'Lev. xxiv. 10.-" This son of an Israelitish woman:" meaning an Israelitess, and because he had a father of a different nation; thus, perhaps, accounting for his blasphemy. The Hebrew word strictly marks the sex, which " Israelitish" alone would not.'

In his list B. p. 95, Mr. Curtis again adduces this passage. "Israelitish woman." An Israelitess. Her father being an

Egyptian (!)'

In Lev. xxiv. 10, 11. the words 'Israelitish woman,' occur three times in the Bible of 1611: in the first and third instances, the full phrase appears, ♫ n; in the second example, the last of these words is wanting in the original. In these circumstances, the introduction into the text of the modern Bibles, of the term Israelitess,' would have been an incongruity in vs. 10; and as Israelitish' alone would have been an impropriety, the word added by the Translators is put in the Italic character, to signify its absence from the original text: it appears so marked in the edition of 1679, and, in this form, is not in any respect a violation of the rules followed by King James's Translators. In Dr. Turton's tract, the cases which Mr. Curtis has adduced are not brought under examination; but he has noticed the whole of those which are cited by the Sub-Committee, and submitted them to the test of a judicious and very satisfactory criticism.

Throughout the Bible of 1611, every part of speech is found, in instances almost innumerable, distinguished by being printed in a character different from the letter generally used in the volume the copula, verbs, nouns, pronouns, prepositions, and particles of connection, are all of frequent occurrence; so are phrases as well as single words. We shall now quote from Dr. Turton's able and instructive tract.

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 in which the words occur, it is universally found, that there are no words strictly corresponding to them in those originals. It is, therefore, manifestly on this account, that words so circumstanced have been distinguished by a peculiar type.. Are we then to conclude that the meaning is in such cases imperfectly expressed in the original languages ? Far from it. Considering, for a moment, the Hebrew and Greek as living languages, the sentiments would be perfectly intelligible to those to whom they were addressed. The expression might be more or less full; but the idiom would still be familiar. 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 meaning of the original, any diminution of its force; but rather to point out a difference of idiom. 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 such words as had been required in addition to those of the original, for the complete development of the meaning. . . The foregoing observations may, for the present, be sufficient to afford some general notions of the intentions of our Translators, in this by no means unimportant matter.

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 cases; and attempts have subsequently been made to carry the principle more completely into effect, by applying it to various words which appeared, in the text of 1611, in the ordinary character.' pp. 4, 5.

We cannot transfer into our pages the several passages which the Sub-Committee have put on record as proofs of the modern depravations of the Bible, and which Mr. Curtis has classed with his extracts in his list of intentional departure from the text of 1611; but the importance of the subject requires that we should lay before our readers some specimens of the clear statements and illustrative remarks comprised in Dr. Turton's examinations, which are restricted to the texts produced by the Sub-Committee.

And

GEN. i. 9, 10. "Let the dry land appear: and it was so. 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.

The Hebrew word translated "dry land" is derived from a root signifying to be dry;" and itself signifies "the dry." The adjective is applied by Ezekiel (xxxvii. 4) as an epithet to the bones of the dead: " Oye dry bones, hear ye the word of the LORD." The precise meaning of an abstract term of this kind must be determined by the context. In this way, the Hebrews constantly use their adjectives alone, as we use substantives connected with adjectives; the substantives actually referred to being decided by the circumstances of the case. In the passage under consideration, the meaning is clear: "Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear." "Land" indeed is, in point of fact, supplied; there being no corresponding term in the Hebrew. The Hebrew word is, in the Septuagint, rendered by Eng, and in the Vulgate by arida; which words are, in their respective languages, used in very nearly the same manner as the Hebrew word corresponding to them. On the whole, it appears to me, that when "land"

is marked by Italics in the modern editions, they are formed on the general rule which the Translators seem to have prescribed to themselves. In illustration of this point, 2 Kings ii. 21, may be cited: "there shall not be from thence any more death or barren land."

GEN. v. 24. "And he was not, for God took him."

The word "was" has no corresponding term in the original; and in consequence it has been printed in Italics in the modern editions. The principle on which this has been here done is sufficiently recognized by the text of 1611 in other passages. "The eye of him that hath seen me, shall see me no more; thine eyes are upon me, and I am not." Job. vii. 8;-" For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be; yea thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be." Ps. xxxvii. 10;-" As the whirlwind passeth, so is the wicked no more." Prov. x. 25;-" Our fathers have sinned and are not." Sam. v. 7.

'GEN. vi. 16. "Lower, second and third stories.”

"Stories" in Italics is perfectly correct; there being no word corresponding to it in the Original. In Ezek. xlii. 3 (according to the text of 1611) we read: "Over against the pavement which was for the utter court, was gallery against gallery, in three stories." And so again in verse 6; the word being supplied, as required to express the full meaning. We have here an illustration of that use of the adjective, which was mentioned under Gen. i. 9, 10.

DEUT. xxix. 29. "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God; but those things which are revealed belong unto us."

The complaint here is, that "things" in the former part of the verse, and " things which are" in the latter, should be in Italics. This passage affords a good illustration of the elliptic brevity of the Hebrew. In the original, we have, in fact-"The secret [things] -unto the LORD our God; but the revealed-unto us." The sentiment so expressed was, no doubt, perfectly intelligible to the Israelites; but the generality of English readers would require it to be brought out more fully. Let us see how this is done. First, the Hebrew adjective" the secret " is too abstract for the English idiom; and so it is converted into "the secret things "-which, when fully explained, it really means. Then there is no verb to connect "the secret [things]" with unto the LORD our God;" and accordingly, "belong," the verb manifestly implied, is introduced. We now have the first part of the verse complete; "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God:" and if the second part had been literally translated-" but the revealed-unto us," the ellipsis, suggested by the former part, might perhaps have been supplied by an English reader; but the Translators deemed it better to give the sense in full, by supplying the words which must otherwise have been understood: :-" but those things which are revealed belong unto us." Nothing more can be desired, to evince the propriety of the Italics in this passage.'

Isai. xxxviii. 18.

not celebrate thee."

"For the grave cannot praise thee, death can

Undoubtedly the negative is, in the Hebrew, expressed only in the former member of the sentence, although understood in the latter. In the latter member therefore--to convey to the English reader the

聲

complete meaning of the passage-the negative was very properly supplied by the Translators, although the word is not distinguished from the rest of the sentence in the text of 1611. In a case like this, the Italics of the modern editions must be considered as marking a Hebrew idiom; and similar cases have been attended to in the text of 1611. In 1 Sam. ii. 3, we read: "Talk no more so exceeding proudly, let not arrogancy come out of your mouth ;"-In Job iii. 11, "Why died I not from the womb: why did I not give up the ghost?"-and in Ps. xci. 5, "Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night, nor for the arrow that flieth by day." Nothing more needs to be said in behalf of the Italics in Isai. xxxviii. 18.'

From the New Testament, eleven cases are produced by the Sub-Committee, of Italics improperly employed, as they allege, the article being used for the pronoun, and so considered by the Translators. The passages are: Matt. iv. 20, "Left their nets." viii. 3, "Jesus put forth his hand."-20, "Hath not where to lay his head."-ix. 5, " Thy sins be forgiven."-xix. 10, "The man-with his wife." Mark ii. 9. The same as Mark ix. 5. Luke xi. 13, "Your heavenly Father." John x. 30, "I and my Father are one." Phil. iii. 19, "Whose God is their belly." Heb. i. 3, "The brightness of his glory."-xii. 10, "But he for our profit." In the text of 1611, the same manner of printing the pronoun as is here exhibited, was adopted. On looking at some of these instances, Dr. Turton remarks, that they may be divided into two classes; the first comprising examples of the pronoun printed in Italics, when the corresponding word in the original has no article prefixed; the second consisting of those in which the article appears.

It happens that the pronouns in Italics, in the preceding list, are all to be referred to this second class; and I will venture to say that, if the Italics objected to, be compared with the Italics here adduced from the text of 1611, there can be no good reason assigned why they should be retained in the latter case, and not in the former . . . If nice distinctions-such as our Translators have partially carried into effect-are to be made, there seems to be a propriety in retaining the Italics in the cases now under consideration. Taking, for example, the text, Matt. iv. 20, "Having left their nets" (Qértes тà díxtva) ; St. Mark, relating the same event, writes apértes tà dixtuα aùtã, and in the modern as well as the old editions, we find "their nets "—the word "their" being printed in the ordinary character, on account of its having a word (aur) corresponding to it in the Greek. It is observable that Beza translates the passage in St. Matthew, "omissis retibus;" and the passage in St. Mark, "omissis retibus suis:"thereby shewing, as the Latin language easily permitted, his attention to the presence or absence of the pronoun. Beza, indeed, is generally attentive to this matter; and I mention the fact, because his authority was undoubtedly great with the Translators. That, in the printing of so large a work, their principles should have been occasionally lost

sight of, cannot surely be a matter of surprise It is impossible for me to suppose that the eleven specified instances, of modern Italics not warranted by the text of 1611, can need any further defence or apology.

MATT. iii. 15, "Suffer it to be so now." ("Apes ägti.)

The Italics in this text are condemned as usual. Now two things I will venture to affirm: 1. that "Suffer it to be so now" represents the meaning of the original; and 2, that no other mode of printing those words could so well suggest to the learned reader of the English Translation, the precise expression of the Evangelist-Ace; agr. How the phrase was understood in ancient times, will appear from the Latin Vulgate "Sine, modò;" and when Beza gave "Omitte me nunc," as the equivalent expression, he took care to print me in Italics-to shew that it was more than the Greek text contained. In the same manner, the words it to be so have been printed in Italics, to indicate that there are no words corresponding to them in the original.

1 COR. xiii. 3, "If I bestow all my goods to feed the poor." (iàr ψωμίζω πάντα τὰ ὑπάρχοντά μου.)

The objection to the Italics in this passage would imply a belief on the part of the objectors, that the words so marked exist, in some way or other, in the verb xwiw. It is not so. In Numbers xi. 4, according to the Septuagint, we find τίς ἡμᾶς ψωμιεῖ κρέα; “who will give us flesh to eat?" and in Rom. xii. 20, we read là Teva ò ixbgós σou, ψώμιζε αὐτόν, "If thine enemy hunger, feed him." The conclusion is, that the Italics are not misapplied.'

Nothing can be more satisfactory than these explanations. It will not, we think, be affirmed by any persons competent to judge on the question, that the Italics of the modern Bibles are applied to cases not sanctioned by the Translators themselves, or that the alterations introduced into them by the additional instances (very numerous ones certainly) of a change of type, are not in conformity with the rules which they manifestly prescribed to themselves in the construction of their text. The last Italics do not in any respect show a usage or a design different from the purpose for which they were at the first employed in the authorized version. No objection can, on principle, be made to the modern Italics, which does not press precisely in the same manner, and with equal force, against the Italics of the Translators. In respect, then, to the Report of the Sub-Committee, Dr. Turton remarks:

The alternative seems to be, either that, by censuring the modern Italics as productive of the evils they describe, they intended to pass the same censures on the whole of the Italics, whether ancient or modern; or, that they condemned the modern Italics without being at all acquainted with the nature of the Italics with which the text of 1611 abounds.'

Dr. Turton adopts the latter part of the alternative, and having most completely established the several points necessary to