Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

(Matt. i. 25). "Take heed that ye do not your (alms) righteousness before men" (Matt. vi. 1). ("Suffer us to go) Send us away, into the herd of swine" (Matt. viii. 31). "They gave him (vinegar) wine to drink, mingled with gall (Matt. xxvii. 34). "That (when ye fail) when it shall fail, they may receive you" (Luke xvi. 9). "To whom he also showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, appearing unto them" (Acts i. 3). "And ye shall be (witnesses unto me) my witnesses, both in Genessaret and (in) all Judea" (v. 8).6 "Him ye have taken, and by (wicked hands) the hand of lawless men did crucify" (Acts ii. 23). "Who (hold) hold down the truth in unrighteousness" (Rom. i. 18). "Treasureth up (unto) for thyself wrath (against) in the day of wrath" (Rom. ii. 5). "To whom we gave place (by subjection) in the way of subjection, no, not for an hour" (Gal. ii. 5).

[ocr errors]

More important instances of this class will be noticed under another head; the foregoing are sufficient as illustrations of the general character of the emendations made. Such as these may be numbered by the hundreds; and for the most part they are sanctioned by the general voice of critics.

The Greek ò Baotlevs, Baoiλeús, clause. The authoriequally divided, as to Certainly, the alteraof science at present,

4th. Instances of questionable and of neglect of emendations. "And Jesse begat David the King, and David (the King) begat Solomon" (Matt. i. 6. "the King," is omitted in the second ties, ancient and modern, are about the originality of the longer reading. tion was not demanded by the state and until the question was settled, the reading of the textus receptus should be retained. "Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers (raise the dead), cast out devils" (Matt. x. 8). A suspicious circumstance respecting this phrase is the fact that its position in the sentence is uncertain, the authorities giv

• The Greek¡¿v, in, is undoubtedly spurious, although retained by the Revisers (See Lange in loc., Amer. Edit.). This is one of the instances where an emendation was required, but not made.

ing it four different places. A large number of MSS. omit it, as well as ancient versions and Fathers. It is rejected by Scholz, Tichendorf, Green, Campbell, and others. As will be seen, the Revisors retain it, but change its position in the sentence. It was probably introduced into the text from Christ's language to John's disciples: "The deaf hear and the dead are raised" (Ch. vi. 5). (Ch. vi. 5). "As it is written (in 'the prophets), in Isaiah the prophet" (Mark i. 2). It is certain that the quotation following is taken from Malachi and Isaiah, not from Isaiah alone. Most critical editions, however, support the variation, which the Revisers adopt. But Mr. Shedd, the American editor of Lange, remarks (in loc.): "We regard the testimony of Irenæus and other Fathers, with Codd, A., P., as sufficient to establish the reading & rais προφήταις ; "this being that of the textus receptus. While the Revisers, then, have followed the current of critical opinion, we doubt the correctness of their choice. "Which of you shall have (an ass) a son, or an ox fallen into a well" (Luke xiv. 5). The Revisers retain the old reading. The ancient authorities, however, favor strongly the variation. Thus, while viós, son," is supported by MSS. A., B., and ten un cials, ovos, "ass," is favored by the Cod. Sinaiticus and three uncials. The variation is adopted by Lach., Tisch., Meyer, Bleek, Alford, Treg., Scholz, and others. The internal evidence favors the variation. The incongruity of associating a son with an ass would invite interference with the text. But no motive can be assigned for changing ovos to viós, supposing the first to have been original. In Acts ii. 29, the Common Version reads: "Men and brethren, let me freely speak," etc.; for which the Revisers have: "Brethren, I may say unto you freely," etc. On what ground "Ardges has been omitted, we are unable to say. No authority, so far as we have found, makes any allusion to a various reading here; and the Revisers, contrary to their custom, place nothing in the margin respecting the omission. It is possibly a typographical error.

7 Developed Criticisms. pp. 16, 17.

8 Gospels in loc.

We cannot devote further space in this paper to the general question of emendations of the Greek Text. Viewed generally, it is but just to say that, in the department of criticism, in the purification and completion of the Text, the Revisers have accomplished a great work, and with general accuracy and fidelity. The exceptions to this rule are rare indeed; and these, for the most part, of no great importance. In so far, then, we are free to say, that the work before us fairly represents the ripest scholarship of our day.

II. The Revised Version considered especially as a Transla

tion.

The rules adopted for the guidance of the Translators, affecting essentially the character of their work, were: "1. To introduce as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version consistently with faithfulness. 2. To limit, as far as possible, the expression of such alterations to the language of the Authorized and carlier English Versions." 999 It will be seen at a glance, that these two rules constitute of the work before us emphatically a Revised Version, as distinguished from an independent, direct translation. These rules afford us also in some sense a standard by which 'to judge the Revised Version, both as regards the Greek Text and as a Version of it. Have the Revisers made all those alterations, and and only those alterations, which the state of biblical science demanded? Another inquiry here, regards the soundness of judgment manifest in the employment of the Scripture language in expressing the alterations made. But we proceed to point out, now, some of the general characteristics of this New Version.

1st. The Revisers have sought, so far as practicable, to translate uniformly the same Greek expressions by the same English equivalents. As the Revisers state, one of the great faults of the Common Version is the almost total disregard of this rule. To illustrate, by a few examples; the Greek particle allá, from 205, is variously rendered by fourteen different English expressions, while the last term takes nine

9 Preface to R. V. p. 10.

different English forms. The pronoun avrós, " self," oblique cases, "him, her, it," is rendered by no less than thirty-nine different English phrases. The Greek verb, yívojai, to “begin to be," is represented in the Common Version by fortyseven different expressions. Other Greek terms might be cited which assume not less than fifty different forms in the English Testament. Now, the Revisers have realized this great fault, and have attempted to remedy it. In the great majority of instances, they have certainly done so. But, on the other hand, it was possible to go to the opposite extreme, and the Revisers have not, in our judgment, uniformly avoided it. It is to be considered that many Greek words. take several shades of meaning, and often quite different senses. The New Version, in some cases, has not sufficiently regarded this fact. Examples illustrating this statement will be cited hereafter.

66

2nd. The rendering of different Greek words by one and the same English expression. The Revisers attempt also to guard against this fault. Generally they have done so; but notable examples exist in which they have neglected to do So. The two terms exnegάo," to try, to prove, to put to the test," and лάo," to tempt, to solicit, to sin," with their derived forms, are rendered by the same set of phrases in the Authorized Version, and this has been followed, also, in the Revised Version. For instances of the use of these terms, see the citations in the foot notes.10 It is remarkable that the American Board of Revisers recommended expressly the eradication of this fault, but their suggestion was not heeded by the English Revisers.11 There are, again, not less than half a dozen Greek verbs which the Revisers render by the English "appoint, appointed," etc. Thus, ἀπόκειται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, “ it is appointed unto men (Heb. ix. 27), can be considered a correct rendering, only as the 10 For the use of εxnεioάo see Matt. iv. 7; Luke iv. 12; x. 25; and 1 Cor. x. 9. For neigάo see Matt. iv. 1, 3; xvi. 1; xix. 3; xxii. 18, 35: Mark i. 13; viii. 11; Luke iv. 2; xi. 16; and many other places.

11 See the list of emendations by the Amer. Revisers, in the back part of the Rev. Ver, Oxford Edit., No VI.

[ocr errors]

term appointed is taken in the sense of a "divine allotment," which it sometimes, though rarely, does take. The literal sense, which the Revisers place in the margin, is "laid up for:" thus: "the hope which is laid up for you" (Col. i. 5); "there is laid up for me a crown (2 Tim. iv. 8). The Revisers should have translated the phrase cited above: "It is allotted unto," or "reserved for." Thus Dr. Kendrick (Lange in loc.) remarks: "it (lies away) is reserved for, not is appointed." Other verbs rendered by "appointed" really mean" ordained," "constituted," etc.; but the New Version translates them all by the same English expression.

3rd. The question generally of the accuracy of the translation. For general fidelity and accuracy, as well especially for nicety of distinctions in meaning, so characteristic of the Greek tongue, the Revised Version is far superior to King James' Translation. If it does not represent fully in this regard, the highest standard of existing scholarship, it certainly very nearly approximates to it. Yet we believe the work might be improved; and of this we cite some illustrations.

The preposition of, in the sense of by, may be properly regarded as obsolete; yet the New Version frequently, and we may say habitually, uses of in the sense of by. Then, as regards the tenses, we often find was in the place of had, thas: "When he was (had) come down from the mountain;" and "When he was (had) entered into Capernaum," etc. That which seems to us an abuse of the rule, to translate the same Greek word always by the same Euglish, is the constant rendering of evέos, " immediately, forthwith, instantly, at once," etc., by the really awkward expression, straightway. The Greek occurs some eighty times, and is invariably rendered "straightway;" although other words express exactly the same meaning.

[ocr errors]

But if the inquiry here is, whether the Revised Version contains any positive errors of translation, or actual blunders, the reply is, that it would be difficult to find many such, or even any such. Many renderings might be deemed objection

« PreviousContinue »