Page images

occasionally deformed by a re- The plan of the Greek English mark of a doubtful complexion- Concordance is the following. is one of the most useful philo. There is an alphabetical arrangelogical works which the biblical ment, after the plan of Schmid, student can possess. The Lon- of every word in the Greek New don edition, revised by the Rev. Testament, Immediately after S. T. Bloomfield, D.D., and the Edinburgh edition, revised by Mr. Negris and the Rev. J. Dun- errors which the British Magazine can, are improvements upon the showed made the original so unsafe a author's own text. *

guide. We noticed, as an instance of what was meant, something similar hay. ing been done for an edition of Park.

hurst's Lexicon, of which the reviewer * Mr. Duncan's edition we have fre- would not be ignorant. As nothing like quently heard spoken of as less expur- this appears to have been done, but gated than Dr. Bloomfield's. Neither Dr. Bloomfield's edition is not materially professes to be expurgated; but Mr. better than its rival, the British MagaDuncan has occasionally interjected, zine ought not to have selected for rewithin square editorial brackets, a few probation a comparatively obscure ediwords expressing theological dissent; tion, but should have singled out Dr. whereas Dr. Bloomfield's corrections, so Bloomfield's; since, from his reputafar as we have observed them, are only tion, and from the place of publication, critical Dr. Bloomfield addressed a it will be most known, and therefore letter to the conductors of the Record most likely to become injurious." newspaper in reply to some strictures We have nothing to do with any of upon Professor Robinson's work, which the statements in this passage, except glanced at himself, stating that his the remark that “Dr. Bloomsfield's ediown views are decidedly anti- neologian ; tion is not materially better than its rival;" that he had also inquired carefully which expresses the opinion we have above respecting Dr. Robinson's religious alluded to; whereas Mr. Duncan has opinions, and was assured by three per- done in part what Dr. Bloomfield did not sons of known orthodox principles, in- consider himself at liberty to attempt; cluding two of the most distinguished

the balance is to be adjusted, theological writers this country, that the favourable side should be assigned to they “ are decidedly orthodox, and even Mr. Duncan. evangelical ;' that upon this he deter- We will offer a few illustrations.-On mined to edit the work; but that “he turning to the word [yeauce we find a did not consider himself at liberty to clause significantly interjected with Mr. make any direct alteration;" and that Duncan's brackets : “ Called likewise he disclaimed being responsible for the the Spirit of Christ as [eternally proauthor's opinions, by expressing in his ceeding from the Father and the Son, preface his regret that “ some matter and as] being sent or communicated by should have found a place, which had him after his resurrection and ascenbetter have been excluded, and some sion.” Again, a few lines after, “ This views of interpretation and opinions in Spirit is every where represented as in theology have been brought forward, intimate union with God the Father and which had better have been altogether Son, as proceeding from and sent forth omitted." The conductors of the Re- by them, as possessing the same (nature cord in their reply said : “ In noticing and] attributes." No such additional the strong condemnation which the words are in Dr. Bloomfield's edition. British Magazine had passed on Dr. So again, under the word Aaspoviçou an, Robinson's work, we thought it possible where Dr. Robinson says, that “it is that its design might be to show the much disputed whether the writers of real nature of the American theology, the New Testament used this word, to now apparently so fashionable, and denote the actual presence of evil spirits therefore that the reviewer had made in the persons affected, or whether they his extracts from the edition published employed it only in compliance with in Scotland, with all the author's theo- popular usage and belief, just as we now logical sentiments unpruned; but we use the word Lunatic, without assenting hoped that the edition to which Dr. to the old opinion of the influence of the Bloomfield had given the sanction of his moon;" adding, “A serious difficulty in name might have been purified from the way of this latter supposition, is that these stains, and, retaining all that was the demoniacs every where at once advaluable, have become free from the dress Jesus as the Messiah ;" Mr. Dun.

so that

each Greek word follows the series them by the Holy Ghost." A of passages in which it occurs, few lines may suffice as a spefrom the authorised English trans- cimen, lation. Italic letters are used to

xupayayiw, kiragõgeo. mark the words which correspond Acts 9: 8. they led him by the hand, and to the Greek word under con

22: 11. being led by the hand of sideration. The object of the

them that work, says the Editor, “is to en

Xeipaywyós, kiragōgos. deavour to lead the mind to de.

Acts 13: 11. seeking some to lead him duce its meaning and definition

by the hand. of words from the use made of

xupéypadov, kirographon. Col. 2: 14. Blotting out the handwriting

of ordinances that was against us, can subjoins in brackets [" The difficul. ties indeed are so many and strong, as to Xelporontos, kiropoyeetos. render the opinion utterly untenable."] Dr. Bloomfield has no such remark; he

Mar. 14: 58. this temple that is made

with hands,
however interjects“ See my note on
Matt. iv. 24.

Acts 7 : 48. dwelleth not
We have not his note

in temples

made with hands ; at hand, though weconclude that he writes satisfactorily, as his opinions on these sub

17: 24. not in temples made with

hands; jects are well-known; but the reader of Robinson is not guarded by them. Eph 2: 11. Circumcision in the flesh We do not think that either of the

made by hands ; editors believed his author to be un. sound in the faith, though occasionally referring to erroneous opinions without Saviour of men, who saves his people specifically disclaiming them. Even from the guilt and pollution, the doafter the discussions respecting the work, minion, prevalency, and in-being of Mr. Hartwell Horne, a most zealous and sin ; and from] eternal death ; from scrutinising anti-neologist, in the new punishment and misery as the conseedition of his Introduction to the Scrip- quence of sin, and gives them eternal tures, recently published, continues and life and happiness in his kingdom.”. enlarges his eulogy upon Dr. Robinson's Δικαιοω. . “ Spoken especially of the “ truly valuable Lexicon,” both in the justification bestowed by God on men author's text, and the English and Scot. through Christ, in which he is said to tish editions, without the slightest charge regard and treat them as righteous, to of there being any rationalistic bias, or approve and reward as truly pious; i.e. any caution to his readers against it. In to absolve from the consequences of nearly two thousand closely printed co- sin, and admit to the enjoyment of the lumns, the above quoted passages are

Divine favour, [as a matter of justice as among the most theologically doubt. well as of grace, (grace reigning through ful; but even these do not convict the righteousness,) on account of the righte. writer either of positive mistatement or ousness, merit, or obedience of Christ intentional omission.

imputed to believers who, by mystical We will quote two or three other pas- union, are one with Him.]" sages from Robinson and his editor Aixouo ourn.“ The righteousness which Duncan, turning to words likely to is of or through faith in Christ, i. e. elicit rationalistic propensities where where faith is counted, imputed, as they exist.

Mr. Duncan's brackets righteousness, or as evidence of piety, shew that he was not satisfied with his Rom. 9. 30 ; 10. 6. Phil. 3. 9. [But author's statements ; nor are we; but see the writings of the reformers and we do not think that it is just to say that their followers, on the all-important they are Neologian, and much less that doctrine of the imputation of Christ's Mr. Duncan abets such notions. “The righteousness to believers.)” Word, the Logos in the writings of John, Πιστες. . " Of faith in Christ's death, John i. 1, bis 14, 1 John i. 1, [5 : 7,] as the ground of justification before Rev. 19. 13. It here stands for the pre- God, i. q. saving faith, only in Paul's existent nature of Christ, i. e., that writings. spiritual and divine nature spoken of in More especially, the object of justhe Jewish writings, before and about tifying faith, that on which a sinner bethe time of Christ, under various names, lieving the gospel, relies for acceptance e. g. copra wisdom."

with God, viz. Christ, as having fulfilled i {wtno. “ Of Jesus as the Messiah, the all righteousness."

Heb. 9: 11. tabernacle, not made with Ghost has been pleased to em

hands, 24. into the holy places made ploy two words corresponding to

a will and a contract. He will with hands.

see that but one word is used; The use which an intelligent which word meaning either that English biblical reader may make kind of legal deed which we call a of the volume, is to learn where testament, or that which we call the same Greek word is variously a covenant, the translators have translated in our authorised ver- rendered it by the one or the sion; and where various Greek other, as they considered each words are translated by the same passage required. He will not English word. To know this, will therefore dogmatically urge the not indeed enable him to ascer- distinction between the English tain the philological correctness words, as though much depended or incorrectness of the rendering; upon it, there being but one word but he will at least have a more in the original. He will see that accurate fuc-simile of the original the real point for critical investithan he otherwise possesses, and tigation is, not what are the meanmay therefore make a better use ings of two distinct words, but of an English Concordance than why the same word is variously he could if he did not know rendered; and assuming, in his whether the words which appear ignorance of the original laneither identical or discrepant in guage, that the translators had English are so in the original. good reasons for their renderings, The utility of this exercise will, he may proceed to examine what however, rather be to prevent his light the context throws upon falling upon wrong meanings, than them. But this is very different to shew him right ones; but even to assuming—as a mere English negative benefits are not worth- reader naturally does—that the less.

distinction is in the inspired Take, for example, the very words, not merely the uninspired word which describes the sacred translation. Volume “ The Testament," Again, if he examines further, whether the Old or the New. he will discover some real or apNow there is nothing in the habits parent anomalies in the translaof the English language to lead tion of this word. Thus in Hethe vernacular reader to suppose, brews ix. he finds it in verse four, when he meets with the word twice rendered “ covenant;' and “Covenant,” that he is reading the in verse fifteen, twice “ testarendering of the very word which ment;” and also“ testament” is elsewhere translated “testa. three times after in that chapter ; ment.” But he will see by the though in all the other passages English Greek Concordance that where it is found in that epistle, the two words are only various it is rendered “covenant,” except renderings of the same Greek vii. 22, where the translators word ; that word being translated have given the other rendering. in the New Testament thirteen He might not see in every case times testament, and twenty times why the one rendering was chosen covenant. Here then at the out rather than the other ; but he set he is saved from falling into would at least aware of the the mistake of supposing, that difference, and be led to look to when he is reading the two words the context for a probable soluTestament and Covenant, he is tion; and this he would often to understand that the Holy easily find; as in the chapter just referred to (Hebrews ix.) where precise signification in every case he would discern that the mention being determined by the conof “ the death of the testator," text, the discussion upon the and of a testament not being of meaning of the English renderforce till the testator is dead, led ings would be entirely set aside ; the translators to give that view and the only question would be of the passage. When also he whether there was anything in reads in this chapter “ the Medi- the context which would enable ator the New Testament ;" and the judge and jury to see that such in chapter vii. 22, “ A Surety of a distinction was intended. Still, a better testament;" but in chap- as the parties did not understand ter viji. 6, “ The Mediator of a the original language, they would better covenant;" he would not justly feel inclined to suppose that go about, as probably many ver- the translator, if a faithful and nacular readers have done, to dis- competent person, and more escover why the Holy Ghost some- pecially if his version had been times speaks of the suretyship or carefully revised by others, did mediation as applying to a testa- not lightly give two renderings: ment, and at others to a cove- And thus would we say of our nant; he will see that he is not to vernacular translation of the Scripinfer a distinction of meaning from tures. To the ripe biblical schothe wording—there being but one lar it is open to inquire why this word—but that a supposed dis- or that rendering was preferred; tinction of meaning has led to the and in some of the passages just use of two renderings.

alluded to, he may not be able to A case similar to this is con- satisfy himself as to the correctstantly occurring in courts of jus- ness of the variation. But the tice. Let us suppose that a do- English reader must rely genecument has been carefully trans. rally, as he justly may, under such lated into English from a language powerful guarantees, upon the which neither the judge, the coun- fidelity of the translation: yet with sel, nor the jury understand. the right to consider the propriety Among other things, mention is of the rendering, where it is not made of a donation to a certain affected by any philological criSociety, and of a subscription to ticism, but is adopted simply to another; and a pleader is pro- meet the alleged spirit of the pasceeding to explain these words, sage. the first as meaning a single gift, Take another example. The the second (in ordinary construc- word Aikalupa is translated in the tion, though not necessarily) a New Testament by “ ordinances, recurring contribution; and to "judgment,”“judgments,""rightfound an argument upon the dif- eousness," and “justification.” ference. Now though no person But four other words are also present understood the language translated “ordinance; ” seven in which the original document others are translated“ judgment,” was written, and all were there. two others “ righteousness," and fore in the condition of a mere one other justification.” This may English scholar reading the trans- seem perplexing ; but the welllated bible, yet if it were shewn judging reader, however unlearned, to them that the same word was will easily discover that such vaused in both places, but that the riations are easily to be accounted translator, knew that it meant for, in transfusing one tongue into generally pecuniary contribution, another; and may learn the usewhether special or recurring, the ful lesson of not dogmatising, as


some very ignorant persons are that they may shew all good faithapt to do, upon the strength of fulness; ” and other English ververbal coincidences or discrepan- sions continued that reading. In cies in a translation.

the passage where the word is renOr suppose that the English dered “assurance," Tyndale and reader wishes to have a fuc-simile others read “ faith "_" and hath of the original in the two words, given faith to all men." Our faith and hope. He turns to the translators probably thought this English alphabetical Index, which rendering theologically ambigudirects him to the pages of the Concordance in which the Greek But the reader, on turning to words represented by these words the word “faith" in the English occur. It is not essential for Index to the Concordance, will this mere verbal collation, that perceive that a second Greek word he should be able to read the (E\n'ic) is assigned to it. On reGreek letters, much less under- ferring to this word, as he is able stand the language ; for without to do, the page being indicated, this he will yet see that the word he finds it translated, to the numtranslated "faith" occurs nearly ber of nearly fifty times, “ hope ; two hundred and fifty times, and but once, and once only, he finds has always this rendering except it rendered faith;" namely, Heb. twice; once where it is translated x. 23; Let us hold fast the pro“assurance,” (Acts xvii. 31,) and fession of our faith : " so that once (Titus ii. 10) where it is the concordance-maker tells him translated “fidelity.” On turn- that this word is rendered by our ing to the passage where it is ren- translators both by "faith " and dered fidelity, he will easily per- “hope.” The concordance-maker ceive that the translators probably is not to blame if he considered used this word as being in their that in Elriç he had the identical view more commonly, or properly, word which in that passage our or intelligibly, employed to express translators translated faith; " but the trustworthiness of a servant, he must have known, and should than the word “faith,” which they perhaps have added a note to say, perhaps thought might be con- that it was impossible that they founded with “ faith” in its theo- could have thus translated ; logical sense. Whether the va- that they must either have had a riation was advisable is a point copy which reads IILOTEWS ; or else upon which a well-judging English the word “faith” was a mere reader is as capable of forming an oversight in translating, writing, opinion as a Greek scholar, espe- or printing. Our first translator ally as the variation is made for Tyndale wrote “hope ;" the Vulthe sake of the former, not the gate had “hope ; ”nor was there latter. At the present day there any reason for the substitution of would be no popular difficulty in “ faith.” If the vernacular reader comprehending what is meant by turns to almost any popular coma servant shewing “good faith; mentary, he will be as wise in the and there might even be some ad- matter as his learned neighbour. vantage in not departing from the Doddridge for example will tell otherwise uniform rendering ; as him that our translators gave that the analogy would lead the reader rendering on the authority of a to understand “faith " in its single manuscript ; and Mr. Scott largest sense. Our first English will tell him that "hope" is the version (Tyndale's of 1526) approved reading. That it is the reads “Neither be pickers; but right word we think hardly worth


[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »