« PreviousContinue »
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. ii. 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 viïi. 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 (1 John ï. 23), which has been printed in italics, is now
Η ΚΑΙΝΗ ΔΙΑΘΗΚΗ, 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 Tectus 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 δια του αίματος αυτού, and our only Master and Lord, • Jesus Christ' (Jude 4), Tòv móvov SEOTÓTNV, 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), Kúplov dè tòv Xplotov, 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' (uovoyevns 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 (ńcópet) (Mark vii. 20); and ‘I will make three tabernacles '(toińów), 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 èu åvő pórous sudorías (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.'
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
Version ' by the revisers, who say, 'the longer we have been engaged upon it, the more we have learned to admire its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression, its general accuracy, the music of its cadences, and the felicities 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.
Authorised Version. When the Jews sent unto him When the Jews sent priests and from Jerusalem priests and Levites Levites from Jerusalem to ask to ask him.
him. Isaiah the prophet.
The prophet Esaias. In the midst of you standeth one
There standeth one among you whom ye know not, the latchet whom ye know. not ... whose of whose shoe I am unworthy to shoe's latchet I am not worthy to unloose.
unloose I have beheld the Spirit descend- I saw the Spirit descending from ing as a dove out of heaven. heaven like a dove. He findeth first.
He first findeth.
The next day.
Jesus as he And looking upon Jesus as he walked and saith.
walked, he saith. And they abode.
Now Philip was from Bethsaida Now Philip was of Bethsaida, of the city of Andrew.
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.
Authorised Version. On that day went Jesus out of The same day went Jesus out the house, and sat by the sea side. of the house, and mt by the sea And there were gathered unto side. him great multitudes, so that he And great multitudes were entered into a boat, and sat; and gathered together unto him, so all the multitude stood on the that he went into a ship, and sat; beach. And he spake to them and the whole multitude stood on many things in parables, saying, 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.
Authorised Version. Behold, the sower went forth to And he spake many things unto sow; and as he sowed, some seeds them in parables, saying, Behold, fell by the way side, and the birds a sower went forth to sow; came and devoured them: and And when he sowed, some seeds others fell upon the rocky places, fell by the way side, and the fowls where they had not much earth : came and devoured them and straightway they sprang up,
Some fell upon stony places, because they had no deepness of where they had not much earth : earth: and when the sun was and forthwith they sprung up, berisen, they were scorched: and cause they had no deepness of because they had no root, they
earth: withered away. And others fell
And when the sun was up, they upon the thorns; and the thorns were scorched; and because they grew up, and choked them; and had no root, they withered away. others fell upon the good ground, And some fell among thorns; and yielded fruit, some a hundred- and the thorns sprung up, and fold, some sixty, some thirty. He choked them : that hath ears, let him hear. But other fell into good ground, Matt. xiii. 1-9.
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 ávatelNavtos, to reduce its English equivalents from four to three, and to render àvéßnoav by "grew up,' reducing its equivalents by one, but balancing this by 'sprang up' for iBXáo tnte (v. 26) and for étavétele (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 evdéws, and the substitution of‘yielded fruit' for · brought forth fruit allows the distinction between εδίδου καρπόν (v. 8) and καρπόν εποίησε (v. 26), and in Rev. xxii. 2, between the slightly divergent ποιούν καρπούς-αποδιδουν τον καρπόν. 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