piety and learning, were appointed to execute this great work. Before it was commenced, seven of the persons nominated had either died or declined, and only forty-seven actually entered upon it. These were divided into six classes, and each individual translated every book allotted to his division. The whole division then met, and agreed upon the renderings which they would adopt. Their part thus finished was sent to each of the other companies to be again examined, and here the method was for one to read the translation aloud, while the others holding each in his hand some other Bible, either in the original tongues, or in some modern version, diligently compared what they heard with what was before their eyes, interrupting the reader by remarks whenever they deemed it necessary. In this way every precaution was taken to secure a faithful translation, as the whole Bible underwent at least six different revisions by the most learned men in the kingdom. The result of their labours was first published A. D. 1611. It has subsequently been frequently revised with great care, and many marginal additions made, but no changes attempted in the body of the work. It still remains not only the standard Version, but by the unanimous voice of the most competent judges, it is ranked among the very best translations of this or any other book in the world. In point of fidelity, perspicuity, simplicity, energy, and dignity, it doubtless stands unrivalled. It cannot indeed be considered immaculate; but it may be doubted whether, taken as a whole, it could be surpassed by any translation which should now be attempted. A distinguished biblical critic of the last century (Dr. Geddes), in a work written with the express design of impugning the established version, and stating the reasons which had induced him to undertake a new one, is still constrained to acknowledge, that if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent. Every sentence, every word, every syllable, every letter and point seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude, and expressed, either in the text or margin, with the greatest precision. Pagninus himself is hardly more literal, and it was well remarked by Robertson, above a hundred years ago, that it may serve for a lexicon of the Hebrew language, as well as for a translation.' (Prosp. of a New Trans. p. 92). Testimonies to the same effect, and equally decided, from the most conpetent sources, might be accumulated almost without number in favour of the excellence of our received translation. to all which we are disposed heartily to subscribe. At the same time, it will not be considered as revoking the ample concession thus made, if we advert to some undeniable defects in this version. This we do, not for the purpose of weakening the confidence or lessening the pleasure with which the vernacular Scriptures are studied; but simply as a matter of impartial justice. And in noticing these defects we shall pass by all those which arose necessarily from the age and the circumstances in which the translation was made. In the nature of the case, the translators were precluded access to various sources of biblical criticism and elucidation which are abundantly enjoyed at the present day. We have a far more extended biblical apparatus than they had or could have at the period in which they lived. The publication of polyglots, the collation of ancient manuscripts and versions, the multiplication of grammars, lexicons, concordances, and critical dissertations, the enlarged comparison of the affinities of the Oriental dialects, the researches of trav ellers into the geography, manners, customs, natural history, &c. of the East, the more accurate tables of chronology, coins, weights, and measures, and the generally more advanced state of scientific criticism; have all tended to enrich us with facilities for performing such a work, to which our fathers were strangers. But not to dwell upon these considerations, nor upon the embarrassments thrown in their way by the arbitrary restrictions, growing out of the prejudice, the pedantry, or the caprice of the monarch by whom they were employed, the received version is marred by blemishes of another kind for which we cannot find the same apology. Of these, by far the most prominent is a want of uniformity in the mode of rendering, both in regard to single words and to phrases. This, we admit, was in some degree to be expected, partly from the magnitude of the work itself, and partly from the number of persons employed in it; nor should we perhaps dissent from what the translators have said in justification of their not tying themselves down to an absolute 'identity of phrasing.' As they remark, it would perhaps savor more of curiosity than wisdom' that translators should feel bound in every case to render, for example, the same Hebrew or Greek words, by purpose, never by intent; always by think, never by suppose; always by journeying, never by travelling; always by pain, never by ache; always by joy, never by gladness, &c. Yet it is obvious that a more scrupulous exactness may justly be required in a translation of the Scriptures, than in any other translation, and we doubt not that the instances adduced below will show that they have actually transcended all reasonable allowance on this score, not only often varying the terms unnecessarily, but so as to deprive the unlearned reader of the signal advantages to be gained in the study of the Bible from comparing terms and phrases strictly parallel. The justice of our criticism will be more evident from the subjoined specimens. diadem, Job, 29. 14. rend.hood, Is. 3. 23. mitre, Zech. 3. 5. 1.-WORDS. ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἐστίν ελεω αιώνιος κοπος μοχθος 2.-PHRASES. pattern, Ex. 25. 9. likeness, Ezek. 8. 3. form, Ezek. 8. 10. similitude, Deut. 4. 16. figure, Is. 44. 13. "to testify, John, 15. 26. "weariness, 2 Cor. 11. 27. labor, 1 Thes. 2. 9. "painfulness. 2 Cor. 11. 27. travail, 1 Thes. 2. 9. the pride of her power, Ezek. 30. 6. { set Gen. 12. good in the eyes of, Gen. 41. 37. how old art thou? Gen. 47. 8. to swear, Ex. 6. 8. Num. 14. 30. is on our part, Mark, 9. 40. the spirit is willing, Mat. 26. 41. they shall not enter into my rest, Heb. 3. 11. But there are no phrases, in the rendering of which the translators have shewn more diversity than in those in which the words ben, son, and ish, man, make a part. The former of these, which not only signifies a son, but also a descendant of any kind, has in the Oriental dialects a very wide acceptation, and is applied not only to the offspring of the animal creation, but also to productions of every sort; and what is still more remarkable, to consequential or concomitant relations. Thus an arrow is called the son of the bow; the morning-star, the son of the morning; threshed-out corn, the son of the floor; and anointed persons, the sons of oil. In rendering such phrases our translators have, for the most part, softened the Hebraism, but after no uniform manner. Sons of Belial is surely not more intelligible to an English reader than sons of oil, and much less so than sons of valour, sons of righteousness, sons of iniquity, yet, while they retain the first Hebraism, with all its original harshness, and partly in its original form, they mollify the three last into valiant men, righteous men, wicked men. But even in regard to the first they are not consistent; for if once they admitted the word Belial, they should have retained it throughout, and said a thing of Belial, a heart of Belial, a witness of Belial, the floods of Belial; which, however, they render an evil disease, a wicked heart, an ungodly witness, the floods of ungodliness. Nay, they have once or twice translated a man of Belial, a wicked man. Many other instances of this variety of phrasing might be adduced, but enough has been said to shew that our translators were not guided by any uniform rule or fixed principle, especially in rendering the Hebraisms of the Bible; and, moreover, that this want of uniformity must often be productive of great inconvenience to the reader. On the whole, however, if we except the fault now adverted to, the abatements to be made from the general excellence of the established version are extremely trivial, and whatever defects may be pointed out, they are chargeable rather upon the age and the circumstances in which it was made than upon the translators themselves, and in our estimate it is but reasonable that the faults of a translation should be viewed as far as possible distinct from the faults of the translators. It is indeed possible that occasional instances of wrong or inadequate rendering may be specified, that grammatical propriety may be sometimes slightly violated, that Greek and Hebrew idioms may not always be the most happily transfused into English, that modes of expression lacking in delicacy, or dignity, or perspicuity, may here and there occur, but they are few and far between, and a thousand-fold outweighed by the evident study of rigid fidelity every where exhibited. In attempting, therefore, to specify, as we now propose to do, some particulars in which our English version is capable of amendment, we are doing nothing which really reflects upon the course adopted, in respect to these points, by the translators, unless it can be supposed to detract from them that they did not foresee the changes which in after times would come upon their native tongue. They employed such words as the usage of their times suggested and sanctioned. The same reasons which made them adopt those words then would, if they were now alive, and revising their own work, induce them to substitute others in their stead. We would be understood, then, merely as intimating what is in itself desirable, in view of the progress of language and society, rather than what we should deem it expedient to have undertaken. While the changes effected in the lapse of two or three centuries in our hab. itudes of thought and modes of expression do doubtless render certain emendations intrinsically a desideratum, yet when it comes to the question of actually innovating upon the established text, under whatever plea, we at once plant ourselves on the ground of strict adherence to its every letter. The advantages of retaining incorrupt a standard harmoniously accepted by so large a portion of Christendom, are so signally great, and the evils which would inevitably result from its allowed invasion so manifold and vast, that we trust the day is far, far distant when the first step shall be taken toward supplanting this time-hallowed version in the estimation of the millions by whom it is now so affectionately cherished. Incomparably better will it be that any little improvements in the way of explication, modernized diction, euphemism, &c. should be suggested in critical or popular comments, in biblical introductions, in sermons, in fact any how, rather than in the form of direct alterations of a text, as to which our instinctive prayer is ' Esto perpetua.' The following list of obsolete or antiquated terms, it is proper to advise the reader, is taken from the earlier copies of King James' Version, and contains a considerable number which have been since altered, but by whom, or upon what authority, does not appear. Recurrence to the passages indicated will shew, however, that several of them do not now stand in our current editions, but have given place to their more modern equivalents ranged in the parallel column. In some cases, moreover, it is not the word, but the sense, which has become antiquated. |