earnestly, Luke vii. 4. cut the hair off, Ezek. xliv. 20. go before, Ps. xxi. 3; 1 Thess. iv. 15. excite, Heb. x. 24. pieces of silver, Isa. vii, 23. know, 1 Kings v. 6. boil, Gen. xxv. 29. severe, very much, Gen. xix. 9; xli. 56; Heb. x. 29. establish, 1 Peter v. 10. height, Num. xiii. 32. Easter Exaction Exorcist Illuminated passover. demand, tribute. expeller of evil spirits. enlightened. Provoke Purtenance inward parts, Ex. xii. 9. Quick living, Acts x. 42. Ravin prey, Gen. xlix. 27. Seethe boil, 2 Kings iv. 38. Servitor servant, 2 Kings iv. 43. Silverlings Skill Sod, sodden Sore Divination foretelling. beads, Exodus xxxv, 22. hook, Exodusxxvi. 6. number, Exodus v. 8. balustrades, 2 Chron. ix. 11. robber, Matt. xxvii. 38, 44. think, Luke xvii. 9. two, 1 Sam. xviii. 21. unawares, Lev. xxii. 14. knew, Exodus xvi. 15. honour, civil respect, Lukexiv. 10. 2- PHRASES. master of the family, Matt. xx. 11. chief places at table, Matt. xxiii. 6. and broke, Judg. ix. 53. weakened with hunger, Job xviii. 12. be not anxious, Matt. vi. 25. derided, Matt. ix. 24. reproved him, Matt. xxvii. 44. quarrelled or disputed with, Gen. xxxi. 36. Immutable Importunity Incensed Inquisition Matrix Mollified Occurrent Omnipotent Partition Predestinate Prognosticator foreteller. Proselyte Quarternion Remission Scribe Synagogue Terrestrial Tetrarch Vocation The careful reader of the Scriptures must have remarked, that the name of the same person or place is often unhappily expressed differently in different places. We subjoin from the Pentateuch some proper names which are strangely varied in the other books; first, twenty-two names expressed differently in the will think lightly of this advice of Origen, "No person who desires thoroughly to understand the sacred Writings, should undervalue a scrupulous attention to the proper names." Our translators have also, in many instances, given from the Greek, Hebrew names with Greek forms or terminations; where, for the sake of uniformity, the Hebrew terminations should have been restored; as many readers may be 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; Isaiah Jeremiah Esaias. Jeremy. Jeremiah Jeremias. Zepho Zohar Zephi. Zerah. Judah Messiah Judas. Messias. Phalec. Roboam. measure of receiving both, placing one in the margin and the other in the text, thus leaving the reader at liberty to adopt either, both of which in their apprehension stood nearly on the same authority. On this very account the marginal readings are essential to the integrity of the version itself, and they are of so much importance as to be, in many instances preferable to the textual readings themselves. On this ground, the authorised English version ought never to be printed without the marginal readings. It has been said that at the time when our present version was made Mr. Hugh Broughton, a man of singular eminence as a scholar, but not employed in this translation, communicated many interpretations to the translators, of which he afterwards complained, they thrust into the margent.' It has thus been supposed that he was the author of a part of the marginal readings; but of this we have no further evidence. The correct account of the marginal readings; is found in the fact, that "the king enjoined the editors to distinguish, by a different character, those words that were to be added to the text, to make a complete sense. And when the Hebrew or the Greek had two senses, one of them should be inserted in the text, and the other in the margin The king recommended also to put in the margin the most difficult Hebrew and Greek idioms." It has sometimes been objected to our received version that it is encumbered with a load of awkward and useless italics, or supplementary words. 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 and unintelligible. 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 ellipsis, giving different shades of meaning, may be adopted, it seems desirable, even in such cases, that the words actually supplied should be designated by some mark. In the edition of 1611, the principle of uniformity, in the use of supplementary words, was neglected either by the translators or the publishers. But in 1638, or thereabouts, the translation was 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, 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 Bible have come down to us is the fruit of this ancient thorough-going recension. Yet, in some few cases, it must perhaps, be admitted that the equivocal use of supplementary words tends in some degree to obscure the sense. As in Phil. ii. 10: "That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth and things under the earth." In this passage it will be evident that persons i. e., intelligent beings are intended; and not things. In 1 John ii. 23, we have no fewer than ten supplementary words: "[But] he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also." The translators considered these words to be of doubtful authority, as did some of the earlier editors; but several recent critical editors have rightly restored them to the text without any mark of doubtfulness. It is well known that in many cases the pointing is not the most judicious. Perhaps uniformity and accuracy, in this respect, was scarcely to be expected in so great a work, considering the time and circumstances in which the translation was made. So Ps. cx. 3, would read more intelligibly if it was pointed thus: "Thy people are willing-in the day of Thy power-in the beauties of holiness; from the womb of the morning Thou hast the dew of Thy youth." The literal rendering of Ex. xxxii. 32, is, "Yet now, if Thou, wilt forgive their sin: and if not, blot me, I pray Thee, out of Thy book." There is evidently an ellipsis after the word "sin," to express which the ordinary editions have a dash thus: "Yet now, if Thou wilt forgive their sin-;" But in some editions & comma is placed after "wilt," and the dash is omitted after "sin," thus: "Yet now, if Thou the comma after "wilt," also the dash after wilt, forgive their sin:" Other editions have "sin." "And there were also two other malefactors led with him to be put to death." (Luke xxiii. 32.) Instead of "two other malefactors," the ordinary editions now read, "two other, malefactors:" whereas they ought to read, "two others, malefactors," as in the editions authorised in Scotland. It may be that ecclesiastical reasons occasionally influenced the translators. In John x. 16, we read, "and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd." The proper rendering is," and there shall be one flock, and one shepherd." We may also observe, that the words in John xiv. 6, "I am the way, the truth, and the life," which is the reading, probably by misprint, of the first edition, 1611, have been frequently printed since 1631,-"I am the way, and the truth, and the life." The latter is the correct reading, and ought not to be departed from. The present numeral division of the Scriptures into chapters and verses, is, in some respects, of comparatively recent origin. The Pentateuch was divided by the Jews, at an early period, into fifty-four parashioth=sec- ❘ tions; one of which was read in the synagogue every sabbath day. (Acts xiii. 21.) These sections were subdivided, probably by the| Masoretes, into 669 siderim or orders. After the reading of the law, it was also customary, from an early period, to read a passage from the prophets, and with that to dissolve the assembly. Such passages were called haphloroth=dismissions; and appear to have been selected according to the choice of any reader. (Acts xiii. 15.; xxvii. 43; Luke iv. 16.) The divisions or sections found in the Greek and Latin manuscripts are different from those of the Hebrew books; they are of unequal and arbitrary length, and very different from the chapters in our printed Bibles. So, also, the books of the New Testament were divided, at an early period, into certain portions, which appear under various names. The division into church lessons, read in the assemblies like the sections of the law and the prophets, was the most ancient. Subsequently the New Testament was divided into two kinds of sections, called titles and chapters. The titles were portions of the Gospels, with summaries placed at the top or bottom of the page. The chapters were divisions, with numeral notations, chiefly adapted to the Gospel harmony of Ammonius. Other sectional divisions are occasionally seen in manuscripts, which appear to have varied at different times and in different churches, according as festival days were multiplied. The numeral division of the Old and New Testaments into modern chapters is, by some, ascribed to the schoolmen, who, with Cardinal Hugh of St. Cher, were the authors of the Concordance for the Latin Vulgate, about A.D. 1240. Others ascribe these divisions to Stephen Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, who died A.D. 1228. Whoever was the author, from about this period, the division of the several books into chapters was gradually adopted in the Latin and other versions; and, finally, in the Hebrew, with a few variations; and also in the Greek text. The several Psalms were not included in this division, inasmuch as we have them as they were originally composed and collected. The present numeral division of the Scriptures into verses is of still more recent origin than the chapters. In the Bible ascribed to Cardinal Hugh, the subordinate divisions were not indicated by numerals, but by the capital letters A. B. C. etc., placed at certain distances from each other in the margin. The Hebrew manuscripts contain pesukim or versicular divisions, each of which is terminated by the soph pasuk (:)=end of the verse. This versicular division was probably made by the Masoretes of Tiberias, about A.D. 500. In the Masora, the number of verses indicated by the silluk and the soph pasuk is carefully given at the end of each book of the Bible; but, in the margin of the text only every fifth verse is marked by a Hebrew letter. The Masoretic verses, thus divided by the soph pasuk are the same as our present verses with but few exceptions, the principal of which is that, in the Hebrew, the titles of the Psalms are marked among the verses. About A.D. 1440, Rabbí Isaac Nathan, in his Concordance, marked the numbers of the chapters according to the Latin version; he also marked the number of each of the Masoretic verses as they exist in the Hebrew Bible. Pagninus, in his translation of the whole Bible from the Hebrew and Greek into Latin, 1528, appears to have been the first who marked each verse in the margin with an Arabic numeral. In the Old Testament his verses are the Masoretic, the same, as we have seen, with those now in use. The Greek manuscripts of the New Testament usually contain a division into short sentences, sometimes called sticheoi=verses. They are frequently double or treble the length of our ordinary verses; but sometimes they are identical with them. Pagninus, in his New Testament, adopted this ancient versicular division, with some alterations, and numbered the verses as he had done in the Old Testament. His verses are frequently three times the length of our present verses. INTRODUCTION TO THE LITERATURE OF THE BIBLE. Henry Stephens, in his edition of the Latin Vulgate, 1555, adopted the system of Pagninus for the Old Testament. But, in his Greek and Latin New Testament, 1551, and also in the Testament accompanying the Bible of 1555, he introduced a different division, partly from the manuscripts, and partly his own invention. This division, thus breaking up the text into fragments, and frequently without reference to the sense, appears to have been made to adapt the New Testament to his Greek Concordance. He is said to have executed it "while riding on horseback"-undoubtedly in haste. From this period, this division, which is precisely the same as now in use, became general. In 1557, it was adopted in the English New Testament printed at Geneva. As the breaking the sacred text into small fragments interferes, occasionally, with the sense, it would be much better if the number of the verses were printed in the margin. Improper divisions of chapters. Micah v. 1, belongs to chapter iv.; ver. 2 properly begins the chapter. On the whole, however, if we except the several faults adverted to, and the occasional instances of inadequate rendering-the slight violations of grammatical propriety-and the modes of expression lacking in delicacy, or dignity, or perspicuity, which may here and there occur, the abatements to be made from the general excellence of the Authorised Version are comparatively trivial. 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. It has long been acknowledged, that the changes effected in the lapse of two or three centuries, in our habitudes of thought and modes of expression; and the fact, that there are occasional superior readings, furnished by the examination of manuscripts formerly unknown, render certain emendations in this time-hallowed version a desideratum. Hence, in 1870, a committee was appointed by the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury, for the revision of the Authorised Version of the Holy Scriptures. This committee was empowered to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong. The Committee separated itself into two companies-one for the revision of the Old Testament, the other for the revision of the New Testament. Several scholars and divines-Churchmen and Nonconformists-were invited to join the companies. The Committee of Convocation also opened communications with Biblical scholars in America; and two companies were organised to assist the English companies by their criticisms and suggestions. Undoubtedly the Revisers will reverently exercise the utmost skill and care in the execution of their revision; and will introduce as few alterations as possible into the Text consistently with faithfulness; and will limit the alterations to the style of the Authorised Version. The tribute of an English scholar of the Romish community to the superlative excellence and influence of the Authorised Version deserves our thoughtful consideration "Who will say that the uncommon beauty and marvellous English of the Bible is not one of the strongholds of heresy in this country? It lives on the ear like music that can never be forgotten; like the sound of the church-bells, which the convert hardly knows how he can forego. Its felicities often seem to be almost things rather than mere words. It is a part of the national mind, and the anchor of national seriousness. The memory of the dead passes into it. The potent traditions of childhood are stereotyped in its verses. The power of all the gifts and trials of a man is hidden beneath its words. It is the representative of his best moments, and all that there has been about him of soft, and gentle, and pure, and penitent, and good, speaks to him for ever out of his English Bible. It is his sacred thing, which doubt has never dimmed, and controversy never soiled. In the length and breadth of the land, there is not a Protestant with one spark of religiousness about him, whose spiritual biography is not in his own Saxon Bible." |