CHAPTER XX. STATE OF ENGLISH PHILOLOGY. COMMON VERSION OF THE BIBLE. In the first verse of Deuteronomy, it is said that Moses spake to the children of Israel on this side of Jordan, [the east side,] over against the Red Sea. This is an erroneous translation, which, as Calmet observes, sadly confuses geography. The Hebrew word Suf here used, is the same word as is used to denote the Red Sea in other passages of the Scriptures, but in all those other passages, it is followed by the Hebrew word for sea; in this verse in Deuteronomy, the word for sea is not inserted. The Israelites, at this time, were on the east side of Jordan, in the land of Moab, over against the Dead Sea, or Asphaltic Lake. The word Suf signifies sea-weed, and it is remarkable that it is still found in the Swedish language with the same signification. The Israelites then were not over against the Red Sea, or Arabian Gulf; and the present translation tends to mislead or confound young readers. In Genesis ii, 13, the river Gihon is said to encompass the whole land of Ethiopia; but the Gihon was one of the rivers of Paradise, in Asia, and of course it was impossible that this river could encompass Ethiopia in Africa, for in such a case, the Gihon must have crossed the Arabian Gulf. The Hebrew word for Ethiopia is Cush; and perhaps no error of the translators appointed by King James is more palpable than their conversion of Cush, in this and other passages, into Ethiopia; following the Septuagint instead of the Hebrew. Ethiopia is a word of Greek formation, not found in the Hebrew, nor is any place of that name found in Asia. Yet Josephus actually decides that the Gihon was the Nile. There is however no difficulty in correcting this error. The Cush here mentioned was a territory on a branch of the river Tigris in Persia, the inhabitants of which are called by Pliny, Cossei ; the country is called in 2 Kings xvii, 24, 30, Cuthah; the Hebrew word Cush being written in Chaldee Cuth. In Daniel vi, 24, there is a mistake in orthography which makes bad English, and obscures the sense of the passage. When the accusers of Daniel were cast into the den of lions, it is said the lions had the mastery of them or ever they came to the bottom of the den. The word or should be ere, before. In Psalm lxxvii, 2, is this clause of the verse, "My sore ran in the night." In the margin we find the Hebrew word for sore is the name of the hand. It is difficult to understand why the hand should run in the night; unless the translators supposed the Hebrew word would authorize them to suppose a running sore on the hand was intended. The Hebrew verb nagar here used signifies indeed to flow; but it signifies also to spread or extend, for flowing always implies spreading or extending. The translation should be, my hand was stretched out or spread, and so is the version in the French copy of the Bible, published by the Bible Society; in the Italian copy by Diodati; in the Latin translation annexed to Vander Hooght's Hebrew Bible, by Smith; in the version of Jerome; and so is the clause translated by Parkhurst and by Gesenius. In several passages of the Old Testament, the word ancients is the version of two different Hebrew words, one of which signifies old men or persons, seniores; the other, men of former ages, antiqui. As in present usage, the English word ancients refers almost exclusively to men of former ages, antiqui, I have made the distinction in my copy of the Bible, and when the Hebrew word refers to seniores, I have rendered it, elders. In Matthew v, 21, 27, 33, there is, in the common version, this passage: "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time." This is evidently a wrong translation; instead of the word by, the word to should be used. So is the passage rendered in all the versions in my possession, except in the English. For proof of this, the learned. reader may turn to the Greek, Rom. ix, 26; Gal. iii, 16; Rev. vi, 11; in which the same Greek verb is followed by to. In Matthew xxiii, 24, the word at should be out: "Who strain out a gnat." Every boy in our grammar schools knows that the Greek verb used here signifies to filter. Christ did not refer to extraordinary efforts in swallowing a gnat, but to the purifying of liquor by filtering it. The use of at is evidently an oversight or misprint, for in the first version of the Bible by Tyndale, the word out is used. All the versions of the New Testament in my possession, six in number and in different languages, are correct, except the English. It is surprising that such an obvious mistake should remain uncorrected for more than two centuries. In John viii, 6, the translators have inserted the words, "As though he heard them not," which have no authority in the original. In no copy of the Bible, do I find these words, except in the English. In Psalm xix, 1, occur the words handy work-"The firmament showeth his handy work." Handy implies skill derived from use or experience, and the word is not applicable to the Supreme Being. Dr. Jenks, in his Commentary, justly observes, that there is no warrant for these words in the original. The Hebrew is, the work of his hands. But there is another objection to the use of these words: there is no such legitimate compound as handy work in our language. The true word in the Saxon original is hand-work. In Acts xii, 4, the word Easter is inserted for Passover. How could the translators make such a mistake? The apostles celebrated the Jewish Passover, not Easter. In Acts vii, 59, there is a most extraordinary interpolation in this clause, "They stoned Stephen calling upon God, and saying Lord Jesus receive my spirit." The word God is not in the original; and the insertion of the word makes Stephen guilty of an inconsistency, as his prayer was to Christ. This erroneous interpolation is noticed by Dick in his Theology, Vol. I, 331, Greenough's edition. In all the editions of the Bible in my possession, except our common version, this passage is correct: "They stoned Stephen invoking or praying, and saying Lord Jesus receive my spirit." In 1 Cor. iv, 4, there is a mistake in the use of the word by instead of against: "I know nothing by myself," ought to be "I know nothing against myself;" that is, I am not conscious of having done any thing wrong. In Romans viii, 21, the word because should be that: "By reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope that the creature itself shall be delivered." There should be no mark of a pause after hope in verse 20th; the pause and the following word because render the passage obscure, or rather unintelligible. This mistake is the consequence of classing the Greek oti with conjunctions; a mistake still retained in our Greek grammars and lexicons, to the reproach of our literature. There is a similar mistake and owing to the same cause, in Luke i, 45: "Blessed is she that believed, for there will be a performance." In this passage, instead of for should be that: "Blessed is she that believed that there will be a performance." This correction appears in the lexicon of Schrevelius, written more than a hundred years ago. See oti in that work. In Colossians iii, 7, there is a mistranslation in all the versions in my possession. "In which ye also walked formerly, when ye lived in them." By this rendering, in them must refer to the vices specified in verse fifth. This is tautology, for to walk in vices or crimes, and to live in them, must mean the same thing. But the apostle undoubtedly meant, by the words en autois, to refer to the children of disobedience, the wicked perpetrators of the vices, and therefore the Greek words should be rendered with them or among them.-(See Rosenmuller and Macknight.) The language of the Bible consists chiefly of Saxon words, as they were used when the first version was made by Tyndale, more than three hundred years ago. The most of these words continue in use, and constitute our present popular language. But the first translator was a native of the north of England, and seems to have used mostly the Scottish dialect. To this circumstance perhaps may be ascribed the common use of the auxiliary shall in the Scottish sense, which differs from the English, and as Bishop Lowth observes, shall in the version of the Scriptures is often used in the sense of will. Hence we must often understand shall as equivalent to will in modern English, or we must understand passages of the Scriptures as expressing what was never intended. Shall in the second and third person expresses a command, promise, determination, or threatening. For example, we say to a child or to a servant you shall have a suit of clothes; you shall have a certain sum for a month's service. This is a promise of the father or master. We say to persons under our authority, you shall perform such a service; he or she shall do what I command. This expresses a determination of the speaker, and amounts to a command. We say such a child or servant shall be punished for a fault. This is a threatening. Such is the use of shall in these forms of speech; every person, old or young, understands this language as here explained; and no person customa rily speaking or hearing genuine English, ever understands shall, in such phrases, in any other sense. It is language used by superiors to inferiors; but never by inferiors to superiors. How Now such language can not be used in speaking of the Supreme Being, without a violation of the reverence which man owes to his sovereign. But such use is often found in the common version of the Scriptures. "The Lord shall reward the doer of evil according to his wickedness." 2 Sam. iii, 39. In this passage David did not intend to command or promise what the Lord would do, but merely to foretell, and shall is improperly used. The Lord will reward, is the sense. very irreverent it appears to say, God shall give Pharaoh an answer of peace; our God shall fight for us! So in the following passages, "the brother shall deliver up the brother to death;" "the children shall rise up against their parents;" " ye shall be hated by all men;" shall is very improperly used for will, as Christ intended only to foretell, and not to threaten, promise or command. In no modern writings is shall thus used by good English authors; nor would such use be tole rated. Equally improper is the use of should for would, in passages like the following: "If he were on earth, he should not be a priest." "For he knew who should betray him." These are not good English; should ought to be would. It is probable that the use of which for who, respecting persons; of shall for will, and of should for would, has introduced into the common version, a thousand instances of bad English. God speed are either from the Saxon, in which good is spelled god, and then the word good should be used, good speed, which would be correct English; or these were the initial words of some proverbial phrase, God speed you. Whatever the truth may be, the words as now written ought to be rejected, for they are neither grammar nor sense. It is painful to hear them uttered, as they often are, in a proverbial phrase. There are many words used in the common version which were well inserted when the translation was made, but having in present usage lost their former signification, they do not, to ordinary readers, express the true sense of the Scriptures. Some of them are wholly obsolete; others are in use, but expressing a different sense from that which the original languages express. Thus prevent, conversation, carriage, cunning, never express in the Bible the sense in which they are now understood. It is often said that the present version of the Bible is the standard of correct English, and useful in preserving it. This seems to me a great mistake; there being no book now in common use, the language of which is so ungrammatical as that of this version. This language is, for the most part, our popular language; and if properly corrected, would be a fine specimen of our Saxon or native tongue. But to be made a model of grammatical English, it must be purified from its numerous errors. This is the more necessary, as our young theologians sometimes use bad English, in imitating the language of the Scriptures. Especially ought the version to be purified from words which express a sense directly the reverse of that which was intended to be expressed. No man can be excused for writing or saying yes, when he means no ; especially in a solemn document. Neither time nor usage can justify the use of disannul and unloose, in the version of the Scriptures, when the true sense of the word of God is annul and loose. There is a great fault in the present version, in retaining indelicate words and phrases, introduced when the inhabitants of England were rude and unrefined. It appears to me inexcusable, if not immoral, to suffer words to remain in the version, which our manners do not permit to be uttered in company. Doubtless the Hebrew original was not offensive to the Israelites, not being at variance with their opinions and manners. Very different is the case with us. How can we justify the retaining, in the sacred oracles, of language which no decent person can repeat in company, or in the pulpit, and which, if uttered before his family, or in a company of females, would expose a person to be turned out of doors. Most of the ideas now expressed in objectionable terms, may be expressed in language which would not give offense, or cause a blush in any mixed company, at the present day. Obsolete words and ungrammatical phrases, in the common version of the Scriptures. Which for who, referring to persons. This impropriety runs through the version. Leasing for falsehood, is wholly obsolete. Ps. iv. Trow for think, suppose or trust, is obsolete. Luke xvii, 9. Wist, wit, wot, for know or knew, are obsolete. Deal for part, as a tenth deal, is obsolete. Ex. xxix. Cunning for skillful, is obsolete. Ex. xxvi. Surety for certainly, is obsolete. "Of a surety," for surely, is not now good English. Folk for persons or people, is obsolete. Gen. xxxiii, 15. Kinsfolk for kindred, is obsolete. Luke ii, 44. Evening tide for evening, is obsolete. Gen. xix, 1. Trade for employment or occupation, is improper. Gen. xlvi, 32, 34. Usury has now a different sense from that in which it is used in the version. Let for hinder, is obsolete. Rom. i, 13; 2 Thess. ii, 7. Ex. x, 14. Hay for herbage or green plants, is improper. Prov. xxvii, 25. Discover, in many passages, should be uncover, disclose, reveal, or lay bare. Micah i, 6; Is. iii, 17. Conversation, in the version, never signifies mutual discourse. Ps. xxxvii, 14. Prevent, in the version, never has the sense in which it is now used. |