new version
from the Hebrew and Greek tesla.
ments. Two years and nine months
were devoted to the task, and the out
come was the present Authorized
Protestant Version, which received the
royal sanction in 1905.
From it is taken the formidable
array of scripture versions issued by
the Bible Society in almost all Ian
guages and dialects of the world.
"The first striking and literary fea-
ture of the Authorized Version is the
predominance of the pure Saxon ele-
ment. English scholars have calcu-
lated that in every hundred words en-
ployed more than ninety are of Saxon
stock. Hence the style of the Author
lied Version is equally admired by
friends and opponents.
| "But what is, after all, the most
necessary requisite of a translation?
Is it elegance-or scholarship? Is it
purity of diction-or integrity of SEN
fences? Judged by this standard, the
Authorized Version, as competent
critics both Protestant and Catholic
have remarked, is devoid of real value.
"The most Objectionable feature,
however, arises from the wilful per-
version of scripture which has been
brought home to it's Protestant authors
by learned Biblical scholars of our
times. At it's first appearance in diff
ferent nationalities, particularly in
England, it was openly described by
several Protestant ministers as
Astounding in gross perversions of the
original text. To this we may add the
recent testimony of the Anglican
Bishop Ellicott, who does not fear to
say that in spite of the very common
assumption to the contrary, there are
in that version many passages from
which erroneous doctrinal references
have been drawn, but where the in
ferences come from the translation,