door," and this is the only sense of which the Greek words in the passage which seems so incongruous are susceptible. He who reads the Gospel of St. Mark in Greek gets a vivid idea of the promptitude, the tendency to strike while the iron is hot, which cunning and malice may engender. A princess enters the banqueting room of a king, enchants him by the grace of her dancing, and evokes from his tipsy rashness the promise, "Ask what thou wilt and I will give it thee, even to the half of my kingdom." (St. Mark vi, 22.) The damsel, after consulting with her mother, returns to the banqueting room, points, no doubt, to the dishes on the banqueting table, and says, "Give me forthwith, on a dish, the head of John the Baptist." In the English Bible the speech runs, "Give me by and by, in a charger." 'By and by" means, in our century, a time somewhat distant from the present; the phrase has ceased to mean "forthwith." A charger, in modern English, signifies a war horse; the word has ceased to signify a dish or platter from which plates are charged or supplied. If the Bible is intended for the less educated of the Christian Church it needs, in many places, to be translated out of the older into the later English.

66

Within the two hundred and sixty-eight years which have elapsed since the publication of the Current Version Biblical learning has advanced with a progress comparable to that which has obtained in other departments of learning. Ten times as many manuscripts of the New Testament as were known to our venerable translators have been discovered since their time, and that kind of criticism which judges of the age of ancient manuscripts and determines the true reading where copies differ, has been reduced to a science. In many places textual criticism is unanimous,

at the present day, in favor of readings more or less different from those which the authors of the present version followed. "Alexander, the coppersmith, did me much evil: the Lord reward him according to his works." (2 Tim. iv, 14.) The true reading yields the sense," Alexander, the coppersmith, did me much evil; the Lord will reward him according to his works.”

...

St. Paul, speaking of Abraham, says, "He considered not his own body now dead, . neither yet the deadness of Sarah's womb: he staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief." (Rom. iv, 19.) This statement conflicts with the history in the book of Genesis. This history is so far from representing Abraham as not considering at the time mentioned, that it declares that Abraham said in his heart," Shall a child be born unto him that is a hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?" (Gen. xvii, 17.) Textual critics agree in reading the language of St. Paul without the word "not." They so determine the text as to translate "He considered his own body now dead and the deadness of Sarah's womb, but staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief." Such decisions of critics are made in accordance with rules which recognize the more difficult of two readings as being, cæteris paribus, the more worthy of acceptance. Ought not English readers to have the benefit of their knowledge?

Our translators say, in their noble preface, that they have not been studious of an "identity of phrasing;" that is to say, they acknowledge that they have not been careful to render a Hebrew or Greek word by the same English phrase in the different places where the Hebrew or Greek word occurs. Yet an identity of phrasing is often necessary as a clue to the meaning.

66

Moses saw an Egyptian smiting a Hebrew and he slew the Egyptian, says the English Bible. (Ex. ii, 11, 12.) In this sentence the same Hebrew word is translated in the first instance by the word "smiting," and in the second instance by the word "slew." If the Hebrew word had been translated "slaying" in the place where it is translated "smiting" the meaning would have been more perceptible and the act of Moses less liable to misconstruction. In the earlier books of the Old Testament a remarkable person appears under the name of the Angel of the Lord." For example, when the covenant with Abraham was to be ratified the language of Genesis is, "The Angel of the Lord called unto Abraham, in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed. . . . thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed." (Gen. xxii, 15, 17, 18.) Here the Angel of the Lord appears as covenanting. In Exodus the same person under the same name appears as covenanted, "I send an Angel before thee, beware of him, . . . . for my name is in him." There is a remarkable passage in the book of Malachi (iii, 1), which, if translated with the identity of phrasing that our translators disregarded, would run, "the Lord whom ye seek shall, suddenly come to his temple, even the Angel of the Covenant, whom ye delight in." Unhappily, in this passage of Malachi the word "messenger" is used where the Hebrew word is the same as that which is rendered "Angel" in the places of Genesis and Exodus. He who reads the Old Testament in the original may come to the conclusion that the Angel of the Covenant, promised by Malachi, was to be the same being as had appeared in the Pentateuch, one while as covenanting, another

while as covenanted. The common reader ought to have the benefit of an identity of phrasing where this identity is necessary in order to identify the thing or person meant.

The priest's lips should keep knowledge, that the people may seek the law at his mouth. In 1870 priests awoke to this truth. The Convocation of Canterbury, the oldest synod in English speaking Christendom, appointed a Committee to revise the current version of the Scriptures. This Committee was to make no change for the sake of change. It was not to desert the style of the English Bible. It was to invite the coöperation of Biblical scholars of different nations and creeds, and was to give ten years to the important project. Eight of these ten years have elapsed. Scholars of this country, as well as scholars of Great Britain, are engaged in the work. What will be the issue? The Latin version of the Scriptures, made by Jerome, was for a thousand years the standard Bible of Western Christendom. Yet the making of it was earnestly opposed, and the work did not establish itself in general acceptance for two centuries. May the Revision at present in progress meet with earlier success: may Christian people give the work the benefit of their prayers, and when it appears give the book a candid reception!

THE HEBREW TEXT OF THE OLD TESTA

MENT.

BY HOWARD OSGOOD, D.D.,

Professor of Hebrew, in Rochester Theological Seminary.

THE HISTORY OF THE TEXT.-The Hebrew text, as we now find it in the best editions of the Old Testament, is a reprint, with few and slight exceptions, of the text edited by Jewish scholars, and printed by Bomberg, at Venice, in 1525, and reprinted by him, with corrections, in 1547. In some of the subsequent editions of the text, a few manuscripts and the preceding printed editions were compared, and errors corrected; but until the latter part of the last century there was no text published which was founded upon a large comparison of manuscripts.

Bomberg's Hebrew text was accompanied by Rabbinic commentaries, and was designed for the use of the Jews, since few Christians at that day understood Hebrew, and still fewer were acquainted with Rabbinic. This text enjoys the great advantage of being acknowledged as the received text by Jews and Christians alike. That it is worthy of great confidence is the united testimony of critics, and one of the latest and most learned, Strack, makes stronger statements in favor of the preservation of the correct reading in this text than some of his predecessors, or than is welcome to some who cannot but admire his preeminent ability and learning.

We do not know what or how many manuscripts were used by the editors of this text, but from the preface to the Bible of 1525, and from the carefulness