ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. ON A FRESH REVISION OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT BY THE LATE JOSEPH BARBER LIGHTFOOT, D.D., D.C.L., LL.D., LORD BISHOP OF DURHAM REPRINTED WITH AN ADDITIONAL APPENDIX ON THE LAST PETITION OF THE LORD'S PRAYER PUBLISHED BY THE TRUSTEES OF THE LIGHTFOOT FUND Uon&on MACMILLAN AND CO. AND NEW YORK 1891 All Rights reserved First Edition 1871 Second Edition 1872 Third Edition 1891 CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY c. j. CLAY, M.A. AND SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. B-S 25/7 L 5-3 i *?/ PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. TOURING the last summer, immediately before "-^ the Company appointed for the Revision of the English New Testament held its first sitting, I was invited to read a paper on the subject before a Clerical meeting. Finding that I had already written more than I could venture to read even to a very patient and considerate audience, and receiving a request from my hearers at the conclusion that the paper should be printed, I determined to revise the whole and make additions to it before publication. The result is the present volume. Owing to various interruptions its appearance has been delayed much longer than I had anticipated. This statement of facts was perhaps needed to justify the appearance of a book, which as occupying well-known ground cannot urge the plea of novelty, which has many imperfections in form, and which 466 VI PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. makes no pretensions to completeness. At all events it appeared necessary to be thus explicit, in order to show that I alone am responsible for any expressions of opinion contained in this volume, and that they do not (except accidentally) represent the views of the Company of which I am a member. In preparing the original paper for the press, I have been careful not to go beyond verbal alterations, where I was dis- cussing the prospects of the new Revision or the principles which in my opinion ought to guide it On the other hand, I have not scrupled to develope these principles freely, and to add fresh illustrations from time to time: but in most cases this has been done without any knowledge of the opinion of the majority of the Company ; and in the comparatively few instances where this opinion has become known to me, I have expressed my own individual judg- ment, which might or might not accord therewith. I ought to add also that I am quite prepared to find on consultation with others, that some of the suggestions offered here are open to objections which I had overlooked, and which might render them im- practicable in a Version intended for popular use, whatever value they may have from a scholar's point of view. The hopeful anticipations, which I had ventured to express before the commencement of the work, PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. Vll have been more than realized hitherto in its progress. On this point I have not heard a dissentient voice among members of the Company. I believe that all who have taken part regularly in the work will thankfully acknowledge the earnestness, moderation, truthfulness, and reverence, which have marked the deliberations of the Company, and which seem to justify the most sanguine auguries. This feeling contrasts strangely with the outcry which has been raised against the work by those who have had no opportunity of witnessing its actual progress, who have been disturbed by rumours of its results either wholly false or only partially true, and who necessarily judging on a priori grounds have been ready to condemn it unheard. This panic was perhaps not unnatural, and might have been antici- pated. Meanwhile however other dangers from an unforeseen quarter have threatened the progress of the Revision; but these are now happily averted. And, so far as present appearances can be trusted, the momentary peril has resulted in permanent good ; for the Company has been taught by the danger which threatened it to feel its own strength and co- herence; and there is every prospect that the work will be brought happily and successfully to a con- clusion. Great misunderstanding seems to prevail as to the vili PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. ultimate reception of the work. The alarm which has been expressed in some quarters can only be explained by a vague confusion of thought, as though the Houses of Convocation, while solemnly pledged to the furtherance of the work on definite conditions, were also pledged to its ultimate recep- tion whether good or bad. If the distinction had been kept in view, it is difficult to believe that there would have been even a momentary desire to repu- diate the obligations of a definite contract. The Houses of Convocation are as free, as the different bodies of Nonconformists represented in the Com- panies, to reject the Revised Version, when it appears, if it is not satisfactory. I do not suppose that any member of either Company would think of claiming any other consideration for the work, when completed, than that it shall be judged by its intrinsic merits; but on the other hand they have a right to demand that it shall be laid before the Church and the people of England in its integrity, and that a verdict shall be pronounced upon it as a whole. I cannot close these remarks without expressing my deep thankfulness that I have been allowed to take part in this work of Revision. I have spent many happy and profitable hours over it, and made many friends who otherwise would probably have remained unknown to me. Even though the work PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION. IX should be terminated abruptly to-morrow, I for one should not consider it lost labour. In choosing my examples I have generally avoided dwelling on passages which have been fully discussed by others; but it was not possible to put the case fairly before the public without venturing from time to time on preoccupied ground, though in such in- stances I have endeavoured to tread as lightly as possible. The discussion in the Appendix 1 perhaps needs some apology. Though it has apparently no very direct bearing on the main subject of the volume, yet the investigation was undertaken in the first instance with a view to my work as a reviser; and hoping that the results might contribute towards permanently fixing the meaning of an expression, which occurs in the most familiar and most sacred of all forms of words, and which nevertheless has been and still is variously interpreted, I gladly seized this opportunity of placing them on record. TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, April 3, 1871. 1 Appendix I. in the Third Edition [1891]. L. R. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. second edition is in all essential respects a reprint of the first. A few errors have been corrected, and one or two unimportant additions made, but the new matter altogether would not occupy more than a page. The reception accorded to this book has taken me by surprise, and the early call for a new edition would have prevented me from making any great changes, even if I had felt any desire to do so. To my critics, whether public or private, I can only return my very sincere thanks for their generous welcome of a work of whose imperfections the author himself must be only too conscious. From this expression of gratitude I see no reason to except the critique of Mr Earle 1 in a letter addressed to the editor of the Guardian ; but I am sure that he will pardon me if, while thankfully acknowledging the friendly tone of his letter, I venture entirely to dissent from a principle of translation to which he has lent the authority of his name. In fact he has attacked the very position in my work, which I confidently held, and still hold, to be impregnable. I had laid it down as a rule (subject of course to special exceptions) that, where the same word occurs in the same 1 Now Professor of Anglo-Saxon in the University of Oxford. PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XI context in the original, it should be rendered by the same equivalent in the Version (p. 36 sq.); or, as Mr Earle ex- presses it, that 'a verbal repetition in English should be employed to represent a verbal repetition in the Greek.' Mr Earle (I will employ his own words) would reverse this, and say that in many of my details he would practically come to my conclusion, but that the principle itself, with all the speciousness of its appearance, is essentially unsound. This position he endeavours to establish by arguments, which I feel bound to meet, for I consider the principle which he assails to be essential to a thoroughly good translation. If, notwithstanding our opposite points of view, we had arrived at the same results, or, in other words, if Mr Earle's exceptions to his principle of variety were coextensive or nearly coextensive with my own applications of my principle of uniformity, I should have felt any discussion of his views to be superfluous ; for then, so far as regards any practical issues, the difference between us would have been reduced to a mere battle of words. But when I find that Mr Earle defends such a rendering as Matt, xviii. 33, 'Shouldest not thou also have had compassion (eXe^o-at) on thy fellow- servant, even as I had/#>> (qA.e>?<ra) on thee?', I feel that the difference between us is irreconcilable. Indeed I had vainly thought that my illustrations (with one or two doubtful exceptions) would carry conviction in themselves; and I confess myself a little surprised to find their cogency questioned by an English scholar of Mr Earle's eminence. But, lest I should be misunderstood, let me say at the outset that I entirely agree with Mr Earle in deprecating xii PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. the mode of procedure which would substitute ' the fidelity of a lexicon' for 'the faithfulness of a translation.' I am well aware that this is a real danger to careful minds trained in habits of minute verbal criticism, and I always have raised and shall raise my voice against any changes which propose to sacrifice forcible English idiom to exact con- formity of expression. For instance, it would be mere pedantry to substitute 'Do not ye rather excel them?' for 'Are not ye much better than they ?' in Matt. vi. 26 (ov^ v/xcis /mAAov Sleeper* avrwv) ; or ' The hour hath approached/ for ' The hour is at hand,' in Matt. xxvi. 45 (ijyyi/cev 17 wpa). But the point at issue seems to me to be wholly different, I cannot for a moment regard this as a question of English idiom ; and my objection to the variety of rendering which Mr Earle advocates is that it does depart from ' the faithful- ness of a translation' and substitutes, not indeed the fidelity of a lexicon, but the caprice of a translator. Mr Earle says ' The stronghold of the Greek (I do not speak of Plato and Demosthenes, but of the New Testa- ment) is in the words: the stronghold of the English language is in its phraseology and variability.' This is not the distinction which I should myself give between the characteristics of the two languages. Even in its later stages the wealth of particles, the power of inflexion and composition, and the manifold possibilities of order, still constitute the peculiar superiority of the Greek over the English. But it matters little whether I am right or wrong here, for the objections to Mr Earle's practical inferences are equally strong in either case. He first of all alleges examples where synonyms are coupled in English, and more PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. Xlll especially in rendering from another language, as for instance in Chaucer's translation of Boethius' De Con- solatione Philosophiae, where daritudo is rendered 'renoun and clernesse of linage-,' and censor 'domesman or juge'; and he then urges that as this method of double rendering was 'manifestly inadmissible in translating scripture,' 'the translators fell upon a device by which they allowed some play to the natural bent of the English language; and where a Greek word occurs repeatedly in a context, they rather leaned to a variation of the rendering.' Now it is one thing to give a double rendering to a single word at any one occurrence ; and another to give it two different renderings at two different occurrences in the same context. The two principles have nothing in common. In the former case the translation will at the worst be clumsy; in the latter it must in many cases be absolutely misleading. For by splitting up the sense of the word and giving one-half to one part of the sentence and the remain- ing half to the other, a disconnexion, perhaps even a con- trast, is introduced, which has no place in the original. If therefore the English on any occasion furnishes no exact and coextensive equivalent for a given Greek word as used in a given context (and this difficulty must occur again and again in translation from any language to another), it will generally be the less evil of the two to select the word which comes nearest in meaning to the original and to retain this throughout. But the examples of capricious varieties which I had chosen to illustrate this vicious principle of translation, and which Mr Earle is prepared to defend, cannot in most cases L. R. b XIV PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. plead this justification, that a single English word does not adequately represent the Greek. It would require far more minute scholarship than I possess to discern any difference in meaning between mos and ' son.' Yet Mr Earle stands forward as the champion of the rendering in Matt. xx. 20, ' Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children (viv) with her sons (won/).' The particular rendering is compara- tively unimportant in itself; but as illustrating the capricious license of our translators it is highly significant. It introduces a variety for no reason at all : and this variety is incorrect in itself; for 'the mother of Zebedee's children' is a wider expression than 'the mother of Zebedee's sons,' by which the Evangelist intends only to describe her as the mother of James and John with whom the narrative is concerned, and which neither implies nor suggests the existence of other brothers and sisters. Again, Mr Earle is satisfied and more than satisfied with the rendering of Matt, xviii. 33, 'Shouldest not thou also have had compassion (eXe^o-at) on thy fellow-servant, even as I had//?? (iJAeqo-a) on thee ?' ' If,' he asks, ' we compare our "compassion pity" with the one Greek word, what loss is there in the variation? Is there not a gain in breadth ? ' I answer, a very serious loss ; and I do not allow that breadth (or, as I prefer to call it, looseness) is any gain, where exact correspondence in the two clauses is essential to the main idea of the passage. What would be said, if I were to suggest such translations as ' Blessed are the pitiful (eA^'/Aoves), for they shall obtain mercy (fXeqOij- o-ovrat) ' in Matt. v. 7, or 'If ye forgive (a^prc) not men their trespasses (TrapaTTTw/Aara), neither will your heavenly PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XV Father remit (dtfrrjcrei) your transgressions (TrapaTrrw/taTa)' in Matt. vi. 15, or 'Be ye therefore faultless (reAeioi) as your Father which is in heaven is perfect (re'Aeios)' in Matt. v. 48 ? I do not doubt that if these passages had been so translated in our Authorised Version, the variations would have found admirers : but, as it is, who will question the vast superiority of the existing renderings, where the repetition of the English word corresponds to the repeti- tion of the Greek? In all these passages the thought is one and the same ; that the ideal of human conduct is the exact copying of the Divine. In the other examples quoted our translators have preserved this thought unimpaired by repeating the same word, but in Matt, xviii. 33 it is marred by the double rendering 'compassion, pity' : while the idea of l fellow-te\mg\ which is implied in 'compassion' and in which the chief fault lies, has no place in the original Again, Mr Earle defends the double rendering of s in i Cor. xii. 4, ' There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit ; and there are differences of adminis- trations, but the same Lord; and there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God etc.,' and seems even to regret the abandonment of Tyndale's triple rendering, diversities, differences, divers manners. What again, I ask, would be said, if I were to propose to translate 2 Cor. xi. 26 ' In perils of waters, in dangers from robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in dangers from the heathen, in hazards in the city, in hazards in the wilderness, etc.,' thus gaining breadth by varying the rendering of /avSvVots ? Happily conservative feeling in this instance is enlisted on b2 XVI PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. the right side, and it may be presumed that no change will be desired. But, so far as I can see, the two cases are exactly analogous ; the effect of the sentence in each case depending on the maintenance of the same word, which arrests the ear and produces its effect by repetition, like the tolling of a bell or the stroke on an anvil. Indeed I must conclude that my mind is differently constituted from Mr Earle's, when I find him defending the translation of James ii. 2, 3 * If there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring in goodly apparel (o> laOrfn Xa/xTrpot) and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment (iaBfjri), and ye have respect unto him that weareth the gay clothing (rrjv co-Orjra njv Xa/x7rpav) etc.' Not only do I regard the variation here as highly artificial (a sufficient condemnation in itself), but it seems to me to dissipate the force of the passage, and therefore I am prepared to submit to the ' cruel impoverish- ment' by which the English would be made to conform to the simplicity of the Greek. Nor again am I able to see why in Rev. xvii. 6 c0av/Acura Gav^a /u,eya, 'I wondered with great admiration' is to be preferred to the natural rendering 'I wondered with great wonder] as in i Thess. iii. 9 7rt TraoTy r x a p 5 x */ 30 /* 61 ' ^ VJJWLS is translated ' for all the joy wherewith we/<ry for your sakes', and not 'for all the gladness' In this passage from the Revelation the words immediately following (ver. 7) run in the English Version, 'And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel (e'&xv/xcwras) ?', where by the introduction of a third rendering a still further injury is inflicted on the compactness of the passage. So far with regard to the sense. But Mr Earle urges PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XV11 that the sound must be consulted; that the ear, for in- stance, requires the variations compassion, pity, in Matt, xviii. 33, and wonder, admiration (he omits to notice marvel} in Rev. xvii. 6, 7 ; that generally there is this ' broad modulatory distinction between the ancient tongues and the great modern languages of Western Europe that the former could tolerate reverberation to a degree which is in- tolerable to the latter ; ' and that { perhaps there is not one of them that is more sensitive in this respect than the English.' In reply to this, I will ask my readers whether there is anything unpleasant to the ear in the frequent repetition of 'perils' in the passage already quoted, 2 Cor. xi. 26, or of 'blessed' in the beatitudes, Matt. v. 3 n. But this last reference suggests an application of the experimental test on a larger scale. I should find it difficult (and I venture to hope that Mr Earle will agree with me here) to point to any three continuous chapters in the New Testament, which are at once so vigorously and faithfully rendered, and in which the rhythm and sound so entirely satisfy the ear, as those which make up the Sermon on the Mount. Indeed this portion of our Authorised Version deserves to be regarded as a very model of successful translation. What then are the facts ? In the original the reverberation is sustained through- out, beginning with the beatitudes and ending with the closing parable, so that there are not many verses without an instance, while some contain two or three. Happily in our Authorised Version this characteristic is faithfully re- produced. The temptation to capricious variety to which our translators elsewhere give way is here foregone ; and indeed the whole number of the repetitions in the English is slightly XVlil PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. greater than in the Greek : for though either from inadver- tence or from the exigencies of translation one is dropped here and there (e.g. Aa'/xTrei, Xa^drw, giveth light, shine, v. 15, 16; bring, offer, Trpocr^epfls, wpoV^epe, v. 23, 24; oXcXv/Jtci/^v, put away, divorced, v. 31, 32 ; , opKovs, forswear, oaths, v. 33 ; a<aviovo-i, <a- VOKTI, disfigure, appear, vi. 16; Grja-avpL&Tc, flrjo-avpovs, /<2j; #/, treasures, vi. 19; TrcpiejSaXeTo, 7repi/3aXw/*,0a, arrayed, clothed, vi. 29, 31; /Aerpw, /xerpctrc, measure, mete, (?) vii. 2; wKoSo'/^o-o/, ouu'av, /7/, ^02^, vii. 24) yet on the other hand the balance is more than redressed by the same ren- dering of different words in other parts (e. g. light, KCUOVO-IV, Aa/MTCt, <<Ss, V. 14 16; fulfil, irX^pwo-ai, yeV^rat, v. 17, 18; righteousness repeated, though SiKaioo-w^ occurs only once in the original, v. 20 ; whosoever, iras c c , 05 av, v. 22 ; divorce- ment, divorced, dTroorao-iov, aTroXeAv/xei/^v, v. 31, 32 ; forswear, swear, eTriopfoJaeis, o/xoom, v. 33, 34; reward, purQov, O.TTO- Soxrfi, vi. 2, 4, 5, 6, 1 6, 1 8 ; streets, pv/xai?, 7rAaT3v, vi. 2, 5 ; day, daily, o-^epov, ITTIOVCTIOV, vi. 1 1 ; /^/, Xvx vo9 > <#>wTtvov, </>ws, vi. 22, 23 ; raiment, arrayed, ci/Sv/xaro?, 7repie/3aA.eTO, vi. 28, 29; clothe, clothed, d^iivvuvw, TreptjSaXw/Me^a, vi. 30, 31 ; good, ayaflov, KaXovs, vii. 17, 18; ^^/, 7rpo(r7r(rav, Trpoo'e- Kofav, vii. 25, 27). If my readers are of opinion that the general method adopted by our translators in the Sermon on the Mount is faulty, and that these three chapters would have gained by greater breadth and variety, I have nothing more to say ; but, if they are satisfied with this method, then they have conceded everything for which I am arguing 1 . 1 I confess myself quite unable to follow Mr Earle's logic, when he criticises what I had said of the Rheims Version. My words are (p. 49), PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XIX But Mr Earle proceeds : ' There is no end to the curio- sities of scholarship and the perilous minutiae that such a principle may lead to, if it is persevered in'; and by way of illustration he adds, * Dr Lightfoot seems to ignore what I should have regarded as an obvious fact, that it is hardly possible in modern English to make a play upon words compatible with elevation of style. It was compatible with solemnity in Hebrew and also in the Hebrew-tinctured Greek of the New Testament ; but in English it is not. Explain it as you may, the fact is palpable. Does it not tax all our esteem for Shakspeare to put up with many a passage of which in any other author we should not hesitate to say that it was deformed and debased by a jingle of word- sounds ?' To this I answer fearlessly that I certainly do desire to see the play of words retained in the English Version, wherever it can be done without forcing the English. I be- 'Of all the English Versions the Rhemish alone has paid attention to this point, and so far compares advantageously with the rest, to which in most other respects it is confessedly inferior.' On this he remarks ; ' It is certainly unfortunate for our author's position that by his own showing the version which has kept to his principle should nevertheless be confessedly inferior in most other respects, including, as I apprehend, the highest respects that can affect our judgment of a version of Holy Scripture. To put this admission with the clearness due to its importance ; the Rheims Version is the best, in that it has observed our author's principle : but as a rendering of Scripture it is the worst.' Why unfortunate? Does experience suggest that the man or the book that is right on five points out of six, must be right on the sixth point also? Does it not rather lead us to expect some ele- ment of right in the most wrong and some element of wrong in the most right ? XX PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. lieve that our translators acted rightly when they rendered Xpw/xevoi, Karaxpw/xcvot, by use, abuse in i Cor. vii. 31;! believe that they were only wrong in translating /cara-To/x^, TrepiTo//^', concision, circumcision^ in Phil. iii. 2, 3, because the former is hardly a recognised English word and would not be generally understood. I freely confess that in many cases, perhaps in most cases, the thing cannot be done ; but I am sorry for it 1 . I cannot for a moment acquiesce in 1 On my suggestion that in 2 Thess. iii. 1 1 the play on epyafoptvovs, irepiepyafrfjitvovs, might be preserved by the words business, busy-bodies, Mr Earle remarks ; ' As a matter of history the word business has no radical connection with busy: it is merely a disguised form of the French besognes. This is however a secondary matter, because if the word-play be desirable as a matter of English taste, these words would answer the purpose just as well as if their affinity were quite esta- blished.' Without hazarding any opinion on a question on which Mr Earle is so much more competent to speak than myself, I would ven- ture to remark : (i) That the direct derivation of business from busy is maintained by no less an authority than Jacob Grimm, Deutsche Gram- matik, ii. p. 237 sq. ; (2) That other authorities maintain (whether rightly or wrongly I do not venture to say) the radical connexion of the Teutonic words busy (Engl.), bezig (Dutch), with the Romance words besogne, bisogna ; and (3) That this very play of words occurs in the earliest English translations of the Scriptures, the Wycliffite Ver- sions, in i Cor. vii. 32, * I wole you for to be withoute bisynesse (d/xe/>{/4- wus, Vulg. sine sollicitudine). Sothli he that is withoute wyf is bysy (fj.fpifotq., Vulg. sollicitus est) what thingis ben of the Lord.' Mr Earle remarks that in 2 Thess. iii. n 'Even the Rheims Version keeps clear of this (the play of words) : it has "working nothing, but curiously meddling.'" The fact is that after its wont it has translated the Vulgate Nihil operantes sed curiose agentes,' in which this cha- racteristic of the original has disappeared. This paronomasia is not confined to S. Paul but occurs also in Ari- PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XXI Mr Earle's opinion, that it is incompatible with * solemnity,' with * elevation of style.' Above all I repudiate the notion, which seems to underlie whole paragraphs of Mr Earle's critique, that it is the business of a translator, when he is dealing with the Bible, to improve the style of his author, having before my eyes the warning examples of the past, and believing that all such attempts will end in discom- fiture 1 . Is it not one great merit of our English Version, stides II. p. 418 TttOra ef/ryao-Tcu /*&... Trepiei/rycurrcu 3 /XTjSa/tws, just as the Apostle's Qpovew, ffuQpovew (Rom. xii. 3) has a parallel in a passage quoted by Stobseus as from Charondas Floril. xliv. 40 Trpoo-iroielada) 5 &ca<rros ruv TTO\ITW crbxppoveiv fta\\ov rj <f>poveij>. 1 The anxiety to impart dignity to the language of the Apostles and Evangelists reaches a climax in A Liberal Translation of the New Testament, being an attempt to translate the Sacred Writings with the same Freedom, Spirit and Elegance with which other English Transla- tions from the Greek Classics have lately been executed : by E. Harwood, London, 1 768. In this strange production the following is a sample of S. Luke's narrative (xi. 40), 'Absurd and preposterous conduct ! Did not the Great Being, who made the external form, create the internal intel- lectual powers and will He not be more solicitous for the purity of the mind than for the showy elegance of the body?' and this again of S. John's (iii. 32), ' But though this exalted personage freely publishes and solemnly attests those heavenly doctrines, etc.' The parable of the prodigal son in the former begins (xv. 1 1), 'A gentleman of splendid family and opulent fortune had two sons.' Even Dr Johnson himself, the great master of grandiloquent English, could not tolerate this book. * Returning through the house,' we are told, * he stepped into a small study or book-room. The first book he laid his hands upon was Harwood's Liberal Translation of the New Testament. The pas- sage which first caught his eye was that sublime apostrophe in S. John upon the raising of Lazarus Jesus wept, which Harwood had conceitedly rendered And Jesus, the Saviour of the world, burst into afiood of tears. XX11 PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. regarded as a literary work, that it has naturalised in our language the magnificent Hebraisms of the original ? But the case before us is even stronger than this. The paronomasia is a characteristic of S. Paul's style, and should be repro- duced (so far as the genius of the English language permits) like any other characteristic. That it is admissible, the example of Shakespeare which Mr Earle adduces, and that of Tennyson, whose 'name and fame' he himself has already quoted and who abounds in similar examples of alliteration and assonance, not to mention other standard writers whether of the Elizabethan or of the Victorian era, are sufficient evidence. I am not concerned to defend Shakespeare's literary reputation, which may be left to itself; and I have certainly no wish to maintain that he was entirely free from the affectations of his age : but I am unfeignedly surprised to find plays on words condemned wholesale, as incom- patible with elevation of style. Under certain circum- stances, paronomasia, alliteration, and the like, are not only very natural, but, as indicating intensity of feeling, may produce even a tragic effect With the appreciation of a He contemptuously threw the book aside, exclaiming " Puppy ! '" (Ap- pendix to Boswell's Life of Johnson, in Croker's edition, London, 1866, p. 836). Johnson's biographer, Boswell, speaks of it as ' a fantastical translation of the New Testament in modern phrase' (p. 506). See also Mr Matthew Arnold's opinion (quoted below p. 2 10 sq.) on a very similar attempt at a revised version by Franklin. I am quite sure that Mr Earle's suffrage would be on the same side ; but, when he asks that the distinctive features of the sacred writers may be sacrificed to ' elevation of style ' and pleads that the language may be made more ' full-bodied* to suit * the public taste ' than it is in the original, is he not leading us, though by a different road, to the edge of the very same precipice ? PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. XX111 great genius Shakespeare himself has explained and justi- fied their use under such circumstances. When John of Gaunt, in his last illness, is visited by Richard, and in reply to the king's enquiry keeps harping on his name, Old Gaunt indeed and gaunt in being old, the king asks, Can sick men play so nicely with their names? The old man's answer is, No; misery makes sport to mock itself. The very intensity of his grief seeks relief in this way 1 . Again, who will question the propriety of the play on words in Queen Elizabeth's outburst of anger against Glou- cester after the murder of her children ? Cousins, indeed ; and by their uncle cozen'd Of comfort, kingdom, kindred, freedom, life. The very fierceness of her wrath seeks expression in the iteration of the same sounds. And in cases where no intensity of passion exists, there may be some other determining motive. Thus we find a tendency in all languages to repetition of sound, where a didactic purpose is served Of this motive the fondness for rhyme, alliteration, and the like, in the familiar proverbs of all languages, affords ample illustration, as in Waste not, want not, Forewarned, forearmed, Man proposes, God disposes, Compendia dispendia, TraOtj^ara fta^/xara. To this cate- gory we may assign S. Paul's py i,Vep<poi/etv Trap' o Set 1 Similarly Cicero, speaking of the Sicilians playing on the name of Verres, says (Verr. Act. ii. i. 46) 'etiam ridiculi inveniebantur ex dolore? XXIV PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. <J>poveiv, aAAa <poveTi> eis TO a<i)<j>poveiv (Rom. xii. 3). In- deed it would not be difficult to show that in every instance the Apostle had some reason for employing this figure, and that he did not use it as a mere rhetorical plaything. We may find ourselves unable in any individual case to reproduce the same effect in English, and thus may be forced to abandon the attempt in despair ; but not the less earnestly shall we protest against the principle that the genius of our language requires us to abstain from the attempt under any circumstances, and that a form of speech, which is natural in itself and common to all languages, must be sacrificed to some fancied ideal of an elevated style. TRINITY COLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, S.John's Day, 1871. PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. TO this edition has been added a reprint (p. 269 sq.) of three articles which appeared in the Guardian newspaper on the last petition of the Lord's Prayer. Their appearance here in their existing form seems to require a few words of explanation. The articles were called forth by a pamphlet published by the late Canon Cook 1 , criticizing the translation of this petition which had been adopted in the Revised Version. The Bishop intended to rewrite the articles entirely, adding further evidence in support of the rendering which he maintains to be correct. Thus recast, the articles were to have been published together with the dissertation on eVtovVtos (p. 217 sq.), and dissertations (never written) upon other points of critical interest in the Lord's Prayer. This design he did 1 Deliver us from Evil. A Protest against the Change in the Last Petition of the Lord's Prayer adopted in the Revised Version. A Letter to the Bishop of London. John Murray, 1881. Canon Cook published a reply to these articles entitled Deliver us from Evil. A Second Letter to the Lord Bishop of London. Johri Murray, 1882. XXVI PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION. not live to carry out. In response therefore to numerous requests to make these articles available for reference, the Trustees have decided to include them in this volume; and it only remains for them to express their sincere regret that it has thus become necessary to perpetuate them in a form which their author never intended to be more than temporary. May 25, 1891. TABLE OF CONTENTS. PAGE I. S. JEROME'S REVISION OF THE LATIN BIBLE . i II. AUTHORISED VERSION OF THE ENGLISH BIBLE . 10 III. LESSONS SUGGESTED BY THESE HISTORICAL PARALLELS . . 14 IV. NECESSITY FOR A FRESH REVISION OF THE AUTHORISED VERSION . . . . .19 i. False Readings . . . . . .21 2. Artificial distinctions created ... 36 3. Real distinctions obliterated ... 66 4. Faults of Grammar 89 5. Faults of Lexicography . . . .148 6. Treatment of Proper Names, Official Titles, etc .163 7. Archaisms, Defects in the English, Errors of the Press, etc 189 V. PROSPECTS OF THE NEW REVISION. . . 207 APPENDIX on the words riov<rios, Trepiovo-tos . . .217 APPENDIX on the last clause in the Lord's Prayer . 269 INDICES . . . . . . . . . .325 A FRESH REVISION OF THE ENGLISH NEW TESTAMENT. I. MORE than two centuries had elapsed since the first Latin Version of the Scriptures was made, when the variations and errors of the Latin Bible began to attract the attention of students and to call for revision. It happened providentially, that at the very moment when the need was felt, the right man was forthcoming. In the first fifteen centuries of her existence the Western Church produced no Biblical scholar who could compare with S. Jerome in com- petence for so great a task. At the suggestion of his ecclesiastical superior, Damasus bishop of Rome, he undertook this work, for which many years of self- denying labour had eminently fitted him. L. R. I 2 s. JEROME'S REVISION. It is no part of my design to give a detailed ac- count of this undertaking. I wish only to remark that when Jerome applied himself to his task, he foresaw that he should expose himself to violent at- tacks, and that this anticipation was not disappointed by the result. ' Who/ he asks in his preface to the Gospels, the first portion of the work which he com- pleted, 'Who, whether learned or unlearned, when he takes up the volume, and finds that what he reads differs from the flavour he has once tasted, will not immediately raise his voice and pronounce me guilty of forgery and sacrilege, for daring to add, to change, to correct anything in the ancient books 1 ?' Again and again he defends himself against his antagonists. His temper, naturally irritable, was pro- voked beyond measure by these undeserved attacks, and betrayed him into language which I shall not attempt to defend. Thus writing to Marcella 2 he mentions certain 'poor creatures (homunculos) who studiously calumniate him for attempting to correct some passages in the Gospels against the autho- rity of the ancients and the opinion of the whole world.' ' I could afford to despise them,' he says, ' if I stood upon my rights, for a lyre is played in vain to an ass.' ' If they do not like the water from the 1 Op. x. 660 (ed. Vallarsi). 2 Epist. 28 (I. p. 133). ITS ASSAILANTS. 3 purest fountain-head, let them drink of the muddy streams.' And after more to the same effect, he returns again at the close of the letter to these ' two- legged donkeys (bipedes asellos),' exclaiming, * Let them read, Rejoicing in hope, serving the time; let us read, Rejoicing in hope, serving the Lord 1 ; let tJitm consider that an accusation ought under no circum- stances to be received against an elder ; let us read, Against an elder receive not an accusation but before two or three witnesses ; them that sin rebuke*. Let them be satisfied with, It is a human saying, and worthy of all acceptation : let its err with the Greeks, that is with the Apostle who spoke in Greek, // is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation V And elsewhere, referring to these same detractors, he writes with a seventy which was not undeserved ; ' Let them read first and despise afterward, lest they appear to condemn works of which they know nothing, not from deliberate judgment, but from the prejudice of hatred V ' Thus much I say in reply to my tra- ducers, who snap at me like dogs, maligning me in public and reading me in a corner, at once my ac- 1 The reading icaipy for Kvpiy, Rom. xii. u. 2 The omission of the clause eZ /ZTJ eirl duo 77 rpiQv I Tim. v. 19. 8 The reading fodpuTrivos for Trtoros, i Tim. iii. i. 4 Op. ix. 684. 12 4 s. JEROME'S REVISION. cusers and my defenders, seeing that they approve in others what they disapprove in me V If these attacks had been confined to personal enemies like Rufinus *, who were only retaliating upon Jerome the harsh treatment which they had received at his hands, his complaints would not have excited much sympathy. But even friends looked coldly or suspiciously on his noble work. His admirer, the great Augustine himself, wrote to deprecate an under- taking which might be followed by such serious re- sults. He illustrated his fears by reference to the well-known incident to which Jerome's version of the Book of Jonah had given occasion, as a sample of the consequences that might be expected to ensue. A certain bishop had nearly lost his flock by ven- turing to substitute Jerome's rendering 'hedera' for 'cucurbita/ and could only win them back again by reinstating the old version which he had abandoned. They would not tolerate a change in an expression 'which had been fixed by time in the feelings and memory of all and had been repeated through so many ages in succession 3 .' Of the changes which Jerome introduced into the 1 Op. ix. 1408. 2 See Hieron. Op. ir. 660, where Rufinus exclaims, 'Istud com- missum die quomodo emendabitur? immo, nefas quomodo expiabitur?' with more to the same effect. 8 Hieron. Epist. 104 (i. 636 sq.). ITS ASSAILANTS. 5 text of the New Testament, the passage quoted above affords sufficient illustration. In the Old Testament a more arduous task awaited him. The Latin Version which his labours were destined to supersede had been made from the Septuagint. He himself undertook to revise the text in conformity with the original Hebrew. It will appear strange to our own age that this was the chief ground of accusation against him. All the Greek and Latin Churches, it was urged, had hitherto used one and the same Bible ; but this bond of union would be dissolved by a new version made from a different text. Thus the utmost confusion would ensue. More- * over, what injury might not be done to the faith of the weaker brethren by casting doubt on the state of the sacred text ? What wounds might not be inflicted on the pious sentiments of the believer by laying sacrilegious hands on language hallowed by long time and association ? But, independently of the dangerous consequences which might be expected, no words were too strong to condemn the arrogance and presumption of one who thus ventured to set aside the sacred text as it had been used by all branches and in all ages of the Church from the beginning. To this cruel taunt Jerome replied nobly : ' I do not condemn, I do not blame the Seventy, but I confidently prefer the 6 s. JEROME'S REVISION. Apostles to them all V ' I beseech you, reader, do not regard my labours as throwing blame on the ancients. Each man offers what he can for the tabernacle of God 2 . Some gold and silver and precious stones : others fine linen and purple and scarlet and blue: I shall hold myself happy if I have offered skins and goats' hair. And yet the Apostle considers that the more despised members are more necessary (i Cor. xii. 22) V Moreover there was a very exaggerated estimate of the amount of change which his revision would introduce. Thus Augustine, when endeavouring to deter him, speaks of his new translation; Jerome in reply tacitly corrects his illustrious correspondent, and calls the work a revision*. And throughout he holds the same guarded language : he protests that he has no desire to introduce change for the mere sake of change, and that only such alterations will be made as strict fidelity to the original demands. His object is solely to place the Hebraica veritas before his readers in the vernacular tongue, and to this object he is stedfast. In executing this great work, Jerome was in con- 1 Op. IX. 6. 2 Exod. xxv. i sq. 3 Op. IX. 460. 4 See Hieron. Epist. 104, 1. 637, for Augustine's letter ('Evangelium ex Graeco interpretatus es'), and Epist. 112, I. 753, for Jerome's reply ('in Novi Testamenti emendatione '). See Dr Westcott in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, S.V. Vulgate, II. p. 1696. HIS PERSEVERANCE. 7 stant communication with Jewish rabbis, who were his Hebrew teachers and to whom he was much indebted in many ways. How great a gain this assistance was to his revision, and how largely after ages have profited by the knowledge thus brought to bear on the sacred text, I need hardly say. We may suspect (though no direct notice on this point is preserved) that with his contemporaries this fact was prominent among the counts of the indictment against him. At least it is certain that they set their faces against his substitution of the Hebrew text for the Septuagint version, on the ground that the former had been tampered with by the malignity and obduracy of the Jews. But, if this suspicion wrongs them, and they did not object to his availing himself of such extraneous aid, then they evinced greater liberality than has always been shown by the opponents of revision in later ages. Happily Jerome felt strong in the power of truth, and could resist alike the importunity of friends and the assaults of foes. His sole object was to place before the Latin-speaking Churches the most faithful representation of the actual words of the sacred text ; and the consciousness of this great purpose nerved him with a strength beyond himself. The character of this father will not kindle any deep affection or respect. We are repelled by his coarseness and want 8 S. JEROMES REVISION. i of refinement, by his asperity of temper, by his vanity and self-assertion. We look in vain for that transparent simplicity which is the true foundation of the highest saintliness. But in this instance the nobler instincts of the Biblical scholar triumphed over the baser passions of the man; and in his lifelong devotion to this one object of placing the Bible in its integrity before the Western Church, his character rises to true sublimity. ' I beseech you,' he writes, 'pour out your prayers to the Lord for me, that so long as I am in this poor body I may write something acceptable to you, useful to the Church, and worthy of after ages. Indeed I am not moved overmuch by the judgments of living men: they err on the one side or on the other, through affection or through hatred V ' My voice/ he says elsewhere, ' shall never be silent, Christ helping me. Though my tongue be cut off, it shall still stammer. Let those read who will; let those who will not, reject 2 .' And, inspired with a true scholar's sense of the dignity of con- scientious work for its own sake irrespective of any striking results, after mentioning the pains which it has cost him to unravel the entanglement of names in the Books of Chronicles he recalls a famous word of encouragement addressed of old by Antigenidas the flute-player to his pupil Ismenias, whose skill had 1 Op. ix. 1364. 2 Op. ix. 1526. ITS GRADUAL RECEPTION. 9 failed to catch the popular fancy : ' Play to me and to the Muses/ So Jerome describes his own set purpose ; ' Like Ismenias I play to myself and to mine, if the ears of the rest are deaf V Thus far I have dwelt on the opposition which Jerome encountered on all hands, and the dauntless resolution with which he accomplished his task. Let me now say a few words on the subsequent fate of his revision, for this also is an instructive page in history*. When completed, it received no authoritative sanction. His patron, pope Damasus, at whose instigation he had undertaken the task, was dead. The successors of Damasus showed no favour to Jerome or to his work. The Old Latin still continued to be read in churches : it was still quoted in the writings of divines. Even Augustine, who after the completion of the task seems to have overcome his misgivings and speaks in praise of Jerome's work, remains constant to the older Version. But first one writer, and then another, begins to adopt the revised trans- lation of Jerome. Still its recognition depends on the caprice or the judgment of individual men. Even the bishops of Rome had not yet discovered that 1 Op. ix. 1408, 'Mihimet ipsi et meis juxta Ismeniam canens, si aures surdae sunt ceterorum.' 2 The history of the gradual reception of Jerome's Revision is traced in Kaulen's Geschichte der Vulgata, p. 190 sq. (Mainz, 1868). IO S. JEROME'S REVISION. it was 'authentic.' One pope will use the Hie- ronymian Revision ; a second will retain the Old Latin ; while a third will use either indifferently, and a fourth will quote from the one in the Old Testa- ment and from the other in the New 1 . As late as two centuries after Jerome's time, Gregory the Great can still write that he intends to avail himself of either indifferently, as his purpose may require, since ' the Apostolic See, over which by the grace of God he presides, uses both 2 .' Thus slowly, but surely, Jerome's revision won its way, till at length, some centuries after its author's death, it drove its elder rival out of the field, and became the one recognised version of the Bible throughout the Latin Churches. II. I cannot forbear to call attention in passing to the close parallel which these facts present to the history of the so-called Authorised Version. This too, like Jerome's revision, was undertaken amidst many mis- 1 These statements may be verified by the quotations in Kaulen's work. 2 Greg. Magn. Mor. in /<?<$., Epist. ad fin. ' Novam translationem dissero ; sed cum probationis causa exigit, nunc novam, nunc veterem per testimonia assumo ; ut, quia sedes Apostolica cui Deo auctore praesideo utraque utitur, mei quoque labor studii ex utraque fulciatur ' (Op. I. p. 6, Venet. 1768). THE AUTHORISED VERSION. II givings, and, when it appeared, was received with coldness or criticized with severity. When the pro- posal for a revision was first brought forward, ' my Lord of London' is reported to have said that 'if every man's humour should be followed, there would be no end of translating.' The translators themselves, when they issue their work to the public, deprecate the adverse criticism which doubtless they saw very good reason to apprehend. Such a work as theirs, they say in the opening paragraph of the preface to the reader, 'is welcomed with suspicion instead of love and with emulation instead of thanks,... and if there be any hole left for cavil to enter (and cavil, if it do not find a hole, will make one), it is sure to be misconstrued and in danger to be condemned. This will easily be granted by as many as know story or have any experience. For, was there ever any- thing projected, that savoured any way of newness or renewing, but the same endured many a storm of gainsaying or opposition?' and again; 'Whosoever attempteth anything for the public (especially if it pertain to religion and to the opening and clearing of the Word of God) the same setteth himself upon a stage to be glouted upon by every evil eye, yea, he casteth himself headlong upon pikes, to be gored by every sharp tongue. For he that meddleth with men's religion in any part, meddleth with their 12 THE AUTHORISED VERSION. custom, nay with their freehold : and though they find no content in that which they have, yet they cannot abide to hear of altering.' The parallel moreover extends to the circumstances of its reception. It seems now to be an established fact (so far as any fact in history which involves a com- prehensive negative can be regarded as established) that the Revised Version never received any final authorisation either from the ecclesiastical or from the civil powers : that it was not sanctioned either by the Houses of Parliament, or by the Houses of Convoca- tion, or by the King in Council. The Bishops' Bible still continued to be read in churches ; the Geneva Bible was still the familiar volume of the fireside and the closet 1 . Several years after the appearance of the Revised Version, Bishop Andrewes, though himself one of the revisers, still continues to quote from an older Bible. Yet notwithstanding all adverse circum- 1 The printing of the Bishops' Bible was stopped as soon as the new revision was determined upon. The last edition of the former was published in 1606. The Revised Version states on its title-page (1611) that it is 'Appointed to be read in Churches,' but we are not told by whom or how it was appointed. As the copies of the Bishops' Bible used in the churches were worn out, they would probably be replaced by the Revised Version ; but this seems to have been the only advantage which was accorded to it. On the other hand, the Geneva Bible continued to be printed by the King's Printer some years after the appearance of the Revised Version, and was still marked ' Cum privilegio Regiae majestatis.' ITS RECEPTION. 13 stances it overpowered both its rivals by the force of superior merit. It was found to be, as one had said long before of Jerome's revision, ' et verborum tena- cior et perspicuitate sententiae clarior 1 '; and this was the secret of its success. * Thus,' writes Dr Westcott, 'at the very time when the monarchy and the Church were, as it seemed, finally overthrown, the English people by their silent and unanimous acceptance of the new Bible gave a spontaneous testimony to the principles of order and catholicity of which both were an embodiment.' ' A revision, which embodied the ripe fruits of nearly a century of labour, and appealed to the religious instinct of a great Christian people, gained by its own internal character a vital authority which could never have been secured by any edict of sovereign rulers 2 .' But the parallel may be carried a step further. In both these cases alike, as we have seen, God's law of progressive improvement, which in animal and vegetable life has been called the principle of natural selection, was vindicated here, so that the inferior gradually disappeared before the superior in the same kind: but in both cases also the remnants of an earlier Bible held and still hold their ground, as a testimony to the past. As in parts of the Latin 1 Isidor. Hispal. Etym. Vi. 4; comp. de Off. Eccl. i. 12. 2 History of the English Bible, pp. 158, 160. 14 THE AUTHORISED VERSION. Service-books the Vulgate has not even yet displaced the Old Latin, which is still retained either in its pristine or in its partially amended form ; so also in our own Book of Common Prayer an older Version still maintains its place in the Psalter and in the occasional sentences, as if to keep before our eyes the progressive history of our English Bible. III. All history is a type, a parable. The hopes and the misgivings, the failures and the successes, of the past reproduce themselves in the present ; and it appeared to me that at this crisis, when a revision of our English Bible is imminent, we might with advantage study the history of that revised transla- tion, which alone among Biblical Versions can bear comparison with our own in its circulation and in- fluence. And, first of all, in the gloomy forebodings which have ushered in this scheme for a new revision, we seem to hear the very echo of those warning voices, which happily fell dead on the ear of the resolute Jerome. The alarming consequences, which some anticipate from any attempt to meddle with our time-honoured Version, have their exact counterpart in the apprehensions by which his contemporaries HISTORICAL PARALLELS. 15 sought to deter him. The danger of estranging diverse Churches and congregations at present united in the acceptance of a common Bible, and the danger of perplexing the faith of individual believers by suggesting to them variations of text and uncer- tainties of interpretation these are now, as they were then, the twin perils by which it is sought to scare the advocates of revision. Moreover there is the like exaggerated estimate of the amount of change which any body of revisers would probably introduce. To this we can only give the same answer as Jerome. Not translation, but revision, is the object of all who have promoted this new movement. There is no intention of snapping the thread of history by the introduction of a new version. Our English Bible owes its unrivalled merits to the principle of revision ; and this principle it is proposed once more to invoke. ' To whom ever/ say the authors of our Received Version, ' was it imputed for a failing (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done and to amend it where he saw cause?' 'Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make a bad one a good one... but to make a good one better... that hath been our endeavour, that our mark/ Nor again will the eminence of antagonists deter 1 6 HISTORICAL PARALLELS. the promoters of this movement, if they feel that they have truth on their side. Augustine was a greater theologian, as well as a better man, than Jerome. But in this matter he was treading on alien ground : he had not earned the right to speak. On the other hand, a life-long devotion to the study of the Biblical text in the original languages had rilled Jerome with the sense alike of the importance of the work and of the responsibility of his position. He could not be deterred by the fears of any adversaries, however good and however able. He felt the iron hand of a strong necessity laid upon him, and he could not choose but open out to others the stores of Scriptural wealth which he himself had been permitted to amass. And again, we may take courage from the results which followed from his design, dauntlessly and persistently carried out. None of the perilous con- sequences, which friend and foe alike had foreboded, did really ensue. There was indeed a long interval of transition, during which the rival versions contended for supremacy ; but no weakening of individual faith, no alienation of Churches, can be traced to this source. The great schism of the Church, the severance of East and West, was due to human passion and prejudice, to fraud and self-will and ambition. History does not mention any relaxation of the bonds of union as the consequence of Jerome's work. On the contrary, HISTORICAL PARALLELS. \J the Vulgate has been a tower of strength to the Latin Churches, as Jerome foresaw that it would be. He laboured for conscience sake, more than content if his work proved acceptable to one or two intimate friends ; he sought not the praise of men ; his own generation viewed his labours with suspicion or hatred; and he has been rewarded with the universal grati- tude of after ages. Nor is it uninstructive to observe that the very point on which his contemporaries laid the greatest stress in their charges against him, has corne to be regarded by ourselves as his most signal merit. To him we owe it, that in the Western Churches the Hebrew original, and not the Septuagint Version, is the basis of the people's Bible ; and that a broad and indelible line has been drawn once for all between the Canon of the Old Testament as known to the Hebrew nation, and the later accretions which had gathered about it in the Greek and Latin Bibles. Thus we are reaping the fruits of his courage and fidelity. We are the proper heirs of his labours. The Articles of the Church of England still continue to quote S. Jerome's authority for the distinction between the Canonical and Apocryphal books, which the Council of Trent did its best to obscure. But there is yet another lesson to be learned from the history of Jerome's revision. The circumstances L. R. 2 1 8 HISTORICAL PARALLELS. of its reception are full of instruction and encourage- ment. It owed nothing, as we have seen, to official sanction ; it won its way by sterling merit. Now let us suppose that the revision, which we are about to undertake, is successfully accomplished. How are we to deal with it ? If the work commends itself at once to all or to a large majority as superior to the present Version, then let it by all means be substituted by some formal authorisation. But this is quite too much to expect. Though S. Jerome's revision was incomparably better than the Old Latin, though the superiority of our received English Version to its predecessors is allowed on all hands, no such instantaneous welcome was accorded to either. They had to run the gauntlet of adverse criticism ; they fought their way to acceptance inch by inch. I suppose that no one who takes part in this new revision is so sanguine as to hope that his work will be more tenderly treated. This being so, it does not seem to be necessary, and it is perhaps not even advisable, that the new Revised Version, if successfully completed, should at once authori- tatively displace the old. Only let it not be prohibited. Give it a fair field, and a few years will decide the question of superiority. I do not myself consider it a great evil, that for a time two concurrent Versions should be in use. This at least seems a A REVISION NEEDED. 19 simple practical solution, unless indeed there should be such an immediate convergence of opinion in favour of the revised Version, as past experience does not encourage us to expect. IV. But let it be granted that the spectres, which a timid apprehension calls into being, are scared away by the light of history and experience, and that the dangerous consequences of revision are shown to be imaginary; we have still to ask, whether there is suffi- cient reason for undertaking such a work, or (in other words) whether the defects of the existing Version are such as to call for systematic amendment? Here again we are met by the same objection, of which our translators were obliged to take notice : ' Many men's mouths/ they write, 'have been open a good while (and yet are not stopped) with speeches about the translation so long in hand... and ask what may be the reason, what the necessity of the employment : Hath the Church been deceived, say they, all this while? Hath her sweet bread been mingled with leaven, her silver with dross, her wine with water, her milk with lime ?' In addressing myself to this question, I cannot attempt to give an exhaustive answer. Materials for 2 2 2O A REVISION NEEDED. such an answer will be found scattered up and down biblical commentaries and other exegetical works 1 . In Archbishop Trench's instructive volume On the Authorized Version of the New Testament, published a few years ago, they are gathered into a focus ; and quite recently, in anticipation of the impending re- vision, Bishop Ellicott has stated the case concisely, giving examples of different classes of errors which call for correction. For a fuller justification of the advocates of revision I would refer to these and simi- lar works, confining myself to a few more prominent points, in which our Version falls behind the know- ledge of the age, and offering some examples in illustration of each. While doing so, I shall be led necessarily to dwell almost exclusively on the defects of our English Bible, and to ignore its merits. But I trust it will be unnecessary for me on this account to deprecate adverse criticism. No misapprehension is more serious or more unjust than the assumption that those who advocate revision are blind to the excellence of the existing Version. It is the very sense of this excellence which prompts the desire to make an admirable instrument more perfect. On the other hand, they cannot shut their eyes to the 1 For the literature of the subject, see Professor Plumptre's interest- ing article in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, S.V. Version, Authorized, p. 1679. FALSE READINGS. 21 fact that the assiduous labours of scholars and divines during two centuries and a half have not been fruit- less, and they are naturally anxious to pour into the treasury of the temple these accumulated gains of many generations. i- And first of all let us boldly face the fact that the most important changes, in which a revision may result, will be due to the variations of reading in the Greek text. It was not the fault, it was the misfor- tune, of the scholars from Tyndale downward, to whom we owe our English Bible, that the only text accessible to them was faulty and corrupt. I need not take up time in recapitulating the history of the received text, which will be known to all. It is suf- ficient to state that all textual critics are substantially agreed on this point, though they may differ among themselves as to the exact amount of change which it will be necessary to introduce. No doubt, when the subject of various readings is mentioned, grave apprehensions will arise in the minds of some persons. But this is just the case where more light is wanted to allay the fears which a vague imagination excites. The recent language of alarmists on this point seems incredible to those 22 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. who have paid any attention to the subject. I can only state my own conviction that a study of the history and condition of the Greek text solves far more difficulties than it creates. More especially it brings out the, fact of the very early and wide diffu- sion of the New Testament writings with a clearness and a cogency which is irresistible, and thus bears most important testimony to their genuineness and integrity. Even the variations themselves have the highest value in this respect. Thus for instance when we find that soon after the middle of the second century divergent readings of a striking kind occur in S. John's Gospel, as for instance fjuovo^evr)^ eo? and o fJLovoyvrj<; vio<s (i. 1 8), we are led to the con- clusion that the text has already a history and that the Gospel therefore cannot have been very recent. This evidential value of textual criticism moreover shows itself in other ways. I will select one instance, which has always appeared to me very instructive as illustrating the results of this study apparently so revolutionary in its methods, and yet really so con- servative in its ends. The Epistle to the Ephesians, after having been received by churches and individuals alike (so far as we know) without a single exception from the earliest times, as the unquestioned work of the Apostle whose name it bears, has been challenged in our FALSE READINGS. 23 own generation. Now there is one formidable argu- ment, and one only, against its genuineness. It is urged with irresistible force that S. Paul could not have written in this strain to a Church in which he had resided for some three years and with which he lived on the closest and most affectionate terms. So far as regards reference to persons or incidents, this is quite the most colourless of all S. Paul's Epistles ; whereas we should expect to find it more full and definite in its allusions than any other, except per- haps the letters to Corinth. To this objection no satisfactory answer can be given without the aid of textual criticism. But from textual criticism we learn that an intelligent and well-informed though hereti- cal writer of the second century called it an Epistle to the Laodiceans ; that in the opening verse the words 'in Ephesus' are wanting in the two oldest extant Greek MSS ; that the most learned of the Greek fathers in the middle of the third century himself a textual critic had not the words in his copy or copies ; and that another learned Greek father in the middle of the fourth century declares them to be absent from the oldest manuscripts not to mention other subsidiary notices tending in the same direction. Putting these facts together, we get a complete answer to the objection. The Epistle is found to be a circular letter, addressed probably to 24 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. the Churches of Proconsular Asia, of which Ephesus was one and Laodicea another. From Ephesus, as the metropolis, it derived its usual title, because the largest number of copies in circulation would be de- rived from the autograph sent thither; but here and there a copy was extant in early times addressed to some other Church (as Laodicea, for instance); and still more commonly copies existed taken from some MS in which the blank for the name of the Church had not been filled up. This circular character of the letter fully explains the absence of personal or historical allusions. Thus textual criticism in this instance removes our difficulty ; but its services do not end here. It furnishes a body of circumstantial evidence which, I venture to think, must ultimately carry irresistible conviction as to the authorship of the letter, though for the present some are found to hesitate. For these facts supplied by textual criticism connect themselves with the mention of the letter which the Colossians are charged to get from Lao- dicea (Col. iv. 1 6), and this mention again combines with the strong resemblances of matter and diction, so as to bind these two epistles inseparably together: while again the Epistle to the Colossians is linked not less indissolubly with the letter to Philemon by the references to person and place and circumstance. Thus the three Epistles form a compact whole, to FALSE READINGS. 25 resist the assaults of adverse criticism. A striking amount of undesigned coincidence is gathered to- gether from the most diverse quarters, converging unmistakably to one result. And the point to be observed is, that many of these coincident elements are not found in the Epistles themselves, but in the external history of the text, a circumstance which gives them a far higher evidential value. For even if it were possible to imagine a forger in an uncritical age at once able to devise a series of artifices so subtle and so complex, as on the supposition of the spuriousness of one or all of these letters we are obliged to assume, and willing to defeat his own purpose by tangling a skein which it would require the critical education of the nineteenth century to unravel; yet there would remain the still greater improbability that a man in such a position could have exercised an effective control over external circumstances the diffusion and the subsequent history of his forgeries such as this hypothesis would suppose. This instance will illustrate my meaning, when I alluded to the conservative action of textual criti- cism ; for such I conceive to be its general tendency. But in fact the consideration of consequences ought not to weigh with us, in a matter where duty is so obvious. It must be our single aim to place the 26 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. Bible in its integrity before the people of Christ ; and, so long as we sincerely follow the truth, we can afford to leave the consequences in God's hands: and I cannot too strongly urge the truism (for truism it is) that the higher value we set on the Bible as being or as containing the Word of God, the greater (if we are faithful to our trust) will be our care to ascertain the exact expressions of the original by the aid of all the critical resources at our command. We have seen that S. Jerome's courage was chiefly tried in the substitution of a purer text, and that his fidelity herein has been recognised as his greatest claim to the gratitude of after ages. The work, which our new revisers will be required to execute, is far less revolutionary than his. Where his task required him to substitute a wholly new text in the Old Testa- ment, they will only be required to cancel or to change a word or expression, or in rare cases a verse, here and there in the New. Where he was faithful in great things, we may trust that they will not be faithless in small. The question therefore is not one of policy, but of truth. Yet still it is well to face the probable results ; because apprehension is especially alive on this point, and because only by boldly confronting the spectres of a vague alarm can we hope to lay them. FALSE READINGS. 27 Let us then first of all set it down as an unmixed gain that we shall rid ourselves of an alliance which is a constant source of weakness and perplexity to us. No more serious damage can be done to a true cause, than by summoning in its defence a witness who is justly suspected or manifestly perjured. Yet this is exactly the attitude which the verse relating to the Heavenly witnesses (i John v. 7) bears towards the great doctrine which it proclaims, so long as it retains a place in the Bible which we put into the hands of the people. Shortly after the question of revision was first mooted, an article on the subject appeared in a popular daily paper, in which the writer, taking occasion to refer to this verse, com- mitted himself to two statements respecting it : first, that the passage in question had done much towards promoting the belief in the doctrine which it puts forward ; and secondly that the interpolator knew well what he was about and used very efficient means to gain his end. Now both these statements were evi- dently made in good faith by the writer and would, I suppose, be accepted as true by a very large number of his readers. But those, who have given any special attention to the subject, know that neither will bear examination. The first contradicts the plain facts of history; the second militates against the most probable inferences of criticism. As regards 28 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. the first point, it seems unquestionable that the doctrine was formally defined and firmly established some time before the interpolation appeared. A study of history shows that the Church arrived at the Catholic statement of. the doctrine of the Trinity, partly because it was indicated in other passages of the New Testament (e.g. Matt, xxviii. 19, 2 Cor. xiii. 14), and partly because it was the only statement which, recognising the fact of the Incarnation of the Divine Word, was found at once to satisfy the in- stincts of a devout belief and the requirements of a true philosophy ; and that the text in question had not, and could not have, anything to do with its establishment. Indeed the very fact that it is no- where quoted by the great controversial writers of the fourth and fifth centuries has been truly regarded as the strongest evidence against its genuineness. And in more recent times, when the doctrine began to be challenged, the text was challenged also ; so that at this stage the doctrine did not gain, but lose, by the advocacy of a witness whose questionable character threw discredit upon it. Again, the second statement equally breaks down when investigated. Textual criticism shows that the clause containing the Three Heavenly Witnesses was not in the first instance a deliberate forgery, but a comparatively innocent gloss, which put a directly theological in- FALSE READINGS. 29 terpretation on the three genuine witnesses of S. John the spirit and the water and the blood a gloss which is given substantially by S. Augustine and was indicated before by Origen and Cyprian, and which first thrust itself into the text in some Latin MSS, where it betrays its origin, not only by its varieties of form, but also by the fact that it occurs sometimes before and sometimes after the mention of the three genuine witnesses which it was intended to explain. Thus both these statements alike break down, and we see no ground for placing this memorable verse in the same category with such fictions as the False Decretals, whether we regard its origin or its results ; for unlike them it was not a deliberate forgery, and unlike them also it did not create a dogma. I only quote this criticism to show how much prejudice may be raised against the truth by the retention of inter- polations like this ; nor can we hold ourselves free from blame, if such statements are made and ac- cepted, so long as we take no steps to eject from our Bibles an intrusive passage, against which external and internal evidence alike have pronounced a deci- sive verdict. In this instance our later English Bibles have retrograded from the more truthful position of the earlier. In Tyndale's, Coverdale's, and the Great Bibles the spurious words are placed in brackets and printed in a different type, and thus attention is 30 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. directed to their suspicious character. In Luther's German Translation (in its original form), as also in the Zurich Latin Bible of 1543, they were omitted. In the Geneva Testament first, so far as I am aware, and in the Bishops' Bible after it, the example was set, which the translators of our Authorised Version unhappily followed, of dispensing with these marks of doubtful genuineness and printing the passage uniformly with the context. In other doctrinal passages where important various readings occur, the solution will not be so simple; but in doubtful cases the margin may use- fully be employed. Altogether the instances in which doctrine is directly or indirectly involved are very few ; and, though individual texts might be altered, the balance of doctrinal statement would probably not be disturbed by the total result, a change in one direction being compensated by a change in the other. Thus for instance, if the reading 'God was manifest in the flesh' should have to give place to 'Who was manifest in the flesh' in I Tim. iii. 16, and retire to the margin, yet on the other hand the ' Only-begotten God ' would seem to have equal or superior claims to 'the Only-begotten Son' in John i. 1 8, and must either supersede it or claim a place side by side with it. The passages, which touch Christian sentiment or FALSE READINGS. 31 history or morals, and which are affected by textual differences, though less rare than the former, are still very few. Of these the pericope of the woman taken in adultery holds the first place in importance. In this case a deference to the most ancient authorities, as well as a consideration of internal evidence, might seem to involve immediate loss. The best solution would probably be to place the passage in brackets, for the purpose of showing, not indeed that it contains an untrue narrative (for, whencesoever it comes, it seems 'to bear on its face the highest credentials of authentic history), but that evidence external and internal is against its being regarded as an integral portion of the original Gospel of S. John. The close of S. Mark's Gospel should possibly be treated in the same way. If I might venture a conjecture, I should say that both the one and the other were due to that knot of early disciples who gathered about S. John in Asia Minor and must have preserved more than one true tradition of the Lord's life and of the earliest days of the Church, of which some at least had them- selves been eye-witnesses 1 . Again in S. Luke's Gospel it might be right 1 The account of the woman taken in adultery is known to have been related by Papias, a disciple of this school, early in the second century, who also speaks of the Gospel of S. Mark. Euseb. H. E. iii. 39. 32 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. to take account of certain remarkable omissions in some texts, and probably in these cases a marginal note would be the best solution. Such for instance are the words addressed to James and John, ix. 55, ' Ye know not of what spirit ye are,' or the agony in the garden, xxii. 43, 44, or the solemn words on the Cross, xxiii. 34. It seems impossible to believe that these incidents are other than authentic ; and as the text of S. Luke's Gospel is perhaps exceptional in this respect (for the omissions in S. John's Gospel are of a different kind), the solution will suggest itself, that the Evangelist himself may have issued two separate editions. This conjecture will be con- firmed by observing that in the second treatise of S. Luke similar traces of two editions are seen where the passages omitted in many texts, though not im- portant in themselves (e.g. xxviii. 16, 29), bear equal evidence of authenticity, and are entirely free from suspicion on the ground that they were inserted to serve any purpose devotional or doctrinal. On the other hand some passages, where the ex- ternal testimony is equivocal or adverse, are open to suspicion, because the origin of or the motive for the insertions or alterations lies on the surface. Thus in S. Luke ii. 33 'His father' is altered into 'Joseph,' and ten verses later 'Joseph and His mother* is substituted for 'His parents,' evidently because the FALSE READINGS. 33 transcriber was alarmed lest the doctrine of the Incarnation might be imperilled by such language an alarm not entertained by the Evangelist himself, whose own narrative directly precluded any false inference, and who therefore could use the popular language without fear of misapprehension. And again the mention of 'fasting' in connexion with praying in not less than four passages (Matt xvii. 21, Mark ix. 29, Acts x. 30, I Cor. vii. 5), in all of which it is rejected by one or more of the best editors, shows an ascetic bias ; though indeed there is ample sanction elsewhere in the New Testament for the practice which it was thus sought to enforce more strongly. Again, allowance must be made for the influence of liturgical usage in such passages as the doxology to the Lord's prayer, Matt. vi. 13; and a similar explanation may be given of the insertion of the eunuch's confession of faith pre- paratory to baptism, Acts viii. 37. And again, when a historical difficulty is avoided by a various reading, this should be taken into account, as in Mark i. I, where indeed the substitution of eV T&> 'H<rafa TO> TrpotpTJTrj for the common reading eV rofc 7rpo<f)r)Tai,s would introduce a difficulty the same in kind but less in magnitude than already exists in the received text of Matt, xxvii. 9. Or lastly, the desire to bring out the presence of a supernatural agency L. R. 3 34 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. may have had its influence in procuring the insertion of the words describing the descent of the angel in John v. 3, 4. On the other hand, in some cases these considerations of internal probability favour the exist- ing text, where external evidence taken alone might lead to a different result, as in I Cor. xv. 51, where the received reading Traz/Te? ov Ko^rjOrjao/jLeOa, Traz/re? a, is so recommended against vrai/re? , ov Trdvres Be d\\a^7]o-6^0a. I believe that I have not only indicated (so far as my space allows) the really important classes of various readings, but given the most prominent illus- trations in each instance. The whole number of such readings indeed is small, and only a very few remain after the examples already brought forward. On the other hand, variations of a subordinate kind are more numerous. These occur more frequently in the Gospels than elsewhere, arising out of the attempt to supplement one Evangelical narrative by the insertion of a word or a clause from another, or to bring the one into literal conformity with the other by substitution or correction ; but no considerations of moment are involved in the rectification of such passages. It is very rarely indeed that a various reading of this class rises to the interest of Matt. xix. 17 TL fj>6 epforas jrepl TOV djaOov (compared with Mark x. 18, Luke xviii. 19); and for the most part FALSE READINGS. 35 they are wholly unimportant as regards any doctrinal or practical bearing. The same motive which operates so powerfully in the Gospels will also influence, though in a far less degree, the text of those Epistles which are closely allied to each other, as for instance the Romans and Galatians, or the Ephesians and Colos- sians, and will be felt moreover in isolated parallel passages elsewhere ; but for the most part the cor- ruptions in the Epistles are due to the carelessness of scribes, or to their officiousness exercised on the grammar or the style. The restoration of the best supported reading is in almost every instance a gain, either as establishing a more satisfactory con- nexion of sentences, or as substituting a more forcible expression for a less forcible (e.g. irapaftoXevardfjLevos for 7rapa(3ov\evcrdtJLevo<;, Phil. ii. 30), or in other ways giving point to the expression and bringing out a better and clearer sense (e.g. Rom. iv. 19 /carevorjcrev TO eavTov o- &>//-. ..et? Be rrjv Trayye\iav rov eoy ov Si6/cpL0r), for ov tcarevorjo-ev K. r. X., where the point is that Abraham did fully recognise his own condition and notwithstanding was not staggered ; or 2 Cor. i. 2O ev avraj TO val, Bio teal Si avrov TO a/j,rjv K. T. \., where val denotes the fulfilment of the promise on the part of God, and a^v the recognition and thanks- giving on the part of the Church, a distinction which 32 36 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. is obliterated by the received reading eV avTO) TO val ical ev avTw TO dfjiijv ; or 2 Cor. xii. I Kav^da-Oat Set, ov (rv}i<f)epov fjuev, l\evaon,ai Se K. T. X., where the com- mon text Kdv^aaQai &rj ov av/j,(f)ep6i, JJLOI,, e\evo-ofjLai> yap K. T. X. is feeble in comparison). It is this very fact, that the reading of the older authorities almost always exhibits some improvement in the sense (even though the change may be unimportant in itself) which gives us the strongest assurance of their trust- worthiness as against the superior numbers of the more recent copies. Altogether it may be safely affirmed that the permanent value of the new revision will depend in a great degree on the courage and fidelity with which it deals with questions of readings. If the signs of the times may be trusted, the course which is most truthful will also be most politic. To be con- servative, it will be necessary to be adequate: for no revision which fails to deal fairly with these textual problems, can be lasting. Here also the example of S. Jerome is full of encouragement. 2. From errors in the Greek text which our transla- tors used, we may pass on to faults of actual trans- lation. And here I will commence with one class DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 37 which is not unimportant in itself, and which claims to be considered first, because the translators have dwelt at some length on the matter and attempted to justify their mode of proceeding. I refer to the vari- ous renderings of the same word or words, by which artificial distinctions are introduced in the translation, which have no place in the original. This is perhaps the only point in which they proceed deliberately on a wrong principle. 'We have not tied ourselves/ they say in the preface. ' to an uniformity of phrasing or to an identity of words.' They plead that such a course would savour 'more of curiosity than wis- dom,' and they allege the quaint reason, that they might 'be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of English words,' if they adopted one to the exclusion of another, as a rendering of the same Greek equivalent. Now, if they had restricted themselves within proper limits in the use of this liberty, no fault could have been found with this vindication. But, when the transla- tion of the same word is capriciously varied in the same paragraph, and even in the same verse, a false effect is inevitably produced, and the connexion will in some cases be severed, or the reader more or less seriously misled in other ways. To what extent they have thus attempted to improve upon the original by introducing variety, the following examples, though 38 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. they might be multiplied many times, will suffice to show. Why, for instance, should we read in Matt, xviii. 33 ' Should est not thou also have had compassion (eXefjaai) on thy fellow servant, even as I had pity (tfXerjcra) on thee?'; or in xx. 20 'Then came to him the mother of Zebedee's children (viwv) with her sons (uio5z/)'; or in xxv. 32 ' He shall separate (dfopiel) them one from another, as a shepherd divideth (afyopl&i) his sheep from the goats'? Why in S. John xvi. i, 4, 6, should Tavra \e\d\rjfca v/j,w be rendered in three different ways in the same paragraph ; * These things have I spoken unto you,' ' These things have I told you/ ' I have said these things unto you ' ; or S. Thomas be made to say, l Put my finger,' and ' Thrust my hand,' in the same verse, though the same Greek word /3aXo> stands for both (xx. 25)? Why again in the Acts (xxvi. 24, 25) should Festus cry, ' Paul, thou art beside thyself (fjiaivrj, IlaOXe), and S. Paul reply, ' I am not mad, most noble Festus' (ov fjaivojuu, tcpdno-Te ^^o-re)? Why in the Epistle to the Romans (x. 15) should ol TroSe? Ttovevayye^^o/jLevwv elprjvrjv, TV vayy6\i%ofj,eva)v ra dyaQd be translated 'the feet of them tin& preach the Gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things'? Why in the same epistle (xv. 4, 5) should we read, 'That we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures (Bid 7^5 fa&JWffc ical rrjs irapaK\ij crews DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 39 TOJV vpa<t><joi>) might have hope,' and in the next sen- tence, 'Now the God of patience and consolation (6 6o? r^5 vTTOfjLovfj? KOLi T?$9 7rapaK\r]<rea)<>) grant you to be likeminded/ though the words are identical in the two clauses, and the repetition is obviously intended by S. Paul ? And why again in the salutations at the end of this epistle, as also of others, should aaird- craa-Oe be translated now ' salute ' and now ' greet/ the two renderings being interchanged capriciously and without any law ? Again in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, iii. 17, the same word fyOeipew is dif- ferently translated, * If any man defile (<f)0elpei) the temple of God, him shall God destroy ((f>OepeT)' though the force of the passage depends on the identity of the sin and the punishment. And in a later passage (x. 1 6 sq.) KOivwvol TOV Ovo-iavTrjpiov is translated 'par- takers of the altar/ and two verses below icoivwvol TWV Saipovitov 'have fellowship with devils/ while (to com- plete the confusion) in a preceding and a succeeding verse the rendering ' be partakers ' is assigned to ^e/, and in the same paragraph KowwvLa TOV TOV <rew^aT09, is translated ' communion of the blood, of the body.' The exigencies of the English might de- mand some slight variation of rendering here, but this utter confusion is certainly not required ; and yet this passage is only a sample of what occurs in number- less other places. Again in the same epistle (xii. 4O ERRORS AND DEFECTS. 4 sq.) it is not easy to see why &iat,peo-i,<; Siaipeaeis SICLKOVLUV, Siaipea-ei? evepyrj/j.drmv, are trans- lated respectively * diversities of gifts/ ' differences of administration,' 'diversities of operations/ while in the same passage evepyijuaTa is rendered first 'opera- tions'' and then 'working? Each time I read the marvellous episode on charity in the xiiith chapter, I feel with increased force the inimitable delicacy and beauty and sublimity of the rendering, till I begin to doubt whether the English language is not a better vehicle than even the Greek for so lofty a theme ; yet even here I find some blemishes of this kind. Thus in the 8th verse the same English word ' fail ' is given as a rendering for both eKTriTrrew and KarapyeiaOai,, while conversely the same Greek word /caTapyelcrdat is translated first by 'fail' and then by 'vanish away I and two verses afterwards, where it occurs again, by a third expression 'be done away.' This word Karap<yelv is translated with the same latitude later on also (xv. 24, 26), ' When he shall have put down (tcaTapyijo-y) all rule and all authority and power,' and immediately afterwards, 'The last enemy that shall be destroyed (KarapyelTcu) is death/ Let me add another instance from this epistle, for it is perhaps the most character- istic of all. In xv. 27, 28 the word vTrordacreiv occurs six times in the same sense within two verses; in the first three places it is rendered 'put under I in DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 4! the fourth 'be subdued? in the fifth 'be subject? while in the last place the translators return again to their first rendering * put wider' Nay, even the simple word \oyla when it occurs in successive verses (xvi. i, 2) has a different rendering, first 'collection' and then 'gathering! The Second Epistle to the Corinthians is espe- cially remarkable for the recurrence through whole sentences or paragraphs, of the same word or words, which thus strike the key-note to the passage. This fact is systematically disregarded by our translators who, impressed with the desire of producing what they seem to have regarded as an agreeable variety, failed to see that in such cases monotony is force. Thus in the 1st chapter the words Trapa/cakeiv, irapd- K\7)a-Ls, and 6\{j3ei,v, O'Xtyis, occur again and again. In the rendering of the first our translators are divided between 'comfort' and 'consolation' and of the second between ' tribulation,' ' trouble? and ' affliction.' Again in the opening of the second chapter, where the tone is given to the paragraph by the frequent repetition of \v7rrj, \vTrelv, we have three distinct renderings, 'heaviness,' 'sorrow,' 'grief.' Again in the third chapter several instances of this fault occur. In the first verse this passion for variety is curiously illustrated. They render a-varaTiicwv eVio-roXcSz/ TT/DO? 77 ef vfAwv avo-ranicwv by * Epistles of commenda- 42 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. tion to you, or letters of commendation from you,' where even in supplying a word (which were better left out altogether) they make a change, though in the original the adjectives refer to the same substan- tive. In this same chapter again they hover between ' sufficient 1 and 'able* as a rendering of i/cavos, iicavovv, iKavQ-rt]^ (w. 5, 6), while later on they interchange 'abolish' and 'done away' for /carapyeiaOai (vv. 7, 13, 14), and fail to preserve the connexion of dvaKKa\v^eva) (ver. 1 8) with KaXv^a (ver. 13 sq.) and avaica\v7rT6- fj,evov (ver. 14), and of /ce/caXvp/jievov (iv. 3) with all three. Again in the fifth chapter evBr^fieiv is ren- dered in the same context ' to be at home ' and ' to be present' (vv. 6, 8, 9), where the former rendering more- over in ver. 6 obscures the direct opposition to efcSrj- fjietv, this last word being rendered throughout ' to be absent'-, and a little later (ver. 10) TOJ)? Travras tj/jid<; 4>avpa)0rjvai, K. T. X. is translated ' We must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ/ where, indepen- dently of the fatal objection that 'appear' gives a wrong sense (for the context lays stress on the mani- festation of men's true characters at the great day), this rendering is still further faulty, as severing the connexion with what follows immediately (ver. n), ' We are made manifest (TrecfravepufjieOa) unto God, and I trust also are made manifest (7r<f>avepa0ai) in your consciences.' Again in vii. 7 'consolation' and 'comfort* DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 43 are once more interchanged for 7rapa/ca\e1v, o-t?; in viii. 10, n, 12, TO 6e\eiv is translated 'to be for- ward' and 'to will,' and TrpoOv^La 'readiness* and 'a will- ing" mind' in successive verses ; in ix. 2, 3, 4, 5, 'ready* and 'prepared' are both employed in rendering Trap- ea/cevacTTai,, Trapecr/ceuaoy-te^ot, dTrapao-Kevdarov?, while conversely the single expression 'be ready' is made to represent both irapea/cevaa'Tat, and eroi^rfv elvat ; in x. 13, 15, 1 6, /cavatv, after being twice translated 'rule] is varied in the third passage by '//;**'; in xi. 1 6, 17, 1 8 the rendering of Kav^aaOai, /cav^o-i? is di- versified by 'boast' and * glory ' \ and in xii. 2, 3 owe oZSa, 6 Beo? oZSei/, is twice translated ' I cannot tell, God knowethl while elsewhere in these same verses oZ&a is rendered ' I knew I and OVK olSa, ' I cannot tell? This repugnance to repeating the same word for olSa has a parallel in John xvi. 30, where vvv ol'Sa/zez/ on ol$a$ Trdvra is given * Ngw are we sure that thou knowest all things.' Nor is there any improvement in the later books, as the following instances, taken almost at random from a very large number which might have been adduced, will show : Phil. ii. 13 ' It is God which worketh (tvep- ywv) in you both to will and to do (eVepyea/)'; Phil. iii. 3 sq. ( And have no confidence (ov TreTroiflore?) in the flesh; Though I might also have confidence (e^tov ireiroidrja-iv) in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath 44 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. whereof he might trust (5oet iretroiBevai) in the flesh, I more... as touching the law (Kara vopov), a Pharisee ; concerning zeal (Kara 9X09), persecuting the Church ; touching the righteousness (/card Sitcaiocrvwrjv) which is in the law, blameless': I Thess. ii. 4 'As we were al- lowed (SeSoKijjido-fjieOa) of God... not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth (So/cipd&vTi,) our hearts' : 2 Thess. i. 6 ' To recompense tribulation to them that trouble you ' (avraTTobovvai, rot? 6\i$Qvcriv vfj,d<; 6\L^iv) : Heb. viii. 13 ' He hath made the first old (TreirdXaiw/cev TTJV TrpwTTjv) ; now that which decayeth (Trakaiov^evov) and waxeth old(<yr)pd<rKov) is ready to vanish away': James ii. 2, 3 * If there come (elo-eXOp) unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel (eV ecrQrJTt, \afjL7rpa), and there come in (elcreXOy) also a poor man in vile raiment (eo-Orjri) ; and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing (rrjv ea-dfjra TTJV Xa/z- Trpdv) etc.': 2 Pet. ii. I, 3 'Who privily shall bring in damnable heresies (atpe<reis dira)\eia<;). . .and bring upon themselves swift destruction (a7rto\etai/)...and their damnation (a-TrwXeta) slumbereth not': I John v. 9, 10 ' This is the witness (fjiaprvpla) of God which he hath testified (^e^aprvp^Kev) of his Son... He believeth not the record (fjiaprvpiav) that God gave (fj,efj,apTi>pr)Kev) of his Son': Rev. i. 15 'His voice ($0)1/77) as the sound ($0)1/77) of many waters': iii. 17 * I am rich (-TrXouo-to?) and increased with goods (TreTrXovrrj/cay : xvii. 6, ? DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 45 'And when I saw her, I wondered (iOav^iacra) with great admiration (Oav/jLa) ; and the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? (eflau/itacra?)': xviii. 2 ' And the hold (<fXa/ay) of every foul spirit, and a cage ((frvXaicrj) of every, unclean and hateful bird.' In the instances hitherto given the variation of rendering is comparatively unimportant, but for this very reason they serve well to illustrate the wrong principle on which our translators proceeded. In such cases no more serious consequences may result than a loss of point and force. But elsewhere the injury done to the understanding of the passage is graver. Thus when the English reader finds in S. Matthew xxv. 46 ' These shall go away into ever- lasting (alwviov) punishment, but the righteous into life eternal (altoviov)} he is led to speculate on the difference of meaning between 'everlasting' and ' eternal,' if he happens to have any slight acquaint- ance with modern controversy, and he will most probably be led to a wrong conclusion by observing different epithets used, more especially as the anti- thesis of the clauses helps to emphasize the difference. Or take instances where the result will not be mis- understanding, but non-understanding. Thus in the apocalyptic passage 2 Thess. ii. 6, 7, 'And now ye know what withholdeth (TO Kare^ov).,.on\y he who now letteth (6 Kare^wv apri) will let,' the same word 46 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. should certainly have been repeated, that the identity of the thing signified might be clear; and in the doctrinal statement, Col. ii. 9, 10, 'In him dwelleth all the fulness (TO TrXijpcofjLa) of the Godhead bodily, and ye are complete (TreirX^pwfievoi) in him/ it was still more necessary to preserve the connexion by a similar rendering, for the main idea of the second clause is the communication of the TrXrjpw/jia which resides in Christ to the believers (comp. Ephes. i. 23). Again, the word Opovo? in the Revelation is trans- lated 'throne? when it refers to our Lord, but 'seat' when it refers to the faithful (iv. 4, xi. I6 1 ), or when it refers to Satan (ii. 13, xvi. 10). Now by this varia- tion, as Archbishop Trench has pointed out 3 , two great ideas which run through this Book, and indeed we may say through the whole of the New Testa- ment, are obliterated ; the one that the true servants of Christ are crowned with Him and share His sove- reignty ; the other, that the antagonism of the Prince of Darkness to the Prince of Light develops itself in ' the hellish parody of the heavenly kingdom.' And in other passages again the connexion between dif- ferent parts of the same discourse or the same nar- rative is, severed. Thus in S. Luke xix. 13, 15, the 1 Rev. iv. 4 ' And round about the throne (Bpbvov) were four and twenty seats (dpovoi).' 3 On the Authorized Version, p. 53 sq. DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 47 nobleman going into a far country gives charge to his servants Trpa^^arevcraaOe ev &> ep^o^ai, and when he returns, he summons them iva yvfi [or <yvol~] r/9 TI Si7rparyfji,aTV(TavTo. If the former had been translated ' Trade ye till I come,' it would then have corresponded to the nobleman's subsequent demand of them to 'know how much every man had gained by trading! But the rendering of our translators, ' Occupy till I come,' besides involving a somewhat unintelligible archaism, disconnects the two, and the first indication which the English reader gets that the servants were expected to employ the money in trade is when the master at length comes to reckon with them. Another instance, where the con- nexion is not indeed wholly broken (for the context will not suffer this) but greatly impaired, is Matt. v. 15, 1 6 \afjL7ret Trdcriv T0t9 ev rfj ol/cia' OVTQX; \a}jL"fyaTw TO <&)9 vfjbwv e/jLTTpoaOev TMV av6pwTrwv, which should run ' It shineth upon all that are in the house: Even so let your light shine before men, etc.' But in our trans- lation, ' It giveth light unto all that are in the house : Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, etc./ the two sentences are detached from each other by the double error, of rendering Xa/ATret, Xop^afw, by different words, and of misun- derstanding o{/TG>9. I say 'misunderstanding,' because the alternative that 'so' is a mere ambiguity of 48 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. expression seems to be precluded by the fact that in our Communion Service the words ' Let your light so .shine before men, etc./ detached from their con- text, are chosen as the initial sentence at the Offer- tory, where the correct meaning, 'in like manner/ could not stand. This love of variety might be still further illus- trated by their treatment of the component parts of words. Thus there is no reason why 7ro\vfjLpcos KOI TToXur/joTTft)? in Heb. i. I should be translated 'At sundry times and in divers manners/ even though for want of a better word we should allow the very in- adequate rendering 'times' to pass muster, where the original points to the divers parts of one great com- prehensive scheme. And again in Mark xii. 39 (comp. Matt, xxiii. 6) it is equally difficult to see why 7rpo>- TOKaOeSptas ev rat? o-vvaycayais Kal 7rpa)TOK\t,cria<; Iv rot? Set7n>ot9 should be rendered ' the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts.' On the archaic rendering 'room* for the second element in irpwroKkicria, I shall have something to say hereafter. These instances which have been given will suf- fice. But in fact examples, illustrating this miscon- ception of a translator's duty, are sown broadcast over our New Testament, so that there is scarcely a page without one or more. It is due to our translators DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 49 however to say, that in many cases, which I have examined, they only perpetuated and did not intro- duce the error, which may often be traced to Tyndale himself, from whom our Version is ultimately derived : and in some instances his variations are even greater than theirs. Thus in a passage already quoted, I Cor. xii. 4 sq., he has three different renderings of SLaipeaeis in the three successive clauses, where they have only two ; ' Ther are diversities of gyftes verely, yet but one sprete, and ther are differences of admini- stration and yet but one lorde, and ther are divers maners of operacions and yet but one God'; and in Rom. xvi. his interchanges of 'salute' and 'greet' are still more frequent than theirs. Of all the English Versions the Rhemish alone has paid attention to this point, and so far compares advantageously with the rest, to which in most other respects it is con- fessedly inferior. And I suppose that the words of our translators' preface, in which they attempt to jus- tify their course, must refer indirectly to this Roman Catholic Version, more especially as I find that its Latinisms are censured in the same paragraph. If so, it is to be regretted that prejudice should have blinded them to a consideration of some importance. But not only is it necessary to preserve the same word in the same context and in the same book ; equal care should be taken to secure uniformity, L. R. 4 50 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. where it occurs in the same connexion in different passages and different books. Thus, where quota- tions are given once or more from the Old Testament in the New, the rendering should exhibit (as far as possible) the exact coincidence with or divergence from the original and one another in the language. Again, when the same discourses or the same inci- dents are recorded by different Evangelists, it is especially important to reproduce the features of the original, neither obliterating nor creating differences. Again, in parallel passages in allied epistles, as for instance those of S. Paul to the Romans and Gala- tians, or to the Colossians and Ephesians, or the Epi- stle of S. Jude and the Second Epistle of S. Peter, the exact amount of resemblance should be repro- duced, because questions of date and authenticity are affected thereby. Again, in the writings which claim the same authorship, as for instance the Gospel and Epistles and the Apocalypse of S. John, the simi- larity of diction should be preserved. Though this will be a somewhat laborious task, let us hope that our new revisers will exercise constant vigilance in this matter. As the authors of our Received Version allowed themselves so much licence in the same context, it is no surprise that they did not pay any attention to these coincidences of language which occur in separate parts of the New Testament, and DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 5! which did not therefore force themselves on their notice. Of their mode of dealing with quotations from the Old Testament, one or two instances will suffice by way of illustration. Deut. xxxii. 35 is twice quoted in exactly the same words. In our English Version it appears in these two forms. Rom. xii. 19. Heb. x. 30. Vengeance is mine; I will Vengeance belongeth un- repay, saith the Lord. to me, I will recompense, saith the Lord Again, the same words Gen. xv. 6 (LXX) w 49 Sifcaioa-vvrjv are given with these variations : Rom. iv. 3 ' It was counted unto him for righteous- ness'; Rom. iv. 22 'It was imputed to. him for right- eousness'; Gal. iii. 6 ' It was accounted to him for righteousness' (with a marginal note 'or imputed'} ; James ii. 23 ' It was imputed unto him for righteous- ness'; while in an indirect reference to it, Rom. iv. 9 (in the immediate context of two of these divergent renderings), a still further variation is introduced, 'We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteous- ness.' Again, /caXv-^rei, Tr\fj0o<; apapnwv (from Prov. x. 12) is translated in James v. 20 'shall hide a multi- 42 52 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. tude of sins,' and in I Pet. iv. 8 ' shall cover the mul- titude of sins' (with a marginal reading 'will 1 for 'shall'). The variation in the last instance which I shall give is still more astonishing, because the two quo- tations of the same passage (Ps. xcv. n) occur in the same context. Heb. iii. n. Heb. iv. 3. So I sware in my wrath, As I have sworn in my They shall not enter into wrath, If they shall enter my rest. into my rest. Here there is absolutely no difference in the Greek of the two passages ; and, as the argument is conti- nuous, no justification of the various renderings can be imagined. On the parallel narratives of the different Evange- lists it will not be necessary to dwell, because this part of the subject has been discussed at some length elsewhere 1 . I will content myself with three exam- ples. The first, which affects only the diction, is a fair sample of the defects of our* Version in this respect, because it is in no way striking or exceptional. 1 See for instance Dean Alford's Byways of New Testament Criticism, Contemporary Review, July 1868. DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 53 Matt. xvi. 26. Mark viii. 36. Luke ix. 25. Tt *y a P Q)(f)6- Tt yap d)<f)6- Tt yap (0(j)- \elTai dv0pa>7ros, \rjO-et, avdpcDTrov, XeiTai avdpct)7ros, OLV TOV KIHT/JLOV eav /cepBtjarrj TOV /cepBr/aas TOV KOG- 0\OVKpBrjO-r),TVV KOO-fJLOV 0\0l>, KCU fiov o\ov, eavTov Be ^v^rjv avTOv tofua>0y Tljv tyv- Be aVoXeVas ^ &/jLicoefj; %r)v avTOVj ewut>0k; ' For what is 'For what shall ' For what is a man profited, it profit a man, a man advan- if he shall gain if he shall gain taged, if he gain the whole world, the whole world, the whole world, and lose his own and lose his own and lose him- soul?' soul ?' self, or be cast away?' Here the coincidences and divergences of the first two Evangelists are fairly preserved ; but the relations of the third to either are wholly confused or obli- terated. My second example shall be of a different kind ; where the variation introduced affects not the ex- pression only, but the actual interpretation. In the explanation of the parable of the sower in S. Mark iv. 16 ol eVt TO. TreTpcvBrj (nreipofievoi, is properly translated 'they which are sown on stony ground,' and the corresponding expressions are treat- ed similarly; but in S. Matthew xiii. 2O 6 eVl ra <77ra/3et9 becomes, ' He that received the seed 54 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. into stony places,' where (besides minor variations) the person is substituted for the seed, and the corre- sponding expressions throughout the parable are manipulated similarly in defiance of grammar. This rendering is unhappy on many accounts. Besides making the Evangelists say different things, it has the still further disadvantage, that it destroys one main idea in the parable, the identification (for the purposes of the parable) of the seed when sown with the person himself ] so that the life and growth and decay of the one are coincident with the life and growth and decay of the other. The form of ex- pression in S. Luke (viii. 14 TO Se et9 r9 aicavQa^ 7ree7o> OVTOI elalv ol aKov(TavT6s) brings out this iden- tity more prominently ; but it is expressed not obscurely in the other Evangelists, and should not have been obliterated by our translators in one of them through an ungrammatical paraphrase. My third example concerns the treatment of a single word. In the account of the scenes preceding the Crucifixion, mention is made of a certain building which by three of the Evangelists is called Trpairw- piov. In S. Matthew (xxvii. 27) it is translated 'com- mon-hall,' with a marginal alternative 'governor's house'; in S. John (xviii. 28, 33, xix. 9) 'hall of judg- ment' and 'judgment-hall/ with a marginal alterna- tive 'Pilate's house' in the first passage; while in DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 55 S. Mark (xv. 16) it is reproduced in the English as ' praetorium.' It should be added that this same word when it occurs in the same sense, though referring to a different locality, in Acts xxiii. 35 is rendered 'judg- ment-hall,' though a 'judgment-hall' would obviously be an unfit place to keep a prisoner in ward ; and again in Phil. i. 13 eV oX&> ra) TrpaiTcopLw (where pro- bably it signifies the ' praetorian army/ but where our English translators have taken it to mean another such building) it appears as ' palace.' This last ren- dering might very properly have been adopted in all the passages in the Gospels and Acts, as adequately expressing the meaning. So also in those Epistles which are allied to each other 1 , the treatment of identical words and expres- sions is neither more nor less unsatisfactory than in the Gospels. In the instances already given, though there may be differences of opinion as to the importance of the subject, all probably will agree on the main point that it is advisable to preserve uniformity of render- ing. The illustration which I shall next select is more open to criticism ; and, as Archbishop Trench and Dean Alford and the Five Clergymen all take a 1 See Blunt's Duties of the Parish Priest, p. 71, Ellicott's Revision of the English N?w Testament, p. 118. 56 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. different view from my own 1 , I can hardly hope that my argument will carry general conviction. Yet the case seems to be strong. I refer to the translation of 7rapaK\7)To<i in the Gospel and in the First Epistle of S. John. In the former it is consistently trans- lated 'Comforter' (xiv. 16, 26, xv. 26, xvi. 7), while in the one passage where it occurs in the latter (ii. i) the rendering ' Advocate ' is adopted. Is there suffi- cient reason for this difference ? No one probably would wish to alter the word ' Advocate ' in the Epistle, for the expressions in the context, ' with the Father,' ' Jesus Christ the righteous (Slxaiov),' l a pro- pitiation for our sins,' fix the sense, so that the pas- sage presents a sufficiently close parallel with the common forensic language of S. Paul (e.g. Rom. iii. 24 26). But why should the same word be rendered * Comforter ' in the Gospel ? Now I think it may fairly be maintained first, that the word Trapa/eX^ro? in itself means ' Advocate ' and cannot mean ' Com- forter'; and secondly, that the former rendering is more appropriate to the context in all the passages in which it occurs. 1 To the same effect also writes Archdeacon Hare, Mission of the Comforter, Note J, p. 523, 'At present so many sacred associations have connected themselves for generation after generation with the name of the Comforter, that it would seem something like an act of sacrilege to change it.' Yet he agrees substantially with the view of the meaning which I have maintained in the text. DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 57 On the first point the meaning of the word usage appears to be decisive. It commonly signifies 'one who is summoned to the side of another (-Trapa- /caXemu)' to aid him in a court of justice, and more particularly 'an advocate' or 'a pleader,' being ap- plied especially to the 'counsel for the defence 1 '] nor, so far as I am aware, does it ever bear any other sense, except perhaps in some later ecclesiastical writers whose language has been influenced by a false inter- pretation of these passages in S. John. In other words TrapdtcX.'rjTos is passive, not active ; one who TrapaKaXeirai,, not one who TrapaicaXel ; one who 'is summoned to plead a cause,' not one who 'exhorts or encourages or comforts/ Nor indeed, if we com- pare the simple word /cX^ro? and the other compounds etc., or if we observe the general rule affecting adjec- tives similarly formed from transitive verbs, does it seem easy to assign an active sense to Trapd/cXrjTos. Yet it can hardly be doubted that the rendering 'Com- forter' was reached by attributing this active force to Trapd/cXrjTos, and that therefore it arises out of an error; for the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, is again 1 See Hermann, Griech. Antiq. III. 142, p. 320. The origin of this sense is illustrated by such passages as yEschines c. Clesiph. 200, Ka.1 rl Set ae A7j/j.off8i>T)v jrapa.Ka.Xe'iv; STO.V 5' virpTrr)8'i]<ras rrju diKaiav diroXoytav 7rapa*coXgs Kaicovpyov avdpuirov Kal Tf)(v'i.TT}v \6yuv, TTjv aKp6a<nv K.r.X. 58 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. and again explained by the Fathers as one who Trapa/caXeZ 1 , encourages or comforts men; and the fact that even Greek writers are found to explain the word thus is the only substantial argument (so far as I know) which has been brought against the view here maintained. It is urged indeed that the word 'Comforter,' being derived from the Latin ' confortator/ * strengthener,' and therefore implying something more than * comfort* in the restricted sense of 'consolation/ adequately represents the function of the Trapa/cX^ro? who thus strengthens the cause and confirms the courage of the accused at the bar of justice. But the history of the interpreta- tion, as already given, shows that this rendering was not reached in the way assumed, but was based on a 1 So Origen de Princ. ii. 7 (r. p. 93), a passage which unfortunately is extant only in the Latin, but in which (if correctly represented) Origen takes Trapaif\Tf]Tos both in the Gospel and in the Epistle in an active sense, explaining it however consolator in the Gospel and deprecator in the Epistle. See also Cyril of Jerusalem, Catech. xvi. 20 (p. 255), TrapaKXTjTos 5 AcaXetrai 5i<i rb irapa.Ka.'Xeiv Kal Trapa.fJ.vdei<r0ai Kai ffvvavri- \a.fj.pdve<rdai rrjs curdevfias TJ/JLUV. And many of the Greek Fathers explain it similarly. The fact to be observed is, that even in the Epistle, where, it manifestly has the sense ' Advocate,' they equally derive it from irapaKaXelv and not 7ra/5a/KaXe?<70cu, thus giving it an active force; whereas the passage quoted in the last note shows that the meaning ' Advocate ' is not to be derived in this way. The Latin Fathers generally follow the old Latin ' Advocatus ' ; but Hilary, though most frequently giving ' Advocatus,' yet once at least renders it ' Conso- lator' (in Psalm, cxxv, I. p. 461). DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 59 grammatical error; and therefore this account can only be accepted as an apology after the fact and not as an explanation of the fact. Moreover it is not fair translating to substitute a subordinate and accidental conception for the leading sense of a word. And lastly, whatever may be the derivation of ' Com- forter/ the word does not now suggest this idea to the English reader. But secondly ', if 'Advocate* is the only sense which Trapd/cXrjTos can properly bear, it is also (as I cannot but think) the sense which the context sug- gests, wherever the word is used in the Gospel. In other words, the idea of pleading, arguing, convincing, instructing, convicting, is prominent in every instance 1 . Thus in xiv. 16 sq. the Paraclete is described as the 'Spirit of truth* whose reasonings fall dead on the ear of the world, and are vocal only to the faithful (o 6 Kocfios ov Svvarai \a/36iv...vfjLei<? ytvaxr/cere avro). In xiv. 26 again the function of the Paraclete is described in similar language, ' He shall teach you all things and remind you of all things.' In xv. 26 He is once more designated the ' Spirit of truth/ and here the office assigned to Him is to bear witness of 1 In xiv. 18 the English Version, ' I will not leave you comfortless, lends a fictitious aid to the sense * Comforter,' to which the original oi5/c d<f>r]<r(i} uyuas 6p<t>a.vobs gives no encouragement. The margin however oilers the alternative ' orphans ' for 6p<pavoijs. 6O ERRORS AND DEFECTS. Christ. And lastly in xvi. 7 sq. the idea of \hzpleader appears still more definitely in the context, for it is there declared that ' He shall convince ' or ' convict (e'Xe7f et) the world of sin and of righteousness and of judgment.' And generally it may be said that the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, is represented in these passages as the Advocate, the Counsel, who sug- gests true reasonings to our minds and true courses of action for our lives, who convicts our adversary the World of wrong and pleads our cause before God our Father. In short the conception (though some- what more comprehensive) is substantially the same as in S. Paul's language when describing the function of the Holy Ghost; 'The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are children of God,' * The Spirit helpeth our infirmities : for we know not what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which can- not be uttered (Rom. viii. 16, 26).' Thus, whether we regard the origin of the word, or whether we consider the requirements of the con- text 1 , it would seem that ' Comforter ' should give 1 In a case like this we should naturally expect tradition to aid in determining the correct sense, and for this purpose should apply to the earliest Versions as giving it in its best authenticated form ; but in the instance before us they do not render as much assistance as usual. (i) The Old Latin seems certainly to have had Advocatus originally in all the four passages of the Gospel, as also in the passage of the DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 6 1 way to 'Advocate/ as the interpretation The word 'Comforter' does indeed express a true office of the Holy Spirit, as our most heartfelt expe- riences will tell us. Nor has the rendering, though inadequate, been without its use in fixing this fact in our minds ; but the function of the Paraclete, as our f Advocate, is even more important, because wider and deeper than this. Nor will the idea of the 'Com- forter ' be lost to us by the change, for the English Te Deum will still remain to recal this office of the Epistle. It is true that in the existing texts Paracletus (or Paraclitus} occurs in one or more of the passages, and in some MSS in the others : but the earliest quotations from Tertullian onwards must be considered decisive on this point. So far therefore tradition favours the sense which I am maintaining. Jerome retained the Greek word 'Paracletus' in the Gospel, but gave 'Advocatus' in the Epistle. It would appear however that 'Paracletus' had already displaced 'Advocatus' in some passages in the Gospel in one or more of the many texts of the Old Latin which were current in the fourth century. (2) In the Syriac Versions the Greek word is retained. This is the case with the Cure tonian in John xiv. 16 (the only passage preserved in this Version), and with the Peshito throughout in both the Gospel and the Epistle. (3) In the Egyptian Versions also this is generally the case. In the Memphitic ira.pa.K\t]Tos appears in all the passages. In the Thebaic the rendering is different in the Gospels and in the Epistle. In the Epistle it is given, 'One that prayeth (entreateth) for (over) us'; but in the Gospel (at least in xiv. 16, xv. 26) the Greek word is retained. These parts of the Gospel in the Thebaic Version are not published, so far as I am aware ; but I am enabled to state these facts from some manuscript additions made by Dr Tattam in my copy of Woide which was formerly in his possession. 62 ERRORS AND DEFECTS Paraclete to our remembrance ; while the restora- tion of the correct rendering in the passages of S. John's Gospel will be in itself an unmixed gain. Moreover (and this is no unimportant fact) the lan- guage of the Gospel will thus be linked in the English Version, as it is in the original, with the lan- guage of the Epistle. In this there will be a twofold advantage. We shall see fresh force in the words thus rendered, ' He will give you another Advocate,' when we remember that our Lord is styled by S. John our 'Advocate': the Advocacy of Christ illustrating and being illustrated by the Advocacy of the Spirit. At the same time we shall bring out another of the many coincidences, tending to establish an identity of authorship in the Gospel and Epistle, and thus to make valid for the former all the evi- dences external and internal which may be adduced to prove the genuineness of the latter. This connexion between the Gospel and the Epistle leads me to another illustration, which links the Gospel with the Apocalypse. The idea that the Shechinah, the tncvjvri, the glory which betokened the Divine Presence in the Holy of Holies, and which was wanting to the second temple, would be restored once more in Messiah's days, was a cherished hope of the Jewish doctors during and after the Apostolic ages. In the Apocalypse S. John more than once avails himself DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 63 of imagery derived from this expectation. Thus vii. 15 ' He that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them (aKi)vwa-ei eV avTovs)'; xiii. 6 'He opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name and His tabernacle (a-rcrjvrjv), and them that dwell (TOI)? crtcTjvovvTas') in heaven'; xxi. 3 'Behold, the taber- nacle (o-Kr)vrj) of God is with men, and He will dwell w r ith them (cncr)V(Lo-eL yuer' avrwv)! Here it is much to be regretted that the necessities of the English lan- guage required our translators to render the substan- tive (TKTjvT) by one word and the verb aicrjvovv by another. In the first passage -the significance is entirely lost by translating a-KTjvGoaei, 'shall dwell' combined with the erroneous rendering of eV/: and no English reader would suspect the reference to the glory, the Shechinah, hovering over the mercy-seat 1 . But our regret is increased when we turn to the Gospel: for there also the same image reappears in the Greek, but is obliterated by the English render- ing ; ' The Word was made flesh, and dwelt (ea-tcijvo- cev) among us, and we beheld His glory? The two writings, which attribute the name of the Word of God to the Incarnate Son, are the same also which 1 In 2 Cor. xii. 9 'iva. tTlfffifr&ffQ ^TT' /j. 77 diva/us rov XptoroO, translated 'that the power of Christ may rest upon me,' there seems to be a similar reference to the symbol of the Divine Presence in the Holy of Holies. 64 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. especially connect Messiah's Advent with the restitu- tion of the Shechinah, the light or glory which is the visible token of God's presence among men. In this instance the usage of the English language may have deterred our translators. Still they would have earned our gratitude, if following the precedent of the Latin tabernaculavit they had anticipated later scholars and introduced the verb 'to tabernacle' into the English language ; or failing this, if by some slight periphrasis they had endeavoured to preserve the unity of idea. In other cases where artificial distinctions are in- troduced, our translators must be held blameless, for the exigences of the English language left them no choice. Thus in John iii. 8 TO irvev^a (the wind) OTTOV 6e\ei Trvei (bloweth) ovrws earlv TTU? 6 <ye- tyevvrjfievos IK TOV TlvevfjLaros (the Spirit), we must patiently acquiesce in the different renderings, though the comparison between the material and immaterial TTvevfjLa is impaired thereby ; just as in a later passage (xx. 22 eve<f)vcrr)(rev Kal Xeyet avrois, Aa/Sere Tlvevpa "A.yiov) the symbolical act of breathing on the disciples loses much of its force to an English reader. Again, it might be necessary to vary the renderings of ^rv)(r} between ' soul ' and ' life '; and of crojfe^ between ' to save ' and 'to make whole.' But in case of the former word such variations as we find for instance in Matt. DISTINCTIONS CREATED. 65 xvi. 25, 26, and the parallel passages, deserve to be reconsidered ; and in their treatment of the latter, as Dean Alford has shown 1 , our translators have diver- sified the rendering capriciously. And the same excuse also holds good with an- other class of words ; where a paronomasia occurs in the original, but where it is impossible in English at once to preserve the similarity of sound and to give the sense adequately. In Phil. iii. 2, 3 indeed our translators, following some of the earlier versions, have endeavoured to reproduce the paronomasia, 'Beware of the concision (KaraTo^v), for we are the circumcision (Trepirofir))' ; but the result is not encou- raging, for it may be questioned whether 'concision' conveys any idea to the English reader. Again the attempt is made in Rom. xii. 3 prj vTrepfypovelv Trap o Bel (frpovelv, aXXtt <f>poveiv eh TO a co(f) povelv, but with no great success, for in the rendering 'not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think soberly,' the force of the original is evaporated. On the other hand the rendering of I Cor. vii. 31 ol co KocrfJLW rovra) [/. TOV KOO~IJLOV\ co? fjur) /cara- ,, ' they that use this world, as not abusing it,' is adequate. In other passages such as Acts viii. 30 yivwcr/ceis a dvayivaxTfceis ' understandest thou what thou readcst?', 2 Cor. iii. 2 yivcoo-KOfAevr) Kal 1 Contemporary Review^ July 1868, p. 323. L. R. 5 66 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. 'known and read,' 2 Cor. i. 13 a fj /cal eTriyivcbo-tceTe 'what ye read or acknowledge/ 2 Cor. x. 12 ov TO\fJLO)fj,6V ey/cplvat, r; (rwyKplvai, eaurot? 'we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves,' it would be impossible to reproduce the effect of the original. But in other cases such as 1 Cor. xii. 2 ct9 av T^yecr^e, aTrayofMevoi, 'carried away as ye were led,' 2 Cor. iv. 8 aTropov/jLevoi, aXV ov/c e'faTro- pov/jievoi, 'we are perplexed, but not in despair,' or 2 Cor. vi. IO cw? iLJ)$ev e^o^re? KOI irdvra /caT6^ovre<; ' as having nothing, and yet possessing all things/ the rendering might be improved. Nor is there any reason why the play on eprya^o/jievovs, Trepiepya^ofjievovs, in 2 Thess. iii. 1 1 should not be preserved by ' busi- ness/ 'busy-bodies'; or why in Ephes. v. 15 ^77 cu? aao^oL aXX' ok crofyol should not be rendered ' not as unwise but as wise.' In this latter passage the word aarocfros, which occurs nowhere else in the New Tes- tament, has been purposely preferred to the usual fjLwpos. Yet our translators have rendered aa-o<f>oi 'fools' here, and reserved 'unwise' for acSpoi/e? two verses below, where it is not wanted. 3- From the creation of artificial distinctions in our English Version by different renderings of the same DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 67 word we pass naturally to the opposite fault, the ob- literation of real distinctions by the same rendering of different words. The former error is easily cor- rected for the most part; the latter not always so. For the synonyms of one language frequently cannot be reproduced in another without a harsh expression or a cumbersome paraphrase. Thus olSa, yivwcrica), eyvw/ca, eTTicrra/jLai, have different shades of meaning in Greek, but the obvious equivalent for each in English is ' I know.' Still some effort should be made (though success is not always possible) to dis- criminate between them, where they occur in the same context, and where therefore their position throws a special emphasis on the distinction. Thus in Acts xix. 15 we should not acquiesce in 'Jesus I know, and Paul I know/ as a rendering of rov 'Irja-ovv yivaxTKQ) /cal rov HavXov ewiffrapai, though all the preceding translations unite with our Authorised Version in obliterating the difference. The sig- nificant distinction which is made in the original between the kind of recognition in the case of the Divine agent and of the human instrument may easily be preserved by rendering, * Jesus I acknow- ledge and Paul I know* Again in such passages as 2 Cor. v. 1 6 drro rov vvv ovSeva oiSafnev Kara capita, el Kal eyvoo/capev Kara crdptca Xpurrov, d\\a vvv ov/ceri (and this is a type of a large class of 52 68 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. passages, where ol$a and <yivwcrKa> occur together) some improvement should be attempted ; nor in the instance given could there be any difficulty in varying the rendering, though elsewhere the task might not prove so easy. From these allied words I pass on to the distinc- tion between yLvuxr/ceiv and eir^ivwa-Keiv, which is both clearer and more easily dealt with. Those who have paid any attention to the language of S. Paul will recognise the force of the substantive eTrlyvwai? as denoting the advanced or perfect knowledge which is the ideal state of the true Christian, and will remem- ber that it appears only in his later epistles (from the Romans onwards), where the more contemplative aspects of the Gospel are brought into view and its comprehensive and eternal relations more fully set forth. But the power of the preposition appears in the verb, no less than in the substantive ; and indeed its significance is occasionally forced upon our notice, where the simple and the compound verb appear in the same context. Thus in I Cor. xiii. 12 apri yivooo-KO) etc fjiepovs, Tore Se eTTiyvwaofjiai, Ka0(i)<i Kal eTreyvwo-Qrjv, the partial knowledge (yivwo-iceiv IK /Ae/)ou9, comp. ver. cj) is contrasted with the ///// know- ledge (iri<yivto<TK.iv) which shall be attained hereafter, though our translators have rendered both words by 'know.' Yet strangely enough, where the special DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 69 force of the compound was less obvious, it has not escaped them ; for in 2 Cor. vi. 9 o5? dyvoovpevoi, ical cTriyivwo-Kofievoi, is translated 'as unknown, and yet well known! In this particular the observance of the distinc- tion between a simple word and its derivatives compounded with prepositions our English Version is especially faulty. The verb tcpivew and its com- pounds will supply a good illustration. S. Paul especially delights to accumulate these ; and thus by harping upon words (if I may use the expression) to emphasize great spiritual truths or important personal experiences. Thus he puts together o-vy/cpivew, dva/cpiveiv, I Cor. ii. 13 15 ', Kplvew, dvaicpiveiv, I Cor. iv. 3, 4; tyxpivciV) <rvytcpbew, 2 Cor. x. 12; /cpiveiv, Sia/cpLi>iv, I Cor. vi. I 6; Kplvew, Bia/cpiveiv, , Rom. xiv. 22, 23, I Cor. xi. 29, 31, 32; , KaraK piveiv, Rom. ii. I. Now it seems impos- sible in most cases, without a sacrifice of English which no one would be prepared to make, to reproduce the similarity of sound or the identity of root; but the distinction of sense should always be preserved. How this is neglected in our Version, and what confusion ensues from the neglect, the following instances will show. In I Cor. iv. 3, 4, 5, e/iol Se els e&Tiv 'iva v<$ vpaiv dvaKpi6w...aX)C ov&e bv dvc,Kpivu>...6 Se dvaKpivwv yue, 7O ERRORS AND DEFECTS. &<7T fJLTJ TTpO KCtlpOV Tl Kplvere, 66)9 at/ \0r) O Kt'/3t09, G9 Kal <j>a)Ti(Ti rd KpVTTTa rov cr/coTOU9, the word dvcLKpivew is translated throughout 'judge'; while in a previous passage, I Cor. ii. 14, 15, it is rendered indifferently 'to discern' and 'to judge.' But dva- Kpivew is neither 'to judge/ which is icplveiv, nor 'to discern/ which is Siaicpivew, but ' to examine, investi- gate, enquire into, question/ as it is rightly translated elsewhere, e.g. I Cor. ix. 3, x. 25, 27 ; and the correct understanding of the passage before us depends on our retaining this sense. The avd/cpiais, it will be remembered, was an Athenian law term for a pre- liminary investigation (distinct from the actual Kpivis or trial), in which evidence was collected and the prisoner committed for trial, if a true bill was found against him. It corresponded in short mutatis mutandis to the part taken in English law proceedings by the grand jury. And this is substantially the force of the word here. The Apostle condemns all these impatient human praejudicia, these unauthorised dvaKpi<ris f which anticipate the final Kpl&is, reserving his case for the great tribunal when at length all the evidence will be forthcoming and a satisfactory verdict can be given. Meanwhile this process of gathering evidence has begun ; an dvaKpicns is indeed being held, not however by these self-appointed ma- gistrates, but by One who alone has the authority DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 71 to institute the enquiry, and the ability to sift the facts : 6 Se dvafcpivwv pe Kvpios ecrrw. Of this half technical sense of the word the New Testament itself furnishes a good example. The examination of S. Paul before Festus is both in name and in fact an dvd/cpicris. The Roman procurator explains to Agrippa how he had directed the prisoner to be brought into court (Trpotjyayov avrbv) in order that, having held the preliminary enquiry usual in such cases (rrjs dva/cpiaetos yevofjuevv]?), he might be able to lay the case before the emperor (Acts xxv. 26). Thus S. Paul's meaning here suffers very seriously by the wrong turn given to dvaKpivew ; nor is this the only passage where the sense is impaired thereby. In I Cor. xiv. 24 l\,6y^eraL VTTO TTUVTCOV, dva/cpiverai, VTTO TrdvTcov, [real ovrw] rd KpVTrrd rrjs tcapSias avrov (f>avpd yLverai, the sense required is clearly 'sifting, probing, revealing,' and the rendering of our translators *he is judged of all' introduces an idea alien to the passage. Again, only five verses lower down (xiv. 29) another compound of /cptvetv occurs and is similarly treated, Trpoc^^rat Be Bvo fj rpet? \a\elrwcrav /cal ol O\\OL SiaKptverwo-av, 'let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judgel where it would be difficult to attach any precise meaning to the English without the aid of the Greek, and where certainly Sta/c ought to be rendered 'discern' rather than 'judge.' 72 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. Another passage which I shall take to illustrate the mode of dealing with icpivew and its compounds is still more important. In I Cor. xi. 28 34, a passage in which the English rendering is chargeable with some serious practical consequences and where a little attention to the original will correct more than one erroneous inference, the rendering of icpiveiv, SicLKpivew, KarcLKpiveLv, is utterly confused. The Greek runs SoKi/Aa^tra) 8e civOpwiros eavrbv /cal o#Tft>? e/c rov dprov ecr0iTG) /cal IK rov irorrjpLOV Trivera)' 6 yap eaOiwv KOI irlvwv [apaflo?] Kpi^a eavrq) ecrQiei /cal TrtWt, fjLrj TO aw/jia [rov K.vplov\...el Se eauroz)? Ste- , OVK av e/cpivofieOa' /cpivopevot, Be VTTO }Lvplov TraibevcfJieOa, wa JJLTJ crvv T&> Koa^a* /cara/cpi- 0tofjLV...eiL Tt9 Treiva, ev OIL/CM eo-Qierco, iva fjirj els icpifia a-vvep^crOe^ where the words in brackets should be omitted from the text. The English rendering corre- sponding to this is ; ' But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not dis- cerning' the Lord's body... For if we would jttdge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world... If any man hunger, let him eat at home, that ye come not together unto condemnation' Here the faults are manifold. In DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 73 the first place Kp[^a is rendered by two separate words 'damnation' and 'condemnation'; and, though we cannot fairly charge our translators with the inferences practically drawn from the first word, yet this is a blemish which we would gladly remove. But in fact both words are equally wrong, the correct rendering 'judgment' having in either case been relegated to the margin where it has lain neglected and has exercised no influence at all on the popular mind. And this circumstance (for it is only a sample of the fate which has befallen numberless valuable marginal readings elsewhere) suggests an important practical consideration. If the marginal renderings are intended for English-reading people (and for scholars they are superfluous), they will only then fulfil their purpose, when the margin is regarded as an integral portion of our English Bibles, and when it is ordered by authority that these alternative readings shall always be printed with the text. This then is the second error of our translators : tepiveiv, Kara/cpi- vew, are confused, when the force of the passage depends on their being kept separate; for these Kpipara in the Apostle's language are temporary judgments, differing so entirely from Kardicpi^a that they are intended to have a chastening effect and to save from condemnation, as he himself distinctly states; Kpivbpevoi 8e viro Kvplov Traibevo/jLeOa, f (va /LIT} 74 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. avv TO) Kocr/JLO) icaraKpiOw /j,ev. Lastly, the Version contains a third error in the confusion of icpivew and biaicpiveiv ; for whereas SiaKplvovres TO o-oofia is correctly translated ' discerning the body cf the Lord ' at the first occurrence of SuiKpiveiv, yet when the word appears again, it is rendered 'judge* to the confusion of the sense ; el eavrovs SieKpivoiJLev, ovtc av e/cpwofieOa, ' If we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged* where it ought to stand ' If we had discerned ourselves, we should not have been judged! In fact S. Paul speaks of three stages, marked respectively by Sia- Kplveiv, Kpivew, and Kxrafcpiveiv. The first word expresses the duty of persons before and in com- municating; this duty is twofold, they must discern themselves and discern the Lord's body, that they may understand and not violate the proper relations between the one and other. The second expresses the immediate consequences which ensue from the neglect of this duty fat judgments which are corrective and remedial, but not final. The third denotes the 'final condemnation, which only then overtakes a man, when the second has failed to reform his character. But this sequence is wholly obliterated in our Version. In Rom. xiv. 22, 23 again, where the words occur together, it would have been well to have kept the distinction, though here the confusion is not so fatal to the meaning : ' Happy is he that condemneth not DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 75 himself (6 /IT) tcpivnv eavrov) in that thing which he alloweth (eV <j> Sotci/jLa^i): And he that doubteth (6 Se SiaKpivofievos) is damned (tcaTaKe/cpLTai) if he eat, because he eateth not of faith.' S. Paul is not satisfied in this case, that a man should not condemn himself; he must not even judge himself. In other words the case must be so clear that he has no need to balance conflicting arguments with a view to arriving at a result. Otherwise he should abstain altogether, for his eating is not of faith. Here our translators have rendered SicucpLvbiievos rightly, but a misgiving appears to have occurred to them, for in the margin they add ' Or, discerneth and putteth a difference between meats,' which would be the active 6 Siaicpivwv. Indeed an evil destiny would seem to have pursued them throughout, when dealing with compounds of Kpivew, for in another passage (2 Cor. i. 9) they render diro- Kpipa ' sentence/ though the correct meaning ' answer* is given in the margin. This neglect of prepositions in compound words is a very frequent fault in our Version. In the parable of the wheat and the tares indeed, though the correct reading describes the sowing in the one case by aireipeiv and in the other by eTriaireipeLv (Matt. xiii. 24, 25), yet no blame can attach to our translators for not observing the distinction, as they had in their text the faulty reading eWape for 76 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. eTrecrTreipev. But elsewhere this excuse cannot be pleaded in their behalf. Thus in the parable of the wedding-feast there is a striking variation of language between the commission of the master and its execution by the servants, which ought not to have been effaced. The order given is iropevevOe eVl ra9 &i,ej;6Sovs TWV oSwv, but as regards its fulfilment we read simply eeX0oWe9 eh ra? 0801)9 (Matt. xxii. g, 10). In this change of expression we seem to see a reference to the imperfect work of the human agents as contrasted with the urgent and uncompromising terms of the command, which bade them scour the public thoroughfares, following all their outlets ; and certainly it is slovenly work to translate both ra9 oVfoou9 TMV 6Bd)v and ra9 0801)9 alone by the same rendering 'high-ways.' A similar defect again is the obliteration of the distinction between airavav and ^K^airavav in 2 Cor. xii. 1 5 ' I will very gladly spend (Sajravijaa)) and be spent (e/cSaTrawrjOr}- o-ofjiat,) for you,' where ' wholly spent ' would give the force of the compound. But examples of this kind might be multiplied. Would it not be possible, for instance, to find some rendering, which without any shock to good taste would yet distinguish between $i\elv and Kara<f>i\.lv in such passages as Matt. xxvi. 48, 49 ov av (f>i\ijo-(o auro9 a~Tiv...Kal /car(f>i\rj- <rev avrcv, and Luke vii. 45, 46 </>t\?7/x poi OVK DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 77 , aurrj &e...ov SteXiTrev KaTa$i\ovcra, TOU? TroSa? IJLOV, so as to bring out the extravagance of the treachery in the one case and the depth of the devotion in the other, implied in the strong compound Hardly less considerable is the injury inflicted on the sense by failing to observe the different force of prepositions, when not compounded. Of this fault one instance must suffice. In 2 Cor. iii. 1 1 el yap TO Karapyov/JLvov Sia So 779, TroXXro /Jba\\ov TO /juevov ev 80^77, 'For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious! the distinction of SLO, Sof/?? and ev &6%r) is obliterated, though the change is significant in the original, where the transitory flush and the abiding presence are distinguished by the change of prepositions, and thus another touch is added to the picture of the contrast between the two dispensations. Again, how much force is lost by neglecting a change of gender in the English rendering of John i. 1 1 ' He came to his own (et? TO, iSia) t and his own (OL L&IOI) received him not.' Here the distinction in the original between the neuter TO. i$ia and the masculine ol ISiot, at once recalls the parable in Matt. xxi. 33 sq., in which the vineyard corresponds to ra TSta and the husbandmen to ol 181,01 ; but our Version makes no distinction between the place and the 78 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. persons between 'His own home' and 'His own people. 1 Doubtless there is a terseness and a strength in the English rendering which no one would wil- lingly sacrifice ; but the sense ought to be the first consideration. Let me pass to an illustration of another kind, where confusion is introduced by the same render- ing of different verbs: I Cor. xiv. 36 'What, came the word of God out from you ? or came it unto you only ? ' Here there appears to the English reader to be an opposition between from and unto, and the two interrogatives seem to introduce alternative proposi- tions. The original however is rj afi vpwv 6 \6yos TOV eov e%?)\6ev ; rj et? vfia? fjuovovs KarrjvTrjaev ; where the fault of the English Version is twofold ; the same word is used in rendering e%rj\6ev and KarrjvTvjo-ev, and p,6vov<$ is represented by the ambiguous 'only.' Thus the emphasis is removed from the pronoun you in both clauses to the prepositions, and the two hypotheses are made to appear mutually exclusive. The translation of Tyndale, which was retained even in the Bishops' Bible, though somewhat harsh, is correct and forcible, ' Spronge the worde of God from you ? Ether came it unto you only 1 ?' 1 A very important passage, in which the hand of the reviser is needed, may perhaps be noted here. The correct Greek Text of Matt. V. 32 is Tras 6 dTroXiW TT\V yvvaiKO. avrov, Trape/cros \6yov iropveias, iroiet avryv /uoixei/0?}'cu, KO! 6s tdj> dTroXeXvfjLtvijv 70/070-77 /totxarat, where DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 79 Much attention has been directed by recent writers to the synonymes of the New Testament. They have pointed out what is lost to the English reader by such confusions as those of av\r) fotd and iro'uLvr] flock in John x. 1 6, where in our Version the same word/0/# stands for both 1 , though the point of our Lord's teaching depends mainly on the distinction between the many folds and the one flock ; of SovXot, and Sid/covoi, in the parable of the wedding-feast (Matt. xxii. I sq.), both rendered by servants, though they have different functions assigned to them, and though they represent two distinct classes of beings the one human, the other angelic ministers 2 ; of KO- our English Version has ' Whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adtiltery.' Here the English Version casts equal blame on the woman, thus doing her an injustice, for obviously she is not in the same position with the husband as regards guilt; but the Greek /uoixeutf^cu (not /uoixa0-0ai), being a passive verb, implies something quite different. In this instance however the fault does not lie at the door of our translators, who instead of ^.otxevdTjvai had the false reading /-totxcur&u ; but, the correct text being restored, a corresponding change in the English rendering is necessary. Com- pare also the various reading in Matt. xix. 9. 1 Tyndale and Coverdale preserve the distinction of flock and fold. In the Great Bible it disappears. 2 Here again the older Versions generally preserve the distinction, translating SovXoi, diaKovotby 'servants,' 'ministers,' respectively. The Rheims Version has 'waiters' for diaKovoi. In this case the Geneva Bible was the first to obliterate the distinction, which was preserved even in the Bishops'. 80 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. and airvpi^ in the miracles of feeding the five thousand and the four thousand respectively both translated baskets though the words are set over against each other in the evangelic narratives (Matt. xvi. 9, 10, Mark viii. 19, 20), and seem to point to a different nationality of the multitudes in the two cases ; of %>a and dijpia in the Apocalypse, both represented by beasts, though the one denotes the beings who. worship before the throne of heaven, and the other the monsters whose abode is the abyss beneath. For other instances, and generally for an adequate treatment of this branch of exegesis, I shall be content to refer to the works of Archbishop Trench and others ; but the following examples, out of many which might be given, will serve as further illustrations of the subject, which is far from being exhausted. In John xiii. 23, 25 r\v Be dvaKei^evo^ el? e/c liaOrjTtoV avrov eV TO> /c6\7r&) rov 'I77<7o0. eVeti/09 oi/Vft)? eVl TO (rrrjOos TOU 'I^crou Xeyet 'Now there was leaning 011 Jesus' bosom one of his disciples... He then lying on Jesus' breast saith,' the English Version makes no distinction between the reclining position of the beloved disciple throughout the meal, described by az/a/ce///,ero5, and the sudden change of posture at this moment, introduced by avaireo-wv. This distinc- tion is further enforced in the original by a change DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 8 1 in both the prepositions and the nouns, from eV to eW, and from Kokiros to o-rrjOos. S. John was reclining on the bosom of his Master, and he sud- denly threw back his head upon His breast to ask a question. Again in a later passage a reference occurs not to the reclining position but to the sudden movement 1 in xxi. 2O o? teal dveTreaev ev TO> SeLTTvq) eTrl TO GT?)6o<$ at/rod Kol elirev, where likewise it is misunderstood by our translators, 'which also leaned on his. breast and said/ This is among the most striking of those vivid descriptive traits which distinguish the narrative of the fourth Gospel gener- ally, and which are especially remarkable in these last scenes of Jesus' life, where the beloved dis- ciple was himself an eye-witness and an actor. It is therefore to be regretted that these fine touches 1 The word cij>aTriirTu> occurs several times in the New Testament and always signifies a change of position, for indeed this idea is inherent in the word. It is used of a rower bending back for a fresh stroke (e.g. Polyb. i. 21. 2), of a horse suddenly checked and rearing (Plat. Phcedr. 254 B, E), of a guest throwing himself back on the couch or on the ground preparatory to a meal (Matt. xv. 35, John xiii. 12, etc). The received text of xiii. 25 runs, tiwre<rwi> 8e tKfwos eirl rb ffrrjdos /r.T.X., but the correct reading is as given above. The substitution of eTrnreffuv however does not tell in favour of our translators; for this word ought to have shown, even more clearly than avatreff&v, that a change of posture was intended. The OUTWS, which appears in the correct text and gives an additional touch to the picture, has a parallel in iv. 6 e/catfefcro ourws firl T$ ^1773. In xxi. 20 there is no various reading. L. R. 6 82 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. of the picture should be blurred in our English Bibles. Again, in I Cor. xiv. 2O /in) TraiSia <yivecr6e rais (frpeplv, d\\d rfj icaKia vrjTrid^ere, much force is lost by the English rendering, ' Be not children in under- standing; howbeit in malice be ye children' In the original S. Paul is not satisfied that his converts should be merely children in vice ; they must be something less than this, they must be guileless as babes ; and we cannot afford to obliterate the dis- tinction between TracBla and vr/Tnoi. Again in this same chapter (ver. 7) o/-io>9 rd d^w^a favnv SiSovra... edv $iaa-To\r)v rot? (#0770*9 fJ*rj Sa> is translated, 'Even things without life giving sound... except they give a distinction in the sounds* where certainly different words should have been found for <a>i/r} and <t>06yyo<; ; and yet our translators did not fail through poverty of expression, for three verses below they have ren- dered (jxaval voices and afywvov without signification. In the margin they suggest tunes for fi&oyyois, and this would be preferable to retaining the same word. As $007709 is used especially of musical sounds, per- haps notes might be adopted. This is just a case where a word not elsewhere found in the English Bible might be safely introduced, because there is no incongruity which jars upon the ear. Again in the following chapter (xv. 40) crepa pev 77 rc5z/ DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 83 pavlcov Sofa, erepa Se 77 rwv emyeLwv. a\\rj Sofa q Kal a\\rj Sofa 0-6X171/77?, KOI a\\rj Sofa dcrrepwv, the words aXX?? and erepa are translated alike, ' The glory of the celestial is one and the glory of the terrestrial is another. There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars.' Yet it is hardly to be doubted that S. Paul purposely uses erepa when he is speaking of things belonging to different classes, as errovpdvia and eTriyeta, and a'XX?7 when he is speaking of things belonging to the same class, as the sun and moon and stars ; for this is the proper distinction between aXX?7 and erepa, that, whereas the former denotes simply distinction of individuals, the latter involves the secondary idea of difference of kind. In fact the change in the form of the sentence by which Sofa, Sofa, from being marked out as the subjects by the definite article and distin- guished by /jiev...Be in the first place, become simply predicates and are connected by Kal. . ./cal in the second, corresponds to the change from erepa to aXX?; in passing from the one to the other. These words aXXo?, ere/jo?, occur together more than once, and in all cases something is lost by effacing the distinction. In Gal. i. 6 6avada) ori.ovrco ra^eco? /jierarldeade... et? erepov evayyeXiov, o outc eanv aXXo, translated 'I marvel that ye are so soon removed... unto another Gospel, which is not anotherl the sense would be 62 84 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. brought out by giving each word its proper force ; and again in 2 Cor. xi. 4 a\\ov 'Iij&ovv Kripvcrcrei ov OVK etcrjpv^afjLev, rj 'rrvev/JLa erepov Xa/4/3az>ere o OVK eXdfiere, though the loss is less considerable, the dis- tinction might with advantage have been preserved. In these instances however a reviser might be deterred by the extreme difficulty in distinguishing the two, without introducing some modernism. In the passage first quoted (i Cor. xv. 40) the end might perhaps be attained by simply substituting ' other ' for ' another ' in rendering erepa. Still more important is it to mark the distinction between elvai a*nd ^Lveadai, where our translators have not observed it. Thus our English rendering of Joh. viii. 58, 'Before Abraham was, I am? loses half the force of the original, irplv 'Affpaajji, yevecrOai, eya> et/u, 'Before Abraham was born, I am? The becoming only can be rightly predicated of the patriarch ; the being is reserved for the Eternal Son alone. Similar in kind, though less in degree, is the loss in the render- ing of Luke vi. 36 ylveo-Qe olfcrtp/jLoves, KaOci)? [ical] 6 7rart}p vfjLO)v ol/crtpfjiwv eVrtV, ' J3e ye merciful, as your Father also is merciful.' Here also the original ex- presses the distinction between the imperfect effort and the eternal attribute 1 . 1 In i Pet. i. 1 6 our translators, when they gave the rendering '/?<? ye holy, for I am holy,' had before them the reading crytot DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 85 Illustrations of similar defects might be multiplied, though in many cases it is much easier to point out the fault, than to suggest the remedy. Thus such a rendering as 2 Cor. vii. 10 ' For godly sorrow worketh repentance (fieTavoiav) to salvation not to be repented of (dfiTafjL6\r]Tov) ' belongs to this class. Here the Geneva Testament has 'causeth amendment unto salvation not to be repented of/ and perhaps it were best in this instance to sacrifice the usual rendering of fierdvoia in order to preserve the distinction (unless indeed we are prepared to introduce the word 'regret' for fierafieXeia), especially as /-tera/Ae'Xecr&u in the con- text is consistently translated 'repent.' Again it were desirable to find some better rendering of Tracra Socri? uyaOrj /cal TTCLV &a>prjfjLa re\eiov in James i. 17 than ' every good gift and every perfect gift! since a contemporary of S. James especially distinguishes Soo-t?, Sofia, from Scopov, Saped etc., saying that the latter are much stronger and involve the idea of mag- nitude and fulness which is wanting to the former (Philo Leg. All. iii. 70, p. 126 epfyacriv fieyeQovs review d*ja6v StyXovow /c.T.X. ; com p. de Cherub. 25, p. 154), and applying to them the very same epithet 'perfect' which occurs in the passage before us. And yet the distinction would be dearly purchased at the 5rt yu> 07405 el fit, but the correct text is ayt-oi Zveede, on t'yi ciytos (omitting ct>i). 86 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. cost of an offensive Latinism. But whatever difficulty there may be in finding different renderings here, it was certainly not necessary in the sentence immediately preceding, 'When lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin ; and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death,' 1} eTndvfiia crv\\a/3ov(ra rtWet afjbapriav, ?} Be apapTia uTroreKecrQeicra airoicvei Odvarov, either to obliterate a real distinction by giving the same rendering of TLicrei and aTTo/cvei or to create an artificial distinction by adopting different forms of sentences for 77 eTnOvpia av\\aftov(Ta and 77 apapTia u7rore\(T0ta-a. The Eng- lish might run ; ' Lust when it hath conceived bring- eth forth sin, and sin when it is perfected (or 'grown') gendereth death.' Again in Rom. xii. 2 ' Be not con- formed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind,' for /xr) o-vo-^rjfiarl^o-Oe raj alwvi rotrrft), XXa fJiCTa/JLOp^ovaOe rfj dvaxaivtoffei TOV 1/009 [vpwv], the English not only suggests an iden- tity of expression which has no place in the original but obliterates an important distinction between the (r^fia or fas/iion and the /J<OP<J)YJ or form, between the outward and transitory and the abiding and sub- stantial. We might translate ^77 (Tva-^fiari^eo-Oe K.T.\. ' Be ye not fashioned after this world, but be ye trans- formed in the renewing, etc./ thus partially retracing our steps and following on the track of Tyndale's and other earlier Versions, which have ' Fashion not your- DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 87 selves like unto this world/ and so preserve the distinc- tion of o-^rjfjLa and popfyr} (though they are not very happy in their rendering of ^erafiop^oixrOe c Be ye changed in your shape'). In this instance our trans- lators have followed the guidance of Wycliffe and the Rheims Version, which have conformed and reformed. In another passage, Phil. ii. 6 sq., where the distinction of floppy} and C^/MI is still more important, it is happily preserved in our Authorised Version ; ' being in the form of God, 1 'took upon him the form of a servant,' ' being found in fashion as a man/ In other cases, where it is even more important for the sense to observe the distinction of synonymes, we seem to have no choice but to acquiesce in the con- fusion. At an earlier stage of the language it might have been possible to establish different renderings, but now the English equivalents are so stereotyped that any change seems impossible. Thus the rendering of 8ta/3o\o9 and Saipoviov by the same word ' devil ' is a grievous loss ; and it is much to be regretted that Wycliffe's translation of ^aipoviov by ' fiend ' was not adopted by Tyndale, in which case it would probably have become the current rendering. Now the sense of incongruity would make its adoption impossible. Still greater misunderstanding arises from translating Hades the place of departed spirits, and Gehenna the place of fire and torment, by the same word 88 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. 'hell/ and thus confusing two ideas wholly distinct. In such a passage as Acts ii. 27, 31 the misconception thus created is very serious. Is it possible even now to naturalise the word Hades and give it a place in our Version ? Or must we be satisfied with pointing out in the margin in each case whether the word 'hell' represents Hades or Gehenna? Another, though a less important instance, is the word ' temple/ which represents both i/ao? the inner shrine or sanctuary, and /e/>o/> the whole of the sacred precincts. Thus in the English Version an utter confusion of localities results from a combination of two such passages as Matt, xxiii. 35 'Whom ye slew between the temple (rov vaov) and the altar/ and Matt. xxi. 12 'Them that sold and bought in the temple' (eV T&> lepu>). In the first case for TOV vaov S. Luke (xi. 51) uses TOV oitcov 'the house/ the building which is, as it were, the abode of the Divine Presence ; but our English translators have boldly rendered even TOV OLKOV by ' the temple.' More hopeless still is it to preserve the distinction between Qvcriao-Trjpiov the Jewish and /Jta/zo? the Heathen altar, the latter word occurring only once in the New Testament (Acts xvii. 23) and the poverty of our language obliging us there to translate it by the same word as Ova-iacrTrjpiov. The contrast of Jew and Gentile involved in these last words recalls another pair of synonymes, which DISTINCTIONS OBLITERATED. 89 present the same relation to each other and in which the distinction is equally impracticable, Xao? used especially of the chosen people and in contradistinction to the Gentiles (e.g. Acts iv. 25, 27, x. 2, xxi. 28, Rom. ix. 25, 26, i Pet. ii. 10, etc.), and Srjfj,o<; denoting the people of a heathen city and more particularly when gathered together in the popular assembly (e.g. at Caesarea, Acts xii. 22 1 ; at Thessalonica, Acts xvii. 5; at Ephesus, Acts xix. 30, 33). 4- Another class of errors, far more numerous and much more easily corrected than the last, is due to the imperfect knowledge of Greek grammar in the age in which our translators lived. And here it is instructive to observe how their accuracy fails for the most part just at the point where the Latin language ceases to run parallel with the Greek. In two re- markable instances, at all events, this is the case. The Latin language has only one past tense where 1 A heathen multitude, such as would naturally be found in a city which was the seat of the Roman government, is contemplated here, as the whole incident shows. Hence Tyndale and the later Versions rightly translate 0eoO ^WJ/TJ Kal of>< dvOpdirov (ver. 22) 'The voice of a god and not of a man,' where Wycliffe has ' The voice of God and not of man.' When the Jews of Caesarea are especially intended, 6 Xads is used instead of 6 5^/xoj ; Acts x. 2. 90 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. the Greek has two ; a Roman was forced to translate e\d\7}rra and \e\d\rjrca by the same expression 'locutus sum.' Accordingly we find that our English trans- lators make no difference between the aorist and the perfect, apparently giving the most obvious rendering on each occasion and not being guided by any grammatical principle in the treatment of these tenses. Again the Latin language has no definite article; and correspondingly in our English Version its pre- sence or absence is almost wholly disregarded. Indeed it would hardly be an exaggeration to say that, if the translators had been left to supply or omit the definite article in every case according to the probabilities of the sense or the requirements of the English, without any aid from the Greek, the result would have been about as accurate as it is at present. I am not bringing any charge against the ability of our translators. To demand from them a know- ledge of Greek Grammar which their age did not possess would be to demand an impossibility. Accus- tomed to write and to speak in Latin, they uncon- sciously limited the range and capacity of the Greek by the measure of the classical language with which they were most familiarly acquainted. But our own more accurate knowledge may well be brought to bear to correct these deficiencies. Tyndale had said FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 9! truly that ' the Greek tongue agreeth more with the English than the Latin'; and it should be our en- deavour to avail ourselves of this agreement and so to reproduce the meaning of the original with greater exactness. I hope to show, before I have done, that it is no mere pedanti(i affectation which would prompt us to correct these faults ; but that important inter- ests, sometimes doctrinal, sometimes historical, are involved in their adjustment. I. Under the head of faulty grammar, the tenses deserve to be considered first. And here I will begin with the defect on which I have already touched the confusion of the aorist and the perfect. It is not meant to assert that the aorist can always be rendered by an aorist and the perfect by a perfect in English 1 . No two languages coincide exactly in usage, and allowance must be made for the difference. But still I think it will be seen that our Version may be greatly improved in this respect without violence to the English idiom. Thus in John i. 3 %pi? avrov eyevero ovBe ev o yeyovcv, or in 2 Cor. xii. 17, 18 fjiij nva v dire- 7T/30? Vfid^, &i avrov 67r\eove/cTr)a TYroi/, Kal <rvva7reo'Ti,\a TOV 1 A comparison of English with the languages of continental Europe will illustrate the difference of idiom in this respect. 92 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. or in Col. i. 16, 17 ev avraj etcricOrj rd 7rdvra...rd TrdvTO, &i avrou /ecu eh avrov $KTi<rTai, is there any reason why the tenses should not have been pre- served, so that the distinction between the historical fact and the permanent result would have appeared in all three cases ? Yet our translators have ren- dered eyevero, yeyovev equally by 'was made' in the first passage, aTre'crraX/ta, a-TrecrretXa by ' I sent ' in the second, and e/crla-drj, e/cTia-Tcu by 'were created' in the third. Again in I John iv. 9, IO, 14 aTrecrraA- icev, aTreVretXez/, aTrearakKev, are all rendered in an aoristic sense 'he sent/ though the appropriateness of either tense in its own context is sufficiently noticeable. On the other hand, in an exactly par- allel case, I Cor. ix. 22 eyevo/Jirjv rot? daQeveaiv d<r6evr)<; 'iva. rot)? do-Bevels /cepSij(ra)' rot? iracnv yeyova irdvra, where in like manner the aorist gives an isolated past incident, and the perfect sums up the total present result, the distinction of tenses is happily preserved, 'To the weak became I weak that I might gain the weak : I am made all things to all men ' : though * I am become 1 would have been preferable, as preserving the same verb in both cases. But I fear that this correct rendering must be ascribed to accident: for the hap-hazard way in which these tenses are treated will appear as well from the instances already quoted as from such a passage as 2 Cor. vii. 13, 14; 'There- FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 93 fore we were comforted (7rapaKetc\ri/j,0a) in your comfort: yea, and exceedingly the more joyed we (tydpij/Mv) for the joy of Titus, because his spirit was refreshed (avaireiravrai) by you all. For if I have boasted (KeKav-^^ai) any thing to him of you, I am not ashamed (^Karrja-^vvd^v) ; but as we spake (e\a\r]cra^ev) all things to you in truth, even so our boasting, which I made before Titus ([?}] eVl TiVou), is found (eyevrjOr)} a truth.' Such passages as these bring out this weakness of our translation the more strikingly because the tenses appear in juxta-position. But it is elsewhere that the most serious injury is inflicted on the sense. I will give examples of the aorist first ; and I hope to make it clear that more than the interests of exact scholar- ship are concerned in the accurate rendering. If I read S. Paul aright, the correct understand- ing of whole paragraphs depends on the retention of the aoristic sense, and the substitution of a per- fect confuses his meaning, obliterating the main idea and introducing other conceptions which are alien to the passages. As illustrations of this, take two passages, Rom. vi. I sq., Col. ii. n sq. In the first passage, aireOavopev (ver. 2), e^airriaO^fiev (ver. 3), rjfjiev (ver. 4), frvvea-ravptoOr} (ver. 6), a-TrtOdvo- (ver. 8), VTrrj/covcrare (ver. 17), e&ovXtoOrjTe -HJ Si- Kaio<Tvvr) (ver. 18), eXevOepwQevrcs UTTO 94 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. TOJ e&> (ver. 22), edavaTaid'rjre (vii. 4), KaTr)pyt)6r)/Ji6v, aTroOavovres (ver. 6). In the second passage, TrepieT/jLrjdrjre (ii. Ii), o-vvTCKJzevres, o-vvrjyep- 6rjT6 (ver. 12), <rvvect)07rol'r)(rv (ver. 13), eSeiyfidrKrev (ver. 15), aTreOdvere (ver. 20), avvrjjepdrjre (iii. i), aTre- Odvere (ver. 3). Now the consistency with which S. Paul uses the aorist in these two doctrinal passages which treat of the same subject (scarcely ever inter- posing a perfect, and then only for exceptional rea- sons which are easily intelligible) is very remarkable ; 'Ye died, ye were buried, ye were raised, ye were made alive ' ; and the argument might be very much strengthened by reference to other passages where the Apostle prefers the aorist in treating of the same. topics 1 . In short, S. Paul regards this change from sin to righteousness, from bondage to freedom, from death to life as summed up in one definite act of the past; potentially to all men in our Lord's Pas- sion and Resurrection, actually to each individual man when he accepts Christ, is baptized into Christ. Then he is made righteous by being incorporated into Christ's righteousness, he dies once for all to sin, he lives henceforth for ever to God. This is the 1 For instance Gal. ii. 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, iii. 3, 27, v. 13, 24 (oi rou Xpiorou rip ffopKa tffTavpuxrav), Ephes. i. ii, 13, ii. 5, 6 (<rvvefuoiroli}arti>, ffvvriyfipev, ffWKaj9i<Tv), 13, 14, iv. I, 4, 7, 30 (to-QpaylffdijTe), Col. i. 13 (fy/>i5<raTo, iJ.fT^Tr}fffv), iii. 15, 2 Tim. i. 7, 9, Tit. iii. 5 (fouacit) : see also i Pet. i. 3, 18, ii. 21, iii. 9. FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 95 ideal. Practically we know that the death to sin and the life to righteousness are inchoate, imperfect, gradual, meagrely realised even by the most saintly of men in this life : but S. Paul sets the matter in this ideal light, to force upon the consciences of his hearers the fact that an entire change came over them when they became Christians, that the know- ledge and the grace then vouchsafed to them did not leave them where they were, that they are not and cannot be their former selves, and that it is a contradiction of their very being to sin any more. It is the definiteness, the absoluteness of this change, considered as a historical crisis, which forms the cen- tral idea of S. Paul's teaching, and which the aorist marks. We cannot therefore afford to obscure this idea by disregarding the distinctions of grammar. Yet in our English Version it is a mere chance whether in such cases the aorist is translated as an aorist The misconception which arises from this neglect of the aorist has vitally affected the interpretation of one passage. In 2 Cor. v. 14 ' If one died for all, then were d\\dead* ([et] efc virep TTCLVTWV direOavev, apa ol 7raz/T9 aireOavov), our Version substitutes the state of death for the fact of dying, and thus interprets the death to be a death through sin instead of a death to sin. The reference in the context to the old things passing away, and the language of S. Paul 96 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. elsewhere, e.g. Rom. vi. 2, 8, viii. 6, Col. ii. 20, iii. 3, already quoted, seem to show that the true sense is what would naturally be suggested by the correct rendering of the aorist ; that all men have participated potentially in Christ's death, have died with Him to their former selves and to sin, and are therefore bound to lead a new life 1 . Not very unlike the passages, which I have been considering, is Acts xix. 2 el Trvev/jua ajiov eXa/3ere Trio-rev cravres, which our translators give ' Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed? 1 It should run 'Did ye receive the Holy Ghost, when ye believed ?' for the aorist of TrurTevew is used very commonly, not of the continuous state of belief, but of the definite act of accepting the faith ; e.g. Acts xi. 17, Rom. xiii. u, I Cor. iii. 5, xv. 2, Gal. ii. 7, etc. The instances which have been given hitherto more or less directly affect doctrine. In the two next examples, which occur in quotations from the Old Testament, a historical connexion is severed by the mistranslation of the aorist. In Matt. ii. 15 ef 1 The only passages which would seem to favour the other interpre- tation are I Cor. xv. 22 ev ry 'ASa/x, irdvrcs a.ir<ydvf)<rKov<nv and Rom. v. 15 el yap rip TOV evbs 7rapa7rre&/m oi iroXXol airtdavov. Yet even if this interpretation were adopted, the aoristic sense of dirtOavov ought to be preserved; because the potential death of all men in Adam corre- sponds to the potential life of all men in Christ, and is regarded as having been effected once for all in Adam's transgression, as in Rom. v. 15. FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 97 e/cd\e<7a rbv vibv JJLOV is rendered 'Out of Egypt have I called my son ' : but turning to the original passage in Hosea (xi. i) we find that the proper aoristic sense must be restored ; ' When Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt/ Again in 2 Cor. iv. 13 eiricrrevaa $10 \d\rja-a is given 'I believed and therefore have I spoken? a rendering unsuited to its position in the LXX of Ps. cxvi. 10 (cxv. i), whence it is quoted. Such examples as these however are very far from exhausting the subject. In one passage the aorist KTTJaacrdat, is treated as if /ce/crrjcrQai, and rendered ' possess ' instead of ' acquire/ in defiance of a distinc- tion which it does not require the erudition of Lord Macaulay's schoolboy to appreciate: Luke xxi. IQ iv rfj vTrofjLovfj v/j,(t)V KTijaaarOe [1. KTT/crecr^e] r9 ^v^a? vp&v, ' In your patience possess ye your souls/ Errors however occur also in this same word in I Thess. iv. 4 where the present is similarly treated, el&evai /ca- GTOV V/JLWV TO eavTov crKvos KTaadat ev ayiaa/jLO) /cal rifjifj, 'that every one of you should know how to pos- sess his vessel in sanctification and honour'; and again in Luke xviii. 12 where oaa KTwpai is translated 'all that I possess ' : and thus it seems probable that the mistake first arose from a misapprehension of the meaning of KracrOai rather than from a direct confu- sion of tenses. Yet even so this very misapprehen- L. R. 7 98 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. sion must have been owing to the inability to see how the sense ' possess ' is derived from the proper force of the perfect 1 . The treatment of the perfect is almost equally faulty with the treatment of the aorist. Thus in I Cor. xv. 4 sq. S. Paul lays the stress of his argument on the fact that Christ is risen. This perfect eyrfyep- Tai is repeated six times within a few verses (vv. 4, 12, 13, 14, 1 6, 17, 20), while the aorist TJyepBrj is not once used. The point is not that Christ once rose from the grave, but that having risen He lives for ever, as a first-fruit or earnest of the resurrection. Indeed the contrast between the tenses ort erd^ij KOI on 777- yeprai (ver. 4) throws out this idea in still stronger relief. In the I3th and following verses this con- ception becomes so patent on the face of S. Paul's language that our translators could not fail to see it, and accordingly from this point onward the perfect is correctly translated : but the fact that in the two earliest instances where it occurs (vv. 4, 12) eyrjyeprcu 1 In Matt. x. 9 /J.TJ KTJ<rr)<rde xpu0-di>, t^ e older Versions generally render KT-fia-rjadc by ' possess,' for which the A. V. substitutes ' pro- vide,' with the marginal alternative 'get'; and in Acts i. 18 e/crTjcraro Xuptov the oldest Versions have ' hath possessed,' for which the A. V. (after the Bishops' and Geneva Bibles) substitutes ' purchased.' These facts seem to show that the proper distinction between KTaadat and KeKTrjadai (which latter does not occur in the New Testament) was beginning to dawn upon Biblical scholars. FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 99 is treated as an aorist, ' he rose,' shows that they did not regard the rules of grammar, but were guided only by the apparent demands of the sense. Another example, closely allied to the last, occurs in Heb. vii. 14, 22. The context lays stress on the unchangeable priesthood ; ' Thou art a priest for ever,' ' He con- tinueth ever' (vv. 21, 24). Hence in ver. 14 the writer says 7rp6$r)\ov on ef 'lovSa dvareraX/cev 6 Ki?/uo? tffj,Q}v, and in ver. 22 Kara TOGOVTO KOI Kpeirrovos Bta- 6riK7)<s yeyovev eyyvos 'Irjaovs. But these references to present existence are obliterated in the A. V., which substitutes aorists in both cases, ' Our Lord sprang out of Juda,' ' was Jesus made a surety.' These instances have a more or less direct doc- trinal bearing. The examples, which shall be given next, are important in a historical aspect. In the passage (2 Cor. xii. 2 sq.), in which S. Paul describes the visions vouchsafed to one ' caught up to the third heaven,' it can hardly be doubted that he refers to himself. This appears not only from the connexion of the context, but also (in the original) from the mode of expression, olSa civOpwirov, olSa TOV TOLOVTOV avOpuTTov. I have already pointed out (p. 43) the capricious variations in the renderings of olSa, olB'ev, in the context of this passage. But in these two clauses our translators are not only capricious but absolutely wrong, for they give to olSa an aoristic sense which 72 ICO ERRORS AND DEFECTS. it cannot possibly have, * I knew a man,' ' I knew such a man f ; thus disconnecting the actual speaker from the object of the vision, and suggesting to the English reader the idea that the Apostle is speaking of some past acquaintance. Again S. Matthew in three several passages (i. 22, xxi. 4, xxvi. 56) introduces a reference to prophecies in the Old Testament, which have had their fulfilment in incidents of the Gospel history, by the words rovro Se [oXoz/] yeyovev iva TrXypwQfi (or 'iva ir\r]pw6(Tiv) K.T.\. In all three passages, it will be observed, the Evangelist has the perfect yeyovev f is come to pass ' ; and in all three our English Version gives it as an aorist t ivas done.' Now it cannot be urged (as it might with some plausibility in the case of the Apo- calypse) that S. Matthew is careless about the use of the aorist and the perfect, or that he has any special fondness for yeyovev. On the contrary, though the aorist (eyevero, yeveaOai, etc.) frequently occurs in this Gospel, there are not many examples of the perfect yeyovev ; and in almost every instance our Version is faulty. In xix. 8 anr dp^rj? ov yeyovev oi/ro>9 the aoristic rendering ' From the beginning it was not so ' entirely misleads the English reader as to the sense ; in xxiv. 2 1 oia ov yeyovev air dpxfjs, ' Such as hath not been from the beginning/ would (I suppose) be uni- versally accepted as an improvement on the present FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. IOI translation 'Such as was not from the beginning'; and lastly in xxv. 6 Kpavyrj yeyovev, the startling effect of the sudden surprise is expressed by the change of tense from the aorist, ' a cry is raised' and ought not to be neglected. When therefore this Evangelist in three distinct places introduces the fulfilment of a prophecy by yiyovev, the fact cannot be without meaning. In two of these passages editors sometimes attach the TOVTO Se o\ov yeyovev to the words of the previous speaker of the angel in i. 22 and of our Lord in xxvi. 56 in order to explain the perfect. But this connexion is very awkward even in these two cases, and wholly out of the question in the remaining instance (xxi. 4). Is not the true solution this ; that these tenses preserve the freshness of the earliest catechetical narrative of the Gospel history, when the narrator was not so far removed from the fact that it was unnatural for him to say 'This is come to pass'? I find this hypothesis confirmed when I turn to the Gospel of S. John. He too adopts a nearly identical form of words on one occasion to introduce a prophecy, but with a significant change of tense; xix. 36 eyevero yap ravra f iva TJ ypafyrj Tr\r)pw9f). To one writing at the close of the century, the events of the Lord's life would appear as a historic past ; and so the yeyovev of the earlier Evangelist is exchanged for the eyevero of the later. IO2 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. An able American writer on the English language, criticizing a previous effort at revision, remarks some- what satirically that, judging from this revised version, the tenses 'are coming to have in England a force which they have not now in America 1 .' Now I have already conceded that allowance must be made from time to time for difference of idiom in rendering aorists and perfects : and I do not know to what passages in the revision issued by the Five Clergy- men this criticism is intended to apply. But it is important that our new revisers should not defer hastily to such authority, and close too eagerly with a license which may be abused. The fact is, that our judgment in this matter is apt to be misled by two disturbing influences : we must be on our guard alike against the idola fort and against the idola specus. First, the language of the Authorised Version is so wrought into the fabric of our minds by long habit, that the corresponding conception is firmly lodged there also. Thus it happens that when a change of words is offered to us, we unconsciously apply the new words to the old conception and are 1 Marsh's Lectures on the English Language no. xxviii. p. 633, speaking of the translation of S. John by the Five Clergymen. The passage is quoted by Bp. Ellicott (Revision of the English New Testament p. 13), who seems half disposed to acquiesce in the justice of the criticism. FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 1 03 dissatisfied with them because they seem incongru- ous ; and perhaps we conclude that English idiom is violated because they do not mean what we expect them to mean, not being prepared to make the necessary effort required to master the new concep- tion involved in them. Ido la fort omnium molestissima sunt quae ex foedere verborum et nominum se insinua- runt in intellect inn. But secondly, the idols of our cave are scarcely less misleading than the idols of the market-place. Living in the middle of the nineteenth century, we cannot without an effort transfer ourselves to the modes of thought and of language, which were com- mon in the first. The mistranslation from which this digression started affords a good instance of this source of misapprehension. We should not our- selves say ' This is come to pass,' in referring to facts which happened more than eighteen centuries ago, and therefore we oblige the eye-witnesses to hold our own language and say 'This came to pass.' From the perfect tense I pass on to the present. And here I find a still better illustration of the errors into which we are led by following the idola specus. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the sacred writer, when speaking of the temple services and the Mosaic ritual, habitually uses the present tense : e.g. ix. 6, 7, 9 eiariaaiv ol iepels, irpocr^epei, inrep eavrov, Swpd IO4 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. re teal Ova-Lai, TrpocrfyepovTat,, x. I Overlap a? (frepovcriv. Now I do not say that this is absolutely conclusive as showing that the Epistle was written before the destruction of Jerusalem, but it is certainly a valuable indication of an early date and should not have been obliterated. Yet our translators in such cases almost invariably substitute a past tense, as in the passages just quoted, * the priests went in/ ' he offered for himself,' * were offered both gifts and sacrifices/ ' sacrifices which they offered! And simi- larly in ix. 1 8 they render eyKe/calvio-rai, 'was dedi- cated/ and in ix. 9 TOV icaipov TOV eveo-rr)KOTa ' the time then present/ Only in very rare instances do they allow the present to stand, and for the most part in such cases alone where it has no direct his- torical bearing. The temple worship was a thing of the remote past to themselves in the seventeenth century, and they forced the writer of the Epistle to speak their own language. Another and a more important example of the present tense is the rendering of ol crw^ofjievot,. In the language of the New Testament salvation is a thing of the past, a thing of the present, and a thing of the future. S. Paul says sometimes ' Ye (or we) were saved' (Rom. viii. 24), or 'Ye have been saved' (Ephes. ii. 5, 8), sometimes 'Ye are being saved' (i Cor. xv. 2), and sometimes 'Ye shall be FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 105 saved' (Rom. x. 9, 13). It is important to observe this, because we are thus taught that crwrypla involves a moral condition which must have begun already, though it will receive its final accomplishment here- after. Godliness, righteousness, is life, is salvation. And it is hardly necessary to say that the divorce of morality and religion must be fostered and en- couraged by failing to note this and so laying the whole stress either on the past or on the future on the first call or on the final change. It is there- fore important that the idea of salvation as a rescue from sin through the knowledge of God in Christ, and therefore a progressive condition, a present state, should not be obscured ; and we cannot but regret such a translation as Acts ii. 47 'The Lord added to the Church daily such as should be savedl where the Greek 7-01)5 aw*oiievovs implies a different idea. In other passages, Luke xiii. 23, I Cor. i. 18, 2 Cor. ii. 15, Rev. xxi. 24 (omitted in some texts), where ol crw^ofjievoL occurs, the renderings ' be saved, are saved' may perhaps be excused by the requirements of the English language, though these again suggest rather a complete act than a continuous and progressive state. In other cases the substitution of a past tense inflicts a slighter, but still a perceptible injury. It obscures the vividness of the narrative or destroys 106 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. the relation of the sentences. Thus in Matt. iii. I, 13, the appearing of John the Baptist and of our Lord is introduced in the same language: ev feu? ripepais eiceivai,? tr a p ay iv er a i *\(odvvr)<s 6 /SaTTTKTT?/?, and Tore irapaylverai, 6 'Irjcrovs. It is a misfortune that we are obliged to translate the expression Trapa- ryiveTat, by the very ordinary word 'come': but the English Version by rendering the first sentence ' In those days came John/ while it gives the second correctly 'Then cometh Jesus,' quite unnecessarily impairs both the vigour and the parallelism of the narrative. Exactly similar to this last instance is another in S. Luke vii. 33, 34, e\rj\.v6ev jap *lwdvvr)<; 6 f3a7m<rTri<;...e\r)\v0ev 6 wo<? TOV dvdpwirov, where again the first e\r)\v0ev is translated came, the second is come. In rendering imperfect tenses, it is for the most part impossible to give the full sense without encum- bering the English idiom unpleasantly. But in ex- ceptional usages, as for instance where the imperfect has the inchoate, tentative force, its meaning can be preserved without any such sacrifice, and ought not to be obliterated. Thus in Luke i. 59 eicd\ovv avro Zaxapiav is not ' They called it (the child) Zacharias,' but 'They were for calling it,' 'They would have called it' Closely allied to this is the conditional sense of the imperfect, which again our English FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 1 07 translators have rendered inadequately or not at all. Thus in Gal. iv. 20 rjdeXov Be Trapelvai Trpo? v/j,ds apri is not ' I desire to be present with you now,' as our translators have it, but ' I could have desired,' and in Matt. iii. 14 6 'Icodvvrjs Sie/ccoXvev avrov is not 'John forbade him/ but * John would have hindered him.' Again in Rom. ix. 3 rjv^ojjirjv yap dvdOe/jia elvat, avros eyco diro rov Xptcrroi) the moral difficulty disappears, when the words are correctly translated, not as the English Version ' I could wish that myself were accursed for Christ,' but ' I could have wished/ etc. ; because the imperfect itself implies that it is im- possible to entertain such a wish, things being what they are. Again in Acts xxv. 22 e/3ov\6/jLrjv teal CWTO? rov dvOpwirov aicovcrai, the language of Agrip- pa is much more courteous and delicate than our English Version represents it. He does not say * I would also hear the man myself/ but ' I myself also could have wisJied to hear the man/ if the favour had not been too great to ask. Elsewhere our Version is more accurate, e.g. Acts vii. 26 crvvri\\a<T(Tev avrovs et? elprjvrjv ' would have set them at one again 1 .' 2. If the rendering of the tenses affords wide scope for improvement, this is equally the case with the treatment of the definite article. And here again 1 Here however our translators appear to have read <rvrf\a.<rv, so that their accuracy is purely accidental. IOS ERRORS AND DEFECTS. I think it will be seen that theology is almost as deeply concerned as scholarship in the correction of errors. In illustration let me refer to the passage which the great authority of Bentley brought into prominence, and which has often been adduced since his time. In Rom. v. 15 19 there is a sustained contrast between ' the one (6 el?)' and ' tlie many (ot TToXXoi),' but in the English Version the definite article is systematically omitted : ' If through the offence of one many be dead/ and so throughout the passage, closing with, ' For as by one mans disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.' In place of any comment of my own, I will quote Bentley 's words. Pleading for the correct rendering he says ; ' By this accurate version some hurtful mistakes about partial redemption and absolute re- probation had been happily prevented. Our English readers had then seen, what several of the fathers saw and testified, that 01 TroXXot the many, in an antithesis to the one, are equivalent to Trai/re? all in ver. 12 and comprehend the whole multitude, the entire species of mankind, exclusive only of the one 1 ' In other words the benefits of Christ's obedience extend to all men potentially. It is only human self-will which places limits to its operation. 1 Bentley's Works III. p. 244 (cd. Dycc). FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. IOQ Taken in connexion with a previous illustration (p. 93 sq.), this second example from the Epistle to the Romans will enable us to estimate the amount of injury which is inflicted on S. Paul's argument by grammatical inaccuracies. Both the two great lines of doctrinal teaching respecting the Redemption, which run through this Epistle the one relating to the mode of its operation, the other to the extent of its appli- cation are more or less misrepresented in our English Version owing to this cause. The former is obscured, as we saw, by a confusion of tenses ; while the latter is distorted by a disregard of the definite article. This however is the usual manner of treating the article when connected with TroXXol and similar words; e.g. Matt. xxiv. 12 'The love of many shall wax cold,' where the picture in the original is much darker, rwv 7ro\\d)v 'the many/ the vast majority of the disciples ; or again Phil. i. 14 ' And many of the brethren in the Lord waxing confident/ where the error is even greater, for S. Paul distinctly writes TOI)? TrXetoua? 'the greater part.' Similarly also it is neglected before XCHTTO? : e.g. Luke xxiv. 10 'And other women that were with them' (al \onral crvv aurat?) ; I Cor. ix. 5 * To lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles' (eo? KOL ol Xeuvrot aTrooroXot) ; 2 Cor. xii. 13 'Ye were inferior to other churches' (ra? X(H7r9 efctc\r)<rias)', in all which passages historical HO ERRORS AND DEFECTS. facts are obscured or perverted by the neglect of the article. And again in 2 Cor. ii. 6, where 77 eVm/u'a wuTt] r) VTTO rouv iT\ei6v(ov is rendered ' this punishment which was inflicted of manyl the conception of a regular judicial assembly, in which the penalty is decided by the vote of the majority, disappears. Nor is the passage quoted by Bentley the only example in which the broad features of S. Paul's teaching suffer from an indifference to the presence or the absence of the definite article. The distinc- tion between i/o/^o? and 6 1/0/^09 is very commonly disregarded, and yet it is full of significance. Be- hind the concrete representation the Mosaic law itself S. Paul sees an imperious principle, an over- whelming presence, antagonistic to grace, to liberty, to spirit, and (in some aspects) even to life abstract law, which, though the Mosaic ordinances are its most signal and complete embodiment, nevertheless is not exhausted therein, but exerts its crushing power over the conscience in diverse manifestations. The one the concrete and special is 6 z/o/ito? ; the other the abstract and universal is vopos. To the full understanding of such passages as Rom. ii. 12 sq., iii. 19 sq., iv. 13 sq., vii. I sq., Gal. iii. 10 sq., and in- deed to an adequate conception of the leading idea of S. Paul's doctrine of law and grace, this distinc- tion is indispensable. FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. I 1 1 The Gospels again will furnish illustrations of a somewhat different kind. To us ' Christ ' has become a proper name, and, as such, rejects the definite article. But in the Gospel narratives, if we except the headings or prefaces and the after-comments of the Evangelists themselves (e.g. Matt. i. i, Mark i. i, John i. 17), no instance of this usage can be found. In the body of the narratives we read only of 6 Xpio-Tos, the Christ, the Messiah, whom the Jews had long expected, and who might or might not be identified with the person 'Jesus,' accord- ing to the spiritual discernment of the individual. X/3tc7T09 is nowhere connected with 'Irjcrovs in the Gospels with the exception of John xvii. 3, where it occurs in a prophetic declaration of our Lord iva <yLvwcTKwariv TOV JJLOVOV d\rjdivov eoz> KOI ov aTretrretXa? '1*70-01)1; Xpia-rov ; nor is it used without the de- finite article in more than four passages, Mark ix. 41 ez> ovofjiari on XpiaTov eVre, Luke ii. 1 1 arwrrjp os e<rriv XpWTo? Kupto?, xxiii. 2 \eyovra eavrov XpiaTov, John ix. 22 avrov 6/j,o\oyr)(rrj ~Kpia-r6v, where the very ex- ceptions strengthen the rule. The turning-point is the Resurrection : then and not till th&n we hear of ' Jesus Christ ' from the lips of contemporary speakers (Acts ii. 38, iii. 6), and from that time forward Christ begins to be used as a proper name, with or with- out the article. This fact points to a rule which I I 2 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. should be strictly observed in translation. In the Gospel narratives 6 Xpio-ros should always be ren- dered * the Christ,' and never 'Christ' simply. In some places our translators have observed this (e.g. Matt. xxvi. 63, Mark viii. 29), and occasionally they have even overdone the translation, rendering 6 Xptcrro9 by l that Christ* John i. 25, [vi. 69], or * tlie very Christ ' John vii. 26 ; but elsewhere under exactly the same conditions the article is omitted, e.g. Matt, xvi. 1 6, xxiv. 5, Luke xxiii. 35, 39, etc. Yet the ad- vantage of recognising its presence even in extreme cases, where at first sight it seems intrusive, would be great. In such an instance as that of Herod's enquiry, Matt. ii. 4 TTOV 6 X/otoTo? yevvarai, ' Where Christ should be born,' probably all would acknow- ledge the advantage of substituting ' the Christ ' ; but would not the true significance of other passages, where the meaning is less obvious, be restored by the change ? Thus in Matt. xi. 2 6 Be ^\u>dvwri<$ aKovaras eV TO) e<7/zo>T77jCHft> TO, pya TOV XpicrTov, the Evangelist's meaning is not that the Baptist heard what Jesus was doing, but that he was informed of one per- forming those works of mercy and power which the Evangelic prophet had foretold as the special func- tion of the Messiah 1 . I have studiously confined 1 I find that the view, which is here maintained, of the use of Xpi<7Tos and 6 X/>WT6$ is different alike from that of Middleton (Greek FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 113 the rigid application of this rule to the historical portions of the Gospels and excepted the Evange- lists' own prefaces and comments : but even in these latter a passage is occasionally brought out with much greater force by understanding rov ^Kpiarov to apply to the ofnce rather than the individual, and translat- ing it 'the Christ/ In the genealogy of S. Matthew for instance, where the generations are divided sym- metrically into three sets of fourteen, the Evangelist seems to connect the last of each set with a critical epoch in the history of Israel ; the first reaching from the origin of the race to the commencement of the monarchy (ver. 6 * David the king') ; the second from the commencement of the monarchy to the captivity in Babylon ; the third and last from the captivity to the coming of the Messiah, the Christ (eo>9 TOV XpicrTov). Connected with the title of the Messiah is that of the prophet who occupied a large space in the Messianic horizon of the Jews the prophet whom Moses had foretold, conceived by some to be the Messiah himself, by others an attendant in his train. In one passage only (John vii. 40) is 6 TT/JO^TT??, so used, rightly given in our Version. In the rest (John Article on Mark ix. 41) and from those of others whom he criticizes. I should add that I wrote all these paragraphs relating to the definite article without consulting Middleton, and without conscious reminiscence of his views on any of the points discussed. L. R. 8 114 ERRORS AND DEFECTS; i. 21, 25, vi. 14) its force is weakened by the exag- gerated rendering ' that prophet'; while in the margin of i. 21 (as if to show how little they understood the exigencies of the article) our translators have offered an alternative, 'Art thou a prophet ?' As relating to the Person and Office of Christ another very important illustration presents itself. In Col. i. 19 S. Paul declares that ev avr<p evSotcrjo-ev irav TO 7r\ripa)/jLa /caToitcfjacu, which is rendered 'For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell.' Here an important theological term is sup- pressed by the omission of the article ; for TO TrX?;- pwfjLa is ' the fulness/ ' the plenitude,' pleroma being a recognised expression to denote the totality of the Divine powers and attributes (John i. 16, Eph. i. 23, iii. 19, iv. 13, Col. ii. 9), and one which afterwards became notorious in the speculative systems of the Gnostic sects. And with this fact before us, it is a question whether we should not treat TO irKt'jp^^a as a quasi-personality and translate * In Him all the Fulness was pleased to dwell,' thus getting rid of the ellipsis which our translators have supplied by the Father in italics; but at all events the article must be preserved. Again, more remotely connected with our Lord's office is another error of omission. It is true of Christianity, as it is true of no other religious system, FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 115 that the religion is identified with, is absorbed in, the Person of its founder. The Gospel is Christ and Christ only. This fact finds expression in many ways : but more especially in the application of the same language to the one and to the other. In most cases this identity of terms is equally apparent in the English and in the Greek. But in one instance it is obliterated by a mistranslation of the definite article. Our Lord in S. John's Gospel, in answer to the dis- ciple's question ' How can we know the wayT answers 'I am the way* (xiv. 5, 6). Corresponding to this we ought to find that in no less than four places in the Acts of the Apostles the Gospel is called ' the way' absolutely; ix. 2 ' If he found any that were of the way (lav TWCLS evprj 7779 6&ov of/ra?)'; xix. 9 'Divers believed not, but spake evil of the way'] xix. 23 ( There arose no small stir about the way'] xxiv. 22 'Having more perfect knowledge of the way'] but in all these passages the fact disappears in the English Version, which varies the rendering between * this way' and * that way,' but never once translates ryv 6S6v 'the way.' But more especially are these omissions of the article frequent in those passages which relate to the Second Advent and its accompanying terrors or glories. The imagery of this great crisis was defi-. nitely conceived, and as such the Apostles refer to it. 82 I 1 6 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. In the Epistles to the Thessalonians more especially S. Paul mentions having repeatedly dwelt on these topics to his converts ; ' Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things ?' (2 Thess. ii. 5). Accordingly, he appeals to incidents connected with the Second Advent, as known facts : eav JJLT) e\6r) r) diroGTacria trpwrov /cal dTrotcaXvfyBfi o avOpwiros T^9 a/jLaprla? \v. L afo/z/a?] ' Except the falling away come first and the man of sin be revealed,' where our Version makes the Apostle say, ' a falling away/ 'that man of sin/ just as a little lower down it translates o avo^o^ ' that wicked/ instead of ' the lawless one.' Similarly in the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi. 10) it is said of Abraham in the original that ' He looked for the city which hath the foundations (efeSe^ero rrjv rou? 0[jL\iovs e^ovaav iro\iv}! A definite image here rises before the sacred writer's mind of the new Jerusalem such as it is described in the Apocalypse, ' The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb' (xxi. 14), ' The foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones, etc.' (xxi. 19 sq.) 1 . But in our Version the words are robbed of their meaning, and Abraham is made to look for l a city which hath foundations ' a senseless expression, for no city is without them. Again, in the Apoca- 1 See Abp. Trench's Authorised Version, p. 86. FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 1 1/ lypse the definite article is more than once disregarded under similar circumstances. Take for instance vii. 13, 14 'What are these which are arrayed in white robes (ra? o-roXa? ra? Xeu/ca?)?' with the reply, * These are they which came out of great tribulation (etc r^? 0XA/reo>9 T^? /JLeydXrjs)' ; xvii. I 'That sitteth upon many waters' (eVl r&v vSdrwv rwv TTO\\WV, for this was the reading in their text). And another instance, not very dissimilar, occurs in the Gospels. The same expression is used six times in S. Matthew (viii. 12, xiii. 42, 50, xxii. 13, xxiv. 51, xxv. 30) and once in S. Luke (xiii. 28) to describe the despair and misery of the condemned : e/cel co-rat, 6 K\av0^o<i Kal 6 Ppvy/jLos TWV 686vT(0v, where the rendering should be corrected into 'There shall be the wailing and tJte gnashing of teeth.' The last instance which I shall take connected with this group of facts and ideas relating to the end of the world is more subtle, but not on that account less important. I refer to the peculiar sense of 77 opyr), as occurring in a passage which has been variously explained, but which seems to admit only of one probable interpretation, Rom. xii. 19/477 eavrovs K$i,tcovvTes, dyaTrrjTol, d\\a Sore TOTTOV rfj opyfj' ye- ypairrai yap 'E//,ol e/cSl/crja-is, eyca avTaTroSwaa), \eyt Kvpios. With this compare Rom. v. 9 crwOrjao^eda $C avrov diro 777? opyfjs, which is rendered ' We shall Il8 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. be saved from wrath through him,' and more especially I Thess. ii. 16 <f>Oaa-V (efydaicev) e eV avrovs 77 opyrj et<? re'Xo?, where the definite article is correctly repro- duced in our Version, 'For the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.' From these passages it appears that r} cpyrj, 'the wrath,' used absolutely, signifies the Divine retribution ; and the force of S. Paul's injunction in Rom. xii. 19 Bore TOTTOV rfj opyfj is this : * Do not avenge yourselves : do not anticipate the Divine retribution ; do not thrust yourselves into God's place, but leave room for His judgments' a sense which the English rendering * rather give place unto wrath ' does not suggest, and probably was not intended to represent. In the same way TO Oe\rjfjLa is the Divine Will (Rom. ii. 18 ryLVtocnceis TO 6e\rjfj.a l ) 1 This word 04\rifj.a came to be so appropriated to the Divine Will, that it is sometimes used in this sense even without the definite article ; e.g. Ignat. Rom. i edvirep 6t\ir)fj.a $ TOV d^twdrjvaL fj.e (the correct text), Ephes. 20 lav pe /caTait&<r?j 'lyffous X/HO-TOS kv rrj irpoffevxy v/j.wv leal 0t\T)/j.a 17, Smyni. i viov 0eoG /card, 6^\tifj.a. KO.I dvvafjuv [GeoD] (where GeoO is doubtful), ii Kara 64\t)/m KaTrjt-uLBtjv. These passages point to the true interpretation of i Cor. xvi. 12 OVK TIV 6{\i]fj.a. 'iva vvv 2\0ri, t\cv<rcTai 5^ 8rav evKaip^ffrj which is (I believe) universally interpreted as in our English Version 'his will was not to come,' but which ought to be explained 'It was not God's will that he should come.' They also indicate, as I believe, the true reading in Rom. xv. 32 tva. kv x<W ^0w "7>te {,/jas i<i 0eXiJ/iaros, where various additions appear in the MSS, 0eoy in AC, Kvpiov 'Irjffov in B, 'lijirov XpiaroO in N, X/3tTToG 'Irjffov in DFG, but where 0\i]tJ.a appears to be used absolutely. FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 119 and TO ovofjua the Divine name (Phil. ii. 9 TO ovopa TO virep Trav ovofia). In the last passage however it is unfair to charge our translators with an inaccurate rendering ' gave Him a name,' for their incorrect text omitted the article ; but TO ovopa is the true reading, and it is superfluous to remark how much is gained thereby. In other passages, where no doctrinal considera- tions are involved, a historical incident is misrepre- sented or the meaning of a passage is perverted by the neglect or the mistranslation of the article. Thus in two several passages S. Paul's euphemism of TO Trpaypa, when speaking of sins of the flesh, is effaced, and he is made to say something else : in I Thess. iv. 6 ' That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter (eV T&> TT pay part),' where the sin of dis- honest gain is substituted for the sin of unbridled sensuality by the mistranslation ; and in 2 Cor. vii. 1 1 'Ye have approved yourselves to be clear in this matter (eV TW TrpdjfWTi)' where, though the perversion is much less considerable, a slightly different turn is given to the Apostle's meaning by substituting ' this ' for 'the. 1 Again, in I Cor. v. 9, where S. Paul is made to say, * I wrote unto you in an Epistle ' (instead of * my Epistle ' or ' letter '), the mistranslation of ev rfj e7U(TTo\f] has an important bearing on the interpre- tation of his allusion. Again in 2 Cor. xii. 18 'I I2O ERRORS AND DEFECTS. desired Titus, and with him I sent a brother (TOV aSeX<oy)/ the error adds to the difficulty in discerning the movements of S. Paul's delegates previous to the writing of the letter. And in such renderings as John iii. IO av el 6 SiSaa-^aXo? TOV *\apar]\ ; ' Art thou a master of Israel ?', and Rev. iii. 17 <n) el 6 raXatVajpo? KOI [6] eXeetyo? 'Thou art wretched and miserable,' though there is no actual misleading, the passages lose half their force by the omission. In another class of passages some fact of geo- graphy or archaeology lurks under the definite article, such as could proceed only from the pen of an eye- witness or at least of one intimately acquainted with the circumstances. In almost every instance of this kind the article is neglected in our Version, though it is obviously important at a time when the evidences of Christianity are so narrowly scanned, that these more minute traits of special knowledge should be kept in mind. Thus for instance in John xii. 13, 'They took branches of palm-trees/ the original has TO, fiata TOJV fyoivUwv ' the branches of tlie palm- trees' the trees with which the Evangelist himself was so familiar, which clothed the eastern slopes of the Mount of Olives and gave its name to the village of Bethany ' the house of dates/ Thus again in the Acts (ix. 35) the words translated ' Lydda and Saron ' are AvBBa ical TOV ^apwva, ' Lydda and the FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 121 Sharon 1 / the former being the town, the latter the district in the neighbourhood, and therefore having the definite article in this the only passage in which it occurs in the New Testament, as it always has in the Old Testament, Hash-sharon, 'the Sharon,' the woody plain, just as we talk of 'the Weald,' 'the Downs/ etc. 2 Again there is mention of '//^pinnacle (TO irrepvyiov) of the temple' in the record of the tempta- tion (Matt. iv. 5, Luke iv. 9) the same expression likewise being used by the Jewish Christian historian Hegesippus in the second century, when describing the martyrdom of James the Lord's brother, who is thrown down from ' the TTTepvyiov' 3 ; so that (what- ever may be the exact meaning of the word translated ' pinnacle ') some one definite place is meant, and the impression conveyed to the English reader by 'a pinnacle' is radically wrong. Again in the history 1 The reading fodpuva or ao-ffdpwva, which is found in some few second-rate authorities, is a reproduction of the Hebrew, founded perhaps on the note of Origen (?) rtvts d acrffdpuva (ftaaiv, oti"xl ffapuva, oirep Kpeirrov (see Tisch. Nov. Test. Grcec.ed. 8, II. p. 80). In direct contrast to this unconscious reduplication of the article stands the reading of K (corrected however by a later hand) which omits the TO'V, from not understanding the presence of the article. 2 The illustration is Mr Grove's in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible s. v. Saron. 3 In Euseb. H.E. ii. 23 ffrrjdt oftv M rb irrepvyiov Tovlepov...t<mr)o-av o$v ol Trpoeipr)[j.froi ypaniMreis Kal Qapurouoi TOV 122 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. of the cleansing of the temple the reference to the seats of them that sold 'the doves' (ra? Trepto-repa?) in two Evangelists (Matt. xxi. 12, Mark xi. 15) indicates the pen of a narrator, who was accustomed to the sight of the doves which might be purchased within the sacred precincts by worshippers intending to offer the purificatory offerings enjoined by the Mosaic law (Luke ii. 24). In. like manner 'the bushel' and 'the candlestick' in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. v. 15; comp. Mark iv. 21, Luke xi. 33) point to the simple and indispensable furniture in every homely Jewish household. And elsewhere casual allusions to * the cross-way ' (Mark xi. 4), ' the steep ' (Mark v. 13, 'a steep place,' A. V.), 'the synagogue' or 'our synagogue' (Luke vii. 5, ' He hath built us a synagogue,' A. V. 1 ) and the like which are not un- frequent all have their value, and ought not to be obscured. But there are two remarkable instances of the persistent presence of the definite article both con- nected with the Lake of Galilee which deserve special attention, but which nevertheless do not ap- pear at all to the English reader. 1 In Acts xvii. i also, where the A. V. has ' Thessalonica where was a synagogue of the Jews,' our translators certainly read 6Vou rp ij cwayuyri, though the article must be omitted in the Greek, if a strong combination of the oldest authorities is to have weight. FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 123 Most students of the New Testament have had their attention called to the fact that our Lord, before delivering the discourse which we call 'the Sermon on the Mount/ is recorded to have gone up not ' into a mountain ' but ' into the mountain (TO 0/005),' Matt, v. i 1 ; and they have been taught to observe also that S. Luke (vi. 17) in describing the locality where a discourse very similar to S. Matthew's Sermon on the Mount is held says, ' He came down with them and stood,' not (as our English Version makes him say) 'in the plain' (as if eV r<w TreStV) but ' on a level place (eVl TOTTOU ireSivov),' where the very expression suggests that the spot was situated in the midst of a hilly country. Thus, by respecting the presence of the article in the one Evangelist and its absence in the other, the two accounts are so far brought into 1 Dean Stanley (Sinai and Palestine, p. 361), supporting the tra- ditional site of the 'Mount of Beatitudes,' writes: 'None of the other mountains in the neighbourhood could answer equally well to this de- scription, inasmuch as they are merged into the uniform barrier of hills round the lake; whereas this stands separate "the mountain," which alone could lay claim to a distinct name, with the one exception of Tabor which is too distant to answer the requirement.' If the view which I have taken in the text be correct, this ' uniform barrier of hills' would itself be rb 6pos : at all events the fact that rb 6pos is the common expression in the Evangelists shows that the definite article does not distinguish the locality of the Sermon on the Mount from those of several other incidents in this neighbourhood ; though possibly the in- dependent reasons in favour of the traditional site may be sufficient without this aid. 124 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. accordance that the description of the localities at all events offers no impediment to our identifying the discourses. But it is important to observe in addition, that whenever the Evangelists speak of incidents occurring above the shores of the Lake of Galilee, they invari- ably use TO o/jo? 1 and never 0/009 or ra 0/977, either of which at first sight would have seemed more natural. The probable explanation of this fact is that TO opos stands for the mountain district the hills as opposed to the level shores more especially as the corre- sponding Hebrew ^HD is frequently so used, and in such cases is translated TO o/oo? in the LXX : e.g. ' the mountain of Judah,' ' the mountain of Ephraim,' Josh, xvii. 15, xix. 50, xx. 7, etc. 2 But, whatever may be the explanation, the article ought to be retained throughout. Only less persistent 3 is the presence of the article 1 The only exceptions, I believe, to the insertion of the definite article, are in the cases of the temptation (Matt. iv. 8, [Luke iv. 5]), and of the transfiguration (Matt. xvii. i, Mark ix. 2), in all which passages the expression is es opos ty-rjKbv \\Lav~\. 2 It is no objection to this interpretation that S. Luke twice uses the more classical expression ij dpeivrj in speaking of the hill-country of Judaea: i. 39, 65. Wherever he treads on the same ground with S. Matthew and S. Mark he has rb 6pos. The portion of his narrative in which i] dpeiv^ occurs is derived from some wholly independent source. 3 The common text however inserts the article in a few passages FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 125 in 'the ship* (TO ir\olov) in connexion with the navi- gation of the Sea of Galilee. Whatever may be the significance of this fact whether it simply bears testimony to the vividness with which each scene in succession presented itself to the first narrator or narrators, or whether some one well-known boat was intended (as the narrative of John vi. 22 sq. might suggest) the article ought to have been preserved in the English Version ; whereas in this case, as in the last, the translators have been guided not by grammar but by 'common sense/ for the most part translating TO cpo?, TO TrXoiov, on each occasion where they appear first in connexion with a fresh incident, by ' a mountain,' ' a ship/ and afterwards by ' the mountain/ ' the ship.' Yet on the other hand, where this phenomenon ap- pears in the original Greek, that is, where an object is indefinite when first introduced and becomes definite after its first mention, our translators have frequently disregarded this 'common sense' rule and departed from the Greek. Thus in the account of S. Peter's where it is absent from one or more of the best MSS (e.g. Matt. viii. 23, ix. i, xiii. 2, xiv. 22, Mark iv. i, vi. 45). In Matt. xiv. 13 tv ir\oi(f is read by all the ancient authorities which have the words at all. In cases where the MSS differ it is not easy to see whether or not the omission of the article was a scribe's correction. Generally it may be said that the article with TrXotoi' is more persistent in the other Evange- lists than in S. Matthew. 126 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. three denials in Mark xiv. 66, we are told that ' one of the maidservants (jiia TWV TrcuSicrfCtov) of the high- priest ' questioned him and elicited his first denial ; then ?; TraiSicr/crj l&ovcra CLVTGV iraXiv rjp^aro \eyeiv, 1 The maidservant seeing him again began to say'; but our translators in the second passage render it c a maidservant/ thus making two distinct persons. The object was doubtless to bring the narrative into strict conformity with Matt. xxvi. 69, 71 (jiia TTCU&IO-KT) ...a\\7j)', but, though there might seem to be an immediate gain here, this disregard of grammar is really a hindrance to any satisfactory solution, where an exact agreement in details is unimportant, and where strict harmony if attainable must depend on the tumultuous character of the scene, in which more than one interrogator would speak at the same time 1 . Our translators however were at fault not through any want of honesty but from their imperfect knowledge of grammar, for they repeatedly err in the same way where no purpose is served; e.g. Mark ii. 15, 16, 'Many publicans and sinners (?roXXol Te\wvai ical a/jLapTO)\o[) sat also together with Jesus... and when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners (/JLCTO, TWV rekwvwv KOI a f /za/>TG>X<wi/)...How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners (yu,era r < v reXcovvv /cal dfj,apTco\tov) ? ' I Joh. v. 6 1 See the solution in Westcott's Introduction to the Gospels > p. 280. FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 'This is he that came by water and blood (Si KOI aJ/iaro?), even Jesus Christ ; not by water (eV TO> only, but by water (eV TO> vSari) and blood (TW '; Rev. xi. 9, 1 1 'Shall see their dead bodies three days and an half (^epa? r/oefc /cat ^cr after three days and an half (yuera ras rpri? jj /cat Tjfjburv) etc.' Omissions of this class are very numerous. The error of inserting the article where it is absent is less frequent than that of omitting it where it is present, but not less injurious to the sense. Thus in I Tim. iii. 1 1 yvvai/cas ooo-avrcos aeiivas would hardly have been rendered ' Even so must their wives be grave,' if the theory of the definite article had been understood ; for our translators would have seen that the reference is to 'yvvalicas Bia/covovs, 'women-deacons' or 'deaconesses/ and not to the wives of the deacons 1 . Again, in John iv. 27 eOav/jua^ov ori fiera fyvvaiicos e\d\i, the English Version ' They marvelled that He talked with the woman' implies that the disciples 1 The office of deaconess is mentioned only in one other passage in the New Testament (Rom. xvi. i) ; and there also it is obliterated in the English Version by the substitution of the vague expression ' which is a servant ' for the more definite oftaav diaKovov. If the testimony borne in these two passages to a ministry of women in the Apostolic times had not been thus blotted out of our English Bibles, attention would proba- bly have been directed to the subject at an earlier date, and our English Church would not have remained so long maimed in- one of her hands. 128 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. knew her shameful history a highly improbable sup- position, since she is obviously a stranger whose character our Lord reads through His divine intui- tion alone ; whereas the true rendering, * He talked with a woman,' which indeed alone explains the em- phatic position of <y V vaiKQ<>, points to their surprise that He should break through the conventional restraints imposed by rabbinical authority and be seen speaking to one of the other sex in public 1 . Again in Luke vi. 1 6 09 [/cal] eyevero TrpoBoTrjs ought not to be trans- lated ' Which also was the traitor/ because the sub- sequent history of Judas is not assumed to be known to S. Luke's readers, but ' Who also became a traitor/ Again it is important for geographical reasons that in Acts viii. 5 Philip should not be represented as going down 'to the city of Samaria' (et9 iroXiv rrjs Sa/zape/a?), if the reading which our translators had before them be correct 2 , because the rendering may lead to a wrong identification of the place. And lastly, Kara eoprrjv, which means simply 'at festival-time/ should not be translated 'at the feast' (Luke xxiii. 17), still less 'at that feast' (Matt, xxvii. 15, Mark xv. 6), because these renderings seem to limit the custom to the feast of the Passover a limitation which is not 1 A rabbinical precept was, * Let no one talk with a woman in the street, no not with his own wife': see Lightfoot's Works, u. p. 543. 2 ds Tty irb\iv however ought almost certainly to be read. FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 1 29 implied in the original expression and certainly is not required by the parallel passage in S. John (xviil 39). Happily in another passage (John v. I //.era ravra TJV eop-rrj TWV 'lovSatW), which is important in its bearing on the chronology of our Lord's life, our translators have respected the omission of the article before eoprtj ; but that their accuracy in this instance was purely accidental appears from the fact that a chapter later (vi. 4) TO Traaya $ eoprr) T&V 'lovSaitov is rendered ' the Passover, a feast of the Jews.' But if, after the examples already given, any doubt could still remain that the theory of the definite article was wholly unknown to our trans- lators, the following passages, in which almost every conceivable rule is broken, must be regarded as con- clusive : Matt. iii. 4 avros Se 6 '\wdvvr]<s el^ev TO evovpa ' And the same John had his raiment ' (where the true rendering ' But John himself involves an antithesis of the prophetic announcement and the actual appear- ance of the Baptist); John iv. 37 ev TOVTO* 6 \6yos ecrrlv 6 d\r)0ivo<; 'Herein is that saying true'; ib. v. 44 rrjv Bo^av rrjv Trapd rov JAOVOV eoO * The honour that cometh from God only* ; Acts xi. 17 TTJV ftwpeav eScofcev avTols 6 eo? oj? Kal r^iiv cTrl rov Kvpiov ' God gave them the like gift as He did unto us who believed on the Lord'; I Cor. viii. 10, 12 77 (rvvelorja-is avrov do-6evov<$ ovTo<s...'rvirTov'res avrwv L R. 9 I3O ERRORS AND DEFECTS. rrjv crvveiSrja-w daOevovcrav 'The conscience of him which is weak... wound their weak conscience'; 2 Cor. viii. 19 7rpc9 TYJV avrov TOV TLvpiov 6%av 'To the glory of the same Lord ' ; I Tim .vi. 2 TUG-TOI elaw /cal dyaTrrjrol ol r?79 evepyeaias avTiKa^^avo^voi ' They are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit ' ; ib. vi. 5 VO/JLL- ZOVTWV TropKTjJLov elvat, TTJV ev<re/3eiav l Supposing that gain is godliness'; 2 Tim. ii. 19 6 ^kvroi crrepeo? #e//,eXto9 TOV 0eoO ea-rrjKev ' Nevertheless the founda- tion of God standeth sure'; Heb. vi. 8 /c(f>epovo-a Se aicavOas Kal T/H/SoXou? d&o/cifjios ' But that whicJi beareth thorns and briers is rejected ' ; ib. vi. 16 iracr^ airrols dvnXoylas Trepa? et? fiefiaiciMTiv 6 o/3/co? 'An oath for confirmation is to them an end of all strife ' ; ib. ix. I TO re ayiov Koa/jLi/cov'And a worldly sanctuary'; ib. x. I rat? aiJrafc Qvalais a? irpovfyepovcnv l With those sacrifices which they offered ' ; Rev. xix. 9 ovrot, ol \6yoi, aXyOivol elcri TOV 6eoO 'These are the true sayings of God.' There is however one passage, in which this fault is committed and on which it may be worth while to dwell at greater length, because it does not appear to have been properly understood. In John v. 35 the words eicelvo<; r\v o Xi^z/o? 6 Kaioiievos Kal (fraivwvj in which our Lord describes the Baptist, are translated in our Version ' He was a burning and a shining light.' Thus rendered, the expression appears as in- FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 131 tended simply to glorify John. But this is not the sense which the context requires, and it is only at- tained by a flagrant disregard of the articles. Com- mentators have correctly pointed out that John is here called 6 \v^vo<; ' the lamp ' ; he was not TO <f> o>? 'the light' (i. 8) 1 ; for Christ Himself and Christ only is ' the light' (i. 9, iii. 19, ix. 5, etc.). Thus the ren- dering of 6 \vxyos is vitally wrong, as probably few would deny. But it has not been perceived how much the contrast between the Baptist and the Sa- viour is strengthened by a proper appreciation of the remaining words 6 KOLLO^VO^ teal (fratvcov. The word is 'to burn, to kindle,' as in Matt. v. 15 ovSe \v%vov ' Neither do men light a candle ' : so too Luke xii. 35 ol \v^yoi KaLofievoi, Rev. iv. 5, viii. 10. Thus it implies that the light is not in- herent, but borrowed ; and the force of the expression will be, ' He is the lamp that is kindled and so shineth.' Christ Himself is the centre and source of light ; the Baptist has no light of his own, but draws all his illumination from this greater One. He is only as the light of the candle, for whose rays indeed men are grateful, but which is pale, flickering, trans- itory, compared with the glories of the Eternal flame from which itself is kindled. 1 Here again (i. 8) much is lost in the English Version by rendering O$K T]V tKelvo? rb <p<2s 'He was not that light.' 92 132 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. 3. After the tenses and the definite article, the prepositions deserve to be considered : for here also there is much room for improvement. Of these &a holds the first place in importance : yet in dealing with this preposition we are met with a difficulty. The misunderstandings which arise in the mind of an English reader are due in most pas- sages rather to the archaisms than to the errors of our translators : and archaisms are very intractable. Where in common language we now say 'by' and 'through' (i.e. 'by means of) respectively, our trans- lators, following the diction of their age, generally use 'of and 'by' respectively 'of denoting the agent (VTTO), and ' by ' the instrument or means (JBick). This however is not universally the case, but VTTO is sometimes translated 'by' (e.g. Luke ii. 18) and Sea sometimes 'through' (e.g. John i. 7). Such excep- tions seem to show that the language was already in a state of transition : and this supposition is confirmed by observing that in the first passage Tyndale and the earlier Versions render T&V \a\rj6evrwv avrois i>7rb TWV TTo^ltevtov ' those things which were told them of the shepherds' a rendering still retained even in the Bishops' and Geneva Bibles, and first altered ap- parently by King James's revisers. From these archaisms great ambiguity arises. When we hear ' It was said of him,' we understand FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 133 at once l about or concerning him,' but this is not the meaning which this preposition bears in our New Testament. And again, when we read ' It was sent by me,' we understand ' I sent it,' but neither again is this the meaning intended. In the modern lan- guage 'by' represents the sender (UTTO), whereas in the old it denotes the bearer (&a) of the letter or parcel. We do not venture to use l by' meaning the inter- mediate agency or instrument, except in cases where the form or the matter of the sentence shows dis- tinctly that the primary agent is not intended, so that no confusion is possible, as * I sent it by him/ ' I was informed by telegraph.' Otherwise misunder- standing is inevitable. Thus in Acts xii. 9 ' He wist not that it was true which was done by the angel ' (TO yivoiievov Sia rov dyyeXov), or in Acts ii. 43 'Many wonders and signs were done by the Apostles' (Sta T&V aTTocrroXo)!/ cyiveTo), no English reader would suspect that the angel and the Apostles respectively are re- presented as the doers only in the sense in which a chisel may be said to carve a piece of wood, as instru- ments in the hands of an initiative power. In the same way Acts ii. 23 ' Ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain' is, I fancy, wholly misunderstood : nor indeed would it be. easy without a knowledge of the Greek, Sia xeipwv avo^wv^, to dis- 1 I have taken xfipuv as the reading which our translators had before 134 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. cover that by the * wicked hands/ or rather * lawless hands/ is meant the instrumentality of the avofioi, the heathen Romans, whom the Jews addressed by S. Peter had used as their tools to compass our Lord's death. And again, such renderings as Gal. iii. 19 'ordained by angels* (Siarayek Si dyye\cov), and Eph. iii. 10 'might be known by the Church (yvcopi- aQfi Bid T?;? eKKXycrias, i.e. might be made known through the Church) the manifold wisdom of God/ are quite misleading. It was not however for the sake of such isolated examples as these that I entered upon this discussion. There are two very important classes of passages, in which the distinc- tion between VTTO (djro) and Bid is very important, and in which therefore this ambiguity is much to be regretted. The first of these has reference to Inspiration. Wherever the sacred writers have occasion to quote or to refer to the Old Testament, they invariably apply the preposition Bid, as denoting instrumentality, to the lawgiver or the prophet or the psalmist, while they reserve VTTO, as signifying the primary motive agency, to God Himself. This rule is, I believe, universal. Some few exceptions, it is true, occur in the received text; but all these vanish, when the them. But the correct text is unquestionably Sid. x l P^ o-vb/j-wv 'by the hand of lawless men,' which brings out the sense still more clearly. FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 135 readings of the older authorities are adopted 1 : and this very fact is significant, because it points to a con- trast between the persistent idea of the sacred writers themselves and the comparative indifference of their later transcribers. Sometimes Sia occurs alone, e.g. Matt. xxi. 4 TO /3?70ei> Sia TOV TrpocfrrjTov, xxiv. 15 TO pyOev &ia &avt,r)\, etc. ; sometimes in close connexion with VTTO, e.g. Matt. i. 22 TO prjOev VTTO K.vpiov St,a rov Trpo^Tov (comp. ii. 15). It is used moreover not only when the word is mentioned as spoken, but also when it is mentioned as written ; e.g. Matt. ii. 5 jap ryeypaTTTat, Si a TOV trpocfrrjTOV, Luke xviii. 31 ra yeypafji/jieva Sia TWV TrpotyrjTwv. Yet this signi- ficant fact is wholly lost to the English reader. The other class of passages has a still more im- portant theological bearing, having reference to the Person of Christ. The preposition, it is well known, which is especially applied to the Office of the Divine 1 In Matt. ii. 17, iii. 3, the readings of the received text are faro 'lepefdov, virb 'Rffaiov respectively, but all the best critical editions read Sid. in both places, following the preponderance of ancient authority. In Matt, xxvii. 35, Mark xiii. 14, the clauses containing virb in this connexion are interpolations, and are struck out in the best editions. In all these four passages our A.V. has 'by,' though the transla- tors had virb in their text and (following their ordinary practice) should have rendered it 'of.' Tyndale, who led the way, probably having no distinct grammatical conception of the difference of virb and 5, followed his theological instinct herein and thus extracted the right sense out of the false reading. 136 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. Word, is Bid', e.g. John i. 3, 10 irdvra Si avrov eyevero ...6 Acoo>io9 Si avrov eyevero, I Cor. viii. 6 el? Kvpios IrjO-OVS X/9i<JTC9 $1 OV TO. TTaVTO, KCU T/yLtefr Si aVTOV, Col. i. 1 6 rd Trdvra Si avrov Kal et9 avrov e/cno-Tai, Heb. i. 2 &' o^ /cat eTroirjo-ev TOV$ ateo^a?, ii. IO St' ov rd irdvTa /cal 8t' ov rd irdvra. In all such passages the ambiguous 'by' is a serious obstacle to the under- standing of the English reader. In the Nicene Creed itself the expression ' By whom (Si ov) all things were made/ even when it is seen that the relative refers not to the Father but to the Son (and the accidental circumstance that the Father is mentioned just before misleads many persons on this point), yet fails to suggest any idea different from the other expression in the Creed ' Maker of Heaven and Earth,' which had before been applied to the Father. The perplexity and confusion are still further increased by the in- distinct rendering, * God of God, Light of Light/ etc. for eo9 ex OeoO, <&>9 etc <&>ro9, K.T.\. words which in themselves represent the doctrine of God the Word as taught by S. John, but whose meaning is veiled by the English preposition of. Thus the Nicene doctrine is obscured in the Nicene formula itself as represented to the English ear ; and the prejudice against it, which is necessarily excited by misunder- standing, ensues. The same misconception must attend the corresponding passages in the New Tes- FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 137 tament; e.g. John i. 3, lO'All things were made by Him,' ' The world was made by Him.' In this case it is much easier to point out the defect than to sup- ply the remedy : but surely the English Version in this context is capricious in rendering Si avrov in the two passages already quoted ' by Him,' and yet in an intermediate verse (7) translating Traz/re? mo-rev o-cocriv $i avrov ' all men through him might believe/ and then again returning to by in ver. 17 6 vofjuos Bia Mft)i;<7ft)9 &60rf, T) ^cipi^ Kal T) aXrfBeia Sia 'I^o-ou X/3t<7ToO eyevero, 'The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.' If prescription is too powerful to admit the rendering 'through' for Bi,a throughout the passage, some degree of consis- tency at least might be attained, so that mvrevcraMTiv &i avrov and Sia Mcovcrew ISoOi) should be translated the same way. But, though in the renderings of Sid with the genitive we are confronted by archaisms rather than by errors, and it might be difficult and perhaps not advisable in many cases to meddle with them, the same apology and the same impediment do not apply to this preposition as used with the accusative. Here our translators are absolutely wrong, and a correction is imperative. Though they do not ever (so far as I have noticed) translate Sia with a genitive as though it had an accusative, they are frequently 138 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. guilty of the converse error, and render it with an accusative as though it had a genitive. Thus Matt, xv. 3, 6 ' Why do ye transgress the commandment of God?... ye have made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition (Ibia T^V TrapdSoa-iv vfiwv! i.e. ' for the sake of your tradition/ or, as it is expressed in the parallel passage Mark vii. 9, f iva Trjv TapdSoo-w vfLwv TrjprjarjTe [crTrjarjTe]) ; John xv. 3 ' Now ye are clean through the word (Sid rov \6yovy Rom. ii. 24 ' The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you (Si vfjids)' ; 2 Cor. iv. 15 1 That the abundant grace might through the thanks- giving of many redound to the glory of God (a/a 77 TrXeo^aoraera Bid rwv ir\ibvc>)v Trjv ev^apicrrLav vo-r) et? Trjv Sofaz/ rov oi))/ where it is per- haps best to govern TT)V zvyapiaTiav by irepicraevcrr) taken as a transitive, but where the English Version at all events has three positive errors, (i) translating 77 %apt? 7r\ovd<Tacra as if 77 TrXeovacraaa %/H9, (2) rendering roov TrXeiovcov as if TroXXwv, (3) giving the wrong sense to Sia with the accusative ; Heb. vi. 7 ' Bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed (81 oO? ryecopyelrat).' Yet in Rom. viii. 1 1, * He shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you,' our translators were apparently alive to the difference of signification in the various readings Six TOV evoiKovvTO$...7rvi>fJLaTo<i FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 139 and Btd TO ei'OiKovv...iTvevfjLa, for they add in the margin ' Or, because of his Spirit.' In translating the other prepositions also there is occasional laxity. Thus eVl rv vefyeK&v is rendered ' in the clouds ' (Matt. xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64), though the imagery is marred thereby, and though the mention of ' Him that sat on the cloud (eVl TTJS z/e^eX?;?)' in the Apocalypse (xiv. 15, 16) ought to have ensured the correct translation. And similarly in Matt. iv. 6, Luke iv. 10, the English rendering 'In their hands they shall bear thee up' presents a different picture from the eVt xeipwv of the original 1 . Again the proper force of 619 is often sacrificed, where the loss is not inappreciable. Thus in 2 Cor. xi. 3, ovrco <t>6ap7J rd vorjfjLara V[JL>V djro r/J? aTrXor^ro? r^? els TOV Xpio~TOv is rendered 'So your minds should be corrupted from 1 In Mark xii. 26 OVK &vyvi)Te tv rfj /3i'/3Ay Mwi/Wws eirl TOV ^Sarou, TTO?S direv avry 6 0e6s ' Have ye not read in the book of Moses how in the bush God spake unto him?' the wrong idea conveyed in the English Version arises more from neglect of the order than from mistranslation of the preposition. If the order of the original had been trusted, our translators would have seen that eirl TOV /Sarou must mean 'in the pas- sage relating to the Bush,' 'in the passage called the Bush' (comp. ev 'HXip Rom. xi. 2, 'in the history of Elijah,' where again our A. V. has the wrong rendering * of Elias'). Strangely enough Wycliffe alone of our English translators gives the right meaning, 'Han ye not rad in the book of Moises on the bousche, how God seide to him?' In the parallel passage Luke xx. 37 the rendering of our Authorised Version ' at the bush ' is at all events an improvement on the preceding transla- tions ' besides the bush.' I4O ERRORS AND DEFECTS. the simplicity that is in Christ/ where the true idea is 'sincerity or fidelity towards Christ/ in accordance with the image in the context, ' That I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ/ Even more serious is the injury done to the sense in I Cor. viii. 6, a\X' TJ/jbiv efc 0609 6 Trarrjp ef ov ra iravra fcal r^els et? avrov, KOL 6t9 'Kvptos 'I?;<joC9 X/3to~T09 SL ov rd irdvra Kal tj/jieis Si avrov, where the studiously careful dis- tribution of the prepositions in the original is entirely deranged by rendering 6/9 avrov ' in him ' instead of 1 unto him/ though here a marginal alternative 'for him' is given. Again a common form of error is the mistrans- lation of fiaTTTL&iv et9, as in I Cor. i. 1 3 ' Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul (et9 TO ovofjLa Tlav\ov) ?' So again Matt, xxviii. 19, Acts viii. 16. In Acts xix. 3, 5, after being twice given correctly ' Unto what then were ye baptized ? And they said Unto John's baptism/ nevertheless when it occurs a third time it is wrongly translated, 'When they heard this, they were baptized in the name (et9 TO OVO/JLO) of the Lord Jesus.' On the other hand in Rom. vi. 3, I Cor. x. 2, xii. 13, Gal. iii. 27, the preposition is duly re- spected. Again, though the influence of the Hebrew and Aramaic has affected the use of eV, so that it cannot be measured by a strictly classical standard, still the FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 141 license which our Version occasionally takes is quite unjustifiable. In such passages as Rom. xiv. 14 ol$a teal TreTreio-fiai ev "Kvpltp 'Irjcrov ' I know and am per- suaded by the Lord Jesus/ I Cor. xii. 13 KOI yap ev evl Tlvevfiart rffieis Travres et? e*> aw^a e/3a7TTio-0i]fjiv ' For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body/ the Hebraic or instrumental sense of ev is indefensible. Lastly, even prepositions with such well-defined meanings as CUTTO and virip are not always respected ; as for example in 2 Thess. ii. I, 2 'Now we beseech you, brethren, by (vTrep) the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind (OTTO TOV 7/009)'; while elsewhere vrapa is similarly illtreated, I Pet. ii. 4 ' Disallowed indeed of men (I/TTO av0pa>7ra)v), but chosen of God (irapa ec3 Under these three heads the most numerous grammatical errors of our Version fall. But other in- accuracies of diverse kinds confront us from time to time, and some of these are of real importance. Any- one who attempts to frame a system of the chronology of our Lord's life by a comparison of the Gospel-nar- ratives with one another and with contemporary Jewish history, will know how perplexing is the statement in our English Version of Luke iii. 23 that Jesus after His baptism l began to be about thirty years of age.' 142 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. But the original need not and (in fact) cannot mean this ; for r^v ap^o^evo^ coo-el ertov rpidfcovra must be translated 'was about thirty years old, when he began' (i.e. at the commencement of His public life, His minis- try) ; where caael is sufficiently elastic to allow a year or two or even more either under or over the thirty years : and in fact the notices of Herod's life in Jose- phus compared with S. Matthew's narrative seem to require that our Lord should have been somewhat more than thirty years old at the time. Again such a translation as Phil. iv. 3 ow\afjfldvov avrals amz>e?... (Tvvr]6\'r](Tav fjLoi, 'Help those women which laboured with me/ is impossible ; and, going hand in hand with an error in the preceding verse by which a man ' Euodias ' is substituted for a woman ' Euodia 1 / calls for correction. Again in 2 Pet. iii. 12 the rendering of airevSovras rrjv Trapovaiav rry? rov 0eoO ^yttepa? ' hasting unto the coming of the day of God ' cannot stand, and the alternative suggested in the margin ' hasting the coming ' should be placed in the text ; for the words obviously imply that the zeal and steadfastness of the faithful will be instrumental in 1 The Versions of Tyndale and Coverdale, the Great Bible, and the Bishops' Bible, treat both as men's names, Euodias and Syntiches (Syntyches or Sintiches) ; the Geneva Testament (1557) gives both cor- rectly; but the Geneva Bible takes up the intermediate position, and is followed by our A. V. All alike are wrong in the translation of atfrcus al'rtj'es. FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 143 speeding the final crisis. Again the substitution of an interrogative for a relative in Matt. xxvi. 50 eralpe, e</>' o irdpei, ' Friend, wherefore art thou come ?' is not warranted by New Testament usage, though here our translators are supported by many modern com- mentators ; and the expression must be treated as an aposiopesis, ' Friend, do that for which thou art come 1 .' Again our translators have on more than one occasion indulged in the grammatical fiction of Hypallage, rendering 717)09 ol/co$ofj,r]v r^ ' for the use of edifying ' in Eph. iv. 29, and d TOV T/J? dpx*! 1 * ToO XpiGTov \6yov (Heb. vi. i) 'leaving the principles of the 'doctrine of Christ' In both of these passages however there is a marginal note, though in the first the alternative offered 'to edify profitably ' slurs over the difficulty. Such grammatical deformities as these should be swept away. Neither again should we tolerate such a rendering as I Cor. xii. 28 azmA^/n/ret?, /cv/Bepvija-eis, 'helps in govern- ments 2 ,' where the original contemplates two distinct functions, of which ai/rA^/i^ret? would apply mainly to the diaconate and Kv^epvrja-ei^ to the presbytery, 1 Thus it may be compared with John xiii. 27 6 rotets, raxtov. 2 This is the rendering in the edition of 1611 ; but the preposition was struck out in the Cambridge edition of 1637 (and possibly earlier), and the text is commonly printed 'helps, governments,' but without any authority. 144 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. but where our translators have had recourse to the grammatical fiction of Hendiadys. A somewhat similar instance to the last, where two detached words are combined in defiance of the sense, is I Cor. xvi. 22 ' Let him be Anathema Maranatha,' where doubt- less the words should be separated ; rJTco dvdOe^a' M.apav a6d y 'Let him be anathema. Maran Atha' (i.e. ' The Lord cometh,' or ' is come '). Isolated examples of grammatical inaccuracy such as these might be multiplied ; but I will close with one illustration, drawn from the treatment of the word fyalvew. The distinction between fyalvew ' to shine ' and fyaivecrOat, ' to appear ' is based on an elementary principle of grammar. It is therefore surprising that our translators should not have ob- served the difference. And yet, though the context in most cases leads them right, the errors of which they are guilty in particular passages show that they proceeded on no fixed principle. Thus we have in Acts xxvii. 2O wre avrpwv eirifyaivovTw ITTL Tr\eiovas rjnepas 'Nor stars in many days appeared} and con- versely in Matt. xxiv. 27 /cal fyalverai eW 8vcrfj.wv 1 And shineth even unto the west,' and in Phil. ii. 1 5 eV ot9 <f)alve<T0 <9 (frcoo-Tfjpes ev tc6<Tfj,<p ' Among whom ye shine as lights in the world' (where the marginal alternative of an imperative ' shine ye ' is given, but no misgiving seems to have been suggested to our FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 145 translators by the voice of c^alveade 1 ). When they have gone so far wrong in a simple matter of inflexion, it is not surprising that syntactic considerations should have been overlooked, and that they should not have recognised the proper distinction between ^>aivo^ai elvai ' I appear to be,' and fyaivoiiai wv ' I am seen to be.' Of this error they are guilty in Matt. vi. 16, 1 8, O7r&)<? (pavwcrw rot? dvOpooTTOLS vijo-revovTes, OTTO)? /LIT) (fravfjs TO?? avQptoTrois vrjarevwv, * That they may appear unto men to fast,' ' That thou appear not unto men to fast ' ; though the sense is correctly given by Tyndale (with whom most of the older Versions agree substantially), ' That they might be seen of men how they fast/ ' That it appear not unto men how that thou fastest.' The directly opposite fault to that which has just been discussed also deserves notice, and may perhaps be considered here. If hitherto attention has been directed to the ignorance or disregard of Greek 1 Again in Rev. xviii. 23 0w$ \byy v v A"7 <t> av fl '" ff <- Z word was accentuated as a passive (^avf;) in the text used by our trans- lators, as was probably the case, they have rendered it incorrectly 'The light of a candle shall shine no more in thee'; but here Lachmann and others read the active (jxiv-g. In Rev. viii. 12 they read Qaivr) and rightly translated it 'shone' : but modern critical editors substitute <t>ou>y or Qavrj. In Acts xxi. 3 'When we had discovered Cyprus,' the correct text is probably dva<pav^vres 5t TT^V Ktiirpov, but 'discovered' seems to be intended as a translation oi" the other reading a.va.<paj>a.vTts. L. R. 10 146 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. grammar in our translators, it may be well to point out instances in which they have attempted to im- prove the original, where the connexion is loose or the structure ungrammatical. This happens most frequently where past and present tenses are inter- mingled in the original ; e.g. Matt. iii. 15, 16 6 ' TT/>O<? avT6v...r6re dfyirjGLV avr6v...Kal 6 'fycroO? due/By, where for the sake of sym- metry d<j>r}(riv is translated suffered \ or Mark xiv. 53, 54 Kai dTrrjyayov rov 'Irjcrovv...^!, ffwep^ov- rat, avro) 7rdvre<;...ical 6 TLerpos djro naicpoQev rj/co- \ov0r)<rv avro), where for the same reason o-vvep- yovrai is given were assembled. In all such cases there is no good reason for departing from the original. This is not a question of the idiom in different languages, but of the style of a particular author; and peculiarities of style should, as far as possible, be reproduced. Moreover our translators themselves have not ventured always to reduce the tenses to uniformity, so that the licence they have taken results in capricious alterations here and there, which serve no worthy purpose. These however are nothing more than loose- nesses of style. But even grammatical inaccuracies ought to be preserved, as far as possible; for it will generally be found that in such cases the grammar is sacrificed to some higher end either greater force FAULTS OF GRAMMAR. 147 of expression or greater clearness of meaning. More than one instance of this occurs in the Apocalypse. In the letters to the Seven Churches the messages close with words of encouragement to the victor in the struggle. In the last four of these the words 6 vi/coiJv are flung out at the beginning of the sen- tence without any regard to the subsequent con- struction, which in three out of the four is changed so that the nominative stands alone without any government: ii. 26 KOI 6 viKwv...^ora> avru> eov<7iav, iii. 12 6 VLK&V, Troitjao) avrov arv\ov, iii. 21 6 VIKWV, Swaco avrw KadLcai. In the first instance only have our translators had the courage to retain the broken grammar of the original, 'And /&? that overcometh... to him will I give/ acting thus boldly perhaps because the intervening words partly obscure the irregularity. In the other two cases they have set the grammar straight; 'Him that overcometh will I make a pillar/ 'To him that overcometh will I grant to sit.' Yet there was no sufficient reason for making a difference, and in all alike the English should have commenced as the Greek commences, ' He that over- cometh.' Would it be thought overbold if I were to counsel the same scrupulous adherence to the form of the original in a still more important passage ? In Rev. i. 4 %pfc9 Vfuv /cal eiprjvrj OTTO [roO] 6 wv Kal o rjv KOI 6 10 2 148 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. , the defiance of grammar is even more startling. It may be true that a cultivated Athenian could hardly have brought himself to write thus ; but certainly the fisherman of Galilee did not so express himself from mere ignorance of Greek, for such ig- norance as this supposition would assume must have prevented his writing the Apocalypse at all. In this instance at least, where the Apostle is dealing with the Name of names, the motive which would lead him to isolate the words from their context is plain enough. And should not this remarkable feature be preserved in our English Bible ? If in Exod. iii. 14 the words run ' I AM hath sent me unto you/ may we not also be allowed to read here, 'from HE THAT IS AND THAT WAS AND THAT IS TO COME'? Certainly the violation of grammar would not be greater in the English than it is in the Greek. 5. . , , - If the errors of grammar in our English Version are very numerous, those of lexicography are not so frequent. Yet even here several indisputable errors need correction ; not a few doubtful interpretations may be improved ; and many vague renderings will gain by being made sharper and clearer. Instances of impossible renderings occur from time FAULTS OF LEXICOGRAPHY. 149 to time, though the whole number of these is not great. By impossible renderings I mean those cases in which our translators have assigned to a word a signification which it never bears elsewhere, and which therefore we must at once discard without considering whether it docs or does not harmonize with the context. Such for instance is the treatment of the par- ticles eri and rjSrj in occasional passages, where their meaning is interchanged in our Version ; as in Mark xiii. 28 orav avrrjs rjBrj 6 icXdSos aVaXo? yevrjrai, K.T.\. 1 When her branch is yet tender/ for ' As soon as its branch is tender' (the sign of approaching summer), and 2 Cor. i. 23 ovtceri rj\6ov et? KopwOov, * I came not as yet unto Corinth,' for 'I came no more unto Corinth' (I paid no fresh visit): or the rendering of cnra% in Heb. xii. 26 en aira^ eyw <mo>, 'Yet once more I shake' : or of /cal jap in Matt. xv. 27 val Kvpie, KOI yap rd /cvvdpia eadiet,, ' Truth, Lord, yet the dogs eat.' And, when we turn from particles to nouns and verbs, examples will not fail us. Such are the ren- derings of dvetyios in Col. iv. 10 ' Marcus, sisters son to Barnabas' (6 az/e\^o? Bapvufia) for 'cousin': of <j>6i- voTrcopivos in Jude 12 'Trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit (BevSpa (frOivoTrcopivd a/capTra), twice dead, plucked up by the roots,' for ' autumn trees without fruit, etc.,' where there appears to be a refer- I5O ERRORS AND DEFECTS. ence to the parable of the barren fig-tree (Luke xiii. 6), and where at all events the mention of the season when fruit might be expected is significant 1 , while under any circumstances the awkward contradiction of terms in our English Version should have sug- gested some misgiving : of OpiajM/Beveiv in 2 Cor. ii. 14 ' God which always canseth tis to triumph (TO> irav- Tore BpianftevovTi rjfias) in Christ,' for ' leadeth us in triumph/ where the image of the believer made cap- tive and chained to the car of Christ is most expres- sive, while the paradox of the Apostle's thanksgiving over his own spiritual defeat and thraldom is at once forcible and characteristic: and of Trapecns in Rom. iii. 25 'To declare his righteousness for the remission of 1 Strange to say, the earliest Versions all rendered Qdivoirwpiva correctly. Tyndale's instinct led him to give what I cannot but think the right turn to the expression; 'Trees with out frute at gadringe [gathering] time,' i.e. at the season when fruit was looked for; I cannot agree with Abp. Trench (p. 125), who maintains that 'Tyndale was feeling after, though he has not grasped, the right translation,' and himself explains ipffivoirupivd, aKapira, as 'mutually completing one another,' without leaves, without fruit. Tyndale was followed by Cover- dale and the Great Bible. Similarly Wycliffe has 'hervest trees without fruyt,' and the Rheims Version 'Trees of Autumne, unfruiteful.' The earliest offender is the Geneva Testament which gives 'corrupt trees and without frute, ' a rendering adopted also in the Geneva Bible. The Bishops' Bible strangely combines both renderings, 'trees withered [<t>0lveu>] at fruite geathering [6ir6pa] and without fruite'; wh'ch is explained in the margin ' Trees withered in Autumne when the fruite harvest is, and so the Greke woord importeth,' while at the same time other alternative interpretations are given. FAULTS OF LEXICOGRAPHY. 151 sins that are past (Sia r^v irdpeaw rwv Trpojeyovurcov dfjLapTrjpaTcov),' for ' by reason of the passing over of the former sins,' where the double error of mistranslating Bta and of giving irdpecr^ the sense of afyecns has entirely shattered the meaning, and where the context implies that this signal manifestation of God's right- eousness was vouchsafed, not because the sins were forgiven, but because they were only overlooked for the time without being forgiven 1 . Other examples again are <rv\ayo)yeiv in Col. ii. 8 firj rt9 vpas co-rat, 6 a-vXaycoyoov ' Lest any man spoil you,' for * make spoil of you,' 'carry you off as plunder' : Trpo/Stfjd^ew in Matt. xiv. 8 irpopipaadelaa VTTO rfjs /jLrjrpcx; aur/y?, 'Being before instructed of her mother,' for 'being put forward, urged, by her mother/ for there is no instance of the temporal sense of the preposition in this compound: e-rrcpcorrjina in I Pet. iii. 21 'The answer of a good conscience toward God,' for 'the question? where the word may mean a petition but certainly cannot mean an answer: ^LKaiwfiara in Rom. ii. 26 ' If the uncircumcision keep the right- eousness of the law/ for ' the ordinances of the law' : Traypovv, Trewpoxm, in the Epistles (Rom. xi. 7, 25, 2 Cor. iii. 14, Eph. iv. 18), where they are always 1 An alternative sense of irdpeffiv is given in the margin, 'or passing over'; but this is not sufficient to elicit the right meaning without also correcting the rendering of dta. 152 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. rendered ' blind, blindness,' though correctly trans- lated in the Gospels (Mark iii. 5, vi. 52, John xii. 40) ' harden, hardness V In some cases the wrong rendering of our trans- lators arose from a false derivation, which was gener- ally accepted in their age. Thus d/cepaios is rendered 'harmless' (from /cepas, Kpata)) Matt. x. 16, Phil. ii. 15, instead of 'simple, pure, sincere' (from icepdv- VV/JLI, 'to mix, adulterate'), though in Rom. xvi. 19 it is correctly given' 2 . So also epLOeia is taken to mean 'strife, contention' (Rom. ii. 8, 2 Cor. xii. 20, Gal. v. 20, Phil. i. 17, ii. 3, James iii. 14, 16) from its supposed connexion with epis ; whereas its true de- rivation is from epiOos 'a hired partisan,' so that it denotes 'party-spirit.' And again in Jude 12 OVTOU elcnv v rat? d^anra^ vp&v a-TTtAaSe? ' These are spots in your feasts of charity,' 0-TrtXaSe? 'rocks' is trans- lated as if cr7rt\ot ' spots' 3 ; our translators having 1 This illustrates the incongruity which results from assigning different parts of the New Testament to different persons. In the instance before us however a compromise is effected by marginal alternatives. In Mark iii. 5 the margin has l or blindness'; in Rom. xi. 7, 25, Eph. iv. 18, 'or hardened,' 'or hardness.' In the other passages there is no margin in the edition of 1611. 2 In Matt. x. 1 6 however the margin has 'or simple,' and in Phil. ii. 15 'or sincere.' * At least this is the view taken by modern commentators almost universally; but it does not seem to me certain that <T7rt\d5ej here cannot mean 'spots'; for (i) All the early Versions connect it with FAULTS OF LEXICOGRAPHY. 153 doubtless been influenced by the parallel passage 2 Pet. ii. 13 <nrl\oi KOI JAGO/AOI evrpvfywvres ev rat? avrarat? avrwv, ' Spots are they and blemishes, sport- ing themselves with their own deceivings 1 .' The last example of this class of errors, which I shall take, is the surname of Simon the Apostle, ' the Canaanite.' The correct form of the word is Kami/cuo?, not Kai/a- tfrijs, in both passages where it occurs (Matt. x. 4, Mark iii. 18); but the latter stood in the text which our translators had before them. Yet this false reading certainly should not have misled them ; for this root, translating it either as a substantive 'stains,' or as an adjective ' polluted. ' This is the case with the Old and the Revised Latin, with both the Egyptian Versions, and with the Philoxenian Syriac, nor have I noticed a single one which renders it 'rocks.' (2) As 0-TrtXoj (or <77rtXos), which generally signifies a 'spot* or 'stain,' sometimes has the sense 'a rock,' so conversely it is quite possible that ffirtXas 'a rock' should occasionally exchange its ordinary meaning for that of <riri\os. (3) In one of the Orphic poems, Lith. 614 KardariKTov airiXddeaffi irvp- afj<ru> Xeu/ccus re fj.eXcui'Ofj.frais xXoepous re, it has this sense; and, though this poem was apparently not written till the fourth century, still it seems highly improbable that the writer should have derived this sense of the word solely from S. Jude. If he did so, it only shows how fixed this interpretation had become before his time. (4) The extreme violence of the metaphor 'rocks in your feasts of charity' is certainly not favourable to the interpretation which it is proposed to substitute. And (5) though this argument must not be pressed, yet the occurrence of cnriXoi Kai yuw^toi in the parallel passage (2 Pet. ii. 13) must be allowed some weight in determining the sense of <rirt,\d8es here. 1 I have quoted the passage as it stands in the received text iv rats (wroTcus, but iv rats dyzirais is read by Lachmann and Tregelles, as in Jude 12. 154 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. the word for the Canaanite in the LXX and in Matt. xv. 22, is even farther from Kavavlrrjs than from Kava- valos. The parallel passages in S. Luke (Luke vi. 15? Acts i. 13) point to the fact that this surname is the Aramaic word Kanan, j&Op, corresponding to the Greek JfyXwnfc 'the Zealot 1 '; and this being so, it is somewhat strange that our translators should have gone astray on the word, seeing that the Greek form for *W13 'Canaanite' is invariably spelt correctly with a X corresponding to Caph, and not with a K corre- sponding to Koph. The earlier Versions however all suppose the word to involve the name of a place, though they do not all render it alike. Tyndale, Coverdale, and the Great Bible have ' Simon of Cane' or 'Cana'; the Geneva Testament (1557) has 'of 1 See Evvald Gesch. des V. Isr. V. p. 322, Derembourg UHistoire de la Palestine p. 238. This is a common termination of names of sects when Grecized ; e.g. 'A<r<rt5cuoj, 3 > a/>i<7cuos, 2a85ovKa:os, 'Ecrcrcuos (Hegesipp. in Euseb. H. E. iv. 23). This fact seems to have escaped Meyer when he points to the termination as showing that Kavavcuos denotes the name of a place and thus exhibits a false tradition, while the true account is preserved in the fT/Xwrrjs of S. Luke. Indeed the formation of Kavavalos from Kanan is exactly analogous to that of 4>a/oto-a?os from Pharish or 'Acr<n5cuoj from Hhasid. Meyer confesses himself at a loss to name any place to which he can refer JLavavatos. In the Peshito, Kavavcuos is translated rtlxULo, but Xavaceuos r<*ilSlV where the difference of the initial letter and the insertion of the 2k. in the latter word show that in this Version the forms were not confounded. FAULTS OF LEXICOGRAPHY. 155 % Canan' in the one place, and 'of Cane* in the other; the Geneva Bible 'Cananite' in both. The Bishops' Bible, so far as I have observed, first prints the word with a double a (Matt. x. 4), thus fixing the reference to Canaan 1 . There are other passages where, though the word itself will admit the meaning assigned to it in our Version, and so this meaning cannot be called im- possible, yet the context more or less decidedly 1 To this list of false derivations some would add Kardw^a in Rom. xi. 8, where irveO/wt /caravi^ews is rendered 'the spirit of slumber J though with the marginal alternative remorse; but I doubt whether Abp. Trench is right in saying (p. 118) that 'our translators must have derived KaTou>vis from vvvTaffiv, as many others have done.' The fact is that Karavfoaetv, Karavv^, are frequently used in the LXX to translate words denoting heavy sleep, silence, amazement, and the like, e.g. Levit. x. 3, Ps. iv. 5, xxx. 12, xxxv. 15, Is. vi. 5, Dan. x. 9; and in the very passage to which S. Paul here refers, Is. xxix. 10, Karairvfa represents the Hebrew HDlin 'deep sleep.' The idea of numbness is the connecting link between pricking, wounding, and stttpor, heavy sleep. Fritzsche (Rom. II. p. 558 sq.) has an important excursus on the w,ord, but is not always happy in his explanation of the LXX renderings. The earlier English Versions generally adopted the more literal meaning of Aorcu'vts. Thus Wycliffe and the Rheims Version have 'compunction* after the Vulgate; Tyndale, Coverdale, and the Great Bible 'unquiet- ness'; the Bishops' Bible 'remorse,' with the marginal note 'That is, pricking and unquietnesse of conscience.' The Geneva Testament (1557) is as usual the innovator, rendering the word ' heavy sleep.' For this the Geneva Bible substitutes 'slumber, 'but with a margin 'or pricking.* The reasons why I do not class ejrtotfcnos among these words, in which a mistaken derivation has led to a wrong translation, will be given in the Appendix. 156 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. favours another sense. Examples belonging to this class are James iii. 5 l&oi) o\i<yov [/. rj\l/cov] irvp ^\i/crjv v\7jv dvaTTTei, ' Behold how great a matter a little fire kindleth,' where the literal meaning of v\rj is cer- tainly to be preferred to the philosophical, and where it is most strange that our translators having the correct word 'wood' present to their minds should have banished it to the margin : Matt. xxvi. 15 ecrrrj- aav avra) Tpid/tovra dpyupia, 'They covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver,' where the passage in Zech- ariah (xi. 1 2 ' They weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver/ LXX ecrr^craz/) to which the Evangelist alludes ought to have led to the proper rendering of the same word here, 'weighed unto him' : Heb. ii. 16 ov ydp SIJTTOV dyyeXcov lirCKa^av^Tai aXXa crTrep/xaro? 'A/3paa/j, e7ri\afjL/3dv6Tat,, * He took not on him the nature of angels, but lie took on him the seed of Abraham,' where the context suggests the more natural meaning of iirCKa^av^aQai ' To take hold of for the purpose of supporting or assisting' (comp. ver. 1 8 /3o77#>/<7cu); Mark iv. 29 orav irapa^ol 6 KapTros, 'When the fruit is brought forth} where the right meaning ripe is given in the margin : Acts ii. 3 St,a- fjLpi^6fjLvai y\<t)(7a'ai, oocrel Trvpos, 'Cloven tongues like as of fire,' where the imagery and the symbolism, not less than the tense, suggest a different rendering of &{,ajj,epi6fjLevai,, parting asunder : 2 Cor. iv. 4 eh TO prj FAULTS OF LEXICOGRAPHY. avydcrat, [avrois] TOP <f>(0Tio-/j,ov rov vayye\iov, * Lest the light of the Gospel... should shine unto them,' where indeed the fault was not with the translators but with the reading, since having ai/rot? in their text they had no choice but to translate the words so; but when avrois is struck out (as it should be), a different sense ought perhaps to be given to aLjdcrai, 1 That they might not be/told the light,' etc. Another and a very important example of this class of errors is the rendering of Trat? in Acts iii. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30, where it is translated 'son' or 'child' in place of 'servant,' thus obliterating the connexion with the prophetic announcement of the ' servant of the Lord ' in Isaiah 1 . It is not here, as elsewhere, the Sonship, but the ministry, on which the Apostles dwell. In Matt. xii. 18, where the prophecy itself (Isai. xlii. i) is quoted and applied to our Lord, the words are rightly translated, . * Behold I send my servant' ; and indeed when confronted with the original no one would think of rendering it otherwise. Other instances again are the rendering ofaLpeiv in John i. 29 6 aipwv rrjv d/napriav rov KCHT/JLOV, ' Which taketh away the sin of the world,' where the marginal reading beareth should probably be substituted in the text ; and similarly of dvevey- lv in Heb. ix. 28, I Pet. ii. 24 dvevey/cew d 1 See especially Trench, Authorized Version, p. 69. 158 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. * To bear the 'sins,' where the true idea is not that of sustaining a burden, but of raising upon the cross. So again TreTfXrjpofyoprjfjievwv in Luke i. I probably means 'fulfilled 'rather than 'most surely believed,' as in the latter sense the passive is used only of the per- sons convinced and not of the things credited. On the other hand, it is not certain whether paara&w means 'to carry off, to steal' in John xii. 6 ra /3aX- \6fjieva eftao-Ta^ev, or whether the English Version 'bare what was put therein' should stand. In another class of words the English rendering, while it cannot be called incorrect, is vague or in- adequate, so that the exact idea of the original is not represented or the sharpness of outline is blurred. This defect will be most obvious in metaphors. For instance in Rom. vi. 13, where oir\a d&t/cias is ren- dered ' instruments of unrighteousness,' instead of arms or weapons (which however is given as an alter- native in the margin), we fail to recognise the image of military service rendered to Sin, as a great king (ver. 12 fjurj fiaai\veTci)) who enforces obedience (vira- Koveiv) and pays his soldiery in the coin of death (ver. 23 rdo-^roovia rrjs a pa p-r Las 6dvaros\ Again the rendering of Col. ii. 5 i/*a>v rrjv TCL%IV /cal TO crrepewfjia T??? 6t? XPKTTOV TTfVreft)? i'fjiwv, 'Your order and the stedfastness of your faith in Christ,' fails to suggest the idea of the close phalanx arrayed for battle, which FAULTS OF LEXICOGRAPHY. 159 is involved in the original * : and similarly in 2 Cor. x. 5 irav v^jrcof^a 7raip6fj,evov Kara TT?? 7^0)0-60)? roD eoO our translators in rendering the words 'Every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God,' appear not to have seen that this expression continues the metaphor of the campaign (o-rparevo- fjieOa) and the fortresses (o^vpwfjLara) in the context, and that the reference is to the siege works thrown up for the purpose of attacking the faith. Again the metaphor of KaravapKav is very inadequately given in 2 Cor. xi. 9 ' I was chargeable to no man/ and in xii. 13, 14 'I was not, I will not be, burden- some to you ' : and the * thorn in the flesh ' in the English Version of 2 Cor. xii. 7 has suggested inter- pretations of S. Paul's malady, which the original <TKo\o"fy ' a stake* does not countenance, and is almost as wide of the mark as the Latin stimulus carnis which also has led to much misunderstanding. These are a few instances out of many, which might be given, where a metaphor has suffered from inade- quate rendering. Other examples also, where no metaphor is in- volved, might be multiplied. Thus in Matt. ix. 16, Mark ii. 21, it is difficult to see why our translators should have abandoned the natural expression 'un- 1 i Mace. ix. 14 elSev 'lotfSciy 8n Ba/cx'ST?? Kal r6 <rre/>^w/ia T^S iv ro?$ eto?s. 160 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. dressed cloth,' which occurs in the Geneva Testa- ment, as a rendering of pd/cos ayvafov, for 'new cloth/ contenting themselves with putting 'raw or unwrought' in the margin. In Matt. xxvi. 36, Mark xiv. 32, we read in the English Version of ' a place called Gethsemane' ; the Greek however is not %c/x>9 but xwptov, not a place but ' a parcel of ground' (as it is rendered in John iv. 5), an enclosure, a field or garden, and thus corresponds more closely to /ayTro? by which S. John describes the same locality though without mentioning the name (xviii. i). In Acts i. 3 oTTTavofievos avTois should not have been trans- lated 'being seen of them/ for the emphatic word oirrdveadai, which does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament, expresses much more than this, and ' showing himself unto them' would be a better though still an inadequate rendering. In Rom. ii. 22 6 /3Se- Auoxroftez/o? ra e!'S&>Xa tepo<rtA,e?9 the inconsistency of the man who plunders a Jteathen temple while pro- fessing to loathe an idol, is lost by the rendering ' dost thou commit sacrilege* ; and indeed it may be suspected that our translators misapprehended the force of iepoo-vXels, more especially as in most of the earlier Versions it was translated * robbest God of his honour.' In Acts xiv. 13 'Then the priest of Jupiter, which was before their city, brought oxen and garlands unto the gates/ the English reader inevit-: FAULTS OF LEXICOGRAPHY. l6l ably thinks of the city-gates ; but as the Greek has trvXwvas, not TruXa?, the portal or gateway or vestibule of the temple is clearly meant. This was seen by Tyndale, who quaintly translates it 'the church-porch.' In Acts xvii. 29, S. Paul addressing an audience of heathen philosophers condescends to adopt the lan- guage familiar to them, and speaks of TO Oelov an expression which does not occur elsewhere in the New Testament ; but in the English rendering ' God- head ' this vague philosophical term becomes con- crete and precise, as though it had been Oeorrj^ in the original. In the Acts xiii. 50 and elsewhere ol aefiofievoi, at cre/3oyu,ez/at, by which S. Luke always means ' proselytes, worshippers of the one God/ are translated 'devout'; and hence the strange statement (which must perplex many an English reader) that 'the Jews stirred up the devout and honourable women... and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas.' In 2 Cor. xiii. n Karapr^eo-de is ren- dered 'be perfect^ an d in the Qth verse rrjv V/JLWV KarapTiGw ' your perfection! but the context shows that in these parting injunctions S. Paul reiterates the leading thought of the Epistles, exhorting the Corinthians to compose their differences: and this is the meaning of I Cor. i. 10 rjre Se /caTrjpTio-pevot, ev T$ aura) vot t where it is better rendered ' that ye be perfectly joined together, etc/ Lastly, in I Tim. iii. 3, L. R. II 1 62 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. Tit. i. 7, pr) irdpoivov is translated 'not given to wine'; but in the first passage this idea is already expressed by vr}cf)d\Lov, and natural as the more obvious ren- dering might seem, the usage of irdpoivos elsewhere shows that it denotes 'a brawler,' 'a quarrelsome person' (which is the alternative meaning offered in the margin). I will close this section with an illustration, of which it is difficult to say whether we should more properly class it under the head of lexicography or of grammar. a/3/3ara is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew word for 'a sabbath' written out in Greek letters. Appearing in this form, it is naturally de- clined as a plural era/SySara, o-afiffdrfov, but never- theless retains its proper meaning as a singular. How widely this form was known, and how strictly it preserved its force as a singular, will appear from Horace's ' Hodie tricesima sabbata.' In our Version of the New Testament, whenever the meaning is un- mistakable it is translated as a singular (e.g. Matt. xii. I, II, Mark i. 21, ii. 23, iii. 2, Acts xiii. 14); but where the sense is doubtful a plural rendering is mostly preferred (e.g. Matt. xii. 5, 10, 12, Mark iii. 4). In all these cases however it is much better treated as a singular, in accordance with the sense which it beats in the same contexts ; and in such a passage as Col. ii. 16 eV pepei eoprfjs fj PROPER NAMES. 163 > , the plural ' sabbath-days ' is obviously out of place, as co-ordinated with two singular nouns. The only passage in the New Testament where o-dfi/Bara is distinctly plural is Acts xvii. 2 eVl rpta, where it is defined by the numeral. Over and above the ordinary questions of trans- lation, there is a particular class of words which presents special difficulties and needs special atten- tion. Proper names, official titles, technical terms, which, as belonging to one language and one nation, have no direct equivalents in another, must obviously be treated in an exceptional way. Are they to be reproduced as they stand in the original, or is the translator to give the terms most nearly cor- responding to them in the language of his version? Is he to adopt the policy of despair, or the policy of compromise ? Or may he invoke either principle according to the exigencies of the case ? and, if so, what laws can be laid down to regulate his practice and to prevent caprice ? Of this class of words, proper names are the least difficult to deal with ; and yet even these occasion- ally offer perplexing problems. The general principles, on which our translators II 2 1 64 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. proceeded in this matter, are twofold. First ; where no familiar English form of a name existed, they retained the form substantially as they found it. In other words they reproduced the Hebrew or Chaldee form in the Old Testament, and the Greek in the New. Secondly; where a proper name had been adopted into the English language and become natu- ralised there with some modification of form, or where the person or place was commonly known in English by a name derived from some other language, they adopted this English equivalent, however originated. Instances of English equivalents arrived at by the one process are, Eve, Herod, James, John, Jude, Luke, Magdalene, Mary, Peter, Pilate, Saul, Stephen, Zebedee, Italy, Rome, etc.: of the other, Assyria, Ethiopia, Euphrates, Idumea, Mesopotamia, Persia, Syria, etc., Artaxerxes, Cyrus, Darius, etc., for Asshur, Cush, Phrath, Edom, Aram-Naharaim, Pharas, Aram, etc., Arta-chshashta, Coresh, Daryavesh, etc.. in the Old Testament 1 , the more familiar classical forms being substituted for the less familiar Hebrew; and of Diana, Jupiter, Mercurius, for Artemis, Zeus, Hermes, in the New the more familiar Latin being 1 In this however there is great inconsistency. Thus we have Cush in Is. xi. n, but Ethiopia in xviii. i, etc. ; Edom in Is. xi. 14, Ixiii. i, but Idumea in xxxiv. 5,6; Asshur in Hos. xiv. 3, but Assyria elsewhere in this same prophet; Javan in Is. Ixvi. 19, but Greece or Grecia in the other prophets ; and so with other words. PROPER NAMES. 165 substituted for the less familiar Greek : while in some few cases, e.g. Egypt, Tyre 1 , etc., both modifying influences have been at work ; the Hebrew has been replaced by the Greek, and this again has been Anglicised in form. In the instructions given to our translators it was so ordered : ' The names of the prophets and the holy writers with the other names of the text to be retained as nigh as may be, according as they were vulgarly used.' With these principles no fault can be found ; but the result of their application is not always satisfactory. Our translators are not uniformly con- sistent with themselves ; and moreover time has very considerably altered the conditions of the problem as it presents itself now. (i) The first of these principles, though it com- mends itself to our own age, was not allowed to pass unquestioned, when first asserted. At the era of the Reformation, the persons mentioned in the Old Testament were commonly known (so far as they were known at all) through the Septuagint and Vulgate forms. Thus Ochosias stood for Ahaziah, Achab for Ahab, Sobna for Shebnah, Elias for Elijah, Eliseus for Elisha, Roboam for Rehoboam, Josaphat for Jehoshaphat, Abdias for Obadiah, and the like. In 1 Yet 'Tyre' and 'Tyrus' are employed indifferently, and without any rule, in the Old Testament. 1 66 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. Coverdale's Bible these forms are generally retained ; but in the later English Versions there is a tendency to substitute the Hebrew forms, or forms more nearly approaching to them. In the two Versions, which held the ground when our Authorised Version was set on foot the Bishops' Bible and the Geneva Bible this tendency had reached the utmost limit which the English language seemed to allow. In Miinster's Latin Bible indeed an attempt had been made to reproduce the Hebrew forms with exactness ; and accordingly the names of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel there appear as Jesahiahu, Irmeiahu, and lechezchel. This extreme point however was never reached by any of our English translators; but still in the Geneva Bible the names of the patriarchs are written Izhak and laakob, and in the Bishops' Bible we meet with such forms as Amariahu, Zachariahu. This tendency was not left unassailed. Gregory Martin in his attack on the 'English Bibles used and authorised since the time of the schism/ published at Rheims in 1582, writes as follows : Of one thing we can by no means excuse you, but it must savour vanity or novelty or both. As when you affect new strange words which the people are not acquainted withal, but it is rather Hebrew to them than English : fia\a o-e/twus oi/ojza- Covrts, as Demosthenes speaketh, uttering with great counte- nance and majesty. 'Against him came up Nabuchadnezzar, PROPER NAMES. 167 King of Babel/ 2 Par. xxxvi. 6, for ' Nabuchodonosor king of Babylon'; 'Saneherib' for ' Sennacherib'; * Michaiah's pro- phecy' for 'Michaea's' ; 'Jehoshaphat's prayer' for 'Josaphat's': 'Uzza slain' for 'Oza'; 'when Zerubbabel went about to build the temple' for 'Zorobabel'; 'remember what the Lord did to Miriam' for 'Marie,' Deut. xxxiv ; and in your first 1 translation 'Elisa' for 'Elisaeus'; 'Pekahia' and 'Pekah' for 'Phaceia' and 'Phacee'; 'Uziahu' for 'Ozias'; 'Thiglath-peleser' for 'Teglath- phalasar'; 'Ahaziahu' for 'Ochozias'; 'Peka son of Remaliahu' for 'Phacee son of Romelia.' And why say you not as well 'Shelomoh' for 'Salomon,' and 'Coresh' for 'Cyrus,' and so alter every word from the known sound and pronunciation thereof? Is this to teach the people, when you speak Hebrew, rather than English? Were it goodly hearing (think you) to say for 'Jesus' 'Jeshuah' ; and for 'Marie' his mother ' Miriam'; and for 'Messias' 'Messiach'; and 'John' 'Jachannan'; and such-like monstrous novelties? which you might as well do, and the people would understand you as well, as when your preachers say, ' Nabucadnezer King of Babel.' To these charges Fulke gives this brief and sen- sible reply : Seeing the most of the proper names of the Old Testament were unknown to the people before the Scriptures were read in English, it was best to utter them according to the truth of their pronunciation in Hebrew, rather than after the common corrup- tion which they had received in the Greek and Latin tongues. But as for those names which were known to the people out of the New Testament, as Jesus, John, Mary, etc., it had been folly 1 i.e. the Great Bible, which was the first Bible in use after ' the schism'; the edition to which Martin refers is that of 1562. The two Bibles, to which Martin's strictures mostly apply, are the Genevan and the Bishops', as being most commonly used when he wrote. See Fulke's Defence, etc. p. 67 sq. 1 68 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. to have taught men to sound them otherwise than after the Greek declination, in which we find them 1 . The attack however was so far successful, that the revisers who produced our Authorised Translation seem to have adopted in each case from the current Versions those forms which least offended the English eye or ear, even though farther removed from the Hebrew. Thus in the examples already given, they write Isaac, Jacob, in preference to Izhak, laakob of the Geneva Bible, and Amariah, Zachariah in preference to Amariahu, Zachariahu of the Bishops'. With the general treatment of the Old Testament names I have no desire to find fault: perhaps the forms in our English Bible approach as nearly to the Hebrew as is desirable. But, when we compare the New Testament with the Old, some important ques- tions arise. In favour of retaining the old Septuagint and Vulgate forms in preference to introducing the Hebrew, there was this strong argument ; that the same person thus appeared under the same name in the New Testament as in the Old. The English reader did not need to be informed that Eliseus was the same as Elisha, Ozias as Uzziah, Salathiel as Shealtiel, etc. Now he has not this advantage. Even 1 Fulke's Defence of the English Translations of the Bible, p. 588 sq. (Parker Society's edition). PROPER NAMES. 169 supposing that the identity of persons is recognised, much unconscious misconception still remains in particular cases. It is very difficult for instance for an English reader, who has not read or thought on the subject, to realise the fact that the Elias, whom the Jews expected to appear in Messiah's days, was not some weird mythical being, or some merely sym- bolical person, but the veritable Elijah who lived on earth, in flesh and blood, in the days of Ahab. * Let us just seek to realize to ourselves/ says Archbishop Trench, ' the difference in the amount of awakened attention among a country congregation, which Matt, xvii. 10 would create, if it were read thus: "And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elijah must first come ?" as compared with what it now is likely to create.' And this argument applies, though in a less degree, to the scene of the transfiguration. It is most important, as the same writer has observed, to 'keep vivid and strong the relations between the Old and New Testament in the minds of the great body of English hearers and readers of Scripture 1 .' I imagine that few would deny the advantage of substituting the more familiar Old Testament names in such cases for the less familiar Septuagint forms preserved in the New ; but many more may question 1 Trench Authorized Version, p. 41. I 70 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. whether such a substitution is legitimate, and I ven- ture therefore to add a few words in defence of this reform which I should wish to see introduced. If at this point we were to invoke the second principle (which has been mentioned above and will be considered presently), that whenever a familiar English form of a name occurs, this shall be substi- tuted for the original, e.g. John for loannes, James for lacobos, Mary for Mariam, this principle alone would justify the change which I am advocating. For, to our generation at least, the familiar English names of the Old Testament personages are Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, etc. ; and therefore on this ground alone the Greek forms Elias, Eliseus, Esaias, should give place to them. In the i6th and I7th centuries it might be a question between Esay, Esaie, Esaias, Isaiah; be- tween Abdy, Abdias, Obadiah; between Jeremy, Jere- mias, Jeremiah ; between Osee, Oseas, Osea, Hosea (or Hoshea); between Sophony, Sophonia, Sophonias, Zephaniah ; between Aggeus, Haggeus, Haggai ; and the like: but now long familiarity has decided irre- vocably in favour of the last forms in each case, and there is every reason why the less familiar modes of representing the names should give place to the more familiar. But, quite independently of this considera- tion of familiarity, we should merely be exercising the legitimate functions of translators, if in most PROPER NAMES. cases we were to return to the Old Testament forms. For (with very few exceptions) the Greek forms repre- sent the original names as nearly as the vocables and the genius of the Greek language permit ; and in translating it is surely allowable to neglect the purely Greek features in the words. This applies especially to terminations, such as Jeremias, Jonas, Manasses, for Jeremiah, Jonah, Manasseh ; and in fact the name Elias itself is nothing more than 'Elijah' similarly formed, for the Hebrew word could not have been written otherwise in Greek. It applies also to the change of certain consonants. Thus a Greek had no choice but to represent the sh sound by a sim- ple s. Like the men of Ephraim, the Greeks could not frame to pronounce the word Shibboleth right ; and it is curious to observe to what straits the Alex- andrian translator of the narrative in the book of Judges (xii. 5, 6) is driven in his attempt to render the incident into this language 1 . Remembering this, we shall at once replace Cis (Acts xiii. 21) by Kish 2 , and Aser (Luke ii. 36, Rev. vii. 6) by Asher ; while the English reader will at length discover that the un- familiar Saron, connected with the history of ^Eneas 1 He can only say flirbv 817 ffrdxy* [A has etirare Sr/ fffod-rjfj.a] Kal 06 KaTi>0vve [A Kal KaTrjvdvvav] rou XaX^at oCrws. 2 It is not easy to see why our translators should have written Cis, Core, rather than Kis, Kore. 172 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. (Acts ix. 35), is the well-known Sharon of Old Testa- ment history. Combining this principle of change with the foregoing, we should restore Elisha in place of Eliseus. For the Hebrew gutturals again the Greeks had no equivalent, and were obliged either to omit them or to substitute the nearest sound which their language afforded. On this'principle they frequently represented the final PI by an e 1 ; and hence the forms Con?, No*?, which therefore we should without scruple replace by the more familiar Korah, Noah. In the middle of a word it was often represented by a %, while our Old Testament translators in this and other positions give an h ; and thus there is no reason why Ra^ab, Ac/iaz, should stand in the New Testament for Ra/zab, A/zaz in the Old. Again, the fact that the aspirate, though pronounced, was never written in Greek should be taken into account ; and any diverg- ence from the Hebrew form which can be traced to this cause might be neglected ; thus Agar, Eze- kias would be replaced by Hagar, Hezekiah, and Josaphat, Roboam, by Jehoshaphat, Rehoboam 2 . By 1 The genealogies at the beginning of the Books of Chronicles in the LXX offer very many instances of this change. Sometimes this final e represents an V or a 11. 2 For'Pcta (Heb. xi. 31, James ii. 25) our translators have boldly written 'Rahab.'. While speaking of aspirates, it may be mentioned that in the edition of 161 1 the normal spelling in the New Testament is 'Hierusalem'; the only exceptions which I have noticed being i Cor. PROPER NAMES. 173 adopting this principle of neglecting mere peculiari- ties and imperfections of the Greek in the repre- sentation of the Hebrew names, and thus endea- vouring to reproduce the original form which has undergone the modification, we should in almost every important instance bring the names in the Old and New Testament into conformity with each other. A very few comparatively trifling exceptions would still remain, where the Greek form cannot be so ex- plained. These might be allowed to stand ; or if the identity of the person signified was beyond question (e.g. Aram and Ram), the Old Testament form might be replaced in the text, and the Greek form given in the margin. (2) The second of the two principles, which were enunciated above as guiding our English translators, also requires some consideration. Under this head the inconsistency of our Author- ised Version will need correction, for it is incapable of defence. If the prophet was to be called Osee 1 xvi. 3, Gal. i. 17, 18, ii. i, iv. 25, 26, Heb. xii. 22, and the headings of some chapters (e.g. Acts xxi, Rev. xxi), where 'Jerusalem' appears. On the other hand in the Old Testament it is 'Jerusalem,' though 'Hierusalem' occurs in the heading of 2 Sam. xiv. 1 It may be questioned whether this word should be pronounced as a dissyllable, the double e being regarded as an English termination as in Zebedee, Pharisee, etc., or as a trisyllable, the word being considered as a reproduction of the Greek 'fl<r?^. On the other hand there can, I think, be no doubt that the modern 174 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. in the New Testament (Rom. ix. 25), there is no reason why he should have remained Hosea in the Old. If the country appears as Greece in Zechariah (ix. 13) and in the Acts (xx. 2), why should it be named Grecia in the book of Daniel (viii. 21, x. 20, xi. 2) ? If the inhabitants of this country are Greeks in the New Testament, why should they be Grecians in the Old (Joel iii. 6) 1 ? If Mark is substituted for Marcus in some passages (Acts xii. 12, 25, xv. 39, fashion of pronouncing the final e of Magdalene, as though it represented the 77 of the original, is erroneous. The word is far older than the translations made from the Greek in the i6th and i7th centuries, and came from the Latin. Though in the A. V. (1611) the spelling is always ' Magdalene,' yet in the earlier Versions it is indifferently Magdalen and Magdalene. Wycliffe writes it ' Mawdeleyn' a pronun- ciation which has survived in the names of our Colleges and in the adjective 'maudlin.' There is no more reason for sounding the last letter in Magdalene, than in Urbane (Rom. xvi. 9). This last word is printed ' Urbane,' in all the early editions of the A.V. which I have consulted (1611, 1612, 1617, 1629, 1630, 1637). On the other hand the earlier Versions without exception, so far as I have noticed, have ' Urban ' or ' Urbanus.' In the Authorised Version (1611) these final ^'s were common; thus we find Hebrewe, Jewe, Marke, Romane, Samaritane, etc. 1 In the New Testament 'Grecian' is reserved for'EXXijvur-nJj, while 'Greek' represents "EXX^. This distinction is good, as far as it goes ; but in order to convey any idea to an English reader 'EXX^taT^s should be translated by ' Grecian Jew ' or by some similar phrase. As"EXX^ is translated 'Gentile' without hesitation elsewhere (e.g. I Cor. x. 32, xii. 13), it is strange that this rendering is not adopted for 'EXXrjj'fc, where it would have avoided an apparent contradiction, Mark vii. 26 'A Greek, a Syrophenician by nation.' PROPER NAMES. 1/5 2 Tim. iv. 1 1), why should Marcus have been allowed to stand in others (Col. iv. 10, Philem. 24, I Pet. v. 13)? Nay, so far does this inconsistency go, that Jeremy and Jeremias occur in the same Gospel (Matt. ii. 17, xvi. 14) : Luke and Lucas in two companion Epistles sent at the same time, from the same place, arid to the same destination (Col. iv. 14, Philem. 24); and Timothy and Timotheus in the same chapter of the same Epistle (2 Cor. i. i, 19). In all these cases the form which is now the most familiar should be consistently adopted. This rule would substitute Jeremiah for Jeremy, but on the other hand it would prefer Mark to Marcus. At the same time both Cretes (Acts ii. ii) and Cretians (Tit. i. 12) would disappear, and Cretans take their place. This principle, if consistently carried out, would rule one very important example. Familiar usage, which requires that the name JESUS should be re- tained when it designates the most sacred Person of all, no less imperatively demands that Joshua shall be substituted when the great captain of Israel and conqueror of Palestine is intended. For the same reason we speak of the Patriarch as Jacob and the Apostle as James ; of the sister of Moses as Miriam, and the mother of the Lord as Mary. It so happens that both the passages in which the name Jesus de- signates the Israelite captain (Acts vii. 45, Heb. iv. 8) 176 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. are more or less 'obscure either from difficulties in the context or from defects of translation ; and the endless confusion, which is created in the minds of the uneducated by the retention of this form, is a matter of everyday experience. This last example leads me to speak of another point. There can be little doubt that, when the same person is intended, the same form should be adopted throughout. But what should be done, when the name which has a familiar English form applies to unfamiliar persons ? Thus the English John corre- sponds to the Greek 'Icoavr)? or 'Ia>dvvTjs, and to the Hebrew Jehohanan or Johanan (pnirV or pPlV). Are we then in every case to substitute John, where either the Greek or the Hebrew form occurs ? No one would think of displacing John the Baptist, or John the son of Zebedee, or John surnamed Mark. But what are we to do with the Old Testament per- sonages bearing this name ? What with those who are mentioned in S. Luke's genealogy, where appa- rently the name occurs more than once in forms more or less disguised (iii. 24 (?), 27, 30)? What with John i. 42, xxi. 15, 16, 17, where our English Version gives ' Simon son of Jona/ but where the true reading in the original is doubtless 'ladvov ? I do not know that any universal rule can be laid down ; but pro- bably the practice, adopted by our translators, of PROPER NAMES. 177 reproducing the name when it occurs in the Hebrew form, and translating it when in the Greek, would be generally approved. Yet perhaps an exception might be made of John i. 42, xxi. 15, 16, 17, where it is advisable either in the text or in the margin to show the connexion of form with the JSapiayva of Matt xvi. 17*. Again, in the English Version there is the 1 This form 'Iowa may represent two distinct Hebrew names: (i) !"I3V 'A dove,' the prophet's name, Jonah: (2) pill* 'The grace of Jehovah,' Johanan or John. This last is generally written 'luavdv or 'ludvrjs (the form 'ludwrjs with the double v has inferior support). Contracted it becomes 'Iwvav or 'Iwra, the first a being liable to be slurred over in pronunciation, because the Hebrew accent falls on the last syllable. For 'Iwvdv see i Chron. xii. 12 (A, Iwav K), xxvi. 3 (A), Neh. vi. 18 (B), Ezra x. 6 (X corr. from Iwavav), i Esdr. ix. i (B), Luke iii. 27 (v. 1.), iii. 30 (v. 1.); for 'Iwra, i Kings xxv. 23 (B), Luke iii. 30 (v. 1.). Thus the vios 'Iwavov of S. John is equivalent to the Bapiwj/a of S. Matthew. The longer form of the name of S. Peter's father was pre- served also in the Gospel of the Hebrews, as we learn from a marginal note in an early cursive MS (see Tischendorf, Notit. Cod. Sin. p. 58) on Matt. xvi. 17, 'Bapiwva TO 'lovdauov vlt 'Iwdvvov; and in an extant fragment inserted in the Latin translation of Origen in Matt. xix. 19 (ill. p. 671 sq., ed. Delarue), but omitted in the Greek, we read * Simon fili Joanne, facilius est camelum etc.' From not understanding that the two are forms of the same name, some harmonizer devised the statement which we find in a list of Apostles preserved in the Paris MSS Reg. 1789, 1026 (quoted by Cotelier, Pair. Apost. I. p. 275), Ilefi-pos K(d 'AvSptas d5e\(poi, K Trarpbs 'luvd, /j.i)Tp<!)s 'Itaavva, or as it is otherwise read CK irarpos 'ludvvov, nijrpbs 'lavas. Our Lord seems to allude to the meaning of the word in Matt. xvi. 17 'Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jona (Son of the Grace of God), for flesh and blood did not reveal it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.' There is probably a similar allusion in all the passages in S. John. L. R. 12 Ij ERRORS AND DEFECTS. greatest confusion in the forms of another name, Ju- dah, Judas, Juda, Jude. Thus the patriarch is called both Juda and Judah in the same context (Heb. vii. 14, viii. 8), and Judas and Juda in parallel narratives (Matt. i. 2, 3, Luke iii. 33) : and again, the brother of Jesus is called Judas in one Evangelist (Matt xiii. 55) and Juda in another (Mark vi. 3). The principle of familiarity suggests Jude for the writer of the Epistle; Judah for the patriarch and the tribe and country named from him ; and Judas for Iscariot and for the other less known persons bearing the name; while Juda, which occurs for the patriarch or tribe (Luke iii. 33, Heb. vii. 14, Rev. v. 5, vii. 5) and the country (Matt. ii. 6, Luke i. 39), as well as for other unknown persons (Luke iii. 26 (?), 30), ought to dis- appear wholly. And so far as regards Judah and Judas, it would be well to follow this principle ; but, when the name is used of the author of the Epistle, though Jude might (if it were thought fit) be retained in the title, yet Judas should be substituted for Jude in the opening verse, so as not to preclude the identification of this person with the Lord's brother (which is highly probable), or again with his namesake in S. Luke's lists of the Apostles (which has commended itself to many). An error greater than any hitherto mentioned is the rendering of the female name Euodia (Evo&uav PROPER NAMES. 179 Phil. iv. 2) by the masculine Euodias 1 ; while con- versely it seems probable that we should render the name *lovvlav, one of S. Paul's kinsfolk, who was ' noted among the Apostles' (Rom. xvi. 7), by Junias (i.e. Junianus), not Junia. Whether in certain cases a name should be re- tained or translated, will be a matter of question ; but no defence can be offered for the inconsistency of retaining ' Areopagus' in Acts xvii. 19 and rendering it ' Mars-hill' three verses below. Nor again is there any reason why /cpavlov TOTTO? should be translated ' A (or the) place of a skull' in three Gospels (Matt, xxvii. 33, Mark xv. 22, John xix. 17), and 6 TOTTO? 6 Ka\ovfjievo<; icpaviov ' The place which is called Cal- vary* in the fourth (Luke xxiii. 33) 2 . In all places where it is possible, the practice of rendering seems to be preferable; and by the * Three Taverns' a fresh touch is added to the picture of S. Paul's journey (Acts xxviii. 15), which' would have been yet more vivid if consistently therewith our translators had rendered 'ATTTT/OU 3>6pov ' The Market of Appius/ as it stands in the Geneva Version 3 . / 1 See above, p. 142. 2 The word 'Jewry' which was common in the older Versions for Judah or Judaea, has almost disappeared in the Authorised Version of the New Testament, but still remains in two passages (Luke xxiii. 5, John vii. i). In Dan. v. 13 'The children of the captivity of Judah, whom the king my father brought out of Jewry,' the same word in the original is rendered both 'Judah' and 'Jewry.' 3 Another fault is the rendering both Qoivil;, the haven of Crete 12 2 l8o ERRORS AND DEFECTS. The question between reproduction and transla- tion becomes more important when we turn from proper names to official titles and technical terms, such as weights, measures, and the like. In the Old Testament our translators have frequently adopted the former principle, e.g. bath, cor, ephah, etc. : in the New, they almost universally adhere to the latter. In a Version which aims at being popular rather than literary, the latter course seems to be amply justified 1 . Yet, when the principle is conceded, the application is full of difficulty. The choice very often lies between giving a general expression which (Acts xxvii. 12), and ^oivlmj, the country of Phoenicia (Acts xi. 19, xv. 3), by the same word 'Phenice' (after the Bishops' and Geneva Bibles); while conversely $oivtKr) has two different renderings, 'Phenice' (xi. 19, xv. 3), and 'Phenicia' (xxi. 2). The older Versions generally, as late as the Great Bible, have 'Phenices' or 'Phenyces' for both words. Did our translators intend the final e of 'Phenice,' when it represents Phtenix, to be mute, on the analogy of Beatrix, Beatrice ? 1 At all events, whichever course is adopted, it should be carried out consistently. Thus there is no reason why 'Papfil should be sometimes reproduced in the English Version (Matt, xxiii. 7, 8, John i. 38, 49, iii. 2, 26, vi. 25) and sometimes rendered 'Master' (Matt. xxvi. 25, 49, Mark ix. 5, xi. 21, xiv. 45, John iv. 31, ix. 2, xi. 8), or in like manner why 'Papfiovvl, which only occurs twice, should be once translated 'Lord' (Mark x. 51) and once retained (John xx. 16). In the same way the word 7rdcr%a, which is generally rendered 'Pass- over,' is represented once and only once by 'Easter.' (Acts xii. 4). This is a remnant of the earlier Versions in which iraaxa. is commonly translated so, even in such passages as Luke xxii. i ^ eoprr) TUV atf/Aw 77 \eyo/j.tvij TrctVxa 'which is called Easter,' where however the Geneva and Bishops' Bibles substitute * Passover.' OFFICIAL TITLES. iSl conveys no very definite idea, and adopting some technical term which is precise enough to the English ear but suggests a conception more or less at variance with the original. How, for instance, are we to treat dvOvTraros ? Wycliffe reproduced the Latin ' proconsul.' The earlier Versions of the Reformed Church generally give * ruler of the country/ ' ruler.' The Authorised Version adopts the rendering of the Geneva and Bishops' Bibles, 'deputy of the country/ * deputy.' This last has now nothing to recommend it. In the 1 6th century, when the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was styled Deputy, the word would convey a sufficiently precise idea; but now it suggests a wrong conception, if it suggests any at all. What sense, for instance, can an English reader attach to the words * The law is open, and there are deputies' (Acts xix. 38), which in the Authorised Version are given as the rendering of dyopaioi dyovrai, 1 KOI dvOvTraroi ela-w? The term which in the iQth century corresponds most nearly to the deputy of the i6th is lieutenant-governor, and indeed the Geneva Testament did in one passage 1 Why the slovenly translation 'the law is open' should have been allowed to remain it is difficult to see. In the margin our translators suggest 'the court days are kept.' They would have earned our gratitude if in this and other cases they had acted with more boldness and placed in the text the more correct renderings which they have been content to suggest in the margin. 1 82 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. (Acts xviii. 12) translate avdviraTos by 'lieutenant of the country/ but this rendering was dropped in the Geneva Bible, and not taken up again. To this pre- cise language however exception might be taken ; and if so, we should be obliged to fall back on some general term, such as ' governor,' 'chief-magistrate/ or the like. With the rendering of 7/)a/z//,areu9, ' town- clerk/ in Acts xix. 35, I should not be disposed to find fault, for it is difficult to suggest a more exact equivalent. In the context of the same passage how- ever (ver. 31) an English reader would not understand that the 'rulers of Asia' were officers appointed to preside at the festivals, and perhaps 'presidents of Asia' might be substituted with advantage (for the word occurs in the English Bible), though it is im- possible entirely to remove an obscurity which exists also in the Greek 'Acrta/)^?. In Rom. xvi. 23 the substitution of 'treasurer' for 'chamberlain' in the rendering of 6 oi/covofjios rrjs TroXew? would be an im- provement 1 ; for ' treasurer ' again is a good Biblical word, and we do not use 'chamberlain' to describe such an officer as is here intended 2 . On the whole however the rendering of official titles in our Version is fairly adequate and cannot be 1 Wycliffe has 'treasurer,' the Rheims Version 'cofferer': while the Versions of the Reformed Church render it ' chamberlain. ' 3 Perhaps I ought to except the Chamberlain of the Gty of London. OFFICIAL TITLES. 183 much improved. If there is occasionally some incon- sistency and want of method, as for instance when is translated ' chief-captain' and e/caTovrap- reproduced as 'centurion' in the same context 1 (Acts xxi. 31, 32, xxii. 24 26, xxiii. 17 23), still these renderings have established a prescriptive right, and an adequate reason must be shown for disturbing them. In Acts xvi. 35, 38 paftSovxot, 'lictors' is well rendered 'sergeants'; and in xxviii. 16 the translation of o-TpaT07reBdp%7js, the praefectus praetorio^ as 'captain of the guard' is a great improvement on the less precise renderings of the earlier Versions ; ' chief- captain of the host' (Tyndale, Great Bible, Bishops'), 'chief-captain' (Coverdale), 'general captain' (Geneva); and with the addition of one word might very well stand, ' chief-captain (or captain-general) of the guard.' On the other hand in Mark vi. 27 GTretcovXaTcop, which signifies ' a soldier of the guard,' should not have been rendered 'executioner' (in the earlier Versions it is ' hangman'), for this term describes a mere accident of his office. * But if official titles are on the whole fairly ren- dered, this is not the case with another class of technical terms, denoting coins, weights, and measures. As regards coins, the smaller pieces are more 1 Some of the older Versions translate the words * upper ' or ' high captain,' and 'under captain,' respectively. 184 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. adequately translated than the larger. No better rendering than 'mite' is possible for XeTrroV, or than * farthing' for KO^PCLVT^ 'quadrans'; and the relation of the two coins is thus preserved (Mark xii. 42 Xe-Trra &vo, o eariv /coSpdvTrjs). But from this point the inade- quacy and inconsistency begin. Why dao-dpiov, the late Greek diminutive used for the as, of which there- fore the KoSpdvTT]? is a fourth part, should still be translated a farthing*- (which elsewhere represents Ko^pdvnr]^) rather than a penny, it is difficult to see (Matt. x. 29, Luke xii. 6). And, as we advance in the scale, the disproportion between the value of the original coin and the English substitute increases. Thus the denarius, a silver piece of the value origi- nally of ten and afterwards of sixteen asses, is always rendered a penny. Its absolute value, as so much weight in metal, is as nearly as possible the same as the French franc. Its relative value, as a purchasing power, in an age and a country where provisions were much cheaper, was considerably more. Now, it so happens that in almost every case where the word &7)vdpi,ov occurs in the New Testament it is connected with the idea of a liberal or large amount ; and yet in these passages the English rendering names a sum 1 In Matth. x. 29 the Geneva Testament (1557) had rendered dwapiov by a half-penny (as Wycliffe), and similarly 5vo aVad/ata in Luke xii. 6 by a penny. The rest give it ' a farthing,' as in the A. V. COINS, WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 185 which is absurdly small. Thus the Good Samaritan, whose generosity is intended to appear throughout, on leaving takes out 'two pence' and gives them to the innkeeper to supply the further wants of the wounded man. Thus again the owner of the vine- yard, whose liberality is contrasted with the niggardly envious spirit, the * evil eye' of others, gives, as a day's wages, a penny to each man. It is unnecessary to ask what impression the mention of this sum will leave on the minds of an uneducated peasant or shop- keeper of the present day. Even at the time when our Version was made and when wages were lower, it must have seemed wholly inadequate 1 . The in- adequacy again appears, though not so prominently, in the two hundred pence, the sum named as insuf- ficient to supply bread to the five thousand (Mark vi. 37, John vi. 7), and similarly in other cases (e.g. Mark xiv. 5, John xii. 5, Luke vii. 41). Lastly, in the Book of the Revelation (vi. 6) the announce- ment, which in the original implies famine prices, 1 The rendering 'a penny* was probably handed down in this familiar parable from the time when this sum would be no inadequate remunera- tion for a day's labour ; but long before the Versions of the Reformed Church were made this had ceased to be the case. Even in Henry the VIHth's reign a labourer earned from sixpence to eightpence a day (Froude I. p. 29 sq.) ; though after the Restoration the rate of wages does not seem to have advanced much upon this amount (see Macaulay I. p. 413). 1 86 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. is rendered in our English Version, 'A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny.' The fact is that the word ^olvi^, here translated 'measure/ falls below the amount of a quart, while the word Syvdpiov, here trans- lated 'a penny,' approaches towards the value of a shilling. To the English reader the words must convey the idea of enormous plenty 1 . Another word drachma occurs in the parable of the lost money in S. Luke xv. 8, 9, where it is translated piece of silver. Yet the Greek drachma is so nearly equal in value to the Roman denarius, that it may be questioned whether the same coin is not meant by both terms 2 ; and, if piece of silver or silver-piece is a reasonable translation of drachma, it might very well be em- ployed to render denarius. Again, in the incident relating to the tribute-money (Matt. xvii. 24 sq.) mention is made of two different coins or sums of money, the didrachma and the stater, the latter being 1 A * measure ' in some parts of England is or was equivalent to a Winchester bushel. At all events it would suggest a large rather than a small quantity. 2 See Plin. N.H. xxi. 109 'Drachma Attica denarii argentei habet pondus.' This parable does not occur in S. Matthew and S. Mark, and must have been derived by S. Luke from some independent source. Hence, as addressing Greek readers chiefly, he would not unnaturally name a Greek coin in preference. Similarly it was seen above (p. 1 24) that 6piv^ is confined to S. Luke in that portion of his narrative which does not run parallel with the other two Evangelists. COINS, WEIGHTS AND MEASURES. 187 double of the former; and this relation of value is important, and should have been preserved if possible, because it explains our Lord's words, 'Take it (the stater) and give unto them for me and for thee! In our Version however didrachma is rendered ' tribute- money, tribute/ and stater 'a piece of money.' Of larger amounts mina (fjLva) is translated a 'pound' in one parable (Luke xix. 13)*; while in two others (Matt, xviii. 24 sq., xxv. 14 sq.) talent is allowed to stand. From the latter of these comes the second- ary metaphorical sense of the word ' talent/ which has entirely superseded the literal meaning in common language. The treatment of measures again is extremely loose. The ^erp^r^ indeed is fairly rendered ' firkin* in John ii. 6; and the modius appears as 'bushel' (Matt. v. 15, Mark iv. 21, Luke xi. 33), where the English measure, though greatly in excess of the Latin, which is about a peck, may nevertheless remain undisturbed, since nothing depends on exactness. With these ex- ceptions, the one word ' measure' is made to do duty for all the terms which occur in the original. Thus in Rev. vi. 6, already quoted, it stands for a 1 The Wycliffite Versions have 'besaunt* for (tva here ; but the care- lessness with which the word is used appears from the fact that they employ it also to render drachma on the one hand (Luke xv. 8) and lalcntum on the other (Matt, xviii. 24 (v. 1.), xxv. 16). 1 88 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. something under a quart; and in other passages it represents not less than three Hebrew measures, the o-arov or seah (Matt. xiii. 33, Luke xiii. 21), the /Saro?, the bath or ephah, and the /copos, the cor or homer (both in Luke xvi. 6, 7), though the seah is one-third of the bath, and the bath one-tenth of the cor. In the former of these two passages from the Gospels accu- racy is unimportant, for the ' three measures of meal' in the parable will tell their tale equally, whatever may be the contents of the measure : though even here we may regret that our translators deserted the more precise ' peck,' which they found in some of the older Versions. But in Luke xvi. 6, 7, where the bath and the cor are mentioned in the same context, they should certainly be distinguished. The icopot, alrov might very well be rendered 'quarters of wheat* with Tyndale and several of the older Versions. For the fta-roi ekaLov it is more difficult to find an equivalent : Wycliffe renders /Sarou? by ' barrels'; the Rheims Version by 'pipes.' In Rev. vi. 6 it is still more important to aim at precision, because the ex- tremity of the famine only appears when the proper relation between the measure and the price is pre- served. Here %otwf might very well be translated <a quart.' ARCHAISMS. 1 89 This discussion has been occupied hitherto with questions affecting the correctness of our Version, as representing the Greek. It remains to consider the English in itself, as a literary production rather than as a translation, and to ask how far it is capable of amendment from this point of view. And here I certainly am not disposed to dissent from the universal verdict, in which those least dis- posed to stubborn conservatism have most heartily concurred, and which has been reasserted only the more emphatically since the question of revision was started. But those who have studied our English Version most carefully, and therefore have entered most fully into its singular merits, will be the least disposed to deny that here and there the reviser's hand may be employed with advantage. Under this head the archaisms demand to be considered first. Whatever may have been the feel- ing in generations past, there is no disposition in the present age to alter the character of our Version. The stately rhythm and the archaic colouring are alike sacred in the eyes of all English-speaking peo- ples. On the other hand it must be borne in mind that our Version addresses itself not to archaeolo- gists and critics, but to plain folk. And these two ERRORS AND DEFECTS considerations combined should guide the pen of the reviser. So long as an archaism is intelligible, let it by all means be retained. If it is misleading or am- biguous or inarticulate, the time for removing it has come. As examples of innocent archaisms we might quote 'bewray,' 'despite/ 'list,' 'strait,' 'travail,' 'twain/ and hundreds of others. Whether it would be necessary to wring the heart of the archaeologist by removing 'all to brake' and 'earing/ we need not stop to consider, as they do not occur in the New Testament. If on the other hand I were asked to point out a guilty archaism, I should lay my finger at once on the translation of iiepipvav in Matt. vi. 25, 31, 34, fj,ij /jLpi/j,vaT6 ry Tjrv%y vfjLoov TI <f)aryr)T6 ' Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat/ ^ /j,epi/j,vr)(7r)Te \eyov- T69 rl (frcvycojjLev f Take no thought saying What shall we eat ?', /JLIJ {jLepi/jLvrjo-fiTe els rrjv avpiov ' Take no thought for the morrow.' I have heard of a political economist alleging this passage as an objection to the moral teaching of the Sermon on the Mount on the ground that it encouraged, nay commanded, a reckless neglect of the future. I have known of cases in which scrupulous consciences have been troubled by language seeming to condemn their most reasonable acts of care and forethought ; of ARCHAISMS. IQI others in which religious persons have been misled by this paramount authority (as it seemed to be) into a systematic improvidence. A knowledge of the Greek would have shown that it is not reasonable fore- thought but distress and anxiety about the future which our Lord forbids; for this, and not less than this, is the force of pepLiiva, as may be seen from such passages as I Pet. v. 7 iraaav rrjv fj,epi,fjivav vputv liriptyavres ITT CIVTOV, on avra> fjie\6i> irepl VJJLCOV, where the distinction of fj,epifj,va and /xeXetz/ is signi- ficant, though effaced in our English Version, * Cast- ing all your care upon Him, for He careth for you.' A study of English archaisms again would have taught that our translators did not intend what they seem to say, for to 'take thought' in the old language meant to distress or trouble oneself 1 . But the great mass of people have neither the time nor the opportunity, even if they had the capacity, for such investigations. This archaism therefore is one which at all hazards should disappear in any revision of the English Bible. For 'take no thought' some have suggested ' be not careful.' But this, though an improvement, is very far from adequate. For careful- 1 *.. i Sam. ix. 5, 'Come, and let us return, lest my father.. .ta&r thought for us,' where the Hebrew verb is JN1, which Gesenius renders sollicilus fuit, anxie timuit. 'To die of thought' in the old language was to die heart-broken. On this archaism see Trench Authorized Version p. 14, Wright Bible Word- Book s. v. I Q2 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. ness, though in the i6th and i/th centuries it might be a term of reproof 1 , in the modern language almost always implies commendation. In fact it is an archa- ism open to the same misapprehension, though not to the same degree, as ' take no thought.' ' Be not anxious' or 'be not troubled' would adequately ex- press the original. The word 'anxious/ it is true, does not occur in our English Bible, but this is one of those rare instances where our new revisers might well assume the liberty, which the authors of the Received Version certainly claimed and exercised before them, of introducing a new word, where the language has shifted and no old word conveys the exact meaning. But though ' take no thought' is the worst offender of all, yet other archaisms might with advantage be removed. We may suspect that many an English- man, when he hears of Zacharias ' asking for a writing table (Luke i. 63),' conceives a notion very different from the Evangelist's own meaning. We have heard how the enquiring school-boy has been perplexed at 1 In fact it is used more than once to translate this very word ptpi/jLva, e.g. i Cor. vii. 32 *I would have you without carefulness,' i.e. anxiety (0Au> u/uas a/j.epi(jLt>ov$ etvai) ; Phil. iv. 6 'Be careful for nothing' (/ji.r)dev Latimer Serni. p. 400 (quoted in Wright's Bible Word-Book s. v.) speaks of ' this wicked carefulness,' an expression which in the modern language would be a contradiction in terms. ARCHAISMS. 193 reading that S. Paul and his companions 'fetched a compass' when they set sail from Syracuse (Acts xxviii. 13), not being able to reconcile this statement with the date given for the invention of this instru- ment. We can well imagine that not a few members of an average congregation, when the incident in the synagogue at Nazareth is read and they hear that the book, when closed, is handed 'to the minister 9 (Luke iv. 20), do not carry away quite the correct idea of the person intended by this expression. We must have misgivings whether our Lord's injunction to the disciples to 'take no scrip' with them, or S. Luke's statement that the Apostle's company ' took up their carriages and went up to Jerusalem ' (Acts xxi. 15), are universally understood. We may feel quite certain that the great majority of readers do not realise the fact (for how should they?) that by the highest and the lowest rooms in the parable are meant merely the places or seats 1 at the top or bottom of the same table, and that therefore the invi- tation to ' go up higher ' does not imply mounting a staircase to a more dignified reception-room in the upper storey. We find that even a scholarly divine" 1 Again in i Cor. xiv. 16 ' He that occupieth the room of the un- learned,' a double archaism obscures the sense of the original 6 avatrX-rjpwv TOV rbirov * He that fillet h the place? 2 Blunt Church of the First Three Centuries p. 27 'She was to have L. R. 13 194 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. seems to infer from S. Paul's language (i Tim. v. 4) the duty incumbent not only on children but even on nephews of providing for their aged relations ; and finding this we can hardly expect illiterate persons to know that in the old language nepJuw signifies grandchild. Among these misleading archaisms the word coast for ' border ' or ' region ' is perhaps the most frequent. It would be unreasonable to expect the English reader to understand that when S. Paul passes * through the upper coasts ' (ra dvcorepi/ca pep'n) on his way to Ephesus (Acts xix. i ), he does in fact traverse the high land which lies in the interior of Asia Minor. Again in the Gospels, when he reads of our Lord visiting * the coasts of Tyre and Sidon ' (Matt. xv. 21, Mark vii. 31), he naturally thinks of the sea-board, knowing these to be maritime cities, whereas the word in one passage stands for pepy 'parts,' and in the other for opua ' borders,' and the circumstances suggest rather the eastern than the western frontier of the region. And perhaps also his notions of the geography of Palestine may be utterly confused by reading that Capernaum is situated 'upon the sea- coast' (Matt. iv. 13). Then again, how is such a person to know that none of those children able to minister to her nor yet nephews'; see Trench's Authorized Version p. [8. ARCHAISMS. 195 when S. Paul condemns ' debate ' together with envy, wrath, murder, and the like (Rom. i. 29, 2 Cor. xii. 20), he denounces not discussion, but contention, strife (e/o*?); or that when he says, 'If any man have a quarrel against any' (Col. iii. 13), he means a com- plaint (querela), the original being exy pop$r)v ; or that, when S. James writes ' Grudge not one against another' (v. 9), the word signifies 'murmur' or 'be- moan ' (o-rei/afere) ? Even if he is aware that ' wicked lewdness* (Acts xviii. 14) does not signify gross sen- suality, will he also know conversely that by ' the hidden things of dishonesty ' (2 Cor. iv. 2) the Apostle means not fraudulence, want of probity, but 'secret deeds of shame* (alaxvvTjs) ? If context and common sense alike teach him that the ' highmindedness' which S. Paul more than once condemns (y"fyr)\o$poveiv, Rom. xi. 20, I Tim. vi. 17; rerv^wfievoi, 2 Tim. iii. 4) is not what we commonly understand by the term, will he also perceive that the ' maliciousness' which is denounced alike by S. Paul (Rom. i. 29 ' filled with maliciousness') and S. Peter (i Pet. ii. 16 'not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness') does not denote one special form of evil, but the vicious cha- racter generally (/caicla) ? Again, the expressions instantly and by and by may be taken in connexion, as being nearly allied. Yet in Biblical language neither signifies what it 132 196 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. would signify to ourselves. Instantly has not a tem- poral sense at all, but means 'urgently,' as in Luke vii. 4, 'They besought him instantly (o-7rou&u&)<?)': while on the other hand by and by, having a temporal sense, denotes not deferred but immediate action, standing most frequently for evQvs or evOecos and therefore cor- responding to the modern sense of instantly. Thus in the Greek of the parable of the sower the instan- taneous welcome of the word has its counterpart in the instantaneous apostasy under persecution (Matt, xiii. 2O, 2l) evQvs pera xapa? \a^avwv avrov, ev6i><? cr/cav$akieTai, ; but in the English Version this ap- pears, ' Anon with joy receiveth it/ * By and by he is offended ' ; where partly through the archaisms and partly through the change of words the expressiveness of the original is seriously blunted. The passage last quoted contains another archa- ism, which is a type of a whole class. Words derived from the Latin and other foreign languages being comparatively recent had very frequently not arrived at their ultimate sense when our Version was made, and were more liable to shift their meaning than others. We have witnessed this phenomenon in instantly, and the same was also the case with offend, offence. ' If thy right eye offend thee,' ' Woe unto him through whom the offences come,' do not convey to any but the educated reader the idea which they ARCHAISMS. 197 were intended to express. By substituting ' cause to offend ' (or perhaps ' cause to stumble ' or * to fall ') for 4 offend,' we may in passages where the verb occurs bring out the idea more clearly; but in the case of the substantive the right of prescription and the diffi- culty of finding an equivalent may plead for the re- tention of the word. But where other Latinisms are concerned, no such excuse can be pleaded. Thus, ' Occupy till I come ' (Trpay^arevaacrde, Luke xix. 13) is quite indefensible. Wycliffe has marchaundise-. Purvey chaffer \ Tyndale buy and sell \ and it is diffi- cult to see why a word should have been substituted in the later Bibles, which must (one would think) have appeared novel and affected at the time, and which has changed its meaning since. I have sug- gested ' Trade ye ' above (p. 47). Another example is * O generation (yevvij/jLara) of vipers/ which the English reader inevitably takes to be a parallel ex- pression to ' a wicked and adulterous generation (yeved),' though the Greek words are quite different, and generation in the first passage signifies ' offspring' or ' brood ' two good old English words, either of which might advantageously be substituted for it. Another is the rendering of Acts xvii. 23, 'As I passed by and beheld your devotions ' (cre/Sacr/tara), where ' your devotions ' is not a misrendering but an ar- chaism, signifying 'the objects of your worship/ 'your 198 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. gods or idols/ Other instances again are I Tim. iii. 13, 'They that have used the office of a deacon well, purchase ('jrepiTroiovvTcu) to themselves a good degree/ where the idea of traffic suggested by the modern use of the word is alien to the passage; and Matt. xviL 25, 'When he was come into the house, Jesus pre- vented (TTpotyOacrev) him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon ?', in which passage at all events the original meaning of ' prevent' would not suggest itself to the English reader. In both cases we might with advan- tage recur to the renderings of Tyndale, 'get' for * purchase/ and ' spake first ' for ' prevented/ From the word last mentioned we pass not un- naturally to the verb which it has supplanted. To prevent has taken the place of to let, meaning to check, to hinder, while this latter verb has become obsolete in this sense. Unnecessary and unadvisable as it would be to alter this archaism in such phrases as ' Sore let and hindered in running the race that is set before us/ where it cannot mislead, its occur- rence in the New Testament is not always free from objection. In 2 Thess. ii. 7, for instance a passage difficult enough without any artificial obscurities 'He who now letteth will let? should not be allowed to stand. Not very dissimilar to the last instance is the ambiguity of 'go about/ used in our Version as a AMBIGUITIES. 199 common rendering of grjTeiv. In such passages as John vii. 19, 20, 'Why go ye about to kill me ?' 'Who goeth about to kill thee?', Acts xxi. 31 'As they went about to kill him/ it can hardly occur to the English reader that nothing more is meant than * seek to kill,' as the same phrase fyrelv aTTOKrelvai is translated elsewhere, and even in the very context of the first passage (John vii. 25). In Acts xxiv. 5, 6, again the misunderstanding is rendered almost inevitable by the context, ' A mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world... who also hath gone about to profane the temple' ; where the expression represents another verb similar to frjreiv in meaning, TO lepov After disposing of the archaisms, little remains to be said about the English of our Version. There are however some ambiguities of translation which arise from other causes. Thus Ephes. vi. 1 2 ' Against spi- ritual wickedness in high places* (TT/JO? ra Trvev/jLaTitcaTrjs Trovrjplas ev rot? &irovpavtoi$), where the English reader is led to think of vice in persons of rank and station ; Phil. iii. 14 ' The prize of your high calling' (rr;? dva) /cX^creo)?), where the English epithet rather suggests quality than locality as the original requires ; Col. iii. 8 * But now you also/;// offz\\ these ' (vvvl Se diroOevOe KOI v/Meis TO, TrdvTa), where the sentence appears to be indicative instead of imperative; I Tim. iii. 16 'And 2OO ERRORS 'AND DEFECTS. without controversy (6jjio\oyov/jLevci)<;) great is the mys- tery of godliness/ where the meaning of 'controversy' is ambiguous, and where the older Versions translated 6fJio\o<yov/jLeva)<; 'without nay' or 'without doubt'; Heb. v. 2 ' On the ignorant and on them that are out of theway' (ro?9 dyvoovcn KOI TrXayeoyu-ei/ot?), where the repe- tition of the preposition leads the English reader still further away from the proper sense of TrXavapevois ; Heb. v. 12 'For when for the time ye ought to be teachers ' (KCLI yap o<f>i\ovT6<> elvcn, SiBda/caXot, Sid TOV Xpovov), where without the Greek no one would ima- gine that 'for the time' means 'by reason of the long period of your training ' ; Apoc. iv. 1 1 ' For thy plea- sure they are, and were created (etVl KOI eKrio-Bfjaav 1 )^ where are reads as an auxiliary. In all such cases (and many other examples might be given) the remedy is easy. The great merit of our Version is its truly English character the strength and the homeliness of its lan- guage. Its authors were fully alive to the importance of preserving this feature, as impressed upon the Eng- lish Bible by Tyndale, and set their faces resolutely against the Latinisms to which the Rheims Version had attempted to give currency' 2 . In this they were 1 So the received text: but the correct reading is rfffav for et<rl. 2 In this Version I open a chapter accidentally (Ephes. iv) and find 'donation of Christ,' 'interior parts,' 'doctors,' 'circumvention of FAULTS OF EXPRESSION. 2OI eminently successful, as a rule ; and it is only to be regretted that they allowed themselves occasionally to depart from their principle where there was no adequate need. The word occupy, which I have al- ready considered from a different point of view, is an illustration. Another is addict in I Cor. xvi. 15. ' They have addicted themselves (era^av eaurou?) to the ministry of the saints/ which rendering seems to have been introduced first in the Bishops' Bible, and cannot be considered an improvement on the Geneva Version, 'They have given themselves to minister unto the saints.' A more flagrant instance is 2 Cor. ix. 13, where a concurrence of Latinisms obscures the sense and mars the English, 'By the experiment of this ministration they glorify God for your professed subjection unto the Gospel of Christ/ where ' experi- ment ' and ' professed ' ought at all events to be al- tered as they have shifted their meaning, and where for once the Rheims Version gives purer English, ' By the proof of this ministry glorifying God in the obedience of your confession unto the Gospel of Christ' (Siarrj? Bo/ci/Ar)? rrjs Sia/covias ravTTjs Sofafoz/re? rov eoz> eVl r/7 vTrorayfj T^? 6{ioXoyias VJJLWV et? TO vayye\iov rov errour,' 'juncture of subministration,' 'vanity of their sense,' 'impu- dicity,' 'contristate.' Yet it was published nearly thirty years before the Authorised Version. 2O2 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. A fault of another kind is translating o$e\ov ' I would to God' (i Cor. iv. 8), though the earlier Ver- sions all give it so, with the exception of Wycliffe whose simpler rendering ' I would ' might be adopted with advantage. In this case the introduction of the Divine name is hardly defensible. In the case of yu?) yevoiro ' God forbid/ the difficulty of finding another idiomatic rendering may possibly excuse it. Yet even here we cannot but regret a rendering which in- terferes so seriously with the argument, as it presents itself to the English reader, in such passages as Rom. iii. 4, 6, ' God forbid ; yea, let God be true (/AT) yevoiro, yw<r&oo 8e 6 eo? a\7)dr)<s)? ' God forbid ; for then how shall God judge the world (fir) yevoiro, eVet 7T059 KplVel 6 60? TOV KOCTfJiOv) ? ' I shall pass over instances of careless grammar in the English, because these are not numerous and have been dealt with elsewhere. But it may be worth while to point out inadvertences of another kind ; where the same word is twice rendered in the English Version, or where conversely the same English word is made to do duty for two Greek words. Of the latter, examples occur in John xi. 14 ' Then (rore ovv) said Jesus unto them plainly/ where ' then ' stands for two words, ' then ' local and ' then ' argu- mentative ; or Rom. vi. 2 1 ' What fruit had ye then (riva ovv icapTrbv e^ere Tore) in those things whereof ERRORS OF THE PRESS. 2O3 ye are now ashamed ?', where exactly the same error is committed. Of the converse error the double ren- dering of the same word we have an instance in James v. 16, TTO\V lo-^vei Se?;cn9 Si/caiov evepyov^evrj, 'The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much,' where the word ' effectual ' is worse than superfluous. This last rendering I am disposed to ascribe to carelessness in correcting the copy for the press. The word would be written down on the copy of the Bishops' Bible which the revisers used, either as a tentative correction or an accidental gloss ; and, not having been erased before the copy was sent to the press, would appear in the text 1 . To the same cause also we may perhaps ascribe the rendering of I Cor. xiv. 23, eav ovv crvve\6r) 77 eKic\T]a-ia o\rj eVt TO avro. In the Bishops' Bible this stands, ' If therefore all the Church be come together into one place/ but in the Authorised, ' If therefore the whole Church be come together into some place.' I presume that the revisers intended to alter 'one' 1 In the Bishops' Bible, which the translators had before them, the passage runs 'the fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.' The only fact connected with previous Versions which I can discover as throwing any light on the insertion of this word 'effectual' is a marginal note in Tomson's New Testament, printed with the Geneva Bible ; 'He commendeth prayers by the effects that come of them, that all men may understand that there is nothing more effectual than they are, so that they proceed from a pure mind.' 2O4 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. into ' the same,' but that this correction was indis- tinctly made, and being confused with the other cor- rection in the same clause which required a trans- position of ' the,' led to the error which stands in our text. What misconception may arise from a mere error of the press appears from the often discussed phrase, ' Strain &t a gnat' ; where unquestionably our translators intended to retain the rendering of the earlier Versions, ' Strain out a gnat,' and the existing text can only be explained as a misprint. Indeed the printing of the edition of 1611 is very far from correct ; and if our present Bibles for the most part deserve praise for great accuracy, we owe this to the fact that the text of this first edition was not regarded as sacred or authoritative, but corrections were freely introduced afterwards wherever a plain error was de- tected. Thus in Exod. xxxviii. 1 1 ' Hoopes of the pillars' has been altered into 'hooks of the pillars '; in Isaiah xlix. 20 'The place is too straight' into 'The place is too strait* '; in Hos. vi. 5 'Shelved them by the prophets' (where the word 'shewed' was evi- dently introduced by an ingenious compositor who did not understand the correct text) into 'Hewed them by the prophets'; in Ecclus. xliv. 5 'Rejected verses' into ' recited verses '; and the like. In the headings of the chapters too some curious errors in the edition of 1611 were afterwards corrected; e.g. ERRORS OF THE PRESS. 2O5 2 Sam. xxiv. ' eleven thousand ' into ' thirteen hundred thousand,' I Cor. v. 'shamed' into 'shunned 1 .' Nay, in some passages the changes made in later editions are even bolder than this; as for instance in I Tim. i. 4, ol/coSofjilav [the correct reading is oltcovofjbtav] eo> TTJV eV Trio-ret ' Edifying which is in faith/ the word 0eo{) by some inadvertence was untranslated in the edition of 1611, and so it remained for many years after- wards, until in the Cambridge edition of 1638 'godly' was inserted after the earlier Versions, and this has held its ground ever since 2 . As this wise liberty was so freely exercised in other cases, it is strange that the obvious misprint 'strain at' should have survived the successive revisions of two centuries and a half. While speaking of errors and corrections of the press, it may be worth while in passing to observe 1 The corrections in Ecclus. xliv. 5, 2 Sam. xxiv, were made in 1612: those in Exod. xxxviii. n, Is. xlix. 20, Hos. vi. 5, i Cor. v, in 1613. A number of errors however still remained, which were removed from time to time in later editions. The edition of 1613, though it corrected some blunders, was grossly inaccurate, as may be seen from the colla- tion with the edition of 1611, prefixed to the Oxford reprint of the latter (1833). 2 I owe this fact, which has probably been noticed elsewhere, to some valuable MS notes of the late Prof. Grote on the printing of the English Bible. The error may be explained by supposing that the word 'godly' was struck out in the copy of the Bishops' Bible altered for the press, while the proposed substitution was omitted to be made or was made in such a way that it escaped the eye of the compositor. 2O6 ERRORS AND DEFECTS. how this license of change has affected the ortho- graphy. It would be a surprise to an English reader now to find in his Bible such words as aliant, causey, charet, cise, crudle, damosell, fauchion, fet, fift, flixe, iland, mids, moe, monethes, neesing, oweth (Lev. xiv. 35 for 'owneth'), price (Phil. iii. 14 for 'prize'), re- nowme, etc. While these have been altered into alien, causeway, chariot, size, curdle, damsel, falchion, fetched, fifth, flux, island, midst, more, months, sneez- ing, owneth, prize, renown, respectively, a capricious conservatism has retained the archaic spelling in other cases, such as fat, fetches, graff, hoise, pilled, strawed, throughly, for vat, vetches, graft, hoist, peeled, strewed, thoroughly. In some cases this caprice ap- pears in the same word ; thus neesings is retained in Job xli. 1 8, while sneezed is substituted for neesed in 2 Kings iv. 35. This license has had its disadvan- tages as well as its advantages ; if the substitution of 'its' for 'it' (Lev. xxv. 5, 'it owne accord' i6ii l ) was imperatively demanded by the change in the lan- guage, the alteration of ' shamefast, shamefastness' into 'shamefaced, shamefacedness' is unfortunate, as suggesting a wrong derivation and an inadequate meaning. Amidst all these changes it is a happy accident that the genuine form of the name of Phile- mon's wife has survived, though the precedent of the 1 See Wright's Bible Word-Book, s. v. //. CHANGES OF SPELLING. 2OJ older Versions and the authority of modern commen- tators alike would have led to the substitution of the Latin name 'Appia' for the Phrygian 'ApphiaV V. I have attempted to show in what directions our English Version is capable of improvement. It will be necessary to substitute an amended for a faulty text ; to remove artificial distinctions which do not 1 In Philem. 2 the reading is unquestionably 'A7r0ig, though some uncial MSS (of little value on a point of orthography) have a00a, a legitimate form, or dfjufriq., a manifest corruption: the authority for 'ATTTria is absolutely worthless. The fact is that this word has no con- nexion (except in sound) with the Roman Appia, but represents a native Phrygian name, which with various modifications appears again and again in the Phrygian inscriptions: e.g. Boeckh Corp. Inscr. 3814 Xei'/ccu/Spos /cat 'A00a yvvrj avrov, 3826 Hpurbpaxos 'A0[0]ta ywatKi, 3932 m rfjyvvaiid avrov 'A[7r]0i'p, 3962 'A7r0i'a eyu /ret/icu, 3827 1 (Appx.) 'A00ia 'Mevai'Spov, 3846 z (Appx.) BwXas 'A00i'a ffwftltp. Frequently also we meet with the diminutive air<f>i.ov, &(p<f>ioi', or &<j.ov, as a female name; e.g. 3849, 3891, 3899, 3902 m, 3846 z (Appx.). The form "ATTTTT; however sometimes occurs. This word may be compared with other common Phrygian names, Ammia, Nania, Tatia, and the mascu- line Pappias or Papias. Not observing the Phrygian origin of the name, the commentators speak as though it were the feminine corresponding to the masculine in Acts xxviii. 15 'Aiririov <j>bpov, and call attention to the difference in form, ?T0 for TTTT. All the older translations, so far as I have observed, print it Appia, so that the Authorised Version stands alone in its cor- rectness. 208 PROSPECTS OF REVISION. exist in the Greek ; to restore real distinctions which existing there were overlooked by our translators ; to correct errors of grammar and errors of lexicography; to revise the treatment of proper names and technical terms ; and to remove a few archaisms, ambiguities, and faults of expression, besides inaccuracies of editor- ship, in the English. All this may be done without altering the character of the Version. In this review of the question I have done nothing more than give examples of the different classes of errors. An exhaustive treatment of the subject was impossible; and the case therefore is much stronger than it is here made to appear. If for instance any one will take the trouble to go through some one book of the New Testament, as the Epistle to the Hebrews, referring to any recent critical edition of the Greek text and comparing it carefully with the English, he will see that the faults of our Version are very far from being few and slight or imaginary. But if a fair case for revision has been made out, it still re- mains to ask whether there is any reasonable prospect of success, if the attempt be made at the present time. Now in one important point perhaps the most important of all the answer must, I think, be favour- able. Greek scholarship has never stood higher in England than it does at the present moment. There is not only a sufficient body of scholars capable of IMAGINARY DANGERS. 209 undertaking the work, but there is also (and this is a most important element in the consideration) a very large number besides fully competent to submit the work of the revisers, when completed, to a minute and searching criticism. And, though we may trust that anyone who is called to take his share in the work will do so with a deep sense of the responsibility of the task assigned to him, still it will be a great stimulus to feel that he is surrounded by competent critics on all sides, and a great support to be able to gather opinions freely from without. But I would venture to go a step beyond this. I should be glad to think my apprehensions groundless, but there is at least some reason to forbode that Greek scholarship has reached its height in England, and that hence- forth it may be expected to decline 1 . The clamours of other branches of learning more especially of scientific studies for a recognised place in general education are growing louder and louder, and must make themselves heard ; and, if so, the almost ex- 1 Mr Marsh (Lectures on the English Language, xxviii, p. 639) says * There is no sufficient reason to doubt that at the end of this century the knowledge of biblical Greek and Hebrew will be as much in advance of the present standard, as that standard is before the sacred philology of the beginning of this century.' I wish I could take this very sanguine view of the probable future of the Greek language in England : as regards Hebrew, I have abstained from expressing an opinion. L. R. 14 210 PROSPECTS OF REVISION. elusive dominion of the Classical languages is past. I need not here enter into the question whether these languages have or have not been overrated as an instrument of education. It is sufficient to call attention to the fact that, whether rightly or wrongly, public opinion is changing in this respect, and to prepare for the consequences. And, if we turn from the Greek language to the English, the present moment seems not unfavourable for the undertaking. Many grave apprehensions have been expressed on this point, and alarming pic- tures are drawn of the fatal results which will follow from any attempt to meddle with the pure idiom of our English Bible. Of the infusion of Latinisms and Gallicisms, with which we are threatened, I myself have no fear. In the last century, or in the beginning of the present, the danger would have been real. The objections urged against the language of our English Bible by those who then advocated revision are now almost incredible. The specimens which they offered of an improved diction of the modern type would appear simply ludicrous to us, if the subject, on which the experiment was tried, had been less grave 1 . The very words which these critics 1 See examples in Trench's Authorized Version, p. 23 sq., and Prof. Plumptre's article in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible, s. v. Version, Autho- rised. ' I remember the relief,' writes Mr Matthew Arnold (Culture and IMAGINARY DANGERS. 2 I I would have ejected from our English Bibles, as bar- barous or uncouth or obsolete, have again taken their place in our highest poetry, and even in our popular language. And though it is impossible that the nineteenth century should ever speak the language of the sixteenth or seventeenth, still a genuine appre- ciation and careful study of the Authorised Version and of the older translations will (we may reasonably hope) enable the present revisers, in the corrections which they may introduce, to avoid any anachronisms of diction which would offend the taste or jar upon the ear. There is all this difference between the pre- sent advocates of revision and the former, that now we reverence the language and idiom of our English Bibles, whereas they regarded it as the crowning offence which seemed most to call for amendment. In several instances the end may be attained by returning to the renderings of the earlier Versions > which the revisers of 1611 abandoned. In almost every other case the words and even the expressions Anarchy, p. 44), 'with which after long feeling the sway of Franklin's imperturbable good sense, I came upon a project of his for a new version of the Book of Job to replace the old version, the style of which, says Franklin, has become obsolete and thence less agreeable. "I give," he continues, "a few verses which may serve as a sample of the kind of version I would recommend."...! well remember how wheA first I read that, I drew a deep breath of relief and said to myself: After all, there is a stretch of humanity beyond Franklin's victorious good sense.' 142 212 PROSPECTS OF REVISION. which the correction requires will be supplied from some other part of the Authorised Version itself. Very rare indeed are the exceptions where this assis- tance will fail and where it may be necessary to in- troduce a word for which there is no authority in the English Bibles. In these cases care must be taken that the word so introduced shall be in harmony with the general character of our biblical diction. So much license the new revisers may reasonably claim for themselves, as it was certainly claimed by the revisers of 1611. If these cautions are observed the Bible will still remain to future generations what it has been to past not only the store-house of the highest truth, but also the purest well of their native English. Indeed we may take courage from the fact, that the language of our English Bible is not the language of the age in which the translators lived, but in its grand simplicity stands out in contrast to the ornate and often affected diction of the literature of that time 1 . For if the retention of an older and better model was possible in the seventeenth century, it is quite as possible in the nineteenth. Nor again can there be any reasonable ground for apprehension as to the extent and character of the changes which may be introduced. The regula- tions under which the new company of revisers will 1 See Marsh's Lectures, p. 621 sq. IMAGINARY DANGERS. 213 act are a sufficient guarantee against hasty and capri- cious change. The language which public speakers and newspaper critics have held on this point would only then have force, if absolute power were given to each individual reviser to introduce all his favourite crotchets. But anyone, who has acted in concert with a large number of independent men, trained apart and under separate influences, will know how very difficult it is to secure the consent of two-thirds of the whole body to any change which is not a manifest improvement, and how wholly impossible it would be to obtain the suffrages of this number for a novel and questionable rendering, however important it might seem to its proposer. It is very possible that several corrections which I have suggested here may appear to others in this unfavourable light. Indeed it is hardly probable that in all cases they should escape being condemned ; for anyone, interested in such a subject, is naturally led to give prominence to those views on which he lays stress himself, just because they appear to him not to have received proper attention from others. But if so, it is morally certain that they will be treated as they deserve, and not suffered to disfigure the Revised Version as it will appear before the public. Indeed if there be any reasonable grounds for apprehension, the danger is rather that the changes introduced will be too slight 214 PROSPECTS OF REVISION. to satisfy the legitimate demands of theology and scholarship, than that they will be so sweeping as to affect the character of our English Bible. Lastly ; in one respect at least the present Revi- sion is commenced under very auspicious circum- stances. There has been great liberality in inviting the cooperation of those Biblical scholars who are not members of the Anglican communion, and they on their part have accorded a prompt and cheerful wel- come to this invitation. This is a matter for great thankfulness. It may be accepted as a guarantee that the work is undertaken not with any narrow sectarian aim, but in the broad interests of truth ; while also it is an earnest that, if the revision when completed recommends itself by its intrinsic merits (and if it does not, the sooner it is forgotten the better), then no unworthy jealousy will stand in the way of its general reception 1 . And meanwhile may we not cherish a loftier hope ? Now for the first time the bishops of our Church and the representatives of 1 'At this day,' wrote Mr Marsh in 1859, 'there could be no har- mony of action on this subject between difterent churches... So long as this sectarian feeling for it can be appropriately designated by no other term prevails on either side, there can be no union upon conditions compatible with the self-respect of the parties ' (p. 641 sq.). This pre- liminary difficulty at least has been overcome ; the 'better counsels,' of which this able writer seems to have despaired, have prevailed ; no wound has been inflicted on self-respect ; and entire harmony 01 action has been attained. FAVOURABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. 215 our Convocation will meet at the same table with Nonconformist divines, and will engage in a common work of a most sacred kind the interpretation of those Writings which all alike reverence 'as the source of their truest inspiration here and the foundation of their highest hopes hereafter. Is it too much to anticipate that by the experience of this united work the Christian communities in England may be drawn more closely together, and that, whether it succeed or fail in its immediate object, it may at least dissipate many prejudices and jealousies, may promote a better mutual understanding, and thus by fostering inward sympathy may lead the way to greater out- ward harmony among themselves, and a more intimate union with the Divine Head 1 ? 1 It will be remembered that this hope was expressed before the Revision Company had met. If I felt at liberty to modify the expres- sion by the light of subsequent experience, I should speak even more strongly. APPENDIX I. On the Words ITTLOVCTLOS, I. r I ^HE former of these two words, found only in * a petition of the Lord's Prayer, as given both by S. Matthew (vi. 1 1 TOV aprov TJJJLWV TOV ejriova-iov 809 rjplv <rr}/jipov) and by S. Luke (xi. 3 TOV aprov TIH&V rov ITTLOVCTIOV SiSov ^yCiv TO KOU& y/jiepav), is a well-known difficulty in Biblical interpretation; and it is certainly a remarkable fact that so much diversity of opinion should be possible regarding an expression which occurs in this most familiar and oftenest repeated passage of the Gospels. Origen tells us (de Orat. 27, I. p. 245 Delarue) that the word iiriovaiov does not once occur in Greek literature and that it is not current in the colloquial language (Trapa ovSevl TWV 'EXX^z/wi/ ot/re TCOV aocpoov <ov6fJia(7Tai, ovre ev Ty TWV IBicoTaiv (rvvrjOeia Te 2l8 APPENDIX I. * It seems,' he adds, ' to have been coined by the Evangelists. Matthew and Luke agree in using it without any difference. The same course has been taken in other cases also by persons trans- lating from the Hebrew. For what Greek ever used either of the expressions eixorigov or dicovrla-BrjTL^... A similar expression to eiriovaiov occurs in Moses, being uttered by God, But ye shall be to me a people irepiovcnos. And it seems to me that both words are formed from ova-la? This statement is important, because it shows that the Greek Fathers derived no assistance in the interpretation of the word from the spoken or written language; and thus their views are not entitled to the deference which we should elsewhere accord to them, as interpreters of a living language of which we only possess the fragmentary remains. In this particular instance they cease to be authorities. The same data, which were open to them, are open to us also ; and from these we are free to draw our con- clusions independently. These data are threefold: (i) The etymological form ; (2) The requirements of the sense ; (3) The tenor of tradition. This last element seems to me to be especially important in the present case. The Lord's Prayer was doubtless used from very early times in private APPENDIX I. 219 devotion. It certainly formed a part of the public services of the Church, in which (to mention no other use) it was repeated at the celebration of the Holy Eucharist 1 . The traditional sense therefore which was commonly attached to a word occurring in it must have a high value. It was chiefly the conviction that justice had not been done to this consideration, which led me to institute the investigation afresh 2 . Previous writers have laid stress on the scholastic interpretation of Origen and his successors, as though this were the best authenticated tradition ; when they ought rather to have sought for the common sense of the Church in the primitive versions, which are both earlier in date than Origen, and cover a much wider area. I hope to make the force of the distinction between the scholastic and traditional interpretations clearer in the sequel. The different explanations which have been given to the word fall into two classes ; (i) Those which 1 Of the use of the Lord's Prayer in the early Church, see Bingham's Antiquities, xill. vii. i sq., and Probst Liiurgie der drei ersten Christ- lichen Jahrhunderte, index s. v. Vater zmser. 2 The fullest recent investigation of the meaning of eirtovfftos, with which I am acquainted, is in Tholuck's Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount, II. p. 172 sq. (Eng. trans.), where he arrives at conclusions different from my own. He gives a list of previous treatises on the sub- ject. Among the more important are those of Pfeiffer and Stolberg in the Thesaur. Theol. PhiloL II. pp. 116 sq., 123 sq. (Amstel. 1702). 22O APPENDIX I. connect it with levai, deriving it from eirieveu through eirutiv or eTriovaa, and (2) Those which connect it with elvcu, as a compound from eVl and ovcria. Each class includes various explanations; but the one is distinguished from the other by a simple criterion. The meanings belonging to the one class are tem- poral ; to the other, qualitative. In the first class we find the following : (i) to- morrow's, derived directly from eTnovva 'the coming- day,' or 'the morrow' : (ii) coming, either taken from eirtovaa and meaning the same as the last, but more vaguely expressed ; or derived directly from vmkvai, ennwv (without the intervention of the feminine e?rt- ovaa) : (iii) daily, which seems to be got from the first sense, 'for the coming day' : (iv) continual, which is probably a paraphrastic mode of expressing (i) or (iii): (v) future, 'yet to come,' from eViwi/; in which case the expression is most often applied in a spiritual sense to Christ the Bread of Life, Who shall come hereafter. Under the second head also various explanations are comprised ; (i) for our sustenance, and so 'neces- sary,' ovcria being referred to physical subsistence; (ii) for our essential life, and so 'spiritual, eternal,' ova-ia signifying the absolute or higher being; (iii) preeminent, excellent, surpassing, as being 'above all overlap and so nearly equivalent to Trepiova-io? ; (iv) APPENDIX I. 221 abundant, a meaning akin to the last, and apparently reached by giving the same sense 'above' to eW; (v) consubstantial, a sense which is attained by forcing the meaning of the preposition in another direction 1 . In this list I have enumerated only those mean- ings which were given to the word during the first five centuries. More recent writers have added to the number ; but their interpretations, when not deduced directly from one or other of the senses already given, are so far-fetched and so unnatural, that they do not deserve to be seriously considered. Again, I have confined myself to direct interpreta- tions of eVtouo-io?, not regarding such variations of meaning as arise from different senses attached to the substantive apros. Thus for, instance 'our daily bread' might be either the daily sustenance for the body or the daily sustenance for the soul. But though these two senses are widely divergent, their divergence is not due to any difference of interpreta- tion affecting eVtoi/trto?, with which word alone I am concerned. I shall now consider the two classes of meanings which are distinguished above, testing them by the considerations already enumerated, (i) the etymology of the word, (2) the requirements of the sense, (3) the tenor of tradition. 1 See the passage from Victorinus quoted below on p. 245. 222 APPENDIX I. i. The etymology of the word. 'H eVtoOo-a is commonly used for 'the coming day/ 'the morrow.' In this sense it occurs frequently without the substantive rjnepa both in Biblical Greek (Prov. xxvii. I ov */ap yivwcr/ceis TI regerai 77 eTriovcra, Acts xvi. II, xx. 15, xxi. 18) and elsewhere (e.g. Polyb. ii. 25. n, Pausan. iv. 22. 3, Plut. Mor. 205 E, 838 D, etc.). See also the references in Lobeck Phryn. p. 464. From this word, which had become practically a sub- stantive, the adjective eVtouc-jo? would be formed in the usual way. It is urged indeed (see Suicer Thes. s. v. eVtov- <o?), that the analogy of SevrcpaLos, Tpiratos, etc., would require eiriovvalos. In replying to this objec- tion we need not (I venture to think) acquiesce in the negative answer that such adjectives are not valid to disprove the existence of a different form in -to9. Whether we regard the etymology or the meaning, the analogy seems to be false. The termi- nation -ato? in all these adjectives is suggested by the long a or 77 of the feminines from which they are derived, Sevrepa, rpiTij, etc. 1 ; and the short ending 1 It is not meant to assert that forms in cuos cannot be derived from other words than feminines in d or 17 ; but as a rule they are derived in this way, though some exceptions occur : see Buttmann Ausf. Gramm. II. p. 446. APPENDIX i. 223 of eiriovcra is not a parallel case. Moreover the meaning is not the same ; for the adjectives in -ato? fix a date, e.g. rerapralo^ rf\dev 'he came on the fourth day] whereas the sense which we require here is much more general, implying simply possession or connexion. Or again, the word might be derived from the masculine participle ITTLMV, as e/cova-ios from e/ccov, e'0e- Xouo-to? from e#e\o>z/, ryepovcrios from yepwv, Trvyovcrio? from TTVJWV, 'Axepova-ios (or ' A^epoz/rto?) from ' A^epwz/, etc. : see Lobeck Phryn. p. 4. To this derivation there is no grammatical objection. Only it may be pleaded that no motive existed for introducing an adjective by the side of eiriwv, sufficiently powerful to produce the result in an advanced stage of the language, when the fertility of creating new forms had been greatly impaired. On the other hand the derivation of eiriovcios from eTrl and ovaia, if not impossible, is at least more difficult. Two objections have been taken to this etymology; the one, as it seems to me, futile the other really formidable, if not insuperable, (i) It is alleged that an adjective in -ovcrios would not be formed from the substantive ovaia. To this it is sufficient to reply, that from this very word ov&ia we find the compounds dvova-ios (Clem. Alex. Exc. Theod. p. 970, ed. Potter: Pseudo- Justin Conf. dogm. Arist* 224 APPENDIX I. 50, p. 145 ; ib. Quaest. Christ, ad Gent. p. 185 B), eVovo-to? (Victorin. c. Arium ii. i, Synes. Hymn. 2, p. 318, Cyril. Alex, in Joann. v. 5, p. 527), efouo-to? (Philo in Place. 10, II. p. 528 Mang.), ere/jouorto? (ere- Porphyr. in Stob. Eel. Phys. 41, n. p. 822), , opoofoios, vTrep overtop (Victorin. 1. c., Synes. 1. c.), Trpoavovo-ios (Synes. Hymn. 1. c., and Hymn. 3, p. 322), etc. : and from egova-ia the compounds auref ov- er to? (frequently, e.g. Diod. xiv. 105) and vTrefouo-to? <see Steph. Thes. s. v., ed. Dindorf & Hase). (2) On the other hand, to the objection that the form should .be eVotKrto?, not eVtouo-to?, I do not see what valid .answer can be given. It has been thought sufficient to adduce in reply such words as eiriavSdvto, eTriovpa, .eirioa'crofjLai, which however are confined to poetry ; and again eirieiicfa eirloptcos 1 , which occur also in prose. To this list other words might be added, such as eVteXTTTO?, e7rtez>z/i//u, farfajpa, eTriijpavos, eTruBfjLtov, eiruffTwp. But the maintainers of this view have never enquired why the i of eW, which elsewhere is elided, has been exceptionally retained in such instances. The real fact is, that all these words without ex- ception were originally written with the digamma, eVtFaz>Sai>o>, eirifeucrj?, eViFeXTrro?, eV/Fop/eo?, etc., so that elision was out of the question ; and even when 1 tiribySoos is also adduced ; but in the only passage quoted for this form, Plat. Tim. 36 A, B, the best editions have the usual form ei APPENDIX I. 225 the digamma disappeared in pronunciation or was replaced by a simple aspirate, the old forms main- tained their ground. In the present instance no such reason can be pleaded to justify the retention of the i. The deriva- tion of eiriovcrios from eiri, ovcrta, can only be main- tained on the hypothesis that its form was determined by false analogies, with a view to exhibiting its com- ponent parts more clearly. But this hypothesis is not permissible if any other satisfactory explanation of the word can be given ; for eVtouo-to? would then be the single exception to the rule which determines compounds of eVt. In fact, the compound eVouo-tey&j?? is found occasionally, thus showing that the final vowel of the preposition is naturally elided before ov<ria. 2. The requirements of the sense. It has been shown that etymological considera- tions favour the root Ikvai as against eivai. It will be necessary in the next place to ask whether the exigencies of the sense require us to reverse the decision to which etymology has led us. Is there really any solid objection to our taking TOV dpTov rjfiwv TOV 7rt,ov<ri,ov to mean ' our bread for the coming day'? L. R. 15 226 APPENDIX I. One objection, and one only, is urged repeatedly against this explanation. The petition so explained, it is thought, would be a direct violation of the precept which our Lord gives at the close of the chapter, vi. 34 p,r) ovv /jLepi/jLvijeijTe et<? rrjv avpiov 1 . To this I would reply first; that though eTriovcra is most frequently a synonym for 77 avpiov, yet the words are not coextensive in meaning. If the prayer were said in the evening, no doubt rj eTriovaa would be ' the following day, the morrow ' ; but supposing it to be used at or before dawn, the word would designate the day then breaking. Thus in the Ecclesiazusae of Aristophanes one of the speakers, after describing the time (ver. 20) xaiToi 777)09 opdpovy' e&riv ''tis close on daybreak,' exclaims (ver. 105) ^77 TTJV itriovcrav rjfjbipav, where rrjv avpiov would be quite out of place. This instance shows the different power of the two words, which in some aspects may be said to contrast with each other ; for the one implies time approaching and the other time deferred. But secondly (and this seems to be a complete answer to the objection), this argument, if it proves anything, proves too much. If 1 It is astonishing to see with what persistence this worthless argu- ment is repeated. I find it for instance in two of the most recent Theo- logical books which have come into my hands, written from directly opposite points of view, Delitzsch Brief an die Romer in das Hebraische iibersetzt p. 27 (1870) and Keim Geschichte Jesu von Nazara n. p. 279 (1871). APPENDIX I. 227 the command /-wj fiepipvdv is tantamount to a prohibi- tion against prayer for the object about which we are forbidden to be anxious, then not only must we not pray for to-morrow's food, but we must not pray for food at all. For He, who says (ver. 34) fj,rj ^epi^vrj- t? TYJV avpiov, says also (ver. 25) fj,rj ^epi^vare rfj vpa>v TI <f>dyr)T6 ; and on this showing, whatever interpretation we put upon eVtoucrioi/, a precept will be violated. The fact is, that, as fiepi/juva means anxiety, undue thought or care (see above, p. 190 sq.), prayer to God is not only consistent with the absence of /jLepifiva, but is a means of driving it away. One Apostle tells us (i Pet. v. 7) to 'cast all our anxiety (pepiiiva) on God, for He careth (auro> /-teXet) for us.' Another directs us 'not to be anxious about any matter (/juij^ev ^epi^vare) but in every thing with prayer and supplication joined with thanksgiving to make our desires known unto God (Phil. iv. 6).' These injunctions we fulfil when we use the petition in the Lord's Prayer in a proper spirit. At the same time, even in our prayers we are directed specially to the needs of ' the coming day,' for in the very act of asking for distant material blessings there is danger of exciting in ourselves this ^epi^va which it is our duty to crush 1 . 1 The moral bearing of this petition is well put by S. Basil (Reg. brev. tract, cclii, II. p. 500), though he wrongly interprets the word itself; 6 epyafo/uevos fAvrj/jLovevuv TOV Kvpiov X^-yojros MTJ iJ.epifj.va.Te rrj IS 2 228 APPENDIX I. On the other hand, if eiriovcnov be derived from ITTL, ova-la, we have the choice between the two senses of ovala, (i) 'subsistence,' and (2) 'essence, being.' Of these the latter must be rejected at once. It is highly improbable that a term of transcendental philosophy should have been chosen, and a strange compound invented for insertion in a prayer intended for everyday use. Indeed nothing could well be con- ceived more alien to the simplicity of the Gospel- teaching, than such an expression as eVtouo^o?, meaning 'suited to' or 'conducive to the ova-la, the essential being.' If therefore this derivation from ova- la is ten- able at all, we must be prepared to assign to it the more homely meaning, ' subsistence,' so that eTrtova-ios will be ' sufficient to sustain us/ ' enough for our absolute wants, but not enough for luxury.' Such a sense in itself would meet the requirements of the passage. Only it does not seem likely that a strange word, which arrives at this meaning in an indirect way, should have been invented to express a very simple idea for which the Greek language had already more than one equivalent. Nor indeed is it a natural sense for the word to bear. In Porphyr. Isag. 16, and elsewhere, eirova-Lw^ is used to signify accidental^ ri <j)ayijT $ rl TrLijT..,T6v tirtotiffiov dprov, rrjv <j>i?)iJ.epov faty rrj ovalq. y/J-uv xp^Mei'OJ'Ta, ovx eavry dXXd T( 0e< ^rvyxdvei Trepl TOVTOV, K.T.\. APPENDIX I. 229 as opposed to essential, denoting what is superadded to the ovcrta-, and if such a compound as eVtouoYo? (from ova- la) were possible, it ought to have a similar meaning. 3. TJte tenor of tradition. Hitherto we have seen no sufficient reason for abandoning the derivation from Uvai, while on the other hand serious difficulties are encountered by adopting the alternative and deriving the word from dvai. It remains to enquire how far this result is borne out by tradition. Tholuck, discussing the two derivations of eVtou- o-fco?, from elvat, and Ikvai respectively, states, 'The oldest and most widely spread is the former': and Suicer, mentioning the derivation from f) eTnovcra, adds, 'Nemo ex veteribus ita explicat.' I hope to show that such statements are the very reverse of the truth; that, so far as our evidence goes, the derivation from levat is decidedly the more ancient; and that, though the other prevailed widely among Greek interpreters after Origen, yet it never covered so wide an area as its elder rival. I shall take the great divisions of the Church as distinguished by their several languages, and investigate the traditional sense assigned to the word in each. 230 APPENDIX I. I. In the Greek Church the first testimony is that of ORIGEN (de Orat. 27, 1. c.). He himself derives the word from ovo-ta, adducing Trepiovcrios as an analogy. This analogy, as we have already seen, is false : for, whereas eVl loses the final vowel in com- position, Trepl retains it; so that while the one com- pound would be Trepiovcrios, the other would be eVouo-to?. Thus derived, the word signifies according to Origen TOV et? rrjv ovo-lav ijfjLwv a-v/jLf3a\\6/jLevov apTov. It is the spiritual bread which nourishes the spiritual being, 6 Ty (jtvaei, TTJ \oyi/cfj /caTa\\7]\6raro^ KOI Ty ovaia avTy (rvyyevrjs /e.r.X. This view Origen supports by quoting other passages where the heavenly bread is mentioned, and at the close of the discussion he adds (p. 249 c) ; ' Some one will say that eiriovo-iov is formed [1. KaTecr^fjiaTiaOai] from linevai ; so that we are bidden to ask for the bread which belongs to the future life (TOV olnelov TOV yaeXXo^ro? alwvos), that God may anticipate and give it to us even now, so that what shall be given as it were to-morrow may be given us to-day (OOCTTC TO olovel avpiov SoOrjcrofjievov vrjuepov rifilv SoOfjvcu) ; the future life being represented by to-morrow^ and the present by to-day: but the former acceptation is better in my judgment, etc.' Thus the earliest notice among Greek- speaking Christians reveals a conflict between the two derivations. It is true that in either case Origen APPENDIX I. 231 contemplates a spiritual rather than a literal interpre- tation of the bread, but this fact accords with the general principles of the Alexandrian school from which the notice emanates ; for this school is given to importing a mystical sense into the simple language of the Gospel. This ulterior question does not affect the derivation of the word. So far as I am acquainted with the language of Origen elsewhere, his mode of speaking here is quite consistent with the supposition that he himself first started the derivation from elvai, ovaia. At all events this supposition accords with his fondness for im- porting a reference to ' absolute being ' into the lan- guage of the Apostles and Evangelists elsewhere, as for instance when he interprets TO<? dyiois TO?? ovcriv (omitting the words ev 'E$eVa>) in Ephes. i. i, and iva ra OVTCL /carapyrjo-rj in I Cor. i. 28, in this sense (see Cramer's Catena on Ephes. 1. c.). A derivation which transferred the word fVtouo-to? at once from the domain of the material to the domain of the supra- sensual would have a strong attraction for Origen's mind. Still it must remain a pure hypothesis that he himself invented this derivation. He may have got it from one of his predecessors, Pantaenus or Clement : but at all events it bears the impress of the Alexan- drian school. On the other hand his own language shows that the other etymology (from eirievai) had its 232 APPENDIX I. supporters. How few or how numerous they were, the vagueness of his expression will not allow us to speculate. It is only when we come to the Versions that we find solid ground for assuming that in the earliest age this was the prevailing view. The next Greek writer whose opinion is known was also an Alexandrian. The great ATHANASIUS (de Incarn. 16, I. p. 706) derives the word from 7rievat y but gives it a theological meaning : ' Elsewhere He calls the Holy Spirit heavenly bread, saying, Give us this day TOP aprov *5//,&>z/ TOV eiriova-Lov 1 , for He taught us in His prayer to ask in the present life for TOV eTriovo-lov aprov, that is the future, whereof we have the first-fruits in the present life, partaking of it through 2 the flesh of the Lord, as He Himself said, The bread, which I shall give, is My flesh, etc.' This is exactly the account of the word which Origen rejects. To those however, who have studied the early his- tory of Biblical interpretation, it will be no surprise to find that Origen's explanation of this word exerted a very wide and lasting influence. It is a common 1 The Benedictine editor translates tiriovo-iov here by supersubstan- tialem after Jerome, though the context of S. Athanasius is directly against this. At the same time Athanasius arrives at the same mystical meaning of rbv aprov rbv tiriovviov as Jerome, though through a different derivation. ' 2 5i<i is absent from some texts but seems to be correct. If it is omitted the sense will be 'partaking of the flesh.' APPENDIX I. 233 phenomenon to find nearly all the Greek expositors following him, even in cases where his interpretation is almost demonstrably wrong. If his explanations had the good fortune to be adopted by the Antiochene school, as was frequently the case, they passed un- challenged and established themselves in the Church at large. In this particular instance the procedure of the Antiochene school would appear to have been characteristic, both in its agreement with and in its departure from Origen. While accepting his deri- vation, they seem to have substituted a realistic for his mystical sense of dpros eVtouo-to?. The adjective thus explained becomes ' for our material subsistence/ and not ' for our spiritual being/ The views of the earliest representatives of the Antiochene school on this point are not recorded. But they may perhaps be assumed not only from the general tenor of later interpretations in this school (from Chrysostom downward) but also from the opinions of the Cappadocian fathers. In the treatise of GREGORY NYSSEN, de Orat. Domin. iv, I. p. 745, this view is stated very expli- citly : ' We are ordered,' he says, ' to ask for what is sufficient for the preservation of our bodily sub- sistence (TO 7T/309 TT)V o-vvrijprjcriv 7-779 (TOt/tarifttyf ov<r t a?).' The same interpretation is adopted by his brother BASIL (Reg. brev. tract, cclii, II. p. 500), 234 APPENDIX I. who explains rov emovcriov aprov as that 'which is serviceable for our daily life for our subsistence (rov 777305 rrjv <f)r)ppov farjv rfi over la tf/jiwv xprjatpevovra).' The same derivation, though not quite the same meaning, is assigned to it also by CYRIL OF JERU- SALEM, Catech. xxiii (Mystag. v). 15, p. 329; 'This holy bread is eVioucrio?, being appointed for the sub- sistence (or substance) of the soul (eVt rrjv ovo-lav rfjs ifrvxr)? tcararao-cro/jLevos). This bread does not go into the belly nor is it cast out into the draught, but is distributed into the whole of thy complex frame (efc rrda-av aov rrjv avcrracriv dvaBloorai) for the benefit of body and soul'; where an application chiefly though not exclusively spiritual is given to ovo-ia. Again, S. CHRYSOSTOM, de Aug. Port. etc. 5*, III. p. 35, interprets eTriovaiov 'which passes to the sub- stance of the body (eVt rrjv ova" lav rov crew'/taro? SiajBaivovTa) and is able to compact (<rv<yKpoTrj<rai) this'; but elsewhere, in his Homily on S. John (xliii. 2, VIII. p. 257) he explains TOV aprov rov eTriovcriov, rovreo-n, rov icaOr) pep LVOV ; while on S. Matthew, where the passage itself occurs, he expresses himself in such a vague way, as if he were purposely evading a difficulty (xix. 5, VII. p. 25 1 sq.), rl ecm rov aprov rov emoixriov ; rov ^>rifj.epov...Olrat, \rj <f>vo-is] rpo(f>r)<; 1 It is right to mention that the authorship of this Homily has been questioned ; see the preface in Montfaucon's edition. APPENDIX I. 235 7779 dvaytcaias...v7Tp aprov /JLOVOV Ke\ev<re TTJV 7roiio~0at,, teal vTrep aprov TOV e^rjpepov, ware fir) virep T^9 avpiov fiepi/JLvdv Sia TOVTO Trpoo-edrj/ce, TOV apTov TOV eiriova-tov, TOVTZQ-TI,, TOV <j)rjfju6pov' ical ovoe TOVTW rfpfcea-Orj TO> prjfjiaTt, d\\d /cal T6pov /JLCTO, TOVTO jrpocr- 60rjKV, eiTTCOV, So? TJIUV (TTJfiepOV' (WC7T6 fJLr) 7T6paiTepa> crvvTpijBeiv eaurou? Trj (frpovTiSi, r^? eTriovcrr)? ^/i-epa?, where he shelters himself under the vagueness of efyrifiepos without explaining how he arrives at this meaning, and where the somewhat ambiguous words ' not to afflict ourselves further with the thought of the coming (eVtouo-???) day ' seem to allow, if not to suggest, the derivation from eVtoucra. In a later passage of the same Homilies (Iv. 5, p. 562) and in his Exposition of Psalm cxxvii (V. p. 364) he again quotes this petition, but avoids an explanation; in his Homilies on Genesis (liv. 5, IV. p. 530 sq.) he adduces it as setting the proper limits to our desire for temporal goods, TOI^ apTov rj^wv TOV eTnovcriov So? THUV crrifj(,pov, OLVT\ TOV, TT}V TT?? tfflipOS Tpocfrrjv ; while on Philippians iv. 19 {Horn. xv. 4, XL p. 316), com- menting on the words 7r\r)poocrt, Tracrav ^peiav V/JLWV, he adds ' so as not to be in want but to have what is needful (rd TT/JO? ^peiav\ for Christ also put this in His prayer, when teaching us, TOV dprov jfjuwv TOV 67TLou(7Lov So? ^fjilv (rrjfjLepov.' Thus he seems throughout to be wavering between the meanings 236 APPENDIX I. daily and necessary, i.e. between the derivations from levai and elvau, though he tends towards the latter. Again THEODORET on Phil. iv. 19, following Chry- sostom, quotes this petition as warranting S. Paul in asking for his converts rrjv Kara rov irapovra ftlov Somewhat later CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA on Luke xi. 3 (Mat, II. p. 266) thus comments on eTnovai,ov\ 1 Some say that it is that which shall come and shall be given in the future life; ...... but if this were true ...... why do they add, Give us day by dayl For one may see likewise by these words that they make their petition for daily food ; and we must understand by eTnovcnov what is sufficient (rov av- rapKrf) etc. 1 ' Later Greek writers contented themselves with repeating one or more of the interpretations given by their predecessors. Thus DAMASCENE (Orthod. Fid. iv. 13, I. p. 272 Lequien) says, ovros 6 apros eo-rlv 7? dTrap'xfi rov /zeXXoz/ro? aprov, 05 ecrriv 6 CTriovcrios' TO jap eiriovo-iov 8r)\ot fj rov fj,e\\ovra, rovrean, rov rov /xeXXoz/T09 alcovos, rj rov TT/OO? avvr^prjo-Lv rrjs ova-las THIWV \a/jL/3av6/j,evov ; and THEOPHYLACT (on Luke xi. 3) explains it rov eVt rfj ovcria rjfMwv KOLI rfj Gv<rrao-ei rfjs f&)^5 a-viiftaXkofJLevov, ov rov ireptrrov 1 In Glaphyr. in Exod. ii, I. p. 286, ed. Auberti, he explains this petition as equivalent to asking for rd eJs APPENDIX I. 237 d\\d TOV dvay/calov (see also on Matt. vi. 2. From the Aramaic Christians, the testimony in favour of the derivation from eirievat, is stronger. We learn from S. Jerome (in Matth. vi. n, VII. p. 34), that in the GOSPEL ACCORDING TO THE HEBREWS the word eTriova-iov, which he translated ' supersubstantialem,' was rendered by Mahar (1H23), * quod dicitur crastinum, ut sit sensus, Panem nostrum crastinum, id est futurum, da nobis hodie? Whatever view be adopted of the origin of this Apocryphal Gospel, its evidence has the highest value in this particular instance. Of its great antiquity no question can be entertained. It can hardly have been written much later than the close of the first century. It was regarded as an authoritative docu- ment by the Judaizing Christians of Palestine. It adhered very closely to the Gospel of S. Matthew, and was even thought by some to be the Hebrew (i.e. Aramaic) original of this Gospel; though the variations are too considerable to admit this simple solution. On the whole we may conclude with high probability that its traditions were not derived through the Greek but came from some Aramaic source or sources whether from an oral Gospel, or 1 A number of different interpretations are huddled together by an anonymous writer in Origen, Op. I. p. 910 (ed. Delarue). 238 APPENDIX I. from written notes put together for catechetical pur- poses, or from the Aramaic copy of S. Matthew's Gospel altered to suit the purposes of the writer. But even if it were derived from our Greek Gospels, its interpretation of etrwvo-iov would still have the greatest weight as proceeding from Palestine at this very early date. In a familiar expression in the most familiar of all the Evangelical records it is not unreasonable to assume that the tradition would be preserved at the close of the Apostolic age un- impaired in the vernacular language of our Lord and His disciples 1 . From the Gospel according to the Hebrews, we turn to another Aramaic source, emanating from a different quarter, the CURETONIAN SYRIAC Version of the New Testament. In Matt. vi. n, this version has: .sen ndsacun ' And-our-bread continual of-the-day give-to-us.' In Luke xi. 3 : .-ncul^.i rdA-i^K' r<J*gi.u\ ^X .acnet ' And-give to-us the-bread continual of-e very-day.* 1 It is unnecessary here to discuss the question to what extent Greek was spoken in Palestine at the Christian era. Even if with Dr. Roberts, in his instructive work Discussions on the Gospels, we take the view that the Palestinian Jews were bi- lingual, the argument in the text will still hold good. APPENDIX I. 239 Here the temporal sense 'continual,' given to , connects it with eTrievcu, whether through eTriovaa, 'for the coming day/ and so 'daily, con- stant/ or more directly, ' ever coming/ and so ' per- petual' 1 . When however we turn from the Curetonian to the later revision, the PESHITO SYRIAC, we find that the influence of the Greek interpreters has been at work meanwhile. The word 'necessary' is substituted for 'constant/ the qualitative sense for the temporal, i. e. the derivation from elvat, for the derivation from In Matt. vi. n of this Version, the petition runs, .KLlSftCU {JLnJCUto.i r^*giu\ ^ .acn ' Give to-us the-bread of-our-necessity this-day.' In Luke xi. 3 : .^ucul^ ^LoJCUto.i ndsajjA ^ .=>cn ' Give to-us the-bread of-our-necessity every-day.' This is only one of the many instances where the Peshito betrays the influences of the fourth century whether in the text or in the interpretation 2 . 1 Cureton compares Num. iv. 7 TDnn DH7, translated in the Syriac ta r^LlASfc K* T<L**1u.V His own speculations respect- ing the original reading in S. Matthew seem both unnecessary and untenable. 2 Prof. Wright informs me that he has not found any variation in 240 APPENDIX I. In the still later HARCLEAN VERSION (A.D. 6 1 6) again this same interpretation is adopted in both passages, though slightly varied in form. In Matt. vi. 1 1 : ocn 'The-bread of- us that necessary give to-us this-day.' In Luke xi. 3 : ' The-bread of-necessity of-us give to-us this-day : ' with a v. 1. KLsaa* A^ra.t ocn (i.e. TO KCL& rjpepav) for KliSWCU ((rrjfj,pov). Again, the JERUSALEM SYRIAC, which was per- haps translated from a Greek Lectionary, and can hardly be earlier than the 5th century, also appears to derive eTrioixrios from elvai, ova-ia, but gives it a different sense, apparently confusing it with , as S. Jerome does. In Matt. vi. 1 1 it has, 'Our-bread of-opulence (or 'abundance') give to-us this-day,' (l. p. 234, ed. Miniscalchi-Erizzo). The corresponding passage in S. Luke is not extant in this Version. the earliest MSS of the Peshito in the British Museum, belonging to the 5th, 6th, and yth centuries. APPENDIX I. 241 Thus among the Aramaic Christians the earliest tradition, which has reached us by two distinct channels, connects the word with iinkvai : while in the later Versions, after the influence of the Greek inter- preters had made itself felt, this traditional sense has been displaced by the derivation from ova La. It will be seen hereafter how the later rendering substituted by S. Jerome failed to suppress the tra- ditional quotidianum o*f the Old Latin. In the same way the r^ii *9ir^ of the Old (Curetonian) Syriac, though it does not show equal vitality, occurs occa- sionally and still survives long after the later Revi- sion of the New Testament, which we call the Peshito, had superseded the earlier Version or Versions. Thus in the Syriac recension of the Acts of Thomas which must be a very ancient work, for it has a distinctly Gnostic character the Lord's Prayer is quoted to- wards the end, and the petition in question runs closely following this Version 1 . Again, in one of the poems of Jacob of Sarug, who died A.D. 521 (Zin- gerle's Monumenta Syriaca p. 31, Innsbruck 1869), it 1 These Acts are found in a British Museum MS, Add. 14, 645, and have been recently edited by Prof. Wright, in his Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles, 1871. The text of the Lord's Prayer in these Acts agrees generally with the Curetonian Version as against the Peshito. L. R. 16 242 APPENDIX I. is said of the patriarch Jacob (see Gen. xxviii. 20) that he 'prayed the prayer which our Lord taught. ..A .= 00 KLsaCU.I KllA^rt K* KlSa-uA The-bread continual of-the-day give to-me.' And lower down he again repeats the characteristic words: This rendering of TOV dprov rov eTriovcrtov is found also in an Exposition of the Lord's Prayer by the same writer, preserved in the MS Brit. Mus. Add. 17, 157 (dated A.G. 876 = A.D. 565), in which the expres- sion is repeated not less than three times, fol. 48 a, 49 a\ 1 This passage was pointed out to me by Mr Bensly of the Cambridge University Library. I had also hoped that I might find this petition quoted in the works of one of the earlier Syriac writers, Aphraates or Ephrem, but my search has not been attended with success. An indirect reference in Ephrem (Op. vi. p. 642) omits the word in question. vvA ' The bread of the day shall suffice thee, as thou hast learnt in the Prayer.' At the same time Ephrem agrees with the Curetonian against the Peshito in f^^CVflj so that it seems probable he used the Cure- tonian Version. Prof. Wright at my request examined several Syriac Service-books in the British Museum Library. He reports that all the volumes which he examined are Jacobite, and that ' the reading invari- ably agrees with the Peshito text of Matt. vi. n. They belong to the Qth, loth, and nth centuries.' 2 These references were communicated to me by Prof. Wright. APPENDIX I. 243 3. The testimony of the Egyptian Versions again is highly valuable, both as preserving a very ancient tradition (for it would seem that they must both be assigned to the close of the second or beginning of the third century), and as representing a distinct and isolated section of the Church. The MEMPHITIC, the version of Lower Egypt, and the THEBAIC, the version of Upper Egypt, agree in the derivation from Ikvai ; and their agreement is the more valuable, inasmuch as their general character shows them to be independent the one of the other. The Memphitic Version has: In Matt. vi. 1 1 : neNooiK NTepACTi MHiq NAN M(t>ooY. 'Our bread of-to-morrow give-it to-us to-day/ In Luke xi. 3 : neNooiK e6NHOY MHiq NAN MMHNI. 'Our bread that-cometh give-it to-us daily/ The Thebaic Version : In Matt. vi. 1 1 : neNoeiK GTNHY Npri MMoq NAN Mrrooy. 'Our bread that-cometh give-thou it to us to-day/ The corresponding passage of S. Luke in this Version is not preserved. Here we have a choice of two translations, both founded on the same derivation, the one through , the other directly from eirievai. 162 244 APPENDIX I. In all the Coptic (i.e. Memphitic) Service-books which I have seen, the rendering of eiriova-iov is NirepACTi, 'of to-morrow/ 4. The Latin Churches preserve a still more an- cient tradition. The OLD LATIN Version, which dates certainly from the second century, and not improbably, so far as regards the Gospels, from the first half of the century, renders liriovaiov by quoti- dianum in both Evangelists. Of this rendering there can be no doubt. It is found in the extant manu- scripts of the Old Latin Version in both places. It is quoted moreover by the early Latin Fathers, Ter- tullian (de Orat. 6) and Cyprian (de Orat. p. 104, Fell). Though both these fathers are commenting especially on the Lord's Prayer, and both adopt a spiritual sense of the petition, as referring to Christ the living bread and to the eucharistic feast, yet they comment on 'quotidianum' from this point of view, and seem to be unaware that any other rendering is possible. At length in the fourth century the influence of the scholastic interpretation, put forward by Origen and the Greek Fathers, makes itself felt in Latin writers. The first semblance of any such influence is found in Juvencus, the Latin poet, who wrote a metrical history of the Gospel about A.D. 330 335. He renders the words APPENDIX I. 245 Vitalisque hodie sancti substantia panis Proveniat nobis. Evang. Hist. i. 631. Here however, though the coincidence is curious, no inference can safely be drawn from the occurrence of 'substantia' ; since Juvencus elsewhere uses the word with a genitive as a convenient periphrasis to eke out his metre, without any special significance; e.g. i. 415, 'substantia panis' (Matt. iv. 4); i. 510, 'salis substantia' (Matt. v. 13); ii. 420, 'vocis sub- stantia' (Matt. ix. 32); ii. 524, 'animae substantia' (Matt. xi. 5); ii. 677, 'credendi substantia' (John v. 38) ; iii. 668, 'arboris substantia' (Matt. xxi. 21). In VlCTORINUS the Rhetorician, who was ac- quainted with the Greek commentators, the first dis- tinct traces of this interpretation in the Latin Church are found. In his treatise against Arius, completed about the year 365, he writes (i. 31, Bibl. Vet. Patr. VIII. p. 163, ed. Galland.): 'Unde deductum eTriova-iov quam a substantia. ? Da panem nobis ITTIOIXTLOV hodi- ernum. Quoniam Jesus vita est, et corpus ipsius vita est, corpus autem panis... Significat eTriovcriov ex ipsa aut in ipsa substantia, hoc est, vitae panem/ And again (ii. 8, ib. p. 177): ' liriovaiov aprov, ex eadem ova-la panem, id est, de vita Dei, consubstantialem vitam...Graecum igitur Evangelium habet eTriovcriov, quod denominatum est a substantia, et utique Dei 246 APPENDIX I. substantial hoc Latini vel non intelligentes vel non valentes exprimere non potuerunt dicere, et tantum- modo quotidianum posuerunt, non eTriovcnov.' Setting himself to defend the O/MOOVO-IOV of the Nicene creed against the charge of novelty, Victorinus seizes with avidity a derivation of eTriova-iov which furnishes him with a sort of precedent. Again, in S. AMBROSE we find distinct references to this derivation. In a treatise ascribed to this father (de Sacram. v. 4. 24, II. p. 378) we read, 'Quare ergo in oratione dominica, quae postea sequi- tur, ait Panem nostrum ? Paaem quidem sed einov- (7iov, hoc est, super sub stantialem. Non iste panis est qui vadit in corpus ; sed ille panis vitae aeternae qui animae nostrae substantiam fulcit. Ideo Graece CTTIOV- aws dicitur : Latinus autem hunc panem quotidianum dixit [quern Graeci dicunt advenientem~\ l ; quia Graeci dicunt rrjv ITTIOVGCLV rjfjuepav advenientem diem. Ergo quod Latinus dixit et quod Graecus, utrumque utile videtur. Graecus utrumque uno sermone significavit, Latinus quotidianum dixit. Si quotidianus est panis, cur post annum ilium sumis, quemadmodum Graeci in oriente facere consuerunt ? Accipe quotidie, quod quotidie tibi prosit etc.' The writer seems here to combine the two derivations of eTTLovcriov, as though 1 The words in brackets are omitted in many MSS, and seem to be out of place. APPENDIX I. 247 the word could have a double etymology. At least I cannot interpret 'Graecus utrumque uno sermone significavit' in any other way 1 . The authorship of the treatise however is open to question, as it contains some suspicious statements and expressions. But whoever may have been the writer, the work appears to be early. If he owed the expression super sub- stantialis to S. Jerome's revision, as was probably the case, even this is consistent with the Ambrosian authorship, as several of this father's works were written after S. Jerome had completed the Gospels. Again, in an unquestioned treatise of S. Ambrose (de Fide iii. 15. 127, n. p. 519) written in the years 377, 378, this father, defending the word OJJLOOVO-LOV against the Arians, uses the same argument as Victo- rinus: 'An negare possunt ova-Lav lectam, cum et panem ITTLOVCTLOV Dominus dixerit et Moyses scrip- serit vjJLeis eaeade /JLOI, \aos irepiovcnos ? Aut quid est ova-la, vel unde dicta, nisi ovo~a aet, quod semper maneat ? Qui enim est, et est semper, Deus est ; et ideo manens semper ovaa dicitur divina substantia. Propterea eVtovcrto? panis, quod ex verbi substantia substantiam virtutis manentis cordi et animae sub- ministret ; scriptum est enim, Et panis confirmat cor 1 Pfeiffer in the Thesaur. Theol. Philol. II. p. 117 (Amstel. 1702) explains 'utrumque uno sermone significavit' by 'crastinum scil. di- cendo, hodiernum includens diem,' which seems to me meaningless. 248 APPENDIX I. hominis (Ps. ciii. 15).' The etymological views of a writer who derives ova-La from ovo-a del can have no value in themselves. The notice is only important as showing that the derivation from ova-la was gaining ground. At the same time, like the passage of Victo- rinus, it suggests a motive which would induce many to accept the etymology offered, as furnishing a ready answer to an Arian objection. When S. JEROME (about A.D. 383) revised the Latin of the New Testament, he substituted super- substantialem for quotidianum in the text of S. Matthew ; but, either prevented by scruples from erasing a cherished expression from the Latin Bibles, or feeling some misgiving about the correctness of his own rendering, he allowed quotidianum to stand in S. Luke. Altogether his language is vague and un- decided, whenever he has occasion to mention the word. In his Commentary on the Epistle to Titus (Op. VII. p. 726), written about A.D. 387, he thus ex- presses himself: 'Unde et illud, quod in evangelio secundum Latinos interpretes scriptum est Panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie> melius in Graeco habetur Panem nostrum eTriovaiov, id est praecipuum^ egregium, peculiarem 1 , eum videlicet qui de caelo de- 1 It thus appears that the sense which S. Jerome himself attaches to his rendering supersubstantiakm is different from that which some theologians have assigned to it. APPENDIX I. 249 scendens ait (Job. vi. 51), Ego sum panis qui de caelo descendi. Absit quippe ut nos, qui in crastinum cogi- tare prohibemur, de pane isto qui post paululum con- coquendus et abjiciendus est in secessum in prece dominica rogare jubeamur. Nee multum differt inter iiriovviov et Trepiovcriov, praepositio enim tantummodo est mutata, non verbum. Quidam eTrtovaiov existi- mant in oratione dominica panem dictum, quod super omnes ova-las sit, hoc est super universas sub- stantias. Quod si accipitur, non multum ab eo sensu differt quern exposuimus. Quidquid enim egregium est et praecipuum, extra omnia est et super omnia.' And similarly in his Commentary on S. Matthew (Op. VII. p. 34), written a few years afterwards (A.D. 398) : 'Quod nos super sub stantialem expressimus, in Graeco habetur eTriovo-iov, quod verbum Septuaginta interpretes Trepiov<riov frequentissime transferunt...... Possumus supersubstantialem panem et aliter intel- legere, qui super omnes substantias sit et universas superet creaturas. Alii simpliciter putant, secundum Apostoli sermonem dicentis Habentes victum et ve- stitum his contenti simus, de praesenti tantum cibo sanctos curam agere.' Hitherto he is apparently consistent with himself in connecting the word with ovcria ; but in a later work, the Commentary on Ezekiel (Op. V. p. 209), written from A.D. 411414, he says, ' Melius est ut intelligamus panem justi eum 250 APPENDIX I. esse qui dicit, Ego sum panis mvus qui de caelo de- scendi, et quern in Oratione nobis tribui deprecamur, Panem nostrum substantivum, sive superventurum, da nobis, ut quern postea semper accepturi sumus, in prae- senti saeculo quotidie mereamur accipere.' And in a still later work against the Pelagians, written about A.D. 415, he speaks with the same uncertainty (iii. 15, II. p. 800) ; ' Sic docuit Apostolos suos ut quotidie in corporis illius sacrificio credentes audeant loqui Pater noster, etc.... Panem quotidianum, sive super omnes sub- stantias, venturum Apostoli deprecantur ut digni sint assumtione corporis Christi.' In one point only is he consistent throughout. He insists on a spiritual, as opposed to a literal, interpretation of the bread. The indecision or the scruple or the carelessness, which led Jerome to retain quotidianum in one Evan- gelist while he removed it from another, bore strange fruit. Jerome's revised Latin Version became the Bible of the Western Churches. The knowledge of the Greek tongue died out. The fact that the same word iTTLova-iov occurs in both Gospels passed out of memory. The difference which was found in the Latin Vulgate came to be regarded as a difference in the language of the Evangelists themselves. As such it is commented upon by the most learned Latin writers in successive ages. So it is treated even by his own younger contemporary Cassianus who, though him- APPENDIX I. 251 self not ignorant of Greek, yet in a treatise written soon after the death of S. Jerome writes (Collat. ix. 21), ' Panem nostrum CTTIOVO-IOV, id est, super- substantialem, da nobis hodie : quod alius evangelista quoiidianum! So again it is taken by Anselm in the nth or 1 2th century (Comm. in Matth^by Nicolas of Lyra in the I4th (Comm. in Mattk.), and by Diony- sius Carthusianus in the I5th (Enarr. in Mattk.) 1 \ all of whom remark on the different epithets used by S. Matthew and S. Luke. But the most remarkable instance of this blunder is furnished by a controversy between the two fore- most men of their time, S. Bernard and Abelard. The Abbot of Clairvaux, having occasion to visit the convent of the Paraclete of which Heloise was abbess, observed that in repeating the Lord's Prayer at the daily hours a change was made in the usual form, the word 'supersubstantialem' being substituted for 'quo- tidianum.' As Heloise had made this change under the direction of Abelard, she communicated the complaint to him. Upon this he wrote a letter of defence to S. Bernard, which is extant (P. Abaelardi Opera I. p. 618, ed. Cousin). He pleads that the form in S. Matthew must be more authentic than the form in S. Luke the former having been an Apostle and heard the words as uttered, the latter having derived his infor- 1 See Pfeiffer 1. c. p. 119 sq. 252 APPENDIX I. mation at second hand 'de ipso fonte Matthaeus, de rivulo fontis Lucas est potatus.' Hence S. Mat- thew's form is more complete and contains seven petitions, while S. Luke's has only five. For this reason the Church in her offices has rightly preferred S. Matthew's form to S. Luke's. 'What may have been the reason therefore,' he proceeds, 'that while we retain the rest of S. Matthew's words, we change one only, saying quotidianutn for supersubstantialem\ 1 We may pardon the mistake of Abelard more readily, when we find that a learned modern historian, commenting on the incident, is guilty of a still greater error. Milman (History of Latin Christianity ill. p. 262, ed. 2) remarks on this dispute: 'The question was the clause in the Lord's prayer our daily bread or our bread day by day.' Here two wholly different things are confused together, (i) S. Matthew and S. Luke alike have tmov<riov. This was rendered quotidianum in both Evangelists in the Old Latin, as it is rendered daily in both in our English Version. But Jerome by substituting supersubstantialem in S. Matthew and retaining quotidianum in S. Luke made an artificial variation, which misled Abelard. Meanwhile the quotidianum of the Old Latin in S. Matthew maintained its place in the Service-books, and puzzled Abelard by its presence. Abelard's remarks are confined solely to the epithet attached to dprov. (2) There is a real difference between S. Matthew and S. Luke in another part of the sentence, the former having a-fj/j.epov this day, the latter r6 /ca0' rtptpav day by day. This distinction was obliterated by the Old Latin, which took the false reading a-fiimepov in S. Luke and so gave hodie in both Evangelists. It reappears again in the original Vulgate of Jerome, which has hodie in S. Matthew and cotidie in S. Luke (though once more obliterated in the Clementine recension). Of this difference Dean Milman seems to have had some not very clear idea and to have confused it with the dispute about tiriovviov, but Abelard does not mention it at all. APPENDIX I. 253 let him state who can, if indeed it is sufficient to state it. For the word qtwtidianum does not seem to express the excellence of this bread, like super- sub stantialem ; and it seems to be an act of no slight presumption to correct the words of an Apostle, and to make up one prayer out of two Evangelists, in such a manner that neither seems to be sufficient in respect of it (the prayer), and to recite it in a form in which it was neither spoken by the Lord nor written by any of the Evangelists. Especially when in all other portions of their writings which are read in Church, their words are kept separate, however much they may differ in respect of completeness or incompleteness (impermixta sunt verba eorum, qua- cunque perfectione vel imperfectione discrepent). Therefore, if any one blames me for innovating in this matter, let him consider whether blame is not rather due to the person who presumed out of two prayers written in old times to make up one new prayer, which deserves rather to be called his own than an Evangelist's (non tarn evangelicam quam suam dicendam). Lastly, the discernment of the Greeks, whose authority (as S. Ambrose saith) is greater, hath, owing to the aforesaid reasons, as I suppose, brought the prayer of S. Matthew alone into common use, saying, rbv aprov rj/Aoov rov eTriova-iov, which is translated Panem nostrtim supersubstantialc.m! 254 APPENDIX I. Strange it is, that, though quoting the Greek words of S. Matthew (apparently however at second hand), Abelard did not take the trouble to consult the ori- ginal of S. Luke, but here, as elsewhere 1 , allowed himself to follow the Vulgate implicitly. Strange too, but less strange, that he should not have recognised in the quotidianum of the Church Services the remnant of an older Version, which in this instance Jerome's Revision had been powerless to displace. We do not hear that S. Bernard refuted his pertinacious adver- sary by exposing his error. It is improbable that he possessed the learning necessary for this purpose, for in learning at least he was no match for his brilliant opponent. He probably fell back on the usage of the Church, and refused to cross weapons with so formidable an adversary. Yet, notwithstanding such notices as these, the marvel is that Jerome's super sub stantialis took so little hold upon the Latin Church at large. When after 1 Abelard uses similar language elsewhere, In Dieb. Rogat. Serm. Op. I. p. 471; 'Non sine admiratione videtur accipiendum quod apud nos in consuetudinem ecclesiae venerit ut quum orationem dominicam in verbis Matthaei frequentemus, qui earn, ut dictum est, perfectius scripserit, unum ejus verbum caeteris omnibus retentis commutemus, pro supersubstantialem scilicet, quod ipse posuit, dicentes quotidianum, sicut Lucas ait, etc.' On the other hand in the Expositio Orationis Dominicae (i. p. 599 sq.) he comments on quotidianum and does not even mention supersubstantialem. APPENDIX I. 255 some generations his revised Vulgate superseded the Old Latin, the word confronted students of the Bible in S. Matthew, and in this position it was com- mented upon and discussed. But here its influence ended. S. Augustine on the morrow of Jerome's Revision still continues to quote and to explain the petition with the word quotidianum, as S. Hilary 1 had quoted and explained it on the eve. Despite the great name of Jerome, whose authority reigned paramount in Western Christendom for many centuries in all matters of Scriptural interpretation, quotidianum was never displaced in the Lord's Prayer as used in the offices of the Church. Roman, Gallican, Ambrosian, and Mozarabic Liturgies, all retained it. The word supersubstantialem is not, so far as I can learn, once substituted for quotidianum in any public services of the Latin Church 2 . The use which Abelard intro- duced at the Paraclete was obviously isolated and exceptional and appears to have been promptly sup- pressed. The devotional instinct of the Church would seem to have been repelled by a scholastic term so little in harmony with our Lord's mode of speaking and so ill adapted to religious worship. Even in the 1 Fragm. Op. n. p. 714. 3 It has been pointed out to me that the words 'panem nostrum quotidianum supersubstantialem' occur in the Breviary in the Oratio- num Actio post Missam, the two epithets being combined ; but this is only an indirect reference to the Lord's Prayer. 256 APPENDIX I. Catechismus ad Parochos, issued by the Council of Trent as a manual for the guidance of the Roman Clergy and containing a very 'full exposition of the Lord's Prayer, the word quotidianum is retained, while the alternative supersubstantialem is not once men- tioned, though an eucharistic application is given to the petition, and the epithet quotidianum explained in accordance therewith 1 . The pre-reformation versions of the Lord's Prayer in the languages of Western Europe, being derived from the Latin, naturally follow the rendering which the translator in each case had before him. If taken from the Old Latin or from the Service-books, they give daily, if from the Vulgate, super substantial. Among a large number of versions and paraphrases of the Lord's Prayer in the various Teutonic dialects 2 the latter rendering occurs very rarely, and then (for the most part) only in situ in the Gospel of S. Mat- 1 It is worthy of notice, as showing how little favour this rendering found, that a Roman Catholic commentator of the 1 6th century, Maldonatus (on Matth. vi. n), supposes that Jerome never intended to place supersubstantialem in the text, and that it got there by careless- ness : ' Hieronymus supersubstantialem vertit, quamquam in eo veterem versionem noluit corrigere. Itaque incaute quidam nostro tempore in vulgata editione pro quotidiano supersubstantialem posuerunt.' This view is quite groundless. 2 See the collection in Marsh's Origin and History of the English Language^ p. 76 sq. : and also The Gospel of S. Matthew in Anglo- Saxon and Northumbrian Versions (Cambr. 1858). APPENDIX I. 257 thew, as e.g. ' ofer-wistlic ' in the Lindisfarne Gospels and ' over other substaunce ' in Wycliffe. The early reformers also for the most part adopted the familiar rendering. In Luther's Version it is in- terpreted ' unser taglich brodt,' and Calvin also advo- cates the derivation from eViez/at. So too it is taken in the Latin of Leo Juda. Our own Tyndale rendered it in the same way, and in all the subsequent English Versions of the reformed Church this rendering is retained. On the other hand, the derivation from ova-la was adopted by Beza 1 , whose interpretation however in this particular instance does not appear to have influenced the reformed Versions 2 . To sum up the results of this investigation into the testimony of the most ancient Versions. The Syrian, the Egyptian, the Latin Churches, are dis- tinct from one another. Yet all alike bear witness in the earliest forms of the Lord's Prayer to the one derivation of eTriovcriov as against the other. In the Syrian Churches we have testimony from two distinct 1 Indeed he himself, though he explains the word ' qui nostris viribus sustentandis sufficiat,' yet retains quotidianum in the text, saying 'Mihi religio fuit quicquam immutare in hac precationis formula in ecclesia Dei tanto jam tempore usurpata.' 2 In Tomson's Version of the N. T. however, which is attached to the Geneva Bible, though it is rendered 'dayly,' a marginal note is added 'That that is meete for our nature for our dayly foode, or such as may suffice our nature and complexion.' L. R. 17 258 APPENDIX I. sources. The Egyptian Churches likewise tell the same tale with a twofold utterance. All may be re- garded as prior to Origen, the first Greek father who discusses the meaning of the word. In the Syrian and the Latin Churches we have seen how at a later date the scholastic interpretation was superposed upon the traditional, but with different success. In the former it ultimately prevailed ; in the latter it never obtained more than a precarious footing. The Egyp- tian Churches, being more effectually isolated from Greek influences, preserved the traditional sense to the end. These Versions alone have any traditional value. But others, which were made in the fourth century and later, are not without their importance, as show- ing how widely the older interpretation still prevailed in the Greek Church, notwithstanding the tendency in the Greek fathers towards the derivation adopted or invented by Origen. It is a remarkable fact that all the remaining Versions which can with probability be assigned to the fourth or fifth centuries give the temporal sense to eTnova-iov, or (in other words) derive it from eTrievai. In the GOTHIC, whose date is about the middle of the fourth century, it is rendered by. sinteinan, 'continual'; in the ARMENIAN, which was made some time before the middle of the fifth, being begun from the Syriac and afterwards revised and APPENDIX I. 259 completed from the Greek, it is likewise translated 'continual, daily'; and similarly in the ^THIOPIC, whose date is somewhat uncertain, it is given ' of each day' in both S. Matthew and S. Luke. Thus, tradition is not only not adverse to the deri- vation which etymological considerations seem to re- quire, but favours it very decidedly. With this strong confirmation, we need not hesitate to adopt it. On the other hand, it is only fair to notice that, though tradition is in accordance with itself and with ety- mology so far as regards the derivation from eirievai, yet the same degree of coincidence cannot be claimed on behalf of the derivation from the feminine eTriovcra and the more precise meaning for the coming day thus obtained. Yet this meaning seems to be supported by the oldest tradition, and to offer a better justifica- tion of the coinage of a new word. At the same time, when the word was once in use, it would require a conscious effort of the mind to separate two ety- mologies so intimately connected, and the close alliance of meaning, for the coming day and for tJte coming time, would encourage a certain vagueness of conception within these narrow limits. It was only when the meaning was stereotyped by translation into another language, that it would assume definitely the one or the other of these two allied senses. Thus the familiar rendering 'daily/ which has 172 26O APPENDIX I. prevailed uninterruptedly in the Western Church from the beginning, is a fairly adequate representa- tion of the original ; nor indeed does the English language furnish any one word which would answer the purpose so well. II. The word einovo-ios was connected, as we have seen, by several of the fathers with irepLova-io^. I hope that sufficient reasons have been given already for rejecting this connexion as based on a false ana- logy. But still the word Trepiovcno? is important in itself, and (as its meaning has been somewhat misun- derstood by modern as well as by ancient commen- tators) I take this opportunity of explaining what seems to be its proper force. Origen (de Orat. 27, i. p. 246), in the passage of which I have already quoted the context (p. 217 sq.), distinguishes these two words eTriova-ios, Treptovcrto?, as follows : TI fjiev rov et9 rrjv ovcriav crvfji/3a\\6fjLvov aprov $rj\ovcra, y Se rov rrepl rrjv ovo~lav /carayivopevov \aov KOI KOIVCOVOVVTO, avra). With this brief account of the word he contents himself. Apparently he understands Trepiovvios to mean * connected with and participating in absolute being,' thus assigning to it a sense closely APPENDIX I. 26l allied to that which he has given to eVtoucrto?. This meaning may be dismissed at once. It does not correspond with the original Hebrew, and it is an impossible sense to attach to the word itself. Never- theless it is taken up by Victorinus, who writes (c. Arium i. 31, Bibl. Vet. Pair. VIII. p. 163 ed. Galland.) ' Sic rursus et Paullus in Epistola ad Titum populum Trepiovo-lov, circa substantiam, hoc est circa vitam consistentem populum'; and again (ii. 8, ib. p. 177), * Latinus cum non intelligent irepiovo-iov ox\ov, Trepi- ovciov, TOV TrepiovTCL [read Trepl ovra ?] id est, circa vitam quam Christus et habet et dat, posuit populum abundantem! And Cyril of Alexandria on S. Luke (Mai, II. p. 266), in the context of a passage already quoted (p. 236), likewise connects it with eV^ovcrto?, giving it an equally impossible sense, dvrl TOV eV*- ovcrlov TOV TrepioixTiov elTratv, TOVT(TTI TOV dp/covvTa KOL TOV TeX,to)5 e%eti/ ou% yTTw/Aevov. On the other hand, Jerome (on Tit. ii. 14, VII. p. 725 sq.) says that, having thought much over the word irepLovo-Lov and consulted 'the wise of this world' whether they had met with it elsewhere, without get- ting any satisfaction, he betook him to the passages in the Old Testament where it occurs, and by a com- parison of these arrived at the meaning egregium, praecipuum, peculiarem, a sense which (as we have seen) he gives to eVtouo-toi/ also. Though wholly 262 APPENDIX I. wrong as applied to eTriovcriov, this meaning is fairly adequate to represent 7repiov<riov ; but it is clear from the context that Jerome does not seize the exact force of the word, which appears also to have escaped later commentators. We may reasonably infer from the notices of Origen and Jerome that this word was unknown out of Biblical Greek : and we have therefore no choice but to follow the method of the latter, and investigate the passages of the Old Testament where it occurs. The expression Xao? irepiovcrios is found four times in the LXX ; Exod. xix. 5, Deut. vii. 6, xiv. 2, xxvi. 1 8. In the first passage it is a rendering of the single word irpJD, in the three last of iT?JD Dtf. Moreover in Ps. cxxxiv (cxxxv). 4 ift^lp^ is trans- lated 6/9 irepiovaiaa'^bv eaurep. In all these passages the reference is to the Israelites as the peculiar people of God. Once more, in Eccles. ii. 8 we have <7vvr)yay6v poi fcaiye dpyvpiov /caiye ^pvo-lov ical irepi- /3acri\ea)v /cal TWV ^a>pc5z/, where again represents n?3p, but in this instance without any reference to the chosen people. These appear to be the only passages in the LXX where Trepiovffios, Trepiovo-iao-fio^, occur. But H x^D is found besides in two other places: in Mai. iii. 17, where again it refers to the chosen people and where it is APPENDIX I. 263 rendered et? irepiiroiricrw, and in I Chron. xxix. 3, where Solomon says ' I have a Pi ?3D [translated in our Version ' of mine own proper good '] gold and silver which I have given to the house of my God, over and above all that I have prepared for the holy house,' rendered by the LXX e'er poi o irepLTreTroir^jLat, Xpva-Lov Kal dpyvpiov K.T.\. Of these two renderings which the LXX offers for n?3p, the one is adopted by S. Paul, Tit. ii. 14 Xao? irepiovvw, the other by S. Peter, I Pet. ii. 9 Xao? et? Trepmolria-iv. The reference in S. Peter is to Exod. xix. 5, where however the rendering irepLova-ios is found in the LXX. The Hebrew root 7-HD, from which H /3D comes, is not found in the Bible. But the senses of kindred roots in Hebrew, such as *)3D, and of other derivatives of this same root in the allied languages, point to its meaning. It signifies ' to surround on all sides/ and so to ' gather together, set apart, reserve, appro- priate.' In grammar the Rabbinical expression for a proper name is PPUD Dt^. In logic the predicable proprium is designated P1/Y3D by them. Applied to property, the word JlSHD would denote the private treasure which a person acquires for himself or possesses by himself alone, as distinguished 264 APPENDIX I. from that which he shares with others. Of a king, we might say that it was the * fiscus ' as distinguished from the 'aerarium/ the privy purse as opposed to the public treasury. It is something reserved for his private uses. In two of the passages where it occurs, Eccles. ii. 8, I Chron. xxix. 3, it refers to kings ; and in the latter it seems to be carefully dis- tinguished from the money which would naturally be devoted to expenditure on public works. Thus there is no great difficulty about the original Hebrew word. On the other hand it is less easy to see how the same idea can be represented by the Greek Trepiovcnos. Jerome speaks as though the leading notion of the word were ' superiority,' derived from TrepLeivai, in the sense 'to excel.' Obviously this meaning would not correspond to the original. We arrive at a more just conception of its force by considering a synonyme which Jerome himself points out This same Hebrew word, which in the LXX is given Treptovo-iov^ was rendered by Symma- chus egaiperov (Hieron. Op. VI. pp. 34, 726). Jerome indeed is satisfied with translating egalperov by prae- cipuum or egregium ; but its meaning is much more precise and forcible. It was used especially of the portion which was set apart as the share of the king or general, before the rest of the spoils were distributed by lot or otherwise to the soldiers of the victorious APPENDIX I. 265 army. The exemption from the common mode of apportionment in favour of rank or virtue is the lead- ing idea of the word. Thus in Plutarch, Vit. Cor. 10, we are told that when Coriolanus, as a reward for his bravery, was asked to select from the spoils ten of every kind before the distribution to the rest (efeXe- (rdai Se/ca iravra TT/OO rov vepew rofc aXXot?), he declined to do so, saying that he would take his chance with the others, but he added, e^alperov piav aiTov^ai^dpiv, 1 1 have one favour to ask, as an exceptional boon' In the triumphant anticipation of Sisera's mother, ' Have they not divided the prey ? to every man [lit. to the head of a man] a damsel or two, to Sisera a prey of divers colours, etc./ we have the idea which a Greek poet might express by egalperov Sewp^a (e.g. ^Esch. Bum. 380, comp. Agam. 927), the special treasure as- signed to the captain over and above the distribution which was made to the rest counted by heads. This sense of l^alperov is too common to need further illus- tration ; and I cannot doubt that Symmachus selected it on this account as an appropriate word to express the idea of the original. The leading idea is not superiority, as Jerome seems to imagine, but exception. 'Egregium,' strictly interpreted, might represent it, but not ' praecipuum.' It is the 'exsortem ducere honorem ' of Virgil. This idea fitly expresses the relations of Jehovah to Israel, whom in the language 266 APPENDIX I. of the Old Testament elsewhere He retained under His special care (see the notes on Clem. Rom. 29). The same conception seems to be involved in Treptovaios. This word may have been invented by the LXX translators, or it may have had some local currency in their age : but, if the latter was the case, the fact was unknown to Origen and Jerome, for they speak of irepiovcrios as not occurring out of the Bible. In either case, it might be derived from TrepLtov, on the analogy of e/covo-tos, eQeXovcrios, etc., or from ov&la, like evovaios, dvoixnos, etc. (see above, p. 222, 223). Thus its meaning would be either 'exist- ing over and above/ or * possessed over and above'; and the same idea of exception from the common laws of distribution would be involved as in egaiperos. S. Jerome mentions also 1 that in another passage Symmachus had adopted the Latin word peculiarem, as a rendering of PP3D. He doubtless ventured on this bold expedient because the Greek language did 1 Hieron. Op. vi. p. 34 'licet in quodam loco peculiare interpretatus sit'; ib. vi. p. 726 'in alio volumine Latino sermone utens peculiarem interpretatus est.' Different interpretations of this second passage have been given; but, compared with the first, it can only mean that 'in another book of Scripture Symmachus adopted a Latin expression, translating the word by peculiarem ' ; just in the same way as Ignatius writing in Greek uses deytprup, 5e7r6<rira, afc/ceTrra (Polyc. 6), because the Greek language did not supply such convenient terms to express his meaning. It is extremely improbable that Symmachus wrote any work in Latin as some have supposed. APPENDIX I. 267 not furnish so exact an equivalent as peculium : for egaiperov, adequate as it is in some respects, intro- duces the new idea of division of spoils, which is want- ing in the original. On the other hand the Latin peculium, being used to denote the private purse which a member of the family, whether slave or free, was allowed in particular cases to possess and accumulate for his own use, distinct from the property which the paterfamilias administered for the good of the whole, approached very closely to the meaning of the He- brew: and moreover there was a convenient adjective peculiaris derived therefrom. Impressed, it would ap- pear, with the value of the word which he had thus learnt from Symmachus, Jerome himself has almost universally adopted peculium, peculiaris, as a rendering of H^D in the Old Testament; e.g. Exod. xix. 5 ' Eritis mihi in peculium de cunctis populis,' I Chron. xxix. 3 ' Quae obtuli in domum Dei mei de peculio} Deut. xxvi. 1 8 (comp. vii. 6, xiv. 2) 'Elegit te hodie ut sis ei populus peculiaris,' etc. 1 Our English translators in adopting this word ' peculiar ' after the Vulgate were obviously aware of its appropriate technical sense. This appears from the mode in which they use it ; e.g. Ps. cxxxv. 4 1 The normal rendering in the Old Latin (which was translated from the LXX) was abundans: see e. g. Exod. xix. 5, Tit. ii. 14, and the quo- tation of Victorinus given above (p. 245 sq.). This would be a very natural interpretation of Tre/uotfcrios to any one unacquainted with the Hebrew. 268 APPENDIX I. 'The Lord hath chosen Jacob unto himself and Israel for his peculiar treasure ' (comp. Exod. xix. 5, Eccles. ii. 8, in both which passages the word 'treasure' is added). Twice only have they departed from the word 'peculiar' in rendering PPUD ; in Deut. vii. 6, where it is translated ' a special people,' and in Mai. iii. 17, where it is represented by 'jewels' but with a marginal alternative, * special treasure.' In this last passage the rendering should probably be, ' And they shall be to me, saith the Lord of Hosts, in the day which I appoint, for a peculiar treasure,' and not as our Version has it, 'And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of Hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels.' In Tit. ii. 14 \ao<; irepiovcrios, and I Pet. ii. g Xao? efc Trepnrolrjcriv, where (as I have already observed) we have two distinct Greek renderings of the same Hebrew, the expressions are once more united in our Version, which, following Tyndale, translates both by 'a peculiar people.' Strangely enough S. Jerome, who introduces peculium, peculiaris, in the Old Testa- ment, has other and diverse renderings in both these passages of the New ; populus acceptabilis in the one case, and populus adquisitionis in the other. His New Testament was executed before his Old : and it would appear that in the interval he had recognised the value of the rendering suggested by Symmachus, and adopted it accordingly. APPENDIX II. The Last Petition of the Lord's Prayer. (Reprinted from the 'Guardian' of Sept. lth t i^th, and list, 1881.) THE Revisers of the English Version of the New Testament have no reason to complain of the recep- tion which has been accorded to their work. Re- membering the storm of criticism which burst upon the revision of King James, they were prepared for censure and rebuke. The present 'Authorised ' Version, when it appeared, was fiercely assailed. It was con- victed (in the opinion of its censors) of faults of all kinds of bad scholarship, bad theology, bad faith, even bad English. The Victorian Revisers had no right to expect a better fate. Speaking for myself, I freely confess that I have been surprised, not at the severity, but at the gentleness, of the criticisms which our work has called forth. I thankfully acknowledge the frank welcome which it has received in many quarters ; while I was more than prepared for the 270 APPENDIX II. stern condemnation which has been pronounced up- on it in some others. Considering the facilities for fragmentary criticism, often anonymous, which are afforded by the newspapers and periodicals of the present day, the Revisers may well congratulate themselves that the scourge has fallen so lightly upon them. Of all the alterations which the Revisers have felt themselves constrained to make, none has at- tracted more attention, or provoked more censure, than the change in the last petition of the Lord's Prayer. This adverse criticism has been gathered up in 'A Protest' from the pen of Canon Cook, of Exeter, addressed to the Bishop of London, which (it may be presumed) states with sufficient fulness the case of the complainants, and to which therefore I shall make frequent allusion in the following pages. But let me first clear the ground. This is strictly a question of fidelity. Canon Cook, at the outset, speaks of the 'extreme surprise and grief which the rendering of the Revisers has caused to himself. He feels certain that no change likely to have been adopted by them, 'could be proposed which would produce a more general and lively feeling of astonish- ment and pain' (p. i) 1 . He returns again to the 1 1 have quoted throughout from the second edition of Canon Cook's pamphlet. APPENDIX II. 271 subject towards the close of his pamphlet (p. 17), and characterises the rendering as 'one which will excite feelings of pain and repugnance in millions of devout and trustful hearts.' Now, I trust that the Revisers have not been callous or indifferent to the feelings of the general reader ; but there was a cause which they held more sacred even than the sentiments of their fellow-Christians. This was the cause of truth. We should have failed in our first duty before God and man, if from any regard for men's feelings we had withheld a rendering which, using the best reason that God has given us, we believed in our heart of hearts to be decidedly the most probable rendering. If translators are not truthful, they are nothing at all. I am surprised therefore, in the adverse criticisms which this rendering has called forth, to find that so much stress is laid on the shock which it will cause to the feelings of the Christian reader. Nor can I believe this shock to be so great as our censors suppose. We have not imported any new doctrine into the Lord's Prayer, but that which we have received from the beginning. Were we not taught as children in our Catechism that in this petition we desire the Lord God our heavenly Father 'that He will keep us' not only 'from all sin and wickedness/ but also 'from our ghostly enemy'? But ' it is not necessary.' No, it is not necessary 272 APPENDIX II. in the sense in which a mathematical truth is neces- sary. No result of criticism, and (I may add) no inference in morals, is necessary in this sense. If we were to wait for this kind of certainty before accepting the inferences of reason and experience, no progress would be possible. Mankind would never have emerged from barbarism, had this principle prevailed. If however it appeared to the Revisers, exercising their faculties to the best of their ability, that there was a decided preponderance of argument in favour of this particular rendering, then I say, as honest and truthful men, they had no choice but to give it the precedence and place it in the text. I shall endeavour in the following pages to give the reasons which influenced one of their number. At the same time I wish it to be understood that I am speaking only for myself, and that I have neither right nor desire to stand forward as the representative of my colleagues. It is clear however from the result, that two-thirds of those present arrived at the same goal, whether they reached it by the same or by a different route. Having said thus much by way of preface, I will proceed at once to the discussion of the text itself: Matt. vi. 13, prj ela-evey/cys ^a? et's Tret/oao-^oi/, a\\a pvaai rfpas a?ro rov Trovrjpov. The arguments which deserve to be considered in APPENDIX II. 273 deciding between the masculine and neuter rendering of rov Trovrjpov, may be ranged under four heads: (i) The diction of the clause itself; (2) The require- ments of the context ; (3) Early exegesis ; (4) Theo- logical propriety. i. THE DICTION. Under this head Canon Cook spends some time in showing that both the preposition (OTTO) and the verb (pveo-Oai) are consistent with the neuter rendering. I agree with him. As regards the preposition, the most that can be urged is that airo more naturally suggests a person ; but the argument is too slender to carry any weight. On the difference between etc and diro, as used with this same verb pvea-Oai, Canon Cook says truly, 'There appears to be a real distinction, e/c implying that the petitioner is actually under the power of an enemy or principle ' (p. 4). I shall have occasion to advert to this distinction at a later stage, as Canon Cook him- self appears to have overlooked it in his subsequent remarks. Of the verb pveaOai he writes, ' This is a point of considerable importance, since, as it is said, the alteration of the Revisers is defended to a considerable extent on the ground that pvaai necessarily implies deliverance from a person.' L. R. 18 274 APPENDIX II. I do not know to what he alludes. My memory is treacherous, but I cannot recall any incident which supports this view of the considerations which influ- enced the Revisers. Certainly I myself should not think of urging such an argument in favour of the masculine rendering. The stress of the argument from diction rests on the use of 6 irovrjpo^ and TO irovrjpov ; and under this head the itsage of the New Testament writers them- selves must hold the foremost place. What this usage is will be seen from the following passages. (i) Passages where it is certainly, or almost cer- tainly, masculine, signifying 'the Evil One:' Matt. xiii. 19 e/>%erai 6 irovqpb^ KOI dpird^et TO O"7TapfJLVOV. Matt. xiii. 38, 39 ra e fy%dvid elaiv ol viol TOV trovrjpov, 6 be e^pos 6 aTrelpas avrd eo~Tt,v 6 SidftoXos. Ephes. vi. 16 irdvra rd j3e\r) TOV Trovrjpov [ra] TreTTVpa/jLeva aftkcrai. I John ii. 13, 14 <m vevitctj/care TOV Trovrjpov . . /cal vevucrj/caTe TOV irovrjpov. I John iii. 12 ov tcaBco^ Katz/ IK TOV Trovrjpov rjv. I John v. 1 8 6 7rovr)po<$ ov% aTrrerai avTOV. I John V. 19 6 KOCTfJLOS 0\05 6V TO) TTOVTJpq) KlTai. (ii) Passages where it is neuter : Luke vi. 45 o dyaOos dv6pa)7ro<; e/c TOV dyaOov Oijo-avpov TTJS tcapSlas avTov Trpo^epet, TO djadov, teal APPENDIX II. 275 o Trowrjpos \av6ptoTro<i\ c/c rov Trovrjpov [Orjcavpov rfj? ttapSlas avrov] Trpotyepei, TO Trovrjpov. Rom. xii. 9 diroo-Twyovvres TO Trovrjpov. (iii) Passages where the meaning is doubtful or doubted : Matt. v. 37 TO &e TTpia-o~ov TOVTCOV IK rov Trovrjpov Matt. v. 39 eyco Se \eyco vfitv /IT) dvTKnfjvai TW (T6 John xvii. 15 OVK epcoTw iva aprj<s avrovs e/c TOU KOO-/JLOV a\X' iva T^prjar)^ avrov? etc rov Trovrjpov. 2 Thess. iii. 2, 3 /a pva-Ow/juev a?ro rwv droirayv /cal dv0pa)7TQ)V, . . TTiO-TO? 6 ea-TLV 6 Ku/3i09, 05 vfjids KOI <f>v\dj;ei OTTO ToO Trovrjpov. A few remarks on each of these lists will be necessary. (i) In the first list I have included Matthew xiii. 38, because, notwithstanding Canon Cook's comments, I cannot consider the interpretation really doubtful. He himself says : ' It is perhaps unnecessary to question the propriety of this rendering [' the Evil One '] in which the Revisers accept the old Version ['the Wicked One'] with a slight modification. The use of the masculine is justified, and will probably commend itself to most readers, as it is accepted by the generality of commentators, ancient and modern (p. 7).' It is always dangerous to risk a sweeping negative ; but I do not remember a single Greek commentator 18 2 276 APPENDIX II. who takes it otherwise than masculine. On the other hand, in some revisions of the Old Latin Version, as Canon Cook has pointed out, we have filii nequitiae &s\&filii nequam ; but this is probably not the original form of this version, as I hope to show lower down. However this may be, there is a serious linguistic objection to the neuter here. We can understand ol viol T?9 Trovqpias, but is ol viol rov Trowrjpov possible ? Canon Cook, writing of the LXX, says (p. 8), ' TO TTovypov, in the sense of evil, moral and spiritual evil, is one of the commonest forms. It occurs, e.g., eight times in Deuteronomy, and repeatedly in the historical books.' Yes ; but though the occurrence of TO irovrjpov is so frequent in the LXX, it is not once used as an equivalent to q Trovrjpla. It never denotes the abstract quality, but always the concrete embodiment, 'the deed or thing which is evil.' This sense, I need not say, is quite out of place in the expression ol viol TOV Trovrjpov. One other passage in this list is disputed by Canon Cook. He considers that in I John v. 19, 6 #607^09 0X09 eV TO> Trovijpw fceiTcu, the neuter is preferable. I cannot agree with him. In the first place, the masculine is distinctly suggested by the previous 6 Trovypos ov% aTTTerai avTov. Secondly, the masculine is required in eV TV Trovrjpa) /celrai,, as the proper antithesis to eV/iei/ eV rw akyOww, ez> TO> vla> APPENDIX II. 277 avrov 'Irjo-ov Xpicrra), in the following verse. Thirdly, this interpretation is in entire accordance with the language and teaching of S. John elsewhere, where 'the world' is regarded as the domain of the Evil One. Fourthly, Canon Cook's interpretation would seem to require rfj Trovypia rather than rw Trovijpa). Lastly, the traditional exegesis favours the masculine. Here again I doubt whether a single Greek Father can be produced who adopts the neuter rendering, for in the passage of Dionysius of Alexandria (ed. Migne, pp. 1594, 1599), to which Canon Cook refers (p. 8) as favouring his view, the frequent reference to the Evil One (6 77-01/77/90$) in the context seems clearly to show that this Father adopted the masculine ren- dering here also. Nor again is he justified in saying that * the neuter is certainly supported by ' the Mem- phitic version, pi-pet-hoou. The expression is ambi- guous in itself (as I shall have occasion to show presently), being both masculine and neuter; and the fact that in the previous verse (o TTOZ/^O? ov% uTnerai avrov) the translator has adopted the Greek word itself, piponeros, proves nothing. Such variations between the native Egyptian and the naturalised Greek word in rendering the same original even in the same context are not uncommon in this version, (ii) As regards the second list, I need only remark that I Thess. v. 22, airb iravros et'Sov? Trovrjpov 278 APPENDIX II. , is not included, because the difficulty of treating Trowrjpov as a substantive is great. (iii) (a) Of the doubtful passages, Matt. v. 39, /j,r) dvTUTTrjvcu ro5 Trovrjpa) a\X* ocrrt? ere pairL^ei /e.r.X, may conveniently be taken first. Here r&> vrovypw should probably be rendered ' the evil man/ as in the Revised Version, since this is suggested by the words following, a\V ocms K.T.\. If so, this passage should be eliminated altogether from the list. (b) In Matt. v. 37, TO Se Trepio-aov TOVTCDV etc TOV Trovrjpov ea-riv, the Revisers have adopted the mas- culine rendering 'the Evil One' in the text, giving the neuter 'evil' in the margin. They have done rightly in my opinion. The masculine rendering is suggested by I John iii. 12, Kalv ex TOV irovypov ?jv, where it is certainly masculine, not to mention the analogous phrase e/c TOV SiafioXov elvai (John viii. 44, I John iii. 8). Moreover here also (though in this case the argument is not so strong) we should have expected T^? Trowrjpias, rather than TOV irovypov, if 1 evil ' had been meant. To the masculine rendering however Canon Cook has a theological objection, which he expresses as follows (p. 6): * The statement that every oath, especially every oath used to confirm an asseveration, owes its existence to moral evil in man, is in full accordance with our experience and with the teaching of Holy Scripture. But for the mutual distrust be- tween man and man it would never have been thought of ; and APPENDIX II. 279 when employed needlessly, lightly, irreverently, it involves serious guiltiness. But on solemn occasions, when it would otherwise be impossible to distinguish between thoughtless utterances and serious declarations, or when needed to convey full assurance to a timid conscience or distrustful heart, an oath is more than justifiable ; it comes not from the Evil One but from the goodness of the utterer.' The answer to this is twofold. First. If any act or thing ' owes its existence to moral evil in man,' it may be said to owe its existence to the author of evil. Secondly. Such oaths as are lawful lie altogether outside the letter of this passage. It is prefaced with the injunction, ' Swear not at all.' Clearly therefore the passage, however we may interpret it, refers to oaths which are forbidden, and does not contemplate such cases as Canon Cook adduces. The injunction, 'Let your speech be Yea, yea, Nay, nay/ and the reason assigned, ' Whatsoever is more than these/ etc., must be coextensive with the prohibition, ' Swear not at all.' Wrong swearing therefore is intended ; and wrong swearing is confessedly the prompting of the Evil One. (c) In John xvii. 15, OVK ep(oru> iva apy? CLVTOVS IK TOV ic6(r/j,ov a\V 'iva TT)pi]a"r)$ avTOvs e/e TOV Trovrjpov, I cannot myself doubt that TOV Trovrjpov is ' the Evil One,' though I have placed the passage in the doubt- ful list. The remark which has been made already 280 APPENDIX II. with respect to the Epistles of S. John holds good of his Gospel. The World and the Gospel are antago- nistic the one to the other. Satan is 'the prince of this world.' In this particular case therefore, where the disciples are contemplated as remaining in the world, we naturally expect that the prayer should take the form of exemption from the power of the tyrant who claims the world for his principality. This interpretation becomes the more probable when we remember that, whereas TO Trovypov, 'the evil thing/' is never found in S. John's writings, 6 TTO^/JO?, ' the Evil One,' occurs many times. (d) The only remaining passage, 2 Thess. iii. 3, <f\afet diro rov irovrjpov, may be placed in the same category with the last petition of the Lord's Prayer, to which it is closely allied. Being open to the same ambiguity, it contributes nothing to the solution of the question. Thus then it appears that 6 Trovypos, 'the Evil One,' is a common expression in the New Testament, and that it occurs three or four times as often as TO irovrjpov ' the evil thing.' As an evidence of the hold which this term had taken on the Christian mind in the first ages of the Church, we find it in the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 2, Iva fj,rj 6 Trovrjpos 7rapela"Bvaiv 7r\dvrjs Tro^cra? eV TIJMV K.T.X.), which, though most probably not the work of APPENDIX II. 28l the Apostle whose name it bears, is one of the earliest, perhaps the very earliest, of patristic writings. Where the usage of the New Testament writers is thus explicit, it would seem superfluous to seek any justification of this sense from without. Canon Cook however thinks otherwise. * He turns to the Septua- gint and to the Targums for a response to the question how the expression could naturally be understood by our Lord's hearers, and this is his inference (p. 8) : 'The answer given by the Septuagint is clear; and, as in other cases of doubtful interpretation, I hold that it should be regarded as conclusive. The italics are my own. After a brief statement of some facts relating to the use of the neuter in the LXX, he continues : 'The masculine o jrovrjpos is used, as is also its Hebrew equivalent, to designate a wicked man, when an individual is pointed out; but it is never used in the Septuagint to designate the ' Evil One.' It certainly would not occur to any one fami- liar with the language of the Septuagint, to interpret the word as equivalent to Satan; nor is it at all probable that in a Gospel written specially for the use of Hebrew Christians the words roG Trovrjpov would be employed in any other sense than that generally, I may say universally, accepted by readers of that Version.' To these inferences I can only reply by an appeal to facts. It certainly did occur to the Greek Fathers, who before all others were ' familiar with the language 282 APPENDIX II. of the Septuagint/ to interpret the words in this way. Indeed there is not, so far as I am aware, any evidence to show that a single Greek Father, for many centuries after the words were spoken by our Lord and recorded by the Evangelist, interpreted them otherwise. Again, with regard to the improbability that the words TOV TTovrjpov should be used of Satan in a Gospel written specially for Hebrew Christians, I must reply that the general consensus of interpreters and theologians, ancient and modern, agrees in assuming that it is so used in another passage (Matt. xiii. 38 ol viol TOV Trovrjpov), and I am unable to understand wherein lies the a priori improbability in the genitive occur- ring in this sense, when the nominative certainly is so used (Matt. xiii. 19, ep^erai, 6 770^77/905). But when Canon Cook regards the ' answer given by the Septuagint ' as ' conclusive/ has he considered the conditions of the problem ? Has he taken into account the date of the Septuagint ? Has he further asked what opportunity the Septuagint translators had for introducing 6 irowrjpos in this sense ? The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament was made two or three centuries before the Gospels were written. This interval was a period of constant and rapid development. Theological nomenclature moved forward with the movement of the ages. Terms wholly unknown at the beginning of this APPENDIX II. 283 period were in everybody's mouth at the end. A modern parallel may help us to appreciate the force of this consideration. Who would attempt to restrict the interpretation of philosophical and scientific terms current in the Victorian era by the diction of the Elizabethan ? The fact therefore if fact it were that this designation of Satan was unknown to the Jews in the age of the earlier Ptolemies, would not afford even a presumption that it was still unfamiliar to them in the age of Augustus and Tiberius. But what grounds have we for assuming it to be a fact ? What reason is there for the expectation that the translators, if they had been ever so familiar with the term, would have introduced it into their version ? How often is Satan mentioned in the Old Testament? Only in three passages, though more than once in two out of three (Job i. 6 12, ii. 2 7 ; Zech. iii. i, 2 ; I Chron. xxi. i). In all of these he is designated * Satan'; in all the translators render the word, as became faithful translators, by the corresponding Greek term Sta/3o\o9. Why should they have gone out of their way to substitute 'the Evil One' for ' the Accuser ' or ' the Adversary,' more especially as in all these passages the leading idea of the narrative in the context is that which is conveyed by ' Satan ' or Sm/3oXo9, but not by Trovrjpos ? 'Not less decisive (continues Canon Cook, p. 9) is the 284 APPENDIX II. usage of the Targums, which undoubtedly represent the form in which Lessons from the Bible were publicly read or ex- pounded to the contemporaries of our Lord.' .... * Thus, as respects the Targums, I have but to repeat, and urge not less strongly, the argument drawn from the use of the Septuagint.' My answer applies to the Targums not less than to the Septuagint. The older Targums, to which alone his language will apply, are strictly interpre- tations. Where the original writer put Satan, 'the Adversary,' why should we expect the interpreter to go out of his way and substitute 'the Evil One'? As a matter of fact, the Targums commonly retain the same word 'Satan' as they find it. The only exception which I have noticed is Zech. iii. i, 2, where a Chaldee word equivalent in meaning to Satan is substituted. If this reply holds good in the case of the Tar- gums, is it a fortiori valid as an answer to the argument of Canon Cook that 'the Syriac of the Old Testament' never uses the expression 'the Evil One' for Satan. What reason is there to expect that it would use this term, however common the use of it may have been at the time ? But the objection from the absence of this desig- nation in the Talmudical and early Rabbinical writings still remains to be dealt with. What shall we say to this? APPENDIX II. 285 It is answered by an appeal to these writings themselves. I do not profess to be a Rabbinical scholar myself; but this sweeping assertion seemed to me to court inquiry, and I therefore applied to my learned friend, the Rabbi Dr Schiller-Szinessy, of Cambridge, for information on the subject. He has supplied me with the following passages. I have no reason to think that he has exhausted all the examples. He has doubtless given those instances which occurred to him. (a) Midrash Shemoth Rabbah c. 21. The autho- rity quoted is Rab Ghana ben Chanina, who gives the explanation in the name of his father: "Thus, when Israel went out from Egypt, there stood up Samael the Angel to oppose them. He said before the Holy One blessed be He 'Lord of the Universe, hitherto these [the Israelites] have been idolaters, and wilt Thou divide the sea for them ?' What did the Holy One blessed be He do ? He surrendered to him [Satan] Job, who had been one of the councillors of Pharaoh, and concerning whom it is written, A man perfect and just [Job i. I, 8, ii. 3]. He said to him, Behold he is in thy hand [Job ii. 6], The Holy One blessed be He said, ' Whilst he [Satan] is engaged [grapples] with Job, the Israelites pass safely the sea, and afterwards I will save Job.' This is what Job means when he says [Job xvi. 12], 7 was at ease, but 286 APPENDIX II. he hath broken me asunder .... and it is also written [xvi. 1 1], God hath delivered me over to the wicked one i.e., He hath put me into the hand of Satan," with more to the same effect. (b) Midrash Debarim Rabbah c. 1 1. " The Angel Samael, the Wicked One, the head of all Satanim [prince of the devils], was counting the death of Moses, and saying, 'When will come the end [the appointed time] or minute in which Moses shall die, that I should go down and take his soul from him?' For concerning him David says [Ps. xxxvii. 32], The wicked one watchethfor the righteous one, and seeketh to slay him. [Now] there is none so wicked among all the Satanim altogether as Samael Thus also did Samael the Wicked One watch for the soul of Moses and say, c When will Michael be weeping and I fill my mouth with laughter?' till Michael said to him, 'What, O thou wicked one! I shall cry and thou shalt laugh/ And then said He [God] to Samael, the Wicked One," etc. (c) Babylonian Talmud, Baba Bathra i6a, " The earth is given into the hand of tJie wicked one [Job ix. 24]. Rabbi Eliezer says, Job wanted to put the dish upside down \i.e., to blaspheme, saying, God is unjust]. Then answered him Rabbi Jehoshua, 'Job meant in this phrase [the wicked one] none but Satan.' " However, as I have intimated already, it seems to APPENDIX II. 287 me to be a matter of very small moment whether 'the Evil, the Wicked One ' is so used in the LXX or in the Targums or in Talmudical writers, when it is confessedly employed in this sense by S. Matthew (reporting our Lord's words) and S. Paul and S. John; and it is not easy to account for the stress which Canon Cook lays on this argument. But Canon Cook has an expedient to invalidate the force of the evidence from the New Testament itself. He supposes that the term, 'the Evil One/ was first applied to Satan in the parable (Matt. xiii. 19), and thence became common in the Christian Church. As the Lord's Prayer was delivered earlier, this sense would have been unintelligible to the hearers at that time, and therefore cannot have been intended. At least, so I understand his words (p. 5): * It must be observed first, that the Epistle of S. John was written more than half a century after the delivery of the parable in S. Matthew i.e., at a time when the expression, taken from the exposition of the parable itself, had probably become idiomatic.' And again (p. 10): 'The single exception (Matt. xiii. 19) to which I refer is however very important. I have already alluded to it, and would on no account question its significance. I believe it to be the one saying of our Lord recorded in the earlier Gospels which determined the later usage of the Church. It was spoken however long after the Sermon on the Mount, and is far from 288 APPENDIX II. proving that, when the discourse was uttered, the hearers would attach such a meaning to the expression.' This is a mere hypothesis, and in order to com- mend itself should bear on its face some verisimilitude. But what is the fact? If one thing be more clear than another, it is that o Trovrjpos had already this meaning, when the parable was spoken. It is not only itself unexplained, but is even introduced as an explanation of something else. The birds coming and devouring the seed sown by the way side are interpreted to mean ep^erat 6 Trovrjpo^ /cal dp7rd%i TO ea-Trapfjbevov K.T.\. Would not this have been to interpret obscurum per obscurius, unless o 73-01/77/909 had already this recognised sense ? 2. THE CONTEXT. Very little need be said on the connexion of this clause with its context; and yet this little has an important bearing on the question at issue. We are taught to pray fj,rj elo'eveyfcys 77/^9 ew Treipa&fiov, d\\d pvaai ?7>a9 a-Tro rov Trovrjpov, ' Bring us not into temp- tation, but deliver us ' from what ? Does not the word ' temptation ' at once suggest the mention of the tempter ? And here I may perhaps be allowed to step aside for a moment and to say a word about another matter. The Revisers have been taken to task, even APPENDIX II. 289 by friendly critics, for an unnecessary and therefore irritating change in substituting ' bring ' for * lead ' in the previous clause. But the word in the original certainly means 'bring' not 'lead/ elcrevey/crjs not elo-aydyr]? ; and considering the grave and subtle questions which gather about the subject of tempta- tion and its relation to the agency of God, it would seem to be a matter of real theological moment that the Revisers should be scrupulously exact in their rendering of this word. Any one who takes the pains to read the patristic comments on the clause 'Bring us not into temptation' must be impressed with the anxiety which they betray, and will no longer (I venture to think) be disposed to censure the Revisers. This at least has been my own case, for I approached the subject with a decided repug- nance to the change, which nevertheless I am now convinced was right. But to return from this digres- sion. If the tempter is mentioned in the second clause, then, and then only, has the connexion firj a\\d .... its proper force. If on the other hand rov Trovrjpov be taken neuter, the strong opposition implied by these particles is no longer natural, for ' temptation ' is not coextensive with ' evil.' We should rather expect in this case, 'And deliver us from evil.' Several of the Fathers remark that S. Luke omits the last clause d\\a pv<rat ^/xa? djro TOV irovqpov, because he 'gives L. R. 19 2QO APPENDIX II. the prayer in an abridged form, and this petition was practically involved in the other. The comment is just, if TOV TTovrjpov be masculine, but not so if the neuter be adopted. Thus the context decidedly favours the masculine. Nor is it an insignificant fact that only two chapters before S. Matthew has recorded how the Author of this prayer found Himself face to face with temptation (iv. I, 3), and was delivered from the Evil One. 3. EARLY EXEGESIS. The previous investigation has shown that the dictional usage of the New Testament writers, and the requirements of the context, both point in the same direction towards the masculine rendering of TOV TrovTjpov. I now purpose interrogating early exegesis. If its response is found to agree with the results hitherto obtained, this will be no slight confirmation of their truth. The channels of early exegesis are threefold : (i) The Versions ; (ii) The Liturgies; (iii) The writings of individual Fathers. Each of these therefore will have to be examined in turn. (i) The Versions. I. Of the ancient Versions, the Syriac will pro- APPENDIX II. 291 bably be allowed to hold the chief place in a question of this kind. I gather from Canon Cook's language that he would not seriously quarrel with this estimate. He has not however investigated the usage of the Syriac Versions as regards the rendering of 6 irovrjpo^ and TO Trovrjpov. If he had done so, he would have found (I believe) that it gives no such uncertain sound as he supposes. For the sake of readers who are unacquainted with the Syriac language, it may be well to state that, as there are only two genders in this language, the mas- culine and the feminine, the neuter of the Greek has to be rendered by one of these. The feminine in Syriac is the proper equivalent for the neuter in Greek, as any common Syriac grammar, will show. The masculine however may be so used. Thus, in this particular word the masculine bisJio properly represents 6 Trovrjpos, but may represent TO Trowrjpoi', though the proper representative of the latter is the feminine bishtho. What then is the usage in the Peshito Syriac of the New Testament? In all passages where the masculine rendering is beyond a doubt, bisho is found. These are Matt. xiii. 19, 38; Ephes. vi. 16; I John ii. 13, 14; iii. 12; v. 18, 19. On the other hand, in those passages where the neuter is unquestionable, the feminine bishtho (or, in 192 2Q2 APPENDIX II. the plural, btshotho 1 ) is found. These are Luke vi. 45, Rom. xii. 9. When therefore in the Lord's Prayer ToO irovrjpov is rendered by bisho, there is (to say the least) a strong presumption that 'the Evil One' is meant. Otherwise this version would depart in this passage alone from its general usage. The same is the case with regard to the Curetonian Syriac, which probably exhibits an older type of the Syriac Version than the Peshito. The evidence indeed is defective here, because only fragments of the Cure- tonian Syriac remain. But so far as it goes, its testi- mony is to the same effect. In Matt. xiii. 19, 38, it has the masculine bisho, which also is its rendering in the petition in the Lord's Prayer. These are the only, passages yi the extant fragments which throw any light on the question. But this is not all. So familiar was the word bisho, ' the Evil One/ as a synonym for Satan, to the ear of a Syrian, that in the Curetonian Syriac it ap- pears in Matt. xiii. 39, where the original has 6 iu- /3oXo?, and in the Peshito Syriac in Acts x. 38, where the original has TOV Sta/3oXou. We are now in a position to measure the accuracy of a statement made by Dr Neubauer (Academy, June 1 The printed editions of the Peshito have the plural ; but, as the difference is only one of vocalisation, the original text doubtless had the singular, corresponding to the Greek. This point however does not affect the question at issue. APPENDIX II. 293 1 8, 1 88 1, p. 455): 'The Aramaic original of airo rov Trovrjpov seems to have been men bishol So far I agree with him, if at least the words were originally spoken in Aramaic and nbt in Greek a question not to be decided offhand. It seems probable that in this in- stance the Syriac would have preserved the original words. But he adds, ' which can be translated from evil, and from the evil, but not from the Evil One! And lower down he writes, ' Both Syriac translations have from evil or from the evil'' A glance at Dr Payne Smith's Thesaurus would have saved him from this error. 'Imprimis usurpatur de diabolo/ writes this learned Syriac scholar, speaking of the word bisho. The instances which I have given show that there is no exaggeration in this imprimis. The word not only can be rendered ' the Evil One/ but is most naturally so rendered. It is indeed difficult to see how else 6 71-0^77/009, when referring to Satan, could be translated so appropriately. The paraphrastic ren- dering in the Peshito of the Old Testament, when it refers to a human agent, 'a doer of evil/ on which Canon Cook seems to lay stress, as if it supported his own view (p. 9), would be out of place as applied to the author of evil. 2. From the Syriac I pass to the Latin Versions. The Old Latin (the term Old Italic, by which Canon Cook calls it, should be avoided, as it seems certainly 294 APPENDIX II. to have been made in the first instance not for Italy, but for Africa) has ' Libera nos a malo.' There seems to be no variation in any of the extant forms or recen- sions of this version ; and this rendering is retained also by Jerome in his Vulgate. Was malo here in- tended as a masculine or a neuter ? The earliest Latin Fathers, as we shall see pre- sently, interpreted it as a masculine. Though to ears accustomed only to classical Latin, or even to later theological Latin, it might suggest the neuter rather than the masculine, this was not the case with these primitive writers. Mahts was with them a recognised term for ' the Evil One '; e.g. Tertull. de Idol 16 ' Ita mains circumdedit saeculum idololatria,' ib. 21 'Per quern te malus honori idolorum, id est idololatriae, quaerebat annectere,' de Cult. Fern. ii. 5 'Christianus a malo illo adjuvabitur in aliquo?' de Patient, n ' Lata atque diffusa est operatic mail; multiplicia spiritus incitements jacttlantis .... certemus igitur quae a malo infliguntur sustinere Quaqua ex parte aut erroribus nostris aut mail insidiis, etc.' (where the obvious reference to Ephes. vi. 16, and indeed the whole context, show that the masculine is intended). These instances are partly taken from Oehler's index to Tertullian, where, after his list of references, the editor adds ' et saepius.' I have no reason to think this statement exaggerated. APPENDIX II. 295 Again, I turn to the index to Hartel's Cyprian, and I find that after giving two references where mains signifies 'the Evil One/ he too adds 'et saepius.' With the earliest Latin Fathers therefore this was a common use of the term. But Canon Cook urges against this meaning in the Lord's Prayer what he supposes to be the general usage of the Latin Versions elsewhere. ' On referring to other passages/ he writes (p. 10), 'I find that in every case but one, where the Greek certainly points to a personal agent, and specially to Satan, both Jerome and the Old Italic have the word malignus, not malus! The exception to which he refers is Matt. xiii. 19, epxercu 6 Trowrjpos. This statement needs much qualification. The word is translated by mains in Matt. xiii. 19, where it is certainly masculine ; it is so translated again in Matt. v. 37, etc TOV Trovrjpov ICTTLV, a malo est, and John xvii. 15, iva vrjpijo-r)? avrovs etc TOV 7rovrjpov y ut serves eos a malo, in which passages it was commonly, and (I believe) rightly, taken as masculine by the Fathers. So too in 2 Thess. iii. 3, <j>v\d%ei a-jrb TOV TTovqpov, custodiet a malo. It is rendered by this same adjective again in I Cor. v. 13, egapare (e%a- peiTe) TOV. TTovrjpbv, and in Matt. v. 39, fj,rj dvTiaTijvai, TO> irovrjpw, in both which passages it probably means 'the evil man/ In Luke vi. 45, 6 Trovrjpbs IK TOV 296 APPENDIX II. .... TO Trovijpov, it stands malus de malo .... malum, though Cod. Verc. substitutes nequam for malus, thus destroying the studied iteration. In Ephes. vi. 16, ra j3e\rj rov Trovrjpov is translated by tela nequissimi. In Matt. xiii. 38 however the Cod. Brix. has filii maligni for ol viol rov irovrjpov ; but here the readings of other MSS are different ; Veron. filii iniquity Vercell. filii nequitiae, Corb. filii nequam ; and this last is followed by Jerome in his Vulgate. Even here it may be conjectured (though no stress can be laid on the conjecture) that the original reading was mali, and that it was variously altered, some transcribers supposing it to be the nominative agreeing with^/zY. If not, it was probably Jitu iniqui, as read in the Cod. Veron., iniqui being intended as a genitive. At all events we have found no authority for malignus as a rendering of 6 7701/77/305 in the Gospels ; for filii maligni of Cod. Brix., in Matt. xiii. 38, is an obvious correction for the sake of clearness, and indeed cannot be pleaded by Canon Cook him- self, who contends for the neuter rendering here (p. 7). Only then at length, when we arrive at the First Epistle of S. John, is o Trovrjpos rendered by malignus (i John ii. 13, 14; iii. 12; v. 18, 19). The proper Latin equivalent of o jroz/^po? is malus, 1 Canon Cook has by some mistake given./?/// nequiliae as the read- ing of the Cod. Veron. APPENDIX II. 297 not malignus. For the sake of avoiding ambiguity, or for other reasons, it might be rendered by malignus, as is done consistently by the translator of S. John's Epistles. But the full sense of the word, as applied to the author of evil, is lost by the use of this more restricted term ; and there is no ground for supposing that the translator or translators of the Gospels would have made this sacrifice. 3. In the first rank, together wich the Syriac and Latin, stand the two principal Egyptian Versions. The Sahidic, the version of Upper Egypt, is quite explicit. It adopts the Greek word Trowrjpos, pre- fixing the Egyptian definite article, pponeros (not piponeros, as given by Canon Cook, p. n, for this is the Memphitic form). Canon Cook indeed, while allowing that this rendering ' most probably indicates a personal agent/ yet attempts to invalidate its tes- timony by adding in a note, * Not certainly ; for when Greek words are taken into the Coptic Version the translators keep the first and simplest form un- changed/ and he gives the instance of met-chrestos, ' goodness.' It is quite true that for ^T/O-TOT^? they might use met-chrestos, prefixing the Egyptian form- ative particle met- to the first form of the Greek word which came to hand. But this is a wholly different thing from rendering TO irovypov by pponeros, which properly represents 6 Trovrjpbs, and, until some instance 298 APPENDIX IT. of such a usage can be adduced, I am constrained to hold that the Sahidic translator without question adopted the masculine rendering. The case is different with the Memphitic, the version of Lower Egypt. Here the translator, in- stead of incorporating the Greek word, adopts the corresponding Egyptian, pi-pet-hoou. This is alto- gether ambiguous. The Egyptian language, like the Syriac, has no neuter, and the feminine commonly does duty for it (Peyron's Gramm. Copt. p. 34). But this is very far from being a universal rule. In the present instance pi-pet-hoou is used equally where the masculine is certain (Matt. xiii. 19, 38 ; I Cor. v. 13 ; Ephes. vi. 16), where the neuter is certain (Luke vi. 45 ; Rom. xii. 9), and where the gender in the Greek is disputable or disputed (Matt. v. 37, 39; John xvii. 1552 Thess. iii. 3). But here again we meet with the same phenomenon as in the Latin Version. When we get to the First Epistle of S. John we find a change. The translator adopts piponeros ( i John ii. 13, 14; v. 1 8) as the rendering of 6 iroviypos, though not consistently; for in I John iii. 12, v. 19, he has pi-pet-hoou. Here again, as in the case of the Latin Version, the rendering piponeros probably betrays a different hand from the translator of the Gospels. At the same time, though ambiguous in itself, it was taken as^ a masculine in the Egyptian Church, as APPENDIX II. 299 may be inferred from the fact that in the embolismus of the Lord's Prayer, which will be quoted hereafter, the Greek words pvcrai ??/Aa<? CLTTO TOV Trovrjpov Kal rwv cpycav avrov are translated in the Coptic Liturgy 4 Nahmen ebolha pi-pet-hdou nem nef-hbeoui.' The reader will have gathered from these facts how little justification there is for the statement of Canon Cook that ' as a general rule the form quoted above \_pi-pet-hoo2t} is appropriated in the Memphitic Version to the neuter' (p. u). When he asserts that pi-pet-hdou is used 'invariably to render TO TTOVTJ- pov in this version/ the assertion indeed is true, but it tends to mislead : for ' invariably ' is not an appro- priate expression, where the distinct examples of TO Trovrjpov in the New Testament are two only. Again, when he states that 'Perrone, the highest authority, holds it to be neuter' (Lex. Cop., p. 340), this language also is misleading, though doubtless unintentionally so. Peyron [not 'Perrone'] does not mention this passage, but gives the neuter sense to pi-pet-hdou with other references. But Canon Cook urges that ' had a personal agent been meant, all ambiguity would have been avoided by the use of either of two common forms, ref-er-pet- JLOOU or ef-hoou? As a matter of fact, neither of these forms is once used in this version when a personal agent is meant ; nor, unless I am mistaken, 3OO APPENDIX II. could either of them stand here. The one, ref-er-pet- hoou, means a 'doer of evil/ and is unsuitable as applied to the author of evil ; the other, ef-hdou, is a predicate or adjective, and might stand for irovrjpos or irovrjpbs cov, but not for 6 iroviipos. There is indeed a form which is used in Luke vi. 45, as a rendering of 6 Trovrjpos, pi-sa-em-pet-hdou, but, like ref-er-pet-hoou t it would not be appropriate of him who is the Evil One absolutely. These are the oldest versions, and stand in a class by themselves. The latest of them perhaps falls within the second century, or at all events not much later. Of these four, two the Syriac and Sahidic point to the masculine rendering, and two the Latin and Memphitic are altogether indeter- minate. In these latter, however, the word was in- terpreted as masculine in their respective Churches in the earliest times of which we have evidence. We have as yet found no authority for the neuter. Of the remaining versions the earliest does not date before about the middle of the fourth century. They are therefore of far inferior importance, and need not detain us long. Of these versions, belong- ing to the second rank, the Gothic and the Armenian are as ambiguous as the Greek. Canon Cook indeed writes of the former, ' The Gothic of Ulfila has of thaimna tibilin, corresponding to the Old Italic, ma- APPENDIX II. 301 him, i.e. evil, not the Evil One' But af thamma ubilin is masculine as well as neuter, and no inference therefore can be drawn from the words themselves. The earliest version which favours the neuter is the ythiopic, where diro rov Trovijpov is rendered 'from all evil.' The date of this version is uncertain. Dill- mann assigns it to the fourth century ; Gildemeister and others to the sixth or seventh. The Abyssinians themselves are said not to claim an early date for it. But, whether early or late, it was translated by some- one who betrays gross ignorance of Greek. Thus aXXd/uei/09 (Acts iii. 8) is translated pisces capiens, as if dXievcov', ireSai? (Luke viii. 29), parvulis, as if Trdrrja-e (Rom. vii. n), conculcavit, as if These and other examples are given by Tregelles Introduction to the New Testament, p. 319 sq. Yet this work, of highly questionable date and wholly unquestionable ignorance, is the chief witness among the versions for the neuter rendering. Later and se- condary versions like the Anglo-Saxon, which Canon Cook quotes, are absolutely valueless for our purpose. (ii) The Liturgies. The Liturgies also will be allowed on all hands to be most valuable witnesses only second, if second, to the Versions. A Liturgy represents not the mind of an individual, or of a congregation, or even of a 3O2 APPENDIX II. diocese or province, but (in many cases) of a whole patriarchate. Whatever may have been the origin of a particular prayer or petition, it is adopted by the congregations throughout this large area, and thus it educates and moulds them. The one drawback to the value of this testimony is the difficulty of ascer- taining dates. Liturgies grew by accretion and deve- lopment ; and it is not easy to separate the more ancient from the more modern parts. But after all allowance made for this uncertainty, their testimony has the highest importance. It is therefore strange that, with the exception of a reference to the Moza- rabic Liturgy in a note, Canon Cook has altogether ignored this source of evidence. This is the more remarkable, because we have exceptionally good means of arriving at the mind of the Liturgies on the question at issue. The Lord's Prayer holds a prominent place in them ; the last petition, pvaat yfjias diro rov Trovrjpov, being expanded into a form of prayer called embolismus. Setting aside the Liturgies of the Latin-speaking peoples of the West, we may say that the whole area of the Church is covered by three forms of Liturgy. The oldest extant types of these are the Liturgy of S. James, the Liturgy of S. Mark, and the Liturgy of Adasus. The first is, roughly speaking, coextensive with the patriarchate of Antioch ; the second with the APPENDIX II. 303 patriarchate of Alexandria ; and the third comprises the populations to the farther East, who spoke not Greek, but (for the most part) Aramaic. The following then are the forms which the em- bolismus takes in these three Liturgies respectively. I quote them from Hammond's Liturgies Eastern and Western (Oxford, 1878), as a volume easily accessible and convenient for reference : (i) Liturgy of S. James p. 47; Kat firj et<Jveyiq7S ^/x,as eis Trctpacr/xoi/, Kvpte, Kvpie TWI/ Svvdjj.(j)v, d etSous rrjv aVflevetai/ Ty/Awy, aAAa pixrat ly/ TOV Trovrjpov Kat TCOV cpycov avrov, 7rdcnr)<; eirr/petas avrov, 8ta TO OVO/JLOL crov TO aytov, TO eTTtKX^^ej/ CTTI pav Ta7retVcoo-tv. (ii) Liturgy of S. Mark p. 188 ; Nat Kvpte, Kvpte, /xi) cl&evtyKys 7;/xa5 etg Trctpaer/xov aXXci pwrat 7^/>ws ct7ro TOV Trovrjpov. oTSev yap T; TroAA?; o~ov cv- O'TrXay^vi'a ort ov 8wa/xe^a VTrcveyKetv Sta TI}V TroAA^v ly/iwi' acr0eviav aXXa irofycrov (rvv TO> 7retpao"/xw Kat cKy8ao~tv, TOU xas VTrcveyKetv. av yap IScoKas ly/xty e^ovo-tai/ TraTctJ/ o^>ea)V Kat o-KOp7riW, Kai CTT! Tracrav TJ}I> BvvafJLiv TOV (iii) Liturgy of Adceus p. 279: 'Ne nos inducas, Domine, in tentationem, sed libera et salva nos a malo et ab exercitibus ejus.' Thus all these Liturgies are in favour of the masculine rendering. The meaning of the first and 304 APPENDIX II. third is obvious. The first paraphrases 'deliver us from the Evil One and his works, from all his inso- lence and plotting'; the third, ' deliver and save us from the Evil One and his hosts.' The second is not quite so explicit; but its bearing is obvious. The explanation of airo rov irovrjpov appears in the words, 'Thou hast given us power to tread upon serpents and scorpions, and upon all the power of the Enemy.' But, when we turn to the Western Liturgies, all is changed. The Latin-speaking peoples embodied in their Eucharistic Service the interpretation which (as will be shown presently) appears first in the later Latin Fathers from Augustine onwards. In the Gre- gorian and Gelasian Canons (Hammond, pp. 372, 373) the embolismus takes the form, 'Libera nos, quae- sumus, Domine, ab omnibus malis praeteritis, prae- sentibus, et futuris, [et] intercedente beata et gloriosa semperfque] virgine Dei genitrice Maria,' etc., where the context betrays the late date of this form. This is also the form adopted in Roman and other later Latin Liturgies (pp. 344, 345). The words are wholly different, and not so explicit, in the Mozarabic Liturgy (ib.y p. 345), but they seem likewise to point to the neuter ; ' Liberati a malo, confirmati semper in bono, tibi servire mereamur Deo ac Domino nostro.' Strange- ly enough, this last is the only Liturgy which Canon Cook has quoted. APPENDIX II. 305 But though this was apparently the sense which the later Latin Churches put upon the words 'a malo' in the Lord's Prayer, as used in the Eucha- ristic Service, we have satisfactory evidence that it was differently understood at one time. In an ancient Exposition of the Roman Mass printed by Martene (de Antiq. Eccl. Rit. p. 450) the words ' Sed libera nos a malo' are thus commented upon : * Hoc est a diabolo, qui totius mali et auctor est et origo. Diabolus natura caelestis fuit, nunc est nequitia spiritalis ; aetate major saeculo, nocendi usu tritus, laedendi arte peri- tissimus, unde non jam matus, sed malum dicilur, a quo est omne quod malum est. .... Petendum nobis est ergo ut Deus nos a diabolo liberet, qui Christum terris ut diabolum vinceret commodavit. Clamet, clamet homo ad Deum, clamet Libera nos a malo, ut a tanto malo, solo Christo vincente, liberetur.' This is the more remarkable, because the writer immediately afterwards proceeds to comment on the embolismiis in the form in which it occurs in the Roman Mass, ' Libera nos, quaesumus, ab omnibus malis praeteritis,' etc. If the words which I have italicised formed part of the original text of this exposition (as they seem to have done), the pheno- menon is instructive as showing that, though the writer took 'malo' for a neuter, yet the older interpre- tation, which was founded on the masculine rendering, still so far survived and influenced him that he felt L. R. 20 300 APPENDIX II. constrained to interpret it directly of Satan, 'that evil thing/ This exposition is attributed by the editor to about the year 800. We are now in a position to see what force there is in the following pleading of Canon Cook (p. 18) : ' So far as I am aware, in no collection of prayers, in no ancient liturgy, and in no authorised form of devotional exer- cises, has the primitive Church, or our own Church, or any other Church before or after the Reformation, prescribed sepa- rate or special prayers for deliverance from the power of Satan.' I imagine that at this point he must have recalled the familiar words of the Litany : ' From the crafts and assaults of the devil, .... Good Lord, deliver us. ' From all the deceits of the world, the flesh, and the devil, Good Lord, deliver its' At all events he continues : ' The crafts and assaults of the devil, the temptations brought to bear upon man's frailty, are of course dwelt upon as motives for watchfulness and earnestness ; prayers are offered that those assaults may be averted and brought to nought ; but all such prayers are, I believe, invariably connected with petitions to be delivered from evil, from all evil and mischief, and specially from sin and wickedness, and, in comparison with such petitions, occupy a secondary place.' Whether the reader will consider these statements consistent with the facts which I have adduced, I do APPENDIX II. 307 not know ; but I venture to think that they can only be vindicated, when confronted with these facts, by such an interpretation of their meaning as deprives them of any real value for the purpose for which they were made. (iii) The Fathers. Among Greek writers there is, so far as I have observed, absolute unanimity on this point. They do not even betray the slightest suspicion that any other interpretation is possible. In the CLEMENTINE HOMILIES xix. 2 sq., S. Peter is represented as inferring the existence of the Evil One from our Lord's own words. He says ; o/*oXoyw etvai TOV Trovypov, STL TroXXa/a? avVoV vVapxetv o irdvra. aX^evVas flprjKtv StSacncaXos .... otSa O.VTOV flp-rjKora .... OTL EoopaKei/ ToV Trovrjpov 009 aarpaTrryj/ Trccroi/ra .... /cat WXiv Mi? Sore Trpofyaarw TO> TrovTypa). aXXa Kat o-vfjL(3ov\va)v eip^- KV "Eo-T(0 V/XCOV TO Vttt VOL KO.I TO OV OV, TO Of. TT^pLO-Q-OV TOUTO)!/ K TOV TTOvifjpov lo~TLV. aXXa Kat iv rj TrapeScoKev tvXQ l^o/xev elpr]fLvov 'Pvaat 7^/>tas a?ro TOU irovypov .... Kat Iva. py ts TTO\V /X^KVVW TOV Xoyov, TroXXaKt? olSa TOV StSctcr/caXof pov tiirovra. tivai TOV I have nothing to say for the general orthodoxy of this writer, nor is his accuracy of quotation all that could be desired ; but on a question of this kind his early date gives a high value to his testimony. 20 2 308 APPENDIX II. ORIGEN de Orat. 30 (l. p. 265) explains this petition : pverat Se i^/xas o cos UTTO TOV 7rov?7pov, ov^t ore ov T^/JLIV TrpoVeiaii' avTiTraA.auov o t^pos oY ottuv S^TTOTC eavTov /cal vTnypCTtoi/ TOV ^eXry/xaros avYov, aAA.' O7 K.T.X. and he gives Job as an instance. ID. Sel in Psalm, ii. 3 (n. p. 66 1), *Sed et Dominus in Evangelio diabolum non dixit pec- catorem tantummodo, sed malignum, vel malum, et cum docet in oratione vel dicit, Sed libera nos a malo .... Aliud est enim per ignorantiam mala agere et vinci a malo ; aliud est voluntate et studio mala facere, et hoc est nequitia, Unde et merito diabolus nomine TTOI^POS-, id est malignus, vel nequam, appel- latur.' DIONYSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA Fragin. p. 1601 (ed. Migne), Kat nrj ctcreveyKTjs 7;/jtas ct? 7rctpa(r/xov* TOVTCCTTI pr} courts /X7TCTtI/ CIS 7Tlpa(T/XoV, OTl 8e ToCrO T^V OV TO fllj 7Tlpa- i, pvcr6rjvaL 8e avro TOV Trovrjpov, 7rpoo-^KV, 'AAAa pucrat aTTo TOV Tronypou. Kal Tt Siev^i/o^ev, to"a>s epcts, TO TTLpa.(rGfjvai Kal TO ets 7reipacrfj.ov e/x7rO*etv ir/rot to~X^tv; o jtxev ycxp qTrrjOfis viro TOV Trovrjpov . . . . cts TretpaoyxoV ovros Kttl CIS 7TlpaO"/XOV CtO-^X^C, KCU tCTTtl' V ttVTO) Kttt V7T* -Trep exacts ai^/xaXtoTOS . . . . o /xiv yap 7rovYjpo<s Tretpa- is TOWS Trctpacr/Aovs Ka.6e\Ki K.T.X. CYRIL OF JERUSALEM Catech. xxiii. 19 (p. 331), Sc o dvTiKCt/Acvos Sat/xcuv, a</>* ou pwOrjvai APPENDIX II. 309 GREGORY NYSSEN de Omt. Dom. 5 (i. p. 760), apa o TreipaoTxos re /cat d Trov^pos fv TL /cara r-qv a"rjp.ao-iav f(TTl. . . . pUO-at 77/X<XS ttTTO TOV TTOVrjpOV, TOV V TO> KoV/XO) TOuYto Tj)v tOT^VI/ KKTTT]fJ,VOV, K.T.X. DIDYMUSOF ALEXANDRIA r. Manich. u (p. HOO, ed. Migne), d Sia^oXos Kat Sarava? KCU Trovrjpds. tJs CK cvayycXtw o (TOJTTyp TTpOS T ( 30t9 Kttt TOUTO \ytV 8t8cX(7Kt V T7^ f^\V TO ^? fjLaOfjTds' Kat /XT; eto-cve'yKrjs Ty/xas ets Treipacr/xov, a'AXa pOom rj/xas a*7ro TOV irovrjpov. ID. Enarr. in Epist. Prim. Johann. v. 19 (p. 1806, ed. Migne), 1 Lib era nos a malo; redimuntur namque et liberantur ab eo cuncti qui nequaquam ab ignitis ejus jaculis vulnerantur, etc.' ClIRYSOSTOM In Matth. Horn. xix. (vil. p. 253), Trovrjpov 8e cvTavda TOV Sta^oXov KaXet, /ceXet'ooi/ ly/xas ISIDORE OF PELUSIUM ^//>/. iv. 24 (p. 425), TO 'POcrat 7;/xa? CITTO TOU irovypov, ot Trpos TOI/ l' I^OVTCS TT)^ /xa^v [St/catoi av eTev Xeycti/]. I do not doubt that it would be possible to in- crease the list of testimonies largely; but these examples will suffice. The unanimity extends, so far as I have investi- gated, to Greek writers of all ages. Among the Latin Fathers there is not the same agreement. The Latin Version 'libera nos a malo' 310 APPENDIX II. was less explicit than the original; and 'a malo' could much more easily be treated as a neuter than dirb roO irovijpov. The point to be observed is that the two great ante-Nicene Latin Fathers, writing while the Greek original still spoke through the Latin Version, treat it as a masculine. The testimony of the earliest Latin Father is clear and decisive ; TERTULLIAN de Orat. 3, * Ne nos inducas in temptationem, id est, ne nos patiaris induci, ab eo utique qui temptat. Ceterum absit ut Dominus temptare videatur diaboli est et infirmitas et malitia Ipse a diabolo temptatus praesidem et artificem temptationis demon- stravit Ergo respondet clausula, interpretans quid sit, Ne nos inducas in temptationem. Hoc est enim, Sed devehe nos a malo. 1 ' It is to be regretted/ writes Canon Cook on this passage, 'that in his treatise on the Lord's Prayer Tertullian simply quotes the last petition devehe nos a malo without giving any interpretation/ ' From this supposed silence he argues that 'in whatever sense the Latin Version used the word, in that Tertullian received it'; and, forasmuch as he claims to 'have shown that malignus, not mains, was the word used in all redactions of the Old Italic Version, when the personal enemy of mankind was designated/ he infers that Tertullian here understands a malo in the neuter sense. APPENDIX II. 311 I have already discussed Canon Cook's treatment of the Old Latin Version, and shall therefore pass over his inference from it in silence here. Of the whole argument in the passage just quoted it is sufficient to say that it starts from a false premiss. Tertullian does give an interpretation of the words devehe nos a malo, indirectly indeed, but not less plainly on that account. He says that when we pray not to be brought into temptation we must understand that the temptation comes not from God, but from the devil; so that the following clause, sed deveJu nos a malo, answers to and interprets what has gone before. The words 'ergo respondet clausula interpretans,' etc., would be rendered meaningless, if ' malo ' were not masculine. This being so, it is lost labour to argue that devehe is more appropriate of a thing than of a person, as Canon Cook does. * In a much later treatise however,' he continues, * De Fuga in Per. c. 1 1 [the reference should be c. 2], Tertullian has an entirely different rendering, erue nos a maligno....T'hQ difference of rendering may indicate, and may probably be explained by, a change of feeling such as might be evolved in the spirit of a separatist, especially in the direction of Montanism.' Here the words 'difference of rendering' must imply ' difference of interpretation,' if the context is to have any meaning. But not only (as we have seen) is the interpretation the same in the two passages, but also (what is more important) the 312 APPENDIX II. argument is the same. Here are Tertuilian's own words in the second passage : 1 Cum dicimus ad patrem, Ne nos inducas in temptationem . . . . ab eo illam profitemur accidere, a quo veniam ejus depre- camur. Hoc est enim quod sequitur, sed erue nos a maligno, id est, ne nos induxeris in temptationem permittendo nos ma- ligno; tune enim eruimur diaboli manibus, cum illi non tradimur in temptationem.' Thus Tertullian is perfectly consistent with him- self. If any shadow of doubt could have rested on the interpretation of the first passage, it would have been dispelled by the second. We pass on to the next great Latin Father, who owned Tertullian as his master. He is, as Canon Cook says, a 'most weighty attestation to the mind of the Latin Church': CYPRIAN de Domin. Orat. 25 sq. 'Illud quoque necessarie monet Dominus ut in oratione dicamus, et ne patiaris nos induct in temptationem : qua in parte ostenditur nihil contra nos adversarium posse, nisi Deus ante permiserit, ut omnis timor noster et devotio adque obser- vatio ad Deum convertatur, quando in temptationibus nihil malo liceat, nisi potestas inde tribuatur Potestas vero dupliciter adversum nos datur, vel ad poenam cum delinqui- mus, vel ad gloriam cum probamur : sicuti de Job factum videmus manifestante Deo et dicente, Ecce omnia quaecumque habet in tuas manus do, sed ipsum cave ne tangos. Et Dominus in evangelio loquitur tempore passionis, Nullam haberes potes- tatem adversum me, nisi data esset tibi desuper.....\n novissimo enim ponimus sed libera nos a inalo^ comprehendentes ad versa APPENDIX II. 313 cuncta quae contra nos in hoc mundo molitur inimicus, a quibus potest esse firma et fida tutela, si nos Deus liberet Quando autem dicimus libera nos a malo, nihil remanet quod ultra adhuc debeat postulari, quando semel protectionem Dei adversus malum petamus, qua impetrata contra omnia quae diabolus et mundus operantur securi stamus et tuti.' Throughout this passage the sense requires that malum, malo, be treated as masculines, as Hartel in his index rightly assumes. The expression ' nihil malo liceat, nisi potestas inde (i.e. a Deo) tribuatur,' corresponds to the preceding ' nihil contra nos adver- sarium posse, nisi Deus ante permiserit.' The constant references to the enemy of mankind under divers names adversaries, 'inimicus, diabolus point to this interpretation. The examples enforce it. Indeed the whole argument requires it; for in this respect the passage is merely an expansion, with illustrations, of the comment of Cyprian's master, Tertullian. Canon Cook however only quotes one sentence, ' Sed libera nos a malo, comprehendentes adversa cuncta quae contra nos in hoc mundo molitur inimi- cus,' to which (quite unintentionally) he gives a strong bias in his own favour by his translation, 'But de- liver us from evil, comprehending all evils which the enemy devises against us in this world.' Here, by translating adversa 'evils/ as if it were mala, he makes adversa cuncta the interpretation of a malo, whereas in fact its interpretation lies in inimicus, as 3H APPENDIX II. the whole context shows. I quite agree with Canon Cook that 'very special importance attaches to this exposition of Cyprian's'; and I claim him as a power- ful witness on my side. Even in the latter half of the fourth century this interpretation is not lost in the Latin Churches, though it becomes gradually obscured : AMBROSE De Sacram. v. 29 sq. (n. p. 380), ' Non dicit, Non inducas in tentationemj sed quasi athleta talem vult tentationem quam ferre possit humana conditio ; et unusquisque a malo, hoc est, ab inimico, a peccato, liberetur. Potens est autem Dominus .... tueri et custodire vos adversum diaboli adversantis insidias.' HILARY Tract, in cxviii Psalm. \. 15 (I. p. 282), * Quod et in dominicae orationis ordine continetur, cum dicitur Non derelinquas nos in tentatione, quam ferre non possimus lob Deus tentationi permittens, a jure diaboli potestatem animae ejus excerpsit, etc.' This is far from explicit, but as Hilary elsewhere (Comm. in Matt. v. i, I. p. 689) excuses himself from commenting on the Lord's Prayer on the ground that he has been anticipated by Cyprian and Tertul- lian, it may be presumed that he acquiesced in their explanations. With AUGUSTINE however a new era begins. The voice of the original Greek has ceased to be heard, or at least to be heard by an ear familiar with its idiom; and, notwithstanding his spiritual APPENDIX II. 315 insight, the loss here, as elsewhere, is very percept- ible : Epist. 130 (II. p. 390), ' Libera nos a malo ; nos admonemur cogitare, nondum nos esse in eo bono, ubi nullum patiemur malum. Et hoc quidem ultimum, quod in dominica oratione positum est, tarn late patet, ut homo Christianas in qualibet tribulatione constitutus in hoc gemitus edat, etc.' De Serm. Dom. ii. 35 (in. 2, p. 214), * Sed libera nos a malo. Orandum est enim ut non solum non inducamur in malum, quo caremus sed ab illo etiam liberemur, quo jam inducti sumus, etc.'; 37 (p. 215), 'et malum a quo liberari optamus, et ipsa liberatio a malo, ad hanc utique vitam pertinet, quam et justitia Dei mortalem meruimus, et unde ipsius misericordia liberamur.' Serm. Ivi. (v. p. 330), 'Libera nos a malo, hoc est ab ipsa tentatione.' Comp. Serm. Ivii. (p. 334), Serm. Iviii. (p. 342). Serm. clxxxii. 4 (v. p. 872), ' Et si susurret tibi Quid est quod clamasti, Libera nos a malo? Certe non est malum. Responde illi, Ego sum malus, etc.' De Pecc. Her. ii. 4 (x. p. 41), 4 Libera nos a malo. Manet enim malum in carne nostra.' Thus the older interpretation has passed out of sight. The patristic testimony therefore in favour of the masculine rendering is overwhelming. To Canon Cook however it assumes a wholly different aspect : APPENDIX II. ' I venture to assert (he writes) that no allusion to this view of the meaning of the petition is to be found in the so-called Apostolic Fathers, or in Justin Martyr, or in Irenseus, or in Clement of Alexandria, or any of their contemporaries or in short in any Greek-speaking Father earlier than Origen' (p. 14). The reader would, I imagine, infer from this language that allusions to the other rendering were numerous, or at least not rare. The case however is far otherwise. If there is no allusion to this view of the meaning of the petition, it is because there is no allusion to the petition at all. But is it quite certain that no such allusion occurs? The reference is not so clear as to be beyond a doubt, and therefore I do not press it. But when Polycarp (c. 7), after condemning one type of heretic as from the devil, and another as the firstborn of Satan, goes on to warn his readers to shun such false teaching and to give themselves to prayer, 'beseeching the allseeing God not to bring us into temptation' (pr) etVe- vey/celv 77/^9 e^9 7T6pacr//,o2/), this reference to the petition in the Lord's Prayer certainly gains in point if we suppose him to have adopted the masculine rendering. Again, Canon Cook has his own explanation of the origin and spread of the masculine rendering. He says of Origen (p. 14) that 'he was apt to introduce new thoughts, new speculations into the APPENDIX II. 317 sphere of Christian doctrine.' Elsewhere he writes more explicitly (p. 15, note): 'Considering the absence of testimony as to any earlier admission of a reference to Satan in the Lord's Prayer, and on the other hand the very remarkable influence of Origen upon the exegesis of the Greek and Latin Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries, I am disposed to believe, though I should hesitate to assert, that this interpretation was first introduced, as it was certainly urged upon the Church, by Origen himself.' This surmise is refuted at once by the fact that the interpretation in question appears before Origen's time in the Latin Church i,n passages of Tertullian, which Canon Cook himself has quoted elsewhere but strangely overlooks here, and among Greek Christians in a passage of the Clementine Homilies, which has escaped Canon Cook's notice but is cited above. Once more : Canon Cook supposes that, whereas the neuter rendering prevailed in the ante-Nicene ages, the masculine gradually supplanted it after the conversion of Constantine, when the altered relations between the Church and the world brought with them a change of view with regard to the dominion of Satan, and consequently with regard to the exe- gesis of this passage : 'After the absorption of large masses,' he writes (p. 12), 'into the visible Church, the most earnest and influential Fathers recognised Satan as an enemy within the camp, lead- ing captive many a redeemed soul, and, as such, the object of deprecatory petitions. The prayer * Deliver us from that Evil 318 APPENDIX II. One' might then be of intense interest A clear line of demarcation should be drawn between the witness of the Fathers who wrote before the conversion of the Empire, and those who wrote at a time when the Church had received within its visible precincts a preponderating mass of half- converted or merely nominal Christians.' I have not myself noticed any such divergence between the ante-Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers respecting the power of Satan as is here supposed ; nor should I expect to find it. During the ages of persecution the agency of Satan in alluring men from the faith through their fears would impress the Christian conscience not less strongly than his wiles in seducing them through the blandishments of the world at a later date. If the form of the temptation was changed, yet the tempter was as active in the one period as in the other. But indeed we need not waste time in accounting for phenomena which are themselves imaginary. The fact which Canon Cook thus seeks to explain melts away in the light of evidence. He seems indeed to have read the history of the exegesis of this passage backwards. There is no evidence that the neuter rendering was adopted by a single ante-Nicene writer, Greek or Latin. The first direct testimony to it appears half a century or more after the conversion of the Empire. To sum up; the earliest Latin Father, and the APPENDIX II. 319 earliest Greek Father, of whose opinions we have any knowledge^ both take rov irovrjpov masculine. The masculine rendering seems to have been adopted uni- versally by the Greek Fathers. At least no authority, even of a late date, has been produced for the neuter. In the Latin Church the earliest distinct testimony for the neuter is S. Augustine at the end of the fourth and the beginning of the fifth century. From that time forward the neuter gained ground in the Western Church till it altogether supplanted the masculine. 4. THEOLOGICAL PROPRIETY. The personality of the tempter does not come under discussion here. Whatever may be meant by this personality, it is plainly and repeatedly asserted in the New Testament elsewhere and in the Gospel of S. Matthew more particularly. There is therefore no a priori objection to its occurrence in the Lord's Prayer. It is not on this ground that Canon Cook objects, or could object, to the masculine rendering. His objection is of another kind. He supposes that the form of the petition, pva-at, y^as cnro rov Trovrjpov, when so interpreted, assumes the petitioner to be under the power of Satan. He contrasts with this assumption the language of S. John, 'who does not represent the Evil One as a foe, or tyrant, from whom the Christian has to be delivered, but as an enemy 32O APPENDIX II. whom even the young men have overcome (i John ii. 13, 14), and who is powerful over those only, who abandon themselves to his influence (v. 18, 19). As for the Christian, S. John assures us, That Evil One toucheth him not' (p. 5). He maintains that : 'The earlier Fathers agree .... with the Scriptural view, which looks upon him [Satan] as an enemy who has been expelled from the precincts of the Church, whom the Christian as such opposes, resists, and overcomes, armed, as S. Paul describes him, in the panoply of faith, and safe under the protection of his Lord' (p. 12). Speaking of S. Athanasius, he writes that he ' invariably and in the strongest language represents the Evil One and his agents as utterly weak, beaten, discomfited, deprived of all power, and the object of contempt not less than of abhorrence to the Christian as such.' 'We can conceive him and his disciples/ he adds, ' praying for the utter and final overthrow of Satan, for the discomfiture of all who contended against the truth under his influence ; but I, for one, cannot realise a petition on their part to be delivered from his power' (p. 16). To those who have read this Father's Life of S. Anthony, Canon Cook's statement will, I venture to think, appear singularly one-sided. But this by the way. I am only concerned with the general question. Happily Canon Cook has saved me all trouble, APPENDIX II. 321 for he has himself supplied a complete answer to his own objection. In an earlier page (p. 4) he has pointed out the difference between pveo-Qat, etc and pvea-Oat, airo, the former preposition 'implying that the petitioner is actually under the power of an enemy or principle/ which the latter does not. It is somewhat strange, after this explicit statement, to find Canon Cook again and again arguing as if ' Deliver us from the Evil One ' were equivalent to ' Deliver us from the power of the Evil One.' I am far from saying that, properly understood, even this last form of petition is out of place on the lips of the true Christian; but the question need not be discussed here, as it lies outside the words of the Lord's Prayer. And here I might let the matter drop. But the use which Canon Cook has made of I John v. 18, 19 ought not to pass unnoticed, if only on account of the consequences which may follow and have followed from similar treatment of the language of Scripture. The Apostles and Evangelists very frequently put forward the ideal view of the Christian's position. His potential achievements are insisted upon without qualification of language. 'But any one who appro- priates to himself individually this ideal perfection, which belongs to the typical Christian, will fall into the most perilous errors. We have only to take the context of the passage which Canon Cook quotes, if L. R. 21 322 APPENDIX II. we would see where this mode of treatment would land us: 'Whosoever is begotten of God, sinneth not ; but he that is begotten of God, keepeth him [A.V. 'himself'], and the Evil One toucheth him not' Must not the devout Christian then, by parity of reasoning, maintain that he is sinless ? Yet, * if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us' (i John i. 8). But if there are passages which celebrate the liberation of the Christian from the dominion of Satan, there are also others which warn him that Satan is still a terrible foe against whom he must exercise all vigilance ' Be sober, be watchful ; your adversary, the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour' (i Pet. v. 8); 'Then cometh the Evil One and snatcheth away that which hath been sown in his heart' (Matt. xiii. 19). Though the enemy may be outside the city, he is watching his opportunity to scale the walls or to effect a breach. Though the wild beast may be without the tent, he is prowling about, ready to seize any chance straggler who may cross his path. Why should it be thought unreasonable to pray for deliverance from such a foe ? Prayer is the armour of the Christian. I hope that I have now put the reader in posses- sion of reasons which justify the procedure of the APPENDIX II. 323 Revisers. My paper has extended to a greater length than I had contemplated when it was com- menced. But a certain thoroughness of treatment was needed in order to do justice to the case; and the importance of the subject will probably be accepted as a valid excuse. I must conclude by expressing my thankfulness that I have had to deal with an adversary so learned and courteous as Canon Cook. 212 INDEX I. PAGE PAGE .TT.i. I III MATT. vi. 34 190,226,227 2,3 I 7 8 viii. 12 .... 117 6 "3 23 "5 22 100, 101, 135 ix. i I2 5 ii. 4 112 16 159 5 135 x. 4 153, 155 6 I 7 8 9 9 8 15 96, 135 16 152 17 135' '75 29 I8 4 iii. i 106 xi. 2 112 3 135 xii. i, 5, 10, ii, 12 l62 4 129 18 157 13 106 xiii. 2 125 14 107 19 274,282,287, 15,16 ... 146 288, 291, iv. 1,3 290 292, 295, 5 121 298, 322 6 139 20 53. 196 8 124 21 196 13 194 24,25 75 V. I 123 33 1 88 15 47, 122, 131, 38,39 - 274.275.282, 187 291, 292, 16 47 296, 298 32 78 42,50 ... 117 37 275' 278, 55 178 295, 298 xiv. 8 151 39 2/5, 278, 13 125 295, 298 22 125 vi. ii 217268 xv. 3, 6 138 13 33, 269323 21 194 16, 18 ... 145 22 154 25 190, 227 27 149 31 190 35 81 326 INDEX I. PAGE PAGE MATT. xvi. 9, 10... 80 MATT. xxv. 30 ... 117 14 175 32 38 16 112 4 6 45 17 177 xxvi. 15 156 25 65 25 1 80 16 53^5 3 6 1 60 xvii. r I2 4 48 76 10 I6 9 49 76, 180 21 33 50 143 14 sq. 1 86 56 IOO, IOI 25 198 63 112 xviii. 6, 7 197 64 139 24 j?. 187 69,71 ... 126 33 38 xxvii. 9 33 xix. 8 IOO 15 128 9 79 27 54 17 34 33 179 r 9 177 35 J35 xx. 2, 9, 10, 13 184, 185 xxviii. 19 28, 140 20 38 MARKi. I 33, in xxi. 4 100,101,135 21 162 12 88, 122 ii. 15, 16 126 33-^- 77 21 '59 xxii. i sq. 79 23 162 9, 10 ... 76 iii. 2, 4 162 13 117 5 i5 2 xxiii. 6 48 18 153 7,8 ... 1 80 iv. \ 125 24 204, 205 16 53 35 88 21 122, 187 xxiv. 5 112 2 9 156 12 109 v. 13 122 15 X 35 vi. 3 I 7 8 21 IOO 27 183 27 144 30 125 30 139 37 185 5 I 117 45 ii xxv. 6 101 52 152 14^. ... 187 vii. 9 138 INDEX I. 327 PAGE PAGE MARKvii. 26 174 LuKEiii. 23 141 31 194 24 I 7 6 viii. 19, 20 80 26 178 29 112 27 176, 177 36 53 30 176, 177, 17* ix. 2 124 33 I 7 8 5 1 80 iv. 5 124 29 33 9 121 41 in, 113 ii 139 x. 18 34 20 193 51 180 vi. 15 154 xi. 4 122 16 128 15 122 17 123 21 180 36 8 4 xii. 26 139 45 274,292,295 39 48 298, 300 42 I8 4 vii. 4 196 xiii. 14 135 5 122 28 149 33.34 .- 106 xiv. 5 185 41 185 32 160 45, 46 ... 76 45 180 viii. 14 54 53.54 .- 146 29 301 66,69 . 126 ix. 25 53 xv. 6 128 55 32 16 55 x. 35 185 22 179 xi. 3 217 260 xvi. 9 20 ... 31 4 269323 LUKE i. i 158 33 122, 187 39 125,178, 186 51 88 59 106 xii. 6 184 63 192 35 131 65 125, 186 xiii. 6 150 ii. n in 21 1 88 18 132 23 105 24 122 28 117 33 32 xv. 8 1 86, 187 36 171 9 1 86 43 32 xvi. 6, 7 1 88 ,28 INDEX I. PAGE PAGE LUKExvii. i, 2 ... I 9 6 JOHN iv. 5 160 xviii. 12 97 6 Si 19 34 27 127 31 135 31 1 80 xix. 13 46, 187, 197 37 129 15 46 V. I 129 xx. 37 139 3.4 34 xxi. 19 97 35 130 xxii. i 1 80 44 129 43.44 32 vi. 4 129 xxiii. 2 in 7 185 5 179 14 JI 5 17 128 22 Sq. ...-;' 125 33 179 25 1 80 34 32 5 I 249 35.39 - 112 6 9 112 xxiv. 10 109 vii. i I 79 JOHN i. 3 91, 136, 137 19,20 199 7 W J 37 25 199 8 131 26 112 9 131 4 o "3 10 I3 6 137 viii. i ii ... 3 1 ii 77 44 278 14 63 58 84 16 114 ix. 2 1 80 17 in, 137 5 I 3 I 18 22, 30 22 in 21 "5 x. 16 79 25 112, 115 xi. 8 1 80 2 9 157 14 202 39 1 80 xii. 5 185 43 176, 177 6 158 50 180 13 120 ii. 6 187 4 o 152 iii. 2 1 80 xiii. 12 81 8 64 23,25 ... 80, 8 1 10 120 27 H3 19 131 xiv. 5, 6 "5 26 1 80 i6sq. 56, 59. INDEX I. 329 PAGE PAGE JOHNxiv. 18 59 ACTS viii. 16 140 26 56, 59 30 6 5 xv. 3 138 37 33 26 56, 59. 6l ix. 2 "5 xvi. 1,4,6 ... 38 35 120, I 7 2 7 56,59 X. 2 8 9 30 43 30 33 xvii. 3 in 38 292 15 275. 279, xi. 17 96, 129 295, 298 19 1 80 xviii. i ... 160 xii. 4 180 28,33 - 54 9 133 39 129 12 174 xix. 9 54 22 89 17 179 25 174 36 IOI xiii. 14 162 xx. 16 1 80 21 171 22 64 50 161 25 38 xiv. 13 160 xxi. 15, 16, 17 176, 177 xv. 3 1 80 20 81 xvi. ii 222 ACTS i. 3 1 60 3538 .- 183 13 !54 xvii. i 122 18 98 2 163 ii. 3 156 5 8 9 ii '75 19,22 179 23 133 23 88, 197 273i ..- 88 29 160 38 in xviii. 12 181 43 133 14 '95 47 105 xix. I 194 iii. 6 in 2 96 8 301 3.5 140 I3 2 6 ... 157 9 "5 iv. 25,27 ... 89 15 67 27,30 ... 157 23 "5 vii. 26 107 30 89 45 175 31 182 viii. 5 128 33 89 330 INDEX I. PAGE PAGE Aersxix.35 182. ROM. iv. 19 35 38 181 22 5i XX. 2 174 v. 9 117 15 222 15 96 xxi. 2 1 80 1519 ... 108 3 145 vi. I sq. 93 15 193 1 93. 96 18 222 3 93, HO 28 8 9 4,6 ... 93 3i 199 8 93, 96 3L32 ... I8 3 , 13 -. 158 xxii. 24 26 ... I8 3 17,18 93 xxiii. 17 23 ... 183 21 202 35 55 22 94 xxiv. 5, 6 199 23 158 22 "5 vii. i sq. no XXV. 22 107 4 94 26 7i 6 94 xxvi. 24, 25 38 ii 30i xxvii. 12 180 viii. 6 96 20 144 ii 138 xxviii. 13 193 16 60 15 179, 207 24 105 16 183 26 60 16,29 32 ix. 3 107 ROM. 1.29 195 25 89 ii. i 69 26 89, 174 8 152 x. 9, 13 ... 105 12 .S^. no 15 38 18 118 xi. 2 139 22 1 60 7 151* 152 2 4 138 8 155 26 151 20 195 iii. 4,6 202 25 151, 152 19 *?. ... 1 10 xii. 2 86 25 I5<> 3 65 24 26 ... 56 9 292, 298 iv. 3,9 51 ii 3 i$sq. no 19 51, 117, 118 INDEX I. 331 PAGE PAGE RoM.xiii. n 9 6 i COR. xii.2 66 xiv. 14 141 + sq. 38,49 22,23 69, 74, 75 13 140, 141, 175 xv. 4, 5 38 22 6 32 118 28 143 xvi. i 127 xiii. 8 40 3.5.6,7,8,9 39 49 9, 12 68 7 179 xiv. 7 82 9 174 16 193 10 16 ... 39. 49 20 82 19 152 23 203 23 182 24,29 ... 7i i COR. i. 10 161 36 78 13 140 XV. 2 96, 105 18 105 4 20 ... 98, 99 28 231 22 96 ii. 1315 ... 69 24 28 ... 40, 41 14. 15 - 70 4 83,84 iii. 5 96 51 34 17 38 xvi. 1,2 4i iv. 3' 4. 5 - 69 12 118 8 202 15 201 v. 9 119 22 H4 13 295, 2 9 8 2COR.i. I 175 vi. i 6 69 3-8 ... 41 vii. 5 33 9 75 31 65 13 66 32 192 19 i75 viii. 6 136, 140 20 35 IO, 12 129 23 149 ix. 3 70 ii. 6 no 4 109 14 150 22 92 15 105 X. 2 140 iii. i 41 l6sq. 38 2 65 25,27 ... 70 5,6 ... 42 32 175 7 42 xi. 2834 72, 73 ii 77 29.31,32-.. 69 l^sq. ... 42 332 INDEX I. PAGE PAGE 2 COR. iii. 14 42, 151 2 COR. xiii. 9, ii... 161 18 42 14 28 iv. 2 195 GAL. i. 6 83 3 42 ii. 7 96 4 '156 16 96 8 66 16 21 ... 94 13 97 iii. 3 94 15 138 6 5i v. 6 ii ... 42 ios$. no 14 95 19 '34 16 67 27 94, 140 vi. 9 69 iv. 20 107 10 66 v. 13 94 vii. 7 42 20 152 10 85 2 4 94 ii 119 EPH. i. i 23/231 I3i4 . 92 11,13 94 viii. 10 12 ... 43 23 46, 114 19 130 ii. 5, 8 105 ix. 2 5 43 5, 6, 13, 14 94 13 2OI iii. 10 134 x. 5 159 19 114 12 66,69 iv. 1,4, 7 ... 94 13.15,16 43 13 114 xi. 3 *39 18 IS*. 152 4 84 29 143 9 i59 30 94 16 18 ... 43 v. 15 66 xii. i 36 vi. 12 199 isq. ... 99 16 274,291,294, 2,3 43 296, 298 7 9i PHIL. i. 13 55 9 63 14 109 13 109 17 152 13,14 ... '59 ii. 3 152 15 76 6sq. 87 17 9i 9 119 18 91, 119 13 43 20 152, 195 15 144, 152 INDEX I. 333 PAGE PAGE PHIL. ii. 30 35 i TIM. iii. 3 161 iii. 2, 3 65 ii 127 $sq. 43 13 198 14 199 16 30, i99 iv. 2 179 v. 4 194 2,3 142 19 3 6 192, 227 vi. 2 130 19 235* 2 3 6 5 130 COL. i. 13 94 17 195 16 92, 136 2 TIM. i. 7,9 94 19 114 ii. 19 130 ii. 5 158 iii. 4 195 8 151 iv. ii 174 9 114 TIT. i. 7 162 9, 10 46 12 175 II sq. 93 ii. 14 261, 263, 16 162 267, 268 20 96 iii. 5 94 iii. 1,3 94 PHILEM. 2 207 3 96 24 175 8 199 HEB. i. i 48 13 J 95 2 136 15 94 ii. 10 136 iv. 10 i49 175 16 156 14 !75 iii. ii 52 iTHESS.ii.4 44 iv. 3 52 16 118 8 i75 iv. 4 97 V. 2 200 6 "9 12 2OO V. 22 277 vi. i 143 2THESS.i. 6 44 7 138 ii. i, 2 141 8, 16 ... 130 3^- . 116 vii. 14 99, 178 6 45 21 24 ... 99 7 45. 198 viii. 8 178 iii. 2, 3 275, 288, 13 44 295, 298 ix. i 130 ii 66 69, 18... 103, 104 i TIM. i. 4 205 28 157 iii. i 3 X. I 104, 130 334 INDEX I. PAGE PAGE HEB. x. 30 51 I JOHNiv. 9, IO, 14 9 2 xi. 10 116 v. 6 126 31 172 7 2730 xii. 26 149 9, 10 44 JAMES i. 15 86 18,19 ... 274, 276, 17 85 291, 296, ii. 2,3 44 298, 321 23 51 JUDE 12 149' I5* *53 25 172 REV. i. 4 147 iii. 5 156 15 44 14, 16 152 ii. 13 46 v. 9 195 26 H7 16 ... 203 iii. 12 147 20 51 17 44, 170 i PET. i. 3 94 21 M7 16 84 iv. 4 46 18 94 5 13' ii. 4 141 ii 200 9 263, 268 v. 5 178 10 89 vi. 6 185, iSjSf. 16 195 vii. 5 178 21 94 6 171 2 4 157 12,14 ... 117 iii. 9 94 15 &5 21 151 viii. 10 J 3 r iv. 8 52 12 145 v. 7 191, 227 xi. 9, ii 127 8 322 16 46 13 175 xiii. 6 - ... 63 2 PET. ii. 1,3 44 xiv. 15, 16 139 13 153 xvi. 10 46 iii. 12 142 xvii. i 117 i JOHN i. 8 322 6,7 ... 45 ii. i 56 xviii. 2 45 13,14 ... 274, 291, 23 145 296, 298 xix. 9 130 iii. 8 278 xxi. 3 63 12 274, 278, 14, 19*7.... 116 291, 298 24 105 INDEX II. Abelard on eTrtoi/trtos, 251 sq., -255 Acts of the Apostles, text of, 33 ^Ethiopia rendering of twio6(rios, 259; of curb roO irovypov, 301 Alford (Dean) on Revision, 52, 55, 65 ambiguities of expression, 198 sq. Ambrose (S.) on ^7rtoi5<7ios, 246 sq. ; on OTTO Toy Trovrjpov, 314 Andre wes (Bp), 12 Anselm, 251 Antigenidas, 8 Antiochene School, 233 aorist, confused with perfect, 89 sq.; its significance in S. Paul, 93 ; various misrenderings of, 96 sq. Apphia, Appia, 207 archaisms in the English Version, i8 9 sq. by, 132 by and by, 195 carefulness, 191 carriages, 193 chamberlain, 182 coasts, 194 sq. comforter, 58 debate, 195 deputy, 1 81 devotions, 197 dishonesty, 195 fetch a compass, 193 generation, 197 go about to, 199 grudge, 195 high-minded, 195 instantly, 195 let, 198 lewdness, 195 maliciousness, 195 minister, 193 nephew, 194 occupy, 47, 197 of, 132 offend, offence, 196 prevent, 198 room, 48, 193 scrip, 193 thought, 190 sq. writing-table, 192 Armenian rendering of 258 ; of dirb TOV irovijpov, 300 Arnold (Mr M.) quoted, 210 sq. article (the definite), neglect of, 107 sq. ; insertion of, 127 sq. ; general ignorance of, 129 sq. Asiarchs, 182 aspirate (Hebrew) omitted in Greek, 172 Athanasius (S.) on eTrtoi/o-tos, 232 Augustine (S.) on Jerome's revision, INDEX II. 4, 6, 9, 1 6 ; on the heavenly wit- nesses, 29; on e7rtoti(Tios, 255; on <'nro TOV Trovrjpov, 314 sq., 319 Authorised Version : historical par- allel to, 10 sq,., 269; translators' forebodings of, 1 1 ; never autho- rised, 1 2 ; gradual reception of, 13; itself a revision, 15; faulty text of, 21 sq. ; distinctions cre- ated in, 36 sq. ; distinctions ob- literated in, 66 sq. ; errors of grammar in, 89 sq. ; errors of lexicography in, 148 sq. ; its ca- price in proper names, titles, etc., 163 sq.; archaisms in, 189 sq. ; ambiguities of expression in, 198 sq. ; faulty English in, 202 sq. ; editorial errors and misprints in, -203 sq. ; corrections in later edi- tions of, 143, 204 sq. ; variable orthography of, 206 sq.; pure English of, 211 sq. cubs, adjectives in, 222 atpeiv, 157 ClK^pCUOS, 152 dXXos, 2repos, 83 sq. dva.KpLvei.v t ditdnpiffis, 69 sq. dvairlTTTeiv, So sq. dveveyKeiv, 157 dffffdpiov, 184 sq. avydfriv, 157 av\-/i, -n-ol/j-vij, 79 Barjona, 177 sq. Barnabas, Epistle of, on 6 irovypos, 280 Basil (S.) on tiriofoios, 227, 233 sq. Bensly, 242 Bentley quoted, 108 sq. Bernard's (S.) controversy with Abelard, 251 sq., 254 besaunt, 187 Beza, 257 Bible; see Authorised Version Bishops'; 12, 30, 78, 79, 98, 142, 150, 155, 166, 168, 180, 181, 183, 201, 203, 205 Coverdale's ; 29, 79, 142, 150, i54> i55 166, 183 Geneva; 12, 79, 98, 142, 150, i55> 166, J 68, 179, 180, 181, 183, 201; Testament (1557), 30, 142, 150, 154, 159, 181, 184; Tomson's Testament, 203, 257 Great; 29, 79, 142, 150, 154, 155, 167, 180, 183 Rheims; 49, 79, 87, 150, 155, 182, 188, 200, 201 Tyndale's; 29, 49, 78, 79, 86, 87, 89, 90, 135, 142, 150, 154, 155, 160, 183, 188, 197, 198, 200, 257, 268 Wycliffe's (and Wycliffite); 87, 89, 150, 155. 181, 182, 184, 187, 1 88, 197, 257 Breviary, 255 Peurrdfcw, 158 /Saxes, 1 88 (3ii}/j,6s, OvffLo.ffT'fjpiov, 88 Calvin, 257 Cassianus, 250 sq. Christ and the Christ, 1 1 1 sq. Chrysostom (S.) on ^Triotfcrios, 234 sq.; on dirb TOV Trovypov, 309 Clementine Homilies on dwb TOV trovnpov, 307, 317 coins, rendering of, 184 sq. INDEX II. 337 Cook, Canon, and the Last Petition of the Lord's Prayer, 270 sq. Corinthians, 2nd Epistle to the ; recurrence of words in, 41 sq. Coverdale's Bible ; see Bible Cretans, Cretes, Cretians, 175 Cureton, 239 Cyprian (S.), 29, 244, 312 sq. Cyril (S.) of Alexandria; on &ri- o&rtos, 236; on Treptotfcrios, 261 Cyril (S.) of Jerusalem; on ^riotf- (Tios, 234; on dtrb TOV irovrjpov, 308 KaiecrOai, 131 Kavavcuos, tHavavinqs, 153 s, Ka.Tavv(r<reu>, 155 , 161 KO\TTOS, ffrijdos, So 6pos, 1 88 Kb<pivoi, (rirvpides, 79 xpiveiv and its compounds, 69 sq. , KKTijff6ai, 97 sq. , 1 86, 187 , 1 60 Damascene (S. John) on 236 Damasus, Pope, i, 9 deaconesses, 127 didrachma, 186 Didymus of Alexandria on OLTTO TOV irovripov, 309 digamma, 224 Dionysius of Alexandria; on tv rig 277; on ct7r6 roO Trovypov, 308 Dionysius Carthusianus, 251 drachma, 186 drjfws, Xaoj, 89 drjvdpiov, 184 sq. L. R. did, distinguished from #7r<S, 132 sq.; its connexion with Inspiration, 134 sq.; with the doctrine of the Word, 135 sq.; misrendered with the accusative, 137 sq., 151 5ici/3oAos, daifjLoviov, 87 sq. i, 156 151 5oc7ts, ddjprjfjia, 85 sq. SouXot, dioucovoi, 79 Easter, 180 Egyptian Service-books, 244 Egyptian Versions ; rendering of 7ra/>a/c\?7Tos, 61 ; of <77ri\o5es, 152; of ^Trtouatos, 243 sq., 257 sq. ; of curb TOV Trovrjpov, 277, 297 sq. Elias, Elijah, 169, 171 Ellicott (Bp) on Revision, 20, 55, 102 Embolismus, 302 sq. English language, present know- ledge of the, 2 10 sq. Ephesians, Epistle to the ; its desti- nation and genuineness, 22 sq. Ephrem Syrus, 242 Evangelists, parallel passages in the; 34, 52 sq., 124, 125 sq., 160, 178 Evil One, Deliver us from the, 269 sq. flvai, ylvevBai, 84 sq. ek wrongly translated, 139 sq. "EXXijis EXX^j'io-TiJs, 174 tv wrongly translated, 140 sq. t^alperos, 264 sq., 267 e7re/>cr?7/ia, 151 tirl wrongly translated, 139; the i elided in composition, 224 s, 68 22 INDEX II. 156 222, 226 lTTi.ovffi.os, 217 sq. 225, 228 152 Fidelity in translation, 270 sq. Five Clergymen, Revision of the ; 55. 102 Fulke's answer to Martin, 167 Gehenna, Hades, 87 sq. gender, change of, disregarded, 77 Geneva Bible, Testament; see Bible Gothic Version of tiriovffios, 258; of diro TOV irovrjpov, 300 Greek, Grecian, Greece, Grecia, 174 Greek forms of Hebrew names, 171 sq. Greek scholarship in England, 208 sq. Gregory the Great on the Latin Ver- sions, 10 Gregory Nyssen on ^riovVios, 233; on cforo TOV Trovrjpov, 309 Grote (Prof.), 205 gutturals (Hebrew), how dealt with in Greek, 172 67 sq. vs, 182 Hammond, 303, 304 Hare (Archdn), 56 Hebrews, Epistle to the ; date of, 104 Hebrews, Gospel of the ; its origin and value, 237 sq. ; rendering of ^rioimos, 237 Heloise, 251 hendiadys, 144 Hilary (S.) on tiriovffios, 255 ; on OLTTO TOV irovypov, 314 hypallage, 143 idols of the cave, market-place, 102 sq. imperfect tense mistranslated, 106 sq. Isidore of Pelusium on dirb TOV Trovripov, 309 Isidore of Seville, 13 Ismenias, 9 Italic, Old, the title, 293 ; see Latin, Old lepov, vaos, 88 lepoffv\iv t 1 60 IffTavai, 156 Jacob of Sarug, 241 sq. James, Jacob, 175 Jeremy, Jeremias, 175 Jerome (S.) revises the Latin Bible, i ; his detractors and opponents, 2 sq., 16; version of Book of Jo- nah, 4; corrects the text, 4 sq., 17, 26; does not translate but re- vise, 6; his Jewish teachers, 6 sq. ; his devotion to the work, 7 sq. ; gradual reception of his Version, 9 sq., 17 sq.; his rendering of ira- pd/cX^ros, 6 1 ; of ^7rioi/<noj, 248 sq. ; of irepiovffios, 249, 261 sq., 264 sq. Jerusalem, spelling of, 172 Jesus, Joshua, 175 Jewry, 179 Johanan, John, etc., 176 sq. John, the father of S. Peter, 176 sq. John (S.), disciples of, 31 John (S.), Gospel of: its genuine- ness, 22; minute traits in, 81, 120; INDEX II. 339 coincidences with the Revelation, 50, 62 sq. ; with the First Epistle, 50, 56 sq., 62, 280; later than the other Gospels, 101; doctrine of the Evil One in, 279 sq., 319 sq. John (S.), Apocalypse of: broken syntax of, 147 sq.; see /<?>& (S.) f Gospel of Jona, two distinct names, 177 Jude, Juda, Judah, Judas, 178 Juvencus, 244 sq. Laodiceans, Epistle to the, 23 sq. Latin, Old ; false readings in, 2 sq. ; retained in Service-books, 14 ; ren- dering of irapdK\T)TO$, 60; of ffiri.- AciSes, 153; of ^riouo-tos, 244 sq. ; of Trepiovfftos, 267 ; of rov irovrjpov, 276, 293 sq., 311; various read- ing in the Lord's Prayer, 232 Latin Vulgate: see Jerome (S.) Latinisms, 189 sq., 200, 210 sq. Lindisfarne Gospels, 257 Liturgies, interpretation of dirb rov Trovrjpou in the, 301 sq. Lord's Prayer, the early use of, 218 sq. ; see also Appendices (passim) Lucas, Luke, 175 Luke (S.), Gospel of: two editions of, 31 sq.; its classical language, 124, 1 86 Luther's Bible, 30, 257 \v\vos, <f)ws, 130 sq. Magdalene, spelling and pronuncia- tion of, 173 sq. Maldonatus, 256 malus as a designation of the Evil One, 294 sq. Marcus, Mark, 175 Mark (S.), Gospel of: the conclu- sion, 31 Marsh (Mr) on revision, etc., 102 sq., 209, 212, 214 Martene, 305 Martin's (Gregory) attack on English Bibles, 166 sq. Mary, Miriam, 175 Matthew (S.), Gospel of: peculiari- ties of language in, 100 sq., 124; its relation to the Gospel of the Hebrews, 237 measure, in what sense used, 186, 187 sq. Memphitic : see Egyptian Versions metaphors obscured, 158 sq. Milman (Dean), error of, 252 modius, 187 Mount, Sermon on the ; its locality, 123 sq. Mozarabic Liturgy, 304 Minister's Latin Bible, 166 fdpiuva, fjiepifu>av, 190 sq., 227; dis- tinguished from /iAeu/, 191 /ierdvoia, /xera^iAeta, 85 /AerpTjTiys, 187 />ixa<r0cu, fJLOixevdfjvai, 78 sq. 86 sq. Neubauer, 292 Nicene Creed, misunderstanding of, 136 sq. Nicolas of Lyra, 251 J/^TTIOI, 7rat5/ct, 82 s, 6 vofjios, no official titles, rendering of, 180 sq. Origen, on ^irioixnos, 217 sq., 229 sq.; on irepiovffios, 260 sq.; on dird rov Trovr/pov, 308 ; his method 34 INDEX II. of interpretation, 231; general adoption of his interpretations, 232 sq. 686s (77), 115 sq. oI5a, yivwffKW, eirlo'Tafj.a.i, etc., 67 sq. 6i>ofjLa (rb), 119 dirrdveo'dai, 144 tyri (ty* 117 sq. opos (rb), 123 sq. -oi/crioj, adjectives in ; derived from -ay, 223, 266; from oixria, 223 sq. ovrws, 8 1 Papias, 31, 207 paronomasia, 65 sq. Paul (S.); his use of the aorist, 93 sq. ; his vision, 99 sq. ; his teach- ing of redemption, 109 ; his con- ception of law, no; his thorn in the flesh, 159 Payne Smith (Dean), 293 peculiar, 267 sq. peculium, peculiaris, 266 sq. perfect, confused with the aorist, 91 sq.; misrendered, 98 sq. Peshito ; see Syriac Versions Peyron, 299 Pfeiffer, 247, 251 Phenice, Phcenix, Phoenicia, 180 pleroma, the, 114 Polycarp, reference to the Lord's Prayer in, 316 prepositions ; in composition neglect- ed, 75 sq. ; variation of, disregard- ed, 77; mistranslations of, I32sq. present tense, mistranslated, 103 sq. Plumptre (Dean) on revision, 20, 210 proper names ; how to be dealt with, 163 sq. ; should conform in the O. T. and N. T., 168 sq. ; whether to be translated or reproduced, 179 sq. TTCUS, servant, 157 irapdK\r}Tos, 56 sq. Trapeo-ts, 150 sq. Treptoucrictayios, 262 Tre/noua-tos, 218, 230, 260 sq. Trepnroir)<n$, 263 TT\OIOV, rb irXoiov, 125 irvi>/ji.a, wind, spirit, 64 iro\\ol, ol Tro\\oi, etc., 109 sq. irovrjpbs (6), Trovripbv (rb} t 274 sq. Trpay/j-a (rb), 119 sq. 151 (6), 113 sq. Trrepvyiov (TO), 12 1 trvXwves, 161 irwpovv, Tr&pucris, 151 <f)atveiv t <f>aLvecr6ai t 144 sq. <paivo[j.ai uv, (patvofJiai elvai, 145 145 , (f>6oyy6s, 82 Rabbi, Rabboni, 180 Rahab, spelling of, 172 redemption, 109 Revision (the new) of the English Bible; historical parallel to, 10 sq., 269; gloomy forebodings of, 14 sq. ; exaggerated views of, 15 ; antagonism to, 16; disastrous re- sults anticipated from, 17; ques- tion of acceptance of, 18 sq. ; need of, 19 sq. (passim) ; prospects of, 207 sq. ; conservative tendencies of rules affecting, 212 sq.; liberal conditions of, 214 sq.; favourable circumstances attending, 215 Roberts (Dr), 238 INDEX II. 341 Rome, bishops of; their use of the Latin Versions, 9 sq. Rufinus, 4 , &Tr6, 273 Sahidic : see Egyptian Versions salvation, how regarded in the N. T., 104 sq. Saron : see Sharon Schiller-Szinessy, 285 second Advent, 115 sq. Septuagint, its evidence to N. T. theological terms weighed, 281 sq. shamefaced, shamefast, 206 Sharon, the, 121, 171 sq. Shechinah, ffKrjvfi, 62 sq. shibboleth, 171 sower, parable of the, 53 sq. Stanley (Dean), 123 stater, 186 substantia, 245 Suicer, 229 supersubstantialis, 232, 246, 248 sq.,5i sq. Symmachus, 266, 267 synonymes, 67, 79 sq. Syrian service-books, 242 Syrian Versions : Curetonian; rendering of wapd- K\TJTOS, 61; of tiriovffios, 238, 241, 242, 257 ; of ctTrd rou iroyrj- pov, 292 sq. Jerusalem ; rendering of tiriotaios, 240 Peshito ; rendering of Tropa/cXT/ros, 61; of Kapcu'cuos and Xcwcu'cuos, 154; of tirioixrios, 239, 242, 257; of airb TOU irovypov, 291 sq. Philoxenian (Harclean); render- ing of o-TTiXdSes, 153; of tmot- fftos, 240 sq. , 162 ffdrov, 1 88 i t 161 ri, <TKI]VOVI>, 62 sq. (TTre/couXarwp, 183 i, (TTTiXaSes, 152 sq. , 158 0'i'Xa'ywyeu', 151 ff(>)6fj.ei>oi (of), 104 sq. ilpJD, 262 sq. talent, 187 Targums and 6 7roi^p6s, 284 sq. tenses wrongly rendered, 89 sq. Tertullian, 244, 294, 310 sq., 317 Teutonic Versions of the Lord's Prayer, 256 text, importance of a correct, 25 sq. textual criticism, its tendencies, 21 sq. Theodoret on firiov<rios, 236 Theophylact on eTrtoutrtos, 236 Tholuck, 219, 229 Thomas, Acts of, 241 Trench (Abp) on the Authorised Version, 20, 46, 55, 80, 150, 155, 157, 169, 191, 194, 210 Trent, Council of, 17, 256 Tyndale's Bible : see Bible delov (TO), 161 , 118 150 Urbane, 174 (fXi;, 156 viro, 5id, 133 various readings, 30 sq. 342 INDEX II. Versions, translation of &irb TOV TTO- Witnesses, the Three Heavenly, 27 vtjpov in the, 290 sq. sq. Victorinus, on ^7rtoi5<nos, 245; on wrath, the, 117 sq. 7re/>totf(Ttos, 261 Wright (Prof.), 239, 241, 242 Vulgate ; see Jerome (S.) Wycliffe's Bible : see Bible wages of labourers, 184 sq. way, the, 185 sq. Westcott (Bp), 13, 126 Zurich Latin Bible, 30, 257 faa, dijpla., 80 CAMBRIDGE : PRINTED BY C. J. CLAY, M.A., AND SONS, AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. BY THE SAME AUTHOR. St Paul's Epistle to the Galatians. A Revised Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. loth Edition. 8vo. IIS. St Paul's Epistle to the Philippians. A Revised Text, with Introduction, Notes and Dissertations. 9th Edition. 8vo. us. St Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon. A Revised Text, with Introduction, Notes and Dissertations, pth Edition. 8vo. iis. Primary Charge. Two Addresses, delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Durham, 1882. 8yo. is. The Apostolic Fathers. Part I. St Clement of Rome. A Revised Text, with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and Translations. 2 vols., 8vo. 32*. The Apostolic Fathers. Part II. St Ignatius to St Polycarp. Revised Texts, with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and Translations. 3 vols. 2nd Edition. Demy 8vo. 48^. A Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Durham, Nov. 25th, 1886. Demy 8vo. 2s. Essays on the Work entitled " Supernatural Religion." 8vo. IQS. 6d. Apostolic Fathers. Abridged Edition. With short Introductions, Greek Text, and English Translation. 8vo. [In the Press. Uniform Edition of BISHOP LIGHTFOOTS SERMONS. Crown 8vo., Cloth. 6s. each. Leaders in the Northern Church. New Edition. \Jwt published. Ordination Addresses and Counsels to Clergy. New Edition. Cambridge Sermons. Sermons preached in St Paul's Cathedral. Sermons on Special Occasions. \In the Press. MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON. WORKS BY BISHOP WESTCOTT. Just Ready. Globe 8vo. 6s. ESSAYS ON THE HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN THE WEST. By BROOKE Foss WESTCOTT, D.D., D.C.L., Lord Bishop of Durham, Honorary Fellow of Trinity and King's Colleges, Cambridge. TfMES : " Their scholarly execution, their graceful style, their devout temper, and their wealth of suggestion and instruction, should render these masterly essays as welcome as if they were new to all serious readers." SCOTSMAN:" Readers of all shades of opinion will recognise in the volume . a work of high excellence, and find in it everywhere evidence of copious learning and sympathetic and penetrative insight." 8vo. Cloth. THE EPISTLES OF ST JOHN. The Greek Text, with Notes. Second Edition. izs. f>d. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. The Greek Text, with Notes and Essays. 14^. CLASSICAL REVIEW:" It would be difficult to find in the whole range of exegetical literature a volume at the same time so comprehensive and so compact It possesses characteristics which . will command for it the permanent attention of scholars." Crown 8vo. Cloth. GENERAL SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DURING THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES. Sixth Edition. IQJ. 6d. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. Seventh Edition. los. f>d. THE GOSPEL OF THE RESURRECTION. Sixth Edition. 6.r. THE BIBLE IN THE CHURCH. Tenth Edition. i8mo. 4*. 6d. THE CHRISTIAN LIFE, MANIFOLD AND ONE. is. 6d. ON THE RELIGIOUS OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITIES. Ser- mons. 4*. &/. THE HISTORIC FAITH. Third Edition. 6s. THE REVELATION OF THE RISEN LORD. Fourth Edition. 6s. THE REVELATION OF THE FATHER. 6s. CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR. Second Edition. 6*. SOME THOUGHTS FROM THE ORDINAL, is. 6d. SOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHRISTIANITY. 6s. GIFTS FOR MINISTRY. Addresses to Candidates for Ordination. THE' VICTORY OF THE CROSS. Sermons preached during Holy Week, 1888, in Hereford Cathedral. 3*. 6d. FROM STRENGTH TO STRENGTH. Three Sermons (in Me- moriam J. B. DA zs. ESSAYS. Globe 8vo. WESTCOTT AND HORT'S GREEK TESTAMENT. Crown 8vo. THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK. Revised Text. 2 vols. ioj. &/. each. Vol. I. Text. Vol. II. The Introduction and Appendix. i8mo. THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK. An Edition for Schools. The Text revised by Bishop WESTCOTT and Dr HORT. 41. 6d. ; roan, $s. bd. ; morocco, 6s. 6d. MACMILLAN AND CO., LONDON. April 1891 A Catalogue ,^ mflm of Theological Works published by Macmillan Bedford Street, Strand, London CONTENTS PAGE THE BIBLE History of the Bible ..... i Biblical History . I The Old Testament ...... I The New Testament 3 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 5 DEVOTIONAL BOOKS 7 HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH ... 8 HYMNOLOGY . 9 SERMONS, LECTURES, ADDRESSES, AND THEOLOGICAL ESSAYS 9 April 1891. MACMILLAN AND CO.'S THEOLOGICAL CATALOGUE tTbe Bible HISTORY OF THE BIBLE THE ENGLISH BIBLE : An External and Critical History of the various English Translations of Scripture. By Prof. JOHN EADIE. 2 vols. 8vo. 283. THE BIBLE IN THE .CHURCH. By Right Rev. Bishop WEST- COTT. loth Edition. i8mo. 45. 6d. BIBLICAL HISTORY BIBLE LESSONS. By Rev. E. A. ABBOTT. Crown 8vo. 43. 6d. STORIES FROM THE BIBLE. By Rev. A. J. CHURCH. Illus- trated. Crown 8vo. 53. BIBLE READINGS SELECTED FROM THE PENTATEUCH AND THE BOOK OF JOSHUA. By Rev. J. A. CROSS. 2nd Edition. Globe 8vo. 23. 6d. CHILDREN'S TREASURY OF BIBLE STORIES. By Mrs. H. GASKOIN. i8mo. is. each. Part I. Old Testament ; II. New Testament ; III. Three Apostles. A CLASS-BOOK OF OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. By Rev. Canon MACLEAR. With Four Maps. i8mo. 43. 6d. A CLASS-BOOK OF NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. Includ- ing the connection of the Old and New Testament. By the same. i8mo. 55. 6d. A SHILLING BOOK OF OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY. By the same. i8mo. is. A SHILLING BOOK OF NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY. By the same. i8mo. is. THE OLD TESTAMENT SCRIPTURE READINGS FOR SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES. By C. M. YONGE. Globe 8vo. is. 6d. each ; also with comments, 35. 6d. each. First Series : GENESIS TO DEUTERONOMY. Second Series: JOSHUA TO SOLOMON. Third Series: KINGS AND THE PROPHETS. Fourth Series : THE GOSPEL TIMES. Fifth Series : APOSTOLIC TIMES. 2 MACMILLAN AND CO.'S The Old Testament continued. THE PATRIARCHS AND LAWGIVERS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By FREDERICK DENISON MAURICE. 7th Edition. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. THE PROPHETS AND KINGS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. By the same. 5th Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. The Pentateuch AN HISTORICO-CRITICAL INQUIRY INTO THE ORIGIN AND COMPOSITION OF THE HEXATEUCH (PENTA- TEUCH AND BOOK OF JOSHUA). By Prof. A. KUENEN, Translated by PHILIP H. WICKSTEED, M.A. 8vo. 145. The Psalms THE VOICE OF GOD IN THE PSALMS. By Rev. GRANVILLE FORBES. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. GOLDEN TREASURY PSALTER. The Student's Edition. Being an Edition with briefer Notes of "The Psalms Chrono- logically Arranged by Four Friends." i8mo. 33. 6d. THE PSALMS CHRONOLOGICALLY ARRANGED. An Amended Version, with Historical Introductions and Explanatory Notes. By Four Friends. New Edition. Crown 8vo. 5s. net. THE PSALMS. With Introductions and Critical Notes. By A. C. JENNINGS, M.A., and W. H. LOWE, M.A. In 2 vols. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. IDS. 6d. each. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY AND USE OF THE PSALMS. By Rev. J. F. THRUPP 2nd Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. 2is. Isaiah ISAIAH XL. LXVI. With the Shorter Prophecies allied to it By MATTHEW ARNOLD. With Notes. Crown 8vo. 55. ISAIAH OF JERUSALEM. In the Authorised English Version, with Introduction, Corrections, and Notes. By the same. Cr.Svo. 45. 6d. A BIBLE -READING FOR SCHOOLS. The Great Prophecy of Israel's Restoration (Isaiah xl.-lxvi.) Arranged and Edited for Young Learners. By the same. 4th Edition. i8mo. is. COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF ISAIAH, Critical, Historical, and Prophetical ; including a Revised English Translation. By T. R. BIRKS. 2nd Edition. 8vo. I2s. 6d. THE BOOK OF ISAIAH CHRONOLOGICALLY ARRANGED. By T. K. CHEYNE. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. Zechariah THE HEBREW STUDENT'S COMMENTARY ON ZECH- ARIAH, Hebrew and LXX. By W. H. LOWE, M.A. 8vo. los. 6d. THEOLOGICAL CATALOGUE 3 THE NEW TESTAMENT THE NEW TESTAMENT. Essay on the Right Estimation of MS. Evidence in the Text of the New Testament. By T. R. BIRKS. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. THE MESSAGES OF THE BOOKS. Being Discourses and Notes on the Books of the New Testament. By Yen. Archdeacon FARRAR. 8vo. 145, THE CLASSICAL ELEMENT IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. Considered as a Proof of its Genuineness, with an Appendix on the Oldest Authorities used in the Formation of the Canon. By C. H. HOOLE. 8vo. IDS. 6d. ON THE REVISION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. To which are appended Letters to the Guardian on the Lord's Prayer. By Bishop LIGHTFOOT. Crown 8vo. [In the Press. THE UNITY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. By F. D. MAURICE. 2nd Edition. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. I2s. A COMPANION TO THE GREEK TESTAMENT AND THE ENGLISH VERSION. By PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D. Cr. 8vo. 125. A GENERAL SURVEY OF THE HISTORY OF THE CANON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT DURING THE FIRST FOUR CENTURIES. By Right Rev. BISHOP WESTCOTT. 6th Edition. Crown 8vo. los. 6d. THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK. The Text revised by Bishop WESTCOTT, D.D., and Prof. F. J. A. HORT, D.D. 2 vols. Crown 8vo. los. 6d. each. Vol. I. Text ; II. Introduction and Appendix. THE NEW TESTAMENT IN THE ORIGINAL GREEK, for Schools. The Text revised by Bishop WESTCOTT, D.D., and F. J. A. HORT, D.D. I2mo, cloth, 45. 6d. ; i8mo, roan, red edges, Ss. 6d. ; morocco, gilt sdges, 6s. 6d. THE GOSPELS THE COMMON TRADITION OF THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS, in the Text of the Revised Version. By Rev. E. A. ABBOTT and W. G. RUSHBROOKE. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. SYNOPTICON : An Exposition of the Common Matter of the Synop- tic Gospels. By W. G. RUSHBROOKE. Printed in Colours. In Six Parts, and Appendix. 410. Part I, 35. 6d. Parts II and III, 7s. Parts IV, V, and VI, with Indices, IDS. 6d. Appendices, los. 6d. Complete in I vol. 355. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. By Right Rev. Bishop WESTCOTT. 7th Ed. Cr. 8vo. los. 6d. THE COMPOSITION OF THE FOUR GOSPELS. By Rev. ARTHUR WRIGHT. Crown 8vo. 55. St. Matthew THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MATTHEW. Greek Text as Revised by Bishop WESTCOTT and Dr. HORT. With Intro- duction and Notes by Rev. A. SLOMAN, M. A. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. CHOICE NOTES ON ST. MATTHEW, drawn from Old and New Sources. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. (St. Matthew and St. Mark in I vol. 95. ) 4 MACMILLAN AND CO.'S St. Mark SCHOOL READINGS IN THE GREEK TESTAMENT. Being the Outlines of the Life of our Lord as given by St. Mark, with additions from the Text of the other Evangelists. Edited, with Notes and Vocabulary, by Rev. A. CALVERT, M.A. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. CHOICE NOTES ON ST. MARK, drawn from Old and New Sources. Cr. 8vo. 45. 6d. (St. Matthew and St. Mark in I vol. 95.) St. Luke THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE. The Greek Text as Revised by Bishop WESTCOTT and Dr. HORT. With Introduction and Notes by Rev. J. BOND, M.A. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. CHOICE NOTES ON ST. LUKE, drawn from Old and New Sources. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. THE GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN. A Course of Lectures on the Gospel of St. Luke. By F. D. MAURICE. 3rd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. St. John THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN. By F. D. MAURICE. 8th Ed. Cr. 8vo. 6s. CHOICE NOTES ON ST. JOHN, drawn from Old and New Sources. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Being the Greek Text as Revised by Bishop WESTCOTT and Dr. HORT. With Explanatory Notes by T. E. PAGE, M.A. Fcap. 8vo. 33. 6d. THE CHURCH OF THE FIRST DAYS. THE CHURCH OF JERUSALEM. THE CHURCH OF THE GENTILES. THE CHURCH OF THE WORLD. Lectures on the Acts of the Apostles. By Very Rev. C. J. VAUGHAN. Crown 8vo. IDS. 6d. THE EPISTLES Of St. Paul THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL TO THE EPHESIANS, THE COLOSSIANS, AND PHILEMON. With Introductions and Notes. By Rev. J. LL. DAVIES. 2nd Edition. 8vo. 75. 6d. ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES TO THE THESSALONIANS, COMMENTARY ON THE GREEK TEXT. By Prof. JOHN EADIE. 8vo. I2s. A COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S TWO EPISTLES TO THE CORINTHIANS. Greek Text, with Commentary. By Rev. W. KAY. 8vo. 93. ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. A Revised Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. By Bishop LIGHTFOOT. loth Edition. 8vo. 125. ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. A Revised Text, with Introduction, Notes, and Dissertations. By the same. 9th Edition. 8vo. I2S. ST. PAUL'S EPISTLES TO THE COLOSSIANS AND TO PHILEMON. A Revised Text, with Introductions, etc. By the same. 9th Edition. 8vo. I2s. THEOLOGICAL CATALOGUE 5 Of St. Paul continued. THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL. For English Readers. Part I, con- taining the First Epistle to the Thessalonians. By Very Rev. C. J. VAUGHAN. 2nd Edition. 8vo. Sewed, is. 6d. ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. With transla- tion, Paraphrase, and Notes for English Readers. By the same. Crown 8vo. 55. ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. The Greek Text, with English Notes. By the same. 7th Edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. Of St. James ST. JAMES' EPISTLE. The Greek Text, with Introduction and Notes. By Rev. JOSEPH MAYOR, M.A. 8vo. [In the Press. Of St. John THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. By F. D. MAURICE. 4th Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. THE EPISTLES OF ST. JOHN. The Greek Text, with Notes. By Right Rev. Bishop WESTCOTT. 2nd Edition. 8vo. 123. 6d. To the Hebrews THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS IN GREEK AND ENGLISH. With Notes. By Rev. FREDERIC RENDALL. Crown 8vo. 6s. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. English Text, with Com- mentary. By the same. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. With Notes. By Very Rev. C. J. VAUGHAN. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. The Greek Text, with Notes and Essays. By Right Rev. Bishop WESTCOTT. 8vo. 145. REVELATION LECTURES ON THE APOCALYPSE. By F. D. MAURICE. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. By Rev. Prof. W. MILLI- GAN. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. LECTURES ON THE REVELATION OF ST. JOHN. By Very Rev. C. J. VAUGHAN. 5th Edition. Crown 8vo. ics. 6d. THE BIBLE STUDENT'S GUIDE. By Rev. Canon WILSON. 2nd Edition. 4to. 255. THE BIBLE WORD-BOOK. By W. ALDIS WRIGHT. 2nd Editioa Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. be Cburcb of Englanb Catechism of A CLASS-BOOK OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. By Rev. Canon MACLEAR. i8mo. is. 6d. A FIRST CLASS-BOOK OF THE CATECHISM OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, with Scripture Proofs for Junior Classes and Schools. By the same. i8mo. 6d. 6 MACMILLAN AND CO.'S Catechism of continued. THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION, with Prayers and Devo- tions. By the Rev. Canon MACLEAR. 32mo. 6d. Collects COLLECTS OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. With a Coloured Floral Design to each Collect. Crown 8vo. 125. Disestablishment DISESTABLISHMENT AND DISENDOWMENT. What are they? By Prof. E. A. FREEMAN. 4th Edition." Crown 8 vo. is. DISESTABLISHMENT: or, A Defence of the Principle of a National Church. By GEORGE HARWOOD. 8vo. 125. A DEFENCE OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND AGAINST DISESTABLISHMENT. By ROUNDELL, Earl of Selborne. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. ANCIENT FACTS & FICTIONS CONCERNING CHURCHES AND TITHES. By the same. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. Dissent in its Relation to DISSENT IN ITS RELATION TO THE CHURCH OF ENG- LAND. By Rev. G. H. CURTEIS. Bampton Lectures for 1871. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. Holy Communion THE COMMUNION SERVICE FROM THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, with Select Readings from the Writings of the Rev. F. D. MAURICE. Edited by Bishop COLENSO. 6th Edition. i6mo. 2s. 6d. BEFORE THE TABLE : An Inquiry, Historical and Theological, into the Meaning of the Consecration Rubric in the Communion Service of the Church of England. By Very Rev. J. S. HowsoN. 8vo. 7s. 6d. FIRST COMMUNION, with Prayers and Devotions for the newly Confirmed. By Rev. Canon MACLEAR. 32010. 6d. A MANUAL OF INSTRUCTION FOR CONFIRMATION AND FIRST COMMUNION, with Prayers and Devotions. By the same. 32mo. 2s. Liturgy AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CREEDS. By Rev. Canon MACLEAR. i8mo. 2s. 6d. AN INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRTY- NINE ARTICLES. By the same. i8mo. \In the Press. A HISTORY OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. By Rev. F. PROCTER. i8th Edition. Crown 8vo. IDS. 6d. AN ELEMENTARY INTRODUCTION TO THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. By Rev. F. PROCTER and Rev. Canon MACLEAR. i8mo. 2s. 6d. TWELVE DISCOURSES ON SUBJECTS CONNECTED WITH THE LITURGY AND WORSHIP OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. By Very Rev. C. J. VAUGHAN. 4th Edition. Fcap. Svo. 6s. THEOLOGICAL CATALOGUE 7 JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF READ AND OTHERS v. THE LORD BISHOP OF LINCOLN. Nov. 21, 1890. By His Grace the ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY. 8vo. is. 6d. net. Devotional Boo fee Eastlake (Lady). FELLOWSHIP: LETTERS ADDRESSED TO MY SISTER-MOURNERS. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. IMITATIO CHRISTI, LIBRI IV. Printed in Borders after Holbein, Diirer, and other old Masters, containing Dances of Death, Acts of Mercy, Emblems, etc. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. Kingsley (Charles). OUT OF THE DEEP: WORDS FOR THE SORROWFUL. From the writings of CHARLES KINGSLEY. Extra fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d. DAILY THOUGHTS. Selected from the Writings of CHARLES KINGSLEY. By his Wife. Crown 8vo. 6s. FROM DEATH TO LIFE. Fragments of Teaching to a Village Congregation. With Letters on the "Life after Death." Edited by his Wife. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. Maclear (Rev. Canon). A MANUAL OF INSTRUCTION FOR CONFIRMATION AND FIRST COMMUNION, WITH PRAYERS AND DEVOTIONS. 32mo. 2s. FIRST COMMUNION, WITH PRAYERS AND DEVOTIONS FOR THE NEWLY CONFIRMED. 32010. 6s. THE ORDER OF CONFIRMATION, WITH PRAYERS AND DEVOTIONS. 32mo. 6d. THE HOUR OF SORROW; OR, THE OFFICE FOR THE BURIAL OF THE DEAD. 32010. 2s. Maurice (Frederick Denison). LESSONS OF HOPE. Readings from the Works of F. D. MAURICE. Selected by Rev. J. LL. DAVIES, M.A. Crown 8vo. 55. RAYS OF SUNLIGHT FOR DARK DAYS. With a Preface by Very Rev. C. J. VAUGHAN, D.D. New Edition. i8mo. 35. 6d. Service (Rev. John). PRAYERS FOR PUBLIC WORSHIP. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. Welby- Gregory (The Hon. Lady). LINKS AND CLUES. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. Westcott (Rt. Rev. B. F., Bishop of Durham). THOUGHTS ON REVELATION AND LIFE. Selections from the Writings of Bishop WESTCOTT. Edited by Rev. S. PHILLIPS. Crown 8vo. 6s. Wilbraham (Frances M.) IN THE SERE AND YELLOW LEAF: THOUGHTS AND RECOLLECTIONS FOR OLD AND YOUNG. Globe 8vo. 33. 6d. WORSHIP (THE) OF GOD, AND FELLOWSHIP AMONG MEN. By FREDERICK DENISON MAURICE and others. Fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d. 8 MACMILLAN AND CO.'S 1biaton> of tbe Cbristian Cburcb Church (Dean). THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. Twelve Years, 1833-45. 8vo. 12s. 6d. net. Cunningham (Rev. John). THE GROWTH OFTHE CHURCH IN ITS ORGANISATION AND INSTITUTIONS. 8vo. gs. Dale (A. W. W.) THE SYNOD OF ELVIRA, AND CHRIS- TIAN LIFE IN THE FOURTH CENTURY. Cr. 8vo. ics. 6d. Hardwick (Archdeacon). A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Middle Age. Ed. by Bishop STUBBS. Cr. 8vo. IDS. 6d. A HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH DURING THE REFORMATION. Revised by Bishop STUBBS. Cr. 8vo. los. 6d. Killen (W. D.) ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF IRE- LAND, FROM THE EARLIEST DATE TO THE PRESENT TIME. 2 vols. 8vo. 255. Simpson (W.) AN EPITOME OF THE HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. Fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d. Vaughan (Very Rev. C. J., Dean of Llandaff). THE CHURCH OF THE FIRST DAYS. THE CHURCH OF JERUSALEM. THE CHURCH OF THE GENTILES. THE CHURCH OF THE WORLD. Crown 8vo. ios. 6d. Ward (W.) WILLIAM GEORGE WARD AND THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. Portrait. 8vo. 145. 3fatber0 THE APOSTOLICAL FATHERS. A Critical Account of their Genuine Writings, and of their Doctrines. By Professor JAMES DONALDSON. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. Works of the Greek and Latin Fathers THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. Part I. ST. CLEMENT OF ROME. Revised Texts, with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and Translations. By Bishop LIGHTFOOT. 2 vols. 8vo. 325. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. Part II. ST. IGNATIUS to ST. POLY- CARP. Revised Texts, with Introductions, Notes, Dissertations, and Translations. By the same. 3 vols. 2nd Edition. Demy 8vo. 485. THE APOSTOLIC FATHERS. Abridged Edition. With Short Introductions, Greek Text, and English Translation. By the same. 8vo. [Nearly ready. THE EPISTLE OF ST. BARNABAS. A Dissertation, includ- ing a Discussion of its Date and Authorship. Together with the Greek Text, the Latin Version, and a New English Translation and Commentary. By Rev. W. CUNNINGHAM. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. TWO DISSERTATIONS. I. On MONOFENHS 6EOS in Scrip- ture and Tradition. II. On the " Constantinopolitan " Creed and other Eastern Creeds of the Fourth Century. By FEN TON JOHN ANTHONY HORT, D.D. 8vo. 75. 6d. THEOLOGICAL CATALOGUE Balliol College. PSALMS AND HYMNS FOR BALLIOL COLLEGE. i8mo. 2s. 6d. Palgrave (Prof. F. T.) ORIGINAL HYMNS. 3rd Edition. i8mo. is. 6d. Selborne (Roundell, Earl of) THE BOOK OF PRAISE. From the best English Hymn Writers. i8mo. 45. 6d. A HYMNAL. Chiefly from The Book of Praise. In various sizes. A. In Royal 32mo, cloth limp. 6d. B. Small i8mo, larger type, cloth limp. is. C. Same Edition, fine paper, cloth, is. 6d. An Edition with Music, Selected, Harmonised, and Composed by JOHN HULLAH. Square i8mo. 33. 6d. Woods (Miss M. A.) HYMNS FOR SCHOOL WORSHIP. Compiled by M. A. WOODS. i8mo. is. 6d. Sermons, Xectures, Hb&resses, anb (See also 'Bible,' ' Church of England,' ' Fathers. 1 ) Abbot (Francis) SCIENTIFIC THEISM. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. THE WAY OUT OF AGNOSTICISM : or, The Philosophy of Free Religion. Crown 8vo. 43. 6d. Abbott (Rev. E. A.) CAMBRIDGE SERMONS. 8vo. 6s. OXFORD SERMONS. 8vo. 73. 6d. PHILOMYTHUS. An Antidote against Credulity. A discussion of Cardinal Newman's Essay on Ecclesiastical Miracles. Crown 8vo. 33. 6d. Ainger (Rev. Alfred, Canon of Bristol). SERMONS PREACHED IN THE TEMPLE CHURCH. Extra fcap. 8vo. 6s. Baines (Rev. Edward). SERMONS. With a Preface and Memoir, by ALFRED BARRY, D.D., late Bishop of Sydney. Crown 8vo. 6s. Barry (Rt. Rev. A., Bishop of Sydney). FIRST WORDS IN AUSTRALIA : Sermons. Crown 8vo. 53. Bather (Archdeacon). ON SOME MINISTERIAL DUTIES, CATECHISING, PREACHING, ETC. Edited, with a Preface, by Very Rev. C. J. VAUGHAN, D.D. Fcap. 8vo. 45. 6d. io MACMILLAN AND CO.'S Bethune-Baker (J. F.) THE INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY ON WAR. 8vo. 55. THE STERNNESS OF CHRIST'S TEACHING, AND ITS RELATION TO THE LAW OF FORGIVENESS. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. Binnie (Rev. William). SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 6s. Birks (Thomas Rawson) THE DIFFICULTIES OF BELIEF IN CONNECTION WITH THE CREATION AND THE FALL, REDEMPTION, AND JUDGMENT. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 53. JUSTIFICATION AND IMPUTED RIGHTEOUSNESS. Being a Review of Ten Sermons on the Nature and Effects of Faith, by JAMES THOMAS O'BRIEN, D.D., late Bishop of Ossory, Ferns, and Leighlin. Crown 8vo. 6s. SUPERNATURAL REVELATION : or, First Principles of Moral Theology. 8vo. 8s. Brooks (Rev. Phillips) THE CANDLE OF THE LORD, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 6s. SERMONS PREACHED IN ENGLISH CHURCHES. Crown 8vo. 6s. TWENTY SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 6s. TOLERANCE. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. Crown 8vo. 3 s. 6d. Brunton (T. Lauder). THE BIBLE AND SCIENCE. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo. IDS. 6d. Butler (Archer) SERMONS, DOCTRINAL AND PRACTICAL. nth Edition. 8vo. 8s. SECOND SERIES OF SERMONS. 8vo. 75. Butler (Rev. George). SERMONS PREACHED IN CHEL- TENHAM COLLEGE CHAPEL. 8vo. 75. 6d. Calderwood (Rev. Prof.) THE RELATIONS OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION. Crown 8vo. 55. THE PARABLES OF OUR LORD. Crown 8vo. 6s. Campbell (Dr. John M'Leod) THE NATURE OF THE ATONEMENT. 6th Ed. Cr. 8vo. 6s. REMINISCENCES AND REFLECTIONS. Edited with an Introductory Narrative, by his Son, DONALD CAMPBELL, M.A. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. THOUGHTS ON REVELATION. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 55. RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE GIFT OF ETERNAL LIFE. Compiled from Sermons preached at Row, in the years 1829-31. Crown 8vo. 55. THEOLOGICAL CATALOGUE u Canterbury (His Grace Edward White, Archbishop of) BOY-LIFE : its Trial, its Strength, its Fulness. Sundays in Wellington College, 1859-73. 4th Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. THE SEVEN GIFTS. Addressed to the Diocese of Canterbury in his Primary Visitation. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. CHRIST AND HIS TIMES. Addressed to the Diocese of Canter- bury in his Second Visitation. Crown 8vo. 6s. A PASTORAL LETTER TO THE DIOCESE OF CANTER- BURY. Written at the request of the Archdeacons and Rural Deans. Dec. 1890. 8vo, sewed, id. Carpenter (Rt. Rev. W. Boyd, Bishop of Winchester) TRUTH IN TALE. Addresses, chiefly to Children. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. THE PERMANENT ELEMENTS OF RELIGION: Bampton Lectures, 1887. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. Cazenove (J. Gibson). CONCERNING THE BEING AND ATTRIBUTES OF GOD. 8vo. 55. Church (Dean) THE OXFORD MOVEMENT. Twelve Years, 1833-45. 8vo. I2s. 6d. net. HUMAN LIFE AND ITS CONDITIONS. Crown 8vo. 6s. THE GIFTS OF CIVILISATION, and other Sermons and Lectures. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. DISCIPLINE OF THE CHRISTIAN CHARACTER, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. ADVENT SERMONS. 1885. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. CLERGYMAN'S SELF-EXAMINATION CONCERNING THE APOSTLES' CREED. Extra fcap. 8vo. is. 6d. Congreve (Rev. John). HIGH HOPES AND PLEADINGS FOR A REASONABLE FAITH, NOBLER THOUGHTS, LARGER CHARITY. Crown 8vo. 55. Cooke (Josiah P., Jun.) RELIGION AND CHEMISTRY. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. Cotton (Bishop). SERMONS PREACHED TO ENGLISH CONGREGATIONS IN INDIA. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. Curteis (Rev. G. H.) THE SCIENTIFIC OBSTACLES TO CHRISTIAN BELIEF. The Boyle Lectures, 1884. Cr. 8vo. 6s. Davies (Rev. J. Llewelyn) THE GOSPEL AND MODERN LIFE. 2nd Edition, to which is added Morality according to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. Extra fcap. 8vo. 6s. SOCIAL QUESTIONS FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. WARNINGS AGAINST SUPERSTITION. Extra fcap. 8vo. 2S. 6d. 12 MACMILLAN AND CO.'S Davies (Rev. J. Llewelyn) continued. THE CHRISTIAN CALLING. Extra fcap. 8vo. 6s. ORDER AND GROWTH AS INVOLVED IN THE SPIRITUAL CONSTITUTION OF HUMAN SOCIETY. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. Diggle (Rev. J. W.) GODLINESS AND MANLINESS. A Miscellany of Brief Papers touching the Relation of Religion to Life. Crown 8vo. 6s. Dnunmond (Prof. James). INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY. Crown 8vo. 55. ECCE HOMO. A Survey of the Life and Work of Jesus Christ. 20th Edition. Globe 8vo. 6s. Ellerton (Rev. John). THE HOLIEST MANHOOD, AND ITS LESSONS FOR BUSY LIVES. Crown 8vo. 6s. FAITH AND CONDUCT : An Essay on Verifiable Religion. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. Farrar (Ven. F. W., Archdeacon of Westminster) MERCY AND JUDGMENT. A few last words on Christian Eschat- ology. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. los. 6d. THE FALL OF MAN, and other Sermons. 5th Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. SEEKERS AFTER GOD. Crown Svo. 6s. THE SILENCE AND VOICES OF GOD. University and other Sermons, 7th Edition. Crown Svo. 6s. IN THE DAYS OF THY YOUTH. Sermons on Practical Subjects, preached at Marlborough College, gth Edition. Crown Svo. gs. ETERNAL HOPE. Five Sermons, preached in Westminster Abbey. 28th Thousand. Crown Svo. 6s. EPHPHATHA: or, The Amelioration of the World. Sermons preached at Westminster Abbey. Crown Svo. 6s. SERMONS AND ADDRESSES delivered in America. Crown Svo. 7s. 6d. THE WITNESS OF HISTORY TO CHRIST. Being the Hulsean Lectures for 1870. 7th Edition. Crown Svo. 55. SAINTLY WORKERS. Five Lenten Lectures. 3rd Edition. Crown Svo. 6s. THE HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION. Being the Bampton Lectures, 1885. Svo. i6s. Fiske (John). MAN'S DESTINY VIEWED IN THE LIGHT OF HIS ORIGIN. Crown Svo. 35. 6d. Forbes (Rev. Granville). THE VOICE OF GOD IN THE PSALMS. Crown Svo. 6s. 6d. Fowle (Rev. T. W.) A NEW ANALOGY BETWEEN REVEALED RELIGION AND THE COURSE AND CON- STITUTION OF NATURE. Crown Svo. 6s. Fraser (Bishop). SERMONS. Edited by Rev. JOHN W. DIGGLE. 2 vols. Crown Svo. 6s. each. THEOLOGICAL CATALOGUE 13 Hamilton (John) ON TRUTH AND ERROR. Crown 8vo. 53. ARTHUR'S SEAT: or, The Church of the Banned. Crown 8vo. 6s. ABOVE AND AROUND : Thoughts on God and Man. 1 2mo. 2s. 6d. Hardwick (Archdeacon). CHRIST AND OTHER MAS- TERS. 6th Edition. Crown 8vo. IDS. 6d. Hare (Julius Charles) THE MISSION OF THE COMFORTER. New Edition. Edited by Dean PLUMPTRE. Crown 8vo. 73. 6d. THE VICTORY OF FAITH. Edited by Dean PLUMPTRE, with Introductory Notices by Prof. MAURICE and Dean STANLEY. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. GUESSES AT TRUTH. By Two Brothers, AUGUSTUS WILLIAM HARE and JULIUS CHARLES HARE. With a Memoir and Two Portraits. i8mo. 43. 6d. Harper (Father Thomas, S. J.) THE METAPHYSICS OF THE SCHOOL. In 5 vols. Vols. I. and II. 8vo. i8s. each. Vol. III. Part I. I2s. Harris (Rev. G. C.) SERMONS. With a Memoir by CHARLOTTE M. YONGE, and Portrait. Extra fcap. 8vo. 6s. Hervey (Rt. Rev. Lord A., Bishop of Bath and Wells). THE GENEALOGIES OF OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR JESUS CHRIST. 8vo. IDS. 6d. Button (R. H.) ESSAYS ON SOME OF THE MODERN GUIDES OF ENG- LISH THOUGHT IN MATTERS OF FAITH. GlobeSvo. 6s. THEOLOGICAL ESSAYS. Globe 8vo. 6s. niingworth (Rev. J. R.) SERMONS PREACHED IN A COLLEGE CHAPEL. Crown 8vo. 53. Jacob (Rev. J. A.) BUILDING IN SILENCE, and other Sermons. Extra fcap. 8vo. 6s. James (Rev. Herbert). THE COUNTRY CLERGYMAN AND HIS WORK. Crown 8vo. 6s. Jeans (Rev. G. E.) HAILEYBURY CHAPEL, and other Sermons. Fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d. JeUett (Rev. Dr.) THE ELDER SON, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 6s. THE EFFICACY OF PRAYER. 3rd Edition. Crown 8vo. 55. Kellogg (Rev. S. H.) THE LIGHT OF ASIA AND THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD. Crown 8vo. ;s. 6d. i 4 MACMILLAN AND CO.'S Kingsley (Charles) VILLAGE AND TOWN AND COUNTRY SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. THE WATER OF LIFE, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. SERMONS ON NATIONAL SUBJECTS, AND THE KING OF THE EARTH. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. SERMONS FOR THE TIMES. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. GOOD NEWS OF GOD. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. THE GOSPEL OF THE PENTATEUCH, AND DAVID. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. DISCIPLINE, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d, WESTMINSTER SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. ALL SAINTS' DAY, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. Kynaston (Rev. Herbert, D.D.) SERMONS PREACHED IN THE COLLEGE CHAPEL, CHELTENHAM. Crown 8vo. 6s. Lightfoot (Bishop) LEADERS IN THE NORTHERN CHURCH : Sermons Preached in the Diocese of Durham. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. ORDINATION ADDRESSES AND COUNSELS TO CLERGY. Crown 8vo. 6s. CAMBRIDGE SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 6s. SERMONS PREACHED IN ST. PAUL'S CATHEDRAL. Crown 8vo. 6s. SERMONS PREACHED ON SPECIAL OCCASIONS. Crown 8vo. [In the Press. A CHARGE DELIVERED TO THE CLERGY OF THE DIOCESE OF DURHAM, 25th Nov. 1886. Demy 8vo. 2s. ESSAYS ON THE WORK ENTITLED "Supernatural Reli- gion." 8vo. los. 6d. Maclaren (Rev. Alexander) SERMONS PREACHED AT MANCHESTER. nth Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 45. 6d. A SECOND SERIES OF SERMONS. ;th Ed. Fcap. SVG. 45. 6d. A THIRD SERIES. 6th Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 45. 6d. WEEK-DAY EVENING ADDRESSES. 4th Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 2S. 6d. THE SECRET OF POWER, AND OTHER SERMONS. Fcap. 8vo. 45. 6d. Macmillan (Rev. Hugh) BIBLE TEACHINGS IN NATURE. I5th Ed. Globe 8vo. 6s. THE TRUE VINE ; OR, THE ANALOGIES OF OUR LORD'S ALLEGORY. 5th Edition. Globe 8vo. 6s. THE MINISTRY OF NATURE. 8th Edition. Globe 8vo. 6s. THE SABBATH OF THE FIELDS. 6th Edition. Globe 8vo. 6s. THE MARRIAGE IN CANA. Globe 8vo. 6s. TWO WORLDS ARE OURS. 3rd Edition. Globe 8vo. 6s- THE OLIVE LEAF. Globe 8vo. 6s. THEOLOGICAL CATALOGUE 15 Mahaffy (Rev. Prof.) THE DECAY OF MODERN PREACH- ING : AN ESSAY. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. Maturin (Rev. W.) THE BLESSEDNESS OF THE DEAD IN CHRIST. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. Maurice (Frederick Denison) EXPOSITORY SERMONS ON THE PRAYER-BOOK ; AND ON THE LORD'S PRAYER. New Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. SERMONS PREACHED IN COUNTRY CHURCHES. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. THE CONSCIENCE. Lectures on Casuistry. 3rd Ed. Cr. 8vo. 45. 6d. DIALOGUES ON FAMILY WORSHIP. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. THE DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE DEDUCED FROM THE SCRIPTURES. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. THE RELIGIONS OF THE WORLD. 6th Edition. Cr. 8vo. 45. 6d. ON THE SABBATH DAY; THE CHARACTER OF THE WARRIOR; AND ON THE INTERPRETATION OF HISTORY. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. LEARNING AND WORKING. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. THE LORD'S PRAYER, THE CREED, AND THE COM- MANDMENTS. i8mo. is. THEOLOGICAL ESSAYS. 4th Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. Milligan (Rev. Prof. W.) THE RESURRECTION OF OUR LORD. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 55. Moorhouse (Rt. Rev. J., Bishop of Manchester) JACOB : Three Sermons. Extra fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d. THE TEACHING OF CHRIST. Its Conditions, Secret, and Results. Crown 8vo. 35. net. Mylne (Rt. Rev. L. G., Bishop of Bombay). SERMONS PREACHED IN ST. THOMAS'S CATHEDRAL, BOMBAY. Crown 8vo. 6s. NATURAL RELIGION. By the author of " Ecce Homo." 3rd Edition. Globe 8vo. 6s. PARADOXICAL PHILOSOPHY: A Sequel to "The Unseen Universe." Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. Pattison (Mark). SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 6s. PAUL OF TARSUS. 8vo. los. 6d. PHILOCHRISTUS. Memoirs of a Disciple of the Lord. 3rdEd. 8vo. 123. Plumptre (Dean). MOVEMENTS IN RELIGIOUS THOUGHT. Fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d. Potter (R.) THE RELATION OF ETHICS TO RELIGION. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. REASONABLE FAITH : A Short Religious Essay for the Times. By "Three Friends." Crown 8vo. is. Eeichel (Right Rev. C. P., Bishop of Meath) THE LORD'S PRAYER, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. CATHEDRAL AND UNIVERSITY SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 6s. 16 MACMILLAN AND CO.'S RendaU (Rev. F.) THE THEOLOGY OF THE HEBREW CHRISTIANS. Crown 8vo. 55. Reynolds (H. R.) NOTES OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE. Crown 8vo. 75. 6d. Robinson (Prebendary H. G.) MAN IN THE IMAGE OF GOD, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. Russell (Dean). THE LIGHT THAT LIGHTETH EVERY MAN : Sermons. With an introduction by Dean PLUMPTRE, D.D. Crown 8vo. 6s. Salmon (Rev. Prof. George) NON-MIRACULOUS CHRISTIANITY, and other Sermons. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. GNOSTICISM AND AGNOSTICISM, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 73. 6d. SCOTCH SERMONS, 1880. By Principal CAIRD and others. 3rd Edition. 8vo. ibs. 6d. Service (Rev. John). SERMONS. With Portrait. Crown 8vo. 6s. Shirley (W. N.) ELIJAH : Four University Sermons. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. Smith (W. Saumarez). THE BLOOD OF THE NEW COVENANT : A Theological Essay. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. Smith (Rev. Travers). MAN'S KNOWLEDGE OF MAN AND OF GOD. Crown 8vo. 6s. Stanley (Dean) THE NATIONAL THANKSGIVING. Sermons preached in Westminster Abbey. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. ADDRESSES AND SERMONS delivered at St. Andrews in 1872-75 and 1877. Crown 8vo. 55. ADDRESSES AND SERMONS delivered during a visit to the United States and Canada in 1878. Crown 8vo. 6s. THE ATHANASIAN CREED. Crown 8vo. 2s. Stewart (Prof. Balfour) and Tait (Prof. P. G.) THE UNSEEN UNIVERSE; OR, PHYSICAL SPECULATIONS ON A FUTURE STATE. 15th Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. Stubbs (Rev. C. W.) FOR CHRIST AND CITY. Sermons and Addresses. Crown 8vo. 6s. Tait (Archbishop) THE PRESENT POSITION OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Being the Charge delivered at his Primary Visitation. 3rd Edition. 8vo. 35. 6d. DUTIES OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND. Being seven Addresses delivered at his Second Visitation. 8vo. 45. 6d. THE CHURCH OF THE FUTURE. Charges delivered at his Third Quadrennial Visitation. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. Taylor (Isaac). THE RESTORATION OF BELIEF. Crown 8vo. 8s. 6d. THEOLOGICAL CATALOGUE 17 Temple (Right Rev. Frederick, Bishop of London) SERMONS PREACHED IN THE CHAPEL OF RUGBY SCHOOL. 3rd and Cheaper Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo. 45. 6d. SECOND SERIES. 3rd Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo. 6s. THIRD SERIES. 4th Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo. 6s. THE RELATIONS BETWEEN RELIGION AND SCIENCE. Bampton Lectures, 1884. 7th and Cheaper Ed. Cr. 8vo. 6s. Trench (Archbishop). HULSEAN LECTURES. 8vo. 75. 6d. Tulloch (Principal). THE CHRIST OF THE GOSPELS AND THE CHRIST OF MODERN CRITICISM. Extra fcap. 8vo. 45. 6d. Vaughan (Very Rev. C. J., Dean of Llandaff) MEMORIALS OF HARROW SUNDAYS. 5th Edition. Crown 8vo. IDS. 6d. EPIPHANY, LENT, AND EASTER. 3 rd Ed. Cr. 8vo. los. 6d. THE BOOK AND THE LIFE, and other Sermons. 3rd Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 45. 6d. HEROES OF FAITH. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. WORDS FROM THE GOSPELS. 3rd Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 45. 6d. LIFE'S WORK AND GOD'S DISCIPLINE. 3rd Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. THE WHOLESOME WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST. and Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d. FOES OF FAITH. 2nd Edition. Fcap. 8vo. 33. 6d. CHRIST SATISFYING THE INSTINCTS OF HUMANITY. 2nd Edition. Extra fcap. 8vo. 33. 6d. COUNSELS FOR YOUNG STUDENTS. Fcap. 8vo. 2s. 6d. THE TWO GREAT TEMPTATIONS. 2nd Ed. Fcap. 8vo. 33. 6d. ADDRESSES FOR YOUNG CLERGYMEN. Extra fcap. 8vo. 45. 6d. MY SON, GIVE ME THINE HEART." Extra fcap. 8vo. 55. REST AWHILE. Addresses to Toilers in the Ministry. Extra fcap. 8vo. 55. TEMPLE SERMONS. Crown 8vo. IDS. 6d. AUTHORISED OR REVISED ? Sermons on some of the Texts in which the Revised Version differs from the Authorised. Crown 8vo. 73. 6d. LESSONS OF THE CROSS AND PASSION. WORDS FROM THE CROSS. THE REIGN OF SIN. THE LORD'S PRAYER. Four Courses of Lent Lectures. Crown 8vo. IDS. 6d. UNIVERSITY SERMONS. NEW AND OLD. Cr. 8vo. IDS. 6d. NOTES FOR LECTURES ON CONFIRMATION. I4th Edition. Fcap. 8vo. is. 6d. Vaughan (Rev. D. J.) THE PRESENT TRIAL OF FAITH. Crown 8vo. 95. 18 MACMILLAN AND CO/S THEOLOGICAL CATALOGUE Vaughan (Rev. E. T.) SOME REASONS OF OUR CHRIS- TIAN HOPE. Hulsean Lectures for 1875. Crown 8vo. 6s. 6d. Vaughan (Rev. Robert). STONES FROM THE QUARRY. Sermons. Crown 8vo. 55. Venn (Rev. John). ON SOME CHARACTERISTICS OF BELIEF, SCIENTIFIC AND RELIGIOUS. Hulsean Lec- tures, 1869. 8vo. 6s. 6d. Warington (G.) THE WEEK OF CREATION. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. Welldon (Rev. J. E. C.) THE SPIRITUAL LIFE, and other Sermons. Crown 8vo. 6s. Westcott (Rt. Rev. B. F., Bishop of Durham) THE CHRISTIAN LIFE, MANIFOLD AND ONE. Crown 8vo. 2s. 6d. ON THE RELIGIOUS OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITIES. Sermons. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. GIFTS FOR MINISTRY. Addresses to Candidates for Ordination. Crown 8vo. is. 6d. THE VICTORY OF THE CROSS. Sermons preached during Holy Week, 1888, in Hereford Cathedral. Crown 8vo. 35. 6d. FROM STRENGTH TO STRENGTH. Three Sermons (In Mem- oriam J. B. D.) Crown 8vo. 2s. THE REVELATION OF THE RISEN LORD. 4th Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. THE HISTORIC FAITH. 3rd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. THE GOSPEL OF THE RESURRECTION. 6th Ed. Cr. 8vo. 6s. THE REVELATION OF THE FATHER. Crown 8vo. 6s. CHRISTUS CONSUMMATOR. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s. SOME THOUGHTS FROM THE ORDINAL. Cr. 8vo. is. 6d. SOCIAL ASPECTS OF CHRISTIANITY. Crown 8vo. 6s. ESSAYS IN THE HISTORY OF RELIGIOUS THOUGHT IN THE WEST. Globe 8vo. 6s. Wickham (Rev. E. C.) WELLINGTON COLLEGE SERMONS. Crown 8vo. 6s. Wilson (Ven. J. M., Archdeacon of Manchester) SERMONS PREACHED IN CLIFTON COLLEGE CHAPEL, 1879-83. Crown 8vo. 6s. SERMONS PREACHED IN CLIFTON COLLEGE CHAPEL. Second Series. 1888-90. Crown 8vo. 6s. ESSAYS AND ADDRESSES. Crown 8vo. 45. 6d. SOME CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE RELIGIOUS THOUGHT OF OUR TIME. Crown 8vo. 6s. Wood (Rev. E. G.) THE REGAL POWER OF THE CHURCH. 8vo. 45. 6d. WORSHIP (THE) OF GOD, AND FELLOWSHIP AMONG MEN. By FREDERICK DENISON MAURICE and others. Fcap. 8vo. 35. 6d. Printed by R. & R. CLARK, Edinburgh 11.20.4.91 14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED LOAN DEPT. RENEWALS ONLY TEL. NO. 642-3405 This book is due on the last date stamped below, or on the date to which renewed. Renewed books are subject to immediate r< "APRW970T2" RE APR 7 1970 LD2lA-60m-6,'69 (J9096slO)476-A-32 General Library University of Californu Berkeley