« AnteriorContinuar »
Gen 37. 19. dreamer
lord of dreams. (i. e. addicted to dreaming.) Gen. 49. 23. archers
lord of arrows. (i. e. addicted to shooting.) Ex. 24. 14. man having matters
lord of words. (i. e. one addicted to controversies.) 2 Kings, 1. 8. an hairy man
lord of hair. Prov. 1. 16. bird
lord of a wing. Prov. 22. 24. angry man
master of anger. Gen. 14. 13. confederate
lords of covenant. Prov. 23. 2. given to appetite
master of appetite. Prov. 18. 9. great waster
master of waste. 1 Sam. 28. 7. a woman that hath a familiar spirit mistress of a familiar spirit. 1 Sam. 16. 18. a comely person
man of form. 1 Kings, 2. 25. worthy of death
man of death. 'Gen. 9. 20. husbandman
man of the ground. Is 46. 11. man that executeth my counsel
inan of my counsel. 1 Sam. 14. 52. valiant man
son of valor. Gen. 17. 12. eight days old
son of eight days. Deut. 25. 2. worthy of beating
son of beating. 1 Sam. 20. 31. shall surely die
a son of death. Jon. 4. 10. perished in a night
son of a night. Is. 5. 1. a very fruitful hill
horn of the son of oil. Job, 41. 28. arrow
son of the bow. 2 Kings, 14. 14. hostages
sons of pledges. Job, 5. 7. sparks
Bons of the burning coal.
Is. 5. 24. & tongue of fire
a flame. a crag, or sharp-pointed rock the sea-shore. a two-edged sword. O that, (optative.) the power of the sword. the power of the grave. by the side of the river. the way side. the middle of the sea. the dawning of the day. red wine. a very large city. weapons divinely strong. goodly or tall cedars. high mountains. exceedingly beautiful. a mighty prince.
Soul put for Person.
Ps. 106. 15. he sent leanness into their soul. (i. e. into them.)
Acts, 2. 31. his soul was not left in hade 3. (i. e. he was not left.)
Syriasms. Mat. 5. 22. Raca
miscreant. Mat. 6. 24. Mammon
riches, Mat. 27. 6. Corban
a gift. Mark, 5 41 Talitha-cumi
damsel, arise. Mark, 7 37. Ephphatha
be opened. Mark, 15. 34. Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani my God, my God, why hast thou for
saken me? John, 1. 43. Cephas
a rock or stone. John. 5. 2. Bethesda
the house of mercy. Acts, 1. 19. Aceliama
the field of blood. Rom. 8. 15. Abba
father. 1 Cor. 16. 22. Maran-atha
our Lord cometh. Rev. 16. 16. Armageddon
the excision of a multitude.
Improper divisions of Chapters.
chap. 4. Rorn. 8. 1.
chap. 7. Rom. 15. 1-13.
chap. 14. 1 Cor. 4. 21.
chap. 5. 1 Cor. 11. 1.
chap. 10. 2 Cor.4.1-6.
chap. 3. 2 Cor. 5. 1.
chap. 4. 2 Cor. 6. 1.
chap. 5. 2 Cor. 7. 1.
chap. 6. Eph. 5. 1, 2.
chan. 4. Col. 3. 1.
The Vulgate joins Psalms 9 and 10, and divides Psalm 147 into two.
Psalms 42 and 43 were originally one, as appears from the structure, and from reven manuscripts. See Kennicott, and others.
Joel, 2. 28, &c. ought to begin a new section or chapter.
Plurals not noticed in the Common Version.
Gen. 20. 3. the Gods made me wander.
Gen. 35. 7. Gods appeared unto him.
Peculiar use of the numbers Ten and Seven.
Zech. 8. 23. ten men shall take hold of him that is a Jew; i. e mar.y men.
der a reason; i. e. than many inen.
Italics. It has sometimes been objected to our received version that it is encumbered with a load of awkward and useless Italics. Words and phrases printed in this character, it is well known, are introduced for the purpose of making out a complete sense in our language, where the expression in the original is elliptical, or where the idioms of the two languages are so different, that a literal translation would leave the writer's meaning obscure or unintelligible. The first object of the translators undoubtedly was to express in intelligible English what they believed to be the full signification of a sentence; and their next object appears to have been to point out, by the mode of printing, such supplementary words as had been required for the complete developement of the sense. In some cases indeed the elliptical form of the original would not be attended with any great uncertainty as to the writer's meaning; and yet as different modes of supplying the ellipses, giving different shades of meaning, may be adopted, it seems desirable even in such cases, that the words actually supplied should be designated. In other cases, the elliptical form is productive of so much obscurily, that scholars will entertain different opinions as to the mode in which the ellipsis should be supplied. Under such circumstances, therefore, it would seem to be obvious that in translating a work of such vast moment to mankind as the Oracles of Truth, whatever is thus added for the fuller explication of the meaning of the original ought to have some mark by which it may be distinguished from the rest. It was with this view that our translators had recourse to the expedient of Italics. But although the principle on which they proceeded in adopting this character is obvious, yet it was perhaps hardly to be expected that it should never have been departed from, in the actual execution of so large a work as the Bible; and nothing is more evident than that it was departed from, in a great multitude of instances, in the first and several subsequent editions. Whether it were that the demand for the new translation was so urgent that it was hurried through the press in an imperfect state of preparation, or whether it were owing to the want of entire concert in carrying out the original plan, certain it is, that the early editions were disfigured by the grossest inconsistencies in respect to the use of the Roman and the Italic character. In the following couplets of cases, adduced as a specimen, the expressions in the original are either identically the same, or so essentially analogous as to require a uniform mode of typography.
Mark, 14. 1, After two days was the feast of the Passover.
Luke, 19. 1, And Jesus entered, and passed through Jericho. (right.).
his birth. (wrong.)
Similar instances might be indefinitely multiplied from the edition of 1611 (the first), shewing to what an extent the principle of uniformity in this respect was neglected either by the translators or the publishers. But the fact seems to have arrested attention within the space of about twenty-five years after the translation appeared, and the whole work was in 1638, or thereabouts, subjected to a most rigid collation with the original with a special view to correct errors of this description, and to carry out, in its minutest details, the plan of the translators. The result was an immense number of alterations in the English text. From an investigation instituted on this head by the American Bible Society it appears that the Italicizing process was introduced in as many as from eight to ten thousand instances over and above those which had originated with the translators; and the form in which the current editions of the English Bibles have come down to us is the fruit of this ancient thorough-going recension. But no docu. ments remain to inform us by whom this work was executed, or by what authority. That it has been ably and faithfully done, will be evident to any one who undertake, as the writer of this was not long since called to do, to compare the present state of the English text with the Hebrew and Greek ori. ginals. In scarcely a single instance was a variation from the translators' edition detected, but it was manifestly for the better, and such as the application of their own principles not only justified, but required. Yet in a very few cases, occurring in the first edition, of which the following are the principal, it must perhaps be admitted that their equivocal use of Italics tends in some degree to obscure the sense. Mark, 10.40, But to sit on my right hand, and on my left hand is not mine to give,
but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared. This mode of rendering would seem to make dubious our Lord's right to bestow rewards. The original undoubtedly represents our Saviour as saying, "To sit, &c. is not mine to give, but (or, except) to those for whom it is prepared.' The clause, 'it shall be given to them,' ought evidently to have been inserted in Italics as it is correctly, but inconsistently, in Mat. 20. 33, where the original is precisely the same. In the modern editions the typography in the two cases is uniform.
Heb. 10. 38, Now the just shall live by faith; but if any man draw back, my soul
Bhall have no pleasure in him. Here there is nothing in the original to answer to 'any man;' consequently whether the interpretation be right or not, the words on the translators' own principles ought to have been marked as supplied. More especially was this requisite in a passage, which it must have been certain would be made use of for the purpose of supporting particular views of controverted doctrines. The alteration in the type has indeed been made in subsequent editions, although the weight of critical authority is still in favour of another rendering, 'Now the just
shall live by faith ; but if he draw back my soul shall have no pleasure in him.' The present mode of translating is referred to Beza, who is supposed to have been governed in adopting it by his theological opinions. The Bibles of Coverdale, Matthewes, Taverner, Cranmer, Becke, in which they are sustained by the Lat. Vulgate, agree in presenting the following words; ' But the just shall live by faith ; and if he withdraw himself, my soul shall have no pleasure in him.' The Geneva Bible of 1560 was the first English version in which this construction appeared, and this was undoubtedly derived from Beza's Lat. version which was published at Geneva four years before.
§ 1. Title, and Divisions.
The term Pentateuch, under which title are included the five books usually ascribed to Moses, is derived from the Greek llevtatso Xos Pentateuchos, a compound of Tavte pente, five, and teoxos teuchos, an implement or volume, i. e. the fivefold volume. The Hebrew appellation is 7970 271 nnwn the five-fifths of the law; or abbreviated cownin nunt the fiv - fifths. Each book by itself was called Wron a fifth. The more common Hebrew name of the Pentateuch is 77007 hattorah, the law, so called because the books contain the civil and sacred laws of the Hebrew nation. This collective designation of the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronoiny, is of very remote antiquity, though we have no certain information when or by whom it was first introduced. As however the names of these books are evidently derived from the Greek, and as the five books of Moses are expressly mentioned by Josephus, who wrote only a few years after Christ, we have every reason to believe that the appellation Pentateuch was prefixed to the version of the Septuagint.
The several books constituting the Pentateuch were probably composed in one continued work, as they form, to this day, but one rolled volume in the Hebrew manuscripts. In that form, however, they were marked by divisions into what were termed Parashahs or Parshioth (Heb. 7270 parashah, plural 5777:7907 parshioth), i. e, separations, sections, divisions, from Chał. 270 perash, to distinguish, divide, discriminate. Of these, which are plainly indicated in all editions of the Heb. Bible, either by the letters DDD (p) or doo (s), there were fifty-four, one being read every Sabbath-day in the Synagogue. (See Note od Gen. 6. 8.) Each of these larger sections is further denoted by its first, or first important, word, which serves as a title to it. Thus the title of the first Parashah in Genesis is 7-287 in the beginning, the word with which it begins ; that of the second, Gen. 6. 9, 73 Noah; that of the third, Gen. 12. 1, 73-73 go for thyself, &c. These titles are generally written as a running capłon at the head of the page immediately after the title of the book. Of the Parashals there are 12 in Genesis, 11 in Exodus, 10 in Leviticus, 10 in Numbers, and 11 in Deuteronomy, making 54 in all. It is probable that the Heb. names of the books
. , , , 279a bemidbar, b92777 haddevarim, &c. were originally the titles of the
,ayikraט ויקרא ,shemoth שמות ,bereshith בראשית
.of the Pentateuch