« PreviousContinue »
by me, And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free.” Matt. xv. 5, 6.
“ But put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts thereof." Rom. xiii. 14.
“Having received of Epaphroditus the things which were sent from you.” Phil. iv. 18.
“Let no man deceive you by any means; for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first." 2 Thess. ii. 3.
“ And in as much as not without an oath he was made Priest.” Heb. vii. 20.
I have put down the foregoing instances as they presented themselves; in order that the reader may be in some measure aware of the various kinds of Words and Phrases which are really found, in the Text of 1611, printed in a manner equivalent to our Italics.* Those instances will probably be sufficient for the object which I have in view.
Why, it is natural to ask, have such Words and Phrases been thus distinguished by the mode in which they are printed? The answer is easy. On examining, in the Hebrew and Greek Originals, the passages corresponding to those in which the words in Italics occur, it is found that there are, in those Originals, no words strictly corresponding to the words in Italics. It is, therefore, manifestly on this account, that words so circumstanced have been distinguished by a peculiar type...
* It is scarcely necessary to state that the edition of 1611 was printed, as were several subsequent editions, in Black Letter; the words and phrases in Italics, to which attention has now been directed, being printed in small Roman type. This is what is meant by the expression “in a manner equi. valent to our Italics."
Are we then to conclude that the meaning is in such cases imperfectly expressed in the Original Languages ? Far from it. Considering the Hebrew and Greek as living languages, the sentiments expressed would be perfectly intelligible to those to whom they were addressed.
The expression might be more less full; but the idiom would still be familiar, and the sense clear. Even taking the Hebrew and Greek as dead languages, the elliptical brevity of expression (at least, what appears such to us) is, to men of learning, not always productive of obscurity. But when a translation, from Hebrew or Greek into English, is attempted, it is frequently quite impossible to convey, to the English reader, the full signification of the Original, without employing more words than the Original contains.
When therefore our Translators distinguished particular words in the manner already described, they did not intend to indicate any deviation from the purport of the Original -any diminution of its force. Their first object undoubtedly was to express in intelligible English what they believed to be the full signification of a sentence; and their next object appears to have been, to point out, by the mode of printing, such words as had been required, in addition to those of the Original, for the complete development of the meaning.
Although the principle above explained, respecting Words and Phrases in Italics, was undoubtedly adopted by our Translators, we can scarcely expect that it should never have been departed from, in the actual printing of so large a work as the Bible, at so early a period. It was, indeed, departed from in many
and in subsequent editions attempts were made to carry the principle more fully into effect, by applying it to various words, which appeared, in the Text of 1611, in the ordinary character. With what success this was done, will in part be ascertained from an examination of the instances, selected from Modern Copies, to which the attention of the Sub-Committee has been directed, and on which they have founded their Report.
So far as my
Let me here observe that—in using (as, from a wish to be concise, I may take occasion to use) such expressions as “modern Italics” and “ modern text”— I do not mean that any of the Italics in our present Bibles have been recently introduced. information extends, none have been introduced since the year 1769. There is indeed reason to think that the greater number of the Italics, which are in addition to those of 1611, made their appearance in the earlier part of the seventeenth century. In fact, the edition of 1611 seems never to have possessed much authority, with regard to Italics. My main object has been to examine the grounds of the typographical changes which certain words have undergone—whensoever those changes may have taken place. By “modern Italics," therefore, and “modern text,” the reader will be so good as to understand nothing more than the “ Italics” and the "text" which are found in the editions of the Bible now published by the Universities.
TEXTS FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT,
Examined by the Sub-Committee.
Gen. i. 9, 10. “Let the dry land appear-And God called the dry land, Earth.”
The objection here is, that, in the modern editions of the Bible, the word “land” is printed in Italics ; the same word being printed, in the Text of 1611, in the ordinary character.... Now, the Hebrew word translated “dry land” is derived from a root signifying " to be dry;” and itself signifies “the dry.” This is the meaning assigned to it by the Antient Versions. In the Septuagint, for instance, the word is rendered by η ξηρά-οφθήτω η ξηρά....και εκάλεσεν ο θεός την Enpay, lâu. In the Latin Vulgate, the corresponding word is “arida”—“appareat arida....Et vocavit Deus aridam, Terram.” The Latin Versions of Pagninus and Arias Montanus, Castalio and Junius and Tremellius* (as will be seen in the note) present the same view of the matter. The Latin Version, indeed, of Leo Juda (1543) gives “continens” as the rendering of the Hebrew word; but it is worthy of remark that Simon censures the use of that word, instead of “ siccum” or “aridum,” as not duly expressing the sense of the Original.* Le Clerc thus translates the passage—“Appareat sicca humus—Siccam humum vocavit Deus, Terram : :” but then, to shew that “humus” and “humum” are really more than belong to the Hebrew, he prints those words in Italics. Such other Latin Versions as I happen to have referred to—namely, those of Schmid, Houbigant, and Dathe—agree with the Antient Versions f... The German Version of Luther, the Spanish Version of Cypriano de Valera and the Italian Version of Diodati present the passage in a similar form; and the same may be said of various French Versions ... Ainsworth—whose Version may be taken as a pretty sure criterion of the words which the Original does and does not contain—prints the passage as follows: “ Let the dry-land appear-And God called the dryland, Earth:"_indicating by Italics that the word
* Pagninus and Arias Montanus :- “ Appareat arida -Et vocavit Deus aridam, Terram.”
Castalio:-“Jussit Deus-ut appareret siccum. Quo facto, siccum Terram nominavit."
Junius and Tremellius :-“ Conspicua sit arida-Aridam autem vocavit Deus, Terram.”
* “Il n'étoit pas necessaire,” says Simon, “de changer, dans le premier chapitre de la Genese, le mot de siccum ou aridum, qui est employé dans la Vulgate, et dans les autres Versions, en celui de continens, qui n'exprime pas assez la proprieté du mot Hebreu.” Hist. Crit. du Vieux Test. p. 324. ed. 1685.
+ Schmid :-“ Appareat arida...Et vocavit Deus aridam, Terram." Houbigant :-“Aridum appareat-Nominavitque Deus aridum, Terram.”
Dathe :_“Jussit Deus—ut siccum appareat. Quod cum factum esset, siccum Terræ destinavit."
# Luther “ Und Gott nennet das trocken Erde.” Cypriano de Valera :-“ Y llamó Dios à la seca, Tierra.” Diodati :-“Ed Iddio nominò l'asciutto, Terra.”
As to the French Versions (of which I have examined several) take the first that presents itself_Ostervald's;—for, in this matter, there is, so far as I have observed, no difference : “Et Dieu nomma le sec, Terre.”-In these instances, I have thought it sufficient to adduce the clause of the 10th verse... Let me here observe that Luther translates Exod. xiv. 29, “ Aber die kinder Israel giengen trocken mitten durchs Meer ;” giving-instead of our expression, “walked upon dry land”-giengen trocken—" went dry."