Billeder på siden
PDF
ePub

1 Kings ii. 9. The dying charge of David to Solomon, relative to Shimei, has been often censured by sceptics, but their censure is founded upon an erroneous translation. The Hebrew word should be read disjunctively, and then we have, "Now, therefore, neither hold him guiltless, for thou art a wise man; nor his hoar head bring thou down to the grave with blood." Let this rendering be compared with the history in the latter verses of the same chapter.

Job xxxix. 12. "Wilt thou believe him (i. e. the unicorn, or rhinoceros,) that he will bring home thy seed, and gather it into thy barn?" should be rendered, "Wilt thou trust him, that he may bring home thy grain, and gather in thy harvest?" The substitution of believe for trust or confide in, arises from a mistake analogous to that which will be noticed in its order, relative to John xiv. 1, &c.

Prov. xix. 18. "Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying." This is a most harsh and unnatural translation, of which, indeed, those employed upon this part of the authorized version are aware. Their marginal reading, which, unfortunately, is not in every copy, is, "Let not thy soul cause him to die." The meaning of the Hebrew is, "Thou shalt not lift up thy soul for his death." Dr. Good's rendering, in a translation of the Proverbs, not yet published, is, "Let not thy soul bear the burden of his destruction."

Isaiah xiv. 22. "Son and nephew," should be "son and son's son;" as in the translation of Gen. xxi. 23.

Isaiah xliv. 18. "He hath shut their eyes that they cannot see, and their hearts that they cannot understand." This should be, "Their eyes are closed up,

that they cannot see, and their heart that they cannot understand." See Lowth and Boothroyd, in loc.

So again, Isaiah lxiii. 17. “O Lord, why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and hardened our heart from thy fear?" should be, "Why hast thou suffered us to err from thy ways, to harden our hearts against the fear of thee?"

Many erroneous translations akin to these, have led some crude speculatists to circulate highly dangerous opinions as to the Divine conduct.

Thus Jerem. xx. 7. "Lord, thou hast deceived me," should be," Thou hast allured me, or overpersuaded me." Luke xxiii. 32. "There were also two other malefactors led with him to be put to death." This translation, which implies that our blessed Lord was a malefactor, is the more extraordinary, insomuch as it is a deviation from the "Bishops' Bible," not warranted by the original. "There were two others, who were evil-doers, led with him to be slain." In some recent editions of Oxford and Cambridge Bibles, this error has been corrected; in others it remains, the correction being made without due ecclesiastical authority.

John ii. 4. The harsh rendering of our Lord's reply to his mother, "Woman, what have I to do with thee?" is not warranted by the original, of which the literal translation is, "What to me and thee?"

John xiv. 1. "Ye believe in God, believe also in me;" would be better rendered, "Ye trust in God, trust also in me."

So also Acts xvi. 31. should be, "Trust in the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." And Acts xx. 21. "Repentance towards God, and trust in our Lord Jesus Christ."

L

It is, indeed, important to observe, that in the New Testament the words is and wisɛvw are never used to express belief in any fact that is not fitted to excite confidence in God, or in Christ. Out of more than 130 instances of their occurrence, there is only one that is at all doubtful. This is momentous, as it serves to prove that faith goes far beyond mere assent or belief, and confirms, as Dr. Watts remarks, "the constant sentiment of our Protestant divines, in their opposition to the Papists, that fides est fiducia."

1 Cor. xiii. Charity occurs throughout, instead of love. The term was rendered love in Coverdale's, and, indeed, most of the versions that preceded this under King James. The mistranslation serves as the foundation of a gross theological error.

2 Thess. i. 12. "According to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ," should be rendered, "According to the grace of Jesus Christ, our God and Lord."

1 Tim. v. 21. "Before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ," ought to be, "Before Jesus Christ, the God and Lord."

Titus ii. 13. "The glorious appearing of the great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ," should be, "The glorious appearing of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ."*

Heb. ix. 15. The word dialŋkn, which in this and the five following verses is rendered testament, ought, doubtless, to be covenant, as it is in the preceding chapter. This simple correction removes much of the

Eph. v. 5, 2 Pet. i. 1 and Jude 4, require an analogous rendering, altogether much augmenting the body of evidence in favour of the divinity of our Lord. Vid. Sharp on the Greek article, pp. xxix. xl. 1—56.

difficulty which some have found in interpreting the apostle's reasoning in this portion of his epistle.

Rev. xi. 7. "When they (the two witnesses) shall have finished their testimony," should be rendered, "Whilst they shall perform their testimony;" as Daubuz shews, and as Grotius, More, Mede, and others, admit. This view of the passage, it is evident, may greatly affect the interpretation of the prophecy.

Rev. xvi. 1. "Go your ways, and pour out the vials of the wrath of God," should have been rendered bowls or basins, and so wherever the word occurs in that and the succeeding chapter. "We have proved (says Daubuz,) that pain, the word here used, is a bowl or basin, proper for libations, to pour the liquor contained all at once." " Α φιαλη is supposed by all interpreters, (says Vitringa,) to have certainly had the shape of a cup." The Seventy usually employ the same word to signify a basin or bowl. And the term in the Revelations is now generally understood to indicate that the several divine judgments, in reference to which it is employed, will be rapidly executed.*

* That this correction may not be regarded as of little moment, I may shew how strangely the word has been misapplied, even by that eminent individual, Jeremy Taylor. In one of his Sermons on "The Miracles of the Divine Mercy," he says, "When God sent an angel to pour plagues upon the earth, (Apoc. xv. 7.) there were in their hands golden phials:" for the death of man is precious and costly, and it is an expense that God delights not in: but they were phials, that is, such vessels as out of them no great evil could come at once; but it comes out with difficulty, sobbing and troubled as it passeth forth; it comes through a narrow neck, and the parts of it crowd at the port to get forth, and are stifled by each other's neighbourhood, and all strive to get out, but few can pass; as if God did nothing but threaten, and draw his judgments to the mouth of the phial with a full body, and there made it stop itself." Works, vol. vi. p. 217, edition of 1822.

Doubtless nothing can exceed the mercy of God, as made known to us in the Gospel dispensation. But the above is far from a correct representation of it; and one cannot but regret that it should seem to receive any colour from an erroneous rendering in the established version.

It would be easy to extend this list of mistranslations considerably. But from what is already adduced, we may, I think, ask, without presumption, whether it is expedient in itself, honourable to God, or safe towards the souls of men, to allow errors to remain in a translation of the Scriptures universally circulated by public authority, which lead to inaccurate conceptions of the character of the Supreme Being, and of his dealings towards his creatures, yield mistaken representations of the conduct of "his people," of the nature of faith and of charity, of the media of God's judgments, and of the anticipatory description of future events; and do not give their natural force to several passages that confirm the doctrine of our Lord's Divinity? Or, whether it should not be regarded as an indispensable duty, without delay to undertake at least a cautious revision, in which every thing theologically erroneous, or inconsistent with the "analogy of faith," may be most scrupulously expunged?

But, on the supposition that a revision were undertaken, ought it merely to include the correction of errors, such as those to which I have ventured to advert, or should it make decisive inroads upon the style and language of the present Authorized Version? With the exception of the instances of grossness and vulgarity, which sometimes thrust themselves upon our notice, it is generally acknowledged that the style of this version has a simple dignity, a chaste elevation, and a flowing harmony, which are truly remarkable: and hence, since the language itself has taken possession of our memory, our ear, and our taste, becoming more venerable by its growing antiquity, many argue that it is better to tolerate the errors which it contains

« ForrigeFortsæt »