In their Preface the translators indicate with clearness the ends they chiefly desire to attain. The principal of these are: that the name ‘ Jehovah’. be inserted, wherever it occurs in the Hebrew, instead of ‘LorD’ or ‘God,’ which had hitherto taken its place. That ‘Sheol’ in the OT and ‘ Hades’ in the NT be used to express that unseen world which had been imperfectly or inconsistently denoted by ‘the grave,’ ‘the pit,’ ‘Gehenna.’ Throughout the NT they would replace ‘ Holy Ghost’ by ‘Holy Spirit.’ The translators desire to bring the diction as much as possible into har- mony with that in use at the present time. To this’ end they would always write ‘who’ for ‘which,’ when referring to persons ; ‘ are’ for ‘ be,’ in using the indicative ; and so on in many other instances.
It is obvious that in this last respect consistency cannot be ensured at once ; and fault will no doubt be found with the new revision on the ground of want of uniformity.
To advert for a moment to the special objects first spoken of as desirable, there can be little doubt that the restoration of the name ‘Jehovah’ will be a gain, wherever special stress is laid on it as that of the God of the Hebrews, as in Ex 3”. But in many other passages, notably in the Psalms, the frequent repetition of the name cannot put be felt a burden—a result which was avoided under the old system by the use of two short but impres- sive words, ‘ Lord’ and ‘ God.’ *
Whether the words ‘Sheol’ and ‘ Hades,’ one or both, will ever become naturalized in the English Bible is not easy to forecast. We have assimilated ‘Sabbath’ and ‘Pentecost,’ and many more such terms. Why, it may be asked, not these also ? Experience alone can decide.
So in the case of ‘Holy Spirit’ and ‘ Holy Ghost.’ There can be no question about the in- trinsic merit of the former. The one great objec- tion to-making the change is that ‘ Holy Ghost’ has become so deeply embedded in the creeds and formularies of the Church that it would be difficult
* In Pss 1-41 the name ‘Jehovah’ occurs 272, times, and in Pss 90-150 it occurs 339 times (see Kirkpatrick, Psalms, Intro- duction, p. 55).
=e
270 VERSIONS (ENGLISH)
to displace it. This holds good of the American Church as well as of our own.
Tt will perhaps be most serviceable to the reader to set down a few passages in which the new recension may be instructively compared with its immediate predecessor. It will be noticed in how many instances the American Version reverts to that of 1611.
Ee 12° ‘desire shall fail’? (Am. RV); ‘the caper-berry shall fail’ (RV). This would not be intelligible without the help of a commentator. It is explained that caper-berries were eaten before meals to give a whet to the appetite. If they failed to do so, it might be a sign of the coming on of old age.
Dt 32 ‘with the finest of the wheat’ (Am. RV); ‘with the fat of kidneys of wheat’ (RV, retaining the Hebrew figure of speech, by which the choicest parts of an animal for sacrifice were taken to ex- press what was finest in other objects. See Ex 2918), *
Zec 414 «these are the two anointed ones’ (Am. RV); ‘the two sons of oil’ (RV, retaining the Hebraism in its unmodified form),
Jer 17° ‘The heart is . . . exceedingly corrupt’ (Am. RV); ‘the heart is... desperately sick’ (RV).
Jg 5 ‘lead away thy captives’? (Am. RY); ‘lead thy captivity captive’ (RV).
Pr 13” ‘the way of the transgressor is hard’ oo RY) ; ‘the way of the treacherous is rugged’ (RV).
Ac 17” *Ye men of Athens, in all things I per- ceive that ye are very religious’ (Am. RV); ‘some- what superstitious’(RV). It is noticeable how the influence of the Vulgate has drawn all the English Versions, down to the AV inclusive, into rendering devordaruoverrépous by some form of ‘superstitious,’ But it is certain that St. Paul would not have raised a prejudice against himself by using an offensive term at the very outset of his address, Hence ‘religious’ (a sense in which the word is used by Josephus) is wisely taken as its equivalent. But in prefixing ‘very’ the American translators obscure the delicate shade of meaning in the com- parative.
Ph 2 ‘who, existing in the form of God, counted not the being on an equality with God a thing to be grasped’ (Am. RV); ‘who, being . . . counted it not a prize. ..’(RV). This rendering of iardp- xwv by ‘existing’ is a distinct improvement on the ‘being’ of the RV. ‘Prize’ (RV) renders more neatly than the later equivalent the aprayudv of the Grocie but not so literally (see Moule’s note on the passage). ‘Grasped’ should rather be ‘orasped at.’
1Th 2° ‘mieht have claimed authority ’ (Am. RV); ‘might have been burdensome’ (RV, with ‘claimed honour’ in the margin). The Greek is ambiguous, duvduevor ev Bape eva. The use of émiBaphoa in v.® in the sense of ‘prove a burden to,’ seems to carry év Bape elvac with it. But, as Ellicott points out, this is counterbalanced by the close connexion of the clause with Oday, so that the American Revisers may be right.