Page images

from the other more ancient codices in containing the account of the woman taken in adultery, and a spurious passage following Luke vi. 4, nowhere else found. There are such important omissions, additions, mutilated leaves, glosses and interpolations in it, that Beza properly placed little reliance on it. Claromontanus is very defective, and only contains Paul's epistles. It has been badly altered. Of Codex Bezæ Prof. Schaff says in his Companion, it “was written by a transcriber, ignorant of Greek,” and “ Beza did not use it on account of its many departures from other MSS. It is generally ranked with the great uncials, but it is the least valuable and trustworthy of them.” And he quotes Dr. Tregelles as saying, “Its evidence, when alone, especially in additions, is of scarcely any value as to the general text.” And Prof. Schaff says of Claromontanus : “ The same remarks apply with little deduction" Were we not amply justified in excluding these two, and reckoning but eight MSS. as sources of the Established Version ? Has Prof. Forbes read Prof. Schaff's Companion ?

Besides : King James's translation is but little more than a revision, and reproduction of some of the 278 versions that preceded it, after the first (Genevan) Bible of 1560, most of which were substantially from the Latin Vulgate. We have personally examined Englislı versions antedating King James's, particularly that of Laurence Tomson, 1576, itself a revision of the Bishop's Biule, and find them nearly word for word reproductions of the Bishop's Bible, and reproduced in King James's. The point wc made was that King James's Version was reproduced from versions that were themselves not translated from the best MSS., but from a Latin version slightly compared with a few codices, and these modern and imperfect. If we admit what is not true, that there were ten instead of only eight MSS., including the two referred to, which really cut no figure in Beza's recension, our statement remains, as to the meagre sources of the Established Version, and Prof. Forbes's remark that our Introduction is a generally accurate summary,” stands.

He rep

We accept the correction of John iv. 35, with thanks. 0% vucis héyete denotes a question, literally “ Not you say ?” and instead of “Do not say,” we should have rendered it, “ Say you not?” or “Do you not say ?But Prof. Forbes, in his next reference, sliows how easy it is to blunder. resents us as rendering Matt. xii. 5, “ though not having depth of earth ;” while we translate the parallel, Mark iv. 6, the same original, “because it had not much earth.” Now we say through instead of though, which makes the two parallels identical in meaning. This is the critic who talks of "accuracy,” and who misreads a common word, and charges a blunder that he manufactures to the book he reviews! Whether we say, “ through not having depth of earth,” or, “ because it had not much earth,” or," because of not having depth of carth,” or “ by reason of not having depth of earth," or, “ because it had not a deep soil,”—any of the forms is ac. curate. It conveys the meaning of the Savior's words. If " though not having depth of earth," is nonsense, the nonsense is not manufactured by us. " The New Covenant tains nothing of the sort. As the Professor's theme is " lessness," may not this instance be classed as a pointed illustration of his subject ?

[ocr errors]

The language of Luke xviii. 25 is objected to : “ It is easier for a camel to perforate a needle's eye.” The reference to this passage and its parallels enables us to show our readers a little of the sort of labor we have devoted to “ The New Covenant." We think, ourself, that the rendering can be improved, and that the unique medical terın employed by Matthew and Luke for “ eye” or “hole,” would be better made in English, as in Greek, the noun, instead of the verb, as we have too freely rendered it.

Mark says, tovuaras gagidos, a hole of a needle. Matthew says, toýuctos papídos, a perforation of a needle. Luke says, topatos Belórns, a perforation of a surgical needle. . A strict rendering of Luke's ευκοπώτερον γάρ έστιν κάμηλον διά zgńuctos Beaóvns cioeldéīv, would be,“ It is easier for a camel to enter in through a surgical needle's perforation.” raqua is a


medical term, meaning any kind of a perforation in the body (misprinted “ to perforate” in the note in “ The New Covenant”). The words rendered “ perforation” and “needle,” are medical terms used by no other writer than Luke, except Matthew in xix. 24, who employs perforation. Dr. Hobart in his “ The Medical Language of St. Luke,” traces these terms through the ancient medical writers, and shows their meaning to be “ perforation ” and “surgical needle.” It would not be strictly accurate to render Luke in the same words as Mark. In the old recensions similar terms were in the three synoptists, that is, the common terms for "eye” and “ needle," but the more ancient codices from which W. and H. make their recension, record Luke as using technical medical terms for"needle" and “eye,” and Matthew for “ eye,” and they add a link to the chain of proof that the MSS. they use are genuine. Luke was a physician. When we find medical terms employed in an alleged MS. by him, describing an event that the other synoptists describe in other, non-medical words, we find au interesting confirmation of the authenticity of lis record. It is the strongest kind of circumstantial evidence (1) to prove that the three evangelists heard the conversation reported, inasmuch as all give the substance of it, while Luke, the physician, gives a medical man's report, and (2) to prove that the oldest codices are genuine, inasmuch as they differ from the more modern in this unexpected particular, just where they should differ.?

Considering that Prof. Forbes is Professor of Greek, this is the most astonishing objection he makes to our version : “The Greek idiom is not followed." How long since it was made proper in translation to transplant the idiom of a foreign language? To do so would be to render a translation almost or quite unintelligible to the ordinary reader. Suppose we try Prof. Forbes's theory. I Cor. xi. 13, “In yourselves judge you, decorous is it a woman uncovered to the God to pray ? or Matt. vi. 9, 10 : “Father of us who in the heavens, hallowed

2 Dr. Hobart orrs in saying that Luke alone uses the medical term for the eye in the needle. In the old Greek Testaments the three synoptists use the common word for hole, but in W. and H. Matthew and Luke both employ the modical term.

the name of thee : let come the kingdom of thee,” etc. Here we have the Greek idiom, but what sort of English is it? Very much like “ English as she is spoke.” Such translating would compel one to render the German, Ich habe sie gestern gesehen, “ I have you yesterday seen ;” or Wie befinden sie sich,“ How find you yourself ?” It would be very literal, and would preserve the idiom, as Prof. Forbes desires, but such a translation would need to be translated. No doubt it is well for Prof. Forbes in his classes to teach his pupils to be exact and literal in translating, to accustom them to verbal accuracy, but only a merely technical grammarian would adopt such a method in translating a book, and even a first-class grammarian would be incapable of it. The rule adopted by all scholars, and illustrated in all good translations is to give the exact meaning of the original in the idiom of the language into which the version is rendered, and not in the idiom of the original. The retention of the Greek idiom in the Revised Version has been one of the principal faults brought against it by scholars.

J. W. Hanson, D.D. ]To be concluded in the January Number.]


Are We Outgrowing Religion ?

Many of the religious journals are taking notice of the fact that even professed Christians and many nominal believers are absenting themselves from the place of public worship, and manifesting very little interest in the institutions of Religion. In the secular press, on the platform, and on the streets, this fact is also brought to our notice by a very different class, who, instead of regarding it as a calamity, consider it as an indication that the world has outgrown the Bible, and can dispense with the Gospel. To them the small and irregular attendance on religious worship is sure proof that Church service is felt to be unprofitable, and is becoming obsolete. Theological unrest, manifest in open protest, and in more quiet but not less sure drifting

away from old dogmas, is popularly supposed to be a forsaking of the very foundations of religion itself, a giving up of all hold upon spiritual realities.

But these are mistaken judgments. They are based on the unwarranted assumption that a temporary diversion from religious interests is a permanent revolt against them; that the abandonment of false notions which, in times of religious ignorance and bigotry, were foisted on the Christian Religion, is an abandonment of the Gospel itself. Nothing can be farther from the truth. Religion gains when anything that renders it harsh and unlovely, no matter how long it may have been associated with it, is abandoned and renounced. It is most efficient as it becomes most kindly and beautiful.

Temporary diversion from religious interests is no new thing, but in greater or less degree has been manifest not unfrequently in the past, and has sometimes occasioned great alarm. A variety of causes have accounted for it, both liere and in other lands. A notable instance of this kind in the history of France was called out by the assumptions of a corrupt priesthood, seeking to stifle the voice of reason and to forbid its use in matters of religion. In consequence churches were deserted, God was declared, by act of legislation, to be unreal; the Sabbath was abolished, and the week was protracted to ten days, that business and labor might take the place of the seventh day rest and worship. But it was not long before nature in man revolted. The week came back. The Sabbath, vsed for a time for gatherings where songs were sung, and addresses made in praise of Reason, gradually became again the day of rest and worship.

At the close of the war for Independence, in this country, the churches of New England were well-oigh deserted, partly on accoun of the demoralization attendant on and following all war, but chiefly in consequence of a natural reaction against the horrors of Calvinism. But a protest rgainst error did not destroy the soul's longing for religious truth ; and thc Methodist movement was warmly seconded by hundreds who had revolted from the horrible decrees, while the planting of Universalism by Murray and Winchester enlisted the love and zeal of others.

Possibly the present indifference to religious interests, especially manifest in the total desertion of Christian churches by some, and the irregular attendance of many others, may be of the nature of a reaction against a mistaken claim that public worship is an end, rather than a means. It would not be surprising to know that the keen dis

« PreviousContinue »