Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

Scriptures, than that of Wiclif nearly five centuries ago, or even that of James, two hundred years ago. He observes, (p. 36,) that "modern criticism has found many errors and mistakes in our present version obtained by so much care and trouble." But why has he not taken the pains to ascertain of what nature these mistakes are? Had he duly weighed them, he would have seen that they arise, not so much from any deficiency in the language and style, as from the want at that period of a more thorough knowledge of the Original Text. Amidst all the errors and mistakes we find in our present version, the language and style are even now so pleasing to us, that we are scarcely, willing to alter them in those instances of decided mistake which the improved state of biblical criticism has brought to light. The deficiency of these translators then lay, in their not knowing what ideas to convey in this version. Since that period however, so many mistakes have been rectified, so many doubtful passages rendered plain, and so much general light has been thrown on the Original Scriptures through the labors of Houbigant, Lowth, Kennicot, and De Rossi; of Mill, Wetstein, Griesbach, and a multitude of others, that a man who has made himself even moderately acquainted with those critical works which treat of the state of the text, may obtain a far more correct knowledge of what ideas he ought to give in any Indian language, than was possessed by the profoundest scholar among all those who assisted even in James's improved version.

These, any one accustomed to study the Scriptures and to examine these critical writings which treat of the various passages in them formerly misunderstood, will soon be able to lay up in mind; and hence in the course of examining a version or two, he may have his corrected

Exemplar of the original text so ready at hand, that it will recur to him even when he merely reads a passage in the English version. Had our Author been acquainted with the real state of things therefore, he would have known, that among Protestants, whatever be the case among his own church, through the amazing advance of biblical learning, men with little of merit beside a love to the Scriptures and a delight in biblical researches, have a far more correct Exemplar to infuse into any language, than was possessed by the ablest critics among our ancient translators.

This being the case, the infusing of this text into those of the Indian dialects which are at present the most cultivated and best known, was not a very difficult task. Among these we may perhaps rank the Bengalee, the Hindee, the Mahratta, and the Orissa. The parent Sungskrita is already in as perfect a state as was the Greek in its highest season of cultivation; and nothing can be expected to be added to its grammatical exactness, or its copiousness. It may well serve therefore as a depository for the sacred text, of the most useful kind; and if some of the Indian dialects are in a less cultivated state, this is no greater argument against their being enriched by the Divine Oracles, than might have been urged against the English language in the time of Wiclif, nearly five centuries ago; and had our Author been then living and been consulted on the subject, he would scarcely have yielded a more willing assent to that version's being undertaken, than he does now to the Scripture's being given in the dialects of India. Yet had they not, what vast good would have been prevented! We might indeed ask whether England would have been what it was in the days of Henry, Edward, and even Elizabeth, had not this translation, imperfect as it was,

been in circulation for the two preceding centuries. Thus then, while the utility of a translation into the rudest of the Indian dialects in which it can be given, is placed beyond a doubt, the effects which in the hands of providence may flow from it, He alone can foresee who has said, "my word shall not return unto me void; but it shall accomplish that which I PLEASE, and it shall prosper in that whereto I send it."

We now come to the final opinion of our Author on the subject of translation.-He says, (p. 41,)" In fact a translation of the Holy Scriptures, in order to awaken the curiosity and fix the attention of learned Hindoos, at least as a literary production, ought to be on a level with the Indian performances of the same kind among them, and be composed in fine poetry, a flowing style, and a high stream of eloquence, this being universally the mode in which all Indian performances of any worth are written." If we had no other proof of our author's ignorance of the nature of translation, we should find sufficient in this sentence. As to "a high stream of eloquence," we beg leave to observe, that the Serampore missionaries have probably read as much of" Indian performances" as himself, both in the parent Sungskrita and in the dialects of the country; and that if the Scriptures are not to be translated 'till all, "Indian performances of any worth" are written in a "high stream of eloquence," it will not be done this side the great day of final account.

But they must beg leave to examine this declaration a little more closely. What is a just translation of the Sacred Scriptures? is it not the exact expression of the ideas given in them by the Divine Spirit? If an idea then be expressed with less force than the original, the translation is inaccurate; if it be expressed with some

thing added, though it should be more force, it is an unfaithful translation. The mind of God is not exactly expressed; more is expressed than he intended, and this would bring on the translator the awful reproof, "Add thou not to his words, lest he reprove thee and thou be found a liar." The way that our author recommends, therefore, can never produce a just translation. To give that in a flowing style, which is not thus given, or to add a single flower to a passage in which the Divine Spirit has placed none, is, to "add to his words" and to endanger our being found liars.

Let us farther ask our author where his own knowledge of Greek or even Latin could have been when he laid down this rule. Does he not know that there is a Greek translation of the Old Testament to which the Apostles themselves constantly referred, and which, as few Christians in the third century could read Hebrew, must have been the grand source of piety and grow th in grace to the Church of God in the first three centuries, its best and brightest days? Now in Greek we have really "fine poetry and a high strain of eloquence;" but does our Author imagine that the Septuagint in style equals Homer, or Euripides, or Demosthenes ? Is it not possible that passages might be produced, literal and accurate indeed, but at which a Greek of fastidious taste might possibly "shrug up his shoulders?" Yet this was all known to the Divine Spirit; still did he refuse on this account to work by this as the instrument, in creating anew the souls of men? in making them wise unto salvation? or in building them up and thoroughly furnishing them unto every good work?

We will come a little nearer home. Does he suppose his own Vulgate to be comparable to the "fine poetry" of Virgil? Does he imagine that it has the "high

stream of eloquence" to be found in Cicero? Might not a multitude of sentences and phrases be selected with which, as to mere style, a fastidious Roman of the Augustan age, would possibly feel disgusted? Yet will he say that it has never been of the least value? Did that version or even the old Latin one which preceded it, termed "the Italian version," and which Jerome probably made the basis of the Vulgate, tend during the first three centuries, "only to increase the aversion already entertained by the Pagans" of Rome and the West for the Christian religion? Did it not nourish

the faith and hope of the Western converts in the first three centuries, till at length it overthrew idolatry in the Capital itself? We have therefore incontestible proof, that if this inferiority of style be real, and the ver sions of scripture he thus reviles, be as inferior to the best Indian performances, as the Septuagint is inferior in style to Demosthenes, or the Vulgate to Cicero, they may still, under the Divine blessing, prove the means of filling India with sincere converts, and of completely destroying idolatry.

But will our Author venture to prove as well as to assert that the Serampore versions are thus inferior in style to Indian compositions in general? He has, as yet furnished no proof that he has ever seen one of the Serampore versions, which he has honored with such abuse and if we assume that he has, it will be still more against him; for since he has so fully disclosed his hatred of them, his refusing to adduce a single clause from any of them as a subject for censure, is if he has seen them, equivalent to volumes written in their favor. The Serampore missionaries however, neither intend to deny, that these versions have their full share of those faults which are inseparable from first versions, nor to extol

« AnteriorContinuar »