this house with glory," a thought expanded by the later prophet, "the Lord whom ye seek shall suddenly come to His temple" (Mal. iii. 1), and strikingly illustrated by the Nunc dimittis of devout Simeon (Luke ii. 25). No honest band of revisers could have avoided the alteration of the clause, "the desire of all nations shall come," into "the desirable things of all nations shall come," the "desirable things " referred to being unquestionably the presents and gifts from the Kings of the Gentiles spoken of in the 72nd Psalm. The Christian apologist must learn to quote texts which can endure the brunt of controversy. It would be useless to equip soldiers with arms which might be shivered in the first combat. A new age requires new weapons, and on the Christian battle-field the old truths, as certain as ever, must be defended by arguments in some respects new. The importance of the old principle, too often forgotten, is more clearly coming into view, that the revelation of Christ to the prophets of Israel was made not only “in divers manners" but "by divers portions" (Heb. i. 1). In the infancy of Biblical criticism it would have been considered unorthodox to translate Psalm viii. 5, as in the Revised Version, by "Thou hast made him but little lower than God," for such a rendering was supposed to endanger New Testament authority. It has, however, long since been acknowledged that the Epistle to the Hebrews loses nothing by the adoption in the Psalm of the most natural rendering. We have now got a little beyond the stage in which men sought to counteract geological heresies by such translations as "in the beginning God created the substance of the heavens and the substance of the earth," and to uphold the Divinity of the Messiah by inventing in its favour the no less erroneous translation of Eve's exclamation at the birth of Cain (Gen. iv. 1), "I have gotten me the man Jehovah!" It is important to observe that the Messianic interpretation of the Second Psalm remains quite unaffected by any of the translations given in the margin of verse 12, as alternatives for "kiss the son," renderings unfairly ascribed to the spirit of rationalism. The 12th verse is nowhere referred to in the New Testament, and the correct reading of the Hebrew text is very doubtful. But the key of the Messianic position is verse 7, which is frequently quoted in the New Testament, and the translation of which is not open to dispute. It is unwise to seek to defend positions which are unquestionably weak, when the citadel is so strong. I cannot notice various interesting points connected with the revised translation of Psalms 16 and 22, but it is perfectly safe to affirm that the Messianic interpretation of those Psalms, and the authority of the New Testament Scriptures, would not be imperilled by the adoption of any of the marginal renderings of the Revised Version. The marginal rendering of Psalm xlv. 6, has also been pointed to as savouring of Rationalism. I maintain that the translation "Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever," is the only admissible rendering. But common honesty compelled the revisers to give on the margin the alternative rendering, which has often been supported by eminent scholars. The argument of the sacred writer in the Epistle to the Hebrews (ch. i. 8, 9), which rests on the passage, would, no doubt (if the marginal translation was adopted), be reduced to an argumentum ad hominem. But, even in that case, the truth which the epistle seeks to establish would not itself be imperilled. In Psalm 110, a prophecy of the very highest importance, the Messianic interpretation has lost nothing of significance by the word "lord" ("my lord ") being deprived of its capital letter. The force of the Psalm as applicable to Christ is more clearly and correctly brought out in the New Version than in the Old. The study of the Revised Version will tend to correct many popular misrepresentations of the Sacred Text. The rendering in Isaiah xxxiii., 17, "a far stretching land," referring to the Holy Land as freed from the Assyrian invaders, and stretching out on every side far and wide, may, though the old version is in this place perfectly defensible, lead the student to see that "the king in his beauty" does not mean Jehovah or Messiah, but Hezekiah. The Messianic sense of the beautiful prophecy of the Shepherd and his flock, in Ezek. xxxiv., is not obscured in the New Version, but the correction of "Plant of renown," in verse 29, into "plantation of renown," will lead the reader to see that in that verse the prophet is speaking of the fruitfulness of the land in the day when Messiah shall be acknowledged as King. In the prophecy of Christ as the Prince of Peace (Isaiah ix. 5) the Revised Version shows that the passage makes no reference to a future battle, fiercer than any which has occurred on earth's encrimsoned plains, but, that in place of depicting "the day of wrath" spoken of in Psalm 110, introduces a scene like Zech. ix. 10, in which the sword and the battle-bow are broken, and the armour and blood-stained garments are burned, for “nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more," when the Kingdom of the Prince of Peace shall be established. The rendering, too, of Zech. xiii. 6, "what are these wounds between thine arms ?" though less literal than that of the Authorised Version, may help to warn the reader against the offensive application to the wounds of Christ on the cross of a passage which speaks of wounds inflicted by a false prophet on himself in the worship of his idols. The application of the passage to Christ has been rightly rejected, even by the best Roman Catholic critics of modern times. Nor ought the translation "the maiden," in place of "a virgin," in Isaiah vii. 14, to be viewed as hostile to Christianity. While we maintain the correctness of the interpretation put upon that text in the New Testament, it is clear that the men of Isaiah's days would not thus have understood the passage. The delicacy with which this subject is handled in the New Testament (especially as contrasted with the Apocryphal writings), the manner in which men were led to believe in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God, before their attention was drawn to the mystery connected with His incarnation, the mode in which the resurrection of Christ was ever insisted on as “the sign” given to the men of that generation, while that which from its very nature could only be "a sign " to believers, and not to unbelievers, is seldom referred to, and never brought into controversy, are to my mind some of the most remarkable phenomena of early Christianity. The mystery lay concealed in the words of the Old Testament prophet: it has been brought to light in the New Testament. I close, not for want of matter, but for want of time. My arguments are, perhaps, too curt to convince opponents. I can only protest against any attempt to decry the Revised Version as likely in any of its parts to endanger "the faith once delivered to the saints." I venture to express a hope that the New Version may win the confidence of churchmen, and, at no distant day, may be authorised to be read in our churches. The Ven. EDWIN PALMER, D.D., Archdeacon of Oxford, and Canon of Christ Church. THE only grounds on which I can defend my acceptance of a place among the speakers on this subject are two. One is that in past years I have devoted a good deal of time to the study of Hebrew; the other, that I have had experience of a reviser's work. I have had the privilege of taking part in the revision of the New Testament, and of the Apocrypha, though not in the revision of the canonical books of the Old Testament. My study of Hebrew has enabled me to form some opinion for myself on the merits of the work which is under discussion. My experience as a reviser puts me in a position to appreciate the difficulties of revision, and to understand, more or less, the methods adopted by the revisers of the Old Testament. I must confess that I have not compared the Revised Version from end to end with the Hebrew original. Far from it. I have compared, however, with the Hebrew selected portions of this Version. I have compared portions of considerable extent with the Authorised Version, and I have read a very large part of the Revised Version itself continuously. Three points have struck me in this examination-first the conscientious labour which has been bestowed on the work; secondly, the conservative spirit of the revisers; and thirdly, the general felicity of their diction. I. A careful reader cannot fail to observe that every verse, every sentence, I had almost said every stop, has been reconsidered. If he keeps the Authorised Version by the side of the Revised while he is reading, or if long use has given the words of the Authorised Version an abiding place in his memory, he will notice minute changes, as well as changes of importance, which prove incontestably the diligence of the revisers. It is not unlikely that some of these changes will seem to him at first needless; but I venture to think that, if he has patience to judge them fairly—at all events if he has a tolerable knowledge of Hebrew-he will, for the most part, come at last to the conclusion that they have been made on good and sufficient grounds. The first two chapters of Genesis supply examples, but detailed mention of them would be out of place to-day. If marks of unwearied diligence are observable in the books whose style is simplest, much more is this the case in such books as Job, and the Psalms, and the Prophets. In these books English readers will find a frequent gain of clearness and force. Of course clearness and force, in a translation, may be purchased by the sacrifice of accuracy; but readers who know Hebrew will generally, I think, confess that in this revision the result is obtained by accurate translation. II. The work has been done in a spirit eminently conservative. The revisers seem to have been anxious to make their emendations as few as possible. They have been unwilling to retranslate in any case in which the old translation was tolerable. I am sure that this policy will recommend their work to a large part of the public. There will remain, however, no doubt, a certain number of irreconcilables. The old mumpsimus will always find champions to prefer it to the modern sumpsimus. To such persons the revisers will appear to have changed too much; but to those who are capable of dispassionate judgment there is more danger that they will seem to have changed too little. I will take an illustration of this point from the Psalms. I suppose that most of us are more familiar with the Prayer Book Version of the Psalms than with the Bible Version, though we all know the looseness of the former and the superior accuracy of the latter. Certainly this is the case with myself. In reading the Revised Version of the Psalms for the first time I frequently noticed clumsy expressions. In almost every instance I found that these expressions were the expressions used in the Authorised Version—that is to say, in the Bible version of 1611. The revisers must have exercised a rare amount of self-denial in retaining them. If they had introduced such expressions for the first time, their introduction would have been greedily seized upon by hostile critics to discredit the whole work. And this brings me to my third point. III. The changes which the revisers have made are, for the most part, felicitous in diction. They are perspicuous, they are graceful, and they do not spoil the rhythm of the passages in which they occur. I am sensible that there are few subjects on which opinions are more apt to differ than questions of style. I can but express my own opinion, which I desire to do with all modesty. I do not address myself to critics who are so wedded to the rhythm of each passage in the Authorised Version that they cannot perceive the merit of a new rhythm which comes in with new words. With these it is useless to argue. The condemnation of the Revised Version on the ground of rhythm, as on all other grounds, is with them a foregone conclusion. It is bad because it is new. If similar notions had prevailed in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Authorised Version would never have come into existence. Indeed, the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures would never have been translated anew, but both would still be read in that Latin translation which was for many centuries the Authorised Version in England. If I were asked to name one book by which the diction of the revisers might be tried, I should be inclined to name the Psalms. In elegance as well as in accuracy, I have seemed to myself to find the Revised Version here decidedly superior to the Authorised Version. I select this book, however, because it offers the fairest field for a comparison. Here, as I have said already, few of us are prejudiced by long use in favour of the Authorised Version. Use has attached us to the Prayer Book Version, of which the inaccuracy is as incontestable as its beauty. I have attributed to the revisers of the Old Testament felicity of diction. I must make one exception, though I make it most unwillingly, because I sympathise heartily with the motive which actuated them in the case of which I am going to speak. They tell us in their brief and scholarly Preface that where the Hebrew word Sheol was translated “hell” in the Authorised Version, they have usually-not invariably-retained the Hebrew word in English letters instead of translating it. The revisers of the New Testament, it will be remembered, have on the same principle retained the Greek word Hades in English letters wherever it was rendered "hell" in the Authorised Version. We all know the reason. Hell is associated in English ears with the place of torment. The words Sheol and Hades, in the Hebrew and Greek, mean only the invisible world, the abode of spirits parted from the body: they have no connotation of happiness or misery. I grant the strength of this reason. To my mind it justifies the rejection of the word "hell" wherever it is used in the Authorised Version to represent Sheol or Hades. But I do not believe that either the Hebrew word or the Greek can be conveniently naturalised in the English Bible. The revisers of the Old Testament have retained "the grave" and "the pit" as renderings of Sheol wherever they found these words so employed in the Authorised Version. I cannot but think that they would have done well to render it always by one of these words. If there is any place which seems to repudiate both of these renderings (as is perhaps the case with Isa. xiv. 9, where the revisers have retained the word "hell") it would not, I think, be impossible to employ a paraphrase instead of a single word. I have mentioned this blot, as I think it, on the Revised Version, because it is a conspicuous blot. It comes three times over, for example, in Ps. xlix. 14, 15. But I must repeat that I have found very few places in which new words or new turns of expression seem to me unhappy. DISCUSSION. The Rev. FREDERICK MEYRICK, Rector of Blickling-and- In the ten minutes I have I will confine myself to one point, but that point is so important that I hope the Revised Version may not be adopted until it has been reconsidered. I refer to the removal of the scapegoat from Holy Scripture and the substitution of an evil spirit named Azazel. If grammatical considerations require that this should be done, so be it; but I contend that this is not the case. It is argued that because the two clauses la-Jehovah and la-azazel answers to each other, and la-Jehovah mean that one goat was for Jehovah-Azazel must, like Jehovah, be a person. The form of expression may raise a presumption to that effect, but that it amounts to a proof is an incredibly rash assertion. Again, it is said that azazel would have required the article, had it meant "for a remover of sins." This is not so; when Elijah was ordered to anoint Jehu "for King," the word melek is used without the article, nor has navi the article in the expression, "thou shalt anoint Elisha for prophet. So here, when the goat was appointed "for remover of sins," azazel has not the article. Is it possible that Azazel should have been so mighty a being that the gifts on the Day of Atonement were divided between him and Jehovah every year, and yet that his name should be found in no other place in Holy Scripture? Is it possible that a goat offered to Jehovah (and, therefore, half-sacrificed to Him) should have been taken away from Him and given to the evil spirit? And for what purpose was it given? To bribe the evil spirit. Is anything more contrary to the spirit of Scripture? If not to bribe him, then, as some have said, that he might be mocked and gibed at in this his representative. This idea may have arisen in the debased ages of Judaism or possibly in the middle ages, but it is alien to the Scriptures. The word azazel is derived from an ultimate word signifying to remove;" a reduplicated form of it is here used, which means “to remove by repeated actions." What more appropriate, or in an artistic view more beautiful, than the picture of the scape-goat going away, and step by step removing from the people the sense and the guilt of their sin? The perfection of the type is marred by the new translation. This, indeed, is not a direct argument against it, but it is a confirmation of a point otherwise proved. According to the Authorised Version both the goats typified Christ, one as the Atoner, the other as the bearer away of sin; and we may be glad that this typical lesson need not be lost. Before the Revised Versions are adopted I hope that they will be submitted to another committee of Convocation, whose business it will be to revise the revisions. The Old Testament revision, however, will require much less re-revision than the Revised Version of the New Testament. 66 The Rev. J. F. BATEMAN, Rector of North and South Lopham, Thetford, Norfolk. HAVING ventured at the Newcastle Church Congress, four years ago, to protest against the omission of the word "Charity" by the revisers of the New Testament, which forced us to read in St. Peter, "in your love of the brethren, love," &c.; I am glad on this occasion to thank the revisers of the Old Testament, for not making so many small alterations in our fine old English Version, while giving us many undoubted improvements. I will only mention one, viz., the First Lesson for Christmas Day, familiar to us all from our boyhood on one of the most joyous days of the Church's year. In the Authorised Version, verses 1, 3, and 5, we read thus-(v. I.) "Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first He lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her, etc." (v. 3.) "Thou hast multiplied the nation and not increased the joy, etc." (v. 5.) "For every battle of the warrior is with confused noise and garments rolled in blood, but this shall be with burning and fuel of fire." What meaning has all this ever conveyed to thousands? They are grand, sonorous words, but what do they mean? Now listen to the Revised Version(v. I.) "But there shall be no gloom to her that was in anguish. In the former time He brought into contempt the land of Zebulun, etc., but in the latter time hath He made it glorious, etc." (v. 3.) Thou hast multiplied the nation, Thou hast increased their joy." (v. 5.) "For all the armour of the armed man in the tumult, and the garments rolled in blood, shall even be for burning and fuel of fire." i.c., shall be abolished, and a reign of peace shall come. Surely this is a grand improvement, and I quite intend to read both versions in my Norfolk parish church next Christmas Day, thankfully accepting the Revised Version as a means of promoting interest in the study of God's Word. Four eventful years have passed since the Revised Version 66 |