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 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 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 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 two places in S. John’s Gospel; where the evidence
_against_ “Ioannes” is overwhelming. This is in fact the handy-work of Dr.
Hort. But surely the office of marginal notes ought to be to assist, not
to mislead plain readers: honestly, to state _facts_,—not, by a side-wind,
to commit the Church of England to _a new (and absurd) Textual theory_!
The _actual Truth_, we insist, should be stated in the margin, whenever
unnecessary information is gratuitously thrust upon unlearned and
unsuspicious readers.... Thus, we avow that we are offended at reading
(against S. John i. 18)—“Many very ancient authorities read ‘GOD_ only
begotten_’ ”: whereas the “authorities” alluded to read μονογενὴς
Θεός,—(whether with or without the article [ὁ] prefixed,)—which (as the
Revisionists are perfectly well aware) means “_the only-begotten _GOD,”
and no other thing. Why then did they not say so? _Because_ (we
answer)—_they were ashamed of the expression_. But to proceed.—The
information is volunteered (against Matth. xxvi. 36 and Mk. xiv. 32) that
χωρίον means “_an enclosed piece of ground_,”—which is not true. The
statement seems to have proceeded from the individual who translated
ἄμφοδον (in Mk. xi. 4) the “_open street_:” whereas the word merely
denotes the “highway,”—literally the “_thoroughfare_.”
A very little real familiarity with the Septuagint would have secured
these Revisers against the perpetual exposure which they make of
themselves in their marginal Notes.—(_a_) Πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας, for instance,
is quite an ordinary expression for “always,” and therefore should not be
exhibited (in the margin of S. Matth. xxviii. 20) as a curiosity,—“Gr.
_all the days_.”—So (_b_) with respect to the word αἰών, which seems to
have greatly exercised the Revisionists. What need, _every time it
occurs_, to explain that εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων means literally “_unto
the ages of the ages_”? Surely (as in Ps. xlv. 6, quoted Heb. i. 8,) the
established rendering (“for ever and ever”) is plain enough and needs no
gloss!—Again, (_c_) the numeral εἰς, representing the Hebrew substitute
for the indefinite article, prevails throughout the Septuagint. Examples
of its use occur in the N. T. in S. Matth. viii. 19 and ix. 18;-xxvi. 69
(μία παιδίσκη), Mk. xii. 42: and in Rev. viii. 13: ix. 13: xviii. 21 and
xix. 17;—where “_one_ scribe,” “_one_ ruler,” “_one_ widow,” “_one_
eagle,” “_one_ voice,” “_one_ angel,” are really nothing else but
mistranslations. True, that εἶς is found in the original Greek: but what
then? Because “_une_” means “_one_,” will it be pretended that “_Tu es une
bête_” would be properly rendered “_Thou art one beast_”?
(_d_) Far more serious is the substitution of “having _a great_ priest
over the house of GOD” (Heb. x. 21), for “having _an high_ priest:”
inasmuch as this obscures “the pointed reference to our LORD as the
antitype of the Jewish high priest,”—who (except in Lev. iv. 3) is
designated, not ἀρχιερεύς, but either ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας, or else ὁ ἱερεύς
only,—as in Acts v. 24(561).... And (_e_) why are we presented with “For
_no word from _GOD_ shall be void of power_” (in S. Luke i. 37)? Seeing
that the Greek of that place has been fashioned on the Septuagintal
rendering of Gen. xviii. 14 (“_Is anything too hard for the
_LORD_?_”(562)), we venture to think that the A. V. (“_for with _GOD_
nothing shall be impossible_”(563)) ought to have been let alone. It
cannot be mended. One is surprised to discover that among so many
respectable Divines there seems not to have been _one_ sufficiently
familiar with the Septuagint to preserve his brethren from perpetually
falling into such mistakes as the foregoing. We really had no idea that
the Hellenistic scholarship of those who represented the Church and the
Sects in the Jerusalem Chamber, was so inconsiderable.
Two or three of the foregoing examples refer to matters of a recondite
nature. Not so the majority of the Annotations which belong to this third
group; which we have examined with real astonishment—and in fact have
remarked upon already. Shall we be thought hard to please if we avow that
we rather desiderate “Explanatory Notes” on matters which really _do_ call
for explanation? as, to be reminded of what kind was the “net”
(ἀμφίβληστρον) mentioned in Matth. iv. 18 (_not_ 20), and Mk. i. 16 (_not_
18):—to see it explained (against Matth. ii. 23) that _netser_ (the root
of “Nazareth”) denotes “Branch:”—and against Matth. iii. 5; Lu. iii. 3,
that ἡ περίχωρος τοῦ Ἰορδάνου, signifies “the _depressed valley of the
Jordan_,” as the usage of the LXX. proves.(564) We should have been glad
to see, against S. Lu. ix. 31,—“Gr. _Exodus_.”—At least in the margin, we
might have been told that “_Olivet_” is the true rendering of Lu. xix. 29
and xxi. 37: (or were the Revisionists not aware of the fact? They are
respectfully referred to the Bp. of Lincoln’s note on the place last
quoted.)—Nay, why not tell us (against Matth. i. 21) that “JESUS” means
[not “_Saviour_,” but] “_JEHOVAH__ is Salvation_”?
But above all, surely so many learned men ought to have spared us the
absurd Annotation set against “_ointment of spikenard_” (νάρδου πιστικῆς,)
in S. Mark xiv. 3 and in S. John xii. 3. Their marginal Note is as
follows:—
“Gr. _pistic_ nard, pistic being perhaps a local name. Others take
it to mean _genuine_; others _liquid_.”
Can Scholars require to be told that “_liquid_” is an _impossible_ sense
of πιστική in this place? The epithet so interpreted must be derived (like
πιστός [_Prom._ V. v. 489]) from πίνω, and would mean _drinkable_: but
since ointment _cannot_ be drunk, it is certain that we must seek the
etymology of the word elsewhere. And why should the weak ancient
conjecture be retained that it is “perhaps a _local_ name”? Do Divines
require to have it explained to them that the one “locality” which
effectually fixes the word’s meaning, is _its place in the everlasting
Gospel_?... Be silent on such lofty matters if you will, by all means; but
“who are these that darken counsel by words without knowledge?” S. Mark
and S. John (whose narratives by the way never touch exclusively except in
this place(565)) are observed here to employ an ordinary word with lofty
spiritual purpose. The _pure faith_ (πίστις) in which that offering of the
ointment was made, determines the choice of an unusual epithet (πιστικός)
which shall signify “faithful” rather than “genuine,”—shall suggest a
_moral_ rather than a _commercial_ quality: just as, presently, Mary’s
“breaking” the box (συντρίψασα) is designated by a word which has
reference to a broken heart.(566) She “_contrited_” it, S. Mark says; and
S. John adds a statement which implies that the Church has been rendered
fragrant by her act for ever.(567) (We trust to be forgiven for having
said a little more than the occasion absolutely requires.)
(5) Under which of the four previous “groups” certain Annotations which
disfigure the margin of the first chapter of S. Matthew’s Gospel, should
fall,—we know not. Let them be briefly considered by themselves.
So dull of comprehension are we, that we fail to see on what principle it
is stated that—“Ram,” “Asa,” “Amon,” “Shealtiel,” are in Greek (“Gr.”)
“_Aram_,” “_Asaph_,” “_Amos_,” “_Salathiel_.” For (1),—Surely it was just
as needful (or just as needless) to explain that “Perez,” “Zarah,”
“Hezron,” “Nahson,” are in Greek “_Phares_,” “_Zara_,” “_Esrom_,”
“_Naasson_.”—But (2), Through what “necessity” are the names, which we
have been hitherto contented to read as the Evangelist wrote them, now
exhibited on the first page of the Gospel in any other way?(568)—(3)
Assuming, however, the O. T. spelling _is_ to be adopted, then _let us
have it explained to us why _“Jeconiah”_ in ver. 11 is not written_
“Jehoiakim”? (As for “Jeconiah” in ver. 12,—it was for the Revisionists to
settle whether they would call him “Jehoiachin,” “Jeconiah,” or “Coniah.”
[By the way,—Is it lawful to suppose that _they did not know_ that
“Jechonias” here represents two different persons?])—On the other hand,
(4) “_Amos_” probably,—“_Asaph_” certainly,—are corrupt exhibitions of
“Amon” and “Asa:” and, if noticed at all, should have been introduced to
the reader’s notice with the customary formula, “some ancient
authorities,” &c.—To proceed—(5), Why substitute “Immanuel” (for
“Emmanuel”) in ver. 23,—only to have to state in the margin that S.
Matthew writes it “_Emmanuel_”? By strict parity of reasoning, against
“Naphtali” (in ch. iv. 13, 15), the Revisionists ought to have written
“Gr. _Nephthaleim_.”—And (6), If this is to be the rule, then why are we
not told that “Mary is in ‘Gr. _Mariam_’ ”? and why is not Zacharias
written “_Zachariah_”?... But (to conclude),—What is the object of all
this officiousness? and (its unavoidable adjunct) all this inconsistency?
Has the spelling of the 42 names been revolutionized, in order to sever
with the Past and to make “a fresh departure”? Or were the four marginal
notes added _only for the sake of obtaining, by a side-wind, the
(apparent) sanction of the Church_ to the preposterous notion that “Asa”
was written “_Asaph_” by the Evangelist—in conformity with six MSS. of bad
character, but in defiance of History, documentary Evidence, and internal
Probability? Canon Cook [pp. 23-24] has some important remarks on this.
X. We must needs advert again to the ominous admission made in the
Revisionists’ _Preface_ (iii. 2 _init._), that to some extent they
recognized the duty of a “_rigid adherence to the rule of translating_, as
far as possible, the _same Greek word by the same English word_.” This
mistaken principle of theirs lies at the root of so much of the mischief
which has befallen the Authorized Version, that it calls for fuller
consideration at our hands than it has hitherto (viz. at pp. 138 and 152)
received.
The “Translators” of 1611, towards the close of their long and quaint
Address “to the Reader,” offer the following statement concerning what had
been their own practice:—“We have not _tied ourselves_” (say they) “_to an
uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words_, as some peradventure
would wish that we had done.” On this, they presently enlarge. We have
been “especially careful,” have even “made a conscience,” “not to vary
from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word
signified the same thing in both places.” But then, (as they shrewdly
point out in passing,) “_there be some words that be not of the __ same
sense everywhere_.” And had this been the sum of their avowal, no one with
a spark of Taste, or with the least appreciation of what constitutes real
Scholarship, would have been found to differ from them. Nay, even when
they go on to explain that they have not thought it desirable to insist on
invariably expressing “the same notion” by employing “the same particular
word;”—(which they illustrate by instancing terms which, in their account,
may with advantage be diversely rendered in different places;)—we are
still disposed to avow ourselves of their mind. “If” (say they,) “we
translate the Hebrew or Greek word once _purpose_, never to call it
_intent_; if one where _journeying_, never _travelling_; if one where
_think_, never _suppose_; if one where _pain_, never _ache_; if one where
_joy_, never _gladness_;—thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour
more of curiosity than of wisdom.” And yet it is plain that a different
principle is here indicated from that which went before. The remark “that
niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling,” suggests
that, in the Translators’ opinion, it matters little _which_ word, in the
several pairs of words they instance, is employed; and that, for their own
parts, they rather rejoice in the ease and freedom which an ample
vocabulary supplies to a Translator of Holy Scripture. Here also however,
as already hinted, we are disposed to go along with them. Rhythm, subtle
associations of thought, proprieties of diction which are rather to be
felt than analysed,—any of such causes may reasonably determine a
Translator to reject “purpose,” “journey,” “think,” “pain,” “joy,”—in
favour of “intent,” “travel,” “suppose,” “ache,” “gladness.”
But then it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this,
there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound (shall
we not rather say a _prophetic_?) consciousness, that the fate of the
English Language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation.
_Hence_ their reluctance to incur the responsibility of tying themselves
“to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words.” We should be
liable to censure (such is their plain avowal), “if we should say, as it
were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible
always; and to others of like quality, Get you hence, be banished for
ever.” But this, to say the least, is to introduce a distinct and a
somewhat novel consideration. We would not be thought to deny that there
is some—perhaps a great deal—of truth in it: but by this time we seem to
have entirely shifted our ground. And we more than suspect that, if a jury
of English scholars of the highest mark could be impanelled to declare
their mind on the subject thus submitted to their judgment, there would be
practical unanimity among them in declaring, that these learned men,—with
whom all would avow hearty sympathy, and whose taste and skill all would
eagerly acknowledge,—have occasionally pushed the license they enunciate
so vigorously, a little—perhaps a great deal—too far. For ourselves, we
are glad to be able to subscribe cordially to the sentiment on this head
expressed by the author of the _Preface_ of 1881:
“They seem”—(he says, speaking of the Revisionists of 1611)—“to
have been guided by the feeling that their Version would secure
for the words they used a lasting place in the language; and they
express a fear lest they should ‘be charged (by scoffers) with
some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English
words,’ which, without this liberty on their part, would not have
a place in the pages of the English Bible. Still it cannot be
doubted that their studied avoidance of uniformity in the
rendering of the same words, even when occurring in the same
context, is one of the blemishes in their work.”—_Preface_, (i.
2).
Yes, it cannot be doubted. When S. Paul, in a long and familiar passage (2
Cor. i. 3-7), is observed studiously to linger over the same word
(παράκλησις namely, which is generally rendered “_comfort_”);—to harp upon
it;—to reproduce it _ten times_ in the course of those five verses;—it
seems unreasonable that a Translator, as if in defiance of the Apostle,
should on four occasions (viz. when the word comes back for the 6th, 7th,
9th, and 10th times), for “_comfort_” substitute “_consolation_.” And this
one example may serve as well as a hundred. It would really seem as if the
Revisionists of 1611 had considered it a graceful achievement to vary the
English phrase even on occasions where a marked identity of expression
characterizes the original Greek. When we find them turning “goodly
apparel,” (in S. James ii. 2,) into “gay clothing,” (in ver. 3,)—we can
but conjecture that they conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as
S. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English.
But if the learned men who gave us our A. V. may be thought to have erred
on the side of excess, there can be no doubt whatever, (at least among
competent judges,) that our Revisionists have sinned far more grievously
and with greater injury to the Deposit, by their slavish proclivity to the
opposite form of error. We must needs speak out plainly: for the question
before us is not, What defects are discoverable in our Authorized
Version?—but, What amount of gain would be likely to accrue to the Church
if the present Revision were accepted as a substitute? And we assert
without hesitation, that the amount of certain loss would so largely
outweigh the amount of possible gain, that the proposal may not be
seriously entertained for a moment. As well on grounds of Scholarship and
Taste, as of Textual Criticism (as explained at large in our former
Article), the work before us is immensely inferior. To speak plainly, it
is an utter failure.
XI. For the respected Authors of it practically deny the truth of the
principle enunciated by their predecessors of 1611, viz. that “_there be
some words that be not of the same sense everywhere_.” On such a
fundamental truism we are ashamed to enlarge: but it becomes necessary
that we should do so. We proceed to illustrate, by two familiar
instances,—the first which come to hand,—the mischievous result which is
inevitable to an enforced uniformity of rendering.