ENGLISH VERSIONS

those of the AV. To Westcott and Hort may be assigned a large part of the credit for leading the Revisers definitely along the path of critical science; but the Revisers did not follow their leaders the whole way, and their text (edited by Archdeacon Palmer for the Oxford Press in 1881) represents a more conservative attitude than that of the two great Cambridge scholars. Nevertheless the amount of textual change was con-siderable, and to this was added a very large amount of verbal change, sometimes (especially in the Epistles) to secure greater intelligibiUty, but oftener (and this is more noticeable in the Gospels) to secure uniformity in the translation of Greek words which the AV deUberately rendered differently in different places (even in parallel narratives of the same event), and precision in the representation of moods and tenses. It was to the great number of changes of this kind, which byithem-selves appeared needless and pedantic, that most of the criticism bestowed upon the RV was due; but it must be remembered that where the words and phrases of a book are often strained to the uttermost in popular appUcation, it is of great importance that those words and phrases should be as accurately rendered as possible. On the whole, it is certain that the RV marks a great advance on the AV in respect of accuracy, and the main criticisms to which it is justly open are that the prin-ciples of classical Greek were appUed too rigidly to Greek which is not classical, and that the Revisers, in their careful attention to the Greek, were less happily inspired than their predecessors with the genius of the English language. These defects have no doubt mili-tated against the general acceptance of the RV; but wliether they continue to do so or not (and it is to be remembered that we have not yet passed through nearly so long a period as that during which the AV competed with the Geneva Bible or Jerome's Vulgate with the Old Latin), it is certain that no student of the Bible can afford to neglect the assistance given by the RV towards the true understanding of the Scriptures. In so using it, it should be remembered that renderings which appear in the margin not infrequently represent the views of more than half the Revisers, though they failed to obtain the necessary two-thirds majority. This is perhaps especially the case in the OT, where the RV shows a greater adherence to the AV than in the NT.

37. It only remains to add that, after the lapse of the 14 years during which it was agreed that no separate American edition should be brought out, while the American appendix continued to appear in the English RV, the American revisers issued a fresh recension (NT in 1900, OT in 1901, without the Apocrypha), embodying not only the readings which appeared in their appendix to the English RV, but also others on which they had since agreed. It is unfortunate that the action originally taken by the English revisers with a view to securing that the two English-speaking nations should continue to have a common Bible should have brought about the opposite result; and though the alterations introduced by the American revisers emi-nently deserve consideration on their merits, it may be doubted whether the net result is important enough to justify the existence of a separate version. What influence it may have upon the history of the English Bible in the future it is for the future to decide.

Literature. — No detailed history of the manuscript English versions is in existence. A good summary of the pre-Wyclifite versions is given in the introduction to A. S. Cook's B'SMcal Quotations in Old English Prose Writers, part 1 (1898); and the principal separate publications have been mentioned above. For the Wyclifite veraions the main authority ia the complete edition by J. Foishall and P. . Madden (4 vols., 1850); the NT in the later version was separately printed by Skeat ( 1879) . A good short conspectus of the subject is given in the introduction to the official Guide to the Wy cliffe Exhibition in the British Mu3eum(lS84) . The printed Bible has been much more fully investigated. The heat single authority is Bishop Westcott's History of the English Bible (3rd ed., revised by W. Aldia Wright, 1905) ;

ENOCH

see also the art. by J. H. Lupton in Hastings' DB (Extra Vol., 1904); W. F. Moulton, History of the English Bible (2nd ed., 1884); and H. W. Hoare, The Evolution of the English Bible (2nd ed., 1902). The Printed English Bible, by R. Lovett(R.T.S.' Present Day Primers,' 1894) ia agood short history, and the same may be said of G. Milligan'a The English Bible (Church of Scotland Guild Text Books, newed., 1907). For a bibliography of printed Bibles, see the section ' Bible ' in the British Museum Catalogue (published separately), and the Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions of Holy Scripture in the Library of the British and Foreign Bible Society, vol. i., by T. H. Darlow and H. F. Moule (1903). For special and minute studies of certain parts of the subject, the works of F. Fry (The Bible by Cover- dale, 1867, Description of the Great Bible, 1865, Bibliographical Description of the Editions of the NT, Tyndale'sVersion, 1878) and E. Arber (The First Printed English NT, 1871) are invaluable. Bagster's English Hexapla (which can often be obtained second-hand) gives in parallel columns, beneath the Greek text as printed by Scholz, the NT according to ( 1 ) the second Wyclifite veraion; (2) Tindale, from the edition of 1534; (3) the Great Bible of 1539; (4) the Geneva NT of 1557; (5) the Rheims NT of 1582; and (,6) the AV of 1611. This gives the student a better idea of the evolution of the English Bible than any description. F. H. A. Scrivener's Authorised Edition of the English Bible (1884) gives acareful and authoritative account of the various editions of the AV. For the history of the RV, see the Revisers' prefaces and Bishop Ellicott's BevisedVersionaf Holy Scripture (S.P.C.K. 1901). A more extensive bibliography is given in Dr. Lupton's article in Hastings' DB. F. C. Kenygn.

EN-HADDAH (Jos 19"). — A city of Issachar noticed with En-gannim and Remeth; perhaps the present village Kefr Adhan on the edge of the Dothan plain, W. of En-gannim.

EN-HAKKORE ('spring of the partridge'; cf. 1 S 262", Jer 17").— The name of a fountain at Lehi (Jg 15"). The narrator (J (7)) of the story characteristically connects hakkori with the word yikra ('he called') of v.is, and evidently interprets 'En~hakkori as 'the spring of him that called.' The whole narrative is rather obscure, and the tr. in some instances doubtful. The situation of En-hakkOrg is also quite uncertain.

EN-HAZOR (' spring of Razor,' Jos 19").— A town of Naphtali, perhaps the mod. Hazlreh, on the W. slopes of the mountains of Upper Galilee, W. of Kedesh.

EN-SQSHPAT ('spring of judgment,' or 'decision' (by oracle), Gn 14'). — A name for Kadesh — probably Kadesh-barnea. See Kadesh.

ENNATAN (AV Etmatan), l Es 8".— See Elnathan.

ENOCH (Heb. ChanSk) is the 'seventh from Adam' (Jude") in the Sethite genealogy of Gn 5 (see vv.'s-i"). In the Cainite genealogy of 4'™- he is the son of Cain, and therefore the third from Adam. The resemblances between the two lists seem to show that they rest on a common tradition, preserved in different forms by J (ch. 4) and P (ch. 5)., though it is not possible to say which version is the more original. — The notice which invests the figure of Enoch with its peculiar significance is found in 5^^* ' Enoch walked with God ; and he was not, for God took him.' The idea here suggested — that because of his perfect fellowship with God this patriarch was 'translated' to heaven without tasting death (cf. Sir 44" 49", He 11») — appears to have exerted a certain Influence on the OT doctrine of immortality (see Ps 49'5 73"). — A much fuller tradition is pre-supposed by the remarkable development of the Enoch legend in the Apocalyptic literature, where Enoch appears as a preacher of repentance, a prophet of future events, and the recipient of supernatural knowledge of the secrets of heaven and earth, etc. The origin of this tradition has probably been discovered in a striking Babylonian parallel. The seventh name in the list of ten antediluvian kings given by Berosus is Evedo-ranchus, which (it seems certain) is a corruption of Enmeduranki, a king of Sippar who was received into the fellowship of Shamash (the sun-god) and Ramman, was initiated into the mysteries of heaven and earth,

230