Chapter I: TO ACCIDENTAL CAUSES then we give the foremost place, and of these we (4)

(4) and (5) There can be no question as to the absolute duty of rendering identical expressions _in strictly parallel places of the Gospels_ by strictly identical language. So far we are wholly at one with the Revisionists. But “alterations [supposed to be] rendered necessary _by consequence_” (_Preface_, iii. 2.), are quite a different matter: and we venture to think that it is precisely in their pursuit of a mechanical uniformity of rendering, that our Revisionists have most often as well as most grievously lost their way. We differ from them in fact _in limine_. “When a particular word” (say they) “is found to recur with characteristic frequency in any one of the Sacred Writers, it is obviously desirable to adopt for it some uniform rendering” (iii. 2). “Desirable”! Yes, but in what sense? It is much to be desired, no doubt, that the English language always contained _the exact counterparts_ of Greek words: and of course, if it did, it would be in the highest degree “desirable” that a Translator should always employ those words and no other. But then it happens unfortunately that _precisely equivalent words do not exist_. Τέκνον, nine times out of ten signifies nothing else but “_child_.” On the tenth occasion, however, (_e.g._ where Abraham is addressing the rich man in Hades,) it would be absurd so to render it. We translate “_Son_.” We are in fact without choice.—Take another ordinary Greek term, σπλάγχνα, which occurs 11 times in the N. T., and which the A. V. uniformly renders “bowels.” Well, and “bowels” confessedly σπλάγχνα are. Yet have our Revisionists felt themselves under the “necessity” of rendering the word “_heart_,” in Col. iii. 12,—“_very heart_,” in Philemon, ver. 12,—“affections” in 2 Cor. vi. 12,—“_inward affection_,” in vii. 15,—“_tender mercies_” in Phil. i. 8,—“_compassion_” in 1 Jo. iii. 17,—“_bowels_” only in Acts i. 18.—These learned men, however, put forward in illustration of their own principle of translation, the word εὐθέως,—which occurs about 80 times in the N. T.: nearly half the instances being found in S. Mark’s Gospel. We accept their challenge; and assert that it is tasteless barbarism to seek to impose upon εὐθέως,—no matter _what_ the context in which it stands,—the sense of “_straightway_,”—only because εὐθύς, the adjective, generally (not always) means “straight.” Where a miracle of healing is described (as in S. Matth. viii. 3: xx. 34. S. Lu. v. 13), since the benefit was no doubt instantaneous, it is surely the mere instinct of “faithfulness” to translate εὐθέως “_immediately_.” So, in respect of the sudden act which saved Peter from sinking (S. Matth. xiv. 31); and that punctual cock-crow (xxvi. 74), which (S. Luke says) did not so much follow, as _accompany_ his denial (xxii. 60). But surely not so, when _the growth of a seed_ is the thing spoken of (Matth. xiii. 5)! Acts again, which must needs have occupied some little time in the doing, reasonably suggest some such rendering as “_forthwith_” or “_straightway_,”—(_e.g._ S. Matth. xiv. 22: xxi. 2: and S. John vi. 21): while, in 3 John ver. 14, the meaning (as the Revisionists confess) can only be “_shortly_.”... So plain a matter really ought not to require so many words. We repeat, that the Revisionists set out with a mistaken Principle. They clearly _do not understand their Trade_.

They invite our attention to their rendering of certain of the Greek Tenses, and of the definite Article. We regret to discover that, in both respects, their work is disfigured throughout by changes which convict a majority of their body alike of an imperfect acquaintance with the genius of the Greek language, and of scarcely a moderate appreciation of the idiomatic proprieties of their own. Such a charge must of necessity, when it has been substantiated, press heavily upon such a work as the present; for it is not as when a solitary error has been detected, which may be rectified. A vicious _system_ of rendering Tenses, and representing the Greek Article, is sure to crop up in every part of the undertaking, and must occasionally be attended by consequences of a serious nature.

1. Now, that we may not be misunderstood, we admit at once that, in teaching _boys_ how to turn Greek into English, we insist that every tense shall be marked by its own appropriate sign. There is no telling how helpful it will prove in the end, that every word shall at first have been rendered with painful accuracy. Let the Article be [mis-]represented—the Prepositions caricatured—the Particles magnified,—let the very order of the words at first, (however impossible,) be religiously retained. Merciless accuracy having been in this way acquired, a youth has to be _un_taught these servile habits. He has to be reminded of the requirements of the _English idiom_, and speedily becomes aware that the idiomatic rendering of a Greek author into English, is a higher achievement by far, than his former slavish endeavour always to render the same word and tense in the same slavish way.

2. But what supremely annoys us in the work just now under review is, that the schoolboy method of translation already noticed is therein exhibited in constant operation throughout. It becomes oppressive. We are never permitted to believe that we are in the company of Scholars who are altogether masters of their own language. Their solicitude ever seems to be twofold:—(1) To exhibit a singular indifference to the proprieties of English speech, while they maintain a servile adherence (etymological or idiomatic, as the case may be) to the Greek:—(2) Right or wrong, to part company from William Tyndale and the giants who gave us our “Authorized Version.”

Take a few illustrations of what precedes from the second chapter of S. Matthew’s Gospel:—

(1.) Thus, in ver. 2, the correct English rendering “_we have seen_” is made to give place to the incorrect “_we saw_ his star in the east.”—In ver. 9, the idiomatic “_when they had heard the king_, they departed,” is rejected for the unidiomatic “And they, _having heard the king_, went their way.”—In ver. 15, we are treated to “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the LORD _through_ the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt _did I call_ my son.” And yet who sees not, that in both instances the old rendering is better? Important as it may be, _in the lecture-room_, to insist on what is implied by τὸ ῥηθὲν ὙΠῸ τοῦ κυρίου ΔΙᾺ τοῦ προφήτου, it is simply preposterous to _come abroad_ with such refinements. It is to stultify oneself and to render one’s author unintelligible. Moreover, the attempt to be so wondrous literal is safe to break down at the end of a few verses. Thus, if διά is “_through_” in verse 15,—why not in verse 17 and in verse 23?

(2.) Note how infelicitously, in S. Matth. ii. 1, “there came wise men from the east” is changed into “_wise men from the east came_.”—In ver. 4, the accurate, “And when [Herod] had gathered together” (συναγαγών) &c., is displaced for the inaccurate, “And _gathering together_” &c.—In ver. 6, we are presented with the unintelligible, “And thou _Bethlehem, land of Judah_:” while in ver. 7, “Then Herod _privily called_ the wise men, and _learned of them carefully_,” is improperly put in the place of “Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently” (ἠκρίβωσε παρ᾽ αὐτῶν).—In ver. 11, the familiar “And when they were come into the house, they saw” &c., is needlessly changed into “They _came into the house_, and saw:” while “and when they had opened (ἀνοίξαντες) their treasures,” is also needlessly altered into “and _opening_ their treasures.”—In ver. 12, the R. V. is careful to print “_of _GOD” in italics, where italics are not necessary: seeing that χρηματισθέντες implies “being warned of GOD” (as the translators of 1611 were well aware(497)): whereas in countless other places the same Revisionists reject the use of italics where italics are absolutely required.—Their “until I _tell thee_” (in ver. 13) is a most unworthy substitute for “until I _bring thee word_.”—And will they pretend that they have improved the rendering of the concluding words of the chapter? If Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται does not mean “He shall be called a Nazarene,” what in the world _does_ it mean? The ὅτι of quotation they elsewhere omit. Then why, here,—“_That_ it might be fulfilled ... _that_”?—Surely, every one of these is an alteration made for alteration’s sake, and in every instance _for the worse_.

We began by surveying _the Greek_ of the first chapter of S. Matthew’s Gospel. We have now surveyed _the English_ of the second chapter. What does the Reader think of the result?

IV. Next, the Revisionists invite attention to certain points of detail: and first, to their rendering of THE TENSES OF THE VERB. They begin with the Greek Aorist,—(in their account) “perhaps the most important” detail of all:—

“We have not attempted to violate the idiom of our language by
forms of expression which it would not bear. But we have often
ventured to represent the Greek aorist by the English preterite,
even when the reader may find some passing difficulty in such a
rendering, because we have felt convinced that the true meaning of
the original was obscured by the presence of the familiar
auxiliary. A remarkable illustration may be found in the
seventeenth chapter of S. John’s Gospel.”—_Preface_, iii.
2,—(_latter part_).

(_a_) We turn to the place indicated, and are constrained to assure these well-intentioned men, that the phenomenon we there witness is absolutely fatal to their pretensions as “_Revisers_” of our Authorized Version. Were it only “some passing difficulty” which their method occasions us, we might have hoped that time would enable us to overcome it. But since it is _the genius of the English language_ to which we find they have offered violence; the fixed and universally-understood idiom of our native tongue which they have systematically set at defiance; the matter is absolutely without remedy. The difference between the A. V. and the R. V. seems to ourselves to be simply this,—that the renderings in the former are the idiomatic English representations of certain well-understood Greek tenses: while the proposed substitutes are nothing else but the pedantic efforts of mere grammarians to reproduce in another language idioms which it abhors. But the Reader shall judge for himself: for _this_ at least is a point on which every educated Englishman is fully competent to pass sentence.

When our Divine LORD, at the close of His Ministry,—(He had in fact reached the very last night of His earthly life, and it wanted but a few hours of His Passion,)—when He, at such a moment, addressing the Eternal FATHER, says, ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; τὸ ἔργον ἐτελείωσα ... ἐφανέρωσά σου τὸ ὄνομα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, &c. [Jo. xvii. 4, 6], there can be no doubt whatever that, had He pronounced those words in English, He would have said (with our A. V.) “I _have glorified_ Thee on the earth: I _have finished_ the work:” “I _have manifested_ Thy Name.” The pedantry which (on the plea that the Evangelist employs the aorist, not the perfect tense,) would twist all this into the indefinite past,—“I glorified” ... “I finished” ... “I manifested,”—we pronounce altogether insufferable. We absolutely refuse it a hearing. Presently (in ver. 14) He says,—“I have given them Thy word; and the world _hath hated them_.” And in ver. 25,—“O righteous FATHER, the world _hath not known_ Thee; but I _have known_ Thee, and these _have known_ that Thou _hast sent_ Me.” _Who_ would consent to substitute for these expressions,—“the world hated them:” and “the world knew Thee not, but I knew Thee; and these knew that Thou didst send Me”?—Or turn to another Gospel. _Which_ is better,—“Some one hath touched Me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of Me,” (S. Lu. viii. 46):—or,—“Some one _did touch_ Me: for _I perceived_ that power _had gone forth_ from Me”?

When the reference is to an act so extremely recent, _who_ is not aware that the second of these renderings is abhorrent to the genius of the English language? As for ἔγνων, it is (like _novi_ in Latin) present in _sense_ though past in _form_,—here as in S. Lu. xvi. 3.—But turn to yet another Gospel. _Which_ is better in S. Matth. xvi. 7:—“_we took_ no bread,” or “It is because _we have taken_ no bread”?—Again. When Simon Peter (in reply to the command that he should thrust out into deep water and let down his net for a draught,) is heard to exclaim,—“Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at Thy word I will let down the net” (Lu. v. 5),—_who_ would tolerate the proposal to put in the place of it,—“Master, _we toiled all night_, and _took_ nothing: but at Thy word,” &c. It is not too much to declare that the idiom of the English language refuses peremptorily to submit to such handling. Quite in vain is it to encounter us with reminder that κοπιάσαντες and ἐλάβομεν are aorists. The answer is,—We know it: but we deny that it follows that the words are to be rendered “we _toiled_ all night, and _took_ nothing.” There are laws of English Idiom as well as laws of Greek Grammar: and when these clash in what is meant to be a translation into English out of Greek, the latter must perforce give way to the former,—or we make ourselves ridiculous, and misrepresent what we propose to translate.

All this is so undeniable that it ought not to require to be insisted upon. But in fact our Revisionists by their occasional practice show that they fully admit _the Principle_ we are contending for. Thus, ἧραν (in S. Jo. xx. 2 and 13) is by them translated “_they have taken_:”—ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες; (S. Matt. xxvii. 46) “Why _hast Thou forsaken Me_?”(498):—ἔδειξα (S. Jo. x. 32) “_have I showed_:”—ἀπέστειλε (vi. 29) “_He hath sent_:”—ἠτιμάσατε (James ii. 6) “_ye have dishonoured_:”—ἐκαθάρισε (Acts x. 15) “_hath cleansed_:”—ἔστησεν (xvii. 31) “He _hath appointed_.” But indeed instances abound everywhere. In fact, the requirements of the case are often observed to _force_ them to be idiomatic. Τί ἐποίησας; (in Jo. xviii. 35), they rightly render “What _hast_ thou done?”:—and ἔγραψα (in 1 Jo. ii. 14, 21), “I _have_ written;”—and ἤκουσα (in Acts ix. 13), “I _have_ heard.”—On the other hand, by translating οὐκ εἴασεν (in Acts xxviii. 4), “_hath not suffered_,” they may be thought to have overshot the mark. They seem to have overlooked the fact that, when once S. Paul had been bitten by the viper, “the barbarians” looked upon him as _a dead man_; and therefore discoursed about what Justice “_did not_ suffer,” as about an entirely past transaction.

But now, _Who_ sees not that the admission, once and again deliberately made, that sometimes it is not only lawful, but even _necessary_, to accommodate the Greek aorist (when translated into English) with the sign of the perfect,—reduces the whole matter (of the signs of the tenses) to a mere question of _Taste_? In view of such instances as the foregoing, where severe logical necessity has compelled the Revisionists to abandon their position and fly, it is plain that their contention is at an end,—so far as _right_ and _wrong_ are concerned. They virtually admit that they have been all along unjustly forcing on an independent language an alien yoke.(499) Henceforth, it simply becomes a question to be repeated, as every fresh emergency arises,—Which then is _the more idiomatic_ of these two English renderings?... Conversely, twice at least (Heb. xi. 17 and 28), the Revisionists have represented the _Greek perfect_ by the English indefinite preterite.

(_b_) Besides this offensive pedantry in respect of the Aorist, we are often annoyed by an _unidiomatic_ rendering of the Imperfect. True enough it is that “the servants and the officers _were standing_ ... and _were warming_ themselves:” Peter also “_was standing_ with them and _was warming_ himself” (S. Jo. xviii. 18). But we do not so express ourselves in English, unless we are about to add something which shall _account for_ our particularity and precision. Any one, for example, desirous of stating what had been for years his daily practice, would say—“_I left_ my house.” Only when he wanted to explain that, on leaving it for the 1000th time, he met a friend coming up the steps to pay him a visit, would an Englishman think of saying, “_I was leaving_ the house.” A Greek writer, on the other hand, would not _trust_ this to the imperfect. He would use the present participle in the dative case, (“_To me, leaving my house_,”(500) &c.). One is astonished to have to explain such things.... “If therefore thou _art offering_ thy gift at the altar” (Matt. v. 23), may seem to some a clever translation. To ourselves, it reads like a senseless exaggeration of the original.(501) It sounds (and _is_) as unnatural as to say (in S. Lu. ii. 33) “And His father [a depravation of the text] and His mother _were marvelling_ at the things which were spoken concerning Him:”—or (in Heb. xi. 17) “yea, he that had received the promises _was offering up_ his only-begotten son:”—or, of the cripple at Lystra (Acts xiv. 9), “the same heard Paul _speaking_.”

(_c_) On the other hand, there are occasions confessedly when the Greek Aorist absolutely demands to be rendered into English by the sign of the _Pluperfect_. An instance meets us while we write: ὡς δὲ ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν (S. Lu. v. 4),—where our Revisionists are found to retain the idiomatic rendering of our Authorized Version,—“When He _had left_ speaking.” Of what possible avail could it be, on such an occasion, to insist that, because ἐπαύσατο is not in the pluperfect tense, it may not be accommodated with _the sign_ of the pluperfect when it is being translated into English?—The R. V. has shown less consideration in S. Jo. xviii. 24,—where “Now Annas _had sent_ Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest,” is right, and wanted no revision.—Such places as Matth. xxvii. 60, Jo. xxi. 15, Acts xii. 17, and Heb. iv. 8, on the other hand, simply defy the Revisionists. For perforce Joseph “_had hewn_ out” (ἐλατόμησε) the new tomb which became our LORD’S: and the seven Apostles, confessedly, “_had dined_” (ἠρίστησαν): and S. Peter, of course, “declared unto them how the LORD _had brought him out_ of the prison” (ἐξήγαγεν): and it is impossible to substitute anything for “If Jesus [Joshua] _had given_ them rest” (κατέπαυσεν).—Then of course there are occasions, (not a few,) where the Aorist (often an indefinite present in Greek) claims to be Englished by the sign of the present tense: as where S. John says (Rev. xix. 6), “The LORD GOD Omnipotent reigneth” (ἐβασίλευσε). There is no striving against such instances. They _insist_ on being rendered according to the genius of the language into which it is proposed to render them:—as when ἔκειτο (in S. Jo. xx. 12) exacts for its rendering “_had lain_.”

(_d_) It shall only be pointed out here in addition, for the student’s benefit, that there is one highly interesting place (viz. S. Matth. xxviii. 2), which in every age has misled Critics and Divines (as Origen and Eusebius); Poets (as Rogers); Painters (as West);—yes, and will continue to mislead readers for many a year to come:—and all because men have failed to perceive that the aorist is used there for the pluperfect. Translate,—“There _had been_ a great earthquake:” [and so (1611-1881) our margin,—until in short “the Revisionists” interfered:] “for the Angel of the LORD _had_ descended from heaven, and _come and rolled away_ (ἀπεκύλισε) the stone from the door, and sat upon it.” Strange, that for 1800 years Commentators should have failed to perceive that the Evangelist is describing what terrified “_the keepers_.” “_The women_” saw no Angel sitting upon the stone!—though Origen,(502)—Dionysius of Alexandria,(503)—Eusebius,(504)—ps.-Gregory Naz.,(505)—Cyril Alex.,(506)—Hesychius,(507)—and so many others—have taken it for granted that they _did_.

(_e_) Then further, (to dismiss the subject and pass on,)—There are occasions where the Greek _perfect_ exacts the sign of the _present_ at the hands of the English translator: as when Martha says,—“Yea LORD, I _believe_ that Thou art the CHRIST” (S. Jo. xi. 27).(508) What else but the veriest pedantry is it to thrust in there “_I have believed_,” as the English equivalent for πεπίστευκα?—Just as intolerable is the officiousness which would thrust into the LORD’S prayer (Matt. vi. 12), “as we also _have forgiven_ (ἀφήκαμεν) our debtors.”(509)—On the other hand, there are Greek _presents_ (whatever the Revisionists may think) which are just as peremptory in requiring _the sign of the future_, at the hands of the idiomatic translator into English. Three such cases are found in S. Jo. xvi. 16, 17, 19. Surely, the future is _inherent_ in the present ἔρχομαι! In Jo. xiv. 18 (and many similar places), who can endure, “I will not leave you desolate: _I come unto you_”?

(_f_) But instances abound. How does it happen that the inaccurate rendering of ἐκκόπτεται—ἐκβάλλεται—has been retained in S. Matth. iii. 10, S. Lu. iii. 9?

V. Next, concerning the DEFINITE ARTICLE; in the case of which, (say the Revisionists,)

“many changes have been made.” “We have been careful to observe
the use of the Article wherever it seemed to be idiomatically
possible: where it did not seem to be possible, we have yielded to
necessity.”—(_Preface_, iii. 2,—_ad fin._)

In reply, instead of offering counter-statements of our own we content ourselves with submitting a few specimens to the Reader’s judgment; and invite him to decide between the Reviewer and the Reviewed ... “_The_ sower went forth to sow” (Matth. xiii. 3).—“It is greater than _the_ herbs” (ver. 32).—“Let him be to thee as _the_ Gentile and _the_ publican” (xviii. 17).—“The unclean spirit, when he is gone out of _the_ man” (xii. 43).—“Did I not choose you _the_ twelve?” (Jo. vi. 70).—“If I then, _the_ Lord and _the_ master” (xiii. 14).—“For _the_ joy that a man is born into the world” (xvi. 21).—“But as touching Apollos _the_ brother” (1 Cor. xvi. 12).—“_The_ Bishop must be blameless ... able to exhort in _the_ sound doctrine” (Titus i. 7, 9).—“_The_ lust when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and _the_ sin, when it is full grown” &c. (James i. 15).—“Doth _the_ fountain send forth from the same opening sweet water and bitter?” (iii. 11).—“Speak thou the things which befit _the_ sound doctrine” (Titus ii. 1).—“The time will come when they will not endure _the_ sound doctrine” (2 Tim. iv. 3).—“We had _the_ fathers of our flesh to chasten us” (Heb. xii. 9).—“Follow after peace with all men, and _the_ sanctification” (ver. 14).—“Who is _the_ liar but he that denieth that JESUS is the CHRIST?” (1 Jo. ii. 22).—“Not with _the_ water only, but with _the_ water and with _the_ blood” (v. 6).—“He that hath the SON, hath _the_ life: he that hath not the SON of GOD hath not _the_ life” (ver. 12).

To rejoin, as if it were a sufficient answer, that the definite Article is found in all these places in the original Greek,—is preposterous. In French also we say “Telle est _la_ vie:” but, in translating from the French, we do not _therefore_ say “Such is _the_ life.” May we, without offence, suggest the study of Middleton _On the Doctrine of the Greek Article_ to those members of the Revisionists’ body who have favoured us with the foregoing crop of mistaken renderings?

So, in respect of the indefinite article, we are presented with,—“_An_ eternal” (for “_the_ everlasting”) “gospel to proclaim” (Rev. xiv. 6):—and “one like unto _a_ son of man,” for “one like unto _the_ Son of Man” in ver. 14.—Why “_a_ SAVIOUR” in Phil. iii. 20? There is but one! (Acts iv. 12).—On the other hand, Κρανίον is rendered “_The_ skull” in S. Lu. xxiii. 33. It is hard to see why.—These instances taken at random must suffice. They might be multiplied to any extent. If the Reader considers that the idiomatic use of the English Article is understood by the authors of these specimen cases, we shall be surprised, and sorry—_for him_.

VI. The Revisionists announce that they “have been particularly careful” as to THE PRONOUNS [iii. 2 _ad fin._] We recal with regret that this is also a particular wherein we have been specially annoyed and offended. Annoyed—at their practice of _repeating the nominative_ (_e.g._ in Mk. i. 13: Jo. xx. 12) to an extent unknown, abhorrent even, to our language, except indeed when a fresh substantive statement is made: offended—at their license of translation, _when it suits them_ to be licentious.—Thus, (as the Bp. of S. Andrews has well pointed out,) “_it is He that_” is an incorrect translation of αὐτός in S. Matth. i. 21,—a famous passage. Even worse, because it is unfair, is “_He who_” as the rendering of ὅς in 1 Tim. iii. 16,—another famous passage, which we have discussed elsewhere.(510)

VII. ’In the case of the PARTICLES’ (say the Revisionists),

“we have been able to maintain a reasonable amount of
_consistency_. The Particles in the Greek Testament are, as is
well known, comparatively few, and they are commonly used with
precision. It has therefore been the more necessary here to
preserve a general _uniformity of rendering_.”—(iii. 2 _ad fin._)

Such an announcement, we submit, is calculated to occasion nothing so much as uneasiness and astonishment. Of all the parts of speech, the Greek Particles,—(especially throughout the period when the Language was in its decadence,)—are the least capable of being drilled into “a general uniformity of rendering;” and he who tries the experiment ought to be the first to be aware of the fact. The refinement and delicacy which they impart to a narrative or a sentiment, are not to be told. But then, from the very nature of the case, “_uniformity of rendering_” is precisely the thing they will not submit to. They take their colour from their context: often mean two quite different things in the course of two successive verses: sometimes are best rendered by a long and formidable word;(511) sometimes cannot (without a certain amount of impropriety or inconvenience) be rendered _at all_.(512) Let us illustrate what we have been saying by actual appeals to Scripture.

(1) And first, we will derive our proofs from the use which the sacred Writers make of the particle of most frequent recurrence—δέ. It is said to be employed in the N. T. 3115 times. As for its meaning, we have the unimpeachable authority of the Revisionists themselves for saying that it may be represented by any of the following words:—“but,”—“and,”(513)—“yea,”(514)—“what,”(515)—“now,”(516)—“and that”,(517)—“howbeit,”(518)—“even,”(519)—“therefore,”(520)—“I say,”(521)—“also,”(522)—“yet,”(523)—“for.”(524) To which 12 renderings, King James’s translators (mostly following Tyndale) are observed to add at least these other 12:—“wherefore,”(525)—“so,”(526)—“moreover,”(527)—“yea and,”(528)—“furthermore,”(529)—“nevertheless,”(530)—“notwithstanding,”(531)—“yet but,”(532)—“truly,”(533)—“or,”(534)—“as for,”(535)—“then,”(536)—“and yet.”(537) It shall suffice to add that, by the pitiful substitution of “but” or “and” on _most_ of the foregoing occasions, the freshness and freedom of almost every passage has been made to disappear: the plain fact being that the men of 1611—above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before them—produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt, or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English: whereas the men of 1881 have fulfilled their task in what can only be described as _a spirit of servile pedantry_. The Grammarian (pure and simple) crops up everywhere. We seem never to rise above the atmosphere of the lecture-room,—the startling fact that μέν means “indeed,” and δέ “but.”

We subjoin a single specimen of the countless changes introduced in the rendering of Particles, and then hasten on. In 1 Cor. xii. 20, for three centuries and a half, Englishmen have been contented to read (with William Tyndale), “But now are they many members, YET BUT one body.” Our Revisionists, (overcome by the knowledge that δέ means “but,” and yielding to the supposed “necessity for preserving a general uniformity of rendering,”) substitute,—“_But_ now they are many members, _but_ one body.” Comment ought to be superfluous. We neither overlook the fact that δέ occurs here twice, nor deny that it is fairly represented by “but” in the first instance. We assert nevertheless that, on the second occasion, “YET BUT” ought to have been let alone. And this is a fair sample of the changes which have been effected _many times in every page_. To proceed however.

(2) The interrogative particle ἤ occurs at the beginning of a sentence at least 8 or 10 times in the N. T.; first, in S. Matth. vii. 9. It is often scarcely translateable,—being apparently invested with with no more emphasis than belongs to our colloquial interrogative “_Eh?_” But sometimes it would evidently bear to be represented by “Pray,”(538)—being at least equivalent to φέρε in Greek or _age_ in Latin. Once only (viz. in 1 Cor. xiv. 36) does this interrogative particle so eloquently plead for recognition in the text, that both our A. V. and the R. V. have rendered it “What?”—by which word, by the way, it might very fairly have been represented in S. Matth. xxvi. 53 and Rom. vi. 3: vii. 1. In five of the places where the particle occurs. King James’s Translators are observed to have give it up in despair.(539) But what is to be thought of the adventurous dulness which (with the single exception already indicated) has _invariably_ rendered ἤ by the conjunction “_or_”? The blunder is the more inexcusable, because the intrusion of such an irrelevant conjunction into places where it is without either use or meaning cannot have failed to attract the notice of every member of the Revising body.

(3) At the risk of being wearisome, we must add a few words.—Καί, though no particle but a conjunction, may for our present purpose be reasonably spoken of under the same head; being diversely rendered “and,”—“and yet,”(540)—“then,”(541)—“or,”(542)—“neither,”(543)—“though,”(544)—“so,”(545)—“but,”(546)—“for,”(547)—“that,”(548)—in conformity with what may be called the genius of the English language. The last six of these renderings, however, our Revisionists disallow; everywhere thrusting out the word which the argument seems rather to require, and with mechanical precision thrusting into its place every time the (perfectly safe, but often palpably inappropriate) word, “and.” With what amount of benefit this has been effected, one or two samples will sufficiently illustrate:—

(_a_) The Revisionists inform us that when “the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth,”—S. Paul exclaimed, “GOD shall smite thee, thou whited wall: AND sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?”(549)... Do these learned men really imagine that they have improved upon the A. V. by their officiousness in altering “FOR” into “AND”?

(_b_) The same Apostle, having ended his argument to the Hebrews, remarks,—“_So_ we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief” (Heb. iii. 19): for which, our Revisionists again substitute “And.” Begin the sentence with “AND,” (instead of “So,”) and, in compensation for what you have clearly _lost_, what have you _gained_?... Once more:—

(_c_) Consider what S. Paul writes concerning Apollos (in 1 Cor. xvi. 12), and then say what possible advantage is obtained by writing “AND” (instead of “BUT”) “his will was not at all to come at this time”.... Yet once more; and on _this_ occasion, scholarship is to some extent involved:—

(_d_) When S. James (i. 11) says ἀνέτειλε γὰρ ὁ ἥλιος ... καὶ ἐξήρανε τὸν χόρτον,—_who_ knows not that what his language strictly means in idiomatic English, is,—“_No sooner_ does the sun arise,” “_than_ it withereth the grass”? And so in effect our Translators of 1611. What possible improvement on this can it be to substitute, “For the sun ariseth ... AND withereth the grass”?—Only once more:—

(_e_) Though καί undeniably means “and,” and πῶς, “how,”—_who_ knows not that καὶ πῶς means “_How then?_” And yet, (as if a stupid little boy had been at work,) in two places,—(namely, in S. Mark iv. 13 and S. Luke xx. 44,)—“AND HOW” is found mercilessly thrust in, to the great detriment of the discourse; while in other two,—(namely, in S. John xiv. 5 and 9,)—the text itself has been mercilessly deprived of its characteristic καί by the Revisionists.—Let this suffice. One might fill many quires of paper with such instances of tasteless, senseless, vexatious, and _most unscholarlike_ innovation.

VIII. “Many changes” (we are informed) “have been introduced in the rendering of the PREPOSITIONS.” [_Preface_, iii. 2, _ad fin._]:—and we are speedily reminded of the truth of the statement, for (as was shown above [pp. 155-6]) the second chapter of S. Matthew’s Gospel exhibits the Revisionists “all a-field” in respect of διά. “We have rarely made any change” (they add) “where the true meaning of the original would be apparent to _a Reader of ordinary intelligence_.” It would of course ill become such an one as the present Reviewer to lay claim to the foregoing flattering designation: but really, when he now for the first time reads (in Acts ix. 25) that the disciples of Damascus let S. Paul down “_through the wall_,” he must be pardoned for regretting the absence of a marginal reference to the history of Pyramus and Thisbe in order to suggest _how_ the operation was effected: for, as it stands, the R. V. is to him simply unintelligible. Inasmuch as the basket (σπυρίς) in which the Apostle effected his escape was of considerable size, do but think what an extravagantly large hole it must have been to enable them _both_ to get through!... But let us look further.

Was it then in order to bring Scripture within the _captus_ of “a Reader of ordinary intelligence” that the Revisers have introduced no less than _thirty changes_ into _eight-and-thirty words_ of S. Peter’s 2nd Epistle? Particular attention is invited to the following interesting specimen of “_Revision_.” It is the only one we shall offer of the many _contrasts_ we had marked for insertion. We venture also to enquire, whether the Revisers will consent to abide by it as a specimen of their skill in dealing with the Preposition ἐν?

A. V. R. V. “And beside all this, “Yea (1), and for (2) giving all diligence, add this very (3) cause (4) to your faith virtue; and adding (5) on (6) your to virtue knowledge; and part (7) all diligence, to knowledge temperance; in (8) your faith supply and to temperance (9) virtue; and in (10) patience; and to patience your (11) virtue godliness; and to knowledge; and in (12) godliness brotherly your (13) knowledge kindness; and to temperance; and in (14) brotherly kindness your (15) temperance charity.”—[2 Pet. i. patience; and in (16) 5-7.] your (17) patience godliness; and in (18) your (19) godliness love (20) of (21) the (22) brethren (23); and in (24) your (25) love (26) of (27) the (28) brethren (29) love (30).”

The foregoing strikes us as a singular illustration of the Revisionists’ statement (_Preface_, iii. 2),—“We made _no_ change _if the meaning was fairly expressed_ by the word or phrase that was before us in the Authorized Version.” To ourselves it appears that _every one of those 30 changes is a change for the worse_; and that one of the most exquisite passages in the N. T. has been hopelessly spoiled,—rendered in fact well-nigh unintelligible,—by the pedantic officiousness of the Revisers. Were they—(if the question be allowable)—bent on removing none but “_plain and clear errors_,” when they substituted those 30 words? Was it in token of their stern resolve “to introduce into the Text _as few alterations as possible_,” that they spared the eight words which remain out of the eight-and-thirty?

As for their _wooden_ rendering of ἐν, it ought to suffice to refer them to S. Mk. i. 23, S. Lu. xiv. 31, to prove that sometimes ἐν can only be rendered “_with_”:—and to S. Luke vii. 17, to show them that ἐν sometimes means “_throughout_”:—and to Col. i. 16, and Heb. i. 1, 2, in proof that sometimes it means “_by_.”—On the other hand, their suggestion that ἐν may be rendered “_by_” in S. Luke i. 51, convicts them of not being aware that “the proud-in-the-imagination-of-their-hearts” is _a phrase_—in which perforce “_by_” has no business whatever. One is surprised to have to teach professed Critics and Scholars an elementary fact like this.

In brief, these learned men are respectfully assured that there is not one of the “Parts of Speech” which will consent to be handled after the inhumane fashion which seems to be to themselves congenial. Whatever they may think of the matter, it is nothing else but absurd to speak of an Angel “casting his sickle _into the earth_” (Rev. xiv. 19).—As for his “pouring out his bowl _upon the air_” (xvi. 17),—we really fail to understand the nature of the operation.—And pray, What is supposed to be the meaning of “the things _upon the heavens_”—in Ephesians i. 10?

Returning to the preposition διά followed by the genitive,—(in respect of which the Revisionists challenge Criticism by complaining in their Preface [iii. 3 _ad fin._] that in the A. V. “ideas of instrumentality or of mediate agency, distinctly marked in the original, have been _confused or obscured in the Translation_,”)—we have to point out:—

(1st) That these distinguished individuals seem not to be aware that the proprieties of English speech forbid the use of “_through_” (as a substitute for “_by_”) in certain expressions where instrumentality is concerned. Thus, “the Son of man” was not betrayed “_through_” Judas, but “_by_” him (Matt. xxvi. 24: Luke xxii. 22).—Still less is it allowable to say that a prophecy was “spoken,” nay “_written_,” “_through_ the Prophet” (Matth. i. 22 and margin of ii. 5). “Who spake BY_ the Prophets_,” is even an article of the Faith.

And (2ndly),—That these scholars have in consequence adopted a see-saw method of rendering διά,—sometimes in one way, sometimes in the other. First, they give us “wonders and signs done _by_ the Apostles” (Acts ii. 43; but in the margin, “Or, _through_”): presently, “a notable miracle hath been wrought _through_ them” (iv. 16: and this time, the margin withholds the alternative, “Or, _by_”). Is then “the true meaning” of “_by_,” in the former place, “apparent to a Reader of ordinary intelligence”? but so obscure in the latter as to render _necessary_ the alteration to “_through_”? Or (_sit venia verbo_),—Was it a mere “toss-up” with the Revisionists _what_ is the proper rendering of διά?

(3rdly), In an earlier place (ii. 22), we read of “miracles, wonders, and signs” which “GOD did _by_” JESUS of Nazareth. Was it reverence, which, on that occasion, forbad the use of “_through_”—even in the margin? We hope so: but the preposition is still the same—διά not ὑπό.

Lastly (4thly),—The doctrine that Creation is the work of the Divine WORD, all Scripture attests. “All things were made _by_ Him” (S. Jo. i. 3):—“the world was made _by_ Him” (ver. 10).—Why then, in Col. i. 16, where the same statement is repeated,—(“all things were created _by_ Him and for Him,”)—do we find “_through_” substituted for “_by_”? And why is the same offence repeated in 1 Cor. vii. 6,—(where we _ought_ to read,—“one GOD, the FATHER, of whom are all things ... and one LORD JESUS CHRIST, _by_ whom are all things”)?—Why, especially, in Heb. i. 2, in place of “_by_ whom also [viz. by THE SON] He made the worlds,” do we find substituted “_through_ whom”?... And why add to this glaring inconsistency the wretched vacillation of giving us the choice of “_through_” (in place of “_by_”) in the margin of S. John i. 3 and 10, and not even offering us the alternative of “_by_” (in place of “_through_”) in any of the other places,—although the preposition is διά on every occasion?

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, our SAVIOUR “was baptized _into 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 Revisionists, as a body, intended nothing less,—_who_ can 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 down_ INTO,” and so, “_was baptized_ IN the _Jordan_”?(550)... But _why_, in the name of common sense, _did not the Revisionists let the Preposition alone_?

IX. The MARGIN of 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 of _a 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 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 assigns _the grounds_ of 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 specify _Textual errors_ which the Revisionists declined to adopt,—we shall here furnish only two instances of the mischief we deplore:—

(_a_) Against the words, “And while they _abode_ in Galilee” (S. Matthew xvii. 22), we find it stated,—“Some ancient authorities read _were gathering themselves together_.” The plain English of which queer piece of information is that א and B exhibit 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 for CON_-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 of EURAQUILO for “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 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 the _Textual_ blunder 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 of _Melita_,—“some ancient authorities read _Melitene_,” in Acts xxviii. 1? Is every pitiful blunder of cod. B to live on in the margin of every Englishman’s copy of the New Testament, for ever? Why, _all_ other MSS.—the Syriac and the Latin versions,—Pamphilus of Cæsarea(552) (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;—_all_ read 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.(556) _That_ 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;(557) mention of which crops up in the _Concilia_ repeatedly.(558)

(2) and (4) The second and the fourth group may be considered together. The former comprises those words of which the _less exact_ rendering finds place in the Text:—the latter, “_Alternative renderings_ in 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 Thy _presence_, and of _the consummation of the age_?”—against Tit. i. 2,—“_before times eternal_”: against Mk. iv. 29,—“When the fruit _alloweth_ [and why not ‘_yieldeth_ itself’?], straightway _he sendeth forth_ the 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 Thy _bondservant_ depart in peace”:—against Acts iv. 24,—“O _Master_, thou that didst make the heaven and the earth”:—against Lu. i. 78,—“Because of _the heart of mercy_ of our GOD.” 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 of _special_ interpretation”? 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 eat _bread_”: not to mention the petition for “_daily bread_” in the LORD’S prayer. These learned men, however, do not spare us even when mention is made of “taking the children’s _bread_ and casting it to the dogs” (Mk. vii. 27): while in the enquiry,—“If a son shall ask _bread_ of 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 devote _three lines_ to 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 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 to _represent_ them 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 of _Explanatory Notes_ required 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 be _not_ Greek, 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 be _not_ Hebrew, but Greek.—And this, against “Maran atha” in 1 Cor. xvi. 22,—“That is, _Our _LORD_ cometh_:” which also proves to be a mistake. The phrase means “_Our _LORD_ is 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 sure of their elementary _facts_ before they ventured to compromise the Church of England after this fashion!—Against “_the husks_ which 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 the _Phaseolus vulgaris_.”—By the way, it is _quite_ certain 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 the _upper_ mill-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,—even _inaccurate_ as these.