66

the full force of the Hebrew and Greek idioms." This does not imply that they are not essential to the text, but that they are so; only that there is a difference of idiom. When a school-boy says that " Bonus, bona, bonum, mean a good man, a good woman, and a good thing," it is maintained by the opposers of Italics, that man, woman, and thing, are included in the original words, and that to italicise them is to make a gloss" of what is text; to which the advocates for Italics reply, that though implied that they are not expressed; that it is even possible some other noun-substantive might be intended; and that the difference of idiom ought to be pointed out, that the reader may use his own judgment. Dr. Cardwell, who wrote a very able and conclusive pamphlet, entitled "Oxford Bibles ;-Mr. Curtis's misrepresentations exposed," justly remarked:

"It would be well to consider, that there may be instances in which the distinction is important, and that we are not competent judges of the whole question, until it has been patiently and thoroughly examined. For instance, Heb. iii. 3: This man was counted,' &c. Heb. vii. 24: This man, because he continueth ever,' &c. Heb. x. 24: This man, after he had offered one sacrifice,' &c. In these three cases, the word man is applied to Christ, the Greek being in every instance a mere pronoun. Dr. A. Clarke has printed all of them in Italics; the Oxford edition of 1824 only two of them; and the edition A (1611) only one. Which of all these methods would the Divines who complain of our Italics, think it their duty to adopt? On this subject I will only add, that the Italics of our modern Bibles had most of them been introduced at different periods before the time of Dr. Blayney; and that it would be as easy to find precedents for increasing the number of them, as for reducing it."

Dr. Cardwell added:

"Mr. Curtis bas perverted this distinction of the Translators and subsequent Editors to a purpose totally unknown to them. They intended Italics to denote a difference of idiom: he applies them as if in some cases their object was to point out a mere approximation to the meaning, and in others as if the sentence required such a supplemental word, but there was nothing in the language of the original to justify the use of it."

Dr. Cardwell further gives us the following exemplifications of what we may expect from leaving the printing of Bibles to commercial competition. One of the witnesses before the House of Commons-Mr. Offor-having stated his opinion, that during the Commonwealth, when every man might print Bibles, more care was employed to ensure accuracy than is exercised under the present system, Dr. Cardwell replies:

"READER, You have had one extraordinary contrast; now prepare yourself for another. Dr. Cotton says, in his List of Bibles,' p. 33, note, The Bibles printed during the time of the Commonwealth have been generally reputed to be full of errors.' The writer of a tract entitled, The London Printer his Lamentation, &c. 1660,' speaking of Hills and Field, says, 'Have they not obtained, and now keep in their actual possession, the MS. copy of the last translation of the Holy Bible in English, attested with the hands of the venerable and learned Translators in king James' time, ever since the 6th of March, 1655, and thereupon...... printed and published ever since, for the most part, in several editions of Bibles (consisting of great numbers) such egregious blasphemies and damnable erratas, as have corrupted the pure fountain, and rendered God's holy word contemptible to multitudes at home, and a ludibrium to all the adversaries of our religion?' To this I will only add, that I have now before me a small Bible Printed by John Field, printer to the Parliament, 1653,' and I find in a single chapter, Romans vi., the three following mistakes: ver. 5. 'in the likeness of his death,' 'likeness' in Italics; ver. 12. in the lust thereof,' lust for lusts; ver. 13. instruments of righteousness unto sin,' righteousness for unrighteousness. I do not believe that three such errors as are here found in a single chapter, can be discovered in the whole of the text of the Oxford 4to Bible of 1824."

The reader who wishes to go farther into the subject should consult Dean Turton's "Text of the English Bible, as now printed by the Universities, considered with reference to a report by a sub-committee of Dissenting ministers.” Learned men will differ in opinion as to the extent to which distinctive types are desirable, in order to point out differences of idiom between the original and the version; but no one who will take the pains to examine can doubt, that the principles adopted by our translators are better carried out in our modern Bibles than in the edition of 1611. We will quote a few passages from Dr. Turton's work, in illustration and confirmation of our statements. He is replying to the objections of the Dissenting sub-committee.

"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 purport of the Original-any diminution of its force. Their first object undoubtedly was to express in intelligible English what they believed to be the full significa tion of a sentence; and their next object appears to have been, to point out, by the mode of printing, such words as had been required, in addition to those of the Original, for the complete development of the meaning.

"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 in subsequent editions attempts were made to carry the principle into more full effect, by applying it to various words, which appeared, in the Text of 1611, in the ordinary character."

"In numerous instances it is quite impossible to convert a Hebrew or Greek sentence into a corresponding sentence in English, without circumlocution. The phrase would frequently be altogether unintelligible in our own language, more especially to ordinary readers, if presented in the elliptical form of the Original..... In some cases, indeed, this elliptical form will not be attended with any great uncertainty, as to the writer's meaning; and yet as different modes of supplying the ellipses, giving different shades of meaning, may be adopted, it seems desira ble even in such cases that the words actually supplied should be pointed out......In other cases, the elliptical form is productive of so much obscurity, that scholars will entertain different opinions as to the mode in which the ellipsis should be supplied. Under such circumstances, nothing surely can be more manifest than that, in translating works of vast concernment to mankind—works on which their Religious sentiments depend-whatever is thus added, for the purpose of conveying the full meaning of the Original, as apprehended by the Translator, certainly ought to have some mark by which it may be distinguished from the rest."

66

'From the Report of the Sub-Committee already cited, and from other eircumstances, I am led to conclude that some of these learned Dissenters would not much care if the Italics were banished altogether from the pages of the English Bibles. I should however be sorry to suppose that such would be the leaning of their minds, if they had duly considered the various bearings of the subject. Translation, after all, is but a substitute for something better. To the mere English reader, indeed, the English Bible is as the Word of God; still it is in reality but man's interpretation of God's Word-not the Word itself. There is of necessity a portion of human weakness and human ignorance mixed up with it. Certain marks, therefore, which may at the least give some indications of the specific differences between the Ancient and Modern Languages, do seem not unbecoming even the profoundest understandings, when employed in translating such a work, from Originals which are accessible only to the learned -more especially when the work is designed for the benefit of all orders of society throughout the kingdom.”

"It cannot but be clear to all, except those who are entirely ignorant of every language but their own, that if, in translations, the differences of idioms be marked by some method equivalent to the Italics of the Bible-whatever rules we may lay down for the application of them, we shall often find ourselves in the region of uncertainty-in fact, upon debateable ground. From this cause,

there will always be ample scope for dispute. Then again, some persons appear to have a dislike to what they deem small distinctions; while others delight in the precision which such distinctions communicate. And thus, if the number of Italics in our Bibles were greatly diminished, there would be too many for some; and if the number were greatly increased, there would still be too few for others. Notwithstanding all the attention that can be paid to the subject, some irregularities in the use of Italics will remain so long as the human faculties remain what they are. For my own part, I am not in the habit of condemning any work on which great care has been bestowed, because it bears not the impress of perfection."

Dr. Turton proceeds to examine at length various texts the modern Italic readings in which were found fault with by the Dissenting sub-committee. We will select three as a specimen, and we take these because they happen to be three out of the six which the conductors of the Trinitarian Bible Society specified in their allegations against the Bibles as printed by the Universities, in a document of which they circulated thirty thousand copies. Justly did Dean Turton remark, that this "unsettling the minds of persons, with regard to the supplementary words in our Bibles,” is “ a very serious consideration." The three passages alluded to by Dr. Turton are the following, and the other three might have been disposed of with equal facility.

"Exod. xii. 36. So that they lent unto them such things as they required.' "Here again, the Italics in our modern Bibles are objected to. There is no doubt but that, constrained by the necessity of the case, the Egyptians let the Israelites have whatever they asked for; and this may be implied in the original Hebrew term. This however cannot be expressed in English, without more words than appear in the Hebrew. The words such things as they required' have no corresponding words in the Hebrew; and therefore, according to the Translators' rule, they ought to be in Italics."

"Levit. iv. 13, 22, 27. And they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the Lord, concerning things which should not be done.' (Three cases.)

"The words in Italics were unquestionably supplied by the Translators, for the purpose of giving what they believed the full meaning of the Hebrew. The passage may be literally rendered- And they have done one (out) of all the commandments of Jehovah, which should not be done :' that is, have done some one thing which Jehovah has commanded them not to do.' Schmid's translation is this: Et fecerunt unum ex omnibus præceptis Jehovæ, quæ non fieri debent;' which warrants the Italics here employed. The same may be said of Ainsworth's version: And they have done any one of all the commandments of Jehovah, which should not be done.'-This instance might be adduced in proof at once of the necessity of supplementary words, and the utility of Italics."

6

"Heb. x. 10. By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.'

"There is a note appended to this text, from which it might be inferred that the Italics were objected to by Dr. J. P. Smith. Let us therefore ascertain what Dr. Smith has already written, and under what circumstances. In p. 132 of his Discourses on the Sacrifice and Priesthood of Jesus Christ,' he quotes Heb. vii. 27, and Heb. x. 10; in each of which texts para occurs; and as his manner is, translates the passages for himself. The former passage he thus renders: Who hath not every day need, like the high priests [of the Levitical institution] first for his own sins to offer sacrifices, and then for those of the people; for this he hath done once (itana), offering himself; the latter passage, as follows: We are consecrated to God through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once (para). Having thus literally translated in by the word once,' he very justly goes on to observe that in these passages once is not an adequate translation of ' áña§ or ipaña§.'...' It denotes emphatically,' Dr. Smith goes on to observe, the absolute cessation of an act under the idea that it has been perfectly performed; and it would be better rendered by our common phrases, were they not too colloquial, once for all, or once for ever..... Now two particulars are worthy of observation in this matter. In the first place, it seems to have escaped Dr. Smith's recollection, at the moment, that our Translators really had, in the latter instance, rendered ipxx, once for all;'

and in the second place, Dr. Smith's observations upon the meaning, which in those instances he would give to the word ipaaž, afford a sufficient vindication of the mode in which for all' is printed in our modern editions. The word occurs, Rom. vi. 10: For in that he died, he died unto sin once (itara§); '— 1 Cor. xv. 6: And that he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once (para): 'Heb. ix. 12: 'By his own blood, he entered once (para) into the holy place.'-' Once for all' is a good English idiom, employed to convey as fully as possible the signification of ipanag in Heb. x. 10."

66

With all due deference to Mr. Curtis, the Dissenting sub-committee, and the conductors of the Trinitarian Society, we affirm that Dean Turton and the authorised presses are right, and they are wrong. There is no want of care," but much care, in the matter. And as to what "Scotus" says of "one impression inadvertently copying another," his own examples disprove his statement. We are not arguing whether the Italics are right or wrong in the cases which he mentions; but we maintain, that for the most part, so far from evincing inadvertence or want of care, they prove the contrary. The revisers might have good reason, or otherwise that is matter of opinion-but in the majority of instances which he specifies, we can discern something in the original which appears to have determined them. In the very first passage objected to by him, Luke xviii. 1. the revisors, have retained" to this end” in Italics as they found it in 1611; whereas they have placed "to" before "faint" in Italics, which was not so in 1611. This did not imply careless copying; but was clearly an exercise of thought. "Scotus" considers that they thought wrong both in what they retained and what they altered; so that neither 1611 nor 1840 pleases him. But if not, his own alterations (besides being unauthorised) might not please another critic; and where then, if private individuals in Scotland are going to begin thus altering, do they expect to end?

So again in "written and concluded," Acts xxi. 25, the revisors have varied from 1611 by placing "and" in Italics. Scotus thinks them wrong; other critics may think them right, and that this construction ought always to have been thus indicated; but the alteration shews at least attention. In 2 Pet. iii. 11. the modern versions read " Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness." Here are four italicisings, not one of which is found in 1611. As Scotus mentions only the first two in his objections, we conclude that he approves of the other two. Here then was an indication of care and discrimination; not of routine copying. With regard to the other two, he admits that there is "a change from the verbal rendering," though he thinks "there is scarcely more propriety in the Italics than in the 17th verse." But the revisors thought the change of idiom in the eleventh verse required to be marked; in the seventeenth they did not arrive at that conclusion. Grant that they were wrong; yet as they were competent critics, and exercised deliberation, their opinion is entitled to some weight; and if set aside in a national version, which is designed for church as well as private use, it should be by public authority, not individual judgment.

These considerations induce us to raise our warning voice against the hasty experiments in Bible-printing, of which Scotland, we fear, is about to become the hot-bed. With regard to England, we doubt whether Bibles would be ultimately and permanently cheapened by allowing all men to print them; and we fear that editions deformed by wretched type, paper, and press-work would be thrown on the market, and ignorant and unwary persons would be grievously imposed upon by bad articles, the inferiority of which they have not the skill to detect. But still more we fear that no reliance could be placed

upon the correctness of the text, unless the purchaser were critically acquainted with the merits of each particular edition; for it were preposterous to suppose that every needy or reckless printer who might speculate upon a cheap Bible would attend to such minute critical particulars as those alluded to by our correspondent, or exercise such patience in correcting as Dr. Blayney describes ; and be it remembered, that in issuing the word of God, minute particulars, as in other books they might be accounted, involve matters of serious importance. Then, besides these errors of cupidity or inattention, there would be infinite variations arising from criticism and ignorant caprice; till no man who bought a Bible would know what he had purchased. As for the remedy of a licensing Board, such as that which is constituted in Scotland, it would be nugatory in practice, unless, like Archbishop Laud, it had star-chamber powers to carry its edicts into execution. The remedy would be too late when an edition was printed, except where there was something grossly wrong. As for Italics, and much more serious matters, we fear Mr. Hume, the anti-monopolist, would treat them with much contempt; and as soon as the Board really exercises its powers it will find that the outcry for free trade which has thrown open the printing and publishing, will be renewed to make the trade free to publish what it pleases.

And now a word as to the spirit of the "agitation" which is going on to give to poor unhappy England the boon of cheap Bibles. We should be very glad to have Bibles cheaper and better if we could; but when we consider all the facts of the case, we cannot but impute a want, not merely of candour, but of common veracity and justice, to the course which is being pursued to abolish what is absurdly called the "monopoly." Public meetings are being held; inflammatory speeches are uttered; and popular assemblies are excited to lawless proceedings, as if their rights, their liberties, their religion were at stake. We will give a brief specimen of the exaggerations (we use a mild word) which are poured forth by the gentlemen (not gentle men) who are conducting these movements. We select the following from the letters of "the author of Jethro," to the teachers of Sunday schools, because, being written and published, it may be concluded to be less violent than some of the harangues delivered to large bodies of persons at Newcastle, Carlisle, Kendal, Wigan, Blackburn, Rochdale, Stockport, Liverpool, Manchester, and other popular places.

"Brethren, this is our present awful condition. What is our prospect? The pestiferons check, if left to run its fatal course, will continue to exist till the year 1860, that is, till after the bulk of the present generation shall have been laid in the grave! The thought is dreadful! It sickens the very soul. Who on earth or in heaven, who among men or angels, can calculate and estimate the earthly and everlasting consequences of perpetuating this inhuman restriction, this barbarous embargo on the Word of God, for twenty more years? At the very first intellectual approach to the dread subject, the ears tingle, and the blood runs cold! Who can even attempt the terrible computation? Do men reason and declaim concerning taxes on knowledge-taxes on correspondencetaxes on corn? They do well; but hurtful and hateful as are all such taxesvile weeds of the empoisoned soil of selfish nature, evil emanations of class-rule and perverted legislation-they are roses of Sharon, plants of Paradise, as compared with the malignant and deadly effects of this monopoly! Think! A turnpike on the path of life! A tax on sound, when God speaks from heaven to his creatures! A tax on sight, when the pen of inspiration has inscribed with the blood of Christ the terms of pardon to a condemned world-a tax which must be paid before the trembling spirit of man dares either to listen to the word or look to the writing of his offended but compassionate God! How revolting the thought! What sovereign, at all apprized of the unutterable consequences of his deed, could be induced to create such a monopoly? What man in the cha