Transcribed from the 1856 John Farquhar Shaw edition by David Price.





                            BIBLICAL REVISION:


                              CONSIDERATIONS

                              IN FAVOUR OF A

                           REVISED TRANSLATION

                                    OF

                             Holy Scripture.

                                * * * * *

                            BY EDWARD SLATER.

                                * * * * *

    [The Authorized Version] is far from being immaculate.  It is not
    sufficiently close and uniform in rendering the original . . . is not
    calculated to convey precise and critical information in difficult
    and mysterious passages of the Prophecies, &c.

         DR. WILLIAM HALES.  _New Analysis of Chronology_, Vol. II. p. ix.

                                * * * * *

                                 LONDON:
                           JOHN FARQUHAR SHAW,
      36, PATERNOSTER ROW, AND 27, SOUTHAMPTON ROW, RUSSELL SQUARE.

                                * * * * *

                                  1856.

                          _Price One Shilling_.

                                * * * * *

    MY DOCTRINE SHALL DROP AS THE RAIN,
    MY SPEECH SHALL DISTIL AS THE DEW,
    AS THE SMALL RAIN UPON THE TENDER HERB,
    AND AS THE SHOWERS UPON THE GRASS.

                                                           DEUT. XXXII. 2.

    AND HE SAID UNTO THEM, SET YOUR HEARTS UNTO ALL THE WORDS WHICH I
    TESTIFY AMONG YOU THIS DAY, WHICH YE SHALL COMMAND YOUR CHILDREN TO
    OBSERVE TO DO, ALL THE WORDS OF THIS LAW.  FOR IT IS NOT A VAIN THING
    FOR YOU; BECAUSE IT IS YOUR LIFE.

                                                      DEUT. XXXII. 46, 47.




CONSIDERATIONS, &c.


AMONG the characteristics of an Age replete with new and unlooked-for
events, perhaps not the least singular and impressive is the desire, now
extensively evinced, for an improved translation of Holy Scripture.

A solitary voice, {3} it is true, has been raised to the same effect,
from time to time; but it has gradually died away in the noise of worldly
bustle, or been summarily stifled by Prejudice or Fear.

A more fitting time has arrived for renewing the cry; for we have become
more reflective with the progress of events, and a desire for
improvement—not limited to mere material good—has sprung up, that is
irrepressible, and all but universal.

But, encouraging as is the Temper of the Times for prosecuting the task
that we have undertaken, we need to make our way cautiously.  The subject
is confessedly a delicate one, and is, moreover, in not a few quarters,
entrenched in prejudices under the seeming sanction of religion itself.

“Were the Bible,” pleads Dr. Knox, {4} “corrected and modernized, it
would probably become more showy, and perhaps quite exact, but it would
lose that air of sanctity which enables it to make an impression which no
accuracy could produce.  We have received the Bible,” he goes on to say,
“in the very words in which it now stands, from our fathers; we have
learnt many passages from it by heart in our infancy; . . . so that its
phrase is become familiar to our ears, and we cease to be startled at
apparent difficulties.”  And again: “We should hardly recognize the Bible
were it to be read in our churches in any other words than those which
our fathers heard before us.”  Possibly the people _would_ require some
time to familiarize themselves to the change, more especially in the
public services of the church; but the objection, formidable as the good
Doctor thought it, is not sufficient to overrule the plea.  Precisely the
same objection, if entertained, would have deprived us of the benefit of
the present authorized version.  People long accustomed to the previous
version must have been pained and startled on the introduction of the
new.  Such a consequence, however, obvious as it must have been, was not
admitted to be a good argument against a change at that epoch.  True,
there are more readers now than there were then, and so far the
inconvenience of change would be aggravated; but, unless we could
persuade ourselves that we should _never_ have a different version to the
present, we cannot refuse to entertain the proposition before us in
deference to such a consideration.  The notion that we shall _always_
acquiesce in the present version, with the proofs around us of the
possibility of improving it, coupled with the desire so extensively
evinced for improvement, can scarcely be seriously entertained.

The truth is, the people are not accountable for the reasoning ascribed
to them—possibly with some justice at the time the Doctor wrote—in the
above extract.  We have given it at length, because we have nowhere seen
the argument, as generally used, better expressed; but, whatever there is
in it, we hold it a great disparagement to the religious feeling of the
people at the present time, to suppose them capable of putting
Superstition for Piety, as conveyed in the terms of that passage; or to
imagine that anything less than a just and faithful version of Holy
Scripture would or could content them.

But besides the inconvenience of the change so pathetically pleaded,
there is the time-honoured Phraseology of the Bible—that phraseology that
has earned the suffrages of a whole people, young and old, rich and poor,
learned and unlearned, and been associated with our Literary glories—to
warn us off the holy ground.  Into what critic’s crucible, it may be
asked, do we propose to place the Bible, and what frigid, tame, and
insipid version, among those with which we have been of late years
familiar, do we design to substitute for our own old authorized
translation?

Plainly, none.  We know of none—valuable as some of them unquestionably
are—worthy of competing, in whole or in part, on an extended view of the
question, with our own; while, in point of phraseology, to which the
objection specifically refers, the advantage is all in favour of the old
version.  But if the question at issue were—which it is not—between
Phraseology on the one hand, and Fidelity on the other, we should and
could have no hesitation in deciding for the latter.  But we really think
it possible to preserve most of the beautiful phraseology of the present
version, and even add to it, while we disencumber the text of its errors,
and render it a more faithful reflex of the Divine Original.

But the outward Dress and Ornament of the book do not exhaust all the
objections incident to the question.  There are yet others of a _subtler_
order—the exponent of deeper feelings—to which we must briefly advert.
And first, there are those who find few or no difficulties, for their
part, in the Bible, as it now stands, and therefore, naturally enough,
object to a change.  The Bible, they maintain, is a plain book, and the
very terms of the Announcement at the head of it, as a Revelation of
God’s will to man, upon the knowledge of which his salvation depends,
precludes, they argue, any other supposition.  To a certain extent they
are right; and God forbid we should be understood to mean that the Bible,
in its present English dress, is not satisfactory on all the great points
of faith and duty.  We are sometimes told the contrary, indeed, by those
who have formed exaggerated views of the inadequacies of our version; but
such an opinion is entitled to no manner of respect; on the contrary, it
would be very easy to produce passages—_key-passages_, we might call
them, from which the WHOLE TRUTH of the Gospel might be extracted—which
would utterly defy any other translation than that exhibited in the
authorized version.  But while conceding all this, we are not debarred
from seeking a version yet nearer perfection than the present, if it is
to be had.  There are subordinate lessons, surely, that might be rendered
more precious and instructive; and it cannot be a right or creditable
principle to direct our inquiry only to that which _saves_, in the vulgar
sense of that term, and give only a listless and perfunctory attention to
all the rest.  Not unfrequently, however this arid notion of the
_plainness_ of Scripture is resolvable into the inert and abortive state
of the faculties in which they are perused.  There is no difficulty,
because the subject is not fairly grappled with.  The words titillate and
amuse, while the sense is in the clouds.  More respectable is that
tranquillizing and elevating feeling which oftentimes accompanies the
reading, in which the understanding, though not dead, is still at fault
through the veil interposed by the phraseology.  This placid acquiescence
of the soul in a message the exact purpose of which it fails to
comprehend, may be taken to express a tacit homage to the power of the
Divine Spirit breathing through the words, however feebly enunciated; and
there may be still, under the happiest methods of elucidating Scripture
yet open to us, a just and legitimate scope for its exercise:
nevertheless, we covet habitually, and as a general principle, the
discharge of a higher function of the soul,—TO UNDERSTAND as well as TO
FEEL, and TO ACT as well as TO BE ACTED ON.

But while these find Scripture so plain as to be able to dispense with
the Critic’s art, and all other aid, to throw further light on their
contents, there are those, on the other hand, who love a Mysterious
Bible, and to whom the whole science of Biblical interpretation is
positively distasteful, as savouring of the wisdom of man rather than of
the grace of the Spirit.  They find their devotion fed, as they think, by
the Mystical element, and revel in difficulties that to others are simply
discomfiting.  Cloud-land is their home.  Accordingly, to relieve
Scripture of its obscurities, and render it more patent and intelligible,
is the last service for which we might expect their thanks.  While this
is a genuine feeling,—indulged in for the special delectation of their
own bosoms—and not a pretence to ensnare others, or inveigle their weaker
brethren in the toils of a spiritual autocracy, it is simply an error of
the brain—an idiosyncrasy, to be treated with all due gentleness and
consideration.  Let such, then, observe that there is no reason why
Scripture should be more difficult in the translation than it is in the
original, or than God designed it, or inspired men transmitted it to us;
and that the aim of these and similar efforts is simply to ensure a
version that will exhibit the Word of God with at least equal force and
perspicuity to that presented in the original text.  Nor would a genuine
reverence for Scripture allow us to stop short of this point, since
anything less must be so much clear loss of most important Truth.  There
are many who are grievously perplexed by the obscurity that attaches to
certain portions of Scripture, and for their sakes, as well as for the
obvious duty of the case, we insist upon all the aid we can procure to
elucidate those portions.  To take one instance—a striking one—the
Messianic prophecies—those prophecies in not a few instances now
portraying the Messiah in unmistakable lineaments, and now, without the
slightest hint of a change of subject, {8a} varying the portrait, as by a
dissolving process, so that it seems no longer HIMSELF that is set before
us, but one of the erring children of men.  Now, evidently, it would be
most desirable, if a new version could obviate or relieve this
difficulty.  In sundry instances the sense is marred by an
incongruousness in the metaphors, {8b} for which the Bible, perhaps, is
the last book in the world to be made answerable; and this particular
fault, in most instances, a slight change in the _pointing_, for which
the context would give the fullest warrant, or a juster translation,
would satisfactorily amend.

But will not a new translation endanger those articles of our faith in
which we have been brought up from our infancy, and which we believe to
be essential to salvation?  May not the translation fall into the hands
of those who are ill-affected to the orthodox faith, and is there not
ground to believe that hostility to that faith is the real object of many
of those who are most conspicuous in the promotion of this scheme?

This apprehension we believe to lie at the basis of much of the objection
that is entertained to the proposed change: but has it not occurred to
the alarmists, that the weapon cuts both ways, and that it is just as
possible, as far as at present appears, for the other side to be
discomfited in the shock?  Who shall say that the Evangelical or Orthodox
scheme shall not gain ground by the experiment, and the opposite scheme
suffer?  But these objections are manifestly unworthy a belief that
professedly rests as its basis on the Word of God; rather is it a belief
in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, not which the Holy Ghost
teacheth.  And with regard to the individuals that may be selected for
the task, surely all anxiety on that ground is superfluous.  The general
sense of Scripture is not now to be determined: that has been done long
ago; and all that remains for us is, in the use of such means as our
advancing scholarship supplies, to make that sense—as Providence from
time to time supplies the opportunity—yet more explicit, and available
for proficiency in Divine knowledge.

Thus far we have been occupied in clearing our ground, and essaying a
hearing, with what chance of success we might, considering the outcry,
more or less reasonable, with which the question before us is usually
met.  We take no further notice of the objections to our task, and
proceed to explain more distinctly in what that task consists.  But,
first of all, we must premise, that we contemplate a “revised” rather
than an entirely “new” version.  Certain feelings have entwined
themselves round the stock of the present version which it would not be
safe or needful to sever, except where the imperious demands of fidelity
to the sense necessitate the infliction.

The fiat given to the use of the old authorized version is substantially
honourable to the nation—perhaps equally so with the fiat that gave it
existence.  There is a pregnant power in the words, as symbols of the
burning _thoughts_ of the men engaged, not pale reflexes of _things_,
that has secured the all but universal use of the present version, with
all its imperfections, despite the labours of Lowth, and Horsley, and
Campbell, and Henderson, and Good, and others—all eminent names—more or
less to displace it.  “The Spirit of the Living Creatures was in the
Wheels, and whither the Wheels were to go the Spirit of the Living
Creatures went with them.” {10a}

‘FOREMOST in the conditions of a correct version is PURITY OF TEXT.’
There is no doubt, we believe, in the minds of all qualified to pronounce
on this part of the question, that the text, both of the Old and New
Testament, generally unassailable as it is, is yet, on some not
unimportant points—and what is unimportant in such a
document?—susceptible of improvement.  We wish, by all means, to have the
benefit of this improved text, as no consideration of _consequences_ can
weigh against the _actual_ inconveniences that belong to the text, in
some instances, as it now stands.  The discrepancies, for example, in the
Chronicles, {10b} in matters relating to _numbers_, with the statements
in the corresponding passages in 2 Samuel and Kings, furnish most
damaging weapons in sceptical hands wherewith to assail the Sacred Books.
Some of these discrepancies are only imaginary, but others, it must be
confessed, are palpable and incontrovertible, and ought not to stand, as
they now do, in our Bibles, open, without a word appearing on the page in
their defence, to the most unmitigated contradiction. {11a}  The fact is,
the text in these instances is _corrupt_, and there need be no scruple,
considering the way in which NUMBERS were variously written of old, by
letters, ciphers, or words, and more especially the liability of
transcribers to err in these matters, in arriving at that conclusion.
This extreme devotion to the Massoretic text on the part of our
translators, to the overthrow of common sense, and disregard of the
thousand arguments that plead for a change over the one thus
pertinaciously followed, is most detrimental to the credit of the Sacred
Volumes; for two statements diametrically opposed cannot, of course, be
both correct; the weaker, therefore, should naturally be made to give
place to the stronger.  In some cases, _possibly_, this may be done by a
new recension of the text; in others the alteration should be summarily
made in conformity with the obvious maxims in universal use for
determining the truth in the case of contradictory documents. {11b}

Next to Purity of Text is a CORRECT VERSION.  That the present version
does not satisfy this condition in the just sense of the word, or to the
extent we have a right to require in such a matter, is now almost
universally conceded.  The plea of “good enough” is given up, and the
wishes of the religious public for a translation more true to the
original, are “condescendingly” admitted to be just and reasonable; and
if this admission expressed the voice of authority, as well as the
general sense of the learned world, our wishes would speedily be in a
condition to be fulfilled.  Meantime it is for us to agitate the question
till the boon be accorded, agreeably to the good old English rule, when
the stronghold of authority is to be stormed.

It has appeared to us, in the prosecution of our task, that we could put
this question before the ordinary English reader in a form to enable him
to determine for himself with tolerable correctness the Validity of our
plea for a more correct version of Holy Writ.  _On such a point it is
important he should be able to judge for himself_: accordingly, we shall
exhibit sundry amended passages, by way of specimen, in _juxtaposition_
with the corresponding passages of the present version.  It may be
premised, that it is not necessary that the amended translation should be
in all respects immaculate and unassailable; it suffices for the present
purpose if we establish the fact, that the authorized version _is_
capable of amendment.  The field before us is almost illimitable, so
numerous are the corrections that require to be supplied.  Of course, we
must pick our path here and there.  We begin with the Old Testament; and
here two passages recommend themselves for selection, as well for their
own intrinsic interest as for the materials they afford for elucidating
the principles that underlie the transfusion of Hebrew into English.  The
reader is invited to ponder the two versions in the points in which they
differ, however minute the difference at first sight may appear, as the
change in these cases has proceeded upon a strictly literal translation
of the original Hebrew; and the variation, on a further view, may not
appear so unimportant as at first.  Our first passage consists of
extracts from the Song of Deborah, Judges v., and the amended version is
due, substantially, to the able pen of Dr. Edward Robinson, Translator of
Gesenius, &c.  See “Biblical Repository.”  Two other versions of the same
Song are given by Dr. Adam Clarke in his Commentary, from Dr. Hales and
Dr. Kennicott respectively; but, with all their merit, they are less
literally true to the original, and therefore less eligible for
selection, than the one we have adopted:—

                                JUDGES V.

          _Old Version_.                      _New Version_.

2.  Praise ye the Lord for the      2.  For the leading of the
avenging of Israel, when the        leaders in Israel, for the
people willingly offered            voluntary offering of the people,
themselves.                         praise ye the Lord . . .
7.  _The inhabitants of_ the        7.  Leaders failed in Israel,
villages ceased, they ceased in     they failed, until that I,
Israel, until that I Deborah        Deborah, arose, that I arose a
arose . . .                         mother in Israel . . .
10.  Speak, ye that ride on white   10.  Ye that ride on white asses,
asses . . .                         . . . prepare a song,
11.  _They that are delivered_      11.  Responsive to the voice of
from the noise of archers in the    those who divide the spoil by the
places of drawing water, there      watercourses.  There they shall
shall they rehearse the righteous   rehearse the victories of the
acts of the Lord, _even_ the        Lord, the victory of his princes
righteous acts _toward the          in Israel; then shall the people
inhabitants_ of his villages in     of the Lord descend to the gates.
Israel: then shall the people of
the Lord go down to the gates.
12.  Awake, {13} awake, Deborah:    12.  Awake, awake, Deborah;
awake, awake, utter a song. . . .   awake, awake, utter a song . . .
13.  Then he made him that          13.  Then I _said_, Descend, ye
remaineth have dominion over the    remnant of the nobles of the
nobles among the people: the Lord   people!  O Lord, descend for me
made me have dominion over the      among the mighty!
mighty.
14.  Out of Ephraim _was there_ a   14.  Out of Ephraim _came those_
root of them against Amalek;        whose dwelling is by Amalek.
after thee, Benjamin, among thy     After thee (Ephraim) _was_
people; out of Machir came down     Benjamin among thy hosts; out of
governors, and out of Zebulun       Machir (Manasseh) came down
they that handle the pen of the     princes, and from Zebulun those
writer.                             who grasp the staff of a leader.
15.  And the princes of Issachar    15.  The princes of Issachar also
_were_ with Deborah; even           _came_ with Deborah; yea,
Issachar, and also Barak: he was    Issachar was the staff of Barak.
sent on foot into the valley.       He rushed into the valley at his
For the divisions of Reuben         feet.  For the divisions of
_there were_ great thoughts of      Reuben _I have_ great griefs of
heart.                              heart . . .
16.  Why abodest thou among the     16.  Wherefore didst thou sit
sheepfolds, to hear the bleatings   still among the folds, to listen
of the flocks?  For the divisions   to the lowing of the herds?  For
of Reuben _there were_ great        the divisions of Reuben _I have_
searchings of heart.                great revolvings of heart.
17.  Gilead abode beyond Jordan:    17.  Gilead (Gad) abode beyond
and why did Dan remain in ships?    Jordan; and Dan, why tarried he
Asher continued on the sea shore,   in ships?  Asher sat at the shore
and abode in his breaches.          of the sea, and abode at his
                                    creeks.
18.  Zebulun and Naphtali _were_    18.  For Zebulun, the people
a people _that_ jeoparded their     scorned their lives, and _rushed_
lives unto the death in the high    upon death, and Naphtali, in the
places of the field.                high places of the plain.
19.  The kings came _and_ fought,   19.  The kings came, they fought,
. . . they took no gain of money.   . . . they took no spoil of
                                    silver.
22.  Then were the horsehoofs       22.  Then did the horses’ hoofs
broken by the means of the          smite _the ground_ from the
pransings, the pransings of their   haste, the haste of their riders
mighty ones.                        . . .

We here pause, before proceeding to our second extract, to notice one
very damaging source of mistranslation as applicable to the Old
Testament.  We allude to what may be called the use of the Prophetical or
Theological scheme in dealing with the Prophecies.  For instance, in the
2nd verse of 53rd chap, of Isaiah, as below, the words “_for he shall
grow up_” ought to be rendered “_and_” or “_so_” (resuming the argument
of the previous chapter) “_he grew up_” in the PAST tense; and so on
through the chapter.  The Prophets, it is well known, in the vividness of
their prophetic vision, contemplated the future events that passed under
their ken as _actually past_; {14} and as this is a prominent
characteristic of their mode of delivering prophetic truth, it ought not
to be lost sight of in a translation.  The explanation of the _fact_ that
what they spoke of as actually past was still future, belongs to what is
called “exegesis,” and stands out as an Order of Rhetoric significant of,
and sacred to, their prophetic function; but by no means should such an
element enter into a translation, which, if it does not present a
faithful reflex of the original, is simply a misnomer.  Not that there is
any inviolable uniformity in the practice of the translators in the use
of this scheme.  Far from it; as is evident from the translation that
follows.  And this serves to render a subject, necessarily obscure from
its very nature, immeasurably more so.  The truth is, we have here forced
upon us the fact, that the translators were not fully acquainted with a
principle of the language—now well understood—that lies at the basis of
the whole structure. {15}  They saw its force—they could not help doing
so—in the Narrative portions, but were not cognizant of it as a
Fundamental principle of the language, applicable alike to all subjects,
and not variable and flexible at the pleasure of the interpreter.

We are sorry we can adduce no particular name on which to cast the
responsibility of the following amended version.  We have consulted very
many of the most distinguished of those who have laboured to translate
this, in some respects, very intricate passage, and what we have given
must be considered mainly as an _amalgam_ of the joint labours of them
all.  We are far from thinking we have given the best version possible;
and _perhaps_ the text itself, where the difficulty is peculiarly
pressing, may yet be found susceptible of improvement:—

                                 ISAIAH.

          _Old Version_.                      _New Version_.
Ch. lii. 13.  Behold, my servant    Ch. lii. 13.  Behold, my servant
shall deal prudently, he shall be   shall be prosperous; he shall be
exalted and extolled, and be very   exalted and extolled, and be
high.                               magnified exceedingly.
14.  As many were astonied at       14.  As many were astonished at
thee; his visage was so marred      thee; (so marred was his visage
more than any man, and his form     more than any man, and his form
more than the sons of men:          than the sons of men.)
15.  So shall he sprinkle many      15.  So shall he sprinkle many
nations; the kings shall shut       nations; kings shall shut their
their mouths at him: for _that_     mouths at him (_do him homage_);
which had not been told them        for that which had not been told
shall they see; and _that_ which    them have they seen, and that
they had not heard shall they       which they had not heard have
consider.                           they considered:
Ch. liii. 1.  Who hath believed     Ch. liii. 1. (Who hath believed
our report? and to whom is the      our report? and to whom hath the
arm of the Lord revealed?           arm of the Lord been revealed?)
2.  For he shall grow up before     2.  And he grew up before him as
him as a tender plant, and as a     a tender plant, and as a root out
root out of a dry ground: he hath   of a land of drought: he hath no
no form nor comeliness; and when    form nor comeliness that we
we shall see him, _there is_ no     should see him, and no beauty
beauty that we should desire him.   that we should desire him.
3.  He is despised and rejected     3.  Despised and rejected of men;
of men; a man of sorrows, and       a man of sorrows, and acquainted
acquainted with grief: and we hid   with grief; and concealing as it
as it were _our_ faces from him;    were _his_ face from us;
he was despised, and we esteemed    despised, and we esteemed him
him not.                            not.
4.  Surely he hath borne our        4.  Surely _it was_ our griefs
griefs, and carried our sorrows;    _that_ he bore; and our sorrows,
yet we did esteem him stricken,     he carried them: but we esteemed
smitten of God, and afflicted.      him stricken, smitten of God, and
                                    afflicted.
5.  But he _was_ wounded for our    5.  But he _was_ pierced for our
transgressions, _he was_ bruised    transgressions, _he was_ bruised
for our iniquities: the             for our iniquities: the
chastisement of our peace _was_     chastisement of our peace was
upon him; and with his stripes we   upon him, and by his infirmity we
are healed.                         were healed.
6.  All we like sheep have gone     6.  All we like sheep have gone
astray; we have turned every one    astray; we have turned each one
to his own way; and the Lord hath   to his own way; and the Lord hath
laid on him the iniquity of us      laid on him the iniquity of us
all.                                all.
7.  He was oppressed, and he was    7.  He was oppressed; but he,
afflicted, {17a} yet he opened      submitting himself, {17c} does
not his mouth: he is brought        not even open his mouth: as a
{17b} as a lamb to the slaughter,   lamb is brought to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her           and as a sheep before her
shearers is dumb, so he opened      shearers _is_ dumb, so he openeth
not his mouth.                      not his mouth.
8.  He was taken from prison and    8.  From oppression and from
from judgment: and who shall        judgment was he taken: but _the
declare his generation? for he      wickedness of_ his generation who
was cut off out of the land of      shall declare? for he was cut off
the living: for the transgression   out of the land of the living;
of my people was he stricken.       for the transgression of my
                                    people, for the stroke _due_ to
                                    them!
9.  And he made his grave with      9.  And he made his grave with
the wicked, and with the rich in    the wicked, and with the
his death; because he had done no   [impious] {17d} in his death;
violence, neither was any deceit    though he had done no violence,
in his mouth.                       and _there was_ no deceit in his
                                    mouth.
10.  Yet it pleased the Lord to     10.  But it pleased the Lord to
bruise him; he hath put _him_ to    bruise him; he hath put him to
grief: when thou shalt make his     grief, _proclaiming_, If his soul
soul an offering for sin, he        shall make an offering for sin,
shall see _his_ seed, he shall      he shall see a seed, he shall
prolong _his_ days, and the         prolong _his_ days, and the
pleasure of the Lord shall          pleasure of the Lord shall
prosper in his hand.                prosper in his hand.
11.  He shall see of the travail    11.  He shall see of the travail
of his soul, _and_ shall be         of his soul; he shall be
satisfied: by his knowledge shall   satisfied: by his knowledge _of
my righteous servant justify        woe_ {18a} shall my righteous
many; for he shall bear their       servant make many righteous, and
iniquities.                         himself shall bear their
                                    iniquities.
12.  Therefore will I divide him    12.  Therefore I will allot him
_a portion_ with the great, and     the great for his portion, and he
he shall divide the spoil with      shall divide the mighty as spoil,
the strong; because he poured out   because he poured out his soul
his soul unto death: and he was     unto death, and was numbered with
numbered with the transgressors;    transgressors.  So he bore the
and he bare the sin of many, and    sin of many, and intercedes {18b}
made intercession for the           for the transgressors.
transgressors.

NOTE.—The new translation is less soft and mellifluous than the old, but
let it not be hastily condemned in the comparison on that account.  It is
more exact, and that is the principal object now.  Probably it may yet
fall into hands that shall combine all the beautiful flow of the old
version, with no less, and even far greater exactness than we have been
able to achieve.

Thus far for the Old Testament.  We adopt a somewhat different mode of
selection in dealing with the New, but adhere to our plan of exhibiting
the two versions in juxtaposition.  The amended passages that follow are
taken, with a few exceptions, from Professor Scholefield’s “Hints for an
Improved Translation of the New Testament.”  They are, it is presumed,
sufficiently important to warrant the selection, but it must be premised
that it is not by taking isolated passages for emendation that the WHOLE
TRUTH insisted upon in these pages can be enforced.  There are numberless
points of correction of which our version is susceptible that are not
adapted for such isolated exhibition, and which it is the special
business of the Greek particles to supply; but the exhibition of such
points, involving the structure of sentences and the mutual relation of
the clauses of which they are made up, would require a much larger
canvass.  We indicate this source of correction only to avert the
conclusion, that our argument rests solely on the basis supplied in the
particular mode of illustration adopted.

          _Old Version_.                      _New Version_.
                             Mark iv. 13.
And he said unto them, Know ye      And he says to them, Know ye not
not this parable? and how then      this parable? how then will ye
will ye know all parables?          know any {19} parables?
                            Luke xvi. 12.
And if ye have not been faithful    . . . in that which is another’s
in that which is another man’s.     (_i.e._ God’s).
                           John xviii. 15.
And Simon Peter followed Jesus,     And Simon Peter was following
and _so did_ another disciple.      Jesus, and _so was_ the other
                                    disciple (probably Judas).
                              John i. 9.
Which lighteth every man that       Which coming into the world
cometh into the world.              lighteth every man.
                             Acts xix. 2.
Whether there be any Holy Ghost.    Whether the Holy Ghost be given.
                             Rom. vi. 17.
But God be thanked, that ye were    But God be thanked that whereas
the servants of sin.                ye were the servants of sin.
                            Rom. xiv. 23.
Is damned if he eat, because _he    Is condemned if he eat, because
eateth_ not of faith.               _it is_ not of faith.
                           2 Cor. iv. 3, 4.
But if our gospel be hid, it is     . . . be hid (_with a veil_), it
hid to them that are lost:          is hid to the abandoned:

In whom the god of this world       As to whom the god of this world
hath blinded the minds of them      habitually blinds their minds,
that believe not.                   being unbelieving.
                            1 Pet. iii. 6.
Whose daughters ye are as long as   . . . as long as ye do well, and
ye do well, and are not afraid      yield to no fear, (_as Sarah on
with any amazement.                 one memorable occasion did_).
                        2 Pet. i. 19, 20, 21.
We have also a more sure word of    Moreover, we have the word of
prophecy; whereunto ye do well      prophecy _made_ more sure, (the
that ye take heed, as unto a        voice from heaven while in the
light, &c.                          holy mount _confirmed_ it).

Knowing this first, that no         Knowing this first, that no
prophecy of the scripture is of     prophecy of Scripture is of the
any private interpretation;         nature of a private revelation;

For the prophecy came not in old    For prophecy was not prompted in
time by the will of man; but holy   old time by the will of man; but
men of God spoke _as they were_     holy men of God spoke _as_
moved by the Holy Ghost.            prompted by the Holy Ghost.
                          2 Pet. iii. 5, 6.
For this they willingly are         For this they willingly are
ignorant of, that by the word of    ignorant of, that by the word of
God the heavens were of old, and    God, the heavens and the earth
the earth standing out of the       were of old involved in a
water and in the water;             confluence of waters;

Whereby the world that then was,    Whereby the world that then was,
being overflowed with water,        being deluged with water,
perished.                           perished.
                             1 Cor. v. 9.
I wrote unto you in an epistle.     I have written to you in my
                                    epistle (the present).
                           1 Cor. vii. 11.
But and if she depart.              But if also she be separated.
                            1 Cor. x. 17.
For we _being_ many, are one        For _there is_ one bread, and we,
bread _and_ one body.               who are many, are one body.
                            1 Cor. xv. 41.
For _one_ star differeth from       Nay (or, this is not all, for)
_another_ star in glory.            one star differeth from another
                                    star, &c.
                           2 Cor. iii. 18.
But we all, with open face          And we all with unveiled face
beholding as in a glass the glory   reflecting as in a glass . . .
of the Lord                         (Moses put a veil on his face,
                                    not so the disciples of Christ).
                             2 Cor. v. 1.
If our earthly house of _this_      If the earthly house of our
tabernacle were dissolved.          tabernacle be dissolved.
                          2 Cor. xii. 2, 4.
I knew a man in Christ.             I know a man in Christ.

It is not lawful to utter.          It is not possible.
                            Gal. iii. 22.
That the promise by faith of        That the promise may be given to
Jesus Christ might be given to      believers by Jesus Christ.
them that believe.
                             Eph. v. 13.
But all things that are reproved    But all things are reproved, and
are made manifest by the light.     made manifest by the light.
                             Phil. i. 7.
Partakers of my grace.              Partakers with me of grace.
                             Phil. i. 10.
That ye may approve things that     That ye may try things that
are excellent.                      differ.
                             Phil. iv. 8.
If _there be_ any virtue, and if    Whatever virtue, and whatever
_there be_ any praise.              praise there be.
                             Col. i. 19.
For it pleased _the Father_, that   For all the fulness of the
in him should all fulness dwell.    God-head was pleased to dwell in
                                    him.
                             Col. ii. 23.
Not in any honour to the            Not with any regard to the
satisfying of the flesh.            satisfying of the flesh.
                          2 Thess. ii. 6, 7.
And now ye know what withholdeth    And now ye know what withholdeth
that he might be revealed in his    _him_, that he may be revealed in
time.                               his own time.  For the mystery of
                                    iniquity is already working; only
For the mystery of iniquity doth    there is one that now withholdeth
already work: only he who now       it, until he be taken out of the
letteth _will let_, until he be     way.
taken out of the way.
                             Heb. iv. 2.
For unto us was the gospel          For we have the glad tidings
preached, as well as unto them:     thereof even as they; but the
but the word preached did not       word of its report (_i.e._, which
word profit them.                   they heard) did not profit them.
                             Heb. ix. 12.
He entered in once into the holy    He entered once for all into the
place.                              holy place.
                         Heb. ix. 15, 16, 17.
And for this cause he is the        And for this end he is the
mediator of the new testament,      mediator of the new covenant,
that by means of death, for the     that, his death having taken
redemption of the transgressions    place for the redemption of the
_that were_ under the first         transgressions under the first
testament, they which are called    covenant, they that are called
might receive the promise of        might receive the promise of the
eternal inheritance.                eternal inheritance.

For where a testament _is_, there   For where a covenant _is_, there
must also of necessity be the       must of necessity be brought in
death of the testator.              the death of the mediating
                                    _sacrifice_.
For a testament _is_ of force
after men are dead: otherwise it    For a covenant is valid over dead
is of no strength at all while      _sacrifices_: since it is never
the testator liveth.                of any force while the mediating
                                    _sacrifice_ continues alive.
                            Heb. xii. 18.
To the mount that might be          To the mount that could be
touched.                            touched.
                            Heb. xiii. 4.
Marriage _is_ honourable in all,    Let marriage be honourable in
and the bed undefiled.              all, and the bed _be_ undefiled.
                           1 Pet. iii. 20.
Were saved by water.                Were saved through the water
                                    (brought safely through).
                            1 Pet. iv. 8.
Shall cover the multitude of        Will cover a multitude of sins.
sins.
                            2 Pet. i. 16.
For we have not followed            For we did not follow cunningly
cunningly devised fables, when we   devised fables when we made known
made known unto you . . .           unto you . . .
                           2 Pet. ii. 1, 3.
And bring upon themselves swift     . . . and their destruction
destruction . . . and their         slumbereth not (_destruction_,
damnation slumbereth not.           precisely the same word as
                                    before).
                            2 Pet. ii. 5.
Noah the eighth _person_.           Noah, with seven others.
                            2 Pet. ii. 14.
Cursed children.                    Children of the curse.
                             Rev. iv. 6.
Four beasts.                        Four living creatures.
                              Rev. x. 6.
That there should be time no        That there should be no more
longer.                             delay.

Thus far, by way of specimen of the improvement of which the authorized
version is susceptible on the score of fidelity to the original.  The
instances might have been multiplied indefinitely, but we designed only a
specimen.  We would repeat that there is a large amount of improvement
practicable in elucidating and enforcing the sense, when it is not
positively misrepresented, that is less fitted for such display, and
which alone it would require the transcription of a large portion of the
Bible to render apparent.

               “Claudite jam rivos pueri; sat prata biberunt.”

We have indeed said enough to justify our plea, and here we might close
the evidence, but we are tempted further to observe that the sense of
Scripture is not only obscured in the authorized version by errors of
translation, but there is almost an equal amount of mischief done to the
sense by the present mode of distributing the subject-matter into chapter
and verse; for which, as is well known, there is no valid authority,
{24a} either as regards the Old or the New Testament.  This fault it is
the special object of the new Paragraph Bible lately published by the
Religious Tract Society, to remedy.  We confine ourselves to two
illustrations.

The 53rd chapter of Isaiah begins with a parenthesis, (‘Who hath believed
our report, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?’) {24b}
This, in our view, is a _soliloquy_ into which the prophet breaks forth
in relief of his feelings, while contemplating the overpowering events
that pass in review before him, coupled with the rejection of the message
by the great body of his countrymen. {25a}  These events had already
begun their career at the 13th verse of the foregoing chapter, and they
go steadily on through the remainder of that, and the whole of the
following chapter, broken only by the ejaculation of the prophet, thus
violently wrenched from its place, as the matter now stands.

The other instance we adduce of the obscuration of the sense occasioned
by the present faulty distribution of the letter-press, occurs Joshua v.
and vi.  It is an example of an analogous kind to that already given.  It
makes a parenthesis used simply in explanation of a series of
instructions from the Lord to Joshua to vacate its place in the
narrative, and actually stand at the commencement of a new chapter, in
which the same series of instructions is still continued.  See the
“Edinburgh Review” for October last. {25b}  We shall place the old and
new arrangement in juxta-position, when the violence done to the sense,
as the matter now stands, will be apparent at once.

        _Old Arrangement_.                  _New Arrangement_.
                            Joshua v. 15.
And the captain of the Lord’s       And the captain of the Lord’s
host said unto Joshua, Loose thy    host said unto Joshua, “_Loose
shoe from off thy foot; for the     thy shoe from off thy foot_, _for
place where thou standest _is_      the place where thou standest is
holy.  And Joshua did so.           holy_.”  And Joshua did so.
Ch. vi.  Now Jericho was straitly   (Now Jericho was straitly shut
shut up, because of the children    up, because of the children of
of Israel: none went out, and       Israel; none went out, and none
none came in.                       came in).  And the Lord said unto
                                    Joshua, “_See_, _I have given
2.  And the Lord said unto          into thy hand Jericho_,” &c.
Joshua, See, I have given into
thy hand Jericho, &c.

The reader will observe in the above paragraph that, in addition to a
better distribution of the letter-press, we have given the _spoken
language_ in italics, with inverted commas,—a character of type we
recommend to be carried out continuously in the revised version, as it,
actually is with excellent effect, in the new Paragraph Bible.  These may
be thought small matters, but we have been led to mention them as
thinking the adoption of them will give facility, not merely to the
private, but also to the _vivâ voce_ reading of Scripture,—a point surely
not undeserving of attention.

Connected with these desiderata are others of a minor character, as—an
improved punctuation—the substitution of vernacular for obsolete
words—the use of _euphemisms_ where the allusion is obvious, and no
violence is done to the sense—appropriate concise headings to the
different sections in the margin—_chronological arrangement of the
several books_—chronological data, &c. &c.

We are proceeding beyond the strict limits we assigned to ourselves in
the course of these last remarks, and scarcely venture further in
recommending attention—though especially worthy of it, in the case of a
Book we wish to make universally attractive,—to what may be called the
_æsthetics_ of _book-making_.  We all know the advantage of a readable
type, open space between the lines, paragraphs and smaller divisions
clearly indicated, large margin, &c.; and though, in comparison with our
main object, these are small matters, they yet constitute distinct items
in the Roll of convenience, and therefore merit attention—especially in
subserviency to the object of giving to the Bible the adjuncts
appropriate to a HOUSEHOLD BOOK.

Such is an outline of what we hope to see done.  We might have multiplied
instances of mistranslation to an unlimited extent, and many other
improvements conducing to a clearer exposition of the sense of Scripture
might have been suggested: but we stop here.  Enough has been said to
substantiate our argument, and we desist from the present line of thought
to indulge the flattering belief that we have at length gained our
object; that, in fact, we have a Bible such as we have invoked—with a
purer text,—a correcter version,—and other appliances better adapted to
fit it for the high ends for which it was given, than the present.  What,
now, it may be asked, are the _peculiar advantages_ we promise ourselves
from the ACQUISITION?  Some advantages seem to flow very naturally and
directly from the measure; and one that we may very confidently
anticipate is, a keener perception and appreciation of Scripture in its
fundamental qualities of truthfulness, power, and majesty, as the volume
is spread out before us with increased effulgence, and life-likeness to
the original.  The whole orb of truth will shine out with a brightness of
which it is now in part shorn through defect in the instrument by means
of which it is viewed.  Moreover, the _evidences_ for the Divine
authority of the sacred books would be yet clearer, as blemishes were
eliminated, obscurities cleared up, weak parts strengthened.  The
evidences of Christianity, in their brightest array, and most decisive
effect, lie in the sacred oracles themselves.  They vouch for their own
authority.  How potent a power this is may be judged of from the fact
that they are accredited by those to whom they not only show no favour,
but the most decided and uncompromising hostility!  Many circumstances
wrongfully accredited to them mar and weaken the evidence; but these,
however perplexing in some cases, and damaging—as the text now stands—in
others, cannot overlay their credibility.  There are, moreover, doctrines
embedded in their pages that appeal solely to faith, and that receive our
assent mainly as part and parcel of a BOOK that we deem divine.  It is
the word of God, and we turn away at our peril from the voice that speaks
to us from HEAVEN.  Certain passages there are, as we think, so impressed
with the character of Divinity, so reassuring of a divine utterance, and
so marvellously radiant with truth, that, under the full force of the
impression, the whole soul resigns itself to the spell, and faith is
scarcely so much a voluntary emotion as a necessity.  We believe because
we have no alternative. {28}  Such is the power of the sacred oracles in
themselves to command belief.  Nevertheless, the evidence generally of
their divine authority would be yet more conclusive, as the result of a
version more true to the sacred text.  The Divine voice would be still
more audible.  The arguments that have hitherto commanded our assent
would acquire fresh force, while obstacles and imperfections would
dwindle into insignificance, or altogether disappear.  The force of our
plea could scarcely present itself more strongly.  The Scriptures
themselves constitute the great battle-field of the argument affecting a
Divine Revelation.  The question is decided in the minds of thousands, on
considerations drawn from _the Scriptures themselves_,—in virtue, that
is, of their own credentials, and not on the elaborate speculations or
ingenious apologies of (assumed) interested advocates.  A more direct and
forcible evidence is required for men in no ecclesiastical position to
forestall opinion, and with little time or ability to enter into abstruse
and recondite arguments.  The ordinary books of evidences, however
effective _concurrently_ with the evidence furnished by Scripture itself
(and in this way they are—many of them—doubtless exceedingly useful), are
not _alone_, and, in the absence of such corroboration, calculated to
produce the evidence that is desired to rebut the counter arguments to
which human nature in its infirmity is assailed.  It requires the
re-assuring voice of God himself to give the requisite confidence and
satisfaction.  Hence we have sufficiently indicated the field to which
our labours may be most successfully directed while endeavouring to
establish and diffuse, in their most telling and cogent form, the
evidences of the Christian faith.

Moreover, a competent knowledge of Biblical erudition would, under the
new conditions of the Holy Books, be no longer so costly or onerous as at
present.  Truly, this is a great desideratum.  The mass of reading now
required to peruse Scripture with due edification and interest is
altogether beyond the leisure of the busy, or the means of the less
affluent: and to be doomed to hopeless ignorance of so much enlightenment
as is symbolized in the goodly tomes that meet the eye on every side,
devoted to the elucidation of Holy Writ, is by no means satisfactory.
With this partial distribution of spiritual advantages, the Christian
Church seems drifting away from its fundamental basis of _universality_,
and,—in the very spirit and wake of heathenism,—abetting and consecrating
the principle of an esoteric and exoteric school—a pet and a common class
of disciples—the one furnished with all the erudition—the prime secrets
and witcheries of knowledge—the other abandoned to the merest
generalities, a sorry heap of prejudices, or at best a dubious and
insufficient light.  But however this be, certain it is there is now
available a vast amount of Biblical lore of no mean value, and which no
good Christian would willingly forego, that is all but sealed to the bulk
of the Christian world. {30}  The publication of Scripture on the
principles we advocate would go far to remedy the evil.  The beautiful
emendations of the Sacred text that are now scattered over a wide waste
of territory, and all but lost, would be garnered up, and made available
for common use.  The occasional criticisms of Archbishop Whately, for
instance, and the specific emendations of the late Professor Scholefield,
would become alike the property of the esoterics and the exoterics: they
would be treasured up and embalmed in our own Bibles.  In a word, we
should succeed to a large inheritance of the labours of others.  There
would be still much left, of course, to reward industry and sagacity, and
succeeding times might fairly expect to have the benefit of all future
discoveries in this important field.  The immediate benefit would be to
relieve the unlettered from dependence on the Commentary to the extent
they now are.  They who run might read. {31}

We may further be entitled to expect some abatement of our present
unchristian differences, which are fostered to some extent, as we think,
by the difficulties inherent in the Book rather as a _translation_ than
as an _original_.  To some extent it gives a less certain sound, as it is
obliged to avail itself of human organs.  By repairing the instrument, we
may find a great impediment to our common understanding and accord
removed, while the union thus formed will be all the more valuable as it
will be real, not simulated—uniform, not patched up for the occasion to
defeat a common enemy.  It will grow out of the only bond of
union—sympathy, namely, of belief—that promises to be permanent and
available in the hour of trial.  Divers forms of worship, and many
varying shades of opinion, may co-exist with this unity.  Charity
thinketh no evil, is not easily provoked.  If this happy purpose could be
secured by imparting a clearer light to the firmament of Christian truth,
as the result of the measure we advocate, it would not be easy to
overrate the boon in the removal of the scandal that belongs to the
present divided state of Christendom, and in the service it would render
to the church in carrying out her many offices of healing and comfort to
the world.

Still further: Popular Education, to the extent to which it is identified
with the Bible, would be subserved by an improved translation.  In many
parts of the kingdom the Bible, as is well known, is the only organ of
education available—the only apparatus by which any ray of intellectual
light finds entrance into men’s minds.  This may be accounted for from
the fact that, in addition to knowledge, Scripture brings with it _the
soul’s health_; otherwise, in the rude state in which it finds a large
portion of the population, it would have small chance of fulfilling this
incidental office of educating the masses.  In this light Scripture,
where, as in Protestant countries, it is freely diffused, must be
regarded as a most precious boon to a nation—as a guarantee, in fact,
that the people shall be in some sort educated, and invested with the
attributes of rational and responsible beings.  Nor is the benefit of
Scripture, as a help to education, confined to the poor: in early youth
it smooths the entrance on the path of knowledge, not less effectually to
the rich than to the indigent.  There is, moreover, to be considered the
part that Scripture plays in the education of the land, in the actual
occupancy it enjoys in almost every family as a HOUSEHOLD BOOK, available
as the Urim and Thummim of the ancient economy, and actually doing that
service which the “lares and lemures” of heathen households were vainly
invoked to perform.  It is in vain to exclaim against this state of
things, from whatever motive, sceptical or superstitious: the fact is as
we have stated it, and, with the absence of such means of education, the
country, to a large extent, must necessarily be uneducated.

Thus obviously is the Bible the recognized organ of popular education in
this country, and in this view it is most important that its efficiency
should be complete.  But this inference derives its chief force from
considerations affecting the _character_ of the education it supplies.
In this aspect of it there is nothing that should make us regret the
actual occupancy it enjoys in this regard.  On the contrary, it is
admirably adapted by its own peculiar power over men’s souls to
create—not a learned, but an intelligent people; and if intelligent, then
free, independent, powerful,—a match for tyranny in every shape, and at
every turn.  Nor are the ruling powers themselves less benefited in thus
being able to lay deep the foundation of their authority in the fixedness
of principle, just appreciation of good as distinct from its counterfeit,
and sober and well-advised aims of the people so trained and nurtured.

Closely connected with education, or such an education as we have now
been considering, is _public morality_, and with it the strength and
prosperity of a Nation.  The condition of England in her various
phases—civil, military, political, and religious—has naturally arrested
the attention of intelligent foreigners, as presenting a marked
superiority in these respects, or in some of them, to their own country.
They have inquired the cause of this distinction with little success, and
are as much at fault in being able to trace no symptoms of decay or
flagging vitality in the system, cruelly tried as it not unfrequently is,
prognosticating its ruin.  Perhaps there is a solution of the enigma
here.  Perhaps the use of Scripture as the prime material of our early
education has generated a better morality among us, and precluded the
admission of certain forms of evil, little consonant to national
greatness or national welfare, from which we see other countries,
differently schooled, are not exempt.  On this head, while avoiding undue
pretension, we would not choose to say less than truth permits.  With all
the deductions to be allowed in disparagement of our claim to a high
place in the scale of morals absolutely, we have yet, as compared with
other countries,—a conscience, a sense namely of right and wrong,
pervading the bulk of the people, and leavening the land with a wholesome
morality,—we are not habituated to treat suicide as a virtue, {34}—our
functionaries, as a body, are not venal,—we are not dangerous to the
State when we meet in numbers beyond two or three,—and we are not
incapable of self-government.  M. de Montalembert, in his late work on
the Future of England, while generously doing homage to the greatness of
this country, the destinies of which he undertakes to decide, has not
adverted to this high moral and religious training as supplying any
explanation of the phenomenon: perhaps deeming his own country to be not
less amply supplied with the means of religious culture.  On this point
we are at issue with him, if such is his opinion.  In France, as in
Catholic countries generally,—and it must be confessed in some Protestant
countries too,—it is not so decidedly a religious or moral, as an
ecclesiastical and conventual training, that is accorded; one, that is,
which, while it overlays the memory with dogmas, and deals in technical
and artificial requirements, leaves the conscience all but uninformed,
and morality, as a pervading, practical, germinating principle, almost a
non-entity. {35}

_Paullo majora canamus_.  The time is come when countries, as such, need
to be educated no less really than smaller bodies and isolated
individuals.  Countries are brought now almost into as close contact with
one another as individual members of the same commonwealth; and the
identical principle that inculcates the education of individuals—that,
namely, of mutual self-defence and reciprocal advantage—applies to the
aggregation of individuals in a nation.  The times of ignorance picture
to us man as a savage, a terror to his neighbours, and everywhere an
object of rightful destruction.  Education became a necessity, if he
would be safe from violence, or reap advantage from the society of his
fellow.  The picture presented by the history of nations in relation to
one another is substantially the same.  There has been little improvement
in this respect yet visible.  Nor has the necessity for it seemed urgent,
while the nations were separated by the natural obstacles of their
position, and their means of mutual annoyance in a corresponding degree
circumscribed.  Science has now removed these obstacles, and the nations
are brought into immediate contiguity and contact, while their means of
mutual annoyance have been enormously and frightfully multiplied.
Startling it is to think of the growing power of nations for evil, and
inflicting evil upon one another, in the present temper and _morale_ of
the nations.  Surely we may say the time has come for providing a remedy
appropriate to so fearful a crisis.  There is none that occurs to us so
sure as a system of instruction that recognizes as its basis a _sanctity_
in the relations of state with state, and lodges deep in the consciences
of the several people those great principles of justice, truth, and
benevolence, in which God has indissolubly bound up all human happiness,
whether of nations or of individuals.  Unhappily there is so much to
unlearn on the subject of the relative duties of nations to one another
before this good work can be proceeded in.  The sacred records have not
been supposed to furnish any lessons on this branch of human duty, and
none have been sought for.  But—

    “In them is plainest taught and easiest learn’d
    What makes a Nation happy, and keeps it so.”

                                                        PARADISE REGAINED.

Embued with the conviction that we have the means adequate to the high
ends here proposed in these very records—well understood and properly
carried out—we have ventured upon these high themes in disregard of the
imputation to which we may be subjected, with some plausibility, of
overstating our cause.  We say with some plausibility, only as merging
our feelings for the moment in the superficial view ordinarily taken of
the _real character_ of the religious element—a view altogether ignored
by the history of our race, and the peculiar phenomena of the times.  We
may add, it is unmistakably at variance with the consciousness of almost
every individual in Christendom, to whom it is no secret that religious
questions—unless the interest has been neutralized by long neglect, or
quashed by desperate violence—exert a strange and engrossing power over
his soul.  In whatever way we look at it, it is a _power_, and in this
view may even be perverted to evil.

“Suppose ye,” says Christ, “that I am come to send peace upon earth?  I
tell you, Nay, but rather division.” {37a}  In deep sympathy with these
words, and in corroboration of the prophetic spirit by which they are
marked, are the following observations of Stanley, when summing up his
reminiscences of the Lake of Galilee—the toiling all night and catching
nothing—the great multitude of fishes, so that the net broke—the casting
a hook for the first fish that came up—the net cast into the sea, and
gathering of every kind: “all these,” says he, “are images which could
occur nowhere else in Palestine but in this one spot, and which, from
that one spot, have now passed into the religious language of the
civilized world, _and in their remotest applications_, _or even
misapplications_, _have converted the nations_, _and shaken the thrones
of Europe_.” {37b}

Thus demonstrative it is that Religion is no weak, idle, evanescent
figment of man’s imagination, but a real, substantial, controlling power,
shaping his thoughts, it may be unconsciously, and blending itself with
the solid structure of society and nations.  Greece and Rome, it has been
well said, have attracted here and there a visitor, but only the Holy
Land has provoked a crusade.  Nor is the evidence of its power to be
fetched wholly from the records of the past; we think we see in it in our
own days a germinating principle more potent than anything else now in
operation to work great changes, and rival, at least, if it does not
throw into the shade, all that history has yet unfolded.  That this power
may be based in knowledge, and directed to a righteous end, unlike the
character oftentimes it bears on the page of the past, it may deserve
some consideration as a means to this end, whether we may not yet read
our lesson to greater advantage, and educe from the sacred page a fuller
amount of good than in its present state it is calculated to afford.  And
we have the more confidence in urging our present suit, because we are
persuaded that the boon we invoke will not long be unattended with other
forms of active beneficence conducing to the same high ends.  The church
will almost simultaneously rouse herself to new exertion.  A yet more
effective order of Religious Teaching than we can yet boast of—from the
pulpit and the press, will probably be elicited.  And thus we shall
evoke, not an isolated power waging dubious war against fearful odds, but
a CONFEDERATE force, equal, we will hope, to the crisis;—a crisis such
as, no one is so obtuse as not to see, demands something vastly in
advance of the elements at present available for neutralizing the fearful
evils now festering at our core, or looming in the no distant horizon.

Such is our argument.  The sum is, that the Sacred Books are replete with
good, and that a just appreciation of what is due to our own interests,
no less than gratitude for the gift itself, demands from us the
consecration of whatever further power Providence has, in these latter
days, conferred upon us to that end, to render that good in its utmost
extent salutary and efficacious.

And the time for action presses.  Already various undertakings are on
foot to supply the desired object: and there may be reason to fear, in
the failure of help from higher quarters, that some Society—the Religious
Tract Society, for example, as suggested by the “Edinburgh Review,” thus
following up its recent excellent publication of the New Paragraph
Bible—or some self-constituted body, as is this moment sitting in America
for this very purpose—or individual scholars—may appropriate the ground
we should rather reserve as the Special Sphere for the operations of the
highest Authority in the realm.

It only remains that we give utterance to our most fervent hope that this
great work may signalize the reign of our beloved Queen.  It will not be
the least sparkling of the diamonds that will lend lustre to her crown.
All concurrent circumstances point to this as the fitting time, and to
her Majesty as the appropriate individual to inaugurate the solemnity.
Religious scruples have given way to a more enlightened and creditable
feeling, and a higher standard of religious truth than that afforded by
the present version is plainly a desideratum.  The reflections cast upon
the Protestant faith in the recent trials for Bible-burning in Ireland,
authorized in measure by the concessions of Protestants themselves to the
faultiness of the authorized version, wait to be removed.  Let her
Majesty, following in this respect the example of James I., appoint to
this work a body of men the most qualified for the task the realm
affords, and we cannot doubt the result will be a version of Holy
Scripture incomparably better than the present; thus supplying a fresh
cause of exultation in her Majesty’s rule, and a surpassing debt of
gratitude to the hand that conferred the boon.

                                * * * * *

 _Extract from a Speech of M. Guizot at a late Meeting of the Protestant
       Biblical Society in Paris_.  _See_ Times, _April_ 19, 1856.

    “Whether we consider the history of nations, or the private life of
    individuals, the moral efficacy and salutary power of the holy books
    glowingly manifest themselves.  Undoubtedly, even among nations where
    it is assiduous and general, the reading of the holy books has not
    the effect of stifling the bad passions of men; it does not obviate
    all errors and faults.  Man remains full of weakness and vice, even
    when conscious of the presence of God.  But the habitual reading of
    the holy books preserves nations from the greatest perils; it
    prevents them from forgetting God.  It has this advantage—that God
    remains for them, not an idea, a name, a system of philosophy, a
    riddle, but the true and living God, under whose eye they constantly
    live, amid the struggles and casualties of this world.”

                                * * * * *

                                * * * * *

           Reed and Pardon, Printers, Paternoster Row, London.




FOOTNOTES.


{3}  A solitary voice, in the strict sense of the word, was raised by the
Rev. Canon Selwyn at the last meeting of Convocation (March, 1856).  The
motion was not suited to the _mollia tempora fandi_, perhaps.  But,
whatever the cause, there can be no doubt of the fitness of the hands
into which the motion fell, or that the day is far from being distant
when the question will force itself on the notice of Convocation, in all
probability, in another shape.

{4}  “Essays, Moral and Literary,” by Dr. Vicesimus Knox.  No. XLIX.

{8a}  See Psalm xxii. throughout.  The difficulties attending the
_entire_ application of the psalm to Christ are by no means insuperable.
Scott unreservedly refers the whole to Christ.  Adam Clarke dissents.
Psalm lxix. is for the most part a manifest adumbration of the Messiah;
and if the difficulties in the way of the entire application of the Psalm
to Christ, presented in verse 5, where he is made _apparently_ to lament
his foolishness and his guilt, could be surmounted, a great boon, it is
conceived, would be granted to all who desire to understand what they
read.  The _representative_ scheme, besides being open to other
objections, has no explicit authority in the Scriptures to recommend it,
and the _double sense_ is now all but universally abandoned.  Possibly,
if the text will not yield in these cases, there are principles of
interpretation involved that await future development.

{8b}  Gen. xlix. 21.  For, “Naphtali is a hind let loose: he giveth
goodly words,” read, “Naphtali is a spreading Pine, that putteth forth
goodly boughs.”  Psa. xxix. 9.  For, “The voice of the Lord maketh the
hinds to calve, and discovereth the forests,” read, “The voice of the
Lord rendeth the pines, and layeth bare the forests.”  So Dr. Lee.  To
surrender the Bible, body and soul, into the hands of the Massorites, as
is required by their pointing of these passages, is surely asking too
much.  Let the reader peruse the _whole_ of the 29th Psalm, and determine
the fitness of the correction for himself, which he may very safely be
allowed to do.  The former passage, if consistently carried out on the
principles of the translators, would run, “Naphtali is a hind let loose,
_that_ giveth goodly words,” in which the incongruousness of the metaphor
would, if possible, be still more manifest.  See Stanley’s “Syria and
Palestine,” p. 355.

{10a}  See Preface to Herwitz’ “Etymology and Syntax of the Hebrew
Language.”

{10b}  See Kitto’s Bib. Cyc., art. Chronicles.  The whole article is very
reassuring, considering the able and accomplished pen from which it
proceeds.  The writer, Dr. Davidson, to whom the lovers of Biblical
philology are under the greatest obligations, deliberately asserts the
corruption of the passages in question, and advocates a reading in
conformity with the corresponding statements in 2 Samuel and Kings.

{11a}  Compare, among other instances in point that might be given, 1
Kings ix. 28 with 2 Chron. viii. 18.

{11b}  If _no_ purification of the text should avail us in these cases,
it would be advisable to accompany the change in the text with a note in
the margin explanatory of the corruptness of the reading that has been
superseded.

{13}  The change of accent the word undergoes in the original when
repeated in the second hemistich, gives marvellous emphasis to the
exhortation—an emphasis altogether lost in the translation.

{14}  The application of this principle may go some way towards
neutralizing the doubts that have been raised as to the identity of the
Isaiah of the later portion of the prophecy with the Isaiah of the
earlier portion.  See chap. lxiv. 10, 11.  One thing at least is evident,
namely, that the Apostle Paul, who was confessedly well read in Hebrew
literature, in his quotations from the latter portion of the prophecy,
seems to have had no notion of any other Isaiah than that to whom the
whole prophecy is ordinarily ascribed.  See Rom. x. 16.  In fact, these
doubts, now complacently acquiesced in as valid by the Rationalistic
School abroad and at home, were equally unknown to all the world till
about half a century ago.  The general reader may content himself with
Dr. Alexander’s candid and able investigation of the question in his
recent Commentary on Isaiah.

{15}  The uses of the particle ו in combination with the verb.  Let the
Hebrew student consult the masterly investigation and elucidation of this
subject in the Hebrew Grammar recently published by Messrs. Mason and
Bernard, Vol. II. chapters 51–55.

{17a}  This rendering is faulty as not providing for the emphatic
personal pronoun “he” in the original.

{17b}  Niphal in the sense of the Hithpael conjugation.  See Gen. xvi. 9.

{17c}  The original will not admit of this rendering, though the sense is
not objectionable.

{17d}  There is great difficulty here.  The word rendered _impious_, and
inserted in brackets, signifies _rich_, mostly with an accessory notion
of violence and wrong; but the parallel clause, “He made his grave with
the wicked,” and the further expression, “He was numbered with the
transgressors,” in the last verse, seem to justify the sense here given;
and so it has been understood by some rabbins and other commentators, as
Luther, Calvin, Gesenius.  See Matt. xix. 23.  We confess we are not
satisfied.  The common reading that represents Christ as rewarded with a
grave among the rich, _because_, forsooth, he had done no violence, &c.,
is surely inadmissible.

{18a}  So, ‘A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief,’ v. 3.

{18b}  _Intercedes_ in the present, because his intercession is a
_continuous_ act.  This distinction of tense as contradistinguished from
the past tense in the use of the preceding verb _he bore_, expressing a
transaction _once_ and _finally_ concluded, so conspicuous in the
original, is entirely overlooked in the authorized version; so Calvin,
Vitringa, Lowth, Henderson, Jones, Barnes, &c.  This concurrence in the
interpretation of the authorized version is especially to be wondered at
in the more recent of the above-named critics.  Messrs. Mason and Bernard
give, less happily we think, _that he might make_, &c.  Dr. Alexander,
New Jersey, favours the view adopted in the amended version.  See his
admirable Commentary on Isaiah.

{19}  A Hebraism lurks here.  So, “Praise the Lord, O my soul, and forget
not ANY of his benefits;” and not “_all_ his benefits,” as our
translation has it.  So again, “And God gave Cain a mark, lest ANY
finding him should kill him,” where the _same_ word is rightly rendered.
Ps. ciii. 2; Gen. iv. 15.

{24a}  Various divisions, both of the Old and New Testaments, were in use
from the earliest period, but the present divisions into Chapters and
Verses are ascribed, the former, with some hesitation, to Stephen
Langton, Archbishop of Canterbury, about the middle of the thirteenth
century; the latter to Robert Stephens, a Frenchmen, about the middle of
the sixteenth century.  See art. Scripture in Kitto’s Biblical
Cyclopædia.

{24b}  In an elaborate translation of the whole of this prophecy, in the
Hebrew Grammar recently published by Messrs. Mason and Bernard, the
authors conceive the opening passage, “_Who hath believed our report_,”
&c., to express the awe and wonder of the kings mentioned in the previous
chapter at the events they are supposed to witness, and accordingly they
render it, “_Who hath believed our hearing_” &c., the tidings, that is,
that have reached us, the kings aforesaid.  But, with all due respect for
the translation generally, we are unable to accept this view of the
passage before us, conceiving it to be far-fetched, and opposed to the
purpose for which, in so many words, it is quoted in the New Testament.
See John xii. 37; Rom. x. 16.

{25a}  In like manner Jacob, in the course of predicting the future
fortunes of his sons, exclaims parenthetically, “I have waited for thy
salvation, O Lord.”  Gen. xlix. 18.

{25b}  This article has since been republished in a separate form, under
the title of the “Present State of the English Bible,” by the Rev.
William Harness, A.M.  It will well repay repeated perusal by all those
who are interested in this pre-eminently interesting question.

{28}  Let the reader advert for a moment, in connexion with the argument
for the evidences of Christianity, to the ASSUMPTIONS ordinarily and
persistently made by Christ in relation to his person and mission, and
then conceive of the _frightful arrogance_ involved in these assumptions,
supposing them to be unfounded; coupling this thought at the same time
with that perfect sobriety of mind and even tenor of a uniformly staid
and well-balanced deportment by which he was pre-eminently characterized.
_We_ do not find these assumptions in the slightest degree startling or
incredible, because they comport in our minds with the WHOLE character of
Christ as developed in the gospel.  Where the evidence of Messiahship
failed among his own countrymen, if there were any failure of _evidence_,
we may advert for the solution, among other considerations, to their
blind disregard to the perfect compatibility and harmony of these
assumptions with the other features of Messiah as exhibited by Christ.
Here are a few of the expressions alluded to, all taken from the earlier
chapters of St. John’s Gospel:—

“For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the
Son quickeneth whom he will.”  “That all men should honour the Son, even
as they honour the Father.”  “The bread of God is he which came down from
heaven, and giveth life unto the world.”  “And this is the will of Him
that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him,
may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.”  “I
am the light of the world; he that followeth me shall not walk in
darkness, but shall have the light of life.”  “I and my Father are one.”
“Jesus saith unto her, I am the resurrection and the life: he that
believeth on me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whosoever
liveth and believeth in me shall never die.”—How Christ should have
preferred SUCH claims without legitimate authority, and ample power to
substantiate them, is a question to which we cannot divine an answer.

{30}  Some striking illustrations of this position are to be found in the
Appendix to Mr. Stanley’s recent volume on Sinai and Palestine.  This
Appendix consists of a vocabulary of topographical words in Hebrew and
English.  Great care has been taken in giving the precise English for the
corresponding Hebrew term.  Referring to the previous part of his work,
he says, “I have often had occasion to refer to the richness and
precision of the local vocabulary of the Hebrew language.  In the
authorized version this is unfortunately lost; not so much by the
incorrect rendering of any particular word, as by the promiscuous use of
the same English word for different Hebrew words, or of different English
words for the same Hebrew word.”  And again: “The geographical passages
of the Bible seem to shine with new light as these words acquire their
proper force.  How keenly, for example, are we led to notice the early
tendency to personify and treat as living creatures the great objects of
nature, when we find that the ‘springs’ are the ‘eyes,’ the bright,
glistening, life-giving eyes of the thirsty East; that the mountains have
not merely summits and sides, but ‘heads,’ ‘shoulders,’ ‘ears,’ ‘ribs,’
‘loins,’ &c.”  This whole Appendix is deeply interesting to the Hebrew
student.  He must feel at the same time how much the mere English student
of Scripture suffers in the absence of the same knowledge.

{31}  “They who have access to the Scriptures in the original are . . .
endowed with ten talents, compared with which the power of reading them
in our authorized version is but one.  The right improvement of the one
talent will ensure to its possessor the end of his faith, even the
salvation of his soul; but this does not render guiltless those who have
greater talents if, from supineness and indolence, they neglect to use
the enlarged means with which they are gifted for attaining to the
knowledge of the truth.”—“Introduction to the Greek Testament, with
Grammatical and Exegetical Notes, by William Webster, M.A., and William
Francis Wilkinson, M.A.,” p. xvi.  The above work has special claims upon
that numerous class who, with little time for elaborate research, are
glad to obtain the _results_ of a thorough critical investigation of the
language and teaching of the New Testament.

{34}  The following is from Lewes’s “Life of Goethe,” just published.
The words in double inverted commas are those of Goethe himself: ‘“I had
a large collection of weapons, and among them a very handsome dagger.
This I placed by my bedside every night, and before extinguishing my
candle I made various attempts to pierce the sharp point a couple of
inches into my breast; but not being able to do it I laughed myself out
of the notion,” &c.  He played with suicidal thoughts, because he was
restless, _and suicide was a fashionable speculation of the day_,’ &c. .
. . In October, 1772 the report reaches him that his Wetzlau friend,
Goué, has shot himself.  “Write to me at once about Goué,” he says to
Kestner, “_I honour such an act_, _and pity mankind_,” &c.—Vol. I. p.
197.  There is more to this abominable purpose in the sequel.  Such was
Goethe, a man sprung from the people, not the offspring of an effete
noblesse, and at a time of life when the very thought of self-destruction
is most alien to all the instincts of nature,—‘a canker in youth,’—and
with no taint of constitutional melancholy in his system.  Goethe’s
genius was a sea of glass, capable of reflecting the rays cast upon it
from without with unusual brilliancy; but, unlike our Shakspeare, devoid
of independent power of originating _new_ thought.  Thus he _reflected_
all his days the prevailing fashion of his time, and thus he but
_re-enacts_ the sentimentalism of the hour in his suicidal lucubrations.

{35}  The policy of Pericles may be considered in relation to the causes
that aggrandize a people.  His notion seems to have been that to awaken
great deeds in a nation you must supply it with great and noble thoughts.
Hence his magnificent public buildings, his lavish cultivation of the
arts, and even the attention he paid to the amusements of the people, to
make them subservient to refinement and purity of taste.  But æsthetics
alone do not make a great people.—See Thuc. II., 38, 39.

{37a}  Luke xii. 51.

{37b}  Sinai and Palestine, p. 369.