Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

properly be termed a liar. And, as the Oriental Christians themselves seem to have taken the passage in this point of view, there appears to be no good reason, why we should condemn Ali Bey for using a word which had been so extensively adopted before his time. The Mohammedan Commentators, it is true, have framed some ridiculous stories respecting his person, as they also have respecting Heaven, Paradise, Hell, the Earth, &c. but few, perhaps, will go so far as to say, that a translator of the Christian Scriptures, cannot, on this account, ever make use of those words. The Roman Catholics have, in the same way, framed a ridiculous hypothesis on the name of St. Peter; but are we therefore, as Protestants, either to change or erase that word in such copies of the Scriptures, as we would present to them? I believe not and consequently, that Dr. Henderson's principle cannot be adopted. And, as no good reason can be adduced why the word J should not be retained in this place; no objection can be made to Ali Bey's version on that account.

We may here be allowed to notice a remark made at page 10. of the Appeal. After lowering the character of Ali Bey for no very charitable purpose, Dr. Henderson proceeds: "He is said to have intended to embrace the Christian faith, but died before accomplishing his design, which furnishes an awful illustration of the delusive doctrine

inculcated by his version of Luke xxii. 32. “One day () when thou art converted!....there is reason to fear that the 'one day,' the conve→ nient season,' never arrived." I answer, this phrase, according to Meninski, means, not only unus dies, but also Quodam die, aliquando, olim, the phrase, therefore, is perfectly parallel to TоTE, when, of the original. The translation is consequently correct. I leave it to others to shew, whether the doctrine inculcated is delusive or not.

ποτέ,

CHAP. VI.

ON THE OMISSIONS DISCOVERED BY DR. HENDERSON IN THE

TURKISH VERSION.

WE now come to Class the fifth, which contains a list of passages in which certain omissions are observable in the Turkish version.

[ocr errors]

The first omission noticed is Matt. vi. 15, τα παραπτωματα υμών, your trespasses." The passage will therefore read thus: "But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive you," omitting "your trespasses." Let the reader judge whether the sense is not precisely the same in each case. The fact is,

the omission complained of, every reader will supply in his own mind, by the ellipse. It is remarkable enough, that some of the manuscripts, and several of the Oriental versions, omit the preceding τα παραπτωματα αυτων, which Griesbach has put down for a various reading. There is no doubt, however, in my mind, that the ellipse will account for the omission in the versions, which are, the Syriac, the Arabic of the Polyglott, the Saxon, the Vulgate, &c. Ali Bey therefore, has, in this omission, done nothing contrary to the laws of Biblical interpretation; or, to the practice of former translators, to whose fidelity no one has objected. He has, in no point of view, injured either the sense or spirit of the original, but preserved both much better than he would have done, in my opinion, if he had given a translation of the words in question.

In the next place, Matt. viii. 5. the word Inσoû is omitted. I answer, so it is in Griesbach's edition of the New Testament. The reader will there find his reasons for having done so; which, should they fail to satisfy him, which, I believe, will not be the case, he will see, that Ali Bey's omission has not been made without good authority. If the reader will substitute he for Jesus, in the authorized version, he will be enabled fully to appreciate the value of Dr. Henderson's remark.

Matt. viii. 19. πроσεowν, "coming," is also προσέλθων,

omitted. Whether this is to be attributed to the translator, the copyist, or the printer, I know not; the omission, however, is of but little importance, no religious truth suffering on its account. The table of errata will here supply the defect, which should be corrected in a future edition.

In

The next omission noticed, is Matt. xxii. 16. in the word didaσkaλe, "Teacher." Here, as before, the omission is of little importance, the sense being complete without this word. the next place, Matt. xxvi. 65. o 'Apxiepeùs, "The high Priest," is left out, which is a fault : but, as the reader must necessarily supply the word in his own mind from the context, the sense of the text will be precisely the same in both the original and the translation. The next omission is in John i. 52. of the words Toù Oeoù, "of God," but here the word. Malaklar, Angels, necessarily includes of God, the Mohammedans knowing of no angels, but the angels of God; the insertion of the words would be unnecessary in the translation, the omission is, therefore, of no importance.

Rom. i. 8. presents the next omission, and this is, of the word uov, my, that is, “I thank God," instead of "I thank my God." Little importance can, I believe, be attached to this; the Ethiopic translator seems to have been of the same opinion, for he also has omitted it. The

table of errata will properly supply this unimportant defect.

του

Rom. iv. 20. TOU Ocov "of God," is omitted, and we read the promise, instead of the promise of God. The context, however, necessarily supplies the omission, as the promise of none but of God can be understood. The omission is, therefore, of little importance, the sense of the context remaining precisely the same in either

case.

[ocr errors]

with my

Rev. iii. 21. μετὰ τοῦ πατρός μου, Father." "On this last passage," says Dr. Henderson, "I would remark, that the effect of the omission is to leave the Mohammedan in the dark, as to the throne on which the faithful and true Witness declares he was seated after bis victory."

As this remark seems to involve important consequences, let us see whether it is well founded or not. Let us, in the first place, read the verse as it stands in the authorized English version, omitting the words in question. "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down ... on his throne." Now, to what does the word his refer in this place? A very cursory perusal of the chapter will shew the reader, whether he be Turk or Englishman, that the word God is the antecedent. I take it for granted, that every considerate reader will come to this conclusion: and,

« AnteriorContinuar »