compact form in the modern lexicons and grammars, place the interpreters of our day in possession of a mass of materials for forming a correct judgment on the meaning of the Sacred Text far beyond what was possible when the Authorized Version was made.

The bearing of this upon the character of the modern versions which we know were consulted is evident at a glance. These versions, of which several had been made into Latin, varying more or less from the Vulgate, represented simply the Hebrew learning of the time. The same remark is true of the translations made into the principal languages of Europe in the century which succeeded the Reformation. Selden relates in his Table Talk that "that part of the Bible was given to him who was most excellent in such a tongue, and then they met together and one read the translation, the rest holding in their hands some Bible either of the learned tongues, or French, Spanish, Italian, etc.; if they found any fault, they spoke, if not, he read on." With this agrees the statement in the original preface of the Authorized Version: "Neither did we think [it] much to consult the translators or commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syriac, [New Testament] Greek or Latin, nor the Spanish, French, Italian or Dutch [German].” In availing themselves of these helps, in the way of comparison and suggestion, they acted wisely and well;; but the testimony of the translations into the languages of modern Europe to which they refer would now be considered of limited value. One of the best of them, the Italian version of Diodati, which appeared in 1607, was issued in less than forty years in a revised edition. The version of Luther, which, in consequence of intwining itself into the language as well as the hearts of the German nation, has firmly held its place,

is at last obliged, under the discovery of its numerous errors, to yield to the necessity of Revision. In Sweden, Denmark, and Holland the same necessity is found to exist, although in the latter country the States' Translation so called, made a few years after our Authorized Version, is one of high and undisputed excellence.

The commentaries on the Old Testament to which King James's translators were confined, aside from the Rabbinic expositions, were either those of the church fathers, who with few exceptions were wholly unacquainted with Hebrew, or those of the Reformers and their immediate successors. Many of the latter in their strong grasp of Christian truth and their vigorous exhibition of the thoughts of the sacred writers will always deserve to be studied. But on all questions of critical difficulty, on the decision of which not only the thought itself, but the whole connection so frequently depends, they were at a great disadvantage, and in numerous instances entirely missed the Not one of them can now be used for the solution of a linguistic difficulty, nor be safely trusted, in many cases, to give the true thought of the original without the safeguard furnished by the more recent learned commentaries. This is said in no spirit of depreciation, but, on the contrary, with the highest regard for their work. But that work must be taken for what it was, and not for what it was not. The style and possibility of the highest critical commentary of the present day could only exist after the labors of successive generations of scholars on the ancient and modern versions, on the comparison of languages most nearly related to Hebrew, and on a multitude of subjects of critical' investigation connected with the Old Testa

sense.

ment. The results of these studies brought into a compressed form, and made to constitute a foundation for new and fuller explorations, constitute the peculiarity of the helps possessed by the interpreter of the present day, and indicate the necessarily narrower limits within which the scholars who prepared the translation of the Old Testament in our Authorized Version were restricted.

The nature of the parallelism found in the poetical books of the Old Testament was also less perfectly understood than at present, and the abundant contributions since made to the antiquities, natural history, and geography of the Scriptures now offer means for understanding many passages which, without this aid, could never be correctly interpreted.

SOME INACCURACIES OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.

BY JOSEPH PACKARD, D, D.,

Professor of Biblical Literature in the Protestant Episcopal Theological Seminary, Alexandria, Virginia.

As the more general subjects connected with the Revision of the Authorized Version have been sufficiently discussed, there remains only the more special subject of indisputable errors in our version, which need to be corrected. There is no better argument for revision, than the existence of such errors. If they could not be corrected, it would be unwise and unkind to make them known to those to whom the English Bible, and the English Bible only, is the Word of God. The only course to be pursued would be to hide them reverently, and thus not shake the faith of the unlearned.

We assume that the English translation of the Bible should be as faithful as possible to the inspired original, so that the unlearned reader may be as nearly as possible in the place of the learned one. There are some who practically deny this self-evident proposition. They would have us retain time-hallowed errors in our version; they appeal to popular prejudice. They remind us of the old priest in the reign of Henry VIII., who used to say, Mumpsimus, Domine, instead of Sumpsimus, and when remonstrated with, replied, "I am not going to change my old mumpsimus for your new fangled sumpsimus."

While there is a wide spread opinion that our version contains errors, the only way to restore confidence in it is to appoint a committee of investigation to ascertain

the exact state of the case. Even when no change is made the fact that examiners, in whom the Church has confidence, have found none necessary, must go far to inspire increased confidence. Isaac Walton tells us, "that Dr. Richard Kilbye, one of the Company of the Translators of the Authorized Version, heard accidentally a young preacher discussing the New Translation, and giving three reasons why a particular word should have been translated differently. The Doctor told him, on meeting him, that he and others had considered the three reasons mentioned, and found thirteen stronger ones for translating it as it was."

We proceed now to give some examples of errors in the English version, which are acknowledged to be such by the almost universal consent of critical commentators. The correction of these errors of translation will affect some texts often preached upon, and upon which a different interpretation has been put by tradition.

66

In the 24th chapter of Proverbs, 21st verse, we read, "My son, meddle not with them that are given to change." Now it happens that the word given belongs entirely to the English version, and is not found in the Hebrew, where the original word is a participial form, and means changers, or those changing. Matthew Henry says, "He does not say, with them that change, for there may be cause to change for the better; but that are given to change, that affect it, for change sake."

The English version of the book of Job has always been regarded by the best judges as very unsatisfactory. In Job iii, 3, where Job curses the day of his birth, he represents the night of his birth as saying, with joy, "There is a man child born!" Our version has it, in which it was said, thus destroying the poetic figure, which personifies the night. It should have been, Let