                                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.

