NOTES 
 
 THE LATE REVISION 
 
 The New Testament Version. 
 
 BY THE . 
 
 REV. DANIEL R. GOODWIN. 
 
 3 ))/ 
 
 of 
 
 New York: 
 
 THOMAS WHITTAKER. 
 
 1883. 
 
0* 
 
 % 
 
 <$>*$* 
 
 Copyright, 1883 
 By DANIEL R. GOODWIN. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 A portion of these Notes, with the Introduction, have ap- 
 peared in the "American Church Review" for which they 
 were originally prepared ; and this must be at once the expla- 
 nation and the excuse for the assumption of certain modes of 
 expression belonging to the style of the reviewer. 
 
NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION OF THE 
 NEW TESTAMENT VERSION. 
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 These notes have a subordinate and restricted purpose. 
 They are not intended as a thorough review, or as the com- 
 plete basis of a final judgment. They look only at a part 
 of one side of the case. 
 
 i. They are not intended at all to point out the merits 
 of the Revision, but only some of its faults. It is freely 
 and fully admitted that the Revisers have made important 
 corrections and many improvements. Indeed it were pass- 
 ing strange if so many biblical critics, selected from the 
 ripest scholarship of Great Britain and America, after de- 
 voting so many years to their task, had failed to make such 
 emendations. No scholar of even the most moderate 
 pretension could have failed to make many such in far 
 less time. Though this would seem, therefore, no great 
 ground of boasting, we cheerfully accord the Revisers all 
 the credit they can claim on this score. But the counter- 
 balancing faults, if such there be, must be considered be- 
 fore making up a final judgment. We propose to furnish 
 from this quarter some of the material for such a judg- 
 ment. 
 
 2. We set aside all reference to changes in the Greek 
 text, and the consequent changes in the version. In this 
 department lie the most interesting and important ques- 
 tions of criticism. In most of these alterations, and in 
 some of the most important, we are free to say that, in our 
 humble judgment, the Revisers are right. But we pass 
 this question by entirely. 
 
8 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 3. In our strictures upon the other changes introduced 
 into the version by the Revisers we may sometimes call in 
 question the accuracy or the propriety of their translation 
 in itself considered ; but more frequently we shall call in 
 question the necessity or importance of the changes, under 
 the rule by which they professed to be guided — viz., " to 
 introduce as few alterations as possible into the text of the 
 Authorized Version consistently with faithfulness." Some 
 have seemed to think it a sufficient justification of any 
 change, that it is, in any degree, an improvement ; and to 
 assume that, in such a case, faithfulness required it. But 
 the rule just cited is, and was evidently intended to be, a 
 special restriction ; it is a restriction, moreover, which was 
 doubtless in consonance with the purpose of Convocation, 
 and which commends itself to the general approval of the 
 Christian community. The Revisers professed to act un- 
 der it. But could they have understood, can any intelli- 
 gent man understand, that rule to mean simply that they 
 were to introduce no alterations which, in their judgment, 
 would not be, in some degree, improvements ? To sup- 
 pose such to be the meaning of the rule were to stultify the 
 Committee who made it and who were to act under it : for 
 it would imply that the Committee thought it necessary 
 solemnly to guard themselves against making alterations 
 which they should judge to be no improvements at all ; 
 and a Committee for whom such a solemn resolution should 
 have been necessary were certainly a Committee beneath 
 the task assigned to them, not to say beneath contempt. 
 In considering, therefore, any alteration in the version we 
 shall regard it as pertinent to ask, not only, Is this a cor- 
 rect translation ? or, Is it, in some critical sense or degree, 
 an improvement upon the Authorized Version ? but, Is it 
 required by faithfulness? And we shall regard this last ques- 
 tion as having a different meaning and bearing from the 
 others. 
 
 4. Wc shall avoid setting our own mere opinion or judg- 
 ment against that of so many learned men, the ripest 
 scholars of the age ; and rarely shall we thus set our own 
 reasonings merely; but, in most of our animadversions, we 
 
IN TROD UC TION. 9 
 
 shall undertake to show that the Revisers are inconsistent 
 with themselves ; and thus we shall appeal to them as their 
 own judges. When any of these inconsistencies are palpa- 
 bly shown, it may be replied that they are mere oversights. 
 They may be mere oversights ; but, even so, none would 
 be more earnest or glad to have them corrected than the 
 learned Revisers themselves. And, after all, the question 
 is not how far the Revisers may be excused for faults and 
 inconsistencies, if they have committed any, but whether, 
 with such faults and inconsistencies, their work is such as 
 it ought to be for the purpose for which it was intended — 
 to become a final substitute for the Authorized Version. 
 
 5. Whenever, and in so far as, any alterations involve in 
 any degree theological, or dialectic, or doctrinal consider- 
 ations, if we differ from the Revisers, we shall not regard 
 it as temerariously pitting our solitary and insignificant 
 authority against that of the ripest scholars and greatest 
 theologians of the age, but we shall take to our side the 
 forty-seven translators of the Authorized Version. Those 
 men, if they had not had the opportunity of studying the 
 modern grammars and lexicons of the Greek, if they had 
 not seen the recently discovered manuscripts and the latest 
 improved text, were yet, in sound theological learning and 
 in dialectic training, the undoubted peers of the best lin- 
 guists and critics " of to-day." 
 
 6. We shall proceed upon the assumption that a good 
 translation from Greek into English must not only express 
 the exact sense of the Greek, but must also express it in 
 English, in good English, pure, idiomatic English ; not 
 only in English words, but in English style and construc- 
 tion. If it cannot be expressed in good English, it cannot 
 be translated, but must, so far, be left to scholars and com- 
 mentators to paraphrase and explain. The nearest ap- 
 proximation to the exact sense of the Greek which can be 
 made in good idiomatic English, without offending the 
 English taste or ear, is the best English translation that 
 can be made. To invent a sort of Greek-English patois, to 
 resort to a tyro's construing, with a view of giving the 
 English reader a kind of facsimile of the Greek, is not to 
 
io AZOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 translate into English at all. Languages differ in the col- 
 location of words as well as in the words themselves ; and 
 often the proper order is to be determined by an appeal to 
 the ear or to usage, not to logic, and still less from the 
 English to the Greek. So, too, for the repetition or varia- 
 tion of words. A repetition, which may be a positive 
 beauty in one language, may, in a given connection, be 
 simply barbarous or positively offensive in another. So, 
 oftentimes, with the use of more general or more specific 
 terms. In English a traveller goes to see the world, we do 
 not say he goes to behold it ; though the ancient Greek 
 might use the more specific word B-SGopeoj, to behold or 
 view. In English a man sees a wolf coming, we do not say 
 he beholds him ; and we should say, " what you see me 
 have," not " what you behold me having." Also, in Eng- 
 lish there are certain established phrases or forms of expres- 
 sion which have so long been used as the correspondents to 
 certain Greek phrases, that to change them in order to 
 secure a so-called literal or exact translation would be 
 sheer pedantry — a new coining of an artificial English ; as, 
 e.g., if " the kingdom of heaven" were Grecized into " the 
 kingdom of the heavens," or " the children of Israel " into 
 " the sons of Israel." 
 
 7. It is not necessary to faithfulness of translation that a 
 given word in one language should always — while retain- 
 ing the same intrinsic meaning — be rendered by the same 
 word in another language. The rendering may be varied 
 in view, not only of the intrinsic meaning, but of the gen- 
 eral air and associations of the different passages, or of the 
 habits of expression in the different languages, or of their 
 comparative copiousness of diction. Suppose, e.g., that 
 Shakespeare were tc be translated into Persian verse — it 
 would not give a fair idea of him to Persian readers, if, 
 where the Persian poetic diction should have a hundred 
 terms for one English epithet, the same Persian term 
 should be used throughout for this same English word ; 
 even though this English word had the same intrinsic 
 meaning in all the cases. The translators of 161 1 recog- 
 nized this principle, and they purposely and professedly 
 
INTRODUCTION. n 
 
 varied their renderings accordingly. In some cases they 
 may have pushed the application of the principle farther 
 than was necessary or even proper. In strictly parallel 
 passages there would seem to have been no good reason for 
 such variations. And yet even in these extreme cases, if, 
 in every passage, the sense of the Greek was accurately 
 conveyed in the English, and if our ears and our biblical 
 literature had become habituated and conformed to the 
 variation, there would seem to have been no sufficient rea- 
 son for making a change in what was already received. 
 Certainly faithfulness to God's Word did not require the 
 change, for confessedly the true meaning of that Word 
 was already, in each case, accurately rendered. But, it is 
 said, if the same sense is found expressed in English in two 
 forms, the reader will naturally infer that the form of ex- 
 pression in the original also is different, and if it is not, he 
 will be deceived ; we answer, the common English reader 
 ought to be, and is, satisfied if he has the true sense of the 
 original accurately expressed in good English. Not to one 
 in ten thousand of such readers does it ever occur to make 
 such an inference at all. And as for critical students, they 
 have no right to make any such inference in regard to the 
 Authorized Version ; because the translators have given ex- 
 press notice that they did not hold themselves bound by 
 any such rule of iron uniformity or literal correspondence. 
 Translations are not made for the special accommodation 
 of comparative critics. 
 
 On the other hand, however, when the Revisers have 
 adopted and expressly announced this principle of uniform 
 correspondence, they are bound to adhere to it, otherwise 
 they may deceive all their readers. Consistency would re- 
 quire them to conform to it in connection with identical 
 constructions as well as of identical words. Yet they freely 
 render : " when he had taken it, he went," and " he, when 
 he had taken it, went ;" or " he took it and went," " hav- 
 ing taken it, he went," " taking it, he went" — all with 
 complete indiscriminateness. Indeed they expressly tell 
 us that they propose to introduce the participial construc- 
 tion into the English — they do not say always, but more 
 
12 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 frequently ; thus acknowledging that they retain and use 
 variety. But, passing by this, whenever they have varied 
 the rendering of a given word while used in the same 
 sense, they are chargeable with a serious fault, because, with 
 their professions, they lead their readers to erroneous in- 
 ferences. Besides, even if they were consistent in all these 
 cases, we contend that it would be a consistency not re- 
 quired by " faithfulness," and, therefore, lying beyond 
 their province. Under this head they have brought in a 
 vast amount of " consequential" damages which, we contend, 
 the readers of the New Testament are not bound to pay. 
 
 8. As to the use of the article. In this respect it was 
 very generally supposed that the Authorized Version stood 
 in special need of large emendations, in the light of the 
 scholarship " of to-day." Indeed there was a multitude of 
 grammarians and critics, who, to determine whether to put 
 " the" or " a" before any English noun in the singular 
 number, thought it necessary to inquire only whether there 
 was or was not an article before its Greek correspondent J 
 and, for the plural number, they required the article to be 
 inserted or omitted in the English, just as it was in the 
 Greek : and they were clamorous to have the New Testa- 
 ment version corrected accordingly. These have got small 
 comfort from the Revisers, but more, we fear, than they 
 deserved. Our Revisers were far above any such sweep- 
 ing, schoolmaster ideas. They had a scholarship far too 
 broad and generous for such narrow and Procrustean 
 notions. They knew that the rules for the insertion or 
 omission of the article in Greek were in many cases different 
 from the usage of the English ; that those rules were sub- 
 ject to many exceptions in good Greek usage, and that 
 there were many cases where the article was inserted or 
 omitted without any general reason which we can discover. 
 Moreover, the use of the English article is far from being 
 reducible to fixed and universal rules, but varies from time 
 to time and from man to man. Locke wrote an " Essay 
 concerning human understanding." We now say it was 
 concerning " the human understanding." And the use of 
 the article with " reason" has varied and even vibrated in 
 
IN TR OD UCTION. 1 3 
 
 the course of two hundred years. Accordingly, the inser- 
 tion or omission of the article in a translation will depend 
 largely upon the good taste and good judgment of the 
 translator, in view of the genius of the two languages and 
 the drift and scope of the discourse, rather than of any for- 
 mal rules. If in these respects we have great reason to 
 defer to the Revisers, have we not equal reason to defer to 
 the translators of 1611 ? We think the Revisers have, in 
 this particular, yielded to the vulgar clamor more than was 
 called for, and have made changes not required by faith- 
 fulness. But, after all, in innumerable instances they have 
 inserted the article in English where it is omitted in Greek, 
 and often omitted it in English where it is inserted in 
 Greek. Where there is no Greek article before a singular 
 noun they have sometimes inserted "a" and sometimes 
 not ; and they have even inserted "a" for the Greek arti- 
 cle itself. Where, in all this, they have diverged from the 
 Authorized Version, they are, in many cases, undoubtedly 
 right ; but, in many other and most important cases — 
 quczrel Their authority is greatly shattered if it can be 
 shown that they are inconsistent with themselves. Take 
 for instance the insertion or omission of the article before 
 the word " heaven." We can only say, in all humility, 
 that it surpasses our ingenuity to find or guess by what 
 pule or rules they were guided. They have omitted the 
 article alike when the Greek inserts and when it omits it ; 
 and in many instances, as far as we can see, have inserted 
 or omitted it arbitrarily. Yet in multitudes of these cases 
 they have altered the Authorized Version. Can any one 
 show how or why, taken as a whole, the Authorized Ver- 
 sion is not, in this case of the article with the word 
 " heaven," as faithful to the Greek and as good English 
 as is the Revision, with all its studied improvements ? The 
 contortions by which the Revisers elsewhere seek to express 
 the presumed distinction indicated by the absence of the 
 Greek article are something ludicrous. 
 
 9. Another great hue and cry has been persistently 
 raised against the Authorized Version for its numberless 
 blunders in the rendering of the Greek aorist tenses. 
 
14 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 From the multitude and noise of these critics, all radiant 
 and blatant with the new light and fresh inspiration from 
 the modern apocalypse of the mysteries of Greek grammar, 
 one might suppose that the learned translators of 1611 were 
 simple ignoramuses in regard to the structure of the Greek 
 language. It seems to have been assumed by many — and 
 modern English scholars have given too much countenance 
 to the idea — that the Greek aorist was of course to be 
 rendered by the English simple preterite throughout, or 
 that every departure from this rule must justify itself by 
 irrefragable proofs as an extraordinary exception or even 
 as a solecism ; or else be condemned as a false translation. 
 But, on mature examination, the facts are found to be : (a) 
 That this rule holds, with any degree of strictness, only in 
 sustained narrative discourse ; (b) In numberless instances 
 the English employs its compound preterite or perfect 
 where the Greek uses the aorist ; and that not in the Bible 
 only, or from the influence of the Latin Vulgate upon our 
 former translators, but in our current discourse, from the 
 influence, it may be, of the Latin language upon the struct- 
 ure of the English. Each language has its idioms ; and 
 other European tongues have gone farther in this direction 
 than we — the Italian, the French and the German famil- 
 iarly using their compound preterites where we in English 
 should use the simple preterite ; (c) In poetical and pro- 
 phetic composition, in the epistolary and conversational 
 style, in personal addresses and exhortations, in impas- 
 sioned utterances, in teaching, in brief or fragmentary 
 statements of fact — in short, in a very large part of Holy 
 Scripture — the Greek uses the aorist where the English- 
 would naturally use the perfect ; and that so freely, that in 
 such cases no a pi'iori probability can be claimed for the 
 preterite over the perfect, as the proper English translation 
 of the Greek aorist. 
 
 The Revisers, far wiser critics than the average of the 
 later school — though we think they have been too much in- 
 fluenced by the clamors of these absolutists — have, in by 
 far the greater number of instances, we should judge, fol- 
 lowed the former translators in rendering the aorist by the 
 
 
IN TROD UCTION. 1 5 
 
 English perfect. In some of their divergences in this par- 
 ticular they are probably right ; but, in many if not in 
 most of these cases, we must take the liberty of siding 
 with the translators of 161 1 rather than with the Revisers. 
 They themselves have rendered the aorist by the English 
 perfect too often to claim that the mere fact of the Greek 
 form being aorist proves that the English must be preter- 
 ite. Whether the English should be perfect or preterite 
 must very often be determined by the general character 
 and drift of the discourse, by the immediate context and 
 the nature of the case, by general analogy and, perhaps, by 
 doctrinal considerations, as well as, especially, by the 
 natural English idiom. And for sound sense and good 
 judgment in these particulars, it is no want of due respect 
 to the learned Revisers to say that we think we have as 
 good reason to defer to the authority of the translators of 
 161 1 as to theirs. Some cases are beyond all question of 
 any party, as when the demoniac child falls as one dead, 
 insomuch that many said, oat&avzv. This is the Greek 
 aorist ; but the English must be " he is dead ;" it cannot 
 be " he died." 
 
 10. As to the number of the changes made by the 
 Revisers. We see it set down at 35,000, and, though we have 
 made no enumeration ourselves, we should judge that esti- 
 mate to be not far from the truth. Now the number of 
 changes recognized by them in the Greek text, including 
 those in the margin with the rest, is about 5500; by far the 
 greater part of which are of the least possible importance ; 
 and, of the others, a large number are still of very doubtful 
 authority, the best textualists changing their minds from 
 edition to edition. But, as we have before said, we now 
 dispute none of these new readings. If to these we add, say 
 10,000 changes more, as having been required by what could 
 reasonably be called faithfulness to the original, we think a 
 very generous allowance will have been made ; for we cannot 
 include in this class the cases where the Revisers have been 
 inconsistent with themselves, or have substituted mere Gre- 
 cisms of expression or of construction for idiomatic English. 
 There will then remain nearly 20,000 changes either wanton, 
 
1 6 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 or trifling, or consequential, or Grecisms, or inconsistencies 
 — or, perchance, proposed improvements of the English 
 style; as in their elaborate reconstructions of "also," 
 " therefore," etc. As to this last class of changes, we leave 
 the English reader to judge whether in general, for good 
 English style, the Revision is superior to the Authorized 
 Version. 
 
 These notes may seem very extended, and some of them 
 very minute ; but we protest against the inference that they 
 are exhaustive. They are, after all, but specimens, and 
 even random specimens at that. They are the result of one 
 cursory examination of the Revision, currently jotted down, 
 and afterward expanded with cross-references, and shaped 
 so as to make them, at least in some degree, readable. A 
 subsequent review of any chapter has always brought up a 
 new crop of queries and objections ; they are still as thick 
 as August blackberries. Should such a review as this have 
 been undertaken by another person, there can be no doubt 
 that a very large part — not unlikely the largest part — of the 
 passages and points animadverted upon would have been 
 different from those here criticised, and many of them 
 probably much more striking and important than any in- 
 cluded in these notes. 
 
 In concluding these introductory statements, we must al- 
 lude to one trifling point which we have not seen referred 
 to — probably because it is so trifling — but which may have 
 some significance. We refer to the spelling "judgement, " 
 adhered to by the Revisers throughout. Is this a specimen 
 of the changes which they judge to be required by faith- 
 fulness ? Did they borrow it from the translators of 1611 ? 
 If so, why did they not give us " wisedome" also — for such 
 is the spelling of King James's translators. How far this 
 newly introduced archaism of spelling "judgement" for 
 judg??ient may have become prevalent in England we do not 
 know; but "judgment" is the spelling of Johnson's Dic- 
 tionary, of all the Oxford Bibles, we believe, for centuries, 
 and of the best editions of English standard authors from 
 about the year 1700. Why then this change ? Do the Re- 
 visers propose to appear in the role of spelling-reformers ? 
 
ST. MATTHEW. 17 
 
 Before the Revision was undertaken, it had always been 
 put forward as one important and leading reason for mak- 
 ing it, that the English language had greatly changed in 
 nearly 300 years, and that the translation needed to be ac- 
 commodated to modern use. But the Revisers have made 
 it a principle to remove no archaisms, provided they were 
 intelligible. In avoiding many changes of this kind, we 
 think they were right. But, in fact, instead of diminishing 
 the archaisms, they have increased and intensified them ; 
 not only retaining "which" for "who," "or" for "ere," 
 "be" for "are;" and "wot," ''wist," " alway," etc.; but 
 sometimes putting " alway" for " always," " the which," for 
 "which," etc.; and multiplying the use of " howbeit," 
 " straightway," etc. 
 
 In what follows we expect to commit many oversights ; 
 but it is due to ourselves to remind our readers that we have 
 not had the aid of twenty others to revise and correct our 
 solitary work. 
 
 ST. MATTHEW. 
 I. 
 
 18. "Had been betrothed," for "was espoused;" but 
 verse 20, "thought," and ii. 1, "was born." These are all 
 alike for aorist participles in the genitive absolute, depend- 
 ing on aorist verbs. 
 
 21. "It is he that shall save," for " He shall save"= 
 avros 6GQ6E1. But (1) the Revisers have elsewhere trans- 
 lated avroz by " he" most frequently, as in Matt. xiv. 2 ; 
 xxi. 27; Mark iv. 27; Col. i. 17, iS, etc., etc. ; frequently by 
 " he himself," as in Luke x. 1 ; John vi. 6, etc. ; and some- 
 times by "himself" alone, as in Matt. viii. 17 : but nowhere 
 else, out of more than a hundred places, have they ever 
 translated it by this phrase, " it is he that." Wherefore, 
 then, this special translation here ? (2) If, and so far as, 
 this phrase differs in sense from "he" or "he himself" or 
 "himself," it differs, we apprehend, from the true sense of 
 the original, in which there is implied, we think, something 
 peculiar, inherent, spontaneous, absolute, and not merely 
 
i8 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 demonstrative or antithetical. (3) This rendering is, at 
 best, not a translation but a paraphrase, and this is its deci- 
 sive condemnation. "It is he that shall save" is not a 
 translation of ctvroz ggd<7£1} but of cxvto* [or exeivos or 
 ovrof\ ianv 6 (TgjGgov: see Luke xxiv. 21 ; John ix. 37; 
 xiii. 26; xiv. 21; Acts x. 42; compare Matt. xi. 19; Luke 
 xxii. 23, 28, etc. 
 
 23. " The virgin" for " a virgin" = 77 7tocp^Lvo^. So they 
 have put "the sower" for "a sower" (Matt. xiii. 3, etc.). 
 This is well enough, but is the change necessary? After 
 all, the sense remains substantially the same; for who can 
 doubt that, however personally definite ff rtap^tvol may 
 have been in the mind of the prophet, in the mind of the 
 evangelist the application had become generalized ? So that 
 "the virgin" means "she (or the person or the woman) who 
 is a virgin;" just as " the sower" means " he (in fact any 
 man) who is a sower." So the Revisers have rendered rf 
 ^w//"awoman," John xvi. 21; rc5 ipevSei "a lie," Rom. 
 i. 25 ; rou av$pGD7tov " a man," Rom. vii. 1 ; 1 Cor. ii. 11; 
 rij nopvy "a harlot," 1 Cor. vi. 16; and roc dai/xovia 
 "devils" in instances unnumbered. 
 
 They have also substituted here "which is, being inter- 
 preted," for " which, being interpreted, is !" How impor- 
 tant ! how necessary to faithfulness ! for is not that the 
 order of the Greek ? Why did they not add " with us God" 
 for " God with us" ? 
 
 II. 
 
 2. "Saw" for "have seen" = ei'do/Aev, and then "are 
 come" = i/XSo/jev. 
 
 4. "Gathering" for "when he had gathcred"= avva- 
 yaycov. So, at verse 11, " opening" for "when they had 
 opened" = avoi^avre S. Is this necessary? But see xiv. 
 23, "After he had sent" for " when he had sent"= ano- 
 KvffacS $ Mark xiv. 23, "when lie had given thanks" = 
 &vx<xpiGTrjGaS. (Compare Matt. xxvi. 27, " gave thanks, 
 and" = EvxoLpi6rrj(Sa^ — the A. V. is not bound to be uni- 
 form even in parallel passages, but the Revisers are.) See 
 also Acts xx i. 2, 3, 4, where we have " having found" twice 
 
ST. MATTHEW. 19 
 
 for " finding" == evpcov, and "when we had come," etc., 
 for an aorist participle; and all these, like a way ay gov 
 and avoi^arrSs, belonging to the subjects of aorist verbs. 
 So also, at verse 9, "they having heard" for "when they 
 had heard." 
 
 13. " Until I tell thee" for " until I bring thee word." 
 18. "A voice was heard in Raman" for " In Ramah was 
 there a voice heard." Are these changes necessary to faith- 
 fulness ? 
 
 23. " That he should be called" for " he shall be called" 
 — on K\.r]$r]GeTai. The original familiarly mixes both 
 constructions ; but why, in English, should one be neces- 
 sarily substituted here for the other ? See Matt. xvi. 7 ; 
 Mark i. 15, 37, etc., where, as in almost innumerable sim- 
 ilar cases, they render in the oratio recta without the orz. 
 Was it any of their business to modify the rendering here 
 in view of the difficulty of finding the prophecy referred 
 to? 
 
 III. 
 
 3. " The voice of one crying," as A. V., though there is 
 no article in the Greek. But see "An unknown God," 
 Acts xvii. 23. " Make ready" for " prepare" = iroijddffare, 
 though "make" is repeated immediately after. They have 
 often rendered this verb by "prepare," as in Luke xxiii. 
 56; xxiv. 1; John xiv. 2, 3 ; 1 Cor. ii. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 21 ; 
 Philem. 22; Heb. xi. 16; Rev. viii. 6; ix. 7; xii. 6; etc. 
 Perchance the learned Revisers saw some nice distinction 
 to which they felt bound to be faithful, and their transla- 
 tion might be well enough in itself; but was a change nec- 
 essary ? 
 
 7. "Warned" for "hath warned" = vnedei^ev. Was 
 this necessary to faithfulness ? 
 
 17. "Am well pleased" = evdoxrjff a, and so also at xii. 
 18. Very well; but 'what becomes of faithfulness to the 
 aorist ? 
 
 IV. 
 
 3. "And the tempter came and said to him" for "And 
 when the tempter came to him he said." Here the new 
 
20 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 text changes the place of " to him ; " but it is still implied 
 with 7tpo<jeXBojv — see viii. 2, new text ; viii. 25 and xxviii. 
 18. But is the change of construction required by faith- 
 fulness ? Either mode of construction for the Greek par- 
 ticipial clause is allowed in English ; and according to its 
 avowed principles, the A. V. uses now one and now the 
 other. The Revisers had just used the construction with 
 "when" in a perfectly parallel case of the Greek. What 
 then prompted the change here ? It could not be faithful- 
 ness to the Greek. Was it to improve the English by vary- 
 ing the form of expression and preventing the disagreeable 
 recurrence of similar sounds ? But this is scarcely consis- 
 tent with their own principles in their multitudinous con- 
 sequential changes. Surely the simple English reader 
 would infer that the Greek construction was different in 
 the two cases here, where they make the English construc- 
 tion different — would infer it quite as likely, and with quite 
 as much damage to his exact knowledge of the Word of 
 God, as he would infer that there were different words 
 in Greek for " immediately" and " straightway," if, in 
 otherwise parallel passages in St. Matthew and St. Mark, 
 one of the English words were used in one case and 
 the other in another. And as to their regard for the 
 English ear, look at their harsh and slavish repetitions of 
 "enter," Matt, xxiii. 13; of "mad," Acts xxvi. 24, 25; and 
 of " subject," 1 Cor. xv. 27, 28. But to see the finishing 
 touch put to the changes required by faithfulness, turn to 
 Matt. xxv. 3. There they substitute "the foolish, when 
 they took their lamps, took no oil with them" for "the 
 foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them." There 
 the Greek participial construction is precisely the same as 
 here at Matt. iv. 3, but the change they make is precisely 
 the reverse. Is this faithfuness ? or is it wantonness ? or 
 what is it? It is far from being a solitary instance of such 
 inconsistencies. 
 
 4. " It is written" (not " it lias been written") = yeyf)a7trai. 
 That we have, in English, this form of the perfect passive 
 is noted here for further use; but see v. 10. Note also, 
 "by" = ini: " out of" = tfz<*. 
 
ST. MATTHEW. 21 
 
 7. " Again, it is written" for " it is written again." Eut 
 see verse 4, where they did not say, with the Greek, " Not 
 by bread alone shall man live." 
 
 15. " The land of Zebulun and the land," etc. No article 
 in the Greek. 
 
 17. Why not follow the Greek faithfully and say "the 
 kingdom of the heavens " ? 
 
 23. "Disease" {voaov) and "sickness" {jioiKaniav) for 
 " sickness and disease." Very nice and well. But then 
 in verse 24 they should have said " all who were ill," etc., 
 instead of "all who were sick," for the Greek expression 
 has, in form, no relation to juahaxlav, though the simple 
 English reader might think so. "The sick" are sick with 
 " diseases," see here and at Luke iv. 40. Here and at Matt. 
 x. 1, Separtsveiv (vogovs) is "to heal;" at Luke ix. 1 it 
 is rendered " to cure." What will the simple reader think ? 
 
 V. 
 
 3. "In spirit" = rep itvevp-ati. But see John xi. ^$, " in 
 the spirit." 
 
 8. " In heart" = rfj xapdia : not " in the heart." Yet at 
 verse 1 they carefully put "the mountain" for "a moun- 
 tain," and at viii. 12, etc., "the weeping" for " weeping," 
 
 9. "Sons" for "the children;" but, for article, see iv. 
 
 3,6. 
 
 12 and 45. " In heaven" = iv ro:S ovpavoli : see vi. 20, 
 where "in heaven" = iv oupavep. 
 
 18. " Heaven and earth" = 6 ovp. and 7/ yr/. But see 
 Acts iv. 24. 
 
 2I ? 2 7> 33> 38,43. " Ye have heard" = r/xovorare — not 
 " ye heard." 
 
 32. "Is put away;" why not "has been put away"? 
 See verse 10. 
 
 34. "The throne of God" for " God's throne." Why? 
 Does "God's word" mean anything else than "the word of 
 God" ? Would swearing by " God's throne"' be swearing 
 by " a throne of God "? — Articular nicety. 
 
 35. "The footstool of his feet" for "his footstool." 
 What dialect of English is this? Grant that the Greek 
 
22 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 has this redundant form, must we use it, English or no 
 English ? 
 
 37. " Of the evil one" = €K rov Ttovrjpov. 
 
 39. Why not " the evil one" for rep novrfpep also ? Do the 
 Revisers mean "the evil o?ie" and " him that is evil" to 
 have the same or a different import ? 
 
 45. " That ye may be" (not " may become") = yerrf<j$£. 
 
 VI. 
 
 2. " When therefore" for " Therefore, when" = otav our. 
 And so, often. But does faithfulness require this change? 
 Is a translator bound to follow the order of the Greek 
 words ? Besides, which is the most logical English ? Does 
 the illation refer to the clause with " when," or to the 
 clause on which that depends? But see vii. 20. It is true 
 that in this last phrase apays is for " therefore" and stands 
 first in Greek ; but is any English reader to infer that 
 "therefore" has a different sense here in English ^because 
 it has a different position ? The truth is, in English " there- 
 fore" may stand first or second in a clause, and the question 
 here is about the necessity of a change. 
 
 2,5, and 16. " Have received" for " have" = a7ttxov(Xiv. 
 What then would aneax^oiGi mean ? In Philemon 15 the 
 Revisers put " have" for " receive" = ajrexyS ! 
 
 4 and 6. "In secret" = iv tgq Kpv7tTGo: not "in the se- 
 cret place." 
 
 5. "To stand and pray" for " to pray standing" = eGTGjres 
 rtpo6£vx&6'S(xi. Yet they claim to have improved the trans- 
 lation by a freer use of the participial construction in Eng- 
 lish. 
 
 6. "Having shut" for " when thou hast shut." But see 
 iv. 2, vii. 6, etc., etc. 
 
 7. "Gentiles" for " heathen" = iSvinoi (ethnics). But 
 ordinarily " Gentiles" is for eSvrf. 
 
 Ev is rendered " for" (their much speaking). 
 
 9— 11. In the Lord's Prayer the Revisers have refrained 
 from making many changes which consistency with the 
 changes elsewhere made would require. But if such changes 
 were demanded by faithfulness at all, they were most stren- 
 
ST. MATTHEW. 23 
 
 uously demanded precisely in the most familiar and oft- re- 
 peated passages. Here, however, the order is freely varied 
 from the Greek to accommodate English idiom and even 
 English rhythm. If they had followed their own precedents, 
 the Prayer would have read something like this: "Our 
 Father which (or. even thou that) art in the heavens ; Hal- 
 lowed be thy name. Come thy kingdom. Come to pass 
 (or accomplished be) [see i. 22 and v. 18] thy will, as in 
 heaven, so on earth. Our bread which is (or, even that 
 which is) daily, give us to-day." As to " the evil one' for 
 "evil," we think the preponderating evidence from New 
 Testament usage and from early testimony is in favor of 
 their translation. Still, as there is much room for doubt, 
 and as " evil " includes all that is contained in the other ex- 
 pression, perhaps they would have done better if they had 
 interchanged their text and marginal reading; or had put 
 "the evil" into the text here and at John xvii. 15, as the 
 A. V. had done in the latter passage. 
 
 14. Their painful faithfulness in the construction of 
 "also" should have led them to say here: "you also shall 
 your heavenly Father forgive." See also verse 21. 
 
 26. " Are not ye" for " are ye not." How important ! 
 
 27, 28. Note the difference between the Greek and the 
 English in the order of emphasis. Here they leave the 
 Greek and follow the English. 
 
 30. "If . . . doth so clothe" for " if . . . so clothe." This 
 was to avoid " clotheth." But they might have accomplished 
 this purpose by simply retaining the subjunctive form in 
 the English ; as they have done at vi. 23 (ad fin.) Luke xi. 
 36; 1 Pet. iv. 17; Phil. iv. 8; Rom. xii. 18; Matt. viii. 31; 
 xiv. 28 ; xxvi. 39; 1 Cor. xiv. 5; Rom. viii. 9, 17, etc. 
 
 33. " His kingdom and his righteousness." The first " his" 
 is not in the Revisers' text. 
 
 34. "Will be" for "shall be." But is it not an assurance, 
 of the nature of a promise, rather than of a mere predic- 
 tion ? 
 
 VII. 
 
 3. "Beholdest" = fiXirtSiS. But see xix. 26. 
 6. " Under" = iv = among. 
 
24 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION 
 
 9. " Shall ask him for a loaf" for u ask bread "== airrjGei 
 aprov. There is no "him" in the Greek ; it is not needed 
 in English; and it makes confusion with the next "him." 
 See 10th verse. 
 
 12. " All things therefore" for " therefore all things." As 
 at vi. 2 ; but see verse 20. 
 
 13. " Many be they that enter in thereby" for " many there 
 be which go in thereat." What's the difference ? They often 
 render s'pxo/xai by "go." See Matt, xxiii. 13, note. 
 
 15. "False prophets, which" = tgjv jp£vdo-rpocp^rojv 7 
 oirives. But what has become of the article? Is it not as 
 essential to the prophets as it is to the mountain, or to the 
 weeping and gnashing? If they had rendered oiriveS by 
 " for they," as at Phil. iv. 3, they might have retained the 
 article with " false prophets" without any ambiguity. 
 
 16. " By their fruits ye shall know them." The Revisers 
 have changed the order of the A. V. here to conform to the 
 order in the Greek, and in verse 20 of A. V. ; but at xii. 
 33 they have forgotten themselves, and returned to the 
 order of the A. V. at this verse 16. 
 
 20. i( Therefore" for "wherefore" = a pays. What is the 
 difference ? 
 
 27. " Smote" for " beat" = 7rpo(?c'HOipav(?). 
 
 28. "When Jesus ended" for . . . "had ended." But 
 see Mark vii. 17; Luke xxii. 14; John xiii. 31; xxi. 15 ; 
 Acts xi. 2 ; Rev. v. 8, etc. 
 
 29. " Taught" = rjv SidaGKoov. But see xix. 22, " was 
 one that had" = i/v e'xgov* 
 
 VIII. 
 
 1, 5. Aorist participles in dative rendered by "when" and 
 the pluperfect. 
 
 6. " In the house" for "at home" = ev rT\ oiHin\ Why 
 not, then, put " is laid," or " hath been laid," for " lieth " = 
 pipXrirai} 
 
 12. "Cast forth" for "cast out" (ntfiaXXcj). But see 
 verse 16 and xxii. 13. And then "the weeping and gnash- 
 ing of teeth " {tgjv odorroov). 
 
ST. MATTHEW. 25 
 
 14. "Lying" for "laid and" = /3 s (3\rf jut vrjv nai : and 
 yet " footstool of his feet" ! 
 
 16. Why not say, "And all that were sick he healed," 
 after the Greek order? See their translation at xx. 26. 
 
 19. "A" for "a certain" = sis ; also at ix. iS. "There 
 came" for " came" (?). 
 
 25. " Save, Lord " for " Lord, save us" =Kvpie P 6gd6ov. 
 What now about faithfulness to the Greek ? " We perish," 
 not "we are perishing;" why not ? See 2 Cor. ii. 15. 
 
 26. "There was a great calm," not " there followed " = 
 syivsro. But see Rev. xi. 15, 19, etc. 
 
 31. " Herd of swine" (tgdv x°ip° DV )- See to opos. Cf. 
 
 vii. 6. 
 
 IX. 
 
 6. " On earth" = stzi rijs yr}$. See x. 34. 
 8. "Which had given" = rov Sovra — not "even him 
 which," nor " which gave." 
 
 12. " But when he heard it he said" — not "but he, when 
 he heard it, said" = 6 St dxov<ja$ sinsv. But see xii. 2 ; 
 xxi. 38, etc., etc. 
 
 13. "I desire mercy" for " I will have mercy" ="Elsov 
 $e\Go. So at xxvii. 43, etc. ; but which is the simpler 
 English? As for ambiguity in the A. V., the phrase is 
 never used in the other sense without "on" or " upon" fol- 
 lowing. 
 
 31. "But they went forth and spread" for "But they, 
 when they were departed, spread" = 01 Sc H;e\$6vt£S 
 Sieq)i])j.i6av. But see Acts iv. 24, etc. ; also above at verse 
 12. 
 
 36. "Not having a (shepherd)" for "having no" = /iz) 
 e'xovra noijieva. But see x. 9 ; xiii. 5, 6; Rev. iii. 2. 
 
 X. 
 
 2. "The first" = 7rpc5ro=. No Greek article. 
 
 8. "Received" for " have received." Is this spoken of 
 as a past historical event, or as a present fact ? 
 
 16. " Serpents" = 01 ocpei? : " doves" = ai 7tepiffrepai. 
 But see xxi. 12 and Mark iv. 7, "the thorns;" " the weeping 
 and gnashing ;" " the sower," etc., etc. 
 
26 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 17, 18. The order is here changed to conform to the 
 Greek, while at verse 5 a change is made in just the con- 
 trary sense. Are these changes required by faithfulness ? 
 They make no change in the meaning, and it is difficult to 
 see how they mend the English. 
 
 2i. "The father" = rtatrfp, English idiom; but "his" 
 should also be "the;" and will not the distinction made in 
 the translation, between " brother" and "the father," lead 
 the English reader to suppose a distinction in the Greek ? 
 
 23. "Gone through" for "gone over" = teXtGifTe. (?) 
 "The next" should be "the other" ==ri)v irtpcxv — if we 
 must have the article. 
 
 24. "A disciple" for "the disciple." But see next verse, 
 and see verses 21 and 35, and 2 Tim. ii. 24. 
 
 25. " Be" = yerr/rai — not "become." 
 
 2S. " Be not afraid of" for "fear not." This is to render 
 the (X7i6 following; but what difference does it make in the 
 sense ? 
 
 32, 33. " Him will I also confess" (and so A. V.). In the 
 Greek the " him" comes last. But see Rev. viii. 2, where 
 the A. V. is altered to conform to the Greek. 
 
 35. " A man," "the daughter" (bis) ; no Greek article in 
 either case. " A man's foes" certainly means, to unsophisti- 
 cated ears, " the foes of a man," and yet the Greek is ex^poi 
 rov av$-pGD7rov, " foes of the man." See xii. 43. 
 
 XI. 
 
 2. " Now when John heard (for ' had heard ') in prison 
 the works of the Christ (for ' of Christ'), he sent" = 6 6} 
 Iooavv?js a.KOvGa$ y n.r.X. The Revisers do not make here 
 their pet emendation : " Now John, when he heard . . . 
 sent;" as see xii. 2, 43 ; Mark vi. 16, etc., etc. It may as 
 well be " had heard" as " heard," see iv. 2 ; with " hear," . 
 "sec," etc., either form may be used. The roZXpiGTOv 
 here is taken not from John's point of view, but from the 
 evangelist's when he wrote, and may as properly be ren- 
 dered "Christ" as ''the Christ;" and even if taken from 
 John's point of view, " the Christ" would beg the question 
 about which John asked. 
 
ST. MATTHEW. 27 
 
 3. " He that cometh" for " he that should come" = 6 
 spXOjusvos — "he that is to come," or " that shall come " 
 They have rendered it "is to come" at Rev. i. 4, 8, and iv. 
 S, etc. ; and in like manner they have rendered roc ipxo- 
 jaeva. 
 
 4. 7. "Go your way" for "go;" "went their way" for 
 " departed" (7topsvGj). But see xxviii. 19. 
 
 5. " The blind," etc. Article inserted six times with A. 
 V. — not "blind men," etc. ; and so, often ; and so, right. 
 This is our idiom. See xxi. 14. 
 
 6. " Shall find no occasion of stumbling in" = 
 GnavdaXia^)} iv. Elsewhere they are more brief, and ren- 
 der : " be stumbled," " stumble," " be offended." See xiii. 
 21,57, etc. 
 
 7. "To behold," for " to see" = SeaGa6$ai. But see 
 vi. 1; xxiii. 5 ; Mark xvi. 14; John vi. 5; Acts xxi. 27; 
 Rom. xv. 24, etc. The idsiv which follows in the next verse 
 shows that this has the same meaning ; see xiii. 17. 
 
 12. "Men of violence," for "the violent" = fSiaarai. 
 Why did not they say at verse 5 "blind men" for "the 
 blind," to show their reverence for the Greek article, or 
 rather, for its absence ? See also verse 25. 
 
 14. " Which is to come" for " which was for to come" = 
 o jizWcDV i'pxsoSai. But see John xii. 4 ; Acts xxvi. 22 ; 
 Rom. v. 14 ; Heb. ii. 5 ; vi. 5 ; ix. 11 ; x. 1 . In Hebrews it is 
 translated "to come" — not "which is to come;" and it 
 probably means "which was to come," i.e., "which was 
 predicted and expected." 
 
 16. " In the market places" for "in the markets" = iv 
 ayopoas. No article. 
 
 19. " Is justified" — aorist in Greek. 
 
 25. " Of heaven and earth." Both with article in Greek. 
 Cf. Acts iv. 24. 
 
 25, 26. Aorist rendered preterite for perfect. (?) 
 
 27. Aorist rendered perfect. See John xvii. 2. " Will- 
 eth" — not " desireth" = f3ov\rjrai. See Mark xv. 15; 
 Acts xxii. 30; xxiii. 28; xxv. 22; xxvii. 43, etc. Compare 
 John xviii. 39. 
 
28 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 XII. 
 
 2. " But the Pharisees, when they" for "but when the 
 Pharisees, they." But see verse 24, where the Revisers re- 
 verse their construction, with the same Pharisees and the 
 same Greek construction ! See also xi. 2 ; ix. 12. 
 
 12. " How much is a man of more value" for "how 
 much is a man better." If they must change, suppose they 
 had said, " Of how much more value" ? 
 
 "To do good" for "to do well" = xaXdoS 7toieiv x not 
 even na\ov noie.iv. Which is the more faithful ? See 2 
 Thess. iii. 13 ; Acts x. 33 ; 1 Cor. vii. 37, 38 ; 2 Cor. xi. 4, 
 etc. 
 
 so. " Judgement" = ri)v upi6iv : so A. V. 
 
 zi. " The Gentiles" = e'Svtj : so also A. V. 
 
 24. "The prince" = apxovri. Why not "prince" or 
 " a prince" ? See Mark iii. 17, etc. 
 
 27, 28. Article omitted twice — ra daijiovia. 
 
 33. " The tree is known by its fruit;" but see the cor- 
 rection of A. V. at Matt. vii. 16. 
 
 40. Note how the order of time and place in the' Greek is 
 inverted in the English. 
 
 "The belly of the whale" for " the whale's belly"! 
 When we compare this and v. 34 with 2 Tim. ii. 24, I am 
 almost tempted to infer that the learned Revisers supposed 
 " the whale's belly" might mean "a belly of the whale." 
 But how many bellies had the whale? 
 
 42. "The queen of the south." No articles in Greek. 
 But see 2 Tim. ii. 24 again. 
 
 43. "The unclean spirit, when he" for " when the un- 
 clean spirit . . . he." But this is departing from the struct- 
 ure of the Greek ; and the ambiguity which they would re- 
 move is as much in the Greek as in the English of the A. V. 
 This change of construction therefore is as much required 
 in our Lord's own words (if he used the Greek) as in the 
 English. And what has become of their painful faithful- 
 ness to the exact text ? See xxi. 38, etc., etc., etc. Here 
 they assume and translate a text for which there is not the 
 slightest authority. Besides, they might have reached their 
 
ST. MATTHEW. 29 
 
 purpose by substituting, from the margin, " it " for " he," 
 referring to the demon. 
 
 46. " His" for the article only, twice. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 2. "Beach" for "shore." How necessary . 
 
 3. "The sower" for " a sower 1 ' = 6 07teipoov. But why- 
 change ? Does 6 GrtBipoov here mean any definite particu- 
 lar sower? Does it not mean indifferently " the sower" or 
 " a sower," i.e., " he that" or " one that sows" ? See John 
 v. 45 ; and viii. 50, " one that seeketh" = 6 2,r}TGov : and 
 Mark iv. 26, "casts seed," tor 6nopov : — the generic ar- 
 ticle. 
 
 17. Preterites for perfects (?). 
 
 " To see" = idelv: " see" = (SXtTtere. Cf. xi. 7, 8. 
 
 18. " Hear then ye" for " hear ye therefore" (?). 
 24. " Is likened" = gdjuoigqSt/. 
 
 27. *' Didst thou not" for " didst not thou" (?). 
 
 28. " Hath done" (aorist) ; why not " did" ? 
 
 (No marginal note.) " Wilt thou" — not " desirest thou." 
 But see Matt. xxvi. 15. 
 
 30. " Time" = Kcapoi). 
 
 34. " Without" = jG?p/s. 
 
 " In parables unto the multitudes" for " unto the multi- 
 tude in parables." " Parables" here is the emphatic word, 
 and the A. V. is the natural English. 
 
 36. " Left" for " sent away" = acpsfc (?). 
 
 39. Why not " the angels" as well as "the end" ? Both 
 are predicates, and both without the article. 
 
 44. "In" = «7ro— "of," "from," or "for;"— why "in"? 
 
 46. " Sold" = 7T67tpaK8 — perfect co-ordinated with aorists, 
 and all here rendered preterite. But see i. 22, yeyovsv. 
 
 48. Order changed; see xxi. 12, etc., for the Greek 
 order. 
 
 50. " Furnace of fire," rov rtvpc?. Also, as at verse 42^ 
 "the weeping" (6), and "of teeth" (tgdv). 
 
 57. " Were offended" = 86Kavda\i£,oi*TO. But see xi. 6. 
 
 58. "Unbelief" =a7twriav-~ not "disbelief." But see 
 Mark xvi. 16. 
 
3° 
 
 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 I. " Report concerning Jesus" for "fame of Jesus" = 
 auovrjv b](Jov(?). "Is risen" = rfyip^r/ — not "is raised" 
 or " was raised." But see Mark xiv. 28 ; John ii. 22 ; Matt, 
 xxvi. 32; Rom. viii. 34, etc. "These powers" =ai Svva- 
 M eis (?). 
 
 9. "Was grieved" for "was sorry" = iXv7t7]^ij. But 
 see xvii. 23; xviii. 31; xix. 22; xxvi, 22,37; Mark x. 22 
 ("sorrowful" for " grieved" !) ; xiv. 19; John xvi. 20; 2 
 Cor. ii. 2, 4, etc. ■ 
 
 14. "Had compassion on" for " was moved with com- 
 passion towards" = eg nXayxy 16^11 . So xv. 32. But see 
 xviii. 27 ; xx. 34. In this last case they put " moved with 
 compassion" for "had compassion" ! 
 
 16. " They have no need to go away" for " they need 
 not depart" = ov xpziav i'xovaiv aneXSezv. Had they 
 need or did they need to make this change ? As for " de- 
 
 'part" it is true the Greek word is rendered just before 
 " go ;" and the same is true of their "go away." The Re- 
 visers not unfrequcntly render aTreX^elv "depart," as at 
 Acts xvi. 40. 
 
 17. Note that here ovk . ... si }j.rj means " but" — 
 " only;" while at xv. 24 it means " not .... but:" — 
 English idiom. 
 
 22. "To enter into" for " to get into" (a boat) = e/ifijjvai 
 (not e-atX^eiv). (?) 
 
 27.. "After he had sent" for "when," etc. = anoXvaai. 
 Why not " sending," as at ii. 11 ? 
 
 24. "Distressed" for " tossed" = ftcxacxvi8,o^iF.vov — of 
 the boat, by the waves. (?) 
 
 25. "Upon" for "on ;'' and so at 28, 29. Why? How 
 vastly important, and intensely necessary ! ' 
 
 29. " Went down and walked" for " when lie was come 
 down he walked." But see " when he saw" in the next 
 verse, also for an aorist participle. Should the reader be 
 led to suppose the Greek construction different in the two 
 cases ? Do the Revisers study variety of expression ? But 
 see "straightway," etc. By the way they have, in the 
 
ST. MATTHEW. 31 
 
 next verse, inadvertently left " immediately" (instead of 
 "straightway," their archaic pet) for svSegoz, as also at 
 xxiv. 29. So difficult is it to hold split hairs steadily in view, 
 or, perhaps, they have split the hair a second time. 
 33. " The Son of God ;" compare xxiii. 31. 
 
 XV. 
 
 5. "That wherewith thou mightest have been profited 
 by me is given to God " for " It is a gift, by whatsoever thou 
 mightest be profited by me" = Aoopov, o iav ££, eyiov 
 GQcpe\T?$7~p. " To God" is not translation, but paraphrase 
 or exposition. Compare this with their painstaking faith- 
 fulness in adhering to the Greek order and emphasis in 
 other cases. The A. V. is here by far the more faithful to 
 the original, and gives- the same sense as their version, and 
 that as clearly as the Greek gives it ; and, moreover, has 
 retained the right grammatical tense for GjrpeXr/S-fjs. See, 
 by analogy, Luke xvi. 30, 31. 
 
 9. " The precepts" for " the commandments" = evraX- 
 jxocta. While they were making their correction they 
 might as well have made it accurate and said, " precepts" 
 or " injunctions." 
 
 12. " Were offended" — not " stumbled," and that though 
 their rendering here might stumble the reader — quite as 
 naturally as in any of the passages where they have intro- 
 duced the other translation. 
 
 14. " If the blind guide the blind" — "guide" for "lead"? 
 And nothing to distinguish the singular number. There is 
 no article m the Greek, but it is literally "if blind lead 
 blind" or "if a blind man lead a blind man." For do we 
 not naturally speak of a blind man's being "led," rather 
 than "guided" ? 
 
 " A pit" for " the ditch" (no article) ; but is not the A. V. 
 the true sense in current English ? Just before the Re- 
 visers say, " is cast into the draught," although " draught" 
 has no article in the Greek. 
 
 32. " Would" for " will." Is this necessary, and is it ex- 
 actly the sense? He refers to what he wills, not to what he 
 would. He is resolved upon what he will and will not do. 
 
32 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION 
 
 33. " In a desert place" for "in the wilderness" = iv 
 £pr)}.d(y. But the article is familiarly supplied in such 
 cases after iv ; and see 2 Cor. xi. 26. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 1. " From heaven" == £ n rod ovpavou — not "out of the 
 heaven," as elsewhere. 
 
 2, 3. '' The heaven" for "the sky"— 6 ovpavoi. 
 
 5. " Forgot" for " had forgotten." But it must be " had 
 forgotten" with any construction ; the forgetting must be 
 antecedent to their coming to the other side, and so the 
 Greek implies. If we must change the A. V., would it not 
 be better to say, "And being come to the other side, the 
 disciples had forgotten," etc.; i.e., they then found it out ? 
 
 7. " Perceiving" = yvovS. 
 
 8, 11. " Perceive" for " understand" —voeire (?). 
 19. "On earth," "in heaven" — article in Greek. 
 
 29. "In no wise" for " not" = ov jxtf. But see xxiii. 
 39; xxiv. 35, etc., etc. 
 
 24, 25. " Would" for " will" = Se\ei = wills to. The 
 simple future after " if " would be "shall," never "will." 
 There could therefore be no ambiguity. But see xxiii. 4. 
 
 27. " To every man" = euaaray. Elsewhere they often 
 change " every" to " each," making questionable English. 
 
 XVII. 
 
 5. " My beloved Son" = vio$ fiov 6 aya7rr/r6z — not 
 " a son of mine, even the (or my) beloved." But see xxv. 
 40; Luke ix. 35; Mark v. 15; 1 Cor. xv. 38; Rev. iii. 2; 
 Gal. ii. 20. 
 
 8. " Lifting up" for " when they had lifted up" = ina- 
 pavTEi. See xiv. 23 ; Acts xxi 2, 4; cf. Acts i. 9. 
 
 "No one" for " no man;" and so, often. But in the 
 next verse they say " no man." Does ovSsls mean "no 
 one" and fxrjSeU " no man"? Or did they fear an infer- 
 ence as to Christ's humanity? 
 
 13, 25. How necessary to faithfulness are these changes 
 in the order of the words ! 
 
 26. "Therefore the sons are free" for " then are the chil- 
 
ST. MATTHEW. 33 
 
 dren free" = apays iXevS'spoi eiaiv 01 viol. " Sons'' may 
 be more accurate than children ; but why " therefore" for 
 "then" ? As to arrangement, the A. V. is clearly nearer 
 the order and emphasis of the original. 
 
 27. "Lest" = i'va fxr} — not "that not." But see John 
 xii. 35 ; Col. ii. 4 ; iii. 21 ; Phil. ii. 27, etc. 
 
 " Cause to stumble," and so xviii. 6. But see xv. 12. 
 "Stumble" is ambiguous as well as "offend." 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 3. " Turn" for " be converted" = arpacpr/Te. (?) ' ' Little 
 children'' ==ra naidia. Article? 
 
 7, 8, 9. " Occasions," etc. = tgqv GnavSaXaov : " the oc- 
 casions," etc. = ra auavSaXa: "life" = rr/v 8,gdt)v. 
 "The eternal fire" — (not "the fire which is," or " even 
 that which is") = to nvp to aiaoviov : " the hell of fire" 
 (not " the hell of the fire") — tov nvpos. 
 
 12. "Which goeth astray," for " which is gone astray ;" 
 present participle =" which is straying," or " is gone 
 astray." 
 
 16. "Two witnesses or three," for " two or three wit- 
 nesses." Is not this a piece of hypercriticism ? The A. V. 
 gives the usual English phrase. See Heb. x. 28 and 2 Cor. 
 xiii. 1; and "the kingdom of heaven." See also Deut. 
 xvii. 6 and xix. 15. 
 
 18, 19. " On earth" (thrice), — TrfZ : "in heaven" (twice), 
 — t&> : "in heaven' * = ev ovpavoiS. See also xvi. 19; 
 but compare xxiii. 9. 
 
 20. " In my name," Gr. eis. — Note and cf. xxviii. 19. 
 
 32. "Called" for "after that he had called." But see 
 xiv. 23. Either way is well enough; but why change, and 
 that, first one way and then another ? 
 
 XIX. 
 
 1. "Beyond Jordan," tov; and so at John i. 28; iii. 
 26 ; but, Matt. iii. 13, they say " to the Jordan," and Mark 
 i. 9, "in the Jordan." The established English usage has 
 Jordan without the article (in the Palestinian point of view), 
 even in the nominative case; see Joshua iii. 15, " Jordan 
 
34 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 overfloweth." If this is an archaism it is no more unintel- 
 ligible or ambiguous now than is "which" for "who," or 
 "or" for " ere," or " howbeit," or " straightway." 
 
 5. "His father and mother" for " father and mother. " 
 The A. V. is literal and plain. In the Greek there is no 
 article. 
 
 11. "All men . . . not" = ov 7ravrsi,= " not all men/' 
 Cf. 1 Cor. vi. 12, and x. 23. 
 
 20. "Have observed" for "have kept" = ecpv\a^a- 
 
 }AT}V. (?) 
 
 22. "Was one that had" for " had"= rjv i'xoov. But 
 see vii. 29 ; Mark i. 22, etc. 
 
 23. "It is hard for a rich man to enter" for " a rich 
 man shall hardly enter." Here the A. V. is exactly literal 
 with tense, adverb and all. 
 
 24. What is the difference, to a simple reader, between 
 <: a needle's eye" and "the eye of a needle"? Do the Re- 
 visers suppose that "a needle's eye" means "an eye of a 
 needle," i.e., "one of the eyes of a needle"? And do they 
 intend to insinuate this meaning ? A needle is ordinarily 
 cycloptic, or, at the least, monoptic. But ah ! the Greek 
 article! Or must St. Matthew be conformed to St. Luke? 
 
 25. " Astonished exceedingly" for " exceedingly amazed ;" 
 — consequential. 
 
 26. "Looking upon them said" for "beheld them and 
 said" = €/A/3\upaS ei7tev. But see vii. 3 and xxvi. 27. 
 
 27. " Lo" for " behold" = idov. But see i. 20, 23 ; ii. 1, 
 9 ; x. 16 ; xx. 18, 30, etc., etc. What hair is split here? 
 
 "Then" for " therefore" = apa. But see at xvii. 26 
 " therefore" for " then" = a pays. What hair is split again 
 here ? 
 
 30. The Revisers show here that the sense can be con- 
 veyed in English without inserting the article ; and their 
 manipulation is skilful. But what is gained, by their 
 change, in faithfulness to the Word of God? See x. 2. 
 
 XX. 
 
 1. " That ./*" should be " that was." So the American 
 Revisers. 
 
ST. MATTHEW. 35 
 
 7. " Hath hired" = ifxia^fooaaro. 10. " Would receive" 
 = Xr/fitpovrai. 
 
 17. "As Jesus was going up" for " Jesus going up"= 
 6 IrjGovZ arafiaivoov. Which is the more faithful ? and 
 what of participial constructions ? 
 
 19. " Shall be raised up" for " shall rise again." In the 
 Revisers' text iyepSr/Gerai is put for ava^rr/fferai. But 
 see xiv. 2 ; xxvii. 63, 64 ; xxviii. 6 ; Mark xvi. 6 ; etc. 
 
 21. "What wouldst thou?" for " what wilt thou?" i.e., 
 " what wilt thou have?" = ri SeXeiS ; (?) 
 
 23. " It is for" for " // shall be given to." The latter inser- 
 tion keeps up the connection, and is as true as the other. 
 ''Hath been prepared" for "is prepared." But see ye- 
 ypcc7tTai. 
 
 25. "Their great ones" for "they that are great" = 01 
 jusyaXoz. At Mark x. 42, "their great ones" = 01 /zeyaXoi 
 avr&v (so also A. V.). But is not a pronoun as impor- 
 tant as an article ? What has become of their zeal for infin- 
 itesimal exactitude in conforming, to every particle of the 
 text, in bringing out the slightest diiferences in different 
 passages, and particularly in their new text? See "a 
 needle's eye," " the belly of the whale," " two witnesses or 
 three ;" see also xix. 30 ; and their contortions to keep the 
 article out, and yet to get it in, at Gal. ii. 20, etc., etc. If 
 the A. V. had given the same rendering here as in St. Mark, 
 although there was no cwtgov in the text, or if, the ocvtgov 
 being in the text, they had translated as they did, the Re- 
 visers would have shown no more than a reasonable breadth 
 of the critical mind in leaving the translation unchanged. 
 But the change they have made only combines pettiness 
 with inconsistency. We beg pardon for speaking plainly. 
 If we are asked why make so much ado about a trifling 
 oversight ? we answer that, if an oversight, it is an over- 
 sight in making a petty correction ; and what we most 
 object to all along is precisely the pettiness of the greater 
 part of the corrections the Revisers have indulged in. 
 
 26. " Not so shall it be among you" for " it shall not be 
 so among you" = ovx ovtgdS effrat iv vjxiv. But Cf. ix. 
 13 ; viii. 16, 25 ; xii. 33 ; xv. 5 ; xxi. 12, 33 ; xxiii. 1, 2, 3, 
 
$6 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 etc. And why not say " not. all" (ov navrs^) at xix. n, 
 and be logically as well as literally correct ? 
 
 27. " Would" for " will." The simple future would be 
 " shall." There is no ambiguity therefore in the A. V. 
 
 XXI. 
 
 5. " Riding" =67rifie/3rjHGDZ. Did they see the perfect, 
 or did they render by consequence? "The foal of an 
 ass" = viov vrtoByVyiov. Why not " a foal of an ass," or 
 at least, " an ass's foal" ? 
 
 8. " Cut and spread." These are imperfects; why not, 
 "went on cutting and spreading" ? 
 
 10. "The prophet, Jesus, from Nazareth" for "Jesus, 
 the prophet of Nazareth." f ano N. = " who is," or, in 
 the most approved style, "even he that is." How hap- 
 pened they to forget this ? 
 
 12. Why did not the Revisers say, "And the tables of 
 the money changers he overturned," and thus imitate the 
 change of order in the Greek, as at xiii. 48 ; a change which 
 may contain some latent emphasis or, perchance, some 
 mystery ? 
 
 16. "Did you never read" for "have ye never read." 
 But see xii. 3, 5; xix. 4 ; xxii. 31 ; etc. — where ovk instead 
 of ovdknore : but what of it? Does the latter require the 
 tense to be altered here ? See also v. 21, 27, etc., etc. 
 
 23, 24. Why didn't they say : " In what authority ?" — in- 
 stead of " by" = eV, as elsewhere ? 
 
 28, 41. "The vineyard" for "my vineyard;" because 
 the jjlov has fallen out of their text. But they find the 
 article enough for the possessive pronoun in numberless 
 instances; see verse 31, John xix. 30, etc., etc., and com- 
 pare xx. 25, 
 
 ^t,. Why not, "another parable hear ye" ? See xx. 26; 
 xxiv. 32, etc. 
 
 38. "But the husbandmen, when they saw, said" for 
 "but when, etc., they said." But see ix. 12 ; xi. 2. 
 
 " Let us take." But their text is changed to (?x&>M €v = 
 " let us have* ' or " hold' ' — not seize or take = Karaaxoo^ev. 
 
 41. " Miserable" for " wicked" = hochovs. (?) 
 
ST. MATTHEW. 37 
 
 42. " The head of the corner. " Noarticles. Cf. xxiii. 15. 
 44. "Scatter as dust" for "grind to powder" =\iH/*r/- 
 aei. (?) Observe it is done by a falling stone. 
 
 XXII. 
 
 2. "Is likened" = <hpioiGD$r}. 3. Why not "bid the 
 bidden" or "call the called" ? See Acts xxvi. 24, 25. 
 
 4. " Made ready" for " prepared." See " ready" imme- 
 diately afterwards. 
 
 6. "Entreated shamefully" for ". . . spitefully = 
 vfipiffav. No shame in the word, but wanton violence and 
 outrage. Cf. Mark xii. 4; Luke xx. 11, where "shame- 
 fully" is right. 
 
 11. "To behold (for see) the guests" = SeocGaoSai. 
 But see vi. 1; xxiii. 5; Markxvi. 14; Acts viii. 18, etc. So 
 this strange English is not enforced by the Greek. 
 
 13. "Hand and foot" = ncSas xai x £ ^P aZ -> "feet and 
 hands;" but see " the footstool of his feet," and the "two 
 witnesses and three," etc. 
 
 21. Why not say "the things that are Caesar's to 
 Cassar, and the things that are God's to God" and thus 
 continue "faithful" to the Greek ? See Mark v. 15. 
 
 34. " But the Pharisees, when they heard . . . gathered," 
 for "but when the Pharisees heard, they were," etc. See 
 xii. 2, 24. 
 
 36. "The great" = jxeyak r) : 38, "the great" = rj 
 fxeyaXtj. Both are predicates. 
 
 39. "A second" for "the second" (also in margin). 
 But see Mark xii. 31, "the second," alike in both cases, no 
 article. 
 
 40. " The whole law" for "all the law" = 0X0? 6 vojuos- 
 But why not, then, say, at verse 37, " thy whole heart," 
 "thy whole soul," etc. ; and see Matt. iv. 23, 24 ; ix. 26, 31, 
 etc. ; also Acts ii. 2, " all the house ;" x. 22, "all the nation ;" 
 xi. 28, "all the world" (with A. V. ) ; and compare Matt, 
 xxiv. 14, "the whole world" (with A. V.). Why, then, 
 must faithfulness make a change here ? 
 
 42. Tov Aafiid. The rov here belongs to dafiid in the 
 
38 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 genitive. So, probably, the rov before the list of names 
 in St. Luke's genealogy of Christ, Luke iii. 23-36; and, if 
 so, "the son" there, (both words), should be printed in 
 italics (as being inserted), after the A. V. 
 
 43. " In the Spirit" = sv 7tv8v/xart. So, then, it seems 
 the absence of the article rather than its presence shows 
 7rv6vjua to be the Holy Spirit. Compare Matt. v. 3. 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 4. "They will not move them" = oi) SeXovgi. Here 
 there might be ambiguity; but see xvi. 24; xxvi. 15. 
 
 9. "On the earth;" but see xvi. 19; xviii. 18, etc. 
 The change proposed in this verse by the American Re- 
 visers is well enough in itself, but unnecessary. See John 
 viii. 53. 
 
 13. If this repetition of "enter in" is required by faith- 
 fulness, then they should have "bid" "the bidden" to the 
 marriage. Besides, they were bound to complete their im- 
 provement here by rendering, " for ye enter not in your- 
 selves, neither suffer ye them that are entering in to enter 
 (in)." They themselves render eiffeXSsiv, "come under," 
 Matt. viii. 8 and Luke vii. 6; "come into," Matt. xvii. 25; 
 and " go in" or " went in," John x. 9, — here it is "enter 
 in" and "go in" in immediate succession — , Acts i. 21 ; x. 
 27; xi. 3 ; xvii. 2 ; Mark xv. 43 ; Luke xi. 37 ; xv. 28; xxiv. 
 29; Matt. xxv. 10. And Liddell and Scott define it "to go 
 or come in." Yet in some twenty or thirty cases they have 
 changed "go in" to "enter in," with no more necessity 
 than here, or in the passages just referred to. 
 
 15. "A son" for "the child." 31. "Sons" for "the 
 children." Predicates or in apposition. See xiv. 33 ; xxiv. 8. 
 
 22. " The heaven" for "heaven ;" and then, verse 23, the 
 article omitted three times and three times. See verse 24, 
 where " strain out" is right; but "the" is no more required 
 with "gnat" and "camel" than with "mint, anise, and 
 cummin," in verse 23. 
 
 39. Ob }JLr}= simply "not;" and so Mark xiii. 3 ; Matt, 
 xxiv. 35 ; xxvi. 29, etc., etc. But see Matt. xvi. 28. 
 
ST. MATTHEW. 39 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 9. "All the nations" for "all nations" — and so, often. 
 But what is the faithful difference in the sense ? 
 
 13. "To the end" = eis Ttkoi. 
 
 15. " When therefore ye see" for " when ye therefore shall 
 see" = otolv ovv idtfTe. But see, for "shall," Mark xiii. 
 7 ; Luke xvii. 10, etc. ; and for " therefore," Matt. xxv. 28. 
 
 22. " Except those days had been shortened no flesh would 
 have been saved;" but they " shall be shortened." This, in 
 English, is incongruous. Is it required by the Greek ? Is 
 not the rule that enjoins it contradicted by this fact of the 
 language ? See xxvi. 24. In St. Mark the construction of 
 the parallel passage is consistent, being framed throughout 
 from the prophetic or predestinate point of view. 
 
 27, 37. Is the change of order necessary to faithfulness, 
 or was it to improve the English expression ? 
 
 29. " Stars shall fall from heaven," sx rov ovp. "Pow- 
 ers of the heavens," tgov ovp.: 30. " Sign in heaven," 
 iv Top ovp.: " Clouds of heaven," rov ovpavov : 31. "End 
 of heaven," ovpavoov : 36. " Angels of heaven," tgov 
 ovpavoov ; 35. " Heaven and earth," 6 ovp. and 77 yi). 
 See Acts iv. 24. 
 
 32, " Now from the fig-tree learn her parable." Greek 
 order, but see xx. 26; xxi. 33. No pronoun for "her," but 
 see xxi. 28, 41. 
 
 42. This = exeivo ; and so A. V. 
 
 XXV. 
 
 18. " Digged in the earth" = Gopvi;e y?jv. 
 
 20, 22. "Lo" for " behold" = ids. But see 65; Mark 
 ii. 24; xi. 21, etc., etc. "He that received" for "he that 
 had received" = o Xa/3aDV. Cf. John xiii. 26 ; Heb. xi. 17. 
 
 21,23. "Hast been" = r/S. Why not "wast"? But 
 who can exactly measure the depths of faithfulness ? 
 
 24. "He that had received" =0 eiXr/cpGoS. But it is 
 manifestly co-ordinated with 6 Xafioov. 
 
 25, 27. " Thine own" for " that is thine" = to gov, not 
 to idiov. 
 
4-0 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 26. " Wicked" = novrjpe, not " evil," and so Luke xix. 
 22. But see Matt. xii. 45 ; xvi. 4; Luke xi. 26 ; Col. i. 21 ; 
 2 Thess. iii. 2, etc., etc. 
 
 28. ''Take ye away, therefore, from" for " take there- 
 fore from" = apars ovv ano. The "ye" is not expressed 
 in the Greek ; and see xxiv. 15. 
 
 37. "Athirst" for " thirsty" = SiipGovra. This pains- 
 taking emendation seems to have been made because (with 
 A. V.) the Revisers have " athirst" at verse 44. But why 
 stop at this? If SiipGovra must be "athirst," how should 
 edtyrjffa remain " I was thirsty"? Their shortest way would 
 have been, if they must correct so flagrant a piece of un- 
 faithfulness in the A. V., to put "thirsty" for "athirst" 
 at verse 44, and then all would have been harmonious. 
 
 40. " One of these my brethren, even of these least' ' for 
 "one of the least of these my brethren" = evi rovroov 
 tgqv aSe\q)Gbv jj.ov tgqv eXaxiGraov. But the second 
 "these" is not in the Greek. See the "daily bread" of 
 the Lord's Prayer, for the construction. 
 
 XXVI. 
 
 2. "Cometh" for "is" = yiverai : 5. "arise" for 
 " be" = yivrjrca ; 54, "be" = yevia^ai. 
 
 7. "Exceeding precious" for "very precious" = 
 j3apvripiov: — exceeding faithful ! 
 
 9. "The poor" = 7trooxoiS (no art.). Why not say, at 
 verse it, " For the poor ye have always with you, but me ye 
 have not always ;' ' thus taking advantage of the Greek initial 
 and of the English final emphasis? But compare John xii. 8. 
 If they must change there, why not also here? 
 
 12. " Did" = E7roLt]G£ : 13. "Hath done" = in oly &s. 
 Note a painstaking reconstruction, and all to secure the 
 presumed logical place for " also." 
 
 15. " Are ye willing to" for "will ye" = SeXers ; but 
 see xxiii. 4; Acts xxv. 9. 
 
 15. "Weighed" = e'fJT^ffav: — a possible but at least a 
 doubtful sense here. 
 
 17. " Of unleavened bread" for " of the feast of unleav- 
 ened bread" = tgjv ocZv/agov. Faithfulness to the sense ? 
 
ST. MATTHEW. 41 
 
 To the syllables? But what has become of the article? 
 " Make ready" for "prepare." (?) 
 
 18. "Time" = HaipoZ. 
 
 19. "Appointed" for " had appointed" = evvtragev. 
 But " had appointed" expresses in the English the strict 
 relation of the time. See xxviii. 16; Luke xxiv. 24. 
 
 21. il Betray" =7tapaSoj(X£i : but, at 16, "deliver" = 
 napadcp is substituted for "betray," as ''deliver'' had been 
 used just before. Why not make the change there as well 
 as here ? Must the A. V. be altered ? Besides, the Revi- 
 sers are not afraid of verbal repetitions. Rather they are 
 bound to make them after the Greek. See 1 Cor. xv. 28, 
 etc. 
 
 24. " Good were it for that man if he had not been born" 
 for "it had been good," etc. But see xxiv. 22. Surely if 
 ifv conditioned by si with an aorist indicative can mean 
 " were" (= " would be,") eGGoSr] with av, and conditioned 
 in like manner, can mean "would be saved" instead of 
 "would have been saved." It would really seem as if the 
 A. V. must be corrected, render as it may. If it renders 
 "had been," then "were" or " would be;" if it renders 
 "would be," then "would have been" or "had been." 
 But see John xv. 22, 24, where they follow the A. V. 
 
 25. "Is it I, Rabbi?" for "Master, is it I?" But see 
 "Save, Lord," viii. 25. " Hast said" = etnas. 
 
 26. 27. " He" inserted before "gave" in 26 but not in 27. 
 " A cup" for "the cup." Their text omits the article. But 
 is any article needed in the Greek phrase ? See verses 74 
 and 75. 
 
 2S. "Is shed," not "is being shed." Cf. Acts ii. 47 and 
 2 Cor. ii. 15, etc. "Unto remission of sins" for " For the 
 remission of sins" — eis occpeaiv aju. But at Luke i. 77, 
 they render iv dcpiaei " in the remission;" and see verse 
 45, " unto the hands" = eis jf/pa's. 
 
 37. " Sore troubled" for " very heavy" = adrj/iorsiv. (?) 
 43. " Heavy" = /3s/3ap^juEvoi = " weighed down." 
 44 and 42. "A second time," "a third" for "the" etc. 
 O faithfulness ! How many second and third times were 
 there? But see Mark xiv. 72 and Acts x. 15. 
 
42 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 45. " Unto" for " into" = £zV. (?) And how important! 
 
 50. ''Laid hands," ras xefpas : but at 45 "unto the 
 hands," x £ ?P a > •' an d at verse 51 " his hand," rrjv ^eXpa. 
 Why not say here "their hands" and be exact and consist- 
 ent — and correct the A. V. at the same time ? 
 
 52. "With" = ev: and "the" is inserted twice with 
 " sword.' ' 
 
 56. " Is come to pass." Misleading? 
 
 64 and 39. "Nevertheless" = 7tX?jv. This particle seems 
 to have been a special exercise to the faithful and conse- 
 quential ingenuity of the Revisers. It is used in the N. T. 
 about thirty times, and they have corrected the A. V. fifteen 
 times. In Matt. xi. 22, 24 ; Luke x. 14 ; xi. 41 ; xii. 31 ; xix. 
 27, and Rev. ii. 25, they put " howbeit' ' for " but ;" in Luke 
 x. n, 20, and Phil. iv. 14, they put "howbeit" for '^not- 
 withstanding;" in Luke xiii. 33, xviii. 8, and 1 Cor. xi. 11, 
 they put " howbeit" for " nevertheless ;" in Phil. i. 18; iii. 
 16, they put " only" for " nevertheless ;" in Luke xxii. 42 ; 
 Eph. v. 33, as here in Matt. xxvi. 39, 64, they have suffered 
 "nevertheless" to remain. In Matt. xi. 22, 24, where they 
 put "howbeit" for " but," the phrase in the Greek is the 
 very same as here, where the "nevertheless" is retained, 
 viz., nXr/v key go vfj.iv. Now, as far as the sense is con- 
 cerned, it could make no real difference whether " but" or 
 "howbeit," or " notwithstanding," or "nevertheless" were 
 used — "nevertheless" is one of the most clumsy — ; and if 
 they had used the simple "but" (or "yet," or "and yet") 
 in all cases it might have been well. But they seem to 
 have had a special fancy for the antiquated "howbeit," 
 which the A. V. has never used as the translation of 7t\i)v: 
 and — for consistency's sake and consequential faithfulness 
 — have retained all the others in different places, except 
 " notwithstanding." Where they put " only' ' for " neverthe- 
 less," " but" would have done as well, or "nevertheless" 
 might have been left, as here. 
 
 65. " Hath spoken," "have heard," for aorists. 
 
 74, 75. " The cock crew." No article in the Greek. Why 
 did they not say : " a cock crew ;" as, " he took a cup," at 
 verse 27 ? 
 
 
ST. MATTHEW. 43 
 
 XXVII. 
 
 7. " Strangers" = roTZ givoiS, (article ?) " With them"= 
 iB, avToov. 
 
 8. " The field of blood ;" aypoZ. See Acts xvii. 23 and 
 Mark iii. 17. 
 
 14. " He gave him no answer, not even to a word" for 
 " he answered him to never a word" = ovk anenpi^r} avrcp 
 7tp6? ovde ev pr/fia. (?) 
 
 " 15. " At the feast" (marg. " a") = Kara ioprrfv. Why 
 not say, " at feast time" — if we must split hairs about arti- 
 cles, or may insert anything whatever except only an article ? 
 See Gal. ii. 20. 
 
 17. " When therefore" for " therefore when." But which 
 is most logical in English ? Do they think to express any 
 difference in the sense ? 
 
 18. " Had delivered" = 7tapeSooHav .-19, " have suffered" 
 = i'na^ov. 
 
 24. "See ye to it" = oipeaBe = " ye shall see to it/ ' (?) 
 
 26. " Jesus he scourged and delivered" for " when he had 
 scourged Jesus, he delivered him" = rov 6h IrjG. cppayeX- 
 XcoffaS naphdooKEv. Which has the right air and tone ? 
 See verses 50 and 54. 
 
 27. 29. "Kneeled down" for "bowed the knee" = yo- 
 vvTterrfGavTeS. " To kneel" is "to bow the knee," or "to 
 fall upon the knees." Whence comes the added "down" ? 
 It is a curious illustration of punctilious faithfulness and 
 consistency in correcting the A. V. that at Matt. xvii. 14 
 they put "kneeling" for "kneeling down;" at Mark i. 40 
 they retain " kneeled down ;" and at Mark x. 17 they have 
 simply " kneeled ;" and all for the same Greek word, y ow- 
 ner ego. 
 
 33. " The place of a skull" for " a place," etc. Right, but 
 remarkable. No article in Greek. Suppose the A. V. had 
 said "the place," what would they have done? It is true 
 they have left "the field" at verse 8 ; but see Mark iii. 17. 
 43. " Desireth' ' for " will have" = $e. Xei. (?) 
 45. "There was" = iyevero. Why not "there came, 
 arose, or followed"? See verse 24; Rev. xi. 15, etc. 
 
44 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 46. "Loud" = /xsyaXtj. But see Rev. v. 2, 12 ; viii. 13; 
 xiv. 7, 9, 15 ; where " loud" is faithfully changed to " great." 
 " Hast forsaken," aorist. 
 
 49. "Cometh" for " will come." The sense is undoubt- 
 edly future though the tense is present. 
 
 52. "Were raised" for " arose" = ^yep^tj. But see 
 verses 63 and 64, etc., etc. 
 
 54. Compare the construction with verses 50 and 26. 
 "The things that were done" = ra yevojueva— not "the 
 things that came to pass." But see xxviii. 11. 
 
 Marg. "A son of God." There seems no occasion for 
 this marginal reading. It is not called for by the rule of 
 the Greek article ; see verse 43, etc., etc. And as to the cen- 
 turion being a heathen, it is not certain that he was not like 
 the centurion of Matt. viii. 5-10 and Acts x. ; and it is prob- 
 able that he knew about the claims of Jesus from the Jew- 
 ish point of view, for most likely he was with Pilate, and 
 had heard the charge made by the Jews before Pilate : " We 
 have a law and by our law he ought to die, because he made 
 himself the Son of God ;" at which words Pilate, who before 
 had been startled by the message from his wife, was the 
 more afraid. But, finally, if the centurion must be sup- 
 posed to speak from the purely heathen point of view, his 
 exclamation should be translated, not " a son of God," but 
 "the son of a god." The Revisers might suggest, "a son 
 of a god," or "a god's son;" but these expressions are 
 forced and artificial, and foreign to the English idiom, or, at 
 least, very unnatural and unusual. 
 
 63. "We remember," aorist. "I rise again" for "I will 
 rise again;" but the sense is undoubtedly future. 
 
 XXVIII. 
 
 1. "To sec" = Seajpi/ffai— not "behold." 4. "Quake" 
 for "shake." (?) 
 
 6, 7. "Is risen" = ijyEp^t] — not " was raised." 
 
 9. "Took hold of his feet" for "held him by the feet" 
 =eupaTr]G£v avrov rovZ nodaS. Note the proper force 
 of the verb. Was this change required? 
 
 14. " Rid you of care" for " secure you." 
 
ST. MARK. 45 
 
 18. "Came to them and spake unto them" for ''came 
 and spake unto them" = 7tpoffs\^GJv i\a\?]6£v avrolS, 
 But see iv. 3, where they correct the A. V. by putting 
 "came" for " came to him" as a translation of the same 
 Greek word in the same construction. 
 
 " Authority" for " power" = i^ovaia\ but at Mark ii. 10 
 they render " power." 
 
 " Hath been given" for " is given" = edoSrj. (?) 
 
 19. " Make disciples of all the nations" for "teach all na- 
 tions." " All the nations" cannot differ much in sense from 
 "all nations;" only in form it brings out more sensibly the 
 incongruity with " making disciples." 
 
 " Baptizing into the name," £1? to ovo/ta. But at x. 41. 
 they render eis oropia " in the name ;" and see 1 Cor. x. 2. 
 
 20. " Commanded" for " have commanded ;" but see verse 
 16, " had appointed" — both for aorists. If an aorist be- 
 comes pluperfect after another aorist, why should it not be- 
 come perfect after a present tense ? Besides, " commanded" 
 would seem to refer to some particular, though indefinite, 
 time. Can we suppose our Lord to have had in mind any 
 such reference ? We must read from his point of view, and 
 not from our present position. Cf . Luke xxiv. 44 ; but the 
 limitation of time there expressed is not expressed here, 
 and what right have we to presume it to be implied ? See 
 Acts i. 2. 
 
 ST. MARK. 
 I 
 
 4. Why is "the" retained before " baptism" and omitted 
 before " remission" ? Which required the change, faith- 
 fulness to the English or to the Greek ? Cf. Luke i. 77 
 and Acts ii. 38. And as to the "unto" for "for," the A.V. 
 put "unto" in the margin; but "for" is the settled Eng- 
 lish use, as see the Nicene Creed ; and compare "the king- 
 dom of heaven." 
 
 6. " Had" inserted for " with." The A.V. is literal and 
 correct. For the construction of participles with the verb 
 "to be," compare xiii. 25, and compare the latter with 
 Matt. xxiv. 29. 
 
46 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 8. " Baptized" for " have baptized;"— but compare verse 
 ii, and i Cor. ix. 15 ; Col. iv. 8; Philem. 19, 21, etc., etc. 
 
 11. " Out of the heavens" for ''from heaven" = ex rtiv 
 ovpavGov: but compare the Lord's Prayer, and the "king- 
 dom of heaven," tgjv ovp-: also John iii. 31 ; 1 Thess. i. 
 10; Rev. x. 4, xiv. 13, etc.; where we have "in heaven" 
 = ev roiZ ovp. (as commonly elsewhere); and "from 
 heaven" = ex tgjv ovp. t " cometh from heaven ;" and "a 
 voice from heaven," ex rov ovp. — not " out of heaven." 
 
 35. The participial construction of the A. V. wantonly 
 changed. 
 
 37. "Are seeking" for "seek." But why not the same 
 change at iii. 32, if faithfulness required it here ? 
 
 II. 
 
 10. " Power" = eB,ovGiav : changed to "authority" 
 at iii. 15, and so, generally. But cf. Luke v. 24; xii. 5; 
 John x. 18 ; xix. 10, 11 ; Acts v. 4; viii. 19; Rom. xiii. 1, 
 2, 3; and particularly Luke xxii. 53; Acts xxvi. iS; 1 
 Cor. vii. 37. 
 
 12. " Amazed" = e^iaraa^fai : — but another verb is 
 translated "amazed" at i. 27; and this verb is translated 
 "is beside himself" at iii. 21. 
 
 17. "A" for "the;" and what's the difference? "The 
 righteous" has no article in the Greek. 
 
 26. "Gave also to them," should be, if they will split 
 hairs, "gave to them also" — their rule being, apparently, 
 to put "also" after the word which in Greek follows the 
 uai. 28. " Even" for " also." (?) At iii. 19, OS" xai is ren- 
 dered " who also." 
 
 III. 
 
 1,3. " His" is put twice for the article only, unneces- 
 sarily. Indeed "a hand" was as near the sense as "his 
 hand;" it was one of the man's hands. 
 
 9. " Lest" = iva jai) : — but see Col. iii. 21. 
 
 10. Here the A. V. follows the Greek order; and does it 
 not give the sense, and is it not good English? Compare 
 the painful transpositions of the Revisers at v. 15, in order 
 
ST. MARK. 47 
 
 to conform to the Greek construction. And as to "that 
 they might touch" for "to touch" = i'va atpcovrai, com- 
 pare their own translation at iv. 21, where "to be put" = 
 iva reSij ! 
 
 15. " Devils" = roc datjuovia. But see verse 22, and 
 "the mountain" at verse 13; and vi. 7. 
 
 17. "Them he surnamed" for "he surnamed them." 
 The A. V. follows the order of the Greek. Cf. Rev. viii. 
 2. "Sons" for "the sons;" — indifferent, but see Matt, 
 xxvii. 34. 
 
 25. "Will not be able" for " cannot"= dwrjaerai : — 
 so also at viii. 4. But " cannot" in English is either present 
 or future ; and "will not be able" looks as if not only a 
 different tense but a different verb were used in the Greek. 
 See Luke xvi. 2 ; where "can" is for the future. 
 
 26. " Hath risen up" for " rise up" = clveffrr/. If 
 aviarr) must be " hath risen up," then surely e/xspi(T$rf (al- 
 though displacing fxe^piarai) should be "hath been di- 
 vided." But better say, " is risen up" (or " riseth up"), 
 and "is divided." Both forms represent the perfect in 
 English. 
 
 IV. 
 
 12. p\knoa = " see," and id gov ==" perceive." 
 
 16. "Are sown," not " are being sown" = ansipofXEvou 
 Cf. Acts ii. 47; 2 Cor. ii. 15. And compare " the sower" 
 == 6 67teipGQv, verse 14, with " seed" = rov 6nopov, verse 
 26 ; and with o Karrjyopdov, o^t/tgdv, and rov Kpivovroc, at 
 John v. 45 ; viii. 50 ; xii. 48. With these last compare " There 
 shall be the weeping and gnashing," and especially Mark 
 i. 7, " there cometh he that is mightier than I." 
 
 19. " Entering in," not "going in" = eiffnopsvoixsvai^ 
 not elaepxofxevai : see vii. 15-20. 21. "Is brought" = 
 
 €pX £Tai - 
 
 2-S. Three articles inserted. What prevented their say- 
 ing, "first a blade, then an ear, then full corn in the ear" ? 
 
 34. Change of order needless ; see the displacement of 
 " he saith unto them," in verse $5. 
 
 37. " Insomuch that" for " so that" = coGTS. But why ? 
 
48 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 Here is another of the Greek particles which seems to have 
 sorely exercised the hypercritical faithfulness of the Revi- 
 sers. They have changed its rendering from " therefore" 
 to "wherefore" at 1 Cor. iii. 21 ; iv. 5 ; v. 8; xv. 58 ; 2 Cor. 
 v. 17, and Phil. iv. 1. But they have admitted that it may 
 be translated "therefore" by retaining that rendering at 
 Rom. xiii. 2 ; and will they tell us the faithful difference 
 in any of these cases between "therefore" and "where- 
 fore"? They have changed "wherefore" to "so that," 
 at Matt. xix. 6; Rom. vii. 12; Gal. iii. 24 ; iv. 7 ; and to 
 " so then" at Phil. ii. 12 ; and " so then" to " so that" at 
 Mark x. 8. They have changed "insomuch that" to "so 
 that" at Mark ii. 2, but "so that" to "insomuch that" 
 at xv. 5 and at Acts xix. 12, retaining " so that" at verses 
 10 and t6. But Luther, the Vulgate, and the whole Eng- 
 lish Hexapla render gqote in this verse 12 just as they do in 
 verses 10 and 16 ; and, with one or two exceptions, they all 
 disagree with all the changes here made by the Revisers. 
 Now no new lights of Greek grammar or lexicography can 
 be appealed to in defence of these changes ; for the same 
 Greek word is used throughout and in the same connection, 
 i.e., with the indicative mode. All the renderings of the 
 A. V. are retained by the Revisers, only they are differently 
 distributed, and the most cumbrous and obsolescent — " in- 
 somuch that" — is here introduced, and so multiplied. The 
 right distribution must be determined by the nature of each 
 case, by the context, and the propriety of English expression 
 under the circumstances ; and of these particulars any intel- 
 ligent English reader may be as good a judge as the ripest 
 Greek scholar. To such readers we cheerfully leave the 
 judgment. But if any authority must be appealed to on 
 these points, we humbly venture to set not only that of the 
 translators of 161 i f but that of the Vulgate, of Luther, and 
 of the whole English Hexapla, against that of the Revisers. 
 It is not a question of Greek scholarship, but of good com- 
 mon-sense. This may serve as a sample of the petty, if not 
 wanton, changes, whose constant recurrence and vast mul- 
 titude constitute our chief ground of complaint against the 
 Late Revision. The worst of it is, they undermine our 
 
ST. MARK. 49 
 
 confidence in the judiciousness of really important altera- 
 tions. 
 
 V. 
 
 4. ''Had strength" for " could" = fox vs - So at ix. 
 18 and Luke xx. 26, " were not able" for " could ;" and at 
 Luke xvi. 3, "have not strength" for "can." The Eng- 
 lish reader can judge whether these changes are required for 
 the sense ; for, that the Greek word does not require them 
 will be seen by referring to Matt. viii. 28 ; xxvi. 40 ; Mark 
 xiv. 37 ; and Acts xxv. 7, where they render this verb by 
 "could ;" and Phil. iv. 13, where they render it by "can." 
 
 15. "Behold" for " see" = SaoopovGi : and so at verse 
 38 and at iii. 11, and often elsewhere. But see Matt, xxviii. 
 1 ; John ix. 8 ; etc. " Even him that had" == rov effxyxora. 
 For this laborious construction, compare the " daily bread" 
 of the Lord's Prayer and Matt. xvii. 5. But rov iaxv Kora 
 is rendered "him that had" — not "had had" — in the same 
 tense with rov Saijj.ovi£6/j.evov= ii him that was possessed;' ' 
 unless the latter is conceived — as indeed it may, if not must, 
 be — in the pluperfect tense ; in which case the present par- 
 ticiple is rendered as pluperfect, while the perfect parti- 
 ciple, in precisely the same construction, is rendered as a 
 simple preterite ! Had the man the legion still ? Now rov 
 i'xovra, in this connection, as being governed by a preterite 
 verb, would mean "him that had ;" shall we put the same 
 for rov sexyxora? ln Rom. vi. 7, an aorist participle is 
 rendered as a perfect, " he that hath died ;" and here a per- 
 fect is rendered as a simple preterite, and that when thrown 
 into a time antecedent to the preterite verb that governs it ! 
 This passage must evidently have been thoroughly studied, 
 as it is so carefully reconstructed. And observe rov dai- 
 poviZojAtvov is not rendered "him that was being pos- 
 sessed ;" as see Acts ii. 47, etc. For tenses cf. Acts iv. 13. 
 
 19. Aorist and perfect coordinated ; and both should be 
 rendered perfect. 
 
 39, 40, 41. Here we have three aorist participles, and each 
 followed by the present indicative, — one rendered by " when 
 he was entered in," another by " having put them all out," 
 and the third by "taking." Why this change of tense? 
 
50 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 And as for the variety of construction, see "mad," " mad- 
 ness," "mad;" "subject," "subjected," "subject;" Acts 
 xxvi. 24, 25 ; 1 Cor. xv. 27, 28. 
 
 VI. 
 
 7. An imperfect and an aorist are coordinated, and both 
 translated by the preterite. Is this the reason for twice in- 
 serting "he" ? Amazing faithfulness ! See verse 13. 
 
 9. "To go" inserted for "be;" but the A. V. is the 
 simpler. There is no "go" in the context. 
 
 13. Here all three imperfects are rendered preterites ; and 
 "they" is not repeated. 
 
 14. "Had become" for " was" = iytvero* "Is risen" 
 = avtari], " These" = at. 
 
 16. " But Herod, when he heard thereof, said," for " But 
 when Herod heard thereof he said" = auovcxa? ds 6 
 'HpGodrjS i'Xeyev. How important ! But see xv. 39 ; Matt, 
 ix. 8, 12, etc. " He is risen" = rjyEp^tf : — not "is raised" 
 nor "was raised;" but see xiv. 28; and Matt. xxvi. 32; 
 etc., etc. 
 
 17. Pluperfects for aorists right through ; but, 18, " said" 
 for "had said." Is not the A. V. right? Common-sense, 
 and not the Greek grammar, must decide. 
 
 19. "Set herself against" for "had a quarrel against" 
 = ereixzv} " Grudge" might, perhaps, have been better 
 than " quarrel." " Desired" for " would have" = ySsXsv. 
 But see verses 26 and 48, and Matt. xiv. 5. 
 
 23. "The half." No article in the Greek. This is a 
 good illustration of idiom. 
 
 34. For change of construction, see v. 39. " Hath com- 
 passion" for " was moved with compassion ;" see Matt. xiv. 
 14, note. 
 
 56. "He entered" = siffTtopsvero : imperfect; but see 
 vii. 15, "going into" for" entering into." " The country," 
 — no article in the Greek nor in the A. V. 
 
 VII. 
 
 7. " The precepts." No article in the Greek, and none 
 needed in the English. 
 
ST. MARK. 51 
 
 11. " Mightest have been" for " mightest be" = GocpsiXr/- 
 S-qS : also "given" for " gift" ? See also Matt. xv. 5, and 
 note. 
 
 15-20. "Going into" for "entering into;" but see vi. 
 56; iv. 19; etc. " Goeth out," but in 15 and 20 "proceed- 
 eth out," — all from £H7topevo/*ai. But see " mad, madness, 
 mad," Acts xxvi. 24, 25. And see Matt, xxiii. 13. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 1. Change of construction entirely unnecessary ; in 
 English, as in Greek, "great" is here of course in the sin- 
 gular number, and " having" in the plural, from the nature 
 of the case. 
 
 4. " Shall be able" for "can ;" see iii. 24, 25, also Luke 
 xvi. 2. "In a desert place" for " in the wilderness;" see 
 2 Cor. xi. 26. 
 
 24. " I see men" = rovi av^pco7tov?. 
 
 31. " By" for " of" = vno : but see xiii. 13. 
 
 33. "Turning about" for "when he had turned about" 
 = £7ti6tpaq)sU. But at verses 6 and 7 it is " having given 
 thanks" for " gave thanks and" = evx<xpi6tr}6a$\ and 
 " having blessed" for "blessed and" = evXoyrfGaS: while 
 at xiv. 22, 23 it is " when he had blessed" for " blessed and" 
 = evXoyr/GaZ, and "when he had given thanks" === evxoc- 
 pi6tr]6aS. See xiv. 22, note. 
 
 34,35. "Would" for " will" = $e\ei, SeXrj. Compare 
 vi. 19, 26, 48. 
 
 38. For the change of construction, compare iii. 17. 
 
 IX. 
 
 1. "There be some here of them that stand by" for 
 " There be some of those standing here." This elaborate 
 change is made because the position of code in the text had 
 been changed from tgdv c^de to go$6 tgov. But does not 
 the insertion of " by" make a bald tautology ? And for the 
 place of gd$s note the construction of viii. 4. But ah ! 
 revising faithfulness ! Mint, anise, and cummin ! 
 
 13. " Have done" = €7toitj(Tav, coordinated with a per- 
 fect ; but it might have been rendered by the preterite, as if 
 
52 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 contradistinguished from the accompanying perfect, as well 
 as any of the aorists in John xvii. ; and before at v. 19. 
 
 17. " I have brought" = rjveyKa. 
 
 18. " Were not able" for " could not ;" — what's the faith- 
 ful difference ? But, it may be said, the Greek is uxxvaav 
 and not rfdvvarro : then see Luke viii. 43, etc. And see 
 verse 28, showing that the meaning of the two verbs is the 
 same. 
 
 22. " Hath cast" = i'fiaXe. 
 
 29. " Is dead" = aniSave. For the change of construc- 
 tion, compare Matt. xxvi. 26. Could faithfulness require 
 the change in one place and not in the other ? and if so, in 
 which was the greater faithfulness required ? 
 
 39. " By" = fiV, twice. Why did they not say "in" ? 
 
 33. "When he was in the house" for "being in the 
 house" = iv rr) oinia y€vo/uevo$. How is the A. V. to es- 
 cape castigation ? If it has the Latin construction, the par- 
 ticipial is substituted, see verse 26 and viii. 33 ; — and if it 
 has the participial construction, the Latin circumlocution 
 must take its place. For rendering the aorist participle 
 here as present, see again viii. 33, etc., etc. 
 
 34. Note* that dieXex^r/ffav after yap is rendered by a 
 pluperfect; and ja£i£gjv is rendered " the greatest." 
 
 41. " In no wise" for " not" = ov fxr). But see xiv. 31. 
 
 42 "Were" for " is" = eorzV, in the simple direct indic- 
 ative. Then, "were hanged" is for an indicative present 
 with "if," and "were cast," in the same construction, for 
 an indicative perfect. This may all be very well ; but see 
 the construction " it is better" in the following verses, with 
 the aorist infinitives all rendered present. And then what 
 has become of faithfulness to the original ? See verse 1 ; 
 xi. 24, etc. 
 
 X. 
 
 1 3. Is there no " ancient authority" for " those who brought 
 them" = roiS npoacptpovaiy} The words are retained by 
 Tischendorf in his eighth edition. S. and V. omit them. 
 
 15. " In no wise" for " not" = ov fxrf ; unnecessary. — see 
 Matt, xxiii. 39; Mark xiii. 2; xiv. 31, etc. 
 
ST. MARK. 53 
 
 18. "Even* for "that is." Faithfulness to the original ! 
 "Save" for "but" = si fJirf: but cf. i Cor. viii. 4; and see 
 Luke iv. 26, 27; Rev. ii. 17; Matt. v. 13; xii. 24; xv. 24, 
 etc., where they as faithfully put "but" for " save." 
 
 25. " A needle's eye," again, for "the eye of a needle." 
 See Matt. xix. 24, note. 
 
 26. " Then who" for " who then." The difference ? 
 
 27. Another change of construction which utterly ruins 
 the rhythm. As to the Greek order, see their own construc- 
 tion at iii. 17, and Matt. xxii. 21. 
 
 51. " What wilt thou ?" But at verse 36 it is " what would 
 ye?" The Revisers, after all, are no more consistent than 
 the A. V. 
 
 XI. 
 
 10. Should they not have said "the coming kingdom" 
 = 77 epxojuirjj fiaoikeia, and saved the repetition of " the 
 kingdom' ' ? There is no article with the Greek noun. 
 
 17. "A house" for "the house;" but it is a predicate, 
 and see Matt, xxvii. 33, etc. Was it to be one of the houses 
 of prayer for "all the nations" or "the house" of prayer 
 for them all ? And as for " all the" for " all ;" — in English 
 "all" is idiomatically used for "all the" and "all those." 
 If this is antiquated, it is at least as intelligible as " how- 
 beit," or " straightway," or as " save" for " but," or " or" 
 for " ere," or " which" for " who." 
 
 20. " From the roots." No article in the Greek. 
 
 24. " Have received' ' = eXapere. Why not as well pres- 
 ent as perfect, and avoid the apparent nonsense ? See Matt, 
 iii. 17. 
 
 32. "Verily" for " indeed" = ovtgoS. (?) "To bea proph- 
 et" for " that he was a prophet" = on 7tpoq}rjrr}£ tjv. 
 
 XII. 
 
 1. ".A pit for the winepress" for " a place for the winefat" 
 = VTto\i]viov. Now what was dug out was certainly 
 "a place for" the apparatus, — whether it were "a pit" or 
 not; and it was dug for " the wine-z>tf/," the bottom of the 
 apparatus, whether it were for " the wine-/rm" or not. So 
 that the A. V. is right, whether the Revisers are or not. 
 
54 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 But they are so sure of their point that they have represent- 
 ed "pit," "press" and all, as being expressed in the Greek 
 word. 
 
 10. " Have ye not read?" = aveyvaore $ "the stone," "the 
 head," " the corner;" — no articles in Greek. 
 
 1 2. " Spake" for " had spoken." Wrong, and inconsistent ; 
 see vi. 17 ; ix. 34 ; and especially John ii. 22 ; iv. 1 ; ix. 35, etc. 
 
 13. " That they might catch him" for "to catch him" = 
 i'va, K.r.X. (?) Cf. iv. 21; xv. 15, 20, etc. "In talk." 
 Better, "with talk" (dat. inst.) or " in his talk" (A. V.) ; or 
 " with their talk" ? 
 
 26. " Are raised" for " rise" = iysipovtai : see vi. 16. 
 
 27. Here the Revisers render "the God" three times 
 where there is no article in their text ; — the more wonderful, 
 as the article was in the old text. 
 
 33. " His neighbour." Whose neighbour? This is anti- 
 quated, and scarcely intelligible. We now say " one's neigh- 
 bour," in such cases. 
 
 36. ll Footstool of thy feet" for "thy footstool." This is 
 more antiquated than the oldest English. 
 
 38. " Desire to have" is here put for " will have," adding 
 the "have" after all ; see Matt, xxvii. 43. 
 
 39. " Chief seats" for "the chief seats." Which is the 
 natural idiomatic English ? But ah ! the Greek article ! And 
 yet " at feasts" = iv rois, etc. 
 
 43. " Superfluity" for " abundance." Superfluous? 
 
 XIII. 
 
 1. "Behold" for "see = ide. What important distinc- 
 tions in meaning this ide must embrace, and how the au- 
 thors of the A. V. are to be pitied for their ignorance in not 
 perceiving them! At Matt. xxv. 20, 22, " lo" is put for 
 "behold" as its translation, and at John xx. 27, " see" is put 
 for "behold." 
 
 2. Ov jit) is twice rendered simply " not," and so at verses 
 30 and 31 ; but see ix. 41. 
 
 9. " In" = eis : — "in synagogues shall ye be beaten." 
 12. "The brother" (A. V.) here expresses the meaning of 
 the Greek as exactly as "the father" of the Revisers does. 
 
ST. MARK. 55 
 
 And what right had they to insert " his" (not italicized) be- 
 fore " child," and not before the second " brother" ? So far 
 as articles are concerned, surely no faithfulness required 
 any change of the A. V. in this passage. 
 
 14. "When ye see" for "when ye shall see" = idrjTS. 
 But verse 7, " when ye shall hear" = aKOvorjre. Both 
 after orav and with the imperative. 
 
 17. " Woe to them that are with child." Of course the 
 ovai cannot be an imprecation here; In some other cases 
 it might seem to be ; yet the Revisers have given it the same 
 version always. Is this deciding a doubtful sense ? Would 
 it not have been true and plainer to have translated this ex- 
 pression in all cases by " alas !" " alas for you !' ' " alas for 
 them !" etc. — as the A. V. has dQnein the Revelation, where 
 the Revisers have substituted " woe" for the " alas" ? 
 
 20. " Would have been" for " should be." This may be 
 defended here, standing as if all were past and finished in 
 the counsel of God. But in St. Matthew the tense is 
 future. 
 
 22. "That they may lead astray" for "to deceive" = 
 7tp6$ to a7t07tXarav. 
 
 30. " Be accomplished" for " be done" = yirrftai. See 
 the Lord's Prayer. 
 
 34. Why not as well insert u who" as "when"? And 
 what great difference after all ? 
 
 XIV. 
 
 5. ' ' They murmured, " for the imperfect. Why not " were 
 murmuring" ? See verse 18 and Luke ii. 33. 
 
 6, 8, 9. " Hath wrought" = eipyaaaro. 
 
 10. " That he might deliver him up" for " to betray him' 
 = iva 7 k.t.X. (?) Cf. iv. 2i;xv. 15, 20. "He that was;' 
 rather " who was" simply, as if 6 = 6 ojv (which they, too 
 seem to assume) ; but see their version at xvi. 6 ; Matt, xxiii 
 9 ; Rom. ix. 5 ; and in the Lord's Prayer, " which art," etc. 
 etc. 
 
 11. For change of construction, compare Matt. ix. 12, 22 
 xii. 24, etc. 
 
 12. "Of unleavened " = rdov a^vfjiaov. At verse 1 th^y 
 
56 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 retain the article, and say "the unleavened." "Make 
 ready" for "prepare," and so, at verse 15, "ready" for "pre- 
 pared;" but see Luke ii. 31. 
 
 1 8. "Even he that eateth" for " which eateth"= 6 sgSigov: 
 and so, verse 20, "he that dippeth" for "that dippeth." 
 But, the verbs being in the singular in English, the exact 
 sense is secured without these cumbrous insertions. 
 
 22. "Took bread, and, when he had blessed, he brake" 
 for " took bread and blessed and brake" = Xa/Scov aprov 
 ev^oy/jGai ixXaae. A similar change is made in St. Luke, 
 where the Greek construction is the same. But in St. Mat- 
 thew the Revisers leave it, "Took bread and blessed and 
 brake." Wherefore, then, this change here in St. Mark? Is 
 it, perchance, because her^ there is no xai before evXo- 
 yrfffaZ? This is making a very nice distinction, which, if 
 thrust into such a formula as this, should be faithfully ad- 
 hered to elsewhere. But see xv. 1, where, without uai y they 
 say "held, and bound, and carried;" while, at Matt, xxvii. 
 1, with xai t they say again, "took; and they bound, and 
 led" for "took: and, when they had bound, they led." 
 Verily, they are hard to please ; or, they find it difficult to 
 keep their split hairs steadily in the focus. In 1 Cor. xi. 
 23, 24, the construction is different ; the uai there connects 
 verbs and not participles. See viii. 33, note. 
 
 "Take ye" for "take" = Xafters. But see xii. t>S, 
 where they faithfully put " watch" for " watch ye," because 
 there is no v/asiS in the Greek. Do they recognize that 
 euphony or rhythm has any rights in a translation ? Then 
 they must elsewhere be judged accordingly. 
 
 28. "Raised up" for "risen" = eyep^rjvai. But see 
 vi. 16; Matt. xvi. 2 ; xxvii. 64, etc., etc., especially in the 
 middle forms. 
 
 30. Here they put " thou' ' just where it stands in their new 
 Greek text, whatever may happen to the English. If there 
 is so much virtue in the Greek order, why did they not faith- 
 fully translate: " Thou, before twice a cock crow, thrice 
 shalt deny me"? 
 
 31. " Not"/<7r " not in any wise" = ov pirj. But see ix. 
 41 ; xvi. 18, etc., etc. Alas for the poor A. V. ! How it 
 
 
ST. MARK. 57 
 
 infallibly blunders, whichever way it turns ! If it says " not 
 in any wise," it should be " not;" and if it says " not," it 
 should be "in no wise." 
 
 33. " Sore troubled" for " very heavy" = adr/juovsiv. (?) 
 Cf. John xi. 33 ; xii. 27. 
 
 36. " Howbeit" for " nevertheless" = aWa : elsewhere 
 for 7tXr/v : — better, simply "but" or "yet." 
 
 54. "Had followed" for "followed" == f]KoXov^r)Gev. 
 Note that this is direct narrative. Cf. John xviii. 24. 
 
 56, 57. " Bare false witness," twice, for the imperfect. 
 
 64. " Ye have heard" = rfKOvffare. 
 
 6j. "The Nazarene, even Jesus," for "Jesus of Naza- 
 reth ;" — harsh and unnecessary ; see " daily bread." 
 
 72. "The second time" = en devrepov. But see "a 
 second," " a third," at Matt. xxvi. 42, 44. 
 
 XV. 
 
 4. " Again" is here faithfully transposed into the Greek 
 order; but it is (unfaithfully?) left at verse 13 in the Eng- 
 lish order, contrary to the Greek. Who can measure the 
 unspeakable faithfulness which required the substitution 
 of " Pilate again answered him" for " Pilate answered him 
 again" ? 
 
 5. " Insomuch that" for " so that ;" see iv. 37, note. 
 
 15. "Wishing" for " willing" = /3ov\6ju6vo$. (?) And 
 see a similar change for $£ Xgdv at Acts xxiv. 27. 
 
 19. Imperfects disregarded. But see the pains the Re- 
 visers took at Matt. iii. 14. Might they not have succeeded 
 with as little circumlocution here ? These imperfects are 
 immediately preceded and followed by aorists, and ought 
 they not to be distinguished ? See John xvii. ; and see Mark 
 xvi. 3 ; Luke i. 22. 
 
 37. " Gave up the ghost" = €^t7rvsv(T€v. At Matt, 
 xxvii. 50 they have "yielded up his spirit" for "yielded 
 up the ghost" = acprJKSv to nvBVjxa. How can "ghost" 
 be got out of e^envsvas, if it is not found in nvsvfxa ? 
 
 40. "Beholding" for "looking on" = ^eaopovdai. (?) 
 43. "Of honorable estate" for " honorable" = £ v^x 1 ?' 
 
 }JL0DV. (?) 
 
58 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 44. They say " were dead" for TeSvfjxs, and " had been 
 dead" for antSrave. Note the tenses. 
 47. " Was laid" = TtSeirai. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 4. " Exceeding" for "very" = Gcpodpa (not nepiGGGbs). 
 Exceeding nice. 
 
 5. "Arrayed" for "clothed" = 7repi/3e/3Xr/pityov : cf. 
 Matt. xxv. 35; "robe" for "garment" = ffroXyv. How 
 exquisitely faithful ! Cf. John xix. 2, 5. 
 
 11 and 16. "Disbelieve" for "believe not" = aniGrkod. 
 But see Rom. iii. 3, where the sense given is merely priva- 
 tive ; and Matt. xiii. 58, where aniGriav = not "dis- 
 belief," but " unbelief." 
 
 jS. "In no wise" for "not" = ov jxrj. But see xiv. 31. 
 
 ST. LUKE. 
 I. 
 
 1. " Have been fulfilled" for " are most surely believed.' ' 
 Have not the Revisers here yielded too easily to the au- 
 thority of the Vulgate ? And would they not have done 
 better to interchange the text and the margin ? Does 
 TtXijpoqiopiGi ever thus mean exactly the sai?ie as nXr/pooo} 
 They have given the same rendering also at 2 Tim. iv. 5, 
 having the old marginal reading to support them. But else- 
 where, as at 2 Tim. iv. 17 ; Rom. iv. 21 ; xiv. 5, they have re- 
 tained the idea of full assurance — not the mere completion 
 of fact, but the complete confirmation of evidence. At Col. 
 iv. 12 they have corrected the A. V., putting " fully assured" 
 for " complete," the text being changed from nEnXr) poojxiv 01 
 to 7rS7tX?jpO(pop}j/utvoi. This verb " to be fully assured of" 
 may be compared with the verb "to be entrusted with." 
 A person is entrusted with a thing, or the thing is entrusted 
 to the person ; so a person is fully assured of a thing, or 
 the thing is fully assured to the person, and so is surely 
 believed by him. 
 
 13. "Because" for "for;"— why? " supplication" for 
 " prayer ;" — consequential. " Is heard" is for an aorist. 
 
ST. LUKE. 59 
 
 17. Note the omission of the Greek articles here, and 
 throughout these prophecies and hymns ; also the use of the 
 aorist for the perfect. Yet at verse 19 they put " was sent" 
 for " am sent ;" but see verses 30 and 47-55. 
 
 22. " Continued making signs" for " beckoned" = rjv 
 diarevGov. But see i. 14; xv. 16, etc.; Mark i. 22, etc. 
 
 35. Here one can only wonder that the suggestion of the 
 American Revisers was not followed. 
 
 44. "Behold" for " lo" = 18 ov. "When" for "as soon 
 as" = ooS. (?) 
 
 46-55. Aorists rendered perfects all through, and articles 
 inserted without any in the Greek. 
 
 59. "Would have called" = euaXovv. This seems to 
 imply an "if" following. Would it not have beenbetterif 
 they had said, " were disposed, or minded, to call" ? 
 
 62. "What" for "how." Very nice. Perhaps they 
 would correct the French also, and put "que (for "com- 
 ment") s'appelle-t-il" ? 
 
 68-79. Aorists and articles as at 46-55. At 72, if the 
 article is supplied it will give the old translation and a more 
 consistent sense. 
 
 76. " Make ready" for " prepare" = iroifiaaai : but see 
 
 ii. 31. 
 
 II. 
 
 2. "The first" for "first;"— no article in the Greek. 
 See Matt. xxii. 39. They translate as if they thought that, 
 in the phrase " was the first made," etc., the " was made" 
 could be the translation of eyevsro : but it is plain the 
 phrase must mean " was the first which was made," and yet 
 they have not marked " made" as an insertion. In the " was 
 first made" of the A. V., " was made" = eyivero, and that 
 without any trouble. 
 
 6, 21, 22. " Fulfilled" for " accomplished;" — consequen- 
 tial. 
 
 8. "By night over their flock" for " over their flock by 
 night." See also verse 41. Theirs is the Greek order, but 
 the A. V. has the English and the logical order ; and besides, 
 our ears are used to it. But see ii. 11; Matt. xii. 40, note ; 
 2 Pet. ii. 3, etc. 
 
60 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 9. "An angel," "the glory;" — • no article in the Greek 
 for either. See also "the city of David," verse 11, and 
 "the Holy Ghost," verse 25. 
 
 10. " Be not afraid" for "fear not ;" but see ix. 34. 
 
 29. " According to thy word, in peace." One cannot but 
 wish that the servile faithfulness of the Revision had some- 
 times improved the English or cleared the sense; but for the 
 most part it does just the contrary. See note at verse 8. 
 The Revisers are after all inconsistent with themselves. 
 
 31, Here they render ^roijiaaaZ "hast prepared" and 
 not " hast made ready." They probably adopted some rec- 
 ondite distinction, but as it was purely arbitrary, nobody 
 can thank them for it. 
 
 "Were marvelling" (imperfect); but see Mark xiv. 5, 
 etc., etc. 
 
 34. " Rising up" for " the rising again" = avaffraffiv : 
 it should be ■ ' the rising again, " if it is " the falling ; ' ' there 
 is no article in the Greek with either; but if they are re- 
 ferred to different parties, the second requires the article 
 in English as well as the first. " Which is" for " which 
 shall be." The latter is certainly more consistent with the 
 context, but neither need be inserted. 
 
 35. " Thoughts of many hearts" for " the thoughts," etc. 
 Why omit the article here, and yet insert it so often, where 
 the Greek has none ? See verse 38, " the redemption" for 
 " redemption." (?) 
 
 43. " As they were returning" for " as they returned" 
 = ev tgj L7ro<jrpi(psiv avrovs : (?) — " on their return." 
 
 48. "Sought thee" for "have sought thee." "Sought 
 thee," when? The A. V. is surely right. 
 
 52. "Advanced" for " increased." This, as an intransi- 
 tive verb, is a new word in the English Version. Is it 
 necessary to faithfulness ? 
 
 III. 
 
 2. " In the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas" 
 for " Annas and Caiaphas being high priests." This comes 
 from the singular apjzfpf'cj? being substituted in the text 
 for the plural apx^ptoov. But after all it has left the sense 
 
ST. LUKE. 6 1 
 
 the same ; and if a change in the expression must be made 
 to conform to the new Greek, it would be simpler to say : 
 " Annas being high priest and Caiaphas." 
 
 4. " Make ready" for "prepare." But seeii. 31, andxii. 20. 
 
 7. " Warned" for "hath warned." (?) 
 
 13. " Extort" for " exact" = 7tpa6Gere. Does the 
 Greek mean " work out of" or "twist out of"? 
 
 14. "Exact anything wrongfully" for "accuse any 
 falsely" = (jVKO^arrrjarjre. (?) 
 
 16. "With water." The American Revisers suggest "in 
 water." On what ground, when there is no preposition in 
 the Greek, and it is an instrumental dative ? They are to 
 translate each Gospel independently. But the preposition 
 iv means " with" or " by" in cases innumerable. 
 
 23, etc. The articles here belong to the names and not to 
 " The" should be in italics, therefore, as 
 See Matt. xxii. 42. 
 
 IV. 
 
 2. "Completed" for "ended." This is better than put- 
 ting " fulfilled" for "accomplished" at ii. 6, 21, 22. 
 
 11. "And," separated from the quotation. Right; but 
 they should have been as careful elsewhere, as, e.g., at Heb. 
 x. 38. 
 
 16. An awkward change of construction to suit the ar- 
 rangement of the Greek. Faithfulness could not require 
 it for that purpose ; and whether the sense required it, any 
 intelligent reader can judge. 
 
 18. "Anointed" for "hath anointed," aorist ; but it is 
 manifestily coordinated, not contrasted, with a perfect. Cf. 
 Acts xxi. 21, 24; xxv. 10, 11, etc. 
 
 21. " Hath been fulfilled" for "is fulfilled ;" but see " it 
 is written," "it is finished," etc., etc. 
 
 26, 27. "But only" for "save" and "saving" = ei jatj. 
 This is very well ; though the " only" is really added. It is 
 not in the Greek here, as it is at vi. 4 ; where, curiously 
 enough, the Revisers have (for consistency's sake?) put 
 "save" for "but" = ei fxrj : as here "but" for "save." 
 
62 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 And yet (for still greater consistency's sake ?) at the perfectly 
 parallel passage, Matt. xii. 4, they have retained the "but" 
 of the A. V. ; while again at the parallel passage in St. Mark 
 they have changed the "but" to " save." Indeed this ei piy 
 seems to have been made a sort of football in the Revision. 
 The translation is changed from "but" to "save," — with no 
 better and no more consistent reasons than in the foregoing 
 instances, — at Matt. xi. 27; Mark ix. 29, where "nothing 
 but" is changed to "nothing save" (while at Mark xi. 13 
 and Matt. v. 13 "nothing but" is left); x. 18; Rom. xiii. 
 8; 1 Cor. ii. 11 ; 2 Cor. xii. 5 ; Rev. xiv. 3. On the other 
 hand " save" is changed to " but," not only here in St. Luke, 
 but at Rev. ii. 17, " no man saving" changed to " no one but," 
 while at xiii. 17 and xiv. 3, "no man save" is retained. At 
 Rom. vii. 7, "but" is changed to "except," while, in per- 
 fectly similar constructions, at Matt. xii. 24 ; xv. 24 ; John 
 x. 10 and xiv. 6, the " but" is retained. Similar cases of 
 conseque?itial changes in the translation of eav /j.?j w T ill ap- 
 pear hereafter. 
 
 28. Here the change of construction is either needless or 
 nonsensical. What sort of wrath is "wrath in the syna- 
 gogue" ? 
 
 34. "Ah" for "let alone" — ia. (?) "Art thou come" 
 = fjXSs? (aorist). 
 
 38. " Holden" for "taken" = ffwexo/ierrj. This may 
 be faithful, but it is harsh in English. Would not " seized" 
 be better ? see its legal sense. — Or "afflicted" ? 
 
 V. 
 
 9. " Amazed" for " astonished." (?) Scarcely consequen- 
 tial even. 
 
 10. " Sons" for "the sons ;" — the less natural English. 
 17. "One of those days" for "a certain day" = jAiarojv 
 
 r}}A.epdDV. But this is not literal after all, for tgov is not 
 "those." 
 
 19, 20. Change of construction needless; and see Mark 
 ix. 33 ; Acts xxi. 2, 3, 4. 
 
 27. " Beheld" for " saw" = iSeaffaTO : but see Matt, 
 xi. 7, note. 
 
ST. LUKE. 6 T, 
 
 VI. 
 
 i. "Was going" for "went;" but "plucked" and " did 
 eat" are equally for imperfects; why not "went on pluck- 
 ing and eating"? 
 
 35. "Sons" for " the children." But we have a right to 
 insert the article with the predicate, if it makes more natural 
 English; and we often use "children" for vioz, as "the 
 children of Israel." 
 
 38. " Guide" for " lead ;" what is gained ? 
 
 48,49. "Brake" for "beat vehemently" = npoG^ppr}- 
 gev. (?) 
 
 VII. 
 
 4. "And they, when they" for "and when they, they." 
 A familiar piece of hypercriticism ; but see ix. 47 ; 
 xxiii. 6, 8 ; Mark xv. 39; Matt. ix. 12 ; xi. 2 ; xii. 24, etc., 
 etc.. "Worthy that for him" for "worthy for whom" == 
 a£;io5 (p. 
 
 5. " Built" for "hath built." (?) In such cases, only let 
 the intelligent reader consider which is the most natural 
 tense in the connection ; and remember that the decision 
 does not depend at all upon the form of the Greek. 
 
 12. "One that was dead" for "a dead man" = ts$ vrj- 
 xgdS. " The only son," no article in Greek ; why not " an 
 only son"? See v. 20, etc. " Was a widow," why insert 
 " was" ? 
 
 20. "Cometh" for "should come" = o epxoju€vos = 
 " is to come" or " is coming" or " shall come." See xviii. 
 20; John xviii. 4; xvi. 13; Actsxix. 4, etc. And see Matt, 
 xi. 3, note. 
 
 22. The article is here inserted six times, and yet " the 
 Gospel" is changed to "good tidings." How did the 
 Revisers ascertain that the verb evayyeM^OfAai must mean 
 to preach " good tidings" (a gospel) and not " the Gos- 
 pel" ? Certainly not from the Greek article. 
 
 24. " Behold" for " see." See Matt. xii. 7, note. 
 
 30. " For themselves" for " against themselves" = sis. 
 What does this mean ? Is not eis connected with fiovXrjv, 
 
64 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 meaning-, if not " against," "towards" or " in regard to" ? 
 But cf. Heb. xii. 3. 
 
 38. " Wet" for "wash" = fips'xeiv : and so, at verse 44, 
 "wetted" for "washed." This certainly does not sound 
 well in English, though it may be the exact sense. It is too 
 perfunctory, too menial. We must consult the English 
 idiom, and ask what we should say in the circumstances. If 
 we may not say " wash," is not the natural English expres- 
 sion " bathe "? 
 
 39. "That" for "for" = on. (?) 
 
 42. " Not wherewith" for " nothing." (?) In the connec- 
 tion the A. V. leaves no ambiguity. 
 
 48. " Her sins, which are many, are forgiven"= acptoovrai 
 ai adaption avrf/? ai7to\\ai. If they had been as zealous 
 for the Greek arrangement here as in some other cases, they 
 would have translated : ' ' Her sins are forgiven (or Forgiven 
 are her sins), which are many, for" etc. ; and would thus 
 have given us what the preceding parable and the immedi- 
 ately subsequent clause show to be the true sense of the 
 original, viz., that the woman's great love showed, not only 
 that her sins were forgiven, but that her sins forgiven w r ere 
 many, " for to whom little is forgiven the same loveth 
 little." 
 
 49. " Who is this that even forgiveth sins ?" for " who is 
 this that forgiveth sins also ?" By this minute change how 
 entirely the majestic movement and cadence of the English 
 is ruined ! And as for the sense, or faithfulness to the 
 Greek, see their own translation at Matt. v. 40; John xi. 
 52 ; James iii. 2, 3, etc. If they say that the other things 
 to which the" also" makes an addition are expressed in those 
 other cases and not in this, we answer, the distinction is 
 purely arbitrary ; it is enough that the other things are im- 
 plied, that they are in the mind of the hearer or reader, 
 whether they are expressed or not. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 25. "Marvelled" for " wondered." Shall we call this a 
 "marvellous" or a " wonderful " piece of faithfulness? 
 But see Matt. xv. 31 ; Luke ii. 18 ; iv. 22 ; xxiv. 41 ; Acts 
 
ST. LUKE. 65 
 
 vii. 31 ; xiii. 41, etc., where it seems that this word $av- 
 jua^GD may mean to wonder as well as to marvel. 
 
 31, 32. " Intreated " for "besought" = napsxaXovv. 
 What is the faithful difference? They "have rendered this 
 word by "besought" at Matt. viii. 5, 31, 34; xiv. 36; 
 xviii. 29, and in almost innumerable other cases; and, to cap 
 the climax, they have so rendered it at Mark v. 10, 12, the 
 passage which is directly parallel with this. Yet here they 
 go out of their way to correct the A. V. ! Is it faithfulness ? 
 Is it wantonness? Nothing but their consequential rule 
 could be pretended as a justification of the change here ; and 
 yet they violate that rule on the spot. 
 
 34. "Had come to pass" for "was done" = ysyovoi. 
 As for the tense, these are both forms of the pluperfect, and 
 often so recognized by the Revisers. And for the signifi- 
 cation of the word, see verse 56, " had been done ;" Matt, 
 xviii. 31, "was done;" xxiv. 21, "hath been;" Mark ii. 21, 
 "is made;" Luke xxii. 42, "be done;" xxiii. 47, 48, "was 
 done," "were done." 
 
 37. "Holden" for "taken" = (Tvveixovro. Why not 
 " seized (i.e. possessed) with great fear"? 
 
 39. " Publishing" for "and published. "(?) 
 
 45. Change of construction unnecessary, and for the 
 worse in English. The Greek has not unfrequently a sin- 
 gular verb before several connected subjects. 
 
 48. " Go in peace." Gr. eiS rendered " in ;" not " into." 
 
 56. " Amazed " for " astonished." Consequential. See 
 ix. 43. 
 
 IX. 
 
 9. " Sought" for " desired" — i8,rjrsi. (?) 
 
 23, 24. "Would" for "will," again. See Matt. xvi. 24, 
 25, note. 
 
 34. "Said these things" for "thus spake" — ravra 
 Xsyovroj. But see xix. 28 ; John ix. 6. " They feared" 
 = £<po/3r/$T}ffav, — not "were afraid," as see ii. 10. 
 
 "This is my Son, my chosen." For construction, com- 
 pare Matt. xvii. 5 ; Mark ix. 7. 
 
 43. " Astonished " for " amazed " = £g > £7t"kr}06ovto. 
 Consequential, and amazingly important ! Cf. viii. 56. 
 
66 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 47. "But when Jesus saw the reasoning" for "And 
 Jesus perceiving the thought." We let pass the idea of 
 " seeing a reasoning ;' ' and merely observe that the Revisers 
 have here adopted a construction which they have corrected 
 in the A. V. in unnumbered instances, substituting for it 
 the construction "but Jesus, when he saw," etc. = 6 dh. 
 Ir/ffovs idoov, x.r.X. : and that they substitute in this case 
 the Latin circumlocution for the participial construction 
 whose use they had promised to enlarge. That iSgdv might 
 mean "perceiving" appears from their own translation at 
 Matt. xiii. 14; and Mark iv. 12, where i'dr/re = " perceive." 
 " Thoughts" is their translation of dia\oyi<jfioi at Matt. xv. 
 19; Mark vii. 21 ; Luke ii. 35; vi. 8. Truly they are hard 
 to please. See vii. 4, note. 
 
 X. 
 
 5. " Shall enter" for " enter ;" but see John iv. 14. 
 
 11, 20. " Howbeit" for " notwithstanding" = 7t\rfv. 
 
 14. "Howbeit" for "but" = 7rXr/v. This "howbeit" is 
 evidently a faithful favorite. See Matt. xxvi. 64, note. 
 
 18. " Beheld falling" for " beheld fall,"— Tteaovra. But 
 compare Mark ii. 16 ; vii. 2 ; ix. 38. 
 
 21. "Didst hide" and "didst reveal" for" hast," etc. (?) 
 
 22. " Have been delivered" for "are delivered ;" but see 
 at verse 20, " are written." " Willeth to reveal" for " will 
 reveal;" — note, they do not here say, " desireth to reveal." 
 
 30. " Made answer, and " for" answering" = v7roXa/3ojv. 
 What of using more participial constructions ? 
 
 35. " I, when I ;" — stiff in English, and needless. " Back 
 again" for " again." Either word might be used, but what 
 need of both ? The Greek does not refer to a second return, 
 nor does it at all require this reduplication. 
 
 40. "Did leave" for "hath left;" and yet at verse 42, 
 " hath chosen' ' = egeXtZaro. (!) At verse 39 why did they 
 not render the imperfect by " was hearing" (?}hovs) ? 
 
 XI. 
 
 8. " Arise" for " rise" = eyepSeii : — a petty distinction 
 being made between avaarai and eyep^ei s ; and yet the 
 latter .is elsewhere freely translated by the word "rise." 
 
ST. LUKE. 67 
 
 14. "Marvelled for "wondered" = aSavpiaGav. See 
 viii. 25, note. 
 
 18, 19, 20. " Devils" = ra SaijAOvia (not "the devils"). 
 
 24.' "When he is gone out" = orav e^iX^rj. But see 
 Matt. v. 11 ; Mark xii. 25, for the tense. And for the con- 
 struction, see Matt. xii. 43, note. "Turn back unto" for 
 "return" = vnoarpiipoo. (?) See Matt. xii. 44. 
 
 33. "In a cellar" for " in a secret place" =xpv7Ttr}v. The 
 A. V. is right, whether the Revision is or not. " Crypt" — 
 cellar — is a later usage. 
 
 35. If, to be very faithful, the ^7 is here to be rendered 
 " whether," ought not the effrzv to be rendered " is" and not 
 "be"? 
 
 40. "Foolish ones" for "fools" = acppoves. (?) 
 
 41. " Howbeit" for "but rather" 7tXr)v ; and see also at 
 xii. 31. See Matt. xxvi. 64, note. 
 
 42. The article is here again omitted before "mint" and 
 " rue," but see " the weeping and gnashing." 
 
 XII. 
 
 5,7. Three times q)0/3r/$r)T8 is rendered by "fear," 
 but at verse 4, being followed by ano, by "be afraid." 
 See ii. 10, where it is " be afraid" for " fear," without the 
 ano. 
 
 15. " Keep yourselves from" for " beware of" = cpvXaG- 
 gsgS-s, i.e. "be on your guard against." Is not the A. V. 
 right ? 
 
 20. " Hast prepared " for " hast provided" = ffToifiaGas, 
 not " made ready." See iii. 4, etc. 
 
 26. That which is least" = iXaxiGtov. It is not rd 
 eXaxtGTOv : so that the Revisers recognize that the absence 
 of the article may not differ much from the use of the gen- 
 eric article. See conversely " the sower," " the virgin," etc. 
 
 33. " Draweth near" for "approacheth;" — how faithfully 
 necessary ! 
 
 39. "Know this" for "this know" = rovro 6k yivco 6- 
 ksts. Who can fathom the depths of revisional faithful- 
 ness? " Have left" for " have suffered" = depfjns : where 
 
68 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 the sense must be the same, unless they suppose the man 
 went away from his house, to go to sleep. 
 
 45. "Shall say" for " say" = eikrf. What is the differ- 
 ence in the sense ? It is subjunctive aorist, it is true; but 
 see xiv. 34 ; xvi. 30, 31 ;. John viii. 51, where we have " go," 
 " rise," "have lost," and " keep," in the same construction. 
 
 4S. "Is given" = edoSt]. "Commit" for have com- 
 mitted" = 7rape$evro. (?) Both are to be regarded as 
 perfects. 
 
 53. Here the sense is the same, whether with or without 
 the articles. If used, they are generic or indefinite ; they do 
 not refer to any particular object already definitely in the 
 mind. 
 
 59. "Have paid" for " hast paid" = anodcpS. But see 
 verse 50, "be accomplished;" John xiii. 38, "hast denied;" 
 2 Pet. i. 19, "dawn;" Matt, xviii. 30, "should pay;" 
 Mark xii. 36, " make," etc. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 2, 4. "Were sinners," — iyevovro. 
 
 4. "That dwell" for " that dwelt." If we say "dwell- 
 ers," which of the two would be understood in this connec- 
 tion ? That will test the two translations. 
 
 3, 5. The GjffavrcDS and 6/ioigdZ of these two verses, — 
 which are both rendered " likewise" in the A. V., — have been 
 interchanged in the new text ; and, to show the exquisite 
 nicety of their faithfulness, the Revisers have rendered one 
 of them " in like manner" ! While they were about it, why 
 did they not render, 6/xoigj? "likewise," and Go6avTGQS "just 
 so," and thus transfer in full the Greek etymologies ? 
 
 6. They insert " man" (without italics) instead of their 
 ordinary "one." 
 
 7, 8. " Also" = nod, — not "even;" see vii. 49. "Doth 
 cumber" for " cumbereth." What, in the Greek or in Eng- 
 lish, requires the change ? 
 
 14. " Day of the sabbath" for " Sabbath day." The Eng- 
 lish reader will now know exactly what day is meant. At 
 xiv. 5, however, they put " sabbath day" for the same 
 Greek. What can we say? 
 
ST. LUKE. 69 
 
 22. "On unto" for ''toward" = eh. See John xx. 3, 
 where we have "toward" for "to" = eh. " That be 
 saved" = 01 '008,6 fxev 01. They retain the " be" for " are," 
 and they do not say " be being saved;" but see Acts ii. 47. 
 
 25. " Is risen up and hath shut," for the aorist subjunc- 
 tive with av. 
 
 31. "Would fain" for " will" = Siliei. Why not " seek- 
 eth or is minded (to kill thee)" ? This would be as con- 
 sequential as "would fain," which is so soon after, at 
 
 XV. 16, Used for £7t6$V/AEl. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 1,5. "A sabbath" for " the Sabbath day." Here is an in- 
 stance of the Revisers' articular precision. But if faith- 
 fulness required such minute punctiliousness here, it surely 
 required them to be consistent with themselves elsewhere. 
 Yet at Matt. xii. 2 ; John vii.22, 23, they render iv Gafifiarcp 
 (no art.) "on or upon the sabbath." At Mark vi. 2, yevo- 
 fievov (fa/3j3arov, and at Mark xvi. 1, Siayevojxkvov 
 6a(3fiarov, are rendered "when the sabbath was," etc, 
 At Luke xxiii. 54 Gafifiarov (no art.) is rendered "the sab- 
 bath" (drew on). 
 
 S, 10. " Art bidden" = uXtjB'rjg— not " shalt be," but see 
 xvii. 10; Mark xiii. 7; and compare with these last Matt, 
 xxiv. 15 and Mark xiii. 14. 
 
 13, 21. In the 13th verse we have " the poor, the maimed, 
 the lame, the blind,"— all without any article in the Greek ; 
 —and, in verse 21, we have "the poor and maimed and 
 blind and lame,"— with the article in the Greek before 
 "poor" only. Now if, in English, the article is understood 
 before the latter members of the enumeration after being 
 expressed before the first, in verse 21, we cannot comprehend 
 why it could not have been understood in like manner in 
 verse 13 ; for to insert "and," if necessary, before the last 
 would be cheaper than to insert "the" three times. But if 
 it is not so understood in verse 21, then we do not see why 
 it should have been inserted at all in verse 13. But we 
 humbly beg pardon for our obtuseness. 
 
 28. " Desiring" for " intending" = BiXaov. Is not the 
 
70 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 A. V. right here; and, in general, does not SsXgd refer more 
 to effective purpose or volition, and less to mere idle desire, 
 than the Revisers are accustomed to recognize ? 
 
 XV. 
 
 i. " Were drawing near" for ''drew near." — Harsh. 
 
 4, "And having lost one" for "if he lose one. " See 
 verse 8, showing that the sense is really the same ; and then 
 compare Heb. vi. 6. 
 
 5, 6. " When he hath found" = evpajv : and " when he 
 cometh" = eXSoov : both with the indicative present. 
 
 9. "I have found" = evpov. " I had lost" = a7tooXeaa : 
 but see Mark xii. 12. 
 
 18, 21. I "have sinned" = r/jj.aprov, — not "I sinned;" 
 see Rom. v. 12. 
 
 24. "Is alive again" = avs2,rj6£v. "Is found" = 
 evp&rf. 
 
 30. "Came" for "is come," and " killedst" for "hast 
 killed." Aorists, as before at verses 5, 6, 9, 18, 21, 24, also 
 at 32 ; where they are rendered perfects. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 2. " Canst" = dvvi)(5Y), future; see Mark iii. 17. 
 4. " Each" for " every." But see Matt. xxvi. 22. 
 
 6, 7. " Bond" for " bill" = raypd/ijuara : — writings or 
 scrip. (?) 
 
 8. " His lord" for "the lord" = 6 nvpioS. It means 
 "his lord" no doubt, but see at verse 1, "the disciples" 
 put for " his disciples." Is there any doubt that they were 
 "his disciples"? The construction following (with the A. 
 V.) departs from the order of the Greek, which puts " their 
 generation" after "wiser;" but compare other passages 
 where the Revisers so servilely follow the Greek con- 
 struction. " The light" for " light" = rov cpooro^. Here 
 the generic article is not necessary in the English idiom ; 
 sec Rom. xiii. 12; Eph. v. 11. 
 
 9. " That they may receive you." Why not " that ye may 
 be received" ? See xii. 20. 
 
 13. The omission of the article before the second " one," 
 
ST. LUKE. 71 
 
 in English, makes the " or else" utterly unmeaning. We 
 say nothing about the change of the Greek text ; but cf. 
 Acts i. 24. 
 
 16. " Entereth violently" for " presseth" = fiidgerai : 
 — why not say " forceth his way"? 
 
 21. " Yea, even" for " moreover" = aXka nai. But see 
 xxiv. 22. 
 
 25. "Son," retained for rknvov. This would better 
 suit the English ear in many other cases also ; and in like 
 manner " children" for viol. But the Revision commonly 
 grecizes. 
 
 30,31. "Go," "rise, "—not "shallgo," " shall rise"— for 
 " went," " rose." But after all is the A. V. here so very far 
 from right ; considering that " went" and " rose," after " if," 
 used often to mean, and still may mean, " should go" and 
 " should rise" ? In fact, if the revised translation at John 
 viii. 55 is correct, then the A. V. in this pasgage, — much as 
 it has been criticised and condemned, — is right after all. 
 For the question is not whether " went" and " rose" may 
 mean " should go" and " should rise," — of this there can be 
 no doubt, as, e.g., " if you went you would not find him," — 
 but the real question is whether such a conditional tense as 
 " should go" or "should say" can grammatically be joined 
 with a future. But it is so joined at John viii. 55, — "If I 
 should say .... I shall be ;" and that in the Revision, and 
 that deliberately, for it is a passage where the Revisers have 
 made one of their characterstic emendations of the A. V., 
 putting " shall be like unto you, a liar,' ' for " shall be a liar 
 like unto you." See also 2 Cor. x. 8 and xii. 6. Also John 
 vi. 62 may bean analogous case, where the Revisers put "if 
 ye should see" for" if ye shall see;" while at Luke xii. 
 45, they correct the A. V. by putting "if he shall say," 
 for "if he say;" and then here, "if one go" and "if one 
 rise" ! 
 
 XVII. 
 
 2. "Were well" = XvffireXez : "were hanged" = nspL 
 xsirai: " were thrown" = ippinrai (perf.). So English 
 idiom counts for something. 
 
 6. * ' Would have obeyed" = vrtrfuovasv. What a jumble 
 
12 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 of tenses and of ideas in English j — "if ye have faith, ye 
 would say, and it would have obeyed" ! Cf. verses 2, 9, to. 
 
 8. " Have eaten and drunken." Compare xv. 4, 8, — to 
 show that the Greek tenses are somewhat flexible. 
 
 9, 10. Here, the tenses, following the A. V., are conformed 
 to the requirements of the sense ; cf. verse 6. 
 
 20. " Cometh" for " should come." It should be either 
 (orat. rect.)" when cometh the kingdom of God ?" or (orat. 
 obi.), " when the kingdom of God should come;" as in the 
 A. V. See xviii. 9, — "were" for siffi. 
 
 24. " When it lighteneth" for "that lighteneth;" because 
 the text is changed by omitting the article before the par- 
 ticiple. Is this required by faithfulness, or is it the precision 
 of pedantry ? Cf. John iv. 39 and v. 44, note. 
 
 33. " Gain'' for " save" = mpi7ioii]6a6^ai (new text for 
 GGDGai). Do they mean, "gain his livelihood" ? At Heb. 
 x. 39, they retain " saving" for 7t£pi7toirj0iS. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 5. "Wear out" for " weary" = v7too7tiaS,r). (?) 
 
 7. " Cry to him day and night" for" cry day and night 
 unto him." How punctilious the faithfulness ! 
 
 19. " Even" for " that is." Is this for belter English, or 
 is it for greater faithfulness to the Greek ? 
 
 30. " World to come" — rob epxo^svaj. See vii. 20. 
 
 37. " That' ' should have been omitted, as elsewhere by the 
 Revisers, or else the tense changed. See xix. 7, 11, etc. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 8. "Have wrongfully exacted" for "have taken by false 
 accusation" = iovKoq)6cvr^6a. (?) 
 
 14. " We will not that" for " we will not have." Which is 
 the better English ? Cf. Acts. xvi. 3 ; 1 Cor. x. 1 ; Col. ii. 1. 
 
 17. " Wast found" for " hast been" = eytvov. (?) For 
 tense see verse 8. 
 
 22.* "That I am" for "that I was." But see verses 7 
 and 11. 
 
 23. " Then wherefore" for " wherefore then" ? 
 
ST. LUKE. 73 
 
 27. " Howbeit" for " but" = n\i)v. "But" is retained 
 at xxii. 21, 22; xxiii. 28; Matt, xviii. 7, etc. Howbeit — 
 
 42. " Are hid" = ixpvprj. 
 
 43. "Bank" for " trench" (" embankment" ?) = x^P aKa - 
 47. " Chief of" changed to " principal men of" = 7tpGQ- 
 
 roi. How important ! how exquisitely exact ! or, how 
 considerate of the English ear ! 
 
 4S. " Listening" = axovaov. But " listening" is too 
 strong, Why not say " as they heard him," and be con- 
 sistent with xvii. 24 ? 
 
 XX. 
 
 1. " There came" for " came" encumbers and enfeebles 
 the English without being a whit more faithful to the sense 
 of the original. 
 
 17. " Was made" for " is become," = £y£v?)$rf. (?) 
 
 20. " Righteous" for "just men." A frequent, change — 
 bad, here, and rarely necessary. 
 
 25. "Then render" for "render therefore." Does a 
 change in the order of the Greek require a change in the 
 order of the English ? 
 
 33. " In the resurrection therefore" for " therefore in the 
 resurrection." Greek order again. But is this for better 
 English, or is it for a different sense ? Which ? 
 
 36. " Sons" for "the children"= vioi. As for the article, 
 this is a predicate ; and as for the noun, what is the dif- 
 ference? and see "the children of Israel." 
 
 43. " Footstool of thy feet," again. For this un-English 
 reduplication, the Revisers, as we ought to acknowledge, 
 have the authority of the Rhemish version. But the Vul- 
 gate was not deformed with such a verbal jingle, reading 
 " scabellum pedum tuorum ;" which Wyclif imitated well 
 with his "stool of thi feet." The case is similar also with 
 the original Hebrew text. In the Greek the alliteration 
 may have been a beauty or a necessity. There may have 
 been no good word for stool, which was not " footstool." 
 
 XXI. 
 
 1. If "the" belongs to " rich men," here, what occasion 
 for inserting " that were" before "casting"? And notice 
 
74 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 that though the order in the Greek text has been changed 
 so as to bring "treasury" before "gifts," the Revisers have 
 not felt bound in faithfulness to change the order in the 
 English, and say "casting into the treasury their gifts." 
 This is sensible ; but see xx. 25, etc. 
 
 12. "Bringing'' for "being brought" = a7tayoj^avov?. 
 Which is more faithful to the original? 
 
 13. "Unto" for "to," with dative. How exquisitely, 
 how unspeakably nice the sense which found this change 
 required by faithfulness! At xviii. 7, they substitute "to" 
 for " unto," their text having substituted the dative for 
 npoS with accusative ! 
 
 15. "Withstand"' for "resist." Why? 
 
 19. "Win" for "possess." Good; but would not 
 
 " gain" be better ? 
 
 XXII. 
 
 1,7. "Of unleavened bread," tgqv a£v/j,Gov. But the arti- 
 cle ? 
 
 10. " Whereinto he goeth" for "where he entereth in" 
 = ov eiGrtopeverai = " where he goeth in." 
 
 17, 19. Change of construction entirely indefensible. 
 See Mark xiv. 22 ; note. 
 
 18. "Until shall come"= s\$y. But see xii. 59. 
 
 24. " Is accounted" for " should be accounted." Better, 
 " was accounted" (orat. obi.), i.e., rightfully, as A. V. 
 means? 
 
 3 1 , 32, 33. "Asked" for " hath desired;" " made suppli- 
 cation" for " have prayed." (?) In all their other changes 
 in these three verses the Revisers are inconsistent with 
 themselves, except in putting " stablish" for " strengthen," 
 and this was scarcely necessary. For "thou," etc., see 
 xxiii. 6, 8. 
 
 37. " Fulfilled" for " accomplished"== rfAecr^^^^z. But 
 see John xix. 28, 30. So " fulfillment" for "end"= TtXoZ. 
 
 42, 43, 44. " Be done"= yivtffB cd : "being" = ysvopis- 
 voz : " became" for " was" — eyevsro. But one of the pet 
 ideas of the Revisers seems to have been to correct the A. 
 V. in its variations of the rendering of the same word in a 
 given connection. See Acts xxvi. 24, 25. 
 
ST. LUKE. 75 
 
 46. "That not" for " lest"=zW firj. But see John v. 14 ; 
 xii. 40, etc. What is their nice distinction ? 
 
 56. " In the light of the fire" for " by the fire"= npoS to 
 cptiS= "at" or "by the light," not " in." (The Portu- 
 guese uses "lume" for "fire.") The change of construc- 
 tion is needless. "Looking steadfastly" for "earnestly 
 looked" = aTevio*ao~a : but at Acts vi. 15 they have 
 actually changed the " looking steadfastly" of the A. V. to 
 "fastening their eyes," although there are in the Greek 
 no more " eyes" there than here ! 
 
 57. In their text the order of the Greek is changed from 
 yvvai, ovx oida avrov to ovx oida avrov, yvvai .• and 
 yet they have left " woman" as it stood in the A. V. But 
 see xx. 25 ; see also Matt. xxvi. 22, 25, etc. 
 
 64. The change of construction here is unnecessary, and 
 destroys a pleasing variety. 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 1. " Brought" = yyayov : but at xxii. 54 it is rendered 
 " led away." In the A. V. it is " led" in both cases. At 
 xxii. 54, eiffr/yayov, " brought,' ' immediately follows. 
 Which translation is most faithful to the original ? 
 
 6,8. " When Pilate heard," "when Herod saw." For 
 the construction see vii. 4, note. 
 
 14, 15. These aorists would be more naturally translated 
 as English perfects, with the A. V. See verses 22 and 41. 
 
 19. The insertion of "one" before "who" (for offri?) is 
 not necessary, as they themselves show elsewhere. " Was 
 cast into" = ?)v fi\r}$e\Z iv rrj. Here iv r7\ <pv\axrj — a 
 new reading — is rendered just as eh cpvXaxrjv is at verse 25 
 — preposition and article to the contrary notwithstanding. 
 
 20. The l( again" is not put in the Greek order; but see 
 the faithful corrections at Mark iv. 1 ; viii. 13, 25 ; xiv. 70, 
 etc. 
 
 44. " Now" = rfdrf. But see Matt. xiv. 15, where " now" 
 is changed to "already." "A darkness" for "darkness" 
 = (jxotoS. But see Matt, xxvii. 45, and Mark xv. 33, where 
 they say "darkness." Was this petty insertion of "a," 
 then, required by faithfulness here and not there ? 
 
76 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 47. "Certainly this was a righteous man." In St. Mat- 
 thew the centurion " and they that were with him" said, 
 "Truly this was the Son [not ' a son'] of God," Matt, 
 xxvii. 54. The centurion had probably heard at the trial 
 of Jesus — and must have heard from the taunts of those who 
 mocked him upon the cross — that he claimed to be " the Son 
 of God. ' ' He now cries out, ' ' Certainly this was a righteous 
 man," — a man who would be guilty of no falsehood or fraud ; 
 he must therefore he. what he claimed to be, — he must be, " he 
 was, the Son of God.''' Whether the centurion himself used 
 the various expressions, or whether they are to be ascribed 
 partly to the centurion and partly to " them that were with 
 him," is a matter of no consequence. We should say of 
 Achilles, "He was the son [not ' a son'] of a goddess;" 
 and of Hercules, " He was the son of Jupiter." 
 
 49. " Seeing" for " beholding'' = 6pcoo~ai. Now if this 
 were an original translation we should be far from finding 
 any fault. But was there any need of the change ? The 
 lexicons give to opaoo and eidov the meaning " behold." 
 The Revisers translate idov in the next verse " behold." 
 The connection shows that opooffai in this verse means the 
 same as ^scop?j(TavrSb in the 48th verse ; and we have 
 already seen (and shall further find) that the Revisers have 
 been constrained to allow "see" as a translation of BeGopioo, 
 as well as of opaao. See John viii. 51, etc. 
 
 54. "The day," "the sabbath." No article in the 
 Greek. 
 
 56. The jxfv is here ignored. The answering di is in the 
 
 next verse (xxiv. 1). 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 6 and 34. " Is risen" = ijyepOrj : — not "was raised ;" but 
 see 1 Cor. xv., etc. 
 
 13. " Were going" for " went." But this might mean, 
 " were intending, or about, to go." 
 
 26. "Behoved it not" for "ought not." Why not say 
 11 must not," as at Mark xiv. 31 ? 
 
 30. "When" for"as" = fV tg3 = while. 
 
 34. " Is risen' ' = rjyepOrf ; " hath appeared"= GO<pdr}. See 
 John ii. 22. 
 
ST. JOHN. 77 
 
 39. " Behold me having" for " see me have ;" — Greek for 
 English. 
 
 41. "Disbelieved for joy"! A strange state of mind; 
 but see Mark xvi. 14, and Rom. iii. 3 and iv. 20. Unbelief, 
 or want of faith, and positive disbelief are two things. 
 
 51. "He parted" for "he was parted" = dit6ti]. The 
 verb may mean either " to stand apart" or " to be parted." 
 
 50. " Over against" for " to " = 7tp6s. Here npoS is a 
 new reading for £z's, and of course must be respected. But 
 it is rendered "to" or "unto" by the Revisers fifty times 
 to once of "against," and we do not find another instance 
 of " over against." 
 
 ST. JOHN. 
 I. 
 
 3 and 10. " Were made" = eyevsto. 
 
 6. " Came" for "was" = iyevero. 
 
 7. " Came" = r/XOsv. "Might believe through him" 
 for " through him might believe. " Did faithfulness require 
 this conformity to the Greek order just here and not at 
 Matt. x. 32, etc., etc. ? 
 
 7,8. "That he might," "that they might," for " to" = 
 i'va. But cf. verse 19; iii. 17, etc. 
 
 9. " There" for " that" spoils the sense ; and what need 
 of inserting " even the light'' ? unless, indeed, the text is to 
 mean the same as the margin ; and, if so, the margin is cer- 
 tainly the clearer and better translation. 
 
 11. Here the Revisers have only half done their work. 
 They have shown that the second "his own" are persons 
 (masculine) ; they fail to show that the first " his own" are 
 things (neuter). It would be difficult fully to bring out the 
 distinction in English. If we might change the number of 
 the first "his own," we might say, "he came to what was 
 his own, and they that were his own received him not ;" or, 
 retaining the number, " he came to his own possessions, and 
 his own people received him not." At Matt. xix. 21, ra 
 vnapxovxa (plural) is rendered "that thou hast." But 
 what trifling ! Everybody knew before that the second 
 
73 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 "his own" meant persons, and the first, though neuter in 
 the Greek, must mean substantially the same. 
 
 12, " Children'' for "the sons," and "the right" for 
 "power." No article in Greek w T ith either; and yet 
 "children" is a predicate, while " right" is not. 
 
 14. "We beheld his glory, glory," etc, Surely the last 
 "glory" should have either "the" or "a;" for by the fore- 
 going " his" it has already been individualized. The mar- 
 ginal reading is curious on articles. 
 
 15. Here "is become" for "is preferred" is scarcely 
 intelligible. Why not say, " is put" ? 
 
 18. A perfect and an aorist are coordinated ; and 6 gov is 
 rendered " which is," and not " even he which is." 
 
 27. Cf. "even he that " with "which" at verse 29 ; and 
 " one whom" with 6 aneipoov. 
 
 32 and 38. "Ha\'e beheld" for "saw" = re^eajxai, and 
 " beheld" for "saw" = S-saGajuevos. But see vi. 5 ; Mark 
 xvi. 14; Acts xxi. 27; Rom. xv. 24, etc. And are not 
 reSzafxai and e'/xsivev in fact coordinated in time ? Cf. 
 iii. 32; Phil. iv. 11, 12, etc. 
 
 36. Here the A. V. follows the Greek in the participial 
 construction, which the Revision changes. 
 
 41. "Findeth first" for "first findeth." Well? 
 
 42. "Unto" for "to" = npo?. Happily it is not "over 
 against." But see Matt. ii. 12 ; iii. 14, etc., etc., where all 
 along 7rp6s is rendered by "to." Just think of this in- 
 effable faithfulness. 
 
 43. " Was minded to" for "would;" much better than 
 "desired to," as elsewhere. 
 
 45, 46. Why not follow the Greek order, — "Jesus, son 
 of Joseph, even him from Nazareth"? Compare Heb. ii. 9; 
 and for "son" without the article compare Mark iii. 17. 
 
 II, 
 
 3. " The wine" for "wine" (gen. abs.), no article in 
 Greek. Faithfulness; — see Matt. xxvi. 27, etc. 
 
 9. "Now become" for "which was made," — marg. "that 
 it had become," = yeyEvqjxLvov. How they wrestle with 
 their articular purism ! 
 
ST. JOHN. 79 
 
 10. "Have drunk freely" for " have well drunk" = 
 /AeSvffSGjffiv. Is either right? The Greek word has no 
 relation to drinking, except in connection with drunkenness. 
 
 13. "Passover of the Jews" for "the Jews' Passover." (?) 
 See verse 6. 
 
 15. "He made" for "when he had made''* = 7roir/(jaS.(?) 
 
 16. If faithfulness required the order to be changed here, 
 why did they not also say at verse 15, "the tables he over- 
 threw," thus being consistent ? 
 
 20. "Was in building" = gj HoSojur/St? — aorist rendered 
 as imperfect, for continued action. 
 
 22. "Was raised" for "was risen" = tjyepSr/j again. 
 
 See Luke xxiv. 34, etc. 
 
 III. 
 
 3. "Anew" for " again" = avGoSev. (?) The A. V., 
 margin, "from above." 
 
 4. "A second time" for "the second time" = Sevrepov. 
 (See Mark xii. 31 and xiv. 72); and then "of water and 
 the Spirit," — no article in Greek with either. 
 
 6. "That which is born," not "has been born." See 
 verses 18, 21, and 27. 
 
 12. " If I told" for "if I have told" = iav einoo : not 
 "shall tell." See their correction at Luke xii. 45 ; and 
 for the "have" see Luke xiv. 34, etc. Cf. John viii. 55. 
 
 13. " Out of heaven" = ex rov ovpavou. But see verse 
 31. "Which is" = o gov : not "even he which is." But 
 see James iv. 12. 
 
 15. Text and margin, interchange? 
 
 16. " His only begotten Son," not "his Son, the only 
 begotten," or " even him who was his only begotten," to 
 conform to the Greek. 
 
 18. "Judged" for "condemned;" — but the judgment 
 must here imply condemnation, and yet it is not the idio- 
 matic or natural English word for that purpose. ''Doom" 
 and "condemn" would be the exact etymological corre- 
 spondents to xpivao and naranpivoa. 
 
 21, 27. " Have been wrought, " "have been given," for 
 " are wrought" and " be given;" but see "it is written," 
 and verse 6 ; and see at verse 
 
80 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 24. "Was (not yet) cast" ==rjv fisfiXr/juevoS = "had 
 been cast." 
 
 32. ' KoopaKSv and ijKOvaev are coordinated, and are 
 rendered together as perfects. Cf. xvii. 
 
 33, 34. Aorists continue to be rendered as perfects right 
 through; and here we have "hath sent" for a7tiarei\ev } 
 which elsewhere is rendered "sent." Cf. xvii. 
 
 IV. 
 
 3. "Departed" = a7tfj\$€v. But see v. 15 and Acts xvi. 
 
 4. "Must needs" — i'dei. But see Acts i. 16 ; xvii. 3 ; 
 and compare Luke xxii. 7 and Heb. ix. 26. 
 
 8. " Were gone," not " had gone" for the pluperfect. 
 
 9. "Therefore" for "then," and order changed. This is 
 the ovv of sequence, not of consequence? "Samaritan 
 woman" for " woman of Samaria," — faithfulness ! 
 
 10. "Knewest ;" should it not be " hadst known," as it 
 is followed by " wouldest have asked" ? 
 
 17. " Saidst" for " hast said" = einas. (?) 
 
 18. " Hast had" = i'ax^- 
 
 19. " Perceive" = SsGopoj. But see xii. 19. 
 
 25. "Declare" for " tell" = avayysXsi = announce, re- 
 port. "Tell" is nearer than "declare"? 
 
 27. " Speak" for " talk"= XaXioo. {?) 
 
 31. "Prayed" (not " asked ") = ijpgdtgjv : note. 
 
 33. " The disciples therefore said" for " therefore said the 
 disciples." How strikingly necessary ! " Hath brought' '= 
 rfveyxev. 
 
 35. "Look on" (not " behold") = ^saffaaSe. Cf. 1 John 
 i. 1, where they change " looked upon" to " beheld." 
 
 39. " Who testified." No article with the participle; but 
 see Heb. i. 1, and Luke xvii. 24. 
 
 45. "So" for "then." The ovv of sequence. And so, 
 often ; but what of it ? 
 
 46. But here "so" is changed to "therefore." Compare 
 verses 52 and 53. 
 
 47. " When he heard . . he ;" not " he, when he heard" = 
 ovros auovGaS. 
 
ST. JOHN. 8 1 
 
 54. "Having come" for "when he was come/' See 
 Mark xiv. 45 and Acts xx. 2. 
 
 V. 
 
 2. "In" for "at:"— faithfulness. 
 
 3, 5, 7. " Impotent" changed to " sick" = aaSevovvTGQV : 
 but "infirmity" retained for a(?$eveia. 
 
 6. " Wouldst" for "wilt ;" but see verses 21, 40. 
 
 8. "Arise" for "rise." (!) 
 
 9. " Was made [not ' became'] whole" = eyevero. 
 
 10. "So" for " therefore" = ovv : — wherefore? Cf. iv. 
 46. 
 
 14. "Lest" = iva jxr} : but see xii. 35, 40. ■' Befall" for 
 " come unto" = ytvrftai. (?) 
 
 15. " Went away" for " departed ;" see iv. 3. 
 
 16. "For this cause" for "therefore" =6ia rovro, fol- 
 lowed by " because," also at verse 18 ; and so at vi. 65, and 
 1 John iii. 1. Butcf. Matt. xiii. 13; xxiv. 44; Luke xii. 22, 
 etc. 
 
 19. "But" = iav pLtf. Compare Gal. ii. 16. Note the rz, 
 rendered " what," equivalent to "that which," like a after- 
 wards. 
 
 26, 27. "Gave" for "hath given;" (?) " a son of man" 
 should be " the son of a man," if any change. " Shall come 
 forth" (not " go") = 6K7topsvGovTai. 
 
 29. "Done [or practised] ill," for "done evil"= ra 
 cpavXa 7tpa£;avrEZ. 
 
 34. Literally: "but I not from man receive the testi- 
 mony." "May be "saved" for might be saved" = 
 ggqStjts. (?) 
 
 35. Better, "the burning and shining lamp" than "the 
 lamp that burneth and shineth." (?) 
 
 44. "Which receive" = Xaj^jSarovre?, — not 01 Xa/x/3. : 
 see also iv. 39 ; but compare Luke xvii. 24; Heb. i. 1, etc. 
 
 VI. 
 
 2. "Sick" for " diseased;'' but see Acts xxviii. 9. 
 5. " Seeing" = Seaaafxevos : but see i. 32, etc., etc. 
 
82 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 6. "Are to" for "shall." The subjunctive does not 
 require the change. 
 
 n. "Having given thanks" for "when he had given 
 thanks." If faithfulness required this change here, why not 
 also at Mark xiv. 22, 23; Luke xxii. 17, 19? and compare 
 Matt. xxvi. 26, 27. 
 
 12. "Broken pieces" for "fragments." (?) 
 
 13. " So" for " therefore" = ovv. Hownice! Seeverse 
 19 and iv. 46. 
 
 14. " When, therefore, the people saw the sign . . . they 
 said," for "then those [the] men, when they had seen the 
 miracle, said," = 01 ovv avSpoonoi idovrei 6r}jxziov. See 
 Luke xxiii. 8, where 6rjpi£iov= " miracle ;" see verse 11 
 for the tense of idovre? : and avBpoonoi commonly means 
 "men." As for the change of construction it is directly 
 the reverse of the Revisers' ordinary correction, — see Luke 
 vii. 4, note. " Cometh" for " should come" = 6 spxopievoS. 
 See Matt. xi. 3 and Luke vii. 20, notes. 
 
 15. "Were about to" for "would" = piiWovGi : but 
 see verse 6, " would" = e'/xeWe, and verse 71. 
 
 17. "Was" = syeyovei, why not "was [or 'had'] 
 grown." " Had come" = sX^Xvdei for "was come;" but 
 see xi. 30; xvi. 28, 32; xvii. 1, etc., etc. Consistency 
 faithfulness, "straightway." "Unto" for " toward" = 
 si? : but see xx. 3, where they put "toward" for "to;" and 
 they have frequently changed "to" to " for" = s is, — see 
 Acts xxvii. 1, 6 — to which " toward" would here correspond ; 
 per contra, Acts xxvii. 2. The intelligent English reader 
 can decide questions like these as well as the profoundest 
 Greek scholar. 
 
 19. " When therefore" for " so when" = ovv after part, 
 perf. See verse 13. 
 
 21. "They were willing, therefore, to receive him," for 
 "Then they willingly received him" = ?]6s\ov ovv Xafislv. 
 Which is the sense ? 
 
 25. " When they found" for " when they had found" = 
 svpovrss. See verse 11, note, and Acts xxi. 2, 3, 4. 
 " Camest" = ysyova?, not "hast come;" see also Gal. iii. 
 17; 2 Cor. H. 13; Heb. xi. 28. How durst they render a 
 
ST. JOHN. 83 
 
 perfect thus ? Cf. i. 3 ; Matt. xix. 8 ; xxiv. 21 ; xxv. 6 ; Mark 
 v. $Si etc -> etc «; especially Mark ix. 21. 
 
 27. " For him the Father, *z/*# God, hath sealed" = rovrov 
 yip 6 nar?)p £6cpiyio~£v y 6 Qeos. What a jolt in the 
 English ! And why change at all ? or, if they must change, 
 why not adhere strictly to the Greek, and say: "for him 
 did the Father seal, even God" ? 
 
 28. " What must we do ?" for "What shall we do ?" = ri 
 7toiGjjj.£v $ (?) What shall we say? 
 
 29. "Hath sent," marg. " Sent" == ink 6?£ i\sv. Won- 
 drous nicety. 
 
 30. " What workest thou ?" for " What dost thou work?" 
 Revisional faithfulness. 
 
 31. "Ate" for "did eat." But see verse 49, where " did 
 eat" remains. They could not hold the split hair steady. 
 " Out of heaven" for "from heaven." But see iii. 31 ; Rev. 
 x. 4, etc. 
 
 32. 34. "Jesus therefore" for "then Jesus," = ovv. (?) 
 37, 39. "All that which" for " all that" = ndv o. (?) 
 
 40. " Beholdeth" for " seeth" = Oecopcov. (?) 
 
 44. "In" for "at" (the last day) = iv. But they retain 
 "at" at 39, 40, 54, etc. 
 49, 58. " Died" for " are dead." But see viii. 52, etc. 
 
 41, 53, etc., etc. "Therefore" for " then" = ovv. This 
 change is so frequent in St. John's Gospel that we need refer 
 to it no more in particular. The question is, does the ovv 
 express narrative sequence or logical consequence ? The Re- 
 visers differ in judgment here from the forty-seven transla- 
 tors of the A. V., assuming a logical consequence much more 
 frequently than their predecessors. This can be supposed 
 and imagined in many cases, where it is by no means neces- 
 sary to presume it. Let intelligent readers judge. 
 
 56. " Abideth" for " dwelleth" = /livei. So the indwell- 
 ing of Christ, or of the Holy Spirit in us, is henceforth to 
 be an " in-abiding." 
 
 65. "For this cause" for " therefore" = dii rovro. See 
 ix. 16 ; Acts xxviii. 20; Rev. xii. 12; and notes at v. 16, and 
 1 John iii. 1. "Be given" for "were given" (have been 
 given). 
 
84 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 66. " Upon this" for " from that time" = in rovrov. 
 
 67. " Would (for" will") ye also go away" = OeXsre ; but 
 see v. 40. 
 
 70. " Did choose" for " have chosen." (?) 
 
 71. " Should" = tj/asWsv : not " was about to." See verse 
 
 15 and vii. 39. 
 
 VII. 
 
 3. " Behold" for " see" = dsGopeoo. The particular cases 
 of this pet alteration need not be further noticed. Is it re- 
 quired by faithfulness ? Again, let English readers judge. 
 
 4. "Manifest" for " show." (?) 
 
 10. " Were gone up" = avefitjGav : " went up" = are fit]. 
 Cf. xvii. 
 
 16, 17. "Teaching" for " doctrine" = SiSaxrj- The Re- 
 visers seem to have assumed that didaxrj means the act of 
 teaching (Sida£;iS) exclusively, and SidaGuaXia the thing 
 taught or doctrine. But is not this an arbitrary distinction ? 
 Does not didaxr/ in this very case mean the thing taught, 
 the doctrine, and not the act of teaching ? " Willeth" = 
 OeXrj : — not "desireth." " From myself" for "of myself." 
 "To speak of myself" might be ambiguous, but "to speak 
 from myself" is hardly English. See 28 and xi. 51. 
 
 21. " Did" for " have done"= inoij^aa. It is followed by 
 "marvel" and not "marvelled." So at verses 23 and 29; 
 compare verse 31. 
 
 23. Change of order needless, and it enfeebles the Eng- 
 lish. " Wroth" for " angry" = x°^ re — equally needless. 
 
 24. " Appearance" for " the appearance " = nar oipiv : a 
 phrase, — compare " in town," " in the city," and the French 
 " a vue d'oeil." But is their phrase a settled English idiom ? 
 
 26, 27. " Know" = i'yvooGav and oi f dafj.ev. Why not say 
 " What !" for /*?/, as at verse 41, and be consistent ? See 
 Acts xxvi. 24, 25. 
 
 31. " Hath done" = inoirfae. This refers to the arjfxsia, 
 one of which is spoken of in verses 21, 23. "When the 
 Christ shall come" for. . . "cometh." But see xvi. 13, 
 and cf. viii. 28. 
 
 38. " Hath said" = einev. 
 
 39. "Were to" for " should" = efxeWov. So vi. 15 and 
 
ST. JOHN. 85 
 
 Acts xxii. 29 ("were about to"); but see vi. 71 and Gal. 
 iii. 23. Ilvevjua = " the Spirit" (no art.). 
 
 40. " This is of a truth" for " of a truth this is" ! 
 
 45. " Did bring" for " have brought." (?) 
 
 51. "A man" = TOK avdpGonov, — the generic article. 
 See Matt. i. 23; a7teipoDv y etc. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 9. " Where she was" = ovaa. There is nothing at all for 
 " where." Is this translation or paraphrase? They might 
 have said "being," or omitted ovffa altogether; but they 
 would have been quite as near the original, even in their 
 new text, if they had retained the "standing" of the A. V. 
 
 14. " Even if" for " though" = nav. But see x. 38. 
 
 16. "Yea and if" for " and yet if" = nai iav . . . de = 
 "■ but even if." 
 
 17. "Yea and" for " also" = nai . . . (5£ = "but also," 
 or "but even." 
 
 25. " Even that which I have also spoken unto you," for 
 "Even the same that I said unto you"=o ri nai XaXao 
 vfA.iv , — (" what I am also speaking to you [from the begin- 
 ning" = rr/v apxw])- 
 
 26. " Heard" for " have heard" == rjnovaa. (?) 
 
 27. "Perceived" for " understood" = iyvcoaav. But 
 see verse 43 and x. 6; see also iii. 10, "understand" for 
 " know. " " Spake" = eXeyev ; just above " speak" always 
 stands for XaXi go. 
 
 28. "Have lifted up" = vtpGD(?r/TS. Cf. vii. 31. 
 
 29. "That are pleasing to" for "that please" = ta 
 apeara. Faithfulness. 
 
 31. "Truly" for " indeed" = aXrj6a9^. See vi. 55; but 
 surely aXrjOaoS corresponds as well to the adverb " indeed" 
 as aXr}9r/s did. 
 
 33. " We be" = iejuev : is this the English of the present 
 day ? " Shall be made" = yevrjGeeQs, — not " shall be- 
 come." Why not ? Elsewhere they struggle hard to get in 
 something besides " made," see ii. 9, etc. 
 
 34. " Bond-servant" for " servant" === dovXos. Elsewhere 
 in text, " servant." 
 
86 
 
 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 36. " If therefore the Son" for "if the Son therefore,"— 
 exquisite faithfulness. " Shall make/' see Luke xvi. 30, 
 31, etc., etc. 
 
 39. "Our father is Abraham" for "Abraham is our 
 father." Oh! wondrous faithfulness! The subject has 
 the article in Greek ; but does not a proper name make 
 some difference? Cf. Acts xviii. 5 ; 1 John ii. 22 ; v. 1. 
 
 40. " Heard" for " have heard" = rfKOva a. (?) 
 
 41. "Works" for " deeds" = spy a. The Revisers allow 
 spyov to mean " deed," in the singular number, as at Luke 
 xxiv. 19, etc., etc. ; but not in the plural to mean "deeds," 
 as cf. Acts vii. 22. But this is an arbitrary distinction; 
 and their vigilance has failed them in one instance, 2 Pet. 
 ii. S. What would be unobjectionable in an independent 
 translation may be unjustifiable as a correction of a former 
 version. 
 
 42. "Have come" for " am come" = i Xr/XvOa. See xvi. 
 28, and vi. 17, note. 
 
 44. "A lie" = ro tpsvdos. In margin, orav XaX?j = 
 "when one speaketh ;" cf. Heb. x. 28. 
 
 45, 46. " The truth" = rrjv aXrjOsiav and aXrjdsiav 
 alike. 
 
 47. "The words of God" for "God's words;" why? 
 " For this cause" for " therefore" = dia rovro : but see ix. 
 23, etc., etc., and notes at v. 16 and 1 John iii. 1. 
 
 50. "One that seeketh"=o £r/T(iov ; see " the sower," 
 6 <j7tsipoov. If the absolute sen, " there is," is appealed to 
 as making a difference in this and similar cases (as at v. 
 45), then cf. "there shall be the weeping and gnashing," and 
 Rom. xv. 12. 
 
 51. " Word" for " saying" = Xoyov. (?) " See" = Ssgd- 
 pr/ffrj : also at ix. 8. How happened they to forget " be- 
 hold" ? 
 
 52. "If a man keep" = sav TiS rrjprj(fr\, — not "shall 
 keep," and so at x. 9 ; but see Matt. xxiv. 48, and Luke xii. 
 38, 45, etc., where they carefully insert "shall." 
 
 54. " Glory" for " honour" = doB,a. 
 
 55. "If I should say" = sav sutoj, — "I shall be." But 
 see Luke xvi. 30, 31, etc. 
 
ST. JOHN. 87 
 
 IX. 
 
 5. " I am the light" =<^g3; ei/M rov xoGpiov. See 1 Tim. 
 vi. 10. 
 
 6. "Thus spoken" = ravra BiTtoav. So also xi. 43; but 
 cf. xi. 28, and Luke ix. 34. 
 
 8. "Which saw" for "which had seen" = daaopovvTSS, — 
 not " beheld." The pluperfect is not wrong. 
 
 10. "They said therefore" for " therefore said they." So 
 also at verse 16. What of it ? 
 
 15. "Received" for "had received." But see verse 18. 
 Can one explain why that should be pluperfect and not this ? 
 
 17, 21. " In that" for " that" = on : " how" for " by what 
 means" = 7Tg3?. In the last case the A. V. is plainly right; 
 and perhaps "because" would be better in the other. 
 " Opened" for " hath opened." (?) 
 
 23. " Therefore" = Si a rovro. Sox. 17; cf. viii. 47, etc. 
 
 24. "A second time" for " again" = ex devrepov : but 
 does not it mean "again" if it means " a second time"? 
 And ex Sevrepov they commonly render " the second 
 time." 
 
 27. "Told even now" for "have told already" = rfdt], (?) 
 See Matt. xiv. 15. 
 
 30. "The marvel"' for "a marvellous thing" = Qxv/4.a(T- 
 ror ! ! 
 
 31, 32. " Any man," "any one" = rz£. 
 
 35. " Finding" for "when he had found" = evpoov. See 
 vi. 11 (note) ; xi. 2S, 43, and Luke xv. 5 ; Acts xxi. 2, 3, 4, 
 etc. 
 
 37. " Speaketh" for " talketh" = \a\oov. 
 
 38. " Lord, I believe" = niarevGD, uvpis. Cf. Matt. xxvi. 
 25, "Is it I? Rabbi." 
 
 39. "May see" for "might see" (present); "may be 
 made" (not " may become") for " might be made" (aorist). 
 
 X. 
 
 1. " Fold of the sheep" for " sheepfold." 
 4. " Hath put" for " putteth" = orav inf3a\r\. But the 
 Revisers sometimes render this construction of the aorist 
 
88 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 subjunctive by the indicative present, as at Matt. xxiv. 32, 
 33, and Mark xiii. 28, 29, and Heb. i. 6, etc. 
 6. Understood = eyrooGav. See viii. 27. 
 
 9. "Shall go in and go out and shall find," for "shall 
 go in and out and find." Why not " shall go out," and 
 finish it ? Which is the English idiom ? Do we not say 
 " go in and out" rather than " go in and go out"? 
 
 10. "That he may steal," etc., for "to steal," etc. = 
 i'va nXtipy. But see verse 31 and iv. 34; v. 36, etc. 
 
 12. "A shepherd" for " the shepherd." But 7toipi?jv is a 
 predicate, and the hireling was probably "a shepherd," 
 though not " the shepherd." " Snatcheth" for " catcheth ;" 
 which does a wolf do most naturally ? 
 
 19. " Words" for " sayings" = Xoyovi. 
 
 21. "Sayings" for " words" = pr/piara, and so at xii. 
 47, 48, — arbitrary faithfulness. They freely render pijfxa 
 "word," as at Matt. iv. 4; 1 Pet. i. 24, 25, and here in 
 John at iii. 34; v. 47; vi. 63, 68 ; viii. 20, 47; xiv. 10 ; xv. 
 7 ; xvii. 8, 
 
 24. " Hold us in suspense" for " make us to doubt" = 
 *j:vxr/y rj^cov aipsi?. This is from the margin of the A. V. ; 
 but which is the simpler and better translation ? We con- 
 fess our judgment follows that of the forty-seven. 
 
 28. Is " pluck" any more antiquated or unintelligible 
 here than " we be" is at viii. 33 ? 
 
 32. " Have I showed" = i'deiga : but 
 
 36. "Sanctified" for "hath sanctified." "The Son of 
 God;" why italicize "//^"just here? See Matt. iv. 3,6, 
 etc., etc., etc. They print " Son" with a capital. 
 
 38. " Though" = nav : changed to " even if " at viii. 14. 
 
 39. u Went forth" for "escaped" — out of their hand. 
 
 XI. 
 
 3. "The sisters therefore" for "therefore his sisters." 
 " The sisters" means "his sisters," and "therefore" means 
 the same in one place as in the other. But again, 
 
 6. "When therefore he heard" for "when he had heard 
 therefore" = ooS ovv rjuovaev (he abode). 
 

 ST. JOHN. 89 
 
 7, 8. " The" for "his" (disciples); but see 41, etc., etc. 
 "But now" for "of late" = vvv : i.e. "just now." We 
 may as well insert " just" as "but," and make current Eng- 
 lish, — if we must change. 
 
 12. "Will recover" for "shall do well" = ffoodrfffsrai 
 (" will get well" — colloquial). 
 
 14. " Is dead" = arced ars. 
 
 19. ''Console" for "comfort" = 7tapa^iv6rjffGovrai. 
 But see verse 31. Why change here ? " Straightway" ! 
 
 20. "When" for "as soon as" = co9. "Still sat'' for 
 "sat still" == SKa6ii8,£T0. Cf. Acts xvii. 14. 
 
 22. "Even now I know that" for " I know that even 
 now." Is not the true sense more plainly expressed by the 
 latter ? 
 
 26. " Whosoever" = noc? 6, also at xvi. 2; elsewhere 
 rendered " every one who," and the A. V. corrected accord- 
 ingly/. Cf. Matt. v. 22, 28 ; Luke vi. 47, etc. 
 
 27. "Even he that cometh" for "which should come" 
 = 6 spxojuevo;. See Acts xix. 4. Why did they not ren- 
 der in this last case " that came" or " was coming" ? 
 
 28. " Said this" for " so said" = rovro einovGoc : but cf. 
 ix. 6 ; xi. 43, etc. 
 
 29. "Went" for " came" = yp^sro. But Jesus and not 
 Mary is the centre of our thoughts. 
 
 42. " Heardest" for "hast heard." "Around" for "by." 
 " Didst send" for "hast sent." (?) 
 
 43. " Loud" = pL8yaXr\ : but see Rev. v. 12, note. 
 
 44. " Hand and foot" = rovi 7toSa? nod ra? x e ^P a? - So 
 idiom goes for something; but see " the footstool of his 
 feet," and u two witnesses or three," etc. 
 
 46. " The things which" for " what things. " " Had done" 
 = £noit)6Ev. 
 
 50. " Take account" for " consider." Well? 
 
 51. " Should die" (not "was about to die ") = s'/teWev. 
 But see vi. 15. 
 
 52. " Also/ ' out of place. In Greek it adds " the children" 
 rather than the " gathering." 
 
 53. " That they might" for " to" = i'va, etc., and so x. 10 ; 
 but see verse 55 and iv. 34; v. 36; x. 32 ; xi. 19, 55, etc. 
 
90 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 In the modern Greek va (for ira) is the distinctive sign of 
 the infinitive mood, — or of the substitute for it. 
 
 XII. 
 
 3. "Precious" for "costly" = nokvripLOv. The same 
 sense, one in Latin, the other in Anglo-Saxon. 
 
 4. The order changed so that, in the English, "which," 
 that should refer to Judas, may by the ear be referred to 
 the disciples; — note their punctilious carefulness at xi. 20. 
 
 7. The margin, or the old text, to be preferred. The 
 " anointing for the burial" was that in Bethany ; — see the 
 other Gospels. 
 
 14. " Having found" for " when he had found " = evpGov, 
 — (not "finding" as at ix. 35). The construction of the A. 
 V. here is the same as the Revisers have elsewhere substituted 
 for another, see Acts xxi. 20, 32, etc., etc. 
 
 16. They, with the A. V., render a pluperfect by " were 
 written," and an aorist by " had done." 
 
 19. "Behold" for "perceive" = decopEira : but see iv. 
 19, where Osoopeoo is rendered "perceive." And then here 
 i f de is rendered " lo" for "behold," although " behold " is, 
 even with the Revisers, its customary meaning. "Is gone" 
 = anr/XOev, — not " went away" or " departed." 
 
 21. " These therefore came" for "the same came there- 
 fore" = ovroi ouv. But at John i. 2, 7, and vii. 8, ovrol 
 is rendered "the same." "Asked" for " desired" = 
 tjpGOToov. Cf. Luke vii. 36, where they say "desired." 
 
 27. " Is troubled" = rerapaxrai. 
 
 35. "That . . . not" for " lest" = i'va }Arj : and so at 
 Col. iii. 21, ii. 4; Phil. ii. 27; Heb. xi. 28. But they ren- 
 der " lest" at verse 40 and Matt. xvii. 27, xxvi. 5 ; 1 Tim. 
 iii. 7 ; Rev. xvi. 15, etc. What is the clew? 
 
 40. " Perceive" for "understand" = voijaooffiv. (?) 
 42. "Even" for "also" = xai. See Luke vii. 49 (note.) 
 47, 48, 49. "Sayings" for " words" = prjpiara j and 
 spake" for " have spoken." (?) 
 
ST. JOHN. 91 
 
 XIII. 
 
 
 2. "Already" for "now" = rfdrj : cf. ix. 27. 
 
 11. " That should betray him" = rov 7tapa6idovta. 
 
 14. " The Lord and the Master" for "your Lord and 
 Master." Surely this is harsh English; and if faithfulness 
 to the Greek article required it here, why did not they say 
 also in verse 13, " ye call me the Master and the Lord " ? 
 The Greek article is there also ; but English idiom seems 
 to have prevailed. 
 
 1, 3, 12, 14, 15. "Had given" = on Sedaoxsv : " had 
 washed," etc. = ore e'viipev : "have washed" = ei iviipa : 
 "have done" = 7te7toirjna and enoirjaa : and "have 
 given" = i'dcoxa. Cf. ch. xvii. 
 
 17. " Blessed" for "happy" = jiaxapioz. (?) 
 
 18. " Lifted" for " hath lifted." (??) "Have chosen" = 
 
 22, 29. "Spake" and "said" = Xeysi. 
 
 27. " That thou doest" retained for o noiBiS : but see vi. 
 
 37. 
 
 31. "Is glorified" = edo^aaOrj. " When therefore he" 
 for " therefore when he. " But the Revisers often begin a 
 clause with " therefore ;" and it is a matter of English and 
 not of Greek construction. 
 
 38. "The cock" (no art.). Why not "no cock shall 
 
 crow" 
 
 XIV. 
 
 2, 3. "A place for you" = ronov vjniv,and vjxiv ronov. 
 Elsewhere such a change in the Greek is a great mystery. 
 
 18. " Come" for " will come" = epxojAai. Butisnotthe 
 meaning "will come"? and if "come" means the same in 
 English, what sort of faithfulness required the change ? 
 
 9. " Have been" = eipii. 
 
 10. " From" for "of" (myself) ; cf. vii. 28 and xi. 51. 
 7, 12, 19, and of. xv. 20. "My Father also," "he do 
 
 also," "ye shall live also," "they will also persecute 
 you." According to what appears to have been the punc- 
 tilious rule of the Revisers for the construction of "also," 
 the first (in verse 7) is right : but should not the others be 
 
92 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 "he also," " ye also," and "you also" (will they perse- 
 cute) ? 
 
 21. " He it is that" = enelvos £6tiv 6 : and so at v. 39; 
 ix. 37; and at xiii. 26, £k£ivo$ eotiv go : cf. Matt. i. 21. 
 Here we have the true use of the formula: "it is he that." 
 It furnishes a subject common to two predicates. Thus, 
 if you would know who shall betray me, it is he that re- 
 ceiveth the sop; if you would know who loveth me. it is he 
 that keepeth my commandments; who is the Son of God? 
 it is he that speaketh with thee. But it is abundantly 
 evident that no such reference can be attached to the avtoi 
 in the angelic interpretation of the name Jesus in St. Mat- 
 thew. The question, " Who shall save his people from 
 their sins ?" the angel could not suppose to be present in 
 the mind of Mary or of Joseph, nor the question " What 
 else shall he do ?" And he could not have intended by his 
 interpretation to answer any such inquiries. He must 
 plainly have intended to furnish, not a subject to any given 
 predicate at all, but a predicate to the given subject. The 
 question was, " What shall this child be or do ?" And the 
 answer was, " He himself (avroZ, not eneivo^ £ar\v 6) 
 shall save his people from their sins;" /. ^., " he shall save 
 them, and that by his own inherent and sufficient power." 
 So that the rendering, "it is he that shall save his people 
 from their sins," is illogical as well as paraphrastical. See 
 also i. 30 and Phil. ii. 12. 
 
 22. "What is come to pass?" for ''how is it ?"== rz 
 yeyovev ; (" how is it come to pass?" or, "how is it 
 done?" or, "how does it happen?" or, "how is it?") 
 
 23. " Our abode" == juovi/v. Cf. Matt. xxvi. 27 and 1 Cor. 
 xv. $&. 
 
 26. " Said" for " have said" = einov : as at Matt, xxviii. 
 20. Surely the A. V. is right. Did our Lord refer to say- 
 ings in some indefinite past? Did he not include all down 
 to the moment when he was speaking? The other changes 
 in this verse are entirely unnecessary. 
 
 27. "Fearful" for " afraid" = Sei A latoo. "Give I;" 
 the order of the Greek is departed from. 
 
 28. "Heard" for "have heard." (?) The repetition of 
 
ST. JOHN. 93 
 
 " I" in this verse and the insertion of "he" in verse 30 
 have no authority in the Greek, and how they are required 
 by faithfulness it is hard to see. They seem to be the re- 
 sult of a kind of sublimated hypercriticism. 
 
 XV. 
 
 2. " That beareth" == cpipov and to cpepov alike. 
 
 4. " Except" = iav jxrf : — an ellipsis must be presumed, 
 a j, " neither can it bear fruit at all ;" for the meaning can- 
 not be that, if it abide in me it can bear fruit of itself . 
 
 6. Two aorists are rendered as present. "A branch" = 
 to xK.yjJLa. 
 
 9. Two aorists are rendered as perfect. "Abide" for 
 " continue." (?) 
 
 15. "No longer" for "henceforth not" == ovx£ti } i.e* 
 "not now" or "not now nor in future." Had he been 
 accustomed to call them servants before? " Heard" for 
 ' ' have heard" = yxovo'a. But is it to be presumed that he 
 had heard nothing from the Father since a certain indefinite 
 moment in the past ? The Revisers cannot have inferred 
 this from the mere aorist form of the verb, for they imme- 
 diately add : " Have made known" = iyvoopiGa. 
 
 17. " May love" for " love. " But is it not the substance 
 rather than the end of the commandment that is referred 
 to? If. i'va is appealed to, then say " should love," and not 
 " may love ;" for it is a commandment. 
 
 19. "Chose" for "have chosen ;" cf. xiii. 18. 
 
 20. "A" for "the" (servant). Generic and aphoristic, 
 therefore no article in Greek. It may have either article in 
 English, as we cannot use it without any; but "the" is the 
 better. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 4. "Is come" for "shall come" = eX#ft.- and so the 
 A. V. at verse 13. But cf. Matt. ix. 15; xix. 28; xxi. 40; 
 xxv. 31 ; and Mark ii. 20. 
 
 7. " Go" for " depart. " There is a different word in the 
 Greek for this "go" and for the two preceding (go away) ; 
 there aniXQw, here rtopEvOoo. Would not " depart," there- 
 fore, be better, for one or the other ? 
 
94 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 ii. "Hath been judged" for "is judged." Cf. "It is 
 written," and see xii. 27. 
 
 13. "All the truth," for "all truth;" why not then, 
 " the Spirit of the truth," as well ? " The things that are 
 to come" = ra epxojjsva : and so Rev. i. 4, S, not "the 
 things that come." Cf. vi. 14 and xi. 27. "Is come" = 
 orav eX6r) y and future following; but see vii. 31; Matt, 
 xxi. 40, etc. 
 
 21. "A woman" = rf yvvrj : "is born" = iyerrrjdrj^ so 
 A. V. 
 
 22. " And ye therefore now" for " and ye now therefore." 
 Revising faithfulness. 
 
 28. "Am come" = eXi]\v da : elsewhere changed to 
 "have come," see vi. 17; viii. 42, etc. And cf. "is come" 
 at verse 13. " Every man" = £xa6T0i. In such cases they 
 generally put "one" for " man," and " each" for " every." 
 
 XVII. 
 
 3. " Him whom thou didst send, even Jesus Christ." 
 The change of tense and construction in this classical pas- 
 sage is entirely uncalled for. We have seen that the Re- 
 visers have familiarly rendered the Greek aorists by the 
 English perfect, and this very aniareika among the rest. 
 But here, at verse 4, they put " glorified" for " have glori- 
 fied ;" at 6, "manifested" for "have manifested;" at 8, 
 "received," "knew," "believed," for "have," etc.; at 12, 
 "perished" for "is lost;" at 14, "hated" for "hath 
 hated;" at 25, "knew" three times, for "have known;" 
 and at 26, "made" for "have made;" thus throwing all 
 these acts out of connection with the (then) present 
 into the indefinite past, as historical events which had 
 taken place at some particular though indeterminate time, 
 — as dead historical facts. Now the Revisers cannot, con- 
 sistently with their own translation elsewhere, appeal to 
 the mere form of the Greek aorist as settling the question 
 in their favor. Neither can they appeal to the intermin- 
 gling of Greek perfects with Greek aorists in this passage ; 
 for at Acts xxv. 10, 11, "I have done" is for a Greek 
 aorist, an J "I have committed" for a Greek perfect, in im- 
 
ST. JOHN. 95 
 
 mediate succession ; and at Acts xxi. 21-24, and Rev. xviii. 
 2, 3, the aorist and perfect of the very same verb are both 
 rendered by the English perfect. At Phil. iii. 12 ; iv. 11, 
 12, they have rendered an aorist and a perfect by the per- 
 fect. And even in this very gospel at xiii. 14, 15, they ren- 
 der " have washed" for an aorist, and " have given" for a 
 perfect. Also at Matt. xxvi. 12, 13, the aorist of the same 
 verb isf rendered first preterite and then perfect. The ques- 
 tion here between the Authorized Version and the Revision 
 must be settled by that sort of judgment of the context and 
 of the nature of the case which any intelligent English 
 reader is as well qualified to exercise as an equally intelli- 
 gent Greek scholar. And we may add that the Revisers 
 have against them the whole English Hexapla, Luther's 
 German, De Sacy's French, Diodati's Italian, and almost 
 all, if not all of the former translations from the Greek ; 
 and let it not be forgotten that no appeal will lie here to 
 any modern discoveries in Greek grammar or to any mys- 
 teries recently laid open in regard to the Greek aorist tense. 
 Cf. further, Mark v. 19 ; Heb. xii. 4, 5, etc. 
 
 21,23. "May all" for "all may;" "perfected" for 
 "made perfect." Revising faithfulness. 
 
 24. Even the change of text will scarcely justify the man- 
 gling of this verse, which is made so harsh and discordant to 
 the English ear, — and to the English mind. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 4. "Were coming" for "should come" = ipxo}JLBva. 
 Why did they not say "came" ? See vi. 14 and cf. xvi. 13 • 
 also vi. 15 and 71. 
 
 6. "When therefore" for "as soon then as" = go? ovv : 
 " said" for " had said." (?) 
 
 9. " Lost" for "have lost." (?) 
 
 10. "Struck" for "smote." Faithfulness. Cf. Luke 
 xxii. 50, etc. 
 
 13." High priest" for " the high priest" — a predicate ; and 
 what's the difference ? but, "faithfulness" ! The A. V., for- 
 sooth, was ignorant of the use of the Greek article. Cf. 
 xix. 7, Acts x. 42, etc. 
 
96 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 2:>. "Synagogues" for "the synagogue." Their own 
 text has Gvvayooyfj : but what is a question of number to 
 that of the article ? 
 
 30. " Evil-doer" for " malefactor" = KanonoioS. Plainly 
 the word is here to be understood in its legal, or criminal, 
 sense. Cf. Luke xxiii. 32, 33, where they render xanovpyoi 
 " malefactors." 
 
 31. "Yourselves" for "ye" = V}aeT$ : and so at xix. 6. 
 Who is most "faithful" ? 
 
 3$. " Delivered" for " have delivered ;" but immediately 
 "hast thou done" renders an aorist. 
 
 38. " Crime" for u fault" = airia : and at xix. 4, 6. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 2, 5. "Garment" for " robe" — ijuariov — with "pur- 
 pie." (?) 
 
 4, 5. "Out" for "forth" = e^ffX^sv : and so at verses 
 13, 17, and xxi. 3. But cf. Acts ii. 17. 
 
 6. "When therefore the chief priests and the officers" 
 for " when the chief priests, therefore, and officers." How 
 momentous these changes ! 
 
 10, 11. Power = f^oufr/o' — not "authority." "Greater 
 sin" for "the greater sin;" but, at verse 8, "the more" = 
 judXXov, — no art. 
 
 12. "Release" for "let go." But cf. Acts iv. 23. 
 
 18. "Others" for "other." But cf. xxi. 2; Acts xvii. 
 18. 
 
 19. "There was written" for "the writing was" = 
 ijv yeypafxjxlrov. Now the simple reader will not only 
 understand the meaning, but will know how the Greek 
 says it. 
 
 31. "On" for "upon," and ''upon" for "on;" and 
 " the day of that sabbath" for "that Sabbath day." Ex- 
 quisite and untiring faithfulness ! Think of each of these 
 being solemnly put to a two thirds vote! "Asked" for 
 " besought" = r/poorr/aav : and so, verse 38 ; but cf. xvi. 26. 
 
 39. "He who" for " which" = o (eX^oov) ; cf. iii. 13; 
 Matt. vi. 4, etc., etc. 
 
 40. " Custom" for "manner." (?) 
 
ST. JOHN. 97 
 
 42. A needless and bungling rearrangement, spoiling the 
 flow and cadence without improving or even altering the 
 sense of the passage. Compare this faithfulness with that 
 e.g. at Acts xx. 25, 31. If the Revisers would make these 
 changes they were bound to be consistent, and to give us 
 the Greek construction always. 
 
 XX. 
 
 3. "Went toward" for "came to" = r/pxovro 6 is : but 
 cf. Acts xxviii. 14. And why did they not say "were 
 going," as at vi. 17 ? 
 
 5. "Stooping, he" for "He, stooping." (?) 
 
 5, 6, 8. "Entered in" for "went in" = eiarjX^ev. But 
 cf. Acts xxi. 26, "went into" =si6r\ei. Does not epxo/j.ai 
 signify "go," as well as eipii ? The Revisers do not hesitate 
 so to render it, and to correct the A. V. at the same time ; 
 see verse 3, and xi. 29. 
 
 6, 7, 12, 14. By comparing these verses it will appear that 
 $EGoptGo means the same as fiXirtGQ or eidov, and no more. 
 " When she had said" =ei7tov(ja. 
 
 23. " Forgive" for " remit" =acpfjre. Well? 
 
 27. " See" for "behold" = ids. " Behold" can take an 
 accusative in English as well as "see ;" and it does not ap- 
 pear that ids changes its meaning according to the case fol- 
 lowing. But faithfulness — to SecopeGj, "behold" ! 
 
 XXI. 
 
 1. "He manifested himself on this wise" for "on this 
 wise showed he himself." (?) 
 
 2. "Two other" =aXXoi 6vo. Cf. xix. 18. 
 
 3. "Come" for " go" = Spxo/iai. Cf. xx. 3. "Took" 
 for " caught" =irtia6av .- so at verse 10. 
 
 4. "Beach" for " shore" = aiyiak ov. It was certainly 
 a "shore," whether it was properly a " beach" or not. 
 
 8. "Of fishes" = tgov ix$vcov .• but see "the weeping 
 and gnashing." 
 
 9. " Got out upon the land," for " were come to land"= 
 aitLfirfaav £z's rr}v yrjv — simply they "landed," or "had 
 landed." 
 
98 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 12. " Break your fast," for " dine" = apiatf'](jars i i.e. 
 "dine" or " breakfast;" and the same at verse 15. The Re- 
 visers translate apitfrov, "dinner," at Matt. xxii. 4 ; Luke 
 xi. 38, and xiv. 12 ; and, at Luke xi. 37, they translate 
 api<7T?jGt] f "dine." Indeed, apiarov has no more to do 
 with " breaking a fast" than every meal must have, from 
 the nature of the case; and our very word "dine," from 
 "diner," " disner" is not unlikely of the same origin as 
 " dejedner, " to breakfast. As to the time of the day at which 
 this meal was taken, we cannot say exactly at what time it 
 was. It seems likely it was early. But we cannot 
 make much account of the proper hour of " dining," when 
 a London dinner may be taken at from eight to twelve 
 o'clock at night. 
 
 12, 24. "Inquire" for " ask" = i&eraGai : " beareth wit- 
 ness" for " testifieth;" "witness" for " testimony." Con- 
 sequential. 
 
 ACTS. 
 I. 
 
 2. 11, 22. "Received up" for "taken up" = avsXr/cpSrj ; 
 and so the A. V. at Mark xvi. 19. The word may be ren- 
 dered either way. From the Latin it is "assumption" — 
 a taking up or taking to one's self. At verse 9 they had 
 better have said " lifted up" for " taken up" = enr/pS?]. Cf. 
 Matt. xvii. 8 ; where they so render. 
 
 3. " Proofs" for " infallible proofs" = T6H/x?}pia. Lex., 
 "sure signs or tokens," "demonstrative proofs." 
 
 4. "Charged" for " commanded " = 7tcxpi]yyzik£v. So 
 also at iv. 18; v. 28, 40; xvi. 18, etc., etc. But cf. xvii. 30; 
 Mark viii. 6; Luke ix. 21; viii. 29 (and compare this last 
 with Acts xvi. 18), etc., etc. Faithfulness illustrated. 
 
 6. " They therefore, when they were come together, 
 .asked," for "when they therefore were come together, 
 they asked." But cf. again Matt. viii. 12; ix. 12; xi. 2; 
 xii. 24; Luke ix. 47; xxiii. 6, 8; John xxvi. 14, etc. See 
 •Luke vii. 4 (note). 
 
ACTS. 99 
 
 ii. " Which was received up" for " which is taken up" = 
 6 avockrjqtdsiS. But cf. Matt. ii. 2, 6 T££0£z's="he that is 
 born," etc., etc. 
 
 12. Why did they not say "a mountain, even the mountain 
 which"? Cf. Gal. ii. 20. 
 
 14, 19. Order changed contrary to the Greek. 
 
 16. " It was needful that .... should be" for " must 
 needs have been" = i'Sei. But cf. John iv. 4 ; Heb. ix. 26, 
 etc. — "must needs," "must." 
 
 17. " His portion" = rov xXr/pov. Elsewhere, in similar 
 cases, they often carefully put "the" for "his.' 
 
 18. " Received " for " obtained " = i'Xaxs (not i%aj3e). 
 " Obtained " for " purchased" = inr-qaaro. (?) 
 
 19. The order is here changed without need and contrary 
 to the original. Truly these Revisers are hard to please. 
 If the A. V. departs from the order of the Greek they 
 change it ; if it follows the order of the Greek they change 
 it, — and always from sheer "faithfulness." 
 
 1 ' Akeldama' ' for ' 'Aceldama." Anywhere else one would 
 call this pedantry; here it is only "faithfulness." The 
 English has become accustomed to the Latin spelling of 
 such names ; and what is gained by change? Besides, one 
 who changes is bound to be consistent. Why then did 
 they not say " Kephas" ? 
 
 21. " Of the men therefore ..... of these" for " where- 
 fore of these men. ' ' The A. V. gives the simple English con- 
 struction, and that quite as near the Greek as the Revision is. 
 And how much does "wherefore" differ from "therefore"? 
 In the original there is for " these' ' only an article ; and yet 
 the Revisers by their dislocation render it emphatic. 
 " Went in and went out" for " went in and out ;" which is 
 the English for the repeated or customary action ? 
 
 23. " Put forward' ' for " appointed" = i'arrfGocv. Cf. xix. 
 33 ; also Matt. xxvi. 15. 
 
 24. "The one" = eva. Cf. Matt. vi. 24; Luke xvi. 13. 
 
 25. "The place in this ministry and apostleship, from 
 which," for "part of this ministry and apostleship, from 
 which" = rov ronov (old text xXrjpov) rrji diaxoviaS 
 ravrrjS uai anofDroXys acp (old text ££;) 77s, Here " min- 
 
ioo NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 istry," etc., is in the genitive (not " in," therefore, but " of"), 
 and "from which" should refer not to "the place," but to 
 "ministry," etc.; so that the new version would be mis- 
 understood, for it grammatically means " the place which." 
 This is the effect in English of the article introduced from 
 their new text before "place." 
 
 II. 
 
 2. "Of the rushing of a mighty wind," for " of a rushing 
 mighty wind" = cpepopievtjs 7tvoi)S fiiazat. Here the A. V. 
 is literally exact to a hair's breadth. What is the key to 
 the Revisers' "faithfulness"? 
 
 3. "Parting asunder" for "cloven" = 8iafAepi8,6^.evai. 
 Here the sense remains substantially the same. The only 
 question is, whether the participle is to be conceived of as 
 middle or passive. The Revisers take the former and the 
 A. V. the latter ; but the Revisers have themselves rendered 
 it as passive at Luke xi. 17, 18 ; xii. 52, 53. The Septuagint 
 use it as middle ; but its active form and use are found 
 both in the classical and N. T. Greek ; see verse 45. 
 
 6, 8. Why did they not say, after the Greek, "they, every 
 man," " how do we, every man," and so avoid the ambiguity 
 in the latter verse ? That might have b^en an object worthy 
 of their revisional faithfulness. 
 
 11. " Mighty works" for " wonderful works" = /xeyaXeia 
 (= "grand or magnificent things"). But greatness is no 
 more nearly related to might than to wonder. Cf. 6vva/i£iS, 
 "mighty works." 
 
 12. " Perplexed" for " in doubt" — 6z?j7t6povv. Which 
 is the simpler and the more strictly, and even etymologi- 
 cally, correct? So at v. 24 and x. 17. 
 
 14. "Spoke forth, saying," for "said" = aneqjQty^aro 
 (= " said plainly"). 
 
 17. " Pour forth" for "pour out"= exceed. But see x. 45 
 and cf. John ii. 15 ; xix. 4, 5, etc. 
 
 26. " My heart was glad and my tongue rejoiced" for 
 " my heart did rejoice and my tongue was glad." How 
 wondrous nice \ 
 
ACTS. ioi 
 
 28. " Gladness" for "joy" = Evq>po6vvrf. " Madest" for 
 " hast made." (?) 
 
 32. " Did raise up" for " hath raised up." (?) 
 36. "Let all the house of Israel therefore" for "there- 
 fore let," etc. lids oiuoZ = "all the house;" cf. Eph. 
 iii. 13. 
 
 46. "At home" for "from house to house" = Mar' 
 oikov (so, marg. of A. V.) ; but just above and below, 
 " day by day" = ;*:<x^ tf/t£pav=A. V. " daily." 
 
 47. " Those that were being saved' ' for " such as should be 
 saved" = rov$ GooZojuevovs = " those that were saved" or 
 "that should be saved." So also they render at 1 Cor. i. 
 18; 2 Cor. ii. 15. But cf. Luke xiii. 23, "they that be 
 saved;" also, John xiii. 11, "him that should betray him" 
 = rov napadidovra. 
 
 III. 
 
 6. " That" = rovro — not " this." 
 
 12. "Fasten ye your eyes" for "look ye so earnestly" 
 = arevi2,ere. But cf. i. 10; xxiii. 1 — " looking stedfastly." 
 
 13. " Release" for " let go." Cf. iv. 23. 
 
 14. " Asked for" for " desired" = rjTTfffaffSs. Cf. Luke 
 vii. 36. 
 
 16. "Hath made strong;" "hath given;" both for 
 aorists. 
 
 18. ''Foreshowed" for "before had shewed" = Ttpoua- 
 rrjyyeiXs. " Fulfilled" for " hath fulfilled"— aorist. (?) 
 
 21. " Spake" for "hath spoken" — aorist. 
 
 22,23. u To him shall ye hearken" for "him shall ye 
 hear" = aKovffeffOe. If there is any ambiguity in the A. V., 
 there is the same in the Greek. "Speak" for "say" = 
 XaAjyGri. (?) 
 
 24. " Them that followed after" for "those that follow 
 after' ' = ro3r KaOegrfZ. The distinction is not in the Greek 
 at all events — either that of the tense, or of the " them" and 
 " those." " Told" for " have (fore) told." (?) 
 
 IV. 
 
 2. " Sore troubled" for " grieved" = Sia7tovov/t£voi. (?) 
 " Proclaimed" for " preached" = narayyiXXeiy. (?) 
 
102 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 12. " And in none other is there salvation" for "neither 
 is there salvation in any other." "Neither is there any 
 other name" for " there is none other name." In the last 
 their text is ovdi for ovre. 
 
 13 " Had perceived" for" perceived" = KaraXa/3ojx8voi. 
 Cf. the reverse change at John ix. 35, etc., etc. Cf. Xafioov 
 at Matt. xxv. 20. 
 
 14. "Seeing" for " beholding" = j3Xe7tovres (=" look- 
 ing at"). Cf. Matt. vii. 3 ; Luke vi. 41 ; 1 Cor. x. 18 ; Col. 
 ii. 5 ; Rev. xvii. 8, in all which they render " behold;" also 
 Rev. xi. 9 ; xviii. 9, where they put " look upon" for " see;" 
 and 1 Cor. i. 26, where they put "behold" for "see" ! 
 
 16, 22. " Miracle" = orjjxnov. It is difficult to dispense 
 with the received English words when one is making an 
 English translation ; — " Si furca expellas." 
 
 18. " Charged" for " commanded." See i. 4 (note) ; and 
 1 Tim. i. 3 (note). 
 
 20. "Saw and heard" for " have seen and heard." (?) 
 "Was wrought" for "was showed" = iyeyovei (= " had 
 been done," see verse 30). 
 
 23. " Being let go" = artoXvOevrsS (== " having been let 
 go"). But see iii. 13 and John xix. 12 ("released"); and 
 see verse 13 for the tense. 
 
 24. "And they, when they heard it," for "and when they 
 heard it, they." See i. 6 (note). "The heaven and the 
 earth, the sea," for "heaven and earth, the sea." See Rev. 
 ix. 1 ; Matt. xxiv. 35, etc. 
 
 28. "Foreordained" for "determined before" = npo <gj- 
 piae. Which is the more faithful to the very etymology 
 of the Greek word ? "To come to pass" for "to be done" 
 = yevia6ai. Cf. verse 30, where they render yivetfdai 
 "to be done." Does the tense change the sense? 
 
 29. "Look upon" for " behold" = i'mSe. What's the 
 difference ? But the Revisers have a consequential rever- 
 ence for OeoopbGD before their eyes. 
 
 30. " While thou stretchest forth" for " by stretching 
 forth" = iv rep, h.t.X. Why not say, " in stretching forth" ? 
 
 35. "Each" for "every man" = ixaffrcp. Cf. John 
 xvi. 2S. 
 
ACTS. 103 
 
 36. " Son" for " the son." But what's the difference in 
 a title? See their own usage at i. 19; Matt. iii. 3; John 
 xix. 19, etc. Would they not have done better to have re- 
 tained " consolation" in the text, and relegated "exhorta- 
 tion" to the margin? But this is a question, not of Greek 
 authority, but of private judgment. The decision sug- 
 gested has the A. V. to sustain it. 
 
 V. 
 
 17. "Jealousy" for "indignation" = £r/\ov. 
 
 iS. " Public ward" for "the common prison" — rr/pr/6£i 
 dr/juo6ia. This is nearer the Greek etymology, but less 
 intelligible in English. 
 
 20. " Go ye and stand" for "go stand." No vjaeiS (ye) 
 and no xai (and) in the Greek; for the uai in the text 
 connects " speak" and not "stand" with "go." Faithful- 
 ness? 
 
 31. "Did exalt" for "hath exalted." (?) 
 
 33. "They, when they heard," for "when they heard, 
 they." See i. 6 (note). 
 
 42. "At home" = Mar oixov, for "in every house.'' 
 
 But xar oi'xovS they render "from house to house," Acts 
 
 xx. 20; and iv olxcp they render "at home," 1 Cor. xi. 
 
 34, and xiv. 35. 
 
 VI. 
 
 " Therefore" for "wherefore" — needless change. " May 
 appoint" = KaTa6rr]60}j.8v (future). 
 
 4. Why this change ? IIpo6xapr£p/j6o/usv may as well 
 mean " we will give ourselves continually to," as " we will 
 continue stedfastly in." 
 
 7. " Exceedingly" for " greatly" = 6cpodpa. Exceeding 
 faithful ! 
 
 15. " Fastening their eyes" for "looking stedfastly" = 
 ar6ri6avrss. But see vii. 55 and xxiii. 1, where they ren- 
 der " looking stedfastly" ! And whence the " eyes" ? 
 
 VII. 
 
 4. " Wherein" = eis r)v } not " whereinto." 
 
 5. "In possession" for " for a possession" = eii Kara6- 
 X£6ir. (?) See verse 45 and the Septuagint. 
 
104 NOTES ON 7 "HE LATE REVISION. 
 
 20. " Three months in his father's house" for " in his 
 father's house three months." The English naturally puts 
 the designation of place before that of time ; but the Revisers 
 are apt to follow the Greek. 
 
 22. What need of inserting " he" ? 
 
 28. The "wilt" and the " didst" of the A. V. are idio- 
 matic English. For the former see John v. 21, 40. 
 
 35. Why did they not say here " an angel's hand, even the 
 angel that appeared" ? There is no article in the Greek 
 till we come to the participle. Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 24, and par- 
 ticularly Gal. ii. 20 ; also cf. Rev. viii. 4, and x. 8, 10, for 
 the articles. 
 
 44. "Appointed" for "had appointed." Cf. 2 Cor. viii. 5. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 5. " Proclaimed" for " preached" = ixrjpvGaev .• so also 
 at ix. 20. But cf. xv. 21 ; 1 Cor. i. 23 ; Phil. i. 15, etc. 
 
 23. "Art in" = ei€ ovra • and note articles. 
 
 39. "When they came" for "when they were come." 
 Whether in English we should use the preterite or the plu- 
 perfect in such cases is not determined by the Greek tense, 
 but depends upon whether we conceive the two actions 
 compared to be synchronous or consecutive. It is not 
 Greek scholarship therefore, whether ancient or modern 
 that is to decide the question, but good common sense 
 Cf. the translation of the Revisers at xi. 2, "was come' 
 (but see Gal. ii. 11, 12); Mark vii. 17, "was entered;' 
 Luke xxii. 14, "was come" (but see John iv. 45, "came") 
 John xiii. 3, " was gone ;" xxi. 15, "had broken;" Rev. 
 
 v. 8, "had taken." 
 
 IX. 
 
 3. " Out of heaven" = ex rov ovpavov. "The earth" 
 immediately follows. For the article cf. iv. 24 ; vii. 49 ; x. 
 11, etc. ; and for the preposition cf. xi. 5 ; Matt. xvi. 1 ; 
 xxviii. 2 ; John iii. 31 ; Rev. viii. 10, ix. 1 ; x. 4, 8 ; xi. 12 ; 
 xiv. 2, 13, etc. 
 
 7. " Beholding" for " seeing" = OeaopovvTES. But it is 
 here opposed to " hearing ;" and cf. xix. 26 and xxi. 20, 
 where they render the same verb by " see. ' 
 
ACTS. 105 
 
 11. " To the street" for "into" = ini, i.e. "upon" or 
 " along." " Into" is nearer than " to." 
 
 13. " Did" for " hath done." (?) 
 
 14. " Upon" for " on ;" but cf. verse 21. Who can keep 
 up with the versatilities and niceties of revisional " faithful- 
 ness" ? 
 
 15. Why did they not say, " Gentiles and kings," etc. ? 
 There is no article in the Greek. 
 
 18. "As it were" for "as it had been" = c&ffei. So also at 
 x. 11 ; but cf. vi. 15, where they render "as it had been." 
 
 20. The order needlessly changed. " Proclaimed" for 
 " preached" = iurjpvGGev. See viii. 5 (note). 
 
 27. Order changed. What trifling! Cf. xv. 2, xx. 25, etc. 
 
 31. " Being edified" for " and was (were) edified." (?) 
 
 34. " Healeth" for "maketh whole." Cf. xiv. 9. What 
 is the logical, or etymological, or practical difference be- 
 tween " healing" and "making whole" ? 
 
 41. For the change of construction compare this and x. 
 8, 17 with xxvi. 31, etc., etc. 
 
 X. 
 
 I. " Byname" for "called" = ovojxari .• also viii. 9. But 
 this is not adhered to elsewhere. Better say " named," as 
 the Revisers do at Luke i. 5, v. 27, x. 38, xvi. 20, xxiii. 50 ; 
 Acts v. 1, 34, ix. 12, xxiii. 36, etc., etc. 
 
 4. Construction changed without improvement. The 
 seeing was the cause of the fearing. 
 
 5. "Fetch" for "call for" = pLeranefxipai : but see 
 verses 22, 29, xxiv. 26, and cf. xvi. 37. To " send for" and 
 to "fetch" are commonly different things; and after 
 " send," already used, repetition was unnecessary, and 
 " call for" is near enough to the sense. 
 
 8. " Rehearsed" for " declared" = ££,r]yr)6(X}izvoi. (?) 
 10. "Hungry" for "very hungry" = npoomivoz. (?) 
 
 " Desired to eat' ' for " would have eaten." But cf. xiv. 13, 
 
 where they render " would have." 
 
 II. " The heaven" for "heaven;" but cf. verse 16 and 
 xi. 5, 9, 10, where " heaven" is rendered without the article 
 which is in the Greek. 
 
106 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION 
 
 30. 'Apparel" for "clothing" = iadtftu (!) 
 
 3$. " Have been" for " are" (commanded). But see " it 
 is written," etc., etc., and especially John xii. 27. 
 
 42. " To be the judge;" no article in the Greek. Cf. 
 John xviii. 13. 
 
 45. " Poured out ;" but cf. ii. 17, where they correct the 
 A. V. and render "pour forth." 
 
 XI. 
 
 5, 6. "From heaven" and "of the heaven" = rov ovpa- 
 vov : and "fowls" for their "birds" elsewhere. 9. " A 
 voice out of heaven," and so at Matt. iii. 17 ; Mark i. 11 ; 
 Luke iii. 22 ; but at Rev. x. 4, 8, xi. 12, xiv. 2, 13, they say 
 "a voice from heaven." 
 
 14. The repetition of " thou" here and at xvi. 31 is neither 
 required nor authorized by its being expressed in the Greek. 
 We cannot follow the Greek construction, but, if we would 
 bring out the number of the Greek verb, we might say, 
 " thou shalt be saved and all thy house." 
 
 XII. 
 
 10. "The first" = 7tpojr?jv .- " the second" = Sevrepav. 
 Cf. Matt. xxii. 39. — No article. 
 
 21. Construction changed for the worse, and not required 
 by the slight change in the text. " The throne" for " his 
 throne" is an inconsistency. 
 
 22. "The voice of a God" = Beov (pcsov?}. Cf. Matt, 
 xxvii. 54, margin (note) ; say " the son of a God." 
 
 XIII. 
 
 12. "Teaching" for " doctrine" = difiaxfh — nere liable 
 to be misunderstood. 
 
 19, 20. The text which the Revisers have adopted here is 
 difficult to reconcile with accepted facts. 
 
 36. The margin is better: "served his generation." 
 There ought to be very cogent reasons for abolishing the 
 Scripture authority for this phrase. The antiquated " fell 
 on sleep" is retained. May not unlearned readers stumble 
 over it ? 
 
ACTS. 107 
 
 46. " Spake out boldly and said" for " waxed bold and 
 said" = 7tappr}6iaaa}A£voi ei7tov. But cf. 1 Thess. ii. 2, 
 where they say "waxed bold." 
 
 XIV. 
 
 3. " Bare witness" for " gave testimony" = ^.aprvpovvn 
 — consequential. " To be done" = yiveeQai. 
 
 5. " Onset" for " assault" = opfxrf. This is a new word ; 
 is it needed? " Treat shamefully" for "use despitefully" 
 = v/3pi(?ai. The A. V. is the more accurate. There is no 
 " shame' ' in the word at all. Cf . Luke xx. 1 1 , where " handle 
 shamefully" is for aTiptr/Garre?, and rightly. 
 
 6. The change of construction makes the sense ambiguous, 
 for Lycaonia might be supposed to be the name of a city 
 as well as Derbe and Lystra. The Revisers do not 
 always follow the Greek ; as cf. Acts xx. 25. 
 
 9. "Fastening his eyes upon" for " stedfastly behold- 
 ing" = areviaaS. Cf. vii. 55, xxiii. 1; 2 Cor. iii. 7, 13. 
 
 13. "Whose temple' for "which" = rov. This is a 
 paraphrase instead of a translation, and, besides, it expresses 
 what, from the text, is at least uncertain as a matter of 
 fact. They should have said, " the priest of the Jupiter 
 which was," etc. It may have been a statue and not a 
 temple of Jupiter which was before the gate ? 
 
 15. " The heaven," etc. See iv. 24, (note). 
 
 19. Construction of " thither" ? Did faithfulness require 
 the omission of " certain ' ? It was confessedly not expressed 
 in the original, 
 
 26. " Had fulfilled" for " fulfilled" = £7t\rjpGD(jav. (?) In 
 
 verse 23 the change of " believed" to " had believed" 
 
 is right. 
 
 XV. 
 
 2. " Certain other of them." Cf. Luke x. 1. "Should 
 go up" is not in the order of the Greek ; cf. ix. 27. 
 
 10. "That ye should put" for " to put." The latter is 
 literal from the Greek, and is idiomatic English as well as 
 quite intelligible here. Cf. Heb. vi. 10. The Revisers often 
 put the infinitive instead of the construction with iva {that) 
 in the original, as at John iv. 34 ; v, 36 ; xi. 19, 55. 
 
ioS NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 ii. Here the construction is changed, though the A. V. 
 follows the order of the Greek. 
 1 6. What need of the extra " I" ? 
 
 21. " Preach him" = nrjpvaaoo avrov. Cf. viii. 5. 
 
 22. "Seemed good" for "it pleased." (?) 
 
 22, 25. "To choose men" for "chosen men" = £K\e!?,a- 
 fAtvovS avdpaS. The A. V. " faithfully" follows the Greek 
 construction, and if there is any ambiguity in the English 
 there is the same in the Greek. 
 
 23. It should be (a la grecque), "The apostles and the 
 elders, brethren." For " apostles and elders," cf. verses 2 
 and 22, and xvi. 4. 
 
 20 and 29. Compare these verses for the use of the article 
 in Greek. 
 
 36. " Proclaimed" for " preached." (?) " How they fare" 
 for " how they do" = n g5; i'xovai. (?) 
 
 XVI. 
 
 3. "Would have" = i]dt\i)6ev, and so at xiv. 13. But 
 cf. Luke xix. 14. 
 
 12. Construction bungling. The A. V. is nearer the 
 Greek after all, only putting "that" for rr/S. They make 
 " the first" = 7tf)GDT?i ; and so, marg. of A. V. 
 
 37. "Men that are Romans" for " being Romans" = 
 r Pojj.iatovi V7tapx ovr£ ^- ll Cast out" for " thrust out ;" 
 "bring" for "fetch." (?) 
 
 39. " Asked them to go away from the city" for " desired 
 them to depart from the city." (The text for " depart" is 
 changed from i^eXSelv to aneXOeiv ano.) What a won- 
 drous elevation and vigor of style ; — " asked them to go 
 away from the city" ! At the end of the chapter they say 
 they "departed;" and at John xii. 36, they render aireXOoov 
 
 " departed." 
 
 XVII. 
 
 2. " Sabbath days" = 2d/3/3ara. Elsewhere they have 
 omitted the " day." 
 
 3. "It behoved" for "must needs have" =s'd£i. So 
 Luke xxiv. 26 ; but cf. Mark xiv. 31 ; John iv. 4 ; Heb. ix. 
 36, etc., etc. "The Christ" for "Christ/' (?) 
 
ACTS. 109 
 
 5. " Rabble" = ayopaioi — " hangers on about the mar- 
 ket." For the change of construction, compare Matt. xxvi. 
 26, 27, etc. They have no more right, in faithfulness, to 
 consult variety in rendering the same constructions, than in 
 rendering the same words. 
 
 13. ''Proclaimed" for " preached." (?) 
 
 16. "Full of idols" for "given to idolatry" = iiarsi- 
 daokov. So the A. V. in margin. Whose judgment is to be 
 preferred ? 
 
 18. " Would" for " will" =Oe\€z. (?) " Other some- 
 archaism retained, instead of simply saying, " others" = 
 
 01 6e. 
 
 22. " Somewhat superstitious" for " too superstitious" = 
 dei(7i3aijj.ov£(?T£povZ. Is this the sense of the comparative 
 absolute — softened even below the simple positive ? Cf. 
 
 2 Pet. i. 19 ; Heb. xiii. 19, 23 ; John xiii. 27 ; 2 Cor. viii. 17. 
 
 23. " An unknown God" for " The unknown God." Cf. 
 Luke xxiii. 33 ; John xix. 17 ; Acts i. 19 ; Heb. xii. 22, and 
 names and titles generally. Did the Athenians dedicate 
 their altar to any one among the '* unknown gods," or 
 rather to some definite, particular, though as yet " unknown, 
 God" — one of whom they had a sort of presentiment? 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 15. "Am not minded to be" for "will be no." The 
 A. V, gives the sense of the Greek simply, accurately, and 
 without ambiguity. 
 
 20. "Asked" for " desired" = spoor govt gov. At Luke 
 vii. 36, they render the word " desired." 
 
 24. Order changed for the Greek ; but the A. V. has the 
 logic. 
 
 25. "Carefully" for " diligently" = aKpifidbZ .- and 26, 
 for " perfectly." Should these not be " clearly" in verse 25, 
 and " more accurately" in the 26th ? 
 
 XIX. 
 
 4. "That should come"= rov s'pxo/tsvov — not "that 
 came." Cf. Luke vii. 20, etc. 
 
 22. " While" for " season"= xpovov. (?) 
 
no NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 26. " See"=0£jjps7T8, with " hear ;" but cf. ix. 7, where 
 they render " behold. " 
 
 29. The Greek order here is no improvement to the Eng- 
 lish, and makes no change in the sense. " Was minded to" 
 for "would have" = /3ov\6/tevo$ with aorist. (?) 
 
 32. " In confusion" for " confused" = Gvyxsxvjxtvi-/ .• plu~ 
 perfect passive; for which, "was confused" may stand, 
 but "was in confusion" may not. The Revisers, it seems, 
 feel at liberty to depart from the strict Greek construction 
 when they think they can correct the A. V. in so doing. 
 But note their scrupulosity at verse 29 and at xviii. 24. 
 ''Were come" = e\i]XvQeiaav : elsewhere, we have seen, 
 they render " had come." Did faithfulness require this di- 
 versification ? 
 
 35. "Temple keeper" for " worshipper" = vscoKopov. 
 This is from the margin of the A. V., and, but for a spice 
 of pedantry, might have been left there. 
 
 38. "That" for "which." Did faithfulness require the 
 change ? 
 
 39. "The regular" for "a lawful" = rfj evvojjcp. (?) 
 What is a substantive or an adjective to an article ? 
 
 40. " And as touching it"= mp\ ov. But "it" must 
 refer to " riot" = GtaGEGos, above, which is feminine. Both 
 the text and their translation of this verse are very con- 
 fused. 
 
 XX. 
 
 2. "Gone through" for "gone over." (?) 
 
 3. "Determined" for " purposed" = eyivero yvajjurf — 
 "was minded' ' ? 
 
 9. " Borne down" and " being borne down"= jcaracpepo- 
 j.ievoZ and xarevexOels. 
 
 18. "Set foot in" for "came into"=67tt/3^v eh. So 
 also at xxi. 4 ; but cf. xxv. 1. 
 
 19. "Lowliness" for " humility." (?) 
 
 24. The text is changed. " I hold not my life of any ac- 
 count as dear unto myself." Is it not rather, "the life 
 which is dear unto myself I hold of no account" ? 
 
 27. " The whole counsel" for" all the counsel"= na6av 
 rr)v fiovXrjv. But the Revisers have not only rendered na$ 
 
ACTS. ill 
 
 d and 7ta<?a rj by "all the" in innumerable cases, but they 
 have put "all the city" for "the whole city" at Matt. viii. 
 34. (Cf. Acts xiii. 44, where they say " the whole city") ; 
 " all the multitude" for " the whole multitude" [" stood" — 
 "were on"] at Matt. xiii. 2 and Mark iv. 1 ; "all the mul- 
 titude" for "the whole multitude" ["sought"] at Luke vi. 
 19 (cf. Luke i. 10, "The whole multitude were praying," 
 and Acts vi. 5, " The saying pleased the whole multitude") ; 
 and " all the earth" for " the whole earth," at Luke xxi. 35. 
 34. " Ye yourselves know" = avroi yivGoGxers. And 
 so the A. V., and so right. But cf. verse 18, where they 
 put " ye yourselves" for " ye' ' = vjueis iniaTaaOe. " Mirr 
 istered" for "have ministered;" but in verse 28, "hath 
 made" (aorist), while most of the aorists in this connection 
 are rendered by the simple preterite. 
 
 XXI. 
 
 1. "The next day" for " the day following" =rrj SHr/S. 
 Cf. iii. 24. 
 
 2,4. "Having found" for " finding" =svp6vT€S, fol- 
 lowed by an aorist verb ; cf. John ix. 35. 
 
 3. " Leaving it, we" for " we left it and" = HaraXiTtovTeZi 
 also followed by an aorist verb. 
 
 5. " Kneeling, we" for "we kneeled and," — an aorist 
 participle again, followed by an aorist verb, as at verses 2, 
 3, and 4. Also at verse 8, " entering, we" for " we entered 
 and;" and at verse 11, "coming, and taking, he" for 
 "when he was come, he took and." Compare all these 
 with the correction at verses 2 and 4. 
 
 9. "Now this man" for "and the same man" = rovr op 
 SL But cf. John i. 2, 7, etc. 
 
 21. " They have been informed" for " they are informed." 
 This is the translation of the aorist HarrfXV^V ffay ', but even if 
 it had been of a perfect, the change would have been uncalled 
 for (cf. "it is written"). And it is striking that the Re- 
 visers have given the very same translation for the aorist 
 here, which, at verse 24, they have given for the perfect of 
 this same verb, narr]xv yrai ' see also Rev. xviii. 2, 3. 
 "Telling" for " saying" = A kyoov. The construction of 
 
2 12 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 the A. V. is nearer the Greek; "telling them" would re- 
 quire avrovl to be avtoiS. For " saying that they ought 
 not," in the A. V., cf. Gal. v. 7 ; Heb. iv. 6 ; and especially 
 Rev. x. 9, where they give us " saying unto him that he 
 should give" = XtyoDv avrcp dovvai — thus retaining 
 '' saying" even though the dative follows, and the accusa- 
 tive with the infinitive has to be supplied. Why did they 
 not say "telling him to give"? Of that text, that would 
 have been the simple and direct translation. But that 
 text was new, and so they had no opportunity to snub the 
 A. V. with one of their faithful improvements in the Eng- 
 lish translation. 
 
 25. " Wrote" for " have written." (?) 
 
 26. "Went into" for "entered into" =ei&tf6i €i£. Cf. 
 Matt. x. 12; Luke xi. 33, etc. Is there any reason why 
 eiasijii should not mean "enter" as well as Eiatpxojxai 
 and eianopevofj-ai, both which are also freely translated 
 "come" and " go" as well as " enter" ? Also at verse 18. 
 
 24. "Moreover" for "further." (?) "Defiled" for 
 "polluted." (?) 
 
 32. "And they, when they" for " when they . . . they." 
 And so at verse 20 ; but see Luke vii. 4, note, and Acts i. 
 6, note. 
 
 34, 35. "Crowd" for " multitude" = oxXoS. (?) 
 
 36. " Multitude" = 7t\r/6oZ : but at verse 27, oxXoS is 
 "multitude;" and at xxiii. 7, they have " assembly" for 
 11 multitude" = nXijOos. 
 
 XXII. 
 
 3. " Instructed" for "taught." Faithfulness. "For 
 God" for "toward God" =rov Oeov. 
 
 5. "Journeyed to" for "went to" = e7ropsvoj,i^v eh; 
 but cf. verse 10, and xxviii. 14. 
 
 9. "Beheld" for " saw" =eOeaaayro. But see xxi. 27, 
 where we have " saw" =6eaaafxevoi. 
 
 12. "Well reported of by" for "having a good report 
 of" = lAapTvpovfiEvos. Which is the better English, — 
 "of by"? 
 
 13. Why did they not say " Saul, brother" for " brother, 
 
ACTS. 113 
 
 Saul," and follow the Greek as they have done at Gal. vi. 
 18, etc.? "That very hour" for "the same hour," — 
 what is the faithful difference ? " Up on" for " up upon ;" 
 but this is liable to be misheard, and see Matt. xiv. 25, 
 where they give us "upon" for "on," — out of their marvel- 
 lous faithfulness. 
 
 14. "A voice" for "the voice." (?) 
 
 15. " Hast seen and heard" = SGopauaS nai r/KOV(?aS. 
 
 18. " Of thee testimony" for "thy testimony." Else- 
 where they faithfully put "witness" for "testimony," as 
 at John iii. 32,33; v. 34; viii. 17; xxi. 24, etc., etc. Their 
 zeal about the article (which is omitted before fxaprvpiav) 
 has led to their rendering Gov as if it were rtapoc Gov, or 
 were governed by 7tapade£;ovrai. (?) Cf. Rom. ix. 7. 
 
 21. "Unto the Gentiles" = £z's i'&vrf. 
 
 23. "Threw" for " cast" = pnrt ovv tgdv. "Cast" for 
 " threw" =fia\\6vT: gov. What an unspeakable improve- 
 ment is here ! 
 
 24. " For what cause they so shouted" for " wherefore 
 they so cried." There are three words for one, and 
 "shouted" for " cried ;" and, after all, we are where we 
 were before. 
 
 25. "When they had tied him up" for " as they bound 
 him" = go? de npoireivav. But cf. xxv. 14, where they 
 actually correct the A. V. by putting " as they tarried there 
 many days" for "when they had been there many days" 
 = go? ds dierpifiov, k.t.X., followed as here by another 
 aorist. 
 
 29. Here they change the construction of the English, 
 although the A. V. gives the same sense, and follows the 
 Greek construction, with the exception of the ovv, which 
 here means " thereupon," and may as well come first as 
 second in the English order. 
 
 XXIII. 
 
 1. "Looking stedfastly on" for " earnestly beholding." 
 Cf. iii. 12. " Before God, in all good conscience," for "in 
 all good conscience, before God." The A. V. has the words 
 in the Greek order. 
 
H4 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 5. "A ruler" for "the ruler." Can it be doubted that 
 here the A. V. is right? And so, in verse 6, "a son," in 
 apposition and with an anarthrous genitive. Cf. verse 8, 
 where they say "the Sadducees" and "the Pharisees/' 
 though there is no article in the Greek. 9. "Clamor'' for 
 "cry" = Kpavytj ; but see verse 6, " he cried" = inpa^ev. 
 
 12, 14. "Bound," and so on until "have killed," — all 
 aorists indicative and subjunctive, and variously rendered 
 in the preterite, perfect, and pluperfect. 
 
 15. " Or ever he come near," — retained. "As though ye 
 would judge more exactly" for " as though ye would en- 
 quire something more perfectly" = go? jJtXXovra? diayi- 
 vgdGkeiv acHpifitfiTEpov. 
 
 18. "Took, and" — rtapockafjoov = "took along, and." 
 " To say" = \a\?]6ai. Cf. iii. 22 (xxvi. 22, " say") ; John 
 viii. 25, 26 (xvi. 18, " say") ; xviii. 20, 21, etc., where " speak" 
 is substituted for " say." 
 
 20. " Have agreed" = an aorist. "To bring down" for 
 " that thou wouldst bring down' ' = 07TgdS Harayayrj?, — 
 also verse 23. But cf. John xi. 53. 
 
 27. "Slay" for "kill" = avaipsiffOai, — and so in verse 
 21 = avkXooGiv : but " kill" for " slay" in verses 12 and 14 
 = a7TOKT8ivGJ. Cf. xxv. 3, where avsXszv is rendered 
 "kill," not "slay." 
 
 32. " To go" = a7Z£px e{ J® al > — not " come off." 
 
 2,^. "And they, when they came," for " who, when they 
 came" = oirive;. Cf. Matt. vii. 15; Heb. xii. 7; Tit. i. 
 11; 2 Tim. ii. 18; 2 Thess. i. 9; Eph. iv. 19; Rom. iv. 18, 
 etc. ; where they render oVrz? " who" or "which ;" though 
 in many of those cases faithfulness would require a remodel- 
 ling as much as here. 
 
 35. " Thy cause" for " thee" = aov. 
 
 XXIV. 
 
 1. " And they" for " who;" — here right, for it prevents 
 an ambiguity in English. 
 
 4. "Intreat" for "pray" = napaKaXob. (?) 
 
 9. "Affirming" for "saying" = cpa6KOvr^. (?) 
 
 10. The construction of the A. V. is nearer the Greek, 
 
ACTS. 115 
 
 and the sense the same. The Revisers would improve the 
 English. Faithfulness ? 
 
 12. "A crowd" for "the people" = oxkov. (?) Why 
 not say "the multitude," their usual rendering? In this 
 construction, in the genitive, the article is not required in 
 Greek. At verse 18, "crowd" for " multitude" spoils the 
 English rhythm, besides introducing the unusual rendering. 
 '22. "Determine" for "know the uttermost of" = 
 diayvclxjofxai. (?) 
 
 24. Is not this change of construction for the worse, ren- 
 dering a subordinate clause coordinate ; and, in any event, 
 is it not unnecessary ? 
 
 26. "Call thee unto me" for "call for thee" = fxera- 
 Kakeaopiai. Cf. xx. 1, where they have made just the con- 
 trary change ! 
 
 27. "Desiring" for "willing" = OeXoov (and so at xxv. 
 9) = "having a mind to." But Cf. Rom. ix. 22, where, in 
 a precisely similar construction and meaning, they render 
 "willing." "In bonds" for "bound" = dedejj-evov. Is 
 not the sense the same ? And which is the more faithful 
 to the Greek ? 
 
 XXV. 
 
 1. "Having come into" for " when he was come into" 
 = 87ti/3a?. But cf. xx. 18 ; and xxi. 4, where they render 
 £7ti/3aivGD £zV "set foot in." Their changed order, "to 
 Jerusalem from Caesarea," is unnatural in English; and, as 
 for faithfully conforming to the Greek, they might as well 
 have rendered the interpretation of Emmanuel, after the 
 Greek: " with us God." 3. " Kill" = aveXsiv. See note 
 xxiii. 27. 4. " Howbeit" for "but" = jiev ovv = " where- 
 upon" ? And so at xxviii. 5. " Howbeit" seems to be their 
 favorite Jack at a pinch, if one may be allowed the collo- 
 quialism. 
 
 8. "Have I sinned" for "have I offended" = rjfj,apror. 
 Note the aorist. The A. V. would reserve the English word 
 "sin" for offending against God. " Desiring" for " will- 
 ing" = OeXaoVy see xxiv. 27. " Wilt thou go" = OeXei?, — 
 not " wouldst thou." 
 
n6 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 10, ii. "Have I done," aorist ; "have committed," per- 
 fect in the Greek. 
 
 17. "When therefore" for "therefore when," and so, 
 habitually. But wherefore is it necessary ? May not 
 " therefore" begin a clause in English? And does not the 
 illation here belong logically to the principal rather than to 
 the subordinate clause with "when"? "Next day" for 
 "morrow," but, at verse 6, "morrow" for "next day," — 
 where the same fact is referred to. Exquisite faithfulness ! 
 
 22. "Could wish" for "would" = £^ovX6jjlt]v. (?) 
 
 23. " In" for " forth." Nothing in the Greek for either. 
 25 and 21. The marginal "the Augustus" may indeed be 
 
 Greek, but is it English ? 
 
 27. "In sending" for "to send." Why change? The 
 sense is the same, and neither follows the Greek. That, 
 literally translated, would be "that one [or 'that I'] send- 
 ing a prisoner should not also signify," etc. 
 
 XXVI. 
 
 6. " Stand to be judged" for " stand and am judged" = 
 k(jrr]Ka xpir6jJ.evos. (?) 
 
 7. " By the Jews." No article in the Greek. 
 
 8. "If God doth raise " for "that God should raise." 
 Which is English, and which is good reason ? 
 
 10. "And this" for "which thing" = o. What sort of 
 faithfulness required this change ? " Vote" for " voice" = 
 ipijcpov. The difference ? 
 
 11. Change of construction certainly unnecessary. "Strove 
 to make" for " compelled" = yrayxa3,or. If there was 
 any ambiguity it was in the Greek. 
 
 16. " Have appeared," an aorist. " To this end" for " for 
 this purpose," and what then? "Wherein" for "in the 
 which." The sense is the same ; and one expression is 
 about as antiquated as the other. But "the which" they 
 elsewhere use and multiply. 
 
 22 and 23. " Should" = fjieWorraov and /xiXXei. Also at 
 xi. 28 ; xix. 27 ; xx. 38. But cf. verse 2 and xxiii. 27 ; xxii. 
 29. They translate by "would" at xxiii. 15, and change it 
 quite at xii. 6 and xvi. 27. 
 
ACTS. 117 
 
 24. ''Mad," "madness," "mad/' But cf. Matt. xxii. 3. 
 Why not there say "to bid the bidden" or "to call the 
 called" ? However it may be in Greek, such repetitions 
 are disagreeable in English. Does faithfulness require 
 them ? If so, then it requires them in all cases alike. Cf. 
 also Rev. xii. 15. 
 
 28. " With but little persuasion thou wouldst fain make 
 me" for "almost thou persuadest me to be" = iv oXzy&y 
 jne naideiS 7toii)aai [yeviaOaz]. Even if the iv oXiycp 
 cannot mean " almost," the Revisers have certainly given a 
 questionable rendering of the Greek. Would not the most 
 faithful and literal translation be: "In brief thou art per- 
 suading me to make me a Christian" ? Or, if we would avoid 
 the repetition of "me," say: "thou art using persuasion 
 to make me." For iv oXiycp see Eph. iii. 3. 
 
 XXVII. 
 
 2. "Sail unto" = nXelv eiS, But see verses 1 and 6, 
 " sailing for." 
 
 7. Present and aorist participles co-ordinated in the 
 Greek, and both translated as pluperfects. 
 
 23. "The God" for "God." But cf. 24 and 25. 
 
 24. "Granted" for "given" = xexcxpi(?Tai. (?) 
 
 29. "Let go from" for "cast out of" = pbpavreZ in. 
 "To cast anchor" is an idiomatic phrase in English ; and 
 how often the Revisers substitute "out of" for " from" as 
 a translation of in we have seen. In the next verse they 
 translate it both ways ; and substitute " lay out" for "cast 
 out" (anchors) = ixrelveiv = " stretch out." But is " lay 
 out" any more faithful than "cast out"? 
 
 34. " Beseech" for "pray" = 7tapaxaXw, — not "intreat;" 
 cf. xxiv. 4. "Safety" for "health" = aGorrjpia. (?) 
 
 43. "Desirous" for "willing" =■• fiovXojusvos == "being 
 disposed, or minded, to." But SeXa) more usually means 
 to will with choice or purpose. 
 
 XXVIII. 
 
 4. "Hath suffered" for " suffereth" = ei'acrev. Why 
 change? Cf. evSoiirfGa. 
 
Il8 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 5. " Howbeit he" for " and he" = 6 jxlv ovv < and fol- 
 lowed by 01 Si. 
 
 8. " And it was so" for " and it came to pass"= iyeveto 
 Si. But see the almost frantic efforts elsewhere made to 
 render yiyvoj^ai differently from eijxi. "And laying" for 
 "and laid" = iitiSzi^ — not "having laid;" cf. xxi. 2, 4. 
 Change of construction here unnecessary and inconsistent ; 
 cf. Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, etc. 
 
 12. " Touching" for " landing" = uarax^ivrs?. (?) And, 
 here again, not " having touched." 
 
 14. " Intreated" for "desired" = 7rapsM\r/$r/j.iev, — not 
 "besought," cf. xxvii. 34. "To Rome" for "toward Rome" 
 = sfe. Note the connection and cf. John xx. 3. 
 
 15. "The brethren, when they," for "when 'the breth- 
 ren, . . . they." See notes, Luke vii. 4, and Acts i. 6. 
 
 16. u Abide" for " dwell" = jiirsiv. Consequential. 
 18. " Desired"" for " would have" = efiovhovro. (?) 
 
 27. " This people's heart" for " the heart of this people" 
 = r} uapdia rov Xaov rovrov. As here is the full suite of 
 articles, it is difficult to guess why they made this petty 
 change. But cf. Matt. xii. 40. " They have" for " have 
 they," — oh! unfathomable faithfulness! "Perceive" for 
 " see" = iSqdGi. Is this faithfulness ? If iSodGi is not the 
 simple word for " seeing," " seeing with the eyes," what is 
 that word ? 
 
 30. " Abode" for " dwelt" (see verse 16) ; and " dwelling" 
 for " house" = jxiff^GJ/Aari. But is there anything that de- 
 termines this last to be a "dwelling" rather than a 
 " house" ? Not unlikely it was a dwelling-house. 
 
 ROMANS. 
 
 I. 
 
 3, 4. "Jesus Christ, our Lord," is dislocated after the 
 Greek construction, to no purpose but to spoil the English. 
 Cf. 2 Peter iii. 1. "Who was born" for "which was 
 made" = roil yevo/xivmj : and so at Gal. iv. 4. But is this 
 change necessary ? The Revisers have elsewhere familiarly 
 
ROMANS. 119 
 
 rendered ylvojuai " be made ;' ' and it is not to be confounded 
 with yevraofxai and rinro}j,ai. 
 
 10. " May be prospered" for " might have a prosperous 
 journey" = evodoo^^ffojuai. Which is the more faithful to 
 the sense? and note the future form. 
 
 12. "That I with you may be comforted in you" =av}x- 
 7tapaKk.T}^r]vai ev vjj.iv ■ == "that [being] among you I with 
 you may be comforted" ? 
 
 14. If " to Greeks and to barbarians," then say "to wise 
 and to unwise," not "to the wise and to the foolish." But 
 at verse 16 they render " the Jew and the Greek," although 
 there is no article in the text. 
 
 17. "A righteousness of God" for "the righteousness 
 of God" = diKaio<5vvr/ Qeov : and so at iii. 21, 22. But 
 this is a sort of title, a fixed Pauline phrase. " The" is 
 better English than " a;" as the English will scarcely bear 
 no article like the Greek. The Apostle is not thinking of 
 righteousness which might be counted. Cf. iii. 5 ; — can the 
 accusative in Greek dispense with the article any more 
 readily than the nominative in such a case as this ? Cf. also 
 iii. 21, 22. 
 
 19. " Manifested" for " hath showed." But this is not a 
 historical aorist, — see "is manifest," just before. 
 
 20. "Through" for "by," the instrumental dative; 
 change unnecessary, for "by" leaves the sense no more 
 doubtful in English than it is in Greek. 
 
 21. "Knowing God" for "when they knew God" = 
 yvovreZ. (?) "Senseless" for " foolish" — affvveroz (bet- 
 ter, "stupid"?); elsewhere they have rendered this word 
 " without (or void of) understanding." 
 
 II. 
 
 5. "For" for " unto" = dative. "In the day," "the 
 righteous judgement." No article; cf. 2 Cor. vi. 2. 
 
 7. " In well-doing" = i'pyov ayaSov. Why not be 
 faithful, and say "in a good work" ? " Incorruption" for 
 " immortality" = acpS-a'p&la, — consequential. 
 
 8. "Factious" for " contentious" = ££, epi^eiaS : and so 
 
120 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 generally, introducing the new word "faction," even to 
 saying, James iii. 14, "having faction in your hearts." 
 
 12, 13. "Have sinned" = r}/xaprov : "under law," 
 " judged by law," "a law" (bis). But is not "law" here 
 41 the law," — " the revealed law" ? Can it be any law what- 
 ever ? Cf. verse 17. 
 
 15. "In that they" for " which" = olriveZ. See note, 
 Acts xxiii. 33 ; and see especially Matt. vii. 15. 
 
 16. " By Jesus Christ." Needlessly displaced, and " by" 
 = did. 
 
 21. " Thou therefore that" for " thou therefore which." 
 The A. V. put "which" here to avoid the juxtaposition of 
 three tk's, and afterward used "that" when there was no 
 "therefore;" but the Revisers, out of sheer faithfulness to 
 the original Greek, have felt obliged to put "that" in all 
 the clauses alike, as far as to verse 23, where they say "who" 
 for "that." But " thou that" having been used four times, 
 why is it then changed to " thou who" ? Is this an effect of 
 faithfulness also ? 22. " Idols" = roc eidooXa, 
 
 25. "Be a doer" = 7tpd(j(jyS. Elsewhere they change 
 "do" to "practise" for this verb. 
 
 27. "With" for "by" = did, cum gen. 
 
 29. "In the spirit," " in the letter;" — no article in the 
 
 Greek. 
 
 III. 
 
 1. " Circumcision." Why not "the circumcision" = rf/S 
 rtepiTojJLrfZ'} 
 
 3. "Were without faith' ' = r]7tiarr]6av. At Mark xvi. 
 16, and Luke xxiv. 11, 41, they render "disbelieve;" but 
 are "want of faith" and "disbelief" the same? At iv. 20, 
 they render amarla "unbelief," not "disbelief." 
 
 4. "Be found" for " be" = yivlff^co : but see margin 
 just before. " When thou comest into judgement" for " when 
 thou art judged" = iv tgo xplvsffSai <ye. Wherefore ? 
 
 7. " Through my lie," — iv. 
 
 8. " Evil"= rd nana: " good" = rd ocyoc^a. 
 
 9. "Are we in worse case?" for "are we better ?" = 
 npoexoi^Oa. Ov ndvrooS^" in no wise." Cf. 1 Cor. 
 ix. 10. 
 
ROMANS. 121 
 
 12. Aorists coordinated with presents, and rendered by 
 perfects. 
 
 19. " Under" = £v{tgo vojagd). 
 
 20. " The knowledge of sin' ' = £7TiyvG0(TiZ : — no article. 
 
 21. "The law," "a righteousness;" — no article with 
 either. " Hath been" for " is (manifested) ;' ' but see " it is 
 written." 
 
 22. "Even the righteousness" = SiKaio(jvvrf de. Cf. 
 
 23. " All have sinned" = 7tdvre? rjjAaprov .■ and so at ii. 
 
 12. Here coordinate with a present. Cf. v. 12. 
 
 25. " To show" = si? rrjv svdei^tv, " for the showing" = 
 rtpos rrjv ivdei^ir. Very nice ! 
 
 26. " The justifier" = Sinaiovrra. — No art, 
 
 27. Aorist=" it is excluded." " A law" for " the law (of 
 faith)." But cf. next verse, "the works of the law" = 
 epyoov vojiov. 
 
 30. " And he" for " who"= os. Why not say, " the God 
 is one, who shall," etc. Cf. Acts xxvii. 23. 
 
 IV. 
 
 I. "What then shall we say?" for "what shall we say 
 then?"=r/ ovv epov/isv $ But cf. vi. 1; viii. 31; ix. 14. 
 
 6. " Pronounceth blessing upon" for " describeth the 
 blessedness of"= Xsyei rov /iaxapio~juov rov. But what 
 of articles? 
 
 7. " Are forgiven," " are covered," — aorists. 
 
 9. "Is pronounced" % for " corneth" is inserted without 
 italics. 
 
 II. "The sign"= Grj/xewv : "the father" = Ttocrlpcx, and 
 " righteousness"= rrjv diKaioGvvrjv : at verse 12, " circum- 
 cision" and "the circumcision," no article with either; at 
 
 13, "the world," "the righteousness," no article; at 14, 
 " of the law"== ix vo/xov : " faith"=?/ niGriS, " the prom- 
 ise'^ r) €7tayyeXia : and at 16, "of the law"= sx rov 
 v6}xov : "of the faith"= in 7tior£Gos. And why did they 
 forget to say, " of Abraham's faith" ? 
 
 18. "Who in hope believed against hope" for " who 
 
122 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION 
 
 against hope believed in hope"=o; nap eXnida in eXnidi 
 eni(jT6V(j£v. Which is the more faithful ? 
 
 20. " Yea looking" is inserted without italics. 
 
 V. 
 
 • 
 
 1. "Being therefore" for " therefore being." But the 
 A. V. is good English, good logic, and the true sense. 
 
 5. "Which was given" for "which is given"=roz> 
 doOivTos : and so at xii. 3, but cf. verse 1, and Matt. ii. 1, 
 etc. 
 
 6. '* While we were weak" for "when we were without 
 strength" = ovtgqv aaOerayv. (?) 
 
 11. Nvv iXaj3ojuev y must\)Q rendered perfect. 
 
 12. "Sinned" for "have sinned" = i]}xaprov. But we 
 have already seen several cases in this very epistle where 
 they have rendered this very word "have sinned." The 
 subject "all" brings it down to the present time, as also at 
 iii. 23. They might, with reason, have changed " passed " 
 to " hath passed ;" but, at all events, r/ptaprov is not related 
 as a pluperfect to dujXOev, — the " sinning" and the " pass- 
 ing" went (or have gone) on together. See ii. 12, 13 ; Acts 
 xxv. 8, etc. 
 
 14. "Who is a figure of him that was to come," — tov 
 yeXXovTog : — not "who was a figure," etc., nor '* that is to 
 come." Cf. Matt. xi. 14. 
 
 VI. 
 
 2. " Died" for " are dead," and order changed. (.^Mani- 
 festly a present condition of " death to sin" is referred to. 
 
 3. "All we who were baptized" for "so many of us as 
 were" = ocroi ipanria^i]}AEy. Why not say : " that we, so 
 many as were," etc. ? 
 
 4. "We were buried therefore" for "therefore we are 
 buried;" — they do not say, "we therefore," cf. v. 1. And, 
 for the tense, see yeyovapiev in verse 5. It is an ancient 
 Christian idea that, by continual mortifying our corrupt af- 
 fections, we are buried with Christ ; thus carrying into effect 
 what is signified in baptism. 
 
 6. "Was crucified" for " is crucified" (i.e., "has been") ; 
 
ROMANS. 
 
 123 
 
 it reaches to the present result. Cf. Gal. v. 24, where, 
 in the Revision, earocvpcoaav = " have crucified." 
 
 7. "He that hath died" for "he that is dead"=o 
 a7ZO$ravGov. But this is only one form of the English per- 
 fect for another ; and so they break down at last in their 
 substitution of the preterite for the perfect in translating 
 anL^favov : — they did not venture to say "he that died." 
 At 1 Thess. v. 10, they render the same participle, referring 
 to Christ, "who died," — and rightly; but at Heb. xi. 4, 
 they render it, referring to Abel, "being dead," not "hav- 
 ing died/'and still less "who died." Cf. Matt. ii. 1, where 
 they render 6 r£j3fz? "he that is born;" and Heb. vi. 4-6 
 "who were enlightened." Cf. also 1 Thess. iv. 14, where 
 " Jesus died" = antSars, and " them that are fallen asleep" 
 = roui KOij.ir)%kv?a?, — not " that fell asleep." The change 
 to " died" in verse 8 is a palpable incongruity, and, in 
 general, their occasional and arbitrary substitution of have 
 for be with die, come, go, etc., is uncalled for, and strange after 
 "Our Father which." 
 
 8. " Died" for " be dead" = a7T8$avojJ.ev. This is a pres- 
 ent condition, as appears from verse 11, where an unequivo- 
 cal expression is used in a perfectly parallel case. Cf. vii. 6. 
 
 17. " Became obedient to''' for " have obeyed" =v7Tr/x ov- 
 6 are. Above they rendered the same verb "obey," and 
 not " become obedient." Why change here? What has 
 become of their painful consequential faithfulness? Cf. 
 " enter in, enter in, enter ;" " mad, madness, mad ;" " sub- 
 jection, subjection, subject, subjected, subjected, subject;" 
 Matt, xxiii. 13 ; Acts xxv. 24, 25 ; 1 Cor. xv. 27, 28. — The 
 " whereas" here is not in the original. The A. V. and the 
 margin give the proper rendering and the simple meaning 
 of the text, unless it is proposed to paraphrase. 
 
 VII. 
 
 1. " A man" = rov av^pGonov. 
 
 2. "Discharged from" for "loosed from" (opposed to 
 "bound") = narr,pyipai. And so they often say, for "de- 
 livered," "freed," "loosed," etc. Is the change required 
 by faithfulness ? Is it even any improvement ? There is 
 
124 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 nothing in the original word about a" charge" or a " load" 
 of any kind, whether literally or figuratively. 
 
 3. " Joined" for " married" = yevrjrai. (?) 
 
 4. " Were made dead" for" are become dead," and " was 
 raised" for " is raised" (aorists). The old versions, with 
 the Rhemish, all agree with the A. V. here, as in all the 
 parallel cases. 
 
 6. "We have been discharged'' for " we are delivered" 
 (i.e., "have been"), — aorist. "Having died" for "being 
 dead ;" — at Heb. xi. 4, they render the same participle " be- 
 ing dead." — Here they render in both cases the aorist by the 
 perfect, for our deliverance from the law and our death with 
 Christ ; and close the verse with referring it to a present 
 state. Why not translate consistently with this elsewhere ? 
 
 7. "Except" for " but" = si jxi). The change is un- 
 necessary here. It is not consistently adhered to elsewhere ; 
 for they not only render ei p.rj by "but," but often substitute 
 "but" for some other word in the A. V. The following 
 11 except" is in a different construction. 
 
 8. "(Sin) finding occasion" for "taking occasion" = 
 acpop;j?)v Xa/3ou(fa. Which is most faithful to the Greek ? 
 The syntax of dia rr/Z svroXijs is open to question : whether 
 the commandment was used as an occasion or as a means of 
 the working of sin? From what follows in verse 11, the 
 Revisers would seem more likely to be right. 
 
 15. "Know not" for " allow not" (i.e., "approve not"). 
 But what sense is thus made? Is not the true sense: "what 
 I do, I do, not recognizing it to be right, i.e., not approving 
 it" ? And will not yivooffKoo bear this sense? 
 
 17, 20, etc. "Sin which dwelleth" for "sin that dwell- 
 eth ;" but at verse 2, " the woman that hath" for " which 
 hath." What infinitesimal nicety of faithfulness! And 
 yet "our Father which art" ! In the Greek the "sin" is 
 as definite as the " woman," being in the very same form 
 of construction ; and is not "Our Father" the Father of us? 
 
 25. Why not say, "a law of God," "a law of sin," at 
 least in the margin, = vo/aco Qeov, vofxcp d/xaprla?? Cf. 
 viii. 14, 16, and Matt, xxvii. 54, marg. In fact "the law," 
 " law," "a law" are very much mixed up between the text 
 
ROMANS. 125 
 
 and the margin ; and the presence or absence of the article 
 in the Greek by no means determines the translation. Not 
 special Greek scholarship, but good English common-sense, 
 with a study of the context, a consideration of the nature of 
 the case, and an apprehension of the Apostle's doctrinal 
 drift, must be appealed to and must be relied upon for that 
 purpose. But neither common-sense, nor the context, nor 
 the nature of the case, nor the Apostle's drift, are any spe- 
 cial discoveries " of to-day," or since the translation of 161 1. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 2. " Made" for "hath made;" but see the vvv just be- 
 fore. 
 
 9. " The" four times ; — no article in Greek. 
 
 n. They have not got " also" into the right place after 
 all. It should be "your mortal bodies also, " — if they have 
 any rule for its position. 
 
 14, 16. "Are sons of God" for " are the sons of God ;" 
 " children" for " the children." These are both predicates 
 and genitive constructions; and, besides, cf. verse 23, " our 
 adoption." 
 
 19-23. " Creation" for " creature" = r/ KT161S. Would 
 it not have been better to have substituted " creature" for 
 "creation" at verse 22, and thus have harmonized the 
 whole? They have broken down with their " creation" at 
 verse 39 and rendered "creature." The word ktigiS does 
 not stand here for the act of making, but for what is made ; 
 and naooc rj htiGiS, at verse 22, whether rendered " the 
 whole creation," or "all the creatures," or "every creat- 
 ure," does not mean literally all created things, — "the 
 whole creation" absolutely, — unless the Gospel is to be 
 preached, and has been preached, to all created things, 
 including beasts, birds, fishes (St. Anthony?), trees, stones, 
 winds and waves, sun and moon, stars and comets. See 
 Mark xvi. 15 ; Col. i. 23. " The whole creation" or " every 
 creature" is, simply, "all mankind" pr " every man," — and 
 ithattoo in a general, not in an absolute sense. 
 
 28. The English is stiffened by a Greek construction, — 
 making an awkward " even" necessary. Cf. 2 Peter iii. 1. 
 
126 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 29. " The first-born" = npoDroroKOv. No article. But 
 see verses 14 and 16; — all predicates. 
 
 31. " What then shall we say?" for " what shall we then 
 say?" r/ ovv epov/tsv ; And so at iv. 1. For this same 
 formula, at vi. 1 and ix. 14, they content themselves with 
 following the A. V. and saying : " What shall we say then ?" 
 What hair are they splitting? Who can fathom the depths 
 of this kind of faithfulness ? If they had simply conformed 
 the rendering of the A. V. here to that at vi. 1, and elsewhere, 
 they might have had some pretext for the change, — but, 
 even then,' how very, very slight ! 
 
 2,6. "We we^e accounted" for "we are accounted," 
 aorist ; meaning " we have been," for it is co-ordinate with 
 a present. Cf. iii. 12. 
 
 38, 39. The transposition of " powers" following a 
 change of text is unfortunate for the English; and the 
 rhythm of a magnificent passage is brought to utter con- 
 fusion. And what is gained thereby? Cf. 2 Peter iii. 1. 
 
 IX. 
 
 8. " Children" for "the children," "a seed" for "the 
 seed," predicates. This may be "a sense," but is it "the 
 sense"? At verse 7, "thy seed" has no article, though in 
 the nominative case. Why did they not there say, " a seed 
 to thee" ? 
 
 9. " A word of promise" for " the word." Does the 
 apostle mean that the form of expression which he quotes 
 is of the nature of a promise ? That surely is jejune enough. 
 Does he not rather plainly mean that " this is the very prom- 
 ise" which was made to Abraham? Where the Greek 
 predicate noun is in the singular number without the article 
 the English is, a priori, more likely to require "the" than 
 "a," if it must have some article; — unless "the" would 
 refer to some specific object definitely expressed or implied 
 in the immediate context. 
 
 19. " Still" for " ye,t," — to what purpose ? Cf. 1 Cor. 
 xv. 17. 
 
 22. "Willing to show" = $t\oov evdel^affS'ai, — not 
 " desiring" or " wishing." Cf. Acts xxiv. 27 ; xxv. 9. 
 
 
ROMANS. 127 
 
 27. "If" for "though" = iav. But what is here ex- 
 pressed is not a condition but a concession. 
 
 X. 
 
 3. "Did not subject" for "have not submitted." In 
 verse 2 we read " they have a zeal for God;" the case is, 
 therefore, a present one. Otherwise, on what occasion was 
 it that "they did not subject themselves," etc.? 
 
 11. "Shall not be put to shame" for "shall not be 
 ashamed" == Karai^x vv ^ } 7 ff£Tai ' If the verb be treated as 
 passive, they are right ; if as middle, the A. V. is right. But 
 what of it ? 
 
 12. " The same Lord is Lord cf all, and is rich," for " the 
 same Lord over all is rich"= 6 avros KvpioS 7tavTGQV 7 
 7t\ovtgdv, etc. There is no "and" in the original; cf. i. 
 
 3. 4- 
 
 14. "Have not believed" and "have not heard," for 
 Greek aorists. 
 
 19. "Did Israel not know?" for "did not Israel know?" 
 = jirj IaparfX ovk e'yvoo ; Now we shall all understand 
 the Word of God. 
 
 XI. 
 
 1, 2. "Did God cast off his people?" for" hath God cast 
 away his people?" When do they suppose the historical 
 fact to have taken place? If the A. V. had said " cast off," 
 we might have expected the Revisers to substitute " cast 
 away. ' ' 
 
 3. Aorists rendered by perfects. Compare the foregoing 
 verses, and the 7th, 8th and nth. 
 
 7. " Obtained" for " hath obtained" (bis). 
 
 8. " Gave" for " hath given/' — " unto this day" ! 
 
 n. "Did they stumble?" for "have they stumbled?" — 
 and then, " salvation is come" ! 
 
 31. "Mercy shown to you" for "your mercy" = too 
 vjusrtpcp. Which is translation ? If the A. V. is obscure 
 or ambiguous, it is no more so than the original. 
 
 32 and 34. Aorists as perfects — again. Cf. verses 1, 2, 7, 
 8, n. 
 
128 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION 
 
 33. " The wisdom and the knowledge of God," — no 
 Greek article. 
 
 XII. 
 
 3. " That w T as given" for "given" or "that is given"= 
 t//s dode'iGrf? : — and so at verse 6; v. 5, and xv. 15 ; — but 
 cf. Matt. ii. 2, etc. " So to think as to think soberly" for 
 " to think soberly"= cppoveiv eiz to aoocpporsiv =" to think 
 unto sober thinking," or " to think unto soberness of mind," 
 or "to think unto soberness." or "to think soberly," or 
 "so to think as to be soberminded." " Hath dealt," aorist. 
 " A measure of faith" for " the measure of faith." Cf. Rev. 
 xxi. 17. But surely it is, "according to the measure (not 
 a measure) of faith which God hath dealt to every man." 
 Is "each man" any better English ? 
 
 10. "In love of the brethren" for " with brotherly love" 
 = rfj cpiXade\q)ia. What authority have they for putting 
 the article with " brethren" and not with "love;" or for 
 using "in" instead of "with" for the mere dative case? 
 And which is, after all, the consistent sense ? We might 
 say: "with the brotherly love (i.e. which characterizes 
 Christians) be kindly affectioned," etc. ; or, more briefly, as 
 the A. V. Compare " the weeping and gnashing." 
 
 19. "Vengeance belongeth unto me" for "vengeance is 
 mine" = ifxol eKdiHrjffi;. Cf. Matt. v. 3 ; xix. 14, etc. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 1. " Power" = sgovGia, — elsewhere usually changed to 
 "authority" or "right." But here " authority" would be 
 more in place than in many of the other cases. 
 
 8. " Save" for " but" = ei }xr) : so also at 1 Cor. i. 14. 
 But what necessity for the change ? Elsewhere they sub- 
 stitute "but" for " save," see Luke iv. 26, 27. 
 
 10. "His neighbour" = rep 7r\??o'lov = u the neighbour" 
 or "one's neighbour." "His" was right with the A. V., 
 but is not right in the language " of to-day." It is quite as 
 likely to be misunderstood as the " I will have mercy" at 
 Matt. ix. 13. 
 
ROMANS. 129 
 
 XIV. 
 
 14. " Save that" for " but" = si firf. Cf. Gal. ii. 16, where 
 they make the same change under sav jur/. "But only" 
 would be better in both cases, as at Luke iv. 26, 27, where 
 the Revisers substitute it for " save." The si fir] makes an 
 exception to a more general clause understood ; thus : " nor 
 is anything at all unclean but (or except, or save) to him 
 that reckoneth," etc. But if the exception is directly ap- 
 plied to the clause expressed it becomes nonsense. Unless 
 the ellipsis is supplied, "but" (or "but only") is altogether 
 better than " save that;" and, if the ellipsis were supplied, 
 it would do quite as well as the other. 
 
 20. " Overthrow" for " destroy" = uaraXv s. (?) 
 
 XV. 
 
 9. "Give praise" for " confess" = s£;ojj.o\oyr]60}Jtai. In 
 verse 11, " praise" = aivsirs. Might not the unlearned 
 reader be led to think that the original words were the 
 same ? 
 
 11. "Let all the peoples praise" for " laud him, all ye peo- 
 ple" = €7taiv£ffarG0(Tav. 
 
 12. "The Gentiles" (bis), — no article in Greek. 
 
 15. " I write" for " I have written," — an aorist. 
 
 18. " Wrought" for "hath wrought." (?) The two ver- 
 sions of this verse complement each other ; but the A. V. 
 is nearest the Greek. 
 
 21. The A. V. is more literal, and equally intelligible. 
 
 22. " These many times" for " much" = ra noXka (cf. John 
 iii. 23). There is no "these" in the text. Why not say 
 " often," and have done with it ? 
 
 30. " By" for " for the sake of" (not "through") = Sia 
 with genitive. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 2. ' ' Hath been " — an aorist. Kai yap = u for . . . also ;' ' 
 cf. Matt. xxv. 73 ; 1 Cor. viii. 5, etc., where, no " also." 
 
 18. " Smooth and fair speech" for "good words and fair 
 speeches" = xPV^ ro ^ Y^ ai Kai £v\oyiaS. If the A. V. 
 
130 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 had given their translation can there be any doubt that 
 the faithfulness of the Revisers would have substituted that 
 of the A. V. ? or else, " smooth speech and fair speech"? 
 Just look at the Greek ; and remember their " go in and go 
 out" for "go in and out," etc., etc. 
 
 22. ''Who write" for "who wrote" = 6 ypaipaS: — it 
 should be "who have written." 
 
 I. CORINTHIANS. 
 I. 
 
 2. If the Revisers had a right to insert u Lord" in order 
 to make the sense clear, the A. V. had a right to change 
 the order of the words for the same purpose, and so dis- 
 pense with the insertion. 
 
 4, 5, 6. All the aorists had better be rendered perfects (as 
 the A. V. in 4 and 5), — as appears by the present tense in 
 verse 7. 
 
 9. " Through" for " by" == Sia, referring to God. Is that 
 a better translation in such a case ? 
 
 11. " Hath been signified" for "hath been declared"= 
 £5rj\.GDdri. There is no " sign" in the word, — it is not 
 GrjfxaivGO, it is from dr/\ov y and means "made clear," 
 "manifested." Cf. Rev. i. 1. 
 
 12. " Mean" for " say" ='\tyGD. It is not their business 
 to gloss, but to translate. 
 
 18. "Are perishing" for " perish" =ano\\v}AkvoiS. But 
 all to whom the Gospel is brought "are perishing." "Are 
 being saved" for "are saved" = (?Go£opi£voiS. But this is 
 questionable English, and a harshness quite unnecessary. 
 So at Acts ii. 47 ; 2 Cor. ii. 15 ; but cf. Luke xiii. 23. 
 
 19. "Reject" for "bring to nothing" = aOeTrfGco. But 
 they have rendered this word "to make void" at Gal. ii. 21 
 and iii. 15; and "to set at nought" at Heb. x. 28 and 
 Jude 8. 
 
 26. "Behold" for " sqc" = ftXlnere. They render ftXtnoo 
 "see," ten to one; and at Acts iv. 14 they correct the 
 A. V. and substitute " see" for "behold." What a subtlety 
 of faithfulness ! 
 
/. CORINTHIANS. 131 
 
 27. " Choose" (three times) for " hath chosen." (?) 
 30. " Was made" for " is made." (? ?) 
 
 II. 
 
 6. "A wisdom" for " the wisdom (of this world) ;" yet 
 at verse 5 they say "the wisdom of men," equally without 
 the article in the Greek ; and at verse 7 they say " God's 
 wisdom," which must be " the wisdom of God," though 
 the Greek has no article. 
 
 8. ' * Knoweth" for " knew' ' = iyraoKSv — " hath known.' ' 
 This perfect is often used for the present, but not always ; 
 and here the perfect seems more suitable to the context, 
 since it is immediately added: " for had they known," etc. 
 — not " if they knew," etc. 
 
 9. "Things which eye saw not," etc. — a strange version 
 indeed, which eye hath not before seen nor ear heard ; and 
 all not so much from a change of text as from a change of 
 tense in the translation. 
 
 10. ■" Revealed" for " hath revealed." (?) 
 
 11. "Save" for " but" = e i ^17 : but see again Luke iv. 
 26, 27, and Rev. ix. 4; xix. 12; xxi. 27, etc. "Things of 
 a man," "spirit of the man," — rov avOpoonov alike in 
 both cases. 
 
 12. "Received" for "have received." But immediately 
 afterwards, " are given" =x a P lG ^^ vra - This is right with 
 "have received," but with " received" one would have ex- 
 pected "were given," as at iii. 10, and at Rom. v. 5; xii. 
 3,6; xv. 15, etc. But the Revisers' faithfulness seems to 
 have been at fault just when it might have led them to be 
 consistent, at least, if not right. 
 
 14, 15. "The natural man" = ipvxixos avOpooTtoS, — no 
 article; and then " he that is spiritual" {i.e., "the spiritual 
 man") = 6 7tv€vjuariKOS. Why did they not say " a natural 
 man" ? As the article is omitted with ipvxiuoS and inserted 
 with 7tvevjj.aTix6s y the distinction in translation would 
 seem to have been forced upon their articular faithfulness ; 
 and yet one can hardly suspect them of slavishly following 
 the A. V. This phenomenon must therefore remain a 
 mystery ; but ' ' aliquando bonus dormitat Ho??ierus! ' In 
 
132 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 verse 15, "and" for "yet." The A. V. is right, for the 
 apodosis. 
 
 III. 
 
 10. "Was given" for "is given" = SoS-s i6av. Here 
 they have changed "have laid" to "laid" (needlessly, even 
 though the Greek text is changed from perfect to aorist), 
 and so they are consistent; cf. ii. 12. " A" for "the (foun- 
 dation) ;" but English idiom requires "the" for the true 
 sense. 
 
 13. "Each" for " every" = tKaoroi : and so usually, 
 but not always. At verses 5 and 8 the change is well, as 
 but two only are compared. Here the case is different. 
 
 16. " A" for " the (temple of God)." Temple is a pred- 
 icate and with a genitive ; and see the next verse. The 
 A. V. is plainly right, and the Revisers are inconsistent 
 with themselves. 
 
 IV. 
 
 8. Here is a perfect (or a present with a perfect participle) 
 coordinated with aorists, which latter are (rightly) rendered 
 as perfects or presents, — one of them being conjoined with 
 rfdrj. So also at verses 9 and 13. 
 
 15, 17. Aorist rendered first as preterite then as perfect, — 
 "I begat" and then " I have sent." " Should have" for 
 "have." Cf. Luke xvi. 31. 
 
 V. 
 
 1. "Actually" for " commonly"= oXgdZ. (?) 
 
 2. Aorist, coordinated with perfect or present, is rendered 
 preterite ; but cf. iv. 8. Better render in the perfect (with 
 the A. V.) ; and render 6 7toujffas, afterwards, by " who 
 did," and neither (with the Revisers) "had done" nor 
 (with the A. V.) "hath done." 
 
 7. "Hath been sacrificed" for "is sacrificed"^ hv^rf. 
 Why did they not say, as they are apt to do in similar con- 
 nections, " was sacrificed "? 
 
 q. "I wrote unto you" (so also the A. V.) = eypaipa. 
 
1. CORINTHIANS. 133 
 
 Why not " I write" or " I have written (in my epistle) "? 
 Cf. verse 11, "I write"= eypaipa. 
 
 VI. 
 
 2. " The smallest" = eXaxi^rcov : no article. See also 
 Luke xii. 26, " that which is least" = i Xolxigtov : but cf. 
 Lukexvi. 10, where they put " a very little" for "the least," 
 so as to be faithful in it ; and, while in the two other cases 
 they had a simple genitive and an accusative to translate, 
 in this last they have the preposition iv. 
 
 5. "Cannot be found" for " is not among" = ovn ivi iv. 
 Which is the more exact ? 
 
 n. Aorists rendered preterite (A. V. present or perfect). 
 Is not the perfect better : " Ye have been washed, ye have 
 been sanctified," etc. ? The state, the effects, continue ; and 
 the apostle is not conceiving them as historical facts in 
 some distant past. 
 
 12. "Not all things are" for "all things are not" = 
 ov rtavra. Right, but it seems to have been by chance ; 
 for at x. 23 they render precisely the same formula "all 
 things are not ;" see also 2 Thess. iii. 2 ; 1 Cor. xv. 51, etc. 
 At 1 John ii. 19, with the margin, they seem to hold to 
 both constructions. 
 
 16. "A harlot"=r$ 7topvr\. Cf. Matt. ii. 23. 
 
 19. "A temple" for "the temple." Cf. Gal. ii. 8, where 
 "the apostleship of the circumcision" = a.7to6To\i]v rfj£ 
 7r£pirofxr/s. Here, Canon Westcott thinks, "the temple" 
 spoils the logic, but he does not make it logically clear. 
 (" Gospel of the Resurrection," chap. iii. 20). 
 
 20. " Were brought" for "are brought." (?) And so at 
 vii. 23. 
 
 VII. 
 
 11. " But and if '= ear 6e Mai, also at verse 28 ; and so, 
 for el 3e nod, 2 Cor. iv. 3 ; 1 Pet. iii. 14. Did the Revisers 
 suppose that, in retaining the old translation in such cases, 
 they were rendering every one of the Greek particles ? It 
 is not unlikely that, in the old English, " but and if" was 
 
134 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 a corruption of the pleonastic " but an if." Shakespeare 
 often uses "an if" or "and if" for simple "if." 
 
 28. " And I would spare you" for "but I spare you" = 
 ay go dt vfAobv cpaidojiai. Which is faithful ? 
 
 32. "I would have you"=S'/A(i? vjaocS. And so the 
 A. V. ; — very good. 
 
 34. "In body" and "in spirit" =rc5 Gaofiari and tgj 
 7tvevjLiaTi. But see " the weeping and gnashing." 
 
 40. " I think that I also have the Spirit of God" for "I 
 think also that I ha.ve"=3oMGo $e xayoj s'xsiv. The "I 
 also" is the immediate subject of "think," and not of 
 " have." 
 
 VIII. 
 
 5. "No God but one." Elsewhere they have often sub- 
 stituted " save" for " but"= ei jxr] : as at Mark x. 8. " No 
 idol is (anything)" for "an idol is nothing;" — Greek 
 purism. What is the difference ? If "anything" must be 
 inserted after "no," how much does it differ from "noth- 
 ing" after all ? Did faithfulness to God's word require this 
 exhibition of a knowledge of the niceties of Greek con- 
 struction ? 
 
 7. "That knowledge"=7 yvGoffis. " Of a. thing sacri- 
 ficed to" for "as a thing offered unto." Why translate 
 the accusative as a genitive. Did faithfulness either to 
 God's word or to the Greek construction require it ? 
 
 10. "To eat things sacrificed to idols" for "to eat 
 those things which are offered to idols"=r# eidcoXo^vta. 
 But what of the Greek article, and faithfulness besides ? 
 Suppose the A. V. had had the Revisers' rendering, with 
 what articular faithfulness they would have changed it ! 
 " Sacrificed" for " offered," throughout here, is consequen- 
 tial, but is it necessary? 
 
 11. "Through"= ev. 
 
 IX. 
 
 10. " Altogether" = 7rdvT&j£. This word here should 
 have been translated "by all means," as at verse 22. The 
 apostle does not mean to say that, in that precept of the 
 
/. CORINTHIANS. 135 
 
 law, God had no regard at all to the protection of oxen ; 
 but that, in it, there is by all means contained a principle 
 of far higher and wider application. 
 
 12. " Did not use" for " have not used ;" — here in imme- 
 diate correlation with present tenses. 
 
 15. " Write" for " have written," — an aorist. (?) "May 
 be so done" for " should (or might) be so done"= yirrjrai. 
 " Than that any man should make void"= rj ovdek k8vgq6£i. 
 This is their text, negative, future, and all. 
 
 1. " I would not have you" for " I would not that ye 
 should be"= S-sXgj vjjccZ : and so at xiv. 5. But see Luke 
 xix. 14, and 1 Tim. ii. 4, corrected contrariw.se! "Were 
 all" for " all were"=7ra^T£S' rjffar. 
 
 2. "Baptized unto," — eh: "into," in margin. Why? 
 Not so elsewhere. See Matt, xxviii. 19. 
 
 13. " Such as man can bear" for " such as is common to 
 man"= avSpGOTtivoZ = " human," " which is incident to 
 the condition of humanity," " which pertains to the common 
 lot of man." Anything more is not derived from the word 
 itself, but is imported into it. 
 
 15. " A communion" for" the communion," — in the pred- 
 icate. (?) 
 
 18. ** Have communion" for " are partakers"= koivgdvoI 
 eiai. 
 
 23. " All are not"= ov navra. But see the logically cor- 
 rect rendering of the same phrase at vi. 12 ; and cf. Wiclif. 
 
 XI. 
 
 1. "Imitators" for "followers." A question of simple 
 English idiom and usage. 
 
 n, 12. "The woman and the man ;" twice without the 
 article, and twice with the article (in Greek). Consequen- 
 tial ? 
 
 13. "Judge ye" for " judge"= xpivars. 
 
 14. The Revisers have done well to retain here (with the 
 A, V.) the word "nature" for cpvGiS. According to the 
 usage of Aristotle, the teaching of " nature" {cpvGil) might 
 
136 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 mean, in the Greek of any period, "the best sentiment," 
 the teaching of " the highest civilization," of that period. 
 Arist. Polit. (Sir Alexander Grant). 
 
 20. " The Lord's Supper;" — no article in the Greek, but 
 cf. x. 4, "a spiritual rock," and with this Heb. xii. 22. 
 
 21. Here the Oxford edition of the Revisers' Greek text 
 has in for ev; translated "in" (your eating). 
 
 29. "If he discern not" = M 1 ? SiaKpivoov : but cf. Heb. 
 vi. 6. 
 
 XII. 
 
 13. "Were baptized" for " are (have been) baptized;" 
 "were made" for " have been made ;" (?) "of one spirit" 
 = sv nvEVjia, — no " of.' ' 
 
 15, 16. " The hand"= j£zp :— why not "a hand"? 
 
 18. " Hath set" = i$sro: and then "pleased" for "hath 
 pleased" =ij$£\r/6'ev. (?) 
 
 24. "Tempered" for "hath tempered." (?) 
 
 XIII. 
 
 5. " Evil" = to uauov : " taketh account of" = \oyi- 
 Zerai, — not " reckoneth." 
 
 11." Now that" =ot£ (" When I am become"). " Felt" 
 = ecppovovr. (?) 
 
 12. "In a mirror"=d l z effonrpov =" through (or by 
 means of) a mirror; " cf. " through the prophets." 
 
 XIV. 
 
 I. "Yet" for "and"=df. Why? 
 
 S. "War" for " battle" = noXepLOv. The trumpet was 
 usually sounded for battle and not for war; and will not 
 noXefAO? bear that sense ? In Homer and Hesiod the signifi- 
 cation " battle" prevails ; in the later, and in the Attic Greek 
 especially, that of " war;" but not so that it ever became 
 obsolete in the former sense. 
 
 II. "If then" for "therefore if," in the protasis. What 
 is the loy-ic of the difference? 
 
 19. " Ilowbeit" for " yet"= <*AAaf. At our wits' end, we 
 
/. CORINTHIANS. 137 
 
 humbly ask, can it be that " faithfulness" required this 
 change ? 
 
 21. " By" for "with"=£V. (?) And why did they not 
 say " in," by way of consequence ? 
 
 35. "Would learn" for "will learn" ^SeXovffiv. 
 
 2,6. "What?"=7. But cf. x. 22; vi. 9, 16, 19; Rom. ix. 
 21 ; vi. 3, etc. 
 
 37. " The commandment" = ivroXtj. 
 
 XV. 
 
 6. " Of whom the greater part"= 01 nXeiovs : but cf. x. 5, 
 where they render " most of them." "Are fallen asleep," 
 — an aorist. 
 
 15, 16, etc. "Are raised" for "rise "= eyaipovrai. The 
 old story come again; but see Matt, xxviii. 6, 7, etc., etc. 
 
 17. " Yet"= iri : why not change it to " still," as so often 
 elsewhere? Cf. Rom. ix. 19. 
 
 20-26. "The dead," "first-fruits," "the first-fruits," 
 "the resurrection of the dead," "the last enemy," — all 
 alike anarthrous in the Greek. Why not say " all the ene- 
 mies," like " all the nations"= 7tavtaS rovs £x$-pov9. They 
 say "all his enemies," but quaere? 
 
 27. "Put" for " hath put;" but a coordinated perfect 
 form immediately follows, and immediately after that a 
 subjunctive aorist which they themselves render as a per- 
 fect (future) ; — V7tira^ev P vnorLranrai 7 V7torayrj. For 
 the repetitions in the English here, cf. Matt. xxii. 3, etc. 
 
 31. Why not arrange the clauses after the order of the 
 Greek, instead of inverting, and begin with " I die daily" 
 etc. ? Is not the order of the Greek a sacred trust to faith- 
 fulness ? Cf. Mark v. 15, etc. 
 
 33. "Evil company" for "evil communications" = opuXiai 
 naKai. Well enough, but what faithfulness required a 
 change from the more to the less literal ? 
 
 36. "Thou foolish one" for "thou fool" = acppoov. 
 "Thou fool" may be too strong, but "thou foolish one" is 
 quite too weak ; and, besides, is a phrase which no English 
 writer would employ under such circumstances. 
 
 3S. " Pleased" for " hath pleased," (?). " Of his own" for 
 
133 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 " his own" = i'diov. The apostle does not mean simply " a 
 body that shall henceforth belong to it," but " its appropri- 
 ate body," whereby it is distinguished from all other bodies, 
 or kinds of bodies. And for the matter of the article, see 
 Rom. ix. 7,2 Cor. vi. 16 (cf. Eph. ii. 10) ; Col. iv. 15; 1 
 Thess. ii. 11 (cf. ii. 7); etc. 
 
 44. "There is also a spiritual body" =eari nai Ttvev^ia- 
 riuov. Is this the faithful place for the " also"? 
 
 51. "Not all." But in the Greek the "not" stands after 
 the " all" and is joined with the verb ; a construction which, 
 by universal Greek usage (we believe), makes a universal 
 negative. The " we, " as appears in the next verse, refers to 
 those who shall be alive and remain at the coming of the 
 Lord. Of such the apostle here declares that none will 
 need to die, but all will be changed. 
 
 54. " Is swallowed up"= Kareno^?], — £zY vikoZ, i.e., not 
 "victoriously," as in the margin (that would reduce the 
 magnificent figure to mere common-place); but "by vic- 
 tory, " or " in victory," or "into victory"; — "victory shall 
 swallow up (or swallow down) death;" i.e.," death shall 
 be utterly vanquished." 
 
 XVI. 
 
 7. "I do not wish" for " I will not;" rather " I do not 
 choose" or "it is not my purpose" = ov BeXa?. 
 
 8. " I will tarry" =£7TipievGo= " I shall tarry." 
 
 10. "The brother" for " our brother;" cf. 2 Cor. i. 1. 
 
 I. CORINTHIANS. 
 
 I. 
 
 1. " The whole of " for " all " = oXrf r?j. Cf. Matt. iv. 23, 
 24 ; and see note Matt. xxii. 40. 
 
 4. "Them that" for "them which"; and so at xiii. 2; 
 Rom. viii. 1, xi. 22, xii. 14; but "them which"/<?r "them 
 that," Gal. iv. 5. And see " they which," 1 Cor. ix. 13, 14 ; 
 Rom. ix. 6; Gal. iii. 7, 9, v. 12, 21 (at 24, "they that"), 
 etc., etc.; "they that," 1 Cor. xv. 23, 48; Rom. xvi. iS : 
 Matt. v. 4, etc., etc.; "they who," Rom.^v. 21 ; "him who," 
 
//. CORINTHIANS. 139 
 
 Rom. xiv. 14; "her which," and "he that," Gal. iv. 27, 
 29 ; "he which," 2 Cor. iv. 14; " he that" for " he which," 
 Gal. i. 23; "them who" /^r "them which," Gal. ii. 2; 
 " them that"/<?r " them who," Gal. vi. 10 and Rom. ii. 7; 
 " we which," 2 Cor. iv. 11 and Heb. iv. 3 ; "us which," 1 
 Cor. i. 18; "we that," 2 Cor. v. 4; " ye which," Gal. vi. 
 1 ; but ' ' you that' ' for ' 4 you who, ' ' 2 Thess. i. 7 ; ' ' the things 
 that" for "the things which," 1 Cor. i. 27, 28 and 2 Cor. 
 xi. 30 ; "the things which " for "the things that," 1 Cor. 
 xiv. 37, and cf. 2 Cor. iv. 18; "the Spirit which," 1 Cor. 
 ii. 12; " the grace which," iii. 10; " thee which," viii. 10; 
 but "thou that" for "thou which," Rom. ii. 21, and "thou 
 who" for "thou that" at verse 23. — And so on and on 
 in infinitum ; — a perfect medley of inconsistencies ; at least 
 to our poor, untutored apprehension. In making their 
 corrections the learned Revisers may have assumed some 
 arbitrary principle of distinction in their use of who, which 
 and that, but certainly none to which they have themselves 
 adhered throughout ; nor, if they had, could any changes in 
 the English have been required at all by differences in the 
 Greek mode of expression which made no difference in the 
 sense. Above, such differences are scarcely found. 
 
 12. "We behaved ourselves" for "we have had our con- 
 versation" = avsa rpa(p?jjA€v, Cf. Eph. ii. 3, where they 
 render " we lived." 
 
 17. " Shew' ' for " use" = exprjCDajxrfv. 
 23. " Forbare to come" for " came not as yet"= ovxeri 
 rjXBov. Specimens of faithfulness. 
 
 II. 
 
 13. "I had" = i r (jxv Ka -> — not " I have had." So at vii. 5 ; 
 and, at Gal. iii. 17, "which came" =0 ysyovGoZ: Heb. xi. 
 28, "he kept" =7te7toir]K£. But here, at i. 9, they had just 
 carefully substituted " have had" for " had" = e^xV Ka r iev '• 
 and then immediately, "we have set our hope" for "we 
 trust" = rfkniKajiEv. But "we have set our hope" is 
 not equivalent to "we have hoped," but rather to " we 
 hope" or " we trust ;" so that their elaborate change of 
 
140 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 rendering is, after all, only a se?nblance (to use no harsher 
 word) of conformity to the tense of the original. 
 
 15. " In them that are being saved" = iv rots 6008,0- 
 jAevoiS. Cf. Luke xiii. 23, etc. 
 
 III. 
 
 3. " Ministered " = diaKovrjSsiisa, u written" = iyye- 
 ypapi/xsvrj. Here aorist and perfect are co-ordinated and 
 rendered alike. 
 
 6. "A new covenant," "the letter," "the spirit." No 
 article in either case. 
 
 7. "Look steadfastly upon" for "steadfastly behold" = 
 arevlaai. Cf. Acts vi. 15, where " looking steadfastly on" 
 is changed to "fastening their eyes on." Truly these Re- 
 visers are hard to please. 
 
 7— 11. "With glory" = iv S6^r\ an d Sid doijrjS: "In 
 glory" — So%)2 and iv dogy. 
 
 10. " Surpasseth" for "excelleth." How vastly impor- 
 tant! 
 
 12. " Such a hope" for " such hope." 
 
 11, 13. They render to xarapyovjASvov "that which 
 passeth away," and then, " that which was passing away" 
 — both alike connected with past tenses. 
 
 18. " From the Lord the Spirit" for " by the Spirit of the 
 Lord" = aito Kvplov IIvevjbiaToZ. (?) This is the marginal 
 reading of the A. V. 
 
 IV. 
 
 1. " Therefore seeing we have this ministry." Cf. iii. 12, 
 "having therefore such a hope," and Rom. v. 1, "being 
 therefore justified," etc., etc. It seems therefore that the 
 English is admitted to allow either construction of " there- 
 fore ;" and it is merely a servile following of the Greek or- 
 der, if, when we use the same word in English, we put it 
 first when it translates did tovro, and second when it stands 
 for ovv. The English style is not improved ; the English 
 sense is not affected. In an independent translation, this 
 would be servility ; and yet, if the translator chose to wear 
 the yoke, we might find no fault with his work. But is it 
 
II. CORINTHIANS. 141 
 
 not more than servility when such meaningless changes are 
 foisted into the revision of a received translation by men 
 who profess to act under the rule of " making as few altera- 
 tions as possible, consistently with faithfulness"? "Ob- 
 tained" for "have received ;" — it is subordinate to a present 
 tense, and is immediately followed by " have renounced" = 
 a7tei7ta)j.e^a. 
 
 4. "Hath blinded" = an aorist ; but at verse 6, again, 
 " shined" for "hath shined" = another aorist. 
 
 13. "Therefore" =616 (bis). But cf. Rom. ii. 1; iv. 22, 
 etc., etc, where they have carefully changed " therefore" to 
 "wherefore," the sense remaining unchanged in all the 
 cases. Their faithfulness seems to have failed them here. 
 
 i. " The earthly house of our tabernacle" for " our 
 earthly house of this tabernacle" — r/ £7Ziyeios rjjAcov oinia 
 rov axtfrovs. The " our" belongs (with A. V.) to 
 " house," and not to " tabernacle ;" and had they any busi- 
 ness to change its place in order to get rid of the " this" inserted 
 in the A. V.? They themselves put " this" oftentimes for the 
 mere article, as immediately below, at verse 4, with this very 
 "tabernacle;" also at viii. 4, with "grace," where the A. 
 V. has the simple article like the Greek. And when they 
 thus use " this" they do not modestly put it in italics as does 
 the A. V. 
 
 5. "Wrought" and "gave" for "have," etc. (?) 
 
 7. "By" (twice) = Sia. 
 
 10. "In" = dia. " Hath done, " — an aorist. 
 
 11. " Are made manifest," perfect tense. 
 
 12. "To answer" is italicized in the A. V., but not here ; 
 although it is not in the text. 
 
 13. Aorist and present coordinated, and both translated 
 as present. Cf. John xvii. 
 
 14. "All died" for "ail were dead" = an&avov. Should 
 it not be with Tyndal, "all are dead" ? The life of those 
 " which live" (in verse 15) is a present life and not a past 
 event, and yet it is as intimately connected with Christ's re- 
 
142 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 surrection as our death is with his death. Our death to sin is 
 just as much a present, continuous fact, as our life to 
 righteousness. The former is no more ideally, constructive- 
 ly, or prolepticaily identified with Christ's death as a his- 
 torical fact, than the latter is with Christ's resurrection as 
 such a fact. Christ died, we are dead ; Christ rose, we live ; 
 — cf . next verse. 
 
 17. " Are passed away" = 7rap?)\$ev, and "are become 
 new" = ytyova : aorist and perfect coordinated and both 
 rendered perfect. The first, the " are passed away," corre- 
 sponds exactly to the "are dead" (otTZtSavov) ; and the 
 " are become new" to the new life {01 S,GovT8i). 
 
 As regards doctrinal considerations, whether of predes- 
 tination or of baptismal regeneration, in determining the 
 translation of this and kindred passages (as Rom. vi. 3-1 1 ; 
 Col. ii. 11— 15, and iii. 3), every man will exercise his own 
 judgment or may be swayed by his own bias ; but if, in that 
 connection, authority is appealed to, — authority we now 
 mean, not of Greek scholarship, but as to the bearing of 
 dogmatical questions, upon the translation of these pas- 
 sages, — surely the consenting authority of all the old trans- 
 lators, of Luther and De Sacy, of Wiclif and Tyndal, of 
 the Genevan, the Bishops', and, notably, the Rhemish ver- 
 sions, as well as of the the forty-seven translators of 1611, 
 may be boldly held as high as that of the learned authors 
 of the late Revision. The laws of the Greek aorist decide 
 nothing in favor of the Revisers — themselves being wit- 
 nesses upon the spot — see Ttapf/XOev ; the most diversified 
 rhades of theological thought consent in deciding against 
 them. Let this be said once for all. 
 
 20. " We are ambassadors, therefore" for " now then we 
 are ambassadors (for Christ)" = (v7T€pXpi(Trov) ovv 7tp£6- 
 fievo^iev. So it seems that when the A. V. puts "then" 
 (= therefore) as a translation for ovv, next the first word 
 of the sentence a la grccque, the Revisers can put their 
 "therefore" further on, and where the Greek does not put 
 it ; though they have generally been so fastidious in cor- 
 recting the A. V. elsewhere by putting the " therefore" (for 
 ovv) next after the first word or two, as in the Greek. Why 
 
//. CORINTHIANS. 143 
 
 did they not say, — if they must alter the A. V., — " We are, 
 therefore," etc.? Or, more faithful still, "For Christ, 
 therefore, are we ambassadors" ? Cf. Phil. iii. 15, ad fin, 
 
 VI. 
 
 2. "A day of salvation" for " the day," etc. But why 
 change ? One thing is clear ; the absence of the Greek 
 article does not require the change. Cf. Matt. ii. 1 ; x. 15 ; 
 xi. 22, 24; xii. 36; Rom. ii. 5; Eph. iv. 30; Phil. i. 6; 1 
 Thess. v. 2 ; Heb. viii. 8, 9 ; 1 Pet. ii. 12 ; 2 Pet. ii. 9 ; iii. 7, 
 etc., etc., where they say "the day" for no Greek article; 
 and see immediately below, where they say " the day of 
 salvation," and no article. In Isaiah, the A. V. has " a 
 day," but surely that cannot control the translation here. 
 
 16. "A temple of God" for "the temple," etc. (twice). 
 But, in the first place, the complex expression vads Qeou, 
 both words being without an article, may mean " the tem- 
 ple of God ;' ' and in the second instance the words are in 
 the predicate ; moreover, if the Revisers would be consis- 
 tent, they should have said "a temple of a living God." Cf. 
 i Thess. i. 9. — " My people" = jaov XaoS (no art). Why did 
 they not say " a people of mine" ? Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 38 ; Rev. 
 iii. 2. 
 
 VII. 
 
 5. " Had," for a perfect. See Gal. iii. 17, note. 
 
 6. " He that comforteth .... even God" for " God that 
 comforteth." 
 
 7. " By" = iv (thrice). Why so ? 
 
 8. " With" = ev, and why ? 
 
 10. "Which bringeth no regret" = ajisrajxaXrjrov = 
 "which is not to be regretted," or " repented of." 
 
 11. " Concerning you" = iv v/ziv. The Revisers seem 
 to claim for themselves no small liberty in translating the 
 Greek prepositions. They are therefore bound to respect 
 an equal liberty in others, even in the A. V. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 4. "In regard of this grace" = rr/v x a P lv - Would not 
 " for" be better — " beseeching us for the grace and the par- 
 
144 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 ticipation in," etc. ? There is nothing in the Greek for 
 their "this" but ri)v : cf. v. i. 
 
 5. "Had hoped" for " hoped" = i]\ni6 ajusv. But see 
 Acts vii. 44, where they change " had appointed" to " ap- 
 pointed ;" also Matt. xvi. 5 ; Mark viii. 14, where they 
 change in like manner. Cf. Matt, xxviii. 16 ; Luke xxii. 13; 
 xxiv. 24, — where the pluperfect is retained, as also in the 
 next verse. 
 
 6. " Had made a beginning before" for " had begun" = 
 7tpoev7jp^aro : — "in you" = £zS rjfias : — "complete" for 
 "finish" = STTirsXiffr], but the simple "finish" corresponds 
 to "beginning" as "complete" would correspond to "com- 
 mencement. " 
 
 10. " Were the first to make a beginning" for " have be- 
 gun before" == 7tposvrfp£;a6$e. But see their version at 
 verse 6. 
 
 12. "A man hath" = s'xrj- Thus ns is understood ; but see 
 Heb. x. 38. 
 
 13. " By equality" = si; iaorrjroS. Is it not "from re- 
 gard to equality" ? 
 
 16. "Which putteth" for "which put." Does not the 
 connection here favor the past ? Cf. Rev. viii. 9 ; xix. 19, 
 21 ; John xiii. 11. 
 
 17. "Our" for "the" = rr]v. " Very earnest" = 67tov- 
 SawrspoS : but cf. Acts xvii. 22. 
 
 1S. " Have sent," — an aorist. 
 
 20. " That any man" for ' ' that no man " = jU7/ ns = " lest 
 any man." Cf. Acts x. 47. 
 
 22. " The great confidence which" = 7tS7toiSr/(jsi 7toXXrj 
 rrj. Cf. their wrestling with a similar construction at 
 Gal. ii. 20. 
 
 23. "The messengers of the churches" and " the glory 
 of Christ." No art. in Gr. Cf. 1 Cor.vi. 19 ; 2 Cor. vi. 16; 
 Mark iii. 17, etc., etc. 
 
 IX. 
 
 2. " Readiness" for " forwardness of mind" = 7rpo$vjuia. 
 "Prepared" for " ready" = 7taps6nsva(3rai (so also at 
 verse 3). " Hath stirred up" for " hath provoked" =?//?£- 
 
//. CORINTHIANS. 145 
 
 Sure, — an aorist coordinated with a perfect ; cf. John 
 xvii. 
 
 3. "Have sent," — an aorist. 
 
 5. "I thought it necessary therefore" for " therefore I 
 thought it necessary." But wherefore did the Revisers 
 think the change necessary? " Intreat" for " exhort" = 
 7iapaxa\e6ai ; but for the very same word in the very same 
 sense, at viii. 6, "exhorted" is substituted for " desired." 
 See Phil. iv. 2, note. 
 
 9. Aorists = perfects, in poetry. 
 
 X. 
 
 1. "Intreat" for " beseech ;" the difference? See again 
 Phil. iv. 2, note. 
 
 4. "Before God" for ''through God" =tg3 Qeti. (?) 
 The margin of the A. V. suggests " to God." 
 
 7. " Consider" = \oyi8,£<j%GD, — not "count" nor "reck- 
 on." Cf. verse 11, where they have " reckon" for " think." 
 
 8. "Abundantly" for "more" == nepiGaotepov. What 
 then would 7tepi66Go$ mean? Cf. 1 Cor. xii. 23, 24; xv. 
 10 ; 2 Cor. i. 12 ; ii. 4, etc. For the tenses here and at xii. 
 6, cf. Luke xvi. 30, 31 (A. V.) 
 
 10. "They say" = cp-qai (" saith he," the false teacher) ? 
 "Strong" for " powerful" = iaxvpai: so, at 1 Cor. i. 27 
 and Rev. x. 1, xviii. 10, 21, they substitute "strong" for 
 "mighty;" at xviii. 2, "mighty" for "strong," and they 
 retain "mighty" at Matt. iii. 11 ; Mark i. 7; Luke iii. 
 16; xv. 14; Rev. xix. 6, 18, etc. The nicety of their dis- 
 criminating faithfulness is worthy of all admiration. 
 
 12. " Are without understanding" for "are not wise" = 
 ov 6W10V61V. (?) That changes the negative construction 
 and thus modifies the sense. 
 
 13. "Province" for " rule" = uavovos. Marg. , " Gr. 
 measuring rod." 
 
 16. " Parts" for " regions" = vnepsneiva. (?) 
 
 XI. 
 
 5. Marg., "Those preeminent apostles" = tgqv vuep- 
 \iav anoGroXoDV. Whence is the "those" derived? 
 
 13. "Fashioning" for "transforming" = j^8raffxVM a ' 
 
146 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 ri2,6j4£voi. So at 14 and 15. But what has become of 
 the jas ra ? 
 
 21. " We had been weak" — rjaBerrjua^sr. 
 
 23. " One beside himself" for " a fool" = Ttapacppovdov. 
 Elsewhere they have used this same phrase for £KGraS 
 (Mark iii. 21); but they have declined to use it (with the 
 A. V.) for jxaiv o piev oS at Acts xxvi. 24. 
 
 26. "The Gentiles," £B, eSrdov. (No art.) So "the 
 wilderness," " the sea," "the city;" while " rivers," " rob- 
 bers," "false brethren" are rendered without the article 
 in English. 
 
 XII. 
 
 2. "Know" for "knew" = 016a: but consider the 
 "fourteen years ago." "In the body" = iv Goo pari .- 
 "out of the body" = euros rov Goop.aro-> : "the third 
 heaven," no article. 
 
 4. "Into Paradise = eis rov 77. Are not the Revisers 
 still too much under the influence of the Latin idiom? 
 Might not faithfulness revolutionize the English language 
 a little further, — after " the weeping and gnashing," — and 
 say " into the Paradise'' ? 
 
 5. "Save" for " but " = £ i }ir}. Why not "but only," as 
 at Luke iv. 26, 27 ? " On mine own behalf I will not glory" 
 is absolute. The exception is made to a more general 
 proposition implied, as, " Neither will I glory at all except," 
 etc. The apostle does not mean to say that the only case 
 in which he will glory in his own behalf is when he 
 glories in the cross of Christ ; yet this is just what the Re- 
 visers make him say. On the other hand the A. V. gives 
 the true sense, as the Revisers have done in St. Luke. 
 
 6. "If I should desire I shall not be;" — is that good 
 English ? See also x. 8, and cf. Luke xvi. 30, 31. 
 
 9. "Power" for "strength" = dvva/us. "Strength" 
 for " power" = Svva/.uS ! ! 
 
 11. Marg., "Those preeminent apostles" again. What 
 ' l preeminent apostles" ? " Those" ? 
 
 12. •" An apostle" = rov anoaroXov. See " the sower." 
 
 13. 4i Except it be" = £ i jutj. Right (with A. V.). 
 
GALA TIANS. 147 
 
 16. " I myself" for "I." Cf. verses n, 13, 15. 
 
 17. " Take any advantage" for " make a gain" =eK7t\e- 
 ovixrrjGa. (?) 
 
 18. " Exhorted" for " desired" = napeKaXeaa. Cf. ix. 5 ; 
 x. 1; Phil. iv. 2, note. "The brother" for "a brother;" 
 article in Greek, but not natural in English; see verse 12. 
 4 'By" for "in ;" and then, "in." 
 
 19. " Are" inserted for " we do.'* May not the " are" be 
 stretched too far ? Might not some things happen which 
 would not be for their edifying ? Remember how carefully 
 they change the place of " still" at John xi. 20. 
 
 20. ' ' Should find' ' for ' ' shall find" = evpoo : and " should 
 be found,' 1 etc. Is this good English in this construction ? 
 They themselves often render the subjunctive aorist by a 
 future. 
 
 XIII. 
 
 1. "Two witnesses or three" for "two or three wit- 
 nesses." But why not say " and three" ? The Greek is Hal 
 rpiGov. The xai may be of consequence, but the Greek 
 order is not. At all events the nod is there; and their 
 faithfulness must have slept. 
 
 4. " Through" = iv (thrice). 
 
 5. "Or know ye not as to your own selves that Jesus 
 Christ is in you?" for "What! know ye not your own 
 selves how that Jesus Christ is in you ?" The A. V. fol- 
 lows the Greek, except the "how" inserted; and they took 
 ?} for "what!" not "or." Cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 36, note. 
 
 \ 
 
 [ GALATIANS. 
 
 .8. "Tarried" for " abode" = e7tefxeiva. But see Phil, 
 i. 24, — " abide" = €7ri/j.iv8iv. 
 
 19. "But only" for "save" (marg.) = si firf. Very 
 well. 
 
 23. "But they only heard say" for "but they had heard 
 only." Did the apostle mean that all they did was to 
 "hear say," or that none but "they" heard? or rather that 
 
 
148 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 all they had heard about him was, that, etc. ? For their con- 
 struction (in orat. recta) cf. Matt. ii. J3. 
 
 II. 
 
 1. "After the space of fourteen years" for "fourteen 
 years after ' =6ia (14) hcav. (?) 
 
 5. "In the way of" for "by" (subjection) = rrj 
 V7toTayrj. Say " by way of " ? 
 
 8. "The apostleship " = a7to(?ToAt?v rr/S. Why not 
 "an apostleship"? Cf. 1 Cor. vi. 19. There a predicate, 
 here with sis. And see Eph. i. 14. 
 
 9. Does the utter derangement of this verse, h la grecque, 
 change the sense or improve the expression ? If not, what 
 faithfulness required it ? Cf. 2 Peter iii. 1. " Should go" 
 ought to continue italicized. Other words might be in- 
 serted instead, as "have to do with," or "preach to," or 
 " exercise apostleship towards." 
 
 16. "Save through faith in Jesus Christ" for "but by 
 the faith of Jesus Christ = edv jxtj did 7riareaos 'irjaov 
 XpiGTov. The Revisers have rendered " the faith of Jesus" 
 at Rev. xiv. 12. Their "save" for " but" makes the apostle 
 say that "a man is justified by the works of the law, only 
 when he is justified by faith in Jesus Christ and not by the 
 works of the law ; for by the works of the law shall no 
 flesh be justified" ! As for the translation of edv jxr} in 
 general ; — at Matt. xxvi. 42 ("except I drink it") " except" 
 is retained; Mark x. 30 ("but he shall receive") "but" is 
 retained; as also at John v. 19, "the Son can do nothing 
 of himself but what he seeth the Father do.'.' Now this 
 passage in John is perfectly parallel with that here in Gala- 
 tians, as regards the construction of edv jxrj. " The Son 
 can do nothing of himself [this is absolute; 'nor can he 
 do anything at all']; but what he seeth the Father do, that 
 the Son doeth." If in English we put " save" for "but," 
 we must either supply the ellipsis or we come to the absurd 
 statement; — "the Son can do nothing of himself save what 
 he seeth the Father do, that the Son doeth of himself;" for 
 the last clause is made an exception out of the first proposi- 
 tion, taken as it stands. This is the same sort of absurdity 
 
GALATIANS. 149 
 
 as actually follows from their translation here in Galatians — 
 a translation which is not only at war with itself, but with 
 the whole context, and with the whole strain of the apostle's 
 teaching in this epistle. We submit that the meaning of 
 the apostle is, " A man is not justified by (the) works of 
 (the) law [this is absolute; 'nor is a man justified at all 
 save'] ; but through the faith of Jesus Christ ; and by that 
 we are justified, and not by (the) works of (the) law ; for 
 by (the) works of (the) law shall no flesh be justified." In 
 both these cases, John v. 19 and Gal. ii. 16, the Vulgate has 
 nisi for eav p.rf. But in both cases, Wiclif, Tyndal, Cranmer, 
 the Geneva, and even the Rhemish version read " but" (with 
 our A. V.) ; and the last cannot be supposed to have been 
 warped by any predilection for the doctrine of justification 
 by faith only. 
 
 There are several cases of the use of ei }xr) perfectly cor- 
 responding to the foregoing cases of eav jxtj : e.g., Luke 
 iv. 26, 27; Rev. xxi. 27; Rom. xiv. 14. It is remarkable 
 that, in the two instances in St. Luke, while the A. V. has 
 " save" and " saving," the Revisers have very properly, but 
 very inconsistently, changed them to "but only." Also in 
 that in the Revelation they have put "but only" for "but," 
 which is well enough, though scarcely necessary. But in 
 Rom. xiv. 14 they have capped the climax of incon- 
 sistency by changing " but" into " save that ;" thus making 
 the apostle say, " Nothing is unclean of itself, save that to 
 him that accounteth anything to be unclean, to him it is 
 unclean of itself." Whereas the "but" of the A. V. or 
 their own " but only" gives the exact sense of the original, 
 for both the ei jxtj (or the eav }xrj) and the ellipsis that is 
 implied with it are, in English, briefly and idiomatically 
 expressed by the simple "but" or " but only." 
 
 In their corrections of the translation of ei firj given in 
 the A. V., the Revisers are in many instances, as we have 
 seen (Luke iv. 26, note), grossly inconsistent with them- 
 selves, besides making their changes unnecessarily. 
 
 16, 17. " Believed" for " have believed" = e7Ti(jTev(Ta- 
 }xev. " We sought" for " we seek" = Zr/rovvreS. " Were 
 found" for ' ' are found' ' = evpe$r}jj.ev. (?) 
 
150 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 19. " Died" for '* am dead" = an&avov .- but see u I 
 have been crucified," next after. 
 
 20. " In faith, the faith which is in the Son of God" for 
 ' ' by the faith of the Son of God' ' = iv niGrai rrj rov viov 
 tov Qeov. As to "in" for "of," cf. Rev. xiv. 12. As to 
 the faith, cf. Acts i. 12 ; 2 Cor. viii. 2252 Tim. i. 1 ; ii. 10 ; 
 and especially iii. 15, "through faith which is in Christ 
 Jesus" s= Sid tti<jT£gdS tt/S iv XpiGrcp Ir/Gov, not " through 
 faith, the faith which is in Christ Jesus." 
 
 III. 
 
 2, 5. " By" =ei; (bis, bis), and so at verse 24, and so all 
 along. 
 
 3. " In"= dat. inst., for " by." " Perfected" for " made 
 perfect ;" — faithfulness. 
 
 6. " For righteousness" = sis 6ik. This is one of many 
 instances which may be compared with Mark i. 4, where 
 they put " unto" for " for." 
 
 7. " Which be" for " which are" = " who are." What 
 faithfulness required this multiplication of obsolete expres- 
 sions ? 
 
 11. " By" = iv : also at verse 19. 
 
 17, iS, 20. "A" for "the" (covenant); "of the law;" 
 no articles. " Which came" = yeyovGJl, — not " has come." 
 Cf. verse 24. See also Heb. xi. 17,28 ; 2 Cor. ii. 13 ; vii. 5 ; 
 John vi. 25 ; Matt. xiii. 46 ; 1 Pet. i. 20 ; Mark xv. 47 (?) ; 
 — for perfects rendered as preterites. "A mediator " = 
 6 jJ.eGiTr}S. 
 
 22. " Hath shut" = avvexXsiffsv. 
 
 23. "Faith" = n)v nicsriv .• "the law" = vofxov : 
 '' should be" = " was about to be" (with A. V.). 
 
 24. " Hath been" for " was" = yeyovsv : cf. 17. 
 
 IV. 
 
 3. " Were held"= rjfiev SsSovXaofitvoi, pluperfect. 
 
 5. " Born" for " made" = yev6}A.evov (bis) ; not yeyev- 
 vt}}xLvov. 
 
 6. " Sent" for " hath sent," aorist, but (?). 
 
 9. " Have come to know" for " have known" =yvoyrss. 
 
GALATIANS. 151 
 
 12. "I beseech you, brethren," for "brethren, I beseech 
 you" = ade\(poi P dtopiai v^r. Cf. 2 Thess. iii. 1. 
 
 13. "Because of for " through." But what is the re- 
 sulting sense ? Is not the meaning expressed by " through," 
 or " in," or " notwithstanding ;" i.e. " though impeded 
 by," or "in spite of" ? 
 
 23. " Is born" for " was born" = yeytvvrjrat. This is 
 harsh. Is not the " has been born" here historical, and 
 equivalent to " was born" ? Cf. iii. 17. 
 
 24. Here " women" may not be needed ; for the avrai 
 ("these") may be feminine by attraction. 
 
 29. " He that was born" = 6 yevvr/Sele, it rightly follows 
 the tense of the connection. Cf. Matt. ii. 2. 
 
 I. "With their new text, would not the most simple and 
 natural translation be : " To freedom — Christ hath made 
 us free — stand fast therefore" ? or, better accommodated 
 to the English idiom : " Christ hath made us free ; to free- 
 dom therefore stand fast" ? The ovv stands after gt?jk6T8 
 instead of eXevBepia because it is first suggested by the 
 parenthetical clause. 
 
 4. "Ye are severed" = xarrjpyrfSr/re. The A. V., with 
 its inversion of subject and object, is nearer the sense of 
 the original. It does not appear that Karapyeao ever means 
 properly " to sever,' ' though it may express the consequences 
 of severance. "'Would be justified" for "are justified" = 
 8ixatov&$e : but is this translation or exposition ? " By 
 the" = ev. 
 
 5. "The Spirit," "the hope;" — no article. By their 
 change of construction, in avoiding one ambiguity they 
 have fallen into another. Why not say : " For we through 
 the Spirit await by faith the hope of righteousness" ? 
 
 7. They say "should not" for the accusative with the 
 infinitive, and not "did not." 
 
 13. "Be servants" = SovXev ere : — not " bond- servants," 
 as elsewhere; see iv. 1, 8, etc. "Your freedom" = rrjv 
 e'XevB'epiav. (?) Why not also " your love" for rr/Z aya7trj?? 
 
 I I. " Is fulfilled" = 7t87t\r]pGDTai (for nXrfpovrai). " The 
 
152 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 whole law" for "all the law" = 6 7taS vojjloS. Cf. Eph. iv. 
 16 — note. 
 
 16 and 25. " By the Spirit" for "in the Spirit" =IIv£Vfj.ari. 
 But see iii. 3, where they render the same word " in the 
 Spirit." "The" (thrice) for no article, "the Spirit," "the 
 lust of the flesh ;" while, in the next verse the Greek has 
 the articles with all these. Yet no distinction is made. 
 
 24. " Have crucified' ' = earavpooffav. Why did they not 
 say " crucified" ? Is it not the aorist tense? Cf. Rom. vi. 
 6, 8; 2 Cor. v. 14 ; Col. iii. 3. "Thereof," — better "its (pas- 
 sions and lusts)." 
 
 VI. 
 
 I. " A spirit" for " the spirit" = iv nv^vfxan. 
 
 II. " Have written," marg., "write," — aorist. 
 
 13. " Keep" = cpv\aO<jovoiv : cf. Luke xi. 21 ; John xvi 1. 
 12 ; Acts xii. 4 ; xxviii. 16 ; 2 Thess. iii. 3 ; 1 Tim. vi. 20 ; 
 2 Tim. i. 12, 14 ; 1 John v. 21 and Jude 24 ; — where they 
 render it" guard." Their faithfulness must have exercised 
 the most wonderful discrimination, as will be seen by such 
 cases as 2 Tim., 1 John, and Jude, above cited, and by com- 
 paring, say, Acts xxviii. 16 with xxii. 20 and xxiii. 35. — 
 These may be trifles, but they are changes, and, if of no 
 importance, are wanton. "The law;" marg., " a law." 
 Why especially here? 
 
 14. "Hath been crucified" for "is crucified" = effrav- 
 pojrai. Cf. v. 14, etc. 
 
 18. For displacement of "brethren" here, cf. 2 Thess. 
 iii. 1. 
 
 EPHESIANS. 
 
 I. 
 
 10. "In the heavens" for " in heaven" = iv roTs ovpavoiS. 
 But see the Lord's Prayer, etc. 
 
 11. "Having been foreordained" for "being predesti- 
 nated" = 7tpoopiG$tvT£?, and so at verse 13 ; but see verse 
 18 and ii. 20, for the tense. 
 
 13. "The Holy Spirit" for "that Holy Spirit ;"— the 
 
EPHESIANS. I S3 
 
 order of the Greek is, "the Spirit of promise,"the Holy." 
 Cf. verse 19. 
 
 14.. "An earnest" for " the earnest" = appafiaav r?)s, in 
 predicate. But immediately after they render "the re- 
 demption" and "the praise" without Greek article and 
 followed by rf}s. Cf. Gal. ii. 8. 
 
 17. "A spirit" for "the spirit," and then "the knowl- 
 edge," without article. 
 
 iS. " Having the eyes enlightened" = 7t£(pGDri<jfxevov<S. 
 Did they suppose, or would they make us think, that this 
 English is also a perfect participle ? But cf. iv. 18. 
 
 19. "That" for " the" = rr/v. But cf. verses 13 and 14, 
 where they put " the" for " that" in a perfectly similar con- 
 struction and with a similar exposure to ambiguity. 
 
 II. 
 
 2. " Aforetime" for " in time past." Why ? 
 
 3. " Lived" for " had our conversation"^ ave<rrpa(pfj/j.6v. 
 Cf. 2 Cor. i. 12. Is "having our conversation" any more 
 obsolete or unintelligible than " or" for " ere"? 
 
 8. "Have been saved" for "are saved" =sgts 6£6go6- 
 jxLvoi. Compare "are being saved" for the present parti- 
 ciple. To what, then, shall " are saved" correspond ? And 
 see Gal. iv. 3, where they render a pluperfect passive " were 
 held," not " had been held." 
 
 12. "Alienated from" for "aliens from" = a7Tijk\o- 
 rpiGjjJtevoi. Which is the true sense ? And they do not 
 say " having been alienated" for the perfect participle, but 
 "(being) alienated." Cf. verse 8. 
 
 20. "Being built" = £7toiHoSopir}$rerTes : but cf . 15 and 
 16, "having slain," etc., and i. it. 
 
 21. "Each several building" for "all the building" (new 
 reading). What is the probable sense ? Christ is the one 
 chief corner-stone on which they are all built, verse 20. 
 Cf. also iii. 15. The several parts of one building or temple 
 are not "several buildings." 
 
154 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 III. 
 
 15. "Every family" for "the whole family" = 7ta6a 
 narpia. Are we to suppose there are several families 
 {fatherhoods) in heaven, as there are here upon earth ? One 
 can hardly help thinking that naaa narpia may here be 
 rendered after the analogy of naS oixoS Iapar/X, "all the 
 house of Israel ;" and that iv ovpavois nai ini yr/S may be 
 equivalent to a denning genitive. Cf. 1 Pet. v. 1. 
 
 16. " Inward man" for " inner man." (?) 
 
 IV. 
 
 1. "Calling" for "vocation." "Called" immediately 
 follows. Cf. Matt. xxii. 3, — "to call the bidden" and not 
 " to call the called." The Revisers can sometimes study 
 a euphonious variety. 
 
 12. "For the" = npo s" rov: "unto the" = £z's without 
 article (twice). Why not " a work of ministering" and " a 
 building up of the body of Christ" ? 
 
 14. "By," "in," — both = iv in coordinate succession; 
 " by sleight," " in craftiness," — force of idiom. 
 
 16. "All the body" for "the whole body" = nav to 
 6GDfxa. But see Gal. v. 14, where we have just the reverse 
 change, "the whole law" for "all the law ;" and Acts xx. 
 27, "the whole counsel" for "all the counsel;" and cf. 
 Matt. viii. 32 ; Luke i. 10 ; Rom. viii. 22, and Mark xvi. 15. 
 
 18. " Being darkened" = ianoriajxivoi. They construe 
 with ovtsS, it is true ; but that makes no difference ; it is 
 still a perfect tense. " Alienated," i.e., " being alienated " 
 = anr/WorpiGjpitvoi, immediately follows. Why not 
 " having been" in both cases? Cf. ii. 8. 
 
 24. "Hath been created" for " is created;" both are forms 
 for the perfect, but rov nria^kvra = " which was created." 
 Cf. Rom. vi. C, 8, etc. 
 
 32. "Forgave" for "hath forgiven" = ixapiaaro. Cf. 
 Phil. i. 29, where they give us "hath been granted" for 
 "is granted" = ixaplGBrj. 
 
PHILIPPIA NS. 155 
 
 V. 
 
 1. " Imitators" for " followers ;" " beloved" for" dear." (?) 
 
 6. "Empty" for « vain." (?) 
 
 7. " Be" = yivaeSa : not " become." Why? 
 
 10. " Well-pleasing" for " acceptable ;" but see Rom. xii. 
 1, 2, where they render "acceptable." 
 
 12, 20. Are the inversions here necessary ? Are they not 
 rather wanton, and much to the damage of the English ? 
 Cf. 2 Peter iii. 1. 
 
 25. " For it" = vrttp avrrj? : but cf. vi. 19, " on my be- 
 half" for " for me," etc., etc. 
 
 26. " With the word"= iv pr/juan. 
 
 32. " In regard of" for " concerning" = sis. Would not 
 "as to" or "in relation to" have been better, if we must 
 have a change ? 
 
 VI. 
 
 9. "And forbear" for " forbearing" = avi&vres. But 
 see a contrary change at v. 26. 
 
 17. " The word of God" = pi)jxa Qsov, why not " God's 
 word," or " a word of God "? Cf. Acts iv. 36, etc. 
 
 PHILIPPIANS. 
 
 I. 
 
 1. Why not say " with bishops and deacons "? — No article. 
 
 4, 5. " On behalf of" for " for" = vrtep. Cf. Eph. v. 25. 
 " For" = iiti : and "in furtherance of" = eis. Better say 
 " for" for V7tap, " upon" for eVrz, and "as to" or "unto" 
 for sis : cf. verse 12 and Col. iv. 11, 
 
 22. " Wot not" =ov yvGQpiByGO : marg. , "do not make 
 known;" better " cannot tell." — " Je ne saurais dire." 
 
 25. "Abide, yea and abide" for "abide and continue" 
 = ft6VGOHai7rapa/xevdo. (?) They render itapocfxkvGD " con- 
 tinue," usually; — see Heb. vii. 23; James i. 25; and 
 whence comes "yea"? "In the faith" for " of faith" = 
 trfS 7ti6T8G0<S. — Render : " for your progress and the joy of 
 your faith"? 
 
156 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 29. " It hath been granted" for " it is given" = sxapia^t]. 
 Cf. Eph. iv. 32 ; and see " it is written." 
 
 II. 
 
 1. The interchange of " comfort" and " consolation" is 
 consequential ; but it is not necessary and is no improve- 
 ment here. 
 
 3. " Faction" for " strife" = spiSsiav : and so elsewhere, 
 but is it necessary ? 
 
 6. " Counted it not a prize to be on an equality with 
 God," etc. Suggestion of the American Revisers better. 
 And observe that aorist participles with aorist verbs are 
 rendered present, just as the present participle is. 
 
 9. " Wherefore also God" for " wherefore God also." Is 
 their "also" in its logical position after all? "God also" 
 would be according to their usual rule in relation to the 
 Greek order. But would it not be better, if we must make 
 a change, to retain the translation by the perfect, and say : 
 " Wherefore God hath also," etc. ? 
 
 16. "In the day of Christ" = si? rjju. Xp. — " Unto a glory- 
 ing for me at the day," i.e. "when I come to the day," etc. 
 " In vain" — sis nsvov. 
 
 22. " In furtherance of " for " in"=fz£ : — " unto" or "as 
 to" (the Gospel). 
 
 24. "I myself also" for " I also myself " = uai avTof. 
 
 27. "That not" for "lest" =iva )xr) : cf. 1 Tim. iii. 7, 
 and Rev. xvi. 15, etc. 
 
 29. "Joy" for "gladness," and "honor" for "reputa- 
 tion." Such are instances of excruciating faithfulness. 
 
 28. "I have sent" for " I sent," — an aorist! This is an 
 extraordinary correction of an aorist tense ; and one is curi- 
 ous to know how they reasoned it out. 
 
 30. Here observe that " service" towards the Apostle is 
 (with the A. V.) made the rendering of Xsirovpyia. 
 
 III. 
 
 12. "Have obtained" = s\ afiov .• and "am made per- 
 fect = rsrsXsioDjxai. Cf. John xvii. 
 
PHILIPPIANS. 157 
 
 15. " Even this shall God reveal" for " God shall reveal 
 even this"! Cf. 2 Cor. v. 20, etc. 
 
 16. " Have attained," — an aorist. 
 
 18. " Told often" for "have told often," — an aorist. 
 
 19. " Earthly things" = ra eniy^ia. (Article.) 
 
 20. " A Saviour" for "the Saviour" == ^corrfpa } in ap- 
 position with Kvpwvz= " the Lord" ? 
 
 21. " Body of his glory" for "his glorious body." But 
 this is ambiguous ; does it mean that his glory has a body ? 
 In ordinary English we should scarcely use such an expres- 
 sion in any other sense. 
 
 IV. 
 
 2. " Exhort" for " beseech" (bis) === TtapaHaXdo. So also 
 at 1 Thess. iv. 10; 1 Tim. i. 3 ; Heb. xiii. 19, 22 ; and "ex- 
 hort" for " intreat," 1 Tim. v. 1 ; but " intreat" for "ex- 
 hort," 2 Cor. ix. 5, where " exhort" suits as well as here. 
 They have also "exhort" for "desire," 2 Cor. xii. 18; 
 they retain " beseech" at Matt. viii. 5, 31, 34; xiv. 36; 
 Mark i. 40; they put " beseech" where "exhort" might 
 be as well as here, Acts xxi. 12; xxvii. $$ y 34; Rom. xii. 
 1; xvi. 17; Eph. iv. 1 ; 1 Cor. i. 10; xvi. 12, 15 ; cf. Heb. 
 xiii. 22, and 1 Peter ii. 11. They put "intreat" for "be- 
 seech," Luke viii. 31, 32 — cf. Matt. viii. 31, 34; 2 Cor. vi. 1 ; 
 x. 1, and retain "intreat," Luke xv. 28. They put "in- 
 treat" for " desire," Acts ix. 38; xxviii. 14; and " intreat" 
 for "pray," Acts xxiv. 4. They put " beseech" for "de- 
 sire," Acts viii. 31; xix. 31; and "beseech" for "pray," 
 Acts xvi. 9 ; Matt. xxvi. 53 ; Mark v. 18. — Surely if there 
 were " faithful' ' reasons for all these changes hither and 
 thither, they must be very fine-drawn. 
 
 3. "Beseech" for " entreat" = ipoorw. But they have 
 "ask" for "beseech" at Luke vii. 3; viii. 37; John xix. 
 31 ; — "ask" for "desire" at Luke xiv. 32 ; John xii. 21; 
 Acts xviii. 20; xxiii. 20 ; and "desire" is retained at Luke 
 vii. 36; — "ask" for ^pray" at Acts xxiii. 18, and "pray" 
 is retained at John xvii. 9, 15, 20. At 1 Thess. iv. 1, 
 " beseech" = epGorc^jusv, and " exhort" = 7tapanakov}XBv. 
 This may explain their renderings in these two verses in 
 
158 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 Philippians, where the same two words are, not indeed in 
 juxtaposition, but in near proximity to each other. But that 
 could hardly be a sufficient reason for requiring a change 
 here, considering the great variety of renderings they have 
 given these words elsewhere. 
 
 " For they" for "which" =ai'Tive$. This they elsewhere 
 render "who" or " which," and the change is not required 
 here, — "whose" (gov) immediately following involves the 
 same use of the relative, — while at Matt. vii. 15 such 
 a change would have been very much to the purpose. Cf. 
 Col. ii. 23 and 2 Thess. i. 9, etc. 
 
 8. Where did the Revisers get the marginal reading of 
 "gracious" for €V(p?jjua? The whole question is, whether 
 we should say "of good report" or "of good import," 
 whether the word is to be taken in an active or a passive 
 sense. 
 
 10. "Rejoice" for " rejoiced" = exocp^v. ("Gr." in 
 marg. ) But cf. Mark xi. 24 and xiii. 20. This is another 
 remarkable change in the rendering of an aorist. In the 
 9th verse the perfects of A. V. were better than their pre- 
 terites; as in the 10th verse they say, "have revived" = 
 avsB-dXets (better and more faithful was the A. V., "have 
 caused to flourish again") ; and in the nth and 12th verses 
 they put "have learned" alike for e'jxa^ov and for 
 jdspivr/piai. Cf. John xvii. 
 
 19. " Every need of yours" for " all your need" = naGav 
 Xpsiav vjagov. Articular nicety ? 
 
 COLOSSIANS. 
 
 I. 
 
 5. "In the heavens" for " in heaven" = sv roi$ ovpavoiZ. 
 Cut see Matt. v. 12, 45, and the Lord's Prayer. 
 
 6. "For you" = V7tep f — not "in your behalf." We 
 make this and the like notes, because the Revisers so often 
 and needlessly substitute "in behalf of" for the simple 
 " for" of the A. V., as a translation of vnep. 
 
 12. "Made" for "hath made;" also "delivered" and 
 " translated ;" but followed by " we have." 
 
COLOSSIANS. 159 
 
 16,20. "The heavens," "*the earth," for "heaven," 
 "earth." Cf. the Lord's Prayer, Mark ii. 10, etc., etc. 
 "Things visible and things invisible" = td opard nai rd 
 do par a : but what of the article ? Cf . the faithful correc- 
 tion at iii. 2, — " the things that are" for "things." 
 
 22. " Hath reconciled," — an aorist. 
 
 26. " Hath been manifested," — an aorist. 
 
 27. "Was pleased to" for " would" = rfBiXtfasv = 
 "willed to," " it was God's will to." 
 
 29. " Which worketh' ' = rrjv ivepyovjj.svrjv, without any 
 marginal alternate. 
 
 II. 
 
 1. " Would have you know' ' for " would that ye knew ;" 
 but see Luke xix. 14; 1 Tim. ii. 4. 
 
 3. "In whom are all . . . hidden" for " in whom are hid 
 all ... " The A. V. is better English, if the R. V. is 
 better Greek. Which do we want ? The sense remains the 
 same. 
 
 4. "That no one" for "lest any man;" how faithful! 
 but see 1 Tim. iii. 7 ; Rev. xvi. 15, etc. 
 
 5. "In the flesh" = rPj aapni (as to the flesh). 
 
 7. " Builded" for "built," — excruciating faithfulness! 
 And yet "our Father which," and "we be." "Your 
 faith' ' for " the faith' ' = rij 7tiarsi. (?) 
 
 8. " His philosophy" = TrjZ cpiXoaocpia^. (?) 
 
 ti. "Were circumcised" for " are (have been) circum- 
 cised" = 7tepieT/xrj$r/Te. (?) 
 
 12. " Were raised' ' for "are risen." Cf. Matt, xxviii. 6, 
 etc. " Raised" for "hath raised (Christ)" is right, for this 
 is historical. 
 
 13. " Did quicken" for " hath he quickened." (?) 
 
 14. " Nailing" = n po6rfkoD6 aS : but above they have 
 translated aorist participles in connection with preterite 
 verbs, — "having been buried," for "buried," "having blot- 
 ted" for "'blotting;" and below they say, — "having put 
 off," and then "triumphing over." 
 
 iS. " By a voluntary humility" for " in," etc. = $£\gqv iv 
 Ta7teivocppo6vvri. 
 
160 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 20. "Died" for "be dead,' 1 — the aorist. (?) 
 23. " But are not of any value against the indulgence of 
 the flesh;" — a very doubtful rendering of a very difficult 
 passage, and " indulgence" (= n\r}G )xovr)v} is without arti- 
 cle in the Greek ; — "not in any honour or reverence, — to 
 an indulgence of the flesh;" i.e., "not in any reverence 
 towards God, — rather and really to a greater indulgence of 
 the flesh." For construction see 2 Tim. ii. 14. 
 
 III. 
 
 1. "Were raised" for "be risen" (so [3] "died" for 
 "are dead"); "is seated" for " sitteth" = effrzv . , . 
 ytaSrjuavoS : — say "is sitting," if we must make a change. 
 
 2. " The things that are" for "things" (bis) =rd. But 
 cf. i. 20. 
 
 5. "The which" for " which" = rjri? : also 1 Tim. i. 4. 
 But cf. ii. 23, etc. 
 
 7. " In the which" (so A. V.) =iv oh : also at verse 15. 
 
 10. "Is being renewed" = avaxaivovjuevov. (?) Cf. 
 Luke xxii. 19, 20, etc., etc. 
 
 18. " Is fitting" = avfJHSv. 
 
 22. "That not" for "lest;" but see again 1 Tim. iii. 7 
 and Rev. xvi. 15, etc. 
 
 IV. 
 
 8. " Have sent," — an aorist. 
 
 11. "Workers unto the kingdom of God"=ez£.- not 
 "in furtherance of." Cf. Phil. i. 4, 5. 
 
 12. 13. " For you" =vnlf> v/tcdv, not " in your behalf." 
 
 15. "The church that" for "the church which" (is in 
 their house) ; — amazing faithfulness ! Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 12, 
 "the Spirit which"; iii. 10, "the grace which"; iv. 6, 
 "the things which" ; etc., etc. And see 2 Cor. i. 4, note. 
 
 16. "Hath been read" for "is read" = avayvGoa^tj : 
 but see " it is written." 
 
 17. " Hast received," — an aorist. 
 
7. THESSALONIANS. 161 
 
 I. THESSALONIANS. 
 
 5. " How that" for " for" = on. (?) Marg. " Fulness" 
 (for " assurance") = nXr/pocpopia : but see new reading at 
 Col. iv. 12, 7tsn\r]poq)opr/piev 01, rendered, without marginal 
 alternate, "fully assured," instead of the "complete" of 
 the A. V. " Showed ourselves" for " were" = eyevrj^rffAev. 
 
 9. " A living and true God" for " the," etc. Cf. 1 Tim. 
 iv. 10; Heb. xii. 22: Rev. vii. 2. 
 
 II. 
 
 1. "Hath been found' for " was" = yeyovs v. But see 
 Gal. iii. 17, and see here the development in subsequent 
 preterites. 
 
 2. " Waxed bold" for " were bold" = 87tapprfaia(jafxe^a. 
 But see Acts xiii. 46, corrected just contrariwise. 
 
 5. " Were found using" for " used" = syevrjSrffxsv. 
 
 13. "We also" for "also we" (thank God). 
 
 14. "Which are in Judea in Christ Jesus" for "which 
 in Judea are in Christ Jesus" — oh, faithfulness ! 
 
 15. The antecedent of " who" is doubtful ; in consistency 
 they should have said, "for the Jews both killed," etc. Cf. 
 Phil. iv. 3, where their change is not needed. 
 
 18. "Once and again" = anaB, uai dis, — "once and 
 twice;" but see "two witnesses or three." 
 
 III. 
 
 5. "Sent that I might know" for " sent to know" = si; 
 to yvdovai. 
 
 11. " May our God direct." The added "may" is not 
 needed ; see the Lord's Prayer, and the next verse (12), 
 where (with the A. V.) they say "and the Lord make," 
 without any " may." 
 
1 62 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 IV. 
 
 i, 3, 4. The needless omission of would and should makes 
 the sense less clear. 
 
 9. ''That one write unto you" for "that I," etc. But 
 see their translation at James i. 27, etc. The A. V. could 
 not use this "one" in 161 1. 
 
 14. " That are fallen asleep" = rovS noipirj^erra?, — not 
 "that slept." So for the saints in general; but "Jesus 
 died" (a7zi$av£) is right, for this is historical. Cf. 2 Cor. 
 v. 14, etc. 
 
 V. 
 
 1. " Concerning the times" for " of ;" — faithfulness ! 
 
 6. Queer e — whether "the others" would not be better 
 than "the rest," which they use here and elsewhere. 
 
 13. " Exceeding highly" for " very highly" = vnlp ek- 
 7tepi66ov. A very exceeding superfluity of faithfulness. 
 
 15. " Unto any one evil for evil" for " evil for evil unto 
 any man" ! And the A. V. is in the Greek order. 
 
 16. "Rejoice alway" for " rejoice evermore." Cf. Phil, 
 iv. 4, and its marg. " Farewell." 
 
 II. THESSALONIANS. 
 
 I. 
 
 9. " Who" = oinves. Why not say "for they"? Cf. 
 Phil. iv. 3. There is more danger of misunderstanding 
 here than there. 
 
 10. " To be marvelled at' ' for " to be admired" = Savjxot- 
 (jSrfvai. " Admired" is according to the later usage of the 
 Greek; and is it not better here? 
 
 11. "Desire (or marg. 'good pleasure') of goodness." 
 Whose desire ? Whose goodness ? 
 
 II. 
 
 1. " Concerning" for " by" = vnep. Would not " upon," 
 or " by reason of," or " in view of" be better ? 
 
/. TIMOTHY. 1 63 
 
 2. " To the end that" for " that" = eit to, etc. Is not this 
 illogical ? It answers to why and not to what ; and it would 
 remain to know what he beseeches of them after all. " Is 
 now present" for "is at hand" = iv&o~T?]K£v, — "is immi- 
 nent." Has this word lately lost this meaning? 
 
 7. "There is one that restraineth now" =0 narkxoov 
 apri. Why not say "he that restraineth (or 'the re- 
 strainer') restraineth now" ? Cf. 6 aneipGov^ " the sower.'' 
 
 10. " Are perishing" for " perish." (?) 
 
 13. " For that" for "because" = or 1. Is the sense any 
 clearer ? Is the English any better ? 
 
 15. "So then" for " therefore" = apa ovv. The same 
 questions may be asked again. 
 
 16. " Loved" and "gave" for "hath," etc. (?) 
 
 III. 
 
 1. "Brethren, pray" = 7tpo68vx£60e, adeXcpoi. Why 
 did they not follow the Greek order, and say " pray 
 brethren" ? Cf. Gal. iv. 12 ; vi. 18; Matt. xxvi. 22, 25. 
 
 2. " All have not faith "=ot> 7tavrss, not 7Tavres ov. Why 
 not follow both the Greek and good logic — and good Eng- 
 lish too — and say " not all men have (the) faith" ? Cf. Heb. 
 ii. 5 and 1 Cor. vi. 12. 
 
 I. TIMOTHY. 
 
 I. 
 
 2. " My true child in faith' ' = yvrjaiop rexvop iv rciarei 
 = "a true child in the faith;" — cf. 1 Thess. i. 9. There 
 is neither " my" nor " the" with " child," and the Revisers 
 are themselves accustomed to insert the article after iv. 
 
 3. " Exhorted" for "besought " Why? See Phil. iv. 2. 
 (note). " Charge" = napayytWoo. This rendering is here 
 retained ; but "command" is put for " charge" at v. 7, and 
 is retained at iv. 11 ; also at 2 Thess. iii. 4, 6, 10, 12 ; Luke 
 viii. 29 ; ix. 21 ; Acts xvii. 30 ; Mark viii. 6 ; — while 
 "charge" is put for "command" at Matt. x. 5 ; Mark vi. 
 8 ; Acts i. 4; iv. 18 ; v. 28,40 ; x. 42 ; xv. 5 ; xvi. 18 ; xxiii. 
 
1 64 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 30; 1 Cor. vii. 10 ; 1 Thess. iv. 11 ; 1 Tim. i. 5 ; and is re- 
 tained at Luke viii. 56 ; v. 14 ; Acts xvi. 23 ; xxiii. 22 ; 1 
 Tim. vi. 13, 17. This is one of the words which seems to 
 have been a special exercise to the Revisers' faithfulness ; 
 but the ground of their distinctions it is hard to divine. Cf. 
 e.g. Mark vi. 8 with viii. 6; or 1 Cor. vii. 10 with 2 Thess. 
 iii. 4, 6, 10, 12 and 1 Tim. iv. 11 ; v. 7. 
 
 4. "The which" for " which" = ai'tires, — also Col. iii. 
 5. But see oitives, 2 Thess. i. 9 ; Heb. xiii. 7, etc., where 
 they say simply ''who" or "which." 
 
 5. "Charge" for "commandment" = rtapayyeXiaZ. (?) 
 
 7. "Though they understand" for "understanding." 
 The A. V. is literally correct. Cf. Heb. vi. 6, " if they shall 
 fall away" changed to "and then fell away," to render an 
 aorist participle. 
 
 9. "As knowing this" for "knowing this = siSgoS 
 rovro. The "as" is not even italicized. " Law" for "the 
 law," but what is the difference? Both must here mean 
 law in general. 
 
 10. " Doctrine," marg. " teaching," = Sid a axaXia. But 
 see iv. 6 — with no marg. reading. It is extremely difficult 
 for the uninitiated to apprehend the nice distinctions of 
 such faithfulness. 
 
 17. "Incorruptible" for "immortal" = acpdapTGp, — of 
 God? 
 
 18. " By them" = iv avraH. 
 
 19. "Made" for "have made." (?) 
 
 II. 
 
 2. "Tranquil and quiet" for "quiet and peaceable," (?) 
 or, say, "peaceful" ? 
 
 4. " Willeth that" for "will have to ;" but see 1 Cor. x. 1 
 and Col. ii. 1 ; corrected contrariwise. 
 
 III. 
 
 2. " Without reproach" for " blameless" = avS7ri\r)7trov 
 = blameless, or unblamable, or irreproachable, i.e. (that 
 ought) not to be attacked or blamed. Cf. verse 10 and iv. 
 
I. TIMOTHY. 165 
 
 4 ; and see, by analogy, Col. i. 22 and 1 Thess. iii. 13. 
 "The husband of one wife," — no article ; cf. verse 12. 
 
 3. "No brawler" for "not given to wine" = napoivov. 
 Marg. of A. V., — " i.e., not ready to quarrel and offer wrong 
 as one in wine." The Revisers leave the wine out entirely. 
 
 7. Lest" = i'va ^77, —not "that not," and so at Rev. xvi. 
 15. But cf. Col. iii. 22 ; ii. 4 ; Phil. ii. 27 ; Heb. iv. 11, 
 etc., etc. See note John xii. 35. 
 
 12. "Husbands of one wife" for "the husbands," etc. 
 But cf. verse 2. Whether the subject be " deacons" or " the 
 deacons' ' can make no difference in the predicate. 
 
 15. "The church," "the pillar," — no article in Greek. 
 
 IV. 
 
 2. " Through" = iv. Here their whole construction is 
 doubtful ; cf. verses 2 and 3. 
 
 10. " The living God" = erti Osgd S,govti. 
 
 13. " To reading," etc. — articles omitted thrice ; cf. " the 
 weeping and gnashing." "Teaching" for "doctrine" = 
 didaanaXia. Do they eschew doctrine altogether? 
 
 V. 
 
 7. "Without reproach," again, for "blameless." See 
 iii. 2 (note). 
 
 9. " Having been /' why italicized ? It is the translation 
 of yeyovvia, if that is translated at all. 
 
 11. "They desire to marry" for "they will marry" = 
 yajj.eiv SeXovaiv. (" They choose to marry" or "are bent 
 upon marrying.") 
 
 VI. 
 
 1. "The doctrine" for "his doctrine." (?) 
 
 2. "" Partake of the benefit" = avriXa/j,/3av6jxsvoi. Bet- 
 ter " reap the benefit," i.e. the masters do ? 
 
 9. " Desire to be rich" for "will be rich;" — /.^.will to 
 be, or aim or seek to be, — lay their plans and make their 
 efforts to be; — it is more than an idle " desire." There is 
 no ambiguity in the A. V. according to the laws of good 
 English. The "they that" is here indefinite, like "-who- 
 ever." 
 
1 66 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 10. "A root" for " the root," — predicate; but the Re- 
 visers familiarly render anarthrous predicates with the Eng- 
 lish article. See above iii. 2, 15 ; iv. 10 ; and John ix. 5, 
 etc., etc. "A root of all evils" or " of all the evils" 
 {navroDv tgov kolkgdv, which they render "all kinds of 
 evil," forgetting their faithfulness with "all the nations") 
 either is nonsense or is subject to much the same difficulty in 
 its strictly universal application which was supposed to be 
 involved in " the root of all evil." Instead of being the uni- 
 versal cause, it simply becomes a universal con-cause. But the 
 definite article in English is not absolutely exclusive, and 
 the apostle's words are not to be interpreted with mathe- 
 matical rigor. The A. V. has given the natural English 
 expression for the apostle's meaning: " The love of money 
 is the root of all evil," — an expression whose rhetorical 
 character and simple sense are perfectly clear to every com- 
 mon-sense reader. 
 
 14. " Without reproach/' again, for " unrebukable. ' ' See 
 iii. 2. 
 
 17. " Have their, hope set" = r/k7tinkvai. But this is not 
 the English perfect ; that would be, " have set their hope." 
 Did they mean to throw a little dust in our eyes ? 
 
 21. "Have erred," — anaorist. 
 
 II. TIMOTHY. 
 
 1. " The promise of the life which" for " the promise of 
 life which" = €7tayye\iav ZgdtjS rrjs .- they do not say " of 
 life, even the life which." But cf. Gal. ii. 20. 
 
 3. ie My" ior " my /' neither pronoun nor article in the 
 Greek. " Supplications" for "prayers" = deijGeai : — con- 
 sequential. 
 
 5. " Having been reminded" for "when I call to remem- 
 brance" = vitojxvriGiv \a floor = "while I call (or having 
 called) to remembrance." "In thee also" for "that in 
 thee also," on not being rendered or atione' recta. 
 
 6. "For the which cause" for " wherefore" = di r/v 
 airiav. Wherefore, with "the which" and all ? At Eph. 
 
II. TIMOTHY. 167 
 
 v. 31, "for this cause" stands for avrl rovrov. At Tit. i. 
 13, "for which cause" = Si ?)v airiav. 
 
 8. "Suffer hardship with the gospel" for "be partaker 
 of the afflictions of the Gospel ;" — is it not rather "be par- 
 taker (with me) of afflictions for the Gospel" ? — the "with" 
 is not with the gospel but with me j see ii. 3. 
 
 10. " Hath been manifested" for " is made manifest" = 
 (pav£pGQ$8i6av. But cf. 2 Cor. v. 11, where "we are made 
 manifest" renders the perfect of the same verb. 
 
 12. "Yet" for " nevertheless" = aXXa, — this is not ill, — 
 if some change must be made. But it is strange they should 
 have forgotten their favorite "howbeit;" which they are 
 accustomed to substitute for "but" in rendering aXXa, as 
 at John v. 34 ; viii. 26 ; xix. 34 ; Acts v. 13 ; 1 Cor. x. 5 ; 
 xiv. 19 ; Phil. iii. 7 ; 1 Tim. i. 13. 
 
 II. 
 
 6. " The first" for " first" = 7tptirov. 
 
 9. " Malefactor" for " evil-doer" = KaxovpyoS. Conse- 
 quential ; but is it necessary ? Is it any improvement ? 
 
 10. Cf. "the salvation which" with Gal. ii. 20. 
 
 11. " Faithful is the saying" for " it is a faithful saying ;" 
 and so, often ; but what's the faithful difference ? " Died" 
 for " be dead;" but note the connection following. 
 
 17. "Gangrene" for "canker." So, the margin of the 
 A. V. ; but qucere f 
 
 18. " Men who" for "who" = oirives. But see 2 Thess. 
 i. 9 ; Eph. iv. 19 ; also Rom. iv. 18; not to say Matt. vii. 15. 
 " Have erred" = r]aroxy]<3<xv. 
 
 19. " Howbeit" for "nevertheless" =/xevroi. This is 
 also the favorite translation for ttXt/v, aXXa, /xev ovv, 
 etc., etc. 
 
 24. "The Lord's servant" for "the servant of the Lord." 
 If they proposed to make any difference, they should have 
 said "a servant of the Lord." See Matt. x. 24, and cf. 
 Matt. xvii. 22 ; xxv. 31 ; James i. 20; Acts vii. 35; Rev. 
 viii. 4. 
 
 26. Read — "They having been taken captive by the 
 
1 68 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION: 
 
 devil, may recover themselves out of his snare unto the will 
 of God'" ? Cf. Tit. iii. 4; and Matt. xxvi. 24. 
 
 III. 
 
 10. "Thou didst follow" for " hast fully known." The 
 Greek text is changed for the tense; but see the context for 
 the sense. 
 
 12. " Would" for " will" = 01 OtXovres. But cf. Matt, 
 xxiii. 4 — "they will not move them," and Acts xxv. 9 — 
 11 wilt thou go up?" 
 
 16. " Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable," 
 etc. = 7ta(ja ypacpi 1 } d^onvBvaroi xal aocptXipio^ k.t.X. 
 The marginal reading, which is substantially the same as 
 that of the A. V., is by all means to be preferred : for (1) the 
 natural use of the Mai, in its ordinary sense, is, to connect 
 OeoTtrevGToS and cocptXi/Ao^ and thus they of course fall into 
 the predicate ; — and, in any event, the " is," which remains 
 to be inserted somewhere, may quite as properly be inserted 
 before the " inspired" as after it. (2) Even if the " inspired 
 of God" is put before the "is," it must still have a predica- 
 tive and not an attributive character, — not " every God- 
 inspired scripture" (that would be na6a 0so7rvev(TTO^ 
 ypacpij), nor " every scripture which is inspired of God" 
 (that would require ?) deoTtvevGroZ), but "every scripture 
 being inspired of God" (as it is); cf. Heb. v. 1, "Every 
 high priest being taken from among men" (as he is), — not 
 "which is taken," etc.; so also Heb. iv. 2, "because they 
 were not united," — not "them which were not united." 
 And thus the sense (though not clearly expressed in the 
 Revisers' text) will remain substantially the same after all 
 their unnatural change of construction. 
 
 It is noticeable that they render uai GocpeXijioS "also 
 profitable" and not "profitable also." But see their pains- 
 taking corrections in the construction of "also," e.g. at 1 
 Thess. ii. 13, "we also" for "also we" = ual ??pteiS. — cf. 
 Heb. iv. 12, 13, where they do not say: "The word of God 
 living is also active," and "all things naked are also laid 
 open." Why then adopt this strange construction just here ? 
 
TITUS. 169 
 
 IV. 
 
 6. ''Am already being offered" =7^77 67tkv§0)xai. Is 
 this better English than to say "I am now offered"? — if in- 
 deed the A. V. need be changed at all. " Is come" for " is 
 at hand" = €cpe a rt) >hs. (?) 
 
 10. Preterites for perfects ; but with Crescens and Titus 
 are not perfects much more naturally to be understood ? 
 
 TITUS. 
 I. 
 
 1-4. The rendering of articles here is worthy of examina- 
 tion. Why is it "the truth which," and then " eternal life, 
 which," and then " the message which," and then " my true 
 son," and then "a common faith"? "When" for "after 
 that" = ore: cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 11. 
 
 6. " That believe" for " faithful" = mar a. (?) 
 
 7. "God's steward" for "the steward of God." But 
 what is the difference? Is this rendering given in such 
 cases because the Greek is without the article ? But if the 
 A. V. expressed the exact sense, did faithfulness require a 
 change of the form ? 
 
 8. "A lover of good." Good what ? They might have 
 said " of that which is good" (or " of good things") or " of 
 good men ;" but must it not be one or the other ? 
 
 11. "Men who" for " who" = oiriveS. See 2 Tim. ii. 18 
 (note). 
 
 13. " For which cause" for " wherefore" = di t)v airiav. 
 At 2 Tim. i. 6, they say " for the which cause" for the same 
 Greek. What becomes then of their boasted and pains- 
 taking uniformity of rendering, as with " straightway," for 
 example ? And wherefore make any change either there or 
 here, the sense remaining the same ? 
 
 15. "Are defiled" = jueptiavrai (perfect). 
 
 II. 
 
 3. " Enslaved" = Sedov\GO}A,avas = " having been en- 
 slaved." Cf. Matt. v. 10. 
 
170 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 5. " To be . . . being in subjection to" for " to be . . , 
 obedient to"= vnoTOLGOoyiLvcxZ. (?) And so at verse 9. 
 
 7. " Ensample" for " pattern" = rv7tov. (?) 
 
 11. " Hath appeared" — an aorist. 
 
 III. 
 
 3. " Aforetime" for " sometimes" = 7tore= once. 
 
 5. " Done" =tg$v = " which were." 
 
 6. "Poured out upon" for "shed on" = e^€x €sv - But 
 see Acts ii. 17, 18 and 33, etc., where the Revisers insist upon 
 "poured forth," and (17, 18) correct the "poured out " of 
 the A. V. 
 
 9. "Strifes" for "contentions" = ipei£. But at 1 Cor. i, 
 11, they have left "contentions;" is the sense different 
 there for the case-increment? "Fightings" for "striv- 
 ings" (about the law) = fxaxoci rojAiuds (legal battles). 
 
 15. "In faith" for " in the faith" = iv niarsi. (?) 
 
 PHILEMON. 
 
 8. " Have all boldness" for "might be much bold" = 
 rtoWrfv 7tappr}(jiav i'xcov. (?) 
 
 12. " Have sent back" — an aorist. 
 
 13. " In thy behalf" for " instead of thee" = vntp. Sup- 
 pose we give the simple and true rendering, " for, " and 
 then let common-sense decide which is the right meaning in 
 this connection ? 
 
 19. " Write" for "have written" — an aorist. "That I 
 say not" for " albeit I saynot" = zW /at/ \kyoo= " not to 
 say" (see 2 Cor. xii. 7 ; Phil. ii. 30 ; 2 Thess. iii. 9, etc.), 
 and proceed with "that" instead of " how that" =orz. 
 
 21. "Beyond" for "more than" = vntp : but at verse 
 16, "more than" for "above," with the same case and 
 vnkp. 
 
 HEBREWS. 
 I. 
 
 1. The many and divers changes in this verse are well 
 enough in themselves; but are they necessary? For the 
 
HEBREWS. 171 
 
 translation of the aorist participle, cf. 1 Cor. viii. 5 ; John 
 iv. 39 and v. 44, note. 
 
 2. " In his son," marg. " a son." What occasion for this 
 marginal reading ? After iv the Revisers are accustomed 
 freely to insert the article ; it is, or may be, therefore, " the 
 son" or "his son." 
 
 3. " Effulgence" for " brightness." (?) " Substance" for 
 "person." (?) " Sins" = tgdv dpiapriGov .• but does not 
 this mean " our sins," even without the ?}jugdv ? Think of 
 "the weeping and gnashing" ; and cf. "its sanctuary" at 
 ix. 1, "their deliverance" at xi. 35, and "their faith" at 
 xi. 40. 
 
 7. " Who maketh his angels winds" = 7tv£Vfj,ara. This 
 might be well enough in itself, but is it quite consistent ? 
 At verse 13, of the angels they say : " Are they not all min- 
 istering spirits" — not " winds'.' = 7tvevjj.ar a. As to the 
 suggestion that " winds" and "flame of fire" are here for 
 the Hebrew accusative of material, that is not likely — (1) 
 from the nature of the case, which is not one of moulding 
 or fashioning ; (2) from the fact that the Psalmist had just 
 said, "who maketh the clouds his chariot," in a different 
 order; and (3) from the fact that the Septuagint, in almost 
 all cases, translate the Hebrew accusative of material with 
 ix. And that "angels" and " ministers" must be accusa- 
 tive subjects and not predicates appears from this, that it is, 
 with ministers, " a flame of fire" or "a naming fire," and 
 not "flames of fire" ; it could not be said, "he maketh a 
 flame of fire his ministers." 
 
 14. "To do service" for "to minister" =sis Siaxoviav. 
 This is generally rendered by the Revisers " ministry;" see 
 2 Tim. iv. ii, "for ministering" = eh Siaxoviav. They 
 should rather have changed the rendering of Xeirovpyixa 
 — (if they must change something) : say, e.g., " Spirits that 
 do service, sent forth to minister," etc. ? 
 
 II. 
 
 1. " Things that were heard" — (not " have been") = roiZ 
 axovedsiGi. Cf. Rom. vi. 7. 
 
 2, " Proved" for " was" = iyevsro. (?) 
 
172 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 5. " Not unto angels did he" for " unto the angels hath 
 he not." Why not, then, following the Greek, say, at 2 
 Thess. iii. 2, " Not all men have faith" ? That would have 
 been logically correct ; while here the order makes no differ- 
 ence in the logic or in the sense. As for the article and the 
 tense — quozre ? 
 
 9. "Behold" for " see"= j3Xe7to/j.ev .• but they render 
 this verb by "see," ten to one. 
 
 16. " For verily not of angels doth he take hold, but he 
 takethhold of the seed of Abraham." After all, this must re- 
 fer to the Incarnation ,- otherwise, why say " seed of Abraham," 
 and not " seed of Adam," or " mankind" ? If aiding or help- 
 ing is what is meant by e7tikajj,(3averai, surely the help, the 
 benefits of the salvation are for all men, and not for the " seed 
 of Abraham" only ; see verse 9. Hetaketh hold of the seed 
 of Abraham — he taketh to himself the seed of Abraham — the 
 seed of David — that he might help, might save, mankind. For 
 irtikafAfiavojioLi, cf. Matt. xiv. 31 ; Luke ix. 47 ; xxiii. 26 ; 
 Acts xvi. 19 ; xvii. 19; xviii. 17; xxi. 30, 33 ; and particu- 
 larly, 1 Tim. vi. 12, 19; — to lay hold on, to take to one's 
 self, to take as one's own. 
 
 III. 
 
 5. "Afterward to be spoken" for "to be spoken after ;" 
 but see iv. 8, "have spoken afterward" is put for "after- 
 ward have spoken." What is the key ? Why either 
 change ? Why both ? Under such criticism the A. V. is in 
 hard case. 
 
 IV. 
 
 1. "Let us fear therefore" for " let us therefore fear." 
 How consistent! Cf. Acts xxv. 17; 2 Cor. v. 20, etc. etc. 
 
 3. "Have believed" = 7tiGTevGavTSS : " that" = tr}v : 
 cf. verse 11, " that" = ine ivrjv rrjv y and verse 4, "the" for 
 "this." 
 
 6. " That some should enter thereinto" =riraS eiaeXdeiv 
 sis avrr/v, — not, " that some enter." " Failed to enter in" 
 for " entered not in"= ovh siffijXOov. Which is the true 
 
HEBREWS. 173 
 
 rendering ? The most faithful translation need not be 
 clearer than the original. 
 
 10. "Is entered," "hath rested" — aorists. 
 
 11. " That no man fall" for "lest any man fall." The 
 difference ? But see John v. 14 ; xii. 40 ; 1 Tim. iii. 7 ; 
 Matt. xvii. 27; xxvi. 5; Rev. xvi. 15, etc, 
 
 12. "Active" for " powerful" = evepyrjS. (?) "The 
 dividing" = jdSpKjjuov, — no article. 
 
 13. " Before the' ' for " unto the' ' = rois. 
 
 15. " But one" for " but ;" — no " one" in text. 
 
 V. 
 
 5. "This day" for "to-day" = ar)}xepov, and so at Acts 
 xiii. 33 ; but see iv. 7, 8, and Luke xxiii. 43. 
 
 6. " For ever" = £zY rov aidova : — no marg. 
 
 7. " For his godly fear" = ano rrjs evhafieiaS .- A. V. 
 marg., " For his piety." But quaere ? 
 
 12. "For" = ?£<*} yap: but at iv. 2, "for indeed" for 
 " for" = the same Greek. 
 
 14. "But solid food is for full grown men" = reXeioov 
 di eonv rf are pea rpocpr/ — "but for full grown men is 
 the solid food." Where was their faithfulness to Greek 
 order and emphasis and article? " The weeping and gnash- 
 ing." 
 
 VI. 
 
 1. "Wherefore" for " therefore" = 616. But is this better 
 English at the beginning of a paragraph? — "for which" in- 
 stead of "for this" ? And see 2 Cor. iv. 13. " Let us cease 
 to speak of the first principles of Christ" for " leaving the 
 principles of the doctrine of Christ" = acpevre? rov rr/S 
 apxrf* rov Xpiarov Xoyov. The A. V. has the advantage 
 of the literal participial construction, and there is no more 
 in the Greek about " speak" than about " doctrine." After 
 all, have they made the sense any clearer ? 
 
 4-6. Are the changes here necessary? Are they au- 
 thorized ? It is not likely that actual historical cases are 
 here described; and the Revisers have no more right to 
 insert " then" before the fa/ling away than the A. V. had to 
 
174 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 insert " if,"— and cf. their own construction at vii. 5 and 
 1 Cor. viii. 10 ; xi. 29. The present tenses in verse 6 indi- 
 cate that probably the preceding aorists are conceived of as 
 perfects. And immediately after, at verse 7, they render 
 rj 7tiov0a " that hath drunk," — not " that drank." (!) 
 
 10. "Not unrighteous to forget;" cf. Acts xv. 10. 
 "Showed" and "ministered" for "have," etc.; followed 
 by the present " still do," — was there an interval? 
 
 11. "May show" for "do show," — infinitive with ac- 
 cusative. Better, simply " show." 
 
 12. "Imitators" for "followers." So, constantly; but 
 which is the more current English ? 
 
 13. " Since" for " because" = STtsi. Consequential. 
 
 15. " And thus" for " and so " = nal outgo. How faith- 
 ful ! " Having" for " after he had," and what of it ? 
 
 16. " And in every dispute of theirs, the oath is final for 
 confirmation," for " and an oath for confirmation is to them 
 an end of all strife" = Gr., "And of all controversy to 
 them the oath is an end for confirmation." The A. V. is 
 quite as near the Greek as is the Revision. 
 
 18. "Lay hold of" for " lay hold upon." (?) 
 
 19. "Which we have as . . . a hope both sure," etc., 
 for " which hope we have as . . . both sure," etc. Is 
 the revised sense quite certain ? 
 
 VII. 
 
 6. " That hath" for " that had" =rov e'xovra, governed 
 by a verb in the perfect. It means simply " the possessor," 
 and so, here, "that had," if we would have natural 
 English. Cf. xiii. 7 ; Rev. iv. 9, 10 and v. 1 ; also xi. 28. 
 
 7. " Dispute " for " contradiction " = avrikoyia. 
 
 11. " Now if" for " if therefore"= f / jitv ovv. So also at 
 viii. 4. " Arise" for " rise"= avifftaaSai. " Be reckoned" 
 for "be called" = Xtyeffdai, cf. ix. 2. 
 
 16. Note: " Indissoluble {aKaraXvrov) life" is proved 
 by "priest forever" (ei? rov aioova)\ therefore the last 
 phrase means "everlastingly," "without end." 
 
 18. "There is a disannulling" (so also A. V.) — not "is 
 
HEBRE WS. 175 
 
 made" = yiverai. " Of a foregoing" for "of the," etc. ; — 
 but a definite commandment is intended. 
 
 20. " The taking of an -oath*' for " an oath" = 6pHGD/xo- 
 criaS .- — no article; and the very same word is immediately- 
 rendered "oath" simply, as in the A. V., and as also at 
 verse 28. 
 
 21, 23. "Have been made" = £z'(? ir yeyovorsZ = "have 
 become," or "are (priests) having become (such)." 22. 
 " Hath become" for " was made" = yeyovev. Cf. xi. 28 ; 
 Gal. iii. 17; 2 Cor. ii. 13; John vi. 25, etc. 
 
 25. "Draw near unto God" for "come to God M = 
 TCpoaepxopiavovS rep Qeep : see note at x. 1 ; and cf. xi. 
 6, etc. 
 
 26. " Made= ysvojuevoS, — not "become." 
 
 27. " Like" for "as" = GDC77tep. 
 
 28. " Perfected" for " consecrated." (?) So the A. V. in 
 margin. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 5. "Who," not " the which"= oirivss :" is warned when 
 he is about to" = nExprjjJiariarai fxeWaov = " has been 
 warned when about to." 
 
 IX. 
 
 1. "Now even" for " then verily . . . also" =/*£*' ovv 
 ncci. It is nothing strange that the first covenant, because it 
 was first, should have ordinances of divine service ; and so 
 the "even" would seem out of place. Note the revised ren- 
 dering of ro rs ayiov hoct/xixov : — "its sanctuary, a sanc- 
 tuary of this world" for "a worldly sanctuary." What a 
 contortion in order to avoid putting "a" for to, — and yet 
 putting it after all ! 
 
 2. " The Holy place" = ayia : no " the," no "place," — 
 literally, " is called (not "is reckoned") holy." And so 
 below "Holy of holies," no "the." 
 
 4. " Having" for "which had." (?) 
 
 11. "Having come" for "being come" = 7t a payer opts- 
 voS. How could this be required by faithfulness ? " Being 
 come '' may be archaic, but is it unintelligible ? The Revi- 
 
176 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION 
 
 sers retain and multiply archaisms ("howbeit," etc.). 
 They even retain the be for have in unnumbered cases as the 
 auxiliary of come, go, etc. ; and so, if that is unintelligible 
 they are unfaithful, and if it is intelligible they are incon- 
 sistent (" straightway," etc.). 
 
 15. "A death" for " death." His death is evidently im- 
 plied in the connection. Cf. verse 1. 
 
 16. " The death," subject of cptpe&Oai, — no article. And 
 " death," not "a death," at verse 17. AiadrjKt} is translated 
 "covenant" from viii. 6, to this verse ; and here, where evi- 
 dently the same thing is meant, it is translated " testament ;" 
 and, again, thenceforward it is rendered "covenant." In 
 the A. V. it is "testament" from verse 15 through the chap- 
 ter. 
 
 17. " Where there hath been death," {niarg. u over the 
 dead,") for " after men are dead"= ini YEupoiS. Certainly 
 the word is "dead" and not " death." 
 
 X. 
 
 I. "Them that draw nigh" for " the comers thereunto" 
 = rovZ 7tpo6£pxo)j,avovS. The Revisers have rendered this 
 verb, with the A. V., 68 times by " come," " come to," " come 
 unto," and at Matt, xxvii. 58 ; Luke xxiii. 52 ; Acts ix. 1 ; 
 xxii. 26, by ''went to." They agree with the A. V. in the 
 Gospels throughout, except at Luke vii. 14, where they say 
 " came nigh." They agree with the A. V. in rendering it 
 " draw near" at Acts vii. 31 ; Heb. x. 22 ; " go near" at Acts 
 viii. 29 ; and " consent" at 1 Tim. vi. 3. They put "draw 
 near" for "come to" at Heb. iv. 16 and vii. 25, and here at 
 x. 1, they say "draw nigh" (for a little variety? — see 
 "straightway"). At Heb. xi. 6, where they (with the A. V.) 
 translate it by " come," it is coming to God; and so, at xii. 
 18, 22, " coming to a mount," " to Mount Zion ;" and at 1 
 Pet. ii. 4, "coming to the Lord." 
 
 8, 11. " The which" for " which" = airives. Cf. viii. 5 ; 
 xiii. 7 ; 2 Thess. i. 9. 
 
 10. " Which" for "the which" = g3. Oh ! how faithful ! 
 
 II. "Day by day" for "daily." (?) 
 
 13. " Footstool of his feet" — once more. 
 
HEBREWS. 177 
 
 16. * '■' Then saith he " is an entirely unnecessary insertion. 
 We need only pat the semicolon after " make with them ;" 
 and a comma after " saith the Lord," and the whole becomes 
 consecutive and clear. See the punctuation of the A. V. 
 in the original prophecy at Jeremiah xxxi. 33. 
 
 19. "Holy place" for " Holiest" = tgov ayioDv. Also 
 ix. 8. (?). 
 
 20. If "way" is repeated, the last ought to be in italics. 
 Note their servile construction. Cf. 2 Pet. iii. 1. 
 
 23. "That it waver not" for "without wavering" = 
 ankivr}. Is all that verbal construction in an adjective? 
 
 25. Day "drawing nigh" for " approaching" = eyyi- 
 8,ov6av. Required by faithfulness ! 
 
 28. "A man that hath set at naught" for "he that de- 
 spised" = aOsrr/GaS TiS. This is a remarkable case, where 
 the Revisers put a perfect for the preterite of the A. V. in 
 rendering an aorist. And it is further remarkable that just 
 here they are wrong, and the A. V. is probably right ; that 
 is to say, the tense should be either preterite or pluperfect, 
 — in no event perfect ; — " one (or he) that set (or had set) at 
 nought," or "treated (or had treated) with contempt, . . . 
 died without mercy," etc. 
 
 29. "Judged" for " thought" worthy = a^iajOrffferai. (?) 
 
 30. "Said" for "hath said," aorist. (?) 
 
 32. " After ye were enlightened" for "after ye were il- 
 luminated" = cpG0Ti(?6evTes. Here they retain " after," but 
 cf. verses 12 and 36, etc. 
 
 37. " He that cometh shall come" for " he that shall come 
 will come" = epxojj.evo$ r/^ei. Cf. Luke, xviii. 30, "He 
 that is to come." 
 
 $8. The text in the first clause is changed, by adding jjlov 
 after dixawZ, (righteous one). The " and" which begins the 
 second clause does not belong to the quotation, not being 
 in the prophet; see Septuagint ; and cf. Luke iv. 11, and 
 above at i. 10, " and, Thou Lord." — The same mode of print- 
 ing should have been adopted here. The " and" connects 
 two separate quotations ; and it is remarkable that, in the 
 prophet, that which is here the second comes first ; so that 
 the "he" (or the subject of "shrink back") cannot there 
 
178 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 refer to " tht righteous one," who is not mentioned till 
 afterward. The Revisers have treated the passage as a cita- 
 tion, — and rightly ; for, if the apostle had constructed his 
 sentence without reference to the prophet, he would natural- 
 ly have connected the two clauses with 6e and not with 
 nod, — with " but" (as the A. V.) and not with "and." As 
 to the insertion of "any man" by the A. V., see John viii. 
 44 marg. ; 2 Cor. viii. 12 and 1 Pet. iv. 16, etc 
 
 XI. 
 
 I. The margin or the A. V. is to be preferred for vrtoG- 
 raGiS, "substance;" the text or A. V. for eXeyxos, "evi- 
 dence" or "proving." 
 
 5. "Translated" for "had translated," after di or 1 : but 
 cf. Phil. ii. 26 and 1 Thess. ii. 8. 
 
 6. " Is a rewarder," — not "becomes" = yirerai. 
 
 9. " Became a sojourner ... in a land not his own" for 
 "sojourned ... in a strange country" = 7tapoo7trj<j8v si$ 
 yrjv . . . aXXorpiav. But see their own translation at 
 Acts vii. 6, " that his seed should sojourn in a strange land" 
 == on iarai to 67tkp}ia avrov Ttapoinov iv yrj aX- 
 Xorpia. Above they put " became a sojourner" for one 
 aorist verb, 7tapGD7irjo'ev = " sojourned," and in Acts they 
 put "sojourn" alone for I'orai napoiKOv, which might 
 fairly be rendered "should be (or become) sojourners," — 
 plural, for they immediately say "them" for "seed." And 
 as to their stra?ige rendering of aXXorpiav here, cf. also 
 Matt. xvii. 25 and John x. 5 (" strangers") ; Luke xvi. 12 ; 
 Rom. xiv. 4; xv. 20; 2 Cor. x. 15, 16 ; 1 Tim. v. 22, ("an- 
 other's," "another man's," "other men's") ; and verse 34 
 ("aliens"). 
 
 II. " Even Sarah herself" for " also Sarah herself." (Cf. 
 "also" for "even," verse 12.) Who should have received 
 the power rather than Sarah herself ? Say rather " by faith, 
 also, Sarah herself ( = nlffrei nai avri) JEappa) received 
 power to conceive seed, even when she was past age" (uai 
 7tapa naipov yXiniai). This "even" (uai) they omit en- 
 tirely. Extraordinary faithfulness ! The logic of the case 
 must prevail over the order of the first nai. 
 
HEBREWS. • 179 
 
 12. "Wherefore" for " therefore" = 616 : see vi. 1 and 
 cf. 2 Cor. iv. 13. " Also . . . of one"' for " even of one," 
 cf . verse 1 1 . Literally, ' ' wherefore even of one sprang there 
 — and him already dead (as it were) — so many," etc. Their 
 " also" is, by their own apparent rule, connected solely with 
 " wherefore," implying an added " wherefore," or an added 
 inference, and implying moreover, according to their appar- 
 ent Greek rule, that the nod stood before the dio. 
 
 16. " Hath prepared"— an aorist. 
 
 17. In the text, a perfect is designedly and deliberately 
 rendered in the preterite, — see margin; — "offered up " = 
 7tpo6£vr)VOX£v : and then an imperfect is carefully rendered 
 " was offering up." Literally, "and his only begotten 
 was he offering up who had (gladly) received the promises, 
 to whom it was (or had been) said," etc. And thus their 
 crabbed and intercalated construction might be quite 
 avoided. They say "that had received" = 6 avads^a^s- 
 vos, not, "that received" ; but cf. Matt. xxv. -18, 20, 22. 
 For 7tpo? or the A. V. "of whom" (or "in reference to 
 whom") is better. Their margin, which is the same as the 
 A. V., would require the "he" of their text to be changed 
 to "him" before the "of" of their margin. 
 
 19. The A. V. is better, with "him" inserted. What 
 immediately follows implies it. " Parable" here is not 
 English. 
 
 21. " When he was a dying" retained = a7roB'vr/(TKGDr. 
 
 22. " When his end was nigh" = reXevTcov, 
 
 28. "Kept" = 7tS7toi??KS, — perfect. "That not" for 
 1 "lest." Wanton faithfulness. Cf. John xii. . 40 ; 1 Tim. 
 • iii. 7 ; Rev. xvi. 15 ; Matt. xvii. 27 ; xxvi. 5, etc. "The de- 
 stroyer of for " he that destroyed" = 6 oXoOpevajv. Cf. 
 xiii. 7 ; Rev. iv. 9, 10. 
 
 30. "After they had been compassed about" for "after 
 they were," etc.= KvuXajdevra = " having been compassed 
 about," cf. next verse. 
 
 32. What shall I more say ? = ri iri Xkyoo ? - retained. 
 " If I tell" = dnyyovjuevov : see vi. 6. 
 
 35. "Their deliverance;" marg. " Gr. the redemption." 
 Say " the proffered deliverance," — if we must have " the." 
 
180 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 40. ''Through their faith" for "through faith" = Sia 
 r?)Z 7ti(jT8GoS. But 1) TtianS they freely render simply 
 " faith," see James ii. 17, 22 ; Rom. iii. 25, 30, 31 ; Gal. iii. 
 23, etc. 
 
 XII. 
 
 4, 5. " Have resisted" = avriKartarr]T8 ; " have forgot- 
 ten" = £K\e\??(jde, — aorist and perfect co-ordinated. See 
 also Acts xxv. 10; Phil. iii. 12; iv. 11 ; Mark v. 19, etcr 
 Cf. John xvii. 
 
 9. " Had" for " have had" =£ixoja€v } — "used to have." 
 " Have had" is as good an expression for it as we can com- 
 mand in English. 
 
 11. " Peaceable fruit . . . even the fruit of righteous- 
 ness" for "the peaceable fruit of righteousness." Another 
 wrestling with the article. See also ix. 1 ; xiii. 20, and Gal. 
 ii. 16, 20. Cf. 2 Tim. iii. 15, ad fin. 
 
 13. "That not" for ' i lest" = i'vtx jjlt[>. But cf. John xii. 
 40; 1 Tim. iii. 7; Rev. xvi. 15 ; Matt. xvii. 27; xxvi. 5, 
 etc. 
 
 17. "Desired" for "would have" = OeXgov, — "sought 
 to." (?) It is remarkable that in Spanish they use querer 
 (from the Latin quaere re), for the French vouloir, the Ger- 
 man wollen, the Latin volo, and the Greek 6e\gd. All these 
 correspond more nearly to our will than to our wish or 
 desire. 
 
 22, 23. From the Revisers' suggestion of " a Son of God" 
 at Matt. xxv. 54, and from the rendering " the Son of God" 
 at John x. 36; " sons of God" at Rom. viii. 14 ; "children 
 of God" at John i. 12 and John iii. 3; " sons of thunder," 
 Mark iii. 17 ; "son of exhortation," Acts iv. 36 ; "an un- 
 known God," Acts xvii. 23; "a root of all kinds of evil," 
 1 Tim. vi. 10, etc., etc., — it would have seemed only con- 
 sistent if, in this passage, they had translated: "But ye 
 are come to a mount Zion, and unto a city of a living God, 
 a heavenly Jerusalem, and to innumerable hosts of angels, 
 to a general assembly and church of men firstborn enrolled 
 in heaven, and to God a judge of all, and to spirits of just 
 men made perfect, and to Jesus a mediator of a new cov- 
 
HEBREWS. 151 
 
 enant, and to a blood of sprinkling," etc. At all events, if 
 it is to be, as they translate, " innumerable hosts of angels," 
 then it should also be " a general assembly and church of 
 men firstborn enrolled in heaven" ( — not "who are"); 
 and if it is to be "of a new covenant," then it should also 
 be "of a living God." Moreover, "who are enrolled" 
 and " made perfect" they put for perfect participles in the 
 Greek, — not " who have been" and " having been;" but cf. 
 Matt. v. 10, etc. 
 
 28. " Offer service well-pleasing" for " serve acceptably" 
 = XarpsvGDju8v evapecxrcos. Cf. Rom. xii. 1,2 — " accept- 
 able ;" also Matt. iv. 10; Luke i. 74; iv. 8; Acts vii. 7; 
 xxvi. 7 j xxvii. 23, etc. — "serve." 
 
 XIII. 
 
 1. " Love of the brethren" for " brotherly love" = cpika- 
 deXcpia. (?) 
 
 7. "Them that had the rule over you, which spake" for 
 ''them which have the rule over you, who have spoken"= 
 tgdv rjyovpdvGDV vpidoVy oi'Tives iXaXrjaav. The present 
 participle they here render as a past, and oirives by 
 "which" and not "the which;" — the change of "who" to 
 "which" seems to have contented them. The tfyovjj.svGDv 
 might be rendered "rulers," without regard to time (see 
 vii. 6) ; but i\a\rj6av should rather be rendered, with 
 A. V., as a perfect. The " rulers" spoken of were probably 
 still living and in office; see verse 17. The verb jj,vr/pio- 
 revGD means simply "think of," "bear in mind." 
 
 15. " Then" for "therefore." (?) "A sacrifice" for "the 
 sacrifice," and then "the fruit," — why? No article in 
 Greek, but see xii. 22, 23. 
 
 18. " Desiring" for "willing" = " seeking." (?) 
 
 20, 21. "The great shepherd . . . even our Lord 
 Jesus" for "our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd." What 
 need of Grecizing? Is the sense affected? "The" for 
 "that" is well enough, though trifling; cf. iv. 3; James ii. 
 14, etc., etc. 
 
1 82 VOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 JAMES. 
 
 I. 
 
 9. " In his high estate" for " in that he is exalted" = iv 
 r<p vipei avrov; and then " in that he is made low" = iv rrj 
 Ta7teivGD(7ei avrov. Cf. Luke i. 48, where they render this 
 very ranEivooGi^ " low estate." " Straightway" ! 
 
 11. "Ariseth," " withereth," " falleth," " perisheth," 
 are all for Greek aorists. 
 
 12. " Promised" for " hath promised," — aorist. (?) 
 
 15. "Then the lust, when it" for " then when lust . . . 
 it." (?) " The lust," "the sin," for" lust/' " sin,"— article 
 generic; — "mint, anise, cummin." 
 
 17. " Boon" for " gift. " There is no need of using two 
 English words, unless we have lit words to use. The two 
 Greek words are of the same etymology. " Shadow that 
 is cast by turning" for "shadow of turning" =Tp07tr/S 
 a7to6nia6jia. How does turning cast a shadow? The 
 A. V. is literal and correct. If we must have it explained 
 in the translation, we might say, " shadow whose direction 
 is changed by turning," or, better, "shadow that turneth;" 
 cf. verse 25, "a hearer that forgetteth = anpoarr)Z 
 £7nX?^(TjJ.ov?)£. 
 
 18. "Of his own will" = fiovXrfOeis,— notice "will," 
 not wish or desire. 
 
 20. " The wrath," " the righteousness," — no article in the 
 Greek. Why did they not say, " man's wrath worketh not 
 God's righteousness" ? Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 24, "the Lord's ser- 
 vant" faithfully substituted for " the servant of the Lord," 
 — thus making believe to get rid of the article. (?) 
 
 25. " The perfect law, the law of liberty" for "the per- 
 fect law of liberty" = vojxov rov rrjs sXsvdeplaZ. And 
 why not "a perfect law, the law," etc.? Cf. Gal. ii. 20; 
 Heb. ix. 1; xii. n; 1 Pet. i. 19.— " Being" = yevojuevoS, 
 — not "becoming;" " that forgetteth" for "forgetful," — 
 who is " forgetful" but he " that forgetteth" ? = rrj? ijrilijff- 
 jiovys : "that worketh" for "of the work," = {jtonpr]^) 
 
JAMES. 183 
 
 8pyov=" a doer of work," or "the doer of the work-" 
 cf. verse 20, etc. 
 
 27. " Himself " = one's self. Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 9. 
 
 II. 
 
 1. "Hold" for" have" = s'xsts. ■ Cf. Mark xi. 22; 
 Matt. xvii. 20; xxi. 21, etc., — "have faith." 
 
 4. "Are ye not divided . . . and become," — aorists ren- 
 dered as presents or perfects. " With" for " of ;" — " of" 
 is exact but ambiguous ; = xpiral SiaXoyiffjJodv norrfpoov 
 = " judges who are led by, or who think, evil thoughts." 
 For the construction, cf. i. 25. 
 
 5. "Did . . . choose" for " hath chosen ;" "promised" 
 for "hath promised," — aorists. (?) 
 
 6. "Have dishonored" for "have despised" = rjrifid- 
 (jccts : — aorist ; but is not " dishonored" rather too strong — 
 too positive — here? Cf. "disbelief." 
 
 8. " Howbeit if" for " if " = ei fxevroi. The pet " how- 
 beit" again ! It seems to stand ready for any Greek particle 
 somewhat obscure or idiomatic. Why not say here, "if 
 now," or "if then," or rather, " if indeed" ? See the fol- 
 lowing si de in the apodosis. 
 
 12. " Men that are to be judged by a law of liberty" for 
 M they that shall be judged by the law of liberty." What 
 is the advantage of " men that are to be" over "they that 
 shall be" ? And as to "a law" for "the law," cf. i. 20; 
 Heb. ix! 15 ; xii. 5, 22, 23, etc. 
 
 13. " Hath shewed" — an aorist. 
 
 14. " That faith" for " faith" = tf niarn .• but cf. verse 17. 
 18. " In itself " for " being alone" = uad eavrr/v. Say 
 
 "by itself;" the A. V. is not far wrong. 
 
 21. "In that" for "when" (he offered) = avEvtyxaS, — 
 "having offered ;" so verse 25. 
 
 22. " By works" = ex roov spy gov .- " faith" = r) niGTiS 
 How happened they to forget the articles? Surely it is: 
 "by the works was the faith made perfect," i.e., "by his 
 works was his faith," etc. 
 
1 84 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 III. 
 
 i. " Be not" =/**/ yivseOs — not " become." " Heavier 
 judgement" for "the greater condemnation." Does not 
 j.iBiB,ov itself show that xprjiot really means condemnation ? 
 With "judgement" they are compelled to assumo a change 
 in its proper meaning. 
 
 2. " The whole body also" = noci oXov to ffdopia. Why 
 didn't they say : " even the whole body" ? See Luke vii. 49. 
 
 6. " The world of iniquity among our members is the 
 tongue" = 6 x6o~/jo$ xrf< aSiniaS 7) yXdbo'O'a naQlararai 
 ev rolS f.dXeo'iy t/jagdv = " the world of iniquity doth the 
 tongue make itself among our members." They render 
 to oXov and oXov ro alike, " the whole." See verses 2 and 
 3, cf. Matt. xxii. 37; Luke x 27. 
 
 10. "Cometh forth" for " proceedeth" = e^ipx^rai. 
 But the Revisers very often render this verb by "go" in- 
 stead of "come" forth; in St. Matthew, for example, the 
 instances are two to one. See Matt. ix. 26, 31, 32, etc. 
 
 14. "Faction" (in your heart), for " strife" = epiOeiav. 
 Faction in the heart ? 
 
 15. (A wisdom that) " cometh down" for " descendeth" 
 = so~ri Karepxo/xtvr/. Why not "is coming down" or 
 " descending" ? or " is one that cometh down or descend- 
 eth." Cf. Col. iii. 10; Matt. xix. 22, also Heb. i. 1, etc. 
 
 IV. 
 
 4. " Maketh himself" for " is" =Ka6i6Tarai. But see 
 iii. 6. Consequential? — " straightway" ! 
 
 1. "Ye rich" for "ye rich men" = 01 7t\ov(Jioi. But 
 presumably they were men ; and if so the A. V. is the bet- 
 ter English. They might have said " ye who are rich," 
 very literally, and idiomatically also. 
 
 4. 'Who mowed," "reaped" for " have," etc. , equivalent 
 to "the mowers," "the reapers of." But, if put in the 
 
/. PETER. ' 185 
 
 verbal form, the more natural English in the connection is 
 in the perfect ; — observe " which is (not, which was) kept 
 back." 
 
 5, 6. "Have lived," "have taken," " have nourished,' ' 
 "have condemned," "have killed," — all aorists. So, at 
 verse 11, " have. heard," " have seen." 
 
 7. " The early and latter rain," — no article in the Greek. 
 
 10. Inversion of order, after the Greek, but not necessary 
 to faithfulness ; for the sense is the same, only the A. V. 
 follows the English idiom for emphasis. Cf. 2 Pet. iii. 1. 
 
 12. " The heaven," " the earth," for "heaven," "earth." 
 (?) Cf. Matt. xxiv. 35. 
 
 16. Having said "the supplication," where there is no 
 article with a nominative case, they might have rendered 
 eyspyovfxerr], "effectual" or "being effectual" (A. V.) in- 
 stead of " in its working." ("A righteous man's prayer 
 works with mighty effect.") 
 
 I. PETER. 
 
 t, 2. There is no Greek article in these verses, but the 
 Revisers have inserted " the" six times : " Elect" they have 
 separated from its connection with "according to," follow- 
 ing the Greek construction ; but is there any doubt of the 
 sense ? Here they seem to have felt the duty of being no 
 clearer than the original. 
 
 5. " A salvation" for " salvation" ? See verse 9 , where 
 they say "the salvation," though there is no more article 
 there than here. There, however, " salvation" is with a 
 genitive; but cf. Luke xix. 9 ; 1 Thess. v. 9 ; Heb. i. 14; ii. 
 3; vi. 9, etc., etc.; where they familiarly use "salvation" 
 in an absolute way ; — and it is here, at most, only a ques- 
 tion of punctuation. 
 
 6. " Have been put to grief" for " are in heaviness" = 
 \v7trjderT8S, — literally "were grieved," — aorist. 
 
 7. "Proof" for "trial" = Soki/xiov = "proving"? 
 " Though it is proved" for " though it be ;" — the proving is 
 not affirmed, but the Revision makes it seem so. 
 
1 86 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 12. " Have been announced"' for " are reported" = a^rjy- 
 yiXrf : two forms of the perfect, alike for an aorist. 
 
 19. Here is another of the characteristic elaborate inver- 
 sions to conform to the order of the Greek words. " With 
 precious blood .... even the blood of Christ" for "with 
 the precious blood of Christ." But is it really greater 
 faithfulness to the original, to say "precious blood, even the 
 blood," than to say " the precious blood"? If "even the 
 blood" may be implied, cannot " the" be implied, and that 
 too when followed by a genitive? But oh, the modern 
 mysteries of the Greek article ! Even if the order of the 
 Greek must be followed, we should still have, — " By the 
 precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without 
 spot, of Christ," i.e. (re-arranging) exactly as the A.V. stands. 
 
 20. Here a Greek perfect and an aorist are co-drdinated, 
 and both rendered in the preterite. 
 
 23. " Having been begotten" for " being born ;" — but see 
 " it is written." 
 
 24. " Withereth," " falleth,"— aorists. 
 
 II. 
 
 2. " Spiritual" for " of the word" = Xoyinov. Marg. 
 "reasonable." So, most of the former translations. The 
 A. V. follows the Geneva version. It is remarkable that 
 for the same word at Rom. xii. 1, the Revisers put "reason- 
 able" in the text and " spiritual" in the margin. 
 
 7. " Was made" for " is made" (or " has been made") = 
 iysvi^Orf. (?) 
 
 9. " For God's own possession" for " peculiar;" — but his 
 own is the peculiar meaning of peculiar," from peculium. 
 
 10. " Which had not obtained mercy, but now have ob- 
 tained mercy" = 01 ovu ?jXerj/j.8roi, vvv St eXarjOevres. 
 Note the tenses, and compare i. 20. 
 
 11. " Which" = airives, — not "the which," nor "for 
 they," cf. Heb. x. 8, 11. 
 
 12. "Seemly" for "honest." Is this seemly ? Why not 
 say " honorable" or " becoming ?" 
 
 15. " By" for "with." But with or in is certainly more 
 
/. PETER. 187 
 
 consonant to the participial construction than " by;" " with 
 well doing" = aya6o7toiovvras. 
 
 19. " Acceptable" for " thankworthy," marg. " Gr. grace ;" 
 say rather " Gr. thanks." 
 
 24. " Having died unto sins" for a being dead to sins" = 
 anoyevofxevoi ? — two forms of the perfect, but the former 
 having a preterite meaning. 
 
 25. "Ye were going astray like sheep" for "ye were as 
 sheep going astray. ' ' Gr. ' ' as sheep ye were going astray.' ' 
 "Are now returned" = e7rearpa<p^re vvv. 
 
 III. 
 
 4. "A meek," etc. = rov Ttpaeos, etc. How happened 
 their faithfulness not to say, "the meek and quiet spirit ?" 
 Cf. "The sower," etc.; see v. 11, and "the weeping and 
 gnashing," etc. They insert " apparel" for "ornament;" 
 but the gender and number in the original require the latter. 
 
 6. "Ye now are" for "ye are= eyevrjdrjTe. Aorist and 
 no vvv : cf. ii. 7, where "was made" for " is made." 
 
 12. " Upon" for " against." The rendering of iiti should 
 of course be changed according to its connection. Does 
 " upon" give the sense here in English ? 
 
 14. "But and if," again; here for aXk si xai. See 1 
 Cor. vii. 11 and 2 Cor. iv. 3. 
 
 20. " Wherein" = sis rjv. Marg. to be preferred, i.e. 
 "entering into which." 
 
 21. " Interrogation" = eTtspGorrjpia. Marg. better, i.e. 
 "the appeal of a good conscience to God." (Note, if it 
 was the ark that saved the others, i.e. brought them safely 
 through the water, how should it be "after a true likeness" 
 that the water should now save us ? It would seem that it 
 must be, not the water that saves, but baptism in its con- 
 crete spiritual sense, as an act of faith and of a gpod con- 
 science.) 
 
 IV. 
 
 1. " Suffered" = naOovroZ, by the preterite when spoken 
 of Christ ; " hath suffered" = rtadoov, by the perfect, of the 
 
188 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 Christian. What becomes then of the faithfulness of per- 
 sistently rendering anlOave, " died," when speaking of the 
 Christian as well as of Christ ? 
 
 3. "And to have walked" for "when we walked" = 
 7C£7rop£voj.iivovZ = "having walked" or "while we have 
 walked." Cf. the change made in verse 8, in just the con- 
 trary sense. 
 
 5. "Who;" but is not this ambiguous? Why did they 
 not render, "and they" or "but they" or "for they," as 
 they do sometimes elsewhere ? 
 
 6. " Even to the dead" for " also to them that are dead" 
 = noil vexpoiS : i.e. "to them also that are (now) dead ;" 
 say, then, " to the dead also.'" 
 
 10. " Hath received " == an aorist. "A gift" for "the 
 gift" =x<xP l( ?M a - ( ? ) Cf. v. 1. 
 
 11. "Any man" = rz5, — not "any one." "As it were 
 oracles of God" for " as the oracles of God" = gdG \6yia 
 Geou. Cf. v. 1, and prjpia ©sou at Heb. vi. 5 and xi. 3, and 
 see John vi. 6& ; James v. 16, etc. See also " the manifold 
 grace of God," just before, without Greek article; and 
 why should go? be rendered "as" immediately before and 
 after, but "as it were" here ? 
 
 V. 
 
 1. "The elders," — no article; in the direct accusative. 
 Cf. Eph. iii. 15. 
 
 2. "Of constraint" for " by constraint" = avayuaGTGoZ. 
 Wherefore the change? Did they suppose that " by con- 
 straint" might be understood for " by constraining" ? So 
 may "of constraint" be understood for "of constraining" 
 if one will. But the next words forbid any such interpre- 
 tation. 
 
 4. "Shall receive" = MOjutieiffOe, — not, "receive again." 
 But see Matt. xxv. 27; Eph. vi. 8; Col. iii. 25; Heb. xi. 
 19; where they put "receive back" or "again," for "re- 
 ceive;" while at i. 9 ; 2 Cor. v. 10 ; Heb. x. 36; xi. 39, they 
 render as here, simply "receive." 
 
 5. "To serve one another" == a\Xi}\oiZ, " for" or "to- 
 wards one another." They use no italics here. 
 
//. PETER. 189 
 
 9. Marg. " Gr. being accomplished" = smreXeiaOai = 
 "to be accomplished." Do they mean that it is, " to be 
 being accomplished" ? 
 
 12. " Have written " = eypaipa. 
 
 II. PETER. 
 
 1, 3. " That have obtained" = roH Xaxovffi (aorist),*and 
 then (3) " that called" for " that hath called" = rov xa\i- 
 Gavroi. " Virtue" = aperf/i .- — being referred to God, it 
 had better be "excellency," as at 1 Pet. ii. 9. 
 
 7. " In love of the brethren supply love" for "to brother- 
 ly kindness add charity." If "love" is to be substituted 
 for "charity" = ayanr/, "brotherly kindness" is surely 
 better than " love of the brethren," not only for sound's 
 sake, but because the Greek word (cpiXia) for the love that 
 is " kindness" is different from that {ayocnrj) for the " love" 
 that is "charity." The simple reader might, from the 
 Revision, suppose them to be the same ; and then be puz- 
 zled to know how, "in love of the brethren," "love" was 
 to be "supplied." And, in general, this "supplying in" 
 may be very good Greek, but after all "adding to" ex- 
 presses the same sense in better English. 
 
 12. "Are established" = sarr/piy/j-srov?, — not "have 
 been established." 
 
 14. " Signified" for " hath showed" = eStjXgqgs. But there 
 is nothing expressed about the mode of showing, — no sign 
 or token referred to. Cf. Rev. i. 1. 
 
 18. "We ourselves" for " we" = r/}A.e zS" .• but cf. Tit. iii. 
 3, where they correct just contrariwise. 
 
 II. 
 
 12. "Creatures without reason, born mere animals" for 
 " natural brute beasts, made," etc. There is nothing in the 
 text of " creatures, " and " mere animals" is put for "natural 
 beasts" {Zcba (pvGiKa). Does the slight change of order 
 in the new text necessitate all this change, and is it an im- 
 provement ? If %6ba is to be rendered " living creatures," 
 
190 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 it does not follow that we can drop the " living" and retain 
 the "creatures." "Living" is the essence of the original 
 word, and " creatures" no more belongs to it, and has no 
 more right to represent it, than would " things" or ''ob- 
 jects," after having been inserted with " living." 
 
 15. "Went astray, having followed" for "have gone 
 astray, following." (Aorists.) But did they "follow" be- 
 fore "forsaking the right way," and before they "went 
 astray" ? And why did the Revisers not say " a right way" 
 as well as " a root of evil" ? They have no article in their 
 text, and it is a direct accusative, without a genitive. 
 
 16. "A dumb ass spake with man's voice and stayed "for 
 "the dumb ass speaking with man's voice forbad" = V7to~ 
 Zvyiov aqxjovov, ev av^poonov (poovij (pBeygajievov, 
 £KGo\v(?e. For the article, compare " the dog" and "the' 
 sow," at verse 22; and for the construction of the partici- 
 ple, as well as for the article, compare " forsaking the right 
 way" at verse 15. 
 
 17. " Hath been reserved" for " is reserved ;" but see " it 
 is written ;" and see next below. 
 
 19. " Is overcome," "is brought," — perfects. 
 
 20,21. "After they have escaped," — aorist participle. 
 " After knowing" for " after they have known," — also an 
 aorist participle. 
 
 22. Why not translate faithfully, and say: *' a dog when 
 he turned upon his own vomit again, and a sow when she 
 washed herself to wallowing in mire" ? 
 
 III. 
 
 1. "This is now, beloved, the second epistle that I write 
 unto you ; and in both of them," etc., for " This second 
 epistle, beloved, I now write unto you, in both which," etc. 
 The A. V. is here an exact literal translation of the Greek, 
 unless the position of the " now" should be called in ques- 
 tion ; and is it not intelligible, if the R. V. is ? What then 
 of "faithfulness" ? In the original, "epistle" is in the ac- 
 cusative case after "write," and there is neither " is" nor 
 " that ;" and the whole phrase of the R. V., "and in both 
 of them," is, in the Greek, simply iv ah, as in A. V., "in 
 
//. PETER. 191 
 
 both which. " It may be said the literal translation is harsh 
 and the R. V. is smoother ; but this the Revisers can scarcely 
 urge without abundant self-contradiction. Cf. Mark v. 15 ; 
 Actsxxvi. 24; Rom. i. 3, 4 ; viii. 28, 38, 39 ; Gal. ii. 9; Eph. 
 v. 12, 20; Heb. x. 20 ; Ja. v. 10, etc. 
 
 2. " Should" for " may." Why ? 
 
 3. " That in the last days mockers shall come" for "that 
 there shall come in the last days scoffers" = on iXevaovrai 
 in eGx^TGor tgov rj}j.epGQV ijxnainrai. The A. V. follows 
 the exact order and sense of the original. The " with 
 mockery" of the new reading could be added perfectly well 
 after " scoffers" or "mockers." Do the Revisers pretend 
 to set English euphony against the order and form of the 
 Greek text? 
 
 5. "That there were heavens from of old, and an earth 
 compacted out of water and amidst water, by the word of 
 God ; by which means," etc. Transposing the phrase " by 
 the word of God," a very literal translation of the Greek 
 would stand thus : " That, by the word of God, heaven was 
 from of old, and earth of water and in water consisting ; 
 by means of which," etc. One would understand from the 
 Revision — and perhaps it was intended to be so understood 
 — that the " compacting" (<?vve(TTGD(Ta== " consisting"), and 
 not " heaven and earth," was " by the word of God ;" and 
 "by which means" (Si gov) might in English be also re- 
 ferred to " the word of God," instead of the conditions of 
 the earth as related to water. 
 
 9. ' ' Not wishing' ' for "not willing"= jut} fiovXojuevoS. (?) 
 Cf. 3 John 13. " Not designing," or "not intending," or 
 ' * not being pleased. ' ' " Wishing' ' seems too idle a thing to 
 predicate of God. 
 
 14. " In his sight" for " of him," = avrop. 
 
 16. "All his epistles" = nocGaiS €7rz(?To\aiZ. Cf. Rev. 
 iii. 2. " Ignorant" for " unlearned" = ajdaSeiS, " Igno- 
 rant" is elsewhere always a translation from ayvokoo. 
 
 17. " Lest" = iv a jatj. See Heb. xii. 13, note. 
 
192 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 I. JOHN. 
 
 I. 
 
 1. " Beheld" for "have looked upon" (cf. John iv. 35). 
 It is not likely that the apostle means to make a distinction 
 between the time of the " seeing" and of the "beholding," 
 although he says ioopaua^ev and e6eaaajj.eda : — both 
 forms being so used in Greek as to be properly expressed 
 by our perfect, while our preterite and perfect are not thus 
 interchangeable. For some of the cases in which the Re- 
 visers have rendered the Greek aorist and perfect co-ordi- 
 nated as perfects, cf. Acts xxv. 10, 11; xxi. 21-24; John 
 xiii. 14, 15 ; Matt. xxvi. 12, 13 (an aorist as a preterite and 
 then a perfect); Phil. iii. 12; iv. 11, 12; Rev. xviii. 2, 3; 
 and especially Acts xxii. 15. The repetition of "that which" 
 is unnecessary and not literal. " What" might have been 
 literal, and, so, repeated. 
 
 2. " The life, the eternal life" for "that eternal life" = 
 rrjv S,Gor/v rrjv azaoviov. But see the " daily bread" of the 
 Lord's Prayer, etc. As for the construction and the em- 
 phatic " that" of the A. V., cf. Eph. i. 13, 19; James ii. 14, 
 etc. 
 
 II. 
 
 5. "Hath been perfected" for "is perfected" = rersXei- 
 corai. Cf. TETtXsGTai, John xix. 30, and see below, iv. 
 12, 17, and v. 1 ; where we have rereXeiGopLevrf effriv ren- 
 dered " is perfected," and this very rersXsiGJTai rendered 
 " is made perfect," and ye-yewr/Tai rendered " is be- 
 gotten." 
 
 7. " No new commandment write I" for " I write no new 
 commandment." But cf. 2. Thess. iii. 2, where the order 
 of the Greek is (what there, too, logic requires) " not all 
 have faith." Here one order is as logical and as intelligible 
 as the other, with precisely the same sense. If emphasis is 
 appealed to, it will apply in Thess. as well as here. 
 
 8. " Write I" for " I write." Oh, exquisite faithfulness! 
 11. " Hath blinded," — an aorist. 
 
/. JOHN. 193 
 
 13, 14. " Have written" (tris) — an aorist. 
 
 15. " Any man" = rz;, — not their usual " any one." 
 
 18. " Heard" for " have heard/' (?) 
 
 19. The marg., "That not all are of us," is singularly 
 aro7tor y as being contrary to the order of the Greek and 
 inconsistent with the manifest sense and logic of the pas- 
 sage. Cf. 2 Thess. iii. 2, also 1 Cor. vi. 12. 
 
 24. " Heard from the beginning" for " have heard," etc. 
 
 26. " Have I written," — an aorist. " Would lead astray" 
 for " seduce" = 7t\av gov tody. There is nothing for 
 ■ ■ would ; ' ' — faithfulness. 
 
 27. " Received," " taught," for "have," etc. (?) 
 
 28. "At his coming" = iv rrj napovaia. Cf. Phil. ii. 10, 
 ev tg3 ovojxari ItjGov. 
 
 III. 
 
 1. "For this cause" for " therefore" = did tovto, and 
 then "because" (euphony?). They themselves render did 
 rouro by " therefore" at iv. 5 ; Matt. vi. 25 ; xii. 27 ; xiii. 
 13,52; xiv. 2 ; xviii. 23 ; xxi. 43 ; xxiv. 44 ; Mark vi. 14 ; xi. 
 24 ; Luke xi. 19, 49 ; xii. 22 ; xiv. 20; John ix. 23 ; xiii. 11 ; 
 xv. 19; xvi. 15; xix. 11 ; Acts ii. 26; 2 Cor. iv. 1 ; vii. 13; 
 2 Tim. ii. 10 ; Philemon 15 ; Heb. i. 9; ii. 1 ; Rev. vii. 15; 
 xii. 12 ; xviii. 8; and at John x. 17, where it is followed by 
 "because," just as it is here. They have put " for this 
 cause" instead of " therefore" at Mark xii. 24 ; John i. 31 ; 
 v. 16, 18 ; vi. 65 ; vii. 22 ; viii. 47 ; xii. 39 ; Rom. iv. 16 ; 2 
 Cor. xiii. 10; 1 Thess. iii. 7, and here. Under these circum- 
 stances of course Greek scholarship can decide nothing. 
 Let every intelligent reader, noting the context in each 
 case, say whether it was not possible to avoid making these 
 changes consistently with faithfulness. To my own appre- 
 hension they are not even improvements in any sense or 
 degree ; but, in the case before us, for example, the change 
 seems to me decidedly and entirely for the worse. At all 
 events, think of "straightway," and remember that Sid 
 ravrrjv airiav is the proper Greek for "for this cause;" 
 see Acts xxviii. 20, etc. 
 
194 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 3. " Every one" for " every man." Cf. ii. 15. 
 
 4. " Every one that " for " whosoever" = neks 6. This is 
 a frequent correction of the faithfulness of the Revisers. 
 But see the 6th, 9th, 10th, and 15th verses of this very 
 chapter, where we have " whosoever" for 71 as 6 five times 
 over. 
 
 8. " To this end"' for " for this purpose" = ezV rovro. To 
 what purpose the change ? 
 
 9. " Is begotten" (bis) for the perfect. Cf. ii. 5. 
 
 16. "Hereby know we love," — rrfv ayanr/v = " his 
 love"? "He" immediately follows without antecedent. 
 But cf. Rom. v. 9, " The wrath of God" = rfj? opyr/S. 
 
 17. " Beholdeth" is dragged in again for BeGjprj : but 
 with it they have " shutteth up" for xXelffrj. How happened 
 they to overlook that this last is an aorist and requires 
 "shall shut up"? 
 
 24. " Gave" for "hath given." (?) 
 
 IV. 
 
 6. "Who for "that;" why? " Heareth us not" for 
 " heareth not us;" why ? Faithfulness ! In " heareth us," 
 here, the "us" is not enclitic, but has an accent or empha- 
 sis ; and therefore in the contrasted phrase " heareth not 
 us," propriety of utterance requires "us" to come last. 
 
 4. "That hath overcome" for "that overcometh" = 
 r) vinrjGaGa, literally, "that overcame." See verse 6, "that 
 came" = iXBojv : and verse iS, o yevvrjSefc = " that was 
 begotten ;" and this last is expressly contradistinguished 
 from a perfect participle, o yeyevv??jU£vo$, which is ren- 
 dered "is begotten." Why not then, here, say, "that 
 overcometh," if it is once assumed that 1) vinrfGaGa maybe 
 rendered as if it were a perfect or present ? And see Matt. 
 iii. 17, "in whom I am well pleased." 
 
 9. *" For the witness of God is this, that he hath borne 
 witness," etc., for " For this is the witness of God, which 
 
//. JOHN.— III. JOHN. 195 
 
 he hath testified," etc. Their Greek will permit the render- 
 ing, " For this is the witness of God (for he hath borne wit- 
 ness," etc.) See verse 11 for the content of the testimony ; 
 and see 2 John 6 for the construction of " this." 
 
 16. " Not concerning this do I say that he should make 
 request" for " I do not say that he should pray for it" = 
 ov Ttepl €K€ivr/? Xiyao i'va £pGorr}ar\. Cf. 2 Thess. iii. 2, etc. 
 
 19. " Lieth in the evil one" for " lieth in wickedness"= 
 iv rep rtovrjpcp. (? ?) Grant the sense ; is this English ? 
 
 II. JOHN. 
 
 4. "I rejoice" for "I rejoiced" = excxprjv : with "have 
 found" for " found," perfect. Cf. 3 John 3. " Command- 
 ment" for " a commandment" = ivt oXr/v. But what's the 
 difference ? And if there is any, how did the Greek deter- 
 mine for them which to prefer ? As for the rendering of 
 the perfect by "found" in the A. V., cf. Gal. iii. 17 ; Heb. 
 xi. 17, 28; 2 Cor. ii. 13 ; John vi. 25; Matt. xiii. 46; 1 Pet. 
 i. 20; Mark xv. 47 (plup. ?). 
 
 7. " Are gone forth" — an aorist. "Even they that con- 
 fess not" for "who confess not" = 01 jjirf ojxoKoyovvrsi, 
 Cf. Rom. ix. 5 ; John xix. 39, etc., etc. 
 
 III. JOHN. 
 
 5. "A faithful work in" for " faithfully" = niGrov. 
 There is no word for "work." " Doest" = noieiS and 
 \£pyaGr} alike. Render, "thou doest faithfully whatever 
 thou workest" ? 
 
 7. "The name" for "his name" = rov ovojuatoZ. (?) 
 " His name" in St. John's language means Christ's name, 
 and that is what is meant here. 
 
 13. "Am unwilling"- for "will not" = ov $£\gq. Cf. 2 
 Peter iii. 9, where they say of the Lord " not wishing." 
 
196 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION 
 
 JUDE. 
 
 I. They say "Jude" in the title and then "Judas" in the 
 text. Is the epistle ascribed to the wrong person ? " For 
 Jesus Christ" for " in Jesus Christ." The iv naturally and 
 probably goes over from iv Qecp narpi : or else " Jesus 
 Christ" may be in the instrumental dative. How happened 
 they thus to transpose " called" from its proper position in 
 the text ? 
 
 3. "I was constrained" for " it was needful for me" = 
 avayKrjv iffxov. The " diligence" is consistent with 
 "need," but is it with "constraint"? 
 
 4. " Even they who" for " who" =01. But cf. verse 6, 
 John xix. 39; Rom. ix. 5, etc. "Were set forth" for 
 " were ordained" = 01 npoy&ypajjijjievoi. Where does " set 
 forth" come from ? And why did they not say " have been 
 set forth" ? This is a perfect participle, and belongs to the 
 subject of another (English) perfect, — not a preterite. Cf. 
 Rev. v. 12. 
 
 5. "A people" for "the people" = Xaov, i.e. Xaov 
 'lffpar/\. The Israelites are plainly referred to ; and " the 
 people" is the more natural English. 
 
 10. "Whatsoever things" for "those things which" = 
 06a — "as many things as." Immediately after, they (with 
 the A. V.) render 00 'a by " what." If "whatsoever" dif- 
 fers from "what" or " those which," one or the other of 
 their renderings is wrong, and their change from the A. V. 
 is without reason, or worse. " Creatures without reason" 
 for "brute beasts" = aXoya Zdba. But Zoba does not 
 mean mere "creatures,? but "animals" or "beasts," or, at 
 most, " living creatures ;" and the " living" is essential. 
 
 II. "Woe unto them;" — better, "alas for them." 
 " Went" for " have gone," and so on ; but these aorists are 
 required, by their relation to presents, to be rendered as 
 perfects. 
 
 13. "Hath been reserved" for "is reserved;" but see "it 
 is written." 
 
 15. "Have wrought," "have spoken," — aorists. 
 
 24. "To, set without blemish" for " to present faultless" 
 
REVELATION. 197 
 
 = arrfaai cxjjgjjxovs. (?) " Without stumbling" for " from 
 falling" = anraifftovi. See also " stumble," James iii. 2 ; 
 but compare anavdakiB,oo and " straightway." 
 
 REVELATION. 
 
 I. 
 
 1. "Signified" — effrf/xaivsv .- right, but cf. 2 Peter i. 14. 
 
 4. "Which is to come" =0 epxopisvos : right, but cf. 
 Matt. xi. 3 ; Heb. x. 37, etc. 
 
 5, 6. " Loosed" and " made" for "hath," etc. (?) 
 9, 10. "I was" = eyevo/tr/v. 
 
 13. "A son of man" for "the Son of man" = via* 
 av$pGD7tov. But see " the voice of many waters" at verse 
 15 ; and see ii. 18 : — He was " the Son of God." 
 
 15. " As if it had been refined" for "as if they burned" 
 = 7t£7tvpGDfA.evrji for 7C87tvpGO}A,8voi. What is the syntax of 
 this reading? What is the " it" which " had been refined" ? 
 " Brass" ? But x a ^ K0 ^ l fi(xvcp is of the neuter gender. The 
 Vatican ms. and Tischendorf (3d) read as A. V. " As the 
 voice of many waters" = gJs cpoovr} y etc. Why not "a 
 voice"? Cf. verse 13, and vi. 1. 
 
 II. 
 
 2-9. Here are six aorists co-ordinatea with two perfects, 
 all of which should be rendered as perfects. Cf. Acts xxi. 
 21-24; Phil. iii. 12; iv. 11, 12; John xiii. 14, 15; Matt, 
 xxvi. 12, 13; Rev. xxviii. 2, 3 ; Acts xxv. 10, 11 ; Mark v. 
 19 ; Heb. xii. 45. 
 
 9. " A synagogue" for " the synagogue," — predicate. 
 
 12. " The sharp two-edged sword" for " the sharp sword 
 with two edges" = rrjv po/tcpcxiav rrjv 6iffro/,iov rrjv 
 o^siav. How important the difference! How impossible 
 consistently with faithfulness to avoid the change ! And 
 how could they consistently with faithfulness fail to say : 
 "the sharp, the two-edged sword," or rather, "the sword, 
 even the two-edged, the sharp one" ? Let us, by all means, 
 have the full force of the Greek ; did they not see all those 
 
198 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 articles ? Surely they are not so repeated for nothing ; and 
 cf. the next verse. 
 
 13. "My witness, my faithful one" for " my faithful 
 martyr" = 6 juaprvs piov 6 niffro? }xov. Cf. the " daily 
 bread" of the Lord's Prayer. And as for the term "mar- 
 tyr," this was plainly a "martyr" in the full modern sense, 
 i.e., one who died in attestation of the truth. 
 
 23. "Each one of you" for " every one of you." The 
 Revisers often render euaGros by " every," and if it may 
 be so rendered anywhere, why not here ? 
 
 III. 
 
 2. "Be thou watchful" for "be watchful" = yivov 
 ypr/yopc^v. "Works of thine" for "thy works" == Gov 
 spy a. Very nice; but cf. 2 Cor. vi. 16; Eph. ii. 10; Rom. 
 ix. 7 ; 2 Pet. iiL 16. 
 
 3. A co-ordinated perfect and aorist here distinguished. 
 See ii. 2-9, note. 
 
 4. Did not defile" for "have not defiled." (?) 
 
 5. "In no wise" for " not" = ov jxrf. But at verse 3 
 they had just rendered these particles by the simple " not." 
 
 8. "A door opened" for "an open door" =2'vpav ave- 
 wyp.ivr(v. How necessary to faithfulness! "That" for 
 "for"— on. This may be well here ; cf. verses 2 and 4. 
 Here are two aorists, and another at verse 10, which should 
 have been rendered perfects instead of preterites, as appears 
 from their connection and co-ordination with verbs in the 
 present as well as in the perfect tense. 
 
 12. " I will write upon him" is omitted; but is the sense 
 expressed clearly ? Is the omission ?iecessary to " faithful- 
 ness" ? 
 
 17. " Have gotten riches" for" am increased in goods" = 
 
 7T€7C\oVT7}Ha. (?) 
 
 19. The emphatic iyoo is not so rendered; cf. 2 Pet. 
 i. 18. 
 
 IV. 
 
 2. "There was a throne set" for " a throne was set" = 
 J9-poVo5 i'ueiTo. Say : "a throne was set, and there was one 
 
REVELATION. 199 
 
 sitting upon the throne." " There was" does not belong 
 where they have put it. It implies k£ijj.£voS (for eHSiro), 
 like the following na^-q^LEvoi. Cf. Matt. ii. 18. 
 
 3. "To look upon" for " in sight" = opaffsi. Faithful? 
 
 4. "Thrones" for "seats;" literal consequential faithful- 
 ness. But is it not rather "seats" always, if vsemust always 
 have one word ? We have two English words for the one 
 Greek word ; but, while every " throne" in English is a 
 "seat," not every "seat" is a "throne." 
 
 7. " Creature" = 3,gdov : again, without " living." How 
 is the English reader to know that these " creatures" in the 
 7th verse are living, as well as those in the 6th and the 8th ? 
 And see " straightway;" also Acts xxvi. 24, 25 ; 1 Cor. xv. 
 27, 28. 
 
 V. 
 
 3. " In the heaven" for " in heaven" =ev too ovpavcd : 
 but cf. iv. 1, where they say " in heaven" for the same iv 
 tgo ovpavcp. 
 
 6. " As though it had been slain" for " as it had been slain." 
 But cf. viii. 8 ; Acts vi. 15 ; ix. 18 ; andx. 11, where they in- 
 troduce no " though." 
 
 7. "Came and taketh" for "came and took," — marg # 
 "hath taken" = rf\$s xai €iA.r/cpe. What contortions! 
 Manifestly these two tenses are here co-ordinated, and are 
 bo*th to be rendered as perfect, or both as preterite. 
 
 n. "Ten thousand times ten thousand" is equal only to 
 jxvpiai juvpiaSoDv. Mvpiaues juvpiadoov should be ren- 
 dered " ten thousands of ten thousands." "Ten thousand 
 times ten thousand" is just 100,000,000; but fivpiade* 
 jAvpiadoov is several times 100,000,000; and is, I believe, 
 the largest expression of number found in the Bible. The 
 " two myriads of myriads" of ix. 16 is the least number 
 included under this plural. 
 
 12. " Great voice" for " loud voice" = qxjovrj jueyaXr?. It 
 is curious that the Revisers make everybody in the book of 
 the Revelation, whether man or angel, cry with a "great" 
 voice. They have changed " loud" to " great" twelve times ; 
 but in one instance, at xix. 17, — by way of being " straight- 
 way" consistent — they let the angel cry with a " loud" voice. 
 
200 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 In the other books of the New Testament, they always let 
 people cry with, a "loud" voice, — an expression which, in 
 those books, occurs some twenty times. The original word 
 is the same throughout. One is tempted to inquire what 
 there was special in the air of the Apocalypse which hinder- 
 ed a "great" voice from being " loud" ? 
 
 13. " The blessing, the honour," etc., for " blessing, hon- 
 our," etc.; and so at iv. 11 ; v. 13, etc. But cf. vii. 10, 12 
 and xix. 1, where they omit the articles ; and so make the 
 current, as well as the good old, English. But see "the 
 weeping and gnashing" at Matt. viii. 12, etc. 
 
 VI. 
 
 1. "As with a voice of thunder" for "as it were the noise 
 of thunder" = go? cpoovr] (not <pGovr}$) ppovrrjS = " as it 
 were the voice of thunder." For "as it were" see viii. 8, 
 and for " the voice" (not " a voice") see i. 15. 
 
 2. "Came forth" for " went forth" = i£r}\$8. "There 
 was given" for "was given." (?) — As to ca?ne or went, the 
 question is whether the movement is to be conceived as 
 towards the speaker, or as across his vision, — or, perhaps, 
 away from him j and whether from an objective or subjec- 
 tive point of view. 
 
 3. "Opened" for " had opened." But either may be used ; 
 and so the A. V. used both. As to the Revision, cf. v. 8 and 
 x. 10, for examples of the pluperfect rendering. 
 
 4. " And another horse came forth, a red horse" for " and 
 there went out another horse, that was red" = egf/XSev aXXo? 
 i7t7to? 7tvpp0b. For the order, cf. the next clause and 
 verse 2. Is " a horse, a red horse" better than "a horse, that 
 was red" ? And if the A. V may be interpreted as mean, 
 ing " another red horse," so may the R. V., after all. 
 
 8. " With" = fV (tris). 
 
 9. "Had been slain" for "were slain" = ecrcpayjutvaov. 
 But these are merely two forms in English for the same 
 tense. The A. V. is the simpler and more natural. Cf. xx. 
 12, "out of the things which were written" = ex. tgov ysy- 
 pa}i}J.tvGJv. And compare vii. 5-8, where iacppaywpiLvoi 
 
REVELATION. 201 
 
 is rendered "were sealed" twelve times, though "were 
 
 sealed," there, can scarcely be understood as pluperfect. 
 
 12. " There was" = iysvero, — not " came" or " followed," 
 
 cf. viii. 1, etc. 
 
 VII. 
 
 1. "That no wind should" for "that the wind should 
 not" = iva jut) nvk-q avs/ios = " that wind should not 
 blow." Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 9 and Luke xxii. 34. An articular 
 throe. 
 
 2. " Great" for "loud" (voice), again. See v. 12, note. 
 
 3. " Till we shall have sealed" for " till we have sealed." 
 But one is only the shortened, and the ordinary and easy, 
 form for the other. Cf. their own translation at John viii. 
 28; Rom. xi. 25; Gal. iv. 19 ("be" for "shall be"); 1 Cor. 
 xi. 26, " come" for " shall come;" etc., etc. 
 
 12. "Blessing and glory and wisdom," etc. Here they 
 at length omit the articles with which they encumber the 
 sense elsewhere. Cf. iv. 11 ; v. 13, etc. ; also Matt. viii. 12, 
 etc., " the weeping." 
 
 14. "I say" for " I said" = eiprjua, followed immediately 
 by the co-ordinated £Z7T£=" he said." (?) 
 
 15. " Spread his tabernacle" for " dwell." Cf. xxi. 3, and 
 
 John i. 14. 
 
 VIII. 
 
 1. "There followed a silence" for "there was silence" = 
 iyevero 6iyr). But see verse 7 and vi. 12 and xvi. 18. And 
 what would be the Greek for "silence," which should be 
 neither "the silence" nor " a silence" ? "In heaven" = 
 iv top ovpavo). 
 
 2. "There were given unto them" for "to them were 
 given" =ido^T]Gav avtoiS. Cf. Matt. x. 32, 33, and Mark 
 iii. 17, "them he surnamed" for "he surnamed them" = 
 ine^fjKSv avroii ovopiara. 
 
 3. "Add it unto the prayers" for " offer [give] it with 
 the prayers." So the margin of A. V. But cf. the next 
 verse, where they say " with the prayers" for the very same 
 construction, i.e. the simple dative with a verb of action. 
 
 5. "Taketh" for " took" = eilr?cpev, "and filled" = 
 iy£fiii(7€v. Here again we have a perfect coordinated with 
 
202 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 an aorist, where both should be translated either in the 
 perfect or in the, preterite (see note, ii. 2-9). "Followed" 
 for " were" = eytrovro. • but cf. xvi. iS, etc. It is true 
 that, in verse 7, the A. V. put "followed" for eytvero; but 
 they professedly study variety; and why should the Re- 
 visers change in some places, while yet they retain the 
 variety? Remember "straightway." 
 
 9. " Even they that had" for " that had" = ra e'xovra. 
 This follows the change of case; but does it give the real 
 sense ? Is it meant that all that had life died ? or only a 
 third part of them ? 
 
 10. " From heaven a great star," — ex rov ovpavov. See 
 also ix. 1. Not " out of heaven," nor " out of the heaven." 
 
 IX. 
 
 1. " Heaven" and "the earth;" — both with articles in 
 the Greek. Cf. vi. 13, and Acts iv. 24. 
 
 6. "Men shall seek" for [then] "shall men seek" = 
 8,riTr)6 ov 6 iv oi av$pGQ7roz. "In no wise" for " not" = 
 ov p.7). But cf. iii. 3, etc. 
 
 7. '' Men's faces" for "the faces of men" = npoaoonoc 
 avSpo!)7tGQr, — as though, in English, the one did not imply 
 the article which the other expresses. Is not the. change 
 s\m\j\.y puerile ? And why did not the learned Revisers say 
 " women's hair" for "the hair of women" = r/)/j»; yvv- 
 aixoov, immediately afterwards? According to their ap- 
 parent principles of translation one would have a right to 
 infer that there was an article with " the hair" and none 
 with " faces." Yet they are inconsistent even with their ap- 
 parent principle ; for, at x. 10, they render ex rip %eip6z 
 rov ayytXov "out of the angel's hand;" while at Matt, 
 xii. 40, they change " the whale's belly" into "the belly of 
 the whale." And then, too, what becomes of the articular 
 precision of "the Lord's servant" at 2 Tim. ii. 24? 
 
 9. "War" for " battle" = noXe}xov. But the context 
 requires "battle." See note, 1 Cor. xiv. 8. 
 
 14. "At the great river Euphrates" = tg3 rtorapicp rep 
 peyaXcp Evq)parr\. Why did they not say : " the river, 
 even the great," etc. ? Cf. xiv. 19, etc. 
 
RE VELA TION. 203 
 
 17. "Breastplates as of fire" for "breastplates of fire." 
 The A. V. is faithful. " As heads of lions" follows in the 
 Greek with gdZ : there is therefore a difference in the two 
 cases. "Like brimstone" they might have said, for the 
 Greek has Seioodeis. 
 
 19, 20. "With" = £V (bis). 
 
 20. "Devils and the idols" = ra dai)j.ovia xai ra 
 ei'dooXa — alike with the article in the Greek. 
 
 X. 
 
 1. " Arrayed" for " clothed" = 7tepi/3e/3X^juevov. Why 
 didn't they say, " enveloped in," and have done with it ? 
 The A. V., indeed, uses "arrayed" elsewhere; but why 
 should faithfulness require a change here? What is the 
 difference ? See note, at viii. 5, upon eyivero. 
 
 4. " A voice from heaven" =.<pcovi)v ex rov ovpavov: 
 and so at xiv. 13 and xviii. 4. But cf. Matt. iii. 17 ; Mark 
 i. 11, "a voice out of the heavens" = cpoovrj ex tgdv ovpa- 
 vdov : and Luke iii. 22; John xii. 28; Acts xi. 9, etc., 
 " out of heaven" = ex rov ovpavov. 
 
 7. " Is finished," — an aorist. 
 
 9. " Saying unto him that he should give me" ==Xeyajv 
 avTGp Sovvai juoi (a new text) = "telling (or asking) him 
 to give me." And see "to" for "unto" at ii. 1, 8, 12, 18 ; 
 iii. 1, 7, 14, etc., etc. Yet here, in an original translation 
 of theirs, and having no A. V. to correct, they say " unto" ! 
 What irresistible constraint of faithfulness ! See Acts xxi. 
 21, note. 
 
 10. "When I had eaten" = ore ecpayov .• but cf. 
 
 "opened" for "had opened" (with the 2d and the 7th 
 
 seals). 
 
 XI. 
 
 2. "Nations" for "Gentiles;" but cf. Luke xxi. 24; 
 Rom. ix. 24, etc. The "nations" are here contradis- 
 tinguished from the Jews. 
 
 3. "Give" for " give power." But what, then, do they 
 give ? 
 
 5. "Desireth to" for " will" = Sekei .• and so again in 
 this, and in the 6th verse. But is it the mere desire that is 
 
204 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 meant, without the executive purpose or volition ? There 
 is no ambiguity in the A. V. from the use of will, for it 
 cannot properly stand in these connections as the auxiliary 
 to form the future tense ; — that would be shall. 
 
 10. " Dwell" for "dwelt." But see "tormented." The 
 tense of the participle in the translation follows that of the 
 governing verb. See xiv. 18. " He called to him that had 
 the sharp sickle," where "him that had" is for a present 
 participle. 
 
 17. " Hast taken and didst reign;" — another instance of 
 ziXrjcpaS coordinated with an aorist. Cf. viii. 5 ; v. 7, there 
 rendered by a present. 
 
 18. "The small and the great" for " small and great ;" 
 but cf. " heaven and earth," Luke xxi. 33, etc. 
 
 19 and 15. " Followed" for "were" = eyevovro. So the 
 
 A. V. at viii. 7 ; but see vi. 12; Matt. viii. 26, etc. ; and 
 
 note at viii. 5. 
 
 XII. 
 
 5. " Was delivered of" for "brought forth" = srexev : 
 consequential; — but see verse 13, where they render 
 "brought forth" for this identical case, word, and tense. 
 
 15. " River," " stream" — 7torajj.ov P 7torajJ.oq)opr/rov — 
 for "flood" in both cases (fluvius). Cf. "straightway," 
 and Acts xxvi. 24 ; 1 Cor. xv. 27, 28. 
 
 17. " Waxed wroth" for " was wroth" = Gopyia^tf. Cf. 
 Matt, xviii. 34; xxii. 7; Luke xiv. 21 ; xv. 28; and above 
 at xi. 18, where they translate by "being wroth" or 
 "angry ;" — consequential ? " Straightway." " Hold" for 
 " have" = exovroov : — consequential again ? 
 
 XIII. 
 
 6. "Even them that dwell in the heaven." Here heaven 
 seems to be the abode of the blessed, and not the visible 
 sky ; and yet they give it the article in English. 
 
 8. " Hath been written" for " is [are] written" = yey part- 
 ial! "That hath been slain" for "slain" = rov 
 €(f(paypitvov. (?) 
 
 10. "With" -» iv (bis). 
 
 12. " Death stroke" for "deadly wound" = n\r}yrj rov 
 
 
REVELATION. 205 
 
 Saratov. Death stroke is often used in English for no 
 "wound" (n\r)yrj) at all. 
 
 13. "That he should make'' for " so that he maketh" = 
 tv a 7toirj. (?) Cf. verse 15. 
 
 15. " That the image should," etc. (i'va). Here "that" 
 = " so that." Cf. 13, and the relation in the two cases. 
 
 16. " The small and the great, and the rich and the poor, 
 and the free and the bond" for " both small and great, rich 
 and poor," etc. What is the difference in the sense? And 
 see "heaven and earth," etc., etc. "That there be given 
 them" for "to receive" = i'va dooGiv avroz?= " that they 
 should give them." So, after all, the Revisers are not 
 literal, if that is what is meant by faithful j and meantime 
 the A. V. gives the simple resultant sense. 
 
 17. " He that hath" for " he that had" = 6 i'xGOV : — then 
 
 they should have omitted their " should" just before, as in 
 
 verse 16. 
 
 XIV. 
 
 2. "As the voice" (bis) ; no article in the Greek. 
 
 3. " Out of the earth" for " from the earth" = an 6 rr/S 
 yijS. 
 
 6. "An eternal Gospel" for " the everlasting Gospel." 
 No article in the Greek; but qucere? and cf. "'the heavenly 
 Jerusalem." " To proclaim" for "to preach" = svayye- 
 Xiaai. But cf. Matt. xi. 5; Luke iii. 18; iv. 18,43; xvi. 
 16 ; 1 Cor. i. 17 ; Gal. i. 8 ; Eph. ii. 17. 
 
 11. "They that worship." There is no ground in the 
 Greek for this repeated "they." Cf. John ii. 9, where they 
 do not say " the servants, they which." " Whoso" = sins 
 = " if any one." Cf. xx. 15, where they substitute " if 
 any" for "whosoever." Cf. also verse 9. 
 
 12. "They that" for "here are they that." The inser- 
 tion is grammatically necessary, although the "here" is 
 not repeated in the new text. 
 
 14. "A son of man" for "the Son of man." Wherefore, 
 then, "son" at all? Why "a son of man" rather than 
 simply "a man," if that is all that is meant? Christians 
 had, from prophecy, from Jewish tradition, and from the 
 teaching of our Lord, a vivid idea of the glory of " the Son 
 
206 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 of man." See Stephen's dying vision. Even if it was " a 
 son of man" to the prophet Daniel, it was nevertheless 
 "the Son of man" to those who applied the prophecy. The 
 angel, in verse 15, may utter a prayer or request rather than 
 a command. 
 
 16. " Cast his sickle upon the earth" for "thrust in his 
 sickle," etc., = i'fiaXev to dpertavov avrov enl rr)v yrjv. 
 What does this mean ? faithfulness to the Greek (3<xXXgd ? 
 But compare verse 15 ; and see Matt. x. 34, where they say 
 " to send peace on the earth" for fiaXeiv eiprjvtjv ini rr)v 
 yi]r. 
 
 18. "He that hath" for "that had" = 6 i'xGov. (?) The 
 "he" is unnecessary. Cf. Rom. ix. 5; and "had" is re- 
 quired in connection with the preterite verb. Cf. the fol- 
 lowing words, " him that had the sharp sickle." 
 
 19. "Cast his sickle," again, for " thrust," etc. "The 
 wine-press, the great wine-press of the wrath of God" for 
 " the great wine-press of the wrath of God" = rrjv Xrjvov 
 rov Svjaov rov Qsou rrjv /xsyaXpv = "the wine-press of 
 the wrath of God, the great (one)." So, after all, they 
 have not retained the order of the Greek ; and why have 
 they any more right to put in " wine-press" twice in Eng- 
 lish for once in Greek, than to make the order of the words 
 in English different from that in the Greek — the sense 
 remaining the same? Cf. ix. 14 (xvi. 12) ; Mark i. 26 ; 
 and the " daily bread" of the Lord's Prayer. 
 
 20. " The bridles of the horses" for " the horse bridles." 
 
 "As far as" for "by the space of" = ano. What is the 
 
 difference of sense ? 
 
 XV. 
 
 1. " Is finished, " — an aorist. 
 
 2. "Come victorious" for "had gotten the victory" = 
 vinoovraS. After " I saw," the participle should be ren- 
 dered by a preterite verb ; — "came" for " come," or still 
 better "were victorious," or " had gotten the victory;" — 
 there is no " come" in the text. 
 
 3. " O Lord God the Almighty" for " O Lord God Al- 
 mighty ;" and so, often, in this book. It is true, the Greek 
 has the article; but is not English usage settled to have 
 
RE VELA TION. 207 
 
 " Almighty" in such connections without the article? And 
 why does faithfulness to the original require its insertion 
 with "Almighty" any more than with "God"? The 
 Greek is 6 QeoG as well as 6 TtavronpaxGop. English 
 usage settles one case, and why not the other ? By way of 
 showing their diligent consistency, however, the Revisers, 
 at xix. 15, have put "Almighty God" for rov Qsov rov 
 notvroupdropoZ, — not "the Almighty God," nor "God 
 the Almighty." 
 
 6. "And there came out from the temple the seven an- 
 gels that had" for "and the seven angels came out of the 
 temple having." This important change is made because 
 their text has 01 before i'xovres. " Arrayed with precious 
 stone pure and bright" for "clothed (ivdedvjxivoi) in 
 pure and (the old text has nai) white linen." If we must 
 have "stone" (not "stones") for "linen," why insert 
 "precious" out of the whole cloth, and "and"too_, which is 
 especially thrown out of their text ? Why not boldly say, 
 "clothed in pure, bright stone," and be faithful to the 
 original? "Arrayed," in the Revision, elsewhere = nspi- 
 
 /3efi\t?utvoS. 
 
 XVI. 
 
 1. "Go ye" for " go your ways" = V7t dyers : but cf. 
 Matt, xxvii. 65 ; Luke x. 3 and xix. 30. In the last pas- 
 sage they substitute "go your way" for " go ye" = V7tdyere ! 
 
 3. " Even the things that were" = rd = " whatever was 1 * 
 (or were)^(}) 
 
 5. " Didst thus judge" for " hast judged thus." (?) This 
 aorist is coordinated with a perfect "hast given;" and, in 
 the connection, the simple English naturally is a perfect. 
 See note, ii. 2-9. 
 
 7, 14. " God the Almighty" for "God Almighty." Cf. 
 xix. 15. 
 
 9. " The God which" for " God which." Why did they 
 not say just above, " O Lord, the God, the Almighty" ? Is 
 the author a polytheist ? 
 
 12. " The great river, the river Euphrates." '''•River" is 
 utterly unnecessary, if not the "the" also. But let us be 
 thankful that their faithfulness did not lead them to say 
 
208 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 " the river, the great river, the river Euphrates," exactly 
 after the Greek order. " The kings that co?ne from the 
 sunrising" for "... of the East" = tgdv ano avaroXGov 
 rjXiov. There is no need of the " come j ' and, if they could 
 not say " East" for " sunrising," why did they not render 
 " from the risings of the sun'' ? Is not avaroXc^v plural ? 
 
 15. " Lest" = i'va jj.?]. But cf. Col. ii. 4; iii. 22; Phil, 
 ii. 27 ; Heb. iv. 11, etc., etc., where they change to "that 
 not." But in several other places, as at 1 Tim. iii. 7, they 
 render " lest." 
 
 18. ''Were" and "was" = iytvero. This they have 
 many times changed to "followed" — see viii. 1, 5, etc., etc. 
 — consequential — " straightway." 
 
 21. "Hail cometh down out of heaven" = in rov 
 ovpavov y — not "the heaven." And cf. viii. 10, "from hea- 
 ven." Did it then come from the abode of the blessed? 
 Cf. Acts xi. 9, etc. ; — "a voice out of heaven." But perhaps, 
 after all, they have no rule, but insert or omit the article with 
 " heaven" ad lib. — provided only they may diverge from the 
 A. V. But see x. 8; xi. 12; xiv. 2, 13; xviii. 4, where they 
 render "a voice from heaven," not " out of heaven." 
 
 XVII. 
 
 8. "They" is needless. 
 
 10. "Are fallen," — an aorist. 
 
 12. "Have received," — an aorist. 
 
 14. " Also shall overcome" for "are." (?) 
 
 17. "Did put" for " hath put" = i'daoKev. (?) " To come 
 to one mind" for "to agree" —7toi?}6ai p.iav yvGOfxr/v. (?) 
 
 17. "Should be accomplished" for " shall be fulfilled" 
 = reXea^i'jGovrai. This change of tense follows from 
 "did put," above; but the future here tends to show that 
 it should have been " hath put," as in the A. V. 
 
 XVIII. 
 
 2. " Fallen is," — the aorist. " Is become," — the aorist. 
 3. "Are fallen," — the perfect. Thus they rightly render 
 an aorist and a perfect alike in coordinated phrases; and 
 see note, ii. 2-9. But again, "committed" for " have com- 
 
REVELATION. 209 
 
 milted," — an aorist. " Waxed rich" for " are waxen rich," 
 — an aorist; and then, verse 5, ''have reached" =indKkr]- 
 Sr/ffav, and " hath remembered" = i^vrjjAovevaav. 
 
 10. If, instead of putting " woe" for " alas" in this and 
 several other instances, they had put "alas" for "woe" in 
 many cases where the A. V. has the latter, as in the Gos- 
 pels, they would have secured the true sense and prevented 
 mistakes. Here the sense may be the same with either 
 word, for it is plain a malediction is not intended, even if 
 "woe" is used. Say " woe" for the noun and " alas" for 
 the interjection ? 
 
 14. "Are gone," " are perished," for aorists. 
 
 17, 19. " Is made desolate," for the aorist. 
 
 21. " A strong angel" for " a mighty angel" = icrxvpo?. 
 But cf. xix. 18, where iGx v pG> v ar e " mighty men." Con- 
 sequential, "straightway." 
 
 21. "A mighty fall" for "violence" = op)xr}}xorti = 
 " with a sudden ruin' ' ? 
 
 23. "The princes" for "the great men" = /tsyiGTdvss- 
 Etymology favors the A. V. 
 
 24. " That have been slain" for " that were slain" = rcbv 
 
 scxcpayjuevGDV = " that had been slain,' ' in connection with 
 
 a preterite verb as here ; and " were slain" comes nearer 
 
 this than " have been slain" does. Indeed, the Revisers 
 
 often use it as a form of the pluperfect. Cf. xx. 4 ; Matt. 
 
 xxii. 3, etc. 
 
 XIX. 
 
 1. " Salvation and glory," etc. Here again, as at vii. 12, 
 they omit the articles which they have so often inserted in 
 similar ascriptions ; but they insert "belong" as though it 
 were certainly in the text ; — qu&re ? 
 
 2. " Hath judged," — aorist; " hath avenged, " — aorist. 
 
 4. " That sitteth" for " that sat. " Do they forget that it is 
 told as a vision ? Cf. verses 19 and 21. 
 
 5. " Give praise to" for " praise" = aiveirs. (?) 
 
 6. "Reigneth," — aorist. 
 
 7. "Is come," " hath made,"— jaorists. 
 
 8. " Was given," — aorist. 
 
 9. "These are true words of God" for "these are the 
 
2lo NOTES ON THE LATE KE VISION 
 
 true sayings of God" = Ovroi oiXoyoi a\rj$ivoi rov Qsov 
 siffi. But what has become of the article, and that after 
 "these"? (Cf. Mark xii. 31.) "Bidden" for " called" = 
 x£?{\tjjLi£voi. It was not possible to refrain from this im- 
 portant emendation consistently with faithfulness ? 
 
 11. "Saw the heaven [for 'heaven'] opened" = rov 
 ovpavov. See Acts x. 11, note. 
 
 12, 13. "Are" for "were." (?) The latter is probably 
 preferable — not certain. Some of the verbs describing this 
 vision are in the present and some in the past ; but the 
 visions are generally described in the past. 
 
 14. Here they say, " the armies which are [for ' were'] in 
 heaven followed him." This is certainly harsh, but is 
 printed as if " are" were in the text, which it is not. 
 
 15. "Wrath of Almighty God" = rr/S opyr)S rov Qsov 
 rov navroHparopoS. They fprget their article with Al- 
 mighty. Cf. xvi. 7, 14, where they have " God the Al- 
 mighty," for the very same Greek. 
 
 17. "A loud voice" = cpoovr] jusyaXrj. They forget their 
 apocalyptic "great voice." 
 
 iS. " Mighty men" = iax v P^ >v - They forget their 
 "strong angel" at xviii. 21. 
 
 20. " Them that had received'' = rovs XafiorraS : " them 
 that worshipped" = rov? npoonvvovvraS — with a preter- 
 ite verb — right ; aorist participle as a pluperfect, and pres- 
 ent participle as a preterite, — and so the" A. V. Cf. Matt, 
 xxv. 16, 17, iS. "They twain" for "these both"= oidvo. 
 How important ! And, after all, it is not " they twain" 
 but simply "the twain" or "the two" or {tons les deux) 
 "both." At Matt. xix. 5, the Revisers substitute "the 
 twain" for " they twain" as the rendering for 01 6vo\ 
 
 2i. "The sword of him that sat [rov na^frffXFVOv) even 
 the sword which came forth" for " which sword proceeded," 
 (rTf egeXSovffri :) — one participle is present and the other 
 aorist, and they are rendered alike in the preterite. 
 
 XX. 
 
 4. " Such as" for " whifch" = oi'rives ==" who" or " those 
 who." " Had been" for " were" ; but either makes a plu- 
 
211 
 
 $ 
 
 perfect passive. " Worshipped" and " received" for "had,*' 
 etc. ; but this would imply the imperfect, here. 
 
 12. " And I saw the dead, the great and the small" ; — ar- 
 ticular faithfulness ; Greek for English idiom, see " heaven 
 and earth." " Out of the things which were written" = 
 in tgqv y€ypafii/*evGDV, — not " have been" nor " had been. " 
 Cf. verse 4 and vi. 9 ; v. 12, etc. 
 
 XXL 
 
 1. "Are passed away" for "were passed away"= an 
 aorist ! 
 
 2. '.' Made ready" for ''prepared" = rftoi^iaajjiEvrfy. See 
 note, Matt. iii. 3. 
 
 9. " The wife of the lamb" for "the lamb's wife." Faith- 
 fulness ! And cf. x. 10, " the angel's hand." 
 
 17. "According to the measure of a man" == jjisrpov 
 <xv%f)GD7tov. No article with juerpov. Why did not they 
 compromise upon "a man's measure"? "Of an angel" 
 for "of the angel." (?) 
 
 XXIL 
 
 17. " He that heareth let him say' for " let him that hear- 
 eth say" = o auovaov einaroD : and similarly twice more, 
 <4 he that is athirst," " he that will" . . . "let him." And 
 so also, both the Revisers and the A. V. in the Epistles to 
 the Churches at ii. 7, 11, 17, etc. But at Mark iv. 9, the 
 Revisers put "who ... let him" for "he that. . .let 
 him" ; while at Matt. xiii. 9, 43 they put " he that ... let 
 him" for " who . ". .let him" ; at Matt, xxiii. 20, 21, they 
 put "he that" for " whosoever." The A. V. uses different 
 renderings, and so do the Revisers. In correcting the A. V. 
 here, they have preferred the more cumbrous and ungram- 
 matical English to the simpler and more grammatical. And 
 it may be observed that the reason why the A. V. translated 
 as it did in the Gospels and in the Epistles to the Churches, 
 is that the law of euphony required it. The ear would have 
 been offended with " let him that hath an ear, hear" ; or, 
 still worse, " let him that hath an ear to hear, hear." But 
 that the Revisers need not have made their correction in this 
 
212 NOTES ON THE LATE REVISION. 
 
 place, is evident from their own rendering at Rom. xiv. 3, 
 where, with the A. V., they translate this same construction 
 of the Greek " let not him that eateth set at naught him 
 that eateth not ; and let not him that eateth not judge him 
 that eateth' '== 6 effSiajv rov jjltj ioSiovra ja?) e^ov^evshw, 
 6 Sh jxrf effSicjv rov iaSiovra jxi) npivkroD. See also 
 1 Cor. x. 12, " Let him that thinketh he standeth take heed 
 lest he fall." They do not say " he that eateth let him 
 not," etc. ; wherefore, then, did faithfulness compel them 
 to amend the A. V. here, and say " he that heareth let him 
 say come," etc., instead of the simple, dear, old, familiar 
 words, "let him that heareth say, Come; and let him that 
 is athirst come ; and whosoever will, let him take the water 
 of life freely" ? 
 
 \ 
 
■i