Chapter I: TO ACCIDENTAL CAUSES then we give the foremost place, and of these we (3)

The Versions(394)—(which are our _oldest_ witnesses)—are perforce only partially helpful here. Note however, that _the only one which favours_ γένεσις is the heretical Harkleian Syriac, executed in the VIIth century. The Peschito and Cureton’s Syriac distinguish between γένεσις in ver. 1 and γέννησις in ver. 18: as do the Slavonic and the Arabian Versions. The Egyptian, Armenian, Æthiopic and Georgian, have only one word for both. Let no one suppose however that _therefore_ their testimony is ambiguous. It is γέννησις (_not_ γένεσις) which they exhibit, both in ver. 1 and in ver. 18.(395) The Latin (“_generatio_”) is an equivocal rendering certainly: but the earliest Latin writer who quotes the two places, (viz. Tertullian) employs the word “_genitura_” in S. Matth. i. 1,—but “_nativitas_” in ver. 18,—which no one seems to have noticed.(396) Now, Tertullian, (as one who sometimes wrote in Greek,) is known to have been conversant with the Greek copies of his day; and “his day,” be it remembered, is A.D. 190. He evidently recognized the parallelism between S. Matt. i. 1 and Gen. ii. 4,—where the old Latin exhibits “liber _creaturæ_” or “_facturæ_,” as the rendering of βίβλος γενέσεως. And so much for the testimony of the Versions.

But on reference to Manuscript and to Patristic authority(397) we are encountered by an overwhelming amount of testimony for γέννησις in ver. 18: and this, considering the nature of the case, is an extraordinary circumstance. Quite plain is it that the Ancients were wide awake to the difference between spelling the word with one N or with two,—as the little dissertation of the heretic Nestorius(398) in itself would be enough to prove. Γέννησις, in the meantime, is the word employed by Justin M.,(399)—by Clemens Alex.,(400)—by Athanasius,(401)—by Gregory of Nazianzus,(402)—by Cyril Alex.,(403)—by Nestorius,(404)—by Chrysostom,(405)—by Theodorus Mopsuest.,(406)—and by three other ancients.(407) Even more deserving of attention is it that Irenæus(408) (A.D. 170)—(whom Germanus(409) copies at the end of 550 years)—calls attention to the difference between the spelling of ver. 1 and ver. 18. So does Didymus:(410)—so does Basil:(411)—so does Epiphanius.(412)—Origen(413) (A.D. 210) is even eloquent on the subject.—Tertullian (A.D. 190) we have heard already.—It is a significant circumstance, that the only Patristic authorities discoverable on the other side are Eusebius, Theodoret, and the authors of an heretical Creed(414)—whom Athanasius holds up to scorn.(415) ... Will the Revisionists still pretend to tell us that γέννησις in verse 18 is a “_plain and clear error_”?

2. This, however, is not all. Against the words “of JESUS CHRIST,” a further critical annotation is volunteered; to the effect that “Some ancient authorities read _of the Christ_.” In reply to which, we assert that _not one single known MS._ omits the word “JESUS:” whilst its presence is vouched for by ps.-Tatian,(416)—Irenæus,—Origen,—Eusebius,—Didymus,— Epiphanius,—Chrysostom,—Cyril,—in addition to _every known Greek copy of the Gospels_, and not a few of the Versions, including the Peschito and both the Egyptian. What else but nugatory therefore is such a piece of information as this?

3. And so much for the first, second, and third Critical annotations, with which the margin of the revised N. T. is disfigured. Hoping that the worst is now over, we read on till we reach ver. 25, where we encounter a statement which fairly trips us up: viz.,—“And knew her not _till she had brought forth a son_.” No intimation is afforded of what has been here effected; but in the meantime every one’s memory supplies the epithet (“her first-born”) which has been ejected. Whether something very like indignation is not excited by the discovery that these important words have been surreptitiously withdrawn from their place, let others say. For ourselves, when we find that only א B Z and two cursive copies can be produced for the omission, we are at a loss to understand of what the Revisionists can have been dreaming. Did they know(417) that,—besides the Vulgate, the Peschito and Philoxenian Syriac, the Æthiopic, Armenian, Georgian, and Slavonian Versions,(418)—a whole torrent of Fathers are at hand to vouch for the genuineness of the epithet they were so unceremoniously excising? They are invited to refer to ps.-Tatian,(419)—to Athanasius,(420)—to Didymus,(421)—to Cyril of Jer.,(422)—to Basil,(423)—to Greg. Nyss.,(424)—to Ephraem Syr.,(425)—to Epiphanius,(426)—to Chrysostom,(427)—to Proclus,(428)—to Isidorus Pelus.,(429)—to John Damasc.,(430)—to Photius,(431)—to Nicetas:(432)—besides, of the Latins, Ambrose,(433)—the _Opus imp._,—Augustine,—and not least to Jerome(434)—eighteen Fathers in all. And how is it possible, (we ask,) that two copies of the IVth century (B א) and one of the VIth (Z)—all three without a character—backed by a few copies of the old Latin, should be supposed to be any counterpoise at all for such an array of first-rate contemporary evidence as the foregoing?

Enough has been offered by this time to prove that an authoritative Revision of the Greek Text will have to precede any future Revision of the English of the New Testament. Equally certain is it that for such an undertaking the time has not yet come. “It is my honest conviction,”—(remarks Bp. Ellicott, the Chairman of the Revisionists,)—“that for any authoritative Revision, we are not yet mature: either in Biblical learning or Hellenistic scholarship.”(435) The same opinion precisely is found to have been cherished by Dr. Westcott till _within about a year-and-a-half_(436) of the first assembling of the New Testament Company in the Jerusalem Chamber, 22nd June, 1870. True, that we enjoy access to—suppose from 1000 to 2000—more MANUSCRIPTS than were available when the Textus Recept. was formed. But nineteen-twentieths of those documents, for any use which has been made of them, might just as well be still lying in the monastic libraries from which they were obtained.—True, that four out of our five oldest uncials have come to light since the year 1628; but, _who knows how to use them_?—True, that we have made acquaintance with certain ancient VERSIONS, about which little or nothing was known 200 years ago: but,—(with the solitary exception of the Rev. Solomon Cæsar Malan, the learned Vicar of Broadwindsor,—who, by the way, is always ready to lend a torch to his benighted brethren,)—what living Englishman is able to tell us what they all contain? A smattering acquaintance with the languages of ancient Egypt,—the Gothic, Æthiopic, Armenian, Georgian and Slavonian Versions,—is of no manner of avail. In no department, probably, is “a little learning” more sure to prove “a dangerous thing.”—True, lastly, that the FATHERS have been better edited within the last 250 years: during which period some fresh Patristic writings have also come to light. But, with the exception of Theodoret among the Greeks and Tertullian among the Latins, _which of the Fathers has been satisfactorily indexed_?

Even what precedes is not nearly all. _The fundamental Principles_ of the Science of Textual Criticism are not yet apprehended. In proof of this assertion, we appeal to the new Greek Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort,—which, beyond all controversy, is more hopelessly remote from the inspired Original than any which has yet appeared. Let a generation of Students give themselves entirely up to this neglected branch of sacred Science. Let 500 more COPIES of the Gospels, Acts, and Epistles, be diligently collated. Let at least 100 of the ancient _Lectionaries_ be very exactly collated also. Let the most important of the ancient VERSIONS be edited afresh, and let the languages in which these are written be for the first time really _mastered_ by Englishmen. _Above all, let the _FATHERS_ he called upon to give up their precious secrets._ Let their writings be ransacked and indexed, and (where needful) let the MSS. of their works be diligently inspected, in order that we may know what actually is the evidence which they afford. Only so will it ever be possible to obtain a Greek Text on which absolute reliance may be placed, and which may serve as the basis for a satisfactory Revision of our Authorized Version. Nay, let whatever unpublished works of the ancient Greek Fathers are anywhere known to exist,—(and not a few precious remains of theirs are lying hid in great national libraries, both at home and abroad,)—let these be printed. The men could easily be found: the money, far more easily.—When all this has been done,—_not before_—then in GOD’S Name, let _the Church_ address herself to the great undertaking. Do but revive the arrangements which were adopted in King James’s days: and we venture to predict that less than a third part of ten years will be found abundantly to suffice for the work. How the coming men will smile at the picture Dr. Newth(437) has drawn of what was the method of procedure in the reign of Queen Victoria! Will they not peruse with downright merriment Bp. Ellicott’s jaunty proposal “_simply to proceed onward with the work_”—[to wit, of constructing a new Greek Text,]—“in fact, _solvere ambulando_,” [_necnon in laqueum cadendo_]?(438)

I. We cannot, it is presumed, act more fairly by the Revisers’ work,(439) than by following them over some of the ground which they claim to have made their own, and which, at the conclusion of their labours, their Right Reverend Chairman evidently surveys with self-complacency. First, he invites attention to the Principle and Rule for their guidance agreed to by the Committee of Convocation (25th May, 1870), viz. “TO INTRODUCE AS FEW ALTERATIONS AS POSSIBLE INTO THE TEXT OF THE AUTHORIZED VERSION, CONSISTENTLY WITH FAITHFULNESS.” Words could not be more emphatic. “PLAIN AND CLEAR ERRORS” were to be corrected. “NECESSARY emendations” were to be made. But (in the words of the Southern Convocation) “We do not contemplate any new Translation, _or any alteration of the language_, EXCEPT WHERE, in the judgment of the most competent Scholars, SUCH CHANGE IS NECESSARY.” The watchword, therefore, given to the company of Revisionists was,—“NECESSITY.” _Necessity_ was to determine whether they were to depart from the language of the Authorized Version, or not; for the alterations were to be AS FEW AS POSSIBLE.

(_a_) Now it is idle to deny that this fundamental Principle has been utterly set at defiance. To such an extent is this the case, that even an unlettered Reader is competent to judge them. When we find “_to_” substituted for “unto” (_passim_):—“_hereby_” for “by this” (1 Jo. v. 2):—“all that _are_,” for “all that be” (Rom. i. 7):—“_alway_” for “always” (2 Thess. i. 3):—“we _that_,” “them _that_,” for “we _which_,” “them _which_” (1 Thess. iv. 15); and yet “every spirit _which_,” for “every spirit that” (1 Jo. iv. 3), and “he _who_ is not of GOD,” for “he that is not of GOD” (ver. 6,—although “he _that_ knoweth GOD” had preceded, in the same verse):—“_my_ host” for “mine host” (Rom. xvi. 23); and “_underneath_” for “_under_” (Rev. vi. 9):—it becomes clear that the Revisers’ notion of NECESSITY is not that of the rest of mankind. But let the plain Truth be stated. Certain of them, when remonstrated with by their fellows for the manifest disregard they were showing to the Instructions subject to which they had undertaken the work of Revision, are reported to have even gloried in their shame. The majority, it is clear, have even ostentatiously set those Instructions at defiance.

Was the course they pursued,—(we ask the question respectfully,)—strictly _honest_? To decline the work entirely under the prescribed Conditions, was always in their power. But, first to accept the Conditions, and straightway to act in defiance of them,—_this_ strikes us as a method of proceeding which it is difficult to reconcile with the high character of the occupants of the Jerusalem Chamber. To proceed however.

“Nevertheless” and “notwithstanding” have had a sad time of it. One or other of them has been turned out in favour of “_howbeit_” (S. Lu. x. 11, 20),—of “_only_” (Phil. iii. 16),—of “_only that_” (i. 18),—of “_yet_” (S. Matth. xi. 11),—of “_but_” (xvii. 27),—of “_and yet_” (James ii. 16).... We find “_take heed_” substituted for “beware” (Col. ii. 8):—“_custom_” for “manner” (S. Jo. xix. 40):—“he was _amazed_,” for “he was astonished:” (S. Lu. v. 9):—“_Is it I, _LORD_?_” for “LORD, is it I?” (S. Matth. xxvi. 22):—“_straightway_ the cock crew,” for “immediately the cock crew” (S. Jo. xviii. 27):—“Then _therefore he delivered Him_,” for “Then delivered he Him therefore” (xix. 16):—“_brought_ it to His mouth,” for “put it to His mouth” (ver. 29):—“_He manifested Himself on this wise_,” for “on this wise shewed He Himself” (xxi. 1):—“_So when they got out upon the land_,” for “As soon then as they were come to land” (ver. 9):—“the things _concerning_,” for “the things pertaining to the kingdom of GOD” (Acts i. 3):—“as GOD’S_ steward_,” for “as the steward of God” (Tit. i. 7): but “the _belly of the whale_” for “the whale’s belly” (S. Matth. xii. 40), and “_device of man_” for “man’s device” in Acts xvii. 29.—These, and hundreds of similar alterations have been evidently made out of the merest wantonness. After substituting “_therefore_” for “then” (as the rendering of οὖν) a score of times,—the Revisionists quite needlessly substitute “_then_” for “therefore” in S. Jo. xix. 42.—And why has the singularly beautiful greeting of “the elder unto the well-beloved Gaius,” been exchanged for “unto _Gaius the beloved_”? (3 John, ver. 1).

(_b_) We turn a few pages, and find “he that _doeth_ sin,” substituted for “he that committeth sin;” and “_To this end_” put in the place of “For this purpose” (1 Jo. iii. 8):—“_have beheld_” and “_bear witness_,” for “have seen and do testify” (iv. 14):—“_hereby_” for “by this” (v. 2):—“_Judas_” for “Jude” (Jude ver. 1), although “_Mark_” was substituted for “Marcus” (in 1 Pet. v. 13), and “_Timothy_” for “Timotheus” (in Phil. i. 1):—“how that they _said to_ you,” for “how that they told you” (Jude ver. 18).—But why go on? The substitution of “_exceedingly_” for “greatly” in Acts vi. 7:—“_the birds_” for “the fowls,” in Rev. xix. 21:—“_Almighty_” for “Omnipotent” in ver. 6:—“_throw down_” for “cast down,” in S. Luke iv. 29:—“_inner chamber_” for “closet,” in vi. 6:—these are _not_ “necessary” changes.... We will give but three instances more:—In 1 S. Pet. v. 9, “whom _resist_, stedfast in the faith,” has been altered into “whom _withstand_.” But how is “withstand” a better rendering for ἀντίστητε, than “resist”? “Resist,” at all events, _was the Revisionists’ word in S. Matth._ v. 39 _and S. James_ iv. 7.—Why also substitute “the _race_” (for “the kindred”) “of Joseph” in Acts vii. 13, although γένος was rendered “kindred” in iv. 6?—Do the Revisionists think that “_fastening their_ eyes on him” is a better rendering of ἀτενίσαντες εἰς αὐτόν (Acts vi. 15) than “_looking stedfastly_ on him”? They certainly did not think so when they got to xxiii. 1. There, because they found “_earnestly beholding_ the council,” they must needs alter the phrase into “_looking stedfastly_.” It is clear therefore that _Caprice_, not _Necessity_,—an _itching impatience_ to introduce changes into the A. V., not the discovery of “_plain and clear errors_”—has determined the great bulk of the alterations which molest us in every part of the present unlearned and tasteless performance.

II. The next point to which the Revisionists direct our attention is their NEW GREEK TEXT,—“the necessary foundation of” their work. And here we must renew our protest against the wrong which has been done to English readers by the Revisionists’ disregard of the IVth Rule laid down for their guidance, viz. that, whenever they adopted a new Textual reading, such alteration was to be “_indicated in the margin_.” This “proved inconvenient,” say the Revisionists. Yes, we reply: but only because you saw fit, in preference, to choke up your margin with a record of the preposterous readings you did _not_ admit. Even so, however, the thing might to some extent have been done, if only by a system of signs in the margin wherever a change in the Text had been by yourselves effected. And, at whatever “inconvenience,” you were bound to do this,—partly because the Rule before you was express: but chiefly in fairness to the English Reader. How comes it to pass that you have _never_ furnished him with the information you stood pledged to furnish; but have instead, volunteered in every page information, worthless in itself, which can only serve to unsettle the faith of unlettered millions, and to suggest unreasonable as well as miserable doubts to the minds of all?

For no one may for an instant imagine that the marginal statements of which we speak are a kind of equivalent for the _Apparatus Criticus_ which is found in every principal edition of the Greek Testament—excepting always that of Drs. Westcott and Hort. So far are we from deprecating (with Daniel Whitby) the multiplication of “Various Readings,” that we rejoice in them exceedingly; knowing that they are the very foundation of our confidence and the secret of our strength. For this reason we consider Dr. Tischendorf’s last (8th) edition to be furnished with not nearly enough of them, though he left all his predecessors (and himself in his 7th edition) far behind. Our quarrel with the Revisionists is _not_ by any means that they have commemorated _actual_ “alternative Readings” in their margin: but that, while they have given prominence throughout to _patent Errors_, they _have unfairly excluded all mention of,—have not made the slightest allusion to,—hundreds of Readings which ought in fact rather to have stood in the Text_.

The marginal readings, which our Revisers have been so ill-advised as to put prominently forward, and to introduce to the Reader’s notice with the vague statement that they are sanctioned by “Some” (or by “Many”) “ancient authorities,”—are specimens _arbitrarily selected_ out of an immense mass; are magisterially recommended to public attention and favour; _seem_ to be invested with the sanction and authority of Convocation itself. And this becomes a very serious matter indeed. No hint is given _which_ be the “ancient Authorities” so referred to:—nor what proportion they bear to the “ancient Authorities” producible on the opposite side:—nor whether they are the _most_ “ancient Authorities” obtainable:—nor what amount of attention their testimony may reasonably claim. But in the meantime a fatal assertion is hazarded in the Preface (iii. 1.), to the effect that _in cases where _“it would not be safe to accept one Reading to the absolute exclusion of others,”_ _“alternative Readings” have been given “in the margin.” So that the “Agony and bloody sweat” of the World’s REDEEMER (Lu. xxii. 43, 44),—and His Prayer for His murderers (xxiii. 34),—and much beside of transcendent importance and inestimable value, may, _according to our Revisionists_, prove to rest upon no foundation whatever. At all events, “_it would not be safe_,” (_i.e._ _it is not safe_) to place absolute reliance on them. Alas, how many a deadly blow at Revealed Truth hath been in this way aimed with fatal adroitness, which no amount of orthodox learning will ever be able hereafter to heal, much less to undo! Thus,—

(_a_) From the first verse of S. Mark’s Gospel we are informed that “Some ancient authorities omit _the Son of _GOD.” Why are we _not_ informed that every known uncial Copy _except one of bad character_,—every cursive _but two_,—_every Version_,—and the following Fathers,—all _contain_ the precious clause: viz. Irenæus,—Porphyry,—Severianus of Gabala,—Cyril Alex.,—Victor Ant.,—and others,—besides Ambrose and Augustine among the Latins:—while the supposed adverse testimony of Serapion and Titus, Basil and Victorinus, Cyril of Jer. and Epiphanius, proves to be all a mistake? To speak plainly, since the clause is above suspicion, _Why are we not rather told so?_

(_b_) In the 3rd verse of the first chapter of S. John’s Gospel, we are left to take our choice between,—“without Him was not anything made that hath been made. In him was life; and the life,” &c.,—and the following absurd alternative,—“Without him was not anything made. _That which hath been made was life in him_; and the life,” &c. But we are _not_ informed that this latter monstrous figment is known to have been the importation of the Gnostic heretics in the IInd century, and to be as destitute of authority as it is of sense. _Why is prominence given only to the lie?_

(_c_) At S. John iii. 13, we are informed that the last clause of that famous verse (“No man hath ascended up to heaven, but He that came down from heaven, even the Son of Man—_which is in heaven_”), is not found in “many ancient authorities.” But why, in the name of common fairness, are we not _also_ reminded that this, (as will be found more fully explained in the note overleaf,) is _a circumstance of no Textual significancy whatever_?

Why, above all, are we not assured that the precious clause in question (ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ) _is_ found in every MS. in the world, except five of bad character?—is recognized by _all_ the Latin and _all_ the Syriac versions; as well as by the Coptic,—Æthiopic,—Georgian,—and Armenian?(440)—is either quoted or insisted upon by Origen,(441)—Hippolytus,(442)—Athanasius,(443)—Didymus,(444)—Aphraates the Persian,(445)—Basil the Great,(446)—Epiphanius,(447)—Nonnus,—ps.-Dionysius Alex.,(448)—Eustathius;(449)—by Chrysostom,(450)—Theodoret,(451)—and Cyril,(452) each 4 times;—by Paulus, Bishop of Emesa(453) (in a sermon on Christmas Day, A.D. 431);—by Theodoras Mops.,(454)—Amphilochius,(455)—Severus,(456)—Theodorus Heracl.,(457)—Basilius Cil.,(458)—Cosmas,(459)—John Damascene, in 3 places,(460)—and 4 other ancient Greek writers;(461)—besides Ambrose,(462)—Novatian,(463)—Hilary,(464)—Lucifer,(465)—Victorinus,—Jerome,(466)—Cassian,—Vigilius,(467)—Zeno,(468)—Marius,(469)—Maximus Taur.,(470)—Capreolus,(471)—Augustine, &c.:—is acknowledged by Lachmann, Tregelles, Tischendorf: in short, is _quite above suspicion_: why are we not told _that_? Those 10 Versions, those 38 Fathers, that host of Copies in the proportion of 995 to 5,—_why_, concerning all these is there not so much as a hint let fall that such a mass of counter-evidence exists?(472)... Shame,—yes, _shame_ on the learning which comes abroad only to perplex the weak, and to unsettle the doubting, and to mislead the blind! Shame,—yes, _shame_ on that two-thirds majority of well-intentioned but most incompetent men, who,—finding themselves (in an evil hour) appointed to correct “_plain and clear errors_” in the _English_ “Authorized Version,”—occupied themselves instead with _falsifying the inspired Greek Text_ in countless places, and branding with suspicion some of the most precious utterances of the SPIRIT! Shame,—yes, _shame_ upon them!

Why then, (it will of course be asked,) is the margin—(_a_) of S. Mark i. 1 and—(_b_) of S. John i. 3, and—(_c_) of S. John iii. 13, encumbered after this discreditable fashion? It is (we answer) only because _the Text of Drs. Westcott and Hort_ is thus depraved in all three places. Those Scholars enjoy the unenviable distinction of having dared to expel from S. John iii. 13 the words ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, which Lachmann, Tregelles and Tischendorf were afraid to touch. Well may Dean Stanley have bestowed upon Dr. Hort the epithet of “_fearless_”!... If report speaks truly, it is by the merest accident that the clause in question still retains its place in _the Revised Text_.

(_d_) Only once more. And this time we will turn to the very end of the blessed volume. Against Rev. xiii. 18—

“Here is wisdom. He that hath understanding, let him count the number of the Beast; for it is the number of a Man: and his number is six hundred and sixty and six.”

Against this, we find noted,—“Some ancient authorities read _six hundred and sixteen_.”

But why is not the _whole_ Truth told? viz. why are we not informed that _only one_ corrupt uncial (C):—_only one_ cursive copy (11):—_only one_ Father (Tichonius): and _not one_ ancient Version—advocates this reading?—which, on the contrary, Irenæus (A.D. 170) knew, but rejected; remarking that 666, which is “found in all the best and oldest copies and is attested by men who saw John face to face,” is unquestionably the true reading.(473) Why is not the ordinary Reader further informed that the same number (666) is expressly vouched for by Origen,(474)—by Hippolytus,(475)—by Eusebius:(476)—as well as by Victorinus—and Primasius,—not to mention Andreas and Arethas? To come to the moderns, as a matter of fact the established reading is accepted by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles,—even by Westcott and Hort. _Why_ therefore—for what possible reason—at the end of 1700 years and upwards, is this, which is so clearly nothing else but an ancient slip of the pen, to be forced upon the attention of 90 millions of English-speaking people?

Will Bishop Ellicott and his friends venture to tell us that it has been done because “it would not be safe to accept” 666, “to the absolute exclusion of” 616?... “We have given _alternative Readings_ in the margin,” (say they,) “wherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice.” Will they venture to claim either “interest” or “importance” for _this_? or pretend that it is an “alternative Reading” _at all_? Has it been rescued from oblivion and paraded before universal Christendom in order to perplex, mystify, and discourage “those that have understanding,” and would fain “count the number of the Beast,” if they were able? Or was the intention only to insinuate one more wretched doubt—one more miserable suspicion—into minds which have been taught (_and rightly_) to place absolute reliance in the textual accuracy of all the gravest utterances of the SPIRIT: minds which are utterly incapable of dealing with the subtleties of Textual Criticism; and, from a one-sided statement like the present, will carry away none but entirely mistaken inferences, and the most unreasonable distrust?... Or, lastly, was it only because, in their opinion, the margin of every Englishman’s N. T. is the fittest place for reviving the memory of obsolete blunders, and ventilating forgotten perversions of the Truth?... We really pause for an answer.

(_e_) But serious as this is, _more_ serious (if possible) is the unfair _Suppression systematically practised_ throughout the work before us. “We have given alternative Readings in the margin,”—(says Bishop Ellicott on behalf of his brother-Revisionists,)—“_wherever they seem to be of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice._” [iii. 1.] From which statement, readers have a right to infer that whenever “alternative Readings” are _not_ “given in the margin,” it is because such Readings do _not_ “seem to be of _sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice_.” Will the Revisionists venture to tell us that,—(to take the first instance of unfair Suppression which presents itself,)—our LORD’s saying in S. Mark vi. 11 is not “of sufficient importance or interest to deserve notice”? We allude to the famous words,—“Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city:”—words which are not only omitted from the “New English Version,” but _are not suffered to leave so much as a trace of themselves in the margin_. And yet, the saying in question is attested by the Peschito and the Philoxenian Syriac Versions: by the Old Latin: by the Coptic, Æthiopic and Gothic Versions:—by 11 uncials and by the whole bulk of the cursives:—by Irenæus and by Victor of Antioch. So that whether Antiquity, or Variety of Attestation is considered,—whether we look for Numbers or for Respectability,—the genuineness of the passage may be regarded as _certain_. Our complaint however is _not_ that the Revisionists entertain a different opinion on this head from ourselves: but that they give the reader to understand that the state of the Evidence is such, that it is quite “safe to accept” the shorter reading,—“to the _absolute exclusion_ of the other.”—So vast is the field before us, that this single specimen of what we venture to call “unfair Suppression,” must suffice. (Some will not hesitate to bestow upon it a harsher epithet.) It is in truth by far the most damaging feature of the work before us, that its Authors should have so largely and so seriously _falsified the Deposit_; and yet, (in clear violation of the IVth Principle or Rule laid down for their guidance at the outset,) have suffered no trace to survive in the margin of the deadly mischief which they have effected.

III. From the Text, the Revisionists pass on to the TRANSLATION; and surprise us by the avowal, that “the character of the Revision was determined for us from the outset by the first Rule,—‘to introduce as few alterations as possible, consistently with faithfulness.’ Our task was Revision, not Retranslation.” (This is _naïve_ certainly.) They proceed,—

“If the meaning was fairly expressed by the word or phrase that
was before us in the Authorized Version, we made no change, even
where rigid adherence to _the rule of Translating, as far as
possible, the same Greek word by the same English word_ might have
prescribed some modification.”—[iii. 2 _init._] (The italics are
our own.)

To the “_rule_” thus introduced to our notice, we shall recur by and by [pp. 152-4: also pp. 187-202]. We proceed to remark on each of the five principal Classes of alterations indicated by the Revisionists: and first,—“Alterations positively required by change of reading in the Greek Text” (_Ibid._).

(1) Thus, in S. John xii. 7, we find “_Suffer her to keep it_ against the day of my burying;” and in the margin (as an alternative), “Let her alone: _it was that she might keep it_.”—Instead of “as soon as JESUS heard the word,”—we are invited to choose between “_not heeding_,” and “_overhearing_ the word” (S. Mk. v. 36): these being intended for renderings of παρακούσας,—an expression which S. Mark certainly never employed.—“On earth, peace among men _in whom he is well pleased_” (S. Lu. ii. 14): where the margin informs us that “many ancient authorities read, _good pleasure among men_.” (And why not “_good will_,”—the rendering adopted in Phil. i. 15?) ... Take some more of the alterations which have resulted from the adoption of a corrupt Text:—“Why _askest thou me concerning that which is good_?” (Matth. xix. 17,—an absurd fabrication).—“He would fain _have been filled_ with the husks,” &c.... “and I perish _here_ with hunger!” (χορτασθῆναι, borrowed from Lu. xvi. 21: and εγΩΔΕωδε, a transparent error: S. Luke xv. 16, 17).—“When _it shall fail_, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles” (xvi. 9).——Elizabeth “lifted up her voice _with a loud cry_” (κραυγή—the private property of three bad MSS. and Origen: Lu. i. 42).—“And _they stood still looking sad_” (xxiv. 17,—a foolish transcriptional blunder).—“The multitude _went up_ and began to ask him,” &c. (ἀναβάς for ἀναβοήσας, Mk. xv. 8).—“But is guilty of _an eternal sin_” (iii. 29).—“And the officers _received Him_ with blows of their hands,”—marg. “or _strokes of rods_:” ΕΛΑΒΟΝ for ΕΒΑΛΟΝ (xiv. 65).—“Else, that which should fill it up taketh from it, _the new from the old_” (ii. 21): and “No man _rendeth a piece from a new garment_ and putteth it upon an old garment; else _he will rend the new_,” &c. (Lu. v. 36).—“What is this? _a new teaching!_” (Mk. i. 27).—“JESUS saith unto him, _If thou canst!_” (Mk. ix. 23).—“Because of your _little __ faith_”(Matth. xvii. 20).—“_We must_ work the works of Him that sent Me, while it is day” (Jo. ix. 4).—“_The man that is called_ JESUS made clay” (ver. 11).—“If ye shall ask _Me anything in My name_” (xiv. 14).—“The Father abiding in Me _doeth His works_” (xiv. 10).—“If ye shall ask anything of the Father, _He will give it you in My name_” (xvi. 23).—“I glorified Thee on the earth, _having accomplished the work_ which Thou hast given Me to do” (xvii. 4).—“Holy Father, keep them _in Thy Name which_ Thou hast given Me ... I kept them _in Thy Name which_ Thou hast given me” (ver. 11, 12).—“She ... saith unto Him _in Hebrew_, Rabboni” (xx. 16).—“These things said Isaiah, _because_ he saw his glory” (xii. 41,—ΟΤΙ for ΟΤΕ, a common itacism).—“In tables _that are hearts of flesh_” (ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίαις σαρκίναις, a “perfectly absurd reading,” as Scrivener remarks, p. 442: 2 Cor. iii. 3).—“_Now if_ we put the horses’ bridles [and pray, why not ‘the horses’ _bits_’?] into their mouths” (ΕΙΔΕ, an ordinary itacism for ΙΔΕ, James iii. 3).—“Unto the sick were _carried away from his body_ handkerchiefs,” &c. (Acts xix. 12).—“_Ye know all things once for all_” (Jude ver. 5).—“_We love_ because he first loved us” (1 Jo. iv. 19).—“I have found _no work of thine fulfilled_ before my GOD” (Rev. iii. 2).—“Seven Angels _arrayed with [precious] stone_” (xv. 6), instead of “clothed in linen,” λίθον for λίνον. (Fancy the Angels “_clothed in stone_”! “Precious” is an interpolation of the Revisers).—“_Dwelling in_ the things which he hath seen:” for which the margin offers as an alternative, “_taking his stand upon_” (Colossians ii. 18). But ἐμβατεύων (the word here employed) clearly means neither the one nor the other. S. Paul is delivering a warning against unduly “_prying into_ the things _not_ seen.”(477) A few MSS. of bad character omit the “_not_.” That is all!... These then are a handful of the less conspicuous instances of a change in the English “positively required by a change of reading in the Greek Text:” every one of them being either a pitiful blunder or else a gross fabrication.—Take only two more: “I neither know, nor understand: _thou, what sayest thou?_” (Mk. xiv. 68 margin):—“And _whither I go, ye know the way_” (Jo. xiv. 4).... The A. V. is better in every instance.

(2) and (3) Next, alterations made because the A. V. “appeared to be incorrect” or else “obscure.” They must needs be such as the following:—“He that _is bathed_ needeth not save to wash his feet” (S. John xiii. 10).—“LORD, if he is fallen asleep _he will recover_” (σωθήσεται, xi. 12).—“Go ye therefore into _the partings of the highways_” (Matth. xxii. 9).—“Being grieved at _the hardening_ of their heart” (Mk. iii. 5).—“Light _a lamp_ and put it _on the stand_” (Matt. v. 15).—“Sitting at _the place of toll_” (ix. 9).—“The supplication of a righteous man availeth much _in its working_” (James v. 16).—“Awake up _righteously_” (1 Cor. xv. 34).—“_Guarded_ through faith unto _a salvation_” (1 Pet. i. 5).—“Wandering in ... _the holes of the earth_” (Heb. xi. 38—very queer places certainly to be “wandering” in).—“_She that is in Babylon_, elect together with you, saluteth you” (1 Pet. v. 13).—“Therefore do _these powers work in Him_” (Matth. xiv. 2).—“In danger of the _hell of fire_” (v. 22).—“_Put out_ into the deep” (Luke v. 4).—“The tomb that Abraham bought for _a price in silver_” (Acts vii. 16).

With reference to every one of these places, (and they are but samples of what is to be met with in every page,) we venture to assert that they are either _less_ intelligible, or else _more_ inaccurate, than the expressions which they are severally intended to supersede; while, in some instances, they are _both_. Will any one seriously contend that “_the hire of wrong-doing_” is better than “_the wages of unrighteousness_” (2 Pet. ii. 15)? or, will he venture to deny that, “Come and _dine_”—“so when they _had dined_,”—is a hundred times better than “Come and _break your fast_”—“so when they _had broken their fast_” (Jo. xxi. 12, 15)?—expressions which are only introduced because the Revisionists were ashamed (as well they might be) to write “breakfast” and “breakfasted.” The seven had not been “_fasting_.” Then, why introduce so incongruous a notion here,—any more than into S. Luke xi. 37, 38, and xiv. 12?

Has the reader any appetite for more specimens of “incorrectness” _remedied_ and “obscurity” _removed_? Rather, as it seems, have _both_ been largely imported into a Translation which was singularly intelligible before. Why darken Rom. vii. 1 and xi. 2 by introducing the interrogative particle, and then, by mistranslating it “_Or_”?—Also, why translate γένος “_race_”? (“a man of Cyprus _by race_,” “a man of Pontus _by race_,” “an Alexandrian _by race_,” Acts iv. 36: xviii. 2, 24).—“_If_ there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body,” say the Revisionists: “O death, where is thy victory? O _death_ where is thy sting?” (Could they not let even 1 Cor. xv. 44 and 55 alone?)—Why alter “For the bread of GOD is _He_,” into “For the bread of GOD is _that_ which cometh down from Heaven”? (Jo. vi. 33).—“_As long as I am_ in the world,” was surely better than “_When I am_ in the world, I am the light of the world” (ix. 5).—Is “_He went forth out of_ their hand” supposed to be an improvement upon “_He escaped out of_ their hand”? (x. 39): and is “They loved _the glory_ of men more than _the glory_ of GOD” an improvement upon “the _praise_”? (xii. 43).—“Judas saith unto Him, LORD, _what is come to pass_ that Thou wilt manifest Thyself to us”? Is _that_ supposed to be an improvement upon xiv. 22?—How is “_If then_” an improvement on “Forasmuch then” in Acts xi. 17?—or how is this endurable in Rom. vii. 15,—“For that which I do, I _know_ not: for _not what I would, that do I practise_:”—or this, in xvi. 25, “The mystery which hath been _kept in silence through times eternal_, but now is manifested,” &c.—“Thou therefore, _my child_,”—addressing the Bishop of Ephesus (2 Tim. ii. 1): and “Titus, _my true child_,”—addressing the Bishop of Crete (Tit. i. 4).

Are the following deemed improvements? “Every one that _doeth_ sin doeth also _lawlessness: and sin is lawlessness_” (1 Jo. iii. 4): “I will _move_ thy candlestick out of its place” (Rev. ii. 5):—“a _glassy_ sea” (iv. 6):—“a _great_ voice” (v. 12):—“Verily, not of Angels _doth He take hold_, but _He taketh hold_ of the seed of Abraham:”—“He _took hold of_ the blind man by _the hand_:”—“They _took hold of him_ and brought him unto the Areopagus” (Heb. ii. 16: S. Mk. viii. 23: Acts xvii. 19):—“wherefore GOD is not _ashamed of them_, to be called their GOD” (Acts xi. 16):—“_Counted it not a prize_ to be on an equality with GOD” (Phil. ii. 6).—Why are we to substitute “_court_” for “palace” in Matth. xxvi. 3 and Lu. xi. 21? (Consider Matth. xii. 29 and Mk. iii. 27).—“Women received their dead _by a resurrection_” (Heb. xi. 35):—“If ye forgive not every one _his brother from their hearts_” (Matth. xviii. 35):—“If _because of meat_ thy brother is grieved, thou walkest _no longer in love_” (Rom. xiv. 15):—“which GOD, who cannot lie, promised _before times eternal_; but _in his own seasons_ manifested _his word in the message_” (Tit. i. 2, 3):—“Your _pleasures_ [and why not ‘lusts’?] that war in your members” (James iv. 1):—“Behold _how much wood_ is kindled by _how small a fire_!” (iii. 5).—Are these really supposed to be less “obscure” than the passages they are intended to supersede?

(_a_) Not a few of the mistaken renderings of the Revisionists can only be established by an amount of illustration which is at once inconvenient to the Reviewer and unwelcome probably to the general Reader. Thus, we take leave to point out that,—“And _coming up_ at that very hour” (in Lu. ii. 38),—as well as “she _came up_ to Him” (in Lu. x. 40), are inexact renderings of the original. The verb ἐφιστάναι, which etymologically signifies “to stand upon,” or “over,” or “by,”—(but which retains its literal signification on only four out of the eighteen occasions(478) when the word occurs in the Gospels and Acts,)—is found almost invariably to denote the “_coming suddenly upon_” a person. Hence, it is observed to be used five times to denote the sudden appearance of friendly visitants from the unseen world:(479) and seven times, the sudden hostile approach of what is formidable.(480) On the two remaining occasions, which are those before us,—(namely, the sudden coming of Anna into the Temple(481) and of Martha into the presence of our LORD,(482))—“_coming suddenly in_” would probably represent S. Luke’s ἐπιστᾶσα exactly. And yet, one would hesitate to import the word “suddenly” into the narrative. So that “_coming in_” would after all have to stand in the text, although the attentive student of Scripture would enjoy the knowledge that something more is _implied_. In other words,—the Revisionists would have done better if they had left both places alone.... These are many words; yet is it impossible to explain such matters at once satisfactorily and briefly.

(_b_) But more painful by far it is to discover that a morbid striving after etymological accuracy,—added to a calamitous preference for a depraved Text,—has proved the ruin of one of the most affecting scenes in S. John’s Gospel. “Simon Peter beckoneth to him, _and saith unto him, Tell us who it is of whom He speaketh_” [a fabulous statement evidently; for Peter beckoned, because he might _not_ speak]. “He _leaning back, as he was_,”—[a very bad rendering of οὕτως, by the way; and sure to recal inopportunely the rendering of ὡς ἦν in S. Mark iv. 36, instead of suggesting (as it obviously ought) the original of S. John iv. 6:]—“on JESUS’ breast, saith unto Him, LORD who is it?” (S. John xiii. 24-5). Now, S. John’s word concerning himself in this place is certainly ἐπιπεσών. He “_just sank_”—let his head “_fall_”—on his Master’s breast, and whispered his question. For this, a few corrupt copies substitute ἀναπεσών. But ἀναπεσών _never_ means “_leaning back_.” It is descriptive of the posture of one _reclining at a meal_ (S. Jo. xiii. 12). Accordingly, it is 10 times rendered by the Revisionists to “_sit down_.” Why, in this place, and in chapter xxi. 20, _a new meaning_ is thrust upon the word, it is for the Revisionists to explain. But they must explain the matter a vast deal better than Bp. Lightfoot has done in his interesting little work on Revision (pp. 72-3), or they will fail to persuade any,—except one another.

(_c_) Thus it happens that we never spend half-an-hour over the unfortunate production before us without exclaiming (with one in the Gospel), “_The old is better_.” Changes of _any_ sort are unwelcome in such a book as the Bible; but the discovery that changes have been made _for the worse_, offends greatly. To take instances at random:—’Ὁ πλεῖστος ὄχλος (in Matth. xxi. 8) is rightly rendered in our A. V. “a _very great_ multitude.”(483) Why then has it been altered by the R. V. into “_the most part of_ the multitude”?—Ὁ πολὺς ὄχλος (Mk. xii. 37), in like manner, is rightly rendered “_the common people_,” and ought not to have been glossed in the margin “_the great multitude_.”—In the R. V. of Acts x. 15, we find “_Make_ thou not common,” introduced as an improvement on, “_That call_ not thou common.” But “the old is better:” for, besides its idiomatic and helpful “_That_,”—the old alone states the case truly. Peter did not “_make_,” he only “_called_,” something “common.”—“All the _male_ children,” as a translation of πάντας τοὺς παῖδας (in Matth. ii. 16) is an unauthorized statement. There is no reason for supposing that the female infants of Bethlehem were spared in the general massacre: and the Greek certainly conveys no such information.—“When he came into the house, JESUS _spake first_ to him”—is really an incorrect rendering of Matth. xvii. 25: at least, it imports into the narrative a notion which is not found in the Greek, and does not exhibit faithfully what the Evangelist actually says. “_Anticipated_,” in modern English,—“_prevented_,” in ancient phraseology,—“_was beforehand with him_” in language neither new nor old,—conveys the sense of the original exactly.—In S. Lu. vi. 35, “Love your enemies, ... and lend, _never despairing_,” is simply a mistaken translation of ἀπελπίζοντες, as the context sufficiently proves. The old rendering is the true one.(484) And so, learnedly, the Vulgate,—_nihil inde sperantes_. (Consider the use of ἀποβλέπειν [Heb. xi. 26]: ἀφορᾶν [Phil. ii. 23: Heb. xii. 2]: _abutor_, as used by Jerome for _utor_, &c.)—“Go with them _making no distinction_” is not the meaning of Acts xi. 12: which, however, was correctly translated before, viz. “nothing doubting.”—The mischievous change (“_save_” in place of “but”) in Gal. ii. 16 has been ably and faithfully exposed by Bp. Ollivant. In the words of the learned and pious Bp. of Lincoln, “it is illogical and erroneous, and _contradicts the whole drift of S. Paul’s Argument_ in that Epistle, and in the Epistle to the Romans.”

(_d_) We should be dealing insincerely with our Readers were we to conceal our grave dissatisfaction at not a few of the novel _expressions_ which the Revisionists have sought to introduce into the English New Testament. That the malefactors between whom “the LORD of glory” was crucified were not ordinary “_thieves_” is obvious; yet would it have been wiser, we think, to leave the old designation undisturbed. We shall never learn to call them “_robbers_.”—“The king sent forth _a soldier of his guard_” is a gloss—not a translation of S. Mark vi. 27. “_An executioner_” surely is far preferable as the equivalent for σπεκουλάτωρ!(485)—“_Assassins_” (as the rendering of σικάριοι) is an objectionable substitute for “murderers.” A word which “belongs probably to a romantic chapter in the history of the Crusades”(486) has no business in the N. T.—And what did these learned men suppose they should gain by substituting “_the twin brothers_” for “_Castor and Pollux_” in Acts xxviii. 11? The Greek (Διόσκουροι) is neither the one nor the other.—In the same spirit, instead of, “they that received _tribute-money_” (in S. Matth. xvii. 24), we are now presented with “they that received _the half-shekel_:” and in verse 27,—instead of “when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find _a piece of money_,” we are favoured with “thou shalt find _a shekel_.” But _why_ the change has been made, we fail to see. The margin is _still_ obliged to explain that not one of these four words is found in the original: the Greek in the former place being τὰ δίδραχμα,—in the latter, στατήρ.—“_Flute-players_” (for “minstrels”) in S. Matthew ix. 23, is a mistake. An αὐλητής played _the pipe_ (αὐλός, 1 Cor. xiv. 7),—hence “pipers” in Rev. xviii. 22; (where by the way μουσικοί [“musicians”] is perversely and less accurately rendered “_minstrels_”).—Once more. “_Undressed_ cloth” (Mk. ii. 21), because it is an expression popularly understood only in certain districts of England, and a _vox artis_, ought not to have been introduced into the Gospels. “_New_” is preferable.—“_Wine-skins_” (Mtt. ix. 17: Mk. ii. 22: Lu. v. 37) is a term unintelligible to the generality; as the Revisionists confess, for they explain it by a note,—“That is, _skins used as bottles_.” What else is this but substituting a new difficulty for an old one?—“_Silver_,” now for the first time thrust into Acts viii. 20, is unreasonable. Like “argent” in French, ἀργύριον as much means “money,” here as in S. Matthew xxv. 18, 27, &c.—In S. James ii. 19, we should like to know what is gained by the introduction of the “_shuddering_” devils.—To take an example from a different class of words,—Who will say that “Thou _mindest_ not the things of GOD” is a better rendering of οὐ φρονεῖς, than the old “Thou _savourest_ not,”—which at least had no ambiguity about it?... A friend points out that Dr. Field (a “master in Israel”) has examined 104 of the changes _made_ in the Revised Version; and finds 8 questionable: 13 unnecessary: 19 faulty (_i.e._ cases in which the A. V. required amendment, but which the R. V. has not succeeded in amending): 64 _changes for the worse_.(487)... This is surely a terrible indictment for such an one as Dr. Field to bring against the Revisers,—_who were directed only to correct_ “PLAIN AND CLEAR ERRORS.”

(_e_) We really fail to understand how it has come to pass that, notwithstanding the amount of scholarship which sometimes sat in the Jerusalem Chamber, so many novelties are found in the present Revision which betoken a want of familiarity with the refinements of the Greek language on the one hand; and (what is even more inexcusable) only a slender acquaintance with the resources and proprieties of English speech, on the other. A fair average instance of this occurs in Acts xxi. 37, where (instead of “_Canst_ thou _speak_ Greek?”) Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις? is rendered “_Dost_ thou _know_ Greek?” That γινώσκειν means “to know” (and not “to speak”) is undeniable: and yet, in the account of all, except the driest and stupidest of pedagogues, Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις; must be translated “Canst thou _speak_ Greek?” For (as every schoolboy is aware) Ἑλληνιστί is an adverb, and signifies “_in Greek fashion_:” so that something has to be supplied: and the full expression, if it must needs be given, would be, “Dost thou know [how to talk] in Greek?” But then, this condensation of phrase proves to be the established idiom of the language:(488) so that the rejection of the learned rendering of Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the Translators of 1611 (“_Canst thou speak_ Greek?”)—the rejection of this, at the end of 270 years, in favour of “_Dost thou know_ Greek?” really betrays ignorance. It is worse than bad Taste. It is a stupid and deliberate _blunder_.

(_f_) The substitution of “_they weighed unto him_” (in place of “_they covenanted with him for_”) “thirty pieces of silver” (S. Matth. xxvi. 15) is another of those plausible mistakes, into which a little learning (proverbially “a dangerous thing”) is for ever conducting its unfortunate possessor; but from which it was to have been expected that the undoubted attainments of some who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber would have effectually preserved the Revisionists. That ἔστησαν is intended to recal Zech. xi. 12, is obvious; as well as that _there_ it refers to the ancient practice of _weighing_ uncoined money. It does not, however, by any means follow, that it was customary to _weigh_ shekels in the days of the Gospel. Coined money, in fact, was never weighed, but always counted; and these were shekels, _i.e._ _didrachms_ (Matth. xvii. 24). The truth (it lies on the surface) is, that there exists a happy ambiguity about the word ἔστησαν, of which the Evangelist has not been slow to avail himself. In the particular case before us, it is expressly recorded that in the first instance money did _not_ pass,—only a bargain was made, and a certain sum promised. S. Mark’s record is that the chief priests were glad at the proposal of Judas, “_and promised_ to give him money” (xiv. 11): S. Luke’s, that “_they covenanted_” to do so (xxii. 5, 6). And with this, the statement of the first Evangelist is found to be in strictest agreement. The chief Priests “set” or “appointed”(489) him a certain sum. The perfectly accurate rendering of S. Matth. xxvi. 15, therefore, exhibited by our Authorized Version, has been set aside to make way for _a misrepresentation of the Evangelist’s meaning_. “In the judgment of the most competent scholars,” was “such change NECESSARY”?

(_g_) We respectfully think that it would have been more becoming in such a company as that which assembled in the Jerusalem Chamber, as well as more consistent with their Instructions, if _in doubtful cases_ they had abstained from touching the Authorized Version, but had recorded their own conjectural emendations _in the margin_. How rash and infelicitous, for example, is the following rendering of the famous words in Acts xxvi. 28, 29, which we find thrust upon us without apology or explanation; without, in fact, any marginal note at all:—“And Agrippa said unto Paul, _With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me_ a Christian. And Paul said, I would to GOD, that whether _with little or with much_,” &c. Now this is indefensible. For, in the first place, to get any such meaning out of the words, our Revisionists have been obliged to substitute the fabricated ποιῆσαι (the peculiar property of א A B and a few cursives) for γενέσθαι in ver. 28. Moreover, even so, the words do not yield the required sense. We venture to point out, that this is precisely one of the occasions where the opinion of a first-rate Greek Father is of paramount importance. The moderns confess themselves unable to discover a single instance of the phrase ἐν ὀλίγῳ in the sense of “_within a little_.” Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 350) and Chrysostom (A.D. 400), on the contrary, evidently considered that here the expression can mean nothing else; and they were competent judges, seeing that Greek was their native language: far better judges (be it remarked in passing) on a point of this kind than the whole body of Revisionists put together. “Such an amount of victorious grace and wisdom did Paul derive from the HOLY SPIRIT” (says Cyril), “that even King Agrippa at last exclaimed,”(490) &c. From which it is evident that Cyril regarded Agrippa’s words as an avowal that he was well-nigh overcome by the Apostle’s argument. And so Chrysostom,(491) who says plainly that ἐν ὀλίγῳ means “within a little,”(492) and assumes that “within a little” S. Paul had persuaded his judge.(493) He even puts παρ᾽ ὀλίγον into Agrippa’s mouth.(494) So also, in effect, Theodoret.(495) From all which it is reasonable, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to infer that our A. V. reflects faithfully what was the Church’s traditionary interpretation of Acts xxvi. 28 in the first half of the fourth century. Let it only be added that a better judge of such matters than any who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber—the late President of Magdalen, Dr. Routh,—writes: “_Vertendum esse sequentia suadent, Me fere Christianum fieri suades. Interp. Vulgata habet, In modico suades me Christianum fieri._”(496) Yes, the Apostle’s rejoinder fixes the meaning of what Agrippa had said before.—And this shall suffice. We pass on, only repeating our devout wish that what the Revisionists failed to understand, or were unable _materially and certainly_ to improve, they would have been so obliging as to let alone. In the present instance the A. V. is probably right; the R. V., probably wrong. No one, at all events, can pretend that the rendering with which we are all familiar is “_a plain and clear error_.” And confessedly, unless it was, it should have been left unmolested. But to proceed.