V. Next, concerning the DEFINITE ARTICLE; in the case of which, (say the Revisionists,)

"many changes have been made." "We have been careful to observe the use of the Article wherever it seemed to be idiomatically possible: where it did not seem to be possible, we have yielded to necessity."-(_Preface_, iii. 2,-_ad fin._)

In reply, instead of offering counter-statements of our own we content ourselves with submitting a few specimens to the Reader's judgment; and invite him to decide between the Reviewer and the Reviewed ... "_The_ sower went forth to sow" (Matth. xiii. 3).-"It is greater than _the_ herbs" (ver. 32).-"Let him be to thee as _the_ Gentile and _the_ publican"

(xviii. 17).-"The unclean spirit, when he is gone out of _the_ man" (xii.

43).-"Did I not choose you _the_ twelve?" (Jo. vi. 70).-"If I then, _the_ Lord and _the_ master" (xiii. 14).-"For _the_ joy that a man is born into the world" (xvi. 21).-"But as touching Apollos _the_ brother" (1 Cor. xvi.

12).-"_The_ Bishop must be blameless ... able to exhort in _the_ sound doctrine" (t.i.tus i. 7, 9).-"_The_ l.u.s.t when it hath conceived, beareth sin: and _the_ sin, when it is full grown" &c. (James i. 15).-"Doth _the_ fountain send forth from the same opening sweet water and bitter?" (iii.

11).-"Speak thou the things which befit _the_ sound doctrine" (t.i.tus ii.

1).-"The time will come when they will not endure _the_ sound doctrine" (2 Tim. iv. 3).-"We had _the_ fathers of our flesh to chasten us" (Heb. xii.

9).-"Follow after peace with all men, and _the_ sanctification" (ver.

14).-"Who is _the_ liar but he that denieth that JESUS is the CHRIST?" (1 Jo. ii. 22).-"Not with _the_ water only, but with _the_ water and with _the_ blood" (v. 6).-"He that hath the SON, hath _the_ life: he that hath not the SON of G.o.d hath not _the_ life" (ver. 12).

To rejoin, as if it were a sufficient answer, that the definite Article is found in all these places in the original Greek,-is preposterous. In French also we say "Telle est _la_ vie:" but, in translating from the French, we do not _therefore_ say "Such is _the_ life." May we, without offence, suggest the study of Middleton _On the Doctrine of the Greek Article_ to those members of the Revisionists' body who have favoured us with the foregoing crop of mistaken renderings?

So, in respect of the indefinite article, we are presented with,-"_An_ eternal" (for "_the_ everlasting") "gospel to proclaim" (Rev. xiv. 6):-and "one like unto _a_ son of man," for "one like unto _the_ Son of Man" in ver. 14.-Why "_a_ SAVIOUR" in Phil. iii. 20? There is but one! (Acts iv.

12).-On the other hand, ??a???? is rendered "_The_ skull" in S. Lu. xxiii.

33. It is hard to see why.-These instances taken at random must suffice.

They might be multiplied to any extent. If the Reader considers that the idiomatic use of the English Article is understood by the authors of these specimen cases, we shall be surprised, and sorry-_for him_.

VI. The Revisionists announce that they "have been particularly careful"

as to THE p.r.o.nOUNS [iii. 2 _ad fin._] We recal with regret that this is also a particular wherein we have been specially annoyed and offended.

Annoyed-at their practice of _repeating the nominative_ (_e.g._ in Mk. i.

13: Jo. xx. 12) to an extent unknown, abhorrent even, to our language, except indeed when a fresh substantive statement is made: offended-at their license of translation, _when it suits them_ to be licentious.-Thus, (as the Bp. of S. Andrews has well pointed out,) "_it is He that_" is an incorrect translation of a?t?? in S. Matth. i. 21,-a famous pa.s.sage. Even worse, because it is unfair, is "_He who_" as the rendering of ?? in 1 Tim. iii. 16,-another famous pa.s.sage, which we have discussed elsewhere.(510)

VII. 'In the case of the PARTICLES' (say the Revisionists),

"we have been able to maintain a reasonable amount of _consistency_. The Particles in the Greek Testament are, as is well known, comparatively few, and they are commonly used with precision. It has therefore been the more necessary here to preserve a general _uniformity of rendering_."-(iii. 2 _ad fin._)

Such an announcement, we submit, is calculated to occasion nothing so much as uneasiness and astonishment. Of all the parts of speech, the Greek Particles,-(especially throughout the period when the Language was in its decadence,)-are the least capable of being drilled into "a general uniformity of rendering;" and he who tries the experiment ought to be the first to be aware of the fact. The refinement and delicacy which they impart to a narrative or a sentiment, are not to be told. But then, from the very nature of the case, "_uniformity of rendering_" is precisely the thing they will not submit to. They take their colour from their context: often mean two quite different things in the course of two successive verses: sometimes are best rendered by a long and formidable word;(511) sometimes cannot (without a certain amount of impropriety or inconvenience) be rendered _at all_.(512) Let us ill.u.s.trate what we have been saying by actual appeals to Scripture.

(1) And first, we will derive our proofs from the use which the sacred Writers make of the particle of most frequent recurrence-d?. It is said to be employed in the N. T. 3115 times. As for its meaning, we have the unimpeachable authority of the Revisionists themselves for saying that it may be represented by any of the following words:-"but,"-"and,"(513)-"yea,"(514)-"what,"(515)-"now,"(516)-"and that",(517)-"howbeit,"(518)-"even,"(519)-"therefore,"(520)-"I say,"(521)-"also,"(522)-"yet,"(523)-"for."(524) To which 12 renderings, King James's translators (mostly following Tyndale) are observed to add at least these other 12:-"wherefore,"(525)-"so,"(526)-"moreover,"(527)-"yea and,"(528)-"furthermore,"(529)-"nevertheless,"(530)-"notwithstanding,"(531)-"yet but,"(532)-"truly,"(533)-"or,"(534)-"as for,"(535)-"then,"(536)-"and yet."(537) It shall suffice to add that, by the pitiful subst.i.tution of "but" or "and" on _most_ of the foregoing occasions, the freshness and freedom of almost every pa.s.sage has been made to disappear: the plain fact being that the men of 1611-above all, that William Tyndale 77 years before them-produced a work of real genius; seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers, and perpetually varying the phrase, as they felt, or fancied that Evangelists and Apostles would have varied it, had they had to express themselves in English: whereas the men of 1881 have fulfilled their task in what can only be described as _a spirit of servile pedantry_. The Grammarian (pure and simple) crops up everywhere. We seem never to rise above the atmosphere of the lecture-room,-the startling fact that ?? means "indeed," and d? "but."

We subjoin a single specimen of the countless changes introduced in the rendering of Particles, and then hasten on. In 1 Cor. xii. 20, for three centuries and a half, Englishmen have been contented to read (with William Tyndale), "But now are they many members, YET BUT one body." Our Revisionists, (overcome by the knowledge that d? means "but," and yielding to the supposed "necessity for preserving a general uniformity of rendering,") subst.i.tute,-"_But_ now they are many members, _but_ one body." Comment ought to be superfluous. We neither overlook the fact that d? occurs here twice, nor deny that it is fairly represented by "but" in the first instance. We a.s.sert nevertheless that, on the second occasion, "YET BUT" ought to have been let alone. And this is a fair sample of the changes which have been effected _many times in every page_. To proceed however.

(2) The interrogative particle ? occurs at the beginning of a sentence at least 8 or 10 times in the N. T.; first, in S. Matth. vii. 9. It is often scarcely translateable,-being apparently invested with with no more emphasis than belongs to our colloquial interrogative "_Eh?_" But sometimes it would evidently bear to be represented by "Pray,"(538)-being at least equivalent to f??e in Greek or _age_ in Latin. Once only (viz. in 1 Cor. xiv. 36) does this interrogative particle so eloquently plead for recognition in the text, that both our A. V. and the R. V. have rendered it "What?"-by which word, by the way, it might very fairly have been represented in S. Matth. xxvi. 53 and Rom. vi. 3: vii. 1. In five of the places where the particle occurs. King James's Translators are observed to have give it up in despair.(539) But what is to be thought of the adventurous dulness which (with the single exception already indicated) has _invariably_ rendered ? by the conjunction "_or_"? The blunder is the more inexcusable, because the intrusion of such an irrelevant conjunction into places where it is without either use or meaning cannot have failed to attract the notice of every member of the Revising body.

(3) At the risk of being wearisome, we must add a few words.-?a?, though no particle but a conjunction, may for our present purpose be reasonably spoken of under the same head; being diversely rendered "and,"-"and yet,"(540)-"then,"(541)-"or,"(542)-"neither,"(543)-"though,"(544)-"so,"(545)-"but,"(546)-"for,"(547)-"that,"(548)-in conformity with what may be called the genius of the English language. The last six of these renderings, however, our Revisionists disallow; everywhere thrusting out the word which the argument seems rather to require, and with mechanical precision thrusting into its place every time the (perfectly safe, but often palpably inappropriate) word, "and." With what amount of benefit this has been effected, one or two samples will sufficiently ill.u.s.trate:-

(_a_) The Revisionists inform us that when "the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth,"-S. Paul exclaimed, "G.o.d shall smite thee, thou whited wall: AND sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law?"(549)... Do these learned men really imagine that they have improved upon the A. V. by their officiousness in altering "FOR" into "AND"?

(_b_) The same Apostle, having ended his argument to the Hebrews, remarks,-"_So_ we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief"

(Heb. iii. 19): for which, our Revisionists again subst.i.tute "And." Begin the sentence with "AND," (instead of "So,") and, in compensation for what you have clearly _lost_, what have you _gained_?... Once more:-

(_c_) Consider what S. Paul writes concerning Apollos (in 1 Cor. xvi. 12), and then say what possible advantage is obtained by writing "AND" (instead of "BUT") "his will was not at all to come at this time".... Yet once more; and on _this_ occasion, scholarship is to some extent involved:-

(_d_) When S. James (i. 11) says ???te??e ??? ? ????? ... ?a? ????a?e t??

???t??,-_who_ knows not that what his language strictly means in idiomatic English, is,-"_No sooner_ does the sun arise," "_than_ it withereth the gra.s.s"? And so in effect our Translators of 1611. What possible improvement on this can it be to subst.i.tute, "For the sun ariseth ... AND withereth the gra.s.s"?-Only once more:-

(_e_) Though ?a? undeniably means "and," and p??, "how,"-_who_ knows not that ?a? p?? means "_How then?_" And yet, (as if a stupid little boy had been at work,) in two places,-(namely, in S. Mark iv. 13 and S. Luke xx.

44,)-"AND HOW" is found mercilessly thrust in, to the great detriment of the discourse; while in other two,-(namely, in S. John xiv. 5 and 9,)-the text itself has been mercilessly deprived of its characteristic ?a? by the Revisionists.-Let this suffice. One might fill many quires of paper with such instances of tasteless, senseless, vexatious, and _most unscholarlike_ innovation.

VIII. "Many changes" (we are informed) "have been introduced in the rendering of the PREPOSITIONS." [_Preface_, iii. 2, _ad fin._]:-and we are speedily reminded of the truth of the statement, for (as was shown above [pp. 155-6]) the second chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel exhibits the Revisionists "all a-field" in respect of d??. "We have rarely made any change" (they add) "where the true meaning of the original would be apparent to _a Reader of ordinary intelligence_." It would of course ill become such an one as the present Reviewer to lay claim to the foregoing flattering designation: but really, when he now for the first time reads (in Acts ix. 25) that the disciples of Damascus let S. Paul down "_through the wall_," he must be pardoned for regretting the absence of a marginal reference to the history of Pyramus and Thisbe in order to suggest _how_ the operation was effected: for, as it stands, the R. V. is to him simply unintelligible. Inasmuch as the basket (sp????) in which the Apostle effected his escape was of considerable size, do but think what an extravagantly large hole it must have been to enable them _both_ to get through!... But let us look further.

Was it then in order to bring Scripture within the _captus_ of "a Reader of ordinary intelligence" that the Revisers have introduced no less than _thirty changes_ into _eight-and-thirty words_ of S. Peter's 2nd Epistle?

Particular attention is invited to the following interesting specimen of "_Revision_." It is the only one we shall offer of the many _contrasts_ we had marked for insertion. We venture also to enquire, whether the Revisers will consent to abide by it as a specimen of their skill in dealing with the Preposition ???

A. V. R. V.

"And beside all this, "Yea (1), and for (2) giving all diligence, add this very (3) cause (4) to your faith virtue; and adding (5) on (6) your to virtue knowledge; and part (7) all diligence, to knowledge temperance; in (8) your faith supply and to temperance (9) virtue; and in (10) patience; and to patience your (11) virtue G.o.dliness; and to knowledge; and in (12) G.o.dliness brotherly your (13) knowledge kindness; and to temperance; and in (14) brotherly kindness your (15) temperance charity."-[2 Pet. i. patience; and in (16) 5-7.] your (17) patience G.o.dliness; and in (18) your (19) G.o.dliness love (20) of (21) the (22) brethren (23); and in (24) your (25) love (26) of (27) the (28) brethren (29) love (30)."

The foregoing strikes us as a singular ill.u.s.tration of the Revisionists'

statement (_Preface_, iii. 2),-"We made _no_ change _if the meaning was fairly expressed_ by the word or phrase that was before us in the Authorized Version." To ourselves it appears that _every one of those 30 changes is a change for the worse_; and that one of the most exquisite pa.s.sages in the N. T. has been hopelessly spoiled,-rendered in fact well-nigh unintelligible,-by the pedantic officiousness of the Revisers.

Were they-(if the question be allowable)-bent on removing none but "_plain and clear errors_," when they subst.i.tuted those 30 words? Was it in token of their stern resolve "to introduce into the Text _as few alterations as possible_," that they spared the eight words which remain out of the eight-and-thirty?

As for their _wooden_ rendering of ??, it ought to suffice to refer them to S. Mk. i. 23, S. Lu. xiv. 31, to prove that sometimes ?? can only be rendered "_with_":-and to S. Luke vii. 17, to show them that ?? sometimes means "_throughout_":-and to Col. i. 16, and Heb. i. 1, 2, in proof that sometimes it means "_by_."-On the other hand, their suggestion that ?? may be rendered "_by_" in S. Luke i. 51, convicts them of not being aware that "the proud-in-the-imagination-of-their-hearts" is _a phrase_-in which perforce "_by_" has no business whatever. One is surprised to have to teach professed Critics and Scholars an elementary fact like this.

In brief, these learned men are respectfully a.s.sured that there is not one of the "Parts of Speech" which will consent to be handled after the inhumane fashion which seems to be to themselves congenial. Whatever they may think of the matter, it is nothing else but absurd to speak of an Angel "casting his sickle _into the earth_" (Rev. xiv. 19).-As for his "pouring out his bowl _upon the air_" (xvi. 17),-we really fail to understand the nature of the operation.-And pray, What is supposed to be the meaning of "the things _upon the heavens_"-in Ephesians i. 10?

Returning to the preposition d?? followed by the genitive,-(in respect of which the Revisionists challenge Criticism by complaining in their Preface [iii. 3 _ad fin._] that in the A. V. "ideas of instrumentality or of mediate agency, distinctly marked in the original, have been _confused or obscured in the Translation_,")-we have to point out:-

(1st) That these distinguished individuals seem not to be aware that the proprieties of English speech forbid the use of "_through_" (as a subst.i.tute for "_by_") in certain expressions where instrumentality is concerned. Thus, "the Son of man" was not betrayed "_through_" Judas, but "_by_" him (Matt. xxvi. 24: Luke xxii. 22).-Still less is it allowable to say that a prophecy was "spoken," nay "_written_," "_through_ the Prophet"

(Matth. i. 22 and margin of ii. 5). "Who spake BY_ the Prophets_," is even an article of the Faith.

And (2ndly),-That these scholars have in consequence adopted a see-saw method of rendering d??,-sometimes in one way, sometimes in the other.

First, they give us "wonders and signs done _by_ the Apostles" (Acts ii.

43; but in the margin, "Or, _through_"): presently, "a notable miracle hath been wrought _through_ them" (iv. 16: and this time, the margin withholds the alternative, "Or, _by_"). Is then "the true meaning" of "_by_," in the former place, "apparent to a Reader of ordinary intelligence"? but so obscure in the latter as to render _necessary_ the alteration to "_through_"? Or (_sit venia verbo_),-Was it a mere "toss-up"

with the Revisionists _what_ is the proper rendering of d???

(3rdly), In an earlier place (ii. 22), we read of "miracles, wonders, and signs" which "G.o.d did _by_" JESUS of Nazareth. Was it reverence, which, on that occasion, forbad the use of "_through_"-even in the margin? We hope so: but the preposition is still the same-d?? not ?p?.

Lastly (4thly),-The doctrine that Creation is the work of the Divine WORD, all Scripture attests. "All things were made _by_ Him" (S. Jo. i. 3):-"the world was made _by_ Him" (ver. 10).-Why then, in Col. i. 16, where the same statement is repeated,-("all things were created _by_ Him and for Him,")-do we find "_through_" subst.i.tuted for "_by_"? And why is the same offence repeated in 1 Cor. vii. 6,-(where we _ought_ to read,-"one G.o.d, the FATHER, of whom are all things ... and one LORD JESUS CHRIST, _by_ whom are all things")?-Why, especially, in Heb. i. 2, in place of "_by_ whom also [viz. by THE SON] He made the worlds," do we find subst.i.tuted "_through_ whom"?... And why add to this glaring inconsistency the wretched vacillation of giving us the choice of "_through_" (in place of "_by_") in the margin of S. John i. 3 and 10, and not even offering us the alternative of "_by_" (in place of "_through_") in any of the other places,-although the preposition is d?? on every occasion?

And thus much for the Revisers' handling of the Prepositions. We shall have said all that we can find room for, when we have further directed attention to the uncritical and unscholarlike Note with which they have disfigured the margin of S. Mark i. 9. We are there informed that, according to the Greek, our SAVIOUR "was baptized _into the Jordan_,"-an unintelligible statement to English readers, as well as a misleading one.

Especially on their guard should the Revisers have been hereabouts,-seeing that, in a place of vital importance on the opposite side of the open page (viz. in S. Matth. xxviii. 19), they had already subst.i.tuted "_into_" for "_in_." This latter alteration, one of the Revisers (Dr. Vance Smith) rejoices over, because it obliterates (in his account) the evidence for Trinitarian doctrine. That the Revisionists, as a body, intended nothing less,-_who_ can doubt? But then, if they really deemed it necessary to append a note to S. Mark i. 9 in order to explain to the public that the preposition e?? signifies "_into_" rather than "_in_,"-why did they not at least go on to record the elementary fact that e?? has here (what grammarians call) a "pregnant signification"? that it implies-(every schoolboy knows it!)-_and that it is used in order to imply_-that the Holy One "_went down_ INTO," and so, "_was baptized_ IN the _Jordan_"?(550)...

But _why_, in the name of common sense, _did not the Revisionists let the Preposition alone_?

IX. The MARGIN of the Revision is the last point to which our attention is invited, and in the following terms:-

"The subject of the Marginal Notes deserves special attention.

They represent the results of _a large amount of careful and elaborate discussion_, and will, perhaps, by their very presence, indicate to some extent the intricacy of many of the questions that have almost daily come before us for decision. These Notes fall into four main groups:-_First_, Notes specifying such differences of reading as were judged to be of sufficient importance to require a particular notice;-_Secondly_, Notes indicating the exact rendering of words to which, for the sake of English idiom, we were obliged to give a less exact rendering in the text;-_Thirdly_, Notes, very few in number, affording some explanation which the original appeared to require;-_Fourthly_, Alternative Renderings in difficult or debateable pa.s.sages. The Notes of this last group are numerous, and largely in excess of those which were admitted by our predecessors. In the 270 years that have pa.s.sed away since their labours were concluded, the Sacred Text has been minutely examined, discussed in every detail, and a.n.a.lysed with a grammatical precision unknown in the days of the last Revision. There has thus been acc.u.mulated a large amount of materials that have prepared the way for different renderings, which necessarily came under discussion."-(_Preface_, iii. 4.)

When a body of distinguished Scholars bespeak attention to a certain part of their work in such terms as these, it is painful for a Critic to be obliged to declare that he has surveyed this department of their undertaking with even less satisfaction than any other. So long, however, as he a.s.signs _the grounds_ of his dissatisfaction, the Reviewed cannot complain. The Reviewer puts himself into their power. If he is mistaken in his censure, his credit is gone. Let us take the groups in order:-

(1) Having already stated our objections against the many Notes which specify _Textual errors_ which the Revisionists declined to adopt,-we shall here furnish only two instances of the mischief we deplore:-