may be wholesome for young men to know what the ex-Premier of England fain would have them; but, after all, we cannot disguise from ourselves that, despite his brilliancy, his shrewd ability, and evident well-meaning, Mr. Disraeli's teaching, even when it relates to matters ecclesiastical,-for it is, after all, a misnomer to term them religious,-is "of the earth," and that, being of the earth, it speaks of the earth, and that, if men would "By due steps aspire To lay their just hands on that golden key they must seek elsewhere other and heavenly teachers, and gather for themselves, as the true remedy for their maladies, fruit from that tree whose leaves are for the healing of the nations. ON THE REVISION OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION OF THE BIBLE. THERE can be little, we should rather say no room for the discussion of the abstract question, whether those who, as individuals or as a Church, are put in trust with the Word of God, incur an imperative obligation to communicate that Word to others. There can scarcely be room, moreover, for the discussion of the further inquiry, whether it be incumbent upon them to employ the best means at their disposal for the transmission of the heavenly treasure with as little as may be of the imperfection which is inseparable from the earthen vessels in which it is contained. Thus far we think we shall carry our readers along with us; and the way is thus prepared for the consideration of the practical question, whether, as regards the revision of the English Bible, an obligation similar to that which has been recognized at various periods since the Reformation, again devolves upon us at the present time. Those amongst our readers who are but moderately acquainted with the history of the text of the English Bible, will have no need to be reminded that our present Authorized Version did not spring into existence like some new creation in the year 1611 A.D., but merely assumed at that period the form in which it has substantially been transmitted to our own times.* As regards the alterations which have been made in the text of our English Bibles subsequently to 1611 A.D., we may refer our readers to a review of the late Bishop of Ely's "Text of the English Bible," which appeared in our pages in June, 1834. We shall not now pause to inquire what may be the precise nature and extent of the authority which that Version possesses. That its use in our churches is not enforced by any Act of Parliament, is a fact which was noticed by Archbishop Newcome in 1792 A.D., but which has commonly been overlooked in more recent times. The use of certain portions of the volume (as, e. g., those contained in the Epistles and Gospels of the Book of Common Prayer) is enforced by the Act of Uniformity in 1662 A.D.; and it may be alleged that a certain amount of authority, but not greater than that possessed by the older Version (commonly known as the Great Bible), from which the Psalter, the Ten Commandments, and other portions of the Communion Service are still taken,† was thereby indirectly given to that Version which was framed by the Commission of King James. Whatever may have been the circumstances under which that Version was composed, and whatever the precise amount of authority which it may be supposed to possess, its pre-eminent merits as a whole are universally allowed by all who are entitled, as Oriental and Greek scholars, to sit in judgment on its critical accuracy; or, as students and lovers of the English tongue, to appreciate its manly vigour, its idiomatic force, and its simple and yet majestic style. The merits of the Authorized Version being thus confessedly great, and its hold upon the affections, we might say upon the prejudices also, of our Church and nation being so strong, the enquiry naturally arises whether we shall not do more harm than good by touching a stone of such a building, and whether its excellencies do not so far surpass its defects that it is both the safer and the wiser course to leave it to stand as it is, rather than, in the attempt to improve it, to incur the risk of injuring its beauty or of impairing its strength. We have no intention rashly or dogmatically to prejudge this important enquiry. We desire rather to place our readers in possession of some of the materials by aid of which they may arrive at a position in which they may decide the question for themselves. And (1) it is manifestly of primary importance, with a view to the accurate reproduction of the divine originals, that the translators should be in possession of the genuine texts both of the Old and New Testament Scriptures. An Historical View of the English Biblical Translations, by William Newcome, D.D., 1792, p. 433. Mr. Westcott, in his admirable "History of the English Bible," says that "no evidence has yet been produced to show that the Version was ever publicly sanctioned by Convocation, or by Parliament, or by the Privy Council, or by the King." (p. 158.) + It is remarkable that, notwithstanding the sanction given to the Bishops' Bible by Convocation, no attempt seems to have been made to substitute its version of the Psalter for that of the Great Bible. With regard to the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, no great addition has been made to the materials out of which the primitive text can be educed. The practical result of the collations of Kennicott and De Rossi has been rather to confirm the general accuracy of the Masoretic text than to detect the existence of errors in it.* Something has been done, doubtless, towards the formation of a genuine text, by a more laborious and extensive comparison of ancient versions and examination of quotations in the New Testament and the Talmud; and we must also add, that the critical conjectures of Lowth, Kennicott, Houbigant, and others, though in many cases worse than useless, have not been wholly unproductive of beneficial results. On the whole, whilst by no means satisfied with the present state of the textus receptus of the Old Testament Scriptures, or disposed to question the existence of sufficient materials for its improvement, we are constrained to express our conviction that there has neither been so important an accession to the external sources of revision, nor so accurate an acquaintance with the Hebrew language brought to bear upon this special department of biblical criticism, as to constitute a sufficient ground, either separately or conjointly, for the anticipation of any very decided superiority in the revision now proposed of the Old Testament Scriptures over that of the seventeenth century. With regard to the materials for the determination of the true text of the New Testament, the state of the case is widely different. The Authorized Version of the New Testament is based upon editions of the Greek text which were founded upon MSS. of a date not earlier than the tenth or eleventh century. Since the sixteenth century, as is well known, MSS. far older and more valuable have come to light. In addition to the Vatican MS. (the larger portion of which is assigned to the fourth century), of which Tischendorf's Edition appeared at Leipsic in 1867, and the Alexandrian, which was presented to King Charles I. in the year 1628, and which is supposed to have been written in the early part of the fifth century, a third MS. of equal or greater antiquity and value has been recently brought from Mount Sinai, and deposited at St. Petersburg. Ancient versions and early Christian writings have also been much more extensively and accurately examined and collated; and, without any undue disparagement of the learning of our predecessors, it may be affirmed, without fear of contradiction, Dr. Davidson's valuable work, entitled "The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament revised from Critical Sources," whilst showing, as the Editor observes, "the necessity that exists for the procurement of a better text than Vol. 69.-No. 389. that of Van de Hooght, or any of his corrected reprints," shows also, in a very striking manner, how little a comparison of MSS. and of Versions has contributed towards the revision of the Masoretic text. 3 K that, both at home and abroad, a more profound and more accurate acquaintance with the Greek language generally, and with the Hellenistic dialect in particular, has been laboriously and successfully cultivated. As the result of these combined circumstances, the materials for the critical determination of the text of the New Testament are much more abundant now than they were in the beginning of the 17th century; and although we may confidently hope and anticipate a yet richer harvest than has at present accrued from them, no competent authority can for a moment question the fact, that a considerable advance has been made towards the determination of the genuine text of the Greek New Testament.* Under these circumstances, it is no matter of surprise, that a conviction of the impolicy of deferring any longer a measure, the necessity of which is beginning to be acknowledged alike by those who desire, and by those who deprecate, its introduction, has constrained the members of the Upper and Lower Houses of the Southern Convocation to coincide in the appointment of a Committee consisting of an equal number of members of both Houses, who shall undertake the work of revision, and who shall be at liberty to invite the co-operation of any persons eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong. The debates in both Houses afford ample evidence alike of the imperative sense of obligation under which this conclusion has been arrived at, and also of the many and great difficulties by which the undertaking is felt to be encompassed. As regards the constitution of the body to which the work of revision shall be entrusted, we are convinced alike of the necessity and the desirableness of the proposal that it shall be of as comprehensive a character as possible. We can see no objection indeed to the limited co-operation of all who, whatever their creed, may be disposed to offer critical aid towards the correction of the text, or the exposition of its meaning. We cannot, however, recognise, either on the ground of justice or in the interests of truth, the claims of any to exercise a direct influence upon the proposed revision who repudiate that version of Holy Scripture which is now in common use, and who disclaim the intention of adopting that which is projected. We would not refuse, e.g., to take advantage of the Hebrew scholarship of a learned Jew, or of the critical or exegetical acumen of a learned Romanist; but we should earnestly deprecate the pro We may refer, by way of illustration of our position, to that very remarkable little book which forms the one thousandth volume of the Tauchnitz Editions, entitled, "The New Testa ment: The Authorized English Version; with introduction and various readings from the three most celebrated MSS. of the original Greek Text by Constan tine Tischendorf. Leipzig, 1869." posal of an invitation to either, to exercise a concurrent influence upon the determination of a text or the revision of a translation, the authority of which they would alike be constrained to reject. That considerable difficulties would arise in both these respects, it is impossible to deny. In the case of the first class of those passages to which the Bishop of Winchester alluded, on the occasion of the introduction of this subject in the Upper House of Convocation-i. e. passages in the rejection of which all the best MSS. agree there can, we should imagine, be but one opinion as to the incumbent duty which devolves on those who are the witnesses and keepers of God's word to reject them at all risks, and not any longer to present to the people as Scripture that which has no sufficient claim to be so regarded. In the case of the second class of passages to which the same prelate referred, those of which the authority is uncertain, the difficulty and responsibility which will devolve upon the revisers of our Authorized Version will be considerably greater; but there are, probably, few who would not desire that at least some mark should be attached to such passages, which should indicate to the reader the fact that their authority is doubtful. It is impossible to anticipate that there should be absolute unanimity in dealing with a subject of such pre-eminent importance. It is equally impossible, we think, to entertain a doubt that the necessary means are now afforded to us of discriminating, with a much larger amount of certainty than was possible at the beginning of the seventeenth century, between the chaff and the wheat-and thus of not only counteracting an impression which is becoming prevalent, that the whole of the text of Holy Scripture is of uncertain authority, but also of removing the risk which now exists, that whilst alleging, as we believe, the authority of Holy Writ, we may, unawares, be substituting man's traditions in its place. But if the task of discriminating aright between that which is genuine and that which is spurious, be, as we maintain, confessedly great, we cannot but apprehend that the difficulty will be yet greater of arriving at a right, or even a tolerably unanimous, conclusion as to very many of the passages which need revision, and the form in which that revision shall stand. Of this difficulty the debate in Convocation, on the occasion to which we have just referred, presents us with some striking and suggestive illustrations. With regard to the first passage referred to in the debate, viz. Gal. v. 17, "The flesh lusteth against the spirit and the spirit against the flesh: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would," it will suffice to observe, that although the exposition proposed by the Bishop of Winchester is supported by names of great weight, both ancient and modern, it is yet so |