Part 9 (1/2)

(_b_) But more painful by far it is to discover that a morbid striving after etymological accuracy,-added to a calamitous preference for a depraved Text,-has proved the ruin of one of the most affecting scenes in S. John's Gospel. ”Simon Peter beckoneth to him, _and saith unto him, Tell us who it is of whom He speaketh_” [a fabulous statement evidently; for Peter beckoned, because he might _not_ speak]. ”He _leaning back, as he was_,”-[a very bad rendering of ??t??, by the way; and sure to recal inopportunely the rendering of ?? ?? in S. Mark iv. 36, instead of suggesting (as it obviously ought) the original of S. John iv. 6:]-”on JESUS' breast, saith unto Him, LORD who is it?” (S. John xiii. 24-5). Now, S. John's word concerning himself in this place is certainly ?p?pes??. He ”_just sank_”-let his head ”_fall_”-on his Master's breast, and whispered his question. For this, a few corrupt copies subst.i.tute ??apes??. But ??apes?? _never_ means ”_leaning back_.” It is descriptive of the posture of one _reclining at a meal_ (S. Jo. xiii. 12). Accordingly, it is 10 times rendered by the Revisionists to ”_sit down_.” Why, in this place, and in chapter xxi. 20, _a new meaning_ is thrust upon the word, it is for the Revisionists to explain. But they must explain the matter a vast deal better than Bp. Lightfoot has done in his interesting little work on Revision (pp. 72-3), or they will fail to persuade any,-except one another.

(_c_) Thus it happens that we never spend half-an-hour over the unfortunate production before us without exclaiming (with one in the Gospel), ”_The old is better_.” Changes of _any_ sort are unwelcome in such a book as the Bible; but the discovery that changes have been made _for the worse_, offends greatly. To take instances at random:-'? p?e?st??

????? (in Matth. xxi. 8) is rightly rendered in our A. V. ”a _very great_ mult.i.tude.”(483) Why then has it been altered by the R. V. into ”_the most part of_ the mult.i.tude”?-? p???? ????? (Mk. xii. 37), in like manner, is rightly rendered ”_the common people_,” and ought not to have been glossed in the margin ”_the great mult.i.tude_.”-In the R. V. of Acts x. 15, we find ”_Make_ thou not common,” introduced as an improvement on, ”_That call_ not thou common.” But ”the old is better:” for, besides its idiomatic and helpful ”_That_,”-the old alone states the case truly. Peter did not ”_make_,” he only ”_called_,” something ”common.”-”All the _male_ children,” as a translation of p??ta? t??? pa?da? (in Matth. ii. 16) is an unauthorized statement. There is no reason for supposing that the female infants of Bethlehem were spared in the general ma.s.sacre: and the Greek certainly conveys no such information.-”When he came into the house, JESUS _spake first_ to him”-is really an incorrect rendering of Matth. xvii. 25: at least, it imports into the narrative a notion which is not found in the Greek, and does not exhibit faithfully what the Evangelist actually says.

”_Antic.i.p.ated_,” in modern English,-”_prevented_,” in ancient phraseology,-”_was beforehand with him_” in language neither new nor old,-conveys the sense of the original exactly.-In S. Lu. vi. 35, ”Love your enemies, ... and lend, _never despairing_,” is simply a mistaken translation of ?pe?p????te?, as the context sufficiently proves. The old rendering is the true one.(484) And so, learnedly, the Vulgate,-_nihil inde sperantes_. (Consider the use of ?p???pe?? [Heb. xi. 26]: ?f????

[Phil. ii. 23: Heb. xii. 2]: _abutor_, as used by Jerome for _utor_, &c.)-”Go with them _making no distinction_” is not the meaning of Acts xi.

12: which, however, was correctly translated before, viz. ”nothing doubting.”-The mischievous change (”_save_” in place of ”but”) in Gal. ii.

16 has been ably and faithfully exposed by Bp. Ollivant. In the words of the learned and pious Bp. of Lincoln, ”it is illogical and erroneous, and _contradicts the whole drift of S. Paul's Argument_ in that Epistle, and in the Epistle to the Romans.”

(_d_) We should be dealing insincerely with our Readers were we to conceal our grave dissatisfaction at not a few of the novel _expressions_ which the Revisionists have sought to introduce into the English New Testament.

That the malefactors between whom ”the LORD of glory” was crucified were not ordinary ”_thieves_” is obvious; yet would it have been wiser, we think, to leave the old designation undisturbed. We shall never learn to call them ”_robbers_.”-”The king sent forth _a soldier of his guard_” is a gloss-not a translation of S. Mark vi. 27. ”_An executioner_” surely is far preferable as the equivalent for spe?????t??!(485)-”_a.s.sa.s.sins_” (as the rendering of s???????) is an objectionable subst.i.tute for ”murderers.”

A word which ”belongs probably to a romantic chapter in the history of the Crusades”(486) has no business in the N. T.-And what did these learned men suppose they should gain by subst.i.tuting ”_the twin brothers_” for ”_Castor and Pollux_” in Acts xxviii. 11? The Greek (???s??????) is neither the one nor the other.-In the same spirit, instead of, ”they that received _tribute-money_” (in S. Matth. xvii. 24), we are now presented with ”they that received _the half-shekel_:” and in verse 27,-instead of ”when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find _a piece of money_,” we are favoured with ”thou shalt find _a shekel_.” But _why_ the change has been made, we fail to see. The margin is _still_ obliged to explain that not one of these four words is found in the original: the Greek in the former place being t? d?d?a?a,-in the latter, stat??.-”_Flute-players_”

(for ”minstrels”) in S. Matthew ix. 23, is a mistake. An a???t?? played _the pipe_ (a????, 1 Cor. xiv. 7),-hence ”pipers” in Rev. xviii. 22; (where by the way ??s???? [”musicians”] is perversely and less accurately rendered ”_minstrels_”).-Once more. ”_Undressed_ cloth” (Mk. ii. 21), because it is an expression popularly understood only in certain districts of England, and a _vox artis_, ought not to have been introduced into the Gospels. ”_New_” is preferable.-”_Wine-skins_” (Mtt. ix. 17: Mk. ii. 22: Lu. v. 37) is a term unintelligible to the generality; as the Revisionists confess, for they explain it by a note,-”That is, _skins used as bottles_.” What else is this but subst.i.tuting a new difficulty for an old one?-”_Silver_,” now for the first time thrust into Acts viii. 20, is unreasonable. Like ”argent” in French, ???????? as much means ”money,”

here as in S. Matthew xxv. 18, 27, &c.-In S. James ii. 19, we should like to know what is gained by the introduction of the ”_shuddering_”

devils.-To take an example from a different cla.s.s of words,-Who will say that ”Thou _mindest_ not the things of G.o.d” is a better rendering of ??

f???e??, than the old ”Thou _savourest_ not,”-which at least had no ambiguity about it?... A friend points out that Dr. Field (a ”master in Israel”) has examined 104 of the changes _made_ in the Revised Version; and finds 8 questionable: 13 unnecessary: 19 faulty (_i.e._ cases in which the A. V. required amendment, but which the R. V. has not succeeded in amending): 64 _changes for the worse_.(487)... This is surely a terrible indictment for such an one as Dr. Field to bring against the Revisers,-_who were directed only to correct_ ”PLAIN AND CLEAR ERRORS.”

(_e_) We really fail to understand how it has come to pa.s.s that, notwithstanding the amount of scholars.h.i.+p which sometimes sat in the Jerusalem Chamber, so many novelties are found in the present Revision which betoken a want of familiarity with the refinements of the Greek language on the one hand; and (what is even more inexcusable) only a slender acquaintance with the resources and proprieties of English speech, on the other. A fair average instance of this occurs in Acts xxi. 37, where (instead of ”_Canst_ thou _speak_ Greek?”) ??????st? ????s?e??? is rendered ”_Dost_ thou _know_ Greek?” That ????s?e?? means ”to know” (and not ”to speak”) is undeniable: and yet, in the account of all, except the driest and stupidest of pedagogues, ??????st? ????s?e??; must be translated ”Canst thou _speak_ Greek?” For (as every schoolboy is aware) ??????st? is an adverb, and signifies ”_in Greek fas.h.i.+on_:” so that something has to be supplied: and the full expression, if it must needs be given, would be, ”Dost thou know [how to talk] in Greek?” But then, this condensation of phrase proves to be the established idiom of the language:(488) so that the rejection of the learned rendering of Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, the Rheims, and the Translators of 1611 (”_Canst thou speak_ Greek?”)-the rejection of this, at the end of 270 years, in favour of ”_Dost thou know_ Greek?” really betrays ignorance. It is worse than bad Taste. It is a stupid and deliberate _blunder_.

(_f_) The subst.i.tution of ”_they weighed unto him_” (in place of ”_they covenanted with him for_”) ”thirty pieces of silver” (S. Matth. xxvi. 15) is another of those plausible mistakes, into which a little learning (proverbially ”a dangerous thing”) is for ever conducting its unfortunate possessor; but from which it was to have been expected that the undoubted attainments of some who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber would have effectually preserved the Revisionists. That ?st?sa? is intended to recal Zech. xi. 12, is obvious; as well as that _there_ it refers to the ancient practice of _weighing_ uncoined money. It does not, however, by any means follow, that it was customary to _weigh_ shekels in the days of the Gospel. Coined money, in fact, was never weighed, but always counted; and these were shekels, _i.e._ _didrachms_ (Matth. xvii. 24). The truth (it lies on the surface) is, that there exists a happy ambiguity about the word ?st?sa?, of which the Evangelist has not been slow to avail himself.

In the particular case before us, it is expressly recorded that in the first instance money did _not_ pa.s.s,-only a bargain was made, and a certain sum promised. S. Mark's record is that the chief priests were glad at the proposal of Judas, ”_and promised_ to give him money” (xiv. 11): S.

Luke's, that ”_they covenanted_” to do so (xxii. 5, 6). And with this, the statement of the first Evangelist is found to be in strictest agreement.

The chief Priests ”set” or ”appointed”(489) him a certain sum. The perfectly accurate rendering of S. Matth. xxvi. 15, therefore, exhibited by our Authorized Version, has been set aside to make way for _a misrepresentation of the Evangelist's meaning_. ”In the judgment of the most competent scholars,” was ”such change NECESSARY”?

(_g_) We respectfully think that it would have been more becoming in such a company as that which a.s.sembled in the Jerusalem Chamber, as well as more consistent with their Instructions, if _in doubtful cases_ they had abstained from touching the Authorized Version, but had recorded their own conjectural emendations _in the margin_. How rash and infelicitous, for example, is the following rendering of the famous words in Acts xxvi. 28, 29, which we find thrust upon us without apology or explanation; without, in fact, any marginal note at all:-”And Agrippa said unto Paul, _With but little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me_ a Christian. And Paul said, I would to G.o.d, that whether _with little or with much_,” &c. Now this is indefensible. For, in the first place, to get any such meaning out of the words, our Revisionists have been obliged to subst.i.tute the fabricated p???sa? (the peculiar property of ? A B and a few cursives) for ?e??s?a?

in ver. 28. Moreover, even so, the words do not yield the required sense.

We venture to point out, that this is precisely one of the occasions where the opinion of a first-rate Greek Father is of paramount importance. The moderns confess themselves unable to discover a single instance of the phrase ?? ????? in the sense of ”_within a little_.” Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 350) and Chrysostom (A.D. 400), on the contrary, evidently considered that here the expression can mean nothing else; and they were competent judges, seeing that Greek was their native language: far better judges (be it remarked in pa.s.sing) on a point of this kind than the whole body of Revisionists put together. ”Such an amount of victorious grace and wisdom did Paul derive from the HOLY SPIRIT” (says Cyril), ”that even King Agrippa at last exclaimed,”(490) &c. From which it is evident that Cyril regarded Agrippa's words as an avowal that he was well-nigh overcome by the Apostle's argument. And so Chrysostom,(491) who says plainly that ??

????? means ”within a little,”(492) and a.s.sumes that ”within a little” S.

Paul had persuaded his judge.(493) He even puts pa?? ?????? into Agrippa's mouth.(494) So also, in effect, Theodoret.(495) From all which it is reasonable, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, to infer that our A. V. reflects faithfully what was the Church's traditionary interpretation of Acts xxvi. 28 in the first half of the fourth century.

Let it only be added that a better judge of such matters than any who frequented the Jerusalem Chamber-the late President of Magdalen, Dr.

Routh,-writes: ”_Vertendum esse sequentia suadent, Me fere Christianum fieri suades. Interp. Vulgata habet, In modico suades me Christianum fieri._”(496) Yes, the Apostle's rejoinder fixes the meaning of what Agrippa had said before.-And this shall suffice. We pa.s.s on, only repeating our devout wish that what the Revisionists failed to understand, or were unable _materially and certainly_ to improve, they would have been so obliging as to let alone. In the present instance the A. V. is probably right; the R. V., probably wrong. No one, at all events, can pretend that the rendering with which we are all familiar is ”_a plain and clear error_.” And confessedly, unless it was, it should have been left unmolested. But to proceed.

(4) and (5) There can be no question as to the absolute duty of rendering identical expressions _in strictly parallel places of the Gospels_ by strictly identical language. So far we are wholly at one with the Revisionists. But ”alterations [supposed to be] rendered necessary _by consequence_” (_Preface_, iii. 2.), are quite a different matter: and we venture to think that it is precisely in their pursuit of a mechanical uniformity of rendering, that our Revisionists have most often as well as most grievously lost their way. We differ from them in fact _in limine_.

”When a particular word” (say they) ”is found to recur with characteristic frequency in any one of the Sacred Writers, it is obviously desirable to adopt for it some uniform rendering” (iii. 2). ”Desirable”! Yes, but in what sense? It is much to be desired, no doubt, that the English language always contained _the exact counterparts_ of Greek words: and of course, if it did, it would be in the highest degree ”desirable” that a Translator should always employ those words and no other. But then it happens unfortunately that _precisely equivalent words do not exist_. ??????, nine times out of ten signifies nothing else but ”_child_.” On the tenth occasion, however, (_e.g._ where Abraham is addressing the rich man in Hades,) it would be absurd so to render it. We translate ”_Son_.” We are in fact without choice.-Take another ordinary Greek term, sp?????a, which occurs 11 times in the N. T., and which the A. V. uniformly renders ”bowels.” Well, and ”bowels” confessedly sp?????a are. Yet have our Revisionists felt themselves under the ”necessity” of rendering the word ”_heart_,” in Col. iii. 12,-”_very heart_,” in Philemon, ver.

12,-”affections” in 2 Cor. vi. 12,-”_inward affection_,” in vii.

15,-”_tender mercies_” in Phil. i. 8,-”_compa.s.sion_” in 1 Jo. iii.

17,-”_bowels_” only in Acts i. 18.-These learned men, however, put forward in ill.u.s.tration of their own principle of translation, the word e?????,-which occurs about 80 times in the N. T.: nearly half the instances being found in S. Mark's Gospel. We accept their challenge; and a.s.sert that it is tasteless barbarism to seek to impose upon e?????,-no matter _what_ the context in which it stands,-the sense of ”_straightway_,”-only because e????, the adjective, generally (not always) means ”straight.” Where a miracle of healing is described (as in S. Matth.

viii. 3: xx. 34. S. Lu. v. 13), since the benefit was no doubt instantaneous, it is surely the mere instinct of ”faithfulness” to translate e????? ”_immediately_.” So, in respect of the sudden act which saved Peter from sinking (S. Matth. xiv. 31); and that punctual c.o.c.k-crow (xxvi. 74), which (S. Luke says) did not so much follow, as _accompany_ his denial (xxii. 60). But surely not so, when _the growth of a seed_ is the thing spoken of (Matth. xiii. 5)! Acts again, which must needs have occupied some little time in the doing, reasonably suggest some such rendering as ”_forthwith_” or ”_straightway_,”-(_e.g._ S. Matth. xiv. 22: xxi. 2: and S. John vi. 21): while, in 3 John ver. 14, the meaning (as the Revisionists confess) can only be ”_shortly_.”... So plain a matter really ought not to require so many words. We repeat, that the Revisionists set out with a mistaken Principle. They clearly _do not understand their Trade_.

They invite our attention to their rendering of certain of the Greek Tenses, and of the definite Article. We regret to discover that, in both respects, their work is disfigured throughout by changes which convict a majority of their body alike of an imperfect acquaintance with the genius of the Greek language, and of scarcely a moderate appreciation of the idiomatic proprieties of their own. Such a charge must of necessity, when it has been substantiated, press heavily upon such a work as the present; for it is not as when a solitary error has been detected, which may be rectified. A vicious _system_ of rendering Tenses, and representing the Greek Article, is sure to crop up in every part of the undertaking, and must occasionally be attended by consequences of a serious nature.

1. Now, that we may not be misunderstood, we admit at once that, in teaching _boys_ how to turn Greek into English, we insist that every tense shall be marked by its own appropriate sign. There is no telling how helpful it will prove in the end, that every word shall at first have been rendered with painful accuracy. Let the Article be [mis-]represented-the Prepositions caricatured-the Particles magnified,-let the very order of the words at first, (however impossible,) be religiously retained.

Merciless accuracy having been in this way acquired, a youth has to be _un_taught these servile habits. He has to be reminded of the requirements of the _English idiom_, and speedily becomes aware that the idiomatic rendering of a Greek author into English, is a higher achievement by far, than his former slavish endeavour always to render the same word and tense in the same slavish way.

2. But what supremely annoys us in the work just now under review is, that the schoolboy method of translation already noticed is therein exhibited in constant operation throughout. It becomes oppressive. We are never permitted to believe that we are in the company of Scholars who are altogether masters of their own language. Their solicitude ever seems to be twofold:-(1) To exhibit a singular indifference to the proprieties of English speech, while they maintain a servile adherence (etymological or idiomatic, as the case may be) to the Greek:-(2) Right or wrong, to part company from William Tyndale and the giants who gave us our ”Authorized Version.”