"land" does not exist in the Hebrew.§ In Poole's Bible, with Annotations, the same mode of printing is followed.|... The conclusions, to be drawn from these circumstances, are that the word "land," in our Authorized Version, is inserted rather as adapted to the genius of the English language, than as required by the Original Hebrew-and that there was sufficient warrant for the printing of the word in the Italic character.

GEN. i. 27. "God created man in his own image."

In the preceding verse we read: "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness:" where the word "own" does not appear. Now in the Hebrew, verse 27, the pronominal suffix is precisely analogous to that which is twice employed in verse 26; and thus we naturally expect the same mode of expression in the version. Moreover, the Hebrew Language does not contain any word equivalent to the word "own." When, therefore, this word was intro

§ Ainsworth's Annotations on various parts of the Old Testament were separately published, in the course of a few years after the first edition of our present Authorized Version of the Bible: the Annotations on the Psalms in 1612; on Genesis in 1616; on Exodus in 1617; on Leviticus in 1618; and on Numbers and Deuteronomy in 1619. With the Annotations is given a Version; in which, as Bishop Pearson observes, "Mr. Ainsworth followeth the word." (Creed, Art. "He descended, &c.") He seems, indeed, to have had a religious dread of adding any thing to the expression of the Sacred Text; and when reluctantly compelled, by the nature of his own language, to do so, he scrupulously marked by Italics the supplementary words. And thus, while his Version is frequently obscure in the extreme, it is, from the very manner in which it has become obscure, a most valuable work of reference, with a view of ascertaining what he considered to be the strictly literal phrase of the Original Hebrew. In a matter like the present, it is satisfactory to be able to appeal to so learned a writer-who lived at so early a period and who was, besides, a Nonconformist. My quotations are derived from his collected Works, fol. 1639.

The edition referred to is that of 1700.

duced, the Translators' rule required that it should be in Italics. Ainsworth renders the passage literally, "God created man in his image"-corresponding to his rendering of verse 26—“Let us make man in our image, according to our likeness." The Italic character then has here been properly applied; and it is to be lamented that it has not also been applied to the case of Gen. v. 3. "In his own likeness, after his image." Here again, Ainsworth's literal version" In his likeness, in his image"-shews that the word "own" was supplied by the Translators; and therefore ought to have been marked, as supplied.

GEN. v. 24. "And he was not, for God took him."

The word "was" has no corresponding term in the Original; and in consequence it has been printed in Italics, in the modern editions. The principle on which this has been here done is sufficiently recognized by the text of 1611 in other passages. "The eye of him that hath seen me, shall see me no more: thine eyes are upon me, and I am not." Job vii. 8;— "For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be ; yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be." Ps. xxxvii. 10;-"As the whirlwind passeth, so is the wicked no more." Prov. x. 25 ;"Our fathers have sinned, and are not.” Lam. v. 7. In Gen. v. 24, Ainsworth agrees exactly with the text as now printed—" And he was not."

GEN. vi. 4. An error is here pointed out, which, it is acknowledged, has been corrected; and so far as my experience goes, errors have always been corrected, when pointed out.

GEN. vi. 16.

"Lower, second and third stories."

In

"Stories," in Italics, is perfectly correct; there being no word corresponding to it in the Original. Ezek. xLii. 3. (according to the Text of 1611) we read : "Over against the pavement which was for the outer court, was gallery against gallery, in three stories.” And so again in verse 6; the word being supplied, as required to express the full meaning. Ainsworth also has printed the word "stories" in Italics.

GEN. XX. 17. "And they bare children."

Although the Text of 1611 does not here give "children" in Italics, yet in other places it sanctions the change that has been made. “Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son."

Gen. v. 3; "The sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them." Gen. vi. 4. See also Gen. x. 21; Gen. xliv. 27; Eccles. vi. 3. Ainsworth adopts the same mode of printing. Schmid gives pepereruntque;" which sufficiently indicates in what type the word "children" should be printed.

66

GEN. xxxix. 1. "Bought him of the hands of the Ishmaelites."

It seems that, for "hands," we ought to read "hand." This, I suppose, may be an error of the press. It is observable, however, that the Septuagint has ek xeɩpŵv; and that, as early as 1638, the reading was "hands."

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

C

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. It appears to me that the following instances, from the text of 1611 (and many others might be cited), are somewhat of a similar character: "That they profane not my holy name, in those things which they hallow unto me." Lev. xxii. 2. "Nor would as at this time have told us such things as these." Judg. xiii. 23. Ainsworth thus renders the passage—"They gave them their asking;" and Schmid "ut darent ipsis mutuo."

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 to be 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..

DEUT. xxix. 29. "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong

unto us."

The complaint here is, that "things" in the former part of the verse, and "things which are" in the latter, should be in Italics. This passage affords a good illustration of the elliptic brevity of the Hebrew. In the Original, we have, in fact-"The secret-unto the LORD our God: but the revealed-unto us.' The sentiment so expressed was, no doubt, perfectly intelligible to the Israelites; but the generality of English readers would require it to be brought out more fully. Let us see how this is done. First, the Hebrew adjective, "the secret," is too abstract for the English idiom; and so it is converted into "the secret things" —which, when fully explained, it really means. Then, there is no Verb to connect "the secret [things]" with "unto the LORD our God;" and accordingly "belong," the verb manifestly implied, is introduced. We now have the first part of the verse complete: "The secret things belong unto the LORD our God:" and if the second part had been literally translated" but the revealed unto us," the ellipsis, suggested by the former part, might perhaps have been supplied by an English reader; but the Translators deemed it better to give the sense in full, by supplying the words which must otherwise have been understood: -"but those things which are revealed belong unto us."...,Ainsworth thus exhibits the passage: "The secret things belong unto Jehovah our God, and the things revealed belong