has been furnished to the Delegates and Syndics of the University Presses. We are able to see, therefore, what changes are simply matters of translation, and what result from more correct readings than the Textus Receptus supplies. We note that the passage of the three heavenly witnesses' (1 John v. 7) has been expunged, and that without note or comment, so unanimous are all critics in pronouncing it spurious. Peace also reigns on another battle-field of textual criticism, and ' without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness; He 'who was manifested in the flesh' (1 Tim. iii. 16), embodies the universally acknowledged reading. Faithfulness to their critical canons has compelled the Revisers to omit the doxology in the Lord's Prayer, and to accept the shortened recension in St. Luke, though the doxology is found in the four Syriac Versions, the Thebaic, Gothic, and Armenian, and in Chrysostom. The pericope of the woman taken in adultery (John vii. 53-viii. 11) is inserted in the text, but enclosed in square brackets, and the conclusion of St. Mark's Gospel (Mark xvi. 9-20), while admitted to the same place, has attention called to the difficulties attending its reception. Some verses are removed from the text, and amongst them those containing the descent of the angel into the pool (John v. 3, 4); the prophecy of the parting of the garments of our Lord (Matt. xxvii. 35) at the time of the Crucifixion; the notification by St. Mark (Mark xv. 28) of the fulfilment of prophecy; the rebuke to the disciples (Luke ix. 55) when they desired to bring fire on the Samaritan village; the statement to the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts viii. 37) of the necessity of faith before baptism; and the liberty of Christians (Rom. xiv. 6) not to observe certain days. On the other hand, one verse (1 John ii. 23), which has been printed in italics, is now

H KAINH AIAOHKH, The Greek Testament with the Readings adopted by the Revisers of the Authorised Version. Oxford: at the Clarendon Press, 1881.

"The New Testament by John Brown McClellan' furnishes a vigorous defence of the Textus Receptus as a whole, and contains a valuable compendium of objections to the current opinions on textual criticism. While these sheets have been passing through the press Dr. Westcott and Dr. Hort have published the first volume of their 'New Testament in the original Greek.' It has long been anticipated by English scholars; and if the second volume fulfils the promise of the appendix in the first volume, it will furnish a unique treatise on textual criticism. As might be expected, these scholars differ in their text, in many places, from that adopted by the revisers; but these last are more cautious and conservative in their decisions.

rescued from the imputation cast upon it. The adoption of the reading, in whom we have redemption' (Col. i. 4), omitting διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ, and our only Master and Lord, 'Jesus Christ' (Jude 4), Tòv μóvov dεσπóτηy, proves the honesty of the revisers, and gives greater weight to their opinion when they read, 'sanctify in your hearts Christ, as Lord' (1 Pet. iii. 15), Kúpιov dè тòv Xploтóv, instead of Oɛóv; and the unusual collocation (in Acts xx. 28) of the 'Church of God which he purchased with his own blood.' The freedom from theological bias is further shown in their rejection (in John i. 18) of the only begotten God' (μovoyevs Osós), of which some of their number are known advocates, and for which the evidence is exceedingly strong. Some of the readings when combined with a spirited translation impart picturesqueness to the narrative, as when Mark ix. 23 is rendered If thou canst '!; there arose therefore a questioning on the part of John's disciple with a Jew' (John iii. 25); "What is this? a new teaching!' (Mark i. 27); But should 'we say, From men-they feared the people' (Mark xi. 32); "When he heard him he was much perplexed' (Tópet) (Mark vii. 20); and I will make three tabernacles' (Tonow), in perfect accordance with Peter's impetuosity. English readers will resent the new rendering (1 Cor. xv. 55), 'O death, where is thy victory? O death, where is thy sting;' but the loss of the familiar words is inevitable, if a correct text is to be the basis of a faithful translation. We regret that the majority of the revisers determined to accept the reading ȧvoρúπois εvdoκías (Luke ii. 14), which is opposed to a very respectable weight of critical opinion, and still more that they adopted the unrhythmical periphrasis, among men in whom he is well pleased,' in place of the consecrated expression "good-will to men.'

6

We must now pass to the English Version, and that we may judge the work fairly we turn to the preface where we learn the exact aim of the revisers. A faint odour of pedantry hangs over this too elaborate document, there are ominous references to the niceties of Greek grammar, and much stress is laid upon the insertion and omission of the article. We are warned, and not altogether unjustly, to suspend our judgment concerning many of the alterations that have been made for a convergence ' of reasons which, when explained, would at once be accepted; 'but until so explained might never be surmised even by intel'ligent readers.' The fear excited by such a sentence is, however, allayed by the panegyric pronounced on 'this great

6

Version' by the revisers, who say, 'the longer we have been engaged upon it, the more we have learned to admire its sim'plicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression, 'its general accuracy, the music of its cadences, and the feli'cities of its rhythm.' But we cannot read a chapter of the Gospels without perceiving the diametrically opposite principles which govern the procedure of the revisers of 1611 and of 1881. The former coveted earnestly, as the best gifts of translators, forcible English. They determined to make their version flexible and rhythmical; they cared but little for precision and minute accuracy; and literal reproduction of their original they utterly ignored, even to the verge of the limits prescribed to faithful rendering from one language to another. Our revisers strive, with undoubted learning and almost incredible industry, to reproduce the very order and turn of the words, the literal force of each tense and mood, and the rendering of each Greek term by the same English equivalent as far as practicable. They have obtained their ends, but at too great a price. In the Gospels, especially, they had to deal with what was, at first, a preacher's narrative, often repeated and brought into its general form by the exigencies of public audiences. It was further, in its substance, the record of men who thought as Hebrews even when they wrote as Hellenists, and therefore it presented peculiar difficulties to those who would make it the heritage of English people, and maintain as far as possible the familiar words of the former version. Our revisers have subjected their original to the most exhaustive grammatical analysis, every chapter testifies to the fear of Winer that was before their eyes, and their familiarity with the intricacies of modern verbal criticism. But the reader who was conversant with the old version-and what Englishman, cultured or untaught, was not so conversant?—is surprised and irritated by the inversion of familiar phrases, by a multitude of minute alterations, and by the occurrence of cumbrous periphrases. Every phase of New Testament scholarship was represented in the New Testament Company, but the niceties of idiomatic English appear to have found no champion, and no voice was raised to warn these eminent scholars of the dangers that threatened their work from overrefinement. It is true that this unhappy flaw cannot destroy the labour of a decade, but it mars the symmetry and cripples the efficiency of this version to a serious degree. The following list of inversions and unnecessary changes occurring in the first chapter of St. John's Gospel will illustrate our meaning.

When the Jews sent unto him from Jerusalem priests and Levites to ask him.

Isaiah the prophet

In the midst of you standeth one whom ye know not, the latchet of whose shoe I am unworthy to unloose.

I have beheld the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven. He findeth first,

There came a man sent from God (ἐγένετο ἄνθρωπος ἀπεσταλμένος).

On the morrow (passim).
The same is he that (cf. 'Our
Father which').

And he looked upon Jesus as he walked and saith.

And they abode.

He brought him unto Jesus.
Now Philip was from Bethsaida

of the city of Andrew.

Authorised Version.

When the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him.

The prophet Esaias.

There standeth one among you whom ye know not... whose shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.

I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove.

He first findeth.

There was a man sent from

God.

The next day.

The same is he which.

And looking upon Jesus as he walked, he saith,

And abode.

He brought him to Jesus. Now Philip was of Bethsaida, the city of Andrew.*

There is scarcely a page in the Gospels in which we are not confronted with a similar amount of alterations, all perfectly legitimate in a new version, and some, in a slight degree, improvements; but the total gain is almost inappreciable. These apparently needless changes lend colour to the criticism that the revisers have poured the new wine of grammatical subtlety into old bottles, and, to adopt the new version, the skins 'burst, the wine is spilled, and the skins perish.'

If we put the parable of the Sower in the two versions side by side, we find many similar changes.

New Version.

On that day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side. And there were gathered unto him great multitudes, so that he entered into a boat, and sat; and all the multitude stood on the beach. And he spake to them many things in parables, saying,

Authorised Version.

The same day went Jesus out of the house, and at by the sea side.

And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.

*The English reader will find great assistance in his comparison of the two versions from the Variorum Bible, published by Eyre & Spottiswoode, which gives the variations of renderings suggested by the best scholars, and variations of readings.

New Version.

Behold, the sower went forth to sow; and as he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the birds came and devoured them: and others fell upon the rocky places, where they had not much earth: and straightway they sprang up, because they had no deepness of earth and when the sun was risen, they were scorched: and because they had no root, they withered away. And others fell upon the thorns; and the thorns grew up, and choked them: and others fell upon the good ground, and yielded fruit, some a hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty. He that hath ears, let him hear.Matt. xiii. 1-9.

Authorised Version.

And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;

And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up: Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:

And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.

And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:

But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.

Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Granting that the difference between that day' and the same day' was essential, and that 'great multitudes were ⚫ gathered to him' required to be altered into there were 'gathered unto him great multitudes;' that as he sowed' and when he sowed' were very dissimilar; and devoured up' was too archaic for a version that retains whiles,' but and if,' and bewrayeth,' it still seems a question whether it was worth while to alter the translation of åvarelλavTos, to reduce its English equivalents from four to three, and to render ávéßnoav by grew up,' reducing its equivalents by one, but balancing this by sprang up' for ¿ßλáστnσε (v. 26) and for ¿avéTEINE (v. 8), using the same English for two Greek words, which is one of the alleged faults of the Authorised Version. In the explanation of the parable one substantial alteration is made (v. 19)-This is he that was sown by the way side;' uniform translation is secured for eveéws, and the substitution of yielded fruit' for brought forth fruit allows the distinction between ἐδίδου καρπόν (ν. 8) and καρπὸν ἐποίησε (v. 26), and in Rev. xxii. 2, between the slightly divergent ποιοῦν καρπούς—ἀποδιδοῦν τὸν καρπὸν. We may put into the same scale the substitution of rocky' for stony,' the 'sower' for a sower,' and all the rest is very trifling; for it is a minor matter whether the wicked onesnatcheth' or

6

2