SECOND EDITION-MINION TYPE--Revised. Bible. English. 1953. Young. THE HOLY BIBLE, CONSISTING OF THE OLD AND NEW COVENANTS, TRANSLATED ACCORDING TO The Letter and Idioms of the Original Languages. BY ROBERT YOUNG, AUTHOR OF SEVERAL WORKS IN HEBREW, CHALDEE, SAMARITAN, SYRIAC, GREEK, EDINBURGH: GEORGE ADAM YOUNG & CO., BIBLE PUBLISHERS. MDCCCLXIII. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. sing a Second Edition of this work, the Translator desires to congratulate his readers, the friends of Biblical Literature, on the encouraging circumstance, that the views of Brew Grammar therein developed have not only received the unqualified approbation of el most enlightened critics, but that, while the pages containing the exposition and unds of these views have been forwarded to almost every Hebrew Scholar in the three dams, not one has ventured to risk his character as such, in expressing his dissent from openly and with reasons-though invited to do so. These views are, to some extent, new, and they are supported by clear and incontrover evidence as much so as any proposition in Euclid-and they may now be held to be as letely settled as forming essential principles of the true Hebrew Grammar, as it is ble for any question of grammar to be, being founded on unquestionable facts drawn sively from the plain prose narrative of Scripture-(not from the poetical and prophetical ns, which are capable of being explained away by ingenious rather than ingenuous -the unqualified statements and admissions of the principal Writers on the Grammar the various Semitic dialects, as well as the well-known laws and facts of general grammar. Le arguments by which these views are supported, as well as the views themselves, are that the mere English scholar is almost, if not altogether, as well able to appreciate as the most advanced Hebraists. They are: I That there is no foundation in reason, or in fact, for supposing that there is a conver power lying in the Hebrew conjunction 'and' [waw], more than in any and every other ticle in that and in every other language on earth. As a specimen of the profound ignorance that has hitherto existed on the subject among ries who have spent half a century in the study of Hebrew learning, it is sufficient to say t not one of the Hebrew scholars-Christiau and Jewish-communicated with, was previ ly aware that in the whole of the voluminous literature of the Jews-several thousands volumes-since the days of Ezra till the present, there is not a single example of a past e becoming a future by means of the Waw Conversive, though there is scarcely a verse the whole of the Old Testament, but which, according to the common notion of Hebrew immar, exhibits this conversion! That a conversive power should have pervaded all brew literature from Moses to Malachi, and then suddenly have dropt out of existence hout the slightest notice, warning, or intimation of any kind among all succeeding writers, hypothesis quite unparalleled in the history of language.] IL That the Tense in Hebrew hitherto denominated future, is never so in reality, but ply a habitual present, precisely like the present tense in English. III. That the past tense in Hebrew, is idiomatically used to express the certainty of the tion yet to be accomplished, as is common in all the kindred Semitic dialects, and recog hed by the best writers on the Greek language as familiar to the New Testament and the asics in general. See Extracts from Lee, Gesenius, Moses Stuart, Macknight, Doddridge. The elucidation of these facts creates an entire revolution in the explication of Hebrew ratax, clearing it up at once from the vagaries and inconsistences in which it has hitherto en enveloped (see Alexander on Isaiah)—and which have done more than any other thing, rhaps, to disgust the student, and cause him to abandon the study of the Hebrew Scriptres altogether, as a mere nose-of-wax, a man of straw, to be used according to the critic's acy. The Translator has been much gratified by the numerous assurances he has received rm all quarters, that not a few who had long ago given up the study of the Hebrew Text, are resumed it with renewed vigour and satisfaction. This Second Edition-on larger type-is designed for those whose eyesight is not fitted the continuous perusal of the smaller type of the first edition. It is not however, a mere rint; every clause has been carefully revised, on precisely the same principles as before, ly carrying them out more thoroughly than could be expected in a first edition. The principal points attended to have been:-- L The order of the original words-which is more strictly adhered to. 2 The use of the definite article, which is only inserted in the Translation when it is directly expressed in the original, or where the English idiom positively requires it. 3. The participiul form of the original is followed, e. g. "I am giving," instead of "I give." 4 The conjunctions waw and kai-are almost uniformly rendered and," instead of the Seventy indeterminate renderings of the Common Version. 5. The proper name "Jehovah,"-is preferred to the indefinite expression "The LORD." 6. Several of the Oriental idioms are retained-e. g. "sons of Israel," for "Children of Israel;-a "son of thirty years," for "thirty years old;" a "bullock, a son of the herd," for a young bullock." 66 7. The abrupt, eliptical style of the griginal-is generally pointed out and imitated by a dash [-] instead of the awkward supplements of the Common Version. & The punctuation and paragraphs are simplified. from these points the careful reader will see that the aim of the whole is simply to give a tographic likeness of the Scriptures-only in English instead of the original tongues; there 3 still much to be done, but meanwhile this volume is again presented to the reader in the tope that the pleasure received in its revisal may find a corresponding chord in its perusal. ARGH 10th Sept. 1863. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. THIS WORK, in its present form, is not to be considered as intended to come into competit with the ordinary use of the commonly received English Version of the Holy Scriptu but simply as a strictly literal and idiomatic rendering of the Original Hebrew and Gr Texts. For about twenty years-fully half his life-time-the Translator has had a desire execute such a work, and has been engag d in Biblical pursuits tending to this end mor less exclusively; and now, at last, in the good providence of God, the desire has been acc plished. How far he has been able to carry out the just principles of Biblical Translati founded on a solid and immoveable foundation, time alone will tell, and for this he co dently waits. As these principles are to some extent new, and adhered to with a sever never hitherto attempted, and as the Translator has perfect confidence in their accuracy: simplicity, he proceeds at once to state them distinctly and broadly, that not merely learned, but the wayfaring man need not err in appreciating their value. There are two modes of translation which may be adopted in rendering into our own lan age the writings of an ancient author; the one is, to bring him before us in such a manner that we may regard him as our own; the other, to transport ourselves, on the contrary, o to him, adopting his situation, modes of speaking, thinking, acting, peculiarities of age c race, air, gesture, voice, &c. Each of these plans has its advantages, but the latter is inc parably the better of the two, being suited-not for the ever-varying modes of thinking acting of the men of the fifth, or the tenth, or the fifteenth, or some other century, but all ages alike. All attempts to make Moses or Paul act, or speak, or reason, as if they w Englishmen of the nineteenth century, must inevitably tend to change the translator int paraphrast or a commentator, characters which, however useful, stand altogether apart fr that of him, who, with a work before him in one language, seeks only to transfer it i another. In prosecuting the plan thus adopted, a literal translation was indispensable. No oth kind of rendering could place the reader in the position contemplated, side by side with 1 writer-prepared to think as he does, to see as he sees, to reason, to feel, to weep, and exult along with him. His very conception of time, even in the minor accidents of the gra matical past, present, future, are to become our own. If he speaks of an event, as now passi we are not, on the logical ground of its having in reality already transpired, to translate present as if it were a past; or if, on the other hand, his imagination pictures the future if even at this moment present, we are not translators but expounders, and that of a ta description, if we take the liberty to convert his time, and tense the grammatical express of his time--into our own. King James' translators were almost entirely unacquainted w the two distinctive peculiarities of the Hebrew mode of thinking and speaking, admitted the most profound Hebrew scholars in theory, though, from undue timidity, never carri out in practice, viz: I. That the Hebrews were in the habit of using the past tense to express the certai of an action taking place, even though the action might not really be performed for so time. And II. That the Hebrews, in referring to events which might be either past or future, wo accustomed to act on the principle of transferring themselves mentally to the period and pla of the events themselves, and were not content with coldly viewing them as those of a bygo or still coming time; hence the very frequent use of the present tense. These two great principles of the Hebrew language are substantially to be found in t works of Lee, Gesenius, Ewald, &c.; but the present writer has carried them out in trans tion much beyond what any of these ever contemplated, on the simple ground that, if th are true, they ought to be gone through with. While they affect very considerably the o ward form of the translation, it is a matter of thankfulness that they do not touch the tru of a single Scripture doctrine-not even one. Every effort has been made to secure a comparative degree of uniformity in rendering t original words and phrases. Thus, for example, the Hebrew verb nathan, which is re dered by King James' translators in sixty-seven different ways (see in the subsequent pag entitled 'Lax Renderings,') has been restricted and reduced to ten, and so with many othe It is the Translator's ever-growing conviction, that even this smaller number may be reduc still further. It has been no part of the Translator's plan to attempt to form a New Hebrew or Gre Text-he has therefore somewhat rigidly adhered to the received ones. Where he has d fered, it is generally in reference to the punctuation and accentuation, the division of wor and sentences, which, being merely traditional, are, of course, often imperfect. For an e planation and vindication of these differences, the reader is referred to the "Concise Con imentary," which is designed to supplement the present volume. The Translator has often had occasion to regret the want of a marginal column to inse the various renderings of passages where he has been unable to satisfy his own mind—he ha however, cast the chief of these into an appendix, under the title, "Additions and Corre tions," and still more elaborately in the supplementary volume. EDINBURGH, 10th Sept. 1862. STYLE OF THE SACRED WRITERS, AND OF THIS TRANSLATION. WE of the first things that is likely to attract the attention of the Readers of this New lation is its lively, picturesque, dramatic style, by which the inimitable beauty of the Dial Text is more vividly brought out than by any previous Translation. It is true that Revisers appointed by King James have occasionally imitated it, but only in a few lar phrases and colloquialisms, chiefly in the Gospel Narrative, and without having any ed principles of translation to guide them on the point. The exact force of the Hebrew tes has long been a vexed question with critics, but the time cannot be far distant when beral principles of the late learned Professor Samuel Lee of Cambridge, with some radication, will be generally adopted in substance, if not in theory. It would be entirely of place here to enter into details on this important subject, but a very few remarks nger necessary, and may not be unacceptable to the student. 1 It would appear that the Hebrew writers, when narrating or describing events which it be either past or future (such as the case of Moses in reference to the Creation or the , on the one hand, and to the Coming of the Messiah or the Calamities which were to Israel, on the other), uniformly wrote as if they were alive at the time of the occurrence de events mentioned, and as eye-witnesses of what they are narrating. would be needless to refer to special passages in elucidation or vindication of this Tiple essential to the proper understanding of the Sacred Text, as every page of this slation affords abundant examples. It is only what common country people do in this d at the present day, and what not a few of the most popular writers in England aim at accomplish-placing themselves and their readers in the times and places of the circumres related. This principle of translation has long been admitted by the best Biblical Expositors in ce to the Prophetic Delineation of Gospel times, but it is equally applicable and sary to the historical narratives of Genesis, Ruth, &c. The Hebrew writers often express the certainty of a thing taking place by putting it in past tense, though the actual fulfilment may not take place for ages. This is easily erstood and appreciated when the language is used by God, as when He says, in Ge. 15. 1-Unto thy seed I have given this land;" and in 17. 4, "I, lo, My covenant is with thee, al thou hast become a father of a multitude of nations." The same thing is found in Ge. 23. 11, where Ephron answers Abraham: "Nay, my lord, me: the field I have given to thee, and the cave that is in it; to thee I have given it; re the eyes of the sons of my people I have given it to thee; bury thy dead." And in Abraham's answer to Ephron: "Only-if thou wouldst hear me I have given the pory of the field; accept from me, and I bury my dead there." Again in 2 Kings 5. 6, the of Syria, writing to the king of Israel, says: "Lo, I have sent unto thee Naaman, my trast, and thou hast recovered him from his leprosy,"-considering the king of Israel as his trast, a mere expression of the master's purpose is sufficient. In Ju. 8. 19, Gideon says tehah and Zalmunnah, "If ye had kept them alive, I had not slain you." So in De. 31. For all the evils that they have done"-shall have done. wer would be easy to multiply examples, but the above may suffice for the present. Some but these forms of expression are preceded by the conjunction “and,” (waw, in Hebrew), and nary common opinion has been that the conjunction in these cases has a conversive power; that the verb is not to be translated past (though so in grammatical form), but future. is, of course, only an evasion of the supposed difficulty, not a solution, and requires to thpported by the equally untenable bypothesis that a (so-called) future tense, when preed by the same conjunction waw (“and,”) often becomes a past. Notwithstanding these theforting hypotheses, there are numerous passages which have no conjunction before ten, which can only be explained by the principle stated above. A II The Hebrew writers are accustomed to express laws, commands, &c., in four ways: the By the regular imperative form, e.g., "Speak unto the people." dif rds ex By the infinitive, "Every male of you is to be circumcised. By the (so-called) future, "Let there be light;" "Thou shalt do no murder;" "Six days is work done." By the past tense, "Speak unto the sons of Israel, and thou hast said unto them." There can be no good reason why these several peculiarities should not be exhibited in the eeklation of the Bible, or that they should be confounded, as they often are, in the ComVersion. In common life among ourselves, these forms of expression are frequently for imperatives, e.g., "Go and do this,"-"This is to be done first,"-"You shall go, go and finish it." There are few languages which afford such opportunites of a literal homatic rendering of the Sacred Scriptures as the English tongue, and the present mpt will be found, it is believed, to exhibit this more than any other Translation. The three preceding particulars embrace all that appears necessary for the Reader to bear and in reference to the Style of the New Translation. In the Supplementary "Concise mentary" which is now in the course of being issued, abundant proofs and illustrations be found adduced at length. Tec |