down, I asked him whether “hurin”, etc., would not therefore be much better Scots translations of πορνεία, etc., than “furnication”, etc. After his death I found that in the revised first draft of I Corinthians 5.9–11 he had originally written “furnicators”, etc., but had subsequently added in pencil the variant “hoorers”, etc. Elsewhere in his manuscripts, there are a few other passages (e.g., I Cor. 6.9) in which he had tentatively added the same or similar variants. All such additions are written in shaky handwriting, and appear to have been made not long before his health broke down. I feel sure that if it had not broken down so soon after our discussion of this particular question, he would once more have gone through all his voluminous manuscripts, adding similar variants wherever appropriate; and I doubt whether he would in the end have preferred “furnicators” to “hurers”. I have throughout his translation altered the text accordingly; and in my apparatus criticus I have accurately reported all such alterations.
My father’s own passionate devotion to truth was probably the only dogmatic commitment which restricted the freedom which his combined knowledge of Greek and Scots permitted him to exercise; and, like his collateral ancestor Sir Thomas Urquhart of Cromartie, he was sometimes an exuberant translator. In deciding which of several variants or alternative renderings to adopt, I have sometimes hesitated to collaborate with his scholarship in inhibiting his creativity; and, although I have in general been governed by such final preferences as he has indicated, mine have not always coincided with his. Thus in I Corinthians 14.11 his text reads:
I will be like a barbârian tae him an he will be like a barbârian tae me.
But written on the previous verso page there is also an alternative rendering, which reads:
my speech will be like the {cheepin o a spug/currooin o a (cushie) doo} tae him an his will be like the {chitterin o a swallow/claikin o a [kae/craw]} tae me.
At first sight, this may perhaps seem far-fetched. It should not, however, be overlooked that, in classical Greek, foreign languages were proverbially compared to the twittering of birds;21 and, although βάρβαρος means “anyone who does not speak Greek”, it does not strictly mean “anyone who is not civilised”. In the text printed below, I have consequently resorted to my father’s alternative rendering.
In one of the few conversations in which he discussed his translation with me during the last five months of his life, I reminded him that he had once shown me an apocryphal rendering of Matthew’s account of the Temptation in which the Devil spoke English; and when I asked whether he could tell me what had become of it, he replied that since it had never been intended for publication, he had destroyed all extant copies of it. A draft headed Interpretatio Apocrypha had, however, survived; and after his death I found it, quite by chance, amongst the spoilt papers which he had always kept in his desk. Once having plucked this brand out of the fire, I could not finally bring myself to suppress so characteristic an example of his wit; and I have accordingly printed an edited transcript of it in Appendix II below.
Fortunately for me, my father’s handwriting was always so legible that I have only twice had any difficulty in reading it. In the text printed below, I have silently corrected a few mere slips of the pen; and in perhaps as many as three or four passages (e.g., especially, Jn. 6.42, I Cor. 15.27) I have taken it upon myself to supply a few inadvertently omitted words.
The Goliardic mixture of Greek, Latin, Scots, and English in which my father composed the Notes printed in Appendix III, I daresay, would make most contemporary publishers’ editors stare and gasp: but since it illustrates his intellectual agility, I have reproduced it with as few trifling editorial alterations as I have considered necessary.
In the apparatus criticus printed below the text, I have concisely reported:
(a) All cases in which I have finally adopted any of the alternative renderings written on verso pages;
(b) All cases in which I have supplied any missing words; and
(c) Except with regard to “king, wing, wisdom, same, shame(fu)”, all cases in which I have made any orthographical alteration which alters the pronunciation.
I have not reported:
(d) More than very few cases in which I have adopted any of the variants written on recto pages;
(e) Any alterations of my father’s punctuation;
(f) Any orthographical alterations which do not affect the pronunciation; or
(g) Obvious corrections of any mere slips of the pen.
In the text all words quoted from the Old Testament are printed in italics; and, where necessary, special emphasis is indicated by letter-spaced roman type. Some detailed notes on spelling and pronunciation will be found in Appendix IV.
The genesis of my father’s translation can, as I have shown, be traced back to the autumn of 1945. From the first notion of the brain to the last motion of the press, at least thirty-eight years will thus have elapsed since he first tentatively decided to make it; and I hope that all those into whose hands it comes will enjoy reading it as much as I have enjoyed editing it.
WHILE MAKING HIS translation, my father let only a few close friends and relatives know what he was doing. Throughout the whole course of its production he read each successive instalment aloud to Dr R. G. Cant, with whom he discussed it in detail, seeking his advice, pondering his occasional criticisms, and welcoming his remedial suggestions. Whenever he came to Edinburgh, he seized the opportunity to read as much of the latest instalments as time allowed to Mr David and Mrs Hilda Murison, whose combined advice he invariably sought on all doubtful points. From time to time, he also read parts of it to the late Professor D. C. C. Young, the only contemporary Scottish poet whose advice he solicited. During the last few years of his life, he often told me how much he valued all the advice, criticism, and encouragement that these four friends of ours had so freely and fruitfully provided; and if he had lived long enough he would certainly have expressed his profound gratitude to them for all their help.
Without saying why, he often consulted his friends and colleagues the Very Rev. Professor Matthew Black, Professor Kenneth Dover (as he then was), and perhaps a few others whose names are not known to me, and would undoubtedly have thanked them for their judicious, illuminating, and ungrudged advice.
Perhaps he might, however, have reserved his deepest gratitude for his father’s parishioners Mrs Haggart, Mrs Mollison, and Mrs Hodge, the three “auld wives” of Strathmartine from whose lips he first took down some of the living Scots into which he was later to translate the Book which gave them their faith; and there cannot be much doubt that he would also have acknowledged how much he subsequently gleaned from those of his housekeepers Mrs MacGregor and Mrs Barclay.
Last, but by no means least, no words of mine can sufficiently thank their ultimate successor, Miss Elsie Shepherd, without whose faithful, assiduous, and efficient service he could not possibly have completed his great work before he died.
TO MAKE DUE acknowledgement for all the help of which I have availed myself in course of my editorial work will tax my linguistic capacities. I wish first to express my deepest gratitude to the Very Rev. Professor R. A. S. Barbour, Dr R. G. Cant, and Emeritus Professor Sir Thomas Smith for all their inexhaustible generosity, and for all the wise advice, guidance, and encouragement that they have given me in this connexion, and many others, during the last seventeen years. In editing my father’s translation I have also, from time to time, consulted the Very Rev. Principal Matthew Black, Sir Kenneth Dover, Miss Iseabail Macleod, Mr David Murison, Mrs Mairi Robinson, and Dr Tom Scott, and welcome this opportunity to
