Page images
PDF
EPUB

marks" on his " Appeal," in which the Professor vindicates generally the version itself, and consequently defends the Bible Society.

The author of the version in question is generally known by his Mohammedan name of Ali Bey, and was chief interpreter to Mohammed IV., at Constantinople, where he died, in 1675. His original name was Bobowski, or Bobrowski, which has been Latinized into Bobovius. He was born of Christian. parents, at Leopold, in Poland, whence he was carried away by the Tartars, who sold him as a slave, to the Turks; he was afterwards educated in the Seraglio, remaining there for twenty years. From these circumstances it might naturally be suspected, that his knowledge of Christianity would be but small, and that he could scarcely have been acquainted with the spirit and true nature of its doctrines, especially as he was obliged, from the beginning, to profess Mohammedanism. Accordingly, while there is abundant proofs of his knowledge of several languages, both European and Asiatic, in the testimony of Smith, of Warner, and of Hyde, the latter of whom published a Latin Treatise of his, on the religious ceremonies of the Turks, very little proof can be adduced of his knowledge of Christianity, although it is said that before his death he longed for nothing so much as to come to England, and spend the remainder of his days as a Christian. Murinski expresses a doubt whether he was really of any religion. Among other works, some of which are still preserved in the Royal Libraries, of Paris, and the Bodleian; he translated the whole of the Bible into Turkish, at the request of Warner, then Dutch) ambassador at Constantinople, who caused a copy of it to be deposited in the Library of Leyden. This copy furnished the text of the New Testament, which was published at Paris in 1819, by Professor Kieffer, who, as Dr. Henderson assures us, in a Note, p. 91, was enjoined, by express orders from the Bible Society, to follow it implicitly. But the real merits of the version are to be estimated by an examination of itself, and Dr. Henderson has subjected it to an elaborate scrutiny.

In noticing this work we shall limit ourselves to a few observations which have occurred to us in the perusal of it, and shall express our judgment of Professor Lee's "Remarks" upon the "Appeal," from the citations here adduced from it, abstaining from all considerations which are not immediately connected with the merits of this version, with Dr. Henderson's objections, and Professor Lee's defence of it,

A secondary object which Dr. Henderson had in view in publishing his "Appeal," was to direct the attention of the

public to the subject of Biblical translations in general, and the principles upon which they ought to be conducted, a subject which he justly considers as one of the utmost importance in these times, in which so many versions, both old and new, are issued into the world for the purpose of propagating Christianity. The first two chapters of the present work are devoted to this subject. He contends for the adoption of versions which are literal, but not so servile as to do violence to the genius of the language in which they are written, such as shall give the exact sense as nearly as possible, and at the same time express the manner of the original as far as the idioms of the two languages will admit; very properly observing, that "the moment we concede to a translator the licence of merely giving what he may conceive to be the force of his author's expressions, and not the identical expressions themselves, to the utmost extent of the rules imposed upon him by a just system of philology, we surrender the sacred dictates of the Spirit to the whims of human caprice, and open the flood-gates of imposition and error." (P. 7.) Professor Lee, on the other hand, vindicates a free translation, and thinks that the translator is by no means " to be tied down to the peculiar phraseology of the Bible, but is at liberty so to change and accommodate it, as shall best suit the received forms of expression existing among the people for whose use he is preparing his version." (P. 6.) He appeals to the manner in which various passages of the Old Testament are quoted in the New; an argument which we do not think applicable to the subject of translations, since those passages were evidently intended not so much to express the words, as the thing signified, being frequently rather alluded to than expressly quoted besides, those who adduced them had surely an authority which no translator can arrogate to himself. He appeals likewise to the examples of Jerome and Dathe in favour of a free interpretation, which Dr. Henderson shows to be irrelevant, inasmuch as the former clearly expresses his sentiments on translations from profane authors to be widely different from those on translations from the Scripture, "ubi et verborum ordo mysterium est;" while the latter expressly declares that his version was intended for the learned, not for readers in general. Professor Lee's opinion, however, with regard to the matter of a translation is, in theory at least, perfectly in accordance with that of Dr. Henderson. "The pure word of God," he says, " as found in a translation, is, according to our principle, that which comprehends every idea contained in the original Scriptures, fully and faithfully expressed in the

translation." (P. 21.) But with regard to the manner, they are necessarily at variance, and this is the main point at issue be tween them, on the subject of Biblical translation. We agree with Dr. Henderson in thinking, that the manner is frequently of as great importance as the matter. It is, indeed, absolutely necessary that the matter should be exactly the same in the translation as in the original, at least as far as it is attainable; but how can we be sure that the integrity of the matter will be preserved, if perfect liberty be allowed to the translator in the manner of expressing it? And how easily may the sense be misrepresented, or a peculiar colouring given to it by mere words, which may appear to express the original with sufficient accuracy to an ordinary or careless reader? This is an evil which is inseparable from language: the checks, therefore, imposed upon the translator in this respect cannot be too strong, since important doctrines have been frequently affected by the mere words which have been adopted in translations.

Dr. Henderson proceeds, in the Second Chapter, to explain, at considerable length, what he conceives to be the requisites of a translation of the Scriptures intended for general use, and we think that no reasonable objection can be made to his canons, however difficult it might be strictly to observe them. He supports them by the authority of Huet, who happily expresses the requisite qualifications of a translator in these words, "religio in exprimendi sententiis, fides in referendis verbis, summa in exhibendo colore sollicitudo;" of Griesbach and of others. One of his requisites is that of uniformity in rendering the words and phrases of the original, as much as is consistent with the variety of senses which the same word may embrace, shewing that this is agreeable to the notions of Erasmus, Henry Stephens, Dr. Taylor, Bishop Newcome, and our own translators. Nor can we agree with Professor Lee in rejecting this altogether as a principle of translation, We conceive it to be one of no mean importance, if the version be to supply the place of the original, and furnish subjects of examination and discussion. For how could one passage be compared with another, if the same word were rendered by various even nominally synonymous expressions? And if these be used, it is scarcely possible that in many cases different ideas should not be presented, when the original gave some definite one only. In some cases, doubtless, it might be of little importance whether a strict uniformity were observed or not, but there might be many, where doctrine was concerned, in which the neglect of it would be dangerous.

In proof of the want of uniformity; and the various errors

in general which Dr. Henderson attributes to Ali Bey's version, he had, in his "Appeal," adduced many examples, expressing them in an English translation. It was a main object of Professor Lee, in his "Remarks," to shew that he had mis-translated, or mis-represented the sense of the passages adduced, and this indirectly to invalidate the weight of the objections, and to defend the version itself. Dr. Henderson had objected that the simple name God, was rendered by twelve different words or phrases, several of which, however, it may be observed, are nearly the same. Sometimes it is the frequent Mohammedan formula, which he rendered the supreme God, a translation which scarcely required correction from Professor Lee, who gives nearly the same, high or most high God, the strict signification being, though it could not be conveniently used as an ordinary translation, God, let

تكر يهز الله تعالي him be exalted. Again, it is expressed

our

God, God most high, a vain repetition, which Professor Lee defends by supposing it to represent κυριος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, while Dr. Henderson observes that does not mean xúpios, but ℗ɛós. Objection is made also to the frequent use ofa, Majesty, Highness, (originally presence) before the name of Christ, which Dr. Henderson renders "the illustrious Jesus," which certainly must appear inappropriate, although in Turkish it would denote merely a mark of respect. The translation, however, is essentially correct. Here we cannot agree with Professor Lee in considering it as nearly equivalent to the Shekinah of the Jews, when applied to God; but we do not think with Dr. Henderson that his opponent has made any unwarrantable assertion when he says: "the word Arabic, is used precisely in the same way as xúpios in Greek, 78 in Hebrew, and Lord in English, being applied to any person of rank, whether the rank be that of Lord, as a nobleman, a prophet, or of the most high God." (P. 51.) It may, indeed, be incorrect to say, that in this version it is equivalent το κυριός, where the expression is ὁ κύριος Ἰησοῦς, because in this case Rabb is used. Dr. Henderson objects to the use of

حعزت in حعز

noble holy place, for Jerusalem, because it is, strictly speaking, the Mohammedan name of that city, but we do not think his argument against it is of very material import, because it is no longer a holy place, regarding it as a mere name, although we think with him that the translator ought, in all

cases, as he has done in some, to have used the Christian name of. With regard to these and similar expressions, we think that both parties have acted somewhat unfairly towards one another. Dr. Henderson translated them accord-' ing to their usual acceptation, without considering their etymological, or primary meaning, and generally with sufficient exactness (with some exceptions, as in U, the error of which Professor Lee has pointed out, and Dr. Henderson himself acknowledges, p. 51.) while his opponent constantly insists upon the latter, as if the other were ignorant of it. Dr. Henderson in his turn takes advantage of this, although his opponent is far from disallowing their ordinary sense or import. Thus, he says, that according to Professor Lee's notion, the words, for God, should be rendered court of victory, or place of strength, and brings examples to prove the absurdity of these expressions, in which they are manifestly inapplicable, although the latter asserts that their import is mighty God, and that should, according to him, be rendered court of the Creator. In such cases it is evident that the actual or usual meaning of the expression is to be sought, not the etymological, and in this point they are in reality more agreed than it would appear to the reader unacquainted with the Arabic and Turkish languages. We agree, however, with Dr. Henderson in condemning altogether such expressions in a version of the Scriptures, inasmuch as they savour more of man than of God, more of Turkish style than of Christian simplicity, especially as the simple term Allah is frequently employed by Ali Bey himself, without any such peraphrasis; another proof of his want of uniformity.

Here also we must protest against the defence of such free and arbitrary translations upon the principle of their being consistent with the usage of the Old Testament, which contains many similar expressions, and with the practice of Mahommedan writers. Whatever is not in the original ought not to appear in a translation; still less ought any thing to appear which is likely in any degree to give it another colouring; and we think that Professor Kieffer must be likewise of this opinion, who is now engaged in a new edition of the same version, but purged of its excrescences, having been required in the first to follow Ali Bey without any variation. Thus he has rejected the word Effendi, prefixed to the name of God, an expression which is of too common an application to be attached to such

« PreviousContinue »