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:—