is printed in the ordinary letters, the two cases being alike in the Greek Testament.

"We shall now notice some of the passages brought forward by Mr. Curtis as instances of the depravation of the text by Italics inserted in the modern Bibles. 'In not a few of these instances, 'God's offspring have been bastardized/ Such is the language applied by Mr. Curtis to ' these transmutations.' A list of passages is produced by him, (p. 62.) 'in all of which', it is affirmed, 'the words falsely put into Italics are as much in the 'original, as a man's money is in his pocket, when it is not seen.' Lei us consider the following cases.

'Gen. xx. 17-—"And they bare children." From a Hebrew verb signifying to bear a child (Grsenius); not bare burdens, evil usage, or any thing of a more general nature.'

The objection here is, that the verb T?' is used in Hebrew only to denote the bringing of children into the world, and that, thereFore, the text of the Translators has been corrupted by the insertion of the word in Italics by the modern editors of the Bible; and the assumption is, that, in the Bible of 1611, the usage is invariably observed of printing the phrase without any distinction of letters. Such, however, is not the case. The Translators liave used the very mode of treating the text, which Mr. Curtis so unceremoniously reprehends. Gen. vi. 4. '—they bare children." Chap. xvii. 17. 'Shall a child be borne?'

Gen. xxiv. 52.—" Worshipped, bowing himself to the earth.'' Not bowing to the earth, but bowing his whole person in the entire prostration of the east, to God.'

We have some difficulty in understanding precisely the nature of the objection as here stated. We cannot find in any Bible accessible to us the reading as here inserted by Mr. Curtis. All our modern editions read: 'he worshiped the LORD, bowing 'himself to the earth.' The Bibles of 1611, 1613, and all the early editions have the reading, ' he worshipped the LORD, bow

* ing himself to the earth.' The exact rendering of the Hebrew text is,'he bowed himself to the earth to Jehovah.' HV"1K infiC^'l

i T . . . . •.

nliT7 In other instances, the phrase appears in a more complete form, inrwM ninst r:s hy Sa'i, and he fell on his face and worshipped. In Gen. xxvi. 52, the Translators had rendered the whole original phrase adequately and properly, by the words 'he

* worshipped the LORD;' but, intending to preserve the idiom, they translated more copiously, and marked by the change of letter the peculiarity of the expression. Why the Translators did not mark 'himself,' as well as 'bowing,' we cannot conjecture; but the modern Bibles present the passage in a form which cannot be with any propriety described as a corruption of their version.

Vol. ix.—N. s. 3s

'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, ri'VaniP' n0«; 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.

, 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.

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

'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: " O ye dry bones, hear ye the word of the Lord." The precise meaning of an abstract term of this kind must be determined bv 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 Qland] 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 i J^i, 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 Ac ; yea thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be." Ps. xxxvii. 10;—"As the whirlwind passeth, so it the wicked no more." Prov. x. 25;—" Our fathers have sinned and are not." Sam.


'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 mat 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 arc" 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 Lthings"] —unto the Lobd 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 sec 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.'

'Isni. xxxviii. 18. "For the grave cannot praise thee, death can not celebrate thee."

'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 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 shall 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" («$«i•«{ ttxrva.); St. Mark, relating the same event, writes ift.rii to. Kmm turret, 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 («ur«i) corresponding to it in the Greek. It is ob•ervable 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. Bcza, 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 ao large a work, their principles should have been occasionally lost

« ForrigeFortsett »