THE RE-TRANSLATION OR REVISION OF
THE BIBLE.*-No. II.

In our last number we considered the subject of a new version of the Bible, and came to the conclusion that our present authorized version, as it is called, is not likely to be easily replaced by another which should differ from it essentially either in style or in accuracy. In referring to the five rules cited from the Rev. Arthur Stanley's work, it was remarked that the first and last were the only rules of importance. We come now to consider the last, namely, the emendations of the English version of the Bible, by means of the accuracy of translation. That the translators devoted their utmost attention to this rule is manifest from two important facts which should never be lost sight of: first, that this translation has superseded every other that has been made either before or since; and, second, that the most learned men, whom this country has ever produced, have always quoted this translation, in all their controversies on religious subjects, as well as in all their works written either for the edification of the church, or for the instruction of the world. Had not the religious community of this country been satisfied that the common version was the best extant, it is evident that proposals would have been made and carried into effect, both by churchmen and dissenters, long before this, to introduce some other version, either old or new, into public use both in churches and chapels. This has never yet been done; and to the praise of dissenters let it be said, that however they may have differed with their brethren of the church, on certain points of faith and practice, especially in the matter of church government, they have never thrown aside that invaluable boon which they owe to the labours of learned and pious men, principally belonging to the established church; but have rejoiced in its possession as much as if it had been the work of the most rigid adherents of their own particular sect.

It is said by the author referred to in our first article, that "the popular belief" in the perfection of our common version "must gradually fade away" before the cheap dissemination of the Annotated Paragraph Bible, in every page of which some error of the translation is exposed, and an amendment suggested." Let us hear what the editor of this edition of the Bible says for it himself:

"The marginal readings and translations of many of the Hebrew names, which formed part of the original work of our English translators, have been inserted:-such of them as appear to convey a materially improved rendering, or to illustrate the passage, being incorporated within brackets in the text, so as to meet the reader's eye in the most convenient form; and *1. The State of the English Bible. Reprinted from the Edinburgh Review, October, 1855. By the Rev. William Harness, A.M., Perpetual Curate of All Saints, Knightsbridge. London: Longman and Co., 1856. 2. The Annotated Paragraph Bible. Religious Tract Society, London,

1853.

the remainder being introduced among the references and notes at the foot of the page."

From the words of the writer above cited, the reader might be led to suppose that the "error of the translation" which "is exposed," or the "amendment" which is "suggested" in every page of the Annotated Paragraph Bible, was something very recent, and due to the labours of learned critics who have sprung up since the period when the translators lived; whereas, from the extract which we have quoted from the preface to that Bible, it appears that the exposure of these errors and the suggestion of these amendments were due to the translators themselves! But to call the introduction of these "marginal readings," the exposure of errors, and the suggestion of amendments, is to accuse the translators of a literary felo-de-se; and the only way in which this statement can be accounted for, is to suppose that the writer had either not seen the words of the preface, or had forgotten them, when he penned the objectionable sentence. All that can be said therefore, on this point, amounts to this, that at the end of nearly two centuries and a half, some variations in the rendering of particular passages of Scripture suggested and recorded in the margin by the translators of the Bible themselves, have in some cases been discovered to be better adapted to convey the meaning of the original, than the rendering adopted by them in the text, and have accordingly been inserted in brackets in the text, alongside of the said rendering. Surely there appears to be nothing wonderful in this; it is the work of the same pious and learned men after all; and to them we are still indebted for the improved rendering, as well as for that inserted in the text.

Lest, however, it should be said that we have not stated the whole case, we must make another extract from the preface to the Annotated Bible.

occupying no very considerable bulk, have not been compiled "The short notes interspersed throughout the volume, though without great care and labour. Their general object has been, so far as the space would allow, to give improved renderings in many instances where the authorized version is conceived to be defective, to elucidate difficult passages, and in other ways, to more numerous and extensive upon the New Testament, espeafford explanation and illustration. They will be found to be cially the epistles, than upon the Old." From these remarks, it would appear that in addition to the important renderings originally furnished by our translators themselves, the editor of the Annotated Bible has introduced short notes, compiled from various other sources, giving improved renderings, which were probably unknown to the translators; or if known, rejected by them as not conveying the true sense of the text. Of these short notes, two things are said which it will be well for the advocates of a new or even a revised version to carefully consider: first, that they occupy no very considerable bulk,-an elegant way of saying that they are exceedingly small, and perhaps this is the case in more senses than one; and secondly, that they are given only in places where the authorized version is conceived to be defective, another elegant way of saying that the authors of these improved renderings only thought that they were improvements. The want of authority, we mean critical authority, with which these

improved renderings are introduced, suggests to our mind a saying of Bancroft, the bishop of London, when Dr. Rainolds, the celebrated Puritan, proposed a new translation of the Bible to king James-that very translation which we now enjoy-"that if every man's humour should be followed, there would be no end of translating." This saying is truly applicable to the present case; for the short notes have no doubt been gathered from a numerous host of commentators and writers on the Holy Scriptures; and unless the public knew upon what clerical or critical authority they have been introduced as foot notes to the Annotated Bible, it cannot place that confidence in the new and improved renderings, which might otherwise be done, were their authors well known and recognized as able and pious men, either in the church, or in the republic of letters. It is impossible, of course, in our limited space, to notice all the new improvements which are recommended in the foot notes; but we may very properly notice some at the very commencement of this edition, which have no small influence on important questions now in agitation between the church and the world. At the conclusion of that wonderful summary of creation, given by Moses, the common version has these remarkable words:

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it; because that in it he had rested from all

his work which God created and made."

We say these are remarkable words; for it is evident that here God taught Adam, who was a full made man, and the representative of the human race, by example rather than precept, that his day of rest was to be observed by all mankind, by men of every nation and tribe under the sun- -the descendants of Adam-long before the Jews existed as a separate nation. In reference to this passage, however, the Annotated Bible has the foot note on the word rested, say "rather ceased." Now this is manifestly a gloss on the text, or rather a departure from the literal rendering, a commentary such as the Earl of Shaftesbury remarked in his speech before the Bible Society, was manifested in the samples which have been given of what the advocates of change call a new translation. This is just the sort of alteration which the Anti-sabbatarians desire, as an excuse for their infringement on the sanctity of the Sabbath of God. They will very naturally say, "well, even according to the original institution of the Sabbath, we are only to cease from working; and, therefore, we may indulge in as much innocent amusement as we please." Who does not see that this will be the plea set up for the neglect of the Sabbath, as a day holy to the Lord, and for its devotion to all manner of unsanctified pleasures? And this plea would be founded on the adoption of the word ceased, instead of rested in the proposed new translation of the Bible.

But the danger of the proposed alteration does not stop here. In The Miniature Quarto Bible, from which, no doubt, it was taken, there is added this commentary: "or rather ceased, as the Hebrew word is not opposed

to weariness but to action; as the Divine Being can neither know fatigue nor stand in need of rest.” The Hebrew word according to Gesenius, the acknowledged great authority in the Hebrew language, does mean rested. In his lexicon, he gives the following meanings in their order: "(1) TO REST, TO KEEP AS A DAY OF REST. (To take rest. The primary idea appears to be that of to sit down, to sit still). It is used of men (opposition to labour), Ex. xxiii. 12; xxxiv. 21. Followed by [the preposition] min, TO REST FROM LABOUR, Gen. ii. 2, 3. (2) To cease, desist, leave off. (3) To celebrate the Sabbath." Here, the first and most natural meaning of the word is to rest; and Gesenius declares that, in the very passage under consideration, it means to rest from labour. Besides, every one will admit that the citation of this passage in the New Testament, where the word is translated into Greek, ought to be decisive of the question. Let us then turn to Paul's citation in Heb. iv. 4: "For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works." Here the Greek word for did rest, means, according to Liddell and Scott's lexicon, "to put or lay to rest, to calm, to assuage; " it is the intensive of another verb which signifies to make to end or cease, to allay, to soothe, to calm, &c. The noun derived from this verb is repeatedly used by the apostle in the chapter cited, as the exact translation of the Hebrew word Sabbath, and means a putting to rest, a resting, a calm. From these quotations, it is quite evident that the mere signification of ceasing from work, is not that of the original Hebrew word employed in the Divine institution of the Sabbath or day of rest; but that it means actual rest from labour of every description both of body and mind, a total cessation from all worldly employments WHETHER OF BUSINESS OR OF PLEASURE. The plain and evident object of this divine institution was that in the calm rest of the seventh day, the soul of man might contemplate not only the works of the Creator, but make preparation for a coming eternity, by the calm and serious consideration of a future state. The beautiful application which the apostle makes of this glorious institution is enough to soothe and calm the agitated breast of the most alarmed and anxious sinner, while it affords the sweetest consolation to the heart of the sincere believer: "He that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works as God did from his." The sinner has only to cease from his own works as the means of acceptance with God, and to rest on Christ's finished work, and he is safe; safe in time, safe in eternity; for heaven is begun below. We know that God did not need rest, but God says by the Holy Spirit that he did rest; and in this, he speaks to men after the manner of men, in order that they may understand his words and his institutions. The Bible is full of this mode of speaking; were it not so, the Bible would be a sealed book. Oh, the grace and condescension of our Father who is in heaven.

In the Annotated Bible, is copied the note added by the translators to the name of Eve, viz., " Chavah, that is, living." This note is highly useful, as it explains the reason why Adam gave the particular name to his

wife, which he did. All names in Scripture are significant, and were they all translated into corresponding English words, they would throw much light on the text. But we consider that such notes as these really form part of our authorized version as it came from the hands of the translators, and that they ought to be inserted in every edition of the Bible as a matter of course. The word living here, is evidently taken as a noun; a use which is made of it still, as when we say that " a man must make his living" of such or such a trade. It would have been better, however, in this case, to have employed the more abstract term life; and then the sentence would read more clearly thus: "and Adam called his wife's name life; because she was the mother of all life." Glorious prospect, blessed anticipation! Eve was to be the mother not only of all that were to live on earth, but of all that were to live in heaven; not only of all men, but of the Son of man, who was to destroy the works of the devil; not only of temporal life, but of eternal life; for, speaking of Jesus Christ, the apostle John says, "This is the true God, and eternal life." But we must not omit an important point which our translators, with all their accuracy, as well as commentators and annotators in general, appear to have overlooked. In the passage, where the tempter says, "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil," the word translated gods, is the very same as the word translated God; and there is no reason whatever, either from the context, or from any other consideration of a religious or critical nature, why the same word should not be translated God in both cases. This would, in fact, add peculiar emphasis and accuracy to the passage, by shewing the heinousness of the crime for which our first parents were driven from Paradise; the devil tempted them to aspire to an equality with God, his own crime which cast him out of heaven, and they, like him, yielded to the temptation. Eve, and Adam too, wished to be like God in wisdom, to know both good and evil; but such knowledge is destructive to those who possess not the power to choose the good and to shun the evil. Their only salvation, therefore, as finite creatures, was obedience to the Divine command; this they transgressed and justly fell. Awful was the fall; they lost the communion of God, and this could not be restored to them without a complete atonement. Hopes to this effect were held out to them in the sentence pronounced on the tempter; these hopes were like life from the dead; and, as it was the seed of the woman which was to bruise the serpent's head, she might well be looked upon as the mother of life.

Let us now, for another example, turn to the New Testament. In the Annotated Bible, an important note is introduced, not from the original translators, on the serious and affecting passage relating to the death of Stephen. In our common version, it reads thus "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.' Here the note very properly says: "The word 'God' is not in the original; we may therefore read thus, 'invoking and saying, Lord Jesus,' &c., which is plainly an act of worship; and in terms ascribing divine power to him, to whom they

The

are addressed. See Rev. xxii. 20." The glorious and crowning doctrine of the whole book of God's revelation, the Bible, is here set forth in imperishable words; viz., that the Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour of men, is one with the eternal God, equal with him in power and glory, and equally entitled to adoration and praise; that it was HE, who made the world; HE, who is Lord of all; HE, to whom, as mediator between God and man, all power is given in heaven and in earth; HE, whom all men are to honour, even as they honour the Father; and HE, who is to be the JUDGE of the living and the dead, at his appearing and his kingdom. We object, however, to the term invoking, used in the note instead of calling upon, because it is not so plain to the English reader; the former is of Latin origin, the later of Saxon origin. We would, therefore, simply omit the word God, which is a supplement of the translators', and simply read the passage, in accordance with the actual Greek, thus: "And they stoned Stephen, calling upon and saying, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit."" doctrine of the divinity of Christ is so distinctly and clearly shown forth in this passage, (for Stephen was full of the Holy Spirit,) that the Unitarian who would deny it, must at once give up all belief in the inspiration of the Bible; and not only so, but he must give up all idea of the authenticity of the New Testament, as a true history, and a plain unvarnished narrative of facts. It must be with him, aut Cæsar aut nullus. The Unitarians, therefore, would gain nothing by a New Translation, or a careful revision of the authorized version, if it were committed to the hands of faithful men, persons endued with a reverence and love of the truth, and firm believers in the inspiration and authenticity of the sacred Scriptures. On the other hand, were the government or the church, to commit the work into any other hands than these, the consequences would be of the most dangerous kind to the progress of true religion, to the prosperity of the church of Christ, and to the well-being of society at large.

We cannot close this paper, however, without adverting to another important note in the Annotated Bible, with which we can by no means agree; and which therefore, we consider it the more necessary to elucidate, in connection with the question of revision. In the note to the following passage: "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee, the keys of the kingdom of heaven, &c." The editor of that Bible says, "The word translated 'rock' (Petra,) is not the same word as Peter, (Petros,) but is of a similar meaning. The words of our Lord evidently have direct reference to the confession of Peter, in verse 16. The name of Peter agrees with his character." The whole of this note is untrue, and quite a mistake, both in criticism and in fact, except where it says that the word translated rock is not the same word as PETER. We wonder that an editor could say, in this connection, that they were words of "similar meaning," for they are evidently meant to be placed in direct contrast to each other. If not so, the passage is jejune and useless; or else it is employed by anticipation to confirm the

false translations, he cites among others, more than fifty passages, mostly from the New Testament, in which the words meaning repentance and to repent, arc translated by words meaning penance and to do penance; and, it is well known that these words at once convey to the mind of a Romanist the idea of undergoing painful satisfaction for sin! In this way, the all-atoning sacrifice of Christ is rendered of none effect by their traditions. Again it appears that errors more glaring even than these, are promulgated by means of the Romish versions in question. Thus, in Luke i. 28, for highly favoured is put full of grace; in Acts xiv. 22, and elsewhere, for elders, is put sacrificing priests; in 1 Cor. x. 18, for the sacrifices, is put the host; in Ephes. v. 32, for this is a great mystery, is put this sacrament is great; in Heb. xiii. 4, for with such sacrifices God is well pleased, is put with such victims one gains God; but it is needless to multiply examples of this kind. Yet of such versions, the indiscriminate assertion is made in the Bible Society's report for 1855, Martini and Diodati " W. are BOTH faithful translations."

There is a deep lesson for this day in all this. The source of all true prosperity, of all spiritual prosperity, is here unfolded:

"His delight is in the law of the Lord, and in his law doth he meditate day and night."

This is the true place of never-failing fruitfulness and prosperity. This is the sure fountain of blessedness indeed. May it be ours to discern this fountain and ever to abide closely thereby.

Prophetic testimony immediately follows this introductory Psalm:

"I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine in

heritance,

In the previous part of this psalm, the potentates of the earth become confederates in revolt against Jehovah. "The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together,

Against the Lord, and against his anointed (or, his Christ), saying,

Let us break their bands assunder, and cast away their cords from us."

But,

"He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh; the Lord shall have them in derision."

And

"Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure."

But when shall this take place? The prophetic announcement already quoted informs us.

Jehovah hath "set his king upon his holy hill of "Yet have I Zion": in purpose this is already done. set my king"; notwithstanding all the heathen rage, and vain imaginings of these confederates :

"Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion." I have surely exalted him to Israel's throne. A certain "anointed one" must reign in Zion. But who is he? Hear ye Jehovah's king.

"I will declare the decree; -the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee."

Wonderful progress of the dawning light! This Christ this "anointed one"-of Jehovah, is also JEHOVAH'S SoN. And here is the foundation of his sovereignty. He is the heir of Jehovah. Who then shall dispute his claim to the dominion of the earth? The potentates of earth issue their proclamations and manifestoes; this is the sovereign proclamation of Jehovah's Son and King. "I will declare the decree, the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,

And the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession."

But how will the actual possession of this promised sway over the wide realms of earth be obtained? The kings and rulers set themselves in opposition to this transfer of their power. How shall it be effected? Hearken to the answer afforded in this Scripture, ye who speak and think only of peaceful, quiet progress of the truth:

"Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron;

Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel." It is judgment-a crisis of sudden, destructive judg ment, which must introduce the reign of Jehovah's Son and King. Surely there will be conversion too; and that by the gospel. This we shall see, even in the book before us. But this dread crisis also must surely come and pass by, before the "uttermost parts of the earth" become the possession of Messiah.

And the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron,

Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel."

great prophetic field of the Book of Psalms.

"Who shall live when God doeth this"! A prophet,