the respective Psalms to which they pertained; and, of the two methods, the original one certainly had the merit of somewhat superior convenience to the reader, not to lay stress on economy of space. We can divine no better reason for the change than supposed improvement in the appearance of the page as a production of the press. The Introduction opens with some remarks, mostly pertinent and just, on the general character and value of the Psalms. We will venture, however, to present the following criticism. Augusti and De Wette compared the Psalter to the Greek Anthology. Dr. Noyes mentions this comparison of "some of the German critics," and speaks of the "Hebrew Anthology, that is, a collection of the lyric, moral, historical, and elegiac poetry of the Hebrews." Now, the term lyric designates all the Psalms, as is expressly stated in the Introduction: "In the Psalms we have merely the remains of the lyric poetry of the Hebrews." (p. 7.) There was, therefore, no occasion for the other epithets. De Wette denominates the Psalter a "Lyric Anthology." In the second edition the Introduction contains considerable matter which is wanting in the first, and a large part of this new matter comes from De Wette. Three editions of De Wette's work appeared before Dr. Noyes's first edition. Still we find in that edition no other mention of De Wette than the slight one on page 13. The criticism which we are about to offer could not, therefore, have been made with reference to the first edition. We may observe, however, that in that edition Lowth is cited somewhat in the same way as De Wette in this. On page 2 of the Introduction, De Wette is mentioned as follows:"The Psalms, says De Wette, are lyric poems." A large proportion of the subsequent pages, we observe, are derived from De Wette's "Einleitung," or Introduction, to his Commentary on the Psalms. It is to be feared that most mere English readers, if not most scholars, would hardly take occasion, from the manner in which Dr. Noyes refers to De Wette, to give the latter due credit for what is introduced from his pages. That we may not be thought to speak unwarrantably, we will exhibit a concise statement of the facts; premising, however, that we are far from accusing Dr. Noyes of an intention to mislead, or to make an improper use of other men's labors. We bring against him no graver charge than that of inadvertence. After the reference above men 1847.] Introduction. 209 tioned there follow more than two pages literally extracted from De Wette, no portion of which is provided with marks of quotation. It is indeed said, on page 8, "The Psalms have 99 : and then a note been classified in the following manner is subjoined which refers the reader to De Wette's work, and to the Biblical Repository for 1833, p. 488, where this particular classification of De Wette is presented. But no reader, in our opinion, would suppose, without having consulted De Wette, that his ideas and his language are literally cited throughout these pages. We are the more surprised at this, because, on page 29 of the Introduction, there appears an extract of a shorter description, occupying less than two pages, which is expressly referred to De Wette, and inclosed in marks of quotation, though we observe that the volume and page of the original are not specified. On looking further, our surprise is augmented; for, at page 34, we find the following language respecting the parallelism of Hebrew poetry: "A more complete view of its varieties (than that by Dr. Lowth) "has been given by De Wette, in his Introduction to the Psalms, which I shall in substance transcribe," and there is reference, in a note, to the "Biblical Repository for 1833, p. 494"; and then come more than eighteen pages, which are taken nearly word for word from De Wette. The Introduction of De Wette was translated by Professor Torrey, of the Vermont University, for the Biblical Repository, and appeared with his name in the number of that periodical for July, 1833. Dr. Noyes has used Professor Torrey's translation without applying quotation-marks, or mentioning his name, and with only a general reference to the Repository, such as would by no means indicate precise and continued citation. It is of course impossible that two long translations from the German should agree almost exactly, when they proceeded from different minds. In the first quotation Torrey and Noyes agree, we believe, to a tittle, excepting that ten or twelve lines are omitted by the latter, a comma in one instance is substituted for a semicolon, and a "the" introduced before the word "Lyre," and in the reference to De Wette, which has already been quoted, the words "have been classified " are substituted for may be classified." On page 29, in the last line of the first paragraph expressly quoted from De Wette by Dr. Noyes, Ps. Ix." is by mistake substituted for Ps. lxx. Torrey has it right. As to the longest extract, commenc " VOL. XLIII. 4TH S. VOL. VIII. NO. II. 19 ing on page 34 of the Introduction, the case is the same as it is in regard to the others. There are no deviations from Torrey which make it possible that the translation could have been original. There are, indeed, changes in the readings of the examples quoted from Job and the Psalms, so as to make them correspond with Dr. Noyes's versions. Three or four additional examples are introduced; the last paragraph on page 46 is expressly cited from Lowth, and the first on page 47 from Campbell; the second belongs to Dr. Noyes, as also eight lines on page 51. A few lines of De Wette are omitted on page 35. There is an omission of the article the on page 37. Torrey refers to Amos, chap. iii., instead of ii., which mistake is corrected by Dr. Noyes, on page 40; "were" is grammatically substituted for was, on page 44; 66 are " for is, on page 46; and "first two" for two first, on page 45; and the same sort of alteration occurs in a note on page 35. With these instances, we have faithfully enumerated all the variations from Torrey that we can discover in the entire passage. There are as marked deviations in the passage which is expressly quoted. The mode in which Dr. Noyes uses Professor Torrey's translation produces a singular effect in several cases. On page 37, he says, "We shall venture upon another classification," etc., which are words of his author. At the bottom of page 42, he has introduced from Lowth the mention of triplet parallelisms, two instances of which are presented on the next page; and then he proceeds directly with the incongruous language of De Wette," This species of double parallelism," etc. On page 48, he says, "I consider the alphabetic arrangement," etc. These are words of De Wette. On page 49, two notes are awkwardly omitted, referring to "the author's remarks upon Ps. xxv. 22." On page 37 occurs a note to the name of Leutwein as follows: "L. c. p. 51 seq." Now, the work of Leutwein has not been mentioned before in Dr. Noyes's Introduction, so that loc. cit. is wholly unintelligible, and the reader could not know, without referring to De Wette, what is the name of the work he is to examine at page 51. But, in the original, about twenty pages previously to this reference, we find the work of Leutwein named, which is "Versuch einer richtigen Theorie von der biblischen Verskunst. Tüb. 1775," or "Attempt at a Correct Theory of Biblical Versification. Tübingen, 1775.” Hence the L. c., which in Dr. -- 1847.] Deviations from Common Version. 211 Noyes's Introduction conveys no meaning. We will just take occasion here to say, that on page 49, line 6 from the bottom of the text, Dr. Noyes has corrected an error in Torrey, who apparently substituted the Hebrew letter for ; and on page 48, he or the printer has himself committed a similar אֱלֹהַי for אֱלֹהַי error in substituting In addition to what is derived from De Wette, there are passages expressly cited from Tholuck, Bishop Horne, Milman, Luther, Dr. Durell, Dr. Hammond, and others, amounting to eight or nine pages; so that the original matter does not cover a large part of the Introduction. At the conclusion of the Introduction its readers are told, "The translator leaves the principles and views which governed him in his labors to be inferred from the work itself." It would have greatly simplified and shortened the business of criticism, had the translator furnished beforehand some outline of the plan which he formed and pursued. It is now necessary to study the whole volume, in order to gain even the most general notion of the results which it exhibits. We have studied it for this purpose, and have compared it with the original, availing ourselves of such helps as were at hand; and shall proceed to present a few comments on some of the chief peculiarities in the version of Dr. Noyes. We suppose it a proper principle to be adopted by a person who undertakes a new version of any sacred book, that he will not depart from the accustomed phraseology, without imperative reason in respect to the sense conveyed or the beauty of the language which conveys it. The words of King James's version have acquired a sort of sacredness by time, which should not be unnecessarily impaired or slighted. Merely equivalent words ought not to be substituted for them. Dr. Noyes has made very many changes of phraseology, which do not come under the ban of this rule. Obscure Hebrew idioms he has sometimes expunged, to insert their simple sense. For example, he properly translates "I" or 66 me "instead of my soul in Ps. iii. 2; vii. 2; xvi. 2, 10; xvii. 13; xxx. 3; xxxv. 3, "he" and "him" instead of his soul, as in Ps. xxv. 13; and so, too, 66 me instead of my flesh in Ps. xxvii. 2. We like the substitution of "race" for seed in Ps. xviii. 50, and xxi. 10; and of " offspring" for seed in Ps. xxxvii. 25, 26, and for fruit in Ps. xxi. 10. Many changes occur, however, for which we see no reason, and which therefore 7; and seem to us unadvisable. For example, we cannot perceive why "shield" should be substituted for buckler in Ps. xviii. 2, 30, or "quaked " for shook in Ps. xviii. 7, or "rewarded" for recompensed in Ps. xviii. 24, or "mountains" for hills in Ps. xviii. 7, or "perverse" for froward twice in Ps. xviii. 26, or "exalt" for magnify in Ps. xxxv. 26. We perceive also a great many changes which we believe to be of still more questionable propriety. We like the good old word blessed, and are sorry to see in its place 66 praised," as in Ps. xxviii. 6, or 66 happy" which occurs thus more often, as in Ps. xxxii. 1, 2; xxxiii. 12; xxxiv. 8. We prefer fear to "service" in Ps. xix. 9. We prefer be moved to "fall" in Ps. xxi. 7, and elsewhere; for the former is much the more emphatic. We believe mercy is better than "goodness" in Ps. xxxvi. 5. A few other points in the translation of Dr. Noyes deserve more particular re mark. The word i, a name of the Supreme Being, is translated sometimes "Jehovah," and sometimes "Lord." In our common English version, it is always translated by the word LORD in small capitals. It is very plain, we think, as Dr. Noyes says in his Introduction is "perhaps " the case, that the strict rules of interpretation require that it should be always translated by the same term." But, he says, he has thought it best, in many cases, not to alter the name to which the feelings of the devout have been so long accustomed." Now, it seems to us, that, if Dr. Noyes could not in this, as in all the other books of the Scriptures which he has translated, employ the word Jehovah whenever the corresponding term occurred in the original, it is a pity that he employed it at all. We can see no peculiar reason for its use in the cases where it occurs. There is no apparent principle by which the particular translation is determined. In the very same chapter we find 7 translated at one time "Jehovah" and at another "the Lord." In Ps. vii. at the beginning, the word in is twice translated "Jehovah "; but in the middle and latter part of the Psalm it is several times translated "Lord." From a comparison of the two editions it appears that in the first Dr. Noyes used the word "Jehovah "more frequently than he thought advisable in the second; for example, Ps. i. 6; iii. 1, 3, 4, 7, 8 ; iv. 3 (twice), 5, 8; vi. 8, 9 (twice); ix. 6, 7, 9, 11, 16, etc. We wish he had expunged it entirely, or employed it invariably. |