On methods of conducting Joint Revisions

EDITORS, AND REVISERS OF THE BIBLE. 11

for example, in some minds, to translate Gen. 4, ' I have begotten a man that is Jehovah' (see Luther's and Almeida's versions), and to render John viii. 25, 'The beginning as I have said to you;' but fanciful renderings like these should be well sifted by grammar, by the context, by the general analogy of Scripture, and by the opinion of sound scholars, before they are introduced. We should therefore say to a translator, Where a traditional rendering cannot manifestly be improved, accept it, and put any rendering in the margin which commends itself to yout own judgment very strongly, but which is not sanctioned by the majority of standard versions and authorities. 1 Jerome to a remarkable degree forbore to press his own views, though they were formed on a critical study of the text. Hence his notes and his version do not always agree.

Another rule which is important to be borne in mind, is this : Do not determine a sense where the original seems to have been purposely left ambiguous ; in other words, Do not let your translation be more definite than the original was intended to be. Our Authorised Version is a very good instance of conformity to this rule, the English language being capable of very considerable ambiguity from its want of genders. In many languages, however, the case is far different. Thus in the French language a great deal depends upon definiteness of expression. The manifest danger in such a case is lest a translator should put too much into a version, not too little, • He dare not sacrifice the idiomatic necessities of the language to a bald literal rendering; and hence his work is in danger of degenerating into a paraphrase. De Sacy's version, for example, is excellent French, but is decidedly too paraphrastic, introducing into the text many words which savour of comment. The Icelandic version is the same. Diodati, Luther, and other most eminent translators have found it impossible to avoid this evil altogether. A distinction was drawn by Rhenius in his interesting little work on Bible translation, between verbal, idiomatic, and paraphrastic translations. He himself in his Tamil version decidedly erred in the last-named direction. How far we may legitimately supplement the sense conveyed in the original by the use of italics will be discussed further on in this paper.

It would be beyond the scope of this paper to give critiques on the existing standard versions, but a few may be mentioned as especially useful to the translator. Of old standard versions the first place must naturally be given to the Septuagint, which, though

1 It is part of the business of the head of the Translating Department of the British and Foreign Bible Society to give advice on all such points. He has access to books and to living scholars, who are always ready to help ; and translators are freely invited to get aid through him in the matter of difficult texts, and also, if needful, to apply for a loan or grant of critical books.

12

SUGGESTIONS FOR TRANSLATORS,

it fails one in matters of text and exact criticism, gives the current sense of the Hebrew Scriptures as they were understood by the Alexandrine Jews two centuries before our Lord's time. Its chief value, as pointed out elsewhere, is in its choice of Greek words to represent predominating Hebrew ideas. The Latin Vulgate is of great value. We yet need a critical edition of it. In the Old Testament Jerome's renderings of difficult passages are frequently accompanied with the older renderings made from the Septuagint. These ought to have been put into brackets or thrown into the margin; the translation would then have been of far greater practical utility to other workers. Jerome was not only the most learned man_ of the fourth century, but he obtained the aid of Jewish teachers and helpers, by whose assistance he often got hold of renderings which are now accepted by our best scholars. His New Testament is not a fresh translation but is simply a recension of the old Latin text. The Syriac version is of exceeding value for those who can use it, having been made from the originals. Of comparatively modern versions, we should mention Luther's work not so much because of any merit due to it as a critical translation, but because of its directness and masculine vigour .

1 Diodati's Italian version is a very scholarly work, and one of decided individuality. The Dutch Bible and the most modern edition of Almeida's Portuguese Bible will be found useful. We should especially recommend the Modern Greek Bible, whiGh is quite intelligible to any who can read ancient Greek. The Arabic Bible is also of great value in making Oriental versions. The Modern Russ has been made from the original with much care, but it is a sealed-book to most translators. Of the versions made in more distant lands, several are of great value, having been made by many hands and with the help of the original. Of Modern Latin Versions Castalia affected too great elegance ; Pagninus made his version too Hebraic ; Arias Montanus, in his determination to be systematic, let uniformity become his master instead of his servant ; Father Simon says of him that he attempted to correct Pagninus, but quot correctiones, tot corruptiones ! The versions of Beza, Munster, and Tremellius and Junius may be consuJted with advantage.

1 Luther must not be followed as an infallible guide. He ought not to have introduced the name Christ into Dan. ix. 25, 26, and his translation of some important expressions, as for example, 'the righteousness of God,' Rom, i. 17, &c., is too paraphrastic.

EDITORS, AND REVISERS OF THE BIBLE. 13

§ 3.-THE RECEIVED TEXT TO BE FOLLOWED; ON THE USE OF ALTERNATIVE READINGS.

The translators of the English Authorised Version have taken very few liberties with the received Hebrew text as published by Van der Hooght and his successors. Occasionally, but very rarely, they have allowed themselves to alter points, to transpose letters, to disregard aC'cents, and even to accept a conjectural emendation. They have freely availed themselves of the Hebrew marginal readings called Keri, and they have accepted in some doubtful passages the suggestions of the Chaldee Targums, the Greek Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate.

This respect for the Hebrew text as a generally safe guide not to be departed from except in extreme cases, is very much to be commended, and the example thus set by men of learning and authority ought to be followed by translators generally.

It is true that Hebrew MSS. have been largely collated since 1611, but the results (as at present known) are not such as to justify the abandonment of the received text in many important particulars. A further and more scientific collation, now ( 1877) in course of preparation by Mr. J. B. Ginsburg, may lead to some further changes, but it would be premature to speculate upon their nature at present.

There can be no doubt that there are preserved in the LXX., the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Syriac, and the Latin Vulgate, some ancient readings of great value which are not to be found in our present Hebrew copies. Occasionally also some very important readings of Old Testament passages appear to have been preserved in quotations in the New Testament. Thus in Gen. ii. 24, where our Hebrew text is "they shall be one flesh," the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Ancient Versions are supported by our Lord and by St. Paul in their reading, 'They TWO shall be one flesh.' Again, in Deut. xxvii. 26, the existing Hebrew text stands thus, ' Cursed be he that confirmeth not the words of this law to do them.' Our translators have added the important word all in italics, out of deference no doubt to St. Paul's quotation, and the introduction of this word is supported by the testimony of the Samaritan Pentateuch and of many Hebrew MSS.

Although the Hebrew points are not of the highest authority, yet they generally represent the traditional Jewish pronunciation, just as the accents represent the old intonation. Each may be departed from on occasion, when standard authorities and scholars justify such a departure, but translators ought not lightly to avail themselves of this liberty. Where New Testament

t4

SUGGESTIO~S FOR TE,ANSLATORS,

authority can be cited in favour of altering the vowel points in the Old Testament, there appears no reason why it should not be done. This is notably the case in Gen. xlvii. 31, where by altering the points of the word rendered bed it would be translated staff, and would thus be conformed to the LXX. and to the reference in Heb. xi. 2L.

A. translator employed on a version to be published by the British and Foreign Bible Society, wishing to introduce alternative readings into the margin, other than those sanctioned by the usage of the English version, ought to submit the list beforehand to the head of the Translation Department for the sanction of the Committee. He must not attempt emendations of his own without this sanction, as it would be quite out of the power of the Committee to accept them. This restriction is trying to some, but for the present at any rate no greater liberty can safely be extended.

With regard to the New Testament the state of the case is certainly very different from that of the Old. The last half century has wrought a revolution in the views of textual critics. Important MSS. have been discovered; there has been a col1ation and classification of most of the known MSS., together with a verification of old versions, and a searching criticism of early quotations. We have now abundant materials for the establishment of a text generally answering to that which was current in the 4th century, and although editors have not yet come to an agreement as to certain passages, yet there is a strong tendency towards union, and probably in a very few years a text may be prepared which (being accompanied with a certain number of alternative readings) will be stamped with the authority of the leading masters of textual criticism, including the most cautious and conservative amongst them.

Meanwhile there must be patience. It would be unwise to allow translators to pick and choose for themselves amongst the ever-varying critical editions. Until a new text is ready, the least inconvenient course would be to follow the Greek Textus Receptus, obtaining permission to put a few passages of more than doubtful authority into brackets, and to insert in the margin a few important alternative readings. This permission would probr1.bly be granted by the Committet:: of the Bible Society, provided a list of those readings proposed to be thus adopted were sent beforehand for the approval of the Editorial Superintendent and Sub-Committee.

EDITORS, AND REVISERS OF THE BIBLE. 15

§ 4.-0N ACCURACY AND CONSISTENCY IN THE TRANSLATION OF RELIGIOUS TERMS.

' A translator of the Bible finds his work beset with difficulties at every step. He has not on]y to seek how he may convey sub]ime and heavenly ideas in human idioms, but also to feel about for bare words, and this, not merely in such matters as unknown weights, measures, animals, and trees, but in others of far greater importance. He constantly has to pause and consider whether he had better use a native word, which but indifferently represents the original, or whether it be preferable to transfer a word from the Hebrew, Greek, or some other language. In the one case he is· in danger of creating a misunderstanding in the mind of his readers; in the other, he is certain to convey no sense at all until by oral teaching, or otherwise, the newly-grafted word has become familiar. He wants to speak of the sins of the flesh, and can only find a word which signifies meat; he has to speak of angels, and must choose between messengers and genii; he wants to write about the hngdoni of heaven, but finds to his astonishment that such a thing as a kingdom is unknown ; he has to speak concerning the soul and the spirit to those who are apparently without a conception of anything beyond the body. Thus a version of the Scripture must needs be full of anomalies and obscurities at first, and though the substantial facts contained therein may be plainly set down, a clear understanding of its details will only be arrived at after much study on the part of native readers.' 1

Every sentence in a new translation ought to be read out to natives,-not to one only, but to several,-before it is finally fixed; and all must be done that can be done to make it intelligible to them. The importance of this rule is extreme, owing to the fact that the missionary is not usually translating into his own mother tongue, or into one with which he is thoroughly familiar, but into what even after many years is still a strange language to him. He may know it not only superficially, but well, and yet be unable to fathom the ideas which certain words awaken in the mind of his reader.

It is not until one has thoroughly investigated the subject, that one realises the strict consistency with which certain words are used for definite purposes in the Old and New Testaments. Our English translators have by no means attained the like accuracy, but it is to be hoped that the revisors will do so. All important words in Scripture ought to be rendered uniformly. This can readily be done in the case of the Old Testament by means of

1 ' Old Testament Synonyms,' p. 32.

16

SUGGESTIONS FOR TRANSLATORS,

Fiirst's 'Hebrew Concordance,' the 'Englishman's Hebrew Concordance,' or Wilson's 'Dictionary and Concordance.' The leading Greek word used in the LXX. to represent each Hebrew term can be learnt from Trommius' or Kircher's 'Concordance.' The translator then turns to the Greek Testament, armed with a set of words suitable for every important topic there introduced ; and by the aid of the ' Englishman's Greek Concordance,' or, better still, Bruder' s ' Concordance,' he can make his renderings consistent throughout.

This plan will commend itself to every thoughtful mind when it is remembered that the Greek in which the New Testament was written was formed amongst the Jews by the impregnation of Greek words with Hebrew ideas. The Septuagint version of the Old Testament is thus the key to the Greek of -the New Testament, and in order to understand it we must go back to the Hebrew so as to discover what were the ideas imported into it from that source.

But the question will be asked, What classes of words are we to treat in this elaborate way? To subject all the words in the Bible to this exhaustive process would be an endless task. We answer by subjoining a list of the most important words, which we recommend translators to make up their minds about before they begin their work. Having once determined, after much conference with their brethren and with natives, the right word to be used in each case, let them adhere to it throughout the Bible.1 (i.) The various names for God. (ii.) If the language contains different names for man, answering to those used in Hebrew and Greek, let them be noted. (iii.) Psychological words, such as those for spirit, soul, heart, will, desire, pleasure, conscience. (iv.) Words for heaven, earth, world, land, nation, tribe. (v.) Words representing sin in its varied aspects, and those which have to do with temptation and the tempter. (vi.) Moral attribides, such as perfection, uprightness, righteousness, justice, truth, faithfulness, love, grace, pity, mercy, compassion, long-suffering, gentleness, meekness, humility, holiness. (vii.) Words for repentance, conversion, &c. (viii.) Words marking God's way of salvation, such as salvation, propitiation, reconciliation, pardon, deliverance, acceptance, redemption. (ix.) Ceremonial words for washing, sprinkling, baptizing. (x.) Sacrificial words, for the various offerings, and for the altar, incense, &c.

1 All these terms, with others, are uisct1ssed at length in the writer's work on ' Old Testament Synonyms,' Longmans, 1870.

EDITOUS, AND REVISERS OF THE BIBLE. 17

(xi.) De11:otiona.l wo1·ds, for prayer, praise, worship, temple, church, synagogue. lxii.) Official terms, for prophet, seer, king, judge, priest, minister, presbyter, bishop, deacon. (xiii.) Words relating to death, the grave, the peace of the departed, eternity, the final condition of the saved and lost.

§ 5.-0N THE TRANSLATION OR REPRESENTATION OF THE BIBLICAL NAMES FOR GOD.

The missionary is a preacher before he becomes a translator. As soon as he has made himself somewhat familiar with the language of the people amongst whom he is called to work, it becomes his business to find out the nature of their religion. Whom do they worship'? What is their name for the Supreme Being to whom they look as their Creator,-if there is one? What ideas have they of his character'? Sometimes the answer is easily obtained,-as amongst the American Indian tribes. Sometimes there are 'Lords many and Gods many,' and it is no easy matter to choose amongst them. At other times, as amongst the Bechuanas, there is the greatest difficulty in finding out whether there is any object of reverence or worship among the people at all.

Much care is needed by the missionary in taking the first step, as it is not easy to recede. Three possible courses present themselves to him : He may transfer the Hebrew name; or he may translate it ; or he may substitute for it that one among the existing titles for God in the language which appears most suitable. The most general name in Hebrew is Elohim, which no doubt originally conveyed to the Jewish mind an idea of Power. Whether it was a primreval word or not we cannot tell, as we do not know whether Hebrew was the primreval language. It runs through the Semitic family, but does not appear to be indigenous in the Aryan or Turanian groups of languages. The Greeks, Romans, and other Aryan races had a different word, which is supposed by some moderns to have originally signified the Dawn of Day, though Greeks of the age of Plato and Aristotle seem to have thought otherwise. This word (THEOS) was accepted by the Alexandrine Jews as a substitute for ELOHIM, and has been acquiesced in ever since. The Persians, Hindoos, Teutons, Scandinavians, and others (though also of Aryan origin) had a totally different word,-that which we call GoD,-which is popularly supposed, though on doubtful authority, to signify the Good. The Sclavonic races have another utterly different word, BOGH; the Finnish races, JUMAL; the Hungarians, ISTEN; the Basques, JATNCOA; the Albanians, PERENDIA ; the Bengal is, ISHW AR; the Chinese, alas ! who shall

B

18

SUGGESTIONS FOR TRANSLATORS,

answer? Aclhiw sitb judice lis est! We have no doubt that missionaries in each case have done their best to find the most suitable name in the language, though of course they may have made mistakes. If all the names which were connected in the heathen mind with idolatrous rites were to be rejected, it is hard to know what would be left. 'Every care should be taken to select the best word, but it is well to remember that in all countries the truth about God is gathered not so much from the name as from what is taught concerning Him who bears it. Little by little the false ideas which man too readily forms with respect to his Maker are removed from his mind, and new thoughts take their place.' 1 As there will be false Christs, so there have been and still are false Gods, but we must not be debarred from using the title in a good sense because it has been used in a bad sense by others. Thus in the case of China, although the ideas which some minds associate with SHA.NG-TI are false, yet in the opinion of many missionaries there is no other name which seems on the whole to answer so well to that of ELOHIM. With this judgment the present writer, after examining most of what has been written on each side, from the days of the Portuguese missionaries to those of Canon McClatchie, is inclined to agree.

The whole question, however, is one for missionaries to decide ; and Bible Societies must defer to their views on the matter, and must be prepared to print versions in which that name for God is adopted which, after deliberate judgment and conference, experienced men sanction as the best.

Before leaving the title ELOHIM, we must not omit a passing notice of its secondary sense as applied to J1idges, who are called Gods, because they act in a magisterial capacity, as God's representatives. See Ex. xxi. 6; xxii. 8, 9, 28 (where our translators have missed the sense, as they have also done apparently in 1 Sam. xxviii. 13). If the word is translated Judges in these passages, the word 'gods ' should be put in the margin, and a reference given to the 82nd Psalm and to our Lord's comment thereon, which shows that those were called gods to whom the word of God came. See John x. 34-36.

Passing by the other Hebrew names for God, such as ELION, the Most High; SHADDAI, the All-Sufficient or Most Bountiful ; and ADONAI, the Lord or Master; a few remarks must be made on the name JEHOVAH. Some translators have felt strongly the duty of retaining it ; others have a decided objection to this course, and have translated it by a word meaning ' Lord,' or (in a few cases) • the Eternal.' ·The Alexandrine Jews unfortunately

1 'Synonyms of the Old Testament,' p. 47. The subject of the present Section is gone into fully in the second chapter of that book.

EDITORS, AND REVISERS OF THE BIBLE, 19

used the same word for JEHOVAH as for ADONAI, hence no difference is made in the Greek Testament, and it thus becomes impossible to tell whether the title ' Lord,' when found there, stands for Adonai or for Jehovah. It is true that there are some phrases, such as 'the angel of the Lord,' where the matter can be decided by reference to Old Testament usage, and there are quotations from the Old Testament where of course the Hebrew is a safe guide; but in other passages a translator must be left to his own judgment. The interest and the difficulty of the question thus presented become enhanced when we reflect that the title ' Lord ' is so often used with reference to the Saviour in the New Testament, and that it may be legitimately inferred from some Old Testament passages quoted by the apostles, that the name Jehovah was not only applicable to the Father, but also to the Son.

Certainly the title Jehovah ought to be distinguished from Adonai throughout the Old Testament, either by difference of type (a line of explanation as to this peculiarity being printed with the Table of Contents), or by a difference of translation (the one being the Living or Eternal, the other the Master or Possessor), or by a reproduction of the word itself. There can be no serious objection to any one of these courses. Where Jehovah is plainly referred to in the New Testament a uniform rendering should· be given. Where it only appears probable, a marginal alternative may be suggested.

§ 6.-ON THE TRANSFERENCE OR TRANSLATION OF THE WORD BAPTIZE.

It may seem strange that the mode of administering the initiatory rite of the Christian Church should be made to depend on the rendering of one word, and that a special denomination should be named after it, but so it is. Nay more, a Bible Translation Society has been formed solely (in the first place) with the view of rendering the word Baptizo by one which signifies immerse. The Society in question, however, has enlarged its field of operations, and has done good service in the cause of Bible Translation, taking as its fundamental principles these two admirable positions, first, that every word in the Bible which can be translated ought to be translated; and secondly, that the text from which translations are made ought to be in accordance with the best MS. readings of the Old and New Testaments. The practical bearing of the second of these aphorisms has been briefly considered in a previous section. In dealing now with the first of them, the writer wishes to guard both himself and the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society, with whose feelings he is well acquainted,

B2

20

SUGGESTIONS FOR TRANSLATORS,

from the imputation of any want of due respect for the views of their Baptist brethren. It is simply as a Biblical student that he approaches the question, and he wishes in doing so to give all honour to those members of the Baptist persuasion who from the days of Carey to those of Wenger and Saker have taken part in the work of Bible Translation.

We would lay down the following principles as of importance in discussing the right term for Baptism in any language :-(i.) that Greek words found in the New Testament must be translated in accordance with Jewish usage, rather than with classical usage ; (ii.) that technical and ceremonial words ought to be translated as far as possible by analogous words in other languages ; (iii.) that where those analogous words do not exist, it is often a wise course to leave the word untranslated.

Let us apply these principles to the case in question. What was the Jewish use of the word Baptize ? With the Septuagint and Greek Testament before us, we may confidently answer that it is a ceremonial word, used in a peculiar technical sense, and that a term signifying sac1·ecl washing would be its best representative in another language. To clip is bapto ; to wash for the purpose of cleansing ceremonially is baptizo. Ceremonial washing might take place by the process of dipping, as in the instance of N aaman (2 Kings v. 10-14, ' Go wash ' . . ' he clipped ( or baptized) himself seven times'), or it might be performed by the process of sprinkling, as in Ecclesiasticus xxxiv. 25, where we read of one washing himself ( or being baptized) after the touching a dead body, that is to say by being sprinkled, as we see from Numbers xix. 13. The washings or baptisms of persons and vessels mentioned in Mark vii. 4, 8 ; Luke xi. 38, and the divers washings or baptisms mentioned in Heb. ix. 10, were of the nature of ceremonial washing, and were performed by pouring or sprinkling, not by dipping.

The mode of administration in · the case of the Christian rite is not defined in Scripture, nor was it rigorously restricted to immersion, so far as we can gather from early Christian usage or from ancient and standard versions. When, therefore, new translations were made by Baptist Missionaries, and a particular rendering was g~ven which supported the views of one denomination and condemned the usage of almost all others, complaints were made, and it became the duty of the Committee of the British and Foreign Bible Society to consider what course they ought to adopt. The rule they have acted upon is evidently based on the fact shown above, that the word baptism means ceremonial washing, whether by dipping, pouring, or sprinkling. They have decided that the word Baptizo and its cognates should be transferred into the language of any new version, as is done in the English Bible, unless it can be translated by some native word indicative of

EDITORS, AND REVISERS OF THE BIBLE. 21

sacred washing, and not implying that either dipping or sprmkling is the essential matter.

One cannot help asking before passing on, what does the rite of Baptism symbolise? Is it not the washing of the inner man, of the moral being, by the Blood of Christ, and by the clean water of the Holy Ghost ? We are not dipped in the blood, but sprinkled by it-the heart being sprinkled from an evil conscience ; we are not plunged in the Spirit, but cleansed by Him, our bodies washed with pure water (Heb. x. 22), by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour (Titus iii. 6).

It has often been considered whether it would be possible to harmonise the differences existing among Christian brethren on this subject by giving alternative renderings in the margin or at the foot of the page where the word first occurs in the New Testament, the word Baptize being kept in the text. A statement might be inserted to this effect:-' This word is used in Scripture in the sense of sacred washing, whether by dipping, pouring, or sprinkling.' If Baptists would accept this statement, which is most certainly true, the difficulty which now exists might be got over.1

§ 7.-ON DIVERSITIES OF DIALECT AND STYLE; AND ON HONORIFIC TITLES.

Dialectal differences exist in all large and populous countries. We find them in England, France, Germany, Italy, &c. They haunt the Missionary and Translator in Abyssinia, Sierra Leone, Malabar, China, the Saskatchewan, and Madagascar. How far is he to attend to them? The general principle may safely be laid down that the sooner dialects are done away with, the better; and there is no more excellent way for accomplishing this object than by adhering to the predominant form of the language as far as possible in preaching and te<1ching, and alt'Ogether in printing. Dialectal variations in words may conveniently be printed in early editions of the Scriptures in one or other of the following ways, which have all been adopted at various times with the sanction of the British and Foreign Bible Society. They may be inserted in brackets, or in the margin, or at the foot of the page, or (which is

1 It is sometimes supposed that the Bible Society ought to circulate denominational versions, inasmuch as it has occasionally sanetioned the circulation of ver:,;ions made from the Latin Vulgate; but those who take this ground may be reminded that in the Vulgate versions there is no systematic use of any ritual, ceremonial, or moral term, condemning the practice of other Christians. It is the exclusiveness of the term ' immerse' which led Protestant missionaries to appeal to the Bible Society to discontinue their sanction of it in modern versions.

22

SUGGESTIONS FOR TRANSLATORS,

the most convenient plan, though it has not often been permitted) they may be introduced as a glossary at the end of the book. The glossary in such a case becomes simply an alphabetical list of alterna~ive renderings, thrown together at the end for the reader's convemence.

It is impossible to lay down a boundary line between dialects and languages ; or to determine, by rule. where a new translation is needed in consequence of a marked variation in speech. It may be said generally that where diversities only affect names of things, the variation is simply one of dialect; but where the grammar varies. this is a sign of a distinct language.

Not only do we fip.d diversities of dialect in a language, but also marked differences of style. Thus in Turkish there is an elaborate upper class style, abounding with inflated expressions, and there is a vulgar style, far more direct, which is current among the lower classes. In some Oriental languages there is a style peculiar to ancient poetry, legends, and religion, and it would be thought by the natives highly improper to express theological ideas in writing in any other, whatever may be done in speaking. 'To read the Bible in the language of Chaucer, and then expound it or preach it in that of Spurgeon or John Bunyan, would be something like what we hear when a (Telugu) pandit expounds any classical poem to a

Hindu audience.'1 'All are agreed,' says the writer just quoted, ' that the language in which the Holy Scriptures are given to the people should be granimatical in the ordinary and best meaning of that word, and as free from vulgarisms as possible.' The language used by the pandit, the sovereign, and the man of toil cannot be regarded as 'vulgar' in an objectionable sense, though most truly 'the vulgar tongue.' Words ought to be used in the sense in which they are understood by the people; and this may generally be done without making a version rude and boorish.

There exist in some languages, such as Singhalese, some peculiar honorific titles used in addressing a superior, and applied in the same way as we speak of 'your Majesty,' 'your Serene Highness.' &c. These have given considerable trouble to Missionaries, and consequently to translators. In Singhalese the simple word for

Thou is To, but there are grades of fancy titles, until we reach the exalted 'Oba-wahansay.' Custom and national prejudice are in favour of the use of these honorific terms in approaching God whether in prayer or otherwise; and it is by no means easy to overcome these strong feelings of the natives without giving serious offence in the process. The words of the Rev. S. Lambrick, who took a prominent part in the discussion of this question, are applicable to other countries and circumstances as well as to the

1 Rev. John Hay, in his Introduction to the revised Telugtt Genesis.

EDITORS, AND REVISERS OF THE BIBLE.

case of Ceylon. He says, 'in fixing on the best principle on which a version of the Scriptures should be made, let those who are to determine it bear in mind that they are acting for the benefit of a future Christian community, and let them recollect that there are always great impediments in the way of changing a long received version of the Bible ; and that the thanks of the Churches, which will hereafter rise up and call them blessed, will be given in proportion to the vigour with which they now stem the torrent of present prejudices, real and assumed, in order to give them a version resembling the beautiful simplicity and transparent perspicuity of the original.'

§ 8.-CASES IN WHICH A TRANSLATOR IS LIABLE TO BE MISLED BY THE ENGLISH BIBLE.

As these' suggestions' are not for the general public, but for the few, no apology is needed for discussing what might seem at first sight to imply a want of confidence in the English Authorised Version. The writer's only object is to point out various matters calling for watchfulness on the part of the translator, who is frequently in danger of following the English Version to the neglect of the original. To go through the whole Bible, pointing out all doubtful renderings,· would be utterly beyond the scope of this paper; besides, it is always much easier to criticise the work of others than to suggest anything better.

The excellence of the Authorised Version is acknowledged even by those who wish to see it made more accurate. But it is one thing to praise a version as a good one for readers, and another to set it forth as a basis of foreign translations. In the nature of things the English language is not good for this purpose, though better, in certain respects, than the Latin, from which Roman Catholics have to translate. Nor is it to be forgotten that accuracy in certain details is more within the reach of translators now than it was in A.D. 1611. Whilst, therefore, a missionary who has undertaken to prepare a version in a new language may take the English Bible as an admirable model of what a vernacular translation ought to be, and whilst he generally follows its guidance in the renderings of difficult passages, he must not allow himself to be led blindfold, but must be on his guard lest it should cause him to go astray in certain important particulars. Of these the following are especially worthy of notice:(i.) The use of the definite article has not al ways been sufficiently attended to either in the Old Testament or the New. Numerous instances might be cited, but it is unnecessary to do more than point out the fact and urge the importance of always examining

24

SUGGESTIONS FOR TRANSLATORS,

the original in this matter. Versions made from the Latin are peculiarly liable to defect here, because that language has no definite article. It is now a generally accepted rule amongst Biblical critics that if a definite article is in the original, it should be expressed, as far as is consistent with the nature of the language into which a translation is being made ; but the absence of the definite article in the original does not equally necessitate its absence in the translation. (ii.) With regard to the use of prepositions v<1.rious points are to be observed. Our word •of' is peculiarly ambiguous, and the original should be consulted in doubtful cases. It often stands for • from,' as in the sentences ' He shall not speak of himself' (John xvi. 13), 'My kingdom is not of this world' (John xviii. 36), 'The righteousness which is of God' (Phil. iii. 9), • An apostle, not of men' (Gal. i. 1), 'A Hebrew of the Hebrews' (Phil. iii. 5).

Again, the word • by' is misleading in the expressions • Justified by faith' (Rom. v. 1 ), 'I know nothing by myself' (1 Cor. iv. 4). The preposition ' for' is ambiguous in the sentence ' Faith was reckoned to him for righteousness' (Rom. iv. 3). It is very much to be doubted whether our translators were right in following the Geneva version in Phil. ii. 10, where we read 'At the name of Jesus every knee should bow,' instead of 'in the name,' &c., as the older versions read.

The words 'by' and 'through' ought to be more carefully distinguished in the New Testament, especially where the direct work of God the Father, as contrasted with the operation of His agents, is referred to.

The preposition 'in' is much used by St. Paul when treating oi the union between Christ and His people. It needs a more careful and systematic rendering than it has sometimes received. Perhaps it has never been worse translated than in Eph. iv. 32, ' God for Christ's sake,' instead of 'God in Christ.'

For instances of other doubtful renderings of prepositions in St. Paul's Epistles see Rom. iii. 21, 2 Cor. v. 20, 1 Thess. iv. 14, 2 Thess. ii. 1. (iii.) We may now pass on to consider the tenses. There are only two tenses in Hebrew, and they are used with great latitude, though no doubt the sacred writers had a system of their own which may best be discovered by comparing the application of the tenses in Arabic at the present time. Our English translators, on the whole, have hit the sense marvellously ; but in the poetical and prophetical books it is often very difficult to tell what tense should be used. Future things are regarded by the prophet as having already taken place before his mind's eye; and what is present in its results cannot always be distinguished from what is past in its causes. No clear rules can be given for the guidance of trans-

EDITORS, AND REVISERS OF THE BTBLE. 25

lators, but the views of Dr. Robert Young, as set forth in his new English version, are certainly worthy of consideration.

The Authorised Version does not always give an accurate idea of the tenses in the New Testament. The Greek present is really very often an incomplete tense, marking something which is going on, or which is certain to take place. When this tense is in the passive voice, it needs much care in translation, as the ordinary English rendering is too much like a perfect tense. Thus, 'Ye are builded' (Eph. ii. 22) signifies ' ye are being builded,' and ' My body which is given' (Luke xxii. 19) signifies 'which is being given, or about to be given.'

There is a remarkable use of the aorist in several of St. Paul's Epistles, where he refers to the change which came over the converts on their acceptance of Christ. See, for example, I Cor. vii. 18, 2 Cor. v. 5, Gal. ii. 19, iii. 27, Col. ii. 20. Some critics, including the late Dean Alford, would translate these as past tenses. Our translators, however, seem to have taken the aorist as referring to the action itself rather than to the fact of its completion ; they considered, in other words, that it answered to the Hebrew tense which some call the present.

The perfect tense, in the Greek, might sometimes be more clearly denoted than it has been, as in Rom. iii. 21, Gal. ii. 20, Eph. ii. 5, and 2 Thess. ii. 2.

The future tense is not to be distinguished in our English Bible from the will, pleasu,re, or determination of the agent to act. For this the Hebrew and Greek languages have special words, which should be carefully watched for and trans]ated. (iv.) The distinction between the copula and the various verbs denoting existence is an important one, and is to be observed in translating both Testaments. Our language is very imperfect in this respect. Compare, for example, the English with the original in John viii. 58, ' Before Abraham was, I am.' Our translators have done their best to render the verb ryl"/voµa1, both here and in other passages, and have resorted to various words for this purpose. Thus, in John i. 3, we read 'all things were made by him;' verse 1 2, ' power to beconie the sons of God ; ' verse 14, ' the word was niade flesh;' verse 15, 'is preferred before me;' verse 17, 'grace and truth canie by Jesus Christ;' verse 28, 'these things 1were done in Bethabara.'

The verb 'to be rmade' is often misleading when applied to Christ, who was 'neither made nor created, but begotten.' Thus when He is described in our version of the 8th Psalm and in the 2nd of Hebrews, as 'made a little lower than the angels,' an ordinary reader might be seriously misled. By using the word 'set' or 'put' instead of 'made,' the true sense would be brought to light.

26

SUGGESTIONS FOR TRANSLATORS,

Passing from gmrnrnatical inaccuracies to ,verbal, one feels like the mariner about to start on an ocean; but as these suggestions are not intended to take the place of dictionaries or critical works, it will be enough to put the translator generally on his guard against accepting the English words he sees before him as if they were necessarily the best. Generally speaking they are the most accurate that could be found at the time, but it must be remembered that some have disappeared from use, as 'alto' (i.e. altogether) in the phrase 'alto brake his skull' (Jud. ix. 53), which printers in their wisdom have turned into 'all to break his skull.' Others have lost their original sense, as 'carriage,' nephew, &c.; whilst others are not translations at all, but simply reproductions from the Latin, Greek, or Hebrew, as baptize, repent, amen, hallelujah, charity, create, justify, church, bishop, martyr, tetrarch, mystery, religion, spirit, synagogue1 presbyter, parable, communion, person, conversation. Although most of these words are now naturalised, their exact meaning in the original ought to be well weighed so far as it can be ascertained.

In numerous instances the point of a passage is lost by the variation of a word in the translation where it is designedly the same in the original. This is the case both in the Old and New Testaments. Instances may be found in Acts xxiv. 5, 14, Rom. x. 15, 16, 1 Tim. i. 15, I 6, Heb. xii. 27, 28. They should diligently be watched for. It is a pity that the force of an argument should be lost merely so as to afford an instance of the wealth of a language.

This leads us to consider another point, which has been often discussed, viz. : whether the same word in the original should always be rendered in the same way. First, it is to be noticed that a word in the original may have several distinct senses, and therefore miist be translated by different words. Secondly, there are many words which may be rendered in various ways without at all sacrificing the sense. In some languages (especially in the South Seas) variation of words is almost imperative, if one does not wish to shock the taste of the natives. But, having made these concessions to taste, it must be affirmed as a settled principle, that wherever the sacred writer's argument seems to depend in the slightest degree on the use of the same word, there the same word ought to be retained in the translation. Thus, there is no harm in using the words ' eternal ' and ' everlasting' in our Bible as renderings for the same Greek word, but it is a mistake to vary them in such a dogmatic passage as Matt. xxv. 46. Numerous instances in which our translators have departed from consistency will be noted if the usage of the foilowing words amongst others in our English Bible be examined in the light of the original : miracles and signs ; comfort and consolation ; creature and crea-

EDITORS, AND REVISERS OF THE BII3LE. 27

tion; apostleship and mission ; teaching and doctrine ; soul and life; blessed and happy; serve and. worship; castaway and reprobate ; righteous and just ; reckon, impute, and account ; covenant and testament ; coming, appearing, and manifestation ; dispensation and stewardship ; sanctification and holiness. Considering that our translators 'made a conscience' of always translating important words consistently, it would seem strange that they have varied their expressions in so many passages in which a uniformity of rendering would have helped the reader to see the connection of a passage. In discussing the matter in their Preface to the Authorised Version, they expressed themselves admirably on the subject, drawing a most just distinction between those variations which were desirable and those which were undesirable. But their theory appears to have somewhat broken down in practice. These are their words:'We have not tied ourselves to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words. Truly, that we might not vary fr01n 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 everywhere), we were especially careful, and made a conscience according to our duty. But that we should express the same notion in the same particul~r word ; as for example, if we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once by purpose, never to call it intent; if one were journeying, never travelling,,- if one were to think, never suppose, &c. ; thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than wisdom. . . . For is the kingdom of God become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them, if we may be free? Why use one precisely when we may use another, no less fit, as commodiously?

Translators cannot do better than walk in the course thus laid down, declining, however, to follow the English Version where it departs from its own principles.

§ 9.-ALTERNATIVE RENDERINGS, EXPLANATIONS OF PROPER NAMES, &c.

There are many words and passages of Scripture about the exact meaning of which there has ever been, and probably must continue to be, difference of opinion. Authorities for the different renderings will be equally, or almost equally, balanced. Again, there are renderings sanctioned by the use of ages which modern critics are disinclined to allow. What is to be done in such cases? The translator must act according to his judgment; and very heavy is the burden thus laid upon him; but it v;ill be a material relief to him to adopt some such plan as the translators of the English Bible have sanctioned, viz., the use of alternative renderings. The

28

SUGGESTIONS FOR TRANSLATORS,

other plan-which exists in the Latin Vulgate-is to combine two renderings in one. and thus to exhibit the testimony of the Septuagint and that of Jerome side by side without giving the reader a hint by the use of brackets or otherwise that the two renderings stand for one text.

Our ordinary English Reference Bibles contain abo·Jt eight thousand marginal variations, even when issued ' without note or comment ; • they are. however. neither of a doctrinal nor practical character, but are generally such elucidations of the original text as every careful reader ought to possess. The rule with respect to their introduction, as laid down by James I., stands as follows : 'No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew and Greek words. which cannot without some circumlocution so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text.' This rule has been fairly carried out, and may be taken as a guide by translators in all languages; but unfortunately English readers fail to derive full benefit from the materials thus provided for their use, owing to the fact that they are mixed up with crowds of references ; moreover, in most editions they have but two marks by which their presence is indicated, viz., t and 11, the former denoting a critical expl?-nation, and the latter an alternative reading. It would be far better to separate them from the references, and to put them in a separate column or at the foot of the page, marking them with small figures by which each can be identified.

Taking the Authorised Version as our guide, we find that the kind of notes which are admissible may be classified as follows :(i.) Liteml translations of Hebrew expressions for which an idiomatic 1·endering is given in the text.-The original words often have a force which corresponding idioms in other languages have not, and it is of great interest to the reader to be put in possession of the literal rendering in many cases. Thus :-

Text. Ex: vi. 8, 'I did swear to give it.' Ex:. xxix. 9, 'consecrate Aaron. 1 Sam. nii. 22, 'Saluteu his brethren.' 1 Sam. x. 24, 'God save the king.' I Kings xxii. 34, 'at a venture.' .Tob iii. 9, 'the dawning of the Jay.' Ps. xxxvii. 5, ' Commit thy way unto the Lord.' Is. xxvi. 4, 'everlasting streIJgth.'

:Margin. ' I lift up my hand,' &c. 'Fill the hand of Aaron.' 'Asked his brethren of peace.' ' Let the king live.' 'In his simplicity.' ' The eyelids of the morning.' ' Roll thy way upon the Lonl.'

'The Rock of Ages.'

See also Gen. iv. 3, Ex. xii. 6, xiii. 18, Lev. xvm. 18, I Sam. xv. 9. (ii.) Specific or technical renderings of words to which a less definite interpretation has been given in the text. Examples are: 'builded' for 'made,• Gen. ii. 22 ; 'nests' for 'rooms,' Gen. vi.

EDITOHS, AND REVISERS OF THE BIDLE.

2!)

14 ; 'whet or sharpen' for 'teach them diligently,' Deut. vi. 7 ; 'city of God' for 'exceeding great city,' Jonah iii. 3; 'orphans' for 'comfortless,' John xiv. 18.

We see no reason why all the indelicate expressions in the Bible, such as those in 1 Sam. xxv. 34, 2 Kings xviii. 27, Ezek. xviii. 7, should not be treated in the same way. yv1e are obliged to alter them when we read aloud, and there can be no possible advantage in preserving a more literal translation, which must be offensive to every modest reader, whilst it furnishes merriment to the immodest.

(iii.) Oases whetre the grarnmatical • structure of the original is doiibtful, or cannot exactly be reprodiwed.-Thus, in Is. vii. 9, 'if ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established,' the margin reads, ' do ye not believe ? it is because ye are not stable ; ' in Is. xl. 9, '0 Zion, that bringest good tidings,' the margin reads, ' 0 Thou that tellest good tidings to Zion ; ' in Tit. ii, 1 L ' The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men,' the margin reads ' . . . that bringeth salvation to all men hath appeared.' To these we might add the important suggestions given in the margin at Judges xi. 31, 40, which completely do away with the ordinary idea, that Jephthah slew his daughter. (iv.) Alternative renderings for words the meaning of which rnay perhaps be thiis better expr-essed.-Thus ' expansion ' for ' firmament' (Gen. i. 6), 'punishment' for 'iniquity' (Gen. xix. 15), born 'from above' for born 'again' (John iii. 3), 'office or charge' for 'bishoprick' (Acts i. 20), 'testament' for 'covenant' (Heb. viii. 6). (v.) Explana.tions of weights, coins, distances, &c.- See for example the notes on Matt. v. 15, x. 29, xiii. 33, xvii. 24, 27, xviii. 24, 28, xx. 2. These explanations, however, might be thrown into a tabular form, and printed at the end of the Bible, as has been done in the Bulgarian Bible printed by the British and Foreign Bible Society.

(vi.) Explanation of proper names and of foreign words.-Tbese have been introduced into the text in brackets in some versions, whilst in others they have been printed in a list at the end of the Bible. The English Authorised Version, however, has them in the margin, though by no means so frequently as would be desirable. See for examples, Gen. iv. 1, xli. 45, John i. 41. Sometimes the interpretation is given in the text and the original word in the margin. See Gen. ii. 13, Jud. iii. 10, Is. xxxvii. 38. Similarly we find the rare word • Teraphim ' introduced into the margin at Gen. xxxi. 19, Gad and Meni in Is. lxv. 11, Harel and Ariel in

30

SUGGESTIONS FOR TRANSLATORS,

Ez. xliii. I 5. For geographical explanations see 2 Kings ix. 27, xx iii. 13, 2 Chron. ix. 26, Acts xx vii. 7. (vii.) A point to be observed with regard to proper names is that they are not always spelt the same way in Hebrew, and that there is a still further divergence in the spellings of Hebrew names when they reappear in the New Testament. The plan sanctioned, though not uniformly carried out, in the Authorised Version, is to spell the same name always in the same way both in the Old and New Testaments, specifying the divergencies, whenever it seems needful, in the margin. Thus our translators have put 'Benjamites' for ' J aminites ' in several passages ; ' Sennacherib ' for ' Sanherib ' in 2 Kings xviii. 13. They ought, however, to have reproduced the name of 'Joshua' instead of 'Jesus' in Acts vii. 45, and Heb. iv. 8, and to have printed 'Noah,' 'Sinai,' 'Elijah,' and 'Elisha,' instead of the Grecised forms' Noe,'' Sina,' 'Elias,' and 'Eliseus.' Similarly they ought to have printed 'Hallelujah' in the New Testament as they have done in the Old, the initial and final letters being essential to the Hebrew, but the Greek language being incapable of reproducing the last and careless about the first. (viii.) Historical notes intended to harmonise different parts of Scripture or to illustrate the fulfilment of propheey.-There are a good many notes of this character in the English Bible. Some indeed are barely indicated by the word ' fulfilled ' with a reference to another text. These might well come under the head of references, and the word 'see' substituted for the word 'fulfilled.' Others are of greater length. See notes on Gen. xxxvi. 39, Jud. iii. 31, iv. 2, xi. 29, xii. 8, 11, 13, xiii. 1, xv. 20, 1 Sam. iv. 18, 2 Kings i. 17, viii. 17, ix. 29, xiii. 10, xiv. 7, 29, xv. 1, 8, 30, 2 Chron. xvi. 1, Dan. i. 21, ix. 24, Hos. xiii. 10. In the note on 2 Kings xiv. 7, there is a reference to the Antiquities of Josephus. This class of note seems to open a large door, but it must be used with caution, if at all. (ix.) Explanatory remarks on peculiar expressions.-There are not many of these. The following are specimens :-

Job iv. 9, 'by the breath of his nostrils.' Job x. 17, 'thy witnesses.' Job xxvii. 3, 'the spirit of God.'

Hos. ix. 3, ' Ephraim shall return to

Egypt.' ' That is, by his anger.' ' That is, thy plagues.' 'That is, the breath which God gave him.' ' Not into Egypt itself, but into another bondage as bad as that.'

See also Ezek. xiv. 6, Acts xiii. 18, 34, xvii. 19, xxvii. 9, 1 Cor. xi. 10. (x.) Lastly, the margin or foot of the page is the place in which translations of MS. readings differing from those of the received

EDITORS, AND REVISERS OF THE BIBLE. 31

text ought to be exhibited. See examples in the English Bible at Ps. cii. 3, Zech. xii. 13, Matt. i. 23, Acts xxv. 6, Heb. x. 17.

§ 10.-MARGINAL REFERENCES.

One of the most interesting features of the Bible is the unity of truth and purpose which exists amidst the greatest diversity of style and matter in the sixty-six sacred books which compose it. The only rational key to this unity is that the whole work has proceeded from one Spirit, ' Who spake by the prophets.' But whilst this unity amidst diversity constitutes a fair proof of the inspiration of the Bible, it does something more ; it compels the student to compare passage with passage in order to take in God's truth in all its aspects and bearings. Hence the value of references from one part of the Book to another.

As translations of Scripture are usually made and published in portions in the first instance, there is no place for references in early editions. But when the Bible has been completed and the translation is sufficiently settled and established, it is usually felt that the time has arrived for the preparation of marginal references. They may be classified as follows :( i.) The first and most important are the quotations in the New Testament from the Old, being about three hundred in number. These should be printed in all editions of the Bible ; if none others are added they might be inserted in brackets in the body of the text, or placed at the foot of the page with suitable figures or marks to identify them. (ii.) Indirect or implied quotations.-It sometimes happens that the New Testament writers took words which were familiar to them and applied them to the matter in hand without formally citing them. Stephen's speech is full of such allusions to the Greek translation of the Old Testament. The student is glad to have these indirect references noted where they are not mere verbal coincidences. A case in point is Eph. iv. 26, 'Be ye angry, and sin not; ' this is a verbatim quotation from the LXX. version of Psalm iv. 4, where our translation runs thus, 'Stand in awe and sin not.' This class of reference, however, is not so important for ordinary readers as the first. (iii.) Allusions to persons, places, or events of which a full account is given in another part of the Bible.-Tbese abound in Scripture and references of this class are very helpful, if not carried to excess. Supposing, for example, a reader not well versed in the Bible comes to the words, ' Remember Lot's wife,' it would be

32

SUGGESTIONS FOR TRANSLATORS,

material help for him to find a reference to the nineteenth of Genesis. Or if he had been reading about the contention between Paul and Barnabas concerning Mark, how interesting would it be to him to find a reference to that Epistle written by St. Paul many years afterwards, in which he speaks of Mark as ' profitable for the ministry.' (iv.) Quotations front one another by Old Testam,ent writers.These are far more numerous than is generally supposed, and are deeply interesting for many reasons. (v.) References for the purpose of eliicidating doctrine and practice.-These approach so near to the nature of ' comment' that they should not be added except where there appears to be a very clear necessity for them. Of course it is easy to confirm almost any direct doctrinal statement of Scripture by numerous parallel passages, and the same may be said of the practical rules and exhortations of the Bible. But doctrinal bias is particularly liable to come in here, and this should be excluded as far as possible, especially where Christians of various shades of thought use the same references.

It is for this reason, amongst others, that the British and Foreign Bible Society has laid down the following principle for editors who prepare references :-That those contained in the English Authorised Version be taken as the general standard, free permission being given to 01nit any which are unsuitable, but no additions being allowed without special leave being given. In some cases additional references have been allowed to be taken from Bagster's ' Commentary wholly Biblical.' It should be added that whenever the Society has printed an old standard version containing references, such as that of Diodati (in Italian) or Valera (in Spanish), free leave has been given for the modern editor to incorporate such of the original translator's references as seem suitable.

The most accurately prepared reference Bible in the English language is that edited by Dr. Scrivener (Cambridge 1870), and it is highly to be desired that his valuable work should be taken as a standard for all future editions. He has omitted many of the old references which were purely verbal, and others which were misleading, whilst he has added a great many which are of real value. In his Preface Dr. Scrivener tells us that 'more than half the references contained in the edition of I 611 are derived from manuscript and printed copies of the Vulgate Latin Bible, and thus present to us the fruits of the researches of medireval scholars and the traditional expositions of the Western Church,' He adds that ' the references found in the Standard Edition of 1611 scarcely amount to a seventh part of those printed in modern Bibles, and have been computed not to exceed nine thousand.'

EDITORS, AND REVISERS OF THE BIBLE. 33

If there is any doubt in an editor's mind as to a reference, he had better leave it out. The mind of a reader ought not to be distracted and confused either by verbal or doubtful references, and it cannot be denied that some which our existing editions contain are worse than useless. A few well-selected references, coming under the first four heads enumerated above, will be found to supply what is most needed and valued by searchers after truth. The Bible student may well be left to find the rest for himself.

The work of selecting and arranging references is evidently a very great one, requiring accuracy, patience, discrimination, and (if doctrinal and practical parallels are to be given) a knowledge of the original.

In order to be printed without difficulty they should be written on blank strips of paper pasted on the margin of a carefuJly corrected copy of the Scriptures.

For the comfort of those who undertake t1e preparation of marginal references, the testimony of Canne, one of the most laborious editors of such a work, may be given. He writes thus:• The sweetness and great content which I have had all along in this Scripture work hath caused me to account other studies and readings (which I formerly used) very low, in comparison with it. It is said of Jacob that he served seven years for Rachel. and they seemed but a few days, for the love he had to her. I can truly speak it ; I have served the Lord in this work more than thrice seven years, and the time hath not seemed long, neither hath the work been anyway a burden to me, for the love I have had to it.'

§ 11.-ITALICS .AND OTHER MODES OF MARKING SUPPLE:M;ENTARY WORDS.

In translating out of one language into another which is not closely related to it, many sentences cannot be rendered idiomatically or even intelligibly without the introduction of supplem.entary words. This is especially the case where the idiom of the original language is very concise, as in Hebrew. It is not customary to mark the introduction of such supplementary words by any peculiar type except in the case of the Scriptures, and that chiefly amongst Protestants, who as a rule attach espeoial importance to the literal rendering of the Word of God.

When a translation of part of the Bible is made for the first time, it wou]d be unwise to confuse the eye and mind of readers, to whom the whole is new, by the introduction of varieties of type or by any pec~liar marks, the prime object then being to get into

C