Page images
[ocr errors]

λατρευω, to serve,” and “to tribe. Upon examining the pasworship?” This fluctuation pre- sages, it is evident that the trans. vents the possibility of conjec- lators thought it better to confine turing in any passage, what is the English word “tribe” to the the original word; whereas the divisions of the Hebrew people ; general rule should be, that the and to give another word where translation should be construct other“ tribes of men are spoken ed so uniformly as to suggest it, of, though the same word is used where there is not any local rea- in the Greek. We may not be son for alteration. The Eng. convinced that the reason was solish reader may find some ad lid; nor should we have been apvantage in knowing that wherever prehensive that the reader would he reads the word “priest" in the have confounded “all tribes of New Testament, it is the repre- the earth ; ” or “all tribes, and sentative of one, and only one, tongues, and nations,” with the Greek word, (iepevs) and the tribes of Israel. Indeed we should same of "elder," (apeo burepos); have thought it better to use the and why should he not have that same word, were it only to shew convenience in the rendering of him its general meaning ; nay, we the word επισκοπος : for how have known English readers led can he suspect, when he reads in astray by the substituted word Acts xx. 28. “ the flock, over “ kindred,” not being aware that which the holy Ghost hath made it meant “ tribe ;” but supposing you overseers, that “overseers that it was synonymous with “kinis here the representative of what dred” as used elsewhere ;-if inis everywhere else rendered bi- deed it were used elsewhere with shops? If in this particular case uniformity ; but that is not the the translators thought the word case ; for besides representing que “overseers” preferable, that is in, it also represents yevos, natpia, another question-for we are not and ovyyevela ; though these oppugning their translation—but words do not always in their if they inserted “overseers" only turn represent it; for γενος

is conupon the ground assigned in their trued kind, nation, kindred, counPreface, that provided a word did try, stock, offspring, born, diversiits duty there was no inconveni. ties, country-men, and generation ; ence in using it, though another natpia is construed lineage, kinword was elsewhere employed on dreds, and family; OvYyevera being the same occasion, we think they the only one that is always conmistook the matter. Presbyter' strued “ kindred.” In all this would do quite as well as “elder," there appears to us much unnebut we think they did right to cessary confusion; and we should keep to one rendering. Where greatly have preferred simplificathe change is given for some reas tion; but still where there was son, and is not merely casual or evidently a reason for the change, arbitrary, we pay much deference though to us not satisfactory, we to the judgment of our translators, are willing to submit our judgeven though we may not ourselves ment to that of wiser men ;- for see the propriety of the alteration. we are speaking only of casual or Thus we find the word quan, which arbitrary discrepancies. The word is everywhere else construed apę occurs in the New Testament “ tribe," construed several times nearly a hundred and fifty times, “kindred " in the book of the Re- and is always construed “flesh ;" velation ; though in that very except in the following passages; book it is fifteen times rendered Rom. viii. 6 and 7, where it is


not only altered as to the word, have been preferable to "fleshly but as to the part of speech, being wisdom : and “ carnal lusts," I rendered "carnally


Pet. ii. 11, would have been quite nal;" (as also Heb. ix. 10, carnal) as good a rendering as “ fleshly and Col. ii. 18, where it is altered lusts." as to the part of speech, being made Again, to each of the words an adverb. We can perceive in ayye.os and arootolos we should all these passages reasons why the have wished to see, if convenient, translators did not construe lite- one specific rendering, so that rally ; but even at the risk of some they might not be confounded supposed difficulty, we should with each other, or with any have preferred the uniform ren- other word, or words. But the dering; nay, we think that every word ayyelos, which occurs more one of the passages would have than one hundred and eighty been more clear and more striking times, is always construed angel, to the English reader by the use except in Matt. xi. 10, Mark i. 2, of the well-known word “flesh,” Luke vii. 24, 27, ix. 52; and as employed in the inspired epis- 2 Cor. xii. 7, where it is rendered tles, than by the substitution. “ messenger." The frequently, Heb. ix. 10 would run, “Which recurring word arootolog is alstood only in meats, and drinks, ways rendered “apostle,” except and divers washings, and ordi- John xiii. 16, where it is translated nances of the flesh; Col. ii. 18 “ he that is sent ;” and 2 Cor. would read, “ Puffed up by his viii. 23, and Phil. ii. 25, where it mind of flesh ;” and Rom. viii. is rendered “ messenger.' We 6, 7, with the preceding words, do not say that there was no would be “ They that are after the reason for altering the word to flesh would mind the things of the messenger” and “ him that was flesh; but they that are after the sent," in these places, in order to Spirit, the things of the Spirit; for prevent mistake; though, if we the minding of the flesh (so the were to venture our own private margin construes it; or the wise opinion, it would be, as in the dom, or sensuality, or affection or case of the word “ tribe," that it desire, as our ninth Article says might have been better to have it may be construed] is death; kept to one word, as the few but the minding of the things of passages in which it would have the Spirit is life and peace; be- seemed incongruous to an Engcause the minding of the flesh is lish reader who had taken too enmity against God.” Keeping narrow a view of the meaning of to the same expression gives point that word, would suggest to him to the passage ; but as the trans- his mistake, and give him a better lators set it in the margin, they idea of the original text. If an are not to be blamed for choosing illiterate person is asked what is what they considered a better ren- meant by an angel, he answers, dering in the text. But when they “A heavenly being ;” and an construe the corresponding adjec- Apostle he defines to be “One of tive capkikos nine times by the la- the followers of our Lord.” The tinized word “ carnal," and twice substitution of the word “ mes. by the Saxon “fleshly,” we can senger” in a few passages is in assign no reason for the variety, condescension to his ignorance ; except their own statement that but the retention of the word they did not think uniformity angel ” might have corrected it, necessary. Inour view, “ carnal and the meaning would have been wisdom,” 2 Cor. i. 12, would even pointed out in sermons and school

manuals, so that there would not than beloved ; and dearly beloved be much risk. But be this as it than dear. And why should not may, our argument is, that this “ followers of God, as beloved occasional substitution of the children,” do as well as “ dear word “messenger," and its being children?" applied both to ayyedoc and We are not at all convinced by arootolos indiscriminately, ren- the assertion that we ought not to ders it impossible, in reading the be "curious' about words, for that English testament, to know, with- God has not been curious about out reference to the original, which them, but has himself employed word is used in the Greek ; and various words “indifferently” to the vernacular reader has no clue express the same thing; for we to the difficulty. So also, whereas believe that every word of inspirathe word righteousness is in every tion is rightly and aptly chosen ; other place the representative of and that the same thing could not OUKALOOUVN, it is used in one place, have been so justly expressed in (Heb. i. 8, “A sceptre of righte- any form of words which human ousness,) for evðurns? We doubt wisdom could have substituted. not that many clergymen, in read- Besides, even if it were true that ing that passage, take for granted the Holy Ghost uses words “inthat the original is the usual word, differently,” it does not follow unless they happen specially to that in translating his words we have turned to it. It might have may do the same. If a man's been difficult to find another word, testament were written without if “ rectitude was too classical, any "curious” choice of words, and “straightness" ambiguous; still in translating it we must try but we adduce the passage as an to give a fac-simile version of his instance of the inconvenience of meaning; and assuredly much want of uniformity ; though not more so in regard to the Testaalleging that it is always practi- ment of Christ himself. If the cable to attain it. It might how- principle were admitted in transever be more often attained than lation, it might be applied to the it is. Why, for instance, when original text ; so that under the èkaloovun is invariably rendered notion that words are used “inrighteousness, and O.Kalos, gene. differently," we might interchange rally, righteous, should we find a them, alleging that though we did few exceptions to the latter ; such not give the identical phraseology as “ Joseph her husband being a of the Holy Ghost, we gave what just man” (Matt. i. 19); Send

was quite as good. Our venerable eth rain on the just" (Matt.v. 45); translators did not mean this ; “Whatsoever is right(Matt. xx. but in defending their own varia4, 7), &c. &c. Surely “righte- tions they have made their argu

would have done as well; ment too elastic. and it would have enlarged the We should be much distressed, vernacular reader's notion of the if the above remarks were read in meaning of the word. Again, why disparagement of the best version should opoloyew be profess, confess, of the Holy Scriptures extant. and give thanks; or xonotorns be We are not shewing how an indifgood, goodness, kindness, and gentle- ferent translation might be imness : or ayanntog beloved, well-be- proved; but how, under favourloved, dearly beloved, and dear. able circumstances, an excellent The English reader naturally sup- one might in some instances be poses that well-beloved is the usefully revised ; though we are translation of a stronger word far from practically recommend


ing any national revision at pre- next word is abapns, which occurs sent; for we doubt whether a bet- only once (2 Cor. xi. 9,) “ from ter version would be secured being burdensome,” and therefore than that which we now enjoy ; is not a subject for collation. But and we

are sure that changes the third word is differently renwould unsettle the minds of men; dered in different places. The ver. that an altered version, even nacular reader, seeing the remarkthough improved, would not com- able expression “bottomless pit" mand general approbation ; that somewhere in the book of the Reit would be no slight evil either to velation, is desirous, we will suphave two public texts, or to cast pose, of examining every passage aside the many scores of millions of the New Testament in which it of English Bibles now extant; and occurs, in order the better to gathat it is best, having so good a ther its import. By his memory, translation, for each biblical stu- or by marginal references, or a dent to make his own improve- Concordance, he finds that it ocments, or what he considers such, curs only in the above-mentioned without their being adopted in a book, where it appears seven nationally authorized exemplar. times; nor is there anything to We merely say that should a re- lead him to suspect that the word vision be made, it will be well, of which it is the representative among other points, to consider (abvorog) is found elsewhere ; for the propriety of making a nearer though that word does occur twice approach to uniformity of render- elsewhere-namely, Luke viii. 31, ing: so that the deviations from where the devils besought Christ it may never be casual, but only that “he would not command them such as are adopted upon princi- to go out into the deep ; and Ro. ple. We say “a nearer approach," mans x. 7,“ Who shall descend for complete uniformity is im- into the deep?"-The English ren. practicable; and even where prac- dering (“ the deep") is quite difticable it would often be inexpe- ferent; so that he has no clue to dient; for this among other rea- the collation of these passages, sons, that the usages of speech which might materially aid his are so arbitrary, that a word which researches. There was therefore is in the main coincident with ano- powerful prima facie reason for ther, is not always so in all its translating αβυσσος «bottomless applications : so that after rightly pit” in these as well as the other using it nineteen times, it may


passages. There was also the adin the twentieth. There are many ditional reason, that the vernacu. cases in which it would be very use- lar reader, when he should come ful to the reader to be aware of the to collate the expression “the identity or variety of expression; deep," in Luke viii. 31, and Rom. but in which it would not be well x. 7, with other texts in which that that the text should be altered. expression occurs, (never suspectIt is chiefly in reference to this ing that it is used in these two point that we have noticed the passages as a translation of what book before us. We will open at is everywhere else construed “ the first page

to illustrate our bottomless pit '') would suppose it remark, and will take the first identical with “the deep," Baloc, three words as they occur in al- Luke v. 4, “ Launch out into the phabetical order. The first is deep; " or Budoc, 2 Cor. xi. 25, “A “Alpha;” this occurs four times, day and a night I have been in the and is every where it is confined deep;" and in point of fact, owto the Revelation) so given. The ing to this verbal coincidence, our

the very

translation, it has become the po. “hell," or the place of disembopular notion that the devils asked died spirits, and his going “ to Christ not to cast them into the preach to the spirits in prison" sea; as if their request had some are mentioned. To construe abuo. reference to what afterwards hap- σος

“ the deep” in this passage, pened when the swine “ran vio- is merely to avoid a supposed diflently down a steep place into the ficulty by using a vague expres. lake (or sea) and were choked," sion.' The passage is in strict (or drowned.)

antithesis ; “ ascend” and “deHere then, we say, was a case scend”; “bring down" and "bring in which there were strong prima up"; " heaven”. and αβυσσος. . facie reasons for keeping to the Now the antithesis for “ heaven” same rendering of abvodocthrough in our language is "hell"; and we out; and if the word “ abyss," say in our creeds and articles that which conveniently corresponds Christ “descended into hell"; and with the original, so as to suit there could have been no greater every meaning, were thought too difficulty, had the words in quesdifficult, the expression “ bottom- tion been translated “ Who shall less pit” might have been adhered ascend into heaven? (that is, to to. Still—to return to our first bring Christ down from above ;) remark

concluding that our or who shall descend into the translators thought that the word bottomless pit? (that is, to bring in St. Luke and the Romans did Christ from the dead),” than in not mean the same as in the book the other passages which relate to of the Revelation, they did right our Lord's descent into åons; and to sacrifice the convenience of which we every where construe collation to the correctness of “hell,” (except in one single pastranslation ; so that, even in this sage, 1 Cor. xv. 25, where also it striking case, uniformity must be might be, and we think should be, sacrificed to substantial accuracy. so construed; “ O death, where is

We say this upon the supposi- thy sting? O hell, where is thy tion that they did come to the con. victory?"). We are not now conclusion that the abvodoc of Luke sidering what is the scriptural viii. 31, and Romans x. 7, is not purport of the expressions which the same as that so often men- relate to the subject; we only say tioned in the Revelation. Our that, be it what it may, the keepown opinion, however, is, that it is ing to the same expression,“ botthe same; and that there is not the tomless pit," in the passage in slightest reason for varying the question, would introduce rendering. This will perhaps be greater difficulty than arises, if any more easily conceded in regard to there be, from other texts which the abyss into which the devils speak of Christ in the period bebesought Christ not to cast them, tween his crucifixion and his resur(to torment us,” said they,“ be- rection. Yet even in this strong infore the time'); for why might stance,(in which, to our mind, there they not mean that he should not was every reason, not only for colsend them to “the bottomless pit"; lation, but in the passages themor what did they mean? Nor do selves, for uniformity of phrase) we we think that Romans x. 7, is an readily admit that, if our translators exception; for whatever difficulties thought that this uniformity would may attend the passage when thus convey an incorrect sense, they construed, they are not greater did right to vary the rendering. than in several other passages in The foregoing remarks and exwhich our Lord's descent into amples are but a fragment of what Christ. OBSERV. No. 20.

3 T


« PreviousContinue »