The Emphasised Bible/Introduction

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The Emphasised Bible translated by Joseph Bryant Rotherham







That this purports to be an "Emphasised" Bible is naturally the first thing to be noticed. But as it seems desirable to devote an entire chapter to the subject of Emphasis, further discussion of this prominent characteristic may be conveniently deferred until it falls to be considered in due course. In the meantime there are other features which have grown up around this, which it will be of advantage to set forth in order.

1. The size of the page. It is with design that this has been made large; mainly for the purpose of bringing into one view connected portions, the constituent parts of which can be so much more easily grasped and remembered when readily seen in their relation to each other and to the whole, than when extended over several smaller pages. The familiar fifteenth chapter of the Gospel by Luke affords an excellent example; the whole chapter being here brought within two columns, in which its historical introduction and the three parables of which it is composed are at once taken in by the eye.

2. The varying indentations of the lines. These have been employed to serve several important purposes.

a. They mark the transition from Narrative to Speech. The first chapter of Genesis comes out into beautiful relief by this means. After a few introductory words, the arrangement of the lines seems like a commentary on the text "He spake, and it was done." "He spake"—and the words of the speech are distinguished by being set in; "and it was done "—the record of the fact is given as narrative, shown by the nearer approach of the lines to the left-hand margin. The effect is solemnly dramatic. Sometimes the deeper questions of criticism are thus brought to the surface, and the humblest reader is moved to consider whether, for example, the Speeches of Moses recorded in the Book of Deuteronomy were afterwards edited. It is tolerably plain they were; and the perception of the fact would appear to favour the genuineness of the Speeches themselves by the formal removal of objections. Sometimes, again, a subtle question of exegesis is brought very near to a solution by the mere process of rightly indenting the lines. For instance: Does the eighteenth verse of the second chapter of Galatians present a conclusion to which the Apostle Paul had for himself arrived?—or is he still addressing his erring brother Peter, and delicately suggesting that Peter was now, at Antioch, "building up" an invidious distinction which, at Cæsarea, he had "destroyed"? The cited-speech indentation appears to be correctly continued there; and the aptness of the words to describe Peter's inconsistency, coupled with the independent fact that there is nothing to show that his faithful brother had yet done addressing him, goes far to settle the true explanation.
b. The indentations indicate the existence of Speech within Speech. Thus: Moses in the land of Moab, in relating the desert experiences through which the Sons of Israel, with himself, had newly come, cites previous speeches made at the respective times to which he refers—what the people had said to him and how he had answered the people. And it is an undoubted gain to be vividly confronted with the inquiry. Would any historical romancist have dared not only to put invented speeches into the mouth of Moses, but similar speeches into the mouth of God"? "Speech within speech" is to be found in many places, and is sometimes discovered to be invested with great interest: as when Solomon, in his Dedicatory Prayer,[1] cites Divine promises previously made to his father David; or as when the Apostle Paul, in addressing King Agrippa, quotes the very words in which the Risen Jesus had addressed him.[2]
c. The indentations call attention to the existence of Poetic Parallelism. This special kind of parallelism is, of course, not to be confounded with parallel texts or parallel narraitives, important though these both are in their own way. Poetic Parallelism is that beautiful, measured reduplication of thought, whereby the same sentiment or fact or promise is doubly expressed, the second time with a difference, still within the general scope of the first; the variation serving not only to cluster together beauties of speech, such as synonyms, contrasts, subservient natural images, and so forth, but to fix the general scope and outlook of the couplet or stanza, the one line hinting the limit to which the other may be assumed to submit, or defining the subject to which it also relates. From this point of view Parallelism steps in as a most graceful and useful handmaid to Exposition. But the charm of it, is what first is felt. "So God created man in his image ": that sounds like prose, however weighty. But when Parallelism breaks in with its balanced couplet—

In the image of God created he him,
Male and female created he them,—[3]

then we know we are in the presence of Poesy—a most fitting place, surely, for her first appearance!

There the lawless cease from raging,
And there the toilworn are at rest,"[4]

is so plaintive as to be like a mother's lullaby over her sick child.

Another strain is touched when we read—

For a child hath been born to us,
A son hath been given to us,—[5]

in which it may be noted that this and not the current rhythm is undoubtedly the true one; since this it is which, closely following the Hebrew, throws the emphasis in the right place—on "child" and "son." There lies our hope—in Him! These samples will suffice to point to the thousands of instances of Parallelism which, in this translation, lie before the reader. The present is not the place for discussing the many varieties of Parallelism to be found in the Bible. The subject is necessarily familiar in all treatises on Hebrew poetry. Better, however, than the perusal of any printed treatise will be the collating and classifying of instances by each student for himself. He can label his samples at pleasure, as "synonymous," "antithetic," "recurrent," "progressive," and so forth, provided he correctly describe them. It is uncertain whether due attention has generally been given to what may be described as semi-parallelism, not infrequently to be found in Isaiah. Its presence is intimated in this Bible, either by a couple of responding extra capitals, as in the following:—

I am sated With ascending-offerings of rams,
And the fat of fed beasts.[6]

So have I sworn—Not to be vexed with thee,
Nor to rebuke thee;[7]

or, when space has required it, by an extra line bestowed upon it, sooner than do it an injustice. Thus—

And they shall call thee—
The city of Yahweh,
The Zion of the Holy One of Israel.[8]

There is one especial form of Parallelism to which much interest attaches, if not by reason of any novelty in the attention given to it, yet at least by virtue of its inherently striking character and the help it occasionally renders to right reading and interpretation. Dr. R. Moulton[9] terms it the Envelope arrangement of lines. Its simplest form is where the first line is responded to by the fourth, and the second is answered by the third. A single example will show what is meant:—

Let me see thy form,
Let me hear thy voice,—
For thy voice is sweet,
And thy form comely.[10]

Its bearing upon the correct reading of the original is seen in Isa. ix. 3; the much-needed emendation of which is reached by Dr. Ginsburg through a wholly independent process, dealing with questions of abbreviation and letter grouping. The result of his critical revision of the Hebrew text is strongly confirmed by the fact that thereby is produced this very special and beautiful form of parallelism:—

Thou hast increased the exultation.
Thou hast made great the joy,—
They joy before thee according to the joy of harvest,
As men exult when they distribute spoil.[11]

How it touches exegesis may be discovered by turning to Mat. vii. 6; in explaining which we need no longer fear it as an undue liberty, to attribute to the "dogs" the "turning" and "tearing," and to the "swine" the "trampling underfoot."[12]

d. The indentations of the lines further present the results of Logical Analysis. This is the case where, without any suspicion of poetry, the thought-relation of the clauses is more readily seen by means of the exact place assigned to the line-commencements; whether, for example, a second line is to be regarded as co-ordinate with the first—that is, of an equally leading character; or as subordinate, subservient, helping. An extremely simple instance may be found in the setting forth of Martha's reply to our Lord, who has just said, "Believest thou this?"

She saith unto him—
Yea, Lord! I have believed.
That thou art the Christ, the Son of God,—
He who into the world should come.

Here, the first line of course is narrative. In the second, Martha confesses that she has faith, but the line stops short of saying what it is she believes; that being reserved for a new and farther-indented line, so indented partly because thereby greater distinctness is given to the proposition which first defines her faith, and partly also because her answer appears to be, if not evasive, yet a little indirect. She, at any rate, does not say quite simply, "Yea Lord! I believe this!" For some reason, she prefers to formulate her own faith. Why she did this may be worth inquiry. Was it that she felt the answer she gave fully endorsed the statements Jesus had just made: "Believing thee to be who and what thou art, I at once confide in the truth of whatsoever thou art pleased to tell me?" Or was it perhaps rather that she was diffident of herself, and hesitated to say whether she believed a revelation so lofty and of such a sweeping amplitude as that just disclosed; and therefore in her grief and perplexity preferred to fall back upon a more elementary truth, to which she felt she had already attained, and upon which she could still reely? The indentation of that line conducts the reader to this piofoundly interesting psychological inquiry. Then the further pushing in of the last line is merely to point out—what is seen after a moment's reflection to be true—that this final line is subordinate to the one that precedes it, being of an explanatory character, as showing who and what the Christ, the Son of God, must be, and as indicating Martha's persuasion that in the sympathetic Teacher standing before her she saw Him whom the prophetic Scriptures had foretold and for whom the ages had waited. Now if all this food for thought is presented, in what may be termed a digestible form, by means of four lines of varying indentation, surely the average thoughtful reader can take the hint, and not deem "Logical Analysis" beyond him, but do a little of it for himself, just when he is analytically inclined; and, for the rest, can come to a working confidence in the Translator for having presented Scripture thoughts (which had to be presented somehow) after what appeared to him the most apt and helpful arrangement; about which no one is counselled to trouble himself prematurely or overmuch. This, however, is certain—namely, that a little perseverance will soon render it easy to the reader of this Bible to pay a profitable regard to the parentheses and digressions which so strikingly characterise the writings of the Apostle Paul. To a principal statement, he subordinates another; then, to that, another; and so on to such a degree that, although for a time we can comfortably indent more and more, yet at length the device of indentation comes perilously near breaking down; and to avoid being driven quite up to the right-hand margin, and so having no column at all left, we are constrained to use substitutionary initial capitals (as in Ephesians i. and Colossians i.) to indicate where further-indented new lines would begin if only there were room. Extreme indentation, as the initiated know well, is literally, in printing, an expensive luxury; but the student reaps the benefit, and his sense of triumph becomes a keen enjoyment as he watches the return of the great Evangelical Thinker to the point from which—a good while ago—he started. He confesses that his Guide has wandered; but he boasts that his Master never comes back empty. What, for example, though the entire Third of Ephesians is a parenthesis? The world would have been poorer without it. Furthermore, when industrious readers wake up to the gains which Logical Analysis promises to bring home, they may find themselves marking with the greatest interest the unexpected appearance of a similar Logical Idiom in the Book of Ezekiel to that which is found in the Book of Daniel—pursued to such a remarkable extent, in these two Books alone, as to give colour to the assumption that, after all, in spite of the contrary assertions of certain critics, the prophets Ezekiel and Daniel were very nearly contemporaries, just as the sacred history would naturally lead us to suppose they were.
e. The arrangement of the lines is occasionally used to set forth, in a becoming style. Divine Proclamations and certain obvious approximations to Divine Signature. For example: to centralise the words

Thus saith Yahweh—

is simply to invoke the assistance of the eye to give to that formula the dominating force over the announcement which follows which by the intention of the prophet it should naturally have. And so again there are cases in the Pentateuch and in the Prophets in which the oft-recurring formula, "As Yahweh commanded Moses,"[13] or "Declareth Yahweh,"[14] can be more becomingly appended, and with better effect, as a line by itself drawn towards the right hand, after the manner of a signature, than in any other way.

3. Varieties of type.—These have been but sparingly resorted to, partly on the score of economy, but chiefly because continual changes of type soon become annoying and even distressing to the eye. For these reasons Emphasis, in particular, has not been thus indicated. At the same time the discreet employment of other than the ordinary type has been made to answer a few very serviceable ends.

a. Refrains in the Old Testament have been distinguished by italic type. These naturally abound in the Psalms;[15] and there are few readers who will not be pleased to find them so made prominent throughout that favourite Book. The presence of "refrains" in the early chapters of Isaiah will surprise some readers; while the existence of them in the prophecies of Jeremiah will astonish still more, especially if we are allowed to classify under the heading of "refrains" the recurrence of a biting phrase, magor missaviv ("terror round about"), which (after being found in chap. vi. 25, hurled by Jeremiah against his priestly persecutor Pashhur [xx. 3),] then seems to have been mockingly flung back on himself by a tell-tale populace (ver. 10); afterwards to be solemnly directed by Yahweh against Egypt (chap, xlvi 5) and against Kedar (chap. xlix. 29); strikingly enough to reappear, finally, in the plaintive dirge of the same weeping prophet (Lam. ii. 22), thereby, at last, well-nigh proving its claim to a place among actual refrains. Of course the most beautiful refrain in the Book of Jeremiah is the melodious couplet—

The voice of joyand the voice of gladness,
The voice of the bridegroomand the voice of the bride,—

which occurs in chaps, vii. 34; xvi. 9; xxv. 10; and xxxiii. 11—three times as a lament, as of something that was to cease; but, on the fourth and last occasion, reappearing as a lovely flower in a gay garland of joyful prophetic news. Not for ever, to Israel, is that fourfold voice to be hushed! If, however, we can tolerate the extension of the word "refrain" to the most inspiring recurrence of consolatory truth, apart from any further thought of poetic composition, then we may surely distinguish by that name the brightest promise of the Old Testament, which meets us in the form of an announcement by the Most High of his own character. Taking its rise in the Ten Commandments,[16] it expands in volume on that later, momentous, re-instating occasion, when Yahweh caused "all his goodness to pass before" Moses, and when in answer to prayer He graciously restored Israel to covenant favour.[17] Further references will be found under the last-named passage; and whoever will take the trouble to look through those texts, and will thoughtfully note how this manifestation of "all the Divine goodness" forms the sheet-anchor of hope for after times, will probably admit the fitness of terming it, by way of eminence. The Refrain of the Old Testament.
b. Some peculiarities in the use of Divine Names are thereby (viz., by varieties of type) indicated. Concerning the especial proper name of God (Yahweh) the reader will naturally consult Chapter IV. of this Introduction. But the present is the fitting place for naming some further information which has been conveyed throughout the Old Testament part of this Bible by typographical means. It should be understood, then, that when the familiar word "God" is found printed in ordinary type, then the Hebrew is Elohim; when the same word is printed "God" (one capital and two small capitals), then the Hebrew is "Êl"; and when "God" is printed in Old English letter, then the Hebrew is Eloah (principally confined to the Book of Job). It is not, perhaps, to be assumed that these discriminations are of supreme importance; nevertheless, when connected with other things, they are certainly invested with considerable interest. For the word Elohim, see note on Gen. i. 1. Êl will be readily remembered as entering into the composition of proper names, such as "Beth-el," "Immanu-el," and many others. It may also be discovered—the evidence would seem to point that way—that in the use of the independent monosyllable Êl, just where the moral feeling is most intense, there Êl shows an aptitude to step in, in preference to Elohim. The ordinary reader can now judge of this for himself. Without imagining anything less sacred in Eloah than in its longer or shorter companions, this at least is clear, that Eloah—as compared with the most sacred Name (the Tetragrammaton—see Chapter IV.)—is held to be good enough for the controversial spirit which undeniably pervades all the middle portion of the Book of Job.
c. Quotations from the Old Testament in the New are by the italics rendered conveniently conspicuous. That it is of great convenience and of considerable practical utility to be able to see at once what portions from the Jewish Scriptures are quoted in the Christian, will not be denied by anyone who has given a fair amount of attention to the matter; nor can it be questioned that the employment of italic letter for the purpose is far more effective than the adoption even of quotation marks would have been. Thereby, for example, the reader perceives without any appreciable trouble how largely the Book of the "Revelation " is constructed out of Old Testament language and imagery. Thereby also he sees instantly how even a single word out of a citation becomes the pivot on which an argument is made to turn.[18]

4. Section-headings, Footnotes, References, and Appendices.—These may be left to speak for themselves, when once two or three needful explanations have been offered.

a. It was not at first intended to insert Section-headings in the Prophetical Books, owing to the risk of needlessly determining or attempting to determine difficult questions of interpretation; but an experiment having been made, the result seemed to promise so much convenience and assistance to average readers that the hazard and the additional labour were accepted. Tn most cases it will be found that, where these headings appear most startling, they are expressly warranted by the very terms of the Sacred Text.
b. The Footnotes include both "alternative renderings" and "various readings," the difference between which, being partly technical, is worth a moment's attention. An "alternative rendering," then, comes of the process of translating, and merely expresses the translator's feeling that some other English word than that adopted in the text might have given the sense of the original nearly or quite as well; and that for the reader to know this may be of practical service. It is well for the reader to be aware that oft-times no one word wholly and absolutely and alone says precisely what is conveyed by the Hebrew or Greek. It is no question of variance between one copy of the original and another, but exclusively concerns the best way of representing what is admitted to be in the original. One rendering conveys the meaning more readily or more precisely than another, and to ring the changes on fair alternatives is often very helpful, supplying a breadth or an exactness which can be had in no other way. Sometimes a rendering is too literal for the text, yet not too literal for the margin. Questions of decorum and euphemism may be allowed some influence. Humorous translations may sometimes do good service in the margin which could never be tolerated in the text. Moreover, a freer rendering may the sooner be allowed in the text, provided a more literal one be placed at the foot of the page. So much for "alternative renderings." "Various readings" are a very different matter. They have sole regard to variations which, in the course of transmission from an earlier age, have crept into different copies of or witnesses to the original. Concerning these, more information will be found in Chapter III. of this Introduction.
c. References, as commonly understood, can readily be found elsewhere. Those here given have come into the Translator's hands mostly through special channels or as the result of personal study; and in any case, it is believed, will be found trustworthy and useful.
d. The Appendices present, in orderly collected form, matter which would have been suited for longer notes, but can be more conveniently studied as actually given. These appended notes mostly touch upon subjects of the highest importance, and are respectfully submitted in the hope that they will prove helpful to not a few readers of The Emphasised Bible.




1. "Strike, but hear me!" exclaimed an ancient orator to an infuriated mob; that is, "Strike, if you will; but hear me first." In reading aloud this citation, some little stress is instinctively laid on the two words "strike" and "hear," thereby assisting the ear to catch the plainly intended contrast. A few years since, the same saying was modified in sense by a change of emphasis. A trade strike was pending, when an illustrated paper, giving an imposing figure representing "Law," put beneath the figure the legend, "Strike, but hear me!" in this way not only investing the word "strike" with a modern significance, but suggesting, by the emphasis laid on the word "me," a timely contrast—as much as to say, "You have listened to other advisers: before you act on their counsel, hearken to me—consider whether your contemplated strike would be legal". This new point put into the old words would perhaps scarcely have been caught, even with the help of the symbolic figure of the cartoon, but for the outward and visible sign of emphasis attached to the closing word "me."

2. It is freely granted that context and circumstance, when known and considered, are in many cases alone sufficient to guide to correct emphasis, whether it be in ordinary literature or in the Bible. For example, the bold contrast made by Christ, in the Sermon on the Mount, between other teachers and himself would naturally prompt any reader of taste to lay stress on the pronoun "I" in the recurring formula—

Ye have heard that it hath been said . . . but I say unto you.[19]

3. Context and circumstance, however, are not always sufficient, because not always clear. We have therefore to be thankful that our Public Versions of the Bible furnish further guidance in the matter of emphasis by means of Idiom. The words are frequently so arranged as by their very order to indicate where the stress should be placed. Thus, in the history of Joseph, where "the butler," in confessing his fault in forgetting Joseph, narrates the diverse fate of "the baker" and himself, he says—

And it came to pass, as he interpreted to us, so it was: me he restored unto mine office, and him he hanged.[20]

In this sentence it is at once felt that the pronouns "me" and "him" are as certainly emphasised by their mere position as if they had been printed in capitals. So, again, where the Apostle Paul, after thanking God that he spake with tongues more than any of the Corinthian Christians, proceeds to say—

Yet in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that by my voice I might teach others also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue,[21]

it is easily seen from the context that the clause "in the church" governs the whole sentence, and should receive the leading stress. Nor is it by order of words alone that an emphatic idiom is constituted. Certain forms of circumlocution serve the same purpose:

But as for me, I shall behold thy face in righteousness,[22]

is an altogether effective means of reproducing the force of the emphatic pronoun which opens the verse in the Hebrew. Or a simple repetition secures the result—

The living, the living, he shall praise thee, as I do this day.[23]

Or a qualifying word of a manifestly emphasising force is employed, like "surely" in the following:—

In the day that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die;[24]

or "certainly" in this place—

Could we certainly know that he would say. Bring your brother down?[25]

or "diligently" in this—

If thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God.[26]

4. Yet, varied as is the Emphatic Idiom of our Public Versions and numerous as are the examples which meet us in which that indication of stress has been turned to most admirable account, the pity is that it has not been resorted to ten times more frequently than is the case. For, be it observed, the Emphatic Idiom of the English is but a faint and fitful reflex of the Emphatic Idiom of the Hebrew and Greek.[27] This fact is wellknown to scholars, though scarcely dreamt of by the general Bible-reading public. A fact however it is, and one which can be substantiated just as conclusively as any law which governs language. The great point at present is that all this accession of force and guide to the sense is, in the Sacred Originals, secured simply by Idiom—order of words, fulness of expression, repetitions and the like—and is therefore both pervading and authoritative. It is "pervading": not, of course, as though all Scripture needed to be formally emphasised to the same degree—to imagine such a thing would be absurd; some styles of Sacred composition, instead of bristling with points, calmly flow on, keeping the even tenor of their way—but "pervading" in the satisfactory sense of being ever available when required. Whenever a point has to be made, a quiet contrast to be rather hinted at than expressed, a sharp and sudden home-thrust to be delivered. Idiom is at hand to accomplish it. From which, when the numberless living interests enshrined in the Bible are considered, it will be expected to follow—and follow it does—that a very large amount of indicated stress underlies almost every page of the Sacred Volume. And—does it need to be repeated?—Emphasis so conveyed is surely "authoritative": which is not the same thing as saying there is no room for misapprehension in this place or in that; nor is it the same as affirming that all scholars are absolutely agreed about every little point. But the emphasis is "authoritative," inasmuch as it is in the original—is a part of the original—is of the very spirit and essence of the original. And being in this way "authoritative," it is in all its main indications worthy of unspeakably more diligent heed in exposition than the most brilliant fancies of men who dream they may make what they please of Holy Writ. Sober students are bound by the laws of Grammar: they are equally bound by the laws of Emphasis.

5. It is one of the leading aims of The Emphasised Bible to do justice to the emphatic Idioms of the original tongues, and thereby place all earnest Bible readers, for practical purposes, on the same footing as that occupied by such as are familiar with Hebrew and Greek.

6. Mainly by Idiom has this been attempted. So that if all the artificial signs of Emphasis used in this Bible were swept away, an amount of Emphatic Idiom would remain far surpassing that to be found in any other version known to the Translator. Although emphatic inversion, for instance, is not infrequently discovered in our Public Versions: yet far more frequently and—if the expression may be pardoned—far more consistently does it appear in this translation. Take two examples out of thousands:

A.V. Wilt than break a leaf driven to and fro?
And wilt thou pursue the dry stubble?
Em. B. A driven leaf wilt thou cause to tremble?
Or dry stubble wilt thou pursue?[28]

The latter rendering reproduces the idiom of the Hebrew, and therewith also most naturally shows where the primary stress should be laid.

A.V. And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them.
Em. B. As soon as all his own he putteth forth
Before them he moveth on.[29]

The Idiom, the Emphasis, is in the Greek. It would be endless to cite examples of all the various forms which the Original Idiom takes for the sake of conveying emphasis. Suffice it to say: that in this Bible these forms have been sacredly reproduced whenever possible—so long, that is, as the English remained easily intelligible and was not too constrained.

7. But Idiom alone would have been utterly inadequate to the attainment of the object in view. In many instances the endeavour to preserve in English the order of the words in the original would have resulted in obscurity; or, worse still, would have conveyed the very opposite of the meaning intended. In the following passage from the Book of Lamentations, it could have been wished that, for the sake of preserving the exact rhythm of the Hebrew, it had been perspicuous English to say—

For this cause hath sickened our heart,
For these things have darkened our eyes;[30]

inasmuch as there is some little weight naturally resting on the paired words (ending words in the Hebrew) "heart" and "eyes" which, if that position could have been preserved in English, would have secured a fine cadence and a satisfying ending to each line of the couplet. But the construction would in two or three ways have been ambiguous—in fact a wrong meaning to some of the terms would have been favoured. Therefore, inasmuch as a clear conveyance of the sense is rightly the first requirement, the Hebrew arrangement can only in part be followed, and we have to be content with some such approximation as this—

For this cause hath our heart´ sickened,
For these things have our eyes´ darkened.

An acute accent on "heart´" and "eyes´" may be allowed as a slight compensation for loss of position; and, to anticipate for a moment, if our angular sign be then attached to the two opening phrases ("For this cause" and "For these things"), those words will be instinctively caught as adverbial clauses, strongly emphasised by their commanding position, and so gathering up into themselves the whole stream of the prophet's foregoing lament—

<For this cause> hath our heart´ sickenpd,
<For these things> have our eyes´ darkened.

This illustration may stand for thousands, and evince beyond a doubt the impossibility of mechanically giving idiom for idiom in translation: hopeless obscurity would frequently be the inevitable result. And as a sufficient proof that in some cases idiom for idiom would cause the translation to express the very opposite meaning to its original, it is enough to cite one instance.

Elijah calleth this man[31]

is the order of the words in the Greek; yet "this man" is the nominative (that is, the caller) and "Elijah" the objective (that is, the person [supposed to be] called upon) and the true rendering is—

This man calleth Elijah;

though rightfully a decided stress should be laid, where indicated, on "Elijah."

8. That, notwithstanding this risk of overdoing, a very free use of Emphatic Idiom has been made in this Bible will soon appear upon examination. Few sympathetic readers will complain of this. Such readers will perceive and bear in mind that inversions in the language of The Emphasised Bible are always intentional—always according to the original—always expressive. They will go on to observe that an inversion which at first seemed harsh, especially if incautiously read, soon commends itself when tastefully uttered. Finally, the Translator's purpose will be remembered. It is due to himself to confess that he has deemed himself privileged, and therefore has carried the process of imitating the inversions of the originals to a degree scarcely tolerable in any version designed for public use. It is quite true that the larger number of the inversions here ventured would, as he conceives, adorn any translation, and because of their apt reflection of the Hebrew or Greek he honestly thinks they possess strong claims on general adoption; but not all of them. Speaking approximately, possibly in one case out of ten the Editor of The Emphasised Bible would have himself shrunk back from what he has actually dared, if he had been so presumptuous as to think of producing a competitive translation. His aim throughout has been to form a Companion Version; and he respectfidly asks the measure of indulgence which that intention makes reasonable.

9. One thing at least is clear—namely, that English Idiom alone could never have expressed all the Emphasis enshrined in the originals. It follows that either numerous tokens of stress contained in the sacred tongues must have been lost, or else artificial means were necessary to give them effect. As for the best method of doing this, there is, of course, no accounting for individual preferences; and, given the necessity, some would have chosen varieties of type, not sufficiently considering, perhaps, how soon these annoy the eye when multiplied. Others, again, would have preferred the underscoring which was used in the first and second editions of the Translator's New Testament, unaware, probably, that the costliness of that method seemed prohibitive when thought of for the entire Bible. In favour of the plan nowadopted, suffice it to claim economy, elasticity, and effectiveness. The signs here employed practically cost nothing, since the compositor can pick up a sign of emphasis as easily as he can pick up a comma. The elasticity springs from the combination of diverse signs: for example, an interposed accent can appear in the midst of an already emphasised clause. And the effectiveness is quite as great as was desired, seeing that delicacy of touch was also wished, and even a fitness to be temporarily disregarded—a quality commended to all who find the marks in the least perplexing. Such persons as would have been better pleased with some heavier and more obtrusive style of emphasising will kindly bethink them, that stress is mostly quite effective if laid on one syllable of a word, one word in a clause, and so forth; and that all the guidance the eye requires is to be enabled to take in at a glance the beginning and ending of the word, the phrase, the clause within which the enhanced stress is to take effect.

10. One explanation further, and nothing will be needed for completing this chapter, beyond a few annotated examples and the synopsis at the end, which will be convenient for reference both to the scholar and to the learner. The explanation is this: Idiom alone, it may be thought, might have been trusted to convey a portion of the emphasis indicated in the original, and artificial signs might have been restricted to the conveyance of the rest; instead of which (it may be objected), in this Bible, the artificial signs, in point of fact, mostly accompany the idiom when present, as well as serve as a substitute for it when absent. In fact, however, it was difficult to draw the line, especially as, in many cases, the signs of emphasis served as a species of magnified punctuation, for which reason it seemed better to go through with them. Besides which, is it not sometimes welcome to hurried eyes to have pointed out to them what might have been discovered by unaided vision?

11. Now for a few Annotated Examples, before submitting which the hint is given that a glance at the Table of Signs placed at the end of this Introduction will here be found convenient.

Doth ||this|| cause |you| to stumble?[32]

The A.V. rendering of this passage leaves much to be desired; partly because of the wrong impression which the word "offend" conveys, as though Jesus feared He had hurt His disciples' feelings to the degree of provoking their resentment; and partly because it leaves the point of the question uncertain. The R.V. obviates the wrong impression, by substituting "cause to stumble" for "offend," but it fails to bring out the fine point seen by laying a little stress on "you." "Doth THIS cause you to stumble"—you, My disciples, who might have known better? It is a clear case; for the Greek sets the noun governed before the verb that governs it (cp. post, Synopsis, A, b).

And he said、
I know not,<the keeper of my brother> am ||I||?[33]]]

How the point of Cain's defence of his professed ignorance leaps to his lips! The arrangement, "Am I my brother's keeper?" is tameness itself in comparison.

<What is right、 what is right> shalt thou pursue.[34]

In this place both A.V. and R.V. preserve the inversion which opens the verse, and for that we are thankful: "That which is altogether just shalt thou follow." But why not have given it with the greater simplicity and vivacity of the original?—ẓédhek ẓédhek tirdôf'—it is all there. And why not have given the full force of the verb "pursue"—"pursue" with determination, and not merely "follow" with halfheartedness or from a dull sense of duty?

Then thou scarest me with dreams,
And <by visions> dost terrify me:
So that my soul chooseth strangling,
|Death| rather than these my bones.[35]

Note here how parallelism and emphasis enhance the effect of each other. There being two synonymous couplets, constituting a duplicate expression for each thought (viz., first the Divine visitation, then the effect on the sufferer), emphasis steps in at the second line of each couplet, and strongly accentuates the closing word of the preceding line: "dreams—visions"; "strangling—death." Note also how well the sharp expression which the word "death" draws to itself, prepares the way for the lingering and piteous lament over "these my bones."

<Righteousness> I put on、 and it clothed me,
<Like a robe and a turban> was my |justice|;
<Eyes> became I to |the blind|,
And <feet to the lame> was ||I||.[36]

It would be difficult to name a passage more studded with the beauties of combined parallelism and emphasis than this. Observe that, here again, there are two couplets; then, that an emphatic inversion leads off in the first line of the first couplet—an accusative before its verb (Synopsis, A, b); next, that the thought of "clothing" oneself, given in the first line, is emphatically and rhetorically amplified in the second line, Page:The Emphasised Bible - Vol 1.djvu/22 Page:The Emphasised Bible - Vol 1.djvu/23 Page:The Emphasised Bible - Vol 1.djvu/24 Page:The Emphasised Bible - Vol 1.djvu/25 Page:The Emphasised Bible - Vol 1.djvu/26 Page:The Emphasised Bible - Vol 1.djvu/27 Page:The Emphasised Bible - Vol 1.djvu/28 Page:The Emphasised Bible - Vol 1.djvu/29 Page:The Emphasised Bible - Vol 1.djvu/30 Page:The Emphasised Bible - Vol 1.djvu/31 Page:The Emphasised Bible - Vol 1.djvu/32 Page:The Emphasised Bible - Vol 1.djvu/33 Page:The Emphasised Bible - Vol 1.djvu/34 Page:The Emphasised Bible - Vol 1.djvu/35 Page:The Emphasised Bible - Vol 1.djvu/36 Page:The Emphasised Bible - Vol 1.djvu/37 Page:The Emphasised Bible - Vol 1.djvu/38 Page:The Emphasised Bible - Vol 1.djvu/39 Page:The Emphasised Bible - Vol 1.djvu/40