« FöregåendeFortsätt »
adhered to it both in the Old Testament and New, to a much greater extent than is done in the common version. I distinguish between devil and demon, hell and hades, change of mind and repentance, love and friendship, baptism and washing, and many other objects which the common version confounds.
5. To avoid needless indelicacy and vulgarity. The common version has many needless indelicacies and some vulgarities. These I avoid. I do not, however, omit-any thing for this purpose.
6. To translate chiefly into the recent improved style of the times in preference to the antiquated style of 250 years ago.
The style of the times is the living English language, in opposition to the partially dead and dying language of a former period. The inevitable law of change applies to language as it does to other objects. Living languages necessarily change. When nations improve their language improves, when they decline their language declines. In the last 250 years the English nation has greatly improved, and its language is proportionably improved. We have a much better and nobler language than King James had.
7. To continue the use of the words baptize and baptism. The corresponding Greek words are used by the classic writers to denote common actions ; in the New Testament they are used only to denote religious rites. These are of the three kinds: 1. The rites prescribed by Moses, Heb. 9: 10; 2. The Jewish traditionary baptisms, Mark 1: 4; and 3. The baptisms of John the Baptist and Christ.
The verb Bantlow is a derivative from Bántw, and takes its signification from its primitive, subject to some modifications. Búnta corresponds to the Latin mergo, and English merge or plunge ; ềußántw to the Latin [in] immergo, and English [in] immerse, plunge in. Bantl6w is different from either, and ought not to be confounded with them. It neither signifies to merge or plunge, nor to immerse or plunge in ; nor is there any verb in the Latin or English languages to express it perfectly but itself. The word was Latinized to meet a necessity ; it was also Anglicized for the same purpose, and is as necessary now as it ever has been. As the primitive means to plunge, the derivative Bantigo expresses some modification of plunging, and not plunging simply. This was the use of the verb from the beginning; for there was no need of forming it to signify the same as its primitive Bárta, to plunge, or its correlative čußánta, to plunge in. The necessity of it was to express some specific kind or modification of plunging. The classic Greeks never made much use of the word. Why the Greeks formed it at first we can not tell. It was undoubtedly formed to meet an emergency. The Jews found it formed and adapted to their use, and used it to answer their purposes. Christianity took it up, and used it to answer its purposes, and continues to use it still in many different languages. The Greek nouns for baptism are derived from the verb, and have corresponding meanings. A baptism is more than a mersion or immersion. It is a cleansing, and was probably administered by the first Christians not in the form of a simple mersion, but of a general washing in the water. The mechanical part of baptism corresponds to bathing, and would be more nearly expressed by it, than by any other English word except itself.
8. To preserve Jehovah and Jah as proper names of God. The Septuagint renders the original for this name Lord; and when points representing vowels were added to the Hebrew letters, the Hebrew name for Jehovah received not the points which belonged to it, but those which belonged to the Hebrew word for Lord; and when the Hebrew word for Lord was used with it, the Jewish punctuators gave it the points of the Hebrew word for God. The Jews read the word to this day according to its points, and never according to its letters or consonants. It was probably pronounced in two syllables, Jahveh or Jehveh, and was sometimes contracted to Jah. Its dissyllabic character is conformable to its derivation and the analogy of other Hebrew words, and is demanded by the Hebrew poetry, where its pronunciation in three syllables in many cases injures the measure. Jahveh is derived from the Hebrew verb which signifies to be. It is the imperfect indicative, which combines the present and future of the 3d person singular Was and Will be. The Hebrew God was the Was and Will be, or the Is and the Was and the Is to come. This was expressed by Jahveh, or Jehveh, and is referred to in Rev. 1: 8. The true name is the shortest and most easily pronounced, but it is impossible to restore it. I therefore take Jehovah as the name which has for many centuries superseded the true one, and is the nearest approximation to it which we have in
I also transfer Jah in all cases in which it is found in the original. The common version often changes it to Jehovah. Jah is a contraction of Jahveh, and is used considerably in Psalms. It occurs also in Isa. 26 : 4, 38:11, and is the last syllable of many Hebrew names. The formation of one proper name by shortening another is in conformity with a general usage of our times, the object of which is increased beauty and convenience.
The other names of God, bw, El, the Mighty One, 73, Előah, and 3, Elohim, the High One, etc., I translate God, the common title of the Supreme Being in modern times, which denotes him as the Good one. It does not seem expedient to transfer those original titles, nor to attempt to revive the use of them, or to introduce translations of them in competition with a name so beautiful and appropriate as the one in common use.
9. To translate 344, Sheõl, in the Old Testament, by hades, to allow hades to stand for its corresponding Greek word in the New Testament, and to render yɛévva hell, thus excluding hell from the Old Testament, which contains no allusion to it, and distinguishing it in the New from hades, in conformity with the original. The common version confounds these words. Sheõl is the hades, or under world of the Hebrews, vast, dark, inhabited by the shades of the dead, represented by the poets with gates and bars, with trees and forests, and often as a vast pit, in the sides of which whole nations of shades make their residence. The derivation of the word is from 3*, Shaal, with a change of ayin to aleph, literally the pit or hole, a derivation similar to that of the English word hell, and the Latin cælum, heaven. But Hebrew usage does not make this word synonymous with yɛévva, the hell of the New Testament. It therefore ought not to be confounded with it. The word yelvva, hell of the New Testament is formed from the Hebrew 2017 m), vale of Hinnom ; a valley south of Jerusalem, and extending west, noted for human sacrifices offered to Molech in the time of the Hebrew kings and prophets, and called also Tophet, a place of burning [the dead]. This word appears in the New Testament as synonymous with the Greek Tartarus, or lowest part of hades, where the wicked were supposed to be imprisoned and punished. It contains a lake of fire, and is invested with the greatest conceivable terrors. The New Testament doctrine of punishments in the under world is clearly exhibited in Luke 16 : 22–25. And the rich man died and was buried ; and in hades, lifting up his eyes, being in torments, he sees Abraham afar off, and Lazarus on his bosom; and he called and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Larazus to plunge the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I distressed with this flame. That the yeévva, hell of the New Testament, belongs to the under world, and not to the valley south of
Jerusalem, the name of which is applied to it, is further evident from Luke 12: 5. But I will show
you shall fear ; fear him who, after killing, has power to cast into yetvvo, hell. Men might cast the bodies of dead men into the fires of the vale of Hinnom, but casting into this vale is a prerogative of God. With this agree Mark 9: 43–48 ; Matt. 18:9; Jude 5, 13; and Jewish Rabbinical usage. It also corresponds to the contemporary doctrine of the Greeks on the subject.
10. To transfer the names of weights, measures, and coins, with expressions of their value in brackets. This is the only possible method of translating these terms correctly. It is adopted in all nations and in all languages, ancient and modern, and is the common approved method of translating such terms in our times. The addition of the value in brackets is the only thing in which I have deviated from the usage of all reputable translators. Shall this method be brought into the Bible, after being carried every where else ? or shall the erroneous and unsatisfactory method of King James be perpetuated, making the Bible an exception to all other books ?
11. To arrange the books according to their times. The first of the Epistles of Paul is the 1st Epistle to the Thessalonians, A. D. 53 ; then follows the 2d, A. D. 53; then the Epistle to the Galatians, A. D. 56; then 1st and 2d Corinthians, A. D. 57, 58; and 6th in order comes the Epistle to the Romans, A. D. 58; and so on. Shall this natural order of the Epistles be observed in the arrangement of these books ? or shall we forever discard it? So in the Old Testament, Jonah, Joel, Amos, Hosea, Micah, and Nahum precede Isaiah, or were contemporary with him in the early part of his life. Shall their books stand before his, or after it? The advantage of a chronological arrangement of the books in both Testaments is very great.
12. To divide the books into chapters and verses according to their natural divisions. There is not another book in Christendom so badly divided as the Bible. A History, Biography, Moral Philosophy, Geography, or miscellaneous work that should be divided as badly as the common Bible, would be the greatest curiosity of the age. The Lord's Sermon on the Mount is commenced in the 5th chapter of Matthew, and continued through the 6th and 7th ; and its subdivisions are 111 verses. Where is there a modern sermon so injured in its publication by improper divisions ? No
where. Yet this is reported as a single sermon, delivered at one sitting. In my translation, it is in one chapter, with 14 verses, its natural divisions. The highest object of divisions is to aid interpretation. The convenience of references is an after consideration, to which the interests of interpretation can not be sacrificed with propriety, and need not be. It is high time that an improved system of divisions was inaugurated, at whatever expense may be necessary for that purpose. The prophets in the Old Testament I do not divide into chapters, but resolve into prophecies and verses, and in a single instance, the last part of Ezekiel, into a prophecy and sections and verses. The common division of chapters was introduced in Italy, A. D. 1240; Cardinal Hugo adopted it in his Concordance in 1260; and that of verses was first introduced by Robert Stephens in his Greek Testament, in A. D. 1551, and very soon extended to the Old Testament. • Many suppose that these divisions are a finality, and can never be changed. But this is a mistake. If the Bible is to be understood, and to retain its hold on the public respect, it must be made as perfect as possible in its text and translations, and also in its arrangements and divisions. To stop short of this in our labors on it, is to be guilty of culpable negligence.
13. To improve the headings of the chapters, and not to indicate by erroneous headings false modes of interpretation. This is an error often committed in the common version, both in the Old Testament and New, and the importance of this class improvements is considerable. In some cases in the prophets, headings are transferred from the Hebrew text, and printed in Italics, to distinguish them from headings which are supplied, and which are printed in small capitals.
14. To avoid the application of incorrect principles of translation, and allow the sacred writers to mean what they say.
Interpretation is an art. Its principles are as fixed and settled as those of any other art. The application of correct principles leads to correct interpretations; that of incorrect principles to incorrect ones. All violent interpretations are incorrect. Men do not use words in such a way as to require violence in the interpretation of them. To interpret the sacred writers contrary to the natural meanings of their words, in conformity with traditionary opinions, or the views of any church, sect, or school of philosophy, is always incorrect. No external authority whatever should be allowed to have weight against the natural meaning of a writer's words.