THE ITINERANTS' CLUB. INTERPRETATION BY PARAPHRASE. MANY years ago Dr. James Strong published a Harmony of the Gospels in English as also in Greek. He resorted to a paraphrase on points. needing special explanation, as a clear and concise method of interpreta- tion. This method is quite in order at the present time, one of the great › commentators prefixing a paraphrase to each section before entering upon a critical examination of the words and sentences. Such a practice is quite in harmony with present methods of instruction, and deserves consideration on the part of biblical students. There are a number of advantages in this form of exposition, and some dangers. One advantage is that it enables the reader to note at a glance the meaning of obscure phrases or sentences. In other words, it places before the eye, without effort, that rendering which would otherwise require a note of explanation. There are many passages of Scripture which are from their nature obscure to an untrained reader, and yet all interpreters are agreed as to their meaning. On all such passages a paraphrase may render great service. A paraphrase may be of value, also, in the interpretation of passages on which there are differences of opinion as to the meaning. In the latter case, however, we should accept the paraphrase as merely the opinion of an individual writer, and as having only the authority of his name. In this regard it may render important service, for it shows the differences of opinion as to the meaning of a passage. It also gives to the Scripture a literary form, after the modern method, and is thus especially attractive to the young. The old discussions clothed in literary form are thus adapted to the thought of our time, and reveal beauties both in sense and expression which are not ordinarily perceived by the untrained reader. Further, a paraphrase compels precision of statement on the part of the one who attempts it. When one is obliged to express a meaning in a few words there is no chance for circumlocution, or even for the indirectness which characterizes the extended discussions that are to be found in many of the commentaries. Brevity has been found to be a great help to clearness of style. A paraphrase which is not clear is not acceptable to the careful reader, for the paraphrase becomes helpful only in the proportion in which it expresses concisely and yet fully the mind of the writer. We submit some illustrations of a paraphrase of difficult passages of Scripture which show the excellence of this method. We place side by side the paraphrase of Rom. i, 1-5, as found in Stevens's Epistles of Paul in Modern English and in Sanday's commentary: STEVENS. I, Paul, address you Romans as one obligated to the will of Christ, commissioned by a divine call and specially set apart to the work of spreading the Gospel which God has given to man-a message whose truths were heralded in advance by divinely inspired men in writings which, by reason of their origin and contents, are sacred, because they bear witness to the Messiah, who was, indeed, in his earthly manifestation a descendant of David, but who, in his spiritual and essential life, was proven to be God's son by a glorious act of power, even an act of resurrection. Such is the divine attestation of Jesus, who has applied God's grace to me and made me a messenger to secure, for his glory, that obedience to him which springs from faith, among the heathen peoples. SANDAY. Paul, a devoted servant of Jesus Christ, an apostle called by divine summons as much as any member of the original twelve. solemnly set apart for the work of delivering God's message of salvation. The message which I am commissioned to proclaim is no startling novelty, launched upor the world without preparation, but rather the direct fulfillment of promises which God had inspired the prophets of Israel to set down in holy writ. It relates to note other than his son, whom it presents in a twofold aspect: on the one hand, by physical descent tre ing his lineage to David, as the Messiah was to do, and on the other hand, in virtue of the ho ness inherent in his spirit, visibly designated or declared to be so of God by the miracle of the resurrection. He, I say, is the sum and substance of my message. Jesus, the Jew's Messiah and the Christian's Lord. A comparison of these two instances of paraphrase with the versions of 1611 and 1881 will give to the student a very clear perception of the train of thought of the apostle, as it is found in the opening verses of his great epistle. There are dangers, however, as well as excellencies. The above passage forms an illustration. There is danger lest the reader shall feel s isfied with the paraphrase, and not look beneath it to ascertain how far it represents the original Scriptures. He must not be led to think that the paraphrase is always expressive of the meaning of the Scripture, let must remember that it is the meaning which the author attaches to the Scriptures. It will be necessary, therefore, for the critical student examine the whole passage with a careful commentary, in additi to the paraphrase. For example, in our ordinary versions there is the phrase "Spirit of holiness" (verse 4). By Stevens it is rendered, "who, in his spiritual and essential life." By Sanday it is translated "In virtue of the holiness inherent in his spirit." There can be no su stitutes, it is therefore evident, for the study of the word, either in its original languages or in the versions made by scholars which represent its exact form. If the paraphrase tends to make the reader feel that it is his guide, without seeking the foundations on which it rests, it wi have done an injury rather than have proved a help. If one turns to Sanday's commentary he will find that other renderings of this passage have been held by eminent scholars. One is that the "Spirit of holiness " is the Holy Spirit, "the third Person in the Trinity." Another is that it means the divine nature of Christ, as distinguished from his human nature. The third is the rendering given in the paraphrase. So that at every point of a paraphrase it is necessary for the critical student to consult a careful commentary before reaching a decision, as the paraphrase is merely the expression of the view of the author consulted, while opportunity does not permit him to give in detail his reason for the opinion that he holds. The inadequacy of the paraphrase, which is therefore evident at this point of the discussion, may be shown by reference to Stevens's and Sanday's rendering of another passage, Rom. viii, 18-20: STEVENS. Of this coming blessedness we find everywhere an eager expectation. Even inanimate nature seems to be awaiting it. The reason is that God, in subjecting nature to the law of decay and death, mingled an element of hope with this condition, which leads her to expect deliverance from this law and participation in the freedom from sin's curse which awaits God's children. Such a prospect for nature seems suggested by the condition of eager yearnings and intense dissatisfaction which she shows with her present condition. SANDAY. What of that? For the sufferings which we have to undergo in this phase of our career I count not worth a thought, in view of that dazzling splendor which will one day break through the clouds and dawn upon us. For the sons of God will stand forth revealed in the glories of their bright inheritance. And for that consummation not they alone but the whole irrational creation, both animate and inanimate, waits with eager longing, like spectators straining over the ropes to catch the first glimpse of some triumphal pageant. The future, and not the present, must satisfy its aspirations. ages ago, creation was condemned to have its energies marred and frustrated. And that by no act of its own; it was God who fixed this doom upon it, but with the hope, etc. For, In this passage, whose rendering has just been given, the nineteenth verse, which the Authorized Version renders “earnest expectation of the creature," is interpreted by Stevens as "inanimate nature," and in Sanday's paraphrase is rendered, "the whole irrational creation, both animate and inanimate." Here is a manifest difference in the interpretation of the verse, to which the careful student cannot be indifferent as he reads the two renderings. It is still an open question whether "the earnest expectation of the creature" is not to be rendered "the expectation of created human intelligences." Long ago MacKnight rendered Paul's epistles in the form of a paraphrase in a way which has scarcely been surpassed. Some of his translations have become obsolete through the advance of scholarship, but for clearness of expression he may well be studied by the student of to-day. He rendered the nineteenth verse in the passage under consideration in paraphrase, thus: "What a blessing to resurrection immortality is may be understood by this, that the earnest desire of mankind hath ever been to obtain that glorious endless life in the body by which the sons of God may be made known." Here the phrase which has been differently rendered "inanimate nature” and “the whole irrational creation, both animate and inanimate" is translated by the word "mankind," and herein MacKnight differs with both Stevens and Sanday. This is, however, apart from our present discussion. What we desire to emphasize is that interpretation by paraphrase is of great utility in enabling the reader to get a general concept of the passage or of the book, as expressed in the current thought of our own time. There has been in the past too little attention paid to the general scope and relations of a book, while perhaps too much notice has been given to minute details occurring in special passages. And yet it will not be well to go too far in the other direction. No paraphase which is expressive of the original in modern literary form, however able the author who makes the rendering, can be a substitute for the careful study of the separate words of the sacred Scriptures in their grammatical relations, as well as in their important historical bearings. The latter is a feature of all true biblical scholarship. It follows from the above illustrations that a paraphrase by any individual author can only represent the general bearing of passages, cannot be relied upon for minute discussion of crucial texts, and should always be supplemented by the study of one or more other authors, or by some careful commentary which reviews the entire field. Nor is it intended in this discussion to minimize the value of this method of making the Scriptures known to the people; but the purpose is rather to define the limits of the paraphrase and to show that any merely human method when it is carried to excess may be subversive of the very truth which it aims to declare. In this connection we may further note a tendency to a disuse of the archaic forms of our language-those forms which have come down to us sanctioned by the usage of preceding generations and to which our ears have become accustomed through the sacred Scriptures. It does not seem wise to clothe all spiritual truths in modern garb. As there are modes of artistic conception and poetic expression which have become endeared to men through the influence they have exerted on many previous generations, so we would say that, while the putting of the Scriptures in modern English has many points of decided advantage, we may well pause before we let go of our hold on the familiar and rich expressions employed in our English Bible which have done so much to preserve our language in its purity. Their use through centuries has made their peculiarities of phraseology exceedingly precious to the Christian world, while their very quaintness of diction has kept us in close union with the great masters of early English. ARCHEOLOGY AND BIBLICAL RESEARCH. AMOS AND CRITICISM. OLD TESTAMENT scholars of almost every shade of belief are virtually agreed that the book of the prophet Amos was written sometime between 850 and 750 B. C. We know no critic, no matter how distinctive or radical, who is not willing to admit that Amos is a product of that century. Not only are scholars in substantial harmony regarding the date of the book, but there is also a marked agreement as to its authenticity and integrity. Even Cheyne says, in speaking of the prophecies of Amos, "There has never been a doubt of their genuineness." There are, however, some extreme men, like Wellhausen, Stade, and Duhm, who object to isolated passages here and there in Amos, such as i, 1, 2; ii, 4, 5; iv, 13; v, 8, 9; vi, 2; ix, 5, 8-15. These objections, however, rest upon such unscientific basis as to render them worthy only of a passing notice. For instance, chap. ii, 4, 5, contains an allusion to the kingdom of Judah; therefore, the critics say, these verses must be a later insertion. The passages in Hosea and Amos which seem to give "a certain preeminence to Judah " must, according to these objectors, be late, because the early prophets regarded Israel, and not Judah, as the more influential power. There are other passages, we are told, which "reflect a stage of history later than that in which Amos worked," and which must also be rejected. These critics have thus mapped out a history of Israel, not from historical documents, but in a purely subjective manner. Having, according to the law of development, decided the exact mental condition and religious state of Israel, from the beginning to the close of its existence, they arrange the ideas of Old Testament writers much as a dealer in antique objects arranges his wares, or the curator of a museum his specimens, with this important difference, that the critic often proceeds on much less scientific grounds than the uneducated dealer in antiques or the curator of a museum. But granting-which we do not that there are a score or more interpolations or later insertions in Amos, there remains, even then, all that we need for our argument. It shall be our first effort to prove that Amos is one of the oldest prophetical writers. All schools will admit this. Kautsch says, in his Literature of the Old Testament, "The first literary prophet whose date we can fix with any certainty is Amos." Then, having discussed several points regarding the prophet and the book, he adds, "According to all this, we must place the appearance of Amos about 760 B. C." Professor Driver, in his Introduction, bears similar testimony. His words are, Amos is the earliest of the prophets whose writings are extant and of indisputed date." He places Amos in the |