a company as that which assembled in the Jerusalem Chamber, as well as
more consistent with their Instructions, if _in doubtful cases_ they had
abstained from touching the Authorized Version, but had recorded their own
conjectural emendations _in the margin_. How rash and infelicitous, for
example, is the following rendering of the famous words in Acts xxvi. 28,
29, which we find thrust upon us without apology or explanation; without,
in fact, any marginal note at all:—“And Agrippa said unto Paul, _With but
little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me_ a Christian. And Paul said,
I would to GOD, that whether _with little or with much_,” &c. Now this is
indefensible. For, in the first place, to get any such meaning out of the
words, our Revisionists have been obliged to substitute the fabricated
ποιῆσαι (the peculiar property of א A B and a few cursives) for γενέσθαι
in ver. 28. Moreover, even so, the words do not yield the required sense.
We venture to point out, that this is precisely one of the occasions where
the opinion of a first-rate Greek Father is of paramount importance. The
moderns confess themselves unable to discover a single instance of the
phrase ἐν ὀλίγῳ in the sense of “_within a little_.” Cyril of Jerusalem
(A.D. 350) and Chrysostom (A.D. 400), on the contrary, evidently
considered that here the expression can mean nothing else; and they were
competent judges, seeing that Greek was their native language: far better
judges (be it remarked in passing) on a point of this kind than the whole
body of Revisionists put together. “Such an amount of victorious grace and
wisdom did Paul derive from the HOLY SPIRIT” (says Cyril), “that even King
Agrippa at last exclaimed,”(490) &c. From which it is evident that Cyril
regarded Agrippa’s words as an avowal that he was well-nigh overcome by
the Apostle’s argument. And so Chrysostom,(491) who says plainly that ἐν
ὀλίγῳ means “within a little,”(492) and assumes that “within a little” S.
Paul had persuaded his judge.(493) He even puts παρ᾽ ὀλίγον into Agrippa’s
mouth.(494) So also, in effect, Theodoret.(495) From all which it is
reasonable, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to infer that
our A. V. reflects faithfully what was the Church’s traditionary
interpretation of Acts xxvi. 28 in the first half of the fourth century.
Let it only be added that a better judge of such matters than any who
frequented the Jerusalem Chamber—the late President of Magdalen, Dr.
Routh,—writes: “_Vertendum esse sequentia suadent, Me fere Christianum
fieri suades. Interp. Vulgata habet, In modico suades me Christianum
fieri._”(496) Yes, the Apostle’s rejoinder fixes the meaning of what
Agrippa had said before.—And this shall suffice. We pass on, only
repeating our devout wish that what the Revisionists failed to understand,
or were unable _materially and certainly_ to improve, they would have been
so obliging as to let alone. In the present instance the A. V. is probably
right; the R. V., probably wrong. No one, at all events, can pretend that
the rendering with which we are all familiar is “_a plain and clear
error_.” And confessedly, unless it was, it should have been left
unmolested. But to proceed.
(4) and (5) There can be no question as to the absolute duty of rendering
identical expressions _in strictly parallel places of the Gospels_ by
strictly identical language. So far we are wholly at one with the
Revisionists. But “alterations [supposed to be] rendered necessary _by
consequence_” (_Preface_, iii. 2.), are quite a different matter: and we
venture to think that it is precisely in their pursuit of a mechanical
uniformity of rendering, that our Revisionists have most often as well as
most grievously lost their way. We differ from them in fact _in limine_.
“When a particular word” (say they) “is found to recur with characteristic
frequency in any one of the Sacred Writers, it is obviously desirable to
adopt for it some uniform rendering” (iii. 2). “Desirable”! Yes, but in
what sense? It is much to be desired, no doubt, that the English language
always contained _the exact counterparts_ of Greek words: and of course,
if it did, it would be in the highest degree “desirable” that a Translator
should always employ those words and no other. But then it happens
unfortunately that _precisely equivalent words do not exist_. Τέκνον, nine
times out of ten signifies nothing else but “_child_.” On the tenth
occasion, however, (_e.g._ where Abraham is addressing the rich man in
Hades,) it would be absurd so to render it. We translate “_Son_.” We are
in fact without choice.—Take another ordinary Greek term, σπλάγχνα, which
occurs 11 times in the N. T., and which the A. V. uniformly renders
“bowels.” Well, and “bowels” confessedly σπλάγχνα are. Yet have our
Revisionists felt themselves under the “necessity” of rendering the word
“_heart_,” in Col. iii. 12,—“_very heart_,” in Philemon, ver.
12,—“affections” in 2 Cor. vi. 12,—“_inward affection_,” in vii.
15,—“_tender mercies_” in Phil. i. 8,—“_compassion_” in 1 Jo. iii.
17,—“_bowels_” only in Acts i. 18.—These learned men, however, put forward
in illustration of their own principle of translation, the word
εὐθέως,—which occurs about 80 times in the N. T.: nearly half the
instances being found in S. Mark’s Gospel. We accept their challenge; and
assert that it is tasteless barbarism to seek to impose upon εὐθέως,—no
matter _what_ the context in which it stands,—the sense of
“_straightway_,”—only because εὐθύς, the adjective, generally (not always)
means “straight.” Where a miracle of healing is described (as in S. Matth.
viii. 3: xx. 34. S. Lu. v. 13), since the benefit was no doubt
instantaneous, it is surely the mere instinct of “faithfulness” to
translate εὐθέως “_immediately_.” So, in respect of the sudden act which
saved Peter from sinking (S. Matth. xiv. 31); and that punctual cock-crow
(xxvi. 74), which (S. Luke says) did not so much follow, as _accompany_
his denial (xxii. 60). But surely not so, when _the growth of a seed_ is
the thing spoken of (Matth. xiii. 5)! Acts again, which must needs have
occupied some little time in the doing, reasonably suggest some such
rendering as “_forthwith_” or “_straightway_,”—(_e.g._ S. Matth. xiv. 22:
xxi. 2: and S. John vi. 21): while, in 3 John ver. 14, the meaning (as the
Revisionists confess) can only be “_shortly_.”... So plain a matter really
ought not to require so many words. We repeat, that the Revisionists set
out with a mistaken Principle. They clearly _do not understand their
Trade_.
They invite our attention to their rendering of certain of the Greek
Tenses, and of the definite Article. We regret to discover that, in both
respects, their work is disfigured throughout by changes which convict a
majority of their body alike of an imperfect acquaintance with the genius
of the Greek language, and of scarcely a moderate appreciation of the
idiomatic proprieties of their own. Such a charge must of necessity, when
it has been substantiated, press heavily upon such a work as the present;
for it is not as when a solitary error has been detected, which may be
rectified. A vicious _system_ of rendering Tenses, and representing the
Greek Article, is sure to crop up in every part of the undertaking, and
must occasionally be attended by consequences of a serious nature.
1. Now, that we may not be misunderstood, we admit at once that, in
teaching _boys_ how to turn Greek into English, we insist that every tense
shall be marked by its own appropriate sign. There is no telling how
helpful it will prove in the end, that every word shall at first have been
rendered with painful accuracy. Let the Article be [mis-]represented—the
Prepositions caricatured—the Particles magnified,—let the very order of
the words at first, (however impossible,) be religiously retained.
Merciless accuracy having been in this way acquired, a youth has to be
_un_taught these servile habits. He has to be reminded of the requirements
of the _English idiom_, and speedily becomes aware that the idiomatic
rendering of a Greek author into English, is a higher achievement by far,
than his former slavish endeavour always to render the same word and tense
in the same slavish way.
2. But what supremely annoys us in the work just now under review is, that
the schoolboy method of translation already noticed is therein exhibited
in constant operation throughout. It becomes oppressive. We are never
permitted to believe that we are in the company of Scholars who are
altogether masters of their own language. Their solicitude ever seems to
be twofold:—(1) To exhibit a singular indifference to the proprieties of
English speech, while they maintain a servile adherence (etymological or
idiomatic, as the case may be) to the Greek:—(2) Right or wrong, to part
company from William Tyndale and the giants who gave us our “Authorized
Version.”
Take a few illustrations of what precedes from the second chapter of S.
Matthew’s Gospel:—
(1.) Thus, in ver. 2, the correct English rendering “_we have seen_” is
made to give place to the incorrect “_we saw_ his star in the east.”—In
ver. 9, the idiomatic “_when they had heard the king_, they departed,” is
rejected for the unidiomatic “And they, _having heard the king_, went
their way.”—In ver. 15, we are treated to “that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the LORD _through_ the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt
_did I call_ my son.” And yet who sees not, that in both instances the old
rendering is better? Important as it may be, _in the lecture-room_, to
insist on what is implied by τὸ ῥηθὲν ὙΠῸ τοῦ κυρίου ΔΙᾺ τοῦ προφήτου, it
is simply preposterous to _come abroad_ with such refinements. It is to
stultify oneself and to render one’s author unintelligible. Moreover, the
attempt to be so wondrous literal is safe to break down at the end of a
few verses. Thus, if διά is “_through_” in verse 15,—why not in verse 17
and in verse 23?
(2.) Note how infelicitously, in S. Matth. ii. 1, “there came wise men
from the east” is changed into “_wise men from the east came_.”—In ver. 4,
the accurate, “And when [Herod] had gathered together” (συναγαγών) &c., is
displaced for the inaccurate, “And _gathering together_” &c.—In ver. 6, we
are presented with the unintelligible, “And thou _Bethlehem, land of
Judah_:” while in ver. 7, “Then Herod _privily called_ the wise men, and
_learned of them carefully_,” is improperly put in the place of “Then
Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them
diligently” (ἠκρίβωσε παρ᾽ αὐτῶν).—In ver. 11, the familiar “And when they
were come into the house, they saw” &c., is needlessly changed into “They
_came into the house_, and saw:” while “and when they had opened
(ἀνοίξαντες) their treasures,” is also needlessly altered into “and
_opening_ their treasures.”—In ver. 12, the R. V. is careful to print “_of
_GOD” in italics, where italics are not necessary: seeing that
χρηματισθέντες implies “being warned of GOD” (as the translators of 1611
were well aware(497)): whereas in countless other places the same
Revisionists reject the use of italics where italics are absolutely
required.—Their “until I _tell thee_” (in ver. 13) is a most unworthy
substitute for “until I _bring thee word_.”—And will they pretend that
they have improved the rendering of the concluding words of the chapter?
If Ναζωραῖος κληθήσεται does not mean “He shall be called a Nazarene,”
what in the world _does_ it mean? The ὅτι of quotation they elsewhere
omit. Then why, here,—“_That_ it might be fulfilled ... _that_”?—Surely,
every one of these is an alteration made for alteration’s sake, and in
every instance _for the worse_.
We began by surveying _the Greek_ of the first chapter of S. Matthew’s
Gospel. We have now surveyed _the English_ of the second chapter. What
does the Reader think of the result?
IV. Next, the Revisionists invite attention to certain points of detail:
and first, to their rendering of THE TENSES OF THE VERB. They begin with
the Greek Aorist,—(in their account) “perhaps the most important” detail
of all:—
“We have not attempted to violate the idiom of our language by
forms of expression which it would not bear. But we have often
ventured to represent the Greek aorist by the English preterite,
even when the reader may find some passing difficulty in such a
rendering, because we have felt convinced that the true meaning of
the original was obscured by the presence of the familiar
auxiliary. A remarkable illustration may be found in the
seventeenth chapter of S. John’s Gospel.”—_Preface_, iii.
2,—(_latter part_).
(_a_) We turn to the place indicated, and are constrained to assure these
well-intentioned men, that the phenomenon we there witness is absolutely
fatal to their pretensions as “_Revisers_” of our Authorized Version. Were
it only “some passing difficulty” which their method occasions us, we
might have hoped that time would enable us to overcome it. But since it is
_the genius of the English language_ to which we find they have offered
violence; the fixed and universally-understood idiom of our native tongue
which they have systematically set at defiance; the matter is absolutely
without remedy. The difference between the A. V. and the R. V. seems to
ourselves to be simply this,—that the renderings in the former are the
idiomatic English representations of certain well-understood Greek tenses:
while the proposed substitutes are nothing else but the pedantic efforts
of mere grammarians to reproduce in another language idioms which it
abhors. But the Reader shall judge for himself: for _this_ at least is a
point on which every educated Englishman is fully competent to pass
sentence.
When our Divine LORD, at the close of His Ministry,—(He had in fact
reached the very last night of His earthly life, and it wanted but a few
hours of His Passion,)—when He, at such a moment, addressing the Eternal
FATHER, says, ἐγώ σε ἐδόξασα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς; τὸ ἔργον ἐτελείωσα ... ἐφανέρωσά
σου τὸ ὄνομα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις, &c. [Jo. xvii. 4, 6], there can be no doubt
whatever that, had He pronounced those words in English, He would have
said (with our A. V.) “I _have glorified_ Thee on the earth: I _have
finished_ the work:” “I _have manifested_ Thy Name.” The pedantry which
(on the plea that the Evangelist employs the aorist, not the perfect
tense,) would twist all this into the indefinite past,—“I glorified” ...
“I finished” ... “I manifested,”—we pronounce altogether insufferable. We
absolutely refuse it a hearing. Presently (in ver. 14) He says,—“I have
given them Thy word; and the world _hath hated them_.” And in ver. 25,—“O
righteous FATHER, the world _hath not known_ Thee; but I _have known_
Thee, and these _have known_ that Thou _hast sent_ Me.” _Who_ would
consent to substitute for these expressions,—“the world hated them:” and
“the world knew Thee not, but I knew Thee; and these knew that Thou didst
send Me”?—Or turn to another Gospel. _Which_ is better,—“Some one hath
touched Me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of Me,” (S. Lu. viii.
46):—or,—“Some one _did touch_ Me: for _I perceived_ that power _had gone
forth_ from Me”?
When the reference is to an act so extremely recent, _who_ is not aware
that the second of these renderings is abhorrent to the genius of the
English language? As for ἔγνων, it is (like _novi_ in Latin) present in
_sense_ though past in _form_,—here as in S. Lu. xvi. 3.—But turn to yet
another Gospel. _Which_ is better in S. Matth. xvi. 7:—“_we took_ no
bread,” or “It is because _we have taken_ no bread”?—Again. When Simon
Peter (in reply to the command that he should thrust out into deep water
and let down his net for a draught,) is heard to exclaim,—“Master, we have
toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at Thy word I
will let down the net” (Lu. v. 5),—_who_ would tolerate the proposal to
put in the place of it,—“Master, _we toiled all night_, and _took_
nothing: but at Thy word,” &c. It is not too much to declare that the
idiom of the English language refuses peremptorily to submit to such
handling. Quite in vain is it to encounter us with reminder that
κοπιάσαντες and ἐλάβομεν are aorists. The answer is,—We know it: but we
deny that it follows that the words are to be rendered “we _toiled_ all
night, and _took_ nothing.” There are laws of English Idiom as well as
laws of Greek Grammar: and when these clash in what is meant to be a
translation into English out of Greek, the latter must perforce give way
to the former,—or we make ourselves ridiculous, and misrepresent what we
propose to translate.
All this is so undeniable that it ought not to require to be insisted
upon. But in fact our Revisionists by their occasional practice show that
they fully admit _the Principle_ we are contending for. Thus, ἧραν (in S.
Jo. xx. 2 and 13) is by them translated “_they have taken_:”—ἱνατί με
ἐγκατέλιπες; (S. Matt. xxvii. 46) “Why _hast Thou forsaken
Me_?”(498):—ἔδειξα (S. Jo. x. 32) “_have I showed_:”—ἀπέστειλε (vi. 29)
“_He hath sent_:”—ἠτιμάσατε (James ii. 6) “_ye have
dishonoured_:”—ἐκαθάρισε (Acts x. 15) “_hath cleansed_:”—ἔστησεν (xvii.
31) “He _hath appointed_.” But indeed instances abound everywhere. In
fact, the requirements of the case are often observed to _force_ them to
be idiomatic. Τί ἐποίησας; (in Jo. xviii. 35), they rightly render “What
_hast_ thou done?”:—and ἔγραψα (in 1 Jo. ii. 14, 21), “I _have_
written;”—and ἤκουσα (in Acts ix. 13), “I _have_ heard.”—On the other
hand, by translating οὐκ εἴασεν (in Acts xxviii. 4), “_hath not
suffered_,” they may be thought to have overshot the mark. They seem to
have overlooked the fact that, when once S. Paul had been bitten by the
viper, “the barbarians” looked upon him as _a dead man_; and therefore
discoursed about what Justice “_did not_ suffer,” as about an entirely
past transaction.
But now, _Who_ sees not that the admission, once and again deliberately
made, that sometimes it is not only lawful, but even _necessary_, to
accommodate the Greek aorist (when translated into English) with the sign
of the perfect,—reduces the whole matter (of the signs of the tenses) to a
mere question of _Taste_? In view of such instances as the foregoing,
where severe logical necessity has compelled the Revisionists to abandon
their position and fly, it is plain that their contention is at an end,—so
far as _right_ and _wrong_ are concerned. They virtually admit that they
have been all along unjustly forcing on an independent language an alien
yoke.(499) Henceforth, it simply becomes a question to be repeated, as
every fresh emergency arises,—Which then is _the more idiomatic_ of these
two English renderings?... Conversely, twice at least (Heb. xi. 17 and
28), the Revisionists have represented the _Greek perfect_ by the English
indefinite preterite.
(_b_) Besides this offensive pedantry in respect of the Aorist, we are
often annoyed by an _unidiomatic_ rendering of the Imperfect. True enough
it is that “the servants and the officers _were standing_ ... and _were
warming_ themselves:” Peter also “_was standing_ with them and _was
warming_ himself” (S. Jo. xviii. 18). But we do not so express ourselves
in English, unless we are about to add something which shall _account for_
our particularity and precision. Any one, for example, desirous of stating
what had been for years his daily practice, would say—“_I left_ my house.”
Only when he wanted to explain that, on leaving it for the 1000th time, he
met a friend coming up the steps to pay him a visit, would an Englishman
think of saying, “_I was leaving_ the house.” A Greek writer, on the other
hand, would not _trust_ this to the imperfect. He would use the present
participle in the dative case, (“_To me, leaving my house_,”(500) &c.).
One is astonished to have to explain such things.... “If therefore thou
_art offering_ thy gift at the altar” (Matt. v. 23), may seem to some a
clever translation. To ourselves, it reads like a senseless exaggeration
of the original.(501) It sounds (and _is_) as unnatural as to say (in S.
Lu. ii. 33) “And His father [a depravation of the text] and His mother
_were marvelling_ at the things which were spoken concerning Him:”—or (in
Heb. xi. 17) “yea, he that had received the promises _was offering up_ his
only-begotten son:”—or, of the cripple at Lystra (Acts xiv. 9), “the same
heard Paul _speaking_.”
(_c_) On the other hand, there are occasions confessedly when the Greek
Aorist absolutely demands to be rendered into English by the sign of the
_Pluperfect_. An instance meets us while we write: ὡς δὲ ἐπαύσατο λαλῶν
(S. Lu. v. 4),—where our Revisionists are found to retain the idiomatic
rendering of our Authorized Version,—“When He _had left_ speaking.” Of
what possible avail could it be, on such an occasion, to insist that,
because ἐπαύσατο is not in the pluperfect tense, it may not be
accommodated with _the sign_ of the pluperfect when it is being translated
into English?—The R. V. has shown less consideration in S. Jo. xviii.
24,—where “Now Annas _had sent_ Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest,”
is right, and wanted no revision.—Such places as Matth. xxvii. 60, Jo.
xxi. 15, Acts xii. 17, and Heb. iv. 8, on the other hand, simply defy the
Revisionists. For perforce Joseph “_had hewn_ out” (ἐλατόμησε) the new
tomb which became our LORD’S: and the seven Apostles, confessedly, “_had
dined_” (ἠρίστησαν): and S. Peter, of course, “declared unto them how the
LORD _had brought him out_ of the prison” (ἐξήγαγεν): and it is impossible
to substitute anything for “If Jesus [Joshua] _had given_ them rest”
(κατέπαυσεν).—Then of course there are occasions, (not a few,) where the
Aorist (often an indefinite present in Greek) claims to be Englished by
the sign of the present tense: as where S. John says (Rev. xix. 6), “The
LORD GOD Omnipotent reigneth” (ἐβασίλευσε). There is no striving against
such instances. They _insist_ on being rendered according to the genius of
the language into which it is proposed to render them:—as when ἔκειτο (in
S. Jo. xx. 12) exacts for its rendering “_had lain_.”
(_d_) It shall only be pointed out here in addition, for the student’s
benefit, that there is one highly interesting place (viz. S. Matth.
xxviii. 2), which in every age has misled Critics and Divines (as Origen
and Eusebius); Poets (as Rogers); Painters (as West);—yes, and will
continue to mislead readers for many a year to come:—and all because men
have failed to perceive that the aorist is used there for the pluperfect.
Translate,—“There _had been_ a great earthquake:” [and so (1611-1881) our
margin,—until in short “the Revisionists” interfered:] “for the Angel of
the LORD _had_ descended from heaven, and _come and rolled away_
(ἀπεκύλισε) the stone from the door, and sat upon it.” Strange, that for
1800 years Commentators should have failed to perceive that the Evangelist
is describing what terrified “_the keepers_.” “_The women_” saw no Angel
sitting upon the stone!—though Origen,(502)—Dionysius of
Alexandria,(503)—Eusebius,(504)—ps.-Gregory Naz.,(505)—Cyril
Alex.,(506)—Hesychius,(507)—and so many others—have taken it for granted
that they _did_.
(_e_) Then further, (to dismiss the subject and pass on,)—There are
occasions where the Greek _perfect_ exacts the sign of the _present_ at
the hands of the English translator: as when Martha says,—“Yea LORD, I
_believe_ that Thou art the CHRIST” (S. Jo. xi. 27).(508) What else but
the veriest pedantry is it to thrust in there “_I have believed_,” as the
English equivalent for πεπίστευκα?—Just as intolerable is the
officiousness which would thrust into the LORD’S prayer (Matt. vi. 12),
“as we also _have forgiven_ (ἀφήκαμεν) our debtors.”(509)—On the other
hand, there are Greek _presents_ (whatever the Revisionists may think)
which are just as peremptory in requiring _the sign of the future_, at the
hands of the idiomatic translator into English. Three such cases are found
in S. Jo. xvi. 16, 17, 19. Surely, the future is _inherent_ in the present
ἔρχομαι! In Jo. xiv. 18 (and many similar places), who can endure, “I will
not leave you desolate: _I come unto you_”?
(_f_) But instances abound. How does it happen that the inaccurate
rendering of ἐκκόπτεται—ἐκβάλλεται—has been retained in S. Matth. iii. 10,
S. Lu. iii. 9?
V. Next, concerning the DEFINITE ARTICLE; in the case of which, (say the
Revisionists,)
“many changes have been made.” “We have been careful to observe
the use of the Article wherever it seemed to be idiomatically
possible: where it did not seem to be possible, we have yielded to
necessity.”—(_Preface_, iii. 2,—_ad fin._)
In reply, instead of offering counter-statements of our own we content
ourselves with submitting a few specimens to the Reader’s judgment; and
invite him to decide between the Reviewer and the Reviewed ... “_The_
sower went forth to sow” (Matth. xiii. 3).—“It is greater than _the_
herbs” (ver. 32).—“Let him be to thee as _the_ Gentile and _the_ publican”
(xviii. 17).—“The unclean spirit, when he is gone out of _the_ man” (xii.
43).—“Did I not choose you _the_ twelve?” (Jo. vi. 70).—“If I then, _the_
Lord and _the_ master” (xiii. 14).—“For _the_ joy that a man is born into
the world” (xvi. 21).—“But as touching Apollos _the_ brother” (1 Cor. xvi.
12).—“_The_ Bishop must be blameless ... able to exhort in _the_ sound
doctrine” (Titus i. 7, 9).—“_The_ lust when it hath conceived, beareth
sin: and _the_ sin, when it is full grown” &c. (James i. 15).—“Doth _the_
fountain send forth from the same opening sweet water and bitter?” (iii.
11).—“Speak thou the things which befit _the_ sound doctrine” (Titus ii.
1).—“The time will come when they will not endure _the_ sound doctrine” (2
Tim. iv. 3).—“We had _the_ fathers of our flesh to chasten us” (Heb. xii.
9).—“Follow after peace with all men, and _the_ sanctification” (ver.
14).—“Who is _the_ liar but he that denieth that JESUS is the CHRIST?” (1
Jo. ii. 22).—“Not with _the_ water only, but with _the_ water and with
_the_ blood” (v. 6).—“He that hath the SON, hath _the_ life: he that hath
not the SON of GOD hath not _the_ life” (ver. 12).