corruptions of the doctrines and statements of the Bible, as understood by our Translators, that I am far, my Lord, from regarding as trifling! • Man's righteousness,' is their column-title of that part of Isa. lxiv. which contains the memorable phrase, “ And all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags.” Dr. Blayney avoids this for—' The calling of the Gentiles, the subject of the Ixv. chapter. So we have for None is just,' All are alike. Eccl. vii. and viii. two other subjects substituted, Patience and wisdom, Kings are to be respected ;' and · None righteous,' Rom. iii. exchanged for · The Jews universally sinners.' (Bl.) The first two of these corruptions are in the last Camb. 8vo. Ref. Bible, finished at the period of my visit to that University. None is just,' Job xxv., is thus also withdrawn; “None is clean,' Prov. xx. The heart wicked,' Jer. xvii.

God's justice in punishing sinners-God's ways equal,' Ezek. xviii. (Trans.) exchanged for • Every man shall stand or fall by his own good or bad actions,' (Bl.) and Camb. 8vo. 1831. Was there any thing honourable in the animus of these alterations ? The Church of England, we know, furnished during the last century, but too many advocates of a righteousness by works, which made the grace of God no more grace ;' but they should have contented themselves with a fair field, and fair weapons of controversy ; thus silently to withdraw an important sanction of a directly opposite opinion, was surely any thing but fair or becoming. Curtis, 66, 67.

This, we hesitate not to say, is one of the most remarkable paragraphs which ever came under the notice of a Reviewer ;remarkable alike for the errors which it embodies, and the disingenuous spirit which pervades it. The language which it contains, is explicit enough, nor are the insinuations at all chargeable with obscurity; neither the one nor the other can be mistaken. Dr. Blayney is boldly charged with the offence of wilfully perverting and corrupting the Scriptures : · Was there any thing honourable in the animus of these alterations ?! We shall examine the grounds on which an accusation so grave and serious is founded. Every reader is referred, by Mr. Curtis, to Blayney, the Church of England divines of the last century, and the modern Bibles, as the guilty parties, and the witnesses of their desperate proceedings. Now what will our readers think of such charges, when we assure them that the above alterations are not modern; are not of the last century, are not peculiar to modern Bibles, and are not chargeable upon Dr. Blayney as the author of them! It is impossible that Dr. Blayney should have been the author of Column-titles in the English Bible, which had a place there a century before the date of his revision. The injustice which Mr. Curtis has shewn towards Blayney, it is impossible for any upright and candid mind to overlook; and our sense of justice, as well as the generous feelings which the occasion requires, impel us to rescue the memory of the learned critic from his unrighteous imputations. As the most unexceptionable testimonies,

[ocr errors][ocr errors]



The Bible-Printing Monopoly. we shall produce the readings in the Column-titles of the Authorized Version as we find them in editions of the century before the last. Mr. Curtis affirms, that Blayney has displaced the Column-title of Isa. lxiv. 'Man's righteousness,' for The calling of the Gentiles.' Now the Column-title of the folio blackletter edition of 1613, is “ A prayer.' A black-letter quarto, 16:20, reads ‘God our Father—The calling of the Gentiles.' In 1639, the reading is, 'God's power and greatness,' and in 1679, we find, 'The Churches' complaint.— The Jews rejected.'

None is just-All are alike.' Eccles. vii.-viii., are read in 1613. In 1620 we have “A good name-No man is just. In 1639, “ None are just—Good and bad alike;' but in 1679, we have in the Column-titles, The difficulty of wisdom.--Kings are to be respected.' 'None righteous,' Rom. 3, is not read at the top of the page in the Bible of 1613, where we have, “The true Jew—Justification.' In 1620, we have, . The true JewNo flesh is justified by the law. The reading in 1639 is, 'The Jew's prerogative -Justification by faith.' În 1679, All are sinners—Justification by faith.' Job xxv. has, in 1639, 'God's power is infinite;' 1679, God's infinite power. Proverbs xx.,

The state of the wicked,' 1679. Jer. xvii., 'The observation of the Sabbath day,' 1613. "Trust in God,' 1620. The observation of the Sabbath,' 1639. “Judah's captivity, 1679. Ezek. xviii., 'God's justice in his punishment, 1620. The charge against Blayney, therefore, must be, not that he introduced innovations into the Translator's readings, but that he followed the example of his predecessors in this department; and if they stand clear of corrupting the doctrines and statements of the Bible, the accusation is not to be sustained against him.

· Our modern Bibles retain,' says Mr. Curtis, several instances of the withdrawment of the name and character of our blessed Redeemer from the top of the page. As Ps. xxii. A prophecy of Christ, (Trans.) (one hardly need add quoted by all the Evangelists as such,) changed to David complaineth in distress,' Bl. and the modern Bibles, Oxford, 1828, and Camb. 1831. Prov. viii. Carist's ETERNITY,' (Trans.) The call of wisdom,' (Bl.) and Oxford, 1828; • Excellency, &c. of wisdom,' Camb. 1831.--Jér. xxxi., Christ promised,' (Trans.) · Rahel mourning is comforted," (Bl. and modern Bibles.) --Dan. vii. Christ's dominion,' (Trans.) '' The interpretation thereof,' [i. e. the vision just before] (Bl. and modern Bibles).'

Mr. Curtis is so copious in his examples, and so remote from all ambiguity of expression in his statements, as to preserve every reader of them from the possibility of misconceiving his meaning. The imputation again repeated against Blaney is, that he wilfully falsified the description of the contents of the chapters of the Bible by withdrawing the direct references which they contain to Christ. Let us then compare the old copies. How stands


[ocr errors]

the reading of 1620? “The excellencie of wisdom: Her riches and eternitie.' What is that of 1639? • The commendation of wisdom.' What is the Column-title of 1679? Wisdom's excellency, &c.' In Ps. xxii., the edition of 1679 reads · David's prayer in distress.' In Jer. xxxi. many modern Bibles do read

Christ promised;' so Camb. 1793. Christ is promised' appears in a most beautiful Camb. 12mo, 1828; and so reads the 8vo. edition of London, 1821. Other modern Column-titles are, ' Ephraim's repentance,' • Israel's restoration.' In Daniel vii., • Tenne hornes, 1613. ^ Four beasts,' 1620. The interpretation thereof,' 1679.

• Other doctrinal views of the Translators, reformed by those of the Oxford Divines of 1769, will be interesting to some of my readers. I shall merely, for the sake of brevity, put down the wiihdrawn doctrine. The reader can generally find the substituted one of Elayney in the modern Bibles. Ps. lvii. God saveth his.' Isa. x. A remnant saved.'- xliv. 'God's love to his chosen people.'--xlvi. . God beareth his.'- xlviii. “God trieth his,'- Jer. xv. God saveth his.'- xxxi.

Everlasting love.'— id. “A new covenant and everlasting.'-Acts v. “Ordained to life.'—Eph. i. • The election of the saints.' It may surprise our readers to learn that not one of these

passages is found in the Bibles of 1639, and 1679, and but one of them in the black-letter quarto of 1620, that of Eph. i. Isa. x. has, in 1620, 'A remnant of Israel saved;' and modern Bibles have the similar heading, 'A remnant of Israel shall be saved.' Whatever be the points of doctrine included in these sentences placed at the top of the pages in the chapters specified, Mr. Curtis has charged upon the Oxford Divines of 1769, the withdrawing of them, and the reforming of the tenets exhibited by them. But the editors of 1620, 1639, and 1679, could not withdraw the passages which are exchanged for others in their Bibles from any wish to accommodate them to any doctrines to which Mr. Curtis may suppose Blayney and his coadjutors were favourably disposed.

Mr. Curtis goes on to shew that the Translators, after the example of their Geneva brethren, chose for the head of the page,

some notable word or sentence for the help of the memory', and he copies, p. 68, a few of these of which our modern bibles are

denuded. These words and sentences, of whatever value they may be, are not of sacred authority ; and it is quite obvious, as Dr. Cardwell observes, that they could not have been preserved, unless all editions subsequent to that in which they first appeared had corresponded exactly in page and in column with the first

impressions. We shall compare some of these titles as given by Mr. Curtis with the headings in some bibles before us. Exod. xxxiii. “God not seen’. Not in 1613, 1620, 1639, all of which read, Moses talketh with God.' Blayney, Moses de* sireth to see the glory of God.' Deut. xxx., "Mercy to the

' repentant.' Not in 1613, which has, ‘His (God's) mercie.' * Promises to the repentant', is in 1620. Blayney, 'Great mercies 'promised to the penitent.' Ps. xxxix., Man is vanity.'; in 1613, Man's vanity’; 1620, ‘David's care of his thoughts'; Blayney, “His reflections on the vanity of human life.' Other modern bibles have, 'The brevity and vanity of life.' Ps. xlviii., • Zion's beauty’; modern bibles read 'The beauty of Zion. The sentiment in the titles at the head of the page is, in some of the earliest bibles expressed with great brevity and terseness, and is, as Mr. Curtis describes it, adapted to catch a 'careless eye’; but the titles were very early changed, and successive editions shew great variety in the sentences thus displayed. The denudation is not by any means peculiar to our modern bibles. And let it not be forgotten, that the passages thus removed, are no part of the sacred Scriptures, the text of which is not affected by these withdrawments or substitutions.

In his fourth ‘Letter,' (p. 74, &c.) Mr. Curtis's remarks relate principally to the mode of distinguishing certain Divine names in the printed Bibles. King James's Translators have used the term Jehovah but in a very few cases of a peculiar kind. LORD is the mode of representing the Hebrew 777 observed by them, and the same word in a different letter, Lord, intimates to the reader of their version, that the Original is 1778: the former denotes the Self-existent Being, but the latter is used of men or other creatures. These terms are often found associated with each other, and are, respectively, frequently combined with other names of God. It is of considerable importance that these names should be correctly represented in a Translation, and that there should be an unbroken uniformity in the usage adopted. Mr. Curtis severely reprehends Dr. Blayney and the modern Editors for their carelessness in respect to this particular, and points out some of the errors which disfigure their Bibles. We are not acquainted with any English Bibles which, in respect to this class of words, are faultless; and considerable differences are to be found in their modes of representing them. Mr. Curtis, p. 78, quotes Blayney's Bible 1769, as reading in Ps. cxlviii. 8. (7) “ O GOD, the LORD," equal, he remarks, to “ O Jehovah, Jehovah !” Now this is another of Mr. Curtis's blunders. Blayney's reading, and the reading of many other modern Bibles, besides that of 1769, is, "O God the Lord. This is erroneous, the true mode of representing the original being, O God the Lord,' but it does not furnish the kind of objection adduced by Mr. Curtis, ' a repe

tition of the word never found.' No errors found in the modern Bibles are, however, more in violation of the Translators' rules, than instances of these names which are found in the Bible of 1611, and which are four times more numerous than Mr. Curtis represents them to be. What example in Blayney's text is worse

than 2 Chron. xiii. 6, in the Bible of 1611, where the term appropriate to the Self-existent Being is referred to Rehoboam ?

Mr. Curtis denies the right, as in Blayney's case, of any editors to make critical alterations in the Bible, and insists that the Translators themselves possessed no right whatever to make a single critical alteration without a renewed authority. When • the commission was fulfilled by the delivery of the joint labours

of the Translators to his Majesty's printer, I venture to contend " that it became in natural course DEFUNCT.' (p. 51.) On this assertion, we do not find it necessary for us largely to remark. The rigid construction of Mr. Curtis's rule would, perhaps, require that the Bible, precisely as in its first form in 1611, should be transmitted to the readers of all coming times. For, if the authority of which he speaks was necessary in respect to critical alterations, it would seem to be necessary in respect to alterations of every description. It might sometimes be very difficult to distinguish typographical errata from errors of a critical kind. But to this question it is not necessary for us to refer more particularly. Our present object has been, the examination of the charges which represent the present state of the English Bibles as so deteriorated and corrupted as to be productive of the evils described by the Sub-Committee. These charges we have examined ; and we assert without hesitation or difficulty, that the text of Scripture in the English Bible is not vitiated by the modern Italics, as the charges allege; and that, in any copy of the Translation in common use, there is nothing to be found which can render the text of Scripture unworthy of the confidence of the unlearned. It is of the utmost importance, that the refutation of such charges as we find in the Report of the Sub-Committee should

go forth into every part of the country; and those classes of the community amongst whom the Bible most largely circulates should be told, that, in the copies which have been put into their hands, there is neither perversion nor obscuration of the truth. The Bibles of the Oxford and Cambridge and London presses recently issued are most beautiful books, and certainly, in respect to the important purposes of their publication and use, may be read without distrust. We do not affirm them to be immaculate, but they afford no grounds for such imputations as those which have been, we regret to say, so inconsiderately and so reproachfully directed against them.

Into the perfectly distinct question relating to the cost to the public of the Bible monopoly, or its effect in restricting the circulation of the Scriptures, we cannot here enter, but must reserve it for a future article.

[merged small][ocr errors]
« ForrigeFortsett »