er hrerys met ; τὴ ᾿ phan we r γ: itt ih ΠΟΤ ἡ ΗΝ t anal ν ett wd oat si εν, an ately in wy efi bad Verve dal γφῳ. Seagemanana ἀπε τξεντος ᾿ Ke falas cut Phe bel has waite Reet ΝΕ με ἤν Ἀν ϑομίς Renita ΩΝ Phi “ i fice ies eit ἊΝ ere 5 Mere Ων + is : Ἢ rs og ab pete? gh or piers τ ἘΠΑ ΗΝ δ τ τ ᾿ ἢ ΜΎΥΡΗ ἜΠΗ, ἣν if bd} ἐφ γεν δ fet ᾿ ᾿ aida eis) apse! tay oy ΤΩῚ) ἢ at tH enter! εν ΑΔΕ te ie 0m) a οὶ ut hit ΤΑ ΦΨῳ0 havi Ave When κὸν ᾿ ἮΝ ΤῊ ΜΉΝ ep ets oe shred Ly tag At ait, eed Asia ytd ye ἰ jay aera! Τὰ ΕΝ a aie dyes ὅν ον sd δὲν eave eer ehabenel paige ie ΜΝ He rs τα 4 es re iatabanat eBay rtd sat (rt ὁ ἥν ahi bey pat rel A oiaie hy my hiren Jedahennh: Lite wv whan N44 ite ur it its teeta } ᾿ Ἢ oh esta wf ἌΝ, Baer ety naar ἌΝ t Ἢ Ῥ | rsp altaded ΠΩ ata) htt |abohed iain Vecbatennan tty A ye! Ἢ thy ped ΠΡ ΥΝ 4 ρν 1944 Lito rset Mists bie ee i iow " iat m shes ye ttt ἀπ κοντοῖς * Lahey “me ΠΣ ihictsthe Pe Phra wre ἢ Ὧν arcana ἘΝΗ͂Ι ? geri ἐπι τα Με τὶ τς Αἰ ΑΚ ΘΗΝ Se tadh γον a ᾿ ἵ ζ ἵ ἜΝ Fo tahenbirat it 4 1 4ADaD 2 Siri oe hinted: pile aah δον Ὁ. ΜΗ a ye) Aree Moers i ears ST oth Ν» feinenaine! rtd " δ ἐξ 3 ne hai Abyr ae Mee a tosheg ᾿ ἢ ἜΝ \alt iene ie, Mob. qf ou ae ohasipn aroun, ΩΣ AG eae try eh real rye y ΠΗ “ ie ΡΝ et {, " ἐῶ be Υ wets choos ΤῊΝ i rh got! am ὺ oe os | a τι Bb oe 414} ΤῊΣ = of a) 1: vith ΜῊΝ iy: ἤν i) ~ 24, rigs Vr “ τὴ ΠΗ πες 7 ihe Ld Tetons tedster sh hy he aah “ he 4 4 Fahd bays ieee ree sae ἘΠ ΎΡ ean ten Μ πῇ ie We wei lt eth fale%e ee Ree ed te nels Νὰ ἐμὴν εἰ δὲ we om Υἱ εν. οὐ»... + + ee oa 1 heard PEN SSE itd tka teat tree rst ᾿ ; ἔχον ΟΣ ΕΣ ΧΡ ἮΝ Ὁ Sot Ἐς δον Mapper ΡΨ oh , ἐν» i iy Aue ὮΝ ΤΉΝΕ Ste a 24 Coa at τηνι νυ ὁ ᾿ πᾷ ταν 20} wey ii ier- a ὃ as ν , 4 meena ait ἜΝ: es fast ae dont ah in of poe teil ἢ Onea ὯΝ bawee os vw Τὰ * fara ey αὶ part eerie Me eel aap peticgpeta RNa bal tne re : ba mt Pre a ati bart pete’ Γρλὰν τ vet exebsane 4 pot ἂν : ; Pin ον Se ie A ay Be ayes iat) 4unrs obs ΤᾺ ented east Σ ἘΜ Ὴν bt hy As Ν ᾿ ὁ ἈΝ αν, , ΒΟ ΠΝ ἮΝ ἡμῶν μα εν ῊΣΝ τ, ar ene mE ae 4 πεαρλδὶ, μὰν ἡ ΩΣ κεν 1) 3.96) των net eb » ote aii page eevee 12 by @'see pte ier 4 δ rege i) babe te Ὁ ee νό vite ae * wee « oripate +l ek pst rents tere we ᾿ ὁἐιπνηφι ie | [bee ola ee ΝΥ ope tae fl purse o-@ ἡ“ οὖν anti ΕΣ "ὦ « * ' " ῃ ~ + a Γ ‘ if ‘ ͵ = « ae sta lee ! ; ΩΣ ; ὌΝ ᾿ - 5 ι ee " ᾿ ‘ ‘ Φ ῃ ‘ 4 8 i 4 Ν toeae awe an δου ἘΞ. ' ) , A iw] a , wan ‘ " 7 1} " 9 OF THE | i “ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT BY Se J. -B. LIGHTFOOT pie CANON OF ST PAUL'S; AND > | HULSEAN PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY, CAMBRIDGE ef - . M ; , = ᾽ “- ΡῚ 5 - ᾿ς » uae pe 2 ἧς δ΄ ἐς ΙΝ f ἊΨ γ ,΄ γν 2», ᾿ i ota » ae νυν» é 3 κ᾿ rps wt τῶν a y 7 “ ~ J Hf. ἐν \ ™ PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. DURING the last summer, immediately before the Company appointed for the Revision of the English New Testament held its first sitting, I was invited to read a paper on the subject before a Clerical meeting. Finding that I had already written more than I could venture to read even to a very patient and considerate audience, and receiving a request from my hearers at the conclusion that the paper should be printed, I determined to revise the whole and make additions to it before publication. The result is the present volume. Owing to various in- terruptions its appearance has been delayed much longer than I had anticipated. This statement of facts was perhaps needed to justify the appearance of a book, which as occupying well-known ground cannot urge the plea of novelty, _ which has many imperfections in form, and which vi Preface. makes no pretensions to completeness. At all events it appeared necessary to be thus explicit, in order to show that I alone am responsible for any expressions of opinion contained in this volume, and that they do not (except accidentally) represent the views of the Company of which Iam a member. In preparing the original paper for the press, I have been careful not to go beyond verbal alterations, where I was dis- cussing the prospects of the new Revision or the principles which in my opinion ought to guide it. On the other hand, I have not scrupled to develope these principles freely, and to add fresh illustrations from time to time: but in most cases this has been done without any knowledge of the opinion of the majority of the Company; and in the comparatively few instances where this opinion has become known to me, I have expressed my own individual judg- ment, which might or might not accord therewith. I ought to add also that I-am quite prepared to find on consultation with others, that some of the sug- gestions offered here are open to objections which I had overlooked, and which might render them im- practicable in a Version intended for popular use, whatever value they may have from a scholar’s point of view. The hopeful anticipations, which I had ventured to express before the: commencement of the work, have been more than realized hitherto in its progress. On this point I have not heard a dissentient voice among members of the Company. I believe that all Preface. Vii who have taken part regularly in the work will thankfully acknowledge the earnestness, moderation, truthfulness, and reverence, which have marked the deliberations of the Company, and which seem to jus- tify the most sanguine auguries. This feeling contrasts strangely with the outcry which has been raised against the work by those who have had no opportunity of witnessing its actual progress, who have been disturbed by rumours of its results either wholly false or only partially true, and who necessarily judging on a@ priori grounds have been ready to condemn it unheard. This panic was perhaps not unnatural, and might have been antici- pated.. Meanwhile however other dangers from an un- foreseen quarter have threatened the progress of the Revision; but these are now happily averted. And, so far as present appearances can be trusted, the momentary peril has resulted in permanent good; for the Company has been taught by the danger which threatened it to feel its own strength and co- herence ; and there is every prospect that the work will be. brought happily and successfully to a con- clusion. ἜΣ Great misunderstanding seems to prevail as tothe ultimate reception of the work. The alarm which has ‘been expressed in some quarters can only be explained by a vague confusion of thought, as though the Houses of Convocation, while solemnly pledged to the furtherance of the. work on- definite conditions, were also pledged to its ultimate- recep- Vill Preface. tion whether good or bad. If the distinction had been kept in view, it is difficult to bélieve that there would have been even a momentary desire to repu- diate the obligations of a definite contract. The Houses of Convocation are as free, as the different bodies of Nonconformists represented in the Com- panies, to reject the Revised Version, when it appears, if it is not satisfactory. I do not suppose that any member of either Company would think of claiming any other consideration for the work, when completed, than that it shall be judged by its intrinsic merits ; but on the other hand they have a right to demand that it shall be laid before the Church and the people of England in its integrity, and that a verdict shall be pronounced upon it as a whole. I cannot close these remarks without expressing my deep thankfulness that I have been allowed to take part in this work of Revision. I have spent many happy and profitable hours over it, and made many friends who otherwise would probably have remained unknown to me. Even though the work should be terminated abruptly to-morrow, I for one should not consider it lost labour. In choosing my examples I have generally avoided dwelling on passages which have been fully discussed by others; but it was not possible to put the case fairly before the public without venturing from time to time on preoccupied ground, though in such in- stances I have endeavoured to tread as lightly as possible. Preface. 1X The discussion in the Appendix perhaps needs some apology. Though it has apparently no very direct bearing on the main subject of the volume, yet the investigation was undertaken in the first instance with a view to my work as a reviser; and hoping that the results might contribute towards permanently fixing the meaning of an expression, which occurs in the most familiar and most sacred of all forms of words, and which nevertheless has been and still is variously interpreted, I gladly seized this opportunity of placing them on record. TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, April 3, 1871. a second edition is in all essential respects a reprint of the first. A few errors have been corrected, and one or two unimportant additions made, but the new matter altogether would not occupy more than a page. The reception accorled to this book has taken me by surprise, and the early call for a new edition would have prevented me from making any great changes, even if I had felt any desire to do so. ΤῸ my critics, whether public or private, I can only return my very sincere thanks for their generous welcome of a work of whose imperfections the author himself must be only too conscious. From this expression of gratitude I see no reason to - Preface. except the critique of Mr Earle in a letter addressed to the editor of the Guardian; but I am sure ‘hat he will pardon me if, while thankfully acknowledging the friendly tone of his letter, I venture entirely to dissent from a principle of translation to which he has lent the authority of his name. In fact he has attacked the very position in my work, which I confidently held, and still hold, to be impregnable. I had laid it down as a rule (subject of course to special exceptions) that, where the same word occurs in the same context in the original, it should be rendered by the same equivalent in the Version (p.33 sq.); or, as Mr Earle expresses it, that ‘a verbal repetition in English should be employed to represent a verbal repetition in the Greek.’ Mr Earle (1 will employ his own words) would reverse this, and say that in many of my details he would practically come to my conclusion, but that the principle itself, with all the specious- ness of its appearance, is essentially unsound. This position he endeavours to establish by arguments, which I feel bound to meet, for I consider the principle which he assails to be essential to a thoroughly good translation. If, notwithstanding our opposite points of view, we had arrived at the same results, or, in other words, if Mr Earle’s exceptions to his principle of variety were coextensive or nearly coextensive with my own applications of my principle of uniformity, I should have felt any discussion of his views to be superfluous; for then, so far as regards any practical, issues, the difference between us would have been reduced to a mere battle of words. But when I find that Mr Earle defends such a rendering as Matt. xvill. 33, ‘Shouldest not thou also have had compassion (ἐλεῆσαι) on thy fellow-servant, even as I had pity (ἠλέησα) on thee?’, I feel that the difference between us is irreconcilable. Indeed I had vainly thought that my illustrations (with one or two doubtful exceptions) would carry conviction in themselves; and I confess myself Preface. Xi ‘a little surprised to find their cogency questioned by an English scholar of Mr Earle’s eminence. But, lest I should be misunderstood, let me say at the outset that I entirely agree with Mr Earle in deprecating the mode of procedure which would substitute ‘the fidelity οὗ a lexicon’ for ‘the faithfulness of a translation.’ I am well aware that this is a real danger to careful minds trained in habits of minute verbal criticism, and I always have raised and shall raise my voice against any changes which propose to sacrifice forcible English idiom to exact con- formity of expression. For. instance, it would be mere pedantry to substitute ‘Do not ye rather excel them?’ for ‘Are not ye much better than they?’ in Matt. vi. 26 (οὐχ ὑμεῖς μᾶλλον διαφέρετε αὐτῶν): or ‘The hour hath approached,’ for ‘The hour is at hand,’ in Matt. xxvi. 45 (ἤγγικεν ἡ ὥρα). But the point at issue seems to me to be wholly different. _ I cannot for a moment regard this as a question of English idiom; and my objection to the variety of rendering which _ Mr Earle advocates is that it does depart from ‘the faithful- ness of a translation’ and substitutes, not indeed the fidelity of a lexicon, but the caprice of a translator. | Mr Earle says ‘The stronghold of the Greek (I do not _ speak of Plato and Demosthenes, but of the New Testa- ment) is in the words: the stronghold of the English ᾿ ἕξ language is in its phraseology and variability.’ This is not ἘΝ the distinction which I should myself give between the Ἢ 45 5 = characteristics of the two a ἦτε σὰ Even in its later Ze ‘ ΧΙ Preface. in rendering from another language, as for instance in Chaucer’stranslation of Boethius’ De Consolatione Philosophia, where caritudo is rendered ‘renoun and clernesse of linage,’ and censor ‘domesman or juge’; and he then urges that as this method of double rendering was ‘manifestly inadmissible in translating scripture,’ ‘the translators fell upon a device by which they allowed some play to the natural bent of the English language; and where a Greek word occurs repeatedly in a context, they rather leaned to a variation of the ren- dering.’ Now it is one thing to give a double rendering to a single word at any one occurrence; and another to give it two different renderings at two different occurrences in the same context. The two principles have nothing in common. In the former case the translation will at the worst be clumsy; in the latter it must in many cases be absolutely misleading. For by splitting up the sense of the word and giving one half to one part of the sentence and the remain- ing half to the other, a disconnexion, perhaps even a con- trast, is introduced, which has no place in the original. If therefore the English on any occasion furnishes no exact and coextensive equivalent for a given Greek word as used in a given context (and this difficulty must occur again and again in translation from any language to another), it will generally be the less evil of the two to select the word which comes nearest in meaning to the original and to retain this throughout. But the examples of capricious varieties which I had chosen to illustrate this vicious principle of translation, and which Mr Earle is prepared to defend, cannot in most cases plead this justification, that a single English word does not adequately represent the Greek. It would require far more minute scholarship than I possess to discern any difference in meaning between vids and ‘son.’ Yet Mr Earle stands — Preface. xiii. _ forward as the champion of the rendering, in Matt. xx. 20, “Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children (υἱῶν) with her sons (υἱῶν). The particular rendering is compara- tively unimportant in itself; but as illustrating the capricious license of our translators it is highly significant. It introduces a variety for no reason at all: and this variety is incorrect in itself; for ‘the mother of Zebedee’s children’ is a wider expression than ‘the mother of Zebedee’s sons,’ by which the Evangelist intends only to describe her as the mother of James and John with whom the narrative is concerned, and _ which neither implies nor suggests the existence of other brothers and sisters. Again, Mr Earle is satisfied and more than satisfied with the rendering of Matt. xviii. 33, ‘Shouldest not thou also have had compassion (ἐλεῆσαι) on thy fellow-servant, even as I had fity (ἠλέησα) on thee ?’ ‘If, he asks, ‘we compare our “‘ compassion—pity” with the one Greek word, what loss is there in the variation? Is there not a gain in breadth?’ I answer, a very serious loss ; and I do not allow that breadth (or, as I prefer to call it, looseness) is any _ gain, where exact correspondence in the two clauses is essential to the main idea of the passage. What would be _ said, if I were to suggest such translations as ‘ Blessed are the pitiful (ἐλεήμονες), for they shall obtain mercy (ἐλεηθ- » σονται)" in Matt. v. 7, or ‘If ye forgive (ἀφῆτε) not men ‘their Zrespasses (παραπτώματα), neither will your heavenly | Father remit (ἀφήσει) your transgressions (wopamtdpora)’ in ὃ tt. vi. 15, or ‘Be ye therefore faultless (τέλειοι) as γοῦΣ. Ὁ ther io is in heaven is Beret (ree) ae Mates We xiv Preface. tion of the Greek? In all these passages the thei 5. one and the same; that the ideal of human conduct is the exact copying of the Divine. In the other examples quoted our translators have preserved this thought unimpaired by repeating the same word, but in Matt. xviii. 33 it is marred by the double rendering ‘compassion, pity’: while the idea. of ‘fellow-feeling’, which is implied in ‘compassion’ and in, which the chief fault lies, has no place in the original ἐλεεῖν. _. Again, Mr Earle defends the double rendering of διαιρέσεις in τ Cor. xii. 4, ‘There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are differences of adminis- trations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God etc.,’ and seems even to regret the abandonment of Tyndale’s triple rendering diversities, differences, divers manners. What again, I ask, would be said, if I were to propose to translate 2 Cor. xi. 26. “In perils of waters, in dangers from robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in dangers from the heathen, in hazards in the city, in hazards in the wilderness, εἴς. ἡ τ thus gaining breadth by varying the rendering of κινδύνοις ? = Happily conservative feeling in this instance is enlisted on ᾿ᾷ the right side, and it may be presumed that no change will — ‘ch be desired. But, so far as I can see, the two cases are exactly r "ἧς rennet 2 the effect of the sentence in each case ne ΠΑ] | Preface. xv jv λαμπραν) etc.’ Not only do I regard the variation here as highly artificial (a sufficient condemnation in itself), but it seems to me to dissipate the force of the passage, and therefore I am prepared to submit to the ‘cruel impoverish- ment’ by which the English would be made to conform to the simplicity of the Greek. Nor again am I able to see why, in Rev. xvii. 6 ἐθαύμασα θαῦμα μέγα, ‘1 wondered with great admiration’ is to be preferred to the natural rendering ‘I wondered with great wonder, as in 1 Thess. ili. 9 ἐπὶ πάσῃ τῇ χαρᾷ ἡ χαίρομεν SC ὑμᾶς is translated ‘for all the yoy wherewith we joy for your sakes’, and not ‘for all the g/adness.’ In this passage from the Revelation the words immediately following (ver. 7) run in the English Version, ‘ And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel (ἐθαύμασας) ?’, where by the introduction of a third rendering a still further injury is inflicted on the compact- _ ness of the passage. So far with regard to the sense: But Mr Earle urges that the sound must be consulted; that the ear, for in- stance, requires the variations compassion, pity, in Matt. xviii. 33, and wonder, admiration (he omits to notice ᾿ marvel) in Rev. xvii. 6, 7; that generally there is this ‘ broad - modulatory distinction between the ancient tongues and _ the great modern languages of Western Europe that the - former could tolerate reverberation to a degree which is in- lifes if tolerable to the latter’; and that ‘ perhaps there is not one of them that is more sensitive in this respect than the English.’ ct In meply to this, I will ask my readers whether there i, is rt ~ anyt ing eat to the ear in the frequent Be sy of ae in the Piles Matt. v. 3-1 I. ” But tila last sich ise an eee of the a test > vel δ ure! t to XVi Preface. any three continuous chapters in the New Testament, which are at once so vigorously and faithfully rendered, and in which the rhythm and sound ‘so entirely satisfy the ear, as those which make up the Sermon on the Mount. Indeed this portion of our Authorised Version deserves to be regarded as a very model of successful translation. What then are the facts? In the original the reverberation is sustained through- out, beginning with the beatitudes and ending with the closing parable, so that there are not many verses without an instance, while some contain two or three. Happily in our Authorised Version this characteristic is faithfully re- produced. The temptation to capricious variety to which our translators elsewhere give way is here foregone ; and indeed the whole number of the repetitions in the English is slightly greater than in the Greek: for though either from inadver- tence or from the exigencies of translation one is dropped here and there (¢.g. λάμπει, λαμψάτω, giveth light, shine, v. 15, 16; bring, offer, προσφέρῃς, πρόσφερε, V. 23, 243 ἀπολύσῃ, ἀπολελυμένην, put away, divorced, V. 31, 32; ἐπιορκήσεις, ὅρκους, forswear, oaths, ν. 33; ἀφανίζουσι, φα- νῶσι, disfigure, appear, vi. 16; θησαυρίζετε, θησαυρούς, ἴα» up, treasures, Vi. 19; περιεβάλετο, περιβαλώμεθα, arrayed, clothed, Vi. 29, 313 μέτρῳ, μετρεῖτε, measure, mete, (2) vil. 2 ; φκοδόμησεν, οἰκίαν, built, house, vii. 24) yet on the other hand the balance is more than redressed by the same ren- dering of different words in other parts (e.g. Aight, xatovow, λάμπει, φῶς, v. 14—16; fulfil, πληρῶσαι, γένηται, ν. 17, 185 righteousness repeated, though δικαιοσύνη occurs only once in the original, v. 20; whosoever, πᾶς 0, ὃς av, ν. 22 ; divorce- ment, divorced, ἀποστάσιον, ἀπολελυμένην, V. 31, 32 ; forswear, swear, ἐπιορκήσεις, ὀμόσαι, V. 33, 34; reward, μισθόν, ἀπο- δώσει, vi. 2, 4, 5, 6,16, 18; streets, ῥύμαις, πλατειῶν, Vi. 2, 5 5 day, daily, σήμερον, ἐπιούσιον, vi. 11; light, λύχνος, φωτεινόν, φώς, νἱ. 22,23; raiment, arrayed, ἜΘΑΤΗΝ περιεβάλετο, vi, Preface. XVii 28, 29; clothe, clothed, ἀμφιέννυσιν, περιβαλώμεθα, Vi. 30, 3155 good, ἀγαθόν, καλούς, vil. 17, 18; deat, προσέπεσαν, προσέ- κοψαν, Vii. 25, 27). If my readers are of opinion that the general method adopted by our translators in the Sermon on the Mount is faulty, and that these three chapters would have gained by greater breadth and variety, I have nothing more to say; but, if they are satisfied with this method, then they have conceded everything for which I am arguing’, But Mr Earle proceeds: ‘There is no end to the curio- sities of scholarship and the perilous minutiz that such a principle may lead to, if it is persevered in’; and by way of © illustration he adds, ‘Dr Lightfoot seems to ignore what I should have regarded as an obvious fact, that it is hardly possible in modern English to make a play upon words compatible with elevation of style. It was compatible with solemnity in Hebrew and also in the Hebrew-tinctured Greek of the New Testament; but in English it is not. Explain it as you may, the fact is palpable. Does it not tax all our esteem for Shakspeare to put up with many a passage of 1 I confess myself quite unable to follow Mr Earle’s logic, when he criticises what I had said of the Rheims Version. My words are (p. 44), ‘Of all the English Versions the Rhemish alone has paid attention to this point, and so far compares advantageously with the rest, to which in most other respects it is confessedly inferior.’ On this he remarks ; ‘It is certainly unfortunate for our author’s position that by his own showing the version which has kept to his principle should nevertheless be confessedly inferior in most other respects, including, as I apprehend, the highest respects that can affect our judgment of a version of Holy Scripture. ‘Fo put this admission with the clearness due to its importance; the Rheims Version is the best, in that it has observed our author’s principle: but as a rendering of Scripture it is the worst.’ Why unfortunate? Does experience suggest that the man or the book that is right on five points out of six, must be right on _ the sixth point also? Does it not rather lead us to expect some ele- ment of right in the most wrong and some element of wrong in the ‘most right? τ Ι ὦ XVIll Preface. which in any other author we should not hesitate to say that it was deformed and debased by a jingle of word- sounds ?’ To this I answer fearlessly that I certainly do desire to see the play of words retained in the English Version, wher- ever it can be done without forcing the English. I believe that our translators acted rightly when they rendered χρώ- μενοι, καταχρώμενοι, by use, abuse in 1 Cor. vil. 31; I believe that they were only wrong in translating κατατομή, περιτομή, concision, circumcision, in Phil. iii. 2, 3, because the former is hardly a recognised English word and would not be gene- rally understood. I freely confess that in many cases, per- haps in most cases, the thing cannot be done; but I am sorry for it’. I cannot for a moment acquiesce in Mr Earle’s opinion, that it is incompatible with ‘solemnity,’ 1 On my suggestion that in 2 Thess. iii. 11 the play on ἐργαζομένους, περιεργαζομένους, might be preserved by the words dzsiness, busy-bodies, Mr Earle remarks; ‘ As a matter of history the word dusiness has no radical connection with dusy: it is merely a disguised form of the French desognes. This is however a secondary matter, because if the word-play be desirable as a matter of English taste, these words would answer the purpose just as well as if their affinity were quite esta- blished.? Without hazarding any opinion on a question on which Mr Earle is so much more competent to speak than myself, I would ven- ture to remark: (1) That the direct derivation of dusiness from dusy is maintained by no less an authority than Jacob Grimm, Deutsche Gram- matik, τι. p. 237 sq.3 (2) That other authorities maintain (whether rightly or wrongly I do not venture to say) the radical connexion of the Teutonic words dusy (Engl.), dez¢g (Dutch), with the Romance words besogne, bisogna; and (3) That this very play of words occurs in the earliest English translations of the Scriptures, the Wycliffite Ver- sions, in 1 Cor. vii. 32, ‘I wole you for to be withoute disynesse (ἀμερίμ- vous, Vulg. sine sollicitudine). Sothli he that is withoute wyf is dysy (μεριμνᾷ, Vulg. sollicitus est) what thingis ben of the Lord.’ Mr Earle remarks that in 2 Thess. iii. 11 ‘Even the Rheims Version _ keeps clear of this (the play of words): it has ‘‘ working nothing, but ‘ curiously meddling.”’ The fact is that after its wont it has translated , Preface. ΧΙΣ with ‘elevation of style.’ Above all I repudiate the notion, which seems to underlie whole paragraphs of Mr Earle’s critique, that it is the business of a translator, when he is dealing with the Bible, to zmrove the style of his author, having before my eyes the warning examples of the past, and believing that all such attempts will end in discom- fiture’, Is it not one great merit of our English Version, the Vulgate ‘ Nihil operantes sed curiose agentes,’ in which this cha- racteristic of the original has disappeared. This paronomasia is not confined to St Paul but occurs also in Ari- Stides II. p. 418 ταῦτα εἴργασται μέν...περιείργασται δὲ μηδαμώς, just as the Apostle’s φρονεῖν, σωφρονεῖν (Rom. xii. 3) has a parallelin a passage quoted by Stobzeus as from Charondas Floril. xliv. 40 προσποιείσθω δὲ ἕκαστος τῶν πολιτῶν σωφρονεῖν μᾶλλον ἢ φρονεῖν. 1 The anxiety to impart dignity to the language of the Apostles and Evangelists reaches a climax in A Liberal Translation of the New Testament, being an attempt to translate the Sacred Writings with the same Freedom, Spirit and Elegance with which other English Transla- tions from the Greek Classics have lately been executed: by E. Harwood, London, 1768. 4n this strange production the following is a sample of St Luke’s narrative (xi. 40), ‘Absurd and preposterous conduct! Did not the Great Being, who made the external form, create the internal intel- lectual powers—and will he not be more solicitous for the purity of the mind than for the showy elegance of the body?’ and this again of St John’s (iii. 32), ‘ But though this exalted personage freely publishes and solemnly attests those heavenly doctrines, etc.’ The parable of the prodigal son in the former begins (xv. 11), ‘A gentleman of splendid family and opulent fortune had two sons.” Even Dr Johnson himself, | the great master of grandiloquent English, could not tolerate this book. ‘Returning through the house,’ we are told, ‘he stepped into a small study or book-room. The first book he laid his hands upon was Harwood’s Liberal Translation of the New Testament: The pas- sage which first caught his eye was that sublime apostrophe in St John upon the raising of Lazarus Fesws wept, which Harwood had conceitedly rendered And Fesus, the Saviour of the world, burst into a flood of tears. He contemptuously threw the book aside, exclaiming ‘‘ Puppy!”’ (Ap- pendix to Boswell’s Life of Fohnson, in Croker’s edition, London, 1866, ΧΧ Preface. regarded as a literary work, that it has naturalised in our language the magnificent Hebraisms of the original? But the case before us is even stronger than this. The paronomasia is a characteristic of St Paul’s style, and should be repro- duced (so far as the genius of the English language permits) like any other characteristic. That it is admissible, the example of Shakespeare which Mr Earle adduces, and that of Tennyson, whose ‘name and fame’ he himself has already quoted and who abounds in similar examples of alliteration arid assonance, not to mention other standard writers whether of the Elizabethan or of the Victorian era, are sufficient evidence. I am not concerned to defend Shakespeare’s literary reputation, which may be left to itself; and I have certainly no wish to maintain that he was entirely free from the affectations of his age: but I am unfeignedly surprised to find plays on words condemned wholesale, as incom- patible with elevation of style. Under certain circum- stances, paronomasia, alliteration, and the like, are not only very natural, but, as indicating intensity of feeling, may produce even a tragic effect. With the appreciation of a great genius Shakespeare himself has explained and justi- fied their use under such circumstances. When John of Gaunt, in his last illness, is visited by Richard, and in reply to the king’s enquiry keeps harping on his name, Old Gaunt indeed and gaunt in being old, p- 836). Johnson’s biographer, Boswell, speaks of it as ‘a fantastical translation of the New Testament in modern phrase’ (p. 506). See also _ Mr Matthew Arnold’s opinion (quoted below p. 189) on a very similar attempt at a revised version by Franklin. I am quite sure that Mr ~ Earle’s suffrage would be on the same side; but, when he asks that the distinctive features of the sacred writers may be sacrificed to ‘elevation — _ of style’ and pleads that the language may be made more ‘ full-bodied’ to suit ‘the public taste’ than it is in the original, is he not leading us, though by a different road, to the edge of the very same precipice ? Preface. ΧΧΙ the king asks, Can sick men play so nicely with their names? The old man’s answer is, No; musery makes sport to mock itself. The very intensity of his grief seeks relief in this way’. Again, who will question the propriety of the play on words in Queen Elizabeth’s outburst of anger against Glou- cester after the murder of her children ? Cousins, indeed; and by their uncle cozen’d Of comfort, kingdom, kindred, freedom, life. The very fierceness of her wrath seeks expression in the iteration of the same sounds. And in cases where no intensity of passion exists, there may be some other determining motive. Thus we find a tendency in all languages to repetition of sound, where a didactic purpose is served. Of this motive the fondness for rhyme, alliteration, and the like, in the familiar proverbs of all languages, affords ample illustration, as in Waste not, want not, Forewarned, forearmed, Man proposes, God disposes, Compendia dispendia, παθήματα μαθήματα. To this cate- gory we may assign St Paul’s μὴ ὑπερφρονεῖν παρ᾽ ὃ δεῖ φρονεῖν, ἀλλὰ φρονεῖν εἰς TO σωφρονεῖν (Rom. xii. 3). In- deed it would not be difficult to show that in every instance the Apostle had some reason for employing this figure, and that he did not use it as a mere rhetorical plaything. We may find ourselves unable in any individual case to reproduce the same effect in English, and thus may be forced to abandon the attempt in despair; but not the less earnestly shall we protest against the principle that the 1 Similarly Cicero, speaking of the Sicilians playing on the name of Verres, says (Verr. Act. ii. t. 46) ‘etiam γι λα ον inveniebantur ex dolore. XXil Preface. genius of our language requires us to abstain from the attempt under any circumstances, and that a form of speech, which is natural in itself and common to all languages, must _ be sacrificed to some fancied ideal of an elevated style. τὸ TRINITY COLLEGE, τ ' te St Fohn’s Day, 1871. ; ΕἾ TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE -S. Jerome’s Revision of the Latin Bible . . . I II. Authorised Version of the English Bible . ὃ 9 _ III. Lessons suggested by these Historical Parallels . 12 Necessity for a fresh Revision of the Authorised RRND ol we! ier ag ety ee ee τ 17 πον ς Readings πστ΄ Sti δὲ Σ 2. Artificial distinctions created . . 0. 33. Real distinctions obliterated me toe Vaults of Grammar sj)», τ i dea δι τὶ A FRESH Rees ΝΘ κα vs < OF THE ENGLISH NEW- TESTAMENT. F ORE than two centuries had elapsed since the first Latin Version of the Scriptures was made, when the variations and errors of the Latin Bible began to attract the attention of students and to call for revision. It happened providentially, that at the very moment when the need was felt, the right man was forthcoming. In the first fifteen centuries of her existence the Western Church produced no Biblical scholar who could compare with S. Jerome in com- petence for so great a task. At the suggestion of his ecclesiastical superior, Damasus bishop of Rome, he undertook this work, for which many years of self- denying labour had eminently fitted him. It is no part of my design to give a detailed ac- count of this undertaking. I wish only to remark that when Jerome applied himself to his task, he _ foresaw that he should expose himself to violent at- _ tacks, and that this anticipation was not disappointed L. Re A 2 S. Ferome's Revision. by the result. ‘Who,’ he asks in his preface to the Gospels, the first portion of the work which he com- pleted, ‘Who, whether learned or unlearned, when he takes up the volume, and finds that what he reads differs from the flavour he has once tasted, will not immediately raise his voice and pronounce me guilty of forgery and sacrilege, for daring to add, to change, to correct anything in the ancient books*?’ Again and again he defends himself against his antagonists. His temper, naturally irritable, was pro- voked beyond measure by these undeserved attacks, and betrayed him into language which I shall not attempt to defend. Thus writing to Marcella’? he mentions certain ‘poor creatures (homunculos) who studiously calumniate him for attempting to correct some passages in the Gospels against the autho- rity of the ancients and the opinion of the whole world.’ ‘I could afford to despise them,’ he says, ‘if I stood upon my rights, for a lyre is played in vain to anass. ‘If they do not like the water from the purest fountain-head, let them drink of the muddy streams.’ And after more to the same effect, he re- turns again at the close of the letter to these ‘two- legged donkeys (bipedes asellos),’ exclaiming, ‘Let them read, Rejoicing in hope, serving the time; let us read, Rejoicing in hope, serving the Lord’; \et them — consider that an accusation ought under no circum- 1 Op. x. 660 (ed. Vallarsi). 2 Epist. 28 (1. p. 133). 3 The reading καιρῷ for κυρίῳ, Rom. xii. 11. i ee μὰ». Lts Assatlanis. 2 o stances to be received against an elder; let ws read, Against an elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses; them that sin rebuke’. Let then be satisfied with, /¢ zs a human saying, and wor- thy of all acceptation: let ws err with the Greeks, that is with the Apostle who spoke in Greek, /¢ zs ἃ faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation®? And elsewhere, referring to these same detractors, he writes with a severity which was not undeserved ; ‘Let them read first and despise afterward, lest they appear to condemn works of which they know nothing, not from deliberate judgment, but from the prejudice of hatred*.’ ‘Thus much I say in reply to my tra- ducers, who snap at me like dogs, maligning me in public and reading me in a corner, at once my ac- cusers and my defenders, seeing that they approve in others what they disapprove in me*’ If these attacks had been confined to personal enemies like Rufinus’, who were only retaliating upon Jerome the harsh treatment which they had received at his hands, his complaints would not have excited much sympathy. But even friends looked coldly or suspiciously on his noble work. His admirer, the great Augustine himself, wrote to deprecate an under- 1 The omission of the clause εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων, I Tim. ν. 19. | a reading ἀνθρώπινος for πιστός, I Tim. iii. T. 3 Op. IX. 684. 4. Of. IX. 1408. 5 See Hieron. Of. 11. 660, where Rufinus exclaims, ‘Istud com- missum dic quomodo emendabitur? immo, nefas Be το expiabitur?- with more to the same effect.. A2 4 S. Ferome's Revision. taking which might be followed by such serious re- sults. He illustrated his fears by reference to the well-known incident to which Jerome’s version of the Book of Jonah had given occasion, as a sample of the consequences that might be expected to ensue. A certain bishop had nearly lost his flock by ven- turing to substitute Jerome’s rendering ‘hedera’ for ‘cucurbita,’ and could only win them back again by reinstating the old version which he had abandoned. They would not tolerate a change in an expression ‘which had been fixed by time in the feelings and memory of all and had been repeated through so many ages in succession’.’ Of the changes. which Jerome introduced into the text of the New Testament, the passage quoted above affords sufficient illustration. In the Old Testament a more arduous task awaited him. The Latin Version which his labours were destined to supersede had been made from the Septuagint. He himself undertook to revise the text in conformity with the original Hebrew. It will appear strange to our own age that this was the chief ground of accusation against him. All the Greek and Latin Churches, it was urged, had hitherto. used one and the same Bible; but this bond of union would be dissolved by a new version made from a different text. Thus the utmost confusion would ensue. More- over, what injury might not be done to the faith of the weaker brethren by casting doubt on the state | 1 Hieron. Zfist. 104 (I. 636 sq.). \ [ts Assailants. 5 of the sacred text? What wounds might not be inflicted on the pious sentiments of the believer by laying sacrilegious hands on language hallowed by long time and association ? But, independently of the dangerous consequences which might be expected, no words were too strong to condemn the arrogance and presumption of one who thus ventured to set aside the sacred text as it had been used by all branches and in all ages of the Church from the beginning. To this cruel,taunt Jerome replied nobly: ‘I do not condemn, I do not blame the Seventy, but I confidently prefer the Apostles to them all*’ ‘I beseech you, reader, do not regard my labours as throwing blame on the ancients. Each man offers what he can for the tabernacle of God’. Some gold and silver and precious stones: others fine linen and purple and scarlet and blue: I shall hold myself happy if I have offered skins and goats’ hair. And yet the Apostle considers that the more despised members are more necessary (1 Cor. xii. 22)’,’ Moreover there was a very exaggerated estimate of the amount of change which his revision would introduce. Thus Augustine, when endeavouring to deter him, speaks of his new ¢ransfation; Jerome in reply tacitly corrects his illustrious correspondent, and calls the work a veviston*. And throughout he 1 Of, 1X. 6. 2 Exod. xxv. 2 sq. 3 Op. 1X. 460. 4 See Hieron. Z/ist. 104, 1. 637, for Augustine’s letter (‘Evangelium ex Greco interpretatus es’), and Z fist. 112, I. 753, for Jerome’s reply (‘in Novi Testamenti emendatione’), See Dr Westcott in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, s.v. Vulgate, τι. p. 1696. ; 6 S. Ferome's Revision. holds the same guarded language: he protests that he has no desire to introduce change for the mere sake of change, and that only such alterations will be made as strict fidelity to the original demands, His object is solely to place the Hebraica veritas before his readers in the vernacular tongue, and to this object he is stedfast. In executing this great work, Jerome was in con- stant communication with Jewish rabbis, who were his Hebrew teachers and to whom he was much indebted in many ways. How great a gain this assistance was to his revision, and how largely after ages have profited by the knowledge thus brought to bear on the sacred text, I need hardly say, We may suspect (though no direct notice on this point is preserved) that with his contemporaries this fact was prominent among the counts of the indictment against him. At least it is certain that they set their faces against his substitution of the Hebrew text for the Septuagint version, on the ground that the former had been tampered with by the malignity and obduracy of the Jews. But, if this suspicion wrongs them, and they did not object to his availing himself of such extraneous aid, then they evinced greater liberality than has always been shown by the opponents of revision in later.ages, Happily Jerome felt strong in the power of truth, and could resist alike the importunity of friends and the assaults of foes. His sole object was to place before the Latin-speaking Churches the most faithful ὁ Ἱ ia Lis Perseverance. 7 representation of the actual words of the sacred text ; and the consciousness of this great purpose nerved him with a strength beyond himself. The character of this father will not kindle any deep affection or respect. We are repelled by his coarseness and want of refinement, by his asperity of temper, by his vanity and self-assertion. We look in vain for that transparent simplicity which is the true foundation of the highest saintliness. But in this instance the nobler instincts of the biblical scholar triumphed over the baser passions of the man; and in his lifelong devotion to this one object of placing the Bible in its integrity before the Western Church, his character rises to true sublimity. ‘I beseech you,’ he writes, ‘pour out your prayers to the Lord for me, that so long as I am in this poor body I may write something acceptable to you, useful to the Church, and worthy of after ages. Indeed I am not moved overmuch by the judgments of living men: they err on the one side or on the other, through affection or through hatred’? ‘My voice,’ he says elsewhere, ‘shall never be silent, Christ helping me. Though my tongue be cut off, it shall still stammer. Let those read who will ; let those who will not, reject”. And, inspired with a true scholar’s sense of the dignity of con- scientious work for its own sake irrespective of any striking results, after mentioning the pains which it has cost him to unravel the entanglement of names in the Books of Chronicles he recalls a famous word 1 Op. IX. 1364. 2 Op. IX. 1526... 8 S. Serome's Revision. of encouragement addressed of old by Antigenidas the flute-player to his pupil Ismenias, whose skill had failed to catch the popular fancy: ‘Play to me and to the Muses. So Jerome describes his own set purpose; ‘Like Ismenias I play to myself and to mine, if the ears of the rest are deaf.” Thus far I have dwelt on the opposition which Jerome encountered on all hands, and the dauntless resolution with which he accomplished his task. Let me now say a few words on the subsequent fate of his revision, for this also is an instructive page in history’, When completed, it received no authoritative sanction. His patron, pope Damasus, at whose instigation he had undertaken the task, was dead. The successors of Damasus showed no favour to Jerome or to his work, The Old Latin still continued to be read in churches: it was still quoted in the writings of divines. Even Augustine, who after the completion of the task seems to have overcome his misgivings and speaks in praise of Jerome’s work, remains constant to the older Version. But first one writer, and then another, begins to adopt the revised trans- lation of Jerome. Still its recognition depends on the caprice or the judgment of individual men. Even — the bishops of Rome had not yet discovered that it was ‘authentic. One pope will use the Hie- 1 Op. IX. 1408, ‘Mihimet ipsi et meis juxta Ismeniam canens, si aures surdze sunt ceterorum.’ ® The history of the gradual reception of Jerome’s Revision is traced in Kaulen’s Geschichte der Vulgata, p. 190 sq. (Mainz, 1868). 765 Gradual Reception. 9 ᾿ς ronymian Revision; a second will retain the Old - Latin; while a third will use either indifferently, and -a fourth will quote from the one in the Old Testa- ment and from the other in the New*. As late as _ two centuries after Jerome’s time, Gregory the Great can still write that he intends to avail himself of either indifferently, as his purpose may require, since ‘the Apostolic See, over which by the grace of God he presides, uses both?’ Thus slowly, but surely, Jerome’s revision won its way, till at length, some centuries after its author’s death, it drove its elder rival out of the field, and became the one recognised version of the Bible throughout the Latin Churches. — ie ΤΙ. team cannot forbear to call attention in passing to the : i ee which these facts aaa to the we ie e Be stmt may be verified by the quotations in tio my causa, wi estes: nunc Ae ut, quia sedes Apostolica cui | Ἤν τῇ ae. gir ex ΗΝ IO The Authorised Version. Lord of London’ is reported to have said that ‘if every man’s humour should-be followed, there would be no end of translating.’ The translators themselves, when they issue their work to the public, deprecate the adverse criticism which doubtless they saw very good reason to apprehend. Such a work as theirs, they say in the opening paragraph of the preface to the reader, ‘is welcomed with suspicion instead of love and with emulation instead of thanks,...and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter (and cavil, if it do not find a hole, will make one), it is sure to be misconstrued and in danger to be condemned. This will easily be granted by as many as know story or have any experience. For, was there ever any- thing projected, that savoured any way of newness or renewing, but the same endured many a storm of gainsaying or opposition?’ and again; ‘ Whosoever attempteth anything for the public (especially if it pertain to religion and to the opening and clearing of the Word of God) the same setteth himself upon a stage to be glouted upon by every evil eye, yea, he casteth himself headlong upon pikes, to be gored by every sharp tongue. For he that meddleth with men’s religion in any part, meddleth with their ‘custom, nay with their freehold: and though they find no content in that which they have, yet they cannot abide to hear of altering.’ The parallel moreover extends to the circumstances of its reception. It seems now to be an established fact (so far as any fact in history which involves a com- a Lts Reception. II prehensive negative can be regarded as established) that the Revised Version never received any final authorisation either from the ecclesiastical or from the civil powers: that it was not sanctioned either by the Houses of Parliament, or by the Houses of Convoca- tion, or by the King in Council. The Bishops’ Bible still continued to be read in churches; the Geneva Bible was still the familiar volume. of the fireside and the closet*. Several years after the appearance of the Revised Version, Bishop Andrewes, though himself one of the revisers, still continues to quote from an older Bible. Yet notwithstanding all adverse circum- stances it overpowered both its rivals by the force of superior merit. It was found to be, as one had said long before of Jerome’s revision, ‘et verborum tena- cior et perspicuitate sententiz clarior’’; and this was the secret of its success. ‘Thus,’ writes Dr Westcott, ‘at the very time when the monarchy and the Church were, as it. seemed, finally overthrown, the English people by their silent and unanimous acceptance of 1 The printing of the Bishops’ Bible was stopped as soon as the new revision was determined upon. The last edition of the former was published in 1606. The Revised Version states on its title-page (1611) that it is ‘Appointed to be read in Churches,’ but we are not told by whom or how it was appointed. As the copies of the Bishops’ Bible used in the Churches were worn out, they would probably be replaced by the Revised Version; but this seems to have been the only advantage which was accorded to it. On the other hand, the Geneva Bible con- tinued to be printed by the King’s Printer some years after the appear- ‘ance of the Revised Version, and was still marked ‘Cum privilegio Regiz majestatis.’ 2 Isidor. Hispal. Etym. vi. 4; comp. de Of. Ecc’. i,-12. |e eee The Authorised Version. the new Bible gave a spontaneous testimony to the principles of order and catholicity of which both were an embodiment. ‘A revision, which embodied the ripe fruit of nearly a century of labour and appealed to the religious instinct of a great Christian people, gained by its own internal character a vital authority which could never have been secured by any edict of sovereign rulers’’ But the parallel may be carried a step further. In both these cases alike, as we have seen, God’s law of progressive improvement, which in animal and vege- table life has been called the principle of natural se- lection, was vindicated here, so that the inferior gradu- ally disappeared before the superior in the same kind: but in both cases also the remnants of an earlier Bible held and still hold their ground, as a testimony to the past. As in parts of the Latin Service-books the Vulgate has not even yet displaced the Old Latin, which is still retained either in its pristine or in its partially amended form; so also in our own Book of Common Prayer an older Version still maintains its place in the Psalter and in the occasional sentences, as if to keep before our eyes the progressive history of our English Bible. ITI. All history is a type, a parable. The hopes and the misgivings, the failures and the successes, of the 1 History of the English Bible, pp. 158, 160. . δ. ἷ Fiistorical Parallels. ies fe past reproduce themselves in the present; and it appeared to me that at this crisis, when a revision of our English Bible is imminent, we might with advantage study the history of that revised transla- tion, which alone among Biblical Versions can bear comparison with our own in its circulation and in- fluence. And, first of all, in the gloomy forebodings which have ushered in this scheme for a new revision, we seem to hear the very echo of those warning voices, which happily fell. dead on the ear of the resolute Jerome. The alarming consequences, which some an- ticipate from any attempt to meddle with our time- honoured Version, have their exact counterpart in the apprehensions by which his contemporaries sought to deter him. The danger of estranging diverse Churches and congregations at present united in the accept- ance of a common Bible, and the danger of perplex- ing the faith of individual believers by suggesting to them variations of text and uncertainties of interpre- tation—these are now, as they were then, the twin perils by which it is sought to scare the advocates of revision. : Moreover there is the like exaggerated estimate of the amount of change which any body of revisers would probably introduce. To this we can only give the same answer as Jerome. Not translation, but re- vision, is the object of all who. have promoted this new movement. There is no intention of snapping the thread of history by the introduction of a new 14 Fiistorical Parallels. version. Our English Bible owes its unrivalled merits to the principle of revision; and this principle it is proposed once more to invoke. ‘To whom ever’ say the authors of our Received Version, ‘was it imputed for a failing (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done and to amend it where he saw cause?’ ‘Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make a bad onea good one...but to make a good one better...that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.’ Nor again will the eminence of antagonists deter the promoters of this movement, if they feel that they have truth on their side. Augustine was a greater theologian, as well as a better man, than Jerome. But in this matter he was treading on alien ground: he had not earned the right to speak. On the other hand, a life-long devotion to the study of the Biblical text in the original languages had filled Jerome with the sense alike of the importance of the work and of the responsibility of his position. He could not be deterred by the fears of any adversaries, however good and however able. He felt the-iron hand of a strong necessity laid upon him, and he could not choose but open out to others the stores of Scriptural wealth which he himself had been permitted to amass. And again, we may take courage from the results which followed from. his design, dauntlessly and per- sistently carried out. None of the perilous conse- quences, which friend’ and foe alike had foreboded, _ Historical Parallels. a ἐς 4 did really ensue. There was indeed a long interval of “ἃ transition, during which the rival versions contended for supremacy ; but no weakening of individual faith, no alienation of Churches, can be traced to this source. The great schism of the Church, the severance of East and West, was due to human passion and prejudice, to fraud and self-will and ambition. History does not mention any relaxation of the bonds of union as the consequence of Jerome’s work. On the contrary, the Vulgate has been a tower of strength to the Latin Churches, as Jerome foresaw that it would be. He laboured for conscience sake, more than content if his work proved acceptable to one or two intimate friends; he sought not the praise of men; his own generation viewed his labours with suspicion or hatred; and he has been rewarded with the universal crati- tude of after ages. _ . Nor is it uninstructive to observe that the very . point on which his contemporaries laid the greatest stress in their charges against him, has come to be © “ἢ regarded by ourselves as his most signal merit. Tas him we owe it, that in the Western Churches the | _ Hebrew original, and not the Septuagint Version, i igs ae ee the esis. of the people: s Bible ; ame that a broad dand . a oe ee Oe — see ee z “+ i ᾿ 4 . ἐν ὧς ΑΛ ας a my Ὶ : % - ¥ “ ἼΩΝ ι : ROP es ΛΑ i Sah 4 “ τ 5 ss"! Lh, a » 5 ‘ alee aN | Φ μὰν ‘ Τ᾽ δ nee ν᾽ i sstorical Parallels. Church of England still continue to quote S. Jerome’s — authority for the distinction. between the Canonical and Apocryphal books, which the council of Trent did its best to obscure. But there is yet another lesson to be learned from the history of Jerome’s revision. The circumstances of its reception are full of instruction and encourage~ ment. It owed nothing as we have seen, to official sanction ; it won its way by sterling merit. Now let us suppose that the revision, which we are about to un- dertake, is successfully accomplished. How are we to deal with it? Ifthe work commends itself at once to all or toa large majority as superior to the present Ver- sion, then let it by all means be substituted by some _ formal authorisation. But this is quite too muchto “expect. Though S. Jerome’s revision was incompara- bly better than the Old Latin, though the superiority of our received English Version to its predecessors is: δὲ allowed on all hands, no such instantaneous welcome __ __was accorded to either. They had to run the gaunt- 3 let of adverse criticism ; they fought their way to ac : ceptance inch by inch. I suppose that no πεν Ὁ _ takes part in this new revision is so sanguine 8 hope that his work will be more tenderly tr ἔν fe Jets so, it does not seem to be necessz - consider it a great evil, that for a time two concurrent Versions should be in use. This at least seems a sim- ple practical solution, unless indeed there should be _ such an immediate convergence of opinion in favour _ of the revised Version, as past experience does not encourage us to expect. Pon aa Li ᾿ς IV. But let it be granted that the spectres, which a timid apprehension calls into being, are scared away by the light of history and experience, and that the _ dangerous consequences of revision are shown to be ΡΨ ἀντ ΩΣ Ὡς“ Δ _ imaginary ; we have still to ask, whether there is suffi- cient reason for undertaking such a work, or (in other : words) whether the defects of the existing Version Ε΄ are such as to call for systematic amendment? Here } again we are met by the same objection, of which our g _ translators were obliged to take notice: ‘Many men’s mouths,’ they write, ‘have been open a good while he: tie with h dross hl wine with water, her Jo ΘΉΡΕ ἌΣ ae 17 a q “Gat be are not pees with Cares about ἜΝ 4 i 18 A Revision needed. biblical commentaries and other exegetical works’ In Archbishop Trench’s instructive volume Ox the Authorized Version of the New Testament, published a few years ago, they are gathered into a focus; and quite recently, in anticipation of the impending re- vision, Bishop Ellicott has stated the case concisely, giving examples of different classes of errors which call for correction. For a fuller justification of the advocates of revision I would refer to these and simi- lar works, confining myself to a few more prominent points, in which our Version falls behind the know- ledge of the age, and offering some examples in illustration of each. While doing so, I shail be led necessarily to dwell almost exclusively on the defects of our English Bible, and to ignore its merits. But I trust it will be unnecessary for me on this account to deprecate adverse criticism. No misapprehension is more serious or more unjust than the assumption that those who advocate revision are blind to the excellence of the existing Version. It is the very sense of this excellence which prompts the desire to make an admirable instrument more perfect. On the other hand, they cannot shut their eyes to the fact that the assiduous labours of scholars and divines during two centuries and a half have not been: fruit- less, and they are naturally anxious to pour into the treasury of the temple these προ παν ΒΕ Ν gains of many’ generations. ΜΠ ᾿ 1 For the literature of the subject, see Professor Plumptre’s interesting Ἢ article in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, 5.ν. Version, Authorized, Ρ. τ679. id λ ς. ees, to & ΤΑΣ 19 Gk And first of all let us boldly face the fact that the most important changes, in which a revision may re- sult, will be due to the variations of reading in the Greek text. It was not the fault, it was the misfor- tune, of the scholars from Tyndale downward, to whom we owe our English Bible, that the only text accessible to them was faulty and corrupt. I need not take up time in recapitulating the history of the received text, which will be known to all. It is suf- ficient to state that all textual critics are substantially agreed on this point, though they may differ among themselves as to the exact amount of change which it will be necessary to introduce. No doubt, when the subject of various readings is mentioned, grave apprehensions will arise in the minds of some persons. But this is just the case where more light is wanted to allay the fears which a vague imagination excites. The recent language of alarmists on this point seems incredible to those who have paid any attention to the subject, I can only state my own conviction that a study of the history and condition of the Greek text solves far more difficulties than it creates. More especially it brings out the fact of the very early and wide diffu- sion of the New Testament writings with a clearness: and a cogency which is irresistible, and thus bears most important testimony to their genuineness and integrity. Even the variations themselves have the B2 20 Errors and Defects. highest value in this respect. Thus for instance when we find that soon after the middle of the second century divergent readings of a striking kind occur in S. John’s Gospel, as for instance μονογενὴς Θεὸς and ὁ μονογενὴς vids (i. 18), we are led to the con- clusion that the text has already a history and that the Gospel therefore cannot have been very recent. This evidential value of textual criticism moreover shows itself in other ways. I will select one instance, which has always appeared to me very instructive as illustrating the results of this study—apparently so revolutionary in its methods, and yet really so con- Servative in its ends. The Epistle to the Ephesians, after having been received by churches and individuals alike (so far as we know) without a single exception from the earliest times, as the unquestioned work of the Apostle whose ‘name it bears, has been challenged in our own generation. Now there is one formidable argu- ment, and one only, against its genuineness. It is urged with irresistible force that S. Paul could not have written in this strain to a Church in which he had resided for some three years and with which he lived on the closest and most affectionate terms. So far as regards reference to persons or incidents, this is quite the most colourless of all S. Paul’s Epistles ; whereas we should expect to find it more full and definite in its allusions than any other, except per- haps the letters to Corinth. To this objection πὸ satisfactory answer can be given without the aid οὐ Cie Sry, i St _ textual criticism. But from textual criticism we learn that an intelligent and well-informed though hereti- cal writer of the second century called it an Epistle to the Laodiceans; that in the opening verse the words ‘in Ephesus’ are wanting in the two oldest ex- tant Greek MSS; that the most learned of the Greek fathers in the middle of the third century—himself a textual critic—had not the words in his copy or copies; and that another learned Greek father in the middle of the fourth century declares them to be absent from the oldest manuscripts—not to mention other subsi- diary notices tending in the same direction. Putting these facts together, we get a complete answer to the objection. The Epistle is found to be a circular letter, addressed probably to the Churches of Proconsular Asia, of which Ephesus was one and Laodicea ano- ther. From Ephesus, as the metropolis, it derived 3 its usual title, because the largest number of copies — in circulation would be derived from the autograph τ thither ; but here and there a copy was extant — False Readings. we | ap 22 Errors and Defects. as to the authorship of the letter, though for the pre- sent some are found to hesitate. For these facts sup- plied by textual criticism connect themselves with the mention of the letter which the Colossians are charged to get from Laodicea (Col. iv. 16), and this mention again combines with the strong resemblances of matter and diction, so as to bind these two Epistles inseparably together: while again the Epistle to the Colossians is linked not less indissolubly with the letter to Philemon by the references to person and place and circumstance. Thus the three Epistles form a compact whole, to resist the assaults of adverse criticism. A striking amount of undesigned coincidence is gathered together from the most diverse quarters, converging unmistakably to one result. And the point to be observed is, that many of these coincident elements are not found in the Epistles themselves, but in the externai history of the text, a circumstance which gives them a far higher evidential value. For even if it were possible to imagine a forger in an uncritical age at once able to devise a series of artifices so subtle and so com- plex, as on the supposition of the spuriousness of. one or all of these letters we are obliged to assume, and willing to defeat his own purpose by tangling a skein which it would require the critical education of the nineteenth century to unravel; yet there would remain the still greater improbability that a man in such a position could have exercised an effec- tive control over external circumstances—the dif- q false Readings. ὦ 23 fusion and the subsequent history of his forgeries— such as this hypothesis would suppose. This instance will illustrate my meaning, when I alluded to the conservative action of textual criti- cism ; for such I conceive to be its general tendency. But in fact the consideration of consequences ought not to weigh with us, ina matter where duty is so obvious. It must be our single aim to place the Bible in its integrity before the people of Christ; and, so long as we sincerely follow the truth, we can afford to leave the consequences in God’s hands: and I cannot too strongly urge the truism (for truism it is) that the higher value we set on the Bible as being or as containing the Word of God, the greater (if we are faithful to our trust) will be our care to ascertain the exact expressions of the original by the aid of all the critical resources at our command. We have seen that S. Jerome's courage was chiefly tried in the substituticn of a purer text, and that his fidelity herein has been recognised as his greatest claim to the gratitude of after ages. The work, which our "new revisers will be required to execute, is far less revolutionary than his. Where his task required him to substitute a wholly new text in the Old Testa- ment, they will only be required to cancel or to change a word or expression, or in rare cases a verse, here and there in the New. Where he was faithful in great things, we may trust that they will not be faithless in small. The question therefore is not one of policy, but 24 Errors and Defects. of truth. Yet still it is well to face the probable © results; because apprehension is especially alive on this point, and because only by boldly confronting the spectres of a vague alarm can we hope to lay them. Let us then first of all set it down as an unmixed gain that we shall rid ourselves of an alliance which is a constant source of weakness and perplexity to ~ us. No more serious damage can be done to a true cause, than by summoning in its defence a witness who is justly suspected or manifestly perjured. Yet this is exactly the attitude which the verse relating to the Heavenly witnesses (1 John v. 7) bears towards the great doctrine which it proclaims, so long as it retains a place in the Bible which we put into the hands of the people. Shortly after the question of τς revision was first mooted, an article on the subject _ appeared in a popular daily paper, in which the — τὰ Min! nates, iu! occasion to refer to spe verse, com-— a , ᾿Ξ ον ΝΣ, ν᾿ ἐὔδε, | at hd 4 “' “ ᾿ ie ie that ay in lati had done sian _ promoting the belief in the doctrine which i it % | diward: and secondly, that the apes, = n εἴν: coy ἄμ» ἰδ eats statements we re re ev tly ned in μολπὴν pith pia = aie and κἢ ΠΡ False Readings. — re Pr _ facts of history; the second militates against the most probable inferences of criticism. As regards the first point, it seems unquestionable that the doc- trine was formally defined and firmly established some time before the interpolation appeared. A study of history shows that the Church arrived at the Catholic statement of the doctrine of the Trinity, partly because it was indicated in other passages of the New Testament (6. g. Matt. xxviii. 19, 2 Cor. xiii. 14), and partly because it was the only statement which, recognising the fact of the Incarnation of the Divine Word, was found at once to satisfy the in- stincts of a devout belief and the requirements of a true philosophy; and that the text in question had not, and could not have, anything to do with its establishment. Indeed the very fact that it is no- where quoted by the great controversial writers of | the fourth and fifth centuries has been truly re- 5 δ “πὸ as the strongest evidence against its σεπε-. And in more recent times, when the doc- kK ΝΜ σθαι to be challenged, the text was challenged — Ἶ ε-- 3 so eae at this Paes the doctrine did not gain Oe = bach ἀὐρλω τι equally teil dewee ated. ariel ἐ criticism shows that the 26 Errors and Defects. of S. John—the spirit and the water and the blood— a gloss which is- given substantially by S. Augustine: and was indicated before by Origen and Cyprian, and which first thrust itself into the text in some’ Latin. MSS, where it betrays its origin, not only. by its varieties of form, but also by the fact that: it occurs sometimes before and. sometimes after the mention of the three genuine witnesses which it was intended to explain. Thus both these statements alike break down, and we see no ground for placing this memorable verse in the same category with such fictions as the False Decretals, whether we regard its origin or its results; for unlike them it was not a deliberate forgery, and unlike them also it did not create a dogma. I only quote this criticism to show how much prejudice may be raised against the truth by the retention of interpolations like this; nor can we hold ourselves free from blame, if such statements are made and accepted, so long as we take no steps to eject from our Bibles an intrusive passage, against which external and internal evidence alike have pro- nounced a decisive verdict. In this instance our later English Bibles have retrograded from the more truth- ful position of the earlier. In Tyndale’s, Coverdale’s, and the Great Bibles the spurious words are placed in brackets and printed in a different type, and thus attention is directed to their suspicious character. In Luther German Translation (in its original form), as also in the Zurich Latin Bible of 1543, they were omitted. In the Geneva Testament first, False Readings. 27 so far as I am aware, and in the Bishops’ Bible after it, the example was set, which the translators of our Authorised Version unhappily followed, of dispensing with these marks of doubtful genuine- ness and printing the passage uniformly with the context. In other doctrinal passages where important various readings occur, the solution will not be so simple; but in doubtful cases the margin may use- fully be employed. Altogether the instances in which doctrine is directly or indirectly involved are very few; and, though individual texts might be altered, the balance of doctrinal statement would probably not be disturbed by the total result, a change in one direction being compensated by a change in -the other. Thus for instance, if the reading ‘God was manifest in the flesh’ should have to give place to ‘Who was manifest in the flesh’ in 1 Tim. iii. 16, and retire to the margin, yet on the other hand the ‘Only-begotten God’ would seem to have equal or superior claims to ‘the Only-begotten Son’ in John ij. 18, and must either supersede it or claim a place side by side with it. The passages, which touch Christian sentiment or history or morals, and which are affected by textual differences, though less rare than the former, are still very few. Of these the pericope of the woman taken in adultery holds the first place in importance. In - this case a deference to the most aneient authorities, as well as a consideration of internal evidence, might " century, who also speaks of the Gospel of S. Mark. Euseb. iii. 39. . 28 Errors and Defects. seem to involve immediate loss. The best solution would probably be to place the passage in brackets, for the purpose of showing, not indeed that it contains an untrue narrative (for, whencesoever it comes, it seems to bear on its face the highest credentials of authentic history), but that evidence external and internal is against its being regarded as an integral portion of the original Gospel of S. John. The close of S. Mark’s Gospel should possibly be treated in the same way. If I might venture a conjecture, I should say that both the one and the other were due to that knot of early disciples who gathered about S. John in Asia Minor and must have preserved more than one true tradition of the Lord’s life and of the earliest days of the Church, of which some at least had them- selves been eye-witnesses’. | Again in S. Luke’s Gospel it might be right to take account of certain remarkable omissions in some texts, and probably in these cases a marginal note would be the best solution. Such for instance are the words addressed to James and John, ix. 55, ‘Ye know not of what spirit ye are, or the agony in the garden, xxii. 43, 44, or the solemn words on the Cross, xxiii. 34. It seems impossible to believe that these incidents are other than authentic; and asthe text of S. Luke’s Gospel is perhaps excep in 2 4 1 The account of the woman taken in adsltey is kaon alan Ἵ been related by Papias, a disciple of this school, early in the se F False Readings. 29 this respect (for the omissions in S. John’s Gospel are of a different kind), the solution will suggest itself, that the Evangelist himself may have issued two separate editions. This conjecture will be con- firmed by observing that in the second treatise of S. Luke similar traces of two editions are seen where the passages omitted in many texts, though not im- portant in themselves (e.g. xxviii. 16, 29), bear equal evidence of authenticity, and are entirely free from suspicion on the ground that they were inserted to serve any purpose devotional or doctrinal. On the other hand some passages, where the external testimony is equivocal or adverse, are open to suspicion, because the origin of or the motive for the insertions or alterations lies on the surface. Thus in S. Luke ii. 33 ‘His father’ is altered into ‘Joseph, and ten verses later ‘Joseph and his mother’ is substituted for ‘His parents,’ evidently because the transcriber was alarmed lest the doctrine of the Incar- nation might be imperilled by such language—an alarm not entertained by the Evangelist himself ‘whose own narrative directly precluded any false inference, and who therefore could use the popular language without fear of misapprehension. And again the mention of ‘fasting’ in connexion with praying in not less than four passages (Matt. xvii. 21, Mark ix. 29, Acts x. 30, 1 Cor. vii. 5), in all of which it is rejected by one or more of the best editors, shows an ascetic bias ; though indeed there is ample sanction elsewhere in ~ the New Testament for the practice which it was thus c ἃ 20 Errors and Defects. sought to enforce more strongly. Again allowance must be made for the influence of Uturgical usage in such passages as the doxology to the Lord’s prayer, Matt. vi. 13; and a similar explanation may be given) of the insertion of the eunuch’s confession of faith preparatory to baptism, Acts viii. 37. And again, when a historical difficulty is avoided by a various’ reading, this should be taken into account, as in Mark i. 1, where indeed the substitution of ἐν τῷ ᾿Ησαΐᾳ τῷ προφήτῃ for the common reading ἐν τοῖς προφήταις would introduce a difficulty the same in kind but less in magnitude than already exists in the received text of Matt. xxvii.9. Or lastly, the desire to bring out the presence of a szpernatural agency may have had its influence in procuring the insertion of the words describing the descent of the angel in John v. 3, 4. On the other hand in some cases these’ considerations of internal probability favour the exist- ing text, where external evidence taken alone might lead to a different result, as in 1 Cor. xv. 51, where the received reading πάντες ov κοιμηθησόμεθα, πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα, is so recommended against πάντες κοιμηθησόμεθα, ov πάντες δὲ ἀλλαγησόμεθα. I believe that I have not only indicated (so far as my space allows) the really important classes of various readings, but given the most prominent il- lustrations in each instance. The whole number of. such readings indeed is small, and only a very few — temain after the examples already brought forward. On the other hand; variations of a subordinate kind False Readings. ἢ 31 are more numerous. These occur more frequently in the Gospels than elsewhere, arising out of the attempt to supplement one Evangelical narrative by the insertion of a word or a clause from another, or to bring the one into literal conformity with the other _ by substitution or correction; but no considerations of moment are involved in the rectification of such passages. It is very rarely indeed that a various reading of this class rises to the interest of Matt. xix, 17 τί pe ἐρωτᾷς περὶ τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ (compared with Mark x. 18, Luke xviii. 19); and for the most part they are wholly unimportant as regards any doctrinal . or practical bearing. The same motive which operates so powerfully in the Gospels will also influence, though in a far _ less degree, the text of those Epistles which are ἢ closely allied to each other, as for instance the. -Romans and Galatians, or the Ephesians and Colos- ‘sians, and will Be felt moreover in isolated ati ΝΟΣ ¥ 22 Errors and Defects. τὸ ἑαυτοὺ σῶμα...εἰς δὲ THY ἐπαγγελίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ov διεκρίθη, for οὐ κατενόησεν x. τ. Δ., Where the point is that Abraham dd fully recognise his own condition and ‘notwithstanding was not staggered; or 2 Cor. j. 20 ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ val, διὸ καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ τὸ ἀμὴν κ. τ. Xr, where ναὶ denotes the fulfilment of the promise on the part of God, and ἀμὴν the recognition and thanks- giving on the part of the Church, a distinction which is obliterated by the received reading ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ val καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ TO ἀμὴν; or 2 Cor. xil. I καυχᾶσθαι δεῖ, οὐ συμφέρον μέν, ἐλείσομαι δὲ κ. T.r., Where the com- mon text καυχᾶσθαι δὴ οὐ συμφέρει μοι, ἐλεύσομαι yap κ. τ. Δ. is feeble in comparison). It is this very fact, that reading of the older authorities almost always exhibits some improvement in the sense (even though the change may be unimportant in itself) which gives us the strongest assurance of their trust- worthiness as against the superior numbers of the more recent copies. Altogether it may be safely affirmed that the permanent value of the new revision will depend in a great degree on the courage and fidelity with which it deals with questions of readings. If the signs of the times may be trusted, the course which is most truthful, will also be most politic. To be con- servative, it will be necessary to be adequate: for no revision which fails to deal fairly with these textual problems, can be lasting. Here also the example of S. Jerome is full of encourage- ment, | Distinctions created. a ee me, Oo ῳ 5 bo From errors in the Greek text which our transla- tors used, we may pass on to faults of actual transla- tion. And here I will commence with one class which is not unimportant in itself, and which claims to be considered first, because the translators have dwelt at some length on the matter and attempted to justify their mode of proceeding. I refer to the vari- ous renderings of the same word or words, by which artificial distinctions are introduced in the translation, which have no place in the original. This is perhaps the only point in which they proceed deliberately on a wrong principle. ‘We have not tied ourselves,’ they say in the preface, ‘to an uniformity of phrasing or to an identity of words.’ They plead that such a course would savour ‘more of curiosity than wis- dom,’ and they allege the quaint reason, that they might ‘be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of English words,’ | _ if they adopted one to the exclusion of another, as a rendering of the same Greek equivalent. Now, if they had restricted themselves within proper limits in the use of this liberty, no fault could have been _ found with this vindication. But, when the transla- _ tion of the same word is capriciously varied in the _ same paragraph, and even in the same verse, a false τ 5. ΕΓ 24 Evvrors and Defects. effect is inevitably produced, and the connexion will in some cases be severed, or the reader more or less seriously misled in other ways. To what extent they have thus attempted to improve upon the original by introducing variety, the following examples, though they might be multiplied many times, will suffice to show. Why, for instance, should we read in Matt. xviii. 33 ‘Shouldest not thou also have had compassion (ἐλεῆσαι) on thy fellow servant, even as I had fzty (ἡλέησα) on thee’; or in xx. 20 ‘ Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children (υἱῶν) with her sons (vidy)’; or in xxv. 32 ‘He shall separate (ἀφοριεῖ) them one from another, as a shepherd divideth (ἀφορίζει) his sheep from the goats’? Why in S. John xvi. 1, 4, 6, should ταῦτα λελάληκα ὑμῖν be rendered in three different ways in the same paragraph ; ‘These things have I spoken unto you,’ ‘These things have I told you,’ ‘I have said these things unto you’; or S. Thomas be made to say, ‘Put my finger,’ and ‘ 7irust my hand’, in the same verse, though the same Greek word βάλω stands for both (xx. 25)? Why again in the Acts (xxvi. 24, 25) should Festus cry, ‘Paul, thou art deside thyself” (μαίνῃ, ἸΠαῦλε), and 5. Paul reply, ‘I am not mad, most noble Festus’ (οὐ μαίνομαι, κράτιστε Φῆστε) Why in the Epistle to the Romans (x. 15) should οὗ πόδες τῶν εὐωγγελιζομένων εἰρήνην, τῶν εὐαγγελιζομένων τὰ ἀγαθά be translated ‘the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good Ὁ _ things’? Why in the same epistle (xv. 4, 5) should Ἂ a =A 4 ts > Ae ΝΣ τιν. “of, ν 4 νη * a og ve ἐς ὅς a τΣ Distinctions created. 35 we read, ‘That we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures (διὰ τῆς ὑπομονῆς καὶ τῆς παρακλήσεως τῶν γραφῶν) should have hope,’ and in the next sen- tence, ‘ Now the God of patience and consolation (6 Θεὸς τῆς ὑπομονῆς καὶ τῆς παρακλήσεως) grant you to be like minded,’ though the words are identical in the two clauses, and the repetition is obviously intended by S. Paul? And why again in the salutations at the end of this epistle, as also of others, should ἀσπά- σασθε be translated now ‘salute’ and now ‘ greet,’ the two renderings being interchanged capriciously and without any law? Again in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, iii. 17, the same word φθείρειν is differ- ently translated, ‘If any man defile (φθείρει) the tem- ple of God, him shall God destroy (φθερεῖ),᾽ though _ the force of the passage depends on the identity of 3 the sin and the punishment. And in a later passage / . (x. 16 sq.) κοινωνοὶ τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου is translated “247-- be takers of the altar,’ and two verses below κοινωνοὶ τῶ ; ἰδαυμονών ‘have ies with Sos while oe com- . Heat tr » 4 2 5 hs 56 Errors and Defects. διαιρέσεις διακονιῶν, διαιρέσεις ἐνεργημάτων, are trans- lated respectively ‘diversities of: gifts,’ ‘differences of administration,’ ‘diversities of operations, while in the same passage ἐνεργήματα is rendered first opera- tions and then working. Each time I read the marvellous episode on charity in the xilith chapter, I feel with increased force the inimitable delicacy and beauty and sublimity of the rendering, till I begin to doubt whether the English language is not a better vehicle than even the Greek for so lofty a theme; yet even here I find some blemishes of this kind. Thus in the 8th verse the same English word ‘fail’ is given as a rendering for both ἐκπίπτειν and καταργεῖσθαι, while conversely the same Greek word καταργεῖσθαι is translated first by faz/ and then by vanish away, and two verses afterwards, where it occurs again, by a third expression be done away. This word καταργεῖν is translated with the same latitude later on also (xv. 24, 26), ‘When he shall have put down (καταργήσῃ) all rule and all authority and power,’ and immediately afterwards, ‘The last enemy that shall be destroyed (καταργεῖται) is death. Let me add another instance from this epistle, for it is perhaps the most character- istic of all. In xv. 27, 28 the word ὑποτάσσειν occurs - six times in the same sense within two verses; in’ the first three places it is rendered put under, in the fourth de subdued, in the fifth be subject, while in the last place the translators return again to their first rendering put under. Nay, even the simple word λογία when it occurs in successive verses (evi, τ Distinctions created. 37 I, 2) has a different rendering, first ‘collection’ and then ‘gathering.’ The Second Epistle to the Corinthians is espe- cially remarkable for the recurrence through whole sentences or paragraphs, of the same werd or words, which thus strike the key-note to the passage. This fact is systematically disregarded by our translators who, impressed with the desire of producing what they seem to have regarded as an agreeable variety, failed to see that in such cases monotony is force. Thus in the 1st chapter the words παρακαλεῖν, παρά- κλησις, and θλίβειν, θλίψις, occur again and again. In the rendering of the first our translators are divided between comfort and consolation, and of the second between ¢ribulation, trouble, and affliction. Again in the opening of the second chapter, where — the tone is given to the paragraph by the frequent repetition of λύπη, λυπεῖν, we have three distinct renderings, heaviness, sorrow, gricf. Again in the third chapter several instances of this fault occur. In the first verse this passion for variety is curiously illustrated. They render συστατικῶν ἐπιστολῶν πρὸς ο΄ ὑμᾶς ἢ ἐξ ὑμῶν συστατικῶν by ‘ Epistles of commenda- β tion to you or /¢ters of commendation from you,’ __ where even in supplying a word (which were better left out altogether) they make a change, though in the original the adjectives refer to the same substan- _ tive. In this same chapter again they hover between sufficient and able as a rendering of ἱκανές, ἱκανοῦν,Ἠ Ὁ taverns (vv. - A 6), while later on they interchange a ai ἥν, Ἱ ? i a sf). be δὰ» Ὁ} 38 Errors and Defects. abolish and done away for καταργεῖσθαι (vv. 7, 13, 14); and fail to preserve the connexion of ἀνακεκαλυμμένῳ (ver. 18) with κάλυμμα (ver. 13 sq.) and ἀνακαλυπτό- μενον (ver. 14), and of κεκαλυμμένον (iv. 3) with all three. Again in the fifth chapter ἐνδημεῖν is ren- dered in the same context 20 be at home and ¢o be present (vv. 6, 8, 9), where the former rendering more- over in ver. 6 obscures the direct opposition to ἐκδη- μεῖν, this last word being rendered throughout 20 de absent; and a little later (ver. 10) τοὺς πάντας ἡμᾶς φανερωθῆναι κ. τ. Δ. is translated ‘We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ,’ where, indepen- dently of the fatal objection that appear gives a wrong sense (for the context lays stress on the manz- Jestation of men’s true characters at the great day), this rendering is still further faulty, as severing the connexion with what follows immediately (ver. 11), ‘We are made manifest (πεφανερώμεθα) unto God, and I trust also are made manifest (πεφανερῶσθαι) in your consciences. Again in vii. 7 consolation and comfort are once more interchanged for παρακαλεῖν, παράκλη- σις ; in Vili. 10, 11, 12, τὸ θέλειν is translated 20 be for- ward and 120 will, and προθυμία readiness and a willing mind in successive verses; in ix. 2, 3, 4, 5, veady and prepared are both employed in rendering παρεσκεύ- ἄσται, παρεσκευασμένοι, ἀπαρασκευάστους, while con- versely the single expression ‘be ready’ is made to represent both παρεσκεύασται and ἑτοίμην εἶναι; in X. 13, 15, 16, κανών, after being twice translated rule, is varied in the third passage by dine; in xi. τό, . a more, we Ν᾽. - τ ὐτοδττρυλδυλρς pomaets ἐ ie ἜΝ Distinctions created. Ὁ 39 17, 18 the rendering of καυχᾶσθαι, καύχησις is di- versified by doast and glory ; and in xii. 2, 3 οὐκ οἶδα, ὁ Θεὸς οἶδεν, is twice translated ‘I cannot tell, God knoweth, while elsewhere in these same verses οἶδα is rendered ‘I knew,’ and οὐκ οἶδα, ‘I cannot tell? This repugnance to repeating the same word for οἶδα has a parallel in John xvi. 30, where viv οἴδαμεν ὅτι οἶδας _ qravtais given ‘Now are we sure that thou kuowest all things.’ : | Nor is there any improvement in the later books, as the following instances, taken almost at random from a very large number which might have been adduced, will show: Phil. ii. 13 ‘It is God which worketh (évep- γῶν) in you, both to will and 20 do (évepyetv)’; Phil. iii. 3 sq. ‘And have no confidence (ob πεποιθότες) ἴῃ the flesh; Though I might also have confidence (ἔχων reTroiOnow) in the flesh; If any other man thinketh that he hath — ἊΝ whereof he might trust (δοκεῖ πεποιθέναι) in the flesh, | I more...as touching the law (κατὰ νόμον) a Phasiseaaae . = concerning zeal (κατὰ ζῆλος) persecuting the Church; ἃ τ touching the righteousness (κατὰ δικαιοσύνην) which is 7 Ἕ in the law, blameless’: 1 Thess. ii.4 ‘As we were allowed ᾿ (δεδοκιμάσμεθα) of God...not as pleasing men but a ᾿ς God which ¢rieth (δοκιμάξοντι) our hearts’: 2 ΤῊ ἔν iA. ὁ 9 To recompense ¢ribulation to them ΕΣ t ae you A secileaeten τοῖς es tds hae? 40 Ἔγγογς and Defects. a man with a gold ring zz goodly apparel (ἐν ἐσθῆτι λαμπρῷ) and there come 771 (εἰσέλ θη) also a poor man in vile vazment (ἐσθῆτι), and ye have respect to him that weareth che gay clothing (τὴν ἐσθῆτα τὴν λαμ- mpav) etc.’: 2 Pet. ii. 1, 3 ‘Who privily shall bring in damnable heresies (αἱρέσεις ἀπωλείας)... αηἀ bring on themselves swift destruction (ἀπώλειαν)... πα their damnation (ἀπώλεια) slumbereth not’: 1 John v. 9, 10 ‘This is the wztness (μαρτυρία) of God which he hath testified (μεμαρτύρηκεν) of his Son...He believeth not the record (μαρτυρίαν) that God gave (μεμαρτύ- pnxev) of his Son’: Rev. i. 15 ‘His voice (φωνή) as the sound (φωνή) of many waters’: iii. 17 ‘I am rich (πλούσιος) and zucreased in goods (πεπλούτηκα) : XVii. 6, 7 ‘And when I saw her, I wondered (ἐθαύμασα) with great admiration (θαῦμα); and the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel (ἐθαύμασας) : xviii. 2 ‘And the hold (φυλακή) of every foul spirit and ὦ cage (φυλακὴ) of every unclean and hateful bird.’ In the instances hitherto given the variation of rendering is comparatively unimportant, but for this very reason they serve well to illustrate the wrong principle on which our translators proceeded. In such cases no more serious consequences may re- sult than a loss of point and force. But elsewhere the injury done to the understanding of the pas- sage is graver. Thus when the English reader finds in S. Matthew xxv. 46 ‘These shall go away ᾿ into everlasting (αἰώνιον) punishment, but the righte- ous into life eternal (αἰώνιον), he is led to speculate I wy ν 6 i a ay AMT ‘ nie elie “τε ΕΟ, Distinctions created. AI on the difference of meaning between ‘everlasting’ and ‘eternal,’ if he happens to have any slight ac- quaintance with modern controversy, and he will most probably be led to a wrong conclusion by ob- serving different epithets used, more especially as the antithesis of the clauses helps to emphasize the dif- ference. Or take instances where the result will not be misunderstanding, but non-understanding. Thus in the apocalyptic passage 2 Thess. ii. 6, 7 ‘And now ye know what withholdeth (τὸ κατέχον)... only he who now éféteth (ὁ κατέχων ἄρτι) will let,’ the same word should certainly have been repeated, that the identity of the thing signified might be clear; and in the doctrinal statement, Col. il. 9, 10, ‘In him dwelleth all the fulness (τὸ πλήρωμα) of the Godhead bodily, and ye are complete (πεπληρωμένοι) in him,’ it was still more necessary to preserve the connexion by a similar rendering, for the main idea of the second clause is the communication of the πλήρωμα which resides in Christ to the believers (comp. Ephes. i. 23). Again, the word @povos in the Revelation is trans- lated ¢hrone, when it refers to our Lord, but sea¢, when it refers to the faithful (iv. 4, xi. 16"), or when it refers to Satan (ii. 13, xvi. 10). Now by this varia- tion, as Archbishop Trench has pointed out’, two great ideas which run through this Book, and indeed - we may say through the whole of the New Testa-_ 1 Rev. iv. 4 ‘And round the throne (θρόνου) were four and twenty seats (θρόνοι).᾽ 7 2 On the Authorized Version, Ὁ. 53 sq. 42 Errors and Defects. ment, are obliterated; the one that the true servants of Christ are crowned with Him and share His sove- reignty ; the other, that the antagonism of the Prince of Darkness to the Prince of Light develops itself in ‘the hellish parody of the heavenly kingdom.’ And in other passages again the connexion between dif- ferent parts of the same discourse or the same nar- rative is severed. Thus in S. Luke xix. 13, 15, the nobleman going into a far country gives charge to his servants πραγματεύσασθε ἐν ᾧ ἔρχομαι, and when he returns, he summons them ἵνα γνῷ [or γνοῖ] τίς τι διεπραγματεύσαντο. If the former had been translated ‘7vrade ye till I come,’ it would then have corresponded to the nobleman’s subsequent demand of them to ‘know how much each man had gained by ¢rading.” But the rendering of our translators, ‘Occupy till I come, besides involving a somewhat unintelligible archaism disconnects the two, and the ‘first indication which the English reader gets that the servants were expected to employ the money in trade is when the master at length comes to reckon with them. ~Another instance, where the con- nexion is not indeed wholly broken (for the context will not suffer this) but greatly impaired, is Matt. v. 15,16 λάμπει πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐν TH οἰκίᾳ οὕτως λαμψάτω τὸ φῶς ὑμῶν ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ἀνθρώπων, which should run ‘It sizeth upon all that are in the house: Lven so let your light sizve before men, etc.’ But in our trans- lation, ‘It giveth light unto all that are in the house: _ Let your light so shine before men that they may 566 3 Distinctions created. 43 -- your good works, etc.,’ the two sentences are detached from each other by the double error, of rendering λάμπει, λαμψάτω, by different words, and of misun- derstanding οὕτως. I say ‘misunderstanding,’ because , the alternative that ‘so’ is a mere ambiguity of expression seems to be precluded by the fact that in our Communion Service the words ‘ Let your light so shine before men, εἴς, detached from their con- text, are chosen as the zzztza/ sentence at the Offer- tory, where the correct meaning, ‘in like manner,’ could not stand. This love of variety might be still further illus- trated by their treatment of the component parts of words. Thus there is no reason why πολυμέρως καὶ πολυτρόπως in Heb. i. 1 should be translated ‘At sundry times and in dzvers manners,’ even though for want οἵ a better word we should allow the very in- adequate rendering ¢zmes to pass muster, where the original points to the divers farts of one great com- prehensive scheme. And again in Mark xii. 39 (comp. Matt. xxiii. 6) it is equally difficult to see why πρω- τοκαθεδρίας ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς καὶ πρωτοκλισίας ἐν τοῖς δείπνοις should be rendered ‘the chief seats in the synagogues and the uppermost rooms at feasts.’ On the archaic rendering ‘room’ for the second element in πρωτοκλισία, I shall have something to say hereafter. . . These instances which have been given will suf- fice. But in fact examples, illustrating this miscon- ception of a translator’s duty, are sown broadcast over Ὧ ᾿ 44 Errors and Defects. our New Testament, so that there is scarcely a page without one or more. It is due to our translators however to say, that in many cases, which I have examined, they only perpetuated and did not intro- duce the error, which may often be traced to Tyndale himself, from whom our version is ultimately derived: and in some instances his variations are even greater than theirs. Thus in a passage already quoted, 1 Cor. xii. 4 sq., he has three different renderings of διαιρέσεις in the three successive clauses, where they have only two; ‘Ther are diversities of gyftes verely, yet but one sprete, and ther are differences of admini- stration and yet but one lorde, and ther are divers maners of operacions and yet but one God’; and in Rom. xvi his interchanges of ‘salute’ and ‘greet’ are still more frequent than theirs. Of all the English Versions the Rhemish alone has paid attention to this point, and so far compares advantageously with the rest, to which in most other respects it is con- fessedly inferior. And I suppose that the words of our translators’ preface, in which they attempt to jus- tify their course, must refer indirectly to this Roman ‘Catholic Version, more especially as I find that its ‘Latinisms are censured in the same paragraph. If ἢ ‘so, it is to be regretted that prejudice should have blinded them to a consideration of some importance. But not only is it necessary to preserve the same word in the same context and in the same book; equal care should be taken to secure uniformity, where it occurs in the same connexion in different ᾧ ‘ τῇ 4 ες - Distinctions created. 45 passages and different books. Thus, where quota- tions are given once or more from the Old Testament in the New, the rendering should exhibit (as far as possible) the exact coincidence with or divergence from the original and one another in the language. Again, when the same discourses or the same inci- dents are recorded by different Evangelists, it is especially important to reproduce the features of the original, neither obliterating nor creating differences. Again, in parallel passages in allied epistles, as for instance those of S. Paul to the Romans and Gala- tians, or to the Colossians and Ephesians, or the Epi- stle of S. Jude and the Second Epistle of S. Peter, the exact amount of resemblance should be repro- duced, because questions of date and authenticity are affected thereby. Again, in the writings which claim the same authorship, as for instance the Gospel and Epistles and the Apocalypse of S. John, the simi- larity of diction should be preserved. Though this will be a somewhat laborious task, let us hope that our new revisers will exercise constant vigilance in this matter. As the authors of our Received Version allowed themselves so much licence in the same con- text, it is no surprise that they did not pay any at- tention to these coincidences of language which occur in separate parts of the New Testament, and which did not therefore force themselves on their notice. Of their mode of dealing with quotations from the Old Testament, one or two instances will suffice by way of illustration. 46 Errors and Defects. Deut. xxxii. 35 is twice quoted in exactly the same words. In our English Version it appears in these two forms. Rom. xii. 19. Heb. κ᾿. 30; Vengeance is mine: I will Vengeance belongeth un- repay, saith the Lord. to me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. Again, the same words Gen. xv. 6 (LXX) ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην are given with these variations: Rom. iv. 3 ‘It was counted unto him for righteous- ness’; Rom. iv. 22 ‘It was zmputed unto him for right- eousness’; Gal. iii. 6 ‘It was accounted to him for righteousness’ (with a marginal note ‘or zmputed’); James ii. 23 ‘It was zmputed to him for righteous- ness’; while in an indirect reference to it, Rom. iv. 9, (in the immediate context of two of these divergent renderings) a still further variation is introduced, ‘We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteous- ness.’ Again, καλύψει πλῆθος ἁμαρτιῶν (from Prov. x. 12) is translated in James v. 20 ‘shall Azde a multi- tude of sins,’ and in I Pet. iv. 8 ‘shall cover the mul- titude of sins’ (with a marginal reading ‘will’ for ‘ shall’). The variation in the last instance which I shall give is still more astonishing, because the two quo- — tations of the same passage (Ps. xcv. 11) occur in the same context. . | ae | Distinctions created. — ὌΠ ΕΝ ΠΕΙΘΟΙ͂, it, IT. Heb. iv. 3. Sol sware in my wrath, As I have sworn in my They shall not enter into wrath, /f they shall enter my rest. into my rest. Here there is absolutely no difference in the Greek of the two passages; and, as the argument is conti- - . nuous, no justification of the various renderings can be imagined. On the parallel narratives of the different Evange- lists it will not be necessary to dwell, because this part of the subject has been discussed at some length -* elsewhere*. I will content myself with three exam- _ ples. The first, which affects only the diction, is a fair sample of the defects of our Version in this respect, because it is in no way striking or exceptional. Matt. xvi. 26. { Mark viii. 36. | Lukeix.25. ὁ Te yap ὠφε- Te yap ὠφε- Ti γὰρ ὠφε- Be ᾿ λεῦῖται ἄνθρωπος, | λήσει ἄνθρωπον, | λεῖται ἄνθρωπος, ΑΝ A , aN ’ \ ͵ . , ». εὰν τον κοσμον εαν κερδήσῃ TOV κερδήσας TOV Κοσ- ΕΣ ᾿ ὅλον κερδήσῃ, τὴν κόσμον ὅλον, καὶ | μον ὅλον, ἑαυτὸν Ἀὶ ᾿ δὲ ψυχὴν αὐτοῦ | ζημιωθῇ τὴν ψυ- ζημιωθῇ; | ny adtod ; = ‘For what is | ‘For what shall . man profited, | it profit a man, fhe shall gain | if he shall gain | the whole world mn | and lose his own δὲ ἀπολέσας ἢ μ τ ᾿. yay ᾿ ξημιωθείς "Ὁ ae ‘For what ον 48 Errors and Defects. Here the coincidences and divergences of the first two Evangelists are fairly preserved ; but the relations of the third to either are wholly confused or obli- terated. My second example shall be of a different kind ; where the variation introduced affects not the ex- pression only, but the actual interpretation. In the explanation of the parable of the sower in 5. Mark iv. 16 οἱ ἐπὶ τὰ πετρώδη σπειρόμενον 15 properly translated ‘they which ave sown on stony eround, and the corresponding expressions are treat- ed similarly; but in S. Matthew xiii. 20 6 ἐπὶ τὰ πετρώδη σπαρείς becomes, ‘He that received the seed into stony places, where (besides minor variations) the person is substituted for the seed, and the ’corre- sponding expressions throughout the parable are ma- nipulated similarly in defiance of grammar. This rendering is unhappy on many accounts. Besides making the Evangelists say different things, it has the still further disadvantage, that it destroys one main idea in the parable, the zdentification (for the purposes of the parable) of the seed when sown with the person himself, so that the life and growth and decay of the one are coincident with the life and growth and decay of the other. The form of ex- pression in S. Luke (viii. 14 τὸ δὲ εἰς Tas ἀκάνθας πεσὸν "οὗτοι εἰσὶν of ἀκούσαντες) brings out this identity more prominently ; but it is expressed not obscurely in the other Evangelists, and should not have been obli- terated by our translators in one of them through an ungrammatical paraphrase.. | Distinctions created. 49 My third example concerns the treatment of a sin- gle word. In the account of the scenes preceding the Crucifixion, mention is made of a certain building which by three of the Evangelists is-called πραιτώ- pov. In 5. Matthew (xxvii. 27) it is translated ‘com- mon-hall, with a marginal alternative ‘governor’s house’; in 5. John (xviii. 28, 33, xix. 9) ‘hall of judg- — ment’ and ‘judgment-hall,’ with a marginal alterna- tive ‘Pilate’s house’ in the first passage; while in S. Mark (xv. 16) it is reproduced in the English as ‘pretorium. It should be added that this same word when it occurs in the same-sense, though referring to a different locality, in Acts xxiii. 35 is rendered ‘judg- ment-hall, though a ‘judgment-hall’ would obviously be an unfit place to keep a prisoner in ward; and 3 _ again in Phil. 1. 13 ἐν ὅλῳ TO πραιτωρίῳ (where pro- _ bably it signifies the ‘pratorian army,’ but where our _ English translators have taken it to mean another such building) it appears as ‘palace.’ This last ren- dering might very properly have been adopted in all the passages in the Gospels and Acts, as 3 ἀξ ΉἘ ; a expressing the meaning. a So also in those epistles which are allied to eacl 3 other’ Gees treatment of panko words ant Bas S- - _ eee es ἐν Ἢ Pe ; δὰ a: es already εἱ given, though ther : 50 Errors and Defects. subject, all probably will agree on the main point that it is advisable to preserve uniformity of render- ing. The illustration which I shall next select is more open to criticism; and, as Archbishop Trench and Dean Alford and the Five Clergymen all take a different view from my own’, I can hardly hope that my argument will carry general conviction. Yet the case seems to be strong. I refer to the translation of παράκλητος in the Gospel and in the First Epistle of S. John. In the former it is consistently trans- lated Comforter (xiv. 16, 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7), while in the one passage where it occurs in the latter (ii. 1) the rendering Advocate is adopted. Is there suffi- cient reason for this difference? No one probably would wish to alter the word ‘Advocate’ in the Epistle, for the expressions in the context, ‘ with the Father, ‘Jesus Christ the righteous (δίκαιον), ‘a pro- pitiation for our sins, fix the sense, so that the pas- Sage presents a sufficiently close parallel with the common forensic language of S. Paul (e.g. Rom. iii. 24—26). But why should the same word be rendered ‘Comforter’ in the Gospel? Now I think it may fairly be maintained firsz, that the word παράκλητος in itself means ‘Advocate’ and cannot mean ‘Com- forter’; and secondly, that the former rendering is more. 1 To the same effect also writes Archdeacon Hare, Mission of the Comforter, Note J, p. 523, ‘At present so many sacred associations have connected themselves for generation after generation with the name. of the Comforter, that it would seem something like an act of sacrilege to change it.” Yet he agrees substantially with the view of the meaning which I have maintained in the text. * ᾿ rr . 4 : pe ἢ a % Distinctions created. ius Ἴ appropriate to the context in all the passages in which it occurs. On the frst point—the meaning of the word— usage appears to be decisive. It commonly signifies ‘one who is summoned to the side of another (παρα- καλεῖται) to aid him in a court of justice, and more particularly ‘an advocate’ or ‘a pleader,’ being ap- plied especially to the ‘counsel for the defence*’ ; nor, so far as I am aware, does it ever bear any other sense, except perhaps in some later ecclesiastical writers whose language has been influenced by a false inter- pretation of these passages in S. John. In other words παράκλητος is passive, not active; one who παρακαλεῖται, not one who παρακαλεῖ; one who ‘is summoned to plead a cause,’ not one who ‘ex- horts or encourages or comforts.’ Nor indeed, if we compare the simple word κλητός and the other compounds ἀνάκλητος, ἔγκλητος, ἔκκλητος, ἐπίκλητος, meres etc, or if we observe the general rule affecting adjectives similarly formed from transitive — ἐν verbs, does it seem easy to assign an active sense e aise Gee iees: was reached by atte ; “ai ' τς ΠΕ . 4 is (ae yee 7 to παράκλητος. Yet it can hardly be doubted that — ae ‘on "ἡ Bakes: uy Ν nas ae ih Pit ae » τ 55 Errors and Defects. clete, is again and again explained by the Fathers — as one who παρακαλεῖ, encourages or comforts men ; and the fact that even Greek writers are found to - explain the word thus is the only substantial argu- ment (so far as I know) which has been brought against the view here maintained. It is urged indeed that the word ‘Comforter, being derived from the Latin ‘confortator,’ ‘strengthener,’ and therefore im- plying something more than ‘comfort’ in the re- stricted sense of ‘consolation, adequately represents the function of the παράκλητος who thus strengthens the cause and confirms the courage of the accused at the bar of justice. But the history of the interpreta- tion, as already given, shows that this rendering was not reached in the way assumed, but was based ο ἃ grammatical error; and therefore this account can only be accepted as an apology after the fact and not as an explanation of the fact. Moreover it is not fair 1 So Origen de Princ. ii. 7 (I. p. 93), a passage which unfortunately is extant only in the Latin, but in which (if correctly represented) Origen takes παράκλητος both in the Gospel and in the Epistle in an active sense, explaining it however consolator in the Gospel and deprecator in the Epistle. See also Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. xvi. 20 (P. ᾿ 2 παράκλητος δὲ καλεῖται διὰ τὸ παρακαλεῖν καὶ παραμυθεῖσθαι καὶ συν λαμβάνεσθαι τῆς ἀσθενείας ἡμῶν. And many of the Greek Fa | pine it similarly. The fact to be observed is, that even Epistle, where it manifestly has the sense ‘ Advocate,’ they ἣ _ derive it from παρακαλεῖν and not παρακαλεῖσθαι, thus g jediive force; whereas the easier quoted in the last note Distinctions created. 53 translating to substitute a subordinate and accidental conception for the leading sense of a word. And lastly, whatever may be the derivation of ‘Com- forter, the word does not now suggest this idea to the English reader. But secondly, if ‘Advocate’ is the only sense which παράκλητος can properly bear, it is also (as I cannot but think) the sense which the context sug- gests, wherever the word is used in the Gospel. In other words, the idea of pleading, arguing, convincing, instructing, convicting, is prominent in every in- stance’. Thus in xiv. 16 sq. the Paraclete is described as the ‘ Spirit of ¢rath’ whose reasonings fall dead on the ear of the world, and are vocal only to the faith- ful (ὃ ὁ κόσμος οὐ δύναται λαβεῖν.. ὑμεῖς γινώσκετε αὐτό). In xiv. 26 again the function of the Paraclete is described in similar language, ‘ He shall teach you all things and remind you of all things.’ In xv. 26 He is once more designated the ‘ Spirit of truth,’ and here the office assigned to Him is to bear witness of Christ. And lastly in xvi. 7 sq. the idea of the p/eader appears still more definitely in the context, for it is there declared that ‘He shall convince’ or ‘convict (ἐλέγξει) the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment.’ And generally it may be said that the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, is represented in these 1 In xiv. 18 the English Version, ‘I will not leave you ccom/fortless, lends a fictitious aid to the sense ‘Comforter,’ to which the original οὐκ ἀφήσω ὑμᾶς ὀρφανοὺς gives no encouragement. The margin however offers the alternative ‘orphans’ for dppavovs. _ ἧς 54. — Errors and Defects. passages as the Advocate, the Counsel, who sug- gests true reasonings to our minds and true courses of action for our lives, who convicts our adversary the World of wrong and pleads our cause before God our Father. In short the conception (though some- what more comprehensive) is substantially the same as in S. Paul’s language when describing the function of the Holy Ghost; ‘The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are children of God,’ ‘The Spirit helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which can- __ not be uttered (Rom. viii. 16, 26) Thus, whether we regard the origin of the word, or whether we consider the requirements of the con- text!, it would seem that ‘Comforter’ should give 1 In a case like this we should naturally expect tradition to aid in determining the correct sense, and for this purpose should apply to the earliest versions as giving it in its best authenticated form; but in — the instance before us they do not render as much assistance as usual. Ὁ (1) The Old Zatim seems certainly to have had 4 dvocatus originally — τῇ in all the four passages of the Gospel, as also in the passag2 of e _ Epistle. It is true that in the existing texts Paracletus (or Paracl τ occurs in one or more of the panes and in some MSS in tis oth ᾿ eecisive on this point So far Heche tradition favours t \tainmng. Jerome retained the Greek word ‘Pare ve ‘Advocatus’ in the Epistle. It wor ἃ 8 acletus’ had already displaced ‘ Advocatus in 5 el in one or more of the many oe the 1€ fourth φάμα. t i Distinctions created. ss way to ‘Advocate,’ as the interpretation of παράκλητος. The word ‘Comforter’ does indeed express a true office of the Holy Spirit, as our most heartfelt expe- riences will tell us. Nor has the rendering, though inadequate, been without its use in fixing this fact in our minds; but the function of the Paraclete, as our Advocate, is even more important, because wider and deeper than this. Nor will the idea of the ‘Com- forter’ be lost to us by the change, for the English Te Deum will still remain to recal this office of the Paraclete to our remembrance; while the restora- tion of the correct rendering in the passages of S. John’s Gospel will be in itself an unmixed gain. Moreover (and this is no unimportant fact) the lan- guage of the Gospel will thus be linked in the English Version, as it is in the original, with the lan- guage of the Epistle. In this there will be a twofold advantage. We shall see fresh force in the words — thus rendered, ‘He will give you another Advocate,’ sae In the Egyptian Versions also this is generally the case. ned , ΒΕ. τὐρ ας agen ὦ Susan in all the pester ! the ae itt fe ‘One that prayeth (entreateth) αὐ! fae el (a ene in xiv. wae xv. 26) the Greek Che ge cea when we remember that our Lord is styled by ἍΝ 5: need our “Advocate; : the Advocacy of Ch ry « 4 FY. Ψν» ΑΝ 4 56 Errors and Defects. of the Spirit. At the same time we shall bring out another of the many coincidences, tending to establish an identity of authorship in the Gospel and Epistle, and thus to make valid for the former all the evi- dences external and internal which may be adduced to prove the genuineness of the latter. This connexion between the Gospel and the Epistle leads me to another illustration, which links the Gospel with the Apocalypse. The idea that the Shechinah, the σκηνή, the glory which betokened the Divine Presence in the Holy of Holies, and which was wanting to the second temple, would be restored once more in Messiah’s days, was a cherished hope of the Jewish doctors during and after the Apostolic ages. In the Apocalypse S. John more than once avails himself of imagery derived from this expectation. Thus vii. 15 ‘He that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them (σκηνώσει ἐπ᾽ αὐτούς} : xiii. 6 ‘He opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name and His éabernacle (σκηνήν), and them that dwell (τοὺς σκηνοῦντας) in heaven’; xxi. 3 ‘Behold the ¢aber- nacle (σκηνὴ) of God is with men, and He will dwell with them (σκηνώσει μετ᾽ αὐτῶν) Here it is much to be regretted that the necessities of the English lan- guage required our translators to render the substan< tive σκηνὴ by one word and the verb σκηνοῦν by another. In the first passage the significance is entirely lost by translating σκηνώσει ‘shall dwell’ combined with the erroneous rendering of ἐπέ: and no English reader would suspect the reference to the ’ . / Distinctions created. 57 glory, the Shechinah, hovering over the mercy-seat'. But our regret is increased when we turn to the Gospel: for there also the same image reappears in the Greek, but is obliterated by the English render- ing; ‘The Word was made flesh, and dwelt (ἐσκήνω- σεν) among us, and we beheld His glory. The two writings, which attribute the name of the Word of God to the Incarnate Son, are the same also which especially connect MeSsiah’s Advent with the restitu- tion of the Shechinah, the light or glory which is the visible token of God’s presence among men. In this instance the usage of the English language may have deterred our translators. Still they would have _ earned our gratitude, if following the precedent of the Latin zabernaculavit they had anticipated later scholars and introduced the verb ‘to tabernacle’ into the English language; or failing this, if by some _ slight periphrasis they had endeavoured to preserve afc the unity of idea. τὰ In other cases where artificial distinctions are in- duced, our translators must be held blameless, for the exigencies of the English ἰαδβῶβος left them no ope “choice. Thus in John iii. 8 τὸ πνεῦμα (the wind) ᾿ ere bey fee ΝΥ Beet τ πνεῖ ja Pop tg ἐπ οόέθιι ἐστὶν πᾶς ὁ ye es i 8 " bas i tly y acquiesce in ‘an the different renderings, t 58 Errors and Defects. the comparison between the material and immaterial πνεῦμα is impaired thereby ; just as in a later passage (xx. 22 ἐνεφύσησεν καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς, Λάβετε Ivedua arytov) the symbolical act of breathing on the disciples — loses much of its force to an English reader. Again it might be necessary to vary the renderings of ψύχη between ‘soul’ and ‘life’; and of σώξειν between ‘to save’ and ‘to make whole.’ But in case of the former word such variations as we find for instance in Matth. xvi. 25, 26, and the parallel passages, deserve to be reconsidered; and in their treatment of the latter, as Dean Alford has shown’, our translators have diver- sified the rendering capriciously. And the same excuse also holds good with an- other class of words; where a faronomasia occurs in the original, but where it is impossible in English at once to preserve the similarity of sound and to give the sense adequately. In Phil. iii. 2, 3 indeed our les translators, following some of the earlier versions, — i: have endeavoured to reproduce the paronomasia, ‘ Be- ὦ ware of the concision (κατατομήν), for we are the cir- Σ 4147712.51071 (περιτομή); ; but oe result is δῶν enc " urag ἢ sae any idea to the English reader. Agata attempt is made in Rom. xii. 3 μὴ ὑπερφρονεῖν παρ δεῖ φρονεῖν, ἀλλὰ φρονεῖν εἰς τὸ σωφρονεῖν, but wit Ἢ ee δθροῦθε, for in ae RR ‘not He 1 Distinctions created, 59 On the other hand the rendering of 1 Cor. vii. 31 οἱ χρώμενοι τούτῳ τῷ κόσμῳ [2 τὸν κόσμον) ὡς μὴ κατα- χρώμενοι, ‘they that wse this world as not abusing it,’ is adequate. In other passages such as Acts viii. 30 γινώσκεις ἃ ἀναγινώσκεις ‘understandest thou what thou readest?’, 2 Cor. ili. 2 γινωσκομένη καὶ ἀναγινω- σκομένη ‘known and read,’ 2 Cor. i. 13 ἃ ἀναγινώσκετε ἢ καὶ ἐπιγινώσκετε ‘what you read or acknowledge,’ 2 Cor. x. 12 ov τολμῶμεν ἐγκρῖναν ἢ συγκρῖναι ἑαυτούς ‘we dare not make ourselves of the number or compare ourselves, it would be impossible to reproduce the effect of the original. But in other cases such as 1 Cor. xii. 2 ὡς ἂν ἤγεσθε, ἀπαγόμενοι ‘carried away as ye were led,’ 2 Cor. iv. ὃ ἀπορούμενοι ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐξαπο- povpevos ‘we are perplexed but not in despair,’ or ᾿ς 2 Cor. vi. 10 ὡς μηδὲν ἔχοντες Kal πάντα κατέχοντες ‘as _ having nothing and yet possessing all things, the | ᾿ rendering might be improved. Nor is there any _ reason why the play on ἐργαζομένους, περιεργαζομένους, τ it. 2 Thess. iii. 11 should not be preserved by ‘ busi-_ cit , ness; ey Pauies ; or why in Ephes. v. 15 μὴ OF a ᾿ ἄσοφοι ἀλλ᾽ ὡς σοφοὶ should not be rendered ‘not as ae ah but a as wise.” ἤν δὴν latter Passage ae: Ww =. fa 60 Errors and Defects. § 3. From the creation of artificial distinctions in our English Version by different renderings of the same word we pass naturally to the opposite fault, the ob- literation of real distinctions by the same rendering of different words. The former error is easily cor- rected for the most part; the latter not always so. For the synonyms of one language frequently cannot be reproduced in another without a harsh expression or a cumbersome paraphrase. Thus οἶδα, γινώσκω, ἔγνωκα, ἐπίσταμαι, have different shades of meaning in Greek, but the obvious equivalent for each in English is ‘I know. Still some effort should be made (though success is not always possible) to dis- criminate between them, where they occur in the same context, and where therefore their position throws a special emphasis on the distinction. Thus in Acts xix. 15 we should not acquiesce in ‘Jesus I know, and Paul I know,’ as a rendering of τὸν Ἰησοῦν γινώσκω καὶ Tov ἸΤαῦλον ἐπίσταμαι, though all the preceding translations unite with our Authorised Version in obliterating the difference. The sig- nificant distinction which is made in the original between the kind of recognition in the case of the Divine agent and of the human instrument may easily be preserved by rendering, ‘Jesus I acknow- — Distinctions obliterated. 6r ledge and Paul 1 kxow.’ Again in such passages as 2 Cor. v. 16 ἀπὸ τοῦ viv οὐδένα οἴδαμεν κατὰ σάρκα, εἰ καὶ ἐγνώκαμεν κατὰ σάρκα Χριστόν, ἀλλὰ νῦν οὐκέτι γινώσκομεν (and this is a type of a large class of passages, where οἶδα and γινώσκω occur together) some improvement should be attempted; nor in the instance given could there be any difficulty in varying the rendering, though elsewhere the task might not prove so easy. From these allied words I pass on to the distinc- tion between γινώσκειν and ἐπιγινώσκειν, which is both clearer and more easily dealt with. Those who have paid any attention to the language of S. Paul will recognise the force of the substantive ἐπίγνωσις as denoting the advanced or perfect knowledge which is the ideal state of the true Christian, and will remem- _ ber that it appears only in his later epistles (from the Romans onwards), where the more contemplative aspects of the Gospel are brought into view and its comprehensive and eternal relations more fully set Ὁ forth. But the power of the preposition appears in the verb, no less than in the substantive; and indeed its significance is occasionally forced upon our notice, _ where the simple and the compound verb appear in _ the same context. Thus in 1 Cor. xiii. 12 ἄρτι y- γώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπυγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπ- ᾿ εγνώσθην, the partial knowledge (γινώσκειν ἐκ μέρους, comp. ver. 9) is contrasted with the full knowledge though our translators have rendered both words by Retain? i "= ie . pls - (ἐπιγινώσκειν) which shall be attained hereafter, (ἐπιγινώι i ἘΣ 62 Errors and Defects. ‘know.’ Yet strangely enough, where the special force of the. compound was less obvious, it has not escaped them; for in 2 Cor. vi. 9 ὡς ayvoovmevor Kat ἐπυγινωσκόμενον is translated ‘as unknown and yet well known.’ In this particular—the observance of the distinc- tion between a simple word and its derivatives com- pounded with prepositions—our English Version is especially faulty. The verb κρίνειν and its compounds will supply a good illustration. 5. Paul especially - delights to accumulate these; and thus by harping upon words (if I may use the expression) to empha- size great spiritual truths or important personal ex- periences. Thus he puts together συγκρίνειν, ἀνακρί- νειν, I Cor. ii, 13—15; κρίνειν, avaxpivew, 1 Cor. iv. 3, 43 ἐγκρίνειν, συγκρίνειν, 2 Cor. x. 12; κρίνειν, διακρί- νειν, 1 Cor. vi. I—6; κρίνειν, διακρίνειν, κατακρίνειν, Rom. xiv. 22, 23, 1 Cor. xi. 29, 31, 32; κρίνειν, κατα- κρίνειν, Rom. ii. 1. Now it seems impossible in most cases, without a sacrifice of English which no one would be prepared to make, to reproduce the similarity of sound or the identity of root; but the distinction of sense should always be preserved. How this is neg- lected in our Version, and what confusion ensues from the neglect, the following instances will show. In 1 Cor. iv. 3, 4, 5, ἐμοὶ δὲ εἰς ἐλάχιστόν ἐστιν ἵνα ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν ἀνακριθῶ..«ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ ἐμαυτὸν ἀνακρίνω...ὁ δὲ ἀνακρίνων με Κύριός ἐστιν...«ὥστε μὴ πρὸ καιροῦ τ. κρίνετε, ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ὁ Κύριος, ὃς καὶ φωτίσει τὰ κρυπτὰ τοῦ σκότους, the word ἀνακρίνειν is translated through- o* δὰ a = die La Distinctions obliterated. 63 out ‘judge’; while in a previous passage, I Cor. il. 14; I5, it is rendered indifferently ‘to discern’ and ‘to judge. But dvaxpivew is neither ‘to judge, which is κρίνειν, nor ‘to discern,’ which is διακρίνειν, but ‘to examine, investigate, enquire into, question,’ as it is rightly translated elsewhere, e.g. 1 Cor. ix. 3, x. 25, . 27; and the correct understanding of the passage be- fore us depends on our retaining this sense. The ἀνάκρισις, it will be remembered, was an Athenian law term for a preliminary investigation (distinct from the actual κρίσις or trial), in which evidence was collected and the prisoner committed for trial, if a true bill was found against him. It corresponded in _ short mutatis mutandis to the part taken in English law proceedings by the grand jury. And this is sub- stantially the force of the word here. The Apostle _ condemns all these impatient human pr@judicia, these 7 23 unauthorised ἀνακρίσεις, which anticipate the final δ ᾿ κρίσις, reserving his case for the great tribunal when x at length αἰ the evidence will be forthcoming anda ae satisfactory verdict can be given. Meanwhile this Bees of gathering evidence has begun; an avaxpicis — is indeed being held, not however by these self-ap- Ὁ ᾿ pointed magistrates, but by One who alone has the ~ ids authority to institute ‘the enquiry, and the ability to. Ἃ a i ft the facts: ὁ δὲ ἀνακρίνων με Κύριός ἐ ἐστιν. Of "ἢ a1 [ technical sense of the word the New Test: | g d ae The exan 64 Errors and Defects. how he had directed the prisoner to be brought into — court (προήγαγον αὐτόν) in order that, having held the preliminary enquiry usual in such cases (τῆς ava- κρίσεως γενομένης), he might be able to lay the case before the emperor (Acts xxv. 26). Thus 5. Paul’s meaning here suffers very seriously by the wrong turn given to avaxpivewy; nor is this the only passage where the sense is impaired thereby. In 1 Cor. xiv. 24 ἐλέγ- χεται ὑπὸ πάντων, ἀνακρίνεται ὑπὸ πάντων, [καὶ οὕτω] τὰ κρυπτὰ τῆς καρδίας αὐτοῦ φανερὰ γίνεται, the sense required is clearly ‘sifting, probing, revealing,’ and the rendering of our translators ‘he is judged of all’ introduces an idea alien to the passage. Again, only five verses lower down (xiv. 29) another compound of κρίνειν occurs and is similarly treated, προφῆται de δύο ἢ τρεῖς λαλείτωσαν καὶ οἱ ἄλλοι διακρινέτωσαν, ‘let the prophets speak two or three and let the other judge, where it would be difficult to attach any precise meaning to the English without the aid of the Greek, and where certainly διακρινέτωσαν ought to be ren- ἢ ᾿ς dered ‘discern’ rather than ‘judge.’ ΓΝ Another passage which I shall take to illustrate - the mode of dealing with κρίνειν and its compounds ᾧ is still more important. In 1 Cor. xi. 28—34, a pas- | sage in which the English rendering is chargeable | soe with some serious practical consequences and whe: aoe a little attention to the original will correct more t τῷ ΩΤ} τὸ Distinctions obliterated. 65 ἄρτου ἐσθιέτω καὶ ἐκ τοῦ ποτηρίου πινέτω" ὁ γὰρ ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων [ἀναξίως] κρίμα ἑαυτῷ ἐσθίει καὶ πίνει, μὴ διακρίνων τὸ σῶμα [τοῦ Κυρίου]...εἰ δὲ ἑαυτοὺς διε- κρίνομεν, οὐκ ἂν ἐκρινόμεθα, κρινόμενοι δὲ ὑπὸ τοῦ Κυρίου παιδευόμεθα, ἵνα μὴ σὺν τῷ κόσμῳ κατακρι: θῶμεν... εἴ τις πεινᾷ, ἐν οἴκῳ ἐσθιέτω, ἵνα μὴ εἰς κρίμα συνέρχησθε, where the words in brackets should be omitted from the text. The English rendering corre- sponding to this is; ‘But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup: for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eat- eth and drinketh damuation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body...For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world...I1f any man hunger let _ him eat at home, that ye come not together unto condemnation. Here the faults are manifold. In the jirst place κρίμα is rendered by two separate words ‘damnation’ and ‘condemnation’; and, though we cannot fairly charge our translators with the in- ferences practically drawn from the first word, yet this is a blemish which we would gladly remove. . But in fact both words are equally wrong, the correct rendering ‘judgment’ having in either case been relegated to the margin where it has lain neglected and has exercised no influence at all on the popular _ mind. And this circumstance (for it is only a sample ἊΝ 2 ae fate bei: has befallen numberless valuable iat? sae ἢ 66 Errors and Defects. tical consideration. If the marginal renderings are intended for English-reading people (and for scholars they are superfluous), they will only then fulfil their purpose, when the margin is regarded as an integral portion of our English Bibles, and when it is ordered by authority that these alternative readings shall always be printed with the text. This then is the second error of our translators: κρίνειν, κατακρίνειν, are con- fused, when the force of the passage depends on their being kept separate; for these κρίματα in the Apos- tle’s language are ‘temporary judgments, differing so entirely from κατάκριμα that they are intended to have a chastening effect and to save from condemna- tion, as he himself distinctly states; κρινόμενοι δὲ ὑπὸ Κυρίου παιδευόμεθα, ἵνα μὴ σὺν τῷ κόσμῳ κατα- κριθῶμεν. Lastly, the Version contains a ¢izrd error in the confusion of κρίνειν and διακρίνειν; for whereas διακρίνοντες TO σῶμα is correctly translated ‘ dzscern- ing the body of the Lord’ at the first occurrence of διακρίνειν, yet when the word appears again, it is rendered ‘judge’ to the confusion of the sense; εἰ ἑαυτοὺς διεκρίνομεν, οὐκ ἂν ἐκρινόμεθα, ‘If we would 4 judge ourselves, we should not de judged, where it _ ought to stand ‘If we had discerned ourselves, we should not have been judged. In fact S. Paul speaks eS of three stages, marked respectively by Sane ai κρίνειν, and κατακρίνειν. The first word expres the duty of persons before and in communica’ _ this duty is twofold, they must discern the ᾳ and ia ca Lord’s body, that they maj it, ‘ F ' σον i ὃ ῥ Ἁ νὰ NRE Ese ay Μοὶ PEN ΔΝ Ὁ Distinctions obliterated. 67 stand and not violate the proper relations between the one and other. The second expresses the imme- diate consequences which ensue from the neglect of this duty—the judgments which are-corrective and remedial, but not final. The ¢hzrd denotes the final condemnation, which only then overtakes a man, when the second has failed to reform his character. But this sequence is wholly obliterated in our Version. In Rom. xiv. 22, 23 again, where the words occur to- gether, it would have been well to have kept the dis- tinction, though here the confusion is not so fatal to the meaning: ‘ Happy is he that condemneth not him- self (ὁ μὴ κρίνων ἑαυτὸν) in that thing which he allow- eth (ἐν ᾧ δοκιμάζει): And he that doubteth (ὁ δὲ δια- κρινόμενος) is damned (kataxéxpita) if he eat, because he eateth not of faith.’ S. Paul is not satisfied in this case, that a man should not condemn himself; he must not even judge himself. In other words the case must be so clear that he has no need to balance conflicting arguments with a view to arriving at a result. Other- wise he should abstain altogether, for his eating is not of faith. Here our translators have rendered διακρινό- μενος rightly, but a misgiving appears to have occurred — to them, for in the margin they add ‘Oy, discerneth and putteth a difference between meats,’ which would be the active ὁ διακρίνων. Indeed an evil destiny would seem to have pursued them throughout, when deal- — ing with compounds of κρίψειν ; for in another passage : 4 (2 Cor. i. 9) they render ἀπόκριμα ‘sentence, though © _ the correct meaning ‘answer’ is given in the margin. - hg ΄ 2 i ἊΝ ἣν P75 ἢ Ἔν ἐδ ier 68 ‘Errors and Defects.” This neglect of prepositions in compound words is a very frequent fault in our Version. In the parable of the wheat and the tares indeed, though the correct reading describes the sowing in the one case by σπείρειν and in the other by ἐπισπείρειν. (Matt. xiii. 24, 25), yet no blame can attach to our translators for not observing the distinction, as they had in their text the faulty reading ἔσπειρε for ἐπέσπειρεν. But elsewhere this excuse cannot be pleaded in their behalf. Thus in the parable of the wedding-feast there is a striking variation of language between the commission of the master and its execution by the servants, which ought not to have been effaced. The order given is πορεύεσθε ἐπὶ τὰς διεξόδους τῶν ὁδῶν, but as regards its fulfilment we read simply ἐξελθόντες εἰς τὰς ὁδοὺς (Matt. xxii. 9, 10). In this change of expression we seem to see a reference to the imperfect work of the human agents as contrasted with the urgent and uncompromising terms of the command, which bade them scour the public thoroughfares, following all their — outlets; and certainly it is slovenly work to trans-_ late both tas διεξόδους τῶν ὁδῶν and τὰς ὁδοὺς alone by the same rendering ‘ high-ways.’ A similar defect ig te again is the obliteration of the distinction betw eke γεν" spicisones and fs eel mn τὸ (CC ok Sil. 15 am) μ᾿ ; Si ys Me Ὗ mie jaro Distinctions obliterated. 69 instance, to find some rendering, which without any shock to good taste would yet distinguish between φιλεῖν and καταφιλεῖν in such passages as Matt. xxvi. 48, 49 dv av φιλήσω αὐτός ἐστιν..-.καὶ κατεφίλη- σεν αὐτόν, and Luke vii. 45, 46 φίλημά μοι οὐκ ἔδω- Kas, αὕτη δὲ...οὐ διέλιπεν καταφιλοῦσα τοὺς πόδας μου, so as to bring out the extravagance of the treachery in the one case and the depth of the de- votion in the other, implied in the strong compound καταφιλεῖν ? Hardly less considerable is the injury inflicted on the sense by failing to observe the different force of prepositions, when not compounded. Of this fault one instance must suffice. In 2 Cor. iii. 11 εὐ yap τὸ Katapyovpevoy διὰ δόξης, πολλῷ μᾶλλον TO μένον ἐν δόξη, ‘For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth zs glorious, the distinction of διὰ δόξης and ἐν δόξῃ is obliterated, though the change is significant in the original, where the transitory flush and the abiding presence are dis- tinguished by the change of prepositions, and thus another touch is added to the picture of the contrast between the two dispensations. Again, how much force is lost by neglecting a change of gender in the English rendering of Joh. 1. 11 ‘He came.zo his own (εἰς τὰ ἴδια), and his own (oi ἴδιοι) received him not. Here the distinction in the original between the neuter τὰ ἴδια and the ᾿ masculine of ἔδιοι at once recalls the parable in Matt. ᾿ xxi. 33 sq., in which the vineyard corresponds to τὰς 7ο Errors and Defects. ἴδια and the husbandmen to οἱ ἴδιοι ; but our Version makes no distinction between the place and the per- sons—between ‘His own home’ and ‘ His own peo- ple. Doubtless there is a terseness and a strength in the English rendering which no one would wil- lingly sacrifice; but the sense ought to be the first consideration. } Let me pass to an illustration of another kind, where confusion is introduced by the same render- ing of different verbs: 1 Cor. xiv. 36 ‘What, came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?’ , Here there appears to the English reader to be an opposition between from and 71:10, and the two interrogatives seem to introduce alternative proposi- tions. The original however is ἢ ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐξῆλθεν ἢ εἰς ὑμᾶς μόνους κατήντησεν : Where ᾽ the fault of the English Version is twofold; the same word is used in rendering ἐξῆλθεν and κατήντησεν, and μόνους is represented by the ambiguous ‘only.’ Thus the emphasis is removed from the pronoun you in both clauses to the prepositions, and the twohy- ἀξ Distinctions obliterated. _ “Ἐ Much attention has been directed by recent writ- ers to the synonymes of the New Testament. They have pointed out what is lost to the English reader by such confusions as those of αὐλὴ fold and ποίμνη flock in John x. 16, where in our Version the same word fold stands for both’, though the point of our Lord’s teaching depends mainly on the distinction between the many folds and the one flock; of δοῦλοι and διάκονοι in the parable of the wedding-feast (Matt. xxii. 1 sq.), both rendered by servants, though they have different functions assigned to them, and though they represent two distinct classes of beings— the one human, the other angelic ministers’; of κό- φινοι and σπυρίδες in the miracles of feeding the five thousand and the four thousand respectively—both translated daskets—though the words are set over our English Version has ‘ Whosoever shall put away his wife saving for the cause of fornication causeth her to commit adultery:’ and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commiutteth adultery.’ Were the English Version casts equal blame on the woman, thus doing her an injustice, for obviously she is not in the same position with the husband as regards guilt; but the Greek μοιχευθῆναι (not μοιχᾶσθαι), being a passive verb, implies something quite different. In this instance however the fault does not lie at the door of our translators, who instead of μοιχευθῆναι — had the false reading μοιχᾶσθαι; but, the correct text being restored, ᾿ Ἷ a corresponding change in the English rendering is necessary. οὐδ: ves pare also the various reading in Matt. xix. 9. τ : 1 Tyndale and Coverdale preserve the distinction of flock and fold. τι & In the Great Bible it disappears. aa 2 Here again the older Versions generally preserve the distinction, translating δοῦλοι, διάκονοι by ‘servants,’ ‘ ministers,’ respectively. The _ Rheims Version has ‘ waiters’ for διάκονοι. In this case the ee a i _ Bible was the first to obliterate the distinction, which was bres 86 rved. ΑΝ even in the Bishops? . ον ἘΠ, ἕῳ Ὑγγὰ ὌΝ ᾿ ἐὸν ᾿ τὰ ἢ f ae ee, EEE ee Τε, Pt ED ae a oe ed | Κα Deane Renesas pe Ὸς 72 _ , £rrors and Defects. against each other in the evangelic narratives (Matt. ‘Xvi. 9, 10, Mark viii. 19, 20), and seem to point to a different nationality of the multitudes in the two cases; of ζῷα and θηρία in the Apocalypse, both re- presented by Jdeasts, though the one denotes the beings who worship before the throne of heaven, and the other the monsters whose abode is the abyss beneath. : For other instances, and generally for an adequate treatment of this branch of exegesis, I shall be content to refer to the works of Archbishop Trench and others; but the following examples, out of many which might be given, will serve as further -illustrations of the subject, which is far from being -exhausted. In John xiii. 23, 25 ἦν δὲ ἀνακείμενος εἷς ἐκ τῶν paar αὐτοῦ ἐν τῷ κόλπῳ τοῦ ᾿Ἰησοῦ.. ἀναπεσὼν ἐκεῖ- νος οὕτως ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ λέγει ‘Now there was /eaning on Jesus’ bosom one of his disciples... He | then Zing on Jesus’ breast saith,’ the English Version makes no distinction between the reclining position of the beloved disciple throughout the meal, described } by ἀνακείμενος, and the sudden change of posture at ᾿ this moment, introduced by ἀναπεσών. This distinc- Ὁ tion is further enforced in the original by a change in both the prepositions and the nouns, from ἐν to ἐπί, and from κόλπος to στῆθος. S. John was” reclining on the bosom of his Master and he sud- th . threw back uel head. upon His breast to ask δ τ ob kes a ἘΝ ᾿ “> ’ F ® ising. aay POHL rE NT fe νὰ να, Μὰ ee ie Felts ey. Vite. ᾿ la Distinctions obliterated. ee ΜΝ den movement*—in xxi. 20 ὃς καὶ ἀνέπεσεν ἐν τῷ δείπνῳ ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος αὐτοῦ καὶ εἶπεν, where likewise it is misunderstood by our translators, ‘which also leaned on his breast and said.’ This is among the most striking of those vivid descriptive traits which distinguish the narrative of the fourth Gospel gener- ally, and which are especially remarkable in these last scenes of Jesus’ life, where the beloved dis- ciple was himself an eye-witness and an actor. It is therefore to be regretted that these fine touches of the picture should be blurred in our ae Bibles. Again, in 1 Cor. xiv. 20 μὴ παιδία γίνεσθε ταῖς φρεσίν, ἀλλὰ TH κακίᾳ. νηπιάξετε, much force is lost by the English rendering, ‘Be not chz/dren in under- standing ; howbeit in malice be ye chzldren.’ In the original S, Paul is not satisfied that his converts should be merely children in vice; they must be something less than this, they must be guileless as 1 The word ἀναπίπτειν occurs several times in the New Testament and always signifies a change of position, for indeed this idea is inherent in the word. It is used of a rower bending back for a fresh stroke (e.g. Polyb. i. 21. 2), of a horse suddenly checked and rearing (Plat, Phedr. 254 8, E), of a guest throwing himself back on the couch or on oh the ground preparatory to a meal (Matt. xv. 38, John xiii. 12, etc.). Ὁ ¥ The received text of xiii. 25 runs, ἐπιπεσὼν δὲ ἐκεῖνος ἐπὶ τὸ στῆθος k.T.d., but the correct reading is as given above. The substitution of oe i St ass however does not tell in favour of our translators; for this a pchense of aortas was intended. The οὕτως, which a sia in ths y word ought to have shown, even more clearly than ἀναπέσών, that a — ᾿ ; 9 era τι » Φν»ν -» ‘ a _- oe - Ἢ Ἂ 2 ware . Ἂ 6. τη 74 Errors and Defects. babes; and we cannot afford to obliterate the dis- tinction between παιδία and νήπιοι. Again in this same chapter (ver. 7) (uws Ta ἄψυχα φωνὴν διδόντα... ἐὰν διαστολὴν τοῖς φθόγγοις μὴ δῷ is translated ‘Even things without life giving sound...except they give a distinction in the sounds’, where certainly different words should have been found for φωνὴ and φθόγγος ; and yet our translators did not fail through poverty of expression, for three verses below they have ren- dered φωναὶ voices and ἄφωνον without signification. In the margin they suggest Zunes for φθόγγοις, and this would be preferable to retaining the same word. As φθόγγος is used especially of musical sounds, per-_ haps zotes might be adopted. This is just a case where a word not elsewhere found in the English Bible might be safely introduced, because there is no incongruity which jars upon the ear. Again in the following chapter (xv. 40) ἑτέρα μὲν ἡ τῶν ἐπου- ρανίων δόξα, ἑτέρα δὲ ἡ τῶν ἐπιγείων. ἄλλη δόξα ἡλίου καὶ ἄλλη δόξα σελήνης καὶ ἄλλη δόξα ἀστέρων, ἴΠ 6 words ἄλλη and ἑτέρα are translated alike, ‘The glory _ of the celestial is one and the glory of the terrestrial sm is another. There is one glory of the sun, another — glory of the moon, and axother glory of the stars.’ Ἢ Yet it is hardly to be doubted that 5. Paul purposely - Ἶ uses ἑτέρα when he is speaking of παι ὰ belongir to. ioc classes, as ἐπουράνια and ἐπίγεια, ἣν Distinctions obliterated. 75 whereas the former denotes simply distinction of 7#- dividuals, the latter involves the secondary idea of difference of £zvd. In fact the change in the form of the sentence by which δόξα, δόξα, from being marked out as the subjects by the definite article and distin- guished by μὲν...δὲ in the first place, become simply predicates and are connected by xat...«aiin the second, corresponds to the change from ἑτέρα to ἄλλη in passing from the one to the other. These words ἄλλος, ἕτερος, occur together more than once, and in all cases something is lost by effacing the distinction. In Gal. i. 6 θαυμάζω bts οὕτω ταχέως μετατίθεσθε... εἰς ἕτερον εὐαγγέλιον, ὃ οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλο, translated ‘I marvel that ye are so soon removed...unto another Gospel which is not another’, the sense would be brought out by giving each word its proper force ; and again in 2 Cor. xi. 4 ἄλλον “Inoody κηρύσσει ὃν οὐκ ἐκηρύξαμεν ἢ πνεῦμα ἕτερον λαμβάνετε ὃ οὐκ ἔλάβετε, though the loss is 1655. considerable, the dis- tinction might with advantage have been preserved. In these instances however a reviser might be deterred by the extreme difficulty in distinguishing the two, without introducing some modernism. In the passage first quoted (1 Cor. xv. 40) the end might perhaps be attained by simply substituting ‘ other’ for ‘ another’ in rendering ἑτέρα. b not observed it. Thus our English rendering of Joh. % Still more important is it to mark the distinction ΡΝ between εἶναι and γίνεσθαι, where our translators have | viii. 58, ‘ Before Abraham was, 1 am,’ loses half the τὰ ’ Errors and Defects. force of the original, πρὶν ᾿Αβραὰμ γενέσθαι, ἐγώ εἰμι, ‘Before Abraham was δογηι, 1am. The becoming only can be rightly predicated of the patriarch ; the demg is reserved for the Eternal Son alone. Similar in kind, though less in degree, is the loss in the render- ing of Luke vi. 36 γίνεσθε οἰκτίρμονες καθὼς [καὶ] ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν οἰκτίρμων ἐστίν, ‘be ye merciful, as your Father also zs merciful.’ Here also the original ex- presses the distinction between the imperfect effort and the eternal attribute’. Illustrations of similar defects might be multiplied, though in many cases it.is much easier to point out the fault, than to suggest the remedy. Thus such a rendering as 2 Cor. vii. 10 ‘ For godly sorrow worketh repentance (μετάνοιαν) to salvation not to be repented of (ἀμεταμέλητον) belongs to this class. Here the Geneva Testament has ‘causeth amendment unto salvation not to be repented of, and perhaps it were best in this instance to sacrifice the usual rendering of μετάνοια in order to preserve the distinction (unless indeed we are prepared to introduce the word ‘ regret’ for μεταμέλεια), especially as μεταμέλεσθαι in the con- text is consistently translated ‘repent. Again ae were desirable to find some better rendering of πᾶσα xe ο΄ δόσις ἀγαθὴ καὶ πᾶν δώρημα τέλειον in James i. 17 “9 = sin can ‘every geod Side and | ΓΕΕΙΣ pe sue sing a 3 1In 1 Pet. i. 16 our aeons. scdieki ie gave the rendering . ye holy, for I am. holy,’ had before them the reading ἅγιοι γέν ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιός rue a, but the correct text is Bil sis ὅτι Ley ἐν "aaa anal SG ee MES . a ᾿ > Wg + ee

ἂ" a. -. 78 Errors and Defects. the outward and transitory and the abiding and sub- stantial. We might translate μὴ συσχημάτιζεσθε κ.τ.λ. ‘Be ye not fashioned after this world, but be ye trans- formed in the renewing, etc.,’ thus partially retracing our steps and following on the track of Tyndale’s and other earlier Versions, which have ‘ Fashion not your- selves like unto this world’ and so preserve the distinc- tion of σχῆμα and μορφή (though they are not very happy in their rendering of μεταμορφοῦσθε ‘Be ye changed in your shape’). In this instance our trans- lators have followed the guidance of Wycliffe and the Rheims Version, which have conformed and reformed. In another passage, Phil. ii. 6 sq., where the distinction of μορφὴ and σχῆμα is still more important, it is hap- pily preserved in our Authorised Version; ‘being in the form of God,’ ‘took upon him the form of a ser- vant, ‘being found in fashion as a man.’ In other cases, where it is even more important for the sense to observe the distinction of synonymes, we seem to have no choice but to acquiesce in the con- fusion. At an earlier stage of the language it might have been possible to establish different renderings, but now the English equivalents are so stereotyped | that any change seems impossible. Thus the rendering _ : of διάβολος and δαιμόνιον by the same word ‘devil’ 158. grievous loss; and it is much to be regretted that Γ᾿ Wycliffe’s translation of δαιμόνιον by ‘fiend’ was not sie by fc Sir in which case it would mah "Ν i Distinctions obliterated. 70 Still greater misunderstanding arises from translating flades the place of departed spirits, and Gehenna the place of fire and torment, by the same word ‘hell,’ and thus confusing two ideas wholly distinct. In such a passage as Acts ii. 27, 31 the misconception thus created is very serious. Is it possible even now to naturalise the word Hades and give it a place in our Version? or must we be satisfied with pointing out in the margin in each case whether the word ‘hell’ represents Hades or Gehenna? Another, though a less important instance, is the word ‘temple’, which represents both ναός the inner shrine or sanctuary and ἱερόν the whole of the sacred precincts. Thus in the English Version an utter confusion of localities results from a combination of two such passages as Matt. xxiii. 35 ‘Whom ye slew between the temple (τοῦ ναοῦ) and the altar’ and Matt. xxi. 12 ‘Them that sold and bought in the temple’ (ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ). In the first case for τοῦ ναοῦ 5. Luke (xi. 51) uses τοῦ οἴκου ‘the house’, the building which is, as it were, the abode of the Divine Presence; but our English translators have boldly rendered even τοῦ οἴκου by ‘the temple’. More hopeless still is it to preserve the _ distinction between θυσιαστήριον the Jewish and βωμές the Heathen altar, the latter word occurring only once in the New Testament (Acts xvii. 23) and the poverty of our language obliging us there to translate it by pete same word as θυσιαστήριον. The contrast of Jew and Gentile involved in these - 3 Piast words reas another pair of synonymes, which 89 ‘Errors and Defects. ‘ present the same relation to each other and in which the distinction is equally impracticable, λαός used especially of the chosen people and in contradistinction to the Gentiles (e.g. Acts iv. 25, 27. x. 2, xxi. 28, Rom. ix. 25, 26, 1 Pet. ii. 10, etc.), and δῆμος denoting the people of a heathen city and more particularly when gathered together in the popular assembly (e.g. at Caesarea, Acts xii. 227; at Thessalonica, Acts xvii. 5; at Ephesus, Acts xix. 30, 33). ὃ 4: Another class of errors, far more numerous and much more easily corrected than the last, is due to the imperfect knowledge of Greek grammar in the age in which our translators lived. And here it is instructive to observe how their accuracy fails for the most part just at the point where the Latin language ceases to run parallel with the Greek. In two re- markable instances, at all events, this is the case. The Latin language has only one past tense where the Greek has two; a Roman was forced to translate ἐλάλησα and λελάληκα by the same expression ‘locutus 1 A heathen multitude, such as would naturally be found in a city which was the seat of the Roman government, is contemplated here, as the whole incident shows. Hence Tyndale and the later Versions rightly translate θεοῦ peri kal οὐκ ἀνθρώπου (ver. 22) ‘The voice of a god 3a not of a man,’ where Wycliffe has ‘The voice of God and not of man.” When the ews of Czesarea are especially intended, 6 Kags i Ὁ used instead of ὁ δῆμος ; Acts x. ae: πιὼν ae Grammar. ees Sr ‘sum. i we find that our English trans- lators make no difference between the aorist and the perfect, apparently giving the most obvious rendering on each occasion and not being guided by any gram- matical principle in the treatment of these tenses. Again the Latin language has no definite article; and correspondingly in our English Version its pre- ‘sence or absence is almost wholly disregarded. In-— deed it would hardly be an exaggeration to say that, if the translators had been left to supply or omit the definite article in every case according to the proba- bilities of the sense or the requirements of the Eng- lish, without any aid from the Greek, the result would _have been about as accurate as it is at present. I am not bringing any charge against the ability _ of our translators. To demand from them a know- ledge of Greek Grammar which their age did not. pees would be to demand an impossibility. Accus- εν limited the range ae npn δὲ the Greek. a Ἂ 2 by the measure of the classical language with which they were most familiarly acquainted. But our own — more accurate knowledge may well be brought to. τ, bear, to correct these deficiencies, Tyndale had 744 ad tr ie that ‘the Greek Seba ἐπε more with = “Pes ν' 82 Errors and Defects. us to correct these faults; but that important inter- ests, sometimes doctrinal, sometimes historical, are involved in their adjustment. 1. Under the head of faulty grammar, the Zenses deserve to be considered first. And here I will begin with the defect on which I have already touched— the confusion of the aorzst and the perfect. It is not meant to assert that the aorist can always be rendered by an aorist and the perfect by a perfect in English’, No two languages coincide exactly in usage, and al- lowance must be made for the difference. But still I think it will be seen that our Version may be greatly improved in this respect without violence to the’ English idiom. Thus in John i. 3 χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ὃν ὃ γέγονεν, or in 2 Cor. xii. 17, 18 μή Twa ὧν ἀπέ- σταλκα πρὸς ὑμᾶς, Ov αὐτοῦ ἐπλεονέκτησα ὑμᾶς ;. παρεκάλεσα Τίτον καὶ συναπέστειλα τὸν ἀδελφόν, or in Col. i. 16, 17, ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα...τὰ" πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται, is there any’ reason why the tenses should not have been pre- served, so that the distinction between the historical fact and the permanent result would have appeared in all three cases? Yet our translators have ren-' dered ἐγένετο, γέγονεν equally by ‘were made’ the first passage, ἀπέσταλκα, ἀπέστειλα by ‘I sent’ in the second, and ἐκτίσθη, ἔκτισται by ‘were created’ ee comparison | of English with the aoa of ἀν Europe. . ἘΠ illustrate the difference of idiom in this respect. % Fae eR fy Faults of Grammar. Ὁ 83. in the third. Again in 1 John iv. 9, 10, 14 ἀπέσταλ- κεν, ἀπέστειλεν, ἀπέσταλκεν, are all rendered in an aoristic sense ‘he sent’, though the appropriateness of either tense in its own context is sufficiently — noticeable. On the other hand, in an exactly par- allel case, I Cor. ix. 22 ἐγενόμην τοῖς ἀσθένεσιν ἀσθενὴς wha τοὺς ἀσθενεῖς κερδήσω" τοῖς πᾶσιν γέγονα πάντα, _ where in like manner the aorist gives an isolated past incident, and the perfect sums up the total present result, the distinction of tenses is happily preserved, “To the weak decame I weak that I might gain the weak: I azz made all things to all men’: though ‘I am become’ would have been preferable, as preserving the same verb in both ‘cases. But I-fear that this _ correct rendering must be ascribed to accident: for ἊΒ the hap-hazard way in which these tenses are treated # ve will appear as well from the instances already quoted — as from such a passage as 2 Cor. vii. 13, 14; ‘Theres ΤΩΝ we were comforted meneen ase in your — : _ comfort, yea and exceedingly the more joyed we a s (ἐχάρημεν) for the joy of Titus, because his sire i _ was refreshed (ἀναπέπαυται) by you all. For if | : q have boasted ai rebate) any τα to him of ἔν 84 Errors and Defects. the most serious injury is inflicted on the sense. I will give examples of the aorvzs¢ first; and I hope to make it clear that more than the interests of exact scholarship are concerned in the accurate ren- dering. If I read S. Paul aright, the correct understand- ing of whole paragraphs depends on the retention of the aoristic sense, and the substitution of a per- fect confuses his meaning, obliterating the main idea and introducing other conceptions which are alien to the passages. As illustrations of this, take two passages, Rom. vi. 1 sq., Col. ii, 11 sq. In the first passage, ὠπεθάνομεν (ver. 2), ἐβαπτίσθημεν (ver. 3), συνετάφημεν (ver. 4), συνεσταυρώθη (ver. 6), ἀπεθάνο- μεν (ver. 8), ὑπηκούσατε (ver. 17), ἐδουλώθητε τῇ δι- καιοσύνῃ (νεῖ. 18), ἐλευθερωθέντες ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας, δουλωθέντες τῷ Θεῷ (ver. 22), ἐθανατώθητε (vii. 4), κατηργήθημεν, ἀποθανόντες (ver. 6). In the second passage, περιετμήθητε (ii. 11), συνταφέντες, συνηγέρ- θητε (ver. 12), συνεζωοποίησεν (ver. 13), ἐδευγμάτισεν (ver. 15), ἀπεθάνετε (ver. 20), συνηγέρθητε (iii. 1), ἀπε- θάνετε (ver. 3). Now the consistency with which S. Paul uses the aorist in these two doctrinal passages which treat of the same subject (scarcely ever inter- posing a perfect, and then only for exceptional rea- sons which are easily intelligible) is very remarkable ; ‘Ye died, ye were buried, ye were raised, ye were made alive’; and the argument might be very much strengthened by reference to other passages where Ε΄. the Apostle prefers the aorist in treating of the same _ & <=. Faults of Grammar. 85 topics’. In short, 5. Paul regards this change—from sin to righteousness, from bondage to freedom, from death to life—as summed up in one definite act of the past; potentially to all men in our Lord’s Pas- sion and Resurrection, actually to each individual man when he accepts Christ, is baptized into Christ. Then he is made righteous by being incorporated into Christ’s righteousness, he dies once for all to sin, he lives henceforth for ever to God. This is the wdeal. Practically we know that the death to sin and the life to righteousness are inchoate, imperfect, gradual, meagrely realised even by the most saintly of men in this life: but S. Paul sets the matter in this ideal light, to force upon the consciences of his hearers the fact that an entire change came over them when they became Christians, that the know- ledge and the grace then vouchsafed to them did not leave them where they were, that they are not and cannot be their former selves, and that it is a contradiction of their very being to sin any more. It is the definiteness, the absoluteness of this change, considered as a historical crisis, which forms the cen- tral idea of 5. Paul’s teaching, and which the aorist marks. We cannot: therefore afford to obscure this idea by disregarding the distinctions of grammar. Yet - 1 For instance Gal. ii, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, iii. 3,27, v. 13, 24 (οἱ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὴν σάρκα ἐσταύρωσαν), Ephes. i. 11, 13, ii. 5, 6 (συνεζωοποίησεν, συνήγειρεν, συνεκάθισεν), 13, 14, iv. 1, 4, 7, 30 (ἐσφραγίσθητε), Col. i. 13 (ἐρρύσατο, μετέστησεν), 111. 15, 2 Tim. i. 7, 9, Tit. iii. 5 (ἔσωσεν) : see also 1 Pet. i. 3, 18, ii. 21, iii. g. δ6 Errors and Defects. in our English Version it is a mere chance whether in such cases the aorist is translated as an aorist. The misconception which arises from this neglect of the aorist has vitally affected the interpretation of one passage. In 2 Cor, v. 14 ‘If one died for all, then were all dead’ ([εἰ] εἷς ὑπὲρ πάντων ἀπέθανεν, dpa οἱ πάντες ἀπέθανον), our Version substitutes the state of death for the fact of dying, and thus interprets the death to be a death ¢hrough sin instead of a death to siz. The reference in the context to the old things passing away, and the language of S. Paul elsewhere, ἐν. Rom. vi. 2, 8, viii. 6, Col. ii. 20, iii, 3, already quoted, seem to show that the true sense is what would naturally be suggested by the correct rendering of the aorist ; that all men have participated potentially in Christ’s death, have died with Him to their former selves and to sin, and are therefore bound to lead a new lifel. Not very unlike the passages, which I have been considering, is Acts xix. 2 εἰ πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐλάβετε πιστεύσαντες, Which our translators give ‘Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?’ It should run ‘Did ye receive the Holy Ghost, when ye believed?’ for the aorist of πιστεύειν is used very 1 The only passages which would seem to favour the other interpre- tation are τ Cor. xv. 22 ἐν τῷ ᾿Αδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνήσκουσιν and Rom, v. 15 εἰ γὰρ τῷ Tod ἑνὸς παραπτώματι of πολλοὶ ἀπέθανον. Yet even if this interpretation were adopted, the aoristic sense of ἀπέθανον ought to be preserved ; because the potential death of all men in Adam corre- sponds to the potential life of all men in Christ, and is regarded as having been effected once for all in Adam’s transgression, as in Rom, y. 15. Faults of Grammar. 87 commonly, not of the continuous state of belief, but of the definite act of accepting the faith; ¢.¢. Acts xi. 7, Rom, xiii, 11, 1 Cor, ili. 5; xv..2, Gal. ii. 7, etc, The instances which have been given hitherto more or less directly affect doctrine. In the two next examples, which occur in quotations from the Old Testament, a /zstorical connexion is severed by the mistranslation of the aorist. In Matt. ii. 15 ἐξ Αὐγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου is rendered ‘Out of Egypt have I called my son’: but turning to the original passage in Hosea (xi. 1) we find that the proper aoristic sense must be restored; ‘When Israel was a child, then I loved him and called my son out of Egypt. Again in 2 Cor. iv. 13 ἐπίστευσα διὸ éda- Anoa is given ‘I believed and therefore have I spoken’, a rendering unsuited to its position in the LXx of Ps. cxvi. 10 (cxv. 1), whence it is quoted. Such examples as these however are very far from exhausting the subject, In one passage the aorist κτήσασθαι is treated as if κεκτῆσθαι, and rendered ‘possess’ instead of ‘acquire’, in defiance of a distinc- tion which it does not require the erudition of Lord -Macaulay’s schoolboy to appreciate: Luke xxi. 19 ἐν τῇ ὑπομονῇ ὑμῶν κτήσασθε [1]. κτήσεσθε] τὰς ψυχὰς ὑμῶν, ‘In your patience fossess ye your souls’, Errors however occur also in this same word in 1 Thess. iv. 4 where the present is similarly treated, εἰδέναι &xa- στον ὑμῶν TO ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι ἐν ἁγιασμῷ Kal τιμῇ, ‘that every one of you should know how to fos- sess his vessel in sanctification and honour’; and again 88 Errors and Defects. in Luke xviii. 12 where ὅσα κτῶμαι is translated ‘all that I possess’: and thus it seems probable that the mistake first arose from a misapprehension of the meaning of κτᾶσθαι rather than from a direct confu- sion of tenses. Yet even so this very misapprehen- sion must have been owing to the inability to see how the sense ‘possess’ is derived from the proper force of the perfect’. The treatment of the ferfect is almost equally faulty with the treatment of the aorist. Thus in I Cor. xv. 4 sq. 5. Paul lays the stress of his argument on the fact that Christ zs v7sex. This perfect éynyep- Tat is repeated six times within a few verses (vv. 4, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 20), while the aorist ἠγέρθη is not once used. The point is not that Christ once rose from the grave, but that having risen He lives for ever,asa first-fruit or earnest of the resurrection. Indeed the contrast between the tenses ὅτε ἐτάφη καὶ ἵτι ἐγή- γερταῖ (ver. 4) throws out this idea in still stronger relief. In the 13th and following verses this concep- tion becomes so patent on the face of S. Paul’s lan- guage that our translators could not fail to see it, and accordingly from this point onward the perfect is cor- 1 In Matt. x. 9 μὴ κτήσησθε χρυσόν, the older Versions generally render κτήσησθε by ‘possess’, for which the A. V. substitutes ‘pro- vide’, with the marginal alternative ‘get’; and in Acts i. 18 ἐκτήσατο χωρίον the oldest Versions have ‘hath possessed’, for which the A. V. (after the Bishops’ and Geneva Bibles) substitutes ‘ purchased’. These facts seem to show that the proper distinction between κτᾶσθαι and κεκτῆσθαι (which latter does not occur in the New Testament) was beginning to dawn upon Biblical scholars. Faults of Grammar. 89 rectly translated: but the fact that in the two earliest instances where it occurs (vv. 4, 12) ἐγήγερται is treat- ed as an aorist, ‘he rose’, shows that they did not regard the rules of grammar, but were guided only by the apparent demands of the sense. Another ex- ample, closely allied to the Jast, occurs in Heb. vii. 14, 22. The context lays stress on the unchangeable priesthood ; ‘Thou art a priest for ever’, ‘He con- tinueth ever’ (vv. 21,24). Hence in ver. 14 the writer says πρόδηλον ὅτι ἐξ “lovda ἀνατέταλκεν ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν, and in ver. 22 κατὰ τοσοῦτο καὶ κρείττονος δια- θήκης γέγονεν ἔγγυος Ἰησοῦς. But these references to present existence are obliterated in the A. V., which substitutes aorists in both cases, ‘Our Lord sprang out of Juda’, ‘was Jesus made a surety’. These instances have a more or less direct doc- trinal bearing. The examples, which shall be given next, are important ina /zstorical aspect. In the pas- sage (2 Cor. xii. 2 sq.), in which S. Paul describes the visions vouchsafed to one ‘caught up to the third heaven’, it can hardly be doubted that he refers to himself. This appears not only from the connexion of the context, but also (in the original) from the mode of expression, οἶδα ἄνθρωπον, οἶδα τὸν τοιοῦτον ἄνθρωπον. I have already pointed out (p. 39) the capricious variations in the renderings of οἶδα, οἶδεν, in the context of this passage. But in these two clauses our translators are not only capricious but absolutely — wrong, for they give to οἷδα an aoristic sense which it cannot possibly have, ‘I kzew a man’, ‘I knew such πων S δὺς». ᾿ 90 Errors and Defects. a man’; thus disconnecting the actual speaker from the object of the vision, and suggesting to the English reader the idea that the Apostle is speaking of some past acquaintance. Again S. Matthew in three several passages (i. 22, ΧΧΙ. 4, XXVi. 56) introduces a reference to prophecies in the Old Testament, which have had their fulfilment in incidents of the Gospel history, by the words τοῦτο δὲ [ὅλον] γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ (or ἵνα πληρωθῶσιν) κιτίλ. In all three passages, it will be observed, the Evangelist has the perfect γέγονεν ‘is come to pass’; and in all three our English Version gives it as an aorist ‘was done’, Now it cannot be urged (as it might with some plausibility in the case of the Apo- calypse) that S. Matthew is careless about the use of the aorist and the perfect, or that he has any special fondness for γέγονεν. On the contrary, though the aorist (ἐγένετο, γενέσθαι, etc.) frequently occurs in this Gospel, there are not many examples of the perfect γέγονεν ; and in almost every instance our Version is faulty. In xix. 8 ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς ov γέγονεν οὕτως the aoristic rendering ‘From the beginning it was not so’ entirely misleads the English reader as to the sense ; in xxiv. 21 οἵα ov γέγονεν ἀπ᾽ apyns, ‘Such as hath not been from the beginning’, would (I suppose) be uni- versally accepted as an improvement on the present translation ‘Such as was uot from the beginning’; and lastly in xxv. 6 κραυγὴ γέγονεν, the startling effect of the sudden surprise is expressed by the — change of tense from the aorist, ‘a cry zs raised, and faults of Grammar. ΟΙ ought not to be neglected. When therefore this Evangelist in three distinct places introduces the ful- filment of a prophecy by γέγονεν, the fact cannot be without meaning. In two of these passages editors sometimes attach the τοῦτο δὲ ὅλον γέγονεν to the words of the previous speaker—of the angel in i. 22 and of our Lord in xxvi. 56—in order to explain the perfect. But this connexion is very awkward even in these two cases, and wholly out of the question in the remaining instance (xxi. 4). Is not the true solution this; that these tenses preserve the freshness of the earliest catechetical narrative of the Gospel history, when the narrator was not so far removed from the fact that it was unnatural for him to say ‘ This zs come to pass’? I find this hypothesis confirmed when I turn to the Gospel of 5. John. He too adopts a nearly identical form of words on one occasion to in- troduce a prophecy, but with a significant change of tense; xix. 36 ἐγένετο yap ταῦτω ἵνα ἡ γραφὴ ττληρωθῇ. To one writing at the close of the century, the events of the Lord’s life would appear as a historic past; and so the γέγονεν of the earlier Evangelist is exchanged for the ἐγένετο of the later. An able American writer on the English language, criticizing a previous effort at revision, remarks some- what satirically that, judging from this revised version, the tenses ‘are coming to have in England a force which they have not now in America*” Now I have 1 Marsh’s Lectures on the English Language no. xxviii. p. 633, speaking of the translation of S. John by the Five Clergymen. The \ 92 Errors and Defects. already conceded that allowance must be made from time to time for difference of idiom in rendering aorists and perfects: and I do not know to what passages in the revision issued by the Five Clergy- men this criticism is intended to apply. But it is important that our new revisers should not defer hastily to such authority, and close too eagerly with a license which may be abused. The fact is, that our judgment in this matter is apt to be misled by two disturbing influences: we must be on our guard alike against the zdola fort and against the zdola SPecus. First, the language of the Authorised Version is so wrought into the fabric of our minds by long habit, that the corresponding conception is firmly lodged there also. Thus it happens that when a change of words is offered to us, we unconsciously apply the new words to the old conception and are dissatisfied with them because they seem incon- gruous ; and perhaps we conclude that English idiom is violated because they do not mean what we expect them to mean, not being prepared to make the necessary effort required to master the new concep- tion involved in them. Jdola fori omnium molestissima sunt que ex federe verborum et nominum se insinua- runt cn intellectum. But secondly, the idols of our cave are scarcely passage is quoted by Bp. Ellicott (Revision of the English New Testament p- 13), who seems half disposed to acquiesce in the justice of the criticism. ὙΠ ΕΣ ἊΣ Wei seas i, Sea less. misleading than the idols of : the market-place. : Living in the middle of the nineteenth century, we 4 cannot without an effort transfer ourselves to the modes of thought and of language, which were com- : mon in the first. The mistranslation from which _ this digressicn started affords a good instance of 2 this source of misapprehension. We should not our- selves say ‘ This zs come to pass,’ in referring to facts _ which happened more than eighteen centuries ago, and. therefore we oblige the eye-witnesses to hold y our own language and say ‘ This came to pass.’ | 5 From the perfect tense I pass on to the present. _ And here I find a still better illustration of the errors into which we are led by following the zdola specus. ig in the Epistle to the Hebrews the sacred writer, a Phen speaking of the temple services ‘and the Mosaic ; ritual, pebitually uses the present tense: e.g. ix. 6, 7, >: εἰσίασιν οἱ ἱερεῖς, προσφέρει ὑπὲρ ἑαυτοῦ, Sapa a τε καὶ θυσίαι προσφέρονται, Χ. 1 θυσίαις ἃς προσ- — φέρουσιν. Νον 1 do not say that this is absolutely τ nclusive as showing that the Epistle was written | b before ane Gestachion of Jerusalem, but it is certainl} heel 94 Errors and Defects. time ¢hex present. Only in very rare instances do they allow the present to stand, and for the most part in such cases alone where -it has no direct his- torical bearing. The temple worship was a thing of the remote past to themselves in the seventeenth century, and they forced the writer of the Epistle to speak their own language. Another and a more important example of the present tense is the rendering of ot σωζόμενοι. In the language of the New Testament salvation is a thing of the past, a thing of the present, and a thing of the future. S. Paul says sometimes ‘ Ye (or we) were saved’ (Rom. viii. 24), or ‘Ye have been saved’ (Ephes. ii. 5, 8), sometimes ‘Ye are being saved’ (1 Cor. xv. 2), and sometimes ‘Ye shall be saved’ -(Rom. x. 9, 13). It is important to observe this, because we are thus taught that σωτηρία involves a moral condition which must have begun already, though it will receive its final accomplishment here- after. Godliness, righteousness, is life, is salvation. And it is hardly necessary to say that the divorce of morality and religion must be fostered and en- couraged by failing to note this and so laying the whole stress either on the past or on the future—on the jirst call or on the final change. It is there= fore important that the idea of salvation as a rescue from sin through the knowledge of God in Christ, and therefore a progressive condition, a present state, should not be obscured; and we cannot but regret such a translation as Acts ii, 47 ‘The Lord added _ Lraults of Grammar. 95 to the Church daily such as should be saved, where the Greek τοὺς σωζομένους implies a different idea. In other passages, Luke xiii, 23, 1 Cor. i. 18, 2 Cor. ii. 15, Rev. xxi. 24 (omitted in some texts), where οἱ σωζόμενοι occurs, the renderings ‘be saved, are saved’ may perhaps be excused by the requirements of the English language, though these again suggest rather a complete act than a continuous and progressive state. In other cases the substitution of a past tense inflicts a slighter, but still a perceptible injury. It obscures the vividness of the narrative or destroys the relation of the sentences. Thus in Matt. iii. 1,. 13, the appearing of John the Baptist and of our Lord are introduced in the same language: ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις παραγίνεται ᾿Ιωάννης ὁ βαπτιστής, and τότε παραγίνεται ὁ ᾿Ἰησοῦς. It is ἃ misfortune that we are obliged to translate the expression παρα- γίνεται by the very ordinary word ‘come’: but the English Version by rendering the first sentence ‘In those days came John,’ while it gives the second correctly. ‘Then cometh Jesus, quite unnecessarily impairs both the vigour and the parallelism of the narrative. Exactly similar to this last instance is another in S. Luke vii. 33, 34, ἐλήλυθεν γὰρ ᾿Ιωάννης 6 βαπτιστής... ἐλήλυθεν 6 υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, where again - the first ἐλήλυθεν is translated came, the second zs come. In rendering zmperfect tenses, it is for the most _ part impossible to give the full sense without encum- ͵ 96 Errors and Defects. bering the English idiom unpleasantly. But in ex- ceptional usages, as for instance where the imperfect has the inchoate, ¢entative force, its meaning can be preserved without any such sacrifice, and ought not to be obliterated. Thusin Luke i. 59 ἐκάλουν αὐτὸ Zaya- ρίαν is not ‘They called it (the child) Zacharias,’ but ‘They were for calling it, ‘They would have called it. Closely allied to this is the conditional sense of the imperfect, which again our English translators have rendered inadequately or not at all. Thus in Gal iv. 20 ἤθελον δὲ παρεῖναι πρὸς ὑμᾶς apte is not “1 desire to be present with you now,’ as our translators have it, but ‘I could have desired, and in Matt. iii. 14 ὁ ᾿Ιωάννης διεκώλυεν αὐτόν is not ‘John forbade him,’ but ‘John would have hindered him. Again in Rom. ix. 3 ηὐχόμην yap ἀνάθεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ the moral difficulty disappears, when the words are correctly translated, not as the English Version ‘I could wish that myself were accursed for Christ,’ but ‘I could have wished, εἴς. ; because the imperfect itself implies that it is impossible to enter- tain such a wish, things being what they are. Again in Acts xxv. 22 ἐβουλόμην καὶ αὐτὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀκοῦσαι, the language of Agrippa is much more cour- teous and delicate than our English Version repre- sents it. He does not say ‘I would also hear the man myself,’ but ‘I myself also could have wished to hear the man, if the favour had not been too great to ask. Elsewhere our Version is more accurate, ΝΕ of Grammar. 97 ‘e.g. Acts vii. 26 συνήλλασσεν αὐτοὺς εἰς εἰρήνην ‘ would have set them at one again’? 2. If the rendering of the tenses affords wide scope for improvement, this is equally the case with the treatment of the definite article. And here again I think it will be seen that theology is almost as deeply concerned 85 scholarship in the correction of — errors. In illustration let me refer to the passage -which.the great authority of Bentley brought into | prominence, and which has often been adduced since his time. In Rom. v. 15—19 there is a sustained contrast between ‘the one (6 els)’ and ‘the many ἊΣ (ot πολλοί), but in the English Version the definite article is systematically omitted: ‘If through the offence of one, many be dead,’ and so throughout - the passage, closing with, ‘For as by one man’s dis- obedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.’ ἐξ e or ° words. | place of any comment of my own, I will quote si cea for ihe correct peg ΕΣ 98 Errors and Defects. By: entire species of mankind, exclusive only of the one’.” In other words the benefits of Christ’s obedience ex- tend to all men potentially. It is only human self- will which places limits to its operation. Taken in connexion with a previous illustration (p. 84 sq.), this second example from the Epistle to— the Romans will enable us to estimate the amount of injury which is inflicted on S. Paul’s argument by grammatical inaccuracies. Both the two great lines of doctrinal teaching respecting the Redemption, which run through this epistle—the one relating to the mode of its operation, the other to the ertent of tts application—are more or less misrepresented in our — . English Version owing to this cause. The former — a is obscured, as we saw, by a confusion of tenses; while the latter is distorted by a disregard of the __-definite article. τ : This however is the usual manner of treating ᾿ ‘the article when connected with πολλοὶ and similar — -words; e.g. Matt..xxiv. 12 ‘The love of many s shale ‘cold,’ where the picture in the original ye darker, τῶν πολλῶν ‘the many, the vast ' ma. a of the Sa Oy or. eae Phil. i 14 ‘And ἀρ. ee , ‘error is even greater, ‘for 5. Paul _distne neglected before λουτύς 5 Ἐξ xis xxiv, 7.10! At ΠΕΡ SS Nee ee oy 85 other apostles’ (ὡς καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ ἀπόστολοι) ; 2 Cor. _-xli. 13 ‘ Ye were inferior to other churches’ (τὰς λοιπὰς oe Ὁ - ¢ Ὗ Εν. __ to spirit, and (in some aspects) even to life—abstract “ἐκκλησίας); in all which passages historical facts are obscured or perverted by the neglect of the article, And again in 2 Cor. ii. 6, where ἡ ἐπιτιμία ἡ ὑπὸ τῶν «τλειόνων is rendered ‘this punishment which was in- flicted of many, the conception of a regular judicial -assembly, in which the penalty is decided by the vote of the majority, disappears. Nor is the passage quoted by Bentley the only example in which the broad features of S, Paul’s teaching suffer from an indifference to the presence _or the absence of the definite article. The distinc- tion between νόμος and ὁ νόμος is very commonly disregarded, and yet it is full of significance. Be- hind the concrete representation—the Mosaic law itself—S, Paul sees an imperious principle, an over-_ : Mts __ whelming presence, antagonistic to grace, to tibervaae aw, which, aioe the Mosaic Se are bias Εν... over the conscience in dpe siniiifeatepees 2 tae one—the concrete and spears ὁ νόμος; tl es B13 ¢ Sd Vil. I Ne Gal j iii. θεν, ΔΙ adequate conception of the lea ee Faults of Grammar. canting ΟΣ 100 ‘Errors and Defects. The Gospels again will furnish illustrations of a somewhat different kind. To us ‘Christ’ has become a proper name, and, as such, rejects the definite article. But in the Gospel narratives, if we except the headings or prefaces and the after-comments of the Evangelists themselves (e.g. Matt. i. 1, Mark i. I, John i. 17), no instance of this usage can be found. In the body of the narratives we read only of ὁ Χριστός, the Christ, the Messiah, whom the Jews had long expected, and who might or might not be identified with the person ‘Jesus,’ accord- ing to the spiritual discernment of the individual. Χριστὸς is no where connected with Ἰησοῦς in the ‘Gospels with the exception of John xvii. 3, where ‘it occurs in a prophetic declaration of our Lord ἵνα ylwockwow τὸν μόνον ἀληθινὸν Θεὸν καὶ ὃν ἀπεστείλας Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν; nor is it used without the de- ‘finite article in more than four passages, Mark ix. 41 -ἐν ὀνόματι ὅτι Χριστοῦ ἐστέ, Luke ii. 11 σωτὴρ ὅς ἐστιν “Χριστὸς Κύριος, xxiii. 2 λέγοντα ἑαυτὸν Χριστόν, John ‘ix, 22 αὐτὸν ὁμολογήσῃ Χριστόν, where the very ex- ‘ceptions strengthen the rule. The turning-point is ‘the Resurrection: then and not till then we hear of * Jesus Christ’ from the lips of contemporary speakers (Acts ii. 38, iii. 6), and from that time forward Christ ‘begins to be used as a proper name, with or with- ‘out the article. This fact points to a rule which ‘should be strictly observed in translation. In the “Gospel narratives ὁ Χριστὸς should always be ren- dered ‘¢he Christ, and never ‘Christ’ simply. In - Faults of Grammar. Ὁ 40% some places our translators have observed this (e. g Matt. xxvi. 63, Mark viii. 29), and occasionally they have even overdone the translation, rendering ὁ Χριστὸς by ‘zhat Christ’ John i. 25, [vi. 69], or ‘the very Christ’ John vii. 26; but elsewhere under exactly the same conditions the article is omitted, e.g. Matt. Xvi. 16, xxiv. 5, Luke xxiii. 35, 39, etc. Yet the ad- vantage of recognising its presence even in extreme cases, where at first sight it seems intrusive, would be great. In such an instance as that of Herod’s enquiry, Matt. ii. 4 ποῦ ὁ Χριστὸς γεννῶται, ‘Where ott _ the meaning is less obvious, be restored by the ὦ a ‘Christ should be born,’ probably all would acknow- ledge the advantage of substituting ‘the Christ’; but would not the true significance of other passages, where change ? Thus in Matt. xi. 2 ὁ δὲ ᾿Ιωάνης ἀκούσας I have studious cnitine ας Sei ἐν > rigid application of this rule to the a ts own n prefaces and comments but. even in t e Hae νι δ τὰ ἐν τῷ δεσμωτηρίῳ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, the Evangelist’ S25 meaning is not that the Baptist heard what Jesus — was doing, but that he was informed of one per- 3 Πς those works of matey and power which πω ey tee 102 Errors and Defects. latter a passage is occasionally brought out with much Ὁ ᾿ greater force by understanding τὸν Χριστὸν to apply to the office rather than the individual, andtranslat- ς᾽ ing it ‘the Christ” In the genealogy of S. Matthew for instance, where the generations are divided sym- metrically into three sets of fourteen, the Evangelist ‘ | seems to connect the last of each set with a critical ἢ epoch in the history of Israel; the first reaching from the origin of the race to the commencement of the i monarchy (ver. 6 ‘David the king’); the second from the commencement of the monarchy to the captivity in Babylon; the third and last from the captivity _ to the coming of the Messiah, zhe Christ (ἕως rod Χριστοῦ). Connected with the title of the Messiah is that of ¢ke prophet who occupied a large space in the \: | Messianic horizon of the Jews—the prophet whom _ Moses had foretold, conceived by some to be the { Messiah himself, by others an abiopeent in his train, — aH | one passage only (John vii. 40) is ὁ προφήτης, wid a used, rightly given in our Version. In the rest (John Ἵ, 21, 25, vi. 14) its force is weakened by the exag- pastel rendering ἡ that prophet’ ; while in the ma te > an ace, ‘Art sho a ne Dae ; ons πον ἢ to the Bezeon pe Gage of oO : Ἐπ τττ τυ τύ το Faults of Grammar. 103 Here an important theological term is suppressed by _ the omission of the article; for τὸ πλήρωμα is ‘ the fulness,’ ‘ze plenitude,’ pleroma being a recognised ex- pression to denote the totality of the Divine powers and attributes (Joh. i. 16, Eph. i. 23, iii. 19, iv. 13, Col. 11. 9), and one which afterwards became notorious in the speculative systems of the Gnostic sects. And with this fact before us, it is a question whether we should not treat τὸ πλήρωμα as a quasi-personality and translate ‘In Him all #4e Fulness was pleased to dwell,’ thus getting rid of the ellipsis which our trans- lators have supplied by the Father in italics; but at» all events the article must be preserved. | Again, more remotely connected with our Lord’s office is another error of omission. It is true of ; _ Christianity, as it is true of no other religious system, that the religion is identified with, is absorbed in, the Person of its founder. The Gospel is Christ and Christ only. This fact finds expression in many a ways: but more especially in the application of the — ae a game language to the one and to the other. In most — Ε ᾿ cases this identity of terms is equally apparent in the | ~ English and in the Greek. But in one instance it igri : Ἔ - obliterated by a mistranslation of the definite article. Bree ἕν Εν Οὐ Lord in S. John’s Gospel, in answer to the d e.-ciple’s question ‘ How can we know ¢he way?’ ans δ Ths the Heid es 5» ΒΝ rae ἐν Ὁ to thi «Paes ; | eon fee ὝΗ 104 Errors and Defects, ee Σ, ΟῊΝ way (ἐάν τινας εὕρῃ τῆς ὁδοῦ ὄντας)"; xix. 9 ‘Divers θ6- / lieved not, but spake evil of the way’; xix. 23 ‘There 4 arose no small stir about ¢#he way’; xxiv. 22 ‘ Having q more perfect knowledge of the way’; but in all these ; passages the fact disappears in the English Version, ξ. which varies the rendering between “ζλῖς way’ and “Δα way, but never once translates τὴν ὁδόν ‘ the way.’ Ἶ But more especially are these omissions of the a article frequent in those passages which relate to the Second Advent and its accompanying terrors or glo- ries. The imagery of this great crisis was definitely ’ ᾿ conceived, and as such the Apostles refer toit. In the Epistles to the Thessalonians more especially S. Paul mentions having repeatedly dwelt on these topics to his converts ; ‘Remember ye not that when I was yet with you, I told you these things?,’ 2 Thess. ii. 5. Accordingly, he appeals to incidents connected with the Second Advent, as known facts: ἐὰν μὴ ἔλθῃ “a ὩΣ ἀποστασία πρῶτον καὶ ἀποκαλυφθῇ ὁ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ὰ Ν ᾿ ἁμαρτίας [v. 1. ἀνομίας] ‘Except che falling μένα... first and ze man of sin be revealed,’ where our Version| ΚΗ. : _ makes the Apostle say, ‘a falling away,’ ‘ that =a 4 sin,’ just as a little lower down it translates ὁ oa | τ ; ΕΝ isos iat ᾿ instead of ‘ the lawless one. δ. δή ὕ Ashe MOA ich ak Ῥ Ψ νὴ i ‘i a" : εἴ Me on LPS Ἀν eho! - ug Κι ᾿ ἢ Faults of Grammar. ἜΘΟΥΣ city had twelve foundations and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb (xxi. 14), ‘The. ᾿ foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones, etc.’ (xxi. 19 sq.).' But in our Version the words are robbed of their meaning, and Abraham is made to look for ‘a city which hath foundations ’—a senseless expression, for no city is without them. Again, in the Apocalypse ‘the definite article is more than once disregarded under similar circumstances, Take for instance vii. 12, 14 ‘What are these which are arrayed in white robes (tas στολὰς Tas AevKas)?’ with the reply, ‘These _ are they which came out of great tribulation (ἐκ τῆς — θλίψεως τῆς μεγάλης); xvii. 1 ‘That sitteth on many _ waters’ (ἐπὶ τῶν ὑδάτων τῶν πολλῶν, for this was the reading in their text). And another instance, not very dissimilar, occurs in the Gospels. The same ex- i Ἶ pression is used six times in S. Matthew (viii. 12, ἢ Ἢ ἐν xiii. 42, 50, xxii. 13, xxiv. 51, xxv. 30) and once in Ε΄ S.. Luke (xiii. 28) to describe the i jac! and misery of | the condemned: ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν a ὀδόντων, where the rendering should be corrected into ΣΡ; ἣν ‘There shall be zhe wailing and the gnashing of teeth.” τ Ne The last instance which 3 shall take conn tae 106 - Errors and Defects. probable interpretation, Rom. xii. 19 μὴ ἑαυτοὺς ἐκδι-, κοῦντες, ἀγαπητοί, ἀλλὰ δότε τόπον TH ὀργῇ γέγραπται yap "Euot ἐκδίκησις, ἐγὼ ἀνταποδώσω, λέγει Κύριος. With this compare Rom. v. 9 σωθησόμεθα δι αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῆς ὀργῆς, Which is rendered ‘We shall be saved from wrath through him,’ and more especially 1 Thess. ii. 16 ἔφθασεν (ἔφθακεν) δὲ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος, where the definite article is correctly reproduced in our Version, ‘ For ¢#e wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.’ From these passages it appears that 7 ὀργή, ‘tke wrath,’ used absolutely, signifies the Divine retribution ; and the force of 5. Paul’s injunction in Rom, xii. 19 δότε τόπον τῇ ὀργῇ is this; ‘Do not avenge yourselves: do not anticipate the Divine retri- bution ; do not thrust yourselves into God’s place, but leave room for His judgments’—a sense which the English rendering ‘rather give place unto wrath’ does not suggest, and probably was not intended to repre- sent. In the same way τὸ θέλημα is the Divine Will | (Rom. ii, 18 γινώσκεις τὸ θέλημα), and τὸ ὄνομα the text), Ephes. 20 ἐάν με καταξιώσῃ Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς ἐν τῇ “sep FEV) ᾿ καὶ θέλημα ἣ, Smyrn. i viv Θεοῦ κατὰ βέλημα καὶ a ἴων | Geo i is doubtful). . ᾿ : "These passages point to the tine interpretation of 1 Cot! xv Ἔ θέλημα ἵνα viv ἔλθῃ, ἐλεύσεται δὲ ὅταν εὐκαιρήσῃ which * wanlaatpad interpreted: as in our English Version ‘his come,’ b ye explained ‘It was not Go ea! _ Faults of Grammar. 107 ss ‘Divine name (Phil, ii, 9 τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν fi Suiojucd In the last passage however it is unfair to charge our translators with an inaccurate rendering ‘gave Him a name,’ for their incorrect text omitted the article; but τὸ ὄνομα is the true reading, and it is superfluous to remark how much is gained thereby. In other passages, where no doctrinal considera- - tions are involved, a historical incident is misrepre- sented or the meaning of a passage is perverted by the neglect or the mistranslation of the article. Thus in two several passages S. Paul’s euphemism of τὸ πρᾶγμα, when speaking of sins of the flesh, is effaced, and he is made to say something else: in 1 Thess. iv. _ 6 ‘That no man go beyond and defraud dis brother in any matter’ (ἐν τῷ πράγματι), where the sin of dis- honest gain is substituted for the sin of unbridled - sensuality by the mistranslation ; and in 2 Cor. vii. 11 _ Ye have approved yourselves to be clear in ¢izs mat~ _ ter (ἐν τῷ πράγματι» where, though the perversion is. _ much less considerable, a slightly different turn is _ given to the Apostle’s meaning by substituting ‘this’ 5 for ‘the.’ Again in 1 Cor. ν. 9, where S. Paul is 5 "made to say, ‘I wrote to you in az Epistle’ (instead » ee | no Shee or elses Ἢ this mistranslation nob ἐν τῇ Sa aro, ν᾿ 8 6 ΖΞ vos an DG fects. φόν), the error adds to the difficulty in discerning the - movements of 5. Paul’s delegates previous to the writing of the letter. And in such renderings as John 111. 10 σὺ εἶ ὁ διδάσκαλος. τοῦ Ἰσραήλ; ‘Art thou a master of Israel δ᾽, and Rev. iii. 17 σὺ εἶ ὁ ταλαίπωρος καὶ [Ὁ] ἐλεεινὸς ‘Thou art wretched and miserable,’ though there is no actual misleading, the passages lose half their force by the omission. ΔΑ In another class of passages some fact of geo- Se graphy or archzology lurks under the definite article, _ . such as could proceed only from the pen of an eye- witness or at least of one intimately acquainted with | the circumstances. In almost every instance of this — kind the article is neglected in our Version, though it _ is obviously important at a time when the evidences _ of Christianity are so narrowly scanned, that these ‘more minute traits of special knowledge should be _ kept.in mind, Thus for instance in John xii, 13, ' ney” took branches of palm-trees,’ the original has τὰ Bata τῶν φοινίκων ‘the branches of the palm- τς trees’—the trees with which the Evangelist ᾿ : self was so familiar, which clothed the eastern 5] of ys eee of ΗΝ Βα and. eet ze name ine t πος district i in the neighbourhood, and therefore having the definite article in this the only passage in which it occurs in the New Testament as it always has in the Old Testament, Hash-sharon, ‘¢/e Sharon,’ the woody plain, just as we talk of ‘the Weald, ‘the Downs, εἰς. Again there is mention of “276 pinna- ἅ cle (τὸ πτερύγιον) of the temple’ in the record of the a iw, | eg a tee I oe indicates the pen of a narrator, ‘who. ¥ was ac: Ἔ temptation (Matt. iv. 5, Luke iv. 9)—the same ex- pression likewise being used by the Jewish Christian historian Hegesippus in the second century, when _ describing the martyrdom of James the Lord’s brother, who is thrown down from ‘che wrepvyov’*; so that (whatever may be the exact meaning of the word translated ‘pinnacle’) some one definite place is meant, and the impression conveyed to the English reader by ‘a pinnacle’ is radically wrong. Again in’ the history of the cleansing of the temple the refer- — ence to the seats of them that sold ‘che doves’ (rds ae & περιστεράς). in two Evangelists (Matt. xxi. 12, Mark ζω: Tisch. Nov. Tit Grec. ed. 8. 11. p. 80). In diréct oo 15 unconscious paebetrioty 2 of the oes setts thei readi Ral of Grammar. ον τ ΘΝ ΄ ‘ a ἢ . Ἷ ἽΤΌ Errors and Defects. ‘by the Mosaic law (Luke ii. 24). In like manner — : ‘the bushel’ and “216 candlestick’ in the Sermon -on the Mount (Matt. v. 15 ; comp. Mark iv. 21, Luke “xi. 33) point to the simple and indispensable furni- ture in every homely Jewish household. And εἶβε- where casual allusions to ‘¢e cross-way’ (Mark xi. 4), ‘the steep’ (Mark v. 13, ‘a steep place, A. V.), ‘the — ‘synagogue’ or ‘our synagogue’ (Luke vii. 5, “He hath built us a synagogue,’ A. V."), and the like—which — are not unfrequent—all have their value, and ought _ ‘not to be obscured. : ’ But there are two remarkable instances of the — | ‘persistent presence of the definite article—both con- | nected with the Lake of Galilee—which deserve ‘special attention, but which nevertheless do not ap- ‘pear at all to the English reader. p + Most students of the New Testament ve had ἢ their attention called to the fact that our Lord, before Be. ‘delivering the discourse which we call ‘the Sermon — a ἘΝ -on the Mount,’ is recorded to have gone up not ‘ ‘intoa baa mountain’ but ‘into zke mountain’ (τὸ ὄρος) Matt. v. and Riey. have been ἐμ to observe also that 5. a In Anne xvii. 1 also, where the A. V. has ’Thessalonica ν Bi, se ὌΥΡΘΕΌΡΉΘ᾽ of the Jews,’ our translators certainly read ὅπ αγωγή, though the article must be omitted in the Gree’ . combination of the bea authorities i is sigh have dig: sie . " “ἃ . Τα ? 2 OSD Ee i τ τὰ > vat ee > ν᾿ . ᾽ ; : ν ππτΠΠΠὋΠ Faults of Grammar. FET ey (vi. 17) in describing the locality where a discourse very similar to S. Matthew’s Sermon on the Mount is ‘held says, ‘He came down with them and stood,’ not (as our English Version makes him say) ‘72 the plain’ (as if ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ) but ‘on a level place’ (ἐπὶ τόπου πεδινοῦ), where the very expression suggests that the spot was situated in the midst of a hilly country. Thus, by respecting the presence of the article in the one Evangelist and its absence in the other, the two accounts are so far brought into accordance that the description of the localities at all events offers no impediment to our identifying the discourses. But it is important to observe in addition, that whenever the Evangelists speak of incidents occurring above the shores of the Lake of Galilee, they zzvaria-_ bly use τὸ ὄρος᾽ and never ὄρος or τὰ ὄρη, either of which _at first sight would have seemed more natural. The — probable explanation of this fact is that τὸ ὄρος __ stands for the mountain district—the hills as ae ‘a = to the level shores—more especially as the corre-— ~~ alone could lay claim to a distinct name, with the one exception δεν Tabor which is too distant to answer the requirement.’ Ifthe view Pp a _ which I have taken in the text be correct, this ‘uniform barrier of hills” Ἢ would itself be τὸ ὄρος : at all events the fact that τὸ ὄρος is the common — πὰς in the ees seen that the definite article does. not ὼ Ἣν ὰ ἘΔ Errors and Defects. sponding Hebrew ‘77 is frequently so used, and in such cases is translated τὸ ὄρος in the LXX: eg. ‘the mountain of Judah,’ ‘the mountain of Ephraim,’ Josh. xvii. 16, xix. 50, xx. 7, etc." But, whatever may be the explanation, the article ought to be retained throughout. Only less persistent” is the presence of the article in ‘the ship’ (τὸ πλοῖον) in connexion with the navi- gation of the sea of Galilee. Whatever may be the significance of this fact—whether it simply bears tes- timony to the vividness with which each scene in succession presented itself to the first narrator or narrators, or whether some one well-known boat was intended (as the narrative of Joh. vi. 22 sq. might suggest)—the article ought to have been preserved in the English Version; whereas in this case, as in the last, the translators have been guided not by gram- mar but by ‘common sense,’ for the most part trans- lating τὸ ὄρος, τὸ πλοῖον, on each occasion where they 1 It is no objection to this interpretation that S. Luke twice uses the more classical expression ἡ ὀρεινὴ in speaking of the hill-country of Judzea: i. 39, 65. Wherever he treads on the same ground with S. Matthew and 5. Mark he has τὸ ὄρος. The portion of his narrative in which ἡ ὀρεινὴ occurs.is derived from some wholly Ἐν. source. ‘ 2 The common text however inserts the article in a few pain -where it is absent from one or more of the best MSS (e. g. Matt. viii, 23, ix. 1, xiii. 2, xiv. 22, Mark iv. τ, vi. 30, 45). In Matt. xiv. 13 ἐν πλοίῳ is read by all the ancient authorities which have the words at all. In cases where the MSS differ it is not easy to see whether or not the -omission of the article was a scribe’s correction. Generally it may be © said that the article with πλοῖον is more Rapa in ἜΝ other Evange- lists than in S. Matthew. ae at . ales Faults of Grammar. 113 appear first in connexion with a fresh incident by “ὦ mountain, ‘a@ ship,’ and afterwards by ‘¢#e moun- tain,’ ‘ the ship. Yet on the other hand, where this phenomenon ap- pears in the original Greek, that is, where an object is indefinite when first introduced and becomes definite after its first mention, our transiators have frequently disregarded this ‘common sense’ rule and departed from the Greek. Thus in the account of 5. Peter’s three denials in Mark xiv. 69, we are told that ‘one of the maidservants (μία τῶν παιδισκῶν) of the high-priest’ questioned him and elicited his first denial; then ἡ παιδίσκη ἰδοῦσα αὐτὸν πάλιν ἤρξατο λέγειν, ‘ The maid- servant seeing him again began to say’; but our translators in the second passage render it ‘a maid- servant, thus making two distinct persons. The object was doubtless to bring the narrative into strict conformity with Matt. xxvi. 69, 71 (μία παιδίσκη... ἄλλη); but, though there might seem to be an imme- diate gain here, this disregard of grammar is really a hindrance to any satisfactory solution, where an exact agreement in details is unimportant, and where strict harmony if attainable must depend on the tumultuous character of the scene, in which more than one in- terrogator would speak at the same time’. Our translators however were at fault not through any want of honesty but from their imperfect knowledge of grammar, for they repeatedly err in the same way _ where no purpose is served; e.g. Mark ii. 15, 16, 1 See the solution in Westcott’s Jntroduction to the Gospels, p. 280 L. R, 7 H 114 Errors and Defects. ‘Many publicans and sinners (πολλοὶ τελῶναι Kal ἅμαρ- τωλοί) sat also together with Jesus...and when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners (μετὰ TOV τελωνῶν Kal ἁμαρτωλῶν)... How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners (μετὰ τῶν τελωνῶν καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν)! I Joh. v. 6 ‘This is he that came by water and blood (δι᾿ ὕδατος καὶ αἵμα- tos), even Jesus Christ; not by water (ἐν τῷ ὕδατι only, but by water (ἐν τῷ ὕδατι) and blood (τῷ αἵματι); Rev. xi. 9, 11 ‘Shall see their dead bodies three days and an half (ἡμέρας τρεῖς καὶ musov)...And after three days and an half (μετὰ τὰς τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ ἥμισυ) etc. Omissions of this class are very numerous, The error of inserting the article where it is absent is less frequent than that of omitting it where it is present, but not less injurious to the sense, Thus in 1 Tim. iii. 11 γυναῖκας ὡσαύτως σεμνὰς would hardly have been rendered ‘Even so must ‘their wives be grave, if the theory of the definite article had been understood ; for our translators would have. seen that the reference is to γυναῖκας διακόνους, ‘women-deacons’ or ‘deaconesses, and not to the wives of the deacons’. Again, in John iv. 27 ἐθαύμαζον tre μετὰ γυναικὸς 1 The office of deaconess is mentioned only in one other passage in the New Testament (Rom. xvi. 1); and there also it is obliterated in the English Version by the substitution of the vague expression ‘which is a servant’ for the more definite οὖσαν διάκονον. If the testimony borne in these two passages to a ministry of women in the Apostolic times had _ not been thus blotted out of our English Bibles, attention would proba- bly have been directed to the subject at an earlier date, and our English Church would not have remained so long maimed in one of her hands. : est Faults of Grammar. Ce aed οἰ ἐλάλει, the English Version ‘They marvelled that He talked with zie woman’ implies that the disciples knew her shameful history—a highly improbable sup- position, since she is obviously a-stranger whose character our Lord reads through His divine intui- tion alone; whereas the true rendering, ‘He talked with ἃ woman,’ which indeed alone explains the em- phatic position of γυναικός, points to their surprise that He should break through the conventional restraints imposed by rabbinical authority and be seen speaking to one of the other sex in public’. Again in Luke vi. 16 ὃς [καὶ] ἐγένετο προδότης ought not to be trans- lated ‘Which also was 276 traitor, because the sub- 3 sequent history of Judas is not assumed to be known a to S. Luke’s readers, but ‘Who also decame a traitor, _ Again it is important for geographical reasons that > in Acts viii. 5 Philip should not be represented as Ν τ. ' ᾿ going down ‘to ¢he city of Samaria’ (εἰς πόλιν τῆς 9 | Sanaa if the reading which our translators had before them be correct®, because the rendering may lead to οι identification of the place. Andlastly, i Kara ἑορτήν, which means simply ‘at festival-time, _ - should not be translated ‘at che feast’ (Luke xxiii. 1 7)» 8 still less ‘at chat feast’ (Matt, xxvii. 15, Mark xv. 6), be- se these sondern κα seem to” limit the eked to vi Ἃ a 116 Errors and Defects. required by the parallel passage in S. John (xviii. 39). Happily in another passage (John v. I μετὰ ταῦτα ἦν ἑορτὴ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων), which is important in its bearing on the chronology of our Lord’s life, our translators have respected the omission of the article before ἑορτή; but that their accuracy in this instance was purely accidental appears from the fact that a chapter later (vi. 4) TO πάσχα ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων is rendered ‘the Passover, a feast of the Jews.’ But if, after the examples already given, any doubt could still remain that the theory of the definite article was wholly unknown to our trans- lators, the following passages, in which almost every conceivable rule is broken, must be regarded as con- clusive: Matt. iii. 4 αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ ᾿Ιωάνης εἶχεν τὸ ἔνδυμα ‘And the same John had his raiment’ (where the true tendering ‘But John himself’ involves an antithesis of the prophetic announcement and the actual appear- _ ance of the Baptist); John iv. 37 ἐν τούτῳ ὃ λόγος. ἐστὶν ὁ ἀληθινός ‘Herein is that saying true’; 2. v. 44 τὴν δόξαν τὴν Tapa τοῦ μόνου Θεοῦ ‘The honour: | - that cometh from God om’ ; Acts xi. 17 τὴν ἴσην pecans τῷ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Θεὸς ὡς καὶ ἡμῖν πιστεύσασιν ἐπὶ τὸν Κύριον ‘God gave them the like gift as He did unto us — who believed on the Lord’; 1 Cor. viii. 10, 11 ἡ συνεί- " δησις αὐτοῦ ἀσθενοῦς ὄντος...τύπτοντες αὐτῶν τὴν. συνεί- δῇ ο΄ δησιν ἀσθενοῦσαν ‘The conscience of him that ἐς wi -_..wound their weak conscience’ ; 2 Cor. viii. I ο΄ τὴν αὐτοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου δόξαν ‘To the ΕΟ. of t « Lord’ I Tim. vi, 2 πιστοί εἰσιν we orm TO Faults of Grammar. 117 εὐεργεσίας ἀντιλαμβανόμενοι ‘They are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit’ ; 2d. vi. 5 νομιζόντων πορισμὸν εἶναι τὴν εὐσέβειαν ‘Supposing that gain is godliness’; 2 Tim. ii. 19 ὁ μέντοι στερεὸς θεμέλιος τοῦ Θεοῦ ἕστηκεν ‘Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure’; Heb. vi. 8 ἐκφέρουσα δὲ ἀκάνθας καὶ τριβόλους ἀδόκιμος ‘ But that which beareth thorns and briars is rejected’; 20. vi. 16 πάσης αὐτοῖς ἀντιλογίας πέρας εἰς βεβαίωσιν ὁ ὅρκος ‘An oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife’; 20. ix. 1 τό τε ἅγιον κοσμικόν ‘And a worldly sanctuary’; 20. x. I ταῖς αὐταῖς θυσίαις ἃς προσφέρουσιν ‘With chose sacrifices which they offered’; Rev. xix. 9 οὗτοι οἱ λόγοι ἀληθινοί εἰσι τοῦ Θεοῦ ‘ These αγὲ the true sayings of God.’ There is however one passage, in which this fault is committed and on which it may be worth while to dwell at greater length, because it does not appear to have been properly understood. In John v. 35 the words ἐκεῖνος ἦν ὁ λύχνος ὁ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων, in which our Lord describes the Baptist, are translated in our Version ‘He was a burning and a shining light.’ Thus rendered, the expression appears as in-. tended simply to glorify John. But this is not the sense which the context requires, and it is only at- tained by a flagrant disregard of the articles. Com- _ mentators have correctly pointed out that Jehu: is a here called ὁ λύχνος ‘the lamp’; he was not τὸ dds | ‘the light: (i. 8)"; for Christ Himself and Christ only is 3 Sa Here 3658 (i. 8) much is lost in the English Version iy ee ὋΣ ᾿ οὐκ ἣν ἐκεῖνος τὸ φῶς ‘ He was not ¢hat light.’ — in 118 Errors and Defects. oe isthe light’ (i. Ὁ, iii: 10, ix. 5, ete); Thus the ren- dering of ὁ λύχνος is vitally wrong, as probably few — would deny. But it has not been perceived how | much the contrast between the Baptist and the Sa- viour is strengthened by a proper appreciation of the remaining words ὁ καιόμενος καὶ φαίνων. The word — καίειν is ‘to burn, to kindle,’ as in Matt. v. 15 οὐδὲ καίουσιν λύχνον ‘Neither do men light a candle “a so too Luke xii. 35 οἱ λύχνοι καιόμενοι, Rev. iv. 5, - viii 10. Thus it implies that the light is not in- - herent, but borrowed ; and the force of the expression will be, ‘He is the lamp that is kindled and so shineth. Christ Himself is the centre and source of light ; the Baptist has no light of his own, but draws all his illumination from this greater One. He is only as the light of the candle, for whose rays indeed men are grateful, but which is pale, flickering, tran- sitory, compared with the glories of the Eternal flame _ from which itself is kindled. pa peel 4 After the tenses and the definite articles | ‘prepositions deserve to be considered: for hore a Be cui is much room for improvement. = τ ΟΥ̓ these διὰ holds the first place i in impo “ ὦ; yetin dealing with alae sige Sa we ὍΣΟΙ. met i Faults of Grammar. 119 ‘through’ (2. 6. ‘by means of ἢ respectively, our trans- lators, following the diction of their age, generally use ‘of’ and ‘by’ respectively—‘of’ denoting the agent (ὑπό), and ‘by’ the instrument. or means (διά). This however is not universally the case, but ὑπὸ is sometimes translated ‘by’ (e.g. Luke ii. 18) and διὰ sometimes ‘through’ (e.g. John i. 7); Such excep- tions seem to show that the language was already in a state of transition: and this supposition is con- firmed by observing that in the first passage Tyndale and the earlier Versions render τῶν λαληθέντων αὐτοῖς ὑπὸ τῶν ποιμένων ‘those things which were told them of the shepherds ’—a rendering still retained even in the Bishops’ and Geneva Bibles, and first altered ap- parently by King James’s revisers. From these archaisms great ambiguity arises. When we hear ‘It was said of him,’ we understand at once ‘about or concerning him,’ but this is not the meaning which this preposition bears in our New Testament. And again, when we read ‘It was sent dy me,’ we understand ‘I sent it,’ but neither again is this the meaning intended. In the modern language ‘by’ repre- sents the sender (ὑπό), whereas in the old it denotes ᾿ the dearer (διά) of the letter or parcel. We do not venture to use ‘dy,’ meaning the intermediate agency = * or instrument, except in cases where the form οὐ i the matter of the sentence shows distinctly that the a primary agent is not intended, so that no confusion Ὁ i ν is possible, as ‘I sent it dy him,’ “1 was informed oo Po telegraph. — Otherwise misunderstanding ‘is in Ἐπ ν᾿ “͵ Se = A.) od eteeg δ , 120 Errors and Defects. evitable. Thus in Acts xii: 9 ‘He wist not that it was true which was done ὧν the angel’ (τὸ γινόμενον. διὰ τοῦ ἀγγέλου), or in Acts ii. 43 ‘Many words and signs were done dy the Apostles’ (διὰ τῶν ἀποστόλων ἐγίνετο), no English reader would suspect that the angel and the Apostles respectively are represented as the doers only in the sense in which a chisel may be said to carve a piece of wood, as instruments in the hands of an initiative power. In the same way Acts 11. 23 ‘Ye have taken and by wicked hands have crucified and slain’ is, I fancy, wholly misun- derstood: nor indeed would it be easy without a knowledge of the Greek, διὰ χειρῶν ἀνόμων᾽, to dis- cover that by the ‘wicked hands,’ or rather ‘lawless hands,’ is meant the instrumentality of the ἄνομοι, the heathen Romans, whom the Jews addressed by S. Peter had used as their tools to compass our Lord’s” death. And again, such renderings as Gal. iii, 19 ‘ordained by angels’ (Svatayels δ ἀγγέλων), and Eph. iii. 10 ‘might be known by the Church (yropi- σθῇ διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας, 1.5. might be made Κηονη taal the Aisi the manifold wisdom of. pen 3 * πω ole ρει " -- or ο΄, τς ᾿ ΩΝ iss Dae Faults of Grammar. 121 and in which therefore this ambiguity is much to be regretted. The first of these has reference to Juspiration. Wherever the sacred writers have oecasion to quote or to refer to the Old Testament, they invariably apply the preposition d:a, as denoting zzstrumentality, to the lawgiver or the prophet or the psalmist, while they reserve ὑπό, as signifying the primary motive agency, to God Himself. This rule is, I believe, uni- versal. Some few exceptions, it is true, occur in the received text; but all these vanish, when the read- ings of the older authorities are adopted*: and this very fact is significant, because it points to a contrast between the persistent idea of the sacred writers themselves and the comparative indifference of their later transcribers. Sometimes διὰ occurs alone, e.g. Matt. xxi. 4 τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ τοῦ προφήτου, xxiv. 15 τὸ ῥηθὲν διὰ Δανιήλ, etc.; sometimes in close connexion with ὑπό, e.g. Matt. i. 22 τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑπὸ Κυρίου διὰ τοῦ προφήτου (comp. ii. 15). It is used moreover not : Ἧ only when the word i is nen as spoken, but also a ‘ae - Eee =e a it 2 both as eee. the i 9: crane ὅδ, Γ Ν } 24 at In Matt. ii. 17, iii. 3, the readings of the eta text are ὑπὸ ‘Tepe εμίου, ὑπὸ Ἡσαΐου respectively, but all the best critical editions read . ie, Oe | ΓΝ +. a es x: - 122 Errors and Defects. when it is mentioned as written; e.g. Matt. ii. § οὕτω yap γέγραπται διὰ Tod προφήτου, Luke xviii. 31 πάντα. τὰ γεγραμμένα Sia τῶν προφητῶν. Yet this signi- ficant fact is wholly lost to the English reader. The other class of passages has a still more im- portant theological bearing, having reference to the Person of Christ. The preposition, it is well known, which is especially applied to the Office of the Divine Word, is διά; e.g. Joh. i. 3, 10 πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο... ὁ κόσμος δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, I Cor. viii. 6 εἷς Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς δι οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ, 5 \ / 5 φ A ἣν ’ + Dt. 5, Col, i. 16. τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται, — Heb. i. 2 δι’ οὗ καὶ ἐποίησεν τοὺς αἰῶνας, ii, 10 δι’ ὃν τὰ πάντα καὶ & οὗ τὰ πάντα. In all such passages the ambiguous ‘by’ is a serious obstacle to the under- standing of the English reader. In the Nicene Creed itself the expression ‘ By whom (δι᾿ οὗ) all things were made,’ even when it is seen that the relative refers not to the Father but to the Son (and the accidental cir- cumstance that the Father is mentioned just before misleads many persons on this point), yet fails to suggest any idea different from the other expression in the Creed ‘Maker of Heaven and Earth,’ which o ἣ had ae he been ἡ ἴο He Paulie. ΤῊΝ δ yer- ae ‘ete for Θεὸς ἐ ἐκ 0880; doe ἐκ Καδης ἘΠΕ —wor | δ᾽. in themselves represent the doctrine of God the. ἃ ον Liars taught by S. John, but whose meaning is ye ἐν ᾿ ἣν the vai τορι of. aaa | he Ν - Faults of Granmar. τ} doctrine is obscured in the Nicene formula itself as represented to the English ear; and the prejudice against it, which is necessarily excited by misunder- standing, ensues. The same misconception must attend the corresponding passages in the New Tes- tament ; eg. John i. 3, 10 ‘All things were made by Him, ‘The world was made by Him.’ In this case it is much easier to point out the defect than to sup- ply the remedy: but surely the English Version in this context is capricious in rendering δι᾿ αὐτοῦ in the two passages already quoted “ὅν Him,’ and yet in an intermediate verse (7) translating πάντες πιστεύσωσιν δ αὐτοῦ ‘all men through him might believe,’ and. then again returning to dy in ver. 17 6 νόμος διὰ Μωυσέως ἐδόθη, ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐγένετο, ‘The law was given dy Moses, but grace and truth came dy Jesus Christ.’ If prescription is too powerful to admit the rendering ‘through’ for διὰ throughout the passage, some degree of consistency at least might be attained, so that πιστεύσωσιν δι ο΄ αὐτοῦ and διὰ Μωυσέως ἐδόθη should be translated Ἧι the same way. * Mi το Βα, though in the renderings of διὰ with the ὦ genitive we are confronted by archaisms rather than ᾿ i. errors, and it might be difficult and perhaps. not ast ; ᾿ advisable in many cases to meddle with them, the © ree ξ. same apology and the same impediment do not | ’ apply to this preposition as used with the. accusative. Ὁ ἢ ᾿ Here our translators are absolutely wrong, ar Δ 4 ἊΝ Ἔνι, rection: προ θυρίδα Though they do not 5.41 ie 124 Errors and Defects. (so far as I have noticed) translate διὰ with a genitive as though it had an accusative, they are frequently guilty of the converse error, and render it with an accusative as though it had a genitive. Thus Matt. xv. 3,6 ‘Why do ye transgress the commandment of God ?...ye have made the commandment of God of none effect dy your tradition (διὰ τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν, 1.6. ‘for the sake of your tradition,’ or as it is expressed in the parallel passage Mark vii. 9, ἵνα τὴν παράδοσιν ὑμῶν τηρήσητε [στήσητε]); John xv. 3 ‘Now ye are clean through the word (διὰ τὸν λόγον)"; Rom. 11. 24 ‘The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you (δι ὑμῶς); 2 Cor. iv. 15 That the abundant grace might ¢hrough the thanks- giving of many redound to the glory of God (ἵνα ἡ χάρις πλεονάσασα Sia τῶν πλειόνων τὴν εὐχαριστίαν περισσεύσῃ εἰς τὴν δόξαν τοῦ Θεοῦ), where it is perhaps best to govern τὴν εὐχαριστίαν by περισσεύσῃ taken as a transitive, but where the English Version at all events has three positive errors, (1) translating ἡ χάρις πλεονάσασα as if ἡ πλεονάσασα χάρις, (2) rendering τῶν πλειόνων as if πολλῶν, (3) giving the wrong sense to διὰ with the accusative; Heb. vi. 7‘Bringeth forth herbs meet for them dy whom it is dressed (δι᾿ ots γεωργεῖ- tat). Yet in Rom. viii. 11, ‘He shall also quicken Του : mortal bodies dy his Spirit that dwelleth in you, OME _ translators were apparently alive to the difference signification in the various readings διὰ τοῦ ἐὶ , ae ve ἰδιὰ ἤν ἐνοικοῦν.. mealies 4 , Faults of Grammar. eh TBE In translating the other prepositions also there is occasional laxity. Thus ἐπὶ τῶν νεφελῶν is rendered ‘7m the clouds’ (Matt. xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64), though the imagery is marred thereby, and though the mention of “Him that sat ox the cloud (ἐπὶ τῆς νεφέλης} in the Apocalypse (xiv. 15, 16) ought to have ensured the correct translation. And similarly in Matt. iv. 6, Luke iv. 10, the English rendering ‘/z their hands they shall bear thee up’ presents a different picture from the ἐπὶ χειρῶν of the original’. Again the proper force of eis is often sacrificed, where the loss. is not inappreciable. . Thus in 2 Cor. xi. 3, οὕτω φθαρῇ τὰ νοήματα ὑμῶν ἀπὸ τῆς ἁπλότητος THs εἰς τὸν Χριστόν is rendered ‘So your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is zz Christ? where the true idea is ‘sincerity or fidelity towards Christ,’ in accordance with the image in the context, ‘That I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ.’ Even more serious is the injury done to the sense in I Cor. viii.6,aAN 1 In Mark xii. 26 οὐκ ἀνέγνωτε ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ Mwicéws ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου, πῶς εἶπεν αὐτῷ ὁ Θεός ‘Have ye not read in the book of Moses how iz the bush God spake unto him? the wrong idea conveyed in the English Version arises more from neglect of the order than from mistranslation of the preposition. If the order of the original had been trusted, our translators would have seen that ἐπὲ rod βάτου must mean ‘in the pas- © sage relating to the Bush,’ ‘in the passage called the Bush’ (comp. ἐν ~ ἊΣ: _ Ἠλίᾳ Rom. xi. 2, ‘in the history of Elijah,’ where again our A. V.has the wrong rendering ‘ of Elias’). Strangely enough Wycliffe alone of — our English translators gives the right meaning, ‘Han ye not rad in — ἫΝ ν the book of Moises on the bousche, how God seide to him?’ - In the © ag parallel passage Luke xx. 37 the rendering of our Authorised Version Pe ‘at the bush’ is at all events an improvement on the ° preceding trans] E q _ tions ‘ besides the bush.’ ; Aik — A eae 126 Errors and Defects. ἡμῖν εἷς Θεὸς ὁ πατὴρ ἐξ ov τὰ πάντα Kal ἡμεῖς εἰς αὐτόν, καὶ εἷς Κύριος ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς δί οὗ τὰ πάντα καὶ ἡμεῖς δι’ αὐτοῦ, where the studiously careful dis- tribution of the prepositions in the original is entirely’ deranged by rendering εἰς αὐτόν ‘zz him’ instead of ‘unto him, though here a marginal alternative ‘for him’ is given, Again a common form of error is the mistrans- lation of βαπτίζειν εἰς, as in I Cor. i. 13 ‘Or were ye baptized zz the name of Paul (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα Ἰ]Π αὐλου) ?’ So again Matt. xxviii. 19, Acts viii, 16. In Acts Xix. 3, 5, after being twice given correctly ‘ Unto what then were ye baptized? And they said wzZo John’s baptism,’ nevertheless when it occurs a third time it is wrongly translated, ‘When they heard this, they were baptized zz the name (eis τὸ ὄνομα) of the Lord Jesus.’ On the other hand in Rom. vi. 3, 1 Cor. X. 2, ΧΙ. 13, Gal. ili. 27, the preposition is duly re- spected. Again, though the influence of the Hebrew and Aramaic has affected the use of ἐν, so that it cannot be measured by a strictly classical standard, still the license which our Version occasionally takes is quite unjustifiable. In such passages as Rom. xiv. 14 οἷδα καὶ πέπεισμαι ἐν Kupio Ἰησοῦ ‘I know and am per- suaded dy the Lord Jesus,’ 1 Cor. xii. 13 καὶ yap ἐν ἑνὶ IIvevpate ἡμεῖς πάντες εἰς ἕν σῶμα ἐβαπτίσθημεν ‘For dy one Spirit are we all baptized into one body,’ the Hebraic or instrumental sense of ἐν is indefensible. Lastly, even prepositions with such well-defined Faults of Grammar. Ἱ27 meanings as πὸ and ὑπέρ are not always respected ; as for example in 2 Thess. ii, 1, 2 ‘Now we beseech you, brethren, dy (ὑπέρ) the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and dy our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken zz mind (ἀπὸ τοῦ vods)’ ; while elsewhere παρὰ is similarly illtreated, 1 Pet. ii. 4 ‘Disallowed indeed of men (ὑπὸ ἀνθρώπων), but chosen of God (παρὰ Θεῷ ἐκλεκτόν).᾽ Under these three heads the most numerous gram- matical errors of our Version fall. But other inaccuracies of diverse kinds confront us from time to time, and some of these are of real importance. Any one who attempts to frame a system of the chronology of our Lord’s life by a comparison of the Gospel-narratives with one another and with contemporary Jewish his- tory, will know how perplexing is the statement in our English Version of Luke ii. 23 that Jesus after His baptism ‘degan to be about thirty years of age.’ But the original need not and (in fact) cannot mean this ; for ἦν. ἀρχόμενος ὡσεὺ ἐτῶν τριάκοντα must be | translated ‘ ‘was about thirty years old, when he began’ per. at the commencement of His public life, His minis- ᾿ς try); where ὡσεὶ is sufficiently elastic to allow a year or two or even more either under or over the thirty _‘~years: and in fact the notices of Herod's life in Jose- — isha Ε΄. phus compared with 5. Matthew’s narrative seem to Ba nt require that our Lord should have been somewhat _ 8 she " i. more than thirty years old at the time. Again such a ἃ ‘el Ἢ : translation as Phil. iv. 3 συνχαμβάνου αὐταῖς “ar He a 128 Errors and Defects. συνήθλησάν pot, ‘Help those women which laboured with me,’ is impossible; and, going hand in hand with an error in the preceding verse by which a man ‘Euodias’ is substituted for a woman ‘ Euodia’, calls for correction. Again in 2 Pet. iii. 12 the rendering of σπεύδοντας τὴν παρουσίαν πῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡμέρας ‘hasting unto the coming of the day of God’ cannot stand, and the alternative suggested in the margin ‘hasting the coming’ should be placed in the text ; for the words obviously imply that the zeal and steadfastness of the faithful will be instrumental in speeding the final crisis. Again the substitution of an interrogative for a relative in Matt. xxvi. 50 ἑταῖρε, : ἐφ᾽ ὃ πάρει, ‘Friend, wherefore art thou come?’ is not : warranted by New Testament usage, though here our translators are supported by many modern com- mentators; and the expression must be treated as ; an aposiopesis, ‘Friend, do ¢hat for which thou art come’, Again our translators have on more than one occasion indulged in the grammatical fiction — ἢ of Hypallage, rendering πρὸς οἰκοδομὴν τῆς χρείας ‘for the use of edifying’ in Eph. iv. 29, and ἀφέντες Tov τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦ Χριστοῦ λόγον (Heb. vi. 1) ‘leav- ἘΠ ΣᾺ the Bishops’ Bible, treat ae as men’ s names, pee and 5 τα i h ie eee or Syrian ; με Geneva Testament (I 5. 57) she? =e ᾿ followed by our A. Vv. All alike. are ete ὅς the am ation τς αὐταῖς αἵτινες. xia 3 Thus it may Ἢ compared a John xii, 27 ὃ ποιεῖν, ~ ΠΟ reior. ι ss i ir as Pea ὟΣ Nyaa, et i ἊΣ Faults of Grammar. 129 : ing the principles of the doctrine of Christ’ - In both of these passages however there is a mar- ginal note, though in the first the alternative offered ‘to edify profitably’ slurs over the difficulty. Such ‘grammatical deformities as these should be swept away. Neither again should we tolerate such a rendering as I Cor. xii. 28 ἀντιλήμψεις, κυβερ- noes, ‘helps zz governments’, where the original contemplates two distinct functions, of which ἀντι- λήμψεις would apply mainly to the diaconate and κυβερνήσεις to the presbytery, but where our trans- lators have had recourse to the grammatical fiction of Flendiadys. A somewhat similar instance to the last, where two detached words are combined in defiance of the sense, is I Cor. xvi. 22 ‘Let him be Anathema Maranatha, where doubtless the words should be separated; ἤτω ἀνάθεμα' Mapav afa, ‘Let him be anathema. Maran Atha’ (2.2. ‘The Lord cometh,’ or ‘is come’). | ᾿ Isolated examples of grammatical inaccuracy _ such as these might be multiplied; but I will close with one illustration, drawn from the treatment of ΟΠ the word φαίνειν. The distinction between ¢aivev a i to shine’ and φαίνεσθαι ‘to appear’ is based on an ἢ _ elementary principle of grammar. It is therefore surprising that our translators should not have ob- — mM ; a the difference. And yet, though the context 1 This is the rendering in the edition of 1611; ; but the. preposition — yeh : struck out in the Cambridge edition of 1637 (and possibly earlier), ad text is commonly printed ‘helps, governments,’ but i wie light of the candle shall shine no more in thee’; but here pan 130 Errors and Defects. in most cases leads them right, the errors of which they are guilty in particular passages show that they proceeded on no fixed principle. Thus we have in Acts xxvii. 20 μήτε ἄστρων ἐπιφαινόντων ἐπὶ πλείονας ἡμέρας ‘Nor stars in many days appeared, and con- versely in Matt. xxiv. 27 καὶ φαίνεται ἕως δυσμῶν ‘And shineth even unto the west,’ and in Phil. ii. 15 ἐν ols φαίνεσθε ws φωστῆρες ἐν κόσμῳ ‘Among whom ye shine as lights in the world,’ (where the marginal alternative of an imperative ‘shine ye’ is given, but no misgiving seems to have been suggested to our translators by the voice of φαίνεσθε). When they have gone so far wrong in a simple matter of inflexion, it is not surprising that syntactic considerations should have been overlooked, and that they should not have recognised the proper distinction between φαίνομαι εἶναι ‘I appear to be,’ and φαίνομαι ὧν ‘I am seen to be.” Of this error they are guilty in Matt. vi. 16, 18, ὅπως φανῶσιν τοῖς ἀνθρώποις νηστεύοντες, ὅπως — μὴ φανῇς τοῖς ἀνθρώποις νηστεύων, ‘That they may appear unto men to fast,’ ‘That thou appear not unto men to fast’; though the sense is correctly given by Tyndale (with whom most of the older Versions τῇ 1 Again in Rev. xviii. 23 φώς λύχνου οὐ μὴ φανῇ ἐν σοὶ ἔτι, if the ee: word was accentuated as a passive (φανῇ) in the text used by our trans- lators, as was probably the case, they have rendered it incorrectly ‘ Ἢ ‘6: ἐν τ and others read the pats τ In BY viii. 12 they read ver Faults of Grammar. — 131 agree substantially), ‘That they might be seen of men how they fast,’ ‘That it appear not unto men how that thou fastest.’ The directly opposite fault to that which has just been discussed also deserves notice, and may perhaps be considered here. If hitherto attention has been directed to the ignorance or disregard of Greek grammar in our translators, it may be well to point out instances in which they have attempted to im- prove the original, where the connexion is loose or the structure ungrammatical. This happens most frequently where past and present tenses are inter- mingled in the original; e.g. Matt. iii. 15, 16 ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν πρὸς αὐτόν...τότε ἀφίησιν αὐτόν... καὶ βαπτι- σθεὶς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς ἀνέβη, where for the sake of sym- metry ἀφίησιν is translated suffered; or Mark xiv. 53, 54 καὶ ἀπήγαγον τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν...καὶ συνέρχον- ται αὐτῷ πάντες...καὶ ὁ Ἰ]ετρὸς ἀπὸ μακρόθεν ἠκο- λούθησεν αὐτῷ, where for the same reason συνέρ- - yovras is given were assembled. In all such cases there is no good reason for departing from the Ε- _ original. This is not a question of the idiom in different languages, but of the style of a particular author; and peculiarities of style should, as far as - possible, be reproduced. Moreover our translators a themselves have not Setar ae to reduce the a rae) he 1.9 Errors and Defects. These however are nothing more than loose- nesses of style. But even grammatical inaccuracies ought to be preserved, as far as possible; for it will generally be found that in such cases the grammar is sacrificed to some higher end—either greater force of expression or greater clearness of meaning. More than one instance of this occurs in the Apocalypse. In the letters to the Seven Churches the messages close with words of encouragement to the victor in the struggle. In the last four of these the words ὁ νικῶν are flung out at the beginning of the sen- tence without any regard to the subsequent con- struction, which in three out of the four is changed so that the nominative stands alone without any govern- ment: ii. 26 καὶ 6 νικῶν.... «δώσω αὐτῷ ἐξουσίαν, ili. 12 © ὁ νικῶν, ποιήσω αὐτὸν στύλον, iii. 21 ὁ νικῶν, δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι. In the first instance only have our translators had the courage to retain the broken grammar of the original, ‘And. “e that overcometh... to him-will I give, acting thus boldly perhaps because the intervening words: partly obscure the irregularity. — In:the other two cases they have set the grammar straight; ‘Him. that overcometh will I make a pillar ‘To hire that overcometh. will I = to Bie "ἢ * ‘ditittbice, ai in all alike the Enelish should } is ἐοδαδαρεα ‘as the Greek commences, 4 Ἢ 6 that « cometh,’ τ Be ὦ ‘ ae. Would i it be ἀπο μα overbold if rT were | faults of Lexicography. 133 original in a still more important passage? In Rev. i. 4 χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ [τοῦ] ὁ ὧν καὶ 6 ἣν καὶ ὁ ἐρχόμενος, the defiance of grammar. is even more startling. It may be true that a cultivated Athenian _ could hardly have brought himself to write thus; but certainly the fisherman of Galilee did not so express himself from mere ignorance of Greek, for such ig- norance as this supposition would assume must have prevented his writing the Apocalypse at all. In this instance at least, where the Apostle is dealing with the Name of names, the motive which would lead him to . isolate the words from their context is plain enough. And should not this remarkable feature be preserved in our English Bible? If in Exod. iii. 14 the words run ‘I AM hath sent me unto you, may we not also be allowed to read here, ‘from HE THAT IS AND THAT WAS AND THAT IS TO-COME’? Certainly the violation of grammar would not be greater in the English than it is in the Greek. $s. If the errors of grammar in our English Version are very numerous, those of /ericography are not. SO. iam - frequent. Yet even here several indisputable errors (ae “need correction; not a few doubtful interpretations _ ὧι “may be: i eae and many vague Hepes will Τὰς " a by being made sharper and clearer. af RR 134 Errors and Defects. Instances of zposszble renderings occur from time to time, though the whole number of these is not great. By impossible renderings I mean those cases in which our translators have assigned to a word a signification which it never bears elsewhere, and ~ which therefore we must at once discard without™ considering whether it does or does not harmonize with the context. Such for instance is the treatment of the par- ticles ἔτι and ἤδη in occasional passages, where their meaning is interchanged in our Version; as in Mark xiii. 28 ὅταν αὐτῆς ἤδη ὁ κλάδος ἁπαλὸς γένηται K.T.r. ‘When her branch is yet tender,’ for ‘As soon as its branch is tender’ (the sign of approaching summer), and 2 Cor. i. 23 οὐκέτι ἦλθον εἰς ἹΚόρινθον, “1 came not as yet unto Corinth,’ for ‘I came 70 more unto Corinth’ (I paid no fresh visit): or the rendering of ἅπαξ in Heb. xii. 26 ἔτε ἅπαξ ἐγὼ ceiw, ‘Yet once more I shake’: or of καὶ yap in Matt. xv. 27 vai, Κύριε, καὶ yap τὰ κυνάρια ἐσθίει, ‘Truth, Lord, yet the dogs eat.’ And, when we turn from particles to nouns and oa verbs, examples will not fail us. Such are. the ren- “ἃ derings of ἀνεψιὸς in Col. iv. 10 ‘Marcus, szster’s son ἢ to Barnabas’ (6 ἀνεψιὸς Βαρνάβα) for cousin: οἵ φθι- wi τ νοπωρινὸς in Jude 12 ‘Trees whose fruit withereth, — ---without fruit (δένδρα φθινοπωρινὰ ἄκαρπα), Ὁ : — erent np by the ‘roots,’ for ' ‘autumn a a, eee Faults of Lexwography. 135 when fruit might be expected is significant*, while under any circumstances the awkward contradiction of terms in our English Version should have sug- gested some misgiving: of θριαμβείειν in 2 Cor. ii, 14 ‘God which always causeth us to triumph (τῷ πάν- tote θριαμβεύοντι ἡμᾶς) in Christ,’ for ‘leadeth us in triumph,’ where the image of the believer made cap- tive and chained to the car of Christ is most expres-_ sive, while the paradox of the Apostle’s thanksgiving over his own spiritual defeat and thraldom is at once forcible and characteristic: and of πάρεσις in Rom. iii. 25 ‘To declare his righteousness for the remission of past sins (διὰ τὴν πάρεσιν τῶν προγεγονότων apap- τημάτων), for ‘dy reason of the passing over of the former sins,’ where the double error of mistranslating διὰ and of giving πάρεσις the sense of ἄφεσις has entirely shattered the meaning, and where the context 1 Strange to say, the earliest Versions all rendered φθινοπωρινὰ correctly. Tyndale’s instinct led him to give what I cannot but think the right turn to the expression; ‘Trees with out frute at gadringe [gathering] time,’ 2.6. at the season when fruit was looked for; I cannot agree with Abp. Trench’ (p. 125), who maintains that ‘ Tyndale was τς feeling after, though he has not grasped, the: right translation’, and himself explains φθινοπωρινά, ἄκαρπα, as ‘mutually completing one another,’ without leaves, without fruit. Tyndale was followed by Cover- dale and the Great Bible. Similarly Wycliffe has ‘hervest trees without > fruyt,’ and the Rheims Version ‘Trees of Autumne, unfruiteful’. The earliest offender is the Geneva Testament which gives ‘corrupt trees - and without frute,’ a rendering adopted also in the Geneva Bible. The _ harvest is, and so the Greke woord importeth’, while at the same time a Bishops’ Bible strangely combines both renderings, ‘trees withered — [φθίνειν αἱ fruite geathering [ὀπώρα] and without fruite’; which is z spaniel in the margin ‘Trees withered in Autumne when the fruite . _ other alternative interpretations are given. Mr 4: “hs 136 _ Errors and Defects. implies that this signal manifestation of God’s right- eousness was vouchsafed, not because the sins were forgiven, but because they were only overlooked for. the time without being forgiven’. Other examples again are συλαγωγεῖν in Col. ii. 8 μή τις ὑμᾶς ἔσται δ' συλαγωγῶν ‘Lest any man spoil you,’ for ‘make spoil of you, ‘carry you off as plunder’: προβιβάζειν in’ Matt. xiv. 8 προβιβασθεῖσα ὑπὸ τῆς μητρὸς αὐτῆς, ‘Being dcfore instructed by her mother,’ for ‘being put forward, urged, by her mother,’ for there is no. instance of the temporal sense of the preposition in this compound: ἐπερώτημα in 1 Pet. iii. 21 ‘The an-. swer of a good conscience toward God,’ for ‘the. question, where the word may mean a fetition but certainly cannot mean an answer: δικαιώματα in — Rom. ii. 26 ‘If the circumcision keep the righteous- ness of the law,’ for ‘the ordinances of the law’ πωροῦν, πώρωσις, in the Epistles (Rom. xi. 7, 25, ἢ 2 (οὐ. iii. 14, Eph. iv. 18), where they are always 3 rendered ‘blind, blindness,’ though correctly trans- lated in the Cores (Mark iii. 5, vi. 52, Joha:; Xii. 4) ‘harden, hardness*.’ ne Oye’: bas this ἢ is not sufficient to elicit the right meaning —— =o 2 t none the eae ed of διά. ᾿ 9 eae iii. 5 the margin has ‘or blindness’; in Rom. xi. 7, 25, E _ ‘or hardened’, ‘or hardness’. In oP seu a Matinee thei is) ἢ ‘in the eames of 1611, CAT, Faults of Lexcography. 137 In some cases the wrong rendering of our trans- lators arose from a false derivation, which was gener- ally accepted in their age. Thus ἀκέραιος is rendered ‘harmless’ (from κέρας, κεραΐζω) Matt. x. 16, Phil. ii. 15, instead of ‘simple, pure, sincere,’ (from κεράν- vue ‘to mix, adulterate’), though in Rom. xvi. 19 it is correctly given’. So also ἐριθεία is taken to mean ‘strife, contention’ (Rom. ii. 8, 2 Cor. xii. 20, Gal. v. 20; Phil: i. 17, ‘ii. 3, James iii, 14,16) fromits supposed connexion with ἔρις ; whereas its true deri- vation is from ἔριθος ‘a hired partisan’, so that it denotes ‘party-spirit’. And again in Jude 12 οὗτοί εἰσιν ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις ὑμῶν σπίλάδες ‘These are spots in your feasts of charity’, σπιλάδες ‘rocks’ is trans- . lated as if σπῖλοι ‘spots’®; our translators having 1 In Matt. x. 16 however the margin has ‘or simple’, and in Phil. ii. 15 ‘or sincere.’ 2 At least this is the view taken by modern commentators almost’ universally ; but it does not seem to me certain that σπιλάδες here cannot mean ‘spots’; for (1) All the early Versions connect it with this root, translating it either as a substantive ‘stains’, or as an adjective ‘polluted’. This is the case with the Old and the Revised Latin, with both the Egyptian Versions, and with the Philoxenian Syriac, nor have I noticed a single one which renders it ‘rocks’. (2) As σπῖλος (or oridos), which generally signifies a ‘spot’ or ‘stain’, sometimes has the sense ‘a rock’, so conversely it is quite possible that ods ‘a rock’ should occasionally exchange its ordinary meaning for that of σπῖλο. (3) In one of the Orphic poems, Lith. 614 κατάστικτον σπιλάδεσσι mup- Ε΄ σῇσιν λευκαῖς τε μελαινομέναις χλοεραῖς τε, it has this sense; and, though. ὃ this poem was apparently not written till the fourth century, still it - sf seems highly improbable that the writer should have derived this sense Ἦ of the word solely from S. Jude. If he did so, it only shows how ‘fixed this interpretation had become before his time. (4) The extreme — violence of the metaphor ‘rocks in your feasts of charity’ is certainly not — ft 138 Errors and Defects. doubtless been influenced by the parallel passage 2 Pet. ii. 13 σπῖλοι καὶ μῶμοι ἐντρυφῶντες ἐν. ταῖς ἀπάταις αὐτῶν, ‘Spots are they and blemishes, βροτί- ing themselves with their own deceivings’. The last example of this class of errors, which I shall take, is the surname of Simon the Apostle, ‘the Canaanite.’ The correct form of the word is Kavavaios, not Kava- vitns, in both passages where it occurs (Matt. x. 4, Mark iii. 18); but the latter stood in the text which our translators had before them. Yet this false reading certainly should not have misled them; for Xavavaios, the word for the Canaanite in the LXX and in Matt. XV. 22, is even farther from Kavavirns than from Kava- vatos. The parallel passages in 5. Luke (Luke vi. 15, Acts i. 13) point to the fact that this surname is the Aramaic word Kanan, NIP, corresponding to the Greek ἕηλωτής ‘the Zealot”; and this being so, it is favourable to the interpretation which it is proposed to substitute. And (5) though this argument must not be pressed, yet the occurrence of σπῖλοι καὶ μῶμοι in the parallel passage (2 Pet. ii.13) must be allowed =~ some weight in determining the sense of σπιλάδες here. 1 T have quoted the passage as it stands in the received text ἐν ταῖς ἀπάταις, but ἐν ταῖς ἀγάπαις is read by Lachmann and Tregelles, as in — Jude 12. 2 See Ewald Gesch. des V. Isr. V. p. 322, Derembourg L’ Histoire de la Palestine p. 238: This is a common termination of names of sects — Ἂ 4 when Grecized; e.g. ᾿Ασσιδαῖος, Φαρισαῖος, Σαδδουκαῖος, "Egoaios — (Fegesipp. in Euseb. ELE. We 23). This fact seems to have pre the true account is pees? in the ἩΡΥΕΘΝ of S. peri Tide 2¢ a "isco of Kavayatos fom Kanan is ened apa to t faults of Lexicography. 139 somewhat strange that our translators should have gone astray on the word, seeing that the Greek form for *}YI5 ‘Canaanite’ is invariably spelt correctly with a X corresponding to Cap, and not with a K correspond- ing to Koph. The earlier Versions however all suppose the word to involve the name of a place, though they do not all render it alike. Tyndale, Coverdale, and the Great Bible have ‘Simon of Cane’ or ‘Cana’; the Geneva Testament (1557) has ‘of Canan’ in the one place, and ‘of Cane’ in the other; the Geneva Bible ‘Cananite’ in both. The Bishops’ Bible, so far as I have observed, first prints the word with a double ὦ (Matt. x. 4), thus fixing the reference to Canaan’. In the Peshito, Kavavatos is translated malin, but Χαναναῖος mZaiS.14, where the difference of the initial letter and the insertion of the x. in the latter word show that in this Version the forms were not confounded. 1 To this list of false derivations some would add xaravvits in Rom. xi. 8, where πνεῦμα κατανύξεως is rendered ‘the spirit of slumber’, though with the marginal alternative vemorse; but I doubt whether Abp. Trench is right in saying (p. 118) that ‘ our translators must have derived κατάνυξις from νυστάζειν, as many others have done.’ The fact is that κατανύσσειν, κατάνυξις, are frequently used in the Lxx to translate words denoting heavy sleep, silence, amazement, and the like, | 68. Levit. x. 3, Ps. iv. 5, xxx. 13, xxxv. 15, Is. vi. 5, Dan. x. 9; and in the very passage to which S. Paul here refers, Is. xxix. 10, κατάνυξις represents the Hebrew p44 ‘deep sleep’. The idea of szmbness is the connecting link between pricking, wounding, and stupor, heavy sleep. ΝΕ S.A See Sa but is not always happy in his explanation of the Lxx renderings. The Fritzsche (Rom. 11. p. 558 sq.) has an important excursus on the word, — earlier English Versions generally adopted the more literal meaning, δ... κατάνυξις. Thus Wycliffe and the Rheims Version have ‘ compunction’ ν after the Vulgate; Tyndale, Coverdale, and the Great Bible ‘unquiet- A _ ness’; the Bishops’ Bible ‘ remorse’, with the marginal note. ee ν8 γῇ “ en” > . έ i + Ot a Baie oe ἦν ’ 2 : i ΙΑ ἘΦ ἘΝ BS isle OA ag CU ce al ts Tag tty fC ἃ aie A a natural meaning of ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι ‘To take hold of i ᾿ the Geneva Bible substitutes ‘slumber’, but with a margin ‘or pri 140 Errors and Defects. There are other passages where, though the word © itself will admit the meaning assigned to it in our Version, and so this meaning cannot be called im- possible, yet the context more or less decidedly fa- vours another sense. Examples belonging to this class are James iii. 5 ἰδοὺ ὀλίγον [1]. ἡλίκον) πῦρ ἡλίκην ὕλην ἀνάπτει, ‘Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth, where the literal meaning of ὕλη is cer- - tainly to be preferred to the philosophical, and where it is most strange that our translators having the correct word ‘wood’ present to their minds should have banished it to the margin: Matt. xxvi. 15 ἔστη- σαν αὐτῷ τριάκοντα ἀργύρια, ‘They covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver,’ where the passage in Zech- ariah (xi. 12 ‘They weighed. for my price thirty. pieces of silver, LXX ἔστησαν) to which the Evangelist | _ alludes ought to have led to the proper rendering of the same word here, ‘zezghed unto him’: Heb. ii. 16 ov yap δήπου ἀγγέλων ἐπιλαμβάνεται ἀλλὰ σπέρματος ᾿Αβραὰμ ἐπιλαμβάνεται, ‘He took not on lim the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham, where the context suggests the more for the purpose of ὧν δ ἡ or assisting’ (comp. ver. 18 Hontneier ἢ 5 Mark i iv. 29 & ὅταν ᾿παραδοῖ ὁ eapratsy ie ᾿ pricking and unquietnesse of conscience’. The Geneva Testament (1557) Sia for cis: as usual'the innovator, rendering the word ‘ heavy sleep’. For it _ The reasons pod 1. (ο΄ ποῦ vas: pripiaiat minnie these wo Faults of Lexicography. | 141 ‘When the fruit is brought forth, where the right meaning vie is given in the margin: Acts il. 3 διαμεριζόμεναι γλῶσσαι ὡσεὶ πυρός, “ΟἸονεη tongues as of fire, where the imagery and the symbolism, not less than the tense, suggest a different rendering of διαμεριζόμεναι, parting asunder: 2 Cor. iv. 4 εἰς τὸ μὴ αὐγάσαι [αὐτοῖς] τὸν φωτισμὸν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, ‘ Lest the light of the Gospel...skould shine unto them,’ where indeed the fault was not with the translators but with the reading, since having αὐτοῖς in their text they had no choice but to translate the words so; but when αὐτοῖς is struck out (as it should be), a different sense ought perhaps to be given to avyacat, ‘That they might not behold the light, etc. Another and a very important example of this class of errors | is the rendering of παῖς in Acts ili. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30, where it is translated ‘son’ or ‘child’ in place of ‘servant’, thus obliterating the connexion with the prophetic announcement of the ‘servant of the Lord’ in Isaiah*. It is not here, as elsewhere, the Sonship, but the ministry, on which the Apostles dwell. In Matt. xii. 18, where the prophecy itself (Isai. xlii. 1) is ᾿ς quoted and applied to our Lord, the words are rightly translated, ‘Behold I send my servant’; and indeed | when confronted with the original no one would think of rendering it otherwise. Other instances again are the rendering of αἴρειν in John i. 29 ὅ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν — τοῦ κόσμου, ‘Which taketh away the sin of the world? _ ‘ a 1 See especially Trench Authorized Version, p. 69. ᾿ρἰεαίαβίποϑϑ of your faith in Christ,’ fails to sug ἐν Errors and Defects. where the marginal reading deareth should probably be substituted in the text; and similarly of avevey- κεῖν in Heb. ix. 28, I Pet. ii. 24 ἀνενεγκεῖν ἁμαρτίας, “Τὸ dear the sins,’ where the true idea is not that of sustaining a burden, but of raising upon the cross. So again πεπληροφορημένων in Luke i. 1 probably means ‘fulfilled’ rather than ‘most surely believed, as in the latter sense the passive is used only of the per- sons convinced and not of the things credited. On the other hand, it is not certain whether Baorafew means ‘to carry off, to steal’ in John xii. 6 τὰ βαλ- Aopeva ἐβάσταζεν, or whether the English Version ‘bare what was put therein’ should stand. In another class of words the English rendering, while it cannot be called incorrect, is vague or in- adequate, so that the exact idea of the original is not represented or the sharpness of outline is blurred. ; This defect will be most obvious in metaphors. For instance in Rom. vi. 13, where ὅπλα ἀδικίας is ren- dered ‘instruments of unrighteousness, instead of arms or weapons (which however is given as an alter- native in the margin), we fail to recognise the image of military service rendered to Sin, as a great king (ver. 12 μὴ βασιλευέτω) who enforces obedience (ὑπα-Ὃ τὸ kovew) and nave his Bnet in the coin of death Ὁ (ver. 23 Ta ὀψώνια τῆς per Piamrosh Aga the ae peaderiog of Col. ii. 5 ὑμῶν τὴν τάξιν καὶ τὸ στερέωμα i τῆς εἰς Χριστὸν πίστεως ὑμῶν, ‘Your order and ἔθ Ὁ ἴδε idea of the close pear arrayed for ΜῈ \ Foults of Lexicography. 143 ‘is involved in the original’: and similarly in 2 Cor. Χ. 5 πᾶν ὕψωμα ἐπαιρόμενον κατὰ τῆς γνώσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ our translators in rendering the words ‘ Every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God,’ appear not to have seen that this expression continues the metaphor of the campaign (στρατευό- μεθα) and the fortresses (ὀχυρώματα) in the context, and that the reference is to the siege works ¢hrown wp for the purpose of attacking the faith. Again the metaphor of καταναρκῶᾶν is very inadequately given in 2 Cor. xi.9 ‘I was chargeable te no man,’ and in xii. 13, 14 1 was not, I will not be, durdensome fo any one’: and the ‘¢horn in the flesh’ in the English Version of 2 Cor. xii. 7 has suggested inter- pretations of S. Paul’s malady, which the original σκόλοψ ‘a stake’ does not countenance, and is almost as wide of the mark as the Latin stzmulus carnts which also has led to much misunderstanding. These are a few instances out of many, which might be given, where a metaphor has suffered from inade- quate rendering. _ Other examples also, where no metaphor is in- volved, might be multiplied. Thus in Matt. ix. 16, 4 _ Mark ii. 21, it is difficult to see why our translators 4 should have abandoned the natural expression ‘un- - dressed cloth, which occurs in the Geneva Testa- ment, as a rendering of ῥάκος ἄγναφον, for ‘new cloth, contenting themselves with putting ‘raw or Bie 1 Mace. ix. 14 εἶδεν "Tovdas ὅτι Βακχίδης καὶ τὸ στερέωμα τῆς ᾿ παρεμβολῆς ἐν τοῖς δεξιοῖς. ͵ 144 Errors and Defects. unwrought’ in the margin. In Matt. xxvi. 36, Mark xiv. 32, we read in the English Version of ‘a place called Gethsemane’; the Greek however is not χῶρος but χωρίον, not a place but ‘a parcel of ground’ (as it is rendered in John iv. 5), an enclosure, a field or garden, and thus corresponds more closely to κῆπος by which S. John describes the same locality though without mentioning the name (xviii. 1). In Acts i. 3 ὀπτανόμενος αὐτοῖς should not have been trans- . lated ‘being seen of them, for the emphatic word ὀπτάνεσθαι, which does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, expresses much more than this, and ‘ showing himself unto them’ would be a better though still an inadequate rendering. In Rom. ii. 22 ὁ βδε- λυσσόμενος τὰ εἴδωλα ἱεροσυλεῖς the inconsistency of the man who Pplunders a heathen temple while pro- fessing to loathe an idol, is lost by the rendering “dost thou commit sacrilege’; and indeed it may be suspected that our translators misapprehended the | force of ἱεροσυλεῖς, more especially as in most of the ; "ἢ earlier Versions it was translated ‘robbest God of a his honour,’ In Acts xiv. I 3 ‘Then the is of a me of sis ae is earls meant. This was. pe _ Tyndale, who quaintly translates it ‘the church- 2 ae oe xvii. ee at Paul Psion an audie 4 =e Faults of Lexicography. TAS guage familiar to them, and speaks of τὸ Oeiov —an expression which does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament; but in the English rendering ‘God- head’ this vague philosophical term- becomes con- ‘crete and precise, as though it had been θεότης in _ the original. In the Acts xiii. 50 and elsewhere οἱ ᾿ς σεβόμενοι, αἱ σεβόμεναι, by which S. Luke always means - ‘proselytes, worshippers of the one God,’ are trans- +t ~ ΨὙντμΑ, oa Fr ao lated ‘devout’; and hence the strange statement (which must perplex many an English reader) that ‘the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable = at wees had beet made to hohe the te ᾿ Jesbiahn, ἜΡΟΝ ΠΕ ΤΕ and Techezchel. “ape eae was ° never ΤΕΒΌΙΘΗ mes ay of 0 [50 Errors and Defects. and authorised since the time of the schism,’ pub- lished at Rheims in 1582, writes as follows: Of one thing we can by no means excuse you, but it must savour vanity or novelty or both. As when you affect new strange words which the people are not acquainted withal, but it is rather Hebrew to them than English: μάλα σεμνῶς ὀνομά- ¢ovres, as Demosthenes speaketh, uttering with great counte- nance and majesty. ‘Against him came up Nabuchadnezzar, King of Babel,’ 2 Par. xxxvi, 6, for ‘Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon’; ‘Saneherib’ for ‘Sennacherib’; ‘Michaiah’s pro- phecy’ for ‘ Michzea’s’ ; ‘Jehoshaphat’s prayer’ for ‘Josaphat’s’ *‘Uzza slain’ for ‘Oza’; ‘when Zerubbabel went about to build the temple’ for ‘Zorobabel’; ‘remember what the Lord did to Miriam’ for ‘Marie,’ Deut. xxxiv; and in your first! transla- tion ‘Elisa’ for ‘Eliszeus’; ‘Pekahia’ and ‘Pekah’ for ‘Phaceia’ and ‘Phacee’; ‘Uziahu’ for ‘Ozias’; ‘Thiglath-peleser’ for ‘Teglath-phalasar’; ‘Ahaziahu’ for ‘Ochozias’; ‘Peka son of Remaliahu’ for ‘Phacee son of Romelia.’ And why say you not ‘as well ‘Shelomoh’ for ‘Salomoh,’ and ‘Coresh’ for ‘Cyrus,’ and so alter every word from the known sound and pronuncia- tion thereof? Is this to teach the people, when you speak Hebrew, rather than English? Were it goodly hearing (think you) to say for ‘Jesus’ ‘Jeshuah’; and for ‘Marie’ his mother ‘Miriam’; and for ‘Messias’ ‘Messiach’; and ‘John’ ‘Jachan- nan’; and such-like monstrous novelties? which you might as well do, and the people would understand you as well, as when your preachers say, ‘Nabucadnezer King of Babel.’ To these charges Fulke gives this brief and sen- sible reply : 1 i.e, The Great Bible, which was the first Bible in use after ‘the schism’; the edition to which Martin refers is that of 1562. The two Bibles, to which Martin’s strictures mostly apply, are the Genevan — and the Bishops’, as being most commonly used when he bigs. See Fulke’s Defence, etc. p. 67 sq. . wine Proper Names. | bet Seeing the most of the proper names of the Old Testament were unknown to the people before the Scriptures were read in English, it was best to utter them according to the truth of their pronunciation in Hebrew, rather than after the common corrup- tion which they had received in the Greek and Latin tongues: But as for those names which were known to the people out of the New Testament, as Jesus, John, Mary, etc., it had been folly to have taught men to sound them otherwise than after the Greek declination, in which we find them’, The attack however was so far successful, that the revisers who produced our Authorised Translation seem to have adopted in each case from the current Versions those forms which least offended the English eye or ear, even though farther removed from the Hebrew. Thus in the examples already given, they write Isaac, Jacob, in preference to Izhak, Iaakob of the Geneva Bible, and Amariah, Zachariah in pre- ference to Amariahu, Zachariahu of the Bishops’. With the general treatment of the Old Testament “names I have no desire to find fault: perhaps the forms in our English Bible approach as nearly to the _ Hebrew as is desirable. But, when we compare the _ New Testament with the Old, some παθόντα aes Β΄ _ tions arise. ha 2 ὍΝ "- ΟΣ AB ae a s Ψ 152 Errors and Defects. did not need to be informed that Eliseus was the same as Elisha, Oziasas Uzziah, Salathiel as Shealtiel, etc. Nowhe has not this advantage. Even supposing that the identity of persons is recognised, much uncon- scious misconception still remains in particular cases. It is very difficult for instance for an English reader, who has not read or thought on the subject, to realise the fact that the Elias, whom the Jews expected to appear in Messiah’s days, was not some weird myth- ical being, or some merely symbolical person, but the veritable Elijah who lived on earth, in flesh and © blood, in the days of Ahab. ‘Let us just seek to realize to ourselves, says Archbishop Trench, ‘the difference in the amount of awakened attention among a. country congregation, which Matt. xvii. 10 would create, if it were read thus: “And his disci- ples asked him, saying,. Why then say the Scribes that L/jah must first come?” as compared with what it now is likely to create’ And this argument applies, though in a less degree, to the scene of the transfiguration. It is most important, as the same writer has observed, to ‘keep vivid and strong the relations between the Old and New Testament in the minds of the great body of English hearers and readers of Scripture’, I imagine that few would deny the advantage of substituting the more familiar Old Testament names in such cases for the less familiar Septuagint forms τα Authorized Version, p. 41. Ὰ ᾿ preserved in the New; but many more may question _ whether such a substitution is legitimate, and I ven- ture therefore to add a few words in defence of this reform which I should wish to see introduced. If at this point we were to invoke the second principle (which has been mentioned above and will be considered presently), that whenever a familiar English form of a name occurs, this shall be substi- tuted for the original, e.g. John for Ioannes, James for Iacobos, Mary for Mariam, this principle alone would justify the change which Iam advocating. For, to our generation at least, the familiar English names — of the Old Testament personages are Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, etc.; and therefore on this ground alone the ᾿ Greek forms Elias, Eliseus, Esaias, should give place om ἊΝ ἴο them. In the 16th and 17th centuries it might be 8 question between Esay, Esaie, Esaias, Isaiah ; be- - tween Abdy, Abdias, Obadiah; between Jeremy, ane ah mias, Jeremiah; between Osee, Oseas, Osea, Hosea (or Hoshea); between Sophony, Sophonia, So en eo between Aggeus, -Hageeuss Haggai; es - Proper Names. | Porn ΔΠΗ 3. 154 Errors and Defects. sent the original names as nearly as the vocables and the genius of the Greek language permit; and in translating it is surely allowable to neglect the | purely Greek features in the words. This applies especially to terminations, such as Jeremias, Jonas, Ma- nasses, for Jeremiah, Jonah, Manasseh; and in fact the name Elias itself is nothing more than ‘ Elijah’ simi- larly formed, for the Hebrew word could not have been written otherwise in Greek. It applies also to the change of certain consonants. Thus a Greek had no choice but to represent the sz sound by a sim- ple s. Like the men of Ephraim, the Greeks could not frame to pronounce the word Shibboleth right ; and it is curious to observe to what straits the Alex- andrian translator of the narrative in the book of Judges (xii. 5, 6) is driven in his attempt to render the incident into this language’. Remembering this, we shall at once replace Cis (Acts xiii. 21) by Kish’, and Aser (Luke ii. 36, Rev. vii. 6) by Asher ; while the English reader will at length discover that the un- familiar Saron, connected with the history of Atneas (Acts ix. 35), is the well-known: Sharon of Old Tes- tament history. Combining this principle of change with the foregoing, we should restore Elisha in place of Eliseus. For the Hebrew gutturals again the Greeks had no equivalent, and were obliged either to omit 1 He can only say εἰπὸν δὴ στάχυς [A has εἴπατε δὴ σύνθημα] καὶ οὐ κατεύθυνε [A καὶ κατηύθυναν) τοῦ λαλῆσαι οὕτως. 2 It is not easy to see why our translators should have written Cis, Core, rather than Kis, Kore. — | Roe or to substitute the nearest sound which their language afforded. On this principle they frequently represented the final § by an εἶ ; and hence the forms Core, Noe, which therefore we should without scruple replace by the more familiar Korah, Noah. In the middle of a word it was often represented by a y, while our Old Testament translators in this and other positions give an /; and thus there is no reason why Rachab, Achaz, should stand in the New Testament for Rakab, Afaz in the Old. Again, the fact that the aspirate, though pronounced, was never written in _ Greek should be taken into account ; and any diverg- ence from the Hebrew form which can be traced to this cause might be neglected; thus Agar, Eze- kias would be replaced by Hagar, Hezekiah, and Josaphat, Roboam, by Jehoshaphat, Rehoboam’. By = adopting this principle of neglecting mere peculiari- = om i “ties and imperfections of the Greek in the repre- a ἣ undergone the modification, we _ should in almost _ sentation of the Hebrew names, and thus endea-_ -vouring to reproduce the original form which has ν᾿ ee very many sgidsnes of this jee Sometimes this faa Ἧς “ἢ __ Tepresents an ἢ) ΟΥ̓ ἃ 7. ΄ ὍΣΣ, For ‘PadB (Heb. xi. 31, James i ii. 25) our translators have b Prope Names. toca δ τ Ψ' 156 Errors and Defects. every important instance bring the names in the Old ‘and New Testament into conformity with each other. A very few comparatively trifling exceptions would still remain, where the Greek form cannot be so ex- plained. These might be allowed to stand; or if the identity of the person signified was beyond question (eg. Aram and Ram), the Old Testament form might be replaced in the text, and the Greek form given in the margin. (2) The second of the two principles, which were enunciated above as guiding our English translators, also requires some consideration. Under this head the zzconsistency of our Author- ised Version will need correction, for it is incapable of defence. If the prophet was to be called Osee* 1 It may be questioned whether this word should be pronounced as a dissyllable, the double ὁ being regarded as an English termination as in Zebedee, Pharisee, etc., or as a trisyllable, the word being considered as a reproduction of the Greek ’Qo7é. On the other hand there can, I think, be no doubt that the modern fashion of pronouncing the final e of Magdalene, as though it represented the 7 of the original, is erroneous. The word is far older than the translations made from the Greek in the 16th and 17th centuries, and came from the Latin. Though in the A.V. (1611) the spelling is always ‘Magdalene,’ yet in the earlier Versions it is indifferently Magdalen and Magdalene. Wycliffe writes it ‘Mawdeleyn’—a pronun- ἡ ciation which has survived in the names of our Colleges and in the adjective ‘maudlin.’ There is no more reason for sounding tie last letter in Magdalene, than in Urbane (Rom. xvi. 9). This last word is printed ‘ Urbane,’ in all the early editions of the A.V. which I have consulted (1611, 1612, 1617, 1629, 1630, 163%). On the other hand the earlier Versions without exception, so far as | La have noticed, have ‘ Urban’ or ‘ Urbanus.’ In the Authorised Venton (1611) these final e’s were common; thus we find ἜΡΟΝ πε Marke, Romane, Samaritane, etc. 7 “ia fee ἧς Boek Names. | 157 ‘in the New Testament (Rom. ix. 26), there is no _ reason why he should have remained Hosea in the Old. If the country appears as Greece in Zechariah (ix. 13) and in the Acts (xx. 2), why should it be named Grecia in the book of Daniel (viii. 21, x. 20, xi. 2)? Ifthe inhabitants of this country are Greeks in the New Testament, why should they be Grecians in the Old (Joel iii. 6)'? If Mark is substituted for Marcus in some passages (Acts xii. 12, 25, 2 Tim. iv. 11), why should Marcus. have been allowed to stand in others (Col. iv. 10, Philem. 24, 1 Pet. v. 13)? Nay, so far does this inconsistency go, that Jeremy and Jeremias occur in the same Gospel (Matt. ii. 17, xvi. 14): Luke and Lucas in two companion Epistles sent at the same time, from the same place, and to the same destination (Col. iv. 14, Philem. 24); and _ Timothy and Timotheus in the same chapter of the same Epistle (2 Cor. i. 1, 19). In all these cases the a form which is zow the most familiar should be _ consistently adopted. This rule would substitute ᾿ Jeremiah for Jeremy, but on the other hand it would — eo Mark to Marcus. At the same time bes Se waacated by _ eect Jew? or Ἢ some similar ΠΡΟΣ RA As Ἕλλην i is Sai ve susie without hesitation elsewhere ( > 158 Errors and Defects. ᾿ This principle, if consistently carried out, would : rule one very important example. Familiar usage, which requires that the name JESUS should be re- tained when it designates the most sacred Person of all, no less imperatively demands that Foshua shall be substituted when the great captain of Israel and conqueror οἵ Palestine is intended. For the same reason we speak of the Patriarch as Facob and the Apostle as Fames; of the sister of Moses as Miriam, and the mother of the Lord as Mary. It so happens that both the passages in which the name Jesus de- signates the Israelite captain (Acts vii. 45, Heb. iv. 8) are more or less obscure either from difficulties in the context or from defects of translation ; and the endless confusion, which is created in the minds of the un- educated by the retention of this form, is a matter of everyday experience. This last example leads me to speak of another point. There can be little doubt that, when the same person is intended, the same form should be adopted throughout. But what should be done, when the name which has a familiar English form applies to unfamiliar persons? Thus the English Yohz corre- sponds to the Greek ᾿Ιωάνης or Ἰωάννης, and to the Hebrew Fehohanan or Fohanan (ΤΠ) or 127}. Are we then in every case to substitute John, where either the Greek or the Hebrew form occurs? No one would think of displacing John the Baptist, or John the son of Zebedee, or John surnamed Mark, — But what are we to do with the Old Testament per- _ Proper Ni ames. | a fee sonages bearing this name? What with those who are mentioned in 5. Luke’s genealogy, where appa-. rently the name occurs more than once in forms more or less disguised (iii. 24 (?), 27, 30)? What with John i. 43, xxi. 15, 16, 17, where our English Version gives ‘Simon son of Jona,’ but where the true reading in the original is doubtless "Iwavov? I do not know that any universal rule can be laid down; but pro- bably the practice, adopted by our translators, of re- producing the name when it occurs in the Hebrew form, and translating it when in the Greek, would be generally approved. Yet perhaps an exception might be made of John i. 43, xxi. 15, 16, 17, where it is ad- visable either in the text or in the margin to show the connexion of form with the Bapiwva of Matt. xvi. 17’. Again, in the English Version there is the tere) aber LE Ἀν. 9 Ἐν es etic aa τὰ a This form Ἴων ἃ may represent two distinct Hebrew names: (1) 74399 “Α dove,’ the prophet’s name, Jonah: (2) 33M)! ‘ The grace of Jehovah,’ en or John. This last is generally written Ἰωανάν or Ἰωάνης (the. form Ἰωάννης with the double v has inferior support), Contracted it. becomes Ἰωνάν or Ἰωνά, the first a being liable to be slurred over in ἘΠῚ: Β), Ezra x. 6 (δὲ corr. from ent 1 Esdr. ix. 1 .Θ), Lakes iii, 27 ee Ge Ne ἐν iii. 30 Ο. 1); for pone 2 Kings xxv. 23 (B), Luke i iii. 30 σ. ; Bpueicistion, because the Hebrew accent falls on the ἴω ger ; am 160 Errors and Defects. greatest confusion in the forms of another name, Fa- dah, Fudas, fuda, fude. Thus the patriarch is called both Fada and Fudah in the same context (Heb. vii. 14, viii. 8), and Fudas and Fuda in parallel narratives (Matt. i. 2, 3, Luke iii. 33): and again, the brother of Jesus is called Fudas in one Evangelist (Matt. xii. 55) and ¥uda in ancther (Mark vi. 3). The principle of familiarity suggests ude for the writer of the Epistle; Fudah for the patriarch and the tribe and country named from him; and Fzudas for Iscariot and for the other less known persons bearing the name}; while Juda, which occurs for the.patriarch or tribe (Luke iii. 33, Heb. vii. 14, Rev. v. 5, vii. 5) and the country (Matt. ii. 6, Luke i. 39), as well as for other unknown persons (Luke iii. 26 (?), 30), ought to dis- appear wholly. And so far as regards Judah and Judas, it would be well to follow this principle ; but, when the name is used of the author of the Epistle, though Jude might (if it were thought fit) be retained in the title, yet Judas should be substituted for Jude in the opening verse, so as not to preclude the identification of this person with the Lord’s brother (which is highly probable), or again with his namesake in S. Luke’s statement which we find in a list of Apostles preserved in the Paris MSS Reg. 1780, 1026 (quoted by Cotelier, Patr. Afost. 1. p. 27§), Πέτρος . καὶ ᾿Ανδρέας ἀδελφοί, ἐκ πατρὸς Llwyd, μητρὸς ᾿Ιωαννᾶ, or as it is otherwise read ἐκ πατρὸς ᾿Ιωάννου, μητρὸς ᾿Ιωνᾶς. Our Lord seems to allude to” the meaning of the word in Matt. xvi. 17 ‘Blessed art thou Simon. Bar Jona (Son of the Grace of God), for flesh and blood did not reveal it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.’ There is probably a similar allusion in all the passages in S. John. “fs ἊΣ Proper Names. WR 161 lists of the Apostles (which has commended itself to many). , : - An error greater than any hitherto mentioned is _ the rendering of the female name Euodia (Evodiav Phil. iv. 2) by the masculine Euodias*; while con- versely it seems probable that we should render the name Ἰουνίαν, one of 3. Paul’s kinsfolk, who was “ ‘noted among the Apostles’ (Rom. xvi. 7), by Junias (2.6. Junianus), not Junia’. . Whether in certain cases a name should be re- wit _ tained or translated, will be a matter of question ; : _ but no defence can be offered for the inconsistency of ᾿ retaining ‘Areopagus’ in Acts xvii. 19 and rendering it ‘Mars-hill’ three verses below. Nor again is there any reason why κρανίου τόπος should be translated | i ‘A (or the) place of a skull’ in three Gospels (Matt. xxvii. 33, Mark xv. 22, John xix. 17), and 6 τόπο. a ᾿ ὃ καλούμενος κρανίον ‘The place which is called Ca/-_ tary’ in athe fourth ioe XXill. 33). In all | places 5 162 Errors and Defects. rendered ᾿Αππίου Φόρον ‘The Market of Appius,’ as it stands in the Geneva Version’. The question between reproduction and transla- tion becomes more important when we turn from proper names to official titles and technical. terms, such as weights, measures, and the like. In the Old Testament our translators have frequently adopted the former principle, e.g. bath, cor, ephah, etc.: in the New, they almost universally adhere to the latter. In a Version which aims at being popular rather than literary, the latter course seems to be amply jus- tified*. Yet, when the principle is conceded, the ap- plication is full of difficulty. The choice very often lies between giving a general expression which con- 1 Another fault is the rendering both Φοῖνιξ, the haven of Crete (Acts xxvii. 12), and Φοινίκη, the country of Phoenicia (Acts xi. 19, xv. 3), by the same word ‘Phenice’ (after the Bishops’ and Geneva Bibles) ; while conversely Φοινίκη has two different renderings, ‘Phenice’ (xi. 19, xv. 3), and ‘Phenicia’ (xxi. 2). The older Versions generally, as late as the Great Bible, have ‘ Phenices’ or ‘Phenyces’ for both words. Did our translators intend the final e of ‘Phenice’, when it represents Phoenix, to be mute, on the analogy of Beatrix, Beatrice? 2 At all events, whichever course is adopted, it should be carried out consistently. Thus there is no reason why ‘Pai should be sometimes reproduced in the English Version (Matt. xxiii. 7, 8, John i. 39, 50, iii. 2, 26, vi. 25) and sometimes rendered ‘ Master’ (Matt. xxvi. 25, 49, Mark ix. 5, xi. 21, xiv. 45, John iv. 31, ix. 2, xi. 8), or in like manner why “ΡῬαββουνί, which only occurs twice, should be once translated ‘Lord’ (Mark x. 51) and once retained (Joh. xx. 16). In the same way the word πάσχα; which is generally rendered ‘ Pass- over’, is represented once and only once by ‘Easter’ (Acts xii. 4). This is a remnant of the earlier Versions in which πάσχα is commonly Ὁ translated so, even in such passages as Luke xxii. 1 ἡ ἑορτὴ τῶν ἀζύμων ἢ λεγομένη πάσχα ‘which is called Easter’, where however the a and Bishops’ Bibles substitute ‘Passover’, “34 ear but suggests a conception more or less at vari- ance with the original. ares How, for instance, are we to treat tubbearne) Wycliffe reproduced the Latin ‘proconsul’, The earlier Versions of the Reformed Church generally give ‘ruler of the county,’ ‘ruler’. The Authorised Version adopts the rendering of the Geneva and Bishops’ Bibles, ‘deputy of the country’, ‘deputy’. This last has now nothing to recommend it. In the _16th century, when the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was styled Deputy, the word would convey a sufficiently precise idea; but now it suggests a wrong concep- tion, if it suggests any atall. What sense, for instance, can an English reader attach to the words ‘The law is open, and there are deputies’ (Acts xix. 38), which pik the Authorised Version are given as the rendering ~ a οὗ ἀγόραιοι ἄγονται' καὶ ἀνθύπατοί eiow? The term — ἣ which in the 19th cenkany corresponds most me o remain it is dict ee In the margin our Official Titles. = 163 -veys no very definite idea, and adopting some tech- ‘nical term which is precise enough to the English “Δ 164 | Errors and Defects. cise language however exception might be taken; ὁ and if so, we should be obliged to fall back on some general term, such as ‘governor,’ ‘ chief-magistrate, or the like. With the rendering of γραμματεύς, ‘town- clerk,’ in Acts xix. 35, I should not be disposed to find fault, for it is difficult to suggest a more exact equivalent. In the context of the same passage how- ever (ver. 31) an English reader would not under- a stand that the ‘vzlers of Asia’ were officers appointed _ to preside at the festivals, and perhaps ‘presidents of Asia’ might be substituted with advantage (for the word occurs in the English Bible), though it is im- possible entirely to remove an obscurity which exists _ eC also in the Greek ᾿Ασιάρχης. In Rom. xvi. 23 the ce substitution of ‘treasurer’ for ‘chamberlain’ in the — rendering of ὃ οἰκονόμος τῆς πόλεως would be an im- ia for ‘treasurer’ again is a good ms oY ay xxi, 3h 32, XXil, 2426 xxiii. — ss του", Official Titles. 165 : 7 these renderings have established a prescriptive right, - ὦ ᾿ ΄ . ᾿ and an adequate reason must be shown for disturb- ing them. In Acts xvi. 35, 38 ῥαβδοῦχοι ‘lictors is well rendered ‘sergeants’; and in xxviii. 16 the translation of στρατοπεδάρχης, the prefectus pretorio, as ‘captain of the guard’ is a great improvement on the less precise renderings of the earlier Versions ; ‘chief-captain of the host’ (Tyndale, Great Bible, Bi- shops’), ‘ chief-captain’ (Coverdale), ‘general captain’ (Geneva); and with the addition of one word might very well stand, ‘chief-captain (or captain-general) of the guard.’ On the other hand in Mark vi. 27 σπε- κουλάτωρ, which signifies ‘a soldier of the guard,’ should not have been rendered ‘executioner’ (in the a earlier Versions it is ‘hangman’), for this term de- _ scribes a mere accident of his office. But if oficial titles are on the whole fairly rene ba ἐστιν jai But from this point the ir and inconsistency’ begin. Why ἀσσάριον, th eek diminut € used for the as, of which nere- \ \ te ἷ γα, whose haat is Horatio with the — 1] 166 Errors and Defects. ; KodpavTns) rather than a penny, it is difficult to see (Matt. x. 29, Luke xii. 6). And, as we advance in the scale, the disproportion between the value of the original coin and the English substitute increases. Thus the denarius, a silver piece of the value origi- nally of ten and afterwards of sixteen ases, is always rendered a penny. Its absolute value, as so much weight in metal, is as nearly as possible the same as the French franc. Its relative value, as a purchasing power, in an age and a country where provisions were much cheaper was considerably more. Now, it so happens that in almost every case where the word δηνάριον occurs in the New Testament it is connected. with the idea of a Liberal or large amount; and yet in these passages the English rendering names a sum which is absurdly small. Thus the Good Samaritan, whose generosity is intended to appear throughout, ἐν on leaving takes out ‘two pence’ and gives them to. the innkeeper to supply the further wants of the wounded man. Thus again the owner of the vin τ day's wages, : a τ to each man. It is wee to ask what i ἀρ eS the mention of Mee sum ἘΝ one of he ὑέροδένε, ile Evea at thea δὰ ὼ | ἘΣ ersion was mee and when —— Coins, Weghts and Measures. 167 adequacy again appears, though not so prominently, in the two hundred pence, the sum named as insuf- ficient to supply bread to the five thousand (Mark vi. 37, John vi. 7), and similarly in other cases (e.g. Mark. xiv. 5, John xii. δ, Luke vii. 41). Lastly, in the Book of the Revelation (vi. 6) the announce- ment, which in the original implies famine prices, is rendered in our English Version, ‘A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny. The fact is that the word χοῖνιξ, here translated ‘measure’, falls below the amount of a quart, while the word δηνάριον, here trans- lated ‘a penny’, approaches towards the value of a shilling. To the English reader the words must convey the idea of enormous plenty’. Another word drachma occurs in the parable of the lost money in 5. Luke xv. 8, 9, where it is translated pzece of silver. Yet the Greek drachma is so nearly equal in value to the Roman denarius, that it may be questioned whether the same coin is not meant by both terms’; parable from the time when this sum would be no inadequate remunera- tion for a day’s labour; but long before the Versions of the Reformed Church were made, this had ceased to be the case. Even in Henry the VIIIth’s reign a labourer earned from sixpence to eightpence a day (Froude I. p. 29 sq.); though after the Restoration the rate of wages does not seem to have advanced much upon this amount (see Macaulay I. p. 413). 1 A ‘measure’ in some parts of England is or was equivalent to a Winchester bushel. At all events it would suggest a large rather than a small quantity. 2 See Plin. V. H. xxi. 109 ‘Drachma Attica denarii argentei habet pondus.’ This parable does not occur in 5. Matthew and 5. Mark, and must have been derived by 5. Luke from some independent. 168 Errors and Defects. and, if pzece of silver or stlver-piece is a reasonable translation of drachma, it might very well be em- ployed to render denarius. Again, in the incident relating to the tribute-money (Matt. xvii. 24 sq.) mention is made of two different coins or sums of money, the ddrachma and the séater, the latter being double of the former; and this relation of value is important, and should have been preserved if possible, because it explains our Lord’s words, ‘Take it (the stater) and give unto them for me and for thee.’ In our Version however didrachma is rendered ‘tri- bute-money, tribute, and stater ‘a piece of money.’ Of larger amounts mna (μνᾶ) is translated a ‘pound’ in one parable (Luke xix. 13)’; while in two others (Matt. xviii. 24.sq., xxv. 14 sq.) ¢alent is allowed to stand. From the latter of these comes the second- ary metaphorical sense of the word ‘talent,’ which has entirely superseded the literal meaning in com- mon language. The treatment of measures again is extremely loose. The μετρητής indeed is fairly rendered ‘firkin’ in John ii.6; and the #odius appears as ‘bushel’ (Matt. v. 15, Mark iv. 21, Luke xi. 33), where the English measure, though greatly in excess of the Latin, which source. Hence, as addressing Greek readers chiefly, he would not unnaturally name a Greek coin in preference. Similarly it was seen above (p. 112) that ὀρεινή is confined to S. Luke in that portion of his narrative which does not run parallel with the other two Evangelists. 1 The Wycliffite Versions have ‘besaunt’ for μνᾶ here; but the care- lessness with which the word is used appears from the fact that they employ it also to render drachma on the one hand (Luke xv. .8) and talentum on the other (Matt. xviii. 24 (v. 1.), xxv. 16). ; ae ss Coins, Weights and Measures. 169. is about a peck, may nevertheless remain undisturbed, since nothing depends on exactness. With these ex- ceptions, the one word ‘measure’ is made to do duty for all the terms which occur in the original. Thus in Rev. vi. 6, already quoted, it stands for a χοῖνιξ, something under a quart; and in other passages it represents not less than three Hebrew measures, the σάτον or seah (Matt. xiii. 33, Luke xiii. 21), the βάτος, the bath or ephah, and the κόρος, the cor or homer (both in Luke xvi. 6, 7), though the seah is one-third of the bath, and the bath one-tenth of the cor. In the _ former of these two passages from the Gospels accu- racy is unimportant, for the ‘three measures of meal’ in the parable will tell their tale equally, whatever ᾧ may be the contents of the measure: though even _ here we may regret that our translators deserted the Ἢ ‘more precise ‘peck,’ which they found in some of the | $3 Ἵ older Versions. But in Luke xvi. 6, 7, where the | bath and the cor are mentioned in the same context, 3 a they should certainly be distinguished. The κόροι εἶ es σίτου might very well be rendered ‘garters of wheat” a τῇ with Tyndale and several of the older Versions. Ἢ aa c or the βάτοι ἐλαίου it is more difficult to find an ἢ aivalent : Wycliffe renders βάτους by ‘barrels’ ; the τε ims Version by ‘pipes.’ In Rev. vi. 6 it is still re iemepecqnt to aim at precision, because nthe 4 170 Errors and Defects. . § 7. This discussion has been occupied hitherto with questions affecting the correctness of our Version, as representing the Greek. It remains to consider the English in itself, as a literary production rather than as a translation, and to ask how far it is capable of amendment from this point of view. And here I certainly am not disposed to dissent from the universal verdict, in which those least dis- posed to stubborn conservatism have most heartily concurred, and which has been reasserted only the more emphatically since the question of revision was started. But those who having studied our English Version most carefully, and therefore have entered most fully into its singular merits, will be the least disposed to deny that here and there the reviser’s hand may be employed with advantage. Under this head the archaisms demand to be considered first. Whatever may have been the feel- ing in generations past, there is no disposition in the present age to alter the character of our Version. The stately rhythm and the archaic colouring are — alike sacred in the eyes of all English-speaking peo- ples. On the other hand it must be borne in mind that our Version addresses itself not to archzolo- gists and critics, but to plain folk. And these two © considerations cplibiane. should guide the pen of the 3 4 ᾿ Soe x We d rie ᾿ Ὁ" τ Α A rchaisins. eine ah eo: , reviser. So long as δὴ ‘archaism is intelligible, let it by all means be retained. If it is misleading or am- _ biguous or inarticulate, the time for removing it has come. ig , As examples of innocent archaisms we might _ quote ‘bewray, ‘despite,’ ‘list,’ ‘strait,’ ‘travail,’ ‘twain, and hundreds of others. Whether it would be necessary to wring the heart of the archeologist by removing ‘all to brake’ and ‘earing,’ we need not stop to consider, as they do not occur in the New Testament. Σ If on the other hand I were asked to point out a _ guilty archaism, I should lay my finger at once on “ the translation of μεριμνᾷν in Matt. vi. 25, 31, 34, μὴ ᾿ μεριμνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ ὑμῶν τί φάγητε ‘Take no thought — β | for your life, what ye shall eat,’ μὴ μεριμνήσητε λέγοι- δ τ τες τί νυ ‘Take no in i saying What shall Σ we eat?’ > μὴ Ppa εἰς τὴν αὔριον ‘Take no : ae for the morrow,’ I have heard of a political economist alleging this passage as an objection to 2 “the moral Pi ite of the Sermon on the oa on 172 Errors and Defects. thought but distress and anxiety about the future which our Lord forbids; for this, and not less than this, is the force of μέριμνα, as may be seen from such passages as I Pet. v. 7 πᾶσαν τὴν μέριμναν ὑμῶν ἐπιρίψαντες ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, OTL αὐτῷ μέλει περὶ ὑμῶν, where the distinction οὗ μέριμνα and μέλειν is signi- ficant, though effaced in our English Version, ‘ Cast- ing all your care upon Him, for He careth for you. A study of English archaisms again would have taught that our translators did not intend what they seem to say, for to ‘take thought’ in the old language meant to distress or trouble oneself’. But the great mass of people have neither the time nor the opportunity, even if they had the capacity, for such investigations. This archaism therefore is one which at all hazards should disappear in any revision of the English Bible. For ‘take no thought’ some have suggested ‘be not careful.’ But this, though an improvement, is very far from adequate. For carefulness, though in the 16th and 17th centuries it might be a term of reproof*, in the modern lan- 1 e.g. 1 Sam. ix. 5, ‘Come, and let us return, lest my father...take thought for us’, where the Hebrew verb is Αἰ Ἴ, which Gesenius renders sollicitus fuit, anxie timuit. ‘To die of thought’ in the old language was to die heart-broken. On this archaism see Trench Authorized Version Ὁ. 14, Wright Bible Word-Book s. v. 2 In fact it is used more than once to translate this very word μέριμνα, e.g. 1 Cor. vii. 32 ‘I would have you without carefulness’, 1.6. anxiety (θέλω ὑμᾶς ἀμερίμνους εἷναι), Phil. iv. 6 ‘Be careful for nothing’ (μηδὲν μεριμνᾶτε). Latimer Serm. p. 400 (quoted in Wright’s Bible Word-Book 5. v.) speaks of ‘this wicked carefulness’, an expression which in the modern language would be a contradiction in terms. aes ‘ a - na Sear Archaisms. . 173 guage almost always implies commendation. In fact itis an archaism open to the same misapprehension, though not to the same degree, as ‘take no thought.’ ‘Be not anxious’ or ‘be not troubled’ would adequately express the original. The word ‘anxious’, it is true, | does not occur in our English Bible, but this is one of those rare instances where our new revisers might well assume the liberty, which the authors of the Received Version certainly claimed and exercised before them, of introducing a new word, where the language has shifted and no old word conveys the exact meaning. | But though ‘take no thought’ is the worst of- fender of all, yet other archaisms might with advan- tage be removed. We may suspect that many an _ Englishman, when he hears of Zacharias ‘asking for a writing table (Luke i. 63), conceives a notion very ae from the Evangelist’s own meaning: We τὸν a compass, when ho set sail from κόρος “ae XXVUL. I 3) not’ Hate able to reconcile this | 174 Errors and Defects. Lord’s injunction to the disciples to ‘take no serip’ with them, or S. Luke’s statement that the Apostle’s com- pany ‘took up their carriages and went up to Jerusa- lem’ (Acts xxi. 15), are universally understood. We may feel quite certain that the great majority of read- ers do not realise the fact (for how should they?) that by the highest and the lowest vooms in the parable are meant merely the places or seats’ at the top or bottom of the same table, and that therefore the invi- tation to ‘go up higher’ does not imply mounting a staircase to a more dignified reception-room in the upper storey. We find that even a scholarly divine* seems to infer from 5. Paul’s language (1 Tim. v. 4) the duty incumbent not only on children but even on nephews of providing for their aged relations; and finding this we can hardly expect illiterate persons to know that in the old language xephew signifies grandchild. Among these misleading archaisms the word coast for ‘border’ or ‘region’ is perhaps the most frequent. It would be unreasonable to expect the English reader to understand that when S. Paul ‘passes through the wpper coasts’ (τὰ avwrepixa μέρη) on his way to Ephesus (Acts xix. 1), he does in fact traverse the high land which lies in the zxterior of Asia 1 Again in 1 Cor. xiv. 16 ‘He that occupieth the room of the un- learned’, a double archaism obscures the sense of the original 6 ἀναπληρῶν τὸν τόπον ‘He that flleth the place’. 2 Blunt Church of the First Three Centuries p. 27 ‘She was to have — none of those children able to minister to her nor yet nephews’; see : * Trench’s Authorized Version p. 18, Tie vo te τὸ “- Ἢ i Ree Ara. thet 5.” ἜΣ t/t Minor. Again in the Gospels, when he reads of our Lord visiting ‘the coasts of Tyre and Sidon’ (Matt. xv. 21, Mark vii. 31), he naturally thinks of the sea- board, knowing these to be maritime cities, whereas the word in one passage stands for μέρη ‘parts,’ and in the other for ὅρια ‘borders, and the circumstances suggest rather the eastern than the western frontier of the region. And perhaps also his notions of the geography of Palestine may be utterly confused by reading that Capernaum is situated ‘upon the sea- coast’ (Matt. iv. 13). Then again, how is such a person to know that when S. Paul condemns ‘debate’ together with envy, wrath, murder, and the like (Rom. i. 29, 2 Cor. xii. _ 20), he denounces not discussion, but contention, strife ᾿ς (ἔρις); or that when he says, ‘If any man have a by quarrel against any’ (Col. iii. 13), he means a com- ᾿ς plaint (querela), the original being ἔχῃ μομφήν; or | that, when S. James writes ‘Grudge not one against another’ (v. 9), the word signifies ‘murmur’ or ‘be- or Ῥριρήαν Even if ne is aware that * bie pi eens’ not 5 ecules want of ahi aan sect re ΩΝ oP pare: ἀπε τὰ it context and cc oer y ΤΕΥ ΤΟ Aya ae a © ea Errors and Defects. = = = by the term, will he also perceive that the ‘mali-. -ciousness’ which is denounced alike by 5. Paul (Rom. — i, 29 ‘full of maliciousness’) and 5. Peter (1 Pet. ii. 16 ‘not using your liberty for a cloak of malicious- ness’) does not denote one special form of evil, but the vicious character generally (κακία)! Again, the expressions zustantly and by and by may be taken in connexion, as being nearly allied. Yet in Biblical language neither signifies what it would signify to ourselves. Jvstantly has not a tem- poral sense at all, but means ‘urgently,’ as in Luke vii. 4, ‘They besought him instantly (σπουδαίως): while on the other hand dy and by, having a temporal sense, denotes not deferred but immediate action, standing most frequently for εὐθύς or εὐθέως and therefore cor- “se responding to the modern sense of zzstantly. Thus ᾿ ; in the Greek of the parable of the sower the zzstan- ᾿ς ἐξ taneous welcome of the word has its counterpart in — ‘a the zuzstantancous 5 aaaneiage under persecutiaile (Matt. τς ΧΗ 20, 21) εὐθὺς μετὰ χαρᾶς λαμβάνων αὐτόν, εὐθὺς ᾿ς σκανδαλίζεται ; but in the English Version this: pears, ‘Avonz with joy receiveth it, ‘By and by h offended’; where partly through the archaisms τ partly. through the change of words the expressi as a the original is seriously blunted. ἧς pethe vases | last pe ou contains anothe Br: A rchaisms. | 177 and were more liable to shift their meaning than others. We have witnessed this phenomenon in znstantly, and the same was also the case with offend, offence. ‘If thy right eye offend thee,‘ Woe unto him through whom the offeuces come,’ do not convey to any but the educated reader the idea which they ‘were intended to express. By substituting ‘cause to offend’ (or perhaps ‘cause to stumble’ or ‘to fall’) for ‘offend,’ we may in passages where the verb occurs ‘bring out the idea more clearly; but in the case of the substantive the right of prescription and the diffi- culty of finding an equivalent may plead for the re- tention of the word. But where other Latinisms are ‘concerned, no such excuse can be pleaded. Thus, “Occupy till I come’ (πραγματεύσασθε, Luke xix. 13) is quite indefensible. Wycliffe has marchaundise ; Purvey chaffer; Tyndale duy aud sell; and it is diffi- -cult to see why a word should have been substituted - in the later Bibles, which must (one would think) _ ‘have appeared novel and affected at the time, and es which has changed its meaning since. I have sug- 3 gested ‘ Trade ye’ above (p. 42). Another example is ‘O generation (γεννήματα) of vipers, which the _ English reader inevitably takes to be a parallel.ex- ΟὃὀὁὋ» ἡ pression to ‘a wicked and adulterous generation — 5 (γενεά), though the Greek words are quite different, ὴ aa? generation in the first passage signifies ‘ offspring’ οὐ ‘brood’—two good old English words, either afi ᾿ Ἢ which poe ἯΓ ἡϑιυρ ας γα be cubstifuias for. ft © " a | aes: 178 Errors and Defects. by and beheld your devotions’ (σεβάσματα), where ‘your devotions’ is not a misrendering but an ar- chaism, signifying ‘the objects of your worship,’ ‘your gods or idols.’ Other instances again are 1 Tim. iii. 13, ‘ They that have used the office of a deacon well, purchase (περιποιοῦνται) to themselves a good degree,’ where the idea of traffic suggested by the modern use of the word is alien to the passage; and Matt. xvii. 25, ‘When he was gone into the house, Jesus 276- vented (προέφθασεν) him, saying, What thinkest thou, - Simon?’, in which passage at all events the original meaning of ‘prevent’ would not suggest itself to the English reader. In both cases we might with advan- tage recur to the renderings of Tyndale, ‘get’ for ‘pur- chase,’ and ‘spake first’ for ‘ prevented.’ From the word last mentioned we pass not un- © naturally to the verb which it has supplanted, Τὸ prevent has taken the place of to /e¢, meaning to check, © to hinder, while this latter verb has become obsolete in this sense. Unnecessary and unadvisable as it : would be to alter this archaism in such phrases 85. : ‘Sore let and hindered in running the race that 5 ‘set before us,’ where it cannot mislead, its oc sal rence in the New Testament is not always free fr ew © 4 “Not very dissimilar to Ane il ayataii Ἴ a pai beck c τὰ about,’ used in our Ve Ambiguities. 179 John vii. 19, 20, ‘ Why go ye about to kill me?’ ‘Who -goeth about to kill thee?’, Acts xxi. 31 ‘As they went ‘about to kill him, it can hardly occur to the English ‘reader that nothing more is meant than ‘seek to kill,’ -as the same phrase ζητεῖν ἀποκτεῖναι is translated ‘elsewhere, and even in the very context of the first - passage (John vii. 25). In Acts xxiv. 5, 6, again the -misunderstanding is rendered almost inevitable by -the context, ‘A mover of sedition among all the Jews _throughout the world...who also hath gone about to profane the temple’; where the expression represents another verb similar to ἕητεῖν in seein οἱ TO ἱερὸν ἐπείρασεν βεβηλῶσαι. : After disposing of the archaisms, little remains to -be said about the English of our Version. There are _ however some ambiguities of translation which arise _ from other causes. Thus Ephes. vi. 12 ‘Against spi- : | ‘ritual wickedness in high places’ (πρὸς τὰ πνευματικὰ τῆς ᾿ a ‘ ke emnplas: ¢ ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις), where the English reader 15 led to think of vice in persons of rank and station; τὸ Phi ill. i eh prize of en ma ae (τῆς ἄνω, g | ΠΕῪ ι88δ᾽. Errors and Defects. Heb. v. 2 ‘On the ignorant and on them that are out of the way’ (τοῖς ἀγνοοῦσι καὶ πλανωμένοις), where the repe- tition of the preposition leads the English reader still further away from the proper sense of πλανωμένοις ; Heb. v. 12, ‘For when for the time ye ought to be teachers’ (καὶ γὰρ ὀφείλοντες εἶναι διδάσκαλοι διὰ τὸν χρόνον), where without the Greek no one would ima- gine that ‘for the time’ means ‘by reason of the long period of your training’; Apoc. iv. 11 ‘ For thy plea- sure they are, and were created (εἰσὶ καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν", where ave reads as an auxiliary. In all such cases (and many other examples might be given) the - remedy is easy. The great merit of our Version is its truly English character—the strength and the homeliness of its lan- guage. Its authors were fully alive to the importance of preserving this feature, as impressed upon the Eng- lish Bible by Tyndale, and set their faces resolutely — against the Latinisms to which the Rheims Version _ had attempted to give currency”. In this they were — i Toga successful, as a rule; and it 15. ἀν." ἴο. δες ΕἾ i πῶς a ᾿- ΜΝ considered ἊΜ a different pie ‘oka | 1 So the received text: but the correct reading is ἦσαν: adn this Version I open a chapter accidentally (Ephe ‘donation of Christ’, ‘inferior parts’, ‘doctors’, ‘c eo. errour’, ‘juncture of subministration’, ‘vanity of their δ" icity’, Danis τα Nike was ribbed serene Faults of Expression. -- 181 an illustration. Another is addict in 1 Cor. xvi. 15, ‘They have addicted themselves (ἔταξαν ἑαυτούς) to the ministry of the Saints,’ which rendering seems to have been introduced first in the Bishops’ Bible, and cannot be considered an improvement on the Geneva Version, ‘They have given themselves to minister unto the Saints.’ A more flagrant instance is 2 Cor. ix. 13, where a concurrence of Latinisms obscures the sense and mars the English, ‘ By the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the Gospel of Christ,’ where ‘experi- ment’ and ‘ professed’ ought at all events to be al- tered as they have shifted their meaning, and where for once the Rheims Version gives purer English, ‘ By the proof of this ministry glorifying God in the obedience of your confession unto the Gospel of Christ’ (διὰ τῆς δοκιμῆς τῆς διακονίας ταύτης δοξάζοντες τὸν Θεὸν ἐπὶ τῇ ὑποταγῇ τῆς ὁμολογίας ὑμῶν εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ). ! A fault of another kind is translating ὄφελον “1 - would to God’ (1 Cor. iv. 8), though the earlier Ver- sions all give it so, with the exception. of Wycliffe _ whose simpler rendering ‘I would’ might be adopted | _ with advantage. In this case the introduction of the — Ὲ _ Divine name is hardly defensible. In the case of μὴ © ᾿ γένοιτο ‘ God forbid,’ the difficulty of finding another ἢ πο τος rendering may possibly excuse it. Yet Bae _ even here we cannot but regret a rendering which feetet ἢ te rferes 8 so pe se with the blag: as it t oy “ae ; 185. Errors and Defects.’ : Rom. iii. 4,6, ‘God forbid ; yea, let God be true (μὴ. γένοιτο, γινέσθω δὲ ὁ Θεὸς ἀληθής), ‘God forbid, for: then how shall God judge the world (μὴ γένοιτο, ἐπεὶ" πῶς κρινεῖ ὁ Θεὸς τὸν κόσμον) ?’ I shall pass over instances of careless grammar in the English, because these are not numerous and — have been dealt with elsewhere. - But it may be worth while to point out inadvertences of another kind; where the same word is twice rendered in the English Version, or where conversely the same English. word is made to do duty for two Greek words. Of. the latter, examples occur in John xi. 14 ‘ Then (τότε οὖν) said Jesus unto them plainly,’ where ‘then’: stands for two words, ‘then’ local and ‘then’ argu- mentative; or Rom. vi. 21 ‘What fruit had ye then: Νι (τίνα οὖν καρπὸν εἴχετε τότε) in those things whereof, γα are now ashamed?’, where exactly the same error is committed. Of the converse error—the double ren-. τ dering of the same word—we have an instance bie” > James v. 16, πολὺ ioyver δέησις δικαίου. creo aretnane , The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man, C7 a _availeth much,’ where the word ‘effectual’ is worse, _ than superfluous. | This last: rendering. Iam diss DC to ascribe to carelessness in correcting the c _ the κενὰς. ane Baie Breuhd, eS bea down Siete as ae poeta correction or an pe a pasa not having been’erased before the co} a 4 Pee . wo eee Piet ἡ “ἢ ie ὴ Lah Bu 4 he Errors of the Press. 183 To the same cause also we may perhaps ascribe the rendering of 1 Cor. xiv. 23, ἐὰν οὖν συνέλθη ἡ ἐκκλησία ὅλη ἐπὶ TO avTO. In the Bishops’ Bible this stands, ‘If therefore all the Church be come together into ove place,’ but in the Authorised, ‘If therefore the whole Church be come together into some place.’ I presume that the revisers intended to alter ‘one’ into ‘the same,’ but that this correction was indis- tinctly made, and being confused with the other cor- rection in the same clause which required a transpo- sition of ‘the,’ led to the error which stands in our text. What misconception may arise from a mere error of the press, appears from the often discussed phrase, ‘ Strain a¢ a gnat’; where unquestionably our translators intended to retain the rendering of the earlier Versions, ‘Strain owt a gnat, and the existing text can only be explained as a misprint. Indeed the printing of the edition of 1611 is very far from correct ; and if our present Bibles for the most part deserve praise for great accuracy, we owe this to the | fact that the text of this first edition was not regarded Ὁ ae sacred or authoritative, but corrections were — . δε ssage runs ‘the fervent prayer “of a aoa man availeth mud The only i? connected, ΡΝ fe Versions be ecg bs can disco 184 Errors and Defects. pillars’ has been altered into ‘ hooks of the pillars’; in Isaiah xlix. 20 ‘The place is too straight’ into ‘ The place is too strazt’; in Hos. vi. 5 ‘ Skewed them by. the prophets’ (where the word ‘shewed’ was evi- dently introduced by an ingenious compositor who did not understand the correct text) into ‘Hewed them by the prophets’; in Ecclus. xliv. 5 ‘ Reected verses’ into ‘recited verses’; and the like. In the headings of the chapters too some curious errors in the edition of 1611 were afterwards corrected; e.g. 2 Sam. xxiv, ‘ eleven thousand’ into ‘ thirteen hundred thousand,’ 1 Cor. v, ‘shamed’ into ‘shunned’ Nay, in some passages the changes made in later editions are even bolder than this ; as for instance in 1 Tim. i. 4, οἰκοδομίαν [the correct reading is οἰκονομίαν] Θεοῦ τὴν ἐν πίστει ‘Edifying which is in faith, the word Θεοῦ by some inadvertence was untranslated in the edition of 1611, and so it remained for many years after-_ wards, until in the Cambridge edition of 1638 ‘godly’ was inserted after the earlier’ Versions, and this has : Ὁ held its ground ever since”. As this wise ρὲ. ὋΝ ‘ Ἐν 1 The corrections in Ecclus. xliv. 5, 2 Sam. xxiv, were ΤΡ τὲ 1612: : te ἢ — in Exod. XXXVili. II, te xix. 20, Hos. vi. 5s I Com v, in 1613. time to time in later editions. The edition εὲ 1613, though it ce some apie was grossly τ apie as aed be seen from the highs (1833). 2 I owe this fact, which has probably been ἀϑειδοᾶ elses some valuable MS notes of the late Prof. Grote on the pri ἡ _ English Bible. The error may be explained by supposing eer was struck ou in the copy of ee Bishops’ Bible ι Changes of Spelling. 185 freely exercised in other cases, it is strange that the obvious misprint ‘strain at’ should have survived the successive revisions of two centuries and a half. While speaking of errors and corrections of the press, it may be worth while in passing to observe how this license of change has affected the ortho- graphy. It would bea surprise to an English reader now to find in his Bible such words as aliant, causey, charet, cise, crudle, damosell, fauchion, fet, fift, flixe, iland, mids, moe, monethes, neesing, oweth (Lev. xiv. 35 for ‘owneth’), price (Phil. iii. 14 for ‘prize’), re- nowme, etc. While these have been altered into alien, causeway, chariot, size, curdle, damsel, falchion, fetched, fifth, flux, island, midst, more, months, sneezing, own- eth, prize, renown, respectively, a capricious conserva- tism has retained the archaic spelling in other cases, such as fat, fetches, graff, hoise, pilled, strawed, throughly, for vat, vetches, graft, hoist, peeled, strewed, thoroughly. In some cases this caprice appears in the same word; thus zeeszugs is retained in Job xli. 18, while sueezed is substituted for meesed in 2 Kings iv. 35. This license has had its disadvantages, as well as its advantages; if the substitution of ‘its’ for ‘it’ (Lev. xxv. 5, ‘it owne accord’ 16111) was imperatively de- manded by the change in the language, the alteration οὗ ‘shamefast, shamefastness’ into ‘shamefaced, shame- facedness’ is unfortunate, as suggesting a wrong deri- : "press, while the proposed substitution was omitted to be made or was - ae in such a way that it escaped the eye of the compositor. τ ΠΟ See Wright’s Bidle Word-Book, 5. v. It. 186 Errors and Defects. vation and an inadequate meaning. Amidst all these changes it is a happy accident that the genuine form of the name of Philemon’s wife has survived, though the precedent of the older Versions and the authority of modern commentators alike would have led to the substitution of the Latin name ‘Appia’ for the Phry- gian ‘Apphia’.’ 1 In Philem. 2 the reading is unquestionably ᾿Απφίᾳ, though some uncial MSS (of little value on a point of orthography) have ἀφφίᾳ, a legitimate form, or ἀμφίᾳ, a manifest corruption: the authority for ᾿Αππίᾳ is absolutely worthless. The fact is that this word has no con- nexion (except in sound) with the Roman Appia, but represents a native Phrygian name, which with various modifications appears again and again in the Phrygian inscriptions: e.g. Boeckh Corp. Juscr. 3814 Neixavdpos καὶ "Appia γυνὴ αὐτοῦ, 3826 ἸΙρωτόμαχος ’Ad[ φ]ᾳ γυναικί, 3032 Τῇ τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ ᾿Α[ π]φίᾳ, 3962 ᾿Απφία ἐγὼ κεῖμαι, 3827 1 (ΑΡΡχ.) ᾿Αφφία Μενάνδρου, 3846 z (Appx.) Βωλᾶς ᾿Αφφίᾳ συνβίῳ.: Frequently also we meet with the diminutive ἀπῴιον, dpgiov, or ἄφιον, as a female name; e. g. 3849, 3891, 3899, 3902 m, 3846 2 (Appx.). The form “Anan however sometimes occurs. This word may be compared with other common Phrygian names, Ammia, Nania, Tatia, and the mascu-~ line Pappias or Papias. Not observing the Phrygian origin of the name, the commentators speak as though it were the feminine corresponding to the masculine in ; Acts xxviii. 15 ’Awmlov φόρον, and call attention to the difference in form, πῷ for rm. All the older translations, so far as I have observed, ° print it 4Zf7a, so that the Authorised Version stands alone in its cor- rectness, Prospects of Revision. 187 V. I have attempted to show in what directions our English Version is capable of improvement. It will be necessary to substitute an amended for a faulty text; to remove artificial distinctions which do not exist in the Greek; to restore real distinctions which existing there were overlooked by our translators; to correct errors of grammar and errors of lexicography; to revise the treatment of proper names and technical terms ; and to remove a few archaisms, ambiguities, and faults of expression, besides inaccuracies of editor-=: ship, in the English. All this may be done without altering the character of the Version. In this review of the question I have done nothing more than give examples of the different classes of errors. An exhaustive treatment of the subject was. impossible; and the case therefore is much stronger M a it is here made to appear. If for instance ee uh | Hebrews, ἩΡδῦτι, ἴο any recent ciitienk edition 1 Ὁ Es che Greek be ans ome it: rae with the τ88. Prospects of Revision. Now in one important point—perhaps the most important of all—the answer must, I think, be favour- able. Greek scholarship has never stood higher in England than it does at the present moment. There is not only a sufficient body of scholars capable of undertaking the work, but there is also (and this is a most important element in the consideration) a very large number besides fully competent to submit the work of the revisers, when completed, to a minute and searching criticism. And, though we may trust that any one who is called to take his share in the work will do so with a deep sense of the responsi-. bility of the task assigned to him, still it will be a great stimulus to feel that he is surrounded by competent critics on all sides, and a great support to be able to gather opinions freely from without. But I would venture to go a step beyond this, I should be glad to think my apprehensions groundless, but there is at ὃ least some reason to forbode that Greek scholarship has reached its height in England, and that hence- forth it may be expected to decline’. The clamours of other branches of learning—more especially of } Mr Marsh (Lectures on the English Language, xxviii, p. 639) says ag δ ‘There is no sufficient reason to doubt that at the end of this century — n the knowledge of biblical Greek and Hebrew will be as much in advance of the present standard, as that standard is before the. _ philology of the beginning of this century.’ I wish I could 1 __-very sanguine view of the probable future of the Greek language ᾿ ων _ England: as regards Hebrew, I have abstained from expressi . 3 ἘΠΙΘΒν ae pee eee Kast nema 7 _ - - + & ν᾿ ag > ν» } ἐ» " “ΩΝ 1} Ἄ. Pe «% oy < Jit - Βέ- υἱῶν a rd ow ee νυ Ἄς Imaginary Dangers. 189 -education are growing louder and louder, and must make themselves heard ; and, if so, the almost exclu- ‘sive dominion of the Classical languages is past. I need not here enter into the question whether these languages have or have not been overrated as an in- -strument of education. It is sufficient to call atten- | tion to the fact that, whether rightly or wrongly, pub- lic opinion is changing in this respect, and to prepare for the consequences. And, if we turn from the Greek language to the ‘English, the present moment seems not unfavourable ‘for the undertaking. Many grave apprehensions have been expressed on this point, and alarming pic- tures are drawn of the fatal results which will follow from any attempt to meddle with the pure idiom of our English Bible. Of the infusion of Latinisms and Gallicisms, with which we are threatened, I myself have no fear. In the last century, or in the beginning of the present, the danger would have been real. The objections urged against the language of our English Bible by those who then advocated revision are now almost incredible. The specimens which _ they offered of an improved diction of the modern i type would appear simply ludicrous to us, if the sub- ject, on which the experiment was tried, had been less grave’. The very words which these critics — " ‘1 See examples in Trench’s Authorized Version, p. 23 sq-, and Prof. | Plumptre’s article in Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, 5. ν. Version, Autho- ᾿ς rised. ’ ‘I remember the relief’, writes Mr Matthew Arnold (Culture and — Anarchy, p» 44); ‘with which after long feeling the sway of Franklin’s — Ve one good sense, I came upon a project of his for a ile which the revisers of 1611 abandoned. In almost some other part of the Authorised Versions n itself , ae ‘says Franklin, has become obsolete and thence less agre give,” he continues, ‘‘a few verses which may serve as a sam ἮΝ a kind of version I would recommend”....I well. remember τ ἼΝ Ἢ + oe I ἀμ that, na ἀρόνγα 8 er apres of eit ae ic ‘190 Prospects of Revision. would have ejected from our English Bibles, as bar- barous or uncouth or obsolete, have again taken their place in our highest poetry, and even in our popular language. And though it is impossible that the ‘nineteenth century should ever speak the language of ‘the sixteenth or seventeenth, still a genuine appre-— ‘ciation and careful study of the Authorised Version and of the older translations will (we may reasonably hope) enable the present revisers, in the corrections which they may introduce, to avoid any anachronisms -of diction which would offend the taste or jar upon ‘the ear. There is all this difference between the pre- ‘sent advocates of revision and the former, that now we reverence the language and idiom of our English Bibles, whereas they regarded it as the crowning offence which seemed most to call for amendment. In several instances the end may be attained by returning to the renderings of the earlier Versions, every other case the words and even the expressions — which the correction requires will be supplied from — version of the Book of Job to replace the old version, the sty! Imaginary Dangers. ΤΟΙ _troduce a word for which there is no authority in the English Bibles, In these cases care must be taken that the word so introduced shall be in harmony with the general character of our Biblical diction, So much license the new revisers may reasonably claim for themselves, as it was certainly claimed by the revisers of 1611. If these cautions are observed the Bible will still remain to future generations what it — thas been to past—not only the store-house of the highest truth, but also the purest well of their native English. Indeed we may take courage from the fact, that the language of our English Bible is not the language of the age in which the translators lived, but in its grand simplicity stands out in contrast to the ornate and often affected diction of the literature of that time’. For if the retention of an older and _ better model was possible in the seventeenth century, it is quite as possible in the nineteenth. Nor again can there be any reasonable ground for apprehension as to the extent and character of the changes which may be introduced. The regula- tions under which the new company of revisers will act are a sufficient guarantee against hasty and capri- ὁ cious change. The language which public speakers : ‘and newspaper critics have held on this point would Kae only then have force, if absolute power were given to each individual reviser to introduce all his fa- " τ ᾿νουτίξο crotchets. But any one, who has acted in a ΟΣ Prospects of Revision. concert with a large number of independent men, train- — ed apart and under separate influences, will know how very difficult it is to secure the consent of ‘two-thirds of the whole body to any change which is not a manifest improvement, and how wholly impos- sible it would be to obtain the suffrages of this num-_ ber for a novel and questionable rendering, however important it might seem to its proposer. It is very possible that several corrections which I have sug- gested here may appear to others in this unfavourable light. Indeed it is hardly probable that in all cases they should escape being condemned ; for any one, ‘interested in such a subject, is naturally led to give _ prominence to those views on which he lays stress himself, just because they appear to him not to have received proper attention from others. But if so, it is morally certain that they will be treated as they de- serve, and not suffered to disfigure the Revised Version as it will appear before the public. Indeed if there 4 be any reasonable grounds for apprehension, the x danger is rather that the changes introduced will be : too slight to satisfy the legitimate demands « canna and scholarship, than that they Bak | Bible. Sim fe in one 5 1a at least the pete R ὙΦ their part have accorded a prompt and cheerful wel- come to this invitation. This is a matter for great thankfulness. It may be accepted as a guarantee that the work is undertaken not with any narrow sectarian aim, but in the broad interests of truth ; while also it is an earnest that, if the revisicn when completed recommends itself by its intrinsic merits (and if it does not, the sooner it is forgotten the better), then no unworthy jealousy will stand in the _ way of its general reception’, And meanwhile may _ work of a most sacred kind—the interpretation of ἢ we not cherish a loftier hope? Now for the first time the bishops of our Church and the representatives of our Convocation will meet at the same table with Nonconformist divines, and will engage in a common those Writings which all alike reverence as the source _ of their truest inspiration here and the foundation of their highest hopes hereafter. Is it too much to - anticipate that by the experience of this united work =a pve i eae Favourable Circumstances. - 105 " _ the Christian communities in England may be drawn ts more edi together, Ἅ0} that, whether it succeed 4 or τ 194 Prospects of Revision. better mutual understanding, and thus by fostering inward sympathy may lead the way to greater out- ward harmony among themselves, and a more inti- mate union with the Divine Head’? : 1 It will be remembered that this hope was expressed before the © Revision Company had met. If I felt at liberty to modify the expres- sion by the light of subsequent experience, I should speak even more — strongly, πα a e. ἐπ at) See δ 4... ἐς Αἵ ὰ Ὁ : ἣ APPENDIX. Ox the Words ἐπιούσιος, περιούσιος. I. HE former of these two words, found only in a petition of the Lord’s Prayer, as given both by 5. Matthew (vi. 11 τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον) and by 5. Luke (xi. 3 τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δίδου ἡμῖν τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν), is a well-known difficulty in Biblical interpretation ; and it is certainly a remarkable fact that so much diversity of opinion should be possible regarding an expression which occurs in this most familiar and oftenest repeated passage of the Gospels. Origen tells us (de Orat. 27, I. p. 245 Delarue) that the word ἐπιούσιον does not once occur in Greek literature and that it is not current in the collo- quial language (παρὰ οὐδενὶ τῶν ‘EX Hv@Y οὔτε τῶν σοφῶν ὠνόμασται οὔτε ἐν τῇ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν συνηθείᾳ τέτριπται). ‘It seems,’ he adds, ‘to have been coin- ed (πεπλάσθαι) by the Evangelists. Matthew and Luke agree in using it without any difference. The same course has been taken in other cases also by N 2 196 A phendex. persons translating from the Hebrew. For what Greek ever used either of the expressions ἐνωτίζου or GKOUTIGONTL ὃ..... «ἐς. A similar expression to ἐπιούσιον occurs in Moses, being uttered by God, But ye shall be to me a people περιούσιος. And it seems to me that both words are formed from οὐσία. This statement is important, because it shows that the Greek Fathers derived no assistance in the interpretation of the word from the spoken or written language; and thus their views are not entitled to the deference which we should elsewhere accord to them, as interpreters of a living language of which we only possess the fragmentary remains. In this particular instance they cease to be authorities. The same data, which were open to them, are open to us also; and from these we are free to draw our con- clusions independently. These data are threefold: (1) The etymological form; (2) The’ requirements of the sense: (3) The tenor of tradition. This last element seems to me to be especially important in the present case. The Lord’s Prayer was doubtless used from very early times in private devotion. It certainly formed a part of the public services of the Church, in which (to mention no other use) it was repeated at the celebration of the Holy Eucharist’. The traditional sense therefore which 1 Of the use of the Lord’s Prayer in the early Church, see Bingham’s Antiquities, X11. vii. § 1 sq., and Probst Lzturgie der drei ersten Christ- — lichen Fahrhunderte, index 5. v. Vater unser. τ A ppendix. 197 was commonly attached to a word occurring in it _ must have a high value. It was chiefly the conviction that justice had not been done to this consideration, which led me to institute the investigation afresh’. Previous writers have laid stress on the scholastic interpretation of Origen and his successors, as though this were the best authenticated tradition ; when they ought rather to have sought for the common sense of the Church in the primitive versions, which are both earlier in date than Origen, and cover a much wider area. ΕΙΣ hope to make the force of the distinction between ~ the scholastic and traditional interpretations clearer q in the sequel. Pr The different explanations which have been given ‘to. the word fall into two classes; (1) Those which ‘< ect it with ἰέναι, deriving it from ἐπιέναι through ea ; sei or ἐπιοῦσα, and (2) Those which connect it Sy Ξ ivat, as acompound from ἐπὶ and οὐσία. Each ὁ SS et “= lass includes various explanations; but the one is” i stinguished from the other by a simple cries va he pean peices τ᾿ the one class are tem- ) eit rt avetiation of the meaning of eae 198 Appendix. day,’ or ‘the morrow’ : (ii) coming, either taken from ἐπιοῦσα and meaning the same as the last, but more vaguely expressed ; or derived directly from ἐπιέναι, ἐπιών (without the intervention of the feminine ém- οὔσα) : (iii) dazly, which seems to be got from the first sense, ‘for the coming day’: (iv) continual, which is probably a paraphrastic mode of expressing (i) or (ili): (v) future, ‘yet to come,’ from ἐπιὼν ; in which case the expression is most often applied in a spiritual sense to Christ the bread of life, who shall come hereafter. Under the second head also various explanations are comprised ; (i) for our sustenance, and so ‘neces- sary, οὐσία being referred to physical subsistence ; (ii) for our essential life, and so ‘spiritual, eternal, ovoia signifying the absolute or higher being; (iii) preeminent, excellent, surpassing, as being ‘above all οὐσίαι, and so nearly equivalent to περιούσιος ; (iv) abundant, a meaning akin to the last, and appa- rently reached by giving the same sense ‘above’ to ἐπί; (v) consubstantial, a sense which is attained by forcing the meaning of the preposition in another direction’. In this list I have enumerated only those mean- ; ings which were given to the word during the first — five centuries. More recent writers have added to the number; but their interpretations, when not deduced directly from one or other of the senses already 1 See the passage from Victorinus quoted on p. 221, Appendix. 199 given, are so far-fetched and so unnatural, that they do not deserve to be seriously considered. Again, I have confined myself to direct interpreta- tions of ἐπιούσιος, not regarding such variations of meaning as arise from different senses attached to the substantive ἄρτος. Thus for instance ‘our dazly bread’ might be either the daily sustenance for the body or the daily sustenance for the soul. But though these two senses are widely divergent, their divergence is not due to any difference of interpreta- tion affecting ἐπιούσιος, with which word alone I am concerned. I shall now consider the two classes of meanings which are distinguished above, testing them by the considerations already enumerated, (1) the etymology of the word, (2) the requirements of the sense, (3) the tenor of tradition. § 1. Zhe etymology of the word. Ἢ ἐπιοῦσα is commonly used for ‘the coming day,’ ‘the morrow. In this sense it occurs fre- quently without the substantive ἡμέρα both in Bibli- cal Greek (Prov. xxvii. I οὐ yap γινώσκεις τί τέξεται ἡ ἐπιοῦσα, Acts xvi. 11; Xx. 15, xxi. 18) ‘and elsewhere (e.g. Polyb. ii. 25. 11, Pausan. iv. 22, 3, Plut. J7Zor, 205 E, 838 ἢ, etc.). See also the references in Lobeck Phryn. p. 464. From this word, which had become practically a substantive, the adjective ἐπιούσιος would be formed in the usual way. | 200 Appendix. It is urged indeed (see Suicer Thes. 5. v. ἐπιού- aios), that the analogy of δευτεραῖος, τριταῖος, etc., would require ἐπιουσαῖος. In replying to this objec- tion we need not (I venture to think) acquiesce in the negative answer that such adjectives are not valid to disprove the existence of a different form in -cos. Whether we regard the etymology or the meaning, the analogy seems to be false. The termi- nation -αἴος in all these adjectives is suggested by the long a or ἡ of the feminines from which they are derived, δευτέρα, τρίτη, etc.*; and the short ending of ἐπιοῦσα is not a parallel case. Moreover the meaning is not the same; for the adjectives in -aios fix a date, eg. τεταρταῖος ἦλθεν ‘he came on the fourth day, whereas the sense which we require here is much more general, implying simply possession or connexion. Or again, the word might be derived from the masculine participle ἐπιών, as ἑκούσιος from ἑκών, ἐθε- λούσιος from ἐθέλων, yepovatos from γέρων, πυγούσιος from πυγών, ᾿Αχερούσιος (or ᾿Αχερόντιος) from ᾿Αχέρων, εἴς. : see Lobeck Phryn. p. 4. To this derivation there is no grammatical objection. Only it may be pleaded that no motive existed for introducing an adjective by the side of ἐπιών, sufficiently powerful to produce the result in an advanced stage of the 1 It is not meant to assert that forms in afos cannot be derived from — other words than feminines in ὦ or ἢ; but as a rule they are derived in this way, though some exceptions occur: see Buttmann Ausf. Gramm. 11, p. 446. . | Appendix. . : 201 = language, when the fertility of creating new forms had been greatly impaired. On the other hand the derivation of ἐπιούσιος from ἐπὶ and οὐσία, if not impossible, is at least more ‘difficult. Two objections have been taken to this etymology ; the one, as it seems to me, futile—the other really formidable, if not insuperable. (1) It is alleged that an adjective in -οὐύσιος would not be formed from the substantive οὐσία. To this it is ‘sufficient to reply, that from this very word οὐσία we find the compounds ἀνούσιος (Clem. Alex. Exc. Theod. Ῥ. 970, ed. Potter: Pseudo-Justin Conf. dogm. Arist. ὃ 50, p. 145; ib. Quest. Christ. ad Gent. p. 185 8), ᾿ἐνούσιος (Victorin. c. Arium ii. 1, Synes. Hymn. 2, ΠΡ. 318, Cyril. Alex. ἐπε Yoann. v. 5, p. 527), ἐξούσιος _ Philo in Flacc. § 10, I. p. 528 Mang.), ἑτερούίσιος (ére- Ὁ βουσίως ἘΡΙΡΗΡΕ in Stob. Eel. Phys. 41, πὶ p. 822), a μονούσιος, αἰ χάρος ὑπερούσιος (Victorin. 1. c., Synes. Be E a), προανούσιος (Synes. Hymn. 1. c., and Hymn. 3, p. | a ete. : : and from gee the So τρκὼς οὐρα ai 3 ep’ which oct a 202, Appendix. prose. To this list other words might be added, such as ἐπίελπτος, ἐπιέννυμι, ἐπίηρα, ἐπιήρανος, ἐπιίΐδμων, — ἐπιίΐστωρ. But the maintainers of this view have never — enquired why the z of ἐπί, which elsewhere is elided, has been exceptionally retained in such instances, — : The real fact is, that all these words without excep-_ tion were originally written with the digamma, é7- Favéave, ἐπίξεικης, ἐπίξελπτος, ἐπίξορκος, etc., so that elision was out of the question; and even when the digamma disappeared in pronunciation. or was re- placed by a simple aspirate, the old forms maintained their ground. _ In the present instance no such reason can be pleaded to justity. the retention of the 4. The deriva-_ tion of ἐπιούσιος from ἐπί, οὐσία, can only be main- — : tained on the hypothesis that its form was detesminmie a by false analogies, with a view to exhibiting its com= ponent parts more clearly. But this hypothesis — is ΡΝ >not permissible if any other satisfactory explanati ae the word can be given; for ἐπιούσιος would th ἢ ἽΝ mene bia the preposition is | naturally ἊΝ ‘> = εἰ : ᾿ Appendix. ᾿ς 203 gencies of the sense require us to reverse the decision ~ .to which etymology has led us. Is there really any - solid objection to our taking τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον to mean ‘our bread for the coming day’? One objection, and one only, is urged repeatedly against this explanation. The petition so explained, it is thought, would be a direct violation of the pre- cept which our Lord gives at the close of the chapter, Vi. 34 μὴ οὖν μεριμνήσητε εἰς τὴν αὔριον. To this I would reply frst; that though ἐπιοῦσα is most fre- quently a synonym for ἡ αὔριον, yet the words are not coextensive in meaning. If the prayer were said in the evening, no doubt ἡ ἐπιοῦσα would be ‘the follow- ing day, the morrow’; but supposing it to be used at aE or before dawn, the word would designate the day 3 then breaking. Thus in the Ecclesiazuse of Aristo- ᾧ _phanes one of the speakers, after describing the time τὶ (ver. 20) καίτοι πρὸς ὄρθρον γ᾽ ἐστίν ‘’tis close on ἀαγ- τ break’, exclaims (ver. 105) νὴ τὴν ἐπιοῦσαν ἡμέραν, he _ where τὴν αὔριον would be quite out of place. This — ἘΠ . instance shows the different power of the two woes oy Ξ ὯΝ cach other ; for the one implies time approaching aaa ee ta“ Fae δ ι τ is soning tos see with whet persistence this worthles ᾿ Pets 204 Appendix. ment, if it proves anything, proves too much. If the command μὴ μεριμνᾶν is tantamount to a prohibition against prayer for the object about which we are forbidden to be anxious, then not only must we not pray for to-morrow’s food, but we must not pray for food at all. For He, who says (ver. 34) μὴ μεριμνή- onte εἰς τὴν αὔριον, Says also (ver. 25) μὴ μεριμνῶτε τῇ ψυχῇ ὑμῶν τί φάγητε; and on this showing, whatever interpretation we put upon ἐπιούσιον, a pre- cept will be violated. The fact is, that, as μέριμνα means anxiety, undue thought or care (see above, p. 170 sq.), prayer to God is not only consistent with the absence of μέριμνα, but is a means of driving it away. One Apostle tells us (1 Pet. v. 7) to ‘cast all our anxiety (μέριμνα) on God, for He careth (αὐτῷ μέλει) for us.’ Another directs us ‘not to be anxious about any matter (μηδὲν μεριμνᾶτε) but in every thing with prayer and supplication joined with thanksgiving to make our desires known unto God (Phil. iv. 6). These injunctions we fulfil when we use the petition in the Lord’s Prayer in a proper spirit. At the same time, even in our prayers we are di- rected specially to the needs of ‘the coming day,’ for in the very act of asking for distant material blessings there is danger of exciting in ourselves this μέριμνα which it is our duty to crush’. 1 The moral bearing of this petition is well put by S. Basil (Reg. brev. tract. cclii, 11. p. 500), though he wrongly interprets the word — ats itself; ὁ ἐργαζόμενος μνημονεύων τοῦ κυρίου λέγε Μὴ μεριμνᾶτε τῇ ψυχῇ ὑμών τί φάγητε ἢ τί lyr ..~*” ἐπιούσιον ἄρτον, τουτέστι τὸν πρ Appendix. 205 On the other hand, if ἐπιούσιον be derived from ἐπί, οὐσία, we have the choice between the two senses of οὐσία, (1) ‘subsistence, and (2) ‘essence, being.’ Of these the latter must be rejected at once. It is highly improbable that a term of transcendental philosophy should have been chosen, and a strange compound invented for insertion in a prayer intended for every day use. Indeed nothing could well be con- ceived more alien to the simplicity of the Gospel- teaching, than such an expression as ἐπιούσιος, Mean- ing ‘suited to’ or ‘conducive to the οὐσία, the essential being. If therefore this derivation from οὐσία is ten- able at all, we must be prepared to assign to it the more homely meaning, ‘subsistence,’ so that ἐπιούσιος will be ‘sufficient to sustain us,’ ‘enough for our abso- lute wants, but not enough for luxury.’ Such a sense in itself would meet the requirements of the passage. Only it does not seem likely that a strange word, which arrives at this meaning in an indirect way, should have been invented to express a very simple idea for which the Greek language had already more than one equivalent. Nor indeed is it a natural sense for the word to bear. In Porphyr. /sag. 16, and else- where, ἐπουσιώδης is used to signify accidental, as opposed to essential, denoting what is superadded to the οὐσία; and if such a compound as ἐπιούσιος (from οὐσία) were possible, it ought to have a similar mean- ing. τὴν ἐφήμερον ζωὴν τῇ οὐσίᾳ ἡμῶν χρησιμεύοντα, οὐχ ἑαυτῷ ἐπιτρέπει ἀλλὰ τῷ θεῷ ἐντυγχάνει περὶ τούτου, κ.τ.λ. 206 Appendix. § 3. The tenor of tradition, Hitherto we have seen no sufficient reason for abandoning the derivation from éévat, while on the other hand serious difficulties are encountered by adopting the alternative and deriving the word from εἶναι. It remains to enquire how far this result is borne out by tradition. Tholuck, discussing the two derivations of ἐπιού- ovos, from εἶναι and ἰέναι respectively, states, ‘The oldest and most widely spread is the former’: and Suicer, mentioning the derivation from ἡ ἐπιοῦσα, adds, ‘ Nemo ex veteribus ita explicat.’ I hope to show that such statements are the very reverse of the truth ; that, so far as our evidence goes, the deriva- tion from ἰέναι is decidedly the more ancient; and that, though the other prevailed widely among Greek interpreters after Origen, yet it never covered so wide an area as its elder rival. I shall take the great divisions of the Church as distinguished by their several languages, and investigate the traditional sense assigned to the word in each. | 1. In the Greek Church the first testimony is that of ORIGEN (de Orat. 27,1. 5... He himself derives the word from οὐσία, adducing περιούσιος as an ana- logy. This analogy, as we have already seen, is false: _ for, whereas ἐπὶ loses the final vowel in composition, — περὶ retains it; so that while the one compound would — ΡΥ μὰς ΕΣ ᾿ ¥ , 5 } ᾿ τς . DKS é q ‘ , . a ᾿ς Appendix. 207 be περιούσιος, the other would be ἐπούσιοςς. Thus de- rived, the word signifies according to Origen τὸν εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν ἡμῶν συμβαλλόμενον ἄρτον. It is the spiritual __ bread which nourishes the spiritual being, 6 τῇ dices TH λογικῇ καταλληλότατος καὶ TH οὐσίᾳ αὐτῇ συγγενής κιτλ. This view Origen supports by quoting other passages where the heavenly bread is mentioned, and at the close of the discussion he adds (p. 249 C); ‘Some one will say that ἐπιούσιον is formed []. κατε- σχηματίσθαι] from ἐπιέναι; so that we are bidden to ask for the bread which belongs to the future life (τὸν οἰκεῖον τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος), that God may an- _ ticipate and give it to us even now, so that what shall > -be given as it were to-morrow may be given us to-day (ὥστε τὸ οἱονεὶ αὔριον δοθησόμενον σήμερον ἡμῖν δοθῆ- _ vat); the future life being represented by to-morrow, and the present by ¢o-day: but the former accepta- a a is Detter in my Leptin ται ete,: Ths the ear- a conflict Cebectin the two derivations. It is ee | that in either case Origen contemplates a spiritual Ὁ ither than a literal interpretation of the bread, but 7 fact accords with the general principles. of the 8, ieee ohio om which the notice omnia % i 08. A ppendix.. started the derivation from εἶναι, οὐσία. At all events this supposition accords with his fondness for im- — porting a reference to ‘absolute being’ into the lan- guage of the Apostles and Evangelists elsewhere, as — for instance when he interprets τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν (omitting the words ἐν ’Eg¢éow) in Ephes. i. 1, and va Ta ὄντα καταργήσῃ in 1 Cor. i. 28, in this sense (see Cramer’s Catena on Ephes. 1. 6). A derivation which — transferred the word ἐπιούσιος at once from: the “Ἢ domain of the material to the domain of the βιργατο sensual would have a strong attraction for Origen’s © mind. Still it must remain a pure hypothesis that he himself invented this derivation. He may have got it _ from one of his predecessors, Panteenus or Clement: — but at all events it bears the impress of the Alexan- — drian school. On the other hand his own language shows that the other etymology (from ἐπιέναι) had its _ supporters. How few or how numerous they were, — the vagueness of his expression will not allow us to ea It is ay. when we come to oe Siders: was also an Alexandrian. The great ATI ὯΝ : _ (de Incarn. § 16, I. p. 706) derives the ie fr re but. gives it a theological meaning: ‘Else “calls the Holy Spirit heavenly bre Appendix. 209 taught us in His prayer to ask in the present life for τὸν ἐπιούσιον ἄρτον, that is the future, whereof we have the first-fruits in the present life, partaking of it through* the flesh of the Lord, as He himself said, The bread, which I shall give, is my flesh, etc.’ This is exactly the account of the word which Origen rejects. To those however, who have studied the early his- tory of Biblical interpretation, it will be no surprise to find that Origen’s explanation of this word exerted a very wide and lasting influence. It is a common phenomenon to find nearly all the Greek expositors following him, even in cases where his interpreta- tion is almost demonstrably wrong. If his explana- tions had the good fortune to be adopted by the Antiochene school, as was frequently the case, they passed unchallenged and established themselves in the Church at large. In this particular instance the procedure of the Antiochene school would appear to have been characteristic, both in its agreement with and in its departure from Origen. While accepting his derivation, they seem to have substituted a realistic for his mystical sense of ἄρτος ἐπιούσιοςς. The adjec- tive thus explained becomes ‘for our material sub- sistence,’ and not ‘for our spiritual being.’ The views of the earliest representatives of the against this. At the same time Athanasius arrives at the same mystical meaning of τὸν ἄρτον τὸν ἐπιούσιον as Jerome, though through a different derivation. 1 διὰ is absent from some texts but seems to be correct. - If it is omitted the sense will be ‘ partaking of the flesh’, L. R. | 7 6) τ» 210 Appendix. Antiochene school on this point are not recorded. But they may perhaps be assumed not only from the general tenor of later interpretations in this school (from Chrysostom downward) but also from the opinions of the Cappadocian fathers. In the treatise of GREGORY NYSSEN, de Orat. Domin. iv, 1. p. 745, this view is stated very expli- citly: ‘We are ordered,’ he says, ‘to ask for what is sufficient for the preservation of our bodily sub- sistence (τὸ πρὸς THY συντήρησιν τῆς σωματικῆς οὐσίας) The same interpretation is adopted by his brother BASIL (Reg. brev. tract. cclii, 11. p. 500), who explains τὸν ἐπιούσιον ἄρτον as that ‘which is serviceable for our daily life for our subsistence (rev πρὸς τὴν ἐφήμερον ζωὴν τῇ οὐσίᾳ ἡμῶν ypnoywevovTa).’ The same derivation, though not quite the same meaning, is assigned to it also by CYRIL OF JERU- SALEM, Catech. xxiii (JZystag. v). 15, p. 329; ‘ This holy bread is ἐπιούσιος, being appointed for the sub- sistence (or substance) of the soul (ἐπὶ τὴν οὐσίαν τῆς ψυχῆς Katatacoopuevos). This bread does not go into the belly nor is it cast out into the draught, but is distributed into the whole of thy complex frame (εἰς πᾶσάν cov τὴν σύστασιν ἀναδίδοται) for the benefit of body and soul’; where an application chiefly though not exclusively spiritual is given to οὐσία. Again, 5. CHRYSOSTOM, de Ang. Port. etc. κ᾽, ΠῚ. p. 35, interprets ἐπιούσιον ‘which passes to the sub- ὁ 1 It is right to mention that the authorship of this Homily has been fi questioned ; see the preface in Montfaucon’s edition. % ζ) A pendix, : | : 211 stance of the body (ἐπὶ τὴν οὐσίαν τοῦ σώματος διαβαίνοντα) and is able to compact (συγκροτῆσαι) this’; but elsewhere, in his Homily on S. John (xliii, § 2, VIII. p. 257) he explains rod ἄρτου τοῦ ἐπιουσίου, τουτέστι, τοῦ καθημερινοῦ; while on S. Matthew, where the passage itself occurs, he expresses himself in such a vague way, as if he were purposely evading a difficulty (xix. §5, VII. p. 251 sq.), τί ἐστε τὸν ἄρτον τὸν ἐπιούσιον ; τὸν ἐφήμερον...δεῖται [ἡ φύσις] τροφῆς τῆς ἀναγκαίας.. ὑπὲρ ἄρτου μόνον ἐκέλευσε τὴν εὐχὴν ποι- εἶσθαι, καὶ ὑπὲρ ἄρτου τοῦ ἐφημέρου, ὥστε μὴ ὑπὲρ τῆς αὔριον μεριμνᾶν διὰ τοῦτο προσέθηκε, τὸν ἄρτον τὸν ἐπιούσιον, τουτέστι, τὸν ἐφήμερον" καὶ οὐδὲ τούτῳ ᾿ ἠρκέσθη τῷ ῥήματι ἀλλὰ καὶ ἕτερον μετὰ τοῦτο προσ- εθήκεν, εἰπὼν, δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον. ὥστε μὴ περαιτέρω τ᾽ : συντρίβειν ἑαυτοὺς τῇ φροντίδι τῆς ἐπιούσης ἡμέρας, sd where he shelters himself under the vagueness of | ᾿ἐφήμερος without explaining how he arrives at this - meaning, and where the somewhat ambiguous words ‘not to afflict ourselves further with the thought of the coming (ἐπιούσης) day’ seem to allow, if not to suggest, the derivation from ἐπιοῦσα. Ina later pas- _ sage of the same Homilies (lv. § 5, p. 562) and it a of Psalm cxxvii (V. p. il he again nites shana’ but eis an Paper en: ; in ee | art ay) ce. ERY et ral ae tes ἔφυ ee ine 212 Appendix. menting on the words πληρώσει πᾶσαν χρείαν ὑμῶν, he adds ‘so as not to be in want but to have what is needful (τὰ πρὸς χρείαν), for Christ also put this in His prayer, when teaching us, τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον. Thus he seems through- out to be wavering between the meanings daz/y and necessary, i.e. between the derivations from ἐέναι and εἶναι, though he tends towards the latter. Again THEODORET on Phil. iv. 19, following Chrysostom, quotes this petition as warranting S. Paul in asking for his converts τὴν κατὰ τὸν παρόντω βίον χρείαν. Somewhat later CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA on Luke xi. 3 (Wai, τι. p. 266) thus comments on ἐπιούσιον ; ‘Some say that it is that which shall come and shall be given in the future life;...... but if this were δ εν». why do they add, Give us day by day? For one may see likewise by these words that they make their petition for daily food; and we must understand Ry ἐπιούσιον what is sufficient (τὸν av- τάρκη) etc.’ Later Greek writers contented themselves with repeating one or more of the interpretations given by their predecessors. Thus DAMASCENE (Orthod. Fid. — iv. 13, I. p. 272 Lequien) says, οὗτος 6 ἄρτος ἐστὶν. ἡ ἀπαρχὴ τοῦ μέλλοντος ἄρτου, ὅς ἐστιν ὁ ἐπιούσιος " τὸ γὰρ ἐπιούσιον δηλοῖ ἢ τὸν μέλλοντα, τουτέστι, τὸν τοῦ μέλλοντος αἰῶνος, ἢ τὸν πρὸς συντήρησιν τῆς οὐσίας ἡμῶν λαμβανόμενον; and THEOPHYLACT (on 1 Τῇ Glaphyr. in Exod, ii, τ. p. 286, ed. Auberti, he explains this Ἢ Ῥούβρᾶ as equivalent to asking for τὰ εἰς Sway ἐπιτήδεια. Appendix. : 213 Luke xi. 3) explains it τὸν ἐπὶ τῇ οὐσίᾳ ἡμῶν καὶ τῇ συστάσει τῆς ζωῆς συμβαλλόμενον, οὐ τὸν περιττὸν πάντως ἀλλὰ τὸν ἀναγκαῖον (see also on Matt. vi. 11)’. 2. From the Aramaic Christians,.the testimony in favour of the derivation from ἐπιέναι is stronger. We learn from S. Jerome (2 Matth. vi. 11, VIL. p- 34), that in the GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS the word ἐπιούσιον, which he translated ‘supersubstantialem, was rendered by Mahar (ΠΏ), ‘quod dicitur crastinum, ut sit sensus, Panem nostrum crastinum, id est futurum, da nobis hodie. | Whatever view be adopted of the origin of this Apocryphal Gospel, its evidence has the highest value in this particular instance. Of its great antiquity no question can be entertained. It can hardly have been written much later than the close of the first Soca It was regarded as an authoritative docu- ment by the Judaizing Christians of Palestine. It ~ adhered very closely to the Gospel of S. Matthew, and was even thought by some to be the Hebrew | ἃ e. :, Aramaic) original of this Gospel ; wig re: 5 oe 214 A phendix. Gospel altered to suit the purposes of the writer. But even if it were derived from our Greek Gospels, its interpretation of ἐπιούσιον would still have the greatest weight as proceeding from Palestine at this very early date. In a familiar expression in the most familiar of all the Evangelical records it is not unreasonable to assume that the tradition would be preserved at the close of the Apostolic age un- impaired in the vernacular language of our Lord and his disciples’. From the Gospel according to the Hebrews, we turn to another Aramaic source, emanating from a different quarter, the CURETONIAN SYRIAC Version of the New Testament. In Matt. vi. 11, this version has: ek 2M M02 Sum asia ‘And-our-bread continual of-the-day give-to-us.’ In Luke xi. 3: spaalas ruse esl ὰ 9.920 ‘ And-give to-us the-bread continual of-every-day.’ Here the temporal sense ‘continual,’ given to émi- οὖσιον, connects it with ἐπιέναι, whether through ἐπιοῦσα, ‘for the coming day,’ and so ‘daily, con- 1 Tt is unnecessary here to discuss the question to what extent Greek was spoken in Palestine at the Christian era. Even if with Dr. Roberts, in his instructive work Déscussions on the Gospels, we take the view 3 that the Palestinian Jews were bi-lingual, the argument in the text will ς΄ still hold good. a Appendix. 215 stant,’ or more directly, ‘ever coming,’ and so ‘per- petual’’. When however we turn from the Curetonian to the later revision, the PESHITO SYRIAC, we find that the influence of the Greek interpreters has been at work meanwhile. The word ‘necessary’ is substituted for ‘constant,’ the qualitative sense for the ‘temporal, i.e. the derivation from εἶναι for the derivation from teval. In Matt. vi. 11 of this Version, the petition runs, «λα.» piniagws Wash A 303. ‘Give to-us the-bread of-our-necessity this-day.’ In Luke xi. 3: nals pAaAwDy rash τὰ om ‘Give to-us the-bread of-our-necessity every-day.’ This is only one of the many instances where the Peshito betrays the influences of the fourth century. whether in the text or in the interpretation’. In the still later HARCLEAN VERSION (A.D. 616) again this same interpretation is adopted in both passages, though slightly varied in form. 1 Cureton compares Num. iv. 7 in bm) han ond, translated in the Syriac dura -έΞξανλ. _ His own speculations respect- ing the original reading in S. Matthew seem both meme 7) | and untenable. 2 Prof. Wright informs me that he has not found any variation in the earliest Mss of the Peshito in the British eget Belonging τὸ to the 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries. - 216 A phendix. In Matt. vi. 11: LTC ἃ 2M Mainiawy am εν was ‘ The-bread of-us that necessary give to-us this-day,’ In Luke xi; 3: CLIC ἈῚ J. 2) pen rainiawy esos ‘The-bread of-necessity of-us give to-us this-day ? with a v. 1. spas Nasy ac (i.e. τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν) for τόχξϑοα.» (σήμερον): Again, the JERUSALEM SYRIAC, which was per- haps translated from a Greek Lectionary, and can hardly be earlier than the 5th century, also appears to derive ἐπιούσιος from εἶναι, οὐσία; but gives it a different sense, apparently confusing it with περιού- atos, as S. Jerome does. In Matt. vi. 11 it has, 30s db om rcihass cal ‘Our-bread of-opulence (or ‘abundance’) give to-us this-day,’ (I. p. 234, ed. Miniscalchi-Erizzo). The cor- responding passage in S, Luke is not extant in this Version. * Thus among the Aramaic Christians the earliest tradition, which has reached us by two distinct channels, connects the word with ἐπιέναι : while in the later Versions, after the influence of the Greek inter- preters had made itself felt, this traditional sense has been displaced by the derivation from οὐσία. It will be seen hereafter how the later rendering es ae . a ... τὼ substituted by S. Jerome failed to suppress the tra- ditional guotidianum of the Old Latin. In the same way the τάν οτό of the Old (Curetonian) Syriac, though it does not show equal vitality, occurs occa- sionally and still survives long after the later Revi- sion of the New Testament, which we call the Peshito, had superseded the earlier Version or Versions. Thus in the Syriac recension of the Acts of Thomas—which must be a very ancient work, for it has a distinctly Gnostic character—the Lord’s Prayer is quoted to- wards the end, and the petition in question runs W057 usd τόξον εἶ oma closely following this Version’. Again, in one of the poems of Jacob of Sarug, who died A.D. 521, (Zin- -gerle’s Monumenta Syriaca p. 31, Innsbriick 1869), it ἊΝ is said of the patriarch Jacob (see Gen. xxviii. 20) - that he ‘ prayed the prayer which our Lord taught. ᾿ς The-bread continual of-the-day give to-me.’ d lower down he again repeats the characteristic eee ΠΥ in μὲν, 4 Appendix. 217 wah om wa we RD eres | hei ᾿ im 218 Appendix. This rendering of τὸν ἄρτον τὸν ἐπιούσιον is found also in an Exposztion of the Lord’s Prayer by the same writer, preserved in the MS Brit. Mus. Add. 17, 157 (dated A.G. 876= A.D. 565), in which the expres- sion is repeated not less than three times, fol. 48 a, 49 a’. 3. The testimony of the Egyptian Versions again is highly valuable, both as preserving a very ancient tradition (for it would seem that they must both be assigned to the close of the second or beginning of the third century), and as representing a distinct and isolated section of the Church. The MEMPHITIC, the version of Lower Egypt, and the THEBAIC, the version of Upper Egypt, agree in the derivation from ἰέναι ; and their agreement is the more valuable, inasmuch as their general character shows them to be independent the one of the other. or Ephrem, but my search has not been attended with success. An indirect reference in Ephrem (Of. VI. p. 642) omits the word in question. dal oe ow et τ. 9.09.) SIT τόξα δ τ halo ‘The bread of the day shall suffice thee, as thou hast learnt in the Prayer.’ At the same time Ephrem agrees with the Curetonian against the Peshito in πάλ 1, so that it seems 2γοδαδίθ he used the Cure- tonian Version. Prof. Wright at my request examined several Syriac Service-books in the British Museum Library. He reports that all the volumes which he examined are Jacobite, and that ‘the reading inyari- ably agrees with the Peshito text of Matt. vi.11. They belong to the 9th, roth, and 11th centuries.’ 1 These references were communicated to me by Prof. Wright. Se ene A phendix. 219 The Memphitic version has: In Matt. vi. 11: TIEN@IK NTEPACTI MHI NAN M@OOY. ‘Our bread of-to-morrow give-it to-us to-day.’ in Luke xi. 3: TIENWIK ΕΘΝΗΟΥ MHIG NAN MMHNI. ‘Our bread that-cometh give-it to-us daily.’ The Thebaic Version: In Matt. vi. I1: TTENOEIK ETNHY NET! MMOG] NAN MTTOOY. ‘Our bread that-cometh give-thou it to us to-day.’ The corresponding passage of S. Luke in this Version is not preserved. Here we have a choice of two translations, both founded on the same derivation, the one through ἐπιοῦσα, the other directly from ἐπιέναι. In all the Coptic (i.e. Memphitic) Service-books which I have seen, the rendering of ἐπιούσιον is NTepacti, ‘of to-morrow.’ 4. The Latix Churches preserve a still more an- cient tradition. The OLD LATIN Version, which dates certainly from the second century, and not im- probably, so far as regards the Gospels, from the first half of the century, renders ἐπιούσιον by quotidia- num in both Evangelists. Of this rendering there can be no doubt. It is found in the extant manu- scripts of the Old Latin Version in both places. It is 226 Appendix. quoted moreover by the early Latin Fathers, Tertul- lian (de Orat. 6) and Cyprian (de Orat. p. 104, Fell). Though both these fathers are commenting espe- cially on the Lord’s Prayer, and both adopt a spiri- tual sense of the petition, as referring to Christ the living bread and to the eucharistic feast, yet they comment on ‘quotidianum’ from this point of view, and seem to be unaware that any other rendering is possible. At length in the fourth century the influence of the scholastic interpretation, put forward by Origen and the Greek Fathers, makes itself felt in Latin wri- ters. The first semblance of any such influence is found in Juvencus, the Latin poet, who wrote a me- trical history of the Gospel about A.D. 330—335. He renders the words Vitalisque hodie sancti substantia panis Proveniat nobis. | Evang. Hist. i. 631. Here however, though the coincidence is curious, no inference can safely be drawn from the occurrence of ‘substantia’; since Juvencus elsewhere uses the word with a genitive as a convenient periphrasis to eke out his metre, without any special significance ; e.g. i. 415, ‘substantia panis’ (Matt. iv. 4); i, 510, ‘salis substantia’ (Matt, v. 13); 11. 420, ‘vocis sub- stantia’ (Matt. ix. 32); 11. 524, ‘animze substantia’ (Matt. xi. 5); ii. 677, ‘credendi substantia’ (John Ὁ 38) ; ili. 668, ‘arboris substantia’ (Matt. xxi. 21). | Appendix. Ὁ. 221 In VICTORINUS the Rhetorician, who was ac- ve -quainted with the Greek commentators, the first dis- tinct traces of this interpretation in the Latin Church are found. In his treatise against Arius, completed about the year 365, he writes (i. 31, Bibl Vet. Patr. VIII. p. 163, ed. Galland.) : ‘Unde deductum ἐπιούσιον quam a substantia? Da panem nobis ἐπιούσιον hodi- ernum. Quoniam Jesus vita est, et corpus ipsius vita est, corpus autem panis...Significat ἐπιούσιον ex ipsa aut in ipsa substantia, hoc est, vite panem. And again (ii. 8, ib. p. 177): “ἐπιούσιον ἄρτον, ex eadem οὐσία panem, id est, de vita Dei, consubstantialem _ vitam...Grecum igitur Evangelium habet ἐπιούσιον, “" quod denominatum est a substantia, et utique Dei ~~, Ε- substantia: hoc Latini vel non intelligentes vel non df ἊΣ ‘ : ᾿ς valentes exprimere non potuerunt dicere, et tantum- = . modo quotidianum ἀμονεαγον non ἐπιούσιον’ Setting mad a himself to defend the ὁμοούσιον of the Nicene creed ν δ against the charge of novelty, Victorinus seizes with avidity a derivation of ἐπιούσιον which furnishes him Ἢ Tie with a sort of precedent. . Rai ον. _ Again, in S. AMBROSE we find distinct referee s ae this sees In a treatise ascriyAk to ‘this a 222 Appendix. dixit [quem Greci dicunt advenientem|*; quia Greci dicunt τὴν ἐπιούσαν ἡμέραν advenientem diem. Ergo quod Latinus dixit et quod Grecus, utrumque utile videtur. Greecus utrumque uno sermone significavit, Latinus guotidianum dixit. Si quotidianus est panis, cur post annum illum sumis, quemadmodum Greeci in oriente facere consuerunt? Accipe quotidie, quod quotidie tibi prosit etc.’ The writer seems here to combine the two derivations of ἐπιούσιον, as though the word could have a double etymology. At least I cannot interpret ‘Grzcus utrumque uno sermone significavit’ in any other way”. The authorship of the treatise however is open to question, as it contains some suspicious statements and expressions. But whoever may have been the writer, the work appears to be early. If he owed the expression supersub- stantialis to 5. Jerome’s revision, as was probably the case, even this is consistent with the Ambrosian authorship, as several of this father’s works were written after S. Jerome had completed the Gospels. Again, in an unquestioned treatise of S. Ambrose (de Fide iii. 15. § 127, 11. p. 519) written in the years 377, 378, this father, defending the word ὁμοούσιον against the Arians, uses the same argument as Victo- rinus: ‘An negare possunt οὐσίαν lectam, cum et panem ἐπιούσιον Dominus dixerit et Moyses scrip- 1 The words in brackets are omitted in many MSS, and seem tobe _ out of place. 2 Pfeiffer in the Zhesaur. Theol. Philol. 11. p. 117 (Amstel. 1702) explains ‘utrumque uno sermone significavit’ by ‘crastinum scil. di- cendo, hodiernum includens diem,’ which seems to me meaningless. Appendix. 339 serit ὑμεῖς ἔσεσθέ μοι λαὸς περιούσιος: Aut quid est οὐσία, vel unde dicta, nisi οὖσα ἀεί, quod semper maneat? Qui enim est, et est semper, Deus est; et ideo manens semper οὐσία dicitur divina substantia. Propterea ἐπιούσιος panis, quod ex verbi substantia substantiam virtutis manentis cordi et animz sub- ministret ; scriptum est enim, 2 panzs confirmat cor hominis (Ps. ciii. 15). The etymological views of a writer who derives οὐσία from οὖσα ἀεί can have no value in themselves. The notice is only important as showing that the derivation from ovcia was gaining ground. At the same time, like the passage of Victo- rinus, it suggests a motive which would induce many to accept the etymology offered, as furnishing a ready answer to an Arian objection. When S. JEROME (about A.D. 383) revised the Latin of the New Testament, he substituted saper- substantialem for quotidianum in the text of S. Matthew; but, either prevented by scruples from eras- ing a cherished expression from the Latin Bibfes, or feeling some misgiving about the correctness of his own rendering, he allowed guotidianum to stand in S. Luke. Altogether his language is vague and un- decided, whenever he has occasion to mention the word. In his Commentary on the Epistle to Titus (Op. VII. p. 726), written about A.D. 387, he thus ex- presses himself: ‘Unde et illud, quod in evangelio secundum Latinos interpretes scriptum est Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, melius in Greco habetur Panem nostrum ἐπιούσιον, id est precipuum, 224 Appendix. egregium, peculiarem’, eum videlicet qui de czlo de- scendens ait (Joh. vi. 51), Ego sum panis qui de celo descendi, Absit quippe ut nos, qui in crastinum cogi- tare prohibemur, de pane isto qui post paululum con- coquendus et abjiciendus est in secessum in prece dominica rogare jubeamur. Nec multum differt inter ἐπιούσιον et περιούσιον ; prepositio enim tantummodo est mutata, non verbum. Quidam ἐπιούσιον existi- mant in oratione dominica panem dictum, quod super omnes οὐσίας sit, hoc est super universas sub- stantias. Quod si accipitur, non multum ab eo sensu differt quem exposuimus. Quidquid enim egregium est et precipuum, extra omnia est et super omnia.’ And similarly in his Commentary on S. Matthew (Op. VIL. p. 34), written a few years afterwards (A.D. 398): ‘Quod nos supersubstantialem expressimus, in Greco habetur ἐπιούσιον, quod verbum Septuaginta interpretes περιούσιον frequentissime transferunt..... Possumus supersubstantialem panem et aliter intel- legere, qui super omnes substantias sit et universas superet creaturas. Alii simpliciter putant, secundum Apostoli sermonem dicentis Habentes victum et ve- stitum his contenti simus, de presenti tantum cibo sanctos curam agere.’ Hitherto he is apparently con- sistent with himself in connecting the word with οὐσία; but in a later work, the Commentary on Ezekiel (Οὐ. V. p, 209), written from A.D. 41I—414, 1 It thus appears that the sense which S. Jerome himself attaches to his rendering sufersubstantialem is different from that which some theologians have assigned to it. A pendix. | 225 on) Py < _ - ΑΝ he says, ‘Melius est ut intelligamus panem justi eum esse qui dicit, Ego sum panis vivus qui de celo de- scendt, et quem in Oratione nobis tribui deprecamur, Panem nostrum substantivum, sive superventurum, da nobis, ut quem postea semper accepturi sumus, in presenti seeculo quotidie mereamur accipere.’ And in a still later work against the Pelagians, written _ about A.D. 415, he speaks with the same uncertainty (iii. 15, I p. 800); ‘Sic docuit Apostolos suos ut - quotidie in corporis illius sacrificio credentes audeant - : ΜΕ A ΟΠ loqui Pater noster, etc.....Panem quotidianum, sive super omnes substantias, venturum Apostoli depre- - cantur ut digni sint assumtione corporis Christi’ . In one point only is he consistent throughout. He in- sists on a spiritual, as opposed to a literal, inter ἀπ a Seis of the bread. ae 3 _ The indecision or the scruple or the carelessness, © Ξ which led Jerome to retain guotidianum in one Evan- elist while he removed it from another, bore strange 2 Jerome’s revised Latin Version became the ἐν τὺ ibe of sinh Western Churches. The knowledge οἵ sn The fact oe the ee τ os ὍΣ τῶν οὐ δον. ΡΝ ΠΡΊΤΑΘῈΕ ‘aia the goat ore! 7 Ee 226 Appendix. soon after the death of 5. Jerome writes (Col/at. ix. 21),.‘Panem nostrum ἐπιούσιον, id est, super- substantialem, da nobis hodie: quod alius evangelista guotidianum. So again it is taken by Anselm in the 11th or 12th century (Comm. in Matth.), by Nicolas of Lyra in the 14th (Comm, in Matth.), and by Diony- sius Carthusianus in the 15th (παν. in Matth.)’ ; all of whom remark on the different epithets used by S. Matthew and S. Luke. But the most remarkable instance of this blunder is furnished by a controversy between the two fore- most men of their time, S. Bernard and Abelard. The Abbot of Clairvaux, having occasion to visit the convent of the Paraclete of which Heloise was abbess, observed that in repeating the Lord’s Prayer at the daily hours a change was made in the usual form, the word ‘supersubstantialem’ being substituted for ‘quo- tidianum,’ As Heloise had made this change under the direction of Abelard, she communicated the complaint to him. Upon this he wrote a letter of defence to 8. Bernard, which is extant (P. Abaelardi Ofera 1. p. 618, ed. Cousin). He pleads that the form in 5. Matthew must be more authentic’ than the form in 5. Luke— the former having been an Apostle and heard the words as uttered, the latter having derived his infor- mation at second hand—‘de ipso fonte Matthzeus, de rivulo fontis Lucas est potatus.’ Hence 5. Mat- — thew'’s form is more complete and contains seven — 1 See Pfeiffer 1. ¢. p. 119 sq. ᾿ mi: ΤῊΣ Appendix. 227 petitions, while S. Luke’s has only five. For this reason the Church in her offices has rightly preferred S. Matthew’s form to S. Luke’s, ‘What may have been the reason therefore,’ he proceeds, ‘that while we retain the rest of S. Matthew’s words, we change one only, saying guotidianum for supersubstantialem’, let him state who can, if indeed it is sufficient to state it. For the word qguotidianum does not seem to express the excellence of this bread, like saper- substantialem; and it seems to be an act of no slight presumption to correct the words of an Apostle, and to make up one prayer out of two Evangelists, in 1 We may pardon the mistake of Abelard more readily, when we find that a learned modern historian, commenting on the incident, is guilty of a still greater error, Milman (Aistory of Latin Christianity 111. p- 262, ed. 2) remarks on this dispute: ‘The question was the clause in the Lord’s prayer our daily bread or our bread day by day.’ Here two wholly different things are confused together. (1) S. Matthew and S. Luke alike have ἐπιούσιον. This was rendered guotidianum in both Evangelists in the Old Latin, as it is rendered daily in both in our English Version. But Jerome by substituting swpersubstantialem. in S. Matthew and retaining. guotidianum in 5. Luke made an artificial variation, which misled Abelard. Meanwhile the guotidianum of the Old Latin in 5. Matthew maintained its place in the Service books, and puzzled Abelard by its presence. Abelard’s remarks are confined solely to the epithet attached to ἄρτον. (2) There is a real difference between 5. Matthew and S. Luke in another part of the sentence, the former having σήμερον this day, the latter τὸ καθ᾽ ἡμέραν day by day, This distinction was obliterated by the Old Latin, which took the _ false reading σήμερον in S. Luke and so gave hodie in both Evangelists. It reappears again in the original Vulgate of Jerome, which has odie in S. Matthew and cotidie in 5. Luke (though once more obliterated in the Clementine recension). Of this difference Dean Milman seems to have had some not very clear idea and to have confused it with the dispute about ἐπιούσιον, but Abelard does not mention it at all, τῶν 228 | Appendix. such a manner that neither seems to be sufficient in respect of it (the prayer), and to recite it in a form in which it was neither spoken by the Lord nor written by any of the Evangelists. Especially when in all other portions of their writings which are read in Church, their words are kept separate, however much they may differ in respect of completeness or incompleteness (impermixta sunt verba eorum, qua- cunque perfectione vel imperfectione discrepent). Therefore, if any one blames me for innovating in this matter, let him consider whether blame is not rather due to the person who presumed out of two prayers written in old times to-make up one new prayer, which deserves rather to be called his own than an Evangelist’s (non tam evangelicam quam suam dicendam). Lastly, the discernment of the Greeks, whose authority (as 5. Ambrose saith) is greater, hath, owing to the aforesaid reasons, as I suppose, brought the prayer of S. Matthew alone into common use, saying, τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον, which is translated Panem nostrum supersubstantialem. Strange it is, that, though quoting the Greek words of S. Matthew (apparently however at second hand), Abelard did not take the trouble to consult the ori- ginal of S. Luke, but here, as elsewhere’, allowed 1 Abelard uses similar language elsewhere, Jn Dieb. Rogat. Serm. Op. I. p. 471; ‘Non sine admiratione videtur accipiendum quod apud nos in consuetudinem ecclesiz venerit ut quum orationem dominicam in verbis Matthzei frequentemus, qui eam, ut dictum est, perfectius — “scripserit, unum ejus verbum ceteris omnibus retentis commutemus, — pro supersubstantialem scilicet, quod ipse posuit, dicentes guotidianum, Appendix. 220 himself to follow the Vulgate implicitly. Strange too, but less strange, that he should not have recognised in the guotidianum of the Church Services the remnant of an older Version, which in this instance Jerome’s Revision had been powerless to displace. We do not hear that S. Bernard refuted his pertinacious adver- sary by exposing his error. It is improbable that he possessed the learning necessary for this purpose, for in learning at least he was no match for his brilliant opponent. He probably fell back on the usage of the Church, and refused to cross weapons with so formidable an adversary. Yet, notwithstanding such notices as these, the marvel is that Jerome's supersubstantialis took so little hold upon the Latin Church at large. When after some generations his revised Vulgate superseded the Old Latin, the word confronted students of the Bible in S. Matthew, and in this position it was com- mented upon and discussed. But here its influence ended. S. Augustine on the morrow of Jerome’s Revision still continues to quote and to explain the petition with the word guotidianum, as 5. Hilary* had ‘quoted and explained it on the eve. Despite the great name of Jerome, whose authority reigned paramount in Western Christendom for many centuries in all matters of Scriptural interpretation, guoti:dianum was sicut Lucas ait, etc.” On the other hand in the Zxfositio Orationis Dominice (1. Ὁ. 599 sq-) he comments on idigetiad and does not even mention supersubstantialem., 1 Fragm, Of. 11. p. 714. 230 Appendix. never displaced in the Lord’s Prayer as used in the offices of the Church. Roman, Gallican, Ambrosian, and Mozarabic Liturgies, all retained it. The word supersubstantialem is not, so far as I can learn, once substituted for guwot:dianum in any public services of the Latin Church. The use which Abelard intro- duced at the Paraclete was obviously isolated and exceptional and appears to have been promptly sup- pressed. The devotional instinct of the Church would seem to have been repelled by a scholastic term so little in harmony with our Lord’s mode of speaking and so ill adapted to religious worship. Even in the Catechismus ad Parochos, issued by the Council of Trent as a manual for the guidance of the Roman Clergy and containing a very full exposition of the Lord’s Prayer, the word guwotidianum is retained, while the alternative, supersubstantialem is not once men- ᾿ tioned, though an eucharistic application is given to the petition, and the epithet gzotidianum explained in accordance therewith’. | The pre-reformation versions of the Lord’s Prayer 1 It has been pointed out to me that the words ‘panem nostrum quotidianum supersubstantialem’ occur in the Breviary in the Oratio- num Actio post Missam, the two epithets being combined; but this is only an indirect reference to the Lord’s Prayer. . ? It is worthy of notice, as showing how little favour this rendering found, that a Roman Catholic commentator of the 16th century, ‘Maldonatus (on Matth. vi. 11), supposes that Jerome never intended to place supersubstantialem in the text, and that it got there by careless- ness: ‘Hieronymus supersubstantialem vertit, quamquam in eo veterem ‘versionem noluit corrigere. Itaque incaute quidam nostro tempore in vulgata editione pro quotidiano pauper bstantigies) posuerunt.’ This view is quite groundless, . a A phendix. 2 3 Γ in the languages of Western Europe, being derived from the Latin, naturally follow the rendering which the translator in each case had before him. If taken from the Old Latin or from the Service-books, they give daily; if from the Vulgate, supersubstantial. Among a large number of versions and paraphrases of the Lord’s Prayer in the various Teutonic dialects ἢ the latter rendering occurs very rarely, and then (for the most part) only zz sztu in the Gospel of S. Mat- thew, as e.g. ‘ofer-wistlic’ in the Lindisfarne Gospels and ‘over other substaunce’ in Wycliffe. The early reformers also for the most part adopted the familiar rendering. In Luther's Version it is in- terpreted ‘unser taglich brodt’, and Calvin also advo- cates the derivation from ἐπιέναι. So too it is taken in the Latin of Leo Juda. Our own Tyndale rendered it in the same way, and in all the subsequent English Versions of the reformed Church this rendering is retained. On the other hand, the derivation from ovcia was adopted by Beza’, whose interpretation however in this particular instance does not appear to have influenced the reformed Versions’. 1 See the collection in Marsh’s Origin and History of the English Language, p. 76 sq.: and also The Gospel of S. Matthew in Anglo- Saxon and Northumbrian Versions (Cambr. 1858). 2 Indeed he himself, though he explains the word ‘qui nostris viribus sustentandis sufficiat,’ yet retains guotidianum in the text, saying ‘Mihi religio, fuit quicquam immutare in hac precationis formula in ecclesia Dei tanto jam tempore usurpata.’ 3 In Tomson’s Version of the N. T. however, which is attached to the Geneva Bible, though it is rendered ‘dayly,’ a marginal note is 232 A phendrx. To sum up the results of this investigation into the testimony of the most ancient Versions. The Syrian, the Egyptian, the Latin Churches, are dis- tinct from one another. Yet all alike bear witness in the earliest forms of the Lord’s Prayer to the one derivation of ἐπιούσιον as against the other. In the Syrian Churches we have testimony from two distinct sources. The Egyptian Churches likewise tell the same tale with a twofold utterance. All may be re- garded as prior to Origen, the first Greek father who discusses the meaning of the word. In the Syrian and the Latin Churches we have seen how at a later date the scholastic interpretation was superposed upon the traditional, but with different success. In the former it ultimately prevailed; in the latter it never obtained more than a precarious footing. The Egyp- tian Churches, being more effectually isolated from Greek influences, preserved the traditional sense to the end. These Versions alone have any ¢raditional value. But others, which were made in the fourth century and later, are not without their importance, as show- ing how widely the older interpretation still prevailed in the Greek Church, notwithstanding the tendency in the Greek fathers towards the derivation adopted — or invented by Origen. It is a remarkable fact that _all the remaining Versions which can with probability be assigned to the fourth or fifth centuries give the- added ‘That that is meete for our nature for our dayly foode, or such as may suffice our nature and complexion,’ δ δὰ JP Ἂν Appendix. 233 _ temporal sense to ἐπιούσιον, or (in other words) derive it from ἐπιέναι. In the GOTHIC, whose date is about the middle of the fourth century, it is rendered by sinteinanz, ‘continual’; in the ARMENIAN, which was made some time before the middle of the fifth, being begun from the Syriac and afterwards revised and completed from the Greek, it is likewise translated ‘continual, daily’; and similarly in the AZTHIOPIC, whose date is somewhat uncertain, it is given ‘of each day’ in both S. Matthew and 5. Luke. ἧς Z ἧς ἘΝ yet the same degree of coincidence cannot be claimed — Thus, tradition is not only not adverse to the deri- vation which etymological considerations seem to re- quire, but favours it very decidedly. With this strong confirmation, we need not hesitate to adopt it. On = eee - toa the other hand, it is only fair to notice that, though tradition is in accordance with itself and with ary _ mology so far as regards the derivation from ἐπιέναι, on behalf of the derivation from the feminine ἐπιοῦσα, se and the more precise meaning for the coming day thus — δι &*. é ” ‘obtained. Yet this mean ine seems to be supported . a 80. ᾿πρλήρεοῖν aouanbal sal “the is e af meaning, 1 de the dats day an 234 A phendix. into another language, that it would assume definitely the one or the other of these two allied senses. Thus the familiar rendering ‘daily,’ which has prevailed uninterruptedly in the Western Church from the beginning, is a fairly adequate representa- tion of the original; nor indeed does the English language furnish any one word which would answer the purpose so well. Il. The word ἐπιούσιος was connected, as we have seen, by several of the fathers with περιούσιος. I hope that sufficient reasons have been given already for rejecting this connexion as based on a false ana- logy. But still the word περιούσιος is important in itself, and (as its meaning has been somewhat misun- derstood by modern as well as by ancient commen- tators) I take this opportunity of explaining what seems to be its proper force. Origen (de Orat. 27, 1. p. 246), in the passage of which I have already quoted the context (p. 195 sq.), distinguishes these two words ἐπιούσιος, περιούσιος, as follows: ἡ μὲν τὸν εἰς τὴν οὐσίαν συμβαλλόμενον ἄρτον δηλοῦσα, ἡ δὲ τὸν περὶ τὴν οὐσίαν καταγινόμενον λαὸν καὶ κοινωνοῦντα αὐτῷ. With this brief account of the word he contents himself. Apparently he understands περιούσιος to mean ‘connected with and participating F 4 Appendix. 235 in absolute being,’ thus assigning to it a sense closely allied to that which he has given to ἐπιούσιος. This meaning may be dismissed at once. It does not - correspond with the original Hebrew, and it is an impossible sense to attach to the word itself. Never- theless it is taken up by Victorinus, who writes (ὦ Arium i. 31, Bibl. Vet. Patr. VI. Ὁ. 163 ed. Galland.) ‘Sic rursus et Paullus in Epistola ad Titum fopelum περιούσιον, citca substantiam, hoc est circa vitam consistentem populum’; and again (ii. 8. ib. p. 177), ‘Latinus cum non intelligeret περιούσιον ὄχλον, περι- ούσιον, τὸν περιόντα [read περὶ cvta?] id est, circa vitam quam Christus et habet et dat, posuit populum abundantem. And Cyril of Alexandria on S. Luke (Mai, II. p. 266), in the context of a passage already quoted (p. 212), likewise connects it with ἐπιούσιος, giving it an equally impossible sense, ἀντὶ τοῦ ἐπι- ουσίου τὸν περιούσιον εἰπών, τουτέστι TOV ἀρκοῦντα Kat τοῦ τελείως ἔχειν οὐχ ἡττώμενον. On the other hand, Jerome (on Tit. ii. 14, VII. Ῥ- 725 sq.) says that, having thought much over the word περιούσιον and consulted ‘the wise of this world’ whether they had met with it elsewhere, without get- ting any satisfaction, he betook him to the passages in the Old Testament where it occurs, and by a com- parison of these arrived at the meaning egregium, precipuum, peculiarem, a sense which (as we have seen) he gives to ἐπιούσιον also. Though wholly wrong as applied to ἐπιούσιον, this meaning is fairly adequate to represent περιούσιον; but it is clear from 23 Appendix. the context that Jerome does not seize the exact force of the word, which appears also to have escaped later commentators. We may reasonably infer from the notices of Origen and Jerome that this word was unknown out of Biblical Greek: and we have therefore no choice but to follow the method of the latter, and investigate the passages of the Old Testament where it occurs. The expression λαὸς περιούσιος is found four times in. the LXx+; Exod. xix. 5,-Deut: vil. ΞΕ xxvi. 18. In the first passage it is a rendering of the single word nap, in the three last of ἍΝ" Dy. Moreover in Ps. cxxxiv (CXXXvV). 4 indapd is trans- lated eis περιουσιασμὸν ἑαυτῷ. In all these passages the reference is to the Israelites as the peculiar people of God. Once more, in Eccles. ii. 8 we have συνήγαγόν μοι Kalye ἀργύριον καίγε χρυσίον Kal περι- ουσιασμοὺς βασιλέων καὶ τῶν χωρῶν, where again περιουσιασμοὺς represents ἌΡ but in this instance without any reference to the chosen people. These appear to be the only passages in the LXX where περιούσιος, περιουσιασμός, occur. But T?4D is found besides in two other places: in Mal. iii, 17, where again it refers to the chosen people and where it is rendered eis περιποίησιν; and in 1 Chron, xxix, 3, where Solomon says ‘I have a ΠΡ [translated in our Version ‘of mine own proper good’] gold and silver which I have given to the house of my God, _ over and above all that I have prepared for the holy af eh ur? ᾿ τ" Pe gee A phendix. 37 house, rendered by the LXxX ἔστι μοι ὃ περιπεποίημαι χρυσίον Kal ἀργύριον κ.τ.λ. Of these two renderings which the Lxx offers for mio, the one is adopted by S. Paul, Tit. ii. 14 λαὸς περιούσιος; the other by S. Peter, 1 Pet. ii. 9 λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν. The reference in S. Peter is to Exod. xix. 5, where however the rendering περιούσιος is found in the 1,ΧΧ. The Hebrew root by, from which abi comes, is not found in the Bible. But the senses of kindred roots in Hebrew, such as 3D, and of other derivatives of this same root in the allied languages, point to its meaning. It signifies ‘to surround on all sides,’ and so to ‘gather together, set apart, reserve, appro- priate.’ In grammar the Rabbinical expression for a proper name is ΓΔ DW. In logic the predicable proprium is designated sD by them. Applied to property, the word nbip would denote the private treasure which a person acquires for himself or possesses by himself alone, as distinguished from that which he shares with others. Of a king, we might say that it was the ‘fiscus’ as distinguished from the ‘zrarium’, the privy purse as opposed to the public treasury. It is something reserved for his private uses. In two of the passages where it occurs, Eccles.' ii. 8, 1 Chron. xxix. 3, it refers to kings; and in the latter it seems to be carefully dis- tinguished from the money which would nate be devoted to expenditure on ean works. . 238 Appendix. Thus there is no great difficulty about the original Hebrew word. On the other hand it is less easy to see how the same idea can be represented by the Greek περιούσιος. Jerome speaks as though the leading notion of the word were ‘superiority,’ derived from περιεῖναι in the sense ‘to excel.’ Obviously this meaning would not correspond to the original. We arrive at a more just conception of its force . by considering a synonyme which Jerome himself points out. This same Hebrew word, which in the LXX is given περιούσιον, was rendered by Symma- chus ἐξαίρετον (Hieron. Of. VI. pp. 34, 726). Jerome indeed is satisfied with translating ἐξαίρετον by pre- cipuum or egregium; but its meaning is much more precise and forcible. It was used especially of the portion which was set apart as the share of the king or general, before the rest of the spoils were distributed by lot or otherwise to the soldiers of the victorious army, The exemption from the common mode of apportionment in favour of rank or virtue is the lead- ing idea of the word. Thus in Plutarch, ΚΖ, Cor. 10, we are told that when Coriolanus, as a reward for his bravery, was asked to select from the spoils ten of every kind before the distribution to the rest (ἐξέλε- σθαι δέκα πάντα πρὸ τοῦ νέμειν τοῖς ἄλλοις), he declined to do so, saying that he would take his chance with the others, but he added, ἐξαίρετον μίαν αἰτοῦμαι χάριν, ‘I have one favour to ask, as an exceptional boon.” In the triumphant anticipation of Sisera’s mother, ‘Have — they not divided the prey? to every man [lit. tothe © ae Ae oe ΟΣ τὰ a Oe Appendix. 239 head of a man] a damsel or two, to Sisera a prey of divers colours, etc.’, we have the idea which a Greek poet might express by ἐξαίρετον δώρημα (e.g. Atsch. Eum. 380, comp. Agam. 927), the special treasure as- signed to the captain over and above the distribution which was made to the rest counted by heads. This sense of ἐξαίρετον is too common to need further illus- tration; and I cannot doubt that Symmachus selected it on this account as an appropriate word to express the idea of the original. The leading idea is not superiority, as Jerome seems to imagine, but erception, ‘ Egre- gium,’ strictly interpreted, might represent it, but not ‘precipuum.’ It is the ‘exsortem ducere honorem’ of Virgil. This idea fitly expresses the relations of Jehovah to Israel, whom in the language of the Old Testament elsewhere He retained under His special care (see the notes on Clem. Rom. 20). The same conception seems to be involved in περιούσιος. This word may have been invented by the LXX translators, or it may have had some local - currency in their age: but, if the latter was the case, the fact was unknown to Origen and Jerome, for they speak of περιούσιος as not occurring out of the Bible. In either case, it might be derived from περιών, on the analogy of ἐκούσιος, ἐθελούσιος, etc., or from οὐσία, like ἐνούσιος, ἀνούσιος, etc. (see above, p- 200, 201). Thus its meaning would be either ‘exist- ing over and above, or ‘possessed over and above’; and the same idea of exception from the common laws of distribution would be involved as in ἐξαίρετος. 240 A phendix. S. Jerome mentions also! that in another passage Symmachus had adopted the Latin word feculiarem, as a rendering of 73D. He doubtless ventured on this bold expedient because the Greek language did not furnish so exact an equivalent as peculium: for ἐξαίρετον, adequate as it is in some respects, intro- duces the new idea of division of sfoz/s, which is want- ing in the original. On the other hand the Latin peculium, being used to denote the private purse which a member of the family, whether slave or free, was allowed in particular cases to possess and accumulate for his own use, distinct from the property which the paterfamilias administered for the good of the whole, approached very closely to the meaning of the He- brew: and moreover there was a convenient adjective peculiaris derived therefrom. Impressed, it would ap- pear, with the value of the word which he had thus learnt from Symmachus, Jerome himself has almost universally adopted feculium, peculiaris, as a rendering of 73D in the Old Testament; e.g. Exod. xix. 5 ‘Eritis mihi zz peculium de cunctis populis, 1 Chron. 1 Hieron. Of. VI. p. 34 ‘licet in quodam loco Zeculiare interpretatus sit’; 26. VI. p. 726 ‘in alio volumine Latino sermone utens Zecauliarem interpretatus est.’ Different interpretations of this second passage have been given; but, compared with the first, it can only mean that ‘in another book of Scripture Symmachus adopted a Latin expression, translating the word by feculiarem’; just in the same way as Ignatius writing in Greek uses δεσέρτωρ, δεπόσιτα, ἄκκεπτα (Polyc. 6), because the Greek language did not supply such convenient terms to express his meaning. It is extremely improbable that Symmachus wrote oF work in Latin as some have supposed. “12ῤοα. 241 Xxix. 3 “Οὐ obtuli in domum Dei mei de fecilio,’ ‘Deut. xxvi. 18 (comp. vii. 6, xiv. 2) ‘Elegit te hodie ut sis ei populus feculiaris,’ etc." Our English translators in adopting this word ‘peculiar’ after the Vulgate were obviously aware of its appropriate technical sense. This appears from the mode in which they use it; eg. Ps. cxxxv. 4 ‘The Lord hath chosen Jacob unto himself and Israel for his peculiar treasure’ (comp. Exod. xix. 5, Eccles. ii. 8, in both which passages the word ‘treasure’ is added). Twice only have they departed from the word ‘peculiar’ in rendering 73D; in Deut. vii. 6, where it is translated ‘a special people,’ and in Mal. ili. 17, where it is represented by ‘jewels’ but with a marginal alternative, ‘special treasure.’ In this last passage the rendering should probably be, ‘And they shall be to me, saith the Lord of Hosts, in the day which I appoint, for a peculiar treasure,’ and not as our Version has it, ‘And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of Hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels.’ In Tit. ii. 14 λαὸς περιούσιος, and τ Pet. ii. 9 λαὸς εἰς περιποίησιν, where (as I have already observed) _ we have two distinct Greek renderings of the same _ Hebrew, the expressions are once more united in our Version, which, following Tyndale, translates both by 1 The normal rendering in the Old Latin (which was translated from the Lxx) was abundaus: see e.g. Exod. xix. 5, Tit. ii. 14, and the a quotation of Victorinus given above (p. 221). This would be a very natural interpretation of περιούσιος to any one unacquainted with the Hebrew. L.R. eee Q 242 Appendix. ‘a peculiar people’ Strangely enough S. Jerome, — who introduces peculium, peculiaris, in the Old Testa- ment, has other and diverse renderings in both these passages of the New; fopulus acceptabilis in the one case, and populus adqutsitionis in the other. His New Testament was executed before his Old: and it would © appear that in the interval he had recognised the as value of the rendering suggested by Symmachus, and : adopted it accordingly. PAGE 100 160 102 90, IOI 522 160 87, 121, 157 95 INDE A Fi PAGE 171, 203, 204 105 143 - 138, 139 ‘pe si 88 a) 137 me MATT. vi. 34° ἢ Vill. 12 ues ix. 16 oki =e ie 9 aa 16 ue 29 ἜΣ 165, 166 — xi 2 = ΙΟΙ cs ΧΙ. 1, 57) 10, 11,12 £46 18 ee eee 2 ΧΙ]. 20 oes Ql, 121 121 244 Index 7. Ἔ PAGE PAGE δ MATT, XvVil. 10 ... 152 MATT. Xxvi. 50 ... 128. μὰ 21 ἐς 20 56 τς ᾿ a 168 63 eg IOL 25 ie 178 ὶ 64 a 125 xviii. 6, 7 am 177 66, 70 Ae 113 ΟΡ ΤΡ 168 XXVil. Ὁ fe 30 33 as 34 . 15 τὰς 115 xix. 8 τ go 27 aa 49 Ὁ 9 ig 2: 23 ἘΞ τότ Bey 17 ΣΝ 31 35 = 12, ae 19 Oe i xxviii. 19 + By ἢ Στὸ, 0s τόδ ΄. ΜΑΚΚΙ.τ ... . 30, τοῦ Ὁ eh pada. 21 σ΄. Ye: Xxi. 4 Ma a ae be ἢ 0g, 56 2 a pet. 12s 79, 109 mer ee Se — MARK Xi 21 i xii. 26 Index 7. PAGE 162 - LUKE vii. 5 125 331 34 43 41 165 45, 46. 121 Vill. 14 134 1x. 25 167 55 144 x. 35 162. S133 131 33 113 51 "της (ts xii. 6 49 35 161 xiii. 6. 28 ἢ ai 142 23 112, 160, 167 28 96 xv. 8, 173° οι 112, 167 “Foo 119 IIo 245 PAGE 110 95 167 ; 69 48. . 47 28. 166. 195—234 | 110, 168 79 166 118 134. 169- 246 Index 7. PAGE JOHN i. 10 = 122, 123 JOHN viii. 58... ΤΙ ἐν ὁ ἯΙ ὙΠ ἧς, ἃ SRE edith 14 we 57 5 oe 118 ne 16 doa 103 22 ad 100 | 17 ἊΝ 100, 123 x. 16 ee 71 : 18 ves 20, ΜῊ xi. 8 4 ) aI ἐπὶ 102 14 rey 182 ΟΝ 25 ae IOI, 102 cs Be oe 167 ¢ 29 ae ade 6 a oe Be ὡς τ Ge 13 π᾿ i 43 a 159 40 ae 136 Hy 50 BES 162 xiii. 12 κε: "3 oe ii. 6 Pe πσα 23,25 ... ΘΝ iii. 2 sodol 6G 27 a ὙὩΝ 2 8 I xiv.5,6 ... ΠΝ Aa τας ον 08 τό “5. ... 50,53, 55 19 Ὡς 1τ8 18 ees 53. δ ane . 26 bes te ee 26 se δὰ ES A .. τῷ XV. 3 ve oe ᾿ 6 ἌΤΗΝ 73 26 one a 27 mii 114 αν 5, 46-43 31 se 162 7 wai ay ἫΝ 116 30 aa 116 ee ACTS ii. 23 =. Ε΄. 13, 26 δ΄ iv. 25, 27 4 27, 30 me: vii. 26 & 45 Viiis 5 ACTS xviii. 14 xix. I Rom. ii. 22 24 26 | iii. 4, 6 19 5g. 25 24—26 . lv. 3, 9 13 Sy. ig. Rom. xi. 20 25 xii. 2 3 II 19 Xili. II xiv. 14 22, 23 XV. 4; 5 32 xvi. I γι 9 ro—16 τ +9 23 1CoR.i. 10 eee 3, 5, 6,7, 8,9 webs 126 Ἢ 67. ΘΝ, 34 th 106 Pe + II4 ames eo” 35 44 ἘΠ 161 Bt 156 a oy 35> 44 j 137 | 164 ose 32 xi. 28—34 ... 20, 31,32... Xil, 2 ad oar a 13 28 : xiii. 8. ar 25, 27 - Ad 2 Cor. ili. 7 iv. II 13 14 18 2 3 57. --- - 250 ΧΟ ΘΕΟΧΤ Ὑ5᾽. ὁ ς.. 20 ἘΣ SHO, ΕἾ «τὸ. 14 +o GAL. i. 6 ae ii. 16 say 16—21 ... lil. 3 ed 6 ate 10 S93 τος 19 OF 27 Mea iv. 20 ἬΝ ἣν 3 τς 20 τὴ 24 ἘΞ EPH. 11 aes 1 ie. a 23 are Index I. PAGE 82, 107 PHIL. iii. 3 sg. 137, 175 14 145 iv. 2 25 2,3 75 6 87 19 85 Consists 88 τό 46 19 99 ii. 5 120 8 85, 126 9 96 g, 10 85 II ὅσ. 137 16 85 20 21, 208 ii. α, 8 85 3 41, 103 8 PAGE -39 179 161 127, 128 172, 204 211, 212 85 82, 122 102 Index I, 251 PAGE PAGE 3 JAMES i. 2.5. πὰ, -.30 ; vi. 2 we 116 23 ἂν, 46 me. 5 ἘΝ ΕΥ̓ 25 τς 155 . ἘΣ ΠΟΥ 175 iis πως ἘΞ 140 _ 2TIM.i.7,9 ΤΣ 85 14). 96k 13%— a. ii. 19 et 117 v.9 By 175 Be iii. 4 Re 16 nae) 182 i iv. 11 age 157 20 ig 46 ceri iy : ae 1 PET. i 3 innit ine ee 12 OOS 15 16 igen a eS li, 14 ae 235, 237, 241 18 ἐπὶ 85 ] πὴ iil, 5 “ake 85 li. 4 ae 127 PHILEM. 2 ies 186 9 Pe ΝΣ ΗΓ ἤ > 24 sae 157 3G oH 80 τὰ ΤΙΣ ΒΕ πεν: cca 16 erie — 2 ἊΣ 122 21 ἘΠ 85 li. 10 ἐπ 122 24 ves 142 ek Ὁ ἢ ὧν τὲ ὁ ὼς iii. 9 προ aes We re 21 ΕΒ Bis 4 ἘΠ ΎΥ, iv. 8 νον ΩΝ ei 158 γι} ὯΝ 172,204 ivi 180 13 We WR ‘ παρ στα 180 — ΕΟ ee : wae TAS). Ὁ 13 aa a 124 iii. 12 το Ce eet Spo SE ΠΌΡΝΗ Boo > ΤΟΣ esis. Sap θα δι _ ἦν. 9, 10, 14 ay SPR! ORES Sitemeter F ‘J ΩΝ τ .ITIM.v. 19 REV. iv. II fe REV. xiii. 6 xiv. 15, 16 xvi. ΤῸ xvii. I 6,7 XViil. 2 23 xix. 9 eal. 3 14, 19 sg. 24 eae ; νιν ΡΥ Oe 5" γ' INDEX e Abelard on ἐπιούσιος, 226 sq. 230 Acts of the Apostles, text of, 29 Aethiopic rendering of ἐπιούσιος, 233 Alford (Dean) on ar 47, 59, 58 Eeemraviguities of expression, 179 sq. Ambrose (S.) on ἐπιούσιος, 221. 54. . Be Radrewes (Bp.), τὰ Anselm, 226 Antigenidas, 8 _ ᾿ _Antiochene School, 209 Ψ τ aorist, confused with perfect, 80 sq. ; 3 _ its significance in. 5. Paul, 84; various misrenderings of, 86 sq. . 3 Apphia, Appia, 186 _ cha isms in the phe Version, Fe Pee ΩΡ ee ‘ ᾿ ‘ IT, go about to, 178 grudge, 175 high-minded, 175 instantly, 176 let, 178 lewdness, 175 maliciousness, 176 minister, 173 nephew, 174 occupy, 42, 177 of, 119 offend, offence, 177 prevent, 178 room, 43, 174. scrip, 174 thought, 171 sq. writing-table,. 173 Armenian rendering of | 254 Authorised Version: historical par- allel to, 9 sq.; translators’ fore- bodings of, 10; never authorised, 11; gradual reception of, 11; itself a revision, 14; faulty text of, 19 sq. ; distinctions created in, 33 sq.; distinctions obliterated in, 60 sq.; errors of grammar in, 80 sq.; errors of lexicography in, 133 sq-; its caprice in proper names, titles, etc., 147 54.; ar- chaisms in, 170 sq.; ambiguities of expression in, 179 56. ; faulty English in, 181 sq.; editorial errors and misprints in, 182 sq.; corrections in later editions of, 129, 184 sq.; variable orthogra- phy of, 185 sq.; pure English of, 100 sq. -alos, adjectives in, 200 alpew, 141 ἀκέραιος, 137 ἄλλος, ἕτερος, 74 Sq. ἀνακρίνειν, ἀνάκρισις, 62 sq. ἀναπίπτειν, 72 Sq. ἀνενεγκεῖν, 142 ἁσσάριον, 165 sq. αὐγάζειν, 141 αὐλή, ποίμνη, 71 Barjona, 159 sq. Basil (S.) on ἐπιούσιος, 204, 210 Bentley quoted, 97 sq. Bernard’s (S.) controversy with Abelard, 226, 229 besaunt, 168 Beza, 231 Bible; see Authorised Version Bishops’; 11, 27, 70, 71, 88, I[udex IT. 128, 135, 139, 149, 151, 162, 163, 165, 181, 182, 183, 184 Coverdale’s; 26, 71, 128, 135, 139, 149, 165 Geneva; 11, 71, 88, 128, 135, 139, 140, 149, 151, 162, 163, 165, 181; Testament (1557), 26, 128, 135, 139, 140, 143, 163, 165; Tomson’s Testa- ment, 183, 231 Great ; 26, 71, 128, 135, 139, 150, 162, 165 Rheims; 44, 71, 78, 135, 139, 164, 169, 180, 181 Tyndale’s; 26, 44, 70, 71, 78, 80, 81, 121, 128, 135, 139, 144, 165, 169, 177, 178, 180, 231, 241 Wycliffe’s (and Wycliffite); 78, 80, 135, 139, 163, 164, 166, 168, 169, 177, 181, 231 Breviary, 230 βαστάζειν, 142 βάτος, 169 βωμός, θυσιαστήριον, 79 Calvin, 231 Cassianus, 225 sq. Christ and-the Christ, roo sq. Chrysostom (S.) on ἐπιούσιος, 210 sq. 7 coins, rendering of, 165 sq. Corinthians, 2nd Epistle to the; recurrence of words in, 37 sq. Coverdale’s Bible; see Bible Cretans, Cretes, Cretians, 187 Cureton, 215 Cyprian (S.), 26, 220 © Cyril (S.) of Alexandria; on are οὔσιος, 212; ON περιούσιος, 235. 7ημασχ 77. Cyril (S.) of Jerusalem; on ἐπιού- σιος, 210 καίεσθαι, 118 Kavavaios, Kavavirys, 138 κατάνυξις, κατανύσσειν, 139 καταρτίζειν, 145 κόλπος, στῆθος, 72 κόρος, τόρ κόφινοι, σπυρίδες, 71 κρίνειν and its compounds, 62 sq. κτᾶσθαι, κεκτῆσθαι, 87 sq. χοῖνιξ, 167, 169 χωρίον, 144 Damascene (5. John) on ἐπιούσιος, 212 Damasus, Pope, 1, 8 deaconesses, 114 sq. didrachma, 168 digamma, 202 Dionysius Carthusianus, 226 drachma, 167 δῆμος, λαός, 80 δηνάριον, 166 sq. διά, distinguished from ὑπό, 119 sq.; its connexion with Inspiration, 121 sq.; with the doctrine of the Word, 122 sq.; misrendered with the accusative, 123 sq., 135 sq. διάβολος, δαιμόνιον, 78 sq. διαμερίζεσθαι, 141 δικαίωμα, 136 δόσις, δώρημα, 76 sq. δοῦλοι, διάκονοι, 71 Easter, 162 Egyptian Service-books, 219 Egyptian Versions; rendering of παράκλητος, 55; Of σπιλάδες, 1375 of ἐπιούσιος, 218 sq., 232 Elias, Elijah, 152, 154. 255 Ellicott (Bp.) on Revision, 18, 49, 92 English language, present knowledge of the, 189 sq. Ephesians, Epistle to the; its desti- nation and genuineness, 20 Ephrem Syrus, 218 Evangelists, parallel passages in the; 31, 47 Sq., III, 113 Sq., 144, 161 εἶναι, γίνεσθαι, 75 sq. εἰς wrongly translated, 125 sq. Ἕλλην, ᾿Ελληνιστής, 157 ev wrongly translated, 126 ἐξαίρετος, 238 sq., 240 ἐπερώτημα, 136 ἐπὶ wrongly translated, 125; the ε elided in composition, 201 ἐπιγινώσκειν, ἐπίγνωσις, ὅτ sq. ἐπιλαμβάνεσθαι, 140 ἐπιοῦσα, 199, 203 ἐπιούσιος, 195 Sq. ἐπουσιώδης, 202, 205 ἐριθεία, 137 Five Clergymen, Revision of the; 50, OI sq. Fulke’s answer to Martin, 150 sq. Gehenna, Hades, 79 gender, change of, disregarded, 69 Geneva Bible, Testament; see Bible Gothic Version of ἐπιούσιος, 233 Greek, Grecian, Greece, Grecia, 157 Greek forms of Hebrew names, 154 sq. Greek scholarship in England, 188 sq. Gregory the Great on the Latin Ver-. sions, 9 Gregory Nyssen on ἐπιούσιος, 210 Grote (Prof.), 184 256 gutturals (Hebrew), how dealt with in Greek, 155 γινώσκειν, 60, ὅτ γραμματεύς, 164 Hare (Archdn.), 50 Hebrews, Epistle to the ; 93 54: Hebrews, Gospel of the; its origin and value, 213 sq.; rendering of ἐπιούσιος, 213 Heloise, 226 hendiadys, 129 Hilary (S.) on ἐπιούσιος, 229 hypallage, 128 sq. date of, idols of the caye, market-place, 92 sq. imperfect tense mistranslated, 95 sq. Isidore of Seville, rz Ismenias, 8 ἱερόν, ναός, 79 ἱεροσυλεῖν, 144 ἱστάναι, 140 Jacob of Sarug, 217 sq. James, Jacob, 158 Jeremy, Jeremias, 157 Jerome (S.) revises the Latin Bible, 1; his detractors and opponents, 2 sq., 143 version of Book of Jo- nah, 4; corrects the text, 4 sq., 15, 23; does not translate but re- — vise, 5; his Jewish teachers, 6; his devotion to the work, 7 sq.; gradual reception of his Version, - 8sq., 16; his rendering of παρά- κλητος, 543 Of ἐπιούσιος, 233 Sq. ; of περιούσιος, 223, 23556.; 238 56. : Jerusalem, spelling of, 155 + ges ae oC a 3 eee spelling and _ Marcus, Mark, 157° Index IT. Jewry, 161 Johanan, John, etc., 158 sq. John, the father of S. Peter, 159 John (S.), disciples of, 28 John (S.), Gospel of: its genuine- ness, 20; minute traits in, 73, 1083 coincidences with the Revelation, 45, 56 sq.; with the First Epistle, 45, 50 54., 55; later than the other Gospels, gt John (S.), Apocalypse of: broken syntax of, 132 sq.; see Fohun (S.), Gospel of Jona, two distinct names, 159 Jude, Juda, Judah, Judas, 160 Juvencus, 220 Laodiceans, Epistle to the, 21, 22 Latin, Old; false readings in, 2 sq.; retained in Service books, 12; ren- dering of παράκλητος, 54; of σπι- Addes, 1373 Of ἐπιούσιος, 219 56."; of περιούσιος, 241; various read- ing in the Lord’s Prayer, 227 Latin Vulgate: see Ferome (.S.) Latinisms, 170 sq., 180, 189 sq. . Lindisfarne Gospels, 231 | Lord’s Prayer, the early use of, 1964 4 see also Appendix (passim) ie Lucas, Luke, 157. “a Luke (S.), Gospel of;,two editions : of, 28 sq.; its classical ee 112, 167 Luther’s Bible, 26, 231 λύχνος, φῶς, at i tion of, 156 Maldénatns, 230 L[udex TT, Mark (S.), Gospel of; the conclu- sion, 28 Marsh (Mr) on revision, etc-, 91 $q., 188, ΤΟΙ, 193 Martin’s (Gregory) attack on English Bibles, 149 sq. Mary, Miriam, 158 Matthew (S.), Gospel of; peculiari- ties of language in, go sq., 112; its relation to the Gospel of the Hebrews, 213 measure, in what sense used, 167, 169 metaphors obscured, 142 sq. Milman (Dean), error of, 227 modius, 168 Mount, Sermon on the; its locality, 110 Sq. Miinster’s Latin Bible, 149 μέριμνα, μεριμνᾶν, 171 Sq., 204; dis- tinguished from μέλειν, 172 μετάνοια, μεταμέλεια, 76 μετρητής, 168 μοιχᾶσθαι, μοιχευθῆναι, 70 sq. μορφή, σχῆμα, 77 sq. Nicene Creed, misunderstanding of, 122 sq. _ Nicolas of Lyra, 226 ᾿ γήπιοι, παιδία, 73 νόμος, ὃ νόμος, 99 official titles, rendering of, 162 sq. Origen, on ἐπεούσιος, 195 sq., 206 Sq.; ON περιούσιος, 234 54. ; his ᾿ f method of interpretation, 208 ; tations, 209 ὁδός (ἡ), 103 54.. τ οἶδα, γινώσκω, ἐπίσταμαι, etc., ὅο 54. ᾿ ὄνομα (τὸ), 106 sq. L. R. general adoption of his interpre-. 257: ὀπτάνεσθαι, 144 ὀργή (ἡ), 105 sq. ὄρος (τὸ), 110 54. -οὔσιος, adjectives in; derived from τῶν, 200, 239; from οὐσία, 201 οὕτως, 73 Papias, 28, 186 paronomasia, 58 sq. Paul (S.); his use of the aorist, 84 sq.; his vision, 89 sq.; his teach- ing of redemption, 98; his con- ception of law, 99; his thorn in the flesh, 143 peculium, peculiaris, 240 sq. peculiar, 241 sq. perfect, confused with the aorist, 82; misrendered, 88 sq. Peshito; see Syriac Versions Pfeiffer, 222 Phenice, Phoenix, Phoenicia, 162 pleroma, the, 102 sq. prepositions; in composition neglect- ed, 68 sq.; variation of, disregard- ed, 69; mistranslations of, 118 sq. present tense, mistranslated, 93 sq. Plumptre (Prof.) on revision, 18, 189 : proper names; how to be dealt with, 147 sq.; should conform in the O. T. and N.T., 151 sq.; whether | to be translated or reproduced, 161 sq. © pad mais, servant, 141 παράκλητος, 50 Sq. πάρεσις, 135 56. περιουσιασμός, 236 a περιούσιος, 196, 206, 234 Sq. ‘ περιποίησις, 236 sq. πλοῖον, τὸ πλοῖον, 112 sq. ἢ πνεῦμα, wind, spirit, §7 sq. R 258 Index 77. πολλοί, οἱ πολλοί, etc., 98 sq. πρᾶγμα (τὸ), 107 sq. προβιβάζειν, 136 προφήτης (δ), 102 πυλῶνες, 104 πτερύγιον (τὸ), 109 πωροῦν, πώρωσις, 136 φαίνειν, φαίνεσθαι, 129 sq. φαίνομαι ὦν, φαίνομαι εἶναι, 130 φθινοπωρινός, 135 φωνή, φθογγός, 74 Rabbi, Rabboni, 162 Rahab, spelling of, 155 redemption, 98 Revision (the new) of the English Bible; historical parallel to, 12 sq.; gloomy forebodings of, 13; exaggerated views of, 13; antago- nism to, 14; disastrous results anticipated from, 15; ultimate acceptance of, 16 sq.; need of, 17 sq. (fassim); prospects of, 187 sq. ; conservative tendencies of rules affecting, 191 sq.; liberal condi- tions of, 192; favourable circum- stances attending, 193 sq. Roberts (Dr), 214 Rome, bishops of; their use of the Latin Versions, 8 sq. Rufinus, 3 salvation, how regarded in the N. T., 94 Saron: see Sharon second Advent, 104 sq. shamefaced, shamefast, 185 Sharon, the, 108 sq., 154 Shechinah, σκηνή, 56 sq. _ shibboleth, 154 sower, parable of the, 48 _Theodoret on ἐπιούσιος, 212 Stanley (Dean), 110 sq. stater, 168 substantia, 220 Suicer, 206 supersubstantialis, 208, 221, 223 56.» 226 sq. Symmachus, 240 synonymes, 60, 71 56: Syrian service-books, 218 Syrian Versions: Curetonian ; rendering of mapd- κλητος, 54; Of ἐπιούσιος, 214, 217, 218, 232 Jerusalem; rendering of ἐπιούσιος, 226 Peshito; rendering of παράκλητος, ᾿ς 54; of Kavavatos and Χαναναῖος, 139; of ἐπιούσιος, 215, 218, 232 Philoxenian (Harclean); rendering of σπιλάδες, 1373 Of ἐπιούσιος, 215 sq. σάββατα, 146 σάτον, 169 σεβόμενοι, 145 σκηνή, σκηνοῦν, 56 sq. σπεκουλάτωρ, 165 σπῖλοι, σπιλάδες, 137 στερέωμα, 142 Sq. συλαγωγεῖν, 136 σωζόμενοι (οἷ), 94 Sq. MPD, 236 sq. talent, 168 tenses wrongly rendered, 80 54. Tertullian, 220 text, importance of a correct, 23 sq. textual critieism, its tendencies, 19 sq. ᾿ τ Teutonic Versions of the Lord’s — Prayer, 231 ἐλ. Fe Na το ΣΝ ΑΝ 259 ᾿ὙΒΕΟρΒγαοῖ on ἐπιούσιος, 212 sq. ~ Tholuck, 197, 206 - Thomas, Acts of, 217 Trench (Abp.) on the Authorized _ Version, 18, 41, 50, 72, 86, 135, * 130, 141, 152, 172, 174, 189 _ Trent, Council of, 16, 230 _ Tyndale’s Bible: see Bible Geto (τὸ), 145 ᾿ θέλημα, 106 sq. i θριαμβεύειν, 135 eee ed rl * -. =o 5 a Urbane, ὙΠ ὕλη, τόο ὑπό, δή; 110 sq. ~ various readings, 27 sq. Victorinus, on ἐπιούσιος, 221; on περιούσιος, 235 Vulgate; see Ferome (S.) wages of labourers, 166 sq. way, the, 103 sq. Westcott (Dr), rr sq., 113 Witnesses, the Three Heavenly, 24 sq. wrath, the, 105 sq. Wright (Prof.), 215, 217, 218 Wycliffe’s Bible: see Bible Zurich Latin Bible, 26, 231 Sa, θηρία, 72 Date Due = ἐ ὦ 5 Ζ : Ξ & 4 ᾿ BS455 .L72 1872 On a fresh revision of the English New nary-S a peer Library Princeton Theological Semi 1 1012 00081 2760