opinion among competent critics. Different schools of criticism have been represented among us," etc. In a vast majority of cases, there is a great conflict of authorities; and in many cases, the evidence on the two sides is so equally balanced that it is hard to decide between them. Accordingly, against many of the changes made by the Revisers we find the fatal admission recorded in the margin, that "many ancient authorities," or "some ancient authorities," or "many authorities, some ancient," are opposed to the change. Far better would it have been, in all such cases, that the Received Text should be let alone. Certainly it should not have been "amended" merely in order to comply with certain technical rules and maxims, which have gradually been incorporated into the science of textual criticism, tho to ordinary thinkers they seem to be of very questionable validity. A common person may reasonably doubt, whether a more difficult reading is always to be preferred to an easier one; whether, during the first three centuries, interpolations were more probable than omissions; and whether the weight of an authority can be more fairly estimated by its supposed "genealogy," that is, by the merits of the family or the recension which it is believed to represent, than by its own undoubted age and other intrinsic merits.

But we have a further quarrel with these critics when they become translators. The whole art and mystery of their special vocation is the microscopic investigation of the minutest details of the Text. They make a distinct study of the words taken separately, and even of the syllables, of single letters, of breathings and accents, and of what we were wont in our school-days to call "the stops and marks." The habits thus formed are not favorable to largeness of comprehension; they exalt words over ideas; they impede a distinct appreciation of the general meaning of the passage, and the drift of the writer's thought and argument as a whole. Still further: when one of these minute changes is made in the Text, the verbal critic is naturally inclined so to modify the translation of the passage that it shall at any rate clearly and fully set forth in English the precise effect of this slight alteration, whatever injury may be done thereby to the meaning of the sentence in other respects. For instance, Luke ii. 14, the Received Text reads, 4óa ev vpiστois Aε,

καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς εἰρήνη ἐν ἀνθρώποις ευδοκία. By adding one Greek letter, the Revisers change the case of this last substantive from the nominative to the genitive; and then give us this remarkable translation of the verse so modified: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men in whom he is well pleased." This is bad enough, for it spoils the antithesis between the two clauses; it is spiritless, and deprives the clause of any obvious significance. But it is not even a correct version of the Text thus "amended;" for if literally construed, it should be," and on earth peace among men of good-will." We have only to add that many, perhaps most, ancient authorities favor the reading of the Received Text, which gives us without violence those words of the Common Version of this magnificent hymn which are consecrated in the hearts of millions of Christians. It is almost a sacrilegious act to disturb the associations that cluster around those words in the hearts of all English believers. Thomson's translation is that of the Common Version.

The principal guides of the English Revisers in their emendations of the Greek Text appear to have been Drs. Westcott and Hort, whose elaborate edition of the Greek New Testament, tho first published simultaneously with the Revised Version, was confided to both the English and American Committees, through advanced proof-sheets, almost from the beginning of their labors. One cannot help admiring the worldly wisdom evinced by these two learned Doctors, in thus obtaining notoriety for their independent labors by simultaneity of publication, together with an implied sanction of their work arising from the use made of it by these two distinguished Committees. They evidently thought that their work would fly higher if it were pinned to the tail of the Revision kite. If their authority is not followed in every case, the departures from it by the English Committee were probably due to the well-earned reputation and influence, as a textual critic, of Dr. Scrivener. Our only interest in this bit of the private history of the Revision of 1881 arises from the fact, that in the elaborate "Introduction and Appendix," which occupy the second volume of the Westcott and Hort edition, we have a clear and full statement, which may be considered as authoritative, at any rate, it is the only one

1

as yet accessible,—of the principles and rules which have guided the Revisers in their emendations of the Greek Text.

Westcott and Hort admit "that repeated transcription involves multiplication of error; and the consequent presumption that a relatively late text is likely to be a relatively corrupt text is found true." But they immediately proceed to qualify, or rather to nullify, this admission by their hypotheses, (for they are nothing more,) about the classification of the MSS. into families or recensions, and about the "unconscious mental action," which induced the early transcribers to lose sight of the "intrinsic sacredness" of the language in their “instinctive feeling for sense." Certainly no one will accuse Westcott and Hort and their disciples of this fault, but rather of the opposite one, viz., of having no feeling at all for the sense, because they are so eager to hunt out and expose the verbal errors into which they suppose the copyists during the second and third centuries to have been betrayed by their "unconscious mental action" in instinctively preferring sense to nonsense. When the testimony of the early MSS. and the ancient versions concerning two readings of a certain text is about equally balanced, a common person would think that the internal evidence ought to be fully considered, as well as the external, and that reading should be preferred which gives an obvious and satisfactory meaning to the passage over that which renders it enigmatical or nonsensical. Not so with these pedantic professional amenders of the Greek text; they hold that the "unconscious mental action" of the early transcribers led them to substitute an easier reading for a difficult one, or to insert a gloss upon the text. Accordingly they strike out the significant words, and give us a text which dipus himself could not interpret. Their rule virtually is, when the external evidence is divided, always prefer nonsense to sense; or, if a later manuscript differs from an earlier one, always prefer the former, provided you have some grounds to conjecture that it comes of a better family or recension; that is, if you think it has better blood in its veins; for then it represents a still earlier manuscript which has perished, but which you assume to know all about through what the lawyers call "circumstantial evidence." This rule seems to admit through a back door what are called conjectural readings, such

as, in the text of the New Testament, are universally acknowledged to be inadmissible. Truly, the secret thoughts of the early transcribers are better known by our textual critics than they were by the transcribers themselves; for the copyist knew only the thoughts which he was conscious of, while our critics know even those of which he was unconscious.

Thus, in Acts xxvi. 28, the Received Text reads, ô dè 'Aуpinπας πρὸς τὸν Παῦλον ἔφη, Ἐν ὀλίγῳ με πείθεις Χριστιανὸν yɛvéσ0αι. And this reading is confirmed by many ancient authorities, especially by the Vulgate, which translates thus: Agrippa autem ad Paulum: In modico suades me christianum fieri. In substantial agreement with the Common Version, Thomson gives this translation: "Upon this Agrippa said to Paul, Thou almost persuadest me to become a Christian." We are here required to supply χρόνῳ as understood after ὀλίγῳ, that is, "in a little while;" for by saying "in a little while thou wilt persuade me," one obviously implies "thou hast almost persuaded me already." But the Revisers proceed to amend the text, first, by leaving out 'pn, in accordance with their wonderful rule, that as the early transcribers were more likely to interpolate than to make omissions, a shorter is to be preferred to a longer reading (in this case, it is true, the Vulgate seems to agree with them); and secondly, by substituting πomσαι for yevéolat, against the authority of the Vulgate, but in conformity with their second great principle, that a difficult or obscure phrase, even if almost unintelligible, is generally to be accepted in preference to another which is easy, familiar, and expressive. And of the text as thus "amended " they proceed to give us this extraordinary translation: "And Agrippa said unto Paul, With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian." But these words are not a faithful version of their own corrected text, as even a schoolboy can see; and furthermore, their version as a whole is not only intolerably harsh and awkward, but so obscure as to be practically unintelligible. To think of substituting such phraseology for the idiomatic terseness, the rhythm, and the clear and pure English of our inimitable Common Version!

Let us now consider a passage from the Revisers' work which does not raise any question about the amendment of the Greek

text, but illustrates only the merits of their translation as affected by that study of minute details, that excessive desire of verbal and literal accuracy, which is fostered by long practice in textual criticism. Most readers are familiar with the beautiful verses, II. Peter i. 5-7, which contain an enumeration of the virtues which constitute a Christian life. As the context plainly shows, the gist of the apostle's teaching is, that these virtues must not be practised separately, but together, in the closest union with each other. Each must be added to the others. Hereafter, for the sake of brevity, C. V. will designate the Common Version; Revised, the Version of 1881; and Thomson, the translation of 1808. Verse 5, in the passage here referred to, is thus rendered:

C. V. "And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge;"

Thomson. "Therefore, having on your part used all diligence for the very same purpose, add to your faith fortitude; and to fortitude, knowledge;"

Revised. "Yea, and for this very cause adding on your part all diligence, in your faith supply virtue; and in your virtue knowledge;"

Here C. V., as clear and simple in expression and correct in meaning, tho slightly paraphrased, really needs no change. Thomson aims to be more full and exact, and especially to preserve the primitive significance of aperý (Latin, virtus) as fortitude (better, manliness), the distinguishing quality of a brave and firm (fortis) man. The Revised, aiming at metaphrase, is not English, and is really unintelligible. Its clumsy and enigmatical phrase, "in your faith supply virtue," either has no meaning at all, or must be tortured into signifying just what is plainly and naturally expressed in C. V.

Let us now consider the three translations of verse 7 from the same passage.

C. V. "And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity."

Thomson. "And to piety, brotherly affection; and to brotherly affection, universal love."

Revised. "And in your godliness love of the brethren; and in your love of the brethren love."

Again, C. V. is here inimitably fine, a refreshing draught