proving, as we suppose no biblical scholar disputes it; but we may just notice, as we never heard the remark, that the passage itself seems to suggest it. The Apostle enumerates faith, hope, charity, (or love) these three; but our translators lose sight of the second. He says: "Let us draw near.... in full assurance of faith; . . . . let us hold fast the profession of our hope without wavering . . . . and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works." Here is faith, followed by hope, and producing the fruits of charity and good works.

We open casually at another word (knots) which the English reader will find always rendered "calling," except once, (Eph. iv. 1,) where we read "walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called." "Calling" is the vernacular word; but the other was perhaps selected to avoid iteration of sound with the participle "called." Either word is in itself equally good; but as the one is Saxon and the other Latin, we should prefer the former, more especially as it occurs in ten other places. The reader, by having always the same word in the English, has a clearer notion of the original; and is also enabled to collate passages. It would be impossible for an unlearned person not to conclude that there is a deviation of phrase in the original, where he finds such a deviation in the English.

There is also another argument which applies to all such passages, namely, that much of the antithesis, the strength, and even the meaning, of passages is lost, where a new word is introduced, when the original uses a word which is still ringing on the ear, either by itself or in its root or branches; and when, moreover, that precise tone was the warp

of the composition. In this passage, for example, the apostle had said, (chap. i. 18) "That ye may know what is the hope of his calling;" and he repeats the same expression three verses after the one under consideration, "Even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;" so that there is far more point in saying, "That ye walk worthy of the calling wherewith ye are called," than of the "vocation.". St. Paul is a remarkably antithetical writer; and we lose much of the spirit of his arguments and exhortations, when we cast his phrases into a new mould. If our translation were revised (for admirable as it is, it would, like every thing human, bear revision; though under existing circumstances we should dread and deprecate it)— this particular would be well worth attending to; and not only in adjacent verses, but throughout the whole of the sacred text, especially the New Testament. It was quite impossible for it to be effected by king James's translators. Each gave his own rendering, or selected a rendering; and then others carefully examined each passage as rendered; and thus the whole passed from stage to stage, with one correction after another, till the complete translation became the common property of all the revisors. But it was not till after it was printed, and its pages were ready in that shape for a still nicer species of collation, that a really uniform text, or a uniform system of printing, could be matured. A considerable help towards such a labour would be found in such a work as that before us. It would be incredibly laborious to turn to every Greek word in the New Testament, and see how it is rendered in every place where it occurs; and then to every English word, and to see what Greek

word or words correspond to it, with a view to all possible uniformity; nor would the eye or the memory easily grasp the minute particulars. The revisor would in fact be driven to make in detail a sort of English Greek concordance, before he could effect his collation. If, for example, he carefully examined the New Testament in English, and marked the word " call," it would require some labour, even with a Greek Concordance under one hand, and an English one under the other, to find that there are not fewer than twelve Greek words thus rendered. It would then be for consideration, whether one English word could be employed throughout as the fittest exponent of each one of the words in the original; and if not, what was the best mode of classifying the words and meanings, according to their various uses. Or if he, in examining the Greek Testament, turned, say to the word ikavos, he must refer to more than forty passages to find its various renderings in the English Testament, which are so numerous and diverse, that they would not be suspected without minute collation. Thus we have worthy, large, great, enough, enough for, many, much, long, security, good, long while, sore, meet, sufficient, and able. A common word like this is not like what may be called a technical word, such as faith, hope, justification, salvation, and the like; and the slightest glance would shew that it would be useless, and even absurd, to affect verbal uniformity of rendering in expressions not of a specific character. A similar examination would also have shewn, (as in the many words translated call," that it would be difficult, and also unnecessary, to find as many English words, and invariably to allot each for each. The very CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 20.

attempt would be hypercritical trifling; for in every language a word has often various shades of idea; and in translating, several words may be necessary in different places to express the varying force of one; or one may suffice where the original uses several.

But after all due allowance for variations, there would still be a large field for a reasonable approach to uniformity, especially in technical words and phrases, and where there was contrast or antithesis. Thus where the word last referred to, (or one of its branches), occurs four times in sequence, 2 Cor. ii. 16, and iii. 5, 6, "Who is sufficient for these things?" "Not that we are sufficient of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God, who also hath made us able (sufficient) ministers of the New Testament;" a

If

uniform rendering is to be preferred; for the change from “sufficient" to "able" sets aside the very point of the passage. "able" is preferred, then the noun should have been "ability." 'Opolos, which occurs about fortyseven times, is always rendered "like;" and the same rule might be conveniently followed with many other words, where at present there is unnecessary discrepancy.

We might pursue this cursory collation to a wide extent; but we are unwilling to fatigue our readers with word-hunting. We have only shewn that even a ver. nacular reader, if intelligent and judicious, may enlarge his views by such a collation; but it is chiefly for the scholar that a work like that before us is useful; and we could have wished that it had not assumed the catching title of "The Englishman's Greek Concordance," for such titles offend academical ears; most scholars justly suspecting royal rail-roads to knowledge, and learning made 3 S

easy.

The invention of improved tools to facilitate the making of a watch, would be very useful; but watchmakers, for the most part, must use them. It would be affectation to say "every man his own watchmaker;" though an intelligent person not "of the trade" might, by reading the treatise, get a better knowledge of the mechanism of a watch, and even perhaps see how to repair a trifling defect; but we would not recommend much "" 'tinkering" with delicate machinery.

It has struck us that readers familiar with the Greek Testament, are in general more conversant with the various ways in which a Greek word is translated in our authorised version, than with the number of Greek words often represented by some one English word. If, for instance, we asked what renderings are given by our translators to the word ipariov, the reader's memory might easily supply garment, cloak, raiment, clothes, robe, apparel, and vesture; but if we opened the English Concordance at any letter, say D, and began reading declare, deliver, desire, destroy, and so forth, it might not occur to him that declare represents fourteen Greek words; deliver eleven; desire thirteen; and destroy ten. The word "take" in our vernacular testament stands substitute for twenty-one Greek words, besides the innumerable passages in which it is used in combination, as "take" accusation, captive, care, counsel, case, hand, head, hold, journey, knowledge, oversight, part, pleasure, rest, thought, &c. Where one English word is used for many Greek words, it is oftentimes useful to referback to the original. For it is not with the sacred writings as with classical authors, in reading which for critical purposes, we are mainly desirous of secing how the author uses words,

little heeding how his translator uses them. We have copious verbal indexes, in fact concordances, to most of the celebrated writers of Greece and Rome; but we need none to the English translations of them. Even those who

use them have not the slightest wish to know, provided the sense is duly conveyed, how many classical words the translator chose to represent by a given English one. But in the case of the sacred writings, we are accustomed to refer to our vernacular translation as "text," and we quote it as such; and in current use it passes as such, and people argue upon it as such. We have occasion therefore to translate not only forward but backward; the translation being in fact much better known than the original. Thus in the examples above given, the biblical critic must not only satisfy himself that the word iuartov is rightly translated by the seven words we have specified, (though perhaps even here the fac-simile plan, where there was no particular reason for change, would have been better), but he must, in reading any English word, which represents two or more Greek ones, be constantly translating back, in order that he may have the precise shade of meaning of the original. Thus in the case of the four English words above taken at random, it will be instantly seen, that though the vernacular reader, in perusing the words declare, deliver, desire, and destroy, cannot be aware that they correspond to nearly fifty distinct Greek words; nor would the scholar heed it in the translation of a profane author; yet these Greek words have varied colours, and in reducing them all to one English tint, we necessarily lose much of the light and shade of the original. Should a person, in reading our Lord's declaration,

“ If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God," not be aware that the word “ will ” (“ will do”) is not an auxiliary verb, but a principal one, he would not gather the force of the Greek, which expresses desire. The scholar, in construing the passage, could not miss the meaning; but in reading the English, if he were not particularly thinking of the original, he mightdo so. So in construing the large number of words translated by the four above noted, he would grasp the right meaning in each place as it occurred; but in reading the vernacular testament, where these words occur more times than we have patience to count, he may often fail to remember that declare in one place does not mean what it does in another; and so of the rest. Neither a Greek nor an English Concordance directly facilitates this collation. From seeing in Schmid, for instance, the texts in which a Greek word occurs, it would not be known that precisely the same English rendering is given to various other Greek words; and from reading in Cruden, where an English word occurs, it would not be known that it represents two, or many, Greek words, of various hues of meaning. The combination of both is necessary in order to understand not only the original but the English version. We will give the words above alluded to; and they are but a sample of what we might find under almost any letter of the alphabet.

Declare, in our vernacular bibles, is the rendering for avayγελλω, ανατίθημι, απαγγελλω, γνωριζω, δηλόω, διηγεομαι, εκδιηγεομαι, ενδειξις, εξηγεομαι, ευαγγελίζω, καταγγέλλω, ορίζω, παραγγελλω, φράζω.

Deliver, αναδιδωμι, απαλλάσσω, αποδίδωμι, διδωμι, ελευθερον, εξαι

ρεω, καταργέω, παραδίδωμι, ῥνομαι, σωτηρία, χαριζομαι.

Desire, αιτεω, αξιοω, εξαιτεομαι, επερωταω, επιζητεω, επιθυμεω, επιποθέω, ερωταω, ζηλοω, ζητεω, θελω, ορεγομαι, παρακαλεω.

Destroy, απολλυμι, διαφθείρω, καταθαιρεω, καταλύω, καταργέω, λυω, ολοθρεύω, πορθέω, φθείρω, (2 Pet. ii. 12), p0opa.

It has often occurred to us to examine whether the discrepancies of renderings in our authorised version, where the same word would have done as well, and have preserved uniformity, was owing to different portions of the text being divided among different translators and revisors, and it not being found practicable, or considered necessary, to adjust the whole to a standard of uniformity. But upon looking at the several allotments, we do not find any specialties in them; there is no mark of a private pen, or of any one school or university. The division for the New Testament was as follows: The four Gospels, the Acts, and the Revelations, were assigned to eight divines at Oxford-Dr. Ravis (afterwards Bishop of London); Dr. George Abbott (afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury); Dr. Eedes; Tomson (afterwards Bishop of Gloucester); Savil, Dr. Perin, Dr. Ravens and Harmer. The epistles were assigned to seven at Westminster; Dr. Barlow, (afterwards Bishop of London); Dr. Hutchenson, Dr. Spenser, Fenton, Rabbet, Sanderson, and Dakins. Each was to translate the whole portion belonging to his company, and the several translations were to be collated and revised by the whole company, and then communicated to the other companies, in order that nothing might pass without mutual con

sent.

The varieties of translations to

which we have adverted occur in

the same divisions, the same books, and even the same chapters. The translators were well aware of them, and have vindicated them. They say in their Preface :

"We have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some, peradventure, would wish that we had done, because they observe that some learned men somewhere have been as exact as they could that way. Truly that we might not vary from the sense of that which we had

translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places, (for there

be some words that be not of the same

sense every where,) we were especially careful, and made a conscience, according to our duty. But, that we should express the same notion in the same particular word; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by purpose, never to call it intent; if one where journeying, never travelling; if one where think, never suppose; if one where pain, never ache; if one where joy, never gladness, &c. ; thus to mince the matter we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom, and that rather it would breed scorn in the atheist, than bring profit to the godly reader. For is the kingdom of

God become words or syllables? Why

should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free; use one precisely when we may use another, no less fit, as commodiously? A godly Father in the primitive time shewed himself greatly moved, that one of new fangleness called nçaßßator cxiμnous, though the difference be little or none; and another reporteth, that he was much abused for turning Cucurbita (to which reading the people had been used) into Hedera. Now if this happen in better times, and upon so small occasions, we might justly fear hard censure, if generally we should

make verbal and unnecessary changings. We might also be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English words. For as it is written of a certain philosopher, that he should say, that those logs were happy that were made images to be worshipped; for their fellows, as good as they, lay for blocks behind the fire so if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, στο have a place in the Bible always; and to others of like quality, Get ye hence, be banished for ever; we might be taxed peradventure with St. James his words, namely, to be partial in ourselves, and judges of evil thoughts. Add hereunto, that niceness in words was always counted

the next step to trifling, and so was to be curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature; we, if we will not be superstitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us."

It seems clear, from this elaborate apology, that the objection had been strongly pressed; and we cannot say that we think it removed. The proposed "uniformity of phrasing" we know could not have been obtained without

The

much expense of time and labour; nor indeed till copies had been printed for collation; and as the translators considered the matter more curious than important, we do not blame them for sending out their much-needed and preeminently valuable work with as little delay as possible. Yet that abstractedly the lax plan is the better, admits of question. particular words which they specify as examples, are sufficiently synonymous to allow of interchange; but even in these cases, as the Holy Ghost has employed several words of various shades of signification, there could have been no harm, and might have been some good, in " tying themselves to identity" where it could be conveniently done. But there are other words far more important than those which they specify. Why, for instance, should ПIpwroTakoç be rendered "first-begotten" Heb. i. 6, and Rev. i. 5, and every where else, "first-born." Why might not the English reader have a fac-simile, where it is so easily attainable, of the original? Why again should ευσεβεω, θεραπεύω, (once, Acts xvii. 25), λατρευω, προσκυνέω, σεβαζομαι, and σεβομαι, be all rendered promiscuously worship," without any attempt to classify their peculiar meanings; and yet under some of them two or more meanings be given, as