Up to Top
American Standard Version
- Authorized Version
- Darby Translation
Matthew Henry Commentary
- Noah Webster Translation
- Young's Literal Translation
Daily Bible Reading Guide - Easton's Bible Dictionary -
Nave's Topical Bible -
Torrey's Topical Textbook
YOUNG'S
LITERAL TRANSLATION
OF THE
HOLY BIBLE
by
Robert Young
Author of the _Analytical Concordance to the Bible_
Revised Edition
PUBLISHERS' NOTE TO THE THIRD EDITION
NOTWITHSTANDING the fact that the Revised Version of the Old and the New
Testament has come into the field since the learned and lamented author
first issued his _Literal Translation of the Bible_, the demand for it
from year to year has continued remarkably steady. This indicates that
it still fills a place of its own among helps to the earnest student of
Holy Scripture. In 1887 Dr Young issued a Revised Edition, of which two
impressions are exhausted. The work has been subjected to a fresh
revision, making no alteration on the principles on which the
Translation proceeds, but endeavouring to make it as nearly perfect in
point of accuracy on its present lines as possible. The Publishers
accordingly issue this new Revised Edition in the hope that earnest
students of the Bible, by attaining to a clearer apprehension of the
meaning of the inspired writer, may more clearly and fully apprehend the
mind of the Spirit by whom all Holy Scripture has been given to us.
Edinburgh, January 1898.
ISBN: 0-8010-9910-2
Printed in the United States of America
PREFACE TO THE REVISED EDITION.
THE following Translation of the New Testament is based upon the belief
that every word of the original is "God-breathed," as the Apostle Paul
says in his Second Epistle to Timothy, chap. 3.16. That language is,
indeed, applicable, in the first place, only to the Writings of the "Old
Testament," in which Timothy had been instructed, but as the Apostle
Peter, in his Second Epistle, chap. 3.15,16, expressly ranks the
"Epistles" of his beloved brother Paul along with "the other
Scriptures," as the "Gospels" and the "Acts" of the Apostles were
undoubtedly written before the date of Peter's writing, by men to whom
the Saviour promised and gave the Holy Spirit, to _guide_ them to all
truth, to teach them all things, and to _remind_ them of all things that
Jesus said and did, there can be no reasonable ground for denying the
inspiration of the New Testament by any one who holds that of the Old,
or who is willing to take the plain unsophisticated meaning of God's
Word regarding either.
This inspiration extends only to the original text, _as it came
from the pens of the writers_, not to any translations ever made by man,
however aged, venerable, or good; and only in so far as any of these
adhere to the original--neither adding to nor omitting from it one
particle--are they of any _real value_, for, to the extent that they
vary from the original, the doctrine of verbal inspiration is lost, so
far as that version is concerned.
If a translation gives a _present tense_ when the original gives
a _past_, or a _past_ when it has a _present_; a _perfect_ for a
_future_, or a _future_ for a _perfect_; an _a_ for a _the_, or a _the_
for an _a_; an _imperative_ for a _subjunctive_, or a _subjunctive_ for
an _imperative_; a _verb_ for a _noun_, or a _noun_ for a _verb_, it is
clear that verbal inspiration is as much overlooked as if it had no
existence. THE WORD OF GOD IS MADE VOID BY THE TRADITIONS OF MEN.
A _strictly literal_ rendering may not be so pleasant to the ear
as one where the _apparent _sense_ is chiefly aimed at, yet it is not
_euphony_ but _truth_ that ought to be sought, and where in such a
version as the one commonly in use in this country, there are scarcely
_two consecutive verses_ where there is not some departure from the
original such as those indicated, and where these variations may be
counted by _tens of thousands_, as admitted on all hands, it is
difficult to see how verbal inspiration can be of the least practical
use to those who depend upon that version alone.
Modern scholarship is beginning to be alive to the inconsistency
of thus gratuitously obscuring, and really changing, the meaning, of the
sacred writers by subjective notions of what they _ought_ to have
written, rather than what they _did_ write, for if we admit that in a
single case it can be lawful to render a _past_ tense by a _present_,
where shall we end? who is to be judge? if we do so in one passage, to
bring out what may appear to us might, could, would, or should, be the
Scriptural meaning, we cannot deny the same privilege to others who may
twist other passages in like manner. The alteration of an _a_ for a
_the_ may appear a small matter not worth speaking of, but an attentive
comparison of the following Translation with the common one will
discover numerous passages where the _entire force_ of the verse depends
upon the insertion or non-insertion of the article.
For example, in Mat. 2.4, Herod is represented as enquiring
"where Christ ' should be born. But "Christ" is the surname of the man
Jesus, who was quite unknown to Herod, who could not consequently ask
for a person of whose existence he was ignorant. The true explanation
is, that King James' Translators omitted the definite article which
occurs in the original. The correct translation is, where "the Christ"
should be born. Herod knew of "_the_ Christ," _the_ Messiah, _the_ long
promised Saviour and King of the Jews, and his enquiry was, where He was
to be born, whose kingdom was to be over all. The simple article clears
up the whole. There are about _two thousand_ instances in the New
Testament where these translators have thus omitted all notice of the
definite article, not to say any thing of the great number of passages
where they have _inserted_ it, though not in the original.
The following translation need not, and ought not, to be
considered, in any sense, as coming into competition with the Common
Version, but as one to be used in connection with it, and as auxiliary
to it; and not a few assurances have been received from clergymen and
others that they thus use it, and find it at once interesting and
profitable. The change of a single word, or collocation of words, is
often found to throw an entirely new shade of meaning over the
Scripture. This advantage is well known to all who have compared the
various ancient versions, or even the English versions that successively
formed what was popularly called "the authorized version," i.e.,
Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Bishops, &c.
The Greek Text followed is that generally recognized as the
"Received Text," not because it is thought perfect, but because the
department of Translation is quite distinct from that of Textual
Criticism, and few are qualified for both. If the original text be
altered by a translator, (except he give his reasons for and against
each emendation,) the reader is left in uncertainty whether the
translation given is to be considered as that of the old or of the new
reading. And, after all, the differences in sense to be found in the
100,000 various Greek readings are so trifling compared with those to be
derived from an _exact_ translation of the Received Text, that the
writer willingly leaves them to other hands; at the same time, it is
contemplated, in a future edition, to give, in an Appendix, all the
various readings of the Greek MSS. that are capable of being expressed
in English.
With grateful thanks to the Father of Lights, this revised
edition is presented to the friends of Divine Truth, with the hope that
it may be a means, in the hands of the Divine Spirit, of quickening
their faith, and encouraging their hearts, in the work of the Lord.
R.Y.
PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION
THE WORK, in its present form, is not to be considered as intended to
come into competition with the _ordinary_ use of the commonly received
English Version of the Holy Scriptures, but simply as a strictly literal
and idiomatic rendering of the Original Hebrew and Greek Texts. For
about twenty years--fully half his life-time--the Translator has had a
desire to execute such a work, and has been engaged in Biblical pursuits
tending to this end more or less exclusively; and now, at last, in the
good providence of God, the desire has been accomplished. How far he has
been able to carry out the just principles of Biblical Translation,
founded on a solid and immoveable foundation, time alone will tell, and
for this he confidently waits. As these _principles_ are to some extent
new, and adhered to with a severity never hitherto attempted, and as the
Translator has perfect confidence in their accuracy and simplicity, he
proceeds at once to state them distinctly and broadly, that not merely
the 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 language the writings of an ancient author; the
one is, to bring him before us in such a manner as that we may _regard
him as our own_; the other, to _transport ourselves_, on the contrary,
_over to him, adopting his situation, modes of speaking, thinking,
acting,--peculiarities of age and race, air, gesture, voice, &c_. Each
of these plans has its advantages, but the latter is incomparably the
better of the two, being suited--not for the ever-varying modes of
thinking and acting of the men of the fifth, or the tenth, or the
fifteenth, or some other century, but--for all ages alike. All attempts
to make Moses or Paul act, or speak, or reason, as if they were
Englishmen of the nineteenth century, must inevitably tend to change the
translator into a paraphrast or a commentator, characters which, however
useful, stand altogether apart from that of him, who, with a work before
him in one language, seeks only to transfer it into another.
In prosecuting the plan thus adopted, a literal translation was
indispensable. No other kind of rendering could place the reader in the
position contemplated, side by side with the writer--prepared to think
as _he_ does, to see as _he_ sees, to reason, to feel, to weep, and to
exult along with him. His very conception of time, even in the minor
accidents of the grammatical past, present, future, are to become our
own. If he speaks of an event, as _now_ passing, we are not, on the
logical ground of its having in reality already transpired, to translate
his present as if it were a past; or if, on the other hand, his
imagination pictures the future as if even at this moment present, we
are not translators but expounders, and that of a tame description, if
we take the liberty to convert his time, and tense--the grammatical
expression of his time--into our own. King James' translators were
almost entirely unacquainted with the two distinctive peculiarities of
the Hebrew mode of thinking and speaking, admitted by the most profound
Hebrew scholars in _theory_, though, from undue timidity, never carried
out in _practice_, viz:--
I. That the Hebrews were in the habit of using the past tense to express
the _certainty_ of an action taking place, even though the action might
not really be performed for some time. And
II. That the Hebrews, in referring to events which might be either
_past_ or _future_ were accustomed to act on the principle of
transferring themselves mentally to the period and place of the events
themselves, and were not content with coldly viewing them as those of a
bygone 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 the works of Lee, Gesenius, Ewald, &c.; but
the present writer has carried them out in translation much beyond what
any of these ever contemplated, on the simple ground that, if they are
true, they ought to be gone through with. While they affect very
considerably the outward _form_ of the translation, it is a matter of
thankfulness that they do not touch the _truth_ of a single Scripture
doctrine--_not even one_.
Every effort has been made to secure a comparative degree of
uniformity in rendering the original words and phrases. Thus, for
example, the Hebrew verb _nathan_, which is rendered by King James'
translators in _sixty-seven_ different ways (see in the subsequent page,
entitled 'Lax Renderings,') has been restricted and reduced to _ten_,
and so with many others. It is the Translator's ever-growing conviction,
that even this smaller number may be reduced still further.
It has been no part of the Translator's plan to attempt to form
a New Hebrew or Greek Text--he has therefore somewhat rigidly adhered to
the received ones. Where he has differed, it is generally in reference
to the punctuation and accentuation, the division of words and
sentences, which, being merely traditional, are, of course, often
imperfect. For an explanation and vindication of these differences, the
reader is referred to the "Concise Commentary," which is designed to
supplement the present volume.
The Translator has often had occasion to regret the want of a
marginal column to insert the various renderings of passages where he
has been unable to satisfy his own mind--he has, however, cast the chief
of these into an appendix, under the title, "Additions and Corrections."
and still more elaborately in the supplementary volume.
EDINBURGH, 10th Sept. 1862
Style of the Sacred Writers, and of this Translation.
ONE of the first things that is likely to attract the attention of the
Readers of this New Translation is its lively, picturesque, dramatic
style, by which the inimitable beauty of the Original Text is more
vividly brought out than by any previous Translation. It is true that
the Revisers appointed by King James have occasionally imitated it, but
only in a few familiar phrases and colloquialisms, chiefly in the Gospel
Narrative, and without having any settled principles of translation to
guide them on the point. The exact force of the Hebrew tenses has long
been a vexed question with critics, but the time cannot be far distant
when the _general_ principles of the late learned Professor Samuel Lee
of Cambridge, with some modification, will be generally adopted _in
substance_, if not in theory. It would be entirely out of place here to
enter into details on this important subject, but a very few remarks
appear necessary, and may not be unacceptable to the student.
I. It would appear that the Hebrew writers, when narrating or
describing events which might be either _past_ or _future_ (such as the
case of Moses in reference to the _Creation_ or the _Deluge_, on the one
hand, and to the _Coming of the Messiah_ or the _Calamities which were
to befall Israel_, on the other), uniformly wrote as if they were alive
at the time of the occurrence of the events mentioned, and as
_eye-witnesses_ of what they are narrating.
It would be needless to refer to special passages in elucidation
or vindication of this principle essential to the proper understanding
of the Sacred Text, as every page of this Translation affords abundant
examples. It is only what common country people do in this land at the
present day, and what not a few of the most popular writers in England
aim at and accomplish--placing themselves and their readers in the times
and places of the circumstances related.
This principle of translation has long been admitted by the best
Biblical Expositors in reference to the _Prophetic Delineation_ of
Gospel times, but it is equally applicable and necessary to the
historical narratives of Genesis, Ruth, etc.
II. The Hebrew writers often express the _certainty of a thing
taking place_ by putting it in the _past_ tense, though the actual
fulfilment may not take place for ages. This is easily understood and
appreciated when the language is used by God, as when He says, in Gen.
xv. 18, "Unto thy seed _I have given_ this land;" and in xvii. 4, "I,
lo, My covenant _is_ with thee, and _thou hast become_ a father of a
multitude of nations."
The same thing is found in Gen. xxiii. 11, where Ephron answers
Abraham: "Nay, my lord, hear me; the field _I have given_ to thee, and
the cave that is in it; to thee _I have given_ it; before the eyes of
the sons of my people _I have given_ it to thee; bury thy dead." And
again in Abraham's answer to Ephron: "Only--if thou wouldst hear me--_I
have given_ the money of the field; accept from me, and I bury my dead
there." Again in 2 Kings v. 6, the King of Syria, writing to the King of
Israel, says: "Lo, I have sent unto thee Naaman, my servant, and _thou
hast recovered him_ from his leprosy,"--considering the King of Israel
as his servant, a mere expression of the master's purpose is sufficient.
In Judges viii. 19, Gideon says to Zebah and Zalmunnah, "If ye had kept
them alive, _I had not slain you._" So in Deut. xxxi. 18, "For all the
evils that _they have done_"--shall have done.
It would be easy to multiply examples, but the above may suffice
for the present. Some of these forms of expression are preceded by the
conjunction "_and_" (waw, in Hebrew), and a very common opinion has been
that the conjunction in these cases has a _conversive power_, and that
the verb is not to be translated _past_ (though so in grammatical form),
but _future_. This is, of course, only an _evasion _of the supposed
difficulty, not a _solution_, and requires to be supported by the
equally untenable hypothesis that a (so-called) _future_ tense, when
preceded by the same conjunction _waw_ ("and,") often becomes a past.
Notwithstanding these two converting hypotheses, there are numerous
passages which have no conjunction before them, which can only be
explained by the principle stated above.
III. The Hebrew writers are accustomed to express laws,
commands, etc., in four ways:
1st. By the regular imperative form, e.g., "_Speak_ unto the people."
2nd. By the infinitive, "Every male of you _is to be_ circumcised."
3rd. By the (so-called) future, "_Let_ there be light;" "Thou _shalt_
do no murder; " "Six days _is_ work done."
4th. 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 translation of the Bible, or that they
should be confounded, as they often are, in the Common Version. In
common life among ourselves, these forms of expression are frequently
used for imperatives, e.g., "Go and do this,"--"This is to be done
first,"--"You shall go,"--"You go and finish it." There are few
languages which afford such opportunities of a literal and idiomatic
rendering of the Sacred Scriptures as the English tongue, and the
present attempt 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 in mind in reference to the Style of
the New Translation. In the Supplementary "Concise Critical Commentary,"
which is now in the course of being issued, abundant proofs and
illustrations will be found adduced at length.
THE BATTLE OF THE HEBREW TENSES.
THE uncertain state of Hebrew criticism in reference to the Tenses is so
fully exhibited in the following extracts from one of the latest, and in
some respects one of the best, grammatical Commentaries (by the Rev. J.
A. Alexander, of Princeton, New Jersey), on the Book of Isaiah, that the
reader's attention to them is specially requested.
On Isa. 5.13, Prof. A. remarks:--'Luther, Gesenius, and
Hendewerk take [the verb] as a future, which is not to be assumed
without necessity. Most recent writers evade the difficulty by rendering
it in the present tense. The only natural construction is the old one
(Septuagint, Vulgate, Vitringa, Barnes), which gives the preterite its
proper meaning, and either supposes the future to be here, _as often
elsewhere_, spoken of as already past,' &c.
[This principle, though admitted and maintained by Gesenius,
Lee, &c. has never been acted upon, to any extent, by any Translator
till the present. It is the only principle, however, that can carry us
through every difficulty in the Sacred Scriptures.]
On chap. 5.25, 'The future form given to the verbs by Clericus
is altogether arbitrary. Most of the later writers follow Luther in
translating them as presents. But, if this verse is not descriptive of
the past, as distinguished from the present and the future, the Hebrew
language is incapable of making any such distinction.'
[Let this principle be carried out, as it ought to be, and
nine-tenths of the common critical works on the Bible are rendered
perfectly useless, and positively injurious.]
On chap. 5.26, 'Here, as in v.25, the older writers understand
the verbs as future, but the later ones as present. The verbs in the
last clause have waw prefixed, but its conversive power commonly depends
upon a future verb preceding, which is wanting here.'
[And so it is in dozens of places where Prof. A. follows in the
usual wake of critics.]
On chap. 5.27, 'The English Version follows Calvin in
translating all the verbs as _future_. The Vulgate supplies the present
in the first clause, and makes the others future. But as the whole is
evidently one description, the translation should be uniform, and as the
preterite and future forms are intermingled, both _seem_ to be here used
for the _present_, which is given by Luther, and most of the late
writers.'
[Here, leaving all certainty and settled principles behind him,
Prof. A. tells us how he thinks the inspired writer ought to have
written, not what he did write.]
On chap. 8.2, 'The Vulgate takes the verb as a _preterite_, and
Gesenius, Maurer, Knobel read accordingly with waw conversive. The
Septuagint, Targum, and Peshito make it _imperative_, and Hitzig
accordingly. Gesenius formerly preferred an indirect or _subjunctive_
construction, which is still retained by Henderson.' [Here are _four_
ancient versions and, _five_ modern critics at fives and sixes regarding
what is as simple as can well be imagined!]
On chap. 9.7, 'Another false antithesis is that between the
verbs, referring one to _past_ time, and the other to the future. This
is adopted even by Ewald, but according to the usage of the language
[rather of modern Hebrew grammar], _Waw_ is conversive of the preterite
only when preceded by a future, expressed or _implied_.'
[By this very extraordinary rule the critic can never have any
difficulty, for it is very easy to consider a verbal form implied when
it suits his convenience! Yet this egregious absurdity is very commonly
adopted in all existing translations, including the Common English
Version; e.g., Gen, 9.12-14, where the Hebrew Text has four verbs all in
the past tense, yet the first is translated as a present ('I do set'),
and the remaining three as futures! The first verb is undoubtedly in the
past, 'I have set,' the other three as undoubtedly, seeing the Waw by
which they are preceded cannot be conversive, except when preceded by a
future or an imperative, neither of which occur in this place. The
solution of the supposed difficulty is only to be found in the principle
stated above by Prof. A., and which is the basis of the New Translation,
and maintained by Gesenius and Lee, that the Hebrews were in the habit
of using the past to denote the certainty of an event taking place.]
On chap. 9.19, 'Ewald refers the first clause to the past, and
the second to the present. Umbreit the first to the present, and the
second to the future. But the very intermingling of the past and the
future forms shows that the whole was meant to be descriptive.'
[Would they not be descriptive had they been all past, or all
present, or all future?]
On chap. 10.14, 'The _present_ form, which Hendewerk adopts
throughout the verses, is equally grammatical,'--[_though the first verb
is a_ perfect, _and the second a_ perfect!]
On chap. 14.24, 'Kimchi explains [the verb] to be a preterite
used for a future, and this construction is adopted in most versions,
ancient and modern. It is, however, altogether arbitrary, and in
violation of the only safe rule as to the use of the tenses, viz., that
they should have their proper and distinctive force, unless forbidden by
the context or the nature of the subject, which is very far from being
the case here, as we shall see below. Gesenius and De Wette evade the
difficulty by rendering both the verbs as presents, a construction which
is often admissible, and even necessary(!) in a descriptive context, but
when used indiscriminately or inappropriately, tends both to weaken and
obscure the sense. Ewald and Umbreit make the first verb present, and
the second future, which is scarcely, if at all, less objectionable.'
The above extracts are surely sufficient to show that Hebrew criticism,
as hitherto taught, is capable of being used to any purpose, or moulded
to any form the Critic may wish. Such a state of things surely cannot
continue any longer, or be adopted by any one who regards simplicity
more than ingenious guesses, truth more than tradition.
VIEW OF HEBREW TENSES AS SEEN IN THE NEW TRANSLATION.
THE HEBREW has only two tenses, which, for want of better terms, may be
called _Past_ and _Present_.
The _past_ is either perfect or imperfect, e.g., 'I _lived_ in
this house five years,' or 'I _have lived_ in this house five years;'
this distinction may and can only be known by the context, which must in
all cases be viewed from the writer's standing-point.
In _every_ other instance of its occurrence, it points out
either--
1) _A gentle imperative_, e.g., "Lo, I have sent unto thee Naaman my
servant, and thou _hast_ recovered him from his leprosy;" see also Zech.
1.3 &c; or
2) _A fixed determination_ that a certain thing shall be done, e.g.,
"Nay, my lord, hear me, the field _I have given_ to thee, and the
cave that is in it; to thee _I have given_ it; before the eyes of
the sons of my people _I have given_ it to thee; bury thy dead;" and
in the answer, "Only--if thou wouldst hear me--_I have given_ the
money of the field."
The _present_ tense--as in the Modern Arabic, Syriac, and
Amharic, the only living remains of the Semitic languages--besides its
proper use, is used rhetorically for the future, there being no
grammatical form to distinguish them; this, however, causes no more
difficulty than it does in English, Turkish, Greek, Sanscrit, &c., the
usages of which may be seen in the Extracts from the principal
grammarians.
In _every_ other instance of its occurrence, it points out _an
imperative_, not so gently as when a preterite is used for this purpose,
nor so stern as when the regular imperative form is employed, but more
like the infinitive, Thou art _to write_ no more; thou _mayest_ write no
more.
The present participle differs from the present tense just in
the same manner and to the same extent as "I am writing, or, I am a
writer," does from, "I write, or, I do write."
THE ABOVE VIEW of the Hebrew tenses is equally applicable to all
the Semitic languages, including the Ancient and Modern Arabic, the
Ancient and Modern Syriac, the Ancient and Modern Ethiopic, the
Samaritan, the Chaldee, and the Rabbinical Hebrew--not one of which is
admitted to have the Waw Conversive.
It may be added, that all the _Teutonic_ languages--fourteen in
number--agree with the _Semitic_ in rejecting a future tense; the
futurity of an event being indicated either by auxiliary verbs, adverbs,
and other particles, or by the context.
Analysis of the Verbs in Genesis ix. 12-15.
12 "And God saith, This _is_ the token of the covenant that _I
am making_ between Me and you, and every living creature that _is_ with
you, for generations age-during; 13 My bow I _have_ given in the cloud,
and it _hath_ been for a token of a covenant between Me and the earth;
14 and it _hath_ come to pass, in _My sending_ a cloud over the earth,
that the bow _hath been_ seen in the cloud, 15 and I _have_ remembered
My covenant, that _is_ between Me and you, and every living creature of
all flesh, and the waters _become_ no more a deluge to destroy all
flesh."
Verse 12. And God saith.] The present tense is used, according
to the almost universal custom of the Hebrews, &c., to bring up the
narrative to the present time. The conjunction _and_ has no special or
logical significance, but is used simply to break the abruptness of the
opening sentence, as the Hebrews scarcely ever allow a verb in the
present or past tense to commence a sentence, especially in prose,
without some other word preceding it; the only other way would have been
to put the nominative before the verb, but this, though occasionally
used, is not agreeable to Hebrew taste.
This (is) the token.] The Hebrew substantive verb is, in the
present tense, very frequently omitted; in the past tense, it is very
rarely, if ever, omitted.
That I am making, lit. giving.] The participle is more
strikingly expressive of present action than if the present tense had
been employed.
That (is) with you.] The present tense of the substantive verb
is understood as above, according to the _unus loquendi_.
V.13. My bow I have given in the cloud.] The past tense here is
used to express a _fixed _determination_ that the circumstance mentioned
is undoubtedly to take place; most unwarrantably does the Common Version
translate as a present, 'I do set;' while the theory of the _Waw
conversive_ has no place here, since there is no _Waw_ to work on.
And it hath become.] The fixed determination is here continued
from the preceding clause; on no grammatical principle can it be
rendered present, much less future, as it is in the Common Version; the
Waw here can have no converting power, there being no future preceding
it to rest on, as the rules of _Waw conversive_ imperatively demand.
V.14. It hath come to pass--the bow hath been seen--I have
remembered]--though rendered future in the Common Version, are all past,
being preceded by pasts, and are to be explained by the same
principle--of expressing the certainty of a future action by putting it
in the past, owing to the determination of the speaker that it must be.
The only remaining verb in the 15th verse is correctly put in
the present tense; the speaker, going forward in thought to the period
when the events alluded to take place, declares graphically that 'the
waters _become_ no more a deluge to destroy all flesh.'
"WAW CONVERSIVE" A FICTION -- NOT A FACT.
THE doctrine of "Waw Conversive," according to the common Hebrew
Grammars, is:--
"The _past_ tense with the prefix _waw_, expresses future time when
preceded by a verb in the _future_ or by an _imperative_." And again:--
"The _future_ tense, with the prefix _waw_, and dagesh in the
following letter, is used to express the _past_." [See the Grammars of
Hurwitz, Gesenius, &c.]
_The objections to this doctrine may be summed up in four particulars_:--
I. It is insufficient to explain the many thousands of passages
in the Hebrew Bible where a _past_ tense is preceded neither by a
_future_ nor by an _imperative_, yet where it is "converted" in the
Common English Bible, and with as much propriety as in any of those
instances that are supposed to be indisputable: e.g.
Ge. 3.12, "This (is) the token of the covenant that I am making
between Me and you ... my bow _I have set_ in the cloud, and it _hath
become_ the token of the covenant ... and it _hath come to pass_ ... and
it _hath been seen_ ... and I have remembered ... and the waters do no
more," &c.
Ge. 17.4, " Lo, My covenant (is) with thee, and _thou hast
become_ the father of a multitude of nations."
The true solution of the principle involved in these passages
is: That the Hebrews were in the habit of expressing _the certainty of
an action taking place_ by putting it in the past tense (see
particularly Ge. 23.11, "_I have given ... I have given ... I have
given_;" also in verse 13, "_I have given_"), taking its fulfilment for
granted.
II. It leads to results rather startling, viz. that most, if not
all, of the Hebrew particles are conversive! Grammarians have already
been driven to admit, or rather assert, that _az_ then, and _terem_ not
yet, are conversive as well as _waw_.
But the list might be enlarged with such as the following:--
1 Kings 10.22--_ahath_, once . . . . 'once in three years _cometh_.'
Num. 3.23--_ahari_, behind . . . 'behind they _do encamp_ westward.'
Judg. 5. 8--_im_, not . . . . . . 'there _is_ not seen.'
Judg. 5.29--_aph_, yea . . . . . 'yea, she _returneth_.'
Gen. 6. 4--_asher_, when . . . . 'when they _come_ in.
Deut. 12.30--_aicah_, how? . . . . 'how _do they serve_?'
Ezek. 21.32--_gam_, also . . . . . 'this also _hath_ not _been_.'
1 Sa. 21.14--_hinneh_, lo . . . . 'lo, _you see_ the man is mad.'
Exod. 18.15--_ki_, because . . . . 'because the people _come_ unto me.'
Exod. 1.12--_ken_, so . . . . . . 'so _they multiply_.'
Gen. 32.26--_ki im_, except . . . 'except _thou hast blessed_ me.'
Ruth 2.13--_lo_, not . . . . . . 'and I--I _am_ not as one.'
1 a. 21.14--_lamah_, why? . . . . 'why _do ye bring_ him unto me?'
19.24--_al ken_, therefore . 'therefore they _say_.'
Josh. 9. 8--_me-ayin_, whence? . 'whence _come_ ye?
Gen. 37.12--_ma_, what? . . . . . 'what _dost thou seek_?'
21. 7--_mi_, who? . . . . . 'who _hath said_?'
This is only a small specimen of what might be adduced. It is not too
much to say that the above _twenty_ particles (including _az_, _waw_,
and _terem_) might be doubled, if not tripled, in number.
III. It requires us to admit that the form _yiqtol_ is
essentially a future tense, while from the analogy of the Modern and
Ancient Arabic, as well as from its use in the following passages (which
might easily be multiplied), it is evidently an indefinite present,
expressive of habitual action, which may very naturally be viewed as
being or continuing in operation at some period afterwards as well as at
present.
Ge. 2.10--_yippared_, it is parted.
19--_yikra_, he calleth
6. 4--_yavou_, they come in.
10. 9--_yeamar_, it is said.
31.39--_ahattenah_, I repay it.
--_tevakshenah_, thou dost seek it.
1 Sa. 13.17--_yiphneh_, he turneth.
14.47--_yarshia_, he vexeth.
21.14--_taviu_, do ye bring; _tiru_, you see.
Isa. 1.11--_yomar_, he saith.
Job 3.11--_amuth_, do I die.
3--_ivvaled_, I am born.
None of these passages can with any propriety be regarded as expressive
of future action; and there seems no rational way of solving the problem
but by regarding the tense as is done above.
IV. It is not found in any other language; and in particular, it
is unknown in all the cognate Semitic dialects, viz., the Samaritan,
Chaldee, Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic, and in all the voluminous
uninspired literature of the Jews. Attempts have been made to find
something like it in the use of the Arabic particle _pha_, but, as
Professor Lee has well remarked (in his Hebrew Grammar and Lexicon), the
same thing might be alleged of most other Arabic particles, such as
_la_, no, _lam_, not, _lamma_, why, _summa_, then, &c., which no one has
ever as yet thought of doing.
The Arabs, in order to lessen the occasional ambiguity arising
from the same form of the verb being used indifferently for the present
and the future, sometimes prefix to it the particle _sa_ (a contraction
of _soufa_, at last, hereafter), which makes it strictly future, and
sometimes the word _ammal_ (an agent), which makes it strictly present.
THE WAW CONVERSIVE -- IMPERFECT
bal tyyhw , Kta ytyrb hnh yna
hyhw , Mrba Kms-ta dwe arqy-alw , Mywg Nwmh
:Kyttn Mywg Nwmh-ba yk , Mhrba Kms
_Common Version_:-- "As for Me behold, My covenant [is] with
thee, and thou SHALT be a father of many nations; neither shall thy name
any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham, for a father of
many nations HAVE I made thee."
_New Version_:-- "I--lo, My covenant [is] with thee, and thou
HAST become a father of a multitude of nations, and thy name is no more
called Abram, but thy name hath been Abraham, for a father of a
multitude of nations HAVE I made thee."--Gen. 17.4,5.
------
It is the first and the last of the verbs in the above verses to
which the reader's attention is specially requested, viz, those
translated in the Common Version, "Thou _shalt_ be," and "I _have_
made," and in the New Version, "Thou _hast_ become," and "I _have_
made."
Both Versions agree in translating the last verb as a preterite,
"I _have_ made;" as the form of the verb is admitted on all hands to be
that of a preterite.
The versions differ, however, in the translation of the first
verb, the one rendering it by the future "shall," the other by the
preterite "hast."
The question at issue is: Which of the two is right? _both_
cannot be right--one _must_ be wrong.
It is undoubtedly in the preterite form, precisely like the last
verb in the sentence, admitted on all hands to be a preterite. Why then
should this not be translated as a preterite likewise ?
If it be said, that the _sense_ requires it to be translated as
a future, seeing it is not literally true that Abraham _was_ a father of
many nations at the moment that God addressed these words to him, then,
_on precisely the same principle_, the last verb ought to be translated
as a future, "I _will_ make thee,"--not "I _have_ made thee," as both
versions agree in doing--as it is not literally true, that, at the
moment when God thus addressed him, He _had_ made him a father of many
nations.
If no one will venture to translate the last verb as a future,
why should the first be so rendered?
If it be said that the first verb has a conjunction before it,
called _Waw_, signifying "and," and that the Hebrew Grammarians have
laid it down as an idiom of the language, that, in certain
circumstances, _Waw_ before a preterite indicates that the preterite is
to be reckoned as a future, the answer is: These circumstances do not
exist in the present case.
The fundamental Rule laid down by all Hebrew Grammarians to
regulate _Waw Conversive_ is: that the first verb to be converted must
be preceded by one of a different tense, e.g., a preterite must be
preceded by a future, and a future by a preterite.
But, in the passage before us, there is, in the Hebrew, no verb
at all preceding the one supposed to be converted, and consequently the
Rule cannot operate.
_On no principle of Hebrew Grammar, as commonly taught_, can the
Conversive Principle come into operation in this passage, and it is only
one out of _hundreds of similar instances_.
The solution of the matter is found in the principle: That the
Hebrews were in the habit of using the preterite form of the verb to
denote a fixed determination that the things mentioned _shall_ and
_must_ take place; this principle is common to all the Semitic
languages; it is distinctly admitted by the best Hebrew Grammarians; it
is common to the New Testament Writers, and to the whole series of Greek
and Latin Classics, (see Winer, Stuart, Kuhner, &c.) and it is the only
one that meets all cases.
The _Waw Conversive_, on the contrary, is unknown in _every_
other Hebrew composition--in _every_ other Semitic dialect--in _every_
other language on earth.
HEBREW TENSES ILLUSTRATED BY THOSE OF OTHER LANGUAGES
------
RABBINICAL WRITINGS.
THE oldest writings in the Hebrew language, after the Old Testament, are
the _Talmuds_, large portions of which we have examined to find some
examples of Waw Conversive, but in vain; we have not found a single
instance of a preterite converted into a future, or any thing that bears
the slightest resemblance to it.
With the same view we have read large portions of the best
Rabbinical Commentators, Kimchi, Jarchi, Aben-Ezra; the Jewish
Prayer-Books, the Hebrew translations of the New Testament, of the
Pilgrim's Progress, of Dr M'Caul's Old Paths, and have looked over other
Hebrew works too numerous to mention, and all with the same negative
result. How is it at all possible that the Hebrew language, as found in
the Old Testament, can have a Waw Conversive, if it be wanting in all
the oldest and most valued later Hebrew writings? Can credulity go
farther?
The _astounding fact_ is: that, out of the hundreds of languages
which are, and have been, spoken on the earth, not one, except the
Hebrew, is supposed to have the Waw Conversive; while, out of the
hundreds of volumes which have been published in the Hebrew language,
not one, except the Old Testament, has the Waw Conversive!
SAMARITAN.
NICHOLLS writes:--"Some verbs include, under the perfect form,
both a perfect and present tense, ... we sometimes find a future
circumstance related in the perfect tense, as something that has
actually taken place, the design of the writers in this case was to mark
the future occurrence as something already evidently decreed and decided
on, and therefore as it were accomplished: thus Ge. 15.18, 'To thy sons
have I given the land.'
"The peculiar use of Waw, called Waw Conversive among the
Hebrews, is _unknown_ to the Samaritans, Chaldees, and Syrians.
"The future tense, besides the force of a future, seems to
have the force of a present; as Ge. 37.15, 'What seekest thou?' Ex.
5.15, 'Why do ye do so?'"--_Grammar_, p. 93,94.
ETHIOPIC--ANCIENT.
LUDOLPH writes:--"_Praesens_ tantum in subjunctivo occurrit; nam
indicativi futuro utuntur pro praesenti; quod quidem nostro idiomati
assuetis oppido iucommodum videtur, sensus tamen, constructio, longnsque
usus, huic defectui succurrit.
"Praeteritum ... continet autem sub se caetera praeterita
latinorum, imperfectivum, et plusquam perfectum indicativi et
subjunctivi, nec non futurum subjunctiva, si particulae id poscant, ut
Ps. 50.17; 54.12,13.
"Excipe _hale_; defectum, quod praesentis et imperfecti
indicativi signiticationem habet, est, erat adest, aderat." "Futurum, ut
dixemus, hic etiam pro presenti indicativi est."--_Gram_. p. 19,20).
AMHARIC.
ISENBERG writes:--"The Abyssinians have not, strictly speaking,
more than two divisions of time, i.e., the past and the present; the
present being used also for the future.... The present, which might be
perhaps with propriety called aorist [?] because it is applicable to the
future, as well as to the present tense, is a form composed of the
contingent and the auxiliary.
"Whether this form, when it occurs, is intended for the present
or the future, generally depends on the context. In order, however, to
have no doubt when they speak of future things, they use the simple
contingent form with additional particles, I have [am] to be honourable;
time is for me [to come] that I am to be honourable.'
"The simple preterite of the indicative is used ... for the
present or immediate future. ... 'I am gone,' i.e., if you allow me I go
now; or when a person is frequently called, and does not come, he at
last answers, [I have come, I have come, i.e.] 'I come, I come.'
"The present indicative is used for both the present and the
future tenses.
"The future time is _generally_ expressed by the same forms
which serve for the present, except the aoristic construction. In page
66 of this work we pointed out a decidedly future form, besides which
they make use of the contingent with _al_ and _dohonal_; but these two
latter forms are not confined to the future; they are also used for the
present tense."
MALTESE
GESENIUS writes:--"Ich folge der Anordnung der Grammatiker fur
die arabische vulgar-sprache, in welcher bekantlich, wie in Maltese, das
Fut. _praesent_ ist.--P. 16.
COPTIC.
TATTAM writes:--"Instances frequently occur, in which the
present tense is used for the perfect, and also for the future.
"The future tense and future participles are sometimes used to
express the present and perfect tenses."--_Grammar_, p. 61-66.
HEBREW TENSES ILLUSTRATED BY THOSE OF OTHER LANGUAGES.
ARABIC--ANCIENT.
RICHARDSON writes:--"The _preterite_ is used also in place of
the _future_, and other tenses, which an attention to the construction
only can render familiar.
"The particle _la_, 'not,' gives to the _preterite_ the
signification of the _present_, 'the fruit of timidity does not gain
[hath not gained], and doth not lose [hath not lost]. ... Perceded by
_az_, or _aza_, 'when,' it becomes the _future_ of the subjunctive,
'when you shall be [have been] among strange people, to whom you do not
belong, then eat whatever is set before you, whether it be bad or good.'
"The _future_ corresponds more frequently to our present than to
any other tense, as may be remarked in almost every passage. ... It is
frequently _restrained_ to a _future_ tense when the particle _sa_ is
prefixed ... the negative _lana_, 'not at all,' together with the
particles _saufa, saf, saw, say_, give it likewise the future sense.
When preceded by _ma_, 'not,' it has for the most part a present
signification. ... _lam_ and _lama_, 'not yet,' gives it, according to
Erpenius, the sense of the _preterite_."--_Grammar_, p. 81-89
ARABIC--MODERN.
FARIS EL-SHIDIAC writes:--"The form for the _future_ of the verb
is also applicable for the _present_. The modern Arabs, therefore, make
it a real _present_ by joining it to some other word. Thus _howa
yaktuba_, signifies _he writes_, or _he will write_. But _howa ammal
yaktuba_, has the single signification of _he is writing_.
"Although in the classical Arabic there are two particles, _sa_
and _saufa_ employed to confine the verb to the future, they are very
seldom used in ordinary books."--_Grammar_, p. 38.
SYRIAC--ANCIENT.
HOFFMAN writes:--"_Praet_. pro Fut. in sermonibus _propheticis,
asseverationibus_, vel in expectatione interdum, sed multo rarius, quam
in Hebraicis libris usurpatur (Praet. _propheticum_), ita ut viva
loquentis imaginatione id, quod futurum est, tanquam praeteritum aut
certe praesens fingatur; e.g., Es. 9.1, Ge. 17.20; 40.14, Job 19.27, Jo.
5.24.
"Praet. pro _Imper_. ut quamquam non omnino prohibitum, tamen in
uno fere verbo _hewo_ vulgare est, idque in sermonibus tum affirmantibus
tum negantibus, praecipue ubi cum Adject. aut Partic. conjunctum
legitur, ut Mat. 5.25; 6.7, Mar. 5.34; 13.37, Lu. 10.37; 11.2; 13.14,
Rom. 12.9-14, 16, 1Cor. 11.24; 14.20, Eph. 4.32, Tit. 3.1, 1Jo. 4.1.
"Praet. pro _Fut. exacto_ poni, non singulare putarim, quia hoc
tempus praeteriti notionem certo includit; ita in his sententiis
hypotheticis, De. 4.30, 1Sa. 10.2.
The _future_ is used: "pro _praes_. neque tamen tam crebro, quam
in Hebraico sermone, e.g. 1Sa. 1.8, Ephr. 1.119, f., Ge. 4.15, Es.
43.17.
"Fut. Syriaco ea quoque indicantur, quae Romani _praes_.
conjunct, designant; itaque _a_) _Optativus_, ut Ps. 7.10, Cant. 7.9,
1Reg. 17.21, deinde b) Germanorum formulae loquendi verbo quodam
auxiliari (_mogen, durfer, konnen, sollen_), effectae, ut Ps. 7.10, Es.
19.12; 47.13. Esdr. 19.14 Ge. 2.16; 3.2; 30.31, Ju. 14.16, Pr. 20.9, Non
minus c) _Imper_. hoc tempore signatur, quid? quod in praeceptis ad
aliquid prohibendum datis, cum Imper. _prohibitive_ usurpari nequeat (P
132, 1), vulgo eo utuntur, e.g., Ge. 46.3, Ex. 20.13-17, Ruth 1.20."--
_Grammar_, p. 332-336.
UHLEMANN writes:--"The _past_ designates the _present_ tense a)
in _prophecies, asseverations_, and the like, which are viewed as
already fulfilled and accomplished.
"The _future_ stands for ... the _present_, although more rarely
than in Hebrew.
"The _preterite_ also stands for the _imperative_."--Grammar, p.
171-7.
SYRIAC--MODERN
STODDART writes.--"_Present tense_. This is sometimes used ...
as a _future_, 'we are going after a month;' so in Ge. 6.17, where in
the modern language we have the _present_ tense, and in the ancient the
active participle.
"_Preterite tense_.--1) Used as a _present_: e.g., a man in
distress says; '_I died_, i.e., I am dead; _I choked_, i.e., I am
choked, or I am drowned.' A boy in recitation, if confused, will say
'_it lost on me_,' i.e., I have lost it. Ask a man how his business is
to-day, and he may reply, 'It remained [remains] just so.' Persons
coming to make a petition will tell us, 'we poured (i.e., we now place)
our hope on you.' Compare Ancient Syriac, (Hoff. P 129, 4.b.c.) (Compare
also Ps. 1.1, in the Ancient and Modern.
"4) As a _future_, e.g., if you died to-morrow, you perished; if
you believe, Christ just now (i.e., at this moment) received [will
receive] you;' this is no doubt an emphatic future. Compare Nordh. P
966. 1,c.
"5) As a _subjunctive present_. ... Many of the idioms mentioned
above give force and vivacity to the language. We are thus allowed to
speak of events and actions which are present or future, though
definite, or future and contingent, as if they had actually transpired
and were recorded in the past. On this account the preterite is often
used in Hebrew in the language of prophecy.
"It is not strange that these different idioms lead to
ambiguity, which no acquaintance with the language will fully remove;
e.g., [a certain given phrase] may be translated, 'our sweet voices let
us all raise; _or_ we do all raise, _or_ we will all raise.' The
perplexity thus caused, however, is as nothing compared with the
puzzling expressions we often find in Hebrew."--_Grammar_, p. 158-164.
HEBREW TENSES ILLUSTRATED BY THOSE OF OTHER LANGUAGES.
TURKISH.
BARKER writes:--"The first tense [i.e. the present] has also a
future signification; _aidrm_ is used for 'I do' and 'I will do'
equally. It is therefore called aorist [?] by Mr Redhouse." The present
participle _aider_, 'doing,' has, Mr Barker says, a future sense also.--
_Grammar_, p. 27, 28.
PERSIAN,
BLEECK writes:--"In narration, when, after a verb in the
_preterite_, a second verb occurs, which in English would also be
naturally in a _past_ tense, the Persians employ the present (or
aorist), as, 'The young tiger saw that he _has_ not the power of
resisting.'
"Similarly, in recounting a conversation, the Persians always
make use of a dramatic style, i.e., they report the very words, as,
Hattim told her that he would not eat--lit., Hattim said to her thus, I
will not eat."--_Grammar_, p. 79.
SANSCRIT.
WILLIAMS writes:--"_Present tense_. This tense, besides its
proper use, is frequently used for the _future_; as, 'whether shall [do]
I go? when shall [do] I see thee?'
"In narrative it is commonly used for the _past_ tense; as, 'he
having touched the ground, touches his ears, and says.' ... The particle
_sma_, when used with the present, gives it the force of a
perfect."--_Grammar_, p. 198, 199.
GUJARATI.
CLARKSON writes:--"_Present_ [tense expresses] in familiar
conversation action as about to take place immediately, 'I am sending
[going to send] a servant with you; [also] action originating in past
time, and not yet completed, where the English uses the perfect of the
auxiliary, 'How many days have you been [are you] studying Gujarati.'
"It is used in narrative of _past_ events, when writing
seriatim.
"It expresses _future_ action, which, on account of its
certainty, is viewed as present by the speaker, e.g., I go [shall go]
this year to Bombay.
"The first _future_ ... is used ... where the English uses the
present, especially when preceded by _jare_, 'when,'--when my brother
comes, lit. shall come.'--_Grammar_, p. 73, 74.
HINDUSTANI.
Shakespear writes:--"The _past_ indefinite of a verb seems at
times used in a present or future sense. ... The _present_, when
celerity in the performance of any enterprise is emphatically denoted,
may be used in the sense of the _future_. ... The indefinite _future_ or
_aorist_ may not only convey a present meaning, but it may even be
construed with an auxiliary verb as a present participle
even."--_Grammar_, p. 136.
SIAMESE,
LOW writes:--"The present tense of this [indicative] mood is in
its nature indefinite, ... I remain _or_ I will remain; you are not to
go yonder, i.e., you will [shall?] not go. ... 'I shot a bird,' as it
stands, might be also rendered, 'I shoot a bird.'--_Grammar_, p. 47.
TELOOGOO.
CAMPBELL writes:--"It is of much importance for the reader to
understand that the two forms of the future tense are seldom used; the
present or the aorist being commonly substituted for them."--_Grammar_,
p. 99.
MALAY.
CRAWFORD writes:--"Time is often left to be inferred from the
context, and, indeed, is expressed _only when it is indispensable_ to
the sense that it should be specified.
"The tenses, when they must be specified, are formed by
auxiliaries, which are either verbs or adverbs."--_Grammar_, p. 48.
NEW ZEALAND.
WILLIAMS writes:--"The present and perfect, when formed by _ka_,
will generally be distinguished by the sense."--p. 63.
YORUBA.
GROWTHER writes:--"The _present_ and _imperfect_ tenses are both
alike; as _moh loh_, I go, I went; _awa de_, we return, we returned; _o
sung_, he sleeps, he slept; _o joko_, thou sittest, thou sattest. ...
The present tense, strictly speaking, is more frequently expressed by
the sign of the particle _ng_, and [it] is then understood that the
action is not yet past; as _a'ng--koh takardah_, we are writing a
book."--Vocabulary, p. 16.
HEBREW TENSES ILLUSTRATED BY THOSE OF OTHER LANGUAGES.
ENGLISH.
PRIESTLEY writes:--"A little reflection may, I think suffice to
convince any person that we have no more business with a _future tense_
in our language than we have with the whole system of Latin moods and
tenses; because we have no modification of our verbs to correspond to
it; and if we had never heard of a future tense in some other language,
we should no more have given a particular name to the combination of the
verb with the auxiliary _shall_ or _will_, than to those that are made
with the auxiliaries _do, have, can, must_, or any other."--_English
Grammar_.
LATHAM writes:--"Notwithstanding its name, the _present_ tense,
in English, does not express a strictly _present_ action; it rather
expresses an _habitual_ one. He speaks well--he is a good speaker. If a
man means to say that he is in the act of speaking, he says, _I am
speaking_. It has also, especially when combined with a subjunctive
mood, a _future_ power. I beat you (--I will beat you) if you don't
leave off."--_English Language_, p. 455.
LINDLEY MURRAY writes:--"The _present_ tense, preceded by the
words _when, before, after, as soon as_, &c., is sometimes [often?] used
to point out the relative time of a _future_ action; as, '_When_ he
arrives he will hear the news;' 'He will hear the news _before_ he
arrives;' or, '_As soon as_ he arrives,' or, 'At, farthest, _soon after_
he arrives;' 'The more she improves, the more amiable she will be.'
"In animated historical narratives, this tense is sometimes
[always?] substituted for the imperfect tense; as, 'He _enters_ the
territory of the peaceful inhabitants, he _fights_ and _conquers, takes_
an immense booty, which he _divides_ among his soldiers, and _returns_
home to enjoy an empty triumph.'
"The _perfect_ tense, preceded by the words _when, after, as
soon as_, &c., is often used to denote the _relative_ time of a _future_
action; as, '_When_ I have finished my letter, I will attend to his
request;' 'I will attend to this business, _as soon as_ I have finished
my letter.'
"It is to be observed, that in the _subjunctive_ mood ... the
verb itself in the _present_, and the auxiliary both of the _present_
and _past-imperfect_ tenses often carry with them somewhat of a _future_
sense; as, 'If he come to-morrow, I may speak to him; if he should _or_
would come to-morrow, I might, could, would, or should speak to him.'
"Observe also, that the auxiliaries _should_ and _would_, in the
_imperfect_ tenses, are used to express the _present_ and _future_ as
well as the _past_: as, 'It is my desire, that he should, or would, come
now, or to-morrow;' as well as, 'It was my desire, that he should or
would come yesterday;' so that, in this mood, the precise time of the
verb is very much _determined_ by the nature and drift of the
sentence."--_Grammar_, p. 116-119.
PICKBOURN writes:--"The first of these English tenses, viz., _I
write_, is an aorist [?], or indefinite of the present time.
"Even those compound participles, which denote _completed_ or
_finished_ actions, may be applied to _future_, as well as _past_ and
_present_ time. Thus: "Whenever that ambitious young prince _comes_ to
the throne, _being supported_ by a veteran army, and _having got_
possession of the treasures which will be [are] _found_ in his father's
coffers, he," &c.--_English Verb_, p. 111.
MARSH writes:--"It is a curious fact that the _Romance_
languages, as well as the _Romaic_, at one period of their history, all
rejected the ancient inflected futures, and formed new compound or
auxiliary ones, employing for that purpose the verbs _will_ and _shall_,
or _have_ in the sense of duty or necessity, though French, Italian,
Spanish and Portuguese, have now agglutinated the infinite and auxiliary
into a simple future.
"Why is it that the Gothic languages have always possessed a
_past_ tense, never a _future_? Why did the Romance dialects retain the
Latin _past_ forms, and reject the Latin _future_?"
"If the expression of time is an inherent necessity of the verb,
special forms for the future as well as the present and the past ought
to be universal, but in most modern European languages, the future is a
compound, the elements of which are a _present_ auxiliary and an
_aorist_ infinitive, for in the phrases I _shall_ go, he _will_ go,
_shall_ and _will are in the present tense, and _go_ is aoristic.
"The Anglo-Saxon, with a single exception in the case of a
substantive verb, had absolutely no mode of expressing the future by any
verbal form, simple or compound. The context alone determined the time,
and in German, in the Scandinavian dialects, and in English, we still
very commonly, as the Anglo-Saxons did, express the future by a present.
_Ich gehe morgen nach London_, I go, or I am going, to London to-morrow,
are more frequently used by Germans and Englishmen, than _ich werde
gehen_, I shall or will go; and the adverbial nouns _morgen_ and
to-morrow, not the verbs _gehen_ and go, are the true time-words.
"The use of the present for the past, too, especially in
spirited narrative and in poetry, is not less familiar, and in both
these cases the expression of time belongs to the grammatical period,
not to the verb."--_Lectures_, p. 204.
SUMMARY OF THE NEW VIEW OF THE HEBREW VERB
From these pages the scholar can scarcely fail to infer that:--
I. The form of the Hebrew verb _yiqtol_, denotes a _real present_, and
not a _future_:
1) Because it is admitted by Ewald, Gesenius, Lee, Rodiger, and every
other Hebrew Grammarian of name, that it is so in numberless places,
and because there are thousands of instances where the Common English
Version, and all other versions, ancient and modern, do rightly
translate it as a _present_.
2) Because there are numerous passages where it cannot possibly be a
_future_; and as it is impossible, in the very nature of things, for a
_real future_ to express _present_ time,--whereas it is very common,
in almost all languages, rhetorically to express futurity by a
present--it must be a present, and not a future.
3) Because in all the Cognate Semitic Dialects it is regarded as a
present.
II. The form of the Hebrew verb _qatal_ denotes a _past_ (perfect or
imperfect). It is also used idiomatically:--
1) To express a gentle _imperative_; this is universally agreed by all
Hebrew Grammarians to be the case when it is preceded by a regular
imperative, e.g., "Speak and say," lit., Speak, and thou hast said;
but this limitation of theirs arises from imperfect acquaintance with
the facts of the case, as there are many passages where there is no
imperative preceding, yet where the past tense is used to express a
command, e.g., Zech. 1.3, "And thou hast said," i.e, "Say thou." This
idiom is also admitted to be common in all the Cognate Semitic
Dialects.
2) To express a fixed determination that a certain thing must and
shall be. This idiom is distinctly admitted by the above-mentioned
Hebrew Grammarians, and is common, not only in the Cognate Semitic
Dialects, but in the _Greek New Testament_, and also in the _Greek_
and _Latin Classics_, as shown by Stuart, Winer, Macknight, Kuhner,
and others.
III. The _Waw Conversive_ is unnecessary. It is based upon superficial
data, for:--
1) It supposes _yiqtol_ to be an _exclusively future_ form, which is
not the case.
2) It ignores the idiomatic use of the past tense to express a "fixed
determination," which is admitted by all Hebrew Grammarians.
3) It casts the utmost uncertainty over the language, as, on the very
same principles by which _waw_ is supposed to be conversive, the
particles _once, behind, not, yea, when, how? also, lo, because, so,
except, why? therefore, whence? what?_ and _who?_ must be held to be
conversive likewise--which no sane man will venture to maintain.
4) It does not explain all the phenomena of the case, for there are
numberless passages "where a past tense is preceded neither by a
future nor by an imperative (as the rules of Waw Conversive
imperatively require), yet, when it is converted in the Common English
Version, and with as much propriety as in any of those instances which
are supposed to be indisputable."
5) It is unparalleled among all the other languages of the
world--ancient and modern, eastern and western.
It is found in no other composition in the Hebrew Language; in all
the most ancient, and valued, and voluminous Hebrew writings it is
wanting;--the Talmudim, the Perushim, the Midrashim, have it not. If
the Hebrew language ever had a _Waw Conversive_, is it at all likely
that it should _suddenly, totally_, and _unobservedly_ drop out of
existence?
_The result of the whole is_: That the _Waw Conversive_ does not exist
in the Hebrew Bible, and is Unnecessary, Imperfect, and Unexampled in
any language.
It has only a _traditional_ existence, being the too hasty
_generalization_ of some ancient grammarians, who observed that the
Septuagint Translators had--with the freedom which characterizes their
whole work both in style and sentiments--deemed the Hebrew idioms too
_colloquial_ for the fastidious Greeks, and too _simple_ for the dignity
of literary composition; and as all succeeding translators, without an
exception, were under the spell of the sacred character of that Version,
it is no wonder, though much to be regretted, that their example was
followed. Of late years there has been a very strong tendency in
translators and expositors to adhere more than ever to the exact form of
the Hebrew and Greek Tenses, but the present Translation is the first
and only one in which it is carried out systematically.
CONFUSED RENDERINGS OF KING JAMES' REVISERS.
The English verb 'destroy' is, in the Common Version, the
representative of not less than forty-nine different Hebrew words (as
may be seen in the 'Englishman's Hebrew Concordance,' p. 1510 of second
edition);-- the verb 'to set,' of forty, and 'to bring,' of thirty-nine,
&c. It ia evident, therefore, that the use of 'Cruden's Concordance,'
and all others based on the Common Version, can only mislead the mere
English reader.
The following list of words, with the number of their Hebrew
representatives (according to the Common Version) expressed in numerals,
will surprise all who have not hitherto attended to this subject; viz:--
To abhor 12, abide 13, abundance 11, affliction 12, to be afraid
22, after 13, against 13, among 11, to be angry 10, another 11, to
appoint 24, appointed 10, army 10, at 13, to bear 13, beauty 15, before
22, beside 14, to bind 15, body 12, border 13, bough 13, branch 20, to
break 33, bright 10, to bring 39, to bring forth 21, broken 12, to be
broken 16, to burn 19, burning 12, but 15, by 14, captain 16, captivity
10, to carry away 10, to carry 12, to cast 19, to cast down 19, to cast
out 15, to catch 12, to cease 21, chain 10, chamber 10, change 16, to be
changed 10, chief 10, to cleave 15, coast 10, to come 32, commandment
12, companion 10, company 22, to consider 18, to consume 21, consumed
10, to continue 11, corner 10, country 10, to cover 21, covering 13, to
cry 17, to cut down 10, to be cut down 13, to cut off 18, to be cut off
14, dark 11, darkness 10, to declare 11, decree 11, to be defiled 10, to
deliver 26, to depart 18, desire 13, to desire 13, desolate 16, to be
desolate 11, desolation 12, to despise 10, to destroy 49, to be
destroyed 17, destruction 35, to divide 19, to draw out 10, dung 10, to
dwell 14, dwelling 11, east 10, end 26, to establish 13, to be exalted
11, excellent 10, to fail 30, to faint 18, to fall 14, fear 16, to fear
10, flood 10, for 21, foundation 11, from 17, fruit 12, garment 14, to
gather 23, to gather together 16, to be gathered 10, to be gathered
together 14, to get 16, gift 12, to give 15, glorious 12, glory 10, to
go 22, goodly 15, governor 12, great 24, grief 10, to be grieved 17,
grievous 10, to grow 13, habitation 17, to harden 10, haste 11, to make
haste 10, height 11, to hide 14, to hide self 12, high 18, to hold 12,
hurt 11, idol 11, if 10, in 13, to increase 17, iniquity 11, to be
joined 10, judgment 10, to keep 11, to kindle 15, knowledge 12, labour
10, to be laid 10, to lay 24, to lead 12, to leave 15, to be left 11, to
lift up 15, light 13, to long 10, to look 16, to be made 11, majesty 10,
to make 23, man 12, to mark 10, measure 13, meat 14, to meet 10, midst
10, might 12, mighty 26, to mourn 12, to move 15, to be moved 13, much
10, multitude 14, net 10, not 14, now 13, of 10, to offer 22, offering
10, old 13, only 11, to oppress 10, to ordain 12, over 10, to overthrow
11, palace 10, part 14, people 10, to perceive 10, to perish 13, pit 12,
place 13, pleasant 17, pleasure 10, poor 10, portion 13, to pour out 12,
power 17, to prepare 14, to prevail 15, pride 10, prince 11, proud 16,
to put 28, to regard 17, rejoice 19, to remain 16, remnant 11, to remove
20, to be removed 11, to repair 10, to rest 17, reward 16, riches 10,
right 16, river 11, ruler 13, to run 14, scatter 12, to be scattered 10,
secret 12, to set 40, to be set 13, to set up 18, to shake 15, to shew
19, to shine 11, to shut 11, side 13, to be slain 14, slaughter 12, to
slay 15, to smite 12, sorrow 28, to speak 22, speech 10, spoil 10, to
spoil 16, to spread 15, to stay 14, to stop 10, strength 33, to
strengthen 12, strong 26, substance 14, to take 34, to take away 24, to
be taken away 10, to tarry 16, to teach 10, to tell 12, terror 10, that
16, these 16, think 12, this 20, thought 11, through 11, thus 10, to 12,
tremble 13, trouble 14, to trouble 12, to be troubled 14, truth 11, to
turn 15, to turn aside 10, to be turned 10, understanding 14, to utter
15, to vex 16, to wait 10, wall 13, waste 10, to waste 10, when 12,
where 13, which 11, wisdom 12, with 18, within 12, without 12, word 10,
work 15, wrath 10, yet 10, youth 11.
To make afraid 8, ancient 8, army 8, ask 8, assembly 8, back 9,
band 9, battle 8, beat 9, because of 8, to behold 9, bottom 8, break
down 8, to be brought 9, burden 8, to be burned 8, cast down 9, cause 9,
to charge 8, chariot 8, clean 8, come upon 8, commit 8, to compass 9,
confirm 9, cry out 8, to cut 8, to dance 8, deceitful 8, deep 9, defence
8, to be delivered 9, destroyer 8, devour 9, to direct 9, to do 9, to be
done 8, to draw 9, to drive 8, drive away 8, dry 8, edge 8, enemy 9,
even 8, ever 8, excellency 8, except 8, fair 8, fall down 8, fat 8,
favour 8, to feed 9, fellow 9, first 9, flame 9, folly 9, foolish 9,
form 9, friend 9, full 9, to gather selves together 8, be glad 9, going
9, be gone 9, goods 8, grieve 9, guide 8, heart 8, here 8, be hid 9,
hole 8, honour 9, hope 9, image 9, increase 9, it 8, kill 9, lamb 9, to
lament 9, to lay up 9, to leap 8, lift up self 8, to be lifted up 9,
like 8, to be liked 8, line 8, little one 8, long 8, lord 8, lying 8,
majesty 8, manner 9, to melt 9, mischief 8, to mock 8, mourning 8, none
8, officer 8, one 8, to open 9, oppressor 8, other 8, pain 9, to part 8,
path 9, perfect 9, to perform 8, to pervert 8, piece 9, plain 8, pluck
8, polluted 9, possession 9, pray 9, precious 8, preserve 8, price 8,
prison 9, prosper 9, pure 9, purpose 9, put away 9, put on 9, raise up
9, ready 8, receive 9, rejoicing 9, rest 8, return 8, ruin 8, to rule 9,
to be sanctified 8, save 8, to say 8, search 8, see 9, shame 9, sheep 8,
to shoot 8, to shout 8, shut up 8, sin 9, since 8, to sing 8, small 9,
snare 9, son 8, sore 9, to sound 8, space 8, spring, 8, staff 9, step 8,
stir up 8, stranger 9, stream 9, strike 8, strive 9, stronghold 9,
subdue 8, such 8, surety 8, sweet 9, to be taken 8, tear 9, thick 8.
The above are taken from a most useful book, entitled 'The
Englishman's Hebrew Concordance,' which only requires the insertion of
the Hebrew Particles to make it a complete work.
'The Bible Student's Guide,' by the Rev. W. Wilson, D.D., cannot
be sufficiently commended as an accurate and elaborate Key to the mixed
renderings of King James' Revisers.
LAX RENDERINGS OF KING JAMES' REVISERS.
NATHAN, 'to give,' is rendered (in the Kal conjugation) by such words
as: to add, apply, appoint, ascribe, assign, bestow, bring, bring forth,
cast, cause, charge, come, commit, consider, count, deliver, deliver up,
direct, distribute, fasten, frame, give, give forth, give over, give up,
grant, hang, hang up, lay, lay to charge, lay up, leave, lend, let, let
out, lift up, make, O that, occupy, offer, ordain, pay, perform, place,
pour, print, put, put forth, recompense, render, requite, restore, send,
send out, set, set forth, shew, shoot forth, shoot up, strike, suffer,
thrust, trade, turn, utter, would God, yield; besides seventeen
varieties in idiomatic renderings=84!
ASAH, 'to do,' (in Kal) by: to accomplish, advance, appoint, to be at,
bear, bestow, bring forth, bring to pass, bruise, be busy, have charge,
commit, deal, deal with, deck, do, dress, execute, exercise, fashion,
finish, fit, fulfil, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant,
hold, keep, labour, maintain, make ready, make, observe, offer, pare,
perform, practise, prepare, procure, provide, put, require, sacrifice,
serve, set, shew, spend, take, trim, work, yield; besides twenty
idiomatic renderings=74!
DABAR, 'a word,' is rendered by: act, advice, affair, answer, anything,
book, business, care, case, cause, certain rate, commandment,
communication, counsel decree, deed, due, duty, effect, errant, hurt,
language, manner, matter, message, oracle, ought, parts, pertaining,
portion, promise, provision, purpose, question, rate, reason, report,
request, sake, saying, sentence, something to say, speech, talk, task,
thing, thought, tidings, what, wherewith, whit, word, work; besides
thirty-one idiomatic renderings=84!
PANIM, 'face,'is rendered by: afore, afore-time, against, anger, at,
because of, before, before-time, countenance, edge, face, favour, fear
of, for, forefront, forepart, form, former time, forward, from, front,
heaviness, it, as long as, looks, mouth, of, off, of old, old time,
open, over-against, person, presence, prospect, was purposed, by reason
of, right forth, sight, state, straight, through, till, time past, times
past, to, toward, unto, upon, upside, with, within; besides forty-two
idiomatic renderings=94!
SUM or SIM, 'to set,' is (in Kal) rendered by: appoint, bring, care,
cast in, change, charge, commit, consider, convey, determine, dispose,
do, get, give, heap up, hold, impute, be laid, lay, lay down, lay up,
leave, look, be made, make, make out, mark, ordain, order, place, be
placed, preserve, purpose, put, put on, rehearse, reward, set, cause to
be set set on, set up, shew, take, turn, work; besides fourteen
idiomatic renderings=59!
SHUB, (in Hiphil) 'to turn back,' is rendered by: to answer, cause to
answer, bring, bring back, bring again, bring home again, carry back,
carry again, convert, deliver, deliver again, draw back, fetch home
again, give again, hinder, let, pull in again, put, put again, put up
again, recall, recompense, recover, refresh, relieve, render, render
again, be rendered, requite, rescue, restore, retrieve, return, cause to
return, make to return, reverse reward, send back, set again, take back,
take off, turn away, turn back, cause to turn, make to turn, withdraw;
besides fifteen idiomatic renderings=60!
NASAH, 'to lift up,' is (in Kal) rendered by: accept, arise, able to
bear, bear up, be borne, bring, bring forth, burn, be burned, carry,
carry away, cast, contain, ease, exact, exalt, fetch, forgive, go on,
hold up, lade, be laid, lay, lift up, pluck up, marry, obtain, offer,
pardon, raise, raise up, receive, regard, respect, set, set up, spare,
stir up, suffer, take, take away, take up, wear, yield; besides four
idiomatic renderings=46!
OBAR, 'to pass over,' is (in Kal) rendered by: to alienate, be altered,
come, come over, come on, be delivered, enter, escape, fail, get over,
go, go away, go beyond, go by, go forth, go his way, go in, go on, go
over, go through, be gone, have more, overcome, overpass, overpast,
overrun, pass, pass along, pass away, pass beyond, pass by, pass on,
pass out, pass over, pass through, give passage, be past, perish,
transgress; besides three idiomatic renderings=42!
RAB, 'many, much,' is rendered by: abound, abundance, abundant, captain,
elder, common, enough, exceedingly, full, great, great multitude, great
man, great one, greatly, increase, long, long enough, manifold, many,
many a time, so many, have many many things, master, mighty, more, much,
too much, very much, multiply, multitude, officer, plenteous, populous,
prince, suffice, sufficient; besides seven idiomatic renderings=44!
TOB, 'good,' is rendered, by: beautiful, best, better, bountiful,
cheerful, at ease, fair, fair word, to favour, be in favour, fine, glad,
good, good deed, goodlier, goodliest, goodly, goodness, goods,
graciously, joyful, kindly, kindness, liketh, liketh best, loving,
merry, pleasant, pleasure, precious, prosperity, ready, sweet, wealth,
welfare, well, to be well; besides four idiomatic renderings=41!
It would be easy to multiply examples of lax renderings did space
permit. The following are some that have been marked; e.g.
Ahad by 23, Altar 25, Ish 31, Al 36, Im 23, Amar 37, Aphes 23,
Asher 27, Bo 32, Bin 20, Ben 20, Gam 20, Halak 36, Ze 21, Hul 27, Hazak
23, Hai 22, Hayil 26, Tob 37, Jad 36, Jada 36, Yom 32, Hatib 28, Yalak
24, Jatza 37, Ysh 31, Yashab 20, Ki 36, Kol 20, Kalah 21, Lakah 20, Meod
21, Moed 20, Matza 22, Maneh 20, Mishpat 27, Natah 21, Naphal 20,
Nephesh 35, Sabab 20, Ad 22, Oud 26, Oulam 24, Al 34, Alah 37, Im 21,
Amad 23, Anah 20, Arak 20, Pe 29, Panah 20, Pagod 25, Qum 27, Qarah 24,
Raah 32, Rosh 21, Hirbah 30, Ra 37, Shub 35, Shalom 28, Shillah 27,
Shillet 20, Shama 20.
CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER OF THE BOOKS OF THE
OLD AND NEW COVENANTS.
B.C. B.C.
1491 Genesis 787 Amos
Job 750 Micah
1491 Exodus 740 Hosea
1490 Leviticus 713 Nahum
1451 Numbers 698 Isaiah
1451 Deuteronomy 630 Zephaniah
1427 Joshua 626 Habakkuk
1406 Judges 623 Second Chronicles, X. to the end.
1312 Ruth 590 Second Kings
1055 First Samuel 588 Jeremiah
1018 Second Samuel 588 Lamentations
1015 First Chronicles 587 Obadiah
Psalms 574 Ezekiel
1013 Song of Solomon 534 Daniel
1004 First Kings, I.--XI. 520 Haggai
1004 Second Chronicles, I.--IX. 520 Zechariah
1000 Proverbs 509 Esther
975 Ecclesiastes 457 Ezra
897 First Kings, XII. &c. 434 Nehemiah
862 Jonah 397 Malachi.
800 Joel
A.D. A.D.
38 Matthew - - - - - - Judea 64 Acts - - - - - Greece
52 Galatians - - - - - Corinth or Macedonia 64 1st Timotheus - Macedonia
52 1st Thessalonians - Corinth 64 1st Peter - - - Rome
52 2d Thessalonians - Corinth 64 Titus - - - - Macedonia or Greek
56 1st Corinthians - - Ephesus 65 Mark - - - - - Rome
57 2d Corinthians - - Macedonia 65 2d Timotheus - Rome
58 Romans - - - - - - Corinth 65 2d Peter - - - Rome
61 Ephesians - - - - - Rome 69 1st John - - - Judea
61 James - - - - - - - Jerusalem 69 2d John - - - - Ephesus
62 Philippians - - - - Rome 69 3d John - - - - Ephesus
62 Colossians - - - - Rome 70 Jude - - - - - Unknown
62 Philemon - - - - - Rome 96 Revelation - - Patmos
63 Luke - - - - - - - Greece 97 John - - - - - Asia Minor.
63 Hebrews - - - - - - Rome
EXPLANATION OF 100 BIBLE TERMS.
There cannot be the slightest doubt in the mind of any reflecting person but
that a much greater amount of error in reference to the truths of the Word of
God arises from simple ignorance or inattention than from any other worse
cause whatever. Words, in the course of time, lose their original meaning, and
acquire a conventional one very often considerably different, and which, from
constant use, becomes little more than the shibboleth of a party. Very many are
accustomed to use Scripture language without at all being able to understand
its real meaning, and thus they are rather injured than benefited by their
familiarity with Scripture phraseology. The following are only a selection and
specimen of what a variety of words may be illustrated from presenting their
primitive idea:--
For accursed read devoted, everywhere in S.S.
... alms ... kind act, ... N.T.
... angel ... messenger, ... S.S.
... atonement ... covering. ... ...
... Beelzebub ... Beelzeboul. ... N.T.
... Belial ... Beliar, ... ...
... betray ... deliver up, ... ...
... bishop ... overseer, ... ...
... blasphemy ... evil speaking, ... ...
... blessed ... happy, very often in S.S.
... bondage ... service, everywhere in ...
... book ... roll, ... N.T.
... bottle ... skin, ... ...
... Canaanite ... Cana-nite, (Mat. 10.4; Mark
3.18.)
... charity ... love, everywhere in N.T.
... children ... sons, very often in S.S.
... chosen ... choice one, ... N.T.
... Christ ... [the] Christ, ... ...
... church ... assembly, everywhere in S.S.
... condemn ... judge, very often in N.T.
... create ... prepare, ... ...
... damnation ... judgment, ... N.T.
... deacon ... ministrant, ... ...
... devil ... false accuser, ... ...
... devils ... demons, ... ...
... earth ... land, ... S.S.
... Easter ... Passover, (Acts 12.4.)
... elect ... choice one, very often in S.S.
... eternal ... age-during, everywhere in ...
... everlasting ... ... ...
... for ever ... ... ... ...
... faith ... confidence, very often in ...
... farewell ... be strong, everywhere in ...
... feast ... banquet, very often in ...
... fool ... thoughtless, ... N.T.
... fornication ... whoredom, everywhere in S.S.
... friend ... comrade, (Mat.11.16; 20.13;
22.12; 26.50.)
... Ghost ... Spirit, everywhere in N.T.
... God forbid ... let it not be, ... ...
... godliness ... piety, ... ...
... gospel ... good news, ... ...
... grave ... unseen state, very often in S.S.
... heathen ... nations, everywhere in ...
... hell ... unseen state, ... ...
... heresy ... sect, ... N.T.
... holiness ... separation, ... S.S.
... holy ... separate, ... ...
... hypocrite ... profane, ... O.T.
... incense ... perfume, ... S.S.
... iniquity ... lawlessness, very often in N.T.
... inn ... guest chamber, (Mark 2.7,&c.)
For just read right, everywhere in S.S.
... justification ... state of being declared right.
... justify ... declare right, ... ...
... kingdom ... reign, very often in N.T.
... labourer ... workman, ... ...
... lamenting ... smiting the breast,... ...
... lord ... sir, ... ...
... lust ... desire, everywhere in S.S.
... Magdalene ... the Magdalene ... N.T.
... master ... teacher, rabbi, &c., very often.
... mercy ... kindness, very often in S.S.
... minister ... ministrant, everywhere in N.T.
... ministry ... ministration, ... ...
... offend ... stumble, ... ...
... parable ... simile, ... ...
... passion ... suffering, (Acts 1.3.)
... penny ... denary, everywhere in N.T.
... power ... authority, very often in ...
... presbytery ... eldership, (1 Tim. 4.14.)
... raka ... empty fellow! (Mat. 5.22.)
... repent ... have a new mind, often in N.T.
... repentance ... a new mind ... ...
... righteous ... right, everywhere in S.S.
... righteousness ... rightness, ... ...
... saint ... separate, or kind one, often
... salvation ... safety, everywhere in S.S
... sanctify ... separate, ... ...
... sanctification ... separation, ... ...
... Satan ... Adversary, ... ...
... Scripture ... Writing, ... ...
... ship ... boat, very often in N.T
... shoes ... sandals, everywhere in S.S
... sin ... lit. a missing of the mark.
... sinner ... lit. one who misses the mark.
... sitting ... reclining, very often in N.T.
... streets ... out-places, broad-places,
everywhere in S.S
... tares ... darnel, ... N.T
... temple ... sanctuary, very often in ...
... temptation ... trial, ... S.S
... testament ... covenant, everywhere in ...
... thief ... robber, very often in N.T.
... take no thought, be not anxious, everywhere.
... unleavened unleavened food, ...
bread ...
... uppermost highest couches, (Mat. 23.6
rooms ... Mark 2.39; Luke 11.43.)
... virtue ... worthiness, everywhere in S.S
... visit inspect, look after.
... wicked ... lit. one in the wrong, every
where in S.S
... world ... age, very often in ...
... worship ... obeisance, everywhere in ...