Images de page

venturing to publish an original translation of the Epistles of Paul. Perhaps it should rather be termed an independent translation, than an original one; for, of course, much of it will be found extant in the works of others who have laboured in the same field. To a considerable extent, however, it may properly be termed original, as I have found reason to differ from some names of great celebrity, and to render some passages, I hope, with perspicuity and truth not so rendered before.

One such passage of great importance may be here adduced in vindication of this claim. In Rom. xi. 15, the common version is thus: "For, if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?" My version runs thus:-" For, if their rejecting be the reconciling of the world, what is their receiving, but life from the dead ?" On a reference to the context it will be apparent, that the rejecting, αποβλημα, and the receiving, προσληψις cannot be the acts of God, but must be the acts of the Israelites, to whom the proffered salvation by Jesus, as the Messiah, is first addressed, according to the Apostle's plain declaration in the former parts of the Epistle. Hence, in the beginning of chap. xi., the Apostle asks:-"Hath God then put away, aπwoато, his people?-Far from it! For I also am an Israelite, of Abraham's blood, of the tribe of Benjamin. God hath not put away his people whom he formerly acknowledged." The common version renders the words аπwσато and aтоßλŋμa, both, by the terms "cast away," and "the casting away"; and thus there is an evident contradiction between the first verse and the fifteenth verse. The Apostle is made to say, in the first verse, that "God has NOT cast away his people"; and then, in the fifteenth verse, he is made to represent God as having "cast them away," or as about to do so, with an ultimate view to "receiving them" back again.

But all the statements, the arguments, and the appeals of the Apostle in the Epistle are based on the great fact, that the salvation of Jesus, Messiah, was proffered, "first to the Jew, and then to the Gentile": and the burden of receiving or rejecting it, was laid on the Jew. If he rejected it, then it was proffered to the Gentile; but if he received it, he was as one raised from the dead, having a new spiritual life. As many of the Jews, however, actually rejected the gospel, by which means salvation was preached to the Gentiles, and many of them received it, the Apostle guards them against improper exultation in their privileges, and especially against any contemptuous or cruel treatment of the Jew, on account of his disbelief in Jesus, as Messiah; and asserts the rights and privileges of the Jews in the blessings of salvation under the beautiful imagery of the olive-tree and the graft. Surely, he says, they shall be "grafted into their own olive-tree" by faith in Jesus, "unless they persist in disbelief.” This is a condition, however, on which the salvation of every individual Gentile depends, just as much as that of every individual Jew.

But, to leave the context and the argument, the phrases αποβολη αυτών, and ἡ προσληψιs are not grammatically rendered by, "the casting away of them," and "the receiving of them," in the common version. One would suppose, that the Greek form were a participle governing its own case; whereas, it is merely the substantive in the possessive case, and should clearly be rendered "their casting away," or "rejecting"; and, by ellipsis, "their receiving"; evidently referring to the act of the Jews: if it had reference to the act of God, it would have been autov, his "casting away" or " rejecting," and his "receiving."

Beside, the common version inserts the future tense as making the act referred to, something distant: whereas, the Apostle is


speaking of the present time. He wishes to "rouse his kindred to jealousy, that he may save some of them"; and he argues that may be expected, because they are "branches" of the sacred "olive-tree" of Israel.


If, however, it be contended that the common version may be taken to mean the act of the Jew, and not that of God, it is so ambiguously expressed, that not one reader in a thousand would take it in that sense: "the casting away of them," for "their casting away," is not, to say the least, a rendering of the Greek which should be left to bewilder the unlearned, nor to serve as an authority for promulgating a doctrine which Scripture does not


In the important matter of perspicuity, I would further call the attention of the learned reader to the rendering of the particle yap, which so frequently occurs in the Epistles of Paul. By making it illative, so generally, in the common version, where it is merely concessive or emphatic, an inconsequence in the propositions is frequently produced. This fault might have been avoided, had the translators been aware of the radical idea of yap, which, according to the explanation of the learned Dr. John Jones, in his Lexicon, is derived from the Persian kar-dan, to do. "Hence," he says, "the primary notion of yap is, in fact, indeed, truly." The illative sense is secondary, just as epyw, "in fact," means, in Latin, (ergo) "therefore." The whole disquisition of the lexicographer on the word, is most worthy of attentive regard. Under the guidance of this light, much perspicuity has been thrown into the Apostle's diction, in the following translation; and the sequence of argument more frequently becomes apparent; so that the composition may be read continuously, the thread of the subject followed, and the whole much better understood and enjoyed.

For other similar matters relative to the critical interpretation of these Epistles, it is requisite only to refer to the notes which will be found in the margin, when occasion demands some reason or explanation.

III. It is, however, proper to give the reasons for my translation of some important words. Of this number is the word BAITIZЛ, and its cognates. When it refers to an ecclesiastical rite, I have adopted the terms "baptize" and "baptism," as having now become household English words, though used in a different sense by different parties. Beside, I know of no English term which will express the full meaning of the original, when it relates to the religious rite. When it refers to ordinary acts, as in Mark vii. 4, εαν μη βαπτισωνται-βαπτιστ μος ποτηριων, κ. τ. λ. it may very properly be rendered as in the common version, "washing." But the mere washing of a person in the religious rite is not the whole of the performance: it must be accompanied by some form of words indicative of the purpose, the motive, the doctrine, the authority of the rite: without something of this kind, the mere washing, or sprinkling, or immersing, or pouring, as the case may be, is not the just equivalent for Ваπтioμa, though it is for βαπτισμος.


Another important word must also be noticed-the term EKKλnoia. This word must have been used by Paul in the same sense, or nearly so, with that of the Greeks in general. There can be no doubt respecting its meaning at Athens or at Ephesus in the time of Paul. An Athenian ekkλŋola was an assembly or convocation of the citizens, meeting at stated times, for the

transaction of their civil or religious affairs; and it was composed of citizens alone, having their acknowledged rights and privileges of speaking and voting.

The Apostle must also have had in view the p of the Hebrews, which, in the LXX. is uniformly rendered by the word ekkλŋσia, which Trommius interprets by the terms, congregatio, coetus evocatus, and which in our common version is rendered by the words "congregation," and "assembly," as in Deut. xviii. 6, xxiii. 1, et al. Hence, either of these terms is proper for translating the word ekkλnota in Paul's Epistles. It is thus rendered by Tyndale and by Cranmer in their versions, and so remained, till the English exiles at Geneva altered it into "church" in their translation. The change from the clear to the obscure was ordered by King James to be continued in the version made by his authority, and has thus remained for two centuries and a half the occasion of much ecclesiastical bickering, and much popular prejudice, misunderstanding, and error.

The reason given by the king for this peremptory order was, that it is "an old ecclesiastical word." This might be a very good reason for the composers of a liturgy, or a creed, or articles of faith; but is surely out of place, when made to influence a version of the Holy Scripture; and the servility which could comply with such an injunction, disqualifies any one for the responsible office of a faithful translator of the Divine oracles.

But, even the reason assigned is of a very questionable character. Nothing would appear to constitute it "an old ecclesiastical word," but that Wiclif in his version had employed the word "chirche" for eккλŋoia. That circumstance, however, does not make it an ecclesiastical word; nor does Wiclif himself seem to have so regarded it; for in Acts xix. he renders Єкkλŋ

« PrécédentContinuer »