Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

"Ezekiel xlvii. 10. The fishes shall stand upon it (the river), for the 'fishers.' London ed. 4to. 1806; again, 1813; and 8vo. 1823.

"These are the editions which the Rev. Mr. Horne so much commends, and which he states the Episcopal Church of North America has resolved to consider standards.

"Zech. xi. 17. Woe to the idle, for 'to the idol shepherd.' Oxford ed. 8vo. 1801. A very common error.

"Mal. iv. 2. Son, for sun of righteousness,' and 'ye' omitted in last clause, destroying an often quoted promise of God. Camb. ed. 12mo. 1819.

"Luke xiv. 26. Hate his own wife, for his own life.' Oxford ed. 8vo. 1810.

"John i. 12. But as many received him, to them gave he power, &c. for 'But as many as received him,' &c. Oxford ed. fol. 1786.

"John xvii. 25. Righteous Father, the world hath known thee, for 'hath not known thee.' London ed. 8vo. 1817. This edition was sent out by the Bible Society to a respectable Missionary, who detected the error while engaged in translating the Scriptures into an East Indian dialect.

"John xx. 29. Blessed are they that they have not seen, for 'Blessed are they that have not seen.' Oxford ed. 8vo. 1801; again, 1810.

"Rom. xvi. 18. Good works deceive, for 'good words.' Oxford ed. 8vo. 1801.

66 'Gal. iv. 29. Inserts to remain.' 'Persecuted him that was born after the Spirit to remain even so it is now.' Camb. ed. 12mo. 1805; again, 1819; again, 8vo. 1805-6, printed for the Bible Society. This error arose, it is said, from the printer in 1804 wishing to let a comma 'remain,' which he had at first marked out of the proof.

"Gal. v. 17. Flesh lusteth after the Spirit, for against the Spirit.' Oxford ed. 8vo. 1804.

"1 Tim. v. 21. Discharge thee, for 'I charge thee.' London ed. 4to. 1802.

"Heb. ix. 14. Good works, for 'dead works,' (vexqwv čoywv) 'The blood of Christ purge your conscience from good works.' Oxford ed. 8vo.. 1807. The writer has never met with an equally mischievous perversion of scripture abroad in the world, as scripture. This copy, very properly designated as the Antinomian Testament, was recently in use by a minister.

"I John i. 4. That our joy, for your joy may be full.' Oxford ed. fol. 1769 (Blayney's). Traced in twenty editions of various sizes, and by all the authorized printers, to Cambridge, 12mo. 1824; i. e. fifty-five years.

"Jude 16. These are murderers, for these are murmurers.' Oxford ed. 8vo. 1801.

"Rev. xviii. 22. These words entirely omitted, 'At all in thee; and no craftsman of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more.' Oxford ed. fol. and 4to. 1769 (both of Dr. Blayney's); again, royal fol. 1770; again, fol. and 4to. 1772; also, London, 4to. 1773. Doubts are entertained whether this omission was intentional or unintentional. It is the largest omission which has been made during the 220 years of the transmission of our present version. Mr. Horne is mistaken in attributing it to 'the overrunning the folio edition of 1769, into the to size'; because the 4to according to Dr. Blayney's own account was printed first, and because it is in both his editions. It appears also, from Dr. Blayney's account, that he twice revised each of his two editions which contains this error. Two respectable London printers say, it could not be a typographical error. Dr. Blayney may have struck out the words in question on the authority of a various reading in a fragment of Hippolytus, and an inferior MS. quoted by Mill, and because nάons Tens of the clause is omitted in the Codex Alex. and the Arab. version."

On the subject of this List, as given by Mr. Curtis, so far as it affects the credit of the Oxford Editions, Mr. Cardwell observes:

"It enumerates fifty-six mistakes, some of importance, and others totally unimportant, in different Oxford editions published from the year 1769 to the year 1823, inclusive. They are collected from eleven different editions; so that the result of this examination is, that the Oxford Bibles in question contain on an average five errors of the press. I have compared the List with the quarto edition of 1824, and in that edition, and probably in all that have succeeded it, not one of these mistakes is to be found." Oxford Bibles, p. 13.

Mr. Curtis's List of "intentional departures from the authorized version," is still more ample, filling nearly fourteen pages. But they relate, for the most part, to changes in the marginal notes, or in the use of italics, or in the manner of printing the names of God, in the text, of which enough already has been said. For the rest, instead of giving Mr. Curtis's list as it stands in his pamphlet, we shall give the substance of it, as corrected and explained by Mr. Cardwell.

“Gen. xxxix. 1. Bought him of the hands, for hand, of the Ishmaelites.' This change would certainly seem to be unne

cessary, and is opposed both to the earliest editions and to the Hebrew. The error, if it be worth while to consider it as such, may be found in Bibles as early as 1629.

"Gen. xxxix. 16. Until his Lord, for until her Lord, came home. Vulg. ostendit marito revertenti domum. Right in 1750.' The Hebrew is his, and the change had been made in 1701.

"Exod. xv. 25. Made for them a statute; for them inserted.' This change also is according to the Hebrew, and had been made in the year 1701.

"Exod. xxvi. 24. marg. Twined, for twinned.' It is singular that in the only other case where this word occurs, viz. Exod. xxxvi. 29, Mr. Curtis's favorite edition B and the edition C have the word with a single n.

[ocr errors]

"Lev. ii. 4. Unleavened cakes, for an unleavened cake.' The Hebrew is plural, and so Bishop Lloyd printed the word in 1701. "Deut. xxvi. 1. The LORD thy God. Thy God inserted.' This was probably an error of copy on the part of the Translators; for this expression is in the Hebrew, and the words appear in English Bibles as early as 1629.

[ocr errors]

"1 Sam. v. 4. marg. The fishy, for the filthy part of Dagon.' To show that fishy is not the right reading, Mr. Curtis refers us to Parkhurst. Now Parkhurst's words are these: 'From 1 Sam. v. 4, it is probable that the lower part of this idol resembled a fish; and it appears plain from the prohibitions, Exod. xx. 4, Deut. iv. 18, that the idolaters in those parts had anciently some fishy idols.' Could Mr. Curtis suppose that his references would be taken on trust? The real error is in filthy in editions A and B, and it was corrected as early as in 1617.

[ocr errors]

"1 Kings xiii. 11. His sons came, for his son came and told him.' The alteration, whether right or wrong, was made as early as in 1617.

[ocr errors]

2 Chron. iii. 10. In the most holy house, for most holy place.' The change was made in conformity with the Hebrew as early as in 1629.

[ocr errors]

"2 Chron. xxxii. 5. Repaired Millo, for prepared.' The error is in prepared, and it was corrected in 1617.

"Job xxxix. 30. "Where the slain are, there is she, for he, i. e. the male bird.' Mr. Curtis is here defending a palpable misprint. It was correctly printed she in 1617.

"Isaiah lvii. 8. 'Made thee a covenant. Thee inserted. Lowth omits it.' I answer, Bishop Lloyd in 1701 inserts it, according to the Hebrew.

[ocr errors]

“Dan. i. 12. Give us pulse. Us inserted.' The Hebrew requires it, and the word was in English Bibles as early as 1629.

VOL. XIV.

-

N. S. VOL. IX. NO. III.

47

"Dan. iii. 18. "Nor worship the, for thy golden image.' The same answer as the last.

"Hos. ix. 3. marg. Not into Egypt. Flatly contradicting text.' Reader, the whole note is as follows, 'Not into Egypt itself, but into another bondage as bad as that.' Is this a flat contradiction of the text? Is the writer, who quotes it as such, and mutilates it for his own purpose, deserving of your confidence?

"Matth. iv. 20. 'Left their nets. The article Tà used for the possessive pronoun.' In other words, Mr. Curtis complains that their is printed in italics, because to, he says, is used for the possessive pronoun.

"John vii. 16. Jesus answered them, and said. And said inserted.' The Greek requires it, and so it was printed in 1701.

"1 Cor. iv. 9.

As it were appointed, for approved to death.' And yet in 1617 it was appointed.

[ocr errors]

"I Cor. xv. 41. And another glory of the moon.

And and

glory inserted.' The change had been made in 1629, and is justified by the structure of the sentence and the words of the original.

1 Cor. xv. 48. Such are they also that are earthly. Also inserted.' The Greek requires it, and the insertion was made as early as in 1629.

"2 Cor. xi. 32: 'Kept the city of the Damascenes. Of the Damascenes inserted.' The words are in the Greek, and are to be found in English Bibles in 1629.

it.'

"Ephes. vi. 24. Amen inserted. The better MSS. omitting Does Mr. Curtis talk of MSS? The word is wanting in A, but appears in 1617.

"1 Tim. i. 4. Rather than godly edifying. Godly inserted.' The word appears in Bishop Lloyd's Bible of 1701, and the word sou ought not to have been left untranslated.

"1 John iii. 16. 'Love of God, because he laid down his life. To discard a reading, which implies that Christ was God.' Mr. Curtis here complains that the words of God are now printed in italics, although he knows, or ought to know, that they do not appear in the Greek. And afterwards,

66

1 John v. 12. Son of God, (second time Son occurs). Of God inserted.' This insertion was made, according to the Greek, at least as early as in 1629. — Oxford Bibles, pp. 13 – 15.

There are those in England and in this country, who appear to be more solicitous about the honor and integrity of King James's translation, than about the honor and integrity of the word of God. A distinction ought certainly to be

made between a private and a public version of the Scriptures; the latter being, to all intents and purposes, the property of the public. In regard, therefore, to any attempted emendations of such a version, the only question in which an enlightened Christian can take much interest, is, Will they bring it into greater conformity to the uncorrupted text of the sacred writers?

[We have obtained the author's permission to insert the following Discourse, believing it to contain an able and judicious discussion of a subject, which, however often treated, still possesses great interest, and is exciting, at the present time in some parts of this country, more attention, than at any former period. THE EDITORS.]

ART. VII. Popery and its kindred Principles unfriendly to the Improvement of Man. A Dudleian Lecture, delivered before the University in Cambridge, May 8, 1833. BY CONVERS FRANCIS, Minister of the Congregational Society in Watertown.

THE Christian world presents itself to the religious inquirer under the two great divisions of the Catholic church and the Protestant church. A large portion of the record of strife, exhibited by ecclesiastical history, is occupied with the mutual accusations of these leading parties. One side has been bitterly reproached with the rash love of novelty, contempt for ancient and consecrated authority, and all the discordant varieties of bold heresy; the other has been not less sharply reproved for foul abuses, gross corruptions in doctrine and practice, tyranny over the souls of men, and monstrous and unscriptural claims to temporal and spiritual power.

There was a time when this controversy absorbed into itself nearly all the great interests of Europe, or at least gave them a peculiar character and direction. Society was heaved and shaken by it to the very centre. It brought into intense action a power over the minds of men far deeper and more agitating, than any from which preceding parties and rivalries had sprung. The Reformation was a central point, around which rallied the conflicting forces of the European mind, and from which influences went forth,

« ElőzőTovább »