صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني
[ocr errors]

The critical notes contain little information, and are sometimes misleading. Thus at Revelation v. 10 it is remarked that some ancient copies omit "unto our God; the fact being that only the Alexandrine omits the words. At Matthew xxvii. 34 the received reading is followed; a note saying that wine instead of vinegar is in some ancient copies. This does not fairly represent the case. The two oldest MSS., besides the Cambridge one, have it, and it is so well attested otherwise as to claim superiority to the common reading "vinegar."

The translation possesses considerable merit. Much attention has been given to the tenses and the article, less to the prepositions. The editors have done good service in their revision labours, by bringing the English nearer the Greek. Their translation presents many improvements upon the received one. With all its excellencies, however, it is marred by serious defects, some of which will cause its rejection by the majority of readers. Thus the word baptize is always rendered immerse; and John the Baptist is "John the immerser." Good taste alone would counsel no change of this kind-a change which proclaims at once the peculiar views of the authors. It is undesirable to protrude Baptist views in this way into a translation of the New Testament.

There are many errors in the version. A few only can be here noticed. In John xi. 25 "though he be dead" is retained, instead of "though he die ;" in Mark iv. 29, “when the fruit permits" is contrary to the Greek verb; Luke xiv. 1, "as he went into the house" should be "when he had come into the house;" 2 Corinthians iv. 4, "that they should not discern the light of the gospel," etc., turns an intransitive verb into a transitive one, and gives it a meaning it has not; Romans vii. 2, "the husband while he lives should be "the living husband;" Hebrews iii. 4, "He who built all things is God" stands for "It is God who built all things;" Luke xvii. 21, "the kingdom of God is within you" for "among you;" Ephesians ii. 1, “dead in trespasses and sins" for "by trespasses," etc.; 2 Corinthians

ii. 14, causes us to triumph" instead of "leads us in triumph." Sometimes a wrong translation is in the text and the right in a note, as in 2 Timothy iii. 16, " All Scripture is inspired by God, and is profitable," etc.; 1 Peter i. 17, "call him Father," etc.

The tenses are occasionally mistranslated to the detriment of accuracy. Thus in Acts xxv. 22, "I would also hear the man," etc., for "I could have wished to hear the man;" Galatians iv. 20, "I could wish" for "I could have wished;" John iii. 33, "has set his seal," for "set his seal," etc.; Ephesians ii. 5, 8, "By grace ye are saved" for "have been saved;" Matthew xxi. 23, "when he had come into the temple," instead of "came," etc.

[ocr errors]

The article is sometimes neglected, producing an incorrect version, as in 1 Thessalonians iv. 6, "in any matter instead of "the matter;" Revelation xvii. i, "upon many waters" for " for "the many waters;" Matthew xxi. 12, "sold doves" for "the doves;" John xii. 13, "took branches" for "the branches."

The first feature which strikes a reader will be the use of immerse for baptize, which grates harshly at times on the ear, especially in such passages as Matthew xxviii. 19, "immersing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," where the preposition should be into. In addition to this, the text translated does not represent either the most ancient or the best one, and is inferior even to Alford's. A good basis should have been selected at first.

*

In the year 1869 there appeared at Boston, United States, a translation of the New Testament by Dr. Noyes, of Harvard University. Had this been taken from the eighth critical edition throughout, it might have superseded the necessity of another. But it does not represent the latest and final judgment of the German critic as to the text. It is merely a version of the eighth edition as far as Luke xvii. 9. From that verse to the end of John's

* The New Testament, translated from the Greek text of Tischendorf by George R. Noyes, D.D.

Gospel it was made from the second edition of the "Synopsis Evangelica;" the remainder from the seventh critical edition. We have therefore a patchwork which differs often and materially from the mature opinions of Von Tischendorf. No justice is done him by such a procedure, and he is presented unfairly to the English reader, since the eighth edition does not agree with the seventh, and is much better. This is evident from such a passage as Revelation i. 5, "washed us from our sins in his own blood;" the last edition reading "loosed us from our sins in his own blood." Even the text professedly translated is not in Matthew viii. 26, "rebuked the winds and the waves;" it should be "the winds and the sea."

[ocr errors]

The translation of Dr. Noyes possesses much merit and reads well. It departs from the received version very often. and is paraphrastic. Perhaps it is too free. Literality is sacrificed unnecessarily, as in Colossians iii. 15, “over all these things put on the robe of love;" in Philippians iii. 20, "the country of which we are citizens is heaven." And the author's knowledge of Greek seems not to have been accurate. He has made glaring mistakes. Thus in Matthew ix. 14 the word for "bride-chamber" is rendered bridegroom;" "companions of the bridegroom" for "sons of the bride-chamber." In Matthew x. 4, "Simon of Cana is incorrect. The word has no reference to place, but is an Aramæan form or rendering for the Greek of "zealot;" Simon the Zealot. In Luke viii. 29, “he was about to command" cannot be the sense of the imperfect. It is rather, "he was commanding." In Matthew xxviii. 1, “the sabbath being over" does not express the original. In John viii. 25, the version, "In the first place, I am just that which I speak to you" is erroneous, though Erasmus sanctions it. John xiv. 19 is also wrong, "but ye will behold me, because I live, and ye will live." Romans iii. 8, "and why do you not say, as some slanderously charge us with saying," etc., misapprehends the meaning of the apostle, as does also "in a manner somewhat bold on some subjects," Romans xv. 15. In 1 Corinthians xv. 1, "I

[ocr errors]

declare anew" renders the verb incorrectly, as does "content yourselves," Romans xii. 16. Nor can the loose paraphrase for καὶ σχήματι εὑρεθεὶς ὡς ἄνθρωπος, “and in what appertained to him appearing as a man (Philippians ii. 7) be considered a fair representative of the original. In John iii. 3 the translation is "unless a man be born again," a note stating, "Possibly, born from above." The textual rendering is wrong, and that which the writer seems uncertain about is the right one, as the use of avlev in the New Testament shows. It must be due to carelessness that the singular noun without the article in Matthew xi. 7 is translated" the reeds."

The tenses are usually observed, though not so exactly as in the American Bible Union's Testament. Thus in John xvii. 4, the aorist and the perfect are rendered erroneously, "I have glorified thee, etc., thou gavest me," etc., instead of, "I glorified thee, thou hast given me," etc. In Colossians iii. 25, "he hath done" should be "he did." In Matthew xviii. 17 the article is twice overlooked," the Gentile and the publican." In Luke xxiii. 2," saying that he himself is the Christ, the King," puts the article where it should not be. And though the note gives two other renderings, all are incorrect. On the whole, the work shows marks of inexactness and looseness; though it is respectably executed.

The notes chiefly consist of references to the passages quoted from the Old Testament, to parallels in the gospels, and other renderings. The remarks about other readings are few. Sometimes they are expository. It is probably best to leave the exegetical department to such as treat of it professedly; since a few remarks, and those not always important, are of little use.

The controversies once carried on about the right reading in 1 John v. 7, 8, are now past. They should not have been conducted in the spirit that often prompted them. Griesbach's dissertation on the passage in the second volume of his edition of the Greek Testament published in 1806, may be said to have set aside the claims of the contested words to a

place in the epistle, though the words never had any proper authority in their favour. Admirably too did Professor Porson in his letters to Archdeacon Travis discuss the three heavenly witnesses and prove the spuriousness of the place where they are. This he did before Griesbach's dissertation appeared, for his letters were collected and enlarged in 1790. His summing up deserves to be quoted. "In short, if this verse be really genuine, notwithstanding its absence from all the visible Greek MSS. except two; one of which awkwardly translates the verse from the Latin, and the other transcribes it from a printed book; notwithstanding its absence from all the versions except the Vulgate; and even from many of the best and oldest MSS. of the Vulgate; notwithstanding the deep and dead silence of all the Greek writers down to the thirteenth and most of the Latins down to the middle of the eighth century; if, in spite of all these objections, it be still genuine, no part of scripture whatsoever can be proved either spurious or genuine, and Satan has been permitted for many centuries, miraculously to banish the finest passage in the New Testament from the eyes and memories of almost all the Christian authors, translators, and transcribers." But a cardinal proof in favour of the doctrine of the Trinity could not be easily surrendered, and therefore the defenders of it fought persistently in the face of testimony which could not but overwhelm them in the end. Burgess, Hales, and their coadjutors continued to write in favour of its authenticity, as if "faith in the Holy Trinity" depended on the disputed clause. Now that the spuriousness of the passage is acknowledged by all, we are saddened by looking back at the waste of time and labour over it, and observing the bitter spirit exhibited by some of the champions for truth.

The dispute about 1 Timothy iii. 16 has also terminated against the reading "God was manifested in the flesh," etc. Since it was clearly ascertained that ôç is in the text not only of the Alexandrian MS., but of the Sinaitic and Ephraem ( and C); since both Lachmann and Tischendorf have edited it in their texts, the point has been settled.

« السابقةمتابعة »