XIII. Present State of the Question. — 1. To take an accurate estimate of the extent to which the A.V. re- quires revision would call for nothing less than an ex- amination of each single book, and would therefore involve an amount of detail incompatible with our present limits. To give a few instances only would practically fix attention on a part onlv of the evidence, and so would lead to a false rather than a true esti- mate. No attempt, therefore, will be made to bring together individual passages as needing correction. A few remarks on the cliief questions which must necessaril}- come before those who undertake a revi- sion will not, perhaps, be out of place. Examples, classified under corresponding heads, will be found in the book by Dr. Trench already mentioned, and, scat- tered in the form of annotations, in that of professor Scholefield.
2. The translation of the N. T. is from a text con- fessedly imperfect. "What editions were used is a matter of conjecture ; most probably one of those pub- lished with a Latin version by Beza I)etween 1565 and 1598, and agreeing suljstantially with the Textus re- ceptus of 1C33. It is clear, on principle, that no revi- sion ought to ignore the results of the textual criti- cism of the last hundred years. To shrink from no- ticing any variation, to go on printing as the inspired Word that which there is a preponderant reason for believing to be an interpolation or a mistake, is neither honest or reverential. To do so for the sake of great- er edification is simply to offer to God the unclean sac- rifice of a lie. The autliority of the A. V. is, at anv rate, in favor of the practice of not sui)pressing facts. In Matt, i, 11; xxvi, 26; Luke xvii, 36; John viii, 6; Acts xiii, 18; Ephes. vi, !) ; Heb. ii, 4; .James ii, 18; 1 John ii, 23; 1 Peter ii, 21; 2 Peter ii, 11, 18; 2 John, 8, different readings are given in the margin, or, as in 1 John ii, 2.3, indicated b}' a different t3'pe. lu earlier versions, as has been mentioned, 1 John v, 7 was printed in smaller letters. The degree to which this should be done will, of course, require discern- ment. An apparatus like that in Tischendorf or Al- ford would obviously be out of place. Probably the useful Greek Testament edited by ]Mr. Scrivener might serye as an example of a middle course.
3. Still less had been done at the commencement of the 17th century for the text of the O. T. The Jew- isli teachers, from whom Protestant divines derived their knowledge, had given currency to the belief that in the Masoretic text -were contained the ipsissima rerftn of revelation, free from all risks of error, from all casualties of transcription. The conventional phrases, "the authentic Helirew," "the Hebrew verit}'," were the expression of this undiscerning reverence. They refused to applj' the same rules of judgment here which thej' applied to the text of the N.T. Thej^ assumed that the Masorites were infallible, and were reluctant to acknowledge that there had been any variations since. Even Walton did not escape being attacked as unsound by the great Puritan divine. Dr. John Owen, for having called attention to the fact of discrepancies (Proleg. ch. vi). The materials for a revised text are, of course, scantier than with the N. T. ; but the labors of Kennicott, De Rossi, J. H. Michaelis, and Davidson have not been fruitless, and here, as there, the older versions must be admitted as at least evidence of va- riations which once existed, but whicli were suppressed by the rigorous uniformity of the later rabbis. Con- jectural emendations, such as Newcome, Lowth, and Ewald have so freely suggested, ought to be ventured on in such places only as are quite unintelligible with- out them. See Criticism, Biblical.
4. All scholars worth}- of the name are now agreed that as little change as possible should be made in the language of the A. V. Happily there is little risk of an emasculated elegance such as might have infected a new version in the last century. The very fact of the admiration felt for the A. V., and the general rcr vival of a taste for the literature of the Elizabethan period, are safeguards against any like tampering now. Some words, however, absolutely need change, as be- ing altogether obsolete ; others, more numerous, have been slowh' passing into a different, often into a lower or a narrower meaning, and are therefore no longer ■what they once were, adequate renderings of the orig- inal.
5. The self-imposed law of fairness, which led the A. V. translators to admit as many English words as possible to the honor of representing one in the He- brew or Greek text, has, as might be expected, marred the perfection of their work. Sometimes the effect is simply the loss of the solemn emphasis of the repeti- tion of the same word ; sometimes it is more serious, and affects the meaning. While it would be simple pedantry to lay down unconditionally that but one and the same word should be used throughout for one in the original, there can be no doubt that such a lim- itation is the true principle to start with, and that in- stances to the contrary should be dealt with as excep- tional necessities. Side by side with this fault there is another just the opposite of it. One English word appears for several Greek or Hebrew words, and thus shades of meaning, often of importance to the right understanding of a passage, are lost sight of. Taken together, the two forms of error, which meet us in well- nigh every chapter, make the use of an English Con- cordance absolutcl}' misleading. Technical terms es- pecial!}' should be represented in as exact and uniform a manner as possible.