Part 10 (1/2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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