receipt of custom," is known to mean "sitting to receive taxes," and requires no explanation.

"Enter in at the strait gate" is changed to "Enter ye in by the narrow gate;" and again, "Many there be that go in thereat," is changed to "Many be they that enter in thereby." The halting and unpleasing character of this last change, "Many be they that enter in thereby," requires no comment, but it is difficult to see that the first of the two changes was called for either by "faithfulness or necessity;" for "strait," as expressing "narrowness," "constraint," or difficulty," is a word in daily use; and the Revisers themselves have retained the word "straitened," in many instances, to express this meaning.

66

The Greek word Texvov means actual " offspring," and therefore "child," or "children," is its strict, first, and most common sense. But child or son, pupil or disciple,

may be used in a metaphorical as well as in a literal sense, and in the Authorised Version this variety is fully recognised. But the Revised Version has thought right to change the well-known title of affection, "son," or "my son," as applied to a youth in whom one is interested, to "child," in the case of Timothy and Titus, with the most injurious effect upon both sound and sense. St. Paul is now made to write to the Corinthians, "I have sent Timothy, my beloved child; and he addresses his letter to him thus :-" To Timothy, my beloved child." He writes to Titus also, " To Titus, my true child, after a common faith;" and again, writing to Philemon about his slave Onesimus, who could not have been a youth at that time, he entreats him " for my child Onesimus."

Another unnecessary change is made in the Revised Version in many instances in which "bread," used as a general term, is changed into "loaf," or "loaf" is put in the margin, as if it was of importance, because " apros" means, literally, "a loaf."

Our Lord, therefore, in the Sermon on the Mount, is now made to say, "If a son shall ask a loaf" of one of you that is a father. At his last supper, he is said to have taken bread, "or a loaf;" and, in his appearance to the disciples, after his resurrection, we are told "they saw a fire of coals, and fish laid thereon and bread (or a loaf'); and Jesus taketh the bread (' or loaf'), and giveth them."

66

Our daily bread," in the Lord's Prayer, is not changed into "loaf," nor is "loaf" put in the margin, although the Greek-apros-is the same word as in the foregoing places; nor is "loaf" substituted for "bread" in John vi., "I am the bread of life," &c., although aptos (artos) is still the Greek word in every case; nor is any reason assigned for the departure from the rule of uniformity of translation, which is the only apparent reason for the change in the other places.

In the Epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul uses the same word-apros-(artos), which is still translated as of old, "the bread which we break;" but "loaf" is put in the margin. In this case the marginal note is valuable, as a literal "loaf" (a small one) is used in the Greek Church to symbolise the unity of Christians, in accordance with the further expression, "Seeing that we who are many are one (loaf or) bread."

The change of expression from "Lord, is it I?" to "Is it I, Lord ?" is universally condemned, and the change of Judas's question, "Master, is it I?" into " Is it I, Rabbi?" is not less unpleasing and unnecessary, and is at variance with English custom, as will be evident to any one who recalls the "My Lord," in a court of justice; "Your Worship," to a magistrate; or the "Please, Sir," of a child making a request to its schoolmaster.

It would be impossible, however, to bring before you any approach to the alterations made in the Revised Version, for they number altogether about 36,000, of which nearly 30,000

are unnecessary, according to the estimate of the Bishop of Gloucester himself. *

IMPROVED TRANSLATIONS SUGGESTED TO THE SOCIETY IN

PREVIOUS SESSIONS.

In previous Sessions various suggestions for improved renderings of the Authorised Version have been brought before this Society, and many of the proposed changes are to be found in the Revised Version. In nearly every case the change from "damnation" into "judgment" or "condemnation" is made in the Revised Version, but it is much to be regretted that "hell fire" should have been changed (as it has been) into "the hell of fire;" for in this translation every objection that has ever been urged against the rendering of "Gehenna" by the word "Hell," remains unaffected, while the additional evil has been imported into the translation that the words appear to sanction the pagan notion of a variety of hells-a hell of fire, and a hell of frost, a hell of thirst, like that of Tantalus, or of unceasing un'availing toil, like that of Sisyphus. The change proposed to you in the translation of "hypocrite " has found no sanction in the Revised Version, nor has the proposal been approved by the Revisers to change the translation of cuvinu, in the parable of the Sower, from "understand" the word preached, to "attend to" it; but the important change proposed in the Epistle to the Galatians has been made from "the spirit lusteth against the flesh, and the flesh lusteth against the spirit, so that ye cannot do the things

See the book on the "proposed" Revision, published by the Bishop of Gloucester in 1870. He was Chairman of the Revision Committee, and in this book he goes into elaborate calculations, illustrated by several chapters of proposed changes, and he concludes that one change per verse (6,944 verses) will be the maximum of changes of translation either necessary or desirable; and he suggests that some even of these may be considered doubtful improvements, and may be rejected. (p. 128.)

that ye would," into "so that ye may not do the things that ye would." On the other hand, the change of "tempt" into "prove," "test," or "try," in various cases in which no evil object is implied in the narrative, such as "a lawyer asked him a question, tempting him," in Matthew xxii. 35, Mark xii. 28, has not approved itself to the English Company of Revisers, though the American Company record their desire in the "Appendix " that the change should have been made.

EMPLOYMENT OF WHICH AS A MASCULINE OR FEMININE.

There is another point, of purely literary interest, upon which the American and English Revisionists also differ, viz. :-the employment of the word "which," when it is applied to persons, as in the case of the Lord's Prayer, "Our Father, which art in Heaven." The "which" has been generally, but not always, retained by the English Revisionists, while the American Company record their desire that "who" should have been substituted when the relative refers to a person, whether male or female.

Upon this point it may not be without interest to see how far "which" is really a neuter pronoun in the English language; and the answer is clearly that in the Tudor period it was both masculine, feminine, and neuter, like "that" in the present day; and its employment in any particular case was largely, if not almost entirely, determined by the first letter of the word immediately following it. It may be stated in general terms that "which" was used in preference to "who" whenever the following word commenced with the letter "w," with "wh," with a vowel, or with an aspirate, or when the word immediately going before was strongly aspirated; but that if the succeeding word began with a consonant, "who" was commonly employed in the masculine and feminine genders.

It is remarkable to notice how seldom Chaucer, in the later Plantagenet period, employs either relative; for he adopts the practice which is common in modern English of using the pronoun "that" in such cases as those abovementioned, though he sometimes employs both "which" and "who" as masculines, and apparently without reference to the consideration above pointed out.

Shakespeare very seldom employs either "who" or "which," but makes use of " that." So far, however, as my reading goes, he acts upon the principle alluded to when he does use them.

Thus, in Hamlet, Act iv., Scene vi. (the last line), he

says:

66

that you may direct me
To him from whom you brought them."

"Whom" is made use of before the consonant "y," but in the immediately following lines he says-Act iv., Scene vii., lines 4 and 5 :

"That he, which hath your noble father slain,
Pursu'd my life."

Which," after the masculine, is here adopted before the aspirate "hath," and the difference in sound between the succession of aspirates "he, who, hath," and "he which hath," only requires to be mentioned to be appreciated.

In Spencer, we meet with the employment of "which" not unfrequently, and he seldom departs from the rule that I have suggested. Thus, in the "Legend of Artegall," he is speaking of Queen Elizabeth sitting in majesty in her High Court of Justice, and he says-Canto ix., verse 23, lines 5 and 6:

66

as if that there were some

Which unto them was dealing righteous doom."