On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
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.
-
-
Transcript
-
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.
Untitled Article
Review . —Bible Society ' s Turkish TSstatyent . 691
Untitled Article
objectiohs which I 13 urges against the Turkish translation of the New Testainent , lipt a few a ; re applicable , on principle , to . our Received Version . A tract as large , or larger than Dr .
Henderson ' s ,, might be filled with instances of false readings , of mistaken renderings , of obsolete expressions , of grammatical improprieties , * of unwarrantable accommodations f to modern ideas , modern tenets and
modern usages , in that English translation of the Scriptures which the Bible Society circulates without note and comment . Let him undertake , let trim execute this task , and lay the result before the Committee of that
institution , and before the public . In respect of the smaller of those bodies , we cannot promise him greater success than he has already experienced : as to the larger , we think , a considerable portion of it may admit that he will then ljave done good service to biblical criticism and to sacred truth .
His reasonings against the Turkish Version by Ali Bey , have so little of relevancy and strength , that we cannot but look upon Dr . Henderson as being governed by additional and more powerful motives , iq withdrawing from
the service of the Bible Society : Professor Lee , we perceive , % intimates us ximch ; and some of the expressions which fall from our author himself , justify , even if they do not produce , this suspicion .
We should have felt real pleasure in being able to speak with approbation of Dr . Henderson ' s " Appeal . " His learned opponent has replied to him at considerable length , and with an effect that , we think , would not have been weakened by greater
mildness of temper and courtesy of language . The extent and accuracy of Professor Lee ' acquaintance with the Oriental dialects , fdlly authorize him in giving a far more decided opinion concerning the points at issue than would have been suitable to a man of
* See Bishop Lowth ' s English Grammar , and Dr . Syinonds' Observations oti the expediency of revising our present Version of the Gospels and Epistles * t The rendering of Acts xii . 4 / is a striking example ; Easter being there most unjustifiably substituted for " the Pa ^ over . " J He marks ., p . 156 , and Appeal , p . 5 < 6 .
Untitled Article
inferior attainments . He evidently writes , however , under the influence of something like persoiiaL irri ^ atiopT he appears too often like an individual party in the cause ; and , tljougtorthe combatants are most uneqi ^ lly matched , though it is at fearful , odds that Dr . Henderson contends with
Professor Lee ; we ce rtai nly wish ; that the antagonist who Js here put upon the defensive , and . who has effectually maintained his ground , had not sullied ! his triumph by unnecessarily harsh and contemptuous expressions . When he speaks of * ' such ah
Homeromastix as this / ' and says ,, with a sneer 3 respecting one ^ extract , " This is in Dr . Henderson ' s very best styletruly /* he disgusts the unbiassed reader , and d £ sc £ n < ls from the high statioa whieh his knowledge and his reasoning had entitled him to take .
Professor Lee employs eight chapters in noticing distinctly the objections of the gentleman to whom he is opposed . His tract also contains an Appendix , the documents in which bear directly and materially upon his defence of the Society .
The chief subjects discussed in this controversy , are , the character , &c . of Ali Bey , principles of translation ai ^ d criticism , the supposed mistranslation of r > roi ) er names , alleered svnonvmes . of proper namesalleged synonymes
, , &c , want of uniformity , false renderings , omissions , real or imagined , additional words and phrases . On all these points light is cast by Professor Lee ' s superior learning and good
sense . Neither of the combatants appears to entertain a correct view of Rev . xxii . 8 , 9 . About the text and the translation there can be no dispute
The proper subject of inquiry is the interpretation . In a word , who is it that in the 7 th verse , says , " Behold , I come / ' &c , and in the 9 th , " I am
thy fellow-servant , " &c ? Now the speaker is the angel , not the Messiah , or the Lamb . We refer to Dean Woodhouse ' s excellent observations in loc . ; the rathen because he i $ not
only a learned but a reputedly orthodox expositor . Lowman , in a most valuable note on Rev . xix . 10 , admirably explains the term " worship . " * We hope that the " Appeal" and the " Remarks" will be read even be-* See , too , Kev . vil . 12 .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Nov. 2, 1824, page 691, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2530/page/51/
-