« PreviousContinue »
iv. 5. “And again in this [manner].” (kai év TOút Tálıv.)
v. 6. “ Also in another place.” (kai év étépw.) The irregularity is here sufficiently manifest.
viii. 7. “That first covenant.” (nj pútnékeivn.)
13. “A new (covenant]." (kairiv.) ix. 1. “ The first (covenant].” (v pútn.) Why the word “covenant” in the two latter instances should be marked as supplementary, and not in the former, I know not.
Is it for the purpose of lowering the character of Professor Stuart's work that I point out these things ? By no means. On a slight inspection, it appears to be a very learned and useful production—with which I hope to become better acquainted. My object has been very different. It has been suggested to me with no unfriendly feeling, by a Gentleman whom I much respect, that in the Bible there are still some irregularities in the use of Italics.
This I can readily believe. The Epistle to the Hebrews, a small work-in size, compared with the Bible, as about 1 to 106—has been translated, and edited with indications of care as to supplementary words, as well as other matters; and yet it presents the irregularities above particularized, amongst others which might be adduced :—is it then to be supposed that, in a work extensive as the Bible itself, all irregularities should have been removed, even after repeated revisions ?
The ground we stand upon, with regard to the Bible Italics, is this—that every examina
— tion of the Volume tends to shew that scarcely any thing, which, in that respect, can be deemed important, even by an objector, remains to be done.
As to Professor Stuart's Translation of the Epistle to the Hebrews, it is of but little consequence that τον της πίστεως αρχηγών και τελειωτήν (xii. 2) should be rendered—“ the author and perfecter of our faith, and Tø Tarpi TV atvevućTwv (xii. 9)—“to the father of [our] spirits ;” although there is no discernible reason why “our” should be distinguished, as supplied, in the latter case, and not in the former; but when (as we actually find) the latter clause of Heb. x. 38. is translated and printed as follows: “but, “If any man draw back, my soul hath no pleasure in him :'” I affirm without fear of contradiction—even admitting, which as an individual I do not, the translation to be correct--that, without the ordinary marks (any man] of words supplied, Professor Stuart's text misrepresents the real state of the Original. In matters of this kind, such marks really are important; more especially when the matters of inferior moment considered, to which they have been applied in the course of the same work.There is, moreover, pretty long Note on this verse; from which, so far as I can perceive, but little information can be derived, respecting the principle on which the translation, “if any man draw back” depends. May I take the liberty to refer to what has already been stated, on this text, in pp. 78–86, and p. 109 ? *
* In another edition of Professor Stuart's work, the mode of printing the Greek should be revised ; unless, indeed, the present plan be adopted on purpose. Instead of, Διεμαρτύρατο δε που τις, λέγων, Τί έστιν άνθρωπος, ότι μιμνήσκη αυτού ή υιός ανθρώπου, ότι επισκέπτη αυτόν; as usually printed-we have, Διεμαρτύρατο δε που τις, λέγων, Τι έστιν άνθρωπος, ότι μιμνήσκη αυτου, η υιός ανθρώπου, ότι επισκέπτη αυτόν ;-(Stuart, p. 569) and so on continually ; which looks very odd.
Not a single reader of these pages will have now to learn that the world is indebted to Dr J. Pye Smith, for a valuable work entitled, "The Scripture Testimony to the Messiah." In the course of his work, the learned Author has occasion to cite many passages of Scripture; which he always translates for himself with great care. His practice is, to distinguish supplementary words by means of brackets; and it cannot but be interesting to ascertain the mode of proceeding, in this respect, adopted by a person who so well knows what he is doing. For this
purpose, I will adduce a few passages, from the Old and New Testament, which may be taken as fair samples of the rest ; and place them so that they may be easily compared with the Antient and the Modern Text of our Authorized Version. I shall first exhibit the Text of 1611; then the version of Dr S.; and lastly the Text of 1638, as the representative of the Modern Text. The reader will be so good as to observe in what way the marks, applied to the supplementary words, correspond with each other.
GEN. xlix. 10. 1611 — “Unto him shall the gathering of the people be." Dr S.-" To him [shall be] the homage of nations." 1638 — “ Unto him shall the gathering of the people be.”
Ps. xvi. 8.
Isai. ix. 7.
there shall be no end.”
Dr S.-" To the extent of [his] sovereignty, and to [his] peace [shall be] no end."
1638—“Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end.”
Rom. viii. 31. 1611 -“If God be for us, who can be against us?” Dr S.—“If God be for us, who [can be] against us?” 1638—“If God be for us, who can be against us?”
1 Tim. v. 21. 1611 _“I charge thee before God.” Dr S.—“I charge [thee] in the presence of God.” 1638—“I charge thee before God.”
1 John iv. 10. 1611-“Sent his Son to be the propitiation, &c.” Dr S.-"Sent his Son [to be] the propitiation, &c." 1638 — "Sent his Son to be the propitiation, &c."
These I give as specimens of what may be found in Dr Smith's Volumes. There is, indeed, throughout the whole of them, the same undesigned tendency to symbolize with our present editions, rather than the Antient Text, whenever the nature of the passages translated permitted it.
Dr Smith translates 1 Tim. ii. 6. avriaut pov útèp πάντων, trávtw, “A ransom for all [men]:”—why then should “two women” (see p. 27) be objected to ?
Dr Smith translates 1 John v. 19. o á noivos, “the true [one] :”—why then should not ó rovnpos (see again p. 27) be “the wicked one ? "
A dread of prolixity and an aversion to draw inferences, which no one can fail to draw for himself, induce me to leave the preceding instances, from Dr Smith's Volumes, to make their own impression on the reader's mind.
From what has been adduced, it is manifest, that the application of Italics, or some equivalent distinctions, to supplementary words, is no recent invention
that it has not been confined to the learned of one nation _and that, in our own country, it has been to this day adopted, both by Dissenters and Members of the Church of England, as a plan sanctioned by time, and of undeniable importance.
There is one Biblical Criticthe late Dr Adam Clarke-of whose labours on the Scriptures I have studiously avoided all mention, till the present moment. With a few remarks, which the nature of his labours appears to warrant, I shall take leave of the subject; by which the reader has perhaps been detained too long.*
Being aware that this learned man had revised the Text of our Authorized Version with minute attention to the Italics, I resolved in the first place fairly to consider the subject for myself, without a single reference to the Bible of Dr Clarke; and then to apply his results as a test of the accuracy of my own :
--with a determination to state honestly to the world the conclusions at which I arrived, whatever they might be. having delivered my opinions, without reserve, on the instances adduced in the preceding pages—and compared those opinions with the decisions of Dr Clarke, as derived from his printed Text_I will give an account of what the comparison has brought to light. It is this: Amongst all the specified instances, in which the Modern Bibles differ—and in my judgement rightly differ—from the Bible of 1611_whether it be with regard to the Italic
* The New Testament, with Dr Clarke's Commentary, appears to have been published in 1817; and the Old Testament in 1825.