CHRISTIAN

REMEMBRANCER.

MAY, 1826.

REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS.

ART. I.-Remarks on Dr. Henderson's Appeal to the Bible Society, on the Subject of the Turkish Version of the New Testament printed at Paris in 1819. To which is added, An Appendix, containing certain Documents on the Character of that Version. By the Rev. S. LEE, A. M. D.D. of the University of Halle, Honorary Member of the Asiatic Society of Paris, F. R. S. L. F. R. A. S. &c. and Professor of Arabic in the University of Cambridge. Cambridge: 1824. 8vo. Pp. 184. The Turkish New Testament Incapable of Defence, and the True Principles of Biblical Translation Vindicated: in Answer to Professor Lee's Remarks on Dr. Henderson's Appeal to the Bible Society, on the Subject of the Turkish Version of the New Testament printed at Paris in 1819." By the AUTHOR OF THE APPEAL. Rivingtons. 1825. 8vo. pp. 306.

66

SINCE our notice of an Appeal by Dr. Henderson to the Members of the British and Foreign Bible Society, on the subject of Ali Bey's translation of the New Testament into the Turkish Language, Remarks on Dr. Henderson's pamphlet have been published by Professor Lee, in the course of which, hé endeavours to shew that the Doctor's criticisms are either unimportant or founded in error, and that the version in question "ranks among the best works of this kind, in the very close adherence which it has observed to the just principles of interpretation." To this work an Answer has been given by Dr. Henderson, triumphantly repelling the charges made against his" Appeal," by Professor Lee, and in our opinion convicting him in more than one instance of bold assertion without proof, and of such unfairness in argument as seems to indicate a consciousness of having undertaken the defence of an object unable to stand on the fair ground of its own merits. As an accusation of this nature should not be incautiously advanced, we shall shew, in the course of our observations, in what points we conceive the Professor to have avoided open discussion, and to have evaded the question in debate, instead of combating the positions of his adversary by a plain elucidation.

Much of the question turns upon the principles of translation, and on the liberty to which a translator may conceive himself

entitled of giving his own conceptions of the meaning of the original, where two opinions may exist on any point, in preference to such a literal translation as may leave the sense open to discussion in the version as in the original text.

Dr. Henderson lays it down as a rule that a translator should not depart in any case from that characteristic peculiarity of style which so eminently distinguishes the Scriptures, nor adopt technical and affected modes of expression equally foreign to the simplicity of the Sacred Writings and to the dignity of their subject; while at the same time he should carefully avoid the opposite defect, nor attach himself to the letter so far as to do violence to the idiom of the language into which he is translating. Equally avoiding an affected brevity and a turgid verbosity, he should be neither more obscure nor more perspicuous than the original. He says,

"It is no part of the business of a translator to explain or elucidate the sacred text: he is to give it exactly as it is, without attempting to render any part of it more intelligible to readers of the present day, than the Hellenistic style of the Apostolic writings was to the natives of Greece, or other parts of the world, to whom they were communicated in the early ages."-P. 31.

He

Professor Lee, on the other hand, is of opinion that the translator is in all cases permitted to paraphrase an elliptical passage, by adding any words he may conceive necessary to give his reader a clear idea of the sense of the original, and to amplify and add to any expression, so as to render his version more suitable to the preconceived notions of his readers. supports his opinion by a quotation from Jerome, who, in his Epistle to Pammachius, speaking of the difficulties a translator has to encounter arising from the difference of idiom, observes that a verbal translation is frequently unintelligible, while a more free version would subject him to the accusation of unfaithfulness. What shall we say, however, of the accuracy or fairness of the Professor, when we learn that Jerome, in the same Epistle, after observing that he himself had usually adopted the principle of free translation, expressly excepts the Sacred Writings from the operation of this principle? Such, however, is the case, as

Dr. Henderson has shewn.

"In producing the authority of Jerome relative to the best manner of translation, my opponent should not have omitted to notice, that the letter to Pammachius, containing the sentiments of that Father on the subject, was written in the heat of controversy, at a time when his mind was ruffled by the accusations of Ruffinus, and cannot, therefore, be regarded as furnishing us with the cool and deliberate views of this learned man, on a subject with which he had rendered himself familiar, in a degree unequalled by any of the other Fathers. The circumstances of the case are these: certain letters from the Pope Epiphanius to John, Bishop of Jerusalem, having come into the hands of Eusebius of

Cremona, this monk, not understanding the language in which they were written, requested Jerome to furnish him with a translation of them. This task the Father performed in his usual hurried manner, Accitoque notario, raptim celeriterque dictavi,' not regarding the manner or style in which he made the translation, but merely executing it in such a manner as he thought sufficient to give Eusebius an idea of the contents of the original letters.. It so happening, however, that Jerome's translation, which had been intended only to meet the eye of a private friend, came abroad; and, having found its way into the hands of his adversaries, a great handle was made of the manner of its execution. To justify himself from the aspersions thus thrown on his character, he wrote the epistle above referred to, De optimo genere interpretandi, in which, whatever he may have affirmed relative to the absurdity of translating ad verbum, we find the following remarkable words, which Professor Lee should by no means have omitted in his quotations: Ego enim non solum fateor, sed liberâ voce profiteor, me in interpretatione Græcorum, ABSQUE SCRIPTURIS SACRIS UBI ET VERBORUM ORDO MYSTERIUM EST, non verbum e verbo, sed sensum exprimere de sensu. Habeoque hujus rei magistrum Tullium, qui Protagoram Platonis, et Economicon Xenophontis, et Eschynis ac Demosthenis duas contra se orationes pulcherrimas transtulit: quanta in illis prætermisit, quanta addiderat, quanta mutaverit ut proprietates alterius linguæ suis proprietatibus explicaret, non est hujus tempore dicere.' Is it not evident from this passage, that what Jerome professedly treats of, is not the best manner of executing a biblical translation, but that to be adopted in translating merely human writings; and that, although, in the latter case, he conceived himself fully justified by the illustrious example of Tully, in omitting, adding, or changing,' what he did not find congenial with modes of expression already established among the Latins; yet, he by no means considered himself authorized to take any such liberties with the word of God, in which he says the very order of the words is a mystery ?”—P. 9—11.

After having adduced Jerome in support of his opinion, the Professor introduces Dathe, who says, "that version which translates word for word, is unworthy the name of a version." To this Dr. Henderson replies:

"I will not accuse Professor Lee of unfairness, though I certainly cannot exculpate him from the charge of criminal inattention, in applying to our present subject the words of Dathe, in his Preface to the minor Prophets. The direct tendency of the quotation introduced into the Remarks, from that able and judicious Scripture critic, is to impress the mind of the reader with an idea, that the principles of translation there laid down, were designed to bear upon popular versions of the Scriptures, and that his work was intended to serve as a model for the construction of such versions. Now this was by no means the case. Towards the conclusion of the very sentence preceding that with which the Professor's quotation commences, Dathe expressly declares, nec sine prævia admonitione Lectorem admittere ad. lectionem interpretationis, quæ a vulgari ratione haud parum recedit, et in quà conficiendâ leges mihi scripsi, quas nolim lectores ignorare,

66

quos judices hujus versionis habere cupiam. And in his Preface to the Psalms, he says expressly; ' Idem enim consilium sequendum fuit, quod in cæteris universæ Veteris Testamenti versionis meæ partibus mihi proposueram, scilicet ut verba Hebraica clare et perspicue redderem, quo hujus linguæ studiosi quasi manu ducerentur ad textum originalem recte intelligendum et explicandum;' which statement we find repeated in the Prefaces to the Pentateuch and Job. The fact is, as he himself informs us, it was his object to furnish a version corresponding to the second kind of translation proposed by Griesbach, as ranking next to what the great critic calls a public or Church version, namely, one which neither closely follows the letter of the text, nor swells out into paraphrase, but gives the ideas of the original, stripped of their Hebraistic forms, so as to be read with all the ease of original composition. It was designed, not for common readers, but for the learned, particularly such as were engaged in the study of the Hebrew original; consequently, the rules of translation, according to which it was conducted, and which are detailed in the Preface quoted by Professor Lee, cannot, with any degree of consistency, be urged as authority to determine the manner in which popular, or, as Griesbach calls them, public or Church versions, ought to be executed. Indeed, it is only necessary to glance at the otherwise highly valuable work of Dathe, to perceive its total unfitness to serve as a model of this kind of translation. Of this I shall adduce the following instances as a specimen. Hos. i. 2.

which is properly rendered, For כי זנה תזנה הארץ מאחרי יהוה

the land hath committed great whoredom against Jehovah:' Dathe translates thus; Sic enim populus iste pro casto mei amore, alios deos amore

לכן הנה אנכי מפתיה וחלכתיה המדבר .16 .impuro prosequitur. ii

Notwithstanding I will allure her and lead her into the wilderness:' Verum enim vero deinde eam ad saniorem mentem revocabo, atque in deserto, quo a me deducta est, &c. iv. 4. 'I'NDƆ TDV¶ · And thy people are as they that strive with the priest:' Omnes enim capitalium criminum rei sunt. 'But the just by his faith shall live:' Sed pius propter illam fidem suam ejus implementum videbit."-P. 15-17.

וצדיק באמונתו יחיה .4 .Habak. ii

The Professor, after this, taking advantage of the Doctor's rejection of the purely verbal manner above-mentioned, concludes that he and the Doctor are agreed on the principles of translation, and in consequence, dismisses a part of the question as unworthy of discussion. The Doctor, however, protests against this fancied agreement:

"Having thus shewn, to the satisfaction, I trust, of the impartial reader, that the authorities of Jerome and Dathe, as alleged in the Remarks, are altogether inapplicable to the argument relative to such versions of the sacred Scriptures as are designed for general use, it cannot be matter of surprise that I should hesitate to subscribe to the conclusion at which Professor Lee arrives, p. 15: The principle, therefore, adopted by the second class of translators, is that by which we are agreed that the merits of the question before us shall be tried; which is, indeed, the only one to which we can have recourse, whether we take the path which is obviously pointed out by the necessity of the