ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐστίν τὸ μὲν πνεῦμα πρόθυμον ἐλογίσθη εἰς δικαιοσύνην ει εισελεύσονται, &c. weariness, 2 Cor. 11. 27. labor, 1 Thes. 2. 9. "painfulness, 2 Cor. 11. 27. travail, 1 Thes. 2. 9. ελεω αιώνιος KOTTOS μοχθος 2.-PHRASES. the pride of her power, Ezek. 30. 6. Jer. 39. 12. (good in the eyes of, Gen. 41. 37. (it liketh him best, Deut. 23. 16. how old art thou? Gen. 47. 8. the days of the years of my life, Gen. 47. 9. to swear, Ex. 6. 8. Num. 14. 30. is on our part, Mark, 9. 40. the spirit is willing, Mat. 26. 41. counted for righteousness, Rom. 4. 3. they shall not enter into my rest, Heb. 3. 11. But there are no phrases, in the rendering of which the translators have shewn more diversity than in those in which the words ben, son, and ish, man, make a part. The former of these, which not only signifies a son, but also a descendant of any kind, has in the Oriental dialects a very wide acceptation, and is applied not only to the offspring of the animal creation, but also to productions of every sort; and what is still more remarkable, to consequential or concomitant relations. Thus an arrow is called the son of the bow; the morning-star, the son of the morning; threshed-out corn, the son of the floor; and anointed persons, the sons of oil. In rendering such phrases our translators have, for the most part, softened the Hebraism, but after no uniform manner. Sons of Belial is surely not more intelligible to an English reader than sons of oil, and much less so than sons of valour, sons of righteousness, sons of iniquity; yet, while they retain the first Hebraism, with all its original harshness, and partly in its original form, they mollify the three last into valiant men, righteous men, wicked men. But even in regard to the first they are not consistent; for if once they admitted the word Belial, they should have retained it throughout, and said a thing of Belial, a heart of Belial, a witness of Belial, the floods of Belial; which, however, they render an evil disease, a wicked heart, an ungodly witness, the floods of ungodliness. Nay, they have once or twice translated a man of Belial, a wicked man. Many other instances of this variety of phrasing might be adduced, but enough has been said to shew that our translators were not guided by any uniform rule or fixed principle, especially in rendering the Hebraisms of the Bible; and, moreover, that this want of uniformity must often be productive of great inconvenience to the reader. On the whole, however, if we except the fault now adverted to, the abatements to be inade from the general excellence of the established version are extremely trivial, and whatever defects may be pointed out, they are chargeable rather upon the age and the circumstances in which it was made than upon the translators themselves, and in our estimate it is but reasonable that the faults of a translation should be viewed as far as possible distinct from the faults of the translators. It is indeed possible that occasional instances of wrong or inadequate rendering may be specified, that grammatical propriety may be sometimes slightly violated, that Greek and Hebrew idioms may not always be the most happily transfused into English, that modes of expression lacking in delicacy, or dignity, or perspicuity, may here and there occur, but they are few and far between, and a thousand-fold outweighed by the evident study of rigid fidelity every where exhibited. In attempting, therefore, to specify, as we now propose to do, some particulars in which our English version is capable of amendment, we are doing nothing which really reflects upon the course adopted, in respect to these points, by the translators, unless it can be supposed to detract from them that they did not foresee the changes which in after times would come upon their native tongue. They employed such words as the usage of their times suggested and sanctioned. The same reasons which made them adopt those words then would, if they were now alive, and revising their own work, induce them to substitute others in their stead. We would be understood, then, merely as intimating what is in itself desirable, in view of the progress of language and society, rather than what we should deem it expedient to have undertaken. While the changes effected in the lapse of two or three centuries in our habitudes of thought and modes of expression do doubtless render certain emendations intrinsically a desideratum, yet when it comes to the question of actually innovating upon the established text, under whatever plea, we at once plant ourselves on the ground of strict adherence to its every letter. The advantages of retaining incorrupt a standard harmoniously accepted by so large a portion of Christendom, are so signally great, and the evils which would inevitably result from its allowed invasion so manifold and vast, that we trust the day is far, far distant when the first step shall be taken toward supplanting this time-hallowed version in the estimation of the millions by whom it is now so affectionately cherished. Incomparably better will it be that any little improvements in the way of explication, modernized diction, euphemism, &c. should be suggested in critical or popular comments, in biblical introductions, in sermons, in fact any how, rather than in the form of direct alterations of a text, as to which our instinctive prayer is 'Esto perpetua.' The following list of obsolete or antiquated terms, it is proper to advise the reader, is taken from the earlier copies of King James' Version, and contains a considerable number which have been since altered, but by whom, or upon what authority, does not appear. Recurrence to the passages indicated will shew, however, that several of them do not now stand in our current editions, but have given place to their more modern equivalents ranged in the parallel column. In some cases, moreover, it is not the word, but the sense, which has become antiquated. Know any thing by myself know any thing against myself, 1 Cor. 4. 4. Learned Terms.-In the following list of learned terms retained in the common version, it is readily admitted that several may be specified which through long use have become both familiar and intelligible, and that in regard to others it would be difficult to express their meaning well, without a tedious or clumsy eircumlocution. But a simple diction is more accordant with the general style of the version, which is remarkable for its use of pure English words in preference to those of Roman origin. Thus the translators almost invariably adopt keep back for suppress; call upon for invoke; bow down for incline; lift up for exalt; stretch out for extend; put out for extinguish; cry out for exclaim; put away for divorce; put asunder for separate; cut off for reject; let go for dismisa, &c. We cite the following instances therefore, rather as exceptions to the general practice of the translators. Want of uniformity in Proper Names.-Our translators have, in many instances, rendered from the Greek, Hebrew names with Greek terminations; and those names, thus Græcized, they have given in our translation without, if we may so say, Hebraizing them again; insomuch that it is not to be doubted, that many unlearned readers are ignorant that some of the persons spoken of by one name in the New Testament, are the same with those spoken of by another in the Old Testament. The following are examples. Where a word ends in iah, it is peculiarly wrong thus to transform it, because in nearly every case those names have a reference to Jah or Jehovah and are compounded with it, as are those that end in el with Elohim, God.-Upon the same principles of simplicity, uniformity, and information, the words Thomas Didymus, Lucas, Marcus, and Timotheus, would be more intelligible to a common English reader, and tend more to the identifying of the persons spoken of, if they were translated Thomas the Twin, Mark, Luke, and Timothy. Various Peculiarities. For the sake of the English reader it may be well to group together, in tabular form, a few supplementary items tending to illustrate several points which are less obvious in a version, but which are still important to the intelligent study of the Scriptures. Hebraisms.-The Hebrew language is distinguished for the use of certain nouns which in connection with other words, form an idiomatical expression and acquire a sense that could not be collected from the known meaning of the separate terms. Of these the most remarkable are Baal, son, and yTMy man, which in their various connections express the relations of possession, dominion, addictedness, &c. in a manner which will best be gathered from the following examples. C |