Part 1

Transcribed from the 1856 John Farquhar Shaw edition by David Price.

BIBLICAL REVISION:

CONSIDERATIONS

IN FAVOUR OF A

REVISED TRANSLATION

OF

Holy Scripture.

* * * * *

BY EDWARD SLATER.

* * * * *

[The Authorized Version] is far from being immaculate. It is not sufficiently close and uniform in rendering the original . . . is not calculated to convey precise and critical information in difficult and mysterious passages of the Prophecies, &c.

DR. WILLIAM HALES. _New Analysis of Chronology_, Vol. II. p. ix.

* * * * *

LONDON: JOHN FARQUHAR SHAW, 36, PATERNOSTER ROW, AND 27, SOUTHAMPTON ROW, RUSSELL SQUARE.

* * * * *

1856.

_Price One Shilling_.

* * * * *

MY DOCTRINE SHALL DROP AS THE RAIN, MY SPEECH SHALL DISTIL AS THE DEW, AS THE SMALL RAIN UPON THE TENDER HERB, AND AS THE SHOWERS UPON THE GRASS.

DEUT. XXXII. 2.

AND HE SAID UNTO THEM, SET YOUR HEARTS UNTO ALL THE WORDS WHICH I TESTIFY AMONG YOU THIS DAY, WHICH YE SHALL COMMAND YOUR CHILDREN TO OBSERVE TO DO, ALL THE WORDS OF THIS LAW. FOR IT IS NOT A VAIN THING FOR YOU; BECAUSE IT IS YOUR LIFE.

DEUT. XXXII. 46, 47.

CONSIDERATIONS, &c.

AMONG the characteristics of an Age replete with new and unlooked-for events, perhaps not the least singular and impressive is the desire, now extensively evinced, for an improved translation of Holy Scripture.

A solitary voice, {3} it is true, has been raised to the same effect, from time to time; but it has gradually died away in the noise of worldly bustle, or been summarily stifled by Prejudice or Fear.

A more fitting time has arrived for renewing the cry; for we have become more reflective with the progress of events, and a desire for improvement—not limited to mere material good—has sprung up, that is irrepressible, and all but universal.

But, encouraging as is the Temper of the Times for prosecuting the task that we have undertaken, we need to make our way cautiously. The subject is confessedly a delicate one, and is, moreover, in not a few quarters, entrenched in prejudices under the seeming sanction of religion itself.

“Were the Bible,” pleads Dr. Knox, {4} “corrected and modernized, it would probably become more showy, and perhaps quite exact, but it would lose that air of sanctity which enables it to make an impression which no accuracy could produce. We have received the Bible,” he goes on to say, “in the very words in which it now stands, from our fathers; we have learnt many passages from it by heart in our infancy; . . . so that its phrase is become familiar to our ears, and we cease to be startled at apparent difficulties.” And again: “We should hardly recognize the Bible were it to be read in our churches in any other words than those which our fathers heard before us.” Possibly the people _would_ require some time to familiarize themselves to the change, more especially in the public services of the church; but the objection, formidable as the good Doctor thought it, is not sufficient to overrule the plea. Precisely the same objection, if entertained, would have deprived us of the benefit of the present authorized version. People long accustomed to the previous version must have been pained and startled on the introduction of the new. Such a consequence, however, obvious as it must have been, was not admitted to be a good argument against a change at that epoch. True, there are more readers now than there were then, and so far the inconvenience of change would be aggravated; but, unless we could persuade ourselves that we should _never_ have a different version to the present, we cannot refuse to entertain the proposition before us in deference to such a consideration. The notion that we shall _always_ acquiesce in the present version, with the proofs around us of the possibility of improving it, coupled with the desire so extensively evinced for improvement, can scarcely be seriously entertained.

The truth is, the people are not accountable for the reasoning ascribed to them—possibly with some justice at the time the Doctor wrote—in the above extract. We have given it at length, because we have nowhere seen the argument, as generally used, better expressed; but, whatever there is in it, we hold it a great disparagement to the religious feeling of the people at the present time, to suppose them capable of putting Superstition for Piety, as conveyed in the terms of that passage; or to imagine that anything less than a just and faithful version of Holy Scripture would or could content them.

But besides the inconvenience of the change so pathetically pleaded, there is the time-honoured Phraseology of the Bible—that phraseology that has earned the suffrages of a whole people, young and old, rich and poor, learned and unlearned, and been associated with our Literary glories—to warn us off the holy ground. Into what critic’s crucible, it may be asked, do we propose to place the Bible, and what frigid, tame, and insipid version, among those with which we have been of late years familiar, do we design to substitute for our own old authorized translation?

Plainly, none. We know of none—valuable as some of them unquestionably are—worthy of competing, in whole or in part, on an extended view of the question, with our own; while, in point of phraseology, to which the objection specifically refers, the advantage is all in favour of the old version. But if the question at issue were—which it is not—between Phraseology on the one hand, and Fidelity on the other, we should and could have no hesitation in deciding for the latter. But we really think it possible to preserve most of the beautiful phraseology of the present version, and even add to it, while we disencumber the text of its errors, and render it a more faithful reflex of the Divine Original.

But the outward Dress and Ornament of the book do not exhaust all the objections incident to the question. There are yet others of a _subtler_ order—the exponent of deeper feelings—to which we must briefly advert. And first, there are those who find few or no difficulties, for their part, in the Bible, as it now stands, and therefore, naturally enough, object to a change. The Bible, they maintain, is a plain book, and the very terms of the Announcement at the head of it, as a Revelation of God’s will to man, upon the knowledge of which his salvation depends, precludes, they argue, any other supposition. To a certain extent they are right; and God forbid we should be understood to mean that the Bible, in its present English dress, is not satisfactory on all the great points of faith and duty. We are sometimes told the contrary, indeed, by those who have formed exaggerated views of the inadequacies of our version; but such an opinion is entitled to no manner of respect; on the contrary, it would be very easy to produce passages—_key-passages_, we might call them, from which the WHOLE TRUTH of the Gospel might be extracted—which would utterly defy any other translation than that exhibited in the authorized version. But while conceding all this, we are not debarred from seeking a version yet nearer perfection than the present, if it is to be had. There are subordinate lessons, surely, that might be rendered more precious and instructive; and it cannot be a right or creditable principle to direct our inquiry only to that which _saves_, in the vulgar sense of that term, and give only a listless and perfunctory attention to all the rest. Not unfrequently, however this arid notion of the _plainness_ of Scripture is resolvable into the inert and abortive state of the faculties in which they are perused. There is no difficulty, because the subject is not fairly grappled with. The words titillate and amuse, while the sense is in the clouds. More respectable is that tranquillizing and elevating feeling which oftentimes accompanies the reading, in which the understanding, though not dead, is still at fault through the veil interposed by the phraseology. This placid acquiescence of the soul in a message the exact purpose of which it fails to comprehend, may be taken to express a tacit homage to the power of the Divine Spirit breathing through the words, however feebly enunciated; and there may be still, under the happiest methods of elucidating Scripture yet open to us, a just and legitimate scope for its exercise: nevertheless, we covet habitually, and as a general principle, the discharge of a higher function of the soul,—TO UNDERSTAND as well as TO FEEL, and TO ACT as well as TO BE ACTED ON.

But while these find Scripture so plain as to be able to dispense with the Critic’s art, and all other aid, to throw further light on their contents, there are those, on the other hand, who love a Mysterious Bible, and to whom the whole science of Biblical interpretation is positively distasteful, as savouring of the wisdom of man rather than of the grace of the Spirit. They find their devotion fed, as they think, by the Mystical element, and revel in difficulties that to others are simply discomfiting. Cloud-land is their home. Accordingly, to relieve Scripture of its obscurities, and render it more patent and intelligible, is the last service for which we might expect their thanks. While this is a genuine feeling,—indulged in for the special delectation of their own bosoms—and not a pretence to ensnare others, or inveigle their weaker brethren in the toils of a spiritual autocracy, it is simply an error of the brain—an idiosyncrasy, to be treated with all due gentleness and consideration. Let such, then, observe that there is no reason why Scripture should be more difficult in the translation than it is in the original, or than God designed it, or inspired men transmitted it to us; and that the aim of these and similar efforts is simply to ensure a version that will exhibit the Word of God with at least equal force and perspicuity to that presented in the original text. Nor would a genuine reverence for Scripture allow us to stop short of this point, since anything less must be so much clear loss of most important Truth. There are many who are grievously perplexed by the obscurity that attaches to certain portions of Scripture, and for their sakes, as well as for the obvious duty of the case, we insist upon all the aid we can procure to elucidate those portions. To take one instance—a striking one—the Messianic prophecies—those prophecies in not a few instances now portraying the Messiah in unmistakable lineaments, and now, without the slightest hint of a change of subject, {8a} varying the portrait, as by a dissolving process, so that it seems no longer HIMSELF that is set before us, but one of the erring children of men. Now, evidently, it would be most desirable, if a new version could obviate or relieve this difficulty. In sundry instances the sense is marred by an incongruousness in the metaphors, {8b} for which the Bible, perhaps, is the last book in the world to be made answerable; and this particular fault, in most instances, a slight change in the _pointing_, for which the context would give the fullest warrant, or a juster translation, would satisfactorily amend.

But will not a new translation endanger those articles of our faith in which we have been brought up from our infancy, and which we believe to be essential to salvation? May not the translation fall into the hands of those who are ill-affected to the orthodox faith, and is there not ground to believe that hostility to that faith is the real object of many of those who are most conspicuous in the promotion of this scheme?

This apprehension we believe to lie at the basis of much of the objection that is entertained to the proposed change: but has it not occurred to the alarmists, that the weapon cuts both ways, and that it is just as possible, as far as at present appears, for the other side to be discomfited in the shock? Who shall say that the Evangelical or Orthodox scheme shall not gain ground by the experiment, and the opposite scheme suffer? But these objections are manifestly unworthy a belief that professedly rests as its basis on the Word of God; rather is it a belief in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, not which the Holy Ghost teacheth. And with regard to the individuals that may be selected for the task, surely all anxiety on that ground is superfluous. The general sense of Scripture is not now to be determined: that has been done long ago; and all that remains for us is, in the use of such means as our advancing scholarship supplies, to make that sense—as Providence from time to time supplies the opportunity—yet more explicit, and available for proficiency in Divine knowledge.

Thus far we have been occupied in clearing our ground, and essaying a hearing, with what chance of success we might, considering the outcry, more or less reasonable, with which the question before us is usually met. We take no further notice of the objections to our task, and proceed to explain more distinctly in what that task consists. But, first of all, we must premise, that we contemplate a “revised” rather than an entirely “new” version. Certain feelings have entwined themselves round the stock of the present version which it would not be safe or needful to sever, except where the imperious demands of fidelity to the sense necessitate the infliction.

The fiat given to the use of the old authorized version is substantially honourable to the nation—perhaps equally so with the fiat that gave it existence. There is a pregnant power in the words, as symbols of the burning _thoughts_ of the men engaged, not pale reflexes of _things_, that has secured the all but universal use of the present version, with all its imperfections, despite the labours of Lowth, and Horsley, and Campbell, and Henderson, and Good, and others—all eminent names—more or less to displace it. “The Spirit of the Living Creatures was in the Wheels, and whither the Wheels were to go the Spirit of the Living Creatures went with them.” {10a}

‘FOREMOST in the conditions of a correct version is PURITY OF TEXT.’ There is no doubt, we believe, in the minds of all qualified to pronounce on this part of the question, that the text, both of the Old and New Testament, generally unassailable as it is, is yet, on some not unimportant points—and what is unimportant in such a document?—susceptible of improvement. We wish, by all means, to have the benefit of this improved text, as no consideration of _consequences_ can weigh against the _actual_ inconveniences that belong to the text, in some instances, as it now stands. The discrepancies, for example, in the Chronicles, {10b} in matters relating to _numbers_, with the statements in the corresponding passages in 2 Samuel and Kings, furnish most damaging weapons in sceptical hands wherewith to assail the Sacred Books. Some of these discrepancies are only imaginary, but others, it must be confessed, are palpable and incontrovertible, and ought not to stand, as they now do, in our Bibles, open, without a word appearing on the page in their defence, to the most unmitigated contradiction. {11a} The fact is, the text in these instances is _corrupt_, and there need be no scruple, considering the way in which NUMBERS were variously written of old, by letters, ciphers, or words, and more especially the liability of transcribers to err in these matters, in arriving at that conclusion. This extreme devotion to the Massoretic text on the part of our translators, to the overthrow of common sense, and disregard of the thousand arguments that plead for a change over the one thus pertinaciously followed, is most detrimental to the credit of the Sacred Volumes; for two statements diametrically opposed cannot, of course, be both correct; the weaker, therefore, should naturally be made to give place to the stronger. In some cases, _possibly_, this may be done by a new recension of the text; in others the alteration should be summarily made in conformity with the obvious maxims in universal use for determining the truth in the case of contradictory documents. {11b}

Next to Purity of Text is a CORRECT VERSION. That the present version does not satisfy this condition in the just sense of the word, or to the extent we have a right to require in such a matter, is now almost universally conceded. The plea of “good enough” is given up, and the wishes of the religious public for a translation more true to the original, are “condescendingly” admitted to be just and reasonable; and if this admission expressed the voice of authority, as well as the general sense of the learned world, our wishes would speedily be in a condition to be fulfilled. Meantime it is for us to agitate the question till the boon be accorded, agreeably to the good old English rule, when the stronghold of authority is to be stormed.

It has appeared to us, in the prosecution of our task, that we could put this question before the ordinary English reader in a form to enable him to determine for himself with tolerable correctness the Validity of our plea for a more correct version of Holy Writ. _On such a point it is important he should be able to judge for himself_: accordingly, we shall exhibit sundry amended passages, by way of specimen, in _juxtaposition_ with the corresponding passages of the present version. It may be premised, that it is not necessary that the amended translation should be in all respects immaculate and unassailable; it suffices for the present purpose if we establish the fact, that the authorized version _is_ capable of amendment. The field before us is almost illimitable, so numerous are the corrections that require to be supplied. Of course, we must pick our path here and there. We begin with the Old Testament; and here two passages recommend themselves for selection, as well for their own intrinsic interest as for the materials they afford for elucidating the principles that underlie the transfusion of Hebrew into English. The reader is invited to ponder the two versions in the points in which they differ, however minute the difference at first sight may appear, as the change in these cases has proceeded upon a strictly literal translation of the original Hebrew; and the variation, on a further view, may not appear so unimportant as at first. Our first passage consists of extracts from the Song of Deborah, Judges v., and the amended version is due, substantially, to the able pen of Dr. Edward Robinson, Translator of Gesenius, &c. See “Biblical Repository.” Two other versions of the same Song are given by Dr. Adam Clarke in his Commentary, from Dr. Hales and Dr. Kennicott respectively; but, with all their merit, they are less literally true to the original, and therefore less eligible for selection, than the one we have adopted:—

JUDGES V.

_Old Version_. _New Version_.

2. Praise ye the Lord for the 2. For the leading of the avenging of Israel, when the leaders in Israel, for the people willingly offered voluntary offering of the people, themselves. praise ye the Lord . . . 7. _The inhabitants of_ the 7. Leaders failed in Israel, villages ceased, they ceased in they failed, until that I, Israel, until that I Deborah Deborah, arose, that I arose a arose . . . mother in Israel . . . 10. Speak, ye that ride on white 10. Ye that ride on white asses, asses . . . . . . prepare a song, 11. _They that are delivered_ 11. Responsive to the voice of from the noise of archers in the those who divide the spoil by the places of drawing water, there watercourses. There they shall shall they rehearse the righteous rehearse the victories of the acts of the Lord, _even_ the Lord, the victory of his princes righteous acts _toward the in Israel; then shall the people inhabitants_ of his villages in of the Lord descend to the gates. Israel: then shall the people of the Lord go down to the gates. 12. Awake, {13} awake, Deborah: 12. Awake, awake, Deborah; awake, awake, utter a song. . . . awake, awake, utter a song . . . 13. Then he made him that 13. Then I _said_, Descend, ye remaineth have dominion over the remnant of the nobles of the nobles among the people: the Lord people! O Lord, descend for me made me have dominion over the among the mighty! mighty. 14. Out of Ephraim _was there_ a 14. Out of Ephraim _came those_ root of them against Amalek; whose dwelling is by Amalek. after thee, Benjamin, among thy After thee (Ephraim) _was_ people; out of Machir came down Benjamin among thy hosts; out of governors, and out of Zebulun Machir (Manasseh) came down they that handle the pen of the princes, and from Zebulun those writer. who grasp the staff of a leader. 15. And the princes of Issachar 15. The princes of Issachar also _were_ with Deborah; even _came_ with Deborah; yea, Issachar, and also Barak: he was Issachar was the staff of Barak. sent on foot into the valley. He rushed into the valley at his For the divisions of Reuben feet. For the divisions of _there were_ great thoughts of Reuben _I have_ great griefs of heart. heart . . . 16. Why abodest thou among the 16. Wherefore didst thou sit sheepfolds, to hear the bleatings still among the folds, to listen of the flocks? For the divisions to the lowing of the herds? For of Reuben _there were_ great the divisions of Reuben _I have_ searchings of heart. great revolvings of heart. 17. Gilead abode beyond Jordan: 17. Gilead (Gad) abode beyond and why did Dan remain in ships? Jordan; and Dan, why tarried he Asher continued on the sea shore, in ships? Asher sat at the shore and abode in his breaches. of the sea, and abode at his creeks. 18. Zebulun and Naphtali _were_ 18. For Zebulun, the people a people _that_ jeoparded their scorned their lives, and _rushed_ lives unto the death in the high upon death, and Naphtali, in the places of the field. high places of the plain. 19. The kings came _and_ fought, 19. The kings came, they fought, . . . they took no gain of money. . . . they took no spoil of silver. 22. Then were the horsehoofs 22. Then did the horses’ hoofs broken by the means of the smite _the ground_ from the pransings, the pransings of their haste, the haste of their riders mighty ones. . . .