Chapter I: TO ACCIDENTAL CAUSES then we give the foremost place, and of these we (5)

Then further, “Simon, the son of _Jona_” (in S. John i. 42 and xxi. 15), is for the first time introduced to our notice by the Revisionists as “the son of _John_:” with an officious marginal annotation that in Greek the name is written “_Ioanes_.” But is it fair in the Revisers (we modestly ask) to thrust in this way the _bêtises_ of their favourite codex B upon us? _In no codex in the world except the Vatican codex_ B, is “Ioannes” spelt “_Ioanes_” in this place. Besides, the name of Simon Peter’s father was _not_ “John” at all, but “_Jona_,”—as appears from S. Matth. xvi. 17, and the present two places in S. John’s Gospel; where the evidence _against_ “Ioannes” is overwhelming. This is in fact the handy-work of Dr. Hort. But surely the office of marginal notes ought to be to assist, not to mislead plain readers: honestly, to state _facts_,—not, by a side-wind, to commit the Church of England to _a new (and absurd) Textual theory_! The _actual Truth_, we insist, should be stated in the margin, whenever unnecessary information is gratuitously thrust upon unlearned and unsuspicious readers.... Thus, we avow that we are offended at reading (against S. John i. 18)—“Many very ancient authorities read ‘GOD_ only begotten_’ ”: whereas the “authorities” alluded to read μονογενὴς Θεός,—(whether with or without the article [ὁ] prefixed,)—which (as the Revisionists are perfectly well aware) means “_the only-begotten _GOD,” and no other thing. Why then did they not say so? _Because_ (we answer)—_they were ashamed of the expression_. But to proceed.—The information is volunteered (against Matth. xxvi. 36 and Mk. xiv. 32) that χωρίον means “_an enclosed piece of ground_,”—which is not true. The statement seems to have proceeded from the individual who translated ἄμφοδον (in Mk. xi. 4) the “_open street_:” whereas the word merely denotes the “highway,”—literally the “_thoroughfare_.”

A very little real familiarity with the Septuagint would have secured these Revisers against the perpetual exposure which they make of themselves in their marginal Notes.—(_a_) Πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, for instance, is quite an ordinary expression for “always,” and therefore should not be exhibited (in the margin of S. Matth. xxviii. 20) as a curiosity,—“Gr. _all the days_.”—So (_b_) with respect to the word αἰών, which seems to have greatly exercised the Revisionists. What need, _every time it occurs_, to explain that εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων means literally “_unto the ages of the ages_”? Surely (as in Ps. xlv. 6, quoted Heb. i. 8,) the established rendering (“for ever and ever”) is plain enough and needs no gloss!—Again, (_c_) the numeral εἰς, representing the Hebrew substitute for the indefinite article, prevails throughout the Septuagint. Examples of its use occur in the N. T. in S. Matth. viii. 19 and ix. 18;-xxvi. 69 (μία παιδίσκη), Mk. xii. 42: and in Rev. viii. 13: ix. 13: xviii. 21 and xix. 17;—where “_one_ scribe,” “_one_ ruler,” “_one_ widow,” “_one_ eagle,” “_one_ voice,” “_one_ angel,” are really nothing else but mistranslations. True, that εἶς is found in the original Greek: but what then? Because “_une_” means “_one_,” will it be pretended that “_Tu es une bête_” would be properly rendered “_Thou art one beast_”?

(_d_) Far more serious is the substitution of “having _a great_ priest over the house of GOD” (Heb. x. 21), for “having _an high_ priest:” inasmuch as this obscures “the pointed reference to our LORD as the antitype of the Jewish high priest,”—who (except in Lev. iv. 3) is designated, not ἀρχιερεύς, but either ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας, or else ὁ ἱερεύς only,—as in Acts v. 24(561).... And (_e_) why are we presented with “For _no word from _GOD_ shall be void of power_” (in S. Luke i. 37)? Seeing that the Greek of that place has been fashioned on the Septuagintal rendering of Gen. xviii. 14 (“_Is anything too hard for the _LORD_?_”(562)), we venture to think that the A. V. (“_for with _GOD_ nothing shall be impossible_”(563)) ought to have been let alone. It cannot be mended. One is surprised to discover that among so many respectable Divines there seems not to have been _one_ sufficiently familiar with the Septuagint to preserve his brethren from perpetually falling into such mistakes as the foregoing. We really had no idea that the Hellenistic scholarship of those who represented the Church and the Sects in the Jerusalem Chamber, was so inconsiderable.

Two or three of the foregoing examples refer to matters of a recondite nature. Not so the majority of the Annotations which belong to this third group; which we have examined with real astonishment—and in fact have remarked upon already. Shall we be thought hard to please if we avow that we rather desiderate “Explanatory Notes” on matters which really _do_ call for explanation? as, to be reminded of what kind was the “net” (ἀμφίβληστρον) mentioned in Matth. iv. 18 (_not_ 20), and Mk. i. 16 (_not_ 18):—to see it explained (against Matth. ii. 23) that _netser_ (the root of “Nazareth”) denotes “Branch:”—and against Matth. iii. 5; Lu. iii. 3, that ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, signifies “the _depressed valley of the Jordan_,” as the usage of the LXX. proves.(564) We should have been glad to see, against S. Lu. ix. 31,—“Gr. _Exodus_.”—At least in the margin, we might have been told that “_Olivet_” is the true rendering of Lu. xix. 29 and xxi. 37: (or were the Revisionists not aware of the fact? They are respectfully referred to the Bp. of Lincoln’s note on the place last quoted.)—Nay, why not tell us (against Matth. i. 21) that “JESUS” means [not “_Saviour_,” but] “_JEHOVAH__ is Salvation_”?

But above all, surely so many learned men ought to have spared us the absurd Annotation set against “_ointment of spikenard_” (νάρδου πιστικῆς,) in S. Mark xiv. 3 and in S. John xii. 3. Their marginal Note is as follows:—

“Gr. _pistic_ nard, pistic being perhaps a local name. Others take
it to mean _genuine_; others _liquid_.”

Can Scholars require to be told that “_liquid_” is an _impossible_ sense of πιστική in this place? The epithet so interpreted must be derived (like πιστός [_Prom._ V. v. 489]) from πίνω, and would mean _drinkable_: but since ointment _cannot_ be drunk, it is certain that we must seek the etymology of the word elsewhere. And why should the weak ancient conjecture be retained that it is “perhaps a _local_ name”? Do Divines require to have it explained to them that the one “locality” which effectually fixes the word’s meaning, is _its place in the everlasting Gospel_?... Be silent on such lofty matters if you will, by all means; but “who are these that darken counsel by words without knowledge?” S. Mark and S. John (whose narratives by the way never touch exclusively except in this place(565)) are observed here to employ an ordinary word with lofty spiritual purpose. The _pure faith_ (πίστις) in which that offering of the ointment was made, determines the choice of an unusual epithet (πιστικός) which shall signify “faithful” rather than “genuine,”—shall suggest a _moral_ rather than a _commercial_ quality: just as, presently, Mary’s “breaking” the box (συντρίψασα) is designated by a word which has reference to a broken heart.(566) She “_contrited_” it, S. Mark says; and S. John adds a statement which implies that the Church has been rendered fragrant by her act for ever.(567) (We trust to be forgiven for having said a little more than the occasion absolutely requires.)

(5) Under which of the four previous “groups” certain Annotations which disfigure the margin of the first chapter of S. Matthew’s Gospel, should fall,—we know not. Let them be briefly considered by themselves.

So dull of comprehension are we, that we fail to see on what principle it is stated that—“Ram,” “Asa,” “Amon,” “Shealtiel,” are in Greek (“Gr.”) “_Aram_,” “_Asaph_,” “_Amos_,” “_Salathiel_.” For (1),—Surely it was just as needful (or just as needless) to explain that “Perez,” “Zarah,” “Hezron,” “Nahson,” are in Greek “_Phares_,” “_Zara_,” “_Esrom_,” “_Naasson_.”—But (2), Through what “necessity” are the names, which we have been hitherto contented to read as the Evangelist wrote them, now exhibited on the first page of the Gospel in any other way?(568)—(3) Assuming, however, the O. T. spelling _is_ to be adopted, then _let us have it explained to us why _“Jeconiah”_ in ver. 11 is not written_ “Jehoiakim”? (As for “Jeconiah” in ver. 12,—it was for the Revisionists to settle whether they would call him “Jehoiachin,” “Jeconiah,” or “Coniah.” [By the way,—Is it lawful to suppose that _they did not know_ that “Jechonias” here represents two different persons?])—On the other hand, (4) “_Amos_” probably,—“_Asaph_” certainly,—are corrupt exhibitions of “Amon” and “Asa:” and, if noticed at all, should have been introduced to the reader’s notice with the customary formula, “some ancient authorities,” &c.—To proceed—(5), Why substitute “Immanuel” (for “Emmanuel”) in ver. 23,—only to have to state in the margin that S. Matthew writes it “_Emmanuel_”? By strict parity of reasoning, against “Naphtali” (in ch. iv. 13, 15), the Revisionists ought to have written “Gr. _Nephthaleim_.”—And (6), If this is to be the rule, then why are we not told that “Mary is in ‘Gr. _Mariam_’ ”? and why is not Zacharias written “_Zachariah_”?... But (to conclude),—What is the object of all this officiousness? and (its unavoidable adjunct) all this inconsistency? Has the spelling of the 42 names been revolutionized, in order to sever with the Past and to make “a fresh departure”? Or were the four marginal notes added _only for the sake of obtaining, by a side-wind, the (apparent) sanction of the Church_ to the preposterous notion that “Asa” was written “_Asaph_” by the Evangelist—in conformity with six MSS. of bad character, but in defiance of History, documentary Evidence, and internal Probability? Canon Cook [pp. 23-24] has some important remarks on this.

X. We must needs advert again to the ominous admission made in the Revisionists’ _Preface_ (iii. 2 _init._), that to some extent they recognized the duty of a “_rigid adherence to the rule of translating_, as far as possible, the _same Greek word by the same English word_.” This mistaken principle of theirs lies at the root of so much of the mischief which has befallen the Authorized Version, that it calls for fuller consideration at our hands than it has hitherto (viz. at pp. 138 and 152) received.

The “Translators” of 1611, towards the close of their long and quaint Address “to the Reader,” offer the following statement concerning what had been their own practice:—“We have not _tied ourselves_” (say they) “_to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words_, as some peradventure would wish that we had done.” On this, they presently enlarge. We have been “especially careful,” have even “made a conscience,” “not to vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places.” But then, (as they shrewdly point out in passing,) “_there be some words that be not of the __ same sense everywhere_.” And had this been the sum of their avowal, no one with a spark of Taste, or with the least appreciation of what constitutes real Scholarship, would have been found to differ from them. Nay, even when they go on to explain that they have not thought it desirable to insist on invariably expressing “the same notion” by employing “the same particular word;”—(which they illustrate by instancing terms which, in their account, may with advantage be diversely rendered in different places;)—we are still disposed to avow ourselves of their mind. “If” (say they,) “we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once _purpose_, never to call it _intent_; if one where _journeying_, never _travelling_; if one where _think_, never _suppose_; if one where _pain_, never _ache_; if one where _joy_, never _gladness_;—thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than of wisdom.” And yet it is plain that a different principle is here indicated from that which went before. The remark “that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling,” suggests that, in the Translators’ opinion, it matters little _which_ word, in the several pairs of words they instance, is employed; and that, for their own parts, they rather rejoice in the ease and freedom which an ample vocabulary supplies to a Translator of Holy Scripture. Here also however, as already hinted, we are disposed to go along with them. Rhythm, subtle associations of thought, proprieties of diction which are rather to be felt than analysed,—any of such causes may reasonably determine a Translator to reject “purpose,” “journey,” “think,” “pain,” “joy,”—in favour of “intent,” “travel,” “suppose,” “ache,” “gladness.”

But then it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this, there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound (shall we not rather say a _prophetic_?) consciousness, that the fate of the English Language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation. _Hence_ their reluctance to incur the responsibility of tying themselves “to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words.” We should be liable to censure (such is their plain avowal), “if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always; and to others of like quality, Get you hence, be banished for ever.” But this, to say the least, is to introduce a distinct and a somewhat novel consideration. We would not be thought to deny that there is some—perhaps a great deal—of truth in it: but by this time we seem to have entirely shifted our ground. And we more than suspect that, if a jury of English scholars of the highest mark could be impanelled to declare their mind on the subject thus submitted to their judgment, there would be practical unanimity among them in declaring, that these learned men,—with whom all would avow hearty sympathy, and whose taste and skill all would eagerly acknowledge,—have occasionally pushed the license they enunciate so vigorously, a little—perhaps a great deal—too far. For ourselves, we are glad to be able to subscribe cordially to the sentiment on this head expressed by the author of the _Preface_ of 1881:

“They seem”—(he says, speaking of the Revisionists of 1611)—“to
have been guided by the feeling that their Version would secure
for the words they used a lasting place in the language; and they
express a fear lest they should ‘be charged (by scoffers) with
some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English
words,’ which, without this liberty on their part, would not have
a place in the pages of the English Bible. Still it cannot be
doubted that their studied avoidance of uniformity in the
rendering of the same words, even when occurring in the same
context, is one of the blemishes in their work.”—_Preface_, (i.
2).

Yes, it cannot be doubted. When S. Paul, in a long and familiar passage (2 Cor. i. 3-7), is observed studiously to linger over the same word (παράκλησις namely, which is generally rendered “_comfort_”);—to harp upon it;—to reproduce it _ten times_ in the course of those five verses;—it seems unreasonable that a Translator, as if in defiance of the Apostle, should on four occasions (viz. when the word comes back for the 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th times), for “_comfort_” substitute “_consolation_.” And this one example may serve as well as a hundred. It would really seem as if the Revisionists of 1611 had considered it a graceful achievement to vary the English phrase even on occasions where a marked identity of expression characterizes the original Greek. When we find them turning “goodly apparel,” (in S. James ii. 2,) into “gay clothing,” (in ver. 3,)—we can but conjecture that they conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as S. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English.

But if the learned men who gave us our A. V. may be thought to have erred on the side of excess, there can be no doubt whatever, (at least among competent judges,) that our Revisionists have sinned far more grievously and with greater injury to the Deposit, by their slavish proclivity to the opposite form of error. We must needs speak out plainly: for the question before us is not, What defects are discoverable in our Authorized Version?—but, What amount of gain would be likely to accrue to the Church if the present Revision were accepted as a substitute? And we assert without hesitation, that the amount of certain loss would so largely outweigh the amount of possible gain, that the proposal may not be seriously entertained for a moment. As well on grounds of Scholarship and Taste, as of Textual Criticism (as explained at large in our former Article), the work before us is immensely inferior. To speak plainly, it is an utter failure.

XI. For the respected Authors of it practically deny the truth of the principle enunciated by their predecessors of 1611, viz. that “_there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere_.” On such a fundamental truism we are ashamed to enlarge: but it becomes necessary that we should do so. We proceed to illustrate, by two familiar instances,—the first which come to hand,—the mischievous result which is inevitable to an enforced uniformity of rendering.

(_a_) The verb αἰτεῖν confessedly means “to ask.” And perhaps no better general English equivalent could be suggested for it. But then, _in a certain context_, “ask” would be an inadequate rendering: in another, it would be improper: in a third, it would be simply intolerable. Of all this, the great Scholars of 1611 showed themselves profoundly conscious. Accordingly, when this same verb (in the middle voice) is employed to describe how the clamorous rabble, besieging Pilate, claimed their accustomed privilege, (viz. to have the prisoner of their choice released unto them,) those ancient men, with a fine instinct, retain Tyndale’s rendering “_desired_”(569) in S. Mark (xv. 8),—and his “_required_” in S. Luke (xxiii. 23).—When, however, the humble entreaty, which Joseph of Arimathea addressed to the same Pilate (viz. that he might be allowed to take away the Body of JESUS), is in question, then the same Scholars (following Tyndale and Cranmer), with the same propriety exhibit “_begged_.”—King David, inasmuch as he only “_desired_ to find a habitation for the GOD of Jacob,” of course may not be said to have “_asked_” to do so; and yet S. Stephen (Acts vii. 46) does not hesitate to employ the verb ᾐτήσατο.—So again, when they of Tyre and Sidon approached Herod whom they had offended: they did but “_desire_” peace.(570)—S. Paul, in like manner, addressing the Ephesians: “I _desire_ that ye faint not at my tribulations for you.”(571)

But our Revisionists,—possessed with the single idea that αἰτεῖν means “to _ask_” and αἰτεῖσθαι “to _ask for_,”—have proceeded mechanically to inflict that rendering on every one of the foregoing passages. In defiance of propriety,—of reason,—even (in David’s case) of historical truth,(572)—they have thrust in “_asked_” everywhere. At last, however, they are encountered by two places which absolutely refuse to submit to such iron bondage. The terror-stricken jailer of Philippi, when _he_ “asked” for lights, must needs have done so after a truly imperious fashion. Accordingly, the “_called for_”(573) of Tyndale and all subsequent translators, is _pro hâc vice_ allowed by our Revisionists to stand. And to conclude,—When S. Paul, speaking of his supplications on behalf of the Christians at Colosse, uses this same verb (αἰτούμενοι) in a context where “_to ask_” would be intolerable, our Revisionists render the word “_to make request_;”(574)—though they might just as well have let alone the rendering of _all_ their predecessors,—viz. “_to desire_.”

These are many words, but we know not how to make them fewer. Let this one example, (only because it is the first which presented itself,) stand for a thousand others. Apart from the grievous lack of Taste (not to say of Scholarship) which such a method betrays,—_who_ sees not that the only excuse which could have been invented for it has disappeared by the time we reach the end of our investigation? If αἰτέω, αἰτοῦμαι had been _invariably_ translated “ask,” “ask for,” it might at least have been pretended that “the English Reader is in this way put entirely on a level with the Greek Scholar;”—though it would have been a vain pretence, as all must admit who understand the power of language. _Once_ make it apparent that just in a single place, perhaps in two, the Translator found himself forced to break through his rigid uniformity of rendering,—and _what_ remains but an uneasy suspicion that then there must have been a strain put on the Evangelists’ meaning in a vast proportion of the other seventy places where αἰτεῖν occurs? An unlearned reader’s confidence in his guide vanishes; and he finds that he has had not a few deflections from the Authorized Version thrust upon him, of which he reasonably questions alike the taste and the necessity,—_e.g._ at S. Matth. xx. 20.

(_b_) But take a more interesting example. In S. Mark i. 18, the A. V. has, “and straightway they _forsook_” (which the Revisionists alter into “_left_”) “their nets.” Why? Because in verse 20, the same word ἀφέντες will recur; and because the Revisionists propose to let the statement (“they _left_ their father Zebedee”) stand. They “level up” accordingly; and plume themselves on their consistency.

We venture to point out, however, that the verb ἀφιέναι is one of a large family of verbs which,—always retaining their own essential signification,—yet depend for their English rendering entirely on the context in which they occur. Thus, ἀφιέναι is rightly rendered “_to suffer_,” in S. Matth. iii. 15;—“_to leave_,” in iv. 11;—“_to let have_,” in v. 40;—“_to forgive_,” in vi. 12, 14, 15;—“_to let_,” in vii. 4;—“_to yield up_,” in xxvii. 50;—“_to let go_,” in S. Mark xi. 6;—“_to let alone_,” in xiv. 6. Here then, by the admission of the Revisionists, are eight diversities of meaning in the same word. But they make the admission grudgingly; and, in order to render ἀφιέναι as often as possible “_leave_,” they do violence to many a place of Scripture where some other word would have been more appropriate. Thus “_laying aside_” might have stood in S. Mark vii. 8. “_Suffered_” (or “let”) was preferable in S. Luke xii. 39. And, (to return to the place from which we started,) in S. Mark i. 18, “forsook” was better than “left.” And why? Because men “_leave_ their father,” (as the Collect for S. James’s Day bears witness); but “_forsake_ all covetous desires” (as the Collect for S. Matthew’s Day aptly attests). For which reason,—“And they all _forsook_ Him” was infinitely preferable to “and they all _left_ Him, and fled,” in S. Mark xiv. 50. We insist that a vast deal more is lost by this perpetual disregard of the idiomatic proprieties of the English language, than is gained by a pedantic striving after uniformity of rendering, only because the Greek word happens to be the same.

For it is sure sometimes to happen that what seems mere licentiousness proves on closer inspection to be unobtrusive Scholarship of the best kind. An illustration presents itself in connection with the word just now before us. It is found to have been our SAVIOUR’S practice to “_send away_” the multitude whom He had been feeding or teaching, in some formal manner,—whether with an act of solemn benediction, or words of commendatory prayer, or both. Accordingly, on the memorable occasion when, at the close of a long day of superhuman exertion, His bodily powers succumbed, and the Disciples were fain to take Him “as He was” in the ship, and at once He “fell asleep;”—on that solitary occasion, _the Disciples_ are related to have “_sent away_ the multitudes,”—_i.e._ to have formally dismissed them on His behalf, as they had often seen their Master do. The word employed to designate this practice on two memorable occasions is ἀπολύειν:(575) on the other two, ἀφιέναι.(576) This proves to have been perfectly well understood as well by the learned authors of the Latin Version of the N. T., as by the scholars who translated the Gospels into the vernacular of Palestine. It has been reserved for the boasted learning of the XIXth century to misunderstand this little circumstance entirely. The R. V. renders S. Matth. xiii. 36,—not “Then JESUS _sent the multitude away_” (“_dimissis turbis_” in every Latin copy,) but—“Then He _left_ the multitudes.” Also S. Mark iv. 36,—not “And when they had _sent away the multitude_,” (which the Latin always renders “_et dimittentes turbam_,”) but—“And _leaving_ the multitude.” Would it be altogether creditable, we respectfully ask, if at the end of 1800 years the Church of England were to put forth with authority such specimens of “Revision” as these?

(_c_) We will trouble our Readers with yet another illustration of the principle for which we are contending.—We are soon made conscious that there has been a fidgetty anxiety on the part of the Revisionists, everywhere to substitute “_maid_” for “_damsel_” as the rendering of παιδίσκη. It offends us. “A damsel named Rhoda,”(577)—and the “damsel possessed with a spirit of divination,”(578)—might (we think) have been let alone. But out of curiosity we look further, to see what these gentlemen will do when they come to S. Luke xii. 45. Here, because παῖδας has been (properly) rendered “menservants,” παιδίσκας, they (not unreasonably) render “_maid-servants_,”—whereby _they break their rule_. The crucial place is behind. What will they do with the Divine “Allegory” in Galatians, (iv. 21 to 31,)—where all turns on the contrast(579) between the παιδίσκη and the ἐλευθέρα,—the fact that Hagar was a “_bondmaid_” whereas Sarah was a “_free woman_”? “Maid” clearly could not stand here. “Maid-servant” would be intolerable. What is to be done? The Revisionists adopt _a third_ variety of reading,—_thus surrendering their principle entirely_. And what reader with a spark of taste, (we confidently ask the question,) does not resent their substitution of “_handmaid_” for “bondmaid” throughout these verses? _Who_ will deny that the mention of “_bondage_” in verses 24 and 25 claims, at the hands of an intelligent English translator, that he shall avail himself of the admirable and helpful equivalent for παιδίσκη which, as it happens, the English language possesses? More than that. _Who_—(except one who is himself “in bondage—with his children”)—_who_ does not respond gratefully to the exquisite taste and tact with which “_bondmaid_” itself has been exchanged for “_bondwoman_” by our translators of 1611, in verses 23, 30 and 31?... Verily, those men understood their craft! “There were giants in those days.” As little would they submit to be bound by the new cords of the Philistines as by their green withes. Upon occasion, they could shake themselves free from either. And why? For the selfsame reason: viz. because the SPIRIT of their GOD was mightily upon them.

Our contention, so far, has been but this,—that it does not by any means follow that identical Greek words and expressions, _wherever occurring_, are to be rendered by identical words and expressions in English. We desire to pass on to something of more importance.

Let it not be supposed that we make light of the difficulties which our Revisionists have had to encounter; or are wanting in generous appreciation of the conscientious toil of many men for many years; or that we overlook the perils of the enterprise in which they have seen fit to adventure their reputation. If ever a severe expression escapes us, it is because our Revisionists themselves seem to have so very imperfectly realized the responsibility of their undertaking, and the peculiar difficulties by which it is unavoidably beset. The truth is,—as all who have given real thought to the subject must be aware,—the phenomena of Language are among the most subtle and delicate imaginable: the problem of Translation, one of the most manysided and difficult that can be named. And if this holds universally, in how much greater a degree when the book to be translated is THE BIBLE! Here, anything like a mechanical _levelling up_ of terms, every attempt to impose a pre-arranged system of uniform rendering on words,—every one of which has a history and (so to speak) _a will_ of its own,—is inevitably destined to result in discomfiture and disappointment. But what makes this so very serious a matter is that, because HOLY SCRIPTURE is the Book experimented upon, the loftiest interests that can be named become imperilled; and it will constantly happen that what is not perhaps in itself a very serious mistake may yet inflict irreparable injury. We subjoin an humble illustration of our meaning—the rather, because it will afford us an opportunity for penetrating a little deeper into the proprieties of Scriptural Translation:—

(_d_) The place of our LORD’S Burial, which is mentioned upwards of 30 times in the Gospels, is styled in the original, μνημεῖον. This appellation is applied to it three times by S. Matthew;—six times by S. Mark;—eight times by S. Luke;(580)—eleven times by S. John. Only on four occasions, in close succession, does the first Evangelist call it by another name, viz. τάφος.(581) King James’s translators (following Tyndale and Cranmer) decline to notice this diversity, and uniformly style it the “_sepulchre_.” So long as it belonged to Joseph of Arimathea, they call it a “tomb” (Matth. xxvii. 60): when once it has been appropriated by “the LORD of Glory,” _in the same verse_ they give it a different English appellation. But our Revisionists of 1881, as if bent on “making a fresh departure,” _everywhere_ substitute “_tomb_” for “sepulchre” as the rendering of μνημεῖον.

Does any one ask,—And why should they _not_? We answer, Because, in connection with “_the Sepulchre_” of our LORD, there has grown up such an ample literature and such a famous history, that we are no longer _able_ to sever ourselves from those environments of the problem, even if we desired to do so. In all such cases as the present, we have to balance the Loss against the Gain. Quite idle is it for the pedant of 1881 to insist that τάφος and μνημεῖον are two different words. We do not dispute the fact. (Then, if he _must_, let him represent τάφος in some other way.) It remains true, notwithstanding, that the receptacle of our SAVIOUR’S Body after His dissolution will have to be spoken of as “_the Holy Sepulchre_” till the end of time; and it is altogether to be desired that its familiar designation should be suffered to survive unmolested on the eternal page, in consequence. There are, after all, mightier laws in the Universe than those of grammar. In the quaint language of our Translators of 1611: “For is the Kingdom of GOD become words or syllables? Why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free?”... As for considerations of etymological propriety, the nearest English equivalent for μνημεῖον (be it remembered) is _not_ “tomb,” but “_monument_.”

(_e_) Our Revisionists seem not to be aware that 270 years of undisturbed possession have given to certain words rights to which they could not else have pretended, but of which it is impossible any more to dispossess them. It savours of folly as well as of pedantry even to make the attempt. Διδαχή occurs 30,—διδασκαλία 21 times,—in the N. T. Etymologically, both words alike mean “_teaching_;” and are therefore indifferently rendered “_doctrina_” in the Vulgate,(582)—for which reason, “_doctrine_” represents both words indifferently in our A. V.(583) But the Revisers have well-nigh extirpated “DOCTRINE” from the N. T.: (1st), By making “_teaching_,” the rendering of διδαχή,(584)—(reserving “_doctrine_” for διδασκαλία(585)): and (2ndly), By 6 times substituting “_teaching_” (once, “_learning_”) for “_doctrine_,” in places where διδασκαλία occurs.(586) This is to be lamented every way. The word cannot be spared so often. The “_teachings_” of our LORD and of His Apostles were _the _“doctrines”_ of Christianity_. When S. Paul speaks of “the _doctrine_ of baptisms” (Heb. vi. 2), it is simply incomprehensible to us why “the _teaching_ of baptisms” should be deemed a preferable expression. And if the warning against being “carried about with every wind of _doctrine_,” may stand in Ephes. iv. 14, why may it not be left standing in Heb. xiii. 9?

(_f_) In the same spirit, we can but wonder at the extravagant bad taste which, at the end of 500 years, has ventured to substitute “_bowls_” for “vials” in the Book of Revelation.(587) As a matter of fact, we venture to point out that φιάλη no more means “_a bowl_” than “saucer” means “a cup.” But, waiving this, we are confident that our Revisers would have shown more wisdom if they had _let alone_ a word which, having no English equivalent, has passed into the sacred vocabulary of the language, and has acquired a conventional signification which will cleave to it for ever. “_Vials of wrath_” are understood to signify the outpouring of GOD’S wrathful visitations on mankind: whereas “bowls” really conveys no meaning at all, except a mean and unworthy, not to say an inconveniently ambiguous one. What must be the impression made on persons of very humble station,—labouring-men,—when they hear of “the seven Angels that had _the seven bowls_”? (Rev. xvii. 1.) The φιάλη,—if we must needs talk like Antiquaries—is a circular, almost flat and very shallow vessel,—of which the contents can be discharged in an instant. It was used in pouring out libations. There is, at that back of it, in the centre, a hollow for the first joint of the forefinger to rest in. _Patera_ the Latins called it. Specimens are to be seen in abundance.

The same Revisionists have also fallen foul of the “alabaster _box_ of ointment.”—for which they have substituted “an alabaster _cruse_ of ointment.”(588) But what _is_ a “cruse”? Their marginal note says, “Or, ‘_a flask_:’ ” but once more, what _is_ “a flask”? Certainly, the receptacles to which that name is now commonly applied, (_e.g._ a powder-flask, a Florence flask, a flask of wine, &c.) bear no resemblance whatever to the vase called ἀλάβαστρον. The probability is that the receptacle for the precious ointment with which the sister of Lazarus provided herself, was likest of all to a small medicine-bottle (_lecythus_ the ancients called it), made however of alabaster. Specimens of it abound. But why not let such words alone? The same Critics have had the good sense to leave standing “the bag,” for what was confessedly a _box_(589) (S. John xii. 6: xiii. 29); and “your purses” for what in the Greek is unmistakably “your _girdles_”(590) (S. Matth. x. 9). We can but repeat that possession for _five centuries_ conveys rights which it is always useless, and sometimes dangerous, to dispute. “Vials” will certainly have to be put back into the Apocalypse.

(_g_) Having said so much about the proposed rendering of such unpromising vocables as μνημεῖον—διδαχή—φιάλη, it is time to invite the Reader’s attention to the calamitous fate which has befallen certain other words of infinitely greater importance.

And first for Ἀγάπη—a substantive noun unknown to the heathen, even as the sentiment which the word expresses proves to be a grace of purely Christian growth. What else but a real calamity would be the sentence of perpetual banishment passed by our Revisionists on “that most excellent gift, the gift of _Charity_,” and the general substitution of “Love” in its place? Do not these learned men perceive that “Love” is not an equivalent term? Can they require to be told that, because of S. Paul’s exquisite and life-like portrait of “CHARITY,” and the use which has been made of the word in sacred literature in consequence, it has come to pass that the word “_Charity_” connotes many ideas to which the word “Love” is an entire stranger? that “Love,” on the contrary, has come to connote many unworthy notions which in “_Charity_” find no place at all? And if this be so, how can our Revisionists expect that we shall endure the loss of the name of the very choicest of the Christian graces,—and which, if it is nowhere to be found in Scripture, will presently come to be only traditionally known among mankind, and will in the end cease to be a term clearly understood? Have the Revisionists of 1881 considered how firmly this word “_Charity_” has established itself in the phraseology of the Church,—ancient, mediæval, modern,—as well as in our Book of Common Prayer? how thoroughly it has vindicated for itself the right of citizenship in the English language? how it has entered into our common vocabulary, and become one of the best understood of “household words”? Of what can they have been thinking when they deliberately obliterated from the thirteenth chapter of S. Paul’s 1st Epistle to the Corinthians the ninefold recurrence of the name of “that most excellent gift, the gift of CHARITY”?

(_h_) With equal displeasure, but with even sadder feelings, we recognize in the present Revision a resolute elimination of “MIRACLES” from the N. T.—Not so, (we shall be eagerly reminded,) but only of their _Name_. True, but the two perforce go together, as every thoughtful man knows. At all events, the getting rid of _the Name_,—(except in the few instances which are enumerated below,)—will in the account of millions be regarded as the getting rid of _the thing_. And in the esteem of all, learned and unlearned alike, the systematic obliteration of the signifying word from the pages of that Book to which we refer exclusively for our knowledge of the remarkable thing signified,—cannot but be looked upon as a memorable and momentous circumstance. Some, it may be, will be chiefly struck by the foolishness of the proceeding: for at the end of centuries of familiarity with such a word, we are no longer _able_ to part company with it, even if we were inclined. The term has struck root firmly in our Literature: has established itself in the terminology of Divines: has grown into our common speech. But further, even were it possible to get rid of the words “Miracle” and “Miraculous,” what else but abiding inconvenience would be the result? for we must still desire to speak about _the things_; and it is a truism to remark that there are no other words in the language which connote the same ideas. What therefore has been gained by substituting “_sign_” for “_miracle_” on some 19 or 20 occasions—(“this beginning of _his signs_ did JESUS,”—“this is again the _second sign_ that JESUS did”)—we really fail to see.

That the word in the original is σημεῖον, and that σημεῖον means “a sign,” we are aware. But what then? Because ἄγγελος, in strictness, means “a messenger,”—γραφή, “a writing,”—ὑποκριτής, “an actor,”—ἐκκλησία, “an assembly,”—εὐαγγέλιον, “good tidings,”—ἐπίσκοπος, “an overseer,”—βαπτιστής, “one that dips,”—παράδεισος, “a garden,”—μαθητής, “a learner,”—χἁρις, “favour:”—are we to forego the established English equivalents for these words, and never more to hear of “grace,” “disciple,” “Paradise,” “Baptist,” “Bishop,” “Gospel,” “Church,” “hypocrite,” “Scripture,” “Angel”? Is it then desired to revolutionize our sacred terminology? or at all events to sever with the Past, and to translate the Scriptures into English on etymological principles? We are amazed that the first proposal to resort to such a preposterous method was not instantly scouted by a large majority of those who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber.

The words under consideration are not only not equivalent, but they are quite dissimilar. All “_signs_” are not “_Miracles_,”(591) though all “_Miracles_” are undeniably “_signs_.” Would not a marginal annotation concerning the original word, as at S. Luke xxiii. 8, have sufficed? And _why_ was the term “_Miracle_” as the rendering of σημεῖον(592) spared only on _that_ occasion in the Gospels; and _only_ in connection with S. Peter’s miracle of healing the impotent man, in the Acts?(593) We ask the question not caring for an answer. We are merely bent on submitting to our Readers, whether,—especially in an age like the present of wide-spread unbelief in the Miraculous,—it was a judicious proceeding in our Revisionists almost everywhere to substitute “Sign” for “Miracle” as the rendering of σημεῖον.

(_i_) Every bit as offensive, in its way, is a marginal note respecting the Third Person in the Trinity, which does duty at S. Matth. i. 18: S. Mark i. 8: S. Luke i. 15: Acts i. 2: Rom. v. 5: Heb. ii. 4. As a rule, in short, against every fresh first mention of “the HOLY GHOST,” five lines are punctually devoted to the remark,—“_Or_, Holy Spirit: _and so throughout this book_.” Now, as Canon Cook very fairly puts the case,—

“Does this imply that the marginists object to the word ‘GHOST’?
If so, it must be asked, On what grounds? Certainly not as an
archaism. The word is in every Churchman’s mouth continually. For
the sake of consistency? But Dr. Vance Smith complains bitterly of
the _inconsistency_ of his colleagues in reference to this very
question,—see his _Texts and Margins_, pp. 7, 8, 45. I would not
suggest a doctrinal bias: but to prove that it had no influence, a
strong, if not unanimous, declaration on the part of the Revisers
is called for. Dr. Vance Smith alleges this notice as one of the
clearest proofs that the Revisers ought in consistency to discard
the word as ‘_a poor and almost obsolete_ equivalent for
Spirit.’ ”(594)

But in fact when one of the Revisionists openly claims, on behalf of the Revision, that “in the most substantial sense,” (whatever _that_ may happen to mean,) it is “contrary to fact” “that the doctrines of popular Theology remain unaffected, untouched by the results of the Revision,”(595)—Charity itself is constrained to use language which by a certain school will be deemed uncharitable. If doctrinal prepossession had no share in the production under review,—why is no protest publicly put forth against such language as the foregoing, when employed by a conspicuous Member of the Revisionist body?

(_j_) In a similar spirit to that which dictated our remarks on the attempted elimination of “_Miracles_” from the N. T. of the future,—we altogether disapprove of the attempt to introduce “is _Epileptic_,” as the rendering of σεληνιάζεται, in S. Matth. xvii. 15. The miracle performed on “_the lunatic child_” may never more come abroad under a different name. In a matter like this, 500 years of occupation, (or rather 1700, for “_lunaticus_” is the reading of all the Latin copies,) constitute a title which may not be disputed. “EPILEPTIC” is a sorry _gloss_—not a translation. Even were it demonstrable that Epilepsy exclusively exhibits every feature related in connection with the present case;(596) and that sufferers from Epilepsy are specially affected by the moon’s changes, (neither of which things are _certainly_ true): even so, the Revisionists would be wholly unwarranted in doing violence to the Evangelist’s language, in order to bring into prominence their own private opinion that what is called “_Lunacy_” here (and in ch. iv. 24) is to be identified with the ordinary malady called “Epilepsy.” This was confessedly an extraordinary case of _demoniacal possession_(597) besides. The Revisionists have in fact gone out of their way in order to introduce us to a set of difficulties with which before we had no acquaintance. And after all, the English reader desires to know—_not_, by any means, what two-thirds of the Revisionists _conjecture_ was the matter with the child, but—_what the child’s Father actually said_ was the matter with him. Now, the Father undeniably did _not_ say that the child was “Epileptic,” but that he was “_Lunatic_.” The man employed a term which (singular to relate) has its own precise English equivalent;—a term which embodies to this hour (as it did anciently) the popular belief that the moon influences certain forms of disease. With the advance of Science, civilized nations surrender such Beliefs; but they do not _therefore_ revolutionize their Terminology. “The advance of Science,” however, has nothing whatever to do with _the Translation of the word_ before us. The Author of this particular rendering (begging his pardon) is open to a process “_de lunatico inquirendo_” for having imagined the contrary.

(_k_) The foregoing instances suggest the remark, that the Ecclesiastical Historian of future years will point with concern to the sad evidences that the Church had fallen on evil days when the present Revision was undertaken. With fatal fidelity does it, every here and there, reflect the sickly hues of “modern Thought,” which is too often but another name for the latest phase of Unfaithfulness. Thus, in view of the present controversy about the Eternity of Future Punishment, which has brought into prominence a supposed distinction between the import of the epithets “ETERNAL” and “EVERLASTING,”—how painful is it to discover that the latter epithet, (which is the one objected to by the unbelieving school,) has been by our Revisionists diligently excluded(598) _every time it occurs_ as the translation of αἰώνιος, in favour of the more palatable epithel “eternal”! King James’s Translators showed themselves impartial to a fault. As if to mark that, in their account, the words are of identical import, they even introduced _both words into the same verse_(599) of Scripture. Is it fair that such a body of men as the Revisionists of 1881, claiming the sanction of the Convocation of the Southern Province, should, in a matter like the present, throw all their weight into the scale of Misbelief? They were authorized only to remove “plain and clear _errors_.” They were instructed to introduce “as few changes _as possible_.” Why have they needlessly gone out of their way, on the contrary, indirectly to show their sympathy with those who deny what has been the Church’s teaching for 1800 years? Our Creeds, Te Deum, Litany, Offices, Articles,—our whole Prayer Book, breathes a different spirit and speaks a different language.... Have our Revisionists persuaded the Old Testament company to follow their example? It will be calamitous if they _have_. There will be serious discrepancy of teaching between the Old and the New Testament if they have _not_.

(_l_) What means also the fidgetty anxiety manifested throughout these pages to explain away, or at least to evacuate, expressions which have to do with ETERNITY? _Why_, for example, is “the _world_ (αἰών) to come,” invariably glossed “the _age_ to come”? and εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας so persistently explained in the margin to mean, “_unto the ages_”? (See the margin of Rom. ix. 5. Are we to read “GOD blessed _unto the ages_”?) Also εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων, “_unto the ages of the ages_”? Surely we, whose language furnishes expressions of precisely similar character (viz. “for ever,” and “for ever and ever”), might dispense with information hazy and unprofitable as this!

(_m_) Again. At a period of prevailing unbelief in the INSPIRATION of Scripture, nothing but real necessity could warrant any meddling with such a testimony on the subject as is found in 2 Tim. iii. 16. We have hitherto been taught to believe that “_All Scripture is given by inspiration of_ GOD and is profitable,” &c. The ancients(600) clearly so understood S. Paul’s words: and so do the most learned and thoughtful of the moderns. Πᾶσα γραφή, even if it be interpreted “every Scripture,” can only mean every portion of those ἱερὰ γράμματα of which the Apostle had been speaking in the previous verse; and therefore must needs signify _the whole of Scripture_.(601) So that the expression “_all Scripture_” expresses S. Paul’s meaning exactly, and should not have been disturbed.

But—“It is very difficult” (so at least thinks the Right Rev. Chairman of the Revisers) “to decide whether θεόπνευστος is a part of the predicate, καί being the simple copula; or whether it is a part of the subject. Lexicography and grammar contribute but little to a decision.” Not so thought Bishop Middleton. “I do not recollect” (he says) “any passage in the N. T. in which two Adjectives, apparently connected by the copulative, were intended by the writer to be so unnaturally disjoined. He who can produce such an instance, will do much towards establishing the plausibility of a translation, which otherwise must appear, to say the least of it, to be forced and improbable.”—And yet it is proposed to thrust this “forced and improbable” translation on the acceptance of all English-speaking people, wherever found, on the plea of _necessity_! Our Revisionists translate, “Every Scripture inspired of GOD _is also profitable_,” &c.,—which of course may be plausibly declared to imply that a distinction is drawn by the Apostle himself between inspired and uninspired Scripture. And pray, (we should be presently asked,) is not many a Scripture (or writing) “profitable for teaching,” &c. which is _not_ commonly held to be “inspired of GOD”?... But in fact the proposed rendering is inadmissible, being without logical coherence and consistency. The utmost that could be pretended would be that S. Paul’s assertion is that “every portion of Scripture _being inspired_” (_i.e._ inasmuch as it is—because it is—inspired); “is _also_ profitable,” &c. Else there would be no meaning in the καί. But, in the name of common sense, if this be so, _why_ have the blessed words been meddled with?

(_n_) All are unhappily familiar with the avidity with which the disciples of a certain School fasten upon a mysterious expression in S. Mark’s Gospel (xiii. 32), which seems to predicate concerning the Eternal SON, limitation in respect of Knowledge. This is not the place for vindicating the Catholic Doctrine of the SON’S “equality with the FATHER as touching His GODhead;” or for explaining that, in consequence, all things that the FATHER hath, (_the knowledge of _“that Day and Hour”_ included_,) the SON hath likewise.(602) But this is the place for calling attention to the deplorable circumstance that the clause “_neither the_ SON,” which has an indisputable right to its place in S. Mark’s Gospel, has on insufficient authority by our Revisionists been thrust into S. Matth. xxvi. 36, where it has no business whatever, and from which the word “only” effectually excludes it.(603) We call attention to this circumstance with sincere sorrow: but it is sorrow largely mixed with indignation. What else but the betrayal of a sacred trust is it when Divines appointed to correct manifest errors in _the English_ of the N. T. go out of their way to introduce an error like this into the _Greek_ Text which Catholic Antiquity would have repudiated with indignation, and for which certainly the plea of “necessity” cannot be pretended?

(_o_) A MARGINAL ANNOTATION set over against Romans ix. 5 is the last thing of this kind to which we shall invite attention. S. Paul declares it to be Israel’s highest boast and glory that of them, “as concerning the flesh [came] CHRIST, _who is over all_ [things], GOD_ blessed for ever_! Amen.” A grander or more unequivocal testimony to our LORD’S eternal GODhead is nowhere to be found in Scripture. Accordingly, these words have been as confidently appealed to by faithful Doctors of the Church in every age, as they have been unsparingly assailed by unbelievers. The dishonest shifts by which the latter seek to evacuate the record which they are powerless to refute or deny, are paraded by our ill-starred Revisionists in the following terms:—

“Some modern Interpreters place a full stop after _flesh_, and
translate, _He who is God over all be (is) blessed for ever_: or,
_He who is over all is God, blessed for ever_. Others punctuate,
_flesh, who is over all. God be (is) blessed for ever._”

Now this is a matter,—let it be clearly observed,—which, (as Dr. Hort is aware,) “belongs to _Interpretation_,—and _not to Textual Criticism_.”(604) What business then has it in these pages at all? Is it then the function of Divines appointed to revise the _Authorized Version_, to give information to the 90 millions of English-speaking Christians scattered throughout the world as to the unfaithfulness of “_some modern Interpreters_”?(605) We have hitherto supposed that it was “_Ancient_ authorities” exclusively,—(whether “a few,” or “some,” or “many,”)—to which we are invited to submit our judgment. How does it come to pass that _the Socinian gloss_ on this grand text (Rom. ix. 5) has been brought into such extraordinary prominence? Did our Revisionists consider that their marginal note would travel to earth’s remotest verge,—give universal currency to the view of “some modern Interpreters,”—and in the end “tell it out among the heathen” also? We refer to Manuscripts,—Versions,—Fathers: and what do we find? (1) It is demonstrable that _the oldest __ Codices, besides the whole body of the cursives_, know nothing about the method of “some modern Interpreters.”(606)—(2) “There is absolutely not a shadow, _not a tittle of evidence, in any of the ancient Versions_, to warrant what they do.”(607)—(3) How then, about the old Fathers? for the sentiments of our best modern Divines, as Pearson and Bull, we know by heart. We find that the expression “_who is over all_ [things], GOD_ blessed for ever_” is expressly acknowledged to refer to our SAVIOUR by the following 60 illustrious names:—

Irenæus,(608)—Hippolytus in 3 places,(609)—Origen,(610)—Malchion, in the name of six of the Bishops at the Council of Antioch, A.D. 269,(611)—ps.-Dionysius Alex., twice,(612)—the _Constt. App._,(613)—Athanasius in 6 places,(614)—Basil in 2 places,(615)—Didymus in 5 places,(616)—Greg. Nyssen. in 5 places,(617)—Epiphanius in 5 places,(618)—Theodoras Mops.,(619)—Methodius,(620)—Eustathius,(621)—Eulogius, twice,(622)—Cæsarius, 3 times,(623)—Theophilus Alex., twice,(624)—Nestorius,(625)—Theodotus of Ancyra,(626)—Proclus, twice,(627)—Severianus Bp. of Gabala,(628)—Chrysostom, 8 times,(629)—Cyril Alex., 15 times,(630)—Paulus Bp. of Emesa,(631)—Theodoret, 12 times,(632)—Gennadius, Abp. of C. P.,(633)—Severus, Abp. of Antioch,(634)—Amphilochius,(635)—Gelasius Cyz.,(636)—Anastasius Ant.,(637)—Leontius Byz., 3 times,(638)—Maximus,(639)—J. Damascene, 3 times.(640) Besides of the Latins, Tertullian, twice,(641)—Cyprian,(642)—Novatian, twice,(643)—Ambrose, 5 times,(644)—Palladius the Arian at the Council of Aquileia,(645)—Hilary, 7 times,(646)—Jerome, twice,(647)—Augustine, about 30 times,—Victorinus,(648)—the _Breviarium_, twice,(649)—Marius Mercator,(650)—Cassian, twice,(651)—Alcimus Avit.,(652)—Fulgentius, twice,(653)—Leo, Bp. of Rome, twice,(654)—Ferrandus, twice,(655)—Facundus:(656)—to whom must be added 6 ancient writers, of whom 3(657) have been mistaken for Athanasius,—and 3(658) for Chrysostom. All these see in Rom. ix. 5, a glorious assertion of the eternal GODhead of CHRIST.