that the word “ Lord ” of our version renders merely the Dominus of the Vulgate, and the
Kvpios of the Septuagint, and does not directly translate the original Hebrew word IeHOuaH1
the latter being- suppressed, by “ His Majesty’s special command,” in the “ authorized”
copies, only 6846 times! The number of times it occurs in the Hebrew Text are 6855: (61)
on which hereafter. Another i s : —
“ The H o l t B i b l e , containing the authorized version of the Old and New Testaments
with twenty thousand [ / ] emendations. (London, 1841; Longman, Brown & Co.)”
Its title attracted our notice, as savoring of a Tauric genus known as Hibernian; aptly I
illustrated in that “ same old knife which belonged to * my grandfather,’ after having
received thirteen new handles and seventeen i new blades.” i The preface justified o u r first
impressions, when we r e a d -— 1 This is our a u t h o r iz e d E n g l is h v e r s io n , which is characterized
by unequalled fidelity, perspicuity, simplicity, dignity, and power. . . . No one
has yet detected a single error [in it f ! !] in reference to those great and vital tru th s in j
which all Christians agree.” After which, where the utility of 20,000 emendations?
Suffice it, that, maugre this huge amount, not perceiving any of the catalogue of “ emen-j
dations” hereinafter submitted to the reader, we refrained from its purchase, after a
morning’s .examination.
A third, which we have long possessed through the lrindness of its publishers, merit«
attention, and is ushered by a most excellent preface : —
“ The H o l y B i b l e , being the English version of the Old and New Testaments, made by
order of King James I., carefully revised and amended, by several Biblical Scholars. (Sixth
edition, Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1847.),”
After a brief sketch of preceding translations into English, from 1290 to 1611, the
preface states — “ From these facts, and from comparing the translation of king James
with those which preceded it, nothing is more obvious, than that the common version
is but a revision of those executed by Tindal, Coverdale, and others, and that, however
excellent it may be, the paramount praise, under God, is due to W il l ia m T in da l and j
M il e s C o v e r d a l e . ” In the above sentiments we heartily concur; having enjoyed opportunities,
in the course of our studies, of comparing some points in both of the latters’ self- i
sacrificing editions with the so-called “ revision” of the forty-seven. A vrobiSaicToi, however,
like Abderitan D em o c r it u s , in some branches of Oriental philology; and possessing, furthermore,
an apparatus tolerably complete of continental criticism in biblical matters;, m
prefer direct references to the Hebrew Text, now rendered accessible in a very handy form,
and illumined by Cahen’s most useful parallel French translation. (62)
From the nature of these premises it will be seen that, save under the scientific point of
view and for the general cause of human enlightenment, the writer, as an individual, is
not urgent in exacting another “ authorized ” version of Texts to which he has acquired
(what any man who really is serious in such matters can acquire as he has) access for himself.
At the present day that in Protestant countries, such as Great Britain and the United
States, it has become a common practice to worship king James’s translation, and “ study
divinity;” that our English version, with all the unnecessary deviations from its Hebrefl
prototype, is reverenced by the masses as a “ fetiche,” or viewed with a relic of that semi-
idolatrous awe refused by Protestants to crucifixes, pictures, or images, our observations
may perhaps seem indecorous to those who choose to cramp their intellects and continue
to ignore the splendid results of continental exegesis. We should regret the fact, the
more so because offence is unintentional; but, “ the epoch of constraint has passed away
[in these United States] for ever: a freeman will be free in all things; material and political
emancipation suffice no longer for him. He knows that there is a sublimer liberty, that of
thought and belief. It is with sorrow that he beholds those sweet illusions fleeting away
(61) W a l t o n : Bibl. Poly g. ; Prolog. G. 8, § 8, p. 275. H o r n e : Op. cit.; i. p. 38. But, above all, Lanci:
lipomena ; 1845; passim.
(62) L a B ib l e ; Traduction Nouvelle; 22 octavo volumes ; Paris, 1831-’51.
that whilom had been the charm of his childhood; but reason exacts it, and he sacrifices
his illusions upon the altar of truth.” (63)
Of that wherein the aspirations of a Newcombe, a Lowth, and a Kennicott (to say nothing
about others of the. best of England’s biblical critics), have been baulked, it would be at this
day egregious folly to entertain further hopes, viz: that the British Lords, Spiritual and
Temporal, will, in our generation at least, permit such a radically-correct re-translation of
the Hebrew Scriptures as would supersede the vulgar version “ appointed to be read in
churches.” The Universities, especially the Oxonian, part of whose support depends,
like some institutions on this side of the water,—upon a 1 ‘BookConcern,” would oppose such
violation of vested privileges. By the eyangelical dissenting sects, sundry of whose various
hierarchies derive subsistence from those very linguistic quibbles that a new standard
version would obliterate, such a proposition would be repelled with devout horror. Exeter
Hall shudders, even at the thought: “ Bible Societies ” whine that the reign of Anti-Christ
is come indeed. As positivists we lament not that our brief span of life will have been
measured, long before a new English version may be “ authorized;” because, through the
slow but unerring laws of human advancement in knowledge, by the time that theologists
shall have accomplished their metaphysical transition and have awakened to the stern realities
of the case, the development of science will have rendered any new translation altogether
supererogatory among the educated who are creating new religions for themselves.
In the utterance of these long-pondered thoughts, though written years ago, we have
been somewhat anticipated by our learned friend McCulloh; (64) with a quotation from
whose admirable chapter on the “ Value of Translations” we conclude this historical division
of the two-fold evidence.
“ No emendation however of our common translation would affect the revelations made
in the Scripture, upon any subject which Jehovah has directly addressed to the understanding
or consciences of mankind, whether as regards their faith or practice. That a new
translation would considerably affect our theological creeds, or our ecclesiastical institutions,
there is no doubt; but this again is a most desirable object if such things are not
accordant to the undoubted word of God. No Christian in his senses can wish to remain
under any error respecting the import of Jehovah’s revelations; and hence nothing can be
more absurd than to oppose a correction of our common translation, on the ground that it
would overturn some of the inventions that theologians have heretofore constructed upon
the comparatively defective Hebrew or Greek Texts upon which that translation has been
made.
“ The popular objections of unlearned persons to the amendment of our present translation,
however, are often, unfortunately for Christianity, sustained by learned men and
accomplished scholars, whose interests or whose prejudices are too deeply involved in the
present condition of things to be willing to admit of any innovation. Their creeds, institutions,
v and ecclesiastical establishments, for the most part, were constructed contemporaneously
by divines or statesmen of similar theological or ecclesiastical views with those who
made our authorized version. To change the terms or texts of Scripture that have been
heretofore used as the basis for ecclesiastical institutions, or theological assumptions concerning
divine truths, are shocks too violent, either for the pride or self-interests of men,
to acquiesce 'in willingly Dr. Vicesimus Knox, (65) of the Church of England,
says, jg For my own part, if I may venture to give an opinion contrary to that of the profound
collators of Hebrew Manuscripts, I cannot help thinking a new translation of the Bible an
attempt extremely dangerous and quite unnecessary. Instead of serving the cause of religion,
which is the ostensible motive for the wish, I am convinced that nothing would tend more immediately
to shake the basis of the E s t a b l is h m e n t ’ (i. e.f of the Church of England). ‘Time,’
says the reverend gentleman, ‘ gives a venerable air to all things. Sacred things acquire
peculiar sanctity by long duration.’ ”
And finally, the unlettered dogmatist who, possessing no knowledge of the real merits
of the topics before us, would thrust into court “ his” opinion, may as well be told by the
reader, that: —
“ At the rational point of view, a sentiment such as is termed Christian conscience, a
(63) M u n k : Examen, in C a h e n ’s Exodus; p. iv.
(64) Op. cit. ; i. pp. 281, 283.
(65) Annual Obituary ; vi. p. 352; — Op.-cit.', p. 283, note.