Since the beginning of the present century thoroughly critical editions of the Greek Testament have been published by such scholars as Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, in which the rich materials collected by generations of scholars have been used for the improvement of the text; we have learned how to estimate the comparative value of our authorities; the principles of textual criticism have been in a good measure settled: the more important questions in regard to the text have been discussed, and there has been a steadily growing agreement of the ablest critics in regard to them.

With this view of what has been done in the way of preparation, we will consider, finally—

IV. THE GROUND FOR EXPECTING A GREAT IMPROVEMENT IN THE TEXT FROM THE WORK NOW UNDERTAKEN BY THE BRITISH AND AMERICAN REVISION COMMITTEES. On this little needs now to be said. We have seen that the text from which the common English version was made contains many known errors, and that our present means of correcting it are ample. The work of revision is in the hands of some of the best Christian scholars in England and America, and their duty to the Christian public is plain. The composition of the Committees, and the rules which they follow, are such that we may be sure that changes will not be made rashly; on the other hand we may be confident that the work will be done honestly and faithfully. When an important reading is clearly a mistake of copyists it will be fearlessly discarded; when it is doubtful, the doubtfulness will be noted in the margin; and the common English reader will at last have the benefit of the devoted labors of such scholars as Mill, Bengel, Wetstein,

Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles, who have contributed so much to the restoration of the text of the New Testament to its original purity. On the English Committee itself there are at least three men who deserve to be ranked with those I have named, Professor Westcott and Dr. Hort, two scholars of the very first class, who have been engaged more than twenty years in the preparation of a critical edition of the Greek Testament; and Dr. Scrivener, whose labors in the collation and publication of important manuscripts have earned the gratitude of all biblical students. Professor Lightfoot is another scholar of the highest eminence who has given much attention to the subject of textual criticism. We may rely upon it that such men as these, and such men as constitute the American Committee, whom I need not name, will not act hastily in a matter like this, and will not, on the other hand, "handle the word of God deceitfully," or suffer it to be adulterated, through a weak and short-sighted timidity.

One remark may be added. All statements about the action of the Revision Committees in regard to any particular passage are wholly premature and unauthorized, for this reason, if for no other, that their work is not yet ended. When the result of their labors shall be published, it will be strange if it does not meet with some ignorant and bigoted criticism; but I feel sure that all intelligent and fair-minded scholars will emphatically endorse the judgment of Dr. Westcott, expressed in the Preface to the second edition of his History of the English Bible (1872), "that in no parallel case have the readings of the original texts to be translated been discussed and determined with equal care, thoroughness, and candor."

INACCURACIES OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION IN RESPECT OF GRAMMAR AND EXEGESIS.

BY REV. A. C. KENDRICK, D.D., LL.D.,

Professor of Greek in Rochester University, Rochester, N. Y.

Among the grounds urged for a revision of our version of the Scriptures are the imperfection of its critical text, obscurities growing out of changes in the language, and arbitrary variations in rendering, springing from the lack of fixed or correct principles of translation. Practically, however, the most important reason of all arises from the progress which, since 1611, has been made in grammatical and exegetical science, as applied to the Scriptures. That such progress should be made would be but to bring Biblical science into accordance with all the other developments of the last two centuries. In every field of intellectual action during that period, the progress of the human mind has been rapid, and its achievements unprecedentedly great. It would be strange, indeed, if in this highest of all departments of knowledge it should have failed of corresponding advancement. And it has not. In all the fields of sacred learning the most eminent abilities and the most conscientious industry have been diligently employed, and in none, perhaps, more than in the sphere of the language and interpretation of the New Testament. It is then no disparagement to the merits of those eminent scholars who gave us our excellent Authorized Version that their work in these respects demands revision. The fault was not of the individuals, but of the age. They lived near the border

land of a splendid realm of sacred discovery and knowledge, which it was not their privilege to enter. We might well take shame to ourselves, if, however individually inferior, we had not been thrown by the age itself somewhat beyond and above them.

Of course here, as in other branches of the general subject, we do not pretend that the errors which we point out are such as to pervert or darken the general teachings of the divine Word. The most that can be said of them is that they obscure individual passages, mar rhetorical symmetry, impede the flow of a narrative or the course of an argument, and sometimes seriously perplex the thoughtful reader, making him imagine the Bible to be a much less consequential and logical book than it actually is. Thus to give at this point a single illustration. In the opening of Hebrews, the writer sets forth the transcendent superiority of the Son to the angels from the vast disparity of their name and office. In illustration he cites from the Psalms: "Who maketh his angels [messengers] winds;" thus putting the angels on a level with the mere agencies of nature. This is perfectly clear. But the thoughtful reader, who reads in his Bible, "Who maketh his angels spirits," fails utterly to see the relevancy of a statement which in fact tends to give the angels the highest conceivable exaltation, putting them in essence on a level with the Deity.

From the same connection I will adduce another illustration. The author just before says, in latent contrast with the stumbling humbleness of the Son's earthly manifestation, "And when he shall again bring back into the world the first-begotten, he saith " (proleptic for, he will say), "Let all the angels of God. worship him." But to him who reads, " And again,

when he bringeth the first-begotten into the world, he saith," etc., the passage is an entire enigma. Christ's entrance into the world, at his birth from the Virgin, was one of humiliation. The angels undoubtedly did worship him, but it was no occasion for the formal challenging of that worship. The right translation throws it forward to the second coming, and brings all into harmony.

I. ERRORS IN THE USE OF THE GREEK ARTICLE.— But I proceed to take up the passages in some order, and will commence with illustrations of the use of the ARTICLE. The Greek definite article in many respects (not in all) squares precisely with the English. It cannot always be rendered, but it is no more used without a reason than is the English article. Yet, of its special use and importance, the English translators seem to have had but the faintest notion, and they render or omit it in the most capricious manner. "Into a mountain," "into a ship," appear almost constantly for "into the mountain," and "into the ship.' "The [one] pinnacle of the temple" becomes "a pinnacle" (as if there were many). "A synagogue stands for "the synagogue," which implies the only or the chief one in the place. Thus, Luke vii, 5, “ He hath built us a synagogue," for "he himself built us our synagogue." The English version here contains three errors, "he" for "himself," "hath built" for "built" and "a" for "the," which, by a familiar idiom, we replace by "our." So Nicodemus (John iii, 10) is lowered from "the teacher of Israel," to which rank the Saviour exalts him, to "a teacher." In 2 Tim. iv, 7, "the good fight" (more exactly, "the noble contest," in contrast with the secular games of

66