Anglo-American Bible revision

iM*^Sl^»»:

i^^

CN^^^

^,^ \\\t (ThcolojjiV;,/ ^,

*■/;/

%,

'if.

PRINCETON, N. J.

3,51.99
A 5..1 Z..

.S>. //■ ■;/ .

Shfi/

/\7//;//vr ...CjQIpY . \.

ANGLO-AMERICAN

Bible Eeyisiok

BY

MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN REVISION COMMITTEE.

/

Vers/OKI or "the JBibie-,

PRINTED FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION,

NEW YOKK:

Nos. 42 AND 44 BIBLE HOUSE.
1879.

Copyrishl, by the Ameiiicak .Sunday-School Union, 1S70,

PEEFATOET NOTE.

These essays on the various aspects of the Anglo-
American Bible revision now going on, are issued by
the American Revision Committee as an explanatory
statement to the friends and patrons of the cause, with
the distinct understanding that suggestions and state-
ments in regard to any particular changes to be made,
express only the individual opinions of the writer, but
not the final conclusions of the two Committees, who
have not yet finished their work.

PHILIP SCHAFF,

New York, March, 1879. In behalf of the Committee.

3

CONTENTS.

PAGE

LIST OF ENGLISH KEVISERS 7-10

LIST OF AMERICAN REVISERS 11-13

ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION:

Introductory Statement.

PhiUpSchaff. 14

The Authorized Version and English Versions on
WHICH it is Based.

Chm. P. Krauth. 22

The English Bible as a Classic.

T. W. Chambers. 37

Reasons for a New Revision.

Tlico. D. Woolsey. 43

The Current Version and Present Needs. •

G. Emlen Hare. 48

The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament.

Howard Osgood. 53

Hebrew Philology and Biblical Science.

W. Henry Green. 60

Helps for Translating thk Hebrew Scriptures at
the Time the Ancient Version was made.

George E. Day. 72

iNArrURAflES or the AuTHOItlZED VERSION OF THH OlI)
Tf:STAMENT.

Josepli I\ickard. 80

The New Testa.ment Text.

Ezra Abbot. 80
iv

CONTENTS. V

PAGE

Inaccuracies of the Authorized Version in Kespect of

Grammar and Exegesis.

A. a Kendrick. 99

True Conservatis:\i in Eesfect to Changes in the
English and Greek Text.

Timothy D wight. 113

The Greek Verb in the New Testament.

Matthew B. Riddle. 126

Unwarranted Verbal Differences and Agreements
IN THE English Version.

J. Henry Thayer. 133

Archaisms.; or, Obsolete and Unusual Words and
Phrases in the English Bible.

Howard Crosby. 144

The Proper Names of the Bible.

Chas. A. Aiken. 151

The Use of Italics in the English Bible.

TJiomas Chase. 1S7

Paragraphs, Chapters, and Verses of the Bible.

James Strong. 166

Revision of the Scriptures and Church Authority.

Alfred Lee. 170

GENERAL INDEX 1 f 181

VS. Austin Allibone.\

INDEX OF TEXTS ...... J I 189

1^

LIST OF REVISERS

I. EE^GLISH REVISION COMMITTEE.
(1) Old Testament Company.

The Right Rev. Edward Harold Browne, d.d., Bishop

of Winchester (Chairman), Farnham Castle, Surrey.
The Right Rev. Lord Arthur Charles Hervey, d.d.,

Bishop of Bath and Wells, Palace, Wells, Somerset.
The Right Rev. Alfred Ollivant, d.d., Bishop of

Llandaff, Bishop's Court, Llandaff.
The Very Rev. Robert Payne Smith, d.d.. Dean of

Canterbury, Deanery, Canterbury.
The Ven. Benjamin Harrison, m.a., Archdeacon of

Maidstone, Canon of Canterbury, Canterbury.
The Rev. William Lindsay Alexander, d.d.. Professor

of Theology, Congregational Church Hall, Edinburgh.
Robert L. Bensly, Esq., Fellow and Hebrew Lecturer,

Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge.
The Rev. John BiRrell, Professor of Oriental Lan-
guages, St. Andrew's, Scotland.
Frank Chance, Esq., m.d., Burleigh House, Sydenham

Hill, London.
Thomas Chenery, Esq., Reform Club, London, S. W.
The Rev. T. K. Cheyne, Fellow and Hebrew Lecturer,

Balliol College, Oxford.
The Rev. A. B. Davidson, d.d., Professor of Hebrew,

Free Church College, Edinburgh.
The Rev. George Douglas, d.d.. Professor of Hebrew

and Principal of Free Church College, Glasgow.
S. R. Driver, Esq., Tutor of Few College, Oxford.
The Rev. C. J. Eliott, Winkfield Vicarage, Windsor.

7

8 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

The Rev. Frederick Field, d.d., Carlton Terrace,

lleigliani, Xorwich.
The Rev. John Dury Geden, Professor of Hebrew,

Wesleyaii College, Didsbury, Manchester.
The Rev. Christian D*. Ginsburg, ll.d., Wokingham,

Berks.
The Rev. Frederick AVilliam Gotcu, d.d., Principal

of the Baptist College, Bristol.
The Rev. William Kay, d.d.. Great Leghs' Rectory,

Chelmsford.
The Rev. {Stanley Leathes, b.d., Professor of Hebrew,

King's College, London.
The Rev. John Rawson Lumby, b.d., Fellow of St. Cath-
arine's College, Cambridge.
The Rev. John James Stewart Perowne, d.d., Dean

pf Peterborough.
The Rev. A. II. Sayce, Fellow and Tutor .of Queen's

College, Oxford.
The Rev. William Robertson Smith, Professor of

Hebrew, Free Church College, Aberdeen.
William Wright, Professor of Arabic, Cambridge.
William Aldis Wright, Esq. (Secretary), Bursar of

Trinity College, Cambridge.

0. T, Company, 27.

NoTK. — The Enfjlish Old Testament Company has lost, by death, the
Ri^hl liov. Dr. Connop Thiulwall, Bisliop of St. David's, d. 27 July,
1875; the Ven. IIkn^y .Toirx Rose, Archdeacon f)f Bedford, d. 31 .Janu-
an', 1873; the Rev. Willi am Selwyn, d.d.. Canon of Kly, d. 24 April,
1875; the Rev. Dr. Patrick Fairijairn, Principal of the Free Church
College, Glaflgow, d. 6 Aujjust, 1874; Professors McGill, d. 16 March,
1871; Weir, 27 .Tuly, 1870; and Davieh, 19 July, 1875; and by
redifrnation, the Rii^ht Rev. Dr. CnRisTOPiiER Wordsworth, Bishop
of Lin(f)ln ; the Rev. John Jp:nn, Canon of Hereford, and tlie Rev.
Edward Hayk^ PuMrrRE, d.d.. Professor of N. T. Exegesis, King's
College, London (resigned 17 March, 1874).

list of revisers. 9

(2) N'ew Testament Company.

The Right Rev. Charles John Ellicott, d.d., Bishop
of Gloucester and Bristol (Chairman), Palace, Glou-
cester.

The Right Rev. George Moberly, d.c.l., Bishop of
Salisbury, Palace, Salisbury.

The Very Rev. Edward Henry Bickersteth, d.d..
Prolocutor, Dean of Lichfield, Deanery, Lichfield.

The Yery Rev. Arthur Penrhyn Stanley, d.d.. Dean
of Westminster, Deanery, Westminster.

The Very Rev. Robert Scott, d.d.. Dean of Rochester,
Deanery, Rochester.

The Very Rev. Joseph Williams Blakesley, b.d.,

• Dean of Lincoln, Deanery, Lincoln.

The Most Rev. Richard Chenevix Trench, d.d.. Arch-
bishop of Dublin-, Palace, Dublin.

The Right Rev. Charles Wordsworth, d.c.l.. Bishop
of St. Andrew's, Bishopshall, St. Andrew's.

The Rev. Joseph Anous, d.d.. President of the Baptist
College, Regent's Park, London.

The Rev. David Brown, d.d., Principal of the Free
Church College, Aberdeen.

The Rev. Fenton John Anthony Hort, d.d.. Fellow of
Emmanuel College, Cambridge.

The Rev. William Gibson Humphry, Vicarage, St.
Martin's-in-the-Field^, London, W. C.

The Rev. Benjamin Hall Kennedy, d.d., Canon of Ely
and Regius Professor of Greek, The Elms, Cambridge.

The Ven. William Lee, d.d., Archdeacon of Dublin,
Dublin.

The Rev. Joseph Barber Lightfoot, d.d., Bishop of
Durham.

10 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

The Rev. William Milligan, d.d., Professor of Divinity
and Biblical Criticism, Aberdeen.

The Rev. William F. Moulton, d.d., Master of The
Leys School, Cambridge.

The Rev. Samuel Newth, d.d.. Principal of New Col-
lege, Hampstead, London.

The Ven. Edwin Palmer, d.d., Archdeacon of Oxford,
Christ Church, Oxford.

The Rev. Alexander Roberts, d.d., Professor of Hu-
manity, St. Andrew's.

The Rev. Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, ll.d..
Prebendary, Hendon Vicarage, London, IN". W.

The Rev. George Vance Smith, d.d.. Parade, Car-
marthen.

The Rev. Charles John Vaughan, d.d., Master of the
Temple, The Temple, London, E. C.

The Rev. Brooke Foss Westcott, d.d.. Canon of Peter-
borough and RegiusL Professo>r of Divinity, Trinity
College, Cambridge.

The Rev. J. Troutbeck (Secretary), Dean's Yard,
Westminster.

N. T. Company, 25.
Active members in both Companies, 62.

Note. — The English New TcKtament Company has lost, by death, the
Right Rev. Dr. Sami'EL Wilbeii force. Bishop of Win{liestcr,d. 1873;
the Very Rev. Dr. IIkxry Alfokd, Dean of Canterbury, tl. 1871 ; the
Kev. Dr. John Eadie, Professor of Biblical Literature in the United
I'reHbytcrian Church, Glasgow, d. 187G; and Mr. Samuel Prideaux
TRV/iRL'l.va, LL.i>. (who wa.s prevented by ill health from taking any
part in the wf)rk), d. 1875; and by resignation, the Rev. Dr. Charles
Merivale, Dean of ¥Ay.

(The Rev. F. C. Cook, Canon of Exeter, the Rev. Dr. E. B. Pusey,
who were asked to join the O. T. Company, and the Rev. Dr. J. H.
Newman, who was asked to join the N. T. Company, declined to serve.)

LIST OF REVISERS. 11

II. AMERICAJST REVISION COMMITTEE.

GENERAL OFFICERS OF THE COMMITTEe!
Philip Schaff, d.d., ll.d., President.
George E. Day, d.d., Secretary.

(1) Old Testament Company.

Professor Wm. Henry Green, d.d., ll.d. (Chairman),
Theological Seminary, Princeton, ]^. J.

Professor George E. Day, d.d. (Secretary), Divinity
School of Yale College, 'New Haven, Conn.

Professor Charles A. Aiken, d.d.. Theological Semi-
nary, Princeton, ^N". J.

The Rev. T. W, Chambers, d.d.. Collegiate Reformed
Dutch Church, 1^. Y.

Professor Thomas J. Conant, d.d., Brooklyn, I^. Y.

Professor John De Witt, d.d. , Theological Seminary,
N'ew Brunswick, I^. J. •

Professor George Emlen Hare, d.d., ll.d.. Divinity
School, Philadelphia.

Professor Charles P. Krauth, d.d., ll.d., Yice-Provost
of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Professor Charles M. Mead, d.d., Theological Semi-
nary, Andover, Mass.

Professor Howard Osgood, d.d.. Theological Seminary,
Rochester, I*^. Y.

Professor Joseph Packard, d.d.. Theological Seminary,
Alexandria, Ya.

Professor Calvin E. Stowe, d.d., Hartford, Conn.

Professor James Strong, s.t.d.. Theological Seminary,
Madison, K J.

Professor C. Y. A. Yan Dyck, d.d., m.d., Beirut, Syria.
(Advisory Member on questions of Arabic).

0. T. Company, 14.

Note. — The American Old Testament Company has lost by death,
Tayler Lewis, ll.d., Professor Emeritus of Greek and Hebrew, Union
College, Schenectady, N. Y., d. 1877.

12 anglo-american bible revision.

(2) New Testament Company.

Ex-President T. D. Woolsey, d.d., ll.d. (Chairman),
New Haven, Conn.

Professor J. Henry Thayer, d.d. (Secretary), Theolo-
gical Seniinarj, Andover, Mass.

Professor Ezra Abbot, d.d., ll.d.. Divinity School,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.

The Rev. J. K. Burr, d.d., Trenton, New Jersey.

President Thomas Chase, ll.d., Haverford College, Pa.

Chancellor Howard Crosby, d.d., ll.d., New York
University, New York.

Professor Timothy Dwight, d.d.. Divinity School of
Yale College, New Haven, Conn.

Professor A. C. Kendrick, d.d., ll.d.. University of Ro-
chester, Rochester, N. Y.

The Right Rev. Alfred Leb, d.d., Bishop of the Diocese
of Delaware.

Professor Matthew B. Riddle, d.d.. Theological Semi-
nary, Hartford, Conn.

Professor Philip Sciiaff, d.d., ll.d.. Union Theological
Seminary, New York.

Professor Charles Short, ll.d., Columbia College, N.Y.

The Rev. E. A. Washburn, d.d.. Calvary Church, N. Y.

N. T. Company, 13.
In both Companies, 27.

Note. — The American New Testament Company has lost by death,
Jamrs IIadlky, ll.d., Professor of Greek, Yale Collej^e, Conn, (who
attended tlie first scasi on), d. 1S72; Professor IIexry Boynton Smith,
D.D., LL.D., Union Tlieological Seminary, New York (who attended one
Hcssion, and resigned, from ill health), d. 1877; Professor Horatio P>.
HACKFriT, D.D., LL.D., Theological Seminary, Rochester, N. Y., d. 187(5 ;
and Professor Ciiarlics Hodge, d.d. ll.d., Theological Seminary,
Princeton, N. .1. (who never attended the meetings, but corresponded
with the Oimmittee), d. 1878; and by resignation, Rev. G. R. Crooks,
D.D., New Yf)rk, and Rev. W. F. Warrev, d.d., Boston (who accepted
the original ap|X)intmcnt, but found it impoasible to attend).

THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. 13

(A number of Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church, and Pro-
fessors of sacred learning, who had been invited to join the American
Committee at its first organization in 1871, declined, from want of time,
or other reasons, but expressed interest in the work, and confidence in
its success.)

MEMBERS OF THE FINANCE COMMITTEE CO-
OPERATING WITH THE AMERICAN BIBLE
REVISION. COMMITTEE.

Hon. Nathan Bishop, ll.d., Chairman.
Andrew L. Taylor, Esq., Treasurer

Kev. William Adams, d.d., ll.d. Eev. Thomas D. Anderson, d.d.
A. S. Barnes, Esq. James M. Brown, Esq.

William A. Cauldwell, Esq. Hon. Wm. E. Dodge.
Rev. H. Dyer, d.d. John Elliot, Esq.

Hon. E. L. Fancher, ll.d. John C. Havemeyer, Esq.

Morris K. Jessup, Esq. Eev. Henry C. Potter, d.d., ll.d.

Ho ward Potter, Esq. Elliott F. Shepard, Esq.

Rev. Richard S. Storrs, d.d., ll.d. Charles Tracy, Esq.
Jno. B. Trevor, Esq. Roswell Smith, Esq.

Norman White, Esq. F. S. Winston, Esq.

S. D. Warren, Esq.

THE axglo-a:merica^ bible revision.

INTKODUCTORY STATEMENT.

r.Y PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Sacred Literature, Union Theological Seminary, New York.

I. Origin and Organization. — The Anglo- American
Bible Revision movement now in progress is the first
inter-national and inter-dmominational effort in the history
of the translation of the Bible. The present and the older
authorized English versions for public use in churches
proceeded from the undivided national Church of Eng-
land, before the other evangelical denominations were
organized, and before the American people had an
independent existence.

The new revision took its origin, very properly, in
the Convocation of Canterbury (the cradle of Anglo-
Saxon Christendom), May 6, 1870, by the appointment
of a Committee of eminent Biblical scholars and digni-
taries of the Church of England, with power to revise, for
public use, the authorized English version of 1611, and
to associate with them representative Biblical scholars
of other Christian denominations using that version.

The English Committee is divided into two Compa-
nies, one for the Old Testament and one for the New,
and liolds regular meetings in the historic Jerusalem
Chamber (sometimes in the Chapter Library) in the
Deanery of Westminster, London.

The American Committee was organized in 1871, by
invitation, and with the approval, of the British Revisers,
and began active work in October, 1872. It is likewise
selected from diflerent denominations, and divided into
two Companies, which meet once a month, for several
days, in their own rooms in the I>il>le House, at New

14

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. 15

York, but the American Bible Society has no part or
responsibility in this enterprise, and can have none
within the limits of its present constitution.

The British and American Committees are virtually
one organization, with the same principles and objects,
and in constant correspondence with each other. They
do not intend to issue two separate and distinct revisions,
but one and the same revision for both nations.

II. Composition. — The two Committees embrace at
present 79 active members (52 in England and 27 in
America). Besides, the English Committee lost by
death and resignation 15, the American Committee 7,
members. Adding these, the whole number of scholars
who at any time have been connected with this work,
amounts to 101. Among these are rnany of the best
Biblical scholars and commentators of the leading
Protestant denominations in Great Britain and the
United States. I^ot a few of them are well known by
their works, in Europe and America. We need only
refer to the list at the beginning of this volume. The
American members are nearly all Professors of Hebrew
or Greek exegesis in the principal theological institu-
tions of the Eastern States, and have been selected with
regard to competency and reputation for Biblical scholar-
ship, denominational connection, and local convenience
or easy reach of Kew York, where they meet every
month. Several distinguished divines in the far West
or South, whose cooperation would have been very
desirable had, of necessity, to be omitted ; others, from
want of time, or other reasons, declined to cooperate.

ITT. The object of this Anglo-American enterprise
is to adapt King James's version to the present state of
the English language, without changing the idiom and

16 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

vocabulary, and to the present standard of Biblical
scholarship,. which has made very great advances since
1611, especially during the last thirty years, in textual
criticism, Greek and Hebrew philology, in Biblical
geography and archjx^ology.

It is not the intention to furnish a new version (which
/ is not needed, and would not succeed), but a conservative
revision of the received version, so deservedly esteemed
as far as the English language extends. The new Bible
is to read like the old, and the sacred associations con-
nected with it are not to be disturbed ; but within these
limits all necessary and desirable, corrections and im-
provements on which the best scholars are agreed will
be introduced: a good version is to be made better;
a clear and accurate version clearer and more accu-
rate; the oldest and purest text is to be followed;
errors, obscurities, and inconsistencies are to be
removed; uniformity in rendering Hebrew and Greek
words and proper names to be sought. In one word,
the revision is to give, in idiomatic English, the
nearest possible equivalent for the original Word of
God as it came from the inspired organs of the Holy
Spirit. It aims to be the best version possible in the
nineteenth century, as King James's version was the
best which could be made in the seventeenth century.

IV. The PRINCIPLES of the revision, as adopted at the
outset by both Committees, are the following: —

*'l. To introduce as few alterations as possible into
the text of tlie authorized version consistently with
faithfulness.

(Faithfulness to the original, which is the first duty
of a translator, requires a great many changes, though
mostly of an unessential ctiaracter.)

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. 17

" 2. To limit, as far as possible, the expression of such
alterations to the language of the authorized or earlier
versions.

(So far, only one new word has been introduced in
the ]N'ew Testament.)

" 3. Each Company to go twice over the portion to
be revised, once provisionally, the second time finally.

"4. That the text to be adopted be that for which the
evidence is decidedly preponderating ; and that when
the text so adopted differs from that from which the
authorized version was made, the alteration be indicated
in the margin.

(The Hebrew text followed is the Masoretic, which
presents few variations. The text of the 'New Testa-
ment is taken from the oldest and best uncial MSS.,
the oldest versions, and patristic quotations ; while the
received text from which King James's version was
made, is derived from comparatively late mediaeval
MSS.)

"5. To make or retain no change in the text, on the
second final revision by each Company, except two-
thirds of those present approve of the same; but on the
first revision to decide by simple majorities.

" 6. In every case of proposed alteration that may have
given rise to discussion, to defer the voting thereon till
the next meeting, whensoever the same shall be required
by one-third of those present at the meeting, such in-
tended vote to be announced in the notice for the next
meeting.

"7. To revise the headings of chapters, pages, para-
graphs, italics, and punctuation.

" 8. To refer, on the part of each Company, when
considered desirable, to divines, scholars, and literary
men, whether at home or abroad, for their opinions."
2*

18 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

If these principles are faithfully carried out (as they
have heen thus far), the people need not apprehend any
dangerous innovations. J^o article of faith, no moral
|)reccpt, will he disturbed, no sectarian views will be
introduced. The revision will so nearly resemble the'
present version, that the mass of readers and hearers
will scarcely perceive the ditierence; while a careful
comparison will show slight improvements in every
chapter and almost in every verse. The only serious
difficulty may arise from a change of the text in a few
instances where the overwhelming evidence of the oldest
manuscripts makes a change necessary; and perhaps
also from the omission of italics, the metrical arrange-
ment of poetry and the sectional of prose, and from new
headings of chapters, which, however, are no part of the
Word of God, and may be handled with greater freedom.

Y. Mode of Operation. — The English Companies
transmit, from time to time, confidential copies of their
revision to the American Companies; the American
Companies send the results of their labors to the British
Companies, likewise in strict confidence. Then follows
a second revision on the part of both Committees, with
a view to harmonize the two revisions, and the, results
of the second revision are transmitted in like manner.

If any diiforences should remain, after a final vote,
tliey will be indicated in an appendix or preface.
TTap})ily, they will be few and unessential as co7ni)ared
with the large number of improvements already adopted
by both Committees.

The work is not distributed among sub-committees,
as was the case with the Revisers of King James, but
the whole Old Testament Company goes carefully
through all the books of the Old Testament, the New

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. 19

Testament Company through those of the New ; and
in this way greater harmony and consistency will be
secured than was possible under the otlier system.

The revision has been wisel}^ carried on without pub-
licity, and the actual results of their labors are not yet
made known. Any public statements, therefore, of
particular changes are wholly unauthorized and prema-
ture. The Committees, by publishing parts of their
work before a final revision, would become entamrled
in controversy and embarrassed in their progress.

When the revision is thoroughly matured, it will be
given to the public, as the joint work of both Commit-
tees, by the University Presses of Oxford and Cam-
bridge, which publish the best and cheapest editions
of the Bible in England, and will insure the utmost
accuracy in typography. When adopted by the Churches
and Bible Societies of the two countries, the revised
English Bible will become public property, like King
James's version.

VI. Expenses. — The labor of the Revisers in both
countries is given without compensation. The necessary
expenses for travelling, printing, etc., of the British
Committee, are paid by the University Presses ; those
of the American Committee, by voluntary contributions
of liberal friends, under the direction of an auxiliary
Committee of Finance.

VII. Progress and Probable Eesult. — It was calcu-
lated at the beginning of the work that the revision
could be completed in ten years of uninterrupted labor.
It may take about two years more. At this time
(December, 1878) the two l^ew Testament Companies
have finished the first and a part of the second revision

20 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

(the Englisli Company being several montlis ahead of
the American); the Okl Testament Companies have
done more than half, perhaps two-thirds, of their work.
It is probable that the revised New Testament, at least,
possibly also parts of the Old Testament, will be
published in 1880, just '^ve hundred years after John
TVyclitfe finished the first complete version of the Holy
Scriptures in the English language.

After they have finished their labors the two Com-
mittees will disband. It will then be for the Churches
and Bible Societies to take up the Revision, and to decide
whether it shall take the place of King James's Version,
or at least be used alongside with it, in public worship.
It is not expected, of course, that the old version, which
is so deepl}^ imbedded in our religious literature, will
ever go entirel}^ out of use, certainly not for a long time
to come.

The Revision will, no doubt, be opposed, like every-
thing new, and will have< to pass through a severe
ordeal of criticism. Many will condemn it as too radical,
others as too conserv\ative, but it will be found ulti-
mately to occupy the sound niediiim between the two
opposite extremes. The Churches will have either to
adopt this Anglo-American Bible, t)r to dismiss an
oecumenical revision for an indefinite number of years.
In the one case we shall retain the bond of inter-denomi-
national and inter-national union in a common Bible; in
the other, the irrepressible task of correcting King
James's Version will be carried on more zealously than
ever by unauthorized individuals, and by sectarian en-
terprise, which will increase the difliculty by multiply-
ing confusion and division.

But we never had the least fear of tlie final result.
There never has been such a truly providential combi-

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT. 21

nation of favorable circumstances, and of able and sound
Biblical scholars from all the evangelical Churches of the
two great nations speaking the English language, for
such a holy work of our common Christianity, as is
presented in the Anglo-American Bible Revision Com-
mittees. This providential juncture, the remarkable
harmony of the Revisers in tlie prosecution of their work,
and the growing desire of the Churches for a timely
improvement and rejuvenation of our venerable English
Version, justify the expectation of a speedy and general
adoption of the new Revision in Great Britain and
America.

THE OLDER ENGLISH AXD THE AUTHORIZED
VERSIONS.

BY CHARLES P. KRAUTH, S.T.D., LL.D.,
Vice-Provost of the University of Pennsylvania.

I. Christianity e:jtered Britain in the second cen-
tury, prevailed in the third, waned with the passing
away of the Roman power, went down before the march
of the Pagan invaders, rose agaui in the sixth century,
and was again triumphant before the close of the seventh.
Saxon paraphrases and versions of the Psalter, of the
Gospels, and of other parts of Holy Scripture, were
early made from tlie Latin. The Danish inroads checked
the work of Saxon translation, and the Xorman Con-
quest rendered it useless.

H. Wycliffe and the Reformation. — In the four-
teenth century arose Wycliffe (1324-1384). Called to
the work of Reformation in faith and life, he saw, with
the divine instincts of his mission, that nothing but the
true rule of faith and life could remove the evil and
restore the good, and that the restoration would be per-
manent only in the degree to which every estate of the
Church should be enabled, by possession of the rule, to
apply and guard its teachings. He appealed to the
Word, and to sustain his appeal translated the Word.
He appealed to the people, and put into their hands the
book divinely given to shape their convictions. The
translation of the Scriptures as a whole into English
first came from his hands or under his supervisic^n. It
was finished in the last quarter of the fourteenth cen-
tury. It was made from the Vulgate. Even had
Wycliffe been a Greek and Hebrew scholar, it is doubt-

99

OLDER ENGLISH VERSIONS. 2S

ful whether he could have secured texts of the sacred
orio^inals from which to translate. That he translated
the version universally received in the Western Church,
quoted by her fathers, read, and sung, and preached
from, in her services, and that he rendered it with a
severe closeness approaching servility, would help to
remove prejudice, and to avert or soften the suspicion
that he was adapting Scripture to his own ends, against
the Roman hierarcliy. Like Luther, Wycliffe drew to
him co-workers in his translation ; like Luther he suf-
fered from plagiarists of his work; like Luther he saw
his work eagerly circulated, bitterly opposed, and tri-
umphant over opposition; like Luther he escaped the
stake, with which he was threatened ; like Luther his
enemies sougiit to wreak upon his bones the malice
which survived his death, but there was no Charles the
Fifth to respond, " I war with the living, not with the
dead." The Council of Constance ordered the dis-
honoring of Wycliffe's remains; Pope Martin the Fifth,
in the cold blood of a delay of thirteen years, com-
manded the execution of the order; the Bishop of Lin-
coln, an apostate adherent of Wycliffe, obeyed it. The
bones were burned, and winds and waves swept them
into an " emblem of his doctrine, which is now dispersed
all the world over." Wycliffe was the dayspring of the
coming noontide of divine light.

in. Paper and Printing. — Two material aids were
maturing, to bear part in the grand revolution which
was approaching. Paper made from rags began in the
thirteenth century to take the place of parchment;
printing from movable type, in the fifteenth, began the
unequal contest with the pen. Paper and printing were
to be in the struggle of thought what powder and fire-

24 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

arms had become in the battle-field. Had it not been
for the new arts which intellectualize man, the new arts
which were tributary to war would only have made the
domain of brute force complete and final. The lamp-
black and oil were to neutralize the nitre, and charcoal,
and sulphur.

IV. Tyndale's Translation. — The illustrious Eng-
lishman who was to be the father of the era to come, in
the translation of scripture into his vernacular, was Wil-
liam Tyndale. He was " to cause the boy who driveth
the plow to know more of the Scriptures" than had
been known by those who pretended to be divines. It
is said that Tyndale met Luther at Wittenberg ; it is
certain that he met Luther in Luther's works, and that
whether by personal or by spiritual contact, or by both,
he drew the inspiration of a Biblical translator from the
greatest of translators. Luther was Tyndale's exemplar
and his master, not as the master of a slave, but as the
master of a noble pupil. It is a legend that at Witten-
berg Tyndale completed his translation, assisted by
Roye, 1526. Using all the aids of the time, as fully as
his harassed condition allowed, Tyndale used most of all
the best of all, Luther's translations as they appeared.
He followed Luther in the order in which his work ap-
peared: the New Testament, the Pentateuch, Jonah.
Tyndale's own final revision of his New Testament was
finished 1534. From the prison in which his last hours
were spent in adapting his work to the humblest of the
people, he was taken forth, strangled, and burned to
ashes. It is no extravagance to say that to him our
English Bible owes more than to all tlic other laborers.
His name will forever stand in the roll of the supreme
benefactors of the race.

OLDER ENGLISH VERSIONS. 25

V. CovERD ale's Translation. — Another wave of the
great tide is sweeping on, before the first is wholly
spent upon the shore. Tyndale was burned 1536.
Coverdale, who is said to have aided Tyndale in his
work at Hamburg, 1529, put forth a complete transla-
tion of the Bible in 1535, marking in the dedication to
the king the change that was going on in England.
Coverdale had neither the creative power nor Biblical
learning of Tyndale. His translation bears internal
evidence on every page that it was not made from the
originals. It shows no acquaintance on the part of the
translator with either Hebrew or Greek; it follows
closely the translations it translates, and fully corrobo-
rates the statement of the title-page that it is " out of
Douche [German] and Latyn," and the honest and
explicit account of Coverdale himself, that it was " trans-
lated out of fyve sundry interpreters," " not onely in
Latyn, but also of the Douche [German] interpreters."
He says, with truth : " Lowly and faythfuUy have I fol-
lowed myne interpreters;" he followed even their typo-
graphical errors, and sometimes transfers a word with
an English sound without translating it. The Latin
interpreters of the five are the Vulgate, and probably
Erasmus and Pagninus ; the German are Luther, and
the Zurich Version, in part by Leo Juda (of the un-
changed text previous to 1534). Tyndale's labors he
has largely appropriated without acknowledgment.
Coverdale's ]^ew Testament is Tyndale's, altered at
times to correspond especially with the German, whose
meaning Coverdale has not unfrequently mistaken.
But Coverdale has introduced from his interpreters
many felicities which linger still in the Authorized Ver-
sion. The Coverdale Bible was submitted by Henry
VIII. to the Bishops, was approved, and ordered to be
3

26 AITOLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

placed in the cliurches. But before the order could be
executed Henry was absorbed anew in one of those
loves, not worthy of so sacred a name, which dictated
his policy in Church and State, and his zeal for the
Scriptures abated in proportion. The Bible, neverthe-
less, was tolerated, but the new dedication transferred
to "the dearest just wife, and most virtuous princess,
Queen Jane," what had been assigned, with the same
epithets, in the first, to Queen Anne.

VI. Matthew's Bible. — An ineffectual attempt was
now made by Cranmer for a revision, to be made in
conjunction with learned bishops and others. Soon
after, what is called the Matthew's Bible appeared, 1537.
It is a combination of the labors of Tyndale (partly
posthumous) and of Coverdale, revised, and published
under the assumed name of Matthew, by John Rogers,
the friend of Tyndale. It was sent to Crumwell, and
through his influence received the approval of that
same royal authority which had helped to hunt its chief
author to the death.

The principle of the free reading and circulation of the
Holy Scriptures was coming to be generally accepted.
As it became a settled conviction that the Scriptures of
right belongeJ to the people, room was left for a more
careful searching into the character of the particular
translations. Fault was found with the Tyndalc-Mat-
thew's Bible, mainly because of its Prologues and Notes.
The " Great Bible " appeared 1539, without these addi-
tions. It was edited by Coverdale, and printed at Paris,
by permission of Francis i.

Vn. The Great Bible is a revision, very imperfectly
made, of the Tyndale-Matthew's Bible.' What is new is
mainly drawn from Munster's Latin translation of the

OLDER ENGLISH VERSIONS. 27

Old Testament (1534-35). The inspiration and material
for English revision came almost entirely from the Conti-
nent; England did not have an independent Biblical
scholar of the highest order in the sixteenth century.
The Great Bible inserts in smaller type, at their places,
the peculiar renderings of the Vulgate. In general it
is marked by the features of conservatism endeavoring
to harmonize with reformation. The Inquisition set
itself against the civil power, and in spite of the permis-
sion granted by the King of France, the Bibles were
seized and most of them burned. A few, however,
were saved and completed in London 1539. Taverner's
Bible (1539), is also a hasty revision of Tyndale, but
retains the marginal notes and increases their number.
In 1540 appeared the Cranmer Bible, wdiich is a revision
in part of the Great Bible of the previous year. It takes
its name from the Archbishop's prologue, and the offi-
cial responsibility of the changes rests with him.

VIII. Henry viii. and the Bible. — In various acci-
dents Henry viii. seemed to be a Protestant; in substance
he never ceased to be a Komanist; his opposition to the
Pope was the result of the opposition of the Pope to
him. A compliant Papacy might have kept Henry the
most rigorous Papist of his age. His policy was a see-
saw of self-will. The beauty of Catharine Howard cost
Crumwell his head. Soon after, three Protestants and
three Papists were ' burned together, the former for
asserting the doctrine of justification by faith, the latter
for want of faith in the king's supremacy. The king
saw to it that the Bible was circulated, and then piously
burned men to death for believing it in any respect
wherein it did not agree with the king's views. It was
rather in spite of the dubious aid given by Henry, tban

28 ANGLO-AMERICAN BlLLi: REVISION.

in consequence of it, that God's Word was widely cir-
culated and read.

IX. CovERDALE AND EoGERS. — Aftcr the death of
Henry VIII. (1547; , Somerset, the Lord Protector, removed
the restriction which had embarrassed the readinc: of the
Scriptures. Coverdale was made Bishop of Exeter 1551,
but was too poor to take possession. All things changed
on the accession of Mary. Rogers, after his editorship
of the Matthew's Bible, had been at Wittenberg, and
legend affirms, " being skilled in the German language,
took charge of a congregation there." He returned to
England, only to lead the van of the martyrs of 1555.
Coverdale, on the intercession of the King of Denmark,
was allowed to take refuge in his dominion.

X. Xew Testament of 1557.— A translation of the
JS'ew Testament appeared at Geneva 1557, probably
by ^Vliittingham, whose wife was Calvin's sister. It is
largely, but not exclusively, a careful revision of Tyn-
dale and Cranmer, with many proofs of the influence
of Beza's labors. It has annotations ; it marks by italics
the words supplied, and for the first time in English has
the division into verses, following the Greek of Ste-
phanus, 1551.

XI. Geneva Bible 15G0.— In 15G0 the whole Bible,
with annotations, appeared at Geneva. It is the work
of a number of refugees on the Continent, and is really
the first complete direct translation of the Bible into
English from the originals throughout. It became the
Bible of the people, and passed through more than a
hundred editions. Coverdale, who had taken a promi-
nent part in it, returned to England 1559, and died
1568, at the age of eighty-one, very poor in this world's

OLDER ENGLISH VERSIONS. 29

goods, but very ricli in the love of good men, and the
approval of God.

XII. Bishops' Bible. — Under Elizabeth, the Cranmer
Bible was in authority again. It was open, however,
to many serious objections. One of the most vital,
which largely contributed to the others, was, that it is
not throughout made from the originals, that it is inter-
polated with what are confessedly translations of a
translation, and that much of the revision is superficial,
and some of it purely nominal. The Puritan origin of
the Geneva Bible and the character of its notes pre-
vented its universal acceptance. Parker, Archbishop
of Canterbury, distributed the Cranmer Bible among
the " able bishops and other learned men" for revision,
subject to his own final decision. The result of their
labor was published in 1568, and, after a somewhat
completer revision, in 1572, and is known as the Bishops'
Bible. It made a number of particular improvements
and has brief notes, but was so devoid of elasticity,
spontaneousness, and popular character, as to make it
certain that its reception could, at most, be only provi-
sional.

XIII. Rheims Xew Testament. — The Church of
Eome was driven at last, in self defense, to publish an
Endish translation of the Xew Testament. Rheims
became the Geneva of the English Romanist refugees,
and in 1582 they issued a translation of the Xew Testa-
ment " into English out of the authentical Latin," with
annotations, exposures of the corruptions of other
translations, and a great body of polemical matter. It
is " out of" the Latin, as it claims to be, but its claim
to be " into English " is at times more than doubtful.
It exhibits traces of the influence of the Protestant

30 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

renderings, but has given more than it has taken.
Wyclitfe and his mediaeval co-workers can be distinctly
traced in it. The Eheims, in an important class of
religious terms, unmistakably influenced and benefitted
the Authorized Version, and has carried over to it no few
of the peculiarities of Wyclifie. To this is due the
extraordinary fact that while there is hardly a seeming
parallelism, and not a solitary demonstrable one, any-
where, between Wyclitfe and Tyndale, the parallelisms
are many between Wycliife and the Authorized Ver-
sion. This is another of the points of interest and
beauty in that remarkable version, which, in its aggre-
gations, stands ahnost unique as a nuracle of provi-
dence and history, the symbol of England itself, whose
greatness has so largely sprung from appropriating
what others have produced and actualizing what others
have dreamed.

XIV. King James's Bible Begun. — When James i.
came to the throne he found his subjects within the
Church of England divided into Conformists and Puri-
tans— those who were satisfied with the reformation
already made, and those who wislied a more radical one.
The Puritans had high hopes of the King, and early
laid their complaints before him. At the Hampton
Conference, January 16, 1604, in which the two parties
discussed the questions which divided them, a request
came from Dr. Reynolds, a leader among the Puritans,
for a new version of the Bible. The proposal was at first
resisted by the churchly party, probably from a suspicion
created by its source. The King pleased the Puritans
by inclining to their request, and propitiated the Con-
formists by pronouncing the Geneva the worst of the
English versions, made more intolerable ])y its untrue

KING JAMES'S VERSION. 61

and traitorous notes. Prompt and wise measures were
adopted for a new tran'slation. Fifty-four learned men
were appointed by the King for the work, who were
also to secure the suggestions of all competent persons,
that " our said translation may have the hel^D and
furtherance of all our principal learned men within this
our kingdom." The attitude of the King, the removal
of their first suspicions, and the merits of the case,
brought about a hearty acquiescence on the part of
those who had at first opposed the movement. His
Majesty's instructions to the translators were these : —

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE TRANSLATORS.

" 1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the
Bishops' Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the original will
permit.

" 2. The names of the prophets and the holy writers, with the other
names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they
are vulgarly used.

" 3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, as the word church, not
to be translated congregation.

" 4. When any word hath divers significations, that to be kept which
hath been most commonly used by the most eminent fathers, being
agreeable to the propriety of the place and the analogies of faith.

" 5. The division of chapters to be altered either not at all or as
little as may be, if necessity so require.

" 6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explana-
tion of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot, without some
circumlocution, so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.

" 7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall
serve for the fit reference of one Scripture to another.

" 8. Every particular man of each company to take the same
chapter or chapters ; and, having translated or amended them severally
by himself where he thinks good, all to meet together to confirm what
they have done and agree for their part what Shall stand.

"9. As any one company hath dispatched any one book in this
manner, they shall send it to the rest, to be considered of seriously and
judiciously ; for his Majesty is very careful in this point.

" 10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt
or differ upon any places, to send them word thereof, to note the places.

32 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

and therewithal! to send their reasons ; to which if they consent not, the
diflereuce to be compounded at the genetal meeting, which is to be of
the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work.

"11. When any place of special obscurity is doubted of, letters to
be directed by authority to send, to any learned in the land for his judg-
ment in such a place.

" 12. Lettere to be sent from every bishop to the rest of his clergy,
admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge
as many as, being skillful in the tongues, have taken pains in that kind,
to send their particular observations to the company, either at West-
minster, Cambridge or Oxford, according as it was directed before in
the King's letter to the archbishop.

" 13. The directors in each company to be the Deans of West-
minster and Chester, for Westminster, and the King's professors in
Hebrew and Greek in the two universities.

" 14. These translations to be used when they agree better with the
text than the Bishops' Bible: Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's
[Kogers's], Whitchurch's [Cranmer's], Geneva."

15. By a later rule " three or four of the most ancient and grave
divines, in either of the Universities, not employed in translating,
to be assigned to be overseers of the translation, for the better observation
of the fourth rule."

The translators, probably forty-seven in all, were
divided into six parties, two of which met in Oxford,
two in Cambridge and two in Westminster. In their
numljcr were the greatest English scholars of tlie time.
The learning of that age was almost exclusively in
connection with theological interests. The rules pre-
scribed by the King may be accepted as a guide to the
mode in which the translators actually proceeded.

XV. King James's Bible Finished. — The work
commenced, probably, before the close of 1604: the Kew
Version was issued 1611. It bore the title : "The Holy
Bible, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the New:
1[Xewly Translated out of the Originall Tongues: and
with the former translations diligently Compared and
Revised." The second part of this statement is meant, in

KING JAMES'S VERSION. 33

a certain sense, to define and quality the first. The
translation is new; but its newness is not that of a wholly
independent work, but that of a revision, in which there
has been a diligent comparison of the former English
Translations, enumerated in the King's Instructions,
the Bishops' Bible being laid as the general basis of
the whole work. " Truly," say the translators, who
were too great for the pretentiousness of a false inde-
pendence, " we never thought, from the beginning, that
we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to
make of a bad one a good one ; but to make a good
one better, or out of many good ones, one principal
good one." Without this confession the Authorized
Version would tell its own story. It is only necessary
to compare it with the older versions, to see that with
much that is original, with many characteristic beauties,
in some of which no other translation approaches it, it
is yet in the main a revision. Even its original beau-
ties are often the mosaic of an exquisite combination of
the fragments of the older. Comparing it with the
English exemplars it follows, we must say it is not the
fruit of their bloom, but the ripeness of their fruit.

The king, in endorsing the suggestion of Dr. Rey-
nolds, had expressed the x>urpose that the new transla-
tion " should be ratified by royal authority, and adopted
for exclusive use in all the churches." The title-page
claims that the work is done by " his Maiesties special
commandment," and is " appointed to be read in
churches.^' It comes from the press of " Robert
Barker, Printer to the King's most excellent Maiestie."
Whatever may be the weight of civil authority implied
in these statements, it is certain that the new version
was left to win its way by its own merits purely, and
that neither external nor moral coercion was employed

84 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

ill its behalf. The Epistles and Gospels from the
Bishops' Bible were retained in the Prayer Book till
the linal revision in 1661 ; the Psalms from the Cover-
dale-Cranmer translation (not made from the Hebrew)
lire still retained.

XVI. Excellence of King James's Version. — The
Bible of 1611 encountered prejudices and overcame
them; it had rivals great in just claims and strong in
possession, and it displaced them ; it moved slowly that
it might move surely; the Church of England lost
many of her children, but they all took their mother's
Bible with them, and taking that they were not wholly
lost to her. It more and more melted indifference into
cordial admiration, secured the enthusiastic approval
of the cautious scholar, and won the artless love of the
people. It has kindled into fervent praise men who
were cold on every other theme. It glorified the
tongue of the worshipper in glorifying God, and by the
inK[)i ration indwelling in it, and the inspiration it has
imparted, has created English literature. Its most
])rilliant eulogies have come from those who, hating
Protestantism, yet acknowledged the grandeur of this
Book, which lives by that Protestantism of which it is
the offspring, that Protestantism to which, world-wide,
it gives life as one of its roots. When to him who has
been caught in the snare of unbelief, or drawn by the
lure of false belief, every other chord of the old nmsic
wakes only rej)ugnant memories, its words have stolen
in, too strong to be beaten back, too sweet to be re-
nounced, once more the thunder of God's power, the
pulsation of God's heart. Its faults have been hardly
more than the foils of its beauties. It has so inter-
woven, by the artistic delicacy even of its mechanical

KING James's version. 35

transfers, the very idioms characteristic of the sacred
tongues, that Hebraisms and Hellenisms need no com-
ment to the English mind, but come as parts of its
simplest, its noblest, its deepest thought and emotion.
Its words are nearer to men than their own, and it
gives articulation to groanings which but for it could
not be uttered. It has lifted the living world to the
solemn fixedness of those old heavenly thoughts and
feelings, instead of dragging them by low, secular
phrase out of their high and holy thrones, down to the
dust of the shifting present, or leaving them dim and
dreary behind the fog of pedantry. It has fought
against the relentless tendency of time to change lan-
guage, and has won all the great fields ; words have
dropped away or have deserted their meaning, as
soldiers are lost even by the side which conquers ; but
the great body of the army of its ancient but not anti-
quated forms, among the sweetest and the highest
speech beneath the voices of the upper world, remains
intact and victorious. The swords of its armory may
have gathered here and there a spot of rust, but their
double edge* has lost none of its keenness, and their
broad surface little of its refulgence. It has made a
new translation, as against something old and fading,
impossible, for it is itself new, more fresh, more vital,
more youthful than anything which has sought to
supplant it. We need, and may have, a revision of it.
Itself a revision of revisions, its own wonderful growth
reveals the secret of the approach to perfection. But
by very virtue of its grandly closing one era of struggle
it opened another, for in human efibrts all great endings
are but great beginnings. A revision we may have,
but a substitute, not now — it may be never. The acci-
dents of our Authorized Version are open to change,

36 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

but its substantial part is beyond it, until the English
takes its place among the tongues that shall cease.
The new revision will need little new ^English. Its best
work will be to reduce the old English of the old Version
to more perfect consistency with the text and with itself.
That Version is now, and unchanged in essence will
be, perhaps to the end of time, the mightiest "bond —
intellectual, social, and religious — of that vast body
of nations which girdles the earth, and spreads far
toward the poles, the nations to whom the English is
the language of their hearts, and the English Bible the
matchless standard of that language. So long as
Christianity remains to them the light out of God, the
English Bible will be cherished by millions as the
dearest conservator of pure faith, the greatest power
of holy life in the world.

THE El^GLISH BIBLE AS A CLASSIC. *

BY TALBOT W. CHAMBERS, D.D.
Pastor of the Collegiate Reformed Dutch Church, New York.

King James's Bible. — The merits of the Authorized
Version, in point of fidelity to the original, are
universally acknowledged. 'No other version, ancient
or modern, surpasses it, save, perhaps, the Dutch, which
was made suhsequently, and profited by the labors of
the English translators. But a version may be faithful
without being elegant. It may be accurate without
adequately representing the riches of the language in
which it is made. The glory of the English Bible is
that while it conveys the mind of the Spirit with great
exactness, it does this in such a way that the book has
become the highest existing standard of our noble
tongue. Lord Macaulay calls it a stupendous work,
which, if everything else in our language should perish,
would alone sufiice to show the whole extent of its
beauty and power.

It is true that Mr. Ilallam {Literature of Europe, ii,
58) dissents from this view, and seems to regard it as a
sort of superstition; but surely he is wrong. The
praise of our version is not confined to men of any
creed or class, but comes from nearly every eminent
critic. Men who differ as widely in other matters as
Addison, Swift, Coleridge, Matthew Arnold, both the
ITewmans, and Mr. Ruskin, yet agree on this point ;
and Mr. Huxley gave voice to a common opinion when
he said, " It is written in the noblest and purest
English, and abounds in exquisite beauties of mere
literary form." It is, therefore, neither prejudice nor
thoughtlessness- which affirms this book to be the first
4 . 37

38 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

of English classics. Indeed, its pages speak for them-
selves. In simplicity and strength, in the union of
Saxon force and Latin dio:nity, in idiomatic ease and
rhythmic flow, they have no superior.

Style of the Version. — iSTor is it difficult to account
for this. It is true that the style of writing which pre-
vailed among men of letters in the reigns of Elizabeth
and James i was not adapted to such composition. In
many of these there was a strange fondness for allitera-
tion, antithesis, fanciful analogies, pedantic allusions, and
all sorts of conceits. Even Shakspeare has verbal quib-
bles which " make the judicious grieve." And when these
are avoided, as in Bacon and Ealoigh, there is a degree of
stiffness, of inversion and occasionally of affectation,
which w^ould be an insuperable barrier in the w^ay of pop-
ular acceptance and favor. The authors of our Bible seem
to have been preserved from this error by a sort of provi-
dential preparation. In the course of the religious
discussions which prevailed in England from the days of
Wycliffe down there had grown up what Mr. Marsh calls
"a consecrated diction," an assemblage of the best forms
of expression suited to the communication of sacred
truths. This dialect, if one may so style it, avoided
equally the pedantry of the schools and the vulgarisms
of the market-place. It never crawled upon the ground
and never soared in the clouds. It was simple and
direct, yet pure and dignified. It was intelligible to
all classes, yet offensive to none. It seized as if by
instinct the best elements of the vernacular speech, and
moulded them into the most suitable grammatical
forms; hence it is marked by the absence of book
lansruaixe or " iiikhorn terms," and also of mere
colloquial speech. I'he book was not the ])roduction

THE BIBLE AS A CLASSIC. 39

of a single mind, but of many wise and good men,
laboring through a series of years. The earliest and
most influential of all was the martyr Tyndale, whose
New Testament was issued in 1525. This was followed
by Coverdale's Bible (1535), Rogers's (1537), Cranmer's
(1539), the Genevan (1560), the Bishops' (1568). At
last, in 1611, the final outcome of these years of toil
appeared in our present Bible as it came from the hand
of King James's translators. During all this period the
process of revision went steadily forward, almost
constantly gaining in every element of "vigor and
appropriateness.

Authors of King James's Version. — The character
of the authors had much to do with the perfection of
their work. They were men of learning, judgment
and piety, animated only by the sincere desire to render
God's most holy Word accessible to all their country-
men. They toiled not for fame or pelf or any party
interest, but for God's glory and the souls of men.
They were in full and hearty sympathy with the book
upon which they wrought. It was the guide of their
lives, the arbiter of their differences, the charter of
their hope for eternity. They prized it with reverence,
they loved it with passion ; and because of their devo-
tion to it not a few of them suffered spoiling of their
goods, bonds, imprisonments, and exile, and some even
death itself. The grave purpose, the intense convic-
tions, of such men lifted them above all puerilities and
afifectations. It was not for them to seek out artificial
refinement or strive to gild refined gold ; nor, on the
other hand, could they stoop to coarseness or slang.
They forgot themselves in their work, and hence the
marvellous union it displays, of simplicity and majesty,

40 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

homeliness and beauty. '' They were far more studious
of the matter than of the manner; and there is no
surer preservative against writing ill or more potent
charm for writing well." (Augustus Hare.) Seeking
merely to furnish to their fellows the divine oracles in
an intelligible form, they not only did that, but gave to
all succeeding generations a masterpiece of English
composition, one that shows our language at its best,
unfoldino; its varied resources both of vocabulary and
of idiom, and offering many striking specimens of its
melodious rhythm.

Conservative Influence of King James's Ver-
sion.— 'No small regard is due to our Bible for its influ-
ence in preserving our language from corruption.
Time and again there lias been an influx of alien
elements introduced by a capricious fashion, or by
some able but unwise leader. But amid all the vaga-
ries of popular taste, and the changes occasioned by
social revolutions, or the progress of knowledge and
discovery, this book has stood like a massive break-
water, unyielding and invincible. Perpetually in the
hands of the people, used in public and private worship,
resorted to in all controversies, employed in schools
and education, in short, a daily companion from the
cradle to the grave, it has so shaped the tastes and
judgments of men that, however for a time misled,
they were always in the end recalled to the older and
better model, and renewed their adhesion to the pure
"well of Knglish undefyled."

Other Revisions. — That the book deserves what has
been claimed for it is shown by its history. AVhen it
first came from the press there were two other versions
in general use. One of these, the Bishops' Bible, wii

THE BIBLE AS A CLASSIC. 41

most 23rized at court and found, in all the cliurches ; the
other, the Genevan, was cherished in the household and
the closet of the middle classes. [N'ow, no royal edict, no
decree of convocation, commanded the use of King
James's version, yet simply by its own merits it overpow-
ered both these rivals, and, in the course of a single gene-
ration, became the accepted book of the entire nation. In
after years repeated attempts were made to introduce
a new translation ; but they all failed, whether put forth
by coxcombs, like the man who improved "Jesus wept"
into " Jesus burst into a flood of tears," or by profound
and elegant scholars, such as Bishop Lowth, or Dr.
George Campbell, of Aberdeen. The reason of the
failure was not the perfect correctness of the author-
ized Scripture : no one claims for it any such infalli-
bility. The progress of Biblical knowledge in very
many directions has shown the need of much correction.
But the gain of the modern versions, in this respect,
was so counterbalanced by the loss in style and tone of
feeling that the Christian public would none of
them ; and these amended Bibles, or parts of Bibles,
however loudly heralded, or' under whatever high
names issued, have passed out of recollection, or are
consulted only by curious scholars.

Present Revision. — The same thing is shown by the
principles which underlie the revision now going on in
England and America. This is a very elaborate enter-
prise, undertaken under the highest auspices, and repre-
senting, as far as possible, all bodies of English-speaking
Christians. In these respects it far exceeds anything
of the kind ever attempted before. Yet its conductors
announce at the threshold that they neither intend nor
desire a new translation ; that is not needed, and if
4*

42 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

accomplislied would prove an inevitable failure. All
they aim at, therefore, is to make only such corrections
as the progress of the language or of Biblical science
may render necessary, and in all changes to preserve,
as far as possible, the very form and spirit of the exist-
ing Bible. Each of them heartily concurs in the judg-
ment pronounced on this point by a late distinguished
pervert to Eomanism, Dr. F. W. Faber, with whose
eloquent and touching words this paper concludes : —

Faber on King James's Version. — " Wlio will say
that the uncommon beauty and marvellous English of
the Protestant Bible is not one of the great strongholds
of heresy in this country ? It lives on the ear, like
music that can never be forgotten, like the sound of
church bells, which the convert hardly knows how he
can forego. Its felicities often seem to be almost things
rather than words. It is part of the national mind, and
the anchor of national seriousness. Nay, it is wor-
shiped with a positive idolatry, in extenuation of whose
grote&que fanaticism its intrinsic beauty pleads avail-
ingly with the man of letters and the scholar. The
memory of the dead passes into it. The potent tradi-
tions of cliildhood are stereotyped in its verses. The
power of all the griefs and trials of a man are hid beneath
its words. It is the representative of liis best moments,
and all that there has been about him of soft and gentle,
and pure and penitent and good, speaks to hira forever
out of his Protestiint Bible. It is his sacred thing which
doubt has never dimmed and controversy never soiled."

reaso:n's for a new revisio:?^ of the
scriptures m english.

BY THEODORE D. WOOLSEY, D.D., LL.D.,
Ex- President of Yale College.

Valid reasons for a new revision of the Scriptures
must be found, if they exist, either in a better acquaint-
ance with the original texts than was possible for those
who prepared our authorized English version, or in the
advance of scholarship since the beginning of the
eighteenth century, or in the changes of the English
language within the two centuries and a half since
King James's version appeared. Each of these consid-
erations will form, as I understand, the subject of a
separate article. It will not be expected, therefore,
that the writer should say more on either of them than
will be enough to present his case to his readers as a
distinct whole, dependent for its justice and force on
what others will say more fully and convincingly.

Demand for Revisions. — There is, however, one
other consideration, drawn from fact and experience,
which deserves to find a place here at the beginning of
our remarks. If a translation of a book like the
sacred Scriptures were a very easy task, to be under-
taken once for all — if the scholarship of the first ages
after the conversion of a nation to Christianity could
solve all the problems of interpretation which they
present — what reason could there be for the repeated
demands, in almost every country where Christianity
has gained a foothold, for revised and corrected or for
wholly new translations ? Does not this demand show
at once a real want, and a strong desire to reach a
better translation than any previous age has produced?

43

44 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

Various Translations. — Let us be permitted to
illustrate, by an example or two, tlie force of this
argument, from experience. Origen, the great Chris-
tian schohir of the third century after Christ, arranged
in parallel columns the Hebrew text of the old Scrip-
tures, both in Hebrew and Greek letters, and seven
Greek translations by their side — those of Aquila,
Symmachus, the Seventy, Theodotion, and three others,
called the fifth, sixth, and seventh editions, of wdiich
very little is left on record. In the Syriac there are
five or six versions, or recensions, beginning with the
Peshito, which goes back to the second century. In
our own language, the authorized version of King
James makes the ninth translation of the whole or of
a considerable part of the Scriptures, not to count quite
a number since the Authorized Version appeared, and
for which, generally, single persons are responsible.

These illustrations show that as the Christian religion
gains firmer hold in a nation, there is a desire felt for a
more accurate translation than has been handed down
from the past. They seem to show also that there are
permanent causes for recensions or revisions of transla-
tions, which are acknowledged, like our existing version,
to be, on the whole, exceedingly good. What are some
of these causes ?

1. First Reason for a !N'ew Revision. — The first is
the gradual change to which languages — at least most
languages — are subject. Old Avords drop out of use, or
lose certain meanings, so as to puzzle many readers ; or,
by being used in new senses, they acquire a certain am-
biguity, which needs to be removed, for the sake of the
common reader. It is true that a well-executed version,
like our. English one, tends to preserve a language from

REASONS FOR REVISION. 45

a number of changes which would otherwise be inev-
itable ; but it is true, also, that an ancient translation,
preserved on account of the veneration which is felt
towards it, may even do harm to religion by obscuring
thoughts which would otherwise be clear.

Elevation of Biblical Style. — We would here ffuard
against a wrong inference which might be drawn from
our remark's, as if in a translation for the nineteenth
century, the words most in use in the century, and most
familiar to the ears of the people, ought always to take the
place of others less in use, which, however, retain their
place in the language. This is far from being a safe
rule. One of the most important impressions which the
"Word of God makes is made by its venerableness. The
dignity and sanctity of the truth are supported by the
elevation of the style, and woe be to the translator who
should seek to vulgarize the Bible, on the plea of ren-
derino; it more intellio^ible. Understood it must be,
and this must be provided for by removing the ambi-
guities and obscurities to which changes in society and
changes in the expression of thought give rise. But as
long as the English is a living tongue, the style of the
Scriptures must be majestic, and removed from all vul-
garity. Indeed, it must be such as it is now, with those
exceptions, few in number, which time brings with it,
and most of which will hardly be noticed by the cursory
reader.

2. Greek Manuscripts. — A second reason for a new
revision of our authorized version is found in the scanty
knowleds^e of the state, of the oric:inal text which was
accessible at the time when that version saw the light.
The main object in attempting to discover what are the
texts followed in manuscripts of the Scriptures, or by

4(3 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

early Christian writers in their citations, or by the early
translators into foreign tongues, is to ascertain, as far as
possible, just what was written or dictated by the sacred
'Writers. The scribes and other authorities to whom we
owe our texts were subject to the same mistakes with
any other copyists ; and it is of the first importance that
we should know what text, in any given case, is to
be preferred to other readings. For the performance
of this most laborious task there were, in the early part
of the seventeenth century, no adequate materials ac-
cessible. The great accumulation of readings, and the
new conviction of the importance of the critical art, in
its application to the sacred text, began about the eigh-
teenth century. Since then, above all, in the later times,
multitudes of scholars have devoted themselves to the
collation of manuscripts and of early versions. Num-
bers of manuscripts, and among them some of the most
ancient, have been discovered, and the citations in the
Fathers have been examined with care. The ages of
manuscripts also, and the rules for estimating their
comparative value, are fixed with greater precision.
The skill of textual critics, and the' means witliin their
reach for determining the texts are such as to assure us,
in most cases, what was the original reading; and this
important end has been reached by the zeal and labors
of men who have lived long since 1611, when the first
edition of our present English Bible was printed.

It may frighten some of our readers to be told that
there are many thousand different readings in the JSTew
Testament, collected by the labors of scholars; but
they ought to T)e assured that tihe text is more certain
by far than if there had been only as many hundreds,
and the mass oT authorities for the text had been uncon-
sulted.

REASONS FOR REVISION. 47

3. Defects in King James's Version. — The third
reason for a new revision, and the last which I shall men-
tion, is that our translators of the seventeenth century,
in a great many instances, misunderstood the sense. To
make this as evident as it may be made we should need
to write a volume. Such volumes have been written ;
amonff which Dr. Lisrhtfoot's work on "A Fresh Revi-
sion of the English New Testament" may be commended
as the best. In this brief paper we can only say that the
main deficiency in our translation proceeds from want
of exact knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek languages.
Not only is the sense wholly misapprehended in a num-
ber of instances — as could scarcely fail of heing the case
— hut a perception of the finer rules of grammar and
interpretation was wanting. In the use of the article, of
the tenses and modes of verbs, and of participles, and
in a great variety of other instances, the modern scholar
hy his revisions can repair and beautify the building
reared by the older scholars. Thus, while no book can
be written more fitted in style and expression to do its
work, more truly English, more harmonious, more sim-
ply majestic, than our authorized revision; new revisers
of the text and the version may hope — by their salutary
changes — to contribute to its preservation, in essentially
the same form which it has always had, for generations
yet to come.

THE CURRENT VERSION OF THE SCRIP-
TURES, AS COMPARED WITH OL'R
PRESEi^T NEEDS.

BY G. EMLEN HARE, D.D., L.L.D.,

Professor of Biblical Learning in the Divinity School of the Protestant
Episcopal Church, Philadelphia.

The current version of tlie Scriptures is commonly
known as the " Authorized." The epithet may have
orio^inated in the fact that the book bears on its title
page the words "Appointed to be read in churclies."
But that the appointment thus mentioned — that of the
monarch reigning in England at the time of the publi-
cation— was not the source of the authority of the
version, is manifest from the fact that the ^ook did not
come into general use in English churches for some-
thing like half a century after the time the appoint-
ment was made. .The authority of the work came
from its superiority to the translations previously in
use and the general recognition which this superiority
deserved and obtained.

Two hundred and sixty-eight years have intervened
between the publication of the English Bible and the
present time. During this interval multitudes of words
have changed their meaning. The phrases " by," " by
and by," and " charger," may serve as .examples. St.
Paul says, in the Authorized Version (1 Cor. iv, 4), "I
know nothing by myself, yet am I not herel)y justified."
This seems incongruous, because " to know nothing by
one's self" means " to know nothing originally or inde-
pendently." In tlie older English, " to know nothing
by one's self" meant " to know nothing lying at one's

46

CURRENT VERSION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 49

door," and this is the only sense of which the Greek
words in the passage which seems so incongruous are
susceptible. He who reads the Gospel of St. Mark in
Greek gets a vivid idea of the promptitude, the ten-
dency to strike while the iron is hot, which cunning and
malice may engender. A princess enters the banquet-
ing room of a king, enchants him by the grace of her
dancing, and evokes from his tipsy rashness the promise,
" Ask what thou wilt and I will give it thee, even to the
half of my kingdom." (St. Mark vi, 22.) The damsel,
after consulting with her mother, returns to the ban-
queting room, points, no doubt, to the dishes on the
banqueting table, and says, " Give me forthwith, on a
dish, the head of John the Baptist." In the English
Bible the speech runs, " Give me by and by, in a
charger." " By and by " means, in our century, a time
somewhat distant from the present; the phrase has
ceased to mean " forthwith." A charger, in modern
English, signifies a war horse ; the word has ceased to
signify a dish or platter from which plates are charged
or supplied. If the Bible is intended for the less edu-
cated of the Christian Church it needs, in many places,
to be translated out of the older into the later English.
Within the two hundred and sixty-eight years which
have elapsed since the publication of the Current Ver-
sion Biblical learning has advanced with a progress
comparable to that which has obtained in other
departments of learning. Ten times as many manu-
scripts of the !N'ew Testament as were known to our
venerable translators have been discovered since their
time, and that kind of criticism which judges of the
age of ancient manuscripts and determines the true
reading where copies ditter, has been reduced to a
science. In many places textual criticism is unanimous,
5

50 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

at the present day, in favor of readings more or less
different from those which the authors of the present
version followed. " Alexander, the coppersmith, did
me much evil : the Lord reward him according to his
works." (2 Tim. iv, 14.) The true reading yields the
sense, " Alexander, the coppersmith, did me much evil ;
the Lord will reward him according to his works."

St. Paul, speaking of Ahraham, says, " He con-
sidered not his own hody now dead, . . . neither yet
the deadness of Sarah's womb : he staggered not at
the promise of God through unbelief." (Eom. iv, 19.)
This statement conflicts with the histor}^ in the book
of Genesis. This history is so far from representing
Abraham as not considering at the time mentioned,
that it declares that Abraham said in his heart, " Shall
a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old ?
and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear ?" (Gen.
xvii, 17.) Textual critics agree in reading the lan-
guage of St. Paul without the word " not." They so
determine the text as to translate " He considered his
own body now dead and the deadness of Sarah's womb,
but staggered not at the promise of God through unbe-
lief." Such decisions of critics are made in accordance
with rules which recognize tlie more difficult of two
readings as being, cceteris paribus, the more Avorthy of
acceptance. Ought not English readers to hjive the
benefit of their knowledge ?

Our translators say, in their noble preface, that
they have not been studious of an " identity of phras-
ing;" that is to say, they acknowledge that they have
not been careful to render a Hebrew or Greek word by
the same English phrase in the different places where
the Hebrew or Greek word occurs. Yet an identity
of phrasing is often necessary as a clue to the meaning.

CURRENT VERSION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 51

Moses saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew and he slew
the Egyptian, says the English Bible. (Ex. ii, 11, 12.) In
this sentence the same Hebrew word is translated in the
first instance by the word " smiting," and in the second
instance by the word " slew." If the Hebrew word had
been translated " slaying " in the place where it is trans-
lated " smiting " the meaning would have been more
perceptible and the act of Moses less liable to miscon-
struction. In the earlier books of the Old Testament
a remarkable person appears . under the name of the
" Angel of the Lord." For example, when the cove-
nant with Abraham was to be ratified the language of
Genesis is, " The Angel of the Lord called unto Abra-
ham, ... in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiply-
ing I will multiply thy seed .... thy seed shall possess
the gate of his enemies ; and in thy seed shall all the
nations of the earth be blessed." (Gen. xxii, 15, 17, 18.)
Here the Angel of the Lord appears as covenanting.
In Exodus the same person under the same name
appears as covenanted, '^ I send an Angel before thee,
. . . beware of him, . . . for my name is in him."
There is a remarkable passage in the book of Mal-
achi (iii, 1), which, if translated with the identity of
phrasing that our translators disregarded, would run,
"the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to' his
temple, even the Angel of the Covenant, whom ye
delight in." Unhappily, in this passage of Malachi
the word " messenger " is used where the Hebrew
word is the same as that which is rendered " Angel "
in the places of Genesis and Exodus. He who reads
the Old Testament in the original may come to the
conclusion that (he Angel of the Covenant, promised
by Malachi, was to be the same being as had appeared
in the Pentateuch, one while as covenanting, another

52 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

while as covenanted. The common reader ought to
have the benefit of an identity of phrasing where this
identity is necessary in order to identify the thing or
person meant.

The priest's lips should keep knowledge, that the
people may seek the law at his mouth. In 1870 priests
awoke to this truth. The Convocation of Canterbury,
the oldest synod in English speaking Christendom,
appointed a Committee to revise the current version
of the Scriptures. This Committee was to make.no
chano-e for the sake of chano-e. It was not to desert
the style of the English Bible. It was to invite the
cooperation of Biblical scholars of different nations and
creeds, and was to give ten years to the important
project. Eight of these ten years have elapsed. Scholars
of this country, as well as scholars of Great Britain, are
engaged in the work. What will be the issue ? The
Latin version of the Scriptures, made by Jerome, was
for a thousand years the standard Bible of Western
Christendom; Yet the making of it was earnestly
opposed, and the work did not establish itself in general
acceptance for two centuries. May the Revision at
])resent in progress meet with earlier success : may
Christian people give the work the benefit of their
prayers, Jind when it appears give the book a candid
reception !

THE HEBREW TEXT OF THE OLD TESTA-
MENT.

BY HOWARD OSGOOD, D.D.,
Professor of Hebrew, in Rochester Theological Seminary.

The History of the Text. — The Hebrew text, as
we now find it in the best editions of the Old Testa-
ment, is a reprint, with few and slight excejDtions, of the
text edited by Jewish scholars, and printed by Bom-
berg, at Venice, in 1525, and reprinted by him, with
corrections, in 1547. In some of the subsequent edi-
tions of the text, a few manuscripts and the preceding
printed editions were compared, and errors corrected;
but until the latter part of the last century there was no
text published whicli was founded upon a large com-
parison of manuscripts.

Bomberg's Hebrew text was accompanied bj* Eab-
binic commentaries, and was designed for the use of the
Jews, since few Christians at that day understood
Hebrew, and still fewer were acquainted with Rabbinic.
This text enjoys the great advantage of being acknowl-
edged as the received text by Jews and Christians alike.
That it is worthy of great confidence is the united tes-
timony of critics, and one of the latest and most learned,
Strack, makes stronger statements in favor of the pre^
servation of the correct reading in this text than some
of his predecessors, or than is welcome to some who
cannot but admire his preeminent ability and learning.

We do not know what or how many manuscripts
were used by the editors of this text, but from the
preface to the Bible of 1525, and from the carefulness
5* 53

64 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

ill editing, we are assured that the principal editor,
Jacob ben Chayim, was as thoroughly skilled in the
text as in the then known various readings ; and that
he was as reverent to the text as he was learned. What-
ever manuscripts were used, they were in all proba-
bility of a late date, written under the strict and micro-
scopic rules of the Talmud, and accompanied with the
X^arious readings of the Masorites. In respect to age,
no extant Hebrew manuscript can compare with the
Sinaitic and Vatican Greek manuscripts; and 3^et, in
verification of the text, the Hebrew possesses a line of
witnesses that extends a long way down the centuries,
and who have sought to guard the text with scrupulous
care.

Wlien the privileges of the great Jewish schools in
Babylonia were restricted by the Persian kings, and the
greater part of the Talmud had been collected, the
intense activity of the Jewish brain, and Jewish devotion
to the very letter of the word, were directed to the nota-
tion of all diversities in the traditional reading of the
text, as to consonants, vowels, accents, words, the com-
mencement and close of verses and divisions of the
text, as well as to any unusual marks found in manu-
scripts. They marked with all care mistakes in any
of these points, but never altered the text. Even
whore the mistake was evident and trivial — a letter
slightly out of pL^icc, or upside down, or too small, or.
too large, or a variation in the writing of a word — they
did not presume to change the text. Tliis honest
(Fealing with the text is represented in our I^ibles to-day
by the continuance of the mistake and its attendant
corrective margin. These textual criticisms were
originally contained in separate works, but were after-
wards transferred to the margin of the manuscripts of

HEBREW TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 55

the Hebrew Old Testament, and by the'' labors of
scholars of our day they are again being collected and
published in separate works.

In the era of the Talmudists, before a.d. 500, very
strict rules were enjoined upon copyists. These rules
cover all the minutise of composition, and reveal a
method of dealing with the text that must have been
traditional. The attention the Talmudists themselves
bestowed upon the text is shown by their enumeration
of the verses, words and letters of each book, and their
designation of the middle verse, word and letter of the
book.

Within this same period Jerome, in his translation,
corrects renderings of the Septuagint, and gives us a
faithful representation of the text then received in
Palestine. ^NTo large additions or defections from that
text are found in our own.

The boast of Josephus, that " during so many ages
as have already passed no one has been so bold as
either to add anything to them " (the sacred books),
" to take anything from them, or to make any change
in them," seems to be justified by the minute tradi-
tional rules and carefulness of the later Jews.

All this shows us that for fifteen centuries, at least,
it was a religious duty with the Jews to preserve, with
all exactness, the sacred text as received by them : a
duty which they zealously sought to perform. When
the Hebrew language was unknown by Christians,
when the Jew was under the harrow of unresting
persecution and his name a byword, he was with
patient fidelity keeping watch over the text, unknown
to all but himself, and preserving a priceless inherit-
ance for the coming centuries. As respects the
Hebrew text, " Japheth dwells in the tents of Shem."

56 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

The Accuracy of the Present Text. — That there
are passages where the text has suffered from wrong
transcription, w^iere there are insuperable difficulties
or slight mistakes, where manuscripts differ, and
versions give a rendering at variance with the present
text, is well known to every Hebrew scholar. If with
the superior advantages of the printing press for the
maintenance of a given text, with our Bible societies
and multitudes of critical readers of the Ens-lish Bible,
we have not preserved one and the same text in all the
editions, is it a matter of astonishment that manuscripts
vary ? Is it not a matter of greater astonishment if
they agree in most respects, written, as they were,
centuries apart? But these places where error has
crept in are by no means so numerous as some critics
would have us believe. Dr. S. Davidson, a very
competent critic, in his " Revision of the Hebrew
Text," cites between seven and eight thousand places
where manuscripts and versions differ from our text.
These changes, for the far greater part, refer to the
different modes of writing or accentuating the same
word; they include the thousand or more marginal
notes of the Jewish mediaeval scholars, the changes of
the vowel by the accent, etc.

The Old Testament contains more than three times
as much text as the New Testament, and if we })ut the
diversities of readings in the Old Testament at ten
tliousand, still this would be but one-fiftocnth as many
as those found in the manuscripts of the New Testa-
ment. As the one hundred and fifty thousand various
readings of the New Testament dwindle to a compara-
tively very small number when you apply the touch-
stone of a chanece of sii^nification, so the Old Testament
ten thousand dwindle at the same test. It should be

HEBREW TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 57

remembered that if for the criticism of the Old Testa-
ment we possessed a critical apparatus as full as that
for the New the number of diversities might be largely
increased.

That the true text maybe established in every part
and portion of the Word must be the aim of every
earnest student. The means for establishing the text
are the cohation of all known manuscripts ; the wise
use of the results of Jewish criticism of the text in the
earlier centuries; the early versions, and the printed
editions.

The utmost diligence in the search for ancient
Hebrew manuscripts has failed to bring to light any
manuscript of which we can be certain that its age is
greater than a thousand years, though some have been
discovered for which a higher antiquity is claimed.
The Herculean labors of Kennicott and of De Eossi in
the last century have not resulted in establishing
beyond controversy, among critics, any material change
in the text. They have added but little to what was
known before. In this century Frankel, Frensdorf,
Pinsker, Strack, and others have brought out a greater
number of the diversities marked by the early Jewish
scholars, and the forthcoming work of Ginsburg
promises to be a long step in advance in this direction.

It is proposed by some critics to use the Talmud, the
so-called Chaldee translations, and the Septuagint, to
restore the Hebrew in places where they differ from it.
But to restore the text in doubtful places we must have
exact knowledge and abundant proof. Some great
scholars have tried their hand at restoration, and now
serve the excellent purpose of warnings. Capellus,
Houbigant, Kennicott, Lowth, and some in this
century, have wasted their strength in mending the

58 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

text to suit their views, and tlieil- work is rejected by
their critics. That which seems perfectly feasible
proves, in the doing of it, to be exceedingly difficult.
To attempt to restore the Hebrew text by a means
that we are not entirely sure of is certainly not wise.
J^either the Talmud, nor any one of the Chaldee trans-
lations, nor the Septuagint, has been submitted to a
thorough critical revision. One of the crying needs of
Old Testament study is a trustworthy edition of the
Septuagint, and until that is obtained the Septuagint
cannot safely be used, as of itself a strong argument for
the change of text.

Thouirh scholars have not now at their command the
means to enter upon a thorough critical revision of the
Hebrew text, yet it is probable that the work will not
be long delayed, for never before were there so many
earnest and well qualified students engaged upon this
subject, and we may look forward with hope and confi-
dence to their results: with hope that light will be
thrown upon difficult passages ; with confidence that
no great changes will be found necessary.

The Duty of a Translator. — The labors of past
centuries have proved that our present text, as a whole,
is worthy of all confidence. The translator is not to
sup[)ose an error where he finds a difiiculty. The
error must be unmistakably proved before he concedes
it. We have numerous instances of the assumption of
error in the text because the student meets with a
difficulty that seems to him insui)erable. There is a
striking example of this in a writer on the orthodox
side asserting aTi interpolation and utter error in
Deuteronomy, while a critic, who professes himself by
no means orthodox, argues stoutly against the suppo-

HEBREW TEXT OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 59

sition of error in the text, and has all the critical evi-
dence on his side.

^N'or is the translator to make his text. There are
some who are capable of the double work of accurate
textual criticism and translating the text obtained, but
they are very few. The translator is to keep with all
faithfuhiess to the text the best scholarship brings to
him, and he will find all his energies tasked to the
utmost to represent that most exactly and acceptably
in his own tongue. Where there can be no doubt of
an error in the text, then the text and margin of the
translation must tell the story.

HEBREW PHILOLOGY AKD BIBLICAL
SCIEJSrCE.

SHALL THE AUTHORIZED VERSION KEEP PACE WITH THE

ADVANCES MADE IN HEBREW PHILOLOGY AND

BIBLICAL SCIENCE?

BY THE EEV. W. HENRY GREEN, D.D.,

Professor of Oriental and Old Testament Literature in the Theological
Seminary at Princeton, N. J.

Advances in Philology and Biblical Science. —
Moses strictly cliarged the people, " Ye shall not add
unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye
diminish aught from it" (Deut. iv, 2; xii, 32). And
almost the last utterance of Holy Scripture — liev. xxii,
18, 19 — is a like solemn admonition, neither to add
unto, nor to take away from, the words which God had
revealed. If, then, it is the imperative duty of the
Church to give the heavenly oracles to men, eaxAi in
his own language, it is equally her duty to give them
to men in a pure and unadulterated form. The
millions in hoth hemispheres who speak the English
tongue are entitled to receive the Bible in a form
which represents the inspired original with the utmost
accuracy that it is possible to attain. This has always
been recognized in the history of our English version
thus far, which, as at present authorized, is the result
of several successive revisions, each l)eiiig an advance
upon its predecessor. When the question is raised
whether the time has now arrived for a fresh revision
of the English Bible, one important consideration
affecting the answer to be given is to be found in the
immense strides taken in Biblical scholarship since the

60

HEBREW PHILOLOGY AND BIBLICAL SCIENCE. 61

reign of King James. The object of this brief paper
is to indicate this in a few particulars relating to the
Old Testament.

Hebrew Philology in 1611. — Hebrew studies were
then in their infancy, and the entire science of Semitic
philology has been developed since. When the first
edition of the Authorized Version appeared, in 1611,
the elder Buxtorf had just issued his larger Hebrew
grammar, in 1609, his smaller grammar having been
published in 1605, and his Hebrew lexicon in 1607.
Buxtorf 's Hebrew Concordance first saw the light in
1632. The two Buxtorfs, father and son, though men
of immense learning and indefatigable industry, repre-
sent the first stage of investigation into the structure
and meaning of the Hebrew language. They brought
together all that could be gathered from Rabbinical
lore and from traditional interpretations. But there
their work ended. Since their time the knowledge of
Hebrew has been greatly increased by the comparative
study of the kindred dialects, the Syriac, Arabic and
Ethiopic; the meanings of many of its words have
been more satisfactorily established, and its various
constructions have been elucidated. A long list of
able lexicographers, from Castellus to Gesenius and
Fuerst, and of distinguished grammarians, from Schul-
tens to Ewald, have been pushing their researches
more and more thoroughly into this venerable and
sacred tongue. And commentators without end,
approaching the subject from every different point of
view, and of widely dissimilar opinions, have minutely
discussed every word and sentence of the sacred text,
and labored with various success to bring out the full-
ness of its meaning. The great polyglotts, particularly
6

62 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

that of Paris in 1645, and that of London in 1657, set
the old Syriac and Arabic versions alongside of the
Hebrew text, with a view to ready comparison and aid
to interpretation, as Buxtorf's Rabbinical Bible, in
1618, had done with the Chaldee targums and the
comments of the Rabbins.

Masoretic Text. — The extensive and laborious col-
lections of Hebrew manuscripts by Houbigant, Kenni-
cott, and De Rossi have done little more than establish
the substantial correctness of the received Masoretic
text. And the long and earnest discussion relative to
the Hebrew vowels has resulted in proving, if not their
originality, at least their accuracy. We stand upon
precisely the same text, therefore, as King James's
translators used, only with a better knowledge of its
value.

ISTeed of Improvement in the Version of 1611. —
But the helps to a better understanding of this text
have accumulated immensely. Besides the philological
aids already referred to, there is the increased knowl-
edge of sacred localities, and of the natural history
and archaeology of the Bible, derived from travels
and explorations in the Holy Land, and from the monu-
ments exhumed in Assyria, Egypt and elsewhere.
This, of course, assists us in the comprehension of
passages in which such objects arc referred to, and
consequently enables us to translate them with greater
accuracy and precision.

Geograpuical Errors. — It would be clearly impos-
sible, in a popular article of a few columns, to give an
accurate conception of what has been accomplished, in

HEBREW PHILOLOGY AND BIBLICAL SCIENCE. 63

these various lines of scholarship, toward the elucida-
tion of the Old Testament, and of the extent to which
this renders it possible now to improve a translation
made more than two hundred and fifty years ago. Only
a few illustrations can now he attempted, taken very
much at random. Thus, many geographical terms re-
quire correction. For example, " the river of Egypt,"
j^umhers xxxiv, 5, and elsewhere, would naturally lead
one to think of the Mle ; it is not this, however, which
is intended, but an insignificant stream that bounds
Egypt on the east, "the brook of Egypt." The
" Palestiija " of Isaiah xiv, 29-31, and the " Palestine "
of Joel iii, 4, is simply " Philistia," the territory
occupied by the Phihstines. The second river of the
garden of Eden did not compass the " land of Ethiopia,"
but that of " Gush," settled by a people so called from
their progenitor. Ezekiel xxix, 10 ; xxx, 6, does not
speak of desolating Egypt " from the tower of Syene
even unto the border of Ethiopia," for Syene was itself
on that border, but " from Migdol unto Syene,"
i.e., from the extreme north to the extreme south of
Egypt, " even unto the border of Ethiopia." The
" mount Ephraim " of Josh, xxiv, 33, and elsewhere, is
not a single summit, but an elevated tract, '' the hill
country of Ephraim." " The valley " of Josh, xi, 16,
should be " the lowland ; " " the south," Gen. xii, 9,
and elsewhere, is not simply the general designation of
a point of the compass, but the name of a definite tract
of country, and as such should begin with a capital
letter— "the South." The "rough valley" of Deut.
xxi, 4, should be "a valley with an everflowing stream."
The "nation scattered and peeled," "whose land the
rivers have spoiled," Isa. xviii, 2, should be the
" nation tall and shaven," " whose land the rivers

04 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

divide." Samud's father was not " an Eplirathite,"
1 Sam. i, 1, as though he were from Ephrata or Beth-
lehem, but " an Ephraimitc," so reckoned because he
resided in the territory of Ephraim, though descended
from Levi.

Errors in Proper Kames. — Proper names have some-
times been mistaken for common nouns o;* other parts
of speech, and translated accordingly ; and, conversely,
words which should have been translated are retained as
though they were proper names. Thus, '' the house of
God," Judges xx, 26, should be " Bethel ;" " an hollow
place that was in the jaw," Judges xv, 19, should be " the
hollow place that is in Lehi.; " " populous Xo," ]^ah. iii,
8, should be " ^o- Amnion ;" " an heifer of three years
old," Isa. XV, 5, should have been left untranslated; so
should " what he did," ^N'um. xxi, 14. On the contrary,
" the book of Jasher," 2 Sam. i, 18, is not by an author
of that name, but is simply the book of the upright.
" Rab-saris " and " Rab-mag," Jer. xxxix, 3, are not
names of men, but titles of office. " Belial " is not the
name of an evil spirit, but " men of Belial " ought to
be rendered " worthless " or " base men." " Iluzzab,"
Xah. ii, 7, is not a personification of Mneveh, or a
name of its queen, but a declaration that the fate of
the city '' is decided." " Sheth," iN'um. xxiv, 17, should
be "tumult;" '' Bajith," Isa. xv, 2, should be the
'' house " or " idol temple ; " " Gammadims," Ezek.
xxvii, 11, should be " warriors;" " Pannag," ver. 17, is
not a region of country, but a species of confection;
and there was no such place as " Metheg-ammah,"
2 Sam. viii, 1.

Mistakes of the Meaning. — A few instances occur
in which words of a peculiar formation have been en-

HEBREW PHILOLOGY AND BIBLICAL SCIENCE. G5

tirelj mistaken by our translators, and divided into two
words when they are in reality one. Thus, the word
translated " thick clay," Hab. ii, 6, is not a compound
term yielding this sense, but a reduplicated form from
a single root, and means " pledges," or goods taken in
pledge by an extortionate creditor; and "shameful
spewing," ver. 16, is but a single word meaning " igno-
miny." The awkward expression, Hos. iv, 18, '' her
rulers with shame do love. Give ye," should be ren-
dered, " her rulers are in love with shame." The
" scape goat " of Lev. xvi, 8, is one word, not two, and
has no reference to the goat at all.

The cases are frequent in which the meanings of
words are altogether mistaken, although the forms are
not misconceived nor the words improperly divided.
Thus, the word translated " avenging," Judges v, 2,
means " leaders ; " " the plain of Moreh," Gen. xii,
6, ought to be " the oak of Moreh ; " " the groves," so
frequently spoken of in connection with idolatrous
services, as Ex. xxxiv, 13, were not groves, but upright
pillars. Job. xxvi, 13, does not speak of the " crooked,"
nor Isaiah xxvii, 1, of the " piercing " serpent ; the
epithet, which is the same in both cases, is " fleet."
The psalmist does not say, Ps. Ixxi, 22, " I will sing
with the harp," but "I will play with the harp."
Iluldah did not dwell in the " college," 2 Kings xxii,
14, but in the " second ward " of the city. " Since
that time," Isa. xvi, 13, should be " of old ; " " flagons
of wine," Hos. iii, 1, should be " cakes of pressed
grapes; " "galleries," Cant, vii, 5, should be "curls"
or "locks of hair." Hosea xi, 12, does not use the
language of praise, " Judah yet ruleth with God," but
of censure, " he roveth or runs wild in his dealings
with him." Isaiah ix, 1, does not contrast a former
6*

m ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

light affliction of Galilee with a subsequent more
grievous affliction of the same region, but the period
of dishonor with the glory that was to be shed upon
that region by the coming Redeemer. "All that make
sluices and ponds for fish/' Isa. xix, 10, is a mere guess
from the connection, and should be rendered, " all that
work for hire are sad at heart." Samson did not go
down to " the top of the rock," Judges xv, 8, but to
the " cleft of the rock." The children of Israel did not
by divine direction " borrow," Ex. xi, 2, of the Egyp-
tians what they never intended to return ; they
" asked " for and received gifts. " Chariots with flam-
ing torches," Xah. ii, 3, are " chariots with flashing
steel;" and "the fir trees" of the same verse are
lances made of cypress. " Hunt souls to make them
fly," Ezek. xiii, 20, should be rendered, " hunt souls
as birds ; " and the " untempered mortar," ver. 10,
should be " whitewash."

Such mistakes are especially frequent in articles of
dress or in objects of natural history. The " headbands,
and tablets, and earrings," Isa. iii, 20, should be
" sashes, and perfume boxes, and amulets." Joseph's
" coat of many colors," Gen. xxxvii, 3, was instead " a
long tunic with sleeves." It was not a "veil" but a
"mantle," Kuth iii, 15, in which Ruth carried the
barley. "Pillows to all armholes," Ezek. xiii, 18,
should be " cushions for the knuckles." The men that
were cast into the fiery furnace were bound, not in
" their coats, their hosen and their hats," but in " their
trowsers, their tunics, and their mantles." The Chal-
deans, Ezek. xxiii, 15, " exceeding with dyed attire,"
wore "flowing turbans," and the best illustration of
the entire description is to be found in the figures
portrayed on tlie palaces of Nineveh. Tlie" mules,"

HEBREW PHILOLOGY AND BIBLICAL SCIENCE. 67

Gen. xxxvi, 24, ought to be rendered, " warm springs."
The " unicorn," ^uni. xxiii, 22, is a wild ox. In
Isaiah xiii, 21, 22, the "owls" are "ostriches;" the
" satyrs " are " goats ; " the " wild beasts of the islands "
are "wolves," and the " dragons" are "jackals."

Errors in Hebrew Grammar. — There are, besides,
many passages in which the rendering given in the
Authorized Version is in violation of the laws of
Hebrew grammar. The most frequently recurring
error is the disregard of the tenses, particularly in the
poetical and prophetical books of the Old Testament,
to the serious detriment, and often to the total obscura-
tion of the sense. In Ps. iii, 4, David does not say, " I
cried " and " he heard," and ver. 5, " the Lord sustained,"
as though he were relating what had already taken
place ; but " I will cry," " he will hear," " the Lord
will sustain : " it is the language of confident expecta-
tion. Ps. xxxvii, 40, should not be translated, " the
Lord shall help them and deliver them," but he " has
helped them and delivered them ; " it is a fact of
former experience, from which he then goes on to infer
that he will do the same in the future, " he shall deliver
them from the wicked and save them." By the
neglect of the tenses the two clauses are made identical
in sense, and the whole argument of faith is lost. In
Ps. xl, 11, David does not say, " Withhold not thou
thy tender mercies," but "thou wilt not withhold;"
it is not the language of petition, but of faith. In
Obadiah, vs. 12-14, the verbs should be rendered,
"look not," "rejoice not," etc., instead of "thou
shouldest not have looked," " thou shouldest not have
rejoiced," etc. Hab. iii, 3, should not be " God came,"
but " God will come." The language of the Authorized

68 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

Yersion implies that these prophets were narrating or
referring to what was past ; whereas they are predicting
the future.

This confusing of the tenses is of almost perpetual
occurrence in the Psalms and in the Prophets, leading
to serious inversions in the order of thought, and mar-
ring the beauty and force of the language used.

Disregard of the Definite Article. — Another fre-
quent inaccuracy is the disregard of the definite article,
either failing to render it where it does occur, or
inserting it where it is not. Sometimes this is attended
with serious detriment to the sense, as where " an
ano-el of the Lord " is substituted for "the ano-el of the
Lord," a created for the uncreated angel. Judges xxi,
19, should not read, " There is a feast of the Lord in
Shiloh," but " the feast ©f the Lord is in Shiloh ; " it is
spoken of not with vague indetiniteness, but as a defi-
nite, well-known observance.

Inaccuracy in the Construction. — It may be added
that there is frequently an inaccuracy in the construc-
tion, as where possessive pronouns are attached to the
wrong noun. Thus, Ps. iv, 1, David addresses the
Lord not as the Authorized Version has it, " God of
my righteousness," as though his meaning were the
God who defends my righteous cause, but " my
righteous God." Ps. lix, 17, not " God of my mercy,"
but " my merciful God." Ps. xlvii, 8, not " the throne
of his holiness;" Ps. xlviii, 1, not "the mountain of
his holiness," but "his holy throne," "his holy moun-
tain." Isa. xiii, ti, not " thcni that rejoice in my high-
ness," but " my proud exulters." Errors in relative
constructions, c.^., Isa. vii, l(j, not " the land, that thou

HEBREW PHILOLOGY AND BIBLICAL SCIENCE. 69

abhorrest, shall be forsaken of botb her kings," but
"the land, of whose two kings thou art afraid, shall
be forsaken." Ps. Iv, 19, not " God shall hear and
afflict them. Because they have no changes, therefore
they fear not God," but " God shall hear and answer
them, who have no changes and who fear not God,"
i.e., as he heard me in mercy, ver. 17, so he will hear
them in wrath, answering not their prayers, for they
do not pray, but the voice of their malignant slanders.
And other miscellaneous constructions, which it is
needless to particularize in further detail, e.g., Ezek.
xxxiv, 31, not " ye my flock are men," but " ye men
are my flock." Ps. vii, 13, not '' ordaineth his arrows
against the persecutors," but " maketh his arrows
burning." Ps. x, 4, not " God is not in all his
thoughts," but " all his thoughts are. There is no God."
Ps. xix, 3, not " There is no speech nor language where
their voice is not heard," as though the Psalmist were
speaking of the universality of God's self-revelation in
nature. The insertion of the italic word " lohere "
entirely deranges the relation of the clauses, and intro-
duces a totally diflerent thought from that which David
intended. He means that all nature has a voice, though
it is not addressed to juan's outward ear. " There is
no speech nor language; their voice is not heard."
Ps. xxii, 30, not " it shall be accounted unto the Lord
for a generation," but ''it shall be related of the Lord
unto the next generation." E'um. xxiii, 23, not
" Surely there is no enchantment against Jacob,
neither is there any divination against Israel : accord-
ing to the time it shall be said of Jacob and of Israel,
What hath God wrought!" The meaning is not that
God's divine power will eiFectually guard Israel against
all hostile arts of enchantment : but Israel has no need

70 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

to resort to deceptive and unauthorized modes of
learning the divine will, for this will is disclosed to
them as their needs may require. '' There is no en-
chantment in Jacob, nor divination in Israel ; at the
time it shall be told to Jacob and Israel what God hath
wrought." The italic words, into a trance^ ]Srum. xxiv,
4, obscure the statement of the overpowering physical
effect produced upon Balaam by the splendor of the
divine revelations. The italic words, to ivit, improperly
inserted in Josh, xvii, 1, precisely reverse the meaning
of the clause. It is designed to explain why no lot was
cast for Machir now ; the reason is, because his pos-
session had already been assigned to him east of the
Jordan.

Duty of Eevisionists. — Such illustrations could be
mnltiplicd. Those which have been already given are
sufficient to show that, with the light that has been shed
upon the Hebrew language, and the increased informa-
tion gained upon subjects collateral to the study of the
Old Testament since the days of King James, a great
number of passages are understood now in a sense dif-
ferent from that given by our translators. To make
those corrections in the renderings which the general
voice of the best scholars affirms ought to be made, is
not to unsettle the Scriptures and to weaken their hold
upon the public mind, but the reverse. Innovations
are not to be recklessly or needlessly made. But the
removal of palpable errors and mistakes is simply ex-
tracting the fly from tlie pot of ointment. The marvel
is not that occasional changes are needed to increase the
perfection of the Authorized Version and to l)ring it
nearer to tlie standard of the best biblical scholarship of
the time, but that, considering the period when it was

HEBREW PHILOLOGY AND BIBLICAL SCIENCE. 71

made and the scanty helps which were then possessed,
the changes required are not more numerous and more
radicaL It is absohitelj astonishing to find to how large
an extent this grand old version must be confessed to
be still the most adequate and accurate translation that
can now be made ; and how vast a proportion of its
renderings can be subjected to the most rigorous tests
tha,t modern learning can apply without the detection
of a single flaw.

THE HELPS FOR TR A:N'SL ATHvTG THE HEBREW
SCRIPTURES AT THE TIME THE AUTHOR-
IZED YERSIOK WAS MADE.

BY REV. GEORGE E. DAY, D.D.,
Professor of Hebrew Literature and Biblical Theology in Yale College.

Of the forty-eight scholars to whom we owe the
present Authorized Version of the English Bible,
twenty-five, divided into three companies, were en-
gaged upon the Hebrew books of the Old Testament.
There is no reason to doubt their qualifications for the
work. Several of them were eminent in oriental
studies. One had the reputation of being the best
Arabic scholar of his time. Five of them, either
then, or subsequently, were professors of Hebrew in
one or the other of the two great Universities of Eng.
land. Their renderings show that they carefully
weighed the considerations on which the translation
of difficult passages must depend, and exercised an
independent judgment. To a great degree they came
to Avhat the critical scholarship of later times has pro-
nounced a correct decision. In other cases, where they
were divided in opinion, or admitted that a dififcrent
rendering from that which they adopted was worthy
of consideration, they placed it, in a true Protestant
spirit, in the margin. If these marginal readings
and other renderings, in consequence of the ])rogress
of exegetical study, have been frequently found to de-
serve the preference, it only shows that the scholars of
the early part of the seventeenth century were not
provided, and could not be, with all the helps for a
decision which have accumulated since their day. The
division of labor in the wliole field of the Hebrew and

72

HELPS FOR TRANSLATING THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. 73

its cognate languages enables a student, in our time, to
avail himself of advantages for gaining a true knowl-
edge of the meaning of the Old Testament which the
most stupendous learning of a former age knew noth-
ing of. E^othing, of course, can ever take the place of
a familiar acquaintance with the Hebrew and other
Semitic languages ; but it is quite possible for an in-
terpreter now, in consequence of the far wider range
of materials at his* command, to form a judgment on a
difficult passage more trustworthy than, it was possible
for the most eminent scholars two centuries and a half
ago to reach.

The force of this remark will best be seen from a
rapid survey of the learned helps for the interpreta-
tion of the Old Testament accessible to the translators
of the Authorized Version.

Less than a century had passed since the Lutheran
Reformation, and though the impulse given to Hebrew
studies in the Christian Church had been immense, and
many of the principal sources of knowledge, in respect
to the Hebrew Bible, were within their reach, yet the
apparatus of scholarship at their command would be
regarded in our day as quite imperfect. The text,
indeed, had received the fixed form adopted by the
Jewish scholars who gave to it its present punctuation.
1^0 manuscripts of an earlier date exist with which w^e
can compare it, and the chief superiority, therefore, of
the modern printed editions arises from the more care-
ful editing of the Masoretic text, with the apparatus
of vowels and accents, and the addition of selected crit-
ical notes, which have been transmitted to us from an
early period.

But when we come to the ancient translations, on
which so much depends for the verification of the

7

74 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

Hebrew text and the proper rendering of the Hebrew
Scriptures, the case is widely different. The earliest
of these, in Greek, — the Septiiagint, so called — made,
in part at least, in the third century before Christ and
in common use in the early Christian Church, was
accessible to King James's translators in the Complu-
tensian and Antwerp Polyglots, and also in separate
editions ; but the Alexandrian manuscript in the Brit-
ish Museum and the Sinaitic manuscript discovered by
Tischendorf, as well as the critical labors expended
upon the several copies of this venerable Greek version
by eminent scholars in England and on the Continent,
have furnished the materials for a much more accurate
text than any which was possible when the Authorized
Version was made. Since then, also, the fragments pre-
served in the works of Origen, of the translations
into Greek by Aquila, Theodotion, Symmachus, and
others, made after the Christian era, have been placed
at the service of scholars.

The Latin Vulgate, another most important ancient
version, was of course in their hands. On many pass-
ages their decision was determined by its renderings,
on the ground, which cannot be questioned, that the
testimony of a learned scholar like Jerome, with the
opportunities he enjoyed for becoming acquainted with
the acce])ted Jewish intcr])rotation of his day, is de-
serving of special consideration, ^'et this vci'sion has
suffered so many changes and corruptions, in tlie course
of ages, that it cannot ha relied upon, in its present
form, as giving in all cases the exact renderings of
Jerome. The book of Psalms, as it stands in the Vul-
gate, is an earlier version made by hhn. Wlioever
wishes to learn his final judgment, must consult the
more correct translation which he afterwards made.

HELPS FOR TRANSLATING THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. 75

It is only within a few years that the Codex Amiati-
nus, which contains Jerome's own translation of the
Old Testament, in distinction from the text found in
the ordinary editions of the Yulgate, has been made
accessible to scholars.

With the early Syriac translation of the Old Tes-
tament, the third most important ancient version,
the translators of our Authorized Version could have
hd^ no acquaintance. Its value lies in its correctness,
and its being in a language cognate to Hebrew, and
consequently affording special means of comparison.
It was first printed in the Paris Polyglot more than
thirty years after the Authorized Version appeared,
and was followed at a later period by the publication
of another Syriac translation, which, however, is of less
value because made from the Septuagint.

"Without going further into details, we may say in
general that the only ancient versions of the Old
Testament accessible to scholars at the beginning of
the seventeenth century, except a few single books or
parts, were imperfect texts of the Septuagint, the Tar-
gums or Chaldee paraphrases, and the Vulgate. The
other ancient translations, the Samaritan version of the
Pentateuch, the Syriac and Arabic versions, and parts
of the Ethiopic and Persian versions contained in the
later Polyglots, were not published until many years
after the English translation of 1611, and could have
made no contribution either directly or indirectly, to-
wards determining its renderings.

Tlie philological helps accessible to the scholars who
made our Authorized Version would now be consid-
ered quite rudimentary. The larger Hebrew Grammar
of the elder Buxtorf appeared shortly before their
work was finished (1609). It was in advance certainly

76 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

of the rude attempts of tlie few grammarians before
his time, whether Rabbinic or Christian, but in con-
trast with the elaborate and exhaustive grammars
of Ewald and Bottcher, or the more compendious
treatises of Gesenius and Green, it is exceedingly
meagre. The latest and best lexicon at their com-
mand was Buxtorf s, which appeared in 1067, just as
they were commencing their labors. The help to be
gained from the Rabbins and the Vulgate he diligently
employed. Here and there he makes use of the Syriac.
But the age of comparative philology, in the sense
in which the term is now understood, had not yet ar-
rived. The great scholars of the next sixty 3^ears,
whose names are inseparably connected with Hebrew
learning, as De Dieu, Pococke, and Castell (Castellus),
rendered good service in preparing tlie way ; ]^ut it was
a hundred years before Schultens in Holland, by call-
ing attention to the roots of Hebrew existing in Arabic,
gave the impulse to the study of the cognate Semitic
languages, which has resulted in the far more exact
knowledge of the radical idea of Hebrew words which
characterizes the lexicons of the present century.

The advantage gained by this wide and careful com-
parison of the cognate languages is, that instead of
being dependent ujion Kal)binic tradition, the inter-
preter is now able to test its correctness and expose its
errors. He possesses the means of deciding, ui)on some
solid foundation, betwoon the divergent renderings of
the ancient versions and on the probable meaning of
the class of words which occur but once in the Hebrew
Scriptures, and are therefore petniliarly difficult. The
best results of the labors of Hebrew scholars for two
centuries and a half in various directions and on a mul-
titude of single points, gathered and presented in a

HELPS FOR TRANSLATING THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. 77

compact form in the modern lexicons and grammars,
place the interpreters of our day in possession of a mass
of materials for forming a correct judgment on the
meaning of the Sacred Text far beyond what was pos-
sible when the Authorized Version w^as made.

The bearing of this upon the character of the mod-
ern versions which we know were consulted is evident
at a glance. These versions, of which several had been
made into Latin, varying more or less from the Yulgate,
represented simply the Hebrew learning of the time.
The same remark is true of the translations made into
the principal languages of Europe in the century which
succeeded the Reformation. Selden relates in his Table
Talk that " that part of the Bible was given to him
who was most excellent in such a tongue, and then
they met together and one read the translation, the rest
holding in their hands some Bible either of the learned
tongues, or French, Spanish, Italian, etc. ; if they found
any fault, they spoke, if not, he read on." With this
agrees the statement in the original preface of the
Authorized Version: " E'either did we think [it] much
to consult the translators or commentators, Chaldee,
Hebrew, Syriac, [New Testament] Greek or Latin,
nor the Spanish, French, Italian or Dutch [German]."
In availing themselves of these helps, in the way of
com]:)arisoh and suggestion, they acted wisely and well;-
but the testimony of the translations into the lan-
guages of modern Europe to which they refer would
now be considered of limited value. One of the best
of them, the Italian version of Diodati, which appeared
in 1607, was issued in less than forty years in a revised
edition. The version of Luther, which, in consequence
of intwining itself into the language as well as the
hearts of the German nation, has firmly held its place,
7* •

78 ANaLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

is at last obliged, under the discovery of its numerous
errors, to yield to the necessity of Revision. In Swe-
den, Denmark, and Holland the same necessity is found
to exist, although in the latter country the States'
Translation so called, made a few years after our
Authorized Version, is one of high and undisputed
excellence.

The commentaries on the Old Testament to which
King James's translators were confined, aside from
the Rabbinic expositions, were either those of the
church fathers, who with few exceptions were wholly
unacquainted with Hebrew, or those of the Reform-
ers and their immediate successors. Many of the
latter in their strong grasp of Christian truth and
their vigorous exhibition of the thoughts of the sacred
writers will always deserve to be studied. But on all
questions of critical difficulty, on the decision of which
not only the thought itself, but the whole connection
so frequently depends, they were at a great disadvan-
tage, and in numerous instances entirely missed the
sense. [Not one of them can now be used for the so-
lution of a linguistic difficulty, nor be safely trusted,
in many cases, to give the true thought of the original
without the safeguard furnished by the more recent
learned commentaries. This is said in no spirit of de-
preciation, but, on the contrary, with the highest regard
for their work. But that work must be taken for
what it was, and not for what it was not. The style
and possibility of the highest critical commentary of
the present day could only exist after the labors of suc-
cessive generations of scholars on the ancient and
modern versions, on the comparison of languages most
nearly related to Hebrew, and on a multitude of subjects
of critical investigation connected with the Old Testa-

HELPS FOR TRANSLATING THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES. 79

ment. The results of these studies brought into a
compressed form, and made to constitute a foundation
for new and fuller explorations, constitute the peculi-
arity of the helps possessed by the interpreter of the
present day, and indicate the necessarily narrower
limits within which the scholars who prepared the
translation of the Old Testament in our Authorized
Version were restricted.

The nature of the parallelism found in the poeti-
cal books of the Old Testament was also less perfectly
understood than at present, and the abundant contri-
butions since made to the antiquities, natural history,
and geography of the Scriptures now offer means for
understanding many passages which, without this aid,
could never be correctly interpreted.

SOME IXACCUKACIES OF THE AUTHORIZED
VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMEJ^T.

Professor of Biblical Literature in the Protestant Episcopal Theological
Seminary, Alexandria, Virginia.

As the more general subjects connected with the
Revision of the Authorized Version have been suffi-
ciently discussed, there remains only the more special
subject of indisputable errors in our version, which
need to be corrected. There is no better argument for
revision, than the existence of such errors. If fliey
could not be corrected, it would be unwise and unkind
to make them known to those to whom tlie English
Bible, and the English Bible only, is the A^^ord of God.
The only course to be pursued would be to hide them
reverently, and thus not shake the faith of the unlearned.

We assume that the English translation of the Bible
should be as faithful as possible to the inspired original,
so tJiat the unlearned reader may be as nearly as pos-
sible in the place of the learned one. Tbere are some
who practically deny this self-evident proposition.
They would have us retain time-hallowed errors in our
version; they appeal to popular prejudice. Tliey remind
us of the old priest in the reign of Henry viii., who
used to say, Mumpsimus, Domine, instead of Sumpsimus,
and when remonstrated with, replied, "I am not going
to change my old mampsimus for your now faiigled
sumpsimus.^'

AVhile there is a wide spread opinion that our version
contains errors, the only way to restore confidence in
it is to appoint a committee of investigation to ascertain

80

INACCURACIES OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 81

the exact state of the case. Even when no change is
made the fact that examiners, in whom the Church has
confidence, have found none necessary, must go far to
inspire increased confidence. Isaac Walton tells us,
" that Dr. Richard Kilbye, one of the Company of the
Translators of the Authorized Version, heard accident-
ally a young preacher discussing the ^N'ew Translation,
and giving three reasons why a particular word should
have been translated differentl3\ The Doctor told him,
on meeting him, that he and others had considered the
three reasons mentioned, and found thirteen stronger
ones for translating it as it was."

We proceed now to give some examples of errors in
the EnHish version, which are acknowleds-ed to be such
by the almost universal consent of critical commentators.
The correction of these errors of translation will affect
some texts often preached upon, and upon which a dif-
ferent interpretation has been put by tradition.

In the 24th chapter of Proverbs, 21st verse, we read,
" My son, meddle not with them that are given to
change." Now it happens that the word given belongs
entirely to the English version, and is not found in the
Hebrew, where the original word is a participial form,
and means changers ^ or those changing. Matthew Henry
says, " He does not say, with them that change^ for there
may be cause to change for the better; but that are given
to change, that afiect it, for change sake."

The English version of the book of Job has always
been regarded by the best judges as very unsatisfactory.
In Job iii, 3, where Job curses the day of his birth, he
represents the night of his birth as saying, with joy,
" There is a man child born ! " Our version has it, in
which it was said, thus destroying the poetic figure,
which personifies the night. It should have been. Let

82 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

the night perish, which said. In the sublime address
of Jehovah to Job, in the 39th and 40th chapters, we
find several verses in our version which fail to give the
sense of the original. In the description of the war
horse, chapter 39th and 24th verse, it is said, " Neither
believeth he that it is the sound of the trumpet." If
belief can be ascribed to a horse, it is the very thing
which he believes, for he has heard the sound of the
trumpet often enough before. The primary sense of
the verb translated believeth is, to be firm, and adopting
this we have this sense : IN'either can he stand still at
the sound of the trumpet. Virgil, in describing the war
horse, says, " When the arms clash he knows not how
to stand still."

In Job xl, 19, in the description of the hippopotamus,
it is said in our version, " He that made him can make
his sword to approach wiio him." The translation now
almost universally adopted by the critics is, " His maker
gives him his sword," or tusk.

In Job xl, 23, " Behold, he drinketh up a river, and
hasteth not; he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan
into his mouth." This gives no congruous sense. The
translation adopted by Fiirst, Conant and others, is —

" Lo a river swells, he is not afraid ;
Fearless, though Jordan ruslies to his mouth."

In Daniel ii, 5, " The king answered and said to the
astrologers. The thing is gone from me." From the
heading of the chapter, '^ jSTebucliadnezzar forgetting
his dream," etc., we infer that the Authorized Version
understood by tlie thing, the dream, and that the king
had forgotten his dream ; but in that case it would not
have troubled him. The true reason of the king's
requiring them to tell the dream is given in verse 9th;

INACCURACIES OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 83

" Tell me the dream, and I shall know that ye can show
me the interpretation thereof." The Chaldee word,
translated in oar version thing, is the same word, trans-
lated, verse 9, word, and also in chapter iii, 28, the kinfs
v:ord. It should then have been translated, The word
has gone from me.

In Daniel vii, 9, " I beheld till the thrones were cast
down," it should be exactly the reverse — were set up.
So Gesenius, Ftirst and others, as in Jeremiah i, 15 :
" They shall set every one his throne," or seat ; and in
Apocalypse iv, 2, "Behold, a throne was set in
heaven."

In 1 Kings x, 28, in our translation it is said, " Solo-
mon had horses brought out of Egypt, and linen yarn :
the king's merchants received the linen yarn at a price."
The context refers to the manner in which Solomon
obtained horses by importation from Egypt. The word
translated linen yarn is elsewhere translated gathering
together. Gen. i, 10, and is applied in this verse to mer-
chants and to horses. It should be translated, "And
the company of the king's merchants fetched each drove
at a price."

Much of force is lost in our translation by not
observing the rule that where the same word occurs in
the same context in the original it should be translated
by the same word. There are so many cases where
this rule is violated in our version that it is difficult to
make a selection. In Isaiah xxviii, 15-19, where men-
tion is made of " the overflowing scourge passing
through," this is repeated four times in the original, with
great emphasis. In our version the word translated
pass through in verses 15, 18, is translated goeth forth in
verse 19, and also pass over. The 20th verse would
gain much in impression if translated, "As often as it

84 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

passetli through it shall take you ; for morning by morn-
ing shall it pass through, by day and by night." In the
17th verse our version makes judgment, or justice, not
the measure, but the thing to be measured. The mean-
ing is that God would deal in strict justice. '' I will
make judgment for a line and righteousness for a plumb
line." In the 20th verse the translation might be
improved, " For the bed is too short to stretch one's
self, and the covering too narrow to wrap one's self"

The translation of the whole chapter is unsatisfactory.
To go back to the first verses, the chapter opens with
a woe tlenounced against Samaria, the capital of
Ephraim, and alludes to its situation on a hill, at the
head of a rich valley. " Woe to the crown of pride of
the drunkards of Ephraim, and to the fading flower of
his glorious beauty, which is on the head of the fat
valley." Verse third : " The crown of pride of the
drunkards of Ephraim shall be trodden under foot;
and the fading flower of his glorious beauty, which is
on the head of the fat valley, sliall be as the first ripe
fruit before the summer ; which he that seeth, while it
is yet in his hand, eatetli up." > If one will take the
pains to compare the new translation of the fourth
verse with the English version, he will see how much
is gained.

In Isaiah vi, 1-3, our translation mistakes the mean-
ing of the original. It contains a threatening of
repeated judgment, but closes with a gracious promise,
"And though there be left in it a tenth, it shall again
be consumed ; as a terebinth, and as an oak, whose
trunk remaineth, when they are felled, so its trunk
shall be a holy seed."

The space allo\ved us precludes the specification of
any more passages, which might be greatly improved

INACCURACIES OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 85

by a reverential and well considered revision, wliicli
shall amend the errors and supply the defects of our
version. The lack of consistency in it, which cannot
fail to strike every one engaged in the laborious yet
most interesting task of unifying the translation of the
same word in the original, wherever it occurs, and the
sense permits it, will, Ave hope, be remedied by the
Committee meeting in the same place. While the
received interpretation of some texts may thus have
to be given up, other texts, brought out into a new
light, will take their place, and the gain will be greater
than the loss, ^o one need fear that " the mingled
tenderness and majesty, the Saxon simplicity, the pre-
ternatural grandeur " of our Authorized Version will
suffer an eclipse in the Revision.

8

THE KEW TESTAMEN'T TEXT.

THE IMPERFECTION OF THE GREEK TEXT OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT FROM WHICH OUR COMMON ENGLISH VER-
SION WAS MADE, AND OUR PRESENT RESOURCES FOR ITS
CORRECTION.

BY PROF. EZRA ABBOT, D.D., LL.D., CAMBRIDGE, MASS.

It is an unquestionable fact that the Greek text of the
New Testament from which our common English ver-
sion was made contains many hundreds of errors which
have affected the translation ; and that in some cases
whole verses, or even longer passages, in the common
English Bible are. spurious. This fact alone is sufficient
to justify the demand for such a revision of the com-
mon version as shall remove these corruptions. Why,
when so much pains is taken to obtain as correct a text
as possible of ancient classical authors — of Homer, Plato,
or Thucydides — should we be content with a text of the
New Testament formed from a few modern manuscripts
in the infancy of criticism, now that our means of im-
proving it are increased a hundred-fold ? Why should
the mere mistakes of transcribers still be imposed upon
unlearned readers as the words of evangelists and
apostles, or even of our Lord himself?

The statements that have just been made require
illustration and explanation, in order that the impor-
tance of these errors of the received text may not be
exaggerated on the one hand or under-estimated on the
other. We will consider, tlicn —

I. The Nature and Extent of the Differences
OF Text in the Grekk Manuscripts of the New
Testament. — The manuscripts of the New Testament,

86

THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. 87

like those of all other ancient writings, difier from one
another in some readings of considerable interest and
importance, and in a multitude of unimportant par-
ticulars, such as the spelling of certain words ; the
order of the words ; the addition or omission of par-
ticles not aiFecting, or only slightly affecting, the sense;
the insertion of words that would otherwise be under-
stood ; the substitution of a word or phrase for another
synonymous with it ; the use of different tenses of the
same verb, or different cases of the same noun, where
the variation is immaterial; and other points of no
more consequence. The various readings which are
comparatively important as affecting the sense consist,
for the most part : (1) of the substitution of one word
for another that closely resembles it in spelling or in
pronunciation; (2) the omission of a clause or longer
passage from homoeoteleuton, that is, the fact that it ends
with the same word or the same series of syllables as
the one preceding it ; and (3) the addition to the text of
words which were originally written as a marginal
note or gloss, or are supplied from a parallel passage.
Ancient scribes, like modern printers, when very know-
ing, have often made mistakes while they thought they
were correcting them ; but there is little or no ground
for believing that the text of the ~New Testament has
suffered in any place from wilful corruption.

The state of the case will be made plainer by examples.
The great majority of questions about the readings, so
far as they affect the translation, are such as these:
Whether we should read " Jesus Christ " or " Christ
Jesus ; " " the disciples " or " his disciples ; '' " and "
for " but " or " now," and vice versa ; " Jesus said " or
" he said ; " " he said," or " he saith," or " he answered
and said ; " whether we should add or omit " and," or

05 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

" but," or " for," or " therefore," the sense not being
affected ; whether we should read " God," or " Lord,"
or " Christ," in such phrases as " the word of God," or
" of the Lord," or " of Christ ; " these three words
differing, as abbreviated in the Greek manuscripts, by
only a single letter. Of the more important various
readings, much the larger part consists of spurious
additions to the text, not fraudulent, but originally
written as marginal or interlinear notes, and afterward
taken into the text by a very common and natural
mistake. Most of these occur in the Gospels. For
instance, " bless them that curse you, do good to them
that hate you," is probably not genuine in Matt, v, 44,
but was inserted in the manuscripts that contain it from
the parallel passage in Luke vi, 27, 28. So the words
"to repentance" are wanting in the best manuscripts
in Matt, ix, 13 and Mark ii, 17, but were introduced
into later copies from Luke v, 32.

For an example of omission from homoeotelcuton, we
may refer to 1 John ii, 23 — " Whosoever denicth the
Son, the same hath not the Father; but he that
acknowledgeth tlie Son hath the Father also." Here,
in our English Bibles, the last clause of the verse is
printed in italics, as of doubtful genuineness. It is
unquestionably genuine; how it was accidentally
omitted in some manuscripts will be seen if w^e under-
stand that in the original the order of the words is as
follows: "he that acknowledgeth the Son hath also
the Father," the ending being the same as that of the
preceding clause. The coj)yist, glancing at the ending
of the second clause, supposed he had written it, when,
in fact, he had only written the first.

For an example of the substitution of a word for
another rcBembling it in spelling, we may take Rev. i,

THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. 89

5, where for ''■washed us" (Xou(7w^zt)^ the best manu-
scripts read " loosed,'^ or " released us " {Xuriavri). For
another, see the margin of the common version, Acts
.xiii, 18.

I will now give as full an account as" is possible
within moderate limits of the more important and
remarkable various readings, that every one may see
for himself to how much they amount.

The longer passages of which the genuineness is more
or less questionable are the doxology in the Lord's
Prayer, Matt, vi, 13 ; Matt, xvi, 2, 3, from " when " to
^' times" (most critics retain the words) ; xvii, 21 ; xviii,
11 ; XX, 16, last part (genuine in xxii, 14) ; xxi, 44 ;
xxiii, 14 ; xxvii, 35 (from " that it might be fulfilled "
to " lots ") ; Mark vi, 11, last sentence ; vii, 16; ix, 44,
46 ; xi, 26 ; xv, 28 ; xvi, 9-20 (a peculiar and rather
difficult question) ; Luke ix, 55, 56, from " and said "
to " save them ; " xvii, 36 ; xxii, 43, 44 (most critics
retain the passage) ; xxiii, 17, 34, first sentence (most
critics retain it); xxiv, 12, 40; John v, 3, 4, from
^' waiting" to " he had" inclusive (most critics reject
this); vii, 53 — viii, 11 (also rejected by most critics); xxi,
25 (retained by most critics) ; Acts viii, 37 ; ix, 5, 6, from
"it is hard" to "unto him" (Ifas no MS. authority;
comp. xxvi, 14 ; xxii, 10) ; xv, 34 ; xxiv, 6-8, from " and
would" to "unto thee;" xxviii, 29; Eom. xi, 6, second
sentence ; xvi, 24 ; 1 John v, 7, 8, from " in heaven" to
" in earth," inclusive (the famous text of the Three
Heavenly Witnesses, now rejected by common consent
of scholars as an interpolation). Most of the question-
'able additions in the Gospels, it will be seen on exami-
nation, are from parallel passages, where the words are
genuine ; the doxology in the Lord's Prayer probably
came in from the ancient liturgies (compare 1 Chron.

90 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

xxix, 11) ; the passage about the woman taken in adul-
tery (John vii, 53^viii, 11), and some other additions,
especially Luke ix, 65, 56; xxiii, 34 (if this is not genu-
ine), are from early and probably authentic tradition.

Of questions relating to particular words or phrases,
the following are some of the more interesting and
important: Whether we should read in Matt, i, 25,
" a son" or " her firstborn son" (compare Luke ii, 7) ;
vi, 1, "alms" or "righteousness;" xi, li9, "children"
or " works ;" xix, 16, 17, " Good Teacher," and " callest
thou me good," or " Teacher," and " askest thou me con-
cerning, what is good ;" Mark i, 2, " in the prophets," or
"in Isaiah the prophet;" ix,-23, " If thou canst believe,"
or simply, "If thou canst!" Luke ii, 14, "good will
to [or " among"] men," or " among men of good will"
(the latter expression meaning, probablj^ " men to whom
God hath shown favor") ; iv, 44, " Galilee" or " Judsea;"
xiv, 5, " an ass or an ox," or " a son or an ox;" xxiii,
15, " I sent you to him" or " he sent him back to us;"
xxiv, 51, omit " and was carried up into heaven ;" John i,
18, fead " the only begotten Son" or " only begotten
God" (the words for "^Son" and'" God" differ in but a
single letter in the old MSS.); iii, 13, omit "which is
in heaven" (most critibs retain the clause) ; vii, 8, read
" not . . . yet" or " not;" xiv, 14, " ask anything in my
name," or " ask of me anything in my name;" Acts xi,
20," Greeks" or "Hellenists;" xvi, 7, "the Spirit" or
"the Spirit of Jesus;" xx, 28, "the church of God" or
"the church of the Lord;" Kom. xiv, 10, "the judg-
ment-seat of (yhrist " or "the judgment-seat of God;"
1 Cor. X, 9, "tempt Christ" or "tempt the Lord;" xiii,
3, " to be burned" or " that I may glory;" xv, 47, omit
"the Lord;" 2 Cor. iv, 14, read "by Jesus" or "with
Jesus;" Eph. iii, 9, omit " by Jesus Christ;" v, 9, read

THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. 91

"the fruit of the Spirit" or "the fruit of the light;"
V, 21, " the fear of God" or " the fear of Christ;"" Col.
ii, 2, " the mystery of God" or " the mystery of God,
Christ" (comp. i, 27; there are several other readings);
iii, 13, "Christ" or "the Lord;" 15, "the peace of
God" or "the peace of Christ;" 1 Tim. iii, 16, " God
was manifest" or " who " [or " He who "] was manifest"
(manifested) ; 1 Pet. iii, 15, " the Lord God" or " the
Lord Christ," or rather "Christ as Lord;" Jude 25,
" the only wise God our Saviour" or " the only God
our Saviour, through Jesus Christ our Lord ;" Rev. i, 8,
" the Lord" or " the Lord God ;" iii, 2, " before God "
or "before my God;" xxii, 14, "that do his command-
ments" or " that wash their robes."

I have sufficiently illustrated the nature of the differ-
ences in the text of the New Testament manuscripts;
we will now consider their extent and importance. The
number of the " various readings" frightens some inno-
cent people, and figures largely in the writings of the
more ignorant disbelievers in Christianity. " One hun-
dred and fifty thousand various readings !" Must not
these render the text of the E'ew Testament wholly un-
certain, and thus destroy the foundation of our faith ?

The true state of the case is something like this. Of
the 150,000 various readings, more or less, of the text
of the Greek New Testament, we may, as Mr. Norton
has remarked, dismiss nineteen-twentieths from con-
sideration at once, as being obviously of such a char-
acter, or supported by so little authority, that no critic
would regard them as having any claim to reception.
Tliis leaves, we will say, 7500. But of these, again, it
will appear, on examination, that nineteen out of twenty
are of no sort of consequence as affecting the sense ;
they relate to questions of orthography, or grammatical

*92 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

construction, or the order of words, or such other
matters as have heen mentioned above, in speaking of
unimportant variations. They concern only the form of
expression, not the essential meaning. This reduces
the number to perhaps 400, which involve a diiference
of meaning, often very slight, or the omission or addi-
tion of a few words, sufficient to render them objects
of some curiosity and interest, while a few exceptional
cases among them may relatively be called important.
But our critical helps are now so abundant, that in a
very large majority of these more important questions
of reading we are able to determine the true text with
a good degree of confidence. What remains doubtful
we can afford to leave doubtful. In all ancient writings
there are passages in which the text cannot be settled
with certainty; and the same is true of the interpretation.

I have referred above to all, or nearly all, of the cases
in which the genuineness of a whole verse, or. Very
rarely, a longer passage, is more or less questionable ;
and I have given the most remarkable of the other read-
ings of interest which present rival claims to acceptance.
Their importance may be somewhat differently esti-
mated by different persons. But it may be safely said
that no Christian doctrine or duty rests on those por-
tions of the text which are affected by differences in the
manuscripts ; still less is anything essential in Chris-
tianity touched by the various readings. They do, to
be sure, affect the bearing of a few passages on the
doctrine of the Trinity; but the truth or falsity of the
doctrine by no means dei)eiids upon tlu; reading of
those passages.

The nunibor of the various readings, which have
been collected from more tlian five hundred manuscripts,
more than a dozen ancient versions, and from the quo-

THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. 93

tations in the writings of more than a hundred Chris-
tian fathers, only attests the abundance of our critical
resources, which enable us now to settle the true text
of the 'New Testament with a confidence and precision
which are wholly unattainable in the case of the text
of any Greek or Latin classical author. I say, enable
us now to do this ; for in the time of our translators of
1611 only a very small portion of our present critical
helps was available. This leads us to consider —

n. The iMiPERFECTioN OF THE Greek Text on which
OUR Common English Version of the New Testament
IS Founded. — The principal editions of the Greek Tes-
tament which influenced, directly or indirectly, the
text of the common version are those of Erasmus, five
in number (1516-35) ; Robert Stephens (Estienne,
Stephanus) of Paris and Geneva, four editions (1546-
51); Beza, four editions in folio (1565-98), and -^ve
smaller editions (1565-1604) ; and the Complutensian
Polyglot (1514, published in 1522). "Without entering
into minute details, it is enough to say that .all these
editions were founded on a small number of inferior
and comparatively modern manuscripts, very imper-
fectly collated; and that they consequently contain a
multitude of errors, which a comparison with older
and better copies has since enabled us to discover and
correct. It is true that Erasmus had one valuable manu-
script of the Gospels, and Stephens two (D and L) ;
Beza had also D of the Gospels and Acts, and D (the
Clermont MS.) of the Pauline Epistles ; but they made
scarcely any use of them. The text of the common
version appears to agree more nearly with that of the
later editions of Beza than with any other ; but Beza
followed very closely Eobert Stephens's edition of 1550,

94 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

and Stephens's again was little more than a reprint of
the fourth edition of Erasmus (1527). Erasmus used as
the basis of his text in the Gospels an inferior MS. of
the fifteenth century, and one of the thirteenth or four-
teenth century in the Acts and Epistles. In the Revela-
tion he had only an inaccurate transcript of a mutilated
MS. (wanting the last six verses) of little value, the real
and supposed defects of which he supplied by translat-
ing from the Latin Vulgate into Greek. Besides this,
he had in all, for his later editions, three MSS. of the
Gospels, four of the Acts and Catholic Epistles, and
^YQ of the Pauline Epistles, together with the text of
the Aldine edition of 1518, and of the Complutensian
Polyglot, both of little critical value. In select pas-
sages he had also collations of some other manuscripts.
The result of the whole is, that in a considerable num-
ber of cases, not, to be sure, of great importance, the
reading of the common English version is supported by
no known Greek manuscript whatever, but rests on an error
of Erasmus or Beza (e. g. Acts ix, 5, 6 ; Rom. vii, 6 ;
1 Pet. iii, 20 ; Rev. i, 9, 11 ; ii, 3, 20, 24 ; iii, 2 ; v, 10,
14 ; XV, 3 ; xvi, 5 ; xvii, 8, 16 ; xviii, 2, etc.) ; and it is safe
to say that in more than a thousand instances fidelity to
the true text now ascertained requires a change in the
common version, though in most cases the change would
be slight. But granting that not many of the changes
required can be called important, still, in the case of
writings so precious as those of the New Testament,
every one must feel a strong desire to liave the text freed
as far as possible from later corruptions, and restored
to its primitive purity. Such being the need, we will
next consider —

III. Our Present Resources for Settling the
Text. — Our manuscript materials for the correction of

THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. 95

the text are far superior, both in point of number and
antiquity, to those which we possess in the case of any
ancient Greek classical author, with the exception, as
regards antiquity, of a few fragments, as those of
Philodemus, preserved in the Herculanean papyri. The
cases are very/ew in which any MSS. of Greek classical
authors have been found older than the ninth or tenth
century. The oldest manuscript of ^schylus and
Sophocles, that from which all the others are believed
to have been copied, directly or indirectly, is of the
tenth or eleventh century; the oldest manuscript of
Euripides is of the twelfth. For the ^N'ew Testament,
on the other hand, we have manuscripts more or less
complete, written in uncial or capital letters, and rang-
ing from the fourth to the tenth century, of the Gospels
27, besides 30 small fragments ; of the Acts and Catholic
Epistles 10, besides 6 small fragments; of the Pauline
Epistles 11, besides 9 small fragments; and of the
Revelation 5. All of these have been most thoroughly
collated, and the text of the most important of them
has been published. One of these manuscripts, the
Sinaitic, containing the whole of the 'New Testament,
and another, the Vatican (B), containing much the
larger part of it, were written as early probably as the
middle of the fourth century ; two others, the Alex-
andrine (A) and' the Ephraem (C), belong to about the
middle of the fifth; of which date are two more (Q and
T), containing considerable portions of the Gospels.
A very remarkable manuscript of the Gospels and Acts,
the Cambridge manuscript, or Codex Bez^e, belongs to
the sixth century, as do E of the Acts and D of the
Pauline Epistles, also N, P, R, Z of the Gospels and H
of the Epistles (fragmentary). I pass by a number of
small but valuable fragments of the fifth and sixth cen-

96 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

tiiries. As to the cursive MSS., ranging from the tenth
century to the sixteenth, we have of the Gospels more
than 600 ; of the Acts over 200 ; of the PauUne Epistles
nearly 300 ; of the Revelation about 100, not reckoning
tlie Lectionaries or MSS. containing the lessons from
the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles read in H:he service of
the church, of which there are more than 400. Of these
cursive MSS. it is true that the great majority are of
comparatively small value; and many have been imper-
fectly collated or only inspected. Some twenty or thirty
of them, however, are of exceptional value — a few of
very great value — for ' their agreement with the most
ancient authorities.

But this is only a part of our critical materials. The
translations of the New Testament, made at an early
date for the benefit of Christian converts ignorant of
Greek, and the very numerous quotations by a series of
writers from the second century onward, represent the
text current in widely separated regions of the Christian
world, and are often of the highest importance in de-
termining questions of reading. Many of these authori-
ties go back to a date one or two centuries earlier than
our oklest MSS. Of the ancient versions, the Old Latin
and the Curetonian Syriac belong to the second cen-
tur}^ ; the two Egyptian versions, the Coptic or Mem-
phitic and the Sahidic or Thebaic, probably to the
earlier part of the third : the Peshito Syriac in its pre-
sent form perhaps to the beginning of the fourth; in
the latter part of the same century we have the Gothic
and the Latin Vulgate, and perhaps the Etliiopic; in
the fifth century the Armenian and the Jerusalem
Syriac ; and in the sixth the Philoxenian Syriac, revised
by Thomas of Ilarkel, A. D. 616, to say nothing of
several later versions, as the Arabic and Slavonic.

THE NEW TESTAMENT TEXT. 97

Since the beginning of the present century thoroughly
critical editions of the Greek Testament have been
published by such scholars as Griesbach, Lachmann,
Tischendorf, and Tregelles, in which the rich materials
collected by generations of scholars l^ave been used for
the improvement of the text ; we have learned how to
estimate the comparative value of our authorities; the
principles of textual criticism have been in a good
measure settled : the more important questions in re-
gard to the text have been discussed, and there has
been a steadily growing agreement of the ablest critics
in regard to them.

With this view of what has been done in the way of
preparation, we will consider, finally —

lY. The Ground for Expecting a Great Improve-
ment IN the Text from the Work now Undertaken
BY the British and American Eevision Commit-
tees.— On this little needs now to be said. We have seen
that the text from which the common English version
was made contains many known errors, and that our
present means of correcting it are ample. The work
of revision is in the hands of some of the best Christian
scholars in England and America, and their duty to the
Christian public is plain. The composition of the Com-
mittees, and the rules which they follow, are such that
we may be sure that changes will not be made rashly ;
on the other hand we may be confident that the work
will be done honestly and faithfully. When an im-
portant reading is clearly a mistake of copyists it will
be fearlessly discarded ; when it is doubtful, the doubt-
fulness will be noted in the margin ; and the common
English reader will at last have the benefit of the de-
voted labors of such scholars as Mill, Bengel, Wetstein,
9

98 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

Griesbach, Lachraann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, who
have contributed so much to the restoration of the text
of the i^ew Testament to its original purity. On the
EnffUsh Committee itself there are at least three men
who deserve to be ranked with those I have named,
Professor Westcott and Dr. Hort, two scholars of the
very first class, who have been engaged more than
twenty years in the preparation of a critical edition of
the Greek Testament; and Dr. Scrivener, whose labors
in the collation and publication of important manu-
scripts have earned the gratitude of all biblical students.
Professor Lightfoot is another scholar of the highest
eminence who has given much attention to the subject
of textual criticism. We may rely upon it that such
men as these, and such men as constitute the American
Committee, whom I need not name, Avill not act hastily
in a matter like this, and will not, on the other hand,
" handle the word of God deceitfully," or suffer it to be
adulterated, through a weak and short-sighted timidity.
One remark may be added. All statements about
the action of the Revision Committees in regard to any
particular passage are wholly premature and unauthor-
ized, for this reason, if for no otlier, that tlieir work is
not yet ended. When the result of their labors shall
be publislied, it will be strange if it does not meet with
some ignorant and bigoted criticism; but I feel sure that
all intelligent and fair-minded scholars will emphati-
cally endorse the judgment of Dr. Westcott, expressed
in the Preface to the second edition of his History ol'
the English Bible (1872), " that in no parallel case have
the readings of the original texts to be translated been
discussed and determined with equal care, thorough-
ness, and candor."

Il^ACCURACIES OF THE AUTHORIZED VER-
SION m RESPECT OF GRAMMAR AND EXE-
GESIS.

BY REV. A. C. KENDRICK, D.D., LL.D.,

Professor of Greek in Rochester University, Rochester, N. Y.

Among the grounds urged for a revision of our
version of the Scriptures are the imperfection of its
critical text, obscurities growing out of changes in
the language, and arbitrary variations in rendering,
springing from the lack of fixed or correct principles
of translation. Practically, however, the most impor-
tant reason of all arises from the progress which,
since 1611, has been made in grarfimatical and ex-
egetical science, as applied to the Scriptures. That
such progress should be made would be but to bring
Biblical science into accordance with all the other
developments of the last two centuries. In every
field of intellectual action during that period, the
progress of the human mind has been rapid, and its
achievements unprecedentedly great. It would be
strange, indeed, if in this highest of all departments
of knowledge it should have failed of corresponding
advancement. And it has not. In all the fields of
sacred learning the most eminent abilities and the
most conscientious industry have been diligently
employed, and in none, perhaps, more than in the
sphere of the language and interpretation of the 'New
Testament.. It is then no disparagement to the merits
of those eminent scholars who gave us our excellent
Authorized Version that their work in these respects
demands, revision. The fault was not of the indi-.
viduals, but of the age. They lived near the border-

99

100 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

land of a splendid realm of sacred discovery and
knowledge, which it was not their privilege to enter.
We might well take shame to ourselves, if, however
individually inferior, we had not been thrown by the
age itself somewhat beyond and above them.

Of course here, as in other branches of the general
subject, we do not pretend that the errors which we
point out are such as to pervert or darken the general
teachin2:s of the divine Word. The most that can be
said of them is that they obscure individual passages,
mar rhetorical sj^mmetry, impede the flow of a nar-
rative or the course of an argument, and sometimes
seriously perplex the thoughtful reader, making him
imagine the Bible to be a much less consequential and
logical book than it actually is. Thus to give at this
point a single illustration. In the opening of Hebrews,
the writer sets forth the transcendent superiority of
the Son to the angels from the vast disparity of their
name and office. In illustration he cites from the
Psalms : '' Who maketh his angels [messengers] winds; "
thus putting the angels on a level with the mere agen-
cies of nature. This is perfectly clear. But the
thoughtful reader, who reads in his Bible, " Who
maketh his angels spirits," fails utterly to see the
relevancy of a statement which in fact tends to give
the angels the highest conceivable exaltation, putting
them in essence on a level with the Deity.

From the same connection I will adduce another
illustration. Tlic author just before says, in latent
contrast with the stumbling humbleness of the Son's
earthly manifestation, " And when he shall again
bring back into the world the flrst-begotten, he saith "
(proleptic for, he will say), " Let all the angels of God
worship him." But to him who reads, " And again,

INACCURACIES OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 101

when he bringeth the first-begotten into the world, he
saith," etc., the passage is an entire enigma. Christ's
entrance into the world, at his birth from the Virgin,
was one of humiliation. The angels undoubtedly did
worship him, but it was no occasion for the formal
challenging of that worship. The right translation
throws it forward to the second coming, and brings
all into harmony.

I. Errors in the Use or the Greek Article. —
But I proceed to take up the passages in some order,
and will commence with illustrations of the use of
the article. The Greek definite article in many re-
spects (not in all) squares precisely with the English.
It cannot always be rendered, but it is no more used
without a reason than is the English article. Yet, of
its special use and importance, the English translators
seem to have had but the faintest notion, and they
render or omit it in the most capricious manner.
" Into a mountain," " into a ship,'' appear almost con-
stantly for " into the mountain," and " into the ship."
" The [one] pinnacle of the temple " becomes " a pin-
nacle " (as if there were many). " A synagogue "
stands for " the synagogue," which implies the only
or the chief one in the place. Thus, Luke vii, 5, " He
hath built us a synagogue," for " he himself built us
our synagogue." The English version here contains
three errors, " he " for " himself," " hath built " for
" built " and " a " for " the," which, by a familiar
idiom, we replace by "our." So Nicodemus (John iii,
10) is lowered from " the teacher of Israel," to which
rank the Saviour exalts him, to "a teacher." In 2
Tim. iv, 7, " the good fight " (more exactly, "the no-
ble contest," in contrast with the secular games of
9*

102 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

Greece), becomes " a good fight," and " the crown of
righteousness," which follows it, becomes "a crown
of righteousness." In Ileb. xi, 10, we have " a city
that hath foundations," for " the city that hath the
foundations," apparently of Rev. xxi, 19. On the
other hand, the unwarranted insertion of the article
in John iv, 27, " wondered that he was talking with
the woman," instead of '' a woman," quite changes the
ground of the disciples' wonder. They knew nothing
of the woman's history. Their surprise was that he
talked thus at length and familiarly with a woman.
So in 1 Tim. vi, 6, " their wives " should be simply
"women." The apostle is speaking of deaconnesses,
not of the wives of deacons. In 1 Tim. vi, 2, the
force of the article with the participle is not rec-
ognized, and we have "because tliey are faithful
and beloved, partakers of the benefit," for the apos-
tle's appropriate and beautiful declaration, " because
they that partake of their benefaction are fiiithful and
beloved." In 1 Tim. vi, 5, by confusion of the sub-
ject and predicate we have "supposing that gain is
godliness ; " the original represents them as " suppos-
ing that godliness is [a source of] gain." In Rom. i,
17, and iii, 21, the definite article is unhappily intro-
duced for ''a righteousness of God;" seriously dark-
ening the argument by the changed meaning thus
forced upon the word " righteousness." But it is
unfortunately omitted again in the striking descrip-
tion of John the Baptist, at John v, 35 ; " he was the
lamp that was burning and shining." The English
version here doubly errs both in the way of disparage-
ment and of exaltation. Of exaltation, because it ele-
vates to an original light him whom the Saviour desig-
nates as only a lamp, shining with borrowed brightness.

INACCURACIES OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 103

Of disparagement, in that it omits the emphatically
repeated article by which Christ exalts John to a
single and sole conspicuousness. He himself was " the
light " (John i, 4), the fountain of all illumination.
John was but a " lamp," shining as being shone upon ;
but still the lamp, that was lighted and shining.
Again, the name Christ is in the Gospels invariably an
official, not a personal designation. Here, therefore,
the article should always be rendered : thus, " the
Christ," viz., the predicted Anointed one.

I add one occasional misrendering of the article,
produced by the influence of the Latin (which had no
article), viz., " that " for " the." Thus in John i, 21,
25, we have " Art thou that prophet ? " for " Art thou
the prophet ? " and the extremely clumsy, " If thou
art not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet,"
for " if thou are not the Christ, nor Elijah, nor the
prophet." So in 2 Thess. ii, 5, 8, "the man of sin"
and " the lawless one " become " that man of sin," and
" that Wicked ; " while again, " the falling away," the
definite apostasy, perhaps, of Matt, xxiv, 12, becomes
simply " a falling away."

II. Errors in Prepositions and Particles. — The
PREPOSITIONS, in their variety and delicacy, are a most
important element of the Greek language. In the
rendering of these the Authorized Version is not
unfrequently at fault, but its err'ors are so compli-
cated by ambiguities in the use of English preposi-
tions, that I shall not attempt to discuss them here.
I will simply remark that it frequently confounds
instrumental agency {through me) with ultimate
agency {by me) ; and sometimes the instrumental
{through me) with the causal {because of me). ''On

104 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

behalf of,'' at 2 Cor. v, 20, is turned to " instead of;"
and at 2 Thess. ii, 1, it becomes "by." The prepo-
sition fcv becomes needlessly sometimes " by," and
sometimes "with." "On the clouds," at Matt, xxiv,
30, becomes "in the clouds;" and "on their hands,"
Matt, iv, 6, becomes " in their hands ; " in both cases
to the injury of the figure. Of all the examples
here adduced that is the most important which ob-
literates the distinction between the ultimate agency
of God (by) and the secondary agency (through) of
his prophets, and even of Christ, as his commissioned
one.

The PARTICLES are a no less delicate element of
the language than the prepositions. The New Testa-
ment uses them but sparingly, yet, in the main, its
use of them is thoroughly classical. In rendering
these, also, our version is open to serious criticism.
One of the simplest of them is the connective 5^,
meaning strictly nothing but and and hut, though
'now, as a quasi-rendering, is often a harmless accom-
modation to English idiom. Yet our English ver-
sion renders it almost indifferently by and, but, then,
now, nevertheless, moreover, notwithstanding, and when in
the humor not to translate it, drops it altogether. In
Matt, ii, 22, Joseph "was afraid to go thither, not-
withstanding [for, and'] being warned," etc. In Gal.
ii, 20, we have the rendering, "I am crucified with
Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ
liveth in me." The elegant Greek runs thus: "I have
been crucified with Christ, and no longer do / live,
but Christ liveth in me." The particle fxiv has mainly
but one meaning, that of a concessive (not an em-
phatic) " indeed." The English often drops it, leav-
ing its force to be given by intonation. In our ver-

INACCURACIES OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 105

sion it is sometimes correctly given; sometimes by
" truly," which approximates it ; sometimes it is
properly omitted ; often omitted when its retention
is important (Rom. vii, 25), and often rendered
"verily," which strictly it never means. In Heb.
ix, 1, " There belonged, indeed, now even to the first
covenant ; " the two particles are rendered " then ver-
ily," both of them being mistranslated.

III. Errors in Verbs. — I pass to the verbs. The
errors here are of various kinds, and difficult to
classify. I will mention first the frequent failure to
distinguish between imperfect and absolute action.
Thus in Matt, viii, 24, the ship was not " covered,"
but being or " becoming covered by (not with) the
waves." In Mark iv, 37, the ship was not " filled,"
but "filling." In Luke iv, 6, the nets did not
"break," but " were breaking." In Matt, xxv, 28, the
lamps were not " gone out," but " going out." In
Matt, ix, 2, they more picturesquely " were bringing,"
not "brought," "the paralytic." In Heb. xi, 17,
Abraham, in the first instance (the verb is used twice
in difterent tenses) " hath offered up," i. e., he so stands
recorded as having in purpose offered up his son; and
then the writer, reverting to the actual scene, says,
" and he that had received the promises was offering
. [had set out to offer] up," etc. The delicate distinc-
tions of the two tenses are swallowed up in one com-
mon mistranslation (" offered ") of them both. The
force of the Greek imperfect it is by no means always
best to try to reproduce ; but it is often a pity to lose
it. Thus in Matt, xxvi, 49, Judas " kissed " our Lord
once, as indicated by the tense, but in Luke vii, 38,
and in Acts xx, 37, the woman kissed repeatedly,

106 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

" kept kissing " the feet of Jesus, and the anguished
Ephesians the departing apostle. In Luke i, 59, the
parents of the infiint " were calling " — were about to
call — but did not "call," his name Zachariah.

The Greek perfect tense is very uniform in its use,
but is dealt with upon no fixed principle by our trans-
lators. They often confound it with the present, as
Gal. ii, 20, " am crucified," for " have been crucified,"
Eom. V, 5, " is shed abroad," for " hath been shed
abroad " (where the distinction is important). Rom.
iii, 21, " is manifested," for " hath been manifested."
It is quite as frequently, and more disadvantageously,
confounded with the imperfect or aorist, as John i, 3,
" was not anything made that was made," for " that
hath been made." Matt, xix, 8, "from the beo^innino-
it was not so," for " it hath not been so." Matt.
xxiv, 21, " Such as was not since the beginning of the
world," for " such as hath not been from the begin-
ning," etc. John iv, 38, " I sent you to reap," for " I
have sent you to reap ; " " others labored," for " others
have labored." Heb. iv, 2, " Unto us was the gospel
preached," for " hath the glad message been pro-
claimed " (/. e., the promise of a rest) ; v. 3, " as he said,"
for " as he hath said ; " v. 4, " for he spake," for " he
hath spoken." Ileb. ii, 3, " For this man was counted
worthy," for " hath been counted worthy " (referring to
his recent glorification). 1 Cor. xv, 12, "Be preached
that he rose," for " hath arisen," or " hath been
raised;" v. 21, "the first-fruits of them that slept,"
for " have fallen asleep," and hence, " are sleeping."

Incorrect Rendering of the Aortst. — I turn to
instances of the incorrect rendering of the aorist. In
its strict meaning (/ \t:.rotc^ I si^okc)^ it is one of the

INACCURACIES OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 107

simplest of the Greek tenses ; its idiomatic uses, how-
ever, by which it sometimes represents our pluperfect,
sometimes our perfect (growing simply out of a differ-
ence of conception), render it somewhat difficult to
handle. Especially is it hard sometimes to decide
whether it should be rendered strictly by our aorist,
or more idiomatically by our perfect. But the
authors of our version clearly have no fixed principle
to guide them. As they often render the perfect as
an aorist, so they often quite unnecessarily render the
aorist as a perfect or a present. I take two or three
examples from the Epistle to the Romans. Ch. v, 12,
"all have sinned," for '' all sinned; " vi, '2, "we that
are dead to sin," for " we that died to sin ; " v. 4,
" have been buried with him," for "were buried with
him;" v. 6, " our old man is crucified with him," for
"was crucified with him " (ideally when he was cruci-
fied) ; V. 8, " now if we be dead with Christ," for
"and if we died with Christ;" v. 17, " but ye have
obeyed," for "but ye obeyed," viz., at your conver-
sion; V. 19, "just as ye have presented," for "just as
ye did present." Ch. vii, 4, "ye are become dead,"
for "ye were made dead," viz., when you were united
with Christ. In 2 Cor. v, 4, we have " if one died
for all, then were all dead," instead of " then did all
die." The common version refers it to their previous
death in sin ; the correct version to their death in and
with Christ to sin.

Use of the AoRist Participle. — I give a few il-
lustrations of the use of the aorist participle. It is
well known that we have no exclusively aorist par-
ticiple. We replace it primarily by our present parti-
ciple used aoristically, then by our perfect, then by

108 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

the finite verb. Thus the Greek Udv dirri'k'^sv is either
seeing, or on seeing, he departed, or having seen he departed,
or he saw and departed. The Latin, which has neither
aorist nor perfect active participle, very commonly
resorts to the circumlocution, " lohcn he had seen he
departed." Our English translators have sometimes
correctly adopted one or other of the first three ren-
derings, but unfortunately have very often followed
the Latin in a construction almost necessary in Latin,
but not necessary and often clumsy in the English.
For " calling together," they say " when he had called
together ; " for " entering the house," " when he had
entered," and so in narrative very commonly. In
many cases this gives an air of freedom to our version,
and may as well be retained, as it probably will be in
the present revision. Yet we have but to read, for ex-
ample, the narrative portions of the Acts alongside
of the original, to see how unfortunate is this con-
tinual Latin influence upon the naturalness of the
diction of our English version. Take as a single and
familiar specimen, Acts xxi, 3, " Now when we had
discovered Cyprus, we left it on the left hand, and
sailed," for " and coming in sight of Cyprus, and
leaving it, etc., we sailed ; " vs. 5, 6, " we prayed, and
when we had taken our leave one of another," for
" we prayed, and bade each other farewell ; " v. 7,
" and when we had finished our course from Tyre, we
came," etc., for ''but we, accomplishing (or having ac-
complished) our course," etc. In some instances the
rendering involves serious misapprehension. Thus at
Luke xxiii, 46, we have " and when Jesus had cried
with a loud voice, he said, Father," etc., for "and
Jesus, calling with a loud voice, said, Father." There
is no good reason here for supposing that the crying

INACCURACIES OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. 109

or calling and the saying, are two distinct acts.
Again, Acts v, 30, by reversal of the natural order,
we have, "whom ye slew and hanged' on a tree,"
for " whom ye hanged on a tree and slew." In Acts
xix, 2, we have a mistranslation of both the aorist in-
dicative and the participle: "Have ye received the
Holy Ghost since ye believed ? " for " did ye receive
the Holy Ghost upon believing," or " when ye be-
lieved ? " which is a very different idea.

IV. Unfortunate Eenderings. — I shall now select
a few farther examples of unfortunate renderings,
without attempt at classification. The distinction
between the indicative and subjunctive moods in
conditional sentences (" if it Z5," and " if it he ") is
habitually neglected, of^a, I know, (2 Cor. xii, 2,) is
rendered / knew. Luke xxi, 19, " In your patience
possess your souls," should be " in your endurance
g'ain {i. e., preserve) your souls." The verb to become
(jcyvoixai) is habitually confounded with the verb to 6e,
and sometimes improperly made passive. Thus, John
i, 14, " The Word was made flesh," for " the Word
became flesh." Heb. i, 4, " Being made so much bet-
ter," for " becoming so much better," or " superior."
Gal. iv, 5, " Made of a woman, made under law," for
" born from a woman, coming under law." 2 Cor. iii,
7, " W.as glorious," should be " came in glory." In
Matt, xvii, 24, seq., is an interesting account of an
application to Peter to know whether his Master paid
the "tribute-money," and our Lord's explanation to
Peter why he should be exempted from paying it.
The word in the Greek is entirely diflerent from the.
ordinary word for the tribute or custom paid to the
Eoman government, and clearly designates the Jewish
10

110 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

half-shekel paid to support the temple service. Yet,
this distinction is lost in the translation. The reader
has no clue to the special character of the tribute re-
quired, and the Saviour's beautiful plea for exemption,
based on the fact that he was the Son of the Lord of
the temple, becomes utterly unintelligible. " Tribute-
money " should be " the half-shekel " (see Ex. xxx,
13). Again, in 1 Cor. ix, 26, 27, the apostle refers to
the Grecian games of running and boxing. ••' I, there-
fore, so run as not uncertainly ; I so box, as not beating
the air ; but I aim my blows at my body [literally, hit
my body under the eye]^ and lead it in servitude." Here
the generalizing of " box '' into " fight," and of "aim-
ing my blows at " (or " chastising ") into " keep
under," almost entirely obliterates the figure.

I give a few important examples from the Epistle
to the Hebrews. Ch. iii, 16, " For some, when they
had lieard, did provoke : howbeit not all that came
out of Egypt by Moses," for which read: '' For who,
when they heard, provoked him? ISTay, did not all
they that came out of Egypt through Moses?" Ch.
iv, 6, 7 : " Seeing therefore it remaineth that some
must enter therein, and they to whom it was first
preached entered not in because of unbelief: Again,
he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To-day,
after so long a time ; as it is said. To-day if ye will
hear his voice, harden not your hearts." For this in-
volved passage read: " Since, therefore, it remaineth
that some enter therein, and they who formerly re-
ceived the glad promise entered not in because of dis-
obedience, he again fixeth a certain day, to-day, say-
ing so long a time afterwards in David (as hath been
said before), To-day, if ye shall hear his voice, harden
not your hearts." At v. 9, the substitution of " rest "

INACCURACIES OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION. Ill

for " Sabbatic rest," takes the point out of the argu-
ment. At ch. V, 1, the rendering. "For every high-
priest taken from among men," seems to select out a
particular class of high-priests, viz., those taken from
among men. The original, " For every high-priest,
being taken from among men," points out, as a char-
acteristic quality of the high-priest, that he is taken
from among men. At ch. vii, 18, 19, is the rendering,
"For there is verily a disannulling of the command-
ment going before for the weakness and unprofitable-
ness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect, but
the bringing in of a better hope didJ^ For this read :
"For there followeth an annulling of the preceding
commandment because of its weakness and unprofita-
bleness (for the law brought nothing to perfection),
and the bringing in in its place of a better hope." I
select yet one more example. The Greek denarius
((Jiivapiov) was worth about seventeen cents. Our ver-
sion renders it by a "penny." When, therefore, the
good Samaritan is mnde to take out two pence for his
host, the English reader is not struck by his liberality.
When the householder agrees with his workmen for
a penny a day, they would seem to have better cause
for murmuring than that the unequal labors are made
equal in compensation. And when the angel flies
through mid-heaven crying, "a measure of wheat for
a ponny" (in reality, less than a quart for seventeen
cents), the English reader can hardly believe that he is
not announcing extraordinary plenty instead of fam-
ine prices.

These examples of infelicities and errors in the Au-
thorized Version have been taken almost at random,
and might be ihdcfinitely multiplied. They certainly
are blemishes, but they only seriously mar, and by no

112 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

means hopelessly deface, the structure of our magni-
ficent version. "They are spots on the glorious sun of
our English embodiment of the divine Word. Thanks
to God's gracious providence, these spots can not only
be discerned by the telescope of knowledge, but with
gentle hand can be taken away, causing it to shine
with augmented brightness.

TRUE CONSERVATISM IF RESPECT TO
CHAJSTGES m THE ENGLISH AND THE
GREEK TEXT.

BY TIMOTHY DWIGHT, D.D.,

Professor of Sacred Literature, Department of Theology, Yale College, New
Haven, Conn.

The Authorized English version of the New Testa-
ment and the Greek text on which it was founded
have attained a sort of independent existence of their
own. They have been accepted for so many genera-
tions as the true original and the accurate translation
of the Sacred Books, that to multitudes of persons
both in England and America there seems to be no
doubt that they, and they only, are the Word of God.
By reason of this fact the reviser of the English ver-
sion finds himself, at the outset of his work, sur-
rounded by a very strong conservative body, who are
disposed to complain of and contend against every
change. On the other hand, however, he discovers
another party, who have not only freed themselves
from the bondage of such views, but have become
earnest for great alterations and improvements, or
even for an entirely new translation. As these two
bodies are irreconcilably opposed to each other, he is
compelled to consider them both, and one of his first
and most difiicult questions is as to the plan which he
shall adopt in his undertaking, with reference to their
conflicting demands. To the consideration of the
proper way of deciding this question, both with re-
spect to the English text and the Greek, a few words
may be suitably devoted in this series of articles.
10* 113

114 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

I. In Eegard to the English Text. If the work
undertaken is to be a revision, and not a new transla-
tion, it can hardly be doubted that the style and vo-
cabulary of the old version should not be altogether
abandoned. It would seem, indeed, that this position
is involved in the very determination to revise, and
to proceed no further. But not only will this be ad-
mitted. It will also be held, as we believe, that, in
the many changes which are necessarily introduced in
the process of revision, it will be wiser and better to
act upon conservative, than npon radical, principles,
and even to err, if it be so, on the side of the former,
rather than of the latter.

(1.) The first reason for this has reference to the suc-
cess of the work in meeting the public ajjprobation.
The conservative party in this regard is much the
most numerous section of the religious community,
and, unless those who make up this section are to a
reasonable extent satisfied, the revision cannot meet
with general acceptance. They will cling to the old
book, and the new one will soon be forgotten. How-
ever prudent it may be, in other cases, to disregard
the probabilities of ftxilnre, it cannot be so here, for
the years of labor will be almost wliolly lost, unless
the purpose with which they were entered u})on shall
be realized, namely, to introduce this revision into
the place which has so long been occupied by the
version of King James's time. Nor is this conserva-
tism of the party alluded to an unreasonable one.
The Bible, as it has been read for the last two hun-
dred and fifty years, has so wrought itself in its indi-
vidual words, and its general phraseology, and its
sound as of sweet music, into the hearts and experi-
ence of Christian believers, that it must lose a part of

CHANGES IN THE ENGLISH AND THE GREEK TEXT. 115

its vital force, unless these are preserved. Any other
book may be in the language of to-day, but this Book
of books, which binds us to all the past and all the
future, must speak to us not only with the same
truths, but with the same sublime words, with which
it spoke to our fathers.

(2.) A second reason for thus acting on conservative
principles in respect to changes is founded in the fact,
that the intermingling of modern words with the ear-
lier ones is likely to destroy the harmony of the style,
and may produce a worse result even than an entire
remodelling of the whole after the usage of our own
day would occasion. The great problem, indeed,
which the reviser has to solve is how to bring in the
new, without destroying the unity and beauty of the
old. The fundamental rule on which the English and
American companies are acting at present, is probably
the best one which could be devised for the accom-
plishment of this end. It is, that where alterations
are necessary they shall be expressed, as far as pos-
sible, in the language of the Authorized and earlier
English versions. If the true meaning, that is, can
be set forth by a word within the limits of the old
vocabulary, it should be. But if it cannot be thus set
forth, then faithfulness to the meaning requires that
a new word shall be introduced. It is but natural,
and the necessary result of the progress of our lan-
guage during two centuries and a half, that it should
have acquired the power of expressing by newly-formed
words and phrases, or by new uses assigned to old ones,
a clearer and more precise translation, in some cases,
of what is found in the original Greek, than was
possible in 1611. It must, surely, be the duty of
the reviser to take knowledge and advantage of this

116 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

fact, and to consider his obligation to give the reader
the exact meaning of the sacred writer as paramount
to everything else. If the word self-control will con-
vey to the English reader the true meaning, in such
passages as Gal. v, 23, Acts xxiv, 25, while temperance,
by reason of its limited sense as now commonly used,
is likely to be misunderstood ; if rational gives more
nearly the thought of Eom. xii, 1, than reasonable; if
anxious in Luke x, 41, Phil, iv, 6, and similar cases,
expresses the precise idea, and careful does not ; if
Paul means in Gal. v, 20, not strife, but intriguings or
caballing s ; if the result which patience, or rather
steadfast endurance, in tribulation works out. Pom.
V, 4, is not experience but approval, or tested and ap-
proved character; if the uneducated reader or the
child does not know that the carriages in Acts xxi, 15,
were baggage ; if the prudent spoken of in 1 Cor. i, 19,
were intelligent or sagacious, rather than prudent; if
Jesus and the disciples did not sit down, but reclined at
the table at the Last Supi)er, according to the custom
of the times ; if the reader can be relieved from a
frequent repetition of howbeit, by an occasional inser-
tion of however ; it ought not, in these and in numer-
ous other and more illustrative cases, to be regarded as
a sufficient objection to the words suggested, that they
are not found within the limits of the vocabulary of
the Authorized Version, or that some such words may
even belong only to the language of a more modern
era. But, even in these cases, the reviser should ex-
ercise every care and caution to select his words and
phrases, if possil)le, so that they shall not break in
harshly upon the harmony of the old style. One of
his highest qualifications for his work will be shown
by his success at this point ; and in no respect, prob-

CHANGES IN THE ENGLISH AND THE GREEK TEXT. 117

ably, will the new Revision, now in course of prepara-
tion, be more carefully scrutinized or more strictly
judged than in this.

In the progress of time since our Authorized Ver-
sion was published, an American language has, to
some extent, come into being. Thoroughly English
as we are in this regard, we have expressions peculiar
to ourselves, which are no more provincial than the
corresponding ones which prevail in the mother coun-
try. As the new Revision is for the English-speaking
world, of whom forty millions are now, and one hun-
dred millions soon will be, on this side of the ocean,
it would seem that some regard should be paid to
this American usage. Fortunately, however, there are
only a few expressions, comparatively speaking, which
can present themselves for consideration on this ground.
The true principles to be adopted with respect to them
would seem to be the following :

First., Wherever the one nation can readily under-
stand the expression in common use with the other,
but the latter cannot as readily understand that of the
former, the one which will alone be comprehended by
both should be chosen. Thus, for example, in Luke vi,
1 and the parallel passages, where Jesus is spoken of as
going through the corn-fields., (which, according to our
usage, means grain-fields.) the word should be left as in
the Authorized Version, provided the English people
understand by grain only that which is gathered in
store-houses; but, if they also use this word in the
same sense as ourselves, and refer it to what is in the
fields, it should be changed to grain-fields., because corn
with us has a special signification, which was not in-
tended by the writer of the Gospel narrative.

Secondly., In cases where there is no such difficulty

118 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

of understanding the meaning of words, and yet there
is a difference of usage, the form which will adapt
itself most easily to both nations should be adopted.
A comparatively unimportant example will illustrate
this. The region designated, in Matt iv, 25, as beyond
Jordan should be marked, in a new revision, as beyond
the Jordan^ because the latter form of expression is suf-
ficiently in accordance with the usage of the English
people, (although they have a provincial phrase corre-
sponding with the former,) while, on the other hand,
in America it is the only form which is ever employed.

Thirdly, In the representation, in the marginal notes,
of the value of coins, this value should be expressed
according to the money system of both nations. It
would seem clear, that, if the ordinary English reader
should be enlightened as to the relation between the
Greek coins and his own, similar information should
also be given to the American reader.

Fourthly, Mere provincialisms belonging to eithe^
of the two countries should be excluded. Thus the
word translated meat in Matt, iii, 4, should be ren-
dered/ooc?, because this is undoubtedly its true mean-
ing, and because meat, as equivalent to food, is now, as
Dr. Eadie states in his " History of the English Bible,"
a use of that word peculiar to Scotland. These prin-
ciples and rules, indeed, may all be included in the
general one, that a revision designed for the entire
English-speaking world should employ such language
as may best meet the wants of the whole body who
make up that world.

TT. In Hegard to the Greek Text. The principles
wliicli govern the work of revision here also should
doubtless bo conservative. Notwithstanding all that

CHANGES IN THE ENGLISH AND THE GREEK TEXT. 119

has been discovered and determined with reference to
manuscripts and readings since 1611, it may be ques-
tioned whether we have as yet arrived at results
which can be so generally established, to the satisfac-
tion of all, as to render the formation of a universally
received text throughout the 'New Testament possible.
But, where the leading authorities in textual criticism
are united, it can scarcely be regarded, at the present
day, as unwise or improper to adopt the readings
which they accept. Headings of this class, as every
one can perceive, must have such weighty and prepon-
derating evidence in their favor, as to commend them
to the judgment of all unprejudiced persons. It will,
also, be clear to those who have the means of inves-
tigating the subject, that there are cases, in which
the leading authorities differ among themselves, where
a determination as to the true text, and a decision
favorable to a new reading, may safely be made. It
will be better, however, to proceed with much care,
and to introduce no change which cannot be very suc-
cessfully defended, yet, in this department of the revi-
ser's work, it is not essential that he should be as
conservative as he is with regard to the English text.
There are several reasons why it is not.

Mrst^ There is, of course, no such peculiar charm or
influence connected with the style and sound, and mu-
sic if so it may be called, of the original text, which
has taken hold of every Christian mind, as is found in
the language of the English version. Changes in the
Greek may be introduced, here and there, or indeed
frequently, if they are of a minor character, and yet,
provided the general style and rhythm are preserved,
there will be no grating on the ear or the mind.

Secondly/, The prejudice of the conservative party in

120 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

favor of the old English text is more reasonable, than
that which insists upon an unaltered Greek text.
The Greek text on which our translation was founded,
as every person of intelligence in this matter knows,
was derived from a few manuscripts, mostly of sec-
ondary importance, and was prepared at a time when
the greater part of the means which we now have at
command was wholly unknown. The demand that
no alterations shall be made in view of new evidence,
which is brought by large numbers of new witnesses,
and by witnesses of far more value than were pre-
viously examined, is one which would not be pressed
in any other department of knowledge or life. It
surely cannot be one which should be listened to in
such a work as this. Nor will the Christian church,
as it appreciates the facts of the case, justify the re-
visers in so tar yielding to any who make this de-
mand, as to refuse to introduce those alterations which
ought to be adopted.

Thirdly^ The proper determination of the Greek text
is a matter more vitally connected with the precise
thought of the sacred writers, than is the decision
whether a word of the modern or of the earlier Eng-
lish style shall be used. The latter question may be
one of comparatively little importance in many cases,
but the former is one in which all Christians, whose ear-
nest desire must be to know, so far as may be possible,
exactly what the Evangelists and Apostles said, have
the greatest interest. To settle this question accord-
ing to the evidence at command, and with a conscien-
tious regard for the facts of the case, wlji(;h shall be
overborne neither l)y any extreme conservative, nor by
any excessively radical views, should be looked upon
by the reviser as one of his chief duties.

CHANGES IN THE ENGLISH AND THE GREEK TEXT. 121

Fourthly^ In most cases, it is believed, it will be found
that the changes which the weight of manuscript and
other evidence will introduce into the Greek text, will
bring out the thought more clearly and forcibly and
felicitously. Setting aside the passages in which any
doctrinal question may be involved, the presentation of
a few examples of minor alterations, which are favored
by prominent textual critics, will justify this statement.

In Matt, vi, 12, instead of Forgive us our debts, as we
forgive our debtors, the reading should be, as we also
have forgiven our debtors ; the thought being, that the
petitioner should not ask forgiveness for himself un-
til he has already forgiven others. Matt, x, 23, when
they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another, should
read flee ye into the next, thus conveying not merely
the idea of going to some other place, but to the
next town, and so on until they had proclaimed the
gospel everywhere. Mark i, 27, What thing is this?
what new doctrine is this? for with authority commandeth
he even the unclean spirits, etc., should read. What is this?
a new teaching! with authority he commandeth even the
unclean spirits, etc., thus expressing the astonishment of
the beholders at the miracle, which they had seen, in
a far more striking and more natural way. Mark ix,
22, 23, where the father, asking for the healing of his
son, says. If thou canst do any thing, have compassion on
us, and help us, the Authorized Version makes Jesus
reply. If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him
that believeth. But the approved text reads. If thou
canst! All things are possible to him that believeth. The
force of this form, which expresses surprise that the
question of ability should arise, when to the believer
everything is possible, cannot fail to be felt in com-
parison with that given in the old version. In Luke
11

122 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

XV, 17 and 22, the naturalness and emphasis of the
words are conspicuous in the additions of the modern
text ; where the prodigal, in contrasting his condition
with that of his father's servants, says, an^ I perish
here with hunger, (Authorized Version, I perish^) and the
father calls to his attendants to bring forth quickly the
best robe (Authorized Version, bring forth). Luke
xxiii, 15, where the Authorized Version makes Pilate,
after saying that he discovers no fault in Jesus, add,
iVb, nor yet Herod^ for I sent you to him, (the last clause
being a mere parenthetical statement, not in the line
of the main thought,) the change for the better, given
by the new text, will be appreciated as it should be.
No, nor yet Herod, for he sent him back to us — a jiroof
that he also found nothing to condemn. In John x,
4 and 14, the slight alterations are improvements:
When he hath put forth all his own, for his own; and,
I know my sheep and my sheep know me, for I know
my sheep and am known of mine, in which latter verse
the parallelism with what follows is more clearly
brought out, Ureji as the Father knoiceth me and I Imow
the Father. In Acts xviii, 5, it is more in accordance
with the thought of the passage to road, Paul was
engrossed, or irhoUy occupied with the word, than, as in the
Authorized Version, he 7oas pressed in the spirit. Again,
in Acts xxiii, 9, does not the verse gain a new force,
if the scribes on the Pharisees' side are represented as
saying. We find no evil in this man: and 2C hat if a spirit
hath spoken to him, or an angel! instead of, as in the Au-
thorized Version, But if a spirit or an angel hath spoken
to him, let us not fight against God. In 1 Cor. vi, 20, the
exhortation is more comi)letely connected with the
subject under discussion, and therefore is more impres-
sive, if the words of the Authorized Version, and in

CHANGES IN THE ENGLISH AND THE GREEK TEXT. 123

your spirit which are God's, are omitted. The Apostle
has been speaking exclusively of the body, and the best
text makes him limit his exhortation to his converts
accordingly, and call upon them to glorify God in
their bodies. The somewhat obscure passage, 2 Cor.
i, 20, is made clearer if we read, as we are authorized
to do by the evidence in the case, For how many soever
are the promises of God, in him (Christ) is the yea, (i. e.
the confirmation of them ;) wherefore also through him
is the Amen, (i. e. the assent of the church,) unto the
glory of God through us. Gal. v, 1, is more felicitously
expressed by the modern text; For freedom did Christ
free us: standfast therefore, than in the Authorized Ver-
sion, stand fast, therefore, in the liberty with which Christ
hath made us free. In Heb. xii, 7, though some writers
have held that the reading of the Authorized Version
alone is intelligible, the careful reader will approve of
the text as supported by the best authorities, It is for
chastisement that ye endure ; God dealeth with you as with
sons, i. e. when you are called upon to endure suffer-
ings patiently, it is as a parental discipline, and this
discipline is the end which God has in view. And
even in E.ev. xxii, 14, where the strongest evidence is
for the reading, Blessed are they that wash their robes, as
against the Authorized Version, that do his command-
ments, it may fairly be questioned whether it does not
present us with a finer and more natural thought, as it
shows the author, at the close of his words respecting
righteousness, turning back to the source of all true holy
life, the blood of Jesus Christ. Other examples might
be cited, which would be illustrative of the same point,
but the limits of the present article will not allow their
introduction, and those which have been adduced will
be sufficient to establish what has been said.

124 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

Fifthly^ In the cases, comparatively few in number,
in which the state of the evidence indicates that
words or sentences, whose loss will be a matter of
regret, should be changed or omitted, the sound judg-
ment of thinking men will decide that it is better
to give up what does not have a true place in the
Scriptures, than to retain it merely because we have
become familiar with it, and dislike to see it no longer.
For example, in Luke viii, 48, (where the question
of insertion or omission is quite unimportant, since
these words are certainly to be found in the parallel
passage in Matthew,) the words, be of good comfort^
may safely be omitted, because it can be made clear
that the evidence against them is strongly preponder-
ating. If the same fact can be established with regard
to verses of far higher consequence, as those contain-
ing the doxology in the Lord's Prayer, Matt, vi, 13,
or the statement respecting the descent of the angel
at the pool of Bethesda, John v, 3, 4, or the story of
the woman taken in adultery, John vii, 53 to viii, 11,
or the concluding passage of Mark's Gospel, xvi, 9 to
20, it will, within a few years at the latest, and after
the evidence has been candidly considered, be admitted
that the rejection of them altogether, or the indication
in some way of the condition of the case as it actually
stands, is the right course to be taken. If, on the other
hand, in these or other passages, the evidence is more
evenly balanced, but yet is such as to make them doubt-
ful, it will be lield hy candid men everywhere that the
two possible readings ought to be given by the revis-
ers; the one which they judge to be best 8ui)ported, to
be inserted in the text, and the other in the margin.

Sixthly, In the case of i)assages where different read-
ings are found in the Greek text, and where, at the

CHANGES IN THE ENGLISH AND THE GREEK TEXT. 125

same time, doctrines are involved, the course which
has just been alluded to must be the fair and proper
one. Happily these passages are few in number, and
they are not vital to the establishment of the doc-
trines ; but, if the Revision does not deal honestly
with them, it cannot satisfy the enlightened judgment
of the Church. If the evidence in any particular case
stands as ninety or ninety-nine to one against the gen-
uineness of a verse, the verse in question should be
treated accordingly. If it is but as fifty to forty, the
Eevised Version should give the translation of the
better accredited reading in the text, and should add,
in the margin, the alternate reading with some state-
ment as to the degree of support which it can claim.

With respect to all these doubtful passages, and all
those which clearly ought to be rejected, such changes
may be introduced into the Greek text on which our
Authorized Version was founded, as shall prove wor-
thy of adoption either for the text or the margin of
the new Revision, without violating the just demands
of conservatism. On the other hand, no changes of
a more sweeping character can be insisted upon by
those who are not radical in an extreme and unworthy
sense. The constitution of a body like the present
Anglo-American Committee of Revisers, which repre-
sents both countries and many denominations, and the
rules of which require a two-thirds vote for every al-
teration before it can be finally adopted, is the best guar-
antee that, in regard to the Greek text as well as the
English, the progressive element will be sufiiciently
tempered and guided by the conservative, while the
conservative will have the truly healthful influence of
the progressive. By reason of this fact the success of the
'New Revision may be hoped for with great confidence.
11*

THE GEEEK VERB m THE ^^W TESTAMEN^T.

BY THE REV. MATTHEW B. RIDDLE, D.D.,
Professor of New Testament Exegesis in Theological Seminary, Hartford, Conn.

'No revision can present to the English reader all
the exact shades of meaning expressed by the voices,
moods, and tenses of the Greek verb. This must be
admitted at the outset. Yet in many cases greater
accuracy can be secured. It is doubtful whether the
true theory of the Greek tenses was accepted at the
time the Authorized Version was made. It is certain
that a great deal of ignorance still exists on this sub-
ject, even among tliose claiming some scholarship.
If there be one point clearly established, it is that in
Greek a writer used the aorist tense to express an
action conceived of by him as momentary rather than
continuous. Yet a long article in one of our prom-
inent Reviews states that the aorist refers to past time
of indefinite duration. This blunder arose from the
fact that the name aorist means indefinite. But the
indefiniteness of the tense consists mainly in its in-
definite relation to other tenses, and not in its indefi-
nite duration. Hence, the Greeks might express an
action the most definite logically by this grammati-
cally '' indefinite" tense. This example of misappre-
hension may serve as preface to some remarks on the
difiiculty of reproducing the shades of thought ex-
pressed by the Greek verb.

I. The Greek verb has three voices, while the Eng-
lish has only two. It has one more mood than the
English, l)ut this one is of rare occurrence in the New
Testament. The great difficulty lies in the fact that
it not only has tenses for which the English forms

126

THE GREEK VERB IN THE NEW TESTAMENT 127

furnish no exact equivalent, but tenses are carried into
moods, and exist in participial forms altogether un-
known to our grammar. It may be said that a Greek
author had nearly twice as many forms at his com-
mand as we have, each having its distinctive use.
This, of itself, presents a difficulty to the translator.

II. The difficulty is enhanced by another fact. The
distinctions of the Greek verb, especially of the tenses,
are not precisely identical with those of the English
verb. A literal translation of a tense in the former
language into one bearing the same name in the latter
might be very inaccurate. The same is true of Greek
and Latin, German and English. It is rare that two
languages, even when they have the same number of
tenses, present thereby the same distinctions. Just
here, one who speaks a foreign language quite well,
betrays himself most frequently before those " to the
manner born." The Latin has fewer tenses than the
Greek, and these not exactly equivalent to the corre-
sponding Greek ones. Hence, the translators of the
Authorized Version, like all the scholars of that
period, frequently lost sight of the distinctions of the
less familiar language, and used those of the Latin,
which might, in the case of most of them, be called
their second mother-tongue.

It will not be necessary to set forth in detail
here the theory of the Greek tenses. Suffice it to
say, that while the distinctions of past, present, and
future appear in the indicative mood, there is com-
bined with these a distinction of action, whether
as continuous or momentary. In the non-indicative
moods, the latter distinction is the preponderant
one, often the sole one; as, for example, in the im-
peratives, present and aorist. The participles pre-

128 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

sent the same distinction, but they are often only
condensed statements of what might be expressed by
the indicative. Hence, it is often difficult to deter-
mine whether an aorist participle is better translated
by our English past or present participle, i.e., whether
it expresses an action antecedent to or synchronous
with the leading verb. A mechanical student of
Greek grammar has no difficulty here ; as a school-boy
he learned that TU^a.g meant " having struck," and so
he regards all instances as equivalent to the English
perfect participle. The most convenient distinction
of tenses is that between the aorist and imperfect
indicative — the former pointing to a past act viewed
as momentary, the latter to a continued past action.
But in the use of the imperfect there is generally a
reference to some other action, up to which this " im-
perfect" action continued. Hence, the tense may ex-
press only the beginning of an action which was at
once interrupted, or, on the other hand, may refer to
an habitual or long-continued action. The perfect tense
has no equivalent in English, since it refers to what
took place in the past, and continues either as part of
the same action, or as a result of it, up to the present
time of the speaker or writer. Here we may use the
English perfect or present, as seems most ap})ropriate;
but neither of them expresses all that is indicated by
the Greek.

These distinctions are carried over into subjunc-
tive, participial, and infinitive forms, and any one
who bestows a moment's thought will see liow dif-
ficult it is for us, with our English forms, to ex-
press such shades of thought. Tben it will happen
that, there being no exact English equivalent, two
English forms will be equally accurate or inaccurate.

THE GREEK VERB IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 129

It will appear that it is no easy task to make a faith-
ful translation, and also that there is little danger of
any such excellence in the revision as will supersede
the study of the Greek Testament.

III. It may be useful to note some examples where
improvement seems both desirable and J)Ossible, as well
as some where it is impossible. These might be in-
definitely multiplied.

1. The Authorized Version, in hundreds of instances,
renders the Greek aorist by the English perfect. This
is almost always incorrect. The simple English past
tense is well-nigh the exact equivalent of the aorist.
In many cases, indeed, the meaning is scarcely altered
by the more exact rendering, yet frequently the cor-
rection is of great moment. In Matt, i, 25, instead
of " had brought forth," the Greek means " brought
forth;" in ii, 2, "saw" should be substituted for
" have seen." Every chapter of the Gospels probably
contains an instance of this inaccuracy, which occa-
sionally misleads. The use of "is dead" for "died"
is allowable in Matt, ix, 24, and parallel passages, but
in 2 Cor. v, 14, "then were all dead" leads to a mis-
understanding of the passage ; "then [or therefore] all
died" is correct. In Eom. v, 12, "all have sinned,"
"have" is unnecessary and misleading. There is little
need of citing other instances, for there is general
agreement as to the correct English equivalent of the
aorist.

2. In regard to the Greek imperfect, while its force
is recognized by all scholars, there is great difficulty
in determining when we ought to try and retain that
force in English. We can say " he did this " or " he
was doing this" — the former equivalent to the Greek
aorist, and the latter to the Greek imperfect. Yet

130 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

the latter form is cumbrous, and if used constantly
would seriously injure the style. Furthermore, even
this form often fails to express the exact meaning of
the Greek imperfect. In Luke v, 3, "was teaching"
is more accurate than "taught," but it is not necessary
to insist upon the change. In verse 7, however, "their
net brake" is incorrect; the imperfect here means
"began to break," though "their nets were breaking"
is, perhaps, the best emendation. In verse 7, "began
to sink" is the correct translation of a present infini-
tive, which has, in a subordinate clause, the general
force of the imperfect. So in Matt, ii, 22, "was
reigning" is the correct rendering of the present,
according to the Greek conception of dependent
tenses. In Matt, iii, 5, 6, the continued action is ex-
pressed by imperfects, but there seems no necessity for
altering the English tenses, which here logically sug-
gest this. In one class of passages the distinction be-
tween the aorist and imperfect is of importance, and
yet can scarcely be reproduced. In the six accounts
of the miracles of the feeding of the multitudes, the
breaking of the bread is expressed by an aorist; but
in four of the passages (Matt, xv, 36, correct reading
Mark vi, 41, viii, 6 ; Luke ix, 16) the giving of it to
the disciples is descriljed by an imperfect, thus hint-
ing that the Lord kept giving the broken bread as it
multiplied in his hands. In these cases it would
sound harsh to say either "kept giving" or "was giv-
ing." In Gal. i, 13, 23, 24, imperfects occur which
occasion similar difficulty. I'robably in more than
half the cases the distinction cannot be recognized in
a smooth translation.

3. The Greek fcrfed is properly a combination of the
aorist and present, expressing past action with present

THE GREEK VERB IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 131

result. Hence, we must decide which element is pre-
dominant, and translate accordingly. In the common
phrase, "as it is written," the perfect is used, and
, properly rendered by a present; but in Gal. ii, 20, "I
am crucified with Christ," ought to be changed to
" have been crucified," since the emphasis rests on the
past rather than the present, both of them being in-
cluded.

4. Passing to the non-indicative moods, we find that
our forms do not, as a rule, express the distinctions of
the Greek. The present and aorist subjunctive ex-
press respectively continued and momentary action,
contingent on the leading clause, while our potential
mood is not a subjunctive strictly, and by its tenses
seeks to express past, present, and future time.

The imperatives are distinguished in the same way,
but we must translate them all alike, leaving to the
reader to determine whether the action commanded is
once for all or continued. In Matt, v, 12, vi, 1, we
have present imperatives, but in v, 16, 17, vi, 2, 3, we
have the aorist. Further, the imperative in form is
like the indicative, and it is difiicult to decide which
is meant. For example, John vi, 39, may mean " ye
search the Scriptures" or "search the Scriptures," the
context pointing to the former sense. In John xiv, 1,
Matt. V, 48, and other passages, the same question
arises. The infinitives present similar phenomena,
but here there is opportunity for more exactness. The
translation of the participles calls for great care.
The present denotes continuous action, as a rule, and
may be fairly rendered in English ; but the combina-
tions are such as to require skilful handling. The
aorist participle has so often been incorrectly rendered
by an English past participle, that this, and the corre-

132 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

spending misapprehension of the indicative, may be
termed the chief blemishes of the Authorized Version
as respects the verb. The cases where an emendation,
either by the use of the present participle or by a.
change to the indicative structure, would be desirable,
may be numbered by hundreds. The perfect partici-
ple is frequently used in the Greek Testament, but its
sense cannot be exactly expressed in English except
by a paraphrase, as in the case of the indicative.

5. The difference between "be" and "become" is
expressed in Greek by two verbs, which are usually
indiscriminately rendered "be" in the Authorized
Version. In Matt, v, 45, we should read "that ye may
become," etc. Similar cases to the number of sixty or
seventy occur.

6. The middle voice in Greek has no equivalent in
English. It is reflexive, and may sometimes be ex-
pressed by adding the pronouns himself^ themselces, etc. ;
but no rule can be laid down.

It will appear from these remarks how numerous
are the questions which come before the Revisers, how
difficult many of them are from their minuteness.
The effort has been to present to the l^cw Testament
Company every question however minute, and to dis-
cuss at least the possibility of expressing in English
the shades of meaning recognized in the Greek. In
one chapter of the Gospels, containing twenty-three
verses, eleven emendations can be made involving the
moods and tenses, probably half that number must be
passed by. It may be estimated that greater accuracy
can be secured in the vast majority of cases where the
Authorized Version is faulty in its treatment ^of the
Greek verb.

UI^WARRANTED VERBAL DIFFERE]!TCES AI^D
AGREEMENTS IN THE ENGLISH VERSION.

BY PROF. J. HENRY THAYER, D.D.,

Andover Theological Seminary.

King James's translators, towards the close of
their address " To the Reader," remark: ''We have
not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing or
to an identity of words. . . . That we' should ex-
press the same notion in the same particular word, as
for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek
word once by purpose, never to call it inknt . . . thus
to mince the matter we thought to savour more of
curiosity than wisdom . . ."

This decision to disregard verbal identity, provided
the sense did not suffer, was a grave error. By trans-
lating the same word in the original by different Eng-
lish words, distinctions are inevitably suggested where
they do not exist ; on the other hand, by rendering dif-
ferent words in the original in one and the same way,
differences in the sacred writers' thought are hidden
from the modern reader. No sensible man, it is true,
would think of making one word in English uni-
formly answer for each particular Greek or Hebrew
term ; nevertheless, in translating such a book as the
Bible, the one supreme religious authority recognized
by all Protestant Christians — in which, moreover, the
change of a Avord may involve the change of a doc-
trine— the greatest pains should be taken neither to
confound things which differ, nor to create differences
where they do not exist.

Not that, with all our pains, it is possible always to
12 133

134 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

reproduce in a modern tongue the precise distinctions
of the ancient. Languages differ in this respect ; and
even when the modern tongue is not, in general, infe-
rior to the ancient in the capacity for nice discrimina-
tions, it will often deviate from it widely in those it
actually makes. The distinctions, for example, which
the Greek makes between the various words signifying
to know^ cannot well be reproduced in English. The
evil spirit's reply to the sons of Sceva (Acts xix, 15,)
might indeed be rendered, " Jesus I know and Paul
I am acquainted witlu'' and our Lord's answer to Peter
(John xiii, 7,) would be fairly represented by " What
I do thou knowest not now, but thou shalt understand
hereafter ; " but it is not easy to mark the distinction
in such passages as these : 1 Cor. ii, 11, " What man
knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of a man
which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth
no man, but the Spirit of God ; " 2 Cor. v, 16, " Hence-
forth know we no man after the flesh : yea, though we
hare known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth
knoiu we him no more;" John xxi, 17, "Lord, thou
knowest all things ; thou knowest that I love thee." Or
again, take the verbs denoting to love : the touching
suggestiveness of the interchange of words in the three-
fold " Lovest thou me ? " with its reply, in the passage
last cited, must lie hidden from an English reader by
reason of our poverty of speech ; so, too, must the
delicacy with which the Evangelist in chap, xi, after
saying (ver. 3,) " Lord, behold, he whom thou lovest is
sick," instinctively substitutes a less emotional term,
when he conies (in ver. 5) to associate the name of
Jesus prominently with the name of a woman: "Now
Jesus lorcd Martba, and her sister, and Lazarus."
On the other hand, it must be confessed that our

VERBAL DIFFERENCES AND AGREEMENTS. 135

occidental taste in matters of rhetoric — or rather our
English taste, for it is doubtless traceable mainly to
the influence of the blended ISTorman and Saxon ele-
ments in our language — makes us like a euphonious
change in the phraseology, even when there is no
change in the sense. Such passages as the following :
Matt, xii, 5, 7, " Have ye not read how that . . . the
priests . . . profane the Sabbath and are blameless? . . .
But if ye had known what this meaneth ... ye would
not have condemned the guiltless ; " Matt xxv, 32, '' He
shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd
divideth his sheep from the goats;" 1 Cor. xii, 4 sq,,
" Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
And there are differences of administrations, but," etc. ;
Rev. xvii, 6, 7, " I wondered with great admiration. And
the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel ? "
Jas. ii, 2, 3, '' If there come unto your assembly a man
with a gold ring, in goodly apparel^ and there come in
also a poor man in vile raiment ; and ye have respect
to him that weareth the gay clothing,^'' etc., most read-
ers, looking merely at the English^ would prefer to let
stand as they are, rather than to su])stitute in each some
single identical term for the words in italics, as con-
formity to the Greek requires. Yet, on consideration,
we see that the biblical translator mistakes his duty,
who compels even the ancient and oriental taste of his
author to yield to that which is occidental and modern.
But our translators' disregard of verbal coincidences
and variations involves what is far more important
than any mere question of taste. Positive obscurities,
amounting sometimes to unintelligibility, are due to
it. "What plain reader understands the saying (John
xiii, 10), " He that is washed needeth not save to wash
his feet, but is clean every whit " ? Yet it becomes

136 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

luminous when the sacred writer's change of terms is
heeded : " He that hath taken a hath needeth not save to
wash his feet [soiled even in coming from the water],
but is clean every whit." What unlettered man is not
thrown into perplexity when he reads, Matt, xxiii, 35,
" of Zacb arias son of Barachias, slain between the tem-
ple and the altar " ? Was " the altar," then, not in
" the temple " ? The clue to extricate him from his per-
plexity is given him when the translator distinguishes
— as the original author does — " the sanctuary,'' or
inner shrine, from " the temple," or sacred precincts
as a whole. To many a child our Lord, in addressing
(Luke xxiv, 25,) the two disciples on the way to Em-
maus as '-'-Fools and slow of beart to believe," has
seemed to lie open to the judgment pronounced by
himself (Matt, v, 22,) upon " Whosoever shall say to
his brother, thou /ooP'^ the verbal identity in English
completely hiding from a childish vision the radical
difference between the cases. Every reader, on the
other hand, would naturally judge that Luke makes a
far more sweeping statement than the preceding Evan-
gelists, when he is represented as saying (xxiii, 44),
" There was darkness over all the earth,'' where they
only use " land."

And though this mistaken mode of translating may
not often hide the meaning of the biblical language, it
frequently blunts its point. That noteworthy declara-
tion by Clirist respecting himself (Jobn viii, 58), '' Be-
fore Abrabam was, I am," gains greatly in force when
the distinction between the passing nature of the former
half of the statement and the permanence of the latter,
marked in tbe Greek by the choice of two different
verbs, is brought out in translation : "Before Abraham
came into hrinf/, I am." Paul's reasoning in Uom. vii, 7, 8

VERBAL DIFFERENCES AND AGREEMENTS. 137

— " I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou
shalt not covet. But sin, taking occasion by the com-
mandment, wrought in me all manner of coiicitpiscence''
— seems to an English reader to halt, when, had the
translators but followed the apostle in describing -the
sin as it is described in the commandment, the sequence
would have been as close in appearance as it is in fact :
"I had not known coveMng except the law had said,
Thou shalt not covet. But sin . . . wrought in me all
manner of coveting.'' The rdteration of " comfort " in
the opening of the Second Epistle to the Corinthians
has made many a believer's heart pulsate in blessed
response ; what a pity, then, that our translators wearied
of the word sooner than the apostle did, who writes:
" Blessed be God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, the Father of mercies and the God of all com-
fort^ who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we
may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble
by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of
God. For as the sufferings of Christ abound in us,
so our consolation [comforf] also aboundeth by Christ.
And whether we be afflicted it is for your consolation
[comforf] and salvation ... or whether we be comforted
it is for your consolation [comforf] and salvation . . .
Knowing that as ye are partakers of the sufferings, so
shall ye be also of the consolation [comforf].''

These infelicities are too numerous to be classified
here. Our present limits will permit us only to enu-
merate— with the addition of an example or two by
way of illustration — some of their unfortunate effects :

I. They are an impediment to the study of the Bible.

For they deprive the student of the light often shed

on the meaning of a word by its use in other passages,

as exhibited in an English concordance. He comes,

12*

138 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

for instance, upon the word " atonement " in Rom. v,
11 ; and, so far as he can discover, it occurs nowhere
else. But a correct translation would have enabled
him to recognize the term made familiar elsewhere as
"reconciliation." So in investigating the nature of
biblical " hope," he is baffled by the ftict that eighteen
times out of thirty-two the translators have rendered
the verb by "trust," — thus virtually confounding the
first two of Paul's triad of graces. And as respects
the third, " charity," why should it be known by this
name almost invariably in the First Epistle to the
Corinthians, and have to be looked for under the head-
ing " love " in more than fourscore instances elsewhere ?

II. Again, they tend to conceal from the English
reader delicate allusions and correspondences. 'No
doubt the language in 1 Pet. iii, 14 as it stands — " If
ye sutler for righteousness' sake, happ)/ are ye " —
])rompts a reader to think that the apostle had our
Lord's Beatitude in mind ; but the allusion would
have become indubitable, had the translators retained
here the ^'•Blessed " of Matt, v, 10. And who would
imagine that the quotation given in Heb. iv, 3, "J.s I
have SW0711 in my wrath, Jf they shall enter into my
rest," agrees verbatim in the Greek with the quota-
tion given just before (Heb. iii, 11), "*S'o I sware in my
wrath. The// shall not enter into my rest;" while the
liardly intelligible Hebrew idiom " //' the)/ shall'' is
rendered in the Old Testament, ^^ Sunb/ the)/ shall not.''

III. Akin to the evil just mentioned is the obscurity
thrown on some of the relations existing between the
several parts of the sacred volume.

The Epistle to the Komans, for instance, has many
points of verbal agreement with that to the Galatians,
80 has Ephesians with Colossians, 2 Peter with Jude;

VERBAL DIFFERENCES AND AGREEMENTS.

139

but the English reader is hampered, in making such
comparisons, by his uncertainty as to whether appa-
rent agreements and differences are real or not. Does
the Epistle to the Hebrews resemble in style the Epis-
tles of Paul? The evidence of the best translations
on such a point is necessarily inferior to that of the
originals. But surely an English Bible student is en-
titled to a more truthful representation of the facts in
the case than is afforded by the following parallel, in
which the italicized words and phrases are all from
the same Greek root :

"Thou hast put all things in
siibjection under his feet. For
in that he put all in subjection
under him, he left nothing that
is not put wider him. But now
we see not yet all things put un-
der him." — Heb. ii, 8.

"For he hath put all things
under his feet ; but when he saith,
All things are put under Jiim^ it
is manifest that he is excepted
which did put all ilAn^s, under
him. And when all things shall
be suMued unto him, then shall
the Son also himself be sudject
unto him that put all things un-
der him, that God may be all in
all."— 1 Cor. XV, 27, 28.

Learned men are discussing the relation of the first
three Gospels to each other, and to some common oral
or written source. But how can we follow such dis-
cussions with our English Bibles, when verbally iden-
tical passages are made to differ as follows :

" Beware of the scribes, which
love to go in long clothing, and
love salutations in the marhet-
places, and the cAi<?/ seats in the
synagogues, and the uppermost
rooms at feasts: which devour
widows' houses, and for a pre-
tence make long prayers." — Mark
xii, 38 s€[.

" Beware of the scribes, which
desire to walk in long roljes, and
love greetings in the marhets, and
the highest seats . in the syna-
gogues, and the chief rooms at
feasts: which devour widows'
houses, and for a shew make
long prayers." — Luko xx, 46
sq.

140 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

We are not even put in a position always to judge
correctlj' respecting the identity of the several incidents
and discourses recorded by the diiferent Evangelists.
Surely our translators could not have had the fear of
the modern Sunday-school superintendent before their
eyes when they translated the Lord's Prayer in Mat-
thew (vi, 10), " Thy will be done in earth., as it is in
heaven,'' but in Luke (xi, 2), " Thy will be done as in
heaven, so in earth.''

IV. Further, the translators' neglect of verbal dis-
crimination hides in a measure from the English reader
the individuality of the biblical writers. These writers
may be recognized, as we recognize modern authors,
by their fovorite words and turns of expression. Take
Mark, for example, who is sometimes represented as
the mere epitomizer of Matthew and Luke ; his per-
sonality as a writer manifests itself in a fondness for
particular classes of words, yes, strikingly in the use of
a single adverb — "immediately," or better, "straight-
way." So familiar a word is found, of course, in the
other two writers; Init it occurs in Mark nearly twice
as often as in botli the others put together. Yet so
characteristic and simple a term as this has received
-^ve different renderings, viz., "straightway," "imme-
diately," "forthwith," "anon," "as soon as," while
elsewhere in the New Testament it is also translated
"by and by" and "shortly." Still more numerous,
and if possible more marked, are the words character-
istic of John. Among them are the verbs to atnde and
to bear ivitness. Yet the former in our translation has
seven different representatives, viz., abide, remain, con-
tinue, tarry, (Uvcll, endure, be present — the iirst three being
brought together in a single verse of the First Epistle
(ii, 24) ; and the latter is translated ivitness, bear wit-

VERBAL DIFFERENCES AND AGREEMENTS. 141

ness, bear record, testify, and (in the passive) have good
report.

Paul's peculiarities as a writer are too salient not to
stand out even in a translation which should take no
pains to preserve them. The truthfulness of Pale3^'s
description of him, " off at a word,'' is so generally
recognized that the phrase has become proverbial.
" Use this world as not abusing it," (1 Cor. vii, 31,)
and other -of his pointed sayings, have taken rank as
popular maxims. His mental agility and adroitness
in availing himself of t?he very language of opponents
is now as piquant as a repartee, now as convincing as
an argument. An oft-quoted instance, preserved by
our translators, is that in Acts xxvi, 28, "Almost thou
persuadest me," etc. ; only it is to be regretted that
they have chosen a translation which the Greek will
not bear. But another instance on the same occasion
they have seen fit to conceal. Paul's declaration, " I
am not mad," is his dignified denial of the exact lan-
guage of a charge which they have diluted into,
" Thou art beside thyself," (Acts xxvi, 24.) Still less
felicitously have they reproduced his retort to those
at Athens who spoke of him as '' a setter forth of
strange gods." His allusion to this disparaging term
is hidden, and again that to the inscription on the
altar, " To an unknown god," is quite perverted by
their rendering : " Whom therefore ye ignorantly wor-
ship, him declare I unto you."

V. But still more unfortunate is the translators' in-
difference to verbal agreements and variations when
it affects matters of doctrine. ]^ot often, probably,
is a reader found so ignorant as to infer a diff'er-
ence of meaning from the change of rendering in
Matt. XXV, 46, '' These shall go away into everlasting

142 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

punishment, but the righteous into life etemaf But
the confusion occasioned by translating "Hades" and
''Gehenna" identically in every instance but one is
not so harmless. The uniform transfer of the quasi-
proper name '' Devil," corresponding to the Hebrew
"Satan," to those beings called "demons" by the
orio-inal writers is also to be reocretted. The unwar-
ranted insertion of " should " in Acts ii, 47 (com-
pare on the other hand, 1 Cor. i, 18 ; 2 Cor. ii, 15), —
properly, " them that ivere being saved," — has probably
ceased to start false theological suggestions ; but un-
doubtedly most readers understand the words of Christ
to Bartimseus in Luke (xviii, 42), " Thy faith hath
saved thee," to be of immeasurably higher import than
the declaration in Mark (x, 52), " Thy faith hath made
thee whole.^^ That the original term, indeed, may
refer to spiritual healing is by no means impossible.
In the case of the "woman which was a sinner"
(Luke vii, 50), it clearly covers the forgiveness of
sins. So that if it were a translator's design to inti-
mate that the expression is ambiguous in the Greek,
the variation in rendering would perhaps be allowable,
provided in each case the alternate translation were
given in the margin (as is actually done in Mark).
In any event, however, the English reader should
know that the language is the same in both Evangel-
ists, and the same which is elsewhere (Matt, x, 22 ;
Mark v, 34 ; Luke viii, 48,) commonly rendered, "Thy
faith hath made thee whole." A single additional
illustration : every reader of Paul knows the impor-
tance he attaches to the doctrine tliat " faith " is
" reckoned as righteousness." But the proof-text from
the Old Testament (Gen. xv, G) on which tbe doctrine
rests is given difierently by our translation every time

VERBAL DIFFERENCES AND AGREEMENTS. 143

Paul quotes it (Rom. iv, 3, compare ix, 22 ; Gal. iii, 6) ;
and the verb itself, which may be called one of his
technical theological terms, and which constitutes the
very warp of his argument in Rom. iv, being used
eleven times within the compass of twenty-two verses,
receives there three different render ino-s.

[N'ow, let it be repeated, that it is not always prac-
ticable to preserve identity of language in English
where it exists in the original. Sense is more impor-
tant than sound. The interests of the former, there-
fore, sometimes dictate the sacrifice of the latter.
But it is evident that any fresh attempt at revision
must proceed upon the opposite principle to that
whiqh was unfortunately adopted by King James's
revisers.

AECHAISMS, OR OBSOLETE AND UMJSUAL
WORDS OR PHRASES, IK THE ENGLISH
BIBLE.

BY REV. HOWARD CROSBY, D.D., LL.D.,

Chaucellor of the University of New York.

The literature of a language selves to check its
changes, but not to stop them. A living language
must grow, and in the growth new words not only
supply new ideas, but become substitutes for old words.
The English of the fourteenth century had to be read
with a glossary in the sixteenth century ; but the three
hundred years that have elapsed since Queen Elizabeth
have not so altered the language as the preceding two
centuries had done. The abundant literature of the
latter period accounts for this difference, our English
Bible of 1611 having probably had the most influence
in this result.

It is not the archaisms of our En2:lish Bible which
constitute the most important reason for a revised
translation. Erroneous or obscure renderings form a
far more conspicuous argument. But yet it is very
true that there are many words and phrases in the re-
ceived version which the ordinary reader would be
likely to misunderstand, the words themselves having
become obsolete, or their significations (or modes of
spelling) having undergone a change. We append the
following as specimens:

I. Change in Spelling. — " The fats shall overflow
with wine and oil" (Joel ii, ^4), for "vats." "Lest
he hale thee to the judge" (Luke xii, 58), for "haul,"
and '•'•hoised up the mainsail to the wind " (Acts xxvii,

lU

ARCHAISMS IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 14'5

40), for " hoisted." " He overlaid their chapiters with
gold " (Ex. xxxvi, 38), for " capitals." "And sat down
astonied " (Ezra ix, 3), for " astonished." "Or ever the
earth was " (Prov. viii, 23), for " ere." So we find
heivray (betray), magnifical (magnificent), and delicates
(delicacies). Many of these archaisms in spelling have
been omitted in more modern editions of our version,
as leese for " lose," sith for " since," doke for " cloak."
The old plural " hosen," however, still remains, in Dan.
iii, 21, for "hose."

II. Obsolete Words. — "And they shall pass through
it, hardly bestead'^ (Isa. viii, 21), for "served." "Be-
sides that which chapmen and merchants brought" (2
Chron. ix, 14), for "market-men." "Old shoes and
clouted upon their feet " (Josh, ix, 5) ; " took thence
old cast clouts'' (Jer. xxxviii, 11), for "patched" and
"patches." "!N"either is there any daysman betwixt
us" (Job ix, 33), for "umpire." " Thou shalt make
them to be set in ouches of gold" (Ex. xxviii, 11),
for "sockets." "Doves tabering upon their breasts"
(!N'ahum ii, 7), for " drumming." " The lion filled his
dens with ravin'" (Il^ahum ii, 12), for "plunder." "He
made fifty taches of gold " (Ex. xxxvi, 13), for " catches."
So earing (ploughing), eschew (shun), habergeon (coat of
mail), hough (hamstring), kine (cows), and leasing (lying).
"We may add to these many of the names of animals,
precious stones, etc., as giereagle^ ossifrage, behemoth,
leviathan (these last two being the Hebrew words
untranslated), sardius, ligure, bdellium,

III. Words Obsolete in their Significations. —
These are the most numerous and most important of
Bible archaisms, because they are likely to be unno-

13

146 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

ticed, and the reader will thus form a wrong notion
of the meaning of a statement. The manifest archa-
isms will always set one upon his guard, and lead
him to investigate ; but these words, having a per-
fectly familiar look, suggest no need of inquiry.
Who would imagine that Ezekiel, saying, Vas an
adamant, harder than flint " (Ezek. iii, 9), and Zech-
ariah, saying, " they made their hearts as an adamant
stone,'' both referred to a " diamond"? The Hebrew
word here translated " adamant " is translated " dia-
mond " in Jer. xvii, 1. The abjccts, in Ps. xxxv, 15,
are the "dregs of the people." The apothecary, in
Ex. XXX, 25, 35; xxxvii, 29, and Eccl. x. 1, is not
our druggist, or preparer of medicines, but simply a
"maker of unguents." Aha, in Ps. xxxv, 21, and
many other places, is not an exclamation of one catch-
ing another in evil (as it now is used), but of one
exulting over an enemy, and is equivalent to our
"hurrah!" Admired and admiration, in 2 Thess. i, 10,
Jude 16, and Rev. xvii, 6, have the old meaning of
" wondered at " and " wonder," and not the modern
one of delighted appreciation. Affect, in Gal. iv, 17,
has the signification of " seek after zealously " (the
Latin " affectare," rather than " afficere "). The pass-
age means, " They seek after you, but not well ; yea,
they would shut you out from us, that ye might seek
after them ; but it is good to be sought after* always
in a good thing." The Greek verb is t,r\\6t^, " to desire
emulously," " to strive after." In Judges ix, 53, " all
to brake his skull " is usually understood as if it were
"all to break his skull," i. e., " in order to break,"
whereas, "all to" is archaic for "thoroughly," or

* Perhaps the middle sense " to be hnpelled by zeal " is correct
here.

ARCHAISMS IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 147

"completely.'^ Atonement^ in the Old Testament, is
the translation of the Hebrew " chopher," a ransom,
or a cover for sins. See Ex. xxix, 36, and forty or
fifty other places. But it really means " at-one-ment,"
or " reconciliation," the result of the ransom or cover.
In the ]S"ew Testament the word occurs only once
(Rom. V, 11), where it means " reconciliation," (Greek,
xaraXKayiijv ;) but this meaning is now obsolete. The
modern botch is used exclusively for a clumsy patch
or job ; but in Deut. xxviii, 27, it means " ulcer."
Bravery^ in Isa. iii, 18, signifies "splendor." Who
recognizes in the camphire of Solomon's Song i, 14
and iv, 13 (which suggests camphor 1) the sweet-smell-
ing "cypress"? and who imagines that the caterpillar
of the Old Testament is a locust with wings ? The
charger, in i^Tum. vii, 13 and Matt, .xiv, 8, is a dish,
and not a horse ; the ladder of Gen. xxviii, 12 is ?^
staircase; the turtle of Solomon's Song ii, 12, and Jer.
viii, 7, is not a tortoise, but a dove; and the nephews
of Jud. xii, 14 ; 1 Tim. v. 4 ; Job xviii, 19 ; Isa. xiv,
22, are grandsons. The pommels of 2 Chron. iv, 12
have nothing to do with saddles, but are " globes "
resting on the summits of the columns. The word
" quick " is almost always misunderstood in Ps. cxxiv,
3, " they had swallowed us up qidck,'^ as if it meant
" rapidly." The passage means, " they had swallowed
us up alive." Prevent, in Scripture means, " not pre-
vent" [i. e., anticipate), and let means " not let " {i. e.,
hinder), so completely have these words turned over
in signification. The latter is still used in law phrase
as "hinder." Deal, in "tenth deal" (Ex. xxix, 40),
means "part." Outlandish, in Neh. xiii, 26, means
simply " foreign." Its modern meaning is " clownish."
The fenced cities of Num. xxxii, 17, are "walled"

148 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

cities, and the hold of Judges ix, 46 ; 1 Sam. xxii, 4,
is a " stronghold." We use "peep" for the eyes al-
most altogether ; hut in Isa. viii, 19 ; x, 14, it is used
of the mouth — " the wizards that peep.^' The same
word is translated " chatter " in Isa. xxxviii, 14. Intreat
(which with us means " beseech") is used for " treat,"
as in Gen. xii, 16. Ensue (French, ensuwre) is read
in 1 Pet. iii, 11 for ''pursue." JEmdeMtli/ and compre-
hend are now used of mental conditions, but in the
Bible we find them used of physical conditions. '' He
saw in a vision evidently'' {i e., clearly), Acts x, 3;
^'comprehended the dust of the earth in a measure"
{i e., grasped), Isa. xl, 12; so John i, 5.

Conversation^ in Scripture, never refers to speech,
but always means " manner or course of life." Curi-
ous mistakes have been made even in the pulpit, by
not observing this. Comfort, in the present use, signi-
fies " soothing ; " but in old English it had the force
of the Latin confortare, and meant '' strengthening."
" Comfort one another with these words," in 1 Thess.
iv, 18, is equal to " strengthen one another," etc.
Damn and damnation are simply " condemn " and " con-
demnation," as in Eom. xiv, 23 and 1 Cor. xi, 29.
"They shall dote,'' in Jer. 1, 36, is "they shall become
foolish." In Zech. i, 21, the carpenters came to fray
the horns, and the reader supposes that this must
mean " to plane " or " to saw ; " but it means only " to
frighten." Honest (Rom. xii, 17) and honcsti/ (1 Tim.
ii, 2) have not their present meanings, ])ut are equiva-
lent to our "honorable" and "honor." So modest
(1 Tim. ii, 9) is our " moderate" or " seemly." Unc-
Hon, in 1 John ii, 20, ha-s the meaning of "anointing"
(spiritually considered), while our modern use of unc-
tion is rather as "earnestness." Vocation (Eph. iv, 1)

ARCHAISMS IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 149

is the " calling " of God to be Christians, and not the
trade or the occupation of life. Go to (as in James
V, 1) is our modern "come," while "we do you to
wit" (2 Cor. viii, 1) is the translation of two Greek
words meaning, " we certify you." "We do you to
wit " is, literally translated into modern English,
" We make you to know." We might add another
list of words whose signification has undergone a
slight shade of change since King James's day, which
the reader is almost sure to miss, but we have already
surpassed our limits.

Since writing the above. Dr. Ezra Abbot has kindly
sent me an additional list of examples, which I append.

1. Changes i?i Spelling. — In the edition of 1611 we
find aliant or alient for alien ; clift for cleft ; chaivs for
jaws ; cise for size ; fet for fetched (very often) ; flixe for
fliix (Acts XX viii, 8) ; grinne for gin ; moe for more (re-
peatedly); ought for owed (Matt, xviii, 24, 28; Luke
vii, 41); price for prize (1 Cor. ix, 24; Phil, iii, 14);
rent for rend (often) ; then for than (constantly) ; utter
for outer.

2. Obsolete Words. — Boiled = swollen, podded for
seed (Exod. ix, 31) ; broided = braided {not broidered),
(1 Tim. ii, 9) ; bruit = report (Jer. x, 22; ^ah. iii, 19);
neese^ neesing = sneeze, sneezing (2 Kings iv, 35 ; Job
xli, 18). "" •

3. Words Obsolete in their Significations. — Artillery^
bow and arrows (1 Sam. xx, 40) ; by and by = im-
mediately (Mark vi, 25 ; xiii, 21 ; Luke xvii, 7 ; xxi,
9) ; careful == anxious (Phil, iv, 6) ; careless = free from
care (Judges xviii, 7; and so carelessly^ Isa. xlvii, 8,
etc.) ; carriage = baggage (1 Sam. xvii, 22 ; Isa. x, 28 ;
Acts xxi, 15) ; coasts = borders, territory (very often),
to fetch a compass (Acts xxviii, 13) ; set a compass

13*

150 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

(Prov. viii, 27); convince ^convict (John viii,46; James
ii, 9); desii'e =^ regret (Lat. desiderare\ (2 Chron. xxi,
20); discover = uncoYer (often); frankly = freely (Luke
vii,42); instant=^ earnest and instantly = earnestlj (Luke
vii, 4); ^iAi?2^ ^condition (Job xxxix, 4); ivith the man-
ner = in the act (ITum. v, 13); ??m/yify= applied to iigs
(Jer.xxiv, 2); occi(pi/=^use ; deal in trade (Exod. xxxviii,
24; Judg. xvi, 11 ; Ezek. xxvii, 9, 16, 19, 21, 22; Luke
xix, 13); overrun=^ outrun (2 Sam. xviii, 23); painful,
not "distressing," but hard^ difficult (Ps. Ixxiii, 16);
^proper = beautiful, goodly (Heb. xi, 23); jmrchase, not
"buy," but gain, acquire (1 Tim. iii, 13); having in a
readiness = being ready (2 Cor. x, 6); road (make a
road) = raid (1 Sam. xxvii, 10); sometime or sometimes =
formerly; suddenly = hastily , rashly (1 Tim. v, 22);
take thought=he anxious (1 Sam. ix, 5; Matt, vi, 25);
upperynost ^ rooms =high.est or most honorable places
(Matt, xxiii, 6); usury =intereSt (Matt, xxv, 27); ivealth
= weal, welfare (Ezra ix, 12; Esther x, 3; 1 Cor. x,
24); a wealthy place (Ps. Ixvi, 12); the wealthy nation
(Jer. xlix, 31) ; worship = honor (Luke xiv, 10); witty =
wise, ingenious (Prov. viii, 12); tree =heam. of wood,
applied to a gallows, and especially to the cross. See
the article Tree in the American edition of Smith's
Bible Dictionary.

THE PROPER :N'AMES OF THE BIBLE.

BY KEV. CHARLES A. AIKEN, D.D.,

Professor in the Theological Seminary at Princeton, N. J.

Any complete revision of our English version of
the Scriptures must bring under review its proper
names. The conservative spirit which is pledged in
connection with the Anglo-American Revision now in
progress, must protect them from unnecessary change.
The question, therefore^ is not. What alterations can
be justified to scholars ? but rather. What are needed
in carrying out the proper and declared aims of the
undertaking?

Unlearned readers of our Scriptures, if at all observ-
ant, encounter inconsistencies and are perplexed by
obscurities that ought to be removed. 'Nov can it be
regarded as a forced construction put upon the de-
mands of " faithfulness," if, within proper limits, the
names of persons, .peoples, places, etc., be made to con-
form somewhat more closely to their original cast.
Bible names are often significant ; and piety may be
helped as well as knowledge, when the religious idea
embodied in many of these names is more clearly con-
veyed through the improved form given to them. If
this work were an essay in '■■' spelling reform," the at-
tempt would be made to carry out a rigorously con-
sistent system of transliteration, even though the
reader might need a new introduction to Jizchak and
Ribhkah^ and many a family or locality besides. A
smile would be very likely to greet Bmjamin,

Changes in Proper Names. — In many cases the
familiar proper names of our old version, and our

151

152 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

Biblical and Christian literature, will remain undis-
turbed, although scholars may be aware that this con-
sonant and that vowel are not represented by an exact
equivalent.

He would be unwise who would disturb names like
Abel, Job, Solomon, Balaam, Euphrates, Eve, even though
some of them may conform to the Greek of the LXX
rather than to the more original Hebrew, and others
to neither.

The general guiding principle should evidently be,
that the Hebrew original ought to determine the form
of Old Testament names, and the Greek that of names
peculiar to the ISTew Testament. Names common to
both should consistently follow the older type. Ex-
ceptional treatment will be readily allowed in the case
of names which are quite conspicuous and familiar in
their present form in the Biblical narratives, and also
in the case of those which have a common modern use.
These it would not be wise to unsettle.

Inconsistencies in Names. — What changes are desir-
able ? Plainly (1) changes that remove inconsistencies within
the same Testament. "When one word in the original
is rendered by several different forms in the trans-
lation, the common reader is led astray. What is
asserted of one person or place he understands of a num-
ber. When the familiar plaoe Gaza is called Azzah in
Deut. ii, 23 ; 1 Kings iv, 24 ; Jer. xxv, 20, tlie greater
correctness of the form is no compensation for the
loss of the identification; and for a jdace so well
known tlie more familiar form should be retained.
(There is room for diiference of opinion as to the
desirableness of using the margin to instruct common
readers in such matters.) If in the New Testament

THE PROPER NAMES OF THE BIBLE. 153

the famous city of the Phoenicians might he called
Sidon, after the Greek form of its name, there is no
reason why in the Old Testament the otherwise uni-
form rendering Zidon should be abandoned in Gen. x,
15, 19. While double forms like Abiah and Abijah,
Uriah and Urijah^ may suggest that the Hebrew name
has two different although closely related forms (from
both of which the Greek form differs slightly), and
while different forms of the name might be arbi-
trarily assigned to different persons, it only increases
confusion when two forms are employed of the same
person, e. g.^ 1 Chron. iii, 10 ; 2 Chron. xii, 16, and
2 Kings xvi, 10 ; Isa. viii, 2. There is no apparent
reason for describing the same person as Eaos in Gen.
V, and Enosh in 1 Chron i, 1, the form of the Hebrew
name being the same in both cases ; so with Seth and
Sheth. There is nothing gained by calling the same man
Phuvah in Gen. xlvi, 13, Pua in ]^um. xxvi, 23, and
Puah in 1 Chron. vii, 1, although there may be two
slightly different forms to the Hebrew name. It may
be a convenience to have three forms, Enoch, Henoch,
and Hanoch, to represent one Hebrew name as borne
by four persons, but it is not helpful to have two of
these forms applied to the same person (Gen. xxv, 4,
and 1 Chron. i, 33). Common readers should be saved
all occasion to ask whether Jared and Jered, Gazer and
Gezer, Phallu and Pallu, Pharez and Perez, Zerah and
Zarah, Shelah and Salah, are two names or one. The
friendship of David and Jonathan has become prover-
bial and typical ; why introduce the latter occasionally
as Jehonathan, in rigid recognition of the fact that the
Hebrew name has two forms? The same principle
applies to Joram and Jehoram, and several other pairs of
names. TliQ^Cainan of Gen. v and Kenan of 1 Chron. i

154 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

are not understood by common ireaders to be the
same name of the same person. Ai and Hai^ Uz and
Hkz, are double forms, which if retained not only
mislead, but chronicle an error.

The inconsistent treatment of forms like Jidlaph and
Jimnah as compared with Iscah and Ishbak, or of Jethro
and Ithrcoi, is a matter of much less consequence; for
here no confusion results. And yet whatever can be
done quietly with inconspicuous names will justify
itself to scholars with little disturbance to others.
Linguistic or phonetic faithfulness is neither dishonor
to the Word in its spirituality, nor excessive scrupu-
lousness about its form. Yet such an endeavor should
be cautious in its treatment of names conspicuous in
the Biblical narratives ; and all the more if from the
Bible they have passed to any extent into our modern
nomenclature.

There is, of course, no good reason why Ishmeelite
should be conscientiously printed in Gen. xxxvii and
xxxix, and in 1 Chron. ii, and the more correct Ish-
maelite everywhere else ; nor why Zebulunite should
always be found in JSTura. xxvi, and Zebulonite in
Judges xii.

In the j^ew Testament there can be no advantage
gained by perpetuating such double forms as Noah and
jVoc, Sinai and Slna^ Sodom and Sodoma, Canaan and
Chanaan, Jeremias and Jeremy, Phevicia and Phenice
(with the additional reason in this case that Phenice is
used in Acts xxvii, 12, to translate inaccurately another
name). The common reader does not need to be told
in the very text of his Bible how tlie Greek and He-
brew forms of such names may differ. Much less does
he need to be drawn aside to tliink of the contrast be-
tween old English forms and the Hebrew and Greek.

THE PROPER NAMES OF THE BIBLE. 155

HARMONizma of I^ames. — There may be room for
more divided judgment in respect to (2) changes that
loould harmonize the forms of proper names common to the
two Testaments. These discrepancies are usually due to
differences between the Hebrew forms and those of the
LXX and the E'ew Testament Greek. Our version of
the New Testament generally conforms its proper names
in such cases to the Greek type. This is not, however,
always done ; e. g., David, Reuben, Issachar, Samson, Sa-
rah, and Sodom (except in Rom. ix, 29), are given in
their familiar and not in their. Greek form.

To the ends for which our version exists, what is
contributed by disguising under a Grecian garb the
names that have already become well known ? Why
introduce the patriarch Judah as Judas and Juda, or
the prophet Jonah as Jonas f Ahijah, Ahaz, and Asher,
are well known ; who are Abia, Achaz, and Aser f '^o
help is given to " doctrine, reproof, correction, and in-
struction in righteousness," by confusing to common
readers the identity of those whose words are quoted,
or whose deeds and experiences are recorded. To pre-
serve a more modern and unfamiliar form because it
agrees better with the Greek, divides and weakens the
unity and continuity of the impression which should
be made by the two Testaments. The letter is honored
at the expense of the substance. We would read still
of Hagar and Boaz and Gideon, rather than of Agar and
Booz and Gedeon; of Haran and Canaan and Midian,
rather than of Charran and Chanaan and Madian; of
Shem and Terah and Nahor, and not of Sem, Thara, and
Nachor. If I read in the Kew Testament of Methusaleh^
Jephthah, Kish, and Uzziah, instead of Mathusala, Jeph-
thae, Gis, and Ozias, I should not be delayed in .recall-
ing what I know of them by the novelty of their

156 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

names. Elijah and JElisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Hosea,
I know ; with Mlas and Miseus, Esaias, Jeremias, and
Osee, I must become acquainted. The lessons to he
learned from the story of Joshua and of Korah, are
often put out of mind when hidden behind the names
of Jesus (Acts vii, 45, and Ileb. iv, 8) and Core (Jude
11). To lose from our Bibles the names, Ezckias, Jecho-
nias, Josias, Urias, Zara, Sala, Saruch, Phalec, Phares,
Poboam, Manasscs, Joatham, Zabidon, Bachab, if these
were replaced by the old forms that never detain us to
look at them as mere forms, would bring no real loss.
And when to this list we add Shcchem, Zidon, and Zioji,
in place of Si/chcm, Sidon, and Sion, the names that are
common to the two Testaments are (unless something
has escaped notice) all brought into correspondence.

Of the far more extended list of names peculiar to one
or the other Testament, this brief paper cannot assume
to speak exhaustively. Our object is secured if atten-
tion has been called to some of the ends to be aimed
at in a revision of the proper names of the Bible, and
some of the principles that should guide the attempt.

THE USE OF ITALICS m THE EE'GLISH BIBLE.

BY THOMAS CHASE, LL.D.,
President of Haverford College, Pa,

Few need be told that the italics in the English
Bible — with the notable exception of a single passage
— are used to show that the words so designated do
not actually occur in the original Hebrew or Greek,
and have been inserted because thought necessary
either for the clear or for the idiomatic expression of
the sense in English. The one exception* is in 1 John
ii, 23, where the last half of the verse was printed in
a different letter, to indicate that it was omitted by
some editors and (inferior) manuscripts ; its genuine-
ness, however, has since been established beyond ques-
tion.

Origin of the Use of Italics. — "While our Authorized
Version has made probably a fuller and more consistent
use of distinctive forms to indicate supplementary
words than any other, it was not the first to adopt
such a device. When Origen revised the Septuagint,
he collated it throughout with the Hebrew, and wher-
ever he found any words in the Greek to which there
was nothing correspondent in the original, he marked
them with an obelos, to denote their absence from the
latter. Jerome used the same mark, for the same pur-
pose, in his revision of the Old Testament in Latin,
from the Septuagint. Sebastian Miinster, who trans-
lated the Old Testament into Latin in 1534-5, distin-
guished by brackets such words, supplementary to
those of the original, as he thought it necessary to
introduce. Arias Montanus, in his Latin version
14 157

158 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

founded on Pagninus, which was printed in the Ant-
werp Polyglot of 1569-72, marked all his variations
from the Vulgate by italics. His course was followed
by Beza, Tremellius and Junius, and other translators.
The Spanish version of Cypriano de Valera (1602), and
the Italian version of Diodati (1607), present supple-
mentary words in a distinctive chp^racter.

Coverdale's Latin-English Testament (1538) shows
intimations of distinguishing by brackets such words
in the English as were in addition to the Latin ;
citing, in the epistle to the reader prefixed to the
work, the authority of Jerome and Origen. In the
"Great Bible" (1539) certain words are found in a
type distinct from that of the main part of the volume,
of which the Prologue gives the following explana-
tion: "Whereas oftentimes ye shall find a small letter
in the text, it signifieth that so much as is in the
small letter doth abound, and is more in the common
translation in Latin than is found either in the He-
brew or the Greek ; wliich words and sentences we
have added, not only to manifest the same unto you,
but also to satisfy and content those that here before
time have missed such sentences in the Bibles and
New Testaments before set forth." The Geneva Bible
was the first in English to use italics, which it em-
I)loyed on the same principles as our Authorized Ver-
sion. The Bishops' Bible also distinguished supple-
mentary words by a different character. Finally, in
1611, the first edition of our Autliorized Version ap-
peared, printed in black letter, with the supplementary
words in Roman. When, in subsequent editions, Ro-
man type was substituted for black letter, tlie addi-
tions were marked by italics, as they are printed at
this day.

THE USE OF ITALICS IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 159

Only in the translation of a book in which each
word is invested with momentous interest, could men
have deemed it necessary to specify by a characteristic
mark, words which are actually implied in the original,
and omitted in it simply because not required by its
idiom. If in the use of this mark our translators
have erred, as I think they have, by excess, their mo-
tive deserves all praise. Even in cases where the
words inserted are such as are plainly involved in the
original expression, and indubitably necessary to set
forth the same thought in English, they were unwill-
ing to allow any term of their own introduction to go
unlabeled, lest haply they might fail to give the reader
due notice in some case where the necessity or propriety
of the new word might possibly be open to dispute.

Superfluous Use of Italics. — Yet wherever, as in
the majority of cases of italics in our English Bible,
there is no room for doubt that the inserted words
express nothing more and nothing other than the
original text was meant to convey, it is superfluous
to point them out. It is not the office of a translator
to present information concerning the differences of
grammar and idiom between the languages of the
original text and the version ; but it is his duty, avail-
ing himself of his own knowledge of these differences,
to give his readers the clearest and directest statement
in their own idiom of the precise thought expressed
in the original sentence, without addition and without
diminution.

The application of this principle would go far to
clear our English Bible of those italics which to some
degree strike the eye as blemishes. A very large part
of them occur in some form of the verb " to be,"

160 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

especially in its use as a copula, a verb which the
ancient languages omit readily ; of similar frequency
is the insertion by our translators of personal, posses-
sive, or relative pronouns, indubitably implied in the
original. Where there can be no doubt as to the pre-
cise form of the verb implied, or the pronoun to be
used, it would seem unnecessary to designate the
added words. !N'eed the reader be informed of what
is merely a difference of Hebrew and English idiom,
by the italics in the sentence, "And God saw that it
was good"? There is no necessity of italicizing man
or woman^ where the word is implied (if we may not
say actually expressed) in the masculine or feminine
terminations of adjectives, adjective pronouns, or par-
ticiples; unless there be a possibility, in any case, that
some order of beino; hio^her or lower than human is
referred to, or that the distinction of man and boy,
or girl and woman, might essentially affect the sense.
It is being over-nice also to italicize the word not^
after a preceding negative, as in Deut. xxxiii, 6 ; 1
Sam. ii, 3 ; Job iii, 11 ; xxx, 20, 25 ; Ps. Ixxv. 5 ; xci,
5, 6 ; Isa. xxxviii, 18. It is simply a peculiarity of the
Hebrew idiom not to require in such cases^ as does the
English, the repetition of the negative.

In addition to these whole classes of words, in-
dividual instances abound in which italics have been
needlessly used to indicate words actually implied, or
more than implied, in the original. Thus, in Luke
xvi, 5, and several similar passages, " he called every
one of his lord's debtors unto him," the preposition is
in composition with the verb, and the pronoun is im-
plied by the middle voice; in John xx, 5, 11, "stoop-
ing down, and looking in," " she stooj)ed down, and
looked into the sepulchre," the Greek verb denotes look-

THE USE OF ITALICS IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 161

ing as well as stooping, and should have been so trans-
lated also in Luke xxiv, 12 ; in such expressions as
" the first day of the week," " the next day,"" " the day
after," the word '' day " is indubitably understood in
the original, and is the only word that can possibly be
used in English ; in such phrases as, " hath not where
to lay his head," ^'' thy sins be forgiven," "lest they
should see with their eyes," " we have Abraham to our
father," " even as a hen gathereth her chickens under
her wings," the possessive adjective pronouns are repre-
sented in Greek by the article, by a familiar idiom
common to the Greek and various modern lano^uasces.
In some cases words inserted in italics are pleonastic,
or simply superfluous. Thus, in Matt, iii, 15, " suffer
it to be so now," it alone is sufficient ; in Matt, xvi, 14,
" some say that thou art^'^ say would be better; in Luke
iii, 5, "and the rough ways smooth" sounds better
than " and the rough ways shall be made smooth ; " in
Luke xii, 58, " in the way " (that is, on the road), is
enough without prefixing "as thou art;^^ in John viii,
6, the whole phrase, " as though he heard them not^'' is a
gratuitous interpolation. In the following passages
also the words in italics are unnecessarily added : Acts
vii, 42, " by the sjMce of forty years ; " x, 29, " came I
unto yoii;^' xxiii, 22, '-^ see thou tell no man;" Rom. xi,
4, " to the image of Baal ;" 1 Cor. xiv, 3, " he that proph-
esieth speaketh unto men to edification ;" xiv, 19, "yet
in the church I had rather speak five words with my
understanding, that by my voice I might teach others
also, than ten thousand words in an unknown tongue;"
xiv, 34, "but they are commanded to be under obedi-
ence;" XV, 41, " for one star differeth from another star
in glory ;" 2 Cor. iii, 3, "-forasmuch as ye are manifestly
declared to be the epistle of Christ;" Eph. iv, 14,
14*

162 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

"that we henceforth be no more chilflren;" Heb. ix,
12, "having obtained eternal redemption for us;^^
1 Pet. i, 22, '^ see that ye love one another;" 2 Pet. i,
21, "a5 they were moved by the Holy Ghost;" 1 John
ii, 19, " they would no doubt have continued with us ;"
and Rev. ii, 25, " but that which ye have already hold
fast till I come."

Italics Introduced from False Interpretations. —
There is another class of italicized passages, in which
we can certainly find no fault with the translat9rs for
their designating the words which they have added,
but modern scholarship discards the interpretation
which they give of the sense of the original. Thus,
in Ps. xix, 3, " There is no speech nor language, where
their voice is not heard," the meaning is sadly per-
verted by the interpolations. Another notable ex-
ample is in Ileb. x, 38, " ^N'ow the just shall live by
faith ; but if any man draw back," etc. The proper
translation is, " but if he draw back." The italicized
words in John iii, 34, " God giveth not the Spirit by
measure unto him.,'' improperly limit tlie sense, and
should be omitted. In Matt, xxv, 14, " For the hincj-
dom of heaven is as a man travelling," etc., and in Mark
xiii, 34, ''For the Son of man is as a man taking a far
journey," we sliould have it is in both cases; the mean-
ing of " it," which is to be gathered from the context,
not being correctly represented by the inserted words.
In Matt. XX, 23, " but to sit on my right hand, and on
my left, is not mine to give, but it shall he given to them
for whom it is prepared of my Father," it is for them
should be substituted for the italics of our translators.
In Acts xxiii, 1, "Men and brethren" should be sim-
ply " Brethren " or " My brethren," the word trans-

THE USE OF ITALICS IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 163

lated " men " being used simply as a courteous prefix
to " brethren." (The same word is used in the same
manner at the beginning of the previous chapter,
wrongly translated " Men, brethren, and fathers," as
though three classes of persons were addressed, instead
of " my brethren and fathers.") In Acts vii, 59, " call-
ing upon God^ and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my
spirit," we should have '' calling upon the Lord.^^
Scholars may diiFer on the translation of Eccles. xii,
13, " for this is the whole duty of man," whether to
accept our authorized version, or to say "for this is all
of man," or " for this is the duty of every man." In 2
Tim. iii. 16, many prefer the interpretation adopted
in some of the older English versions, "All Scripture
given by inspiration of God is profitable also," etc.
But whatever our judgment of the correctness or in-
correctness of the view taken by the translators of
1611 of the meaning of any of these passages, they
are good illustrations of the legitimate use of italics,
as indicating words not necessarily implied in the
original ; and we cannot but commend the scrupulous
honesty with which the reader has been notified in all
such cases, and thus left free to adopt a different view
of his own.

Felicitous Use of Italics. — Instances of the correct
and felicitous insertion of italicized words in the Bible
are very numerous, and will be easily recognized by
intelligent readers. Sometimes a slight addition pro-
motes the smoothness and rhythmic flow of the sen-
tence; thus the word even is often inserted, as in John
XV. 26 ; Rom. iv, 17. In Ps. cix, 4, "For my love they
are my adversaries, but I give myself unto prayer," the
extreme conciseness of the original cannot be imitated

164 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

advantageously in English, and the introduction of
the new words is very happy. In a very few cases it
might be an improvement to introduce italics where
our Authorized Version gives us Roman letters ; thus
the italicizing of the word it in 1 Cor. xv. 44, would
obviate a possible misconception of the meaning of
the text, which reads literally, "A natural body is
sown, a spiritual body is raised," or " There is sown a
natural body, there is raised a spiritual body."

Revision of the Italics in our Version. — The italics
in our Authorized Version have not been left without
several revisions. The inconsistencies in their use in
the edition of 1611, (or more properly in the use of
the small Roman type which served the same purpose
when the Bible was printed in black letter,) are not
the least striking among the mau}^ indications of the
haste and carelessness with which that edition was
brought out. Thus in Hebrews x, 38, the words "any
man " were printed in the same type as the rest of the
verse. This oversight, with many others, was cor-
rected in the carefully revised edition published at
Cambridge, in 1638. Further modifications were
made by Dr. Scattergood in 1683,* and particularly
by Dr. Blayney, in the much esteemed Oxford edition
of 1769, which he superintended. Dr. Adam Clarke,
in his edition and commentary in 1810, complains of
gross corruptions in tlie italics of Dr. Blayney's edi-
tions, " particularly where they have been chan-ged
for Roman characters, whereby words have been

* Also by Dr. Lloyd, in 1701, and Dr. Paris, in 1762. The typo-
graphical perfection of our Authorized Version, in conformity to its
own standards, has been gradually achieved by the patient labor of
many hands.

THE USE OF ITALICS IN THE ENGLISH BIBLE. 165

attributed to God which he never spake," and intro-
duces many " corrections." Dr. Scrivener, in his
Cambridge Paragraph Bible of 1870, has endeavored
to make the use of italics uniform and consistent; a
work in which he found, as he says in his preface, that
" not a little remained to be accomplished."

I have already intimated my own opinion that some
of the italicized words in our English Bible are
gratuitous interpolations, and that a very consider-
able reduction may be made in the remaining number
without depriving the reader of any information con-
cerning the original text which would be of real value
to him. But the question of their retention or dis-
missal is sometimes a delicate one ; and wherever it is
not easy to -decide that they are of no use, they should
have the benefit of the doubt.

PARAGRAPHS, CHAPTERS, AISTD VERSES OF
THE BIBLE.

BY PROFESSOR JAMES STRONG, S.T.D.,
Of Drew Theological Seminary, N. J.

The Division of the Bible into chapters originated
with the commentators of the Middle Ages as a con-
venience. Cardinal Hugh, of St. Cher, adopted it in
his Concordance to the Latin Vulgate, about A. D.
1244, and it was thence transferred to the Hebrew and
Greek originals. The division into verses, in the Old
Testament, is found in the Hebrew manuscripts of the
earliest date. In the Kew Testament it was hastily
made by the printer, Robert Stephens, for the third
edition of his Greek Testament, published in 1551.
The chapters and verses in the common English Bible
differ in but a few places from those now generally
indicated in the printed editions of the Hebrew and
Greek texts. They constitute the paragraph marks or
breaks in the lines in King James's version. In the
Hebrew Bible, however, the numerals for the chapters
and verses are placed in the margin, and the text is
broken into large sections for the synagogue lessons,
and smaller ones of a more arbitrary character. This
has been partly imitated in some editions of the Eng-
lish Bible, by placing a paragraph mark (H) at the
head of verses supposed to begin a new subject; but in
neither case has the division been convenient, uniform,
or logical. In the original edition (1611) of the Au-
thorized Version this mark is prefixed, in the Psalms,
to the special titles only ; in the other books it is
interspersed most capriciously. In the new Anglo-
American revision the marks of chapter and verse

166

PARAGRAPHS, CHAPTERS, AND VERSES OF THE BIBLE. 167

will be retained for reference; but the text will be
divided into sections, on some plan not yet fully set-
tled. It is earnestly hoped that neither the Maso-
retic nor any other conventional mode of division will
be implicitl}^ followed, but that the paragraphs will
correctly indicate the changes of topics. The parallelism
in the poetical books will be shown by printing in
verse-form, which will be an immense gain in the clear-
ness and force of meaning. For example, the earliest
specimen of poetry extant (Gen. iv, 23, 24) illustrates
itself if arranged in some such way as this :

"And Lamech said unto his wives,

Adah and Zillah, Hear mj voice ;

Ye wives of Lamech, Hearken unto my speech:
For I have slain a man to my wounding,
And a young man to my hurt.

If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold.
Truly Lamech seventy and sevenfold."

Chapter and Verse Divisions. — The present di-
vision into chapters and verses is manifestly in-
judicious, and some of the advantages of a just para-
graph system are the following, which we will illus-
trate by a few examples :

1. The seyise is greatly injured hy the one method., and, im-
proved by the other. — Oftentimes the closest connection
of thought is broken up by the present division, which
is purely accidental ; and, vice versa, a connection is
falsely suggested where there is really a break in the
subject. Thus, at the very outset, the account of the
general creation, in Gen. i, properly includes verses 1-3
of Chapter ii, as every indication in the text shows ;
while verse 4 begins the narrative of man's trial in
Eden. So, in the last chapter of Revelation, verses 1-5
belong to the description of the heavenly city prcccd-

168 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

ing, and the remaining verses contain an entirely dis-
tinct topic. Similar instances are innumerable, as any
judiciously arranged "Paragraph Bible" will show.
In like manner, the verses frequently interrupt a
sentence, sometimes very strangely, as in Ps. xcviii, 8,
9, " Let the hills be joyful together — before the Lord ;"
and so Ps. xcvi, 12, 13. The mere fact of beginning a
new verse with a capital letter, after a comma, or some
other of the lesser punctuation marks, is calculated to
mislead the reader, and induce a defective and errone-
ous habit of quoting Scripture. Probably this has been
a fruitful cause of the prevalent practice of perverting
proof-texts, by neglecting the context. On the con-
trary, how much more beautiful would the description
of charity, in 1 Cor. xiii, become if read in immediate
connection, as exemplifying the " more excellent way"
of the last verse of the preceding chapter, and as enforc-
ing the exhortation to " follow after charity," in the
first verse of the following chapter. Proper paragraph-
ing is a sort of analysis of a book or chapter, so as to
be evident at a glance. How would a modern history,,
or poem, or e])istle look, if the printer should chop it
up in the fashion of our common Bibles? It greatly
impairs the significance and dignity of the sacred
volume.

2. The j^resent arrcmgement is a loss in every respect. —
For convenience of consultation the verse and chapter
numbers are certainly preferable in the margin, where
the eye can rapidly run down them in single file.
There is surely no economy of space in losing part of
a line at the end of nearly every verse. There is little
beauty in the ragged-looking page that these frequent
and irregular blanks make. The double columns which
this method of typography almost necessitates shorten

PARAGRAPHS, CHAPTERS, AND VERSES OF THE BIBLE. 169

the measure and destroy uniformity of spacing. There
is small comfort in reading at one time a chapter, some-
times unduly long, sometimes very short, without be-
ing sure that you have the whole subject together.
Finally, on the ordinary plan, it is impossible to dis-
tinguish the poetical from the prose portions of the
Bible. All these things considered, it is a wonder
that intelligent readers will tolerate the chapter-and^
verse mode of paragraphing. Il^othing but slavery to
custom could reconcile us to it in these days of literary
and mechanical improvement.
15 -

eeyisio:n" of the scriptuees.

BY THE RIGHT REV. ALFRED LEE.

*' He that hath my word, let him speak my word faithfully." — Jer.

xxiii, 28.

Objections to a Revision. — That the proposal to set
forth a revision of the English Bible should awaken
opposition and distrust, will surprise no one who has
given the least reflection to the subject, or who is con-
versant with the history of tlie sacred text. In pro-
portion to the value set upon this version will be the
anxiety and alarm at the suggestion of change. To the
great majority of readers the Bible to which they have
been always accustomed is the word of God, verbatim
et literatim. Accepting all Scripture as given by inspira-
tion of God, they have been wont to regard every sylhi-
ble with equal veneration. The words and phrases, as-
sociated in memory with the happiest and most solemn
liours of their lives, are redolent of that heaven from
which they are su}>[)0sed to come, and to part with the
smallest fragment is a most painful thought. The de-
vout reader feels as if he were to be robbed of that
which is more ]>recious than gold.

Very many, who value their Bible above all i)rice,
scarcely ever remember that what they have before
their e^^es is not the very utterance of men moved by
the Holy Ghost, but a translation from other languages,
and so far, a human work. As a human work it is
liable to tlie error and imperfection incident to what-
ever is human. So also, as committed to writing, it
lias (luring many ages been cx[)()sl'<1 to suffer from

170

REVISION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 171

errors of transcribers, and even endeavors well meant,
however mistaken, to correct and improve the original.
The impression has been cherished and common that
the Holy One who gave men his word has interposed,
by perpetual miracle, to guard it from alteration or
corruption. So that infallibility has been virtually
attributed not only to the prophets, apostles and evan-
gelists who wrote the different books, but to scribes,
copyists and translators, through whom they have been
handed down to us.

!N"ow while we gratefully acknowledge the provi-
dence of Almighty God, in preserving and watching
over these communications of his will, so that we have
a sure and sufficient rule of faith and practice, it is
undeniable that no such miracle has been wrought.
Scribes and translators have not been exempt from
human infirmities. Errors have crept into the text,
sometimes from design, oftener from accident.

Our English Bible, commonly known as the Author-
ized Version, with all its claims upon our reverence and
confidence, does not contain the lively oracles as origi-
nally spoken or recorded. It is God's word only so far
as the primal text has been exactly preserved and faith-
fully rendered into our tongue. To admit this is to cast
no reflection upon the work itself, or upon those who
were engaged in its preparation. All honor to the noble
band of Christian scholars who, from Wickliffe down
to the revisers appointed by King James, labored to
present the Holy Scriptures in the English language.
Many of them died for their loyalty and devotion to
the truth which they sought to diftuse. All of them
were men eminent for learning, as for purity and holi-
ness of life. They left behind them a monument en-
during and admirable. The very comparison of the

172 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

dates 1611 and 1870 is an emphatic witness to the high
qualifications and conscientious fidelity of those last
named. For more than two centuries and a half their
revision has held its place, gathering around it the
afiections of the great mass of those who speak the
English tongue, and the homage and admiration of the
learned. Xo eulotiristic lano-uao-e has seemed to over-
pass its merits. And those who promote and encour-
age the revision now in progress, as well as those
actually participating in the work, yield to none in
sincere and enlightened appreciation of the excellences
of the Authorized Version.

Advances in Textual Criticism. — But the world
has not been standing still since 1611, and among
other advances, prodigious strides have been made in
branches of knowledge bearing upon the right under-
standing of the Holy Scriptures. Textual criticism
lias so improved as to be almost ranked as a new
science. Men of varied acquirements, and of the
richest intellectual gifts, have given years to the pa-
tient investigation of the subject. Diligent explora-
tion has brought to light ancient manuscripts of in-
estimable worth. Every word and letter has been
examined with scrupulous and painstaking care. Of
the extent and thoroughness pf these researches and
studies, one who has not examined the subject can
have little conception. And while the material have
thus been collected from all sources, the knowledge of
the languages in which the Scriptures were written
has been greatly enlarged and perfected. This is spe-
cially true of Greek scholarship. Apart from striking
and obvious corrections, shades of meaning and felici-
ties of expression arc now brought to view, enhancing

REVISION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 178

greatly the clearness and beauty of the divinely-given
records.

"While improved scholarship has thus been enlarg-
ing acquaintance with the ancient tongues, our own
English has not been fixed and immovable. 'No doubt
the generally read version of the Scriptures has done
much to prevent innovation, but a living, growing
tongue experiences constant variation, and casts off
from age to age once familiar words. To resist obsti-
nately all recognition of these changes in a book in-
tended to be in every hand, is to render certain portions
obscure or unintelligible.

Eeasons for a Revision-. — These are some of the
reasons which have impressed upon Biblical scholars
within the last generation the importance of a re-
vision of the English Bible in common use. With
all its confessed merits, the defects and errors were
too glaring to be denied or overlooked. The con-
science of the Christian church became more and
more aroused. The duty of placing before the people
a pure and unexceptionable text pressed more heav-
ily. The assaults of gainsayers and enemies could
not be successfully resisted. It was a painful thing
for the teacher to be laboring to explain what, after
all, was no part of the inspired volume, and for the
preacher to find that the text upon which he had been
discoursing was erroneously rendered. iN'either was
it a pleasant task to avoid misunderstandings, by en-
cumbering a discourse with learned criticisms. Then
the fact which could not be denied of the existence
of thousands of various readings was magnified by
assailants of the faith, and occasioned distrust and
alarm in the heart of many an unlearned believer.
15*

174 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

The battle with infidelity was fought at a disad-
vantage, while it was felt that there were useless
weapons in the armory, and weak points in the walls
of the citadel.

The conviction, therefore, has been of late j^ears a
growing one that a revision must come, and come ere
very long. That it would be encountered by alarm
and hostility was inevitable. This had been the fate
of every attempt of this kind from the beginning.
Jerome's great work, afterwards elevated by the
Church of Rome to the rank of an infallible standard,
awoke a furious tempest of opposition at the outset.
But the necessity was now admitted by men not less
known for their conservative opinions than for their
scholarship.

Archbishop Trench on Revision. — Among the early
prominent works indicating this conviction was that
of Dr. Trench, now Archbishop of Dublin, in 1858, in
which he says, " It is clear that the question, Are we,
or are we not to have a new translation of the Scrip-
ture? or, rather, since few would propose this who
do not wish to lift anchor, and loosen from its moor-
ings the whole religious life of the English people,
shall we, or shall we not have a new revision of the
Authorized Version ? is one which is presenting itself
more and niore familiarly to the minds of men."
"Of the arguments against a revision none will deny
the weight. Indeed, there are times when the whole
matter presents itself as so full of difficulty and
doubtful hazard, that one could be well content to
resign all gains that woulcl accrue from this revision,
and only ask that things might remain as they are ;
but this, I am persutided, is impossible. However we

REVISION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 175

may be disposed to let the question alone, it will not
let us alone. It has been too effectually stirred, ever
again to go to sleep ; and the difficulties with which
it is surrounded, be they few or many, will have at no
distant day to be encountered. The time will come
when the perils of remaining where we are will be so
manifestly greater than the perils of action, that action
will become inevitable. There will be danger in both
courses, for that saying of the Latin moralist is a pro-
foundly true one, '•Nunqitam pericidum sine periculo vin-
citur; ' but the lesser danger will have to be chosen."

Difficulties of Eevision. — But the importance and
necessity of the work being admitted, the manner of
proceeding was beset with great and obvious difficulties.
The so-called Authorized Version was the common prop-
erty and treasure of all who speak the English tongue.
Its merits had commended it to almost universal ac-
ceptance. Although issuing from the Church of Eng-
land, it was no less prized by the different bodies of
non-conformists in that country, and by various Chris-
tian communions in our own land. It was a bond of
union among those who differed materially from each
other ; a common standard of appeal. The wide dif-
fusion of the Anglo-Saxon race had carried it over the
world ; and wherever one to whom the English lan-
guage was vernacular found himself, he heard in public
worship the same hallowed and venerated phrases and
expressions. Some of the most eager advocates for
revision trembled at the thought of losing so blessed
a testimony to the unity of our faith, and felt that
it would be a deplorable change to substitute several
versions for the one that had obtained such supremacy
and acceptance. The opinion was therefore strongly

176 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

expressed by those who discussed the subject, that, in
securino; a more accurate book, the greatest care should
be taken not to forfeit this happy unanimity.

This obstacle seemed at once to oppose the undertak-
ing to supply this want by any one church. Jealousy
and distrust would be inevitably awakened. Th^ au-
thority thus gained within the borders of the commun-
ion assuming this work would be met by prejudices
awakened in other bodies. To bring delegates from
all these communions together for consultation seemed
an impracticable matter. If any Church should lead
in the enterprise, the old historic Church which had
produced the Authorized Version would seem evidently
to be the one to take the initiative ; and yet its ablest
minds felt that the risk was very serious of failing to
obtain general recognition, even if the Church of Eng-
land could authoritatively sanction and adopt a revised
version. Archbishop Trench remarks in the work
above referred to, "With the exception of the Roman
Catholics, the Authorized Version is common ground
for all in England who call themselves Christians ; is
alike the heritage of all. But, even if English Dis-
senters acknowledge the necessity of a revision, which
I conclude from many indications they do, it is idle
to expect tliey would accept such at our hands. Two
things then might happen : either they would adhere
to the old version, which is not, indeed, very probable;
or they would carry out a revision — it might be two
or three — of their own. In either case the ground of
a common Scripture, of an English Bil)le which they
and we hold equally sacred, would be taken from us;
the separation and division which are now the sorrow,
and T)er}»lexity, and shame of England, would become
more marked, more deeply fixed than ever."

REVISION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 177

It is evident that tlie difficulty which seemed so for-
midable to Dr. Trench would not be lighter in case of
any other Christian body undertaking the work. This
would be, in all jjrobability, merely to provide a ver-
sion of their own, and thus to cut themselves off, so
far as this bond is concerned, from sympathy with
fellow-believers.

Another difficulty suggests itself, in the way of pro-
ceeding by Church authority, and that is the danger
of giving previous sanction to a work which, after all,
might not prove acceptable. The safer way is evi-
dently for a proposed version to be for a time before
the public, subject to free examination, prior to its
formal adoption.

And this seems to have been the history of the
present English Bible. The title of "Authoriz3d
Version" conveys a not altogether correct impression.
The work was undertaken by direction of the king,
without any synodal action or consent, and when
published seems to have been left to win its own way
to acceptance and use. " The clause on the title-page
'appointed to be read in churches,' has, so far as is
known, no authority, no edict of Convocation, no Act
of Parliament, no decision of the Privy Council, no
royal proclamation " (Eadie, Vol. II., p. 204). For
some time after it was issued the Bishops' and the
Geneva Bible were republished, extensively circulated,
and the former held its old place in many churches.
So that there is very little in the history of our present
Bible to support the claim that a revision can only be
undertaken and consummated by church authority.

At the same time it is evident that more is needed
than individual enterprise or a self-constituted board
of revisers. Men of high attainments and excellent

178 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

judgment have made valuable contributions to a more
faithful and exact presentation of the Divine Word,
and eminent scholars have united to set forth different
portions, but it is evident that none of these can ob-
tain universal assent. The work that is eventually to
take the place of the Bible of 1611 must not only en-
gage the patient study of well-qualified minds, but it
must come before the public with higher claims to at-
tention than a self-constituted committee can command.

First Steps towards the Present Revision. — These
perplexities seem to have been happily solved in the
present movement for revising the Authorized Ver-
sion. It originated in the Convocation of the Province
of Canterbury, an ecclesiastical body containing repre-
sentatives from five-sixths of the Church of England.
This assemblage of men of the highest position and
most eminent character and scholarship in the Church
which gave the present time-honored book, conferred
the desirable sanction upon the revising body, without
committing the church absolutely to their conclusions.
It is no spontaneous, merely voluntary undertaking,
in which the present revisers are combined, but one
originating in an ecclesiastical Council of the greatest
weight and respectability. May 6, 1870, resohitions
were unanimously adopted by the upper house of the
Convocation of Canterbury, and concurred in by a
large majority of the lower house, to the following
effect :

" 1. That it is desirable that a revision of the Au-
thorized Version of tlie Holy Scriptures l^e undertaken.

" 2. That the revision be so conducted as to com-
prise both marginal renderings, and such emendations
as it may be found necessary to insert in tlie text.

REVISION OF THE SCRIPTURES. 179

" 3. That in the above resolutions we do not con-
template any new translation of the Bible, or any
alteration of the language, except where, in the judg-
ment of the most competent scholars, such change is
necessary.

" 4. That in such necessary changes, the style of the
language employed in the existing version be closely
followed.

"5. That it is desirable that Convocation should
nominate a body of its own members to undertake the
work of revision, who shall be at liberty to invite the
co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to what-
ever nation or religious body they may belong."

The language of clause 5 indicates the liberal and
comprehensive spirit of the action that was adopted.
The great work was not to be confined to members of
the Anglican Church, but to be shared by representa-
tives of the different bodies who have equal interest
in the result. This principle was advocated strongly
by Archbishop Trench, in the treatise above men-
tioned, and by Bishop Ellicott, in the introduction to
his work on the Eevision of the New Testament, and
was fully admitted by the Convocation.

American Co-operation. — In accordance with this
action, the committee appointed, consisting of eight
members of each house of Convocation, proceeded to
invite eminent scholars and divines, as well from
different bodies of non-conformists as from the Church
of England, to join in this work. Among these are
found names the most distinguished for biblical and
classical scholarship. The insertion of the significant
word " nation " in the action above recited, showed
the desire for participation in the proposed work

1
180 ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

beyond the bounds of the British Empire, as well as
beyond the limits of the established Cliurch.

Measures were accordingly taken to obtain the co-
operation of American scholars, in the hope of making
the new version, like the old one, a bond of union be-
tween two great nations speaking the same language.
Twenty-five persons, representing the principal Prot-
estant communions in the United States, were invited
to act in co-operation with the English revisers, and
have been holding regular monthly sessions for the last
seven years. There has been constant and confidential
interchange of results between the committees on each
side of the Atlantic, and the joint work has been going
forward in a harmonious and satisfactory manner.

The final acceptance of the result is to be hereafter
shown. The revisers do not ask or expect an imme-
diate and inconsiderate approval. They will submit
their conclusions to the calm and mature examination
of the great Christian public, to be judged upon their
own merits. It is confidently suggested to candid men
who love God's word, and desire it to be presented in
the greatest attainable purity, that probably no method
of procedure could have been devised for securing that
object, less open to objection, and combining greater
advantage and promise, than that which has been
adopted.

GENERAL INDEX.

Abbot, Ezra, 12, 86.

Acts, MSS. of, 95, 96.

Adams, W., 13.

Addison on A. V., 37.

uEschylus, MSS. of, 95.

Aiken, C. A., 11, 151.

Alexander, W. L., 7.

Alexandrian MS., 74, 96.

Alford, Dean, 10.

American language, 117.

American Revision Committee, 11, 14,
15, 179.

Ancient translations : see Versions.

Anderson, T. D., 13.

Anglo-American Bible Revision, 10,
14.

Angus, J,, 9.

Antiquities of the Holy Land, 62.

Antwerp Polyglot, 74, 158.

Aorist, errors in the use of the, 106,
107, 126, 128.

Aquila, version of, 44, 74.

Arabic language, 61, 76.

MSS., 96.

versions, 62, 75, 96.

Archaisms, or Obsolete and Un-
usual Words or Phrases in the
English Bible, 144.

Armenian MSS., 96.

Article, definite, 68, 101.

Assyria, antiquities in, 62.

Authorized Version :

a classic, 37-42.

accuracy of, 56.

associations of, 41.

authority of, 48.

16

Authorized Version, authors of, 31, 39,
99.

beauties of, 34, 41.

character of, 39.

conservative influence of, 40.

critical apparatus of,46,73-79,172.

defects of, 47, 62.

errors of, 64, 80-85, 99-112, 129-

144.

estimation of, 16, 34, 113, 172.

eulogies on, 16, 34, 37, 39, 40, 113,

172.

excellencies of, 171.

Faber on, 42.

Greek text of, 17,93,113,118-125.

helps for translating, 72-79.

history of, 14, 15, 20, 30-37, 39,

44, 60, 61, 70, 72-79, 99, 177.

inaccuracies of, 68, 80-85, 99-112.

infelicities of. 111, 137.

instructions regarding, 31.

italics in, 157-165.

obscurities of, 138.

obsolete words in, 145.

preface of, 50.

proper names of, 151-156.

standard of English, 35, 37, 44.

style of, 35, 38, 39, 45, 47, 52, 119,

140, 171.

translators of, 31, 39.

verbal differences and agree-
ments in, 133-143.

Wyclifife and, 30.

Babylonia, schools in, 54.
Bacon, style of, 38.

181

182

ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

Barnes, A. S., 13.

Bath and Wells, Bishop of, 7.

Bengel, labors of, 97.

Bensly, Robert L., 7.

Beza, version of, 28, 93, 94, 158.

Bible, a classic, 37-42.

• Bishops', 29, 34, 39, 40, 158.

Chapters of, 17, 166.

Coverdale's, 25, 26, 28, 32, 39, 158.

Cranmer's, 29, 32, 39.

divisions of, 166-169.

Great, 26, 158.

Matthew's, 26, 28, 32, 39.

Paragraphs of, 166.

Taverner's, 27.

- Translations of: see Versions.

- Verses of, 28, 166.

- Versions of: see Versions.

- Whitchurch's, 32.

Biblical science, advances in, 49, 60,

99, 172.
Biblical style, 45.
Bickersteth, Dean, 9.
Birrell, John, 7.
Bishop, N., 13.

Bishops' Bible, 29, 34, 39, 40, 158.
Blakesley, Dean, 9.
Bomberg, Bible of, 53.
Bottcher, Hebrew Grammar of, 76.
Britain, Christianity in, 22.
British Museum, 74.
Brown, David, 9.
Brown, J. M., 13.
Browne, Bishop E. H., 7.
Burr, J. K., 12.
Buxtorf, John, Hebrew works of, 61,

62, 75.
Buxtorf, John, Jr., labors of, 61.

Cambridge MS., 95.

University Press, 19.

Campbell, George, version of, 41.
Canterbury, Canon of, 7.

convocation of, 14, 178.

• Dean of, 7.

revision, 178.

Capellus, labors of, 67.
Castellus, labors of, 61, 76.
Catholic Epistles, 95.
Cauldwell, W. A., 13.
Chaldee paraphrases, 75.

targums, 62.

versions, 67, 75.

Chambers, Talbot W., 11, 37.
Chance, Frank, 7.
Change, given to, 81.
Chapters of the Bible, 17, 166.

headings of, 17.

Chase, Thomas, 12, 157.

Chayim, Jacob ben, 54.

Chenery, Thomas, 7.

Cheyno, T. K., 7.

Christianity in Britain, 22.

Church of Rome and the Scriptures,

29, 174.
Classical authors, text of, 86, 95.
Clermont MS., 93.
Codex Amiatinus, 75.
Codex Bezoe, 95
Coins of the Bible, 118.
Coleridge on A. V., 37.
Coniplutcnsian Polyglot, 74, 93, 94.
Conant, T. J., labors of, 11, 82.
Conservatism in Respect to Changes

IN THE English and the Greek

Text, 113.
Convocation of Canterbury, 14.
Corrk, Canon, 10.
Coptic MS., 96.
Copyists, errors of, 97.

rules of, 65.

Corn-fields, 117.

Coverdalo, version of, 25, 26, 28, 32,

39, 168.
Cranmer's Bible, 29, 32, 39.
Critical Apj)aratus for A. A. Version,,

46, 94-97.
Criticism, advances in, 49, 99, 172.

of Old Testament, 64.

Crooks, G. R., 12.
Crosby, Howard, 12, 144.
Curetonian MS., 96.

GENERAL INDEX.

183

Current Version of the Scriptures
AS Compared with our Present
Needs, 48.

Cursive MSS., 96.

Davidson, A. B., 7.
Davidson, D. S., 56. •
Davies, Professor, 8.
Day, George E., 11, 72.
De Dieu, labors of, 76.
De Rossi, labors of, 57, 62.
De Witt, J., 11.
Devil, name of, 142.
Diodati, version of, 77, 158.
Divisions of the Bible, 166-169.
Dodge, William E., 13.
DouglaSj George, 7.
Driver, S. R., 7.
Dutch versions, 25, 37.
Duty of Revisionists, 70.
D wight, Timothy, 12, 113.
Dyer, H., 13.

Eadie, John, 10.

Egypt, antiquities of, 62.

MSS. of, 96.

river of, 63.

Ellicott, Bishop, 9.

Elliot, J., 13.

Elliott, C. J., 7.

Elizabeth, style of her time, 38.

English Bible as a Classic, 37.

English language and the A. V., 34,

36, 38, 115, 127, 143, 144-150, 160,

171.
English Revision Company, 7, 14, 15.
Ephraem MS., 95.
Epistle to the Hebrews, 110, 139.
Erasmus, New Testament of, 93.
Errors in geography, 62, 79.

Greek article, 101.

Hebrew Grammar, 67.

prepositions and particles, 103.

proper names, 64.

verbs, 105.

Ethiopic language, 61.

Ethiopia version, 75.

Ewald, Hebrew Grammar of, 76.

labors of, 61.

Faber, F. W., on A. V., 42.
Fairbairn, P., 8.
Fancher, E. L., 13.
Field, Frederick, 8.
Frankel, labors of, 57.
French versions, 77.
Frensdorf, labors of, 57.
Fuerst, labors of, 61, 83.

Geden, J, D., 8.

Geneva Bible, 28, 29, 30, 32, 39, 41, 93.
Geography of the Bible, 62, 79.
German language, 127.

versions, 25, 77.

Gesenius, Hebrew Grammar of, 76.
-- — labors of, 61, 83.
Ginsburg, C. D., 8, 57.
Gospels, MSS. of, 95, 96.
Gotch, F. W., 8.
Gothic MSS., 96.
Grain-fields, 117.
Great Bible, 26, 158.
Greek article, errors in, 101.

authors, 86, 93, 94, 95, 127.

criticism, 16.

imperatives, 131.

imperfect, 129.

language, 25, 35, 47, 50, 127, 152,

154, 157, 172.
manuscripts, 17, 45, 49, 54, 86,

93-98.

' middle voice, 132.

non-indicative, 131.

perfect, 130.

tenses, 127.

Testaments, 28, 93, 94.

text of A. A. v., 46, 94, 118.

text of A. v., 45, 80, 93.

verb, 126.

versions, 41,

GuEKK Verb in the New Testament,
126-132.

184

ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

Green, ^Y. Henry, 11, 60.

Hebrew Grammar of, 76.

Griesbach, labors of, 97, 98.

Hackctt, Horatio B., 12.

Hadley, James, 12.

Hallam on the A. V., 37.

Hare, Augustus, on the A. V., 40.

Hare, G. Emlen, 11, 48.

Harrison, Archdeacon, 7.

Havemeyer, J. C, 13.

Hebrew criticism, advances in, 16.

Grammars, 75.

language, 22, 25, 35, 47, 50, 55, 67,

70, 72, 73, 75, 76, 78, 152, 154,
157, 160.

manuscripts, 54, 57.

philology of the A. V., 61.

professors of, 15.

restorations of, 57.

text, 17, 53, 64, 57.

vowels, 62.

Hebrew Philology and Biblical
Science, 60-71.

Hebrew Text of the Old Testament,
53-59.

Hebrews, Epistle to the, 110, 139.

Helps for Translating the Hebrew
Scriptures at the Time the Au-
thorized Version was made, 72-79.

Henry VIII. and the Bible, 25, 27.

Henry, Matthew, 81.

Hervey, Bishop, A. C, 7.

Hippopotamus of Job, 82.

Hodge, Charles, 12.

Homer, text of, 86.

Homoeoteleuton, 88.

Hort, F. J. A., labors of, 9, 98.

Houbigant, labors of, 57, 62.

Humphry, W. (}., 9.

Huxley, T. II., on A. V., 37.

Inaccuracies op the Authorized

Version op the Old Testament,
80-85.

Inaccuracies of the Authorized

Version in Respect op Grammar

AND Exegesis, 99-112.
Inaccuracy in the construction, 68.
Italian versions, 77, 158.
Italics in the Bible, 17, 18, 157-165.
Italics in the English Bible, 157-

165.
Italics, errors caused by, 162.

felicitous use of, 163.

origin of, 157.

revision of the, 164.

superfluous use of, 159.

James I., style of time of, 38.
version of; see Authorized Ver-
sion,
Jebb, Canon, 8.

Jerome, versions of, 52, 65, 74, 158,174.
Jerusalem, Syriac MS. of, 96.
Jessup, M. K., 13.
Jews, criticism of, 57.

persecution of, 55.

schools of, 54.

Job, day of his birth, 81.

English version of, 81.

Hippopotamus of, 82.

War horse of, 82.

John, style of, 140.

Josephus on Old Testament text, 65.

Juda, Leo, 25.

Junius, version of, 158.

Kay, W., 8,

Kendrick, A. C, 12, 99.
Kennedy, Canon, 9.
Kennicott, labors of, 57, 62.
Kilbye, Dr. R., 81.

King James's version: see Author-
ized Version.
Kraufh, Charles P., 11,22.

Lachiuan, labors of, 97, 98.
Language, American, 117.

Arabic, 61, 76.

English, 34, 36, 38, 115, 127, 143,

144-150, 160, 171.

GENERAL INDEX.

185

Language, Ethiopic, 61.

Germau, 127.

of the A. A. v., 17.

Syriac, 61, 76,

Languages, changes in, 44, 49, 134,
173.

Semitic, 73, 76.

Latin authors, 93.

manuscripts, 96.

versions, 22, 25, 26, 27, 77, 174.

Leathes, Stanley, 8.
Lectionaries, MSS. of, 96.
Lee, Archdeacon, 9.

Bishop, 12, 170.

Lewis, Tayler, 11.

Lightfoot, Bishop, labors of, 9, 98.

on the A. V., 47. "

Llandaflf, Bishop of, 7.

London Polyglot of 1657, 62.

Lord's Prayer, 89.

Lowth, Bishop, labors of, 41, 57.

Lumby, John R., 8.

Luther, version of, 23, 24, 25, 77.

Macaulay, Lord, on A. V., 37.
MacGill, Professor, 8.
Maidstone, Archdeacon of, 7.
Manuscripts :

Alexandrian, 74, 95.

Arabic, 96.

Armenian, 96.

Cambridge, 95.

Clermont, 93.

Coptic, 96.

Curetonian, 96.

Cursive, 96.

Egyptian, 96.

Ephraem, 95.

Gothic, 96.

Greek, 17, 45, 49, 54, 86, 93-98.

Hebrew, 54, 57.

Jerusalem, 96.

Lectionaries, 96.

Memphitic, 96.

Sahidic, 96.

Sinaitic, 54, 74, 95.

16*

Manuscripts ;

Slavonic, 96.

Syriac, 96.

Thebaic, 96.

Uncial, 17, 95.

Vatican, 54, 95.

Marginal readings, 54.

Mark, style of, 140.

Marsh, George P., 38.

Masoretic text, 17, 54, 62, 73, 167.

Masorites, 54.

Matthew, Thomas, Bible of, 26, 32, 39.

Mead, Charles M., 11.

Memphitic MS., 96.

Merivale, Dean, 10.

Metrical arrangement, 18.

Mill, labors of, 97.

Milligan, William, 10.

Moberly, Bishop, 9.

Montanus. Arias, 157.

Moulton, W. F., 10.

Munster, S., version of, 26, 157.

Names, proper, changes in, 151.

harmonizing of, 155.

inconsistencies in, 152.

of the Bible, 151-156.

Nebuchadnezzar, dream of, 82.
New Testament :

manuscripts of, 17, 45, 49, 54, 86,

93-98.

Rheims, 29.

text of, 17, 57, 86-98.

various readings of, 56, 91.

New Testament Text, 86-98.
Newman, Francis W., on A. V., 37.
Newman, John H., 10.

on A. v., 37.

Newth, S., 10.
Nile River, 63.
Norton, Andrews, on A. V., 91.

Obsolete significations, 145.

words, 149.

Old Testament text, 55, 56, 57.
various readings of, 56.

186

ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

Older English and the Authorized

Versions, 22-36.
Ollivant, Bishop A., 7.
Origen, labors of, 44, 74, 157, 158.

polyglot of, 44.

Osgood, Howard, 11, 53.
Oxford University Press, 19.

Packard, Joseph, 11, 80.

Pages, headings of, 17, 18.

Pagninus, version of, 158.

Palestina, 63.

Palmer, Edwin, 10.

Paper, invention of, 23.

Paragraphs, 17.

Paragraphs, Chapters, and Verses

OF THE Bible, 166-169.
Parallelism, 79, 167.
Paris, Polyglot of 1645, 62, 75.
Parker, Archbishop, 29.
Participle aorist, 107.
Particles, errors of, in A. V., 104.
Paul, style of, 141.
Pauline Epistles, 93, 95, 96.
Pentateuch, Samaritan, 76.
Pcrowne, Dean, 8.
Persian version, 75.
Peshito version, 44, 96.
Philodemus, fragments of, 95.
Philology, advances in, 60, 76.

Hebrew, 60-71.

Philoxenian, Syriac MS., 96.

Pinsker, labors of, 67.

Plato, text of, 86.

Plumptre, Edward H., 8.

Pococke, labors of, 76.

Poetical books of Old Testament, 79,

167, 169.
Polyglot Bibles :

Antwerp, 74, 158.

Complutensian, 93, 94.

London, 1657, 62.

Origen's, 44.

Paris, 1645, 62, 76.

Potter, Henry C, 13.
Potter, Howard, 13.

Prepositions, errors of in A. V., 103.

Printing, invention of, 23.

Proper Names of the Bible, 151-

156.
Prose of the Bible, arrangement of, 18.
Provincialisms, 118.
Psalms, Jerome's version of, 74.
Publication of A. A. Version, 19, 20.
Punctuation of the Bible, 17.
Puritans and the Bible, 30.
Pusey, Edward B., 10.

Rabbinical Commentaries, 53, 61, 62,
76, 78.

Raleigh, style of, 38.

Readings, various, 46, 56, 86, 93, 124.

Reasons for a New Revision op the
Scriptures in English, 43-47.

Renderings, erroneous: see Author-
ized Version.

Restorations of Hebrew, 57.

Revelation, MSS. of, 96.

Revision, Anglo-American :

auspices of, 20, 21, 41, 70, 72, 73,

94, 172.

demand for, 43.

difficulties of, 175.

materials for, 46, 94-98.

objections to, 170.

origin of, 14, 178.

principles of, 16, 41.

progress of, 19.

prospects of, 21, 97.

publication of, 19, 20.

reasons for, 43-47, 170-180.

Trench on, 174.

" Revision of the Hebrew Text," by
Davidson, 56.

Revision of the Scriptures, 170-180.

Revision op the Scriptures in
English, 4.3-47.

Revisionists, duty of the, 70.

Reynolds, John, labors of, 33, 72.

suggests the A. V., 30.

Rhcims, New Testament of, 29.
Riddle, Matthew B., 12, 126.

GENERAL INDEX.

187

Roberts, Alexander, 10.

Rogers, John, version of, 26, 28, 32, 39.

Rose, Henry John, 8.

Roye assists Tyndale, (?) 24.

Ruskin, John, on A. V., 37.

Sahidic manuscript, 96.

Samaria, woe to, 84.

Samaritan version, 75.

Saxon version, 22.

Sayce, A. H., 8.

SchaflF, Philip, 11, 12, 14.

Schultens, Albert, labors of, 61, 76.

Scott, Dean, 9.

Scrivener, Fred. H. A., 10, 98.

Selden, John, Table Talk of, 77.

Selwyn, William, 8.

Semitic languages, 73, 76.

Septuagint, 44, 57, 58, 74, 75, 157.

Shakspeare, style of, 38.

Shepard, Elliott F., 13.

Short, Charles, 12.

Sinaitic manuscript, 54, 74, 95.

Slavonic manuscript, 96.

Smith, George V., 10.

Smith, Henry B., 12.

Smith, Robert P., 7.

Smith, Roswell, 13.

Smith, Wm. R., 8.

Solomon, horses of, 83.

Sophocles, manuscripts of, 95.

Spanish versions, 77, 158.

Spelling, changes in, 144, 149.

Stanley, Dean, 9.

Stephens, Robert, Greek Testaments

of, 28, 93, 94.
Storrs, Richard S., 13.
Stowe, Calvin E., 11.
Strack, labors of, 57.
Strong, James, 11, 166.
Style, Hare on, 40.
Swift on A. v., 37.
Symmachus, version of, 44, 74.
Syriac language, 61, 76.

manuscripts, 96.

version, 44, 62, 75, 76.

Talmud, collection of, 54.

criticism of, 57, 58.

Talmudists, rules of, 54, 55.
Targums and A. V., 75.
Taverner, Bible of, 27.
Taylor, Andrew L., 13.
Tenses, Greek, 127.

of A. v., 105.

Thayer, J. Henry, 12, 133.

Thebaic manuscript, 96.

Theodotion, version of, 44, 74.

Thirlwall, Bishop, 8.

Thomas of Harkel, revision of, 96.

Three Heavenly Witnesses, 89.

Thucydides, text of, 86.

Tischendorf, labors of, 74, 97, 98.

Tracy, Charle#, 13.

Translations : see Versions.

Translator, duty of, 58.

Tregelles, S. P., labors of, 10, 97, 98.

Tremellius, version of, 158.

Trench, Archbishop, 9, 174-177.

Trevor, John B., 13.

Trinity, doctrine of, 92.

Troutbeck, J., 10.

Trite Conservatism in Respect to

Changes in thr English and the

Greek Text, 113-125.
Tyndale's version, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30,

32, 39.

Uncial manuscripts, 17, 95.

University Presses, 19.

Unavarrantable Verbal Differ-
ences and Agreements in the
English Version, 133-143.

Valera, Cypriano de, version of, 158.
Van Dyck, C. V. A., 11.
Vatican manuscript, 54, 95.
Vaughan, Charles J., 10.
Verbs, errors in, 105.
Verses of the Bible, 28, 166.
Versions of the Bible or of parts

thereof:
Ancient, 73.

188

ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

Versions of the Bible or of parts
thereof:

Anglo-American, 46, 52, 9i-98.

Aquila, 44, 74.

Arabic, 62, 75, 96.

Authorized: see Authorized

Version.

Bezse, 28, 93, 94, 158.

Bomberg, 53.

Campbell, 41.

Chaldee, 57, 58, 62, 75.

Conant, 82.

Coverdale, 25, 26, 28, 32, 39, 168.

Cranmer, 29, 32, 39.

Diodati, 77, 158.

Dutch, 25, 37.

Ethiopic, 75.

French, 77.

German, 25, 77.

Greek, 44.

Italian, 77, 158.

Jerome, 52, 55, 74, 158.

Junius, 158.

Latin, 22, 25, 26, 27, 77, 174.

Lowth, 41.

Luther, 23, 24, 25, 77.

Munster, S., 26, 157.

Pagninus, 158.

Persian, 75.

Pcshito, 44, 96.

Rheiras, 29.

Rogers, John, 26, 28, 29, 32.

Samaritan, 75.

Saxon, 22.

Spanish, 77, 158.

Versions of the Bible or of parts
thereof:

Symmachus, 44, 74.

Syriac, 44, 62, 75, 76.

Theodotion, 44, 74.

Tremellius, 158.

Tyndale, 24, 25, 27, 28, 30, 32, 39.

Valera, Cypriano de, 158.

Various, 22, 24-36, 40, 44, 73, 77,

96, 157, 158.
Vulgate, 22, 27, 52, 55, 74, 75, 77,

94, 96, 158, 174.

Whittingham, 28.

Wyclifte, 22, 30, 38.

Vowels, Hebrew, 62.

War horse of Job, 82.

Warren, S. D., 13.

Warren, W. F., 12.

Washburn, E. A., 12.

Weir, Professor, 8.

Wcstcott, Brooke F., labors of, 10, 98.

Wetstein, labors of, 97, 98.

Whitchurch, Bible of, 32.

White, Norman, 13.

Whittingham, version of, 28.

Wilberforce, Bishop, 10.

Winchester, Bishop of, 7.

Winston, F. S., 13.

Woman taken in adultery, 90, 124.

Woolsey, Theodore D., 12, 43.

Wordsworth, Bishop, 8, 9.

Wright, William, 8.

Wright, William Aldis, 8.

Wycliffe, version of, 22, 30, 38.

INDEX TO TEXTS CITED.

PAGE

Genesis 1, generally, 167

1:10 83

2 : 1-3 167

2:4 167

4 : 23, 24 167

5, generally 153

10:15,19 153

12:6 65

12 : 9 63

12 : 16 148

15 : 6 142

17:7 50

22:15,17,18 51

25 : 4 153

28 : 12 147

36 : 24 , 67

37, generally 154

37 : 3 66

39. generally 154

46 : 13 153

Exodus 2 : 11, 12 51

9 : 31 149

11 : 2 66

28 : 11 145

29:36,40 147

30 : 13 no

30:25,35 146

34 : 13 65

36:13,38 145

37 : 29 146

38:24 150

liOviticus 16 : 8 65

Numbers 5 : 13 150

7 : 13 147

21 : 14 64

23:22 67

23:23 69

24 : 4 70

24:17 64

PAGE

Numb. 26, generally.. 154

26:23 153

32 : 17 147

34:5 63

Deuteronomy 2 : 23.. 152

4:2 60

12 : 32 60

21:4 63

28:27 147

33 : 6 160

Jusliua9 : 5 145

11:16 63

17:1 70

24:33 63

Judges 5 : 2 65

9:46 148

9 : 53 146

12, generally 154

12:14 147

15:8 66

15:19 64

16.11 150

18:7 149

20:26 64

21:19 68

Ruth 3: 15 66

I. Samuell:l 64

2:3 160

9 :5 150

17 : 22 149

20:40 149

22:4 148

27 : 10 150

II. Samuel 1 : 18 64

8:1 64

18:23 150

PAGE

I.King84:24 152

10:28 83

II. Kings 4: 35 149

16:10 153

22:14 65

I. Chronicles

1, generally 153

1:1 153

1 : 33 153

2, generally 154

3:10^. 153

7:1 153

29 : 11 89

II. Chronicles

4 : 12 147

9:14 145

12:16 153

21:20 150

Ezra9:3 145

9 : 12 150

Nehemiah 13 : 26 147

Esther 10 : 3 150

Job3:3 81

3:11 160

9 : 33 145

18:19 147

26 : 13 65

30 : 20,25 160

39, generally 82

39:4 150

39:24 82

39 : 40 82

40, generally 82

40:19,23 82

41:18. 149

189

190

ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

PAGE

Psalms 3 : 4, 5

.... 67

4 • 1

... 68

7:13

... 69

10:4

.... 69

19:3

59, 162

22:30

... 69

35 • 15 21

.... 146

37:40

.... 67

40-11

.... 67

47:8

.... 68

48:1

.... 68

59:17

..68, 69

59:19

.... 69

66:12

.... 150

71:22

.... 65

73:16

.... 150

75:5

.... 160

91:5,6

.... 160

96:12,13

.... 168

98:8,9

.... 168

109 • 4

.... 163

124:3

.... 147

Proverbs 8 ■ 12 ....

.... 150

8:23

145

8:27

.... 150

24:21

.... 81

Eccles. 10 • 1

.... 146

12:13

.... 163

Song of Solomon

1:14

.... 147

2:12

147

4:13

147

7-5

.... 65

Isaiah 3: 18

.... 147

3:20

66

6:13

.... 84

7:16

68

8:2

.... 153

8:19

148

8:21

145

9:1

.... 65

10:14

.... 148

10:28

.... 149

13:3

68

,13:21

.... 67

13: '22

.... 67

14:22

.... 147

14:29,31

63

15:2

61

15:5

61

PAGE

Isaialil6:13 65

18:2 63

19:10 66

27 : 1 65

28:1.3,4 84

28:15-19 83

28:17 84

28 : 20 83, 84

38:14 148

38:18 160

40:12....* 148

47:8 149

Jeremiah 1 : 15 83

8:7 147

10:22 149

17 : 1 146

24 : 2 150

25:20 152

38:11 145

39:3 64

49:31 150

50 : 36 148

Ezekiel3:9 146

13:10, 18,20 66

23:15 66

27 : 9, 16, 19, 21,

22 150

27:11,17 64

29 : 10 63

30:6 63

34:31 69

Daniel 2:5 82

2:9 83

3:21 145

3:28 83

7:9 83

Ho8ea3:l 65

4 : 18 65

11:12 65

Joel 2: 24 144

3:4 63

Obadiah 12-14 67

Nahum2:3 66

2:7 04, 145

2 : 12 145

3:8 61

3: 19 ll'J

PAOK

Hatobakuk 2 : 6, 16... 65

3:3 67

Zechariah 1 : 21 148

7 : 12 146

Malachl3:l 51

Matthew 1:25 90, 129

2: 2 129

2:22 104, 130

3:4 118

3:5,6 130

3 : 15 .- 161

4:6 104

4 : 25 118

5 : 10 138

5 : 12 131

5:16,17 131

5:22 136

5:44 88

5:45 132

5:48 131

6:1 131

6:2,3 131

6:10 140

6:12 121

6:13 89, 124

6 : 25 150

8 : 24 105

9:2 105

9:13 88

9 : 24 129

10:22 142

10 : 23 121

12:5,7 135

14:8 147

15 : 36 130

16:2,3 89

16:14 161

17:21 89

17 : 24 109

18:11 89

18:24,28 149

19:8 106

20:16 89

20:23 162

21:44 89

22: 14 89

23:6 150

23 : 14 89

23 : a5 136

23:44 136

24 : 12 103

INDEX TO TEXTS CITED.

191

PAGE

Matthew 24 : 21 106

24:30 104

25:7 150

25 : 14 162

25 : 28 105

25 : 32 135

25 : 46 141

26 : 49 105

27:35 89

Mark 1 : 2 90

1 : 27 121

2:17 88

4:37 105

5 : 34 142

6:11 89

6:22 49

6 : 25 149

6:41 130

7 : 16 89

8:6 130

9:22 121

9:23 90, 121

9:44,46 89

10 : 52 142

11:26 89

12:38 139

13:21 149

13 : 34 162

15:28 89

16 : 9-20 89, 124

IiUkel:59 106

2:7,14 90

3:15 161

4:6 105

4:44 90

5:3,7 130

5:32 88

6:1 90

6:27,28 88

7:4 150

7:5 101

7:38 105

7:41 149

7:42 150

7:50 142

8:48 124, 142

9 : 16 130

9:55,56 89, 90

10:41 116

11:2 140

11:19 90

12:58 144,161

PAGE

Luke 14: 5 90

14:10 150

« 15:17,22 121

16:5 160

17:7 149

17:36 89

18:42 142

19:13 150

19:16,17 90

20:46 139

21:9 149

21:19 109

22:43,44 89

23:15 90, 122

23 : 17 89

23 : 34 89, 90

23 : 44 136

23:46 108

24:12 89, 161

24:25 136

24:40 89

24:51 90

Johnl:3 106

1:4 103

1:5 148

1 : 14 109

1:18 90

1:21,25 103

3 : 10 101

3:13 90

3:34 162

4:27 102

4 : 38 106

5:3,4 89,124

5 : 35 102

6 : 39 131

7:8 90

7: 53 to 8: 11. 89, 90, 124

8:6 161

8:46 150

8:58 136

10:4,14 122

11:3,5 134

13:7 134

13:10 135

14:1 131

14:14 90

15:26 163

20:5,11 160

21:17 1^1

21 : 25 89

Acts 2: 47 142

PAGE

Acts 5 : 30 109

7:42 161

7 : 45 156

7:59 163

8:37 89

9:5, 6 1 89, 94

10 : 3 148

10 : 29 161

11:20 90

13 : 18 89

15:34 89

16:7 90

18 : 5 122

19:2 109

19 : 15 134

20:28 90

20:37 105

21 : 3 108

21:5,6,7 108

21 : 15 116, 149

22:10 89

23:1 162

23:9 122

23:22 161

24:6-8 89

24:25 116.

26 : 14 89

26:24 141

26 : 28 141

27:12 154

27:40 144

28:8,13 149

28:29 89

Romans, generally... 138

1 :17 102

3 : 21 102, 106

4. generally 14S

4:3 143

4:17 163

4:19 50

5:4 116

5:5 106

5:6.8 107

5:11 138, 147

5:12 107, 129

5:17,19 107

6:2,4 107

7:4 107

7:6 94

7:7,8 136

7 : 25 105

9 :22 143

9 : 29 155

192

ANGLO-AMERICAN BIBLE REVISION.

PAGE

Romans 11 : 4 161

11:6 89

12:1 116

12:17 148

14:10 90

14:23 148

■ 16 : 24 89

I. Corinthians

■ 1 : 18 142

. 1:19 116

2:11 134

4:4 48

■ 6:20 122

7:31 141

^ 9 : 24 149

9:26,27 110

^ 10 : 9 90

•i 10:24 150

11 : 29 148

" 12:4 135

' 13. generally 168

13:3 90

14:3,19,34 161

15:12,21 106

15 ,27,28 139

15:41 161

15:44 164

15:47 90

II. Corinthians

1 : 3-7 137

1:20 123

2:15 142

3:3 161

3:7 109

4:14 90

5:4 107

5:14 129

5:16 134

5:20 104

8:1 149

10:6 150

12:2 109

GalatianH, Kcnerally 138

1 : i:}, 23, 24 i:',0

2:20 104, IW, 131

3:6 143

4 :5 109

4:17 146

PAGE

Galatians 5 : 1 123

5:20,23 116

Ephesians, gener-
ally 138

3:9 90

4:1 148

4:14 161

5:21 91

Philippians 3 : 14 149

4 : 6 116, 149

Colossians, gener-
ally 138

1 : 27 91

2:2 91

3:13,15 91

I. Thessalonians

4 : 18 148

II. Thessalonians

1 : 10 146

- — 2:5,8 , 103

I. Timothy 2 : 2 148

2:9 148, 149

3 : 13 150

3:16 91

5:4 147

5 : 22 150

- — 6:25 102

II. Timothy 3 : 16 163

4:7 101

4:14 50

,. 109

,. 106

,. V.VJ

.. 138

,. 110

.. 106

4:3 106, 138

Hebrews 1 : 4.

2:3

2:8

3:11

3:16

4:2

— 4:4

4 :6,7

, 4:8

I 7 : 18,19

PAGE

Hebrews 9:1 105

9 : 12 162

10 : 38 162, 164

11 : 10 102

11:17 105

11 : 23 150

12 : 7 123

James 2 : 2,3 135

2:9 150

5:1 149

I. Peter 1 : 22 162

■' 3:11 148

3 : 14 138

3:15 91

3 : 20 94

II. Peter, generally.. 138
1:21 162

I. John 2 : 19 162

2:20 148

2 : 23 88

2:24 140

5:7,8 89

Jude, generally 138

11 156

16 146

25 91

Revelation

1:5 88

1:8 91

1:9,11 94

2:3,20,24 94

2 : 25 162

3:2 91, 94

4:2 83

5:10,14 94

15 : 3 94

10:5 94

17:6 135, 146

17 : 7 135

17:8,16 94

18:2 94

21 : 19 102

22:1-5 167

22:14 91, 123

22:18,19 CQ

THE END.

Date Due

A t

/

1

^

BS188.A512
Anglo-American Bible revision

Princeton Theological Semmary-Speer Library

1 1012 00059 7114