« ÎnapoiContinuați »
gest. Adding nothing to the price of the volume, they will be accepted for whatever of value or interest they may possess. Earnest minds will not be diverted by them from those things that are confessedly of far greater importance.
For the purposes of the majority of those who will make a profitable use of this edition of the Revision a sufficiently full explanation of its plan will be found on the page facing the Gospel of Matthew. The working out of the scheme has, however, brought to light some special phases of which it has been judged fitting to give a brief account. This is done in the ensuing Supplement, which contains also a number of items of a more general character.
May the blessing of Almighty God rest upon the labors which have been a delight to those privileged to take part in them, and which are here brought to a close.
RUFUS WENDELL. ALBANY, January 9, 1882.
1. Excepting the curves, and the asterisk and dagger, the diacritical marks, on the ground of likeness or contrast, arrange themselves in pairs. Thus “,” and “3” refer to matter in the Authorized Version ; “2” and “4" perform a mutually opposite service; “4” and “ 16" mark the same words; "5" and "12" always, “6” and “14” usually, and “7" and "13" never involve substitution; and “g” and “ 15" refer, the one to genuine, the other to spurious, added readings of the Greek next.
2. Throughout the work, all matter marked with the plain line, in the text, is substituted for uninclosed matter in the “A. V." foot-notes. So, also, such uninclosed matter has always an alternative rendering, marked with the plain line, in the text.
3. Another rule, departed from only when a change of construction required it for the sake of clearness, has been that no word common to the Authorized and Revised versions should be underlined in the text or appear in the “A. V.” foot-notes. If in this part of the work there has been misjudgment, it has been in following the rule too closely; for it will occasionally be found that a word has been treated as common which is so only in orthography and pronunciation, not in meaning or construction. It is thought that the few words thus dealt with will occasion no difficulty in noting the changes made by the Revisers.
4. The peculiar nature of the text, as a revision and not a new translation, has given a highly analytic character to the labors embodied in the present edition. More than fourteen per cent. of the matter (over and above mere transpositions of retained words) has been changed by the Revisers; involving a wide range of alterations, in word, phrase, and clause; by addition and exclu
sion; by expansion and contraction; by transposition and transference. In treating subordinate clauses, the Revisers have used the greatest freedom; turning them into inf ive participial forms, or promoting them to the rank of principal clauses; and again making the reverse changes to subordinate forms. Sometimes the alteration is in a single word, the connective; sometimes it involves the whole construction; and still other changes exemplify the varying degrees between these extremes. In marking, the subordinate connective, as being simply an addition, has received the dotted line in the text; or, when sent to the "A. V." foot-notes as simply excluded matter, has been inclosed in a parenthesis; while the remaining alterations have been dealt with on general principles, according to their character.
5. The curves, in connection with the verse numerals; the dotted line and dotted parallel, in the text; and the parenthesis and brackets, in the “A. V.” foot-notes, have been invariably applied in strict accordance with the explanations given of them as diacritical marks.
6. Revision renderings of critically substituted Greek, since in some cases they do not take the place of anything in the Common version, are not always substitutional with respect to the English text; and foot-note matter based on spurious substitutions in the Greek is sometimes not superseded by a revised translation. Examples involving these anomalies fall into classes, which it may be of use briefly to specify.
(1) The Greek abounds in compound forms, which in translation are usually separated into their primitives. When a compound takes the place of a simple form, there is, in strictness, a critical substitution; whereas in the version it may appear simply as an addition. This addition cannot, however, following the rule applicable to an ordinary fuller rendering, receive the dotted line; but, being due to a substituted Greek reading, must be marked with the plain parallel, as if it were also a substituted rendering. On the other hand, the replacement of a compound by a simple form, in the Greek, may send to the "A. V.”. foot-notes matter which, as it rests on a substituted spurious reading in the original, must be inclosed by upright dashes, though it has no alternative rendering in the Revision. Examples: in the text, Matt. viii. 2, “to him "; Luke iv. 42, “after”; in the foot-notes, Matt. vii. 2, “again"; Luke ix. 38, “out."
(2) The Greek has no single words to represent the English auxiliaries, except in rare instances the auxiliary be. When forms of the verb requiring the auxiliary to render them into English are substituted for those which do not, or the reverse, the auxiliary alone is marked in the text or shown in the foot-notes. Examples: in the text, Mark xi. 8, “ had”; Luke xii. 58, “shall”; in the foot-notes, Luke vi. 9, “ will "; viii. 29, “ had.”
(3) In a few instances, the change is in the principal verb, the common word being used as an auxiliary on the one hand, and as a principal verb on the other. Examples: in the text, 1 Thess. ii. 8, “become ”; Rev. xxii, 11, “made"; in the foot-notes, Matt. xvi. 8, "brought."
(4) In substitutions between the imperative, when it is rendered into English without an auxiliary, and the infinitive or other forms, which require other words to show their relations. Examples: in the text, Luke ix. 38, “to”; in the footnotes, Acts ix. 38, “that he would.”
(5) In substitutions between different forms of the same verb, new subjects
appear as imperfect substitutes, the verb remaining common. Examples: “they " in the text of Luke xii. 53 and Acts xviii. 3.
(6) In substitutions between simple words, forms requiring two words to render them in English may be replaced by those requiring one, and the reverse. These occur in the exchange of comparative or superlative forms of adjectives for positive, diminutive nouns for their primitives, adjectives used adverbially for those used substantively, etc. Examples: in the text, Mark iv. 1, “very"; xii. 33, “much"; in the foot-notes, Mark xv. 14, “the more"; 2 Tim. i. 17, “very”; Heb. xii. 24, “things"; Rev. x. 8, “ little.”
(7) Substitutions between different cases of the same nouns change in English, except in the peculiar prepositions which express their relations. These produce imperfect alternations when the nominative or accusative is substituted for the genitive or dative, and the reverse. Examples: in the text, Mark ii. 16, “of”; Rev. xix. 5, "to"; in the foot-notes, Mark ii. 18, “of”; Luke i. 50, “to."
(8) A word is sometimes translated in one version and its critical substitute is untranslated in the other. Examples: in the text, Matt. xiv. 13,“now”; Rom. xiii. II, “ you”; in the foot-notes, Mark iv. 8, 20, “some"; Heb. xii. II, “ now."
(9) A rendering is sometimes critically introduced, or rejected, while the alternative rendering, being common to both versions, is unmarked. Examples: in the text, Luke xvi. 25, “here"; John xiv. 14, “that"; in the footnotes, Matt. ix. 5, “thee"; Mark ii. 9, "thee."
(10) Miscellaneous peculiarities. Examples: in the text, Matt. xxii. 39, “this "; Mark i. 39, “ went"; Eph. v. 5, “ot a surety”; Rev. xii. 5, “a ... child”; in the foot-notes, Luke xi. 11, “ if”; John xi. 57, “a.”
7. Some difficulty has been found in properly distributing the English words “cannot”; “no,” equivalent to “not"; and “lest,” equivalent to “that not," in cases of critical alternation not involving the negative in the original. In Mark iii. 25 “will not be able" occurs as a critical substitute for "cannot." In fact, the change in the Greek does not involve the common “not"; but inasmuch as the A. V."not" is part of “cannot,” and it was deemed desirable to have the critical basis of the new rendering appear, the whole has been marked as critical. See Mark iv. 40 and Col. ii. 4, where a non-critical common negative also occurs.
8. Several classes may be mentioned wherein critical changes in the Greek, due to added or cancelled readings, have not been indicated by diacritical marks: (1) Sometimes the change has no effect upon the translation ; (2) often the A. V. rendering of a critically cancelled word is revisionally retained in Italics as being demanded to complete the thought; and (3) it sometimes happens that a word in Italics in the A. V. has, by an addition in the Greek text, become an actual rendering in the Revision.
9. The A. V. marginal renderings which have been adopted in the Revised text have commonly alternates in the “A. V." foot-notes. Sometimes, as in Matt. vi. I, the marginal renderings adopted have a critical basis. On the other hand, those portions of the A. V. text which are retained in the Revision margin may be simple exclusions, as in Matt. xvi. 7; usually, however, they are alternates of the Revised text, as in Mark xiv. 24. The diacritical marks designated by “2” and “ 16" have been used, wherever they appear, in preference to those that would otherwise be applicable, in conformity to the principle that the text and margin of the Authorized Version shall have credit for all that they have contributed to the text or margin of the Revision.
10. The renderings of the Revision margin have been compared with the A. V. and Revised texts and with the A. V. margin. All such renderings, that are not underlined, are either repeated from the text or retained from the A. V. margin. All added words are marked with the dotted line or the dotted parallel. To understand the application of the plain line, and the plain parallel, to the Revision margin, it must be remembered that the alternation is made with the A. V. text. Where the A. V. and Revised texts differ there is, of course, an alternation with each; it is commonly revisional, sometimes critical. In one place, at least, 2 Cor. iii. 14, the margin is critical with reference to both texts.
11. No attempt has been made to note textual changes in the Greek, except so far as they appear in the Revision. All additions and exclusions appear as a matter of course, except as indicated in paragraph 8; so do substitutions in the great majority of cases. While in some instances the critical alteration would not allow an altered rendering, in others it legitimates a former mistranslation of the Received Greek text. In some places changes in the Revision accompany those in the Greek, but are of such a nature that the former were not dictated by the latter. The guiding principle has been to mark as critical everything of critical importance; and in cases of a change of word simultaneous with a change of rendering the fact has been noted irrespective of the question of dependence of the latter upon the former. An illustration occurs in Acts xviii. 3, where “occupation" in the A. V. becomes “trade" in the Revision. The critical change is from the accusative to the dative case,-no ground whatever for the alternative rendering. No change would have been made had not “trade" been deemed by the Revisers a better word than “occupation.” The changes in the Greek which, as respects their critical character, have been left unnoticed in marking, are of words whose radical idea has been changed in revising; while the critical changes, could they be shown at all, would appear in some words expressing the relation of that idea, such as prepositions and auxiliary verbs. Critical changes have had the benefit of all doubts. Cases of critical transposition have not been distinguished from the non-critical; while cases of merely seeming transposition have been marked as substitutional, according to the fact.
12. Fourteen entire verses of the Authorized Version have been cancelled by the Revisers. They are the following : Matt. xvii. 21 ; xviii. 11 ; Mark vii. 16; ix. 44, 46; xi. 26; xv. 28 ; Luke xvii. 36; xxiii. 17 ; John v. 4; Acts viii. 37 ; xv. 34; xxiv. 7; xxviii. 29.
13. The Student's Revised New Testament, in its text and marginal notes, is an exact reprint of the Pica 8vo. edition of the Oxford University Press. In the labor of compiling the “A. V." Foot-notes, Bagster's “Comprehensive Bible," on account of its large type, has been used as a convenient working basis of comparison with the Authorized Version. It is proper, however, to state that, in cases of known discrepancy, verbal or orthographic, between the Bagster text or margin and that of the Oxford Nonpareil 16mo. New Testament, the latter has been invariably followed as the A. V. standard.
The English Version of the New Testament here presented to the reader is a Revision of the Translation published in the year of Our Lord 1611, and commonly known by the name of the Authorised Version.
That Translation was the work of many hands and of several generations. The foundation was laid by William Tyndale. His translation of the New Testament was the true primary Version. The Versions that followed were either substantially reproductions of Tyndale's translation in its final shape, or revisions of Versions that had been themselves almost entirely based on it. Three successive stages may be recognised in this continuous work of authoritative revision: first, the publication of the Great Bible of 1539-41 in the reign of Henry VIII; next, the publication of the Bishops' Bible of 1568 and 1572 in the reign of Elizabeth ; and lastly, the publication of the King's Bible of 161 in the reign of James I. Besides these, the Genevan Version of 1560, itself founded on Tyndale's translation, must here be named; which, though not put forth by authority, was widely circulated in this country, and largely used by King James' Translators. Thus the form in which the English New Testament has now been read for 270 years was the result of various revisions made between 1525 and 1611; and the present Revision is an attempt, after a long interval, to follow the example set by a succession of honoured predecessors.
I. Of the many points of interest connected with the Translation of 1611, two require special notice; first, the Greek Text which it appears to have represented; and secondly, the character of the Translation itself.
1. With regard to the Greek Text, it would appear that, if to some extent the Translators exercised an independent judgement, it was mainly in choosing amongst readings contained in the principal editions of the Greek Text that had appeared in the sixteenth century. Wherever they seem to have followed a reading which is not found in any of those editions, their rendering may probably be traced to the Latin Vulgate. Their chief guides appear to have been the later editions of Stephanus and of Beza, and also, to a certain extent, the