صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

is inserted in the margin, but it is incorporated in the text in all subsequent impressions. This version is pronounced by M. Dobrowsky, who is profoundly skilled in Sclavonie literature, to be a very literal translation from the Greek, the Greek construction being very frequently retained, even where it is contrary to the genius of the Sclavonian language; and in general it resembles the most antient manuscripts, with which it agrees, even where their united evidence is against the common printed reading. The Sclavonian version, he adds, has not been altered from the Vulgate, as some have supposed, though the fact is in itself almost incredible; and it possesses few or no lectiones singulares, or readings peculiar to itself. From an edition of this version, printed at Moscow in 1614, M. Alter selected the readings on the Four Gospels, and from a manuscript in the imperial library, the readings on the Acts and Epistles, which are printed in his edition of the Greek New Testament (Vienna, 1787, 2 vols. 8vo.) M. Dobrowsky states that these various lections are given with great accuracy, but that those which Matthäi has selected from the Revelation are erroneous and useless. Griesbach has given a catalogue of the Sclavonic manuscripts collated for his edition of the New Testament, communicated to him by Dobrowsky, at the end of which is a brief classed account of the editions of the Sclavonic New Testament.1

:

3. Anglo-Saxon versions. — Although Christianity was planted in Britain in the first century, it does not appear that the Britons had any translation of the Scriptures in their language earlier than the eighth century. About the year 706 Adhelm, the first bishop of Sherborn, translated the Psalter into Saxon and at his earnest persuasion, Egbert or Eadfrid, bishop of Lindisfarne, or Holy Island, soon after executed a Saxon version of the Four Gospels. Not many years after this, the learned and venerable Bede (who died a. D. 735) translated the entire Bible into that language. There were other Saxon versions, either of the whole or of detached portions of the Scriptures, of a later date. A translation of the book of Psalms was undertaken by the illustrious King Alfred, who died A. D. 900, when it was about half finished: and Elfric, who was archbishop of Canterbury in 995, translated the Pentateuch, Joshua, Judith, part of the book of Kings, Esther, and Maccabees. The entire Anglo-Saxon version of the Bible has never been printed: King Alfred's translation of the Psalms, with the interlineary Latin text, was edited by John Spelman, 4to. London, 1640; and there is another Saxon interlineary translation of the Psalter, deposited in the Archiepiscopal Library at Lambeth. Of the Four Gospels, there have been three editions printed: 1. By Matthew Parker, 4to. London, 1571; 2.

1 Michaelis, vol. ii. pp. 153–158, 636, 637. Griesbach, Prolegomena, vol. i. pp. exxvii.-cxxxii. Beck, Monogrammata Hermeneutices Novi Testamenti, pp. 108,

109.

2 The manuscript of this translation is now deposited in the Cottonian Library in the British Museum, (Nero, D. iv.): Mr. Astle has given a specimen of it in plate xiv. of his "Origin and Progress of Writing," and has described it in pp. 100, 101.

By William Lisle, 4to. London, 1638; 3. By Thomas Marshall, 4to. Dordrecht, 1665, with the Mæso-Gothic version, and reprinted at Amsterdam in 1684. The Anglo-Saxon version being evidently translated from the Old Latin, Michaelis is of opinion that it may be of use in determining the readings of that version; and Semler has remarked that it contains many readings which vary both from the Greek and Latin texts, of which he has given some examples. Dr. Mill selected various lections from this version; which, from the difference of style and inequalities observable in its execution, he ascribes to several authors: it is supposed to have been executed in the eighth century.'

SECTION III.

ON THE USE AND APPLICATION OF ANTIENT Versions.

Observations on the respective merits of the several Antient Versions: Rules for consulting them to the best advantage. ALTHOUGH some hints have been incidentally offered, in the preceding sections, relative to the use of particular translations of the Bible; yet, as the antient versions are equally useful in sacred criticism in order to ascertain the genuine reading of passages, as well as in assisting us to determine the true meaning of the Scriptures, it may not be improper to subjoin a few general observations on the most beneficial mode of applying them to these important objects.

As no version can be absolutely free from error, we ought not to rely implicitly on any one translation: but, if it be practicable, the aid of the cognate dialects should be united with reference to a version, in order that, by a comparison of both these helps, we may arrive at the knowledge of the genuine readings and meanings. From inattention to this obvious caution, many eminent men have at different times ascribed to particular versions a degree of authority to which they were by no means entitled. Thus, by many of the fathers, the Alexandrian interpreters were accounted to be divinely inspired, and consequently free from the possibility of mistake: a similar opinion was held by various eminent modern critics, particularly by Isaac Vossius, who asserted the Septuagint to be preferable to the Hebrew text, and to be absolutely free from error! The church of Rome has fallen into a like mistake with respect to the Vulgate or Latin Version, which the council of Trent declared to be the only authentic translation.

Further, versions of versions, that is, those translations which were not made immediately from the Hebrew Old Testament, or from the Greek New Testament, are of no authority in determining either the

1 Johnson's Hist. Account of English Translations of the Bible, in Bishop Watson's Collection of Theological Tracts, vol. iii. pp. 61-63. Bp. Marsh's Michaelis, vol. ii. pp. 158. 637. Kortholt, pp. 351-353. Semler, Apparatus ad Lib. Novi Test. Interp. pp. 72, 73.

genuine text or meaning of the original, but only of that version from which they were taken. This remark applies particularly to the Anglo-Saxon, Old English, Spanish, French, and German translations, whether of the Old or New Testament; which, being made before the sixteenth century, were executed immediately from the Latin and subsequently, even in those examples where they are unanimous in a reading, their united voices are of no more authority than that of the Latin version alone. In all cases, therefore, which require the aid of a version, either for the purpose of criticism or interpretation, recourse must be had to those translations, which, being more antient, or better executed, are preferable to every other. And in this view, the following will be found most deserving of attention, not only as uniting the two qualifications of antiquity and excellence, but also as being more generally accessible to students, being for the most part comprised in the Polyglott Bibles, which are to be found in almost every public library.

I. The Alexandrian Version is confessedly the most antient, and with all its errors and imperfections, contains very much that is highly valuable, and on this account it has been used by nearly all the more antient interpreters. With the Septuagint should be consulted the fragments of the translations executed by Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus, as well as the fifth, sixth, and seventh versions; the diligent use of all these is, perhaps, the best possible preparation to the critical interpretation of the New Testament.

II. The Syriac Peschito, whose fidelity as a version, independently of the excellence of its style, has received the highest commendations from Michaelis, is particularly serviceable for the interpretation of the New Testament.

III. The Latin Vulgate, with the exception of the Psalms, deservedly claims the third place.

IV. The Targums or Chaldee Paraphrases, though unequally executed, contain many things that are exceedingly useful, and necessary to be known, especially the paraphrases of Jonathan Ben Uzziel: they not only contribute essentially to the understanding of many difficult passages in the Old Testament, but also throw much light on the interpretation of the New Testament. Extracts from them are to be found in all the larger commentaries, and also in the works of Dr. Lightfoot.

V. The other versions made immediately from the Hebrew and Greek originals follow next in order, particularly the Arabic translations of the Old Testament: but no certain dependence can be placed, as an authority in support of a reading, on the Latin translations of the Oriental versions, which are printed in the Polyglott Bibles. On the peculiar application of antient versions to the ascertaining of various readings, see Chapter VIII. infra.

It will not however be necessary to consult antient versions, except in passages that are really difficult, or unless a particular exa

1 Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 3.

mination of them be instituted for some special object of inquiry. In this case not one or two versions merely should be consulted, but every version that is accessible should be referred to: and all such places should be compared together as are parallel, that is, those passages in which the same word or the same form of speaking respectively occurs; and, where any thing worthy of preservation offers itself, it will materially facilitate future studies to note it either in an interleaved Bible, or, which perhaps is preferable, in an interleaved Lexicon. This practice will not only enable the biblical student to discover and correctly to appreciate the genius of a version, and the ability, or the reverse, with which it may be executed; but it will also supply many important helps for the interpretation of Scripture. As, however, some of the antient versions have been altered or interpolated in many places, great care must be taken to distinguish the modern amendments from the genuine text of the original antient translator. The various excellent concordances that are extant, will afford great assistance in finding out such parallel words or phrases.

In order to ascertain how far the antient versions represent correctly the meaning of Hebrew or Greek words, the following rules will be found useful.

1. That meaning is to be taken and received as the true one, which all the versions give to a word, and which is also confirmed by the kindred dialects:

Because, the number of testimonies worthy of credit being as great as possible, there can be no room left for doubt.

2. All those significations, formerly given to Hebrew words, are to be considered as correctly given, which the Septuagint or other Greek translators express by the same or similar Greek words, although no trace of such meaning appear in any Oriental language.

For, as no doubt can be entertained of the diligence and scrupulous learning of those translators, who can presume to measure the vast copiousness of the Arabic, Syriac, and other Oriental languages, by the few books which in our time are extant in those languages? since no one is so ignorant as to suppose that all the riches of the Greek and Latin languages are comprised in the very numerous remains of classical literature with which our age happily abounds. With regard to the New Testament, "in cases where the sense is not affected by different readings, or the translator might have taken them for synonymous, the evidence of Greek manuscripts is to be preferred to that of an antient version. The same preference is due to the manuscripts wherein the translator has omitted words that appeared of little importance, or a passage in the Greek original is attended with a difficulty which the translator was unable to solve, and therefore either omitted or altered according to the arbitrary dictates of his own judgment."1

3. Where the versions differ in fixing the sense of a word, the more antient ones, being executed with the greater care and skill, are in the first place to be consulted, and preferred to all others.

For, the nearer a translator approaches to the time when the original language was vernacular, we may readily infer that he has expressed with so much the greater fidelity the true signification of words, both primary and proper, as well as those which are derivative and translated. There are, however, some cases in which antient versions are of more authority than the original itself. Most of the translations of the New Testament, noticed in the preceding pages, surpass in antiquity the oldest Greek manuscripts now extant: "and they lead to a discovery of the readings in the very antient manuscript that was used by the translator.

1 Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 3.

By their means rather than from the aid of our Greek manuscripts, none of which is prior to the fourth or fifth century, we arrive at the certain knowledge, that the antient writings have been transmitted from the earliest to the present age without material alteration; and that our present text, if we except the passages that are rendered doubtful by an opposition in the readings, is the same which proceeded from the hands of the apostles. Whenever the reading can be precisely determined, which the translator found in his Greek manuscript, the version is of equal authority with a manuscript of that period: but as it is sometimes difficult to acquire this absolute certainty, great caution is necessary in collecting readings from the antient versions."1

4. A meaning given to a word by only one version, provided this be a good one, is by no means to be rejected; especially if it agree with the author's design and the order of his discourse.

For it is possible that the force and meaning of a word should be unknown to all other translators, and no trace of it be discoverable in the kindred dialects, and yet that it should be preserved and transmitted to posterity by one version. This remark applies chiefly to things which a translator has the best opportunity of understanding from local and other circumstances. Thus, the Alexandrian interpreters are the most ample testimony for every thing related in the Old Testament concerning Egypt, while others, who were natives of Palestine, and perhaps deeply skilled in Jewish literature, are the best guides we can follow in whatever belongs to that country.2

5. Lastly, "Those versions" of the New Testament, “in which the Greek is rendered word for word, and the idioms of the original, though harsh and often unmeaning in another language, are still retained in a translation, are of more value in point of criticism than those which express the sense of the original in a manner more suitable to the language of the translator.

The value of the latter, as far as regards their critical application, decreases in proportion as the translator attends to purity and elegance, and of course deviates from his original: but their worth is greater in all other respects, as they are not only read with more pleasure, but understood in general with greater ease. By means of the former we discover the words of the original, and even their arrangement: but the latter are of no use in deciding on the authenticity of a reading, if the various readings of the passages in question make no alteration in the sense. No translation is more literal than the New Syriac, and none therefore leads to a more accurate discovery of the text in the antient manuscript from which the version was taken; but, setting this advantage aside, the Old Syriac is of much greater value than the New.3

1 Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 2.

2 Jahn, Introduct. ad Vet. Fœd. pp. 116–122. Pictet, Theologie Chretienne, tom. i. pp. 151-152. Bauer, Herm. Sacr. pp. 147-162. 301-309. J. B. Carpzov, Prim. Lin. Herm. pp. 62-65. Ernesti, Inst. Interp. N. Test. p. 57. Morus in Ernesti, tom. i. pp. 130, 131. Gerard's Institutes, pp. 107-111. Bishop Lowth's Isaiah, vol. i. pp. lxxxviii-xc. 8vo. edit. Pfeiffer, Herm. Sac. e. 14. (Op. tom. ii. pp. 663-664.)

3 Michaelis, vol. ii. p. 3.

« السابقةمتابعة »