(2.) Note how infelicitously, in S. Matth. ii. 1,“there came wise men from the east”is changed into“wise men from the east came.”—In ver. 4, the accurate,“And when [Herod] had gathered together”(συναγαγών) &c., is displaced for the inaccurate,“Andgathering together”&c.—In ver. 6, we are presented with the unintelligible,“And thouBethlehem, land of Judah:”while in ver. 7,“Then Herodprivily calledthe wise men, andlearned of them carefully,”is improperly put in the place of“Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently”(ἠκρίβωσε παρ᾽ αὐτῶν).—In ver. 11, the familiar“And when they were come into the house, they saw”&c., is needlessly changed into“Theycame into the house, and saw:”while“and when they had opened (ἀνοίξαντες) their treasures,”is also needlessly altered into“andopeningtheir treasures.”—In ver. 12, the R. V. is careful to print“ofGod”in italics, where italics are not necessary: seeing that χρηματισθέντες implies“being warned ofGod”(as the translators of 1611 were well aware497): whereas in countless other places the same Revisionists reject the use of italics where italics are absolutely required.—Their“until Itell thee”(in ver. 13) is a most unworthy substitute for“until Ibring thee word.”—And will they pretend that they have improved the rendering of the[pg 157]concluding words of the chapter? If Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται does not mean“He shall be called a Nazarene,”what in the worlddoesit mean? The ὅτι of quotation they elsewhere omit. Then why, here,—“Thatit might be fulfilled ...that”?—Surely, every one of these is an alteration made for alteration's sake, and in every instancefor the worse.We began by surveyingthe Greekof the first chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel. We have now surveyedthe Englishof the second chapter. What does the Reader think of the result?IV. Next, the Revisionists invite attention to certain points of detail: and first, to their rendering ofthe Tenses of the Verb. They begin with the Greek Aorist,—(in their account)“perhaps the most important”detail of all:—“We have not attempted to violate the idiom of our language by forms of expression which it would not bear. But we have often ventured to represent the Greek aorist by the English preterite, even when the reader may find some passing difficulty in such a rendering, because we have felt convinced that the true meaning of the original was obscured by the presence of the familiar auxiliary. A remarkable illustration may be found in the seventeenth chapter of S. John's Gospel.”—Preface, iii. 2,—(latter part).(a) We turn to the place indicated, and are constrained to assure these well-intentioned men, that the phenomenon we there witness is absolutely fatal to their pretensions as“Revisers”of our Authorized Version. Were it only“some passing difficulty”which their method occasions us, we might have hoped that time would enable us to overcome it. But since it isthe genius of the English languageto which we find they have offered violence; the fixed and universally-understood idiom of our native tongue which they have systematically set at defiance; the matter is absolutely without remedy. The difference between the A. V. and the R. V. seems to ourselves to be simply this,—that[pg 158]the renderings in the former are the idiomatic English representations of certain well-understood Greek tenses: while the proposed substitutes are nothing else but the pedantic efforts of mere grammarians to reproduce in another language idioms which it abhors. But the Reader shall judge for himself: forthisat least is a point on which every educated Englishman is fully competent to pass sentence.When our DivineLord, at the close of His Ministry,—(He had in fact reached the very last night of His earthly life, and it wanted but a few hours of His Passion,)—when He, at such a moment, addressing the EternalFather, says, ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; τὸ ἔργον ἐτελείωσα ... ἐφανέρωσά σου τὸ ὄνομα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, &c. [Jo. xvii. 4, 6], there can be no doubt whatever that, had He pronounced those words in English, He would have said (with our A. V.)“Ihave glorifiedThee on the earth: Ihave finishedthe work:”“Ihave manifestedThy Name.”The pedantry which (on the plea that the Evangelist employs the aorist, not the perfect tense,) would twist all this into the indefinite past,—“I glorified”...“I finished”...“I manifested,”—we pronounce altogether insufferable. We absolutely refuse it a hearing. Presently (in ver. 14) He says,—“I have given them Thy word; and the worldhath hated them.”And in ver. 25,—“O righteousFather, the worldhath not knownThee; but Ihave knownThee, and thesehave knownthat Thouhast sentMe.”Whowould consent to substitute for these expressions,—“the world hated them:”and“the world knew Thee not, but I knew Thee; and these knew that Thou didst send Me”?—Or turn to another Gospel.Whichis better,—“Some one hath touched Me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of Me,”(S. Lu. viii. 46):—or,—“Some onedid touchMe: forI perceivedthat powerhad gone forthfrom Me”?[pg 159]When the reference is to an act so extremely recent,whois not aware that the second of these renderings is abhorrent to the genius of the English language? As for ἔγνων, it is (likenoviin Latin) present insensethough past inform,—here as in S. Lu. xvi. 3.—But turn to yet another Gospel.Whichis better in S. Matth. xvi. 7:—“we tookno bread,”or“It is becausewe have takenno bread”?—Again. When Simon Peter (in reply to the command that he should thrust out into deep water and let down his net for a draught,) is heard to exclaim,—“Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at Thy word I will let down the net”(Lu. v. 5),—whowould tolerate the proposal to put in the place of it,—“Master,we toiled all night, andtooknothing: but at Thy word,”&c. It is not too much to declare that the idiom of the English language refuses peremptorily to submit to such handling. Quite in vain is it to encounter us with reminder that κοπιάσαντες and ἐλάβομεν are aorists. The answer is,—We know it: but we deny that it follows that the words are to be rendered“wetoiledall night, andtooknothing.”There are laws of English Idiom as well as laws of Greek Grammar: and when these clash in what is meant to be a translation into English out of Greek, the latter must perforce give way to the former,—or we make ourselves ridiculous, and misrepresent what we propose to translate.All this is so undeniable that it ought not to require to be insisted upon. But in fact our Revisionists by their occasional practice show that they fully admitthe Principlewe are contending for. Thus, ἧραν (in S. Jo. xx. 2 and 13) is by them translated“they have taken:”—ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες; (S. Matt. xxvii. 46)“Whyhast Thou forsaken Me?”498:—ἔδειξα[pg 160](S. Jo. x. 32)“have I showed:”—ἀπέστειλε (vi. 29)“He hath sent:”—ἠτιμάσατε (James ii. 6)“ye have dishonoured:”—ἐκαθάρισε (Acts x. 15)“hath cleansed:”—ἔστησεν (xvii. 31)“Hehath appointed.”But indeed instances abound everywhere. In fact, the requirements of the case are often observed toforcethem to be idiomatic. Τί ἐποίησας; (in Jo. xviii. 35), they rightly render“Whathastthou done?”:—and ἔγραψα (in 1 Jo. ii. 14, 21),“Ihavewritten;”—and ἤκουσα (in Acts ix. 13),“Ihaveheard.”—On the other hand, by translating οὐκ εἴασεν (in Acts xxviii. 4),“hath not suffered,”they may be thought to have overshot the mark. They seem to have overlooked the fact that, when once S. Paul had been bitten by the viper,“the barbarians”looked upon him asa dead man; and therefore discoursed about what Justice“did notsuffer,”as about an entirely past transaction.But now,Whosees not that the admission, once and again deliberately made, that sometimes it is not only lawful, but evennecessary, to accommodate the Greek aorist (when translated into English) with the sign of the perfect,—reduces the whole matter (of the signs of the tenses) to a mere question ofTaste? In view of such instances as the foregoing, where severe logical necessity has compelled the Revisionists to abandon their position and fly, it is plain that their contention is at an end,—so far asrightandwrongare concerned. They virtually admit that they have been all along unjustly forcing on an independent language an alien yoke.499Henceforth, it simply becomes a question to be repeated, as every fresh emergency arises,—Which then isthe more idiomaticof these two English renderings?... Conversely, twice at least (Heb. xi. 17 and 28), the Revisionists[pg 161]have represented theGreek perfectby the English indefinite preterite.(b) Besides this offensive pedantry in respect of the Aorist, we are often annoyed by anunidiomaticrendering of the Imperfect. True enough it is that“the servants and the officerswere standing... andwere warmingthemselves:”Peter also“was standingwith them andwas warminghimself”(S. Jo. xviii. 18). But we do not so express ourselves in English, unless we are about to add something which shallaccount forour particularity and precision. Any one, for example, desirous of stating what had been for years his daily practice, would say—“I leftmy house.”Only when he wanted to explain that, on leaving it for the 1000th time, he met a friend coming up the steps to pay him a visit, would an Englishman think of saying,“I was leavingthe house.”A Greek writer, on the other hand, would nottrustthis to the imperfect. He would use the present participle in the dative case, (“To me, leaving my house,”500&c.). One is astonished to have to explain such things....“If therefore thouart offeringthy gift at the altar”(Matt. v. 23), may seem to some a clever translation. To ourselves, it reads like a senseless exaggeration of the original.501It sounds (andis) as unnatural as to say (in S. Lu. ii. 33)“And His father [a depravation of the text] and His motherwere marvellingat the things which were spoken concerning Him:”—or (in Heb. xi. 17)“yea, he that had received the promiseswas offering uphis only-begotten son:”—or, of the cripple at Lystra (Acts xiv. 9),“the same heard Paulspeaking.”(c) On the other hand, there are occasions confessedly when the Greek Aorist absolutely demands to be rendered[pg 162]into English by the sign of thePluperfect. An instance meets us while we write: ὡς δὲ ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν (S. Lu. v. 4),—where our Revisionists are found to retain the idiomatic rendering of our Authorized Version,—“When Hehad leftspeaking.”Of what possible avail could it be, on such an occasion, to insist that, because ἐπαύσατο is not in the pluperfect tense, it may not be accommodated withthe signof the pluperfect when it is being translated into English?—The R. V. has shown less consideration in S. Jo. xviii. 24,—where“Now Annashad sentHim bound unto Caiaphas the high priest,”is right, and wanted no revision.—Such places as Matth. xxvii. 60, Jo. xxi. 15, Acts xii. 17, and Heb. iv. 8, on the other hand, simply defy the Revisionists. For perforce Joseph“had hewnout”(ἐλατόμησε) the new tomb which became ourLord's: and the seven Apostles, confessedly,“had dined”(ἠρίστησαν): and S. Peter, of course,“declared unto them how theLordhad brought him outof the prison”(ἐξήγαγεν): and it is impossible to substitute anything for“If Jesus [Joshua]had giventhem rest”(κατέπαυσεν).—Then of course there are occasions, (not a few,) where the Aorist (often an indefinite present in Greek) claims to be Englished by the sign of the present tense: as where S. John says (Rev. xix. 6),“TheLord GodOmnipotent reigneth”(ἐβασίλευσε). There is no striving against such instances. Theyinsiston being rendered according to the genius of the language into which it is proposed to render them:—as when ἔκειτο (in S. Jo. xx. 12) exacts for its rendering“had lain.”(d) It shall only be pointed out here in addition, for the student's benefit, that there is one highly interesting place (viz. S. Matth. xxviii. 2), which in every age has misled Critics and Divines (as Origen and Eusebius); Poets (as Rogers); Painters (as West);—yes, and will continue to mislead readers for many a year to come:—and all because men[pg 163]have failed to perceive that the aorist is used there for the pluperfect. Translate,—“Therehad beena great earthquake:”[and so (1611-1881) our margin,—until in short“the Revisionists”interfered:]“for the Angel of theLordhaddescended from heaven, andcome and rolled away(ἀπεκύλισε) the stone from the door, and sat upon it.”Strange, that for 1800 years Commentators should have failed to perceive that the Evangelist is describing what terrified“the keepers.”“The women”saw no Angel sitting upon the stone!—though Origen,502—Dionysius of Alexandria,503—Eusebius,504—ps.-Gregory Naz.,505—Cyril Alex.,506—Hesychius,507—and so many others—have taken it for granted that theydid.(e) Then further, (to dismiss the subject and pass on,)—There are occasions where the Greekperfectexacts the sign of thepresentat the hands of the English translator: as when Martha says,—“YeaLord, Ibelievethat Thou art theChrist”(S. Jo. xi. 27).508What else but the veriest pedantry is it to thrust in there“I have believed,”as the English equivalent for πεπίστευκα?—Just as intolerable is the officiousness which would thrust into theLord'sprayer (Matt. vi. 12),“as we alsohave forgiven(ἀφήκαμεν) our debtors.”509—On the other hand, there are Greekpresents(whatever the Revisionists may think) which are just as peremptory in requiringthe sign of the future, at the hands of the idiomatic translator into English. Three such cases are found in S. Jo. xvi. 16, 17, 19. Surely, the future isinherentin the present ἔρχομαι! In Jo. xiv. 18 (and many similar places), who can endure,“I will not leave you desolate:I come unto you”?[pg 164](f) But instances abound. How does it happen that the inaccurate rendering of ἐκκόπτεται—ἐκβάλλεται—has been retained in S. Matth. iii. 10, S. Lu. iii. 9?V. Next, concerning thedefinite Article; in the case of which, (say the Revisionists,)“many changes have been made.”“We have been careful to observe the use of the Article wherever it seemed to be idiomatically possible: where it did not seem to be possible, we have yielded to necessity.”—(Preface, iii. 2,—ad fin.)In reply, instead of offering counter-statements of our own we content ourselves with submitting a few specimens to the Reader's judgment; and invite him to decide between the Reviewer and the Reviewed ...“Thesower went forth to sow”(Matth. xiii. 3).—“It is greater thantheherbs”(ver. 32).—“Let him be to thee astheGentile andthepublican”(xviii. 17).—“The unclean spirit, when he is gone out oftheman”(xii. 43).—“Did I not choose youthetwelve?”(Jo. vi. 70).—“If I then,theLord andthemaster”(xiii. 14).—“Forthejoy that a man is born into the world”(xvi. 21).—“But as touching Apollosthebrother”(1 Cor. xvi. 12).—“TheBishop must be blameless ... able to exhort inthesound doctrine”(Titus i. 7, 9).—“Thelust when it hath conceived, beareth sin: andthesin, when it is full grown”&c. (James i. 15).—“Doththefountain send forth from the same opening sweet water and bitter?”(iii. 11).—“Speak thou the things which befitthesound doctrine”(Titus ii. 1).—“The time will come when they will not endurethesound doctrine”(2 Tim. iv. 3).—“We hadthefathers of our flesh to chasten us”(Heb. xii. 9).—“Follow after peace with all men, andthesanctification”(ver. 14).—“Who istheliar but he that denieth thatJesusis theChrist?”(1 Jo. ii. 22).—“Not withthewater only, but withthewater and withtheblood”(v. 6).—“He that hath theSon, haththelife: he that hath not theSonofGodhath notthelife”(ver. 12).[pg 165]To rejoin, as if it were a sufficient answer, that the definite Article is found in all these places in the original Greek,—is preposterous. In French also we say“Telle estlavie:”but, in translating from the French, we do notthereforesay“Such isthelife.”May we, without offence, suggest the study of MiddletonOn the Doctrine of the Greek Articleto those members of the Revisionists' body who have favoured us with the foregoing crop of mistaken renderings?So, in respect of the indefinite article, we are presented with,—“Aneternal”(for“theeverlasting”)“gospel to proclaim”(Rev. xiv. 6):—and“one like untoason of man,”for“one like untotheSon of Man”in ver. 14.—Why“aSaviour”in Phil. iii. 20? There is but one! (Acts iv. 12).—On the other hand, Κρανίον is rendered“Theskull”in S. Lu. xxiii. 33. It is hard to see why.—These instances taken at random must suffice. They might be multiplied to any extent. If the Reader considers that the idiomatic use of the English Article is understood by the authors of these specimen cases, we shall be surprised, and sorry—for him.VI. The Revisionists announce that they“have been particularly careful”as tothe Pronouns[iii. 2ad fin.] We recal with regret that this is also a particular wherein we have been specially annoyed and offended. Annoyed—at their practice ofrepeating the nominative(e.g.in Mk. i. 13: Jo. xx. 12) to an extent unknown, abhorrent even, to our language, except indeed when a fresh substantive statement is made: offended—at their license of translation,when it suits themto be licentious.—Thus, (as the Bp. of S. Andrews has well pointed out,)“it is He that”is an incorrect translation of αὐτός in S. Matth. i. 21,—a famous passage. Even worse, because it is unfair, is“He who”as the rendering of ὅς in 1 Tim. iii. 16,—another famous passage, which we have discussed elsewhere.510[pg 166]VII. 'In the case of theParticles' (say the Revisionists),“we have been able to maintain a reasonable amount ofconsistency. The Particles in the Greek Testament are, as is well known, comparatively few, and they are commonly used with precision. It has therefore been the more necessary here to preserve a generaluniformity of rendering.”—(iii. 2ad fin.)Such an announcement, we submit, is calculated to occasion nothing so much as uneasiness and astonishment. Of all the parts of speech, the Greek Particles,—(especially throughout the period when the Language was in its decadence,)—are the least capable of being drilled into“a general uniformity of rendering;”and he who tries the experiment ought to be the first to be aware of the fact. The refinement and delicacy which they impart to a narrative or a sentiment, are not to be told. But then, from the very nature of the case,“uniformity of rendering”is precisely the thing they will not submit to. They take their colour from their context: often mean two quite different things in the course of two successive verses: sometimes are best rendered by a long and formidable word;511sometimes cannot (without a certain amount of impropriety or inconvenience) be renderedat all.512Let us illustrate what we have been saying by actual appeals to Scripture.(1) And first, we will derive our proofs from the use which the sacred Writers make of the particle of most[pg 167]frequent recurrence—δέ. It is said to be employed in the N. T. 3115 times. As for its meaning, we have the unimpeachable authority of the Revisionists themselves for saying that it may be represented by any of the following words:—“but,”—“and,”513—“yea,”514—“what,”515—“now,”516—“and that”,517—“howbeit,”518—“even,”519—“therefore,”520—“I say,”521—“also,”522—“yet,”523—“for.”524To which 12 renderings, King James's translators (mostly following Tyndale) are observed to add at least these other 12:—“wherefore,”525—“so,”526—“moreover,”527—“yea and,”528—“furthermore,”529—“nevertheless,”530—“notwithstanding,”531—“yet but,”532—“truly,”533—“or,”534—“as for,”535—“then,”536—“and yet.”537It shall suffice to add that, by the pitiful substitution of“but”or“and”onmostof the foregoing occasions, the freshness and freedom of almost every passage has been made to disappear: the plain fact being that the men of 1611—above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before them—produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt, or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English: whereas the men of 1881 have fulfilled their task in what can only be described asa spirit of servile pedantry. The Grammarian (pure and simple) crops up everywhere. We seem never to rise above the atmosphere of the lecture-room,—the startling fact that μέν means“indeed,”and δέ“but.”[pg 168]We subjoin a single specimen of the countless changes introduced in the rendering of Particles, and then hasten on. In 1 Cor. xii. 20, for three centuries and a half, Englishmen have been contented to read (with William Tyndale),“But now are they many members,yet butone body.”Our Revisionists, (overcome by the knowledge that δέ means“but,”and yielding to the supposed“necessity for preserving a general uniformity of rendering,”) substitute,—“Butnow they are many members,butone body.”Comment ought to be superfluous. We neither overlook the fact that δέ occurs here twice, nor deny that it is fairly represented by“but”in the first instance. We assert nevertheless that, on the second occasion,“yet but”ought to have been let alone. And this is a fair sample of the changes which have been effectedmany times in every page. To proceed however.(2) The interrogative particle ἤ occurs at the beginning of a sentence at least 8 or 10 times in the N. T.; first, in S. Matth. vii. 9. It is often scarcely translateable,—being apparently invested with with no more emphasis than belongs to our colloquial interrogative“Eh?”But sometimes it would evidently bear to be represented by“Pray,”538—being at least equivalent to φέρε in Greek oragein Latin. Once only (viz. in 1 Cor. xiv. 36) does this interrogative particle so eloquently plead for recognition in the text, that both our A. V. and the R. V. have rendered it“What?”—by which word, by the way, it might very fairly have been represented in S. Matth. xxvi. 53 and Rom. vi. 3: vii. 1. In five of the places where the particle occurs. King James's Translators are observed to have give it up in despair.539But what is to be thought of the adventurous dulness which (with the single exception already indicated) hasinvariablyrendered ἤ by[pg 169]the conjunction“or”? The blunder is the more inexcusable, because the intrusion of such an irrelevant conjunction into places where it is without either use or meaning cannot have failed to attract the notice of every member of the Revising body.(3) At the risk of being wearisome, we must add a few words.—Καί, though no particle but a conjunction, may for our present purpose be reasonably spoken of under the same head; being diversely rendered“and,”—“and yet,”540—“then,”541—“or,”542—“neither,”543—“though,”544—“so,”545—“but,”546—“for,”547—“that,”548—in conformity with what may be called the genius of the English language. The last six of these renderings, however, our Revisionists disallow; everywhere thrusting out the word which the argument seems rather to require, and with mechanical precision thrusting into its place every time the (perfectly safe, but often palpably inappropriate) word,“and.”With what amount of benefit this has been effected, one or two samples will sufficiently illustrate:—(a) The Revisionists inform us that when“the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth,”—S. Paul exclaimed,“Godshall smite thee, thou whited wall:andsittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?”549... Do these learned men really imagine that they have improved upon the A. V. by their officiousness in altering“for”into“and”?(b) The same Apostle, having ended his argument to the Hebrews, remarks,—“Sowe see that they could not enter in because of unbelief”(Heb. iii. 19): for which, our Revisionists[pg 170]again substitute“And.”Begin the sentence with“and,”(instead of“So,”) and, in compensation for what you have clearlylost, what have yougained?... Once more:—(c) Consider what S. Paul writes concerning Apollos (in 1 Cor. xvi. 12), and then say what possible advantage is obtained by writing“and”(instead of“but”)“his will was not at all to come at this time”.... Yet once more; and onthisoccasion, scholarship is to some extent involved:—(d) When S. James (i. 11) says ἀνέτειλε γὰρ ὁ ἥλιος ... καὶ ἐξήρανε τὸν χόρτον,—whoknows not that what his language strictly means in idiomatic English, is,—“No soonerdoes the sun arise,”“thanit withereth the grass”? And so in effect our Translators of 1611. What possible improvement on this can it be to substitute,“For the sun ariseth ...andwithereth the grass”?—Only once more:—(e) Though καί undeniably means“and,”and πῶς,“how,”—whoknows not that καὶ πῶς means“How then?”And yet, (as if a stupid little boy had been at work,) in two places,—(namely, in S. Mark iv. 13 and S. Luke xx. 44,)—“and how”is found mercilessly thrust in, to the great detriment of the discourse; while in other two,—(namely, in S. John xiv. 5 and 9,)—the text itself has been mercilessly deprived of its characteristic καί by the Revisionists.—Let this suffice. One might fill many quires of paper with such instances of tasteless, senseless, vexatious, andmost unscholarlikeinnovation.VIII.“Many changes”(we are informed)“have been introduced in the rendering of thePrepositions.”[Preface, iii. 2,ad fin.]:—and we are speedily reminded of the truth of the statement, for (as was shown above [pp.155-6]) the second chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel exhibits the Revisionists“all a-field”in respect of διά.“We have rarely made any change”(they add)“where the true meaning of the original would be apparent toa Reader of ordinary intelligence.”It[pg 171]would of course ill become such an one as the present Reviewer to lay claim to the foregoing flattering designation: but really, when he now for the first time reads (in Acts ix. 25) that the disciples of Damascus let S. Paul down“through the wall,”he must be pardoned for regretting the absence of a marginal reference to the history of Pyramus and Thisbe in order to suggesthowthe operation was effected: for, as it stands, the R. V. is to him simply unintelligible. Inasmuch as the basket (σπυρίς) in which the Apostle effected his escape was of considerable size, do but think what an extravagantly large hole it must have been to enable thembothto get through!... But let us look further.Was it then in order to bring Scripture within thecaptusof“a Reader of ordinary intelligence”that the Revisers have introduced no less thanthirty changesintoeight-and-thirty wordsof S. Peter's 2nd Epistle? Particular attention is invited to the following interesting specimen of“Revision.”It is the only one we shall offer of the manycontrastswe had marked for insertion. We venture also to enquire, whether the Revisers will consent to abide by it as a specimen of their skill in dealing with the Preposition ἐν?A. V.R. V.“And beside all this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.”—[2 Pet. i. 5-7.]“Yea (1), and for (2) this very (3) cause (4) adding (5) on (6) your part (7) all diligence, in (8) your faith supply (9) virtue; and in (10) your (11) virtue knowledge; and in (12) your (13) knowledge temperance; and in (14) your (15) temperance patience; and in (16) your (17) patience godliness; and in (18) your (19) godliness love (20) of (21) the (22) brethren (23); and in (24) your (25) love (26) of (27) the (28) brethren (29) love (30).”[pg 172]The foregoing strikes us as a singular illustration of the Revisionists' statement (Preface, iii. 2),—“We madenochangeif the meaning was fairly expressedby the word or phrase that was before us in the Authorized Version.”To ourselves it appears thatevery one of those 30 changes is a change for the worse; and that one of the most exquisite passages in the N. T. has been hopelessly spoiled,—rendered in fact well-nigh unintelligible,—by the pedantic officiousness of the Revisers. Were they—(if the question be allowable)—bent on removing none but“plain and clear errors,”when they substituted those 30 words? Was it in token of their stern resolve“to introduce into the Textas few alterations as possible,”that they spared the eight words which remain out of the eight-and-thirty?As for theirwoodenrendering of ἐν, it ought to suffice to refer them to S. Mk. i. 23, S. Lu. xiv. 31, to prove that sometimes ἐν can only be rendered“with”:—and to S. Luke vii. 17, to show them that ἐν sometimes means“throughout”:—and to Col. i. 16, and Heb. i. 1, 2, in proof that sometimes it means“by.”—On the other hand, their suggestion that ἐν may be rendered“by”in S. Luke i. 51, convicts them of not being aware that“the proud-in-the-imagination-of-their-hearts”isa phrase—in which perforce“by”has no business whatever. One is surprised to have to teach professed Critics and Scholars an elementary fact like this.In brief, these learned men are respectfully assured that there is not one of the“Parts of Speech”which will consent to be handled after the inhumane fashion which seems to be to themselves congenial. Whatever they may think of the matter, it is nothing else but absurd to speak of an Angel“casting his sickleinto the earth”(Rev. xiv. 19).—As for his“pouring out his bowlupon the air”(xvi. 17),—we really fail to understand the nature of the operation.—And pray,[pg 173]What is supposed to be the meaning of“the thingsupon the heavens”—in Ephesians i. 10?Returning to the preposition διά followed by the genitive,—(in respect of which the Revisionists challenge Criticism by complaining in their Preface [iii. 3ad fin.] that in the A. V.“ideas of instrumentality or of mediate agency, distinctly marked in the original, have beenconfused or obscured in the Translation,”)—we have to point out:—(1st) That these distinguished individuals seem not to be aware that the proprieties of English speech forbid the use of“through”(as a substitute for“by”) in certain expressions where instrumentality is concerned. Thus,“the Son of man”was not betrayed“through”Judas, but“by”him (Matt. xxvi. 24: Luke xxii. 22).—Still less is it allowable to say that a prophecy was“spoken,”nay“written,”“throughthe Prophet”(Matth. i. 22 and margin of ii. 5).“Who spakebythe Prophets,”is even an article of the Faith.And (2ndly),—That these scholars have in consequence adopted a see-saw method of rendering διά,—sometimes in one way, sometimes in the other. First, they give us“wonders and signs donebythe Apostles”(Acts ii. 43; but in the margin,“Or,through”): presently,“a notable miracle hath been wroughtthroughthem”(iv. 16: and this time, the margin withholds the alternative,“Or,by”). Is then“the true meaning”of“by,”in the former place,“apparent to a Reader of ordinary intelligence”? but so obscure in the latter as to rendernecessarythe alteration to“through”? Or (sit venia verbo),—Was it a mere“toss-up”with the Revisionistswhatis the proper rendering of διά?(3rdly), In an earlier place (ii. 22), we read of“miracles, wonders, and signs”which“Goddidby”Jesusof Nazareth. Was it reverence, which, on that occasion, forbad the use of[pg 174]“through”—even in the margin? We hope so: but the preposition is still the same—διά not ὑπό.Lastly (4thly),—The doctrine that Creation is the work of the DivineWord, all Scripture attests.“All things were madebyHim”(S. Jo. i. 3):—“the world was madebyHim”(ver. 10).—Why then, in Col. i. 16, where the same statement is repeated,—(“all things were createdbyHim and for Him,”)—do we find“through”substituted for“by”? And why is the same offence repeated in 1 Cor. vii. 6,—(where weoughtto read,—“oneGod, theFather, of whom are all things ... and oneLord Jesus Christ,bywhom are all things”)?—Why, especially, in Heb. i. 2, in place of“bywhom also [viz. bythe Son] He made the worlds,”do we find substituted“throughwhom”?... And why add to this glaring inconsistency the wretched vacillation of giving us the choice of“through”(in place of“by”) in the margin of S. John i. 3 and 10, and not even offering us the alternative of“by”(in place of“through”) in any of the other places,—although the preposition is διά on every occasion?
(2.) Note how infelicitously, in S. Matth. ii. 1,“there came wise men from the east”is changed into“wise men from the east came.”—In ver. 4, the accurate,“And when [Herod] had gathered together”(συναγαγών) &c., is displaced for the inaccurate,“Andgathering together”&c.—In ver. 6, we are presented with the unintelligible,“And thouBethlehem, land of Judah:”while in ver. 7,“Then Herodprivily calledthe wise men, andlearned of them carefully,”is improperly put in the place of“Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently”(ἠκρίβωσε παρ᾽ αὐτῶν).—In ver. 11, the familiar“And when they were come into the house, they saw”&c., is needlessly changed into“Theycame into the house, and saw:”while“and when they had opened (ἀνοίξαντες) their treasures,”is also needlessly altered into“andopeningtheir treasures.”—In ver. 12, the R. V. is careful to print“ofGod”in italics, where italics are not necessary: seeing that χρηματισθέντες implies“being warned ofGod”(as the translators of 1611 were well aware497): whereas in countless other places the same Revisionists reject the use of italics where italics are absolutely required.—Their“until Itell thee”(in ver. 13) is a most unworthy substitute for“until Ibring thee word.”—And will they pretend that they have improved the rendering of the[pg 157]concluding words of the chapter? If Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται does not mean“He shall be called a Nazarene,”what in the worlddoesit mean? The ὅτι of quotation they elsewhere omit. Then why, here,—“Thatit might be fulfilled ...that”?—Surely, every one of these is an alteration made for alteration's sake, and in every instancefor the worse.We began by surveyingthe Greekof the first chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel. We have now surveyedthe Englishof the second chapter. What does the Reader think of the result?IV. Next, the Revisionists invite attention to certain points of detail: and first, to their rendering ofthe Tenses of the Verb. They begin with the Greek Aorist,—(in their account)“perhaps the most important”detail of all:—“We have not attempted to violate the idiom of our language by forms of expression which it would not bear. But we have often ventured to represent the Greek aorist by the English preterite, even when the reader may find some passing difficulty in such a rendering, because we have felt convinced that the true meaning of the original was obscured by the presence of the familiar auxiliary. A remarkable illustration may be found in the seventeenth chapter of S. John's Gospel.”—Preface, iii. 2,—(latter part).(a) We turn to the place indicated, and are constrained to assure these well-intentioned men, that the phenomenon we there witness is absolutely fatal to their pretensions as“Revisers”of our Authorized Version. Were it only“some passing difficulty”which their method occasions us, we might have hoped that time would enable us to overcome it. But since it isthe genius of the English languageto which we find they have offered violence; the fixed and universally-understood idiom of our native tongue which they have systematically set at defiance; the matter is absolutely without remedy. The difference between the A. V. and the R. V. seems to ourselves to be simply this,—that[pg 158]the renderings in the former are the idiomatic English representations of certain well-understood Greek tenses: while the proposed substitutes are nothing else but the pedantic efforts of mere grammarians to reproduce in another language idioms which it abhors. But the Reader shall judge for himself: forthisat least is a point on which every educated Englishman is fully competent to pass sentence.When our DivineLord, at the close of His Ministry,—(He had in fact reached the very last night of His earthly life, and it wanted but a few hours of His Passion,)—when He, at such a moment, addressing the EternalFather, says, ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; τὸ ἔργον ἐτελείωσα ... ἐφανέρωσά σου τὸ ὄνομα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, &c. [Jo. xvii. 4, 6], there can be no doubt whatever that, had He pronounced those words in English, He would have said (with our A. V.)“Ihave glorifiedThee on the earth: Ihave finishedthe work:”“Ihave manifestedThy Name.”The pedantry which (on the plea that the Evangelist employs the aorist, not the perfect tense,) would twist all this into the indefinite past,—“I glorified”...“I finished”...“I manifested,”—we pronounce altogether insufferable. We absolutely refuse it a hearing. Presently (in ver. 14) He says,—“I have given them Thy word; and the worldhath hated them.”And in ver. 25,—“O righteousFather, the worldhath not knownThee; but Ihave knownThee, and thesehave knownthat Thouhast sentMe.”Whowould consent to substitute for these expressions,—“the world hated them:”and“the world knew Thee not, but I knew Thee; and these knew that Thou didst send Me”?—Or turn to another Gospel.Whichis better,—“Some one hath touched Me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of Me,”(S. Lu. viii. 46):—or,—“Some onedid touchMe: forI perceivedthat powerhad gone forthfrom Me”?[pg 159]When the reference is to an act so extremely recent,whois not aware that the second of these renderings is abhorrent to the genius of the English language? As for ἔγνων, it is (likenoviin Latin) present insensethough past inform,—here as in S. Lu. xvi. 3.—But turn to yet another Gospel.Whichis better in S. Matth. xvi. 7:—“we tookno bread,”or“It is becausewe have takenno bread”?—Again. When Simon Peter (in reply to the command that he should thrust out into deep water and let down his net for a draught,) is heard to exclaim,—“Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at Thy word I will let down the net”(Lu. v. 5),—whowould tolerate the proposal to put in the place of it,—“Master,we toiled all night, andtooknothing: but at Thy word,”&c. It is not too much to declare that the idiom of the English language refuses peremptorily to submit to such handling. Quite in vain is it to encounter us with reminder that κοπιάσαντες and ἐλάβομεν are aorists. The answer is,—We know it: but we deny that it follows that the words are to be rendered“wetoiledall night, andtooknothing.”There are laws of English Idiom as well as laws of Greek Grammar: and when these clash in what is meant to be a translation into English out of Greek, the latter must perforce give way to the former,—or we make ourselves ridiculous, and misrepresent what we propose to translate.All this is so undeniable that it ought not to require to be insisted upon. But in fact our Revisionists by their occasional practice show that they fully admitthe Principlewe are contending for. Thus, ἧραν (in S. Jo. xx. 2 and 13) is by them translated“they have taken:”—ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες; (S. Matt. xxvii. 46)“Whyhast Thou forsaken Me?”498:—ἔδειξα[pg 160](S. Jo. x. 32)“have I showed:”—ἀπέστειλε (vi. 29)“He hath sent:”—ἠτιμάσατε (James ii. 6)“ye have dishonoured:”—ἐκαθάρισε (Acts x. 15)“hath cleansed:”—ἔστησεν (xvii. 31)“Hehath appointed.”But indeed instances abound everywhere. In fact, the requirements of the case are often observed toforcethem to be idiomatic. Τί ἐποίησας; (in Jo. xviii. 35), they rightly render“Whathastthou done?”:—and ἔγραψα (in 1 Jo. ii. 14, 21),“Ihavewritten;”—and ἤκουσα (in Acts ix. 13),“Ihaveheard.”—On the other hand, by translating οὐκ εἴασεν (in Acts xxviii. 4),“hath not suffered,”they may be thought to have overshot the mark. They seem to have overlooked the fact that, when once S. Paul had been bitten by the viper,“the barbarians”looked upon him asa dead man; and therefore discoursed about what Justice“did notsuffer,”as about an entirely past transaction.But now,Whosees not that the admission, once and again deliberately made, that sometimes it is not only lawful, but evennecessary, to accommodate the Greek aorist (when translated into English) with the sign of the perfect,—reduces the whole matter (of the signs of the tenses) to a mere question ofTaste? In view of such instances as the foregoing, where severe logical necessity has compelled the Revisionists to abandon their position and fly, it is plain that their contention is at an end,—so far asrightandwrongare concerned. They virtually admit that they have been all along unjustly forcing on an independent language an alien yoke.499Henceforth, it simply becomes a question to be repeated, as every fresh emergency arises,—Which then isthe more idiomaticof these two English renderings?... Conversely, twice at least (Heb. xi. 17 and 28), the Revisionists[pg 161]have represented theGreek perfectby the English indefinite preterite.(b) Besides this offensive pedantry in respect of the Aorist, we are often annoyed by anunidiomaticrendering of the Imperfect. True enough it is that“the servants and the officerswere standing... andwere warmingthemselves:”Peter also“was standingwith them andwas warminghimself”(S. Jo. xviii. 18). But we do not so express ourselves in English, unless we are about to add something which shallaccount forour particularity and precision. Any one, for example, desirous of stating what had been for years his daily practice, would say—“I leftmy house.”Only when he wanted to explain that, on leaving it for the 1000th time, he met a friend coming up the steps to pay him a visit, would an Englishman think of saying,“I was leavingthe house.”A Greek writer, on the other hand, would nottrustthis to the imperfect. He would use the present participle in the dative case, (“To me, leaving my house,”500&c.). One is astonished to have to explain such things....“If therefore thouart offeringthy gift at the altar”(Matt. v. 23), may seem to some a clever translation. To ourselves, it reads like a senseless exaggeration of the original.501It sounds (andis) as unnatural as to say (in S. Lu. ii. 33)“And His father [a depravation of the text] and His motherwere marvellingat the things which were spoken concerning Him:”—or (in Heb. xi. 17)“yea, he that had received the promiseswas offering uphis only-begotten son:”—or, of the cripple at Lystra (Acts xiv. 9),“the same heard Paulspeaking.”(c) On the other hand, there are occasions confessedly when the Greek Aorist absolutely demands to be rendered[pg 162]into English by the sign of thePluperfect. An instance meets us while we write: ὡς δὲ ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν (S. Lu. v. 4),—where our Revisionists are found to retain the idiomatic rendering of our Authorized Version,—“When Hehad leftspeaking.”Of what possible avail could it be, on such an occasion, to insist that, because ἐπαύσατο is not in the pluperfect tense, it may not be accommodated withthe signof the pluperfect when it is being translated into English?—The R. V. has shown less consideration in S. Jo. xviii. 24,—where“Now Annashad sentHim bound unto Caiaphas the high priest,”is right, and wanted no revision.—Such places as Matth. xxvii. 60, Jo. xxi. 15, Acts xii. 17, and Heb. iv. 8, on the other hand, simply defy the Revisionists. For perforce Joseph“had hewnout”(ἐλατόμησε) the new tomb which became ourLord's: and the seven Apostles, confessedly,“had dined”(ἠρίστησαν): and S. Peter, of course,“declared unto them how theLordhad brought him outof the prison”(ἐξήγαγεν): and it is impossible to substitute anything for“If Jesus [Joshua]had giventhem rest”(κατέπαυσεν).—Then of course there are occasions, (not a few,) where the Aorist (often an indefinite present in Greek) claims to be Englished by the sign of the present tense: as where S. John says (Rev. xix. 6),“TheLord GodOmnipotent reigneth”(ἐβασίλευσε). There is no striving against such instances. Theyinsiston being rendered according to the genius of the language into which it is proposed to render them:—as when ἔκειτο (in S. Jo. xx. 12) exacts for its rendering“had lain.”(d) It shall only be pointed out here in addition, for the student's benefit, that there is one highly interesting place (viz. S. Matth. xxviii. 2), which in every age has misled Critics and Divines (as Origen and Eusebius); Poets (as Rogers); Painters (as West);—yes, and will continue to mislead readers for many a year to come:—and all because men[pg 163]have failed to perceive that the aorist is used there for the pluperfect. Translate,—“Therehad beena great earthquake:”[and so (1611-1881) our margin,—until in short“the Revisionists”interfered:]“for the Angel of theLordhaddescended from heaven, andcome and rolled away(ἀπεκύλισε) the stone from the door, and sat upon it.”Strange, that for 1800 years Commentators should have failed to perceive that the Evangelist is describing what terrified“the keepers.”“The women”saw no Angel sitting upon the stone!—though Origen,502—Dionysius of Alexandria,503—Eusebius,504—ps.-Gregory Naz.,505—Cyril Alex.,506—Hesychius,507—and so many others—have taken it for granted that theydid.(e) Then further, (to dismiss the subject and pass on,)—There are occasions where the Greekperfectexacts the sign of thepresentat the hands of the English translator: as when Martha says,—“YeaLord, Ibelievethat Thou art theChrist”(S. Jo. xi. 27).508What else but the veriest pedantry is it to thrust in there“I have believed,”as the English equivalent for πεπίστευκα?—Just as intolerable is the officiousness which would thrust into theLord'sprayer (Matt. vi. 12),“as we alsohave forgiven(ἀφήκαμεν) our debtors.”509—On the other hand, there are Greekpresents(whatever the Revisionists may think) which are just as peremptory in requiringthe sign of the future, at the hands of the idiomatic translator into English. Three such cases are found in S. Jo. xvi. 16, 17, 19. Surely, the future isinherentin the present ἔρχομαι! In Jo. xiv. 18 (and many similar places), who can endure,“I will not leave you desolate:I come unto you”?[pg 164](f) But instances abound. How does it happen that the inaccurate rendering of ἐκκόπτεται—ἐκβάλλεται—has been retained in S. Matth. iii. 10, S. Lu. iii. 9?V. Next, concerning thedefinite Article; in the case of which, (say the Revisionists,)“many changes have been made.”“We have been careful to observe the use of the Article wherever it seemed to be idiomatically possible: where it did not seem to be possible, we have yielded to necessity.”—(Preface, iii. 2,—ad fin.)In reply, instead of offering counter-statements of our own we content ourselves with submitting a few specimens to the Reader's judgment; and invite him to decide between the Reviewer and the Reviewed ...“Thesower went forth to sow”(Matth. xiii. 3).—“It is greater thantheherbs”(ver. 32).—“Let him be to thee astheGentile andthepublican”(xviii. 17).—“The unclean spirit, when he is gone out oftheman”(xii. 43).—“Did I not choose youthetwelve?”(Jo. vi. 70).—“If I then,theLord andthemaster”(xiii. 14).—“Forthejoy that a man is born into the world”(xvi. 21).—“But as touching Apollosthebrother”(1 Cor. xvi. 12).—“TheBishop must be blameless ... able to exhort inthesound doctrine”(Titus i. 7, 9).—“Thelust when it hath conceived, beareth sin: andthesin, when it is full grown”&c. (James i. 15).—“Doththefountain send forth from the same opening sweet water and bitter?”(iii. 11).—“Speak thou the things which befitthesound doctrine”(Titus ii. 1).—“The time will come when they will not endurethesound doctrine”(2 Tim. iv. 3).—“We hadthefathers of our flesh to chasten us”(Heb. xii. 9).—“Follow after peace with all men, andthesanctification”(ver. 14).—“Who istheliar but he that denieth thatJesusis theChrist?”(1 Jo. ii. 22).—“Not withthewater only, but withthewater and withtheblood”(v. 6).—“He that hath theSon, haththelife: he that hath not theSonofGodhath notthelife”(ver. 12).[pg 165]To rejoin, as if it were a sufficient answer, that the definite Article is found in all these places in the original Greek,—is preposterous. In French also we say“Telle estlavie:”but, in translating from the French, we do notthereforesay“Such isthelife.”May we, without offence, suggest the study of MiddletonOn the Doctrine of the Greek Articleto those members of the Revisionists' body who have favoured us with the foregoing crop of mistaken renderings?So, in respect of the indefinite article, we are presented with,—“Aneternal”(for“theeverlasting”)“gospel to proclaim”(Rev. xiv. 6):—and“one like untoason of man,”for“one like untotheSon of Man”in ver. 14.—Why“aSaviour”in Phil. iii. 20? There is but one! (Acts iv. 12).—On the other hand, Κρανίον is rendered“Theskull”in S. Lu. xxiii. 33. It is hard to see why.—These instances taken at random must suffice. They might be multiplied to any extent. If the Reader considers that the idiomatic use of the English Article is understood by the authors of these specimen cases, we shall be surprised, and sorry—for him.VI. The Revisionists announce that they“have been particularly careful”as tothe Pronouns[iii. 2ad fin.] We recal with regret that this is also a particular wherein we have been specially annoyed and offended. Annoyed—at their practice ofrepeating the nominative(e.g.in Mk. i. 13: Jo. xx. 12) to an extent unknown, abhorrent even, to our language, except indeed when a fresh substantive statement is made: offended—at their license of translation,when it suits themto be licentious.—Thus, (as the Bp. of S. Andrews has well pointed out,)“it is He that”is an incorrect translation of αὐτός in S. Matth. i. 21,—a famous passage. Even worse, because it is unfair, is“He who”as the rendering of ὅς in 1 Tim. iii. 16,—another famous passage, which we have discussed elsewhere.510[pg 166]VII. 'In the case of theParticles' (say the Revisionists),“we have been able to maintain a reasonable amount ofconsistency. The Particles in the Greek Testament are, as is well known, comparatively few, and they are commonly used with precision. It has therefore been the more necessary here to preserve a generaluniformity of rendering.”—(iii. 2ad fin.)Such an announcement, we submit, is calculated to occasion nothing so much as uneasiness and astonishment. Of all the parts of speech, the Greek Particles,—(especially throughout the period when the Language was in its decadence,)—are the least capable of being drilled into“a general uniformity of rendering;”and he who tries the experiment ought to be the first to be aware of the fact. The refinement and delicacy which they impart to a narrative or a sentiment, are not to be told. But then, from the very nature of the case,“uniformity of rendering”is precisely the thing they will not submit to. They take their colour from their context: often mean two quite different things in the course of two successive verses: sometimes are best rendered by a long and formidable word;511sometimes cannot (without a certain amount of impropriety or inconvenience) be renderedat all.512Let us illustrate what we have been saying by actual appeals to Scripture.(1) And first, we will derive our proofs from the use which the sacred Writers make of the particle of most[pg 167]frequent recurrence—δέ. It is said to be employed in the N. T. 3115 times. As for its meaning, we have the unimpeachable authority of the Revisionists themselves for saying that it may be represented by any of the following words:—“but,”—“and,”513—“yea,”514—“what,”515—“now,”516—“and that”,517—“howbeit,”518—“even,”519—“therefore,”520—“I say,”521—“also,”522—“yet,”523—“for.”524To which 12 renderings, King James's translators (mostly following Tyndale) are observed to add at least these other 12:—“wherefore,”525—“so,”526—“moreover,”527—“yea and,”528—“furthermore,”529—“nevertheless,”530—“notwithstanding,”531—“yet but,”532—“truly,”533—“or,”534—“as for,”535—“then,”536—“and yet.”537It shall suffice to add that, by the pitiful substitution of“but”or“and”onmostof the foregoing occasions, the freshness and freedom of almost every passage has been made to disappear: the plain fact being that the men of 1611—above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before them—produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt, or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English: whereas the men of 1881 have fulfilled their task in what can only be described asa spirit of servile pedantry. The Grammarian (pure and simple) crops up everywhere. We seem never to rise above the atmosphere of the lecture-room,—the startling fact that μέν means“indeed,”and δέ“but.”[pg 168]We subjoin a single specimen of the countless changes introduced in the rendering of Particles, and then hasten on. In 1 Cor. xii. 20, for three centuries and a half, Englishmen have been contented to read (with William Tyndale),“But now are they many members,yet butone body.”Our Revisionists, (overcome by the knowledge that δέ means“but,”and yielding to the supposed“necessity for preserving a general uniformity of rendering,”) substitute,—“Butnow they are many members,butone body.”Comment ought to be superfluous. We neither overlook the fact that δέ occurs here twice, nor deny that it is fairly represented by“but”in the first instance. We assert nevertheless that, on the second occasion,“yet but”ought to have been let alone. And this is a fair sample of the changes which have been effectedmany times in every page. To proceed however.(2) The interrogative particle ἤ occurs at the beginning of a sentence at least 8 or 10 times in the N. T.; first, in S. Matth. vii. 9. It is often scarcely translateable,—being apparently invested with with no more emphasis than belongs to our colloquial interrogative“Eh?”But sometimes it would evidently bear to be represented by“Pray,”538—being at least equivalent to φέρε in Greek oragein Latin. Once only (viz. in 1 Cor. xiv. 36) does this interrogative particle so eloquently plead for recognition in the text, that both our A. V. and the R. V. have rendered it“What?”—by which word, by the way, it might very fairly have been represented in S. Matth. xxvi. 53 and Rom. vi. 3: vii. 1. In five of the places where the particle occurs. King James's Translators are observed to have give it up in despair.539But what is to be thought of the adventurous dulness which (with the single exception already indicated) hasinvariablyrendered ἤ by[pg 169]the conjunction“or”? The blunder is the more inexcusable, because the intrusion of such an irrelevant conjunction into places where it is without either use or meaning cannot have failed to attract the notice of every member of the Revising body.(3) At the risk of being wearisome, we must add a few words.—Καί, though no particle but a conjunction, may for our present purpose be reasonably spoken of under the same head; being diversely rendered“and,”—“and yet,”540—“then,”541—“or,”542—“neither,”543—“though,”544—“so,”545—“but,”546—“for,”547—“that,”548—in conformity with what may be called the genius of the English language. The last six of these renderings, however, our Revisionists disallow; everywhere thrusting out the word which the argument seems rather to require, and with mechanical precision thrusting into its place every time the (perfectly safe, but often palpably inappropriate) word,“and.”With what amount of benefit this has been effected, one or two samples will sufficiently illustrate:—(a) The Revisionists inform us that when“the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth,”—S. Paul exclaimed,“Godshall smite thee, thou whited wall:andsittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?”549... Do these learned men really imagine that they have improved upon the A. V. by their officiousness in altering“for”into“and”?(b) The same Apostle, having ended his argument to the Hebrews, remarks,—“Sowe see that they could not enter in because of unbelief”(Heb. iii. 19): for which, our Revisionists[pg 170]again substitute“And.”Begin the sentence with“and,”(instead of“So,”) and, in compensation for what you have clearlylost, what have yougained?... Once more:—(c) Consider what S. Paul writes concerning Apollos (in 1 Cor. xvi. 12), and then say what possible advantage is obtained by writing“and”(instead of“but”)“his will was not at all to come at this time”.... Yet once more; and onthisoccasion, scholarship is to some extent involved:—(d) When S. James (i. 11) says ἀνέτειλε γὰρ ὁ ἥλιος ... καὶ ἐξήρανε τὸν χόρτον,—whoknows not that what his language strictly means in idiomatic English, is,—“No soonerdoes the sun arise,”“thanit withereth the grass”? And so in effect our Translators of 1611. What possible improvement on this can it be to substitute,“For the sun ariseth ...andwithereth the grass”?—Only once more:—(e) Though καί undeniably means“and,”and πῶς,“how,”—whoknows not that καὶ πῶς means“How then?”And yet, (as if a stupid little boy had been at work,) in two places,—(namely, in S. Mark iv. 13 and S. Luke xx. 44,)—“and how”is found mercilessly thrust in, to the great detriment of the discourse; while in other two,—(namely, in S. John xiv. 5 and 9,)—the text itself has been mercilessly deprived of its characteristic καί by the Revisionists.—Let this suffice. One might fill many quires of paper with such instances of tasteless, senseless, vexatious, andmost unscholarlikeinnovation.VIII.“Many changes”(we are informed)“have been introduced in the rendering of thePrepositions.”[Preface, iii. 2,ad fin.]:—and we are speedily reminded of the truth of the statement, for (as was shown above [pp.155-6]) the second chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel exhibits the Revisionists“all a-field”in respect of διά.“We have rarely made any change”(they add)“where the true meaning of the original would be apparent toa Reader of ordinary intelligence.”It[pg 171]would of course ill become such an one as the present Reviewer to lay claim to the foregoing flattering designation: but really, when he now for the first time reads (in Acts ix. 25) that the disciples of Damascus let S. Paul down“through the wall,”he must be pardoned for regretting the absence of a marginal reference to the history of Pyramus and Thisbe in order to suggesthowthe operation was effected: for, as it stands, the R. V. is to him simply unintelligible. Inasmuch as the basket (σπυρίς) in which the Apostle effected his escape was of considerable size, do but think what an extravagantly large hole it must have been to enable thembothto get through!... But let us look further.Was it then in order to bring Scripture within thecaptusof“a Reader of ordinary intelligence”that the Revisers have introduced no less thanthirty changesintoeight-and-thirty wordsof S. Peter's 2nd Epistle? Particular attention is invited to the following interesting specimen of“Revision.”It is the only one we shall offer of the manycontrastswe had marked for insertion. We venture also to enquire, whether the Revisers will consent to abide by it as a specimen of their skill in dealing with the Preposition ἐν?A. V.R. V.“And beside all this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.”—[2 Pet. i. 5-7.]“Yea (1), and for (2) this very (3) cause (4) adding (5) on (6) your part (7) all diligence, in (8) your faith supply (9) virtue; and in (10) your (11) virtue knowledge; and in (12) your (13) knowledge temperance; and in (14) your (15) temperance patience; and in (16) your (17) patience godliness; and in (18) your (19) godliness love (20) of (21) the (22) brethren (23); and in (24) your (25) love (26) of (27) the (28) brethren (29) love (30).”[pg 172]The foregoing strikes us as a singular illustration of the Revisionists' statement (Preface, iii. 2),—“We madenochangeif the meaning was fairly expressedby the word or phrase that was before us in the Authorized Version.”To ourselves it appears thatevery one of those 30 changes is a change for the worse; and that one of the most exquisite passages in the N. T. has been hopelessly spoiled,—rendered in fact well-nigh unintelligible,—by the pedantic officiousness of the Revisers. Were they—(if the question be allowable)—bent on removing none but“plain and clear errors,”when they substituted those 30 words? Was it in token of their stern resolve“to introduce into the Textas few alterations as possible,”that they spared the eight words which remain out of the eight-and-thirty?As for theirwoodenrendering of ἐν, it ought to suffice to refer them to S. Mk. i. 23, S. Lu. xiv. 31, to prove that sometimes ἐν can only be rendered“with”:—and to S. Luke vii. 17, to show them that ἐν sometimes means“throughout”:—and to Col. i. 16, and Heb. i. 1, 2, in proof that sometimes it means“by.”—On the other hand, their suggestion that ἐν may be rendered“by”in S. Luke i. 51, convicts them of not being aware that“the proud-in-the-imagination-of-their-hearts”isa phrase—in which perforce“by”has no business whatever. One is surprised to have to teach professed Critics and Scholars an elementary fact like this.In brief, these learned men are respectfully assured that there is not one of the“Parts of Speech”which will consent to be handled after the inhumane fashion which seems to be to themselves congenial. Whatever they may think of the matter, it is nothing else but absurd to speak of an Angel“casting his sickleinto the earth”(Rev. xiv. 19).—As for his“pouring out his bowlupon the air”(xvi. 17),—we really fail to understand the nature of the operation.—And pray,[pg 173]What is supposed to be the meaning of“the thingsupon the heavens”—in Ephesians i. 10?Returning to the preposition διά followed by the genitive,—(in respect of which the Revisionists challenge Criticism by complaining in their Preface [iii. 3ad fin.] that in the A. V.“ideas of instrumentality or of mediate agency, distinctly marked in the original, have beenconfused or obscured in the Translation,”)—we have to point out:—(1st) That these distinguished individuals seem not to be aware that the proprieties of English speech forbid the use of“through”(as a substitute for“by”) in certain expressions where instrumentality is concerned. Thus,“the Son of man”was not betrayed“through”Judas, but“by”him (Matt. xxvi. 24: Luke xxii. 22).—Still less is it allowable to say that a prophecy was“spoken,”nay“written,”“throughthe Prophet”(Matth. i. 22 and margin of ii. 5).“Who spakebythe Prophets,”is even an article of the Faith.And (2ndly),—That these scholars have in consequence adopted a see-saw method of rendering διά,—sometimes in one way, sometimes in the other. First, they give us“wonders and signs donebythe Apostles”(Acts ii. 43; but in the margin,“Or,through”): presently,“a notable miracle hath been wroughtthroughthem”(iv. 16: and this time, the margin withholds the alternative,“Or,by”). Is then“the true meaning”of“by,”in the former place,“apparent to a Reader of ordinary intelligence”? but so obscure in the latter as to rendernecessarythe alteration to“through”? Or (sit venia verbo),—Was it a mere“toss-up”with the Revisionistswhatis the proper rendering of διά?(3rdly), In an earlier place (ii. 22), we read of“miracles, wonders, and signs”which“Goddidby”Jesusof Nazareth. Was it reverence, which, on that occasion, forbad the use of[pg 174]“through”—even in the margin? We hope so: but the preposition is still the same—διά not ὑπό.Lastly (4thly),—The doctrine that Creation is the work of the DivineWord, all Scripture attests.“All things were madebyHim”(S. Jo. i. 3):—“the world was madebyHim”(ver. 10).—Why then, in Col. i. 16, where the same statement is repeated,—(“all things were createdbyHim and for Him,”)—do we find“through”substituted for“by”? And why is the same offence repeated in 1 Cor. vii. 6,—(where weoughtto read,—“oneGod, theFather, of whom are all things ... and oneLord Jesus Christ,bywhom are all things”)?—Why, especially, in Heb. i. 2, in place of“bywhom also [viz. bythe Son] He made the worlds,”do we find substituted“throughwhom”?... And why add to this glaring inconsistency the wretched vacillation of giving us the choice of“through”(in place of“by”) in the margin of S. John i. 3 and 10, and not even offering us the alternative of“by”(in place of“through”) in any of the other places,—although the preposition is διά on every occasion?
(2.) Note how infelicitously, in S. Matth. ii. 1,“there came wise men from the east”is changed into“wise men from the east came.”—In ver. 4, the accurate,“And when [Herod] had gathered together”(συναγαγών) &c., is displaced for the inaccurate,“Andgathering together”&c.—In ver. 6, we are presented with the unintelligible,“And thouBethlehem, land of Judah:”while in ver. 7,“Then Herodprivily calledthe wise men, andlearned of them carefully,”is improperly put in the place of“Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently”(ἠκρίβωσε παρ᾽ αὐτῶν).—In ver. 11, the familiar“And when they were come into the house, they saw”&c., is needlessly changed into“Theycame into the house, and saw:”while“and when they had opened (ἀνοίξαντες) their treasures,”is also needlessly altered into“andopeningtheir treasures.”—In ver. 12, the R. V. is careful to print“ofGod”in italics, where italics are not necessary: seeing that χρηματισθέντες implies“being warned ofGod”(as the translators of 1611 were well aware497): whereas in countless other places the same Revisionists reject the use of italics where italics are absolutely required.—Their“until Itell thee”(in ver. 13) is a most unworthy substitute for“until Ibring thee word.”—And will they pretend that they have improved the rendering of the[pg 157]concluding words of the chapter? If Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται does not mean“He shall be called a Nazarene,”what in the worlddoesit mean? The ὅτι of quotation they elsewhere omit. Then why, here,—“Thatit might be fulfilled ...that”?—Surely, every one of these is an alteration made for alteration's sake, and in every instancefor the worse.We began by surveyingthe Greekof the first chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel. We have now surveyedthe Englishof the second chapter. What does the Reader think of the result?IV. Next, the Revisionists invite attention to certain points of detail: and first, to their rendering ofthe Tenses of the Verb. They begin with the Greek Aorist,—(in their account)“perhaps the most important”detail of all:—“We have not attempted to violate the idiom of our language by forms of expression which it would not bear. But we have often ventured to represent the Greek aorist by the English preterite, even when the reader may find some passing difficulty in such a rendering, because we have felt convinced that the true meaning of the original was obscured by the presence of the familiar auxiliary. A remarkable illustration may be found in the seventeenth chapter of S. John's Gospel.”—Preface, iii. 2,—(latter part).(a) We turn to the place indicated, and are constrained to assure these well-intentioned men, that the phenomenon we there witness is absolutely fatal to their pretensions as“Revisers”of our Authorized Version. Were it only“some passing difficulty”which their method occasions us, we might have hoped that time would enable us to overcome it. But since it isthe genius of the English languageto which we find they have offered violence; the fixed and universally-understood idiom of our native tongue which they have systematically set at defiance; the matter is absolutely without remedy. The difference between the A. V. and the R. V. seems to ourselves to be simply this,—that[pg 158]the renderings in the former are the idiomatic English representations of certain well-understood Greek tenses: while the proposed substitutes are nothing else but the pedantic efforts of mere grammarians to reproduce in another language idioms which it abhors. But the Reader shall judge for himself: forthisat least is a point on which every educated Englishman is fully competent to pass sentence.When our DivineLord, at the close of His Ministry,—(He had in fact reached the very last night of His earthly life, and it wanted but a few hours of His Passion,)—when He, at such a moment, addressing the EternalFather, says, ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; τὸ ἔργον ἐτελείωσα ... ἐφανέρωσά σου τὸ ὄνομα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, &c. [Jo. xvii. 4, 6], there can be no doubt whatever that, had He pronounced those words in English, He would have said (with our A. V.)“Ihave glorifiedThee on the earth: Ihave finishedthe work:”“Ihave manifestedThy Name.”The pedantry which (on the plea that the Evangelist employs the aorist, not the perfect tense,) would twist all this into the indefinite past,—“I glorified”...“I finished”...“I manifested,”—we pronounce altogether insufferable. We absolutely refuse it a hearing. Presently (in ver. 14) He says,—“I have given them Thy word; and the worldhath hated them.”And in ver. 25,—“O righteousFather, the worldhath not knownThee; but Ihave knownThee, and thesehave knownthat Thouhast sentMe.”Whowould consent to substitute for these expressions,—“the world hated them:”and“the world knew Thee not, but I knew Thee; and these knew that Thou didst send Me”?—Or turn to another Gospel.Whichis better,—“Some one hath touched Me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of Me,”(S. Lu. viii. 46):—or,—“Some onedid touchMe: forI perceivedthat powerhad gone forthfrom Me”?[pg 159]When the reference is to an act so extremely recent,whois not aware that the second of these renderings is abhorrent to the genius of the English language? As for ἔγνων, it is (likenoviin Latin) present insensethough past inform,—here as in S. Lu. xvi. 3.—But turn to yet another Gospel.Whichis better in S. Matth. xvi. 7:—“we tookno bread,”or“It is becausewe have takenno bread”?—Again. When Simon Peter (in reply to the command that he should thrust out into deep water and let down his net for a draught,) is heard to exclaim,—“Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at Thy word I will let down the net”(Lu. v. 5),—whowould tolerate the proposal to put in the place of it,—“Master,we toiled all night, andtooknothing: but at Thy word,”&c. It is not too much to declare that the idiom of the English language refuses peremptorily to submit to such handling. Quite in vain is it to encounter us with reminder that κοπιάσαντες and ἐλάβομεν are aorists. The answer is,—We know it: but we deny that it follows that the words are to be rendered“wetoiledall night, andtooknothing.”There are laws of English Idiom as well as laws of Greek Grammar: and when these clash in what is meant to be a translation into English out of Greek, the latter must perforce give way to the former,—or we make ourselves ridiculous, and misrepresent what we propose to translate.All this is so undeniable that it ought not to require to be insisted upon. But in fact our Revisionists by their occasional practice show that they fully admitthe Principlewe are contending for. Thus, ἧραν (in S. Jo. xx. 2 and 13) is by them translated“they have taken:”—ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες; (S. Matt. xxvii. 46)“Whyhast Thou forsaken Me?”498:—ἔδειξα[pg 160](S. Jo. x. 32)“have I showed:”—ἀπέστειλε (vi. 29)“He hath sent:”—ἠτιμάσατε (James ii. 6)“ye have dishonoured:”—ἐκαθάρισε (Acts x. 15)“hath cleansed:”—ἔστησεν (xvii. 31)“Hehath appointed.”But indeed instances abound everywhere. In fact, the requirements of the case are often observed toforcethem to be idiomatic. Τί ἐποίησας; (in Jo. xviii. 35), they rightly render“Whathastthou done?”:—and ἔγραψα (in 1 Jo. ii. 14, 21),“Ihavewritten;”—and ἤκουσα (in Acts ix. 13),“Ihaveheard.”—On the other hand, by translating οὐκ εἴασεν (in Acts xxviii. 4),“hath not suffered,”they may be thought to have overshot the mark. They seem to have overlooked the fact that, when once S. Paul had been bitten by the viper,“the barbarians”looked upon him asa dead man; and therefore discoursed about what Justice“did notsuffer,”as about an entirely past transaction.But now,Whosees not that the admission, once and again deliberately made, that sometimes it is not only lawful, but evennecessary, to accommodate the Greek aorist (when translated into English) with the sign of the perfect,—reduces the whole matter (of the signs of the tenses) to a mere question ofTaste? In view of such instances as the foregoing, where severe logical necessity has compelled the Revisionists to abandon their position and fly, it is plain that their contention is at an end,—so far asrightandwrongare concerned. They virtually admit that they have been all along unjustly forcing on an independent language an alien yoke.499Henceforth, it simply becomes a question to be repeated, as every fresh emergency arises,—Which then isthe more idiomaticof these two English renderings?... Conversely, twice at least (Heb. xi. 17 and 28), the Revisionists[pg 161]have represented theGreek perfectby the English indefinite preterite.(b) Besides this offensive pedantry in respect of the Aorist, we are often annoyed by anunidiomaticrendering of the Imperfect. True enough it is that“the servants and the officerswere standing... andwere warmingthemselves:”Peter also“was standingwith them andwas warminghimself”(S. Jo. xviii. 18). But we do not so express ourselves in English, unless we are about to add something which shallaccount forour particularity and precision. Any one, for example, desirous of stating what had been for years his daily practice, would say—“I leftmy house.”Only when he wanted to explain that, on leaving it for the 1000th time, he met a friend coming up the steps to pay him a visit, would an Englishman think of saying,“I was leavingthe house.”A Greek writer, on the other hand, would nottrustthis to the imperfect. He would use the present participle in the dative case, (“To me, leaving my house,”500&c.). One is astonished to have to explain such things....“If therefore thouart offeringthy gift at the altar”(Matt. v. 23), may seem to some a clever translation. To ourselves, it reads like a senseless exaggeration of the original.501It sounds (andis) as unnatural as to say (in S. Lu. ii. 33)“And His father [a depravation of the text] and His motherwere marvellingat the things which were spoken concerning Him:”—or (in Heb. xi. 17)“yea, he that had received the promiseswas offering uphis only-begotten son:”—or, of the cripple at Lystra (Acts xiv. 9),“the same heard Paulspeaking.”(c) On the other hand, there are occasions confessedly when the Greek Aorist absolutely demands to be rendered[pg 162]into English by the sign of thePluperfect. An instance meets us while we write: ὡς δὲ ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν (S. Lu. v. 4),—where our Revisionists are found to retain the idiomatic rendering of our Authorized Version,—“When Hehad leftspeaking.”Of what possible avail could it be, on such an occasion, to insist that, because ἐπαύσατο is not in the pluperfect tense, it may not be accommodated withthe signof the pluperfect when it is being translated into English?—The R. V. has shown less consideration in S. Jo. xviii. 24,—where“Now Annashad sentHim bound unto Caiaphas the high priest,”is right, and wanted no revision.—Such places as Matth. xxvii. 60, Jo. xxi. 15, Acts xii. 17, and Heb. iv. 8, on the other hand, simply defy the Revisionists. For perforce Joseph“had hewnout”(ἐλατόμησε) the new tomb which became ourLord's: and the seven Apostles, confessedly,“had dined”(ἠρίστησαν): and S. Peter, of course,“declared unto them how theLordhad brought him outof the prison”(ἐξήγαγεν): and it is impossible to substitute anything for“If Jesus [Joshua]had giventhem rest”(κατέπαυσεν).—Then of course there are occasions, (not a few,) where the Aorist (often an indefinite present in Greek) claims to be Englished by the sign of the present tense: as where S. John says (Rev. xix. 6),“TheLord GodOmnipotent reigneth”(ἐβασίλευσε). There is no striving against such instances. Theyinsiston being rendered according to the genius of the language into which it is proposed to render them:—as when ἔκειτο (in S. Jo. xx. 12) exacts for its rendering“had lain.”(d) It shall only be pointed out here in addition, for the student's benefit, that there is one highly interesting place (viz. S. Matth. xxviii. 2), which in every age has misled Critics and Divines (as Origen and Eusebius); Poets (as Rogers); Painters (as West);—yes, and will continue to mislead readers for many a year to come:—and all because men[pg 163]have failed to perceive that the aorist is used there for the pluperfect. Translate,—“Therehad beena great earthquake:”[and so (1611-1881) our margin,—until in short“the Revisionists”interfered:]“for the Angel of theLordhaddescended from heaven, andcome and rolled away(ἀπεκύλισε) the stone from the door, and sat upon it.”Strange, that for 1800 years Commentators should have failed to perceive that the Evangelist is describing what terrified“the keepers.”“The women”saw no Angel sitting upon the stone!—though Origen,502—Dionysius of Alexandria,503—Eusebius,504—ps.-Gregory Naz.,505—Cyril Alex.,506—Hesychius,507—and so many others—have taken it for granted that theydid.(e) Then further, (to dismiss the subject and pass on,)—There are occasions where the Greekperfectexacts the sign of thepresentat the hands of the English translator: as when Martha says,—“YeaLord, Ibelievethat Thou art theChrist”(S. Jo. xi. 27).508What else but the veriest pedantry is it to thrust in there“I have believed,”as the English equivalent for πεπίστευκα?—Just as intolerable is the officiousness which would thrust into theLord'sprayer (Matt. vi. 12),“as we alsohave forgiven(ἀφήκαμεν) our debtors.”509—On the other hand, there are Greekpresents(whatever the Revisionists may think) which are just as peremptory in requiringthe sign of the future, at the hands of the idiomatic translator into English. Three such cases are found in S. Jo. xvi. 16, 17, 19. Surely, the future isinherentin the present ἔρχομαι! In Jo. xiv. 18 (and many similar places), who can endure,“I will not leave you desolate:I come unto you”?[pg 164](f) But instances abound. How does it happen that the inaccurate rendering of ἐκκόπτεται—ἐκβάλλεται—has been retained in S. Matth. iii. 10, S. Lu. iii. 9?V. Next, concerning thedefinite Article; in the case of which, (say the Revisionists,)“many changes have been made.”“We have been careful to observe the use of the Article wherever it seemed to be idiomatically possible: where it did not seem to be possible, we have yielded to necessity.”—(Preface, iii. 2,—ad fin.)In reply, instead of offering counter-statements of our own we content ourselves with submitting a few specimens to the Reader's judgment; and invite him to decide between the Reviewer and the Reviewed ...“Thesower went forth to sow”(Matth. xiii. 3).—“It is greater thantheherbs”(ver. 32).—“Let him be to thee astheGentile andthepublican”(xviii. 17).—“The unclean spirit, when he is gone out oftheman”(xii. 43).—“Did I not choose youthetwelve?”(Jo. vi. 70).—“If I then,theLord andthemaster”(xiii. 14).—“Forthejoy that a man is born into the world”(xvi. 21).—“But as touching Apollosthebrother”(1 Cor. xvi. 12).—“TheBishop must be blameless ... able to exhort inthesound doctrine”(Titus i. 7, 9).—“Thelust when it hath conceived, beareth sin: andthesin, when it is full grown”&c. (James i. 15).—“Doththefountain send forth from the same opening sweet water and bitter?”(iii. 11).—“Speak thou the things which befitthesound doctrine”(Titus ii. 1).—“The time will come when they will not endurethesound doctrine”(2 Tim. iv. 3).—“We hadthefathers of our flesh to chasten us”(Heb. xii. 9).—“Follow after peace with all men, andthesanctification”(ver. 14).—“Who istheliar but he that denieth thatJesusis theChrist?”(1 Jo. ii. 22).—“Not withthewater only, but withthewater and withtheblood”(v. 6).—“He that hath theSon, haththelife: he that hath not theSonofGodhath notthelife”(ver. 12).[pg 165]To rejoin, as if it were a sufficient answer, that the definite Article is found in all these places in the original Greek,—is preposterous. In French also we say“Telle estlavie:”but, in translating from the French, we do notthereforesay“Such isthelife.”May we, without offence, suggest the study of MiddletonOn the Doctrine of the Greek Articleto those members of the Revisionists' body who have favoured us with the foregoing crop of mistaken renderings?So, in respect of the indefinite article, we are presented with,—“Aneternal”(for“theeverlasting”)“gospel to proclaim”(Rev. xiv. 6):—and“one like untoason of man,”for“one like untotheSon of Man”in ver. 14.—Why“aSaviour”in Phil. iii. 20? There is but one! (Acts iv. 12).—On the other hand, Κρανίον is rendered“Theskull”in S. Lu. xxiii. 33. It is hard to see why.—These instances taken at random must suffice. They might be multiplied to any extent. If the Reader considers that the idiomatic use of the English Article is understood by the authors of these specimen cases, we shall be surprised, and sorry—for him.VI. The Revisionists announce that they“have been particularly careful”as tothe Pronouns[iii. 2ad fin.] We recal with regret that this is also a particular wherein we have been specially annoyed and offended. Annoyed—at their practice ofrepeating the nominative(e.g.in Mk. i. 13: Jo. xx. 12) to an extent unknown, abhorrent even, to our language, except indeed when a fresh substantive statement is made: offended—at their license of translation,when it suits themto be licentious.—Thus, (as the Bp. of S. Andrews has well pointed out,)“it is He that”is an incorrect translation of αὐτός in S. Matth. i. 21,—a famous passage. Even worse, because it is unfair, is“He who”as the rendering of ὅς in 1 Tim. iii. 16,—another famous passage, which we have discussed elsewhere.510[pg 166]VII. 'In the case of theParticles' (say the Revisionists),“we have been able to maintain a reasonable amount ofconsistency. The Particles in the Greek Testament are, as is well known, comparatively few, and they are commonly used with precision. It has therefore been the more necessary here to preserve a generaluniformity of rendering.”—(iii. 2ad fin.)Such an announcement, we submit, is calculated to occasion nothing so much as uneasiness and astonishment. Of all the parts of speech, the Greek Particles,—(especially throughout the period when the Language was in its decadence,)—are the least capable of being drilled into“a general uniformity of rendering;”and he who tries the experiment ought to be the first to be aware of the fact. The refinement and delicacy which they impart to a narrative or a sentiment, are not to be told. But then, from the very nature of the case,“uniformity of rendering”is precisely the thing they will not submit to. They take their colour from their context: often mean two quite different things in the course of two successive verses: sometimes are best rendered by a long and formidable word;511sometimes cannot (without a certain amount of impropriety or inconvenience) be renderedat all.512Let us illustrate what we have been saying by actual appeals to Scripture.(1) And first, we will derive our proofs from the use which the sacred Writers make of the particle of most[pg 167]frequent recurrence—δέ. It is said to be employed in the N. T. 3115 times. As for its meaning, we have the unimpeachable authority of the Revisionists themselves for saying that it may be represented by any of the following words:—“but,”—“and,”513—“yea,”514—“what,”515—“now,”516—“and that”,517—“howbeit,”518—“even,”519—“therefore,”520—“I say,”521—“also,”522—“yet,”523—“for.”524To which 12 renderings, King James's translators (mostly following Tyndale) are observed to add at least these other 12:—“wherefore,”525—“so,”526—“moreover,”527—“yea and,”528—“furthermore,”529—“nevertheless,”530—“notwithstanding,”531—“yet but,”532—“truly,”533—“or,”534—“as for,”535—“then,”536—“and yet.”537It shall suffice to add that, by the pitiful substitution of“but”or“and”onmostof the foregoing occasions, the freshness and freedom of almost every passage has been made to disappear: the plain fact being that the men of 1611—above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before them—produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt, or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English: whereas the men of 1881 have fulfilled their task in what can only be described asa spirit of servile pedantry. The Grammarian (pure and simple) crops up everywhere. We seem never to rise above the atmosphere of the lecture-room,—the startling fact that μέν means“indeed,”and δέ“but.”[pg 168]We subjoin a single specimen of the countless changes introduced in the rendering of Particles, and then hasten on. In 1 Cor. xii. 20, for three centuries and a half, Englishmen have been contented to read (with William Tyndale),“But now are they many members,yet butone body.”Our Revisionists, (overcome by the knowledge that δέ means“but,”and yielding to the supposed“necessity for preserving a general uniformity of rendering,”) substitute,—“Butnow they are many members,butone body.”Comment ought to be superfluous. We neither overlook the fact that δέ occurs here twice, nor deny that it is fairly represented by“but”in the first instance. We assert nevertheless that, on the second occasion,“yet but”ought to have been let alone. And this is a fair sample of the changes which have been effectedmany times in every page. To proceed however.(2) The interrogative particle ἤ occurs at the beginning of a sentence at least 8 or 10 times in the N. T.; first, in S. Matth. vii. 9. It is often scarcely translateable,—being apparently invested with with no more emphasis than belongs to our colloquial interrogative“Eh?”But sometimes it would evidently bear to be represented by“Pray,”538—being at least equivalent to φέρε in Greek oragein Latin. Once only (viz. in 1 Cor. xiv. 36) does this interrogative particle so eloquently plead for recognition in the text, that both our A. V. and the R. V. have rendered it“What?”—by which word, by the way, it might very fairly have been represented in S. Matth. xxvi. 53 and Rom. vi. 3: vii. 1. In five of the places where the particle occurs. King James's Translators are observed to have give it up in despair.539But what is to be thought of the adventurous dulness which (with the single exception already indicated) hasinvariablyrendered ἤ by[pg 169]the conjunction“or”? The blunder is the more inexcusable, because the intrusion of such an irrelevant conjunction into places where it is without either use or meaning cannot have failed to attract the notice of every member of the Revising body.(3) At the risk of being wearisome, we must add a few words.—Καί, though no particle but a conjunction, may for our present purpose be reasonably spoken of under the same head; being diversely rendered“and,”—“and yet,”540—“then,”541—“or,”542—“neither,”543—“though,”544—“so,”545—“but,”546—“for,”547—“that,”548—in conformity with what may be called the genius of the English language. The last six of these renderings, however, our Revisionists disallow; everywhere thrusting out the word which the argument seems rather to require, and with mechanical precision thrusting into its place every time the (perfectly safe, but often palpably inappropriate) word,“and.”With what amount of benefit this has been effected, one or two samples will sufficiently illustrate:—(a) The Revisionists inform us that when“the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth,”—S. Paul exclaimed,“Godshall smite thee, thou whited wall:andsittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?”549... Do these learned men really imagine that they have improved upon the A. V. by their officiousness in altering“for”into“and”?(b) The same Apostle, having ended his argument to the Hebrews, remarks,—“Sowe see that they could not enter in because of unbelief”(Heb. iii. 19): for which, our Revisionists[pg 170]again substitute“And.”Begin the sentence with“and,”(instead of“So,”) and, in compensation for what you have clearlylost, what have yougained?... Once more:—(c) Consider what S. Paul writes concerning Apollos (in 1 Cor. xvi. 12), and then say what possible advantage is obtained by writing“and”(instead of“but”)“his will was not at all to come at this time”.... Yet once more; and onthisoccasion, scholarship is to some extent involved:—(d) When S. James (i. 11) says ἀνέτειλε γὰρ ὁ ἥλιος ... καὶ ἐξήρανε τὸν χόρτον,—whoknows not that what his language strictly means in idiomatic English, is,—“No soonerdoes the sun arise,”“thanit withereth the grass”? And so in effect our Translators of 1611. What possible improvement on this can it be to substitute,“For the sun ariseth ...andwithereth the grass”?—Only once more:—(e) Though καί undeniably means“and,”and πῶς,“how,”—whoknows not that καὶ πῶς means“How then?”And yet, (as if a stupid little boy had been at work,) in two places,—(namely, in S. Mark iv. 13 and S. Luke xx. 44,)—“and how”is found mercilessly thrust in, to the great detriment of the discourse; while in other two,—(namely, in S. John xiv. 5 and 9,)—the text itself has been mercilessly deprived of its characteristic καί by the Revisionists.—Let this suffice. One might fill many quires of paper with such instances of tasteless, senseless, vexatious, andmost unscholarlikeinnovation.VIII.“Many changes”(we are informed)“have been introduced in the rendering of thePrepositions.”[Preface, iii. 2,ad fin.]:—and we are speedily reminded of the truth of the statement, for (as was shown above [pp.155-6]) the second chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel exhibits the Revisionists“all a-field”in respect of διά.“We have rarely made any change”(they add)“where the true meaning of the original would be apparent toa Reader of ordinary intelligence.”It[pg 171]would of course ill become such an one as the present Reviewer to lay claim to the foregoing flattering designation: but really, when he now for the first time reads (in Acts ix. 25) that the disciples of Damascus let S. Paul down“through the wall,”he must be pardoned for regretting the absence of a marginal reference to the history of Pyramus and Thisbe in order to suggesthowthe operation was effected: for, as it stands, the R. V. is to him simply unintelligible. Inasmuch as the basket (σπυρίς) in which the Apostle effected his escape was of considerable size, do but think what an extravagantly large hole it must have been to enable thembothto get through!... But let us look further.Was it then in order to bring Scripture within thecaptusof“a Reader of ordinary intelligence”that the Revisers have introduced no less thanthirty changesintoeight-and-thirty wordsof S. Peter's 2nd Epistle? Particular attention is invited to the following interesting specimen of“Revision.”It is the only one we shall offer of the manycontrastswe had marked for insertion. We venture also to enquire, whether the Revisers will consent to abide by it as a specimen of their skill in dealing with the Preposition ἐν?A. V.R. V.“And beside all this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.”—[2 Pet. i. 5-7.]“Yea (1), and for (2) this very (3) cause (4) adding (5) on (6) your part (7) all diligence, in (8) your faith supply (9) virtue; and in (10) your (11) virtue knowledge; and in (12) your (13) knowledge temperance; and in (14) your (15) temperance patience; and in (16) your (17) patience godliness; and in (18) your (19) godliness love (20) of (21) the (22) brethren (23); and in (24) your (25) love (26) of (27) the (28) brethren (29) love (30).”[pg 172]The foregoing strikes us as a singular illustration of the Revisionists' statement (Preface, iii. 2),—“We madenochangeif the meaning was fairly expressedby the word or phrase that was before us in the Authorized Version.”To ourselves it appears thatevery one of those 30 changes is a change for the worse; and that one of the most exquisite passages in the N. T. has been hopelessly spoiled,—rendered in fact well-nigh unintelligible,—by the pedantic officiousness of the Revisers. Were they—(if the question be allowable)—bent on removing none but“plain and clear errors,”when they substituted those 30 words? Was it in token of their stern resolve“to introduce into the Textas few alterations as possible,”that they spared the eight words which remain out of the eight-and-thirty?As for theirwoodenrendering of ἐν, it ought to suffice to refer them to S. Mk. i. 23, S. Lu. xiv. 31, to prove that sometimes ἐν can only be rendered“with”:—and to S. Luke vii. 17, to show them that ἐν sometimes means“throughout”:—and to Col. i. 16, and Heb. i. 1, 2, in proof that sometimes it means“by.”—On the other hand, their suggestion that ἐν may be rendered“by”in S. Luke i. 51, convicts them of not being aware that“the proud-in-the-imagination-of-their-hearts”isa phrase—in which perforce“by”has no business whatever. One is surprised to have to teach professed Critics and Scholars an elementary fact like this.In brief, these learned men are respectfully assured that there is not one of the“Parts of Speech”which will consent to be handled after the inhumane fashion which seems to be to themselves congenial. Whatever they may think of the matter, it is nothing else but absurd to speak of an Angel“casting his sickleinto the earth”(Rev. xiv. 19).—As for his“pouring out his bowlupon the air”(xvi. 17),—we really fail to understand the nature of the operation.—And pray,[pg 173]What is supposed to be the meaning of“the thingsupon the heavens”—in Ephesians i. 10?Returning to the preposition διά followed by the genitive,—(in respect of which the Revisionists challenge Criticism by complaining in their Preface [iii. 3ad fin.] that in the A. V.“ideas of instrumentality or of mediate agency, distinctly marked in the original, have beenconfused or obscured in the Translation,”)—we have to point out:—(1st) That these distinguished individuals seem not to be aware that the proprieties of English speech forbid the use of“through”(as a substitute for“by”) in certain expressions where instrumentality is concerned. Thus,“the Son of man”was not betrayed“through”Judas, but“by”him (Matt. xxvi. 24: Luke xxii. 22).—Still less is it allowable to say that a prophecy was“spoken,”nay“written,”“throughthe Prophet”(Matth. i. 22 and margin of ii. 5).“Who spakebythe Prophets,”is even an article of the Faith.And (2ndly),—That these scholars have in consequence adopted a see-saw method of rendering διά,—sometimes in one way, sometimes in the other. First, they give us“wonders and signs donebythe Apostles”(Acts ii. 43; but in the margin,“Or,through”): presently,“a notable miracle hath been wroughtthroughthem”(iv. 16: and this time, the margin withholds the alternative,“Or,by”). Is then“the true meaning”of“by,”in the former place,“apparent to a Reader of ordinary intelligence”? but so obscure in the latter as to rendernecessarythe alteration to“through”? Or (sit venia verbo),—Was it a mere“toss-up”with the Revisionistswhatis the proper rendering of διά?(3rdly), In an earlier place (ii. 22), we read of“miracles, wonders, and signs”which“Goddidby”Jesusof Nazareth. Was it reverence, which, on that occasion, forbad the use of[pg 174]“through”—even in the margin? We hope so: but the preposition is still the same—διά not ὑπό.Lastly (4thly),—The doctrine that Creation is the work of the DivineWord, all Scripture attests.“All things were madebyHim”(S. Jo. i. 3):—“the world was madebyHim”(ver. 10).—Why then, in Col. i. 16, where the same statement is repeated,—(“all things were createdbyHim and for Him,”)—do we find“through”substituted for“by”? And why is the same offence repeated in 1 Cor. vii. 6,—(where weoughtto read,—“oneGod, theFather, of whom are all things ... and oneLord Jesus Christ,bywhom are all things”)?—Why, especially, in Heb. i. 2, in place of“bywhom also [viz. bythe Son] He made the worlds,”do we find substituted“throughwhom”?... And why add to this glaring inconsistency the wretched vacillation of giving us the choice of“through”(in place of“by”) in the margin of S. John i. 3 and 10, and not even offering us the alternative of“by”(in place of“through”) in any of the other places,—although the preposition is διά on every occasion?
(2.) Note how infelicitously, in S. Matth. ii. 1,“there came wise men from the east”is changed into“wise men from the east came.”—In ver. 4, the accurate,“And when [Herod] had gathered together”(συναγαγών) &c., is displaced for the inaccurate,“Andgathering together”&c.—In ver. 6, we are presented with the unintelligible,“And thouBethlehem, land of Judah:”while in ver. 7,“Then Herodprivily calledthe wise men, andlearned of them carefully,”is improperly put in the place of“Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently”(ἠκρίβωσε παρ᾽ αὐτῶν).—In ver. 11, the familiar“And when they were come into the house, they saw”&c., is needlessly changed into“Theycame into the house, and saw:”while“and when they had opened (ἀνοίξαντες) their treasures,”is also needlessly altered into“andopeningtheir treasures.”—In ver. 12, the R. V. is careful to print“ofGod”in italics, where italics are not necessary: seeing that χρηματισθέντες implies“being warned ofGod”(as the translators of 1611 were well aware497): whereas in countless other places the same Revisionists reject the use of italics where italics are absolutely required.—Their“until Itell thee”(in ver. 13) is a most unworthy substitute for“until Ibring thee word.”—And will they pretend that they have improved the rendering of the[pg 157]concluding words of the chapter? If Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται does not mean“He shall be called a Nazarene,”what in the worlddoesit mean? The ὅτι of quotation they elsewhere omit. Then why, here,—“Thatit might be fulfilled ...that”?—Surely, every one of these is an alteration made for alteration's sake, and in every instancefor the worse.
We began by surveyingthe Greekof the first chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel. We have now surveyedthe Englishof the second chapter. What does the Reader think of the result?
IV. Next, the Revisionists invite attention to certain points of detail: and first, to their rendering ofthe Tenses of the Verb. They begin with the Greek Aorist,—(in their account)“perhaps the most important”detail of all:—
“We have not attempted to violate the idiom of our language by forms of expression which it would not bear. But we have often ventured to represent the Greek aorist by the English preterite, even when the reader may find some passing difficulty in such a rendering, because we have felt convinced that the true meaning of the original was obscured by the presence of the familiar auxiliary. A remarkable illustration may be found in the seventeenth chapter of S. John's Gospel.”—Preface, iii. 2,—(latter part).
(a) We turn to the place indicated, and are constrained to assure these well-intentioned men, that the phenomenon we there witness is absolutely fatal to their pretensions as“Revisers”of our Authorized Version. Were it only“some passing difficulty”which their method occasions us, we might have hoped that time would enable us to overcome it. But since it isthe genius of the English languageto which we find they have offered violence; the fixed and universally-understood idiom of our native tongue which they have systematically set at defiance; the matter is absolutely without remedy. The difference between the A. V. and the R. V. seems to ourselves to be simply this,—that[pg 158]the renderings in the former are the idiomatic English representations of certain well-understood Greek tenses: while the proposed substitutes are nothing else but the pedantic efforts of mere grammarians to reproduce in another language idioms which it abhors. But the Reader shall judge for himself: forthisat least is a point on which every educated Englishman is fully competent to pass sentence.
When our DivineLord, at the close of His Ministry,—(He had in fact reached the very last night of His earthly life, and it wanted but a few hours of His Passion,)—when He, at such a moment, addressing the EternalFather, says, ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; τὸ ἔργον ἐτελείωσα ... ἐφανέρωσά σου τὸ ὄνομα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, &c. [Jo. xvii. 4, 6], there can be no doubt whatever that, had He pronounced those words in English, He would have said (with our A. V.)“Ihave glorifiedThee on the earth: Ihave finishedthe work:”“Ihave manifestedThy Name.”The pedantry which (on the plea that the Evangelist employs the aorist, not the perfect tense,) would twist all this into the indefinite past,—“I glorified”...“I finished”...“I manifested,”—we pronounce altogether insufferable. We absolutely refuse it a hearing. Presently (in ver. 14) He says,—“I have given them Thy word; and the worldhath hated them.”And in ver. 25,—“O righteousFather, the worldhath not knownThee; but Ihave knownThee, and thesehave knownthat Thouhast sentMe.”Whowould consent to substitute for these expressions,—“the world hated them:”and“the world knew Thee not, but I knew Thee; and these knew that Thou didst send Me”?—Or turn to another Gospel.Whichis better,—“Some one hath touched Me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of Me,”(S. Lu. viii. 46):—or,—“Some onedid touchMe: forI perceivedthat powerhad gone forthfrom Me”?
When the reference is to an act so extremely recent,whois not aware that the second of these renderings is abhorrent to the genius of the English language? As for ἔγνων, it is (likenoviin Latin) present insensethough past inform,—here as in S. Lu. xvi. 3.—But turn to yet another Gospel.Whichis better in S. Matth. xvi. 7:—“we tookno bread,”or“It is becausewe have takenno bread”?—Again. When Simon Peter (in reply to the command that he should thrust out into deep water and let down his net for a draught,) is heard to exclaim,—“Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at Thy word I will let down the net”(Lu. v. 5),—whowould tolerate the proposal to put in the place of it,—“Master,we toiled all night, andtooknothing: but at Thy word,”&c. It is not too much to declare that the idiom of the English language refuses peremptorily to submit to such handling. Quite in vain is it to encounter us with reminder that κοπιάσαντες and ἐλάβομεν are aorists. The answer is,—We know it: but we deny that it follows that the words are to be rendered“wetoiledall night, andtooknothing.”There are laws of English Idiom as well as laws of Greek Grammar: and when these clash in what is meant to be a translation into English out of Greek, the latter must perforce give way to the former,—or we make ourselves ridiculous, and misrepresent what we propose to translate.
All this is so undeniable that it ought not to require to be insisted upon. But in fact our Revisionists by their occasional practice show that they fully admitthe Principlewe are contending for. Thus, ἧραν (in S. Jo. xx. 2 and 13) is by them translated“they have taken:”—ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες; (S. Matt. xxvii. 46)“Whyhast Thou forsaken Me?”498:—ἔδειξα[pg 160](S. Jo. x. 32)“have I showed:”—ἀπέστειλε (vi. 29)“He hath sent:”—ἠτιμάσατε (James ii. 6)“ye have dishonoured:”—ἐκαθάρισε (Acts x. 15)“hath cleansed:”—ἔστησεν (xvii. 31)“Hehath appointed.”But indeed instances abound everywhere. In fact, the requirements of the case are often observed toforcethem to be idiomatic. Τί ἐποίησας; (in Jo. xviii. 35), they rightly render“Whathastthou done?”:—and ἔγραψα (in 1 Jo. ii. 14, 21),“Ihavewritten;”—and ἤκουσα (in Acts ix. 13),“Ihaveheard.”—On the other hand, by translating οὐκ εἴασεν (in Acts xxviii. 4),“hath not suffered,”they may be thought to have overshot the mark. They seem to have overlooked the fact that, when once S. Paul had been bitten by the viper,“the barbarians”looked upon him asa dead man; and therefore discoursed about what Justice“did notsuffer,”as about an entirely past transaction.
But now,Whosees not that the admission, once and again deliberately made, that sometimes it is not only lawful, but evennecessary, to accommodate the Greek aorist (when translated into English) with the sign of the perfect,—reduces the whole matter (of the signs of the tenses) to a mere question ofTaste? In view of such instances as the foregoing, where severe logical necessity has compelled the Revisionists to abandon their position and fly, it is plain that their contention is at an end,—so far asrightandwrongare concerned. They virtually admit that they have been all along unjustly forcing on an independent language an alien yoke.499Henceforth, it simply becomes a question to be repeated, as every fresh emergency arises,—Which then isthe more idiomaticof these two English renderings?... Conversely, twice at least (Heb. xi. 17 and 28), the Revisionists[pg 161]have represented theGreek perfectby the English indefinite preterite.
(b) Besides this offensive pedantry in respect of the Aorist, we are often annoyed by anunidiomaticrendering of the Imperfect. True enough it is that“the servants and the officerswere standing... andwere warmingthemselves:”Peter also“was standingwith them andwas warminghimself”(S. Jo. xviii. 18). But we do not so express ourselves in English, unless we are about to add something which shallaccount forour particularity and precision. Any one, for example, desirous of stating what had been for years his daily practice, would say—“I leftmy house.”Only when he wanted to explain that, on leaving it for the 1000th time, he met a friend coming up the steps to pay him a visit, would an Englishman think of saying,“I was leavingthe house.”A Greek writer, on the other hand, would nottrustthis to the imperfect. He would use the present participle in the dative case, (“To me, leaving my house,”500&c.). One is astonished to have to explain such things....“If therefore thouart offeringthy gift at the altar”(Matt. v. 23), may seem to some a clever translation. To ourselves, it reads like a senseless exaggeration of the original.501It sounds (andis) as unnatural as to say (in S. Lu. ii. 33)“And His father [a depravation of the text] and His motherwere marvellingat the things which were spoken concerning Him:”—or (in Heb. xi. 17)“yea, he that had received the promiseswas offering uphis only-begotten son:”—or, of the cripple at Lystra (Acts xiv. 9),“the same heard Paulspeaking.”
(c) On the other hand, there are occasions confessedly when the Greek Aorist absolutely demands to be rendered[pg 162]into English by the sign of thePluperfect. An instance meets us while we write: ὡς δὲ ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν (S. Lu. v. 4),—where our Revisionists are found to retain the idiomatic rendering of our Authorized Version,—“When Hehad leftspeaking.”Of what possible avail could it be, on such an occasion, to insist that, because ἐπαύσατο is not in the pluperfect tense, it may not be accommodated withthe signof the pluperfect when it is being translated into English?—The R. V. has shown less consideration in S. Jo. xviii. 24,—where“Now Annashad sentHim bound unto Caiaphas the high priest,”is right, and wanted no revision.—Such places as Matth. xxvii. 60, Jo. xxi. 15, Acts xii. 17, and Heb. iv. 8, on the other hand, simply defy the Revisionists. For perforce Joseph“had hewnout”(ἐλατόμησε) the new tomb which became ourLord's: and the seven Apostles, confessedly,“had dined”(ἠρίστησαν): and S. Peter, of course,“declared unto them how theLordhad brought him outof the prison”(ἐξήγαγεν): and it is impossible to substitute anything for“If Jesus [Joshua]had giventhem rest”(κατέπαυσεν).—Then of course there are occasions, (not a few,) where the Aorist (often an indefinite present in Greek) claims to be Englished by the sign of the present tense: as where S. John says (Rev. xix. 6),“TheLord GodOmnipotent reigneth”(ἐβασίλευσε). There is no striving against such instances. Theyinsiston being rendered according to the genius of the language into which it is proposed to render them:—as when ἔκειτο (in S. Jo. xx. 12) exacts for its rendering“had lain.”
(d) It shall only be pointed out here in addition, for the student's benefit, that there is one highly interesting place (viz. S. Matth. xxviii. 2), which in every age has misled Critics and Divines (as Origen and Eusebius); Poets (as Rogers); Painters (as West);—yes, and will continue to mislead readers for many a year to come:—and all because men[pg 163]have failed to perceive that the aorist is used there for the pluperfect. Translate,—“Therehad beena great earthquake:”[and so (1611-1881) our margin,—until in short“the Revisionists”interfered:]“for the Angel of theLordhaddescended from heaven, andcome and rolled away(ἀπεκύλισε) the stone from the door, and sat upon it.”Strange, that for 1800 years Commentators should have failed to perceive that the Evangelist is describing what terrified“the keepers.”“The women”saw no Angel sitting upon the stone!—though Origen,502—Dionysius of Alexandria,503—Eusebius,504—ps.-Gregory Naz.,505—Cyril Alex.,506—Hesychius,507—and so many others—have taken it for granted that theydid.
(e) Then further, (to dismiss the subject and pass on,)—There are occasions where the Greekperfectexacts the sign of thepresentat the hands of the English translator: as when Martha says,—“YeaLord, Ibelievethat Thou art theChrist”(S. Jo. xi. 27).508What else but the veriest pedantry is it to thrust in there“I have believed,”as the English equivalent for πεπίστευκα?—Just as intolerable is the officiousness which would thrust into theLord'sprayer (Matt. vi. 12),“as we alsohave forgiven(ἀφήκαμεν) our debtors.”509—On the other hand, there are Greekpresents(whatever the Revisionists may think) which are just as peremptory in requiringthe sign of the future, at the hands of the idiomatic translator into English. Three such cases are found in S. Jo. xvi. 16, 17, 19. Surely, the future isinherentin the present ἔρχομαι! In Jo. xiv. 18 (and many similar places), who can endure,“I will not leave you desolate:I come unto you”?
(f) But instances abound. How does it happen that the inaccurate rendering of ἐκκόπτεται—ἐκβάλλεται—has been retained in S. Matth. iii. 10, S. Lu. iii. 9?
V. Next, concerning thedefinite Article; in the case of which, (say the Revisionists,)
“many changes have been made.”“We have been careful to observe the use of the Article wherever it seemed to be idiomatically possible: where it did not seem to be possible, we have yielded to necessity.”—(Preface, iii. 2,—ad fin.)
In reply, instead of offering counter-statements of our own we content ourselves with submitting a few specimens to the Reader's judgment; and invite him to decide between the Reviewer and the Reviewed ...“Thesower went forth to sow”(Matth. xiii. 3).—“It is greater thantheherbs”(ver. 32).—“Let him be to thee astheGentile andthepublican”(xviii. 17).—“The unclean spirit, when he is gone out oftheman”(xii. 43).—“Did I not choose youthetwelve?”(Jo. vi. 70).—“If I then,theLord andthemaster”(xiii. 14).—“Forthejoy that a man is born into the world”(xvi. 21).—“But as touching Apollosthebrother”(1 Cor. xvi. 12).—“TheBishop must be blameless ... able to exhort inthesound doctrine”(Titus i. 7, 9).—“Thelust when it hath conceived, beareth sin: andthesin, when it is full grown”&c. (James i. 15).—“Doththefountain send forth from the same opening sweet water and bitter?”(iii. 11).—“Speak thou the things which befitthesound doctrine”(Titus ii. 1).—“The time will come when they will not endurethesound doctrine”(2 Tim. iv. 3).—“We hadthefathers of our flesh to chasten us”(Heb. xii. 9).—“Follow after peace with all men, andthesanctification”(ver. 14).—“Who istheliar but he that denieth thatJesusis theChrist?”(1 Jo. ii. 22).—“Not withthewater only, but withthewater and withtheblood”(v. 6).—“He that hath theSon, haththelife: he that hath not theSonofGodhath notthelife”(ver. 12).
To rejoin, as if it were a sufficient answer, that the definite Article is found in all these places in the original Greek,—is preposterous. In French also we say“Telle estlavie:”but, in translating from the French, we do notthereforesay“Such isthelife.”May we, without offence, suggest the study of MiddletonOn the Doctrine of the Greek Articleto those members of the Revisionists' body who have favoured us with the foregoing crop of mistaken renderings?
So, in respect of the indefinite article, we are presented with,—“Aneternal”(for“theeverlasting”)“gospel to proclaim”(Rev. xiv. 6):—and“one like untoason of man,”for“one like untotheSon of Man”in ver. 14.—Why“aSaviour”in Phil. iii. 20? There is but one! (Acts iv. 12).—On the other hand, Κρανίον is rendered“Theskull”in S. Lu. xxiii. 33. It is hard to see why.—These instances taken at random must suffice. They might be multiplied to any extent. If the Reader considers that the idiomatic use of the English Article is understood by the authors of these specimen cases, we shall be surprised, and sorry—for him.
VI. The Revisionists announce that they“have been particularly careful”as tothe Pronouns[iii. 2ad fin.] We recal with regret that this is also a particular wherein we have been specially annoyed and offended. Annoyed—at their practice ofrepeating the nominative(e.g.in Mk. i. 13: Jo. xx. 12) to an extent unknown, abhorrent even, to our language, except indeed when a fresh substantive statement is made: offended—at their license of translation,when it suits themto be licentious.—Thus, (as the Bp. of S. Andrews has well pointed out,)“it is He that”is an incorrect translation of αὐτός in S. Matth. i. 21,—a famous passage. Even worse, because it is unfair, is“He who”as the rendering of ὅς in 1 Tim. iii. 16,—another famous passage, which we have discussed elsewhere.510
VII. 'In the case of theParticles' (say the Revisionists),
“we have been able to maintain a reasonable amount ofconsistency. The Particles in the Greek Testament are, as is well known, comparatively few, and they are commonly used with precision. It has therefore been the more necessary here to preserve a generaluniformity of rendering.”—(iii. 2ad fin.)
Such an announcement, we submit, is calculated to occasion nothing so much as uneasiness and astonishment. Of all the parts of speech, the Greek Particles,—(especially throughout the period when the Language was in its decadence,)—are the least capable of being drilled into“a general uniformity of rendering;”and he who tries the experiment ought to be the first to be aware of the fact. The refinement and delicacy which they impart to a narrative or a sentiment, are not to be told. But then, from the very nature of the case,“uniformity of rendering”is precisely the thing they will not submit to. They take their colour from their context: often mean two quite different things in the course of two successive verses: sometimes are best rendered by a long and formidable word;511sometimes cannot (without a certain amount of impropriety or inconvenience) be renderedat all.512Let us illustrate what we have been saying by actual appeals to Scripture.
(1) And first, we will derive our proofs from the use which the sacred Writers make of the particle of most[pg 167]frequent recurrence—δέ. It is said to be employed in the N. T. 3115 times. As for its meaning, we have the unimpeachable authority of the Revisionists themselves for saying that it may be represented by any of the following words:—“but,”—“and,”513—“yea,”514—“what,”515—“now,”516—“and that”,517—“howbeit,”518—“even,”519—“therefore,”520—“I say,”521—“also,”522—“yet,”523—“for.”524To which 12 renderings, King James's translators (mostly following Tyndale) are observed to add at least these other 12:—“wherefore,”525—“so,”526—“moreover,”527—“yea and,”528—“furthermore,”529—“nevertheless,”530—“notwithstanding,”531—“yet but,”532—“truly,”533—“or,”534—“as for,”535—“then,”536—“and yet.”537It shall suffice to add that, by the pitiful substitution of“but”or“and”onmostof the foregoing occasions, the freshness and freedom of almost every passage has been made to disappear: the plain fact being that the men of 1611—above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before them—produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt, or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English: whereas the men of 1881 have fulfilled their task in what can only be described asa spirit of servile pedantry. The Grammarian (pure and simple) crops up everywhere. We seem never to rise above the atmosphere of the lecture-room,—the startling fact that μέν means“indeed,”and δέ“but.”
We subjoin a single specimen of the countless changes introduced in the rendering of Particles, and then hasten on. In 1 Cor. xii. 20, for three centuries and a half, Englishmen have been contented to read (with William Tyndale),“But now are they many members,yet butone body.”Our Revisionists, (overcome by the knowledge that δέ means“but,”and yielding to the supposed“necessity for preserving a general uniformity of rendering,”) substitute,—“Butnow they are many members,butone body.”Comment ought to be superfluous. We neither overlook the fact that δέ occurs here twice, nor deny that it is fairly represented by“but”in the first instance. We assert nevertheless that, on the second occasion,“yet but”ought to have been let alone. And this is a fair sample of the changes which have been effectedmany times in every page. To proceed however.
(2) The interrogative particle ἤ occurs at the beginning of a sentence at least 8 or 10 times in the N. T.; first, in S. Matth. vii. 9. It is often scarcely translateable,—being apparently invested with with no more emphasis than belongs to our colloquial interrogative“Eh?”But sometimes it would evidently bear to be represented by“Pray,”538—being at least equivalent to φέρε in Greek oragein Latin. Once only (viz. in 1 Cor. xiv. 36) does this interrogative particle so eloquently plead for recognition in the text, that both our A. V. and the R. V. have rendered it“What?”—by which word, by the way, it might very fairly have been represented in S. Matth. xxvi. 53 and Rom. vi. 3: vii. 1. In five of the places where the particle occurs. King James's Translators are observed to have give it up in despair.539But what is to be thought of the adventurous dulness which (with the single exception already indicated) hasinvariablyrendered ἤ by[pg 169]the conjunction“or”? The blunder is the more inexcusable, because the intrusion of such an irrelevant conjunction into places where it is without either use or meaning cannot have failed to attract the notice of every member of the Revising body.
(3) At the risk of being wearisome, we must add a few words.—Καί, though no particle but a conjunction, may for our present purpose be reasonably spoken of under the same head; being diversely rendered“and,”—“and yet,”540—“then,”541—“or,”542—“neither,”543—“though,”544—“so,”545—“but,”546—“for,”547—“that,”548—in conformity with what may be called the genius of the English language. The last six of these renderings, however, our Revisionists disallow; everywhere thrusting out the word which the argument seems rather to require, and with mechanical precision thrusting into its place every time the (perfectly safe, but often palpably inappropriate) word,“and.”With what amount of benefit this has been effected, one or two samples will sufficiently illustrate:—
(a) The Revisionists inform us that when“the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth,”—S. Paul exclaimed,“Godshall smite thee, thou whited wall:andsittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?”549... Do these learned men really imagine that they have improved upon the A. V. by their officiousness in altering“for”into“and”?
(b) The same Apostle, having ended his argument to the Hebrews, remarks,—“Sowe see that they could not enter in because of unbelief”(Heb. iii. 19): for which, our Revisionists[pg 170]again substitute“And.”Begin the sentence with“and,”(instead of“So,”) and, in compensation for what you have clearlylost, what have yougained?... Once more:—
(c) Consider what S. Paul writes concerning Apollos (in 1 Cor. xvi. 12), and then say what possible advantage is obtained by writing“and”(instead of“but”)“his will was not at all to come at this time”.... Yet once more; and onthisoccasion, scholarship is to some extent involved:—
(d) When S. James (i. 11) says ἀνέτειλε γὰρ ὁ ἥλιος ... καὶ ἐξήρανε τὸν χόρτον,—whoknows not that what his language strictly means in idiomatic English, is,—“No soonerdoes the sun arise,”“thanit withereth the grass”? And so in effect our Translators of 1611. What possible improvement on this can it be to substitute,“For the sun ariseth ...andwithereth the grass”?—Only once more:—
(e) Though καί undeniably means“and,”and πῶς,“how,”—whoknows not that καὶ πῶς means“How then?”And yet, (as if a stupid little boy had been at work,) in two places,—(namely, in S. Mark iv. 13 and S. Luke xx. 44,)—“and how”is found mercilessly thrust in, to the great detriment of the discourse; while in other two,—(namely, in S. John xiv. 5 and 9,)—the text itself has been mercilessly deprived of its characteristic καί by the Revisionists.—Let this suffice. One might fill many quires of paper with such instances of tasteless, senseless, vexatious, andmost unscholarlikeinnovation.
VIII.“Many changes”(we are informed)“have been introduced in the rendering of thePrepositions.”[Preface, iii. 2,ad fin.]:—and we are speedily reminded of the truth of the statement, for (as was shown above [pp.155-6]) the second chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel exhibits the Revisionists“all a-field”in respect of διά.“We have rarely made any change”(they add)“where the true meaning of the original would be apparent toa Reader of ordinary intelligence.”It[pg 171]would of course ill become such an one as the present Reviewer to lay claim to the foregoing flattering designation: but really, when he now for the first time reads (in Acts ix. 25) that the disciples of Damascus let S. Paul down“through the wall,”he must be pardoned for regretting the absence of a marginal reference to the history of Pyramus and Thisbe in order to suggesthowthe operation was effected: for, as it stands, the R. V. is to him simply unintelligible. Inasmuch as the basket (σπυρίς) in which the Apostle effected his escape was of considerable size, do but think what an extravagantly large hole it must have been to enable thembothto get through!... But let us look further.
Was it then in order to bring Scripture within thecaptusof“a Reader of ordinary intelligence”that the Revisers have introduced no less thanthirty changesintoeight-and-thirty wordsof S. Peter's 2nd Epistle? Particular attention is invited to the following interesting specimen of“Revision.”It is the only one we shall offer of the manycontrastswe had marked for insertion. We venture also to enquire, whether the Revisers will consent to abide by it as a specimen of their skill in dealing with the Preposition ἐν?
The foregoing strikes us as a singular illustration of the Revisionists' statement (Preface, iii. 2),—“We madenochangeif the meaning was fairly expressedby the word or phrase that was before us in the Authorized Version.”To ourselves it appears thatevery one of those 30 changes is a change for the worse; and that one of the most exquisite passages in the N. T. has been hopelessly spoiled,—rendered in fact well-nigh unintelligible,—by the pedantic officiousness of the Revisers. Were they—(if the question be allowable)—bent on removing none but“plain and clear errors,”when they substituted those 30 words? Was it in token of their stern resolve“to introduce into the Textas few alterations as possible,”that they spared the eight words which remain out of the eight-and-thirty?
As for theirwoodenrendering of ἐν, it ought to suffice to refer them to S. Mk. i. 23, S. Lu. xiv. 31, to prove that sometimes ἐν can only be rendered“with”:—and to S. Luke vii. 17, to show them that ἐν sometimes means“throughout”:—and to Col. i. 16, and Heb. i. 1, 2, in proof that sometimes it means“by.”—On the other hand, their suggestion that ἐν may be rendered“by”in S. Luke i. 51, convicts them of not being aware that“the proud-in-the-imagination-of-their-hearts”isa phrase—in which perforce“by”has no business whatever. One is surprised to have to teach professed Critics and Scholars an elementary fact like this.
In brief, these learned men are respectfully assured that there is not one of the“Parts of Speech”which will consent to be handled after the inhumane fashion which seems to be to themselves congenial. Whatever they may think of the matter, it is nothing else but absurd to speak of an Angel“casting his sickleinto the earth”(Rev. xiv. 19).—As for his“pouring out his bowlupon the air”(xvi. 17),—we really fail to understand the nature of the operation.—And pray,[pg 173]What is supposed to be the meaning of“the thingsupon the heavens”—in Ephesians i. 10?
Returning to the preposition διά followed by the genitive,—(in respect of which the Revisionists challenge Criticism by complaining in their Preface [iii. 3ad fin.] that in the A. V.“ideas of instrumentality or of mediate agency, distinctly marked in the original, have beenconfused or obscured in the Translation,”)—we have to point out:—
(1st) That these distinguished individuals seem not to be aware that the proprieties of English speech forbid the use of“through”(as a substitute for“by”) in certain expressions where instrumentality is concerned. Thus,“the Son of man”was not betrayed“through”Judas, but“by”him (Matt. xxvi. 24: Luke xxii. 22).—Still less is it allowable to say that a prophecy was“spoken,”nay“written,”“throughthe Prophet”(Matth. i. 22 and margin of ii. 5).“Who spakebythe Prophets,”is even an article of the Faith.
And (2ndly),—That these scholars have in consequence adopted a see-saw method of rendering διά,—sometimes in one way, sometimes in the other. First, they give us“wonders and signs donebythe Apostles”(Acts ii. 43; but in the margin,“Or,through”): presently,“a notable miracle hath been wroughtthroughthem”(iv. 16: and this time, the margin withholds the alternative,“Or,by”). Is then“the true meaning”of“by,”in the former place,“apparent to a Reader of ordinary intelligence”? but so obscure in the latter as to rendernecessarythe alteration to“through”? Or (sit venia verbo),—Was it a mere“toss-up”with the Revisionistswhatis the proper rendering of διά?
(3rdly), In an earlier place (ii. 22), we read of“miracles, wonders, and signs”which“Goddidby”Jesusof Nazareth. Was it reverence, which, on that occasion, forbad the use of[pg 174]“through”—even in the margin? We hope so: but the preposition is still the same—διά not ὑπό.
Lastly (4thly),—The doctrine that Creation is the work of the DivineWord, all Scripture attests.“All things were madebyHim”(S. Jo. i. 3):—“the world was madebyHim”(ver. 10).—Why then, in Col. i. 16, where the same statement is repeated,—(“all things were createdbyHim and for Him,”)—do we find“through”substituted for“by”? And why is the same offence repeated in 1 Cor. vii. 6,—(where weoughtto read,—“oneGod, theFather, of whom are all things ... and oneLord Jesus Christ,bywhom are all things”)?—Why, especially, in Heb. i. 2, in place of“bywhom also [viz. bythe Son] He made the worlds,”do we find substituted“throughwhom”?... And why add to this glaring inconsistency the wretched vacillation of giving us the choice of“through”(in place of“by”) in the margin of S. John i. 3 and 10, and not even offering us the alternative of“by”(in place of“through”) in any of the other places,—although the preposition is διά on every occasion?