etc
The ethics of Scripture quotation.
Much has been said, in modern times, about the importance of quoting from other writers or speakers with the utmost correctness and precision, giving the exact language in which the other mind clothed. its thought. And, from the point of view of a somewhat narrow theory of inspiration, it has been urged that all scriptural quotations should give the very words of the Scripture writer. Against making this bondage injurious and painful, two considerations may be presented.
1. It may be noticed that the Scriptures, as we have them, are translations, i.e. they are the thoughts of the inspired writers expressed in words chosen by other men, and there is no reason why men nowadays, who can grasp the thought of the original writer, should not give it expression in other, better-chosen, and better-adapted terms.
2. It may be shown that the apostles and New Testament speakers and writers did not put themselves under any such severe limitations. They quoted freely, jealous of the sense, but not unduly concerned about repeating the precise phraseology. Of this we have instances in Stephen's speech, to which we direct attention; premising that our space does not admit of our pointing out every instance of deviation or addition, and that we can only attempt to open an interesting line of study. It is to be noticed that Stephen quotes from the Septuagint translation rather than from the original Scriptures, but even from the Septuagint he makes what seem to be important alterations; and he blends traditional references with Scripture quotations, as if some recognized authority attached to them. It is very probable that "ancient genuine elements were preserved traditionally among the Jews, which received their higher confirmation by admission into the New Testament. If we consider the general prevalence of oral tradition among all ancient nations, and particularly the stationary posture of things which was common among the Jews, such a descent of genuine traditionary elements through a succession of centuries wilt lose the astonishing character which it seems to have." Illustrations may be given of the following points :—
I. TRANSLATION AFFECTS THE LITERALITY, BUT NEED NOT AFFECT THE TRUTH. Show that:
1. Truth must get a form of words if it is to be communicated to and received by men, whose intercourse is so largely dependent on language.
2. A particular truth is not, of necessity, confined to one particular form of words. Each man may give it his own form of expression, and, conceivably, each man's form may adequately represent the truth, and convey it to another mind.
3. The utmost importance would attach to the ipsissima verba of Scripture, if they could be recovered.
4. That they cannot be recovered, and can only be known in translation, may be designed to convince us of the comparative unimportance of the mere form.
5. The Bible is translated into many languages, and in its varied dress it is found efficiently to retain its spirit and its power.
II. MEMORY AFFECTS THE LITERALITY, BUT NEED NOT AFFECT THE TRUTH. Stephen spoke from memory; St. Paul, in his writings, quotes from memory. Ministers and teachers must often quote from memory. The power of memory is of two kinds—
III. WITH DUE CARE TO PRESERVE THE LITERALITY, WE SHOULD HAVE MORE CARE ABOUT GAINING SPIRITUAL HOLD OF THE TRUTH. Of this Stephen gives effective example. And it may be shown that a precise and adequate expression of any truth depends, not on the exact remembrance of a form of words or an accepted creed, but on spiritual insight, on the clearness of our visions of the truth: he who sees the truth will never find it difficult to make his brother see it too.—R.T.