Why then, (it will of course be asked,) is the margin—(a) of S. Mark i. 1 and—(b) of S. John i. 3, and—(c) of S. John iii. 13, encumbered after this discreditable fashion? It is (we answer) only becausethe Text of Drs. Westcott and Hortis thus depraved in all three places. Those Scholars enjoy the unenviable distinction of having dared to expel from S. John iii. 13 the words ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, which Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf were afraid to touch. Well may Dean Stanley have bestowed upon Dr. Hort the epithet of“fearless”!... If report speaks truly, it is by the merest accident that the clause in question still retains its place inthe Revised Text.(d) Only once more. And this time we will turn to the very end of the blessed volume. Against Rev. xiii. 18—“Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the Beast; for it is the number of a Man: and his number is six hundred and sixty and six.”Against this, we find noted,—“Some ancient authorities readsix hundred and sixteen.”But why is not thewholeTruth told? viz. why are we not informed thatonly onecorrupt uncial (c):—only onecursive copy (11):—only oneFather (Tichonius): andnot oneancient Version—advocates this reading?—which, on the contrary,[pg 136]Irenæus (a.d.170) knew, but rejected; remarking that 666, which is“found in all the best and oldest copies and is attested by men who saw John face to face,”is unquestionably the true reading.473Why is not the ordinary Reader further informed that the same number (666) is expressly vouched for by Origen,474—by Hippolytus,475—by Eusebius:476—as well as by Victorinus—and Primasius,—not to mention Andreas and Arethas? To come to the moderns, as a matter of fact the established reading is accepted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,—even by Westcott and Hort.Whytherefore—for what possible reason—at the end of 1700 years and upwards, is this, which is so clearly nothing else but an ancient slip of the pen, to be forced upon the attention of 90 millions of English-speaking people?Will Bishop Ellicott and his friends venture to tell us that it has been done because“it would not be safe to accept”666,“to the absolute exclusion of”616?...“We have givenalternative Readingsin the margin,”(say they,)“wherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice.”Will they venture to claim either“interest”or“importance”forthis? or pretend that it is an“alternative Reading”at all? Has it been rescued from oblivion and paraded before universal Christendom in order to perplex, mystify, and discourage“those that have understanding,”and would fain“count the number of the Beast,”if they were able? Or was the intention only to insinuate one more wretched doubt—one more miserable suspicion—into minds which have been taught (and rightly) to place absolute reliance in the textual accuracy of all the gravest utterances of theSpirit: minds which are utterly incapable[pg 137]of dealing with the subtleties of Textual Criticism; and, from a one-sided statement like the present, will carry away none but entirely mistaken inferences, and the most unreasonable distrust?... Or, lastly, was it only because, in their opinion, the margin of every Englishman's N. T. is the fittest place for reviving the memory of obsolete blunders, and ventilating forgotten perversions of the Truth?... We really pause for an answer.(e) But serious as this is,moreserious (if possible) is the unfairSuppression systematically practisedthroughout the work before us.“We have given alternative Readings in the margin,”—(says Bishop Ellicott on behalf of his brother-Revisionists,)—“wherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice.”[iii. 1.] From which statement, readers have a right to infer that whenever“alternative Readings”arenot“given in the margin,”it is because such Readings donot“seem to be ofsufficient importance or interest to deserve notice.”Will the Revisionists venture to tell us that,—(to take the first instance of unfair Suppression which presents itself,)—ourLord's saying in S. Mark vi. 11 is not“of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice”? We allude to the famous words,—“Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city:”—words which are not only omitted from the“New English Version,”butare not suffered to leave so much as a trace of themselves in the margin. And yet, the saying in question is attested by the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac Versions: by the Old Latin: by the Coptic, Æthiopic and Gothic Versions:—by 11 uncials and by the whole bulk of the cursives:—by Irenæus and by Victor of Antioch. So that whether Antiquity, or Variety of Attestation is considered,—whether we look for Numbers or for Respectability,—the genuineness[pg 138]of the passage may be regarded ascertain. Our complaint however isnotthat the Revisionists entertain a different opinion on this head from ourselves: but that they give the reader to understand that the state of the Evidence is such, that it is quite“safe to accept”the shorter reading,—“to theabsolute exclusionof the other.”—So vast is the field before us, that this single specimen of what we venture to call“unfair Suppression,”must suffice. (Some will not hesitate to bestow upon it a harsher epithet.) It is in truth by far the most damaging feature of the work before us, that its Authors should have so largely and so seriouslyfalsified the Deposit; and yet, (in clear violation of the IVth Principle or Rule laid down for their guidance at the outset,) have suffered no trace to survive in the margin of the deadly mischief which they have effected.III. From the Text, the Revisionists pass on to theTranslation; and surprise us by the avowal, that“the character of the Revision was determined for us from the outset by the first Rule,—‘to introduce as few alterations as possible, consistently with faithfulness.’Our task was Revision, not Retranslation.”(This isnaïvecertainly.) They proceed,—“If the meaning was fairly expressed by the word or phrase that was before us in the Authorized Version, we made no change, even where rigid adherence tothe rule of Translating, as far as possible, the same Greek word by the same English wordmight have prescribed some modification.”—[iii. 2init.] (The italics are our own.)To the“rule”thus introduced to our notice, we shall recur by and by [pp.152-4: also pp.187-202]. We proceed to remark on each of the five principal Classes of alterations indicated by the Revisionists: and first,—“Alterations[pg 139]positively required by change of reading in the Greek Text”(Ibid.).(1) Thus, in S. John xii. 7, we find“Suffer her to keep itagainst the day of my burying;”and in the margin (as an alternative),“Let her alone:it was that she might keep it.”—Instead of“as soon asJesusheard the word,”—we are invited to choose between“not heeding,”and“overhearingthe word”(S. Mk. v. 36): these being intended for renderings of παρακούσας,—an expression which S. Mark certainly never employed.—“On earth, peace among menin whom he is well pleased”(S. Lu. ii. 14): where the margin informs us that“many ancient authorities read,good pleasure among men.”(And why not“good will,”—the rendering adopted in Phil. i. 15?) ... Take some more of the alterations which have resulted from the adoption of a corrupt Text:—“Whyaskest thou me concerning that which is good?”(Matth. xix. 17,—an absurd fabrication).—“He would fainhave been filledwith the husks,”&c....“and I perishherewith hunger!”(χορτασθῆναι, borrowed from Lu. xvi. 21: and εγΩΔΕωδε, a transparent error: S. Luke xv. 16, 17).—“Whenit shall fail, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles”(xvi. 9).——Elizabeth“lifted up her voicewith a loud cry”(κραυγή—the private property of three bad MSS. and Origen: Lu. i. 42).—“Andthey stood still looking sad”(xxiv. 17,—a foolish transcriptional blunder).—“The multitudewent upand began to ask him,”&c. (ἀναβάς for ἀναβοήσας, Mk. xv. 8).—“But is guilty ofan eternal sin”(iii. 29).—“And the officersreceived Himwith blows of their hands,”—marg.“orstrokes of rods:”ΕΛΑΒΟΝ for ΕΒΑΛΟΝ (xiv. 65).—“Else, that which should fill it up taketh from it,the new from the old”(ii. 21): and“No manrendeth a piece from a new garmentand putteth it upon an old garment; elsehe will rend the new,”&c. (Lu. v. 36).—“What is this?a new teaching!”(Mk. i. 27).—“Jesussaith unto him,If thou canst!”(Mk. ix. 23).—“Because of yourlittle[pg 140]faith”(Matth. xvii. 20).—“We mustwork the works of Him that sent Me, while it is day”(Jo. ix. 4).—“The man that is calledJesusmade clay”(ver. 11).—“If ye shall askMe anything in My name”(xiv. 14).—“The Father abiding in Medoeth His works”(xiv. 10).—“If ye shall ask anything of the Father,He will give it you in My name”(xvi. 23).—“I glorified Thee on the earth,having accomplished the workwhich Thou hast given Me to do”(xvii. 4).—“Holy Father, keep themin Thy Name whichThou hast given Me ... I kept themin Thy Name whichThou hast given me”(ver. 11, 12).—“She ... saith unto Himin Hebrew, Rabboni”(xx. 16).—“These things said Isaiah,becausehe saw his glory”(xii. 41,—ΟΤΙ for ΟΤΕ, a common itacism).—“In tablesthat are hearts of flesh”(ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίαις σαρκίναις, a“perfectly absurd reading,”as Scrivener remarks, p. 442: 2 Cor. iii. 3).—“Now ifwe put the horses' bridles [and pray, why not‘the horses'bits’?] into their mouths”(ΕΙΔΕ, an ordinary itacism for ΙΔΕ, James iii. 3).—“Unto the sick werecarried away from his bodyhandkerchiefs,”&c. (Acts xix. 12).—“Ye know all things once for all”(Jude ver. 5).—“We lovebecause he first loved us”(1 Jo. iv. 19).—“I have foundno work of thine fulfilledbefore myGod”(Rev. iii. 2).—“Seven Angelsarrayed with [precious] stone”(xv. 6), instead of“clothed in linen,”λίθον for λίνον. (Fancy the Angels“clothed in stone”!“Precious”is an interpolation of the Revisers).—“Dwelling inthe things which he hath seen:”for which the margin offers as an alternative,“taking his stand upon”(Colossians ii. 18). But ἐμβατεύων (the word here employed) clearly means neither the one nor the other. S. Paul is delivering a warning against unduly“prying intothe thingsnotseen.”477A few MSS. of bad character omit the“not.”That is all!... These then are a handful of the less[pg 141]conspicuous instances of a change in the English“positively required by a change of reading in the Greek Text:”every one of them being either a pitiful blunder or else a gross fabrication.—Take only two more:“I neither know, nor understand:thou, what sayest thou?”(Mk. xiv. 68 margin):—“Andwhither I go, ye know the way”(Jo. xiv. 4).... The A. V. is better in every instance.(2) and (3) Next, alterations made because the A. V.“appeared to be incorrect”or else“obscure.”They must needs be such as the following:—“He thatis bathedneedeth not save to wash his feet”(S. John xiii. 10).—“Lord, if he is fallen asleephe will recover”(σωθήσεται, xi. 12).—“Go ye therefore intothe partings of the highways”(Matth. xxii. 9).—“Being grieved atthe hardeningof their heart”(Mk. iii. 5).—“Lighta lampand put iton the stand”(Matt. v. 15).—“Sitting atthe place of toll”(ix. 9).—“The supplication of a righteous man availeth muchin its working”(James v. 16).—“Awake uprighteously”(1 Cor. xv. 34).—“Guardedthrough faith untoa salvation”(1 Pet. i. 5).—“Wandering in ...the holes of the earth”(Heb. xi. 38—very queer places certainly to be“wandering”in).—“She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you”(1 Pet. v. 13).—“Therefore dothese powers work in Him”(Matth. xiv. 2).—“In danger of thehell of fire”(v. 22).—“Put outinto the deep”(Luke v. 4).—“The tomb that Abraham bought fora price in silver”(Acts vii. 16).With reference to every one of these places, (and they are but samples of what is to be met with in every page,) we venture to assert that they are eitherlessintelligible, or elsemoreinaccurate, than the expressions which they are severally intended to supersede; while, in some instances, they areboth. Will any one seriously contend that“the hire of wrong-doing”[pg 142]is better than“the wages of unrighteousness”(2 Pet. ii. 15)? or, will he venture to deny that,“Come anddine”—“so when theyhad dined,”—is a hundred times better than“Come andbreak your fast”—“so when theyhad broken their fast”(Jo. xxi. 12, 15)?—expressions which are only introduced because the Revisionists were ashamed (as well they might be) to write“breakfast”and“breakfasted.”The seven had not been“fasting.”Then, why introduce so incongruous a notion here,—any more than into S. Luke xi. 37, 38, and xiv. 12?Has the reader any appetite for more specimens of“incorrectness”remediedand“obscurity”removed? Rather, as it seems, havebothbeen largely imported into a Translation which was singularly intelligible before. Why darken Rom. vii. 1 and xi. 2 by introducing the interrogative particle, and then, by mistranslating it“Or”?—Also, why translate γένος“race”? (“a man of Cyprusby race,”“a man of Pontusby race,”“an Alexandrianby race,”Acts iv. 36: xviii. 2, 24).—“Ifthere is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body,”say the Revisionists:“O death, where is thy victory? Odeathwhere is thy sting?”(Could they not let even 1 Cor. xv. 44 and 55 alone?)—Why alter“For the bread ofGodisHe,”into“For the bread ofGodisthatwhich cometh down from Heaven”? (Jo. vi. 33).—“As long as I amin the world,”was surely better than“When I amin the world, I am the light of the world”(ix. 5).—Is“He went forth out oftheir hand”supposed to be an improvement upon“He escaped out oftheir hand”? (x. 39): and is“They lovedthe gloryof men more thanthe gloryof GOD”an improvement upon“thepraise”? (xii. 43).—“Judas saith unto Him,Lord,what is come to passthat Thou wilt manifest Thyself to us”? Isthatsupposed to be an improvement upon xiv. 22?—How is“If then”an improvement on“Forasmuch then”in Acts xi. 17?—or how is this endurable in Rom. vii. 15,—“For that which I do, I[pg 143]knownot: fornot what I would, that do I practise:”—or this, in xvi. 25,“The mystery which hath beenkept in silence through times eternal, but now is manifested,”&c.—“Thou therefore,my child,”—addressing the Bishop of Ephesus (2 Tim. ii. 1): and“Titus,my true child,”—addressing the Bishop of Crete (Tit. i. 4).Are the following deemed improvements?“Every one thatdoethsin doeth alsolawlessness: and sin is lawlessness”(1 Jo. iii. 4):“I willmovethy candlestick out of its place”(Rev. ii. 5):—“aglassysea”(iv. 6):—“agreatvoice”(v. 12):—“Verily, not of Angelsdoth He take hold, butHe taketh holdof the seed of Abraham:”—“Hetook hold ofthe blind man bythe hand:”—“Theytook hold of himand brought him unto the Areopagus”(Heb. ii. 16: S. Mk. viii. 23: Acts xvii. 19):—“whereforeGodis notashamed of them, to be called theirGod”(Acts xi. 16):—“Counted it not a prizeto be on an equality withGod”(Phil. ii. 6).—Why are we to substitute“court”for“palace”in Matth. xxvi. 3 and Lu. xi. 21? (Consider Matth. xii. 29 and Mk. iii. 27).—“Women received their deadby a resurrection”(Heb. xi. 35):—“If ye forgive not every onehis brother from their hearts”(Matth. xviii. 35):—“Ifbecause of meatthy brother is grieved, thou walkestno longer in love”(Rom. xiv. 15):—“whichGod, who cannot lie, promisedbefore times eternal; butin his own seasonsmanifestedhis word in the message”(Tit. i. 2, 3):—“Yourpleasures[and why not‘lusts’?] that war in your members”(James iv. 1):—“Beholdhow much woodis kindled byhow small a fire!”(iii. 5).—Are these really supposed to be less“obscure”than the passages they are intended to supersede?(a) Not a few of the mistaken renderings of the Revisionists can only be established by an amount of illustration which is at once inconvenient to the Reviewer and unwelcome probably[pg 144]to the general Reader. Thus, we take leave to point out that,—“Andcoming upat that very hour”(in Lu. ii. 38),—as well as“shecame upto Him”(in Lu. x. 40), are inexact renderings of the original. The verb ἐφιστάναι, which etymologically signifies“to stand upon,”or“over,”or“by,”—(but which retains its literal signification on only four out of the eighteen occasions478when the word occurs in the Gospels and Acts,)—is found almost invariably to denote the“coming suddenly upon”a person. Hence, it is observed to be used five times to denote the sudden appearance of friendly visitants from the unseen world:479and seven times, the sudden hostile approach of what is formidable.480On the two remaining occasions, which are those before us,—(namely, the sudden coming of Anna into the Temple481and of Martha into the presence of ourLord,482)—“coming suddenly in”would probably represent S. Luke's ἐπιστᾶσα exactly. And yet, one would hesitate to import the word“suddenly”into the narrative. So that“coming in”would after all have to stand in the text, although the attentive student of Scripture would enjoy the knowledge that something more isimplied. In other words,—the Revisionists would have done better if they had left both places alone.... These are many words; yet is it impossible to explain such matters at once satisfactorily and briefly.(b) But more painful by far it is to discover that a morbid striving after etymological accuracy,—added to a[pg 145]calamitous preference for a depraved Text,—has proved the ruin of one of the most affecting scenes in S. John's Gospel.“Simon Peter beckoneth to him,and saith unto him, Tell us who it is of whom He speaketh”[a fabulous statement evidently; for Peter beckoned, because he mightnotspeak].“Heleaning back, as he was,”—[a very bad rendering of οὕτως, by the way; and sure to recal inopportunely the rendering of ὡς ἦν in S. Mark iv. 36, instead of suggesting (as it obviously ought) the original of S. John iv. 6:]—“onJesus' breast, saith unto Him,Lordwho is it?”(S. John xiii. 24-5). Now, S. John's word concerning himself in this place is certainly ἐπιπεσών. He“just sank”—let his head“fall”—on his Master's breast, and whispered his question. For this, a few corrupt copies substitute ἀναπεσών. But ἀναπεσώνnevermeans“leaning back.”It is descriptive of the posture of onereclining at a meal(S. Jo. xiii. 12). Accordingly, it is 10 times rendered by the Revisionists to“sit down.”Why, in this place, and in chapter xxi. 20,a new meaningis thrust upon the word, it is for the Revisionists to explain. But they must explain the matter a vast deal better than Bp. Lightfoot has done in his interesting little work on Revision (pp. 72-3), or they will fail to persuade any,—except one another.(c) Thus it happens that we never spend half-an-hour over the unfortunate production before us without exclaiming (with one in the Gospel),“The old is better.”Changes ofanysort are unwelcome in such a book as the Bible; but the discovery that changes have been madefor the worse, offends greatly. To take instances at random:—'Ὁ πλεῖστος ὄχλος (in Matth. xxi. 8) is rightly rendered in our A. V.“avery greatmultitude.”483Why then has it been altered by the R. V. into[pg 146]“the most part ofthe multitude”?—Ὁ πολὺς ὄχλος (Mk. xii. 37), in like manner, is rightly rendered“the common people,”and ought not to have been glossed in the margin“the great multitude.”—In the R. V. of Acts x. 15, we find“Makethou not common,”introduced as an improvement on,“That callnot thou common.”But“the old is better:”for, besides its idiomatic and helpful“That,”—the old alone states the case truly. Peter did not“make,”he only“called,”something“common.”—“All themalechildren,”as a translation of πάντας τοὺς παῖδας (in Matth. ii. 16) is an unauthorized statement. There is no reason for supposing that the female infants of Bethlehem were spared in the general massacre: and the Greek certainly conveys no such information.—“When he came into the house,Jesusspake firstto him”—is really an incorrect rendering of Matth. xvii. 25: at least, it imports into the narrative a notion which is not found in the Greek, and does not exhibit faithfully what the Evangelist actually says.“Anticipated,”in modern English,—“prevented,”in ancient phraseology,—“was beforehand with him”in language neither new nor old,—conveys the sense of the original exactly.—In S. Lu. vi. 35,“Love your enemies, ... and lend,never despairing,”is simply a mistaken translation of ἀπελπίζοντες, as the context sufficiently proves. The old rendering is the true one.484And so, learnedly, the Vulgate,—nihil inde sperantes. (Consider the use of ἀποβλέπειν [Heb. xi. 26]: ἀφορᾶν [Phil. ii. 23: Heb. xii. 2]:abutor, as used by Jerome forutor, &c.)—“Go with themmaking no distinction”is not the meaning of Acts xi. 12: which, however, was correctly translated before, viz.“nothing doubting.”—The mischievous change (“save”in place of“but”) in Gal. ii. 16 has been ably and faithfully exposed by Bp. Ollivant. In the words of the[pg 147]learned and pious Bp. of Lincoln,“it is illogical and erroneous, andcontradicts the whole drift of S. Paul's Argumentin that Epistle, and in the Epistle to the Romans.”(d) We should be dealing insincerely with our Readers were we to conceal our grave dissatisfaction at not a few of the novelexpressionswhich the Revisionists have sought to introduce into the English New Testament. That the malefactors between whom“theLordof glory”was crucified were not ordinary“thieves”is obvious; yet would it have been wiser, we think, to leave the old designation undisturbed. We shall never learn to call them“robbers.”—“The king sent fortha soldier of his guard”is a gloss—not a translation of S. Mark vi. 27.“An executioner”surely is far preferable as the equivalent for σπεκουλάτωρ!485—“Assassins”(as the rendering of σικάριοι) is an objectionable substitute for“murderers.”A word which“belongs probably to a romantic chapter in the history of the Crusades”486has no business in the N. T.—And what did these learned men suppose they should gain by substituting“the twin brothers”for“Castor and Pollux”in Acts xxviii. 11? The Greek (Διόσκουροι) is neither the one nor the other.—In the same spirit, instead of,“they that receivedtribute-money”(in S. Matth. xvii. 24), we are now presented with“they that receivedthe half-shekel:”and in verse 27,—instead of“when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt finda piece of money,”we are favoured with“thou shalt finda shekel.”Butwhythe change has been made, we fail to see. The margin isstillobliged to explain that not one of these four words is found in the original: the Greek in the former place being τὰ δίδραχμα,—in the latter, στατήρ.—“Flute-players”[pg 148](for“minstrels”) in S. Matthew ix. 23, is a mistake. An αὐλητής playedthe pipe(αὐλός, 1 Cor. xiv. 7),—hence“pipers”in Rev. xviii. 22; (where by the way μουσικοί [“musicians”] is perversely and less accurately rendered“minstrels”).—Once more.“Undressedcloth”(Mk. ii. 21), because it is an expression popularly understood only in certain districts of England, and avox artis, ought not to have been introduced into the Gospels.“New”is preferable.—“Wine-skins”(Mtt. ix. 17: Mk. ii. 22: Lu. v. 37) is a term unintelligible to the generality; as the Revisionists confess, for they explain it by a note,—“That is,skins used as bottles.”What else is this but substituting a new difficulty for an old one?—“Silver,”now for the first time thrust into Acts viii. 20, is unreasonable. Like“argent”in French, ἀργύριον as much means“money,”here as in S. Matthew xxv. 18, 27, &c.—In S. James ii. 19, we should like to know what is gained by the introduction of the“shuddering”devils.—To take an example from a different class of words,—Who will say that“Thoumindestnot the things ofGod”is a better rendering of οὐ φρονεῖς, than the old“Thousavourestnot,”—which at least had no ambiguity about it?... A friend points out that Dr. Field (a“master in Israel”) has examined 104 of the changesmadein the Revised Version; and finds 8 questionable: 13 unnecessary: 19 faulty (i.e.cases in which the A. V. required amendment, but which the R. V. has not succeeded in amending): 64changes for the worse.487... This is surely a terrible indictment for such an one as Dr. Field to bring against the Revisers,—who were directed only to correct“plain and clear errors.”(e) We really fail to understand how it has come to pass that, notwithstanding the amount of scholarship which[pg 149]sometimes sat in the Jerusalem Chamber, so many novelties are found in the present Revision which betoken a want of familiarity with the refinements of the Greek language on the one hand; and (what is even more inexcusable) only a slender acquaintance with the resources and proprieties of English speech, on the other. A fair average instance of this occurs in Acts xxi. 37, where (instead of“CanstthouspeakGreek?”) Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις? is rendered“DostthouknowGreek?”That γινώσκειν means“to know”(and not“to speak”) is undeniable: and yet, in the account of all, except the driest and stupidest of pedagogues, Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις; must be translated“Canst thouspeakGreek?”For (as every schoolboy is aware) Ἑλληνιστί is an adverb, and signifies“in Greek fashion:”so that something has to be supplied: and the full expression, if it must needs be given, would be,“Dost thou know [how to talk] in Greek?”But then, this condensation of phrase proves to be the established idiom of the language:488so that the rejection of the learned rendering of Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the Translators of 1611 (“Canst thou speakGreek?”)—the rejection of this, at the end of 270 years, in favour of“Dost thou knowGreek?”really betrays ignorance. It is worse than bad Taste. It is a stupid and deliberateblunder.(f) The substitution of“they weighed unto him”(in place of“they covenanted with him for”)“thirty pieces of silver”(S. Matth. xxvi. 15) is another of those plausible mistakes, into which a little learning (proverbially“a dangerous thing”) is for ever conducting its unfortunate possessor; but from which it was to have been expected that the undoubted[pg 150]attainments of some who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber would have effectually preserved the Revisionists. That ἔστησαν is intended to recal Zech. xi. 12, is obvious; as well as thatthereit refers to the ancient practice ofweighinguncoined money. It does not, however, by any means follow, that it was customary toweighshekels in the days of the Gospel. Coined money, in fact, was never weighed, but always counted; and these were shekels,i.e.didrachms(Matth. xvii. 24). The truth (it lies on the surface) is, that there exists a happy ambiguity about the word ἔστησαν, of which the Evangelist has not been slow to avail himself. In the particular case before us, it is expressly recorded that in the first instance money didnotpass,—only a bargain was made, and a certain sum promised. S. Mark's record is that the chief priests were glad at the proposal of Judas,“and promisedto give him money”(xiv. 11): S. Luke's, that“they covenanted”to do so (xxii. 5, 6). And with this, the statement of the first Evangelist is found to be in strictest agreement. The chief Priests“set”or“appointed”489him a certain sum. The perfectly accurate rendering of S. Matth. xxvi. 15, therefore, exhibited by our Authorized Version, has been set aside to make way fora misrepresentation of the Evangelist's meaning.“In the judgment of the most competent scholars,”was“such changenecessary”?(g) We respectfully think that it would have been more becoming in such a company as that which assembled in the Jerusalem Chamber, as well as more consistent with their Instructions, ifin doubtful casesthey had abstained from touching the Authorized Version, but had recorded their own conjectural emendationsin the margin. How rash and infelicitous,[pg 151]for example, is the following rendering of the famous words in Acts xxvi. 28, 29, which we find thrust upon us without apology or explanation; without, in fact, any marginal note at all:—“And Agrippa said unto Paul,With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make mea Christian. And Paul said, I would toGod, that whetherwith little or with much,”&c. Now this is indefensible. For, in the first place, to get any such meaning out of the words, our Revisionists have been obliged to substitute the fabricated ποιῆσαι (the peculiar property of אa band a few cursives) for γενέσθαι in ver. 28. Moreover, even so, the words do not yield the required sense. We venture to point out, that this is precisely one of the occasions where the opinion of a first-rate Greek Father is of paramount importance. The moderns confess themselves unable to discover a single instance of the phrase ἐν ὀλίγῳ in the sense of“within a little.”Cyril of Jerusalem (a.d.350) and Chrysostom (a.d.400), on the contrary, evidently considered that here the expression can mean nothing else; and they were competent judges, seeing that Greek was their native language: far better judges (be it remarked in passing) on a point of this kind than the whole body of Revisionists put together.“Such an amount of victorious grace and wisdom did Paul derive from theHoly Spirit”(says Cyril),“that even King Agrippa at last exclaimed,”490&c. From which it is evident that Cyril regarded Agrippa's words as an avowal that he was well-nigh overcome by the Apostle's argument. And so Chrysostom,491who says plainly that ἐν ὀλίγῳ means“within a little,”492and assumes that“within a little”S. Paul had[pg 152]persuaded his judge.493He even puts παρ᾽ ὀλίγον into Agrippa's mouth.494So also, in effect, Theodoret.495From all which it is reasonable, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to infer that our A. V. reflects faithfully what was the Church's traditionary interpretation of Acts xxvi. 28 in the first half of the fourth century. Let it only be added that a better judge of such matters than any who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber—the late President of Magdalen, Dr. Routh,—writes:“Vertendum esse sequentia suadent, Me fere Christianum fieri suades. Interp. Vulgata habet, In modico suades me Christianum fieri.”496Yes, the Apostle's rejoinder fixes the meaning of what Agrippa had said before.—And this shall suffice. We pass on, only repeating our devout wish that what the Revisionists failed to understand, or were unablematerially and certainlyto improve, they would have been so obliging as to let alone. In the present instance the A. V. is probably right; the R. V., probably wrong. No one, at all events, can pretend that the rendering with which we are all familiar is“a plain and clear error.”And confessedly, unless it was, it should have been left unmolested. But to proceed.(4) and (5) There can be no question as to the absolute duty of rendering identical expressionsin strictly parallel places of the Gospelsby strictly identical language. So far we are wholly at one with the Revisionists. But“alterations [supposed to be] rendered necessaryby consequence”(Preface, iii. 2.), are quite a different matter: and we venture to think that it is precisely in their pursuit of a mechanical uniformity of rendering, that our Revisionists have most often as well as most grievously lost their way. We differ from them in factin limine.“When a particular word”(say they)“is found to[pg 153]recur with characteristic frequency in any one of the Sacred Writers, it is obviously desirable to adopt for it some uniform rendering”(iii. 2).“Desirable”! Yes, but in what sense? It is much to be desired, no doubt, that the English language always containedthe exact counterpartsof Greek words: and of course, if it did, it would be in the highest degree“desirable”that a Translator should always employ those words and no other. But then it happens unfortunately thatprecisely equivalent words do not exist. Τέκνον, nine times out of ten signifies nothing else but“child.”On the tenth occasion, however, (e.g.where Abraham is addressing the rich man in Hades,) it would be absurd so to render it. We translate“Son.”We are in fact without choice.—Take another ordinary Greek term, σπλάγχνα, which occurs 11 times in the N. T., and which the A. V. uniformly renders“bowels.”Well, and“bowels”confessedly σπλάγχνα are. Yet have our Revisionists felt themselves under the“necessity”of rendering the word“heart,”in Col. iii. 12,—“very heart,”in Philemon, ver. 12,—“affections”in 2 Cor. vi. 12,—“inward affection,”in vii. 15,—“tender mercies”in Phil. i. 8,—“compassion”in 1 Jo. iii. 17,—“bowels”only in Acts i. 18.—These learned men, however, put forward in illustration of their own principle of translation, the word εὐθέως,—which occurs about 80 times in the N. T.: nearly half the instances being found in S. Mark's Gospel. We accept their challenge; and assert that it is tasteless barbarism to seek to impose upon εὐθέως,—no matterwhatthe context in which it stands,—the sense of“straightway,”—only because εὐθύς, the adjective, generally (not always) means“straight.”Where a miracle of healing is described (as in S. Matth. viii. 3: xx. 34. S. Lu. v. 13), since the benefit was no doubt instantaneous, it is surely the mere instinct of“faithfulness”to translate εὐθέως“immediately.”So, in respect of the sudden act which saved Peter from sinking (S. Matth. xiv. 31); and that punctual cock-crow[pg 154](xxvi. 74), which (S. Luke says) did not so much follow, asaccompanyhis denial (xxii. 60). But surely not so, whenthe growth of a seedis the thing spoken of (Matth. xiii. 5)! Acts again, which must needs have occupied some little time in the doing, reasonably suggest some such rendering as“forthwith”or“straightway,”—(e.g.S. Matth. xiv. 22: xxi. 2: and S. John vi. 21): while, in 3 John ver. 14, the meaning (as the Revisionists confess) can only be“shortly.”... So plain a matter really ought not to require so many words. We repeat, that the Revisionists set out with a mistaken Principle. They clearlydo not understand their Trade.They invite our attention to their rendering of certain of the Greek Tenses, and of the definite Article. We regret to discover that, in both respects, their work is disfigured throughout by changes which convict a majority of their body alike of an imperfect acquaintance with the genius of the Greek language, and of scarcely a moderate appreciation of the idiomatic proprieties of their own. Such a charge must of necessity, when it has been substantiated, press heavily upon such a work as the present; for it is not as when a solitary error has been detected, which may be rectified. A vicioussystemof rendering Tenses, and representing the Greek Article, is sure to crop up in every part of the undertaking, and must occasionally be attended by consequences of a serious nature.1. Now, that we may not be misunderstood, we admit at once that, in teachingboyshow to turn Greek into English, we insist that every tense shall be marked by its own appropriate sign. There is no telling how helpful it will prove in the end, that every word shall at first have been rendered with painful accuracy. Let the Article be [mis-]represented—the Prepositions caricatured—the Particles magnified,—let[pg 155]the very order of the words at first, (however impossible,) be religiously retained. Merciless accuracy having been in this way acquired, a youth has to beuntaught these servile habits. He has to be reminded of the requirements of theEnglish idiom, and speedily becomes aware that the idiomatic rendering of a Greek author into English, is a higher achievement by far, than his former slavish endeavour always to render the same word and tense in the same slavish way.2. But what supremely annoys us in the work just now under review is, that the schoolboy method of translation already noticed is therein exhibited in constant operation throughout. It becomes oppressive. We are never permitted to believe that we are in the company of Scholars who are altogether masters of their own language. Their solicitude ever seems to be twofold:—(1) To exhibit a singular indifference to the proprieties of English speech, while they maintain a servile adherence (etymological or idiomatic, as the case may be) to the Greek:—(2) Right or wrong, to part company from William Tyndale and the giants who gave us our“Authorized Version.”Take a few illustrations of what precedes from the second chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel:—(1.) Thus, in ver. 2, the correct English rendering“we have seen”is made to give place to the incorrect“we sawhis star in the east.”—In ver. 9, the idiomatic“when they had heard the king, they departed,”is rejected for the unidiomatic“And they,having heard the king, went their way.”—In ver. 15, we are treated to“that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by theLordthroughthe prophet, saying, Out of Egyptdid I callmy son.”And yet who sees not, that in both instances the old rendering is better? Important[pg 156]as it may be,in the lecture-room, to insist on what is implied by τὸ ῥηθὲν ὙΠῸ τοῦ κυρίου ΔΙᾺ τοῦ προφήτου, it is simply preposterous tocome abroadwith such refinements. It is to stultify oneself and to render one's author unintelligible. Moreover, the attempt to be so wondrous literal is safe to break down at the end of a few verses. Thus, if διά is“through”in verse 15,—why not in verse 17 and in verse 23?
Why then, (it will of course be asked,) is the margin—(a) of S. Mark i. 1 and—(b) of S. John i. 3, and—(c) of S. John iii. 13, encumbered after this discreditable fashion? It is (we answer) only becausethe Text of Drs. Westcott and Hortis thus depraved in all three places. Those Scholars enjoy the unenviable distinction of having dared to expel from S. John iii. 13 the words ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, which Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf were afraid to touch. Well may Dean Stanley have bestowed upon Dr. Hort the epithet of“fearless”!... If report speaks truly, it is by the merest accident that the clause in question still retains its place inthe Revised Text.(d) Only once more. And this time we will turn to the very end of the blessed volume. Against Rev. xiii. 18—“Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the Beast; for it is the number of a Man: and his number is six hundred and sixty and six.”Against this, we find noted,—“Some ancient authorities readsix hundred and sixteen.”But why is not thewholeTruth told? viz. why are we not informed thatonly onecorrupt uncial (c):—only onecursive copy (11):—only oneFather (Tichonius): andnot oneancient Version—advocates this reading?—which, on the contrary,[pg 136]Irenæus (a.d.170) knew, but rejected; remarking that 666, which is“found in all the best and oldest copies and is attested by men who saw John face to face,”is unquestionably the true reading.473Why is not the ordinary Reader further informed that the same number (666) is expressly vouched for by Origen,474—by Hippolytus,475—by Eusebius:476—as well as by Victorinus—and Primasius,—not to mention Andreas and Arethas? To come to the moderns, as a matter of fact the established reading is accepted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,—even by Westcott and Hort.Whytherefore—for what possible reason—at the end of 1700 years and upwards, is this, which is so clearly nothing else but an ancient slip of the pen, to be forced upon the attention of 90 millions of English-speaking people?Will Bishop Ellicott and his friends venture to tell us that it has been done because“it would not be safe to accept”666,“to the absolute exclusion of”616?...“We have givenalternative Readingsin the margin,”(say they,)“wherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice.”Will they venture to claim either“interest”or“importance”forthis? or pretend that it is an“alternative Reading”at all? Has it been rescued from oblivion and paraded before universal Christendom in order to perplex, mystify, and discourage“those that have understanding,”and would fain“count the number of the Beast,”if they were able? Or was the intention only to insinuate one more wretched doubt—one more miserable suspicion—into minds which have been taught (and rightly) to place absolute reliance in the textual accuracy of all the gravest utterances of theSpirit: minds which are utterly incapable[pg 137]of dealing with the subtleties of Textual Criticism; and, from a one-sided statement like the present, will carry away none but entirely mistaken inferences, and the most unreasonable distrust?... Or, lastly, was it only because, in their opinion, the margin of every Englishman's N. T. is the fittest place for reviving the memory of obsolete blunders, and ventilating forgotten perversions of the Truth?... We really pause for an answer.(e) But serious as this is,moreserious (if possible) is the unfairSuppression systematically practisedthroughout the work before us.“We have given alternative Readings in the margin,”—(says Bishop Ellicott on behalf of his brother-Revisionists,)—“wherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice.”[iii. 1.] From which statement, readers have a right to infer that whenever“alternative Readings”arenot“given in the margin,”it is because such Readings donot“seem to be ofsufficient importance or interest to deserve notice.”Will the Revisionists venture to tell us that,—(to take the first instance of unfair Suppression which presents itself,)—ourLord's saying in S. Mark vi. 11 is not“of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice”? We allude to the famous words,—“Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city:”—words which are not only omitted from the“New English Version,”butare not suffered to leave so much as a trace of themselves in the margin. And yet, the saying in question is attested by the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac Versions: by the Old Latin: by the Coptic, Æthiopic and Gothic Versions:—by 11 uncials and by the whole bulk of the cursives:—by Irenæus and by Victor of Antioch. So that whether Antiquity, or Variety of Attestation is considered,—whether we look for Numbers or for Respectability,—the genuineness[pg 138]of the passage may be regarded ascertain. Our complaint however isnotthat the Revisionists entertain a different opinion on this head from ourselves: but that they give the reader to understand that the state of the Evidence is such, that it is quite“safe to accept”the shorter reading,—“to theabsolute exclusionof the other.”—So vast is the field before us, that this single specimen of what we venture to call“unfair Suppression,”must suffice. (Some will not hesitate to bestow upon it a harsher epithet.) It is in truth by far the most damaging feature of the work before us, that its Authors should have so largely and so seriouslyfalsified the Deposit; and yet, (in clear violation of the IVth Principle or Rule laid down for their guidance at the outset,) have suffered no trace to survive in the margin of the deadly mischief which they have effected.III. From the Text, the Revisionists pass on to theTranslation; and surprise us by the avowal, that“the character of the Revision was determined for us from the outset by the first Rule,—‘to introduce as few alterations as possible, consistently with faithfulness.’Our task was Revision, not Retranslation.”(This isnaïvecertainly.) They proceed,—“If the meaning was fairly expressed by the word or phrase that was before us in the Authorized Version, we made no change, even where rigid adherence tothe rule of Translating, as far as possible, the same Greek word by the same English wordmight have prescribed some modification.”—[iii. 2init.] (The italics are our own.)To the“rule”thus introduced to our notice, we shall recur by and by [pp.152-4: also pp.187-202]. We proceed to remark on each of the five principal Classes of alterations indicated by the Revisionists: and first,—“Alterations[pg 139]positively required by change of reading in the Greek Text”(Ibid.).(1) Thus, in S. John xii. 7, we find“Suffer her to keep itagainst the day of my burying;”and in the margin (as an alternative),“Let her alone:it was that she might keep it.”—Instead of“as soon asJesusheard the word,”—we are invited to choose between“not heeding,”and“overhearingthe word”(S. Mk. v. 36): these being intended for renderings of παρακούσας,—an expression which S. Mark certainly never employed.—“On earth, peace among menin whom he is well pleased”(S. Lu. ii. 14): where the margin informs us that“many ancient authorities read,good pleasure among men.”(And why not“good will,”—the rendering adopted in Phil. i. 15?) ... Take some more of the alterations which have resulted from the adoption of a corrupt Text:—“Whyaskest thou me concerning that which is good?”(Matth. xix. 17,—an absurd fabrication).—“He would fainhave been filledwith the husks,”&c....“and I perishherewith hunger!”(χορτασθῆναι, borrowed from Lu. xvi. 21: and εγΩΔΕωδε, a transparent error: S. Luke xv. 16, 17).—“Whenit shall fail, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles”(xvi. 9).——Elizabeth“lifted up her voicewith a loud cry”(κραυγή—the private property of three bad MSS. and Origen: Lu. i. 42).—“Andthey stood still looking sad”(xxiv. 17,—a foolish transcriptional blunder).—“The multitudewent upand began to ask him,”&c. (ἀναβάς for ἀναβοήσας, Mk. xv. 8).—“But is guilty ofan eternal sin”(iii. 29).—“And the officersreceived Himwith blows of their hands,”—marg.“orstrokes of rods:”ΕΛΑΒΟΝ for ΕΒΑΛΟΝ (xiv. 65).—“Else, that which should fill it up taketh from it,the new from the old”(ii. 21): and“No manrendeth a piece from a new garmentand putteth it upon an old garment; elsehe will rend the new,”&c. (Lu. v. 36).—“What is this?a new teaching!”(Mk. i. 27).—“Jesussaith unto him,If thou canst!”(Mk. ix. 23).—“Because of yourlittle[pg 140]faith”(Matth. xvii. 20).—“We mustwork the works of Him that sent Me, while it is day”(Jo. ix. 4).—“The man that is calledJesusmade clay”(ver. 11).—“If ye shall askMe anything in My name”(xiv. 14).—“The Father abiding in Medoeth His works”(xiv. 10).—“If ye shall ask anything of the Father,He will give it you in My name”(xvi. 23).—“I glorified Thee on the earth,having accomplished the workwhich Thou hast given Me to do”(xvii. 4).—“Holy Father, keep themin Thy Name whichThou hast given Me ... I kept themin Thy Name whichThou hast given me”(ver. 11, 12).—“She ... saith unto Himin Hebrew, Rabboni”(xx. 16).—“These things said Isaiah,becausehe saw his glory”(xii. 41,—ΟΤΙ for ΟΤΕ, a common itacism).—“In tablesthat are hearts of flesh”(ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίαις σαρκίναις, a“perfectly absurd reading,”as Scrivener remarks, p. 442: 2 Cor. iii. 3).—“Now ifwe put the horses' bridles [and pray, why not‘the horses'bits’?] into their mouths”(ΕΙΔΕ, an ordinary itacism for ΙΔΕ, James iii. 3).—“Unto the sick werecarried away from his bodyhandkerchiefs,”&c. (Acts xix. 12).—“Ye know all things once for all”(Jude ver. 5).—“We lovebecause he first loved us”(1 Jo. iv. 19).—“I have foundno work of thine fulfilledbefore myGod”(Rev. iii. 2).—“Seven Angelsarrayed with [precious] stone”(xv. 6), instead of“clothed in linen,”λίθον for λίνον. (Fancy the Angels“clothed in stone”!“Precious”is an interpolation of the Revisers).—“Dwelling inthe things which he hath seen:”for which the margin offers as an alternative,“taking his stand upon”(Colossians ii. 18). But ἐμβατεύων (the word here employed) clearly means neither the one nor the other. S. Paul is delivering a warning against unduly“prying intothe thingsnotseen.”477A few MSS. of bad character omit the“not.”That is all!... These then are a handful of the less[pg 141]conspicuous instances of a change in the English“positively required by a change of reading in the Greek Text:”every one of them being either a pitiful blunder or else a gross fabrication.—Take only two more:“I neither know, nor understand:thou, what sayest thou?”(Mk. xiv. 68 margin):—“Andwhither I go, ye know the way”(Jo. xiv. 4).... The A. V. is better in every instance.(2) and (3) Next, alterations made because the A. V.“appeared to be incorrect”or else“obscure.”They must needs be such as the following:—“He thatis bathedneedeth not save to wash his feet”(S. John xiii. 10).—“Lord, if he is fallen asleephe will recover”(σωθήσεται, xi. 12).—“Go ye therefore intothe partings of the highways”(Matth. xxii. 9).—“Being grieved atthe hardeningof their heart”(Mk. iii. 5).—“Lighta lampand put iton the stand”(Matt. v. 15).—“Sitting atthe place of toll”(ix. 9).—“The supplication of a righteous man availeth muchin its working”(James v. 16).—“Awake uprighteously”(1 Cor. xv. 34).—“Guardedthrough faith untoa salvation”(1 Pet. i. 5).—“Wandering in ...the holes of the earth”(Heb. xi. 38—very queer places certainly to be“wandering”in).—“She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you”(1 Pet. v. 13).—“Therefore dothese powers work in Him”(Matth. xiv. 2).—“In danger of thehell of fire”(v. 22).—“Put outinto the deep”(Luke v. 4).—“The tomb that Abraham bought fora price in silver”(Acts vii. 16).With reference to every one of these places, (and they are but samples of what is to be met with in every page,) we venture to assert that they are eitherlessintelligible, or elsemoreinaccurate, than the expressions which they are severally intended to supersede; while, in some instances, they areboth. Will any one seriously contend that“the hire of wrong-doing”[pg 142]is better than“the wages of unrighteousness”(2 Pet. ii. 15)? or, will he venture to deny that,“Come anddine”—“so when theyhad dined,”—is a hundred times better than“Come andbreak your fast”—“so when theyhad broken their fast”(Jo. xxi. 12, 15)?—expressions which are only introduced because the Revisionists were ashamed (as well they might be) to write“breakfast”and“breakfasted.”The seven had not been“fasting.”Then, why introduce so incongruous a notion here,—any more than into S. Luke xi. 37, 38, and xiv. 12?Has the reader any appetite for more specimens of“incorrectness”remediedand“obscurity”removed? Rather, as it seems, havebothbeen largely imported into a Translation which was singularly intelligible before. Why darken Rom. vii. 1 and xi. 2 by introducing the interrogative particle, and then, by mistranslating it“Or”?—Also, why translate γένος“race”? (“a man of Cyprusby race,”“a man of Pontusby race,”“an Alexandrianby race,”Acts iv. 36: xviii. 2, 24).—“Ifthere is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body,”say the Revisionists:“O death, where is thy victory? Odeathwhere is thy sting?”(Could they not let even 1 Cor. xv. 44 and 55 alone?)—Why alter“For the bread ofGodisHe,”into“For the bread ofGodisthatwhich cometh down from Heaven”? (Jo. vi. 33).—“As long as I amin the world,”was surely better than“When I amin the world, I am the light of the world”(ix. 5).—Is“He went forth out oftheir hand”supposed to be an improvement upon“He escaped out oftheir hand”? (x. 39): and is“They lovedthe gloryof men more thanthe gloryof GOD”an improvement upon“thepraise”? (xii. 43).—“Judas saith unto Him,Lord,what is come to passthat Thou wilt manifest Thyself to us”? Isthatsupposed to be an improvement upon xiv. 22?—How is“If then”an improvement on“Forasmuch then”in Acts xi. 17?—or how is this endurable in Rom. vii. 15,—“For that which I do, I[pg 143]knownot: fornot what I would, that do I practise:”—or this, in xvi. 25,“The mystery which hath beenkept in silence through times eternal, but now is manifested,”&c.—“Thou therefore,my child,”—addressing the Bishop of Ephesus (2 Tim. ii. 1): and“Titus,my true child,”—addressing the Bishop of Crete (Tit. i. 4).Are the following deemed improvements?“Every one thatdoethsin doeth alsolawlessness: and sin is lawlessness”(1 Jo. iii. 4):“I willmovethy candlestick out of its place”(Rev. ii. 5):—“aglassysea”(iv. 6):—“agreatvoice”(v. 12):—“Verily, not of Angelsdoth He take hold, butHe taketh holdof the seed of Abraham:”—“Hetook hold ofthe blind man bythe hand:”—“Theytook hold of himand brought him unto the Areopagus”(Heb. ii. 16: S. Mk. viii. 23: Acts xvii. 19):—“whereforeGodis notashamed of them, to be called theirGod”(Acts xi. 16):—“Counted it not a prizeto be on an equality withGod”(Phil. ii. 6).—Why are we to substitute“court”for“palace”in Matth. xxvi. 3 and Lu. xi. 21? (Consider Matth. xii. 29 and Mk. iii. 27).—“Women received their deadby a resurrection”(Heb. xi. 35):—“If ye forgive not every onehis brother from their hearts”(Matth. xviii. 35):—“Ifbecause of meatthy brother is grieved, thou walkestno longer in love”(Rom. xiv. 15):—“whichGod, who cannot lie, promisedbefore times eternal; butin his own seasonsmanifestedhis word in the message”(Tit. i. 2, 3):—“Yourpleasures[and why not‘lusts’?] that war in your members”(James iv. 1):—“Beholdhow much woodis kindled byhow small a fire!”(iii. 5).—Are these really supposed to be less“obscure”than the passages they are intended to supersede?(a) Not a few of the mistaken renderings of the Revisionists can only be established by an amount of illustration which is at once inconvenient to the Reviewer and unwelcome probably[pg 144]to the general Reader. Thus, we take leave to point out that,—“Andcoming upat that very hour”(in Lu. ii. 38),—as well as“shecame upto Him”(in Lu. x. 40), are inexact renderings of the original. The verb ἐφιστάναι, which etymologically signifies“to stand upon,”or“over,”or“by,”—(but which retains its literal signification on only four out of the eighteen occasions478when the word occurs in the Gospels and Acts,)—is found almost invariably to denote the“coming suddenly upon”a person. Hence, it is observed to be used five times to denote the sudden appearance of friendly visitants from the unseen world:479and seven times, the sudden hostile approach of what is formidable.480On the two remaining occasions, which are those before us,—(namely, the sudden coming of Anna into the Temple481and of Martha into the presence of ourLord,482)—“coming suddenly in”would probably represent S. Luke's ἐπιστᾶσα exactly. And yet, one would hesitate to import the word“suddenly”into the narrative. So that“coming in”would after all have to stand in the text, although the attentive student of Scripture would enjoy the knowledge that something more isimplied. In other words,—the Revisionists would have done better if they had left both places alone.... These are many words; yet is it impossible to explain such matters at once satisfactorily and briefly.(b) But more painful by far it is to discover that a morbid striving after etymological accuracy,—added to a[pg 145]calamitous preference for a depraved Text,—has proved the ruin of one of the most affecting scenes in S. John's Gospel.“Simon Peter beckoneth to him,and saith unto him, Tell us who it is of whom He speaketh”[a fabulous statement evidently; for Peter beckoned, because he mightnotspeak].“Heleaning back, as he was,”—[a very bad rendering of οὕτως, by the way; and sure to recal inopportunely the rendering of ὡς ἦν in S. Mark iv. 36, instead of suggesting (as it obviously ought) the original of S. John iv. 6:]—“onJesus' breast, saith unto Him,Lordwho is it?”(S. John xiii. 24-5). Now, S. John's word concerning himself in this place is certainly ἐπιπεσών. He“just sank”—let his head“fall”—on his Master's breast, and whispered his question. For this, a few corrupt copies substitute ἀναπεσών. But ἀναπεσώνnevermeans“leaning back.”It is descriptive of the posture of onereclining at a meal(S. Jo. xiii. 12). Accordingly, it is 10 times rendered by the Revisionists to“sit down.”Why, in this place, and in chapter xxi. 20,a new meaningis thrust upon the word, it is for the Revisionists to explain. But they must explain the matter a vast deal better than Bp. Lightfoot has done in his interesting little work on Revision (pp. 72-3), or they will fail to persuade any,—except one another.(c) Thus it happens that we never spend half-an-hour over the unfortunate production before us without exclaiming (with one in the Gospel),“The old is better.”Changes ofanysort are unwelcome in such a book as the Bible; but the discovery that changes have been madefor the worse, offends greatly. To take instances at random:—'Ὁ πλεῖστος ὄχλος (in Matth. xxi. 8) is rightly rendered in our A. V.“avery greatmultitude.”483Why then has it been altered by the R. V. into[pg 146]“the most part ofthe multitude”?—Ὁ πολὺς ὄχλος (Mk. xii. 37), in like manner, is rightly rendered“the common people,”and ought not to have been glossed in the margin“the great multitude.”—In the R. V. of Acts x. 15, we find“Makethou not common,”introduced as an improvement on,“That callnot thou common.”But“the old is better:”for, besides its idiomatic and helpful“That,”—the old alone states the case truly. Peter did not“make,”he only“called,”something“common.”—“All themalechildren,”as a translation of πάντας τοὺς παῖδας (in Matth. ii. 16) is an unauthorized statement. There is no reason for supposing that the female infants of Bethlehem were spared in the general massacre: and the Greek certainly conveys no such information.—“When he came into the house,Jesusspake firstto him”—is really an incorrect rendering of Matth. xvii. 25: at least, it imports into the narrative a notion which is not found in the Greek, and does not exhibit faithfully what the Evangelist actually says.“Anticipated,”in modern English,—“prevented,”in ancient phraseology,—“was beforehand with him”in language neither new nor old,—conveys the sense of the original exactly.—In S. Lu. vi. 35,“Love your enemies, ... and lend,never despairing,”is simply a mistaken translation of ἀπελπίζοντες, as the context sufficiently proves. The old rendering is the true one.484And so, learnedly, the Vulgate,—nihil inde sperantes. (Consider the use of ἀποβλέπειν [Heb. xi. 26]: ἀφορᾶν [Phil. ii. 23: Heb. xii. 2]:abutor, as used by Jerome forutor, &c.)—“Go with themmaking no distinction”is not the meaning of Acts xi. 12: which, however, was correctly translated before, viz.“nothing doubting.”—The mischievous change (“save”in place of“but”) in Gal. ii. 16 has been ably and faithfully exposed by Bp. Ollivant. In the words of the[pg 147]learned and pious Bp. of Lincoln,“it is illogical and erroneous, andcontradicts the whole drift of S. Paul's Argumentin that Epistle, and in the Epistle to the Romans.”(d) We should be dealing insincerely with our Readers were we to conceal our grave dissatisfaction at not a few of the novelexpressionswhich the Revisionists have sought to introduce into the English New Testament. That the malefactors between whom“theLordof glory”was crucified were not ordinary“thieves”is obvious; yet would it have been wiser, we think, to leave the old designation undisturbed. We shall never learn to call them“robbers.”—“The king sent fortha soldier of his guard”is a gloss—not a translation of S. Mark vi. 27.“An executioner”surely is far preferable as the equivalent for σπεκουλάτωρ!485—“Assassins”(as the rendering of σικάριοι) is an objectionable substitute for“murderers.”A word which“belongs probably to a romantic chapter in the history of the Crusades”486has no business in the N. T.—And what did these learned men suppose they should gain by substituting“the twin brothers”for“Castor and Pollux”in Acts xxviii. 11? The Greek (Διόσκουροι) is neither the one nor the other.—In the same spirit, instead of,“they that receivedtribute-money”(in S. Matth. xvii. 24), we are now presented with“they that receivedthe half-shekel:”and in verse 27,—instead of“when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt finda piece of money,”we are favoured with“thou shalt finda shekel.”Butwhythe change has been made, we fail to see. The margin isstillobliged to explain that not one of these four words is found in the original: the Greek in the former place being τὰ δίδραχμα,—in the latter, στατήρ.—“Flute-players”[pg 148](for“minstrels”) in S. Matthew ix. 23, is a mistake. An αὐλητής playedthe pipe(αὐλός, 1 Cor. xiv. 7),—hence“pipers”in Rev. xviii. 22; (where by the way μουσικοί [“musicians”] is perversely and less accurately rendered“minstrels”).—Once more.“Undressedcloth”(Mk. ii. 21), because it is an expression popularly understood only in certain districts of England, and avox artis, ought not to have been introduced into the Gospels.“New”is preferable.—“Wine-skins”(Mtt. ix. 17: Mk. ii. 22: Lu. v. 37) is a term unintelligible to the generality; as the Revisionists confess, for they explain it by a note,—“That is,skins used as bottles.”What else is this but substituting a new difficulty for an old one?—“Silver,”now for the first time thrust into Acts viii. 20, is unreasonable. Like“argent”in French, ἀργύριον as much means“money,”here as in S. Matthew xxv. 18, 27, &c.—In S. James ii. 19, we should like to know what is gained by the introduction of the“shuddering”devils.—To take an example from a different class of words,—Who will say that“Thoumindestnot the things ofGod”is a better rendering of οὐ φρονεῖς, than the old“Thousavourestnot,”—which at least had no ambiguity about it?... A friend points out that Dr. Field (a“master in Israel”) has examined 104 of the changesmadein the Revised Version; and finds 8 questionable: 13 unnecessary: 19 faulty (i.e.cases in which the A. V. required amendment, but which the R. V. has not succeeded in amending): 64changes for the worse.487... This is surely a terrible indictment for such an one as Dr. Field to bring against the Revisers,—who were directed only to correct“plain and clear errors.”(e) We really fail to understand how it has come to pass that, notwithstanding the amount of scholarship which[pg 149]sometimes sat in the Jerusalem Chamber, so many novelties are found in the present Revision which betoken a want of familiarity with the refinements of the Greek language on the one hand; and (what is even more inexcusable) only a slender acquaintance with the resources and proprieties of English speech, on the other. A fair average instance of this occurs in Acts xxi. 37, where (instead of“CanstthouspeakGreek?”) Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις? is rendered“DostthouknowGreek?”That γινώσκειν means“to know”(and not“to speak”) is undeniable: and yet, in the account of all, except the driest and stupidest of pedagogues, Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις; must be translated“Canst thouspeakGreek?”For (as every schoolboy is aware) Ἑλληνιστί is an adverb, and signifies“in Greek fashion:”so that something has to be supplied: and the full expression, if it must needs be given, would be,“Dost thou know [how to talk] in Greek?”But then, this condensation of phrase proves to be the established idiom of the language:488so that the rejection of the learned rendering of Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the Translators of 1611 (“Canst thou speakGreek?”)—the rejection of this, at the end of 270 years, in favour of“Dost thou knowGreek?”really betrays ignorance. It is worse than bad Taste. It is a stupid and deliberateblunder.(f) The substitution of“they weighed unto him”(in place of“they covenanted with him for”)“thirty pieces of silver”(S. Matth. xxvi. 15) is another of those plausible mistakes, into which a little learning (proverbially“a dangerous thing”) is for ever conducting its unfortunate possessor; but from which it was to have been expected that the undoubted[pg 150]attainments of some who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber would have effectually preserved the Revisionists. That ἔστησαν is intended to recal Zech. xi. 12, is obvious; as well as thatthereit refers to the ancient practice ofweighinguncoined money. It does not, however, by any means follow, that it was customary toweighshekels in the days of the Gospel. Coined money, in fact, was never weighed, but always counted; and these were shekels,i.e.didrachms(Matth. xvii. 24). The truth (it lies on the surface) is, that there exists a happy ambiguity about the word ἔστησαν, of which the Evangelist has not been slow to avail himself. In the particular case before us, it is expressly recorded that in the first instance money didnotpass,—only a bargain was made, and a certain sum promised. S. Mark's record is that the chief priests were glad at the proposal of Judas,“and promisedto give him money”(xiv. 11): S. Luke's, that“they covenanted”to do so (xxii. 5, 6). And with this, the statement of the first Evangelist is found to be in strictest agreement. The chief Priests“set”or“appointed”489him a certain sum. The perfectly accurate rendering of S. Matth. xxvi. 15, therefore, exhibited by our Authorized Version, has been set aside to make way fora misrepresentation of the Evangelist's meaning.“In the judgment of the most competent scholars,”was“such changenecessary”?(g) We respectfully think that it would have been more becoming in such a company as that which assembled in the Jerusalem Chamber, as well as more consistent with their Instructions, ifin doubtful casesthey had abstained from touching the Authorized Version, but had recorded their own conjectural emendationsin the margin. How rash and infelicitous,[pg 151]for example, is the following rendering of the famous words in Acts xxvi. 28, 29, which we find thrust upon us without apology or explanation; without, in fact, any marginal note at all:—“And Agrippa said unto Paul,With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make mea Christian. And Paul said, I would toGod, that whetherwith little or with much,”&c. Now this is indefensible. For, in the first place, to get any such meaning out of the words, our Revisionists have been obliged to substitute the fabricated ποιῆσαι (the peculiar property of אa band a few cursives) for γενέσθαι in ver. 28. Moreover, even so, the words do not yield the required sense. We venture to point out, that this is precisely one of the occasions where the opinion of a first-rate Greek Father is of paramount importance. The moderns confess themselves unable to discover a single instance of the phrase ἐν ὀλίγῳ in the sense of“within a little.”Cyril of Jerusalem (a.d.350) and Chrysostom (a.d.400), on the contrary, evidently considered that here the expression can mean nothing else; and they were competent judges, seeing that Greek was their native language: far better judges (be it remarked in passing) on a point of this kind than the whole body of Revisionists put together.“Such an amount of victorious grace and wisdom did Paul derive from theHoly Spirit”(says Cyril),“that even King Agrippa at last exclaimed,”490&c. From which it is evident that Cyril regarded Agrippa's words as an avowal that he was well-nigh overcome by the Apostle's argument. And so Chrysostom,491who says plainly that ἐν ὀλίγῳ means“within a little,”492and assumes that“within a little”S. Paul had[pg 152]persuaded his judge.493He even puts παρ᾽ ὀλίγον into Agrippa's mouth.494So also, in effect, Theodoret.495From all which it is reasonable, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to infer that our A. V. reflects faithfully what was the Church's traditionary interpretation of Acts xxvi. 28 in the first half of the fourth century. Let it only be added that a better judge of such matters than any who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber—the late President of Magdalen, Dr. Routh,—writes:“Vertendum esse sequentia suadent, Me fere Christianum fieri suades. Interp. Vulgata habet, In modico suades me Christianum fieri.”496Yes, the Apostle's rejoinder fixes the meaning of what Agrippa had said before.—And this shall suffice. We pass on, only repeating our devout wish that what the Revisionists failed to understand, or were unablematerially and certainlyto improve, they would have been so obliging as to let alone. In the present instance the A. V. is probably right; the R. V., probably wrong. No one, at all events, can pretend that the rendering with which we are all familiar is“a plain and clear error.”And confessedly, unless it was, it should have been left unmolested. But to proceed.(4) and (5) There can be no question as to the absolute duty of rendering identical expressionsin strictly parallel places of the Gospelsby strictly identical language. So far we are wholly at one with the Revisionists. But“alterations [supposed to be] rendered necessaryby consequence”(Preface, iii. 2.), are quite a different matter: and we venture to think that it is precisely in their pursuit of a mechanical uniformity of rendering, that our Revisionists have most often as well as most grievously lost their way. We differ from them in factin limine.“When a particular word”(say they)“is found to[pg 153]recur with characteristic frequency in any one of the Sacred Writers, it is obviously desirable to adopt for it some uniform rendering”(iii. 2).“Desirable”! Yes, but in what sense? It is much to be desired, no doubt, that the English language always containedthe exact counterpartsof Greek words: and of course, if it did, it would be in the highest degree“desirable”that a Translator should always employ those words and no other. But then it happens unfortunately thatprecisely equivalent words do not exist. Τέκνον, nine times out of ten signifies nothing else but“child.”On the tenth occasion, however, (e.g.where Abraham is addressing the rich man in Hades,) it would be absurd so to render it. We translate“Son.”We are in fact without choice.—Take another ordinary Greek term, σπλάγχνα, which occurs 11 times in the N. T., and which the A. V. uniformly renders“bowels.”Well, and“bowels”confessedly σπλάγχνα are. Yet have our Revisionists felt themselves under the“necessity”of rendering the word“heart,”in Col. iii. 12,—“very heart,”in Philemon, ver. 12,—“affections”in 2 Cor. vi. 12,—“inward affection,”in vii. 15,—“tender mercies”in Phil. i. 8,—“compassion”in 1 Jo. iii. 17,—“bowels”only in Acts i. 18.—These learned men, however, put forward in illustration of their own principle of translation, the word εὐθέως,—which occurs about 80 times in the N. T.: nearly half the instances being found in S. Mark's Gospel. We accept their challenge; and assert that it is tasteless barbarism to seek to impose upon εὐθέως,—no matterwhatthe context in which it stands,—the sense of“straightway,”—only because εὐθύς, the adjective, generally (not always) means“straight.”Where a miracle of healing is described (as in S. Matth. viii. 3: xx. 34. S. Lu. v. 13), since the benefit was no doubt instantaneous, it is surely the mere instinct of“faithfulness”to translate εὐθέως“immediately.”So, in respect of the sudden act which saved Peter from sinking (S. Matth. xiv. 31); and that punctual cock-crow[pg 154](xxvi. 74), which (S. Luke says) did not so much follow, asaccompanyhis denial (xxii. 60). But surely not so, whenthe growth of a seedis the thing spoken of (Matth. xiii. 5)! Acts again, which must needs have occupied some little time in the doing, reasonably suggest some such rendering as“forthwith”or“straightway,”—(e.g.S. Matth. xiv. 22: xxi. 2: and S. John vi. 21): while, in 3 John ver. 14, the meaning (as the Revisionists confess) can only be“shortly.”... So plain a matter really ought not to require so many words. We repeat, that the Revisionists set out with a mistaken Principle. They clearlydo not understand their Trade.They invite our attention to their rendering of certain of the Greek Tenses, and of the definite Article. We regret to discover that, in both respects, their work is disfigured throughout by changes which convict a majority of their body alike of an imperfect acquaintance with the genius of the Greek language, and of scarcely a moderate appreciation of the idiomatic proprieties of their own. Such a charge must of necessity, when it has been substantiated, press heavily upon such a work as the present; for it is not as when a solitary error has been detected, which may be rectified. A vicioussystemof rendering Tenses, and representing the Greek Article, is sure to crop up in every part of the undertaking, and must occasionally be attended by consequences of a serious nature.1. Now, that we may not be misunderstood, we admit at once that, in teachingboyshow to turn Greek into English, we insist that every tense shall be marked by its own appropriate sign. There is no telling how helpful it will prove in the end, that every word shall at first have been rendered with painful accuracy. Let the Article be [mis-]represented—the Prepositions caricatured—the Particles magnified,—let[pg 155]the very order of the words at first, (however impossible,) be religiously retained. Merciless accuracy having been in this way acquired, a youth has to beuntaught these servile habits. He has to be reminded of the requirements of theEnglish idiom, and speedily becomes aware that the idiomatic rendering of a Greek author into English, is a higher achievement by far, than his former slavish endeavour always to render the same word and tense in the same slavish way.2. But what supremely annoys us in the work just now under review is, that the schoolboy method of translation already noticed is therein exhibited in constant operation throughout. It becomes oppressive. We are never permitted to believe that we are in the company of Scholars who are altogether masters of their own language. Their solicitude ever seems to be twofold:—(1) To exhibit a singular indifference to the proprieties of English speech, while they maintain a servile adherence (etymological or idiomatic, as the case may be) to the Greek:—(2) Right or wrong, to part company from William Tyndale and the giants who gave us our“Authorized Version.”Take a few illustrations of what precedes from the second chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel:—(1.) Thus, in ver. 2, the correct English rendering“we have seen”is made to give place to the incorrect“we sawhis star in the east.”—In ver. 9, the idiomatic“when they had heard the king, they departed,”is rejected for the unidiomatic“And they,having heard the king, went their way.”—In ver. 15, we are treated to“that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by theLordthroughthe prophet, saying, Out of Egyptdid I callmy son.”And yet who sees not, that in both instances the old rendering is better? Important[pg 156]as it may be,in the lecture-room, to insist on what is implied by τὸ ῥηθὲν ὙΠῸ τοῦ κυρίου ΔΙᾺ τοῦ προφήτου, it is simply preposterous tocome abroadwith such refinements. It is to stultify oneself and to render one's author unintelligible. Moreover, the attempt to be so wondrous literal is safe to break down at the end of a few verses. Thus, if διά is“through”in verse 15,—why not in verse 17 and in verse 23?
Why then, (it will of course be asked,) is the margin—(a) of S. Mark i. 1 and—(b) of S. John i. 3, and—(c) of S. John iii. 13, encumbered after this discreditable fashion? It is (we answer) only becausethe Text of Drs. Westcott and Hortis thus depraved in all three places. Those Scholars enjoy the unenviable distinction of having dared to expel from S. John iii. 13 the words ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, which Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf were afraid to touch. Well may Dean Stanley have bestowed upon Dr. Hort the epithet of“fearless”!... If report speaks truly, it is by the merest accident that the clause in question still retains its place inthe Revised Text.(d) Only once more. And this time we will turn to the very end of the blessed volume. Against Rev. xiii. 18—“Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the Beast; for it is the number of a Man: and his number is six hundred and sixty and six.”Against this, we find noted,—“Some ancient authorities readsix hundred and sixteen.”But why is not thewholeTruth told? viz. why are we not informed thatonly onecorrupt uncial (c):—only onecursive copy (11):—only oneFather (Tichonius): andnot oneancient Version—advocates this reading?—which, on the contrary,[pg 136]Irenæus (a.d.170) knew, but rejected; remarking that 666, which is“found in all the best and oldest copies and is attested by men who saw John face to face,”is unquestionably the true reading.473Why is not the ordinary Reader further informed that the same number (666) is expressly vouched for by Origen,474—by Hippolytus,475—by Eusebius:476—as well as by Victorinus—and Primasius,—not to mention Andreas and Arethas? To come to the moderns, as a matter of fact the established reading is accepted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,—even by Westcott and Hort.Whytherefore—for what possible reason—at the end of 1700 years and upwards, is this, which is so clearly nothing else but an ancient slip of the pen, to be forced upon the attention of 90 millions of English-speaking people?Will Bishop Ellicott and his friends venture to tell us that it has been done because“it would not be safe to accept”666,“to the absolute exclusion of”616?...“We have givenalternative Readingsin the margin,”(say they,)“wherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice.”Will they venture to claim either“interest”or“importance”forthis? or pretend that it is an“alternative Reading”at all? Has it been rescued from oblivion and paraded before universal Christendom in order to perplex, mystify, and discourage“those that have understanding,”and would fain“count the number of the Beast,”if they were able? Or was the intention only to insinuate one more wretched doubt—one more miserable suspicion—into minds which have been taught (and rightly) to place absolute reliance in the textual accuracy of all the gravest utterances of theSpirit: minds which are utterly incapable[pg 137]of dealing with the subtleties of Textual Criticism; and, from a one-sided statement like the present, will carry away none but entirely mistaken inferences, and the most unreasonable distrust?... Or, lastly, was it only because, in their opinion, the margin of every Englishman's N. T. is the fittest place for reviving the memory of obsolete blunders, and ventilating forgotten perversions of the Truth?... We really pause for an answer.(e) But serious as this is,moreserious (if possible) is the unfairSuppression systematically practisedthroughout the work before us.“We have given alternative Readings in the margin,”—(says Bishop Ellicott on behalf of his brother-Revisionists,)—“wherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice.”[iii. 1.] From which statement, readers have a right to infer that whenever“alternative Readings”arenot“given in the margin,”it is because such Readings donot“seem to be ofsufficient importance or interest to deserve notice.”Will the Revisionists venture to tell us that,—(to take the first instance of unfair Suppression which presents itself,)—ourLord's saying in S. Mark vi. 11 is not“of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice”? We allude to the famous words,—“Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city:”—words which are not only omitted from the“New English Version,”butare not suffered to leave so much as a trace of themselves in the margin. And yet, the saying in question is attested by the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac Versions: by the Old Latin: by the Coptic, Æthiopic and Gothic Versions:—by 11 uncials and by the whole bulk of the cursives:—by Irenæus and by Victor of Antioch. So that whether Antiquity, or Variety of Attestation is considered,—whether we look for Numbers or for Respectability,—the genuineness[pg 138]of the passage may be regarded ascertain. Our complaint however isnotthat the Revisionists entertain a different opinion on this head from ourselves: but that they give the reader to understand that the state of the Evidence is such, that it is quite“safe to accept”the shorter reading,—“to theabsolute exclusionof the other.”—So vast is the field before us, that this single specimen of what we venture to call“unfair Suppression,”must suffice. (Some will not hesitate to bestow upon it a harsher epithet.) It is in truth by far the most damaging feature of the work before us, that its Authors should have so largely and so seriouslyfalsified the Deposit; and yet, (in clear violation of the IVth Principle or Rule laid down for their guidance at the outset,) have suffered no trace to survive in the margin of the deadly mischief which they have effected.III. From the Text, the Revisionists pass on to theTranslation; and surprise us by the avowal, that“the character of the Revision was determined for us from the outset by the first Rule,—‘to introduce as few alterations as possible, consistently with faithfulness.’Our task was Revision, not Retranslation.”(This isnaïvecertainly.) They proceed,—“If the meaning was fairly expressed by the word or phrase that was before us in the Authorized Version, we made no change, even where rigid adherence tothe rule of Translating, as far as possible, the same Greek word by the same English wordmight have prescribed some modification.”—[iii. 2init.] (The italics are our own.)To the“rule”thus introduced to our notice, we shall recur by and by [pp.152-4: also pp.187-202]. We proceed to remark on each of the five principal Classes of alterations indicated by the Revisionists: and first,—“Alterations[pg 139]positively required by change of reading in the Greek Text”(Ibid.).(1) Thus, in S. John xii. 7, we find“Suffer her to keep itagainst the day of my burying;”and in the margin (as an alternative),“Let her alone:it was that she might keep it.”—Instead of“as soon asJesusheard the word,”—we are invited to choose between“not heeding,”and“overhearingthe word”(S. Mk. v. 36): these being intended for renderings of παρακούσας,—an expression which S. Mark certainly never employed.—“On earth, peace among menin whom he is well pleased”(S. Lu. ii. 14): where the margin informs us that“many ancient authorities read,good pleasure among men.”(And why not“good will,”—the rendering adopted in Phil. i. 15?) ... Take some more of the alterations which have resulted from the adoption of a corrupt Text:—“Whyaskest thou me concerning that which is good?”(Matth. xix. 17,—an absurd fabrication).—“He would fainhave been filledwith the husks,”&c....“and I perishherewith hunger!”(χορτασθῆναι, borrowed from Lu. xvi. 21: and εγΩΔΕωδε, a transparent error: S. Luke xv. 16, 17).—“Whenit shall fail, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles”(xvi. 9).——Elizabeth“lifted up her voicewith a loud cry”(κραυγή—the private property of three bad MSS. and Origen: Lu. i. 42).—“Andthey stood still looking sad”(xxiv. 17,—a foolish transcriptional blunder).—“The multitudewent upand began to ask him,”&c. (ἀναβάς for ἀναβοήσας, Mk. xv. 8).—“But is guilty ofan eternal sin”(iii. 29).—“And the officersreceived Himwith blows of their hands,”—marg.“orstrokes of rods:”ΕΛΑΒΟΝ for ΕΒΑΛΟΝ (xiv. 65).—“Else, that which should fill it up taketh from it,the new from the old”(ii. 21): and“No manrendeth a piece from a new garmentand putteth it upon an old garment; elsehe will rend the new,”&c. (Lu. v. 36).—“What is this?a new teaching!”(Mk. i. 27).—“Jesussaith unto him,If thou canst!”(Mk. ix. 23).—“Because of yourlittle[pg 140]faith”(Matth. xvii. 20).—“We mustwork the works of Him that sent Me, while it is day”(Jo. ix. 4).—“The man that is calledJesusmade clay”(ver. 11).—“If ye shall askMe anything in My name”(xiv. 14).—“The Father abiding in Medoeth His works”(xiv. 10).—“If ye shall ask anything of the Father,He will give it you in My name”(xvi. 23).—“I glorified Thee on the earth,having accomplished the workwhich Thou hast given Me to do”(xvii. 4).—“Holy Father, keep themin Thy Name whichThou hast given Me ... I kept themin Thy Name whichThou hast given me”(ver. 11, 12).—“She ... saith unto Himin Hebrew, Rabboni”(xx. 16).—“These things said Isaiah,becausehe saw his glory”(xii. 41,—ΟΤΙ for ΟΤΕ, a common itacism).—“In tablesthat are hearts of flesh”(ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίαις σαρκίναις, a“perfectly absurd reading,”as Scrivener remarks, p. 442: 2 Cor. iii. 3).—“Now ifwe put the horses' bridles [and pray, why not‘the horses'bits’?] into their mouths”(ΕΙΔΕ, an ordinary itacism for ΙΔΕ, James iii. 3).—“Unto the sick werecarried away from his bodyhandkerchiefs,”&c. (Acts xix. 12).—“Ye know all things once for all”(Jude ver. 5).—“We lovebecause he first loved us”(1 Jo. iv. 19).—“I have foundno work of thine fulfilledbefore myGod”(Rev. iii. 2).—“Seven Angelsarrayed with [precious] stone”(xv. 6), instead of“clothed in linen,”λίθον for λίνον. (Fancy the Angels“clothed in stone”!“Precious”is an interpolation of the Revisers).—“Dwelling inthe things which he hath seen:”for which the margin offers as an alternative,“taking his stand upon”(Colossians ii. 18). But ἐμβατεύων (the word here employed) clearly means neither the one nor the other. S. Paul is delivering a warning against unduly“prying intothe thingsnotseen.”477A few MSS. of bad character omit the“not.”That is all!... These then are a handful of the less[pg 141]conspicuous instances of a change in the English“positively required by a change of reading in the Greek Text:”every one of them being either a pitiful blunder or else a gross fabrication.—Take only two more:“I neither know, nor understand:thou, what sayest thou?”(Mk. xiv. 68 margin):—“Andwhither I go, ye know the way”(Jo. xiv. 4).... The A. V. is better in every instance.(2) and (3) Next, alterations made because the A. V.“appeared to be incorrect”or else“obscure.”They must needs be such as the following:—“He thatis bathedneedeth not save to wash his feet”(S. John xiii. 10).—“Lord, if he is fallen asleephe will recover”(σωθήσεται, xi. 12).—“Go ye therefore intothe partings of the highways”(Matth. xxii. 9).—“Being grieved atthe hardeningof their heart”(Mk. iii. 5).—“Lighta lampand put iton the stand”(Matt. v. 15).—“Sitting atthe place of toll”(ix. 9).—“The supplication of a righteous man availeth muchin its working”(James v. 16).—“Awake uprighteously”(1 Cor. xv. 34).—“Guardedthrough faith untoa salvation”(1 Pet. i. 5).—“Wandering in ...the holes of the earth”(Heb. xi. 38—very queer places certainly to be“wandering”in).—“She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you”(1 Pet. v. 13).—“Therefore dothese powers work in Him”(Matth. xiv. 2).—“In danger of thehell of fire”(v. 22).—“Put outinto the deep”(Luke v. 4).—“The tomb that Abraham bought fora price in silver”(Acts vii. 16).With reference to every one of these places, (and they are but samples of what is to be met with in every page,) we venture to assert that they are eitherlessintelligible, or elsemoreinaccurate, than the expressions which they are severally intended to supersede; while, in some instances, they areboth. Will any one seriously contend that“the hire of wrong-doing”[pg 142]is better than“the wages of unrighteousness”(2 Pet. ii. 15)? or, will he venture to deny that,“Come anddine”—“so when theyhad dined,”—is a hundred times better than“Come andbreak your fast”—“so when theyhad broken their fast”(Jo. xxi. 12, 15)?—expressions which are only introduced because the Revisionists were ashamed (as well they might be) to write“breakfast”and“breakfasted.”The seven had not been“fasting.”Then, why introduce so incongruous a notion here,—any more than into S. Luke xi. 37, 38, and xiv. 12?Has the reader any appetite for more specimens of“incorrectness”remediedand“obscurity”removed? Rather, as it seems, havebothbeen largely imported into a Translation which was singularly intelligible before. Why darken Rom. vii. 1 and xi. 2 by introducing the interrogative particle, and then, by mistranslating it“Or”?—Also, why translate γένος“race”? (“a man of Cyprusby race,”“a man of Pontusby race,”“an Alexandrianby race,”Acts iv. 36: xviii. 2, 24).—“Ifthere is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body,”say the Revisionists:“O death, where is thy victory? Odeathwhere is thy sting?”(Could they not let even 1 Cor. xv. 44 and 55 alone?)—Why alter“For the bread ofGodisHe,”into“For the bread ofGodisthatwhich cometh down from Heaven”? (Jo. vi. 33).—“As long as I amin the world,”was surely better than“When I amin the world, I am the light of the world”(ix. 5).—Is“He went forth out oftheir hand”supposed to be an improvement upon“He escaped out oftheir hand”? (x. 39): and is“They lovedthe gloryof men more thanthe gloryof GOD”an improvement upon“thepraise”? (xii. 43).—“Judas saith unto Him,Lord,what is come to passthat Thou wilt manifest Thyself to us”? Isthatsupposed to be an improvement upon xiv. 22?—How is“If then”an improvement on“Forasmuch then”in Acts xi. 17?—or how is this endurable in Rom. vii. 15,—“For that which I do, I[pg 143]knownot: fornot what I would, that do I practise:”—or this, in xvi. 25,“The mystery which hath beenkept in silence through times eternal, but now is manifested,”&c.—“Thou therefore,my child,”—addressing the Bishop of Ephesus (2 Tim. ii. 1): and“Titus,my true child,”—addressing the Bishop of Crete (Tit. i. 4).Are the following deemed improvements?“Every one thatdoethsin doeth alsolawlessness: and sin is lawlessness”(1 Jo. iii. 4):“I willmovethy candlestick out of its place”(Rev. ii. 5):—“aglassysea”(iv. 6):—“agreatvoice”(v. 12):—“Verily, not of Angelsdoth He take hold, butHe taketh holdof the seed of Abraham:”—“Hetook hold ofthe blind man bythe hand:”—“Theytook hold of himand brought him unto the Areopagus”(Heb. ii. 16: S. Mk. viii. 23: Acts xvii. 19):—“whereforeGodis notashamed of them, to be called theirGod”(Acts xi. 16):—“Counted it not a prizeto be on an equality withGod”(Phil. ii. 6).—Why are we to substitute“court”for“palace”in Matth. xxvi. 3 and Lu. xi. 21? (Consider Matth. xii. 29 and Mk. iii. 27).—“Women received their deadby a resurrection”(Heb. xi. 35):—“If ye forgive not every onehis brother from their hearts”(Matth. xviii. 35):—“Ifbecause of meatthy brother is grieved, thou walkestno longer in love”(Rom. xiv. 15):—“whichGod, who cannot lie, promisedbefore times eternal; butin his own seasonsmanifestedhis word in the message”(Tit. i. 2, 3):—“Yourpleasures[and why not‘lusts’?] that war in your members”(James iv. 1):—“Beholdhow much woodis kindled byhow small a fire!”(iii. 5).—Are these really supposed to be less“obscure”than the passages they are intended to supersede?(a) Not a few of the mistaken renderings of the Revisionists can only be established by an amount of illustration which is at once inconvenient to the Reviewer and unwelcome probably[pg 144]to the general Reader. Thus, we take leave to point out that,—“Andcoming upat that very hour”(in Lu. ii. 38),—as well as“shecame upto Him”(in Lu. x. 40), are inexact renderings of the original. The verb ἐφιστάναι, which etymologically signifies“to stand upon,”or“over,”or“by,”—(but which retains its literal signification on only four out of the eighteen occasions478when the word occurs in the Gospels and Acts,)—is found almost invariably to denote the“coming suddenly upon”a person. Hence, it is observed to be used five times to denote the sudden appearance of friendly visitants from the unseen world:479and seven times, the sudden hostile approach of what is formidable.480On the two remaining occasions, which are those before us,—(namely, the sudden coming of Anna into the Temple481and of Martha into the presence of ourLord,482)—“coming suddenly in”would probably represent S. Luke's ἐπιστᾶσα exactly. And yet, one would hesitate to import the word“suddenly”into the narrative. So that“coming in”would after all have to stand in the text, although the attentive student of Scripture would enjoy the knowledge that something more isimplied. In other words,—the Revisionists would have done better if they had left both places alone.... These are many words; yet is it impossible to explain such matters at once satisfactorily and briefly.(b) But more painful by far it is to discover that a morbid striving after etymological accuracy,—added to a[pg 145]calamitous preference for a depraved Text,—has proved the ruin of one of the most affecting scenes in S. John's Gospel.“Simon Peter beckoneth to him,and saith unto him, Tell us who it is of whom He speaketh”[a fabulous statement evidently; for Peter beckoned, because he mightnotspeak].“Heleaning back, as he was,”—[a very bad rendering of οὕτως, by the way; and sure to recal inopportunely the rendering of ὡς ἦν in S. Mark iv. 36, instead of suggesting (as it obviously ought) the original of S. John iv. 6:]—“onJesus' breast, saith unto Him,Lordwho is it?”(S. John xiii. 24-5). Now, S. John's word concerning himself in this place is certainly ἐπιπεσών. He“just sank”—let his head“fall”—on his Master's breast, and whispered his question. For this, a few corrupt copies substitute ἀναπεσών. But ἀναπεσώνnevermeans“leaning back.”It is descriptive of the posture of onereclining at a meal(S. Jo. xiii. 12). Accordingly, it is 10 times rendered by the Revisionists to“sit down.”Why, in this place, and in chapter xxi. 20,a new meaningis thrust upon the word, it is for the Revisionists to explain. But they must explain the matter a vast deal better than Bp. Lightfoot has done in his interesting little work on Revision (pp. 72-3), or they will fail to persuade any,—except one another.(c) Thus it happens that we never spend half-an-hour over the unfortunate production before us without exclaiming (with one in the Gospel),“The old is better.”Changes ofanysort are unwelcome in such a book as the Bible; but the discovery that changes have been madefor the worse, offends greatly. To take instances at random:—'Ὁ πλεῖστος ὄχλος (in Matth. xxi. 8) is rightly rendered in our A. V.“avery greatmultitude.”483Why then has it been altered by the R. V. into[pg 146]“the most part ofthe multitude”?—Ὁ πολὺς ὄχλος (Mk. xii. 37), in like manner, is rightly rendered“the common people,”and ought not to have been glossed in the margin“the great multitude.”—In the R. V. of Acts x. 15, we find“Makethou not common,”introduced as an improvement on,“That callnot thou common.”But“the old is better:”for, besides its idiomatic and helpful“That,”—the old alone states the case truly. Peter did not“make,”he only“called,”something“common.”—“All themalechildren,”as a translation of πάντας τοὺς παῖδας (in Matth. ii. 16) is an unauthorized statement. There is no reason for supposing that the female infants of Bethlehem were spared in the general massacre: and the Greek certainly conveys no such information.—“When he came into the house,Jesusspake firstto him”—is really an incorrect rendering of Matth. xvii. 25: at least, it imports into the narrative a notion which is not found in the Greek, and does not exhibit faithfully what the Evangelist actually says.“Anticipated,”in modern English,—“prevented,”in ancient phraseology,—“was beforehand with him”in language neither new nor old,—conveys the sense of the original exactly.—In S. Lu. vi. 35,“Love your enemies, ... and lend,never despairing,”is simply a mistaken translation of ἀπελπίζοντες, as the context sufficiently proves. The old rendering is the true one.484And so, learnedly, the Vulgate,—nihil inde sperantes. (Consider the use of ἀποβλέπειν [Heb. xi. 26]: ἀφορᾶν [Phil. ii. 23: Heb. xii. 2]:abutor, as used by Jerome forutor, &c.)—“Go with themmaking no distinction”is not the meaning of Acts xi. 12: which, however, was correctly translated before, viz.“nothing doubting.”—The mischievous change (“save”in place of“but”) in Gal. ii. 16 has been ably and faithfully exposed by Bp. Ollivant. In the words of the[pg 147]learned and pious Bp. of Lincoln,“it is illogical and erroneous, andcontradicts the whole drift of S. Paul's Argumentin that Epistle, and in the Epistle to the Romans.”(d) We should be dealing insincerely with our Readers were we to conceal our grave dissatisfaction at not a few of the novelexpressionswhich the Revisionists have sought to introduce into the English New Testament. That the malefactors between whom“theLordof glory”was crucified were not ordinary“thieves”is obvious; yet would it have been wiser, we think, to leave the old designation undisturbed. We shall never learn to call them“robbers.”—“The king sent fortha soldier of his guard”is a gloss—not a translation of S. Mark vi. 27.“An executioner”surely is far preferable as the equivalent for σπεκουλάτωρ!485—“Assassins”(as the rendering of σικάριοι) is an objectionable substitute for“murderers.”A word which“belongs probably to a romantic chapter in the history of the Crusades”486has no business in the N. T.—And what did these learned men suppose they should gain by substituting“the twin brothers”for“Castor and Pollux”in Acts xxviii. 11? The Greek (Διόσκουροι) is neither the one nor the other.—In the same spirit, instead of,“they that receivedtribute-money”(in S. Matth. xvii. 24), we are now presented with“they that receivedthe half-shekel:”and in verse 27,—instead of“when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt finda piece of money,”we are favoured with“thou shalt finda shekel.”Butwhythe change has been made, we fail to see. The margin isstillobliged to explain that not one of these four words is found in the original: the Greek in the former place being τὰ δίδραχμα,—in the latter, στατήρ.—“Flute-players”[pg 148](for“minstrels”) in S. Matthew ix. 23, is a mistake. An αὐλητής playedthe pipe(αὐλός, 1 Cor. xiv. 7),—hence“pipers”in Rev. xviii. 22; (where by the way μουσικοί [“musicians”] is perversely and less accurately rendered“minstrels”).—Once more.“Undressedcloth”(Mk. ii. 21), because it is an expression popularly understood only in certain districts of England, and avox artis, ought not to have been introduced into the Gospels.“New”is preferable.—“Wine-skins”(Mtt. ix. 17: Mk. ii. 22: Lu. v. 37) is a term unintelligible to the generality; as the Revisionists confess, for they explain it by a note,—“That is,skins used as bottles.”What else is this but substituting a new difficulty for an old one?—“Silver,”now for the first time thrust into Acts viii. 20, is unreasonable. Like“argent”in French, ἀργύριον as much means“money,”here as in S. Matthew xxv. 18, 27, &c.—In S. James ii. 19, we should like to know what is gained by the introduction of the“shuddering”devils.—To take an example from a different class of words,—Who will say that“Thoumindestnot the things ofGod”is a better rendering of οὐ φρονεῖς, than the old“Thousavourestnot,”—which at least had no ambiguity about it?... A friend points out that Dr. Field (a“master in Israel”) has examined 104 of the changesmadein the Revised Version; and finds 8 questionable: 13 unnecessary: 19 faulty (i.e.cases in which the A. V. required amendment, but which the R. V. has not succeeded in amending): 64changes for the worse.487... This is surely a terrible indictment for such an one as Dr. Field to bring against the Revisers,—who were directed only to correct“plain and clear errors.”(e) We really fail to understand how it has come to pass that, notwithstanding the amount of scholarship which[pg 149]sometimes sat in the Jerusalem Chamber, so many novelties are found in the present Revision which betoken a want of familiarity with the refinements of the Greek language on the one hand; and (what is even more inexcusable) only a slender acquaintance with the resources and proprieties of English speech, on the other. A fair average instance of this occurs in Acts xxi. 37, where (instead of“CanstthouspeakGreek?”) Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις? is rendered“DostthouknowGreek?”That γινώσκειν means“to know”(and not“to speak”) is undeniable: and yet, in the account of all, except the driest and stupidest of pedagogues, Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις; must be translated“Canst thouspeakGreek?”For (as every schoolboy is aware) Ἑλληνιστί is an adverb, and signifies“in Greek fashion:”so that something has to be supplied: and the full expression, if it must needs be given, would be,“Dost thou know [how to talk] in Greek?”But then, this condensation of phrase proves to be the established idiom of the language:488so that the rejection of the learned rendering of Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the Translators of 1611 (“Canst thou speakGreek?”)—the rejection of this, at the end of 270 years, in favour of“Dost thou knowGreek?”really betrays ignorance. It is worse than bad Taste. It is a stupid and deliberateblunder.(f) The substitution of“they weighed unto him”(in place of“they covenanted with him for”)“thirty pieces of silver”(S. Matth. xxvi. 15) is another of those plausible mistakes, into which a little learning (proverbially“a dangerous thing”) is for ever conducting its unfortunate possessor; but from which it was to have been expected that the undoubted[pg 150]attainments of some who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber would have effectually preserved the Revisionists. That ἔστησαν is intended to recal Zech. xi. 12, is obvious; as well as thatthereit refers to the ancient practice ofweighinguncoined money. It does not, however, by any means follow, that it was customary toweighshekels in the days of the Gospel. Coined money, in fact, was never weighed, but always counted; and these were shekels,i.e.didrachms(Matth. xvii. 24). The truth (it lies on the surface) is, that there exists a happy ambiguity about the word ἔστησαν, of which the Evangelist has not been slow to avail himself. In the particular case before us, it is expressly recorded that in the first instance money didnotpass,—only a bargain was made, and a certain sum promised. S. Mark's record is that the chief priests were glad at the proposal of Judas,“and promisedto give him money”(xiv. 11): S. Luke's, that“they covenanted”to do so (xxii. 5, 6). And with this, the statement of the first Evangelist is found to be in strictest agreement. The chief Priests“set”or“appointed”489him a certain sum. The perfectly accurate rendering of S. Matth. xxvi. 15, therefore, exhibited by our Authorized Version, has been set aside to make way fora misrepresentation of the Evangelist's meaning.“In the judgment of the most competent scholars,”was“such changenecessary”?(g) We respectfully think that it would have been more becoming in such a company as that which assembled in the Jerusalem Chamber, as well as more consistent with their Instructions, ifin doubtful casesthey had abstained from touching the Authorized Version, but had recorded their own conjectural emendationsin the margin. How rash and infelicitous,[pg 151]for example, is the following rendering of the famous words in Acts xxvi. 28, 29, which we find thrust upon us without apology or explanation; without, in fact, any marginal note at all:—“And Agrippa said unto Paul,With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make mea Christian. And Paul said, I would toGod, that whetherwith little or with much,”&c. Now this is indefensible. For, in the first place, to get any such meaning out of the words, our Revisionists have been obliged to substitute the fabricated ποιῆσαι (the peculiar property of אa band a few cursives) for γενέσθαι in ver. 28. Moreover, even so, the words do not yield the required sense. We venture to point out, that this is precisely one of the occasions where the opinion of a first-rate Greek Father is of paramount importance. The moderns confess themselves unable to discover a single instance of the phrase ἐν ὀλίγῳ in the sense of“within a little.”Cyril of Jerusalem (a.d.350) and Chrysostom (a.d.400), on the contrary, evidently considered that here the expression can mean nothing else; and they were competent judges, seeing that Greek was their native language: far better judges (be it remarked in passing) on a point of this kind than the whole body of Revisionists put together.“Such an amount of victorious grace and wisdom did Paul derive from theHoly Spirit”(says Cyril),“that even King Agrippa at last exclaimed,”490&c. From which it is evident that Cyril regarded Agrippa's words as an avowal that he was well-nigh overcome by the Apostle's argument. And so Chrysostom,491who says plainly that ἐν ὀλίγῳ means“within a little,”492and assumes that“within a little”S. Paul had[pg 152]persuaded his judge.493He even puts παρ᾽ ὀλίγον into Agrippa's mouth.494So also, in effect, Theodoret.495From all which it is reasonable, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to infer that our A. V. reflects faithfully what was the Church's traditionary interpretation of Acts xxvi. 28 in the first half of the fourth century. Let it only be added that a better judge of such matters than any who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber—the late President of Magdalen, Dr. Routh,—writes:“Vertendum esse sequentia suadent, Me fere Christianum fieri suades. Interp. Vulgata habet, In modico suades me Christianum fieri.”496Yes, the Apostle's rejoinder fixes the meaning of what Agrippa had said before.—And this shall suffice. We pass on, only repeating our devout wish that what the Revisionists failed to understand, or were unablematerially and certainlyto improve, they would have been so obliging as to let alone. In the present instance the A. V. is probably right; the R. V., probably wrong. No one, at all events, can pretend that the rendering with which we are all familiar is“a plain and clear error.”And confessedly, unless it was, it should have been left unmolested. But to proceed.(4) and (5) There can be no question as to the absolute duty of rendering identical expressionsin strictly parallel places of the Gospelsby strictly identical language. So far we are wholly at one with the Revisionists. But“alterations [supposed to be] rendered necessaryby consequence”(Preface, iii. 2.), are quite a different matter: and we venture to think that it is precisely in their pursuit of a mechanical uniformity of rendering, that our Revisionists have most often as well as most grievously lost their way. We differ from them in factin limine.“When a particular word”(say they)“is found to[pg 153]recur with characteristic frequency in any one of the Sacred Writers, it is obviously desirable to adopt for it some uniform rendering”(iii. 2).“Desirable”! Yes, but in what sense? It is much to be desired, no doubt, that the English language always containedthe exact counterpartsof Greek words: and of course, if it did, it would be in the highest degree“desirable”that a Translator should always employ those words and no other. But then it happens unfortunately thatprecisely equivalent words do not exist. Τέκνον, nine times out of ten signifies nothing else but“child.”On the tenth occasion, however, (e.g.where Abraham is addressing the rich man in Hades,) it would be absurd so to render it. We translate“Son.”We are in fact without choice.—Take another ordinary Greek term, σπλάγχνα, which occurs 11 times in the N. T., and which the A. V. uniformly renders“bowels.”Well, and“bowels”confessedly σπλάγχνα are. Yet have our Revisionists felt themselves under the“necessity”of rendering the word“heart,”in Col. iii. 12,—“very heart,”in Philemon, ver. 12,—“affections”in 2 Cor. vi. 12,—“inward affection,”in vii. 15,—“tender mercies”in Phil. i. 8,—“compassion”in 1 Jo. iii. 17,—“bowels”only in Acts i. 18.—These learned men, however, put forward in illustration of their own principle of translation, the word εὐθέως,—which occurs about 80 times in the N. T.: nearly half the instances being found in S. Mark's Gospel. We accept their challenge; and assert that it is tasteless barbarism to seek to impose upon εὐθέως,—no matterwhatthe context in which it stands,—the sense of“straightway,”—only because εὐθύς, the adjective, generally (not always) means“straight.”Where a miracle of healing is described (as in S. Matth. viii. 3: xx. 34. S. Lu. v. 13), since the benefit was no doubt instantaneous, it is surely the mere instinct of“faithfulness”to translate εὐθέως“immediately.”So, in respect of the sudden act which saved Peter from sinking (S. Matth. xiv. 31); and that punctual cock-crow[pg 154](xxvi. 74), which (S. Luke says) did not so much follow, asaccompanyhis denial (xxii. 60). But surely not so, whenthe growth of a seedis the thing spoken of (Matth. xiii. 5)! Acts again, which must needs have occupied some little time in the doing, reasonably suggest some such rendering as“forthwith”or“straightway,”—(e.g.S. Matth. xiv. 22: xxi. 2: and S. John vi. 21): while, in 3 John ver. 14, the meaning (as the Revisionists confess) can only be“shortly.”... So plain a matter really ought not to require so many words. We repeat, that the Revisionists set out with a mistaken Principle. They clearlydo not understand their Trade.They invite our attention to their rendering of certain of the Greek Tenses, and of the definite Article. We regret to discover that, in both respects, their work is disfigured throughout by changes which convict a majority of their body alike of an imperfect acquaintance with the genius of the Greek language, and of scarcely a moderate appreciation of the idiomatic proprieties of their own. Such a charge must of necessity, when it has been substantiated, press heavily upon such a work as the present; for it is not as when a solitary error has been detected, which may be rectified. A vicioussystemof rendering Tenses, and representing the Greek Article, is sure to crop up in every part of the undertaking, and must occasionally be attended by consequences of a serious nature.1. Now, that we may not be misunderstood, we admit at once that, in teachingboyshow to turn Greek into English, we insist that every tense shall be marked by its own appropriate sign. There is no telling how helpful it will prove in the end, that every word shall at first have been rendered with painful accuracy. Let the Article be [mis-]represented—the Prepositions caricatured—the Particles magnified,—let[pg 155]the very order of the words at first, (however impossible,) be religiously retained. Merciless accuracy having been in this way acquired, a youth has to beuntaught these servile habits. He has to be reminded of the requirements of theEnglish idiom, and speedily becomes aware that the idiomatic rendering of a Greek author into English, is a higher achievement by far, than his former slavish endeavour always to render the same word and tense in the same slavish way.2. But what supremely annoys us in the work just now under review is, that the schoolboy method of translation already noticed is therein exhibited in constant operation throughout. It becomes oppressive. We are never permitted to believe that we are in the company of Scholars who are altogether masters of their own language. Their solicitude ever seems to be twofold:—(1) To exhibit a singular indifference to the proprieties of English speech, while they maintain a servile adherence (etymological or idiomatic, as the case may be) to the Greek:—(2) Right or wrong, to part company from William Tyndale and the giants who gave us our“Authorized Version.”Take a few illustrations of what precedes from the second chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel:—(1.) Thus, in ver. 2, the correct English rendering“we have seen”is made to give place to the incorrect“we sawhis star in the east.”—In ver. 9, the idiomatic“when they had heard the king, they departed,”is rejected for the unidiomatic“And they,having heard the king, went their way.”—In ver. 15, we are treated to“that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by theLordthroughthe prophet, saying, Out of Egyptdid I callmy son.”And yet who sees not, that in both instances the old rendering is better? Important[pg 156]as it may be,in the lecture-room, to insist on what is implied by τὸ ῥηθὲν ὙΠῸ τοῦ κυρίου ΔΙᾺ τοῦ προφήτου, it is simply preposterous tocome abroadwith such refinements. It is to stultify oneself and to render one's author unintelligible. Moreover, the attempt to be so wondrous literal is safe to break down at the end of a few verses. Thus, if διά is“through”in verse 15,—why not in verse 17 and in verse 23?
Why then, (it will of course be asked,) is the margin—(a) of S. Mark i. 1 and—(b) of S. John i. 3, and—(c) of S. John iii. 13, encumbered after this discreditable fashion? It is (we answer) only becausethe Text of Drs. Westcott and Hortis thus depraved in all three places. Those Scholars enjoy the unenviable distinction of having dared to expel from S. John iii. 13 the words ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, which Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf were afraid to touch. Well may Dean Stanley have bestowed upon Dr. Hort the epithet of“fearless”!... If report speaks truly, it is by the merest accident that the clause in question still retains its place inthe Revised Text.
(d) Only once more. And this time we will turn to the very end of the blessed volume. Against Rev. xiii. 18—
“Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the Beast; for it is the number of a Man: and his number is six hundred and sixty and six.”
Against this, we find noted,—“Some ancient authorities readsix hundred and sixteen.”
But why is not thewholeTruth told? viz. why are we not informed thatonly onecorrupt uncial (c):—only onecursive copy (11):—only oneFather (Tichonius): andnot oneancient Version—advocates this reading?—which, on the contrary,[pg 136]Irenæus (a.d.170) knew, but rejected; remarking that 666, which is“found in all the best and oldest copies and is attested by men who saw John face to face,”is unquestionably the true reading.473Why is not the ordinary Reader further informed that the same number (666) is expressly vouched for by Origen,474—by Hippolytus,475—by Eusebius:476—as well as by Victorinus—and Primasius,—not to mention Andreas and Arethas? To come to the moderns, as a matter of fact the established reading is accepted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,—even by Westcott and Hort.Whytherefore—for what possible reason—at the end of 1700 years and upwards, is this, which is so clearly nothing else but an ancient slip of the pen, to be forced upon the attention of 90 millions of English-speaking people?
Will Bishop Ellicott and his friends venture to tell us that it has been done because“it would not be safe to accept”666,“to the absolute exclusion of”616?...“We have givenalternative Readingsin the margin,”(say they,)“wherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice.”Will they venture to claim either“interest”or“importance”forthis? or pretend that it is an“alternative Reading”at all? Has it been rescued from oblivion and paraded before universal Christendom in order to perplex, mystify, and discourage“those that have understanding,”and would fain“count the number of the Beast,”if they were able? Or was the intention only to insinuate one more wretched doubt—one more miserable suspicion—into minds which have been taught (and rightly) to place absolute reliance in the textual accuracy of all the gravest utterances of theSpirit: minds which are utterly incapable[pg 137]of dealing with the subtleties of Textual Criticism; and, from a one-sided statement like the present, will carry away none but entirely mistaken inferences, and the most unreasonable distrust?... Or, lastly, was it only because, in their opinion, the margin of every Englishman's N. T. is the fittest place for reviving the memory of obsolete blunders, and ventilating forgotten perversions of the Truth?... We really pause for an answer.
(e) But serious as this is,moreserious (if possible) is the unfairSuppression systematically practisedthroughout the work before us.“We have given alternative Readings in the margin,”—(says Bishop Ellicott on behalf of his brother-Revisionists,)—“wherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice.”[iii. 1.] From which statement, readers have a right to infer that whenever“alternative Readings”arenot“given in the margin,”it is because such Readings donot“seem to be ofsufficient importance or interest to deserve notice.”Will the Revisionists venture to tell us that,—(to take the first instance of unfair Suppression which presents itself,)—ourLord's saying in S. Mark vi. 11 is not“of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice”? We allude to the famous words,—“Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city:”—words which are not only omitted from the“New English Version,”butare not suffered to leave so much as a trace of themselves in the margin. And yet, the saying in question is attested by the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac Versions: by the Old Latin: by the Coptic, Æthiopic and Gothic Versions:—by 11 uncials and by the whole bulk of the cursives:—by Irenæus and by Victor of Antioch. So that whether Antiquity, or Variety of Attestation is considered,—whether we look for Numbers or for Respectability,—the genuineness[pg 138]of the passage may be regarded ascertain. Our complaint however isnotthat the Revisionists entertain a different opinion on this head from ourselves: but that they give the reader to understand that the state of the Evidence is such, that it is quite“safe to accept”the shorter reading,—“to theabsolute exclusionof the other.”—So vast is the field before us, that this single specimen of what we venture to call“unfair Suppression,”must suffice. (Some will not hesitate to bestow upon it a harsher epithet.) It is in truth by far the most damaging feature of the work before us, that its Authors should have so largely and so seriouslyfalsified the Deposit; and yet, (in clear violation of the IVth Principle or Rule laid down for their guidance at the outset,) have suffered no trace to survive in the margin of the deadly mischief which they have effected.
III. From the Text, the Revisionists pass on to theTranslation; and surprise us by the avowal, that“the character of the Revision was determined for us from the outset by the first Rule,—‘to introduce as few alterations as possible, consistently with faithfulness.’Our task was Revision, not Retranslation.”(This isnaïvecertainly.) They proceed,—
“If the meaning was fairly expressed by the word or phrase that was before us in the Authorized Version, we made no change, even where rigid adherence tothe rule of Translating, as far as possible, the same Greek word by the same English wordmight have prescribed some modification.”—[iii. 2init.] (The italics are our own.)
To the“rule”thus introduced to our notice, we shall recur by and by [pp.152-4: also pp.187-202]. We proceed to remark on each of the five principal Classes of alterations indicated by the Revisionists: and first,—“Alterations[pg 139]positively required by change of reading in the Greek Text”(Ibid.).
(1) Thus, in S. John xii. 7, we find“Suffer her to keep itagainst the day of my burying;”and in the margin (as an alternative),“Let her alone:it was that she might keep it.”—Instead of“as soon asJesusheard the word,”—we are invited to choose between“not heeding,”and“overhearingthe word”(S. Mk. v. 36): these being intended for renderings of παρακούσας,—an expression which S. Mark certainly never employed.—“On earth, peace among menin whom he is well pleased”(S. Lu. ii. 14): where the margin informs us that“many ancient authorities read,good pleasure among men.”(And why not“good will,”—the rendering adopted in Phil. i. 15?) ... Take some more of the alterations which have resulted from the adoption of a corrupt Text:—“Whyaskest thou me concerning that which is good?”(Matth. xix. 17,—an absurd fabrication).—“He would fainhave been filledwith the husks,”&c....“and I perishherewith hunger!”(χορτασθῆναι, borrowed from Lu. xvi. 21: and εγΩΔΕωδε, a transparent error: S. Luke xv. 16, 17).—“Whenit shall fail, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles”(xvi. 9).——Elizabeth“lifted up her voicewith a loud cry”(κραυγή—the private property of three bad MSS. and Origen: Lu. i. 42).—“Andthey stood still looking sad”(xxiv. 17,—a foolish transcriptional blunder).—“The multitudewent upand began to ask him,”&c. (ἀναβάς for ἀναβοήσας, Mk. xv. 8).—“But is guilty ofan eternal sin”(iii. 29).—“And the officersreceived Himwith blows of their hands,”—marg.“orstrokes of rods:”ΕΛΑΒΟΝ for ΕΒΑΛΟΝ (xiv. 65).—“Else, that which should fill it up taketh from it,the new from the old”(ii. 21): and“No manrendeth a piece from a new garmentand putteth it upon an old garment; elsehe will rend the new,”&c. (Lu. v. 36).—“What is this?a new teaching!”(Mk. i. 27).—“Jesussaith unto him,If thou canst!”(Mk. ix. 23).—“Because of yourlittle[pg 140]faith”(Matth. xvii. 20).—“We mustwork the works of Him that sent Me, while it is day”(Jo. ix. 4).—“The man that is calledJesusmade clay”(ver. 11).—“If ye shall askMe anything in My name”(xiv. 14).—“The Father abiding in Medoeth His works”(xiv. 10).—“If ye shall ask anything of the Father,He will give it you in My name”(xvi. 23).—“I glorified Thee on the earth,having accomplished the workwhich Thou hast given Me to do”(xvii. 4).—“Holy Father, keep themin Thy Name whichThou hast given Me ... I kept themin Thy Name whichThou hast given me”(ver. 11, 12).—“She ... saith unto Himin Hebrew, Rabboni”(xx. 16).—“These things said Isaiah,becausehe saw his glory”(xii. 41,—ΟΤΙ for ΟΤΕ, a common itacism).—“In tablesthat are hearts of flesh”(ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίαις σαρκίναις, a“perfectly absurd reading,”as Scrivener remarks, p. 442: 2 Cor. iii. 3).—“Now ifwe put the horses' bridles [and pray, why not‘the horses'bits’?] into their mouths”(ΕΙΔΕ, an ordinary itacism for ΙΔΕ, James iii. 3).—“Unto the sick werecarried away from his bodyhandkerchiefs,”&c. (Acts xix. 12).—“Ye know all things once for all”(Jude ver. 5).—“We lovebecause he first loved us”(1 Jo. iv. 19).—“I have foundno work of thine fulfilledbefore myGod”(Rev. iii. 2).—“Seven Angelsarrayed with [precious] stone”(xv. 6), instead of“clothed in linen,”λίθον for λίνον. (Fancy the Angels“clothed in stone”!“Precious”is an interpolation of the Revisers).—“Dwelling inthe things which he hath seen:”for which the margin offers as an alternative,“taking his stand upon”(Colossians ii. 18). But ἐμβατεύων (the word here employed) clearly means neither the one nor the other. S. Paul is delivering a warning against unduly“prying intothe thingsnotseen.”477A few MSS. of bad character omit the“not.”That is all!... These then are a handful of the less[pg 141]conspicuous instances of a change in the English“positively required by a change of reading in the Greek Text:”every one of them being either a pitiful blunder or else a gross fabrication.—Take only two more:“I neither know, nor understand:thou, what sayest thou?”(Mk. xiv. 68 margin):—“Andwhither I go, ye know the way”(Jo. xiv. 4).... The A. V. is better in every instance.
(2) and (3) Next, alterations made because the A. V.“appeared to be incorrect”or else“obscure.”They must needs be such as the following:—“He thatis bathedneedeth not save to wash his feet”(S. John xiii. 10).—“Lord, if he is fallen asleephe will recover”(σωθήσεται, xi. 12).—“Go ye therefore intothe partings of the highways”(Matth. xxii. 9).—“Being grieved atthe hardeningof their heart”(Mk. iii. 5).—“Lighta lampand put iton the stand”(Matt. v. 15).—“Sitting atthe place of toll”(ix. 9).—“The supplication of a righteous man availeth muchin its working”(James v. 16).—“Awake uprighteously”(1 Cor. xv. 34).—“Guardedthrough faith untoa salvation”(1 Pet. i. 5).—“Wandering in ...the holes of the earth”(Heb. xi. 38—very queer places certainly to be“wandering”in).—“She that is in Babylon, elect together with you, saluteth you”(1 Pet. v. 13).—“Therefore dothese powers work in Him”(Matth. xiv. 2).—“In danger of thehell of fire”(v. 22).—“Put outinto the deep”(Luke v. 4).—“The tomb that Abraham bought fora price in silver”(Acts vii. 16).
With reference to every one of these places, (and they are but samples of what is to be met with in every page,) we venture to assert that they are eitherlessintelligible, or elsemoreinaccurate, than the expressions which they are severally intended to supersede; while, in some instances, they areboth. Will any one seriously contend that“the hire of wrong-doing”[pg 142]is better than“the wages of unrighteousness”(2 Pet. ii. 15)? or, will he venture to deny that,“Come anddine”—“so when theyhad dined,”—is a hundred times better than“Come andbreak your fast”—“so when theyhad broken their fast”(Jo. xxi. 12, 15)?—expressions which are only introduced because the Revisionists were ashamed (as well they might be) to write“breakfast”and“breakfasted.”The seven had not been“fasting.”Then, why introduce so incongruous a notion here,—any more than into S. Luke xi. 37, 38, and xiv. 12?
Has the reader any appetite for more specimens of“incorrectness”remediedand“obscurity”removed? Rather, as it seems, havebothbeen largely imported into a Translation which was singularly intelligible before. Why darken Rom. vii. 1 and xi. 2 by introducing the interrogative particle, and then, by mistranslating it“Or”?—Also, why translate γένος“race”? (“a man of Cyprusby race,”“a man of Pontusby race,”“an Alexandrianby race,”Acts iv. 36: xviii. 2, 24).—“Ifthere is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body,”say the Revisionists:“O death, where is thy victory? Odeathwhere is thy sting?”(Could they not let even 1 Cor. xv. 44 and 55 alone?)—Why alter“For the bread ofGodisHe,”into“For the bread ofGodisthatwhich cometh down from Heaven”? (Jo. vi. 33).—“As long as I amin the world,”was surely better than“When I amin the world, I am the light of the world”(ix. 5).—Is“He went forth out oftheir hand”supposed to be an improvement upon“He escaped out oftheir hand”? (x. 39): and is“They lovedthe gloryof men more thanthe gloryof GOD”an improvement upon“thepraise”? (xii. 43).—“Judas saith unto Him,Lord,what is come to passthat Thou wilt manifest Thyself to us”? Isthatsupposed to be an improvement upon xiv. 22?—How is“If then”an improvement on“Forasmuch then”in Acts xi. 17?—or how is this endurable in Rom. vii. 15,—“For that which I do, I[pg 143]knownot: fornot what I would, that do I practise:”—or this, in xvi. 25,“The mystery which hath beenkept in silence through times eternal, but now is manifested,”&c.—“Thou therefore,my child,”—addressing the Bishop of Ephesus (2 Tim. ii. 1): and“Titus,my true child,”—addressing the Bishop of Crete (Tit. i. 4).
Are the following deemed improvements?“Every one thatdoethsin doeth alsolawlessness: and sin is lawlessness”(1 Jo. iii. 4):“I willmovethy candlestick out of its place”(Rev. ii. 5):—“aglassysea”(iv. 6):—“agreatvoice”(v. 12):—“Verily, not of Angelsdoth He take hold, butHe taketh holdof the seed of Abraham:”—“Hetook hold ofthe blind man bythe hand:”—“Theytook hold of himand brought him unto the Areopagus”(Heb. ii. 16: S. Mk. viii. 23: Acts xvii. 19):—“whereforeGodis notashamed of them, to be called theirGod”(Acts xi. 16):—“Counted it not a prizeto be on an equality withGod”(Phil. ii. 6).—Why are we to substitute“court”for“palace”in Matth. xxvi. 3 and Lu. xi. 21? (Consider Matth. xii. 29 and Mk. iii. 27).—“Women received their deadby a resurrection”(Heb. xi. 35):—“If ye forgive not every onehis brother from their hearts”(Matth. xviii. 35):—“Ifbecause of meatthy brother is grieved, thou walkestno longer in love”(Rom. xiv. 15):—“whichGod, who cannot lie, promisedbefore times eternal; butin his own seasonsmanifestedhis word in the message”(Tit. i. 2, 3):—“Yourpleasures[and why not‘lusts’?] that war in your members”(James iv. 1):—“Beholdhow much woodis kindled byhow small a fire!”(iii. 5).—Are these really supposed to be less“obscure”than the passages they are intended to supersede?
(a) Not a few of the mistaken renderings of the Revisionists can only be established by an amount of illustration which is at once inconvenient to the Reviewer and unwelcome probably[pg 144]to the general Reader. Thus, we take leave to point out that,—“Andcoming upat that very hour”(in Lu. ii. 38),—as well as“shecame upto Him”(in Lu. x. 40), are inexact renderings of the original. The verb ἐφιστάναι, which etymologically signifies“to stand upon,”or“over,”or“by,”—(but which retains its literal signification on only four out of the eighteen occasions478when the word occurs in the Gospels and Acts,)—is found almost invariably to denote the“coming suddenly upon”a person. Hence, it is observed to be used five times to denote the sudden appearance of friendly visitants from the unseen world:479and seven times, the sudden hostile approach of what is formidable.480On the two remaining occasions, which are those before us,—(namely, the sudden coming of Anna into the Temple481and of Martha into the presence of ourLord,482)—“coming suddenly in”would probably represent S. Luke's ἐπιστᾶσα exactly. And yet, one would hesitate to import the word“suddenly”into the narrative. So that“coming in”would after all have to stand in the text, although the attentive student of Scripture would enjoy the knowledge that something more isimplied. In other words,—the Revisionists would have done better if they had left both places alone.... These are many words; yet is it impossible to explain such matters at once satisfactorily and briefly.
(b) But more painful by far it is to discover that a morbid striving after etymological accuracy,—added to a[pg 145]calamitous preference for a depraved Text,—has proved the ruin of one of the most affecting scenes in S. John's Gospel.“Simon Peter beckoneth to him,and saith unto him, Tell us who it is of whom He speaketh”[a fabulous statement evidently; for Peter beckoned, because he mightnotspeak].“Heleaning back, as he was,”—[a very bad rendering of οὕτως, by the way; and sure to recal inopportunely the rendering of ὡς ἦν in S. Mark iv. 36, instead of suggesting (as it obviously ought) the original of S. John iv. 6:]—“onJesus' breast, saith unto Him,Lordwho is it?”(S. John xiii. 24-5). Now, S. John's word concerning himself in this place is certainly ἐπιπεσών. He“just sank”—let his head“fall”—on his Master's breast, and whispered his question. For this, a few corrupt copies substitute ἀναπεσών. But ἀναπεσώνnevermeans“leaning back.”It is descriptive of the posture of onereclining at a meal(S. Jo. xiii. 12). Accordingly, it is 10 times rendered by the Revisionists to“sit down.”Why, in this place, and in chapter xxi. 20,a new meaningis thrust upon the word, it is for the Revisionists to explain. But they must explain the matter a vast deal better than Bp. Lightfoot has done in his interesting little work on Revision (pp. 72-3), or they will fail to persuade any,—except one another.
(c) Thus it happens that we never spend half-an-hour over the unfortunate production before us without exclaiming (with one in the Gospel),“The old is better.”Changes ofanysort are unwelcome in such a book as the Bible; but the discovery that changes have been madefor the worse, offends greatly. To take instances at random:—'Ὁ πλεῖστος ὄχλος (in Matth. xxi. 8) is rightly rendered in our A. V.“avery greatmultitude.”483Why then has it been altered by the R. V. into[pg 146]“the most part ofthe multitude”?—Ὁ πολὺς ὄχλος (Mk. xii. 37), in like manner, is rightly rendered“the common people,”and ought not to have been glossed in the margin“the great multitude.”—In the R. V. of Acts x. 15, we find“Makethou not common,”introduced as an improvement on,“That callnot thou common.”But“the old is better:”for, besides its idiomatic and helpful“That,”—the old alone states the case truly. Peter did not“make,”he only“called,”something“common.”—“All themalechildren,”as a translation of πάντας τοὺς παῖδας (in Matth. ii. 16) is an unauthorized statement. There is no reason for supposing that the female infants of Bethlehem were spared in the general massacre: and the Greek certainly conveys no such information.—“When he came into the house,Jesusspake firstto him”—is really an incorrect rendering of Matth. xvii. 25: at least, it imports into the narrative a notion which is not found in the Greek, and does not exhibit faithfully what the Evangelist actually says.“Anticipated,”in modern English,—“prevented,”in ancient phraseology,—“was beforehand with him”in language neither new nor old,—conveys the sense of the original exactly.—In S. Lu. vi. 35,“Love your enemies, ... and lend,never despairing,”is simply a mistaken translation of ἀπελπίζοντες, as the context sufficiently proves. The old rendering is the true one.484And so, learnedly, the Vulgate,—nihil inde sperantes. (Consider the use of ἀποβλέπειν [Heb. xi. 26]: ἀφορᾶν [Phil. ii. 23: Heb. xii. 2]:abutor, as used by Jerome forutor, &c.)—“Go with themmaking no distinction”is not the meaning of Acts xi. 12: which, however, was correctly translated before, viz.“nothing doubting.”—The mischievous change (“save”in place of“but”) in Gal. ii. 16 has been ably and faithfully exposed by Bp. Ollivant. In the words of the[pg 147]learned and pious Bp. of Lincoln,“it is illogical and erroneous, andcontradicts the whole drift of S. Paul's Argumentin that Epistle, and in the Epistle to the Romans.”
(d) We should be dealing insincerely with our Readers were we to conceal our grave dissatisfaction at not a few of the novelexpressionswhich the Revisionists have sought to introduce into the English New Testament. That the malefactors between whom“theLordof glory”was crucified were not ordinary“thieves”is obvious; yet would it have been wiser, we think, to leave the old designation undisturbed. We shall never learn to call them“robbers.”—“The king sent fortha soldier of his guard”is a gloss—not a translation of S. Mark vi. 27.“An executioner”surely is far preferable as the equivalent for σπεκουλάτωρ!485—“Assassins”(as the rendering of σικάριοι) is an objectionable substitute for“murderers.”A word which“belongs probably to a romantic chapter in the history of the Crusades”486has no business in the N. T.—And what did these learned men suppose they should gain by substituting“the twin brothers”for“Castor and Pollux”in Acts xxviii. 11? The Greek (Διόσκουροι) is neither the one nor the other.—In the same spirit, instead of,“they that receivedtribute-money”(in S. Matth. xvii. 24), we are now presented with“they that receivedthe half-shekel:”and in verse 27,—instead of“when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt finda piece of money,”we are favoured with“thou shalt finda shekel.”Butwhythe change has been made, we fail to see. The margin isstillobliged to explain that not one of these four words is found in the original: the Greek in the former place being τὰ δίδραχμα,—in the latter, στατήρ.—“Flute-players”[pg 148](for“minstrels”) in S. Matthew ix. 23, is a mistake. An αὐλητής playedthe pipe(αὐλός, 1 Cor. xiv. 7),—hence“pipers”in Rev. xviii. 22; (where by the way μουσικοί [“musicians”] is perversely and less accurately rendered“minstrels”).—Once more.“Undressedcloth”(Mk. ii. 21), because it is an expression popularly understood only in certain districts of England, and avox artis, ought not to have been introduced into the Gospels.“New”is preferable.—“Wine-skins”(Mtt. ix. 17: Mk. ii. 22: Lu. v. 37) is a term unintelligible to the generality; as the Revisionists confess, for they explain it by a note,—“That is,skins used as bottles.”What else is this but substituting a new difficulty for an old one?—“Silver,”now for the first time thrust into Acts viii. 20, is unreasonable. Like“argent”in French, ἀργύριον as much means“money,”here as in S. Matthew xxv. 18, 27, &c.—In S. James ii. 19, we should like to know what is gained by the introduction of the“shuddering”devils.—To take an example from a different class of words,—Who will say that“Thoumindestnot the things ofGod”is a better rendering of οὐ φρονεῖς, than the old“Thousavourestnot,”—which at least had no ambiguity about it?... A friend points out that Dr. Field (a“master in Israel”) has examined 104 of the changesmadein the Revised Version; and finds 8 questionable: 13 unnecessary: 19 faulty (i.e.cases in which the A. V. required amendment, but which the R. V. has not succeeded in amending): 64changes for the worse.487... This is surely a terrible indictment for such an one as Dr. Field to bring against the Revisers,—who were directed only to correct“plain and clear errors.”
(e) We really fail to understand how it has come to pass that, notwithstanding the amount of scholarship which[pg 149]sometimes sat in the Jerusalem Chamber, so many novelties are found in the present Revision which betoken a want of familiarity with the refinements of the Greek language on the one hand; and (what is even more inexcusable) only a slender acquaintance with the resources and proprieties of English speech, on the other. A fair average instance of this occurs in Acts xxi. 37, where (instead of“CanstthouspeakGreek?”) Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις? is rendered“DostthouknowGreek?”That γινώσκειν means“to know”(and not“to speak”) is undeniable: and yet, in the account of all, except the driest and stupidest of pedagogues, Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις; must be translated“Canst thouspeakGreek?”For (as every schoolboy is aware) Ἑλληνιστί is an adverb, and signifies“in Greek fashion:”so that something has to be supplied: and the full expression, if it must needs be given, would be,“Dost thou know [how to talk] in Greek?”But then, this condensation of phrase proves to be the established idiom of the language:488so that the rejection of the learned rendering of Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the Translators of 1611 (“Canst thou speakGreek?”)—the rejection of this, at the end of 270 years, in favour of“Dost thou knowGreek?”really betrays ignorance. It is worse than bad Taste. It is a stupid and deliberateblunder.
(f) The substitution of“they weighed unto him”(in place of“they covenanted with him for”)“thirty pieces of silver”(S. Matth. xxvi. 15) is another of those plausible mistakes, into which a little learning (proverbially“a dangerous thing”) is for ever conducting its unfortunate possessor; but from which it was to have been expected that the undoubted[pg 150]attainments of some who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber would have effectually preserved the Revisionists. That ἔστησαν is intended to recal Zech. xi. 12, is obvious; as well as thatthereit refers to the ancient practice ofweighinguncoined money. It does not, however, by any means follow, that it was customary toweighshekels in the days of the Gospel. Coined money, in fact, was never weighed, but always counted; and these were shekels,i.e.didrachms(Matth. xvii. 24). The truth (it lies on the surface) is, that there exists a happy ambiguity about the word ἔστησαν, of which the Evangelist has not been slow to avail himself. In the particular case before us, it is expressly recorded that in the first instance money didnotpass,—only a bargain was made, and a certain sum promised. S. Mark's record is that the chief priests were glad at the proposal of Judas,“and promisedto give him money”(xiv. 11): S. Luke's, that“they covenanted”to do so (xxii. 5, 6). And with this, the statement of the first Evangelist is found to be in strictest agreement. The chief Priests“set”or“appointed”489him a certain sum. The perfectly accurate rendering of S. Matth. xxvi. 15, therefore, exhibited by our Authorized Version, has been set aside to make way fora misrepresentation of the Evangelist's meaning.“In the judgment of the most competent scholars,”was“such changenecessary”?
(g) We respectfully think that it would have been more becoming in such a company as that which assembled in the Jerusalem Chamber, as well as more consistent with their Instructions, ifin doubtful casesthey had abstained from touching the Authorized Version, but had recorded their own conjectural emendationsin the margin. How rash and infelicitous,[pg 151]for example, is the following rendering of the famous words in Acts xxvi. 28, 29, which we find thrust upon us without apology or explanation; without, in fact, any marginal note at all:—“And Agrippa said unto Paul,With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make mea Christian. And Paul said, I would toGod, that whetherwith little or with much,”&c. Now this is indefensible. For, in the first place, to get any such meaning out of the words, our Revisionists have been obliged to substitute the fabricated ποιῆσαι (the peculiar property of אa band a few cursives) for γενέσθαι in ver. 28. Moreover, even so, the words do not yield the required sense. We venture to point out, that this is precisely one of the occasions where the opinion of a first-rate Greek Father is of paramount importance. The moderns confess themselves unable to discover a single instance of the phrase ἐν ὀλίγῳ in the sense of“within a little.”Cyril of Jerusalem (a.d.350) and Chrysostom (a.d.400), on the contrary, evidently considered that here the expression can mean nothing else; and they were competent judges, seeing that Greek was their native language: far better judges (be it remarked in passing) on a point of this kind than the whole body of Revisionists put together.“Such an amount of victorious grace and wisdom did Paul derive from theHoly Spirit”(says Cyril),“that even King Agrippa at last exclaimed,”490&c. From which it is evident that Cyril regarded Agrippa's words as an avowal that he was well-nigh overcome by the Apostle's argument. And so Chrysostom,491who says plainly that ἐν ὀλίγῳ means“within a little,”492and assumes that“within a little”S. Paul had[pg 152]persuaded his judge.493He even puts παρ᾽ ὀλίγον into Agrippa's mouth.494So also, in effect, Theodoret.495From all which it is reasonable, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to infer that our A. V. reflects faithfully what was the Church's traditionary interpretation of Acts xxvi. 28 in the first half of the fourth century. Let it only be added that a better judge of such matters than any who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber—the late President of Magdalen, Dr. Routh,—writes:“Vertendum esse sequentia suadent, Me fere Christianum fieri suades. Interp. Vulgata habet, In modico suades me Christianum fieri.”496Yes, the Apostle's rejoinder fixes the meaning of what Agrippa had said before.—And this shall suffice. We pass on, only repeating our devout wish that what the Revisionists failed to understand, or were unablematerially and certainlyto improve, they would have been so obliging as to let alone. In the present instance the A. V. is probably right; the R. V., probably wrong. No one, at all events, can pretend that the rendering with which we are all familiar is“a plain and clear error.”And confessedly, unless it was, it should have been left unmolested. But to proceed.
(4) and (5) There can be no question as to the absolute duty of rendering identical expressionsin strictly parallel places of the Gospelsby strictly identical language. So far we are wholly at one with the Revisionists. But“alterations [supposed to be] rendered necessaryby consequence”(Preface, iii. 2.), are quite a different matter: and we venture to think that it is precisely in their pursuit of a mechanical uniformity of rendering, that our Revisionists have most often as well as most grievously lost their way. We differ from them in factin limine.“When a particular word”(say they)“is found to[pg 153]recur with characteristic frequency in any one of the Sacred Writers, it is obviously desirable to adopt for it some uniform rendering”(iii. 2).“Desirable”! Yes, but in what sense? It is much to be desired, no doubt, that the English language always containedthe exact counterpartsof Greek words: and of course, if it did, it would be in the highest degree“desirable”that a Translator should always employ those words and no other. But then it happens unfortunately thatprecisely equivalent words do not exist. Τέκνον, nine times out of ten signifies nothing else but“child.”On the tenth occasion, however, (e.g.where Abraham is addressing the rich man in Hades,) it would be absurd so to render it. We translate“Son.”We are in fact without choice.—Take another ordinary Greek term, σπλάγχνα, which occurs 11 times in the N. T., and which the A. V. uniformly renders“bowels.”Well, and“bowels”confessedly σπλάγχνα are. Yet have our Revisionists felt themselves under the“necessity”of rendering the word“heart,”in Col. iii. 12,—“very heart,”in Philemon, ver. 12,—“affections”in 2 Cor. vi. 12,—“inward affection,”in vii. 15,—“tender mercies”in Phil. i. 8,—“compassion”in 1 Jo. iii. 17,—“bowels”only in Acts i. 18.—These learned men, however, put forward in illustration of their own principle of translation, the word εὐθέως,—which occurs about 80 times in the N. T.: nearly half the instances being found in S. Mark's Gospel. We accept their challenge; and assert that it is tasteless barbarism to seek to impose upon εὐθέως,—no matterwhatthe context in which it stands,—the sense of“straightway,”—only because εὐθύς, the adjective, generally (not always) means“straight.”Where a miracle of healing is described (as in S. Matth. viii. 3: xx. 34. S. Lu. v. 13), since the benefit was no doubt instantaneous, it is surely the mere instinct of“faithfulness”to translate εὐθέως“immediately.”So, in respect of the sudden act which saved Peter from sinking (S. Matth. xiv. 31); and that punctual cock-crow[pg 154](xxvi. 74), which (S. Luke says) did not so much follow, asaccompanyhis denial (xxii. 60). But surely not so, whenthe growth of a seedis the thing spoken of (Matth. xiii. 5)! Acts again, which must needs have occupied some little time in the doing, reasonably suggest some such rendering as“forthwith”or“straightway,”—(e.g.S. Matth. xiv. 22: xxi. 2: and S. John vi. 21): while, in 3 John ver. 14, the meaning (as the Revisionists confess) can only be“shortly.”... So plain a matter really ought not to require so many words. We repeat, that the Revisionists set out with a mistaken Principle. They clearlydo not understand their Trade.
They invite our attention to their rendering of certain of the Greek Tenses, and of the definite Article. We regret to discover that, in both respects, their work is disfigured throughout by changes which convict a majority of their body alike of an imperfect acquaintance with the genius of the Greek language, and of scarcely a moderate appreciation of the idiomatic proprieties of their own. Such a charge must of necessity, when it has been substantiated, press heavily upon such a work as the present; for it is not as when a solitary error has been detected, which may be rectified. A vicioussystemof rendering Tenses, and representing the Greek Article, is sure to crop up in every part of the undertaking, and must occasionally be attended by consequences of a serious nature.
1. Now, that we may not be misunderstood, we admit at once that, in teachingboyshow to turn Greek into English, we insist that every tense shall be marked by its own appropriate sign. There is no telling how helpful it will prove in the end, that every word shall at first have been rendered with painful accuracy. Let the Article be [mis-]represented—the Prepositions caricatured—the Particles magnified,—let[pg 155]the very order of the words at first, (however impossible,) be religiously retained. Merciless accuracy having been in this way acquired, a youth has to beuntaught these servile habits. He has to be reminded of the requirements of theEnglish idiom, and speedily becomes aware that the idiomatic rendering of a Greek author into English, is a higher achievement by far, than his former slavish endeavour always to render the same word and tense in the same slavish way.
2. But what supremely annoys us in the work just now under review is, that the schoolboy method of translation already noticed is therein exhibited in constant operation throughout. It becomes oppressive. We are never permitted to believe that we are in the company of Scholars who are altogether masters of their own language. Their solicitude ever seems to be twofold:—(1) To exhibit a singular indifference to the proprieties of English speech, while they maintain a servile adherence (etymological or idiomatic, as the case may be) to the Greek:—(2) Right or wrong, to part company from William Tyndale and the giants who gave us our“Authorized Version.”
Take a few illustrations of what precedes from the second chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel:—
(1.) Thus, in ver. 2, the correct English rendering“we have seen”is made to give place to the incorrect“we sawhis star in the east.”—In ver. 9, the idiomatic“when they had heard the king, they departed,”is rejected for the unidiomatic“And they,having heard the king, went their way.”—In ver. 15, we are treated to“that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by theLordthroughthe prophet, saying, Out of Egyptdid I callmy son.”And yet who sees not, that in both instances the old rendering is better? Important[pg 156]as it may be,in the lecture-room, to insist on what is implied by τὸ ῥηθὲν ὙΠῸ τοῦ κυρίου ΔΙᾺ τοῦ προφήτου, it is simply preposterous tocome abroadwith such refinements. It is to stultify oneself and to render one's author unintelligible. Moreover, the attempt to be so wondrous literal is safe to break down at the end of a few verses. Thus, if διά is“through”in verse 15,—why not in verse 17 and in verse 23?