1847.] Dr. Noyes's Reply. 293 Wette, and have made no reference whatever to his work, or to the translation of it in the Repository. I boldly affirm, what I honestly believe to be true, not from conjecture, but from a somewhat extensive acquaintance with this kind of composition, that in my Introduction to the Psalms I have been more careful to refer to the sources of my information than most writers of Introductions, English, American, or German, since the time of Eichhorn. 66 In regard to the reviewer's criticisms on my Introduction and Translation, in which he differs in opinion from me, I should not think it important to make any remarks, were it not that I have thus a convenient opportunity for giving the reasons of some of the phraseology which I have adopted in my version of the Psalms. I will begin, however, with the reviewer's criticism on my use of the word "lyric," in the Introduction, p. 5, where I say, that what is called the Hebrew Anthology is "a collection of the lyric, moral, historical, and elegiac poetry of the Hebrews." The reviewer remarks that the term lyric" applies to all the Psalms, and that therefore there was no occasion for the other epithets. But he does not advert to the consideration, that the term "lyric" is used in two different senses. In one sense it denotes the internal character of a poem, as marked by a highly elevated tone of feeling and a high flight of the imagination. In this sense I used the term. In another passage quoted from De Wette, the term "lyric" is used to denote any poem designed to be accompanied by instrumental music. I use it in the sense in which it is employed by Bishop Lowth, in his Lectures on Hebrew Poetry. In fact, De Wette himself alludes to the two meanings of the term in the extract made from his Introduction. Thus, according to my use of the term, Ps. cxiv. is a striking instance of the lyrical, as Ps. i. is of the moral, Ps. cv. and cvi. of the historical, and Ps. xlii. and lxxxviii. of the elegiac poetry of the Hebrews. There is no inconsistency in my using the word in one sense and De Wette in another. Another remark of the reviewer relating to my Introduction deserves a passing comment. He says, on page 211,"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." The reviewer here states nothing but fact; to which I reply, that, if I have in a suitable way brought together or translated the language of eminent saints and critics, to bear witness to the surpassing excellence of the Psalms as a source of spiritual life, or to confirm my own opinions in disputed VOL. XLIII. 4TH S. VOL. VIII. NO. II. 26 matters of great importance, it is a work of value, for which no original speculations, however excellent, by a single individual, would form a satisfactory substitute. In regard to the reviewer's comments on the expression “very imperfect," which I applied to the common version of the Scriptures, opinions may be various, according to the degree of attention which may have been given to the subject, and the sense in which the expression may be understood. I suppose that any translation of Greek or Roman classics of the same size with the Bible, in which errors of greater or less consequence, generally acknowledged by scholars, were to be reckoned by hundreds, probably amounting to more than one on every page, and in which obscurities and ambiguities were to be found in still greater proportion, to say nothing of inelegancies and expressions needlessly gross, would be generally called "very imperfect." Any such translation of a classical author would soon fall into disuse and be superseded by a better. But nothing which I have said of the imperfection of the common version is inconsistent with the opinion, that confidence may be placed in it, as to the great doctrines and duties of the Jewish and Christian religions. Nor is any thing which I have said inconsistent with the opinion, that this version reflects credit on the translators, considering the time when it was made. What translation of any classic author, made nearly two hundred and fifty years ago, is now in use? It would be singular, if the labors of Hebrew and Greek scholars for so long a space of time had not brought to light something with which the unlearned reader should be made acquainted. Of what use is it that so many learned professors of the Hebrew and Greek are maintained at the public expense, if the great body of the people are never to be the wiser for their labors? Perhaps it would have been as well, therefore, if the epithet "stigmatized" had not been applied by the reviewer to the expression of an honest opinion respecting the imperfection of the common version. On page 212 the reviewer says that he sees no reason why I should, in my translation of Ps. xviii. 2, 30, substitute the word "shield" for "buckler." Now I submit, that where there is one person who understands the meaning of the term "buckler," there are twenty who know what is meant by the more common word "shield." 99 Again he says that he prefers "mercy to goodness," in Ps. xxxvi. 5. But the original term 2 generally means goodness or kindness, without reference to the character of the object as miserable or guilty. In the verse referred to, the connection obviously requires the more general sense of the term. In respect to my translation of the term in sometimes 1847.] Dr. Noyes's Reply. 295 "Lord" and sometimes "Jehovah," to which the reviewer objects, I have in part explained my views in my Introduction, page 53. I there say, "As Jehovah is a proper name, and not a mere appellative, like the terms God and Lord, perhaps the strict rules of interpretation require that it should be always translated by the same term. But as the same great Being is denoted, whether his name be translated the Lord,' or ' Jehovah,' I have thought it best, in many cases, not to alter the name to which the feelings of the devout have been so long accustomed." Agreeably to these views, in passages not strictly devotional I have retained the exact rendering "Jehovah," as I have used it uniformly in all the other books that I have translated, except the Psalms, which are so much used in devotion. So in the most devotional psalms, where a stress seems to be laid on the proper name of the Deity, such as Ps. xviii. 46, "Jehovah is the living God"; Ps. viii. 1, “O Jehovah, our Lord"; Ps. vii. 1, 3, “ Õ Jehovah, my God"; Ps. xvi. 2, "I have said to Jehovah, Thou art my Lord"; and similar passages, it appears to me that the proper name of the Deity ought to be retained. But to employ it in all cases for the sake of uniformity, without regard to the feelings and associations of the devout, would seem to be unwise. On page 213, the reviewer objects, that I sometimes translate the Hebrew term Dpy" heaven," and sometimes "heavens." I had a reason for it. The phrase, "He that sitteth in heaven," Ps. ii. 4, seemed to me more correct and congruous than if the plural had been used. But in Ps. viii. 1, "Set thy glory above the heavens" seems to me, on rhetorical grounds, preferable to "Set thy glory above heaven." Again, the reviewer objects that I sometimes translate the Hebrew verb "persecute" and sometimes "pursue." Is it possible that the reviewer can have overlooked the fact, that the Hebrew term is often used in these significations, and in many others? (See Ges. Lex. ad verb.) Is it possible that he has forgotten, that in every language, and especially in a language having so limited a vocabulary as the Hebrew, the same word must often be represented by different English words, according to the connection in which it stands, and other considerations? Thus, in the first instance which the reviewer brings forward, in Ps. vii. 5, "Let my adversary pursue and take me,' every one can see that "persecute" would be improper. But in verse 1," persecute seems to me better suited to the connection. So in Ps. lxix. 26, "persecute seems to be the proper word. So in Job xix. 28. The notion, that every Hebrew word must always be rendered by a single corresponding English term, is altogether indefensible. Thus, in Isaiah v. 11 the word above referred to is properly translated "follow," in the common ver con sion : "Woe unto them that rise up early in the morning, that they may follow strong drink." The reviewer's ideas of sistency or "uniformity," if we understand them, and as he has illustrated them in his references to my renderings, would seem to require in this place a denunciation of woe on those who "persecute" or pursue strong drink. It may be well enough to mention, that to "run after" or "pursue" is the primary signification of the Hebrew term, from which the rest naturally arose. 66 Thus in regard to the Hebrew term which I have sometimes rendered "nations," sometimes "kingdoms," sometimes "Gentiles," etc., every one who will consult the passages referred to by the reviewer will see that I had a reason for the variety. "Nations 99 is no doubt the best rendering except in passages which from their connection require a different one. Ps. xviii. 43, to which the reviewer refers, Thus, in "Thou hast delivered me from the assaults of the nations, having, agreeably to the laws of parallelism, and with the most distinguished critics, regarded Dy as a noun of multitude denoting "nations," I was bound to translate Dia by a term as nearly synonymous with "nations" as possible. To have repeated the word would have been rhetorically objectionable. Bishop Lowth in similar circumstances uses "peoples," which I think an objectionable word. But in Ps. x. 16, which I render "The Gentiles shall perish out of his land," that is, the land of Palestine, who does not see that either of the words "nations" or "kingdoms" would have been improper? In some places, where there is particular reference to the religion of foreign nations, for instance, Ps. cvi. 35, to which the reviewer refers, "heathen" is probably the best term to be used, and I have used it. The reviewer next comments on the term "underworld," which I have used as the translation of the Hebrew Sixy, Sheol. I was aware of the objection to the rendering "underworld," as a new word. But the difficulty was, that there was no English term corresponding to the original word. Hence Bishop Lowth in Isaiah xiv. translates the Hebrew "Sheol" by the Greek term "Hades." The reviewer thinks it best to retain the Hebrew "Sheol." The objection to both of them is, that the mere English reader cannot tell what they mean, and in some passages would not know any essential difference between going down to Sheol, or Hades, and going down to Joppa. The reviewer also observes, that he considers the phrase "lower world" better than "underworld." The objection to "lower world" is, that it is often used, in conversation and in books, to distinguish the surface of 1847.] Dr. Noyes's Reply. 297 the earth, the habitation of living men, from heaven, the dwellingplace of the just made perfect. In several passages ambiguity and error would arise from the use of the phrase "lower world.” On the whole, as "underworld," though a new term, is composed of parts which make it universally intelligible, and as it expresses the meaning of the Hebrew word, I still think it the best which is to be had. The term " grave" may be used well enough in some places, but in others it would mislead. It does not convey the exact meaning of the word, namely, a vast subterranean cavern where the spirits of all the dead were supposed by the ancient Hebrews to dwell together in a half-conscious, inactive state. "Hell" expresses an idea which no scholar now believes to be included in the original term. One more statement of the reviewer invites comment. He says, page 215,—" We observe a frequent change of tenses from the common reading, when no reason for the change is perceptible. As an example, take Ps. xviii. 25-28, where several cases occur in which the future tense of King James's version is altered to the present, without benefit to the sense, and in express opposition to the future tense of the original." The reviewer has in this case, I think, shown inattention to the fact, that what is called the future tense in Hebrew is everywhere used to express general truths, which have no relation to time, a principle which is laid down in all Hebrew grammars with which I am acquainted. A familiar instance of the usage referred to is in Prov. x. 1, in the common version, "A wise son maketh a glad father"; where the Hebrew for "maketh glad" is in the future tense. I think this usage occurs in Ps. xviii. 25-28, to which the reviewer refers, and am supported in this opinion by Martin Luther, Kuinoel, De Wette, and others. I might continue my remarks on other points alluded to by the reviewer, of less importance. But I will only add, that on all of those on which I have not commented he has his opinion and I have mine. The use of "my" in Ps. xviii. 39, and "mine in verse 48, may, however, be an exception. Some things on which the reviewer has remarked are to be decided by the taste or the ear. For his criticisms I thank him, especially as they have afforded me this opportunity for explaining the grounds of some of my renderings. Yours respectfully, GEORGE R. NOYES. * See Conant's Gesenius's Grammar, p. 249, or his Rödiger's Gesenius, p. 237. |