[pp. 152-4: also pp. 187-202]. We proceed to remark on each of the five
principal Classes of alterations indicated by the Revisionists: and
first,—“Alterations positively required by change of reading in the Greek
Text” (_Ibid._).
(1) Thus, in S. John xii. 7, we find “_Suffer her to keep it_ against the
day of my burying;” and in the margin (as an alternative), “Let her alone:
_it was that she might keep it_.”—Instead of “as soon as JESUS heard the
word,”—we are invited to choose between “_not heeding_,” and
“_overhearing_ the word” (S. Mk. v. 36): these being intended for
renderings of παρακούσας,—an expression which S. Mark certainly never
employed.—“On earth, peace among men _in whom he is well pleased_” (S. Lu.
ii. 14): where the margin informs us that “many ancient authorities read,
_good pleasure among men_.” (And why not “_good will_,”—the rendering
adopted in Phil. i. 15?) ... Take some more of the alterations which have
resulted from the adoption of a corrupt Text:—“Why _askest thou me
concerning that which is good_?” (Matth. xix. 17,—an absurd
fabrication).—“He would fain _have been filled_ with the husks,” &c....
“and I perish _here_ with hunger!” (χορτασθῆναι, borrowed from Lu. xvi.
21: and εγΩΔΕωδε, a transparent error: S. Luke xv. 16, 17).—“When _it
shall fail_, they may receive you into the eternal tabernacles” (xvi.
9).——Elizabeth “lifted up her voice _with a loud cry_” (κραυγή—the private
property of three bad MSS. and Origen: Lu. i. 42).—“And _they stood still
looking sad_” (xxiv. 17,—a foolish transcriptional blunder).—“The
multitude _went up_ and began to ask him,” &c. (ἀναβάς for ἀναβοήσας, Mk.
xv. 8).—“But is guilty of _an eternal sin_” (iii. 29).—“And the officers
_received Him_ with blows of their hands,”—marg. “or _strokes of rods_:”
ΕΛΑΒΟΝ for ΕΒΑΛΟΝ (xiv. 65).—“Else, that which should fill it up taketh
from it, _the new from the old_” (ii. 21): and “No man _rendeth a piece
from a new garment_ and putteth it upon an old garment; else _he will rend
the new_,” &c. (Lu. v. 36).—“What is this? _a new teaching!_” (Mk. i.
27).—“JESUS saith unto him, _If thou canst!_” (Mk. ix. 23).—“Because of
your _little __ faith_”(Matth. xvii. 20).—“_We must_ work the works of Him
that sent Me, while it is day” (Jo. ix. 4).—“_The man that is called_
JESUS made clay” (ver. 11).—“If ye shall ask _Me anything in My name_”
(xiv. 14).—“The Father abiding in Me _doeth His works_” (xiv. 10).—“If ye
shall ask anything of the Father, _He will give it you in My name_” (xvi.
23).—“I glorified Thee on the earth, _having accomplished the work_ which
Thou hast given Me to do” (xvii. 4).—“Holy Father, keep them _in Thy Name
which_ Thou hast given Me ... I kept them _in Thy Name which_ Thou hast
given me” (ver. 11, 12).—“She ... saith unto Him _in Hebrew_, Rabboni”
(xx. 16).—“These things said Isaiah, _because_ he saw his glory” (xii.
41,—ΟΤΙ for ΟΤΕ, a common itacism).—“In tables _that are hearts of flesh_”
(ἐν πλαξὶ καρδίαις σαρκίναις, a “perfectly absurd reading,” as Scrivener
remarks, p. 442: 2 Cor. iii. 3).—“_Now if_ we put the horses’ bridles [and
pray, why not ‘the horses’ _bits_’?] into their mouths” (ΕΙΔΕ, an ordinary
itacism for ΙΔΕ, James iii. 3).—“Unto the sick were _carried away from his
body_ handkerchiefs,” &c. (Acts xix. 12).—“_Ye know all things once for
all_” (Jude ver. 5).—“_We love_ because he first loved us” (1 Jo. iv.
19).—“I have found _no work of thine fulfilled_ before my GOD” (Rev. iii.
2).—“Seven Angels _arrayed with [precious] stone_” (xv. 6), instead of
“clothed in linen,” λίθον for λίνον. (Fancy the Angels “_clothed in
stone_”! “Precious” is an interpolation of the Revisers).—“_Dwelling in_
the things which he hath seen:” for which the margin offers as an
alternative, “_taking his stand upon_” (Colossians ii. 18). But ἐμβατεύων
(the word here employed) clearly means neither the one nor the other. S.
Paul is delivering a warning against unduly “_prying into_ the things
_not_ seen.”(477) A few MSS. of bad character omit the “_not_.” That is
all!... These then are a handful of the less conspicuous instances of a
change in the English “positively required by a change of reading in the
Greek Text:” every one of them being either a pitiful blunder or else a
gross fabrication.—Take only two more: “I neither know, nor understand:
_thou, what sayest thou?_” (Mk. xiv. 68 margin):—“And _whither I go, ye
know the way_” (Jo. xiv. 4).... The A. V. is better in every instance.
(2) and (3) Next, alterations made because the A. V. “appeared to be
incorrect” or else “obscure.” They must needs be such as the
following:—“He that _is bathed_ needeth not save to wash his feet” (S.
John xiii. 10).—“LORD, if he is fallen asleep _he will recover_”
(σωθήσεται, xi. 12).—“Go ye therefore into _the partings of the highways_”
(Matth. xxii. 9).—“Being grieved at _the hardening_ of their heart” (Mk.
iii. 5).—“Light _a lamp_ and put it _on the stand_” (Matt. v.
15).—“Sitting at _the place of toll_” (ix. 9).—“The supplication of a
righteous man availeth much _in its working_” (James v. 16).—“Awake up
_righteously_” (1 Cor. xv. 34).—“_Guarded_ through faith unto _a
salvation_” (1 Pet. i. 5).—“Wandering in ... _the holes of the earth_”
(Heb. xi. 38—very queer places certainly to be “wandering” in).—“_She that
is in Babylon_, elect together with you, saluteth you” (1 Pet. v.
13).—“Therefore do _these powers work in Him_” (Matth. xiv. 2).—“In danger
of the _hell of fire_” (v. 22).—“_Put out_ into the deep” (Luke v.
4).—“The tomb that Abraham bought for _a price in silver_” (Acts vii. 16).
With reference to every one of these places, (and they are but samples of
what is to be met with in every page,) we venture to assert that they are
either _less_ intelligible, or else _more_ inaccurate, than the
expressions which they are severally intended to supersede; while, in some
instances, they are _both_. Will any one seriously contend that “_the hire
of wrong-doing_” is better than “_the wages of unrighteousness_” (2 Pet.
ii. 15)? or, will he venture to deny that, “Come and _dine_”—“so when they
_had dined_,”—is a hundred times better than “Come and _break your
fast_”—“so when they _had broken their fast_” (Jo. xxi. 12,
15)?—expressions which are only introduced because the Revisionists were
ashamed (as well they might be) to write “breakfast” and “breakfasted.”
The seven had not been “_fasting_.” Then, why introduce so incongruous a
notion here,—any more than into S. Luke xi. 37, 38, and xiv. 12?
Has the reader any appetite for more specimens of “incorrectness”
_remedied_ and “obscurity” _removed_? Rather, as it seems, have _both_
been largely imported into a Translation which was singularly intelligible
before. Why darken Rom. vii. 1 and xi. 2 by introducing the interrogative
particle, and then, by mistranslating it “_Or_”?—Also, why translate γένος
“_race_”? (“a man of Cyprus _by race_,” “a man of Pontus _by race_,” “an
Alexandrian _by race_,” Acts iv. 36: xviii. 2, 24).—“_If_ there is a
natural body, there is also a spiritual body,” say the Revisionists: “O
death, where is thy victory? O _death_ where is thy sting?” (Could they
not let even 1 Cor. xv. 44 and 55 alone?)—Why alter “For the bread of GOD
is _He_,” into “For the bread of GOD is _that_ which cometh down from
Heaven”? (Jo. vi. 33).—“_As long as I am_ in the world,” was surely better
than “_When I am_ in the world, I am the light of the world” (ix. 5).—Is
“_He went forth out of_ their hand” supposed to be an improvement upon
“_He escaped out of_ their hand”? (x. 39): and is “They loved _the glory_
of men more than _the glory_ of GOD” an improvement upon “the _praise_”?
(xii. 43).—“Judas saith unto Him, LORD, _what is come to pass_ that Thou
wilt manifest Thyself to us”? Is _that_ supposed to be an improvement upon
xiv. 22?—How is “_If then_” an improvement on “Forasmuch then” in Acts xi.
17?—or how is this endurable in Rom. vii. 15,—“For that which I do, I
_know_ not: for _not what I would, that do I practise_:”—or this, in xvi.
25, “The mystery which hath been _kept in silence through times eternal_,
but now is manifested,” &c.—“Thou therefore, _my child_,”—addressing the
Bishop of Ephesus (2 Tim. ii. 1): and “Titus, _my true child_,”—addressing
the Bishop of Crete (Tit. i. 4).
Are the following deemed improvements? “Every one that _doeth_ sin doeth
also _lawlessness: and sin is lawlessness_” (1 Jo. iii. 4): “I will _move_
thy candlestick out of its place” (Rev. ii. 5):—“a _glassy_ sea” (iv.
6):—“a _great_ voice” (v. 12):—“Verily, not of Angels _doth He take hold_,
but _He taketh hold_ of the seed of Abraham:”—“He _took hold of_ the blind
man by _the hand_:”—“They _took hold of him_ and brought him unto the
Areopagus” (Heb. ii. 16: S. Mk. viii. 23: Acts xvii. 19):—“wherefore GOD
is not _ashamed of them_, to be called their GOD” (Acts xi. 16):—“_Counted
it not a prize_ to be on an equality with GOD” (Phil. ii. 6).—Why are we
to substitute “_court_” for “palace” in Matth. xxvi. 3 and Lu. xi. 21?
(Consider Matth. xii. 29 and Mk. iii. 27).—“Women received their dead _by
a resurrection_” (Heb. xi. 35):—“If ye forgive not every one _his brother
from their hearts_” (Matth. xviii. 35):—“If _because of meat_ thy brother
is grieved, thou walkest _no longer in love_” (Rom. xiv. 15):—“which GOD,
who cannot lie, promised _before times eternal_; but _in his own seasons_
manifested _his word in the message_” (Tit. i. 2, 3):—“Your _pleasures_
[and why not ‘lusts’?] that war in your members” (James iv. 1):—“Behold
_how much wood_ is kindled by _how small a fire_!” (iii. 5).—Are these
really supposed to be less “obscure” than the passages they are intended
to supersede?
(_a_) Not a few of the mistaken renderings of the Revisionists can only be
established by an amount of illustration which is at once inconvenient to
the Reviewer and unwelcome probably to the general Reader. Thus, we take
leave to point out that,—“And _coming up_ at that very hour” (in Lu. ii.
38),—as well as “she _came up_ to Him” (in Lu. x. 40), are inexact
renderings of the original. The verb ἐφιστάναι, which etymologically
signifies “to stand upon,” or “over,” or “by,”—(but which retains its
literal signification on only four out of the eighteen occasions(478) when
the word occurs in the Gospels and Acts,)—is found almost invariably to
denote the “_coming suddenly upon_” a person. Hence, it is observed to be
used five times to denote the sudden appearance of friendly visitants from
the unseen world:(479) and seven times, the sudden hostile approach of
what is formidable.(480) On the two remaining occasions, which are those
before us,—(namely, the sudden coming of Anna into the Temple(481) and of
Martha into the presence of our LORD,(482))—“_coming suddenly in_” would
probably represent S. Luke’s ἐπιστᾶσα exactly. And yet, one would hesitate
to import the word “suddenly” into the narrative. So that “_coming in_”
would after all have to stand in the text, although the attentive student
of Scripture would enjoy the knowledge that something more is _implied_.
In other words,—the Revisionists would have done better if they had left
both places alone.... These are many words; yet is it impossible to
explain such matters at once satisfactorily and briefly.
(_b_) But more painful by far it is to discover that a morbid striving
after etymological accuracy,—added to a calamitous preference for a
depraved Text,—has proved the ruin of one of the most affecting scenes in
S. John’s Gospel. “Simon Peter beckoneth to him, _and saith unto him, Tell
us who it is of whom He speaketh_” [a fabulous statement evidently; for
Peter beckoned, because he might _not_ speak]. “He _leaning back, as he
was_,”—[a very bad rendering of οὕτως, by the way; and sure to recal
inopportunely the rendering of ὡς ἦν in S. Mark iv. 36, instead of
suggesting (as it obviously ought) the original of S. John iv. 6:]—“on
JESUS’ breast, saith unto Him, LORD who is it?” (S. John xiii. 24-5). Now,
S. John’s word concerning himself in this place is certainly ἐπιπεσών. He
“_just sank_”—let his head “_fall_”—on his Master’s breast, and whispered
his question. For this, a few corrupt copies substitute ἀναπεσών. But
ἀναπεσών _never_ means “_leaning back_.” It is descriptive of the posture
of one _reclining at a meal_ (S. Jo. xiii. 12). Accordingly, it is 10
times rendered by the Revisionists to “_sit down_.” Why, in this place,
and in chapter xxi. 20, _a new meaning_ is thrust upon the word, it is for
the Revisionists to explain. But they must explain the matter a vast deal
better than Bp. Lightfoot has done in his interesting little work on
Revision (pp. 72-3), or they will fail to persuade any,—except one
another.
(_c_) Thus it happens that we never spend half-an-hour over the
unfortunate production before us without exclaiming (with one in the
Gospel), “_The old is better_.” Changes of _any_ sort are unwelcome in
such a book as the Bible; but the discovery that changes have been made
_for the worse_, offends greatly. To take instances at random:—’Ὁ πλεῖστος
ὄχλος (in Matth. xxi. 8) is rightly rendered in our A. V. “a _very great_
multitude.”(483) Why then has it been altered by the R. V. into “_the most
part of_ the multitude”?—Ὁ πολὺς ὄχλος (Mk. xii. 37), in like manner, is
rightly rendered “_the common people_,” and ought not to have been glossed
in the margin “_the great multitude_.”—In the R. V. of Acts x. 15, we find
“_Make_ thou not common,” introduced as an improvement on, “_That call_
not thou common.” But “the old is better:” for, besides its idiomatic and
helpful “_That_,”—the old alone states the case truly. Peter did not
“_make_,” he only “_called_,” something “common.”—“All the _male_
children,” as a translation of πάντας τοὺς παῖδας (in Matth. ii. 16) is an
unauthorized statement. There is no reason for supposing that the female
infants of Bethlehem were spared in the general massacre: and the Greek
certainly conveys no such information.—“When he came into the house, JESUS
_spake first_ to him”—is really an incorrect rendering of Matth. xvii. 25:
at least, it imports into the narrative a notion which is not found in the
Greek, and does not exhibit faithfully what the Evangelist actually says.
“_Anticipated_,” in modern English,—“_prevented_,” in ancient
phraseology,—“_was beforehand with him_” in language neither new nor
old,—conveys the sense of the original exactly.—In S. Lu. vi. 35, “Love
your enemies, ... and lend, _never despairing_,” is simply a mistaken
translation of ἀπελπίζοντες, as the context sufficiently proves. The old
rendering is the true one.(484) And so, learnedly, the Vulgate,—_nihil
inde sperantes_. (Consider the use of ἀποβλέπειν [Heb. xi. 26]: ἀφορᾶν
[Phil. ii. 23: Heb. xii. 2]: _abutor_, as used by Jerome for _utor_,
&c.)—“Go with them _making no distinction_” is not the meaning of Acts xi.
12: which, however, was correctly translated before, viz. “nothing
doubting.”—The mischievous change (“_save_” in place of “but”) in Gal. ii.
16 has been ably and faithfully exposed by Bp. Ollivant. In the words of
the learned and pious Bp. of Lincoln, “it is illogical and erroneous, and
_contradicts the whole drift of S. Paul’s Argument_ in that Epistle, and
in the Epistle to the Romans.”
(_d_) We should be dealing insincerely with our Readers were we to conceal
our grave dissatisfaction at not a few of the novel _expressions_ which
the Revisionists have sought to introduce into the English New Testament.
That the malefactors between whom “the LORD of glory” was crucified were
not ordinary “_thieves_” is obvious; yet would it have been wiser, we
think, to leave the old designation undisturbed. We shall never learn to
call them “_robbers_.”—“The king sent forth _a soldier of his guard_” is a
gloss—not a translation of S. Mark vi. 27. “_An executioner_” surely is
far preferable as the equivalent for σπεκουλάτωρ!(485)—“_Assassins_” (as
the rendering of σικάριοι) is an objectionable substitute for “murderers.”
A word which “belongs probably to a romantic chapter in the history of the
Crusades”(486) has no business in the N. T.—And what did these learned men
suppose they should gain by substituting “_the twin brothers_” for
“_Castor and Pollux_” in Acts xxviii. 11? The Greek (Διόσκουροι) is
neither the one nor the other.—In the same spirit, instead of, “they that
received _tribute-money_” (in S. Matth. xvii. 24), we are now presented
with “they that received _the half-shekel_:” and in verse 27,—instead of
“when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find _a piece of money_,” we
are favoured with “thou shalt find _a shekel_.” But _why_ the change has
been made, we fail to see. The margin is _still_ obliged to explain that
not one of these four words is found in the original: the Greek in the
former place being τὰ δίδραχμα,—in the latter, στατήρ.—“_Flute-players_”
(for “minstrels”) in S. Matthew ix. 23, is a mistake. An αὐλητής played
_the pipe_ (αὐλός, 1 Cor. xiv. 7),—hence “pipers” in Rev. xviii. 22;
(where by the way μουσικοί [“musicians”] is perversely and less accurately
rendered “_minstrels_”).—Once more. “_Undressed_ cloth” (Mk. ii. 21),
because it is an expression popularly understood only in certain districts
of England, and a _vox artis_, ought not to have been introduced into the
Gospels. “_New_” is preferable.—“_Wine-skins_” (Mtt. ix. 17: Mk. ii. 22:
Lu. v. 37) is a term unintelligible to the generality; as the Revisionists
confess, for they explain it by a note,—“That is, _skins used as
bottles_.” What else is this but substituting a new difficulty for an old
one?—“_Silver_,” now for the first time thrust into Acts viii. 20, is
unreasonable. Like “argent” in French, ἀργύριον as much means “money,”
here as in S. Matthew xxv. 18, 27, &c.—In S. James ii. 19, we should like
to know what is gained by the introduction of the “_shuddering_”
devils.—To take an example from a different class of words,—Who will say
that “Thou _mindest_ not the things of GOD” is a better rendering of οὐ
φρονεῖς, than the old “Thou _savourest_ not,”—which at least had no
ambiguity about it?... A friend points out that Dr. Field (a “master in
Israel”) has examined 104 of the changes _made_ in the Revised Version;
and finds 8 questionable: 13 unnecessary: 19 faulty (_i.e._ cases in which
the A. V. required amendment, but which the R. V. has not succeeded in
amending): 64 _changes for the worse_.(487)... This is surely a terrible
indictment for such an one as Dr. Field to bring against the
Revisers,—_who were directed only to correct_ “PLAIN AND CLEAR ERRORS.”
(_e_) We really fail to understand how it has come to pass that,
notwithstanding the amount of scholarship which sometimes sat in the
Jerusalem Chamber, so many novelties are found in the present Revision
which betoken a want of familiarity with the refinements of the Greek
language on the one hand; and (what is even more inexcusable) only a
slender acquaintance with the resources and proprieties of English speech,
on the other. A fair average instance of this occurs in Acts xxi. 37,
where (instead of “_Canst_ thou _speak_ Greek?”) Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις? is
rendered “_Dost_ thou _know_ Greek?” That γινώσκειν means “to know” (and
not “to speak”) is undeniable: and yet, in the account of all, except the
driest and stupidest of pedagogues, Ἑλληνιστὶ γινώσκεις; must be
translated “Canst thou _speak_ Greek?” For (as every schoolboy is aware)
Ἑλληνιστί is an adverb, and signifies “_in Greek fashion_:” so that
something has to be supplied: and the full expression, if it must needs be
given, would be, “Dost thou know [how to talk] in Greek?” But then, this
condensation of phrase proves to be the established idiom of the
language:(488) so that the rejection of the learned rendering of Tyndale,
Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the Translators of 1611 (“_Canst thou
speak_ Greek?”)—the rejection of this, at the end of 270 years, in favour
of “_Dost thou know_ Greek?” really betrays ignorance. It is worse than
bad Taste. It is a stupid and deliberate _blunder_.
(_f_) The substitution of “_they weighed unto him_” (in place of “_they
covenanted with him for_”) “thirty pieces of silver” (S. Matth. xxvi. 15)
is another of those plausible mistakes, into which a little learning
(proverbially “a dangerous thing”) is for ever conducting its unfortunate
possessor; but from which it was to have been expected that the undoubted
attainments of some who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber would have
effectually preserved the Revisionists. That ἔστησαν is intended to recal
Zech. xi. 12, is obvious; as well as that _there_ it refers to the ancient
practice of _weighing_ uncoined money. It does not, however, by any means
follow, that it was customary to _weigh_ shekels in the days of the
Gospel. Coined money, in fact, was never weighed, but always counted; and
these were shekels, _i.e._ _didrachms_ (Matth. xvii. 24). The truth (it
lies on the surface) is, that there exists a happy ambiguity about the
word ἔστησαν, of which the Evangelist has not been slow to avail himself.
In the particular case before us, it is expressly recorded that in the
first instance money did _not_ pass,—only a bargain was made, and a
certain sum promised. S. Mark’s record is that the chief priests were glad
at the proposal of Judas, “_and promised_ to give him money” (xiv. 11): S.
Luke’s, that “_they covenanted_” to do so (xxii. 5, 6). And with this, the
statement of the first Evangelist is found to be in strictest agreement.
The chief Priests “set” or “appointed”(489) him a certain sum. The
perfectly accurate rendering of S. Matth. xxvi. 15, therefore, exhibited
by our Authorized Version, has been set aside to make way for _a
misrepresentation of the Evangelist’s meaning_. “In the judgment of the
most competent scholars,” was “such change NECESSARY”?