« הקודםהמשך »
the publication of the Greek and English Lexicon, by Mr. Parkhurst, it is matter of both surprise and regret that a Greek and English Testament has not been attempted before. If the Greek and Latin Testament, by Leusden, was ever useful, and is still useful to the Latin scholar, a Greek and English Testament can be no less useful to the English reader. It is altogether vain and preposterous to pretend that the Hebrew and Greek languages cannot be learned without the knowledge of Latin. What Mr. Parkhurst has said, in the preface to his Greek and English Lexicon, may be added here with peculiar force. “I could wish,” says he, “it might be seriously weighed on the present occasion, whether the extraordinary respect still shown by Protestant nations to the Roman, in preference to the sacred Hebrew and Greek tongues, be not in truth a noxious relick of Popery. Since the time and pains which youth commonly spend on a language of such real difficulty as the Latin, might, with the assistance of proper grammars and lexicons, be abundantly sufficient for their instruction in the Hebrew of the Old, and Greek of the New Testament.” Let, then, the pious youth of our country, particularly those who are looking forward with a laudable desire to be useful in the work of the minis. try, and all others who wish to read the Scriptures for them. selves, lay aside so much useless study, useless indeed in relation to this important object, and come directly to the scriptures, and learn to read them in their original purity, on which, as real Christians, their faith and hope are wholly grounded.
It is to be regretted that this New Testament should not have coine from under the hand of some one who, on many accounts, might have had more influence in the Christian world ; in which case, even had it been no better, yet, undoubtedly, a more popular name would have rendered it more acceptable to many readers. Nevertheless, as the editor has ventured to insert but very little, if any thing, excepting what he has learned authority for so doing, and knowing it will be very acceptable to all the believers in the Abrahamic faith, it is believed that many others will make use of it, as a matter of convenience, even in spite of their prejudices. For since he has given the most correct Greek text, as acknowledged by all, it must be acknowledged, that, to those who are studying that alone, the translation, however imperfect it may be considered, cannot adulterate the original text. Wherever the editor has ventured to deviate from every and all the learned translators mentioned on the title page, it has been with a view either to
render the passage more literal, (and this only where it 3 could be done without injury to the sense) or else more cor
rect; of the correctness of which, if there be any doubt, the original is on the same page, which may be at all times appealed to in defence of the translation.
The word yevra gehenna, which is rendered hell, in all the translations named on the title page, excepting Scarlett, is retained in this translation ; but this is done, not upon the authority of Scarlett, but upon the Latin version of the Syriac; as also upon the Latin of Montanus, as well as the French version. None, however, except the Latin version of the Syriae, and Scarlett, have begun the word with a capital, which
undoubtedly is more correct, as the word is derived from, or i rather is a corruption of “the two Hebrew words 'a a valley, I and on Hinnom, the name of a person who was once the possessor of it.” Hence, says Mr. Parkhurst, “ In the New Testament, reeva tov Tugos, A Gehenna of fire, Mat. v. 22, does, I apprehend, in its outward and primary sense, relate
to that dreadful doom of being burnt alive in the valley of · Hinnom.” See Parkhurst's Greek and English Lexicon, | under the word leave. Now, it is conceived that this is not TO
only the “outward and primary sense,” but certainly the most awful sense that either ought, or can, with any justice to the text, be attached to such a phrase. The only other sense of the word which we find in the New Testament, is in James iïi. 6, where, by a metonymy, it is applied to the wickedness of the tongue.
As to the word oons hades, which, in the common version, is invariably rendered hell, in the New Testament, (except in 1 Cor. xv. 55, where it is rendered grave,) Dr. Campbell says, “In my judgment, it ought never in Scripture to be rendered heli, at least in the sense wherein that word is now - universally understood by Christians. In the Old Testament, the corresponding word is bu sheol, which signifies the state of the dead in general, without regard to the goodness or badness of the persons, their happiness or misery. In translating that word, the Seventy have almost invariably used èons. The state is always represented under those figures which suggest something dreadful, dark, and silent, about which the most prying eye, and listening ear, can acquire no information. 'The term oons hades, is well adapted to express this idea. To this the word hell, in its primitive signification, perfectly corresponded. For, at first, it de
noted only what was secret or concealed.” See Prelim. Dissert. page 274. Therefore, being a disputed term,
and susceptible of different meanings, it has been thought
proper, on the authority of Campbell and Scarlett, to retain this word also in the translation.
As to the word aw, plural caves, and the adjective awion, it has been thought best to adhere strictly to the text, in rendering the noun or substantive, according to its literal import, age, plural ages; and as to the adjective, having, no word in English which exactly conveys the idea of the original word wysov, it has been thought that this word, like many others even in the common version, should be retained in the translation; only giving it a Roman, or rather, as we may say, an English dress, aionian. This has been already done by Scarlett ; who also renders aww age, alwns ages. Being a shorter word, and equally pleasant to the ear as the word everlasting, no one can object that this should be associated with the language of scripture ; a language, in many respects, peculiar to itself, and whose peculiarities (particu. larly of the New Testament) are mostly limited to religious subjects. If the original word be retained, then in reading or quoting all or any of the passages where it is used, the reader or hearer will have full liberty to give it his own construction, according to his own understanding; and as we are not disposed either to extend or limit its meaning in any way not justified by the inspired writers, this has been thought on the whole the safest method. In many places, its meaning may be extended indefinitely without injury to the sense ; and wherever the sense seems to require that its meaning should be restricted, or, in other words, not extended beyond its original import, only let it be understood that it means continued duration without interruption, which may be either longer or shorter as the nature of the case may require, and it removes all difficulty on the subject. And this sense of the word will not, yea, cannot be disputed by the learned.
The words dichotos and octavus, are in this translation invariably rendered according to the original meaning and import of those terms. A.ccbonos is from descond, perf. mid. of dicebadaw; which is froin doce through, and Gaara to cast. To dart or strike through; whence, in a figurative sense, To strike or stab with an accusation or evil report, to accuse. Hence, diconos signifies an accuser, a slanderer; in a word, an impostor. See Parkhurst's Greek and English Lexicon. “Satan,” says Dr. Campbell, (Prelim. Dissert. p. 187.) " though conceived by us a proper name, was an appellative in the language spoken by our Lord; for, from the Hebrew, it passed into the Syriac, and signified no more than an adversary or opponent." Thus much it has been thought necessary to say in justification of the translation of the above
terms; and also, as has been previously stated, for retaining others, which it has been thought proper to retain. But as it is designed and intended that this translation shall also be accompanied with the original Greek, it is conceived that through the medium of this translation, thus guarded, no false idea can be palmed upon the public ; for here, with the English, is the original Greek, side by side, in order to detect any error which can be discovered by the most discerning eye of the critic.
No alteration has been made in the original text, except in the division of the paragraphs, which have been made conveniently short, yet, however, not so as materially to injure the sense. And here let it be also understood, that, having adopted the improved version as our basis, on account of its being professedly founded on the text of Griesbach, in no case has it been deviated from merely for the sake of altering, (though, perhaps, some would have preferred a different reading) nor, on the other hand, has it been servilely followed merely to save the trouble of revising; and in every in stance where an alteration has been made, it has been for the sake of further improvement. How far the editor has succeeded in this respect, is submitted to the candour of those who are capable of judging.
As it respects the many various readings mentioned in the original notes of Griesbach, they are not here inserted with the Greek text; neither have they been wholly passed unnoticed. Those words and sentences rejected by him, as well as those words and sentences which have crept into some copies which ought not to be admitted, are here passed without notice. Also, all those words and sentences which are omitted in some copies, but which ought not to be omitted, (except a very few, which are enclosed in brackets, upon the authority of Wakefield, or the improved version) as well as those which have been added by Griesbach to the received text (but upon good authority) are here inserted without any distinguishing mark. But such words as are retained in the text, but which perhaps should be omitted, are (in this translation) inclosed in brackets.* Such words as should probably be omitted, are inclosed in brackets, and printed in Italic.* And such sentences as most certainly
* These words generally either make the sense more full and com. plete, or else they serve for explanation, and were probably added for that purpose. A proper name is often added, as Jesus, Peter, John, &c. which makes the sense more explicit; though the reader must notice that if the noun had been wanting, its equivalent pronoun would have been understood, As Mat. iv. 12, “ Now Jesus hearing that John was
should be omitted, and which are inclosed in brackets in Griesbach, are inclosed in double brackets, and printed in Italic. See John v. 4. viii. 1-11. All supplied words are, as usual, in Italic. Sentences printed in Italic in the improved version, as indications of their being of doubtful authority, although not rejected or marked as being doubtful by Griesbach, are also printed in Italic, but not inclosed in brackets. Of the latter description are the words of Christ to the thief, Luke xxiii. 43; and the narratives contained in the two first chapters of Matthew and Luke.
These are found in all manuscripts and versions now extant; but for very satisfactory reasons given in the lenghthy notes on the subject in the improved version, many have been led to doubt whether they were in reality written by the Evangelists. Their being printed in Italic, makes them no less authentic : it is only done to show the opinion of the editors of the improved version on this subject. They were evidently want. ing in some of the early copies, at least; and as they add nothing to the validity of other parts of the New Testament, so neither can the want of them take away any thing from the essentials of Christianity. But concerning these things let every one be fully persuaded in his own mind.
If doubts should arise in the mind of any as to the propriety of this translation, in any particular part or parts, it is to be hoped, and candidly expected, that no one will hastily censure or condemn, until he has compared it with the several translations mentioned on the title page; and also carefully examined the essays, dissertations, and critical notes of those learned authors ; and even the possession of
imprisoned, retired into Galilee." This is as Dr. Campbell renders the passage : but leaving out the word Jesus, (which is omitted in some good copies) it might be rendered thus : “Now hearing that John was im. prisoned, he retired into Galilee.” The sense is the same, but not so explicit, as the pronoun he refers to Jesus, verse 10. "The same may be observed respecting the passages in ch. xiii. 36 xiv. 14. xvii. 26, and many other places. In some places the words inclosed in brack: ets are necessary to the sense, and would have been supplied in the translation even if they had been wholly wanting. Instead of the pronoun his, in some texts, as Luke vi. 45, you may read the, for the text literally is “the mouth (of him]." See Matth. xxvi. 65, where literally it is " the blasphemy (of him].” In places where the definite article (the) is inclosed in brackets, if it is to be omitted, and the sense requiring it, the indefinite article a, will be understood, as that is never expressed in the Greek, neither is it always necessary that the definite article should be translated; while, in some instances, it is required in the translation, although not inserted in the Greek. See Middleton on the Greek article.