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.