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

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

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

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

text to suit their views, and their work is rejected by their critics. That which seems perfectly feasible proves, in the doing of it, to be exceedingly difficult. To attempt to restore the Hebrew text by a means that we are not entirely sure of is certainly not wise. Neither the Talmud, nor any one of the Chaldee translations, nor the Septuagint, has been submitted to a thorough critical revision. One of the crying needs of Old Testament study is a trustworthy edition of the Septuagint, and until that is obtained the Septuagint cannot safely be used, as of itself a strong argument for the change of text.

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

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

sition of error in the text, and has all the critical evidence on his side.

Nor is the translator to make his text. There are some who are capable of the double work of accurate textual criticism and translating the text obtained, but they are very few. The translator is to keep with all faithfulness to the text the best scholarship brings to him, and he will find all his energies tasked to the utmost to represent that most exactly and acceptably in his own tongue. Where there can be no doubt of an error in the text, then the text and margin of the translation must tell the story.

HEBREW PHILOLOGY AND BIBLICAL

SCIENCE.

SHALL THE AUTHORIZED VERSION KEEP PACE WITH THE ADVANCES MADE IN HEBREW PHILOLOGY AND

BIBLICAL SCIENCE?

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

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

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

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

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