THE REVISION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

By J. BIRKBECK NEVINS, M.D. LOND.

THE Revised New Testament in English is the result of above ten years' unintermitted labour by a Company, consisting of twenty-eight distinguished Greek and Biblical scholars in our own country, and nineteen eminent scholars in America. Seven of these have been removed by death during the progress of the work, and three have resigned.* Of the twenty-three English scholars who have continued to the end, sixteen have, on the average, attended each meeting, and the total number of meetings has been above 400 (407), which lasted generally from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. The American scholars have co-operated with the British Company by means of correspondence, which has been kept up throughout, no changes having been made without being first submitted to the consideration of both companies. As the result of this labour and learning, the Revised New Testament has been produced, and the limited number of points upon which the American and English Companies did not eventually agree is stated in an appendix, which is, however, so small, that the work may be considered as having been agreed upon substantially by the distinguished men who have been engaged upon it. In saying this, however, it is to be borne in mind that the result is the work of a majority of two-thirds in favour of change, over onethird or less who were opposed to it; and as the division lists are not known, critics are unable to judge whether the

Newth, "On Bible Revision," pp. 109, 110, and following.

Newth, p. 125.

T

majority in every case contained the greatest amount of scholarly acquaintance with the subject, or only the greatest number of votes-a point this which is dwelt upon as being doubtful by some of the critics who have reviewed the work.

In attempting to review a work presented to us with such claims to acceptance, a writer who can make no pretension to be considered an authority upon questions of difficult scholarship, approaches his task with a sense of responsibility which is almost painful, and he feels that the greatest modesty of expression is the most becoming attitude for such an one to adopt. But when a work is put forward like a revision of the New Testament, which has been the inheritance, the pride, and the solace of the English-speaking world for nearly three centuries, and we are called upon to accept this new work as the substitute for what we have so long treasured, even those who may not claim to be scholars are inevitably compelled to form some opinion in favour of the old or of the new. And further still, when distinguished advocates and opponents of the changes that have been made, have placed their arguments before the world, and have thus invited a judgment to be formed between them, it will not, I trust, be presumptuous to lay some of their reasons before this Society, and endeavour to assist in supplying materials for the judgment which must eventually decide whether this new work shall be adopted as the English New Testament, or the verdict shall be that upon the whole the Old is better. It may be fairly noted also that an English ear, though with no classical knowledge, may be as capable a judge of agreeable, and therefore good, English as the most accomplished Greek scholar; and an English audience is perfectly competent to judge of what is displeasing to the English ear, although the translation of the foreign words may be more literally correct than that idiomatic rendering which is more pleasing and intelligible to the native perception.

OBJECTIONS TO ITS ENGLISH.

Upon this point-that of its English-there is an almost universal consensus of condemnation of the Revised Version. The criticisms, great and small, have been "legion," and there is scarcely one that has not condemned the changes in the Revised Testament as having spoilt the English of the version. This has been done in many ways, but perhaps more frequently than in any other, by altering the arrangement of the words in a sentence, and translating them as they stand in the Greek, instead of in the order natural to the English language. It is common in some languages to put the verb near the end of the sentence, while in English it is generally put near the beginning; and while the sentence, "There came wise men from the East to Jerusalem," is in accordance with the national habit, the change in the Revised Version to "Behold, wise men from the East came to Jerusalem," is a transposition which is not pleasing to the ear, and has nothing to recommend it, except that it gives the words in the order in which they come in the Greek. This is one of those innumerable changes which were not called for by "faithfulness," and which certainly cannot plead "necessity" as their excuse.

Another change which has been introduced is the translation of a Greek word by the same English which has been selected as its equivalent, however frequently it may occur; and while tautology is carefully avoided by English speakers and writers, it has been adopted on principle by the Revisers, who have laid down as a self-imposed rule that the variety of words used in the Authorised Version shall be changed into a uniformity which is displeasing to the English ear, and is not necessary as a matter of faithful

ness.

The translation of the definite article, wherever it occurs in the Greek, has added force, and brought out the meaning

more fully in several cases, but in a very large number of instances it has been as unnecessary and as great a departure from English idiom as it would be to translate the article wherever it occurs in a French or Italian passage.

A few examples will suffice as illustrations of unpleasing English, and they may be taken almost at random, for it is a matter of indifference where the Revised Testament is opened for this purpose.

2 Peter i. 7. has been altered from "And to brotherly kindness add charity," into "And in your love of the brethren supply love."

John xvii. 24, "Father, I will that they whom thou hast given me may be with me where I am," has been changed into "Father, that which thou hast given me, I will that where I am, they may be with me."

The reason assigned for the change is that some MSS. have the neuter %, "that," while the Revisers themselves acknowledge that "many ancient authorities have ous," "those whom," which is the old reading and the one that maintains consistency in number throughout the sentence, instead of beginning the sentence with "that" (singular), and ending it with "they" (plural).

Again, "O Jerusalem! (a vocative requiring the second person) which killeth the prophets, and stoneth (both third person) them which are sent unto her (third person), how often would I have gathered thy (second person) children," &c.

Again, "There shall be one fold and one shepherd," is changed into " They shall be one flock" (which is possible); "one shepherd," which they, clearly, cannot be.

Matthew is said to have been "sitting at the place of toll," an English word always implying a turnpike or tollgate, e.g., for crossing a bridge or admission to some place to be paid for; while the Authorised Version," sitting at the