Article II. The New English Version. (continued 2)

(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 [pg 169] the conjunction “or”? The blunder is the more inexcusable, because the intrusion of such an irrelevant conjunction into places where it is without either use or meaning cannot have failed to attract the notice of every member of the Revising body.

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

(a) The Revisionists inform us that when “the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth,”—S. Paul exclaimed, “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 [pg 170] 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 [pg 171] would of course ill become such an one as the present Reviewer to lay claim to the foregoing flattering designation: but really, when he now for the first time reads (in Acts ix. 25) that the disciples of Damascus let S. Paul down “through the wall,” he must be pardoned for regretting the absence of a marginal reference to the history of Pyramus and Thisbe in order to 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, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; and to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; and to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity.”—[2 Pet. i. 5-7.] “Yea (1), and for (2) this very (3) cause (4) adding (5) on (6) your part (7) all diligence, in (8) your faith supply (9) virtue; and in (10) your (11) virtue knowledge; and in (12) your (13) knowledge temperance; and in (14) your (15) temperance patience; and in (16) your (17) patience godliness; and in (18) your (19) godliness love (20) of (21) the (22) brethren (23); and in (24) your (25) love (26) of (27) the (28) brethren (29) love (30).”

[pg 172]

The foregoing strikes us as a singular illustration of the Revisionists' statement (Preface, iii. 2),—“We 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, [pg 173] 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 [pg 174] “through”—even in the margin? We hope so: but the preposition is still the same—διά not ὑπό.

Lastly (4thly),—The doctrine that Creation is the work of the 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 [pg 175] 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 [pg 176] a large amount of materials that have prepared the way for different renderings, which necessarily came under discussion.”—(Preface, iii. 4.)

When a body of distinguished Scholars bespeak attention to a certain part of their work in such terms as these, it is painful for a Critic to be obliged to declare that he has surveyed this department of their undertaking with even less satisfaction than any other. So long, however, as he 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 [pg 177] of critical judgment which a marginal note like the present displays, what is to be thought of the scholarship which elicits “While they were gathering themselves together” out of συστρεφομένων δὲ αὐτῶν? Are we to suppose that the clue to the Revisers' rendering is to be found in (συστρέψαντος) Acts xxviii. 3? We should be sorry to think it. They are assured that the source of 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 Cæsarea552 (a.d. 294), the friend of Eusebius,—Cyril of Jerusalem,553—Chrysostom,554—John Damascene,555—all the Fathers in short who quote the place;—the coins, the ancient geographers;—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 [pg 178] is all! The blunder—(for a blunder it most certainly is)—belongs to the age and country in which “Melitene” was by far the more familiar word, being the name of the metropolitan see of Armenia;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 [pg 179] 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 [pg 180] nature with which their knowledge of Greek would have furnished them.

May we be allowed to suggest, that it would have been better worth while to explain to the unlearned that ἀρχαι in S. Peter's vision (Acts x. 11; xi. 5) in strictness means not “corners,” but “beginnings” [cf. Gen. ii. 10]:—that τὴν πρώτην (in Lu. xv. 22) is literally “the first” [cf. Gen. iii. 7] (not “the best”) “robe”:—that ἀληθινός (e.g. in Lu. xvi. 11: Jo. i. 9: vi. 32; and especially in xv. 1 and Heb. viii. 2 and ix. 24) means “very” or “real,” rather than “true”?—And when two different words are employed in Greek (as in S. Jo. xxi. 15, 16, 17:—S. Mk. vii. 33, 35, &c. &c.), would it not have been as well to try 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 [pg 181] 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.

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 [pg 182] 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 [pg 183] (“for ever and ever”) is plain enough and needs no gloss!—Again, (c) the numeral εἰς, representing the Hebrew substitute for the indefinite article, prevails throughout the Septuagint. Examples of its use occur in the N. T. in S. Matth. viii. 19 and ix. 18;-xxvi. 69 (μία παιδίσκη), Mk. xii. 42: and in Rev. viii. 13: ix. 13: xviii. 21 and xix. 17;—where “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. 24561.... 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 [pg 184] scholarship of those who represented the Church and the Sects in the Jerusalem Chamber, was so inconsiderable.

Two or three of the foregoing examples refer to matters of a recondite nature. Not so the majority of the Annotations which belong to this third group; which we have examined with real astonishment—and in fact have remarked upon already. Shall we be thought hard to please if we avow that we rather desiderate “Explanatory Notes” on matters which 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 [pg 185] sense of πιστική in this place? The epithet so interpreted must be derived (like πιστός [Prom. V. v. 489]) from πίνω, and would 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 place565) 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 [pg 186] S. Matthew's Gospel, should fall,—we know not. Let them be briefly considered by themselves.

So dull of comprehension are we, that we fail to see on what principle it is stated that—“Ram,” “Asa,” “Amon,” “Shealtiel,” are in Greek (“Gr.”) “Aram,” “Asaph,” “Amos,” “Salathiel.” For (1),—Surely it was just as needful (or just as needless) to explain that “Perez,” “Zarah,” “Hezron,” “Nahson,” are in Greek “Phares,” “Zara,” “Esrom,” “Naasson.”—But (2), Through what “necessity” are the names, which we have been hitherto contented to read as the Evangelist wrote them, now exhibited on the first page of the Gospel in any other way?568—(3) Assuming, however, the O. T. 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 [pg 187] “Mary is in ‘Gr. Mariam’ ”? and why is not Zacharias written “Zachariah”?... But (to conclude),—What is the object of all this officiousness? and (its unavoidable adjunct) all this inconsistency? Has the spelling of the 42 names been revolutionized, in order to sever with the Past and to make “a fresh departure”? Or were the four marginal notes 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 [pg 188] same sense everywhere.” And had this been the sum of their avowal, no one with a spark of Taste, or with the least appreciation of what constitutes real Scholarship, would have been found to differ from them. Nay, even when they go on to explain that they have not thought it desirable to insist on invariably expressing “the same notion” by employing “the same particular word;”—(which they illustrate by instancing terms which, in their account, may with advantage be diversely rendered in different places;)—we are still disposed to avow ourselves of their mind. “If” (say they,) “we translate the Hebrew or Greek word 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 [pg 189] 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 [pg 190] 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.

[pg 191]

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 [pg 192] 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 [pg 193] 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, [pg 194] 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 [pg 195] 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 [pg 196] place is behind. What will they do with the Divine “Allegory” in Galatians, (iv. 21 to 31,)—where all turns on the contrast579 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.

[pg 197]

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 [pg 198] 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 [pg 199] 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 διδασκαλία585): 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?

[pg 200]

(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 [pg 201] 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 box589 (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 [pg 202] 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 [pg 203] 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.” [pg 204] 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 σημεῖον592 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 [pg 205] 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 [pg 206] 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 possession597 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 [pg 207] 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 excluded598 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 verse599 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 [pg 208] 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 ancients600 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” [pg 209] 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 [pg 210] 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, [pg 211] 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 [pg 212] 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 [pg 213] 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 3657 have been mistaken for Athanasius,—and 3658 for Chrysostom. All these see in Rom. ix. 5, a glorious assertion of the eternal Godhead of Christ.

Against such an overwhelming torrent of Patristic testimony,—for we have enumerated upwards of sixty ancient Fathers—it will not surely be pretended that the Socinian interpretation, to which our Revisionists give such prominence, [pg 214] can stand. But why has it been introduced at all? We shall have every Christian reader with us in our contention, that such perverse imaginations of “modern Interpreters” are not entitled to a place in the margin of the N. T. For our Revisionists to have even given them currency, and thereby a species of sanction, constitutes in our view a very grave offence.659 A public retraction and a very humble Apology we claim at their hands. Indifferent Scholarship, and mistaken views of Textual Criticism, are at least venial matters. But a Socinian gloss gratuitously thrust into the margin of every Englishman's N. T. admits of no excuse—is not to be tolerated on any terms. It would by itself, in our account, have been sufficient to determine the fate of the present Revision.

XII. Are we to regard it as a kind of set-off against all that goes before, that in an age when the personality of Satan is freely called in question, “the evil one” has been actually thrust into the Lord's Prayer? A more injudicious and unwarrantable innovation it would be impossible to indicate in any part of the present unhappy volume. The case has been argued out with much learning and ability by two eminent Divines, Bp. Lightfoot and Canon Cook. The Canon remains master of the field. That the change ought never to have been made is demonstrable. The grounds of this assertion are soon stated. To begin, (1) It is admitted on all hands that it must for ever remain a matter of opinion only whether in the expression ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ, the nominative case is τὸ πονηρόν (as in S. Matth. v. 37, 39: Rom. xii. 9), or ὁ πονηρός (as in S. Matth. xiii. 19, 38: Eph. vi. [pg 215] 16),—either of which yields a good sense. But then—(2) The Church of England in her formularies having emphatically declared that, for her part, she adheres to the former alternative, it was in a very high degree unbecoming for the Revisionists to pretend to the enjoyment of certain knowledge that the Church of England in so doing was mistaken: and unless “from evil” be “a clear and plain error,” the Revisionists were bound to let it alone. Next—(3), It can never be right to impose the narrower interpretation on words which have always been understood to bear the larger sense: especially when (as in the present instance) the larger meaning distinctly includes and covers the lesser: witness the paraphrase in our Church Catechism,—“and that He will keep us (a) from all sin and wickedness, and (b) from our ghostly enemy, and (c) from everlasting death.”—(4) But indeed Catholic Tradition claims to be heard in this behalf. Every Christian at his Baptism renounces not only “the Devil,” but also “all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the world, with all covetous desires of the same, and the carnal desires of the flesh.”660 And at this point—(5), The voice of an inspired Apostle interposes in attestation that this is indeed the true acceptation of the last petition in the Lord's Prayer: for when S. Paul says—“the Lord will deliver me from every evil work and will preserve me unto His heavenly kingdom; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen,”661—what else is he referring to but to the words just [pg 216] now under consideration? He explains that in the Lord's Prayer it is “from every evil work” that we pray to be “delivered.” (Note also, that he retains the Doxology.) Compare the places:—

S. Matth. vi. 13.—ἀλλὰ ῬΎΣΑΙ ἩΜΆΣ ἈΠῸ ΤΟΎ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΎ. ὍΤΙ ΣΟΎ ἘΣΤΙΝ Ἡ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑ ... καὶ Ἡ ΔΌΞΑ ἘΙΣ ΤΟΎΣ ἈΙΏΝΑΣ. ἈΜΉΝ.

2 Tim. iv. 18.—καὶ ῬΎΣΕΤΑΊ ΜΕ ὁ Κύριος ἈΠῸ ΠΑΝΤῸΣ ἜΡΓΟΥ ΠΟΝΗΡΟΥ καὶ σώσει εἰς ΤῊΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΊΑΝ ἈΥΤΟΥ ... ᾧ Ἡ ΔΌΞΑ ΕΊΣ ΤΟΥΣ ἈΙΏΝΑΣ.... ἈΜΉΝ.

Then further—(6), What more unlikely than that our Lord would end with giving such prominence to that rebel Angel whom by dying He is declared to have “destroyed”? (Heb. ii. 14: 1 John iii. 8.) For, take away the Doxology (as our Revisionists propose), and we shall begin the Lord's Prayer with “Our Father,” and literally end it with—the Devil!—But above all,—(7) Let it never be forgotten that this is the pattern Prayer, a portion of every Christian child's daily utterance,—the most sacred of all our formularies, and by far the most often repeated,—into which it is attempted in this way to introduce a startling novelty. Lastly—(8), When it is called to mind that nothing short of necessity has warranted the Revisionists in introducing a single change into the A. V.,—“clear and plain errors”—and that no such plea can be feigned on the present occasion, the liberty which they have taken in this place must be admitted to be absolutely without excuse.... Such at least are the grounds on which, for our own part, we refuse to entertain the proposed introduction of the Devil into the Lord's Prayer. From the position we have taken up, it will be found utterly impossible to dislodge us.

XIII. It is often urged on behalf of the Revisionists that over not a few dark places of S. Paul's Epistles their labours have thrown important light. Let it not be supposed [pg 217] that we deny this. Many a Scriptural difficulty vanishes the instant a place is accurately translated: a far greater number, when the rendering is idiomatic. It would be strange indeed if, at the end of ten years, the combined labours of upwards of twenty Scholars, whose raison d'être as Revisionists was to do this very thing, had not resulted in the removal of many an obscurity in the A. V. of Gospels and Epistles alike. What offends us is the discovery that, for every obscurity which has been removed, at least half a dozen others have been introduced: in other words, that the result of this Revision has been the planting in of a fresh crop of difficulties, before undreamed of; so that a perpetual wrestling with these is what hereafter awaits the diligent student of the New Testament.

We speak not now of passages which have been merely altered for the worse: as when, (in S. James i. 17, 18,) we are invited to read,—“Every good gift and every perfect boon is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation, neither shadow that is cast by turning. Of his own will he brought us forth.” Grievous as such blemishes are, it is seen at a glance that they must be set down to nothing worse than tasteless assiduity. What we complain of is that, misled by a depraved Text, our Revisers have often made nonsense of what before was perfectly clear: and have not only thrust many of our Lord's precious utterances out of sight, (e.g. Matt. xvii. 21: Mark x. 21 and xi. 26: Luke ix. 55, 56); but have attributed to Him absurd sayings which He certainly never uttered, (e.g. Matt. xix. 17); or else, given such a twist to what He actually said, that His blessed words are no longer recognizable, (as in S. Matt. xi. 23: S. Mark ix. 23: xi. 3). Take a sample:—

(1.) The Church has always understood her Lord to say,—“Father, I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, [pg 218] be with Me where I am; that they may behold My glory.”662 We reject with downright indignation the proposal henceforth to read instead,—“Father, that which Thou hast given Me I will that, where I am, they also may be with Me,” &c. We suspect a misprint. The passage reads like nonsense. Yes, and nonsense it is,—in Greek as well as in English: (ὅ has been written for οὕς—one of the countless bêtises for which א b d are exclusively responsible; and which the weak superstition of these last days is for erecting into a new Revelation). We appeal to the old Latin and to the Vulgate,—to the better Egyptian and to all the Syriac versions: to every known Lectionary: to Clemens Alex.,663—to Eusebius,664—to Nonnus,665—to Basil,666—to Chrysostom,667—to Cyril,668—to Cælestinus,669—to Theodoret:670 not to mention Cyprian,671—Ambrose,672—Hilary,673 &c.:674 and above all, 16 uncials, beginning with a and c,—and the whole body of the cursives. So many words ought not to be required. If men prefer their “mumpsimus” to our “sumpsimus,” let them by all means have it: but pray let them keep their rubbish to themselves,—and at least leave our Saviour's words alone.

(2.) We shall be told that the foregoing is an outrageous instance. It is. Then take a few milder cases. They abound, turn whichever way we will. Thus, we are invited to believe that S. Luke relates concerning our Saviour that He “was led by the Spirit in the wilderness during forty days” (iv. 1). We stare at this new revelation, and refer to the familiar Greek. It proves to be the Greek of all the copies in the [pg 219] world but four; the Greek which supplied the Latin, the Syrian, the Coptic Churches, with the text of their respective Versions; the Greek which was familiar to Origen,675—to Eusebius,676—to Basil,677—to Didymus,678—to Theodoret,679—to Maximus,680—and to two other ancient writers, one of whom has been mistaken for Chrysostom,681 the other for Basil.682 It is therefore quite above suspicion. And it informs us that Jesus “was led by the Spirit into the wilderness;” and there was “forty days tempted of the Devil.” What then has happened to obscure so plain a statement? Nothing more serious than that—(1) Four copies of bad character (א b d l) exhibit “in” instead of “into:” and that—(2) Our Revisionists have been persuaded to believe that therefore S. Luke must needs have done the same. Accordingly they invite us to share their conviction that it was the leading about of our Lord, (and not His Temptation,) which lasted for 40 days. And this sorry misconception is to be thrust upon the 90 millions of English-speaking Christians throughout the world,—under the plea of “necessity”!... But let us turn to a more interesting specimen of the mischievous consequences which would ensue from the acceptance of the present so-called “Revision.”

(3.) What is to be thought of this, as a substitute for the familiar language of 2 Cor. xii. 7?—“And by reason of the exceeding greatness of the revelations—wherefore, that I should not be exalted overmuch, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh.” The word “wherefore” (διό), which occasions all the difficulty—(breaking the back of the sentence and necessitating the hypothesis of a change of construction)—is due solely to the influence of א a bb. The ordinary Text is recognized [pg 220] by almost every other copy; by the Latin,—Syriac,—Gothic,—Armenian Versions;—as well as by Irenæus,683—Origen,684—Macarius,685—Athanasius,686—Chrysostom,687—Theodoret,688—John Damascene.689 Even Tischendorf here makes a stand and refuses to follow his accustomed guides.690 In plain terms, the text of 2 Cor. xii. 7 is beyond the reach of suspicion. Scarcely intelligible is the infatuation of which our Revisers have been the dupes.—Quousque tandem?

(4.) Now this is the method of the Revising body throughout: viz. so seriously to maim the Text of many a familiar passage of Holy Writ as effectually to mar it. Even where they remedy an inaccuracy in the rendering of the A. V., they often inflict a more grievous injury than mistranslation on the inspired Text. An instance occurs at S. John x. 14, where the good Shepherd says,—“I know Mine own and am known of Mine, even as the Father knoweth Me and I know the Father.” By thrusting in here the Manichæan depravation (“and Mine own know Me”), our Revisionists have obliterated the exquisite diversity of expression in the original,—which implies that whereas the knowledge which subsists between the Father and the Son is identical on either side, not such is the knowledge which subsists between the creature and the Creator. The refinement in question has been faithfully retained all down the ages by every copy in existence except four of bad character,—א b d l. It is witnessed to by the Syriac,—by Macarius,691—Gregory Naz.,692—Chrysostom,693—Cyril Alex.,694—Theodoret,695—Maximus.696

[pg 221]

But why go on? Does any one in his sober senses suppose that if S. John had written “Mine own know Me,” 996 manuscripts out of 1000, at the end of 1800 years, would be found to exhibit “I am known of Mine”?

(5.) The foregoing instances must suffice. A brief enumeration of many more has been given already, at pp. 144(b)-152.

Now, in view of the phenomenon just discovered to us,—(viz. for one crop of deformities weeded out, an infinitely larger crop of far grosser deformities as industriously planted in,)—we confess to a feeling of distress and annoyance which altogether indisposes us to accord to the Revisionists that language of congratulation with which it would have been so agreeable to receive their well-meant endeavours. The serious question at once arises,—Is it to be thought that upon the whole we are gainers, or losers, by the Revised Version? And there seems to be no certain way of resolving this doubt, but by opening a “Profit and Loss account” with the Revisers,—crediting them with every item of gain, and debiting them with every item of loss. But then,—(and we ask the question with sanguine simplicity,)—Why should it not be all gain and no loss, when, at the end of 270 years, a confessedly noble work, a truly unique specimen of genius, taste and learning, is submitted to a body of Scholars, equipped with every external advantage, only in order that they may improve upon it—if they are able? These learned individuals have had upwards of ten years wherein to do their work. They have enjoyed the benefit of the tentative labours of a host of predecessors,—some for their warning, some for their help and guidance. They have all along had before their eyes the solemn injunction that, whatever they were not able certainly to improve, they were to be supremely careful to let alone. [pg 222] They were warned at the outset against any but “necessary” changes. Their sole business was to remove “plain and clear errors.” They had pledged themselves to introduce “as few alterations as possible.” Why then, we again ask,—Why should not every single innovation which they introduced into the grand old exemplar before them, prove to be a manifest, an undeniable change for the better?697

XIV. The more we ponder over this unfortunate production, the more cordially do we regret that it was ever undertaken. Verily, the Northern Convocation displayed a far-sighted wisdom when it pronounced against the project from the first. We are constrained to declare that could we have conceived it possible that the persons originally appointed by the Southern Province would have co-opted into their body persons capable of executing their work with such extravagant licentiousness as well as such conspicuous bad taste, we should never have entertained one hopeful thought on the subject. For indeed every characteristic feature of the work of the Revisionists offends us,—as well [pg 223] in respect of what they have left undone, as of what they have been the first to venture to do:—

(a) Charged “to introduce as few alterations as possible into the Text of the Authorized Version,” they have on the contrary evidently acted throughout on the principle of making as many changes in it as they conveniently could.

(b) Directed “to limit, as far as possible, the expression of such alterations to the language of the Authorized and earlier English Versions,”—they have introduced such terms as “assassin,” “apparition,” “boon,” “disparagement,” “divinity,” “effulgence,” “epileptic,” “fickleness,” “gratulation,” “irksome,” “interpose,” “pitiable,” “sluggish,” “stupor,” “surpass,” “tranquil:” such compounds as “self-control,” “world-ruler:” such phrases as “draw up a narrative:” “the impulse of the steersman:” “in lack of daily food:” “exercising oversight.” These are but a very few samples of the offence committed by our Revisionists, of which we complain.

(c) Whereas they were required “to revise the Headings of the Chapters,” they have not even retained them. We demand at least to have our excellent “Headings” back.

(d) And what has become of our time-honoured “Marginal References,”—the very best Commentary on the Bible, as we believe,—certainly the very best help for the right understanding of Scripture,—which the wit of man hath ever yet devised? The “Marginal References” would be lost to the Church for ever, if the work of the Revisionists were allowed to stand: the space required for their insertion having been completely swallowed up by the senseless, and worse than senseless, Textual Annotations which at present infest the margin of every sacred page. We are beyond measure amazed that the Revisionists have even deprived the reader of the essential aid of references to the places of the Old Testament which are quoted in the New.

(e) Let the remark be added in passing, that we greatly [pg 224] dislike the affectation of printing certain quotations from the Old Testament after the strange method adopted by our Revisers from Drs. Westcott and Hort.

(f) The further external assimilation of the Sacred Volume to an ordinary book by getting rid of the division into Verses, we also hold to be a great mistake. In the Greek, by all means let the verses be merely noted in the margin: but, for more than one weighty reason, in the English Bible let the established and peculiar method of printing the Word of God, tide what tide, be scrupulously retained.