found in all these places in the original Greek,—is preposterous. In
French also we say “Telle est _la_ vie:” but, in translating from the
French, we do not _therefore_ say “Such is _the_ life.” May we, without
offence, suggest the study of Middleton _On the Doctrine of the Greek
Article_ to those members of the Revisionists’ body who have favoured us
with the foregoing crop of mistaken renderings?
So, in respect of the indefinite article, we are presented with,—“_An_
eternal” (for “_the_ everlasting”) “gospel to proclaim” (Rev. xiv. 6):—and
“one like unto _a_ son of man,” for “one like unto _the_ Son of Man” in
ver. 14.—Why “_a_ SAVIOUR” in Phil. iii. 20? There is but one! (Acts iv.
12).—On the other hand, Κρανίον is rendered “_The_ skull” in S. Lu. xxiii.
33. It is hard to see why.—These instances taken at random must suffice.
They might be multiplied to any extent. If the Reader considers that the
idiomatic use of the English Article is understood by the authors of these
specimen cases, we shall be surprised, and sorry—_for him_.
VI. The Revisionists announce that they “have been particularly careful”
as to THE PRONOUNS [iii. 2 _ad fin._] We recal with regret that this is
also a particular wherein we have been specially annoyed and offended.
Annoyed—at their practice of _repeating the nominative_ (_e.g._ in Mk. i.
13: Jo. xx. 12) to an extent unknown, abhorrent even, to our language,
except indeed when a fresh substantive statement is made: offended—at
their license of translation, _when it suits them_ to be licentious.—Thus,
(as the Bp. of S. Andrews has well pointed out,) “_it is He that_” is an
incorrect translation of αὐτός in S. Matth. i. 21,—a famous passage. Even
worse, because it is unfair, is “_He who_” as the rendering of ὅς in 1
Tim. iii. 16,—another famous passage, which we have discussed
elsewhere.(510)
VII. ’In the case of the PARTICLES’ (say the Revisionists),
“we have been able to maintain a reasonable amount of
_consistency_. The Particles in the Greek Testament are, as is
well known, comparatively few, and they are commonly used with
precision. It has therefore been the more necessary here to
preserve a general _uniformity of rendering_.”—(iii. 2 _ad fin._)
Such an announcement, we submit, is calculated to occasion nothing so much
as uneasiness and astonishment. Of all the parts of speech, the Greek
Particles,—(especially throughout the period when the Language was in its
decadence,)—are the least capable of being drilled into “a general
uniformity of rendering;” and he who tries the experiment ought to be the
first to be aware of the fact. The refinement and delicacy which they
impart to a narrative or a sentiment, are not to be told. But then, from
the very nature of the case, “_uniformity of rendering_” is precisely the
thing they will not submit to. They take their colour from their context:
often mean two quite different things in the course of two successive
verses: sometimes are best rendered by a long and formidable word;(511)
sometimes cannot (without a certain amount of impropriety or
inconvenience) be rendered _at all_.(512) Let us illustrate what we have
been saying by actual appeals to Scripture.
(1) And first, we will derive our proofs from the use which the sacred
Writers make of the particle of most frequent recurrence—δέ. It is said to
be employed in the N. T. 3115 times. As for its meaning, we have the
unimpeachable authority of the Revisionists themselves for saying that it
may be represented by any of the following
words:—“but,”—“and,”(513)—“yea,”(514)—“what,”(515)—“now,”(516)—“and
that”,(517)—“howbeit,”(518)—“even,”(519)—“therefore,”(520)—“I
say,”(521)—“also,”(522)—“yet,”(523)—“for.”(524) To which 12 renderings,
King James’s translators (mostly following Tyndale) are observed to add at
least these other 12:—“wherefore,”(525)—“so,”(526)—“moreover,”(527)—“yea
and,”(528)—“furthermore,”(529)—“nevertheless,”(530)—“notwithstanding,”(531)—“yet
but,”(532)—“truly,”(533)—“or,”(534)—“as for,”(535)—“then,”(536)—“and
yet.”(537) It shall suffice to add that, by the pitiful substitution of
“but” or “and” on _most_ of the foregoing occasions, the freshness and
freedom of almost every passage has been made to disappear: the plain fact
being that the men of 1611—above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before
them—produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the
meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the
phrase, as they felt, or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have
varied it, had they had to express themselves in English: whereas the men
of 1881 have fulfilled their task in what can only be described as _a
spirit of servile pedantry_. The Grammarian (pure and simple) crops up
everywhere. We seem never to rise above the atmosphere of the
lecture-room,—the startling fact that μέν means “indeed,” and δέ “but.”
We subjoin a single specimen of the countless changes introduced in the
rendering of Particles, and then hasten on. In 1 Cor. xii. 20, for three
centuries and a half, Englishmen have been contented to read (with William
Tyndale), “But now are they many members, YET BUT one body.” Our
Revisionists, (overcome by the knowledge that δέ means “but,” and yielding
to the supposed “necessity for preserving a general uniformity of
rendering,”) substitute,—“_But_ now they are many members, _but_ one
body.” Comment ought to be superfluous. We neither overlook the fact that
δέ occurs here twice, nor deny that it is fairly represented by “but” in
the first instance. We assert nevertheless that, on the second occasion,
“YET BUT” ought to have been let alone. And this is a fair sample of the
changes which have been effected _many times in every page_. To proceed
however.
(2) The interrogative particle ἤ occurs at the beginning of a sentence at
least 8 or 10 times in the N. T.; first, in S. Matth. vii. 9. It is often
scarcely translateable,—being apparently invested with with no more
emphasis than belongs to our colloquial interrogative “_Eh?_” But
sometimes it would evidently bear to be represented by “Pray,”(538)—being
at least equivalent to φέρε in Greek or _age_ in Latin. Once only (viz. in
1 Cor. xiv. 36) does this interrogative particle so eloquently plead for
recognition in the text, that both our A. V. and the R. V. have rendered
it “What?”—by which word, by the way, it might very fairly have been
represented in S. Matth. xxvi. 53 and Rom. vi. 3: vii. 1. In five of the
places where the particle occurs. King James’s Translators are observed to
have give it up in despair.(539) But what is to be thought of the
adventurous dulness which (with the single exception already indicated)
has _invariably_ rendered ἤ by the conjunction “_or_”? The blunder is the
more inexcusable, because the intrusion of such an irrelevant conjunction
into places where it is without either use or meaning cannot have failed
to attract the notice of every member of the Revising body.
(3) At the risk of being wearisome, we must add a few words.—Καί, though
no particle but a conjunction, may for our present purpose be reasonably
spoken of under the same head; being diversely rendered “and,”—“and
yet,”(540)—“then,”(541)—“or,”(542)—“neither,”(543)—“though,”(544)—“so,”(545)—“but,”(546)—“for,”(547)—“that,”(548)—in
conformity with what may be called the genius of the English language. The
last six of these renderings, however, our Revisionists disallow;
everywhere thrusting out the word which the argument seems rather to
require, and with mechanical precision thrusting into its place every time
the (perfectly safe, but often palpably inappropriate) word, “and.” With
what amount of benefit this has been effected, one or two samples will
sufficiently illustrate:—
(_a_) The Revisionists inform us that when “the high priest Ananias
commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth,”—S. Paul
exclaimed, “GOD shall smite thee, thou whited wall: AND sittest thou to
judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the
law?”(549)... Do these learned men really imagine that they have improved
upon the A. V. by their officiousness in altering “FOR” into “AND”?
(_b_) The same Apostle, having ended his argument to the Hebrews,
remarks,—“_So_ we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief”
(Heb. iii. 19): for which, our Revisionists again substitute “And.” Begin
the sentence with “AND,” (instead of “So,”) and, in compensation for what
you have clearly _lost_, what have you _gained_?... Once more:—
(_c_) Consider what S. Paul writes concerning Apollos (in 1 Cor. xvi. 12),
and then say what possible advantage is obtained by writing “AND” (instead
of “BUT”) “his will was not at all to come at this time”.... Yet once
more; and on _this_ occasion, scholarship is to some extent involved:—
(_d_) When S. James (i. 11) says ἀνέτειλε γὰρ ὁ ἥλιος ... καὶ ἐξήρανε τὸν
χόρτον,—_who_ knows not that what his language strictly means in idiomatic
English, is,—“_No sooner_ does the sun arise,” “_than_ it withereth the
grass”? And so in effect our Translators of 1611. What possible
improvement on this can it be to substitute, “For the sun ariseth ... AND
withereth the grass”?—Only once more:—
(_e_) Though καί undeniably means “and,” and πῶς, “how,”—_who_ knows not
that καὶ πῶς means “_How then?_” And yet, (as if a stupid little boy had
been at work,) in two places,—(namely, in S. Mark iv. 13 and S. Luke xx.
44,)—“AND HOW” is found mercilessly thrust in, to the great detriment of
the discourse; while in other two,—(namely, in S. John xiv. 5 and 9,)—the
text itself has been mercilessly deprived of its characteristic καί by the
Revisionists.—Let this suffice. One might fill many quires of paper with
such instances of tasteless, senseless, vexatious, and _most
unscholarlike_ innovation.
VIII. “Many changes” (we are informed) “have been introduced in the
rendering of the PREPOSITIONS.” [_Preface_, iii. 2, _ad fin._]:—and we are
speedily reminded of the truth of the statement, for (as was shown above
[pp. 155-6]) the second chapter of S. Matthew’s Gospel exhibits the
Revisionists “all a-field” in respect of διά. “We have rarely made any
change” (they add) “where the true meaning of the original would be
apparent to _a Reader of ordinary intelligence_.” It would of course ill
become such an one as the present Reviewer to lay claim to the foregoing
flattering designation: but really, when he now for the first time reads
(in Acts ix. 25) that the disciples of Damascus let S. Paul down “_through
the wall_,” he must be pardoned for regretting the absence of a marginal
reference to the history of Pyramus and Thisbe in order to suggest _how_
the operation was effected: for, as it stands, the R. V. is to him simply
unintelligible. Inasmuch as the basket (σπυρίς) in which the Apostle
effected his escape was of considerable size, do but think what an
extravagantly large hole it must have been to enable them _both_ to get
through!... But let us look further.
Was it then in order to bring Scripture within the _captus_ of “a Reader
of ordinary intelligence” that the Revisers have introduced no less than
_thirty changes_ into _eight-and-thirty words_ of S. Peter’s 2nd Epistle?
Particular attention is invited to the following interesting specimen of
“_Revision_.” It is the only one we shall offer of the many _contrasts_ we
had marked for insertion. We venture also to enquire, whether the Revisers
will consent to abide by it as a specimen of their skill in dealing with
the Preposition ἐν?
A. V. R. V.
“And beside all this, “Yea (1), and for (2)
giving all diligence, add this very (3) cause (4)
to your faith virtue; and adding (5) on (6) your
to virtue knowledge; and part (7) all diligence,
to knowledge temperance; in (8) your faith supply
and to temperance (9) virtue; and in (10)
patience; and to patience your (11) virtue
godliness; and to knowledge; and in (12)
godliness brotherly your (13) knowledge
kindness; and to temperance; and in (14)
brotherly kindness your (15) temperance
charity.”—[2 Pet. i. patience; and in (16)
5-7.] your (17) patience
godliness; and in (18)
your (19) godliness love
(20) of (21) the (22)
brethren (23); and in
(24) your (25) love (26)
of (27) the (28) brethren
(29) love (30).”
The foregoing strikes us as a singular illustration of the Revisionists’
statement (_Preface_, iii. 2),—“We made _no_ change _if the meaning was
fairly expressed_ by the word or phrase that was before us in the
Authorized Version.” To ourselves it appears that _every one of those 30
changes is a change for the worse_; and that one of the most exquisite
passages in the N. T. has been hopelessly spoiled,—rendered in fact
well-nigh unintelligible,—by the pedantic officiousness of the Revisers.
Were they—(if the question be allowable)—bent on removing none but “_plain
and clear errors_,” when they substituted those 30 words? Was it in token
of their stern resolve “to introduce into the Text _as few alterations as
possible_,” that they spared the eight words which remain out of the
eight-and-thirty?
As for their _wooden_ rendering of ἐν, it ought to suffice to refer them
to S. Mk. i. 23, S. Lu. xiv. 31, to prove that sometimes ἐν can only be
rendered “_with_”:—and to S. Luke vii. 17, to show them that ἐν sometimes
means “_throughout_”:—and to Col. i. 16, and Heb. i. 1, 2, in proof that
sometimes it means “_by_.”—On the other hand, their suggestion that ἐν may
be rendered “_by_” in S. Luke i. 51, convicts them of not being aware that
“the proud-in-the-imagination-of-their-hearts” is _a phrase_—in which
perforce “_by_” has no business whatever. One is surprised to have to
teach professed Critics and Scholars an elementary fact like this.
In brief, these learned men are respectfully assured that there is not one
of the “Parts of Speech” which will consent to be handled after the
inhumane fashion which seems to be to themselves congenial. Whatever they
may think of the matter, it is nothing else but absurd to speak of an
Angel “casting his sickle _into the earth_” (Rev. xiv. 19).—As for his
“pouring out his bowl _upon the air_” (xvi. 17),—we really fail to
understand the nature of the operation.—And pray, What is supposed to be
the meaning of “the things _upon the heavens_”—in Ephesians i. 10?
Returning to the preposition διά followed by the genitive,—(in respect of
which the Revisionists challenge Criticism by complaining in their Preface
[iii. 3 _ad fin._] that in the A. V. “ideas of instrumentality or of
mediate agency, distinctly marked in the original, have been _confused or
obscured in the Translation_,”)—we have to point out:—
(1st) That these distinguished individuals seem not to be aware that the
proprieties of English speech forbid the use of “_through_” (as a
substitute for “_by_”) in certain expressions where instrumentality is
concerned. Thus, “the Son of man” was not betrayed “_through_” Judas, but
“_by_” him (Matt. xxvi. 24: Luke xxii. 22).—Still less is it allowable to
say that a prophecy was “spoken,” nay “_written_,” “_through_ the Prophet”
(Matth. i. 22 and margin of ii. 5). “Who spake BY_ the Prophets_,” is even
an article of the Faith.
And (2ndly),—That these scholars have in consequence adopted a see-saw
method of rendering διά,—sometimes in one way, sometimes in the other.
First, they give us “wonders and signs done _by_ the Apostles” (Acts ii.
43; but in the margin, “Or, _through_”): presently, “a notable miracle
hath been wrought _through_ them” (iv. 16: and this time, the margin
withholds the alternative, “Or, _by_”). Is then “the true meaning” of
“_by_,” in the former place, “apparent to a Reader of ordinary
intelligence”? but so obscure in the latter as to render _necessary_ the
alteration to “_through_”? Or (_sit venia verbo_),—Was it a mere “toss-up”
with the Revisionists _what_ is the proper rendering of διά?
(3rdly), In an earlier place (ii. 22), we read of “miracles, wonders, and
signs” which “GOD did _by_” JESUS of Nazareth. Was it reverence, which, on
that occasion, forbad the use of “_through_”—even in the margin? We hope
so: but the preposition is still the same—διά not ὑπό.
Lastly (4thly),—The doctrine that Creation is the work of the Divine WORD,
all Scripture attests. “All things were made _by_ Him” (S. Jo. i. 3):—“the
world was made _by_ Him” (ver. 10).—Why then, in Col. i. 16, where the
same statement is repeated,—(“all things were created _by_ Him and for
Him,”)—do we find “_through_” substituted for “_by_”? And why is the same
offence repeated in 1 Cor. vii. 6,—(where we _ought_ to read,—“one GOD,
the FATHER, of whom are all things ... and one LORD JESUS CHRIST, _by_
whom are all things”)?—Why, especially, in Heb. i. 2, in place of “_by_
whom also [viz. by THE SON] He made the worlds,” do we find substituted
“_through_ whom”?... And why add to this glaring inconsistency the
wretched vacillation of giving us the choice of “_through_” (in place of
“_by_”) in the margin of S. John i. 3 and 10, and not even offering us the
alternative of “_by_” (in place of “_through_”) in any of the other
places,—although the preposition is διά on every occasion?
And thus much for the Revisers’ handling of the Prepositions. We shall
have said all that we can find room for, when we have further directed
attention to the uncritical and unscholarlike Note with which they have
disfigured the margin of S. Mark i. 9. We are there informed that,
according to the Greek, our SAVIOUR “was baptized _into the Jordan_,”—an
unintelligible statement to English readers, as well as a misleading one.
Especially on their guard should the Revisers have been hereabouts,—seeing
that, in a place of vital importance on the opposite side of the open page
(viz. in S. Matth. xxviii. 19), they had already substituted “_into_” for
“_in_.” This latter alteration, one of the Revisers (Dr. Vance Smith)
rejoices over, because it obliterates (in his account) the evidence for
Trinitarian doctrine. That the Revisionists, as a body, intended nothing
less,—_who_ can doubt? But then, if they really deemed it necessary to
append a note to S. Mark i. 9 in order to explain to the public that the
preposition εἰς signifies “_into_” rather than “_in_,”—why did they not at
least go on to record the elementary fact that εἰς has here (what
grammarians call) a “pregnant signification”? that it implies—(every
schoolboy knows it!)—_and that it is used in order to imply_—that the Holy
One “_went down_ INTO,” and so, “_was baptized_ IN the _Jordan_”?(550)...
But _why_, in the name of common sense, _did not the Revisionists let the
Preposition alone_?
IX. The MARGIN of the Revision is the last point to which our attention is
invited, and in the following terms:—
“The subject of the Marginal Notes deserves special attention.
They represent the results of _a large amount of careful and
elaborate discussion_, and will, perhaps, by their very presence,
indicate to some extent the intricacy of many of the questions
that have almost daily come before us for decision. These Notes
fall into four main groups:—_First_, Notes specifying such
differences of reading as were judged to be of sufficient
importance to require a particular notice;—_Secondly_, Notes
indicating the exact rendering of words to which, for the sake of
English idiom, we were obliged to give a less exact rendering in
the text;—_Thirdly_, Notes, very few in number, affording some
explanation which the original appeared to require;—_Fourthly_,
Alternative Renderings in difficult or debateable passages. The
Notes of this last group are numerous, and largely in excess of
those which were admitted by our predecessors. In the 270 years
that have passed away since their labours were concluded, the
Sacred Text has been minutely examined, discussed in every detail,
and analysed with a grammatical precision unknown in the days of
the last Revision. There has thus been accumulated a large amount
of materials that have prepared the way for different renderings,
which necessarily came under discussion.”—(_Preface_, iii. 4.)
When a body of distinguished Scholars bespeak attention to a certain part
of their work in such terms as these, it is painful for a Critic to be
obliged to declare that he has surveyed this department of their
undertaking with even less satisfaction than any other. So long, however,
as he assigns _the grounds_ of his dissatisfaction, the Reviewed cannot
complain. The Reviewer puts himself into their power. If he is mistaken in
his censure, his credit is gone. Let us take the groups in order:—
(1) Having already stated our objections against the many Notes which
specify _Textual errors_ which the Revisionists declined to adopt,—we
shall here furnish only two instances of the mischief we deplore:—
(_a_) Against the words, “And while they _abode_ in Galilee” (S. Matthew
xvii. 22), we find it stated,—“Some ancient authorities read _were
gathering themselves together_.” The plain English of which queer piece of
information is that א and B exhibit in this place an impossible and
untranslatable Reading,—the substitution of which for ἀναστρεφομένων δὲ
ἀυτῶν can only have proceeded from some Western critic, who was
sufficiently unacquainted with the Greek language to suppose that
ΣΥΝ-στρεφομένων δὲ αὐτῶν, might possibly be the exact equivalent for
CON_-versantibus autem illis_. This is not the place for discussing a kind
of hallucination which prevailed largely in the earliest age, especially
in regions where Greek was habitually read through Latin spectacles. (Thus
it was, obviously, that the preposterous substitution of EURAQUILO for
“Euroclydon,” in Acts xxvii. 14, took its rise.) Such blunders would be
laughable if encountered anywhere except on holy ground. Apart, however,
from the lamentable lack of critical judgment which a marginal note like
the present displays, what is to be thought of the scholarship which
elicits “_While they were gathering themselves together_” out of
συστρεφομένων δὲ αὐτῶν? Are we to suppose that the clue to the Revisers’
rendering is to be found in (συστρέψαντος) Acts xxviii. 3? We should be
sorry to think it. They are assured that the source of the _Textual_
blunder which they mistranslate is to be found, instead, in Baruch iii.
38.(551)
(_b_) For what conceivable reason is the world now informed that, instead
of _Melita_,—“some ancient authorities read _Melitene_,” in Acts xxviii.
1? Is every pitiful blunder of cod. B to live on in the margin of every
Englishman’s copy of the New Testament, for ever? Why, _all_ other
MSS.—the Syriac and the Latin versions,—Pamphilus of Cæsarea(552) (A.D.
294), the friend of Eusebius,—Cyril of
Jerusalem,(553)—Chrysostom,(554)—John Damascene,(555)—all the Fathers in
short who quote the place;—the coins, the ancient geographers;—_all_ read
Μελίτη; which has also been acquiesced in by every critical Editor of the
N. T.—(_excepting always Drs. Westcott and Hort_), from the invention of
Printing till now. But because these two misguided men, without apology,
explanation, note or comment of any kind, have adopted “_Melitene_” into
their text, is the Church of England to be dragged through the mire also,
and made ridiculous in the eyes of Christendom? This blunder moreover is
“gross as a mountain, open, palpable.” One glance at the place, written in
uncials, explains how it arose:—ΜελιτηΗΝΗσοσκαλειται. Some stupid scribe
(as the reader sees) has connected the first syllable of νῆσος with the
last syllable of Μελίτη.(556) _That_ is all! The blunder—(for a blunder it
most certainly is)—belongs to the age and country in which “_Melitene_”
was by far the more familiar word, being the name of the metropolitan see
of Armenia;(557) mention of which crops up in the _Concilia_
repeatedly.(558)
(2) and (4) The second and the fourth group may be considered together.
The former comprises those words of which the _less exact_ rendering finds
place in the Text:—the latter, “_Alternative renderings_ in difficult and
debateable passages.”