TiiE Bishop's English 'mwA^ffoo^v. LIBRARY OF THE University of California. Class % I Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2007 with funding from IVIicrosoft Corporation http://www.archive.org/details/bishopsenglishseOOmoonrich THE BISHOFS ENGLISH n^^y/toi ^^ .,...,. THE BISHOP'S ENGLISH: A SERIES OF CRITICISMS On the Right Rev. Bishop Thornton^ s Laudation of THE REVISED VERSION OF THE SCRIPTURES; AND ALSO ON THE ENGLISH OF THE REVISERS, SHOWING THAT THE VERSION PUT FORTH BY THEM, AND LIKEWISE THE AUTHORISED VERSION, CONTAIN ERRORS AGAINST RELIGION AND MORALS SO UNPARDONABLE AS TOTALLY TO UNFIT THEM FOR CIRCULATION, And that it is slander i^ig God to call either of them HIS WORD. BY GEO. WASHINGTON MOON, Hon, RRS.L., AUTHOR OF "the DEAn's ENGLISH," "THE REVISERS* ENGLISH," ETC. With the Authors Portrait. SECOND EDITION. SWAN SONNENSCHEIN & CO., LIMITED. NEW YORK: E. P. DUTTON & CO. 1904 Alt rights reserved. <5^ -"'-^ Dedicated TO THE MEMORY OF MY ANCESTOR THOMAS ALDAM OF WARMSWORTH, IN THE COUNTY OF YORK ONE OF THE EARLIEST MEMBERS OF «'THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS" A good man, who died in peace with all men, and loving trust in God, a.d. 1660 The Bible was to hiiin his greatest treasure; and ^reaching its truths, his greatest delight. But he was 'persecuted, he was reviled, he was buffeted, he was spit upon, and for conscience's sake he suffered the robbing of his goods, and endured years of cruel imprisonment. However, the knowledge of his own rectitude and of God's love sustained him through it all ; and, mi his release, being moved with sympathy for his companions in tribulation, he visited and condoled with them in the various prisons throughout the kingdom, drew up a report of the ivrongs and sufferings of his co-religionists, personally laid it befoi'e Oliver Cromwell, and pleaded repeatedly, in the name of humanity and justice, that they might be liberated. His petition being finally rejected, he fearlessly denounced the Protector to his face for his tyranny, and predicted the dovmfall of his government. — "Encyclopaedia Britannica," 8th edition, vol. xviii. p. 718. 221591 ABBREVIATIONS EMPLOYED IN THIS WORK A. V. — Authorised Version. R.V. — Revised Version. C.A. — Codex Alexandrinus. C.S. — Codex Sinaitious. C.V. — Codex Vaticanus. PREFACE. The English language is the common property of us all for our mutual benefit; and our duty is strenuously to oppose all corrupting influences which would mar the beauty of the language, weaken its force, and degrade it from its proud prerogative of being a sacred shrine for our noblest aspirations. Hence the compilation of this work, which con- sists of criticisms on the English of the Kevisers and on the English of the Eight Reverend Bishop Thornton, the latest advocate on behalf of the so- called ^^ Revised ^^ Version of the Bible. Perhaps the public, if they care at all about the matter, will not be surprised at my taking up the gauntlet which the Bishop, in publishing his essay on this subject, has thus thrown down; for, I do so in defence of a position which I carried at the point of the pen, forty years ago in combat with the late Dean Alford, and twenty years ago in combat with the Revisers and their champions. I am an old man now, being in my eightieth year, and consequently am not so "keen of fence" as I was then ; but I may still be able to do some- viii PEEFACE thing which, if not redoubtable, may haply be deemed of public service in an attempted over- throw of disgraceful error. It will be said that the fearful severity of these Criticisms demands justification. I admit it; and I am prepared to justify the severity of every criticism which I have written. But I would preface the justification by saying that, for the Revisers themselves and for their advocate, the Right Reverend Bishop Thornton, I entertain pro- found respect; believing them to be conscientious men. They did their best; and no man could do more. But, in their zeal for the Truth, they erred in undertaking work for which they were not qualified. Profound Hebrew and Greek scholars they probably were; but unquestionably they were lamentably deficient in the knowledge of their own mother tongue — e.g. what Englishman who is master of his own language would ever think of writing such a sentence as the following, unless he wished to con- vey the idea that God has a brother whom it is our duty to love ! " This commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God love his brother also" — 1 John iv. 21. Sometimes the ideas are blasphemous; as in Rev. xiv. 10, where the pronoun "Ae" grammati- PEEFACE ix cally refers to God; while the pronoun ^* their'* grammatically refers to Him and to the holy angels and to the Lamb. The passage is as follows : — "... the wine of the wrath of God, which is prepared unmixed in the cup of His anger; and HE shall he tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of THE HOLY ANGELS, and in the presence of the Lamb : and the smoke of their torment goeth up for ever and ever.'* In Rom. i. 27, the most degrading obscenity is palliated by being euphemistically designated an ^^ error'* The Greek word means ^^ wandering " ] but, in the New Testament, it means that wandering from the right path which is due to wilful corrup- tion; consequently our word ^^ error" does not adequately convey the meaning of the Greek. In 1 Cor. vii. 36, the shocking crime of incest between father and daughter is declared to be not sinful! Sometimes the ideas are humorous ; as in Gen. vi. 16-22, where it says that Noah had ^^ stories** [not storeys] in the ark; as if the patriarch had pro- vided himself with a little light literature for rainy days. And sometimes the language is execrably in- felicitous in its suggestiveness ; as in Job xx. 15, where we read of riches, under the similitude of food, which, it is said, "Ae shall vomit up again,** PEEFACE But, before anything can be vomited up *^ again, it must have been vomited up previously, andj then have been swallowed a second time ! It is such sentences as these (combined wit] the fact of their occurring in the Sacred Volume" which arouse one's indignation, and fully justif; the severity of the Criticisms. I leave the work to speak for itself. GEO. WASHINGTON MOON, Hon, FM.S.L. 7 Princess Tereace, Sussex Square, Brighton. EXTRACTS FROM REVIEWS. The Times. — Mr Washington Moon's first heading is "Blasphemy." The Revisers speak of God as if he were a human being with a Christian name, as in, " There came a man, sent from God, whose name was John." They also imply that God has a brother — "That he who loveth God love his brother also." However, Mr Moon, who has written a good deal on errors in English, is editing a new " Eevised English " Bible, when these things will be put right. The Literary Guide. — Bishop Thornton deemed he was doing quite the proper and usual thing when he praised the Eevised Version of the Bible as " light in all its purity and clearness." Ordinary folk do not scrutinise such rhapsodies too closely. No flattery is too gross if applied to the Bible, and the Bible never blushes. But Mr George Washington Moon keeps pe' petual watch upon all evil-doers in the realm of the King's English; and his merciless lantern throws an awful gleam on misplaced adverbs and vile syntax. His present book is a record of grammatical crimes — and, worse things --committed by the bad Revisers. To complete their punishment, he prints a full list of the learned and unlearned gentlemen who pretended to give us an uncorrupt translation of God's own Word. The result is amusing enough for seaside reading. Mr Moon cries' ^'^ tP accuse ^^ on every page, and, in most instances, he is justified by the text. He says : a curious slip occurs in 1 Tim. iii. 12: ^' Let deacons be husbands of one wife. Now, says our literary police- man : It does not say (though doubtless Paul meant it, and the Revisers ought to have put it so), "let each deacon be the husband of one wife." No ! virtually the Eevisers say that the *one wife ' is to be the common property of deacons ; they are to be her husbands. The long series of Mr Moon's exposures is a treasury of recreation for the man who is moderately well ac- quainted with his Lindley Murray. We are grateful to Mr Washington Moon, on purely literary grounds, for his vigorous assault on the Eevised Version. The Expository Times. — Mr Washington Moon has written another volume against the English of the Revised Version. It is like a book of the dead. For, it is forty years since Mr Moon made his name known through *^ The Dean's English," a clever attack on Dean Alford's "The Queen's English." But Mr Moon is not dead. Judging by the vigour of his language here, though eighty, his natural force is little abated. He calls his new book *'The Bishop's English," for, it is a chastisement of Bishop Thornton, Suffragan of Man- chester, for daring to recommend the use of the Re- vised Version in public worship. The School World. — The Revisers themselves are declared to have produced an " ungrammatical, immoral and blasphemous version." This contention Mr Washington Moon expounds upon many pages, with copious examples. The Revised Version is practically a dead book, and it was scarcely worth while to devote so much attention to its deficiencies. The London Quarterly Review. — Mr Washington Moon's plea for absolute clearness in the framing of sentences ought to lead many of us to prune our pages. In that respect the little book is to be welcomed, and it shows that the critic who attacked " The Dean's English " forty years ago is still as acute, and, we might add, as severe, as he was at the age of forty. The Birmingham Daily Post. — Anyone gifted with a sense of humour will enjoy reading this remark- able little book, by the well-known author of *'The Dean's English,'* "The King's English," and several other books of the kind, exposing common errors in speaking and writing. Forty years ago the author had combat with Dean Alford. Now, he says, "I am an old man," and "being in my eightieth year . . . am not so * keen of fence.' " Yet the vim and vigour of this onslaught are amazing. They certainly afford no evidence of age or dulled perception. The sub-title admirably defines the scope of the work ; it reads : " A series of criticisms on the Right Rev. Bishop Thornton's laudation of the Revised Version of the Scriptures ; and also on the English of the revisers, showing that the version put forth by them, and likewise the Authorised Version, contain errors against religion and morals so 6 unpardonable as totally to unfit it for circulation." This is a "large order," but most impartial readers will admit that it has been fully and ably executed. Englishmen who are masters of their own language, and have a high regard for it, will appreciate most Mr Washington Moon's efforts. Here is a minor example of his method: "Mark xiv. 3 — 'She brake the cruse, and poured it over his head.' Broken pieces of alabaster, even if scented with spikenard, could not have been very pleasant on the head. But probably the revisers meant the ointment. Their language often says what they do not mean." Perhaps a better illus- tration is the following: "In Mark vi. 7-8, another curious incident is related. It is this : ' He gave them authority over the unclean spirits ; and he charged them that they should take nothing for their journey.' What journey were ' the unclean spirits ' going to take 1 And why was Jesus interested in their luggage 1 Perhaps the Bishop will tell us, as he praises the Re- vised Version. To him it is ' light in all its purity and clearness.' " The Christian Age. — Mr Washington Moon con- tends with some reason that many passages in the Re- vised Version are very bad English and worse sense. The book is largely taken up with examples, of which the following may be mentioned. In Rev. xiv. 10, Revised Version, the pronoun " he " grammatically refers to God, while the pronoun " their " refers to Him, and to the holy angels, and to the Lamb. The passage is as follows : " . . . the wine of the wrath of God^ which is prepared unmixed in the cup of His anger, and He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the Holy Angels^ and in the presence of the Lamb \ and the smoke of their torment shall go up for ever and ever." In Genesis vi. 16-22, the Eevised Version says that Noah had ^^ stories^' (not storeys) in the Ark; as if , the author says, " the Patriarch had provided himself with a little light literature for rainy days." The Publishers' Circular. — We are glad to meet again in the field of criticism that doughty champion of the noble language which made Addison feel very happy that he was born an Englishman. Bishop Thornton having advocated in a pamphlet the public reading of the so-called Revised, in place of the Authorised, Version of the Bible in our churches, Mr Washington Moon, in the volume before us, criticises most scathingly both the Bishop's English and that of the Revisers. The errors in the Revised Version ex- posed by Mr Moon are calculated to rouse a feeling of indignation at the ignorance or heedlessness of the one hundred and one persons forming the company re- sponsible for an undertaking of such supreme im- portance. Mr Moon's criticisms claim the attention of Bible students. The Scotsman. — The work will interest students of the niceties of English diction. The English Churchman. — Just, though caustic, criticism. This little book cannot fail to attract public 8 attention to the many egregious errors, grammatical, moral, and spiritual, abounding in the English employed in the Eevised Version of the Scriptures. We thank the venerable author for his scholarly and timely con- tribution to the already extensive literature on the merits of the work of the Eevisers. It was the late Mr Spurgeon, we believe, who tersely summed up the characteristics of the Eevised New Testament, by re- marking, *' Strong in G-reek, weak in English." The Morning Post. — It is due to Mr Moon to acknowledge that he has very forcibly exposed some inaccuracies in the Eevisers' English, as well as in the Authorised Version. PREPARING FOR PUBLICATION. THE "REVISED ENGLISH" BIBLE. Embodying the labours of many Eminent Hebrew, Greek, and English Scholars. Edited by SAMUEL LLOYD, ONE OF THE LIFE GOVERNORS OF THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN BIBLE SOCIETY AND GEO. WASHINGTON MOON, Hon. F.R.S.L., AUTHOR OF ** THE DEAN'S ENGLISH," " THE BISHOP's ENGLISH," " THE REVISERS' ENGLISH," *" ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH," ETC. Part I. THE NEW TESTAMENT, Will be published on January 1st, 1904, By Messrs Bagster & Sons, Paternoster Row, London. The following is an extract from the Preface : — " Our English Bible, which to millions of the human race will for ever remain the standard of moral and religious truth, ought to be also the standard of all that is pure, and graceful, and noble, in our language. " The Bible is the Temple of Truth in whose solemn archives are kept the records of past ages, and the memorials of the infancy of our race. "Therein are enshrined also all human experiences, 10 the utterances of holy desire, the breathings of fervent hope, the expressions of unwavering faith, and the exulting songs of a nation's triumphs. " Therein, likewise, are heard the sighs of the broken- hearted, the groans of the soul's agonies in its wrest- lings with sin; and, coming up from the dungeon- depths of despair, the smothered cry of remorse from the self-condemned. " But these are not the only voices : therein, too, are heard the prayers of the mighty minds which have moved Heaven by their earnestness; and therein are heard the lispings of the little ones who have taught us life's lessons of child-like trust. " Moreover, therein above all is heard the voice of GrOD ! — heard in its mighty thunderings, heard in its awful holiness, heard in its yearning pity, and beard in its undying love. " All these voices live and reverberate in this Temple of Truth, and thence are ever echoed through the long corridors of Time for the world's instruction and admonition. " In the varied themes of the Word of God, there is scope for the grandest organ-utterances of language ; and these, bearing those themes, should peal through the mighty cathedral of the world in tones, which could not but thrill with responsive vibrations the throbbing hearts of the many millions of worshippers. 11 " On the public reading of such a version, blessed by the Holy Spirit of God, they would tremble under the rolling thunder of its fearful denunciations of hypocrisy ; melt into tearfulness of repentance beneath the gracious offers of mercy ; and, in their depths of godly sorrow, would hear so tender a voice speaking to them in pitying accents of forgiveness that, influenced by those wondrous words of love, they would in spirit rise as on angels' wings of ecstasy to Heaven, and adoringly bow in unutterable gratitude before the Throne of the Most High." Language is the vehicle of thought ; and, in the Bible, it is the vehicle of God's thoughts ; therefore, if perfection in language ought to be looked for any- where, it ought to be looked for, and found, in the Bible. I have looked for it, both in the Authorised, and in the Revised, Version, and have not found it ; hence this work which I deeply regret is so unworthy. Not in my day, for I am in my eighty -first year, but probably in the near future, some eminent English scholar will arise, to whom will appertain the honour of having given to the world The Pure Word of God in the Purest English^ 12 To that writer, perhaps this edition may be of some little service, I hope that it will, and that his work also will be of service to some succeeding editor ; for, language is ever changing, and thereby constant revision of the Bible, from time to time is rendered imperative. The following is a List of the most impartant English Versions of the Sacred Scriptures, succeeded by specimens of various versions of the Lord's Prayer showing the changes through which our language has gone during the last fifteen hundred years. J THE BISHOP'S ENGLISH CHAPTER I I WAS engaged in my work as English editor of Tlie '' Revised English'' Bible, Canon Girdlestone being the Greek and Hebrew editor, when my attention was drawn to a pamphlet written by the Right Reverend Bishop Thornton of Manchester advocating the public reading, in our churches, of the Revised Version of the Scriptures in the place of the Authorized Version. Of course I eagerly perused the pam- phlet, wondering what was the ground of his advocacy, and what were the qualifica- tions which led him to nominate himself a judge of that matter. I soon found that his English was as disgraceful as is that of the Revisers themselves ; and therefore I was not surprised that he commended their work. It is to be re- 2 THE BISHOP'S ENGLISH gretted that he was unaware of his ignor- ance of the laws of the language ; as, a knowledge of that ignorance might have deterred him from presuming to discuss a subject upon which he is not competent to speak with authority. I will criticize his English after exposing the Revisers' shame- ful errors, which the Bishop eulogizes as, '' Light in all its purity and clearness.'' I cannot believe that he has read the criticisms which were indignantly pub- lished upon the Revisers' English more than twenty years ago ; or else he is hoping that time has obliterated from the minds of Englishmen the disappointment and deep regret which the Revisers' work occasioned when scholars realized that it fell deplorably short of that which the public had so earnestly, and so reasonably, hoped that it would be — viz. THE PURE WORD OF GOD IN THE PUREST ENGLISH The Revised Bible, so far from being ''the well of English undejiled,'' is defiled by the grossest errors ; — errors against THE BISHOPS ENGLISH 3 religion, morals, and grammar. These are grave charges ; but, in Chapter iii. and elsewhere in this book, I will establish the truth of every one of them ; and yet will refrain from adducing very many grave instances, one especially, too gross even to be mentioned. How are we to account for the Revisers' work being not only a lamentable fail- ure, but something far, far worse ? The Revisers were good men, earnest students of the Sacred Scriptures, and they devoted years of their valuable time to the carry- ing out of their labour of love. They numbered more than one hundred men renowned for their learning ; some were eminent Hebrew scholars ; most of them were proficient in Greek ; and a few were masters of English. Their names and titles are given in the Appendix. More- over, it had been resolved that every question should be settled by the votes of the majority. What could give better promise of success ? Yet, utter failure was the result. 4 THE BISHOFS ENGLISH Where was the fault? The fault lay in this : — The Revisers, not being all equal in learning, it was a grave error to make their votes all equal; so that the vote of one who was a profound Hebrew scholar, counted for no more than did the vote of one who had only a smattering of Hebrew. It was the same with Greek, and also with English. My Right Reverend correspondent, Bishop Words- worth of St. Andrews, complained to me most bitterly of this arrangement ; re- marking that very few of the Revisers were good English scholars ; and the eminently learned few were, of course, outvoted by the comparatively unlearned many. The course which should have been taken was the appointment of sub-com- mittees for special studies, — committees formed of the ablest men for each specific subject, Hebrew, Greek, English, etc. And if, in any such sub- committee, there was one member preeminently learned, he should have had three or more votes ; THE BISHOFS ENGLISH 5 and any one less learned than the first, but better informed than the rest, should have had two votes ; and the others, one vote each. Then, at a general meeting, the results of all the sub-committees' de- liberations should have been made known, but made known as final; no further discussion being permissible. Some such arrangement as this would certainly have had better results. Another fatal error made by the Revisers was their not issuing a tentative edition of their work, with the object of eliciting criticisms from learned men who were not numbered among the Revisers, but were deeply interested in the work, and well qualified to render valuable assistance. I suggested this course to the Revisers by a letter in The Times of May 22nd, 1875, but they had not humility enough to accept external aid ; the result being that they have drawn down upon themselves the severest censures for their culpable mistakes ; and, worst of all, the Bible itself has suflFered at their hands ! 6 THE BISHOPS ENGLISH The basis of this series of criticisms is a pamphlet with this title : — THE REVISED VERSION OF THE BIBLE : OUR DUTY IN REGARD TO IT, BY THE RIGHT REV. SAMUEL THORNTON, D.D., Assistant Bishop of Manchester ^ and Vicar of Blackburn. PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE TRACT COMMITTEE. By the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, 1902. I read the pamphlet uninfluenced by the appendages to the author's name, for I judge of an author by the knowledge which he evinces of his subject, and the language in which he imparts it. I have too much of the old Quaker THE BISHOP'S ENGLISH 7 blood in my veins subserviently to accept what is not true, even though it be pro- claimed by a Bishop, a Dean, or other titled personage. As authors we all have to rank with untitled laymen, and be judged by the merits of our works. The Right Reverend Bishop's pamphlet is a laudation of the Revised Version of the Bible, combined with a severe dis- paragement of the Authorized Version. Of the two, henceforth distinguished in these criticisms, as the A.V. and the R.V., he speaks thus, on page 19 : — '' If Scripture is the Spirit's two-edged sword, the A.V. presents that sword notched and blunted in many places, while [he should have said, 'whereas'] the R.V. puts it into our hand ground and sharpened : if Scripture is the lamp of the Lord, the A.V. offers [to] us that lamp with its glass greatly clouded and blurred, while [whereas] the R.V. has cleaned the glass, and fitted it to trans- mit the light in all its purity and clearness." 8 THE BISHOPS ENGLISH As for his Lordship's having employed the word "while,'' instead of " whereas'' \ does not the Bishop know that ''while" means ''during the time that" "i And, as the notching and blunting, whatever that refers to, was done nearly three hundred years ago, his statement is equivalent to saying that the A.V. of 1611 was really cotemporaneous with the KV. New Testament of 1881, and the RV. Old Testament of 1885, With regard to the Bishop's figurative remark that the R.V. puts into our hand a two-edged sword ground and sharpened, I shall be able to give full proof of the appositeness of his metaphor. The two-edged sword will cut keenly, as the Reader will soon see ; for, the criticisms are a running commentary on it throughout the whole of this book, and, the sword, being " two-edged," cuts both ways. Leaving, for the present, the Bishop's two-edged sword metaphor, let us test the accuracy of his other simile, by THE BISHOPS ENGLISH 9 examining some passages in the RV., and ascertaining whether they do trans- mit ''the light in all its purity and clearness, '' But, first of all, I must draw attention to the Bishop's reference to the '' original of the Sacred Scriptures. It is scarcely ingenuous of him to speak of that which does not exist, as if its existence were a verity. Surely the Right Reverend Bishop is not wholly ignorant of the fact that, of the sixty -six books consti- tuting the Bible, there is not one '' origijiar' remaining. All have perished. Doubtless this loss has been permitted, in the wise providence of God, for some beneficent purpose ; probably to guard against the degenerating of praiseworthy reverence into superstitious adulation and ultimately into idolatry ; as was the case with the brazen serpent of the wilderness. On that very account, it had to be de- stroyed. See 2 Kings xviii. 4. IvIlT There being no '' original in existence, the Bishop is deluding his Readers (or 10 THE BISHOPS ENGLISH those of them who do not know better) when, on p. 12 of his pamphlet, he speaks of certain men of letters as having ''access to the ojnginaV All that scholars have access to are what profess to be copies ; such as the '' Codex Alexand- rinus,'' the " Codex Sinaiticus,'' the '* Codex Vaticanus,'' etc. ; but not one of these is earlier than the third century after Christ ; and no two of them wholly agree. CHAPTER II The Right Reverend Bishop must have been thinking of the British and Foreign Bible Society's contemplated action with regard to its circulating the R.V. ; for, at the beginning of his pamphlet, in refer- ence to the fact that the Society is bound by the fundamental principle upon which it was established, not to circulate any other version of the Scriptures than the A. v., he says, ^'It is scarcely fair — as is commonly done — to put the Revised in contrast with the Authorized Bible, as though [he should have said, as if\ the word ' though ' implies negation, and means ' notwithstanding '~\ they were different translations. It is not, properly speaking, a new Version at all ; it is only, as its title-page proclaims, the Version set forth a.d. 1611, compared with the 11 12 THfi BISHOFS ENGLISH most ancient authorities, and revised ; that is, it is the Authorized Version with its mistakes corrected." The Reader will detect the questionable nature of this statement when he learns that, by the Bishop's own admission on page 7 of his pamphlet, the R. V. contains, on the authority of the Bishop of Exeter, 30,000 emendations. How can it be the A.V. since it has been altered in 30,000 places ? The Rev. Prof. Moulton says ^^37,000"; and he, being one of the Revisers, is a better authority than the Bishop of Exeter. Bishop Thornton, in making the quota- tion, on page 7 of his pamphlet, forgot that it would clash with his statement on the first page ; but he wanted the British and Foreign Bible Society to adopt the R.V. ; so he ''blows hot and cold" to suit his purpose : he first says that it is the same as the A. V., therefore the Society will not be violating the fundamental principle of its existence in adopting it ; and he afterwards says that it is not the THE BISHOFS ENGLISH 13 same, but better by 30,000 corrections, and therefore a very desirable possession for the Society. As to the *' corrections,'" so called, I have given specimens of them in my former works, ' The Revisers English ' and ' Ecclesiastical English ' ; more shall follow, in this volume. I had almost forgotten to say that the Bishop, by way of offering to the Society his most tempting of all baits, promises, on page 12, that, if the E.V. be adopted, he will again become a Member of the Society. How gracious ! But will the Society reinstate their former Member who receded from them years ago ? Will they not, the rather, treat him as Paul treated Mark, who had '' departed from them, and went not with them to the work''% Acts XV. 38. Actsxv.ss. The British and Foreign Bible Society, as it values its unsullied past, should have nothing more to do with that objection- able volume, the RV. The circumstance is much to be deplored, that that venerable 14 THE BISHOP'S ENGLISH Society seeking, at the instigation of a few supporters, to identify itself with the cir- culation of the R v., actually assented for that purpose, to set aside the fundamental principle upon which it was established ; which principle, as shown in the very first rule in its code of laws, was that, only the A.V. of the Sacred Scriptures, or translations of it, should be issued by the Society ; and for the faithful carrying out of that principle, the Society has received bequests amounting to hundreds of thousands of pounds ; and the Society, having accepted those bequests, is morally and legally bound by the conditions of those bequests. Let the Members of the British and Foreign Bible Society pause before circu- lating so objectionable a work as that of the Kevisers. A new edition of the A.V., with its errors eliminated, is being pre- pared for publication by Messrs Bagster & Sons ; first as a tentative work, in order to elicit criticisms, and then, in the year 1904, as a perfected work which, it is THE BISHOPS ENGLISH 15 hoped, will be worthy of all accepta- tion. The Bishop evidently thinks of himself and his co-prelates as a very powerful body of men. He says, in the last paragraph of his pamphlet, " The verdict of prominent newspapers, a few years ago, that [the] RV. was 'dead,' has now been shewn to be mistaken. The opposition to it of a few good, able, and weighty men can hardly prevail against the practically unanimous decision of the Bishops, and the deliberate verdict of the Bible Society, in its favour." But is that verdict ''final " ? I very strongly doubt it. The Bible Society, after refusing, for 20 years, to circulate the R.V., is not likely to reverse all its former decisions respecting this matter. Why should it ? What new element has been introduced into the discussion? Not one ! And does the Bishop expect that his opinion will influence the Bible Society ? What influence, in such a matter as this. 16 THE BISHOPS ENGLISH can attach to the opinion of a man who does not know his own mother tongue ? None whatever. The fact that he is a Bishop does not qualify him for a judge as to the relative value of the two ver- sions of the Bible. Of course, no one denies that the A.V. of 1611 needs revision; but that which is most emphatically denied is that the present R.V. is worthy to take its place. Oh ! that the Revisers had published a Tentative Edition of their work. The criticisms which such an edition of the R.V. would have elicited would have opened the Revisers' own eyes to the glaring mistakes which are so evident to every one else ; except, of course, Bishop Thornton, to whom the Revisers' ''darkening of counsel by words without jobxxxviii. knowledge,'' would still be ''light in all its purity and clearness,'' He strives to influence public opinion by speaking with exultation of the R.V. as being used in Canterbury Cathedral, THE BISHOFS ENGLISH 17 and in Westminster Abbey ; but those persons who can *'read between the lines," know all about that. In the first place, it was the Canterhury Convocation which was the parent of the Revision ; therefore, it is not surprising that Canterbury should foster her own child. Indeed, it would be strange if she did not. As for Westminster Abbey, the copy of the R V. which is there, was presented to the Dean and Chapter by the Members of Parliament for the Oxford and Cam- bridge Universities ; and those Universities own the Copyright of the R. V. Hence the pressure brought to bear on the four Members of Parliament represent- ing those Universities. So the Reader will see that, notwith- standing the Right Reverend Bishop's exultation over the fact, there is abso- lutely nothing extraordinary in it ; and he ought to have related to the public not merely the aforesaid bare facts, but also the attendant circumstances ex- 18 THE BISHOPS ENGLISH planatory of those facts. Moreover, the Dean of Canterbury, and the Dean of Westminster, for the time-being, were Members of the Revision Committee. But, brighter days are coming; not- withstanding that every ''Original" of the sixty-six books constituting the Bible has perished. For ages it has been the ceaseless endeavour of students to be able to produce a faithful transcript of the lost Originals, by gathering, from ancient MSS. all attainable evidence respecting the Sacred Scriptures ; and thereby be in a position to restore to the world the words which holy men of old wrote under the inspiration of The Spirit of God. The Textus Receptus on which the A.V. of 1611 was based was formed by Stephanus from the compilations of Erasmus, Zimenes, and the Codex Bezae. Since that time many ancient MSS. have come to light; the most important being the Codex Sinaiticus of the fourth Century, a.d. Of these, the Revisers THE BISHOP'S ENGLISH 19 have availed themselves ; but their work is not a New Translation ; it is, as they themselves tell us in their Preface, a revision of the A.V. of 1611. '^t did not fall within their province to con- struct a continuous and complete Greek text." However, that matter is about to be taken up by The British and Foreign Bible Society, which will shortly issue a New Greek Testament that has been prepared by Dr Eb. Nestle for The Wlirttemberg Bible Society of Stuttgart ; of which edition 40,000 copies have been sold in the short space of three and a half years. With the cordial approval of the Wurttemberg Bible Society, Dr Nestle has undertaken to prepare a fourth edition of his text, for the afore- said Society and for the British and Foreign Bible Society. The text, which exhibits the combined labours of the best and most recent scholars, is based on the texts of Tischendorf, Westcott-Hort, Bernhard Weiss, and Dr Weymouth. 20 THE BISHOPS ENGLISH Therefore, all that is now needed, is an accurate translation of it into the purest English, on the basis of the language of the A.V. ; but freed from its archaisms and errors of grammar. Messrs Bagster & Sons' Tentative Edition of the ''Revised English" New Testament, preparatory to the issue of the whole Bible, is an earnest of the accomplishment of that end ; and all Greek students of The British and Foreign Bible Society's New Greek Testament are invited to assist in per- fecting the English work by their valuable suggestions. What the world wants is not an ex- tended circulation of the R.V., but a version which shall give us THE PURE WORD OF GOD IN THE PUREST ENGLISH ; because, as Samuel Lloyd, Esq., one of the Life Governors of the British and Foreign Bible Society, has most felicitously said, in a published letter THE BISHOP'S ENGLISH 21 to the Secretary of that Society, — ''It is indisputable that the utterances which sink most deeply into our hearts, and of which our memories retain the firmest hold, are {cwteris paribus) those which are most rhythmically expressed. And what are the utterances which should, above all others, be remembered? Un- questionably the Divine truths of the Bible. All infelicities of expression, and all offences against the laws of the language should therefore be expunged from our translation of the Sacred Scriptures. The Society's acceptance and publication of such a version would be a noble memorial of the Society's devotion to the eternal cause of Truth." CHAPTER III I NOW proceed to establish the justness of the charges which I bring against the Revisers' work; and I do so by giving chapter and verse for every passage on which those charges severally are based, together with criticisms thereon. It is a source of great sorrow to me that I have to make the exposure ; and I assure my readers that I do so with no ill-feeling towards the Revisers them- selves ; but solely from a profound sense of duty to God and loyalty to His Truth. The charges which I bring against the work of the Revisers are that, owing to their ignorance of their own mother tongue, combined with their culpable negligence in the construction of their sentences, the R.V. contains passages of blasphemy against God, besides passages 22 THE BISHOPS ENGLISH 23 of revolting obscenities ! And I say fearlessly, that among all examples of the evils which result from unintentional errors in language on the part of learned men, there cannot exist any so awful as are those which are found in the RV. of the Sacred Scriptures. Blasphemy To bring, against the Revised Version of the Bible, the awful charge of blasphemy, is indeed to throw into the ecclesiastical world a fulminating bomb, the detona- tion of which will probably reverberate throughout Christendom. Some of the timid Uzzahs will quake with fear for the safety of the Ark of God, because of the stumbling of the 2 sam. vi. oxen. I am sorry for the timid ones. Others, principally clerics, will anathe- matize me for my work. I care nothing for their curses ; their impotency is as well known as is the fact that ''curses, 24 THE BISHOPS ENGLISH like birds of evil omen, return home to roost." But, some earnest seekers after Truth will, I hope, feel grateful for my labours ; and, haply, will join me in my endeavours to free the Sacred Scriptures from the errors which give rise to the scoffings of infidels. What nobler object in life can there be than that of doing battle for the Truth ? Does any person think me irreverent because I have dared to attack falsehood in its stronghold? For, that the Bible has become the stronghold of falsehood, is shown by the fact that whenever a falsehood, no matter how egregious, gets into the Bible, the sanctity of the Book attaches to the falsehood, and renders its eradication almost an impossibility; e.g. 2Chron.xxi. iu thc A.V. lu 2 Chron. xxi. 20, and xxii. ^ ,am xxii. 2^ ^^ vedidi that a man was born two years before his father! And, palpable false- hood as this is, the Revisers have not dared to expunge it ; though, of course, it is only a clerical error by some scribe THE BISHOP'S ENGLISH 25 writing centuries ago ; and, of course, forms no part of the Truth of God. As to whether praise or blame will be awarded me for drawing attention to passages so awful, is to me a matter of indifference. I can truthfully say that I have the testimony of a good conscience, that I have fearlessly, but with reverence, endeavoured to do my duty in eradicating the evil from the good, the false from the true, and I leave the result with God. No ! I am not irreverent. Irreverence in this matter consists in leaving untruths to fester in the Bible, and contaminate by their presence the truth of The Most High. For centuries this has been going on ; and, through all those years, the blas- phemies have been doing their evil work ; and the Revisers have left the passages as they found them, thus condoning their predecessors' shameful errors ; and no man, up to the present time, has been bold enough to denounce the blasphemy, which in its incipiency, its progressive 26 THE BISHOPS ENGLISH development, and its awful climax, appears like a deliberate and intentional insult to God. The sequence of the blasphemous texts is most remarkable. They occur in this order : — John i. 6. 1. God is spoken of as if he were a human being, with a Christian name. johnxix. 2. God is, by implication, charged by ^^' "• Jesus Christ with having sinned. Acts xii. 3. God is s^id to have died a loathsome ^^'^^' and horrible death. Rev. xiv. 10. 4. God is said to have been consigned to Hell ! This seems incredible ; but it is an awful fact ; and I will give chapters and verses for it, and more besides ; for, the R.V. out-Herods Herod in its atrocities, and goes beyond even the A.V., and actually advocates incest, and con- icor.vii.86. dones it; saying that it is not sin, etc. etc. etc. And as for the most de- grading obscenities which it is possible to conceive, they are disgracefully pal- THE BISHOP'S ENGLISH 27 ' liated by being euphemistically called ''errors''! ^^;- \ 1. — First we read in John i. 6, — John i.e. "^ ''There came a man, sent from God, ] whose name was John." Now, as, in the i English language, pronouns are under- ] stood to refer to the nouns nearest to \ them of the same number and person, the j pronoun " whose,'' in the foregoing passage i clearly refers to ''God." The sentence ! speaks of "God, whose name 2vas John.'' \ The Revisers should have corrected the '{ error thus : — " There was sent from God, 1 a man whose name tvas John,'' ] 2. — Next, in John xix. 10, 11, we read johnxix. j as follows : — Pilate said, "Knowest thou ^ '^^' I not that I have power to release thee, j and have power to crucify thee ? Jesus 1 answered him, Thou wouldest have no power against me, except it were given ; thee from above : therefore, he that ] delivered me unto thee hath greater j sin." Now, remembering that Jesus ^ was ''delivered up by the determin- \ ate counsel and foreknowledge of God," Acts u. 28. '\ 28 THE BISHOFS ENGLISH the passage in John really represents Jesus as charging God with sin ! And the Revisers have made the charge the more emphatic by the word " there- fore,'' which connects it with the preced- ing statement respecting God as being the Supreme Ruler. This blasphemy would have been avoided had the Revisers said, not, "He that delivered me unto thee hath greater sin " ; but, " The man who delivered me unto thee hath greater sin." 3. — The third blasphemous passage occurs in Acts xii. 21-23, and reads as follows : — " And upon a set day Herod arrayed himself in royal apparel, and sat on the throne, and made an oration unto them. And the people shouted, saying, The voice of a god, and not of a man.' And immediately an angel of the Lord smote him because he gave not God the glory : and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost." Here again, through the erroneous use of a pronoun, a blasphemous meaning is given to a passage of Sacred Writ. It THE BISHOFS ENGLISH 29 says, ''He gave not God the glory, and he [i.e., God] was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost " I Lastly, I have said that the awful errors in the Revised Version are mainly due to the Revisers' ignorance of English. Look at their blasphemous treatment of Rev. xiv. 10. There, by inserting, after Rev. xiv. lo. the word ''God," the pronoun, " A^," instead of repeating the noun which governs the latter part of the sentence, they have made the pronoun apply to God ; who, it says, "shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels " ; for, as I have just said, and as every schoolboy is taught, "a pronoun is understood to refer to the last preceding noun of the same number and person " ; therefore, as the last preceding noun in the passage is "God," the pronoun refers to Him. In the latter part of the sentence, the pro- noun ''their'' intensifies the blasphemy. The passage is as follows : — " He also shall drink of the wine of the wrath of 30 THE BISHOPS ENGLISH God, which is prepared unmixed in the cup of his anger ; and he [i.e. God] shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb : and the smoke of their torment goeth up for ever and ever": i.e., the smoke of the torment of God, and of the holy angels and of the Lamb ! There is not, in the passage, any preceding plural to which the pronoun "their'' can apply. Again, 1 John iv. 21. — " And this commandment have we from him, that ijohiiiv.2i. he who loveth God love his brother also." Here we have the statement that God has a brother ! and that our duty is that ''he who loveth God, love God's brother also." That is the literal meaning of the passage ; and had the Revisers intended to express that meaning with the utmost clearness, they could not pos- sibly have expressed it in more unmis- takable language. This is another instance of error arising from the misplacement of a pro- THE BISHOPS ENGLISH 31 noun. When the Revisers saw that the word "his,'' by immediately following the word '^God/' gave a false meaning to the sentence, they should have re- constructed it. It might, with perfect propriety, have been done thus: — "And we have this commandment from Him, — that those who love God should love each other also.'' It may be said that the errors occur in the A.V. Well, what of that? The duty of the Revisers was to revises and, of all passages in the Scriptures, the one in Rev. xiv. 10, was the one most in i^^^'^^^-i'^- need of revision ; and the Revisers, by leaving it as it is, have perpetuated the error. They boast in their Preface thus : — ''As to pronouns and the place they occupy in the sentence, a subject often overlooked by our predecessors, we have been particularly careful." This back- handed slap in the face which the Revisers give their predecessors comes, to say the least of it, with very bad grace from the 32 THE BISHOP'S ENGLISH Revisers, whose own errors in grammar are so egregious. And this, with more like it, is what Bishop Thornton calls ''Light in all its purity and clearness,'' If there is any light at all from this dark portion of the Apocalyptic vision, it is from the lurid flame which arises from the Jire and brimstone of which the Kevisers speak so blasphemously. Other Unpardonable Errors in the Revised Version The last instance of verbal error re- sulting in blasphemy was, as we have seen, occasioned by the insertion of a pronoun. We have now to consider an error occasioned by the insertion of a noun. In the former instance, the Revisers' error was attempted to be condoned by calling attention to the fact that the error existed in the A.V. In this in- stance, no such excuse can be made ; THE BISHOP'S ENGLISH 33 for, the offending noun is not in either the A.V. or in the Greek. The blame of its insertion therefore rests wholly with the Revisers. Palmam qui meruit ferat The offending passage is in the Revised Version of 1 Cor. vii. 36; and is as icor.vii.se. follows : — '' If any man thinketh that he behaveth himself unseemly toward his virgin daughter, if she be past the flower of her age, and if need so requireth, let him do what he will; he sinneth not; let them marry." The only persons mentioned being father and daughter, to whom else can the pronoun "them'' refer? ''Let them marry." And the words, ''Let him do what he tvill; he sinneth not,'' make it appear as if the crime of incest were actually contemplated ! As has been said ; for the mistranslation in this passage, the Revisers alone are to be censured ; seeing that it was they who gratuitously inserted the word " daughter,'' which is not in either the A.V. or in the 12. 34 THE BISHOPS ENGLISH Greek ; and without it, the passage might have had reference to a guardian and his ward ; between whom marriage would be legitimate. What could have induced the Revisers to perpetrate such an atrocity, and Bishop Thornton to characterize their work as, '^ light ifi all its purity and clearness " ! What are we to think of the Revisers' 1. Tim. iii. 2. treatment of 1 Tim. iii. 2, and, in con- LTiin.iii. nection with it, of 1 Tim. iii. 12? In the former, they deviate from the Greek by inserting the definite article "the'' before "husband,'' and so save the passage from inculcating whoredom upon Bishops ; but, in the latter, which refers to Deacons, no such alteration has been made. The passage referring to Bishops, if translated literally, would be, " The bishop must be ... ^ husband of one wife." ''Such a rendering, however, would pre- sent unutterable horrors to the episcopal mind; for, while forbidding the bishop to indulge in polygamy, it would give, or seem to give, Scripture sanction for THE BISHOPS ENGLISH 35 his wife's luxuriating in the barbaric dignity of polyandrism [alias 'whore- dom ']. Therefore, for the Bishop's sake, the so-called 'Revisers' did not revise the passage, but continued to make the rules of grammar succumb to the dictates of sober theology." "^ But why had the Revisers such respect for the sensibilities of Bishops, and none whatever for the feelings of Deacons ? In verse 12 of the same chapter we iTiDi.iii.12 read, " Let deacons be husbands of one wife." It does not say (though doubt- less Paul meant it, and the Revisers ought to have put it so), '' Let each deacon be the husband of one wife." No ! virtually the Revisers say that the ''one wife" is to be the common pro- perty of '^deacons''; they are to be her ''husbands^' and she their prostitute! Is this what Bishop Thornton calls, ^' Light in all its purity and clearness''"^. By no possible stretch of imagination "^ See " The Bibles of England," by Andrew Edgar, D.D., London, 1899, p. 355. 36 THE BISHOP'S ENGLISH can the passages be conceived to be that. The two redundant s's much more resemble what we can imagine to be the exulting sibilant hissing of the Prince of Darkness, at the Revisers' having brought ridicule on the Scriptures. In olden times bigamy was permissible, but the promise of a hundred wives to one man was a promise with which the Revisers did not know what to do ; and would have been glad to get rid of it, if they could; but that was impossible. Litera scinpta manet Matt.xix. In the A.V. of Matt. xix. 29, we read, ** Every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlast- ing life." The same passage, with some varia- Markx. 29. tlous, occurs iu Mark x. 29, and in Luke Luke xviii. xviii. 29 ; but, in all three gospels there are the words, "or wife'' However, the Revisers have struck out those words THE BISHOPS ENGLISH 37 in Matthew, and also in Mark, on the ^^*^- ^^'^• ground that in the Codex Vaticanus, Mark x. 29. though not in the Codex AlexandrinuSy or in the Codex Smaiticus, they are missing from Matthew; and in the Codex Sinaiticus, and in the Codex VaticanuSy but not in the Codex Alex- andrinus, they are missing from Mark. While, in all three of these ancient MSS. the words occur in Luke; and the ^^^j^^^^*"- Revisers admit, in a foot-note to the passage in Matthew, that they occur ^J^^^ also in "many ancient autho7nties,'' Why, then, have the Revisers struck out the words, seeing that the majority of ancient MSS. favour their insertion, and that Rule IV. of the Committee of Convocation is, ''That the Text to be adopted be that for which the evidence is decidedly preponderating '' ? I cannot but believe that the words " or wife,'' were struck out by the Revisers because they dreaded to face the very questionable blessedness of being repaid a hundredfold if they forsook their . XIX. 29. 38 THE BISHOFS ENGLISH wives, i.e. of having a hundred tvives each! They would then be in a sad plight; but one not so bad as the poor deacons, who, according to the Revisers' incorrect and immoral language, had to share one wife between them ! CHAPTER IV MISCELLANEOUS The Revisers have some astounding ideas. Here is a physiological impossibility. The Revisers say that Eve bore Cain s brother, Abel, twice ; for, in Gen. iv. 2, Gen. iv. 2. v^e read, '' And again she bare his brother Abel." A similar error, with regard to the word ^' again,'' occurs in Acts x. 15. Acts x. 15. " A voice came unto him again the second time.'' How can there be tivo second times? See also John iv. 54. John iv. 54. Even where the A.V. was right, in such like matters, the Revisers pervert the truth. In Gal. iv. 30, the A.V. Gai.iv.ao. speaks of a '' bondwoman and her son," This the Revisers have altered to a ^'hdia&maid and her son." As if a maid could have a son ! 40 THE BISHOP'S ENGLISH Here is another similarly mysterious affair : Bilhah and Zilpah were still maids, though they had each borne Jacob two sons ; at least, so the learned Re- visers say. But the A.V. does not say Gen.xxxii. SO lu Gcu. xxxll. 22. There it is "^vomen 22 servants^ Thus, according to the Revisers, the prophecy that, ^'a virgin shall conceive, isa. Yii.14. and bear a son," was not a prediction of an event which was at all un- common. Evidently there were more than one '^miraculous conception," ac- cording to the Revisers' teaching. But if they had had the slightest acquaint- ance with obstetrics and the cognate sciences, I cannot think that they would have been so foolishly credulous, and naively have expected to impart their credulity to others. The primary mean- ing which is the basis of the word "maidj' is ''youth, freshness, virginity''-, and that idea so dominates all others in connection with it, that even sex is sub- servient to it ; for, the word is allied to THE BISHOP'S ENGLISH 41 the Gothic '^ magus," a boy \ and to the Gaelic ^'mac," a son. But the prevailing meaning is ''a virgin^ Here is a filthy simile: — "He hath swallowed down riches, and he shall vomit them up again.'' Surely, before Job. xx. 15. anything can be vomited up again, — I will say no more about it, only that the Hebrew does not convey the filthy idea suggested by the Revisers' language. And why have the Revisers spoken of a woman's '' latter end'' ? " Her filthiness was in her skirts ; she remembered not her latter end. " Lam. i. 9. When the imagination is allowed to ^'run riot" through the realms of Nature, what wonders may we not behold ! The investigation of the Revisers' language is certainly fraught with much interest; and the careful student will meet with many surprises ; as, for instance, when he reads, in Gen. iv. 12, that the earth cen. h. 12. is both neuter and feminine. But the most astounding surprise will be that which he will experience when he re- 42 THE BISHOFS ENGLISH Hab. iii. 10; gards collectively Hab. iii. 10 ; Ezek. xxxi. Ezek. xxxi. ~i i -r» t rt 4; Rev. XX. 4; and Kev. xx. 13. Talk of the Greek myth of Herma- phroditos ! That was nothing, to the marvellous creation of the brains of the Revisers respecting the '^ vasty deep/' They tell us that the sea is at once masculine, feminine, and neuter! No wonder that such mysteries elicit the unbounded admiration of the Bishop ; but are they emanations of '^ light in all its purity and clearness " ? Some of the Revisers' translations are Actsxxvi. very droll: e.g. in Acts xxvi. 16, we read, "Arise, and stand upon thy feet." Why ''upon thy feet'' ? Did the Revisers think that Christ's appearing to Paul would so delight him, that, in his de- lirious joy, he might probably stand upon his head ? Heb.x. 13. In Heb. x. 13, and Luke xx. 43, the Revisers speak of " the footstool of his feet'' How could there be a footstool of any other part of the body? What nonsense ! Luke XX. 43. THE BISHOP'S ENGLISH 43 In Luke viii. 23, we read, " As they Lukeviii.23. sailed, he fell asleep : and there came down a storm of wind on the lake ; and thei/ were filling with water, and were in jeopardy." The words "with water,'' are not in the Greek ; and possibly the Revisers conceived that it might be thought that the sailors were ''filling'' with something stronger than water, and therefore it was desirable to guard against such a misconception; so they inserted the words, ^'ivith water." Luke viii. 32. — " Now there was there a Luke viii.s2. herd of manj/ swine feeding on the moun- tain : and they intreated him that he would give them leave to enter into them," What* a book of wonders the Revisers have made of the New Testament ! We are accustomed to read of pigs squeaking; but here we read of their speaking (a mere matter of p's and qs). However, that is not all : the Revisers (what a misnomer !) say that the pigs asked Jesus Christ that they might enter the devils ! whereas it was the devils 44 THE BISHOP'S ENGLISH who asked that they might enter the swine. isa. xiiii. 13. Isa. xliii. 13. — ''I am he; and there is none that can dehver out of my hand : I will work, and who shall let it ? " By one of the strange mutations of language, the word ''lety' which originally meant to ''hinder,'' now means to ''allow'': con- sequently the above passage in the RV. asks a question which is the exact opposite of that which was intended : and yet, with the Revisers' usual inconsistency, they have 2Thess.ii.7. altered the word in 2 Thess. ii. 7. psa.iix. 10. Psa. lix. 10. — ''The God of my mercy shall preve7it me." Here is another word which, like " let" has changed its meaning. It is derived from the Latin, ''- jprcevenio" to come before, with the object of assist- ing] that was its original meaning; but it now means, to come before with the object of frustrating. Hence its objec- tionableness in the above passage ; as the Revisers ought to have known. Perhaps, being mostly clergymen of the Church of England, they were accustomed to the THE BISHOP'S ENGLISH 45 antiquatedness of the word's signification, through having to say, in one of the collects, " Pr event us, O Lord, in all our doings '' : a prayer which I, when a boy, and knowing only the modern meaning of the word, ''prevent'^'' would never say. Matt. ix. 2. — ''They brought to him Matt. ix. 2. a man sick of the palsy." No doubt the man was sick of it ; but the Revisers instead of employing an expression which partakes of the nature of a pun, should have said, ''sick with the palsy." In the next verse, we read, " And Matt. ix. 3. behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves." In Matt. iii. 17 ; and xvii. 5, ^^^^f^"^-^' ' we are called upon to behold a voice \ here we are called upon to behold a thought! How can we "behold'' either? Matt. xii. 22. — "The blind and dumb Matt. xn. . . . spake and saw ; and all the multi- ^^' tude were amazed." And well they might be ; for, the Eevisers' sequence of events implies that the blind man spoke with his eyes, and saw with his mouth ! In a narrative, events should follow their 23. 46 THE BISHOPS ENGLISH natural sequence : the Revisers should have said, ''The blind and dumb saw and spoke'' \ not ''spake and saivT Here is a passage which, owing to the Revisers' ignorance of the right use of '' shalV and '' ivill^' really points to premeditated, compulsory murder ! It is Matt.xvii. in Matt. xvii. 23, ''They shall kill him." Doubtless that which Jesus said, was, " They ivill kill him." It was a grievous prophecy, not a threat, as the Revisers' language makes it appear to be. Matt.x. See also Matt. x. 21. — " Brother ^A^// deliver up brother to death, and the father his child : and children shall rise up against parents, and cause them to be put to death." The word ''shall,'' in this passage, makes it a decree ordain- ing these horrors. The Revisers should have said "tvill,'' not " shalV \ it was a prediction, not a decree. Matt.xix. Matt. xix. 13. — "Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should lay his hands on them and pray : and the disciples rebuked them.'' 21 13. THE BISHOP'S ENGLISH 47 Poor little dears ! Why did the disciples rebuke " them " ? or, is it that the Revisers are again at fault ? Oh ! these pronouns. Matt. XX. 34. — *'And Jesus, being Matt. xx. moved with compassion, touched their eyes : and straightway they received their sight, and followed him." Very natural for the eyes of the blind men to follow Jesus ; but is not the meaning of the Greek that the men followed him? What wonderful doves those must have been which were offered for sale in the Temple in Jerusalem. The Revisers tell us, in Matt. xxi. 12, that Jesus over- Matt. xxi. threw '^ the seats of them that sold doves, ^^^' and he saith unto them, It is written. My house shall be called a house of prayer : but ye have made it a den of robbers." Very naughty of the doves; or else very naughty of the Revisers not to have been ^'particularly careful as to the pronouns r It is said that ''variety is charming," the Revisers seem to think so with regard * to words. Hence, in Matt. xxii. 26, we^**^""* 48 THE BISHOPS ENGLISH are told that the man "deceased'' \ and, in verse 27 of the same chapter, that the woman ''died,'' I have given some examples of the awful immorality of the Revisers' work, now, for a change, let us look at some instances in which the Revisers' ignorance of English has made them (unwittingly, I admit) turn sacred history into pro- fanity, and certain teachings of Christ into that which is simply drollery. A critic in the last century once said, ''When I see a writer careless of his pronouns, I tremble for him/' The Revisers, however, were not troubled with fears for themselves. Indeed, their self-confidence is rather amusing, as we shall see. We will take the first six chapters of Mark, and from them will cull a few examples of the Revisers' boastful "particular carefulness" as to pronouns. Mark i. 13. Ju Mark i. 13, we read in the R.V., ''He was in the wilderness forty days tempted of Satan \ and he was with the THE BISHOPS ENGLISH 49 wild beasts." Who was ? Satan or Jesus ? As a pronoun is supposed to refer to the noun immediately preceding it, the natural inference is that it was Satan who was with the wild beasts. If that is not the meaning of the sentence, the Revisers should have omitted the pro- noun ''he!' The passage would then have read thus — "He was in the wilder- ness forty days tempted of Satan, and was with the wild beasts." And that is as the passage stands in the A.V. ; for, the error does not occur there. This passage shows us how little the Revisers' ''predecessors" deserved the scornful treatment which they have re- ceived from their successors. Mark iii. 22, 23, reads thus, — ''And Mark m. 22, the scribes which came down from ^^' Jerusalem, said, 'He hath Beelzebub, and. By the prince of the devils casteth he out the devils! And he called them unto him." What! called "the devils'' unto him? If this is the result of the Revisers' particular carefulness as D 50 THE BISHOPS ENGLISH to the pronouns, what should we have had, if there had been carelessness "i The Revisers could not have done worse than they have done ; and they might, perchance, have done better. Is this "7'evising'' the Scriptures? Mark V. 16. Mark V. 16 gives us another example of the Revisers' ''particular carefulness^ There we read of, ''him that was pos- sessed with devils, and concerning the swine. And they began to beseech him to depart/* This is especially extra- ordinary considering that the swine were Mark V. 13. dcad ! See v. 13. We may well ask what is the meaning of " revision,'' seeing that such passages as these abound in the R.V. ? Markvi.7, lu Mark vi. 7, 8 another curious ^* incident is related. It is this, " He gave them authority over the unclean spirits] and he charged them that they should take nothing for their journey.'' What journey were ''the unclean spirits'' going to take ? And why was Jesus interested in their luggage? Perhaps THE BISHOP'S ENGLISH 51 the Bishop will tell us, as he praises the RV. To him it is ''light in all its purity and clearness.'' Once more: in Mark vi. 38, 39 it Mark vi. 38 39 says, ''How many loaves have ye? go ' and see. And when they knew they say [it should be ' they said,' to agree with 'knew,' which refers to the past~\ Five and two fishes. And he commanded them that all should sit down." Fishes commanded to "sit down'' \ This is worthy of "Alice in Wonderland," Fishes sitting on their tails ! One cannot help smiling; but really it is the Eevisers' fault ; they should not have written such nonsense, as Satan keeping company with wild beasts ; Jesus calling devils unto him; swine beseeching him to depart; unclean spirits instructed as to what luggage they should take on a journey ; and fishes commanded to sit down ! What wonder that the word of God is described by others, besides Greeks, as "foolishness" \ See 1 Cor. i cor. i, 23 i. 23, And this is the result of an 52 THE BISHOPS ENGLISH examination of six consecutive chapters of only one book out of the sixty-six constituting the Bible, and concerning only one class of errors ; moreover, a class about which the Revisers boast of having been ''particularly carefuV ! Maikix. 20. Mark ix. 20. — '' They brought Mm unto liim : and when lie saw Am." This, instead of being ''light in all its purity and clearness,'' is certainly "cery foggy, Mark ix. 26. Mark ix. 26. — "The more part said, He is dead." What language is this? Undoubtedly it is not English. Who, except the Revisers, ever heard of "the more parV of a multitude? The A.V. tells us that "many said, He is dead." Markxiv. 8. Mark xiv. 8. — "She hath anointed my body ^forehand for the burying." Why have the Revisers said " <^forehand," Mark xiii. 23. here; and '"fi^forehand," in verse 23 of the previous chapter? But I do not expect an answer to my question; for, the Revisers could not, I am sure, give a satisfactory reason for their vagaries. Mark xiv. 3. Mark xiv. 3. — ^'She brake the cruse. THE BISHOP'S ENGLISH 53 and poured it over his head." Broken pieces of alabaster, even if scented with spikenard, could not have been very- pleasant on the head. But probably the Eevisers meant the ointment. Their language often says what they do not mean. Mark xiv. 41. — ''Sleep on now and Mark xtv. take your rest." Either these words were spoken sarcastically, — as a reproof ; or they were spoken interrogatively, as a reproof. They could not have been spoken in the form of a command, as the Revisers have put them; for, im- mediately afterwards, Jesus said, ''Arise, let us be going." The disciples could not ''sleep on,'' and yet be ''going''; unless they were to walk in their sleep. Mark xv. 37. — "And Jesus uttered a Mark xv. 37. loud voice, and gave up the ghost." First, he did not utter a voice ; his voice uttered a cry. Next, why have we here, " gave up the ghost " ; and, in Matt, xxvii. Matt, xxvii.. 50, "yielded up his spirit" "i If a ghost ^^' is a disembodied spirit, a man cannot 46^'.^® '''''"• 54 THE BISHOFS ENGLISH ''give up the ghost," because it is not a ''ghost," until it has been given up. Luke i. 18. Luke i. 18. — "I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years." When, in a sentence, the nominative to the verb changes, in either number or person, the verb, also, must change. In the foregoing sentence, the Revisers say, virtually, "I am an old man, and my wife [am~\ well stricken in years." See also Rev.x. 1. Rev. X. 1. "His face was as the sun, and his feet {leas'] as pillars of fire." So, Rev.xiii. 2. likewise, in Rev. xiii. 2. "His feet ^^r^ as the feet of a bear, and his mouth [wei^e] as the mouth of a lion." Lukeii.4. Luke ii. 4. — "And all went to enrol themselves, every one to his own city. And Joseph also went." If "aW went to enrol themselves, '^ every one to his own city," how could there be " also " another ? Really the Revisers had very funny ideas ! Luke ii. 38. Luke ii. 38. — "And she gave thanks unto God, and spake of him to all them that were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem." To whom does the pronoun THE BISHOP'S ENGLISH 55 *' him '' refer ; to God, or to the boy Jesus ? Oh, these pronouns ! How fortunate it was that the Revisers were able to say, as they did, in their Preface that they had been "particularly careful as to the pronouns " ; otherwise what trouble we should have had to understand the Scrip- tures. For instance, in Luke v. 12, we Luke v. 12. read ''When he saw Jesus, he fell on his face." Did the leper fall on Jesus's face ; or did Jesus fall on the leper's face ; or did the leper fall on his own face ? How kind of the Revisers to make it all so clear ! Can we wonder that the Bishop should describe the Revised Version, as "light in all its purity and clearness'' 1 Why did not the Revisers say, " The leper boived himself to the earth^' if that is what was meant ? Luke iii. 13. — ''And he [John] said ^uke m. 13. unto them, Extort no more than that which is appointed you." If this is a correct rendering, there can be no doubt that John sanctioned extortion. But it is much more probable that the Revisers' 56 THE BISHOPS ENGLISH wording of the passage is at fault, and that the soldiers were told to '' demand'' ; not to ''extort'' The A.V. says, ''Exact no more than that which is appointed you." Lukeiv. Luke iv. 1, 2. — ''Jesus was led hy the Spirit in the wilderness during forty days, being tempted of the devil." Why have the Revisers said, ''led hy the Spirit," yet " tempted of the devil " ? What difference is there between being led hy the good Spirit, and being tempted hy the bad Spirit, that necessitates a change in the Actsxxiii. preposition? See also Acts xxiii. 10, 27 10,27. • _*