12 comments Add yours
    1. Thanks for this link. This looks like a very good book, and what a wonderful essay. Who knew studying shorthand would be a gateway to such great literature?

      "…–when all is sunsetting and autumn, then I yearn for Him who sits with the summer of love in His soul, and know that all earthly affection is but a glow-worm light compared to that which blazes with such effulgence in the heart of God." HWB

  1. Both forms, 'effulgent' and 'effulgence' are in the 1916 dictionary, but the Anniversary dictionary only has the -gent form. And yes, the pre-anni dict. shows -gence spelled with a "j" (for those of us not yet quite comfortable with the somewhat inexact "abbreviating principle" or sufficiently familiar with analogical word-endings–:-)).

    Thanks to e-sword (a free comprehensive
    Bible software program, which once downloaded is completely functional offline), I see several translations from the 19th century choose the word "effulgence" over "brightness" as was used by the earlier English translators. According to Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate, "effulgence" is a Latin-based word which first came into use around 1667, and this would be an obvious reason why it wasn't used in earlier English translations. Another would be that God and his thoughts should be highly accessible to the common people (in their own language), not just those with specialized education, and I understand this to be the intention of the first English translators. It may be that "effulgence" is more similar to the original Greek word, so scholarly-types more fully appreciate it. I'm all for scholarship and poetry and fuller vocabularies, but anyone who understands English gets a vivid picture from the word "brightness" (an authentically English word) as in "the Son being the "brightness" of his glory…." (and how about some Scottish-Welsh accent for effect?)

    Twentieth century translations seem to favor the word "radiance" More readily understandable than "effulgence" by the average non-scholar, but I don't know that it's more effective than "brightness." 🙂

    1. I like the word "splendor" better than "brightness" in this context as it is closer to "effulgence" (of course, I'm just being picky). King James uses "brightness" and the New World Translation uses "reflection." So there …

  2. Pickiness can be useful. I suspect that the reason you prefer the word "splendor" is because of your affinity for Spanish which uses "resplandor" in most versions of the Spanish Bible. 😉

    My pickiness probably stems from a German and Old British Isles heritage which doesn't believe for a second that Latin words are in any way superior to English ones, and which is rather unimpressed by its associated elitism and hierarchies. So, haha. 🙂

    (On a "brighter" note, I do have some appreciation of the contribution made via Latin to the advancement of the Gospell and knowledge and language.)

    BTW-There were English translations of the Bible before the 1611 King James. In fact, Shakespeare's quotes come from the Geneva Bible of 1560, which was later favored by many who rejected the KJV, as part of their rejection of the Anglican Church. The Pilgrims brought the Geneva Bible with them to the New World in 1620 and it was still in print in 1644. Link to an English Bible History Site

    Also, if anyone is interested in e-sword or already has it, here is a link to a site that has free Spanish module packages which besides oodles of Spanish translations, dictionaries, and commentaries, also has some in English (such as Wycliffe and Tyndale's Bibles) that I don't know where to get elsewhere. biblias gratis

    1. Very true, it is interesting–and quite often they help to expound the meaning. On occasion, I have taken a particular scripture and using available translations come up with my own rendition. Good exercise. Nowadays, with computers and internet, anyone so inclined can be their own Bible scholar.

Leave a Reply