Page images

in the room of the statement, "a tumult was made," we have the words, "a tumult was arising" (Matt. xxvii. 24).

Among the felicitous changes is the putting of the past for the present in Matthew vi. 3, 16: "Verily I say unto you, they have| received their reward." They have gained what they sought and can look for no higher reward. "Wist ye not that I must be in my Father's house?" is the translation justly preferred in Luke ii. 49. "The boy Jesus tarried behind" (Luke ii. 43), the substitution of "boy" for "child" gives a new interest to the passage. A fresh thought A fresh thought is presented when we read (Luke vi. 35), "lend, never despairing": that is, not giving up hope because you are parting with property, as if God would not provide and reward. In Hebrews i. 1, the past revelations, instead of being said to have been "at sundry times," are said to have been "by divers portions," a true rendering. In Romans viii. 3, where it is said that God sent His Son "in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin," etc., it is questionable whether the revisers were justified in introducing in italics the words 66 as an offering," before the words "for sin." It is an interpretation It is an interpretation which, even if correct, is far from being generally accepted.

In the authorized version, there is a class of passages where two Greek words having a different sense are represented by the same English word. A marked example is A marked example is John x. 16: " And other sheep I have which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold "--but here the Greek word is different, and means, not "fold," but "flock"-" and one shepherd." The Revision brings out the difference, the beautiful idea of many folds, but one flock, and one shepherd for all. King James's translators in this instance were probably misled by the Vulgate. Another singularity of the old version is the frequent rendering of the same Greek word by different English words, a fault the opposite of that just noticed. A familiar instance, which is set right in the Revision, is "everlasting punishment" and "life eternal," in Matthew xxv. 46. Another is the association of "compassion" with "pity" in the parable of the unmerciful debtor (Matt. xviii. 33), the original word being the same. The reasons for this procedure, given by King James's translators in their preface, are quite curious. One is that uniformity One is that uniformity of rendering in such cases they "thought to savor more of curiosity than of wisdom,

and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist than bring profit to the godly reader." The fear of "the scorn of the atheist" has had too much influence on interpreters, as well as translators, of the Bible. The second reason is still more remarkable: "We might, also," they say, "be charged by scoffers with some unequal dealing toward a great number of good English words." That is, they took both "compassion" and "pity," as a kind of compromise between the partisans of each. This bilingual duplication in the Prayer Book"acknowledge and confess," "cloak" and conceal," etc., associated the Norman and Saxon for the better reason that each explained the other. In I. Thess. v. 22, the English reader may now learn that it is every kind of real evil, and not "all appearance of evil," which he is to avoid. An inestimable service has been done in truly rendering, and thus clearing up the meaning of St. Paul's great passage on the Incarnation, Phil. ii. 6, 7. The revised version reads: "Counted it not a prize "—in the margin, "a thing to be grasped "-" to be on an equality with God." One feels, occasionally, on meeting with such an improved rendering, that it more than pays for all the trouble of the revision. Another change of much importance is the distinction which is now clearly made between the words which were rendered "hell "—namely, "Gehenna," which signifies uniformly, the place of punishment in the future life, and "Hades," which is the equivalent of the "Sheol" of the Old Testament, the abode of the dead, without reference to their condition as happy or otherwise. The confusion of these terms is one of the most marked and mischievous blemishes of the authorized version. It is the gates of "Hades "-of the under-world which swallows up all the living-which shall not prevail against the church (Matt. xvi. 18). The substitution of modern English, "Be not anxious," for "take no thought," where this phrase occurs (as in Matt. vi. 25), saves the need of constant explanation. In truth, much of the work of commentators is spared by a more correct translation from a more correct text. In a considerable number of passages, both in the Gospels and Epistles, misapprehension is prevented, and, in some cases, a new force added to injunctions, by superseding "offend," by "cause to stumble"; as (Matt. v. 29)" If thy right eye causeth thee to stumble," etc. The old translators may have given to the word


"offend" the same sense, though it does not appear to have been current in this meaning in the old English. "Bishops" appear in the revised edition, as was proper; but the insertion of "overseers" in the margin may serve as a caution to the reader not to confound the functions of the office in the New Testament age with those which it assumed afterward. Here it may be remarked that however judicious the alternative renderings inserted in the margin may be in general, there are a few, at least, for which it is difficult to see the ground. Wherever the word "covenant" occurs, as far as we have noticed, the word "testament" is rendered by its side in the margin. Now the Greek word in the New Testament means “covenant" in every instance except one, where the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, prompted by the thought of the other meaning of "will" or "testament," which was, also, given to the word by the Greeks, turns aside in a kind of episode (Heb. ix. 16, 17). In most of the passages, no other rendering is admissible. The new "covenant," or dispensation of grace, is contrasted with the old. It appears to us, therefore, misleading to inscribe "testament" in the margin. In fact, the revisers were bound by their rules to alter the title of the book to "New Covenant." "Testament" in the title is an error due to the Vulgate. But such a change, like the abandonment of the divisions into chapters and verses, would be out of the question.


There is one instance in which the revisers have adopted a rendering which, in our judgment, is decidedly unfortunate. St. Paul is made to say (Acts xvii. 22): "Ye men of Athens, in all things I perceive that ye are somewhat superstitious"—in the margin, "religious." The word in the original means literally "God-fearing": "gottesfürchtig" is the rendering in the German Bible of De Wette. It may signify "religious" in the ordinary sense, or it may be applied to those in whom religion is unduly mingled with punctiliousness and fear. The context of Acts xvii. 22 shows that it is meant here to convey no reproach. It is a conciliatory exordium. The Athenians worshiped, but in ignorance of the true object. It may be rendered thus: "Ye men of Athens, I perceive that ye are much given to worship." But if it is supposed that a tinge of censure lurks in the partly ambig

*The appendix indicates that the American revisers so judge.

uous epithet, this, nevertheless, is not its main element. The phrase "somewhat superstitious" fails to bring out the positive element, the idea of extraordinary devoutness, which certainly is contained in the term.

The order of words in Greek, as in other languages, is expressive. It determines the point on which the emphasis is laid. This peculiarity, which is too much disregarded in the authorized version, is not overlooked in the Revision. For example: "But Jesus he scourged and delivered," etc. (Matt. xxvii. 26); "My cup indeed ye shall drink" (Matt. xx. 23); "And the things which thou hast prepared, whose shall they be?" In many other passages, the precise shade of meaning, or an additional force, is brought out by the observance of the Greek order. In one place, however, much to our regret, we have noticed that the Revision makes no improvement. In Romans i. 18, we still read: "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven," etc. Here the Greek order requires the fact of the revelation to be made prominent. The indignation of God is something made known. This the context requires. There is a contrast with verse 17: "Therein is revealed a righteousness," etc., where the Revision. preserves the true order. Moreover, the Apostle is laying down the premises for the conclusion (verse 20): "That they may be without excuse." The eighteenth verse should read: "For revealed is the wrath of God from heaven," etc.; or, "Revelation has been made of the wrath of God," etc. De Wette says: "Denn geoffenbaret wird Gottes Zorn vom Himmel," etc.

In other particulars of much higher concern, the superior Greek scholarship of the present day is manifest in the Revision. The old translators were apparently oblivious of the force of the Greek article, which answers to the definite article in English. They often leave the article out, when it should be inserted, and vice versa. The restoration of it in many passages, though it is one of the alterations which may fail to attract the notice of a cursory reader, is in reality a most valuable change. Thus, in Matt. ii. 4, we have in the Revision: "Where the Christ "-in the room of "where Christ "-" should be born." Christ, in the Gospels, is not a proper name of Jesus: this is one sign of their early date. "Built his house upon the rock" (Matt. viii. 26) is more forcible than "built his house upon a rock." It is "the pinnacle of the temple "-not "a pinnacle"-to which


trees," that is, the palm-trees that were
growing on the Mount of Olives. It is not
"one" and "many" in Romans v., where
Adam is contrasted with Christ, but "the
one," and "the many." The omission of
the article in passages where it had been
gratuitously inserted is an equal service of
the Revision. The disciples (John iv. 27)
wondered, not that Jesus "talked with the
woman," but with "a woman"—any woman.
The Apostle Paul (I. Tim. vi. 10) does not
say that the love of money "is the root of
all evil," which is not true,—but a root
of all kinds of evil." Occasionally the re-
visers appear to have strained a point in
dealing with articles. Why should they say
"a righteousness of God" in Romans iii. 21?
Why say a righteousness" in this verse,
and "the righteousness" in the next? Why
"hearers of a law" in Romans ii.
13, while "the law" is the preferred render-
ing in ii. 17, 23; iii. 20, 21, 31; iv. 13;
vii. 7? The omission of the article in the
Greek, before an abstract noun, conceived
of as the single one of its kind, is according
to rule. It is the righteousness of God, or
his method of justification, and the law
that is, the law of the Old Testament-which
are meant. The inexact rendering of
prepositions, and, in general, the vague
rendering, or entire neglect of particles, in
the authorized version is, in numerous
places, remedied by the revisers.


Jesus is taken (Matt. iv. 5). It was not warned "-"you to flee from the wrath to "branches of palm-trees" which they took come" (Matt. iii. 7); "Freely ye re (John xii. 13), but branches of the palm-ceived," for "have received" (Matt. viii. 8); "Ye did not dance," for "have not danced" (Matt. xi. 17); "I planted, Apollos watered," etc., for "I have planted," etc.; "I chose you out of the world," not "have chosen " (John xv. 20); "Him whom thou didst send," not "hast sent" (John xvii. 4); “John I beheaded," for "have beheaded" (John ix. 9); "I betrayed innocent blood," not "have betrayed," etc. (Matt. xxvii. 4). The whole train of thought in connection with II. Corinthians v. 14 is obscured in the authorized version by the rendering," All were dead," instead of "all died." The idea of St. Paul is that when Christ died all believers died (potentially or in idea), and thus are like Him, and in Him are risen to a new spiritual life. They belong to a new creation, to a spiritual order, as does He with whom they stand in intimate fellowship. The Revision reads: "Because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died." The importance of this single correction in its theological bearing is obvious. A rectification of the same sort takes place in Romans v. 12, where "for that all sinned" takes the place of "for that all have sinned." An uneducated person may fail to see the importance of these variations of phraseology. But if, as Gibbon says, one of the mightiest of controversies arose over an iota, the distinction between the homoousion of the Orthodox and the homoiousion of the Arians, a controversy, too, of tremendous consequence, it is easy to see that an exact rendering of the Apostle Paul on passages which touch on the deepest problems of theology is not a matter of indifference. It might be added in connection with the passage just referred to, that a like correction of Romans vi. 2, "died to sin," for "were dead to sin," and of Romans vi. 8, "if we died with Christ," for "if we be dead with Christ," serves to bring out of a partial eclipse the true thought of the Apostle.

But one of the most striking improvements due to the advance of grammatical knowledge is in the more exact discrimination between tenses. Especially is the proper sense of the aorist restored. This matter can be made clear to the English reader. Take the verb "to strike." The Greek has the perfect meaning, I have struck, and the pluperfect meaning, I had struck. These forms, as in English, refer to secondary events having relation in time to another occurrence, or to the principal event. The perfect "I have struck" brings the past into connection with the present when the words are uttered. Besides these the Greek has the aorist, denoting a bare occurrence, viewed as momentary,-" I struck." Now the aorist is not unfrequently rendered in the authorized version as the perfect or imperfect, to the great detriment of the translation. Notice how it is improved by correction in this particular. We read: "Who warned "-not "hath

The authors of the New Revision, had they undertaken to exclude all archaisms, would have been obliged to go farther in modifying the tone of the received version than was necessary or desirable. They have wisely decided to retain such as are perfectly intelligible and cannot be dropped without dispelling in some degree the atmosphere that invests the ancient translation. There is no objection to saying that

Joseph "minded to put her away privily" | Apostle Paul exalts love to the throne

among the virtues, the thirteenth chapter of I.
Corinthians, we lose the word "charity," and
with it a portion of the music of this won-
derful passage. But the gain more than
compensates for the loss.
compensates for the loss. Apart from the
ambiguity of "charity" in its present use,
the old Saxon word "love" has a meaning
stored up in it which no word taken from
the Latin has been able to gather. The
doctrine of the Apostle is made, by the
change, far more distinct and emphatic.
Had "love" always stood in this chapter
where "charity" stood, no antagonism be-
tween the theology of Paul and of John
could plausibly have been affirmed to exist.

(Matt. i. 19). Every one sees the meaning of "minded at a glance, without


reflection. In some instances, however, archaic forms have been retained, which are less agreeable, and which might have been spared without the least harm. was it necessary to retain the word "bewrayeth ""Thy speech bewrayeth thee (Matt. xxvi. 73)? The difference between this word and "betrayeth," if there be any difference, readers will not discern. In the Lord's Prayer, why do we still read, "which art in heaven," for "who art in heaven"? It appears that the retention of "which" is due to the English branch of the board of revisers. It is a remarkable fact that the English company, with the uprightness which belongs to the character of true scholars, and with a genuine English boldness in a matter where truth is at stake, do not hesitate to alter the form of the Lord's Prayer, by substituting "as we have forgiven" for "as we forgive," and "deliver us from the evil one," in the room of "deliver us from evil," it is remarkable, we say, that the same scholars should cling to the old "which" for the modern and more grammatical "who." Fearless in revising the Greek text to make it accord with the demands of truth, they are excessively cautious about modifying the English phrases which represent it. Owing to the same mood of feeling, they hold on to "whiles" -"whiles thou art in the way with him " —(Matt. v. 25) as if "while" in the room of it were not harmless, and a better word for the modern ear. If it be asked why "which" is kept in the Lord's Prayer and "whiles" in the Sermon on the Mount, the solution must be found in that tenacious conservatism in minor things which belongs, in unison with a courageous spirit of progress, to the English mind, and is discerned in many phenomena of English life. Why do the boys in the great school at Winchester still eat their supper off wooden plates? Why do the lawyers and judges still load their heads with ponderous wigs ? When such questions are answered, the reason will perhaps be found why the giving up of dear old "which" and "whiles" is a thing not to be thought of.

[ocr errors]

The authorized version, like that of Luther, has a rhythm which the revisers have done their best to leave undisturbed. In some places, a sacrifice on this score has to be made for the sake of a greater good. In that marvelous chapter in which the

The New Revision is accompanied by an appendix in which the points are set down in which the American committee were unable to acquiesce in the decisions of the English committee. For the merits of the Revision as it stands, whatever they may be, the American branch deserves no small share of credit. Their opinions, we are given to understand, have had a large influThe list in the appendix comprises the recommendations which were not accepted by the English, but which are deemed by their authors of sufficient importance to be appended to the volume. On this list, as it appears to us, are many changes which deserved to be adopted.



Tempt," in the sense of "make trial of," is now obsolete, and the use of it where no enticement to evil is meant is misleading. Such archaisms as "who or "that" for "which," in speaking of persons, and "wot" or "wist" in the sense of "know," "knew," are needless blemishes in the translation. With the American company, we should prefer "demon" and the cognate terms to represent the Greek terms from which it is derived, as in the various places referring to demoniacal possession. On the use of the word "testament" we have already commented. Here the text of the Revision is manifestly wrong. In the Lord's Prayer (Matt. vi. 11, Luke xi. 3), the marginal reading is suggested: "Our bread for the coming day," or " our needful bread." This explanation is required to give the English reader an exact idea of the two meanings of which the original term is susceptible. In Matthew x. 39, "He that findeth his life shall lose it," and in several other passages, the Americans would strike out soul," the alternative reading for "life" in the margin. "Life," and not "soul," is the sense of the Greek word. "For judg


[ocr errors]

ment, and mercy, and faith" (Matt. | disposed to go farther than the English in xxiii. 23; also Luke xi. 42), "justice, and removing obsolete or obsolescent terms. mercy, and faith," is properly suggested. In Luke i. 70,-" his holy prophets, which have been since the world began," the Americans correctly preferred" which have been of old." So in Acts iii. 21; xv. 18. In Luke xxiv. 30, they would translate, in exact accordance with the text: "He took the bread and blessed; and breaking it he gave to them." In Acts xvii. 22, they would read very religious" for "somewhat superstitious"; on this passage we have already remarked. In Romans i. 18, they would put "hinder the truth" for "hold down the truth"; but here we are inclined to prefer the text of the Revision, as more faithful and expressive. The passage refers to the inward suppression of the truth by those who will not let it influence their lives. In I. Corinthians ii. 13, the text of the Revision reads: "Comparing spiritual things with spiritual," and "combining" stands in the margin as the alternative of " comparing." The American committee would say: "Combining spiritual things with spiritual words"-which the context shows to have been the Apostle's meaning. In Philippians ii. 6, they would read: "Counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped," and would omit the marginal reading "a thing to be grasped "-which is found in the text of the Revision. This suggestion of the appendix gives the sense of the passage with greater precision, but involves a circumlocution. The text as it stands, with the marginal appendage, perhaps makes the meaning sufficiently plain. In Colossians iii. 5, "put to death" is preferred by the Americans to the obsolete "mortify" of the English revisers: "Mortify therefore your members," etc. In Philippians iii. 12, 13, the English cling to "apprehend": "I press on, if so be I may apprehend," etc., while the Americans wisely prefer "lay hold of," a Saxon synonym intelligible to everybody. The Revision, in Hebrews xi. 1, reads: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the proving of things not seen.' This last clause is hardly intelligible without the marginal addition: "Or the giving substance to." In the appendix we have the better rendering: "A conviction of things not seen," with the same marginal rendering. In a considerable number of instances the different translations of the appendix rest on a different view as to the original text. It is plain that the American committee was


[ocr errors]

The first two changes put on their list by the authors of the appendix relate to the titles of the books. They would strike out "S." (i. e., Saint) from the title of the Gospels and from the heading of the pages. If the authority of the ancient manuscripts were followed, this suggestion would have to be carried out. The addition of this epithet to the sacred writers is of later origin. The American committee would, also, have omitted, for a like reason, "the Apostle " from the title of the Pauline Epistles. From the titles of the Epistle to the Hebrews they would have struck out the words "of Paul the Apostle." This part of the title was not given to the book in the early centuries. The weight of authority, both past and present, is strongly against the authorship by Paul. Why, then, should it continue to be affirmed in the versions of the book? the book? It may, perhaps, be said that the authorship of some other books is disputed; for example, the second Epistle of Peter. But the case is not parallel as regards the title proper to be attached in a version. The Epistle to the Hebrews does not itself claim to be the work of Paul.

In some respects it is a misfortune that the appendix is necessary. Inconsiderate persons and some who are opposed to any revision of the authorized version will, probably, point to it as a sign that even when revision is attempted agreement as to the changes to be introduced is out of the question. But why do we need a translation? It is that we may get at the meaning of the writers. If there are certain points on which unanimity between two bodies of learned scholars cannot be attained, why should we not be glad to know exactly where the uncertainty lies, and how far it extends? We are Protestants. We claim that it is the right and duty of every Christian to read and interpret the Bible. Why should we shrink from the logical and necessary consequences of our position? Those who have not studied the Greek language have a right to demand that they shall be informed, with all possible accuracy, of the true sense of the original Scriptures. Where there are cases of disagreement among scholars of approved capacity, why should the people be denied an acquaintance with the precise character and compass of the divergence? The existence and public avowal of these diversities of judg ment will stimulate thoughtful and inquisitive

« PreviousContinue »