On this page
- Text (2)
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
B&p \ ewM * - * B \ ' ble Samet&s Turkish Testament . 689 f
guisiied Orientalists , who were con * sulted , oa the occasion , yto find Professor Lee ' s , at whose suggestion , and that of his colleagues , measures were taken , by which it was hoped that Dr . Henderson ' s objections might be removed . Some leaves were cancelled :
same tables of errata were prepared and adopted . In the mean time , the circulation of Ali Bey's Version was suspended : its merits were still made the subject of investigation by the Sub-Committee ; and , after a long and careful scrutiny , this Turkish Testar meut was again circulated by the
iikstitution . We cannot be astonished that , under such circumstances , Professor Lee comes forward to vindicate a step , which he was so deeply concerned in
advising . Before we met with the " Remarks / ' &c , we had put down a few notes on different parts of Dr . Henderson's €€ Appeal / ' &c .: some of our strictures we shall transcribe .
The author of the " Appeal , " &c , does not distinguish between what is matter of exposition , of interpretation , properly ao called , and what is matter of translation : Rom . x , 13 . In Dr . H . 's opinion , ( p . 41 , ) " the change of to ovoua ,
Kvpis , ' the name of the Lwd , ' to [ in the Turkish Version ] ' the name of God / seems to have been done with the design of annihilating one of the proofs of the divinity of Christ , as also not only the lawfulness but the necessity of addressing divine worship to him "
Now it is neither just nor candid to intimate that the translator had this design , or indeed any design beyond that of rendering the passage with correctness and fidelity . Dr . Henderson would have been better employed in consulting Joel ii . 32 , whence the quotation ( lor such it is ) has been borrowed . He would have found that
the prophet uses the word % lehovah , and that the LXX , from whom , as is most probable * the apostle cites the clause , render this word by the corresponding term kv / He . Neither in the book of JToeL iidr in Rom . x . 13 , is
there a reference to Jesus Christ , to his alleged ^ divinity , or to the worship that DiP . ff . supposes him to claim jE | te vyriter of the Appeal subjoins , *\ The Lord in this vei&e , is unquestionably the Lord tif at $ mentioned
in that preceding . " Thus far we agree with Dr . H . Not so , when fce proceeds to say , " and who He is we read Acts x . 36 . ' * Bi * t the key m this latter text is Acts iL 36 , " God hath
made that same Jesus whom ye have crucified , both Lord aad Christ . " « Fesus is Lord of . am * , af believing Gentiles and believing Jews ; from each of which classes of men converts have
flowed into his church . Other indications and examples of Dr . Henderson ' s propensity to confound translation with exposition , occur in pp * 14 , 29 , 52 , 64 , of his pamphlet . In some of his animadversions on
the teal of the Turkish New Testa * ment he is exceedingly unfortunate . cc Matt * vi . 15 . * Tec ire&pentTaiAciToi vfAGM , your trespasses . " Our author complains of the omission of this
clause in Ali Bey ' s Version > Now Griesbach has annexed to the preceding clause the mark of probable omission : and this he justifies in one of the highly excellent notes contained in his Commentarius Criticus- &c .
We cannot , indeed , blame him for retaining the words in the text of his edition of the Greek Testament : but neither shall we accuse Ali Bey of a want of either judgment or fidelity in rejecting them ; because he might
easily mistake the one clause for the other , and because he has assuredly given the speaker's meaning . Dr . Henderson would have done well in weighing the external and internal evidence on both sides of the question . The Commentarius Criticus is less known
in England than it deserves to be : nor , probably , will our readers be displeased * if we copy the note to which we have referred : ** Vers . 14 et 15 , T « icQc ^ aTrToofActra avrcov S . u / Aotv , in vulgari textu legitur
ter , in codice L et jUiis quater , in D et nonnullis aliis bis . Nobis pra © caeteris arridet lectio codieis D , quae couirn . 15 TOC ftCLpOCTTTCDfAOtTCl CCVTUV OIDILtit . I U ~ serta fuerunt haec verb > a > quo comma 15 exactius responderet coirniiati 14 , sicut in fine versQs 14 ab aliis .
intercalatum fuit ra irapaqrtcafAara v ^ w , 3 up comma 14 propius a 4 siiniiituiBem com mat is 15 accederet . Ergo in utroque commate earn pf ^ ferimus lectionetn # quae paraUeUamu « i ipem-¦ - ^ . . . i . ¦¦— . . ..... » .., . ¦ | l l . » . . | „ , ! l , l . y . ll | .. | ¦ ¦ . ¦ i . ¦ . . .. P . 44 .
VOL . XIX . 4 T
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Nov. 2, 1824, page 689, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2530/page/49/