Version seemed to be warranted by the independent translations which were continually appearing. The names of Purver, Macrae, Bellamy, Boothroyd, Doddridge, Macknight, Shairp, Thomson, Whiston, on the title-pages of various versions of the Old and New Testaments, were sufficient evidence that no one standard gave unity to the efforts of translators, who not infrequently indeed, represented conflicting doctrinal views. There was little uniformity of style either. The inflated taste of the period in which he lived made Doddridge prefer that the early believers should "partake of their refreshment" rather than eat their meat (Acts 2: 46), and that the sincere milk of the word (1 Peter 2: 2) shall be known rather as milk "rational and unmingled." The rugged individuality of Macknight set aside the corrupt communications (Eph. 4 29) of the Authorized Version in favor of "rotten speech"; and declared that the words of Paul about marriage might fitly be rendered: "For this reason shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be glued to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh" (Eph. 5:31). When it is added that in the century which preceded our present Revised Version twenty English translations of the New Testament were published, it may suggest itself to most minds that a careful and trustworthy revision of

1 Edgar, p. 333.

the Bible was called for, if only to save the book from its friends.

The condition of critical scholarship as our century passed into its last quarter, was especially favorable to a revision of the New Testament. Already Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Stanley, Farrar, had given us translations of the whole or of separate books. In America, which had taken its share in experimental versions, the scholarly labors of the Baptist American Bible Union had deepened the conviction that the hour had come when the whole Bible should be carefully revised, if not entirely re-translated.

To the question of revision we must now turn. There were many reasons why a revision should be carried through, but there were reasons not less numerous and even more weighty, why the Authorized Version should remain as the basis of any new enterprise.

What arguments, we may ask, favored a new version of the English Bible.

I. The first was based on an objection often urged to the principle adopted by the translators of King James' Version, of translating one Greek word by more than one English word. Thus damnation, condemnation, and in the margin, judgment, are translations of one Greek word only. Eternal and everlasting; impute, count, and account; Comforter and Advocate; covenant

and testament, are additional illustrations of this unfortunate principle. The converse was equally disastrous. One and the same English word was used for many words in the original. Conversation, devil, hell, tempt, each represents two distinct words, and ordain, "an important word ecclesiastically and theologically," ten.'

2. Notwithstanding the constant revision to which the Authorized Version had been submitted, the condition of the punctuation, italics, and paragraphs, was still unsatisfactory. The many and conspicuous blunders of the original edition had indeed been corrected, but not a single Bible was printed which was not fairly exposed to serious objection.

3. Perhaps it was too much to hope that we should ever see a Bible absolutely without note or comment. It was not unreasonable, however, to demand that the headings of the chapters should not mislead the simple-minded reader, and that in the marginal references exegetical skill should not be set aside at the bidding of theological bias; or, worse still, of erroneous principles of interpretation.

4. It was time that obsolete words should be dropped. There were not many of them, indeed, partly because the English of the Authorized Version was carefully chosen at the first, and partly

1 "Brief Notes on the Critical History of the Text and English Version of Holy Scripture." Joseph Angus, M. A., D. D., p. 57.

because the version had itself embalmed words which might otherwise have fallen into oblivion. But there were few readers of the Bible who could tell what was done to the flax when it was bolled (Exod. 9: 31). The peasant who knew a post only as "a thing that stood still to hang gates on or tie horses to," was puzzled to understand what Job meant when he said, My days are swifter than a post1 (Job 9: 25). Why did Herodias demand that the head of John the Baptist should be brought in a charger (Matt. 14: 8), when the only charger known to the majority of people was a horse? and why did Paul and his companions take up their carriages and go to Jerusalem (Acts 21: 15), when reason rather dictated that their carriages should take them?

5. Many forms of expression in the Authorized Version while at first admissible for their force, had in the lapse of time become unmusical if not unmeaning. That the early builders should say, Go to, let us make brick (Gen. 11 : 3); that a certain woman should cast a piece of millstone upon Abimelech's head and all to brake his scull (Judges 9:53); that of Moab it should be predicted, with weeping shall they go it up (Isa. 15: 5), are cases in point. The use of his for its, which for who, either for each, be for are, also needed correction.

1 Edgar, p. 371.

6. Occasionally there were translations which may perhaps have been clear to the translators themselves, but of which it was impossible for ordinary readers to make any sense. Especially was this so in the Old Testament. There are verses in Job and in the Prophets which convey no sort of meaning to the ear. We have heard of the pride of Moab; he is very proud: even of his haughtiness, and his pride, and his wrath: but his lies shall not be so (Isa. 16 : 6), illustrates this.1

2

7. To the objections to the old version which are founded on its language, we may add that a number of words which had not become obsolete had changed their meanings. "There are two hundred of them, and they affect the sense of many important passages." Among them are the following: Apprehend, conversation, frankly, honest, let, mortify, piety, prevent, quick, religion, spoil, tale, tradition. In many instances these words and phrases conveyed a distinctly wrong thought to the mind of the reader. Numbers of devout students of the teachings of Jesus have been perplexed because he is reported to have said: Take no thought for your life (Matt. 6 : 25), when what he did say was, Be not anxious for your life. It was a fretful foreboding and not a prudent forecasting which our Lord forbade.

1 Compare R. V., where the meaning is made clear.

• Angus, p. 53.