« PreviousContinue »
Cousin, the founder of modern Eclec-
Gathered Lilies, the, a work of art,
ment vindicated, 250; atheistic
theory of, 251; objections to, 259.
Darius and Cyrus the Great, Mr.
Bosanquet on, 163.
of the Text of the New Testament
production of Moses, 313; proved by
Hebrews v. 7, remarks on, 403 ; ix.
16, 17, remarks on, 407.
Image of God, the meaning of the term,
the Waldenses, by Muston, 479.
Egyptian Dynasties, No. III., 345.
of, 1; works on, 210.
tianity with the nature of man, by
E. Fry, 172.
Japan, pagan sect in, 237.
racter, 325; came in the fulness of
sults of his mission, 340.
P. S. Desprez, 212.
culating divine knowledge, 355.
Feuerbach's development of German
Kant, his philosophical system, 302.
on, by Keil and Bertheau, 475.
Lamech, his address to his wives,
Gen. iv., 425.
Pantheism, its historical phases, 294 ;
allied to polytheism, 295 ; danger of
308; danger of to social order, 310.
Migne on, 237.
65; doubts of the exact date of the
Christian Epoch, 65.
Assyria, by G. V. Smith, 203.
the text of the New Testament, 267.
Magi, their visit to Nazareth or Beth-
lehem ? 78.
J. E. Riddle, 209.
far attributable to natural causes,
J. Rigg, 212.
Rare Books, sale of, 227.
Brown, 458; by Rev. A. C. Brome-
Nativity, date of, 433.
thew, by Rev. T. S. Green, 210.
502 ; English, 246, 504.
Professor Selwyn, 478; and Deute-
Palestine, sites of its sacred places,
Sabbath, history of the, under the Old
Testament, 83; its divine origin and
on, by Rev. Micaiah Hill, 210.
developed in France, 300.
140; by ancient Jews, 141.
Syrian Sepulchres, Professor Stanley's
theory of, 134.
No. XI.-OCTOBER, 1857.
BIBLICAL REVISION.-The Gospel of St. John.
GREAT thanks are due to the five clergymen who have put forth the revised translation of the gospel according to St. John, to which we briefly called attention in a former number.“ The question, so freely mooted of late, as to the completeness and sufficiency of our Authorized Version, is thus met by a practical answer. We are enabled, thus far at least, to attach to that question its real weight and value. We may compare together the old and the new; and few perhaps will hesitate as to the conclusion, that the old is better.
Now this result, if we arrive at it, is attained to by a very safe and satisfactory course. We have a portion of Scripture most wisely chosen for the purpose of direct comparison. Those who have undertaken its re-translation are eminently qualified for the task. The principle upon which it has been carried out is simple and unexceptionable.
I. The gospel by St. John has been chosen with great wisdom. It is long enough to supply a fair and adequate test; and yet it lies within so small a compass that it may be very easily
a The Gospel according to St. John, after the Authorized Version. Newly compared with the original Greek, and revised by five Clergymen :- John Barrow, D.D.; George Moberly, D.C.L.; Henry Alford, B.D.; William G. Humphrey, B.D.; Charles J. Ellicott, M.A. London: John W. Parker and Son. Royal 8vo, pp. 80. (April, 1857.)
VOL. VI.- NO. XI.
tested. Moreover, the peculiarity of St. John's Greek would perhaps more readily induce erroneous translation; while his peculiar record of doctrinal and spiritual truth would so greatly enhance the vital
such error. II. The very names of the five translators carry with them their own credentials. They are all of them, so to speak, masters in Israel. They are specially fitted by learning, and by previous experience in critical theology, for the execution of so grave a work. They are well known as men of deep and earnest reli. gious principles; they are altogether unknown as partizans on either side of the conflicting opinions into which the religious world is now divided.
III. The principle on which the translation has been accomplished commends itself at once to every man's judgment. It gives us the result of individual and yet united effort; a separate and also a combined investigation; a quintuple guarantee for the same common labour. The correctness and fidelity of the Authorized Version is thus fully and strictly put to the proof; and we may congratulate ourselves that the issue has been joined. The alterations which have been proposed are, as we might expect, many and various. The majority of them arise from a closer attention to the force of particles, or tenses, and the more exact rendering of certain words; some of them exhibit statements of truth in a clearer and more intelligible form: not one of them, it may be confidently affirmed, throws doubt or question upon any essential truth, as already stated.
To suppose that the Authorized Version is incapable of any alteration for the better, would be to presuppose the gift of actual inspiration for the original translators. To find that it admits of scarcely more improvement than consists in greater amount of secular scholarship, and greater nicety of expression, springing out of the natural change and progress of language itself, this bespeaks for the original translators much soundness of knowledge, patient painstaking, sagacious faithfulness. To find that no vital truth of Scripture has been ignored, or overlaid, or erroneously set forth, this will confirm us in the sure conviction, how clearly the grace and providence of God guided the pen of those ready writers, went along with and watched over their labours, and guarded the Divine Word from all risk of marring by human adulteration.
The revisers have put forth their work as an experiment; not to provoke unkindly criticism, but purposely to invite fair and honest examination. With this view, and in this spirit, the revision is examined in the following pages; it has been followed out verse by verse, its variations noted down, and divided into