Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2016 https://archive.org/details/historyoftranslaOOmars A 7lo-l HISTORY OF THE translations WHICH HAVE LEEN MADE OF THE SCRIPTURES, FROM THE EARLIEST TO THE PRESENT AGE. THROUGHOUT EUROPE, ASIA, AFRICA, AND AMERICA . COMPOSED CHIEFLY WITH THE VIEW OF ASCERTAINING IN HOW MANY NEW LANGUAGES C&e T5riti$b anu jFomgn TBi&le %>ocietp HAS BEEN THE MEANS OF PREACHING THE GOSPEL. NOW PUBLISHED AS AN APPENDIX TO A LATE PAMPHLET, ENTITLED, AN INQUIRY INTO THE CONSEQUENCES OF NEGLECTING TO GIVE THE PRAYER BOOK WITH THE BIBLE. — a***®— y BY HERBERT MARSH, D.D. F.R.S . KiROARET PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN CAMBRIDGE. Lonnon: Printed by Law and Gilbert, St. John’s-Square, Clerkenwcll ; AND SOI.D BY aiVINGTONS, ST. PAUL’S CHURCH-YARD; AND BY DEIGHTON, NICHOLSON, AND BARRETT, CAMBRIDGE. 1812 . r.H v ■ . i ' *' ■ * ' ' • ' C , #• ; v . '•••.'« * . ..... !i 4 . ... ... • • • /»' ' ' r‘ ' »T‘‘' 1 ’ v ‘ •' • ' . ; ... .... .... V I - £ ’ ■ ....... ,, ft' • « r '\ lj C .T? ' ■ ' ' : U 1 1 . ’ to." r t*«K J ■ * - ■ . » »i . • '/ PREFACE. IN my former pamphlet on the Bible Society, which relates entirely to its home department, I promised, in a future publication, to give some ac- count of its operations in foreign countries. But as the promised publication has not followed so soon as was expected, it is proper that I should assign the cause of the delay. My original design was to have divided the Inquiry itself into two parts, the one relating to the Society’6 operations at home, the other to its operations abroad. In the progress of the Inquiry relative to the home department, the danger of neglecting to give the Prayer-book with the Bible became more apparent at every step which was taken ; and this danger was greatly augmented by the notion then propagated, even by Churchmen and Clergymen, that the spirit of true Protest- antism required the distribution of the Bible alone. Because the Bible only is the religion of the Pro- testant, it was inferred, that the Bible only should be distributed by the Protestant. And so far was this notion carried only four months ago, that merely because I had contended that Churchmen should distribute both Bible and Prayer-Book, I a 2 IV PREFACE. was publicly accused in my own University of en- tertaining principles which savoured of Popery. Thus the omission of the Prayer-Book was publicly defended , and its joint distribution with the Bible condemned. These facts are on record ; they are recorded in the speeches and writings which the authors themselves have industriously circulated in every part of the kingdom. It was therefore high time, if the Church was worth preserving, to repel the erroneous notion in respect to the distribution of the Bible alone; it was high time to explain to the friends of the Establishment the consequences of neglecting to give also the Prayer-Book; and I have every reason to believe, that my endeavours to repel that erroneous notion, and to bring the Prayer-Book into more general notice, will, not- withstanding the personal abuse to which I have been exposed, produce effects most beneficial to the Church. The Inquiry, therefore, which was instituted in the former pamphlet, being professedly confined to that single subject, it became unnecessary for my immediate purpose to enter at all into the foreign department. But having previously intimated my intention to do so, I determined that the pamphlet should be followed by a short Appendix, containing the information, which then appeared to be suffici- ent for the purpose. But, as very frequently hap-, pens in literary researches, the materials, as I went aiong, accumulated in such a degree, that the pub- lication, which was designed only as an Appendix, has become a consideiable and important work of 4 PREFACE. V itself*. To form a due estimate of what the Bible Society has performed in respect to the translation of the Scriptures , it is necessary, that we should know, what translations have been made, either be- fore this Society existed, or independently of the Society’s assistance. And it is the more necessary, that this estimate should be correct, because the immensity of the benefits, supposed to be con- ferred on foreign nations, is that which chiefly in- duces men to overlook or disregard the dangers at home f. * I have given it therefore a title, which expresses its con- tents, though 1 have likewise used the word Appendix on the title-page, because I referred to it under this name in the for- mer pamphlet. f Mr. Vansittart, in his Answer to my Address to the Senate* after observing, that the Bible Society has “ done more for the “ diffusion of Christianity, than has been effected in the same “ space of time in any age since the Apostolic,” illustrates this assertion by adding, that the Society “ has in seven years been “ the means of preaching the Gospel in fifty-four languages.” Now, as the persons who translate the Scriptures into any lan- guage, may with more propriety be considered as the means of preaching the Gospel in that language, than they who only re- print an existing translation ; and as the printing of new edi- tions, however numerous, can hardly be considered as exceed- ing every thing done since the apostolic age, Mr. Vansittart’s expression, though certainly capable of two meanings, will be naturally understood, as signifying that the Society had trans- lated the Scriptures into so many languages. And that it teas so understood, I am well assured from various observations which were made on it, though Mr. V. has lately declared, that such was not his meaning. But there are other writers on this sub- ject, who speak of translations in literal terms. For instance, Jdr. Clarkson, in his Letter printed in the Ipswich Journal for M tntt ace. As it is urirtecessary for our present purpose to attempt a critical examination of the several trans- lations which have been made of the Scriptures, the account, which it is proposed to give of them, will November 23, 1 8 / 1 , said, that the Society had il translated the “ Scriptures into no less than forty-three different languages or “ dialects.” Mr. Hardy, in his Speech at Leeds, (printed in the Cambridge Chronicle, Nov. 29, 1811) speaking of the exer- tions of the Bible Society, said, the Scriptures “ have been al- “ ready translated into more than thirty languages ; and, by the “ blessing of Providence on the labours of those employed, “ Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in “ Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Ppntus, and Asia, strangers of “ Rome, Jews and Proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, may hear “ in their own tongue the wonderful works of God.” At the meeting at Bristol, Feb. 13, 1812, one of the speakers said, 44 the Scriptures were translated or translating into twenty jive “ languages, in which they had not before appeared;” and another represented the Scriptures as translated, through the exertions of the Society, into twenty-one languages (European and Asiatic), and that translations into twenty-jive foreign lan- guages were going forward. See the Proceedings, p. 7. 21. Now the diversity, observable in these several statements, is not favourable to the opinion, that any of them are very accurate. Yet in one point they all agree , namely, in shewing what im- portance is attached to the supposed extensiveness of the trans- lations made by the Bible Society. These very numerous trans- lations, thus ascribed to the Bible Society, constitute its chief attraction ; another miraculous Pentecost is supposed to have arrived ; and the imagination is hurried away by the splendid thought, that this Society is the means of preaching the Gospel to al! nations, and in all languages. So much the more impor- tant is it to examine what translations of the Scriptures have been made independently of this Society, and hot v many have really been added to the former stock, by the sole exertions of this Society. ] PREFACE. VII be rendered most perspicuous by a geographical arrangement. And to the several heads of this arrangement may be referred also what has been done in this respect by the British and Foreign Bi- ble Society. The labour, which is requisite for a work, con- taining notices, however short, of all the transla- tions, which have been made of the Scriptures, from the earliest to the latest age, might sufficiently account, had no other cause intervened, for an in- terval of twelve weeks between the former and the present publication. I can assure my impatient adversaries, who have begun to suspect, that the threatened Appendix would never appear, that it comes before the public, as soon as it was possible tp bring it. Cambridge , 20 th April , 1812. ERRATA. P. 19, note * 5 , for 174 read 1 75 32, line 2 , 1688 — 1 6'6'S 2 j, — 3, note 1 9 ,for was read were i'qr- Jb vc cuor iqeitq 'sotrr La .jLn^ :& •< T :; 8b^:l 'V 7 ?'ii oi J: A .J' '^kt: : jt CONTENTS. -• .*** v * ' 101 ■'. ‘ ' I'-.. >f C-'. <- SECTION I. rxar. Translations of the Scriptures into the Languages and Dialects of Europe - - - I 1 1 ,j ji ; < . jvi < . “i i! '■*."? v *»s' SECTION II. Translations of the Scriptui'es into the Languages and Dialects of Asia ------ 30 SECTION III. • * ‘ 1 t * ‘ ' "• - . * IfT.X- Translations of the Scriptures into the Languages of Africa - -- -- - - -94 SECTION IY. Translations of the Scriptures into the Languages of America - - - - .- - -‘- 9 B SECTION V. Result of the four preceding Sections, in respect to the Extent of the Services, which have been rendered by the British and Foreign Bible Society. - - 102 SECTION I. Translations of the Scriptures into the Languages and Dialects of Europe. \ O F the languages, which were formerly spoken in Europe, and are now become dead languages, there are only Jive,' in which we have translations of the Scriptures; namely, the Greek, the Latin, the Mceso-Gothic, the Anglo-Saxon, and the old Scla- vonian. The Greek version might also be referred either to the Asiatic or African versions ; and in- deed the country, in which it was made, was Egypt. But as the European Greeks have used it from the earliest ages of Christianity, it may be placed in the present section. It was first printed in the Com- plutensian Polyglot, in 1515; but the very first edi- tion of the Bible in any language was that of the Latin Vulgate, which was printed at Mayntz, in 1462, Of the Moeso-Gpthic, if we except a few fragments of the epistle to the Romans, we have only the four Gospels extant, which were first print- ed at Dordrecht, in 1665. We have more remains of the Anglo-Saxon version : for beside the four Gospels, which were first printed in 1571, and the Psalms printed in 1640, the Pentateuch, with the Looks of Joshua, Judges, and Job, were printed in 1699- The whole Bible in the old Sclavonian language, was first printed in 1581, though the B 2 Translations of the Scriptures into Pentateuch had been published at Prague so early as 15 19'. This version, though slid used in the Russian Church, (in the same manner as the Sep- tuagint and the Vulgate are used by the Greek and Homan Churches) is different from the modern Russian translation, of which mention will be made hereafter. The translations however, with which we are par- ticularly concerned at present, are those in the languages which are now spoken \ And of the Eu- ropean languages which are now spoken, there is hardlij one , into which the Scriptures had not been translated before the existence of the British and Foreign Bible Society. The first printed edition of the Bible in any modern language was in the Gci" man, there being a copy preserved in the public library of the city of Leipsic, which was printed in 1467. An Italian' Bible was published at Venice, in 1471. The next in order was a Dutch Bible, first printed at Cologne in 1475, and reprinted at Delft in 147 7- In 14S7 was printed at Paris a French translation of the Bible. The Bohemian translation of the Bibie was first printed at Prague in 1488, where it was several times reprinted 1 2 * * 5 . At 1 See Michaelis’s Introduction, vol. ii. p. 154*. 2 A detailed account of these translations, as far as the year 1720, may be seen in the folio edition of Le Long’s Bibliotheca sacra ; to which the reader may refer, when no other authority is quoted. The table of contents, at the beginning of the first volume, will immediately shew in which page the account of each version may be found. 5 This first edition of the Bohemian version was unknown to Le Long, who mentions the Venice edition of 1506, as the first edition of the Bohemian Bibie. But a copy of the Prague edi- 3 the Languages and Dialects of Europe. the beginning of the sixteenth century (for the pre- cise date is not known) a Spanish translation of the Bible, in the dialect of Valencia, was printed at Amsterdam. The preceding translations were made from the Latin Vulgate ; but in 1522 Luther published his translation of the New Testament from the Greek, which was followed by his translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew, published in separate portions, and at different times, from 1523 to 1532. The whole was printed at Wittenberg in 1534. Of this translation, says Walch * * 4 5 , Lutheri interpreta- tio ipsa codicis sacri German ica non solum tain frequenter typis exscripta est, ut editiones ej us fere innumerabiles sint, sed etiam in alias conversa lin* guas vernaculas. He then describes the transla- tions, which have been made from Luther's; namely, in the dialect of Lower Saxony, first print- ed at Lubeck in 1533 ; in the dialect of Pomerania, first printed at Barth in 1588; in the Swedish lan- guage, first printed at Upsal in 1541; in the Da- nish, first printed at Copenhagen in 1550 s ; in the Dutch, in which the first edition of this translation appeared in 1560 ; in the Icelandic, first printed at Holum, in Iceland, in 15S4; in the Finnish lan- tfen of 1488, is preserved in the public library at Dresden. Walchii Bibliotheca Theclogica, tom. IV. p. 130. 4 lb. p. 95. 1 , v 5 Of the later Danish editions Walch says, “ non omnes con- formatae sunt ad solam Lutheri interpretationem.” The Sweetish version, at present used, is likewise different from that which was first printed, B 2 4 Translations of the Scriptures into guage, first printed at Stockholm in 1642 6 ; in the Lettish or Livonian, first printed at Riga in 16B<> 7 ; in the dialect of Upper Lusatia, first printed at Bautzen, in 1728; and in the Lithuanian language, in which the first edition of this translation was printed at Koenigsberg, in 1735 ®. To these may be added the translation of the Bible in the Helve- tian, or German-Swiss dialect, first printed at Zu- rich in 1525-1529; for it was taken at least parti} 7 from Luthers translation 9 . In making the first printed English translation, that of Luther was likewise used I0 . In 1543 a Spanish translation (in the Castile dia- lect) of the Greek Testament, was printed at Ant- werp, apd in 1553, of the Hebrew Bible. In 1561 w as published at Cracow, a Polish translation of * Another translation of the Bible in the Finnish language was printed at Abo, in Finland, in 1685. The New Testament, with the Psalter, in the Finnish language, had been already printed at Stockholm in 1518. 7 This edition was accompanied with a translation in the Es - thonian language. Le Long, vol. i. p. 447. An edition of the New Testament, both in Livonian and Esthonian, had been al- ready printed at Riga, in 1685 and 1686. It was reprinted at Koenigsberg, in 1701, lb. The Lettish, or Livonian, is a Sclavonian dialect. The Esthnish, or Esthonian, though spoken in the adjacent province of Esthland, or Esthonia, is a totally distinct language, being closely allied to the Finnish. 8 A Lithuanian translation of the Bible, made by Chylinsky, had been already printed in London in 1660. Le Long, vol. i. p. 447. 9 lb. p. 399. 10 See Michaelis’s Introduction, vol. ii. p. 108, with the trans- lator’s note at p. 618. 5 the Languages and Dialects of Europe. the Bible, made by the Catholics In 1563 was published at Brescz, in Lithuania, a Polish trans- lation of the Bible made by the Socinians, under the patronage, and at the expcnce of Nicolas Kadzivil, and reprinted in 1572. A third Polish translation of the Bible was made by the Calvinists, whose first edition was printed in 1596 ,x . In 1 o 34 was printed at "W ittenberg, a translation of the Bible into ano- ther branch of the Sclavonian, that which is spoken by the Wenden, or Venedi. In 1588 was published the first edition of the Welsh Bible. In 1589 was printed the first edition of the Hungarian Bible 1 *, reprinted at Hanau, in 16'08, and again at Oppe** heim in 1612. In 1636 was printed at Leyden, the first edition of the version, which became the au- thorised Dutch version. In the Romanese lan- guage, as spoken in the Engadine, a translation of the Bible was printed at Schucl, a town of the lower Engadine, in 1657. Another dialect of this language is that spoken by the Orisons, in which the Bible was printed at Coire in 1719- An Irish translation of the Bible, made by King, and revised by Bishop Bedell, was printed in London in 1685. The first edition of the old Sclavonian, or old Hus- “ Walchii Bibl. theol. tom. iv. p. 131. This edition was un- known to Le Long, who represents that of 1599 as the first published by the Catholics. 11 The New Testament had been already printed in 1585 ; and it has been frequently reprinted at Thorn, Dantzic, Dresden, and other places. 13 The Hungarian New Testament had been previously- printed at Vienna, in 157 4. The edition of the whole Bible in 1589 is noted by Walch (tom. iv. p, 130) nut not by Le Long. 6 Translations of the Scriptures into sian, has been already noticed ; but as this version, though the established version of the Prussian Church, is no longer intelligible to the common people, a translation of the Bible into the modem Russian was made by Gluck, a Livonian clergy- man, and printed at Amsterdam in 1 698 . In 17(13 the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge published the Bible in the Manx language. In 1?6'7 the New Testament was published in Gaelic, and in 1802 the Old Testament 14 . In the same 14 As a writer in the British Review, (No. v. p. 139) with the usual propensity of the advocates for the British and Fo- reign Bible Society, speaks of the great want of the Gaelic Bi- ble, “ till the Society translated and dispersed it in that lan- guage,” I will appeal to the records of his own Society to prove, that the Bible was not only translated into Gaelic, but printed and circulated in that language before the existence of the British and Foreign Bible Society. In the Appendix to the second Report, No- XXIII. is printed a Letter, dated Edin- burgh, 12th of April, 1806, from the Secretary to the Society for propagating Christian Knowledge, which, like the English Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, not only existed, but contributed to the circulation of the Scriptures long before the formation of the modern Bible Society, in the praises. of which the merits of all other Societies are now to be forgotten. In this letter from thp Society in Scotland it is stated, that a translation of the New Testament into the Gaelic language, made by the Rev. James Stew^art, Minister of Killin, “ was printed at the expence of the Society , in 1767.’’ It is added that, “ a new edition, consisting of twenty thousand copies, was “ afterwards printed, and has been in circulation for several “ years.” The Highlanders therefore had not been left desti- ute of the Scriptures, before the formation of the Bible So- ciety. Nor was the translation confined to the New Testament. For a translation of the Old Testament (as appears from thf 7 the Languages and Dialects of Europe. year was published at Lisboa the Bible in the Por- tuguese language IS . Lastly, before the year 1 804, the Bible in the language of Lapland (in which certain portions of it«had been already printed in 1648) was published at Stockholm, though I know not the year of the first edition ,6 . same letter) was printed in 1802, to the amount of five thou- sand copies, and likewise at the expence of the Society in Scot- land. Nor did this Society rest here. For “ soon after the “ publication of this work (as is added in the same letter) the “ Directors, anxious to promote the circulation of the Gaelic “ Scriptures resolved to print an impression of twenty thou-" “ sand copies. From many generous individuals and societies, “ contributions were received, which, though not adequate to “ the expence incurred, encouraged them to proceed with the “ work.” It appears from the same letter, that they did pro- ceed with the work, and when this letter was written, the Se- cretary says, “ The Directors indulge the hope, that the whole “ will be completed in the course oj the ensuing summer Thus matters stood on the 12th of April, 1806, when the British and Foreign Bible Society had contributed nothing to the Gaelic Bible; for the very first entry which I find under this head, is among the disbursements for the year, ending 31st of March, 1807, where 771/. is entered on account of the Gaelic Bible. But they seem to have had a. quid pro quo. For the Secretary to the Society in Scotland concludes with the following propo-. sal : “ I am further charged to offer to the Directors of the “ Bible Society, ten thousand copies of the Gaelic Bible, being “ one half of the impression, on condition that they pay half °f “ the ex pence thereby incurred.” The New Testament had been already printed in 1681, at Amsterdam ; and the Pentateuch, with some other portions qf the Old Testament, had been printed at Tranquebar. 16 This will presently appear from a letter written by the Stockholm Society, Pro fide et Christianisrno , 8 Translations of the Scriptures into The modern translations hitherto mentioned are all translations of the whole Bible ; but there are others, in which we have only the New Testament entire. In 1553 a Croatian New Testament was printed at Tubingen ; and in 1571 was printed at Rochelle, a New Testament, in the Basque dialect. In 1638 the New Testament was printed at Geneva in modern Greek' 7 . Another edition was printed in London in 1703, which was reprinted at Halle in 1710, with the ancient Greek in a parallel co- lumn. In 1648 was printed at Belgrade, a transla- tion of the New Testament in the Wallachian lan- guage. Le Long, who has noticed it, (tom. i. p. 373) refers to No. 5225 of the Bodleian manu- scripts, whence a doubt might arise whether this copy of the Wallachian New Testament was not wiitten at Belgrade, in 1648. But in the cata- logue of the Bodleian manuscripts, the number 5225 is, “ Novum Testamentum Valachiutn im- pressum .” It is therefore a printed edition, though of all editions probably the most scarce. In 1666 was printed at Oxford, the New Testament, in Turkish, by Lazarus Seaman 18 ; and in 1686 was *7 The Jews at Constantinople had already translated the He- brew Pentateuch into modern Greek, and printed it in 1547; and still earlier, namely, in 1543, the Psalter had been printed in modern Greek at Venice. See Le Long, Bibl. sacra, ed. Masch. P. II. vol. ii. sect. 2. »s Whether the Turkish New Testament, which the Edin- burgh Missionary Society is printing at Karass, on the borders of the Caspian sea, and for which the British and Foreign Bible Society has furnished types and paper, is Seaman’s translation, the Languages and Dialects of Europe. 9 printed a New Testament in a particular dialect of the Esthonian language ‘ 9 . To these printed trans- lations may be added a translation of the whole Bible into the Catalonian dialect; and translations of the New Testament into the dialects of Piedmont and Provence. The places, where manuscripts of these three translations are preserved, may be seen on consulting the Bibliotheca Sacra. The preceding statement shews what pains had been taken in every part of Europe with translations of the Scriptures, long before the existence of the Bible Society ; it shews, that little or nothing was left to this Society, in respect to the European lan- guages and dialects, but to re-print existing trans- it quite a new translation, I do not know. Seaman’s transla- tion, according to Helladius, (De statu Ecclesiae Gr&'ca;, p. 187, 289) has been much esteemed ; and Dr. Callenberg, who pre- sided over the Oriental, or Jewish and Mahomedan Institution, at Halle, reprinted there, for the purpose of sending them into Turkey, the Gospel of St. Luke, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles of St. Paul to the Romans and to the Hebrews, and the first Epistle of St. John, with the beginning of his Gospel. See Le Long. Bibl. sacra, ed. Masch. P. II. vol. i. p. 168. * 9 See a Letter, written by a respectable Lutheran Minister, in the island of Nucko, in Esthonia, printed in the Society’* * second Report, Appendix, No. XIV. He observes, that “ the “ Bible, in the Esthonian language, has been repeatedly printed “ at Reval but he is mistaken in respect to the first edition of it. The Esthonian Bible was first printed at Riga ; and not in 1739, as he says, but in 1689. See the preceding note 7. Perhaps the accounts may be reconciled on the supposition, that 1739 was the year in which the Esthonian Bible was first print- ed by itself ; for the Riga edition of 1689 contained also the Lettouian or Livon’an Bible. 10 Translations of the Scriptures into lations. And however beneficial it may be to re- print editions, in order to supply the place of such as are exhausted, let not those who merely reprint and distribute, claim the whole merit, or regard themselves as the so/e means of preaching the Gos- pel in those languages, as if nothing were due to the learned and industrious translators , as if nothing were due to the munificence of those, under whose patronage, and at whose expence, those translations were originally printed. In fact, the first transla- tors afforded the means of preaching the Gospel in the languages into which they translated it; where- as they, who only reprint what had been printed be- fore, however meritorious their exertions may be, augment only the means which already existed 10 . Nor let it be imagined, that all the European translations were become so scarce, or that the edi- tions of them had been so few, that, without the intervention of the Bible Society, the inhabitants of those countries would have had no access to the Word of God. I have in general mentioned only the first edition of each translation, which presents to the reader an historical view of them ; but most of them have been many times reprinted, and some of them so very frequently, that it would be diffi- cult, if not impossible, to recount the editions. It is true, that in the Catholic countries of France, Italy, Spain, and Portugal, translations of the Scrip- 10 Dr. Buchanan says, “ The learned man, who produces a “ translation of the Bible into a new language, is a greater be- “ nefactor to mankind, than the prince, who founds an empire.” See his Ecclesiastical Establishment for British India, p. 70. the Languages and Dialects of Europe. 1 1 lures are not common. Nor will they ever become so, while the use of them is discouraged by the Ca- tholic Clergy; for the individual examples of en- couragement, which have been occasionally quoted, are certainly exceptions to the general rule, which especially applies to Protestant editions of the ili- ble 1I . And whenever that encouragement becomes 21 To say nothing of that decree of the Council of Trent which prohibits the indiscriminate use of the Scriptures, the Catholic Clergy, however liberally they may interpret that decree, can- not, consistently with their own religion, admit the introduction of Protestant Bibles, in which the apocryphal books of the Old Testament are separated from the canonical, as books, which, according to the sixth of our Articles, the C hurch of England does not apply “ to establish any doctrine.” For the Church of Borne rejects this distinction, and assigns the same authority to the books, which we call apocryphal, as to those which we call canonical. In the Latin Vulgate, which is the authorized version of the Church of Rome, the former are intermixed with the latter, some being placed in one part, others in other parts of the Bible ; as is the case also in the manuscripts of the Greek Bible, from which the Latin version was originally taken. But when Luther translated the Hebrew Bible into German, he ad- mitted into the Protestant Canon only the books, which were contained in the Hebrew Canon, and referred those books to a separate class, by the name of apocryphal, which were contained in the Greek and Latin Canon, but not in the Hebrciv. This distinction has been adopted by Protestants in general : and hence the French Bibles, which have been printed in Germany, Switzerland, Holland, and England, for the use of French Pro- testants, are printed like our English Bibles, either vcithout the Apocrypha, or with the apocryphal books placed together in a separate class. Since therefore the Church of Rome considers the books, which we call apocryphal, as being equally canonical, or as having equal authority with the other books of the Old Testament, wc may be assured, that the Catholic Clergy in ge- 12 Translations of the Scriptures into general, France especially will be able to supply it- self much better than they can be supplied by us. Indeed the French translations of the Scriptures, which have been already made, are more numerous than those in any other language ; and the account of them, with their several editions, occupies not less than twenty folio pages of the Bibliotheca Sa- cra. If we turn to the Protestant part of the European Continent, we shall find, that the Scriptures in the four principal languages, German, Dutch, Danish, and Swedish, were common, and easily procured, neral (though there is no rule without an exception) will object to the introduction of Protestant Bibles where a portion of Scripture, equal in their opinion to the rest, is either totally re- jected, or separated from the other books, as of less value. On this subject the British and Foreign Bible Society had very early intimation : for in the Appendix to the first Report, No. X, is printed a Letter from a Catholic Clergyman in Suabia, who, though very liberally disposed, yet is compelled to say, “ Let “ me however candidly observe, that a Protestant edition of the “ Bible would hardly be suffered to have its free course, after “ all I know of the minds of most of the Catholic people and “ Clergy. It ought therefore to be either a Catholic edition of “ the Bible, or, if a Protestant, it ought to have the same ap - “ pearance , as if printed in a Catholic town ; for instance, the “ books of the Bible ought to be placed in an order different from that which is generally adopted in Protestant Bibles.” — Whether the French Bible, which the Society has stereotyped, is printed according to this advice, I do not know. I hardly suppose that it is ; because it w ould be contrary to our religion to place the apocryphal books on a level with the canonical. On the other hand, if it is not, the Letter above quoted is suffi- cient proof, that it will “ hardhj he suffered to have its free course ” in Catholic countries. the Languages and Dialects of Europe » IS long before the existence of the Bible Society. Tho truth of this assertion, in respect to the Dutch, Da- nish, and Swedish, (and even in respect to the Fin- nish and Laponese versions) is confirmed by the records of the Society itself. In the Appendix to the very first Report, No. XVII, is printed the “ Extract of a Letter from a respectable Minister “ in Holland, dated October < 2 6 , 1S04;” in which year the Society was founded, and began to make inquiries, whether there was a scarcity of Bibles on the Continent. Now this respectable Dutch Mi- nister says in this very Letter, “ With us, there is, “ thank God, no scarcity of Bibles." And a few lines afterwards, he says, “ Even the poorest per- “ son among us can easily procure a Bible; and “ our Deacons make strict enquiry of their indi- “ gent parishioners, whether they possess a Bible, “ and read it.” In the same Appendix, at No. XVI, is printed “ the extract of a Letter from the 4 ‘ Society Pro fide et Christ ianismo, at Stockholm, “ addressed to tiie Rev. G. Brunmark, Chaplain to u the Swedish Embassy at the Court of St. James's, “ dated Stockholm, May 31 , 1804.” The first pa- ragraph of this Letter, which is signed O. Linder- holm, is as follows: “ In answer to your question, “ made in behalf of the British and Foreign Bible “ Society, “ whether the inhabitants of Sweden in “ general, and the Laplanders in particular, are u sufficiently well provided with Bibles,” we do tl with heartfelt satisfaction inform vou, that, owino' “ to the gracious and paternal care of the govern- “ rnent of our country, as well as from the Gospel l< light and zeal which have generally spread among 14 Translations of the Scriptures into “ individuals, no want exists at present of this Holy “ Book , which contains in it the fountain of all “ knowledge, bringing salvation, and producing “ good-will among men : and moreover, that Bi~ “ hies in the Finland, and Lapland languages are “ now currently printed at this place , and distri- “ buted either gratis or at very reduced prices, by “ Societies formed for that benevolent purpose The Danish Society for promoting the Gospel and true Christianity, addressed a Letter to the British and Foreign Bible Society, dated June 17, 1807, which is remarkable on various accounts 13 . It be- gins, “ Labouring for one and the same end with “ you, in dispersing books adapted to excite and That no want exists of Swedish Bibles, appears further from the following remarkable fact. At the beginning of the year 1807, which was previous to any remittance of the Bible Society to Sweden, twelve hundred Swedish prisoners were brought to Leipsic, then in the possession of the French ; and it was a matter of notoriety, that among these twelve hundred men, there was hardly one who had not a Swedish Bible in his knapsack. I state this on the authority of a person, who was in Leipsic at that very time — In 1 808, the Society Pro fide et Christianismo, addressed another Letter, to the Chaplain of the Swedish Legation, in which they commend the exertions of the Bible Society : but no mention is made of any want of Bibles in Sivedcn. See 4th Report, Appendix, No. V. I must not how- ever neglect to mention, that another Society was founded at Stockholm, at the end of 1808, by the name of the Evangelical Society: that this Society, in a Letter dated February 20, 1809, applied to the Bible Society for pecuniary assistance toward a new exlition of the Swedish Bible; and that, in this Letter, com- plaint is made of a leant of Bibles in Sweden. See the Society’s fifth Report, Appendix, No. IV. 11 It is printed in the fourth Report, Appendix, No. IV. 4 the' Languages and Dialects of Europe. 15 “ cherish the pursuit of piety, hut especially the “ sacred Scripture itself, we cannot, & c.” It then proceeds to speak of a new edition of the Icelandic Testament : “ You have, dearest Brethren, been ‘‘ long ago informed, that, upon receiving indubi- s, have been “ added to the Christian Church.” 8ce his Ecclesiastical Esta- blishment for British India, p, 80. the Languages and Dialects of Asia. 37 the Pentateuch, with the books of Joshua and Judges. The translation was continued and com- pleted by that distinguished Missionary, Benjamin Scbultze, who arrived at Tranquebar in the same year in which Ziegenbalg died. The Tamulic Old Testament was printed at Tranquebar in four vo- lumes, in the years 1 723, 1726, 1727, nod 1728. In this year, by the desire and at the expence of the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, Schultze removed to Madras, for the purpose of converting the Heathen in that neighbourhood *\ In 1732, he finished his translation of the Bible into the Telugian, a dialect of the Tamul, which is used in the neighbourhood of Madras and Cuddalore. But whether the Tamul Bible already printed, being likewise understood in those districts, made the ex- pence of an edition in the Telugian dialect less ne- cessary, or any other cause intervened, this Telu- gian translation has never been printed ,J . In 11 See the Account of the Society, p. 8. In addition to the Tamul Bible, made by Ziegenbalg and Schultze, Fabricius, another German Missionary, who came to Madras after Schultze, made a second Tamul translation of the New Testa- ment, which was printed at Madras in 1777. 13 In Bauragarten’s Account of Remarkably Books, val, ix. p. 29 5, is printed Catalogue scriptorum B. Sc/uilzii, of which No- 20 is “ Biblia Telugica ex hebraico et graeco textu, adhi- “ bitis multis aliis versionibus, in linguam Telugicam translata. “ Msc. M. d. Aug, 22, 1732.” As Schultze returned to Halle in 1744, and died there in 1760, it is probable that the manus- cript is still preserved there. "Whether the Telinga, which is sunken on the north side of the Kri&tna, and into which the Baptist Missionaries have translated the New Testament, has any relation to the Telugian, I have not been able to learo N / 58 Translations of the Scriptures into 1739, this indefatigable Missionary began to trans- late the New Testament into the Hindostanee lan- guage, which he finished in 1741. He began like- wise the Old Testament, but translated only a part of it, being obliged, on account of his health, to re- turn to Europe, in 1744. His Hindostanee trans- lation of the New Testament, and the portions which he had translated of the Old Testament, w r ere all printed at Halle, in the Oriental, or Jewish and Mahometan Institution in that University, be- tween 1745 and 1758, and have been gradually transmitted to India, We now come to a period, which is distinguished, not only for English patronage, but for English translators in the East. On the 4th of May, 1800, was founded, under the auspices of Marquis Wel- lesley, th£ College of Fort William, in Bengal ‘ 4 . It is true, that the immediate object of this institu- tion was to provide for the civil service of the East-India Company : but if we examine the “ ca- “ talogue of works in the Oriental languages and “ literature, printed in the College of Fort William, “ or published by its learned members since the “ commencement of the institution,” to the last date in the catalogue, which is September £0, 1804, (the year in which the Bible Society was founded) we shall find, that translations of the Scriptures were not neglected. 15 For instance, “ The Gospels 14 See p. 65, of the “ College of Fort William, in Bengal,” printed in London in 1805, and containing the proceedings of the College during its four first years. 15 Ibid. p. 219—231. the Languages and Dialects of Asia. 385 Le Long mentions a New Testament in the Indian language, printed in London in 16'46, but in what Indian language he does not say \ In the last, and in the present century, no men have contributed so much to promote a knowledge of the Scriptures among the savage nations of Ame- rica, as the German Missionaries belonging to the Society of United Brethren, or the Unitas Fratrum. Their first mission was undertaken in 1734, under the patronage of the celebrated Count Zinzendorf, of Herfnhut in Lusatia, whence the brethren have taken in Germany the name of Ilerrnhuter. From 1 Le Long Bibliotheca Sacra. Tom. i. p. 448. t. Ib. The title is, Novum Testamentum, Lingua Indica, / Londini, 1646, 12mo. 8 ( Translates of the Scriptures, 8$c. 99 the Delaware Indians, among whom they first settled, they gradually extended their labours through the country of the Mohawks, and other Indian tribes, as far as the Esquimaux. So early as the year 1754, Fabricius, one of the Missionaries, translated a part of the Scriptures into the Dela- xvare language } ; another Missionary, Schmick, translated a portion of the Gospels into the Mahi« han language * * * 4 * . These labours were performed amidst the severest trials, and without the aid of either grammar or vocabulary, with which trans’- lators are usually furnished s . It is true that these translations could be made only for the purpose of reading them to the Indian tribes, who have no know* ledge of letters , though they use a kind of hierogly* phics, which they paint on trees to designate im* portant events 6 . In the Esquimaux language they have translated, and also printed, the Harmony of the four Gospels, u'hich is used by the Unitas Fra - trum 7 ; and it is from this Harmony that the Mis- sionary Kohlmeister extracted the Gospel of St. * See Part II. p. 154, of Loskiel’s History of the Mission of the United Brethren, translated from the German by Mr. La Trobe. 4 lb. ib. s David Zeitsberger, however, composed afterwards a gram- mar of the Delaware language, which was printed at Philadel- phia in 1776. Ib. P. I. p. 22. In the Esquimaux language the Missionaries have since composed a dictionary for their owo use. 6 Ib. P. I. p. 23. 7 Concise Account of the Missions of the Unitas Fratrura, p. 23. IT 2 100 Translations of the Scriptures into John, which has been since printed by the Bible Society 8 . The same Harmony they have trans- lated and printed in the language of Greenland 9 . where they have likewise established a mission; but whether they had any concern in the translation of the New Testament into this language, which was printed at Copenhagen in 1 799, I do not know ,0 . Nor do I know whether they had any concern with the Creole New Testament, which was printed at Copenhagen in 1781; though it appears that they have printed hymn books, as well in the Creole as in the Esquimaux and Greenland languages But in addition to the Esquimaux Harmony of the Gos- pels, which has been long in use among the Mis- sionaries of Labrador, another Missionary, Burk- hardt, has been some time engaged with a transla- tion into the Esquimaux of the Acts and the Epistles. In the Mohawk language, though great proficiency had been made in it by the German •Missionaries so early as the year 1748, it does not 8 See Mr. La Trobe’s Letter, printed in the Sixth Report, App. No. XIX. 9 Concise Account, p. 23. It is there added, that “ other “ parts of the Scriptures, translated into different heathen “ tongues, but yet only in manuscript, are in constant use.” 10 The Greenlanders were converted to Christianity by the Danish Bishop, John Egede. He went to Greenland in 1721 with his son, Paul Egede, who composed both a grammar and a dictionary in the Greenlandish language, printed at Copen- hagen, the one in 1750, the other in 1760. In the preface to the Dictionary, Paul Egede describes the extreme hardships to which he and his father were exposed during their residence in that country. Paul Egede passed fourteen years there. 11 Concise Account, p. 23. 101 the Languages of America. appear, that they translated the Scriptures into that language; for the "Mohawk version of St. Mark's Gospel, which was printed jn 1787, is accompanied with a Mohawk version of the English Liturgy, which must have been made therefore by a Mis- sionary of the Church of England “. Lastly, a Mohawk version of St. John's Gospel was made by Captain Norton, who resided many years among the Mohawks, and assumed even a Mohawk name. This translation has been printed at the expence of the Bible Society. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts, which employs at present not less than eighty-four Mis- sionaries, Catechists, and Schoolmasters, was by its charter in- tended to supply the British Plantations, which were unpro- vided with a maintenance for Ministers. But in the circuit of their establishment at Kingston, in Upper Canada, they have a chapel, in which divine service is performed for the Mohawks in their own language. The Mohawk translation, therefore, of our English Liturgy, accompanied with the Gospel of St. Mark, was probably made for the use of this or some similar chapel. See the Proceedings of the Society for 1810, p. 42. SECTION V. Result of the four preceding Sections, in respect to- the Extent of the Services, which have been ren- dered by the British and Foreign Bible Society. IN the four preceding sections I have given an account of all the translations, which have been made of the Scriptures, as well in ancient as in modern times, throughout every part of the world; and have examined what additions have been made to the previously existing stock by the British and Foreign Bible Society. I will now therefore propose the following question : Has the British and Foreign Bible Society trans- lated the four Gospels into any one language, into which they had not been previously translated t If this question can be answered in the negative, what will become of all those splendid descriptions, which have lately formed the grand attraction of this Society 1 ? I do not here ask whether they 1 The languages which appear in the Society’s list consist. First, of languages in which the Scriptures had been already printed, and of which the Society has published or promoted new editions in Great Britain. Of this description there are twelve, namely, English, Welsh, Gaelic, Irish, Manks, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Dutch, Danish, and Greek; in all of which they have printed the New Testament, and in the six Result of the four preceding Sections. 103 have translated the whole Bible into any language into which it had not been previously translated ; for it may be said, that they have not yet had suffi- cient time for that purpose. Hut as translators of the Scriptures generally begin with the New Testa- ment, and make their commencement with the jour Gospels , this portion of Scripture affords the fairest specimen fora comparison of what this Society has performed, with what other Societies and indivi- duals had previously performed. Besides, when we are informed in general terms, that the Society has translated the Scriptures into such and such languages, into which they had never been trans- lated before, we may naturally conclude, that at least the four Gospels are comprehended in the general assertion. To bring the question, which I first also the Old Testament, As this is exactly what was done by one man, Elias Hutter, two hundred years ago, it cannot be reckoned among the performances exceeding every thing which has been done since the apostolic age. Secondly, of languages in which also the Scriptures had been previously printed, but of which new editions have been lately published abroad, namely, at Copenhagen, Stockholm, Berlin, &c.and towhich theBible Society has largely contributed, by affording a considerable portion of the necessary supplies. But, however beneficial the services thus rendered may have been, yet the sending of money abroad out of ample subscrip- tions provided at home, can again be hardly reckoned among the instances of very extraordinary exertion. Thirdly, of languages into which the Scriptures have been lately translated for the first time. The claims therefore of the Society to editions of the Scriptures in languages of this de- scription can alone constitute its title to that wonderful energy wjhich reminds its advocates of the Apostolic Pentecost. 104 Result of the four preceding Sections. have above proposed, to such a decision, as will admit of no doubt, I v\ ill take the long catalogue of languages, which Mr. Vansittart has produced at p. 36, 37, of his second Letter to me. This cata- logue has a kind of official authority, as given by a Vice-President of the Society; and may therefore be supposed to contain every translation, to which the Society can lay claim. Twenty-Jive languages in this catalogue are marked with an asterisk, which Mr. Vansittart explains by saying: “ The lan- “ guages, marked with an asteri.sk, are those, into “ which the Scriptures are not known to have been “ before translated." These twenty-five languages therefore I will examine in the order in which Mr. Vansittart has placed them, with reference to the question now under consideration. But I must previously observe, that, as I cannot know what is doing in India, while I am now writing in England, every assertion in respect to the quantity of trans- lation made in any language, can be founded only on the documents, to which I have now’ access. I appeal to the last printed accounts, both of this and other Societies, which I bring into the estimate. And, as both speakers and writers, who have given such splendid descriptions of what the Bible Society has done in respect to the translation of the Scrip- tures, must have founded them on the same docu- ments, those documents must be the rule to decide between us. The languages, into which the Scriptures, accord- ing to Mr. Vansittart, are not known to have been before translated, are, “ Mohawk, (in part new), " Esquimaux, Calmuck, Malayalim, Chinese, Cin* 5 Result of the four preceding Sections. 1 05 “ galese, Bugis, Maldivian, Orissa, Persian, Persic, “ or pure Persian, Burman, Siamese, Afghan, Ja- gatai, Sanscrit, Seek, Telinga, Carnatica, Macas- “ sar, liahkeng, Mahratta, Sinhala Pali, Baloch, “ and Pushtu 1 .” "I will go through these several languages in the order here placed, and add such remarks as are necessary to determine, whether the question above proposed can be answered in the affirmative of any one of them 1 . 1. Mohawk, (in part new). — Owe Gospel, name- ly, that of St. John, printed by the Society, which, moreover, was not made at their suggestion : and this was nearly twenty years after the Gospel of St. Mark had been printed in the same language. 2. Esquimaux. — One Gospel printed by the So- ciety, extracted from a Harmony of the Gospels, made long before the Society existed. 3. Calmuck . — The Gospel of St. Matthew be- gun, but not finished, though parts of it were trans- lated forty years ago. 1 These twenty-five languages are contained in a catalogue, (consisting altogether of fifty-eight) which is superscribed, “ Languages or Dialects, in which the British and Foreign Bi- “ ble Sociey has been instrumental in diffusing the holy Scrip- “ tures.” Mr. Vansittart had said in his first Letter, that the Society had been the means of preaching the Gospel in fifty-four languages. He has added therefore to the list, but varied the expression. * As most of the remarks, which will be made in the follow- ing catalogue have been already supported by quoted authority, and the most minute references, it will be unnecessary to repeat these quotations and references. But authority vfill be quoted tor every assertion cot already proved. 10(5 Result of the four preceding Sections . 4. Malayalim . — The New Testament was trans- lated into this language by a Syrian Bishop in Tra- vancore, who was certainly not in the pay of the Bible Society. They can lay no claim therefore to the honour of the Malayalim translation. Nor have they an exclusive claim to the honour of print- ing it. We have already seen, that a copy of the four Gospels, in the Malayalim translation, was sent to Serampore to be printed, in 1 807. Another copy was sent about the same time to be printed at Bombay : and to this edition the Bible Society has contributed by sending a supply of paper. How far the Bombay edition, which is only an edition of the four Gospels \ is nozo advanced, I cannot say: but, according to the last printed accounts, only the two first Gospels were then finished. 5. Chinese. — From Dr. Carey’s Report of the state of the translations at the end of 1807, the Mis- sionaries of Serampore were even then advanced very nearly to the end of St. John's Gospel : and this was more than a year before the Missionaries received any aid from the Bible Society. Conse- quently to their Chinese translation of the four Gospels, this Society can lay no claim. And even if it could, there is still a prior translation, which would prevent the claim of originality : for there is a Chinese manuscript of the Gospels preserved in the British Museum * * 5 . * This appears from several passages of a Letter, printed it* the Appendix to the Seventh Report, p. 25. 5 Mr. Morrison, a Missionary in the service of the London Missionary Society, made a copy of this manuscript, and took it Result of the four preceding Sections. 107 6. Cingalese . — An edition of the New Testament in the Cingalese language is now printing in the island of Ceylon, and the Bible Society has sent paper for a thousand copies * * * * * 6 . But this is so far from being a translation now made for the first time , that the very library belonging to the Bible Society contains an edition of the Cingalese New Testament, printed at Colunibo in 17S3 7 . And with him to Canton. “ It has proved of great advantage to “ him, that he copied and carried with him the Chinese trans- “ lation of the Gospels, & c. preserved in the British Museum, “ which he now finds from his own increasing acquaintance with the language and the opinion of the Chinese assistants, ft to be exceedingly valuable, and which must, from the excel- “ lency of the style, have been produced by Chinese natives.” See p. xxi. of the “ Report of the Directors to the Missionary “ Society,” 1810. Another Chinese manuscript, containing the Epistles and Gospels for the whole year, according to the Roman Missal, together with the Psalms, translated by one of the Jesuit Missionaries, is mentioned by Le Long. Bibl. sacra, tom. I. p. 14-5. 6 Seventh Report, p. 13. 7 See the Appendix to the Sixth Report, p. 86, where the two following editions are mentioned as having been presented to the Society by Sir Alexander Johnstone, Chief Justice of the Island of Ceylon. ‘ The four Gospels in Cingalese, Colombo ‘ 1780.’ — ‘ The books of Genesis, Exodus, and a part of Levi- * ticus, with the whole of the New Testament, Columbo, 1783.* The latter edition is mentioned also in the Sixth Report itself, where it is said (p. 8) on the authority of Sir Alexander John- stone, that “ nearly the first three books of the Old Testament, “ and the whole of the New, have been translated into the Cin- “ galese, and printed at Columbo.” Sir Alexander adds, “ at ** the expence of government Whether this last expression applies to the edition of 1783, or to a re-impression of it, made 108 Result of the four preceding Sections. the four Gospels, with which we are concerned at present , were printed at Colombo so early as 1759- 7- Bugis . — The patronage of this translation, which was undertaken by Dr. leyden, belongs ex- clusively to the Bible Society. But, according to the last printed accounts, only the Gospel of St. Mark had been translated. 8. Maldivian . — This is likewise a translation, of which the patronage belongs exclusively to the Bi- ble Society: but, according to the last printed ac- counts, nothing more had been translated than twenty-six chapters of St. Matthew’s Gospel. 9 . Orissa . — Not only the four Gospels, but the whole New Testament, had been translated, and even printed in this language, by the Missionaries at Serampore, before they received any aid from the Bible Society. 10. Persian . — Two Persian translations of the four Gospels were printed in 1657 : and another Persian translation of the four Gospels was made by Colonel Colebrooke, before the Bible Society existed* *. at the expence of our own government, since the island has been in ouf possession, I do not know. * In addition to the printed translations, may be mentioned a version of almost the whole New Testament into the Persian lan- guage, which was made by Sebastiani, late Missionary in Persia. See Mr. Martyn’s Sermon, called “ Christian India,” p. 22. Mr. Martyn says in the same place, that Antonio, another Ro- man Catholic Missionary, at Boglipoor, on the Ganges, has translated the Gospels and the Acts into the dialect of that dis- trict. I take the present opportunity of mentioning this trans- Result of the four preceding Sections. 109 11. Persic, or pure Persian^ — There is no lan- guage now spoken in Persia by the name of pure Persian, and distinct from the common Persian lan- guage, any more than there is a pure English lan- guage distinct from the common English ; though in Persia, as well as in England and every other country, the same language is spoken with greater or less purity, by different persons, and in different places. Now Sabat (who is at present in the pay of the Bible Society) being a native Arabian, intro- duced, as might have been expected, into his Per- sian translation, an admixture of Arabic words, and Arabic idiom. He is desired therefore, and ac- cordingly “ promises, to revise his Persian transla- “ tion, and to produce one more simple and purely “ Persic.” These are the words used in Mr. Brown’s Letter, dated Calcutta, March 15, 1810, and printed in the Appendix to the Seventh Re- port, p. 74. It is probably a misconception of this passage, which led Mr. Vansittart into the error of supposing, that Sabat was going to make a transla- tion into another Persian language. At any rate, as this translation was only promised by Sabat, it can have no right to a place among the languages, in which the Society, according to Mr. Vansittart’s own expression, “ has been instrumental in diffusing “ the holy Scriptures.” 12. Burman. — Into this language nothing has been translated but some Scripture Extracts. Re- lation, as I did not know of it when I described the other Indian translations. I J 10 Result of the four preceding Sections. sides, it is quite inconsistent with the rules of the Society, to admit Scripture Extracts upon their list, though the Burman translation appears in their offi- cial catalogue 9 . 13. Siamese. — This is one of the languages, of which the Bible Society has the exclusive patron- age : but, according to the last printed accounts, the translation was not begun. 14. Afghan. — Another language, of which the Society has the exclusive patronage: but, accord- ing to the last printed accounts, nothing more had been translated than eighteen chapters of St. Mat- thew’s Gospel *°. 9 Seventh Report, p. 6, and Summary Account for 1811, p. 13. As this assertion does not agree with what is asserted of the Afghan translation in the Seventh Report of the Society, and hence I might be suspected of inaccuracy, it is necessary that I should give some explanation. In the Seventh Report, p. 7, it is said, that the Gospel of St. Matthew has “ been completed in “ the Pushto or Afghan dialect, and the Maldivian, excepting “ the two last chapters.” Now Dr. Leyden’s Letter, printed in the Appendix, p. 115, is the official document on which these assertions must have been founded ; and there we find the fol- lowing statement: “ Read Report of Translations into the “ Pushto, Maldivian, Bugis, and Macassar Languages, by Dr. “ John Leyden.” Then follows Dr. Leyden’s Letter, which begins thus : “ I beg you will do me the favour to submit to the “ Committee the accompanying papers, which I forward by way “ of reporting progress in the translation of the Gospels, which “ I undertook to superintend. The} r consist, of the Gospel of St. Matthew, from the beginning to the end of the 18th chap- “ ter, in the Maldivian languages. Th e first of these I regard “ as very correct, and superior in point of style to any prose / Result of the four preceding Sections. 1 1 1 15 . Jagatai, or original Turcoman. — Again, a language exclusively in the patronage of the So- ciety; but in which, according to the last printed accounts, the translation was not begun. 16 . Sanscrit. — In this language, not only the four Gospels, but the whole New- Testament, had been printed, as well as translated, by the Mission- aries at Serampore, before they received any aid from the Bible Society. 17. Seek. — Into this language also the Mission- aries of Serampore had translated the whole New Testament, before they received any aid from the Bible Society. 18. Telinga. — One translation into this language was certainly undertaken at the expeuce of the Bible Society : but it was not the first translation into that language. It was made by the late Air. Des Granges, who resided at Vizagapatam, and was in the service of the London Missionary So- ciety. But Mr. Des Granges, who died in the “ composition in the Afghan language. The second, or the “ Maldivian, has been corrected and collated with the Greek “ up to the two last chapters.” Dr. Leyden then mentions the third and fourth languages, namely, the Bugis and Macas- sar, into which the Gospel of St. Mark was translated : but he says not a word more of the Afghan or Pushto. Since there- fore the term Maldivian is used both for the Jirst and for the second language, it must have been written or printed by mis- take in one instance. And since in the Seventh Report, it is said of the Maldivian , that the Gospel of St. Matthew had been completed “ excepting the two last chapters,” only eighteen chapters, as stated of the first mentioned language, should have been claimed for the Afghan or Pushto. 1 1 2 Result of the four preceding Sections. summer of 1810, had only just finished before his death the three first Gospels; whereas the Mission- aries of Serampore, not less than a year before that period, had finished the translation of the whole New Testament into the Telinga”. 19- Carnatica . — Into this language the Mission- aries of Serampore had translated not only the four Gospels, but the whole New Testament, before they received any aid from the Bible Society. 20. Macassar . — This is another of the languages exclusively patronized by the Bible Society: but, according to the last printed accounts, nothing more had been translated than the Gospel of St. Mark. 21. Rahkeng . — This is the seventh and last, among the Asiatic languages, to which the Bible Society, according to the last printed accounts, could lay an exclusive claim. But, according to 11 See the Account given of the Telinga, in the second Sec* tion, under Class IV. Mr. Des Granges himself, in his Journal, dated November 20, 1805, says: “ We continue to get a little “ more acquainted with the Telinga, and with a little assistance “ can understand the leading ideas of the stories which the Bra- “ min write for us.” See the Transactions of the Missionary Society, Vol. II. p. 446. In the following October, 1806, Mr. Des Granges paid a visit to Serampore, and on that occasion the Missionaries there say : “ Brother Des Granges has consulted “ us about the meaning of several Telinga words, which were « perfectly familiar with us, either as Bengalee or Sangscrit.” Per. Acc. No. XVII. p. 328. Now the Serampore Missionaries commenced their translation into the Telinga so early as 1804, (Brief Account, p. 49) and consequently before the translator, who was patronized by the Bible Society, had even learnt the language. Result of the four preceding Sections. 1 1 3 those very accounts, the translation into the Rah- keng was not begun. 22. ' Mahratta . — Into this language the Mission- aries of Serampore, before any aid was received by them from the Bible Societv, had translated not only the four Gofpels, but the whole New Testa- ment. . , 23, 24. Sinhala Pali, and Ralocli. — These two names do not appear in the last printed official list of the Society, and therefore must be the result of later intelligence from India, to which Mr. Van- sittart, as a Vice-President, has, of course, access. Consequently, they have no right to a place in a calculation, founded on official documents already laid by the Society before the public : for on those documents alone, all the splendid descriptions which have been hitherto made, and which it is the object of the present calculation to confute, have been founded. When I consider, however, that of the seven languages or dialects, introduced into the last Report, and placed on the Society’s list, there were only two, into which a complete Gospel had been translated, and that there were three , into which not a single chapter had been translated, it is not very probable, that the same intelligence, which brings the first account of the Sinhala Pali and of the Baloch, should bring also the account that all four Gospels have been translated into these two languages 11 . 11 The Pali or Bali (for the Word is written both ways) “ is an ancient dialect of Sanscrit , which sometimes approaches I 1 14 Result of the four preceding Sections. £5. Pushtu . — Pushtu and Pushto are only dif- ferent ways of writing the same word ; and Pushto, as appears from the very words of the Seventh Re- port quoted in Note 10, is only another name for the Afghan, which Mr. Vansittart had reckoned be- fore. I have thus examined the twenty- fire languages, of which Mr. Vansittart affirms in the first place, that “the British and Foreign Bible Society has been instrumental in diffusing the Holy Scriptures” in them ; and in the second place, that they are lan- guages “ into which the Scriptures are not known to have been before translated.” From a compa- rison of the latter with the former affirmation, every man will conclude, that these twenty -fixe languages are languages, into which the Scriptures* have been translated by the instrumentality of the Bible So- ciety. And since the general term “the Scrip- tures" will be supposed to include at least the four (rospcls , with which translators of the Scriptures almost always begin, every reader of Mr. Vansit- tart's second Letter will conclude, that at least the four Gospels had been translated by the Bible So- ciciv into twenty-free languages, into which they very near the original.” Asiatic Researches, Vol. X. p. 281. Now in the Sanscrit we have at realty, a translation of the New Testament. Sin /tala Pali means nothing more than Pali written in the Sinhala (that is the Cingalese) character. Ibid. Whether there is any relation between Bali and Baloch I do not know, as ■Or. Leyden, in his Dissertation, printed in the above-quoted volume of the Asiatic Researches, has not mentioned the latter term. Result of the four preceding Section. 1 Uti had never been before translated. And what is the result of the preceding examination? It is as fol- lows : First; Of these twenty-five languages, the Pure Persian and the Pushto were inserted in Mr. Van- sittart’s list through mere mistake ; and the Sinhala Pali, and the Baloch, have no place in an estimate founded on documents already published ,J . Secondly ; the translations into the Siamese, the Rahkeng, and the Jagatai, were, according to the last-printed accounts, not begun. Thirdly ; Into the Calmuck, the Afghan, and the Maldivian, the Gospel of St. Matthew only had been undertaken, but according to the last-printed accounts not completed in any of them. Fourthly; Into the Bugis and the Macassar, owe entire Gospel, viz. that of St. Mark, had been translated. Fifthly; In the Mohawk and Esquimaux, one Gospel, namely, that of St. John, has been printed by the Society. But the Society had no share in the translation of either ; and moreover the Mohawk Gospel of St. John was not the first Gospel which had been printed in that language. Sixthly; Into the Telinga language three Gos- pels were translated by Mr. Des Granges at the espence of the Society; but the whole New Testa- 13 If it shall appear however from the next Report of the So- ciety, that the four Gospels have been already translated into the Sinhala Pali, and the Baloch, I will allow an exception in favour of these two languages. I 3 Result of the Jour preceding Sections. ment had been previously translated into this lan- guage by the Missionaries of Serampore M . Seventhly ; Into the Burman language, only Scripture Extracts have been translated. Eighthly; The remaining nine languages are, (a) Persian and Cingalese, of which we had translations of the four Gospels before the Bible Societ} 7 ’ existed. (b) Malayalim, translated by a Syrian Bishop in Travancore, who was certainly not in the pay of the Bible Society. (c) Sanscrit, Orissa, Mahratta, Carnatica, Seek, and Chinese, into which the Missionaries at Se- rampore had translated the four Gospels long be- fore they received any aid from the Bible Society. I will repeat therefore the question — Has the British and Foreign Bible Society trans- lated even the four Gospels into any one language , into which they had not been previously trans- lated? The answer to this question is evidently, No ! 14 The translation of the Baptist Missionaries preceded also the translation made by Anunderayer from the Tamul version. Even therefore if the Bible Society should claim Anunderayer’s translation as their own, it is still not the first translation made into the Telinga. Indeed the Missionaries at Serampore had translated the four Gospels into Telinga in 1807, whereas Anun- derayer did not join the Mission at Yizagapatain, till hlay 1808. See the Report of the Directors to the Missionary Society for 1810. Appendix, p. xli. And if Telinga means the same thing as Telugian (as I have been informed since I wrote note 13 to Sect. II.) the •whole Bible was translated into this language by the German Missionary Schultze, so long ago as 1782. Result of the four preceding Sections, 1 17 I will propose a second question — Has the British and Foreign Bible Society, ac- cording to the last printed accounts, translated even two Gospels into any language, into which they had not been previously translated ? The answer to this question is likewise, No ! The proof is contained in the examination of the first question. I will propose a third question — Into how many languages into which no parts of Scripture had been previously translated, has even, one entire Gospel according to the last printed ac- counts been translated by this Society ? The answer to this question is two, and two only, namely, the Bugis and the Macassar, into which the Society has translated the shortest of the four Gospels. Lastly, as it is necessary that the Scriptures should be printed, before we can speak of their dispersion or diffusion , I will ask, Has the British and Foreign Bible Society, ac- cording tG the last accounts , printed any one entire Gospel, in a language, into which the Scriptures, or portions of the. Scriptures, had not been trans- lated, either before this Society existed, or inde- pendently of this Society's assistance ? The answer to this question is, No! For the Bu- gis and Macassar translations, according to the last printed accounts, had not been sent to press, nor does it appear, that even types were prepared for them. In the Afghan, the Maldivian, and the Calmuck, even the translation of the first Gospel vyas not completed ; and in the Siamese, Rahkeng, 4 1 1 8 Result of the four preceding Sections. and Jagatai, not a chapter. The Mohawk and Esquimaux translations of St. John’s Gospel, had indeed been printed by the Society. But the latter was extracted from a Harmony of the Gospels trans- lated into Esquimaux before the Society existed ; and the former was so far from being the first trans- lation in the Mohawk, that the Gospel of St. Mark had been printed in that language nearly twenty years before. To the printing of one edition of the Malayalim Gospels the Society has largely contri- buted : but the translation had been made inde- pendently of its assistance. The Cingalese version is not now printing for the first time. In the Bur man only extracts had been printed. In the Per- sian and in the Telinga, the printing was not be- gun ; nor can it be said of either, that portions of the Scriptures had not been preciously translated into those languages. Likewise in the Carnatica, the printing was not begun : and though it was be- gun in the Seek, yet the translations into both these languages were made by the Missionaries of Se- rampore without the aid of the Bible Society. Two Gospels in the Chinese language have been printed atSerampore: but the translation of all four Gos- pels into the Chinese was again made by the Mission- aries without the aid of the Bible Society. In the Sanscrit, and the Orissa, the whole New Testa- ment had been printed ; but before any aid was re- ceived from the Bible Society, The same is true also of the Gospels in the Mahratta language. The Bible Society therefore, according to the last accounts, has not printed so much as one entire Gospel in any one language, into which the Scrip- Result of the four preceding Sections. 1 19 tures, or portions of the Scriptures, had not been translated, either before the existence of the So- ciety, or independently of its assistance 1 *. Having thus redeemed the pledge which I had given in the “ Inquiry” respecting the exaggerated statements of the Society's translations, I will now- close the account, and reserve for a separate publication whatever observations it may be ne- cessary to make in reply to the arguments, which have been advanced against my former pamphlet. For, as the avowed object of the present work is the examination of the foreign department, it would be quite inconsistent to enter at present into a se- cond examination of the Society's operations a t home. But as an answer to the arguments which have been brought against me on this subject will 75 In the Inquiry, p. 66, I promised to prove in a future Ap- pendix to that pamphlet, “ that the editions of the Scriptures “ already printed, or caused to be printed, by this Society, in “ languages, into which they had not been translated before, so “ far from amounting to FIFTY-FOUR, which the ambiguity “ of Mr. Yansittart’s expression, aided by the splendour of his “ description might induce men to suppose amount to a very “ few more than a tenth of that number.” Let any one compare this position with that which I have last proved in the present section, and determine whether I have not fulfilled my engage- ment. As the position in the passage just quoted relates not to translating, but to printing, I might have reduced the num- ber, not a few more, but a few less than a tenth of fifty-four. Rut 1 thought it necessary at that time to express myself with caution, lest a more minute examination should bring printed translations to light, with which I was then unacquainted. This minute examination, however, has shewn, that I conceded much more than was necessary. 120 Result of the four preceding Sections. be attended with much less trouble than the writ- ing of the present work, I hope that, if my health permits, it will be ready in the course of a few weeks. THE EN T D. Law and Gilbert, Printers, St. JohnVSiiuare, London. f