The Gospel according to St. John, after the Authorized Version, newly compared with the Original Greek, and revised, by Five Clergymen. London: J. W. Parker & Son. 1857.

WE do not propose to enter fully on the question which has been so much discussed of late, how far it is expedient to attempt any revision, by public authority, of the received English Bible. When a new translation has been produced, equally perspicuous, forcible, plain and intelligible, as that which we now possess, and also, by general consent of scholars, representing the Hebrew and Greek with still greater accuracy, the argument in favour of its introduction by authority will have great weight. At present we see little prospect of such a result. This modern phoenix, our Authorized Version, has barely lived out half the fabled period of 500 years; and two centuries and a half may still elapse before its euthanasia, when a successor, still more beautiful and perfect, is to arise from its ashes. To judge from most recent attempts, if our modern scholars surpass the forty-seven translators in Greek scholarship, they fall short of them still more in mastery of their own tongue. The chance is now, with any new version, that, while it may be insensibly and imperceptibly more accurate, it will also be found sensibly and perceptibly less readable. It is not unlikely, that if a commission were given to our best scholars, to replace the present version by a new one of their own, apart from the evil of all change, our loss might be more substantial than our gain. The old epitaph might have to be written over crabbed sentences, half Greek, half English, or diluted and washy paraphrases-"I was well, I would be better, and here I am." On such grounds as these, we believe that nine-tenths of the Christian public are convinced that the time is not yet come to attempt any disturbance, by public authority, of the excellent translation our country has enjoyed for so many years.

The same objections, however, cannot apply to modest and cautious attempts to supplement it by private hands, and to make accessible to English readers those delicate shades of thought in the original Scriptures, which are obscured or lost in the actual version. The present work, by Drs. Barrow and Moberly, the Dean of Canterbury, Mr. Humphry, and Mr. Ellicott, is a praiseworthy effort of this kind. They remark with much truth, in their preface, "the very great uncertainty which is felt as to the amount of incorrectness in the existing version, and the degree of improvement likely to ensue on revision," and that the result is "extreme exaggeration on both sides." Their own object is to allay agitation, and to enable those who cannot examine for themselves, to form a correct view of the real state of the case, by offering as faithful and complete a version of a portion of the New Testament as it was in

their power to construct." They have had a double object in the execution of their design, "to exhibit in the most honest and loyal manner the actual meaning of the Inspired Word of God; and, so far as compatible with this chiefest object, to show that the Authorized Version is indeed a precious and holy possession, and its errors very slight and few, compared with its many and great excellencies."

The tone of the Five Clergymen, throughout their Preface, is very sensible, cautious, and modest. They own the task of improving the received version to be one of great difficulty, and have plainly bestowed upon it much thought, care, and diligence. They admit the imperfection of their own work, and ask "that it should be regarded as a tentamen, a careful endeavour, claiming no finality; and inviting, rather than desiring to exclude, other attempts of the same kind." And their closing prayer is, that the blessing of the Great Head of the Church may rest upon it, so that "it may be made in some degree instrumental to the sacred cause of Truth and Christian Peace."

It is due, then, alike to the well-known scholarship of the Revisers, and the modesty and wisdom of their Preface, that we should enter on the task of criticism in a friendly spirit. We feel this to be doubly important, because we cannot agree fully in some of the eulogies which have been pronounced over their work. A member of the Christian Knowledge Society, in a recent pamphlet, expresses himself "really surprised to see with how little apparent change a vast improvement in faithfulness, in perspicuity, and in force, has been effected." With this judgment we are compelled almost entirely to disagree. Their work proves, we think, the great difficulty of the task; just because, with good scholarship, with the best spirit, and a professed desire to avoid all needless change, still the alterations for the worse are almost as numerous as the improvements. It would be unseemly, and almost ridiculous, to set up the bare opinion of a single reviewer in opposition to the decisions of five scholars, who have bestowed so much thought and pains upon their task. We shall therefore proceed to support our judgment with proofs and arguments, as fully as our narrow limits will allow.

First of all, we think it plain that they have made a mistake, and have contradicted the spirit of the second main law they had assigned to their revision, by introducing changes in deference to a bare majority. In other words, when two out of five have preferred the old version, and the three others have wished to displace it, the displacement has been made. Now, even in a translation de novo, so near a balance would demand some prolonged discussion, in order to attain, if possible, a nearer approach to unanimity, before offering to the public either variety as the true version. But to alter a translation, resulting from the consent of forty-seven learned men, and sanctioned by the use of centuries, by a mere casting CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 236. 3 Z

One

A

vote among five scholars, seems to us unreasonable. of the most important changes, in Ch. v. 39, and, we are persuaded, one of the worst, comes under this very category. bare casting vote has dismissed one of the most weighty commands in the New Testament, to introduce what we believe to be an untrue affirmation; though two out of the five clergymen, including one who bears the highest name for scholarship, are decidedly opposed to the change.

Again, in the five first chapters, which have 213 verses, there are 246 variations, or more than one change to every verse. The proportion in the rest of the Gospel is probably much the same. This fact alone makes it difficult to believe that the original maxim of the Preface has been adhered to, and that no change has been made, which was not needful to ensure complete accuracy. Our own analysis of these 246 changes would lead us to a very different conclusion that about one half are slight improvements, one third are changes for the worse, and one sixth doubtful or indifferent. But as we cannot expect a conclusion so little favourable to the decisions of these five scholars to be received upon our bare assertion, we shall proceed at once to discuss their alterations, and shall arrange them under a few main heads for greater clearness and convenience.

I. IMPORTANT CHANGES.

These are happily few, and even in these the epithet is comparative, and must be taken with some latitude. We use it here chiefly in contrast with mere changes of tense, of conjunctions, of the articles, and of synonyms. Mention is made, however, in the Preface, of "two clear and notable instances, where the translators have mistaken the meaning of the Greek, v. 44 and x. 15." In one of these we believe they are right, and wrong in the other. We have noted eleven other changes of some importance, Ch. v. 35, 39; vii. 22; viii. 37; xii. 6; vi. 33; xiii. 2, 10, 25; xiv. 1; xv. 3. The proportion here seems to be just the same; the five first being changes for the worse, and the other six real improvements.

Let us first dismiss briefly the cases in which we agree with the Revisers. In Ch. v. 44, "the honour which cometh from the only God," is required by the Greek, though the modified version of our translators is easier to understand. In vi. 33, "the bread of God is that which cometh down from heaven," restores the sequence of the discourse, and accounts for the reply of the Capernaites, which can hardly be conceived suitable with the received version. In xiii. 2, "when supper was begun," removes a chronological perplexity. "He that hath been bathed," in v. 10, restores an important contrast; and in v. 25, "leaning back," which denotes a momentary act at the time, adds greatly to the vividness of the narrative. In xiv. 1, the double imperative is both more simple and natural, as a translation, and increases the earnestness of the admonition. Lastly, in xv. 3, "Ye are clean already," with the verb "cleanseth" in the previous verse, throws a clear light on the connexion of

thought, which is almost lost in the present version.

So far we

are happy to agree with the Revisers, but in all the other six we disagree.

1. First, in x. 14, 15, our translation is charged with "a clear and notable mistake," and this new version is given instead: "I am the good shepherd, and I know my own, and am known of mine, even as the Father knoweth me, and I know the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep." Bengel, whose judgment we prize highly, takes the same view. Yet we feel hardly a doubt that the received version is right, and the new one wrong. The question is not one of subtle scholarship. It depends on the pointing of the passage, either construction being in itself equally lawful. It must be decided by the style of the discourse, and by its logic and theology.

Now we assert, first, that the more complex structure, with its doubly involved comparison and inverse parallelism, is quite foreign to the style of this discourse, and, indeed, can hardly find a parallel in any part of the Gospel. We do not remember an instance of such a sixfold sentence, with a correspondence between the first and last clauses; while there are seven or eight examples of simple triplets in this very chapter. The argument, then, from style, is entirely in favour of the received version.

But the argument from the scope and meaning is, in our opinion, still more decisive. The new version implies that the sheep of Christ know Him as completely as He knows the Father; or else the doubly constructed comparison fails. But this is not true. The passage, xvii. 21, a reference to which has perhaps occasioned the preference of the new version, really makes against it on a closer examination. That perfected knowledge and unity, which is the object of Christ's prayer for His people, cannot be a present fact. In catching at a grammatical resemblance, the great and real contrast between the present state and the future hope of the Church is forgotten, and a falsehood is really introduced into the text; that the sheep of Christ know Him, even now, in the same manner as He knows the Father.

There is another doctrinal reason against the change. It represents the sacrifice of Christ as depending on the knowledge which the sheep have of their Shepherd-its effect, and not its cause. In the received version, that sacrifice depends immediately on our Lord's perfect knowledge of the Father. Nothing can be more strict in logical sequence, nothing more weighty and profound in thought, than the doctrine thus implied. It was His full knowledge of the Father's infinite wisdom and love, in calling Him to suffer His unequalled agonies, which was His secret strength for the wonderful sacrifice. The suggested change, instead of correcting a clear mistake, robs the sentence of half its force, dims its moral beauty, and abates the fulness of its meaning.

2. V. 35, "He was the lamp, lighted and shining; and ye were willing to rejoice for a while in his light." We believe the best

version to be the usual one, with one word changed, and one slight transposition: "He was a burning and a shining lamp; and ye were willing to rejoice for a season in his light." Or, if an attempt must be made to give the full force of the articles,-" He was indeed a burning and a shining lamp," &c.

The Revisers, in their effort to be exact, have quite sacrificed the English idiom. Their version is so obscure, that hardly one plain reader in ten would divine its meaning. Still they have departed from the literal and proper sense in their version of katóμevos, and have injured the rhythm by a needless change, which makes the same sound recur twice just at the close. Even the exact force of the double article, we conceive, is not really given; and the epithets thus appear like an appendage, instead of an integral part of the figurative description. The real force of the article is evidently generic, not specific. The words denote that the Baptist eminently corresponded to this type or symbol in the exercise of his ministry-a lamp, glowing with its own heat, and brilliant in the light it dispenses to others.

3. V. 39, "Ye search the Scriptures, because ye think that in them ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me. And yet ye are not willing to come to me, that ye may have life."

Here, besides five slighter changes, the imperative is displaced for the indicative. And this, we are persuaded, is wholly wrong, for three or four reasons.

First, constant usage requires the imperative in this position. Thirty or forty instances of it, in a similar place, occur in the New Testament. Of the indicative, we believe, not one, except with something in the meaning of the verb, or in the attached clause, which absolutely excludes an imperative sense. The passages to which Bengel refers, in defence of the indicative, are Matt. xxii. 29; xxiv. 6; xxvii. 65; John vii. 28; xii. 19; 2 Cor. viii. 9; Ja. iv. 2. Of these Matt. xxiv. 6, John vii. 28, are irrelevant, or make the other way; for μeλλýσete and oidare cannot be, and opâre actually is, an imperative. In Matt. xxii. 29, a command to be deceived is clearly impossible; and in xxvii. 65, the fact that they had a watch was notorious. In 2 Cor. viii. 9, the presence of yáp shows that the words are a premise, and therefore an assertion; and in Ja. iv. 2, the same is proved by the negative clauses attached, in which there can never be an ambiguity. The proposed change, then, is directly opposed to the whole current and constant law of New Testament usage, which never admits of the indicative in such a position, without some plain and absolute necessity.

Next, the place of the pronoun confirms this inference. If both verbs were indicatives, it must naturally precede them both, since it would belong to them equally. But though the indicative and imperative, grammatically, are of the same person, the person who commands is more prominent in one, and the persons who act, in the other. The position, then, of the pronoun marks this implied