If our translators had copied as minutely in this instance as they have done in some others, the patriarch they would indeed have named Jacob, and each of the two apostles Jacobus. However, as in naming the two last, they have thought fit to substitute James, which use also has confirmed, I have preserved this distinction. 14. Upon the whole, in all that concerns proper names, I have conformed to the judicious rule of King James the First more strictly, I suppose, than those translators to whom it was recommended: The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, are to be retained, as near as may be, according as they are vulgarly used." PART IV. THE OUTWARD FORM OF THE VERSION. I AM now to offer a few things on the form in which this translation is exhibited. It is well known, that the division of the books of holy writ into chapters and verses does not proceed from the inspired writers, but is a contrivance of a much later date. Even the punctuation, for distinguishing the sentences from one another, and dividing every sentence into its constituent members and clauses, though a more ancient invention, was for many ages, except by grammarians and rhetoricians, hardly ever used in transcribing; insomuch, that whatever depends merely on the division of sentences, on points, aspirations, and accents, cannot be said to rest ultimately, as the words themselves do, upon the authority of the sacred penmen. These particulars give free scope for the sagacity of criticism, and unrestrained exercise to the talent of investigating, inasmuch as in none of these points is there any ground for the plea of inspiration. 2. As to the division into chapters and verses, we know that the present is not that which obtained in primitive ages, and that even the earliest division is not derived from the apostles, but from some of their first commentators, who, for the conveniency of readers, contrived this method. The division into chapters that now universally prevails in Europe, derived its origin from Cardinal Caro, who lived in the twelfth century; the subdivision into verses is of no older date than the middle of the sixteenth century, and was the invention of Robert Stephens. That there are many advatages which result from so minute a partition of the sacred oracles, cannot be denied. The facility with which any place, in consequence of this method, is pointed out by the writer and found by the reader; the easy recourse it gives, in consulting commentators, to the passage whereof the explanation is wanted; the aid it has afforded to the compilers of concordances, which are of considerable assistance in the study of Scripture; these, and many other accommodations, have accrued from this contrivance. 3. It is not, however, without its inconveniences. This manner of mincing a connected work into short sentences, detached from one another, not barely in appearance, by their being ranked under separate numbers and by the breaks in the lines, but in effect, by the influence which the text, thus parcelled out, has insensibly had on copiers and translators, both in pointing and in translating, is not well suited to the species of composition which obtains in all the sacred books, except the Psalms and the book of Proverbs. To the epistolary and argumentative style it is extremely ill adapted, as has been well evinced by Mr. Locke ;* neither does it suit the historical. There are inconveniences which would result from this way of dividing, even if executed in the best manner possible; but, though I am unwilling to detract from the merit of an expedient which has been productive of some good consequences, I cannot help observing, that the inventors have been far too hasty in conducting the execution. The subject is sometimes interrupted by the division into chapters. Of this I might produce many examples, but, for brevity's sake, shall mention only a few. The last verse of the fifteenth chapter of Matthew is much more closely connected with what follows in the sixteenth, than with what precedes. In like manner, the last verse of the nineteenth chapter, "Many shall be first that are last, and last that are first," ought not to be disjoined (I say not, from the subsequent chapter, but even) from the subsequent paragraph which contains the parable of the laborers hired to work in the vineyard, brought merely in illustration of that sentiment, and beginning and ending with it. The first verse of the fifth chapter of Mark is much more properly joined to the concluding paragraph of the fourth chapter, as it shows the completeness of the miracle there related, than to what follows in the fifth. The like may be remarked of the first verse of the ninth chapter. Of the division into verses it may be observed, that it often occasions an unnatural separation of the members of the same sentence;† nay sometimes, which is worse, the same verse comprehends a part of two different sentences. That this division should often have a bad effect upon translators is inevitable. First, by attending narrowly to the verses, an in Essay for the understanding of St. Paul's Epistles, prefixed to his Paraphrase and Notes on some of the Epistles. + In Matt. 11: 2, we have a verse without a verb, and ending with a comma. των. terpreter runs the risk of overlooking the right, and adopting a wrong division of the sentences. Of this I shall give one remarkable example from the Gospel of John, ch. 10: 14: 15. Our Lord says, in one of his discourses, 'Εγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός· καὶ γινώσκω τὰ ἐμα, καὶ γινώσκομαι ὑπὸ τῶν ἐμῶν, καθώς γινώσκει με ὁ πατὴρ, και γὼ γινώσκω τον πατέρα· καὶ τὴν ψυχήν μου τίθημι ὑπὲρ τῶν προβά When the sentence is thus pointed, as it manifestly ought to be, and exhibited unbroken by the division into verses, no person can doubt that the following version is equally close to the letter and to the sense: I am the good Shepherd; I both know my own, and am known by them, even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father; and lay down my life for the sheep. But its being divided into two sentences, and put into separate verses, has occasioned the disjointed and improper version given in the common translation: "14. I am the good Shepherd, and know my sheep; and am known of mine. 15. As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep." In this artificial distribution (which seems to have originated from Beza; for he acknowledges that, before him, the fifteenth verse included only the last member, "and I lay down," etc.) the second sentence is an abrupt, and totally unconnected, interruption of what is affirmed in the preceding words, and in the following; whereas, taking the words as they stand naturally, it is an illustration by similitude, quite in our Lord's manner, of what he had affirmed in the foregoing words. But though the translator should not be misled in this manner, a desire of preserving, in every verse of his translation, all that is found in the corresponding verse of his original, that he may adjust the one to the other, and give verse for verse, may oblige him to give the words a more unnatural arrangement in his own language, than he would have thought of doing if there had been no such division into verses, and he had been left to regulate himself solely by the sense. 4. Influenced by these considerations, I have determined, neither entirely to reject the common division, nor to adopt it in the manner which is usually done. To reject it entirely, would be to give up one of the greatest conveniences we have in the use of any version, for every purpose of occasional consultation and examination, as well as for comparing it with the original and with other versions. Nor is it enough that a more commodious division than the present may be devised, which shall answer all the useful purposes of the common version, without its inconveniences. Still there are some advantages which a new division could not have, at least for many centuries. The common division, such as it is, has prevailed universally, and does prevail, not in this kingdom only, but throughout all Christendom. Concordances in different languages, commentaries, versions, paraphrases; all theological works, critical, polemical, devotional, practical, in their order of commenting on Scripture, and in all their references to Scripture, regulate themselves by it. If we would not then have a new version rendered in a great measure useless to those who read the old, or even the original, in the form wherein it is now invariably printed, or who have recourse to any of the helps above-mentioned, we are constrained to adopt, in some shape or other, the old division. 5. For these reasons I have judged it necessary to retain it; but at the same time, in order to avoid the disadvantages attending it, I have followed the method taken by some other editors, and confined it to the margin. This answers sufficiently all the purposes of reference and comparison, without tending so directly to interrupt the reader, and divert him from perceiving the natural connexion of the things treated. I have also adopted such a new division into sections and paragraphs, as appeared to me better suited than the former, both to the subject of these histories and to the manner of treating it. Nothing, surely, can be more incongruous, than to cut down a coherent narrative into shreds, and give it the appearance of a collection of aphorisms. This, therefore, I have carefully avoided. The sections are, one with another, nearly equal to two chapters; a few of them more, but many less. In making this division, I have been determined partly by the sense, and partly by the size. In every section I have included such a portion of Scripture as seemed proper to be read at one time, by those who regularly devote a part of every day to this truly Christian exercise. To make all the portions of equal length, or nearly so, was utterly incompatible with a proper regard to the sense. I have avoided breaking off in the middle of a distinct story, parable, conversation, or even discourse, delivered in continuance. The length of three of the longest sections in this work, was occasioned by the resolution not to disjoin the parts of one continued discourse. The sections I allude to are, the sermon on the mount, and the prophecy on Olivet, as recorded by Matthew, together with our Lord's valedictory consolations to his disciples, as related by John. The first occupies three ordinary chapters, the second two long ones, and the third four short chapters. But though I have avoided making a separation where the scope of the place requires unity, I could not, in a consistency with any regard to size, allot a separate section to every separate incident, parable, conversation, or miracle. When these, therefore, are briefly related, insomuch that two or more of them can be included in a section of moderate length, I have separated them only by paragraphs. The length of the paragraph is determined merely by the sense. Accordingly, some of them contain no more than a verse of the common division, and others little less than a chapter. One parable makes one paragraph. When an explanation is given separately, the explanation makes another; when it follows immediately, and is expressed very briefly, both are included in one. Likewise, one miracle makes one paragraph; but when the narrative is interrupted, and another miracle intervenes, as happens in the story of the daughter of Jairus, more paragraphs are requisite. When the transition, in respect of the sense, seems to require a distinction more strongly marked, it has been judged expedient to leave a blank line, and to begin the next paragraph with a word in capitals, 6. It was not thought necessary to number the paragraphs, as this way is now, unless in particular cases, and for special purposes, rather unusual; and as all the use of reference and quotation may be sufficiently answered by the old division on the margin. In the larger distribution into sections, I have, according to the most general custom, both numbered and titled them. But as to this method of dividing, I will not pretend that it is not in a good measure arbitrary, and that it might not with equal propriety, have been conducted otherwise. As it was necessary to comprehend distinct things in the same section, there was no clear rule by which one could, in all cases, be directed where to make the separation. It was indeed evident, that wherever it could occasion an unseasonable interruption in narration, dialogue or argument, it was improper; and that this was all that could be ascertained with precision. The title of the sections I have made as brief as possible, that they may be the more easily remembered; and have for this purpose, employed words, as we find some employed in the rubric of the Common Prayer, which have not been admitted into the text. To these I have added, in the same taste, the contents of the section, avoiding minuteness, and giving only such hints of the principal matters, as may assist the reader to recall them to his remembrance, and may enable him at first glance, to discover whether a passage he is looking for be in the section or not. I have endeavored to avoid the fault of those who make the contents of the chapters supply, in some degree, a commentary, limiting the sense of Scripture by their own ideas. Those who have not dared to make so free with the text, have thought themselves entitled to make free with these abridgments of their own framing. To insert thus without hesitation into the contents prefixed to the several chapters, and thereby insinuate, under the shelter of inspiration, doubtful meanings which favor their own prepossessions, I cannot help considering as one way of handling the word of God deceitfully. I have, therefore, avoided throwing any thing into those summaries which could be called explanatory, and have, besides, thought it better to assign them a separate place in this work, where the reader may consult them when he chooses, than to intermix them with the truths we have directly from the sacred writers. 7. Most translators have found it necessary to supply some |