knowledge, either from the force of education or from natural ability; but let not such knowledge be exercised in the revision or alteration of the Bible. That book is precious, even as it is. Protest we, then, against its being tampered with; it is our mental "daily bread," so to speak; it has taught thousands the way to the eternal, happy home; and, indeed, it teaches every one that way, if they will only do as they are therein directed.

I would suggest, in preference to revision, that remarks might be compiled on those portions which may need observation, and, after being duly authorized, bound up with the present version, placing such remarks, with proper references, at the end. The whole would thus be together, forming the one volume, thereby answering every end, and yet, in reality, altering nothing. On no account, however, let the fabric of the book itself be touched.

"This lamp from off the everlasting throne
Mercy took down, and in the night of time
Stood-casting on the dark her gracious bow-
And evermore beseeching men, with tears

And earnest sighs, to hear, believe, and live."

May we as such reverence it, and lay no unhallowed hand upon the ark of God. If it reveal to us "the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom he hath sent," the great, primary end of its being given to man is accomplished. Human learning is too apt to be puffed up with the vain conceit of its own subtlety and wondrous penetration; but if the foolishness of preaching has made men "wise unto salvation," we see no good reason to suppose that the trivial inaccuracies or inelegancies of our present text will hinder its grand mission of peace. Therefore let us, as heretofore, use the Scriptures, not as an arsenal to be resorted to only for arms and weapons, but as a matchless temple, where we delight to contemplate the beauty, the symmetry, and the magnificence of the structure, and to increase our awe and excite our devotion to the Deity there preached and adored." Let us value our Bibles as above price, and take heed how we discuss religion, lost we tread irreverently on holy ground.

66

Bristol.

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-I.

R. D. R.

"The labour bestowed by so many of the learned upon the just interpretation of this inestimable book is of itself an attestation of its worth, and countenances the supposition that Divine Providence has appointed it for the attainment of great designs."-Seiler's "Biblical Hermeneutics."

THE most salutary measures have been the result of compromise. In most questions, since zealots always go the length of their tether, there are extremes, and it usually happens that truth lies about midway between them. And between them do thoughtful men generally take their stand. We take such a position in

the Bible discussion. We are neither so conservative in this matter as to believe that our authorized version is faultless-as to resolutely oppose any alteration-as to rail against any proposals for improvement as "doctrines of devils. Nor, on the other hand, do we declare it to be full of faults, and clamour for a new translation. We by no means think slightingly of our English Bible. Indeed, few can value, reverence, love it more than we. Of no ancient book, perhaps, is there a translation extant worthier of praise than this. It reproduces, for the most part, the very spirit of the original. Isaiah loses little of the eloquence of his appeal, or Ezekiel of the fire of his denunciation, or Paul of the vigour of his reasoning. The Book of Job, even in our translation, is an unexampled poem. Our version gives us, as far as is consistent with the genius of the English language, now the unrivalled conciseness of some portions of the text, now the beautiful diffuseness of others. And we value the English Bible for its pure Saxon speech. Nowhere is shown so clearly the beauty and yet the dignity of the native element of our tongue. The translation is unequalled; we would not, even if we could, have another. No; let the fungi and the slight corruptions be removed from this "well of English undefiled," that it may be truly the "water of life, pure as crystal;" but by no means brick it up and open another. We want not our grand old Saxon changed into a semi-classic dialect, somewhat thus :— "The Lord is my pastor, I shall not be indigent. Thou anointest my head with odoriferous unguents, my chalice overfloweth." Give us rather the simple but sublime words which have cheered thousands of trustful Christians :- "The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want."

We have only to look at the miserable partial translations put forth by the Americans, to see the hopelessness of obtaining a worthy re-translation of the Bible. We do not regret this, because we see no need for a new translation. But our translation, though it be unapproachable in its excellence, though it be valuable, beautiful, grand, is faulty. What human work is not? And is it not to be expected that a work requiring accurate scholarship, performed when learning was at a comparatively low ebb, would manifest faults and blemishes in an age of clearer light, more accomplished scholarship, riper learning-an age in which the general principles of translation are better understood-in which the investigations of learned men have led to the attainment of a better text than was then used?

While expressing our belief, therefore, that it is in the main a most excellent translation, we do not think that it is the best possible translation. That we are not alone in this opinion is amply proven by Bishop Lowth's version of "Isaiah;" Dodson's translation of the same prophet; Stock's "Job;" Blayney's "Minor Prophets;" Gilbert's, Wakefield's, and Bishop New

come's separate re-translation of the "New Testament;" "The Book of the Twelve Minor Prophets," by E. Henderson, D.D. These are all good men and true, known to the church. It is not our duty to guarantee the superior excellence of these different versions to that of our own; we only point to them to prove that there is a notion prevalent that the present authorized version of the Scriptures requires revision.

Faults have been pointed out in large numbers, and their emendation has become absolutely necessary. There is an uneasy sense in most minds that the English version is not entirely trustworthy. Every Sunday one hears the preacher telling his congregation that the original sense of his text is not adequately represented in their Bibles. And if, in an argument, one quotes Scripture, one's opponent immediately declares that the Hebrew or the Greek, as the case may be, is wrongly translated; and he volunteers a rendering of his own, or gives the one adopted by some modern luminary. Or else we are told that there are grave doubts of the authenticity of the passage; that there is some interpolation or error in transcription, or something of the sort. Anon we find a collection of emendations published by some plodding, long-winded German; or some English compilation of his researches. The result of all this is, that the general reader comes to feel that he cannot implicitly trust the English version. Such a state of things should not exist. These doubts, as far as possible, should be set at rest by authorityset at rest for a century or two at least. Some of our savansand there are plenty fit for the work-should give to the world a revised and correct English Bible-should give men the benefit of the vast and important critical researches of modern times.

We assert, then, the necessity of a revision of our authorized version. We maintain that it has many faults; that these faults are not slight, but very important; that they exercise no small influence; and that that influence is injurious. If we show this, the necessity for revision will be proved. Its practicability we have nothing to do with.

Some of the faults of our English version.

1. Suspected passages are not pointed out. The general reader scarcely knows that there are such, and still less does he know which they are. And so he bases his theories on passages all but proved to be spurious. For instance, what general reader is aware that the latter half of the last chapter of Mark is the production of another and a later hand, perhaps St. Peter (see 2 Pet. i. 15, 16)? or that grave suspicions have been entertained of the genuineness of the last chapter of John's gospel?

*We must draw the attention of those interested in this subject to a very useful work by a contributor to the B. C., S. R. A., entitled, "Emendations of the Text of the Greek Testament." Judd and Glass.

C

Again: uneducated dissenting preachers still found their argu ments for a Trinity on those well-known verses in the first epistle of John (v. 7, 8), and yet scholars are almost unanimous in believing the greater part of these to be spurious. Again: a strong argument for the practice of fasting is based on the words, "This kind can come forth by nothing but by prayer and fasting." The last two words are believed to be interpolated: so also in 1 Cor. vii. 5. Once more. It would appear (John v. 3, 4) that the apostle sanctioned the Jewish superstition respecting the pool of Bethesda. But critics are at length agreed that some uninspired hand supplied the description. We might multiply instances (Jas. i. 3; 1 Pet. v. 2; ii. 3, 10; Jude 22; Acts, portions of chaps. viii. and ix.; John viii. 1—11), but, as has been said, the general reader, ignorant of the suspicions cast upon such passages, is led into baseless theories and false theology. Surely some revision is required in this respect. Men should not be told to reverence as God's that which is of

man.

2. Important variations and emendations of MSS. are not pointed out or made use of. The various readings which have been noted, and the proposed emendations of the received text, are enormous in number. We refer to S. R. A.'s book and numerous other brochures for examples. Of course the relative evidence for these emendations varies very greatly, and it would be unwise and perplexing to the English reader to give them all. Those for which the evidence is very strong, or which bear upon important theories or current systems, would perhaps only require notice.

3. Mistranslations are frequent. Their name is legion. Here are a few very important ones, lately specified by Mr. W. H. Black. That important revelation of God of his own eternal name our Bible translates, "I am that I am;" it should be, “I will that I will." Our Bibles represent God as commanding the Israelites to sin, by borrowing treasures with no intention of returning them. The Hebrew should be rendered “ ask," the Egyptians being glad to purchase their departure at any price. In 1 John iii. 16, " of God” should be “of Christ," which makes sense of the passage. In 2 Sam. xii. 31, "he put them under," equivalent to he tortured them, should be, "he set them to labour at." In 1 Chron. xix. 7, "chariots" should be "riders," which reading harmonizes this verse with 2 Sam. x. 6. John xiii. 2, supper being ended," should be " supper being brought in;'

66

such as

or it contradicts verses 26-28. In Acts ii. 47, for should be saved," read "such as were being saved;" and the doctrinal inference often drawn entirely disappears. Preachers have based prelections concerning the believer's progress in the divine life on the words, "they go from strength to strength." The passage should be, "from company to company," allusive to

the progress to Jerusalem at the passover. Then, in that most important portion of Christ's teaching, John vi., the fifty-fifth verse should read, "For my flesh is true meat, and my blood true drink." There are, alas! many more such mistranslations. But surely, on seeing even these few specimens, no one will deny the necessity for a revision.

4. Proper names are very erroneously rendered. The awful name "Jehovah" is almost always translated by a wrong word, which has therefore to be distinguished by a different type. What end does this serve? Why not print it as it should be? Again the names of Old Testament worthies are not printed uniformly. Of course educated readers know the cause of this -the use of the Septuagint; but the unlearned do not. There is no reason why this blemish should remain any longer as a cause of confusion. Again: in Acts vii. 45, and Heb. iv. 8, the word "Jesus" should be "Joshua." We must just remark on the emendations of the names of places. It seems we ought to read Capharnaum, Magada, Bethspage, Gerasenes, Sarephtha of Sidonia, Bethania for Bethabara, &c.

5. There is a great lack of uniformity. In some places the same English word is made to represent two or three different Greek words. For example, John i. 8 and v. 35. Here pus, "light," and λuxvos, "a lamp," are both translated alike. In others, the same Greek word is rendered by various English ones. In Romans iii. 26, two Greek derivatives from the same word are respectively translated "righteousness " and "just." Surely there can be no reason for the retention of blemishes like these.

6. Idioms require more attention. As for the Greek idiom, some modern critics have declared that our translators could have known scarcely anything about it. They certainly did not give it half the attention it required. By the way, in many cases, they seemed almost to ignore the existence of the article. Again: far more words are printed in italics in our version as to be understood than is really required. Many more absolutely implied in the Greek version are such as we should never hesitate to supply in a translation of any classic author-are 'necessary to form sense. The italics in Matt. xx. 23 give a wrong meaning. See John xvii. 2, and Rev. iii. 21.

Revision

Then as to the English idioms. Some are obsolete, many are dying out, many are indecent, and most are inelegant. is largely required in this particular.

7. The order of the books is very defective; the division of the text into chapters and verses is a great blemish; so also is the

* See "What is the Power of the Greek Article, and how may it be Expressed in the English Version of the New Testament?" by John Taylor. London: Walton and Maberly.