IN MEMORIAM BERNARD MOSES Digitip d by the Internet Archive in'2p07;^ith funding from http://www.archive.org/details/ecclesiasticalenOOmoonrich Lt^ ECCLESIASTICAL EiNGLISH Kenny & Co., Printers, 25, Camden Road, London, N.W. "-^^^ri^ ^£^/^ '^^^. ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH : A SERIES OF CRITICISMS SHOWING THE OLD TESTAMENT REVISERS' VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE LANGUAGE, ILLUSTRATED BY MORE THAN 1000 QUOTATIONS. G. WASHINGTON :5^00N, Hox. F.E.S.L. Author of ' The Dean's Enylish'y S^'c. SECOND EDITION. Wxi\ a facsimile of an giutograplj fetter to lljc g^ut^or FROM THE RIGHT HONOURABLE W. E. GLADSTONE, ON THE NEGLECT OF THE STUDY OF ENGLISH. (iSlcprinttti bg permission.) LONDON: WARD & DOWNEY, 12, YOKE STREET, COVENT GARDEN, W.C. 1887. 2>eMcation I dedicate these Criticisms to one whose many excel- lencies endear him to the mightiest in the land, and whose additional commendation to me is his mastery over the English language. The purity of his diction, the felicity of his expressions, and the gracefulness of his style, are unsurpassed by those of any other of my literary correspondents. DEDICATED TO Sir ANDREW CLARK, Bart., M.D., LL.D., F.R.8 , F.R.C.P., iiC. BERNARD MOSES •• • • « • I • ■? - v» « •,• • ••• • • 10. ii^imtm^ ^ItBei. A^z^./^^^ U^cA. A f--- ^^-^ '^^'^ //A^ tc^^ ^>Sf. .^4J^ ^- BERNARD MOSES l\ i* :. : •.• PREFACE. -♦-M- The recent Eevision of the Sacred Scrip- tures occupied the most illustrious English scholars nearly fifteen years ; and such was the anticipated extent of the sale of the work, that the quantity of paper ordered for the edition was so enormous, that had the sheets been piled one upon another in reams as they left the mill, it was said that they would have formed a column ten times the height of St. Paul's Cathedral; or, had they been made into a strip six inches wide, it would have been sufficient with which to "put a girdle round the world " ! Yet, within a few months of the issuing of that stupendous work, the great excitement which had heralded and accompanied its publication, died down; and so cooled became the once glowing ardour of the booksellers who, under its influence, had 885987 vi. PREFACE, been induced to make excessive purchases, that they were offering their surplus copies at less than half price, — and offering them in vain. Englishmen had long regarded their Bible as the " well of English undefiled " ; and many of them, when speaking of the then forthcoming Revision of the Sacred Scriptures, seemed, by their enthusiasm, to believe that, under the mighty influence of those learned Doctors, a miracle would be wrought, as of old, and the water of this well would, as it were, be changed into wine. Was there ever so joyful an antici- pation of a rich draught of delight so cruelly mocked as was this one by the discovery of the lamentable emptiness of the fiasco f There was no wine in the cup ; and even the water from the old well was found, upon examination, to be charged with effete matter. But, whence was the bitterness of this dis- appointment — the source of this Marah? It sprang from the ignorance of those who had entertained the sanguine belief respecting the wonders to be wrought by the Eevisers. Those persons little knew the nature of the PREFACE, vii. education of the men wlio had been born in the early part of the present century. In those days the study of English was utterly ignored in the higher Schools and Colleges of the land. The writer gladly recognises the vast stores of learning possessed by the Revisers, and joins his countrymen in acknowledging the debt of gratitude due to those eminent scholars for so generously devoting their time and talents to the accomplishment of the great work. They did their duty nobly to the best of their ability, but they had not made English their study. What wonder, then, is it that their work is not characterized by purity of diction or elegance of style ? To say that there are errors in it, that those errors are gross, that their grossness is flagrant, and that they abound throughout the work, is indeed a grave charge to bring against it ; but, in the interests of our language, it must be brought ; and the gravity of the charge is the greater because of its transparent truth. But gross, and flagrant, and abounding as are the errors, they would be freely pardoned vm. PREFACE. had tliey been made by uneducated men. The gravamen is that the work, with all its faults, has gone forth to the world as the result of years of combined effort of England's most illustrious scholars ! And if the present state of our language — a language glorified by being the vehicle for conveying to mankind the sublime thoughts of Milton and of Shakspeare — be judged by the English of the Revisers, the world's unfaltering verdict upon it must be"Ichabod! Ichabod ! " And shall we, by our silence, pardonable though it would be as emanating from respect to the Revisers, allow their English to be accepted as the accredited evidence of the accuracy, gracefulness, and strength to which our language has attained? The proud love which we cherish for our language impels us to say No ! But, even were Englishmen willing to be silent, sooner or later the truth would declare itself, and reveal to the world that a sacred trust having been committed to the Revisers to translate the Divine Records into faultless English based on the time-hallowed version PREFACE. ix. of 1611, the Revisers, instead of making the Scriptures a model of excellence — the language worthy of the thoughts that it conveyed — had given to the English-speaking peoples a work marred by violations of grammar, ungrace- fulness of style, and infelicities of expression, all evidencing but too plainly that however learned the Revisers were in the classic lan- guages of antiquity, they were not masters of their own mother tongue. In this sweep- ing charge, the writer does not wholly include the American Revisers. They suggested many great improvements which were not carried out by their English collaborators, with whom rested the final decision in all matters. The reader will find in these pages a truthful exposure of the Revisers' most glaring errors of language, with chapter and verse for every quotation, so that the accuracy of the writer's statements may be tested. Were he not able thus to challenge investigation of the charges which he brings against the Revisers, he would shrink from publishing these criticisms, for he is certain that this work would not be received as truthful ; so difficult would it be to believe b X. PREFACE. that such errors had been committed bj such men.* The task has not been an enviable one ; but no man should shrink from the performance of obvious duty. The exposure had to be made, and the writer has made it ; and he trusts that in so doing he has rendered some slight service to all students of the language. As for the work itself, he hopes that at some future time his labours will be useful to those who will not merely undertake the revision of the Sacred Scriptures, but will faithfully accomplish that which they undertake, and make the Word of God, what the writer has always contended that it should be, the em- bodiment or THE PUREST TRUTH IN THE PUREST Lx\NGUAGE. London^ 1886. * " The Kevised Old Testament represents the result of the patient deliberation of the best scholars of the whole English-speaking world." — The Church Quarterly Review, July, 1885, p. 442, THE OLD TESTAMENT REVISERS, 18T0-1885. Alexander, Dr. W. L Prof essor of Theology, Con- gregational Church Hall, Edinburgh. Bexsly, Mr. R. L Fellow of Caius College, Cambridge. Bireell, Rev. J Prof essor of Oriental Lan- guages, St. Andrews. Browne, Dr. Harold Bishop of EI3'. Chance, Dr. F Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. CHENERY,.Mr. T Lord Almoner's Professor of Arabic, Oxford. Cheyne, Dr. T. K Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford. Cook, Rev. F. C Canon of Exeter. Davidson, Dr. A. B Professor of Hebrew, Free Church College, Edin- burgh. Davies, Dr. B Professor of Hebrew, Bap- tist College, Regent's Park, Loudon. Douglas, Dr Professor of Hebrew, Free Church College, Glasgow. 62 xii. LIST OF REVISERS. Driver, Dr Regius Professor of He- brew, Oxford. Elliott, Rev. C. J Formerly Fellow of St. Catharine's College, Cam- bridge. Fairbairn, Dr. P Principal of the Free Church, Glasgow. Field, Dr. F Formerly Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. Geden, Mr. J. D Professor of Hebrew, Wes- leyan College, Didsbury. GiNSBURG, Dr. Christian D. . .Editor of " The Massorah ", &c. GoTCH, Dr. F. W Principal of the Baptist College, Bristol. Harrison, Rev. B Archdeacon of Maidstone. Hervey, Lord Arthur Bishop of Bath and "Wells. Jebb, Dr. John Canon of Hereford. Kay, Dr. William Honorary Canon of St. Albans. Leathes, Rev. Stanley Professor of Hebrew, lung's College, London. Lumby, Dr. Norrisian Professor of Di- vinity, Cambridge. McGiLL, Rev. J Professor of Oriental Lan- guages, St. Andrews. Ollivant, Dr Bishop of Llandaff. Perowne, Dr. J. J. S Dean of Peterborough. Plumptre, Dr. Dean of Wells. Pusey, Dr Regius Professor of He- brew, Oxford. LIST OF REVISERS. xiu. Rose, Archdeacon Sayce, Rev. A. H Deputy Professor of Com- parative Philology, Ox- ford. Selwyn, Professor Smith, Dr. Payne Dean of Canterbury. Smith, Dr. W. Robertson ...Professor of Hebrew in the Free Church, Aberdeen. Thirlwall, Dr Bishop of St; David's. Weir, Dr. D. H Professor of Oriental Lan- guages, Glasgow. Wordsworth, Dr Bishop of Lincoln. Wright, Dr. W Professor of Arabic, Cam- bridge. Of the above. Dr. Pusey and Canon Cook declined to serve ; the Bishop of Lincoln and Dr. Jebb soon with- drew ; and somewhat later Dr. Plumptre resigned. The following members died during the progress of the work:— Mr. Chenery, Dr. B. Davies, Rev. C. J. Elliott, Dr. P. Fairbairn, Rev. J. McGill, Dr. Ollivant, Archdeacon Rose, Professor Selwyn, Dr. Thirlwall, and Dr. D. H. Weir. And Dr. W. L. Alexander and Dr. F. Field died during the interval between the completion and the publication of the work. The Secretary to the Old Testament Company was Mr. W. Aldis Wright, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. The Company was strengthened by the cooperation of the American Revisers ; as was also the New Testament Company. CONTENTS. A. Page 'A'or'an' 27, 63-70, 96, 101 Adjectives and adverbs 112, 116 'Afore 'and 'before'... 15 •After',- according to' 157 ' Afterward ' and * after- wards' 138, 139 'Again' 76-78,211 Agur 129 Aha! for Ha, ha! 210 All o/yow 87, 88 •Also ', redundant 92 * Alway ' and ' always ' 138 ' Am ', the verb ' to am' 103 Ambiguity 162, 163 Angels 'ascending and descending' 49 • Annul ' and ' disannul' 30, 31 •Another', for 'the other' 97-99 • Apparalled', for 'clothed' 18, 19 'Are 'and 'be' ...103-107 A son of man 100 * As — as ', and ' so— as ' 151-151 Assembled together ... SO ' Astonied ' and ' aston- ished' 15, 16 'Attired' and 'tired'... 22 * Aught ' and * ought '. . . 16 * Augmenteth ', for * in- creaseth' 19 Avenged of, for on 123 B. •Back' and 'backward' 28 ' Backward ' and ' back- wards' 139 Baker's ^Remarks on English' 1 Bath and Wells, Bishop of 11 Be, the verb ' to be '.. 103- 107, 154 * Before ' and • afore '. . . 15 * Beside ' and ' besides ' . 132-136 Bible, the 'Temple of Truth' 213-215 Black and white iden- tical 29 Blackness and paleness 28 Bloomed blossoms ... 79 CONTENTS. Page * Both ', redundant ... 85 Bot\\ of them 87-89 Both of those— right 89, 90 Brass, a natural pro- duct 209 'Bridles 'for 'bits' ... 209 Brokenhearted 17 Budded buds 99 * Builded ' and ' built '.. 14 ' But ', the meaning of 85, 86 * But 'redundant 86 'But', for 'that' 85 C. * Cankerworm ' 17 'Chiefest' 27 ' Clothed ' and ' appa- ralled' 18, 19 Collocation of words... 52 Colour, nou-existent... 29 Comma, its importance 212 * Common Errors in Spealdng and Writ- ing' 33 Compound words ...17, 18 * Congregation ', singu- lar and plural 39 Convocation's vote of thanks 5 Corpses, live and dead. 212 Cowper quoted 35 ' Cry with my voice '.. . 80 D. Page Darwinism 29 'Dead body that is dead' 79 Dead corpses 212 ' Deceased ' for ' dead ' 18 ' Depart «?<;«?/ ' 85 'Descending' and 'as- cending' 49 'Despite' 123 ' Devised devices ' 80 ' Diminished ' and ' mi- nished' 20 ' Disannul ' and ' annul' 30, 31 ' Doubled ' twice 77 'Downward' and 'down- . wards' 139 ' Drave ' and * drove '. . . 15 ' Dwelled ' and ' dwelt ' 15 E. Eacho/^^em 87,88 Each one 148 ' Eagle ', for ' eagle's ' . 210 Earth, neuter and femi- nine 30 ♦Eat'and'eafcup' ... 148 ' Edinhurgh \Revieiu.\ . . 10 ' Either ',*for' each' ...144, 145 ' Else but ', for ' else than' 91 CONTENTS. xvii. Page * Else save ', for * else than' 91 Emphasis, the place of 55,62 End, no or none 70 Errors, cause of the Eevisers' 102 ' Established' and ' sta- blished' 19, 20 Esther, Queen 127 Eunuch, a or an ... 69, 70 ' Ever ' and ' never ' ... 161 'Ever and ever' 176 ' Every drove by them- selves'' 143 •Every man by their families ' 144 ' Exceeding ' for ' ex- ceedingly' 115, 116 * Exceeding magnifical' 116 ' Except ', for ' unless ' 205-207 'Expended' 7 Eye, no or none 70 F. Feet, stood on 79 ' Firstripe ' 17 ' For ' before infinitives 117-119 *For ever' 78 ' For ', redundant 119 Page * Forward ' and * f or- wards' 139 G. Garment, an hairy 27 'Gathered to his fa- thers' 28 * Gathered up his feet ' 28 German revision of Luther's Bible 12 Gift, to take 28 'Good English' 11 Grammar, the Revisers' 32 * Grapegatherers ' 17 H. H, a and an before ...63-67 H, my and mine before 63, 73, 74 H, thy and thine before 64, 72 Ha, ha lor aha! 210 ' Had rather be ' 190 ' Hairy ' and ' 'airy * . . . 68 Hairy garment, an 27 Hairy man, a 27,68 Hairy man, an 27, 68 Hairy mantle, a 27 Half ,' one half ' 148 Handmaids 30 ' Hardly', its two mean- ings 25 * Harlots unto the King ' 53 XVlll, CONTENTS. Page ' Heard with our ears '. 80 ' Heart deceitful above all things' 129 * Heavier thau them ' .. 213 Hebrew language 76 'Hence' and 'from hence' 74-176 Hermaphroditos 30 Hiatus 69 'Homer' or 'omer' ... 26 Honour 74 I. * If and ' though ' 205 « If ', for ' whether ' ... 205 'In' and 'on' 122 ' In ', f or ' into ' 119-121 'In' or 'on' 61 Inconsistency ...9, 26, 112 ' Increaseth ' and ' aug- menteth' 19 Infinitive past, for pre- sent 7 Inhabitant, no and none 71 * Inward ' and ' in- wards' 139 IcrropicL 14 ' Its ', date of introduc- tion into Bible 208 J. Joash and Jehoash 201 Joahaz andJehoahaz... 201 Journey, to take 28 K. Page Kneeling on his knees. 79 Knowledge and wis- dom 35 L. 'Last end' 95 Latinisms 18 'Latter end 95 'Let', its two mean- ings 22 ' Lettan', to hinder ... 22 Levins, Peter, quoted . 14 Levity 68 ' Look sad ' and ' look sadly' 114 Lightning and thunder 48 Live corpses 212 * Loetan ' to loose 22 ' Loose ' and ' unloose '. 31 Lowth, Bishop, quoted 1 M. Maacah, Eehoboam's wife 128 Maids 30 Man, a or an hairy ... 27 ' Manipulus Vocahu- lorum ' 14 Mantle, a hairy 27 i 'Minished' and 'di- minished' 20 Mood, subjunctive 107-111 CONTENTS. XIX. Page Moses, meeker than all men 127 Multitude, noun of ... 6 ' Multitude ', singular or plural 39 N. ' IS'aught ' and * nought ' 16 ' Naughty ' and * noughty' 16 ' Never ', for ' ever ' ... 161 * Nitre ', for * natron '. . . 208 'No end ' and ' none end' 70 ' No eye ' and * none eye' 70 • No inhabitant ' and ' none inhabitant ' . . . 71 'No— nor' 159 'No— or' 159 'No 'or 'not' 154, 155 ' None ' and * no one '. . . 71 ' None other ' and ' no other' 131 ' None ', singular or plural 71 'Not-nor' 156 'Not-or' 156 Noun of multitude ... 6 0. '0' and 'Oh' 201-204 Of ; ' all of ', ' both of ', 'each of 87, 147 Page 'Of ', for 'by', for 'on' for* with' 122, 213 'Of, omitted 124, 125 ' Of ', redundant 124 ' Of them ', redundant 161 ' Omer ' or * homer ' ... 26 One; 'each one' 148 'One half 148 Oneness of all animals 29 Oneness of all colours 29 One ; ' such a one ', or ' such «w one' 70 Other; * none or no '... 131 'Other', omitted... 126, 130 'Other '.redundant 130, 132 'Outward' and 'out- wards' 139 ' Ought ' and ' aught ' .. 16 P. Pale, waxed 28, 29 ♦ Parted them both asimder' 85 Participle, present for past 7 Past infinitive, for pre- sent 7-10 ' People of his pasture' 201 'People', singular or plural 37, 38 'Peoples' 39, 40 'Persons' 39, 40 Perspicuity 52 XX. CONTENTS. Page ' Pitched with pitch ' .. 79 'Plain' or * plainly'... 112, 115 ' Plaiatered with plais- ter 79 Positive assertions, weak 175, 176 * Praying a prayer' ... 79 ' Precede ' or ' prevent ' 22 Prepositions 122 ♦Prevent' 121 'Prohe-UheV 12 Pronouns, ambiguous.. 162, 163 Pronouns, errors in ... 167, 173 Pronouns, redundant .. 83, 92-94 Pronouns, relative.. 164-1 66 ' Pruninghooks ' 17 E. Rams' skins 18 Eather; * had rather be' 190 Eedundancy... . 75-82 Eise tip 84 S. ' Sarai Abraham's wife' 211 Saxon words 18 Sea, masculine, femi- nine and neuter 30 Sealskins 18 Page Second times, two 212 ' See it with thine eyes ' 80 Sequence of words... 47- 60, 183, 190-193 Shakspeare quoted ... 23 'Shall' and 'will '..177-182 'Sheep of his hand'... 210 'Sick o/love' 212, 213 Smith, John, his book 174 'So — as ' and as— as'... 151-154 Solomon wiser than all men 126 Somersetshire witness 163 'Son of man' 100 ' Speak plain ', or ' plain- ly' 112, 113 ' Spite ' and ' despite ' .. 123 ' Stablished ' and ' es- tablished' 20 Stargazers 17 ' Stole ' and ' stole a- way' 28 ' Stone him with stones ' 82, 83 * Stood up on his feet ' 79 'Storehouse' 17 ' Storeys ' and ' stories ' 1 4 ' Stories ' in the ark ... 14 ' Strewed ', ' strawed ' or'strowed' 26 ' Stronghold ' and 'strong hold' 17 C0JSTENT8, Page XXI. Subjunctive mood. 107-111, 183 • Such a one ' and ' such «wone' 70 Swallowed * up ' and 'down' 149, 160 T. Take, a gift and a journey 28 Tautology 10, 75-82 'Teir, to count 23, 24 Temple of Truth, the Bible 213-215 Tentative Edition of Revision 12 'Than' 132 'Than them' 213 'The', 'a', or* an' ...96, 97 'Thee', for 'thou' 170, 186 'Them 'and 'those'... 172 'Thence' and 'from thence' 194-196 ' The son of man ', for * a son of man ' 100 'This 'and 'that' 200 * This twenty years ' and * these twenty years' 141 ' Though ', for ' if ' 205 'Thunder and light- ning' 48 Page ' Thy ' and ' thine ' 72 ' Tidings ', singular and plural 43 ' Time past ' and ' times past' 139 Times, The, quoted ...5, 13 ' Tired ' and ' attired ' . 22 ' Tired wheels ' 22 ' To ' and ' unto ' 121 Tongue, 'in' or 'on' the 61 ' Toward ' and ' to- wards' 139 U. 'Unless' and 'except' 205-207 ' Unloose ' and ' loose '. 31 ' Unto ' and ' to ' 121 Up; 'eat up' 148, 149 Up ; ' swallowed up ' 149, 150 ' Upward ' and ' uj)- wards' 139 V. Vacillation of the Re- visers 137 * Vanish «zf;ay ' ..„ 84 Verb, its primary im- portance 32 xxu. CONTENTS. Page Verbs, errors in... 33, 41-49, 183-189 ' Vomit them up again ' 78 Vote of thanks to the Revisers 6 W. * Waxed pale' 28, 29 Weighed out, * ex- pended' 7 ' Weight... in weight ' . 10 * Whence ' and ' from whence' 194-196 « Whether ' and ' if ' ... 205 'Which', for 'who' ... 10 •While 'and 'whiles'.. 141 ' Who ' and ' which ' 164-166 Page Whom ; ' the man's rod whom' 173 'Will' and 'shall'... 177-182 'Wilt', for 'wiliest'... 204 'Widow wo wrtw' 81 ' Wisdom ' and ' know- ledge' 35 Wisdom, its existence ignored 36 ' Women servants ' ... 30 ' Wonderful great ' ... 116 Y. Years, ' this twenty ' and * these twenty ' . 141 'You 'and 'ye' ...166, 170 Youth, ' like an eagle '. 210 INDEX OF TEXTS. GENESIS Genesis— {con .) Chap. Ver. Page. Chap. Ver. Page. ii. ... 15 ... 118 XV. ... 1 ... 115 17 ... 76 9 ... 65 18 ... 65 10 ... 98' 29 ... 65 xvi. ... 1 65,210,211 21 ... 162 xvii. ... 6 ... 115 iii. ... 6 ... 118 xviii. ... 2 ... 183 iv. ... 2 ... 211 21 ... 205 12 ... 30 xix. ... 12 ... 134 13 ... 179 XX. ... 1 ... 196 14 ... 179 xxi. ... 16 ... 183 17 ... 162 xxii. ... 4 ... 183 22 ... 124 6... 88 vi. ... 6 ... 122 8 ... 88 6 ... 122 xxiii. ... 6 ... 86 7 ... 89 xxiv. ... 11 ... 118 13 ... 122 23 ... 76 14 ... 79 XXV. ... 25 ... 27,68 16 ... 13 xxvi. ... 1 ... 135 17 ... 56, 122 17 ... 196 vii. ... 21 ... 90 22 ... 196 viii. ... 3 ... 65 xxvii. ... 11 ... 27,68 8 ... 204 21 ... 155 10 ... 130 xxviii. ... 12 ... 49 20 ... 14 17 ... 130 ix. ... 20 ... 65 xxix. ... 4 ... 106 xii. ... 12 ... 179 xxxi. ... 18 ... 117 17 ... 210,211 19 ... 28 xiii. ... 12 ... 15 20 ... 28 18 ... 14,15 38 ... 141 INDEX OF TEXTS. Genesis— [con?) Genesis — (con.') Chap. Ver Page. Chap. Ver. Page. xxxi. . . 41 142 xliii. . .. 3 ... 205 42 205 5 ... 205 46 65 10 ... 205 49 98 14 ... 183 50 135 22 ... 121 xxxii. .. . 16 143 34 ... 152 22 30 35 ... 152 26 205 xliv. . . 1 ... 1.52 xxxiii. .. . 11 28 23 ... 205 12 28 26 ... 205 17 65 xlvi. . . 15 ... 107 xxxiv. .. . 12 161 xlvii. . . 4 ... 118 15 106 xlix. .. . 13 ... 65 22 106 33 ... 28 30 177 ]. .. . 25 ... 196 31 65 26 ... 120 XXX vi. .. 15 113 43 106 EXODUS. xxxvii. .. 14 . 205 Chap. Ver. Page. 32 . 154 i. .. . 7 ... 115 xxxix. .. 5 . 55 iii. .. . 5 ... 79 6 . 55 iv. .. . 18 ... 205 xl. .. 7 . 114 V. .. . 8 ... 20 10 . 205 19 ... 20 13 . 72 vi. .. . 14 ... 107 19 . 72 ix. .. . 16 ... 117 21 . 76 24 ... 44 xli. ... 32 . 77 31 ... 33 48 . 36 X. .. 19 ... 115 57 . 117 26 ... 65 xlii. . .. 7 . .. 117,196 xii. .. 9 ... 156 13 . 183 16 ... 122 15 . 205 33 ... 81 32 . 183 45 ... 65 INDEX OF TEXTS. XXV. Exodus — {co7i.) Exodus— (con.) Chap. Ver. Page. Chap. Ver. Page. xiii. ... 19 ... 196 XXX. .. . 23 ... 153 21 ... 118 xxxii. .. . 20 ... 26 xiv. ... 8 ... 65 xxxiii. .. . 4 ... 43 13 ... 78 15 ... 196 26 ... 77 XXXV. .. 23 ... 18, 29 XV. ... 18 ... 176 25 ... 91 26 ... 183 35 ... 171, 172 xvi. ... 4 ... 155 xxxvi. .. . 19 ... 67 16 ... 26 22 ... 99 27 ... 117 29 ... 88 xvii. ... 7 ... 155 xxwii. .. . 9 ... 98 xviii. ... 4 ... 64 26 ... 91 xix. ... 6 ... 65 xl. .. . 37 ... 110 16 ... 39, 115 XX. ... 18 ... 48 LEVITICUS. xxi. ... 15 ... 183 Chap. Ver. Page. 16 ... 183 viii. .. . 4 ... 39 29 ... 139 ix. .. . 17 ... 134, 135 36 ... 139 22 .. 124, 183 xxii. ... 8 ... 205 X. .. 1 ... 87, 146 xxiii. ... 11 ... 73 12 ... 134, 147 12 ... 73 14 .. 107 26 ... 160 xi. .. . 1 .. 121 XXV. ... 18 ... 98 31 .. 107 20 ... 98 xiii. . I .. 121 22 ... 67 XV. .. . 1 .. 121 25 ... 65 xvii. . . 3 .. 101 30 ... 138 XX. . . 2 .. 82 xxvi. ... 14 ... 56 8 .. 183 17 ... 99 11 .. 88 xxviii. ... 32 ... 63 12 .. 88 xxix. ... 28 ... 66 13 .. 88 40 ... 66 18 .. 88 XXX. ... 15 ... 167 xxiii. . . 12 .. 63,67 XXVI. INDEX OF TEXTS. Levii icus—{con.) Numbers— {con.) Chap. Ver. Page. Chap. Ver. Page. ^xiii. .. . 22 .. 168 xii. ... 3 127 38 .. 135 14 78 xxiv. .. . 16 .. 82 15 78 20 .. 77 18 205 23 .. 83 19 205 XXV. .. . 47 .. 134 20 205 xxvi. .. . 34 .. 153 xiii. ... 18 38 35 .. 153 28 ... 38,107 :xvii. .. . 16 .. 67 31 106 27 .. 73 xiv. ... 7 10 115 83 NUMBEl IS. 13 179 Chap. Ver, Page. XV. ... 35 83 i, .. . 44 .. 148 36 83 ii. .. . 24 .. 67 xvi. ... 3 39 34 .. 144 32 150 iv. .. . 4.5 .. 107 33 150 V. .. . 20 .. 72, 132 49 134 26 .. 66 xvii. ... 5 173 vi. .. . 9 .. 134 8 79 vii. .. . 13 .. 88 27 205 19 .. 88 29 143 25 .. 88 xix. ... 13 79 31 .. 88 XX. ... 17 156 37 .. 88 xxi. ... 2 74 43 .. 88 32 15 49 .. 88 xxii. ... 29 74 65 .. 88 xxiii. ... 5 121 61 .. 88 10 95 67 .. 88 12 121 73 .. 88 16 121 79 ... 88 19 101 ix. .. . 16 .. 138 XXV. ... 13 121 18 .. 153 xxviii. ... 10 135 INDEX OF TEXTS. XXVll. Numbers— {con.) Deutei onomy— (cow.) Chap. Ver. Page. Chap. Ver. Page xxviii. . . 15 ... 135 V. . .. 32 ... 156 24 ... 135 vi. .. . 23 ... 196 31 ... 135 24 ... 138 xxix. .. . 6 ... 135 vii. .. . 4 ... 168 11 ... 135 viii. .. . 2 ... 155 16 ... 135 9 ... 208 19 ... 135 13 ... 44 22 ... 135 14 ... 165 25 ... 135 15 ... 165 28 ... 135 ix. .. . 12 ... 196 31 ... 135 X. .. . 5 ... 106 34 ... 135 14 ... 42 38 ... 135 15 ... 128 39 ... 135 xi. .. . 1 ... 138 XXX. .. 6 ... 63 12 ... 138 14 ... 111 30 ... 134 16 ... 67, 106 xii. .. 22 ... 45 xxxi. .. 28 ... 89 xiii. .. 9 ... 139 30 ... 89 10 ... 83 xxxvi. .. 5 ... 115 xiv. ... 2 ... 23 ... 128 138 DEUTERONOMY. 27 ... 159 Chap. Ver. Page. 29 ... 159 i. ... 1 ... 106 xvi. ... 21 ... 134 11 ... 153 xvii, ... 7 ... 138 39 ... 181 11 ... 156 ii. ... 5 ... 154 20 ... 156 7 ... 72 xviii. ... 1 ... 169 24 ... 72 8 ... 135 27 ... 121 xix. ... 2 ... 83 iv. ... 1 ... 118 3 ... 83 42 ... 139 4 ... 139 V. ... 15 ... 196 6 ... 139 29 ... 66,138 19 ... c 2 8 XXVlll. INDEX 0. F TEXT s. Deuteronomy —(con.) Joshua— (con .) Chap. Ver. Page. Chap. Ver. Page. xxi. ... 1 . 83 ii. ... 2 ... 118 21 . 83 V. ... 15 ... 79 xxii. ... 1 . 172 vi. ... 21 ... 90 2 172 vii. ... 9 ... 178 21 83 12 ... 205 22 . 67 25 ... 83 24 83 ix. ... 8 ... 196 xxiii. ... 18 88 X. ... 18 ... 118 xxiv. ... 1 . 121 xii. ... 9 ... 134 3 121 xvi. ... 10 ... 15 XXV. ... 11 118 xvii. ... 18 ... 183 xxvi. ... 3 118 xxi. ... 42 ... 144 xxvii. ... 2 79 xxii. ... 14 ... 144 4 .. 79,107 xxiii. ... 6 ... 156 8 112 xxiv. ... 13 ... 166 xxviii. ... 1 128 14 156 JUDGES 29 138 Chap. Ver. Page. xxix. ... 5 168 i. ... 20 ... 15 10 86 21 ... 185 11 168 ii. ... 22 ... 155 xxxi. ... 6 156 iii. ... 17 ... 64 27 141 iv. ... 21 ... 66,67 xxxii. ... 29 95 vi. ... 13 ... 110, 202 30 205 15 ... 202 xxxiii. ... 17 88 31 ... 110 29 73 vii. ... 10 ... 120 xxxiv. ... 4 80 14 ... 91 viii. ... 5 ... 106 JOSHUA. 18 ... 148 Chap. Ver. Page. ix. ... 33 ... 37 i. ... 6 ... 156,157 34 ... 37 7 ... 156,157 xi. ... 26 ... 107 11 83 xii. ... 6 ... 113 INDEX OF TEXTS. XXIX. Judges — {con.) 1 Samuel— (con.) Chap. Ver. Page. Chap. Ver. Page. xiii. ... 4 ... 159 xxi. ... 9 .. 131 7 ... 159 xxiv. ... 11 .. 73 xiv. ... 16 ... 156 XXV. ... 22 .. 153 XX. ... 16 ... 66 34 .. 205 48 ... 88 xxix. .. . 6 .. 8 .. 41 153 RVTH. XXX. ... 6 .. 82 Chap. Ver. Page. i. ... 18 ... 117 2 SAMUEL. ii. ... 14 ... 134 Chap. Ver. Page. iv. ... 1 ... 70 i. ... 4 .. 106 7 ... 118 5 .. 106 11 ... 72 25 .. 64 12 ... 72 ii. ... 19 .. 156 iii. ... 13 .. 205 1 SAMUEL. 17 .. 139 Chap. Ver. Page. iv. ... 6 .. 205 i. ... 6 ... 118 8 .. 123 13 ... 83 V. ... 2 .. 140 ii. ... 2 ... 135 6 .. 205 29 ... 27 vii. ... 22 .. 135 34 ... 88 23 .. 169 Ti. ... 12 ... 156 28 .. 107 ix. ... 22 ... 27 viii. ... 1 .. 209 X. ... 6 ... 67 ix. ... 10 .. 138 xii. ... 8 ... 165 X, ... 4 .. 148 xiv. ... 7 ... 72 xi. ... 8 .. 72 XV. ... 3 ... 90 10 .. 72 xvii. ... 5 ... 66 xii. ... 2 .. 116 38 ... 66 18 .. 141 xix. ... 11 ... 180, 181 21 ... 141 XX. ... 14 ... 141 22 ... 141 20 ... 205 33 ... 116 xxi. ... 7 ... 27 xiv. ... 5 ... 73,81 XXX. INDEX OF TEXTS. 2 Samuel — (con.) Chap. Ver. xiv. ... 6 ... 72 7 ... 72 15 ... 72 17 ... 72 XV. ... 30 ... 39 xviii. ... 25 ... 43 xxi, ... 16 ... 10 xxiii. ... 1 ... 107 1 KINGS. Chap. Ver. Page, i. ... 14 ... 141 ii. ... 23 ... 108 26 ... 186 iii. ... 16 ... 52 iv. ... 30 ... 126 31 ... 126 vi. ... 23 ... 98 24 ... 184 27 ... 98 vii. ... 31 ... 66 viii. ... 1 ... 79 5 ... 24 6 ... 122 42 ... 181 54 ... 79 ix. ... 15 ... 118 X. ... 7 ... 35 15 ... 40 19 ... 145 21 ... 71,183 24 ... 121 xi. ... 26 ... 81 xii. ... 18 ... 83 1 Kings— (con.) Chap. Ver. Page. xii. ... 27 ... 181 xiii. ... 6 ... 77 14 ... 184 26 ... 165 XV. ... 22 ... 183 xvii. ... 9 ... 81 14 ... 108 xviii. ... 3 ... 165 12 ... 181 14 ... 181 21 ... 110 xix. ... 19 ... 165 XX. ... 3 ... 41 20 ... 66 xxi. ... 13 ... 83 2 KINGS. Chap. Ver. Page. i. ... 8 ... 27,68 ii. ... 10 ... 68 11 ... 68,85 19 ... 16 iii. ... 16 ... 200 17 ... 200 iv. ... 1 ... 73 24 ... 205 39 ... 117 vi. ... 15 ... 66 vii. ... 2 ... 80 ix. ... 30 ... 22 X. ... 15 ... 72 xi. ... 2 ... 200 21 ... 200 INDEX OF TEXTS. XXXI. 2 Kings— {con.) i CHRONICLES, Chap. Ver. Page. Chap. Ver. Page. xii. ... 1 .. 200 vii. .. 3 ... 88 2 200 ix. .. 20 ... 139 4 .. 200 xi. .. 2 140 6 .. 200 xiii. .. 6 ... 195 7 .. 200 xvi. .. 36 ... 176 11 .. 24 xvii. .. 16 ... 63 18 .. 200 xix. .. 3 ... 118 19 .. 200 xxi. .. 3 ... 153 20 .. 200 xxii. .. . 5 ... 116 xiii. .. 1 ... 200 xxiii. .. 17 ... 131 9 .. 200 xxviii. .. 2 ... 79 10 .. 200 xxix. .. . 7 ... 67 12 .. 200 10 ... 176 13 .. 200 11 ... 42 14 .. 200 25 .. 200 xiv. ... 1 .. 200 2 CHRONICLES. 8 .. 99 Chap. Ver. Page. 11 .. 99 i. .. . 12 ... 34 13 .. 200 ii. .. . 9 ... 116 XV. ... 19 .. 118 V. .. . 12 ... 88 xvi. ... 8 .. 44 vi. .. 14 ... 159, 165 xviii. ... 18 .. 165 15 ... 165 34 .. 43 18 ... 16 37 .. 165 33 ... 15 xix. ... 13 .. 42 vii. .. 22 ... 165 28 .. 208 viii. .. 18 ... 195 35 .. 212 ix. .. 8 ... 118 XX. ... 3 .. 15 11 ... 71 4 .. 15 18 „. U5 xxii. ... 2 .. 156 23 ... 120 xxiii. ... 29 .. 163 X. .. 16 ... 144 XXV. ... 5 .. 60 18 ... 83 10 .. 51 xi. .. 18 ... 128 XXXll. INDEX OF TEXTS. 2 Chronicles- -{con.) Nehemiah— {con .) Chap. Ver. Page. Chap. Ver. Page. xi. ... 20 .. 128 ix. .. 5 ... 176 21 .. 128 19 ... 117 XV. 2 141 xii. .. 27 ... 90 xvi. ... 1 .. 157 xvii. ... 19 .. 135 ESTHER. 6 .. 135 Chap. Ver. Page. xviii. . .. 9 144,145,146 i. . .. 17 ... 181 xxiv. .. 21 .. 83 20 ... 181 XXV. .. 17 .. 99 ii. . .. 11 ... 181 19 .. 64 14 ... 205 21 .. 99 17 ... 127 xxviii. .. 6 .. 53 iii. . .. 8 ... 128 xxix. .. 8.. 66 iv. . .. 4 ... 116 xxxii. ,. 7 .. 39,40 14 ... 110 xxxiv. .. 3 .. 141 V. . .. 3 ... 204 4 .. 26 7 ... 13 ... 1.53 EZRA. vi. . .. 13 ... 110 Chap. Ver. Page. viii. . 5 ... 110 Vii. . .. 27 .. 121 viii. . .. 20 .. 88 JOB. 22 .. 41 Chap. Ver. Page. 33 ... 41,45 i. . . 7 ... 196 ix. , 7 .. 116 10 ... 66 ii. . . 2 ... 196 NEHEMIAH. iii. . . 16 ... 66 Chap. Ver. Page. 17 ... 107 ii. . .. 2... 91 18 ... 107 5 ... 110 V. , . 9 ... 165 10 ... 119 11 ... 107 12 ... 121 vii. .. . 9 ... 84 iii. . .. 23 ... 133 16 ... 138 iv. . .. 3 ... 181 19 ... 149 vii. . . 5 ... 63, 121 viii. .. . 7 ... 95 IJS VJ^'X U j_r TEATIS XXXIU. Job — (con.') Psalms — {con.) Chap. Ver. Page. Chap. Ver. Page. viii. ... 20 ... 60 vii. .. 9 .. 203 ix. ... 30 ... 161 10 .. 165 X. ... 18 ... 70 viii. .. 4 .. 101 19 .... 205 ix. .. 5 .. 175 xii. ... 2 ... 85 X. .. 16 .. 176 13 ... 36 xiv. .. 2 .. 204 16 ... 41 xvi. .. . 8 .. 138 xiv. .. 3 ... 70 xvii. .. 7 .. 60 XV. ... 21 ... 46 xix. .. 11 .. 124 xviii. ... 2 ... 139 xxi. .. . 4 .. 176 xix. ... 3 ... 25 xxiii. .. 6 .. 181 XX. ... 15 ... 78, 149 XXV. .. . 16 .. 170 18 ... 149 17 .. 202 23 ... 141 20 .. 202 xxi. ... 21 ... 46 xxvii. .. 7 .. 80 xxiv. ... 15 ... 70 13 .. 206 25 ... 109 xxxiii. .. 19 .. 118 XXV. ... 6 ... 100 xxxiv. .. 18 .. 105 xxvii. ... 6 ... 153 XXXV. .. 14 .. 205 xxviii. ... 22 ... 80 26 .. 64 XXX. ... 1 ... 9 xxxvi. .. 10 .. 202 5 ... 65 xxxviii. .. 4 .. 66 xxxi. ... 11 ... 66 xl. .. . 3 .. 121 xxxiv. ... 33 ... 204 12 .. 73 XXX v. ... 8 ... 100, 101 xliii. .. 1 .. 202 xxxvi. ... 20 ... 39 3 .. 202 xxxix. ... 16 ... 205 xliv. .. 26 .. 84 25 ... 209 xiv. .. 6 .. 176 xl. ... 8 ... 31 17 .. 176 xlii. ... 12 ... 95 xlviii. .. 14 .. 176 xlix. .. . 7 .. 160 PSALMS. 18 .. 141 Chap. Ver. Page. 1. .. 21 .. 70 vii. ... 2 ... 141 Hi. .. . 8 .. 176 XXXIV. INDEX OF TEXTS. Psalms— {con^ Psalms— {con .) Chap. Ver. Page. Chap, Ver. Page. liv. ... 4 .. 64 xcviii. .. . 1 ... 45 Ivi. ... 8 .. 24 c. .. o c* ... 210 Iviii, ... 5 .. 161 ci. .. 2 202 7 .. 205 cii. .. . 27 ... 70 Ixi. ... 7 .. 202 ciii. .. . 5 ... 209 Ixii. ... 7 .. 41 9 ... 138 Ixiii. ... 4 .. 141 10 ... 157 Ixiv. ... 6 .. 41 civ. .. . 1 ... 19 Ixvii. ... 4 .. 202 33 ... 141 Ixviii. ... 21 .. 70 cvi. .. . 4 ... 202 Ixix. ... 6 .. 172 cix. .. . 26 ... 202 16 .. 170 cxix. .. . 8 ... 202 31 .. 101 10 ... 202 Ixxi. ... 8 ... 74 44 ... 176 Ixxii. ... 5 .. 152 50 ... 73 Ixxiii. ... 26 .. 43,44 92 ... 73,206 Ixxiv. ... 19 ... 202 96 ... 116 21 .. 202 97 ... 202 Ixxx. ... 17 .. 100 112 ... 73 Ixxxiv. ... 2 44 147 ... 21 10 ... 190 161 ... 73 Ixxxv. ... 12 ... 181 cxxiv. .. . 8 ... 165 13 ... 181 cxxv. .. . 4 ... 105 Ixxxvi. ... 16 ... 202 cxxvii. .. . 1 ... 205 Ixxxvii. ... 5 ... 45 cxxxi. .. . 1 ... 18S Ixxxviii.... 10 ... 18 cxxxii. ;. . 4 ... 157 13 ... 21 cxxxv. .. . 21 ... 165 Ixxxix. ... 47 ... 202 cxxxix. .. . 4 ... 61 xc. ... 14 ... 202 10 ... 181 xciii. ... 1 ... 18,19 24 ... 204 2 ... 19 cxliv. .. . 3 ... 101 xciv. ... 17 ... 206 14 ... 41 xcv. ... 6 ... 201 cxlv. .. . 1 ... 176 7 ... 201,210 2 ... 176 INDEX OF TEXTS. XXXV. Psalms— (con.) Chap. cxlvi. . cxlvii. cxlviii. Ver. 3 5 6 7 4 7 8 11 20 6 Page. 100 166 166 166 24 166 166 171 128 176 PROVERBS. Chap. i. 11. iii. iv. V. vi. viii. x. xvi. xvii. xviii. xix, XX. Ver. 16 ... 23 ... 27 ... 6 ... 16 ... 16 ... 27 ... 11 ... 19 ... 16 ... 30 ... 22 ... 24 ... 18 ... 24 ... 15 ... 4 ... 11 ... 2 3 ... Page. 118 170 34,43 43 187 206 156 44 138 104 138 93 94 66 66 87 188 67 94 74 Provei'bs— Chap. Ver. XX. ... 10 , 12 14 , 17 xxi. ... 8 20 xxiv. ... 10 21 XXV. ... 16 20 xxvi. ... 4 xxvii. ... 3 9 , xxviii. ... 8 , 14 , xxix. ... 12 , XXX. ... 2 13 . 18 . 24 29 , xxxi. ... 26 . (con.) Page. 88 88 16 139 116 ... 42,149 110 171 153 207 92 212 50 19 138 107 129 202 104 ... 104,116 104 60 ECCLESIASTES. Chap. ii. . iii. . iv. . vii. ix. xii. Ver. 13 12 8 16 2 8 24 8 12 Paga 163 153 70 70 55, 188 27 116 138 70 INDEX OF TEXTS. CANTICLES. Isaiah— (con.) Chap. Ver. Page. Chap. Ver. Page. ii. ... 5 ... 212 xxxi. ... 6 ... 170 V. ... 8 ... 212 xxxii. ... 2 66 10 ... 27 4 ... 113 vii. ... 12 ... 204 xxxiv. ... 10 ... 16 ... 156, 176 71,92 XXXV. ... 6 ... 66 ISAIAH. 8 ... 201 Chap. Ver. Page. xxxvi. ... 19 ... 43 i. ... 6 ... 28 xxxvii. ... 29 ... 208 9 ... 205 36 ... 212 iii. ... 7 ... 66 xli. ... 22 ... 117 V. ... 7 ... 189 xliii. ... 11 ... 135 10 ... 26 13 ... 23 13 ... 39 xliv. ... 6 ... 135 29 ... 209 8 ... 135 vi. ... 2 ... 148 xlv. ... 6 ... 135 vii. ... 19 ... 88 24 ... 45 viii. ... 6 ... 37 xlvii. ... 9 ... 123 ix. ... 7 ... 70 10 ... 34 13 ... 38 13 ... 17 xi. ... 9 ... 156 xlviii. ... 5 ... 45, 92 11 ... 211 xlix. ... 22 ... 73 xiv. ... 27 ... 31 26 ... 54 xvi. ... 11 ... 66 5 ... 28 xxii. ... 16 ... 66 1. ... 6 ... 28 xxiii. ... 16 ... 67 li. ... 6 ... 84 XXV. ... 4 ... 184 8 ... 148 xxviii. ... 18 ... 31 12 ... 101 29 ... 165 23 ... 12L xxix. ... 8 ... 66 Hi. ... 14 ... 15 XXX. ... 8 ... 176 liii. ... 2 159 13 ... 67 Iv. ... 6 ... 141 17 ... 66 10 ... 47 28 ... 209 Ivi. ... 2 101 INDEX OF TEXTS. XXXVll. Isaiah— (con.') \ Jer&miah—(c(m.) Chap. Ver. Page. Chap. Ver. Page. Ivi. ... 7 ... 73 xvi. ... 16 ... 138 Ivii. ... 2 ... 148 xvii. ... 9 ... 129 16 ... 138, 181 xviii. ... 9 ... 118 lix. ... 21 ... 58, 121 15 ... 37 Ix. ... 11 ... 156 18 ... 80 17 ... 73 xxii. ... 17 ... 118 Ixi. ... 1 ... 17 xxiii. ... 14 ... 66 Ixui. ... 11 ... 211 29 ... 67 15 ... 42 XXV. ... 5 ... 176 Ixv. ... 25 ... 156 xxvi. ... 15 ,.. 181 XXX. ... 2 ... 56 xxxi. ... 32 ... 210 JEREMIAH. xxxiii. ... 13 ... 24 Chap. Ver, Page. xxxiv. ... 9 ... 71 ii. ... 10 ... 204 10 ... 71 iv. ... 22 ... 37 ... 11 ... 138 , 139 V. ... 1 ... 204 XXX vii. ... 4 ... 121 9 ... 123 15 ... 121 23 ... 37 18 ... 121 29 ... 123 xxxviii. ... 7 ... 69 vi. ... 7 ... 42,45 xl. ... 4 ... 117 20 ... 60 5 ... 141 vii. ... 7 ... 176 xlii. ... 18 ... 47 16 ... 37 xliv. ... 6 ... 47 viii. ... 5 ... 37 xlvi. ... 12 ... 87 ix. ... 9 ... 123 xlviii. ... 33 ... 45 xi. ... 8 ... 144 xlix. ... 6 ... 138 19 ... 80 9 ... 17 xii. ... 4 ... 95 18 ... 101 xiv. ... 9 .. 16 24 ... 45 11 ... 37 33 ... . 101 18 .. 212 1. ... 6 ... 37 XV. ... 9 .. 141 40 ... 101 xvi. ... 12 .. 144 li. ... 43 ... 101 VUl. INDEX OF TEXTS. L AMENTA TIONS. Chap. Ver. Page. i. ... 9 ... 95 12 ... 204 ii. ... 12 ... 42 19 ... 72 iii. ... 38 ... 50 47 ... 34 EZEKIEL. Chap. Ver. Page. i. ... 11 ... 98 ii. ... 10 ... 42 iii. ... 5 ... 66, 68 6 ... 66, 68 15 ... 16 iv. ... 4 ... 99 8 ... 99 vii. ... 2 ... 97 15 ... 189 16 ... 88 xiii. ... 11 ... 214 15 ... 214 xiv. ... 16 ... 180 18 ... 180 20 ... 180 XYi. ... 5 ... 70 13 ... 116 40 ... 83 XX. ... 8 ... 144 40 ... 88 xxi. ... 29 ... 141 xxii. :.. 6 ... 143 xxix. ... 21 ... 67 xxxi. ... 4 ... 30 17 ... 105 Ezekiel — {con.) Chap. Ver. Page. xxxi. ... 18 ... 105 xxxii. ... 25 ... 105 30 ... 105 xxxiii. ... 11 ... 170 20 ... 143 xxxvii. ... 16 ... 99 17 ... 99 xxxix. ... 12 ... 124 xlii. ... 13 ... 105 xliii. .... 1 ... 138 19 ... 106 xliv. ... 8 ... 73 13 ... 73 17 ... 141 xlv. ... 11 ... 26,67 DANIEL. Chap. Ver. Page. ii. ... 10 ... 159 11 ... 131,206 20 ... 176 iii. ... 22 ... 116 28 ... 206 iv. ... 10 ... 64 14 ... 173 15 ... 173 19 ... 16,157 21 ... 189 23 ... 67 31 ... 141 V. ... 6 ... 97 11 ... 35 14 ... 35 vi. ... 5 ... 205 INDEX OF TEXTS. Daniel— {con.) Chap. Ver. Page. vi. ... 10 ... 79 11 ... 80 15 ... 169 23 ... 116 vii. ... 11 ... 80 14 ... 45 15 ... 81 18 ... 176 19 ... 116 Tiii. ... 5 ... 67 13 ... 67 27 ... 16 ix. ... 17 ... 54 20 ... 141 21 ... 141 X. ... 5 ... 189 6 ... 189 21 ... 142 xi. ... 25 ... 80 xii. ... 3 ... 176 Chap. JJ KJK3Jli.a. , Ver. Page. vi. ... 11 ... 67 vii. .. 6 ... JOEL. 141 Chap. Ver. Page. i. ... 13 ... 42 ii. ... 6 ... 28 14 ... 204 iii. .. 3 ... 63 EAl iS. XXXI X. AMOS. Chap. Ver. Page. iii. ... 3 ... 205 vi. ... 2 ... 104 vii. ... 14 ... 67 ix. ... 1 ... 88 2 195 3 ... 195 4 ... 195 OBADIAR. Chap. Ver. Page. i. ... 3 ... 191 4 ... 190, 194 16 ... 205 JONAH. Chap. Ver. Page. i. ... 10 ... 116 iii. ... 8 ... 143 9 ... 205 MICAH. Chap. Ver. Page. i. ... 11 ... 170 iv. ... 3 ... 17 5 ... 176 13 ... 72 V. ... 7 ... 47 vii. ... 1 ... 17 NAHUM. Chap. Ver. Page. ii. ... 9 ... 70 10 ,.. 28 INDEX OF TEXTS. Nahmn—(con.) MALACHI. Chap. Ver. Page. Chap. Ver. Page. iii. ... 3 .. 70 i. ... 13 ... 142 15 .. 17 14 ... 142 HABAKKUK, iii. ... 10 ... 17, 204 Chap. Ver. iii. ... 10 .. Page. 30 MATTHEW. Chap. Ver. Page. ZEPHANIAH. xvi. ... 13 ... 100 Chap. Ver. Page. xviii. ... 10 ... 49 i. ... 10 .. 67 ii. ... 5 .. 71 MARK. iii. ... 6 .. 71 Chap. Ver. Page. vii. ... 35 ... 113 HAGGAL Chap. Ver, Page. ACTS. ii. ... 16 .. 118 Chap. Ver. Page. 19 .. 45 viii. ... 27 ... 69 ZECHARIAH. ROMANS. Chap. Ver, Page. Chap. Ver. Page. i. ... 19 .. 106 i. ... 22 ... 141 iv. ... 4 .. 106 iv. ... 3 ... 142 5 .. 106 xiii. ... 7 ... 74 11 .. 106 12 .. 106 1 CORINTHIANS. vii. ... 10 .. 167 Chap. Ver. Page. viii. ... 17 .. 167 iv. ... 6 ... 140 ix. ... 3 .. 17 xiv. ... 8 ... 27 12 .. 170 X. ... 6 .. 205 REVELATION. 11 .. 85 Chap. Ver. Page. xiii. ... 4 .. 27,68 XX. ... 13 ... 30 -• •» ', •. '1 ^ • ^ J ' ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTORY. Contents. — Bishop Lowth on the neglect of the study of English. Convocation's vote of thanks to the Eevisers. The Times' sarcasm on the wording of the vote. Its grammatical errors. Singular and plural mixed. " Expended ". Past infinitive for present. Inconsistency the chief characteristic of the Revisers' work. '* Which" for "who". Tautology, " the weight in weight ". It is sad to relate that there is nothing new in the fact that EngUshmen are often ignorant of English. A century ago it was said, " Is it not amazing that some, who have beyond doubt been very excellent Greek and Latin scholars, have written their mother tongue not only inelegantly, but even very ungrammati- cally ? " — Baker s Remarks on the English Lan- guage, Edition 1799, p. 84. Bishop Lowth, writing still earlier in the B 2 ECCLE^MSTICjiL \ WCILISE. last century^ points vqi^t, the so;arce oi' tliis de- ficiency. He says, "A grammatical study of our own language makes no part of the or- dinary method of instruction which we pass through in our childhood; and it is very seldom that we apply ourselves to it afterward. Yet the want of it will not be effectually supplied by any other advantages whatsoever. Much practice in the polite world, and a general ac- quaintance with the best authors, are good helps ; but alone will hardly be sufficient : we have writers who have enjoyed these advantages in their full extent, and yet cannot be recom- mended as models of an accurate style. Much less then will what is commonly called Learning serve the purpose; that is, a critical knowledge of ancient languages, and much reading of ancient authors. The greatest critic and most able grammarian of the last age, when he came to apply his learning and his criticisms to an English author, was frequently at a loss in matters of ordinary use and common construc- tion of his own vernacular idiom." — Preface to ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 3 * A Short Introduction to English Grammai' ', hy Dr. Lowth, 1762. More than one hundred and twentj years have passed since the foregoing was written, yet the lament over the neglect of the study of our language is as applicable to the present generation, as it was to the generation of our forefathers who lived in the days of Bishop Lowth. This neglect must not be allowed to con- tinue; but how is its continuance to be pre- vented? I know of no plan so likely to be effectual, as the public exposure of the errors of those persons whose innate delicacy of feeling will render them ashamed of their shortcomincrs, while their philanthropy will arouse in them the resolve that their influence shall thence- forth be exerted to secure, to the rising genera- tion, freedom from the disgrace of having to blush for their ignorance of the laws governing their own language. In a former work* I exposed the errors and * ' The Revisers' English.' B 2 4 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. inconsistencies found in the languaoje of the Revised Version of the New Testament. I purpose now to expose the errors and incon- sistencies found in the language of the Revised Version of the Old Testament, and shall show that they are as gross, as flagrant, and as numerous as are those in the New. But the Revisers are not the only trans- gressors of the laws of our language. In the resolution which was passed by Convocation to thank the Revisers for their labours, there are errors which would disgrace a school-boy. Yet I have no doubt that the Members of Convoca- tion are, to the present day, in happy ignorance of that fact, and if they chanced to read in our leading daily journal, as they might have done, that their resolution was " carefully and wisely worded ", they happily failed to see the covert sarcasm of the remark, and smiled com- placently at what they in their simplicity be- lieved to be a well-deserved compliment ! It is a pity to awaken them from their dream of self -congratulation ; for has it not been said. ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 5 and is it not generally believed, that " Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise." Still, for the good of others, the dream, how- ever pleasant, must be broken. The resolution (quoted in Tlie Times of May 16th, 1885, p. 11, last column) was as fol- lows : — " That this House presents its hearty thanks to the learned Revisers of the Authorised Version of the Old Testament for the unwearied labour and singular diligence which they have expended during many years in carrying out the weighty task intrusted to them by Convocation. They desire to express their great gratitude to Almighty God for permitting so im- portant a work to have been executed at this time, and they pray that it may be blessed by Him to the increase of the knowledge o£ His Holy Word by His people." It will be observed that, in the first sentence 6 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. of this paragraph, the Members of Convocation speak of themselves collectively, and therefore with strict propriety they employ the singular number and say, " This House presents its hearty thanks to the learned Eevisers ". This form, having been adopted at the be- ginning of the paragraph, should have been continued throughout, and not have been changed into the plural, as it has been in the second sentence, where we read, " They desire to express their great gratitude ". The change is the more objectionable be- cause it is momentarily misleading, seeing that the pronoun " they ", which really refers to the Members of Convocation, does of course gram- matically refer to the plural pronoun just preceding it, namely "fAem", i.e., to the " Re- visers ", and not to " Convocation ", because that term, being used collectively, as I have already remarked, is in the singular number. ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 7 The first sentence of the paragraph, then, should have been contmued thus : — " Tliis House presents its hearty thanks and desires to express its great gratitude ". A second error in the sentence consists in employing the word ^' expended " to describe the rendering of the services of the Revisers. To " expend " means to weigh out, the word being derived from the Latin " ex ", out, and " pendo ", to weigh ; and it implies a certain carefulness of bestowal which is not applicable to the generous manner in which those services were given. But even had it been applicable, its use there could not be designated felicitous, seeing that the word *' weiglity " almost imme- diately follows it. But that is not all, another error occurs in the concluding sentence of this short paragraph, viz., the using of the present participle and past infinitive, instead of the past participle and present infinitive. The passage reads thus : — 8 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. " They desire to express their great gratitude to Almighty God for permitting so im- portant a work to Jiave been executed at this time ", which is equivalent to saying, " They desire to express their great gratitude to Almighty God for [now'] permitting so important a work to have been executed [in the past~\ at this time " ! They should have said, "for having permitted so important a work to be executed at this time," or, better still, "for having permitted the accomplishment of so important a work." That the Revisers themselves would probably have avoided this error, might be inferred from their having corrected a similar one in Deut. xix. 19, where, in the Authorised Version, we read, " Then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his brother." ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH, 9 In the Revised Version it is, " Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to do unto his brother." Again, in Job xxx. 1, a similar error has been corrected by the Revisers. In the Authorised Version we read, " But now they that are younger than I have me in derision, whose fathers I would have disdained to have set with the dogs of my flock." In the Revised Version it is, " Whose fathers I disdained to set with the dogs of my flock." Had the Revisers shown the same gramma- tical acumen throughout their work, as they have shown in these instances, there would have been no necessity for these criticisms. But, unfortunately, the chief characteristic of the Revisers' ivork is its inconsistency. Oftentimes the very error which the Revisers correct in one place, they themselves fall into in another ; and not infrequently they render ungrammatical 10 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. a construction wliicli if left unaltered would have remained correct. Turn now to 2 Sam. xxi. 16, and there you will find a perpetuation of the error which the Kevisers had corrected in Deuteronomy and Job. The passage is, "He being girded with anew sword, thought to have slain David." But surely what he " thought " was not " to have slain David ", but to slay him. I remark, in passing, that there are four errors in that one verse. It reads as follows, "And Ishbi-benob, which \_who'\ was of the sons of the giant, the weight of whose spear was three hundred shekels of brass in weight, [the weight of it was so much in weight I] he [this pronoun is redundant, Ishbi-benob being the nominative to the verb] being girded with a new sword, thought to have slain [to slay] David." As the Edinburgh Review of October, 1885, p. 476, remarked, ^' There is something ludi- crously self -contradictory in a Re\ised Version ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 11 which revises itself without yet being revised ; which was intended to make everything clear, and only makes it clear that what is most im- portant is quite dark." That the Revisers knew^ what was required of them is evidenced by the Paper read by the Bishop of Bath and Wells at the Church Con- gress held at Portsmouth in the autumn of last year. See The Times report, October 7th, 1885. The Bishop's words were, " That task, let me repeat it, was to represent m good En- glish, as exactly as we could, the meaning of Holy Scripture." * * * u q^j, respon- sibility was confined to expressing in good English the natural meaning of the Hebrew words." Specimens of the Revisers' ''good English,^' or what they considered to be such, will be found in the following pages. ( 12 ) CHAPTER II. Contents. — The German revision of Luther's Bible. Orthographical errors ; ' stories', for * storeys'; 'build- ed', and 'built'; 'dwelled', and 'dwelt'; 'drave', and ' drove ' ; * afore ', and ' before " ; ' astonied ', and ' astonished ' ; * aught ', and ' ought ' ; * naught ', and • nought ' ; ' strong hold', and ' stronghold ' ; ' a theist ', and ' atheist ' ; compound words, ' firstripe ', ' store- house ', ' brokenhearted ', * stargazers ', ' caukerworm', 'pruninghooks', 'grapegatherers'; 'rams' skins', and ' sealskins ' ; * deceased ', for ' dead ' ; * apparelled ', for 'clothed'; 'augmenteth', for 'increaseth'; 'stab- lished', and 'established'; 'minished', and 'dimin- ished ' ; ' prevent ', and ' let ', their double meanings ; ' tell ', to count ; ' hardly ', its two meanings ; ' omer ', and 'homer'; 'strewed', 'strawed', and 'strowed'; ' an hairy man ', and * a hairy man ' ; ' an hairy gar- ment', and ' a hairy mantle ' ; ' chiefest', and ' higher than the highest'; ' stole', and 'stole away'; 'take'; 'gathered'; 'wax pale', and 'gather blackness'; the oneness of colour, Darwinism, the gender of earth and of sea, the myth of Hermaphroditos ; 'handmaids'; ' annul ', and ' disannul ' ; ' loose ', and * unloose '. The Germans are now engaged in revising Luther's Bible, and have issued what they call a Probe-bibel, or a tentative revision of the Scrip- ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 13 tures. Thej have adjourned for two vears ; at the end of which time they will meet again to re-examine their work in the light of the abundant criticisms which they have invited from the press. This is the course of action which eleven years ago (see The Times of May 22nd, 1875j I suggested to the English Revisers ; but, for reasons best known to themselves, they ignored the suggestion. The public, however, will not accept as final any revision which leaves in the Bible such errors and inconsistencies as those which I shall expose. Let us begin with orthography and etymo- logy, and afterwards take up syntax. We read, in Gen. vi. 16, of there having been "stoi^ies" in the ark; a spelling which might, to some minds, suggest the idea that Noah and his family had provided themselves with a little light literature for rainy days. Modern usage discriminates between "s^ory", a tale, and " storey ", the flat of a building, by spelling the latter with an e before the y ; and 14 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. words so spelt make their plural by the addi- tion of an s to the singular — stores/, sloreys ; and not by changing the ey into ies; that form of the plural appertains to only those words which end in y immediately preceded by a consonant. " Story ". a tale, from the Gr. la-Topia, a his- tory, was formerly spelt ^'storie "; see 'Manipu- lus Vocahulorum\ by Peter Levins, 1570; and the plural of that spelling would be what the plural of story is, namely stories^ which is the spelling adopted by the Revisers in speaking of the floors or stages in the ark. They should, of course, have written storeys. I am aware that the word is written " stories^' in the Authorised Version ; but what was the object of the revision in regard to archaisms ? Was it not to remove those which might lead to misunderstanding? There are many inconsistencies in the Re- visers' spelling. For instance, they say that Noah " huilded " an altar. Gen. viii. 20 ; and that Abram " hiiilt " an altar, Gen. xiii. 18 ; ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 15 and that Solomon both " builded'^ and " huilt " the house of the Lord, 2 Chron. vi. 18 and 33. This latter inconsistency is entirely the Re- visers' own invention ; it is not found in the corresponding passages in the Authorised Version. Again, why do the Revisers say that Lot " dwelled " in the cities of the plain, Gen. xiii. 12, and say, that Abram " dwelt " by the oaks of Mamre, Gen. xiii. 18 ? Why have we to read that the Israelites " drave " not out the Canaanites, Josh. xvi. 10 ; but " drove " out the Amorites, Num. xxi. 32 ; and " drave " out the three sons of Anak, Judges i. 20 1 Why have we, '^ afore^^ in 2 Kings xx. 4 ; and " before ", with the same signification, in the verse immediately preceding it, 2 Kings xx. 3? Why have we, in the Revised Version, some- times the word " astonied ", and sometimes '^ astonished'^ '^. And if it is a matter of in- difference which we have, why did the Revisers alter ^' astonished " to " astonied " in Isa. lii. 14 ; 16 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. Jer. xiv. 9 ; and Ezk. iii. 15 ; and leave the word unaltered in a dozen other passages ? Eeference to Dan. iv. 19, and viii. 27, will show that Daniel was hoth " astonied " and " astonished " ; and so must those persons be who study the English of the Revisers. Very properly, the Revisers have, in every instance, spelt the noun " aught ^^ with an a; but, very improperly, they have spelt its nega- tive, ''naughf\ with an o; except in 2 Kings ii. 19 and Pro v. :>s, violation of the rules governing them; knowledge and wisdom, their difference; 'people', singular and plural ; ' multitude ', singular and plural ; * persons ' ; ' peoples ' ; ' kings ', singular, and ' gods ', plural; 'flesh and heart', singular, and 'heart and flesh ', plural ; sequence of events governs the order of their relation ; ' lightning and thunder ', not ' thunder and lightning'; angels 'descending and ascending ', not 'ascending and descending '. Having briefly glanced at the Revisers' errors in orthography and etymology, let us now look at their syntax ; and knowing that in every sentence the verb is, as its name implies, the word, par excellence, we will begin with that. The first rule respecting it, is that it shall agree with its nominative. The Revisers, how- ever, treat with lofty disdain all rules of grammar ; and yet, occasionally, they seem to have had a twinge of conscience concerning ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH, 33 their violations of some of them, and a con- sciousness of the offence Hkely to be given by such a course ; for here and there we see evidence of their having "trimmed their way to seek love ", by altering a passage to make it in accordance with what, I suppose, they call popular prejudice. Some years ago I read, before the Eoyal Society of Literature, a Paper entitled '^Com- mon Errors in Speaking and Writing ^^ ; and in it I called attention to certain violations of grammar occurring in the Authorised Version of the Scriptures. A copy of the Paper was sent to the Revisers ; and they have corrected some of the errors which I pointed out. For instance, in Ex. ix. 31, the Authorised Version reads, " The flax and the barley was smitten." I stated that this is equivalent to saying " they ivas ". The Revisers, very properly, have altered it to, " The flax and the barley were smitteri." 34 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. Again, in Lam. iii. 47, in the Authorised Version, we read, " Fear and a snare is come upon us ". This the Revisers have altered to, " Fear and the pit are come upon us ". Though what they mean by ^' the pit " com- ing upon us, I cannot imagine. See also Prov. i. 27. The Authorised Version has, " When distress and anguish cometh upon you." In the Revised Version it has been corrected thus, " When distress and anguish come upon you." Why, then, after altering the verb to agree with its nominative in the foregoing passages, have the Revisers left uncorrected such errors as the following'? ''Wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee." 2 Chron. i. 12. " Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it hath per- verted thee." Isa. xlvii. 10. ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 35 Do the Kevisers hold that wisdom and know- ledge are one ? Let the poet Cowper explain to them the difference : — " Knowledge and wisdom, far from being one, Have ofttimes no connection; knowledge dwells In heads replete with thoughts of other men, "Wisdom, in minds attentive to their own." Perhaps the Revisers consider wisdom as nothing, and therefore have taken no account of it ; for I see that elsewhere when mention is made of it i^ conjunction with a noun other than knowledge, they still put the verb in the singular ; e.g., "Thy wisdom and prosperity exceed^^^ the fame which I heard." 1 Kings x. 7. See likewise Dan. v. 11, "Understanding and wisdom was found in him." and Dan. v. 14, "Understanding and excellent wisdom is found in thee." D 2 36 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH, The same singularity occurs in Job. xii. 13, " With him is wisdom and might." This apparent ignoring of the existence of wisdom is much to be regretted. The Revisers would have found a little more of it very useful to them. Sometimes the Revisers, in their uncertainty as to which is right, give both singular and plural verbs to the same nominative in the same verse. This plan has at least one advan- tage — it ensures that the Revisers shall for once be right, though with the disadvantage that they shall also once be wrong. In Gen. xli. 48, we are told that, *' Joseph gathered up ail the food of the seven years ivliich were in the land of Egypt, and laid up the food in the cities : the food of the field, ivhich was round about every city, laid he up in the same." Perhaps the Revisers meant " the food (of the field which was round about every city) laid he up in the same " ; ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH, 37 but the passage really means, " the food of the field (which was round about every city) laid he up in the same." The Revisers' error is in the earlier part of the verse. They ought not to have said, " tJue food . . , which were in Egypt." See also Isa. viii. 6, " Forasmuch as this people hath refused the waters of Shiloah that go softly, and rejoice in Rezin and E/emaliah's son." Is '^ people ^^ singular, or plural, in this verse? If singular, "" rejoice " is wrong ; if plural, " hath " is wrong. The same confusion of singular and plural with regard to ""people " occurs in Jer. iv. 22 ; V. 23 ; vii. 16 ; viii. 5 ; xiv. II ; xviii. 15 ; 1. 6 ; and elsewhere. In Judges ix. 33, we read of " The people that is"; and, in the very next verse, this singular people is made plural, and we read of " The people that were ". — Judges ix. 34. 38 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. The word '^ people^^ seems to have sorely troubled the Revisers ; evidently they did not know what to do with it. In Num. xiii. 18, we read, " See the land, what it is ; and the people that dwelUth therein, whether they be strong or weak." But, in verse 28 of the same chapter, it is no longer, " the people that dwelleth " ; but, " the people that dwell ". Yet, in each instance, the word ^'peopW^ refers to the same inhabitants, the possessors of the land of Canaan. See likewise Isa. ix. 13, "The people hath not turned unto him that smote them, neither have they sought the Lord of hosts." I cannot but express my surprise at the Revisers' persistent inconsistency. They care- fully altered, twice over, the phrase " all the people that was ", ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 39 (see Ex. xix. 16 ; and 2 Sam. xv. 30;) to " all the people that were "; and jet in 2 Chron. xxxii. 7, they leave the phrase " all the multitude that is ". The E-evisers cannot plead that they were bound by the Hebrew verb; for the verb is not expressed in the Hebrew. In Lev. viii. 4, we have " The congregation was assembled ". But in Num. xvi. 3, '^ congregation " is plural, " All the congregation are holy." By way of contrast to 2 Chron. xxxii. 7, the Revisers give us, in Isa. v. 13, " their multitude are ". In Job xxxvi. 20, the Revisers have altered ^' people^' to ''peoples " ; but I think that there, '^ persons " would have been a better rendering. In ordinary parlance, the word ^'people^^ is 40 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. often misused for ^'persons '^ ; e.g., we hear it said, " There were three people present." The error here will be apparent if you ask yourself what the result would be if two of those '■^ people'^ were to leave. Would there be one people present? The passage in Job is as follows : " Desire not the night, When peoples [jpersons] are cut off in their place." The Revisers' alteration of '^people" to '' peoples " is in most instances, judicious ; and I think it would have been as well to make that alteration in 1 Kings x. 15 also. The passage there is, " All the kings of the mingled people ". Surely, as there were " kiiigs ", it should have been ^^ peoples ". 1 have said that in the Hebrew of 2 Chron. xxxii. 7, the verb is not expressed ; nor is it in any of the following score of passages. There- ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 41 fore the blame of putting the verb in the singular while the nominative to it is in the plural, in these several passages, rests entirely on the Revisers. " Thy going out and thy coming in with me in the host is good." 1 Sam. xxix. 6. " Thy silver and thy gold is mine ; thy wives also and thy children, . . . are mine." 1 Kings XX. 3. " "With them was Jozabad the son of Jeshua, and Noadiah the son o£ Biimui." Ezra viii. 33. " His power and his wrath is against all them that forsake him." Ezra viii. 22. " My petition and my request is ". Esther v. 7. " With him is strength and effectual working; The deceived and the deceiver are his." Job xii. 16. " With Grod is my salvation and my glory." Psa. Ixii. 7. " The inward thought of every one, and the heart, is deep." Psa. Ixiv. 6. " There ^5 no breaking in, and no going forth." Psa. cxliv. 14. 42 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. " There is precious treasure and oil." Prov. xxi. 20. " Before me continually is sickness and wounds." Jer. vi. 7. " "Where is corn and wine ? " Lam. ii. 12. " There ivas written therein lamentations, and mourning, and woe." Ezk. ii. 10. " The meal offering and the drink offering is withholden." Joel i. 13. " Unto the Lord thy God helongeth the heaven, and the heaven of heavens, the earth, with all that therein is." Deut. x. 14. "Thine, O Lord, is the greatness, and the power, and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty." 1 Chron. xxix. 11. In the following passage we have " is " for "are", and ''are'' for "^s" ; " Where is thy zeal and thy mighty acts ? the yearning of thy bowels and thy compassions are restrained toward me." Isa. Ixiii. 15. " Where is the king of Hamath, and the king of Arpad, and the king of the city of Sepharvaim, of Hena, and Ivvah?" 2 Kings xix. 13. ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 43 Read 2 Kings xviii. 34 ; and Isa. xxxvi. 19 ; there we have, "Where are the gods of Hamath, and of Arpad ? "Where are the gods of Sephar- vaim, of Hena, and Ivvah ?" Why are *^ kings " singular, and " gods " plural ? " There is tidings in his mouth." 2 Sam. xviii. 25. Compare this with Ex. xxxiii. 4 ; there the word " tidings " is plural ; " These evil tidings." Again, " Out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding." Prov. ii. 6. In the previous chapter, Prov. i. 27, we have, "When distress and anguish come upon you" ; but, in the Authorised Version, it is " cometh ". Why did the Revisers correct the latter, and leave the former uncorrected? " My flesh and my heart failethr Psa. Ixxiii. '2.^. 44 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. Why did the Revisers leave this error, yet correct a parallel one in Psa. Ixxxiv. 2 ? There, in the Authorised Version, it is " My heart and my flesh crieth out for the living God " ; but, in the Revised Version, it has been cor- rected to, " My heart and my flesh cry out ". In Prov. V. 11, also, we have, " Thy flesh and thy body are consumed " ; therefore, their leaving uncorrected the passage in Psa. Ixxiii. 26, is the more inexcusable. There are, in the Revised Version, many other passages where the verb does not agree with its nominative. I will give a few of them. " There was hail, and fire mingled with the hail." Ex. ix, 24. " Thy silver and thy gold is multiplied." Deut. viii. 13. "Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found." 2 Kings xvi. 8. ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH, 45 " On the fourth day was the silver and the gold and the vessels weighed." Ezra viii. 33. " Even as the gazelle and the hart is eaten." Deut. xii. 22. " Only in the Lord, shall one say unto me, is righteousness and strength." Isa. xlv. 24. " This one and that one was born in her." Psa. Ixxxvii. 5. " Violence and spoil is heard in her." Jer. vi. 7. "His right hand, and his holy arm, hath wrought salvation." Psa. xcviii. 1. "My graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them." Isa. xlviii. 5. " The vine, and the fig tree, and the pome- granate, and the olive tree hath not brought forth." Hag. ii. 19. " There was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom," Dan. vii. 14. "Grladness and joy is taken away." — Jer. xlviii. 33. Why are " gladness and joy " singular, and " anguish and sorrows " plural, as they are in the following chapter, Jer. xlix. 24 ? . Will the 46 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. Retisers say that the verb is governed by the noun nearest to it, and that "^oy " is singular, and " sorrows " plural, and therefore the verbs are respectively singular and plural ? That is plausible, but not logical. The nominative to the singular verb is not ''joy^\ but '' gladness and joy^^ ; therefore the verb should be plural, to agree with its nominative. Besides, if the verb is governed by the noun immediately preceding it, why did the Revisers write, in Job xv. 21, " A sound of terrors is in his ears " ? They knew very well that the nominative to the verb is '^ sound '\ and not '' terrors ^^ ; and that therefore the verb had to be in the singu- lar. See, likewise. Job xxi. 21, " The number of his months is cut off." Here the nominative to the verb is " number ", and not ^' months " ; and therefore here also the verb had to be in the singular. Again, "The rain cometh down and the snow from heaven, and retvLrneth not thither, but ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 47 water^i/i the earth, and TRBketh it bring forth and bud, and gweih seed to the sower." Isa. Iv. 10. It would be grammatically correct to write thus of either the rain or the snow ; but it is not allowable to write thus of the rain and the snow. " The remnant of Jacob shall be in the midst of many peoples as dew from the Lord, as showers upon the grass ; that tdiYTieth not for man, nor w^iteth for the sons of • men." Micah v. 7. Here " tarri^^A", being singular, seems to refer to " grass ", and therefore is misleading, because it really refers to " showers " ; and that being plural, the verbs " tarrieth " and " waiteth " also ought to have been plural, to agree with it. " Mine anger and my fury hath been poured forth." Jer. xlii. 18. " My fury and mine anger was poured forth, and was kindled." Jer. xliv. 6. Not only is the verb wrong here, but the sequence of events is wrong : the kindling must 48 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. have preceded the pouring forth, and therefore should have been mentioned first. Events should be recorded in the order of their occur- rence. For this reason we ought not to speak of '' thunder and lightning^\ but of " lightning and thunder " — the cause first, the effect afterwards. The Revisers have erred in this matter also, see Ex. xx. 18, "And all the people saw the thunderings, and the Hghtnings, and the voice of the trumpet." How they " saw '' the " thunderings " and the " voice ", I cannot conceive ; there is evidently some mistranslation here. I suppose that the reason why the thunder is generally spoken of before the lightning, is that it is the more impressive of the two. Indeed, by ignorant persons, it is often thought to be the cause of the damage that is really done by the lightning. I remember once, when on a walking tour in Normandy, speaking to a poor old man respecting a tree that had been struck ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 49 by the lightning. But the old man could not acrree with me that it was the lio-htninix which had caused the destruction : '^ Mais non, Monsieur ; c'etait le tonnerre^^ were his words. Another instance of the Revisers' non-obser- vance of the order of sequence is found in Gen. xxviii. 12, where we read, " And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven : and behold the angels of God ascendimj and descending on it." As the angels' abode is in heaven (Matt, xviii. 10) they must have (descended, before they could ascend. However, it was a dream ; and events are often strangely transposed in dreams. Let us return to the consideration of the Revisers' errors with respect to verbs. The Revisers may say that, in some of the passages which I have quoted, the verb has been put in the singular because although there are in the nominative two nouns joined by the conjunc- tion " and'\ the two really are one; e.g., ^'fury''^ and ^^ anger*' ; '^rain*' and ^' snow'\ which is 50 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. rain in another form. But will the Revisers call "mr' and '' good''^ one? Surely not; yet, in Lam. iii. 38, we read, " Out of the mouth of the Most High cometh there not evil and good ? " Again, in Jer. vi. 20, we read, "To what purpose com^^A there to me frank- incense from Sheba, and the sweet cane from a far country ? " Compare this with Prov. xxvii. 9 ; there we read, *' Ointment and perfume rejoice the heart." How is it that the Revisers consider ^'oint- ment and perfume^^ plural, and ''frankincense and sweet cane " singular % In 2 Kings xxv. 5, we are told that " The army of the Chaldeans pursued after the king, and overtook him in the plains of Jericho ; and all his army ivas scattered from him " ; but in verse 10 of the same chapter we are told that " All the army of the Chaldeans, that were ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 51 with the captain of the guard, brake down the walls of Jerusalem ". — 2 Kings xxv. 10. Now, in the name of common sense, I ask why the Revisers have made " all the army '* of the Jews singular ; and, in the same chapter, " all the army " of the Chakleans plural ? This inconsistency does not exist in the Authorised Version ; there both verbs are plural. Why did the Revisers create this anomaly ? I am afraid that I ask in vain : their incon- sistency baffles all conjecture as to its cause, and its object. E 2 ( o2 ) CHAPTER IV. Contents.— Perspicuity ; 'harlots unto the king'; men * oppressed with thf^ir own flesh' ; order of words in a sentence; errors of omission, virtually errors of commission; *in her tongue' (i.e. 'in her speech'), erroneously altered to * on her tougue.' By way of varying our study of the English of the Revisers, let us for a while turn from their errors in grammar, and look at their arrangement of the sequence of their words ; a matter which we slightly glanced at in the previous chapter. Perspicuity, which is of primary importance in literary composition, depends very greatly on this. Indeed the collocation of the words may be said to govern the meaning. In 1 Kings iii. IG, we read, " Then came there two women, that were harl( him. harlots, unto the king, and stood before ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 53 Do the Kevisers mean that in Solomon's clays there were women who held the appoint- ment of " harlots^ unto the king " ? It cannot be ! Why, then, did not the Revisers, by arranging the sequence of their words as fol- lows, guard against the suggesting of such a thought ? '' Then came there, unto the king, two women that were harlots." In 2 Chron. xxviii. (5, we read, " Pekah the son of E/emaliah slew in Judah an hundred and twenty thousand in one day, all of them valiant men : because they had forsaken the Lord, the Grod of their fathers." Here, again, the sequence of the words is bad; for it might lead to the inference that the hundred and twenty thousand were " all valiant men because they had forsaken the Lord, the God of their fathers." A very slight transposition and change of the words was needed, to avoid this error. The Revisers sliould have said, 54 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. " Pekah the son of* Eemaliah slew in Judah in one day, a hundred and twenty thousand valiant men, beeaaso they had forsaken the Lord, the Grod of their fathers." In Isa. xlix. 26, we read, "I will feed them that oppress thee with their own flesh." What does this mean ? Does it refer to such persons as Eglon, the King of Moab, who was a very fat man? Judges iii. 17. Their flesh may certainly be said to oppress others besides oppressing themselves. But probably the Re- visers meant nothing of the sort, but meant, " I will feed with their own flesh them that oppress thee ; and they shall be drunken with their own blood." Then why did not the Revisers say so? It was easy enough. In Dan. ix. 17, we read, " Hearken unto the praj'-er of tliy servant, and to his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord's sake." ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. bb Was the sanctuary " desolate^ for the Lord^s sake"? Certainlj not; therefore the Revisers should have said *' And, for the Lord's sake, cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate." Besides, by this arrangement, not only is the meaning made clear; but the most emphatic word in the sentence comes last, where it will be the most impressive : — " Thy sanctuary that is desolate " / Of course I am speaking as if the words had been addressed to man, and not to God. But in our addresses to Heaven, we should " set our words in order". Job xxxiii. 5, and not be rash with our mouth nor let our hearts be hasty " to utter anything before God," Eccl. v. 2. Again, in Gen. xxxix. 5, 6, we read, " The Lord blessed the Egyptian's house . . . . and he left all that he had in Joseph's band." The Revisers do not mean what the words 56 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. affirm, viz., that the Egyptian left " all that he had in Joseph's hand " ; but that " He left in Joseph's band all that he had." In Jer. xxx. 2, we read, " "Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee in a book." The words were not spoken unto him in a book. The Revisers should have said, " Write thou in a book all the words that I have spoken unto thee." In Gen. vi. 17, we read, " Behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven." This is a very badly arranged sentence. It would read better thus, " Behold I bring upon the earth the flood of waters to destroy from under heaven all flesh wherein is the breath of life." In Ex. xxvi. 14, we read, "And thou shalt make a covering for the tent of rams' skins dyed red." ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 57 The Revisers did not mean to speak of a '^ tent of rams' skins dyed red'% for which some kind of a covering was ordered to be made ; therefore they should have said, " And thou shalt make for the tent a covering of rams' skins dyed red." The error is repeated in Ex. xxxvi. 19. In Ex. XXV. 22, we read, " There I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the mercy- seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel." This should have been, " There I will meet with thee, and from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, I will commune with thee of all things which I will give thee in com- mandment unto the children of Israel." The Revisers' sentence is faulty because two 58 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. parts of it, which are most intimately connected in sense, are separated by eighteen intervening words; with the result that instead of our reading, " I will commune with thee of all things ", we read of, " The ark of the testimony, of all things ". Once more ; in Isa. lix. 21, we read, "This is my covenant with them, saith the Lord : my spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever." Here, in the latter part of the sentence, the words ''saith the Lord" are redundant, as they occur in the former part of it ; but if for emphaticness it was thought necessary to re- peat them, they should have followed the words ''from henceforth and for ever'\ seeing that those words refer, not to the expression '' saith ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 59 the Lord ", but to the eternity of God's covenant with his people. The passage, then, should have been written thus, "This is my covenant with them, saith tlie Lord: my spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put into [not "m"] thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, from henceforth and for ever, saith the Lord.'' Frequently the Revisers' errors are those of omission ; but as the duty which the Revisers undertook was that of thorough revision of the Scriptures, the errors of omission become errors of commission; for by perpetuating those of the former translators (or Avliat by changes in our language have virtually become errors) the Revisers have made them their own, and are equally responsible for them and for those which they themselves have introduced. The following, however, is not an error of omission, but of commission ; the error con- 60 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. sisting in not leaving the passage as it stood in the Authorised Version, Psa. xvii. 7. Authorised Version. " Shew thy marvellous loving-kindness, O thou that savest by thy right hand them which put their trust in thee from those that rise up against them." Revised Version. "Shew thy marvellous lovingkindness, O thou that savest them which put their trust in thee. Erom those that rise up against them, by thy right hand." The Revisers' version of the. passage makes God's right hand the means by which the wicked rise against the righteous. But the Bible distinctly says that God will not help evil-doers, or, as the margin reads, " Will not take the ungodly by the hand." Job. viii. 20. There is, in the Authorised Version of the Book of Proverbs (xxxi. 26), a beautiful de- scription of the language of a virtuous woman ; and one of the charms of the passage is the delicate balancing of its different parts. Com- pare the two versions, the Authorised and the ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 61 Eevised, and you will see how the harmony of the whole has been destroyed by the Revisers' alteration of it. AutJiorised Version. "She openeth her mouth with wisdom ; and in her tongue is the law of kindness." Revised Version. " She openeth her mouth with wisdom ; And the law of kind- ness is on her toncrue." The Revisers have altered " in her tongue to " on her tongue " ; but here likewise, they are wrong ; for, ^' tongue " in this passage does not mean the organ of taste ; it means that which is spoken by the ''tongue^\ L. lingua^ the tongue, whence our word " language ". There- fore the Authorised Version is correct in saying, " And in her tongue [i.e., in her language, not on it] is the law of kindness." This is a very absurd error. Besides, if it should be " on her tongue " here, why should it be " in my tongue " in Psa. cxxxix. 4 ? Moreover, in the Authorised Version, each clause of the passage is divided into two parts. 62 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH, beautifully balanced in expression and meaning : " She openeth her mouth — with wisdom ; And in her tongue is — the law of kindness." In the Revised Version, the transposing of the last clause destroys the balance of the parts, mars the melody of the whole, and removes from the place of emphasis the word "•kindness ", which should have been left at the end of the sentence, that it might linger in the ear, and dwell undisturbed in tlie memory. ( 63 ) 0H.4PTER V. Contents. — The letter H, ' hairy and 'airy '; ' a ' and 'an '; * a eunuch ' ; 'an hiatus ' ; * such a one,' and ' such an one ' ; ' no end ' and * none end' ; ' my ' and ' mine ' ; * thy ' and * thine ' ; * thy honour.' What were the Revisers' opinions of the use of the letter " H " ? In the Authorised Ver- sion, we read, in Num. xxx. 6, of " an hus- band " ; this, in the Revised Yersion, has been altered to " a husband ''. So also, in Ex. xxviii. 32, " an hole " has been altered to '' a hole " ; and, in Lev. xxiii. 12, " an he-lamb " has been altered to "a he-lamb ". But, as if to neu- tralize this teaching, "a harlot" has been altered to *' an harlot ", in Joel iii. 3. Again, in Neli. vii. 5, " mine heart " has been altered to " my heart "; and, in 1 Chron. xvii. 16, ^^mine house" has been altered to "mv house". Did the Revisers make this latter 64 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. alteration because they knew that the " h " being asperated in ^^house^\ the pronoun should be " mi/ " and not " mine " f or was it because they thought it probable that " mine house " might be so pronounced as to be mistaken for " my vous", and each Eeviser's modesty forbade his even seeming to speak of that ? In Dan. iv. 10, " mi?ie head " has been altered to '^ mi/ head " ; and, in 2 Sam. i. 25, '^ tJiine high places " has been altered to " thy high places"; while in Ex. xviii. 4, ''mine help " has been altered to ^' my help ". But, as if to neutralize this correction also, ^' my helper " has been altered to " mine helper '' in Psa. liv. 4. In 2 Chron. xxv. 19, ^' thine hurt " has been altered to " thy hurt " : but, as if this also had to be neutralized, and, for some mysterious purpose, students of English had to be be- wildered, the Revisers have altered " my hurt " to " mine hurt", in Psa. xxxv. 26. However, I will do mv best to neutralize the Revisers' teaching, by showing that, in the ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 65 matter of English scliolarship, they are but bhnd leaders of the blind. Let none follow them. With regard to the letter "i7", why have certain of the foregoing errors been corrected, and a hundred others similar been left ? What excuse have the Revisers for giving us the following archaisms, some of which are not found in the corresponding passages in the Authorised Version % ''An help ". Gen. ii. 18, 20. ''An hundred ". Gen. viii. 3. "An husbandman ". Gen. ix. 20. "An heifer". Gen. xv. 9. "An handmaid". Gen. xvi. 1. "An heap ". Gen. xxxi. 46. "An house ". Gen. xxxiii. 17. "An harlot". Gen. xxxiv. 31. "An haven ". Gen. xlix. 13. "^nhoof". Ex. X. 26. "An hired servant ". Ex. xii. 45. "An high hand ". Ex. xiv. 8. "An holy nation ". Ex. xix. 6. "An handbreadth ". Ex. xxv. 25. 66 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. '•^An heave offering ". Ex. xxix. 28. ''■An hin of wine ". Ex. xxix. 40. ''An handful ". Num. v. 26. ''An heart ". Deut. v. 29. "An hammer ". Judges iv. 21. "An hair-breadth ". Judges xx. 16. "An helmet". 1 Sam. xvii. 5, 38. "^nhalf". 1 Kings vii. 31. "An horse ". 1 Kings xx. 20. "An host ". 2 Kings vi. 15. "An hissing ". 2 Chron. xxix. 8. "An hedge ". Job i. 10. "An hidden birth ". Job iii. 16. "An heinous crime ". Job xxxi. 11. "An heavy burden ". Psa. xxxviii. 4. "An haughty spirit ". Prov. xvi. 18. "An honeycomb ". Prov. xvi. 24. "An healer ". Isa. iii. 7. "An harp ". Isa. xvi. 11. "An habitation". Isa. xxii. 16. "An hungry man ". Isa. xxix. 8. "An hill ". Isa. xxx. 17. "An hiding place ". Isa. xxxii. 2. "An hart". Isa. xxxv. 6. "An horrible thing ". Jer. xxiii. 14. "An hard language ". Ezk. iii. 5, 6. ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 67 ''An horn ". Ezk. xxix. 21. ''An harvest ''. Hosea vi. 11. "An herdman ". Amos vii. 14. "An howling ". Zeph. i. 10. That the practice of the Revisers is, in this matter, as in many others, inconsistent, will be seen from the following quotations : — "An hundred ". Num. ii. 24. "A hundred ". 1 Chron. xxix. 7. "An holy one ". Dan. iv. 23. "A holy one ". Dan. viii. 13. "An he-goat ". Dan. viii. 5. "A he-lamb ". Lev. xxiii. 12. "An hammer ". Judges iv. 21. "A hammer ". Jer. xxiii. 29. "An homer". Ezk. xlv. 11. "A homer ". Lev. xxvii. 16. "An husband ". Deut. xxii. 22. "A husband ". Num. xxx. 6. " An harp ". Isa. xxiii. 16. "A harp ". 1 Sam. x. 5. "An high wall ". Prov. xviii. 11. "A high wall ". Isa. xxx. 13. r 2 68 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. "An hard language ". Ezk. iii. 5, 6. "^ hard thing ". 2 Kings ii. 10. "A71 hairy garment ". Gen. xxv. 25. "A hairy mantle ". Zech. xiii. 4. ^^An hairy man ". 2 Kings i. 8. "A hairy man". Gren. xxvii. 11. Can any one tell me why the Eevisers have described Esau as " a hairy man ", and Elijah as "an hairy man"? Was it because it was considered that, in Elijah's case, the "A" should be dropped, '* 'airy " being a more appropriate description of him who ^' went up by a whirl- wind into heaven'"? 2 Kings ii. 11. For my own part, I consider such jokes as quite out of place in the Bible. Let us, then, leave this specimen of lack-wisdom clerical levity (no pun intended), and resume our criticisms. Another matter, intimately connected with the use of "a" and of *^an" before "7i", is the proper use of '^ an " before words beginning with a vowel. It is apparent that the Old Testament Revisers believed it to be correct to put " an " ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 69 before all words beginning with a vowel, and that the New Testament Eevisers held a con- trary opinion ; for, in the Revised Version of Jer. xxxviii. 7, we read of " an eunuch " ; but iii Acts viii. 27, the expression ''an eunuch" has been altered to "a eunuch", in the Revised Version. Here the Old Testament Revisers are wrong, and the New are right, because the rule is, not that *^ a " becomes '^ an " before a vowel, as erroneously taught by Lindley Murray, but that " a " becomes "a/i" before a vowel sound in order to avoid an hiatus ; the change being purely for the sake of euphony. The phrase which I have just now employed, " an hiatus^\ is a good example of this ; for, the emphasis being on the second syllable, the aspiration of the " h " is suppressed, and the result is the production of a vowel sound, at the beginning of the word, necessitating the employment of "an", instead of "a", which latter would have been needed had the "A" been fully aspirated. Now, in the word " eunuch ", the " ^" has the ^ 70 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. sound of " I/", and that being a consonant, when used at the beginning of a word, should be pre- ceded by " a", and not by " an" ; we should say " a eunuch ", not " an eunuch ". For the same reason we ought not to say, as the Revisers have said, "Such an one". Job xiv. 3; Psa. 1. 21; and Ixviii. 21; but " such a one ", as they, with their usual inconsistency, have said in Ruth iv. 1. It is as incorrect to say *^ such an one ", as it w^ould be to say, " such an wonder ". In Ezk. xvi. 5, we read, " Wo7ie eye pitied thee " ; but in Job x. 18 ; and xxiv. 15, it is " No eye ". Why this difference % In Nahum ii. 9, and iii. 3, we read, " There is none end" ; but in Isa. ix. 7 ; Psa. cii. 27 ; Eccl. iv. 8, 16 ; and xii. 12, it is " no end ". ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 71 Why this difference ? In Zeph. ii. 5, we read, "iVb inhabitant"; but in the very next chapter, Zeph. iii. 6, it is, " None inhabitant ". Why this difference ? " None " is an abbreviation of " no one '', and occurs in both forms in Isa. xxxiv. 16 : — " Seek ye out the book of the Lord, and read : no one of these shall be missing, none shall want her mate." It is singular, and is so used a hundred times in the Bible. What reason, then, had the Revisers for using it as a plural in 1 Kings X. 21, saying, " All the vessels were of pure gold : no7ie were of silver " ; and, in 2 Chron. ix. 11, also, " There were none such seen before " ? In Jer. xxxiv. 9, 10, the Revisers make it both singular and plural. 72 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. ^^ None should serve himself \ and '''•None should serve themselves." Certainly the Revisers' consistency is worthy of honourable mention. Let us continue our criticisms, and we shall see additional reasons for this. " Thine hand ". Deut. ii. 24 1 rr^ -, -, « -r^ •• ^ T sauie cDapter. "r%hand". Deut. ii. 7 J ^ " Thine head ". Gen. xl. 13 1 , , "Thyhe^". Gen. xl. 19}^''"'^ '=•'*?'"■•• "2^7ime handmaid". 2Sam.xiv.7,17 ] same " Thy handmaid ". 2 Sam. xiv. 6, 15 J chapter. ''Thine house". Euth iv. 11; 2 Sam. xi. 10. " Thy house". Euth iv. 12; 2 Sam. xi. 8. same chapters. " Thine heart ". 2 Kings x. 15 ; 1 Sam. xiv. 7. " Thy heart ". 2 Kings x. 15; 1 Sam. xiv. 7. same verses. " Thine heart ". Lam. ii. 19 ] r^. ■, -■ « -w- .. .^ ^ same verse. '' Thy hands ". Lam. n. 19 J I same verse. " Thine husband ". Num. v. 20 " Thy husband ". Num. v. 20 " Thine horn ". Micah iv. 13 ] " Thy hoofs ". Micah iv. 13 J ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 73 } \. xxxiii. 29 ^ :. xxxiii. 29 J . ix. 17 I . Ix. 17 J " Thine estimation ". Lev. xxvii. 27 1 same " Thy estimation". Lev. xxvii. 27 J verse. " Thine enemies ". Deut. xxxiii. 29 ^ same " Thy excellency ". Dent, xxxiii. 29 J verse. *• Thine exactors ". Isa. Ix. 17 , ^ , _ J- same verse. " Thy officers ". Isa " Thine ox ". Ex. xxiii. 12 1 , „ -r. ..... ^next verse. " Thy oliveyard ". Ex. xxm. 11 J " Mine holy things ". Ezk. xliv. 8 "1 same " My holy things ". Ezk. xliv. 13 J chapter. " Mine heart ". Psa. cxix. 112 1 , ^ . . ^, h same psalm. » My heart ". Psa. cxix. 161 J ^ " Mine affliction ". Psa. cxix. 92 | same . cxix. 50 J psalm. " My affliction ". Psa " Mine house ". Isa. Ivi. 7 " My house ". Isa " Mine hand ". 1 Sam. xxiv. 11 " My hand ". 1 Sam. xxiv. 11 Ivi. 7 1 , . ^ V same verse. Ivi. 7 J I same verse. " Mine head ". Psa. xl. 12 . same verse 1 « My heart ". Psa. xl. 12 " Mine hand ". Isa. xlix. 22 1 ^^\ same versi " My ensign ". Isa. xlix. 22 J " Mine husband is dead ". 2 Sam. xiv. 5. " My husband is dead ". 2 Kings iv. 1. 74 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH, In Prov. XX. 3, the Revisers say " an hon- our " ; but in Psa. Ixxi. 8, they say " thy honour " ! But let me " render honour to whom honour is due ", Rom. xiii. 7 ; and candidly express my opinion that, notwithstanding these vagaries, it is evident that the Revisers had some sense of propriety in dealing with the personal pronouns ; for, in an address to an ass, (Num. xxii. 29) we find the asinine expression " mine hand " ; but, in the previous chapter, in an address to the Deity, the expression is '* my hand ". (Niun. xxi. 2). Doubtless the Revisers had equally good reasons for all their varieties of expression ; and some day they will, for the enlightenment of mankind, publish those reasons ; but, in the mean time, the Revisers' light being, as it were, hid under a measure, is in a measure hid. ( 75 ) CHAPTER yi. Contents. — Redundancy, 'vomit them up again'; 'doubled twice'; 'budded buds and bloomed blos- soms'; 'plaister it with plaister'; 'pitch it with pitch ' ; ' iDraying a prayer ' ; ' kneeling on his knees ' ; * stood on his feet ' ; ' heard with our ears ' ; ' see it with thine eyes'; ' devised devices '; 'assembled to- gether ' ; * a widow woman whose husband is dead ' ; ' stone him with stones ' ; ' rise up ' ; ' vanish away ' ; * depart away '; * no doubt but ' ; 'all of them ' ; * each of them ' ; ' both of them ' ; ' both of those, both of four, both of five, both of eight, and of things in- numerable; 'else'; 'it". One of the commonest faults in the language of young writers and inexperienced public speakers is redundancy. Having no confidence in the power of simple expressions, they trust to iteration and reiteration, rather than to one incisive utterance that would instantly pierce the understanding. Their speech is more like the repeated dull blows of a hammer on the head of a blunt nail, than the lightning flash 76 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH, of intellect which cleaves the surrounding dark- ness ; and, by its dazzling brilliancy, at once and for ever photographs itself upon the mind. And as with youthful writers, so it is with languages which, in the world's history, may be said to be youthful. This is true of the Hebrew language especially ; it is extremely elliptical ; but, at the same time, it abounds with tautolo- gies and other redundancies; and this fact, ha\ang unfortunately been allowed by the Revisers to have undue weight in their choice of words, has given rise to some of the follow- ing redundant expressions. " Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it ". Gen. ii. 17. " Is there room in thy father's house for us to lodge ^n?" Gen. xxiv. 23. " He restored the chief butler unto his butler- ship again." Gen. xl. 21. As the butler had not previously been restored, he could not be said to have been restored again. Why, then, did the Revisers leave in this pas- sage the word " again ", seeing that they struck ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 77 it out of Lev. xxiv. 20, where, in the Authorised Version, a similar redundancy occurs. See also 1 Kings xiii. 6, "And the man of God intreated the Lord, and the king's hand was restored him again." Had the king's hand heen restored pre- viously ? If not, how could it be said to have been restored again ? In Ex. xiv. 2(3, we read, "Streteh out thine hand over the sea, that the waters may come again upon the Egyptians ". A comma after the word '' again^^ might improve this sentence, but it would be still more improved by the omission of that word. As the sentence stands now, one is tempted to ask, " Had the sea on some former occasion overwhelmed the Egyptians'? " In Gen. xli. 32, we read, " The dream was doubled unto Pharaoh twice." 78 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH, A perusal of the chapter will show that the dream of Pharaoh was doubled^ but not doubled twice ; he did not dream the same circumstances four times. I have said that " some " of the redundancies are found in the Hebrew. They are not all there ; e.g., the redundancy of the word " again\ in Num. xii. 14 and 15, has no equivalent in the Hebrew. In Job XX. 15, we read, "He hath swallowed down riches, and he shall vomit them up again ". This is a very unpleasant metaphor ; for, before anything can be vomited again — I will say no more ; only that the original does not mean what the Revisers' language implies. In Ex. xiv. 13, we read, " The Egyptians whom ye have seen to-day, ye shall see them again no more /or everj^ Omit the words in Italics : " theyn " is re- dundant, '^ Egyptian ^ being the accusative to the verb ; and the phrase ''for ever " is worse U0II4^' ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 79 than redundant, for it implies that the Israel- ites had previously seen the Egyptians "/or ever " / but should do so " again no more ". In Ex. iii. 5, and Josh, v, 15, we read, " Put o^thy shoes from o^thy feet". " The rod of Aaron was budded, and put forth huds, and bloomed blossoms". Num. xvii. 8. " Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead ". Num. xix. 13. " Thou shalt set thee up great stones, and plaister them with plaister." Deut. xxvii. 2,4. "Booms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch." Gen. vi. 14. '•''Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel . . . . . unto king Solomon". 1 Kings viii. 1. " When Solomon had made an end of pray- ing all this prayer, he arose from kneeling on his hneesP 1 Kings viii. 54. See also, Dan. vi. 10. "Then David the king stood up upon his feet. 1 Chron. xxviii. 2. 80 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. Did the Revisers imagine that we should think he stood upon his head ? In Job xxviii. 22, we read, "We have heard a rumour thereof with our ears." " Behold, thou shalt see it with thine eyes". 2 Kings vii. 2 ; Deut. xxxiv. 4. " Hear, O Lord, when I cry with my voice ". Psa. xxvii. 7. " I knew not that they had devised devices against me ". Jer. xi. 19 ; See also, xviii. 18; Dan. xi. 25. In the Authorised Version of this last pas- sage, it is ^' they shall forecast devices ", but the Revisers preferred to be literally tauto- logipal, and therefore altered the passage. In Dan. vi. 11, we read, " Then these men assembled together, and found Daniel making petition." How could they assemble otherwise than ^' together " f But, evidently the Revisers imagined it possible, or they would not have inserted the word '^ together " ; they would ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 81 have given us the passage as it stands in the Authorised Version, viz., " Then these men assembled, and found Daniel praying". The error is repeated in verse 15. Here is a fine specimen of tautology : " Of a truth I am a m idow ivomcm, and mine husband is dead." 2 Sam. xiv. 5. Why do the Revisers speak of a ^* widow ivoman " ? Do they think it likely that any one would imagine that the ^' widow '^ was a man ? And then, as if they had not been sufficiently explicit in telling us that the widow was a woman, they must needs add " and my husband is dead". Surely, the death of the husband is implied in the word " widoio ". But, if they wished to be emphatic, they might with propriety have said, " Of a truth I am a widow, — my husband is dead ! " The error occurs also in 1 Kings xi. 2(5, and xvii. 9. In Ex. xii. 33, we read, G 82 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. '* The Egyptians were urgent upon the people, to send them out of the land in haste ; for they said, We be all dead wen." The equivalent to the word " men " is not in the original ; why, then, have the Revisers - inserted it in the English of the passage % There can be no question that the Egyptians' remark referred, not to the '^men^^ only, but to the w^hole nation. It was called forth by the death of " all the firstborn in the land of Egypt ", and therefore certainly had reference to children as well as to men. In Lev. XX. 2, we read, " The people of the land shall stone him with stones." Why this tautology ? Could he be stoned with any thing else? In verse 16, of chapter xxiv., it says simply, " All the congregation shall certainly stone him," So also, in 1 Sam. xxx. 6, the expression is simply, " The people spake of stoning him." ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 83 But in the following passages it is " stoning with stones " : Lev. xxiv. 23 ; Num. xiv. 10 ; XV. 3/), 36 ; Deut. xiii. 10 ; xxi. 21 ; xxii. 21, 24 ; Josh. vii. 25 ; 1 Kings xii. 18 ; xxi. 13; 2 Chron. x. 18 ; xxiv. 21 ; and Ezk. xvi. 40. In Deut. xix. 2, we read, " Thou shalt separate three cities for thee in the midst of thy land, ivhich the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it." If the Revisers thought the word '^ it " to be necessary in the foregoing passage, why did they omit it in the following verse, Deut. xix. 3? There we read, " Thou shalt prepare thee the way, and divide the borders of thy land, which the Lord thy Grod causeth thee to inherit." Why not " inherit it " ? There is just as much, or as little, need of the word " it " in the one case as in the other. The same error occurs in Deut. xxi. 1 and Josh. i. 11. In 1 Sam. i. 13, we read, " Now Hannah, she spake in her heart; only G 2 84 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. her lips moved, hut her voice was not heard". Here the word ^^she" is redundant, as ^^ Hannah ^^ is the nominative to the verb " spaJce ". The vsrord " but " likewise is redun- dant ; the word " onli/ " rendering it needless. The passage should have been, " Now Hannah spake in her heart ; only her lips moved, her voice was not heard." In Psa. xliv. '2Q, we have, " Else uj) for our help ". Why " rise up "; is it possible to rise down ? In the Authorised Version it is, " Arise for our help." This is called '' revising " ! In Isa li. 6, we read, *' The heavens shall vanish awaij hke smoke ". See also Job vii. 9, "As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth awcii/ ". ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 85 And Zech. x. 11, we read, " The sceptre of Egypt shall depart away.'^ Again, 2 Kings ii. 11, we read, " There appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, which parted them loth asunder ". How much more forcible these passages would be if the redundant words which I have italicized, were omitted. In Job xii. 1, 2, we read, " Then Job answered and said, No doubt hut ye are the people ". The insertion of the redundant word " hut " in this sentence, really makes Job say exactly the reverse of what it is evident that he in- tended; namely, " There is no doubt that ye are the people ". The Revisers' words mean that there is no doubt except that they are the people ; there is doubt about that. '''But''' is from the Saxon ^'he-utan'' ; origin- ally the imperative of " heon-utariy' to be out. 86 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. It is literally " be out ", and means " exclude " or " except ". The same error occurs in Gen. xxiii. 6, where we read, "None of us shall withhold from thee his sepulchre, hut that thou mayest bury thy dead." Substitute " except " for " hut ", and you will at once see that its presence in the passage reverses the meaning of the speaker. " None of us shall withhold from thee his sepulchre, except that thou mayest bury thy dead." i.e., we will withhold it for that; but the speaker's intention was, we will give it for that. The word " hut " should be omitted ; the meaning then will be obvious, " None of us shall withhold from thee his sepulchre, that thou mayest bury thy dead." In Deut. xxix. 10, we read, EOCLESIASTIOAL ENGLISH. 87 " Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God ". In Lev. X. 1, we read, " Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took each of them his censer ". In Jer. xlvi. 12, we read, " They are fallen hoth of them together." And in Pro v. xvii. 15, we read, " Both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord." Why have the Revisers inserted the words " of them " in each of the last two passages % In the Authorised Version of the passages the words are not found, nor are they needed. These are additional instances in which the Revisers have made faulty that which was correct. "Both" is all of two; but " o/ them'' is partitive, and therefore implies that something is left. Hence the incongruity ; for, when all is gone, how can anything be left % The expression ^'hoth of them'' occurs in 88 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. Gen. xxii. 6, 8; Ex. xxxvi. 29; Lev. xx. 11, 12, 13, 18; 1 Sam. il. 34; Prov. xx. 10, 12; and twelve times in the seventh chapter of Numbers; but it is as incorrect as is "a^Z of them ", and that for the same reason. Yet the Revisers have used that expression in Deut. xxxiii. 17; 1 Chron. vii, 3; 2 Chron. v. 12; Ezra viii. 20 ; Isa. vii. 19 ; Ezk. vii. 16 ; xx. 40 ; and Amos ix. 1. In speaking of all, the words " of them ", " of these ", " of you ", ^' of us ", are worse than redundant. It is sufficient to say " all ", " both ", or " each ". The more sententious we make our language, the more forcible will it be. In Deut. xxiii. 18, the Revisers use the correct form, and say, not '' both of these ", but, " Both these are an abomination unto the Lord thy God." '•'Both'' means "the two'' ; yet the Revisers have used it in reference to three, in Judges XX. 48, "And smote them with the edge of the ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 89 sword, hotli the entire city, and the cattle, and all that they found ". In the Authorised Version it is, "And smote them with the edge of the sword, as ivell the men of every city, as the beast, and all that came to hand ". Therefore this error, in using " both " in reference to three, rests solely with the Re- visers. In Gen. vi. 7, the Revisers have used the word ^'both'^ in reference to four ; so have they in Num. xxxi. 28, where we read, " Levy a tribute unto the Lord [,] o£ the men of war that went out to battle : one soul o£ five hundred, hoih of the persons, and of the beeves, and of the asses, and of the flocks ". In the Hebrew of this passage, there is no equivalent to the word ** both^\ Why, then, have the Revisers inserted it? and if they deemed it to be needful in this verse, why was it not needful in the verse next but one also, Num. xxxi. 30, where it is not found, though 90 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. the expressions are almost identical ? It reads thus, " Take one drawn out of every fifty, of the persons, of the beeves, of the asses, and of the flocks". In Joshua vi. 21, and Neh. xii. 27, the Revisers use the word " both " when speaking of Jive things. And in 1 Sam. xv. 3 they use the word w^hen speaking of eight things ! '* Slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." I suppose the Revisers mean, '^ both man and woman, both infant and suckling, both ox and sheep, both camel and ass." But why use the word ^'both^'f It adds nothing to the mean- ing, and is therefore redundant. I have shown that the Revisers use the word " both^' when speaking of three, oi four, of five, and of eight different things. Now turn to Gen. vii. 21, and you will see that the Revisers there use it in reference to things innumerable. " All flesh died that moved upon the earth, both fowl, and cattle, and beast, and everi/ ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 91 creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man ". And yet in Ex. xxxv. 25, and xxxvii. 2^ they have corrected the error! Truly tliey are persistently consistently inconsistent. In Neh. ii. 2, wq read, " Why is thy countenance sad, seeing thou art not sick? this is nothing else but sorrow of heart ". " Else " is equivalent to the Latin " alius " , and means " other " ; therefore, in such sen- tences as that which 1 have quoted, it should be followed by 'Hhan'\ not by "hut'\ The Revisers should have said, " This is nothing else than sorrow of heart " ; or they might have omitted the word (and there is nothing in the Hebrew justifying its pre- sence in the sentence) and have said, " This is nothing hut sorrow of heart". A similar error occurs in Judges vii. 14, " This is nothing else save the sword of Gideon." 92 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. In Prov. xxvi. 4, we read, " Answer not a fool according to his folly, Lest thou also be like unto him ". If this sentence had had reference to other persons who had answered a fool according to his folly and had become like him ; and the person addressed were cautioned against doing as they had done, then the word '* also " would have been permissible. But there is no evi- dence in the context that any such reference was intended ; therefore the ^' also " is redun- dant, and the passage should have read thus, "Answer not a fool according to his folly, Lest thou become like him." In Isa. xxxiv. 1 6, we read, " Seek ye out the book of the Lord, and read : no one of these shall be missing, none shall want her mate : for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them." Compare this with the following passage, from Isa. xlviii. 5, and conceive, if you can. ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 93 why the Revisers have sanctioned the pronomi- nal tautology in the former, and have avoided it in the latter : " Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath [have] commanded them.'' If the former passage is correct, the latter should have been, " Mine idol it hath done them, and my graven image and my molten image they have commanded them." This might have been in accordance with Hebrew idiom ; but it would certainly not have been good English. The same error occurs in Prov. x. 22, " Tlie blessing of the Lord, it maketh rich " ; and in Prov. x. 24, " The fear of the wicked, it shall come upon him." But I need not multiply instances of this kind of error; numerous examples of it can be 94 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. found by any superficial reader of the Eevised Version ; and even to those who have become accustomed to this construction, a moment's re- flection will show it to be a fault. In one instance the Revisers have struck out the word ^'zi^" from a verse of this description in the Authorised Version; I refer to Prov. xix. 2, " That the soul he without knowledge, it is not good." Their selection of this verse, as the one to be altered, was not judicious; almost any other would have done better; for the presence of the word "{^" might by some persons be justified on the ground that if the last clause of the sentence be transposed and put first, the word ^* it " must be retained, thus : "Jif is not good that the soul be without knowledge ". therefore. That the soul be without knowledge, it is not good."' ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 95 I should not write it so ; but the reasoning is plausible. Why do the Revisers speak of a woman's "lattpr end''f e.g.: . "Her filthiness was in her skirts; she re- membered not her latter end". Lam. i. 9. " Oh that they would consider their latter encl!'\ Deut. xxxii. 29. " Thy latter end should greatly increase." Job. viii. 7. " The Lord blessed the latter end of Job ". Job xlii. 12. " He shall not see our latter end." Jer. xii. 4. " Let my last end be like his." Num. xxiii. 10. The Revisers' language implies that the end to a man's existence may be elsewhere than at the close ; otherwise, why speak of the " latter end" and"Zas^end"? ( &6 ) CHAPTER yil. Contents.— The articles, ' a', ' an', and ' the ' ; * another ' ; 'the other'; 'the son of man', or 'a son of man'; the verb ' to be ' ; the subjunctive mood. The Revisers' errors are not such as are oc- casionally found in the writings of advanced students of the language — errors in the struc- ture of complex sentences — there we might reasonably expect the Revisers to fail; for, very few Englishmen write their own language with accuracy. The marvel is, that the Re- visers, besides failing in other things, fail in the simple A B C of the grammar, the proper use of "a", "a/i", and ''the'' ! I have, on pages 63-70, given some examples of this ; here are some more. Every one knows that " an " is indefinite, and refers indiscriminately to one of several ; and that " the " is definite, and refers specially to one by itself, which may be a single unit, or ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 97 which may be an aggregate of units ; yet the Revisers say, in Dan. v. 6, " Then the king's countenance was changed in him, and his thoughts troubled him ; and the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another." This statement might be correct if Belshaz- zar had three or more knees, and it was un- certain which of the knees " smote one against another." But as history does not say that he had more than two legs (though his father did eat grass like an ox) the Revisers are not justified in writing as if he had more than two knees ; and therefore ought to say that " his knees smote one against the other." The difference between " an " and *^ the " cannot have a better illustration than the one found in Ezk. vii. 2, " An end, the end is come." That the Revisers were aware of the pro- priety of employing the definite article " the ", when speaking of only two things, is evident 98 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. from their having altered " arzother ", as it is in the Authorised Version, to " the other ", in the Kevised Version. See Gen. xv. 10, " He took all these, and divided them in the midst, and laid each half over against the other." Why, then, after thus acknowledging the necessity for the alteration, have the Revisers left the error in Gen. xxxi. 49, and elsewhere? "The Lord watch between me and thee, when we are absent one from «/iother." It should be, " When we are absent, one from the other." In Ex. XXV. 18, 20 : and xxxvil. 9, we read, " And thou shalt make two cherubim of gold ; .... And the cherubim shall spread out their wings on high, covering the mercy- seat with their wings, with their faces one to another." In 1 Kings vi. 23, 27, we read, " In the oracle he made two cherubim of olive wood, .... and their wings touched one another." See also Ezk. i. 11. ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 99 In Ezk. xxxvii. 16, 17, we read, " Take thee [thou] one stick, and write upon it, For Judah, .... then take another stick, and write upon it, For Joseph, . . . and join them for thee one to a/iother ". In Ex. xxvi. 17, we read, " Two tenons shall there be in each board, joined one to a^iother." See also Ex. xxxvi. 22. In Ezk. iv, 4-8, we read, " Thy left side .... thy right side .... Thou shalt not turn thee from one side to another ". In each of the foregoing passages, the Ee- visers should have said, not "a72other*', but *' the other ". And in the following passages, they should have said, " each other ", instead of ^' one a/iother ". " Then Amaziah sent messengers to Jehoash .... saying, Come, let us look one cmother in the face". 2 Kings xiv. 8, 11, and 2 Chron. xxy. 17, 21. H 2 100 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. In the Authorised Version there occurs the following reading : — " Thy righteousness may profit the son of man". Job. XXXV. 8. This the Revisers have with great prudence altered to, " Thy righteousness may profit a son of man ". The expression " son of man " occurs nearly a hundred times in Ezekiel ; but ^' the " Son of Man is one of the titles of Christ (see Psa. Ixxx. 17; Matt. xvi. 13, &c.), and therefore it was that the Revisers recognized the necessity for making the above correction. But, recognizing this necessity, why did they leave unaltered the same expression in Job XXV. 6, where we read that " the son of man " is a worm ? and still more, why did they leave unaltered Psa. cxlvi. 3 1 There it says, " Put not your trust in princes, Nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help." The Revisers should have said. ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 101 " Nor in any son ^ofi id^ii V. \ , ; n ' The same error* occar8 in ^ Nuzd; x;xiii^ },9; Psa. viii. 4; cxliv. S; Isa. li* 12;' andlvi. !^. ' The following passages are correct, Job xxxv. 8 ; Jer. xlix. 18, 33 ; 1. 40 ; and li. 43. In Lev. xvii. 3, we read of "an ox, or lamb, or goat". But in a sentence like this, where one of the nouns begins with a vowel, and each of the others begins with a consonant, it is especially necessary that the appropriate article precede each. The Revisers should have said, " an ox, or a lamb, or a goat ". The sentence, as it stands in the Revised Version, means "an ox, or [an] lamb, or [an] goat ". The Revisers have recognized this in Psa. Ixix. 31. There, in the Authorised Version, we read, "This also shall please the Lord better than ail ox or bidlock ". 102 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. whic}| is equiv'?i'ei^1?i6 'laying ,', ;• 'r^nr^^bffjxii] bullock '^ In the Revised Yersion it is, " an ox, or a bullock ", which is correct. But how is it that we so frequently find that an error corrected in one part of the Revisers' work, is left uncorrected in another ? There must have been something extremely faulty in their mode of revision. I believe the explanation to be, that the Revisers were not all equally good masters of English ; and as they were not always all pre- sent, and as everything was carried by votes of the majority, the less-informed were frequently the more numerous and therefore, of course, outvoted those who knew better. In any further revision, this evil must be guarded against. The marvel is, that any educated men could have sanctioned the errors which I have exposed ; or, at least, that they have considered them so unimportant that it ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 103 was not deemed necessary to record a protest against them. Therefore even the best of the Revisers must be held to have been " partakers of other men's sins ". Even the simple verb " to he " meets with strange treatment at the hands of the Revisers. It cannot be that its various forms were not understood ; and yet they seem to have puzzled the Revisers almost as much as they puzzled the Oriental lecturer, who ridiculing our En- glish language, and especially the changeable verb "to be^\ said, " In my country, if / am, I am always ". " Oh, well ", said a reviewer, " if you am always in your own country, how am it that you am, here ? And if a man always am, what am he when he am not ? And how am he to simplify or unify, as it am, our verb * to am ', so that we shall always am here, as they am in Burmah? Somehow we am at a loss to see how this verb ' am ' am, with any success, to be reformed on a Burmese basis. How am this ? Any way, *to am, or not to am, that am the question ' ". 104 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. Let us look at the Revisers' treatment of the verb "^0 Z>e". Their examples of its uses are certainly strange. Here are some of them, *' There he three things which are too won- derful forme". Prov. xxx. 18. See also verses 24 and 29. " There he six things which the Lord hateth ; Tea, seven which are an abomination unto him." Prov. vi. 16. Could anything be more capricious ? — *' There be six, and there ai^e seven ". What has num- ber to do with it? The inconsistency is not found in the corresponding passage in the Authorised Version. There we read, " These six things doth the Lord hate ; yea, seven are an abomination unto him ". Li Amos vi. 2 of the Revised Version we read, " Be they better than these kingdoms ? or is their border greater than your border ? '' Neither is this inconsistency found in the Authorised Version. ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 105 In Psa. xxxiv. 18, and cxxv. 4, we read, " The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart, And saveth such as he of a contrite spirit." " Do good, O Lord, unto those that he good, And to them that are upright in their hearts." In these two verses we have the expressions *' them that are "; but in Ezk. xxxi. 17, 18, the expression is *' them that he "; and in the next chapter we have both forms, " Them that he slain", v. 25. " Them that are slain ". v. 30. Nor is this inconsistency found in the cor- responding verses in the Authorised Version ; (though it does exist elsewhere in that Version) neither is there in the Hebrew, in either verse, any equivalent to the expression '•'them that be'' or " them that are ". Why, then, have the Re- visers altered the translation of the latter verse and not that of the former ? Tlie same inconsistency exists in the follow- ing passages. See Ezk. xlii. 13, 106 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. " The north chambers and the south chambers, which are before the separate place, they he the holy chambers ". Likewise, Ezk. xliii. 19, " Thou shalt give to the priests the Levites that he of the seed of Zadok, which are near unto me ". Also Zech. iv. 4, 5, " What are these my Lord ? . . . . Knowest thou not what these he 1 " See also Zech. i. 19, " "What he these ? And he answered me, These are the horns ". And Zech. iv. 11, 12, " What are these two olive trees ? . . . . What he these two olive branches ? " And so on, usque ad nauseam. See Gen. xxxiv. 15 (compare with verse 22) ; xxxvi. 43 (compare with verse 15) ; xxix. 4 ; Num. xiii. 3 1 ; Deut. i. 1 (compare with Num. xxx. 16) ; x. 5 ; Judges viii. 5 ; 2 Sam. i. 5 (compare with ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 107 verse iv.) ; xxiii. 1 ; Job iii. 17 (compare witli verse 18); v. 11 ; &c. For some reason tlie Revisers have corrected the following passages, Gen. xlvi. 15 ; Ex. vi. 14 ; Lev. X. 14 ; xi. 31 ; Num, iv. 45 ; xiii. 28 ; Deut. xxvii. 4 ; Judges xi. 26 ; 2 Sam. vii. 28 ; &c. The Revisers' alteration of some passages, and of some only, shows the incompleteness of their work. In ' The Revisers English ' I discussed so fully the commission of errors in connection with verbs in the subjunctive mood, that it is not necessary to say much more than that the Revisers of the Old Testament are as faulty in that respect, as were those of the New. True, here and there the former seem to be groping after the correct form of ex- pression ; and occasionally they are right ; but more frequently they are wrong. In Prov. xxix. 12j they say, " If a ruler hearkenefTi to falsehood, All his servants are wicked." 108 ECCLESIAJSTICAL ENGLISH. As the circumstance here spoken of relates to the present time, the Revisers very properly have taken the verb from the subjunctive, in which it stands in the Authorised Version, and have put it into the indicative. But so likewise does 1 Kings ii. 23 refer to the present time ; why, then, have the Revisers not put that also into the indicative ? The verse reads thus, " Grod do so to me, and more also, if Adonijah have not spoken this word against his own life." It should be, " if Adonijah has not spoken ". With a perverseness, at which one cannot but smile, the Revisers have, in the last quota- tion, put the verb into the subjunctive when it ought to be in the indicative, and in 1 Kings xvii. 14, have put the verb into the indicative when it ought to be in the subjunctive, the time being future. The words are, " The barrel of meal shall not waste, neither ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 109 shall the cruse of oil fail, until the day that the Lord ^euð rain upon the earth." It should be, " until the day that the Lord send rain", i.e., " until the day when the Lord [shalV] send rain". The general rule governing this form of speech is very simple ; it is this : — " Wliere there is in the circumstance a combination of contingency and futurity, the verb must be in the subjunctive mood; but where there is either contingency without futurity, or futurity without contingency, the verb must be in the indicative mood." In the following passages the time spoken of is certainly present, and therefore the verb should be in the indicative ; yet the Revisers have put it into the subjunctive, " If it he not so noiu ". Job xxiv. 25. This should be, " If it is not so now ". 110 E0CLESIA8TIGAL ENGLISH, Again, in Judges vii. 10, we read, " Arise, get thee down into the camp . . . But if t\\ou fear to go down". It should be, '* But if thou fear^s^ to go down ". Another example of this error will be found in Ex. xl. 37, " If the cloud were not taken up, then they journeyed not." Here there is contingency, but not futurity ; it is the relation of a past event, and therefore the Kevisers should have said, " If the cloud luas not taken up, then they journeyed not." For other examples of the error, see Judges > vi. 13, 31; 1 Kings xviii. 21; Neh. ii. 5; Esther vi. 13 ; viii. 5 ; Pro v. xxiv. 10. An example of the correct use of the indica- tive in a contingent sentence is found in Esther iv. 14, " If thou altogether holdes^ thy peace " ; ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. Ill and an example of the correct use of the sub- junctive in a contingent sentence is found in Num. XXX. 14, " If her husband altogether hold his peace '*. The former quotation relates to the present ; the latter relates to the future ; hence the ne- cessity for the change of mood in the verb. So simple ; yet, apparently, so little under- stood ! ( 112 ) CHAPTER VITI. CoNTEJfTS. — Consistently inconsistent; adjectives and adverbs ; ' speak i)lain ', or ' speak plainly' ' ; ' look sad', or 'look sadly'; 'wonderful great', and ' exceeding magnifical'; 'for to'; 'in', and 'into', 'on', and ' onto ', ' on ', and ' in ' ; prepositions ; ' of ', for ' by ' ; * of ', for ' on ' ; * despite '. I have spoken of the Revisers' inconsistency; but I wish to be strictly accurate, and there- fore bear testimony to their consistency in one matter which I must admit never varies, and that is the maintenance of their mconsistency. Having disburdened my mind by the ren- dering of this act of justice to the Revisers, I proceed to show that their claims to this con- cession on my part are very great. Compare the following passages with each other. " Write upon the stones all the words of this law very plainZ^/." Deut. xxvii. 8 : ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH, 113 " The tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plain??/." Isa. xxxii. 4. " His tongue was loosed, and he spake plain ". Mark vii. 35. " Say now Shibboleth ; and he said Sibbo- leth ; for he could not frame to pronounce it riglit.''^ Judges xii. 6. Surely the rule respecting the right use of adjectives and adverbs must have been for- gotten by the Revisers ; and if so, I do not wonder at their being puzzled which to employ ; but then why did they not ask, rather than blunder, and bring disgrace on the language of Scripture ? The rule is, that if the verb is intended to denote the manner of doing a thing, an adverb should be used ; but if the verb is intended to denote the nature or the quality of a thing, then an adjective should be used. Further, the appropriateness of using an adjective may be tested by our being able to substitute for the adjective so used, some part of the verb " to he " ; for, the verb " to he " in all its moods I 114 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. and tenses, generally requires tlie word imme- diately connected with it, to be an adjective, not an adverb ; consequently, when this verb can be substituted for any other without vary- ing the sense or the construction, that other verb also must be connected with an adjective. Of course there are exceptions to this rule, but we should not reject a useful general rule because it is attended with exceptions. In Gen. xl. 7, the Kevisers make Joseph say to Pharaoh's officers, " Wherefore look ye so sadZ^/ to day ?" As Joseph's enquiry did not refer to the mamier in which they looked, but to the nature of their looks, the verb should have been fol- lowed by an adjective, not by an adverb. The inquiry should have been, " Wherefore look ye so sad to day ?" Test the correctness of this expression by substituting, for the verb " look ", part of the verb " to he ", and you will find the value of the rule. ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 115 " AVherefore are ye so sad to day ?" In Num. xxxvi. 5, we have, "The tribe of the sons of Joseph speaketh right:' This is correct ; because what was intended was not that they spoke in a proper manner, but that the nature of their request was rightJ^ Test the correctness of this sentence also by the substitution of part of the verb " to he " for the verb " speaketh ". " The tribe of the sons of Joseph is right. The adjective ^' exceeding ^^ is erroneously employed for the adverb '' exceedmgly^^ in numerous passages in the Eevised Old Testa- ment; e.g., " Exceeding great ". Gen. xv. 1. " Exceeding fruitful ". Gen. xvii. 6. • " Exceeding mighty ". Ex. i. 7. " Exceeding strong". Ex. x. 19. " Exceeding loud ". Ex. xix. 16. " " Exceeding good ". Num. xiv. 7. I 2 116 ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. " Exceeding many ". 2 Sam. xii. 2. " Exceeding much ". 2 Sam. xii. 30. " Exceeding guilty ". Ezra. ix. 7. " Exceeding broad ". Psa. cxix. 96. " Exceeding crooked ". Prov. xxi. 8. " Exceeding wise ". Prov. xxx. 24. " Exceeding deep ". Eccl. vii. 24. " Exceeding beautiful ". Ezk. xvi. 1 3. " Exceeding hot ". Dan. iii. 22. " Exceeding glad ". Dan. vi. 23. " Exceeding terrible ". L)an. vii. 19. *' Exceeding magnifical ". 1 Chron. xxii. 5. " Wonderful great ". 2 Chron. ii. 9. Contrast the foregoing with the following, " Then were the men exceeding??/ afraid." Jonah i. 10. " The queen was exceedingZy grieved." Es- ther iv. 4. In this matter the Revisers are ten times as often wrong as they are right. May we not,- in their own words, describe their errors as " won- derful great ", and their language as " exceeding magnifical " f ECCLESIASTICAL ENGLISH. 117 The American company of Revisers suggest- ed many very judicious emendations which unfortunately were not duly appreciated hy the English Revisers. A list of those emen- dations is printed at the end of each division of the Scriptures; and I do not doubt that, when a future revision is undertaken, most of them will be adopted. One of them was the omission of '^/or" before infinitives. The English Revisers de- clined to adopt this emendation; consequently we are favoured with such inconsistencies as the following : — " For to go ". Gen. xxxi. 18. See Ruth i. 18 ; " to go ". " For to come". Isa. xH. 22. See Jer. xl. 4 ; "