The Revision Revised Part 9

(_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."

Take a few ill.u.s.trations of what precedes from the second chapter of S.

Matthew's Gospel:-

(1.) Thus, in ver. 2, the correct English rendering "_we have seen_" is made to give place to the incorrect "_we saw_ his star in the east."-In ver. 9, the idiomatic "_when they had heard the king_, they departed," is rejected for the unidiomatic "And they, _having heard the king_, went their way."-In ver. 15, we are treated to "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the LORD _through_ the prophet, saying, Out of Egypt _did I call_ my son." And yet who sees not, that in both instances the old rendering is better? Important as it may be, _in the lecture-room_, to insist on what is implied by t? ????? ??? t?? ?????? ??? t?? p??f?t??, it is simply preposterous to _come abroad_ with such refinements. It is to stultify oneself and to render one's author unintelligible. Moreover, the attempt to be so wondrous literal is safe to break down at the end of a few verses. Thus, if d?? is "_through_" in verse 15,-why not in verse 17 and in verse 23?

(2.) Note how infelicitously, in S. Matth. ii. 1, "there came wise men from the east" is changed into "_wise men from the east came_."-In ver. 4, the accurate, "And when [Herod] had gathered together" (s??a?a???) &c., is displaced for the inaccurate, "And _gathering together_" &c.-In ver. 6, we are presented with the unintelligible, "And thou _Bethlehem, land of Judah_:" while in ver. 7, "Then Herod _privily called_ the wise men, and _learned of them carefully_," is improperly put in the place of "Then Herod, when he had privily called the wise men, enquired of them diligently" (?????se pa?? a?t??).-In ver. 11, the familiar "And when they were come into the house, they saw" &c., is needlessly changed into "They _came into the house_, and saw:" while "and when they had opened (?????a?te?) their treasures," is also needlessly altered into "and _opening_ their treasures."-In ver. 12, the R. V. is careful to print "_of _G.o.d" in italics, where italics are not necessary: seeing that ???at?s???te? implies "being warned of G.o.d" (as the translators of 1611 were well aware(497)): whereas in countless other places the same Revisionists reject the use of italics where italics are absolutely required.-Their "until I _tell thee_" (in ver. 13) is a most unworthy subst.i.tute for "until I _bring thee word_."-And will they pretend that they have improved the rendering of the concluding words of the chapter?

If ?a???a??? ?????seta? does not mean "He shall be called a Nazarene,"

what in the world _does_ it mean? The ?t? of quotation they elsewhere omit. Then why, here,-"_That_ it might be fulfilled ... _that_"?-Surely, every one of these is an alteration made for alteration's sake, and in every instance _for the worse_.

We began by surveying _the Greek_ of the first chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel. We have now surveyed _the English_ of the second chapter. What does the Reader think of the result?

IV. Next, the Revisionists invite attention to certain points of detail: and first, to their rendering of THE TENSES OF THE VERB. They begin with the Greek Aorist,-(in their account) "perhaps the most important" detail of all:-

"We have not attempted to violate the idiom of our language by forms of expression which it would not bear. But we have often ventured to represent the Greek aorist by the English preterite, even when the reader may find some pa.s.sing difficulty in such a rendering, because we have felt convinced that the true meaning of the original was obscured by the presence of the familiar auxiliary. A remarkable ill.u.s.tration may be found in the seventeenth chapter of S. John's Gospel."-_Preface_, iii.

2,-(_latter part_).

(_a_) We turn to the place indicated, and are constrained to a.s.sure these well-intentioned men, that the phenomenon we there witness is absolutely fatal to their pretensions as "_Revisers_" of our Authorized Version. Were it only "some pa.s.sing difficulty" which their method occasions us, we might have hoped that time would enable us to overcome it. But since it is _the genius of the English language_ to which we find they have offered violence; the fixed and universally-understood idiom of our native tongue which they have systematically set at defiance; the matter is absolutely without remedy. The difference between the A. V. and the R. V. seems to ourselves to be simply this,-that the renderings in the former are the idiomatic English representations of certain well-understood Greek tenses: while the proposed subst.i.tutes are nothing else but the pedantic efforts of mere grammarians to reproduce in another language idioms which it abhors. But the Reader shall judge for himself: for _this_ at least is a point on which every educated Englishman is fully competent to pa.s.s sentence.

When our Divine LORD, at the close of His Ministry,-(He had in fact reached the very last night of His earthly life, and it wanted but a few hours of His Pa.s.sion,)-when He, at such a moment, addressing the Eternal FATHER, says, ??? se ?d??asa ?p? t?? ???; t? ????? ?te?e??sa ... ?fa????s?

s?? t? ???a t??? ?????p???, &c. [Jo. xvii. 4, 6], there can be no doubt whatever that, had He p.r.o.nounced those words in English, He would have said (with our A. V.) "I _have glorified_ Thee on the earth: I _have finished_ the work:" "I _have manifested_ Thy Name." The pedantry which (on the plea that the Evangelist employs the aorist, not the perfect tense,) would twist all this into the indefinite past,-"I glorified" ...

"I finished" ... "I manifested,"-we p.r.o.nounce altogether insufferable. We absolutely refuse it a hearing. Presently (in ver. 14) He says,-"I have given them Thy word; and the world _hath hated them_." And in ver. 25,-"O righteous FATHER, the world _hath not known_ Thee; but I _have known_ Thee, and these _have known_ that Thou _hast sent_ Me." _Who_ would consent to subst.i.tute for these expressions,-"the world hated them:" and "the world knew Thee not, but I knew Thee; and these knew that Thou didst send Me"?-Or turn to another Gospel. _Which_ is better,-"Some one hath touched Me: for I perceive that virtue is gone out of Me," (S. Lu. viii.

46):-or,-"Some one _did touch_ Me: for _I perceived_ that power _had gone forth_ from Me"?

When the reference is to an act so extremely recent, _who_ is not aware that the second of these renderings is abhorrent to the genius of the English language? As for ?????, it is (like _novi_ in Latin) present in _sense_ though past in _form_,-here as in S. Lu. xvi. 3.-But turn to yet another Gospel. _Which_ is better in S. Matth. xvi. 7:-"_we took_ no bread," or "It is because _we have taken_ no bread"?-Again. When Simon Peter (in reply to the command that he should thrust out into deep water and let down his net for a draught,) is heard to exclaim,-"Master, we have toiled all the night, and have taken nothing: nevertheless at Thy word I will let down the net" (Lu. v. 5),-_who_ would tolerate the proposal to put in the place of it,-"Master, _we toiled all night_, and _took_ nothing: but at Thy word," &c. It is not too much to declare that the idiom of the English language refuses peremptorily to submit to such handling. Quite in vain is it to encounter us with reminder that ??p??sa?te? and ????e? are aorists. The answer is,-We know it: but we deny that it follows that the words are to be rendered "we _toiled_ all night, and _took_ nothing." There are laws of English Idiom as well as laws of Greek Grammar: and when these clash in what is meant to be a translation into English out of Greek, the latter must perforce give way to the former,-or we make ourselves ridiculous, and misrepresent what we propose to translate.

All this is so undeniable that it ought not to require to be insisted upon. But in fact our Revisionists by their occasional practice show that they fully admit _the Principle_ we are contending for. Thus, ??a? (in S.

Jo. xx. 2 and 13) is by them translated "_they have taken_:"-??at? e ???at???pe?; (S. Matt. xxvii. 46) "Why _hast Thou forsaken Me_?"(498):-?de??a (S. Jo. x. 32) "_have I showed_:"-?p?ste??e (vi. 29) "_He hath sent_:"-?t??sate (James ii. 6) "_ye have dishonoured_:"-??a????se (Acts x. 15) "_hath cleansed_:"-?st?se? (xvii.

31) "He _hath appointed_." But indeed instances abound everywhere. In fact, the requirements of the case are often observed to _force_ them to be idiomatic. ?? ?p???sa?; (in Jo. xviii. 35), they rightly render "What _hast_ thou done?":-and ???a?a (in 1 Jo. ii. 14, 21), "I _have_ written;"-and ????sa (in Acts ix. 13), "I _have_ heard."-On the other hand, by translating ??? e?ase? (in Acts xxviii. 4), "_hath not suffered_," they may be thought to have overshot the mark. They seem to have overlooked the fact that, when once S. Paul had been bitten by the viper, "the barbarians" looked upon him as _a dead man_; and therefore discoursed about what Justice "_did not_ suffer," as about an entirely past transaction.

But now, _Who_ sees not that the admission, once and again deliberately made, that sometimes it is not only lawful, but even _necessary_, to accommodate the Greek aorist (when translated into English) with the sign of the perfect,-reduces the whole matter (of the signs of the tenses) to a mere question of _Taste_? In view of such instances as the foregoing, where severe logical necessity has compelled the Revisionists to abandon their position and fly, it is plain that their contention is at an end,-so far as _right_ and _wrong_ are concerned. They virtually admit that they have been all along unjustly forcing on an independent language an alien yoke.(499) Henceforth, it simply becomes a question to be repeated, as every fresh emergency arises,-Which then is _the more idiomatic_ of these two English renderings?... Conversely, twice at least (Heb. xi. 17 and 28), the Revisionists have represented the _Greek perfect_ by the English indefinite preterite.

(_b_) Besides this offensive pedantry in respect of the Aorist, we are often annoyed by an _unidiomatic_ rendering of the Imperfect. True enough it is that "the servants and the officers _were standing_ ... and _were warming_ themselves:" Peter also "_was standing_ with them and _was warming_ himself" (S. Jo. xviii. 18). But we do not so express ourselves in English, unless we are about to add something which shall _account for_ our particularity and precision. Any one, for example, desirous of stating what had been for years his daily practice, would say-"_I left_ my house."

Only when he wanted to explain that, on leaving it for the 1000th time, he met a friend coming up the steps to pay him a visit, would an Englishman think of saying, "_I was leaving_ the house." A Greek writer, on the other hand, would not _trust_ this to the imperfect. He would use the present participle in the dative case, ("_To me, leaving my house_,"(500) &c.).

One is astonished to have to explain such things.... "If therefore thou _art offering_ thy gift at the altar" (Matt. v. 23), may seem to some a clever translation. To ourselves, it reads like a senseless exaggeration of the original.(501) It sounds (and _is_) as unnatural as to say (in S.

Lu. ii. 33) "And His father [a depravation of the text] and His mother _were marvelling_ at the things which were spoken concerning Him:"-or (in Heb. xi. 17) "yea, he that had received the promises _was offering up_ his only-begotten son:"-or, of the cripple at Lystra (Acts xiv. 9), "the same heard Paul _speaking_."

(_c_) On the other hand, there are occasions confessedly when the Greek Aorist absolutely demands to be rendered into English by the sign of the _Pluperfect_. An instance meets us while we write: ?? d? ?pa?sat? ?a???

(S. Lu. v. 4),-where our Revisionists are found to retain the idiomatic rendering of our Authorized Version,-"When He _had left_ speaking." Of what possible avail could it be, on such an occasion, to insist that, because ?pa?sat? is not in the pluperfect tense, it may not be accommodated with _the sign_ of the pluperfect when it is being translated into English?-The R. V. has shown less consideration in S. Jo. xviii.

24,-where "Now Annas _had sent_ Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest,"

is right, and wanted no revision.-Such places as Matth. xxvii. 60, Jo.

xxi. 15, Acts xii. 17, and Heb. iv. 8, on the other hand, simply defy the Revisionists. For perforce Joseph "_had hewn_ out" (??at??se) the new tomb which became our LORD'S: and the seven Apostles, confessedly, "_had dined_" (???st?sa?): and S. Peter, of course, "declared unto them how the LORD _had brought him out_ of the prison" (????a?e?): and it is impossible to subst.i.tute anything for "If Jesus [Joshua] _had given_ them rest"

(?at?pa?se?).-Then of course there are occasions, (not a few,) where the Aorist (often an indefinite present in Greek) claims to be Englished by the sign of the present tense: as where S. John says (Rev. xix. 6), "The LORD G.o.d Omnipotent reigneth" (?as??e?se). There is no striving against such instances. They _insist_ on being rendered according to the genius of the language into which it is proposed to render them:-as when ??e?t? (in S. Jo. xx. 12) exacts for its rendering "_had lain_."

(_d_) It shall only be pointed out here in addition, for the student's benefit, that there is one highly interesting place (viz. S. Matth.

xxviii. 2), which in every age has misled Critics and Divines (as Origen and Eusebius); Poets (as Rogers); Painters (as West);-yes, and will continue to mislead readers for many a year to come:-and all because men have failed to perceive that the aorist is used there for the pluperfect.

Translate,-"There _had been_ a great earthquake:" [and so (1611-1881) our margin,-until in short "the Revisionists" interfered:] "for the Angel of the LORD _had_ descended from heaven, and _come and rolled away_ (?pe????se) the stone from the door, and sat upon it." Strange, that for 1800 years Commentators should have failed to perceive that the Evangelist is describing what terrified "_the keepers_." "_The women_" saw no Angel sitting upon the stone!-though Origen,(502)-Dionysius of Alexandria,(503)-Eusebius,(504)-ps.-Gregory Naz.,(505)-Cyril Alex.,(506)-Hesychius,(507)-and so many others-have taken it for granted that they _did_.

(_e_) Then further, (to dismiss the subject and pa.s.s on,)-There are occasions where the Greek _perfect_ exacts the sign of the _present_ at the hands of the English translator: as when Martha says,-"Yea LORD, I _believe_ that Thou art the CHRIST" (S. Jo. xi. 27).(508) What else but the veriest pedantry is it to thrust in there "_I have believed_," as the English equivalent for pep?ste??a?-Just as intolerable is the officiousness which would thrust into the LORD'S prayer (Matt. vi. 12), "as we also _have forgiven_ (?f??ae?) our debtors."(509)-On the other hand, there are Greek _presents_ (whatever the Revisionists may think) which are just as peremptory in requiring _the sign of the future_, at the hands of the idiomatic translator into English. Three such cases are found in S. Jo. xvi. 16, 17, 19. Surely, the future is _inherent_ in the present ????a?! In Jo. xiv. 18 (and many similar places), who can endure, "I will not leave you desolate: _I come unto you_"?

(_f_) But instances abound. How does it happen that the inaccurate rendering of ????pteta?-?????eta?-has been retained in S. Matth. iii. 10, S. Lu. iii. 9?