صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Von Tischendorf has nothing to break the thread of discourse, and he is right. In 1 Corinthians xiv. 34 Lachmann places a comma after ἐκκλησίαις, connecting τῶν ἁγίων with ai yvvaikes; this innovation is not followed by Von Tischendorf. The reading of the former gives, "As in all the churches, let the wives of the saints be silent in the churches." In Luke xiii. 25 he does not follow Lachmann in connecting the commencement of the verse with the preceding words, "Many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in and shall not be able, from the time that the master of the house is risen up," etc., etc. Here it is difficult to decide, and it is better perhaps to follow our guide in making the twenty-fifth verse a sentence complete in itself; in which case the second part or apodosis begins with καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς κ.τ.λ., “then he shall answer and say unto you," etc.; not with TÓTE K.T.A. of the twenty-sixth verse, which, instead of being joined to the twenty-fifth, must begin another sentence. It is true that Meyer objects to an apodosis beginning with kaì, but such a thing is not remarkable in the New Testament. Von Tischendorf is probably right here, as he is supported by De Wette. Meyer's view is less correct than that of Lachmann; though Bengel, Vater, and Bornemann agree with it. Neither has he followed the same editor in beginning a sentence with yeyover in the third verse of St. John's Gospel; though several Fathers favour the distinction in question. Authorities are divided. The sense of the place is considerably affected by the punctuation; for we must translate according to Lachmann's mode, "What has come into existence by him is life." But we incline to depart from Von Tischendorf's punctuation in Galatians iv. 19, and to agree with Lachmann. Instead of joining TέKva μov with what follows and making the words begin a new sentence, it is better to connect them with the preceding context, so that the translation would be, "when I am present with you, my children, with whom I am travailing again till Christ be formed in you. But I could have wished to be present with you now," etc. Here the Sè

after 0λov has its proper force. In like manner, we have altered his punctuation in 2 Peter i. 3-5; though the passage is somewhat perplexing. According to our author, the third and fourth verses make one sentence, in which case it is not easy to see its completeness; for it seems to want a second part, i.e., the apodosis. Believing that this lies in the fifth, sixth, and seventh verses, we have put a semicolon at the end of the fourth verse, instead of a full stop. It is singular that Weitzsäcker, who has lately translated the text of Von Tischendorf's eighth edition into German, pronouncing it the best, has made no change in the punctuation of the present verses; though he has not scrupled to do so in other instances. Some indeed, as Lachmann, after the Vulgate, Erasmus, and Grotius, connect the beginning of the third verse with the second, and place a full stop at the end of the fourth; but this gives a less probable construction, and is contrary to the analogy of other epistles. It is better to restrict the introductory salutation to the first two verses, than run it into others. In Von Tischendorf's text, the commencement of a new paragraph at the third verse does not harmonise exactly with a full stop at the end of the fourth; though it does in Lachmann's mode. De Wette, Huther, and the Dutch version issued by the Reformed Church, take the passage as we have done. Bunsen, as usual, follows Lachmann.

*

But a translator cannot follow closely the punctuation of the original, because the English language differs so much from Greek. He must conform to the genius of the tongue into which he transfuses the Greek. Here he has considerable latitude, and many opportunities of bringing out the minuter lines of interpretation. Thus it is desirable, if not necessary, to place a comma after the word slain in Revelation xiii. 8, "whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain, from the foundation of the world," since the last clause belongs to written (written from the foundation of the world). In Hebrews ii. 9 a comma must be put after

*Het Nieuwe Testament, van wege de algemeene synode der neder. landsche hervormde kerk op nieuw uit den grondtekst overgezet. 1868.

angels, if the received version be retained; or in any case, the words "on account of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honour" should be divided by no comma, because they are closely united in sense. A point of any kind after death disturbs the true meaning. In Ephesians v. 26, which is incorrectly rendered in the received version, we put a comma before "by the word," separating it from what immediately precedes in order to connect it with the verb "sanctify." "That he might sanctify it, after cleansing it with the laver of the water, by the word." De Wette indeed objects to this; but the awkwardness of taking both ἐν ῥήματι and λουτρῷ with καθαρίσας is apparent; and all the versions that do so read strangely, whether they have "cleansing her by the laver of the water in the word;" or, "having cleansed it by the bathing of water in the word;" or, "having cleansed it by the bath of the water in the word." In 1 Peter i. 11 there should be no comma after what, else a wrong sense will be conveyed. Yet there is one in the received version; and Alford faithfully follows. The riva (what) refers to the noun season or time (καιρόν) as well as ποῖον; what time or what manner

of time."

Parentheses must be sparingly introduced. They are sometimes needed, but many have used them unnecessarily and incorrectly. Thus it is right to enclose in brackets "then were the days of unleavened bread," in Acts xii. 3; and "which becomes women professing godliness," in 1 Timothy ii. 10. But Hebrews iii. 7-11, all after dió to Kaтáπaνσíν μov is not a parenthesis. In Romans ii. 13–15 κατάπαυσίν μου a parenthesis appears to be necessary, though it is difficult to determine its limits. It should probably include the fourteenth and fifteenth verses, as Lachmann has judged; not the thirteenth also, as Winer supposes, though he remarks acutely that кρive in the sixteenth verse glances back at κριθήσονται in the twelfth.

Since the introduction of Bentley and Lachmann's principle in the formation of a text, viz., to edit the words transmitted to us by the most ancient documents, irre

spective of modern readings, various translators have undertaken a new version, or a revision of the commonly received English translation. These works it is not necessary to criticise at present. They are too numerous; some of them too insignificant. By selecting three of the best as the subject of a few remarks, it will be seen that the work of revision is still incomplete.

That the text translated by Dean Alford does not possess great value is clear to all who are familiar with the criticism of the New Testament. Besides being liable to the objections which a diplomatic text incurs, it bears evidence of haste, ignorance, and incorrectness. The author was generally inclined to the oldest readings. So far he followed a right direction. But he did not give sufficient attention to the considerations that modify the element of antiquity-to internal and other evidences that correct or limit it. This excessive attachment to readings best attested perhaps by external evidence, has given rise to unintelligible renderings, as in Hebrews iv. 2, where the text adopted yields no proper sense. He has produced out of it the words, "but the word of hearing did not profit them, unmingled as they were in faith with those that heard it."

For the benefit of English readers notices of different readings are subjoined, but on no clear principle. The statements are arbitrary, because important variations are unnoticed, while trifling ones are given. The author has adduced varieties of the text pretty much at haphazard. The chief variations should have been stated, or none at all. Any intermediate plan is all but useless, as far as the instructing of ordinary readers is concerned. Thus, in Mark i. 1 the words the Son of God" are omitted on sufficient authority by Von Tischendorf. Alford, however, has no notice of the true reading. In John ix. 35, “Dost thou believe in the Son of God?" Von Tischendorf's text

[ocr errors]

*The New Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, after the authorized version, newly compared with the original Greek, and revised by Henry Alford, D.D., Dean of Canterbury. 1869.

с

is "Dost thou believe in the Son of man?" but the latter is unnoticed. Luke xxiv. 40 is omitted by Tischendorf, yet Alford gives it without note or comment. In Mark viii. 26 the words "nor tell it to any in the village" are properly omitted by Von Tischendorf, but Alford inserts them without remark. In John xxi. 23 the last words of the verse, “what is that to thee?" omitted by Von Tischendorf, are unnoticed. In Luke xxiv. 51, 52, the words "and carried up into heaven, and they worshipped him," which are more than suspicious, are inserted without remark. The same is true of Acts x. 6, "he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do," omitted by Von Tischendorf; of Colossians i. 2, “and the Lord Jesus Christ;" of 2 Timothy iv. 22, "Jesus Christ," which should also be omitted; of Hebrews x. 30, where says the Lord" is left out by Von Tischendorf; of 1 Peter i. 22, "through the Spirit," which is spurious, though unnoticed; of Acts xvi. 13, where there is a different reading from that rendered by Alford; of Acts xiii, 20, 21, where an important reading adopted by Von Tischendorf runs “gave their land as an inheritance about 450 years. And after these things he gave judges, until Samuel the prophet;" of Acts xx. 4, as far as Asia," which Von Tischendorf's text leaves out; of Acts xx. 15, "and tarried at Trogyllium," which should be omitted; of Acts xxi. 8, "we that were of Paul's company;" of Luke xxiii. 23, "and of the chief priests;" of Luke viii. 45, “and sayest thou who touched me;" of John x. 29, where another reading is, that which the Father has given me is greater than all."

These are but a few cases in which readings well attested and usually received by Von Tischendorf are ignored by the Dean in his notes. His silence would not be censurable in regard to them did he not in many cases note such as are of much inferior importance or trifling, as "and" in Galatians iii. 29; Colossians iii. 17; Revelation ix. 11, xxii. 12, 17; "amen" in 1 Timothy vi. 21; "Christ Jesus" instead of "the Lord Jesus Christ" in Titus i. 4. In view of such treatment it is impossible to consider it other than arbitrary.

« السابقةمتابعة »