And thus much for the Revisers' handling of the Prepositions. We shall have said all that we can find room for, when we have further directed attention to the uncritical and unscholarlike Note with which they have disfigured the margin of S. Mark i. 9. We are there informed that, according to the Greek, ourSaviour“was baptizedinto the Jordan,”—an unintelligible statement to English readers, as well as a misleading one. Especially on their guard should the Revisers have been hereabouts,—seeing that, in a place of vital importance on the opposite side of the open page (viz. in S. Matth. xxviii. 19), they had already substituted“into”for“in.”This latter alteration, one of the Revisers (Dr. Vance Smith) rejoices over, because it obliterates (in his account) the evidence for Trinitarian doctrine. That the[pg 175]Revisionists, as a body, intended nothing less,—whocan doubt? But then, if they really deemed it necessary to append a note to S. Mark i. 9 in order to explain to the public that the preposition εἰς signifies“into”rather than“in,”—why did they not at least go on to record the elementary fact that εἰς has here (what grammarians call) a“pregnant signification”? that it implies—(every schoolboy knows it!)—and that it is used in order to imply—that the Holy One“went downinto,”and so,“was baptizedintheJordan”?550... Butwhy, in the name of common sense,did not the Revisionists let the Preposition alone?IX. TheMarginof the Revision is the last point to which our attention is invited, and in the following terms:—“The subject of the Marginal Notes deserves special attention. They represent the results ofa large amount of careful and elaborate discussion, and will, perhaps, by their very presence, indicate to some extent the intricacy of many of the questions that have almost daily come before us for decision. These Notes fall into four main groups:—First, Notes specifying such differences of reading as were judged to be of sufficient importance to require a particular notice;—Secondly, Notes indicating the exact rendering of words to which, for the sake of English idiom, we were obliged to give a less exact rendering in the text;—Thirdly, Notes, very few in number, affording some explanation which the original appeared to require;—Fourthly, Alternative Renderings in difficult or debateable passages. The Notes of this last group are numerous, and largely in excess of those which were admitted by our predecessors. In the 270 years that have passed away since their labours were concluded, the Sacred Text has been minutely examined, discussed in every detail, and analysed with a grammatical precision unknown in the days of the last Revision. There has thus been accumulated[pg 176]a large amount of materials that have prepared the way for different renderings, which necessarily came under discussion.”—(Preface, iii. 4.)When a body of distinguished Scholars bespeak attention to a certain part of their work in such terms as these, it is painful for a Critic to be obliged to declare that he has surveyed this department of their undertaking with even less satisfaction than any other. So long, however, as he assignsthe groundsof his dissatisfaction, the Reviewed cannot complain. The Reviewer puts himself into their power. If he is mistaken in his censure, his credit is gone. Let us take the groups in order:—(1) Having already stated our objections against the many Notes which specifyTextual errorswhich the Revisionists declined to adopt,—we shall here furnish only two instances of the mischief we deplore:—(a) Against the words,“And while theyabodein Galilee”(S. Matthew xvii. 22), we find it stated,—“Some ancient authorities readwere gathering themselves together.”The plain English of which queer piece of information is that א andbexhibit in this place an impossible and untranslatable Reading,—the substitution of which for ἀναστρεφομένων δὲ ἀυτῶν can only have proceeded from some Western critic, who was sufficiently unacquainted with the Greek language to suppose that ΣΥΝ-στρεφομένων δὲ αὐτῶν, might possibly be the exact equivalent forCon-versantibus autem illis. This is not the place for discussing a kind of hallucination which prevailed largely in the earliest age, especially in regions where Greek was habitually read through Latin spectacles. (Thus it was, obviously, that the preposterous substitution ofEuraquilofor“Euroclydon,”in Acts xxvii. 14, took its rise.) Such blunders would be laughable if encountered anywhere except on holy ground. Apart, however, from the lamentable lack[pg 177]of critical judgment which a marginal note like the present displays, what is to be thought of the scholarship which elicits“While they were gathering themselves together”out of συστρεφομένων δὲ αὐτῶν? Are we to suppose that the clue to the Revisers' rendering is to be found in (συστρέψαντος) Acts xxviii. 3? We should be sorry to think it. They are assured that the source of theTextualblunder which they mistranslate is to be found, instead, in Baruch iii. 38.551(b) For what conceivable reason is the world now informed that, instead ofMelita,—“some ancient authorities readMelitene,”in Acts xxviii. 1? Is every pitiful blunder of cod.bto live on in the margin of every Englishman's copy of the New Testament, for ever? Why,allother MSS.—the Syriac and the Latin versions,—Pamphilus of Cæsarea552(a.d.294), the friend of Eusebius,—Cyril of Jerusalem,553—Chrysostom,554—John Damascene,555—all the Fathers in short who quote the place;—the coins, the ancient geographers;—allread Μελίτη; which has also been acquiesced in by every critical Editor of the N. T.—(excepting always Drs. Westcott and Hort), from the invention of Printing till now. But because these two misguided men, without apology, explanation, note or comment of any kind, have adopted“Melitene”into their text, is the Church of England to be dragged through the mire also, and made ridiculous in the eyes of Christendom? This blunder moreover is“gross as a mountain, open, palpable.”One glance at the place, written in uncials, explains how it arose:—ΜελιτηΗΝΗσοσκαλειται. Some stupid scribe (as the reader sees) has connected the first syllable of νῆσος with the last syllable of Μελίτη.556That[pg 178]is all! The blunder—(for a blunder it most certainly is)—belongs to the age and country in which“Melitene”was by far the more familiar word, being the name of the metropolitan see of Armenia;557mention of which crops up in theConciliarepeatedly.558(2) and (4) The second and the fourth group may be considered together. The former comprises those words of which theless exactrendering finds place in the Text:—the latter,“Alternative renderingsin difficult and debateable passages.”We presume that here our attention is specially invited to such notes as the following. Against 1 Cor. xv. 34,—“Awake out of drunkenness righteously”:—against S. John i. 14,—“an only begotten from a father”:—against 1 Pet. iii. 20,—“into which few, that is, eight souls, were brought safely through water”:—against 2 Pet. iii. 7,—“stored with fire”:—against S. John xviii. 37,—“Thou sayest it, because I am a king”:—against Ephes. iii. 21,—“All the generations of the age of the ages”:—against Jude ver. 14,—“His holy myriads”:—against Heb. xii. 18,—“a palpable and kindled fire”:—against Lu. xv. 31,—“Child, thou art ever with me”:—against Matth. xxi. 28,—“Child, go work to-day in my vineyard”:—against xxiv. 3,—“What shall be the sign of Thypresence, and ofthe consummation of the age?”—against Tit. i. 2,—“before times eternal”: against Mk. iv. 29,—“When the fruitalloweth[and why not‘yieldethitself’?], straightwayhe sendeth forththe sickle”:—against Ephes. iv. 17,—“through every joint of the supply”:—against ver. 29,—“the building up of the need”:—against Lu. ii. 29,—“Master, now lettest thou Thybondservantdepart in peace”:—against Acts iv. 24,—“OMaster, thou that didst make the heaven and the earth”:—against[pg 179]Lu. i. 78,—“Because ofthe heart of mercyof ourGod.”Concerning all such renderings we will but say, that although they are unquestionably better in the Margin than in the Text; it also admits no manner of doubt that they would have been best of all in neither. Were the Revisionists serious when they suggested as the more“exact”rendering of 2 Pet. i. 20,—“No prophecy of Scripture is ofspecialinterpretation”? And what did they mean (1 Pet. ii. 2) by“the spiritual milk which is without guile”?Not a few marginal glosses might have been dispensed with. Thus, against διδάσκαλος, upwards of 50 times stands the Annotation,“Or,teacher.”—Ἄρτος, (another word of perpetual recurrence,) is every time explained to mean“a loaf.”But is this reasonable? seeing that φαγεῖν ἄρτον (Luke xiv. 1) can mean nothing else but“to eatbread”: not to mention the petition for“daily bread”in theLord'sprayer. These learned men, however, do not spare us even when mention is made of“taking the children'sbreadand casting it to the dogs”(Mk. vii. 27): while in the enquiry,—“If a son shall askbreadof any of you that is a father”(Lu. xi. 11),“loaf”is actually thrust into the text.—We cannot understand why such marked favour has been shown to similar easy words. Δοῦλος, occurring upwards of 100 times in the New Testament, is invariably honoured (sometimes [as in Jo. xv. 15]twice in the course of the same verse) with 2 lines to itself, to explain that in Greek it is“bondservant.”—About 60 times, δαιμόνιον is explained in the margin to be“demon”in the Greek.—It has been deemed necessary 15 times to devotethree linesto explain the value of“a penny.”—Whenever τέκνον is rendered“Son,”we are molested with a marginal annotation, to the effect that the Greek word means“child.”Had the Revisionists been consistent, the margins would not nearly have sufficed for the many interesting details of this[pg 180]nature with which their knowledge of Greek would have furnished them.May we be allowed to suggest, that it would have been better worth while to explain to the unlearned that ἀρχαι in S. Peter's vision (Acts x. 11; xi. 5) in strictness means not“corners,”but“beginnings”[cf. Gen. ii. 10]:—that τὴν πρώτην (in Lu. xv. 22) is literally“the first”[cf. Gen. iii. 7] (not“the best”)“robe”:—that ἀληθινός (e.g.in Lu. xvi. 11: Jo. i. 9: vi. 32; and especially in xv. 1 and Heb. viii. 2 and ix. 24) means“very”or“real,”rather than“true”?—And when two different words are employed in Greek (as in S. Jo. xxi. 15, 16, 17:—S. Mk. vii. 33, 35, &c. &c.), would it not have been as well to try torepresentthem in English? For want of such assistance, no unlearned reader of S. Matth. iv. 18, 20, 21: S. Mk. i. 16, 18, 19: S. Lu. v. 2,—will ever be able to understand the precise circumstances under which the first four Apostles left their“nets.”(3) The third group consists ofExplanatory Notesrequired by the obscurity of the original. Such must be the annotation against S. Luke i. 15 (explanatory of“strong drink”),—“Gr. sikera.”And yet, the word (σίκερα) happens to benotGreek, but Hebrew.—On the other hand, such must be the annotation against μωρέ, in S. Matth. v. 22:—“Or,Moreh, a Hebrew expression of condemnation;”which statement is incorrect. The word proves to benotHebrew, but Greek.—And this, against“Maran atha”in 1 Cor. xvi. 22,—“That is,OurLordcometh:”which also proves to be a mistake. The phrase means“OurLordis come,”—which represents a widely different notion.559—Surely a room-full of learned men, volunteering to put the N. T. to-rights, ought to have made more[pg 181]sure of their elementaryfactsbefore they ventured to compromise the Church of England after this fashion!—Against“the huskswhich the swine did eat”(Lu. xv. 16), we find,“Gr.the pods of the carob tree,”—which is really not true. The Greek word is κεράτια,—which only signifies“the pods of the carob tree,”as“French beans”signifies“the pods of thePhaseolus vulgaris.”—By the way, it isquitecertain that μύλος ὀνικός [in Matth. xviii. 6 and Lu. xvii. 2 (not Mk. xi. 42)] signifies“a mill-stone turned by an ass”? Hilary certainly thought so: but is that thing at all likely? What if it should appear that μύλος ὀνικός merely denotes theuppermill-stone (λίθος μυλικός, as S. Mark calls it,—the stone that grinds), and which we know was called ὄνος by the ancients?560—Why is“the brook Cedron”(Jo. xviii. 1) first spelt“Kidron,”and then explained to mean“ravine of the cedars”? which“Kidron”no more means that“Kishon”means“of the ivies,”—(though the Septuagintal usage [Judges iv. 13: Ps. lxxxiii. 9] shows that τῶν κισσῶν was in its common Hellenistic designation). As for calling the Kidron“a ravine,”you might as well call“Mercury”in“Tom quad”“a lake.”“Infelictious”is the mildest epithet we can bestow upon marginal annotations crude, questionable,—eveninaccurateas these.Then further,“Simon, the son ofJona”(in S. John i. 42 and xxi. 15), is for the first time introduced to our notice by the Revisionists as“the son ofJohn:”with an officious marginal annotation that in Greek the name is written“Ioanes.”But is it fair in the Revisers (we modestly ask) to thrust in this way thebêtisesof their favourite codexbupon us?In no codex in the world except the Vatican codexb, is“Ioannes”spelt“Ioanes”in this place. Besides, the name of Simon Peter's father wasnot“John”at all, but“Jona,”—as appears from S. Matth. xvi. 17, and the present[pg 182]two places in S. John's Gospel; where the evidenceagainst“Ioannes”is overwhelming. This is in fact the handy-work of Dr. Hort. But surely the office of marginal notes ought to be to assist, not to mislead plain readers: honestly, to statefacts,—not, by a side-wind, to commit the Church of England toa new (and absurd) Textual theory! Theactual Truth, we insist, should be stated in the margin, whenever unnecessary information is gratuitously thrust upon unlearned and unsuspicious readers.... Thus, we avow that we are offended at reading (against S. John i. 18)—“Many very ancient authorities read‘Godonly begotten’”: whereas the“authorities”alluded to read μονογενὴς Θεός,—(whether with or without the article [ὁ] prefixed,)—which (as the Revisionists are perfectly well aware) means“the only-begottenGod,”and no other thing. Why then did they not say so?Because(we answer)—they were ashamed of the expression. But to proceed.—The information is volunteered (against Matth. xxvi. 36 and Mk. xiv. 32) that χωρίον means“an enclosed piece of ground,”—which is not true. The statement seems to have proceeded from the individual who translated ἄμφοδον (in Mk. xi. 4) the“open street:”whereas the word merely denotes the“highway,”—literally the“thoroughfare.”A very little real familiarity with the Septuagint would have secured these Revisers against the perpetual exposure which they make of themselves in their marginal Notes.—(a) Πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, for instance, is quite an ordinary expression for“always,”and therefore should not be exhibited (in the margin of S. Matth. xxviii. 20) as a curiosity,—“Gr.all the days.”—So (b) with respect to the word αἰών, which seems to have greatly exercised the Revisionists. What need,every time it occurs, to explain that εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων means literally“unto the ages of the ages”? Surely (as in Ps. xlv. 6, quoted Heb. i. 8,) the established rendering[pg 183](“for ever and ever”) is plain enough and needs no gloss!—Again, (c) the numeral εἰς, representing the Hebrew substitute for the indefinite article, prevails throughout the Septuagint. Examples of its use occur in the N. T. in S. Matth. viii. 19 and ix. 18;-xxvi. 69 (μία παιδίσκη), Mk. xii. 42: and in Rev. viii. 13: ix. 13: xviii. 21 and xix. 17;—where“onescribe,”“oneruler,”“onewidow,”“oneeagle,”“onevoice,”“oneangel,”are really nothing else but mistranslations. True, that εἶς is found in the original Greek: but what then? Because“une”means“one,”will it be pretended that“Tu es une bête”would be properly rendered“Thou art one beast”?(d) Far more serious is the substitution of“havinga greatpriest over the house ofGod”(Heb. x. 21), for“havingan highpriest:”inasmuch as this obscures“the pointed reference to ourLordas the antitype of the Jewish high priest,”—who (except in Lev. iv. 3) is designated, not ἀρχιερεύς, but either ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας, or else ὁ ἱερεύς only,—as in Acts v. 24561.... And (e) why are we presented with“Forno word fromGodshall be void of power”(in S. Luke i. 37)? Seeing that the Greek of that place has been fashioned on the Septuagintal rendering of Gen. xviii. 14 (“Is anything too hard for theLord?”562), we venture to think that the A. V. (“for withGodnothing shall be impossible”563) ought to have been let alone. It cannot be mended. One is surprised to discover that among so many respectable Divines there seems not to have beenonesufficiently familiar with the Septuagint to preserve his brethren from perpetually falling into such mistakes as the foregoing. We really had no idea that the Hellenistic[pg 184]scholarship of those who represented the Church and the Sects in the Jerusalem Chamber, was so inconsiderable.Two or three of the foregoing examples refer to matters of a recondite nature. Not so the majority of the Annotations which belong to this third group; which we have examined with real astonishment—and in fact have remarked upon already. Shall we be thought hard to please if we avow that we rather desiderate“Explanatory Notes”on matters which reallydocall for explanation? as, to be reminded of what kind was the“net”(ἀμφίβληστρον) mentioned in Matth. iv. 18 (not20), and Mk. i. 16 (not18):—to see it explained (against Matth. ii. 23) thatnetser(the root of“Nazareth”) denotes“Branch:”—and against Matth. iii. 5; Lu. iii. 3, that ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, signifies“thedepressed valley of the Jordan,”as the usage of the LXX. proves.564We should have been glad to see, against S. Lu. ix. 31,—“Gr.Exodus.”—At least in the margin, we might have been told that“Olivet”is the true rendering of Lu. xix. 29 and xxi. 37: (or were the Revisionists not aware of the fact? They are respectfully referred to the Bp. of Lincoln's note on the place last quoted.)—Nay, why not tell us (against Matth. i. 21) that“Jesus”means [not“Saviour,”but]“Jehovahis Salvation”?But above all, surely so many learned men ought to have spared us the absurd Annotation set against“ointment of spikenard”(νάρδου πιστικῆς,) in S. Mark xiv. 3 and in S. John xii. 3. Their marginal Note is as follows:—“Gr.pisticnard, pistic being perhaps a local name. Others take it to meangenuine; othersliquid.”Can Scholars require to be told that“liquid”is animpossible[pg 185]sense of πιστική in this place? The epithet so interpreted must be derived (like πιστός [Prom.V. v. 489]) from πίνω, and would meandrinkable: but since ointmentcannotbe drunk, it is certain that we must seek the etymology of the word elsewhere. And why should the weak ancient conjecture be retained that it is“perhaps alocalname”? Do Divines require to have it explained to them that the one“locality”which effectually fixes the word's meaning, isits place in the everlasting Gospel?... Be silent on such lofty matters if you will, by all means; but“who are these that darken counsel by words without knowledge?”S. Mark and S. John (whose narratives by the way never touch exclusively except in this place565) are observed here to employ an ordinary word with lofty spiritual purpose. Thepure faith(πίστις) in which that offering of the ointment was made, determines the choice of an unusual epithet (πιστικός) which shall signify“faithful”rather than“genuine,”—shall suggest amoralrather than acommercialquality: just as, presently, Mary's“breaking”the box (συντρίψασα) is designated by a word which has reference to a broken heart.566She“contrited”it, S. Mark says; and S. John adds a statement which implies that the Church has been rendered fragrant by her act for ever.567(We trust to be forgiven for having said a little more than the occasion absolutely requires.)(5) Under which of the four previous“groups”certain Annotations which disfigure the margin of the first chapter of[pg 186]S. Matthew's Gospel, should fall,—we know not. Let them be briefly considered by themselves.So dull of comprehension are we, that we fail to see on what principle it is stated that—“Ram,”“Asa,”“Amon,”“Shealtiel,”are in Greek (“Gr.”)“Aram,”“Asaph,”“Amos,”“Salathiel.”For (1),—Surely it was just as needful (or just as needless) to explain that“Perez,”“Zarah,”“Hezron,”“Nahson,”are in Greek“Phares,”“Zara,”“Esrom,”“Naasson.”—But (2), Through what“necessity”are the names, which we have been hitherto contented to read as the Evangelist wrote them, now exhibited on the first page of the Gospel in any other way?568—(3) Assuming, however, the O. T. spellingisto be adopted, thenlet us have it explained to us why“Jeconiah”in ver. 11 is not written“Jehoiakim”? (As for“Jeconiah”in ver. 12,—it was for the Revisionists to settle whether they would call him“Jehoiachin,”“Jeconiah,”or“Coniah.”[By the way,—Is it lawful to suppose thatthey did not knowthat“Jechonias”here represents two different persons?])—On the other hand, (4)“Amos”probably,—“Asaph”certainly,—are corrupt exhibitions of“Amon”and“Asa:”and, if noticed at all, should have been introduced to the reader's notice with the customary formula,“some ancient authorities,”&c.—To proceed—(5), Why substitute“Immanuel”(for“Emmanuel”) in ver. 23,—only to have to state in the margin that S. Matthew writes it“Emmanuel”? By strict parity of reasoning, against“Naphtali”(in ch. iv. 13, 15), the Revisionists ought to have written“Gr.Nephthaleim.”—And (6), If this is to be the rule, then why are we not told that[pg 187]“Mary is in‘Gr.Mariam’”? and why is not Zacharias written“Zachariah”?... But (to conclude),—What is the object of all this officiousness? and (its unavoidable adjunct) all this inconsistency? Has the spelling of the 42 names been revolutionized, in order to sever with the Past and to make“a fresh departure”? Or were the four marginal notes addedonly for the sake of obtaining, by a side-wind, the (apparent) sanction of the Churchto the preposterous notion that“Asa”was written“Asaph”by the Evangelist—in conformity with six MSS. of bad character, but in defiance of History, documentary Evidence, and internal Probability? Canon Cook [pp. 23-24] has some important remarks on this.X. We must needs advert again to the ominous admission made in the Revisionists'Preface(iii. 2init.), that to some extent they recognized the duty of a“rigid adherence to the rule of translating, as far as possible, thesame Greek word by the same English word.”This mistaken principle of theirs lies at the root of so much of the mischief which has befallen the Authorized Version, that it calls for fuller consideration at our hands than it has hitherto (viz. at pp.138and152) received.The“Translators”of 1611, towards the close of their long and quaint Address“to the Reader,”offer the following statement concerning what had been their own practice:—“We have nottied ourselves”(say they)“to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done.”On this, they presently enlarge. We have been“especially careful,”have even“made a conscience,”“not to vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places.”But then, (as they shrewdly point out in passing,)“there be some words that be not of the[pg 188]same sense everywhere.”And had this been the sum of their avowal, no one with a spark of Taste, or with the least appreciation of what constitutes real Scholarship, would have been found to differ from them. Nay, even when they go on to explain that they have not thought it desirable to insist on invariably expressing“the same notion”by employing“the same particular word;”—(which they illustrate by instancing terms which, in their account, may with advantage be diversely rendered in different places;)—we are still disposed to avow ourselves of their mind.“If”(say they,)“we translate the Hebrew or Greek word oncepurpose, never to call itintent; if one wherejourneying, nevertravelling; if one wherethink, neversuppose; if one wherepain, neverache; if one wherejoy, nevergladness;—thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than of wisdom.”And yet it is plain that a different principle is here indicated from that which went before. The remark“that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling,”suggests that, in the Translators' opinion, it matters littlewhichword, in the several pairs of words they instance, is employed; and that, for their own parts, they rather rejoice in the ease and freedom which an ample vocabulary supplies to a Translator of Holy Scripture. Here also however, as already hinted, we are disposed to go along with them. Rhythm, subtle associations of thought, proprieties of diction which are rather to be felt than analysed,—any of such causes may reasonably determine a Translator to reject“purpose,”“journey,”“think,”“pain,”“joy,”—in favour of“intent,”“travel,”“suppose,”“ache,”“gladness.”But then it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this, there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound (shall we not rather say aprophetic?) consciousness, that the fate of the English[pg 189]Language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation.Hencetheir reluctance to incur the responsibility of tying themselves“to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words.”We should be liable to censure (such is their plain avowal),“if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always; and to others of like quality, Get you hence, be banished for ever.”But this, to say the least, is to introduce a distinct and a somewhat novel consideration. We would not be thought to deny that there is some—perhaps a great deal—of truth in it: but by this time we seem to have entirely shifted our ground. And we more than suspect that, if a jury of English scholars of the highest mark could be impanelled to declare their mind on the subject thus submitted to their judgment, there would be practical unanimity among them in declaring, that these learned men,—with whom all would avow hearty sympathy, and whose taste and skill all would eagerly acknowledge,—have occasionally pushed the license they enunciate so vigorously, a little—perhaps a great deal—too far. For ourselves, we are glad to be able to subscribe cordially to the sentiment on this head expressed by the author of thePrefaceof 1881:
And thus much for the Revisers' handling of the Prepositions. We shall have said all that we can find room for, when we have further directed attention to the uncritical and unscholarlike Note with which they have disfigured the margin of S. Mark i. 9. We are there informed that, according to the Greek, ourSaviour“was baptizedinto the Jordan,”—an unintelligible statement to English readers, as well as a misleading one. Especially on their guard should the Revisers have been hereabouts,—seeing that, in a place of vital importance on the opposite side of the open page (viz. in S. Matth. xxviii. 19), they had already substituted“into”for“in.”This latter alteration, one of the Revisers (Dr. Vance Smith) rejoices over, because it obliterates (in his account) the evidence for Trinitarian doctrine. That the[pg 175]Revisionists, as a body, intended nothing less,—whocan doubt? But then, if they really deemed it necessary to append a note to S. Mark i. 9 in order to explain to the public that the preposition εἰς signifies“into”rather than“in,”—why did they not at least go on to record the elementary fact that εἰς has here (what grammarians call) a“pregnant signification”? that it implies—(every schoolboy knows it!)—and that it is used in order to imply—that the Holy One“went downinto,”and so,“was baptizedintheJordan”?550... Butwhy, in the name of common sense,did not the Revisionists let the Preposition alone?IX. TheMarginof the Revision is the last point to which our attention is invited, and in the following terms:—“The subject of the Marginal Notes deserves special attention. They represent the results ofa large amount of careful and elaborate discussion, and will, perhaps, by their very presence, indicate to some extent the intricacy of many of the questions that have almost daily come before us for decision. These Notes fall into four main groups:—First, Notes specifying such differences of reading as were judged to be of sufficient importance to require a particular notice;—Secondly, Notes indicating the exact rendering of words to which, for the sake of English idiom, we were obliged to give a less exact rendering in the text;—Thirdly, Notes, very few in number, affording some explanation which the original appeared to require;—Fourthly, Alternative Renderings in difficult or debateable passages. The Notes of this last group are numerous, and largely in excess of those which were admitted by our predecessors. In the 270 years that have passed away since their labours were concluded, the Sacred Text has been minutely examined, discussed in every detail, and analysed with a grammatical precision unknown in the days of the last Revision. There has thus been accumulated[pg 176]a large amount of materials that have prepared the way for different renderings, which necessarily came under discussion.”—(Preface, iii. 4.)When a body of distinguished Scholars bespeak attention to a certain part of their work in such terms as these, it is painful for a Critic to be obliged to declare that he has surveyed this department of their undertaking with even less satisfaction than any other. So long, however, as he assignsthe groundsof his dissatisfaction, the Reviewed cannot complain. The Reviewer puts himself into their power. If he is mistaken in his censure, his credit is gone. Let us take the groups in order:—(1) Having already stated our objections against the many Notes which specifyTextual errorswhich the Revisionists declined to adopt,—we shall here furnish only two instances of the mischief we deplore:—(a) Against the words,“And while theyabodein Galilee”(S. Matthew xvii. 22), we find it stated,—“Some ancient authorities readwere gathering themselves together.”The plain English of which queer piece of information is that א andbexhibit in this place an impossible and untranslatable Reading,—the substitution of which for ἀναστρεφομένων δὲ ἀυτῶν can only have proceeded from some Western critic, who was sufficiently unacquainted with the Greek language to suppose that ΣΥΝ-στρεφομένων δὲ αὐτῶν, might possibly be the exact equivalent forCon-versantibus autem illis. This is not the place for discussing a kind of hallucination which prevailed largely in the earliest age, especially in regions where Greek was habitually read through Latin spectacles. (Thus it was, obviously, that the preposterous substitution ofEuraquilofor“Euroclydon,”in Acts xxvii. 14, took its rise.) Such blunders would be laughable if encountered anywhere except on holy ground. Apart, however, from the lamentable lack[pg 177]of critical judgment which a marginal note like the present displays, what is to be thought of the scholarship which elicits“While they were gathering themselves together”out of συστρεφομένων δὲ αὐτῶν? Are we to suppose that the clue to the Revisers' rendering is to be found in (συστρέψαντος) Acts xxviii. 3? We should be sorry to think it. They are assured that the source of theTextualblunder which they mistranslate is to be found, instead, in Baruch iii. 38.551(b) For what conceivable reason is the world now informed that, instead ofMelita,—“some ancient authorities readMelitene,”in Acts xxviii. 1? Is every pitiful blunder of cod.bto live on in the margin of every Englishman's copy of the New Testament, for ever? Why,allother MSS.—the Syriac and the Latin versions,—Pamphilus of Cæsarea552(a.d.294), the friend of Eusebius,—Cyril of Jerusalem,553—Chrysostom,554—John Damascene,555—all the Fathers in short who quote the place;—the coins, the ancient geographers;—allread Μελίτη; which has also been acquiesced in by every critical Editor of the N. T.—(excepting always Drs. Westcott and Hort), from the invention of Printing till now. But because these two misguided men, without apology, explanation, note or comment of any kind, have adopted“Melitene”into their text, is the Church of England to be dragged through the mire also, and made ridiculous in the eyes of Christendom? This blunder moreover is“gross as a mountain, open, palpable.”One glance at the place, written in uncials, explains how it arose:—ΜελιτηΗΝΗσοσκαλειται. Some stupid scribe (as the reader sees) has connected the first syllable of νῆσος with the last syllable of Μελίτη.556That[pg 178]is all! The blunder—(for a blunder it most certainly is)—belongs to the age and country in which“Melitene”was by far the more familiar word, being the name of the metropolitan see of Armenia;557mention of which crops up in theConciliarepeatedly.558(2) and (4) The second and the fourth group may be considered together. The former comprises those words of which theless exactrendering finds place in the Text:—the latter,“Alternative renderingsin difficult and debateable passages.”We presume that here our attention is specially invited to such notes as the following. Against 1 Cor. xv. 34,—“Awake out of drunkenness righteously”:—against S. John i. 14,—“an only begotten from a father”:—against 1 Pet. iii. 20,—“into which few, that is, eight souls, were brought safely through water”:—against 2 Pet. iii. 7,—“stored with fire”:—against S. John xviii. 37,—“Thou sayest it, because I am a king”:—against Ephes. iii. 21,—“All the generations of the age of the ages”:—against Jude ver. 14,—“His holy myriads”:—against Heb. xii. 18,—“a palpable and kindled fire”:—against Lu. xv. 31,—“Child, thou art ever with me”:—against Matth. xxi. 28,—“Child, go work to-day in my vineyard”:—against xxiv. 3,—“What shall be the sign of Thypresence, and ofthe consummation of the age?”—against Tit. i. 2,—“before times eternal”: against Mk. iv. 29,—“When the fruitalloweth[and why not‘yieldethitself’?], straightwayhe sendeth forththe sickle”:—against Ephes. iv. 17,—“through every joint of the supply”:—against ver. 29,—“the building up of the need”:—against Lu. ii. 29,—“Master, now lettest thou Thybondservantdepart in peace”:—against Acts iv. 24,—“OMaster, thou that didst make the heaven and the earth”:—against[pg 179]Lu. i. 78,—“Because ofthe heart of mercyof ourGod.”Concerning all such renderings we will but say, that although they are unquestionably better in the Margin than in the Text; it also admits no manner of doubt that they would have been best of all in neither. Were the Revisionists serious when they suggested as the more“exact”rendering of 2 Pet. i. 20,—“No prophecy of Scripture is ofspecialinterpretation”? And what did they mean (1 Pet. ii. 2) by“the spiritual milk which is without guile”?Not a few marginal glosses might have been dispensed with. Thus, against διδάσκαλος, upwards of 50 times stands the Annotation,“Or,teacher.”—Ἄρτος, (another word of perpetual recurrence,) is every time explained to mean“a loaf.”But is this reasonable? seeing that φαγεῖν ἄρτον (Luke xiv. 1) can mean nothing else but“to eatbread”: not to mention the petition for“daily bread”in theLord'sprayer. These learned men, however, do not spare us even when mention is made of“taking the children'sbreadand casting it to the dogs”(Mk. vii. 27): while in the enquiry,—“If a son shall askbreadof any of you that is a father”(Lu. xi. 11),“loaf”is actually thrust into the text.—We cannot understand why such marked favour has been shown to similar easy words. Δοῦλος, occurring upwards of 100 times in the New Testament, is invariably honoured (sometimes [as in Jo. xv. 15]twice in the course of the same verse) with 2 lines to itself, to explain that in Greek it is“bondservant.”—About 60 times, δαιμόνιον is explained in the margin to be“demon”in the Greek.—It has been deemed necessary 15 times to devotethree linesto explain the value of“a penny.”—Whenever τέκνον is rendered“Son,”we are molested with a marginal annotation, to the effect that the Greek word means“child.”Had the Revisionists been consistent, the margins would not nearly have sufficed for the many interesting details of this[pg 180]nature with which their knowledge of Greek would have furnished them.May we be allowed to suggest, that it would have been better worth while to explain to the unlearned that ἀρχαι in S. Peter's vision (Acts x. 11; xi. 5) in strictness means not“corners,”but“beginnings”[cf. Gen. ii. 10]:—that τὴν πρώτην (in Lu. xv. 22) is literally“the first”[cf. Gen. iii. 7] (not“the best”)“robe”:—that ἀληθινός (e.g.in Lu. xvi. 11: Jo. i. 9: vi. 32; and especially in xv. 1 and Heb. viii. 2 and ix. 24) means“very”or“real,”rather than“true”?—And when two different words are employed in Greek (as in S. Jo. xxi. 15, 16, 17:—S. Mk. vii. 33, 35, &c. &c.), would it not have been as well to try torepresentthem in English? For want of such assistance, no unlearned reader of S. Matth. iv. 18, 20, 21: S. Mk. i. 16, 18, 19: S. Lu. v. 2,—will ever be able to understand the precise circumstances under which the first four Apostles left their“nets.”(3) The third group consists ofExplanatory Notesrequired by the obscurity of the original. Such must be the annotation against S. Luke i. 15 (explanatory of“strong drink”),—“Gr. sikera.”And yet, the word (σίκερα) happens to benotGreek, but Hebrew.—On the other hand, such must be the annotation against μωρέ, in S. Matth. v. 22:—“Or,Moreh, a Hebrew expression of condemnation;”which statement is incorrect. The word proves to benotHebrew, but Greek.—And this, against“Maran atha”in 1 Cor. xvi. 22,—“That is,OurLordcometh:”which also proves to be a mistake. The phrase means“OurLordis come,”—which represents a widely different notion.559—Surely a room-full of learned men, volunteering to put the N. T. to-rights, ought to have made more[pg 181]sure of their elementaryfactsbefore they ventured to compromise the Church of England after this fashion!—Against“the huskswhich the swine did eat”(Lu. xv. 16), we find,“Gr.the pods of the carob tree,”—which is really not true. The Greek word is κεράτια,—which only signifies“the pods of the carob tree,”as“French beans”signifies“the pods of thePhaseolus vulgaris.”—By the way, it isquitecertain that μύλος ὀνικός [in Matth. xviii. 6 and Lu. xvii. 2 (not Mk. xi. 42)] signifies“a mill-stone turned by an ass”? Hilary certainly thought so: but is that thing at all likely? What if it should appear that μύλος ὀνικός merely denotes theuppermill-stone (λίθος μυλικός, as S. Mark calls it,—the stone that grinds), and which we know was called ὄνος by the ancients?560—Why is“the brook Cedron”(Jo. xviii. 1) first spelt“Kidron,”and then explained to mean“ravine of the cedars”? which“Kidron”no more means that“Kishon”means“of the ivies,”—(though the Septuagintal usage [Judges iv. 13: Ps. lxxxiii. 9] shows that τῶν κισσῶν was in its common Hellenistic designation). As for calling the Kidron“a ravine,”you might as well call“Mercury”in“Tom quad”“a lake.”“Infelictious”is the mildest epithet we can bestow upon marginal annotations crude, questionable,—eveninaccurateas these.Then further,“Simon, the son ofJona”(in S. John i. 42 and xxi. 15), is for the first time introduced to our notice by the Revisionists as“the son ofJohn:”with an officious marginal annotation that in Greek the name is written“Ioanes.”But is it fair in the Revisers (we modestly ask) to thrust in this way thebêtisesof their favourite codexbupon us?In no codex in the world except the Vatican codexb, is“Ioannes”spelt“Ioanes”in this place. Besides, the name of Simon Peter's father wasnot“John”at all, but“Jona,”—as appears from S. Matth. xvi. 17, and the present[pg 182]two places in S. John's Gospel; where the evidenceagainst“Ioannes”is overwhelming. This is in fact the handy-work of Dr. Hort. But surely the office of marginal notes ought to be to assist, not to mislead plain readers: honestly, to statefacts,—not, by a side-wind, to commit the Church of England toa new (and absurd) Textual theory! Theactual Truth, we insist, should be stated in the margin, whenever unnecessary information is gratuitously thrust upon unlearned and unsuspicious readers.... Thus, we avow that we are offended at reading (against S. John i. 18)—“Many very ancient authorities read‘Godonly begotten’”: whereas the“authorities”alluded to read μονογενὴς Θεός,—(whether with or without the article [ὁ] prefixed,)—which (as the Revisionists are perfectly well aware) means“the only-begottenGod,”and no other thing. Why then did they not say so?Because(we answer)—they were ashamed of the expression. But to proceed.—The information is volunteered (against Matth. xxvi. 36 and Mk. xiv. 32) that χωρίον means“an enclosed piece of ground,”—which is not true. The statement seems to have proceeded from the individual who translated ἄμφοδον (in Mk. xi. 4) the“open street:”whereas the word merely denotes the“highway,”—literally the“thoroughfare.”A very little real familiarity with the Septuagint would have secured these Revisers against the perpetual exposure which they make of themselves in their marginal Notes.—(a) Πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, for instance, is quite an ordinary expression for“always,”and therefore should not be exhibited (in the margin of S. Matth. xxviii. 20) as a curiosity,—“Gr.all the days.”—So (b) with respect to the word αἰών, which seems to have greatly exercised the Revisionists. What need,every time it occurs, to explain that εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων means literally“unto the ages of the ages”? Surely (as in Ps. xlv. 6, quoted Heb. i. 8,) the established rendering[pg 183](“for ever and ever”) is plain enough and needs no gloss!—Again, (c) the numeral εἰς, representing the Hebrew substitute for the indefinite article, prevails throughout the Septuagint. Examples of its use occur in the N. T. in S. Matth. viii. 19 and ix. 18;-xxvi. 69 (μία παιδίσκη), Mk. xii. 42: and in Rev. viii. 13: ix. 13: xviii. 21 and xix. 17;—where“onescribe,”“oneruler,”“onewidow,”“oneeagle,”“onevoice,”“oneangel,”are really nothing else but mistranslations. True, that εἶς is found in the original Greek: but what then? Because“une”means“one,”will it be pretended that“Tu es une bête”would be properly rendered“Thou art one beast”?(d) Far more serious is the substitution of“havinga greatpriest over the house ofGod”(Heb. x. 21), for“havingan highpriest:”inasmuch as this obscures“the pointed reference to ourLordas the antitype of the Jewish high priest,”—who (except in Lev. iv. 3) is designated, not ἀρχιερεύς, but either ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας, or else ὁ ἱερεύς only,—as in Acts v. 24561.... And (e) why are we presented with“Forno word fromGodshall be void of power”(in S. Luke i. 37)? Seeing that the Greek of that place has been fashioned on the Septuagintal rendering of Gen. xviii. 14 (“Is anything too hard for theLord?”562), we venture to think that the A. V. (“for withGodnothing shall be impossible”563) ought to have been let alone. It cannot be mended. One is surprised to discover that among so many respectable Divines there seems not to have beenonesufficiently familiar with the Septuagint to preserve his brethren from perpetually falling into such mistakes as the foregoing. We really had no idea that the Hellenistic[pg 184]scholarship of those who represented the Church and the Sects in the Jerusalem Chamber, was so inconsiderable.Two or three of the foregoing examples refer to matters of a recondite nature. Not so the majority of the Annotations which belong to this third group; which we have examined with real astonishment—and in fact have remarked upon already. Shall we be thought hard to please if we avow that we rather desiderate“Explanatory Notes”on matters which reallydocall for explanation? as, to be reminded of what kind was the“net”(ἀμφίβληστρον) mentioned in Matth. iv. 18 (not20), and Mk. i. 16 (not18):—to see it explained (against Matth. ii. 23) thatnetser(the root of“Nazareth”) denotes“Branch:”—and against Matth. iii. 5; Lu. iii. 3, that ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, signifies“thedepressed valley of the Jordan,”as the usage of the LXX. proves.564We should have been glad to see, against S. Lu. ix. 31,—“Gr.Exodus.”—At least in the margin, we might have been told that“Olivet”is the true rendering of Lu. xix. 29 and xxi. 37: (or were the Revisionists not aware of the fact? They are respectfully referred to the Bp. of Lincoln's note on the place last quoted.)—Nay, why not tell us (against Matth. i. 21) that“Jesus”means [not“Saviour,”but]“Jehovahis Salvation”?But above all, surely so many learned men ought to have spared us the absurd Annotation set against“ointment of spikenard”(νάρδου πιστικῆς,) in S. Mark xiv. 3 and in S. John xii. 3. Their marginal Note is as follows:—“Gr.pisticnard, pistic being perhaps a local name. Others take it to meangenuine; othersliquid.”Can Scholars require to be told that“liquid”is animpossible[pg 185]sense of πιστική in this place? The epithet so interpreted must be derived (like πιστός [Prom.V. v. 489]) from πίνω, and would meandrinkable: but since ointmentcannotbe drunk, it is certain that we must seek the etymology of the word elsewhere. And why should the weak ancient conjecture be retained that it is“perhaps alocalname”? Do Divines require to have it explained to them that the one“locality”which effectually fixes the word's meaning, isits place in the everlasting Gospel?... Be silent on such lofty matters if you will, by all means; but“who are these that darken counsel by words without knowledge?”S. Mark and S. John (whose narratives by the way never touch exclusively except in this place565) are observed here to employ an ordinary word with lofty spiritual purpose. Thepure faith(πίστις) in which that offering of the ointment was made, determines the choice of an unusual epithet (πιστικός) which shall signify“faithful”rather than“genuine,”—shall suggest amoralrather than acommercialquality: just as, presently, Mary's“breaking”the box (συντρίψασα) is designated by a word which has reference to a broken heart.566She“contrited”it, S. Mark says; and S. John adds a statement which implies that the Church has been rendered fragrant by her act for ever.567(We trust to be forgiven for having said a little more than the occasion absolutely requires.)(5) Under which of the four previous“groups”certain Annotations which disfigure the margin of the first chapter of[pg 186]S. Matthew's Gospel, should fall,—we know not. Let them be briefly considered by themselves.So dull of comprehension are we, that we fail to see on what principle it is stated that—“Ram,”“Asa,”“Amon,”“Shealtiel,”are in Greek (“Gr.”)“Aram,”“Asaph,”“Amos,”“Salathiel.”For (1),—Surely it was just as needful (or just as needless) to explain that“Perez,”“Zarah,”“Hezron,”“Nahson,”are in Greek“Phares,”“Zara,”“Esrom,”“Naasson.”—But (2), Through what“necessity”are the names, which we have been hitherto contented to read as the Evangelist wrote them, now exhibited on the first page of the Gospel in any other way?568—(3) Assuming, however, the O. T. spellingisto be adopted, thenlet us have it explained to us why“Jeconiah”in ver. 11 is not written“Jehoiakim”? (As for“Jeconiah”in ver. 12,—it was for the Revisionists to settle whether they would call him“Jehoiachin,”“Jeconiah,”or“Coniah.”[By the way,—Is it lawful to suppose thatthey did not knowthat“Jechonias”here represents two different persons?])—On the other hand, (4)“Amos”probably,—“Asaph”certainly,—are corrupt exhibitions of“Amon”and“Asa:”and, if noticed at all, should have been introduced to the reader's notice with the customary formula,“some ancient authorities,”&c.—To proceed—(5), Why substitute“Immanuel”(for“Emmanuel”) in ver. 23,—only to have to state in the margin that S. Matthew writes it“Emmanuel”? By strict parity of reasoning, against“Naphtali”(in ch. iv. 13, 15), the Revisionists ought to have written“Gr.Nephthaleim.”—And (6), If this is to be the rule, then why are we not told that[pg 187]“Mary is in‘Gr.Mariam’”? and why is not Zacharias written“Zachariah”?... But (to conclude),—What is the object of all this officiousness? and (its unavoidable adjunct) all this inconsistency? Has the spelling of the 42 names been revolutionized, in order to sever with the Past and to make“a fresh departure”? Or were the four marginal notes addedonly for the sake of obtaining, by a side-wind, the (apparent) sanction of the Churchto the preposterous notion that“Asa”was written“Asaph”by the Evangelist—in conformity with six MSS. of bad character, but in defiance of History, documentary Evidence, and internal Probability? Canon Cook [pp. 23-24] has some important remarks on this.X. We must needs advert again to the ominous admission made in the Revisionists'Preface(iii. 2init.), that to some extent they recognized the duty of a“rigid adherence to the rule of translating, as far as possible, thesame Greek word by the same English word.”This mistaken principle of theirs lies at the root of so much of the mischief which has befallen the Authorized Version, that it calls for fuller consideration at our hands than it has hitherto (viz. at pp.138and152) received.The“Translators”of 1611, towards the close of their long and quaint Address“to the Reader,”offer the following statement concerning what had been their own practice:—“We have nottied ourselves”(say they)“to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done.”On this, they presently enlarge. We have been“especially careful,”have even“made a conscience,”“not to vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places.”But then, (as they shrewdly point out in passing,)“there be some words that be not of the[pg 188]same sense everywhere.”And had this been the sum of their avowal, no one with a spark of Taste, or with the least appreciation of what constitutes real Scholarship, would have been found to differ from them. Nay, even when they go on to explain that they have not thought it desirable to insist on invariably expressing“the same notion”by employing“the same particular word;”—(which they illustrate by instancing terms which, in their account, may with advantage be diversely rendered in different places;)—we are still disposed to avow ourselves of their mind.“If”(say they,)“we translate the Hebrew or Greek word oncepurpose, never to call itintent; if one wherejourneying, nevertravelling; if one wherethink, neversuppose; if one wherepain, neverache; if one wherejoy, nevergladness;—thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than of wisdom.”And yet it is plain that a different principle is here indicated from that which went before. The remark“that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling,”suggests that, in the Translators' opinion, it matters littlewhichword, in the several pairs of words they instance, is employed; and that, for their own parts, they rather rejoice in the ease and freedom which an ample vocabulary supplies to a Translator of Holy Scripture. Here also however, as already hinted, we are disposed to go along with them. Rhythm, subtle associations of thought, proprieties of diction which are rather to be felt than analysed,—any of such causes may reasonably determine a Translator to reject“purpose,”“journey,”“think,”“pain,”“joy,”—in favour of“intent,”“travel,”“suppose,”“ache,”“gladness.”But then it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this, there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound (shall we not rather say aprophetic?) consciousness, that the fate of the English[pg 189]Language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation.Hencetheir reluctance to incur the responsibility of tying themselves“to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words.”We should be liable to censure (such is their plain avowal),“if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always; and to others of like quality, Get you hence, be banished for ever.”But this, to say the least, is to introduce a distinct and a somewhat novel consideration. We would not be thought to deny that there is some—perhaps a great deal—of truth in it: but by this time we seem to have entirely shifted our ground. And we more than suspect that, if a jury of English scholars of the highest mark could be impanelled to declare their mind on the subject thus submitted to their judgment, there would be practical unanimity among them in declaring, that these learned men,—with whom all would avow hearty sympathy, and whose taste and skill all would eagerly acknowledge,—have occasionally pushed the license they enunciate so vigorously, a little—perhaps a great deal—too far. For ourselves, we are glad to be able to subscribe cordially to the sentiment on this head expressed by the author of thePrefaceof 1881:
And thus much for the Revisers' handling of the Prepositions. We shall have said all that we can find room for, when we have further directed attention to the uncritical and unscholarlike Note with which they have disfigured the margin of S. Mark i. 9. We are there informed that, according to the Greek, ourSaviour“was baptizedinto the Jordan,”—an unintelligible statement to English readers, as well as a misleading one. Especially on their guard should the Revisers have been hereabouts,—seeing that, in a place of vital importance on the opposite side of the open page (viz. in S. Matth. xxviii. 19), they had already substituted“into”for“in.”This latter alteration, one of the Revisers (Dr. Vance Smith) rejoices over, because it obliterates (in his account) the evidence for Trinitarian doctrine. That the[pg 175]Revisionists, as a body, intended nothing less,—whocan doubt? But then, if they really deemed it necessary to append a note to S. Mark i. 9 in order to explain to the public that the preposition εἰς signifies“into”rather than“in,”—why did they not at least go on to record the elementary fact that εἰς has here (what grammarians call) a“pregnant signification”? that it implies—(every schoolboy knows it!)—and that it is used in order to imply—that the Holy One“went downinto,”and so,“was baptizedintheJordan”?550... Butwhy, in the name of common sense,did not the Revisionists let the Preposition alone?IX. TheMarginof the Revision is the last point to which our attention is invited, and in the following terms:—“The subject of the Marginal Notes deserves special attention. They represent the results ofa large amount of careful and elaborate discussion, and will, perhaps, by their very presence, indicate to some extent the intricacy of many of the questions that have almost daily come before us for decision. These Notes fall into four main groups:—First, Notes specifying such differences of reading as were judged to be of sufficient importance to require a particular notice;—Secondly, Notes indicating the exact rendering of words to which, for the sake of English idiom, we were obliged to give a less exact rendering in the text;—Thirdly, Notes, very few in number, affording some explanation which the original appeared to require;—Fourthly, Alternative Renderings in difficult or debateable passages. The Notes of this last group are numerous, and largely in excess of those which were admitted by our predecessors. In the 270 years that have passed away since their labours were concluded, the Sacred Text has been minutely examined, discussed in every detail, and analysed with a grammatical precision unknown in the days of the last Revision. There has thus been accumulated[pg 176]a large amount of materials that have prepared the way for different renderings, which necessarily came under discussion.”—(Preface, iii. 4.)When a body of distinguished Scholars bespeak attention to a certain part of their work in such terms as these, it is painful for a Critic to be obliged to declare that he has surveyed this department of their undertaking with even less satisfaction than any other. So long, however, as he assignsthe groundsof his dissatisfaction, the Reviewed cannot complain. The Reviewer puts himself into their power. If he is mistaken in his censure, his credit is gone. Let us take the groups in order:—(1) Having already stated our objections against the many Notes which specifyTextual errorswhich the Revisionists declined to adopt,—we shall here furnish only two instances of the mischief we deplore:—(a) Against the words,“And while theyabodein Galilee”(S. Matthew xvii. 22), we find it stated,—“Some ancient authorities readwere gathering themselves together.”The plain English of which queer piece of information is that א andbexhibit in this place an impossible and untranslatable Reading,—the substitution of which for ἀναστρεφομένων δὲ ἀυτῶν can only have proceeded from some Western critic, who was sufficiently unacquainted with the Greek language to suppose that ΣΥΝ-στρεφομένων δὲ αὐτῶν, might possibly be the exact equivalent forCon-versantibus autem illis. This is not the place for discussing a kind of hallucination which prevailed largely in the earliest age, especially in regions where Greek was habitually read through Latin spectacles. (Thus it was, obviously, that the preposterous substitution ofEuraquilofor“Euroclydon,”in Acts xxvii. 14, took its rise.) Such blunders would be laughable if encountered anywhere except on holy ground. Apart, however, from the lamentable lack[pg 177]of critical judgment which a marginal note like the present displays, what is to be thought of the scholarship which elicits“While they were gathering themselves together”out of συστρεφομένων δὲ αὐτῶν? Are we to suppose that the clue to the Revisers' rendering is to be found in (συστρέψαντος) Acts xxviii. 3? We should be sorry to think it. They are assured that the source of theTextualblunder which they mistranslate is to be found, instead, in Baruch iii. 38.551(b) For what conceivable reason is the world now informed that, instead ofMelita,—“some ancient authorities readMelitene,”in Acts xxviii. 1? Is every pitiful blunder of cod.bto live on in the margin of every Englishman's copy of the New Testament, for ever? Why,allother MSS.—the Syriac and the Latin versions,—Pamphilus of Cæsarea552(a.d.294), the friend of Eusebius,—Cyril of Jerusalem,553—Chrysostom,554—John Damascene,555—all the Fathers in short who quote the place;—the coins, the ancient geographers;—allread Μελίτη; which has also been acquiesced in by every critical Editor of the N. T.—(excepting always Drs. Westcott and Hort), from the invention of Printing till now. But because these two misguided men, without apology, explanation, note or comment of any kind, have adopted“Melitene”into their text, is the Church of England to be dragged through the mire also, and made ridiculous in the eyes of Christendom? This blunder moreover is“gross as a mountain, open, palpable.”One glance at the place, written in uncials, explains how it arose:—ΜελιτηΗΝΗσοσκαλειται. Some stupid scribe (as the reader sees) has connected the first syllable of νῆσος with the last syllable of Μελίτη.556That[pg 178]is all! The blunder—(for a blunder it most certainly is)—belongs to the age and country in which“Melitene”was by far the more familiar word, being the name of the metropolitan see of Armenia;557mention of which crops up in theConciliarepeatedly.558(2) and (4) The second and the fourth group may be considered together. The former comprises those words of which theless exactrendering finds place in the Text:—the latter,“Alternative renderingsin difficult and debateable passages.”We presume that here our attention is specially invited to such notes as the following. Against 1 Cor. xv. 34,—“Awake out of drunkenness righteously”:—against S. John i. 14,—“an only begotten from a father”:—against 1 Pet. iii. 20,—“into which few, that is, eight souls, were brought safely through water”:—against 2 Pet. iii. 7,—“stored with fire”:—against S. John xviii. 37,—“Thou sayest it, because I am a king”:—against Ephes. iii. 21,—“All the generations of the age of the ages”:—against Jude ver. 14,—“His holy myriads”:—against Heb. xii. 18,—“a palpable and kindled fire”:—against Lu. xv. 31,—“Child, thou art ever with me”:—against Matth. xxi. 28,—“Child, go work to-day in my vineyard”:—against xxiv. 3,—“What shall be the sign of Thypresence, and ofthe consummation of the age?”—against Tit. i. 2,—“before times eternal”: against Mk. iv. 29,—“When the fruitalloweth[and why not‘yieldethitself’?], straightwayhe sendeth forththe sickle”:—against Ephes. iv. 17,—“through every joint of the supply”:—against ver. 29,—“the building up of the need”:—against Lu. ii. 29,—“Master, now lettest thou Thybondservantdepart in peace”:—against Acts iv. 24,—“OMaster, thou that didst make the heaven and the earth”:—against[pg 179]Lu. i. 78,—“Because ofthe heart of mercyof ourGod.”Concerning all such renderings we will but say, that although they are unquestionably better in the Margin than in the Text; it also admits no manner of doubt that they would have been best of all in neither. Were the Revisionists serious when they suggested as the more“exact”rendering of 2 Pet. i. 20,—“No prophecy of Scripture is ofspecialinterpretation”? And what did they mean (1 Pet. ii. 2) by“the spiritual milk which is without guile”?Not a few marginal glosses might have been dispensed with. Thus, against διδάσκαλος, upwards of 50 times stands the Annotation,“Or,teacher.”—Ἄρτος, (another word of perpetual recurrence,) is every time explained to mean“a loaf.”But is this reasonable? seeing that φαγεῖν ἄρτον (Luke xiv. 1) can mean nothing else but“to eatbread”: not to mention the petition for“daily bread”in theLord'sprayer. These learned men, however, do not spare us even when mention is made of“taking the children'sbreadand casting it to the dogs”(Mk. vii. 27): while in the enquiry,—“If a son shall askbreadof any of you that is a father”(Lu. xi. 11),“loaf”is actually thrust into the text.—We cannot understand why such marked favour has been shown to similar easy words. Δοῦλος, occurring upwards of 100 times in the New Testament, is invariably honoured (sometimes [as in Jo. xv. 15]twice in the course of the same verse) with 2 lines to itself, to explain that in Greek it is“bondservant.”—About 60 times, δαιμόνιον is explained in the margin to be“demon”in the Greek.—It has been deemed necessary 15 times to devotethree linesto explain the value of“a penny.”—Whenever τέκνον is rendered“Son,”we are molested with a marginal annotation, to the effect that the Greek word means“child.”Had the Revisionists been consistent, the margins would not nearly have sufficed for the many interesting details of this[pg 180]nature with which their knowledge of Greek would have furnished them.May we be allowed to suggest, that it would have been better worth while to explain to the unlearned that ἀρχαι in S. Peter's vision (Acts x. 11; xi. 5) in strictness means not“corners,”but“beginnings”[cf. Gen. ii. 10]:—that τὴν πρώτην (in Lu. xv. 22) is literally“the first”[cf. Gen. iii. 7] (not“the best”)“robe”:—that ἀληθινός (e.g.in Lu. xvi. 11: Jo. i. 9: vi. 32; and especially in xv. 1 and Heb. viii. 2 and ix. 24) means“very”or“real,”rather than“true”?—And when two different words are employed in Greek (as in S. Jo. xxi. 15, 16, 17:—S. Mk. vii. 33, 35, &c. &c.), would it not have been as well to try torepresentthem in English? For want of such assistance, no unlearned reader of S. Matth. iv. 18, 20, 21: S. Mk. i. 16, 18, 19: S. Lu. v. 2,—will ever be able to understand the precise circumstances under which the first four Apostles left their“nets.”(3) The third group consists ofExplanatory Notesrequired by the obscurity of the original. Such must be the annotation against S. Luke i. 15 (explanatory of“strong drink”),—“Gr. sikera.”And yet, the word (σίκερα) happens to benotGreek, but Hebrew.—On the other hand, such must be the annotation against μωρέ, in S. Matth. v. 22:—“Or,Moreh, a Hebrew expression of condemnation;”which statement is incorrect. The word proves to benotHebrew, but Greek.—And this, against“Maran atha”in 1 Cor. xvi. 22,—“That is,OurLordcometh:”which also proves to be a mistake. The phrase means“OurLordis come,”—which represents a widely different notion.559—Surely a room-full of learned men, volunteering to put the N. T. to-rights, ought to have made more[pg 181]sure of their elementaryfactsbefore they ventured to compromise the Church of England after this fashion!—Against“the huskswhich the swine did eat”(Lu. xv. 16), we find,“Gr.the pods of the carob tree,”—which is really not true. The Greek word is κεράτια,—which only signifies“the pods of the carob tree,”as“French beans”signifies“the pods of thePhaseolus vulgaris.”—By the way, it isquitecertain that μύλος ὀνικός [in Matth. xviii. 6 and Lu. xvii. 2 (not Mk. xi. 42)] signifies“a mill-stone turned by an ass”? Hilary certainly thought so: but is that thing at all likely? What if it should appear that μύλος ὀνικός merely denotes theuppermill-stone (λίθος μυλικός, as S. Mark calls it,—the stone that grinds), and which we know was called ὄνος by the ancients?560—Why is“the brook Cedron”(Jo. xviii. 1) first spelt“Kidron,”and then explained to mean“ravine of the cedars”? which“Kidron”no more means that“Kishon”means“of the ivies,”—(though the Septuagintal usage [Judges iv. 13: Ps. lxxxiii. 9] shows that τῶν κισσῶν was in its common Hellenistic designation). As for calling the Kidron“a ravine,”you might as well call“Mercury”in“Tom quad”“a lake.”“Infelictious”is the mildest epithet we can bestow upon marginal annotations crude, questionable,—eveninaccurateas these.Then further,“Simon, the son ofJona”(in S. John i. 42 and xxi. 15), is for the first time introduced to our notice by the Revisionists as“the son ofJohn:”with an officious marginal annotation that in Greek the name is written“Ioanes.”But is it fair in the Revisers (we modestly ask) to thrust in this way thebêtisesof their favourite codexbupon us?In no codex in the world except the Vatican codexb, is“Ioannes”spelt“Ioanes”in this place. Besides, the name of Simon Peter's father wasnot“John”at all, but“Jona,”—as appears from S. Matth. xvi. 17, and the present[pg 182]two places in S. John's Gospel; where the evidenceagainst“Ioannes”is overwhelming. This is in fact the handy-work of Dr. Hort. But surely the office of marginal notes ought to be to assist, not to mislead plain readers: honestly, to statefacts,—not, by a side-wind, to commit the Church of England toa new (and absurd) Textual theory! Theactual Truth, we insist, should be stated in the margin, whenever unnecessary information is gratuitously thrust upon unlearned and unsuspicious readers.... Thus, we avow that we are offended at reading (against S. John i. 18)—“Many very ancient authorities read‘Godonly begotten’”: whereas the“authorities”alluded to read μονογενὴς Θεός,—(whether with or without the article [ὁ] prefixed,)—which (as the Revisionists are perfectly well aware) means“the only-begottenGod,”and no other thing. Why then did they not say so?Because(we answer)—they were ashamed of the expression. But to proceed.—The information is volunteered (against Matth. xxvi. 36 and Mk. xiv. 32) that χωρίον means“an enclosed piece of ground,”—which is not true. The statement seems to have proceeded from the individual who translated ἄμφοδον (in Mk. xi. 4) the“open street:”whereas the word merely denotes the“highway,”—literally the“thoroughfare.”A very little real familiarity with the Septuagint would have secured these Revisers against the perpetual exposure which they make of themselves in their marginal Notes.—(a) Πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, for instance, is quite an ordinary expression for“always,”and therefore should not be exhibited (in the margin of S. Matth. xxviii. 20) as a curiosity,—“Gr.all the days.”—So (b) with respect to the word αἰών, which seems to have greatly exercised the Revisionists. What need,every time it occurs, to explain that εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων means literally“unto the ages of the ages”? Surely (as in Ps. xlv. 6, quoted Heb. i. 8,) the established rendering[pg 183](“for ever and ever”) is plain enough and needs no gloss!—Again, (c) the numeral εἰς, representing the Hebrew substitute for the indefinite article, prevails throughout the Septuagint. Examples of its use occur in the N. T. in S. Matth. viii. 19 and ix. 18;-xxvi. 69 (μία παιδίσκη), Mk. xii. 42: and in Rev. viii. 13: ix. 13: xviii. 21 and xix. 17;—where“onescribe,”“oneruler,”“onewidow,”“oneeagle,”“onevoice,”“oneangel,”are really nothing else but mistranslations. True, that εἶς is found in the original Greek: but what then? Because“une”means“one,”will it be pretended that“Tu es une bête”would be properly rendered“Thou art one beast”?(d) Far more serious is the substitution of“havinga greatpriest over the house ofGod”(Heb. x. 21), for“havingan highpriest:”inasmuch as this obscures“the pointed reference to ourLordas the antitype of the Jewish high priest,”—who (except in Lev. iv. 3) is designated, not ἀρχιερεύς, but either ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας, or else ὁ ἱερεύς only,—as in Acts v. 24561.... And (e) why are we presented with“Forno word fromGodshall be void of power”(in S. Luke i. 37)? Seeing that the Greek of that place has been fashioned on the Septuagintal rendering of Gen. xviii. 14 (“Is anything too hard for theLord?”562), we venture to think that the A. V. (“for withGodnothing shall be impossible”563) ought to have been let alone. It cannot be mended. One is surprised to discover that among so many respectable Divines there seems not to have beenonesufficiently familiar with the Septuagint to preserve his brethren from perpetually falling into such mistakes as the foregoing. We really had no idea that the Hellenistic[pg 184]scholarship of those who represented the Church and the Sects in the Jerusalem Chamber, was so inconsiderable.Two or three of the foregoing examples refer to matters of a recondite nature. Not so the majority of the Annotations which belong to this third group; which we have examined with real astonishment—and in fact have remarked upon already. Shall we be thought hard to please if we avow that we rather desiderate“Explanatory Notes”on matters which reallydocall for explanation? as, to be reminded of what kind was the“net”(ἀμφίβληστρον) mentioned in Matth. iv. 18 (not20), and Mk. i. 16 (not18):—to see it explained (against Matth. ii. 23) thatnetser(the root of“Nazareth”) denotes“Branch:”—and against Matth. iii. 5; Lu. iii. 3, that ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, signifies“thedepressed valley of the Jordan,”as the usage of the LXX. proves.564We should have been glad to see, against S. Lu. ix. 31,—“Gr.Exodus.”—At least in the margin, we might have been told that“Olivet”is the true rendering of Lu. xix. 29 and xxi. 37: (or were the Revisionists not aware of the fact? They are respectfully referred to the Bp. of Lincoln's note on the place last quoted.)—Nay, why not tell us (against Matth. i. 21) that“Jesus”means [not“Saviour,”but]“Jehovahis Salvation”?But above all, surely so many learned men ought to have spared us the absurd Annotation set against“ointment of spikenard”(νάρδου πιστικῆς,) in S. Mark xiv. 3 and in S. John xii. 3. Their marginal Note is as follows:—“Gr.pisticnard, pistic being perhaps a local name. Others take it to meangenuine; othersliquid.”Can Scholars require to be told that“liquid”is animpossible[pg 185]sense of πιστική in this place? The epithet so interpreted must be derived (like πιστός [Prom.V. v. 489]) from πίνω, and would meandrinkable: but since ointmentcannotbe drunk, it is certain that we must seek the etymology of the word elsewhere. And why should the weak ancient conjecture be retained that it is“perhaps alocalname”? Do Divines require to have it explained to them that the one“locality”which effectually fixes the word's meaning, isits place in the everlasting Gospel?... Be silent on such lofty matters if you will, by all means; but“who are these that darken counsel by words without knowledge?”S. Mark and S. John (whose narratives by the way never touch exclusively except in this place565) are observed here to employ an ordinary word with lofty spiritual purpose. Thepure faith(πίστις) in which that offering of the ointment was made, determines the choice of an unusual epithet (πιστικός) which shall signify“faithful”rather than“genuine,”—shall suggest amoralrather than acommercialquality: just as, presently, Mary's“breaking”the box (συντρίψασα) is designated by a word which has reference to a broken heart.566She“contrited”it, S. Mark says; and S. John adds a statement which implies that the Church has been rendered fragrant by her act for ever.567(We trust to be forgiven for having said a little more than the occasion absolutely requires.)(5) Under which of the four previous“groups”certain Annotations which disfigure the margin of the first chapter of[pg 186]S. Matthew's Gospel, should fall,—we know not. Let them be briefly considered by themselves.So dull of comprehension are we, that we fail to see on what principle it is stated that—“Ram,”“Asa,”“Amon,”“Shealtiel,”are in Greek (“Gr.”)“Aram,”“Asaph,”“Amos,”“Salathiel.”For (1),—Surely it was just as needful (or just as needless) to explain that“Perez,”“Zarah,”“Hezron,”“Nahson,”are in Greek“Phares,”“Zara,”“Esrom,”“Naasson.”—But (2), Through what“necessity”are the names, which we have been hitherto contented to read as the Evangelist wrote them, now exhibited on the first page of the Gospel in any other way?568—(3) Assuming, however, the O. T. spellingisto be adopted, thenlet us have it explained to us why“Jeconiah”in ver. 11 is not written“Jehoiakim”? (As for“Jeconiah”in ver. 12,—it was for the Revisionists to settle whether they would call him“Jehoiachin,”“Jeconiah,”or“Coniah.”[By the way,—Is it lawful to suppose thatthey did not knowthat“Jechonias”here represents two different persons?])—On the other hand, (4)“Amos”probably,—“Asaph”certainly,—are corrupt exhibitions of“Amon”and“Asa:”and, if noticed at all, should have been introduced to the reader's notice with the customary formula,“some ancient authorities,”&c.—To proceed—(5), Why substitute“Immanuel”(for“Emmanuel”) in ver. 23,—only to have to state in the margin that S. Matthew writes it“Emmanuel”? By strict parity of reasoning, against“Naphtali”(in ch. iv. 13, 15), the Revisionists ought to have written“Gr.Nephthaleim.”—And (6), If this is to be the rule, then why are we not told that[pg 187]“Mary is in‘Gr.Mariam’”? and why is not Zacharias written“Zachariah”?... But (to conclude),—What is the object of all this officiousness? and (its unavoidable adjunct) all this inconsistency? Has the spelling of the 42 names been revolutionized, in order to sever with the Past and to make“a fresh departure”? Or were the four marginal notes addedonly for the sake of obtaining, by a side-wind, the (apparent) sanction of the Churchto the preposterous notion that“Asa”was written“Asaph”by the Evangelist—in conformity with six MSS. of bad character, but in defiance of History, documentary Evidence, and internal Probability? Canon Cook [pp. 23-24] has some important remarks on this.X. We must needs advert again to the ominous admission made in the Revisionists'Preface(iii. 2init.), that to some extent they recognized the duty of a“rigid adherence to the rule of translating, as far as possible, thesame Greek word by the same English word.”This mistaken principle of theirs lies at the root of so much of the mischief which has befallen the Authorized Version, that it calls for fuller consideration at our hands than it has hitherto (viz. at pp.138and152) received.The“Translators”of 1611, towards the close of their long and quaint Address“to the Reader,”offer the following statement concerning what had been their own practice:—“We have nottied ourselves”(say they)“to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done.”On this, they presently enlarge. We have been“especially careful,”have even“made a conscience,”“not to vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places.”But then, (as they shrewdly point out in passing,)“there be some words that be not of the[pg 188]same sense everywhere.”And had this been the sum of their avowal, no one with a spark of Taste, or with the least appreciation of what constitutes real Scholarship, would have been found to differ from them. Nay, even when they go on to explain that they have not thought it desirable to insist on invariably expressing“the same notion”by employing“the same particular word;”—(which they illustrate by instancing terms which, in their account, may with advantage be diversely rendered in different places;)—we are still disposed to avow ourselves of their mind.“If”(say they,)“we translate the Hebrew or Greek word oncepurpose, never to call itintent; if one wherejourneying, nevertravelling; if one wherethink, neversuppose; if one wherepain, neverache; if one wherejoy, nevergladness;—thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than of wisdom.”And yet it is plain that a different principle is here indicated from that which went before. The remark“that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling,”suggests that, in the Translators' opinion, it matters littlewhichword, in the several pairs of words they instance, is employed; and that, for their own parts, they rather rejoice in the ease and freedom which an ample vocabulary supplies to a Translator of Holy Scripture. Here also however, as already hinted, we are disposed to go along with them. Rhythm, subtle associations of thought, proprieties of diction which are rather to be felt than analysed,—any of such causes may reasonably determine a Translator to reject“purpose,”“journey,”“think,”“pain,”“joy,”—in favour of“intent,”“travel,”“suppose,”“ache,”“gladness.”But then it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this, there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound (shall we not rather say aprophetic?) consciousness, that the fate of the English[pg 189]Language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation.Hencetheir reluctance to incur the responsibility of tying themselves“to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words.”We should be liable to censure (such is their plain avowal),“if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always; and to others of like quality, Get you hence, be banished for ever.”But this, to say the least, is to introduce a distinct and a somewhat novel consideration. We would not be thought to deny that there is some—perhaps a great deal—of truth in it: but by this time we seem to have entirely shifted our ground. And we more than suspect that, if a jury of English scholars of the highest mark could be impanelled to declare their mind on the subject thus submitted to their judgment, there would be practical unanimity among them in declaring, that these learned men,—with whom all would avow hearty sympathy, and whose taste and skill all would eagerly acknowledge,—have occasionally pushed the license they enunciate so vigorously, a little—perhaps a great deal—too far. For ourselves, we are glad to be able to subscribe cordially to the sentiment on this head expressed by the author of thePrefaceof 1881:
And thus much for the Revisers' handling of the Prepositions. We shall have said all that we can find room for, when we have further directed attention to the uncritical and unscholarlike Note with which they have disfigured the margin of S. Mark i. 9. We are there informed that, according to the Greek, ourSaviour“was baptizedinto the Jordan,”—an unintelligible statement to English readers, as well as a misleading one. Especially on their guard should the Revisers have been hereabouts,—seeing that, in a place of vital importance on the opposite side of the open page (viz. in S. Matth. xxviii. 19), they had already substituted“into”for“in.”This latter alteration, one of the Revisers (Dr. Vance Smith) rejoices over, because it obliterates (in his account) the evidence for Trinitarian doctrine. That the[pg 175]Revisionists, as a body, intended nothing less,—whocan doubt? But then, if they really deemed it necessary to append a note to S. Mark i. 9 in order to explain to the public that the preposition εἰς signifies“into”rather than“in,”—why did they not at least go on to record the elementary fact that εἰς has here (what grammarians call) a“pregnant signification”? that it implies—(every schoolboy knows it!)—and that it is used in order to imply—that the Holy One“went downinto,”and so,“was baptizedintheJordan”?550... Butwhy, in the name of common sense,did not the Revisionists let the Preposition alone?
IX. TheMarginof the Revision is the last point to which our attention is invited, and in the following terms:—
“The subject of the Marginal Notes deserves special attention. They represent the results ofa large amount of careful and elaborate discussion, and will, perhaps, by their very presence, indicate to some extent the intricacy of many of the questions that have almost daily come before us for decision. These Notes fall into four main groups:—First, Notes specifying such differences of reading as were judged to be of sufficient importance to require a particular notice;—Secondly, Notes indicating the exact rendering of words to which, for the sake of English idiom, we were obliged to give a less exact rendering in the text;—Thirdly, Notes, very few in number, affording some explanation which the original appeared to require;—Fourthly, Alternative Renderings in difficult or debateable passages. The Notes of this last group are numerous, and largely in excess of those which were admitted by our predecessors. In the 270 years that have passed away since their labours were concluded, the Sacred Text has been minutely examined, discussed in every detail, and analysed with a grammatical precision unknown in the days of the last Revision. There has thus been accumulated[pg 176]a large amount of materials that have prepared the way for different renderings, which necessarily came under discussion.”—(Preface, iii. 4.)
When a body of distinguished Scholars bespeak attention to a certain part of their work in such terms as these, it is painful for a Critic to be obliged to declare that he has surveyed this department of their undertaking with even less satisfaction than any other. So long, however, as he assignsthe groundsof his dissatisfaction, the Reviewed cannot complain. The Reviewer puts himself into their power. If he is mistaken in his censure, his credit is gone. Let us take the groups in order:—
(1) Having already stated our objections against the many Notes which specifyTextual errorswhich the Revisionists declined to adopt,—we shall here furnish only two instances of the mischief we deplore:—
(a) Against the words,“And while theyabodein Galilee”(S. Matthew xvii. 22), we find it stated,—“Some ancient authorities readwere gathering themselves together.”The plain English of which queer piece of information is that א andbexhibit in this place an impossible and untranslatable Reading,—the substitution of which for ἀναστρεφομένων δὲ ἀυτῶν can only have proceeded from some Western critic, who was sufficiently unacquainted with the Greek language to suppose that ΣΥΝ-στρεφομένων δὲ αὐτῶν, might possibly be the exact equivalent forCon-versantibus autem illis. This is not the place for discussing a kind of hallucination which prevailed largely in the earliest age, especially in regions where Greek was habitually read through Latin spectacles. (Thus it was, obviously, that the preposterous substitution ofEuraquilofor“Euroclydon,”in Acts xxvii. 14, took its rise.) Such blunders would be laughable if encountered anywhere except on holy ground. Apart, however, from the lamentable lack[pg 177]of critical judgment which a marginal note like the present displays, what is to be thought of the scholarship which elicits“While they were gathering themselves together”out of συστρεφομένων δὲ αὐτῶν? Are we to suppose that the clue to the Revisers' rendering is to be found in (συστρέψαντος) Acts xxviii. 3? We should be sorry to think it. They are assured that the source of theTextualblunder which they mistranslate is to be found, instead, in Baruch iii. 38.551
(b) For what conceivable reason is the world now informed that, instead ofMelita,—“some ancient authorities readMelitene,”in Acts xxviii. 1? Is every pitiful blunder of cod.bto live on in the margin of every Englishman's copy of the New Testament, for ever? Why,allother MSS.—the Syriac and the Latin versions,—Pamphilus of Cæsarea552(a.d.294), the friend of Eusebius,—Cyril of Jerusalem,553—Chrysostom,554—John Damascene,555—all the Fathers in short who quote the place;—the coins, the ancient geographers;—allread Μελίτη; which has also been acquiesced in by every critical Editor of the N. T.—(excepting always Drs. Westcott and Hort), from the invention of Printing till now. But because these two misguided men, without apology, explanation, note or comment of any kind, have adopted“Melitene”into their text, is the Church of England to be dragged through the mire also, and made ridiculous in the eyes of Christendom? This blunder moreover is“gross as a mountain, open, palpable.”One glance at the place, written in uncials, explains how it arose:—ΜελιτηΗΝΗσοσκαλειται. Some stupid scribe (as the reader sees) has connected the first syllable of νῆσος with the last syllable of Μελίτη.556That[pg 178]is all! The blunder—(for a blunder it most certainly is)—belongs to the age and country in which“Melitene”was by far the more familiar word, being the name of the metropolitan see of Armenia;557mention of which crops up in theConciliarepeatedly.558
(2) and (4) The second and the fourth group may be considered together. The former comprises those words of which theless exactrendering finds place in the Text:—the latter,“Alternative renderingsin difficult and debateable passages.”
We presume that here our attention is specially invited to such notes as the following. Against 1 Cor. xv. 34,—“Awake out of drunkenness righteously”:—against S. John i. 14,—“an only begotten from a father”:—against 1 Pet. iii. 20,—“into which few, that is, eight souls, were brought safely through water”:—against 2 Pet. iii. 7,—“stored with fire”:—against S. John xviii. 37,—“Thou sayest it, because I am a king”:—against Ephes. iii. 21,—“All the generations of the age of the ages”:—against Jude ver. 14,—“His holy myriads”:—against Heb. xii. 18,—“a palpable and kindled fire”:—against Lu. xv. 31,—“Child, thou art ever with me”:—against Matth. xxi. 28,—“Child, go work to-day in my vineyard”:—against xxiv. 3,—“What shall be the sign of Thypresence, and ofthe consummation of the age?”—against Tit. i. 2,—“before times eternal”: against Mk. iv. 29,—“When the fruitalloweth[and why not‘yieldethitself’?], straightwayhe sendeth forththe sickle”:—against Ephes. iv. 17,—“through every joint of the supply”:—against ver. 29,—“the building up of the need”:—against Lu. ii. 29,—“Master, now lettest thou Thybondservantdepart in peace”:—against Acts iv. 24,—“OMaster, thou that didst make the heaven and the earth”:—against[pg 179]Lu. i. 78,—“Because ofthe heart of mercyof ourGod.”Concerning all such renderings we will but say, that although they are unquestionably better in the Margin than in the Text; it also admits no manner of doubt that they would have been best of all in neither. Were the Revisionists serious when they suggested as the more“exact”rendering of 2 Pet. i. 20,—“No prophecy of Scripture is ofspecialinterpretation”? And what did they mean (1 Pet. ii. 2) by“the spiritual milk which is without guile”?
Not a few marginal glosses might have been dispensed with. Thus, against διδάσκαλος, upwards of 50 times stands the Annotation,“Or,teacher.”—Ἄρτος, (another word of perpetual recurrence,) is every time explained to mean“a loaf.”But is this reasonable? seeing that φαγεῖν ἄρτον (Luke xiv. 1) can mean nothing else but“to eatbread”: not to mention the petition for“daily bread”in theLord'sprayer. These learned men, however, do not spare us even when mention is made of“taking the children'sbreadand casting it to the dogs”(Mk. vii. 27): while in the enquiry,—“If a son shall askbreadof any of you that is a father”(Lu. xi. 11),“loaf”is actually thrust into the text.—We cannot understand why such marked favour has been shown to similar easy words. Δοῦλος, occurring upwards of 100 times in the New Testament, is invariably honoured (sometimes [as in Jo. xv. 15]twice in the course of the same verse) with 2 lines to itself, to explain that in Greek it is“bondservant.”—About 60 times, δαιμόνιον is explained in the margin to be“demon”in the Greek.—It has been deemed necessary 15 times to devotethree linesto explain the value of“a penny.”—Whenever τέκνον is rendered“Son,”we are molested with a marginal annotation, to the effect that the Greek word means“child.”Had the Revisionists been consistent, the margins would not nearly have sufficed for the many interesting details of this[pg 180]nature with which their knowledge of Greek would have furnished them.
May we be allowed to suggest, that it would have been better worth while to explain to the unlearned that ἀρχαι in S. Peter's vision (Acts x. 11; xi. 5) in strictness means not“corners,”but“beginnings”[cf. Gen. ii. 10]:—that τὴν πρώτην (in Lu. xv. 22) is literally“the first”[cf. Gen. iii. 7] (not“the best”)“robe”:—that ἀληθινός (e.g.in Lu. xvi. 11: Jo. i. 9: vi. 32; and especially in xv. 1 and Heb. viii. 2 and ix. 24) means“very”or“real,”rather than“true”?—And when two different words are employed in Greek (as in S. Jo. xxi. 15, 16, 17:—S. Mk. vii. 33, 35, &c. &c.), would it not have been as well to try torepresentthem in English? For want of such assistance, no unlearned reader of S. Matth. iv. 18, 20, 21: S. Mk. i. 16, 18, 19: S. Lu. v. 2,—will ever be able to understand the precise circumstances under which the first four Apostles left their“nets.”
(3) The third group consists ofExplanatory Notesrequired by the obscurity of the original. Such must be the annotation against S. Luke i. 15 (explanatory of“strong drink”),—“Gr. sikera.”And yet, the word (σίκερα) happens to benotGreek, but Hebrew.—On the other hand, such must be the annotation against μωρέ, in S. Matth. v. 22:—“Or,Moreh, a Hebrew expression of condemnation;”which statement is incorrect. The word proves to benotHebrew, but Greek.—And this, against“Maran atha”in 1 Cor. xvi. 22,—“That is,OurLordcometh:”which also proves to be a mistake. The phrase means“OurLordis come,”—which represents a widely different notion.559—Surely a room-full of learned men, volunteering to put the N. T. to-rights, ought to have made more[pg 181]sure of their elementaryfactsbefore they ventured to compromise the Church of England after this fashion!—Against“the huskswhich the swine did eat”(Lu. xv. 16), we find,“Gr.the pods of the carob tree,”—which is really not true. The Greek word is κεράτια,—which only signifies“the pods of the carob tree,”as“French beans”signifies“the pods of thePhaseolus vulgaris.”—By the way, it isquitecertain that μύλος ὀνικός [in Matth. xviii. 6 and Lu. xvii. 2 (not Mk. xi. 42)] signifies“a mill-stone turned by an ass”? Hilary certainly thought so: but is that thing at all likely? What if it should appear that μύλος ὀνικός merely denotes theuppermill-stone (λίθος μυλικός, as S. Mark calls it,—the stone that grinds), and which we know was called ὄνος by the ancients?560—Why is“the brook Cedron”(Jo. xviii. 1) first spelt“Kidron,”and then explained to mean“ravine of the cedars”? which“Kidron”no more means that“Kishon”means“of the ivies,”—(though the Septuagintal usage [Judges iv. 13: Ps. lxxxiii. 9] shows that τῶν κισσῶν was in its common Hellenistic designation). As for calling the Kidron“a ravine,”you might as well call“Mercury”in“Tom quad”“a lake.”“Infelictious”is the mildest epithet we can bestow upon marginal annotations crude, questionable,—eveninaccurateas these.
Then further,“Simon, the son ofJona”(in S. John i. 42 and xxi. 15), is for the first time introduced to our notice by the Revisionists as“the son ofJohn:”with an officious marginal annotation that in Greek the name is written“Ioanes.”But is it fair in the Revisers (we modestly ask) to thrust in this way thebêtisesof their favourite codexbupon us?In no codex in the world except the Vatican codexb, is“Ioannes”spelt“Ioanes”in this place. Besides, the name of Simon Peter's father wasnot“John”at all, but“Jona,”—as appears from S. Matth. xvi. 17, and the present[pg 182]two places in S. John's Gospel; where the evidenceagainst“Ioannes”is overwhelming. This is in fact the handy-work of Dr. Hort. But surely the office of marginal notes ought to be to assist, not to mislead plain readers: honestly, to statefacts,—not, by a side-wind, to commit the Church of England toa new (and absurd) Textual theory! Theactual Truth, we insist, should be stated in the margin, whenever unnecessary information is gratuitously thrust upon unlearned and unsuspicious readers.... Thus, we avow that we are offended at reading (against S. John i. 18)—“Many very ancient authorities read‘Godonly begotten’”: whereas the“authorities”alluded to read μονογενὴς Θεός,—(whether with or without the article [ὁ] prefixed,)—which (as the Revisionists are perfectly well aware) means“the only-begottenGod,”and no other thing. Why then did they not say so?Because(we answer)—they were ashamed of the expression. But to proceed.—The information is volunteered (against Matth. xxvi. 36 and Mk. xiv. 32) that χωρίον means“an enclosed piece of ground,”—which is not true. The statement seems to have proceeded from the individual who translated ἄμφοδον (in Mk. xi. 4) the“open street:”whereas the word merely denotes the“highway,”—literally the“thoroughfare.”
A very little real familiarity with the Septuagint would have secured these Revisers against the perpetual exposure which they make of themselves in their marginal Notes.—(a) Πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, for instance, is quite an ordinary expression for“always,”and therefore should not be exhibited (in the margin of S. Matth. xxviii. 20) as a curiosity,—“Gr.all the days.”—So (b) with respect to the word αἰών, which seems to have greatly exercised the Revisionists. What need,every time it occurs, to explain that εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων means literally“unto the ages of the ages”? Surely (as in Ps. xlv. 6, quoted Heb. i. 8,) the established rendering[pg 183](“for ever and ever”) is plain enough and needs no gloss!—Again, (c) the numeral εἰς, representing the Hebrew substitute for the indefinite article, prevails throughout the Septuagint. Examples of its use occur in the N. T. in S. Matth. viii. 19 and ix. 18;-xxvi. 69 (μία παιδίσκη), Mk. xii. 42: and in Rev. viii. 13: ix. 13: xviii. 21 and xix. 17;—where“onescribe,”“oneruler,”“onewidow,”“oneeagle,”“onevoice,”“oneangel,”are really nothing else but mistranslations. True, that εἶς is found in the original Greek: but what then? Because“une”means“one,”will it be pretended that“Tu es une bête”would be properly rendered“Thou art one beast”?
(d) Far more serious is the substitution of“havinga greatpriest over the house ofGod”(Heb. x. 21), for“havingan highpriest:”inasmuch as this obscures“the pointed reference to ourLordas the antitype of the Jewish high priest,”—who (except in Lev. iv. 3) is designated, not ἀρχιερεύς, but either ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας, or else ὁ ἱερεύς only,—as in Acts v. 24561.... And (e) why are we presented with“Forno word fromGodshall be void of power”(in S. Luke i. 37)? Seeing that the Greek of that place has been fashioned on the Septuagintal rendering of Gen. xviii. 14 (“Is anything too hard for theLord?”562), we venture to think that the A. V. (“for withGodnothing shall be impossible”563) ought to have been let alone. It cannot be mended. One is surprised to discover that among so many respectable Divines there seems not to have beenonesufficiently familiar with the Septuagint to preserve his brethren from perpetually falling into such mistakes as the foregoing. We really had no idea that the Hellenistic[pg 184]scholarship of those who represented the Church and the Sects in the Jerusalem Chamber, was so inconsiderable.
Two or three of the foregoing examples refer to matters of a recondite nature. Not so the majority of the Annotations which belong to this third group; which we have examined with real astonishment—and in fact have remarked upon already. Shall we be thought hard to please if we avow that we rather desiderate“Explanatory Notes”on matters which reallydocall for explanation? as, to be reminded of what kind was the“net”(ἀμφίβληστρον) mentioned in Matth. iv. 18 (not20), and Mk. i. 16 (not18):—to see it explained (against Matth. ii. 23) thatnetser(the root of“Nazareth”) denotes“Branch:”—and against Matth. iii. 5; Lu. iii. 3, that ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, signifies“thedepressed valley of the Jordan,”as the usage of the LXX. proves.564We should have been glad to see, against S. Lu. ix. 31,—“Gr.Exodus.”—At least in the margin, we might have been told that“Olivet”is the true rendering of Lu. xix. 29 and xxi. 37: (or were the Revisionists not aware of the fact? They are respectfully referred to the Bp. of Lincoln's note on the place last quoted.)—Nay, why not tell us (against Matth. i. 21) that“Jesus”means [not“Saviour,”but]“Jehovahis Salvation”?
But above all, surely so many learned men ought to have spared us the absurd Annotation set against“ointment of spikenard”(νάρδου πιστικῆς,) in S. Mark xiv. 3 and in S. John xii. 3. Their marginal Note is as follows:—
“Gr.pisticnard, pistic being perhaps a local name. Others take it to meangenuine; othersliquid.”
Can Scholars require to be told that“liquid”is animpossible[pg 185]sense of πιστική in this place? The epithet so interpreted must be derived (like πιστός [Prom.V. v. 489]) from πίνω, and would meandrinkable: but since ointmentcannotbe drunk, it is certain that we must seek the etymology of the word elsewhere. And why should the weak ancient conjecture be retained that it is“perhaps alocalname”? Do Divines require to have it explained to them that the one“locality”which effectually fixes the word's meaning, isits place in the everlasting Gospel?... Be silent on such lofty matters if you will, by all means; but“who are these that darken counsel by words without knowledge?”S. Mark and S. John (whose narratives by the way never touch exclusively except in this place565) are observed here to employ an ordinary word with lofty spiritual purpose. Thepure faith(πίστις) in which that offering of the ointment was made, determines the choice of an unusual epithet (πιστικός) which shall signify“faithful”rather than“genuine,”—shall suggest amoralrather than acommercialquality: just as, presently, Mary's“breaking”the box (συντρίψασα) is designated by a word which has reference to a broken heart.566She“contrited”it, S. Mark says; and S. John adds a statement which implies that the Church has been rendered fragrant by her act for ever.567(We trust to be forgiven for having said a little more than the occasion absolutely requires.)
(5) Under which of the four previous“groups”certain Annotations which disfigure the margin of the first chapter of[pg 186]S. Matthew's Gospel, should fall,—we know not. Let them be briefly considered by themselves.
So dull of comprehension are we, that we fail to see on what principle it is stated that—“Ram,”“Asa,”“Amon,”“Shealtiel,”are in Greek (“Gr.”)“Aram,”“Asaph,”“Amos,”“Salathiel.”For (1),—Surely it was just as needful (or just as needless) to explain that“Perez,”“Zarah,”“Hezron,”“Nahson,”are in Greek“Phares,”“Zara,”“Esrom,”“Naasson.”—But (2), Through what“necessity”are the names, which we have been hitherto contented to read as the Evangelist wrote them, now exhibited on the first page of the Gospel in any other way?568—(3) Assuming, however, the O. T. spellingisto be adopted, thenlet us have it explained to us why“Jeconiah”in ver. 11 is not written“Jehoiakim”? (As for“Jeconiah”in ver. 12,—it was for the Revisionists to settle whether they would call him“Jehoiachin,”“Jeconiah,”or“Coniah.”[By the way,—Is it lawful to suppose thatthey did not knowthat“Jechonias”here represents two different persons?])—On the other hand, (4)“Amos”probably,—“Asaph”certainly,—are corrupt exhibitions of“Amon”and“Asa:”and, if noticed at all, should have been introduced to the reader's notice with the customary formula,“some ancient authorities,”&c.—To proceed—(5), Why substitute“Immanuel”(for“Emmanuel”) in ver. 23,—only to have to state in the margin that S. Matthew writes it“Emmanuel”? By strict parity of reasoning, against“Naphtali”(in ch. iv. 13, 15), the Revisionists ought to have written“Gr.Nephthaleim.”—And (6), If this is to be the rule, then why are we not told that[pg 187]“Mary is in‘Gr.Mariam’”? and why is not Zacharias written“Zachariah”?... But (to conclude),—What is the object of all this officiousness? and (its unavoidable adjunct) all this inconsistency? Has the spelling of the 42 names been revolutionized, in order to sever with the Past and to make“a fresh departure”? Or were the four marginal notes addedonly for the sake of obtaining, by a side-wind, the (apparent) sanction of the Churchto the preposterous notion that“Asa”was written“Asaph”by the Evangelist—in conformity with six MSS. of bad character, but in defiance of History, documentary Evidence, and internal Probability? Canon Cook [pp. 23-24] has some important remarks on this.
X. We must needs advert again to the ominous admission made in the Revisionists'Preface(iii. 2init.), that to some extent they recognized the duty of a“rigid adherence to the rule of translating, as far as possible, thesame Greek word by the same English word.”This mistaken principle of theirs lies at the root of so much of the mischief which has befallen the Authorized Version, that it calls for fuller consideration at our hands than it has hitherto (viz. at pp.138and152) received.
The“Translators”of 1611, towards the close of their long and quaint Address“to the Reader,”offer the following statement concerning what had been their own practice:—“We have nottied ourselves”(say they)“to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done.”On this, they presently enlarge. We have been“especially careful,”have even“made a conscience,”“not to vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places.”But then, (as they shrewdly point out in passing,)“there be some words that be not of the[pg 188]same sense everywhere.”And had this been the sum of their avowal, no one with a spark of Taste, or with the least appreciation of what constitutes real Scholarship, would have been found to differ from them. Nay, even when they go on to explain that they have not thought it desirable to insist on invariably expressing“the same notion”by employing“the same particular word;”—(which they illustrate by instancing terms which, in their account, may with advantage be diversely rendered in different places;)—we are still disposed to avow ourselves of their mind.“If”(say they,)“we translate the Hebrew or Greek word oncepurpose, never to call itintent; if one wherejourneying, nevertravelling; if one wherethink, neversuppose; if one wherepain, neverache; if one wherejoy, nevergladness;—thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than of wisdom.”And yet it is plain that a different principle is here indicated from that which went before. The remark“that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling,”suggests that, in the Translators' opinion, it matters littlewhichword, in the several pairs of words they instance, is employed; and that, for their own parts, they rather rejoice in the ease and freedom which an ample vocabulary supplies to a Translator of Holy Scripture. Here also however, as already hinted, we are disposed to go along with them. Rhythm, subtle associations of thought, proprieties of diction which are rather to be felt than analysed,—any of such causes may reasonably determine a Translator to reject“purpose,”“journey,”“think,”“pain,”“joy,”—in favour of“intent,”“travel,”“suppose,”“ache,”“gladness.”
But then it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this, there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound (shall we not rather say aprophetic?) consciousness, that the fate of the English[pg 189]Language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation.Hencetheir reluctance to incur the responsibility of tying themselves“to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words.”We should be liable to censure (such is their plain avowal),“if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always; and to others of like quality, Get you hence, be banished for ever.”But this, to say the least, is to introduce a distinct and a somewhat novel consideration. We would not be thought to deny that there is some—perhaps a great deal—of truth in it: but by this time we seem to have entirely shifted our ground. And we more than suspect that, if a jury of English scholars of the highest mark could be impanelled to declare their mind on the subject thus submitted to their judgment, there would be practical unanimity among them in declaring, that these learned men,—with whom all would avow hearty sympathy, and whose taste and skill all would eagerly acknowledge,—have occasionally pushed the license they enunciate so vigorously, a little—perhaps a great deal—too far. For ourselves, we are glad to be able to subscribe cordially to the sentiment on this head expressed by the author of thePrefaceof 1881: