CORNELL UNIVERSITY L I BRARY The Robert M. and Laura Lee Lintz Book Endowment for the Humanities Class of 1924 CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBHAHV 3 1924 088 195 809 Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924088195809 THE REVISION OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT THE REVISION OP THE ENGLISH VERSION NEW TESTAMENT. BY J. B. LIGHTFOOT, D.D., ■ ojLMON or BT, rxin/B, AMD HDUSAN rBOFtUOK Or OITIHITr, ciyBBiPOi ; RICHARD CHENEVIX TRENCH, D.D., AnaaDisnor or dudlin; C. J. ELLICOTT, D.D., BIBUOP or GLOnOEBTEB AND BCISTOL. WITH AN INTRODUCTION BT PHILIP BCHAFF, D.D., rxortisoB or DITIMITT ih tbi omioh tbsoi.ooical IBMIHABT, MIW VOBK. NEW YOEK: HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS, FRANKLIN SQUAItU. 1873. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1872, by Harper & Brothers, In the Office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington. INTRODUCTION ON THE \ REVISION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE. BY PHILIP SCHAFF. CONTENTS. Trench, Blllcott, and LIgbtroot on Revision Page vll The British ReTlalon Committee. Ix Rules of the British Committee x American Co-operation '. zt List of American Revisers xvi First Meeting of the American Revisers xvil Constitution xvlll Character of the English Version— the Work proposed xx Improvements : The Text ' ixlv Errors x xx Inaccuracies xxxlv Inconsistencies xxxlx Archaisms xllll Proper Names xliv Accessories xlv Arrangement xlvi Conclusion zlvlli INTRODUCTION. BY THE EDITOR. TRENCH, ELLICOTT, AND LIGHTFOOT ON REVISION. Ah the question of revising for public use the English Version of the Holy Scriptures has at last assumed a defi- nite practical shape in Great Britain, and must before long claim the serious attention of all churches which use the same version, it occurred to me that this important subject could not be better introduced to American scholars than by a republication of the recent treatises of Archbishop Trench, Bishop Ellicott, and Professor Lightfoot, on the principles and mode of revision. Some friends, whose judgment I value, agreed with me in this opinion. Ac- cordingly, I asked the consent of the esteemed authors, which was promptly and cheerfully given. The eminent divines, whose works are united in this volume, are above all others qualified to speak with au- thority on the subject of revision. They bring to its dis- cussion ample learning in classical. Biblical, and English literature, a high order of exegetical skill and tact, sound judgment, long experience, conservative tact, profound rev- erence for the Word of God, and a warm affection for the Authorized Version. They are also well acquainted with the labors of German divines, who have made large and valuable contributions to every department of Biblical sci- ence. They adorn high places of honor and influence in the Church, of England^which gave us the present version, and has a hereditary right and duty to take the lead in its viii INTRODUCTIOir. improvement. They are active members of the British Committee on Kevision, and fairly represent its ruling spirit and tendency. Going over the same ground, these aiithors can hardly avoid repetition. They independently agree on the funda- mental principles and chief improvements. At the same time, they represent the progressive stages through which the revision movement has passed within the la^t twelve years. Archbishop Trench wrote his work in 1859, before the Eevision Committee was organized, with the intention not 60 much either to advocate or to oppose revision, as to prepare the way for it by a calm, cautious, and judicious examination of the strength and weakness, the merits and faults of the Authorized Version, and arrived at the con- clusion that revision will come, and ought to come, though it has come sooncrlthan he at that time anticipated or de- Eleven years later (1870), soon after the Convocation of Canterbury had taken the first step toward an organized effort of revisioii. Bishop EUicott followed witli his treatise, ' presenting the principles and aims of the present revision movement, and his own experiences when acting as one of five Anglican clergymen in a previous attempt to revise some portions of the English New Testament. He re- views the recent labors in the department of textual criti- cism, refutes the popular objections, and gives judicious recommendations, and a few samples of revision, selecting the Sermon on the Mount from Matthew, and f om- of the most difficult chapters of the Epistle to the Eomans. Professor Liglitfoot, of Cambridge, whose name recalls another of England's greatest and most useful BibUcal • The first edition was reprinted in New York, ISfiS, but was superseded by the greatly improved edition of 1 859. INTRODUCTION. IX scholars, prepared his work in 1871, after the Eevision Companies had begun their sessions in the Deanery of Westminster. He therefore represents the actual work of revision, and discusses it with such learning and ability, and in so catholic a spirit, as to inspire confidence in its ultimate success. It seems proper that I should add to these prefatory re- marks some account of the revision movement, and its pres- ent prospects in the United States. The British Revision Gommittee. The present organized effort to revise the Authorized Englisli Version of the Holy Scriptures originated, after long previous discussions, in the Convocation of Canter- bury. Tliis body, at its session May 6, 1870, took tljc fol- lowing action, proposed by a committee wliicli consisted of eight bishops, the late Dean Alford, Dean Stanley, and sev- eral other dignitaries : 1 . That it is desirable that a revision of the Authorized Version of the Holy Scriptures be undertaken. 2. That the revision be so conducted as to comprise both marginal render- ings and such emendations as it may be found necessary to insert in the text of the Authorized Version. 3. That in the above resolutions we do not contemplate any new transla- tion of the Bible, or any alteration of the language, except where, in the judg- ment of the most competent scholars, such change is necessary. 4. That in such necessary changes, the style of the language employed in the existing version be closely followed. 6. That it is desirable that Convocation should nominate a body of its own members to undertake the work of revision, who shall bo at liberty to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or relig- ious body they inay belong. The report was accepted unanimously by the Upper House and by a great majority of the Lower House. A committee was also appointed, consisting of eight bishops and eight presbyters, to take the necessary steps for carry- ing out the resolutions. xu INTRODUCTION. powered ' to invite the co-operation of any eminent for scholarship, to whatever nation or religious body they may belong.' The Committee accordingly solicited the co-oper- ation of the most distinguished Biblical scholars, not only from all schools and parties of the Church of England, but also from Presbyterians, Independents, Baptists, Wesley- ans, and other Christian denominations. With two or three exceptions, the invitation was accepted by all. Dean Alford, one of the most active promoters of the revision movement, died prematm-ely (January, 1871), but his works remain to aid the cause. Dr. Tregelles is prevented by feeble health from taking an active part ; but lie is pres- ent in spirit by his critical edition of the Greek. Testament, to which he has devoted the best yeare of his life. The two companies hold sessions four days every month in the venerable Deanery of Westminster. One company occu- pies the historic Jerusalem Chamber, where the Westmin- ster Assembly met, and where the Convocation of Canter- bury holds its sessions. , The Committee includes a laige portion of the ripest and soundest Biblical scholarship or Great Britain. I do not hesitate to say that in abiUty, learning, tact, and experience it is superior to any previous combination for a similar pur- pose, not excepting the forty-seven revisei's of King James, most of whom are now forgotten. Trench, Ellicott, Light- foot, Stanley, Wordsworth, and the late Dean Alford stand first among the modern exegetes of the Church of England, and Alexander, Angus, Brown, Eadie, Fairbairn, Milligan, hold a similar rank among the other denominations. There are no textual critics now living superior to Tregelles, Scriv- ener, Westcott, and Hort (except Tischendorf in Germany, who stands first in reputation and in the extent of liis la- bors and resources). It was my privilege, during a visit to England in 1871, INTRODUCTION. XUl to attend, by special invitation, the sessions of the two companies in the Deanery of Westminster, and to observe their mode of operation. I was very favorably impressed with the scholarly ability, the conscientious accuracy and thoroughness, the reverent spirit and truly Christian har- mony which characterize tlie labors of the revisers. Every question of textual criticism and exegesis receives careful attention, and every word and its best rendering are mi- nutely discussed. The revisers come thoroughly prepared to each session, the several parts of the task, as readings, marginal references, being assigned to subcommittees. In this way they finish, on an average, about forty verses a day. Such an amount of work bestowed on the Book of books can not be in vain. It may take seven or ten years till the revision is finished, but it will be all the better for it. There is no need of haste in so important and responsible an un- dertaking. The revisers have the power in their hands ; they can supply their vacancies, add to their number, and prolong their labors as the case may require. Their serv- ices are gratuitous. The two Universities, in consideration of the copyright of the revised edition, have undertaken to pay the cost of printiug and other expenses. But, until the whole is completed, no parts will be published except for the strictly private u^c of the revisers. This is no doubt a wise course, and will prevent much premature and un- necessary criticism. I add a full list of the members of the British Commit- tee as it was furnished to me in England, excluding those who declined or died, and including those who are members ex officio, or who have been added since the organization. (1.) OLD TESTAMENT RETISIOM COMPANY. The Eight Rev. the Bishop of Bath and Wells, Palace, WeUs, Somerset. The Right Rev. the Bishop of Elt, Palace, Ely. nv INTRODUCTION. The Right Bev. the Bishop of LLANDAFr, Bishop's Court, Llandaff. The Right Rev. the Bishop of St. David's (^Chairman), AbergwiU Palace, Carmarthen. The Very Rev. the Dean of Canterbubt, Deanery, Canterbury. The Yen. Archdeacon Harbison, Canterbury. The Yen. Archdeacon Rose, Houghton Conquest, Ampthill. The Rev. Canon Selwtn, Trumpington Road, Cambridge. The Rev. Dr. Kat, Great Leighs, Chehnsford. The Rev. Dr. Alexander, Finkid>um, Musselburgh, Edinburgh. R. L. Bensly, Esq., University Library, Cambridge. Professor Chenebt, Reform Club, S.W. The Rev. Professor Davidson, 10 RiUbank Terrace, Edinburgh. The Rev. Dr. Da vies. Baptist College, Regent's Park, N.W, The Rev. Dr. DonoLAS, 10 Fitzroy Place, Glasgow. The Rev. Principal Fairbairn, 13 Elmbank Crescent, Glasgow. The Rev. F. Field, 2 Carlton Terrace, Heigham, Norwich. The Rev. J. D. Geden, Wesleyan College, Didsbury, Manchester. The Rev. Dr. Ginsbdro, Holm Lea, Binfield, Bracknell, Berks. The Rev. Dr. Gotch, Baptist College, Bristol. The Rev. Professor Lbathes, King's College, London, 47 Priory Road. The Rev. Canon Perowne, Trinity College, Cambridge. The Rev. Professor Plcmitre, Pluckley, Ashford. The Rev. Professor Weir, University, Glasgow. • W. Alois Wrioht, Esq. {Secretary), Trinity College, Cambridge. (2.) NEW testament revision company. The Right Rev. the Bishop of Winchester, Winchester House, S.W. The Right Rev. the Bishop of GLoncEST^sB and Bristol {Chairman), Palace, Gloucester. The Right Rev. the Bishop of Salisbury, Palace, Salisbury. The Very Rev. the Dean of Westminster, Deanery ,Westminster, S.W. The Very Rev. Dr. Scott, Dean of Rochester, Rochester. The Ven. the Prolocutor, The Prebendal, Aylesbury. The Rev. Canon Blakesley, Vicarage, Ware. The Most Rev. the Archbishop of Dublin, Palace, Dublin. The Right Rev. the Bishop of St Andrew's, The Feu House, Perth. The Rev. Dr. Angus, Baptist College, Regent's Park, N.W. The Rev; Dr. David Brown, Free Church College, Aberdeen. The Rev. Professor Eadib, 6 Thornville Terrace, Glasgow. The Rev. F. J. A. Hort, 6 St. Peter's Terrace, Cambridge. The Rev.W. G. Humphry, Vicarage, St.Martin's-in-the-Field8,W.C. The Rev. Canon Kennedy, The Elms, Cambridge. The Ven. Archdeacon Lee, Dublin. The Rev. Canon Liohtfoot, Trinity College, Cambridge. The Rev. Professor Millioan, University, Aberdeen. IV INTRODUCTION. S £::K-viri- !'rr"- The Rev. Dr. Scrivener, Gerrans, Grampound -S^Sn^=:^KS,S£.T;e.mp,e,Lo.on. The Bev. J. Tboutbeck {Seoreia,^), 4 Dean's Yard, Westminster. American Co-operation. eign aid tot "^T"'"" j^ '°"^ ^'''"P^'-*' -'^-^ for- Yet in • V" ''' '° '^'' ^"'•^ committed to its care ureal jiita,,,. E,,„, ^^^^^^^ ,j xvi VfTHODUCTION. an interesting official correspondence, conducted, on behalf of the British Committee, by the Bishop of Winchester, the Dean of Westminster, the Bishop of Gloucester and Bris- tol, and Dr. Angus. I was empowered by the British Com- mittee to select and invite scholars from non-Episcopal Churches; the nomination of members from the .American Episcopal Church was, for obvious reasons, placed in tlie hands of some of its Bishops ; but, as they declined to take action, I was requestfed to fill out the list. It is not neces- sary, in this place, to enter into details. I will only state the result of the negotiations. List of American Revisers. THE OLD TESTAMENT COMPANY. Prof. Thomas J. Conant, D.D Brooklyn, N. Y. " Georoe E. Day, D.D New Haven, Conn. " John De Witt, D.D New Brunswick, N. J. " William Henby Grkes, D.D Princeton, N. J. " George Emlen Hare, D.D Philadelphia, Pa. • • ' Charles P. Krauth, D. D Philadelphia, Pa. ' " Joseph' Packard, D.D Fairfax, Va. ' ' Calvin E. Stowe, D.D Cambridge, Mass. " James Strong, D.D Madison,N.J. " C.V. A.VAN Dyck,M.D.» Beyrut, Syria. " Tayleb Lewis, LL.D Schenectady, N. Y. the NEW TESTAMENT COMPART. Bight Rev. Alfred Lee, D.D Wilmington, Delaware. Prof. Ezra Adbot, D.D., LL.D Cambridge, Mass. Rev. G. R. Crooks, D.D New York. Prof. H. B. Hackett, D.D., LL.D Rochester, N. Y. " James IIadlet, LL.D New Haven, Conn. " Charles Hodge, D.D., LL.D Princeton, N. J. " A. C. Kendrick, D.D Rochester, N.Y. " Matthew B.Hiddle.D.D Hartford, Conn. " Charles Short, LL.D New York. " Henby B. Smith, D.D., LL.D New York. '• J. Henry Thayer, D.D Andover, Mass. " W. F. Warren, D.D Boston, Mass. ' • Dr. Van Dyek, the distinguished translator of the Arabic Bible, can not be expected to attend the meetings, bat may be occasionally consulted on questions involving a thorough knowledge of Semitic languages. MTRODUCTION. xvii Rev. Edward A. Washdorn, D.D New York. " Theo. D. Woolset, D.D., LL.D New Haven, Conn. Prof. Phiup Schaff, D.D New York. In the delicate task of selection, reference was had, first of all, to ability, experience, and reputation in Biblical learn- ing and criticism ; next, to denominational connection and standing, so as to have a fair representation of the leading Churches and theological institutions ; and last, to local con- venience, in order to secure regular attendance. Some dis- tinguished scholars were necessarily omitted, but may be added hereafter by the committee itself. So far as I know, the selection has given general sat- isfaction. A few gentlemen (not included in the above list) declined the invitation for personal reasons, but not from any hostility to the pending revision. One of these, a learned Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church, wrote to me : ' Let me assure you, it is from no feeling that a re- vision is not needed, nor yet from any unwillingness to in- voke aid in making it from others than members of the Church of England, that I liave been led to this view of my duty.' Another wrote : ' Eespecting the success of the enterprise I have little doubt. The result of the best schol- arship of the Church in England and America will com- mand assent, and the opposition will speedily subside.' First Meeting of the American Revisers. On the 7th of December, 1871, a number of American revisers convened in New York for the purpose of effect- ing a temporary organization and adopting a Constitution. The meeting was very pleasant and harmonious. Tlie fol- lowing extract from the Minutes contains the items of pub- lic interest : 'At a meeting of gentlemen invited by Rev. Philip Schaff, D.D., to meet this day at his study. No. 40 Bible House, New York, for the purpose of forming an organization to co-operate with the British Committee in the re- B xviii INTRODUCTION. viBion of the Authorized English Version of the Scriptures, the following per- sons were present, viz. : ' Prof. Philip Schaff, D.D., New York ; Prof Henry B. Smith, D.D., New York ; Prof. Wm. Henry Green, D.D., Princeton, N. J. ; Prof. George Em- len Hare, D.D., PhUadelphia, Pa. ; Prof. Charles P. Krauth,D.U., Philadel- phia; Bev. Thomas J. Conant,D.r).,Brooklyn,N.Y.; Prof. George E. Day, D.D., New Haven, Conn.; Ezra Abhot,LL.D., Cambridge, Mass.; Rev.Ed- wafd A. Washhurn, D.D., New York. ' Dr. Howson, Dean of Chester, was also present by special invitation, and took part in the deliberations. ' E-c-President Woolsey, Prof Hackett, Prof Strong, Prof. Stowe, and oth- . ers, were prevented from attending, but expressed by letter their hearty inter- est in the proposed work, and their readiness to co-opeiate. ' The meeting was organized by the appointment of Prof Henry B. Smith as Chairman, and Prof. George E. Day 03 Secretary. •••••• Constitution. ' I. The American Committee, invited by the British Committee engaged in the revision of the Authorized English Version of the Holy Scriptures to co-operate with them, shaU be composed of Biblical scholars and divines in the United States. ' II. This Committee shall have the power to elect its officers, to odd to iU number, and to fill its own vacancies. ' III. The officers shall consist of a President, a Corresponding Secretary, and u Treasurer. The President shall conduct the official correspondence with the British revisers. The Secretary shall conduct the home correspond- ence. ' IV. New members of the Committee, and corresponding members, must be nominated at a previous meeting, and elected unanimously by ballot. ' V. The American Committee shall co-operate with the British Compa- nies on the basis of the principles ond rules of revision adoptech^y the British Committee. ' VI The American Committee shall consist of two companies, the one for the revision of the Authorized Version of the Old Testament, the other for the revision of the Authorized Version of the New Testament. ' VII. Each Company shaU elect its own Chairman and Recoidmg Secre- *"^VIII The British Companies will submit to the American Companies, from time to time, such portions of their work as have passed the first revi- sion and the American Companies will transmit their criticisms and sug- gestions to the British Companies before the second revision. 'IX. A joint meeting of the American and British Companies shall be held, if possible, in London, before final oction. • X. The Americon Committee to pay their own expenses. •A communication from Bishop Ellieott, D.D., to Dr. Schaff, dated Oc- tober 23, 1871, was read, containing tI:o following resolution of the British Committee : INTRODUCTION. XIX ' "Resolution — That the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol be requested to communicate with Dr. Schaff to the effect that the work of the New Testa- ment revisers is at present only tentative and provisional, and that it may be considerably altered at the Fecond revision ; but that, upon the assurance of Dr. Schaff that the work, so far as it is at present advanced, will be con- sidered as itrictly confidential, the company will send a sufficient number of copies for Dr. Schaff and his brother revisers, for their own private use, the copies to be in no way made public beyond themselves. ' "For this purpose that Dr. Schaff be requested to send the names and addresses of the scholars associated with him in this matter so soon as the Company is completely formed."' • • • ♦ ♦ On the evening of the same day the movement was pub- licly inaugurated by a meeting in Calvary Church, Fourth Avenue, New York, at which Dr. Washburn, Dean Howson, D.D., and the writer made addresses on the subject of Bible Revision before a very large and intelligent audience, in- cluding many clergymen from different denominations. Full reports, of the meeting were published in the Chris- tian Intelligencer, the Protestant Churchman, and other papers. The organization of the American Committee was duly reported. Certain difficulties which stood in the way of co-operation were removed by farther correspondence and personal conference of the writer with the British revisers on a recent visit to England. The British Committee, at its meeting July 17, 1872, took the following action: ' Dr. Schaff having communicated to the Bishop of Gloucester ond Bristol the following as the names of the American revisers, .... it was resolved that so many copies of the revised version of the first three Gospels be in- trusted to Dr. Schaff for the use of the above named, with the request that they be regarded as private and confidential, and with the intimation that the work itself is provisional and tentative, and likely to undergo considerable modification.' The copies promised in the above resolution were duly received. The Old Testament Company took similar ac- tion, and intrusted me with eleven proof copies of the re- vised ■\?ersion of the books of Genesis, Exodus, and Levit- icus for the use of the eleven members of the American j^ INTRODUCTION. Company of Old Testament revisers. Other portions of the revised version will be forwarded as soon as they are finished. The American companies will hold then- first meeting for active work October 4, 1872. The result of their de- liberations will in due time be forwarded to the British Committee for consideration before the second revision. When the whole work shall be completed, it will go to the English-speaking churches for their adoption or rejec- tion. By its own merits it will stand or fall. We firmly believe that it will gradually take the place of the Author- ized Version. Character of the English Version. The Work jprojposed. In presenting briefly my own views on the subject of revision,! have no authority to speak in behalf of the American revisers, who have not yet fairly begun their work ; but I apprehend no material diflSculty with the British Committee. I have reason to believe that there is a general disposition among us to retain the idiom, gram mar, and vocabulary of the Authorized Version so far as is consistent with faithfulness to the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures, and with justice to the present stage of the English language. The popular English Bible is the greatest blessmg which the Eeformation of the sixteenth century bestowed upon the Anglo-Saxon race. It is, upon the whole, the best trans- lation ever made, not excepting even Jerome's Vulgate and Luther's Version. It is not the production of a smgle mind, but of a large number of wise and good men, rep- resenting three generations in the most eventful and pro- ductive period of modem church history. It is ' the pure well of English undefiled.' It has formed the style and . taste of the English classics. It has a hold upon the pop- INTBODUCTION. ^j^i ular heart which it can never lose. Its vocabulary and phrases, its happy blending of Saxon force and Latin dig- nity, its uniform chasteriess, earnestness, and solemnity, its thoroughly idiomatic tone, its rhythmic flow, its more than poetic beauty and harmony, have secured the admiration of scholars and the affection of whole churches and nations in which it is used. Even in the Romish communion, a distinguished English apostate from Protestantism could not forget its marvellous beauty and heavenly music* * The remarkable judgment of the late Dr. F. William Faber (often falsely attributed to Dr. John Henry Newman) is well worth quoting in full : ' Who will say that the uncommon beauty and marvellous English of the Protestant Bible is not one of the great strongholds of heresy in this country ? It lives on the ear like a music that can never be forgotten, like the sound of church bells, which the convert hardly knows how he can forego. Its felicities often seem to be almost things rather than mere words. It is part of the national mind, and the anchor of national seriousness. Nay, it is worshipped with a positive idolatry, in extenuation of whose grotesque fanaticism its intrinsic beauty pleads availingly with the man of letters and the scholar. The mem- ory of the dead passes into it. The potent traditions of childhood are stereo- typed in its verses. The power of all the griefs and trials of a man is hidden beneath its words. It is the representative of his best moments, and all that there has been about him of soft, and gentle, and pure, and penitent, and good, speaks to him for ever out of his Knglish Bible. It is his sacred thing, which doubt has never dimmed, and controversy never soiled. It has been to him all along as the silent, but oh ! how intelligible voice of his guardian angel ; and in the length and breadth of the land there is not a I'rotestant, with one spark of religiousness about him, whose spiritual biography is not in his Saxon Bible. And all this is an unhallowed power!' — From Faber's Essay on The Interest and Characteristics of the Lives of the Saints, p. IIG, prefixed to a Life 0/ St. Francis of Assist (1853), which fcnns vol. xxv. of the Oratory series of the Lives of Modern Saints. I took the quotation from an anony- mous reviewer of Conybeare and Howson's Life and Epistles of St. Paul, in the Dublin Review for June, 1 S.'iS, p. 400. The Roman Catholic reviewer admits (p. 405 sq.) that the ' Douay version, composed as it was under heavy difficulties and the greatest disadvantages, is, upon the whole, surprisingly accurate and exact [?], though confessedly ikr from scholar-like as a literary performance, and as deficient in pure English idiom as the Protestant version is excellent in that particular j' but then he goes on to charge the latter with doctrinal unfairness, instancing the well-known passages 1 Cor. >■■ 27, where i) (rri'vy ri irorliptov') — often used by Homanists as an argument for the com- munion sub una specie — is rendered and; Matt. xix. 11, ou iravnc xuipoiai, ' all men can not receive the word ;' Gal. i. IB, laToprjaat nirpov, ' to see Pe- ter.' XXII INTRODUCTION. The power and influence of this vereion can not be esti- mated. Being from the very start a truly national work for the British Isles, it has gradually assumed, with the En- glish language itself, an almost cosmopolitan character and importance, and is now used more than any translation in all parts of the globe. The British and Foreign Bible So- ciety, or tlie American Bible Society, probably send forth more copies of the English Scriptures than are printed in all other languages combined. Eternity alone can reveal how many millions have been made wise unto salvation through the instrumentality of this version. To substitute a new popular version for such a work would be almost a sacrilege, certainly an ungrateful task and inevitable failure. But this is not at all the question. The present move- ment contemplates no new version, but simply a scholarly and conscientious revision, in the spirit, and, as far as pos- sible, in the very language^ of the old. The object is to make a good translation still better, more accurate and self-consistent, and to bring it up to the present standard of Biblical scholarship. The abstract right of revision can not be disputed. It is the duty of the Church, especially the Protestant, to give the Bible to the people in the best possible form, and to adapt existing translations, from time to time, to the prog- ress in Scripture learning and the inevitable changes of a living language. Without this right and duty. King James's Version of 1611 would not exist at all, for it is it- self the result of several revisions, going back— through the Bishops' Bible (1568), the Geneva Bible (1557, completed 1560), Cranmer's Bible (1539), Matthew's (or Eogers's) Bi- ble (1537), Coverdale's Bible (1535 and 1537)— to the New Testament (with parts of the Old Testament) of Tyhdale INTRODUCTION. xxui (1525-1535),"" who is the real author, as well as martyr, of the English vei-sion,f and, in the former respect, the En- glish Luther.:}: The need and desirableness of a new revision are now al- most generally admitted, at least by those who ai-e best ac- quainted with the Bible in its original languages. Tlie most ardent admirers of King James's Version do not claim for it perfection and infallibility. It has a very consider- able number of errore, defects, and obscurities. It was the best translation which could be made in tlie beginning of the seventeenth century, but it can be greatly improved with the enlarged facilities of the present age. The only debatable question, then, is as to tlie proper time and best mode of undertaking this important and de- sirable work. A few years ago many of the most judi- cious friends of revision would have said that the pear is not ripe yet, although fast ripening ; but the recent move- ment in Great Britain settles the question. It combines all the needful scholarship, abilitj', authority, and co-op- eration. It presents the most favorable juncture which can be desired, and it must be turned to the best account. The greatest difficulty was in our sectarian divisions : it has been removed by the Spirit of God, who alone can so move the hearts of men as to bring Churchmen and Dissent- ers, Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Independents, Methodists, Baptists, and others, together in brotherly harmony and co- operation. To miss the glorious opportunity now is indef- initely to postpone the great work, or to risk the multipli- • For details, see the excellent History of the English Bible, hy Trofessor Westcott (one of the British Committee of KeYision), London, 1808. t Wicliffe's translation was not made from the original Greek and Hebrew, but from the Latin Vulgate, and was little used, if used at all, by Tyndale. X Westcott, I. c.,p. 06, pays him the following just tribute: 'Not one self- ish thought mixed with his magnificent devotion. No treacherous intrigues ever shook his loyalty to his king ; no intensity of distress ever obscured his faith in Christ.' XXIV INTRODUCTION. cation of sectarian vereions — as there are already a Baptist and a Unitarian New Testament. Let us by all means have an oecumenical revision now when we can have it, which shall be a new and stronger bond of union among the many branches of Anglo-Saxon Christendom, and make the good old Bible clearer and dearer to the people. Improvements. The improvements which can be made, without in the least impairing the idiom and beauty, or disturbing the sacred associations, of the Authorized Vereion, may be con- sidered under tlie following heads, as needing revision : the Text; Errors; Inaccuracies; Inconsistencies; Archaisms; Proper Names ; Accessories ; Arrangement. 1. The Text. To res'tore, from the best critical resources now made accessible, an older and purer text in the place of the com- paratively late and corrupt textus receptus. In other words, to substitute, in the New Testament, an ante-Nicene for a mediseval text. The Hebrew text, having been settled long ago by the Masorets, presents very little difficulty. It is stated that there are only 1314 various readings of importance in the Old Testament, apd that only 147 of them affect the sense. With critical conjectures (such as proposed by Hitzig, Merx, etc.) a popular version has nothing to do. When the Authorized Version fallows the Septuagint and the Vulgate against the Hebrew (as in the important pas- sage Job xix. 26), the Hebrew text must of course have the preference. The case is very different in the New Testament. The Authorized Ver- sion, like all other Protestant versions, is made from the 'received text,' so called, which dates from the first printed edition of the Greek Testament by Erasmus (1516), especially his fourth edition (1527, which contains some emendations in the Apocalypse, derived from the Complutensian Polyglot), was several times re-edited, with a few improvements, by Stephens, of Paris, and then by Beza, of Geneva, and boldly proclaimed the Uezlus ab omnibus receptu$' by the enterprising publishers, Elzevir, of Leydcn (in their Second edition, 1633), and which ruled, almost undisputed, as a part of Protestant orthodoxy (as the Latin Vulgate as a part of Romish orthodoxy), until, after Bentley and Bengel had shaken confidence in jt, it was set aside by Lachmann INTRODUCTION. XXV (1831) and his followers, to make room for an older and better text since brought to light.* The 'received text' was hastily derived, in the infant period of the printed Bible, from a few and faulty cursive MSS., when the best uncial MSS. and the oldest versions (except a corrupt text of the Vulgate) were not yet known, before the patristic quotations were examined, and before even the first prin- ciples of textual criticism were understood, f Since that time an immense material for textual criticism has been gath- ered, compared, weighed, and sifted by the indefatigable labors of Mill, Ben- gel, Wetstein, Griesbach, Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and others. We have now as complete an apparatus as is necessary to settle the text in all its essential features, and there is no prospect that any new discoveries (even as important as that of the Codex Sinaiticus in 1869) will materially alter the result, unless some future Tischendorf should be so fortunate as to find the apostolic autographs ; but this, in view of the perishable nature of papyrus, on which they were written, is next to impossible. Over l.^OO MSS. of the Greek Testament have been more or less compared.^ and from 100,000 to 120,000 various readings have been accumulated from all textual sources to the present day. Fortunately, these variations do not unsettle a single article of Christian faith and duty ; they only establish the essential integrity of the apostolic text, and increase the facilities of determining, approximately, the original reading, without resorting (as is the case with classical authors) to jirecarious subjective conjectures. On the most important variations which aifect the sense, and which alone deserve consideration in a /)o;)u/ar version, the leading critics of the day are now quite or nearly agreed. From the un- cial MSS. (especially the two oldest, the Sinaitic and the Vatican, or s and B, both made accessible now to all by the quasi fac-simile editions of Tischen- • Tyndale used the edition of Erasmus, the Geneva revisers the Latin ver- sion of Beza (first ed. 1 557). Comp. Westcott, Hist, of the Eng. Bible, p. 288. On the precise Greek text from which King James's revision is derived, see the Note below. On the Continent, the first Elzevir or Leyden edition of IG24 (from which the second edition of 1633 differs very slightly) is understood to be the ' received text ;' while in England the term is more frequently applied to the third edition of Robert Stephens, which appeared in 1550, called the ' royal edition. ' The Gre^k text in both is substantially the same. Including minute variations in orthography, they differ in 278 places (Scrivener, N. T. Cambr. 1860, p. vi. ; Westcott, in Smith's Bibl. Diet. iii. 2132, Am. edit.). Where the Elzevir edition differs from Stephens, it generally agrees with Beza. t Beza had, it is true, two uncial codd., viz.. Codex D or Bezse, of the Gospels and Acts, and Cod. D Claromontanus, of the Epistles, and knew also the Peshito and Arabic versions, but he made very little use of them, being more concerned for his Latin translation and notes. His immediate success- ors neglected even these important sources of criticism. X Mr. Scrivener (Introd. to Bibl. Crit., p. 225) states the total number of manuscripts of the Greek Testament known and used to be 1583, of which 127 are uncial, 1456 cursive, but most of the uncial and many of the cursive MSS. are incomplete, and 67 must be deducted for being counted double. XXVl INTSODUCTIOX. dorf and Vercellone), the earliest versions (especially the Itala, Vulgate, and Peshito), and the quotations of the Nicene and ante-Nicene fathers (Origen, Tertullian, Irennus, etc.), we are now able to reconstruct, with a tolerable de- gree of certainty, the oldest attainable text, which is, upon the whole, much simpler and stronger than the post-Nicene and mediasval textut receptus, and free from liturgical and other glosses. This ante-Nicene text should bo made the basis of the revision, at least in all such cases where, as Ellicott says, ' critical evidence and the consent of the best editors point out the necessity of the change.' This canon must, of course, exclude the spurious passage of the three wit- ' nesses, 1 John v. 7, which was omitted also at first by Erasmus, Luther, and Tyndale.* The doxology of the Lord's Prayer, Mutt. vi.,will be less easily surrendered. Sections which seem to be part of primitive apostolic tradition, though not of apostolic composition, as the conclusion of Mark (xvi. 9-20), and the pericope, John vii. 63, to viii. 1), may be retained in brackets or in italics. In debatable readings, where the witnesses are equally or almost equally divided, as between fiovoyniriq iiot ond novoyivr)^ wiiig, John i. 18, the reading of the textus receptus should be retained, but the variation marked on the margin. Sometimes doubtful readings of great doctrinal importance receive new confirmation, as roD dcoS (for cvpiov) in Acts xx. 28, which is sustained by Aleph and B, and furnishes one of the strongest arguments for the divinity of Christ, amply compensating for the loss of dioc for oq in 1 Tim. iii. IG (probably a quotation from a primitive Christian hymn).t The genuineness of the Epistle to the Ephesians receives new support from the Sinaitic MS. by its omission of the words ' in Ephesus' in the address (i. 1), as it corroborates the view that it was a circular letter, and therefore free from those personal allusions and salutations which we should otherwise expect. The text of the Apocalypse, of which we have fewer sources than of any other book of the N. T., has been cleared up in several important passages by the Codices Alexandrinus (A), Ephrojmi Syri rescriptus (C), Sinaiticus (X), Vaticanus No. 20CC, a manuscript of the seventh or eighth century, called B of the Apocalypse (the great Cod. B Vaticanus does not contain the Apoca- lypse), the uncial palimpsest (P) discovered and made legible by Tischendorf in 18C2,t and published in the sixth volume of his Monumenia sacra inedita (1 809), and the rediscovery by Prof. Delitzsch of Reuchlin's Codex§ — the only one for the Apocalypse which Erasmus used for his first edition, and used with * Tyndale's edition of 1G34, as given in Bagster's English IIexaph,has the disputed passage in italics. t Tischendorf, however, in his 8th crit. ed., gives the preference to tvpiov, on the authority of A, C*, D, E, Irena:us (Lat. interpr.), etc. t When Tischendorf applied his .chemical process In the palimpsest, the Greek Archimandrite (now Bishop) Porfiri Uspenski, who had brought this and other MSS. from his Oriental travels, exclaimed 'Ecce Lazarus » se- pulchro reduxt' § See BeWtzsch, Ifandschri/tliche Funde, 18CI and 18f>2. Tregelles has also examined this Codex, which was found in the library of the Prince of CEttingen-VVallerstein. INTRODUCTION. XXVll great haste. I will mentidn a few examples. In ch. i. 9, ' who am also your brother,' the improper 'also' rests on a mere misunderstanding of Eras- mus's copyist. In ch. i. 11, the words 'which are in Asio' are an interpola- tion of Erasmus from the Vulgate : qua sunt in Asia. Similar additions of Erasmus from the Latin, which have no support in the Greek text, are found in ch. ii. 3 ('and hast not fainted,' 'et non de/ecisli'), in ii. 20 ('a few things,* 'pauca'), in ii. 24 (the disturbing 'and'), and in several other passages. In ch. y. 10, the Greek reads ' thou hast made them (^airovg, i. e. the four and twenty elders) kings (a kingdom) and priests unto our God,' and ' the/ (the elders) ' shall rule ^liaciXiiaovmv) upon the earth ;' but the A. V. turns ' them' into ' us, ' and ' they' into ' we,' because Erasmus followed here the lat- er corrupted text of the Vulgate in opposition to lieuchlin's Greek MS. In xvi. H, 'the kings of the earth and of the whole world,' the superfluous words 'of the earth and" are to be traced to a mistake of the transcriber, as the Greek reads simply roiif (SaaiXils tIjs oiVou/ifw/f uXi/c. In ch. xvii. 8, the perplexing translation, ' the beast that was, and is not, and i/et is' (from the false reading raiVfp tari), must now be corrected into ' the beast that was, and is not, and yet shall come' (the best authorities reading Kai Ttapiarat — Cod. Sin. Kai vaktv Trapurrai, shall come ayain. Compare piXkti dvafjai- viiv U rijs a^uaaov, in the preceding clause).* Note on the Greek Text of the English Version. — It is a question of some interest and importance to ascertain what edition of the Greek text was chiefly used by King James's translators. They left us no direct infor- mation ; they paid little or no attention to textual criticism, which was then in its infancy, but we know what resources were then available. As they finished their work (ICll) thirteen years before the first Elzevir edition (1G24) appeared, they must have used the later editions of Stephens and Beza, which had then superseded the editions of Erasmus. The third edition of Kobejt Stephens, culled editio regia, was printed iu Paris, and the fourth at Geneva, IS,".! ; the latter, with the exception of a few passages, is a mere reprint, in inferior style, but it is the first which con- tains our versicular division. The text of Stephens (ir>r.O) has often been reproduced in England, most recently by F. H. Scrivener (18C0 and 1872), who gives also the readings of Beza (professedly of \r>Gr> ; but see the letter of Prof. Abbot below), of the Elzevirs (1624), Tischendorf, Lachmiinn, and Tregelles. From Beza there appeared, before his death (ICO?), four folio editions of the Greek Testament, including the Vulgate, his new Latin translation, and exegetical notes, printed by Henry Stephens at Geneva,! and dedicated to ♦ Comp. an art. of Dr. Conant on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse, in the Baptist Quarterly, vol. iv. No. 2, and Tregelles 's Apocalypse, edi£ 1844, and now his last edition, concluding his Greek Testament, 1872. Tischendorf has not yet completed the second volume of bis eighth edition, which will contain the Apocalypse. t We have from Beza also several small editions, which omit the Vulgate (except in the 3d ed.), and give marginal glosses extracted from his com- mentary. They are dedicated to Prince Cond^. Reuss {Geschichle des N. xxviii JNTRQDVCTION. Queen Elizabeth, tiz. edit. 1. (called ii.*), A.D. 1565, which is based upon the fourth edition of Stephens; ed. ii. (iii.), 1582, much improved by the readings of the important Codices Beza^ (D Gosp.) and Claromontanus (D Epp.), and the comparison of the Peshito and Arabic versions ; ed. iii. (iv.), 1589 (also under the date 1588), chiefly a reprint of the third ; ed. iv. (v.), 1598, which differs but little from the third, is less accurate, and was re- printed at Cambridge, lC42.t It is almost certain, at the outset, that the last editions of Beza were the main basis of the A. V., not only because they were the latest and best, but also because Beza, the surviving patriarch of the reformers, exerted, by his Latin version and exegetical notes, a marked influence upon our translators ;T even his explanatory or harmonistic interpolations in Apoc. xi. 1 (rai o ayyi- Xo£ il(n-q«.)-. Matt. i. 11 •, John xix. 13, found a place in the text, or at least in the margin of the A. V. ..... . „„ A closer examination confirms thii supposition ; but there is as yet no agreement as to the precise extent to which the A. V. depends upon Be^a, or Bides with Stephens, or dissents from both. Scrivener (A Supphment to the A»thori.edvLon,py,. 7, 8), Westcott (art. iV««, ^"'■^'^IXXln^?^ iii. 2132, note. Am. ed.), and EUicott {Revxsxon of the ^/- f ■";)•"""- tain thai the A. V. is derived from Beza's third (1582) or fourth (1589) edi- tion, and from Stephens's third (1550) or fourth (1551), and that m some 00 places it sides with Beza against Stephens, in some 28 with Stephens against Beza, while it differs from both in less than half a dozen places But ac- cording to Hudson {Critical Greek and English Concordance of the N.T.f. S who takes Beza's fifth edition (1598) as the basis, the A. V. agrees with Beza versus Stephens's third in about 80 places with Sl<^V^<>-' ;iJ\^^^^ this noint and kindly furnished me with another statement, which, though this P°'°''!""'"""J^„. „.,,,_ exhaustive, is more complete and accurate T ) s^s that they vary in the text, and were printed in Geneva, though often ''":'^'L3?^tS::^itionofl55r(theti.e.pa^v.l^^^ page 1557) as editio prima; but, as it does not give the Greek text, ougnt "1 C^sr^'rivener, Westcot, and Bleek (^(n/e.^^^^^ foliowini Mill and Michaelis, speak "^ - .f/^, S'"^ .^ f ^ets^^-^^^^^^ no place for such an e^'t'"" -;' f«"f,™; ^'fu) le the correct account. lea p. 140) and Beuss {Getchichte dei N.I. p. *ii; P^e t As he had done before upon the Genevan ^f""//^",^" , '„"''• See fhe examples in Westcotfs History of the Enghsh Bxl>le, p. 294 seq. introduction: XXIX from both.' With his permission, I will give the specifications from a letter to me, dated Cambridge, Mass., Sept. 23, 1872, for which he deserves the thanks of Biblical scholars : 'I. The A. v. agrees with Beza against Stephens in Matt. xxi. 7; xxili. 13, 14. Mark vi. 29 ; viii. 14, 24 ; ix. 40 ; xii. 20 ; xiii. 28. Luke i. 35 ; ii. 22 ; iii. 23, 35 (vi. 9, trans, and note); viii. 29 (not trans.); x. 6 (not trans.), 22; XV. 26; xvii. 36; xx. 47. John viii. 25; xii. 17; xiii. 31 ; xvi. 33; xviii. 24. Acts (v. 24, trans, and note) ix. 35 ; xv. 32 (?) ; xvii. 25 ; xxii. 25; xxiv. 13, 14(?), 18, 19; xxv.5; xxvi.3,18; xxvii. 12, 13. llom. vii. ; viii. 11 ; xii. 11 ; xvi. 20, 27 (?). 1 Cor. v. 11 ; xv. 31. 2 Cor. iii. 1 ; V. 4 ; vi. 15 ; vii. 12, 16 ; x. 10 ; xi. 10 ; xiii. 4. Eph. vi. 7. Col. i. 2, 24 ; ii. 13. 1 Thess. (ii. 13, trans, and note) ii. 15. 2 Thess. ii. 4. 1 Tim. i. 4. Tit. ii. 10. Heb. ix. 1, 2; x. 10; xii. 22, 23,punct. James ii. 18; iv. 13', 13" ; v. 12. 1 Pet. i. 4 ; ii. 21 ; iii. 11,21 (?). 2 Pet. iii. 7. 1 John i. 4 ; ii. 23(A.V. initahcs); iii. 16. 2 John 3. 3 John 7. Jude 19, 24. Bev. ii. 14; iii. 1 ; v. 1 1 ; vii. 3, 10 ; viii, 11; xi. 1 , 2, 14 ; xiii. 3 ; xiv. 18 ; xvi. 6, 14. In Dr. Westcott's list, in Smith's Vict, of the Bible [art. New 7'ej<.], Acts xxi. 8 ; Rev. vii. 2, 14 ; xvii. 4, and in Scrivener's list {Supplement to the Auth. Version, p. 8), Rev. xix. 14, seem to be erroneously placed here. Matt, ix. 33; Acts i. 4, are uncertain. ' II. The A.V. agrees with Stephens, in preference to Bcza's text of 1589, in Matt. i. 23 (vi. 1, Beza's trans, and note; his text is Stephens's). Marie i. 21 ; xvi. 14 (?), 20. Luke vii. 45 ; ix. 15. John iv. 5 ; xviiil 20. Acts ii. 36 ; iv. 25, 27, 36 ; vii. 16 ; xvi. 7, 17; xxi. 1 1 ; xxv. 6 ; xxvi, 8, punct. Rom. i. 29 ; v. 17; viii. 21, punct. ; xi. 28. 1 Cor. vii. 2!) , xi. 22, punct. ; XV. 55. 2 Cor. i. 6 ; iii. 14 (?) ; viii. 24. Gal. iv. 17. Phil. i. 23 ; ii. 24 ; iii. 20. Col. i. 2. 1 Tim. vi. 15. 2 Tim. ii. 22. Tit. ii. 7. Ileb. ix. 28; X. 2. James iii. 6. 1 Pet. v. 10. 2 Pet. i. \ (ffurijpof »;/i' (Exod. xxxviii. 11); 'plaine,' fat ' plague' (Ley. xiii. CO); 'Jet' the roll,' for 'fetch' (Jer. xxxvi. 21); 'shewed them by the proph- ets,' for ' hewed' (_Ho3. vi. 6); 'rejected verses, '-for 'recited' (Ecclus. xliv. 5); 'approved to death,' for 'a^j/jotnfed'^l Cor. xii. 28); 'helps in governments,' for 'helps, governments' (1 Cor. xii. 28); 'vinegar,' for 'vineyard' (Luke xiii. 7, in the so-called ' vinegar edition' of Oxford, 171 7). t The variations of the second edition, 1C13, from the first, 1611, amount to about 375; in Dr.Blay- ney's edition of 1769, which is regarded as the standard edition, 116 errors were detected by the editors of the Eyre and Strahan edition, 1813. The committee appointed by the American Bible Society in 1848 found many er- rors and inconsistencies in the best English editions.^ * Dean Alford, in his Commentary, defends the Authorized Version by the Btrnined explanation: 'strain (out the wine) at (the occurrence of) a gnat,' but in his English version of the Greek' Testament (1869) he adopts out for at. All the other English versions (except that of Rheims) read ' strain out.' Bishop Lowth remarks : ' The impropriety of the preposition has wholly de- stroyed the meaning of the phrase,' which refers to the use of a strainer. See my annotations to Lange on Matthew, p. 408, note ICj p. 413. t In a copy of the second issue of the edition of IGl I (in possession of Dr. Eadie, at Glasgow) I saw even .Tudas for Jesus in Matt. xxvL S6. In the first issue, twenty-one words of Exod. xiv. 10 are printed twice. In an edi- tion of 1613, the word not is omitted in Lev. xix. 10; 1 Cor. xi. 17; and 2 Tim. iv. 16. X See the Report of the History and Recent Collation of the English Ver- sion of the Bible : presented by the Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers of the American Bible Society, and adopted May 1, 1861, p. 11 seq. The Committee on Versions (including such scholars as Drs. Edward Robinson, Samuel H. Turner, and John M'Clintock) spent three years of labor and pains in correcting misprints, and improving the orthography, cap- HiTSODUCTION. Tl, ^**' .Tl'^^°'"^f'""'reoV{kctB^W.(i. Matt. xxiv. 60 ; Neh x 3n for'-, of (Cant. VI. 12; Jer. I 24- LukB xi H\. avoi-). „ ^ ^ John xvi. 8, ' reprove,' for ' convince' (iXirx"". which impUes both a coni..n- cino unto salvation and a convicting unto condemnation. Acts ii 47, 'such as should be saved,' instead of '«.ere being saved, or • were in ihe way of salvation' (ro*c oo-Jo/iivout, which signifies a progressive rnndition not a final determination). . . , n Acls xii 4, ^Easter' (a heathen or Christian festival), for the Jewish Pass- ""Ac?lXk'malUhingsyearetoo.«per,/irioB.,'insteadof'.eryre%iW Maiaov^orpovt; Be.a correctly: re/i^io.iore., De Wette : sehrgottes- iS The A V. makes Paul commence his address to the Athenians. SS to his custom, with « reproach or an insult, while, in fact, he compli- ZtThem for their religiousness, with a delicate hint of .heir excess in a wrong direaion, and makes this the starting-point for preaching to them the ^I^LJnGod,: ^hom ' they worshipped' (not ' ignorantly,' but) unknomng- iT^'unLwing' (^dyvoovvr^C, with evident allusion to ay-'-J.^V ^'v)-. . ^ Rom rzo/ hi^ eternal power and Godhead,' for godhood, divimty, d,v,. -Tsee Alford, in /oc., and my annotations in I'''"B«°"f "*'"'• P" '''• + Comp mv annotations in Lange on John, p. 54, 64, 79, 2JH. S,in^oc.:.Thepa.o.>..isr^^^^^^^^^^^ '':i:l''^::r.::£::tztr^^^^ »{« nock, "an iSii'ng the"one Spherd. and known of him.' Comp. my remarks in Lange on John, p. 323. vine as INTSODUCTION. XXXIU the margin of the A.V. has it, ' the passing over' (napiatQ, not to be confound- ed with diftinc). Bom. xiii. 2, and 1 Cor. xi. 29, 'damnation' (altogether too strong), instead of 'judgment' (Kpi/ia, not KaraKptpa). 1 Thess. v. 22, 'abstain from all appearance of evil' (so also Luther, Calvin, Grotius, Wordsworth, but contrary to the meaning of iUos), instead of ' ev- ery ybrm,' or ' all hind of evil' (correct in the Geneva Version). 2 Thess. ii. 7, 'the mystery of iniquity,' for 'lawlessness' (fiviirriptov rrjs avopiat). 1 Tim. vi. 5, ' gain is godliness,' instead of ' godliness is gain' (as Coverdale renders iroptapbv iJvai r^v ivoi^iiav ; comp. for a similar position of the pred- icate without the article John i. 1, 3«oc fjv a \6yoc, and iv. 24, irvtvpa o Beac). 1 John V. 1 6, ' He hear us' (which may be a misprint, or an old use of the subjunctive), for ' heareth' (aicovii). Heb. ii. 1 C, ' lie took not on him the nature of angels ; but he tooh on him the seed of Abraham,' a double error, instead of 'he helpeth, doth help,' oi 'rescue, deliver, lay hold upon' (viXnck is the true meaning of iiriXapPdvirai, now generally adopted in place of the older interpretation).* Heb. xi. 13, 'embraced them' (the promises), for 'greeted' or 'hailed' them from afar (^4 Xa/Sovrff rdf iwayyiXiac, dWi n-uppuidfv airdc iSovris, rai dairaadpivot, and thus dying card irianv, to embrace and enjoy the prom- ises hereafter). The frequent word latpoviov, a demon or evil spirit, is usually rendered devil (Matt. vii. 22 ; ix. 33, 34 ; x. 8 ; xii. 24, and often), and Saipomov Ix"", to have a devil, and thus the distinction between the Prince of darkness (6 Sidfio- Xoc,o Taravag) and his subordinate servants is obliterated. The phrase Sai- /idfiov ixi'v refers to the popular belief in demoniacal possessions, and is ma- lignantly applied to Christ, John viii. 48, 49 ; x. 20, 21 ; but in the passage John vii. 20 it seems used of Christ, and Matt. xi. 18 of John the Baptist, compassionately in the milder sense, 'he has a spirit of melancholy, he la- bors under a hallucination.' 'AvaK\ivopat and di/dicci/iat, to recline, at table (on a couch or triclinium, according to the well-known Oriental custom, are falsely rendered to sit or sit down (Matt. viii. 11; ix. 10 ; Mark xiv. 18 ; Luke vii. 36 ; xiii. 20, etc.). The coins, weights, and measures are very loosely translated, as Ipaxpri (an Attic silver coin equal to the Roman denarius, worth about 1 6 American cents) by 'piece' of silver, liSpaxpov (a double drachm or half shekel of the Jews) by tribute-money, tribute (Matt. xvii. 24), and ararrip (double the for- mer, or equivalent to a Jewish shekel) by ' a piece of money' (Matt. xvii. 27) ; but more frequently they are mistranslated. So ir/vapiov (denarius), a Ro- man silver coin equivalent to the Attic drachma, used in the Gospels almost always for a large sum (Matt. xx. 2, 9, 10, 13 ; xxii. 19 ; Mark vi. 37; xiv. 6 ; Luke vii. 41 ; John vi. 7 ; xii. 5 ; Rev. vi. C), is translated penny, when frianc or shilling would come much nearer its absolute, and falls far short of its relative, value at the time of Christ. A 'penny' would indeed be miserable wages for a day's labor (Matt. xx. 2), and 'three hundred ;ience' a poor sum * See notes of Moll and Kendrick in Lnnge on Hebrews, Am. ed. pp. GO, 69. c XXXIV INTRODVCTIOK for the precious ointment of Mary, in her ever-memorable deed of love (John zii. 5). Dendry would require a marginal note ; tilverling (or ailver-piece), though rather indefinite, might be used, as it is found in the A.V, in lea. vii. 23.* 'AaaapioVjB penny. (its exact value is a cent and a half), and KoSpavrric (^qwulvans)., farthing (^Heller), are both translated alike, although the latter is only one fourth part of the former. ^Measure' is used for xoXvii (about a quart), oarov, a satum or seah, jSarof , the bath or ephah, and Kopor, a cor or homer (equal to 15 bushels English), though the oarof is one third of the pins, And fiarot one tenth of the Kopot. 3. Inaccuracies. To rectify inexact and imperfect renderings, which ob- scure, or weaken, or modify the sense intended by the sa- cred writer. These cases are far more numerous than positive errors, though often scarcely less injurious. They may be classified under the following beads : (a.) Omission of the abticle. Matt. iv. 5, 'a pinnacle,' for 'Me pinnacle (rA impvyiov) of the Temple.' Mfttt. T. ], and other places, ' a mountain,' instead of ' the mountain' (to ipo{). Matt. xii. 41, 'rise up in judgment,' for 'in Me j.'(comp. ver. 42, where the article is correctly retained in the A. V.). Matt. xxir. 12, 'the love of many shall wax (grow) cold,' instead of 'the love of the many' (ruv iroXXiIv), i. e. the vast majority of the disciples. John vi. 4, ' the I'assover, a feast of the Jews,' instead of ' Me (great) feast' (r) iopri) tCjv 'lot/^aiwv). John xii. 13, ' They took branches of palm-trees,' where the original reads ' Me branches of Me palm-trees' (of the Mount of Olives). Rom. v. IB, 17, 18, 19, 'one' and 'many' (opposed to few), for 'the one,' o cic (i. e. Adam the one transgressor on one hand, and Christ the one restorer on the other), and ' the many,' oi jroXXoi (i. e. the mass, the whole race, vavris dvdpiDiroi,\er. 12). The omission of the article in this important passage weakens the antithesis an,d obscnres the idea of the sufficiency and universal intent of Christ's redemption. Rom. V. 0, 'saved from wrath,' instead of 'Me wrath' to come (ajro rijc ipyijc). Correct in 1 Thess. ii. 10. 1 Cor. ix. a, 'as well as other apostles,' instead of 'the other apostles' (oi Xoitroi airoffroXoi). Col. i. 19, 'all fulness,' instead of 'Me whole fuli)ess'(n-av to TrX^pu/ia), i. e. the plenitude or totality of divine powers. 2 Thess. ii. 3, ' except a falling away, ' for ' Me falling away, ' i. e. the great apostasy (v dvooraoid), 1 Tim. vi. 12, 13, 'a good profession,' for 'Me good profession.' 2 Tim. iv. 7, 8, 'fought a good fight . . . . my course .... a crown of • See my annotation to Lange on Matthew, p. 332, textual note '. ix^rnoDucTiox XXXV righteousness,' for 'Me good fight Me course .... Me crown of righteousness.' Heb. xi. 10, 'he looked for a city whicli hath foundations,' instead of 'he was looking (.?««x'r«, imperf.) for Me (heavenly) city which has Me founda- tions {TtivToisdtpi\lovetxouaavv6\w);comp.x\i.22;neY xxi 14 19 30 Uev. vii. 14, ;they which come out of great tribulation,' for 'Me great trib- ulation (*«r^f 3X4ta>cr^c/i£ydAiji);comp.Matt.xxiv.22,29- Dan xii 1 The article is often neglected before v6poc in the Romans and Galatlans' where it designates the written Mosaic law, in distinction from vo,,oc, the un- written, abstract, and universal law; and In theGospels before Christ, i Xoi^toc the long-expected Messiah of the Jews(e. g. Matt. ii. 4; xi. 2; xvi 16- xxiv' 6 ; Luke xxiii. 36, 39). ' • . Although the English idiom does not always admit the article where it is in the Greek, yet it is generally safe to render it whenever it is emphatic or • "fi.f, •' appears after a preposition, though there are exceptions, e. g. Matt 111. 1? (oTro r.,f raXiXaiag ivi riv lopWri/v wpbg tov 'luiawnv) King James s revisers seem to have followed too often the Latin Version, where the article disappears. Gk^I^^^^™"" °' ^"^ ''^"""^ ARTICLE WHEIiE THEIIE IS NONE IN THE Matt, xxyii. 54, 'Me Son of God,' for 'a Son of God' (comp. the parallel passage, Luke xxiii. 47, 'a righteous man'). . J""?" i''- 27, 'with Me woman,' as if the impropriety was in Christ's speak- ing with this particular woman of Samaria, while the disciples, without know- ing her character, took offense at bis talking with a woman (u.rd ywaucdc) I. e. with any woman, contrary to the rabbinical rule. Acts xxvi, 2, 'accused of Me Jews' (as if aU were included). Rom. 11. 14, 'When Me Gentiles which have not the law observe by nature,' etc. , instead of ' When Gentiles ; ' fS,.,. i. e. some, not aU 1 Thess. IV. 17, 'caught up together with them in Me clouds,' instead of 'in clouds (Iv ve^iXmc). 1 Tim vi 10, ' the love of money is Me root of all evil ;' as if It was the only one, while the apost e calls it simply ' h roof (p.'fa) among other fruitful roots, as pride, hatred, idolatry, intemperance, from which every form of moral evil may spring. (c.) Neglect of pbepositions. .),w''-'"-H°'!l'°"° ^"^ ^"' f!e°ifying rest) and <,f (into, signifying motion), the Jm with the genitive (instrumental, through, by mean, of, etc.) and s!d withjhe accusative (indicating the moving cause, because of, on account of) « (-ei, out of from, origin, motion out oQ, d^o (=ab,from, remoter than «) and «To with genitive (from under, by), are very often confounded, to the serious injury of the sense. We have already mentioned, under a previous head, the exchange of «'c for if in the baptismal formulo, which amounts to a mistranslation Luke xxiii. 42, the Greek requires 'comest in thy kingdom' ('regno Jam acquinto , as Maldonatus observes ; comp. Matt. xxv. 31 : ' When the Son of man shall come in his glory,' etc.), instead of 'into thy kingdom ' XXXV 1> INTRODUCTION. Rom. xi. 2, Iv 'HXi'ji, 'in (the history of) Elijah,' not 'o/Elias.' Phil. ii. 10, iv Tif ivonan 'Iqctov, 'in the name of JesDB,' instead of 'at the name.' In 2 Pet. i. 6-7 the omission of the preposition (Iv ry TriVrfi — Iv rg yviini, K.r.X.) tends to turn the organic development of the Christian graces and their causal dependence one upon another into a mechanical accumulation. In 1 Pet. ii. 12 and iii. 16 we have ' whereas,' instead of ' wherein' {Iv if). 'Ev is often wrongly translated by or through) where it signifies the life-ele- ment, as in the important Pauline phrases ' tn Christ, ' ' in the Lord, ' ' in the Spirit, 'e. g. Bom. vi. 11 ; xiv. 14 j xv. 16 ; 1 Cor. xii. 3, 9 ; while Bom. viii. 1,2; ix.l;xii.6; xiv.17; xvi. 2, 3, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13 ; 1 Cor. i. 2, etc. , it is correctly rendered in. (rf.) Neglect of pasticleb. Every careful reader of the Greek Testament, and of such commentators as Meyer, Fritzsche, Ellicott, knows how much the full force of Paul's argument ' depends upon a correct understanding and translation of the logical and ar- gumentative particles, especially the illative apa, dpayi, dpa oiiv, the simpler ovv (most frequent in John), the adversative aWa, etc. It is quite impossi- ble, however, in the English language, to do full justice to the wealth of par- ticles in which the Greek excels. Examples: Gal. y. 11, 'fAen after all' (apa), for 'Men;' vi. 10,' Accord- ingly then, as we have opportunity' (dpa oiv), for 'there/ore,' etc. ; iii. 5, ' He then who is bestowing' (ovv, resumptive), for 'therefore;' so John xi. 6 ; and John vi. 60, 'noio many of his disciples' (oJi', continuative), for 'many there- fore,' etc. ; so xi. 33 ; xii. 9 ; Bom. vii. 7,' but I had not known sin' (dXXd), for 'nay,' etc. ; Gal. iii. 22, 'but, on the contrary' (aXXa), for 'but;' Gal. v. 16, 'now I say' (Si), for ' This I say then ;' 1 Tim. i. 8, ' now we know' (Ji), for ' but;' Gal. iii. 17, 'this, however, I say,' (Si'), for 'and.' (e.) NON-ODSEBTANCE OP TENSES, HOODS, AND TOICES. Aorists are very often confounded with perfects, perfects with aorists ; im- perfects are rendered as aorists and perfects; the changes of moods and voices are less frequent. A few examples must suffice. The imperfect should be represented, Luke i. 59, ' they were calling' (Ua- Xow), for 'called;' liuke v. 6, ' their net was breaking,' or ' began to break' (iujipitywTo), for 'brake;' Luke xiv. 7, 'were choosing out' (liikiyovro), for 'chose out;' Acts iii. I, 'were going up' (avipaivov), for 'went up;' Mark ii. 18, 'were fasting' (vaav vrianvovrtt), for 'used to fast ;' Gal. i. 13, 'loos de- stroying,' or 'wasting' (IwopBovv), for 'wasted;' and ver. 23, ' which once he was destroying' (liropOn), for 'destroyed.' The aorist should be rendered. Matt, xxvii. 4, li/iapTov irapaSois alpa iOu- ov, ' I sinned in betraying innocent blood' (which is in better keeping with the concise earnestness of the Greek and the desperate state of Judas than ' I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood') ; Luke i. 19, ajnara- Xijv, ' I was sent,' instead of 'I am sent' (djrioraX^ai) ; Mark xvi. 2, avarei- XavTOt Toi yXlov, ' when the sun was risen,' instead of 'at the rising of the sun ;' Bom. v. 12, ' nnnet^' (ijitaprov, ' omnes peccarunt peccante Adamo, ' Ben- gel), for 'have sinned,' INTROaUCTION. xxxvu The present should be restored in Heb ii Ifi ;,riX«..fl,!.., 3, ^vxq 8, Ciari 9 difierent translations. (6.) Obliteration of iufobtant distinctions. fiti{,i. e. the whole invisible spirit-world, the receptacle of all the dead (Unterwelt, Todtenreich), corresponding to the Hebrew Sheol, is uniformly (11 times in the New Testament) translated hell, except once (I Cor. xv. 65, grave'), and thus confounded with yeivva, which is likewise (in 12 places) so translated, and correctly, for gehenna means the eternal state and place of damnation and torment. The same confusion is found in Luther's and other versions, and hence the distinction between Hades or Sheol, and Hell, is almost lost in the popular mind, and Christ's descent into Hades is very little under- stood. liaicovoi and ^oCXot, in the parable. Matt. xxii. 1-14, are alike ren- dered servants, although the former are angels and the latter men. itipia and JiSo, in the Apocalypse, iv. C, 7, 8, 9 ; v. 6 ; vi. 1, etc., are alike translated ' beasts;' yet the KHa are the heavenly representatives of all created life worshipping before the throne in heaven, and the very opposite of the Bjipia, their hellish antagonists, which arise from the bottomless pit and demand idol- atrous worship (vi. 8 ; xi. 7 ; xiii. 1 seq., 14 seq. ; xiv. 9, etc.). With oil the wealth of the English language, one word is sometimes made to do service for half a dozen or more Greek terms, without regard to their nice and delicate shades of meaning. abide stands for avaarpipi^i, aiXi Jo/ini, liarpipia, impivu, 'iartiiu, Karafiirw, pivbi, irapafiivu), voiiu, vvopivoi. acceptable for avoiiKroc, tiKrot, ivaptaroc, livpoatiKTOQ, xav- tpoui. bad for Kaic6(, irovijpoc, oavpof. bring forth for avayii, anonviu, pXaoravu), yivvaui, iiliopt, U/3o\Xu, Ufipu, IKayu), Kar&yut, irapaliSoipt, votiu, wpoayu, vpofepu, t'iktu, ^ipu. but for iXXa, yap, lav, il fiil, Uris, f/, pivrot, pr,, liv pi,, p6vav, oiv, n\i,v. call for liriKaXiopai, IwiXiyopa,, Irru, lorl, KaXiio, Xiyio, ptraicaXiopai, ivo- paZia, irpoaayoptvopai, vpooKoXiopai, atriu, piraicaXiopai, pcrairipiru, irapa- taXiu, irponKaXiopai, ipiDvin). INTSODUCTION. xliii child for Ppi^oQ, vr)inoQ, TratSapiov, rraiUov, waTg, tUvov, Viii. choose for alpiopai, aip(ri(u>, UXiyopai, liriXiyopat, irpox'ip'iopai, X"po- TOveu. conversation for avaarpo^fi, rpowoc, iroXirivpa. devil for tiaPoXog, iaipuiv, and Saipoviov. gift for ava9ripa, iopa, Soaig, twpea, Siipripn, Iwpov, piptopog, xap'Ci X"" ptapa. worship for liircpioi, BipatriviMt, Xarpevu), vpooKvviij), mPa^opai, ai0opai. come stands for no less than 32 Greek verbs, command for 8, consider for 1 1 , continue for 13, declare for 14, desire for 13, depart for 21, dwell for 5, eat for G, except for 1, finish for 1, fulfil for 7, give for 14, go for 16, know for 7, make for 13, mighty for7, raiment for 5, perceive for 11, receive for 18, servant for 7, shame for 6, take for 21, think for 12, yet for 10 different Greek words. 5. Archaisms. To remove obsolete archaisms, and to substitute intelli- gible words and phrases. There is a diiference between antique and antiquated words and phrases. The former should be retained, the latter be removed. Archaisms which, though seldom or never used in modern English, are still intelligible, may even enhance the solemnity and pungency of the Bible diction, which ought to soar above the vulgarity and familiarity of common speech. Here belong such words as 'list,' 'travail,' 'twain,' 'forasmuch,' 'howbeit;' the ending 'eth' for 's'in the third person singular of the verb; the old preterites 'clave,' ' brake,,' ' sware j' such phrases as ' well stricken in years,'* ' threescore years and ten.' Antiquated archaisms are : (a.) Words which have oone more on less oni of use, and are NOT understood bt THE PEOPLE : taches, ouches, knops, neesings, daysman (in the O. T.), all to (for altogether, in Judges ix. 53, 'and all to brake his skull,' with no corresponding word in Hebrew), yoodman (for householder. Matt. xxi. 11 ; comp. ver. 1), .Tewry (for Judaea,3o\m vii. 1 ; Luke xxiii. 5). (6.) Words which are still used, but have changed their mean- ing : to prevent, in the sense ol proevenire, to come before, to anticipate (Matt, xvii. 25, Trpoi(p9aaiv) ; to let, in the sense to hinder (2 Tliess. ii. 7) ; charger (now mostly used for a horse in battle), in the sense o[ platter (Matt. xiv. 8) j carriages, for baggage (Acts xxi. 1 5) ; robbers of churches, for robbers of (heathen) temples (iepoavXoi, Acts xix. 37) ; nephews, for grandchildren or de- scendants (tieyova, 1 Tim. v. 4) ; to offend, for cause to stumble (aicnfitiXiJiii, often); and offence, for stumbling-block, scandal, cause of sinning or ruin (^OKavlaXov, Matt, xviii. 7, etc.); 'generation of vipers,' for brood, offspring (yiviu) ; devotions, for idols or objects of devotion (of/3airparn, Acts xvii. 23) ; 'not slothful in business,' for diligence (Rom. xii.ll, rj airovly prj cSicwjpoi; comp. ver. 8); conversation, in the sense of deportment, moral conduct (Fbil. i. 27, for iroXiriicaBi,let your conversation be; Phil. iii. 20, for iro\ir£iipo, * David Hume, in his brief iiutobiogra|ihy, uses this phrase of himself. iliv miBODUCTlOlf. which is mistaken for Avampo^if, also by Luther, but means either country, commonwealth, ot citizenship); 'take no thought for your life,' for anxious thought, or be not troubled about (fii) ficpi^ifarc, Matt. vi. 2'i, 31, 34) ; ' occu- py till I come,' for trade ye ^wpay/iaTiiaaaOi, Luke xix. 13 ; comp. ver. 16) ; coatt, frequently for border or region ; quarrel, for complaint (^querela. Col. iii. 18) ; dishonesty, for shame (2 Cor. iv. 2) ; instantly, in the sense of ur- gently (Luke vii. 4) ; ' I know nothing by myself (perhaps a mistranslation), for 'against myself (1 Cor. iv. 4, ovSiv liiavrip avvotSa) ; 'do to wit' (2 Cor. viii. 1), for 'mote known;' 'careful' (Fhil. iv. 6), for 'anxious.' ' To yield up the ghost' should give way, in Matt. xvii. 50, to ' yielded up his spirit,' as the formtr is now used in a low or less serious sense. As to the familiar which for who when referring to persons, the majority of American revisers would probably prefer the change, as it has become quite familiar in the use of the Lord's Prayer (in all American editions of the Com- mon Prnyer-Book). It is unwise to bring the language of the Church into conflict with the language of the school But the English feeling will prob- ably retain this and a number of other archaic forms ; and concessions on snch points should be readily made by the American revisers. 6. Proper Names. To introduce uniformity in the Bpelling of proper names of perBons and places, retaining, as a rule, the Hebrew forms for Hebrew names, the Greek forms for Greek, except where a foreign name has been thoroughly natural- ized and unalterably fixed in English usage, as in the fa- miliar names Jesus (the Saviour) for Joshua (the leader of Israel), Mary for Miriam, James for Jacob, John for Johannes, Matthew for Matthseus, Andrew for Andreas, Paul for Paulus, Peter for Petrus, Stephen for Stephanus, Jerusalem for Yerushalaim or Hierosolyma, Athens, Rome, and a few more. (a.) Hebkew and Greek foshs : (1.) Persons: Hagar (in the O. T.) and Agar (Gal. i* 24, 25). Elijah (in the O. T.) and Elias (in the' N.). Elisha and Eliseus. Isaiah, Esaias, and Esay. Jer- emiah (in the O. T.) and Jeremias (Matt. xvi. 14), also Jeremy (twice in Matt. ii. 17 ; xvii. 9). Hosea and Osee (Rom. ix. 25). Jonah and Jonas. Obadiah and Abdias. Zechariah and Zacharias. Korah and Core (Jude 11). Noah (3 times in the N. T.) and Noe (5 times in the N. T.). Eahab and Rachab. Jndah and Judas, also Jude. Joshua, and Jesus. The substitu- tion of Jetus for Joshua in Acts vii. 45 (' brought in with Jesus into the pos- session of the Gentiles'), and in Heb. iv. 8 ('If Jesus had given them rest'), is especially mischievous, and should by all means be corrected. INTRODUCTION. xlv (2.) Places: Asshur and Assyria. Cush and Ethiopia. Phrat and Euphrates. Edom and Idumea. Koresh and Cyrus. Sodom (generally) and Sodoma (Hom. ix. 29). (6.) Double Hgbbew ob Gbeek fobus : Balac and Balak. Enoch and Henoch. Enos and Enosh. Calnan and Kenan. Gedeon and Gideon. Jephthae and Jephthah. Judah and Juda. Jared and Jered. Jonah and Jona. Melchisedec and Melchizedek. Seth and Sheth. Canaan and Kanaan. Gomorrha and Gomorrah. Sina (in Acts) and Si- nai (Gal. iv. 24, 25). (c.) Latin (or Hebrew, ob Greek) and English terminations : LncasandLuke(Col. iv. 14; Fhilem.24). Marcus(three times, Col. iv. 10; Fhilem. 24; 1 Pet. v. 13) and Mark (four times in Acts, and once in the Epp. 2Tim. iv. 11). Judas and Jude. Timotbeus and Timothy (even in the same chapter, 2 Cor. i. 1, 19). Jacob ('Iaicu/3, used of the patriarch) and James ('IdKu/Joc, of James the elder, James of Alpheus, and James the brother of the Lord). Jeremiah and Jeremy (retained in English names, as that of Bishop Jeremy Taylor). Miriam (of the sister of Moses) and Maiy (to be retained for the mother of Jesus). Urbanus and Urbane (or Urban). Grecia and Greece. Judosa and Jewry (the latter only in Kan. v. 13 ; John vii. 1 ; Luke xxiii. 5). Tyrus and Tyre. (Miletus, Acts xx. 15, 17, and Miletum, 2 Tim. iv. 20.) Cretes and Cretians (Cretans is better than ei- ther). Areopagus and Mars'-hill (in the same chapter, Acts xvii. 19, 22). Calvary and 'A place of a skull.'* 7. Accessories. To revise the orthography, the punctuation, the use of capitals (as in Spirit, Father, Son, Redeemer, Scriptures, etc.), the words in italics, the marginal references, the chro- nology ^of Usher), and the headings of chapters and col- umns, all in conformity with the style of translation, the most approved standards, and present scholarship and usage. * Our Calvary, which is used only in Luke xxii. 33, for xpaviov (a diminu- tive of Kpavov), a skull, is derived from the Vulgate, which renders the He- brew Golgotha by calvaria (fern. i. o. skull) in three other passages (Matt. xxvii. 33, Mark iv. 22, and John xix. 17). It is too deeply imbedded in Christian poetry and devotion to be given up. The popular expression 'Mount Calvary' has no Scripture foundation, and is probably of monastic origin. The Evangelists describe Golgotha simply as roTTof,' a place,' or ' the Place of Skull.' It was probably only a small, round, and barren elevation in the shape of a skull, and derived its name from its globular form. See my text- ual notes in Lange, on Matthew xxvii. 33, p. 519 seq., and on John xix. 17, p. 582 seq. xlvi INTRODUCTION. These accessory matters, not being represented in tlie original text, belong to the boundary-line between translation and interpretation, and more free- dom should be allowed here to the revisers than in the translation proper. The careful labors of the American Bible Society, as laid down in the edition of 1852, which was set aside again by a subsequent standard edition of 18G0, more nearly conformed to the older editions, might be made available to good purpose. 8. Arrangement. Finally, to combine with tlie received division into chap- ters and verses an arrangement of the prose in paragraphs, and' a metrical arrangement of poetry, according to the laws of Hebrew parallelism. The division into chapters, which dates from Cardinal Hugo de Santo Caro in the 1 3th century (d. 12G3), and the division into verses,* first introduced in the Old Testament by I'agninus, in his edition of 1528, then completely by Robert Stephens, 1555, in his edition of the Vulgate, and 1551 , in his (4th) edi- tion of the Greek Testament, though very defective,t must, of course, for the sake of convenience, be retained, but should by all mpans be supplemented by a more reasonable and appropriate arrangement according to sections, stan- zas, and verses. Much of the beauty of the Bible is lost to the common reader by the uniform printing of poetry and prose. If we have our hymn- books printed like poetry, why not also the inspired hymn-book, the Psalter? This improvement, in which scholars and educated men are more interest- ed than the mass of Bible readers, will probably be strenuously opposed; for since it strikes the eye, it would create the impression that the revised version is a different version fr om the familiar old Bible.t But this difficulty can • Not to be confounded with the older versus or ari'xoi. t Thus the very first chapter of Genesis ought by nil means to include the first three verses of the second chapter, which are an indispensable part of the first account of creation. The first chapter of Matthew ought to contain only the genealogy of Jesus till ver. 17, and the first chapter of John the Prologue to ver. 18. The versicular division which the learned printer Stephens (Eti- cnne) is said to have made on a horseback jouraey {inter equitandum) from Paris to Lyons (see Bleek, Einhitmg in das N. T., p. 093), is entirely out of place in the narrative sections of the Bible, and very often breaks the connec- tion. The judgment of Reuss, in his Geschichte de> Neuen Testaments (p. 300, 4th ed.), is hardly too severe: •Die Eintheilnng (in Verse) ist an sich unsinniff.umahlige Male/ehlerhqft und selbsl im besten Falle entbehrlichfur das VerstSndniss, da» sie eher hindern als/Srdern kann.' At the snme^time, for purposes of quotation, the division is very convenient, and has, no doubt, contributed much to the comparative stndy of the Bible. Compare on the whole subject Dr. William Wright, art. Ferse, in Kitto's Cyclof BM.Lit., where numerous errors of preceding writers are corrected. X The way is prepared, however, by several editions of the A.V. in this gtyle especially 'The Cambridge Paragraph Bible,' edited by the Rev. F. H. INTRODUCTION. xlvii easily be removed by issuing two editions, one of which should be conformed to the usual Bibles, in which the paragraphs should be marked by signs. The metrical arrangement should be carried out in the Psalms, the Book of Job (except the narrative prologue and epilogue), the Proverbs, the Song of Songs, Lamentations, and the poetic portions of the Prophets ; also in the lyric and prophetic parts of the historical books, as the Song of Lamech (Gen. iv.), the Prediction of Noah (Gen. ix.), the Blessing of Jacob (Gen. xlix.), the Song of Moses (Ex. xv.), the Prophecy of Balaam (Numb. xxiv.J, the Song of Deborah ( Judg. v.), the Elegy of David on Jonathan (2 Sam. i. ) ; and as to the New Testament, in the Benedictus of Zuchariah, the Magnifi- cat of the Virgin Mary, the Parting Song of Simeon, the poetic citations scot- tered through the Gospels and Epistles (e. g. 1 Tim. iii. 10), and the anthems of the Apocalypse. A few examples must suffice. THE BONO OF LAMECH. Gen. iv. 23, 24. Tills proud, defiant song of blood-revenge, or ' sword-song' (as Herder colls it), which commemorates the invention of weapons of brass and iron by Lo- mech's son Tubal-Cain, and the invention of musical instruments by his son Jubal ( = Harper), and which marks the origin of worldly poetry and music among the descendants of Cain, has already all the characteristics of Hebrew poetry : parallelism, rhythm, and assonance. 'Adah and Zillah ! hear my voice. Ye wives of Lamech, henrken unto my speech : Por a man have I slain* for wounding me. Even a young man for hurting me. Truly, Cain shall be avenged seven-fold. But Lamech seventy-and-sevenfold.' THE BONO OF THE VIRGIN MART. Luke i. 40-55. And Mary said : " My soul doth mognify the Lord, *l And my Spirit rejoiccdt in God my Saviour, "Because he looked upon the low estote of his bondmaid. For, behold, from henceforth all generations will call me blessed. Sciivener, for the syndics of the University Press, Cambridge and London, 1870. * The perfect, / have slain (''PJf '^i Sept. QTrtn.Tfii'a, Vulg. occidi), is prob- ably used in the spirit of arrogant boasting, to express the future with all the certainty of an accomplished fact. Chrysostom,Theodoret, Jerome, Rashi, set Lnmech down as a murderer (of Cain), confessing his deed to ease his conscience ; but Aben-Ezra, Calvin, Herder, Ewald, Delitzscli, take the verb as a threat : ' I will slay any man who wounds me.' 1 1 have throughout substituted the Greek aorists, rjyaWiaaiv, iiri/SXti/'fi', liroiijafv, K.r.\.,for the perfects of the A.V. ; but as the Magnificat is incor- porated into the Anglican Liturgy, such changes will scarcely be made. xlviii INTRODVCTION. " For the Mighty One did great things for me j And holy is His name, " And His mercy is from generation to generation Upon them that fear Him. " He wrought strength with hia arm : He scattered the prond in the imagination of their hearts. " He put down princes from thrones. And raised up them of low degree. " The hungry he filled with good things ; And the rich he sent away empty. " He gave help to Israel, His servant, In remembrance of His mercy " (As he spake to our fathers) To Abraham* and his seed forever. Conclusion. In the preceding discussion I liave barely touched upon the Gld Testament, wliich would require a separate treat- ise. In some respects a revision of the English translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, especially the Book of Job and the Prophets, is even more needed than that of the Greek Testament. Shemitic scholarship is not so abundant in England and America as classical learning ; but it is far more critical and accurate in the nineteenth century than it was in the sixteenth and seventeenth. Important addi- tions to the Old Testament exegesis are now made almost every year. But if we are to wait for perfection, we shall have to wait forever. Let us make our work as perfect as we can, and let future generations make it still more perfect. The revision must be chiefly a work of Biblical scholar- ship. But its success will depend by no means on scholar- ship alone. The most thorough knowledge of Hebrew and Greek would, after all, only enable us to understand the letter and the historical relations of the Scripture, but not * Tip 'APpaaii must be connected with fivriaS^vai iXiovc, not with iXcAtjinv, na in the Authorized Version. INTRODUCTION. xlix its soul, which lives in the body of the letter. The Bible is a divine as well as a human book, and reflects the thean- thropic character of the incarnate Logos. To understand to translate, and to interpret the Word of God, we must be in sympathy with its spirit, which is the Holy Spirit. Pro- found sympathy with the ideas of the Bible, religious en- thusiasm, a reverent and devout spirit, breathe through the Vulgate, Luther's German, and the authorized English ver- sions, and gave them sucli enduring power; and only the same qualities, united M'itli superior scholarship, can com- mend the proposed revision to the acceptance of our Churches. No. 40 Bible House, New York, October 4, 1872. D ON A FRESH REVISION ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. BY J. B. LIGIITFOOT, D.D., CANON or ST. TAUL^B, ANn DDLSEAN mOFRBBOB OY PITINITT, OAUDBIDQK. SECOND EDITION, REVISED. NEW YORK: HARPER & BROTHERS, PUBLISHERS, FRANKLIN SQUAB E. 1873. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. DuKiNG the last Bumnier, immediately before the Com- pany appointed for the revision of the English New Testa- ment 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 heareis 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 inteiruptions, its appear- ance 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 groun^Pc2.n not urge the plea of novelty, which has many imperfections in form, and which 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 I am a member. In pre- paring the original paper for the press, I have been careful ' not to go beyond verbal alterations where I was discussing the prospects of the new revision or the principles which in my opinion ought to guide it. On the other hand, I IV PREFACE have not scrupled to develop these principles fieely, 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 judgment, 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 suggestions of- 'fered here are open to objections which I had overlooked, and which might render them impracticable 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 ex- press before the commencement of the Avork have been more than realized hitherto in its progress. On this point I have not heard a dissentient voice among membei-s of the Company. I believe that all who have taken part regular- ly 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 rumors of its results either wholly false or only partially true, and who, necessarily judging on d priori grounds, have been ready to condemn it unheard. This panic was perhaps not unnatural, and might have been anticipated. Meanwhile, however, other dangers from an unforeseen. quarter have threatened the progress of the re- vision, but these are now happily averted ; and, so far as present appearances can be trusted, the momentary peril hafi resulted in permanent good, for the Company has been PREFACE. y taught by the danger which threatened it to feel its own strength and coherence, and there is every prospect that the work will be brought happily and successfully to a conclusion. Great misunderstanding seems to prevail as to the ulti- mate 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 Con- vocation, while solemnly pledged to tlie furtherance of the work on definite conditions, were also pledged to its ulti- mate reception whether good or bad. If the distinction had been kept in view, it is difficult to believe that there would have been even a momentary desire to repudiate the obligations of a definite contract. The Houses of Convo- cation are as free as the different bodies of Nonconform- ists represented in the Companies 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 mer- its ; butTon the otiier 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 pro- nounced upon it as a whole. I can not 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 profit- able 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 labor. In choosing my examples, I have generally avoided dwell- ing on passages which have been fully discussed by others ; but it was not possible to put the case fairly before the VI PREFACE. public without venturing from time to time on preoccupied ground, thougli in such instances I have endeavored to tread as lightly as possible. 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, witli a view to my work as a reviser; and hoping that the results might con- tribute towards permanently fixing the meaning of an ex- pression 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. TbINITY C0LLEQE,CAMBniD0E,/l/>ri7 3, 1871. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. This second edition is in all essential respects a reprint of the first. A few errors have been corrected, and one or two unhnportant additions made, but the new matter alto- gether would not occupy more than a page. The reception accorded 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. To my critics, whether pub- lic or private, 1 can only leturn 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 ex- cept the critique of Mr. Earle in a letter addressed to tiie editor of the Guardian; but I am sure that 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 liis 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 seq.) ; or, as Mr. Earle ex- presses it, that " a verbal repetition in English should be \ employed to represent a verbal repetition in the Gieek." Vlll PREFACE. Mr.Earle (I will employ his own words) would reverse this, and say that in many of my details be would practically come to my conclusion, but that the principle itself, with all the speciousness of its appearance, is essentially un- sound. This position he endeavors to establish by argu- ments, which I feel bound to meet, for I consider the prin- ciple 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 ray princi- ple 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, xviii., 33, " Shouldest not thou also have had compassion {iktnaai) on thy fellow-servant, even as I had jpity {fikiriaa) on thee V I feel that the difference between us is irreconcilable. In- deed, I had vainly thought that my illustrations (with one or two doubtful exceptions) would carry conviction in them- selves, and I confess myself 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 of 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 Tcrbal 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 PREFACE. IX pedantry to substitute " Do not ye ratlier excel them !" for "Are not ye much Better than they?" in Mattvi., 26 (oii;^ i»|ue7e (laWov BiaijtiptTt avTwv) ; or " The hour hath ap- proached," for " The hour is at hand," in Matt, xxvi., 45 (jiyyiKev r\ S>pa). But the point at issue seems to me to be wholly different. I can not for a moment regard this as a question of English idiom ; and my objection to the varietj' of rendering which Mr. Earle advocates is that it does de- part from " the faithfulness of a translation," and substi- tutes, not, indeed, the fidelity of a lexicon, but the caprice of a translator. Mr. Earle says, " The stronghold of tlie Greek (I do not speak of Plato and Demosthenes, but of the New Testa- ment) is in the words ; the stronghold of the English lan- guage is in its phraseology and variability." This is not the distinction which I should myself give between the characteristics of the two languages. Even in its later stages, the wealth of particles, the power of inflection and composition, and the manifold possibilities of order, still constitute the peculiar superiority of the Greek over the English. But it matters little whether I am right or wrong here, for the objections to Mr. Earle's practical inferences are equally strong in either case. He first of all alleges examples where synonyms are coupled in English, and more especially in rendering from another language, as, for in- stance, in Chaucer's translation of Boethius's De Consola- tione PhilosophioB, where claritudo 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 rendering." I PREFACE. Now it is one tiling to give a double rendering to a sin- gle 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 woret 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 lemaining half to the other, a disconnection, perhaps even a contrast, is in- troduced, which has no place in the original. If, therefore, tlie English on any occasion furnishes no exact and coex- tensive 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 anothier), it will generally be the less evil of the two to select the word which comes nearest, in meaning to the original, and to re- tain 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, can not in most cases plead this justification, that a single English word does not adequately represent the Greek. It would re- quire far more minute scholarehip than I possess to discern any difference in mpaiiing between diVc and " son." Yet Mr. Earle stands forward as the champion of the rendering in Matt. XX., 20, "Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children {vluv) with her sons (uliiiv)." The particular ren- dering is comparatively unimportant in itself, but as illus- trating 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 PREFACE. XI 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, M'ith the rendering of Matt, xviii., 33, " Shouldest not thou also have had compassion {l\ii]aai) on thy fellow-servant, even as I had pity {r\\ir\aa) on thee ?" " If," he asks, " we com- pare pur '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 al- low that breadth (or, as I prefer to call it, looseness) is any gain where exact correspondence in the two clauses is es- sential to the main idea of the passage. What would be said if I were to suggest such translations as " Blessed are \\\G pitiful {i\i{\novig),ior they shall obtain mercy {tXtriBt)- aovrai)" in Matt, v., 7, or "If ye forgive (o^^te) not men their trespasses {irapaTrTilifiara), neither will your heavenly Father remit {alpi}Q, irp6aif>epe, v., 23, 24 ; avoXiay, anoXtXv/xlvriv, put away, di- vorced, v., 31, 32 ; lniopK{)aiig, upKo\)c,fors\oear, oaths, v., 33 ; at^avltiovai, t^avCiai, disfigure, ajrpear, vi., 16 ; BttaavplZtTC, Otiaavpovi', lay up, treasures, vi., 19 ; irtpitfiaXtTO, irtpifiaXw- fiiOa, arrayed, clothed, vi., 29, 31 ; filrpni, /utrptTrt, measure, mete (?), vii., 2 ; qiKoSo/itiacv, oiicfav, huilt, house, vii., 24), yet, on the other hand, the balance is more than redressed by the same rendering of different words in other parts (e.g., light, Kalovaiv, Xafiiru, 0(uc,v.,14-16 ] fulfill, vXt)pu>aai,yivtf rai, v., 17, 18 ; righteousness repeated, though diKatoavvri oc- curs only once in the original, v., 20 ; whosoever, ttoc 6, oc ov, v., 22 ; divorcement, divorced, airoaraaiov, aTroXiXvftivtiv, v., 31, 32 ; forswear, swear, ImopKitaiig, bfioaai, v., 33, 34 ; reward, fuadov, htrolwau, vi., 2, 4, 5, 6, 16, 18 ; streets, pvfiaiq, vXaTiiCtv, vi., 2, 5 ; day, daily, anfupov, imovaiov, vi., 11 ; light, Xvxvog, ^pwruvov, wc, vi., 22, 23 ; raiment, arrayed, iv^vfiaTog, nipnfiaXiTo, vi., 28, 29 ; clothe, clothed, npiptivw- aiv, vtptPaXwfitOa, vi., 30, 31 ; good, ayaOov, icaXouc, "vii., 17, 18 ; beat, irpoaiinaav, trpoaUo^av, vii., 25, 27). If my read- era are of opinion that the general method adopted by our translatore 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 every thing for which I am arguing.* • I confess myself quite unnble to follow Mr. Eaile's logic when he criti- cises what I had said of the Kheims Version. My words are (p. 44), " Of PREFACE. XV But Mr. Earle proceeds : " There is no end to the curi- osities of scholarship, and the perilous minutiae 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 plaj' 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. Ex- plain it as you may, the fact is palpable. Does it not tax all our esteem for Sliakspeare to put up with many a pas- sage of which in any other author we should not hesitate to say tliat 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, wherever it caii be done without forcing the English. I believe that our translators acted rightly when they ren- dered \pwfiivoi, Karaxpwiitvoi, by use, abuse, in 1 Cor. vii., 31 ; I believe that they were only wrong in translating KaTOTOfjiil, TrepiTOfifi, concision, circuincision, in Phil, iii., 2, 3, because the former is hardly a recognized English word, and would not be generally understood. I freely confess that in many cases, perhaps in most cases, the thing can not all the English versions, the Rhemish nlone has paid attention to this point, and so far compares advantageously with the rest, to which, in most other re- spects, it is confessedly inferior." On this he remarks: "It is certainly un- fortunate 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. To put this admission with the clearness due to its importance : the Kheims Version is the best ia 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 element of right in the most wrong, and some element of wrong in the most right ? E IVl PREFACE. be done; but I am sorry for it.* I can not for a moment acquiesce in Mr. Earle's opinion that it is incompatible with "solemnity," with " elevation of style." Above all, I repu- diate the notion, which seems to underlie whole paragraphs of Mr. Earle's critique, that it is the business of a translator, when he is deWing with the Bible, to improve the style of his author, having before my eyes the warning examples of the past, and believing that all such attempts will end in discomfiture.f Is it not one great merit of our English • On my suggestion that in 2 Thess. iii., ll.tlie ploy on lpyat,onivovQ, TipupyaZonivovt, might be preserved by the words business, busy-bodies, Mr. Earle remarks: "As a matter of history, the word business has no radical connection with bust/ : it is merely a disguised form of the French besognes. 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 established." Without hazarding any opinion on n question on which Mr. Earle is so much more competent to speak than myself, I would venture to remark : (I .) That the direct deriva- tion of business from busy is maintained by no less an authority than Jacob Grimm, Deutsche Grammalik, ii., p. 237 seq. ; (2.) That other authorities maintain (whether rightly or wrongly I do not venture to say) the radical connection of the Teutonic words busy (Engl.), bezig (Dutch), with the Eo- mance words besogne, bisogna; and (3.) That this very play of words occurs in the earliest English translations of the Scriptures, the WicUffite Versions, in 1 Cor. vii., 32,"I wole you for to be withoute bisynesse (d/itpi>vowc,Vulg. tine sollicitudine). Sothli lie that is withoute wyf is bysy Oifp'/Jvff.Vulg. sol- licitua 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 the Vulgate, "Nihil operantes sed curiose agentes," in which this characteristic of the original has disappeared. , . . , This paronomasia is not confined to St.Paul,but occurs also m Aristides, ii., p. 418, raura I'lpyaarai /.tv . . . . viptiipyaaTm ii /»i)ia/iuic, just as the apostle's 0poviri/,ow0poviIv (Rom. xii., 3) has a parallel in a passage quoted by Stobaus as from Charondas, F/ori7., xliv., 40, vpoairouiaBu, it eVaffrof riv iroKirHv owfpavilv iiaXKov ri ^povitv. t The anxiety to impart dignity to the language of the apostles and.evan- eelistB 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 Translations from the Greek Classic, have lately been executed: by E. Hanvood, London, 17G8. In this Btranee production the following is a sample of St.Luke s narrative (xi. , 40) : "Absurd and preposterous conduct! Did not the Great Beiug, who made PREFACE. xvn Version, regarded as a literary work, that it has naturalized 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 reproduced (so far as Jhe genius of the English language permits) like any other characteristic. That it is admissible, the example of Shakspeare which Mr. Earle ad- duces, and that of Tennyson, whose " name and fame" he himself has already quoted, and who abounds in similar ex- amples of alliteration and assonance, not to mention other standard writers whether of tlie Elizabethan or of the Vic- torian era, are sufficient evidence. I am not concerned to defend Shakspeare'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 incompatible with elevation of style. Under the external form, create the internal intellectual 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 per- sonage freely publishes and solemnly attests those heavenly doctrines, etc." The parable of the prodigal son in the former begins (xv,, 1 1), " 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 Har- wood's Liberal Translation of the New Testament. The passage which first caught his eye was that sublime apostrophe in St. John upon the raising of Lazarus, Jesus wept, which Harwood had conceitedly rendered, And Jesus, the Saviour of the world, burst into a flood of tears, lie contemptuously threw the book aside, exclaiming ' Puppy ! '" (Appendix to Boswell's Life ofjohn- • son, in Croker's edition, London, 1866, p. 836.) Johnson's biographer. Bos- well, speaks of it as " a fantastical translation of the New Testament in mod- ern phrase" (p. 606). See also Mr. Matthew Arnold's opinion (quoted below, p. 159) on a very similar attempt at a revised version by FrankUn. I am quite sure that Mr. Earle's sufTrage would be on the same side ; but when be . 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 "fall- 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 ? zvin PREFACE. certain circumstances, paronomasia, alliteration, and the like, are not only very natural, but, as indicating intensity of feeling, may produce even a tragic effect. With the ap- preciation of a great genius, Shakspeare himself has ex- plained and justified their use under such circumstances. When John of Gaunt, in his last illness, is visited by Eich- ard, and, in reply to the king's inquiry, keeps harping on his name, " Old Gaant indeed, and gaunt in being old," the king asks, "Can sick men play so nicely with their names?" The old man's answer is, "No ; misery 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 prov- erbs of all languages, affords ample illustration, as in Waste not, want not; Forewarned, forearmed ; Man proposes, Ood disposes; Compendia dispendia ; iraOi'ifiara /laOiifiara. To this category we may assign St. Paul's /irj {nrcp(t>poviiv nap S Set (ppoviiv, aWa ijipovt'iv tie to auxjipoviXv (Roin. xn., 3). Indeed, it would not be difficult to show that in every • Similarly Cicero, speaking of the Sicilians playing on the name of Verres, says (Terr., Act u., 1, 46), "etiam ridicuU inveniebantur ex dolore. ' FSEFACE. XIX. \\; instance the apostle had some reason for employing this figure, and that he did not use it as a mere rhetorical play- thing. 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 wo pi-otest against the principle that the genius of our language requires us to abstain from the at- tempt 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. Tbinitt College, St. John's Day, 1871. CONTENTS. CHIPTXB PIGI I. St. Jerome's Revision of the Latin Bible 23 II. Authorized Version of the English Bible 29 III. Lessons suggested by these Historical Parallels 31 IV. Necessity for a fresh Revision of the Authorized Version... 31 § 1. False Readings 3G § 2. Artificial distinctions created 40 § 3. Real distinctions obliterated 05 § 4. Faults of Grammar 80 § 5. Faults of Lexicoorapiiv 118 § 6. Tre.it.ment of Proper Najies, Official Titles, etc 127 § 7. Archaisms, Defects in the English, Errors of the Press, etc 144 V. PnosrECTS of the New Revision 157 Appendix on the words imovaioe, Tipioiaioc 103 Indices 185 A FRESH REVISION OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. More 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 St. Jerome in competence for so great a task. At the suggestion of his ecclesiastical superior, Damasns, bishop of Rome, he undertook this work, for which many years of self-denying labor had eminently fitted him. It is no part of my design to give a detailed account 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 attacks, and that this anticipation was not disappointed 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 flavor 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 any thing in the ancient books?"* • Op. , X. , coo (ed. Vnllarai). 24 LIOHTFOOT ON A. FRESH SEVISIOJf OF THE X TEST. Again and again he defends himself against his antagonists. His temper, naturally irritable, was provoked beyond measure by these undeserved attacks, and betrayed him into language which I shall not attempt to defend. Thus writing to Mar- cella,* he mentions certain "poor creatures (homunculos) M'ho studiously calumniate him for attempting to correct some passages in the Gospels against the authority of the ancients and the opinion of the whole world." "I could afford to de- spise them," he says, " if I stood upon my rights, for a lyre is played in vain to an ass." " 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 returns 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 ;\ let them consider that an accusation ought under no circumstances to be received against an elder ; let us road, Against an elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses; them that sin rebuke.l Let them be satisfied with, i< is a human saying, and worthy of all acceptation; let us err with the Greeks, that is, with the apostle who spoke in Greek, It is a faithftd saying, and worthy of all accepta- tion."^ 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 delib- erate judgment, but from the prejudice of hatred."|| "Thus much I say in reply to my traducers, who snap at me like dogs, maligning me in public and reading me in a corner, at once my accusers and my defenders, seeing that they approve in others what they disapprove in me."% If these attacks had been confined to personal enemies like • Epist., 28 (i.,P- 133). t The rending Kaipip for «ipiV,Rom. xii., 11. t The omission of the clause it fifi iirJ Suo h rpiHv itapripuv, 1 Tim. v., 19. § The reading avBpiiirtvog for moToc, 1 Tim. iii., 1. II C!p.,ix.,684. H Oy»., ix., 1408. ST. JEROME'S REVISION OP THE LATIN BIBLE. 25 Rufinus,* who were only retaliating upon J«romc the harsh treatment which they had received at his hands, his com- plaints 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 undertaking which might be followed by such serious results. He illustrated his fears by reference to the well-known inci- dent 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 venturing to substitute Jerome's rendering "hedera" for " cucurbita," and could only win them back again by re- instating 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."f Of the changes which Jerome introduced into the text of the New Testament, the passage quoted above affords suffi- cient illustration. In the Old Testament a more arduous task awaited him. The Latin Version which his labors were des- tined to supersede had been made from the Septuagint. He liimself 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. Moreover, what injury might not be done to the faith of the weaker brethren by casting doubt on the state 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 aud association ? ♦ See Hieron., Op., ii. , 6G0, where Rufinus exclaims, " Istud commissum die quomodo emendabitur ? iramo, nefas quomodo cxpiabitur ?" with more to the same effect. t Hieron., ii)««.,10t (i.,03G seq.)- 26 LIOBTFOOT ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE N. TEST. But, independently of the dangerous consequences which might bo 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 la- bors as throwing blame on the ancients. Each man offers what ho can for the tabernacle of God.f Some, gold, and silver, and precious stones ; others, fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and blue : I shall hold myself happy if I have ofiered skins and goats' hair. And yet the apostle considers that the more despised members are more necessary (1 Cor. xii.,22)."J Moreover, there was a very exaggerated estimate of the . amount of change which his revision would introduce. Thus Augustine, when endeavoring to deter him, speaks of his new translation; Jerome, in reply, tacitly corrects his illustrious correspondent, and calls the work a revision.^ And through- out he 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 steadfast. In executing this great work, Jerome was in constant com- munication with Jewish rabbis, who were his Hebrew teach- ers, and to whom ho was much indebted in many ways. How great a gain this assistance was to his revision, and how large- ly 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 • Op., ix., G. t Exod. XXV., 2 seq. X 0/)., ix., 400. § See llieron., Epiat.,10i,i.,G37,{oT Augustine's letter ("Evangelium ex GriECO intei-pretatus es"),«ind JE)>i»<., 112, i., 753, for Jerome's reply ("in Novi Testamenti emendatione"). See Dr. Westcott, in Smith'i Dictionary of the Bible, s. v. Vulgate, ii. , p. 1696. ST. JEROME'S REVISION OF THE LATIN BIBLE. 27 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 for- mer 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 years. 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 church- es the most faithful 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 afiection or respect. We arc repelled by his coarseness and want of refinement, by his as- perity of temper, by his vanity and self-assertion. We look in vain for that transparent simplicity which is the true foun- dation 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 wor- thy 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."f And, inspired with a true scholar's sense of the dignity of consci- entious work for its own sake, irrespective of any striking • 0/>.,ix.,1361. tl»7oTf) ? Why, in the Epistle tp the Romans (x., 15), should ol tto^cc riiv luayycXiiofjtivwy tlprii'riv, tUv ivayyeXtiofitruy Ta ayaOa be trans- lated " the feet of them that preach the Gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things ?" Why, in the same epis- tle (xv., 4, 5), should we read, " That we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures (Sta rijc vTrofioyijQ ko'i rijc TTapaicXiitniitc tSiv ypa^CJv) should have hope," and in the next sentence, "Now tlie God of patience and consolation (o QtiiQ rijc virofio- yTit Kai rng vapaKXt'iatuis) grant you to be like minded," though the words are identical in the two clauses, and tlie repetition is obviously intended by St. Paul? And why again, in the salutations at the end of this epistle, as also of others, should uanaaaoBi be translated now " salute" and now " greet," tlie two renderings being interchanged capriciously and without any law ? Again, in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, iii., 17, the same word ^Odpuv is differently translated, "If any man defile (Oiipu) the temple of God, him shall God destroy (^flfjon)," though the force of the passage depends on the iden- tity of the sin and the punishment. And in a later passage (x., 16 seq.), koivuvoX tov OvmaaTtipiov is translated "partakers of the altar," and two verses below, uoivuvoi tUv latfioiduv, "have fellowship with devils," while (to complete the confu- sion) in a preceding and a succeeding verse the rendering "be partakers" is assigned to fierixen', and in the same paragraph koivuyia tov atfxaTO{,rou truiftaroQ, is translated " commwiion of G 48 LIOUTFOOT ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE N. TEST. the blood, of the body." The exigencies of the English might demand some slight variation of rendering here, but this ut- ter confusion is certainly not required ; and yet this passage is only a sample of what occurs in numberless other places. Again, in the same epistle (xii., 4 seq.), it is not easy to see why SiatpiaeiQ yapuriiaTuf, SiaipiactQ otaKoviUVf Siaipiauc kvipyrifia- Tuv, are translated respectively "diversities of gifts," "differ- ences of administration," "diversities of operations," while in the same passage ivcpyiifiara is rendered first operations aind' then working. Each time I read the marvelous episode on charity in the xiiith chapter, I feel with increased force the inimitable delicacy, and beauty, and sublimity of the render- ing, 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 heie I find some blemishes of this kind. Thus, in the 8th verse, tlie same English word " fail" is given as a ren- dering for both iKniirTttv and Karapyi'iaBai, while conversely the same Greek word KaTapyeloBai is translated first by^aj7 and then by vanish away, and two verses afterward, where it oc- curs again, by a third expression, be done away. This word Karapytiv is translated with the same latitude later on also (xv., 24, 26), " When he shall have put down (i.-arapyi((r/)) all rule, and all authority, and power,'' and immediately after- ward, "The last enemy tliat shall be destroyed {Karapyurai) is death." Let me add another instance from this epistle, for it is perhaps the most characteristic of ail. In xv., 27, 28, the word {nroTaaanv occurs six times in the same sense within two verses; in the first three places it is rendered 7>m< under, in the fourth be subdued, in the fifth be subject, while in the last place the translators return again to their first rendering put wider. Nay, even the simple word \oyia, when it occurs in successive verses (xvi.,!, 2), has a different rendering, first " collection" and then " gathering." The Second Epistle to the Corinthians is especially remark- able for the recurrence, through whole sentences oi- para- graphs, of the same word or words, which thus strike the' ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 43 key-note to the passage. This fact is systematically disre- garded 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 Ts force Thus, in the first chapter, the words rapaKaXuu, Tapa.Xnmc, and eXifiin; eXiiPic, occur again and again. In the rendering of the first our translates are divided between comfort and consolation, and of the second between tribulation, trouble and affliction. Again, in the opening of the second chapter' where the tone is given to the paragraph by the frequent repetition of Xi;,r,, Xvmly, we have three distinct reiideringe heaviness, sorrow, grief. Again, in the third chapter, several instances of this fault occur. I„ the first verse this passion for variety is curiously illustrated. They render ^.y irtwoiOricty) in the flesh ; If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof Ae might trust (?o«i irtjroiOtVai) in the flesh, I more . . . as touching the law {kotu vufiov), a Pharisee ; con- cerning zeal (Kara (ijXot), persecuting the Church ; touching the righteousness {Karh iiKaioaiyv'') which is in the law, blame- less;" 1 Thess. ji.,4, "As we were allowed (hioKiftaaftida) of God ... not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth {ioKt^i- (oyri) our hearts ;" 2 Thess. i., 6, "To recompense tribulation to them that trouble you" {AyrairoSovrai to7c OXipouoiy b^&t eXi^^ty); Heb. viii., 1 3, " He hath made the first old {wewaXaiuKiy nj*/ irpi,- TJiy) • now that which decayeth {,ra\mov^iyoy) and waxeth old (y,pLo.) is ready to vanish away;" James ii., 2, 3, "If there ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 51 come (ciircXVp) unto your assembly a man with a gold ring in goodly apparel (ey iaOiin Xaftvp^), and there come in (iiaiXBrf) also a poor man in vile raiment {iaBijTi), and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing (ri)i' inBiJTu Tt/y Xafivpuy), etc. ;" 2 Pet. ii., 1, 3, "Who privily shall bring in damtiable her- esies {a'lpiatiQ aiTuiXuai) . . . and bring on themselves swift destruction (ouriiXtiaf) . . . and their damnation {aniiXtta) slumbcreth not;" 1 John v., 9, 10," This is the witness (jiaprv pia) of God which he hath testified (jicfiapTvptikey) of his Son . . . He believeth not the record (fiapTvpiay) that God gave (juiiapTvpriKcv) of his Son ;" Rev. i., 15, "His voice (•/iwj'i/) as the sound {(jtbiyfi) of many waters ;" iii., 1 7, " I am rich {TrXovtrws) and increased in goods (imrXovrtiKa) ;" xvii., 6, 7," And when I saw her,I wondered {iBalifiaaa) with great admiration {davfia) ; and the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel (fOau/jaffof) :" xviii., 2, " And the hold {(pvXaK>i) of every foul spirit, and a cage {(^vXaKi]) of every unclean and hateful bird." In the instances hitherto given the variation of rendering is compai'atively unimportant, but for this very reason they serve well to illustrate the wrong principle on which our trans- lators proceeded. In such cases, no more serious consequences may result than a loss of point and force ; but elsewhere the injury done to the understanding of the passage is graver. Thus, when the English reader finds in St. Matthew xxv., 46, "These shall go away into everlasting (alutywy) punishment, but the righteous into life eternal {aliiyiov')" he is led to spec- ulate on the difference of meaning between " everlasting" and " eternal," if he happens to have any slight acquaintance with modei'n controversy, and he will most probably be led to a wrong conclusion by observing different epithets used, more especially as the antithesis of the clauses helps to emphasize the difference. 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 (ro Karix^y) . . . only he who now letteth (6 Kari- X(ay &pn) will let," the same word should certainly have been 52 LIGHTFOOT ON A FRESH REVISION OF TUE N. TEST. repeated, that the identity of the thing signified might be clear; and in the doctrinal statement,Col. ii., 9, 10,"In him dwelleth all the fulbiess {to vXi'ipwfia) of the Godhead bodily, and ye are complete {irewXripufiivot) in him," it was still more necessary to preserve the connection by a similar rendering, for the main idea of the second clause is the communication of the irX^pu/ia which resides in Christ to the believers (comp. Ephes. i., 23). Again, the word Qpuvot in the Revelation is translated throne when it refers to our Lord, but seat when it refers to the faithful (iv., 4 ; xi., 16*) or when it refers to Sa- tan (ii., 13 ; xvi., 10). Now by this variation, as Archbishop Trench has pointed out,f two great ideas which run through this Book, and indeed, we may say, through the whole of the New Testament, are obliterated ; the one, that the true serv- ants of Christ are crowned with him and share his sovereign- ty; 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 connection between different parts of the same discourse or the same narrative is severed. Thus, in St. Luke xix., 13, 15, the nobleman, going into a far country, gives charge to his servants rrpayfiarevaaaOe iv ^ ipxofiai, and when he re- turns he summons them ti'O yvf [or ycoi] tIq n linrpayfiartv- oavTo. If the former had been translated," 7 Varfe 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 trading." But the rendering of our transla- tors," Occt/py till I come," besides involving a somewhat un- intelligible archaism, disconnects the two, and the first indi- cation 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 connection is not, indeed, wholly broken (for the context will not suffer this), but greatly impaired, is Matt, v., 15, 16, * Rev.iv., 4, "And round the throne {Qpovov) were four-and-twenty scats (Bpovoi)." t On the Authorized Version, p. 80 seq. / ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 53 Xa/iirti xaffic roic iy rq oiicif' ovTut \afi\paTU to (fiws i/fiSiy f^B-poo-fltf Tiiy avOpiiirii>v, which should run, "It ahineth upon all that arc in the house : Even so let your light 8hi7ie before men, etc.'' But in our translation, "It giveth light unto all that are in the house : Let your light so shine befoi'e men that they may sec your good works, etc.," the two sentences are detached from each other by the double error of rendering Xa/iirti, Xa/zi/^Hrw by different words, and of misunderstanding oKruc. I say "misun- derstanding," because the alternative that " so" is a mere am- biguity of expression seems to be precluded by the fact that in our Communion Service the words "Let your light so shine before men, etc.," detached from their context, are chosen as the initial sentence at the Offertory, where the correct mean- ing, " in like manner," could not stand. This love of variety might be still further illustrated by their treatment of the component parts of words. Thus there is no reason why n-oXu/itpwe »-'ai xoXurpoTrug in Ileb. i., 1, should be translated " At sundry times and in divers manners," even though for want of a better word we should allow the very inadequate rendering times to pass muster, where the original points to the Aivers parts of one great comprehensive scheme. And again, in Mark xii.,39 (comp. Matt. xxiii.,6),it is equally difficult to see why irpioTOKadtZpiaq IV toIq avvayioyaiq kqi irpu)- TOKXtaias iv Toig Silvvoig should be rendered " the chief scats in the synagogues and the uppermost rooms at feasts." On the archaic rendering "room" for the second element in TrpurotXi- aia I shall have something to say hereafter. These instances which have been given will suffice. But, in fact, examples illustrating this misconception of a transla- tor's duty are sown broadcast over 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 in- stances his variations are even greater than theirs. Thus, in 64 LIOHTFOOT OxV A FRESB REVISION OF THE N. TEST. a passage already quoted, 1 Cor. xii., 4 seq.,he has three dif- ferent renderings of iiaipeattc 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 admin- istration and yet but one lordc, and ther are divers vianei's of operacions and yet but one God;" and in Rom. xvi.,his in- terchanges 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 advan- tageously with the rest, to which in most other respects it is confessedly inferior. And I suppose that the words of our Translators' Preface, in which they attempt to justify their course, must refer indirectly to this Roman Catholic Version, more especially as I find that its Latinisms arc censured in the same paragraph. If so, it is to be regretted that preju- dice 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 bo taken to secure uniformity where it occurs in the same connection in different passages and different books. Thus, where quotations are given once or more from the Old Testa- ment in the New, the rendering should exhibit (as far as pos- sible) the exact coincidence with or divergence from the original and one another in the language. Again, when the same discourses or the same incidents are recorded by differ- ent evangelists, it is especially important to reproduce the features of the original, neither obliterating nor creating dif- ferences. Again, in parallel passages in allied epistles, as, for instance, those of St. Paul to the Romans and Galatians, or to the Colossians and Ephesians, or the Epistle of St. Jude and the Second Epistle of St. Peter, the exact amount of resem- blance should be reproduced, 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 St. John, the similarity / ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 55 of diction should be preserved. Tliough this will be a some- what 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 license in the same context, it is no surprise that they did not pay- any attention 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 Tes- tament, one or two instances will suffice by way of illustra- tion. Deut. xxxii., 35 is twice quoted in exactly the same words. In our English Version it appears in these two forms : Rom. xii., 19. Ileb. x., 30. Vengeance is mine: I will Vengeance belongeth unto repay, saith the Lord. me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. Again, the same words, Gen. xv., 6 (LXX.), iKoyiixdi) aWf tic Sik-aioffivi/c, are given with these variations: Rom. i v., 3, "It was counted unto him for righteousness;" Rom.iv.,22, "It was imputed unto liira for righteousness ;" Gal. iii., 6, " It was accounted to him for righteousness" (with a marginal note, " or imputed") ; James ii., 23, " It was imputed to him for righteousness;" while in an indirect reference to it, Rom. iv., 9 (in the immediate context of two of these divergent render- ings), a still further variation is introduced: "We say that faith was reckoned to Abr.aham for righteousness." Again, raXwi^tt TrXrjSoc a/iapnwv (from Prov. x.,12) is trans- lated in James v., 20, " shall hide a multitude of sins," and in 1 Pet. i v., 8, "shall cover the multitude of sins" (with a mar- ginal reading " will" for " shall"). The variation in the last instance which I shall give is still more astonishing, because the two quotations of the same passage (Psa. xcv., 11) occur in the same context. S 60 LIOHTFOOT ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE N. TEST. Heb. iii.,11. Heb. iv.,3. So I aware in my wrath, As I have sworn iu my They shall not enter into my y/iath,I/they shall enter into rest. ™y ""est; Here there is absolutely no difference in the Greek of the two passages; and, as the argument is continuous, no justifi- cation of the various renderings can be imagined. On the parallel narratives of the different evangelists it will not be necessary to dwell, because this part of the sub- ject has been discussed at some length elsewhere.* I will content myself with three examples. The first, which affects only the diction, is a fair sample of the defects of our ver- sion in this respect, because it is in no way striking or excep- tional. Matt, xvi., 26. Ti yap li^fXeTrat &vOpuiTOC, cav roy Koa- fiov oXov Kfpltiari, rqv ?£ ^vxflv avTOV lirifii- "For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul ?" Mark viii.,36. Ti yap biijieXriau av- Bpiiiirov, lav KtpSqirj) Tov Koa^ov o\oy, koj avTOU ; "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul ?" Luke ix., 25. Ti yap iipeXinai av- 0pti)TOt, wpSqi) of God is with men, and he will dwell with them ((ncq^uKrct fiir' aurd)')." Here it is much to be re- gretted that the necessities of the English language required our translators to render the substantive tricriyl) by one word and the verb aKrivoiiy by another. In the first passage the significance is entirely lost by translating aKr)\'i>aci " shall dwell," combined with the erroneous rendering of tTri ; and no English reader would suspect the reference to the 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 En- glish rendering : " The Word was made flesh, and dwelt (eViq- fiDijiv) among us, and we beheld his glory." The two writ- ings, which attribute the name of the Word of God to the In- carnate Son, are the same also which especially connect Mes- siah's advent with the restitution 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 taber- naculavit, they had anticipated later scholars, and introduced the verb " to tabernacle" into the English language ; or, fail- ing this, if by some slight periphrasis they had endeavored to preserve the unity of idea. In other cases where artificial distinctions are introduced, our translators must be held blameless, for the exigencies of the English language left them no choice. Thus, in John ill., 8, ro TTViUfia (the wind) ovov OiXit (blowetli) .... oUruif iafiy irfic 6 ytvevyriiiivoi Ik tou Uvevfiaroi (the Spirit), we must pa- tiently acquiesce in the different renderings, though the com- parison between the m.aterial and immaterial vyevfia is im paired thereby, just as in a later passage (xx., 22, iyt) ca! tV«- ytyuoKtrc, " what you read or acknowledge;" 2 Cor. x., 12, ou ToXfiuficy iyKpli-ai )} avyKpHyai iavrovc, " we dare not make our- selves of the number or compare ourselves," it would be im- possible to reproduce the effect of the original. But in other cases, sn-ch as 1 Cor. xii., 2, wc ay ijyttrBc, dnayofuyot, "carried ♦ Contemporary Beview, July, 1608, p. 823. ^AL DISTINCTIOXS CBLITERATED. 65 away as ye were led ;" 2 Cor iv r a .'ouf,7rrp.tpya^o/,£Vo„f,i„2The88iii 11 L j/'^^ °° ^PX^''/'^ by " business/" bu y-bodie " o • wh r T '' ^'^^^''^^'^ W. av .; .,. L'JtnU : le'n'de'^ae^r,;"-^. '^ but as wise." In this latter passage thl-dt .Tt' occurs nowhere else in the New Teslament hi 1 ^'"' '"^ ly preferred to the usual ,.p6. Yet om tr ' «, ^''" P"'P°««- dered .., «.oois" here a:d^i: :c: :,"; r ""■ two verses below, where it is not wanted. ^'"'"'' naturally to the opposite ^Keb^^trn I/;^;^^^^ T fons by the same rendering oV differen wordV S t ' nX:p:red 7Z7Z :itru;iTT '-'-'^y -- cumbersome paraphrase. ThuT ?/„ - "'""""" '' ' have different shades of mealt i^ irr 'TT' "''""^"'' viousequivalentforeachinEnS"^;^^^ effort ■hood be mide (n„„„i, .. ".■"»'»■ btiIl,,ome .0 dl«,rimi„a.e be.Teen Z^ X"!'.!' ""' '""^' '""'""•' eo.tal, „d where ih!lfl',r ^^ °"°'' '" "'» ""» strument may easilv Hp ,.,.0 "T^ ^ '""°^" '°- may easily be preserved by rendering "JesuS I 66 LIOHTFOOT ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE N. TEST. acknowkdffe, and Paul I know." Again, in such passages as 2 Cor. v., 16, diro TOv vvv ovSeVa o'iSafUv Kara aapKa, tl Kai cyvuKa- fitv Kara aapKa Xptfrrov, aXXa vvy ovKin ytviiaicoficv (and this is a type of a large class of passages, where oUa and yivixricw oc- cur together), some improvement should be attempted ; nor, iu the instance given, could there be any difficulty in vary- ing the rendering, though elsewhere the task might not prove so easy. From these allied words I pass on to the distinction be- tween yivuivKiiv and iTTiyivwaKeiy, which is both clearer and more easily dealt with. Those who have paid any attention to the language of St. Paul will recognize the force of the substantive liriyvwaic as denoting the advanced or perfect knowledge which is the ideal state of the true Christian, and will remember that it appears only in his later epistles (from the Romans onward), where the more contemplative aspects of the Gospel are brought into view, and its comprehensive and eternal relations more fully set forth. But the power of the preposition appears in the verb no less than in the sub- stantive; 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, fipn yi- yitaKU) IK ficpovc, totc te iirtyviii(Toiiai xaBiis xal iweyvuxidriv, the partial knowledge (yiviiimtiv Ik fiepouc, comp. ver. 9) is contrast- ed with the fuU knowledge {iirtyivixiKciv) which shall be at- tained hereafter, though our translators have rendered both words by " 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, ic Ayvoovftevoi cal tiriyivuo-Ko/iej'oj is translated " as upknown, and yet well known." In this particular — the observance of the distinctions be- tween a simple word and its derivatives compounded with prepositions — our English Version is especially faulty. The verb Kph'tty and its compounds will supply a good illustration. St. Paul especially delights to accumulate these, and thus, by harping upon words (if I may use the expression), to empha- HEAL DISTINCTIONS OBLITESATED. 1 2 ; .-P'V-, J.a.p/.„., 1 Cor ■; ' ' ';^^'':""''';''>^>"'''-, 2 Cor. x.. Rom. xiv., 22, 23 ; 1 Cor. xi 9 3, ' Z""' "'""''' '"'"''"'''-^ "•. 1- Now it seems impossible in LT"""' "™^'"'''""' ^°'"- .nfice of English which no ne C "uldbe :.""' ";'""* ^ ^"'=- reproduce the similarity of sou^d o 1 ' "' '" '""''' '" the distinction of sense should ., ''^'^ '''''" ^'^3' «f'°ot 5 but this is ne^rlected in on "^^ ^^ piesorved. IJow •a. i>o,n^u rk Kpvrra too .,6rov,, he word ' '"'"' "' lated throughout "j„d-.c " whi o n , "'^"'"'' '' "■""^- ii 14 15 if io i , . " * Pievious passace l Cor "■. i4, 15, It is rendered ndifferentlv " f„ a- 7, judge." But d.„.,/.,,,i3 neither "to.- I tT."^"'l"to nor « to discern " which is / I ^ °'' ''■'""'' '^ ">"'''"". .ate, inquire i^t:^Z^7i:i^:^2 TT' ^"-^"- where,e.g.,i Cor.;x.,3; ^ 25 7 ^ f ''"^'^'^d else- standing of the passages bef^erdenoL "'''"' ""'"- this sense. TheL,',.v„t ;7 mu ^ ' °" °"'' 'Staining nian law ter n 177':?- " '•'=""^"^I^«''ed, was an Athe^ the actua X or fr ;;rj-7"'f '"" ^^'^''-^ ^'■- and the prisLer comS "foV ^^^^^ T!^ -'--^. against him. It corresDond.r; f ' '"" ^'"' '""""'^ the part taken in E S at : 'e! f' "T'' ""'^"'^"' '^ And this is Bubstantt ly heTrce of M '^ ^''^^'-'^ i'"T- apostle condemns all these mnaZ, h ^"''^ ^'''- ^''' unauthorized ..,.v.;;;"h'n;':r^^^^^^^^ serving his case for the oreat tr b. n u "''"'' ''' the evidence will be fZ^ ' ^^'"'^ *** ^^"gth all can be given Meanwh L T'"^' "' " '-^'^^'^'^^orj verdict l^ beg^n; an ^^\:tS^:^ ^^^ ---- by these seir-appointed magistrates, b^u! bTonTl JraTo: 68 LIOHTFOOT ON A PRESS REVISION OF THE N. TEST. has the authority to institute the inquiry, and the ability to sift the facts : 6 Ik avaKpivav fit Ki/piot iariv. Of this half tech- nical sense of the word the New Testament itself furnishes a good example. The examination of St. Paul before Festus is both in name and in fact an dfacpimc. The Roman procurator explains to Agrippa how he had directed the prisoner to be brought into court {vpot'iyayov auroc), in order that, having . held the preliminary inquiry usual in such cases {TijsayaKpiacioc ytvofiivtii), he might be able to lay the case before the emperor (Acts XXV., 26). Thus St.Paul's meaning here suffers very seriously by the wrong turn given to avaicplvciy; nor is this the only passage where the sense is impaired thereby. In 1 Cor. xiv., 24, tXtyxerat iiiro n-dcruc, afocpifcrat vko irayruy, [vai ovru] ra »:pu7rra riji capSi'ac avrou ayepa yiVtrai, the S6nse re- quired is clearly " sifting, probing, revealing," and the render- ing 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 xpiyeiy occurs and is similarly treated : Trpo^^rm Se ivo >) rpci£ XaXetrdiirav icat ol aWot SiaKpiviriii- aay, " 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 StaKpiyirwaay ought to be rendered " discorn" rather than "judge." Another passage which I shall take to illustrate the mode of dealing with Kplytiy and its compounds is still more impor- tant. In 1 Cor. xi., 28-34, a passage in which the English rendering is chargeable with some serious practical conse- quences, and where a little attention to the original will cor- rect more than one erroneous inference, the rendering of i.pi- vety, itaxplyciy, Karaxpiveiy, is Utterly confused. The Greek runs Somuai'tni) St ayOpuTroc iavToy tai ovtioc '»■■ tov aprov eadiirtii kai ii: Tov voffipiov irtytTu' o yiip inOiiity rol Trii'uy [draf/uc] Kpi/Jia cavry iaOUt icai iriyit, fit) StaKpiyuy to aHfia \tou Kwpi'oi;] . . . fi li lav Tovt SitKplyofiey, ovk av cKpivofieBa, Kpiyoficyoi St vko tov Kv- piov vaiSevofitOa, Ua fii) avv t^ Koafi^ KaraKpiddfitv . . . . tt rij REAL DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. , uai we siiould not be condemned with tho wn,i.i fairly charge our translators w th'the inf enT "' "" "* drawn from the first word vet 1,;! '"*? """''^ practically would gladly remove BuMn f k' "^ ^''"^''^ ^''"^'^ ^« -•o„g,^the l^r::i2^I;^^;^\ - equally case been rele-ated fn fl, J"«Sment Jiavir.g i„ either ed. and has tr^dlt fiir ;t^a r:n\V'^^ '"r ^=^'^^- And this circumstance .^ "f" , °° "'" P°P"'=^'- "'i"d. which has befaU n n„„£ 1 ",^ ^.' ''"'^'^ ''^ ^'"^ ^^t*^ lav. »!ha.j„ „" ^ffirrrr" / ""' '" ""'"''"' •« 70 LIQHTFOOT ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE N. TEST. for whereas liaKplvovrit to odfia is correctly translated "dis- cerning the body of the Lord" at the first occurrence oiliaKpl- veiv, yet when the word appears again it is rendered "judge," to the confusion of the sense: c! cavrovc SuKplvofuv, oIk av tKpi- vo/ieea/'lf we would judge ourselves, we should not he judged" where it ought to stand, "If we had discerned ourselves, we should not have been judged." In fact, St. Paul speaks of three stages, marked respectively by haKpii>iit; Kpiviiv, and ca- TaKpivtiv. The first word expresses the duty of persons before and in communicating: this duty is twofold; they must dis- cern themselves and discern tlie Lord's body, that they may understand, and not violate the proper relations between the one and the other. The second expresses the immediate con- sequences which ensue from the neglect of this duty — the judgments which are corrective and remedial, but not final. The third denotes the final condemnation, which only then overtakes a man wlien the second has failed to reform his char- acter. But this sequence is wholly obliterated in our ver- sion. In Rom. xiv., 22, 23, again, where the words occur to- gether, it would have been well to have kept the distinction, though here the confusion is not so fatal to the meaning: " Happy is he that condemneth not himself (o /ii) Kpii'otv lavTOf) in that thing which he alloweth (tv ^ Soii/in^fi) : and he that doubteth (o it SiaKpivoftcvot) is damned (caroveV-pirai) if he cat, because he eateth not of faith." St. 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. Otherwise he should ab- stain altogether, for his eating is not of faith. Here our trans- lators have rendered SiaKpivviieyoc rightly, but a misgiving ap- pears to have occurred to them, for in the margin they add, "Or discerneth and putteth a difference between meats," which would be the active o BiaKplyuiv. Indeed, an evil desti- ny would seem to have pursued them throughout when deal- ing with compounds of ,\i,„u airoc i.r.y .... .aJ Kart<^l\r,aty at™., and Luke Vll.,45,46,^/X,^Ka,, airr, Se . . . cv 2«W. .ara- ^\o«^a ro„c n6Sa,^ov, SO as to bring out the extravagance of the treachery in the one case and the depth of the devo- tion in the other, implied in the strong compound .ara^.W? Hardly less considerable is the injury inflicted on the sense 72 LiaUTFOOT ON J. FRESH REVISION OF THE N. TEST. by failing to observe the different force of prepositions when not compounded. Of this fault one instance must suffice. In 2 Cor. iii.,ll,£i yap to Karapyoufiivov 8ia 8o£jjc, ToWji fiaWoi' TO fiivov iv go£p,"For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious," the distinction of Sia 2ci£i)c and iy So£p is obliterated, though the change is sig- nificant in the original, where the transitory flush and the abiding presence are distinguished by the change of preposi- tions, 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 John i.,ll,"no came to his own (tic Tk -iha), and his own {o\ 'iS.o.) received him not." Here the distinction in the original between the neuter n. 'iSm and the masculine ol •i2.o. at once recalls the parable in Matt. xxi 33 seq., in which the vineyard corresponds to ra 'iha and the husbandmen to oi W.o.; but our version makes no distmc- tion between the place and the persons-betwecn " his own home" and " his own people." Doubtless there is a terseness and a strength in the English rendering which no one would willingly sacrifice; but the sense ought to be the first con- sideration. > . , . , t. „„„ Let me pass to an illustration of another kmd, where con- fusion is introduced by the same tendering of different verbs: 1 Cor xiv.,3C,« What, came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?" Here there appears to the En- Elish reader to be an opposition between /rom and unto, and the two interrogatives seem to introduce alternative proposi- tions. The original, however, is T, if V-; ^/"y"'/'" %"" ilnxee. r, .!c V"t F--C .ar/i.r,«v, where the fault of the En- glish Version is twofold; the same word is usedin rendering Im^. and .anW,-", and H-- ^^ yepresented by the ambig- uous "only." Thus the emphasis is removed from the po- noun you in both clauses to the prepositions, and the two hy- potheses are made to appear mutually exclusive. The trans- it on of Tyndale, which was retained even m the Bishops REAL mSTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 73 Bible, though somewhat harsh, is correct and forcible," Sprongo the worde of God from you ? Ether came it unto you only ?"* Much attention has been directed by recent writers to the synonyms of the New Testament. They have pointed out what is lost to the English reader by such confusions as those oi avKi), fold, and Troifivt), flock, in John x., 16, where in our ver- sion the same word fold stands for both,f though the point of our Lord's teaching depends mainly on the distinction be- tween the many folds and the one flock ; ofSovXoi and ctui:oyoi, in the parable of the wedding-feast (Matt, xxii., 1 seq.), both rendered by servants, though they have different functions as- signed to them, and though they represent two distinct class- es of beings — the one human, the other angelic ministers ;J of Kti^o'ot and avvpiltQ, in the miracles of feeding the five thou- sand and the four thousand respectively — both translated bas- kets — though the words are set over 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 iJ'jJa and Or^pia in the Apocalypse, both rep- resented by beasts, though the one denotes the beings who ♦ A very important passage, in which the hnnj of the reviser is needed, may perliaps be noted liere. The correct Greek text of Matt, v., 32 is ttus o anoXvtov ti)v yvvaiKa avTOv, iraptKTuQ \6yov nopvtiat-^ ■notii avri)v /ioi- X^vBrivaij Kai of lav airoXtXvfitvTiv yafit'iajf ^^oixuTai^ ^vliere our Knglish Version has "Whosoever shall put away his wife saving for the cause of for- nication eauseth her to commit adulteri/ ;" and "whosoever slinll marry her that is divorced committeth adultery." Here the English Version casts equal blame on the woman, thus doing lier an injustice, for obviously she is not in the same position with the husband as regards guilt j but Ihc Greek fiotxivBT]- vai (not ^lotxiiaBai), 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/ioi;(j " servants," "ministers," respectively. ThelJheims Version has "waiters" for iiaKovoi. In this case the Geneva Bible was tho first to obliterate the distinction, which was preserved even in the Bishops'. 74 LIGHTFOOT ON A FRSSH REVISION OF THE JV. TEST. worship before the throne of heaven, and the other the mon- sters 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 Archbish- op 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. la John xiii., 23, 25, ^y Sc avoKilfiivot tic Ik tUv iiaBnTCiv av- Tov iv Tbi ifoXjry Tou 'Iijirou . . . avaTfcaiiv IkcIvoq oiriits eVi ro arrj- Ooc TOV 'Itiaov Xeytt, " Now there was kaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples ... He then /yiH^ on Jesus' breast saith," the English Version makes no distinction between the reclin- ing position of the beloved disciple throughout the meal, de- scribed by avaKiifitvot, and the sudden change of posture at this moment, introduced by avaittaitv. This distinction is fur- ther enforced in the original by a change in both the prepo- sitions and the nouns, from iv to iiti, and from koXttoq to arridot. StJohn was reclining on the bosom of his Master, and he sud- denly threw back his head upon his breast to ask a question. Again, in a later passage, a reference occurs — not to the re- clining position, but to the sudden movement* — in xxi.,20, Sc Koi aviviaiv iv Ttf StiVi'w ivt to ariidoc avTOV lal tlirti', where likewise it is misunderstood by our translators, " which also leaned on his breast and said." This is among the most strik- ing of those vivid descriptive traits which distinguish the narrative of the fourth Gospel generally, and which are espe- • The word dvaTTi'jrrjiv occurs several times in the New Testament, and al- ways 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., Tolyb., i., 21, 2), of a horse suddenly checked and rearing (Plat., Phirdr., 254 b, e), of a guest throwing himself back on the couch or on the ground preparatory to a meal (Matt.xv.,35; Johnxiii.,12,etc.). The received text of xiii., 25 runs, lirnrcaCiv Si iiuXvoc M to ffTi)9oc,r.r.X., but the correct reading is as given above. The substitution o{im-iriawv, how- ever does not tell in favor of our translators ; for this word ought to have shown even more clearlv than ivaweaiiv, that a change of posture was intend- ed The oiiroic, which appears in the correct text, and gives an additional touch to the picture, has a parallel in iv., G, UadiZiro oiiru-c ini rj Tr^yj. In xxi., 20, there is no various reading. SEAL DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 75 cially remarkable in these last scenes of Jesus's life, whei-e the beloved disciple was himself an eye-witness and an actor. It is therefore to be regretted that these fine touches of the pic- ture should J}e blurred in our English Bibles. Again, in 1 Cor. xiv., 20, fit) iratSia yiviade Toic (Ppeaiv, uWa rp kUKiif KijTTtdf erf, much force is lost by the English render- ing, "Be not children in understanding; howbeit in malice be ye children." In the original St.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 babes,- and we can not afford to obliterate the distinction between vaiSia and vriirioi. Again, in this same chapter (ver. 1), Sfiwg Ta ui/'i'X'* ii>vai voices, and a(l)uvov without signification. In the margin they suggest tunes for tpOoyyots, and this would be preferable to re- taining the same word. As ^fldyyoc is used especially of mu- sical sounds, perhaps notes 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), iTcpa fiev y tS>v ivovpuvluv So^a, tripa li i/ riji' iiriyuujv. aXKr\ Sclia j/Xiou Ka\ aXXi; lo^a a{Kiivr\q icat aXXij lui,a amipotv, the words aXXij'and Iripa are translated alike,"The glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars." Yet it is hardly to be doubted that St. Paiil purposely uses irlpa when he is speaking of things belonging to different classes, as i-irovpavia and iwiyua, and ciXXij when he is speaking of things belonging to the same alass, as the sun, and moon, and stars ; for this is the proper distinction between aXXi) and crepa, that, whereas the former denotes simply dis- 76 LIOHTFOOT ON A FRESH REVISION OF TBE N. TEST. tinction oHndividuals,iha latter involves the Becondaiy idea of difference of kind. In fact, the change in the form of the sentence by which I6la, Soja, from being marked out as the subjects by the definite article and distinguished by fiiv . . . It in the first place, become simply predicates, and are con- nected by Koi . . , KoX in the second, corresponds to the change from trepa to fiXXij in passing from the one to the other. These words oXXoc, trepoc, occur together more than once, and in all cases something is lost by effacing the distinction. In Gal. i.,6,0avfxa2^ui oTi ouTu raxii^t fttTaridtade . . , fit tTipov tvayyi- \iov^ 5 061c ioTtv &Wo, 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, fiWof 'Itiaovy Ktipvaan hv ovk iieripv^afity *; wvtvfia trtpov Xafifiavtrc o ouk eXajStrr, though the loss is less considerable, the distinction might with advantage have been preserved. In these instances, however, a reviser might be deterred by the extreme diflSculty in distinguishing the two, without introducing some modernism. In the pas- sage first quoted (1 Cor. xv.,40),the end might perhaps be at- tained by simply substituting "other" for "another" in ren- dering tTcpa. Still more important is it to mark the distinction between clyat and ylvetrOat, where our translators have not observed it. Thus our English rendering of John viii., 58, "Before Abra- ham was, I mn," loses half the force of the original, Trpii' 'APpaitfi yeviffOai, iy'a eifit, " Before Abraham was born, I am." The becoming only can be rightly predicated of the patri- arch ; the bein'gi^h fife^rved for the Eternal Son alone. Sim- ilar in kind, thoughts in degree, is the loss in the rendering of Lnke yi.,36,ylvt-^!0Vj^KTlpnovis K-aBitc [koi] 6 irarrjp vftHf olK- Hpfiuv iarlv, "Be ye merciful, as your Father also is merci- ful." Here also the original expresses the distinction between the imperfect effort and the eternal attribute.* • In 1 Pet. i., 16, oar translators, when they gave the rendering "Be je holy, for I am holy," had before them the reading Sym ykv((i0c, or. lyu, liyiis ilfii, but the correct text is liytoi 101081, 'on lyi> nr'oc (omitting tlpi): REAL DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 11 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 {fierayotay) to sal- vation not to be repented of (a/itra^tXijToi')," 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 ^iira.- voia. in order to preserve the distinction (unless, indeed, we are prepared to introduce the word "regret" for fitrafUXua), especially as fUTafiiXcadai in the context is consistently trans- lated " repent." Again, it were desirable to find some better rendering of iratra hoaic ayaOi) koI nay Supr/fia TiXetoy in James i., 17, than "every good gift and every perfect gift," since a contemporary of St. James^especially distinguishes S6mc,S6fia, from Siipoy, Su)pta, etc., saying that the latter are much stron- ger, and involve the idea of magnitude and fullness, which is wanting to the former (Philo, Zeg. All., iii., 70, p. 126, t^^amy fieyiOovs TfXfluiv ayaOuiy SriXovaiy, c.r.X.; comp. de Cherub., 23, p. 154), and applying to them the very same epithet "perfect" which occurs in the passage before us. And yet the distinc- tion would be dearly purchased at the cost of an offensive Latinism. But, whatever difficulty there may be in finding different renderings here, it was certainly not necessary in the sentence immediately preceding, "When lust hath con- ceived, it bringeth forth sin ; and sin, when it is finished, 6l, (though they are not very happy in their rendering of /i£ra,iop0oD', or in Col. i., 16, 17, eV avru tKriadr) rh nayra . . . . rd iray- ra hi aiiTOv nai elg avroy tKTtarai, is there any reason why the tenses should not have been preserved, so that the distinction between the historical. fact and the permanent result would have appeared in all three cases? Yet our translators have rendered tytVfro, yiyoyey equally by " were made" in the first passage, dn-taraXk-a, airlartiXa by " I Sent" in the second, and ia-iodri, iKTifrrai by "were created" in the third. Again, in 1 John iv., 9,10,14, airiaraXKcy, airttrreiXiy, atriaraXKey, are all rendered in an aoristic sense " he sent," though the appropri- ateness of either tense in its own context is sufliciently notice- able. On the other hand, in an exactly parallel case, 1 Cor. IX., 22, tyfyd/if >/ roij aaOivtaiv naOeviic lya roue cWOf I'tic Kephijaii)' Toic irdaiv yiyova Trajra, 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, * A comparison of English with the languages of Continental Europe will illustrate the difference of idiom in this respect. 82 LIOHTFOOT OiV A FRESH REVISION OF THE N. TEST. "To the weak became I weak, that I might gain the weak: I am 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 the haphazard way in which these tenses are treated will appear as well from the instances already quoted as from such a passage as 2 Cor. viL, 13, 14 : "Therefore we were comforted {^cipwtK\h}^i6a) in your comfort, yea, and ex- ceedingly the more joyed we (tx^PW'") 'or the joy of Titus, because his spirit was refreshed (di-airfVaura.) by you all. For if I have boasted (^.aux-J/i"') any thing to him of you, I am not ashamed <.arj," 2 Cor. .v., 13,Lv.v.a l.h iXaXv.a is given « I believed, and therefore have I spoken," a rendering unsuited to its position in the LXX. of Psa. cxvi.,10 (cxv., 1) whence it is quoted. ♦ Th« onlv DassaKCS which would seem to favor the other interpretation are , r„T XV 22T^?AiaM 7rav«c d.o9./i«o«..., and Horn v.. 15, u yap r^ 1 Cor. XV., JA «v r,^ «" f . , ,a„^ Yet even if th s intei-pretation „5 M,.apa.ri:.,ar.o, "»'^^;' ^'^jJXvov o^^^^ preser^-ed because were ^dopU^d the aonstK .e„ e o^^i^Sav^^^ ^^ ^^^P^^^^^.^^ ^.^^ ^^^,, tVr: cSt'rS "^"e" rd>lviu« beenVected once for aU in Adams transgression, as in Kom. v., I". FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 85 Such examples as these, however, are very far from exhaust- ing the subject. In one passage the aorist k-n'iaaadai is treat- ed as if icfirrqo-Sai, and rendered " possess" instead of" acquire,'' in defiance of a distinction which it does not require the eru- dition of Lord Macaulay's school -boy to appreciate: Luke xxi., 19, iv rp VTTO/JOJ'p vfiiiv KTi'iaaade [I. KTijoiade^ roc 4"'X'*^ vfiSiv, " In your patience possess ye your souls." Errors, however, occur also in this same word in 1 Thess. iv., 4, where the pres- ent is similarly treated, iicivai iKaaroy vfiSiy to iavrou (tkcvoq KTaa- 6at iv liyiaufxi^ kcA rifip, " that every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctificatiou and honor;" and again, in Luke xyiii., 12, where oaa unijim is translated "all that I possess ;" and thus it seems probable that the mistake first arose from a misapprehension of the meaning of *Ta such 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. A-rain, St. Matthew, in three several passages (i.,22; xxl, 4- x°xvi.,56), introduces a reference to prophecies in the Old Testament which have had their fulfillment in incidents of the Gospel history by the words roCro le [S\oy] yiyoy.y .m ,x™.0ii (or r.a .X,po.eai...), r.r.X. In all three passages it will be obsei-ved, the evangelist has the perfect yiyoy.y, «» come FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 87 to pass;" and in all three our English Version gives it as an aorist, "waa done." Now it can not be urged (as it might with some plausibility in the case of the Apocalypse) that St. Matthew is careless about the use of the aorist and the per- fect, or that he has any special fondness for yiyoviv. On the contrary, though the aorist (lyivtro, ytviodat, etc.) frequently occurs in this Gospel, there are not many examples of the perfect yiyoviv; and in almost every instance our version is faulty. In xix., 8, dn-' dpx^c ou yiyoviv ovTioc, the aoristic ren- dering, "From the beginning it was not so," entirely misleads the English reader as to the sense; in xxiv., 21,oi'a oh yiyoviv air apyiiti " Such as hath not been from the beginning," would (I suppose) be universally accepted as an improvement on the present translation, " Such as was not from the begin- ning ;" and lastly, in xxv., 6, Kpauyi) yiyoviv, the startling ef- fect of the sudden surprise is expressed by the change of tense from the aorist, " a cry is raised" and ought not to be neglected. When, therefore, this evangelist in three distinct places introduces the fulfillment of a prophecy by yiyoviv, the fact can not be without meaning. In two of these passages editors sometimes attach the tovto U oKov yiyoviv 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 connection 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 Gos- pel history, when the narrator was not so far removed from the fact that it was unnatural for him to say "This is come to pass ?" I find this hypothesis confirmed when I turn to the Gospel of St. John. He, too, adopts a nearly identical form of words on one occasion to introduce a prophecy, but with a significant change of tense: xix.,36, tyti/froyap ravra ii'o i) ypaipij nXripwO^. To one writing at the close of thcicen- tury, the events of the Lord's life would appear as a historic past; and so the yiyoviv of the earlier evangelist is exchanged for the iyiviTo of the later. 88 LiaUTFOOT ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE N. TEST. An able American writer on tie English language, criticis- ing a j)^i-evious effort at revision, remarks somewhat satiric- ally that, judging from this revised version, the tenses "are coming to have in England a force which tliey have not now in America."* Now I have 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 Clergymen 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 idolafori and against the idola specus. I'irst,the language of the Authorized Version is so wrought into the fabric of our minds by long habit, that the corre- sponding conception is firmly lodged there also. Thus it hap- pens that when a change of words is offered to us, we uncon- sciously apply the new words to the old conception, and are dissatisfied with them because they seem incongruous; 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 conception involved in them. Idola fori omnium mo- lestissima sunt guce exfoedere verborum et nominum se insin- uarunt in intellectum. Bni, secondly, the idols of our cave are scarcely less mis- leading than the idols of-«be market-place. Living in the middle of the nineteenth century, we can not, without an ef- fort transfer ourselves to the modes of thought and of lan- guaU which were common in the first. The mistranslation from which this digression started affords a good instance of • Marsh's Lectwe, en the EngU>h Language, No. xxviii., p. C33, speaking of thV translation of St. John by the Five Clergymen. The passage is quoted • by Bp EIHeott {Re«iHon of the English New Testament, p. 20), «ho seems half disposed to acquiesce in the justice of the criticism. FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 89 this source of misapprehension. We should not ourselves say " This is come to pass" in referring to facts which happened more than eighteen centuries, ago, and therefore we oblige the eye-witnesses to hold our own language, and say "This came to pass." From the perfect tense I pass on to i\\Q present. And here I find a still better illustration of the errors into which we are led by following the idola specus. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, the sacred writer, when speaking of the Temple serv- ices and the Mosaic ritual, habitually uses the present tense: e.g., ix., 6, 7, 9, eioiaaiv o't iiptic, wpoaiptpet virtp eavTOv, iwpa tc (.ai dvaiai Trpoat^ipovrai ; X., 1, dvaiaiQ as irpoaftpovaiv. Now I do not say that this is absolutely conclusive as showing that the epistle was written before the destruction of Jerusa- lem, but it is certainly a valuable indication of an early date, and should not have been obliterated. Yet our translators in such cases almost invariably substitute a past tense, as in the passages just quoted, " the priests went in," " he offered for himSelf," " were offered both gifts and sacrifices," " sacri- fices which they offered." And similarly, in ix., 18, they ren- der iyKCKaiyiarai " was dedicated," and in ix., 9, rdy Kaipov Tov tVtanjKora, " the time then present." Only in very rare in- stances do they allow the present to stand, and for the most part in such cases alone where it has no direct historical bear- ing. 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 o! aioioiieyoi. 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. St. Paul says some- times " Ye (or we) weie saved" (Uom. 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" (Horn, x., 9,13). It is important to observe this, because we are thus taught that awrripta involves a moral condition which must 00 LIQBTFOOT ON A FRMSH SEYISION OF THE N. TEST. have begun already, though it will receive its final accom- plishment hereafter. Godliness, righteousness, is life, is salva- tion. And it is hardly necessary to say that the divorce of morality and religion must be fostered and encouraged by failing to note this, and so laying the whole stress either on the past or on the future-on ihe first call or on the final change. It is therefore 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 can not but regret such a transla- tion as Acts ii., 4Y, " The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be saved, where the Greek roh otto tov Xptarov, the moral difficulty disappears when the words are correctly translated, not, as the English Version, "I coidd wish that myself were accursed for Christ," but " I could have wished," etc. ; because the imperfect itself implies that it is impossible to entertain such a wish, things being what they are. Again, in Acts XXV,, 22, i(iov\6fit)v Ka\ aiiTuz tov aydpuiirov aicovaat, the language of Agrippa is much more courteous and delicate than our English version represents it. lie docs not say "I would also hear the man myself," but " I myself also coidd have wished to hear the man," if the favor had not been too great to ask. Elsewhere our version is more accurate, e. g., Acts vii., 26, (TvyriWaaaey ai/rouc «'£ f'pfiyVi "would have set them at one aciain."* 2. If the rendering of the tenses affords wide scope for im- provement, 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 as scholarship in the correction of errors. In illustration, let me refer to the pas- sage which the great authority of Bentley brought into prora- • Here, however, our translators appear to have read avyiiXaaiv, so that their accurney is purely accidental. 92 LiaSTFOOT Oif A FRESU REVISION OF THE N. TEST. inence, and wluch has often been adduced since his time. In Rom. v., 15-19, there is a sustained contrast between "the one (o elc)" and " the many (of ttoXXo/) ;" but in the English Version the definite article is systematically omitted: "If, through the offense of one, many bo dead," and so throughout the passage, closing with, " For as by otie man^a disobediencp many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many bo made righteous." In place of any comment of my own, I will quote Bentley's words. Pleading for the correct rendering, he says : " By this accurate version some hurtful mistakes about partial redemption and absolute reprobation had been happily prevented. Our English readers bad then seen, what several of the fathers saw and testified, that ol jToXXoi, the many, in an antithesis to the one, are equivalent to iravTcc, all,ia ver. 12, and comprehend the whole multitude, the entire species of mankind, exclusive only of the one."* In other words, the benefits ot Christ's obedience extend to all men potentially. It is only human self-will which places limits to its operation. Taken in connection with a previous illustration (p. 82 seq.), this second example from the Epistle to the Romans will en- able us to estimate the amount of injury which is inflicted on St. Paul's argument by grammatical inaccuracies. Both the two great lines of doctrinal teaching respecting the Re- demption, which run tlirough this epistle — the one relating to the mode of its operation, the other to the extent of its ap- plication — are more or less misrepresented in our English Version owing to this cause. The former is obscured, as we saw, by a confusion of tenses, while the latter is distorted by a disregard of the definite article. This, however, is the usual manner of treating the article when connected with wo\\o\ and similar words; e.g., Matt, xxiv., 12, "The love oimany shall wax cold," where the pict- ure in the original is much darker ; twv ttoXKHv, " the many," the vast majority of the disciples; or again, Phil, i.,1 4, "And * Bentley's Works, iii., p. 244 (ed. Djce). FAULTS OF OBAMMAR 93 rT„;Vlr '"'"■" '" '" ^"'•'^ ^^^'"=" -»«'^e„t," where the ei.oi s even greater, for St.Paul distinctly wri es ' were ^^^<^,J^::^^^^Z 7^7. ,'"" »bf,»t . .i«,c,-, a wife, a. wl, „ „ L .^;^il*<: ,^° '."" arS t! . ^'"""""' °'" '^'' •'^'^^«"«« of the definite ai title. The d.stniction between vauoc and /, .' • common,, dis,.,.,,.,, .„a ,, , , « ^ ;2;- '^7 peotB) evo„ .0 lifelXJt2 \T'"; "1 «" »™ «■ ana, ,. „„i, rej.c.;.i2;,:;;.e «i rB.: ?;Ta"°'i mments ot the evangelists themselves (e.g., Matt, i, ] ; 94 LI9HTF00T ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE N. TEST. Mark i., 1 ; John i.,l1), no instance of this usage can be found. In the body of the narratives we read only of 6 Xpiarot, the Christ, the Messiah, whom the Jews had long expected, and who might or might not be identified with the person "Je- sus," according to the spiritual discernment of the individual. XpioToe is nowhere connected with 'IqiroCc in the Gospels with the exception of John xvii., 3, where it occurs in a prophetic declaration of our Lord, lya yivitirKumv t6v fiovoy aXriOivov Oeoi' cai Of airtareiXac 'Iri^ovv Kpiarov; nor is it used without the definite article in more than four passages, Mark ix., 41, iy oyofiari on XpcoroD eort ; Luke ii., 11, aiorljp St iariy Xpiirroc Ku- piO£ ; xxiii., 2, Xiyoyra iavToy Xpimoy ; John ix., 22, avrov ofioXo- ytltrtf Xpunoy, where the very exceptions 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 without the article. This fact points to a rule which should be- strict- ly observed in translation. In the Gospel narratives o Xpiaroc should always be rendered " the Christ," and never " Christ" simply. In some places our translators have observed' this (e.g.. Matt, xxvi., 63 ; Mark viii., 29), and occasionally they have even overdone the translation, rendering 6 Xpiarus by " that Christ," John L, 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 advantage of recognizing 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 inquiry. Matt, ii., 4, TToD 6 Xpiarot ytvyara,, "Where Christ should be born," probably all would acknowledge the advantage of substituting " the Christ ;" but would not the true significance of other passages, where the meaning is less obvious, be re- stored by the change ? Thus, in Matt, xi., 2, 6 U 'lui.^c imi- „at h TV iti'fi'iTVpiv '■» Vy ^"^ ^P^'^o"^ tlie evangelist's meann ing is not that the Baptist heard what Jesus was doing, but FAULTS OF ORAMMAS. that he was informed of one performing those works of mercy and power which the evangelic prophet had foretold as the pecal function of the Messiah.* I have studiously confined the Gospels, and excepted the evangelists' own prefaces and biough out with much greater force by understanding Z V^o. to apply to the office rather than the individual, and translatmg it "the Christ." In the genealogy of St.Matthew fb instance, where the generations are divided symmetricair; h 1 st"V >, "'■•"°' ^'^ ^^^"^^^'^^ -->« ^« --eel sra I th r? "'J''' ' "■''"^' ^^°''^ '" "^« history of Israel; the first reaching from the origin of the race to the comn^encement of the monarchy (ver. 6, « David the kinf). the second from the commencement of the monarchy to the captivity in Babylon; the third and last from the capt'w y o . the coming of the Messiah, the Christ (eV ro. Xp.J). Co„ nected with the title of the Messiah is that oUhe prophet who occiipied a large space in the Messianic horizon ofthe Jews-the prophet whom Moses had foretold, conceived by some to be the Messiah himself, by others an aUendant'u h'l .IpH .^" °°^P^««»Se only (John vii., 40) is 6 .pop',r,t, so 25 ;rf4 'f.T^'^ " ""^^•^^«'°"- I" '^'^ -st (Join I's, 20 , VI 14) Us force is weakened by the exaggerated render how httle they understood the exigencies ofthe article) our translators have offered an alternative, "Art thou a prophe " imnor ?'lf ^ *'•' P""" '""^ '^'^ "^ ^^"'^^ ^^^ihel very decla.es tha e. aur^ ,„3o.„... .av r6 .X,',pu,f.a Karoi.r,.a,, which IS rendered "For it pleased the Father that in him should all K 06 LIOBTFOOT OH A FRESH REVISION OF THE N. TEST. fullness dwell." Here an important theological term is sup- pressed by the omission of the article ; for to nXripuifia is " the fullness," " the plentitude," pleroma being a recognized ex- pression to denote the totality of the divine powers and at- ti-ibutes (John i., 16 ; Eph. i.; 23 ; iii., 19; iv., 13 ; Col. ii., 9), and one which afterwards became notorious in the specula- tive systems of the Gnostic sects. And with this fact before us, it is a question whether we should not treat to ir\i}pwfia as a quasi-personality, and translate, "In Him all the Fullness was pleased to dwell," thus getting rid of the ellipsis which our translators have supplied by the Father in italics ; but, at all events, the article must be preserved. Again, more remotely connected. with our Lord's oflSce 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 ways, but more especially in the application of the same lan- guage to the one and to the other. In most cases this iden- tity of terms is equally apparent in the English and in the Greek; but in one instance it is obliterated by a mistransla- tion of the definite article. Our Lord, in St. John's Gospel, in answer to the disciple's question, " How can we know the way?" answers, "I am the way" (xiv.,5, 6). Corresponding to this, we ought to find that in no less than four places in the Acts of the Apostles the Gospel is called " the way" ab- solutely : ix., 2, " If he found any that were of the way {lay ■Tivac cvpji Trjc oSov ovras) ;" xix., 9, " Divers believed not, but spake evil of the way;" xix., 23, "There arose no small stir about the way;" xxiv., 22, "Having more perfect knowledge of the way;" but in all these passages the fact disappears in the English Version, which varies the rendering between" this way" and " that way," but never once translates ri)v 6S6i; "the way." But more especially are these omissions of the article fre- quent in those passages which relate to the second advent FAUZTS OF GRAMMAR. and its accompanying terrors or glories Th« • ^^ this great crisis was definitelv Jl \ ""^"^'"J^ "^ apostles refer to it I„ tie P T, ''' '"'^' ^^ «"'=''' ^^e more especially St Pau^ I A ^'''^^ '"^ '^^ Thessalonians on these^opic^t^r orr-R^ 'r^^^'^ '^^^^ when I was yet with vou I fnll ^T^^^^""' ^^ ''°' *'">* ii-.5.. According!; he' apje a s /o" T '''""''" ' '^''-- t.e second adve^nt^krw^Cl^rrCr^ '''' voaled," where our vZfon makf ,'"' ''" '^"' °'«'" ^'^ '- away,"",/., „,„ of s^" u 1 1 t:,:^^"'' 7' "" '^"'"= lates 6 &,.o,o, «,,«, wicked'' h stead of. trT °"" '' '""^■ •Ja-'y in the Epistle to the Sr^ T H: •"•" -f "; Abraham in the original that"ir,> }1\ a/ ' " ''*"^ °^ hath the foundations uTJ' \ "^'^ ^°' "'' '^'y ^^ich X.^)." A definite imaiterri;:.^^ 'r'"" '^""^ "'- "•ind of the new Jerullemn '^" '"'''^ '^""^''^ Apocalypse, "The Tlo The ctid t'^ f "f ^' '" ''' and in them the names nfZ T ^, '^*^''^ foundations, garnished with all manner of,., ^^ '"'J' ^^'e Beq.).* But in our rson fr ""; ^'°"-.' '^^-" (-i-, 10 -eaning, and Abrahan i „, de T", ."; ™'''^'' "' ^'"^'^ hathfoundations"-a sen ele^s ! ^"" "" '''y ^^^'^^ out them. Again in the a "7'"'''°'''^°' "° '^i'y is with- more than onfe d srelaicd":^/"' • '^ '^'"''^ ^'''^'^ « Take, for instance, vi,.T2?./ opyii tit reXoc, where the definite article is correctly reproduced in our ver- sion, " For the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost." From these passages it appears that ^ opyi), "the wrath," used absolutely, signifies the divine^ retribution ; and the force of St, Paul's injunction in Rom. xii., 19, Ion tokov rp dpyp is this : "Do not avenge yourselves: do not anticipate the divine retribution ; 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 represent. In the same way, TO diXTifia is the divine will (Rom. ii., 18, ytviiantis to BiXtf /jo),* and TO ovofia the divine name (PhiL ii., 9, to ovofia to virtp * This word OiXtjita came to be so appropriated to the divine will that it is sometimes nsed in this sense even without the definite article ; e. g.,Ignat., Horn., 1, lavieip 9i\jiiia y tov KaTaKiodijvai pe (the correct text) ; Ephes., 20, lav pi KaraUbiay 'Itiaoit Xpuniic Iv Tf wpoaivxy vpHv itai OiXjjpa y; Smi/rn., 1, v'liv 8iov tard 9i\tiita ca> iuvapai [ecoii] (where 6(ov is doubtful). These passages point to the true interpretation of 1 Cor.xvi.,12,ouK fiv BiXcpa 'iva vvv l\9y, IXtiairai ii orav luicaipjjay, which is (I believe) univers- ally interpreted as in our English Version, "his will was not to come," but which ought to be explained, "It was not God's will that he should come." They dso indicate, as I believe, the true reading in Bom.xv.,32,iVa Iv vapS i\Bu irpbs iiiae M SiXq/taroc, where varioos additions appear in the FAULTS OF ORAMMAM. 99 our tilt ^" *'^'r' P""^'' '°"^^'"-' '' " ""^-^ t° <=harge name "1 r " "'""'"'^ ""''^""^' "^^^ ^- - name, for the.r mcorrect text omitted the article; but to . o.o,„ .s the true reading, and it is superfluous to rem rk how much 18 gained thereby. ^ In other passages, where no doctrinal considerations are nvo ved, a h.stoncal incident is misrepresented or the mea latin rfth"-; T '^"'■'^' ''^ '""^ -^^"'-^ - '^^ --tr an . euphemism of to .pay^a, when speaking of sins of the flesh any ma tei {e. r. ^pay^zan), where the sin of dishonest train ■s substuuted for the sin of unbridled sensuality brth mi selves to be clear m this matter (.V rji .piy^an) " Jhere though the perversion is much less con;ideraSe, a sllhUy mfde to sav "I t; t 1^""' '" ' ^"'•- "' '' ^"^'^^ ^tPaul is epistle 01 letter"), the mistranslation of tV tH l^.^nX- h/, an .mportant bearing on the interpretatil o/l^Ts Tio^ tTT . '^"- ""•' '''"' ^^^■'•^^ Titus, and with hin^ I sen" disc::„t f ''''''^^'' '"^^ -•- ^^^^ to the diflic^u; „' tte wriZ fT'T™"'' °'®'^"^''^ ^'^'^g^t- P--0- to i? 10 1 .. ""■• ^"-^ '" ""='' '•''"^-■"SB - John Israel? ^fJioy.iu.,n,,i,Ji,^^^,^^^^ ..^ l^adful tt '"' -'--^•^."though'^there is no Utal .^ s In anoth ^T^'" i°" ''" *'^^"- ''''' ^y '^'^ o-i-ion. archl^r ;■ f '' "f P^^^-Ses some fact of geography or a.ch«ology lurks under the definite article, such as couH ZX-ZT'"" ''' ^^" ^^^" ^^^-^'"-' - -^-- one mtimately acquamted with the circumstances. In al- 100 LIQBTFOOT ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE N TEST. mo8t 'every instance of this kind tlie 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, iri John xii., 13, "They took branches of palm-trees," the original has ra ^ata tS,v ^mvlmv, ''the branches oithe palm-trees"— the trees with which the evangelist himself was so familiar, which clothed the eastern slopes of the Mount of Olives, and gave its name to the vil- latre of Bethany, " the house of dates." Thus, again, in the Acta (ix.,35),the words translated "Lydda and Saron" are ^{.l^a Ka\ Thy 2apa,.a, " Lydda and the Sharon,"* the former being the town, the latter the district in the neighborhood, and therefore having the definite article in this, the only pas- . sage in which-it occurs in the New Testament, as it always has in the Old Testament, Hash- sharon, Uhe Sharon," the woody plain, just as we talk of "the weald," "the downs, etc t A-ain, there is mention of " the pinnacle (to xr.puy.o.) of the Te°mple" in the record of the temptation (Matt, iv., 5 ; Luke iv 9)-the same expression 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 "the .npn.o.;"t bo that (whatev- er may be the exact meaning of the word translated pmna- cle") some one definite place is meant, and the impression conveyed to the English reader by " a pinnacle" is radically note of Ongen (.r;, "vh "« i- r ,. » contrast to this uncon- ':;':\::^:tS!^^oto:^- '•>« "". ^-^ -' understanding the presence "S'Xtlustration is Mr. GroWs, in Smith's Dictionary of t,e Bllle, s. v. ^"IT^ ,1, TT F ii 23,aTneioiulirlTb^Tipiy">^TOvUpov...lonioap TQv vaov. FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 101 wrong. Again, in the history of the cleansing of the Tem- ple, the reference to the seats of them that sold " the doves" (rac wepiiTTepas) in two evangelists (Matt, xxi., 12; Mark xi., 15) indicates the pen of a narrator who was accustomed to the sight of the doves which might be purchased within the sacred precincts by worshipers intending to ofier the purifi- catory offerings enjoined by the Mosaic law (Luke ii., 24). In like manner, "the bushel" and ".the candlestick" in the Ser- mon on the Mount (Matt, v., 15 ; comp. Mark iv., 21 ; Luke xi., 33) point to the simple and indispensable furniture in ev- ery homely Jewish household. And elsewhere casual allu- sions to "the cross-way" (Mark xi.,4),"the steep" (Mark v., 13, "a sleep place," A.V), "the synagogue" or "our syna- gogue" (Luke vii., 5, "He hath built us a synagogue," A.V.*), and the like — which are not unfrcquent^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 connected with the Lake of Galilee — which deserve special attention, but which, nev- ertheless, do not appear at all to the English reader. Most students of the New Tcstament^havc had their atten- tion called to the fact that our Lord, before delivering the discourse which we call " the Sermon on the Mount," is re- corded to have gone up, not " into a mountain," but " into the mountain" (to £poe), Matt, v., 1 ;f and they have been taught * In Acts xvii., 1 , also, where the A.V. has " Thessalonica, wliere was a synagogue of the Jews," our translators certainly read otou ?Ji' >/ mivayuiyri, though the article must be omitted in the Greek, if a strong combination of the oldest authorities is to have weight. t Dean Stanley (^Sinai and Palestine, p. 3C1), supporting the traditional site of the "Mount of Beatitudes," writes, " None of the other mountains in the neighborhood could answer equally well to this description, inasmuch as they are merged into the uniform barrier of hills round the lake, whereas this stands separate — ' the mountain,' which alone could lay claim to a distinct name, with the one exception of Tabor, which is too distant to answer the re- quirement." If the view which I have taken in the text be correct, this " uni- form barrier of hills" would itself be rb upoc : at all events, the fact that to opof is the common expression in the evangelists shows that the definite ar- ticle does not distinguish the locality of the Sermon on the Mount from those 102 UQBTFOOT ON A. FRESH MEVISION OF THE N. TEST. to observe also that StLuke (vi., 17), in describing the locali- ty where a discourse very similar to St. Matthew's Sermon on the Mount is held, says, " He came down with them and stood," not (as our English Version makes him say) " in the plaiti" (as if tV rj* veSi^), hut "on a level place" {itI rdirow ire- Sivov), 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 ab- sence in the other, the two accounts are so far brought into accordance that the description of the localities, at all events, ofiers 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 invariably use rd 6poc* and never ^c or TO opt), either of which, at first sight, would have seemed more natural. The probable explanation of this fact is, that TO opoc stands for the mountain district — the hills as opposed to the level shores — more especially as the corresponding He- brew ifin is frequently so used, and in such cases is trans- lated TO opoc in the LXX. : e. g., " the mountain of Judah," "the mountain of Ephraim," Josh, xvii., 16 ; xix., 50; xx., 7, etcf But, whatever may be the explanation, the article ought to be retained throughout. Only less persistentj is the presence of the article in " the ofBCreral other incidents in this neigliborbood, though possibly the independ- ent reasons in favor of the traditional site may be sufficient without this aid. * The only exceptions, I Believe, to the insertion of the definite article are in the cases of the temptation (Matt, iv., 8 [Luke iv., 5]) and of the transfig- Dration (Matt, xvii., 1 ; Mark ix., 2), in all which passages the expression is fi'c Spot v\fni\ov [Ai'ax]. t It is no objection to this interpretation that St. Luke twice uses the more classical expression ij bpuvri in speaking of the hill-country of Judiea: i., 39, 66. Wherever he treads on the same ground with St. Matthew and St. Mark, be has r* opot. The portion of his narrative in which q ipuvq occurs Is de- rived from some wholly independent source. X The common text, however, inserts the article in a few passages 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., 1 j vi., 30, 45). In Matt, xiv., 13, Iv jrXo.'v is read by all the ancient authorities which have the words at all. In cases FAULTS OF OSAMMAM. .103 If rlrf '^ wl '" '=°°°^'=*'«° ^'tl» the navigation of the Sea of Gahiee. Whatever may be the significance of this fact- whether :t s.mp.y bears testimony to the vivldne s w th wh.ch each scene m succession presented itself to the fi st narrator or narrators, or whether some one well-known btt was intended (as the narrative of John vi 22 s 1 " ;T. gest)-the article ought to have been p'.; . J ^'f.^^f glish Version ; whereas in this case, as in the last th. f r-'frth'^^" ':'-'' -^ '^ ^--^^z:z • ■-, , ^ «*ppedi nist m connection with a fi«ci. Yet, on the other hand, where this phenomenon appears in the original Gi.ek, that is, where an object is indefinUe w ^ first introduced and becomes definite after its first menUon our t.ansators have frequently disregarded this "commo i! Bense rule, and departed from the Greek. Thus in the ac that one of the ma.d-servants (^/a roi. na.U.u,.) of the hiC icai tifiiv Triareiaaaiv tn'i tov Kvptoy, " God gave them the like gift as he did unto us toho believed on the Lord;" 1 Cor. viii.,10,11, »/ avviilriai!: aiirov aaOevove ot^ roc .... Tvirroyres avTuv Tijy miytihrimv aadcfovaav, The con- science of him that ia weak . . . wound their weak conscience ;" 2 Cor. viiL,19, irpoc riiy afcroD tov Kvptov lo^av, "To the glory o{the same Lord ;" 1 Tim. vi., 2, iriarol t'laiy xai ayajrijroJ 01 Ttje tiiepyealai: amXa/ijSdcdfjcj'oi, "They are faithful and beloved, partakei-B of the benefit ;" ib., vi., 5, vofui;6vTb)v iropiafioy ihai ■ Tify fW/Stiaf, " Supposing that gain is godliness;" 2 Tim. ii., 19,0 fiiyroi trrcpiog difiiXtos tov Biov tipovmy,"Wlth those sacrifices which they oflfered;" Rev. xix.,9,oSm ol X X«x'"'c i, .a.d«t.oc .al i,aly,.y, in which our Lord describes the Bap- tist, 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 attained by a fla- grant disregard of the articles. Commentators have correctly pointed out that John is here called 6 Xvx.oc, « the lamp ; he was n6t r6 ^oc, "the light" (i., 8);* for Christ himself, and • Here again (i., 8) much is lost in the English Version by rendering oi. Hy Myoc rb ^ &,^6fia,yf to discover that by the "wicked hands," or rather " lawless hands," is meant the instrumentality of the fivo/io(, the heathen Romans, whom the Jews addressed by St. Peter had used as their tools to compass our Lord's death. And a-ain, such renderings as Gal. iii., 19, "ordained by angels {Lrayut hi Ayyao,v),-and Ephes. iii., 10, « might be known by • I have taken x'.p-v as the readinR which our translators had before them Bat the correet text is unquestionably l.A X"POC avo,u.v,"by the hand of lawless men," which brings out the sense st.ll more clearly. FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 109 the Church {yvwpioQ^ Ita rtjc iKKXrialat, i. €., might be made known througli the Church) the manifold wisdom of God," are quite misleading. It was not, however, for the sake of such isolated examples as these that I entered upon this dis- cussion. There are two very important classes of passages, in which the distinction between vno {and) and Sia is very im- portant, and in which, therefore, this ambiguity is much to be regretted. The first of these has reference to Inspiration. Wherever the sacred writers have occasion to quote or to refer to the Old Testament, they invariably apply the preposition iia, as denoting instrumentality, to the lawgiver, or the prophet, or the psalmist, while they reserve vvo, as signifying the primary motive agency, to God himself. This rule is, I belier\'e, uni- versal. Some few exceptions, it is true, occur in the received text, but all these vanish when the readings of the older au- thorities are adopted ;* and this very fact is significant, be- cause it points to a contrast between the persistent idea of the sacred writers themselves and the comparative indifier- ence of their later transcribers. Sometimes ha occurs alone, e. g.. Matt, xxi., 4, ro prjOev iiix TOV npoipliTov; xxiv., 15, TO pr)6ty iia AavifiX, etc. ; sometimes in close connection with vw6, e. g., Matt, i., 22, TO prjOtv vnu Kvpiov Sia tov irpoijx'iTov (comp. ii., 15). It is used, moreover, not only when the word is mentioned as spoken, but 9lso when it is mentioned as written; e. g.. Matt. 'u.,5,ouTii) yap yiypavrai Sia tov irpo(j>iiTov ; Luke xviii., 31, n-d»Ta Ta yiypajifiiva Ota tUv irpofriTiiv. Yet this significant fact is wholly lost to the English reader. * In Matt, ii., 17; iii. ,3, the readings of the received text are iiwo 'lipi/ilov, inb 'Haatov respectively, but all the best critical editions read ^id in both places, following the preponderance of ancient authority. In Matt, xxvii., 35; Mark xiii., 14, the clauses containing iirb in this connection are inter- polations, and are stn^ck out in the best editions. In all these four passages our A.V. has "by," though the translators had viro in their text, and (following their ordinary practice) should have rendered it "of." Tyndale,who led the way, probably having no distinct grammatical conception of the difference of iini and Sta, followed his theological instinct herein, and thus extracted the right sense out of the false reading. 1 10 LIOETFOOT ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE N. TEST. The other class of passages has a still more important the- ological 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 hd ; e. g., John i.,3,10,ira»'ra ii avTOv iyivtTO . . . o KoafioQ Si alrrov iyiycTo; 1 Cor. viii., 6, iIq Kvpioc 'IijffoDc Xpiirroc S»' o5 ra TraiTO Kai hfieic 2«' ahrov', Col. i., , 16, Ta irayra Si' ai/rov icai tic alrov to-iorai; Heb. i., 2, 5i' ov cat iirolriaEV roue aiufac; 11., 10, Si ov ra TraiTa xai ti ov to. Travra. In all such passages the ambiguous " by" is a serious obsta- cle to the understanding of the English reader. In the Ni- cene Creed itself, the expression " By whom {?i' ol) all things were made," even when it is seen that the relative refers not to the Father, but to the Son (and the accidental circumstance that the Father is mentioned just before misleads many pei-- Bons on this point), yet fails to suggest any idea difiercnt from the other expression in the Creed, "Maker of heaven and earth," which had before been applied to the Father. The perplexity and confusion are still further increased by the indistinct rendering, " God of God, Light of Light," etc., for Gtoc IK 0EoD, .c ^X^oyicaca as It „ ^Xtoy^^a^a x&pn; (2.) rendering rHy nXa6yo>y as if ^oX- X^y; (3.) giving the wrong sense to Sm with the accusative- Heb. IV., 1, "Bringing forth herbs meet for them by whom it IS dressed (S.' otc yeupyurai)." Yet in Rom. viii.,l l, " Ho shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth m you," our translators were apparently alive to the differ- ence of signification in the various readings Sm roD lyoi.ovyrot ±J 112 LIOHTFOO'r ON A FJRESB REYISION OF THE N. TEST. . . . vftifiaroc and Sia to ivoiKovi' . . . wvivfta, for they add in the margin, " Or, because of his Spirit." In translating the other prepositions also there is occasion- al laxity. Thus iirl rdv yttjicXSiv is rendered " in the clouds" (Matt, xxiv., 30 ; xxvi., 64), though the imagery is marred thereby, and though the mention of " him that sat on the cloud (tTrirqc yt ''°' '^'^ ^^<"°^ '^'^""''^ Xp. ' ^ i„ the book of Moses how in the bush old ™kr ;nthh„?"reCng idea conveyed in .he English Version arises God spake pmoniinr mistranslation of the preposition. mhVo^S^r o? hllitd i trusted, our translators would have seen lZ::%hro.n.Z,n^n J the pas..^ ^f^^.^nrh-i. of"S passagecalled *« ^•-•^"(-"P, ;/J^„'''g''^eX;g''o/Elias"). Strangely ■■Han ,. M nd m *• >«•' "i"™" „ V ..nd-iS oto.rA.il.or- translfltiong "besides the bush." FAULTS OF QSAMMAR. 113 Hiiiiv {('c, as 1 Cor. i.,13, " Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul (ti'c 7-0 ovofxa IlauXou) ?" 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 unto John's baptism," nevertheless, when it occurs a third time, it is .wrongly translated, "When they heard this, they were bap- tized in the name (eis to ovofia) of the Lord Jesus." On the other hand, in Rom. vi, 3 ; 1 Cor. x., 2 ; xii., 13 ; Gal. iii., 27, the preposition is duly respected. Again, though the influence of the Hebrew and Aramaic has affected the use of tV, so that it can not 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, oila Kot iriiriiafiai Iv Kvpi^ 'Iijo-ow, " I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus;" 1 Cor. xii.,13, ral yap tv ivl TlvivfiaTi I'lfii'ic 7rd»T£c tic Iv auifia t^avTiaOrtiitv, " For by one Spir- it are we all baptized into one body," the Hebraic or instru- mental sense of tV is indefensible. Lastly, even prepositions with such well-defined meanings as avo and Ivip are not always respected ; as, for example, in 2 Thess. ii., 1 , 2, " No w wc beseech you, brethren, by (yirip) the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering to- gether unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind {avu rod vooe) ;" while elsewhere vapa is similarly ill treated, 1 Pet. ii., 4, "Disallowed indeed of men (Ifo ay6pinriav),\)\xi chosen of God (jrapa Gfy CKXtKroy)." Under these three heads the most numerous grammatical errors of our version fall. But other inaccuracies of divers 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 history will know how perplexing is the statement in our English Version of Luke iii., 23, that Jesus, after his bap- tism, "began to be about thirty years of age." But the orig- 114 LIQHTFOOT ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE N TEST. inal need not and (in fact) can not mean this ; for ^i- Apxo/Jfoc riKTri irHv rp^Uovra must be translated "was about thirty years old when he began" {i. e., at the commencement of his public life, his ministry) ; where i,«A 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 Josephus compared with St. Matthew's narrative seem to require that ' our Lord should have been somewhat more than thirty years old at the time. Again, such a translation as Phil, iv., 3, aw- \aul3iyov airaTc aJn.ec . . • evyfiOM'^y ,io.,"Help those women which labored 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 airevSo^rac „). ^apovolay rij, roD Ocou VP'-E. "Hasting unto the coming of the day of God," can not stand, and the alternative sug- gested 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, Iralpe, i^' S rrapti. Friend, wherefore art thou come?" is not warranted by New-Testa- ment usage, though here our translators are supported by many modern commentators, and the expression must be treated as an aposiopesis, " Friend, do that for which thou art come."t Again, our translators have on more than one oc- casion ndulged in the grammatical fiction oUlypaUage, ren- dering .po. L V,).. r,. xP-'-c, " for the use of _eMy-g| J Ephes. iv., 29, and A^.'mc ri. n,c apx*»C ro. Xp.^ro. Xoyoj "^k vi 1) " leaving the principles of the doctrme of Christ In ioih of these passages, however, there is a marginal note. FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 115 though in the first the alternative ofiered " to edify profita- bly" slurs over the difliculty. Such grammatical deformities ■ as these should be swept away. Neither, again, should we tolerate such a rendering as 1 Cor. xii., 28, avTtX^fi^uc, icvfiep- vijatK, " helps in governments,"* where the original contem- plates two distinct functions, of which ayn\rifi\pci{ would ap- ply mainly to the diaconate and Kvfiepviiaetc to the presbytery, but where our translators have had recourse to the grammat- ical fiction oi Hendiadys. A somewhat similar instance to the last, where two detached words are combined in defiance of the sense, is 1 Cor. xvi., 22, "Let him be Anathema Maian- atha," where doubtless the words should be separated; i/rw aff'tOefia' Mapav aOd, " Let him be anathema. Maran Atha" {i. e., " 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 the word (t>(TTijpcg iv Koafi^, " 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 (j)aivt(rOe).\ When • This is the rendering in the edition of IGll ; but the preposition was struck out in the Cambridge edition of 1037 (and possibly earlier), and the text is commonly printed " helps, governments," but without any authority. t Again, in Rev. xviii., 23, pic Xixvov ov /«) pavy Iv ao'i In, if the word was accentuated as a passive (^ai'p) in the text used by our translators, as was probably the case, they have rendered it incorrectly, " The light of the 116 LIQHTFOOT ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE N. TEST. they have gone so far wrong in a Bimple matter of inflection, it is not surprising that syntactic considerations should have been overlooked, and that they should not have recognized the proper distinction between ^aiVo/iai elme, "I appear to be," and ^a/vo/ioi &v, " Tam seen to be." Of this error they are guilty in Matt, vi., 10, 18, vkuq fav&aiv roTc avdpinroiQ vr]a- TtuoiTtCi oiruyt fti) ^avpc ro7c a»'0ji)(iTOic vtartvuv, " 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 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 consid- ered here. If hitherto attention has been directed to the ig- norance or disregard of Greek grammar in our translators, it may be well to, point out instances in which they have attempted to improve the original, where the connection is loose or the structure ungraramatical. This happens most frequently where past aud present tenses are intermingled in the original ; e.g., Matt, iii., 15, 16, o 'Jritroic tJrrev irpis avTov . . . Tore atTiaiv aiiroi' . . . cai /JairrKrOflc 6 'IijiroCc dvt/3ij, where, for the sake of symmetry, atpivf is translated suffered; or Mark xiv., 53, 54, xal airityayov tov 'hioovv . . . koI avi'ipxot- rai aury ira«TCC . . . ral o Iltrpoc cWo fiaKpoBev ijKoXoufli/iTf J- aurjl, where, for the same reason, avvipxovrai is given were assembled. In all such cases there is no good reason for departing from the original. This is not a question of the idiom in different languages, but of the style of a particular author; and pe- culiarities of style should, as far as possible, be reproduced. candle shall thiw no more in thee ;" but here Lachmnnn and others read the active «avo. In Rev. viii., 12, they read -paivy, and rightly translated it "Bhone-" but modern critical editors substitute divojri,>pivoQ in Jude 12, "Trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit {SivSpa arently not written till the fourth century, still it seems highly improbable that the writer should have derived this sense of the word solely from St. Jude. If he did so, it only shows how fixed this in- terpretation had become before his time. (4.) The extreme violence of the metaphor, " rocks in your feasts of charity," is certainly not favorable to the interpretation which it is proposed to substitute. And (5.) though this ar- gument must not be pressed, yet the occurrence of viriXoi rai fiUpoi in the parallel passage (2 Pet. ii., 13) must be allowed some weight in determining the sense of airiKaiiQ here. t I have quoted the passage as it stands in the received text, Iv toIq aira- raic, but 2 V raif ayaitaiQ is read by Lachmann and Tregelles, as in Jude 1 2. X See Ewald, Gesch. de$ V. Isr., v., p. 322 ; Derembourg, L'Histoire de la Palestine, p. 238. This is a common tei'mination of names of sects when 122 LIOHTFOOT ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE N. TEST. and this being so, it is somewhat strange that our translators should have gone astray on the word, seeing that the Greek form for "SSJa, " Canaanite," is invariably spelt correctly with an X corresponding to Caph, 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 a (Matt. x„ 4), thus fixing the reference to Canaan.* Grecized ; e. g., 'kaaiiaioq, *aptamot, ^aliovKaXos, 'Eaaalos (Hegesippus in Enaeb., H. E., n., 28). This fact seems to have escaped Meyer when he points to the termination as showing that Kavava'tos denotes the name of a place, ond thus exhibits a false tradition, while the true account is preserved in the :^Xur4f of St.Lnke. Indeed, the formation otKavavawe from Kanan is exactly analogous to that of *apiffaTot from Pharish, or 'Aaailaios from Hhasid. Meyer confesses himself at a loss to name any place to which he can refer Kavavaioc. In the Pcshito Kavavaioc is translated r^jAlD, but Xavavntoc (l&, where the difference of the initial letter and the insertion of the S. in the lat- ter word show thot in this version the forms were not confounded. • To this list of false derivations some would add eardvufic in Kom. xi., 8, where irvtv/ia raravuSfut is rendered "the spirit of slumber," though with the marginal alternative remorse ; but I doubt whether Archbishop Trench is right in saying (p. 1C3) that " our translotors must have derived Karavv^ti from vvoTaluv, as many others have done." The fact is, that Karavvaaiw, raro'w&c,«re frequently used in the LXX. to translate words denoting heavy Bleep, silence, amazement, and the like, e.g., Levit. x. , 3 ; Psa. iv. , 5 ; xxx. , 13 ; XXXV., 15 ; Isa. vi., 5 ; Dan. x., 9 ; and in the very passage to which St. Paul here refers, Isa. xxix., 10, icardv«?if represents the Hebrew naTnn, " deep sleep." The idea of numbness is the connecting link between prick- ing, wounding, ond stupor, heavy sleep. Fritzsche (TJom., ii., p. 558 seq.) has an important excursus on the word, but is not always happy in his explana- tion of the LXX. renderings. The earlier English versions generally adopt- ed the more Uternl meaning of icaru)Tiai^6v Tov tia yytXiow, " Lest the light of the Gospel . . . should shine unto them," where indeed the fault was not with the trans- lators, but with the reading, since, having ni/roTc in their text, they had no choice but to translate the words so ; but when avroic is Struck out (as it should be), a different sense ought perhaps to be given to aiyaopriiJiiru)v in Luke i., I, probably means " fulfilled" rather than " most surely believed," as in the latter sense the passive is used only of the persons con- vinced, and not of the things credited. On the other hand, it is not certain whether jSairrafeiv means "to carry off, to steal," in John xii., 6, ra /SaXXo/itca ifiaara^iy, or whether the English Version "bare what was put therein" should stand. In another class of words, the English rendering, while it catf not be called incorrect, is vague or inadequate, so that . the exact idea of the original is not represented, or the sharp- ness of outline is blurred. This defect will be most obvious in metaphors. For instance, in Rom. vi., 13, where orXa aSi*.- I'ac J8 rendered "instruments of unrighteousness" instead of arms or weapons (which, however, is given as an alternative in the margin), we fail to recognize the image of military service rendered to Sin as a great king (ver. 12, p) jiaaiKtviToi) who enforces obedience {maKoiitiv) and pays his soldiery in the coin of death (verse 23, r'a difivia rijc a/iopn'ac Oavaroi). * See especially Trench-, Authorized Version, p. 95. FAULTS OF LEXICOQRAPHT. 125 Again, the rendering of Col. ii., 5, IfiHv riiv ra^tv i.ai to aripcui- fia Ttjc tic XpioToj' viaTtiDc l/iuiv, " Your order and the steadfast- ness of your faith in Christ," fails to suggest the idea of the close phalanx arrayed for battle which is involved in the orig- inal;* and similarly in 2 Cor. x., 5,nav v\pufia tiraipofuvoy mra rijc yviiawQ tov Qiov, our translators, in rendering the words "Every high thing that exalleth itself ag&m&l the knowledge of God," appear not to have seen that this expression contin- ues the metaphor of the campaign {oTpaTivofiiBa) and the, for- tresses (oxvpi^/iara) in tlie context, and that the reference is to the siege-works thrown vp for the purpose of attacking the faith. Again, the metaphor of KaTavapKav is very inadequate- ly given in 2 Cor. xi., 9, "I was chargeable to no man," and in xii., 13,. 14, "I was not, I will not be, burdensome to any one;" and the "thorn in the flesh" in the English Version of 2 Cor. xii., 7 has suggested interpretations of St. Paul's mal- ady, which the original ot^oKo^, "a stake," does not counte- nance, and is almost as wide of the mark as the Latin stim- ulus carnis, 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 inadequate rendering. Other examples also, where no metaphor is involved, might be multiplied. Thus, in Matt, ix.,16; Mark ii., 21, it is difficult to see why our translators should have abandoned the natu- ral expression "undressed cloth," which occurs in the Geneva Testament as a rendering of pa*.-oc ayvaipoy, for " new cloth," contenting themselves with putting "raw or 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 xi^poc, but ^wpioi' ; not a place, but " a parcel of ground" (as it is rendered in John iv., 5), an inclosure, a field or garden, and thus corresponds more closely to i;i}7rof, by which St. John describes the same locality, though with- out mentioning the name (xviii.,1). In Acts i., 3, oTrrai'd/iEi'oc * 1 Mace, ix., 14, lUtv 'loiSac 'in BokxHic «<«' to OTtpiuiia Tijt wapifi- jSoXqc Iv rolf tiitoXs. 126 LIOETFOOT ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE N. TEST. avTois should not have been translated " being seen of them," for the emphatic word oTTTaveadat, which does not occur else- where in the New Testament, expresses much more than this, and "ahoioing himself unto them" would be a better, though still an inadequate rendering. In Rom. ii., 22, o fihXvaaofitvos ra ciSwXa IcpoavXite, the inconsistency of the man who plun- ders a heathen temple while professing 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 itpo(rv\e'i{, more especially as in most of the earlier versions it was translated " robbest God of his honor." In Acts xiv., 13, "Then the priest of Jupiter which was before the city brought oxen and garlands unto the gates," the En- glish reader inevitably thinks of the city gates ; but as the Greek has iruXwvac, not iruXac, the portal, or gateway, or vesti- bule of the Temple is clearly meant. This was seen by Tyn- dale, who quaintly translates it " the church porch." In Acts xvii., 29, St. Paul, addressing an audience of heathen philoso- phers, condescends to adopt the language familiar to them, and speaks of r6 di'tov — an expression which does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament ; but in the English render- ing " Godhead" this vague philosophical term becomes con- crete and precise, as though it had been Otorijc in the original. In Acts xiii., 50, and elsewhere, ol mfiofitvoi, al trcliofievm, by which St. Luke always means " proselytes, worshipers of the one God," are translated " devout ;" and hence the strange statement (which must perplex many an English reader) that "the Jews stirred up the devout and honorable women . . . and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas." In 2 Cor. xiii., 11, Karoprifeffflt is rendered '^ he perfect" and in the 9th verse, t>)v vfiHv KaTapnatv, " youT perfection ;" but the context shows that in these parting injunctions St. Paul reiterates the leading thought of the Epistles, exhorting the Corinthians to compose their differences; and this is the meaning of 1 Cor. i., 10, JJTt Si KaTJipritTfiivot iv ry avr^ vot, where it 18 better rendered " jhat ye be perfectly joined together, etc." Lastly, THEATMENT OF PROPER NAMES, ETC. jgy in 1 Tim iii., 3 j Tit. i., 1, ^^ .<;,„,,„, ;, translated '■ not given to wine;" but m the first passage this idea is already ex pressed by .,^a.o., and, natural as the more obvious render- ing might seem, the usage oinupo^.o, elsewhere shows that it denotes "a brawler," "a .ua^eUome person" (wh h s the alternative meaning offered in the margin). I will close this section with an illustration, of which it is de. the head of lexicography or of grammar. Afifiara is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew word for «a sabhath"; t ten out m Greek letters. Appearing i„ this form, it is natural.^ dec! ned as a pluraUri/3/3„.a, .a/5/5c5..., but nevertheless re tains us proper meaning as a singular. How widely this form was known, and how strictly it preserved its foL a a ingular. will appear from Horace's « Hodie tricesima sah- bata. In our version of the New Testament, whenever the meaning ,s unmistakable it is translated as a singular fc e Matt, xii.. Ill; Mark i., 21 ; ii., 23 ; iii., 2 ; Act^ xiii. l'^ ■ but where the sense is doubtful a plural rendering is mostly preferred(e.g.,Matt.xii.,5,ip,12; Mark iii., 4). In all these cases, however, it is much better treated as a singular in ac- cordance with the sense which it bears in the same contexts • and in such a passage as Col. ii., 10, .V ,lp,, V/c 5 .ec,r,.ial ya/3/3„r<-v, the plural "sabbath- days" is obviously out of place, as co-ordinated with two singular nouns. The onlv passage in the New Testament where ad/?/3ara is distinctly plural ,s Acts xvii., 2, U\ <,,i/3/3ara rpia, wlieie it is defined by the numeral. ■^ §6. Over and above the ordinary questions of trauslatibn, there IS a particular class of words which presents special difficul- ties and needs special attention. Proper names, official titles, technical terms, which, as belonging to one language and one nation, have no direct equivalents in another, must obviously be treated in an exceptional way. Are they to be reproduced M 128 LIOHTFOOT ON A FRESB REVISION OF THE N. TEST. as they stand in the original, or is the translator to give the terms most nearly corresponding to them in the language of his version? Is he to adopt the policy of despair, or the policy of compromise? Or may he invoke either principle according to the exigencies of the case? and, if so, what laws can be laid down to regulate his practice and to prevent caprice ? Of this class of words, proper names are the least difficult to deal with ; and yet even these occasionally offer perplex- ing problems. The general principles on which our translators proceeded in this matter are twofold. First, where no familiar English form of a name existed, they retained the form substantially as they found it. In other words they reproduced the Hebrew or Chaldee forni in the Old Testament, and the Greek in the New. Secondly, where a proper name had been adopted into the English language, and become naturalized there with some modification of form, or where the person or place M'as commonly known in English by. a name derived from some other language, they adopted this English equivalent, how- ever originated. Instances of English equivalents arrived at by the one process are Eve, Herod, James, John, Jude, Luke, Ma'gdalene, Mary, Peter, Pilate, Saul, Stephen, Zebedee, Italy, Rome, etc. ; of the other, Assyria, Ethiopia, Euphrates, Idu- mea, Mesopotamia, Persia, Syria, etc., Artaxorxes, Cyrus, Da- rius, etc., for Asshur, Gush, Phrath, Edom, Aram-Naharaim, Pharas, Aram, etc., Arta-chshashta, Coresh, Daryavcsh, etc., in the Old Testament,* the more familiar classical forms being substituted for the less familiar Hebrew ; and of Diana, Ju- piter, Mercurius, for Artemis, Zeus, Hermes, in the New, the more familiar Latin being substituted for the less familiar • In this, however, there is great inconsistency. Tlius we have Cush in Isa. xi.,ll,but Ethiopia in xviii., 1, etc.; Edom in Isa.xi.,14; lxiii.,l,but Idumea in xxxiv., 6, 6 ; Asshur in Hos. xiv., 4, but Assyria elsewhere in this same prophet ; Jnvan in Isa. Ixvi. , 1 9, but Greece or Grecia in the other proph- ets ; and so with other words. TREATMENT OF PROPER NAMES. ETC. Greek ; while in some few cases, e. ^., E-r^nt Tvm * , J? was so ordered • «Tho ^„ l- . translators it tooul?;„^:;;°t:tot':r^^ fi.st asserted.'^? rei :nL7er "'""'°°^' ^'^^^ mentioned in the Old Te tamen if ™'"°"' '^' P"-^°"« far as they were known at Tin .^ r"""""'^ ''"»^" («« Vulgate fJrms ThuTo h ^ ""^^ '^' ^^Vi^^^gint and Ahal,Sobna;orS?ebnahErsV''°;n°;:t''"'"'^'^^'^^ Roboam for Rehoboiri f 7 ^''•"''' ^''^'"« ^°' ^lisha, Obadiah, Jt^^tt:^:,^^SST^'f''- '- generallv retainpfl . I,,.* • .i. , "^ ^ ^'"'^ "'ese forms are Lmeiahu,andlechezchel TM, . P^'"' ^' J^^^^iahu, never reached by any of our E „ST' Point. however, was tbe Geneva BibL, tL nal ^f t ^ T' ''"'^""'•" „Y^,. ""^^ "' '■be patriarchs are written ; inthe01d?c7tal'n7'™'""''"'''"^''*'"'^'''"''"''^.«"d^i'''"utanyrnle, 130 LIQHTFOOT ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE N. TEST. Izhak and laakob, and in the Bishops' Bible we meet with such forms as Amariahu, Zachariahu. This tendency was not left unassailed. Gregory Martin, in his attack on the " English Bibles used and authorized since the time of the schism," published at Rheims in 1582, writes as follows : Of one thing we can by no means excuse you, but it must savor Tanity 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 : fiaXa aifivCiq jvo/id^ovrcc, as Demosthenes speak- eth, uttering with great countenance and majesty. "Against him came up Nabuchadnezzar, king of Babel," 3 Par. xxxvi., 6, for " Nab- uchodonosor, king of Babylon ;'' " Sanehcrib" for " Sennacherib ;" "Michaiah's prophecy" for "Michoea'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 "Elisseus;" "Pekahia" and "Pekah" for "Phaceia" and " Phacee ;" " Uziahu" for " Ozias ;" " Thiglath-peleser" for " Teg- lath-pbalasar ;" " Ahaziahu" for " Ochozias ;" " Pcka, son of Rcma- liahu," for " Phacee, son of Romelia." And why say you not as well " Shelomoh" for " Salomoh," and " Corcsh" for " Cyrus," and so alter every word from the known sound and pronunciation thereof? Is this to teach the people*whcn 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," " Mes- siach;'.' and "John," "Jachannan;" and such-like monstrous novel- ties? which you might as well do, and the people would understand you as well, as when your preachers say " Nabucadnczer, king of Ba- bel." To these charges Fulke gives this brief and sensible reply: 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 corruption 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, * t. e.,The Great Bible, which was the first Bible in use after "the schism;" the edition to which Martin refers is that of 15C2. The two Bibles to which Martin's strictures mostly apply are the Genevan and the Bishops', as being most commonly used when he wrote. See Fulke's Defunct, etc., p. 67 seq. TREATMENT OF PROPER NAMES, ETC. crence to Amariahu, Zachariahu of the Bishops'. ^ '' With the general treatment of the Old T^of^m. . I ave no desire to find fault: perhaps the^rLlrr g h Btble approach as nearly to the Hebrew as is Sesi able But, when we compare the New Testament with th d some important questions arise ^' san~ e in e ^3:^ f'"" ''" '''"'''''' ""''- *"« "'"f "> the JVew Testament as n the Old Thn Pn for instance, for an Fno-Iici, ^ . ^ difficult, says /rchbishop Trench " hi d^ff '" '''-''T ''''''''''''" awakened attention am^n. . 'uZ7 '" ''' '""'"' '' Matt, xvii 10 won],! r y r ^ ^ ^congregation which disciples id hmsalLtwh' T '''' ^'"^•- '^"^ "'^ ' ""^'"2. Why then say the Scribes that (plrSste^XTdltifnr ^"''"' ''"""''"^'" "^ '^^ ^'W. p. 588 seq. 132 LIOETFOOT ON A. FRESH REVISION OF THE N. TEST. Elijah 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 im- portant, 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 hearera and readers ofScripture."* I imagine that few would deny the advantage of substi- tuting the more familiar Old Testament names in such cases for the less familiar Septuagint forms preserved in the New; but many more may question whether such a substitution is legitimate, and I venture therefore to add a few words in de- fence 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 pres- ently), that whenever a familiar English form of a name oc- curs, this shall be substituted for the original, e.g., John for loannes, James for lacobos, Mary for Mariam, this principle alone would justify the change which I am 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 Ellas, Elise- us, Esaias, should give place to them. In the 16th and I7th centuries it might be a question between Esay, Esaie, Esaias, Isaiah; between Abdy, Abdias, Obadiah; between Jeremy, Jeremias, Jeremiah; between Osee, Oseas, Osea, Hosea (or Hoshea) ; between Sophony,Sophonia,Sophomas,Zephaniah; between Aggeus, Haggeus, Haggai, and the like; but now long familiarity has decided irrevocably m favor of the last forms in each case, and there is every reason why the ess la- miliar modes of representing the names should give place to the more familiar. But, quite independently of this consid- eration of familiarity, we should merely be exercising the le- eitiraate functions of translators if in most cases we were to return to the Old Testament forms; for (with very few ex- • Authorized Veriion, p. C6. TREATMENT OF PROPER NAMES, ETC. 133 ceptions) the Greek forms represent 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 espe- cially to terminations, such as Jeremias, Jonas, Manasses, for Jeremiah, Jonah, Manasseh ; and, in fact, the name Elias it- self is nothing more than " Elijah" similarly formed, for the Hebrew word could not have been written otherwise in Gieek. It applies also to the change of certain consonants. Thus a Greek had no choice but to represent the sh 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 Alexandrian translator of the nar- rative in the book of Judges (xii., 5, 6) is driven in Ills at- tempt to render the incident into this language.* Remem- bering this, we shall at once replace Cis (Acts xiii., 21) by Kish,f and Aser (Luke ii., 36; Rev. vii.,6) by Asher; while the English reader will at length discover that the unfamiliar Saron, connected with the history of .iSlneas (Acts ix., 35), is the well-known Sharon of Old Testament history. Combin- ing this principle of change M'ith the foregoing, we should re- store Elisha in place of Eliseus. For the Hebrew gutturals again the Greeks had no equivalent, and were obliged either to omit them, or to substitute the nearest sound which their language afforded. On this principle they frequently repre- sented the final n by an t ;t 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 x, which our Old Testament transla- tors in this and other positions give an h; and thus there is * He can only sny tlitbv Sri araxvc [A has I'lirari Sr) aivBtifiay Kai oii ta- TtvBvve [A Kai Karijv9vvav] rou \a\ijaat ol^ruf. t It is not easy to see why oar translators should have written Cis, Core, rather than Kis, Kore. t The genealogies at the beginning of the Books of Chronicles in the LXX. ofTer very many instances of this change. Sometimes this final e represents an J) or a h. 134 LIOJITFOOT OJV A FRESB REVISION OF THE N. TEST. no reason why RacAab, Ac^az, should stand in the New Tes- tament for RaAab, AAaz in the Old. Again, the fact that the aspirate, though pronounced, was never written in Greek, should be taken into account, and any divergence from the Hebrew form which can be traced to this cause might be neglected ; thus Agar, Ezekias, would be replaced by Hagar, Hezekiah, and Josaphat, Roboam, by Jehoshaphat, Rehobo- am.* By adopting this principle of neglecting mere peculiar- ities and imperfections of the Greek in the representation of the Hebrew names, and thus endeavoring to reproduce the original form which has undergone the modification, we should, in almost 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 re- main, where the Greek form can not be so explained. These might be allowed to stand ; or, if the identity of the person signified was beyond question (e.g., Aram and Ram), the Old Testament form might bo replaced in the text, and the Greek form given in the tnargin. (2.) The aeconrf of the two principles which were enunciated above as guiding our English translators also requires some consideration. Under this head the inconsistency of our Authorized Ver- sion will need correction, for it is incapable of defense. If the prophet was to be called Oseef in the New Testament * For 'Pad/J (Heb. xi., 31 ; James ii., 25) our translators have boldly writ- ten " Kahab." While speaking of aspirates, it may be mentioned that in the edition of 1611 the normal spelling in the New Testament is " Hierusalem ;" the only exceptions which I have noticed being 1 Cor. xvi.,3; Gal. i., 17, 18j ii.,1; iv.,26,2C', Ileb. xii., 22, and thefieadings ofsomech(ipter3(e.g., Acts xxi. ; Rev. xxi.), where " lerusalem" appears. On the other hand, in the Old Testament it ia "lerusalem," though "Hierusalem" occurs in the heading of 3 Sam. xir. t It may be questioned whether this word should be pronounced as a dis- gyllable, the double e being regarded as an English termination, as in Zebe- dee Pharisee, etc., or as a trisyllable, the word being considered as a repro- duction of the Greek 'Qarti. On the other hand, there can, I think, be no doubt that the modem fashion of pronouncing the final « of Magdalene, as though it represented the 'iici;, the country of Phoenicia (Acts xi., ]9 ; xv., 3), by the same word " Phenice" (after tlie Bishops' and Geneva Bibles), while con- versely 4>oivi'cij has two different renderings, "Phenice" (xi., I'J ; 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? • At all events, whichever course is adopted, it should be carried out con- sistently. Thus there is no reason why 'Pn/3/3i should be sometimes repro- duced in the English Version (Matt, xxiii., 7, 8; Johni., 89, 50; iii., 2, 2G; vi., 25) and sometimes rendered "Master" (Matt, xxvi., 25, 49 ; Mark ix., 5 ; xi., 21 ; xiv., 45 j John iv., 31 ; ix., 2 ; xi., 8), or in like manner why 'PaPfiovvi, which only occurs twice, should be once translated " Lord" (Mark X., 51) and once retained (John xx., 10). In the same way the word Taaxa, which is generally rendered " Passover," is represented once, and only once, by " Easter" (Acts xii., 4). This is a remnant of the earlier versions in which naaxa is commonly translated so, even in such passages as Luke xxii., 1, i; f opri) rJiv d^u^oiv ij Xiyo/tivri vaax") "which is called Easter," where, however, the Geneva and Bishops' Bibles substitute " Passover." • 1 40 LIOSTFOOT ON A FRESB REVISION OF THS N. TEST. century, -when the lord lieutenant of Ireland was styled dep- uty, the word would convey a sufficiently precise idea ; but now it suggests a wrong conception, if it suggests any at all. What sense, for instance, can an English reader attach to the words " The law is open, and there are deputies" (Acts xix., 38), which in the Authorized Version are given as the ren- dering otaydpaioi Ayovrai* Kot avdvvaroi liaiv? The term which in the 19th century corresponds most nearly to the deputy of 16th is lieutenant governor, and indeed the Geneva Testa- ment did in one passage (Acts xviii., 12) translate ayOviraTos by "lieutenant of the country," but this rendering was drop- ped in the Geneva Bible, and not taken up again. To this precise language, however, exception might be taken ; 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 ypafifiarcvs, " town clerk," in Acts xix., 35, 1 should not be disposed to find fault, for it is diflScult to sug- gest a move exact equivalent. In the context of the same passage, however (ver. 31), an English reader would not un- derstand that the "chiefs 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 impossible entirely to remove an obscurity which exists also in the Greek 'Aaiapxvs- I" Rom. xvi., 23, the substitution of " treasurer" for "chamber- lain" in the rendering of 6 okovofiog Tfjg nuXiuc would be an i\n- provement ;f for " treasurer," again, is a good Biblical word, and we do not use " chamberlain" to describe such an officer as is here intended.^ * Why the slovenly translation, "the law is open," should have been al- lowed to remain, it is difficult to see. In the margin our translators suggest " the court days are kept." They would have earned our gratitude if in this and other cases they had acted with more boldness, and placed in the text the more correct renderings which they have been content to suggest in the "Twicliffe has " treasurer," the Eheims Version " cofferer," while the ver- sions of the Deformed Church render it " chamberlain." i Perhaps I ought to except the Chamberlain of the City of London. TREATMENT OF PROPER NAMES, ETC. 141 On the whole, however, the rendering of official titles in our version is fairly adequate, and can not be much improved. If there is occasionally some inconsistency and want of meth- od, as, for instance, when \i\iap-)(ot is translated " chief cap- tain," and ixaToyTapxoc reproduced as " centurion" in the same context* (Acts xxi., 31,32; xxii., 24-26; xxiii., 17-23), still these renderings have established a prescriptive right, and an adequate reason must be shown for disturbing them. In Acts xvi., 35, 38, paPSovxoi, " lictors," is well rendered " sergeants ;" and in xxviii., 16, the translation of (rrpaToireSapxvs, tbe prce/ec- tus proEtorio, as " captain of the guard," is a great improve- ment on the less precise renderings of the earlier versions ; " chief captain of the host" (Tyndale, Great Bible, Bishops'), "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, ayt)Ti, "Take no thought for j'our life, what ye shall cat;" //i) fiipififfitrriTe Xt'yovrtc ri ayo)fiev, " Take no thoxight, saying What shall we eat?" /117 fiipiftyiiariTi k'c r^y aipwy, "Take 710 thought 146 LIOHTFOOT OJT A FRESH REVISION OF THE N. TEST. for the morrow." I have heard of a political economiEt al- leging this passage as an objection to the moral teaching of the Sermon on the Mount on the ground that it encouraged, nay, commanded a reckless neglect of the future. I have known of cases in which scrupulous consciences have been troubled by language seeming to condemn their most reason- able acts of care and forethought ; of others in which relig- ious persons have been misled by this paramount authority (as it seemed to be) into a systematic improvidence. A knowledge of the Greek would have shown that it is not rea- sonable forethought, but distress and anxiety about the fu- ture, which our Lord forbids ; for this, and not less than this, is the force of fiipi^va, as may be seen from such passages as 1 Pet. v., 7, irairav r^v filpifivav vfiuiv iwipl^avTH iir avrov, on avry /liXti irtpi vfiSiv, where the distinction oi iitpijiva and fiiXuv is significant, 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 trans- lators did not intend what they seem to say, for to " take thought" in the old language meant to distress or trouble one's self* But the great mass of people have neither the lime 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 En- glish 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 16 th and 17th centuries it might be a term of reproof,f in the modern ♦ t. g., 1 Sam. ix., 5, "Come, and lej us return, lest my father .... lake thought for ns," where the Hebrew verb is JRl, which Geseuius renders sol- licitus/uit, anxie timuit. "To die of thought" in the old language was to die heart-broken. On this archaism, see Trench, Authorized Version, p. 37 ; Wright, Bible Word-Book, s. v. t In fact, it is used more than once to translate this very word /lepi/iva ; e. g., 1 Cor. vii., 82, " I would have you without carefulness," i. e., anxiety (StXtti u/iac ifupifivovc ilvai); Phil, iv., C,"Be careful for nothing" (jaiUv ptpipvari). Latimer, Serin., p. 400 (quoted in Wright's Bible Word-Book, ». v.), speaks ARCHAISMS, DEFECTS IN THE ENGLISH, ETC 14^ language almost always implies commendation. In fact it IS 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 ori«) ; or that when he says,"If any man have a quarrel against any" (Col. iii.,13) he means a complaint (querela), the original being ?xp ^o,.^.>; or that, when St. James writes " Grudge not one against another (v.. 9) the word signifies "murmur" or "bemoan" (