(Vol. v., pp. 59., 109.)
Learned disputes about the translation of Biblical words might occupy
the pages of "N. & Q." to the discomfort of some of its readers. In fact
its numbers might be all swallowed up in the important inquiry after
those original texts which our eminent translators used when they
supplied England with the water of life, by furnishing the country with
a faithful translation of the Holy Oracles. To the martyr Tyndale, and
the venerable servant of Christ, Coverdale, this nation and the world
are indebted to an extent that no honour to their memory can ever repay.
Tyndale, fearless, learned, and devoted, was sacrificed in the prime of
life; while Coverdale, more cautious, went on to old age constantly
energetic in promoting the Reformation.
Words and sentences can be produced in which Coverdale claims
superiority over Tyndale. While Tyndale's is more suited to this day of
fearless enquiry and meridian light, Coverdale's may be preferred as a
gentler clearing away of the morning clouds which obscured the horizon
after Wickliffe had introduced the day spring from on high.
It has become too much the fashion in our day to exalt Tyndale at the
expense of Coverdale. This is ungenerous and unjust: they were both of
them great and shining lights in the hemisphere of the Reformation.
Tyndale's learning and decision of character gave him great advantages
as a translator from languages then but little known; while Coverdale's
cautious, pains-taking perseverance enabled him to render most essential
service to the sacred cause of Divine Truth. Our inquiry commenced with
the question, why the words "translated out of Douche and Latyn into
Englyshe" appeared upon the title-page to _some_ copies of Coverdale's
Bible, 1535. I must remind my excellent friend, the Rev. HENRY WALTER,
that while the copy in the British Museum, and that at Holkham, has
those words, a finer and unsophisticated copy in the library of Earl
Jersey of the _same_ edition has no such words; and that the four
editions subsequently published by Coverdale all omit the words "Douche
and Latyn," and insert in their place, "faythfully translated in
English." My decided impression is, that the insertion of those words on
the first title-page was not with Coverdale's knowledge, and that, lest
they should mislead the reader, they were omitted when the title was
reprinted; and a dedication and prologue were added when the copies
arrived in England, the dedication and preface being from a very
different fount of type to that used in printing the text.
It must also be recollected that Coverdale altered his prologue to the
reader in the copies dedicated to Edward VI. Instead of "To helpe me
herein I have had sondrye translacyons, not onely in Latyn but also _of
the Douche interpreters_," the last four words are omitted, and he has
inserted, "in other languages." Coverdale, with indefatigable zeal, made
use of every translation in his power. Tyndale's _Pentateuch_ had been
for several years published, and had passed through two editions. His
translation of _Jonah_, with a long prologue, was printed in 1530 and
1537, and republished in Matthew's (Tyndale's) Bible in 1549. The
prologue is inserted in _The Works of Tyndale_, _Frith, and Barnes_,
and the translation of _Jonah_ by Tyndale is denounced by Sir Thomas
More. Why MR. WALTER doubts its existence I cannot imagine. The
title-page is given at full length by Herbert in his _Typographical
Antiquities_; and it is a fact that _Henry Walter_, in 1828, in his
_Second Letter to the Bishop of Peterborough_, clearly states that which
in 1852 he says is "adhuc sub judice." Coverdale rejected from the canon
all apocryphal chapters and books, and placed them together as a
distinct part, in four of his editions, between the Old and New
Testaments, and in one between Esther and Job. In this he neither copied
from the Latin nor the German.
No subject connected with English history has been more confused and
misrepresented than the history of the English Bible. Mr. Anderson's
errors in quotation are most remarkable,--a fact much to be regretted in
so laborious a compilation. In his selection of passages to prove the
superiority of Tyndale over Coverdale (_Annals_, vol. i. pp. 587, 588),
in copying forty-six lines he has made _two hundred and sixty-one
errors_; viz. 191 literal errors in spelling, 5 words omitted, 1 added,
2 words exchanged for others, 11 capitals put for small letters, 47
words in Italics which ought to be Roman, 3 words joined, and 1 divided.
These extracts ought to have been correct, for accurate reprints were
within his reach; it probably exhibits the most extraordinary number of
blunders in as short a space as could be found in the annals of
literature. Mr. Anderson is equally unfortunate in nearly all his
extracts from written documents and printed books: let one more instance
suffice. He quotes the just and memorable words of Dr. Geddes in eulogy
of our translations made in the reign of Henry VIII. It is astonishing
how little obsolete the language of it is, even at this day, and "in
point of perspicuity and noble simplicity, propriety of idiom, and
purity of style, no English version has yet surpassed it." To this
extract Mr. Anderson adds a note (vol. i. p. 586.): "These words are
applied by Geddes, by way of distinction, to Tyndale, and not to
Coverdale, as sometimes quoted." They occur in Dr. Geddes's _Prospectus
for a New Translation of the Holy Bible_, 4to. 1786, p. 88. His words
are: "The first compleat edition of an English version of the whole
Bible, from the originals, is that of Tyndale's and Coverdale's
together." It is to the united labours of these two great men that Dr.
Geddes applies his just, and, for a Roman Catholic, liberal eulogium.
Amidst a mass of errors Mr. Anderson complains, in a note on p. 569.,
that Lewis's _History of the English Bible_ is "grievously in want of
correction!" Mr. Anderson's _Annals_ are encumbered with a heavy
disquisition on the origin of printing, which reminds us of
Knickerbocker's _History of New York_, in which we find to a
considerable extent learned accounts of the cosmogony of creation,
because, if the world had not been created, in all probability New York
would not have existed: the same probability connects the origin of
printing with the history of the English Bible. Why the annalist should
have omitted any notice of those important Roman Catholic translations
at Rheims and Douay, after a long account of Wickliffe's, which was from
the same source, is as difficult to account for as is his total silence
with regard to a most important revision of the New Testament made in
the reign of Edward VI., called by the Company of Stationers "the most
vendible volume in English," and which was introduced into Parker's, or
the Bishop's Bible, in 1568. A good historical work on this subject is
greatly needed, showing not only the editions and gradual improvement,
but also the sources whence our translation was derived, and its
faithfulness and imperishable renown.