Page images
PDF
EPUB

(S) The personal pronoun, when omitted with the Hebrew infinitive (occasionally with some risk of ambiguity in the sense) should always, when supplied in the version, be printed in italics. This comprehensive rule is abided by in 1611 at Gen. vi. 19, 20 "to keep them alive;" Ex. xxx. 12 (second case, but overlooked in the first), 15; xxxi. 13. Deut. xxvi. 18. 1 Kin. xii. 6 (“I” overlooked by 1629 and later Bibles). 1 Chr. xxviii. 4. 2 Chr. xxxv. 6. Isai. 1. 4 ("I" again overlooked in 1629 and its successors). Thus also in 1629, Ex. xxviii. 28. Esther iv. 11: in 1638, Gen. iii. 6. Acts xii. 19. Rom. xiii. 5 in 1769, Ex. XXXV. I. Deut. xxix. 29. Heb. xii. 10.

(9) Where in Hebrew the first of two nouns is in the state of construction, the word "of" between them is not italicised in English: but if the preceding noun be susceptible of a change by reason of the state of construction, and yet be not so changed, "of" or its equivalent is italicised. Compare, for example, Ex. xxxvii. 24 with Ex. xxv. 39. The Masoretic points are necessarily taken for true under this head.

(10) It would seem natural to italicise "own" in the expression "your own," "his own," &c. where the original has but the simple possessive pronoun. Yet in 1611 we find it so printed only in 2 Sam. xviii. 13. Job v. 13; ix. 20. Prov. i. 18 (bis). Blayney has "his own" in Gen. i. 27, and in no other place, as if he shrank from making about 200 changes in respect to one word. We should italicise "own" only in Job xix. 17, where its presence excludes one very possible sense, and in Acts xxi. 11, where it is important to mark that favrov is not in the text.

(11) The Hebrew preposition? "to," with or without the verb "to be," is considered as equivalent, idiom for idiom, with the English verb "to have." It is so treated. in the book of 1611 usually (e.g. Gen. xii. 20; xvi. 1), but

not always (e.g. Gen. xi. 6 "they have," ver. 30 "she had"). But "pertained" in such phrases is always italicised, as Judg. vi. 11 in 1611. Hence we would not follow Scholefield', who reads "what have I" 1 Cor. v. 12.

I

(12) We have adopted, with some hesitation, Mr Gorle's refined distinction, confirmed by 1611 in Jer. xli. 16, between "after that" and "after that;" not however with infinitives, as 2 Chr. xxvi. 2. Jer. xxxvi. 27; xl. 1.

(13) When in different parts of Scripture a phrase or expression is given with more or less fulness, it is right to distinguish the shorter form, by setting the missing part of it in italics. Examples are in 1611 "dead men" Ex. xii. 33; "mighty man" P's. cxx. 4 marg. (compare Ruth ii. 1. I Sam. xiv. 52. Jer. xli. 16, where "man" is expressed): in 1638, Job xvii. 8, 10. Isai. xxix. 8; xliv. 25: in 1769, Isai. xli. 2. Again in 1611, "fill with" Gen. xliv. 1. P's. lxxi. S (bis); lxxii. 19, a preposition being supplied after the verb (82) in Ex. xvi. 32. 2 Kin. ix. 24. Ezra ix. 11. Job xli. 7. Ezek. xxxii. 6. Care, however, should be taken to put in italics no more than is really wanting: thus in Matt. viii. 25 pooreλbortes ought to be "came to him;" Matt. x. I #poʊkadeσúperos “called unto him," as it is given in 1762, not as the same word is represented by 1769 in Matt. xv. 32 "called unto him." This rule extends very widely, and is difficult to be observed with perfect consistency.

In the Greek and English New Testament, published at Cambridge by Professor Scholefield (new edition, 1836), many words were printed in italics for the first time, chiefly such as bear on our first rule, that regarding pronouns. The changes he introduced evi dence great care, but seem not to have influenced other editions of

the Bible published since his time.

The Rev. J. Gorle, Rector of Whatcote, submitted to the Syndies of the University Press, in or about 1864, very valuable and elaborate notes on the use of italics in our Bibles, which proved of great service in the preparation of the Cambridge Paragraph Bible.

(14) The verb substantive is italicised before the participle passive (Paül), to distinguish it from the Niphal conjugation of the verb (e.g. Gen. xxix. 31, 33 "was hated" in 1629 Camb.); but more licence has been granted to the auxiliaries that render the active participle (Pocl). In Num. x. 29 we prefer “we are journeying," though in other places the present "is", "are", &c. is in Roman type, but not "was" or "were.”

Such are the principal rules which the Translators of the Authorized Version designed to follow in the arrangement of italics for the standard Bible of 1611. How little what they printed was systematically reviewed and corrected in the preparation of later editions is evident from the numerous glaring errors, committed by them, which have remained undetected down to this day. The reader will perceive what is meant by comparing the original Hebrew or Greek with any modern Bible in 1 Chr. vii. 6. 2 Chr. x. 16. Neh. v. 19. Job i. 5; xxii. 24; xxx. 5; xxxiv. 14; xli. 20. Ps. lv. 21. Prov. xv. 26. Cant. v. 12. Isai. xxii. 18 (“like” a little doubtful); Jer. xi. 4, 7; xxxvi. 22; xlvi. 13. Ezek. iv. 4, 9; xiii. 18; xxii. 20 marg.; xxxix. 11; xliii. 3 marg.

[ocr errors]

Dan.

i. 7; viii. 26; ix. 23 marg. Obad. 6. Hab. iii. 9. 1 Esdr. viii. 63. Tobit. iii. 3. Wisd. ii. 1; xix. 14. 1 Macc. viii. IS; x. 24; xii. 37. Tit. ii. 3. 3 John 12. Indeed some more recent corrections are positively false, e.g. 2 Chr. iii. 11 "one wing of the one" (1638): Luke x. 30 "man" (1762).

What Blayney intended to do and seems to have lacked time for (Appendix D), has been regarded as a matter of imperative duty by the compiler of the present work. He has made out a full list of all the changes with respect to italics, in which the Cambridge Paragraph Bible as edited by him differs from his standard, the Cambridge small pica octavo of 1858 (see above, p. 38), together with such

The Punctuation.

81

reasons for them as each case might require; and has deposited the list for future reference in the Library of the Syndics of the University Press.

SECTION IV.

On the system of punctuation adopted in 1611, and modified in more recent Bibles.

"THE question of punctuation," to employ the language of Professor Grote', "has two parts: one, respecting the general carrying it out for purposes of rhythm and distinction of sentences, independent of any question as to the meaning of the words; the other respecting the particular cases where different punctuation involves difference of meaning." In regard to the first of these parts, much variety of practice will always exist, according to the age in which a writer lives, or the fashion which he has adopted for himself. Thus the edition of 1611 abounds with parentheses which are largely discarded in modern Bibles, wherein commas supply their place, unless indeed they are left unrepresented altogether. The note of admiration, which is seldom met with in the old black-letter copies (wherein the note of interrogation usually stands in its room: e.g. Prov. xix. 7) is scattered more thickly over Blayney's pages than the taste of the present times would approve. Upon the whole, while the system of recent punctuation is heavier and more elaborate than necessity requires, and might be lightened to advantage, that of the standard of 1611 is too scanty to afford the guidance needed by the

1 Grote MS. p. 23. See above, p. 23. note.

2 In Synd. A. 3. 14, these marks of parenthesis often seem to have been inserted with a pen, in places where the Oxford reprint has them; thus supplying another mi

nute argument for the priority of the Syndie's copy (see above, pp. 8, 9).

"

For instance, in such expres sions as "and behold," "and lo," "for lo;" we should omit the comma set by Blayney, &c. be. tween the two words.

voice and eye in the act of public reading. "It is a torture to read aloud from, as those who have had to do it know'." Grote contrasts it in this particular with a Cambridge edition of 1683, into which more changes in the stops were admitted than later books cared to follow, and whose punctuation. differs in fact but little from that in vogue in recent times.

The case in which difference of punctuation involves difference of meaning cannot be thus summarily dismissed. Since interpretation is now concerned, rather than arbitrary liking or convenience, the principles laid down in the First Section are strictly applicable here (pp. 3, 14). The stops found in the original ought not to be altered unless the sense they assign be not merely doubtful, but manifestly wrong. Modern changes, if still abided by, should be scrupulously recorded, and their retention can be justified. only by the consideration that it is at once pedantic and improper to restore errors of the standard Bible which have once been banished out of sight. The following list will be found to contain all divergencies of punctuation from that prevailing in recent editions, not being too insignificant to deserve special notice, which can be supposed to influence. the sense. They naturally divide themselves into two classes, those which are, and those which are not, countenanced by the two issues of 1611.

I. The stops of 1611 are retained in preference to those of later Bibles, there being no strong reason to the contrary, in

Gen. xxxi. 40. "Thus I was in the day, the drought consumed me," 1611, after Masoretic stops, LXX., Vulg., against the Bishops', 1638-1769, moderns, who have "Thus I was; (, 1638—1762) in the

1 Grote MS., ubi supra.

* Thus no stronger stop than a colon (as in 1611) is proposed after Jesaiah, 1 Chr. iii. 21, though

Dr Pusey's view seems very main. tainable (Book of Daniel, p. 300), that quite another line than Zerubbabel's now follows.

day the drought consumed me." Lev. iv. 2, "(concerning things which ought not to be done)." Here 1769 and the moderns reject the parenthesis of the earlier books, which, though not found in vv. 13, 22, 27, tends to relieve a hard construction. Joshua iii. 16, "very far, from the city Adam," 1611-1630. In 1629 Camb. and subsequent editions the comma after "far" is removed, but the other distribution is not less probable. Kin. xii. 32, “and he offered upon the altar (so did he in Bethel,) sacrificing." The moderns, after 1769, punctuate “and he||| offered upon the altar. So did he in Bethel, sacrificing:" against the Hebrew stops, Zakeph-katon standing over both “altar” and “Bethel;" and rendering the margin (which provides for 21 being the Kal rather than the Hiphil conjugation) quite unintelligible. xix. 5, "behold then, an angel” (~787!): "behold, then an angel,” 1769, moderns. Neh. ix. 4, "upon the stairs of the Levites," (gbubu): “upon the stairs, of the Levites," 1769, moderns. ver. 5, "Jeshua and Kadmiel," (cf. Ezra ii. 40): "Jeshua, and Kadmiel," 1769, moderns. Job xix. 28, “persecute we him?.......found in me.” 1611–1617. But 1629 Lond., 1630 place the interrogative also after "me:" 1629 Camb., 1638, moderns, transfer the second clause into the cratio obliqua “persecute we him,...found in me?" xxxi. 30. This verse is rightly set in a parenthesis in 1611-1744, which 1762 and the moderns remove. xxxiii. 5, "If thou canst, answer me," as in ver. 32. The first comma is removed in 1629 Camb. (not 1629 Lond., 1630) and all modern books. xl. 24 marg,, “or bore," 1611; “or bore,” 1629, 1638, Bagster 1846. But 1744, 1762, moderns, “ or, bore,” quite absurdly. Psalm ii. 12, “but a little: Blessed,” 1611—1744, "but a little. Blessed," 1762 mod;1. Ixxix. 5, "wilt thou be angry, for ever?" Cf. Ps. xiii. 1; lxxxix. 46. The comma is removed by 1616 (not 1617, 1630), 1629 Camb., &c. ver. 11, "come before thee, According to the greatness of thy power: Preserve thou." Thus 1611--1744, following the Hebrew punctuation: "come before thee; According to the greatness of thy power (, 1762 only) Preserve thou” 1769, moderns, very boldly, though approved by Dean Perowne. lxxxix. 46, “How long, LORD", wilt thou hide thyself,

1 The two lines of the couplet are closely connected, as the parallelism shews. Here, and in some other places (notably in P's. iii. 5: Ixiv. 7), the Masoretic punctuation is at variance with the poetical structure. So in P's.

al. 12, Rebiah has tempted 1762 to change the comma after "head" into a semicolon, 1769 moderns into a colon, where we prefer the comma of 1611-1744°

So read instead of "LORD?" of 1769 mod.

« PreviousContinue »