The Revision Revised Part 11

(_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???

Te??,-(whether with or without the article [?] prefixed,)-which (as the Revisionists are perfectly well aware) means "_the only-begotten _G.o.d,"

and no other thing. Why then did they not say so? _Because_ (we answer)-_they were ashamed of the expression_. But to proceed.-The information is volunteered (against Matth. xxvi. 36 and Mk. xiv. 32) that ?????? means "_an enclosed piece of ground_,"-which is not true. The statement seems to have proceeded from the individual who translated ?f?d?? (in Mk. xi. 4) the "_open street_:" whereas the word merely denotes the "highway,"-literally the "_thoroughfare_."

A very little real familiarity with the Septuagint would have secured these Revisers against the perpetual exposure which they make of themselves in their marginal Notes.-(_a_) ??sa? t?? ???a?, for instance, is quite an ordinary expression for "always," and therefore should not be exhibited (in the margin of S. Matth. xxviii. 20) as a curiosity,-"Gr.

_all the days_."-So (_b_) with respect to the word a???, which seems to have greatly exercised the Revisionists. What need, _every time it occurs_, to explain that e?? t??? a???a? t?? a????? means literally "_unto the ages of the ages_"? Surely (as in Ps. xlv. 6, quoted Heb. i. 8,) the established rendering ("for ever and ever") is plain enough and needs no gloss!-Again, (_c_) the numeral e??, representing the Hebrew subst.i.tute for the indefinite article, prevails throughout the Septuagint. Examples of its use occur in the N. T. in S. Matth. viii. 19 and ix. 18;-xxvi. 69 (?a pa?d?s??), Mk. xii. 42: and in Rev. viii. 13: ix. 13: xviii. 21 and xix. 17;-where "_one_ scribe," "_one_ ruler," "_one_ widow," "_one_ eagle," "_one_ voice," "_one_ angel," are really nothing else but mistranslations. True, that e?? is found in the original Greek: but what then? Because "_une_" means "_one_," will it be pretended that "_Tu es une bete_" would be properly rendered "_Thou art one beast_"?

(_d_) Far more serious is the subst.i.tution of "having _a great_ priest over the house of G.o.d" (Heb. x. 21), for "having _an high_ priest:"

inasmuch as this obscures "the pointed reference to our LORD as the ant.i.type of the Jewish high priest,"-who (except in Lev. iv. 3) is designated, not ????e?e??, but either ? ?e?e?? ? ??a?, or else ? ?e?e??

only,-as in Acts v. 24(561).... And (_e_) why are we presented with "For _no word from _G.o.d_ shall be void of power_" (in S. Luke i. 37)? Seeing that the Greek of that place has been fas.h.i.+oned on the Septuagintal rendering of Gen. xviii. 14 ("_Is anything too hard for the _LORD_?_"(562)), we venture to think that the A. V. ("_for with _G.o.d_ nothing shall be impossible_"(563)) ought to have been let alone. It cannot be mended. One is surprised to discover that among so many respectable Divines there seems not to have been _one_ sufficiently familiar with the Septuagint to preserve his brethren from perpetually falling into such mistakes as the foregoing. We really had no idea that the h.e.l.lenistic scholars.h.i.+p of those who represented the Church and the Sects in the Jerusalem Chamber, was so inconsiderable.

Two or three of the foregoing examples refer to matters of a recondite nature. Not so the majority of the Annotations which belong to this third group; which we have examined with real astonishment-and in fact have remarked upon already. Shall we be thought hard to please if we avow that we rather desiderate "Explanatory Notes" on matters which really _do_ call for explanation? as, to be reminded of what kind was the "net"

(?f???st???) mentioned in Matth. iv. 18 (_not_ 20), and Mk. i. 16 (_not_ 18):-to see it explained (against Matth. ii. 23) that _netser_ (the root of "Nazareth") denotes "Branch:"-and against Matth. iii. 5; Lu. iii. 3, that ? pe??????? t?? ???d????, signifies "the _depressed valley of the Jordan_," as the usage of the LXX. proves.(564) We should have been glad to see, against S. Lu. ix. 31,-"Gr. _Exodus_."-At least in the margin, we might have been told that "_Olivet_" is the true rendering of Lu. xix. 29 and xxi. 37: (or were the Revisionists not aware of the fact? They are respectfully referred to the Bp. of Lincoln's note on the place last quoted.)-Nay, why not tell us (against Matth. i. 21) that "JESUS" means [not "_Saviour_," but] "_JEHOVAH__ is Salvation_"?

But above all, surely so many learned men ought to have spared us the absurd Annotation set against "_ointment of spikenard_" (???d?? p?st????,) in S. Mark xiv. 3 and in S. John xii. 3. Their marginal Note is as follows:-

"Gr. _pistic_ nard, pistic being perhaps a local name. Others take it to mean _genuine_; others _liquid_."

Can Scholars require to be told that "_liquid_" is an _impossible_ sense of p?st??? in this place? The epithet so interpreted must be derived (like p?st?? [_Prom._ V. v. 489]) from p???, and would mean _drinkable_: but since ointment _cannot_ be drunk, it is certain that we must seek the etymology of the word elsewhere. And why should the weak ancient conjecture be retained that it is "perhaps a _local_ name"? Do Divines require to have it explained to them that the one "locality" which effectually fixes the word's meaning, is _its place in the everlasting Gospel_?... Be silent on such lofty matters if you will, by all means; but "who are these that darken counsel by words without knowledge?" S. Mark and S. John (whose narratives by the way never touch exclusively except in this place(565)) are observed here to employ an ordinary word with lofty spiritual purpose. The _pure faith_ (p?st??) in which that offering of the ointment was made, determines the choice of an unusual epithet (p?st????) which shall signify "faithful" rather than "genuine,"-shall suggest a _moral_ rather than a _commercial_ quality: just as, presently, Mary's "breaking" the box (s??t???asa) is designated by a word which has reference to a broken heart.(566) She "_contrited_" it, S. Mark says; and S. John adds a statement which implies that the Church has been rendered fragrant by her act for ever.(567) (We trust to be forgiven for having said a little more than the occasion absolutely requires.)

(5) Under which of the four previous "groups" certain Annotations which disfigure the margin of the first chapter of S. Matthew's Gospel, should fall,-we know not. Let them be briefly considered by themselves.

So dull of comprehension are we, that we fail to see on what principle it is stated that-"Ram," "Asa," "Amon," "Shealtiel," are in Greek ("Gr.") "_Aram_," "_Asaph_," "_Amos_," "_Salathiel_." For (1),-Surely it was just as needful (or just as needless) to explain that "Perez," "Zarah,"

"Hezron," "Nahson," are in Greek "_Phares_," "_Zara_," "_Esrom_,"

"_Naa.s.son_."-But (2), Through what "necessity" are the names, which we have been hitherto contented to read as the Evangelist wrote them, now exhibited on the first page of the Gospel in any other way?(568)-(3) a.s.suming, however, the O. T. spelling _is_ to be adopted, then _let us have it explained to us why _"Jeconiah"_ in ver. 11 is not written_ "Jehoiakim"? (As for "Jeconiah" in ver. 12,-it was for the Revisionists to settle whether they would call him "Jehoiachin," "Jeconiah," or "Coniah."

[By the way,-Is it lawful to suppose that _they did not know_ that "Jechonias" here represents two different persons?])-On the other hand, (4) "_Amos_" probably,-"_Asaph_" certainly,-are corrupt exhibitions of "Amon" and "Asa:" and, if noticed at all, should have been introduced to the reader's notice with the customary formula, "some ancient authorities," &c.-To proceed-(5), Why subst.i.tute "Immanuel" (for "Emmanuel") in ver. 23,-only to have to state in the margin that S.

Matthew writes it "_Emmanuel_"? By strict parity of reasoning, against "Naphtali" (in ch. iv. 13, 15), the Revisionists ought to have written "Gr. _Nephthaleim_."-And (6), If this is to be the rule, then why are we not told that "Mary is in 'Gr. _Mariam_' "? and why is not Zacharias written "_Zachariah_"?... But (to conclude),-What is the object of all this officiousness? and (its unavoidable adjunct) all this inconsistency?

Has the spelling of the 42 names been revolutionized, in order to sever with the Past and to make "a fresh departure"? Or were the four marginal notes added _only for the sake of obtaining, by a side-wind, the (apparent) sanction of the Church_ to the preposterous notion that "Asa"

was written "_Asaph_" by the Evangelist-in conformity with six MSS. of bad character, but in defiance of History, doc.u.mentary Evidence, and internal Probability? Canon Cook [pp. 23-24] has some important remarks on this.

X. We must needs advert again to the ominous admission made in the Revisionists' _Preface_ (iii. 2 _init._), that to some extent they recognized the duty of a "_rigid adherence to the rule of translating_, as far as possible, the _same Greek word by the same English word_." This mistaken principle of theirs lies at the root of so much of the mischief which has befallen the Authorized Version, that it calls for fuller consideration at our hands than it has. .h.i.therto (viz. at pp. 138 and 152) received.

The "Translators" of 1611, towards the close of their long and quaint Address "to the Reader," offer the following statement concerning what had been their own practice:-"We have not _tied ourselves_" (say they) "_to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an ident.i.ty of words_, as some peradventure would wish that we had done." On this, they presently enlarge. We have been "especially careful," have even "made a conscience," "not to vary from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places." But then, (as they shrewdly point out in pa.s.sing,) "_there be some words that be not of the __ same sense everywhere_." And had this been the sum of their avowal, no one with a spark of Taste, or with the least appreciation of what const.i.tutes real Scholars.h.i.+p, would have been found to differ from them. Nay, even when they go on to explain that they have not thought it desirable to insist on invariably expressing "the same notion" by employing "the same particular word;"-(which they ill.u.s.trate by instancing terms which, in their account, may with advantage be diversely rendered in different places;)-we are still disposed to avow ourselves of their mind. "If" (say they,) "we translate the Hebrew or Greek word once _purpose_, never to call it _intent_; if one where _journeying_, never _travelling_; if one where _think_, never _suppose_; if one where _pain_, never _ache_; if one where _joy_, never _gladness_;-thus to mince the matter, we thought to savour more of curiosity than of wisdom." And yet it is plain that a different principle is here indicated from that which went before. The remark "that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling," suggests that, in the Translators' opinion, it matters little _which_ word, in the several pairs of words they instance, is employed; and that, for their own parts, they rather rejoice in the ease and freedom which an ample vocabulary supplies to a Translator of Holy Scripture. Here also however, as already hinted, we are disposed to go along with them. Rhythm, subtle a.s.sociations of thought, proprieties of diction which are rather to be felt than a.n.a.lysed,-any of such causes may reasonably determine a Translator to reject "purpose," "journey," "think," "pain," "joy,"-in favour of "intent," "travel," "suppose," "ache," "gladness."

But then it speedily becomes evident that, at the bottom of all this, there existed in the minds of the Revisionists of 1611 a profound (shall we not rather say a _prophetic_?) consciousness, that the fate of the English Language itself was bound up with the fate of their Translation.

_Hence_ their reluctance to incur the responsibility of tying themselves "to an uniformity of phrasing, or to an ident.i.ty of words." We should be liable to censure (such is their plain avowal), "if we should say, as it were, unto certain words, Stand up higher, have a place in the Bible always; and to others of like quality, Get you hence, be banished for ever." But this, to say the least, is to introduce a distinct and a somewhat novel consideration. We would not be thought to deny that there is some-perhaps a great deal-of truth in it: but by this time we seem to have entirely s.h.i.+fted our ground. And we more than suspect that, if a jury of English scholars of the highest mark could be impanelled to declare their mind on the subject thus submitted to their judgment, there would be practical unanimity among them in declaring, that these learned men,-with whom all would avow hearty sympathy, and whose taste and skill all would eagerly acknowledge,-have occasionally pushed the license they enunciate so vigorously, a little-perhaps a great deal-too far. For ourselves, we are glad to be able to subscribe cordially to the sentiment on this head expressed by the author of the _Preface_ of 1881:

"They seem"-(he says, speaking of the Revisionists of 1611)-"to have been guided by the feeling that their Version would secure for the words they used a lasting place in the language; and they express a fear lest they should 'be charged (by scoffers) with some unequal dealing towards a great number of good English words,' which, without this liberty on their part, would not have a place in the pages of the English Bible. Still it cannot be doubted that their studied avoidance of uniformity in the rendering of the same words, even when occurring in the same context, is one of the blemishes in their work."-_Preface_, (i.

2).

Yes, it cannot be doubted. When S. Paul, in a long and familiar pa.s.sage (2 Cor. i. 3-7), is observed studiously to linger over the same word (pa?????s?? namely, which is generally rendered "_comfort_");-to harp upon it;-to reproduce it _ten times_ in the course of those five verses;-it seems unreasonable that a Translator, as if in defiance of the Apostle, should on four occasions (viz. when the word comes back for the 6th, 7th, 9th, and 10th times), for "_comfort_" subst.i.tute "_consolation_." And this one example may serve as well as a hundred. It would really seem as if the Revisionists of 1611 had considered it a graceful achievement to vary the English phrase even on occasions where a marked ident.i.ty of expression characterizes the original Greek. When we find them turning "goodly apparel," (in S. James ii. 2,) into "gay clothing," (in ver. 3,)-we can but conjecture that they conceived themselves at liberty to act exactly as S. James himself would (possibly) have acted had he been writing English.

But if the learned men who gave us our A. V. may be thought to have erred on the side of excess, there can be no doubt whatever, (at least among competent judges,) that our Revisionists have sinned far more grievously and with greater injury to the Deposit, by their slavish proclivity to the opposite form of error. We must needs speak out plainly: for the question before us is not, What defects are discoverable in our Authorized Version?-but, What amount of gain would be likely to accrue to the Church if the present Revision were accepted as a subst.i.tute? And we a.s.sert without hesitation, that the amount of certain loss would so largely outweigh the amount of possible gain, that the proposal may not be seriously entertained for a moment. As well on grounds of Scholars.h.i.+p and Taste, as of Textual Criticism (as explained at large in our former Article), the work before us is immensely inferior. To speak plainly, it is an utter failure.

XI. For the respected Authors of it practically deny the truth of the principle enunciated by their predecessors of 1611, viz. that "_there be some words that be not of the same sense everywhere_." On such a fundamental truism we are ashamed to enlarge: but it becomes necessary that we should do so. We proceed to ill.u.s.trate, by two familiar instances,-the first which come to hand,-the mischievous result which is inevitable to an enforced uniformity of rendering.

(_a_) The verb a?te?? confessedly means "to ask." And perhaps no better general English equivalent could be suggested for it. But then, _in a certain context_, "ask" would be an inadequate rendering: in another, it would be improper: in a third, it would be simply intolerable. Of all this, the great Scholars of 1611 showed themselves profoundly conscious.

Accordingly, when this same verb (in the middle voice) is employed to describe how the clamorous rabble, besieging Pilate, claimed their accustomed privilege, (viz. to have the prisoner of their choice released unto them,) those ancient men, with a fine instinct, retain Tyndale's rendering "_desired_"(569) in S. Mark (xv. 8),-and his "_required_" in S.

Luke (xxiii. 23).-When, however, the humble entreaty, which Joseph of Arimathea addressed to the same Pilate (viz. that he might be allowed to take away the Body of JESUS), is in question, then the same Scholars (following Tyndale and Cranmer), with the same propriety exhibit "_begged_."-King David, inasmuch as he only "_desired_ to find a habitation for the G.o.d of Jacob," of course may not be said to have "_asked_" to do so; and yet S. Stephen (Acts vii. 46) does not hesitate to employ the verb ?t?sat?.-So again, when they of Tyre and Sidon approached Herod whom they had offended: they did but "_desire_" peace.(570)-S. Paul, in like manner, addressing the Ephesians: "I _desire_ that ye faint not at my tribulations for you."(571)

But our Revisionists,-possessed with the single idea that a?te?? means "to _ask_" and a?te?s?a? "to _ask for_,"-have proceeded mechanically to inflict that rendering on every one of the foregoing pa.s.sages. In defiance of propriety,-of reason,-even (in David's case) of historical truth,(572)-they have thrust in "_asked_" everywhere. At last, however, they are encountered by two places which absolutely refuse to submit to such iron bondage. The terror-stricken jailer of Philippi, when _he_ "asked" for lights, must needs have done so after a truly imperious fas.h.i.+on. Accordingly, the "_called for_"(573) of Tyndale and all subsequent translators, is _pro hac vice_ allowed by our Revisionists to stand. And to conclude,-When S. Paul, speaking of his supplications on behalf of the Christians at Colosse, uses this same verb (a?t??e???) in a context where "_to ask_" would be intolerable, our Revisionists render the word "_to make request_;"(574)-though they might just as well have let alone the rendering of _all_ their predecessors,-viz. "_to desire_."

These are many words, but we know not how to make them fewer. Let this one example, (only because it is the first which presented itself,) stand for a thousand others. Apart from the grievous lack of Taste (not to say of Scholars.h.i.+p) which such a method betrays,-_who_ sees not that the only excuse which could have been invented for it has disappeared by the time we reach the end of our investigation? If a?t??, a?t??a? had been _invariably_ translated "ask," "ask for," it might at least have been pretended that "the English Reader is in this way put entirely on a level with the Greek Scholar;"-though it would have been a vain pretence, as all must admit who understand the power of language. _Once_ make it apparent that just in a single place, perhaps in two, the Translator found himself forced to break through his rigid uniformity of rendering,-and _what_ remains but an uneasy suspicion that then there must have been a strain put on the Evangelists' meaning in a vast proportion of the other seventy places where a?te?? occurs? An unlearned reader's confidence in his guide vanishes; and he finds that he has had not a few deflections from the Authorized Version thrust upon him, of which he reasonably questions alike the taste and the necessity,-_e.g._ at S. Matth. xx. 20.