Issued monthly, post free, for 15s.; 4; 15 M.; 18 fr.; per annum. EDINBURGH OTTO SCHULZE & COMPANY 20 SOUTH FREDERICK STREET G. E. STECHERT & CO., 129 TO 133 WEST 20TH STREET, NEW YORK, U.S.A. 1905 Single numbers 1s. 6d., post free 18. 9d. THE REVIEW OF THEOLOGY AND PHILOSOPHY contains reviews, abstracts, and bibliography of the most recent theological The Editor will not hold himself responsible for any opinions Review of Theology and Philosophy THE CORRECTED ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT, edited by Samuel Lloyd. 4to. Baxter & Sons, 1905. 6s. nett. THIS work, the result of long-continued care and industry, is issued by its chief promoter as a memorial of the Bible Society's Centenary, and is recommended to the public in a preface by the Lord Bishop of Durham, who expresses "his deliberate concurrence, on the whole, with its idea and programme," and states, moreover, that he considers the translators to "have made their orthodoxy unquestionable." In so far as Bishop Moule is known to be a scholarly man, this utterance of his opinion deserves unfeigned respect; but it may not be amiss to remind his readers that "orthodoxy is a stream whose margin is continually shifting, and that there have been times when a version of the Scriptures which omitted "the three witnesses" in I John v. 7, and allowed the text of 1 Tim. iii. 16 (“ox or ex, i.e. bios) to be a matter of dispute, could not have obtained even a hesitating imprimatur from an English bishop. The case is altered now; and the time may come hereafter when the "reluctance" to admit a doubt as to the authorship of the concluding verses of St Mark (xvi. 9-20) may likewise have disappeared; or when the balance of evidence in John i. 18, Rom. ix. 5, as at present estimated, may possibly be reversed. An English translation from the Greek may have one of two objects, which it is not always possible to reconcile. It R. OF T. & P. VOL. I. NO. I.—A may act as a useful commentary, presenting the student of the original with the exact meaning as elicited by close examination from the most approved text; or its aim may be to produce on the English reader an impression as nearly as possible analogous to that which the original writing conveyed. For the former purpose it is not enough to be strong in Greek." The translator must know all that can be known of the precise phase of language which was natural to the author, or to each of several authors; and he who undertakes the harder task of translating for the unlearned must combine with this rare qualification a complete mastery of the English tongue. But the reviser or corrector of the Authorised Version of the Bible is confronted by a further difficulty. He is bound so to handle that great monument of " English undefiled" as to retain its characteristic nobleness and beauty, while removing blemishes which have adhered to it from a faulty text, from occasional misconception, or, here and there, from archaisms of style which, to the modern reader, are causes of obscurity. In their execution of this delicate task the present correctors must be pronounced, "on the whole," successful. The "resultant" text of Dr Nestle, which they have adopted, is one which, while generally agreeing with that of Westcott and Hort in following the oldest Eastern MSS., sometimes accepts a reading in which a Western MS., though less ancient, is thought to represent an independent tradition. Where they have felt themselves constrained to depart from the Authorised Version, they have honestly sought to preserve the dignity and the harmonious rhythm of the great work of 1611; and they have, above all, been anxious that the meaning everywhere should be clear and unmistakable. This last motive has sometimes led, however, as Dr Moule observes, to needless transpositions; and, in common with the Revisers, they have allowed grammatical rules which are peculiar to the Greek to over-ride their sense of English idiom. For example, they have followed Bishop Lightfoot's precept and example in always representing the Greek aorist by the English preterite. But there are many cases in which the perfect, used with the same intention, is more in accordance with the habit of our language; just as the converse is observable in comparing English with French. This trifling touch of pedantry imparts a degree of flatness to the whole composition. One of the most successful passages is St Paul's speech at Athens, in Acts xvii. 22-31. But it would have been better to retain the perfect forms in verses 26 (“hath made”—“hath determined") and 31 (“He hath appointed”"hath given"). Nothing is gained by altering these to "made" -"determined," "He appointed "-" gave." And why "every face of the earth" (ver. 26)? Why "not far from each of us," instead of "every one of us" (ver. 27)? The case is worse, unfortunately, with the opening verses of John xvii. In the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. v.-vii.) there are at least fifty changes. A few of these are due to the more accurate text-for instance, the omission of "openly" in Matt. vi. 4 and 6-and some are distinct improvements, such as "consume" for "corrupt" in vi. 19. But at least a dozen of the alterations appear to me unnecessary. What is gained by adding "he" as the antecedent in v. 22? In vi. 26 would not a simple "nor" be better than "they neither "? And if it were desirable to give explicitly the force of the Greek compound verb άixovor in vi. 2, 4, 17, where the Authorised Version was contented with an emphatic “have,” would not “full reward" be simpler than "reward in full "? Once more, why is the construction changed in v. 13, "Cast out to be trodden," instead of "Cast out and trodden "? The correctors remark incidentally that the English of the Authorised Version "is not faultless." Their own, even with the help of Mr G. W. Moon, is not without occasional flaws. "Went out to and were baptised by him" (Mark i. 5) surely descends almost to the level of journalese. Should a further attempt be made in this direction it is to be hoped that even greater respect will be shown for the Authorised Version, while equal reverence is accorded to the original text-not with the awe-stricken superstition implied in the words of Gregory the Great, “ Cor Dei in verbis Dei," but with the judicious "freedom of handling" which, for the last forty years, since the Privy Council Judgment of 1864, |