out the Bible. A Christian, therefore, who may be disposed to allow the one, may not also be disposed to allow the other. We are told in the next place, (p. 24), that instead of uniformly and simply rendering Kupios by when applied to God, it is sometimes supreme رب تعالي ; divine رباني translated by وليسي رب ;illustrious Lord حضرت رب ;Lord -the glo جناب عزت good supreme Lord تعالي rious majesty; and the supreme God." We remark, in the first place, that the word no where occurs in the gospel of St. Matthew, The Acts of the Apostles, the Epistle to the Romans, or the book of Revelations, upon which Dr. Henderson professes to have made his remarks, as a translation of the word Kupios: and we may venture to affirm, that it occurs in no other book, as a translation of that word without some adjunct. The mistake, therefore, which Dr. Henderson ascribes to Ali Bey, must, in fact, fall upon himself alone. وليسي رب تعالي We observe, in the second place, that as far as our researches have gone, we have not been able to find the expressions good supreme Lord, in either of the above-mentioned books, given as a translation of the word Kupios. We, therefore, dismiss this for the present, by remarking, that should it be found in any other C book, no one need be alarmed on that account, because, as already remarked, no violence will be done to the original, when the glare of Dr. Henderson's erroneous translation of it is put out of the question. With respect to the remaining expressions, viz. Rabb taála, Allah الله تعالي Janab Issat, and جناب عزت taála, it has been already shewn, that a Mohammedan understands by them precisely what a primitive Christian would by the Greek word Oeos, God; and, as Dr. Henderson allows, that the word Kupios is, in the passages in which these are found, equivalent in meaning to that of Ocos God, it cannot follow that this version ought to be suppressed on their account, or that its real character is any thing like that which he has affirmed it to be. But further, upon what principle of criticism is it, that Dr. Henderson lays it down, that Kupios, when applied to God, should uniformly be rendered by Rabb? If, as he says, Kupios is here put for God, i. e. is equivalent to Ocos, why might it not be translated by Allah, which he contends at page 19, is the true translation of the word eos, for he has no where laid it down as a rule that any version must, to be a faithful one, exactly represent every word in the original? But, dismissing the words taála, and rat, which we have shewn to be perfectly harmless, رب Haz divine, and and likewise good, which do not occur, we shall have Kupios when equivalent to Oeos in the original, every where translated either by Rabb, or a Allah, or some other word or phrase signifying God, and corresponding exactly to the sense of the original. Dr. Henderson has, indeed, laid it down as a law, that the word should here be universally adopted. But, if we dismiss his principle of sacred taste, which after all differs toto cœlo from that of the Orientals, we shall find it difficult to point out any other, calling for such an observance. And, however we may wish to change their views on this subject, I believe we shall not be justified in condemning a version of the Scriptures, in every respect faithful to the original, and conceived in phraseology common enough to the Hebrew Bible, because it is found to be a little at variance with the diction employed in our own. The next remark of Dr. Henderson, (p. 25), is, The names of God and Lord, and Jesus and Christ, are frequently interchanged without any thing like a scrupulous adherence to the order of the original. It is easy to be perceived how much influence this must have on the doctrine of the divinity of Christ." And in a note at the foot of the page. "In The Acts of the Apostles alone, I have found not fewer than twenty-five passages, in which God, the suprente حق تعالي divine majesty, or جناب باري ,God supreme verity, are substituted for, Lord: yet in almost all these passages the designation refers, not to God absolutely considered, as when thus changed it exclusively does, but to our blessed Saviour, who as mediator is made both Lord and Christ, and on this account is called Kupios KAT Coxnu in the New Testament." Here, we may remark, much is threatened; and, as it is often the case with angry disputants, nothing proved. The scrupulous adherence to the order of the original, upon which he lays so much stress, does not enter into our principle of interpretation: we only expect to see the sense and bearing of the original accurately expressed in the language of the translation. We are told, in the next place, that there can be no difficulty in perceiving how much influence this must have on the doctrine of the divinity of Christ. This is alarming enough; but let us go a little farther, and see what use Dr. Henderson has made of this frightful assertion. "He has found," he says, "not fewer than five and twenty passages in which God, &c. have been, substituted for "I suppose the Dr. means, that he hàs found five and twenty passages in which Kupios has been translated by some word or other, which restricts the meaning of that word, to God the Father, in which it should have been made to refer to our Lord, by being translated by →. Now, in order to have made this remark conclusive, he should have previously shewn that this word, Rabb, will be understood by the Mohammedans as signifying our Lord and Saviour: but this he has not attempted to do; and, if he had, he would have failed. The fact is, the Mohammedans understand it as applicable to none but God. To have rendered the word Kupios therefore by, would not have restricted the meaning in any one of the passages alluded to, to the person of our Lord; but would have left it just as it now is, where the word &c. have been used. Dr. Henderson's expedient * If Dr. Henderson means that some word should have been used, which would have restricted the sense in these instances to the second person of the Trinity, I have only to reply, that no such word is to be found in either the Arabic, Persic, or Turkish languages. It should be observed, however, that in nine places out of every ten, at least, the word Kupios, when applied to our Lord, is rendered by in الرب باللام لا يطلق The author of the Kamoos says + W c. « El Rabb, with the article El, is& لغير الله عز وجل applied to none but God (to whom) be power and glory." The Oriental Christians, it is true, usually translate Kupios Lord by Rabb, but with them this word is just as ambiguous as the Greek Kupios, the divinity of our Lord would not, therefore, be established in their estimation by the use of this word: the context affording the only criterion, as in the original. |