Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1836, by GOULD AND NEWMAN,

in the Clerk's office of the District Court of Massachusetts.

7969 BỘI

.J16"

PREFACE

BY THE

TRANSLATOR.

THOSE who are acquainted with the merits of Hug's Introduction to the New Testament, will not think it strange that it should be deemed worthy of an English dress. It has long been in high repute in Germany, and among German scholars in other countries. As an index to the estimate put upon it in Germany, we may take the declaration of Gesenius (Bibl. Essays Art. I.) made with direct reference to this work: "He [Hug] excels all his predecessors in deep and fundamental investigations."

It is probably known to most who will read this preface, that an English translation of this work has already been published, (London, 1827, 2 vols. 8vo.), which was made by the Rev. Daniel Guilford Wait, LL. D. On examination this was found to be very imperfect, as it not only misses oftentimes, but occasionally reverses, the sense of the original. It exhibits, moreover, not only such a deficiency of acquaintance with the German language as is culpable in any one who undertakes to translate such a work, but also a want of practice, or at least of skill, even in English compo

sition.

Some of the mistranslations are such as appear to be absolutely ludicrous. Two or three instances may suffice to justify this assertion. For the first, see p. 312 Vol. I. of the translation. In the third note, Hug intended to say that a certain edition of the New Testament was to be found in the Library of the University with which he was connected. To this end he uses the simple German demonstrative pronoun hiesigen (this, or this here.) Dr. Wait makes hiesigen, however, a proper name, and translates it by Hessian! Thus, instead of "the library of the University in this place," we have "the academical library of Hessia!"

On p. 318 of the same volume, we find a ludicrous, though intended as a grave, note by the translator, respecting the sense of the expression "jener armen Sünder," those poor sinners, somewhat humorously employed by Hug. The note of Dr. Wait is as follows: "Not being provided with a copy of this edition, I am uncertain whether by this term Hug means convicts under sentence of death (!) or simply "those poor sinners." It would puzzle any one to tell how the former sense could possibly have entered any man's mind.

On p. 484 of the same volume, Wait translates "Kleinseite,"

نم

iv

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.

(the name by which one division of the city of Prague is designated, meaning, Little Prague,) the weak side!

It is unnecessary to multiply such instances. A perusal of the English, even without reference to the German, would satisfy every person competent to judge, that the translation is very defective. Another has therefore been deemed expedient.

It should be noticed, moreover, that Wait's version was made from the second German edition; while the present has been made from the third, to which many important additions were made by the author.

In translating, I have looked, or striven to look, more at the sense than the phraseology of the writer; believing that the rule of Horace is as suitable in this case, as in the case to which he originally applied it: "Nec verbum verbo curabis reddere, fidus interpres.' (Hor. Ars Poet. 1. 133.) I would fain hope that the present translation is more correct than the one already published; though doubtless severe scrutiny, or even a cursory reading, might discover in it many imperfections. It is due to truth that I should acknowledge myself far from being satisfied with the manner in which I have executed my task. It has been performed under some disadvantages. Those, however, who are best acquainted with the difficulty of translating German into English, and also with the involved sentences and faulty style of composition to be found in Hug, will not be forward to denounce the defects which the version exhibits. Many pages might be devoted to the statement and exemplification of the faults of style in the original; but it would be out of place to do this here. Suffice it to say, that in general what is obscure in the translation is as much or more so in the original.

I have corrected almost innumerable mistakes in the references, numbers, &c. Many of them, it is probable, were only typographical errors. I fear that careful scrutiny may discover some new errors in the translation.

It is certainly singular that Hug should have neglected to affix the accents to the Greek so plentifully introduced into his work. The task of adding them has been no slight one; as, in common with most of my countrymen who have studied the Greek langnage, I was very little versed in the somewhat intricate theory of Greek accentuation. The first few sheets will be found more imperfect, in this respect, than the later ones.

In conclusion, it may not be improper for me to say, that had I been at first fully aware of the difficulty of the task to be accomplished in the translation and publication of this work, I should have undertaken it, if at all, with far less alacrity and more circumspection, and prosecuted it with more deliberate and considerate examination than I have actually practised.

Cambridge, Mass.,

April 1, 1836.

D. F. JR.

PREFATORY REMARKS

BY M. STUART.

THE remarks which Mr. Fosdick has made upon the difficulties of Hug's style, seem to me very just. After being somewhat conversant with German for a quarter of a century, Hug obliges me often to reperuse some of his sentences, more than once too, before I am satisfied that I understand them; and even then, there are some of them in respect to which I do not feel certain that I have discovered the meaning of the writer.

It is difficult to characterize that in the author which occasions this obscurity. There is not only a negligence as to the essential parts and relative positions of the proper ingredients of a perspicuous sentence, but (what I must call) an affectation of singularity, a peculiarity in modes of thought and expression. This, Lowever, may belong to the mental characteristics of the author, rather than to his affectation; but if it is so, it does not diminish the difficulties in the way of a translator. No wonder that Dr. Wait, with his mite of German knowledge, could succeed no better. The translation of Hug is a task "altius expeditis."

I have not compared the body of Mr. Fosdick's version with the original; for this has been out of my power, and would have been little if any less labour than to translate the whole. But I have here and there compared parts of his translation with the German original, and found them to answer the just and reasonable expectations of the reader. That he has expended much severe labour on the work, there can be no doubt. That the version is sufficiently true and faithful to answer all the important purposes of a version, is clear to my mind. I have had a good opportunity to know this; inasmuch as I have read, or rather studied, the book throughout in its English dress, in order to prepare for writing the Notes contained in the Appendix.

It is not important for me to say much, if any thing, in this place, with regard to the manner in which Hug has executed this work, and the relative value of the work itself. My notes will disclose to the reader, how far I agree or disagree wit' him, in respect to most of his important positions. His mode of arguing and illustrating is often original and peculiar. It is not the more attractive to me, however, on this account. He does not say even the most common things, in the way that others say them; whether from affectation, or peculiarity of mind, I know not. Yet there is not so