Part 11 (1/2)

(_a_) Against the words, ”And while they _abode_ in Galilee” (S. Matthew xvii. 22), we find it stated,-”Some ancient authorities read _were gathering themselves together_.” The plain English of which queer piece of information is that ? and B exhibit in this place an impossible and untranslatable Reading,-the subst.i.tution of which for ??ast?ef????? d?

??t?? can only have proceeded from some Western critic, who was sufficiently unacquainted with the Greek language to suppose that S??-st?ef????? d? a?t??, might possibly be the exact equivalent for CON_-versantibus autem illis_. This is not the place for discussing a kind of hallucination which prevailed largely in the earliest age, especially in regions where Greek was habitually read through Latin spectacles. (Thus it was, obviously, that the preposterous subst.i.tution of EURAQUILO for ”Euroclydon,” in Acts xxvii. 14, took its rise.) Such blunders would be laughable if encountered anywhere except on holy ground. Apart, however, from the lamentable lack of critical judgment which a marginal note like the present displays, what is to be thought of the scholars.h.i.+p which elicits ”_While they were gathering themselves together_” out of s?st?ef????? d? a?t??? Are we to suppose that the clue to the Revisers'

rendering is to be found in (s?st???a?t??) Acts xxviii. 3? We should be sorry to think it. They are a.s.sured that the source of the _Textual_ blunder which they mistranslate is to be found, instead, in Baruch iii.

38.(551)

(_b_) For what conceivable reason is the world now informed that, instead of _Melita_,-”some ancient authorities read _Melitene_,” in Acts xxviii.

1? Is every pitiful blunder of cod. B to live on in the margin of every Englishman's copy of the New Testament, for ever? Why, _all_ other MSS.-the Syriac and the Latin versions,-Pamphilus of Caesarea(552) (A.D.

294), the friend of Eusebius,-Cyril of Jerusalem,(553)-Chrysostom,(554)-John Damascene,(555)-all the Fathers in short who quote the place;-the coins, the ancient geographers;-_all_ read ?e??t?; which has also been acquiesced in by every critical Editor of the N. T.-(_excepting always Drs. Westcott and Hort_), from the invention of Printing till now. But because these two misguided men, without apology, explanation, note or comment of any kind, have adopted ”_Melitene_” into their text, is the Church of England to be dragged through the mire also, and made ridiculous in the eyes of Christendom? This blunder moreover is ”gross as a mountain, open, palpable.” One glance at the place, written in uncials, explains how it arose:-?e??t????s?s?a?e?ta?. Some stupid scribe (as the reader sees) has connected the first syllable of ??s?? with the last syllable of ?e??t?.(556) _That_ is all! The blunder-(for a blunder it most certainly is)-belongs to the age and country in which ”_Melitene_”

was by far the more familiar word, being the name of the metropolitan see of Armenia;(557) mention of which crops up in the _Concilia_ repeatedly.(558)

(2) and (4) The second and the fourth group may be considered together.

The former comprises those words of which the _less exact_ rendering finds place in the Text:-the latter, ”_Alternative renderings_ in difficult and debateable pa.s.sages.”

We presume that here our attention is specially invited to such notes as the following. Against 1 Cor. xv. 34,-”_Awake out of drunkenness righteously_”:-against S. John i. 14,-”_an only begotten from a father_”:-against 1 Pet. iii. 20,-”_into which few, that is, eight souls, were brought safely through water_”:-against 2 Pet. iii. 7,-”_stored with fire_”:-against S. John xviii. 37,-”_Thou sayest it, because I am a king_”:-against Ephes. iii. 21,-”_All the generations of the age of the ages_”:-against Jude ver. 14,-”_His holy myriads_”:-against Heb. xii.

18,-”_a palpable and kindled fire_”:-against Lu. xv. 31,-”_Child_, thou art ever with me”:-against Matth. xxi. 28,-”_Child_, go work to-day in my vineyard”:-against xxiv. 3,-”What shall be the sign of Thy _presence_, and of _the consummation of the age_?”-against t.i.t. i. 2,-”_before times eternal_”: against Mk. iv. 29,-”When the fruit _alloweth_ [and why not '_yieldeth_ itself'?], straightway _he sendeth forth_ the sickle”:-against Ephes. iv. 17,-”_through every joint of the supply_”:-against ver.

29,-”_the building up of the need_”:-against Lu. ii. 29,-”_Master_, now lettest thou Thy _bondservant_ depart in peace”:-against Acts iv. 24,-”O _Master_, thou that didst make the heaven and the earth”:-against Lu. i.

78,-”Because of _the heart of mercy_ of our G.o.d.” Concerning all such renderings we will but say, that although they are unquestionably better in the Margin than in the Text; it also admits no manner of doubt that they would have been best of all in neither. Were the Revisionists serious when they suggested as the more ”exact” rendering of 2 Pet. i. 20,-”No prophecy of Scripture is of _special_ interpretation”? And what did they mean (1 Pet. ii. 2) by ”_the spiritual milk which is without guile_”?

Not a few marginal glosses might have been dispensed with. Thus, against d?d?s?a???, upwards of 50 times stands the Annotation, ”Or, _teacher_.”-??t??, (another word of perpetual recurrence,) is every time explained to mean ”_a loaf_.” But is this reasonable? seeing that fa?e??

??t?? (Luke xiv. 1) can mean nothing else but ”to eat _bread_”: not to mention the pet.i.tion for ”_daily bread_” in the LORD'S prayer. These learned men, however, do not spare us even when mention is made of ”taking the children's _bread_ and casting it to the dogs” (Mk. vii. 27): while in the enquiry,-”If a son shall ask _bread_ of any of you that is a father”

(Lu. xi. 11), ”_loaf_” is actually thrust into the text.-We cannot understand why such marked favour has been shown to similar easy words.

??????, occurring upwards of 100 times in the New Testament, is invariably honoured (sometimes [as in Jo. xv. 15] _twice in the course of the same verse_) with 2 lines to itself, to explain that in Greek it is ”_bondservant_.”-About 60 times, da?????? is explained in the margin to be ”_demon_” in the Greek.-It has been deemed necessary 15 times to devote _three lines_ to explain the value of ”a penny.”-Whenever t????? is rendered ”_Son_,” we are molested with a marginal annotation, to the effect that the Greek word means ”_child_.” Had the Revisionists been consistent, the margins would not nearly have sufficed for the many interesting details of this nature with which their knowledge of Greek would have furnished them.

May we be allowed to suggest, that it would have been better worth while to explain to the unlearned that ???a? in S. Peter's vision (Acts x. 11; xi. 5) in strictness means not ”corners,” but ”_beginnings_” [cf. Gen. ii.

10]:-that t?? p??t?? (in Lu. xv. 22) is literally ”_the first_” [cf. Gen.

iii. 7] (not ”the best”) ”robe”:-that ???????? (_e.g._ in Lu. xvi. 11: Jo.

i. 9: vi. 32; and especially in xv. 1 and Heb. viii. 2 and ix. 24) means ”_very_” or ”_real_,” rather than ”true”?-And when two different words are employed in Greek (as in S. Jo. xxi. 15, 16, 17:-S. Mk. vii. 33, 35, &c.

&c.), would it not have been as well to try to _represent_ them in English? For want of such a.s.sistance, no unlearned reader of S. Matth. iv.

18, 20, 21: S. Mk. i. 16, 18, 19: S. Lu. v. 2,-will ever be able to understand the precise circ.u.mstances under which the first four Apostles left their ”_nets_.”

(3) The third group consists of _Explanatory Notes_ required by the obscurity of the original. Such must be the annotation against S. Luke i.

15 (explanatory of ”strong drink”),-”Gr. sikera.” And yet, the word (s??e?a) happens to be _not_ Greek, but Hebrew.-On the other hand, such must be the annotation against ???, in S. Matth. v. 22:-”Or, _Moreh_, a Hebrew expression of condemnation;” which statement is incorrect. The word proves to be _not_ Hebrew, but Greek.-And this, against ”Maran atha” in 1 Cor. xvi. 22,-”That is, _Our _LORD_ cometh_:” which also proves to be a mistake. The phrase means ”_Our _LORD_ is come_,”-which represents a widely different notion.(559)-Surely a room-full of learned men, volunteering to put the N. T. to-rights, ought to have made more sure of their elementary _facts_ before they ventured to compromise the Church of England after this fas.h.i.+on!-Against ”_the husks_ which the swine did eat”

(Lu. xv. 16), we find, ”Gr. _the pods of the carob tree_,”-which is really not true. The Greek word is ?e??t?a,-which only signifies ”the pods of the carob tree,” as ”French beans” signifies ”the pods of the _Phaseolus vulgaris_.”-By the way, it is _quite_ certain that ???? ?????? [in Matth.

xviii. 6 and Lu. xvii. 2 (not Mk. xi. 42)] signifies ”_a mill-stone turned by an a.s.s_”? Hilary certainly thought so: but is that thing at all likely?

What if it should appear that ???? ?????? merely denotes the _upper_ mill-stone (????? ??????, as S. Mark calls it,-_the stone that grinds_), and which we know was called ???? by the ancients?(560)-Why is ”the brook Cedron” (Jo. xviii. 1) first spelt ”Kidron,” and then explained to mean ”_ravine of the cedars_”? which ”_Kidron_” no more means that ”_Kishon_”

means ”_of the ivies_,”-(though the Septuagintal usage [Judges iv. 13: Ps.

lx.x.xiii. 9] shows that t?? ??ss?? was in its common h.e.l.lenistic designation). As for calling the Kidron ”_a ravine_,” you might as well call ”Mercury” in ”Tom quad” ”_a lake_.” ”Infelictious” is the mildest epithet we can bestow upon marginal annotations crude, questionable,-even _inaccurate_ as these.

Then further, ”Simon, the son of _Jona_” (in S. John i. 42 and xxi. 15), is for the first time introduced to our notice by the Revisionists as ”the son of _John_:” with an officious marginal annotation that in Greek the name is written ”_Ioanes_.” But is it fair in the Revisers (we modestly ask) to thrust in this way the _betises_ of their favourite codex B upon us? _In no codex in the world except the Vatican codex_ B, is ”Ioannes”

spelt ”_Ioanes_” in this place. Besides, the name of Simon Peter's father was _not_ ”John” at all, but ”_Jona_,”-as appears from S. Matth. xvi. 17, and the present two places in S. John's Gospel; where the evidence _against_ ”Ioannes” is overwhelming. This is in fact the handy-work of Dr.

Hort. But surely the office of marginal notes ought to be to a.s.sist, not to mislead plain readers: honestly, to state _facts_,-not, by a side-wind, to commit the Church of England to _a new (and absurd) Textual theory_!

The _actual Truth_, we insist, should be stated in the margin, whenever unnecessary information is gratuitously thrust upon unlearned and unsuspicious readers.... Thus, we avow that we are offended at reading (against S. John i. 18)-”Many very ancient authorities read 'G.o.d_ only begotten_' ”: whereas the ”authorities” alluded to read ????e???