Preface
[Page V.]
PREFACE.
THE necessity of a new translation of the Sacred Oracles into the English language has long been felt by all biblical students. The earliest translation of any part of the sacred writ into Anglo Saxon was the Psalter, by Adhelm, the first Bishop of Shuborn, A. D. 706. Soon after, Eadfrid, Bishop of Holy Island, translated the four Gospels. This manuscript is in the British Museum. Bede, in the same century, translated the Bible into Anglo Saxon. Alfred, king of England, a little later, translated the Psalter, and part of the New Testament, an edition of which published in London, A. D. 1640, edited by John Spelman, remains.
During the period in which the Anglo Saxon was being changed into the present English language, a variety of translations and revisions were made of parts, and a few of the whole Bible. But in 1603 Dr. Reynalds induced king James of England to appoint fifty-four distinguished men to revise the entire Bible. Of this number forty-seven assembled in six companies, and collated the various translations, both in the English and other languages, with the copies in the original languages, and finally agreed upon what is commonly known as King James’ Bible. It was first published in 1611. In 1683 it was corrected by Dr. Scattergood; in 1711 by Bishops Tennison and Lloyd; afterwards by Dr. Paris; and last by Dr. Blaney in 1769, whose work is treated by nearly all Protestants as a standard edition, and all subsequent impressions profess to conform to it.
The Roman Catholicks have a translation of the Old Testament made at the College at Doway, and of the New at Rheims, held in high repute by them, and doubtless quite as faithful as that of king James. There are also
[Page VI.]
various other translations, little known and seldom referred to, yet approved by some of the minor sects. These are generally mere revisions, in which different editors and revisers have made changes to suit their peculiar views and interests, and still bearing upon their faces the unmistakable mark in almost every chapter of some translator previous to king James’ famous revision. The peculiar merit of each is not in its general fidelity, but in its more accurate rendering of particular passages, or words of scripture. Neither king James’ or the Doway has attained its present eminence by its own merits, but each by the patronage with which it is sustained. In thousands of instances the same word in the original is translated by a different word in the English, when no reason for the variance can be given, except its influence on some particular doctrine. The names of the same persons are in different places written in so different a manner as not to be recognized by the unlearned, as Elias and Elijah, Isaiah and Esais, Osea and Oshea, Joshua and Jesus, Jacob and James, Mary and Miriam.
In various places the translators have been utterly unable to translate at all, the meaning of the original words being quite lost; as the word bdellium, Gen. ii. 12; Ezekiel (ix. 4) was commanded to go through Jerusalem and make a particular mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and mourn for all the abominations committed there. But what that mark was, translators have been utterly unable to determine. In the Hebrew it is the last letter of the alphabet, thau or tau, which in the genuine or ancient Hebrew character is identical with the sign of the cross. Roman Catholicks therefore interpret it as the sign of the cross. If this plausible interpretation is the true one, it is yet unaccountable that the form of the sign was changed when the Hebrew came to be written in the Chaldee character. Protestants, to destroy the plausibility of this interpretation,
[Page VII.]
render the passage “set a mark,” leaving out the very mark itself, which the prophet mentioned with so much particularity. The Protestant leaves out a part of the scripture, which he cannot understand, and the Catholick puts it in, utterly ignorant of what it means. Human ingenuity can never surmount the difficulty. Only an inspired translation can tell us what mark the prophet was to put upon their foreheads.
Everything in written or spoken language is the subject of interpretation, and in many instances doubtless there is a real difference of opinion among the learned as to the true interpretation of the scriptures, in the original tongues; and, therefore, if divested of all sectarian feeling, they could not agree upon a new translation; nor if agreed, could they be assured that they were certainly correct.
But there is another objection to resting a religious faith on those works, of far greater consequence. The copies from which the translations are made, are not authenticated, as accurate copies. In the various ancient copies collated, not less than thirty thousand variations in the reading have been discovered and marked. And yet all the copies of the Old Testament collated are derived from that of AARON BEN ASHER, written about A. D. 1034, or 2525 years subsequent to the giving of the tables of the law. The Jews of middle and eastern Asia have their various copies, varying from one another, derived from that of JACOB BEN NAPTHALI, who was cotemporary with AARON BEN ASHER, and whose copy varied greatly from his. The black Jews of India have still another copy, for which they claim a high antiquity, also varying greatly from each of the others. The Samaritan Pentateuch presents the highest claim to antiquity of all these various works, and contains many words, sentences, and even whole chapters, not found in the common Bibles.
[Page VIII.]
Of the New Testament the earliest copies are, first, the copy of Beza, now in the University of Cambridge, containing the four Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, with the old Italian or Latin translation, written probably in the fifth century. Second, the Vatican copy, written at some period from the fourth to the sixth century. Third, the Alexandrian copy, claimed to have been written soon after the Nicene Council, but not certainly entitled to a higher antiquity than the tenth century.
The most ancient of all manuscripts lack several important passages, now contained in all Testaments, and the controversialists of those days did not allude to them, though put to narrow straits for the testimony contained in them, by which we know that those passages are forgeries of a later date.
Several books are also mentioned in the scriptures, not now found in the Bible, but of equal authority with it, which have been lost; as for instance, another epistle of Paul to the Corinthian and the Ephesian churches, and the books of Iddo, Nathan, and others, prophets of high rank in Israel. But of all the lost books the most important was the Book of the Law of the Lord. This was kept in the ark of the covenant, and was held too sacred to go into the hands of strangers. When the Septuagint translation was made, the Book of the Law was kept back, and the Book lost to the Jewish nation in the time that they were subject to foreign powers. The various books in the Pentateuch, containing abstracts of some of the laws, have been read instead of it, until even the existence of the book has come to be a matter of doubt.
It is from an authorized copy of that book, written on metallick plates long previous to the Babylonish captivity, that this translation is made. And being made by the same spirit by which the words were originally dictated, it is beyond doubt as perfect as the language will admit
[Page IX.]
of. The utmost pains has been taken to make the execution of it in all respects what it should be, and the editor flatters himself that no errour has crept into the body of the work, and none of importance into the notes. That a little ambiguity may exist in some places, by means of the ambiguous or double import of words, is not doubted. Until a perfect language exists, it is not possible that it should be otherwise.
PREFACE.
THE necessity of a new translation of the Sacred Oracles into the English language has long been felt by all biblical students. The earliest translation of any part of the sacred writ into Anglo Saxon was the Psalter, by Adhelm, the first Bishop of Shuborn, A. D. 706. Soon after, Eadfrid, Bishop of Holy Island, translated the four Gospels. This manuscript is in the British Museum. Bede, in the same century, translated the Bible into Anglo Saxon. Alfred, king of England, a little later, translated the Psalter, and part of the New Testament, an edition of which published in London, A. D. 1640, edited by John Spelman, remains.
During the period in which the Anglo Saxon was being changed into the present English language, a variety of translations and revisions were made of parts, and a few of the whole Bible. But in 1603 Dr. Reynalds induced king James of England to appoint fifty-four distinguished men to revise the entire Bible. Of this number forty-seven assembled in six companies, and collated the various translations, both in the English and other languages, with the copies in the original languages, and finally agreed upon what is commonly known as King James’ Bible. It was first published in 1611. In 1683 it was corrected by Dr. Scattergood; in 1711 by Bishops Tennison and Lloyd; afterwards by Dr. Paris; and last by Dr. Blaney in 1769, whose work is treated by nearly all Protestants as a standard edition, and all subsequent impressions profess to conform to it.
The Roman Catholicks have a translation of the Old Testament made at the College at Doway, and of the New at Rheims, held in high repute by them, and doubtless quite as faithful as that of king James. There are also
[Page VI.]
various other translations, little known and seldom referred to, yet approved by some of the minor sects. These are generally mere revisions, in which different editors and revisers have made changes to suit their peculiar views and interests, and still bearing upon their faces the unmistakable mark in almost every chapter of some translator previous to king James’ famous revision. The peculiar merit of each is not in its general fidelity, but in its more accurate rendering of particular passages, or words of scripture. Neither king James’ or the Doway has attained its present eminence by its own merits, but each by the patronage with which it is sustained. In thousands of instances the same word in the original is translated by a different word in the English, when no reason for the variance can be given, except its influence on some particular doctrine. The names of the same persons are in different places written in so different a manner as not to be recognized by the unlearned, as Elias and Elijah, Isaiah and Esais, Osea and Oshea, Joshua and Jesus, Jacob and James, Mary and Miriam.
In various places the translators have been utterly unable to translate at all, the meaning of the original words being quite lost; as the word bdellium, Gen. ii. 12; Ezekiel (ix. 4) was commanded to go through Jerusalem and make a particular mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh and mourn for all the abominations committed there. But what that mark was, translators have been utterly unable to determine. In the Hebrew it is the last letter of the alphabet, thau or tau, which in the genuine or ancient Hebrew character is identical with the sign of the cross. Roman Catholicks therefore interpret it as the sign of the cross. If this plausible interpretation is the true one, it is yet unaccountable that the form of the sign was changed when the Hebrew came to be written in the Chaldee character. Protestants, to destroy the plausibility of this interpretation,
[Page VII.]
render the passage “set a mark,” leaving out the very mark itself, which the prophet mentioned with so much particularity. The Protestant leaves out a part of the scripture, which he cannot understand, and the Catholick puts it in, utterly ignorant of what it means. Human ingenuity can never surmount the difficulty. Only an inspired translation can tell us what mark the prophet was to put upon their foreheads.
Everything in written or spoken language is the subject of interpretation, and in many instances doubtless there is a real difference of opinion among the learned as to the true interpretation of the scriptures, in the original tongues; and, therefore, if divested of all sectarian feeling, they could not agree upon a new translation; nor if agreed, could they be assured that they were certainly correct.
But there is another objection to resting a religious faith on those works, of far greater consequence. The copies from which the translations are made, are not authenticated, as accurate copies. In the various ancient copies collated, not less than thirty thousand variations in the reading have been discovered and marked. And yet all the copies of the Old Testament collated are derived from that of AARON BEN ASHER, written about A. D. 1034, or 2525 years subsequent to the giving of the tables of the law. The Jews of middle and eastern Asia have their various copies, varying from one another, derived from that of JACOB BEN NAPTHALI, who was cotemporary with AARON BEN ASHER, and whose copy varied greatly from his. The black Jews of India have still another copy, for which they claim a high antiquity, also varying greatly from each of the others. The Samaritan Pentateuch presents the highest claim to antiquity of all these various works, and contains many words, sentences, and even whole chapters, not found in the common Bibles.
[Page VIII.]
Of the New Testament the earliest copies are, first, the copy of Beza, now in the University of Cambridge, containing the four Gospels, and the Acts of the Apostles, with the old Italian or Latin translation, written probably in the fifth century. Second, the Vatican copy, written at some period from the fourth to the sixth century. Third, the Alexandrian copy, claimed to have been written soon after the Nicene Council, but not certainly entitled to a higher antiquity than the tenth century.
The most ancient of all manuscripts lack several important passages, now contained in all Testaments, and the controversialists of those days did not allude to them, though put to narrow straits for the testimony contained in them, by which we know that those passages are forgeries of a later date.
Several books are also mentioned in the scriptures, not now found in the Bible, but of equal authority with it, which have been lost; as for instance, another epistle of Paul to the Corinthian and the Ephesian churches, and the books of Iddo, Nathan, and others, prophets of high rank in Israel. But of all the lost books the most important was the Book of the Law of the Lord. This was kept in the ark of the covenant, and was held too sacred to go into the hands of strangers. When the Septuagint translation was made, the Book of the Law was kept back, and the Book lost to the Jewish nation in the time that they were subject to foreign powers. The various books in the Pentateuch, containing abstracts of some of the laws, have been read instead of it, until even the existence of the book has come to be a matter of doubt.
It is from an authorized copy of that book, written on metallick plates long previous to the Babylonish captivity, that this translation is made. And being made by the same spirit by which the words were originally dictated, it is beyond doubt as perfect as the language will admit
[Page IX.]
of. The utmost pains has been taken to make the execution of it in all respects what it should be, and the editor flatters himself that no errour has crept into the body of the work, and none of importance into the notes. That a little ambiguity may exist in some places, by means of the ambiguous or double import of words, is not doubted. Until a perfect language exists, it is not possible that it should be otherwise.